# Sticky  The New PQ Tier thread for Blu-Ray - Discussion



## AustinSTI

*Welcome Members and Friends to the Blu-Ray Picture Quality Thread.*

*"Oculi plus vident quam oculus." - "Several eyes see more than only one."*












*THE PQ TIER LISTS HAVE BEEN MOVED TO THIS THREAD:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1168342*


----------



## _Avarice_

Deja-vu!


----------



## AustinSTI

Placeholder


----------



## Wet1

This works for me.


----------



## JosephShaw

Blood Diamond - Tier 5. Inconsistent image throughout, and the worst parts are really, really bad.


----------



## Kevin12586

Chicken Little


----------



## Jiffylush

I think we should start fresh on the list, it would be more work but more people would feel like their opinions were factored into the rankings.


my .02


FWIW I think the best thing about the tier list is being able to compare the PQ of movies you haven't seen with movies you have seen. (I realize that was probably the original intent, but it seems that needs to be clarified)


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JosephShaw* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Blood Diamond - Tier 5. Inconsistent image throughout, and the worst parts are really, really bad.



I'll vote for that result!


----------



## ajamils




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JosephShaw* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Blood Diamond - Tier 5. Inconsistent image throughout, and the worst parts are really, really bad.



Is your TV calibrated ? I don't think it deserve to be any lower than Tier 2.


----------



## Enola

wow, im impressed. its nice to see planet earth finally getting some much needed loving. i also find myself agreeing with alot more of the placements, ie - kiss kiss bang bang. hope to see more of this!


edit - except BHD, that sucker is WAY to low. needs to be near the top.


----------



## Alan Gouger

The guys started something in the HD DVD section as well. You both may want to ck to see what each other are doing and try to adopt the same system.


Ether way best of luck


----------



## EatingPie

Thanks for restarting.


I hope you have a thick skin!










Even though people aren't going to agree 100% with the Tier rankings, this serves as a good general reference point. Not dead-on nailing the quality, but close enough to get an idea of what looks good and what doesn't.


-Pie


----------



## AustinSTI

Blood Diamond Tier Voting Thread:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=858324 


Voting closes in 5 days...


----------



## Wet1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jiffylush* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I think we should start fresh on the list, it would be more work but more people would feel like their opinions were factored into the rankings.
> 
> 
> my .02
> 
> 
> FWIW I think the best thing about the tier list is being able to compare the PQ of movies you haven't seen with movies you have seen. (I realize that was probably the original intent, but it seems that needs to be clarified)



I don't know about starting over, there's a lot of good info already here for reference.


I suggest that we build off this list. If folks have suggestions for titles to be repositioned, that we address them as a group.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *EatingPie* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Thanks for restarting.
> 
> 
> I hope you have a thick skin!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even though people aren't going to agree 100% with the Tier rankings, this serves as a good general reference point. Not dead-on nailing the quality, but close enough to get an idea of what looks good and what doesn't.
> 
> 
> -Pie



I don't care what people say - it'll never make everyone happy anyway. Voting will minimize things I hope. I could use a few volunteers to setup the polling threads weekly and ease the burden though; PM if interested.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kevin12586* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Chicken Little



Added to Tier 0


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The guys started something in the HD DVD section as well. You both may want to ck to see what each other are doing and try to adopt the same system.
> 
> 
> Ether way best of luck



Thanks for the support Alan; appreciate the input!


----------



## Wet1

Once a poll decides which tier a title will be placed, who / how will it be determined where it's placed within the tier???


----------



## jewing1043

Is it AustinSTI or Fetta wannabe?


----------



## Iggster

nice start







the hd dvd started off allot worst.


just one suggestion. dont let all the suggestions drive you nuts lol your gonna get allot of them.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wet1* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Once a poll decides which tier a title will be placed, who / how will it be determined where it's placed within the tier???



Good Question - Open to Suggestions; perhaps replies within the polling thread concerning placement should be reviewed and used to determine where within the winning tier it goes. For example if Tier 3 gets the most votes and only one person gives feedback as to where it belongs within tier 3 that'd be where I'd put it...


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jewing1043* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Is it AustinSTI or Fetta wannabe?



How you gonna come along and make a comment like that? I found the FETT thread VERY useful as a new blu-rayer and I don't think it should die just because the guy left do you? The system worked pretty well from my standpoint and with a little democracy we can help others get feedback on movie PQ and add value.


----------



## JosephShaw




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajamils* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Is your TV calibrated ? I don't think it deserve to be any lower than Tier 2.



Yes, calibrated 112" screen being viewed from DLP projector, as well as watching it on a 61" LCOS rear projection set. This is Talladega Nights/The Fifth Element territory when it comes to picture quality at the worst parts. And it's not that it doesn't look good in parts, but it's completely inconsistent and the bad parts are really, really bad. And I think, if this Tier thread is still about picture quality, the picture has to be judged on it's worst images if there are this many of them or the quality varies so wildly so often. Just my opinion.


----------



## JosephShaw




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Good Question - Open to Suggestions; perhaps replies within the polling thread concerning placement should be reviewed and used to determine where within the winning tier it goes. For example if Tier 3 gets the most votes and only one person gives feedback as to where it belongs within tier 3 that'd be where I'd put it...




Sounds good. However, your poll has a Tier 0-4, but there is a Tier 5. Is that a forum limitation? If so, will you be merging Tiers 4 and 5 in the thread?


----------



## JosephShaw




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jewing1043* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Is it AustinSTI or Fetta wannabe?



N/M. Taken to PM.


----------



## donricouga

Don't forget Weeds season 1. I vote for near the top of tier 3 or maybe mid tier 2. Its inconsistent. Still bought it and love the show though !


----------



## youknowryan

BLack Hawk Down need to be top of tier 1 or bottom of tier 0.


----------



## ptaaty

I am not sure how Apocalypto, and Casino Royale (Teir 2?!) were put so low on the list. Also Pirates CoTB should be in Tier 1. And how can MI:3 be well above Apocalypto and Casino Royale with the crushed blacks?


----------



## degas




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ptaaty* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I am not sure how Apocalypto, and Casino Royale (Teir 2?!) were put so low on the list. Also Pirates CoTB should be in Tier 1. And how can MI:3 be well above Apocalypto and Casino Royale with the crushed blacks?



I second that.


----------



## SamuraiCell

ghetto


----------



## Dave Mack

I saw Sleepy Hollow on opening day and the BD looks EXACTLY like it did in the theaters and exactly how Tim Burton wanted it to look, grainy and bleached out. As a tranfer, I'd say it's above average. I understand if people don't dig the look but the transfer itself is pretty accurate IMHO.


----------



## txfilmguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dave Mack* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I saw Sleepy Hollow on opening day and the BD looks EXACTLY like it did in the theaters and exactly how Tim Burton wanted it to look, grainy and bleached out. As a tranfer, I'd say it's above average. I understand if people don't dig the look but the transfer itself is pretty accurate IMHO.



Same with Rattle & Hum and Traffic. However, I understand not recommending these for picture reference.


----------



## ajamils




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ptaaty* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I am not sure how Apocalypto, and Casino Royale (Teir 2?!) were put so low on the list. Also Pirates CoTB should be in Tier 1. And how can MI:3 be well above Apocalypto and Casino Royale with the crushed blacks?



I second that too. Apocalypto belongs in Tier 0.


----------



## txfilmguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Video artifacts are a common result of the amount of damage the original master copy of the film has sustained over time; but they can also be a result of the process used to transfer a film into a digital media. A bobbed image is, simply put, the process of upconverting a picture with a resolution of 480-scan lines to 1080p, creating jaggies or stair-stepping.



I agree with the need for this thread, however there is some misinformation here.


1) Video artifacts are not a result of the original film elements. They result from the compression codec's attempt at rendering all of the film elements' detail accurately. For example, highly compressed high-contrast images can result in "mosquito noise" around the boarders of the different colors. This did not appear on the original film. Grain & dirt, which can hinder picture quality, are inherent in the film, and therefore are not video artifacts.


2) Bobbing is not up-converting from standard def. It is a method of creating a 1080p/24fps file from a 1080i/30fps original. If the image is not processed correctly, the resulting file interpolates the image to create new frames in-between the actual frames of the source master. This results in the indicated stair-stepping and so-forth. Stair-stepping and jaggies can also result from up-conversion, but "bobbing" is not SD to HD up-converting. With the exception of "Enron: Smartest Guys in the Room," I do not believe there are any titles that use original SD content up-converted to HD in the main feature (and that title, because of its archival footage/documentary style, is acceptable as such).


This isn't a rant. I just wanted to clarify. This is a good thread to have.


----------



## Dave Mack




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *txfilmguy* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Same with Rattle & Hum and Traffic. However, I understand not recommending these for picture reference.




agreed. I just got R+H and it actually looked a bit better than I was expecting after all the slams. No, it doesn't look great, but 1/2 was shot on 16mm which was then cropped and blown up to 35mm. The rest was shot using VERY fast film stock with the apertures probably wide open. I saw it in the theater and it looked pretty gritty there too.

It definitely could have looked better, I agree. There were some transfer gremlins but overall, for what it is, a gritty documentary, not THAT bad. The new DTS sound kicks all sorts of ass too....


----------



## JosephShaw

But remember, this has nothing to do with artistic intent (or does it now?), and everything to do with eye candy? That was at least the intent of the original thread. I mean, I love House of Flying Daggers, and the BD is the best that film is ever going to look, but it's definite Tier 5 material for the video quality.


----------



## Art Sonneborn

So ,another Tier thread where film that looked just as intended is given low marks because it looks like a pristine reproduction of the original.Another thread where the studio and compression engineers did a perfect job of transfer but they get low marks because it doesn't look like an XBox game.










Please call the thread the eye candy thread since PQ should be what it should look like not a nebulous ever changing concept of what we wish it were.


The movie 300 will be trashed here when it comes out if the studio does it's best and gives us a perfect transfer. Something wrong here.


Art


----------



## nharmon91

Apocolalypto to low

Xmen way to low

BHD to low


----------



## backmeup

Considering it would be extremely difficult to determine precisely how close or far from the original the reproduction appears, I am happy to have a list that simply lists which discs have the most pristine/crystal clear/3d etc. image possible.


Posters can comment below the list to describe how accurate or faithful they feel the transfer is or is not. To find that information the search button will take care of the rest. No problem, I am just happy to have a tier list up again assuming it's the "eye candy list" .


Thanks for reviving it.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nharmon91* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Apocolalypto to low
> 
> Xmen way to low
> 
> BHD to low




Fixed Apocalypto, BHD, and Casino to top of Tier 1. I took this from another forum since the original was deleted so it'll take some time to move around.


Apologies for the 4 tiers being available on the Blood Diamond thread; but its not tier 5 anyway.


Weeds Season 1 poll coming


----------



## AustinSTI

Weeds Season 1 Tier Voting thread is up:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=858396


----------



## Wet1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Iggster* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> nice start
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the hd dvd started off allot worst.



Gee, that's a surprise!


----------



## JosephShaw




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> So ,another Tier thread where film that looked just as intended is given low marks because it looks like a pristine reproduction of the original.Another thread where the studio and compression engineers did a perfect job of transfer but they get low marks because it doesn't look like an XBox game.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please call the thread the eye candy thread since PQ should be what it should look like not a nebulous ever changing concept of what we wish it were.
> 
> 
> The movie 300 will be trashed here when it comes out if the studio does it's best and gives us a perfect transfer. Something wrong here.
> 
> 
> Art



All valid questions that need to be asked, really. And I for one agreed with you. If you could see the original thread, I was one of the ones who argued for "director's intent." If we're continuing with Fett's thread, then you already know the answers to your questions. If we're not, we're certainly getting off to a start where we're emulating his thread and it should be stated. I hate to say it, but maybe there should be some real discussion about how this should work before anything gets serious. Hammering out the details as we go might be a bad way to start. Then again, it's not my thread.


----------



## Enola

how did this thread get a sticky already? not necessarily a bad thing, just curious.


----------



## swanlee

Since there is no way to know exactly directors intent and since no one here has the master reels to compare to each release to, the best we can ever hope to do is judge the PQ of the discs as they look on people's TV.


There is nothing wrong with judging each discs and rating them based on the Picture Quality of what's on the disc. That's all we have and it should be judged that way.


Being transparent to the master doesn't mean the disc is going to look good and people would like to know which discs look good and which don't.


----------



## Alan Gouger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Enola* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> how did this thread get a sticky already? not necessarily a bad thing, just curious.



With all the attention and noted importance of the thread today it was offered to both camps.


----------



## Majestic12




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jiffylush* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I think we should start fresh on the list, it would be more work but more people would feel like their opinions were factored into the rankings.
> 
> 
> my .02
> 
> 
> FWIW I think the best thing about the tier list is being able to compare the PQ of movies you haven't seen with movies you have seen. (I realize that was probably the original intent, but it seems that needs to be clarified)



There are too many movies to start over....


If you think a film is really far off (2 tiers away from where it should be), we can discuss it on a case by case basis. But I don't want to redo the whole thing.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JosephShaw* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> All valid questions that need to be asked, really. And I for one agreed with you. If you could see the original thread, I was one of the ones who argued for "director's intent." If we're continuing with Fett's thread, then you already know the answers to your questions. If we're not, we're certainly getting off to a start where we're emulating his thread and it should be stated. I hate to say it, but maybe there should be some real discussion about how this should work before anything gets serious. Hammering out the details as we go might be a bad way to start. Then again, it's not my thread.



I believe it should be directors intent. That being said I had to start somewhere so I borrowed a list as a starting point. Going forward vote on the threads for the movies themselves and express your thoughts there. I believe a directors intent is important when viewing a movie because some are grainy by nature...but everyone has their opinion and not everyone will be happy all of the time.


For those interested my opinion will count equal to anyone else's...though I do have a TV which reproduces picture about as good as it gets


----------



## JosephShaw




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I believe it should be directors intent. That being said I had to start somewhere so I borrowed a list as a starting point. Going forward vote on the threads for the movies themselves and express your thoughts there. I believe a directors intent is important when viewing a movie because some are grainy by nature...but everyone has their opinion and not everyone will be happy all of the time.



Well, I also believe, like others, that sometimes directors intent is going to be hard to prove. What are the guidelines for determining director's intent? Is there any way it can be done in an objective manner?


Edited to add: it's obvious on a film like 300, Ultraviolet, etc. that there's a definite stylistic choice being made with the image presented, but others not so much.


----------



## Enola




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Alan Gouger* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> With all the attention and noted importance of the thread today it was offered to both camps.



excellent. its nice not having to look down the list to find these threads!


----------



## Milt99




> Quote:
> What are the guidelines for determining director's intent?



By seeing the film in a theater would be the only practical way.

I'm guessing that very few people in this forum go to movies and actually have no idea what the film looks like in a good theater.

Not a knock, just a statement.


----------



## JosephShaw




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Milt99* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> By seeing the film in a theater would be the only practical way.
> 
> I'm guessing that very few people in this forum go to movies and actually have no idea what the film looks like in a good theater.
> 
> Not a knock, just a statement.



Well, having five children is just one of the reasons why I built my own theater.







Correction, I am building. I'm nowhere near done.


Please forgive me while I play devil's advocate, but...


That being said, film prints degrade over time. Seeing a film a week after it hits theaters is going to be a different experience, visually, than viewing that same film during it's first run. This was what was pointed out to me in the original thread. Maybe if you see a digital projection of the film movie, you get a better idea, but again, not the same.


----------



## Enola




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Milt99* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> By seeing the film in a theater would be the only practical way.
> 
> I'm guessing that very few people in this forum go to movies and actually have no idea what the film looks like in a good theater.
> 
> Not a knock, just a statement.



very true. i live in winnipeg and NO theatre here can match the PQ of either HD format. all the theatre's make the movies have a soft, slightly grainy look to them. it sucks, but makes being an owner of both HD formats seem all the more worthwhile to me.


----------



## TIMMAYY

Austin,


Here is a recent copy of the original tier thread, which may help with placing movies that you don't currently have on the list.


I saved it just in case this happened..


You're off to a good start with this new thread! =)


____________________________________________


TIER 0 -PLATINUM-

Completely flawless picture. No artifacts whatsoever, no matter how small.


Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (PCM)

Corpse Bride

A Scanner Darkly


TIER 1 -GOLD-

Little if any visible compression. Sharp image with many examples of 3D.


Chicken Little (PCM)

Open Season (PCM)

Crank (PCM)(IME)

Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl (PCM)

Happy Feet

The Wild (PCM)

The Ant Bully

Apocalypto (PCM)

Happily N'Ever After

Black Hawk Down (BW)(PCM)

Kingdom of Heaven (MA)


TIER 2 -SILVER-

Not as many 3D effects, but a sharp image that feels real.


Ice Age: The Meltdown (MA)(banding in sky shots)

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (MA)

Tears of the Sun (PCM)

Underworld: Evolution (PCM)

Casino Royale (PCM)

Legends of Jazz (THD)

Blood Diamond (PCM)

Gridiron Gang (PCM)

Discovery Atlas: Australia

Nine Inch Nails: Beside You In Time (THD)

Aeon Flux

Sahara

Letters From Iwo Jima (THD)

Flags of Our Fathers

Identity

The Prestige (PCM)

The Marine

Planet Earth

Hellboy (PCM)(European Release)

The Queen (PCM)

Goal: The Dream Begins

Mission: Impossible III (crushed blacks)

Eight Below (PCM)

Kung Fu Hustle (PCM)

World Trade Center

Training Day

ATL

Transporter 2 (MA)

Flyboys (MA)

Casanova

Revenge (PCM)

Ultimate Avengers (7.1 PCM)

The Guardian (PCM)

Into the Blue (PCM)

The Departed (PCM)

The Sentinel

Reign of Fire (PCM)

Fantastic 4 (MA)

The Manchurian Candidate

Phantom of the Opera

Good Night and Good Luck

The Lost City (PCM)

Toto: Live in Amsterdam

The Architect

District B13

Swordfish

The Wicker Man

Invincible (PCM)

Layer Cake (PCM)

The Covenant (PCM)

Deja Vu (PCM)

X-Men: The Last Stand (MA)

The Descent (PCM)(IME) Requires latest firmware

The Pursuit of Happyness (PCM)

Catch & Release (PCM)

Chicago

Dreamgirls

Closer (PCM)

Donnie Brasco (PCM)

Pearl Harbor (PCM)

Scooby Doo

Hart's War

Stranger than Fiction (PCM)

Babel

Flight of the Phoenix (MA)

Monster House (PCM)

Payback

Behind Enemy Lines (MA)

The World's Fastest Indian

Rocky Balboa (PCM)

Saw III

Bubble


TIER 3 -BRONZE-

Few 3D effects, some digital noise/artifacting.


King Arthur (PCM)

The Brothers Grimm (PCM)

Eragon

Ultraviolet (PCM)

Dog Day Afternoon

Black Rain

We Were Soldiers

The Transporter (MA)

A Knight's Tale (PCM)

Courage Under Fire (MA)

The War Within

Memento (PCM)

ENRON: The Smartest Guys In The Room

Chronos

The Road Warrior

Relentless Enemies

Rising Sun

Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (PCM)

Stomp the Yard (THD)

Alien Vs. Predator (MA)

Flightplan (PCM)

Haunted Mansion (PCM)

One Last Thing

Night at the Museum (MA)

Stargate

S.W.A.T. (PCM)

Enemy of the State (PCM)

Species (PCM)

Resident Evil: Apocalypse (PCM)(BW)

The Great Raid (PCM)

Space Cowboys

The Last Samurai

Stealth (PCM)

Lord of War

Stir of Echoes

Dinosaur (PCM)

Gone in 60 Seconds (PCM)

House of Wax

Blazing Saddles

Glory Road

Sky Captain (purposefully blurry)

Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang

Click (PCM)

The Terminator (PCM)

Beerfest

Million Dollar Baby

Unforgiven

Under Siege

Mission Impossible 2

Mission: Impossible

Speed (MA)

The Tailor of Panama (PCM)

50 First Dates (PCM)

Four Brothers

First Blood

Reservoir Dogs

Young Guns

16 Blocks

John Legend: Live at the House of Blues (PCM)

Vertical Limit (PCM)

Rumor Has It

The Holiday (PCM)

Chain Reaction (MA)

The Exorcism of Emily Rose (UK Import)(PCM)

Terminator 2

Superman: The Movie

RV (PCM)

Basic Instinct

Failure to Launch

Superman Returns


TIER 4 -COPPER-

Soft or occasionally artifacted. An overall flat but satisfactory image.


The Black Crowes

The Lake House

Goodfellas

Rocky

The Fountain

Big Fish (PCM)

The Devil Wears Prada

Hoosiers

Hostel (UK Import)(PCM)

Firewall

The Italian Job

Lethal Weapon 2 (bobbed)

Silent Hill (PCM)

Lethal Weapon (bobbed)

Talladega Nights (PCM)

The Devil's Rejects

Basic Instinct 2 (PCM)

The New Orleans Benefit Concert

Tomb Raider

Sky High (PCM)

The Usual Suspects

Crash

Dark Water (PCM)

Finding Neverland (PCM)

Entrapment

Living Landscapes: HD Hawaii

Saw II

American Psycho

Hitch (PCM)

Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut

Saw

Planet of the Apes

Broken Arrow

March of the Penguins

Total Recall

The Punisher

XXX (PCM)

Nacho Libre

Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back

Employee of the Month (PCM)

Sleepy Hollow (digital noise)

Reds


TIER 5 -COAL-

Only slightly better than DVD.Visible artifacting, softness, no 3D effects.


Bullitt

U2: Rattle and Hum

The Dirty Dozen

The Fugitive (bobbed)

Full Metal Jacket (bobbed)

The Fifth Element (PCM)

The House of Flying Daggers (PCM)


----------



## Enola

just so you know, full metal jacket is currently in your lowest tier. while it doesnt look very good and does belong in that tier, i believe it is only available on HDDVD.


----------



## foots




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Enola* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> just so you know, full metal jacket is currently in your lowest tier. while it doesnt look very good and does belong in that tier, i believe it is only available on HDDVD.



you are mistaken


----------



## Enola




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *foots* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> you are mistaken



lol, fair enough. i guess i am.









then maybe let me add to that i believe full metal jacket should remain in tier 5 and not tier 4. i recently picked it up myself, and while i am very pleased with it as the only other copy i have is the one that is part of the kubrick collection, it doesnt look anywhere close to as good as anything in tier 4. (unless this BD version is different than the HDDVD one....)


----------



## eightninesuited

Apocalypto should be right below Dead Man's Chest. It is a super sharp image and looks amazing. Tier 0 all the way.


----------



## Enola

I didnt see king arthur anywhere in the list. i though the movie looked pretty damn good, and id say it belongs high tier 2. id also agree with the majority in saying that Apocalypto belongs in tier 0, and id say Identity should be a few higher, and Click should be in tier 3.


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *backmeup* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Considering it would be extremely difficult to determine precisely how close or far from the original the reproduction appears, I am happy to have a list that simply lists which discs have the most pristine/crystal clear/3d etc. image possible.



Difficult perhaps ,but worth the effort. A great title is one that has few if any artifacts. Perhaps you are happy and certainly this type of thread has merit but so many gorgeous films are exempt from consideration for PQ because they look like film !







This is misguided, narrow and terribly biased toward things which are or look like video !


Art


----------



## TIMMAYY




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Right?? Now accepting apps for pollsters



My PS3/blu-ray player ate my app! But I'll volunteer to help poll..









I'd start with a poll to help properly place Apocalypto. 


There were many voiced disagreements on its placement in the last thread and that partly contributed to, or even set off, the whole issue about posters feeling Fett was not considering the opinions of others enough.


----------



## todrigo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Difficult perhaps ,but worth the effort. A great title is one that has few if any artifacts. Perhaps you are happy and certainly this type of thread has merit but so many gorgeous films are exempt from consideration for PQ because they look like film !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is misguided, narrow and terribly biased toward things which are or look like video !
> 
> 
> Art




Art, may I suggest that you start and maintain a separate thread which ranks BD's based solely on how closely they resemble your image the directors intent? I'm sure many would appeciate it if you could donate the time to do this for the betterment of our forum. But before we can let you do that we would need proof a your ability to rank movies. To test this ability we will need you to watch each of the movies on this list in the best available theater print, then watch the BD on the best available components (which of course you can provide for this task) you will then assemble the movies into a 5 tiered rank system. I'm sure this task should not prove difficult at all as anyone could do so reasonably well. But, here's the catch. We have to demand complete accuracy and remove any thoughts that our list curator even has the ability to be wrong about a ranking. So, you must repeat the process one week later using no cheat sheet or similar device, to prove that your ranking decision is impecable. Can you start today? As you can see the benifits are amazing!!!


----------



## teckademic

Just watched Curse of the Golden Flower and I have to say that is a beautiful picture. There is some noise or I don't know what you would call it, but the armor they wear looks really sharp and detailed. The AQ is awesome as well. I would put this at tier 2.


edit: oops, I was looking for the movie, but I couldn't see that it already was in tier 2, good choice!


----------



## Art Sonneborn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *todrigo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Art, may I suggest that you start and maintain a separate thread which ranks BD's based solely on how closely they resemble your image the directors intent? I'm sure many would appeciate it if you could donate the time to do this for the betterment of our forum. But before we can let you do that we would need proof a your ability to rank movies. To test this ability we will need you to watch each of the movies on this list in the best available theater print, then watch the BD on the best available components (which of course you can provide for this task) you will then assemble the movies into a 5 tiered rank system. I'm sure this task should not prove difficult at all as anyone could do so reasonably well. But, here's the catch. We have to demand complete accuracy and remove any thoughts that our list curator even has the ability to be wrong about a ranking. So, you must repeat the process one week later using no cheat sheet or similar device, to prove that your ranking decision is impecable. Can you start today? As you can see the benifits are amazing!!!



Thanks for your vote of sarcasm.







What I might suggest instead as a more balanced and mature stance is not just throwing a title out because it has obvious soft focus techniques, coloration, exaggerated contrast or any film grain. I think most of you read Robert Harris when he posted his thoughts on removing film grain.


It's as if the bulk of posters feel that these discs shouldn't look like film, when they are reproductions of film... really, come on, what is that about ? Who doesn't want sharp when it is part of the print but shallow depth of field has been part of filming since it's inception yet it is treated as an artifact here. It doesn't take having seen the answer print to know what that is, or that a film is contrasty throughout and might have crushed blacks therefore or is intentionnally a green color for effect.


Your comment about testing me as if I need to be tested is interesting ("letting" me comment of image quality). Have you made a rule that those commenting should only be "allowed" to do so based on a test !










Just a point that seems to be lost on this group,a point that discs that look like video games or Discovery HD HD tape aren't the only "perfect" looks. Again not saying that a thread full of great CGI and video camera images aren't beautiful simply that you are short changing the concept to leave film and many ubiquitous filming techniques out of consideration.




Art


----------



## jewing1043




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JosephShaw* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> N/M. Taken to PM.




???


----------



## xaoslau

Where does King Arthur and Hellboy fit?


----------



## Supermans




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Thanks for your vote of sarcasm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I might suggest instead as a more balanced and mature stance is not just throwing a title out because it has obvious soft focus techniques, coloration, exaggerated contrast or any film grain. I think most of you read Robert Harris when he posted his thoughts on removing film grain.
> 
> 
> It's as if the bulk of posters feel that these discs shouldn't look like film, when they are reproductions of film... really, come on, what is that about ? Who doesn't want sharp when it is part of the print but shallow depth of field has been part of filming since it's inception yet it is treated as an artifact here. It doesn't take having seen the answer print to know what that is, or that a film is contrasty throughout and might have crushed blacks therefore or is intentionally a green color for effect.
> 
> 
> Your comment about testing me as if I need to be tested is interesting ("letting" me comment of image quality). Have you made a rule that those commenting should only be "allowed" to do so based on a test !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just a point that seems to be lost on this group,a point that discs that look like video games or Discovery HD HD tape aren't the only "perfect" looks. Again not saying that a thread full of great CGI and video camera images aren't beautiful simply that you are short changing the concept to leave film and many ubiquitous filming techniques out of consideration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Art



As much as I agree with you Art with 90% of what you said. I did find the tier list to be very useful. Of most of my HD-DVD and Blu-Ray movie's that I double dipped on because I have the SD-DVD and perhaps VHS/Beta-Max as well as Laser Discs.. For all of those SD-DVD titles, they all look soft or more film-like simply because they are of lower resolution that is blown up. Moving up to High Definition has been an experience like putting on eye-glasses for the first time when I re-watch all my old favorite films that I have re-bought in HD. This 3D effect is what makes HD what it is. If I wanted a more soft look with all my HD-DVD and Blu-Ray titles, I would be setting the screen to 480p and be happy with it. Now that I have gotten used to wanting to see HD films that are super sharp, it is very hard to watch a movie like Superman Returns that has little facial detail and looks super soft and be able to enjoy it. Forget about any digital artifacts due to poor or in-efficient encoding. I am not someone who enjoys post processing filters that add artificial grain which we have seen already. However I don't mind grain at all if it is part of the original film as Alien and Aliens had plenty to make it look more dirty on purpose. I am looking foreword to those movies in HD and if they remain true to the master, I will be very happy. However I cannot rank an older film with lots of grain in the same league as a film as good looking and pleasant to watch in HD as POTC DMC or King Kong. I'm not pushing for or saying all films should look like CSI: Miami or your new Discovery HD footage. Take for example Lions Gate's Stargate Blu-Ray release with the messed up sub-titles. This film is a mess of grain and white sparkles everywhere. It is the same master as the sd-dvd and simply makes the film look worse. Are there better ways to clean up this old master and make it look better? As George Lucas has done with Star Wars, (perhaps not to that extent or cost but at least do something) I would like to see better HD transfers from the source and getting the dirt that shouldn't be there cleaned up. Afterwards I would like to see a BD50 used to its fullest with the encode to achieve the highest transparency to the master as possible. Perhaps this is too much to ask, however I will at least ask for each studio to try and match or best each others top quality reference discs.


As for my comment on this new tier thread. I don't think polls are the right way to go for every release since everyone is going to have different set-ups and others who don't even own the movie in question will vote low to bring the overall score down. Since this forum has about 30% more HD-DVD supporters than Blu-Ray, you can be assured the poll's will be skewed lower to get the movie placed in a lower tier.. A thread without polls where if you have seen the film in question comes on here and posts where they think the title should be placed is more useful. and for those that haven't seen all the films, that is OK. For example if you watched The Fifth Element and Black hawk Down on Blu-Ray and then watched Casino Royale for the first time, you can say you feel casino should be lower than BHD and higher than TFE and then explain why you feel that way by explaining the picture quality problems you witnessed between those three films. This is much more useful than a poll for placement. Furthermore the polls will be based on popularity which is why The Matrix is placed in tier 0 in the HD-DVD thread when it really shouldn't...just my 2 cents here...


----------



## todrigo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Thanks for your vote of sarcasm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I might suggest instead as a more balanced and mature stance is not just throwing a title out because it has obvious soft focus techniques, coloration, exaggerated contrast or any film grain. I think most of you read Robert Harris when he posted his thoughts on removing film grain.
> 
> It's as if the bulk of posters feel that these discs shouldn't look like film, when they are reproductions of film... really, come on, what is that about ? Who doesn't want sharp when it is part of the print but shallow depth of field has been part of filming since it's inception yet it is treated as an artifact here. It doesn't take having seen the answer print to know what that is, or that a film is contrasty throughout and might have crushed blacks therefore or is intentionnally a green color for effect.
> 
> Your comment about testing me as if I need to be tested is interesting ("letting" me comment of image quality). Have you made a rule that those commenting should only be "allowed" to do so based on a test !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just a point that seems to be lost on this group,a point that discs that look like video games or Discovery HD HD tape aren't the only "perfect" looks. Again not saying that a thread full of great CGI and video camera images aren't beautiful simply that you are short changing the concept to leave film and many ubiquitous filming techniques out of consideration.
> 
> Art




Art,

Stark, grainy sarcasm was the intent of my post and by noticing it as such you have passed the first test







.

My point though is that you suggest it is worth the effort to discover the directors intent, but while not volunteering your expertise or even your opinion on which movie's were not properly considered and why, you simply rant and rave that nobody here cares about directors intent and that this thread is nearly pointless. Art, you seem very passionate about altenative techniques in filming, so collect your thoughts on which movies used these techniques and let us know how well they were transfered on the the BD media.

I for one, love the use of grain, skewed colorations, softening, unique types of film, etc. But sometimes I think that using these techniques causes an inborn tradeoff in picture quality that the director knows he is accepting by choosing that sort of film. When that kind of movie is transfered to digital media there may be little difference between the SD version and the HD version. I personally would have a hard time putting a magnificent transfer of a the movie Traffic in the same tier as Kingdom of Heaven, even though I think that the film style positively adds more to the story of Traffic than the style used in Kingdom of Heaven adds to its story. That just my opinion, and is worth no more than you are willing to pay for it.


----------



## adumicic

It does seem that the best solution would be for another sister thread to this directed at how close the transfer gets to the theatrical presentation. So in this other thread you would see movies like Superman Returns quite high up but with marks deducted for the banding but not for the intentional softness. Fifth Element still way down for well almost everything, and titles like The Devil's Rejects being up quite high for being very close to the theatrical presentation. It seems like there is definitely a place for both here.


Art, don't suppose you'd be interested in running that?


----------



## goceltics34

Art, just curious. Do you own a Blu Ray player and any Blu Ray movies? I didn't see that in your HT setup.


----------



## swanlee

Art until you can come up with a practical efficient way to judge home media based on directors intent and how close the movies resemble the master people here are going to judge the movies on how they look on their TV when they play the movie.


You should either accept it or put the effort into making your own directors intent\\master reel tier thread. Maybe you and Gary should start your own thread and put the effort behind it to make it a reality instead of just bickering about this type of tier system all the time.


----------



## KyaDawn

Just wanted Pirates - Dead Man's Chest yesterday on my 135" screen and it was phenomenal. Watched the 3rd Matrix film the night before and they are close in PQ, though of course one is BD and the other is HD-DVD


----------



## Dave Mack

I think on many titles, director's intent can be very easily understood. Spielberg and his cinematographer have discussed their techniques and reasons for certain films like SPR, Minority Report etc... having a certain look. There have been interviews and articles written. Same with Tim Burton and Sleepy Hollow. Very often the information is indeed out there.

When SPR finally gets released, it would probably get a Tier 4 or so in the old system, regardless of how well the tranfer was done which is in my opinion, ludicrous.


----------



## KyaDawn

I hope we don't get into another debate about "Traffic" and director's intent and how it should Tier 1 or whatever. Best to keep director's intent out of the picture.


----------



## swanlee

"short changing the concept to leave film and many ubiquitous filming techniques out of consideration"


Don't you get it? The point of the tier threads is to judge how good the picture looks when your watching it on your TV at home. I'm sorry but crap is crap even if it was directors intent or the film stock they used. If it looks like crap it should be graded accordingly even if the director wanted it to look like crap.


You will never be able to objectively judge directors intent or compare each disc release to the master reels. Start your own tier thread instead of mucking up the current ones.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *swanlee* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The point of the tier threads is to judge how good the picture looks when your watching it on your TV at home. I'm sorry but crap is crap even if it was directors intent or the film stock they used. If it looks like crap it should be graded accordingly even if the director wanted it to look like crap.
> 
> 
> You will never be able to objectively judge directors intent or compare each disc release to the master reels.



I totally agree.


----------



## Wet1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *adumicic* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> It does seem that the best solution would be for another sister thread to this directed at how close the transfer gets to the theatrical presentation....
> 
> 
> Art, don't suppose you'd be interested in running that?



Agreed.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Enola* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I didnt see king arthur anywhere in the list. i though the movie looked pretty damn good, and id say it belongs high tier 2. id also agree with the majority in saying that Apocalypto belongs in tier 0, and id say Identity should be a few higher, and Click should be in tier 3.



In this morning's update Apolocalypto is in mid tier 1 pending a poll.


King Arthur is top tier 3.

Click is tier 3.


We should be back to the Fett list now and that order. I have seen apolocalypto's opening chapter and believe it is in close to the right place. I think its top of tier 1 bottom of tier 0 - strandling the fence.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xaoslau* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Where does King Arthur and Hellboy fit?



I'll create a hellboy poll. It is here:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=858560


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *KyaDawn* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I hope we don't get into another debate about "Traffic" and director's intent and how it should Tier 1 or whatever. Best to keep director's intent out of the picture.



Yeah I do agree with Shaw here a little - directors intent is subjective and we don't necessarily know unless we are the director OR its called out in a featurette. This thread should help people decide what to show off, what to buy and what to wait for. For example I didn't buy the 5th element because of this thread. I'll probably get the remaster










In either case that debate belongs in another thread...


----------



## Kevin12586

Austin, just so there is no confusion, I think you should make your descriptions of the different audio formats match what is listed next to each movie. For example, you have a description for uPCM but PCM is what is listed next to the movie descriptions. I know it is minor, and of course you can just ignore the suggestion, but I think the description should match what is actually listed.


----------



## AustinSTI

Ghost Rider Tier Poll:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=858565


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kevin12586* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Austin, just so there is no confusion, I think you should make your descriptions of the different audio formats match what is listed next to each movie. For example, you have a description for uPCM but PCM is what is listed next to the movie descriptions. I know it is minor, and of course you can just ignore the suggestion, but I think the description should match what is actually listed.




Fixed - thanks for catching that. I've been trying to rebuild the original list and copy/paste doesn't always synch everything up!


----------



## Art Sonneborn

Thanks for the consideration. I was just thinking that in a thread such as this a sub-category might be added. In it films that are artifact free yet look like film get high marks. I feel like Don Qixote here though. In the days of DVD reviews this is how they were rated. If a title had no mosquito noise, edge enhancement,alaising or blocking artifacts and had good color and the print was clean it was a long way to getting refrence status. Now, the filming techniquers are used to discriminate and this just seems misguided since it just lets go films like MI 3,or Sky Captain as examples. I mean , I hear complaints that black and white films shouldn't even be considered since they look

like cardboard !










I don't want to run a thread ,I was asked to review titles for an internet site and it is just too time consuming for a guy with six children and a very busy orthodontic practice.I tried in the DVD forum years ago,I couldn't do it justrice time wise.


I just feel that we should consider the look of the film in the rating nothing more.


Please understand, I'm not criticizing for it's own sake just want what I strongly consider a valid side to be heard.


By the way, I have a Pioneer HD 1 player and enjoy it very much.


Art


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Thanks for the consideration. I was just thinking that in a thread such as this a sub-category might be added. In it films that are artifact free yet look like film get high marks. I feel like Don Qixote here though. In the days of DVD reviews this is how they were rated. If a title had no mosquito noise, edge enhancement,alaising or blocking artifacts and had good color and the print was clean it was a long way to getting refrence status. Now, the filming techniquers are used to discriminate and this just seems misguided since it just lets go films like MI 3,or Sky Captain as examples. I mean , I hear complaints that black and white films shouldn't even be considered since they look
> 
> like cardboard !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want to run a thread ,I was asked to review titles for an internet site and it is just too time consuming for a guy with six children and a very busy orthodontic practice.I tried in the DVD forum years ago,I couldn't do it justrice time wise.
> 
> 
> I just feel that we should consider the look of the film in the rating nothing more.
> 
> 
> Please understand, I'm not criticizing for it's own sake just want what I strongly consider a valid side to be heard.
> 
> 
> By the way, I have a Pioneer HD 1 player and enjoy it very much.
> 
> 
> Art



6 kids!!! Holy Crap!







I understand where you are coming from completely Art. I think you bring up some good points and if you want to PM a bit about ways to illustrate this in the list I'd welcome your input.


----------



## ptaaty

Art, I think that you have some excellent points, and on the basis of purity of reproduction, really the whole tier system should/could be done that way...how close to the master.


However, many people to want a quick check of "how good does this look" or a more generic check. Not to mention the lack of masters to compare to.


I wonder if he could leave the current basic tiers alone, more a judgment of the general consensus to overall eye pleasing (yeah this will favor the clean stuff). But then instead of leaving it there, when a title is clearly meeting the directors intent, doing a great job on the compression, etc, the feedback will assign a "*" or other designator.


For instance, 300, with it's purposeful grain comes out...perfectly captured with no actual compression artifacts, the (uneducated?







) masses determine it to be a bottom tier 1 or maybe even tier 2...then, feedback from multiple users as yourself, can lead to an asterisk or designator that points out while not at the top for "J6P instant visual gratification" it is a stellar and accurate capture of the director's intent.


This is just a suggestion, mostly because the tier type system, esp with polls and feedback will default to the situation where a perfect transfer could end up in the middle of the pack. It will just happen, and maybe the best way is to have a special marker for something clearly pushed down even while matching the master (if we could ever see it).


----------



## Supermans




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Art Sonneborn* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Thanks for the consideration. I was just thinking that in a thread such as this a sub-category might be added. In it films that are artifact free yet look like film get high marks. I feel like Don Qixote here though. In the days of DVD reviews this is how they were rated. If a title had no mosquito noise, edge enhancement,alaising or blocking artifacts and had good color and the print was clean it was a long way to getting refrence status. Now, the filming techniquers are used to discriminate and this just seems misguided since it just lets go films like MI 3,or Sky Captain as examples. I mean , I hear complaints that black and white films shouldn't even be considered since they look
> 
> like cardboard !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want to run a thread ,I was asked to review titles for an internet site and it is just too time consuming for a guy with six children and a very busy orthodontic practice.I tried in the DVD forum years ago,I couldn't do it justrice time wise.
> 
> 
> I just feel that we should consider the look of the film in the rating nothing more.
> 
> 
> Please understand, I'm not criticizing for it's own sake just want what I strongly consider a valid side to be heard.
> 
> 
> By the way, I have a Pioneer HD 1 player and enjoy it very much.
> 
> 
> Art




In this case Art, I agree with you 100%







You have the very best equipment anyone can ask for and that has been calibrated. Of all people you would be one of the best to people to give judgment on where a movie should be placed on a tier list.


----------



## JosephShaw




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jewing1043* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> ???



It was a crappy thing that you said, but I didn't even have the will to address it in PM. Don't sweat it.


----------



## andydumi

Is this thread to replace fettastic's? I was gone for a few days and that one is gone and this is in its place...

I am confused. Alao I am not sure on the voting, I would rather have a few people with excellent setups and experience give their opinions, rather than every Tom Dick and Harry with a variety of setups, TVs, room conditions and eyes. I know at least several people with 27-32 inch 720p HDTVs here and I dont believe you can fully judge the quality of a Bluray on such a TV.

That being said I also dont think director's intent should play a role. Something gritty may be good for the war movie style, but this list here is about the quality of the image, and what we consider the best to show off the capabilities of the medium.


----------



## JosephShaw




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andydumi* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Is this thread to replace fettastic's? I was gone for a few days and that one is gone and this is in its place...



Answered via PM. Essentially, Fett's not here anymore.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andydumi* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Is this thread to replace fettastic's? I was gone for a few days and that one is gone and this is in its place...
> 
> I am confused. Alao I am not sure on the voting, I would rather have a few people with excellent setups and experience give their opinions, rather than every Tom Dick and Harry with a variety of setups, TVs, room conditions and eyes. I know at least several people with 27-32 inch 720p HDTVs here and I dont believe you can fully judge the quality of a Bluray on such a TV.
> 
> That being said I also dont think director's intent should play a role. Something gritty may be good for the war movie style, but this list here is about the quality of the image, and what we consider the best to show off the capabilities of the medium.



I'd like to think I have one of the better if not the best video setup around but I don't think that means myself or others who have great setups should unilaterally decide. The intent of this thread is to provide everyone feedback on what titles are great viewing experiences and represent the best BD has to offer. Not everyone runs 1080p/24 like me and so if something looks bad @ 1080p/60 it should be accounted for. Since every setup is different I'd like to see people provide input on their setups as well. If something is Tier 0 on every setup out there most can be assured that its worth picking up and reference quality.


My Setup:


Pioneer PRO-FHD1 50" Plasma

Samsung BD-P1200


They are connected directly via HDMI and all Blu-Ray's are viewed at 1080p/24










My reciever isn't worth mentioning because its 10 years old and blows







It will be replaced soon.


From what I've seen on the polling so far it seems to be on the money. If it doesn't work out I'm open to adjusting or trying something different.


Directors intent can be subjective so I think for those films where there is directors intent that is known about and needs consideration those details will be included in the poll.


----------



## Garconis

The Tier system has just become useless. Thanks a lot.


People are rating Apocalypto as Tier 0. It surely is NOT. Letting users vote is retarded. Some users may have ONLY seen Apocalypto, and therefore don't have any way of comparing it other titles. Also, HD-DVD fanboys are able to vote, hence we see some Tier 5 votes for Apocalypto. Sure, the majority is, and probably will be, Tier 0. But as stated, I can say with confidence that this should NOT be in the Tier 0 rank.


It was good while it lasted. You did well Fett.


----------



## Supermans




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andydumi* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Is this thread to replace fettastic's? I was gone for a few days and that one is gone and this is in its place...
> 
> I am confused. Alao I am not sure on the voting, I would rather have a few people with excellent setups and experience give their opinions, rather than every Tom Dick and Harry with a variety of setups, TVs, room conditions and eyes. I know at least several people with 27-32 inch 720p HDTVs here and I dont believe you can fully judge the quality of a Bluray on such a TV.
> 
> That being said I also dont think director's intent should play a role. Something gritty may be good for the war movie style, but this list here is about the quality of the image, and what we consider the best to show off the capabilities of the medium.




I agree with you fully on this issue. I wish more people felt the same way...


----------



## AustinSTI

Nice


----------



## ptaaty




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Garconis* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The Tier system has just become useless. Thanks a lot.
> 
> 
> People are rating Apocalypto as Tier 0. It surely is NOT. Letting users vote is retarded. Some users may have ONLY seen Apocalypto, and therefore don't have any way of comparing it other titles. Also, HD-DVD fanboys are able to vote, hence we see some Tier 5 votes for Apocalypto. Sure, the majority is, and probably will be, Tier 0. But as stated, I can say with confidence that this should NOT be in the Tier 0 rank.
> 
> 
> It was good while it lasted. You did well Fett.



It would be nice that if you choose to come in with statements like this, which only serve to anger people, that you would then back them up with some sort of information.


Usually when people REALLY know what they are talking about, and feel that a particular title should be ranked lower, they would point out a specific scene or issue to further the discussion. If you feel this way, by all means state it...many users and reviewers disagree, but that doesn't mean you are wrong.


You are only wrong in that you use counter productive words and statements like "retarded", "fanboys", "useless" etc, and offer no counter point.


----------



## JosephShaw




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Garconis* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The Tier system has just become useless. Thanks a lot.
> 
> 
> People are rating Apocalypto as Tier 0. It surely is NOT. Letting users vote is retarded. Some users may have ONLY seen Apocalypto, and therefore don't have any way of comparing it other titles. Also, HD-DVD fanboys are able to vote, hence we see some Tier 5 votes for Apocalypto. Sure, the majority is, and probably will be, Tier 0. But as stated, I can say with confidence that this should NOT be in the Tier 0 rank.
> 
> 
> It was good while it lasted. You did well Fett.



Do you have a better solution? I'm all ears.


----------



## markrubin

this thread is open to all to express their opinions


and if you disagree with something, challenge the information in the post...not the poster


Thanks


----------



## JosephShaw

According to Alan, as of tonight, all Tier polls will be in a new sub-forum. If you care about putting your input in to determining the Tiers, then be sure to look in there every week.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Planet Earth is rated too high in my opinion. Some great looking shots, but the number of bad looking shots with tons of digital noise are too substantial to give this such a high ranking (see the section on caves for example).


----------



## Dave Mack

Ok, just IMHO, a title that doesn't look like Discovery HD doesn't mean it looks like "crap".

I think SPR looks incredible, bleach bypass process and grain and all.

Should all films look like HDvideo? Should all paintings be as photrealistic as possible? What about say a Monet? Where the brushstrokes are clearly visible and part of the image?

I understand that people like that "3-d pop window" look but for some subject matter, it would be silly. Imagine SPR of Schindler's List looking like Planet Earth. Wouldn't have nearly the same impact.

My god, how boring film would be if everything had to look the exact same...


Perhaps just rename it the "eye candy" thread or the "show off your HT settup" thread?


----------



## Garconis

As stated, Apocalypto does not belong in Tier 0. Tier 1? Indeed. There just isn't the POP that there is in other titles. Visually it did look great. And close to perfect (in terms of film to Blu-ray transfer) -- minus some scenes with noise and an occasional soft scene. Even if it was a perfect TRANSFER, I personally think that it should still remain out of Tier 0. Tier 0 should be reserved soley for Blu-ray titles that outstand you. Something that is so visually amazing that you can't even concentrate on the movie itself, because you're too busy being in awe of the picture quality. To me (via the PS3 and a well tuned XBR3) Apocalypto had a muted color palette and didnt have the sharp pop of other titles I've seen. Sure, "directors intent", but thats not what this tier list is about. It's about the wow factor. It didn't quite live up to the hype that I've been hearing around here. I believe in the future we will see other titles that put Apocalypto (and other Tier 1 [and Tier 0?] titles to shame).


With that said -- here are my opinions on how to go about this thread. Keep it to small group of individuals. People who actually have a good eye, a good set-up, and a large Blu-ray collection.


Joe Blow from next door could have just picked up Ricky Bobby at K-Mart and thought it was the shiznit -- so he comes in here and rates it as Tier 0. Sure, the majority wouldn't do that. The majority would place it in the correct spot. Or would they? I'm willing to bet that the majority of voters here don't have a properly calibrated 1080p set-up. Nor have they seen enough good (and bad) Blu-ray titles to rank the newer titles accordingly.


So either let Fett have his thread back, or only let a select few (with open eyes AND ears) be the judges.


----------



## Dave Mack

And Rocky Balboa looked incredible. A great transfer.


----------



## andydumi




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I'd like to think I have one of the better if not the best video setup around but I don't think that means myself or others who have great setups should unilaterally decide. The intent of this thread is to provide everyone feedback on what titles are great viewing experiences and represent the best BD has to offer. Not everyone runs 1080p/24 like me and so if something looks bad @ 1080p/60 it should be accounted for. Since every setup is different I'd like to see people provide input on their setups as well. If something is Tier 0 on every setup out there most can be assured that its worth picking up and reference quality.
> 
> 
> My Setup:
> 
> 
> Pioneer PRO-FHD1 50" Plasma
> 
> Samsung BD-P1200
> 
> 
> They are connected directly via HDMI and all Blu-Ray's are viewed at 1080p/24
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My reciever isn't worth mentioning because its 10 years old and blows
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will be replaced soon.
> 
> 
> From what I've seen on the polling so far it seems to be on the money. If it doesn't work out I'm open to adjusting or trying something different.
> 
> 
> Directors intent can be subjective so I think for those films where there is directors intent that is known about and needs consideration those details will be included in the poll.



Thats why I suggested getting a few people that buy many BR discs and can make wise comparisons. Plus if you have a few people with a few setups, then you will get better results.


As it stands, we get 150 people to vote, and for all we know some may only own 2-5 bluray discs and cant really have a good frame of reference. Compound that with people who will vote everything down just on principle of anti Bluray (already happening), and we get a stupid system of rating discs that means little.


----------



## JosephShaw




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *andydumi* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Thats why I suggested getting a few people that buy many BR discs and can make wise comparisons. Plus if you have a few people with a few setups, then you will get better results.
> 
> 
> As it stands, we get 150 people to vote, and for all we know some may only own 2-5 bluray discs and cant really have a good frame of reference. Compound that with people who will vote everything down just on principle of anti Bluray (already happening), and we get a stupid system of rating discs that means little.



All voters are visible. Click on the vote # for the tier, and it will show all the usernames of all the people who voted for all the ratings. An easy way to see who is voting what and allow us to spot people who are voting to be a nuisance: 5 Tier 5 votes for Apocalypto, and 2 Tier 0 votes for Blood Diamond. The beauty of the averaging system we are planning to use is that anomalous votes can either be reviewed and discarded because of troublemakers, or they can be kept and still have a small impact on the overall vote. No one can claim their vote didn't count or that they weren't listened to. Of course, now we have the opposite where someone says that the majority of people who voted Tier 0 for Apocalypto (disclosure: I voted Tier 1) are wrong.


If there needs to be a review committee formed, then someone should form it. I have no problems stepping out of the way for a better effort.


----------



## WirelessGuru




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Garconis* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The Tier system has just become useless. Thanks a lot.
> 
> 
> People are rating Apocalypto as Tier 0. It surely is NOT. Letting users vote is retarded. Some users may have ONLY seen Apocalypto, and therefore don't have any way of comparing it other titles. Also, HD-DVD fanboys are able to vote, hence we see some Tier 5 votes for Apocalypto. Sure, the majority is, and probably will be, Tier 0. But as stated, I can say with confidence that this should NOT be in the Tier 0 rank.
> 
> 
> It was good while it lasted. You did well Fett.



Go elsewhere then. Fett took his tier thread to another website. You are welcome to visit it there. Your complaining and whining is useless to this thread.


----------



## theforce8686

These tier threads are such a waste of time in my opinion. We might as well have a movie quality tier thread as well. That thread can be just as biased and opinionated as the tier threaad.


----------



## TIMMAYY




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WirelessGuru* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Go elsewhere then. Fett took his tier thread to another website. You are welcome to visit it there. Your complaining and whining is useless to this thread.



Do you know where, out of curiosity?


----------



## Garconis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WirelessGuru* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Go elsewhere then. Fett took his tier thread to another website. You are welcome to visit it there. Your complaining and whining is useless to this thread.



Link?


----------



## swanlee

"Go elsewhere then. Fett took his tier thread to another website. You are welcome to visit it there. Your complaining and whining is useless to this thread."


The tier threads are gone from digital bits as well. Seems the mods here told them to delete the tier threads on digital bits cause they said that the tier threads were property of AVS.


So seems Fett is out of the Tier business on the entire internet.


----------



## David Bott

Hi All...


Please be so kind TO STOP the polls. I am working on new software that will be used for the reviews and ranks of not only Disc, but even hardware.


The current polls will not be ported over and will be removed, thus please kindly stop making them at this time.


It may no be until tomorrow that it gets on-line, for it is a full review system that is standalone from the site, but will be part of the site like the gallery is.


Thank you.


----------



## JosephShaw

David, what method do you plan on using? Are you just throwing out everything we've done already, and is AVS staff taking over the Tier thread?


----------



## Jiffylush




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JosephShaw* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> David, what method do you plan on using? Are you just throwing out everything we've done already, and is AVS staff taking over the Tier thread?



Considering how the last one turned out that may not be a bad option.


At least this time if stuff doesn't work for some people you can ban them instead of killing the list.


----------



## JosephShaw




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jiffylush* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Considering how the last one turned out that may not be a bad option.
> 
> 
> At least this time if stuff doesn't work for some people you can ban them instead of killing the list.



I will say that I put a bit of thought into what I did after we (the whole BD software forum) were told to come up with something, so having it just summarily yanked is kinda disappointing. At least we tried.


----------



## swanlee

I'd say drop the tier threads on both sides, seems this site simply cannot get itself together long enough to come to a final decision on it.


Maybe to many chef's in the kitchen or something but the last week has been complete chaos and many decisions and reverse decisions by the people in charge means that any time and effort put into these tier threads might be a waste of time.


----------



## JosephShaw




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *swanlee* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I'd say drop the tier threads on both sides, seems this site simply cannot get itself together long enough to come to a final decision on it.
> 
> 
> Maybe to many chef's in the kitchen or something but the last week has been complete chaos and many decisions and reverse decisions by the people in charge means that any time and effort put into these tier threads might be a waste of time.



I think you may be right. If this is a taste of what Fett had to deal with, then I understand completely now.


----------



## Dave Mack

Just have 2 threads.


Pretty eye candy thread


and


Well done and faithful transfer thread...


No more arguments.


----------



## David Bott

Joseph:


I am sorry, but we really do not see anything that has been done but a bunch of polls being started with people already go at each other in them. Most visitors to the site have NO IDEA what a tear even is or means.







We are putting in software that is made for reviews. Members will post the disc or product they would like reviews on and others will then be able to do the reviews. Simple as that. We are doing this now rather than later when we may have the same issues all over again.

*Guys...this is ENTERTAINMENT....Not life and Death*. Enjoy your movies. I do no care if it is one format or the other. (I even still use DVD...Oh My!!!!) I just want to watch a movie. After all, the enjoyment of movies is what this hobby all about.


Thanks.


----------



## dthigpen

Just watched Nine Inch Nails: Beside You In Time all the way through again, I'd definitely consider it Tier 1 instead of Tier 2, in my subjective opinion.


(Sorry, don't know if user feedback is wanted or not)


----------



## Jiffylush




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JosephShaw* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I will say that I put a bit of thought into what I did after we (the whole BD software forum) were told to come up with something, so having it just summarily yanked is kinda disappointing. At least we tried.



My comment had no reflection on you, I know you were just trying to help out and I do appreciate the effort.


----------



## Majestic12




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JosephShaw* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Do you have a better solution? I'm all ears.



With people complaining, probably not.


But Fett purchased a lot of movies and watched them himself. It's tough to rate movies like Apocalypto when you haven't seen others.


Voting is fundamentally flawed. I'd prefer in thread discussion by people who have actually seen the film.


----------



## Jiffylush




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Majestic12* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> With people complaining, probably not.
> 
> 
> But Fett purchased a lot of movies and watched them himself. It's tough to rate movies like Apocalypto when you haven't seen others.
> 
> 
> Voting is fundamentally flawed. I'd prefer in thread discussion by people who have actually seen the film.



I agree, impressions and suggestions by everyone, actual placement by a small committee.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JosephShaw* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I think you may be right. If this is a taste of what Fett had to deal with, then I understand completely now.



Indeed. I hope someone is happy with the results of all this.


----------



## JosephShaw




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jiffylush* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> My comment had no reflection on you, I know you were just trying to help out and I do appreciate the effort.



Oh, I know. I was referring to David.


----------



## JosephShaw




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jiffylush* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I agree, impressions and suggestions by everyone, actual placement by a small committee.



David won't say specifically what the new system is, but my guess is whatever it is will replace the Tier system. I'm not sure if what he has plans will be accomodating to anything but standard reviewing.


----------



## JosephShaw




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David Bott* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Joseph:
> 
> 
> I am sorry, but we really do not see anything that has been done but a bunch of polls being started with people already go at each other in them. Most visitors to the site have NO IDEA what a tear even is or means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are putting in software that is made for reviews. Members will post the disc or product they would like reviews on and others will then be able to do the reviews. Simple as that. We are doing this now rather than later when we may have the same issues all over again.



As per the PM I sent you, it was more than that. You don't see the PM's and communication between AustinSTI and myself, or the time/thought that was put into it how to approach it to make people happy. If I remember correctly, this whole hullaballo with Fett leaving went down yesterday. Since then, AustinSTI has done a lot of legwork in bringing the thread back, I came up with a way to vote so that everyone's vote mattered (the #1 complaint of the previous Tier thread), as well as a way to detect bogus votes so that people who wanted to bomb or manipulate the vote couldn't, or at least wouldn't drastically affect the outcome. Granted, it wasn't rocket science, but it was effort. We were taking input from others, and beyond ignoring "this is stupid," we were listening to all input provided, which again was what people were upset about in the first place.


Now, you've told us that what we've done and have been working on was nothing and is pointless, and I will say that it stinks to be told that our efforts were in vain. That's cool if it's how you feel, but diminishing what we did and were trying to do isn't exactly endeering. You also mentioned that we wouldn't be losing much, but the Apocalypto thread had 138 votes on picture quality. That's the opinions of 138 people who participated, and to me seems to be important.


Ultimately, does this mean that the Tier thread is going to be done away with again? Will your software do comparative reviews and list titles by how highly they were reviewed and ranked against each other, grouping together or signifying those titles with the highest picture quality, or is it simply going to be a stars rating that is used by every other review site already?


----------



## swanlee

"Members will post the disc or product they would like reviews on and others will then be able to do the reviews. Simple as that. We are doing this now rather than later when we may have the same issues all over again."


Is this going to address the idea of a simple thread users can reference to find out the Picture quality of current HD-DVD and BLU-RAY releases?


Also the tier threads are a lot of work for the people to maintain, you have to keep up with all current releases, manage all the comments and opinions within the thread and come up with and adjust a proper display method of the results of the polls and opinions.


It does not sound like your software is going to properly address the need for a simple place to go to view the PQ on all current HD-DVD and BLU-RAY releases viewable in a single list. Please correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *swanlee* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> "Members will post the disc or product they would like reviews on and others will then be able to do the reviews. Simple as that. We are doing this now rather than later when we may have the same issues all over again."
> 
> 
> Is this going to address the idea of a simple thread users can reference to find out the Picture quality of current HD-DVD and BLU-RAY releases?
> 
> 
> Also the tier threads are a lot of work for the people to maintain, you have to keep up with all current releases, manage all the comments and opinions within the thread and come up with and adjust a proper display method of the results of the polls and opinions.
> 
> 
> It does not sound like your software is going to properly address the need for a simple place to go to view the PQ on all current HD-DVD and BLU-RAY releases viewable in a single list. Please correct me if I'm wrong.



It certainly does not sound like a very satisfying solution.


----------



## David Bott

Hi...


A review system is what we will be doing as we will not allow for the same issues to be raised again among members. What happened was a total mess and as such we will not allow for AVS Forum to be subjected to it again. We already know that no matter what we come up with will not be liked by all. Can not please every one all the time. But even the system you, the members, came up with totally self destructed and even the new one started to make for more issues. We do not care for such attacks and abuse to take place here.


Remember, you are able to produce your own site and have it do things you would like. (Though it would not be liked by all I bet.) We will do what we think may work for the needs of just ranking a disk. (Or hardware)


All in all, we have grown tired of the bickering and the finger pointing. Not the mentioned of the attacks made towards members and the site itself by some of you.



The software will allow someone to start a review thread and give info on the product. It will allow people to rate the product 1 - 10. Do Pros and Cons and it will allow for a review to be posted by any member. It will list the top items based on overall rank.


Wait...here...This is a computer hardware site that does it.

http://www.techimo.com/reviews/ 


All in all, if you care to make your tier out of the data obtained by the members though the new system...great, have fun. But this way we will not loose the over all data and the ranks by the people that voted and gave info.


Thanks


----------



## WirelessGuru




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David Bott* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Hi...
> 
> 
> A review system is what we will be doing as we will not allow for the same issues to be raised again among members. What happened was a total mess and as such we will not allow for AVS Forum to be subjected to it again.



Hi David, I agree with what you said and appreciate your effort to provide the new "tier" thread coordinators with some software for voting. I think in the long run what AVS community members have put together will be unique to AVS in the fact that the ratings will be determined by the knowledgable AVS community through opinion and voting. Nothing against what we have had in the past, but opinion threads and title reviews are readily available on every forum and website that pays attention to HD. I think the end result of all this chaos may ultimately set AVS apart.


----------



## svalentine

I dont think all movies should be voted on, or maybe some should be voted on where to place the movie in a certain tier.


----------



## Sumanji

Hey,


I really have to disagree with the Black Hawk Down gold rating. I dunno if the Region B version is inferior to others, but there is very noticeable compression artifacting and the picture isn't particularly crisp. I watched the film on a PS3 via HDMI to a Samsung LE32R41BDX in 1080i resolution (maybe it looks better in 1080p?). I'd probably have placed it in the bronze category, or silver at best.


On the flipside, Hellboy looks much better than BHD, and I would probably vote to shift that up to gold. Watched this on the same setup as above.


Suman


----------



## David Bott

Hi...


Ok, I have it at the point where the new install of the review system can be tried and played with.


I have not released it as an announcement or anything as of yet and it is not added to the site sections. More or less this is a sneak peek and looking for some help in having people try using it. Please feel free to upload new products and also try making reviews.


The two I uploaded were just for testing as I did not really do a review on them to start them off.


So...Here it is... http://reviews.avsforum.com 


(Sorry about the car posts)


----------



## David Bott

Hi all, thread cleaned up. Please keep things on track.


----------



## eightninesuited

Umm, you guys might consider changing the title of the thread.


"The New Tier thread for Blu-ray" doesn't make sense to someone who is coming into the format.


Something along the lines of: "Blu-ray Picture Quality Tier Thread" or something clever.


----------



## Dennis M




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Yeah I do agree with Shaw here a little - directors intent is subjective and we don't necessarily know unless we are the director OR its called out in a featurette. This thread should help people decide what to show off, what to buy and what to wait for. For example I didn't buy the 5th element because of this thread. I'll probably get the remaster
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In either case that debate belongs in another thread...




Hi Austin


If you want to know what the directors intent was you'll need to get a subscription to American Cinematography.

http://www.ascmag.com/ 


I've been getting it for years and it a has been a valuable resource to me.


I'm with Art, director's intent should play a role within the new ranking system. Everything is not supposed to look like video.


Dennis


----------



## Dennis M




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *swanlee* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> "short changing the concept to leave film and many ubiquitous filming techniques out of consideration"
> 
> 
> Don't you get it? The point of the tier threads is to judge how good the picture looks when your watching it on your TV at home. I'm sorry but crap is crap even if it was directors intent or the film stock they used. If it looks like crap it should be graded accordingly even if the director wanted it to look like crap.
> 
> 
> You will never be able to objectively judge directors intent or compare each disc release to the master reels. Start your own tier thread instead of mucking up the current ones.



Have to disagree with you here.


Certain visual styling is used to create atmosphere. Without it the film cannot achieve its goal.


I personally want to experience the film as intended and not some homogenized video look that's just good for doing WOW demo presentations.


Let me ask you a question. Would you say Shindler's List looks like crap?

It's a film that is Black & White and has a lot of grain. Spielberg did this for a reason. He wanted to convey the bleak nature of the subject matter visually.

It finally gets released on BD and accurately recreates this. Would the ranking be closer to Tier 0 or Tier 5?


And if you want to know the directors intent there a means available to you. I pointed Austin to just such a source.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *David Bott* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Hi...
> 
> 
> Ok, I have it at the point where the new install of the review system can be tried and played with.
> 
> 
> I have not released it as an announcement or anything as of yet and it is not added to the site sections. More or less this is a sneak peek and looking for some help in having people try using it. Please feel free to upload new products and also try making reviews.
> 
> 
> The two I uploaded were just for testing as I did not really do a review on them to start them off.
> 
> 
> So...Here it is... http://reviews.avsforum.com
> 
> 
> (Sorry about the car posts)



The review thread looks good to me. Professional, more organized and attractive.


Car post look great. I love those not so common colors. Eye catchers.


----------



## Mrrsteelers




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dennis M* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Have to disagree with you here.
> 
> 
> Certain visual styling is used to create atmosphere. Without it the film cannot achieve its goal.
> 
> 
> I personally want to experience the film as intended and not some homogenized video look that's just good for doing WOW demo presentations.
> 
> 
> Let me ask you a question. Would you say Shindler's List looks like crap?
> 
> It's a film that is Black & White and has a lot of grain. Spielberg did this for a reason. He wanted to convey the bleak nature of the subject matter visually.
> 
> It finally gets released on BD and accurately recreates this. Would the ranking be closer to Tier 0 or Tier 5?
> 
> 
> And if you want to know the directors intent there a means available to you. I pointed Austin to just such a source.




I wish people would drop the "Directors intent thing" How many directors actually have an unlimited budget and access to any technology they want, for that matter how many directors get to choose the films they work on or have complete control over a script? Like everyone else it's just a person doing a job and compromises are made before filming ever begins, and continue throughout the process. Why do the spaceships look better in the newer star wars? Was it Lucas' "intent" to have crappier looking ships at first? I doubt it, maybe he did the best he could back then, and was able to get closer to his vision on the later films.


----------



## todrigo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mrrsteelers* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I wish people would drop the "Directors intent thing" How many directors actually have an unlimited budget and access to any technology they want, for that matter how many directors get to choose the films they work on or have complete control over a script? Like everyone else it's just a person doing a job and compromises are made before filming ever begins, and continue throughout the process. Why do the spaceships look better in the newer star wars? Was it Lucas' "intent" to have crappier looking ships at first? I doubt it, maybe he did the best he could back then, and was able to get closer to his vision on the later films.



I think it is also obvious that his intent on EP: IV changed from 1977 to 1997 when he remastered the movies and added quite a bit of new content and effects. In some ways I was much more impressed with his ability to express his intent on the 1977 version than with the digitally enhanced version.


----------



## Mrrsteelers

I agree on IV and even Empire were very Impressive, then and now. But you make my point in that given more money and technology even a film as great as SW IV, Lucas felt compelled to change it a bit. He could have dumbed the FX down on 1-3, instead of breaking new ground again, to keep with his original intent had he wished to do so.


And most directors can only dream of the freedoms Lucas has. Given the chance to rate what my eyes see, as opposed to what was in someone elses head, I personally only claim to be able to do the former.


----------



## Dave Mack




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dennis M* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Let me ask you a question. Would you say Shindler's List looks like crap?
> 
> It's a film that is Black & White and has a lot of grain. Spielberg did this for a reason. He wanted to convey the bleak nature of the subject matter visually.
> 
> It finally gets released on BD and accurately recreates this. Would the ranking be closer to Tier 0 or Tier 5?



Exactly my point and why the old thread was goofy IMHO.


"Looks like Crap! Grain! No 3-d! Horrible Job! Universal waaaah!"


and "SPR"...? Purposefully destaurated, grainy with a bleach bypass job done to make it appear more newsreel looking. I don't think it would be as effective the other way...


----------



## AustinSTI

Man everyone's a critic...


I'm not getting a subscription to American Cinematography nor will I buy every new release that comes out. For me this is a way to try to HELP those who are looking for it and to provide a good guidepost for those who are new the BD. The first round of votes aren't even tallied and people are saying its not the way to go. Give it a chance.


And Let's face it if you've been around long enough the reviews on hddigest and such provide enough of an idea on PQ/AQ to help determine whether or not to purchase a disk


If we don't vote people will be pissed at those putting the movies in the tier they belong, if we do vote people get pissed that its not accurate...seems like a lose/lose; no wonder Fett took himself elsewhere.


----------



## DonoMan

Why do these tiers keep having some reference to dimensions? Video is 2d, period. (Well, unless you want to call it 3d, the third dimension being time, but that doesn't explain anything)


----------



## Dave Mack

I wish my eyes could be fooled into thinking a 2d image was 3-d. Hasn't happened yet....


----------



## Dennis M




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Man everyone's a critic...
> 
> 
> I'm not getting a subscription to American Cinematography nor will I buy every new release that comes out. For me this is a way to try to HELP those who are looking for it and to provide a good guidepost for those who are new the BD. The first round of votes aren't even tallied and people are saying its not the way to go. Give it a chance.
> 
> 
> And Let's face it if you've been around long enough the reviews on hddigest and such provide enough of an idea on PQ/AQ to help determine whether or not to purchase a disk
> 
> 
> If we don't vote people will be pissed at those putting the movies in the tier they belong, if we do vote people get pissed that its not accurate...seems like a lose/lose; no wonder Fett took himself elsewhere.



Hi Austin,


When offering up the ASC mag I did not mean it as a criticism. Just through it out there if you were interested and to respond to others that there are means available if you want to find out what the directors intent was in the project.


You a Joseph have got a pretty thankless job ahead of you and I wish you much luck.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dave Mack* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly my point and why the old thread was goofy IMHO.
> 
> 
> "Looks like Crap! Grain! No 3-d! Horrible Job! Universal waaaah!"
> 
> 
> and "SPR"...? Purposefully destaurated, grainy with a bleach bypass job done to make it appear more newsreel looking. I don't think it would be as effective the other way....



Unfortunately others seem to be missing this very point. Promotion of the video look as reference, IMO, is incorrect.


----------



## markrubin

New AVS reviews section










Please note AVS added a reviews section for Blu-ray and HD DVD discs

*BD/HD DVD Reviews Section*


----------



## swanlee

There is no way to objectively know on every title what the directors intent was or the condition of the master reel. Given that fact all we can do is judge the discs on how they look on our TV's at home. Like I said you guys just don't get the purpose of these tier threads.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dennis M* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Hi Austin,
> 
> 
> When offering up the ASC mag I did not mean it as a criticism. Just through it out there if you were interested and to respond to others that there are means available if you want to find out what the directors intent was in the project.
> 
> 
> You a Joseph have got a pretty thankless job ahead of you and I wish you much luck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately others seem to be missing this very point. Promotion of the video look as reference, IMO, is incorrect.



I appreciate your input on the mag - I really do and I didn't mean to come off as and ass in that regard - I know you are just trying to help.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dave Mack* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I wish my eyes could be fooled into thinking a 2d image was 3-d. Hasn't happened yet....



I've had it happen once - the Pirates Menu Skull...


----------



## AustinSTI

I'll be honest here - does this thread serve a purpose any longer now that the review section is it? It'd seem like that serves the purpose


----------



## ajamils




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I'll be honest here - does this thread serve a purpose any longer now that the review section is it? It'd seem like that serves the purpose



I don't care about the review section. This thread is (was) the easiest and fastest way to consult about the PQ of the movie before buying and I would prefer this to not only stay alive but kept up to date.


----------



## Wet1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajamils* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> This thread is (was) the easiest and fastest way to consult about the PQ of the movie before buying and I would prefer this to not only stay alive but kept up to date.



I not only agree, but I'd like to add this is a nice place to be able to interactively discuss the software in question, as it can't be done in an active manor through the new 'review' section.


Just my 2 cents.


----------



## no1mtsfn

How bout putting The Sopranos Season Six on the list?


----------



## JosephShaw




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I'll be honest here - does this thread serve a purpose any longer now that the review section is it? It'd seem like that serves the purpose



Austin, you're where I was on Friday. I decided to avoid this place over the weekend and have some fun. Spend some time in the pool, do some stuff around the house, get back to the home theater, etc.


After taking some time away and getting some perspective (and waiting for David to put up the new review system) I think the thread still serves the original purpose that Fettastic intended, because the new review section is crap and it certainly doesn't offer similar functionality to the Tier thread. It doesn't even provide any functionality that placed like Hidefdigest.com don't already provide and in much more detail. Too many movies don't have a review at all. I'm not exactly sure why they thought this was a better idea, but to me it falls short.


I say we stick with it. But since AVSFORUM isn't going to provide is with a way to extract the information we need to do the rankings, it sounds like we're going to have to come up with a third party way to get the information like the HD-DVD folks are doing. Clumsy, but it appears it's the only way.


...or, people can use Fett's continuing tier thread at the other forum that he's frequenting now.


----------



## Iggster

or you can just place them where the group thinks they belong and link people next to the movie the avs review and if possible a pro review.


i dont like the new review section to much cause of hte same reasons you said but i also dont want it to go away. the more reviews the better....plus people dont want to review movies most of the time their to busy themselfs they just want to see what other people think thus the reason of the select group placing the movies where they belong. which you obviously have since pirates isnt a perfect 10 on the avs review. nothing wrong with that at all just trying to give you guys some ideas.


----------



## Dave Mack




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dennis M* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately others seem to be missing this very point. Promotion of the video look as reference, IMO, is incorrect.




I hear ya, then this site really needs 2 threads. I'm NOT saying there shouldn't be an eye candy thread, but that should NOT be the only criteria for judging the quality of an actual transfer.


How about... One thread for pretty, processed, filtered eye candy


and


One for critiquing the technically merits of a transfer like is there mosquito noise? artifacts? EE? Does it look processed with too much DNR? How good is the quality of the prints which is what reviewers have been going by for years. I don;t think that suddenly only eye candy films should apply.

To some, SPR looks like "crap", to me, it looks great and I did see it in the theater.



Going by the eye candy alone qualifications, certain films shouldn't even be considered then. Schindler's List? Saving Private Ryan? Why bother? They'll get Tier 4 or something no matter how technically perfect as actual tranfers they might be...


I would guess that members here who know a film well and like it regardless of a less than a pretty eye candy type image would also want to see how a tranfer rates and how well it is perceived. Maybe we do need 2 threads?


----------



## swanlee

"One for good transfers"


And how do you go about determining if a disc was a good transfer? You need to compare it directly to the master and none of us have that kind of access or time.


----------



## Dave Mack

edited above


----------



## JosephShaw




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dave Mack* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I hear ya, then this site really needs 2 threads. I'm NOT saying there shouldn't be an eye candy thread, but that should NOT be the only criteria for judging the quality of an actual transfer.
> 
> 
> How about... One thread for pretty, processed, filtered eye candy



That's all the original thread was ever intended for.



> Quote:
> and
> 
> 
> One for technically impressive, faithful transfers.
> 
> 
> Going by the eye candy alone qualifications, certain films shouldn't even be considered then. Schindler's List? Saving Private Ryan? Why bother? They'll get Tier 4 or something no matter how technically perfect as actual tranfers they might be...
> 
> 
> I would guess that members here who know a film well and like it regardless of a less than a pretty eye candy type image would also want to see how a tranfer rates and how well it is perceived. Maybe we do need 2 threads?



One of my favorite films in the entire world is firmly in Tier 5. It doesn't change my enjoyment of it, but it also doesn't change the fact that it doesn't look good on BD compared to other releases, even though it's likely the best that film is ever going to look. Some films I despise and feel should never have been made exist in Tier 0-2. It doesn't change the fact that they look good.


The original intent of Fett's thread was eye candy and nothing more. I'm sure that anyone who wants to start and maintain a "faithful transfer" thread is more than welcome to do so, but I imagine it's an even harder job than just maintaining an eye candy thread. While you may not have to deal with the ire of users, you end up with having to determine a good transfer without having access to the master, and seeing a film in the theater does not count.


----------



## Dave Mack

But that's my point. Who's to say what looks "good"...?

I think SPR looked great. I like Black and White films that (GASP!) have grain in them.









Many don't.

It's all subjective. I have nothing against eye candy films either but I don't think every film has to look that way.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dave Mack* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> But that's my point. Who's to say what looks "good"...?
> 
> I think SPR looked great. I like Black and White films that (GASP!) have grain in them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many don't.
> 
> It's all subjective. I have nothing against eye candy films either but I don't think every film has to look that way.



Of course it's all subjective. This, and similar threads, never pretended otherwise.


Who's to say what looks "good"? Same question could be asked regarding reviews of movies: who's to say what movies are "good"? It's all subjective. But that's why some definitions are given as to what type of rating a disc should get.


----------



## Dave Mack

true.


----------



## ScottinHD




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JosephShaw* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> That's all the original thread was ever intended for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of my favorite films in the entire world is firmly in Tier 5. It doesn't change my enjoyment of it, but it also doesn't change the fact that it doesn't look good on BD compared to other releases, even though it's likely the best that film is ever going to look. Some films I despise and feel should never have been made exist in Tier 0-2. It doesn't change the fact that they look good.
> 
> 
> The original intent of Fett's thread was eye candy and nothing more. I'm sure that anyone who wants to start and maintain a "faithful transfer" thread is more than welcome to do so, but I imagine it's an even harder job than just maintaining an eye candy thread. While you may not have to deal with the ire of users, you end up with having to determine a good transfer without having access to the master, and seeing a film in the theater does not count.



Agreed 150%. I don't post much but the main reason i came to this forum was upon discovery of the original tier threads. I can't believe that people continue to debate on this about the tier threads. They were never intended to rate accuracy to the directors original intent. They were there to rate a "WOW" factor. To rate eye candy. To rate how much a movie would make somebody's jaw drop. Of course, there are movies out there with intentional grain, and there is nothing wrong with that. Those said movies are still very respected and great works of art. Those movies, though, don't have the greatest PQ. Still excellent movies, and being in Tier 3,4, or 5 doesnt say that they are terrible movies, or that they aren't great transfers from the original film. All it says is that the Blu-ray(or HD DVD for that matter) transfer of the film is not jaw dropping in terms of PQ. Thats it. It's no bash on the movie or directors intent. Obviously some directors intend on their movies to contain grain, and i personally love this effect, but they are not movies i would want to use to show off my set.


It would be the same thing if there was an AQ tier thread. I'm sure there would be some great movies, even great movies with great PQ in tiers 4 or 5, but that would be only because that thread was intended on rating AQ, and nothing else.


That is what the tier threads are for. Rating PQ, and thats solely it. I still can't figure out why people continue to debate on this matter.


----------



## goceltics34




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ScottinHD* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Agreed 150%. I don't post much but the main reason i came to this forum was upon discovery of the original tier threads. I can't believe that people continue to debate on this about the tier threads. They were never intended to rate accuracy to the directors original intent. They were there to rate a "WOW" factor. To rate eye candy. To rate how much a movie would make somebody's jaw drop. Of course, there are movies out there with intentional grain, and there is nothing wrong with that. Those said movies are still very respected and great works of art. Those movies, though, don't have the greatest PQ. Still excellent movies, and being in Tier 3,4, or 5 doesnt say that they are terrible movies, or that they aren't great transfers from the original film. All it says is that the Blu-ray(or HD DVD for that matter) transfer of the film is not jaw dropping in terms of PQ. Thats it. It's no bash on the movie or directors intent. Obviously some directors intend on their movies to contain grain, and i personally love this effect, but they are not movies i would want to use to show off my set.
> 
> 
> It would be the same thing if there was an AQ tier thread. I'm sure there would be some great movies, even great movies with great PQ in tiers 4 or 5, but that would be only because that thread was intended on rating AQ, and nothing else.
> 
> 
> That is what the tier threads are for. Rating PQ, and thats solely it. I still can't figure out why people continue to debate on this matter.




Well said, I couldn't agree more.


----------



## maverick0716

I just watched this BD tonight and was very impressed with the picture quality. I was really not expecting it to look nearly this good. I would say near the top of Tier 3.......or at the very worst, mid Tier 3 (based on the new system of course).


----------



## Supermans

I've just read over this tier thread and I like the placements so far. As Rob says above, all this is subjective and as long as we all can discuss placement without HD-DVD fanboys destroying the peace in here, then its all good..


----------



## AustinSTI

Hey guys - this thread will live on







Thanks for everyone providing some positive insight into this thread's usefulness. We'll be looking for reviewers in the near future who have VARYING tastes in movies. If interested please send me a PM


----------



## AustinSTI

I've replaced references to 3D with the term HD-POP. This is my way of expressing how much 'POP' a BRD has which I believe was the original intent with the 3D terminology.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I just watched this BD tonight and was very impressed with the picture quality. I was really not expecting it to look nearly this good. I would say near the top of Tier 3.......or at the very worst, mid Tier 3 (based on the new system of course).



Thanks for the feedback; added to mid-upper tier 3.


----------



## chris r in pa

Apocalypto is the best transfer on either format, and thus belongs at the very top of Tier 0. There is simply no questioning that this title is flawless.


----------



## TwisTz

HD-POP is cool. Makes sense.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chris r in pa* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Apocalypto is the best transfer on either format, and thus belongs at the very top of Tier 0. There is simply no questioning that this title is flawless.



I bumped Apolcalypto up a bit more towards the top of tier 1. I'm not convinced it rivals DMC in PQ but it definately rivals COTBP.


----------



## oleus

after months of owning both titles, I finally watched USUAL SUSPECTS and FUGITIVE last night. Oh man.....i've been spoiled by some of the new releases. I thought both of these titles looked terrible. THE FUGITIVE in particular looked like SD-DVD to me. USUAL SUSPECTS looked terribly muddy, but did have a few shots which looked great....so it was inconsistent. It definitely had the potential to look better for most of the duration of the film, I am convinced the source print was just soft to begin with and had some isolated shots that were done "right".


----------



## eXgo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I bumped Apolcalypto up a bit more towards the top of tier 1. I'm not convinced it rivals DMC in PQ but it definately rivals COTBP.



It is way better than DMC. way better.


Check your display.


I think (by your tier thread) for sharpness it is tier 0


didnt the Pole say the same thing??


hmmmm...


----------



## oleus




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *eXgo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> It is way better than DMC. way better.
> 
> 
> Check your display.
> 
> 
> I think (by your tier thread) for sharpness it is tier 0
> 
> 
> didnt the Pole say the same thing??
> 
> 
> hmmmm...



it's not "way better" and there is no reason for him to check his display.....DMC is as close to flawless as you will see as is APOCALYPTO.


----------



## eXgo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oleus* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> it's not "way better" and there is no reason for him to check his display.....DMC is as close to flawless as you will see as is APOCALYPTO.



not on my 2 displays.


SXRD and HD7100 With advanced optics.


Apocalypto was much sharper, with much more examples of 3d, compared to Pirates DMC, plus it kept me awake , DMC was like one of those nature cd's that you fall asleep too.



and if it is "to you" on par with DMC, than it should be in tier 0, no?


Also the Wild is way sharper than ASD, yet it is in tier 1. what's with that.


----------



## DonoMan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *eXgo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> with much more examples of 3d



...the hell is that supposed to mean? Whatever it is, it's wrong.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *eXgo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> not on my 2 displays.
> 
> 
> SXRD and HD7100 With advanced optics.
> 
> 
> Apocalypto was much sharper, with much more examples of 3d, compared to Pirates DMC, plus it kept me awake , *DMC was like one of those nature cd's that you fall asleep too.*
> 
> 
> 
> and if it is "to you" on par with DMC, than it should be in tier 0, no?
> 
> 
> Also the Wild is way sharper than ASD, yet it is in tier 1. what's with that.



So you pretty much admit that you found the movie so boring that you probably didn't even pay close attention to the picture quality. Did you make your decision on one scene before you fell asleep?


----------



## Iggster

anyone pick up ghost rider today?


I did, viewing it later tonight with the family.


any opinions on it yet other then pros?


----------



## Iggster




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> So you pretty much admit that you found the movie so boring that you probably didn't even pay close attention to the picture quality. Did you make your decision on one scene before you fell asleep?



theirs screen shots proving microblocking that xylon posted....


is DMC good? freak yah!

is it the best? no


----------



## AustinSTI

I haven't gotten Ghost Rider so I'd appreciate your opinion on it Iggster.


I've only watched the first chapter of apacolypto so I'll take your word for it; moving to Tier 0 right below DMC (and let's just say they are equal).


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *eXgo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> It is way better than DMC. way better.
> 
> 
> Check your display.
> 
> 
> I think (by your tier thread) for sharpness it is tier 0
> 
> 
> didnt the Pole say the same thing??
> 
> 
> hmmmm...



No need to check my display; It's in good shape.


The poll was running it about tier 0/1 (bottom of 0 top of 1).


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oleus* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> after months of owning both titles, I finally watched USUAL SUSPECTS and FUGITIVE last night. Oh man.....i've been spoiled by some of the new releases. I thought both of these titles looked terrible. THE FUGITIVE in particular looked like SD-DVD to me. USUAL SUSPECTS looked terribly muddy, but did have a few shots which looked great....so it was inconsistent. It definitely had the potential to look better for most of the duration of the film, I am convinced the source print was just soft to begin with and had some isolated shots that were done "right".



At least we got these right


----------



## Jenova

yeah, Apocalypto definitely deserves to be Tier 0, imo. Thanks!


----------



## Wet1

^ I say lower T 0.


----------



## Xylon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BigSexy* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> This is precisely what I expected to happen.
> 
> 
> By flawless, do you mean incredible 3D at one camera angle followed by amazingly clear and flawless *grain* at another... within the same scene? Can someone explain to me how Apocalypto is a Completely flawless picture. No artifacts whatsoever, no matter how small? Keep in mind that I do not care if the film stock caused the grain - the fact remains that it is there. So in this case, it seems democracy ain't so cool.
> 
> 
> This has confirmed to me that this thread has lost credibility. Given this, the moderators' recent behaviors and posts (in this thread and others), and that I managed to find the original list elsewhere still going strong, I think it's time for me to move on.
> 
> 
> Take care all.
> 
> 
> -BS



Lets _pretend_ the "Completely flawless picture. No artifacts whatsoever, no matter how small" mantra for BD Tier 0 (for which I find really inaccurate) doesn't exist.


You have a problem with Apocalypto on Tier 0 but no problem with DMC?


----------



## Xylon

*How many have actually seen the two movies? At the same setup? Can you really tell me honestly that DMC is better looking than Apocalypto?*


----------



## SyHD




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Xylon* /forum/post/0
> 
> *How many have actually seen the two movies? At the same setup? Can you really tell me honestly that DMC is better looking than Apocalypto?*



When Apocalypto shines, no other HD title can beat it. It simply is the best looking HD title thus far. However, DMC is more consistent in terms of PQ. Apocalypto is inconsistent due to the different cameras used. The difference is jarring and distracting.


----------



## tvted




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Xylon* /forum/post/0
> 
> *How many have actually seen the two movies? At the same setup? Can you really tell me honestly that DMC is better looking than Apocalypto?*



I have on my 720p pj. For me "better" is a qualifier that comes down to preference. Apocalypto certainly looks cleaner. Since it was shot primarily with HD cameras it brings that razor sharp pixel mapped look that only video can impart - regardless of being shot at 24p. I've spent a good 25+ years in broadcast, yet when it comes to storytelling, I prefer the amorphous quality that film retains - it seems more "alive" to me. So I prefer DMC.


ted


----------



## Iggster

ok done watching it (ghost rider), its not to bad of a movie IMO it should be ranked tier 1 around the prestige and sound is ok but lacking bass. i was using the truehd track


----------



## JosephShaw




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SyHD* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> When Apocalypto shines, no other HD title can beat it. It simply is the best looking HD title thus far. However, DMC is more consistent in terms of PQ. Apocalypto is inconsistent due to the different cameras used. The difference is jarring and distracting.



This is why I also think it should be the tops of Tier 1, but not Tier 0.


----------



## eXgo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DonoMan* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> ...the hell is that supposed to mean? Whatever it is, it's wrong.



i guess you werent around for the Fett era? he pioneered this thread.


in his tiers. he used the term "many examples of 3d" as in the picture is so sharp, it has a 3d look. although I don't agree with most of Fett's stuff. I do agree with the description of "3d"


and apacalypto had many more examples of the picture being soo sharp, it gives the effect of popping off of the screen.


atleast on my display(s)





get with the program son










atleast do your homework.


who else agrees with the 3d description?


----------



## BigSexy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SyHD* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Apocalypto is inconsistent due to the different cameras used. The difference is jarring and distracting.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JosephShaw* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> This is why I also think it should be the tops of Tier 1, but not Tier 0.



QFT


Exactly! I agree 100%


-BS


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I have no idea what *Night at the Museum* is doing in Tier 3, but it needs to be moved WAY up. This is an absolutely stellar looking title. Incredibly detailed, superb contrast, and one of the best examples of "three dimensionality and depth" that I have seen yet. I am very surprised that more people have not been screaming wild praises of this title, as it is absolutely incredible!


Tier 1 (GOLD) as far as I am concerned (yes, better than titles such as even the excellent Casino Royale)!


The movie wasn't very good, but that has nothing to do with the top notch PQ!


----------



## Iggster

Tier 3 maybe not, But lower tier 2 yes. I didn't really see many "3d" scenes and it was soft overall. Even rocky balboa has better pq. Night at the museum does not compare to casino royale in pq and not even sq


----------



## Iggster

I do agree it should be moved up though, but right below rocky balboa and Monster house should be moved down in its place.


----------



## Iggster




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Iggster* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> ok done watching it (ghost rider), its not to bad of a movie IMO it should be ranked tier 1 around the prestige and sound is ok but lacking bass. i was using the truehd track



Anyone else rent/buy this movie and watch it yet or was i the only one lol?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Iggster* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Tier 3 maybe not, But lower tier 2 yes. I didn't really see many "3d" scenes and it was soft overall. Even rocky balboa has better pq. Night at the museum does not compare to casino royale in pq and not even sq



Sorry, but I STRONGLY disagree. In fact, I couldn't disagree any stronger! Soft? Not a chance. Not even remotely soft!


Didn't see many "3d" scenes? Then there is something wrong somewhere in your setup. There are very few titles on either format (if any) that have more three dimensional looking scenes with great depth than Night at the Museum!


Stellar title in terms of PQ. MUCH better than Rocky Balboa (but RB was pretty good in it's own right).


----------



## Iggster




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't see many "3d" scenes? Then there is something wrong somewhere in your setup.



How is that possible?


1. Many others agree with the placement lower tier 2 or higher tier 3 remember theirs a new rating system.

2. If something was wrong with my setup wouldn't other movies be blurry? IMO even GHOST RIDER puts NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM to shame.


I have watched NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM a good 6 times due to my crazy son but even he is bored of watching it now lol


----------



## eXgo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Sorry, but I STRONGLY disagree. In fact, I couldn't disagree any stronger! Soft? Not a chance. Not even remotely soft!
> 
> 
> Didn't see many "3d" scenes? Then there is something wrong somewhere in your setup. There are very few titles on either format (if any) that have more three dimensional looking scenes with great depth than Night at the Museum!
> 
> 
> Stellar title in terms of PQ. MUCH better than Rocky Balboa (but RB was pretty good in it's own right).



I agree, I saw tons of 3d scenes as well throughout.


----------



## cnickersonjr




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Iggster* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Anyone else rent/buy this movie and watch it yet or was i the only one lol?



I have it sitting at home waiting for Friday night.


----------



## supermackem

Im not one to question anyone who makes this tier as i really use it to gague the overall pq of a title, but weeds is very high for what it looked like on my tv. It was nice but top tier title i think not.


----------



## John Ballentine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I have no idea what *Night at the Museum* is doing in Tier 3, but it needs to be moved WAY up. This is an absolutely stellar looking title. Incredibly detailed, superb contrast, and one of the best examples of "three dimensionality and depth" that I have seen yet. I am very surprised that more people have not been screaming wild praises of this title, as it is absolutely incredible!
> 
> 
> Tier 1 (GOLD) as far as I am concerned (yes, better than titles such as even the excellent Casino Royale)!
> 
> 
> The movie wasn't very good, but that has nothing to do with the top notch PQ!



I agree 100% - and was silently waiting for someone to finally speak out about the positive merits of this title! I use Night At The Museum for (1:85) demo purposes - and everyone who has seen it is blown away by its numerous scenes of "three dimensionality and depth."


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *eXgo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I agree, I saw tons of 3d scenes as well throughout.



Thank you!











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Ballentine* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I agree 100% - and was silently waiting for someone to finally speak out about the positive merits of this title! I use Night At The Museum for (1:85) demo purposes - and everyone who has seen it is blown away by its numerous scenes of "three dimensionality and depth."



Thank you too John! I agree that it is definitely demo worthy material all the way! Very consistent throughout too! This title really pops on the RS1.


----------



## bqv1910

Have anyone seen Bridge to Terabithia ? I enjoyed it but not as much as Chronicle of Narnia which I hope will be on blu-ray soon. Does anyone know when will Lord of the Rings or Harry Porter movies will be on blu-ray ?


----------



## eXgo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bqv1910* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Have anyone seen Bridge to Terabithia ? I enjoyed it but not as much as Chronicle of Narnia which I hope will be on blu-ray soon. Does anyone know when will Lord of the Rings or Harry Porter movies will be on blu-ray ?



I hate how people compare that movie to Narnia, it has absolutely nothing to do with Narnia.


the last 2 minutes of the film are pretty much the only Narnia-esqe scenes in the whole film.


that's why they pretty much show that in all the trailers.


the movie is about Friendship and Loss, and Dealing with that.


----------



## Schlotkins

Anyone see Music and Lyrics? I have that and Blood Diamond coming tomorrow. Watching one of these with some friends so hopefully they look half decent.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Xylon* /forum/post/0
> 
> *How many have actually seen the two movies? At the same setup? Can you really tell me honestly that DMC is better looking than Apocalypto?*



Me. Yes. Yes.


Brandon


----------



## HiddenDepth

wow apocalypto now tier 0? that means it has a flawless picture? Nice.

i didnt watched the blu-ray yet.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HiddenDepth* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> wow apocalypto now tier 0? that means it has a flawless picture? Nice.
> 
> i didnt watched the blu-ray yet.



I've seen both DMC and Apolcalypto. DMC is better in terms of PQ but not by much...


----------



## JosephShaw




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *supermackem* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Im not one to question anyone who makes this tier as i really use it to gague the overall pq of a title, but weeds is very high for what it looked like on my tv. It was nice but top tier title i think not.



I have to agree. I just finished watching Weeds: Season 1 last night, and even my wife commented on the noisy picture. It's very inconsistent. Some of the shots are beautiful, but it's wildly inconsistent with compression noise, softness, and weird contrast issues. I guess shoving 4 hours of content on a BD-50 isn't such a good idea.


It certainly doesn't belong higher than titles like Ghostrider or Hellboy, which have a more polished and consistent image.


----------



## Iggster




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Iggster* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> How is that possible?
> 
> 
> 1. Many others agree with the placement lower tier 2 or higher tier 3 remember theirs a new rating system.
> 
> 2. If something was wrong with my setup wouldn't other movies be blurry? IMO even GHOST RIDER puts NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM to shame.
> 
> 
> I have watched NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM a good 6 times due to my crazy son but even he is bored of watching it now lol



YAWN......

guess what movie my son kept bugging to watch right now... night at the museum.


**edit** so it seems like the movie has a ton of digital noise. when i say a ton i mean it their but not very noticeable just that its their way to much


----------



## eXgo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Iggster* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> YAWN......
> 
> guess what movie my son kept bugging to watch right now... night at the museum.
> 
> 
> **edit** so it seems like the movie has a ton of digital noise. when i say a ton i mean it their but not very noticeable just that its their way to much




watch any movie 100 times and you will notice more flaws with each viewing.


----------



## Iggster




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *eXgo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> watch any movie 100 times and you will notice more flaws with each viewing.



lol true! even pirates DMC xylon posted screen shots with microblocking.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Iggster* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> YAWN......
> 
> guess what movie my son kept bugging to watch right now... night at the museum.
> 
> 
> **edit** so it seems like the movie has a ton of digital noise. when i say a ton i mean it their but not very noticeable just that its their way to much



Time code please. I didn't see ANY digital noise, much less "tons" of it!


----------



## Rob Tomlin

From HDD:



> Quote:
> Indeed, the positives are many. Director of photography Guillermo Navarro ('Hellboy,' 'Zathura') finds a wonderful balance between dark and light, which give the movie a rich, classical feel. Contrast can be slightly hot, but not enough to ruin detail, and the transfer is nicely textured and often very three-dimensional. Colors really pop, especially the deep browns, oranges and reds, which are free from smearing. Blacks are spot-on, and grain is minimal.



He mentions EE (I didn't notice it) but does not mention anything about any "digital noise".


----------



## eXgo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> From HDD:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He mentions EE (I didn't notice it) but does not mention anything about any "digital noise".



and he doesn't give timestamps either.


he is just a creative writer. that's all.


throwing around big words.


----------



## WirelessGuru

The "New" Tier thread? Gold/Silver/Bronze/etc... This thread looks like a direct ripoff of what used to be here just run by someone else. You guys should really take some hints from when the HD-DVD guys have developed in their forum for rating media.


----------



## Iggster




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WirelessGuru* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The "New" Tier thread? Gold/Silver/Bronze/etc... This thread looks like a direct ripoff of what used to be here just run by someone else. You guys should really take some hints from when the HD-DVD guys have developed in their forum for rating media.



just not the polls







those things have been sabotaged! com'on look at traffic and some others have more 5 ratings then atl and training and some other movies


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WirelessGuru* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The "New" Tier thread? Gold/Silver/Bronze/etc... This thread looks like a direct ripoff of what used to be here just run by someone else. You guys should really take some hints from when the HD-DVD guys have developed in their forum for rating media.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Iggster* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> just not the polls
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> those things have been sabotaged! com'on look at traffic and some others have more 5 ratings then atl and training and some other movies



Funny that even the OP of the new rating system for HD-DVD's realizes the weakness of the new system that Guru thinks is perfect.


----------



## eXgo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WirelessGuru* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The "New" Tier thread? Gold/Silver/Bronze/etc... This thread looks like a direct ripoff of what used to be here just run by someone else. You guys should really take some hints from when the HD-DVD guys have developed in their forum for rating media.



that's exactly what it is. a direct rip off run by someone else.


your power of observation is scary












> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Funny that even the OP of the new rating system for HD-DVD's realizes the weakness of the new system that Guru thinks is perfect.



^^^^^^^^^^^^LOL


----------



## Iggster




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Funny that even the OP of the new rating system for HD-DVD's realizes the weakness of the new system that Guru thinks is perfect.



well i like it how it was before but it seems like allot of people like to complain just for the hell of it and not try to help and give their advice on trying to improve the thread.


Not that I dont like the polls but they should not dictate where a movie should go. Someone with enough computer skills can go on each movie and vote it a couple of times just to sabotage it. I like the avs polls but hate how it averages both when this thread and the other are more of eye candy threads rather then overall movie thread.


----------



## teckademic

apocalypto tier 0







no way. Don't get me wrong, its a good looking transfer, but it's not great to the extent of placing it in my top 3 reference titles.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *teckademic* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> apocalypto tier 0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no way. Don't get me wrong, its a good looking transfer, but it's not great to the extent of placing it in my top 3 reference titles.



I agree.


And don't get me wrong either, because I do, in fact, think it is a fantastic looking title. Just not "Tier 0" good.


----------



## Schlotkins

Personally, I didn't think Night at the Museum looked that great. Maybe it's placed a bit too low, but it's definitely not up there.


Also Blood Diamond. I really expected this movie to look awful given the huge thread crapping on Warner. This baby, minus a few scenes and camera angles, looked REALLY good. I was very happy with how it looked and like where it is placed. Sound was unbelievable as well.


----------



## Supermans




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Funny that even the OP of the new rating system for HD-DVD's realizes the weakness of the new system that Guru thinks is perfect.



Ironic indeed










Anyways Apocalypto should be placed in the middle of tier 1. Here is how I would place it..


TIER 0


Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest

Corpse Bride

A Scanner Darkly


TIER 1



Chicken Little

Open Season

Crank

Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl

Happy Feet

The Wild

The Ant Bully

Apocalypto

Happily N'Ever After

Black Hawk Down

Kingdom of Heaven


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Schlotkins* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Personally, I didn't think Night at the Museum looked that great. Maybe it's placed a bit too low, but it's definitely not up there.



What display are you using?


----------



## youknowryan

excellent work, i like this tier thread a lot more than the old one.


----------



## Schlotkins




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> What display are you using?



Nothing special - Pioneer 5070 from 8 feet.


----------



## jossix




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *youknowryan* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> excellent work, i like this tier thread a lot more than the old one.



err, this tier thread appears to be an exact copy of the old one,tier titles and all

platinum,gold, copper etc


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Schlotkins* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Nothing special - Pioneer 5070 from 8 feet.



You are a bit far back from that size screen, but not unreasonably so. Anyway, what what it about Night at the Museum that prevented you from thinking it was very good (I still think it is one of the very best I have seen yet)?


----------



## Schlotkins




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> You are a bit far back from that size screen, but not unreasonably so. Anyway, what what it about Night at the Museum that prevented you from thinking it was very good (I still think it is one of the very best I have seen yet)?



It's actually 7 1/2 feet if that makes a differences.







I'm feeding from a PS3 at 1080p24.


In any case, let me pop this back in the next couple days just to see if my mind is rusty. I saw it back in March so perhaps it will look better know that I thought. Any scenes you'd recommend I hit to see the pop?


Thanks,

Chris


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Schlotkins* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> It's actually 7 1/2 feet if that makes a differences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm feeding from a PS3 at 1080p24.
> 
> 
> In any case, let me pop this back in the next couple days just to see if my mind is rusty. I saw it back in March so perhaps it will look better know that I thought. Any scenes you'd recommend I hit to see the pop?
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Chris



Chris, honestly I wouldn't say there are any particular scenes to look at since I thought it was much more consistent than the majority of titles. But I seem to remember being impressed by the first scene that introduced us to the museum (as the camera goes inside).


The depth, three dimensionality, sharpness and colors were all excellent.


----------



## eNoize

Hey Austin,


The new Tier thread is looking good; but can I suggest a few changes in the top portion of the first post.



> Quote:
> A good example of this is the intentional softness of Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. While the picture of the film is very good and looks very film-like, it lacks depth. However, it still ranks in Tier 2 because it also lacks any video artifacts and the picture quality is very pristine.


_Sky Captain_ is actually in Tier 3.



> Quote:
> Please visit Doby's handy guide to Blu-ray reviews here to compare this general list to that of published reviews.



I would also delete this part. Other than that, the list is looking good. I'm glad to see plenty of members participating.


----------



## eNoize

I would also vote for _Apocalypto_ being moved. _Open Season_ and _Chicken Little_ had much more 3-D pop and appear more flawless. _Apocalypto_ is too heavily-stylized for Tier 0 IMHO.


----------



## Kevin12586

I wish I could see 3D pop







At least I seee a wonderful picture.


----------



## chris r in pa

Just watched Reign of Fire, went and checked out HDD's review just now. This transfer is murky with only so-so blacks and not so great shadow detail, with VERY noticeable edge enhancement in some scenes and at times borderline blooming whites. The print itself isn't even in great shape and I noticed blemishes on a few occasions. What the hell is Peter Bracke looking at sometimes? Certainly not the same film I am on some occasions. The audio is flawless with insane imaging, and he gave that part of the review 4 stars, while the video got 4 1/2! Honestly this is one of the worst BD transfers I've seen which is unusual for Disney, which IMO produces the best BD transfers of all studios. Put this one way down in the tiers imo.


----------



## egy971

Whoa, move Weeds way down. Very inconsistent transfer, lots of grain in some episodes.


Oh, and I watched Primeval last night. Terrible movie, but good PQ. High tier 2


----------



## cnickersonjr

WOW. POTC 2 has got to be the best BD I've viewed to date. Out of about 5. Just got me a player!


----------



## DonoMan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *eXgo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I agree, I saw tons of 3d scenes as well throughout.



I'd like to have the setups that you guys do because my setup is surely 2d.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jossix* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> err, this tier thread appears to be an exact copy of the old one,tier titles and all
> 
> platinum,gold, copper etc



What so the alternative would be to start over and throw away all of the positioning already established? I think not...the original OP left these boards because of h8trs and such so I took what was in place and re-used it. So what...who cares. Now we don't start over and can move forward with previously established 'rankings'...I don't see what the big deal is. The original OP hasn't complained to me about it so I don't care; if he (the original OP) wants mention I'm happy to give him cred where cred is due....


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *eNoize* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Hey Austin,
> 
> 
> The new Tier thread is looking good; but can I suggest a few changes in the top portion of the first post.
> 
> 
> 
> _Sky Captain_ is actually in Tier 3.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would also delete this part. Other than that, the list is looking good. I'm glad to see plenty of members participating.



Done. Thanks for the feedback.


----------



## MitchR

Just finished watching Gothika, it has lots of grain, don't know if it's intentional though, but sharp throughout and better yet it's 1.85:1 aspect ratio. I'd probably place it between Monster House and Saw III


----------



## BigSexy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> What so the alternative would be to start over and throw away all of the positioning already established? I think not...the original OP left these boards because of h8trs and such so I took what was in place and re-used it. So what...who cares. Now we don't start over and can move forward with previously established 'rankings'...I don't see what the big deal is. The original OP hasn't complained to me about it so I don't care; if he (the original OP) wants mention I'm happy to give him cred where cred is due....



Actually another alternative would be simply to go to the other forum where the original poster (i.e. Fett) is maintaining his list as he intended.


As for his leaving, Fett's side of the story is that he was IP banned by AVS. Given what I have seen publicly by the mods here over the past few weeks, I tend to believe his side of the story. Thus, Fett could not easily complain to you if he wanted.


Since the OP is now posting elsewhere and maintaining his original list as intended, and this is a direct copy of his work with some blasphemous edits (such as Apocalypto being considered flawless, given its grain every other camera angle), you should expect that many folks are going to feel this is in bad taste. Especially if you consider his post was unstickied, he was IP banned, his thread was deleted, you copied his list, this thread got stickied quickly, and he continued maintaining his work elsewhere.


As for So what...who cares, I'm happy to give him cred where cred is due...., I wonder how J. K. Rowling would react if someone took one of her books and changed the last chapter before publishing it- but offered to give her credit.










Just trying to put some perspective around this.


Cheers,

-BS


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BigSexy* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Actually another alternative would be simply to go to the other forum where the original poster (i.e. Fett) is maintaining his list as he intended.
> 
> 
> As for his leaving, Fett's side of the story is that he was IP banned by AVS. Given what I have seen publicly by the mods here over the past few weeks, I tend to believe his side of the story. Thus, Fett could not easily complain to you if he wanted.
> 
> 
> Since the OP is now posting elsewhere and maintaining his original list as intended, and this is a direct copy of his work with some blasphemous edits (such as Apocalypto being considered flawless, given its grain every other camera angle), you should expect that many folks are going to feel this is in bad taste. Especially if you consider his post was unstickied, he was IP banned, his thread was deleted, you copied his list, this thread got stickied quickly, and he continued maintaining his work elsewhere.
> 
> 
> As for So what...who cares, I'm happy to give him cred where cred is due...., I wonder how J. K. Rowling would react if someone took one of her books and changed the last chapter before publishing it- but offered to give her credit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just trying to put some perspective around this.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> -BS



Riiiiight cause this is published work so comparing a published author is a fair comparison. This is the internet and a forum - reposting information isn't blasphamous nor is it anywhere near plagarism.











I don't know the whole story or have any problem with Fett at all in fact I have an appreciation for his work here but this is a need that must be met and regardless of the circumstances that's whats being done. His explanations of things worked really well and I'm sure he 'borrowed' their descriptions from somewhere too...if it ain't broke...


Go to the other forum - you are more than welcome too...no issues there. Rather than calling things blasphamy like the placement of apacalypto why not back up those statements with facts and your opinion on what wouldn't be blasphamous?


----------



## Garconis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Riiiiight cause this is published work so comparing a published author is a fair comparison. This is the internet and a forum - reposting information isn't blasphamous nor is it anywhere near plagarism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know the whole story or have any problem with Fett at all in fact I have an appreciation for his work here but this is a need that must be met and regardless of the circumstances that's whats being done. His explanations of things worked really well and I'm sure he 'borrowed' their descriptions from somewhere too...if it ain't broke...
> 
> 
> Go to the other forum - you are more than welcome too...no issues there. Rather than calling things blasphamy like the placement of apacalypto why not back up those statements with facts and your opinion on what wouldn't be blasphamous?



You keep telling us to back up our statements. We have. Yet no changes have been made. I totally agree with his response. Apocalypto does NOT belong in Tier 0. Until it is brought back into Tier 1, I will consider this thread a useless guide to BD PQ.


----------



## ptaaty




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Garconis* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> You keep telling us to back up our statements. We have. Yet no changes have been made. I totally agree with his response. Apocalypto does NOT belong in Tier 0. Until it is brought back into Tier 1, I will consider this thread a useless guide to BD PQ.



I like how you consider it useless when one titles is off by one tier (and the last spot at that)...and that title is considered one of the best if not best PQ release so far by respected people (such as Kris Deering).


Why make an issue of it, when there are less defects than something like Scanner Darkly (there is unintentional banding)?


I guess I just don't get it, there is difference of opinion but to go straight to calling something worthless on the basis of Apocalypto being tier 0 (if it isn't maybe none should be, well maybe DMC just due to consistancy)


*edit* what I am trying to say is maybe Apocalypto should drop off on the basis some different sources were used, even though they were reproduced faithfully...but at least Scanner Darkly could come off as well. Is this more about "eye pleasing opinion", a combination faithful to the source plus eye pleasing, or defect free?


I would argue Tier 0 needs to be both eye pleasing and defect free (or damn near). Having film grain in a couple shots when it is a perfect reproduction, should not be an automatic disqualification IMO.


----------



## goceltics34

Don't let a few disgruntled people get you down. I think Apocalypto does belong in Tier 0, as do most other people. You will never, ever, appease everyone. Just do your best and that will have to be enough.


Keep up the good work.


----------



## HiddenDepth

hey? what happend? no more controversy about the movies? i miss that reading peoples reviews about PQ.


----------



## Ragnarok

Watched The Messengers last night and while the movie kind of sucked, the PQ was decent Tier 2 material. Good detail in closeups and outdoor scenes. Darker scenes have some artificating in the shadows, but not much.


----------



## BigSexy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Riiiiight cause this is published work so comparing a published author is a fair comparison. This is the internet and a forum - reposting information isn't blasphamous nor is it anywhere near plagarism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know the whole story or have any problem with Fett at all in fact I have an appreciation for his work here but this is a need that must be met and regardless of the circumstances that's whats being done. His explanations of things worked really well and I'm sure he 'borrowed' their descriptions from somewhere too...if it ain't broke...
> 
> 
> Go to the other forum - you are more than welcome too...no issues there. Rather than calling things blasphamy like the placement of apacalypto why not back up those statements with facts and your opinion on what wouldn't be blasphamous?



True, it's not published, but IMO it still isn't cricket to take someone else's work and take it in a different direction (internet or not) without their permission or acknowledgement. In this case, by acknowledgement, I would think this would be done on the first post, and contain a link to his continuing effort to update this/his list.


I wonder what you mean by this is a need that must be met and regardless of the circumstances.

- a) We need a picture quality thread - I agree wholeheartedly. However, Fett is currently meeting this need, just not at AVS.

- b) We need a picture quality thread that is based on popular opinion, rather than one expert's individual and consistent opinion.


There is indeed something to be said for B. The problem of this list being left to the masses (as has been discussed) is a) trollers, b) many folks that vote have only seen a few titles, so have little basis for comparison, c) many of the folks that vote do not have as detailed an eye as the experts (heck, even some experts do not seem to have a good eye), and d) many folks allow their like/dislike of a movie compromise their judging of that movie's picture quality.


However, B does set up an explicit formula, and you eliminate much of the the evil tier-master is wrong feelings. In other words, this method makes the Matrix folks (who thought it should be tier-0 regardless of the flaws - similar to the Apocalypto folks) happier, at the expense of having those movies rated too highly based on their picture quality. For me, I'd rather have an *accurate* ranking of movies based on their PQ alone, then allow that to help me decide what to purchase (example: I love Big Fish, but think Crank is so-so. Since Crank has great PQ, I bought it long before I upgraded my standard-def Big Fish).


-BS


----------



## BigSexy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Rather than calling things blasphamy like the placement of apacalypto why not back up those statements with facts and your opinion on what wouldn't be blasphamous?





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Garconis* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> You keep telling us to back up our statements. We have. Yet no changes have been made. I totally agree with his response. Apocalypto does NOT belong in Tier 0. Until it is brought back into Tier 1, I will consider this thread a useless guide to BD PQ.



Now to retort to your statement of Apocalypto. I'm pretty sure that Apocalypto has been discussed ad nauseum, and no changes have been made (as Garconis correctly states). While I agree that when Apocalypto's picture quality is good, it is truly amazing, the issue is the grain that pops up on the very next camera angle. A film's picture quality cannot simply be judged on its best part, but on the whole of the movie. If I was asked to place it, I'd chose somewhere between Ant Bully and Casino Royale. With how noticeable/distracting/annoying/frequent the switch is between the good and the bad, I could even be convinced to put it a bit lower.


Ptaaty, the reason that one title can undermine the integrity of the list, is that it is being classified as flawless (or close to it), but has many camera angles with grain, and the constant switching between beautiful and grain makes this issue even more noticeable. If a title that obviously flawed gets moved up to Tier-0 (and ahead of titles such as Chicken Little and Crank), and folks continue to call it out and point to the issues, and it stays as Tier-0, then the list's integrity is compromised.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *goceltics34* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Don't let a few disgruntled people get you down. I think Apocalypto does belong in Tier 0, as do most other people.



And this is exactly my point as to why popular opinion in determining the tier list is flawed.


Tell me you weren't one of those people who were in favor of tearing down The Garden.










-BS


----------



## UxiSXRD

Heh, this thread doesn't look that much different than Fett's. I thought this was going to be linked to the new Software Review area, maybe using some mysql/php/perl functions to aggregate the data into "tiers."


----------



## Schlotkins

I don't see Music and Lyrics on the thread. I'd put it around The Departed. You can see the grain (and that's fine it's film), some pics (especially of Drew at breakfast) look really nice, but overall, it's nothing speculator.


Chris


----------



## ptaaty




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BigSexy* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Ptaaty, the reason that one title can undermine the integrity of the list, is that it is being classified as flawless (or close to it), but has many camera angles with grain, and the constant switching between beautiful and grain makes this issue even more noticeable. If a title that obviously flawed gets moved up to Tier-0 (and ahead of titles such as Chicken Little and Crank), and folks continue to call it out and point to the issues, and it stays as Tier-0, then the list's integrity is compromised.



I guess the reason it doesn't drop from Tier 0 is the same reason BHD doesn't completely fall off the map...grain isn't an evil thing. That is also one of the big debates with the Teir system....if a transfer is perfect, absolutely true to the master...but the master has grain because it is film based and intentional, do you "punish" it?


People will still like BHD with the grain, because you also get the razor sharp low grain scenes as well. I don't see Apocalypto much differently...just a better transfer, and less grain. Apocalypto, has some film sources, and that is just part of the package. I think it is a worse problem to be introducing artifacts on video or animation (banding, noise) that appear "sharp" rather than to accurately capture film grain on the occasional scene.


This kinda brings you all the way full circle...and you can make the argument you don't have access to the masters, so maybe we should just go by eye candy/pop, or "video based and animation rule all". Something like Apocalypto is clearly doing an excellent job on the transfer, without (well any that I saw) induced artifacts...the video based parts are the most window like of anything...why should we take it down a peg for the film based stuff that was accurately captured as well?


----------



## the49ola

Maybe my eyes are bad, but I didn't see Norbit which I thought was a solid Tier 2.


Suggestion, how about saying a certain teir, such as 4 is on par with premium cable movie channels such as HBO


----------



## BigSexy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ptaaty* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I guess the reason it doesn't drop from Tier 0 is the same reason BHD doesn't completely fall off the map...grain isn't an evil thing. That is also one of the big debates with the Teir system....if a transfer is perfect, absolutely true to the master...but the master has grain because it is film based and intentional, do you "punish" it?
> 
> 
> ...why should we take it down a peg for the film based stuff that was accurately captured as well?



My opinion is that the tier system is about picture quality, and not necessarily about the quality of the transfer. I agree totally that without having access to the masters, we cannot accurately judge the transfer.


I know that this is an extreme and fictitious example (some would call it a strawman), but let me create it anyway. If a movie existed, that was filmed in such a low resolution (and this was the filmmaker's intent) that the picture quality were indistinguishable between a perfect hi-def transfer and a standard-def DVD, in which tier would you argue that this BD film should be, if it were a perfect transfer? Based on pure picture quality, I'd argue the bottom of the list. Others would argue director's intent and should be toward the top. I'd predict that if most folks loved the movie, it'd be ranked high. However, if the movie sucked, it's be ranked low under the popular opinion PQ ranking system.


If the creators intended for a movie to have a sub-par picture quality, then I think it should be rated as such. This doesn't mean that it's any less of a movie, just not a movie with great picture quality.


-BS


----------



## BigSexy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *the49ola* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Suggestion, how about saying a certain teir, such as 4 is on par with premium cable movie channels such as HBO



There is a lot of variance with PQ even on cable/satellite. A great example is that I am currently watching a broadcast of Hogan's Heroes in 1080i.










When my friends ask me, about the best answer I can give them is that at its worst, BD is slightly better than SD-DVD at its best. I then refer them to a thread that compares the two versions of The Fifth Element (Superbit transfer widely considered one of the best standard-def transfers and the BR version which is one of the worst BR transfers). As you can see in the thread (complete with pictures), the BR version is still slightly better.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5&page=1&pp=30 


That said, I'm already set up to take advantage of the Sony exchange program. I received my confirmation email today. I'm hoping for Tier-0, but am expecting mid tier-2.


-BS


----------



## wmitchell23

Bridge To Teribithia - mid tier 2 (my opinion)


Some nice 3D pop, especially in the opening titles. Overall clean, sharp picture in some scenes. I could detect no noticeable grain or noise sitting at a reasonable distance. Some of the indoor scenes were fairly drab.


There's a running scene toward the end using a green screen that is very muddy and washed out and looks terrible. But I blame that on WETA.


Story wise, the movie is heavy on the drama with very few moments of fantasy. I wouldn't recommend this for younger children. I enjoyed this movie on a personal level and was thoroughly devastated myself.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wmitchell23* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Bridge To Teribithia - mid tier 2 (my opinion)
> 
> 
> Some nice 3D pop, especially in the opening titles. Overall clean, sharp picture in some scenes. I could detect no noticeable grain or noise sitting at a reasonable distance. Some of the indoor scenes were fairly drab.
> 
> 
> There's a running scene toward the end using a green screen that is very muddy and washed out and looks terrible. But I blame that on WETA.
> 
> 
> Story wise, the movie is heavy on the drama with very few moments of fantasy. I wouldn't recommend this for younger children. I enjoyed this movie on a personal level and was thoroughly devastated myself.



Done.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *the49ola* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Maybe my eyes are bad, but I didn't see Norbit which I thought was a solid Tier 2.
> 
> 
> Suggestion, how about saying a certain teir, such as 4 is on par with premium cable movie channels such as HBO



Done


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Garconis* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> You keep telling us to back up our statements. We have. Yet no changes have been made. I totally agree with his response. Apocalypto does NOT belong in Tier 0. Until it is brought back into Tier 1, I will consider this thread a useless guide to BD PQ.



My previous comment indicated I'd caved...


I watched the movie all the way through - finally got through the scene where he's chomping on boar nuts - and I saw what people were referring to. Tier 1 yes; Now I haven't seen Crank to compare so its above Crank but below CL/Open Season...


Satisfactory?


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BigSexy* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Now to retort to your statement of Apocalypto. I'm pretty sure that Apocalypto has been discussed ad nauseum, and no changes have been made (as Garconis correctly states). While I agree that when Apocalypto's picture quality is good, it is truly amazing, the issue is the grain that pops up on the very next camera angle. A film's picture quality cannot simply be judged on its best part, but on the whole of the movie. If I was asked to place it, I'd chose somewhere between Ant Bully and Casino Royale. With how noticeable/distracting/annoying/frequent the switch is between the good and the bad, I could even be convinced to put it a bit lower.
> 
> 
> Ptaaty, the reason that one title can undermine the integrity of the list, is that it is being classified as flawless (or close to it), but has many camera angles with grain, and the constant switching between beautiful and grain makes this issue even more noticeable. If a title that obviously flawed gets moved up to Tier-0 (and ahead of titles such as Chicken Little and Crank), and folks continue to call it out and point to the issues, and it stays as Tier-0, then the list's integrity is compromised.
> 
> 
> 
> And this is exactly my point as to why popular opinion in determining the tier list is flawed.
> 
> 
> Tell me you weren't one of those people who were in favor of tearing down The Garden.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -BS



Honestly I think when the tiers got broken down further a few weeks back it added to the confusion...


----------



## Don H

Battle of the Bulge. Tier 0. Blu



Spoiler....... Germany loses the War.


----------



## Garconis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Ok...I give in. It's now Tier 1 by popular Demand below CL and Open Season.
> 
> 
> I watched the movie all the way through - finally got through the scene where he's chomping on boar nuts - and I saw what people were referring to. Tier 1 yes; Now I haven't seen Crank to compare so its above Crank but below CL/Open Season...
> 
> 
> Satisfactory?



Yes.


----------



## goceltics34




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Ok...I give in. It's now Tier 1 by popular Demand below CL and Open Season.
> 
> 
> I watched the movie all the way through - finally got through the scene where he's chomping on boar nuts - and I saw what people were referring to. Tier 1 yes; Now I haven't seen Crank to compare so its above Crank but below CL/Open Season...
> 
> 
> Satisfactory?



Bad move. For a few people complaining you move it? So all it takes is a little complaining from the minority and you cave? You got to go with the majority here if in fact that is the intention of this thread.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Why hasn't Night at the Museum been raised (well) above Tier 3? This is by far the worst placement of any title on this list that I have seen.


----------



## Garconis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *goceltics34* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Bad move. For a few people complaining you move it? So all it takes is a little complaining from the minority and you cave? You got to go with the majority here if in fact that is the intention of this thread.



The majority isn't always right. He said he watched the Blu-ray finally, and he agrees. Maybe the majority needs a better set-up, or better vision, a larger BD collection, or a better understanding of what Tier 0 should really be reserved for.


----------



## jedurocher




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wmitchell23* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Story wise, the movie is heavy on the drama with very few moments of fantasy. I wouldn't recommend this for younger children. I enjoyed this movie on a personal level and was thoroughly devastated myself.



I've read the same thing and hope to rent it soon. I have heard it is the _My Girl_ for the next generation.


----------



## UxiSXRD




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Why hasn't Night at the Museum been raised (well) above Tier 3? This is by far the worst placement of any title on this list that I have seen.



Definitely should be Tier 1. So should Casino Royale (while both are good titles in no way is Black Hawk Down better PQ than CR). Argh Apocalypto is a Tier 0 title. Crank should be Tier 0, as well, as PQ simply does not get better.


----------



## Icemage

There is something that bothered me a lot about Fettastic's original list, and continues to bother me about this one.


The idea of ranking titles within a tier is a noble one, but what seems to happen is that people argue a lot not just about the actual tier, but placement within a tier. This is going to become very unmanageable once there are not hundreds, but thousands of titles.


I feel we should do away with the pecking order inside of tiers, and flatly indicate that all titles within a tier are roughly equal in eye candy factor. We should worry more about the tier it belongs to, not where it belongs in comparison to many other titles in the same category. After all, the practical usage of this list is (as it seems to me) to inform new buyers of what titles to flatly avoid if they're interested in a good visual experience. This shouldn't be a pissing contest between individual movies.


---


I also think that Art Sonneborn brought up a good point regarding obvious director's intent. I think a second list is not a good idea, but perhaps an asterisk marking to indicate that a film has an obvious excellent transfer, but has a visual style that keeps it from being at the top of the list (case in point: Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow). One might make the same notation for Sleepy Hollow, and perhaps Chronos as well.


----------



## BigSexy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Ok...I give in. It's now Tier 1 by popular Demand below CL and Open Season.
> 
> 
> I watched the movie all the way through - finally got through the scene where he's chomping on boar nuts - and I saw what people were referring to. Tier 1 yes; Now I haven't seen Crank to compare so its above Crank but below CL/Open Season...
> 
> 
> Satisfactory?



I still think it's quite a bit too high, but at least this is a more logical location for it (since it does have such obvious PQ issues). Above Crank? I'd say Crank is much more consistent, has amazing detail, and really pops. However, I don't know how to describe it, but the image is... well... over-pure and harsh, if that makes any sense. I think technically that Crank should clearly be rated above Apocalypto in terms of picture quality. However, I can understand how folks would prefer the PQ of Apocalypto, even though it's technically not superior. But since Crank is ahead of PotC1 and others, that seems to imply that it's actual PQ that matters.


For me, the grain in Apocalypto is just so grating. The constant switching is so annoying that it takes me out of the movie. To me, it's like seeing the dot telling theatres when to change the reel. Once you notice it, you can't help but notice it. However, the grain occurs far more often than said dot.


GoCeltics, you may be surprised to know this, but I think you may be right. While the list looks more reasonable now (sorry Rob, I haven't seen Night at the Museum - is it worth buying?), I believe Austin may have just opened a can of worms. What do you do when you let popular opinion dictate placement, but popular opinion is so obviously wrong? Do you allow the integrity of the list to be compromised by allowing popular opinion to rule, or do you compromise the system so that the list's integrity can be maintained? This, IMO, is the largest issue with using popular opinion for this list.


And you never answered my question. Are you a Fleet Center fan (or whatever it's called this week), or a Garden fan?










-BS


----------



## oleus

I have watched CRANK and APOCALYPTO several times and I can't understand how anyone would put CRANK above APOCALYPTO. CRANK has too much edge enhancement for it to be so worshipped...it looks really really good but it just screams "this is video". APOCALYPTO blows it out of the water (to my eyes at least) with its blend of digital HD video and film elements, none of which have any edge enhancement.


----------



## John Ballentine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Why hasn't Night at the Museum been raised (well) above Tier 3? This is by far the worst placement of any title on this list that I have seen.




I agree 100%. Should be MUCH higher than tier 3. Even Road Warrior is rated higher than Night At The Museum! Unbelievable!


----------



## Xylon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oleus* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I have watched CRANK and APOCALYPTO several times and I can't understand how anyone would put CRANK above APOCALYPTO. CRANK has too much edge enhancement for it to be so worshipped...it looks really really good but it just screams "this is video". APOCALYPTO blows it out of the water (to my eyes at least) with its blend of digital HD video and film elements, none of which have any edge enhancement.



OMG, someone I agree with 100%.


----------



## maverick0716

I just watched this one the other night and found it to be very soft for the most part.....In my opinion, it should be lowered to the bottom of Tier 2.


----------



## egy971

Bridge to Terabithia looks really good. Definitely a high tier 2.


----------



## oleus




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Icemage* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> There is something that bothered me a lot about Fettastic's original list, and continues to bother me about this one.
> 
> 
> The idea of ranking titles within a tier is a noble one, but what seems to happen is that people argue a lot not just about the actual tier, but placement within a tier. This is going to become very unmanageable once there are not hundreds, but thousands of titles.
> 
> 
> I feel we should do away with the pecking order inside of tiers, and flatly indicate that all titles within a tier are roughly equal in eye candy factor. We should worry more about the tier it belongs to, not where it belongs in comparison to many other titles in the same category. After all, the practical usage of this list is (as it seems to me) to inform new buyers of what titles to flatly avoid if they're interested in a good visual experience. This shouldn't be a pissing contest between individual movies.
> 
> 
> ---
> 
> 
> I also think that Art Sonneborn brought up a good point regarding obvious director's intent. I think a second list is not a good idea, but perhaps an asterisk marking to indicate that a film has an obvious excellent transfer, but has a visual style that keeps it from being at the top of the list (case in point: Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow). One might make the same notation for Sleepy Hollow, and perhaps Chronos as well.




I'm with Icemage on ALL COUNTS......these simplifications (and stylistic asteriks for director's intent, not another list) would give us all a lot more time to watch more discs instead of nitpicking placements WITHIN individual tiers......and certainly save us time from another list!!!!!!!


----------



## goceltics34




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BigSexy* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> And you never answered my question. Are you a Fleet Center fan (or whatever it's called this week), or a Garden fan?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -BS



The old Boston Garden will never be replicated. Ever! I have been to the Fleet Center, now called the TD Banknorth Garden, and although nice, it lacks something.... Oh yeah, a winning team.


----------



## Iggster

destinys child live in atlanta isnt on the tier


its very low tier 3 or high tier 4. imo


{edit} thought it was still the old system


it belong right below xxx.


----------



## BigSexy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *goceltics34* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The old Boston Garden will never be replicated. Ever! I have been to the Fleet Center, now called the TD Banknorth Garden, and although nice, it lacks something.... Oh yeah, a winning team.



Don't forget the leprechauns.







My last few weeks living in Boston, I saw the Garden being torn down. It ripped my heart out every time I drove by it. It seemed to me the Celtics became a different team after that.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oleus* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I have watched CRANK and APOCALYPTO several times and I can't understand how anyone would put CRANK above APOCALYPTO. CRANK has too much edge enhancement for it to be so worshipped...it looks really really good but it just screams "this is video". APOCALYPTO blows it out of the water (to my eyes at least) with its blend of digital HD video and film elements, none of which have any edge enhancement.



If it weren't for the constant switching between grain and beauty between Apocalypto, I would also prefer the look. Heck, I prefer the look of some "softer" movies to the look of Crank (we're talking tier-2 and lower). That said, Crank is better in terms of Picture Quality. It's not the look I prefer, but the extreme detail and near-flawlessness cannot be argued.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Icemage* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The idea of ranking titles within a tier is a noble one, but what seems to happen is that people argue a lot not just about the actual tier, but placement within a tier.
> 
> 
> I feel we should do away with the pecking order inside of tiers, and flatly indicate that all titles within a tier are roughly equal in eye candy factor. We should worry more about the tier it belongs to, not where it belongs in comparison to many other titles in the same category.



The problem is that the difference between the top of tier-2 and the bottom of tier-2 is far greater than the bottom of tier-2 and the top of tier-3. I prefer the relative rankings more than the tier-classifications. When Fett ranked Coming to America between The Italian Job and Superman Returns on his list at another site, I knew exactly what the picture quality would be. If he would have simply said tier-3, I wouldn't know if I was getting better than Italian Job or worse than XXX.


Good luck y'all.


-BS




-BS


----------



## Icemage




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BigSexy* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The problem is that the difference between the top of tier-2 and the bottom of tier-2 is far greater than the bottom of tier-2 and the top of tier-3. I prefer the relative rankings more than the tier-classifications. When Fett ranked “Coming to America” between “The Italian Job” and “Superman Returns” on his list at another site, I knew exactly what the picture quality would be. If he would have simply said tier-3, I wouldn’t know if I was getting “better than Italian Job” or “worse than XXX”.



This seems to me like it would indicate that another tier should be added by splitting the current Tier 2. If there's enough difference between top and bottom to make a difference to enough people, there should be a separate classification.


The essence of what I'm trying to get across is that pontificating over whether X movie is visually superior to Y is wasteful micromanagement. Just list the titles alphabetically in each category so there's no arguments, and if there's enough discrepancies, split a tier and make the categories themselves do the work of separating The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly (heh!).


----------



## Supermans

I just watched Bridge to Terabithia on my Ps3 and I have to say it is even more impressive picture quality than Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest. 99% of the film is crystal clear perfect High Def. It was as sharp as anything I have ever seen in HD and that is quite a lot.. Let me know what you think about it. It has become my new reference disc in my house..... I would place it above Pirates DMC on this list after doing multiple A&B comparisons during different scenes...


----------



## dpags

Not sure I would put it POTC levels, but Bridge is certainly highly ranked in my collection.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *goceltics34* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Bad move. For a few people complaining you move it? So all it takes is a little complaining from the minority and you cave? You got to go with the majority here if in fact that is the intention of this thread.



No I finally had to site down and watch the movie myself; after doing so and watching past the first scene I was able to see WHY people felt it was upper Tier 1. Though its hard to compare to animated movies I tend to agree. In either case its still reference/demo material and quite frankly I still think the Tier 0/1 split causeses more confusion than anything else. If tier 0/1 merged I don't think anyone would have issue with the placement...


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Ballentine* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I agree 100%. Should be MUCH higher than tier 3. Even Road Warrior is rated higher than Night At The Museum! Unbelievable!




Haven't seen it so where should it go? I put it in Tierr 2 by Bridge for now...


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *egy971* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Bridge to Terabithia looks really good. Definitely a high tier 2.



Done


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Don H* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Battle of the Bulge. Tier 0. Blu
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler....... Germany loses the War.




Bottom of Tier 0; I haven't seen this so would like confirmation.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Iggster* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> destinys child live in atlanta isnt on the tier
> 
> 
> its very low tier 3 or high tier 4. imo
> 
> 
> {edit} thought it was still the old system
> 
> 
> it belong right below xxx.



Done (though why you watched this I don't know)


----------



## G'

awesome thread. keep up the work its greatly appreciated!


----------



## Iggster




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Done (though why you watched this I don't know)



I told fettastic when he has a thread he never added it. My girl bought it, but I also watch it...


Three words



Beyonce+wet shirt=


----------



## ajamils




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Iggster* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Three words
> 
> 
> 
> Beyonce+wet shirt=



Now that alone makes me wanna watch it







but too bad my wife watches all the movies with me and she won't let me *enjoy* it


----------



## JosephShaw




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Icemage* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> There is something that bothered me a lot about Fettastic's original list, and continues to bother me about this one.
> 
> 
> The idea of ranking titles within a tier is a noble one, but what seems to happen is that people argue a lot not just about the actual tier, but placement within a tier. This is going to become very unmanageable once there are not hundreds, but thousands of titles.



We had a system worked out for this based on ranking them by their vote score. The polling/scoring system AustinSTI and I developed would have been resistant to a single person or even a small group from adversely affecting the rating of the video, would have counted everyone's vote, and would have placed the video in an absolute ranking in the tiers, which would have made it amazingly easy to rank things based on their overall score. However, Alan/AVS initially went along with what we were trying to do, but they quickly decided to implement their own review forum (their right and more power to them as this is their house and we are but guests) that doesn't really provide what we need. I was hoping it would help us, but unfortunately it does not.


Of course, where there are thousands of titles on the market, it will be far too cumbersome to keep this list in a forum post.



> Quote:
> I feel we should do away with the pecking order inside of tiers, and flatly indicate that all titles within a tier are roughly equal in eye candy factor.



I disagree, as this list was always about pecking order. Being too granular would be suicide, but saying there aren't wild differences between the top and bottom of a tier is ludicrous. It doesn't matter so much in the extreme upper and lower tiers, but matters a great deal in the middle tiers (2-4)



> Quote:
> I also think that Art Sonneborn brought up a good point regarding obvious director's intent. I think a second list is not a good idea, but perhaps an asterisk marking to indicate that a film has an obvious excellent transfer, but has a visual style that keeps it from being at the top of the list (case in point: Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow). One might make the same notation for Sleepy Hollow, and perhaps Chronos as well.



That is not a bad idea at all. It would certainly be workable, but really only for films where the directors intent is obvious. Still, I see no reason to add it, provided it's used within reason.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Bottom of Tier 0; I haven't seen this so would like confirmation.



Wow, Tier 0 seems like quite the bold comment......I have this one coming in the mail for rent, so I'll let you know in a few days....but if it really is Tier 0 (which I doubt) then that's incredible for an old movie.


EDIT: Son of a *****! I have both HD DVD and Blu Ray versions of that movie coming in the mail for rent.







I usually put both versions in my queue and when one of them ships, I take the other one off my list.......I forgot this time, haha.


----------



## maverick0716

Does anyone else think that this title is way too low in the Tier ranking? I think this is one of the better looking movies I've seen as far as clarity is concerned.......very good looking movie in HD. In my opinion it should be above Layer Cake (I own both).


----------



## Icemage




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JosephShaw* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I disagree, as this list was always about pecking order. Being too granular would be suicide, but saying there aren't wild differences between the top and bottom of a tier is ludicrous. It doesn't matter so much in the extreme upper and lower tiers, but matters a great deal in the middle tiers (2-4)



That's sort of the point, though, isn't it? What's the point of having a Tier 2 if you're going to have vast differences within the tier? I think it'd make more sense to split Tier 2 into, say, Tier 2A and Tier 2B or just renumber them entirely to allow the Tier system to do its work rather than having everyone chip in $.02 on where precisely they though a movie belonged based on the results on their screen.


This is particularly true when you have people who are issuing opinions when watching on 720p units versus 1080p units. The amount of lost detail when converting from 1080 to 720 is pretty noticable, so you could have two totally accurate opinions that diverse based on the hardware involved.


Honestly, it's less work to compare a newly released title against the (say) 50 titles in a "Tier 2A" versus the 50 titles in "Tier 2B" instead of saying "Well, this new release looks better than movie X which is on the top of Tier 2, but worse than movie Y which is in the middle of Tier 2 because of reason Z."


----------



## oleus




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Does anyone else think that this title is way too low in the Tier ranking? I think this is one of the better looking movies I've seen as far as clarity is concerned.......very good looking movie in HD. In my opinion it should be above Layer Cake (I own both).




i think it looks stellar. one of the best BD's i've seen.


----------



## Iggster




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Icemage* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> This is particularly true when you have people who are issuing opinions when watching on 720p units versus 1080p units. The amount of lost detail when converting from 1080 to 720 is pretty noticable, so you could have two totally accurate opinions that diverse based on the hardware involved.



you are *VERY* right


just an example of pictures ive found on the net of different displays/setup

first 720p and possibly no sound system or terrible imaging,sound stage,reflections, all or some of those apply to that setup. and most likely not even isf calibrated.











Heres a setup that actually looks like they took the time to calibrate everything the right way


----------



## Iggster

Just to show you guys that we will never get a position where everyone agrees on the placement, cause systems vary greatly.


----------



## Garconis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Bottom of Tier 0; I haven't seen this so would like confirmation.



I'm willing to bet that a film from the 60s, isn't in Tier 0. Probably Tier 1. Hopefully we can get someone else who has seen this to respond. I know HDDigest rated the video quality as 4.5 / 5.


----------



## tjgar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *degas* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I second that.




I third that!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Haven't seen it so where should it go? I put it in Tierr 2 by Bridge for now...



I think that is about right (re Night at the Museum).


Thanks!


----------



## Ian_Currie

Here's my vote for The Messengers. Tier 1 (gold). One of the best transfers I've seen.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ian_Currie* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Here's my vote for The Messengers. Tier 1 (gold). One of the best transfers I've seen.



I agree.


----------



## bg55

anyone get curse of the golden flower, was looking for reviews but havent seen any yet?


----------



## Iggster

TIER 1 for bridge of teraphatia or how ever its spelled lol


seen a couple of scenes with obvious microblocking and in the dark scenes it lost detail

but IMO very good movie! they don't get much better.


(scratch the tier one vote I keep thinking your using hte old system.... tier two maybe a notch higher then what you have it now is perfect)


----------



## Slim GoodBooty

Night at the Museum has serious artifacting in the scenes with fast motion and some of the snow chase scenes are a millisecond from comply falling apart (two scenes with the TRex, and one other that is hard to explain). I feel that makes it a three or four max. The well lit, slow scenes are very good however.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Slim GoodBooty* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Night at the Museum has serious artifacting in the scenes with fast motion and some of the snow chase scenes are a millisecond from comply falling apart (two scenes with the TRex, and one other that is hard to explain). I feel that makes it a three or four max. The well lit, slow scenes are very good however.



Never saw _any_ of the artifacts you are talking about.


----------



## Slim GoodBooty




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Never saw _any_ of the artifacts you are talking about.



Good for you. I saw it on two completely different systems, my kids saw them and another person I know, that is a A/V profeesional saw them. Most of you don't see the macroblocking on BD and HDDVD either, so I can't really take you seriously.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Slim GoodBooty* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Good for you. I saw it on two completely different systems, my kids saw them and another person I know, that is a A/V profeesional saw them. Most of you don't see the macroblocking on BD and HDDVD either, so I can't really take you seriously.



Well, that settles it then: I'm blind!


----------



## CETA

Nine Inch Nails:


Tier Two-You gotta be kidding.


This is as close to Tier 0 as you will get for a concert. I have been sitting on this one for two months. Finally cranked it up tonight...


Gotta admit, I thought I was not the biggest fan. My best friend dragged me to see them in the early 90's or so somewhere in San Francisco. Maybe the Filmore? I don't remember...


Concerts should be rated on a different scale than film and this show was pretty flawless on BR considering it's a concert. I just need to pop in any of my SD concerts to see the difference.


If every concert was at this level I would be in Heaven as most are horrible in SD.


Nine Ince Nails is Tier 0 on the concert scale.


More BR Concerts Please!!!!


-Rick


----------



## Iggster

Talking about NIN I watched it today, well more of listing to it lol. I listing to it almost every day. Good picture awesome sound and good songs. But imo not tier 0 to many shots out of focus and the dark scenes don't have much detail. then their really isnt no "3d" shots or very few of them.


----------



## John Ballentine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Slim GoodBooty* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Night at the Museum has serious artifacting in the scenes with fast motion and some of the snow chase scenes are a millisecond from comply falling apart (two scenes with the TRex, and one other that is hard to explain). I feel that makes it a three or four max. The well lit, slow scenes are very good however.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Never saw _any_ of the artifacts you are talking about.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Slim GoodBooty* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Good for you. I saw it on two completely different systems, my kids saw them and another person I know, that is a A/V profeesional saw them. Most of you don't see the macroblocking on BD and HDDVD either, so I can't really take you seriously.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Well, that settles it then: I'm blind!



Guess I'm blind too!







As I never saw any artifacting either. (maybe the RS-1 hides the artifacting and lesser quality displays exaggerate it







)


----------



## GamerGuyX

Slim GoodBooty: I do not take _you_ seriously.


----------



## eightninesuited

Can someone please change of the title of this thread to: *"The New Picture Quality Tier thread for Blu-ray"* ?


All these new guys are coming in, starting unnecessary thread and asking which looks better etc... Most people don't know what 'Tier' means. Throw them a bone.


----------



## EnderOSC

^ I agree, I made this mistake earlier this evening.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Garconis* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I'm willing to bet that a film from the 60s, isn't in Tier 0. Probably Tier 1. Hopefully we can get someone else who has seen this to respond. I know HDDigest rated the video quality as 4.5 / 5.



that Alone indicates tier 1...dropped into Tier 1 until I can get someone to confirm/refute the assessment


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ian_Currie* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Here's my vote for The Messengers. Tier 1 (gold). One of the best transfers I've seen.




Added in middle Tier 1.


----------



## JoeTizzle

anybody pick up or view black snake moan yet to see where that ranks


----------



## nvmyprixgt




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JoeTizzle* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> anybody pick up or view black snake moan yet to see where that ranks



highdefdigest gavei it 5/5 pq


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*HELLBOY*


Man, this was a damn good looking title! Lot's of depth and 3 dimensionality, good detail and sharpness! This title seemed a perfect fit for showing off what the JVC RS1 projector can do with its 15K:1 contrast as it contained many dark scenes.


I forgot how much I enjoyed this tongue in cheek movie!


I am still having a hard time getting used to this new Tier structure. I think the current placement on the list is about right (compared to other titles) but saying it is "Tier 2" just doesn't seem to be giving it justice. Tier 1 sounds more deserving of where it should be (as do most of the top Tier 2 titles).


----------



## wmitchell23

I would say *Black Snake Moan* is _very_ high tier 1.

The picture is beautiful and the amount of detail is astounding.


There is a small amount of fine grain, but you would expect that from film.


----------



## Kroenen

I'm with you 100% Rob. I'm sitting 1.3x screen widths away from an 119" screen and using an RS1 that's calibrated to D65. Hellboy does not belong in Tier 2.


Ghost Rider, a terrible, terrible movie IMO, and two hours of my life that I wish I could get back, is another title that also belongs in Tier 1.






> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/0
> 
> *HELLBOY*
> 
> 
> Man, this was a damn good looking title! Lot's of depth and 3 dimensionality, good detail and sharpness! This title seemed a perfect fit for showing off what the JVC RS1 projector can do with its 15K:1 contrast as it contained many dark scenes.
> 
> 
> I forgot how much I enjoyed this tongue in cheek movie!
> 
> 
> I am still having a hard time getting used to this new Tier structure. I think the current placement on the list is about right (compared to other titles) but saying it is "Tier 2" just doesn't seem to be giving it justice. Tier 1 sounds more deserving of where it should be (as do most of the top Tier 2 titles).


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kroenen* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I'm with you 100% Rob. I'm sitting 1.3x screen widths away from an 119" screen and using an RS1 that's calibrated to D65. Hellboy does not belong in Tier 2.
> 
> 
> Ghost Rider, a terrible, terrible movie IMO, and two hours of my life that I wish I could get back, is another title that also belongs in Tier 1.


----------



## John Ballentine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/0
> 
> *HELLBOY*
> 
> 
> Man, this was a damn good looking title! Lot's of depth and 3 dimensionality, good detail and sharpness! This title seemed a perfect fit for showing off what the JVC RS1 projector can do with its 15K:1 contrast as it contained many dark scenes.
> 
> 
> I forgot how much I enjoyed this tongue in cheek movie!
> 
> 
> I am still having a hard time getting used to this new Tier structure. I think the current placement on the list is about right (compared to other titles) but saying it is "Tier 2" just doesn't seem to be giving it justice. Tier 1 sounds more deserving of where it should be (as do most of the top Tier 2 titles).



Just watched this film too. I was thinking the same thing while watching it - "What a GREAT RS1 show-off title!" I also agree - when you talk about it being a "tier 2" title - makes it sound like a lesser quality title.

Can't wait to see Hellboy 2.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Ballentine* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Just watched this film too. I was thinking the same thing while watching it - "What a GREAT RS1 show-off title!" I also agree - when you talk about it being a "tier 2" title - makes it sound like a lesser quality title.
> 
> Can't wait to see Hellboy 2.



Damn John, why do we keep watching the same movies so close together?


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wmitchell23* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I would say *Black Snake Moan* is _very_ high tier 1.
> 
> The picture is beautiful and the amount of detail is astounding.
> 
> 
> There is a small amount of fine grain, but you would expect that from film.



Done.


----------



## maverick0716

I didn't see this in the Tier list, but I thought it had pretty damn good picture quality, especially for an old movie. Colours were good, detail was surprisingly good.........there were a few soft scenes, but nothing terrible. Not a whole lot of grain present in most scenes. *I'd say this is either very top of Tier 3 or bottom of Tier 2.*


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I didn't see this in the Tier list, but I thought it had pretty damn good picture quality, especially for an old movie. Colours were good, detail was surprisingly good.........there were a few soft scenes, but nothing terrible. Not a whole lot of grain present in most scenes. *I'd say this is either very top of Tier 3 or bottom of Tier 2.*




Added


----------



## TIMMAYY




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wmitchell23* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I would say *Black Snake Moan* is _very_ high tier 1.
> 
> The picture is beautiful and the amount of detail is astounding.
> 
> 
> There is a small amount of fine grain, but you would expect that from film.



I watched it Tuesday night and I completely concur with the above, as well as the movie's placement. Great acoustic ambience! Too bad it wasn't blessed with PCM.


----------



## WRX_Rocky

AustinSTI - do you own an STi? Are you also on NASIOC? I was too. SCCA as well, and am now near Dallas (moved from CA).


On topic though, it really amazes me that even the LATEST movies just released, are so low in the tiers. I could understand in the beggining a lot of movies being rushed our the door in BD being just slightly better than SD DVD, but even released just this week and poor PQ? That don't sound right at all. But then I guess, if the original on SD DVD was bad, what would make the BD version any better?


And now just how many versions of certain movies will we end up owning? I can't remember how many Star Wars versions I have . . . . . 2 different VHS versions, then LD (yes, LASER DISK for you kids out there that think these are just huge CD's LOL), and then the DVD versions. UGH! And I now have 3 different Blackhawk Down (regular DVD, Special Edition DVD, and now the BD), but then that is one of my most favorite movies of all time! But sure have to hand it to SONY for stepping up to the plate and offering a trade-in for the poor BD version of 5th Element! That is just amazing they are doing that!!!!!!!


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WRX_Rocky* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> AustinSTI - do you own an STi? Are you also on NASIOC? I was too. SCCA as well, and am now near Dallas (moved from CA).
> 
> 
> On topic though, it really amazes me that even the LATEST movies just released, are so low in the tiers. I could understand in the beggining a lot of movies being rushed our the door in BD being just slightly better than SD DVD, but even released just this week and poor PQ? That don't sound right at all. But then I guess, if the original on SD DVD was bad, what would make the BD version any better?
> 
> 
> And now just how many versions of certain movies will we end up owning? I can't remember how many Star Wars versions I have . . . . . 2 different VHS versions, then LD (yes, LASER DISK for you kids out there that think these are just huge CD's LOL), and then the DVD versions. UGH! And I now have 3 different Blackhawk Down (regular DVD, Special Edition DVD, and now the BD), but then that is one of my most favorite movies of all time! But sure have to hand it to SONY for stepping up to the plate and offering a trade-in for the poor BD version of 5th Element! That is just amazing they are doing that!!!!!!!



I do own an STI - its a 2006 Black STI and I live in Austin. I'm on the IWSTI board occasionally.


I'm kinda surprised and not by the latest movies. Few reasons - these movies are being released on both formats by format neutral studios who have no reason to do quality encodes. All of the ones from Sony have been pretty good (except 5th element but I expect the remaster to be demo quality). I also think some studios are just not remastering things and taking the existing poor transfers. At least the exclusive studios are doing a pretty decent job at releasing quality on our side. On the HD-DVD side it seems like Universal keeps releasing garbage encodes and lots of them. I'm thankful thats not the case for Blu...


----------



## Teepanen

I don't see this on the list. Anybody seen this? It looks like it has PCM. Any good?


----------



## Iggster

primevil I would say probably high tier 2, better movie then i thought it was gonna be.


----------



## Slim GoodBooty




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Ballentine* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Guess I'm blind too!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I never saw any artifacting either. (maybe the RS-1 hides the artifacting and lesser quality displays exaggerate it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )



One of the 4 displays I saw it on was an HD-1 (which was calibrated by a huge HD media guy), and several other people saw it. It was a good elitist shot though.


----------



## Slim GoodBooty




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GamerGuyX* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Slim GoodBooty: I do not take _you_ seriously.



Please tell me how I'm supposed to react to faceless, unknown guy on an interenet forum telling me that he doesn't take me seriously?


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Slim GoodBooty* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Please tell me how I'm supposed to react to faceless, unknown guy on an interenet forum telling me that he doesn't take me seriously?



Probably the same way he reacted when you said it.











Brandon


----------



## Slim GoodBooty




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Probably the same way he reacted when you said it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brandon



But, I didn't say it...


----------



## budd99

Does Blood Diamond really belong where it is now? High tier 2, and just 2 spots under Casino Royale? I havent seen it yet, but I ask this because when it came out I got the impression that a lot of people where unimpressed with the transfer, same with the reviews.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Slim GoodBooty* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> But, I didn't say it...



Really? Look at post #309.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Slim GoodBooty* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Good for you. I saw it on two completely different systems, my kids saw them and another person I know, that is a A/V profeesional saw them. Most of you don't see the macroblocking on BD and HDDVD either, so I can't really take you seriously.


----------



## Slim GoodBooty




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Really? Look at post #309.



I will do a better job memorizing my posts in the future.


----------



## degas




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *budd99* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Does Blood Diamond really belong where it is now? High tier 2, and just 2 spots under Casino Royale? .



Certainly not.


----------



## btdvox

I think closer needs to be "closer" to the top of tier 2. I think it looks much nicer than Weeds.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *btdvox* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I think closer needs to be "closer" to the top of tier 2. I think it looks much nicer than Weeds.



I personally think it looks soft for the most part.


----------



## maverick0716

I bought this the other day and just watched it for the first time tonight.........WOW! This movie is one of the best looking titles on either format, it looks incredible. I personally think it belongs in Tier 0 along with POTC 2. Great film by the way.


----------



## oleus




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I bought this the other day and just watched it for the first time tonight.........WOW! This movie is one of the best looking titles on either format, it looks incredible. I personally think it belongs in Tier 0 along with POTC 2. Great film by the way.



a lot of us think it's the absolute BEST BD disc out there but foe some reason it's been banned from tier0....


----------



## ptaaty




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oleus* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> a lot of us think it's the absolute BEST BD disc out there but foe some reason it's been banned from tier0....



I think it was banned because the director made the "mistake" of using actual film for some scenes. Since "film grain=bad" and some scenes have it...no teir 0.


I still can't believe Apocalypto is not Tier 0 but Scanner Darkly is. Oh well I guess everyone sees something different.


----------



## Amel

watched district b13 last night


its top tier 2 IMO


----------



## John Ballentine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I bought this the other day and just watched it for the first time tonight.........WOW! This movie is one of the best looking titles on either format, it looks incredible. I personally think it belongs in Tier 0 along with POTC 2. Great film by the way.



I agree 100%!


----------



## WRX_Rocky




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Amel* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> watched district b13 last night
> 
> 
> its top tier 2 IMO



Is that in BD now? Killer movie! If you liked that one, you might also like "The Nest" which has Nacieri (sp?) in it. And there are also quite a few other killer French movies out! Red Siren is another, Crimson Rivers, etc


----------



## Amel




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WRX_Rocky* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Is that in BD now? Killer movie! If you liked that one, you might also like "The Nest" which has Nacieri (sp?) in it. And there are also quite a few other killer French movies out! Red Siren is another, Crimson Rivers, etc



yes, its no blu


thanks


I'll look into it


----------



## bob_c_b




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Ballentine* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Guess I'm blind too!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I never saw any artifacting either. (maybe the RS-1 hides the artifacting and lesser quality displays exaggerate it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )



I didn't get a lot of artifacting but I did see a lot of softness and some black crush a couple times, not a Tier 1 from my viewing. Seems like a solid Tier 2 and a double dip for Fox to clean it up and re-release it as a deluxe edition later.


----------



## Cane Dewey

Blood Diamond needs to be lowered.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cane Dewey* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Blood Diamond needs to be lowered.



Lowered a lot.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Lowered a lot.



Another quality Warner release, eh?


----------



## TwisTz

Off-topic question: Patrick, why do you hate Warner so much? Did they kidnap your cat or something?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TwisTz* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Off-topic question: Patrick, why do you hate Warner so much? Did they kidnap your cat or something?



I will let Patrick speak for himself, but I personally believe that they are doing the poorest job in terms of PQ of any of the major studios. Why exactly that is the case is debatable.


----------



## hobbs47




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TwisTz* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Off-topic question: Patrick, why do you hate Warner so much? Did they kidnap your cat or something?




Here we go again........you're gonna wish you didn't ask.


----------



## DomNY

Greetings,

I Didn't see "The Searchers" anywhere on the Tier List. How is the BD transfer on it? Anyone see it projected?

Regards,

Dom


----------



## btdvox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ptaaty* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I think it was banned because the director made the "mistake" of using actual film for some scenes. Since "film grain=bad" and some scenes have it...no teir 0.
> 
> 
> I still can't believe Apocalypto is not Tier 0 but Scanner Darkly is. Oh well I guess everyone sees something different.




Well i mean scanner darkly is a really clean disc, sure its not very hard to be a clean disc cuz its animated, but nonetheless it is.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DomNY* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Greetings,
> 
> I Didn't see "The Searchers" anywhere on the Tier List. How is the BD transfer on it? Anyone see it projected?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dom



I rented this a few months ago and thought it had great picture quality, especially considering it's a movie from 1956.........the movie itself on the other hand was a real bore in my opinion. The Cowboys is another John Wayne film on Blu Ray with great picture quality (and a much better movie in my opinion).


----------



## ptaaty




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *btdvox* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Well i mean scanner darkly is a really clean disc, sure its not very hard to be a clean disc cuz its animated, but nonetheless it is.




Yes it is...it also isn't really that impressive over the DVD. Love the movie love the look but it doesn't look night and day from the DVD, rotoscoping (or whatever it is called) just means a lot less details. Casino Royale, Apocalypto, POTC...these all destroy their counterparts and look amazing.


Also as I have a DVI connection I can't judge, but Kris noted the unintentional banding, I know some laugh at this as there is so much intentional "banding" but still, something that isn't "perfect".

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volum...anner%20Darkly 


Kris is a stickler for these things...I noticed both when he pointed them out.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*A Scanner Darkly*


Just finished watching this 5 minutes ago.


First, this is a very impressive looking movie! The style is simply amazing!


That said: this needs to be removed from Tier 0 immediately. There is far too much banding and jaggies/line twitter to be considered a reference title. Eye candy, absolutely, but it most certainly has some issues with the video.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I will let Patrick speak for himself, but I personally believe that they are doing the poorest job in terms of PQ of any of the major studios. Why exactly that is the case is debatable.



That is the reason for my complaints about Warner: they are doing the poorest job in terms of PQ of any of the major studios.


Thanks, Rob, for putting it so well.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Another quality Warner release, eh?



Exactly right.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TwisTz* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Off-topic question: Patrick, why do you hate Warner so much? Did they kidnap your cat or something?



As further followup, Warner seems to have made a very conscious, deliberate, and high-level decision that achieving the highest possible PQ on high def discs is not a priority for them. As Rob indicated, the motivation behind this apparent decision by Warner is somewhat of a mystery. Is it their intention at some point in the future to come out with "superbit" versions of all their high def releases so that they can get everyone to buy the same titles again? Is it because they think it is a higher priority to eliminate grain because they think that consumers don't like grain and any resulting softness is a side effect they prefer to grain? Is it some desire to get the lowest possible bitrates that produce "acceptable" results in order to facilitate downloading?


Whatever the explanation, I think their PQ practices are despicable and need to be called out.


----------



## Garconis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/0
> 
> *A Scanner Darkly*
> 
> 
> Just finished watching this 5 minutes ago.
> 
> 
> First, this is a very impressive looking movie! The style is simply amazing!
> 
> 
> That said: this needs to be removed from Tier 0 immediately. There is far too much banding and jaggies/line twitter to be considered a reference title. Eye candy, absolutely, but it most certainly has some issues with the video.



I think the banding is actually part of the style of the "rendering". I could be wrong though, since I haven't seen this movie in its entirety.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Garconis* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I think the banding is actually part of the style of the "rendering". I could be wrong though, since I haven't seen this movie in its entirety.



I think you are partially correct. But there are also clearly examples of where the banding is not intentional. And the line twitter is some of the worst I have seen to date on any HD title.










I checked the bitrate meter on my Pioneer Elite HD1 several times, and it is very clear that the video bitrate is very low. Frankly, I am surprised that it looks as good as it does given the low bitrate used.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I think you are partially correct. But there are also clearly examples of where the banding is not intentional. And the line twitter is some of the worst I have seen to date on any HD title.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I checked the bitrate meter on my Pioneer Elite HD1 several times, and it is very clear that the video bitrate is very low. Frankly, I am surprised that it looks as good as it does given the low bitrate used.



Tell me how you check the bitrate on the HD1...I have one and would like to know!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Tell me how you check the bitrate on the HD1...I have one and would like to know!



I'll tell you after you remove A Scanner Darkly from Tier 0!













Just click the "display" button (near the top right) twice.


----------



## Eggo

Has anyone mentioned Curse of the Golden Flower? The transfer is a bit grainy at parts, but for the most part the PQ is fantastic. It is the reference disc I use to wow people because the bright colors pop and the cinematography/visuals are top-notch. I'd recommend low Tier 1, though I can see it dropping to Tier 2 because the transfer has occasional blemishes. For the most part, though, it's great to look at.


----------



## btdvox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/0
> 
> *A Scanner Darkly*
> 
> 
> Just finished watching this 5 minutes ago.
> 
> 
> First, this is a very impressive looking movie! The style is simply amazing!
> 
> 
> That said: this needs to be removed from Tier 0 immediately. There is far too much banding and jaggies/line twitter to be considered a reference title. Eye candy, absolutely, but it most certainly has some issues with the video.



Weird i didnt see much of this at all on the HD DVD version, but i thikn the transfers are the same.


----------



## ajamils




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Eggo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Has anyone mentioned Curse of the Golden Flower? The transfer is a bit grainy at parts, but for the most part the PQ is fantastic. It is the reference disc I use to wow people because the bright colors pop and the cinematography/visuals are top-notch. I'd recommend low Tier 1, though I can see it dropping to Tier 2 because the transfer has occasional blemishes. For the most part, though, it's great to look at.



How is the movie itself ?


----------



## Eggo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajamils* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> How is the movie itself ?



Cinematography 10

Acting 9

Story 6

Overall 8


It's worth seeing at least once. I bought it without hesitation because of the visuals, and I'm a fan of Gong Li's cleavage in HD. There's also an epic battle towards the end, reminiscent of the battle of Helm's Deep in LOTR: The Two Towers. The movie is rated R for violence, and 90% of that is from that battle alone. There's also a couple cool ninja sequences. What's not to like?


Edit: Here are some threads where people were discussing the movie:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...8&page=1&pp=30 

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...9&page=1&pp=30


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *budd99* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Does Blood Diamond really belong where it is now? High tier 2, and just 2 spots under Casino Royale? I havent seen it yet, but I ask this because when it came out I got the impression that a lot of people where unimpressed with the transfer, same with the reviews.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *degas* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Certainly not.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cane Dewey* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Blood Diamond needs to be lowered.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Lowered a lot.



So, no response to the multiple requests that Blood Diamond be lowered?


----------



## degas




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Eggo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I bought it without hesitation because of the visuals, *and I'm a fan of Gong Li's cleavage in HD.*



Certainly a valid reason!

One should never underestimate the power of the cleavage.


----------



## donricouga




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *degas* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Certainly a valid reason!
> 
> One should never underestimate the power of the cleavage.



Correct !











Also Lower Blood Diamond please ! Its much too high









So is Season 1 of Weeds. I love the show but its gotta drop a bit. I can't see how this is better than the prestige


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *donricouga* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Correct !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also Lower Blood Diamond please ! Its much too high



Thank you!


----------



## Eggo

Fellow cleavage connoisseurs, there is a great pic of Gong Li in the second link I posted where they talk about Curse of the Golden Flower's release.


----------



## NewOrlnsDukie

Thoughts on the Untouchables? It's one of my faves, and I'm watching today's BR release right now. PQ is definitely solid, w/ good detail and not a lot of artifact. But it's certainly not Tier 0 or Tier 1. The vivid colors of the film really lend themselves well to BR though.


I've no doubt this one will be in my ps3 a lot more than some of my other recent BR purchases.


----------



## ajamils




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Eggo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Fellow cleavage connoisseurs, there is a great pic of Gong Li in the second link I posted where they talk about Curse of the Golden Flower's release.










.........YUMMY !! Now I'll definitely have to see this movie


----------



## TwisTz

On a brief viewing Cruel Intentions is nice and sharp with lots of pop. I will post where I think it should be placed on here after I watch the whole thing though.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Is a Scanner Darkly going to be lowered from Tier 0?


----------



## ptaaty




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Is a Scanner Darkly going to be lowered from Tier 0?



It should be...esp since tier 0 specifically says zero artifacts, and there are clear ones on Scanner Darkly. Far more so than Apacalypto (some film grain in some shots doesn't count as an artifact in my book)


----------



## ZebraMajor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NewOrlnsDukie* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Thoughts on the Untouchables? It's one of my faves, and I'm watching today's BR release right now. PQ is definitely solid, w/ good detail and not a lot of artifact. But it's certainly not Tier 0 or Tier 1. The vivid colors of the film really lend themselves well to BR though.
> 
> 
> I've no doubt this one will be in my ps3 a lot more than some of my other recent BR purchases.




I read a review that edge enhancement was noticeable. Did you see any?


Thanks,


ZM


----------



## NewOrlnsDukie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ZebraMajor* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I read a review that edge enhancement was noticeable. Did you see any?
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 
> ZM



Yeah, it's particularly noticeable on certain shots. But, on balance, it's not egregious.


----------



## oleus




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NewOrlnsDukie* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's particularly noticeable on certain shots. But, on balance, it's not egregious.



is it just me or is Paramount really bad about adding EE to their catalog titles? TRADING PLACES looks nice but there's an edginess to the picture that looks like video processing to me.


----------



## desmond212




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *NewOrlnsDukie* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Thoughts on the Untouchables? It's one of my faves, and I'm watching today's BR release right now. PQ is definitely solid, w/ good detail and not a lot of artifact. But it's certainly not Tier 0 or Tier 1. The vivid colors of the film really lend themselves well to BR though.
> 
> 
> I've no doubt this one will be in my ps3 a lot more than some of my other recent BR purchases.




just watched it and i agree with your judgement, a solid tier 2 release.


----------



## TwisTz

I just watched Cruel Intentions. Good solid PQ, sharp with good detail.


The only things that let it down was some bad lighting which seemed to wash out skintones in certain scenes, which is not a fault of the transfer itself.


I'd say it would definetly be a Tier 2 title. I would place it above The Departed.


----------



## RyanHomsey

Just purchased "Rambo: First Blood" on blu ray. It looks surprisingly good to me. I'm very familiar with the dvd version and just watched it a few weeks ago on the same setup... Huge improvement. I'd likely put it in the tier 2 to tier 3 range (considering the tier placement of other movies).


----------



## Icemage




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *btdvox* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Well i mean scanner darkly is a really clean disc, sure its not very hard to be a clean disc cuz its animated, but nonetheless it is.



Just a small quibble, but _A Scanner Darkly_ isn't technically animated in the traditional sense. It is rotoscoped.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotoscoping


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Icemage* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Just a small quibble, but _A Scanner Darkly_ isn't technically animated in the traditional sense. It is rotoscoped.



Good point.


As the underlying process is photographic, is there more detail present than would be if it were 100% animated?


----------



## btdvox

I dont think The Last samurai should be so low, its definite Tier 2 material not Bronze. Solid consistent picture, with good amount of pop. No major artifacting, i see some more apparent grain in darker scenes but nothing to detract it to a Tier 3...


----------



## patrick99

Has the OP abandoned this thread?


----------



## OldCodger73

Has anyone watched the recently released in BD The Untouchables? I thought the picture quality was excellent, much better than say The Battle of the Bulge. Maybe I'm not being critical enough in determining PQ as the movie is so good that one gets totally caught up in the story.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Has anyone watched the recently released in BD The Untouchables? I thought the picture quality was excellent, much better than say The Battle of the Bulge. Maybe I'm not being critical enough in determining PQ as the movie is so good that one gets totally caught up in the story.



I watched a few minutes of it and the PQ was indeed excellent. However, I didn't get caught up in the story, so I shut it off.


----------



## ptaaty




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Good point.
> 
> 
> As the underlying process is photographic, is there more detail present than would be if it were 100% animated?



I am not sure what you mean by this? Have you seen it? It has far less detail than the modern CGI based animation such as Open Season and Chicken Little. If it were hand drawn I would imagine there would be more gradients (soft) in which unintentional banding would be even more noticeable.


I like the movie, like the look, there is just not a lot of details and there is some encoding artifacts, and do not feel it should be in Tier 0, in spite of its "pop" and look.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Has the OP abandoned this thread?



I've been wondering the same thing Patrick. And even if not technically "abandoned", the responsiveness leaves a lot to be desired.


----------



## Kroenen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I've been wondering the same thing Patrick. And even if not technically "abandoned", the responsiveness leaves a lot to be desired.



That's for sure.


I'd be happy to help the OP out. The first thing I would do is move Ghost Rider and Hellboy to Tier 1 where they belong.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kroenen* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> That's for sure.
> 
> 
> I'd be happy to help the OP out. The first thing I would do is move Ghost Rider and Hellboy to Tier 1 where they belong.



I'm with ya on Hellboy, and I have Ghost Rider on the way from Netflix, so I'll let you know if I agree there as well!


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I've been wondering the same thing Patrick. And even if not technically "abandoned", the responsiveness leaves a lot to be desired.



Indeed it does, Rob.


----------



## John Ballentine

This use to be one of my favorite threads. It sure went downhill fast.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Ballentine* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> This use to be one of my favorite threads. It sure went downhill fast.



Thanks in large part to the HD DVD partisans who successfully attacked the old threads.


----------



## ajamils

anybody seen "Devil Wears Parada" ? If so, which tier does it fall in ?


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Ballentine* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> This use to be one of my favorite threads. It sure went downhill fast.



Why doesn't someone start a new one, incorporating the present list, but keeping it current?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajamils* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> anybody seen "Devil Wears Parada" ? If so, which tier does it fall in ?



It's soft.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I watched *Stranger than Fiction* last night.


This had pretty good PQ. Sharpness and detail was especially good. Not a lot of depth/contrast though, and the blacks were on the weak side. Still a very nice presentation without any softness at all.


It's current placement isn't too far off, but I would probably move it up 4 or 5 spots.


I really enjoyed the movie too. Very Charlie Kaufman like (i.e. Adaptation).


----------



## UxiSXRD




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Why doesn't someone start a new one, incorporating the present list, but keeping it current?



Hey, finally popped back in here again. That might be a good way to clear out the off-topic business routinely. I'd suggest one of two avenues: 1) keep going like this, but start a new thread every month, duplicating the OP of the last thread and adding as you go. Mods unsticky old thread and sticky new thread. Repeat next month.

2) Incorporate the review system making an average of the votes of particular titles. That might provide me with the self motivation to continue.


With #1, There'd be some variation month to month on individual titles but it can't be worse than the current situation.


I miss Fett's diligence in maintaining the list. A shame the HDDVD Nazis were able to start that avalanche.


----------



## jewing1043

We all miss him


I used to come here every week several times


----------



## BigSexy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *UxiSXRD* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I miss Fett's diligence in maintaining the list. A shame the HDDVD Nazis were able to start that avalanche.



You forgot option #3. Fett is still maintaining his original list elsewhere, and it *still* rocks. I'm also pretty sure that "Battle of the Bulge" would never make it into Tier-0 on his list, even for a short period.










Unfortunately, even in private messages, the URL for his current list gets filtered. So I have a feeling if I tried to post it here, in a manner that circumvents the filter, I may get permanently IP banned like Fett.


I bet if you Googled something like *fettastic tier Blu-ray* you'd get real close... probably even one result below the result for the AVS thread that was deleted by the mods.










-BS


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BigSexy* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> You forgot option #3. Fett is still maintaining his original list elsewhere, and it *still* rocks. I'm also pretty sure that "Battle of the Bulge" would never make it into Tier-0 on his list, even for a short period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, even in private messages, the URL for his current list gets filtered. So I have a feeling if I tried to post it here, in a manner that circumvents the filter, I may get permanently IP banned like Fett.



Noob to the thread here; why was he banned?



> Quote:
> I bet if you Googled something like *fettastic tier Blu-ray* you'd get real close... probably even one result below the result for the AVS thread that was deleted by the mods.



Actually, the AVS link is in fourth place with that google.


----------



## BigSexy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Noob to the thread here; why was he banned?



Head on over and ask Fett for his side.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Actually, the AVS link is in fourth place with that google.



...and what's the next link after the AVS one?










-BS


----------



## micah323

well I did the search and saw his tier system ratings. Even though this tier system is missing a lot of movies, I think it is better.


Glancing over his I see that Apocalypto isn't even at the top of tier 1. In tier 0 there is Black Snake Moan and Ice Age 2 and Planet Earth are ranked higher in tier 1.


I watched all 4 of these titles within a 2 day span and Apocalypto is by far the best pq.


----------



## UxiSXRD

Oh he definitely had places I disagreed. Apocalypto first and foremost. Kinda like representative democracy, though... it's not perfect... it's just better than all the alternatives (so far).


----------



## John Ballentine

I checked out Fetts (moved over) list.







Interesting. Glad to see he didn't just throw in the towel. I disagree w/ him on many titles too (e.g. Apocalypto) - but at least he seems diligent in maintaining it.


----------



## slksc

Just finished watching Big Fish. I thought it was one of the better BD's in terms of PQ that I've seen, and HiDef Digest gave it 4.5 stars for video. So it's surprising to me that it's listed here as low as Tier 4.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cane Dewey* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Blood Diamond needs to be lowered.




Done - dunno how it got so high honestly.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I bought this the other day and just watched it for the first time tonight.........WOW! This movie is one of the best looking titles on either format, it looks incredible. I personally think it belongs in Tier 0 along with POTC 2. Great film by the way.



Debated again and again this hasn't been banned from Tier 0 but there are certainly flaws BEYOND film grain which relegate this to top tier 1. Keep in mind Tier 1 is still excellent. The tiers were originally fewer and were split out further some months ago. Not sure about ASD being in tier 0 since I haven't seen it...


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/0
> 
> *A Scanner Darkly*
> 
> 
> Just finished watching this 5 minutes ago.
> 
> 
> First, this is a very impressive looking movie! The style is simply amazing!
> 
> 
> That said: this needs to be removed from Tier 0 immediately. There is far too much banding and jaggies/line twitter to be considered a reference title. Eye candy, absolutely, but it most certainly has some issues with the video.



Done - moved to mid Tier 1.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *desmond212* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> just watched it and i agree with your judgement, a solid tier 2 release.



Done.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TwisTz* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I just watched Cruel Intentions. Good solid PQ, sharp with good detail.
> 
> 
> The only things that let it down was some bad lighting which seemed to wash out skintones in certain scenes, which is not a fault of the transfer itself.
> 
> 
> I'd say it would definetly be a Tier 2 title. I would place it above The Departed.




Done.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RyanHomsey* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Just purchased "Rambo: First Blood" on blu ray. It looks surprisingly good to me. I'm very familiar with the dvd version and just watched it a few weeks ago on the same setup... Huge improvement. I'd likely put it in the tier 2 to tier 3 range (considering the tier placement of other movies).



Done


----------



## AustinSTI

Ok all my apologies. I was on vacation last week and wasn't maintaining this thread. This week I've been out of town on business and just got back. First order of business is to find some folks I can trust to handle adjustments in my stead so that this thread doesn't appear to go unattended. PM Me if interested.


I've caught up on everything. Scanner Darkly was moved into Tier 1 for the detailed reasons provided. Blood DIamond was adjusted, Cruel Intentions added, Untouchables added.


As for Big Fish I need confirmation from someone its in the wrong place as I haven't seen it. I did however see 'The Patriot and I say its Mid-Up Tier 1....Thoughts on that?


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Glad to see you back Austin, and hope you had a great vacation!


----------



## micah323

whoa, that was a big drop for A Scanner Darkly. From tier 0 to the bottom of tier 1. Should have it soon from Netflix so I can check it out.


----------



## gail2magic

Anyone seen Nature's Colors With The World's Greatest Music or Living Landscapes - The World's Most Beautiful Places yet? Saw the blu-ray copies of both of them today when I was shopping. Rather ask here first before I buy them.


Thanks

Gail


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *micah323* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> whoa, that was a big drop for A Scanner Darkly. From tier 0 to the bottom of tier 1. Should have it soon from Netflix so I can check it out.



You will be blown away overall, but look for the color banding which is quite noticeable.


----------



## TIMMAYY




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Done - dunno how it got so high honestly.



Fett rated Blood Diamond that high and that's how it got there since Fett's list was used as a guideline/starting point with which we'd pick up from there..


----------



## wmitchell23




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gail2magic* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Anyone seen Nature's Colors With The World's Greatest Music or Living Landscapes - The World's Most Beautiful Places yet? Saw the blu-ray copies of both of them today when I was shopping. Rather ask here first before I buy them.



I have Nature's Colors. Picture quality wise, it's very mixed.


Some shots are really beautiful with bright color and a little 3D pop and then others look like they were filmed with a very shaky handheld SD camera. Even the shots vary from one another: you'll have a beautiful shot of a butterfly on a leaf and then an ugly shot of some clump of dying trees. Sometimes they will even zoom into the picture digitally so it get's blurry and the colors smear. Also, the music is terrible with lots of hiss in the background.


If you can find it cheap and just want something to play in the background this would be ok. I found too many flaws to regard this as demo material.


----------



## lgans316

Some serious corrections required


TIER 1


Pearl Harbor (Though the presentation is grainy this is one among the SHARPEST and COLORFUL transfer that is available in Blu-ray)


TIER 2


Enemy of the State (Should be promoted to TIER 2)


TIER 3


Kung Fu Hustle (Doesn't deserve to be in Tier 2)


----------



## Eggo

Still no love for Curse of the Golden Flower? I can't be the only one who has seen this movie on Blu-Ray.


----------



## nharmon91




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BigSexy* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> You forgot option #3. Fett is still maintaining his original list elsewhere, and it *still* rocks. I'm also pretty sure that "Battle of the Bulge" would never make it into Tier-0 on his list, even for a short period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, even in private messages, the URL for his current list gets filtered. So I have a feeling if I tried to post it here, in a manner that circumvents the filter, I may get permanently IP banned like Fett.
> 
> 
> I bet if you Googled something like *fettastic tier Blu-ray* you'd get real close... probably even one result below the result for the AVS thread that was deleted by the mods.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -BS



You talking about the world of kj one?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Eggo* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Still no love for Curse of the Golden Flower? I can't be the only one who has seen this movie on Blu-Ray.



Haven't seen it. Is it a decent movie?


----------



## ZebraMajor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Haven't seen it. Is it a decent movie?



Visually stunning. The plot seriously falls apart in the last half hour or so which left me unsatisfied. Haven't seen it on Blu-Ray though.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ZebraMajor* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Visually stunning. The plot seriously falls apart in the last half hour or so which left me unsatisfied.



I'd gotten the impression it was soft?


----------



## ZebraMajor




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I'd gotten the impression it was soft?



Sorry I just edited my post above. Haven't see it on BR. I was speaking to the quality of the film as a film, not as an HD showcase. Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## Eggo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Haven't seen it. Is it a decent movie?



Yes, it is, although the pacing is a bit off. The picture seems plenty sharp to me, with lots of colorful, ornate set backgrounds and costumes. I think it's a glaring omission from a reference disc thread.


720p caps from the trailer, as posted in another thread which I linked 2 pages back... If these images break the thread, I can edit them out.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Just added Curse of the Golden Flower to my Netflix Queue. It has an avg rating of 3.4 stars, which is pretty good.


----------



## BigSexy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BigSexy* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> You forgot option #3. Fett is still maintaining his original list elsewhere, and it *still* rocks. I'm also pretty sure that "Battle of the Bulge" would never make it into Tier-0 on his list, even for a short period.
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, even in private messages, the URL for his current list gets filtered. So I have a feeling if I tried to post it here, in a manner that circumvents the filter, I may get permanently IP banned like Fett.
> 
> 
> I bet if you Googled something like *fettastic tier Blu-ray* you'd get real close... probably even one result below the result for the AVS thread that was deleted by the mods.
> 
> 
> -BS





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nharmon91* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> You talking about the world of kj one?



That's it.


Also in the August 2007 Playboy, on page 26, there was a section on Blu-ray by Robert B. DeSalvo titled blu dawn. Good read. I posted it over there.


-BS


----------



## denness544

Where is Seven Years in Tibet? I thought it looked great. I would vote for Tier 1 at least.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *denness544* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Where is Seven Years in Tibet? I thought it looked great. I would vote for Tier 1 at least.



I have it here at home via Netflix, and hope to watch it in the next 2 days.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I have it here at home via Netflix, and hope to watch it in the next 2 days.



Brad Pitt attempting a German accent was more than I could bear.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Brad Pitt attempting a German accent was more than I could bear.



And he is the reason that my wife wants to watch this. I've heard mixed reviews re the movie itself, but the PQ seems to be universally praised, so we shall see. Have you seen the BD version Patrick?


----------



## hobbs47




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> And he is the reason that my wife wants to watch this. I've heard mixed reviews re the movie itself, but the PQ seems to be universally praised, so we shall see. Have you seen the BD version Patrick?



PQ is excellent on Tibet,the movie is pretty good too.Pitt's accent is pretty bad but you get used to it,and it doesn't ruin the movie.


----------



## Eric_Connelly

We've only watched a few BD movies so far but saw about 15 on HD-DVD.


First was Crank which was spectacular PQ.


Now we've also watched Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest.


I am totally confused as to what the big deal is with the PQ on this title.


I'd label it OK...its not spectacular and the opening sequences look pretty soft, this is on a Samsung 61" 1080p DLP(87W61).


It looked so soft in fact I got up to double check on here that we had rented the right one.


We've only watched about 2/3's of it but both my wife and I were far from impressed by the quality. There is nothing wrong with it but it did not wow us when we watched it.


We also have Momento, Flags of our Fathers, and Ghost Rider to watch this weekend, see how they compare.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Eric_Connelly* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> We also have Momento......



It's *Memento*.


Sorry, pet peeve of mine.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> It's *Memento*.
> 
> 
> Sorry, pet peeve of mine.



Uno momento pour pavour


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Eric_Connelly* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> We've only watched a few BD movies so far but saw about 15 on HD-DVD.
> 
> 
> First was Crank which was spectacular PQ.
> 
> 
> Now we've also watched Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest.
> 
> 
> I am totally confused as to what the big deal is with the PQ on this title.
> 
> 
> I'd label it OK...its not spectacular and the opening sequences look pretty soft, this is on a Samsung 61" 1080p DLP(87W61).
> 
> 
> It looked so soft in fact I got up to double check on here that we had rented the right one.
> 
> 
> We've only watched about 2/3's of it but both my wife and I were far from impressed by the quality. There is nothing wrong with it but it did not wow us when we watched it.
> 
> 
> We also have Momento, Flags of our Fathers, and Ghost Rider to watch this weekend, see how they compare.



That's interesting to hear........because I would compare Pirates 2 to King Kong on HD DVD as one of the best film based HD transfers I've seen.


----------



## micah323

Just watched 7 Years in Tibet. Pitt's accent was horrible. I was a little disapointed with the pq after reading a few reviews. The movie I watched before it was Blood Diamond and overall I would say it had a more impressive picture. I know Blood Diamond isnt the highest rated disc, but out of the two it would be the better demo.


----------



## DomNY

Pirates is an outstanding transfer. The PCM audio is just as good.


----------



## pepar

Es "un momento, por favor?"


----------



## Mikeoz

What is the general PQ difference between Tier 2 and 3? I've been reluctant to pick up some Tier 3 titles because I'm concerned the PQ may not be that good, but maybe I'm overly concerned?


I currently have all Tier 1/2 titles (POTC, Casino Royale, Black hawk down, Layer Cake) and find the PQ outstanding. I will be buying a few other movies that I like KOH, Fifth Element, and some others, but do Tier 3 titles have very good PQ as well? I'm curious if there's a big (very noticeable) step down in PQ. Thanks!


----------



## ajamils

Just finished watching the remastered version of Fifth Element. It has some soft scenes but overall picture was great. I think that it should be in the middle of Tier 1.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mikeoz* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> What is the general PQ difference between Tier 2 and 3? I've been reluctant to pick up some Tier 3 titles because I'm concerned the PQ may not be that good, but maybe I'm overly concerned?
> 
> 
> I currently have all Tier 1/2 titles (POTC, Casino Royale, Black hawk down, Layer Cake) and find the PQ outstanding. I will be buying a few other movies that I like KOH, Fifth Element, and some others, but do Tier 3 titles have very good PQ as well? I'm curious if there's a big (very noticeable) step down in PQ. Thanks!



The picture quality on Tier 3 titles is still very good......much better than any regular DVDs.


----------



## Supermans




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The picture quality on Tier 3 titles is still very good......much better than any regular DVDs.



A tier 3 title is not "Very Good"..

Tier 3 means Few 3D effects, some digital noise/artifacting. Fantastic 4 does not look much better than the upconvert SD-DVD and is the best tier 3. Spend your money on Tier 0, 1 and 2 titles to get your money's worth unless it is a must have favorite movie that just got a mediocre transfer/encode..


These below are tier 3 titles I would consider but nothing more..


Fantastic 4

King Arthur

The Brothers Grimm

Eragon


----------



## akrias

i bought dead mans chest when i got my ps3, i have it connected to a mits diamond 46" lcd via hdmi.


in the scene where jack parrow falls through the bridges and lands on the ground, right after the stick spears the ground hethe camera shows him looking at the stick from the side. the entire background of vegatation is just a mottled mess of compression artifacts for me.


also, chapter 4, jack sparrow grabs the lanterns goes below deck, in the scene right after he turns the key in the lock, when he swings the lantern around in the darkened room i saw 2 different colored sets of pixilized artifact things.


i got rid of those by turning down my brightness, but even still, bright or not, should i be seeing that? and there is no helping the veg in the stick scene.


the rest of the movie is indeed pretty much flaewless, but how could you all have missed these 2 scenes i picked up on the first time i watched? its a T0 deal breaker imo.


----------



## wmitchell23




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *akrias* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> i bought dead mans chest when i got my ps3, i have it connected to a mits diamond 46" lcd via hdmi.
> 
> 
> in the scene where jack parrow falls through the bridges and lands on the ground, right after the stick spears the ground hethe camera shows him looking at the stick from the side. the entire background of vegatation is just a mottled mess of compression artifacts for me.
> 
> 
> also, chapter 4, jack sparrow grabs the lanterns goes below deck, in the scene right after he turns the key in the lock, when he swings the lantern around in the darkened room i saw 2 different colored sets of pixilized artifact things.
> 
> 
> i got rid of those by turning down my brightness, but even still, bright or not, should i be seeing that? and there is no helping the veg in the stick scene.



I saw none of what you are describing in either scene. My equipment: PS3 connected through HDMI to a Samsung 1080p DLP.


Unless you're talking about the dirt that flys up when the stick first penetrates the ground or the fact that the background is out of focus, I see absolutely no artifacts.


If everyone else experienced what you have seen on your display, then there's no way this title would've stayed at tier 0 for as long as it has. A title is only as good as it's worst flaw.


----------



## Supermans




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *akrias* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> i bought dead mans chest when i got my ps3, i have it connected to a mits diamond 46" lcd via hdmi.
> 
> 
> in the scene where jack parrow falls through the bridges and lands on the ground, right after the stick spears the ground hethe camera shows him looking at the stick from the side. the entire background of vegatation is just a mottled mess of compression artifacts for me.
> 
> 
> also, chapter 4, jack sparrow grabs the lanterns goes below deck, in the scene right after he turns the key in the lock, when he swings the lantern around in the darkened room i saw 2 different colored sets of pixilized artifact things.
> 
> 
> i got rid of those by turning down my brightness, but even still, bright or not, should i be seeing that? and there is no helping the veg in the stick scene.
> 
> 
> the rest of the movie is indeed pretty much flaewless, but how could you all have missed these 2 scenes i picked up on the first time i watched? its a T0 deal breaker imo.



This sounds like a problem with your HDTV's image settings. You may have Digital Noise Reduction or a color image enhancer being applied or some other external issue like your color or brightness too high if you are seeing something strange or wrong with that scene. This movie is tier 0 as mentioned above and is at the top of the tier list for a reason. If the movie did have problems with that scene you would have described, it would be upper tier 1 perhaps or lower...


----------



## ditch-digger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> That's interesting to hear........because I would compare Pirates 2 to King Kong on HD DVD as one of the best film based HD transfers I've seen.




no way....poc is awesome..


king kong breathtaking....possibly the best pq on any format..


----------



## akrias

maybe someone can help me then? im far from a professional here at this, and i live in a pretty rural part of AZ so theres noone really i can hire to pro calibrate my set. you guys are the closest things to pro help i have at my disposal, and you're free =P


all joking aside, my specific tv medel is LT-46231 as i said before it is a mits diamond sticker says manufactuired in may 2007. i have a PS3 for my blu ray player. small detail probably of minor importance here, my HDMI cable is really generic, 12$ for a 6 foot stretch from the local dish installation place. it is actually HDMI to DVI then i have a small 2 inch long DVI to HDMI thing on the end of it. picture quality is generally really good, i am blown away.


i did try going direct from HDMI out of PS3 into my DVI on the mits thus negating the DVI to HDMI adapter, the problems in PoC: DMC still exist, exactly as before. no visable PQ difference between the two connection methods, but there are some wierd lines that i dont like when the PS3 is switching resolutions


the copy of POC







MC i have is the standard 2 disk set that best buy carries, yes, it is a blu ray disk. im at least pro enough to know i wasnt trying to play a SD dvd =P my daughter is on summer break and has our camera or i would post pictures of the specific issues i am having.


as a side note, the transformers 1080p trailer i downloaded from the playstation store has HIGH levels of compression pixelization (dunno the technical term, but thats what i call it.) the scene where the military is taking down bumblebee on the bridge is absolutly horrid. other scenes like starscream landing in the street are BEAUTIFUL and imo, perfect. my PQ has a high level of variation im not sure im comfortable with considering i just dropped 3k on the set and 500 on the PS3. small change to some, but certainly enough to net myself some quality PQ.


just so you all know where i am, here are my settings i am using, perhaps im just way out of line here with the settings for this set. i tried some of the ones in the set's thread, but be it lighting or what have you, these numbers are what my eyes tell me is right for my environment.


Contrast: 61

Brightness: 33

Color: 31

Tint: 31

Sharpness: 15

Color Temp.: High

Deep Field Imager: On (i know, i know, but it really dosnt crush the blacks as far as i can tell on this set)

Sharp Edge: On (again, i know... but i love it!)

Video Noise: Off (was on low)

Backlight: 30

Picture Mode: Natural


Perfect Color Settings are

Magenta: 31

Red: 31

Yellow: 31

Green: 22

Cyan: 35

Blue: 28


Perfect Tint is default as all colors: 31


I apologise for being so long winded, im just unsure of where the problem lies and i would love for it to go away. thank you all very very much.


any suggestions on another location i should repost this to find more specific help (like lcdsection or PS3 section) would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## lrstevens421




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *akrias* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> maybe someone can help me then? im far from a professional here at this, and i live in a pretty rural part of AZ so theres noone really i can hire to pro calibrate my set. you guys are the closest things to pro help i have at my disposal, and you're free =P
> 
> 
> all joking aside, my specific tv medel is LT-46231 as i said before it is a mits diamond sticker says manufactuired in may 2007. i have a PS3 for my blu ray player. small detail probably of minor importance here, my HDMI cable is really generic, 12$ for a 6 foot stretch from the local dish installation place. it is actually HDMI to DVI then i have a small 2 inch long DVI to HDMI thing on the end of it. picture quality is generally really good, i am blown away.
> 
> 
> i did try going direct from HDMI out of PS3 into my DVI on the mits thus negating the DVI to HDMI adapter, the problems in PoC: DMC still exist, exactly as before. no visable PQ difference between the two connection methods, but there are some wierd lines that i dont like when the PS3 is switching resolutions
> 
> 
> the copy of POC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MC i have is the standard 2 disk set that best buy carries, yes, it is a blu ray disk. im at least pro enough to know i wasnt trying to play a SD dvd =P my daughter is on summer break and has our camera or i would post pictures of the specific issues i am having.
> 
> 
> as a side note, the transformers 1080p trailer i downloaded from the playstation store has HIGH levels of compression pixelization (dunno the technical term, but thats what i call it.) the scene where the military is taking down bumblebee on the bridge is absolutly horrid. other scenes like starscream landing in the street are BEAUTIFUL and imo, perfect. my PQ has a high level of variation im not sure im comfortable with considering i just dropped 3k on the set and 500 on the PS3. small change to some, but certainly enough to net myself some quality PQ.
> 
> 
> just so you all know where i am, here are my settings i am using, perhaps im just way out of line here with the settings for this set. i tried some of the ones in the set's thread, but be it lighting or what have you, these numbers are what my eyes tell me is right for my environment.
> 
> 
> Contrast: 61
> 
> Brightness: 33
> 
> Color: 31
> 
> Tint: 31
> 
> Sharpness: 15
> 
> Color Temp.: High
> 
> Deep Field Imager: On (i know, i know, but it really dosnt crush the blacks as far as i can tell on this set)
> 
> Sharp Edge: On (again, i know... but i love it!)
> 
> Video Noise: Off (was on low)
> 
> Backlight: 30
> 
> Picture Mode: Natural
> 
> 
> Perfect Color Settings are
> 
> Magenta: 31
> 
> Red: 31
> 
> Yellow: 31
> 
> Green: 22
> 
> Cyan: 35
> 
> Blue: 28
> 
> 
> Perfect Tint is default as all colors: 31
> 
> 
> I apologise for being so long winded, im just unsure of where the problem lies and i would love for it to go away. thank you all very very much.
> 
> 
> any suggestions on another location i should repost this to find more specific help (like lcdsection or PS3 section) would be greatly appreciated.



Maybe you should discuss that here in the LT-46131/231 owners thread.


----------



## akrias

i reposted my question there, thanks for the advice.


----------



## roller11




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Some serious corrections required
> 
> 
> TIER 1
> 
> 
> Pearl Harbor (Though the presentation is grainy this is one among the SHARPEST and COLORFUL transfer that is available in Blu-ray)
> 
> 
> TIER 2
> 
> 
> Enemy of the State (Should be promoted to TIER 2)
> 
> 
> TIER 3
> 
> 
> Kung Fu Hustle (Doesn't deserve to be in Tier 2)



BY FAR the biggest goof on this list is "Black Hawk Down" ...Tier 1 ?!?

Are you kidding me? It should be at best Tier 4, probably tier 5, as

it is extremely grainy. So much so, it almost doesn't look like high

definition.

Anyone who gets this title will be extremely disappointed if they believe

a ranking of tier 1.


Also, I mildly disagree with 'The Prestige ' at tier 2, should be tier 1. Very sharp,

great colors. Only thing holding it back is it is a little bit grainy,

certainly less grainy than 90% of all the titles out there.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *roller11* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> BY FAR the biggest goof on this list is "Black Hawk Down" ...Tier 1 ?!?
> 
> Are you kidding me? It should be at best Tier 4, probably tier 5, as
> 
> it is extremely grainy. So much so, it almost doesn't look like high
> 
> definition.
> 
> Anyone who gets this title will be extremely disappointed if they believe
> 
> a ranking of tier 1.
> 
> 
> Also, I mildly disagree with 'The Prestige ' at tier 2, should be tier 1. Very sharp,
> 
> great colors. Only thing holding it back is it is a little bit grainy,
> 
> certainly less grainy than 90% of all the titles out there.



This post is both ridiculous and plain naive.


Do you realize that all film has grain? ALL film! Calling a title "so grainy" that "it almost doesn't look like high definition" doesn't even make sense.


----------



## Iggster




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *roller11* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> BY FAR the biggest goof on this list is "Black Hawk Down" ...Tier 1 ?!?
> 
> Are you kidding me? It should be at best Tier 4, probably tier 5, as
> 
> it is extremely grainy. So much so, it almost doesn't look like high
> 
> definition.
> 
> Anyone who gets this title will be extremely disappointed if they believe
> 
> a ranking of tier 1.



I wont lie, but when I bought my copy which was the 2nd blu ray title ive ever owned I was extremely disappointed, but it isnt tier 5... it belongs somewhere in lower tier 2.


----------



## roller11




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Calling a title "so grainy" that "it almost doesn't look like high definition" doesn't even make sense.



So, according to you, all film has grain, so all film is the same. No difference

in quality, tier 0 = tier 1 = tier 2,etc.

That makes your post not only ridiculous, but just plain wrong.


----------



## Supermans




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *roller11* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> BY FAR the biggest goof on this list is "Black Hawk Down" ...Tier 1 ?!?
> 
> Are you kidding me? It should be at best Tier 4, probably tier 5, as
> 
> it is extremely grainy. So much so, it almost doesn't look like high
> 
> definition.
> 
> Anyone who gets this title will be extremely disappointed if they believe
> 
> a ranking of tier 1.
> 
> 
> Also, I mildly disagree with 'The Prestige ' at tier 2, should be tier 1. Very sharp,
> 
> great colors. Only thing holding it back is it is a little bit grainy,
> 
> certainly less grainy than 90% of all the titles out there.



Do you want all the movie's to look like CSI: Miami?


----------



## MidnightWatcher




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *roller11* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> BY FAR the biggest goof on this list is "Black Hawk Down" ...Tier 1 ?!?
> 
> Are you kidding me? It should be at best Tier 4, probably tier 5, as
> 
> it is extremely grainy. So much so, it almost doesn't look like high
> 
> definition.
> 
> Anyone who gets this title will be extremely disappointed if they believe
> 
> a ranking of tier 1.
> 
> 
> Also, I mildly disagree with 'The Prestige ' at tier 2, should be tier 1. Very sharp,
> 
> great colors. Only thing holding it back is it is a little bit grainy,
> 
> certainly less grainy than 90% of all the titles out there.



To each their own. I think a film could be quite grainy and still be Tier 1 if it is intentional grain. This was the director's intent. For titles like this though it might be good to note "Intentional Grain" on the tier list.


From what I recall, 300 was very grainy as well in the theater. It'll be interesting to see your take on this title.


----------



## roller11




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Supermans* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Do you want all the movie's to look like CSI: Miami?



No. "CSI", maybe, "Everybody Hates Chris" definitely!...but not "CSI: Miami".


----------



## BBS G35

So what titles have changed position in the Tier Thread the most over the past couple months or so?


----------



## youknowryan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *roller11* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> BY FAR the biggest goof on this list is "Black Hawk Down" ...Tier 1 ?!?
> 
> Are you kidding me? It should be at best Tier 4, probably tier 5, as
> 
> it is extremely grainy. So much so, it almost doesn't look like high
> 
> definition.
> 
> Anyone who gets this title will be extremely disappointed if they believe
> 
> a ranking of tier 1.
> 
> 
> Also, I mildly disagree with 'The Prestige ' at tier 2, should be tier 1. Very sharp,
> 
> great colors. Only thing holding it back is it is a little bit grainy,
> 
> certainly less grainy than 90% of all the titles out there.




Black Hawk Down is most certainly a tier 1 film, as is The Prestige for that matter. Not all films have a glossed over or softened presentation. BHD is supposed to look that way and the transfer is 100% on the money. Now whether or not you like that look is another issue. If that is the case then a good number of BD and HD DVDs will not appeal to you. OTOH since you liked the Prestige and if you have an HD DVD player try Batman Begins, it looks very much the same and you will like it.


TOPIC CHANGE:


When will the rerelease of the 5th element be added to the tier list?


----------



## roller11




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *youknowryan* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> BHD is supposed to look that way



BHD was not "suppose" to look a certain way, it is what it is. It looks bad/grainy cause

poor quality film was used.


----------



## pepar

I think either the point is being missed or some do not understand. When films look "grainy," it's not due to "poor quality film." When films have a shifted and/or muted color palatte that, too, has nothing to do with "poor quality film." These are artistic choices.


----------



## roller11




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I think either the point is being missed or some do not understand. When films look "grainy," it's not due to "poor quality film." When films have a shifted and/or muted color palatte that, too, has nothing to do with "poor quality film." These are artistic choices.



No, it is you who doesn't understand. Read the first post of this thread,

specifically:

"Please keep in mind that the list is not intended to reflect the quality of a director's intention and such judgments should be avoided when assessing picture quality."


This thread refers to the visual characteristics/properties of the movie.

It specifically DOES NOT reference what the director was thinking

about while he was filming. So if a film was made with artifacts/graininess/softness/low resolution/blurred/blotchy colors/poor contrast/

crushed blacks/noise/film scratches/ , and all these bad visuals were 'intentional', doesn't matter. It still deserves a low ranking because it looks bad. Doesn't matter

what the director was thinking about, the visual quality is an objective

measure and therefore all that matters to this thread.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *youknowryan* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> OTOH since you liked the Prestige and if you have an HD DVD player try Batman Begins, it looks very much the same and you will like it.


----------



## roller11




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> just what did you think "Please keep in mind that the list is not intended to reflect the quality of a director's intention and such judgments should be avoided when assessing picture quality" meant?



I appreciate the fact that you resent being proven wrong, but

do you see the phrase


' is NOT intended to reflect director's intention's'


or are you blinded by your

refusal to admit you are wrong?


Read the quote over and over till you see the word "not".

The word "not" makes me right and you wrong.


I'll say it again and again till you finally get it...the tier idea is a way of

communicating how good a given movie looks in Blu-ray. It is NOT a vehical

to arbitrarily and without basis interpret director's intentions.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *roller11* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I appreciate the fact that you resent being proven wrong, but
> 
> do you see the phrase
> 
> 
> ' is NOT intended to reflect director's intention's'
> 
> 
> or are you blinded by your
> 
> refusal to admit you are wrong?
> 
> 
> Read the quote over and over till you see the word "not".
> 
> The word "not" makes me right and you wrong.
> 
> 
> I'll say it again and again till you finally get it...the tier idea is a way of
> 
> communicating how good a given movie looks in Blu-ray. It is NOT a vehical
> 
> to arbitrarily and without basis interpret director's intentions.



I think we might be able to stop right here. We're clearly reading it differently. By this "For example, Kingdom of Heaven was intentionally shot with a grainy film stock and different color palettes to fit the subject matter, but this stylistic choice did not hinder the sharp detail of the picture" if the stylistic choice HAD hindered the sharp detail of the picture, it would have lost a tier or two?


While I'd guess that your answer is most likely "yes," I fail to see how, in that case, the director's artistic choices are NOT being arbitrarily judged. And by your explanation of the tier system's purpose, an overly grainy film - again by the director's choice - that is digitally cleaned up, would possibly move up a tier or two?


And then there's "A good example of this is the intentional softness of Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. While the picture of the film is very good and looks very film-like, it lacks depth." I believe this movie, like so many recently, is purposely shot to be comic book-like and that the flatness referred to is intentional. So here the director's stylistic choices are clearly being arbitrarily judged.


We used to judge the quality of the _transfer_, i.e. the faithfulness of the DVD to the "reference" - the movie itself. And the first tier's description even says "The picture quality of the transfer is in pristine shape and practically perfect with no visible video artifacts." I find this somewhat self-contradictory, but to substitute "how's it make my home theater look" for that seems superficial.


Just my confused $.02. Perhaps a non-combatant could chime in here with some clarification.


----------



## roller11




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> "For example, Kingdom of Heaven was intentionally shot with a grainy film stock and different color palettes to fit the subject matter, but this stylistic choice did not hinder the sharp detail of the picture" if the stylistic choice HAD hindered the sharp detail of the picture, it would have lost a tier or two?
> 
> 
> While I'd guess that your answer is most likely "yes," I fail to see how, in that case, the director's artistic choices are NOT being arbitrarily judged.



Just like the quote says, KoH has sharp detail, that is the only thing being judged in terms of tier position. Stylistic choice is a subject for a different thread.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> And by your explanation of the tier system's purpose, an overly grainy film - again by the director's choice - that is digitally cleaned up, would possibly move up a tier or two?



Yes, of course it would move up since by definition, less artifacts means

higher ranking. Of course this assumes that no other side effects (e.g.

softness) happen when the artifact 'graininess' is lessened.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> And then there's "A good example of this is the intentional softness of Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. While the picture of the film is very good and looks very film-like, it lacks depth." I believe this movie, like so many recently, is purposely shot to be comic book-like and that the flatness referred to is intentional. So here the director's stylistic choices are clearly being arbitrarily judged.



The stylistic choices are mentioned, but not judged. Again, the quote

says that it is judged on "lack of depth".



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> We used to judge the quality of the _transfer_, i.e. the faithfulness of the DVD to the "reference" - the movie itself. And the first tier's description even says "The picture quality of the transfer is in pristine shape and practically perfect with no visible video artifacts." I find this somewhat self-contradictory,



It is contradictory only because it disagrees with your position.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *roller11* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> So, according to you, all film has grain, so all film is the same. No difference
> 
> in quality, tier 0 = tier 1 = tier 2,etc.
> 
> That makes your post not only ridiculous, but just plain wrong.



Why are you saying that I said things that I didn't say?


That makes your post not only ridiculous, but just plain wrong.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Why are you saying that I said things that I didn't say?
> 
> 
> That makes your post not only ridiculous, but just plain wrong.



Seriously, every single thread that Roller11 posts in, he gets in a huge argument with at least one person......more often than not, a group of people. His ideas are absolutely ridiculous.


----------



## ajamils




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *roller11* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> BY FAR the biggest goof on this list is "Black Hawk Down" ...Tier 1 ?!?
> 
> Are you kidding me? It should be at best Tier 4, probably tier 5, as
> 
> it is extremely grainy. So much so, it almost doesn't look like high
> 
> definition.
> 
> Anyone who gets this title will be extremely disappointed if they believe
> 
> a ranking of tier 1.



Apparently you have no clue what HD is all about. It's not about glossy, over sharped and edge enhanced picture but it is about making the movie look as close as to what the director/producer intended it to look like.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TIMMAYY* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Fett rated Blood Diamond that high and that's how it got there since Fett's list was used as a guideline/starting point with which we'd pick up from there..




The split happened before BD was on Fett's list...


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Haven't seen it. Is it a decent movie?



Added 'Curse of the Golden Flower' to mid-bottom of Tier 1


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *denness544* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Where is Seven Years in Tibet? I thought it looked great. I would vote for Tier 1 at least.



Added to mid tier 1


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajamils* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Just finished watching the remastered version of Fifth Element. It has some soft scenes but overall picture was great. I think that it should be in the middle of Tier 1.



New one coming out today or old one?


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ditch-digger* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> no way....poc is awesome..
> 
> 
> king kong breathtaking....possibly the best pq on any format..




POTC isn't going anywhere. My equipment is top of the line and it looks stunning. The only title I've seen any 3D effect in and which people have commented on it immediately. I've seen none of the artifacting mentioned.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *youknowryan* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Black Hawk Down is most certainly a tier 1 film, as is The Prestige for that matter. Not all films have a glossed over or softened presentation. BHD is supposed to look that way and the transfer is 100% on the money. Now whether or not you like that look is another issue. If that is the case then a good number of BD and HD DVDs will not appeal to you. OTOH since you liked the Prestige and if you have an HD DVD player try Batman Begins, it looks very much the same and you will like it.
> 
> 
> TOPIC CHANGE:
> 
> 
> When will the rerelease of the 5th element be added to the tier list?



BHD isn't moving. Its set in place.


5th element has been added to Tier 1 now...but I've got it coming so it may move depending on what I see...


----------



## AustinSTI

Stop debating film grain...its pointless and been discussed 1000 times before.


Citing artifacting makes a stronger case for moving a movie in its position....


----------



## ajamils




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> New one coming out today or old one?



The Remastered version that is coming out today.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajamils* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The Remastered version that is coming out today.



Yeah saw that after I posted...


----------



## Kevin12586

Has anyone seen Enter the Dragon?


----------



## skipfreely

This damn thread made me drop some bucks. I ordered the 5th element remastered, 300 and The Patriot today on amazon.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kevin12586* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Has anyone seen Enter the Dragon?



I own the HD DVD version which is apparantly identical to the Blu Ray release since they're both VC-1 encodes. The picture quality at the very beginning of the film is crap, but it picks up very quickly to become quite good actually. This release is way better than the regular DVD releases.......I've even done some direct comparisons and it's amazing how much more detail is in the HD DVD/Blu Ray release.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *roller11* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> BHD was not "suppose" to look a certain way, it is what it is. It looks bad/grainy cause
> 
> poor quality film was used.



Man, you really are a piece of work........your posts are actually becoming quite comical.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *skipfreely* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> This damn thread made me drop some bucks. I ordered the 5th element remastered, 300 and The Patriot today on amazon.



Isn't that what we're here for? I've got 5th element arriving today but probably won't get to watch it till tomorrow. You'll be pleased with the patriot for sure; we'll see how warner does with 300. They better not **** it up. I'm comforted by the fact that the Blu-Ray will be better regardless cause the HD-DVD is a combo


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kevin12586* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Has anyone seen Enter the Dragon?



I own Enter the Dragon on BD and finally watched it a couple of days ago. It's nothing to write home about, but as mentioned before, it's better than the SD version. I never had it on DVD so I bought it.


Brandon


----------



## Kevin12586

Thank you both for letting me know about Enter the Dragon, I may end up buying it.


----------



## Johnsteph10




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> BHD isn't moving. Its set in place.
> 
> 
> 5th element has been added to Tier 1 now...but I've got it coming so it may move depending on what I see...



So, now this thread is about YOUR opinion on YOUR equipment?


That is exactly what led to Fett's ending.


----------



## PTB2UTAustin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Johnsteph10* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> So, now this thread is about YOUR opinion on YOUR equipment?
> 
> 
> That is exactly what led to Fett's ending.



I think his implication that his opinion will count IN ADDITION to those that have contributed, not IN PLACE OF. I think that would be fair given he's doing the "heavy lifting" on maintaining the thread, but that's my opinion.


Of course, AustinSTI, if I'm wrong, forgive me for inserting words in your "mouth".


----------



## nharmon91




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *PTB2UTAustin* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I think that would be fair given he's doing the "heavy lifting" on maintaining the thread, but that's my opinion.



Isnt that what fett did?


----------



## learning101




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *roller11* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> BY FAR the biggest goof on this list is "Black Hawk Down" ...Tier 1 ?!?
> 
> Are you kidding me? It should be at best Tier 4, probably tier 5, as
> 
> it is extremely grainy. So much so, it almost doesn't look like high
> 
> definition.
> 
> Anyone who gets this title will be extremely disappointed if they believe
> 
> a ranking of tier 1.




I completely agree. The original thread had many comments that indicated that if a film was grainy, it not given a high rating, regardless of director's intent. Perhaps that has changed with this new thread? If that is the case, this thread will be worthless to me, as I did not buy all of this expensive equipment to watch lousy resolution and grain.


Looking at the definition below, I cannot understand how "grain" and "sharp image" can coexist. It is either grainy or it is sharp .


TIER 1 -GOLD- Still Demo Material, but minor artifacting may be present which the untrained eye may not necessarily spot


Little if any visible compression. Sharp image that has a lot of HD-POP effects. Demo material which can be shown off to friends and family.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *learning101* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I completely agree. The original thread had many comments that indicated that if a film was grainy, it not given a high rating, regardless of director's intent. Perhaps that has changed with this new thread? If that is the case, this thread will be worthless to me, as I did not buy all of this expensive equipment to watch lousy resolution and grain.
> 
> 
> Looking at the definition below, I cannot understand how "grain" and "sharp image" can coexist. It is either grainy or it is sharp .



Not true. "Grain" can be very sharp. Also, graininess has zero to do with "lousy resolution."


But that's not really what I mean to say here. You are entitled to your likes and dislikes, but to dismiss a movie because the director made an artistic choice to use grain as part of his creative expression suggests that you do not fully appreciate all the artform has to offer. And that's OK as well, but don't dismss others if they do.


----------



## learning101




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Not true. "Grain" can be very sharp. Also, graininess has zero to do with "lousy resolution."
> 
> 
> But that's not really what I mean to say here. You are entitled to your likes and dislikes, but to dismiss a movie because the director made an artistic choice to use grain as part of his creative expression suggests that you do not fully appreciate all the artform has to offer. And that's OK as well, but don't diss others if they do.




I do not see any disrespect in my posting. If you can show me where it is, I will be glad to apologize.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Johnsteph10* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> So, now this thread is about YOUR opinion on YOUR equipment?
> 
> 
> That is exactly what led to Fett's ending.



Ahem...it's starting again










Austin, do you now see what you've gotten yourself into? It's a thankless job.


Brandon


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Johnsteph10* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> So, now this thread is about YOUR opinion on YOUR equipment?
> 
> 
> That is exactly what led to Fett's ending.



What led to Fett's ending was whining by HD DVD partisans.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *learning101* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I do not see any disrespect in my posting. If you can show me where it is, I will be glad to apologize.



Good point. Sorry, I overstated. I have edited my post to "dismiss" instead of diss. Would I be needin' to point out the dismissiveness?


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> What led to Fett's ending was whining by HD DVD partisans.



That's what I thought, too. But lists like this can only be subjective and therefore subject to the, evidently, wildly varying opinions of members. We seem to be at a point now where film grain transferred faithfully from the movie, even when not resulting in loss of clarity, is hated enough by some to make the movie unwatchable (by them).


----------



## learning101




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Good point. Sorry, I overstated. I have edited my post to "dismiss" instead of diss. Would I be needin' to point out the dismissiveness?



Haha, no, certainly not. I am very grateful for everything I have learned here, and I try very hard to always be respectful, as I know that folks give a lot of time to help others here.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *learning101* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Haha, no, certainly not. I am very grateful for everything I have learned here, and I try very hard to always be respectful, as I know that folks give a lot of time to help others here.



I guess I don't quite get the abhorrence some have to the presence of grain and some of the other things director can do to a film to evoke a certain feeling. I understand we all want our systems to look and sound as stunning as possible, but these things are legitimate and don't necessarily degrade the clarity.


Just my $.02.


----------



## oleus




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> What led to Fett's ending was whining by HD DVD partisans.



IMHO the rankings and everything related were making a lot more sense when Fett was around. I only agreed with his placements about half the time but i miss his tier threads as opposed to the mishmash we have now.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oleus* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I only agreed with his placements about half the time but i miss his tier threads. . .



I felt and feel the same way.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *PTB2UTAustin* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I think his implication that his opinion will count IN ADDITION to those that have contributed, not IN PLACE OF. I think that would be fair given he's doing the "heavy lifting" on maintaining the thread, but that's my opinion.
> 
> 
> Of course, AustinSTI, if I'm wrong, forgive me for inserting words in your "mouth".



All I was saying is that I've got equipment which could reveal artifacts or not reveal artifacts which others might not have seen or noticed. Since there was only one opinion given on this particular disc I figured a second wouldn't hurt. I'd welcome anyone else's second opinion equally to my own. Knowing my setup is the PRO-FHD1 and 1080p/24 and not everyone is capable of this type of viewing experience I figured it'd be a great second opinion. I don't believe in the 'My word is god' stuff...I value all opinions equally.


You've got got my point exactly so thanks for speaking for me


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Ahem...it's starting again
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Austin, do you now see what you've gotten yourself into? It's a thankless job.
> 
> 
> Brandon




Yeah I can see how Fett would be annoyed with this...but I don't care; I've been pretty receptive to people's opinions. If you guys have one on 5th element by all means provide it...I've seen one posted here.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oleus* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> IMHO the rankings and everything related were making a lot more sense when Fett was around. I only agreed with his placements about half the time but i miss his tier threads as opposed to the mishmash we have now.



If you only agreed with his placements 50% of the time what is is you are saying about the thread now thats problematic? You only agree with 25% now?


----------



## oleus




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> If you only agreed with his placements 50% of the time what is is you are saying about the thread now thats problematic? You only agree with 25% now?



it has nothing to do with percentages of what i "agreed" with..... it has to do with the quality of the discussions/discourse and the back and forth on specific titles. i didn't necessarily need to agree with the Tier placements to get a really good sense of how a transfer stacked up against the others.


BTW, since the tier list is very subjective, i would very highly doubt ANYONE would agree with more than 50% of any given list, given the amount of titles available.


----------



## flar

Question about Curse of the Golden Flower. Needless to say I was blown away, but I've only seen this on Blu-Ray so I have no reference as to how it compares to the DVD. I did watch the "Hidden Secrets" extra and it's astounding how much better the Blu-Ray movie is. Obviously the Secrets video has some interviews and "on the set" shots that were shot on video and they pale in comparison, but it also has some mediocre clips from the actual movie mixed in. Comparing the clips in the Secrets video to the scenes I had just seen in the movie there is a really big difference.


So, my question is - are the clips in the Secrets video a good gauge of how the DVD transfer is/was? Or are they "quick and dirty" transfers that exaggerate the difference in quality between Blu-Ray vs. DVD?


----------



## Supermans




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I felt and feel the same way.




I'm sure many of us do.. PM me if you want me to send you a link to where he is still keeping his tier threads alive...


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oleus* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> i didn't necessarily need to agree with the Tier placements to get a really good sense of how a transfer stacked up against the others.



I don't see why this point seems to be lost on so many people that visit this thread and threads like it.


Brandon


----------



## tjgar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> All I was saying is that I've got equipment which could reveal artifacts or not reveal artifacts which others might not have seen or noticed. Since there was only one opinion given on this particular disc I figured a second wouldn't hurt. I'd welcome anyone else's second opinion equally to my own. Knowing my setup is the PRO-FHD1 and 1080p/24 and not everyone is capable of this type of viewing experience I figured it'd be a great second opinion. I don't believe in the 'My word is god' stuff...I value all opinions equally.
> 
> 
> You've got got my point exactly so thanks for speaking for me



I agree, I think the equipment can make a huge diff. there are some tier placements I just can't agree with, but that could be due to the limitations and strenghs of my system. ( JVC/HD1-136" Carada scope ) To me DMC is NOT the best looking BR that I would use as a demo disc, but to most it is the tops. I would use Apocolypto, or the pcm Fifth element. (probably the TFE because of the AR)

That is why I just use this thread as a general starting point when looking into new software purchases.

I am not saying My opinion is right for everyone, Just on my setup and just to me.


Tony


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oleus* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> it has nothing to do with percentages of what i "agreed" with..... it has to do with the quality of the discussions/discourse and the back and forth on specific titles. i didn't necessarily need to agree with the Tier placements to get a really good sense of how a transfer stacked up against the others.
> 
> 
> BTW, since the tier list is very subjective, i would very highly doubt ANYONE would agree with more than 50% of any given list, given the amount of titles available.




That's good feedback - I recall the old thread unfortunately had similar issues. While there has been some back and forth its been pretty quiet lately and I've respected the opinions of those who can cite problems with transfers or movies. I definately am more likely to lower a movie's tier if someone can cite artifacting (as was the case with apocalypto) than someone who just says 'it doesn't belong there'. The why is important and I'm pretty receptive to peoples thoughts around this. In any case its a guideline for helping those on the fence about a given movie decide for sure whether they want to buy it.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tjgar* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I agree, I think the equipment can make a huge diff. there are some tier placements I just can't agree with l, but that could be due to the limitations and strenghs of my system. ( JVC/HD1-136" Carada scope ) To me DMC is NOT the best looking BR that I would use as a demo disc, but to most it is the tops. I would use Apocolypto, or the pcm Fifth element. (probably the TFE because of the AR)
> 
> That is why I just use this thread as a general starting point when looking into new software purchases.
> 
> I am not saying My opinion is right for everyone, Just on my setup and just to me.
> 
> 
> Tony



I think the AR on Apocalypto gives it more preference with some people (no black bars/no OAR). Having seen DMC its the only movie I've felt any kind of serious 3d effect with (that being the menu). I don't know how it'd look on a projector since I don't have one (and your screen is double the size of my TV; almost triple. I think anyone thinking about buying a given film shouldn't hesitate if that film is in tier 0 or 1 and maybe even 2.


What people choose to demo is up to them - what they feel best highlights their setup. I have ****** AQ right now because I'm running a 10 year old DD Sony Reciever which supports DD and DTS but thats it. I wouldn't be able to rate **** when it comes to AQ...but PQ is a whole nother story.


----------



## lgans316

Please add Face-off (J) and The Rock (U.K) to Tier 2 if possible.


----------



## maverick0716

I just watched Deja Vu tonight and I really can't agree with it's Tier placement.........I think it should be quite a bit higher. This was one of the most eye-popping transfers I've seen yet on HD DVD and Blu Ray.......there are a few flat scenes, but 95% of the movie looks fantastic!


----------



## kmiller32906

Great reference guide. I would swap Ultraviolet and Aeon Flux though. Just my opinion.


----------



## Eric_Connelly

After watching a few BD's now in the Tier 1 level....for pure PQ I can't see how Crank is not a perfect example of PQ.


Nothing has come close to it so far. I think in the posts where people comment on how good a movie in equipment wise its important to note 1080p TV's vs 720P TV's.


Seeing Crank at full res(1080p), over 35-40mpbs in sections is fantastic and a level of detail I see sparingly in other discs, but constantly in this one.


----------



## kmiller32906

Flags of our fathers should get some kind of honorable mention for most of the special features being in HD. Heck, even Pirates has SD special features.


----------



## akrias




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> POTC isn't going anywhere. My equipment is top of the line and it looks stunning. The only title I've seen any 3D effect in and which people have commented on it immediately. I've seen none of the artifacting mentioned.



Austin, can ou please compare my pics to your POTC DMC movie and verify what i am seeing is not normal?


ive swapped disks, ps3s and cables. not sure what else to do to fix this.


keep in mind, these are from a camera phone, please ignore the overall PQ as it is low. even still, the artifacts I speak of are still aparent.


1st pic is a close up of the artifacting, its rotated 90 defrees, the right side of the pic is actually the bottom.


2nd pic is the overall scene, please note most all greenery over his chest is distorted, almost like EXTREME colobanding.


3rd pic is a general close up of the area I hate the most right ver his chest.


please tell me what this is and what i can do to make it go away.


----------



## bplewis24

akrias, that doesn't look normal at all.


I haven't seen the movie in a few weeks though. What's the time on that frame?


Brandon


----------



## Xylon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tjgar* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> ITo me DMC is NOT the best looking BR that I would use as a demo disc, but to most it is the tops.
> 
> Tony



You are not alone with this. I still scratch my head on why is that up there. AVS members already explained in detail the reasons. There are at least a dozen BD movies on that list thats better overall PQ than DMC. It shouldn't be too hard based on the basic parameters set forth for TIER list.


We taught the hype will go away and the OP will adjust accordingly so we just shrugged it off. But its been over a month . . . . . . . . . .


----------



## Supermans




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Xylon* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> You are not alone with this. I still scratch my head on why is that up there. AVS members already explained in detail the reasons. There are at least a dozen BD movies on that list thats better overall PQ than DMC. It shouldn't be too hard based on the basic parameters set forth for TIER list.
> 
> 
> We taught the hype will go away and the OP will adjust accordingly so we just shrugged it off. But its been over a month . . . . . . . . . .




What non-animated movies do you feel should be placed above POTC: DMC? And do you feel any HD-DVD movie's surpass POTC: DMC in quality??


----------



## akrias




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> akrias, that doesn't look normal at all.
> 
> 
> I haven't seen the movie in a few weeks though. What's the time on that frame?
> 
> 
> Brandon



It's in chapter 9 time is 42 minutes and 35 seconds. plus or minus a few seconds. It is the whole scene where the spear plunges into the ground beside his head, right before it switches to the overhead view and the fruit falls around him.



ive got upscaled standard def dvds that look better than this =/


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Xylon* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> You are not alone with this. I still scratch my head on why is that up there. AVS members already explained in detail the reasons. There are at least a dozen BD movies on that list thats better overall PQ than DMC. It shouldn't be too hard based on the basic parameters set forth for TIER list.
> 
> 
> We taught the hype will go away and the OP will adjust accordingly so we just shrugged it off. But its been over a month . . . . . . . . . .



At least a dozen that should be higher than DMC? Like what?


----------



## kmiller32906

Does anyone know of a link that lists the codecs for each individual movie?


----------



## kmiller32906

Superman. The only transfer I have seen that rivals PoTC DMC is King Kong on HD-DVD. But that is due to the fact that Universal outsourced much of the transfer coding to microsoft, and they spent months and gobs of money on the transfer to be a show piece for the format. There are more upper echelon blu-ray's than HD-DVD's right now in terms of PQ. Hellboy rivals PoTC for my money, but it gets overlooked because many people are not fans of the movie.


----------



## Mongoos150

No 300 yet?


----------



## flar

akrias, I didn't see any of the distortions you saw using my Sony BDP-S300 connected to my Panasonic TH-42PZ700U via an HDMI cable (forget brand).


The distortions in the screen shots you attached look a lot like the " purple banding " effect that many are complaining of on the last generation Panasonic plasmas. The effect was seen on other sets (and from other manufacurers), but seemed particularly notable on those sets and was eventually determined to be a defect in one of the boards. It's possible that your Mits LCD could be suffering from a similar phenomenon.


That thread (linked above to the words purple banding) has a lot of screen shots of the problem that look close to your DMC captures - it also has some test photos you can download and try to view using a computer or a JPG enabled video component that might also show the problem. There are more test images linked from this post .


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *akrias* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Austin, can ou please compare my pics to your POTC DMC movie and verify what i am seeing is not normal?
> 
> 
> ive swapped disks, ps3s and cables. not sure what else to do to fix this.
> 
> 
> keep in mind, these are from a camera phone, please ignore the overall PQ as it is low. even still, the artifacts I speak of are still aparent.
> 
> 
> 1st pic is a close up of the artifacting, its rotated 90 defrees, the right side of the pic is actually the bottom.
> 
> 
> 2nd pic is the overall scene, please note most all greenery over his chest is distorted, almost like EXTREME colobanding.
> 
> 
> 3rd pic is a general close up of the area I hate the most right ver his chest.
> 
> 
> please tell me what this is and what i can do to make it go away.



Man that doesn't look right at all...I haven't compared to my setup yet but those pics look weird. I see the purple glow around his arms and chest. I'll check the timing tonight and maybe upload pics if I get so motivated.


As for those detractors saying that DMC isn't demo material I say what's next? Every movie in Tier 0 is under fire these days it'd seem. Even the professional reviewers have said that DMC is the best PQ movie to date. I'd like those that say there are movies that should be above it to name them and provide reasoning rather than simply saying 'it doesn't belong there'. When this movie first came out I remember there was a similar debate in Fett's thread of the merits of this movie versus chicken little. It was discussed at length why comparing an animated film like that to live action isn't necessarily an equal comparison and decided that DMC was in fact better in terms of PQ.


I'm open to hearing opinions but they have the be backed up with facts, timecodes, locations of artifacts, etc so that they can be compared or I will disregard. akrias' post with images should be the model for all future posts surrounding tier debating and I applaud him.


One final note: I have yet to screen TFE because stupid UPS can't find the package...more to come.


300 isn't up yet cause no one's gotten it - release = 7/31.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *flar* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> akrias, I didn't see any of the distortions you saw using my Sony BDP-S300 connected to my Panasonic TH-42PZ700U via an HDMI cable (forget brand).
> 
> 
> The distortions in the screen shots you attached look a lot like the " purple banding " effect that many are complaining of on the last generation Panasonic plasmas. The effect was seen on other sets (and from other manufacurers), but seemed particularly notable on those sets and was eventually determined to be a defect in one of the boards. It's possible that your Mits LCD could be suffering from a similar phenomenon.
> 
> 
> That thread (linked above to the words purple banding) has a lot of screen shots of the problem that look close to your DMC captures - it also has some test photos you can download and try to view using a computer or a JPG enabled video component that might also show the problem. There are more test images linked from this post .



Akias: Report back on your findings here...interesting indeed and this could underscore the differences between setups. Again I'll check your timecode tonight on my PRO-FHD1 for comparison and maybe take a high res photo or two.


----------



## akrias

Ok, now I have seen these links and links to posterization and false contouring, this is definatly what I'm having trouble with. Does anyone know the why or the how? Is the only way to fix the problem is switch sets? Treid DMC at best buy, my same disk, and the scenes showed up flawlessly. This is definatly a set issue.


----------



## akrias

I've been trying for 2 weeks now. The first people I contacted was Mitsubishi. This all started Feb 1st 07. I bought a 65" diamond Mitsubishi dlp. Almost immediately I began to get airflow blocked problems that are so common with that set. Mitsubishi's tech came out and fixed it. Thirty minutes after she left, boom check air flow message, TV will shut itself off in one minute.


Mitsubishi agreed at this time that the only option was to replace the set for a new one. I agreed, the tech came out and picked my set up and left me empty handed. When I called Mitsubishi, they explained a replacement set would not be available at my original retailer for about two more weeks. I expressed disappointment for having to go on without a TV in the house for two weeks. The representative was shocked to find the tech had already picked up my old set. Apparently, they are not supposed to pick up the old set until you have your new set.


I asked, then, if I could switch technologies for a TV they had in stock, or at least would be by the next day. I told the representative that the rainbow effect of the dlp was troublesome to me anyway. The representative agreed and allowed me to switch for a set he called a a $5,500 set. I received the Mitsubishi LT-46231 Diamond series LCD. Of course, I had to make an eight hour round trip from Willcox, AZ to Tempe, AZ to pick the set up myself as Mitsubishi refused to pay the $250 shipping fees.


Once I got the set home and hooked up, I was immediately impressed by the overall picture quality using my PS3 as my HD source at 1080p. I decided to read buyer comments on www.amazon.com . That was the worst decision I could have made at that point. Amazon had the TV listed at $2,999. I was disappointed to say the least. When I called the representative back, he informed me the set had debuted at $5,499 in October 2006. I took my lumps and thought to myself, Well, sure, things depreciate over time.


No less than three days after getting the set into my home, Mitsubishi discontinues the model. Needless to say, without discussing current prices, the price dropped even further. My original investment has now dropped from 65 and $3,000+ to 46 and barely $2000.


I decided not to worry myself about such things and just enjoy the set I have now. I sit back and pop in my brand new Pirates of The Caribbean, which is when I begin to see these distortions. I call Mitsubishi and I am told to write a letter detailing my problems. At this point, I assume I am left to do my own research on the subject, so I spend the better part of a week and a half researching, bugging you forum members, and calling IFS certified professional calibrators. I thoughtfully and professionally compose my email and send it to Mitsubishi, by this time I am dealing with a man who is the head of tier 2 support.


This morning, he calls me and informs me that he has forwarded my email on to his Engineering Department and they are reviewing my email. He then asks me to physically mail him my Pirates Blu Ray disk. I explained to him, I had already exchanged the disk at Best Buy to no avail. He insists the engineers need to see my source material that I am having problems with. So, off I go to Priority Overnight my only BD title I own. Shipping is of course, to be paid out of pocket. I also wonder how long it will take to get the movie back, and once it is returned, what condition it will be in.


This is, in my opinion, not the same level of customer service I received when I had to exchange the first set. Then again, they did a nice bait and switch job on me with the price of the new set, so why should I be surprised at this point?


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *akrias* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I've been trying for 2 weeks now. . . .
> 
> 
> This is, in my opinion, not the same level of customer service I received when I had to exchange the first set. Then again, they did a nice bait and switch job on me with the price of the new set, so why should I be surprised at this point?



You seem considerably calmer than I would be in your shoes.


----------



## AustinSTI

Wow that blows Akrias....


----------



## Xylon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> At least a dozen that should be higher than DMC? Like what?



Not in particular PQ order:


Apocalypto


Black Snake Moan - Not because there is boobies in HD. Daylight scenes look much, much better than DMC and has more "3D effect"










Crank - Its shot on video. Contrast too hot. Crappy movie. But at the end of the day the PQ is nice.


The Messengers - Not popular here at AVS. But for PQ standpoint its consistent. The dark scenes are nice. Details in most part is preserved. At the end of the movie where they show the sunflowers at full bloom. Nice.


The Patriot - Sharp and detailed. Excellent PQ.


Hellboy - About the same level as DMC but this one handles the dark scenes much better.


Curse Of the Golden Flower - A movie full of demo material. From the bright, colorful indoor scene to the climactic battle of which is shot at night. I'm very impressed with how this BD was able to preserve all the colorful costumes and weapons without too much artifacting and smearing (macroblocking is minimal).


Corpse Bride - Top of the list. I agree.

Scanner Darkly

Chicken Little

Happy Feet

The Wild

Ant Bully

Happily N' Ever aFter


Dejavu - An excellent example where a high-bitrate VC-1 rears its pretty head










Phantom of The Opera - No love for the PQ of this movie at AVS. Is it because its a musical?










The Prestige - THIS is how dark scenes should look. Forget the movies I listed above. Just watch this side by side with DMC (assuming your viewing set is calibrated). Its not as bright and colorful nor there as much special effects, but when you look at the overall consistency of this AVC encoded disc its much superior overall.


Sure DMC looks very good, but what grinds my gears is putting it on top of a AVS tier list and the mantra "Completely flawless picture. No artifacts whatsoever, no matter how small." The first chapter where Elizabeth is outside while raining - macroblocking galore, The chapter where Jack and Bootstrap are sharing rum below deck - too much grain and at the same time losing picture detail. The chapter where we got introduced to Davy Jones . . . . . .


This is not even "blink and you miss it" problems. They are very obvious. Of course you can see problems too in the movies I mentioned before because there is no "flawless picture". But those movies in general look better in overall PQ over DMC. You can throw arguments against them then I will throw arguments against DMC. _I don't bite into hype, I look at them objectively._


I have seen these movies many, many times on several calibrated setups (ISF or Spyder TV Pro) including looking at them veeeeeeery closely (I know, I know its creepy) using digital captures on a widescreen Dell monitor 2' feet away










As long as AVS know where I stand with this TIER thread its all good. You can keep DMC on top and I'm done with this subject.


----------



## millerman3732

I agree with Xylon, and I'll probably get flamed for it but I've watch DMC atleast a dozen times to try and see what all the fuss is about but i just don't see it.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerman3732* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I agree with Xylon, and I'll probably get flamed for it but I've watch DMC atleast a dozen times to try and see what all the fuss is about but i just don't see it.



What don't you see!? It's as clear as a mother****er! lol


----------



## millerman3732

To me it just dosn't have the POP , or what ever we're all calling it now, or 3-D effects that Apocalypto and Crank have.


----------



## ajamils




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerman3732* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I agree with Xylon, and I'll probably get flamed for it but I've watch DMC atleast a dozen times to try and see what all the fuss is about but i just don't see it.



Same here. I'll take Apocalypto, Messengers or Patriot over it any day.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *millerman3732* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I agree with Xylon, and I'll probably get flamed for it but I've watch DMC atleast a dozen times to try and see what all the fuss is about but i just don't see it.



I think you are far more likely to get flamed for saying that you have watched a movie "at least a dozen times" just to try and "see what all the fuss is about"!
























Especially a movie as craptastic as DMC...


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I think you are far more likely to get flamed for saying that you have watched a movie "at least a dozen times" just to try and "see what all the fuss is about"!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Especially a movie as craptastic as DMC...



Putting aside PQ evaluations, this is definitely an unbelievably tedious and boring movie to try to force yourself to watch.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Putting aside PQ evaluations, this is definitely an unbelievably tedious and boring movie to try to force yourself to watch.



I'm pretty sure that the point with this thread is to NOT put PQ aside and let your personal likes and dislikes enter the discussion.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure that the point with this thread is to NOT put PQ aside and let your personal likes and dislikes enter the discussion.



I think Rob is to blame for introducing this OT tangent.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I think Rob is to blame for introducing this OT tangent.



Anyone that looks like Peter O'Toole gets one pass.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Anyone that looks like Peter O'Toole gets one pass.


----------



## AustinSTI

Well he makes good points but having seen the patriot its not better than DMC though I viewed it and thought they were certainly close to one another in terms of PQ.


The story for DMC...well thats another story entirely. The movie itself sucked nuts.


----------



## wmitchell23

Just finished watching Purple Rain and it gets my vote for Tier 3.


I've read that this print used was from the most recent DVD special edition and could tell they did clean up the print as much as they possibly could.


The dark scenes on the BD are very grainy but film-like. The outdoor scenes are nice and clean but pretty bland since they filmed right as fall turned to winter. The picture is slightly soft with not much fine detail.


The live performances are very nice and do have some _minor_ 3D pop.


Overall it's not too bad, but I wasn't completely blown away.


----------



## wmitchell23

Let me be first to say: The Host - Tier 0


Not even 10 minutes into the film and I've said OMG twice already. The color is amazing and the amount of detail actually hurt my eyes (and that's sitting 10 ft away from a 50" display).


The CGI creature is not quite believable at times but the movie is pretty cool.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wmitchell23* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Let me be first to say: The Host - Tier 0
> 
> 
> Not even 10 minutes into the film and I've said OMG twice already. The color is amazing and the amount of detail actually hurt my eyes (and that's sitting 10 ft away from a 50" display).
> 
> 
> The CGI creature is not quite believable at times but the movie is pretty cool.



Tier 0 is reserved for the best of the best so before I start another firestorm by putting this into Tier 0 I'd like someone else to confirm that it should in fact be tier 0. I respect your opion but rather than create an argument let's get confirmation










On Another note I finally watched TFE and it is a solid Tier 1. I think the placement is accurate.


----------



## DarthRune

What does the (BW) stand for in the listing? Can't find an explanation anywhere...


E.g.


Black Hawk Down (BW)(PCM)

Resident Evil: Apocalypse (PCM)(BW)


----------



## Teepanen

Blu-Wizard.


Quote:

_In a nutshell, Blu-Wizard is a way to create your own user-selected menu of a supplemental content, and customize how you watch it. You can also, of course, access all of a disc's extras the traditional way (select the "Special Features" submenu, etc.), but if you click one more spot to the right on the main menu and highlight "Blu-Wizard," you'll be greeted with a checklist of supplements. In the case of 'Black Hawk Down,' only the six chapters of feature-length documentary supplement are offered. Check off the chapters you want, hit "Playlist," and the material you selected will play in the order it appears on the list._


----------



## 30XS955 User

Hi there. I'd just like to commend the placement of PotC 1. Looks great for the mos part, but not perfect throughout.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Tier 0 is reserved for the best of the best so before I start another firestorm by putting this into Tier 0 I'd like someone else to confirm that it should in fact be tier 0. I respect your opion but rather than create an argument let's get confirmation



I definitly agree with you there........for a movie to be placed in Tier 0, it should have confirmation from several people.


----------



## jewing1043




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Teepanen* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Blu-Wizard.
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> _In a nutshell, Blu-Wizard is a way to create your own user-selected menu of a supplemental content, and customize how you watch it. You can also, of course, access all of a disc's extras the traditional way (select the "Special Features" submenu, etc.), but if you click one more spot to the right on the main menu and highlight "Blu-Wizard," you'll be greeted with a checklist of supplements. In the case of 'Black Hawk Down,' only the six chapters of feature-length documentary supplement are offered. Check off the chapters you want, hit "Playlist," and the material you selected will play in the order it appears on the list._




Thanks alot


I have been scratching my head and searching around for awhile on that one


Thanks again


----------



## diceburna




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajamils* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Same here. I'll take Apocalypto, Messengers or Patriot over it any day.



Yep I agree w/ Xylon too, but I've come to learn that my tastes in PQ is quite different from most ppl in this forum. DMC is nice but its not Tier 0. I only buy the best and right now the Blu-Rays that I felt was worth my hard earned dollars were:


1. Crank

2. Apocolypto

3. Curse of The Golden Flower


Now the animations are top notch and I think we all know that. If I had kids I'll definitely buy more of them. BTW what happened to the original guy that used to make the list? Did he quit?


----------



## tauheel05

'Apocalypto' should definitely be in tier 0. It's one of the best (if not the best) high def discs in terms of PQ. I vote for tier 0!


----------



## AustinSTI

Yeah well the Apocalypto thing is done - dead and finished. It'll remain where it is which is high tier 0. I really am beginning to believe that the whole split of tier 1 and tier 0 some months ago was more confusing than anything else. Truthfully anything within mid-top tier 1 and tier 0 will likely be interchangable or debatable because of setup differences etc. Every movie I've seen in these two tiers looks awesome.


----------



## Teepanen

I agree and certainly would not change its position. To me Tier 0 has to be perfect and Apocalypto is nice but not consistent throughout. Some shots look grainy when film is used. To me it is quite noticable and a little bit distracting. I wish HD cameras where used for the entire movie, I would probably then vote for Tier 0 as well.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Watched The Fifth Element (remastered) last night.


WOW! Thanks Sony! This is what we were all expecting and hoping for to begin with. They really cleaned it up. There is some grain, but that rarely takes away from the clarity, detail and sharpness. Good depth too.


I agree with it's Tier 1 placement.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Watched The Fifth Element (remastered) last night.
> 
> 
> WOW! Thanks Sony! This is what we were all expecting and hoping for to begin with. They really cleaned it up. There is some grain, but that rarely takes away from the clarity, detail and sharpness. Good depth too.
> 
> 
> I agree with it's Tier 1 placement.



The poll suggests the great majority agree but to my eyes there is nothing in DMC that comes anywhere close to the facial close-ups in TFE. They are breathtaking.


----------



## oleus




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Teepanen* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I agree and certainly would not change its position. To me Tier 0 has to be perfect and Apocalypto is nice but not consistent throughout. Some shots look grainy when film is used. To me it is quite noticable and a little bit distracting. I wish HD cameras where used for the entire movie, I would probably then vote for Tier 0 as well.



hmm that's kind of the opposite of my thoughts on it...i think i would have preferred the whole thing shot on FILM as opposed to HD video. i didn't really like the subtle motion-blurring that seemed to keep happening in the HD portions....


----------



## oleus




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The poll suggests the great majority agree but to my eyes there is nothing in DMC that comes anywhere close to the facial close-ups in TFE. They are breathtaking.



so are you guys getting your FIFTH ELEMENT discs replaced by sony or are you just biting the bullet and buying new copies??? are they already sneding out replacements?


----------



## hobbs47

TFE remastered does look excellent.Agree with it's placement as well.I didn't think Curse of the Golden Flower was that great,at least for where it's placed,I expected a little more pop.Colors and asian cleavage was nice.I gotta admit I really only skimmed through it looking for that cleavage







Never mind.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oleus* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> so are you guys getting your FIFTH ELEMENT discs replaced by sony or are you just biting the bullet and buying new copies??? are they already sneding out replacements?



I bought a new one. I thought it would be interesting to have the old one for comparative purposes. But I haven't done that yet.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The poll suggests the great majority agree but to my eyes there is nothing in DMC that comes anywhere close to the facial close-ups in TFE. They are breathtaking.



Haven't seen DMC yet, but the facial close ups in TFE are, indeed, excellent. You could count every whisker on Bruce Willis' face!


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Haven't seen DMC yet, but the facial close ups in TFE are, indeed, excellent. You could count every whisker on Bruce Willis' face!



Many other faces as well.


I assume most would agree that the closeups of Milla Jovovich are probably the highlight, though.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Many other faces as well.
> 
> 
> I assume most would agree that the closeups of Milla Jovovich are probably the highlight, though.


----------



## jedurocher




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oleus* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> so are you guys getting your FIFTH ELEMENT discs replaced by sony or are you just biting the bullet and buying new copies??? are they already sneding out replacements?



Got mine replaced and received it in the mail on Wednesday.


----------



## kmiller32906

When ya movin New TFM ot tier 0? Crank should be considered too. Hellboy as a long shot. (most underrated pq of any BR)


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Hellboy looks great.


----------



## ajamils




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Hellboy looks great.



+1. It was a lot better than what i had expected.


----------



## Anthony1

banding or no banding, Ice Age should be at the bottom of the Gold Tier. Really, it shouldn't even be at the bottom of that tier, but there is no way on God's green earth it should be 3 tiers down.


----------



## Teepanen

Just watched The Fifth Element remastered in my 46LX177, can someone please explain to me why this is not Tier 0? It was amazing, 3-d pop throughout! Granted, I have not seen DMC yet, but I can not imagine to be much better...


Changing gears... I do not see Incubus Alive at Red Rocks on the list. Please add it to mid Tier 3. It seems they used different cameras for this one, similar to Apocalypto. Most of the time the image is quite sharp, but a couple of cam angles make this one look like garbage. More specifically shots of the crowd and looking at stage from the side/back were ridiclulosuly grainy and it looked like the brightness was cranked up artificially. It really brought down the whole visual experience.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Teepanen* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Just watched The Fifth Element remastered in my 46LX177, can someone please explain to me why this is not Tier 0? It was amazing, 3-d pop throughout! Granted, I have not seen DMC yet, but I can not imagine to be much better...



It is extremely good, but not perfect.


Don't get too hung up on the Tier. Realize this: it is currently ranked as the 10th best Blu-ray movie ever released in terms of PQ on this list.


----------



## Tom Monahan

Why isn't edge enhancement taken into account on this tier thread? Crank has amazing detail but the EE is horrible. EE on a front projection screen can be very annoying and to me at least makes the image look like edgy video not film.


Tom


----------



## Teepanen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> It is extremely good, but not perfect.
> 
> 
> Don't get too hung up on the Tier. Realize this: it is currently ranked as the 10th best Blu-ray movie ever released in terms of PQ on this list.



I feel you. I also own Corpse Bride and realize that it is really difficult to compare to an animated title but I would put TFE above it in terms of "Wow, this looks nice!".


I would also put this above Apocalypto , which I also own, simply due to shots that didnt look as good in the latter. For example, waterfall scene when the guys chasing main character appear from the jungle, it gets a lot grainier then most of the filck and just doesn't look as sharp. There are other examples of incosistencies in Apocalypto, none of which were apparent to me in TFE. I know that I probably wont convince anybody to bump this title up in the Tier thread, but to me it is the best visual experience I have had on BD as of yet.


----------



## John Ballentine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Anthony1* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> banding or no banding, Ice Age should be at the bottom of the Gold Tier. Really, it shouldn't even be at the bottom of that tier, but there is no way on God's green earth it should be 3 tiers down.



I agree 10000%! Ice Age is a real stunner. I use it as my animation demo disc. Never fails to greatly impress. And I simply don't see any banding (it must be very slight).


I still don't understand how League of Extraordinary Gentlemen can be rated soooo high??? Very inconsistent image (so disappointed I almost sold it on e-bay). And Ice Age rates just one spot above it ...? What am I missing here??? (besides my mind







)


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Ballentine* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I agree 10000%! Ice Age is a real stunner. I use it as my animation demo disc. Never fails to greatly impress. And I simply don't see any banding (it must be very slight).



I also agree with this. I do see the banding, but it is pretty minor and really does little to take away from the otherwise stunning images!


----------



## BGLeduc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Teepanen* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Just watched The Fifth Element remastered in my 46LX177, can someone please explain to me why this is not Tier 0? It was amazing, 3-d pop throughout! Granted, I have not seen DMC yet, but I can not imagine to be much better...



I do have DMC, and in my view TFE is better....in fact, its the best non-animation HD release I own. Simply spectacular on my rig.


Brian


----------



## ajamils

skimmed through "Shooter" and "Bridge to Terabithia" last night and following is my take on the PQ


Shooter: Some closeup are absolutely stunning while other wide shots are soft. 3d pop ranges from very good to none, in different scenes. I will put this one in high tier 2.


Bridge to Terabithia: Looks stunning. Plenty of 3D pop. Definitely belongs in middle tier 1.


----------



## getmyrunon

Anyone else feel that "The Sentinel" is a little too high? Maybe I was soured on it because it ended up being such a lousy movie...


----------



## dazbug

Agree on Ice Age 2


Crank should be tier 0, best live action pic my eyes have ever seen on hd dvd/blu-ray. amazes me every time i see it.


----------



## BjornK




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tom Monahan* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Why isn't edge enhancement taken into account on this tier thread? Crank has amazing detail but the EE is horrible. EE on a front projection screen can be very annoying and to me at least makes the image look like edgy video not film.
> 
> 
> Tom



Exactly, I agree 100%. I was very distracted by the obvious EE on my 90" screen...










I also fully agree that Ice age should be at the very least mid tier 1.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Teepanen* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Just watched The Fifth Element remastered in my 46LX177, can someone please explain to me why this is not Tier 0? It was amazing, 3-d pop throughout! Granted, I have not seen DMC yet, but I can not imagine to be much better...
> 
> 
> Changing gears... I do not see Incubus Alive at Red Rocks on the list. Please add it to mid Tier 3. It seems they used different cameras for this one, similar to Apocalypto. Most of the time the image is quite sharp, but a couple of cam angles make this one look like garbage. More specifically shots of the crowd and looking at stage from the side/back were ridiclulosuly grainy and it looked like the brightness was cranked up artificially. It really brought down the whole visual experience.



This has been added.


As for TFE I want to comment. I would agree the PQ is great on it, however it won't be moved to tier 0 without more of a consensus as moving things into that tier tends to stir up the pot. I think there was a poll at one point where the majority thought it was Tier 1. You should not hesitate to buy anything that is tier 0 or tier 1 as you can expect excellent PQ.


----------



## AustinSTI

Wow ok...to Sum up:


Ice Age 2 should be Mid Tier 1

Crank Belongs in Tier 0

Teribithia belongs in Mid Tier 1

Shooter High Tier 2

Sentinal is too high - where should it go?


I'll comment on EE - my screen is a 50: plasma; not everyone has these monster screens and I suspect EE isn't as apparent on smaller ones.


For those movies where changes in position are being requested I'll need confirmation from another person that they agree since I don't have any of them myself and as a result cannot refute/confirm these points.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I'll comment on EE - my screen is a 50: plasma; not everyone has these monster screens and I suspect EE isn't as apparent on smaller ones.



Thank you for taking the time and effort to start and maintain this thread. I'm sure that there's a lot of members like me who follow it and rarely post, but still consider it a valuable resource/reference. I have posted a few times, mostly questioning the "ground rules" for deciding the tier (and position within the tier). My last few posts were regarding artistic choices that affect color palette and clarity.


This post is regarding the issue of screen size exposing shortcomings in PQ. It certainly makes sense that some assumption should be made about an upper limit on screen size, e.g. nobody is using a cinemaplex, but quite a few _are_ using 1920 x 1080 displays these days, and quite a few of those _are_ front projectors. (And it might even be safe to say that, regardless one's screen size, everyone would like a 100"+ screen!) So, without starting a firestorm, my question is this: Should greater weight be given to the observations and comments from members with large screens as they may be able to see flaws in PQ that others might miss? And if that's too controversial and/or elitist, how about everyone commenting on a film list their source and display?


As I read back over my post, I hope it is taken in the vein that I intend it and not as an insult to anyone who does not have a large, high end system.







My point is that, since this is pretty much all subjective, the more everyone knows about the "reviewer's system" - pretty much a standard in reviews - the easier it would be to establish some sort of baseline and to draw conclusions about how a particular movie will look on one's own system.


----------



## wmitchell23

Purple Rain: Lower tier 3 or even 4

The Host: Tier 1 (at least)


I posted my impressions on both these titles eariler in the thread as well as another thread on the board. I can't believe that no one who has been following the tier list has commented on The Host yet.


If it can't be Tier 0 (like I suggested earlier) then at least put it on the list somewhere and let it fight it's way to the top instead of not listing it at all.










Edited to give my display details as suggested in the post above:

50" 1080p DLP, PS3 through HDMI


----------



## BjornK




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Crank Belongs in Tier 0 .



IMHO Crank is already placed much too high at high tier 1, but to move it up to tier 0 would be to ignore the rules clearly specifying 'No artifacts whatsoever, no matter how small', when several people including myself have pointed out that is has obvious EE problems.



> Quote:
> I'll comment on EE - my screen is a 50: plasma; not everyone has these monster screens and I suspect EE isn't as apparent on smaller ones.
> 
> 
> For those movies where changes in position are being requested I'll need confirmation from another person that they agree since I don't have any of them myself and as a result cannot refute/confirm these points.



Obviously everyone doesn't have 100" screens or 1080p displays for that matter, but that shouldn't mean that those who DO, would somehow be ineligible to point out PQ issues with a disc. After all, the whole point of this thread is PQ quality, regardless of your equipment. Contrarily, the bigger and better your display, the better your chances should be of spotting any artifacts in the video so I support pepar's suggestion that everyone notes their display equipment in their posts. Not to point fingers at those who do not have 100"/1080p, but simply to see their point of view to be able to make a better decision...


Oh, and I don't see how having front projectors would be considered "elitist", since most people with flat panel LCDs and Plasma TV's probably paid a lot more for their displays than I have for my projector.


----------



## giomania




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BjornK* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Obviously everyone doesn't have 100" screens or 1080p displays for that matter, but that shouldn't mean that those who DO, would somehow be ineligible to point out PQ issues with a disc. After all, the whole point of this thread is PQ quality, regardless of your equipment. Contrarily, the bigger and better your display, the better your chances should be of spotting any artifacts in the video so I support pepar's suggestion that everyone notes their display equipment in their posts. Not to point fingers at those who do not have 100"/1080p, but simply to see their point of view to be able to make a better decision...
> 
> 
> Oh, and I don't see how having front projectors would be considered "elitist", since most people with flat panel LCDs and Plasma TV's probably paid a lot more for their displays than I have for my projector.



I agree that it isn't necessarily considered elitist to have a front projector these days, as there are some great, affordable rigs out there. The problem is the screen you use becomes a very important piece of the display system.


I suspect there are alot of enthusiasts out there who spend $2,000 - $4,000 on a PJ and cannot justify the extra expense for a quality screen, as that can add another $1,000 - $3,000 to the cost. For example, my 110" Stewart StudioTek 130 fixed frame screen lists for $2,400. When you add the cost of a good screen to the mix, then we might be back in the high-end category.


Mark


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wmitchell23* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Purple Rain: Lower tier 3 or even 4
> 
> The Host: Tier 1 (at least)
> 
> 
> I posted my impressions on both these titles eariler in the thread as well as another thread on the board. I can't believe that no one who has been following the tier list has commented on The Host yet.
> 
> 
> If it can't be Tier 0 (like I suggested earlier) then at least put it on the list somewhere and let it fight it's way to the top instead of not listing it at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edited to give my display details as suggested in the post above:
> 
> 50" 1080p DLP, PS3 through HDMI



Updated with the HOST and Purple Rain.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BjornK* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> IMHO Crank is already placed much too high at high tier 1, but to move it up to tier 0 would be to ignore the rules clearly specifying 'No artifacts whatsoever, no matter how small', when several people including myself have pointed out that is has obvious EE problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously everyone doesn't have 100" screens or 1080p displays for that matter, but that shouldn't mean that those who DO, would somehow be ineligible to point out PQ issues with a disc. After all, the whole point of this thread is PQ quality, regardless of your equipment. Contrarily, the bigger and better your display, the better your chances should be of spotting any artifacts in the video so I support pepar's suggestion that everyone notes their display equipment in their posts. Not to point fingers at those who do not have 100"/1080p, but simply to see their point of view to be able to make a better decision...
> 
> 
> Oh, and I don't see how having front projectors would be considered "elitist", since most people with flat panel LCDs and Plasma TV's probably paid a lot more for their displays than I have for my projector.




First let me say that I don't take anything on this topic personally nor do I take offense to this; if I did I'd ignore it. Your points are valid and constructive which is all I asked when people highlight or discuss issues with the list and PQ ratings. I think the point about being able to more readily see issues on a larger projector is very valid. Things may not be apparent on smaller screens, however it is also valid to have an idea of what resolution PQ is being viewed at. Given this I think Crack should be bumped down and will be done so accordingly.


I'd also like anyone posting tier placements to post the following for all in the future:


Screen Resolution (EX: 1920X1080X24p or 1920X1080X60p)

Screen Size (EX: 100" Projection, 50" Plasma)


Everything I view is 1920X1080X24p.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I'd also like anyone posting tier placements to post the following for all in the future:
> 
> 
> Screen Resolution (EX: 1920X1080X24p or 1920X1080X60p)
> 
> Screen Size (EX: 100" Projection, 50" Plasma)



Thanks, and I see that you've added that to the first page!


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> First let me say that I don't take anything on this topic personally nor do I take offense to this; if I did I'd ignore it. Your points are valid and constructive which is all I asked when people highlight or discuss issues with the list and PQ ratings. I think the point about being able to more readily see issues on a larger projector is very valid. Things may not be apparent on smaller screens, however it is also valid to have an idea of what resolution PQ is being viewed at. Given this I think Crack should be bumped down and will be done so accordingly.
> 
> 
> I'd also like anyone posting tier placements to post the following for all in the future:
> 
> 
> Screen Resolution (EX: 1920X1080X24p or 1920X1080X60p)
> 
> Screen Size (EX: 100" Projection, 50" Plasma)
> 
> 
> Everything I view is 1920X1080X24p.




What about viewing distance?


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> What about viewing distance?



yeah, may be a bit too tweaky, but perhaps expressed in terms of screen width, e.g. 1.2x screen width?


AustinSTI - make sense, or too out there?


----------



## AustinSTI

I think viewing distance is relevant as well. Added. I moved the instructions to the top because that's what people might look at...


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I think viewing distance is relevant as well. Added. I moved the instructions to the top because that's what people might look at...



Right-o! I hope the members on this thread are more diligent than the ones on some others I follow where they need to be beat about the head and ears to get them to do any research, much less take the time to read a First Post!


----------



## AustinSTI

Well if they don't post that data it'll either be ignored or requested of them...


----------



## gail2magic

I was disappointed with the Patriot. There were some very fuzzy parts like at the end when the aide tells the British general that he needs to surrender. I found that parts of that scene inside that room were really bad. Most of the movie was very good PQ but there were several disappointing parts. I am very new to Blu-Ray and to this thread. I know most of you veterans will laugh but I am shocked how they do so well in some parts and it is like they are blind to other parts.


Am new to this thread but am trying to educate myself on the best purchases to make. I have a Sony KDL-40V2500 Bravia 40" 1080p HDTV LCD Television and Sony BD S300.


----------



## BjornK




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> First let me say that I don't take anything on this topic personally nor do I take offense to this; if I did I'd ignore it. Your points are valid and constructive which is all I asked when people highlight or discuss issues with the list and PQ ratings. I think the point about being able to more readily see issues on a larger projector is very valid. Things may not be apparent on smaller screens, however it is also valid to have an idea of what resolution PQ is being viewed at. Given this I think Crack should be bumped down and will be done so accordingly.
> 
> 
> I'd also like anyone posting tier placements to post the following for all in the future:
> 
> 
> Screen Resolution (EX: 1920X1080X24p or 1920X1080X60p)
> 
> Screen Size (EX: 100" Projection, 50" Plasma)
> 
> 
> Everything I view is 1920X1080X24p.



Thank you AustinSTI, for showing that you really listen to input and have an open mind about it. I'm glad if I could help in some small way to improve this great thread







Obviously, no offense was meant from my part, and I'm sorry if it came off that way.


----------



## tjgar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> This has been added.
> 
> 
> As for TFE I want to comment. I would agree the PQ is great on it, however it won't be moved to tier 0 without more of a consensus as moving things into that tier tends to stir up the pot. I think there was a poll at one point where the majority thought it was Tier 1. You should not hesitate to buy anything that is tier 0 or tier 1 as you can expect excellent PQ.





for me its Tier 1


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gail2magic* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I was disappointed with the Patriot. There were some very fuzzy parts like at the end when the aide tells the British general that he needs to surrender. I found that parts of that scene inside that room were really bad. Most of the movie was very good PQ but there were several disappointing parts. I am very new to Blu-Ray and to this thread. I know most of you veterans will laugh but I am shocked how they do so well in some parts and it is like they are blind to other parts.
> 
> 
> Am new to this thread but am trying to educate myself on the best purchases to make. I have a Sony KDL-40V2500 Bravia 40" 1080p HDTV LCD Television and Sony BD S300.



I have this movie; if I get some time tonight I'll take a look at the scene you mention and see if I can spot the fuzziness. I didn't get to the very end of the movie; I watched about 3/4 of the way through it and it looked sharp on my setup.


Are you watching on a set that is running at 24FPS or 30/60 FPS. It may be judder that you are witnessing if you are watching at 1080p/60; if I recall there was a fair amount of panning in that scene.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BjornK* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Thank you AustinSTI, for showing that you really listen to input and have an open mind about it. I'm glad if I could help in some small way to improve this great thread
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, no offense was meant from my part, and I'm sorry if it came off that way.




Thanks - constructive feedback is always welcome; derogatory feedback with no purpose is not. If someone has a comment on a movies placement they need to cite specific scenes that are problematic so that others can view. Obviously different people catch different things when screening a film. I didn't catch the EE on the film mentioned before but others did. Everyone gives the place in the film where they viewed an issue it lends more credibility and makes it easier for someone to confirm/refute..


----------



## Elkay

Does anybody watch movies for the story anymore, or is it just about finding that pixel that's out of place? I gotta admit, I'm guilty myself.


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Elkay* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Does anybody watch movies for the story anymore, or is it just about finding that pixel that's out of place? I gotta admit, I'm guilty myself.



I was doing that with _Kingdom of Heaven_ last night.


My wife finally took the remote from me because I kept rewinding certain scenes


----------



## gail2magic




> Quote:
> I have this movie; if I get some time tonight I'll take a look at the scene you mention and see if I can spot the fuzziness. I didn't get to the very end of the movie; I watched about 3/4 of the way through it and it looked sharp on my setup.
> 
> 
> Are you watching on a set that is running at 24FPS or 30/60 FPS. It may be judder that you are witnessing if you are watching at 1080p/60; if I recall there was a fair amount of panning in that scene.



Just checked the setup for the BD S300 and the Best Buy tech put the setup for 24p Output - On. Will have to do some more reading to be sure that is where I need it.


Thanks


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gail2magic* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Just checked the setup for the BD S300 and the Best Buy tech put the setup for 24p Output - On. Will have to do some more reading to be sure that is where I need it.



Does your TV support 24FPS? If it does then it should be on. My Samsung player will autodetect the capability and not allow it to be put on if the TV doesn't support it; dunno if the sony works the same way...


----------



## AustinSTI

Based on what i read on the web your TV does not support 1080/24...thus you are likely seeing Judder in this scene.

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread....ght=1080p%2F24


----------



## TorontoR

Anyone seen 300 yet? I know it just released today but anxious for a review of PQ before I buy vs rent.


----------



## gail2magic

I sure thought it did but called Sony and it doesn't so will set it to off.


Also thanks for the list of those that do.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TorontoR* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Anyone seen 300 yet? I know it just released today but anxious for a review of PQ before I buy vs rent.



PQ has been reviewed as equal between HD-DVD and Blu-Ray; the HD-DVD has been reviewed higher because of extras. I anticipate this to be a Tier 1 but not a Tier 0. There will be people who debate this because of the injected film grain but boooo to them.


----------



## giomania




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I was doing that with _Kingdom of Heaven_ last night.
> 
> 
> My wife finally took the remote from me because I kept rewinding certain scenes



What!?!










You let you wife in the theater!?!










Mark


----------



## AustinSTI

Here is a good Article which will educate on Film Judder and the PQ impacts of not having 1080p/24.

http://www.definitionmagazine.com/html/mb/judder.html


----------



## kmiller32906

I would put 300 in the gold tier. Near the bottom. Great PQ though.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kmiller32906* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I would put 300 in the gold tier. Near the bottom. Great PQ though.



Thanks for the feedback. When posting your thoughts about Tier placement please be sure to include the following or your post has no chance of impacting the tier:


Screen Resolution (EX: 1920X1080X24p or 1920X1080X60p)

Screen Size (EX: 100" Projection, 50" Plasma)

Distance from Screen


----------



## GGX

Is it just me or is *The Getaway* not listed on the tier list?


I haven't seen it on Blu-ray myself but am wondering if it matches closely to Bullitt or if it's any better.


----------



## S2000 Driver




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kmiller32906* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I would put 300 in the gold tier. Near the bottom. Great PQ though.



I agree.


Screen Resolution: SONY BDP-S300 @ 1920x1080x60p

Screen Size: SONY KDL-52XBR3 52-Inch LCD HDTV

Distance from Screen: 7.5 Feet


----------



## S2000 Driver

Anyone see *The Shooter* on Blu-ray Disc yet?


It was scheduled to be released on BD format today.


----------



## SteelSD




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> PQ has been reviewed as equal between HD-DVD and Blu-Ray; the HD-DVD has been reviewed higher because of extras. I anticipate this to be a Tier 1 but not a Tier 0. There will be people who debate this because of the injected film grain but boooo to them.



Hello. Long time lurker, first time poster. I very much appreciate the job you've done to bring back this thread, which has been my favorite AVS feature.


I've been torn about the "director's intent" film grain issue. Most of the time, I've seen it as a minor annoyance (Black Hawk Down) or the necessary effect of using different cameras (Apocalypto). At the same time, the presence of heavy film grain in until the first battle of "300" is, to me, so distracting that it trumps the presence of minor artifacting in other movies. The grain present in the first 1/3 of this film obscures details and prevents the even fleeting 3-D "pop" I'm used to from even decent Tier 3 flicks. In fact, I consider the early heavy grain- even if it is "director's intent"- to be little more than intentional "artifacting" for this film. At best, it stands as a bad transfer that gets better as time passes.


After that first battle, the grain is more reasonable. It's as if it were someone's first time transferring and they finally figured it out about 1/3 into the transfer. After that, I saw a lighter less annoying but still-persistent film grain resulting in more detail and a bit more "pop". In short, it reminded me of "King Arthur"- a film that improved quite a bit from a PQ perspective and, IMHO, dropped a good bit of grain as it continued.


Is this a grainy film? Sure. But I might suggest that we've got a transfer issue here. There are times that "300" PQ is little more than upscaled DVD quality. And there are times early in the film that it resembles normal DVD quality. To me, that's an issue and it's a reason to rank it lower than Tier 1 and I'm probably being kind considering what I expected out of this film on Blu-Ray.


JMHO, of course, but sometimes I think that we too-readily assume that what the director dictates is what we're seeing. I'm just not quite sure that's the case with this movie. After the first third of the film, I wanted to return it. I've talked myself out of that after watching the rest of it, but I am not entirely impressed.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SteelSD* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Hello. Long time lurker, first time poster. I very much appreciate the job you've done to bring back this thread, which has been my favorite AVS feature.
> 
> 
> I've been torn about the "director's intent" film grain issue. Most of the time, I've seen it as a minor annoyance (Black Hawk Down) or the necessary effect of using different cameras (Apocalypto). At the same time, the presence of heavy film grain in until the first battle of "300" is, to me, so distracting that it trumps the presence of minor artifacting in other movies. The grain present in the first 1/3 of this film obscures details and prevents the even fleeting 3-D "pop" I'm used to from even decent Tier 3 flicks. In fact, I consider the early heavy grain- even if it is "director's intent"- to be little more than intentional "artifacting" for this film. At best, it stands as a bad transfer that gets better as time passes.
> 
> 
> After that first battle, the grain is more reasonable. It's as if it were someone's first time transferring and they finally figured it out about 1/3 into the transfer. After that, I saw a lighter less annoying but still-persistent film grain resulting in more detail and a bit more "pop". In short, it reminded me of "King Arthur"- a film that improved quite a bit from a PQ perspective and, IMHO, dropped a good bit of grain as it continued.
> 
> 
> Is this a grainy film? Sure. But I might suggest that we've got a transfer issue here. There are times that "300" PQ is little more than upscaled DVD quality. And there are times early in the film that it resembles normal DVD quality. To me, that's an issue and it's a reason to rank it lower than Tier 1 and I'm probably being kind considering what I expected out of this film on Blu-Ray.
> 
> 
> JMHO, of course, but sometimes I think that we too-readily assume that what the director dictates is what we're seeing. I'm just not quite sure that's the case with this movie. After the first third of the film, I wanted to return it. I've talked myself out of that after watching the rest of it, but I am not entirely impressed.



Did you see this movie in theatres at all? The grain was handled exactly how it is on this HD transfer........there is no problem whatsoever, a lot of people just don't like how the movie was filmed......too bad for you I guess.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GGX* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Is it just me or is *The Getaway* not listed on the tier list?
> 
> 
> I haven't seen it on Blu-ray myself but am wondering if it matches closely to Bullitt or if it's any better.



I haven't seen Bullitt in HD, but I have seen The Getaway. It's pretty decent for an old movie, with mostly pretty soft scenes, but a few very detailed scenes here and there.


----------



## ajamils




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *S2000 Driver* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Anyone see *The Shooter* on Blu-ray Disc yet?
> 
> 
> It was scheduled to be released on BD format today.



I saw it couple of days back. Decent movie with good PQ. Nothing extra ordinary though.


----------



## SteelSD




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Did you see this movie in theatres at all? The grain was handled exactly how it is on this HD transfer........there is no problem whatsoever, a lot of people just don't like how the movie was filmed......too bad for you I guess.



Yes. I saw the movie in the theater. I do not remember the grain being as excessive as it was over the first third of the Blu Ray.


----------



## GrooveRite

Okay, so it wasn't just me who thought I had a bad first ever Blu-Ray movie purchase (along with my PS3) yesterday when I was watching "300", lol. I will agree, this movie was a tad bit too grainy 1/3 of the beginning but was more bearable toward the end. I loved this movie though beyond this minor inconvenience.


----------



## JE3146




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> PQ has been reviewed as equal between HD-DVD and Blu-Ray; the HD-DVD has been reviewed higher because of extras. I anticipate this to be a Tier 1 but not a Tier 0. There will be people who debate this because of the injected film grain but boooo to them.




Definite Tier 1 at least. The grain made this movie what it is. I don't see why anyone would hate it.


----------



## Teepanen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JE3146* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Definite Tier 1 at least. The grain made this movie what it is. I don't see why anyone would hate it.



Because they see it as noise. But lets not start another grain debate thread. This has really been beaten to death. (sigh)


----------



## LowTech1

I just watched stealth the other day..What makes it a tier 3..I would have thought at least a tier 2..It looked great!


----------



## LowTech1

Also,where does 300 fit in there? I just ordered that and Ghost Rider from Amazon..


----------



## UxiSXRD

My initial impression is to give 300 Tier 1 immediately. The artificially added grain was intentional and quite noticible both on IMAX and my 60" SXRD. I didn't notice any artifacts and I would say I would consider it for closer scrutiny for Tier 0 consideration.


Stealth is Tier 3? The plot and most of the acting are absolutely horrid, but I would think Tier 1 based on PQ alone.


----------



## GrooveRite




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *UxiSXRD* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> My initial impression is to give 300 Tier 1 immediately. The artificially added grain was intentional and quite noticible both on IMAX and my 60" SXRD. I didn't notice any artifacts and I would say I would consider it for closer scrutiny for Tier 0 consideration.
> 
> 
> Stealth is Tier 3? The plot and most of the acting are absolutely horrid, but I would think Tier 1 based on PQ alone.



There were some moments in 300 watching it last night that were just amazing.....so crisp and clear, making it almost pop out of the screen (3D like).....or maybe my eyes are deceiving me


----------



## mr stroke




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *UxiSXRD* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> My initial impression is to give 300 Tier 1 immediately. The artificially added grain was intentional and quite noticible both on IMAX and my 60" SXRD. I didn't notice any artifacts and I would say I would consider it for closer scrutiny for Tier 0 consideration.
> 
> 
> .



+1


I just don't see how people are slaming this movie because of its grain. The director put it there on purpose!!!!!!!!300 IMO is high TIER 1, nearly flawless picture quality alot of 3D effect to it..in some of the scenes where you see the mountains and grassy vistas the PQ is jaw dropping....and it helps that the movie is just pure BAD ASS!!!











Viewing-

Panasonic TH58PX60U

1080i

16:9, 1366x768


about 6-7 feet away

: )


----------



## ciner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GrooveRite* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Okay, so it wasn't just me who thought I had a bad first ever Blu-Ray movie purchase (along with my PS3) yesterday when I was watching "300", lol. I will agree, this movie was a tad bit too grainy 1/3 of the beginning but was more bearable toward the end. I loved this movie though beyond this minor inconvenience.



300 was also my first Bluray purchase. I have a 70" Sony XBR2. I love the movie but also did not remember as much grain when I saw it in theaters. Agree with previous posters about the beginning grain being real noticeable and as it went on I didn't notice as much. I can understand if this was the film-makers intent but thought personally the grain was a bit heavy (beginning mostly) and stole a little from the stunning quality I expected from Bluray. Love the movie though, perhaps I should have chosen a better first Bluray purchase.










Would definitly say not Tier 0, maybe bottom of Tier 1 or top of Tier 2


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ciner* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 300 was also my first Bluray purchase. I have a 70" Sony XBR2. I love the movie but also did not remember as much grain when I saw it in theaters. Agree with previous posters about the beginning grain being real noticeable and as it went on I didn't notice as much. I can understand if this was the film-makers intent but thought personally the grain was a bit heavy (beginning mostly) and stole a little from the stunning quality I expected from Bluray. Love the movie though, perhaps I should have chosen a better first Bluray purchase.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would definitly say not Tier 0, maybe bottom of Tier 1 or top of Tier 2



If you want a crystal clear Blu Ray movie with very little grain try Apocalypto, Pirates of the Caribbean 1&2, Crank, etc. For people who don't really care about the artistic quality of motion pictures, 300 probably isn't the greatest choice for a showpiece. Personally, I love it and think it has great picture quality, but to each his own.


----------



## VeeArSix

Just saw The Host and I agree w/ the current placement. Great facial detail in this one.


----------



## AustinSTI

Ok added 300 Bottom-Mid tier one.


Added Roving Mars to Upper Tier 1; sorry but this is just a stunning documentary and I don't think it should be dinged because there are some SD interview shots intertwined into it.


Viewing at 1920X1080X24p 50" Plasma

Viewing at 7-10 feet


----------



## AustinSTI

Please guys - PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE don't forget to include your viewing stats as noted on the first post or your post holds little weight. I want to give creedance to everyones opinions but cannot without this information included.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Ok added 300 Bottom-Mid tier one.
> 
> 
> Added Roving Mars to Upper Tier 1; sorry but this is just a stunning documentary and I don't think it should be dinged because there are some SD interview shots intertwined into it.
> 
> 
> Viewing at 1920X1080X24p 50" Plasma
> 
> Viewing at 7-10 feet



I don't mean to be picky, but at that viewing distance can you really see the difference between outstanding PQ and merely good PQ?


----------



## jblank74

Some recent films I have viewed:


Roving Mars - Mid Tier 2

300 - High Tier 1

Stealth - Mid Tier 2


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I don't mean to be picky, but at that viewing distance can you really see the difference between outstanding PQ and merely good PQ?



It depends - on my screen I usually will move to a closer distance to examine something I see. I was a little lazier last night so I was watching from the couch in the back of the room


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jblank74* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Some recent films I have viewed:
> 
> 
> Roving Mars - Mid Tier 2
> 
> 300 - High Tier 1
> 
> Stealth - Mid Tier 2




Provide your viewing data please and also comment on the Mid Tier 2 placement of Roving Mars; I watched maybe 30 mins of it and the HD shots were crisp and sharp. I don't disagree with your thoughts; just need more feedback.


Clarification on 300; I haven't watched it yet.


----------



## hobbs47




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> It depends - on my screen I usually will move to a closer distance to examine something I see. I was a little lazier last night so I was watching from the couch in the back of the room



Your regular viewing distance is fine.You don't have to move two feet from the screen to be able to tell great PQ from "merely good" PQ.I sit 7-9 feet from my 50"1080p plasma as well.


----------



## wmitchell23

Who sits 2 ft from their TV?


The closer you sit the more clearly you'll be able to define the individual pixels and the worse the picture quality. From 3 ft away I can clearly identify 720p from a 1080i broadcast. Sitting in my normal viewing distance (7ft) I just notice the beautiful image.


If when watching a BD sitting at 7-10 ft away from my 50" DLP I can _still_ make out mosquito noise and compression artifacts then I know its a problem.


I think 300 belongs where it is in tier 1 regardless of the grain. The grain effect makes the picture more dirtier and gritty looking. If they had not added the grain you would hear more comments on how fake and plastic the added CGI backgrounds look. In fact there were times when it looked like I was watching a videogame instead of a movie, but I still thoroughly enjoyed it.


Also agree with the tier 1 placement of the remastered Fifth Element (not too concerned with the order). The grain varies from shot to shot but that's not a problem for me.


I Just rented Apocalypto and even though I wasn't too impressed with the story I was blown away by some of the amazing shots. Like I was with The Host, I had more "wow" moments overall than I did with DMC.


Screen Resolution: 1920x1080x60p (I can force 24 Htz and it does show [email protected] when I press the info button on my display but I don't believe it's a true 24htz)

Screen Size: 50" DLP

Viewing Distance: 7ft


----------



## lrstevens421

Watched 300 last night. Certainly high tier 1 material. Unbelieve HT experience.


Mitsubishi 46" 1080P LCD - 1080p24 & 1080p60 compatible - 10.5 feet away.


----------



## lrstevens421




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wmitchell23* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I think 300 belongs where it is in tier 1 regardless of the grain. The grain effect makes the picture more dirtier and gritty looking. If they had not added the grain you would hear more comments on how fake and plastic the added CGI backgrounds look. In fact there were times when it looked like I was watching a videogame instead of a movie, but I still thoroughly enjoyed it.



I agree, I didn't find the grain objectional at all. I thought it looked excellent from start to finish, despite the video game look







.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hobbs47* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Your regular viewing distance is fine.You don't have to move two feet from the screen to be able to tell great PQ from "merely good" PQ.I sit 7-9 feet from my 50"1080p plasma as well.



Perhaps this type of viewing distance explains why some don't understand the complaints about Warner's typically soft PQ. And just to be clear, I haven't watched my copy of 300 yet.


----------



## hobbs47




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Perhaps this type of viewing distance explains why some don't understand the complaints about Warner's typically soft PQ. And just to be clear, I haven't watched my copy of 300 yet.



What distance do you recommend then?BTW,these rave reviews for 300 must be really killing you huh?The Hot Fuzz reviews as well I bet









It's not that serious man,try to let yourself enjoy some of this stuff.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wmitchell23* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> If they had not added the grain you would hear more comments on how fake and plastic the added CGI backgrounds look. In fact there were times when it looked like I was watching a videogame instead of a movie, but I still thoroughly enjoyed it.



That's my main gripe with the movie. But I'm still renting it in hopes the story/movie will wow me.


Brandon


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hobbs47* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> What distance do you recommend then?BTW,these rave reviews for 300 must be really killing you huh?The Hot Fuzz reviews as well I bet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that serious man,try to let yourself enjoy some of this stuff.



My own personal screen viewing distance is about one screen width.


You really seem to think I have something against Warner other than the PQ of their HD releases.


If 300 really looks as good as so many are saying, no one will be happier than me.


And I confess that the reviews of Hot Fuzz have tempted me to buy a copy and hook my HD DVD player back up in order to watch it.


----------



## wmitchell23




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> And I confess that the reviews of Hot Fuzz have tempted me to buy a copy and hook my HD DVD player back up in order to watch it.



Reading the HD-DVD Reviews for Hot Fuzz make me extremely envious.


I have been tempted to go "format neutral" but I just cannot justify spending that kind of money right now just for 3-4 titles. I do like the color of the cases better..


I have patience. And the SD version for now.


----------



## theoak




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ciner* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 300 was also my first Bluray purchase. I have a 70" Sony XBR2. I love the movie but also did not remember as much grain when I saw it in theaters. Agree with previous posters about the beginning grain being real noticeable and as it went on I didn't notice as much. I can understand if this was the film-makers intent but thought personally the grain was a bit heavy (beginning mostly) and stole a little from the stunning quality I expected from Bluray. Love the movie though, perhaps I should have chosen a better first Bluray purchase.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would definitly say not Tier 0, maybe bottom of Tier 1 or top of Tier 2




300 fells lika a bad copy of vhs, so much grain in a movie is just plain pathetic, i could just buy the dvd and save those money..

the sound though is top notch, the best i´ve heard in a movie so far


----------



## 30XS955 User

Mark 300 down for bottom tier 1 or tier 2. But I'd say tier 1 because it looks great for what it is.


----------



## iceperson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> My own personal screen viewing distance is about one screen width.


----------



## Johnsteph10




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> My own personal screen viewing distance is about one screen width.
> 
> 
> You really seem to think I have something against Warner other than the PQ of their HD releases.
> 
> 
> If 300 really looks as good as so many are saying, no one will be happier than me.
> 
> 
> And I confess that the reviews of Hot Fuzz have tempted me to buy a copy and hook my HD DVD player back up in order to watch it.



You really should. It is the best presentation of any high def format yet.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> And I confess that the reviews of Hot Fuzz have tempted me to buy a copy and hook my HD DVD player back up in order to watch it.



Is the HD DVD supposed to be better than the BD version according to them?


Brandon


----------



## Teepanen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Is the HD DVD supposed to be better than the BD version according to them?
> 
> 
> Brandon



Hot Fuzz is Universal.


----------



## AustinSTI

I don't even know what Hot Fuzz is about but it sounds like a soft-core porn to me!


----------



## RDarrylR

You'd think they could have picked a better name for a movie. I don't see how anyone would be interested in a movie named that if they don't know anything about it like me.


----------



## J dog

Anyone know if the "Matrix" series is on Bluray....an if so, what tier?


----------



## RDarrylR

It should be available some time next year on Blu-ray but for now only on HD-DVD.


----------



## Teepanen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RDarrylR* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> It should be available some time next year on Blu-ray but for now only on HD-DVD.



So you are saying that Universal will go Blu next year basically.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Teepanen* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> So you are saying that Universal will go Blu next year basically.




Ummm no WARNER puts out Matrix and they are already Neutral. They have been waiting for the final spec to go live on 10/31 before releasing matrix. Its possible we'll see it in Q4...


----------



## Big Worms




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Teepanen* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> So you are saying that Universal will go Blu next year basically.



Matrix is Warner. They are already both.


----------



## Teepanen

My bad, I thought we were still talking about Hot Fuzz


----------



## Teepanen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Added Roving Mars to Upper Tier 1; sorry but this is just a stunning documentary and I don't think it should be dinged because there are some SD interview shots intertwined into it.
> 
> 
> Viewing at 1920X1080X24p 50" Plasma
> 
> Viewing at 7-10 feet



I have not seen Roving Mars, but I am of a different opinion. I think that it SHOULD be "dinged" because of that. Its the same as saying the movie looks great, but one or two scenes look like crap.


To me something that is so high up in the Tier, has to look great throughout and be consistent in its Tier 1 quality. If some shots are in SD, they certainly look worse, so consistency is out the window and it should be brought down a tier or two.


----------



## hobbs47




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RDarrylR* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> You'd think they could have picked a better name for a movie. I don't see how anyone would be interested in a movie named that if they don't know anything about it like me.



Bad name aside,it is definitely worth checking out if you are neutral,it may be the best looking title released yet,on either format.Yes,right up there with POTC-DMC,Apocalypto,Kong,etc.The movie is hilarious as well.


----------



## RDarrylR

Well I could always rent the SD DVD of Hot Fuzz but i'm so spoiled watching HD movies now.


----------



## hobbs47




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RDarrylR* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Well I could always rent the SD DVD of Hot Fuzz but i'm so spoiled watching HD movies now.



Same here,Ihad the sd dvd of 300 over 3 weeks ago but refused to watch it,had to wait for the BD.


----------



## john stephens

Are your standards too high? Why is it that there are only 2 tier 0 Blu Ray movies when there are 7 tier 0 HD DVD movies? Are we saying that the Blurays are inferior?


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *john stephens* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Are your standards too high? Why is it that there are only 2 tier 0 Blu Ray movies when there are 7 tier 0 HD DVD movies? Are we saying that the Blurays are inferior?



Months ago 0/1 were split. Today I'd say the that anything in Tier 0 and to mid Tier 1 is superb. Tier 0 represents the BEST of the BEST. Tier 1 is the BEST.


Does that help?


I Appreciate the opinion on mars; The HD is just so stunning I wasn't sure how to convey the great looks of the HD on this movie. While I was disappointed they had SD shots, the HD PQ is stunning. I'd appreciate any thoughts on how to convey the GREAT PQ of the HD while also conveying the inferiority of the SD shots. Typically PQ is rated on the transfer and because the SD in this case was not a result of transfer but a result of how they filmed certain things its a bit unique...


----------



## nine1wing




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SteelSD* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Hello. Long time lurker, first time poster. I very much appreciate the job you've done to bring back this thread, which has been my favorite AVS feature.
> 
> 
> I've been torn about the "director's intent" film grain issue. Most of the time, I've seen it as a minor annoyance (Black Hawk Down) or the necessary effect of using different cameras (Apocalypto). At the same time, the presence of heavy film grain in until the first battle of "300" is, to me, so distracting that it trumps the presence of minor artifacting in other movies. The grain present in the first 1/3 of this film obscures details and prevents the even fleeting 3-D "pop" I'm used to from even decent Tier 3 flicks. In fact, I consider the early heavy grain- even if it is "director's intent"- to be little more than intentional "artifacting" for this film. At best, it stands as a bad transfer that gets better as time passes.
> 
> 
> After that first battle, the grain is more reasonable. It's as if it were someone's first time transferring and they finally figured it out about 1/3 into the transfer. After that, I saw a lighter less annoying but still-persistent film grain resulting in more detail and a bit more "pop". In short, it reminded me of "King Arthur"- a film that improved quite a bit from a PQ perspective and, IMHO, dropped a good bit of grain as it continued.
> 
> 
> Is this a grainy film? Sure. But I might suggest that we've got a transfer issue here. There are times that "300" PQ is little more than upscaled DVD quality. And there are times early in the film that it resembles normal DVD quality. To me, that's an issue and it's a reason to rank it lower than Tier 1 and I'm probably being kind considering what I expected out of this film on Blu-Ray.
> 
> 
> JMHO, of course, but sometimes I think that we too-readily assume that what the director dictates is what we're seeing. I'm just not quite sure that's the case with this movie. After the first third of the film, I wanted to return it. I've talked myself out of that after watching the rest of it, but I am not entirely impressed.



I completely agree with you, when I first started watching it 15 minutes into the movie I actually got up went to my ps3 and checked to see if the hdmi was completely plugged in. I've seen this movie at the Imax, I just don't remember it being this grainy. I would say LOW tier 1 high tier 2


----------



## Anthony1

Looking at the entire Tier list, there is only one movie that really jumps out at me, as being in the wrong spot. Ice Age. This movie should at the very least be moved up into the bottom of Tier 1. Some Ice Age scenes are as good or better as some of the scenes in Chicken Little and Open Season. This movie absolutely NEEDS to be in Tier 1.



my display: Mits HD1000u


my screen: 131 inch diagonal 16:9 screen


Blu Ray Player - PS3 via HDMI to Mits HD1000u


Resolution 1280 x 720p


Viewing Distance: 18 feet


----------



## akrias

The Roving Mars placement thing bugs me a little as well. I feel as if it should be dinged for te SD portions as well. Perhaps, drop it's placement and add (Tier 1 HD PQ, but SD portions throughout) if we're talking about overall PQ here.


If we are talking strictly about HD PQ, not overall PQ then I would suggest leaving it in it's current place and adding something like (does have some SD segments, but the HD PQ is a solid Tier 1)


just some ideas. keep up the good work!


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *akrias* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The Roving Mars placement thing bugs me a little as well. I feel as if it should be dinged for te SD portions as well. Perhaps, drop it's placement and add (Tier 1 HD PQ, but SD portions throughout) if we're talking about overall PQ here.
> 
> 
> If we are talking strictly about HD PQ, not overall PQ then I would suggest leaving it in it's current place and adding something like (does have some SD segments, but the HD PQ is a solid Tier 1)
> 
> 
> just some ideas. keep up the good work!




Thanks for the feedback; Check out the first post; I moved Roving to the bottom of Tier 1 and noted that the SD shots were the only reason for it to drop.


On another note I screened 300 last night (finally). What a great movie and a simply STUNNING picture. Given that the grain was intentional the PQ here was just awesome; it belongs where it is and I recommend it to anyone.


My viewing info:

1920X1080X24p

7-10 feet

50" Plasma


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Anthony1* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Looking at the entire Tier list, there is only one movie that really jumps out at me, as being in the wrong spot. Ice Age. This movie should at the very least be moved up into the bottom of Tier 1. Some Ice Age scenes are as good or better as some of the scenes in Chicken Little and Open Season. This movie absolutely NEEDS to be in Tier 1.
> 
> 
> 
> my display: Mits HD1000u
> 
> 
> my screen: 131 inch diagonal 16:9 screen
> 
> 
> Blu Ray Player - PS3 via HDMI to Mits HD1000u
> 
> 
> Resolution 1280 x 720p
> 
> 
> Viewing Distance: 18 feet



Thanks for including your viewing info. Ice Age (though I haven't seen it) is as low as it is because there is 'banding' in the sky shots which is pretty significant. I think if it didn't have the banding it'd be Tier 1 from what I've heard but the banding is pretty bad...Your screen resolution may not have made this as apparent as others have said it is.


One more time for those that missed it:


IF YOU DON'T INCLUDE YOUR VIEWING DATA INTO A POST RECOMMENDING A TIER or TIER ADJUSTMENT IT WILL NOT BE ADDRESSED.


Anyone recommending a TIER ADJUSTMENT must include timestamp information of artifacts so others can view and verify it isn't something like Film Judder...


----------



## john stephens




AustinSTI said:


> Months ago 0/1 were split. Today I'd say the that anything in Tier 0 and to mid Tier 1 is superb. Tier 0 represents the BEST of the BEST. Tier 1 is the BEST.
> 
> 
> Does that help?
> 
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> 
> No it does not help because it implies of the that more than 100 titles, only two or three meet that requirement. Even in school the top 10 percent earn an A grade. It's of little use to put two films on a pedestal with many outstanding transfers essentially downgraded for little or no reason. I think that by now there should be at least ten titles in that Tier 0 category.


----------



## Schlotkins

View equipment: Pioneer 5070 feed with PS3 1080p24. Viewing distance is 7 feet.


300: I think this movie is a bit high. Either that or Casino Royale needs to be moved up.


Trading Places (I don't see it on the list): This movie looked INCREDIBLE for a 24 year old film. I only counted 3 artifacts in the entire movie (mind you, my goal wasn't to count - that was the number I noticed). Some scenes had decent sharpness, colors were good, etc. It's hard for me to say exactly were to go, but I'll say right above Enemy of the State at the worst.


Chris


----------



## Teepanen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Thanks for the feedback; Check out the first post; I moved Roving to the bottom of Tier 1 and noted that the SD shots were the only reason for it to drop.
> 
> 
> My viewing info:
> 
> 1920X1080X24p
> 
> 7-10 feet
> 
> 50" Plasma



Thanks for listening. That makes more sense to me.


----------



## Davio




john stephens said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Months ago 0/1 were split. Today I'd say the that anything in Tier 0 and to mid Tier 1 is superb. Tier 0 represents the BEST of the BEST. Tier 1 is the BEST.
> 
> 
> Does that help?
> 
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> 
> No it does not help because it implies of the that more than 100 titles, only two or three meet that requirement. Even in school the top 10 percent earn an A grade. It's of little use to put two films on a pedestal with many outstanding transfers essentially downgraded for little or no reason. I think that by now there should be at least ten titles in that Tier 0 category.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with this philosophy. I almost think Tier 1's should all become the Tier 0 category because, at least to me, the picture qualities of most of them are so good you just can't beyond subjectivity distinguish the differences. They all look terrific.
> 
> 
> Regardless though, I do appreciate the effort that goes into this thread!! Ive been using this list a lot as a reference for future purchases. If only audio could be ranked somehow the same way....
> 
> 
> On another subject, I just got done watching 300 and it is a very tough movie to peg here I think. The artificial grain to me looked HORRIBLE in a few scenes, but then there were other scenes that looked absolutely beautiful and warrant tier 1. I would argue though that it shouldnt be classified as "Demo" material because despite the fact that some scenes look terrific, and despite the fact that the grain was included in the film, it still raises questions. I showed this movie to a friend as well and some of the first words out of his mouth were "Whats all the fuzz?".
Click to expand...


----------



## Mongoos150




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Teepanen* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I have not seen Roving Mars, but I am of a different opinion. I think that it SHOULD be "dinged" because of that. Its the same as saying the movie looks great, but one or two scenes look like crap.
> 
> 
> To me something that is so high up in the Tier, has to look great throughout and be consistent in its Tier 1 quality. If some shots are in SD, they certainly look worse, so consistency is out the window and it should be brought down a tier or two.



Exactly. This is precisely the reason the Tier thread exists - because small "dings" in performance *should* throw a film lower on the rungs of the Tier rating system! Seems like there are certain individuals - those managing the Tier thread - that have too much say in the placement of certain films.


Re: Davio - I wholeheartedly disagree. Having a separation between Tier 0 and Tier 1 gives us a great way to separate reference quality from simply "Awesome" quality. A "best" and "best of the best" deserve separation.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mongoos150* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Exactly. This is precisely the reason the Tier thread exists - because small "dings" in performance *should* throw a film lower on the rungs of the Tier rating system! Seems like there are certain individuals - those managing the Tier thread - that have too much say in the placement of certain films.
> 
> 
> Re: Davio - I wholeheartedly disagree. Having a separation between Tier 0 and Tier 1 gives us a great way to separate reference quality from simply "Awesome" quality. A "best" and "best of the best" deserve separation.



Are you just trying to stir up trouble or have you completely ignored the discussion about roving mars? I moved it after FEEDBACK from others regarding the SD/HD debate to the lower half of Tier 1 with a note concerning the SD. Guess I have too much say on placement and I don't listen to anyone.


----------



## Mongoos150




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Are you just trying to stir up trouble or have you completely ignored the discussion about roving mars? I moved it after FEEDBACK from others regarding the SD/HD debate to the lower half of Tier 1 with a note concerning the SD.



I was responding to the remark about "small pieces of SD video in the film should not 'ding' its Tier rating". This is what I had issue with. Did you actually read the first two sentences of my post?! This system was so much better a few months ago...


----------



## Teepanen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mongoos150* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I was responding to the remark about "small pieces of SD video in the film should not 'ding' its Tier rating". This is what I had issue with. Did you actually read the first two sentences of my post?! This system was so much better a few months ago...



Eventhough you agreed with my point of view, I think Austin was refering to the fact that he already bumped this title down due to feedback from me and another poster. Therefore, he does take our input into consideration.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mongoos150* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I was responding to the remark about "small pieces of SD video in the film should not 'ding' its Tier rating". This is what I had issue with. Did you actually read the first two sentences of my post?! This system was so much better a few months ago...



I would humbly suggest we not go down this road again. You've already suggested that some people have too much influence and don't take people's inputs into consideration, which is exactly how this started the last time (regardless of the group's agenda).


I think Austin is doing an admirable job in trying to keep everything well sorted out and everybody happy as much as can possibly be done so, considering all of the different factors and components that can contribute to differences in viewpoints and opinions. Considering that, my advice would be for each person to give their opinion and live with it if it's not adhered to as they would wish it to be, and if it bothers them that much then use AVSForum's sponsored ranking method instead of this Tier Thread.


I personally take any Tier Thread that wasn't composed by me specifically (because I really only care about my own personal preference when watching a movie in my house) with a grain of salt, as should anybody else. It's best use is two fold: 1-To check the films at the top for what is considered demo material, 2-To use it as a relative yardstick to see where each movie stacks up compared to others. In that vein, it is hard for it to go terribly wrong.


I'm not a moderator and don't represent myself as such, so feel free to disregard my suggestions if they don't suit you.


Brandon


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I would humbly suggest we not go down this road again. You've already suggested that some people have too much influence and don't take people's inputs into consideration, which is exactly how this started the last time (regardless of the group's agenda).
> 
> 
> I think Austin is doing an admirable job in trying to keep everything well sorted out and everybody happy as much as can possibly be done so, considering all of the different factors and components that can contribute to differences in viewpoints and opinions. Considering that, my advice would be for each person to give their opinion and live with it if it's not adhered to as they would wish it to be, and if it bothers them that much then use AVSForum's sponsored ranking method instead of this Tier Thread.
> 
> 
> I personally take any Tier Thread that wasn't composed by me specifically (because I really only care about my own personal preference when watching a movie in my house) with a grain of salt, as should anybody else. It's best use is two fold: 1-To check the films at the top for what is considered demo material, 2-To use it as a relative yardstick to see where each movie stacks up compared to others. In that vein, it is hard for it to go terribly wrong.
> 
> 
> I'm not a moderator and don't represent myself as such, so feel free to disregard my suggestions if they don't suit you.
> 
> 
> Brandon



Well said sir. I'd agree 100% with everything you have said. My earlier point which was so obviously missed was that I do my best to take everyones opinions into consideration and Roving Mars is a great example of someone's feedback resulting in a change.


On the flip side there are folks who post feedback about a given film requesting a change and it is not adjusted. The reason this may occur is because the poster didn't follow directions and include the information needed (Viewing Distance, Set Type, Resolution,Time Stamp) in their post. I have explicetly stated in this thread multiple times that failure to post the minimum required information when requesting a tier change or that a movie be added to a given tier will result in that post being ignored.


As an example of why this is important: There are several cases in this thread where film judder was mistaken for artifacting or lower resolution played into the posters feedback. Should a movie be moved down because of this? No - absolutely not, however if someone notices an artifact that may have been missed and they provide the timestamp of the artifact in question others (myself included, but not always) can validate/invalidate that artifact. I don't own or screen all movies on the list so I rely on the information provided by others to place some films. This means that I need info about their setup and when possible a second opion may play in (for movies that people feel are tier 1 and tier 0). Most times 2+ people will provide their insights into a film and their insights match so the film gets put where they request. If someone wants to move a film up or down they need to provide reasons and timestamps of artifacts for ALL to see and comment on. Most (75%+) of the time I'm not even factoring my own opinions in unless a debate arises. I'm always open to moving something around if its constructive feedback and warranted. Saying 'This movie belongs in Tier 2' isn't enough...


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mongoos150* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I was responding to the remark about "small pieces of SD video in the film should not 'ding' its Tier rating". This is what I had issue with. Did you actually read the first two sentences of my post?! This system was so much better a few months ago...



U want to help out; feel free to PM me. I could use it.


----------



## nick2010

I noticed that on the first page, it says (TrueHD) means that the movie has Dolby TrueHD. But, none of the movies have this tag, but many movies have "THD". Is this an abbreviation for TrueHD?


----------



## Mongoos150




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nick2010* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I noticed that on the first page, it says (TrueHD) means that the movie has Dolby TrueHD. But, none of the movies have this tag, but many movies have "THD". Is this an abbreviation for TrueHD?



You got it.


----------



## AustinSTI

Mongoose has been kind enough to volunteer to help maange and maintain the list with me. Please give him the same respect y'all show me


----------



## Mongoos150

Colors and spacing have been uniformly formatted. Enjoy.


----------



## Teepanen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mongoos150* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Colors and spacing have been uniformly formatted. Enjoy.



Cool! But how come Tier 0 - Blu is aqua? Shouldn't it be blue?


More importantly please change COAL color. I am not using the default skin for the forum and I can not see it at all. I am sure there are others too. Check it out!


----------



## pepar

Teepanen is correct. There is a limited number of colors that work for text for those of us using AVS White. Anything "pale" cannot be read by us. Vivid colors can.


----------



## Mongoos150

Teepanen - the lighter blue color is being used because it's easier on the eyes (with the standard AVS skin).


What skins are everyone using? The white coal looks great to me, but I'm using the standard AVS skin. If a majority of people are using the white skin, we'll definitely change it (but I have been under the impression that most people use the standard skin). Speak up and be heard, people.


----------



## TV NooB

For people who saw "Infernal Affairs" (a.k.a. The Departed), What Tier would you give to this movie?


----------



## Garconis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TV NooB* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> For people who saw "Infernal Affairs" (a.k.a. The Departed), What Tier would you give to this movie?



2


----------



## AustinSTI

Thanks for reformatting Mongoose!!


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Garconis* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 2




Based on????? Where's your setup info?


----------



## Teepanen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mongoos150* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Teepanen - the lighter blue color is being used because it's easier on the eyes (with the standard AVS skin).
> 
> 
> What skins are everyone using? The white coal looks great to me, but I'm using the standard AVS skin. If a majority of people are using the white skin, we'll definitely change it (but I have been under the impression that most people use the standard skin). Speak up and be heard, people.



There are only two skins. I am sure you could find a color for COAL that works well for both. The current one is not visible. Switch your skin and you will see what it looks like. Also the aqua for Tier 0 is a bit painful on my eyes with the grey background, but there's only 2 entries.







Thanks!


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Teepanen* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> There are only two skins. I am sure you could find a color for COAL that works well for both. The current one is not visible. Switch your skin and you will see what it looks like. Also the aqua for Tier 0 is a bit painful on my eyes with the grey background, but there's only 2 entries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks!



Yes, Tier 0 and Tier 2 are unreadable on AVS White. And 1 and 3 are not far behind. Why not lay it out so that it works for both color schemes? If you're tied to having a different color for each tier, you may not have enough different colors to work in AVS White, but why be so fancy? It is the information that is important.


Just my $.02.


----------



## pepar

 Here is a JPG screen capture of the Tier descriptions in AVS White .


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/0
> 
> Here is a JPG screen capture of the Tier descriptions in AVS White .



I see what you are talking about; I wonder if you can force black on a background...


Updated: Nope can't do it


----------



## Mongoos150

I'll work on a fix


----------



## Mongoos150

Let me know how that sits with everyone. I made the blue the regular blue - it's still a bit hard on the eyes on the standard color scheme, but it's fine. The coal I also made a bit darker. I think this is what we'll stay with, as long as everyone likes it (and I hope y'all do, there aren't many other choices)!


----------



## pepar

. . . and one tier name change suggestion:

*BLU* (navy)

*GOLD* (dark orange)

*SILVER* (dim gray)

*BRONZE* (sienna)

*TIN* (dark slate gray)

Here's a JPEG of the suggested colors .


----------



## AustinSTI

That looks good Mongoose.


Pepar: The Navy and Tin are too dark for the std color scheme.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> That looks good Mongoose.
> 
> 
> Pepar: The Navy and Tin are too dark for the std color scheme.



Doh! Of course, that makes sense. Perhaps the text color needs to be un-hooked from the tier name. Right now, the Silver is invisible on AVS White and Gold is very difficult to read. There are undoubtedly other "non-metalic" colors which would show clearly on both schemes. I can look at it later today, but right now I have some orders to process and some errands to run . .


----------



## Mongoos150

I'm pretty sure what I put is as good as it will get. The colors Pepar posted _are_ much too dark for the standard skin.


----------



## Teepanen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mongoos150* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Let me know how that sits with everyone. I made the blue the regular blue - it's still a bit hard on the eyes on the standard color scheme, but it's fine. The coal I also made a bit darker. I think this is what we'll stay with, as long as everyone likes it (and I hope y'all do, there aren't many other choices)!



I'll still probably highlight Tier 2 when viewing to see a bit better, but in general I am saitsfied. Thanks for the update!


----------



## Kevin12586

With the exception of the blue on the standard skin, they look just fine.


----------



## FenixP3D

i could see and read tier 2 using AVS white.... but i'm currently on a crt... those with lcd displays may see it different...


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Teepanen* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I'll still probably highlight Tier 2 when viewing to see a bit better . .



Roger that, and that's not the end of the world. Evidently there are not five colors that work on *both* color schemes that can represent the metaphor of giving movies medals for their tier placements.


----------



## SuprSlow

To steal an idea from the HD-DVD tier thread, how about adding links to the AVS reviews of BDs, and to an external website such as HDDb?


I'd be willing to help compile the links and format them.


----------



## Mongoos150

There aren't dedicated review threads for titles on AVS, but HDDb links definitely sound like a good idea. I'll probably get working on this tonight, after a trip up to the Apple store to check out the new iMacs


----------



## SuprSlow

This is the AVS review section I was referencing. Sorry, I should've posted a link









http://reviews.avsforum.com/showcat.php?cat=2


----------



## Mongoos150

Ah. There's an idea. Would people prefer the AVS reviews, or HDDb? It'd be easier to have the title of the film link to one or the other, not both. Let me know, people.


----------



## SuprSlow

How about the title linking to HDDb, then maybe a separate link - "(AVS Review)".


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> This is the AVS review section I was referencing. Sorry, I should've posted a link
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://reviews.avsforum.com/showcat.php?cat=2



Evidently, some movies listed there actually have NO reviews. The first one I clicked on - Underworld: Evolution - has no reviews.


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Evidently, some movies listed there actually have NO reviews. The first one I clicked on - Underworld: Evolution - has no reviews.



Yeah, there are quite a few. Sort by 'Most Popular' to get the reviewed movies to the top of the list.


----------



## pepar

Just a thought here - my preference would be for a link to a professional review. I could expand on that . . .


----------



## Teepanen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Just a thought here - my preference would be for a link to a professional review. I could expand on that . . .



I would take the average score of 10 people reviewing a flick over 1 "pro" review anyday.


On a related note, BD reviews on AVS are lagging behind HD-DVD. Come on guys, post some up! It takes like 2 mins to give some ratings. I've done a couple...


----------



## maverick0716

I just watched this BD and it has some damn amazing picture quality! IMO, it's either Tier 0 or very top of Tier 1 for sure.


1280x720p

42" Sony RP LCD (A10)

6 1/2 feet


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Teepanen* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I would take the average score of 10 people reviewing a flick over 1 "pro" review anyday.
> 
> 
> On a related note, BD reviews on AVS are lagging behind HD-DVD. Come on guys, post some up! It takes like 2 mins to give some ratings. I've done a couple...



We tried (however briefly) to post polls when a film came out and had a scoring system but I guess it cluttered things up too much which is where the reviews came from. IMHO the polls I saw were reflective of reality for films and the law of averages worked beautifully; others might disagree. It wouldn't be hard to write a web app in say .net that interacts with a few tables and provides ability to vote for a movie rating. If I wasn't so lazy I'd have done it by now...


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I just watched this BD and it has some damn amazing picture quality! IMO, it's either Tier 0 or very top of Tier 1 for sure.



I really want to place it there - really I do, but I need the information requested in the first post in pink text before I can place the movie into a tier and take your recommendation. If its tier 0 I'd like another person to validate this...


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I really want to place it there - really I do, but I need the information requested in the first post in pink text before I can place the movie into a tier and take your recommendation. If its tier 0 I'd like another person to validate this...



Whoops, I forgot. I completely agree with that idea.


----------



## Mongoos150

I would definitely agree with others at being a high tier 1. Not sure if it merits a Tier 0, but if people will post their viewing distance, screen technology (model would be great), whether you've calibrated it and a timestamp, we can take your input into consideration. Thanks all.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mongoos150* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I would definitely agree with others at being a high tier 1. Not sure if it merits a Tier 0, but if people will post their viewing distance, screen technology (model would be great), whether you've calibrated it and a timestamp, we can take your input into consideration. Thanks all.




I think high tier 1 would suffice; I'd like someone with a 1920X1080 resolution to provide feedback on this film as any artifacting will be more apparent at this resolution.


Mav: Thanks so much for your compliance; we appreciate your feedback!


----------



## haste

House of Flying Daggers looked AWESOME to me...I have no clue as to why it's at the bottom of the list. It may have been a tad soft, but it wasn't bad at all.

I wouldn't hesitate to use this movie to show off my system.

Using a PS3 and a Philips 42" 1080p LCD TV (42PFL7432D/37).


----------



## ajamils




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *haste* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> House of Flying Daggers looked AWESOME to me...I have no clue as to why it's at the bottom of the list.



Get ready to get flamed







....... it is without any doubt the absolute worst representation of Blu-ray PQ.


----------



## haste




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajamils* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Get ready to get flamed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ....... it is without any doubt the absolute worst representation of Blu-ray PQ.



Bring it on.














I really don't think it should be at the bottom of the list, but whatever.


----------



## Xylon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *haste* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Bring it on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't think it should be at the bottom of the list, but whatever.



I think its TIER 0.


----------



## John Ballentine

Maybe we should add a category HIGHER than TIER 0 just for House Of Flying Daggers.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Ballentine* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Maybe we should add a category HIGHER than TIER 0 just for House Of Flying Daggers.



Or maybe a tier for EACH movie?


----------



## AustinSTI

Ummm HOFD is not moving...and no to a tier for each movie and no for a category higher than tier 0 NO NO NO!!! LunacY! Sounds like you need to check your eyes or your PS3


----------



## Mongoos150

*Sigh* Come on people. Let's keep this a professional thread with relevant info


----------



## Teepanen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *haste* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> House of Flying Daggers looked AWESOME to me...I have no clue as to why it's at the bottom of the list. It may have been a tad soft, but it wasn't bad at all.
> 
> I wouldn't hesitate to use this movie to show off my system.
> 
> Using a PS3 and a Philips 42" 1080p LCD TV (42PFL7432D/37).



Does it look the same as the preview for it from the PS3 store on your setup? I haven't seen this BD, but preview looks like garbage.


----------



## diceburna

If you liked HOFD I'm interested to kno how u'll like Curse of The Golden Flower? Rent it and let us kno ur thoughts


----------



## skoolpsyk




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *haste* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> House of Flying Daggers looked AWESOME to me...I have no clue as to why it's at the bottom of the list. It may have been a tad soft, but it wasn't bad at all.
> 
> I wouldn't hesitate to use this movie to show off my system.
> 
> Using a PS3 and a Philips 42" 1080p LCD TV (42PFL7432D/37).




I honestly believe you, but I think it's probably because your set is 42". At 65" and above things look way different...


----------



## Teepanen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *skoolpsyk* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I honestly believe you, but I think it's probably because your set is 42". At 65" and above things look way different...



Even if you sit 4 feet away from a 42?


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajamils* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Get ready to get flamed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ....... it is without any doubt the absolute worst representation of Blu-ray PQ.



Maybe not the worst, but I definitely think it's rated a little too highly in the tier.


My humble setup:

32xbr1 (non calibrated)

PS3 feeding 720p


I'm not asking for any changes, I just think the movie seemed a bit soft compared to how other BDs looked on my setup (Apocalypto, DMC, Casino Royale, etc).


EDIT: Good lord, I didn't realize the OP was referencing House of Flying Daggers. I thought he was talking about Curse of the Golden Flower. House of Flying Daggers looks great? Wow.


Anyhow, move along...there's nothing to see here.










Brandon


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *skoolpsyk* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I honestly believe you, but I think it's probably because your set is 42". At 65" and above things look way different...



Even at larger viewing displays, movie PQ is relative. Perhaps HOFD is one of the first BDs he's seen? All I know is, even at a meager 32" I can tell the difference between a Tier 1 movie and a Tier 3 movie. Now when I upgrade to 46" or 52" in a couple of months, I'll be even more stingy with the PQ










Brandon


----------



## ajamils

I have 32" (calibrated) LCD and I sit about 5 feet away from the screen and HOFD still looks like crap.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajamils* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I have 32" (calibrated) LCD and I sit about 5 feet away from the screen and HOFD still looks like crap.



Can you be more specific?


----------



## ajamils




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Can you be more specific?



specific about what ? My setup or the movie ?


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajamils* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> specific about what ? My setup or the movie ?



The movie. "Crap" tells me that you didn't think it looked good, but was it soft, edge enhanced, something wrong with the color, artifacted? The movie, not the crap.


----------



## ajamils




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The movie. "Crap" tells me that you didn't think it looked good, but was it soft, edge enhanced, something wrong with the color, artifacted? The movie, not the crap.



How about all the above ?







... it has horrible artifacting, noise and over saturated colors. Oh and not to mention the PQ is soft and lacks any 3D pop.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajamils* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> How about all the above ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... it has horrible artifacting, noise and over saturated colors. Oh and not to mention the PQ is soft and lacks any 3D pop.



Crap is the technical term


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajamils* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> How about all the above ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... it has horrible artifacting, noise and over saturated colors. Oh and not to mention the PQ is soft and lacks any 3D pop.



Has anyone else reported a lot of artifacting (and the other tings you cite)? If not, then could there be something not working correctly on your system? I'm not saying that there is, but if you're the only one seeing bad artifacting, it might be something to consider.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Crap is the technical term



And one that is over my head.


----------



## haste




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajamils* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> How about all the above ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... it has horrible artifacting, noise and over saturated colors. Oh and not to mention the PQ is soft and lacks any 3D pop.



The movie was made to look colorful(stylized martial arts movie). It wasn't made to be realistic. Noise and artifacting? I beg to differ. I didn't notice any. The picture overall was a TAD soft. But not bad at all...


I work on a printing press, so details and color are my thing. Maybe I should try watching HOFD again and REALLY critique it...


I also thought the sound was great in the movie.


But whatever, I don't care which Tier it's in. I personally enjoyed the movie.


And I really hope everyone watched it with subtitles. The dubbing for foreign films tend to suck.


----------



## ajamils




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Has anyone else reported a lot of artifacting (and the other tings you cite)? If not, then could there be something not working correctly on your system? I'm not saying that there is, but if you're the only one seeing bad artifacting, it might be something to consider.



If I was the only one seeing all the problems then I don't think that the movie will be placed at the LOWEST Tier possible







. Maybe its your system that's not allowing you to see the movie as it REALLY is


----------



## FenixP3D

yeah, i watch all foreign titles with subtitles on because seeing them dubbed in english seem out of sync and awkward many time... plus some english dubbed audio aren't encoded in DTS... gotta love the DTS....


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajamils* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> If I was the only one seeing all the problems then I don't think that the movie will be placed at the LOWEST Tier possible
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Maybe its your system that's not allowing you to see the movie as it REALLY is



That's my point - ARE you the only one, or has anyone else reported same? We just had haste report no artifacting. If it we a movie/disc problem, wouldn't everybody see it?


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FenixP3D* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> yeah, i watch all foreign titles with subtitles on because seeing them dubbed in english seem out of sync and awkward many time... plus some english dubbed audio aren't encoded in DTS... gotta love the DTS....



On an action flic dialog is not that important. And there are other clues as to what's going on. Dubs can be cheesy, and I find myself unable to stop reading lips.


----------



## JosephShaw




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> We tried (however briefly) to post polls when a film came out and had a scoring system but I guess it cluttered things up too much which is where the reviews came from. IMHO the polls I saw were reflective of reality for films and the law of averages worked beautifully; others might disagree. It wouldn't be hard to write a web app in say .net that interacts with a few tables and provides ability to vote for a movie rating. If I wasn't so lazy I'd have done it by now...



Yeah, it was a thankless task. The point was to keep it here so we could have the AVS users vote, but AVS doesn't want it. Building an independent site for the voting wouldn't help us at all, because most people probably wouldn't go there, while they would vote with a poll here (as long as w didn't clutter up the main BD Software forum).


----------



## Mongoos150




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JosephShaw* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Yeah, it was a thankless task. The point was to keep it here so we could have the AVS users vote, but AVS doesn't want it. Building an independent site for the voting wouldn't help us at all, because most people probably wouldn't go there, while they would vote with a poll here (as long as w didn't clutter up the main BD Software forum).



Great post.


----------



## JBRhee

Which tier does Final Fantasy fall under?


----------



## Leviathin25




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JBRhee* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Which tier does Final Fantasy fall under?



Id like to know this as well as TMNT.


----------



## wmitchell23




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JBRhee* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Which tier does Final Fantasy fall under?



They are waiting on a second opinion from a 1920x1080p setup. I will watch this once I arrive home and post my opinion.


I'll be back at 7 PM eastern with my results.


----------



## ajamils




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JosephShaw* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Yeah, it was a thankless task. The point was to keep it here so we could have the AVS users vote, but AVS doesn't want it. Building an independent site for the voting wouldn't help us at all, because most people probably wouldn't go there, while they would vote with a poll here (as long as w didn't clutter up the main BD Software forum).



Best thing would have been to make a sub-forum under Blu-ray software for all the movie polls and that should have fixed the problem.


----------



## RDarrylR

I'll watch both again tonight on my 1920x1080x60p (46" LCD @ 5.5 ft distance) set but I think both TMNT and FF have to be at least borderline Tier 0 or top Tier 1.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Curse of the Golden Flower*


I really enjoyed this movie, but in terms of PQ I think it is placed too high. The PQ was good, but it lacked the detail, clarity and three dimensionality that I would expect from a title that is currently ranked so high (18th best Blu-ray in terms of PQ). There are titles in Tier 2 that are better than this, including Letter from Iwo Jima, Casino Royale, etc. I would put this right below Ghost Rider in terms of PQ.


(1080p/24 on 123" diagonal screen via JVC RS1 and Pionner Elite HD1 Blu-ray player)


I really enjoyed the movie itself a lot. Then again, I am a huge fan of Japanese Samurai movies in general.


The sound quality (PCM track) was superb! In fact, it doesn't get much better than this!


----------



## wmitchell23

Judging this title as I would any other movie, I would say Tier 2. Considering the fact that this is 100% CGI with intentionally added grain and a soft filter I would move this to only Tier 1. Take that as you will.


The picture has some light artificial grain added to give it texture but it really shows up in the dark scenes. The brightly lit scenes are beautiful but overall soft because of the filtering process they used to make the whites bloom. There are only a few minor 3-D pop moments toward the end.


I did not see any compression artifacts or noise. Only the light grain.


I encountered 2 serious instances of banding which will disqualify this title for Tier 0. The first was at the 19:16 to 19:20 mark in the dark background as Cid moves toward Aki (it moves). The second one appears on a leather chair at the 21:31 mark (the blue-green background appears to have banding as well because the gradient lines are not there in later shots).


Because several scenes are lit by their futuristic computer monitors, I'm waiting to hear lots of complaints about the pulsating being an authoring defect which it is not.

Overall, it's a nice picture but I seriously do not want to mislead anyone into thinking this deserves the top spot.


Oh, and there is disc art.


My setup: [email protected]

50" DLP sitting at a viewing distance of 7ft


----------



## Big Worms

Wow. High Def Digest gave it a rare 5 stars on video. But what you are saying seems to be not the same.

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/911/...itswithin.html 



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wmitchell23* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Judging this title as I would any other movie, I would say Tier 2. Considering the fact that this is 100% CGI with intentionally added grain and a soft filter I would move this to only Tier 1. Take that as you will.
> 
> 
> The picture has some light artificial grain added to give it texture but it really shows up in the dark scenes. The brightly lit scenes are beautiful but overall soft because of the filtering process they used to make the whites bloom. There are only a few minor 3-D pop moments toward the end.
> 
> 
> I did not see any compression artifacts or noise. Only the light grain.
> 
> 
> I encountered 2 serious instances of banding which will disqualify this title for Tier 0. The first was at the 19:16 to 19:20 mark in the dark background as Cid moves toward Aki (it moves). The second one appears on a leather chair at the 21:31 mark (the blue-green background appears to have banding as well because the gradient lines are not there in later shots).
> 
> 
> Because several scenes are lit by their futuristic computer monitors, I'm waiting to hear lots of complaints about the pulsating being an authoring defect which it is not.
> 
> Overall, it's a nice picture but I seriously do not want to mislead anyone into thinking this deserves the top spot.
> 
> 
> Oh, and there is disc art.
> 
> 
> My setup: [email protected]
> 
> 50" DLP sitting at a viewing distance of 7ft


----------



## maverick0716

I've always wondered how you can tell that banding is from the disc, or just a fault of the TV itself? Some TVs are really bad for banding (not saying yours is) and I would think this could be falsely interpreted as a disc encoding error.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I've always wondered how you can tell that banding is from the disc, or just a fault of the TV itself? Some TVs are really bad for banding (not saying yours is) and I would think this could be falsely interpreted as a disc encoding error.



A valid question and one to which there is no easy answer.


----------



## Teepanen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I've always wondered how you can tell that banding is from the disc, or just a fault of the TV itself? Some TVs are really bad for banding (not saying yours is) and I would think this could be falsely interpreted as a disc encoding error.



I guess you would have to watch the scene where you saw banding on another set. Or better yet ask someone in these forums by giving them a timestamp.


----------



## lgans316

1. The Island (EU) Import - Top of Tier 1

2. Crimson Tide (EU) Import - Top of Tier 1

3. The Rock (EU) Import - Middle of Tier 1

4. Face Off (J) Import - Middle of Tier 1

5. Con Air (EU) Import - Middle of Tier 1

6. Starship Troopers (EU) Import - Middle of Tier 1


----------



## Teepanen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 1. The Island (EU) Import - Top of Tier 1
> 
> 2. Crimson Tide (EU) Import - Top of Tier 1
> 
> 3. The Rock (EU) Import - Middle of Tier 1
> 
> 4. Face Off (J) Import - Middle of Tier 1
> 
> 5. Con Air (EU) Import - Middle of Tier 1
> 
> 6. Starship Troopers (EU) Import - Middle of Tier 1



There's more tiers than 1, you know.







But seriously, you will be asked to post your viewing details as described in the very first post of this thread, if you want these added.


----------



## lgans316

I have already posted my comments for Face off and The Rock.


----------



## HDphile22

TMNT deserves Tier 0!


----------



## HDphile22

BTW, I see Premonition is NOT on the list, but I saw it and was not that good IMO! Agreed there?


Edit: It's probably like a Tier 2


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The movie. "Crap" tells me that you didn't think it looked good, but was it soft, edge enhanced, something wrong with the color, artifacted? The movie, not the crap.



Very very soft and the colors seem off. My eyes aren't very well trained at picking up artifacting. I'm still learning about the different types and how they manifest themselves. Hell, I don't even remember any banding in Ice Age.


Brandon


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/0
> 
> *Curse of the Golden Flower*
> 
> 
> I really enjoyed this movie, but in terms of PQ I think it is placed too high. The PQ was good, but it lacked the detail, clarity and three dimensionality that I would expect from a title that is currently ranked so high (18th best Blu-ray in terms of PQ). There are titles in Tier 2 that are better than this, including Letter from Iwo Jima, Casino Royale, etc. I would put this right below Ghost Rider in terms of PQ.
> 
> 
> (1080p/24 on 123" diagonal screen via JVC RS1 and Pionner Elite HD1 Blu-ray player)
> 
> 
> I really enjoyed the movie itself a lot. Then again, I am a huge fan of Japanese Samurai movies in general.
> 
> 
> The sound quality (PCM track) was superb! In fact, it doesn't get much better than this!



I completely agree with you. The colors were great as well was the cinematography, but in terms of PQ I believe it is overrated at the moment.


My setup was posted in my original post above on this matter...even if it was by accident.


Brandon


----------



## BjornK

This is slightly off-topic, but at the same time don't really want to post a new thread for no reason.


Am I the only one here that would like The Official Sister thread called "The SQ/AQ Tier Thread for Blu-Ray"? Basically exactly the same rules and order as this thread, but for sound. I find it just a bit odd that one hasn't been created yet. Do people in general (even here on Avs) really value PQ that much more than SQ?


Just my 2 cents


----------



## ajamils




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BjornK* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> This is slightly off-topic, but at the same time don't really want to post a new thread for no reason.
> 
> 
> Am I the only one here that would like The Official Sister thread called "The SQ/AQ Tier Thread for Blu-Ray"? Basically exactly the same rules and order as this thread, but for sound. I find it just a bit odd that one hasn't been created yet. Do people in general (even here on Avs) really value PQ that much more than SQ?
> 
> 
> Just my 2 cents



I believe that creating a tier list for SQ is even more difficult that tier list for PQ because it is even more subjective then PQ. Plus for PQ atleast there is a standard (1080p, 720p) that people rely on. For good SQ there are so many variable (like receiver, cables, speakers etc) that it would be impossible for people to agree on the placement.


----------



## giomania




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BjornK* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> This is slightly off-topic, but at the same time don't really want to post a new thread for no reason.
> 
> 
> Am I the only one here that would like The Official Sister thread called "The SQ/AQ Tier Thread for Blu-Ray"? Basically exactly the same rules and order as this thread, but for sound. I find it just a bit odd that one hasn't been created yet. Do people in general (even here on Avs) really value PQ that much more than SQ?
> 
> 
> Just my 2 cents



I think that audio is much more subjective, which is probably the reason why there is no thread for SQ/AQ. With video, there are standards to adhere to--not that all mfg.'s do--when designing source devices and displays. Why do you think they want to know your display and viewing distance when voting for tier placement?


Also, eyesight can be corrected. Basically, I think it is much easier to have a group of people seeing the same thing than hearing the same thing.


Mark


----------



## wmitchell23




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Big Worms* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Wow. High Def Digest gave it a rare 5 stars on video. But what you are saying seems to be not the same.



I read his review and made my purchase based solely on that gushing review alone (I had been previously on the fence).


Like I said in my post, the picture is nice (soft, film-like) but I was not completely blown away or "wowed" by what I saw. Not tier 0.


This is not the first time I have disagreed with one of his (favorable/unfavorable) reviews.


----------



## oleus

just picked up the FIFTH ELEMENT remastered version. No doubt that it's a big step up from the first disc, but i am still seeing some anomalies. The opening credits have some weird stairstepping/jaggies (tried it at every resolution, same results) and many scenes still exhibit some noticeable edge enhancement.


The print is MUCH cleaner though, and overall it's a step up in sharpness, depth and color.


----------



## RDarrylR




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wmitchell23* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Judging this title as I would any other movie, I would say Tier 2. Considering the fact that this is 100% CGI with intentionally added grain and a soft filter I would move this to only Tier 1. Take that as you will.
> 
> 
> The picture has some light artificial grain added to give it texture but it really shows up in the dark scenes. The brightly lit scenes are beautiful but overall soft because of the filtering process they used to make the whites bloom. There are only a few minor 3-D pop moments toward the end.
> 
> 
> I did not see any compression artifacts or noise. Only the light grain.
> 
> 
> I encountered 2 serious instances of banding which will disqualify this title for Tier 0. The first was at the 19:16 to 19:20 mark in the dark background as Cid moves toward Aki (it moves). The second one appears on a leather chair at the 21:31 mark (the blue-green background appears to have banding as well because the gradient lines are not there in later shots).
> 
> 
> Because several scenes are lit by their futuristic computer monitors, I'm waiting to hear lots of complaints about the pulsating being an authoring defect which it is not.
> 
> Overall, it's a nice picture but I seriously do not want to mislead anyone into thinking this deserves the top spot.
> 
> 
> Oh, and there is disc art.
> 
> 
> My setup: [email protected]
> 
> 50" DLP sitting at a viewing distance of 7ft



Ok so I see the banding you mention but it wasn't even visible to me until I specifically looked for it in slo-mo at your time spots. You mean those 5 seconds or so on a small part of the screen is enough to toss it down a lot? I bet if everyone looks hard enough in any movie they can find some minor imperfection like that.


EDIT: Forgot to add in more info...


1920x1080x60p (46" LCD @ 5.5 ft distance)


----------



## AustinSTI

wmitchell23's post deserves commendation - it really is a great example of the detail we need.


If you don't put the minimum information in I'm not putting a movie in a tier you suggest especially Tier 1/0 because that'll start a whole debate.


Someone said Tier 0 for TMNT. Provide your SPECS please and someone needs to confirm/refute for Tier 0 placement of this movie.


Premonition has been added to Tier 2 but I'd like the poster to post his info.


FF hasn't been added but based on the feedback it could be added to tier 1. This is minor artifacting which *COULD* be improved if it were 24p (maybe not







). I agree with Darryl that if its that minor a huge hit isn't in order; I'd say bottom third of Tier 1. The timestamp was obviously key here as others can look at the banding and see the imperfection for themselves and provide feedback as to how bad it is.


IT IS CRUCIAL YOUR PROVIDE VIEWING INFORMATION WHEN COMMENTING ON A TIER PLACEMENT OTHERWISE WE DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE COMPARING APPLES TO APPLES. PEOPLE HAVE REPORTED IMPERFACTIONS on 60p WHICH AMOUNTED TO FILM JUDDER BEFORE...


----------



## Leviathin25

TMNT had super High quality video through out however, I did see banding in an opening shot with the sky that panned down to the city. Because of this, I can not recommend a tier 0 placement.(Which is what I consider so perfect that there are NO problems at all.) If it had not been there I would suggest 0. Since it is there I'd suggest top of tier 1, perhaps with a disclaimer saying because of single occurrence of banding. Now I only have a 720p LCD so I don't know if I qualify but thats my opinion. I really wanted to give this disc a 0 placement but I cant.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDphile22* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> BTW, I see Premonition is NOT on the list, but I saw it and was not that good IMO! Agreed there?
> 
> 
> Edit: It's probably like a Tier 2



If you don't think it looks good, then it would be way lower than Tier 2.......maybe you're being too easy on these movies?


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Sig files, people, sig files! *Put your source, VP if any, display and viewing distance in your sig file.* Referring back to a previous post where it was *in* the post doesn't cut it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is there none in mine? I have no BD yet, nor am I making tier suggestions. I am questioning and probing others to learn the basis for their recommendations though. I'm planning a major makeover of my video chain in the Fall, new front projector, screen and BD player.



That's against the rules if this website.......it actually gives you a warning not to post your equipment in your signature.


----------



## lgans316

A real shame to Hi-Definition and this tier thread coz 300 is not listed in tier-0.

Awesome PQ/SQ.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> That's against the rules if this website.......it actually gives you a warning not to post your equipment in your signature.




I don't think anyone was saying put equipment in your Sig, but rather resolution, viewing distance etc. There is a differance. The latter isn't against the rules.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> A real shame to Hi-Definition and this tier thread coz 300 is not listed in tier-0.
> 
> Awesome PQ/SQ.



I agree 300 has awesome PQ but tier 0? You need to substantiate your claim a bit more by at least providing the MINIMUM information specified in Pink text in post #1. I don't get why people are having trouble with this simple requirement...


----------



## getmyrunon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> That's against the rules if this website.......it actually gives you a warning not to post your equipment in your signature.



You don't have to state the specific equipment (that messes up the search function, which I believe is the problem), just viewing specs (i.e. 1080p plasma, seating distance, resolution).


----------



## ajamils




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> A real shame to Hi-Definition and this tier thread coz 300 is not listed in tier-0.
> 
> Awesome PQ/SQ.



Due to the accessive amount of grain, I don't think that it deserves to be in Tier 0. I think it's current placement is just right.


----------



## JosephShaw




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajamils* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Best thing would have been to make a sub-forum under Blu-ray software for all the movie polls and that should have fixed the problem.



That's exactly what AustinSTI and I asked for asked for, and Alan agreed, but David suggested putting the review section in instead, and that's what they did.


My IM to Alan (6-8-07):


> Quote:
> Subject: BluRay polling threads for Tier
> 
> 
> Alan, would it be possible to have a sub-forum under BluRay Software for the polling threads necessary to get input for the Tier threads? We're trying to get everyone's input so they can be included in the vote, but many are complaining that they are clogging up the forum. I'm the one posting them, and I agree. I'm beginning to think this is a thankless job, and I understand what you guys must deal with here, but I'm trying to find a way to keep this functional and useful while ruffling the least amount of feathers of users and admins/mods.



Alan's response (06-08-07):


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Alan Gouger
> 
> Ok done.
> 
> 
> David will add something later this afternoon. Will you need anything moved over or are you deleting the polls once they serve their purpose. Makes no difference just asking. Are these something you will want to arhive?
> 
> Ask everyone.



My reply to Alan (06-08-07):


> Quote:
> Thank you Alan. It's appreciated. We'll be locking the polls once they are finished and archiving the results in the Tier thread. If the ones in the Bluray software forum could be move when the new sub-forum is put in place, that would probably make a lot of people there happy. I'm not sure if I want to be called any more names today.
> 
> 
> It might hurt my self esteem.



Then Alan posted publicly that they were going to be adding the review forum instead of the sub-forum we'd asked for. He said to talk to David Bott about it.


So, I sent this to David (06-08-2007 - 2:32 PM)


> Quote:
> David, what method do you plan on using? Are you just throwing out everything we've done already, and is AVS staff taking over the Tier thread?
> 
> 
> Alan told us to come up with a solution, and we've been trying to. Earlier today I asked him for a sub-forum for the polls, and he said it would be done tonight. It appears that all of that has changed, and it appears that it's being taken out of the hands of the people who tried to keep it alive.



David's response (06-08-07):


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by David Bott
> 
> Hello...
> 
> 
> You will just need to wait and see what is being worked on I guess.
> 
> 
> As far as "everything that has been done". I am sorry, but nothing has really been done other that a punch of polls, most with no replies even. (all today mind you)
> 
> 
> Alan came to me, I suggested the sub-forum for the polls, then I had a better idea and we are going with the new idea of s dedicated area for it. Simple as that really. It is not like we spent several days and people made a hundred posts or something that would be lost. Not even close.
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> David



I was a little shocked about the sub-forum being his idea, since I believe it was suggested to us by a user first, but what was more troubling was the fact that David completely discounted everything we had attempted to do. It may not have been obvious to him, but we had been talking extensively about improving the list by dealing with criticism from forum members while still maintaining quality.


Here is my final response to David. At this point, I gave up.

(06-08-08 2:59 PM CST)


> Quote:
> David. Thanks for minimizing the time and effort AustinSTI and I put into this over the last 2 days. What you don't see in the forums is the e-mails, pm's, thought, etc. that was put into it by both of us. Furthermore, some of those polls were from today, but several of them are days old and one had at least over 100 votes (Apocalypto I believe).
> 
> 
> It was my understanding that Alan wanted the users to come up with something. That was what he said in one of the posts he made yesterday, though lots of what he posted yesterday is gone. It appears we were wrong. Good luck with whatever you do.



That's the story, at least from my perspective. I'm sure AVS staff have their own as well. It's a dead horse, it's been beaten too much already, but I thought some might like to know exactly what happened.


----------



## Mongoos150




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I agree 300 has awesome PQ but tier 0? You need to substantiate your claim a bit more by at least providing the MINIMUM information specified in Pink text in post #1. I don't get why people are having trouble with this simple requirement...



Indeed. It's getting a bit frustrating...


----------



## BjornK




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajamils* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I believe that creating a tier list for SQ is even more difficult that tier list for PQ because it is even more subjective then PQ. Plus for PQ atleast there is a standard (1080p, 720p) that people rely on. For good SQ there are so many variable (like receiver, cables, speakers etc) that it would be impossible for people to agree on the placement.



I see your point, but I respectfully don't agree. While it (AQ) might be slightly more difficult and subjective than PQ, I still believe it could follow the exact same formula and rules as the PQ Tier thread.


Just like PQ has standards like 1080p/720p, SQ has standards like DD5.1, DTS, TrueHD and PCM.

Just like SQ has variables like receiver and speakers (cables? really







) PQ has just as many variables or more, like display type (LCD, DLP, CRT), size (all the way from ~28" to 120" or more), "cables"







etc


While SQ is obviously subjective in many ways, isn't PQ just the same way? How many people aren't arguing whether 300 should be Tier 0 or Tier ~3 or something like that because of image noise? The same thing could be said about many titles, such as Apocalypto (video/film arguments), Black hawk down (again, noise), I could go on but you see my point.


I can definitely see how you could quite easily separate a Tier 1 SQ to a Tier 3/4. Then there are the titles that most people would agree has the 'Best' SQ of all







, which ofcourse is one of the top reasons to have a tier thread in the first place.


I don't know, I think it would be really cool to have a SQ Tier thread, to have a (preferably updated) list of the best Blu-ray demo discs for audio quality, as well as possibly seeing what titles to avoid if you value SQ. I wouldn't mind adding and updating it at times, but I don't know if I have the time and stamina to constantly keep it updated with every title released... Any takers?


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BjornK* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I see your point, but I respectfully don't agree. While it (AQ) might be slightly more difficult and subjective than PQ, I still believe it could follow the exact same formula and rules as the PQ Tier thread.
> 
> 
> Just like PQ has standards like 1080p/720p, SQ has standards like DD5.1, DTS, TrueHD and PCM.
> 
> Just like SQ has variables like receiver and speakers (cables? really
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) PQ has just as many variables or more, like display type (LCD, DLP, CRT), size (all the way from ~28" to 120" or more), "cables"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> etc
> 
> 
> While SQ is obviously subjective in many ways, isn't PQ just the same way? How many people aren't arguing whether 300 should be Tier 0 or Tier ~3 or something like that because of image noise? The same thing could be said about many titles, such as Apocalypto (video/film arguments), Black hawk down (again, noise), I could go on but you see my point.
> 
> 
> I can definitely see how you could quite easily separate a Tier 1 SQ to a Tier 3/4. Then there are the titles that most people would agree has the 'Best' SQ of all
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , which ofcourse is one of the top reasons to have a tier thread in the first place.
> 
> 
> I don't know, I think it would be really cool to have a SQ Tier thread, to have a (preferably updated) list of the best Blu-ray demo discs for audio quality, as well as possibly seeing what titles to avoid if you value SQ. I wouldn't mind adding and updating it at times, but I don't know if I have the time and stamina to constantly keep it updated with every title released... Any takers?




I agree with you and think its a Great idea but I'm not gonna manage that headache. If you want feel free to start an SQ thread because I'm not going to give myself the headache of managing an SQ thread...


----------



## Davio

Im using PS3, Sony KDS-50A2000 in 1080p/60. I too think Premonition is a bit softer of a picture and shouldnt be ranked where it is. There was another thread here about how horrible of a movie Premonition was and a lot of people blast the video quality.


On another note, I got Pirates 1 yesterday and man is it a beautiful movie....funny story though, I argued with my wife for 10 minutes about its PQ though. She was telling me it looked no different than DVD!!! I went back and forth between the two 3 different times comparing, and she still claimed to not see the difference. Granted, Pirates 1 is a great regular DVD and the PS3 is upconverting so it looks even better, but you can still see a blatant difference..........so it ended up with me telling her to get some glasses  (not joking either, she really does need some some eye correction! I have 20/15 with my contacts so I suppose I shouldnt hold it against her that she couldnt see the difference ; )


----------



## Teepanen

Can't see the dif between a DVD and a BD?!?!?







I would divorce her immediatly!


----------



## DomNY

These grain comments are getting annoying. A BD should be compared to how closely it replicates the original movie experience. If the director wants a gritty look and the BD replicates it, then it should be higher on the list. People that don't like the look of a gritty (or grainy) image, should not be looking to lower the discs standing because of their desire to see a perfectly smooth image similar to animation. It just doesn't happen in most cases.

I watched 300 on a 92" screen at 11.5 ft. via a Panny 10A (1080P/60) and connected via HDMI into a JVC RS1. The picture was outstanding. Smooth as silk? Hell no. An accurate representation of the original movie experience? Yes. Sharp? Yes. This is a definite "high" Tier 1 for sure.

Regards,

Dom


----------



## Mongoos150




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BjornK* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I don't know, I think it would be really cool to have a SQ Tier thread, to have a (preferably updated) list of the best Blu-ray demo discs for audio quality, as well as possibly seeing what titles to avoid if you value SQ.



Eh... It doesn't appeal to me. There are _way_ too many additional factors that go into SQ that are rather standardized (non-issues) with BD. If someone wants to try, go for it, but I believe it would be one giant mess. Besides - not too many people here, in this forum, are too terribly concerned with SQ at all. I haven't bought a SQ DVD in at least a year. Of coruse there are people who still do, but this forum doesn't cater to them. If you'd like to create a SQ tier thread, it doesn't belong in the Blu Ray forum.


----------



## Teepanen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mongoos150* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Eh... It doesn't appeal to me. There are _way_ too many additional factors that go into SQ that are rather standardized (non-issues) with BD. If someone wants to try, go for it, but I believe it would be one giant mess. Besides - not too many people here, in this forum, are too terribly concerned with SQ at all. I haven't bought a SQ DVD in at least a year. Of coruse there are people who still do, but this forum doesn't cater to them. If you'd like to create a SQ tier thread, it doesn't belong in the Blu Ray forum.



Mongoos, it sounds like you have not seen the sister thread of this one over in the HD-DVD forum. I wouldn't go as far as to say: "this does not belong here" or "not too many people are concerned with SQ at all". I think it does belong here and people do care. With that being said, I certainly realize the extra admin and debating this will bring to this thread, and if I were you I would probably also refuse to maintain SQ.


In any case, I am satisfied by checking out hddb.net links and from there reviews to check out the SQ of flicks, because I DO care. Weren't you planning on adding the hddb.net links to every title?


----------



## Teepanen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DomNY* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> These grain comments are getting annoying. A BD should be compared to how closely it replicates the original movie experience. If the director wants a gritty look and the BD replicates it, then it should be higher on the list. People that don't like the look of a gritty (or grainy) image, should not be looking to lower the discs standing because of their desire to see a perfectly smooth image similar to animation. It just doesn't happen in most cases.
> 
> I watched 300 on a 92" screen at 11.5 ft. via a Panny 10A (1080P/60) and connected via HDMI into a JVC RS1. The picture was outstanding. Smooth as silk? Hell no. An accurate representation of the original movie experience? Yes. Sharp? Yes. This is a definite "high" Tier 1 for sure.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dom



This is by no means a start to a grain debate and I am not a grain-hater NOR a grain-lover, but I wanted to bring to the table one example of grain that took away from my viewing experience. I believe few have this title: Incubus Alive at the Red Rocks. Anyway, what bothered me there was that most of the time the picture is crystal clear but a couple of angles, more specifically some crowd shots were covered with grain. Now here, I do not think we can use director's intent argument and more importantly I felt it took away from my viewing experience. It was a bit of a downer to be seeing a nice pleasant image and then suddenly being thrown a shot here and there of grainy- lower quality image.


And FWIW, 300 grain did not bother me, I agree with its placement in this Tier thread.


----------



## Mongoos150




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Teepanen* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> In any case, I am satisfied by checking out hddb.net links and from there reviews to check out the SQ of flicks, because I DO care. Weren't you planning on adding the hddb.net links to every title?



Yep. It'll happen [likely soon].


----------



## ClevelandRob




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mongoos150* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Eh... It doesn't appeal to me. There are _way_ too many additional factors that go into SQ that are rather standardized (non-issues) with BD. If someone wants to try, go for it, but I believe it would be one giant mess. Besides - not too many people here, in this forum, are too terribly concerned with SQ at all. I haven't bought a SQ DVD in at least a year. Of coruse there are people who still do, but this forum doesn't cater to them. If you'd like to create a SQ tier thread, it doesn't belong in the Blu Ray forum.



I think there is a misunderstanding.... The poster was talking about sound quality (SQ). Your response sounds like you are referring to standard def. I dunno... Maybe I'm just confused. :cracking open another one:


Anyways... I finally watched 300 on BD last night (46" 720p DLP @ 7ft). I agree 100% with it's position. I've read about a billion of those grain complaints the last few weeks. After about 15 minutes I thought I had a remastered "Low-Grain" edition. The picture looked wonderful. It is one of the best looking discs I've watched. I guess I expected more based on all the complaints. YES the film was a gritty on the outside, but the scenes where all sharp and colorful with much POP. The sound through my piddly 5.1 DD setup was great as well. I got chills in the opening title sequence! My only complaint would be that I felt that some shots of Leonidas seemed softer other shots. It could have just been me though!


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone was saying put equipment in your Sig, but rather resolution, viewing distance etc. There is a differance. The latter isn't against the rules.



I have no idea what I was thinking. I have deleted my post. I'll just sit back now and only read the thread . . . .


----------



## JosephD05

I don't know why Pirates is tier 0 over Crank. I gotta say, I think Crank is SOO much better looking than Pirates. Crank looks as good as 1080i on INHD or HDnet, while Pirates looks like another movie with black bars.


----------



## Mongoos150




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JosephD05* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I don't know why Pirates is tier 0 over Crank. I gotta say, I think Crank is SOO much better looking than Pirates. Crank looks as good as 1080i on INHD or HDnet, while Pirates looks like another movie with black bars.



Perhaps you have your display calibrated incorrectly, but it's been unanimously argued as the _best_ live action Blu film released.


For future reference, if you'd like us to take your input into consideration, always post your screen type (plasma, LCD, LcOS, RP DLP, whatever) including model if possible, your viewing distance, and a timestamp of the portion of the film you're watching (in addition to any other details that might make your point relevant).


----------



## JosephD05




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mongoos150* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Perhaps you have your display calibrated incorrectly, but it's been unanimously argued as the _best_ live action Blu film released.
> 
> 
> For future reference, if you'd like us to take your input into consideration, always post your screen type (plasma, LCD, LcOS, RP DLP, whatever) including model if possible, your viewing distance, and a timestamp of the portion of the film you're watching (in addition to any other details that might make your point relevant).




Well my TV is in my signiature. I didn't watch the movie, but I browsed through various parts. Maybe it's the fact that it's 2.35-1 ratio (black bars), but I still think Crank and Black hawk down look better. If I change my mind after watching the whole movie, I will let you know.


----------



## JosephD05

Wait a minute, having your gear in the SIG is against the rules?


----------



## JosephD05




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Are you with the sig police?



ME? no, but in a previous post, I believe someone mentioned that it's against the rules.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JosephD05* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> ME? no, but in a previous post, I believe someone mentioned that it's against the rules.



And it is in fact against the rules...


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JosephD05* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> ME? no, but in a previous post, I believe someone mentioned that it's against the rules.



Well, in bold red text on the page where you created your sig it says "*NOTE...Do not list equipment in your signature.*" But I've seen people do it. I have one piece of gear listed. And I've seen a few people list their gear in their "Custom User Title."


----------



## JosephD05

My bad, I'll remove it.


----------



## JosephD05

BTW, 300 is grainy, but it looks and sounds amazing. It just feels right with the grain.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JosephD05* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> My bad, I'll remove it.



For the purposes of this thread, they want to know display resolution and seating distance. I think 60i, 60p or 24p might have been added to the pertinent info, but don't quote me on that.


You can list your gear in your profile. Also, many ISP's supply a few MB of personal web server space and many people put up a page or three on their system there. Follow the link in my sig for an example.


----------



## JosephD05

60 inch 1080p. Viewing distance I would say 12 ft. I will watch the entire movie sometime this week and will post again.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JosephD05* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 60 inch 1080p. Viewing distance I would say 12 ft. I will watch the entire movie sometime this week and will post again.



You understand how the "required" information affects what one sees when judging a movie, right? The thinking is, and I concur, that artifacting due to 3:2 pulldown of the native 24p on BD (and HD-DVD) is not there on systems feeding the display the native 24p (and the display properly handling said 24p). That means that it's not the disc (movie), but the system. Resolution and viewing distance, I believe, mostly go to softness/sharpness; a movie looks different at 2x screen width than it does at 1x screen width. Ditto a 1080p source displayed at 1920x1080i than at 1920x1080i or 1280x720p (or 1366x768p).


----------



## JosephD05

I think the PS3 is pumping it out at 1080i 60 as my TV cannot accept a 1080P source. That being said, Crank looks unreal, not sure if it was shot differently. I run my set in Pro mode, which does do a 3:2 pulldown.


----------



## AustinSTI

Noted - I think both movies are stunning from what I hear; I'm not sure that 3:2 would make much difference but I've seen DMC on 1080p/24 and it looks great.


----------



## Mongoos150




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Noted - I think both movies are stunning from what I hear; I'm not sure that 3:2 would make much difference but I've seen DMC on 1080p/24 and it looks great.



Agreed, DMC still trumps Crank and BHD in my (and others) opinion. The 3:2 wouldn't likely have a major hit on PQ - it would more likely affect non-24p material.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JosephD05* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Well my TV is in my signiature. I didn't watch the movie, but I browsed through various parts. Maybe it's the fact that it's 2.35-1 ratio (black bars), but I still think Crank and Black hawk down look better. If I change my mind after watching the whole movie, I will let you know.



I sort of understand where you are coming from. Because Crank is 1.85 aspect ratio and was filmed on HD Video, one can make the case that in more than a few scenes it may have more pop, detail and vibrant colors. However, in other scenes there is significant edge enhancement, and many purists just don't like the look of HD Video. Overall, DMC is more consistent and more incredibly stunning in it's own right.


However, I think DMC trumps Black Hawk Down in pretty solid fashion.


Brandon


----------



## haste

Ok, bringing back the HOFD argument. I bought Stargate yesterday on Blu-ray(only $3 at CC) and it looks HORRIBLE compared to House of Flying Daggers. I don't see how Stargate isn't in the Coal tier. It's absolutely friggin terrible. I understand it's already in the Bronze tier, but I really think it needs to be put in the very last position. Even my girlfriend said it looked like crap compared to HOFD.


I'm watching on a Phillips 42PFL7432D/37 1080p via HDMI. Viewing distance is about 8 feet. Using a PS3 with 24p turned off.


There were points in Stargate where it looked like a DVD. Especially inside of Ra's pyramid spaceship. The outside scenes were OK, but still mediocre. Even compared to HOFD!


If Stargate doesn't belong in the Coal tier, I'd hate to see what really belongs in that category.


----------



## John Ballentine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I sort of understand where you are coming from. Because Crank is 1.85 aspect ratio and was filmed on HD Video, one can make the case that in more than a few scenes it may have more pop, detail and vibrant colors. *However, in other scenes there is significant edge enhancement, and many purists just don't like the look of HD Video. Overall, DMC is more consistent and more incredibly stunning in it's own right.*
> 
> 
> However, I think DMC trumps Black Hawk Down in pretty solid fashion.
> 
> 
> Brandon



I agree 100%. The edge enhancement kills me on this title and I for one don't like the look of HD video.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *haste* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Ok, bringing back the HOFD argument. I bought Stargate yesterday on Blu-ray(only $3 at CC) and it looks HORRIBLE compared to House of Flying Daggers. I don't see how Stargate isn't in the Coal tier. It's absolutely friggin terrible. I understand it's already in the Bronze tier, but I really think it needs to be put in the very last position. Even my girlfriend said it looked like crap compared to HOFD.
> 
> 
> I'm watching on a Phillips 42PFL7432D/37 1080p via HDMI. Viewing distance is about 8 feet. Using a PS3 with 24p turned off.
> 
> 
> There were points in Stargate where it looked like a DVD. Especially inside of Ra's pyramid spaceship. The outside scenes were OK, but still mediocre. Even compared to HOFD!
> 
> 
> If Stargate doesn't belong in the Coal tier, I'd hate to see what really belongs in that category.



Oh lord not HOFD AGAIN....Buy/Rent DMC and let us know how that looks


----------



## JosephShaw




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone was saying put equipment in your Sig, but rather resolution, viewing distance etc. There is a differance. The latter isn't against the rules.



The thing is, it won't last. When you change you sig, it will change all of your previous messages. So, for posterity's sake, putting any information in your sig is a bad idea.


----------



## haste




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Oh lord not HOFD AGAIN....Buy/Rent DMC and let us know how that looks




I was simply stating that Stargate looks far worse, and I don't understand why it isn't ranked lower than HOFD. There is a HUGE difference between the two.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JosephShaw* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The thing is, it won't last. When you change you sig, it will change all of your previous messages. So, for posterity's sake, putting any information in your sig is a bad idea.



If you change your sig often, that might be true, but then only if you replace the info instead of supplementing it. And putting it there means the poster can set it and forget it - it's always there. Sure it may not make sense when you post in the HTPC forum, but who cares. I've had my DVR and software version in my sig for nearly a year.


Just my $.02.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> If you change your sig often, that might be true, but then only if you replace the info instead of supplementing it. And putting it there means the poster can set it and forget it - it's always there. Sure it may not make sense when you post in the HTPC forum, but who cares. I've had my DVR and software version in my sig for nearly a year.
> 
> 
> Just my $.02.



If you change your sig it doesn't change all your previous posts...look at my earlier posts and you'll see my sig isn't there....


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> If you change your sig it doesn't change all your previous posts...look at my earlier posts and you'll see my sig isn't there....



I was wrong about that! Only things on the left around the screen name change and are updated retroactively - avatar, post count, custom user title, etc. Again, I demonstrated the dangers of a-s-s-u-m-i-n-g.










What's your position on posters, if for no other reason than they no longer need to remember it when posting, having display res and viewing distance in their sig? And should 60p/60i/24p be listed as well?


----------



## Mongoos150




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> What's your position on posters, if for no other reason than they no longer need to remember it when posting, having display res and viewing distance in their sig? And should 60p/60i/24p be listed as well?



Honestly, as much info as possible. The more the better. If we have a whole bunch of viewing info (including timestamp) with person A's opinion and conflicting info on the same film from person B with no more info than "Uh... I'm watching on a plasma. it pwns!", we're going to go with person A.


----------



## JosephShaw




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> If you change your sig it doesn't change all your previous posts...look at my earlier posts and you'll see my sig isn't there....



Yes it does.


My old sig before I changed it 2 minutes ago:










The same post, but with my new sig after I changed it:










But I'm being pedantic.







You could post the technical info in your profile under equipment if you wanted to.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JosephShaw* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Yes it does.
> 
> 
> My old sig before I changed it 2 minutes ago:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same post, but with my new sig after I changed it:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I'm being pedantic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You could post the technical info in your profile under equipment if you wanted to.



I think if you didn't have one before and you create one it isn't added to all of your posts. If you have one and CHANGE it maybe it changes in your posts...just a guess


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mongoos150* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Honestly, as much info as possible. The more the better. If we have a whole bunch of viewing info (including timestamp) with person A's opinion and conflicting info on the same film from person B with no more info than "Uh... I'm watching on a plasma. it pwns!", we're going to go with person A.



I agree - the more the better. In the end there are things that'll be different for each film and things that won't the things that won't belong in the sig; the things that change belong in a post. We do need 60i/p or 24i/p depending on your setup. I think it'll be assumed its 60 if its not included because those that view at 24 know it...


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JosephShaw* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> But I'm being pedantic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You could post the technical info in your profile under equipment if you wanted to.



Nobody looks there. The thinking is that one's opinion on the matter of a particular film's tier level is easier to "qualify" and understand if the factoids in question are known. Digging around every time for the poster's system means virtually no one would do it.


Just my $.02.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I agree - the more the better. In the end there are things that'll be different for each film and things that won't the things that won't belong in the sig; the things that change belong in a post. We do need 60i/p or 24i/p depending on your setup. I think it'll be assumed its 60 if its not included because those that view at 24 know it...



Can we presume/deduce that certain complaints would be affected more by viewing distance and resolution than by the presence (or absence) of native frame rate passthrough? And vice versa?


----------



## Icemage




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Can we presume/deduce that certain complaints would be affected more by viewing distance and resolution than by the presence (or absence) of native frame rate passthrough? And vice versa?



If I had to guess, I'd say the biggest influences on perceptual quality would be:


(1) Resolution. 1080 native resolution units are going to do better than 720p native units (768 pixels, typically). It's _very_ hard to spot macroblocking or mild softness when you're losing 30% of the picture detail due to downscaling. I woud take any claims of great PQ from a 720p user with a grain of salt until it is confirmed by at least one 1080p user.


(2) Viewing distance. Sitting too far back from the display will cause you to miss the fine detail and reduce the possibility of spotting artifacts or soft transfers.


(3) Frame rate. The only artifact introduced by frame rate is judder. It doesn't impact the quality of the image itself, and most people are somewhat used to judder anyhow.


Claims of poor color balance should always be taken with a grain of salt unless coming from someone with a calibrated display, or unless the effect is obvious (_Crank_, _Transporter 2_, etc.).


----------



## Mongoos150

Aaaaand we're done. Let's get back to talking about specific films and their respective ratings. The horse is dead, people.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mongoos150* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Aaaaand we're done. Let's get back to talking about specific films and their respective ratings. The horse is dead, people.



I agree...what came out today?


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*300*


Warner finally gets one right! Looked great, despite the fact that there is obviously quite a bit of (intentional) grain. I loved the look they gave to this movie. Violence done in an artistic way!


I love Sin City, and that was made by the same people, so I guess I am not surprised I liked this movie so much.


Current placement on Tier 1 is good.


----------



## CETA

Boy, I guess I would suck as a professional reviewer for video quality







.


I just watched "Bridge to Terabithia" and I thought the picture quality was outstanding. I was surprised to see it sitting as Silver.


I felt the Forest scenes were first rate and I would gladly use this as a demo disc to friends. I thought Gold at least..


I own 38 Discs at this point and I have been most impressed with "Bridge to Terabithia" and "Apocolypto".


Once again, I guess I shouldn't give up my day job!


-Rick


----------



## vpn75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CETA* /forum/post/11350339
> 
> 
> Boy, I guess I would suck as a professional reviewer for video quality
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> I just watched "Bridge to Terabithia" and I thought the picture quality was outstanding. I was surprised to see it sitting as Silver.
> 
> 
> I felt the Forest scenes were first rate and I would gladly use this as a demo disc to friends. I thought Gold at least..
> 
> 
> I own 38 Discs at this point and I have been most impressed with "Bridge to Terabithia" and "Apocolypto".
> 
> 
> Once again, I guess I shouldn't give up my day job!
> 
> 
> -Rick



I agree, Terabithia looked great and the PCM soundtrack was quite impressive too. It also happens to be a really good movie, which always helps


----------



## Teepanen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vpn75* /forum/post/11373270
> 
> 
> I agree, Terabithia looked great and the PCM soundtrack was quite impressive too. It also happens to be a really good movie, which always helps



I thought PQ was nice, but I don't see why everyone loves this movie so much. I bought it based on things I heard here and reviews that I read, but really its the only title I regret buying that I own. A peak into a child's imagination is fine with me, but at times I just found this one lame. My girlfriend walked out on it half-way through and she likes fantasy.


----------



## John Ballentine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Teepanen* /forum/post/11380990
> 
> 
> I thought PQ was nice, but I don't see why everyone loves this movie so much. I bought it based on things I heard here and reviews that I read, but really its the only title I regret buying that I own. A peak into a child's imagination is fine with me, but at times I just found this one lame. My girlfriend walked out on it half-way through and she likes fantasy.



I agree w/ you 100%. My wife walked out on it too.


----------



## bigthys

I just saw the Battle of the Bulge BD last nite, and I thought, for the most part, that the PQ was pretty darn good, except for the "haze" that appears quite often on both the left and right sides. This "haze" is real apparent just right before the "Intermission" part of the movie. Was this part of the original movie? I know it's not my TV nor my BD player (I played POTC DMC right after and it was clear as a bell!) Anybody else notice this?


----------



## Nitron

apocalypto has better PQ than dead man's chest


----------



## Teepanen

When was the last time a movie was added to the list? Whats up guys, no one wants to contribute and the mods arent buying new releases?


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Ballentine* /forum/post/11381155
> 
> 
> I agree w/ you 100%. My wife walked out on it too.



I've seen people walk out of 4 star and academy award winning Best Picture movies, so it means nothing when I hear people say they walked out.


----------



## edgary

Can anybody tell me why "Kiss of the dragon" is not on the list. Nobody owns it or has seen it? Or nobody is really interested in it?


----------



## Teepanen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/11429256
> 
> 
> I've seen people walk out of 4 star and academy award winning Best Picture movies, so it means nothing when I hear people say they walked out.



I just means they didnt like it, thats all.


----------



## AustinSTI

Van Wilder should be Tier 3


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Teepanen* /forum/post/11429253
> 
> 
> When was the last time a movie was added to the list? Whats up guys, no one wants to contribute and the mods arent buying new releases?



We add what we buy. I bought Van Wilder, Screened it an added it but it also relies on contributors and those contributors must put some viewing information in posts for them to be considered. I'm tired of telling people that over and over...If you want to help us Teepanen you are welcome to!


----------



## Mongoos150

Indeed - if Teepanen wants to fund mod purchases, by all means, go for it







- Otherwise, we're of course still modding and taking opinions on new releases.


----------



## Ex Accountant

Does anyone know why First Blood is listed twice? Once in Silver and once in Bronze?


----------



## Teepanen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/11434993
> 
> 
> We add what we buy. I bought Van Wilder, Screened it an added it but it also relies on contributors and those contributors must put some viewing information in posts for them to be considered. I'm tired of telling people that over and over...If you want to help us Teepanen you are welcome to!



That's cool. I was just trying to rally the troops I guess. Haven't seen the new titles beeing talked about on this thread lately.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mongoos150* /forum/post/11452305
> 
> 
> Indeed - if Teepanen wants to fund mod purchases, by all means, go for it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Otherwise, we're of course still modding and taking opinions on new releases.



Hehe, well to be honest I am more interested in funding my own purchases.







I'd love to contribute, however it seems I am buying more old titles than new ones these days. My bd collection is in my sig...

Come to think of it, I was the only one that contributed on the Incubus disk placement. It seems no one likes them...


Anyway, go buy some movies that are not on the list!


----------



## slksc

Just watched Flatliners, and noticed it wasn't on the list yet. I enjoyed it: it's a pretty good movie, but I definitely wouldn't put it in the top tiers for PQ. Maybe Tier 3 or even Pier 4: while I didn't see too many visual artifacts, the PQ was certainly soft, similar to an upscaled DVD on my screen. Of course, this is a 1990 release with MPEG-2, so perhaps it shouldn't be too surprising.


I noticed that Peter Bracke at Hi Def Digest gave the PQ 3.5 stars. That's overly generous as far as I'm concerned.


The PCM audio, though, was pretty good for such an old movie, with decent surround action and clear dialogs. Thank you Sony for including PCM tracks on these catalog titles.


Equipment:

Panasonic TH-58PX600U 58-inch plasma, 1366 × 768

PS3

Watching distance: 8 feet


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slksc* /forum/post/11462271
> 
> 
> Just watched Flatliners, and noticed it wasn't on the list yet. I enjoyed it: it's a pretty good movie, but I definitely wouldn't put it in the top tiers for PQ. Maybe Tier 3 or even Pier 4: while I didn't see too many visual artifacts, the PQ was certainly soft, similar to an upscaled DVD on my screen. Of course, this is a 1990 release with MPEG-2, so perhaps it shouldn't be too surprising.
> 
> 
> I noticed that Peter Bracke at Hi Def Digest gave the PQ 3.5 stars. That's overly generous as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> 
> The PCM audio, though, was pretty good for such an old movie, with decent surround action and clear dialogs. Thank you Sony for including PCM tracks on these catalog titles.
> 
> 
> Equipment:
> 
> Panasonic TH-58PX600U 58-inch plasma, 1366 × 768
> 
> PS3
> 
> Watching distance: 8 feet




I'll put it in Tier 3 taking your resolution into account.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slksc* /forum/post/11462271
> 
> 
> I noticed that Peter Bracke at Hi Def Digest gave the PQ 3.5 stars. That's overly generous as far as I'm concerned.



Peter Bracke tends to be overly generous with his ratings on lots of titles. Not that I don't still find his reviews useful. The same goes with this forum, even if I disagree, I can still use it as a relative yardstick compared to previous ratings.


For example, I've seen him give 5 stars to titles that I thought only deserved, say, a 3.5 or 4. Therefore, when I see him give a title a 3.5, I'll have to keep in mind that, using the Bracke Adjustment Meter, the title may really be a 2 or 3 in PQ (to MY eyes).


Oh, and I rented Bridge to Terabithia recently. It was actually the first title I watched on my new XBR4 set. It looked gorgeous through and through. I was really amazed by it, to be honest with you.


My new specs:

PS3 HDMI out

46" XBR4

1080p24

6-10 feet viewing distance


Now, I see it's middle of Tier 2. I'm not recommending placement of it higher or lower at the moment because obviously with new specs I need to go back and look at some of the earlier titles I watched on my older TV. But the movie looked great to me.


Brandon


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Oh, and I rented Bridge to Terabithia recently. It was actually the first title I watched on my new XBR4 set. It looked gorgeous through and through. I was really amazed by it, to be honest with you.
> 
> 
> My new specs:
> 
> PS3 HDMI out
> 
> 46" XBR4
> 
> 1080p24
> 
> 6-10 feet viewing distance
> 
> 
> Now, I see it's middle of Tier 2. I'm not recommending placement of it higher or lower at the moment because obviously with new specs I need to go back and look at some of the earlier titles I watched on my older TV. But the movie looked great to me.



This is very interesting! Terebithia looked gorgeous to you - and I think it is, but being the first movie you watched on the new display it may also have something to do with that. I, and I'm sure others, will be interested in hearing your comments as you establish a new "baseline" on your new gear.


----------



## Mongoos150

Haven't seen Terebithia yet. Am anxious however.


----------



## Teepanen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mongoos150* /forum/post/11475418
> 
> 
> Haven't seen Terebithia yet. Am anxious however.



Get anxious for the PQ, but not for the movie. Better be pleasantly suprised than disappointed.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mongoos150* /forum/post/11475418
> 
> 
> Haven't seen Terebithia yet. Am anxious however.



The movie is pretty hit or miss. Some people loved it, and I absolutely hated it. I rarely start a movie without finishing it. I mean it's very very rare that I don't finish a movie, even if I don't think it's very good. But on this one I ended up just skipping through chapters to assess the PQ in various types of scenes because about 30 minutes into the movie I just couldn't stand it any more.


Brandon


----------



## Teepanen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/11480869
> 
> 
> The movie is pretty hit or miss. Some people loved it, and I absolutely hated it. I rarely start a movie without finishing it. I mean it's very very rare that I don't finish a movie, even if I don't think it's very good. But on this one I ended up just skipping through chapters to assess the PQ in various types of scenes because about 30 minutes into the movie I just couldn't stand it any more.
> 
> 
> Brandon



Yeah, I almost gave up on it when they were in the treehouse and she looked up in the sky and yelled out something super lame. I was like







. But I stuck through it and it did get better. Never the less, this is the only BD I own that I regret buying.


----------



## DomNY

Greetings,


I don't see this as being a tier 1 BD. Watched it last night and there are several close up scenes (faces) that are very soft in relation to the rest of the movie. Actually almost all close-ups seemed "soft" or slightly out of focus. I would rate it no higher than mid-tier 2.


JVC-RS1 with 92" Grayhawk Screen.

Panny 10A @ 1080P/60

viewing distance - 11.5 ft. from screen


Regards,

Dom


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DomNY* /forum/post/11498544
> 
> 
> Greetings,
> 
> 
> I don't see this as being a tier 1 BD. Watched it last night and there are several close up scenes (faces) that are very soft in relation to the rest of the movie. Actually almost all close-ups seemed "soft" or slightly out of focus. I would rate it no higher than mid-tier 2.
> 
> 
> JVC-RS1 with 92" Grayhawk Screen.
> 
> Panny 10A @ 1080P/60
> 
> viewing distance - 11.5 ft. from screen
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dom



I agree.


----------



## HiddenDepth

WOW? 300 is higher ranked as Ghost Rider ?

NO WAY in Hell 300 looks better then Ghost Rider


I wonder if this "New tier thread" is about content or Picture quality!!


----------



## CETA

Another Wow! I finally got to see the remaster of "Fifth Element". Holy crap if every disk was this quality or better. It was like seeing the movie for the first time.


For this week it is my new reference disk.










Things are looking pretty damn good as far as quality of releases lately (from what I have seen but then again I have been on a mad shopping spree so I guess this happens).


-Rick


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DomNY* /forum/post/11498544
> 
> 
> Greetings,
> 
> 
> I don't see this as being a tier 1 BD. Watched it last night and there are several close up scenes (faces) that are very soft in relation to the rest of the movie. Actually almost all close-ups seemed "soft" or slightly out of focus. I would rate it no higher than mid-tier 2.
> 
> 
> JVC-RS1 with 92" Grayhawk Screen.
> 
> Panny 10A @ 1080P/60
> 
> viewing distance - 11.5 ft. from screen
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dom



Agreed.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CETA* /forum/post/11504334
> 
> 
> Another Wow! I finally got to see the remaster of "Fifth Element". Holy crap if every disk was this quality or better. It was like seeing the movie for the first time.
> 
> 
> For this week it is my new reference disk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rick



I guess I'll have to consider buying this one. I want to rent it on Netflix but is there any way of knowing whether ur getting the original release or the remastered version?


Brandon


----------



## Teepanen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/11505316
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I'll have to consider buying this one. I want to rent it on Netflix but is there any way of knowing whether ur getting the original release or the remastered version?
> 
> 
> Brandon



Don't consider it, buy it! Its an awesome movie, let alone the remastered will look really sweet on your XBR. If you're shopping at a B&M you can tell the remastered by the inclusion of the TrueHD track. The original did not have it. If you order from Amazon, then it simply states that you're getting the remastered in the product title.


----------



## haste




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ex Accountant* /forum/post/11455859
> 
> 
> Does anyone know why First Blood is listed twice? Once in Silver and once in Bronze?



Not sure why, but it belongs in the Bronze thread. For such an old movie the PQ isn't terrible. But it's definitely a soft picture.

In the very first scenes of the movie the top of the picture is out of focus. Crappy camera work I guess...


----------



## dvdmike007

Replacement killers viewed at 1080i from 5ft at 42 inches hdmi on ps3 solid Silver AVC encode sitting above 30mbs for the most part Gold in some places but would say silver


----------



## iqjumpuw

These are the movies I have and my own thoughts on their PQ.


Into the Blue: Tier 2 - I had a high expectation for this movie but was a little disappointed. I was expecting to see every little details of Jessica Alba but I had to settle for just a pretty good PQ.










Gone in 60 Seconds: Tier 2 - Good PQ but not sharp enough. This definitely looks better than most movies listed in tier 3.


We Were Soldiers: Tier 4 - Great movie but horrible PQ. Noise everywhere, blacks were absolutely horrible. Many nightshots in this movie looked like they were shot in daylight. It did not contain any eye-popping clear 1080P scenaries.


The Last Samurai: Tier 3 - Disappointing PQ. Terrible blacks and lots of noisy shots. It did have few nice scenes though.


Casino Royale: Tier 1 - Excellent PQ. Definitely one of the demo materials.


Tears of the Sun: Tier 2 - Very good PQ. Some of the faceshots are amazing. You could see the facial hairs clearly. Occasional noise level prevented me from giving this a tier 1 vote.


Planet Earth: Tier 3 - This documentary has by far the best PQ I have ever seen but is ruined by way too much noise. It's very obvious it was the camera's fault. For example, when the camera is zoomed in to film the animals upclose, or when they are filming inside a pitch dark cave, it has a very bad noise level. This is definitely a demo material though. Some of the shots are just mesmerizing. (HD DVD looked better than my Blu Ray though)


Kingdom of Heaven: Tier 1 - Amazing PQ.


Black Snake Moan: Tier 1 - Hated the movie but the PQ was awesome.



These movies were viewed on my 47" Philips 1080P LCD HDTV with Playstation 3 using HDMI cables.


----------



## phisch

I watched Shooter last night and I thought the pq was excellent. I don't see this movie listed in a tier yet, but I would put it in upper tier 2. Very sharp, contrasty image, but blacks are slightly crushed in some scenes like MI:3. Pretty good movie too.


----------



## robertc88

For what I've viewed so far on my friend's PS3 and display. Overrated for PQ are 300, Mission Impossible 3, and Golden Flower (didn't really enjoy that one bit) as far as we were concerned.


Big thumbs up for BHD, both POTCs, Apocalypto, and Crank. We enjoyed Pearl Harbor, especially the attack which really looked good but not as high in quality as the aforementioned films. Haven't watched any animated films so far.


I'll continue with more as I watch them. My advice is rent before you buy so there is no disappointment as one's mileage varies when it comes to PQ.


----------



## oleus

finally watched BLOOD DIAMOND on bd last night....WHOA! *THIS* is probably the best looking BD disc i've seen yet on my 110" screen.


the black level in the opening scene seemed a bit off, but the remaining 99% of the film was just beautiful.


good movie too! that always helps.


-oleus


EDIT - just noticed how many titles are ranked above Blood Diamond. VERY surprised! PS i'm comparing this to about 40 other BD's i own including SCANNER DARKLY, both PIRATES movies, CRANK, etc. I thought it looked SUPERB!!!!


----------



## robertc88

I'll put Blood Diamond into my queue. I never saw it so it's probably worthwhile to do so in the near future over other films I already viewed although not in high def.


----------



## Mongoos150

Indeed, I need to pick up a copy of Blood Diamond as well. Perhaps this weekend.


----------



## AustinSTI

Blood Diamond is good; I liked the movie and the PQ


----------



## robertc88

Blood Diamond has a long wait in queue unfortunately. I want to get a peek at Corpse Bride as that is Tier 0. Maybe I'll flat out buy that one.


Prestige is excellent for PQ. Don't hesitate on a rental or perhaps a purchase on that one!


----------



## Teepanen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *robertc88* /forum/post/11550532
> 
> 
> 
> Prestige is excellent for PQ. Don't hesitate on a rental or perhaps a purchase on that one!



I wasn't blown away by the PQ of Prestige. Overall, it was good, but not much 3d pop to it. Its a raelly good movie IMO though, and is a worthy buy.


----------



## Mongoos150




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *haste* /forum/post/11506269
> 
> 
> Not sure why, but it belongs in the Bronze thread. For such an old movie the PQ isn't terrible.



Taken care of.


----------



## boomster

I don't see "Imax - Blue Planet" on the list. Does anyone have any opinions on this one? I thought I heard it has very good picture quality.


----------



## wantagewantage

Has anyone watched The Warriors & would like to put a rating to it.

Regards, Will


----------



## edgary

Is Black Hawk Down supposed to look that green? I was watching it yesterday and was worried because of the huge amount of green. I don't think it's my set since I am looking The Patriot right now and it looks amazing (a little on the blue side in the night scenes) with the same settings.


Just wanted confirmation from other ones.


----------



## ajamils




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *edgary* /forum/post/11562402
> 
> 
> Is Black Hawk Down supposed to look that green? I was watching it yesterday and was worried because of the huge amount of green. I don't think it's my set since I am looking The Patriot right now and it looks amazing (a little on the blue side in the night scenes) with the same settings.
> 
> 
> Just wanted confirmation from other ones.



It has to be your set because I have watched BHD couple of times and I've never experienced that problem.


----------



## mhtom

I think Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds Live at Radio City Music Hall could be Tier 0.


----------



## rader023

Dave in Tim is definitely the best concert i have seen in high definition. Also, the colors are awesome on my plasma. I especially like when you are behind a person in one shot and you can see the concert through their camera viewfinder. That is some hi def


----------



## Mongoos150

Y'all post your specs, specific timeline observations, etc... if you want us to take your thoughts into account for the tier rating.


----------



## Mongoos150

Finally watched _Chicago_, fantastic audio, terrible video. It doesn't look intentional, since most wide angle shots look decent and most close ups (especially ECUs) look like shiz. :-(


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mongoos150* /forum/post/11585069
> 
> 
> Y'all post your specs, specific timeline observations, etc... if you want us to take your thoughts into account for the tier rating.



I don't mean to be rude, but where are yours?


----------



## robertc88

Last two films viewed on PS3 were Remember the Titans and Flyboys. Full steam ahead for picture and sound quality on those! Highly recommended.


----------



## elonepb

I can't believe Goodfellas is so low. I really think that is looks amazingly better than the original. Highdefdigest agrees.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *elonepb* /forum/post/11600991
> 
> 
> I can't believe Goodfellas is so low. I really think that is looks amazingly better than the original. Highdefdigest agrees.



It does look better than the original, but nowhere close to the movies in Tier 0 and 1.


Brandon


----------



## elonepb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/11607821
> 
> 
> It does look better than the original, but nowhere close to the movies in Tier 0 and 1.
> 
> 
> Brandon



Yeah but isn't that obvious? The movie came out 17 years ago. I think it looks incredible considering that, so my opinion is that the list should take that into consideration.


Of course none of it really matters. I just feel like potential Blu-Ray shoppers will see it in such a low tier and pass on it. Take my word for it, it's stunning.


----------



## ElChupacabra

Oi, how about some ratings for Remember the Titans?


----------



## robertc88

I guess one can make a case for some of these silver rated BDs to nudge up into gold. Bridge to T was just another one I viewed lately that looked mighty fine to me.


----------



## nhak

I watched Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds Live at Radio City Music Hall last night. It is awesome in both PQ and Sound. The best HiDef concert ever that I have watched. It is topmost notch in quality.


----------



## 1MaNArmY

Sorry if I overlooked it but where does Wild Hogs fall in placement of movies?


----------



## Mongoos150




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *iqjumpuw* /forum/post/11507199
> 
> 
> Casino Royale: Tier 1 - Excellent PQ. Definitely one of the demo materials.



I have yet to watch my copy, will probably pop it in tonight. Thanks for your observations.


----------



## Mongoos150




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nhak* /forum/post/11639325
> 
> 
> I watched Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds Live at Radio City Music Hall last night. It is awesome in both PQ and Sound. The best HiDef concert ever that I have watched. It is topmost notch in quality.



Not a big DM fan, but how does it compare to concerts on MHD? Their concert-casts are usually _phenomenal_.


----------



## btstarke




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nhak* /forum/post/11639325
> 
> 
> I watched Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds Live at Radio City Music Hall last night. It is awesome in both PQ and Sound. The best HiDef concert ever that I have watched. It is topmost notch in quality.



Watched it yesterday for the first time myself and must say this one if def up there. At least tier one video and the audio makes it a top tier one disc.


----------



## nhak




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mongoos150* /forum/post/11649903
> 
> 
> Not a big DM fan, but how does it compare to concerts on MHD? Their concert-casts are usually _phenomenal_.



Actually another reason I like this is because you have just the two musicians on stage with their guitars. There is no band, dancers or other visual gimmicks that distract the viewer/listener from music. See this review for some details.




I played it with Dolby True HD 5.1 96khz/24bit through a PS/3 connected via HDMI to an Onkyo 805 set to Pure Audio mode. I simply was mesmerized. To me, this disk is reference quality.


----------



## merlintl

Replacements Killers viewed on PS3 and 1080p Sony A3000 looked really good. Its a low Gold / high Silver as someone else echo'd a while back.


----------



## ajamils




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *merlintl* /forum/post/11652672
> 
> 
> Replacements Killers viewed on PS3 and 1080p Sony A3000 looked really good. Its a low Gold / high Silver as someone else echo'd a while back.



Watched the movie last night and I agree with your placement.


----------



## AustinSTI

I'm going to get the DM/TR one eventually but from what I've heard its excellent PQ and AQ. I expect top of tier 1 for placement..


----------



## ZebraMajor

Austin,


The silver colored text in the Silver Tier is cool but hard to read against a white background. Can it be adjusted? Has this been mentioned already?


----------



## Mongoos150




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ZebraMajor* /forum/post/11667042
> 
> 
> Austin,
> 
> 
> The silver colored text in the Silver Tier is cool but hard to read against a white background. Can it be adjusted? Has this been mentioned already?



It has, and we've worked around the different color schemes people have (many have black, some have white). The colors (for now) are final unless many people speak out. They have in the past, I reworked the color scheme, and mostly everyone was happy with it.


----------



## SuprSlow

Any update on getting HDDb reviews linked in the title listing?


I'll have some free time this afternoon, I can get some of the links together formatted in vB code, but only if this is still planned to be implemented.


----------



## SuprSlow

Links to HDDb, formatted with colors and titles in bold.







Quote my post to copy the coding.


And I apologive if any links are to the wrong titles. You'll have to forgive my blurry-eyed copying/pasting










____________________________________________________



TIER 0 -Blu-


Completely flawless picture. No artifacts whatsoever, no matter how small. Demo Material - These show just what Blu-Ray is all about and everyone should own one to show any guests in their home. Show someone one of these films and they'll want to join the Blu side









*Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest* (PCM)
*Corpse Bride*


TIER 1 -GOLD-


Demo Material, but minor artifacting may be present which the untrained eye may not necessarily spot. Little if any visible compression. Sharp image that has a lot of HD-POP effects. If you are thinking about buying a movie in this tier don't hesitate. Show someone one of these films and they'll want to join the Blu side









*Chicken Little* (PCM)
*Open Season* (PCM)
*TMNT* 
*Apocalypto* (PCM)
*Black Snake Moan* 
*Crank* (PCM)(IME)
*The Messengers* 
*The Host* 
*Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl* (PCM)
*The Fifth Element* (PCM) (Remastered)
*The Patriot* 
*Happy Feet* 
*Battle of The Bulge* 
*The Wild* (PCM)
*The Ant Bully* 
*A Scanner Darkly* 
*Curse of the Golden Flower* 
*300* 
*Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within* 
*Happily N'Ever After* 
*Black Hawk Down* (BW)(PCM)
*Kingdom of Heaven* (MA)
*Roving Mars* (This documentary includes some SD 4:3 shots which resulted in lower placement. HD Quality is top of tier one, however due to SD and feedback this film is placed lower).


TIER 2 -SILVER-


Not as many HD POP effects, but a sharp image that feels real. Not quite Demo material but a quality picture which looks better than upconverted DVDs

*Ice Age: The Meltdown* (MA)(banding in sky shots)
*The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen* (MA)
*Tears of the Sun* (PCM)
*Underworld: Evolution* (PCM)
*Casino Royale* (PCM)
*Legends of Jazz* (THD)
*Gridiron Gang* (PCM)
*Discovery Atlas: Australia* 
*Weeds Season 1* 
*Nine Inch Nails: Beside You In Time* (THD)
*Aeon Flux* 
*Sahara* 
*Letters From Iwo Jima* (THD)
*Flags of Our Fathers* 
*Identity* 
*Ghost Rider* (PCM) (THD)
*The Prestige* (PCM)
*The Marine* 
*Planet Earth* 
*Hellboy* (PCM)(European Release)
*The Queen* (PCM)
*Premonition* 
*Goal: The Dream Begins* 
*Mission: Impossible III* (crushed blacks)
*Eight Below* (PCM)
*Kung Fu Hustle* (PCM)
*World Trade Center* 
*Bridge to Terabithia* 
*Night at the Museum* (MA)
*Training Day* 
*ATL* 
*Norbit* 
*Transporter 2* (MA)
*Flyboys* (MA)
*Casanova* 
*The Untouchables* 
*Revenge* (PCM)
*Ultimate Avengers* (7.1 PCM)
*The Guardian* (PCM)
*Into the Blue* (PCM)
*Music and Lyrics* 
*Cruel Intentions* 
*The Departed* (PCM)
*The Sentinel* 
*Reign of Fire* (PCM)
*Fantastic 4* (MA)
*Blood Diamond* (PCM)
*Seven Years in Tibet* 
*The Manchurian Candidate* 
*Phantom of the Opera* 
*Good Night and Good Luck* 
*The Lost City* (PCM)
*Toto: Live in Amsterdam* 
*The Architect* 
*District B13* 
*Swordfish* 
*The Wicker Man* 
*Invincible* (PCM)
*Layer Cake* (PCM)
*The Covenant* (PCM)
*Deja Vu* (PCM)
*X-Men: The Last Stand* (MA)
*The Descent* (PCM)(IME) Requires latest firmware
*The Pursuit of Happyness* (PCM)
*Catch & Release* (PCM)
*Chicago* 
*Dreamgirls* 
*Closer* (PCM)
*Donnie Brasco* (PCM)
*Pearl Harbor* (PCM)
*Scooby Doo* 
*Hart's War* 
*Stranger than Fiction* (PCM)
*Babel* 
*Flight of the Phoenix* (MA)
*Monster House* (PCM)
*Payback* 
*Behind Enemy Lines* (MA)
*The World's Fastest Indian* 
*Rocky Balboa* (PCM)
*Saw III* 
*Bubble* 
*The Cowboys* 



TIER 3 -BRONZE-


Few HD POP effects, some digital noise/artifacting. Not demo material, but a better picture than up-converted DVDs

*King Arthur* (PCM)
*The Brothers Grimm* (PCM)
*Eragon* 
*Ultraviolet* (PCM)
*Dog Day Afternoon* 
*Black Rain* 
*We Were Soldiers* 
*The Transporter* (MA)
*A Knight's Tale* (PCM)
*Courage Under Fire* (MA)
*The War Within* 
*Memento* (PCM)
*Van Wilder* 
*ENRON: The Smartest Guys In The Room* 
*Dirty Dancing* 
*Flatliners* 
*Chronos* 
*The Road Warrior* 
*Relentless Enemies* 
*Rising Sun* 
*Incubus Alive at Red Rocks* 
*Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy* (PCM)
*Stomp the Yard* (THD)
*Alien Vs. Predator* (MA)
*Flightplan* (PCM)
*Haunted Mansion* (PCM)
*One Last Thing* 
*Stargate* 
*S.W.A.T.* (PCM)
*Enemy of the State* (PCM)
*Species* (PCM)
*Resident Evil: Apocalypse* (PCM)(BW)
*The Great Raid* (PCM)
*Space Cowboys* 
*The Last Samurai* 
*Stealth* (PCM)
*Lord of War* 
*Stir of Echoes* 
*Dinosaur* (PCM)
*Gone in 60 Seconds* (PCM)
*House of Wax* 
*Blazing Saddles* 
*Glory Road* 
*Sky Captain* (purposefully blurry)
*Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang* 
*Click* (PCM)
*The Terminator* (PCM)
*Beerfest* 
*Million Dollar Baby* 
*Unforgiven* 
*Under Siege* 
*Mission Impossible 2* 
*Mission: Impossible* 
*Speed* (MA)
*The Tailor of Panama* (PCM)
*50 First Dates* (PCM)
*Four Brothers* 
*First Blood* 
*Reservoir Dogs* 
*Young Guns* 
*16 Blocks* 
*John Legend: Live at the House of Blues* (PCM)
*Vertical Limit* (PCM)
*Rumor Has It* 
*The Holiday* (PCM)
*Chain Reaction* (MA)
*The Exorcism of Emily Rose*(UK Import)(PCM)
*Terminator 2* 
*Superman: The Movie* 
*RV* (PCM)
*Basic Instinct* 
*Failure to Launch* 
*Superman Returns* 
*Purple Rain*


TIER 4 -COPPER-


Soft or occasionally artifacted. An overall flat but satisfactory image.

*The Black Crowes*
*The Lake House* 
*Goodfellas* 
*Rocky* 
*The Fountain* 
*Big Fish* (PCM)
*The Devil Wears Prada* 
*Hoosiers* 
*Hostel* (UK Import)(PCM)
*Firewall* 
*The Italian Job* 
*Lethal Weapon 2* (bobbed)
*Silent Hill* (PCM)
*]Lethal Weapon* (bobbed)
*Talladega Nights* (PCM)
*The Devil's Rejects* 
*Basic Instinct 2* (PCM)
*The New Orleans Benefit Concert* 
*Tomb Raider* 
*Sky High* (PCM)
*The Usual Suspects* 
*Crash* 
*Dark Water* (PCM)
*Finding Neverland* (PCM)
*Entrapment* 
*Living Landscapes: HD Hawaii* 
*Saw II* 
*American Psycho* 
*Hitch* (PCM)
*Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut* 
*Saw* 
*Planet of the Apes* 
*Broken Arrow* 
*March of the Penguins* 
*Total Recall* 
*The Punisher* 
*XXX* (PCM)
*Destinys Child live in atlanta* 
*Nacho Libre* 
*Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back* 
*Employee of the Month* (PCM)
*Sleepy Hollow* (digital noise)
*Reds* 


TIER 5 -COAL-


Only slightly better than DVD.Visible artifacting, softness, quality rivals upconverted DVD

*Bullitt* 
*U2: Rattle and Hum* 
*The Dirty Dozen* 
*The Fugitive* (bobbed)
*Full Metal Jacket* (bobbed)
*The Fifth Element* (PCM) (Original)
*The House of Flying Daggers* (PCM)


----------



## bogusid

Anyone get Troy yet?? I'm wondering if the PQ will be as good or even better than the HD-dvd version(Not that I've ever seen a HD-DVD in action)


----------



## regular guy

Why so many tier 3 and tier 4 disks????


I thought hi-def meant "high definition.""


Are studios just lazy to clean up images????

What about 2005/2006/2007 movies? How come 95% are at least tier 2????


----------



## chris0

SuprSlow...wow. Good job. But I don't really understand the point of HDDb...is it just to get links to other sites that have reviews? Seems like there should be info about the movie on the site itself.


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chris0* /forum/post/11674446
> 
> 
> SuprSlow...wow. Good job. But I don't really understand the point of HDDb...is it just to get links to other sites that have reviews? Seems like there should be info about the movie on the site itself.




Thanks










Yeah, it's nothing more than a collection of links to review sites.


IMO, it's a handy tool to have since most of the sites don't have a review for each and every BD available. Not only that, but some users here and elsewhere don't seem to care for certain reviewers, so a "one-stop-shop" for links to other sites seems like a convienient feature.


----------



## aktham

There is no way Casino Royale can belong to a the same tier as Norbit. Casino Royale is tier 1 in picture quality (equal to 300 IMO). Using PS3 with 1.93 firmware on Samsung 5271 from 7-8 feet.


----------



## btstarke

Still interested to see where Dave Mathews/Tim Reynolds falls into place with its excellent audio and video


----------



## clear31

How does Men Of Honor rate?? i dont see it on the list


----------



## Benkrishman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *aktham* /forum/post/11677207
> 
> 
> There is no way Casino Royale can belong to a the same tier as Norbit. Casino Royale is tier 1 in picture quality (equal to 300 IMO). Using PS3 with 1.93 firmware on Samsung 5271 from 7-8 feet.




I too was suprised to see Casino Royale as a silver. I only have a panny 26" crt(1080i) using my ps3 for bd playback, so my setup is nowhere near reference, but I was very impressed with the PQ in casino royale, especially on the 2nd viewing. I felt that it was on equal ground with 300(i own 300 on hddvd though, through an hda1, so take this with a grain of salt) taking into account the visual style of 300. I also felt Casino was consistently more visually impressive than DMC, though DMC definitely had some gorgeous scenes. Part of that is probably due to the fact that there are so many dark scenes in DMC, and on my small set some of the detail wasn't as apparent as it would have been on a larger set.


Again, my setup is nowhere near reference, or even as nice as many of those who post on the boards, but I figured I'd toss my opinion out there anyway.


P.S. I love this thread, always gives me good guidance for eye candy rentals.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Casino Royale should most definitely be in the GOLD category.


----------



## SuprSlow

The next list










These are titles that have yet to be tiered. Some may have not been released yet. And I apologize for any errors or omissions.


I know some of you either own these or have seen them, so give your opinion. Remember the requirements for tier placement: equipment info (display, player, connections, etc) and VIEWING DISTANCE!


No. Title

1 A Christmas Story

2 A Few Good Men

3 A View From Space With Heavenly Music

4 AIR Pony Canyon

5 Alexander Revisted: The Final Cut

6 Alice Cooper: Live at Montreux 2005

7 All the King's Men

8 Annapolis

9 Are We Done Yet?

10 Arlington Road

11 Bikini Destinations: Triple Fantasy

12 Blood and Chocolate

13 Blood: The Last Vampire

14 Blue Planet (IMAX)

15 Bruce Springsteen with the Sessions Band: Live in Dublin

16 Bulletproof Monk

17 Chris Botti: Live with Orchestra and Guests

18 Coming to America

19 Daddy's Little Girls

20 Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds: Live at Radio City

21 Deliverance

22 Delta Farce

23 Discovery Atlas: Brazil Revealed

24 Discovery Atlas: China Revealed

25 Discovery Atlas: Italy Revealed

26 Disturbia

27 Doctor Strange

28 Dragon's Lair

29 Elvis Costello & The Imposters: Live in Memphis

30 Enter the Dragon

31 Freedom Writers

32 G.I. Jane

33 HDNet World Report: Shuttle Discovery’s Historic Mission

34 House of 1000 Corpses

35 Hustle & Flow

36 Immortal Beloved

37 Infernal Affairs (Import)

38 Jailhouse Rock

39 Kung Fu Hustle

40 Ladder 49

41 Lady in the Water

42 Living Landscapes: HD Hawaii

43 Men of Honor

44 Muriel Anderson: A Guitarscape Planet

45 National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation

46 National Lampoon's Van Wilder

47 Nature's Colors with the World's Greatest Music

48 Nip/Tuck: The Complete Fourth Season

49 Out for Justice

50 Pat Metheny Group: The Way Up - Live

51 Perfect Stranger

52 Phone Booth

53 Primeval

54 Rambo: First Blood

55 Remember the Titans

56 Rescue Me: The Complete Third Season

57 Rio Bravo

58 Royal Space Force: Wings of Honneamise

59 Running with Scissors

60 Secret Window

61 Shooter

62 Smallville: The Complete Sixth Season

63 Syriana

64 The Benchwarmers

65 The Big Hit

66 The Condemned

67 The Getaway

68 The Last Waltz

69 The Lives of Others

70 The Lookout

71 The Omen (666)

72 The Replacement Killers: Extended Cut

73 The Searchers

74 The Sopranos: Season Six, Part I

75 The Warriors: Ultimate Director's Cut

76 Tony Bennett: An American Classic

77 Trading Places

78 Troy: Director's Cut

79 Vacancy

80 Viva Las Vegas

81 Volver

82 Waiting: Unrated and Raw

83 Warriors of Heaven and Earth

84 We Are Marshall

85 Weeds: Season Two

86 Wild Hogs

87 Wild Things: Unrated Edition

88 Windtalkers


----------



## edgary

You DO have a lot of time on your hands.


Thanks for posting this. I am particularly interested in Kung Fu Hustle. I actually own it, but I can't compare it with any other on the tier list. You know how perspectives can create debates... but I will give it a try.


[EDIT] Wait, I just went back to the list to try and find something there that I already have, and Kung Fu Hustle is in the silver category already.


----------



## h0mi




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/11687306
> 
> 
> The next list
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These are titles that have yet to be tiered. Some may have not been released yet. And I apologize for any errors or omissions.
> 
> 
> I know some of you either own these or have seen them, so give your opinion. Remember the requirements for tier placement: equipment info (display, player, connections, etc) and VIEWING DISTANCE!
> 
> 
> 
> (snip)
> 
> 65 "The Best of Blu-ray, Vol. 1 "
> 
> 66 "The Best of Blu-ray, Vol. 2 "
> 
> 67 "The Best of Blu-ray, Vol. 3 "



As I understand, these are just re-releases of movies in a bundle... I don't think the movies need to be re-tiered since there was no re-encoding done AFAIK.


----------



## ImkSpyPlns

I'm really interested to hear how Troy ended up looking. I stupidly ordered from Amazon, so I'm not getting mine for a few weeks


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *h0mi* /forum/post/11687567
> 
> 
> As I understand, these are just re-releases of movies in a bundle... I don't think the movies need to be re-tiered since there was no re-encoding done AFAIK.



Thanks, post edited


----------



## AustinSTI

Supr: PM me if you are interested in moderating this thread...I've got a busy schedule and help is always appreciated...


----------



## oleus

wow, just got finished with BLACK RAIN and i think it should be even lower. it's pretty soft, no 3-d, very flat.....


----------



## freestylemx989

Got DMB Concert...i thought picture was nice, but i thought the sound was far more impressive than the picture. The details on the guitars is incredible, however, it didn't have a very 3-d look in my opinion. This is by far the best sounding release i've yet to hear.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/11687306
> 
> 
> The next list
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These are titles that have yet to be tiered. Some may have not been released yet. And I apologize for any errors or omissions.
> 
> 
> I know some of you either own these or have seen them, so give your opinion. Remember the requirements for tier placement: equipment info (display, player, connections, etc) and VIEWING DISTANCE!



I bought Trading Places and Coming to America but haven't watched them yet. I'll try and get to them this weekend and give my thoughts.


I thought Curse of the Golden Flower was already placed on the list?


Brandon


----------



## sarah99

POTC 1 and 2 are soft and should not be in the top tiers

Starship Troopers in comparison is amazingly detailed and not even on the list


----------



## sunstar715

I would put house of 1k corpse in high silver, it is one of the best transfers i have seen, i am watching on a 26" lcd ps3 connected through hdmi, and sitting about 2-3 feet away


----------



## OhioMike

Watched Troy/DC yesterday and it was great. Added footage was a good addition.

PQ was the same as HD DVD version of regular edition I had seen a few months ago, an overall great picture throughout. It didn't really jump off of the screen but was consistently detailed throughout. High silver or low gold tier.

Veiwed on Sony 46"ES2000 720p DLP with PS3 thru Monster 800 series HDMI @ 9-10feet.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sarah99* /forum/post/11695439
> 
> 
> POTC 1 and 2 are soft and should not be in the top tiers
> 
> Starship Troopers in comparison is amazingly detailed and not even on the list


----------



## Ralph Jenkins

Here's my opinion on a few recent releases. Feel free to disagree with me.










Tier 1 - Gold (Excellent)

Black Book

Starship Troopers (UK import)

Underworld: Unrated


Tier 2 - Silver (Good)

Halloween


Tier 3 - Bronze (Average)

Evil Dead II


Tier 4 - Copper (Underwhelming)

Bram Stoker's Dracula

Ghost in the Shell (Japan import)


My screen: 50" LCD (1080i) Viewing distance: 6' Player: PS3


----------



## chirpie

My only knock against Dave M and Tim R is there were quite a few shots where the cameraman didn't quite have the shot in complete focus. It was like the shot started out ever so slightly blury and would get more in focus as the shot went on and right as it got in perfect focus they'd cut to another shot. (and that's a production issue, not the discs' fault) Other than that, I think the discs' reputation is well deserved.


(720p projector, 106 inch screen, dedicated theater )


----------



## Mongoos150




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ralph Jenkins* /forum/post/11706181
> 
> 
> Here's my opinion on a few recent releases. Feel free to disagree with me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tier 1 - Gold (Excellent)
> 
> Black Book
> 
> Starship Troopers (UK import)
> 
> Underworld: Unrated
> 
> 
> Tier 2 - Silver (Good)
> 
> Halloween
> 
> 
> Tier 3 - Bronze (Average)
> 
> Evil Dead II
> 
> 
> Tier 4 - Copper (Underwhelming)
> 
> Bram Stoker's Dracula
> 
> Ghost in the Shell (Japan import)
> 
> 
> My screen: 50" LCD (1080i) Viewing distance: 6' Player: PS3



Once I get a chance to rent these I can put in my input. If a few other people would like to contribute their feedback of these films, I can assign them a space in the tier.


----------



## sarah99

Starship Troopers is the best Blu-Ray I have seen

way above Apocalypto, POTC1 and POTC2


Black Book is not particularly good picture quality, distinctly average, tier 2 at best, the colours are bright (so you will all say it is great)


----------



## Deaddy

I'm a fan of Starship Troopers, does Blu-Ray have the same NTSC/PAL system as other formats or would I be able to play the UK version on my North American PS3? Thanks.


----------



## Steve S

BD and HD DVD are don't have any PAL/NTSC incompatibility. The only restriction is possible region coding and the UK version of Starship Troopers is not region coded--plays fine on my PS3 here in Fresno. It's true eye/ear candy but lacks the commentary on the SD discs, though most of the other special features are there.


----------



## bplewis24

Trading Places: Tier 2 or bottom of Tier 1. It looks nice but nothing special.


Coming to America: Same as above.


PS3 1080p24 to 46XBR4 (8 feet)


Brandon


----------



## Deaddy

Thanks, that's great news. I did some looking around and found a decent site for determining region coding: http://www.allaboutbluray.co.uk/inde...ges/willitplay


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Deaddy* /forum/post/11724511
> 
> 
> Thanks, that's great news. I did some looking around and found a decent site for determining region coding: http://www.allaboutbluray.co.uk/inde...ges/willitplay



This is a good one:

http://bluray.liesinc.net/


----------



## Deaddy

Nice, thanks. Sorry for taking this thread off topic.


----------



## oscar_in_fw

Well, I'm going to be sacrilegious and go against the grain and suggest "Troy" (Director's cut) was not the demo-esque quality video a majority of people seem to think it is. Parts were very good (quite a bit in fact, Tier 0/1) , but other parts very "soft", almost DVDish (tier 2/3). maybe not noticeable on smaller screens but I thought the PQ "swings" were pretty obvious. E.g. The initial battle scenes were razor sharp, but the subsequent "port of Sparta" scenes were noticeably "softer". If I "averaged" everything, maybe a Tier 2.

I'd also like to see the original movie again to see if the PQ was as uneven as I observed with this movie (this appeared to me a prime example of low bitrate encoding at work but some have suggested the source could be at fault).


110" Stewart Firehawk screen

1280x720 (720p) Sharp 10000 DLP HD Front projector (archaic, I know but $$$ hold me back)

14 feet back


Let the tomatoes fly. I've been pummeled already for d*ssing this alleged "demo" (?) disc.


----------



## Kevin12586

No Underworld impressions yet?


----------



## edgary

No shooter review yet? I saw it yesterday and I think it's right there with The Patriot (one of the few I've seen) in regards to picture quality.


For reference, I am watching on PS3 over HDMI to a 42" Philips 1080p set, about 6-7 ft distance.


----------



## sunstar715

I agree with the above poster about halloween being a a tier 2 title, it looks great and underworld is defintely tier 1, great looking film.


i used a ps3 and 26 element lcd


----------



## MrHunt




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kevin12586* /forum/post/11752744
> 
> 
> No Underworld impressions yet?



WHAT? SORRY I CAN'T HEAR YOU. I JUST GOT DONE WATCHING UNDERWORLD AND THE SOUND IS FREAKING INSANE.











Sorry about that







. Just got done watching Underworld and it looks amazing... and the soundtrack will drop kick you in the chest.


----------



## BangoO

*Black Book* is one of the best PQ I've seen on either Blu-ray or HD-DVD.

Very Hight tier 1 or even tier 0 for me


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BangoO* /forum/post/11763511
> 
> *Black Book* is one of the best PQ I've seen on either Blu-ray or HD-DVD.
> 
> Very Hight tier 1 or even tier 0 for me



Thanks for the heads up, just added this to my Netflix Queue.


----------



## the_second

The Warriors is still not listed??? For a 1979 movie, this is certainly Tier 1 no contest. Its way more impressive than Seven Years in Tibet and Bruce Lee (oldest movies I've watched) AND it shows in a 1:85 ratio!!!!


My TV: Sony KDL46-XBR2


----------



## Mongoos150




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BangoO* /forum/post/11763511
> 
> *Black Book* is one of the best PQ I've seen on either Blu-ray or HD-DVD.
> 
> Very Hight tier 1 or even tier 0 for me



Ehhh... Not sure I agree. Feel free everyone to offer other opinions


----------



## c60sec




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BangoO* /forum/post/11763511
> 
> *Black Book* is one of the best PQ I've seen on either Blu-ray or HD-DVD.
> 
> Very Hight tier 1 or even tier 0 for me



I dont think its one of the best PQ on bluray. I would place it low tier 2.


reference: 60sxrd xbr1 ps3


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Ultraviolet* needs to be moved up to Tier 2 (Silver). It is certainly more deserving than Tier 3.


1080p24 123" screen, 1.5 screen widths


----------



## PrinceLH




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *the_second* /forum/post/11764405
> 
> 
> The Warriors is still not listed??? For a 1979 movie, this is certainly Tier 1 no contest. Its way more impressive than Seven Years in Tibet and Bruce Lee (oldest movies I've watched) AND it shows in a 1:85 ratio!!!!
> 
> 
> My TV: Sony KDL46-XBR2



I agree. The Warriors was great, considering the movie was made in '79. I just wished that they had forgot about the Directors Cut and put it in it's original theatrical release. The cartoon cutaways, were really annoying.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MrHunt* /forum/post/11755384
> 
> 
> WHAT? SORRY I CAN'T HEAR YOU. I JUST GOT DONE WATCHING UNDERWORLD AND THE SOUND IS FREAKING INSANE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry about that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Just got done watching Underworld and it looks amazing... and the soundtrack will drop kick you in the chest.



I agree. Much better looking than the sequel.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BangoO* /forum/post/11763511
> 
> *Black Book* is one of the best PQ I've seen on either Blu-ray or HD-DVD.



I am not sure I would go quite that far, but it did look very nice.


----------



## k20king

Wow, its been almost a month since an update.


Anyone can Take Over?


----------



## JaylisJayP

I would put House of 1,000 Corpses at the bottom of Tier 1.


The shots of Captain Spaulding in his shop are some of the most vibrant, 3-D, crystal clear images I am yet to experience on either format.


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *k20king* /forum/post/11778808
> 
> 
> Wow, its been almost a month since an update.
> 
> 
> Anyone can Take Over?



Austin has been very busy with work, and I'm sure Mongoose has been as well. They have been generous enough to allow me to help with the thread. And so, very soon, hopefully tonight, I'll add the lists of untiered titles I posted a few pages back, and also add the hyperlinks to the titles already tiered.


For now, I'll leave the ranking of films to Austin and Mongoose.


----------



## AustinSTI

LOL guess we fell behind. SuperSlo is helping now. We don't update with tiers unless you providing viewing information. Gotta back up your claims with data..,.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/11768595
> 
> *Ultraviolet* needs to be moved up to Tier 2 (Silver). It is certainly more deserving than Tier 3.
> 
> 
> 1080p24 123" screen, 1.5 screen widths



Moved - thanks for the data


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ralph Jenkins* /forum/post/11706181
> 
> 
> Here's my opinion on a few recent releases. Feel free to disagree with me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tier 1 - Gold (Excellent)
> 
> Black Book
> 
> Starship Troopers (UK import)
> 
> Underworld: Unrated
> 
> 
> Tier 2 - Silver (Good)
> 
> Halloween
> 
> 
> Tier 3 - Bronze (Average)
> 
> Evil Dead II
> 
> 
> Tier 4 - Copper (Underwhelming)
> 
> Bram Stoker's Dracula
> 
> Ghost in the Shell (Japan import)
> 
> 
> My screen: 50" LCD (1080i) Viewing distance: 6' Player: PS3



Added


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *PrinceLH* /forum/post/11768644
> 
> 
> I agree. The Warriors was great, considering the movie was made in '79. I just wished that they had forgot about the Directors Cut and put it in it's original theatrical release. The cartoon cutaways, were really annoying.



Added


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/11724505
> 
> 
> Trading Places: Tier 2 or bottom of Tier 1. It looks nice but nothing special.
> 
> 
> Coming to America: Same as above.
> 
> 
> PS3 1080p24 to 46XBR4 (8 feet)
> 
> 
> Brandon



Added


----------



## edgary




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/11781740
> 
> 
> LOL guess we fell behind. SuperSlo is helping now. We don't update with tiers unless you providing viewing information. Gotta back up your claims with data..,.



I was watching a movie and felt I needed to give my thoughts on it since it's still not on the list (Shooter) and I provided my data to support my claim. However, I still feel that this is very subjective, as putting Shooter in the spot I suggested would involve just my perspective on it.


It would be much, much better, in my opinion, if several people contributed to the ranking of a single movie before placing it in a specific tier, instead of put it there as soon as someone gives his/her comments (and viewing information) and moving it around if enough people would suggest so. I would propose, if possible, to have some sort of poll for any given movie, in which people would give their impressions for placing a movie. Once enough people have 'ranked' the movie, it gets placed in the deciding tier.


I don't know if it makes as much sense in typing as it does in my head, so I'll give an example: I just posted that from my point of view, Shooter should be right there with The Patriot (which I've also seen). So, instead of placing Shooter after The Patriot because I said so, a poll is created for Shooter and suggestions are compiled from different people. Let's say that after 50 (random number) people chimed in, Shooter is placed at the bottom of Tier 1.


I think this is a more effective way of placing them, than put it there next to The Patriot, then changing it to Tier 2 when someone else gives their impression, then putting it in Tier 0 when yet another person chimes in. (Of course, assuming this is how it's done right now).


It's probably too complicated (or sounds too complicated) and not even worth it, but it's just an idea.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/11781813
> 
> 
> Added



Austin, on second thought I vote to have Trading Places sent down to the bottom of tier 2, and Coming to America to the top of tier 3. I was watching Casino Royale and it looks significantly better than both titles, and I'd say Trading Places looked better than Coming to America.


PS3->1080p24->46XBR4


Brandon


----------



## Kevin12586




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *edgary* /forum/post/11781910
> 
> 
> I was watching a movie and felt I needed to give my thoughts on it since it's still not on the list (Shooter) and I provided my data to support my claim. However, I still feel that this is very subjective, as putting Shooter in the spot I suggested would involve just my perspective on it.
> 
> 
> It would be much, much better, in my opinion, if several people contributed to the ranking of a single movie before placing it in a specific tier, instead of put it there as soon as someone gives his/her comments (and viewing information) and moving it around if enough people would suggest so. I would propose, if possible, to have some sort of poll for any given movie, in which people would give their impressions for placing a movie. Once enough people have 'ranked' the movie, it gets placed in the deciding tier.
> 
> 
> I don't know if it makes as much sense in typing as it does in my head, so I'll give an example: I just posted that from my point of view, Shooter should be right there with The Patriot (which I've also seen). So, instead of placing Shooter after The Patriot because I said so, a poll is created for Shooter and suggestions are compiled from different people. Let's say that after 50 (random number) people chimed in, Shooter is placed at the bottom of Tier 1.
> 
> 
> I think this is a more effective way of placing them, than put it there next to The Patriot, then changing it to Tier 2 when someone else gives their impression, then putting it in Tier 0 when yet another person chimes in. (Of course, assuming this is how it's done right now).
> 
> 
> It's probably too complicated (or sounds too complicated) and not even worth it, but it's just an idea.



We tried the poll suggestion and AVS didn't go for it


----------



## edgary




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kevin12586* /forum/post/11787736
> 
> 
> We tried the poll suggestion and AVS didn't go for it



Hmm, nothing we can do there, then.


----------



## SuprSlow

Nothing says we can't use one of the many online polling sites to host a poll for each title. Setting it up and maintaining it would be interesting, but it would definately be possible


----------



## oleus

anyone find a cheaper place than amazon.co.uk to buy Starship Troopers from?


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oleus* /forum/post/11791285
> 
> 
> anyone find a cheaper place than amazon.co.uk to buy Starship Troopers from?


 http://www.dvdpricesearch.com/


----------



## oleus




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/11791588
> 
> http://www.dvdpricesearch.com/



doesn't seem to work for imports...


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oleus* /forum/post/11791655
> 
> 
> doesn't seem to work for imports...



Arrgh, I should have realized you are in Atlanta looking at a UK site . . .










But how about this one: http://www.dvdpricecheck.co.uk/


----------



## oleus




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/11791857
> 
> 
> Arrgh, I should have realized you are in Atlanta looking at a UK site . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But how about this one: http://www.dvdpricecheck.co.uk/



thanks man!


----------



## JosephShaw




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/11768595
> 
> *Ultraviolet* needs to be moved up to Tier 2 (Silver). It is certainly more deserving than Tier 3.
> 
> 
> 1080p24 123" screen, 1.5 screen widths



The problem with Ultraviolet is that the image is over processed and the color palette is blown out intentionally to provide a comic book feel (as pointed out in the special features of the disc). It also had overblown contrast on most of the face shots of Violet, producing a ghosting/haloing effect. That's why it was put in Tier 3 to begin with.


----------



## JosephShaw




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *edgary* /forum/post/11781910
> 
> 
> I was watching a movie and felt I needed to give my thoughts on it since it's still not on the list (Shooter) and I provided my data to support my claim. However, I still feel that this is very subjective, as putting Shooter in the spot I suggested would involve just my perspective on it.
> 
> 
> It would be much, much better, in my opinion, if several people contributed to the ranking of a single movie before placing it in a specific tier, instead of put it there as soon as someone gives his/her comments (and viewing information) and moving it around if enough people would suggest so. I would propose, if possible, to have some sort of poll for any given movie, in which people would give their impressions for placing a movie. Once enough people have 'ranked' the movie, it gets placed in the deciding tier.
> 
> 
> I don't know if it makes as much sense in typing as it does in my head, so I'll give an example: I just posted that from my point of view, Shooter should be right there with The Patriot (which I've also seen). So, instead of placing Shooter after The Patriot because I said so, a poll is created for Shooter and suggestions are compiled from different people. Let's say that after 50 (random number) people chimed in, Shooter is placed at the bottom of Tier 1.
> 
> 
> I think this is a more effective way of placing them, than put it there next to The Patriot, then changing it to Tier 2 when someone else gives their impression, then putting it in Tier 0 when yet another person chimes in. (Of course, assuming this is how it's done right now).
> 
> 
> It's probably too complicated (or sounds too complicated) and not even worth it, but it's just an idea.



See this post from this thread for what we proposed and how it went down.


----------



## edgary




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JosephShaw* /forum/post/11802161
> 
> 
> See this post from this thread for what we proposed and how it went down.










I see... I was surprised I'd come up with such idea before everyone else










Somebody mentioned some poll sites... maybe those could be used


----------



## JosephShaw

No one has reviewed/tiered Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer yet?


I'd say it's definite mid-Tier 1 material. Beautiful picture, lots of pop and sharpness with very little visible processing/edge enhancement. Contrast is nice, and never feels too bright or dark in the bright (on top of a glacier) or dark scenes (the cave after the glacier scene). The color palette is gorgeous and expanded over the original, and lots of beautiful scenes. There is only a hint of very, very minor and rare artifacting. I'd personally put it between Black Snake Moan and TFE.


112" screen front projection (Mitsubishi HC3000U @ 720p) at 1.75-2.3 times screen width.


----------



## JosephShaw




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *edgary* /forum/post/11802437
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see... I was surprised I'd come up with such idea before everyone else



Well, I agree with you that it was a great idea. Great minds thing alike.











> Quote:
> Somebody mentioned some poll sites... maybe those could be used



The only problem is getting the people here to go to them, and how those polling places operate. Unfortunately, using another site for the polling means that we don't get nearly the amount of traffic that AVS has built-in. AustinSTI and I worked out a pretty well thought out system that worked very well for the polling capabilities of this site. They allowed for complete transparency of who voted for what, and allowed everyone's vote to count while negating the ability of the few to artificially sink or inflate the rating number of a film. It would even be used to determine where the title would be placed inside of the Tier.


----------



## edgary




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JosephShaw* /forum/post/11802546
> 
> 
> Well, I agree with you that it was a great idea. Great minds thing alike.



Can't argue there











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JosephShaw* /forum/post/11802546
> 
> 
> The only problem is getting the people here to go to them, and how those polling places operate. Unfortunately, using another site for the polling means that we don't get nearly the amount of traffic that AVS has built-in. AustinSTI and I worked out a pretty well thought out system that worked very well for the polling capabilities of this site. They allowed for complete transparency of who voted for what, and allowed everyone's vote to count while negating the ability of the few to artificially sink or inflate the rating number of a film. It would even be used to determine where the title would be placed inside of the Tier.



So, what happened? Was that the idea that was put down?


----------



## tyorder1

FF ROTSS. PQ was fantastic, pun intended, mid-tier 1. Almost as good as a Crank, maybe even better. AQ was good although will be better once one can hear DTS-MA.


Sony Ruby 1080p60 on 119" screen from PS3+Anthem avm50.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JosephShaw* /forum/post/11802124
> 
> 
> The problem with Ultraviolet is that the image is over processed and the color palette is blown out intentionally to provide a comic book feel (as pointed out in the special features of the disc). It also had overblown contrast on most of the face shots of Violet, producing a ghosting/haloing effect. That's why it was put in Tier 3 to begin with.



I agree with the intentional comic book look.


It still belongs in Tier 2 (Silver).


----------



## Benkrishman

Not trying to be an ass, but if the overly contrasted visual style of a movie can go into consideration when ranking a movies PQ why shouldn't we take into account intentional grain? I haven't read through the entire thread, but the impression I get is that if the grain is intentional it should almost be ignored when judging the picture quality. Someone please correct me if my assumption is wrong.


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Benkrishman* /forum/post/11806298
> 
> 
> Not trying to be an ass, but if the overly contrasted visual style of a movie can go into consideration when ranking a movies PQ why shouldn't we take into account intentional grain? I haven't read through the entire thread, but the impression I get is that if the grain is intentional it should almost be ignored when judging the picture quality. Someone please correct me if my assumption is wrong.



You would be correct.


And that is the reason I'm not so sure about Dracula being Tier 4, given the recent review by Robert Harris. But that's a different can of worms for a different thread


----------



## UxiSXRD

This IS the place for it, since this is the tier thread.










Bram Stoker's Dracula should be high Tier 2. I would argue for Tier 1, but it's an older film so there's not a lot of 3D "pop" but the PQ is as good as it gets for a movie of that era and it's definitely as good as anything you'll see on HDNET. It's great PQ. It's definitely better than the stated comparison to "Not as many HD POP effects, but a sharp image that feels real. Not quite Demo material but a quality picture which looks better than upconverted DVDs."


FF4: Rise of the Silver Surfer should be mid Tier 1. Great PQ. not first on my reference list, but excellent with lots of 3D pop and no noticible artifacts.


PS3 via HDMI to 60XBR1 SXRD, viewing from 8-9 feet.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Benkrishman* /forum/post/11806298
> 
> 
> Not trying to be an ass, but if the overly contrasted visual style of a movie can go into consideration when ranking a movies PQ why shouldn't we take into account intentional grain? I haven't read through the entire thread, but the impression I get is that if the grain is intentional it should almost be ignored when judging the picture quality. Someone please correct me if my assumption is wrong.



I was going to say that your assumption is wrong, but these threads have undergone so many changes/metamorphosis that I just don't know anymore!


----------



## Deaddy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *edgary* /forum/post/11781910
> 
> 
> It would be much, much better, in my opinion, if several people contributed to the ranking of a single movie before placing it in a specific tier, instead of put it there as soon as someone gives his/her comments (and viewing information) and moving it around if enough people would suggest so.



I don't mean to be critical of you guys' hard work, which I appreciate, but I was thinking this same exact thing before I read edgary's post. I don't know if polls are necessary but some form of discussion seems appropriate before ranking a movie.


----------



## OhioMike

Watched Underworld and Evolution back to back last night and would say that the tier placement is dead on. Underworld was amazing, one of the best I've seen, night and day difference from my SD version. Evolution was far superior to SD but lacked the pop that Underworld had. Sony 46es2000 DLP 720p-HDMI-PS3 @8-9 feet


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kevin12586* /forum/post/11787736
> 
> 
> We tried the poll suggestion and AVS didn't go for it



Sad thing was the polls actually were pretty accurate too. We had a weighting method in place and most movies ended up where people agreed they could have. If I had time I'd build a lightweight polling app but it'd go to another URL and that's similar to what HD-DVD guys are doing which personally I think is lame...


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JosephShaw* /forum/post/11802491
> 
> 
> No one has reviewed/tiered Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer yet?
> 
> 
> I'd say it's definite mid-Tier 1 material. Beautiful picture, lots of pop and sharpness with very little visible processing/edge enhancement. Contrast is nice, and never feels too bright or dark in the bright (on top of a glacier) or dark scenes (the cave after the glacier scene). The color palette is gorgeous and expanded over the original, and lots of beautiful scenes. There is only a hint of very, very minor and rare artifacting. I'd personally put it between Black Snake Moan and TFE.
> 
> 
> 112" screen front projection (Mitsubishi HC3000U @ 720p) at 1.75-2.3 times screen width.




Done - thanks for the great details!! Bet it looks even better at 1080p/24


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/11787001
> 
> 
> Austin, on second thought I vote to have Trading Places sent down to the bottom of tier 2, and Coming to America to the top of tier 3. I was watching Casino Royale and it looks significantly better than both titles, and I'd say Trading Places looked better than Coming to America.
> 
> 
> PS3->1080p24->46XBR4
> 
> 
> Brandon



Done; Respect the 1080p/24


----------



## AustinSTI

Dave Matthews is now Tier 0...this is the PREMIER Blu-Ray I've seen. Stunning Picture, Amazing Audio...simply amazin on my PRO-FHD1 @ 1080p/24


----------



## Kevin12586

I noticed that a lot of the new releases in the tier list don't show whether it has PCM, True HD or DTS MA, are we no longer listing the lossless tracks?


----------



## Kevin12586

A new tier king???


----------



## Mongoos150




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kevin12586* /forum/post/11820127
> 
> 
> A new tier king???



Yes, we've moved it to tier 0. Pretty awesome picture, slightly better than what's been aired on MHD.


----------



## SuprSlow

Alright, I finally added the links to the first post. I checked most and they link to the correct page on hddb.net . If you find any errors, it's my fault, don't ***** at Austin or Mongoos


----------



## SuprSlow

Trying something else...I added video and audio details to each title in the first two tiers. Any opinions? Too hard to read? Too much? Like it? Let me know.


----------



## OhioMike

Slow,

I like it. It's great to have as much info as possible. Thanks for all your hard work!!

??How are you deciding which audio to include for movies that have multiple "upper tier" audio formats??

Examples I know of would be: 300 and Ghost Rider which both have PCM and TrueHD. I ask because I don't personally know which one is better. They both sound great to me.


----------



## Slamma

Just got *The Condemned* ~ very clean, sharp picture (reminded me a lot of *Crank* with the closeups of the faces, as well as the very sharp water images). I would put it lower Tier *1*/upper Tier *2*.


1080p24 ~ 42" Plasma ~ PS3/HDMI ~ 7ft.


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OhioMike* /forum/post/11831292
> 
> 
> Slow,
> 
> I like it. It's great to have as much info as possible. Thanks for all your hard work!!
> 
> ??How are you deciding which audio to include for movies that have multiple "upper tier" audio formats??
> 
> Examples I know of would be: 300 and Ghost Rider which both have PCM and TrueHD. I ask because I don't personally know which one is better. They both sound great to me.



Thanks for the feedback.


I guess I skipped over 300 too quickly to notice it had both True HD and PCM. As I was adding them, I would pick the best of the audio codecs listed and use that. As I'm finishing the list, I'll be sure include all lossless formats if more than one is available. Thanks for drawing that to my attention


----------



## Kevin12586




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/11828907
> 
> 
> Trying something else...I added video and audio details to each title in the first two tiers. Any opinions? Too hard to read? Too much? Like it? Let me know.



Great job, thanks for the hard work. Any plans to do the rest of the tiers?


----------



## phisch

Finally got my copy of Fantastic Four ROTSS from Amazon and watched it last night. Definitely deserving of its upper half Tier 1 status. Lots of pop to the image and an excellent transfer overall. Great audio as well.


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kevin12586* /forum/post/11833850
> 
> 
> Great job, thanks for the hard work. Any plans to do the rest of the tiers?



Most definately







I just did the first two for now to see for myself how it looked and to get some feedback.


----------



## ditch-digger

watched f4 silver surfer..........last nite.





horrible movie, so glad i did not spend $ on this...audio was good just not much of it.

pq was decent....no way near what i expected. i was expecting potc type pq.


----------



## mr stroke




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sunstar715* /forum/post/11695540
> 
> 
> I would put house of 1k corpse in high silver, it is one of the best transfers i have seen, i am watching on a 26" lcd ps3 connected through hdmi, and sitting about 2-3 feet away




+1


house looks stunning...really really clean...I would agree with high silver


-Pany 58 plasma-768-Sony BDP-5-6 feet viewing distance


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *phisch* /forum/post/11836214
> 
> 
> Finally got my copy of Fantastic Four ROTSS from Amazon and watched it last night. Definitely deserving of its upper half Tier 1 status. Lots of pop to the image and an excellent transfer overall. Great audio as well.



I'd watch it if I could but my BD-P1200 won't play it because it needs a firmware update that doesn't exist...yet.


----------



## Lil' Louie

Watched 16 Blocks last night, and I think the PQ is more deserving than its current Tier 3 status. Sure, there were a few scenes that were slightly less than stellar on PQ; but, most of the movie had a crisp clean image. IMO, it rightly deserves an upper Tier 2.


PS3 . Sammy 50"DLP 1080P (HDMI). 6-10 ft


----------



## mr stroke




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ditch-digger* /forum/post/11837343
> 
> 
> watched f4 silver surfer..........last nite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> horrible movie, so glad i did not spend $ on this...audio was good just not much of it.
> 
> pq was decent....no way near what i expected. i was expecting potc type pq.












I was blown away on both PQ & AQ, better picture than Pirates IMO..by far the best PQ I have seen so far. everything is so crisp and clear-flawless picture, and the sound is A+ as well...

(the movie did suck though, they really should have went really dark with the movie like Batman Begins)


----------



## maverick0716

I just watched this one tonight (the rerelease, not the one that came with the PS3) and I was expecting very mediocre and was pleasantly surprised! The colours are what mostly caught my eyes........very vibrant and realistic looking. There was also plenty of detail in the picture.......definitly more deserving of it's Tier 4 rating. I'd say it deserves to be in the middle of Tier 3 at least.


Panasonic 42PX75U (768p)

Sony PS3 though HDMI

Viewing distance 6-7 ft.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr stroke* /forum/post/11852307
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was blown away on both PQ & AQ, better picture than Pirates IMO..by far the best PQ I have seen so far. everything is so crisp and clear-flawless picture, and the sound is A+ as well...
> 
> (the movie did suck though, they really should have went really dark with the movie like Batman Begins)



I agree about the PQ in Silver Surfer; I have not seen anything better than this.


----------



## lgans316

What's the verdict on Troy - DC ?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/11853020
> 
> 
> What's the verdict on Troy - DC ?



Very mediocre PQ; that's my verdict.


----------



## AlexanderG

FF4 Silver Surfer is utterly stunning on my setup, Samsung 4065F 1080p LCD TV... It was one of the few titles that made guests say "wow" out loud in the middle of watching it... I'd have to rank it among the best of the best. Pretty good action blockbuster flick as well, but I suppose that's irrelevant.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/11853057
> 
> 
> Very mediocre PQ; that's my verdict.



I haven't seen it, but I own the original edition, which apparantly is practically the same picture quality as the extended cut.......solid picture quality but nothing spectacular.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AlexanderG* /forum/post/11855127
> 
> 
> FF4 Silver Surfer is utterly stunning on my setup, Samsung 4065F 1080p LCD TV... It was one of the few titles that made guests say "wow" out loud in the middle of watching it... I'd have to rank it among the best of the best. Pretty good action blockbuster flick as well, but I suppose that's irrelevant.



The PQ is so outstanding that I scarcely pay attention to the movie.


----------



## skipfreely

I have to say this is one of the best PQ movies (FF4SS) I have seen on my TV (51 Sony RPTV Prof ISF). It had a lot of 3d pop, definetly tier 0.


----------



## SuprSlow

Alright, video and audio specs have been added to each title in the first post. I've also added the list of unranked titles at the bottom of that post, and reposted below.


If you spot any errors or omissions, please let me know. I'll try to update the list as soon as new BDs are released each week.

________________________________________________

*Unranked Titles:*
*28 Days Later* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DTS-HD MA
*28 Weeks Later* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DTS-HD MA
*A Christmas Story* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD
*A Few Good Men* Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: PCM
*A Room with a View* Video: ? | Audio: DD EX
*A View from Space With Heavenly Music* Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: DD
*Alexander Revisited* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD
*Alice Cooper: Live at Montreux, 2005* Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: DD / DTS
*All the King's Men* Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: PCM
*Annapolis* Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: PCM
*Are We Done Yet?* Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: PCM
*Arlington Road* Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: PCM
*Bikini Destination - Triple Fantasy* Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: DD / DTS
*Blue Planet (IMAX)* Video: VC-1 | Audio: TrueHD
*Bruce Springsteen with the Sessions Band: Live in Dublin* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM
*Bubble* Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: DD
*Bulletproof Monk* Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: DTS-HD MA
*Chris Botti: Live (With Orchestra and Special Guests)* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM
*Dawn of the Dead* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM
*Day of the Dead* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM
*Deliverance* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD
*Delta Farce* Video: VC-1 | Audio: PCM (7.1)
*Discovery Atlas: Brazil Revealed* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD
*Discovery Atlas: China Revealed* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD
*Discovery Atlas: Italy Revealed* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD
*Disturbia* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DTS
*Doctor Strange: The Sorcerer Supreme* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DTS-HD MA (7.1)
*Dragon's Lair* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DD
*Edward Scissorhands* Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: DTS-HD MA
*Elvis Costello & the Imposters: Club Date - Live in Memphis* Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: DD / DTS
*Enter the Dragon* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD
*Freedom Writers* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DD
*From Hell* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DTS-HD MA
*G.I. Jane* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM
*Galapagos* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD
*Gods and Generals* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD
*Gothika* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD
*Gridiron Gang* Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: PCM
*HDNet World Report - Shuttle Discovery's Historic Mission* Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: DD
*House of 1,000 Corpses* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD HR (7.1)
*House of Flying Daggers* Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: PCM
*Hustle and Flow* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DD
*Immortal Beloved* Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: TrueHD
*Jailhouse Rock* Video: VC-1 | Audio: TrueHD
*Kiss of the Dragon* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DTS-HD MA
*Ladder 49* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM
*Lady in the Water* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD
*Little Man* Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: PCM
*Memoirs of a Geisha* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM
*Men of Honor* Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: DTS-HD MA
*Muriel Anderson - Guitarscape Planet* Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: DD
*Nature's Colors* Video: ? | Audio: TrueHD
*Nature's Journey* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA
*Nip/Tuck - The Complete Fourth Season* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD
*Out for Justice* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD
*Perfect Stranger* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM
*Phone Booth* Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: DTS-HD MA
*Primeval* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM
*Reign Over Me* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM
*Remember the Titans* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM
*Rescue Me - The Complete Third Season* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM
*Rio Bravo* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD
*Running With Scissors* Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: PCM
*Secret Window* Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: PCM
*Shooter* Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: DD
*Smallville - The Complete Sixth Season* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD
*Surf's Up* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM / TrueHD
*Syriana* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD
*Tekkon Kinkreet* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM
*The Benchwarmers* Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: PCM
*The Big Hit* Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: PCM
*The Condemned* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD HR (7.1)
*The Day After Tomorrow* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DTS-HD MA
*The Getaway (1972)* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD
*The Last Waltz* Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: PCM
*The Lives of Others* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM
*The Lookout* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM
*The Omen* Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: DTS-HD MA
*The Pat Metheny Group: The Way Up - Live* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD+ / DTS-HD HR
*The Replacement Killers (Extended Cut)* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM
*The Searchers* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD
*The Sopranos - Season 6, Part 1* Video: VC-1 | Audio: PCM
*The Terminator* Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: PCM
*The Wild Bunch* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD
*Tony Bennett - An American Classic* Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: PCM
*Troy (Director's Cut)* Video: VC-1 | Audio: PCM
*Twilight Zone - The Movie* Video: VC-1 | Audio: PCM
*Tyler Perry's Daddy's Little Girls* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM (6.1)
*Vacancy* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM
*Viva Las Vegas* Video: VC-1 | Audio: TrueHD
*Volver* Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: PCM
*Waiting... (Unrated and Raw)* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM (7.1)
*Warriors of Heaven* Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: PCM
*We Are Marshall* Video: VC-1 | Audio: TrueHD
*Weeds Season 2* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM (7.1)
*Wild Hogs* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM
*Wild Things (Unrated Edition)* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM
*Windtalkers* Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: DTS-HD MA
*Wings of Honneamise* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: TrueHD
*Wyatt Earp* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD


----------



## aktham

Thanks for the hard work SuprSlow!


----------



## Lil' Louie

I second that. Kudos!


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *skipfreely* /forum/post/11855967
> 
> 
> I have to say this is one of the best PQ movies (FF4SS) I have seen on my TV (51 Sony RPTV Prof ISF). It had a lot of 3d pop, definetly tier 0.



Is Netflix accurate in listing Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer as a 1.85:1 aspect ratio? That would be lovely.


You guys have me eager to see this title so much so that I put it at the top of my queue, which means it should only take 6 weeks for me to receive it







. Seriously, I've had TMNT and Black Snake Moan up there for at *least* 4 weeks and it still says "very long wait" for TMNT. I guess I'll see if Blockbuster has it. Do they still have those?










Brandon


----------



## J P Morgan

FF: ROTSS looked pretty good on Blu-Ray. Mid tier 1 is about right.

It is unfortunate that the PQ shows how hard they hit Jessica Alba with the ugly stick. They should have hired Angelina Jolie instead of trying to make someone look like her.










Sony KDS-A552020 - rear projection - [email protected] - 8' distance

HK AVR-247

PS3

all via HDMI


----------



## FenixP3D




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/11863127
> 
> 
> Is Netflix accurate in listing Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer as a 1.85:1 aspect ratio? That would be lovely.
> 
> 
> You guys have me eager to see this title so much so that I put it at the top of my queue, which means it should only take 6 weeks for me to receive it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Seriously, I've had TMNT and Black Snake Moan up there for at *least* 4 weeks and it still says "very long wait" for TMNT. I guess I'll see if Blockbuster has it. Do they still have those?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brandon



both blockbusters within a mile of my place doesn't carry TMNT in bluray...


i'll probably check out black snake moan though...


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/11863127
> 
> 
> Is Netflix accurate in listing Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer as a 1.85:1 aspect ratio? That would be lovely.



No. It's 2.35:1.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/11870862
> 
> 
> No. It's 2.35:1.



Those bastards...they've misled me before. No worries though, I didn't really expect an action flick to be 1.85.


Brandon


----------



## OhioMike

Watched one tonight that I don't yet see ranked.
*Disney's The Wild---If this isn't TIER 0...it is #1 on TIER 1*

This had *amazing* detail and color plus a great audio track and a very fun family movie. Hasn't anyone else seen this yet??


Viewed on Sony 46" ES2000 720p thru HDMI on PS3 @8-9ft...this must look insane in 1080p.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

The Wild is one of the best video presentations I have seen.


----------



## Deviation

Might as well stuff 28 Days Later into the "Coal" tier. The very nature of the material prevents a higher rating. The only reasons to own this movie on Blu-ray Disc are the lossless audio and to have it sitting next to 28 Weeks Later on your shelf.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OhioMike* /forum/post/11872714
> 
> 
> Watched one tonight that I don't yet see ranked.
> *Disney's The Wild---If this isn't TIER 0...it is #1 on TIER 1*
> 
> This had *amazing* detail and color plus a great audio track and a very fun family movie. Hasn't anyone else seen this yet??
> 
> 
> Viewed on Sony 46" ES2000 720p thru HDMI on PS3 @8-9ft...this must look insane in 1080p.




The Wild is ranked about 2/3rds of the way down in Tier 1. It's definitely there. And I held it in high regard when it first came out. I can't find my original post because it was in the other (closed) thread. In the before time. The long long ago.


Way back then I was one of the few who regarded it higher than the Tier champ at that time: Chicken Little. The movie is okay, but the PQ is excellent.


Brandon


----------



## OhioMike

It was late, so I'm not surprised I missed it on there, thanks for pointing to it Brandon. This really is the most detailed BD I've seen yet. So life-like that my cat watched half the movie.


----------



## mosman22

Has robocop been ranked yet. I justed finished watching it on my ps3-onkyo 705- 52xbr4 and wasn't that impressed. There is still alot of noise and grain. It is an improvement over the dvd but not that much. It is a soft image with less then stellar blacks. I would put it in the tier 4 or 5 category. The disc comes with a dts hd ma track but i could only hear the core. It was alright but you could definitly tell it was old, the voices are sometimes scratchy and off, on the other hand they did do some nice work on creating a 360 enviroment. Rain effects and bullits wiz acros the soundstage. what are other peoples opions on this disc.


----------



## mosman22




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/11863127
> 
> 
> Is Netflix accurate in listing Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer as a 1.85:1 aspect ratio? That would be lovely.
> 
> 
> You guys have me eager to see this title so much so that I put it at the top of my queue, which means it should only take 6 weeks for me to receive it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Seriously, I've had TMNT and Black Snake Moan up there for at *least* 4 weeks and it still says "very long wait" for TMNT. I guess I'll see if Blockbuster has it. Do they still have those?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brandon



I also use netflix also and have found it annoying trying to get in demand bd disc. I have been trying to get smallville for weeks. I do however have a great strategy for getting new realeases. The saturday before the disc i want is being realeased i return a disc i have. Then i take everthing out of my queu except for the disc or discs i want without fail i have always gotten the disc on the tuesday it is realesed.


----------



## ajamils

So what's the verdict on Surf's Up ? I watched it last night and LOVED it. Since the movie is filmed in a documentary style its difficult to judge it but I think it should be in high tier 1.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Deviation* /forum/post/11873350
> 
> 
> Might as well stuff 28 Days Later into the "Coal" tier. The very nature of the material prevents a higher rating. The only reasons to own this movie on Blu-ray Disc are the lossless audio and to have it sitting next to 28 Weeks Later on your shelf.



Exactly.


It was recorded on the DV format, wasn't it? Anyone who expects this to look anywhere close to "good" is crazy.


Frankly I am very surprised that this would even be offered in Hi Def.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OhioMike* /forum/post/11872714
> 
> 
> Watched one tonight that I don't yet see ranked.
> *Disney's The Wild---If this isn't TIER 0...it is #1 on TIER 1*
> 
> This had *amazing* detail and color plus a great audio track and a very fun family movie. Hasn't anyone else seen this yet??
> 
> 
> Viewed on Sony 46" ES2000 720p thru HDMI on PS3 @8-9ft...this must look insane in 1080p.



Just came across this excerpt while reading a review on the XBR4 TV:



> Quote:
> I know that computer animation can look good on most displays, but it can still be useful when judging detail and the richness (but not accuracy) of a set's color reproduction. There are better animated films than The Wild (Blu-ray), but none that look better. It's an exceptional disc, and the detail brought out by the Sonyparticularly in the animal furis amazing. The colors are also vivid and bright, but never over-the-top.


 http://www.guidetohometheater.com/fl...r4/index2.html 


Brandon


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mosman22* /forum/post/11876082
> 
> 
> I also use netflix also and have found it annoying trying to get in demand bd disc. I have been trying to get smallville for weeks. I do however have a great strategy for getting new realeases. The saturday before the disc i want is being realeased i return a disc i have. Then i take everthing out of my queu except for the disc or discs i want without fail i have always gotten the disc on the tuesday it is realesed.



Thanks for the tip.


Brandon


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/11880758
> 
> 
> Just came across this excerpt while reading a review on the XBR4 TV:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.guidetohometheater.com/fl...r4/index2.html
> 
> 
> Brandon



I'd like to get the opinion of someone with a 1080p set before moving the wild up. I don't have Surfs so can't review that one. I'm going to watch FF this weekend and maybe Day After Tom now that my firmware will play both.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/11884234
> 
> 
> I'd like to get the opinion of someone with a 1080p set before moving the wild up.



1080p/24 JVC RS1 on a 123" screen.


The Wild should be moved up. It is better than TMNT (which was superb as well).


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/11885339
> 
> 
> 1080p/24 JVC RS1 on a 123" screen.
> 
> 
> The Wild should be moved up. It is better than TMNT (which was superb as well).



Done - right above TMNT now


----------



## maverick0716

I don't know if this is in the list yet, but I think it should be somewhere in the mid to upper Tier 2 (silver)........awesome picture quality on this one!


42" Panasonic Plasma (75U) 768p

PS3 though HDMI

6-7 ft. viewing distance


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/11885641
> 
> 
> Done - right above TMNT now


----------



## da Choge

Just did a search on this thread to see if there was anything re: availability of any Blu-rays with 7.1 discrete (prolly Dolby TrueHD). Came up with zip. Used to follow this thread, but haven't in quite a while, so if this is a redundant question here, I apologize.


According to my current understanding, there are only a very few discrete 7.1 audio-channel media sources available and all are PS3 games (RFOM and Motostorm, maybe others). I'm trying to better define some of the operating capabilities & features of the Onkyo 905 and it would be useful if there was a Blu-ray disc (other than PS3 games) with *discrete* 7.1 audio channels; but I think such a beast does not yet exist? My player is the PS3. Any confirmation?


- da Choge


----------



## chris0




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mosman22* /forum/post/11876082
> 
> 
> I do however have a great strategy for getting new realeases. The saturday before the disc i want is being realeased i return a disc i have. Then i take everthing out of my queu except for the disc or discs i want without fail i have always gotten the disc on the tuesday it is realesed.



I do the same thing with the same result, except I don't remove everything from my queue. As soon as a movie's release date is announced you can move that movie to the top of your queue. I usually have 3-5 movies on the top of my queue that haven't been released yet. The only time I'm buggered is when don't add it to my queue because I think I'll buy a movie, then read the reviews and decide to rent (FF:ROTSS.) Then it's the "Long Wait."


----------



## oleus




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *da Choge* /forum/post/11891976
> 
> 
> Just did a search on this thread to see if there was anything re: availability of any Blu-rays with 7.1 discrete (prolly Dolby TrueHD). Came up with zip. Used to follow this thread, but haven't in quite a while, so if this is a redundant question here, I apologize.
> 
> 
> According to my current understanding, there are only a very few discrete 7.1 audio-channel media sources available and all are PS3 games (RFOM and Motostorm, maybe others). I'm trying to better define some of the operating capabilities & features of the Onkyo 905 and it would be useful if there was a Blu-ray disc (other than PS3 games) with *discrete* 7.1 audio channels; but I think such a beast does not yet exist? My player is the PS3. Any confirmation?
> 
> 
> - da Choge



Motorstorm shows up as 7.1 on my setup, but RESISTANCE FALL OF MAN is 5.1 on my receiver....


----------



## OhioMike

Thanks for moving The Wild up Austin


----------



## Ken Beck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *da Choge* /forum/post/11891976
> 
> 
> Just did a search on this thread to see if there was anything re: availability of any Blu-rays with 7.1 discrete (prolly Dolby TrueHD). Came up with zip. Used to follow this thread, but haven't in quite a while, so if this is a redundant question here, I apologize.
> 
> 
> According to my current understanding, there are only a very few discrete 7.1 audio-channel media sources available and all are PS3 games (RFOM and Motostorm, maybe others). I'm trying to better define some of the operating capabilities & features of the Onkyo 905 and it would be useful if there was a Blu-ray disc (other than PS3 games) with *discrete* 7.1 audio channels; but I think such a beast does not yet exist? My player is the PS3. Any confirmation?
> 
> 
> - da Choge



I've seen "Daddy's Little Girls" which is PCM 7.1 (48kHz, 16-bit) - http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movies.php?id=430 


Also blu-ray.com lists "Delta Farce" as PCM 7.1 (48kHz, 16-bit) - http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movies.php?id=491


----------



## SteelSD

IMHO, "Galapagos" should reside at the top of Tier 1 and possibly Tier 0. Fabulous colors. Incredible detail and 3-D pop.


Viewed via PS3 over HDMI on a calibrated Samsung LN-T4066F 1080p set. Viewing distance is 6-7 feet.


On another note, I've watched "The Patriot" on the same setup. While I consider the PQ to be excellent, I question its insertion to the middle of Tier One while "Kingdom of Heaven" has consistently dropped to the low end of Tier One. IMO, KoH is at least the equal of "The Patriot" and KoH offers a better assortment of 3-D "pop" scenes.


Also, I found "The Patriot" to be nearly devoid of film grain during the second half of the film while the beginning of the movie showed a lot of grain. Now, I know about the attitude we have about film grain around these parts, but why wouldn't it be consistent over the entire film? The second half of this flick's PQ is near-reference level. The lack of PQ consistency over the entire film is something I don't see that we can forgive without some kind of explanation. IMO, KoH certainly tops the overall PQ from a consistency standpoint as does the Tier 2 (really?) offering of "Casino Royale".


BTW, it's good to see "The Wild" at the top of Tier 1. I agree with Rob Tomlin. On Blu-Ray, "The Wild" represents ridiculous PQ. It's at the top of the list for "reference" material.


----------



## phisch




> Quote:
> So what's the verdict on Surf's Up ? I watched it last night and LOVED it. Since the movie is filmed in a documentary style its difficult to judge it but I think it should be in high tier 1.



I watched it last night and I agree upper tier 1, excellent transfer.


----------



## skizatch

I've got Nip/Tuck Season 4 and I would have to say it's firmly in Tier 2 territory. It's a huge step up from DVD, but I'm guessing they just aren't using the same caliber of recording gear as, say, Pirates. Plus they put 4 episodes per disc so the compression quality is lower. Audio is not lossless either.


Disturbia is unranked? If the Blu-ray is anything like the HD-DVD version, it's easily Tier 1 material.


46" Samsung LN-T4671F, 1080p, PS3 for Blu-ray / 360 for HD-DVD (both via HDMI)


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Yes, Surf's Up belongs in upper Tier 1. Very nice, and actually one of the better animated HD titles I have seen in terms of movie quality.


----------



## da Choge




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ken Beck* /forum/post/11894071
> 
> 
> I've seen "Daddy's Little Girls" which is PCM 7.1 (48kHz, 16-bit) - http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movies.php?id=430
> 
> Also blu-ray.com lists "Delta Farce" as PCM 7.1 (48kHz, 16-bit) - http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movies.php?id=491



Thanks! I noticed both movies were from Lionsgate; wonder if any influence from part owner Cuban with his HD background played into producing these relatively minor movies in 7.1?


-da Choge


----------



## JosephShaw




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/11905147
> 
> 
> Yes, Surf's Up belongs in upper Tier 1. Very nice, and actually one of the better animated HD titles I have seen in terms of movie quality.



I think with all the simulated film grain and noise due to its documentary style, it doesn't belong in Tier 1. I don't even think it belongs in Tier 2 when comparing it to titles in there. At it's best, it's no better than Ice Age 2: The Meltdown, and at it's worst it's House of Flying Daggers. It's hard to rate a title that fluctuates so much in visual quality.


BTW, what happened to move so many titles down on the list? Ice Age: The Meltdown used to be the top of Tier 1 in the old thread, and only because of the banding in two night scenes, and now it's the tops of Tier 2? Kingdom of Heaven and BHD used to be Tier 0, and now they are low Tier 1 with The Warriors is rated higher? I guess I missed a lot after I dropped out of the thread over the summer, but some of this stuff doesn't compute.


----------



## tyorder1

Just finished watching Troy and boy oh boy was I ever impressed with the quality of the transfer. Top of tier one for sure. Check this flick out if you have not. Also, it is a directors cut edition so there are extra scence throughout the movie to keep you interested if you've seen this movie alot on DVD.


Sony Ruby 1080p60 on a 119" screen 12 feet away.


----------



## tyorder1

Also, Vacancy is a quality movie that should be placed somewhere in mid tier 2. Much of the movie seems to be filmed in dark scences and thus the picture quality varies from projector to projector, but as far as I can see from my Ruby, the movie is transfered quite well. Audio is strong in this movie as well. Soundtrack kept me on the edge of the seat like a good thriller should.


Sony Ruby 1080p60 on 119" screen 12 feet away.


----------



## lgans316

1) Face/Off (J) - Should be in Middle of Tier 2

2) The Rock (J/U.K) - Lower Tier 1 or Top of Tier 2

3) Air Force One (J) - Middle or Bottom of Tier 2


----------



## bplewis24

I got a chance to watch Black Snake Moan last night. Excellent transfer through and through. I found the use of lighting especially enjoyable. Most of the movie takes place indoors in low lighting, yet the picture quality and details were still very visible. Pretty impressive.


Brandon


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tyorder1* /forum/post/11928593
> 
> 
> Just finished watching Troy and boy oh boy was I ever impressed with the quality of the transfer. Top of tier one for sure. Check this flick out if you have not. Also, it is a directors cut edition so there are extra scence throughout the movie to keep you interested if you've seen this movie alot on DVD.
> 
> 
> Sony Ruby 1080p60 on a 119" screen 12 feet away.



The PQ in Troy is extremely mediocre even for a Warner title.


----------



## lgans316

After watching Troy bit rate lovers can try to accept the fact that 13 Mbps average VC-1 encode can also produce good picture.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/11929983
> 
> 
> After watching Troy bit rate lovers can try to accept the fact that 13 Mbps average VC-1 encode can also produce good picture.



If the PQ in Troy were the best we could expect from high def discs, that would be very sad indeed.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *phisch* /forum/post/11903195
> 
> 
> I watched it last night and I agree upper tier 1, excellent transfer.



Done


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/11886133
> 
> 
> I don't know if this is in the list yet, but I think it should be somewhere in the mid to upper Tier 2 (silver)........awesome picture quality on this one!
> 
> 
> 42" Panasonic Plasma (75U) 768p
> 
> PS3 though HDMI
> 
> 6-7 ft. viewing distance



Done


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *skizatch* /forum/post/11904774
> 
> 
> I've got Nip/Tuck Season 4 and I would have to say it's firmly in Tier 2 territory. It's a huge step up from DVD, but I'm guessing they just aren't using the same caliber of recording gear as, say, Pirates. Plus they put 4 episodes per disc so the compression quality is lower. Audio is not lossless either.
> 
> 
> Disturbia is unranked? If the Blu-ray is anything like the HD-DVD version, it's easily Tier 1 material.
> 
> 
> 46" Samsung LN-T4671F, 1080p, PS3 for Blu-ray / 360 for HD-DVD (both via HDMI)



Done


----------



## rutlian

what tier is THE DAY AFTER TOMMOROW?


----------



## oleus




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rutlian* /forum/post/11933994
> 
> 
> what tier is THE DAY AFTER TOMMOROW?



from the reviews i've read it's gonna end up near the very top probably.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rutlian* /forum/post/11933994
> 
> 
> what tier is THE DAY AFTER TOMMOROW?



I haven't watched it yet...maybe this weekend.


----------



## rutlian




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/11934119
> 
> 
> I haven't watched it yet...maybe this weekend.



Thank you I am looking forward to it. Nice work.


----------



## rutlian




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oleus* /forum/post/11934106
> 
> 
> from the reviews i've read it's gonna end up near the very top probably.



I am glad, I really like this movie. Thanks


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oleus* /forum/post/11934106
> 
> 
> from the reviews i've read it's gonna end up near the very top probably.



The reviewers seem to have been watching a different movie than the one I saw, which was quite soft.


----------



## svalentine

I think Corpse Bride is up to high. Sure the colors were outstanding, but I felt some scenes were pretty soft. I would place it in the middle of tier 1.


----------



## mr stroke

finnally got Windtalkers from BB, and warning to all-Stay far away from that one-PQ is about as bad as I have seen from a HD disc. Washed out picture tons of grain and overall really flat. Add that to the fact the movie its self is also really bad(turned it off half way through)

bottom tier for Windtalkers



Panny Plasma 768res

6 viewing distance

Sony BDP S1 set to 1080i


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *svalentine* /forum/post/11939702
> 
> 
> I think Corpse Bride is up to high. Sure the colors were outstanding, but I felt some scenes were pretty soft. I would place it in the middle of tier 1.



Blasphemy!


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/11943190
> 
> 
> Blasphemy!



Don't worry its not moving...he didn't provide any details about his setup to backup the claim...


----------



## svalentine

Calibrated 40" Sony Bravia XBR2, PS3 w/ latest firmware hooked up via HDMI. Watched the movie at night as well. I don't think its tier 0 worthy. I think some of you should re watch that title after seeing more recent releases.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *svalentine* /forum/post/11946816
> 
> 
> Calibrated 40" Sony Bravia XBR2, PS3 w/ latest firmware hooked up via HDMI. Watched the movie at night as well. I don't think its tier 0 worthy. I think some of you should re watch that title after seeing more recent releases.



Viewing distance?


----------



## hobbs47




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/11936267
> 
> 
> The reviewers seem to have been watching a different movie than the one I saw, which was quite soft.



lol-man you never give up.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *svalentine* /forum/post/11946816
> 
> 
> Calibrated 40" Sony Bravia XBR2, PS3 w/ latest firmware hooked up via HDMI. Watched the movie at night as well. I don't think its tier 0 worthy. I think some of you should re watch that title after seeing more recent releases.



Nope. I've seen it 3 times already (I have kids). I like where it is placed on the list.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *svalentine* /forum/post/11946816
> 
> 
> Calibrated 40" Sony Bravia XBR2, PS3 w/ latest firmware hooked up via HDMI. Watched the movie at night as well. I don't think its tier 0 worthy. I think some of you should re watch that title after seeing more recent releases.



There's no way I'm watching that movie again as I didn't really care for it. However, I think what I take exception with is the characterization of it as "soft." I would say it is very far from soft.


Anyhow, because I have a new HT setup I re-rented The Wild from netflix and wow, that movie just pops off the damn screen. Again, not that great a movie, but the PQ is outstanding.


Brandon


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hobbs47* /forum/post/11947849
> 
> 
> lol-man you never give up.



DAT is Fox, not Warner.


----------



## iceperson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JosephShaw* /forum/post/11907606
> 
> 
> I think with all the simulated film grain and noise due to its documentary style, it doesn't belong in Tier 1. I don't even think it belongs in Tier 2 when comparing it to titles in there. At it's best, it's no better than Ice Age 2: The Meltdown, and at it's worst it's House of Flying Daggers. It's hard to rate a title that fluctuates so much in visual quality.



So where do you think Black Hawk Down should be? Tier Coal?


----------



## edgary




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *iceperson* /forum/post/11953045
> 
> 
> So where do you think Black Hawk Down should be? Tier Coal?



Heck, no! I've seen it and it's great (although at first it got me worried seeing it all green







), and I believe it's good right where it is now.


However, I know what you're saying, but there is a great debate over that aspect of the movie.


----------



## bplewis24

Has anybody seen Reign Over Me yet?


Brandon


----------



## STEVEfromLA

I really enjoy this thread. Thank you to those who have really put some strong effort in getting this to be a very reliable source on picture quality.


I do think though that with titles like "The Warriors", "Fifth Element", and the grainy "300" as Tier 1 titles, that the Prestige and Ice Age Meltdown as very underestimated as Tier 2 entries.


I thought that the picture quality, pop, and on Ice Age and Prestige definitely need to be in tier 1 at least compared to the three previously listed tier 1 titles.


I am using 1080P 56" Samsung, and am less than 10 feet away when viewing.


----------



## AustinSTI

Just Watched Spidey 3 - Definately High Tier 1/Low Tier 0. Awesome PQ...


----------



## m_tyson

Finally got around to watching my import copy of Tomb Raider 2 (Lara Croft - Cradle of Life). I would give it a Tier 1 video rating - the picture clarity reminded me of Casino Royale and Layer Cake. Watching with the PS3 on a 720p projector at 14' from a 106" screen. The english audio track is only 1.5Mbps DTS, but still very good and has great LFE. I would give the audio a 4 of 5 stars. A really fun movie too!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/11973044
> 
> 
> Just Watched Spidey 3 - Definately High Tier 1/Low Tier 0. Awesome PQ...



Cool!


----------



## SteelSD

Not sure if this was missed on page 35, but I'd still like to point out that "Galapagos" is top Tier 1 if not Tier 0 reference material. I know I don't post here a lot, but my set (Samsung LN-T4066F) is properly calibrated and the PQ is just unreal.


If reservations exist about adding "Galapagos" to Tier 0 prior to feedback from another viewer or two, then that's cool. But that Blu-Ray disk IS, at minimum, top Tier 1 reference material.


----------



## Kevin12586




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/11973044
> 
> 
> Just Watched Spidey 3 - Definately High Tier 1/Low Tier 0. Awesome PQ...


----------



## OldCodger73

I'm not trying to provoke a controversy but am relatively new to HDM and do have a question about placement of two movies in the tier. While the Battle of the Bulge is a good transfer of an older movie, does it really belong in tier 1? The other movie is Bridge to Terabithia. Why is it languishing in tier 2; to me it's definitely tier 1?


Panny 50" 600U 1080i, Panny 10a, 7.5 feet.


----------



## JosephD05

Just saw Black Book last night AND i WAS IMPRESSED! The PQ AND AQ were top notch.


----------



## Yankees24

Any opinions on the "Day after tomorrow" ?...I played it last night and I wasn't to imprest with the video quality.... Some scenes looked really good and some were kind of soft.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Yankees24* /forum/post/11980884
> 
> 
> Any opinions on the "Day after tomorrow" ?...I played it last night and I wasn't to imprest with the video quality.... Some scenes looked really good and some were kind of soft.



IMO, the whole movie is soft.


----------



## vpn75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/11962062
> 
> 
> Has anybody seen Reign Over Me yet?
> 
> 
> Brandon



I got it from Netflix. The movie is pretty good, but the transfer is kind of 'meh'. I would say low Tier 2. The PQ was pretty soft in my opinion.


----------



## SuprSlow

Alright guys, the list of unranked titles is rapidly growing. I know many of you have seen some of these films, especially Kubrick's, so give your opinions on PQ!










I've added the new releases from this week to the first post, and filled in some missing audio/video information on some other titles.


Check the first post for the updated list of unranked titles:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...85&postcount=1


----------



## edgary




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/12001703
> 
> 
> Alright guys, the list of unranked titles is rapidly growing. I know many of you have seen some of these films, especially Kubrick's, so give your opinions on PQ!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've added the new releases from this week to the first post, and filled in some missing audio/video information on some other titles.
> 
> 
> Check the first post for the updated list of unranked titles:
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...85&postcount=1



Heres' my two cents:


All of them seen in a Philips 42" 1080p TV and PS3 through HDMI. 7-8 feet from screen...


Blue Planet: Good picture quality, middle to high Tier 2


Shooter: Looks even better than Blue Planet and no problems with fast-moving scenes; and the snow shot looks amazing; middle to low Tier 1.


Wild Hogs looks even better; not a terribly good movie, although funny at times, but the picture was amazing; definitely middle Tier 1.


I also own Immortal Beloved, but I haven't convinced the wife to watch it, so I'll report later.


----------



## Lil' Louie

Watched Meet the Robinsons last night, and I give it a low tier 0/very top tier 1 rating. Colors are vibrant and the 3D effect is unreal.


Viewed on Sony KDS55A3000 DLP/PS3/ 6-10 ft in 1080P:


----------



## AustinSTI

Shooter, Wild Hogs, Blue Planet, and Robinsons Added


Nice setup Louie!!


----------



## Lil' Louie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/12003373
> 
> 
> Shooter, Wild Hogs, Blue Planet, and Robinsons Added
> 
> 
> Nice setup Louie!!



Thanks!


----------



## Kevin12586




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/12003373
> 
> 
> Shooter, Wild Hogs, Blue Planet, and Robinsons Added
> 
> 
> Nice setup Louie!!



Wow, 2 new tier 0 titles in 1 week










Austin, there are 5 movies listed in tier 0 but your counter still says 4.


----------



## Desert Pilot

I agree with the tier rating of Underworld (unrated) and Underworld evolution. I recently watched both and the original Underworld (unrated) on BlurRay is fantastic. The picture and sound are awesome. So a couple of nights later I rented and watched Evolution and was sooooo disappointed. Great film but terrible transfer. Weird, huh?


Marcus


----------



## makingmusic476

Why are PotC 1&2 in two different tiers? From all the reviews I've read, they both look equally amazing.


I have both movies, but we're not getting the XBR4 until Christmas, so I can't truly compare them yet.


----------



## VeeArSix




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Desert Pilot* /forum/post/12006066
> 
> 
> I agree with the tier rating of Underworld (unrated) and Underworld evolution. I recently watched both and the original Underworld (unrated) on BlurRay is fantastic. The picture and sound are awesome. So a couple of nights later I rented and watched Evolution and was sooooo disappointed. Great film but terrible transfer. Weird, huh?
> 
> 
> Marcus



Evolution was a launch title and has been out for about a year and half. Needless to say, advancements have been made in transfer quality and that's why Underworld looks so good compared to Evolution.


----------



## bplewis24

Has anybody else seen Disturbia yet?


Watched it last night (46", 1080p24, PS3, 8 feet), and thought it was roughly a high Tier 2 title. And it has been placed around there (low Tier 1), so I'm just curious if anybody else feels differently.


Brandon


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *VeeArSix* /forum/post/12008132
> 
> 
> Evolution was a launch title and has been out for about a year and half. Needless to say, advancements have been made in transfer quality and that's why Underworld looks so good compared to Evolution.



Any possibility that they will re-master and reissue Underworld?


----------



## haste

Watched 28 Weeks Later last night on a Philips 42" 1080p LCD TV (42PFL7432D/37) with PS3 and Onkyo TX-SR605. Viewing distance 8ft.


Some scenes were incredibly sharp/detailed. Some night shots(and day) were very grainy.

Not sure if it was intended to be this way or not. But it wasn't very consisent. I attribute it to bad camera work. I think this one should go in the Bronze Tier.


----------



## Schlotkins

I watched the Shining last night on my HD-DVD player. (I have a bunch of blu-ray titles and a PS3). Considering the video encode is the same, the comments should be the same here. Honestly, I was really, really impressed with this transfer. Mind you, it's no Tier 0, but for a 27 year old film the sharpness was good in some scenes and as well as the colors.


My ranking? I'd probably put it a little above Trading Places.


Still waiting on 2001...


Chris


----------



## AustinSTI

I expect more and more titles to be in the upper areas like Tier 0. As studios get good a transfers there becomes less excuse for a poor transfer to occur. I fully expect movies like the Die Hard Quad, Simpsons, Rat, Cars to all fall in upper tier 1 or tier 0. We'll see


----------



## edgary




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/12011193
> 
> 
> I expect more and more titles to be in the upper areas like Tier 0. As studios get good a transfers there becomes less excuse for a poor transfer to occur. I fully expect movies like the Die Hard Quad, Simpsons, Rat, Cars to all fall in upper tier 1 or tier 0. We'll see



I agree, I am personally waiting for the Cars movie, and probably the Simpsons, and I have high hopes for them.


----------



## Yankees24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/12009025
> 
> 
> Has anybody else seen Disturbia yet?
> 
> 
> Watched it last night (46", 1080p24, PS3, 8 feet), and thought it was roughly a high Tier 2 title. And it has been placed around there (low Tier 1), so I'm just curious if anybody else feels differently.
> 
> 
> Brandon




I agree with you...tier 2 at best.


----------



## Jenova

I watched Galapogos expecting to be blown away but I wasn't really. Although it was a nice looking disc overall, i would put it around the same ballpark as Planet Earth...maybe lower Tier 1/upper Tier 2. I really wanted to love this disc after reading all the reviews for it.


I also watch Fantastic Four....now I was definitely impressed by PQ of this disc. Definitely upper Tier 1. And after seeing the opening previews on that disc, which showed The Simpsons...and Die Hard, I'm definitely anticipating that these new crop of high profile films will be nothing less than upper Tier 1 material.


My tv: Samsung 4665f 5-6ft viewing distance


----------



## maverick0716

I just watched Trading Places last night........and boy was I impressed! It looked great, and not just for an old movie. Definitly deserves its place in the Silver Tier.


----------



## ajamils

Mr. Brooks


Watched Mr. Brooks last nite and I think that Fox did an excellent job. PQ was very sharp with a lot of detail. Only noticed some grain in couple of shots but other than that the movie gorgeous. I will vote for it to be in high Teir 1


-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-

Calibrated Olevia 323 (720p)

Ps3

4-5 feet viewing distance


----------



## mudfootLgt

Mr. Brooks

very sharp picture great movie great sound

HIGH TIER 1

i think its right on par with the messengers


Samsung hlt5087 led dlp 1920x1080px24

PS3

8 feet back


----------



## bplewis24

Do we have a new reference title? Check out what High Def Digest had to say about 2001: A Space Odyssey:



> Quote:
> The Video: Sizing Up the Picture
> 
> 
> 
> Presented with identical 1080p/VC-1 transfers on Blu-ray and HD DVD, this remastered release of '2001: A Space Odyssey' features a revelatory upgrade in picture quality that's likely to leave fans buzzing with excitement. Colors are magnificent, rich, and stable from beginning to end -- skintones are perfectly saturated and primary hues are bold and vibrant. Blues and reds receive the most noticeable improvement from past DVD editions, but the entire palette is striking. I'm also happy to report that contrast is dead-on, black levels are inky, and shadow delineation reveals a variety of elements formerly cloaked in darkness.
> 
> 
> Fine detail sets a new bar for high definition catalog releases. Facial imperfections are a cinch to spot, hair is crisply defined, and the star fields are flawless. I paused on several occasions to note actors' naturally splotchy skin and chipped fingernails. There are even scenes in this transfer that I completely re-watched just to have another chance to explore the intricacies of the sets and props. For the first time, I was able to read all of the small text Kubrick strategically placed across the film. Call me obsessed, but I found myself completely fascinated by these minor details that I'd previously been unable to enjoy. Pay close attention to the barren wilderness in the opening scenes, the space station electronics, and the slightest etchings on the ships floating above Earth. My apologies for sounding like Captain Adjective, but this transfer is just that beautiful.
> 
> 
> The print is in excellent condition and isn't marred by softness, edge enhancement, scratches, or any distracting instances of source noise. There isn't a hint of the blockiness that haunts 'A Clockwork Orange' and the transfer easily surpasses the new 2-disc Special Edition DVD (as well as every other previous home video release of the film). As I watched this Blu-ray, I searched for something to complain about, but I'm happy to report that I failed to find a single thing. '2001: A Space Odyssey' has set a new bar for catalog transfers in high definition. For a film that's nearly forty years old, this high-def release is nothing short of a godsend.



Pretty amazing if it turns out that a 40 year old film makes it to the top of Tier 0.


Brandon


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/12026468
> 
> 
> Do we have a new reference title? Check out what High Def Digest had to say about 2001: A Space Odyssey:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty amazing if it turns out that a 40 year old film makes it to the top of Tier 0.
> 
> 
> Brandon



I knew this one had potential. I saw it on HD-Net Movies (it's still on my hard drive) and it looked quite good. The Blu-ray version should be even better. I did notice some stair stepping on the HD-Net version. I assume that is not present on the BD


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12027767
> 
> 
> I knew this one had potential. I saw it on HD-Net Movies (it's still on my hard drive) and it looked quite good. The Blu-ray version should be even better. I did notice some stair stepping on the HD-Net version. I assume that is not present on the BD



I've only read a couple less-than-stellar reviews, and when put in context they still give it high marks. One is comparing the Blu-ray to the original theatrical release in Cinerama, which apparently was more of an experience than simply a viewing.


Anyhow, I don't know if it will end up at the top of Tier 0, but it sounds like it's top of Tier 1 at worst. I think I'm going to get it from Amazon. Seems like it's worth it.


Brandon


----------



## Schlotkins

I forgot to mention my Shining review is using a PS3 @ 24hz on a Pio 5070 50" plasma from 8 feet.


----------



## svalentine

I would place Mr. Brooks in mid Tier 1.


----------



## pepar

I just noticed that there is a question mark for "video" on 2001: A Space Odyssey. High Def Digest lists is as VC-1. They further qualify the PCM surround with "48kHz/24-Bit/6.9Mbps."


----------



## lgans316

1) Face/Off - Mid of Tier 2 [Audio - Reference]

2) The Rock - Bottom of Tier 1

3) Air Force One - Bottom of Tier 2 [Audio - Reference, Rivals Patriot]

4) Con Air - Top of Tier 2

5) DAT - Top of Tier 2 [Audio - Reference]


----------



## zinfamous

Immortal Beloved


Samsung HP-S4253

PS3

7ft


Absolutely stunning. I haven't seen this film in some 8 years, and was blown away.


PQ 4.5--lots of pop, sharp colors and deep blacks. mesmerizing final sequence (9th)

AQ 8/5--It's Beethoven!


I would say mid tier 1


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Schlotkins* /forum/post/12029413
> 
> 
> I forgot to mention my Shining review is using a PS3 @ 24hz on a Pio 5070 50" plasma from 8 feet.



Please let us know what you think of 2001 when you get it










Brandon


----------



## walrus271

bp-


Got 2001 yesterday and watched it last night.


Definitely top notch quality. I'm no expert at this but my hookup was ps3 thru hdmi to my onkyo 705 to my panny plasma (1080i). I was astounded that a movie this old could have this video quality.


Audio was good but some of the video (outer space scenes especially) were absolutely stunning.

Would highly recommend.


Kubrick was definitely ahead of his time. Understand from other posts the reason this transfers so well to High Def is it was shot on 70mm film.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *walrus271* /forum/post/12031328
> 
> 
> bp-
> 
> 
> Got 2001 yesterday and watched it last night.
> 
> 
> Definitely top notch quality. I'm no expert at this but my hookup was ps3 thru hdmi to my onkyo 705 to my panny plasma (1080i). I was astounded that a movie this old could have this video quality.
> 
> 
> Audio was good but some of the video (outer space scenes especially) were absolutely stunning.
> 
> Would highly recommend.
> 
> 
> Kubrick was definitely ahead of his time. Understand from other posts the reason this transfers so well to High Def is it was shot on 70mm film.



No doubt that the fact it was shot on 70mm has a big impact on why it looks so good in Hi Def. It's all about the source!


I can think of another great film shot on 70mm that should look amazing in HD as well!


----------



## Schlotkins




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/12031081
> 
> 
> Please let us know what you think of 2001 when you get it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brandon



I'll echo the comments from the previous poster. 2001 is just unbelieveable. It's really hard to describe how a 40 year old movie can look that good. Close-ups are mostly very sharp, detail is great, etc. There was a couple scenes were the white/black seemed to have some variation in it, but I would rate this film very highly. Probably mid-pack gold tier and that's not even giving it a break for being an old film.


Honestly, I really can't say enough about it. I was really taken back.


Chris


----------



## the boss35

I have been reading this thread for a couple of weeks now, and I think it is fantastic! Watched shooter on blu-ray via netflix last night. I think you may have it a little low , pq was excellent sound was ok but overall lot's of nice imaging especially last scene.

*samsung hl-s6188w dlp 1080p isf calibrated

ps3 1080p/24 via hdmi 1.3
*yamaha 6.1 2 t.r. towers


----------



## Lil' Louie

Finally saw The Messengers last night; and, it definitely deserves its placing. PQ is incredible, and the sunflower field scenes were breathtaking.


----------



## AustinSTI

Everything is up to date; I put 2001 in Bottom of Tier 0.


----------



## rydenfan

Would it be possible to denote when a movie is newly added to the list? I know I use this guide as my reference for ordering movies, and I would love to be able to tell when a movie is new to the list so that I do not miss it. Just a thought...


----------



## ajamils

Kings of New York....... Teir 2. Some good closeup shots but digital noise in night scenes and some instances of dirt on the print.


-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-

Calibrated Olevia 323 (720p)

Ps3

4-5 feet viewing distance


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rydenfan* /forum/post/12056930
> 
> 
> Would it be possible to denote when a movie is newly added to the list? I know I use this guide as my reference for ordering movies, and I would love to be able to tell when a movie is new to the list so that I do not miss it. Just a thought...



How about the date added next to the name?


----------



## DomNY

Gets my vote for a tier1 release:

Watched this over the weekend. Outstanding picture (didn't see the crushed blacks as reviewed in a couple of sites). Audio was also excellent. Colors and detail were great. I didn't see any of the softness I saw in a few scenes in Curse of the Golden Flower. I actually enjoyed the movie as well.










JVC-RS1

Panny 10A (1080P/60)

Stewart 92" diagonal GreyHawk Screen

PCM audio via analog


----------



## the boss35

Watched Tears of the sun last night. I would put it high silver low gold ratiing. Nice dark scene's , the ending sequence pq was tremendous.Great sound quality.


*Samsung hl-s6188w isf calibrated

ps3/b/r at 6o

yamaha 6.1 surround*


----------



## SuprSlow

Made a couple changes and added this week's releases. Only SM3 has a link to HDDb, the others aren't up yet.


Looks like a good week for nature nerds









*Antarctica Dreaming* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: TrueHD
*Exotic Saltwater Aquarium* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DD5.1
*Fireplace: Visions of Tranquility* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DD5.1
*HD Window: The Great Southwest* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: TrueHD
*HD Window: Hawaii MPEG-4* Video: | Audio: TrueHD
*HDScape Sampler MPEG-4* Video: | Audio: TrueHD
*License to Wed* Video: VC-1 | Audio: PCM
*The Polar Express* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD5.1
*Queen Rocks Montreal* Video: ? | Audio: ?
*Serenity: Southern Seas* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: TrueHD
*Stargaze II* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: TrueHD
*SpiderMan 3* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM / TrueHD
*Visions of the Sea: Explorations* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: TrueHD


----------



## SuprSlow

Made a few more changes, and added some functionality that most will probably find useless







But what better way to kill company time than to mess with a Blu-ray thread on the interweb?










BTW, we're closing in on 100,000 views for this thread.


----------



## rydenfan

What about adding a functinality of knowing if something is new to the list? or the date is was added or something? I look through this list all the time, and I hate to miss a title and not know it is there.


----------



## Mongoos150

Cannot believe there aren't more people commenting on Shining. I'll receive my copy tomorrow. Cannot wait.


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rydenfan* /forum/post/12063086
> 
> 
> What about adding a functinality of knowing if something is new to the list? or the date is was added or something? I look through this list all the time, and I hate to miss a title and not know it is there.



To you, pepar, and anyone else interested:


Which would you prefer...the date of when the title was added, or some other "highlighting" type indicator that's only there for two weeks, or a month, etc? Any other ideas?


----------



## rydenfan

I actually would prefer the highlighting idea for a few reasons.

1. I think it is easier to notice that it is new.

2. I like the simplicity of the lay out and would hate to see excess info.


Suprslow, I really appreciate you resonding to me. Thanks! This is an amazing thread and a real assest to my movie collection and enjoyment. I am totally open to whatever people decide they prefer.


----------



## SuprSlow

Would something like this be doable? We could remove the icon and date after two weeks or whatever is decided.

*Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds: Live at Radio City* Video: VC-1 | Audio: True HD
*Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM
*Corpse Bride* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD
*SpiderMan 3* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM / TrueHD
*Meet the Robinsons* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM
*2001: A Space Odyssey* Video: VC-1 | Audio: PCM







(10-29-07)


----------



## rydenfan

that works great for me! And I dont care if you only want to delete it monthly or every two weeks or whatever is best for you.


I think this would be a nice addition to the thread.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/12067706
> 
> 
> To you, pepar, and anyone else interested:
> 
> 
> Which would you prefer...the date of when the title was added, or some other "highlighting" type indicator that's only there for two weeks, or a month, etc? Any other ideas?



The simplest thing to do i to add the date that the title was added. That would require no further attention from you list maintainers. A demotion or other move could also be noted.


Just my $.02.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rydenfan* /forum/post/12067794
> 
> 
> I actually would prefer the highlighting idea for a few reasons.
> 
> 1. I think it is easier to notice that it is new.
> 
> 2. I like the simplicity of the lay out and would hate to see excess info.
> 
> 
> Suprslow, I really appreciate you resonding to me. Thanks! This is an amazing thread and a real assest to my movie collection and enjoyment. I am totally open to whatever people decide they prefer.



OK, I like that suggestion, too.


----------



## pepar

Placing the icon in front of the title would make it easier to scan as the list is left-justified and is a straight line (up and down). Not only would the icon draw the eye, but the indentation as well.


Another $.02.










> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/12068017
> 
> 
> Would something like this be doable? We could remove the icon and date after two weeks or whatever is decided.
> 
> *Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds: Live at Radio City* Video: VC-1 | Audio: True HD
> *Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM
> *Corpse Bride* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD
> *SpiderMan 3* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM / TrueHD
> *Meet the Robinsons* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *2001: A Space Odyssey* Video: VC-1 | Audio: PCM (10-29-07)


----------



## edgary




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/12068456
> 
> 
> Placing the icon in front of the title would make it easier to scan as the list is left-justified and is a straight line (up and down). Not only would the icon draw the eye, but the indentation as well.
> 
> 
> Another $.02.



That's 6 cents for you already










I like this suggestion the most. My 2 cents.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *edgary* /forum/post/12068500
> 
> 
> That's 6 cents for you already
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like this suggestion the most. My 2 cents.



Without a BD player (and 1080p display), all I can do is make suggestions for the _mechanics_ of the list.


----------



## rydenfan

I feel the icon is much more noticable than simply listing the date. I like it on the left as well and would vote for that to be how it is done, but it is not my thread so whatever you decide will work for me. I do feel like this is a nice addition though...


----------



## Kevin12586




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rydenfan* /forum/post/12069166
> 
> 
> I feel the icon is much more noticable than simply listing the date. I like it on the left as well and would vote for that to be how it is done, but it is not my thread so whatever you decide will work for me. I do feel like this is a nice addition though...



I agree


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vpn75* /forum/post/11981899
> 
> 
> I got it from Netflix. The movie is pretty good, but the transfer is kind of 'meh'. I would say low Tier 2. The PQ was pretty soft in my opinion.



I just watched Reign Over Me. I actually wouldn't call it soft, I thought it was pretty crisp at most times. To me it's a mid Tier 2 title, mostly because of the noise during some of the low-light scenes and because it's not as sharp as the tier 0/1 titles. Also sometimes the unnatural flesh tones, but it seemed like filters were used in that instance...and sometimes that caused a loss of detail. Overall though, I thought it was a pretty solid transfer. Mid Tier 2 for me.


Also, I noticed that Wild Things hadn't been added yet. I don't think I watched the "Unrated" version that's listed in the first post as I received it from Netflix and there's no way to tell. Anyway, the version I got seemed to be a low Tier 3 encode. It was noticeably soft throughout, even though it looked significantly better than DVD. Colors were nice and vivid without looking too oversaturated.


One thing I did notice about Wild Things is that it seemed to have some type of software overlay, which I'm going to assume is "Blu-wizard." In scene selections it showed an option to create bookmarks, which I think from memory is a feature of Blu-wizard. Also, when fast-forwarding or rewinding a pop up to show the track bar would show.


Lastly, I agree with the other posters that an icon would be needed if you are going to add dates. I know it creates more work, but just a list of dates wouldn't allow a person to scroll up and down very fast to see what's new. But an icon that stands out helps in that regard.


PS3->1080p24->46XBR4 8-10 Feet.


Brandon


----------



## SuprSlow

Alright, I added the icons and today's date to the last round of titles that were added by Austin.


I also added Wild Things and Reign Over Me to the rankings.


A side note...if two weeks is too short of a time period for the titles to be shown as "new", we can extend it to a month. I feel that two weeks is plenty of time for most everyone who remotely cares about this thread to see it, and it will also keep the list from being crowded with too many new titles, making it confusing to read.


----------



## rydenfan

That is great! Thanks so much SuprSlow, I really appreciate it.


----------



## Lil' Louie

Spidey 1 = Low Tier 3 between 16 Blocks & Superman Returns. While it is a definite improvement over the SD version, it just wasn't up to par as many others on the list. Still a wonderful presentation though. Like to hear others thoughts on it too.


Viewed on Sony kds55A3000, PS3 6-10 ft, 1080p/24:


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rydenfan* /forum/post/12070780
> 
> 
> That is great! Thanks so much SuprSlow, I really appreciate it.



Not a problem.


Thanks to you and others for the idea and input.


----------



## edgary




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/12070545
> 
> 
> Alright, I added the icons and today's date to the last round of titles that were added by Austin.
> 
> 
> I also added Wild Things and Reign Over Me to the rankings.
> 
> 
> A side note...if two weeks is too short of a time period for the titles to be shown as "new", we can extend it to a month. I feel that two weeks is plenty of time for most everyone who remotely cares about this thread to see it, and it will also keep the list from being crowded with too many new titles, making it confusing to read.



Thanks again for the dedication. It looks much better, meaning that it's much easier to keep track of the new additions.


----------



## Elbie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Yankees24* /forum/post/11980884
> 
> 
> Any opinions on the "Day after tomorrow" ?...I played it last night and I wasn't to imprest with the video quality.... Some scenes looked really good and some were kind of soft.



I agree, I was disapointed with this.


----------



## Iggster




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lil' Louie* /forum/post/12071110
> 
> 
> Spidey 1 = Low Tier 3 between 16 Blocks & Superman Returns. While it is a definite improvement over the SD version, it just wasn't up to par as many others on the list. Still a wonderful presentation though. Like to hear others thoughts on it too.
> 
> 
> Viewed on Sony kds55A3000, PS3 6-10 ft, 1080p/24:



viewed all three two times already while spider man 3 looks incredible spider man 1 looks like doo doo..... watched on a sony xbr1 60" and 130" sony pearl. I would recomend not buying the set and holding off till sony remasters part 1 like they did with the fifth element


----------



## Iggster




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Elbie* /forum/post/12072601
> 
> 
> I agree, I was disapointed with this.



I got this one in from netflix It was ok. was dissapointed, I think I watched it a couple of months back on fox and they had it on hd and the picture quality was better while watching it on cable.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Iggster* /forum/post/12075186
> 
> 
> viewed all three two times already while spider man 3 looks incredible spider man 1 looks like doo doo..... watched on a sony xbr1 60" and 130" sony pearl. I would recomend not buying the set and holding off till sony remasters part 1 like they did with the fifth element



How likely is that? And how likely is it that other doo doo transfers are re-done?


----------



## Iggster




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/12076287
> 
> 
> How likely is that? And how likely is it that other doo doo transfers are re-done?



If enough people complain then I say very likely.


----------



## UxiSXRD

Spidey 1: Tier 1

Spidey 2, 3: Tier 0 This is as good as it gets.


60XBR1 SXRD from PS3 through Denon 4306 from 8 feet to 10 feet.


----------



## ImkSpyPlns

Thanks for adding the new movie added notation! It REALLY helps!


----------



## jewing1043

Just a question


probably just a mistake


The house of flying daggers is the lowest rated movie on the list but it is also listed in the unranked movies???


could it be because it doesn't have "The" in front of it is why it was missed


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jewing1043* /forum/post/12090477
> 
> 
> Just a question
> 
> 
> probably just a mistake
> 
> 
> The house of flying daggers is the lowest rated movie on the list but it is also listed in the unranked movies???
> 
> 
> could it be because it doesn't have "The" in front of it is why it was missed



Good eye







Thanks for picking up on that, it's been fixed.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/12076287
> 
> 
> How likely is that? And how likely is it that other doo doo transfers are re-done?



I don't think it's very likely when you consider that 5th Element was remastered from different source material. Unless somebody has some insider-type information I think it's safe to assume Spiderman 1 would have to be remastered from the same source material and I'm sure they had plenty of time to do it right the first time.


Also the broadcast version of Spiderman 1 looks nearly identical to the BD version (link: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1#post12081591 ), which leads me to believe it was from the same master. 5th Element, however, the broadcast version looked much better than the original BD release because it was from a different master (aside from codec issues).


disclaimer: I'm not an insider but this is information I've heard/read about from various sources. Some of it is just pure speculation on my part. My guess--this is the best it's going to look.


Brandon


----------



## lgans316

I thought the BD version of SM1 was noticeably better than the broadcast version.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/12092655
> 
> 
> I thought the BD version of SM1 was noticeably better than the broadcast version.



I haven't seen the broadcast version, but I added a link to my original post to show why and where I drew that conclusion from.


Brandon


----------



## yyoo

The color in many of the scenes in Spider-Man 3 looks oversaturated to me. I don't think it's my TV (Mitsu 65833) as I haven't seen the same issue with other BD titles.


Wonderful detail in the picture, but I don't know how this could be tier 0 with the saturation issues.


----------



## Lil' Louie

Finally had a chance to watch Spidey 3 last night. WOW! Wonderful PQ. Definitely worthy of its Tier 0 status. Wonderfully done.


Viewed on Sony KDS-55A3000, PS3 - 1080P/24, 6-10 ft.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/12092669
> 
> 
> I haven't seen the broadcast version, but I added a link to my original post to show why and where I drew that conclusion from.
> 
> 
> Brandon



I thought I'd go to The List and see where Spidey 1 & 2 were ranked, but I can't find them . . .


----------



## HD MM

Watched 2001: A Space Odyssey last night. Wow.


I was left awestruck. An absolute complete sensory experience. Of the near 50 HDM's that I've viewed so far, this is near my top favorites in every category. I give my highest regard to a Tier 0.


Viewed on a PS3 connected via HDMI to my Epson 720p projector onto a 92" Carada Criterion 16:9 screen from a seating distance of 10' away.


----------



## svalentine

I thought SP1 was a clear improvement over the DVD version and I would place it in the bottom of Tier 1/Top of Tier 2.


SP2 should be placed in the middle of tier 1.


SP3 I will be watching tonight and I'm sure it will be the best of the 3, in terms of video/audio quality.


----------



## bjeong1381

I didn't see Disney's The Wild on the list at all. I scanned it twice. Anyone review this title? I am a disney freak and I am gonna start repalcing DVD's with blu ray.


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bjeong1381* /forum/post/12101525
> 
> 
> I didn't see Disney's The Wild on the list at all. I scanned it twice. Anyone review this title? I am a disney freak and I am gonna start repalcing DVD's with blu ray.



It's the third title in Tier 1










Hit CTRL+F and enter search terms to find a specific title. It makes it a little easier than scanning the entire thing


----------



## bjeong1381

Thanks. I wish the b1g1 was still going so I could get these cheaper. There are 10 disney dvd's I want. I would love to only pay for 5.


----------



## AustinSTI

SOrry gang apprently there is a limit of 10 images per thread...maybe the admins can help with this


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/12105111
> 
> 
> SOrry gang apprently there is a limit of 10 images per thread...maybe the admins can help with this



Probably not. Storage becomes an issue. If you can upload it to a server somewhere (else), you can use the "Insert Image" tag and link it and it will appear in your post.


If a site is needed to host images for display on this thread, I'm willing to provide it gratis. Please PM if this would help.


----------



## lgans316

If Spidey 1 in on Tier 2 the The Rock, Con Air, Face/Off, Air Force One, Pearl Harbor should be in Tier 4. Come on guys. I thought Spidey looked better than few other titles in Tier 1. To my eyes Patriot both looked and sounded better than Spidey 2.


----------



## xAVHTx

Well I'm editing this post because I've watched Remember the Titans, as well as another half dozen Blu-ray discs in the past few days, and believe Remember the Titans should be placed higher than Silver tier which I initially suggested. The transfer is sharp, detailed, and realistic. Equally important, it's consistent. In my opinion this title belongs in the middle of the gold tier, it looks better than Black Hawk Down, and 300, but not quite as great as Pirates 1, or Casino Royale.


Audio is great also, lots of great tunes in this movie, PCM is a good thing







.


Remember the Titans belongs mid Tier-1 in my honest opinion.


----------



## Mukha

Can anyone give me an idea of the quality of The Lives of Others, Pan's Labyrinth (import) and Zodiac (import)? I've heard good things about the transfer of The Lives of Others, just wondering how it related to the tier system.


----------



## c60sec

"Can anyone give me an idea of the quality of The Lives of Others, Pan's Labyrinth (import) and Zodiac (import)? I've heard good things about the transfer of The Lives of Others, just wondering how it related to the tier system."


IMO it was upper tier 2. Nice transfer, but nothing spectacular.


ps3-60xbr1


----------



## msantti

Just got done watching 2001 and its flat out stunning. Just gorgeous from beginning to end.


Not to mention that its a great movie as well.


I say a Tier 0. Can't say if its a top tier 0 but a "0" nonetheless.


----------



## rydenfan

Has anybody watched/rated Edward Scissorhands?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *c60sec* /forum/post/12117814
> 
> 
> "Can anyone give me an idea of the quality of The Lives of Others, Pan's Labyrinth (import) and Zodiac (import)? I've heard good things about the transfer of The Lives of Others, just wondering how it related to the tier system."
> 
> 
> IMO it was upper tier 2. Nice transfer, but nothing spectacular.
> 
> 
> ps3-60xbr1



I have to disagree.


I would put it in Tier 1 for sure. Excellent looking film. And a GREAT movie to boot!


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12119679
> 
> 
> I have to disagree.
> 
> 
> I would put it in Tier 1 for sure. Excellent looking film. And a GREAT movie to boot!



I agree with this placement. It's not a "knock your socks off" visual effects film, but the transfer was great, and like Rob said, it was a fabulous story as well.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/12124535
> 
> 
> I agree with this placement. It's not a "knock your socks off" visual effects film, but the transfer was great, and like Rob said, it was a fabulous story as well.



Exactly. Not a Tier 0 or anything, probably near the bottom of Tier 1.....but Tier 1 nonetheless.


----------



## rydenfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rydenfan* /forum/post/12118647
> 
> 
> Has anybody watched/rated Edward Scissorhands?



anybody?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *msantti* /forum/post/12117959
> 
> 
> Just got done watching 2001 and its flat out stunning. Just gorgeous from beginning to end.
> 
> 
> Not to mention that its a great movie as well.
> 
> 
> I say a Tier 0. Can't say if its a top tier 0 but a "0" nonetheless.



It definitely looks better than most Warner titles, but it doesn't compare to the best from other studios. I wish the people doing the recent Fox titles had been able to get their hands on this for a BD only transfer.


----------



## bplewis24

The moment somebody gets their hands on Ratatouille, let us know how it is. I was hoping to get that from my Netflix queue on Tuesday, but Cars got shipped instead










Brandon


----------



## robertc88

I didn't see Galapados on the list unless I missed it. I'd say Tier 0 for sure.


BTW, there is enough folks contributing to the Spidey threads stating #3 isn't Tier 0!


----------



## eghill1125




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/12131317
> 
> 
> The moment somebody gets their hands on Ratatouille, let us know how it is. I was hoping to get that from my Netflix queue on Tuesday, but Cars got shipped instead
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brandon



I had the same. I got Cars and I now pronounce You Chuck and Larry, but not Rat.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *eghill1125* /forum/post/12132563
> 
> 
> I had the same. I got Cars and I now pronounce You Chuck and Larry, but not Rat.



I was going to try the trick of removing everything else out of my queue except the movie you want that is being released, but I have like 60 movies in my queue so that's not really feasible.


And regarding the post about Spiderman 3 not being Tier 0, I'll be watching it today or tomorrow so I'll report what I think then.


Brandon


----------



## robertc88

Didn't get Rat when I had it in my queue either, just Cars. I wonder how many Netflix got.


My local Blockbuster said they did not get it in yet either so maybe there is a shortage or distribution problem? They usually get new releases early.


We will see how the B&M stores do with their shipments.


Spidey 3 is very good, just not Tier 0!


----------



## maverick0716

I also watched Spiderman 3 last night, and while it was pretty damn good, it's not among the absolute best available right now.........Tier 1


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/12133619
> 
> 
> I also watched Spiderman 3 last night, and while it was pretty damn good, it's not among the absolute best available right now.........Tier 1



I agree with that assessment.


----------



## SuprSlow

Alright, I watched about half of Cars last night. From what I saw, I'd recommend it for Tier 0. The opening scene with Lightning coming out of the trailer is just spectacular!


Any other input?



Specs: 56" 1080p DLP, PS3 via HDMI.


----------



## restart

Ratatouille has some excellent PQ.


----------



## scottb4u

I vote for Cars as a Tier 0. No doubt.


Sounds pretty good too...


----------



## lgans316

Starship Troopers should be below Patriot in Tier 1. Please correct this grave mistake.


----------



## jewing1043

Are we back????


----------



## edgary

Hey, we are back... I agree that The Patriot has been left way below where it should be. It's right there with Wild Hogs, and certainly over Black Hawk Down (the other two movies from Tier 1 that I've seen).


PS3 - HDMI - Philips 42" 1080p - 7-8 ft.


----------



## timothias

Ratatouille should be in the 0 Tier. It's absolutely flawless.


----------



## haste




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *edgary* /forum/post/12168322
> 
> 
> Hey, we are back... I agree that The Patriot has been left way below where it should be. It's right there with Wild Hogs, and certainly over Black Hawk Down (the other two movies from Tier 1 that I've seen).
> 
> 
> PS3 - HDMI - Philips 42" 1080p - 7-8 ft.



Just watched part of this movie last night. What's up with 01:01:12 into the movie? That shot of Heath Ledger looks a hell of a lot grainier than the rest of the movie...


----------



## desmond212




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *restart* /forum/post/12148621
> 
> 
> Ratatouille has some excellent PQ.



I agree. I would say one of the very best titles I've seen. Cars is also very good.


----------



## slimm




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *timothias* /forum/post/12168382
> 
> 
> Ratatouille should be in the 0 Tier. It's absolutely flawless.



I just watched it and I agree!


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Damn, I wish Amazon would hurry up and ship my order for Rat and Cars!


----------



## bplewis24

Okay, I've gotten a lot of movies to look at while the Forum Nazi's were doing their thing:


Cars: Solid movie, great PQ and AQ. I would say it's Tier 0 for sure, right behind Pirates. I still think the Wild has some of the best detail and dimensionality I've ever seen, but the detail in Cars rivals it and also presents one of the best color palettes I've seen in an animated title yet.


Spider-Man 1: I think it should be lower than Reign Over Me...middle of Tier 2


Spider-Man 2: I think this should be around where Spider-Man 1 currently is.


The Shining: My first time ever seeing it. Very good movie. Very good transfer for such an old film, but I would say it is also mid Tier 2, below Spider-Man 1. Reign Over Me is easily better than both Spider-Man 1 (which appears a little "hot" to me) and The Shining.


I'll be getting Ratatouille today from Netflix so that should be great to see as well. It's the first HD title to get an overall perfect 5 Stars from High Def Digest.


As always: PS3->1080p24->46XBR4 (8 feet)


Brandon


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12171784
> 
> 
> Damn, I wish Amazon would hurry up and ship my order for Rat and Cars!



I haven't even gotten my copy of 2001 from Amazon yet, and it shipped over a week ago.


Brandon


----------



## edgary




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *haste* /forum/post/12168476
> 
> 
> Just watched part of this movie last night. What's up with 01:01:12 into the movie? That shot of Heath Ledger looks a hell of a lot grainier than the rest of the movie...



I will check it out.


----------



## ajamils

Ratatouille is without doubt the Tier 0 material and I will go as far as putting it on top of Tier 0. Cars is also really good. I would put it in bottom of Tier 0 or top Tier 1.


----------



## jkwest

There should be a Pixar Tier above Tier 0....


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/12133619
> 
> 
> I also watched Spiderman 3 last night, and while *it was pretty damn good*, it's not among the absolute best available right now.........Tier 1



I agree with the above, but I wanted to be sure to highlight (bold) the part that I _particularly_ agree with as I don't want anyone to think that this title is anything less than fanstastic!


The sound was incredible as well.


----------



## Russell_L




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *robertc88* /forum/post/12131588
> 
> 
> I didn't see Galapados on the list unless I missed it. I'd say Tier 0 for sure.
> 
> 
> BTW, there is enough folks contributing to the Spidey threads stating #3 isn't Tier 0!



'Galapagos' is in the unranked group, but I agree--it definitely belongs in Tier 0. Really stunning.


I watched a bit of Spidey 3 and I have to say that I was disappointed. The outdoor nighttime scenes did look spectacular, but in most other scenes the film had an overall blue-ish cast to it that looked unnatural. It could be my setup, but most other discs look fine in that regard.


Russell


----------



## phisch

I watched both Ratatouille and Cars last night. Both are beautiful transfers. Ratatouille's placement should be upper Tier 0, about on par with Corpse Bride. Cars I would place lower Tier 0, or at the very top of Tier 1. Pixar did a nice job with both of these films.


----------



## haste

Watched Ladder 49 on Friday evening. This one is definitely top silver tier material. It was a very clean transfer with good black levels, plus the fire looked amazing in HD. On par with Spidey 1, if not better...


Philips 42" 1080P/60 LCD

PS3 doing the pulldown

8ft viewing distance.


----------



## SuprSlow

Alright, sorry for the lack of updates










Ratatouille, Cars, SM1, The Shining, and Ladder 49 have been added. SM3 was demoted. New releases for this week have also been listed.


And once more, be sure to visit our Unranked Titles list and thank you for visiting, please come again


----------



## mr stroke




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jkwest* /forum/post/12172590
> 
> 
> There should be a Pixar Tier above Tier 0....



+1

blown away by what Pixar has done here. There animation is so far above anything out there right now, Dreamworks aways does a solid job but once you go back to seeing Pixar again you know why they are so far ahead of everyone else...



Tier 0 or higher if possible









The BEST PQ around right now...


768-Panny Plasma, 8-9 feet away 58' screen, Sony S1


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr stroke* /forum/post/12197065
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> blown away by what Pixar has done here. There animation is so far above anything out there right now, Dreamworks aways does a solid job but once you go back to seeing Pixar again you know why they are so far ahead of everyone else...
> 
> 
> 
> Tier 0 or higher if possible
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The BEST PQ around right now...
> 
> 
> 768-Panny Plasma, 8-9 feet away 58' screen, Sony S1



I agree. I'm kind of torn between ranking Cars ahead of Ratatouille or not. They are visually different movies. Cars is a lot more vibrant which lends itself to the "wow" factor, but definitely strikes me as being a pure digital transfer (since it's animation). However Ratatouille is so lifelike at times, especially with the environments. There are moments where I think I was actually watching film with little creatures digitally placed in there. Make no mistake about it though, these two are the cream of the crop IMO (I was never much impressed with Corpse Bride). Both are great buys, and I think the sales figures that come out this Friday will show that.


Another vote for Ratatouille in Tier 0, I just don't know where i'd put it. On another note, I rented Vacancy this weekend (no idea why...oh yeah, Kate), and I wasn't overly impressed. However I think this has a lot to do with the visual style of the film. A lot more earth tones are used (greens and browns) along with the blacks, since it's an obviously "dark" movie. The shadow detail seemed good, but nothing close to a similarly styled movie in Black Snake Moan. In the movie's (Vacancy's) defense, it was filmed 95% at night, so it really never had a chance to show the range Black Snake Moan did.


I'd say this is a tier 2-ish type movie, but I wouldn't recommend it for placement just yet until a few other people chime in on it. I'm only speaking up because I notice it's still in the "unranked" section.


Brandon


----------



## Kevin12586

Unless I missed it, I see Spiderman 1 and 3 on the list but not Spiderman 2?


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kevin12586* /forum/post/12202241
> 
> 
> Unless I missed it, I see Spiderman 1 and 3 on the list but not Spiderman 2?



Added, it must've been lost in the fray somewhere











Any comments on the placement of Rat and Cars? Perhaps we need a more objective way of placement for titles in Tier 0--like setting up a poll on a third party site or some other way of mathematically measuring input. I dunno...


----------



## erasat

I haven't seen Dave Matthews, but Cars definitely should be below Ratatouille, POTC, shouldn't be on top of it.


PS3 1080p/24 on a Mitsu 65731 at 8'.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/12203069
> 
> 
> Added, it must've been lost in the fray somewhere
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any comments on the placement of Rat and Cars? Perhaps we need a more objective way of placement for titles in Tier 0--like setting up a poll on a third party site or some other way of mathematically measuring input. I dunno...



Hopefully I will receive my order from Amazon today or tomorrow and can give my 2 cents shortly. Needless to say, I have high expectations!


----------



## haste




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/12203069
> 
> 
> Added, it must've been lost in the fray somewhere
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any comments on the placement of Rat and Cars? Perhaps we need a more objective way of placement for titles in Tier 0--like setting up a poll on a third party site or some other way of mathematically measuring input. I dunno...



There are so few Tier 0 titles, I think placement is irrelevant at this point in time...just my 2cents.


----------



## Kevin12586




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/12203069
> 
> 
> Added, it must've been lost in the fray somewhere
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any comments on the placement of Rat and Cars? Perhaps we need a more objective way of placement for titles in Tier 0--like setting up a poll on a third party site or some other way of mathematically measuring input. I dunno...



Thanks


----------



## cdhender

I'd put 'Rat' and 'Cars' 1 and 2 respectively as far as best BD I have ever seen. I watched both movies with my jaw on the floor. Simply amazing.


----------



## zinfamous




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/12203069
> 
> 
> Added, it must've been lost in the fray somewhere
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any comments on the placement of Rat and Cars? Perhaps we need a more objective way of placement for titles in Tier 0--like setting up a poll on a third party site or some other way of mathematically measuring input. I dunno...



I like how they have a voting system in the HD DVD forum for tier ranking. seems less prone to individual suggestion (as long as enough people vote







)


----------



## JosephShaw

Cars has a much more vibrant color palette, but only during the racing and flashback/imagination scenes. After Lightning gets stuck in Radiator Springs, the palette washes out a bit, but becomes more vibrant as Lightning becomes less selfish, leading up to the last race. John Lasseter does an excellent job of explaining the reason for this on the commentary track, which is BTW the best commentary track I've ever heard on a movie. Lots of insight, and an explanation of nearly every scene in the movie without any fluff. This is the commentary track that every other should be measured against.


Rat looked beautiful. I'd honestly have a hard time ranking one against the other, as both were visually stunning.


----------



## chris0




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zinfamous* /forum/post/12207710
> 
> 
> I like how they have a voting system in the HD DVD forum for tier ranking. seems less prone to individual suggestion (as long as enough people vote
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )



I've only recently started reading that thread, so I'm not sure of all the details over there. Here a person's equipment is taken into consideration when gauging their review. I think that's important.


----------



## desmond212

Has anyone seen CETK?


----------



## btdvox

I agree with most people both pixar movies are phenomenal but Ratattoulie is a bit more WOW to me than cars.


One movie i just picked up was 300. And I disagree with its placement, Unless your considering sound also in the factor, I thought the Film Grain (purposely or not purposely) was very detracting from such a great movie. I rate it below quite a few movies of mine.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *desmond212* /forum/post/12214902
> 
> 
> Has anyone seen CETK?



I'll be receiving it from Netflix tomorrow so I'll try and post some impressions then.


Brandon


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *btdvox* /forum/post/12216043
> 
> 
> One movie i just picked up was 300. And I disagree with its placement, Unless your considering sound also in the factor, I thought the Film Grain (purposely or not purposely) was very detracting from such a great movie. I rate it below quite a few movies of mine.



300 looks fantastic just the way it is.......grain and all.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12219367
> 
> 
> 300 looks fantastic just the way it is.......grain and all.



Mosquito noise due to compression and grain look almost identical and there in lies the problem with the grain being ok or it is artistic argument. While grain maybe consistent throughout the movie, thankfully mosquito noise is not. There are some very clean looking BD's like Apocalypto and Casino Royale, but there is some intentional grain and even a bit of mosquito noise on both and it is hard to tell which is which.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/12219892
> 
> 
> Mosquito noise due to compression and grain look almost identical and there in lies the problem with the grain being ok or it is artistic argument. While grain maybe consistent throughout the movie, thankfully mosquito noise is not. There are some very clean looking BD's like Apocalypto and Casino Royale, but there is some intentional grain and even a bit of mosquito noise on both and it is hard to tell which is which.



Are you sure there is mosquito noise in 300?


If it is so hard to tell the difference between the mosquito noise due to compression and natural grain, how could you know?


I'm playing devils advocate here, because I do agree with your comments overall.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12220148
> 
> 
> Are you sure there is mosquito noise in 300?
> 
> 
> If it is so hard to tell the difference between the mosquito noise due to compression and natural grain, how could you know?
> 
> 
> I'm playing devils advocate here, because I do agree with your comments overall.



No, and that is my point. I am not sure, but I am sure on the other two films I mentioned. If a film is grainy and if grain looks like mosquito noise or vice versa, then for those who like grain, a movie with mosquito noise artifacting due to compression throughout should look as good as any grain intended movie.








What?? What? WTF did he just say? I don't know which is more confusing. The grain debate, or the LPCM vs. Bitstream HD audio debate.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/12220195
> 
> 
> No, and that is my point. I am not sure, but I am sure on the other two films I mentioned. If a film is grainy and if grain looks like mosquito noise or vice versa, then for those who like grain, a movie with mosquito noise artifacting due to compression thorughout should look as good as any grain intended movie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What?? What? WTF did he just say? I don't know which is more confusing. The grain debate, or the LPCM vs. Bitstream HD audio debate.



There is a debate regarding LPCM vs Bitstream?!


----------



## mosman22




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cdhender* /forum/post/12207083
> 
> 
> I'd put 'Rat' and 'Cars' 1 and 2 respectively as far as best BD I have ever seen. I watched both movies with my jaw on the floor. Simply amazing.



+ 1 These are the two most spectacular blu ray's out right now. The combination of a great story, amazing visuals, reference sound, and the best interactive features and commentaries make these the cream of the crop. I would put them one and two at the top of tier 0. These are the two best examples of HDM out right now.


----------



## Mikeoz

I just watched Cars tonight and I completely agree that it's somewhere towards the top of tier 0. The PQ looked downright amazing/perfect to me. I haven't seen a transfer/movie this perfect yet (although CGI sure helps ). I haven't watched ratatouille yet but probably will sometime this weekend, but the preview on the Cars disc looked very good.


----------



## rydenfan

I watched Underworld last night and I was a little suprised at the amount of backround artifacts in some of the darker scenes.


----------



## divedude




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cdhender* /forum/post/12207083
> 
> 
> I'd put 'Rat' and 'Cars' 1 and 2 respectively as far as best BD I have ever seen. I watched both movies with my jaw on the floor. Simply amazing.



I have watched both in the last few days and agree, especially with Ratatouille at #1.


----------



## bplewis24

Watched Close Encounters of the Third Kind tonight. Wasn't too impressed with the transfer. It doesn't seem any better than The Shining to me. Pretty good movie though...my first time seeing it.


For those that are waiting for the reviews to make a decision because they already own the DVD, it still seems like it would be worth buying. It has all 3 versions of the film available for viewing and three lossless audio tracks as well as numerous subtitle options.


Brandon


----------



## mr stroke

I noticed 2001 was up on the top tier and thought it was a mistake, so I decided to rent it tonight and










how in the hell have I never seen this masterpiece before??instant buy for me now. Amazing film and the PQ is simply out of this world. I have seen alot of older movies in HD and this blows them all away, considering the movie is 40 years old its amazing how perfect the PQ is. It doesn't have the pop that Pirates or Spidey has but the PQ is just picture perfect, never seen anything like it, this is now right up there with Rat for me as the best PQ on BR/HD.


----------



## Ian_Currie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/12231850
> 
> 
> Watched Close Encounters of the Third Kind tonight. Wasn't too impressed with the transfer. It doesn't seem any better than The Shining to me. Pretty good movie though...my first time seeing it.
> 
> 
> For those that are waiting for the reviews to make a decision because they already own the DVD, it still seems like it would be worth buying. It has all 3 versions of the film available for viewing and three lossless audio tracks as well as numerous subtitle options.
> 
> 
> Brandon



If it's as good as the Shining I'd be thrilled with it; I thought the Shining looked spectacular.


----------



## Kevin12586




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/12231850
> 
> 
> Watched Close Encounters of the Third Kind tonight. Wasn't too impressed with the transfer. It doesn't seem any better than The Shining to me. Pretty good movie though...my first time seeing it.
> 
> 
> For those that are waiting for the reviews to make a decision because they already own the DVD, it still seems like it would be worth buying. It has all 3 versions of the film available for viewing and three lossless audio tracks as well as numerous subtitle options.
> 
> 
> Brandon



How was the audio?


----------



## oleus




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ian_Currie* /forum/post/12232442
> 
> 
> If it's as good as the Shining I'd be thrilled with it; I thought the Shining looked spectacular.



agreed. i was FLOORED when i watched the Shining the other night. i'd actually be surprised if Close Encounters rivals the Shining for PQ....


----------



## HD MM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr stroke* /forum/post/12231862
> 
> 
> I noticed 2001 was up on the top tier and thought it was a mistake, so I decided to rent it tonight and
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how in the hell have I never seen this masterpiece before??instant buy for me now. Amazing film and the PQ is simply out of this world. I have seen alot of older movies in HD and this blows them all away, considering the movie is 40 years old its amazing how perfect the PQ is. It doesn't have the pop that Pirates or Spidey has but the PQ is just picture perfect, never seen anything like it, this is now right up there with Rat for me as the best PQ on BR/HD.



Yeah, seeing 2001 on blu was definitely a great experience. Seeing it has inspired me to go on a Kubrick HD kick. I have The Shining, Eyes Wide Shut and Clockwork Orange shipping from Blockbuster Online.


----------



## haste

Waiting... (Unrated and Raw) is possibly one of the worst blu-rays ive seen. no that i have some blu-ray viewing experience under my belt. this one looks as bad as HOFD!


definitely tier 5.


the director's commentary was cool though. =D


PS3 performing pulldown

Philips 1080p 42" LCD

8ft viewing distance.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *haste* /forum/post/12233450
> 
> 
> Waiting... (Unrated and Raw) is possibly one of the worst blu-rays ive seen. no that i have some blu-ray viewing experience under my belt. this one looks as bad as HOFD!
> 
> 
> definitely tier 5.
> 
> 
> the director's commentary was cool though. =D
> 
> 
> PS3 performing pulldown
> 
> Philips 1080p 42" LCD
> 
> 8ft viewing distance.



Yes, it was indeed very bad. The plastic face effect.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ian_Currie* /forum/post/12232442
> 
> 
> If it's as good as the Shining I'd be thrilled with it; I thought the Shining looked spectacular.



I think the Shining was better, and I voted for Tier 2 for the Shining. I thought it was good for an older release, but not in the same quality as the Tier 1 releases.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kevin12586* /forum/post/12232517
> 
> 
> How was the audio?



The audio was pretty good, but I cannot as of yet take advantage of the losless tracks yet. I used the 1.5Mbps legacy DTS core track. Honestly I don't think it's anywhere close to the Ratatouille DD track which nearly blew me away at times.


I realize I'm not exactly giving Close Encounters of the Third Kind a glowing review, but part of the problem may be that the last 4 movies I've seen are Cars, Ratatouille, Close Encounters of the Third Kind and 2001: A Space Odyssey. It's hard for CE3K to shine amongst that group of titles. I haven't finished watching 2001 yet, but it has truly been an experience so far. The audio and video is top notch and a pleasure to enjoy.


Brandon


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Watched *Cars* today.


Wow! Clearly one of the best thus far, right up there with Chicken Little. Simply fantastic and clearly Tier 0 material! The detail in the BD version is amazing, and it really lets you see the tremendous amount of detail that the creators put into every scene. Amazing.










Oh, the lossless sound really kicks butt too!


----------



## Kevin12586

Thanks Brandon


----------



## JBRhee

How's the video quality for the Ocean's trilogy?


----------



## lgans316

Ocean's Trilogy


11 - 3.25/5

12 - 3.75/5

13 - 3/5


SQ - 3/5 on all


Startship Troopers should be in top of Tier 2 coz of slight EE in few scenes and outdated CGI gunshots looking bad on HD.


----------



## tingham

Watched the Polar Express last night and it was very good..definitely Tier 1 material. A good movie for the upcoming Christmas season. The sound was great of course..the action packed train scenes sounded tremendous. I did not see an option for adjusting the sound formats so I am pretty sure it is DD only.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I have seen the best presentation yet on either HD format, and it is *Ratatouille*.


This is astonishingly good. Amazing. Beautiful. Reference.


Ratatouille has now set the bar for how incredible animation can look. I know this isn't a thread for sound quality, but the SQ is pure reference as well with the lossless track.


And for what it's worth: this is the best Pixar movie since the Toy Story movies imo.


----------



## lgans316

Ratatouille is about realistic animation. More than the Picture I liked the Sound. The LFE were amazing but not close to my reference LFE titles (Patriot, Air Force One).


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/12255602
> 
> 
> Ratatouille is about realistic animation. More than the Picture I liked the Sound. The LFE were amazing but not close to my reference LFE titles (Patriot, Air Force One).



Ratatouille had the most realistic shotgun blast I have ever heard!


----------



## John Ballentine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12255377
> 
> 
> I have seen the best presentation yet on either HD format, and it is *Ratatouille*.
> 
> 
> This is astonishingly good. Amazing. Beautiful. Reference.
> 
> 
> Ratatouille has now set the bar for how incredible animation can look. I know this isn't a thread for sound quality, but the SQ is pure reference as well with the lossless track.
> 
> 
> And for what it's worth: this is the best Pixar movie since the Toy Story movies imo.



OK. You talked me into it


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Ballentine* /forum/post/12256242
> 
> 
> OK. You talked me into it



I really don't think you will regret it John!


----------



## tyorder1

What a great visual feast. The colors were bright bright bright and the depth and pop was some of the best HD I've seen. I'm not sure where you'd put this film but no lower than Apacalypto. Nice job New Line!!! video 5/5


Sound: DTS MA 7.1... listend to the core 1.5 .. it was good. 4/5


119 screen Sony Ruby 1080p60 ps3 ... 17 feet away


----------



## maverick0716

I rented this tonight and it looks fantastic! The colour in this movie is very intense, especially the greens. It was a really good movie too........definitly recommend it.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/12276326
> 
> 
> I rented this tonight and it looks fantastic! The colour in this movie is very intense, especially the greens. It was a really good movie too........definitly recommend it.



I rented Rescue Dawn via Netflix but didn't realize that they only have the regular DVD version.










I sent it back without watching it....waiting until they have it on Blu.


----------



## General Kenobi




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *haste* /forum/post/12233450
> 
> 
> Waiting... (Unrated and Raw) is possibly one of the worst blu-rays ive seen. no that i have some blu-ray viewing experience under my belt. this one looks as bad as HOFD!
> 
> 
> definitely tier 5.
> 
> 
> the director's commentary was cool though. =D
> 
> 
> PS3 performing pulldown
> 
> Philips 1080p 42" LCD
> 
> 8ft viewing distance.



x2

I picked it up yesterday and wish I could return it for the SD-DVD or a difference BD... totally sucks.


Guess I need to grab the Rat to see what this is all about. I'm surprised that Spiderman 3 got bumped, I thought it looked just as good if not better than POTC 2 but maybe I need to be more critical.


I'm in the process of trying to decide which titles are worth grabbing a second copy of since I already have them in SD-DVD. The Die Hard set was worth it, I did some side by side last night on the first one and am pretty happy with the BD copy.


----------



## dllewel

I feel the same way about the Ocean's blu-ray trilogy as you do about X2. It's better than SD DVD, but not by much- and no enhanced audio at all. It's a shame.


I wonder if Warner did the same job on the HD-DVD version?


----------



## whiteshirtkyd

so why is the prestige not on that list? I just got my free copy I was wondering what tier that would be listed under?


----------



## Arecsa




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *whiteshirtkyd* /forum/post/12283762
> 
> 
> so why is the prestige not on that list? I just got my free copy I was wondering what tier that would be listed under?



It's there, 2nd tier just below Ghost Rider.


----------



## Desert Pilot

I recently purchased "A few good men" and "GI Jane" and think both should at least be in tier 2. I have a front projection system, 720P, and using a 120 inch screen. Especially for older films, I think they engineered both of them quite well. My local blockbuster has both for rent...maybe yours will too if you want to check them out first.


Marcus


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I see that *Live Free or Die Hard* is not on the list yet.


This looked great. Good contrast and detail. The three dimensional effect was present for sure. Definitely a Tier 1 title. I would put it in mid Tier 1, right under Immortal Beloved.


123" screen, 1080p24 JVC RS1.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I watched *Black Book* last night.


Another good looking title from Sony. However, I would say the overall visual experience was not all that exciting, so I would move this lower than where it is now, probably to the bottom of Tier 1.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12293517
> 
> 
> I see that *Live Free or Die Hard* is not on the list yet.
> 
> 
> This looked great. Good contrast and detail. The three dimensional effect was present for sure. Definitely a Tier 1 title. I would put it in mid Tier 1, right under Immortal Beloved.
> 
> 
> 123" screen, 1080p24 JVC RS1.



Rob, have you watched Die Hard 3 yet? I was surprised that the PQ on DH3 to my eyes looked better than DH4. I would be interested to hear your reaction.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12293991
> 
> 
> Rob, have you watched Die Hard 3 yet? I was surprised that the PQ on DH3 to my eyes looked better than DH4. I would be interested to hear your reaction.



That's good to hear! I have it on my Netflix Queue, but has a long wait.


----------



## SuprSlow

Sorry for not getting this updated sooner, it was a very busy short week










Added this week's new releases to the Unranked List.


Added 'Live Free or Die Hard,' 'The Polar Express,' 'A Few Good Men,' G.I. Jane,' and 'Waiting..." to their respective Tiers. Also, 'Black Book' was moved down.


Thanks again for everyone's input. Have a nice Remainder-of-Thanksgiving weekend


----------



## avhed

When titles such as Disturbia, Gridiron Gang, and Chronos get a Tier, it would be nice if they are taken off the unrated.


----------



## kamspy

2001 looks to be fanboyishly overrated PQ wise IMO.


I counted double digit tier 3 titles that look far better.


And I like 2001.


I just don't line up to kiss Kubrick's deceased minerals like other people do. His other movies kinda.....well.....sucked.


Except for The Shining, it is top notch. FMJ, ACWO, EWS, ewww.... not so much.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12294105
> 
> 
> That's good to hear! I have it on my Netflix Queue, but has a long wait.



I watched DH4 again last night and I think the PQ is better than I thought on first viewing. I think the reason for my original reaction is that the PQ on early scenes is not nearly as good as the PQ later in the movie. Willis's face in the early scene with his daughter is not nearly as crisp as in later scenes (after the episode in Justin Long's apartment).


Wrt comparing DH3 and DH4, the area where DH4 is stronger is that the colors are much richer, whereas DH3 looks just a bit washed out. Putting that aside, the sharpness in DH3 is excellent.


----------



## Lil' Louie

The Invisible - Interesting enough movie, and definitely worth a rental; but, the overall PQ was a let down. There were a handful of scenes that looked great, but the darker scenes and all with a super white image (opening birthday scene, and scene at the end near the dam for instance) looked like an over the air signal that was not coming through 100%. This one gets a low Tier 4 IMO well below Employee of the Month. Hell, EOTM could be Tier 1 compared to The Invisible.


Viewed on this @ 7ft 1080/24P:


----------



## xAVHTx

Purchased the Benchwarmers. I would say somewhere a little under Beerfest. Outdoor scenes were good, but there was softness to the look of the movie. Haven't popped in 50 First Dates yet to know if it belongs above that.


Secret Window was good in my opinion, somewhere around the bottom of silver, seeing as The Pursuit of Happyness looked a little better.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Mr. Brooks*


Holy Cow!!!


Stunning picture quality! The clarity is simply amazing, and is right up there with the very best released thus far. This almost looked like it was shot on HD video it was so sharp and detailed. Great contrast and depth, for a real 3D pop effect.


If there was anything at all to complain about, I did notice some noise in a couple of darker scenes in the gray areas (not in the blacks). Since this was only noticed twice, I would not reduce the overall rating much, if any, at all.


Definitely a Top Tier 1 title, and I agree with where it is currently placed.


I also enjoyed the movie quite a bit, fwiw.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12306197
> 
> *Mr. Brooks*
> 
> 
> Holy Cow!!!
> 
> 
> Stunning picture quality! The clarity is simply amazing, and is right up there with the very best released thus far. This almost looked like it was shot on HD video it was so sharp and detailed. Great contrast and depth, for a real 3D pop effect.
> 
> 
> If there was anything at all to complain about, I did notice some noise in a couple of darker scenes in the gray areas (not in the blacks). Since this was only noticed twice, I would not reduce the overall rating much, if any, at all.
> 
> 
> Definitely a Top Tier 1 title, and I agree with where it is currently placed.
> 
> 
> I also enjoyed the movie quite a bit, fwiw.



Glad to hear you felt this way, Rob. I think this one has PQ that is as good as any I have seen. Btw, Peter Bracke gave it 3.5 stars for PQ.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12306197
> 
> *Mr. Brooks*
> 
> 
> Holy Cow!!!
> 
> 
> Stunning picture quality! The clarity is simply amazing, and is right up there with the very best released thus far. This almost looked like it was shot on HD video it was so sharp and detailed. Great contrast and depth, for a real 3D pop effect.
> 
> 
> If there was anything at all to complain about, I did notice some noise in a couple of darker scenes in the gray areas (not in the blacks). Since this was only noticed twice, I would not reduce the overall rating much, if any, at all.
> 
> 
> Definitely a Top Tier 1 title, and I agree with where it is currently placed.
> 
> 
> I also enjoyed the movie quite a bit, fwiw.



Good to hear! I rented this a while back on SD and loved the movie. I'm hoping to get it for Christmas....if not, I'll just buy it myself.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12307017
> 
> 
> Glad to hear you felt this way, Rob. I think this one has PQ that is as good as any I have seen. Btw, Peter Bracke gave it 3.5 stars for PQ.



3.5 stars!?


Unbelievable.










Funny thing is that if you just read his comments, he really seemed to like the PQ other than some noise he saw in the darker scenes (which I noticed as well). I just can't believe that he would knock of so much for the noise in a couple of scenes when 99% of the movie looked so fantastic...as you say, right up there with the very best released so far!


----------



## hobbs47




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12307017
> 
> 
> Glad to hear you felt this way, Rob. I think this one has PQ that is as good as any I have seen. Btw, Peter Bracke gave it 3.5 stars for PQ.



Mr. Brooks did look fantastic,excellent movie too.Bracke did rate it too low for PQ.He is normally pretty good but he does misfire sometimes,but then again a lot of reviewers have some bias.From all the review sites I check out,Kris Deerings site is easily the most unbiased and his reviews almost always seem to mirror what I see.


----------



## almostinsane

How come Prison Break isn't on the list? This is one of the best for audio and video.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12309841
> 
> 
> 3.5 stars!?
> 
> 
> Unbelievable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing is that if you just read his comments, he really seemed to like the PQ other than some noise he saw in the darker scenes (which I noticed as well). I just can't believe that he would knock of so much for the noise in a couple of scenes when 99% of the movie looked so fantastic...as you say, right up there with the very best released so far!



This is not the only case where the words he writes don't seem to correspond to the number of stars he gives. The same thing happens in his recent review of Hills Have Eyes 2. Btw, I watched DH3 again last night, and I am not sure why I initially got the impression the colors were washed out. I didn't notice that on a second viewing.


----------



## lonestarwings

Bad Santa


Res: 1920 x 1080 x 24p

Size: 40" LCD

Viewing Distance: 6 ft.


I would put this release in the Bronze Tier (tier 3). I didn't notice many artifcats. There are a few 3D pop effects but not too many. It seems somewhat soft overall when compared to tier 2 and higher titles. Comparing it with the SD DVD, the difference was pretty apparant but not overwhelming.


----------



## haste




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *almostinsane* /forum/post/12311002
> 
> 
> How come Prison Break isn't on the list? This is one of the best for audio and video.



I agree. I just finished Disc 1 Season 1. Definitely top tier 1 even low tier 0. awesome job fox!


Philips 42" 1080p LCD

PS3 doing pulldown

6ft viewing distance.


----------



## Ian_Currie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12314987
> 
> 
> This is not the only case where the words he writes don't seem to correspond to the number of stars he gives. The same thing happens in his recent review of Hills Have Eyes 2. Btw, I watched DH3 again last night, and I am not sure why I initially got the impression the colors were washed out. I didn't notice that on a second viewing.



I recently rented Hills Have Eyes 2 and thought the PQ was oustanding - the dark scenes were amazing.


----------



## AustinSTI

Just checkin in. Seems like things have been cruising along here despite my vacation time and such so I want to commend SuprSlow.


also my father bought a set top Samsung Blu-Ray player this past week so 1 more into the mix


----------



## pepar

Just a quick post to express my appreciation for the work that's going into this thread. My X-Mas "want list" is all BD titles assembled from the top tiers on page #1. I guess that means that I need to buy a BD player now . . .


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/12318367
> 
> 
> Just a quick post to express my appreciation for the work that's going into this thread. My X-Mas "want list" is all BD titles assembled from the top tiers on page #1. I guess that means that I need to buy a BD player now . . .



Tis the season!


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ian_Currie* /forum/post/12316947
> 
> 
> I recently rented Hills Have Eyes 2 and thought the PQ was oustanding - the dark scenes were amazing.



I just received this one in the mail for rent........glad to hear that the picture quality is good, I'll be looking forward to it.


----------



## xAVHTx

The Benchwarmers belongs right below 50 First Dates imo. Picture is a bit softer.


Oh, btw, viewing on a 46" Sony V3000 using a PS3. Viewing distance is 6 feet.


----------



## UxiSXRD

I'd put Close Encounters near the bottom of Tier 1, above Disturbia. Great movie but it's a bit long in the tooth. The Sound track is nearly without rival with a great use of surrounds and excellent use of LFE that doesn't distract from the dialogue.


PS3 to 60XBR1 SXRD from ~9-10 feet


----------



## clutch69

Any body know if the re-released Full Metal Jacket will be an improvement on the coal tier version. I am getting it for XXX-Mas, and if it is the same version, I will not open it and just return it for something else.


----------



## lgans316

Please delete this post.


----------



## hobbs47




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *clutch69* /forum/post/12333382
> 
> 
> Any body know if the re-released Full Metal Jacket will be an improvement on the coal tier version. I am getting it for XXX-Mas, and if it is the same version, I will not open it and just return it for something else.



Huge improvement,Full Metal Jacket won't look any better than the re-release.


----------



## Herakles




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *clutch69* /forum/post/12333382
> 
> 
> Any body know if the re-released Full Metal Jacket will be an improvement on the coal tier version. I am getting it for XXX-Mas, and if it is the same version, I will not open it and just return it for something else.



Well, according to this review, it is a clear improvement, it is now worthy of blu-ray, but it's still not one of the best looking movies out there. It is an old movie, so maybe it just cannot get much better.


----------



## ajamils

any word about the PQ of Galapagos ? I'm getting really tempted to pick it up.


----------



## General Kenobi

Maybe I'm going blind but I don't see Christmas Vacation anywhere on the list










I was watching Die Hard 2 last night and was very unimpressed with the PQ. Some shots had some nice colors and slight pop effects but most of the movie looks flat and as if there is a layer of film that needs to be removed to clear things up. Probably somewhere at the bottom of Bronze or maybe even Coal but I'd like to compare it to the upconverted SD-DVD before I say for sure. I will say that it stands out from the other 3 as being the worst transfer IMO.


----------



## SuprSlow

Added Christmas Vacation (thanks, don't know how I missed that one







)


Also added this week's new releases. If I missed any tier suggestions, I'll add them soon.


Brandon


----------



## avhed

Bulletproof Monk was underwhelming, no POP, and colours were not great.. A little better than Waiting.

I would of avoided these two if I had known. They are not recent releases so

is there somewhere else on the net I can get a reliable ranking on titles like these. There is about 10 on the unranked here I like to get a ranking on.


Samsung BD-P1200, Sony KD-34XS955 @ 5.5 ft


----------



## edgary

The Mrs. and I watched The Punisher last night. I think it belongs in the Coal tier instead of the Copper, based on the Coal description ("Only slightly better than DVD.Visible artifacting, softness, quality rivals upconverted DVD"). Also, I have watched Talladega nights (the only other one I've seen from that tier) and it is way better than the Punisher. Heck, even my wife asked me if that was a Blu-Ray, because of how bad it got at times.


Middle of Coal for me: PS3 -> HDMI -> 42" Philips 1080p -> 7-8 ft.


----------



## avhed




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajamils* /forum/post/12348449
> 
> 
> any word about the PQ of Galapagos ? I'm getting really tempted to pick it up.



I own Planet Earth and watched Galapagos last night. These two are comparable. Not suprising since the production is probably the same.


Samsung BD-P1200, Sony KD-34XS955 @ 5.5 ft


----------



## ajamils




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *avhed* /forum/post/12362418
> 
> 
> I own Planet Earth and watched Galapagos last night. These two are comparable. Not suprising since the production is probably the same.
> 
> 
> Samsung BD-P1200, Sony KD-34XS955 @ 5.5 ft



how is the documentary itself ? Is it worth having in collection or is it better suited for a rental ?


----------



## avhed

It was pretty long to watch in one sitting. I got a little bored after the first two segment. It did not help I was expecting it to be over after two segments.

You are asking the wrong person if its a keeper. I only owned one title before Blu-Ray - Spiderman 2 SuperBit for reference. This is the only type of video I would view over and not be bored.


----------



## avhed

I went through the 1300 post the last 2 days and hoped some comments on the unranked titles. Very little is there. We need more posters

seeing there is 140+ unranked. I am after these:

Movies:

Aviator

Beowulf

Bikini Destination

The Company

Santa Clause 3


Exotic Salt Water Aquarium

Nature's Colors

Nature's journey

Discovery Atlas titles

Imax titles


Come on!! Any comments on these??


----------



## Elbie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/12070153
> 
> 
> I just watched Reign Over Me. I actually wouldn't call it soft, I thought it was pretty crisp at most times. To me it's a mid Tier 2 title, *mostly because of the noise during some of the low-light scenes* and because it's not as sharp as the tier 0/1 titles. Also sometimes the unnatural flesh tones, but it seemed like filters were used in that instance...and sometimes that caused a loss of detail. Overall though, I thought it was a pretty solid transfer. Mid Tier 2 for me.



Yes, I thought that it looked great until it got to dark scenes and then it just looked flat out bad.


----------



## tingham




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *avhed* /forum/post/12364111
> 
> 
> I went through the 1300 post the last 2 days and hoped some comments on the unranked titles. Very little is there. We need more posters
> 
> seeing there is 140+ unranked. I am after these:
> 
> 
> Aviator
> 
> Beowulf
> 
> Bikini Destination
> 
> The Company
> 
> Exoctic Salt Water Aquarium
> 
> Nature's Colors
> 
> Nature's journey
> 
> Santa Clause 3
> 
> Pat Metheny
> 
> Warrior's of Heaven
> 
> Discovery Atlas titles
> 
> Imax titles
> 
> 
> Come on!! Any comments on these??



Well..Pat Metheny is tier 2..maybe even tier 1..imo. it has been a while since I saw it, but definitely higher up than Toto..Live in Amsterdam. This is all I can comment on at this time..But hopefully, I can comment on Bikini Destination very soon


----------



## sunstar715

I would rank santa clause 3 as high tier 1, is looks beautiful


ps3

26" lcd hdtv about 3-4 feet away


----------



## lgans316

Pearl Harbor should be below Spiderman-2 in Tier 1.


----------



## defton420

Whats going on fellas, I have never posted here before but I gotta tell ya, I have a ps3 and own 65 blu-ray movies previously I was watching on a sony 1080i 57" crt, well I just got a sony kds 60 a3000 and it is another world. I have went through some of my movies and I have to say that 300 looks absolutely awesome! Man it just pops off the screen. Aside from all the (directors intent) with the grain and all I couldnt believe I was watching the same movie. Believe me I have went through some others and the ones that stand out are The wild, Nine inch nails, Ratatoullie and definately roving mars. Of course all the cgi movies look outstanding like rat. Damn 300 looked good though.


----------



## dildatonr

posted in other tier thread as well:



I think we need a dual rating system.

It seems there are 2 different kinds of reviews in the world of HDM. Reviews that compare it to all other HDM releases or reviews that compare it to it's theatrical presentation.


There are going to be tier 3 titles that look indistinguishable to their theatrical presentation. It's misleading to have them rank lower, even though they could very well be more transparent than titles in a higher tier.


Some of us want eye candy. Some us want theatrical accuracy. and some of us want it all! How about a score for each title to categorize both? Like a numeric rating like we currently have for comparisons to other releases or eye candy. and a letter grade for theatrical accuracy/ transfer transparency. In which case a movie like Excalibur might get a 5/B+. This allows the review rank to serve all fans of HDM. and will cut down not only in confusion to newcomers, but endless bickering about which we should consider more (eye candy, accuracy). Well ok, nothing will ever end the bickering. But it might help focus the bickering!


----------



## lgans316

Time and again I have been requesting the Tier thread owners to also consider the ratings of professional reviewers before the placement is being done. No offense just my thought.


----------



## AfRoMaN787

I'm surprised Troy D.C and Surfs Up aren't ranked yet. I recently watched both and feel they are both definitely tier 1 material. I am watching on a Samsung LNT 4665 1080p LCD TV and a sony s300 player from about 9 feet away.


----------



## pepar

When I first started following this thread, I made a run at the point you are making and realized that this thread is all about "eye candy." The ratings are purely for how great a movie is at popping off the screen and vaporizing the viewer's disbelief. Consider it a list of what to pull out to demo your system to get that "WOW" factor. Wherever one is getting opinions on a movie's plot, the faithfulness to the book, the acting and all of the other aspects and details surrounding the movie and possibly even the making of the movie, that is also the place to find comments on transfer transparency. I will say that the top tier movies all have stunningly faithful transfers.


----------



## sunstar715




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AfRoMaN787* /forum/post/12373569
> 
> 
> I'm surprised Troy D.C and Surfs Up aren't ranked yet. I recently watched both and feel they are both definitely tier 1 material. I am watching on a Samsung LNT 4665 1080p LCD TV and a sony s300 player from about 9 feet away.



i agree on both those titles, I was blown away by how good troy looked, after hearing some people saying it looked bad, but wow it is one of my favorites blu's


----------



## defton420

The tier system is all about (EYE CANDY) right?


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *defton420* /forum/post/12374272
> 
> 
> The tier system is all about (EYE CANDY) right?



Right. It's then up to every person to decide whether the movie merits watching based on it's entertainment quality taking in account plot, characters, acting etc.


I'm sometimes tempted to start a thread asking whether one would watch a movie that rates tier 0 or high 1 if all the reviews are extremely negative as to the movie itself. Of course, what's garbage to one person can be gold to another.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *defton420* /forum/post/12374272
> 
> 
> The tier system is all about (EYE CANDY) right?



From the first post, though you should read the whole post for yourself -


"What you want to look for is the sharpness of detail (does the picture have plenty of depth and pop-out of the screen or does it look real and film-like), color (are they true to reality, especially blues, reds and greens; are blacks black and whites white), and video artifacts (is the picture bobbed or is there too much noise and edge enhancement)."


----------



## Kevin12586




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/12376544
> 
> 
> Right. It's then up to every person to decide whether the movie merits watching based on it's entertainment quality taking in account plot, characters, acting etc.
> 
> 
> I'm sometimes tempted to start a thread asking whether one would watch a movie that rates tier 0 or high 1 if all the reviews are extremely negative as to the movie itself. Of course, what's garbage to one person can be gold to another.



People bought Crank when it came out, I haven't seen it (and have no intention of seeing it) but I have heard that for the most part it is pure eye candy and a terrible movie. That should pretty much answer your question.










We are all guilty of this in one way or another though I believe. Look at War of the Worlds, an OK movie at best, but how many of us bought it because of how well it sounds on our systems, I know I did.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dildatonr* /forum/post/12372682
> 
> 
> Some of us want eye candy. Some us want theatrical accuracy.



IMO a Tier Thread for Theatrical Accuracy (TA) should be separate if that is what is wanted. I'm not interested in this thread for theatrical accuracy, that is a separate issue for me.


Brandon


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/12377849
> 
> 
> IMO a Tier Thread for Theatrical Accuracy (TA) should be separate if that is what is wanted. I'm not interested in this thread for theatrical accuracy, that is a separate issue for me.



And the time and work to administer the list would increase fourfold if that were factored in.


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kevin12586* /forum/post/12377271
> 
> 
> People bought Crank when it came out, I haven't seen it (and have no intention of seeing it) but I have heard that for the most part it is pure eye candy and a terrible movie. That should pretty much answer your question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are all guilty of this in one way or another though I believe. Look at War of the Worlds, an OK movie at best, but how many of us bought it because of how well it sounds on our systems, I know I did.



I got sucked in on the hype for Crank and rented it. I made it to the 27 minute mark; it was the worst 27 minutes of a movie I've ever watched.


I do appreciate the tier tread, though. It's great when a good movie is also a good transfer.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/12378007
> 
> 
> I got sucked in on the hype for Crank and rented it. I made it to the 27 minute mark; it was the worst 27 minutes of a movie I've ever watched.
> 
> 
> I do appreciate the tier tread, though. It's great when a good movie is also a good transfer.



What didn't you like about Crank? I know you're not alone in your disliking of it......but I've seen MUCH worse movies than that.


----------



## giomania

Anyone wanna buy my copy of Crank? I watched it once, but probably won't watch it again.


Mark


----------



## General Kenobi




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sunstar715* /forum/post/12373865
> 
> 
> i agree on both those titles, I was blown away by how good troy looked, after hearing some people saying it looked bad, but wow it is one of my favorites blu's



x2

Troy DC should be towards the top of Gold IMO.


_Pany BD10A > 52" XBR3 @ 8-9'_


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Blood Diamond is too high on the list. I agree it belongs in Tier 2, but it should be near the bottom. Too soft and lacking in detail the majority of time.


----------



## avhed




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12382072
> 
> 
> Blood Diamond is too high on the list. I agree it belongs in Tier 2, but it should be near the bottom. Too soft and lacking in detail the majority of time.




I second this. Should not be above Dreamgirls.


----------



## mike171979

You can go ahead and rate 28 Days Later in the coal category.


Good lord what a complete waste of money.


I mean I couldn't believe how crappy it looked, to me, somehow, it looked even worse than the upconverted DVD.


I have learned that apparently the film was shot with a Canon Standard Definition camera to get a more gritty realistic look to it.


Well, what they got was a blurry mess of a movie.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12382072
> 
> 
> Blood Diamond is too high on the list. I agree it belongs in Tier 2, but it should be near the bottom. Too soft and lacking in detail the majority of time.


 http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u...looddvd6.1.png 
http://www.imageviper.com/displayima...dvd6.1.png.png 

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u.../Blodddvd1.png 
http://www.imageviper.com/displayima...lodbd1.png.png 

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u.../Blodddvd2.png 
http://www.imageviper.com/displayima...oddbd2.png.png 

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u.../Blodddvd4.png 
http://www.imageviper.com/displayima...oddbd4.png.png 

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u.../Blodddvd5.png 
http://www.imageviper.com/displayima...oddbd5.png.png 

*Courtesy : XYLON*


----------



## lokus

I am nominating The Omega Man for Tier 2 ( http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1063/omegaman.html ). Considering the age of the film, I was really blown away to see how well it turned out. It surely isn't an immaculate encode but great nonetheless. It is definitely grainy as the reviewer stated but the colors are more vibrant. Anyone else have their opinion of this flick?


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/12378065
> 
> 
> What didn't you like about Crank? I know you're not alone in your disliking of it......but I've seen MUCH worse movies than that.



Everything!!! My time for watching movies is somewhat limited so I tend to be very selective in what I watch, thus I stay away from some of the real dogs of a picture.


Getting back on topic I'm looking forward to see how tomorrow's releases, particularly Castaway and Pirates 3 will rate in the tier list.


----------



## lgans316

Crank = Piece of S***.


----------



## edgary

I saw Ratatouille last night... Oh boy, it looks amazing! My wife spent the whole movie saying how beautiful it looks. It definitely belongs where it is.


I also saw The Transporter 2 and I couldn't find it in the list. Going by the description of the Bronze tier, I'd say it belongs right there with The Transporter.


And just to confirm, I agree on the placement of The Prestige.


PS3 -> HDMI -> 42" Philips 1080p -> 7-8 ft.


----------



## rydenfan

Anybody watched Superbad yet?


----------



## jimrobinette

Yeah, I watched it this weekend and had to keep reminding myself to pay attention to the story. I literally would be watching the video quality so close that I wasn't listening to the beginning when they were setting up the story. But it was beautiful!!!!!!!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *edgary* /forum/post/12393514
> 
> 
> I saw Ratatouille last night... Oh boy, it looks amazing! My wife spent the whole movie saying how beautiful it looks. It definitely belongs where it is.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/12390111
> 
> 
> Crank = Piece of S***.



Crank = Over the top fun.


----------



## diceburna

Its been close to a yr now since I've purchased my 42' 720p panny and my PS3 and after renting/buying all kinds of movies....The only BD's that I felt was worth my money PQ wise (b/c some movies were too good to pass up) is still Crank and Planet Earth. I'm hoping the new POTC movie will do it for me but I doubt it. Personally I've just acknowledged that I know very little about film to truly appreciate it, so these films do not visually appeal to me like DV. I've just adopted the mindset that DV is the way to go when it comes to HD, not film.


----------



## chris0




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jimrobinette* /forum/post/12393820
> 
> 
> Yeah, I watched it this weekend and had to keep reminding myself to pay attention to the story. I literally would be watching the video quality so close that I wasn't listening to the beginning when they were setting up the story. But it was beautiful!!!!!!!



While I never understand posts from people who ask "Are High Def movies too detailed?" I agree that sometimes PQ can be so amazing as to be distracting to people like us. I wouldn't have it any other way, though.


It's almost too bad that someday it'll be the norm and we'll all be used to it.


----------



## desmond212

POTC3 is better than POTC2. Superbad is just ok.


----------



## SteelSD

Just watched *Ocean's 13* tonight. I would rank it low Tier 2.


Problems with the PQ include:


1. Skin tone issues and over-saturated colors. This may be a "director intent" issue, but the skin tones are skewed too far into the orange range throughout the film. In Al Pacino's first scene, it almost looks as if someone carved his head out of an NBA basketball.


2. In some of the darker scenes (like the last one in the first tunnel digger) the grain is so intense that it entirely flattens the picture.


3. At @52:30 into the film (the Shaobo Qin "elevator shaft" scene), the picture distorts and there appears to be artifacting all over the place (to my eyes). I wish I had a screen shot, but at 52:56, the picture turns into what I can only describe as a flat black and orange Frank Miller "Sin City" graphic novel. The scene I'm talking about is the worst HD PQ I've ever seen in a high definition movie or broadcast.


The film does redeem itself from a PQ stadpoint with good detail at many points and it handles the casino background details like a champ, but we also don't see 3-D "pop" pretty much anywhere due to color tonality choices and grain in the darker scenes. Did I mention that this film likes the color orange...a LOT? In scenes away from red or orange, you might get somewhat realistic colors and tones. But those experiences are few and far between.


The film itself is good, even if it is somewhat predictable if you're paying attention. Like Las Vegas itself, the color scheme is an eyesore. A lot of that might be due to the director's intent, but that doesn't mean the film looks any better for it.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SteelSD* /forum/post/12401629
> 
> 
> Just watched *Ocean's 13* tonight. I would rank it low Tier 2.
> 
> 
> Problems with the PQ include:
> 
> 
> 1. Skin tone issues and over-saturated colors. This may be a "director intent" issue, but the skin tones are skewed too far into the orange range throughout the film. In Al Pacino's first scene, it almost looks as if someone carved his head out of an NBA basketball.
> 
> 
> 2. In some of the darker scenes (like the last one in the first tunnel digger) the grain is so intense that it entirely flattens the picture.
> 
> 
> 3. At @52:30 into the film (the Shaobo Qin "elevator shaft" scene), the picture distorts and there appears to be artifacting all over the place (to my eyes). I wish I had a screen shot, but at 52:56, the picture turns into what I can only describe as a flat black and orange Frank Miller "Sin City" graphic novel. The scene I'm talking about is the worst HD PQ I've ever seen in a high definition movie or broadcast.
> 
> 
> The film does redeem itself from a PQ stadpoint with good detail at many points and it handles the casino background details like a champ, but we also don't see 3-D "pop" pretty much anywhere due to color tonality choices and grain in the darker scenes. Did I mention that this film likes the color orange...a LOT? In scenes away from red or orange, you might get somewhat realistic colors and tones. But those experiences are few and far between.
> 
> 
> The film itself is good, even if it is somewhat predictable if you're paying attention. Like Las Vegas itself, the color scheme is an eyesore. A lot of that might be due to the director's intent, but that doesn't mean the film looks any better for it.



The DVD was identical. Garish and overblown colors, especially facial and in night scenes. IMO, this one never needs to be bought in hi-def.


----------



## lgans316

I think by now both director and Warner would have learned the fact that not all customers / early adopters will be a fan of their stupid artistic intents.


How about


1) Intentionally shooting daylight / outdoor scenes on picturesque locations in SD ?

2) Intentionally crushing blacks to insane levels producing a pitch black screen for 20% of the running time ?

3) Intentionally making MJ look handsome ?


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/12401813
> 
> 
> I think by now both director and Warner would have learned the fact that not all customers / early adopters will be a fan of their stupid artistic intents.



If this was a manifestation of "Artistic Intent" then they suffer from macular degeneration, detached retinas and the cooties.


----------



## avhed

What is the Silicon Optix HQV Benchmark Disc like? Can we tier this one too?


----------



## Lil' Louie

Viewed POTC:AWE tonight, and this one is with out a doubt a flawless transfer. Colors are rich, skin tone is perfect, and the detail is mindblowing. This one is a no brainer top Tier 0 IMO. As great as the transfers are on POTC 1&2, AWE blows them out of the water.


Viewed on:









Sony KDS-55A3000 - Playstation 3 HDMI 1080/24p @ 7ft


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lil' Louie* /forum/post/12402241
> 
> 
> Viewed POTC:AWE tonight, and this one is with out a doubt a flawless transfer. Colors are rich, skin tone is perfect, and the detail is mindblowing. This one is a no brainer top Tier 0 IMO. As great as the transfers are on POTC 1&2, AWE blows them out of the water.
> 
> 
> Viewed on:
> 
> 
> Sony KDS-55A3000 DLP via Playstation 3 HDMI 1080/24p @ 7ft



A post at another forum said that POTC3 was encoded by Panasonic. Does anyone know if that was also the case for POTC1&2? Panasonic has been doing an outstanding job for Fox, and I did not think that POTC1&2 looked as good as many people seem to think. If Disney switched to Panasonic from someone else for POTC3 that would be interesting. I haven't watched POTC3 yet myself.


----------



## General Kenobi

I watched AWE last night and agree that it should be near the top but I'm not sure I'd put it at 0 tier. There were still some shots, mostly in the scenes with candle light or the equivalent that looked a tad grainy IMO.

_Pany BD10A > XBR3 52" @ 8-9'_


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lil' Louie* /forum/post/12402241
> 
> 
> Viewed POTC:AWE tonight, and this one is with out a doubt a flawless transfer. Colors are rich, skin tone is perfect, and the detail is mindblowing. This one is a no brainer top Tier 0 IMO. As great as the transfers are on POTC 1&2, AWE blows them out of the water.
> 
> 
> Viewed on:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sony KDS-55A3000 DLP via Playstation 3 HDMI 1080/24p @ 7ft



Done. placed right above Pirates 2


----------



## SuprSlow

Added this week's releases.


Blood Diamond, Pearl Harbor, and The Punisher were moved to different placements/tiers as requested.


Pirates, Prison Break, Secret Window, Santa Clause 3, Pat Methany, Troy, The Omega Man, 28 Days Later, The Benchwarmers, and Close Encounters were all placed in the appropriate tiers.


Thanks for the input! Even after adding this week's new releases, we've decreased the Unranked count from 144 to 142. Good job


----------



## patrick99

2001 in Tier 0? I'm sorry; that's ridiculous.


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12408874
> 
> 
> 2001 in Tier 0? I'm sorry; that's ridiculous.



IIRC, several users agreed with this placement. Give your reasons for moving it.


I think it'd be best to hear from a few more people on this title, also.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12408874
> 
> 
> 2001 in Tier 0? I'm sorry; that's ridiculous.



And list your display and viewing distance. And the results of your most recent eye test.


----------



## edgary

I just saw Stir of Echoes, and although it is a great movie, it has a lot of grain, artifacts and ghosting in some images. I think it should be moved to Tier 4, some place between top and half of such list.


PS3 -> HDMI -> 42" Philips 1080p -> 7-8 ft.


----------



## tjgar

Pepar,

"And list your display and viewing distance. And the results of your most recent eye test."


I think both of you are entitled to your own opinions the the ranking of 2001.


I probably agree a little more with Patricks opinion. I do think that for its age 2001 is one of the top br's out there, but I don't think it is as good as the current tier 0 movies. I would say mid to top tier 1 at best.


JVC HD1 at 13 ft on a 138" 2.35/1 BW screen.

( Also I have new prescription glasse that I wear when watching!)


Tony


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/12408973
> 
> 
> IIRC, several users agreed with this placement. Give your reasons for moving it.
> 
> 
> I think it'd be best to hear from a few more people on this title, also.



I should have my copy on Saturday.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tjgar* /forum/post/12409863
> 
> 
> Pepar,
> 
> "And list your display and viewing distance. And the results of your most recent eye test."
> 
> 
> I think both of you are entitled to your own opinions the the ranking of 2001.
> 
> 
> I probably agree a little more with Patricks opinion. I do think that for its age 2001 is one of the top br's out there, but I don't think it is as good as the current tier 0 movies. I would say mid to top tier 1 at best.
> 
> 
> JVC HD1 at 13 ft on a 138" 2.35/1 BW screen.
> 
> ( Also I have new prescription glasse that I wear when watching!)
> 
> 
> Tony



Just having some fun, Tony. Everybody's opinion counts here as long as they list their relevant gear and 'splain their opinion. Like you just did.










edit: Woo HOO, just noticed your JVC HD1/RS1 and 2.35 screen. Nice, very nice! CIH? Anamorphic lens?


----------



## xAVHTx

Just thought I'd add this in again, seems to have been lost in the mix. Remember the Titans, excellent transfer, sharp detail, vibrant colors. In the night scenes/games there's some grain in the black, but I would say it belongs Gold tier. My opinion is it looks better than Black Hawk Down, a notch above Black Hawk Down would be a good place for it until another user can narrow it's position in a little better.


Viewing 6-7' on a 46" Sony V3000.


----------



## General Kenobi

I just finished watching Total Recall and it should not be in anything above Coal. No difference from my upconverted DVD and I also have this on VHS as well so am very familiar with the movie. The DTSHD sounds fantastic but is totally overshadowed by the dismal PQ... coal quality fo show.


Pany BD10A > 52" XBR3 @ 8-9'


----------



## hatchback

Just saw Black Hawk Down for the first time in BD. I love the movie but I can't see how this could be considered a tier 1 transfer. Color is accurate but there is a lack of detail. IMO it is tier 3 at best, not that much better from a good upscaling of the SD-DVD.


----------



## General Kenobi




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hatchback* /forum/post/12412685
> 
> 
> Just saw Black Hawk Down for the first time in BD. I love the movie but I can't see how this could be considered a tier 1 transfer. Color is accurate but there is a lack of detail. IMO it is tier 3 at best, not that much better from a good upscaling of the SD-DVD.



Bummer... I was thinking about buying a BD copy to replace my DVD version.


BTW - Are import titles being ranked as well?? I have a copy of The Island en route and don't recall seeing it on the list.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tjgar* /forum/post/12409863
> 
> 
> Pepar,
> 
> "And list your display and viewing distance. And the results of your most recent eye test."
> 
> 
> I think both of you are entitled to your own opinions the the ranking of 2001.
> 
> 
> I probably agree a little more with Patricks opinion. I do think that for its age 2001 is one of the top br's out there, but I don't think it is as good as the current tier 0 movies. I would say mid to top tier 1 at best.
> 
> 
> JVC HD1 at 13 ft on a 138" 2.35/1 BW screen.
> 
> ( Also I have new prescription glasse that I wear when watching!)
> 
> 
> Tony




Apart from extreme close-ups of Dullea, the movie looks soft throughout. There are various threads here (for example in the HD DVD software forum and the general software forum) where there are screen shots that give good illustrations of the softness. For a 40 year old movie, and for a Warner encode, it looks pretty good, but no way Tier 0.


On another subject, I watched about an hour of POTC3 last night, and I would say this is probably the very best PQ I have seen. Much better than POTC2, which I think is over-rated for PQ.


----------



## John Ballentine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hatchback* /forum/post/12412685
> 
> 
> Just saw Black Hawk Down for the first time in BD. I love the movie but I can't see how this could be considered a tier 1 transfer. Color is accurate but there is a lack of detail. IMO it is tier 3 at best, not that much better from a good upscaling of the SD-DVD.



Obviously a lot of people disagree w/ you (been at tier 1 for over a year now).


I myself did a direct comparison w/ the Superbit version - and I think the BD is vastly superior.


Believe it or not - BHD was originally listed at tier 0!


----------



## tjgar

Pepar:

"Woo HOO, just noticed your JVC HD1/RS1 and 2.35 screen. Nice, very nice! CIH? Anamorphic lens?"


poor mans CIH, no lens, I just zoom in when going to 2.35/1. It works fine, but a little more work. I couldnt bring myself to spend 4K for a lens and a processor.


Tony


----------



## lgans316

Do not worry. SPHE will soon announce director's cut of BHD on BD with AVC encode. I may be kidding now but there is a high probability for SPHE to announce a DC like they did with the SD DVD release.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/12413433
> 
> 
> Do not worry. SPHE will soon announce director's cut of BHD on BD with AVC encode.



Could you give us a little more information on this?


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tjgar* /forum/post/12413432
> 
> 
> Pepar:
> 
> "Woo HOO, just noticed your JVC HD1/RS1 and 2.35 screen. Nice, very nice! CIH? Anamorphic lens?"
> 
> 
> poor mans CIH, no lens, I just zoom in when going to 2.35/1. It works fine, but a little more work. I couldnt bring myself to spend 4K for a lens and a processor.
> 
> 
> Tony



Full CIH is nice, but an HD1 by itself it still _sweet_!


----------



## chirpie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12409966
> 
> 
> I should have my copy on Saturday.



I'm curious about your opinion Rob. I don't own a copy, but I spot checked one someone else let me borrow for a (very) brief spell and I can't see tier zero for this title.


Very good for it's age, but mid to low 1 would be my estimate by what I saw.


Again, I didn't get to watch the whole thing so I don't think my opinion is gonna change things.


My setup:

http://www.kchtenthusiasts.com/kcht_...topic.php?t=14 

http://www.kchtenthusiasts.com/kcht_...topic.php?t=51


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/12408973
> 
> 
> IIRC, several users agreed with this placement. Give your reasons for moving it.
> 
> 
> I think it'd be best to hear from a few more people on this title, also.



I have to agree with patrick on this one. I finally finished watching this one a few days ago and while it is surely a treat (PQ is excellent for it's age and the score plays beautifully on my sound system), I don't think it's deserving of tier 0. On the plus it does not suffer from edge enhancement like previous versions.


There are some scenes with very good detail and sharpness but not enough to warrant that placement. Also, I may be in the minority on this, but I found the depth of black to be somewhat lacking at times. Anyway, I'd say it's somewhere around 2nd quadrant of Tier 1.


PS3->1080p24->46XBR4 (8-10ft)



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *General Kenobi* /forum/post/12412699
> 
> 
> Bummer... I was thinking about buying a BD copy to replace my DVD version.
> 
> 
> BTW - Are import titles being ranked as well?? I have a copy of The Island en route and don't recall seeing it on the list.



Black Hawk Down is definitely worth your money no matter what tier it is placed in. However if they are indeed coming out with a re-encode that would make me want to wait as well (if I didn't already purchase it).


Brandon


----------



## hatchback




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *General Kenobi* /forum/post/12412699
> 
> 
> Bummer... I was thinking about buying a BD copy to replace my DVD version.



Definitely rent before you buy.


----------



## hatchback




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Ballentine* /forum/post/12413127
> 
> 
> Obviously a lot of people disagree w/ you (been at tier 1 for over a year now).
> 
> 
> I myself did a direct comparison w/ the Superbit version - and I think the BD is vastly superior.
> 
> 
> Believe it or not - BHD was originally listed at tier 0!



No offense intended, but that's scary.... If BHD is as good as Blu Ray PQ gets, I would return my BD player







Let's hope the recode is better.


----------



## General Kenobi

Can we add The Island to the list? I know people have been picking it up from the Amazon.uk BOGO deal and I have a copy on the way as well. Ranking opinions should be coming through over the next couple weeks I'd imagine.


----------



## SuprSlow

Added Remember the Titans.


Moved 2001, Total Recall, and Stir of Echoes. Thanks for all the input!











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xAVHTx* /forum/post/12412236
> 
> 
> Just thought I'd add this in again, seems to have been lost in the mix. Remember the Titans, excellent transfer, sharp detail, vibrant colors. In the night scenes/games there's some grain in the black, but I would say it belongs Gold tier. My opinion is it looks better than Black Hawk Down, a notch above Black Hawk Down would be a good place for it until another user can narrow it's position in a little better.




Sorry I missed this earlier







I added Titans...I watched it a couple nights ago and I thought it was comparable to 'The Lives of Others', so it was placed just above.


Also, *General Kenobi*, I added 'The Island' to the Unranked list. Do you have any AV specs available?


----------



## General Kenobi




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/12418888
> 
> 
> Added Remember the Titans.
> 
> 
> Moved 2001, Total Recall, and Stir of Echoes. Thanks for all the input!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry I missed this earlier
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I added Titans...I watched it a couple nights ago and I thought it was comparable to 'The Lives of Others', so it was placed just above.
> 
> 
> Also, *General Kenobi*, I added 'The Island' to the Unranked list. Do you have any AV specs available?



I've been hard pressed to find much on it but I have found that AQ is only DD 5.1... maybe this will be improved for a later US release. I have no info on PQ but have read that it is pretty impressive. I should have my copy next week and will share more info and offer some feedback.


----------



## edgary




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/12415618
> 
> 
> Black Hawk Down is definitely worth your money no matter what tier it is placed in. However if they are indeed coming out with a re-encode that would make me want to wait as well (if I didn't already purchase it).
> 
> 
> Brandon



I agree, and if anything, I would place it lower in that same tier. And if they are releasing a different transfer of the movie, I will get mad as I have purchased it already (although at just $13.5, but nonetheless...).


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/12418888
> 
> 
> 
> Moved 2001



That's much better.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *General Kenobi* /forum/post/12412663
> 
> 
> I just finished watching Total Recall and it should not be in anything above Coal. No difference from my upconverted DVD and I also have this on VHS as well so am very familiar with the movie. The DTSHD sounds fantastic but is totally overshadowed by the dismal PQ... coal quality fo show.
> 
> 
> Pany BD10A > 52" XBR3 @ 8-9'



Yeah, it is pretty bad. It is better than the SD DVD, but certainly not substantially so.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hatchback* /forum/post/12412685
> 
> 
> Just saw Black Hawk Down for the first time in BD. I love the movie but I can't see how this could be considered a tier 1 transfer. Color is accurate but there is a lack of detail. IMO it is tier 3 at best, not that much better from a good upscaling of the SD-DVD.



Heh?


Lack of detail? I don't think so. Perhaps I need to watch it again, but I recall it being quite sharp and detailed. Most of the criticism of this movie has been with regard to the film grain.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chirpie* /forum/post/12415562
> 
> 
> I'm curious about your opinion Rob. I don't own a copy, but I spot checked one someone else let me borrow for a (very) brief spell and I can't see tier zero for this title.
> 
> 
> Very good for it's age, but mid to low 1 would be my estimate by what I saw.
> 
> 
> Again, I didn't get to watch the whole thing so I don't think my opinion is gonna change things.
> 
> 
> My setup:
> 
> http://www.kchtenthusiasts.com/kcht_...topic.php?t=14
> 
> http://www.kchtenthusiasts.com/kcht_...topic.php?t=51



I am looking forward to watching it. I have pretty high expectations based on 1) the fact it was shot in 70mm so I know how good it can look 2) some very high praise for the PQ (including Tier 0 here for a while) 3) I saw the HD-NET Movies version which, despite having some problems (artifacts), showed a lot of potential! 4) I am a big fan of the movie!


----------



## General Kenobi

Looks like Troy DC made it to gold... I'll second that. I have the theatrical release on HD and the SD-DVD for comparo and have done side by sides with the HD copy in my HDA2 and the DC copy in my Pany BD10A. It may even be worthy of top gold or bottom of tier 0, fantastic quality IMO!


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *General Kenobi* /forum/post/12425916
> 
> 
> Looks like Troy DC made it to gold... I'll second that. I have the theatrical release on HD and the SD-DVD for comparo and have done side by sides with the HD copy in my HDA2 and the DC copy in my Pany BD10A. It may even be worthy of top gold or bottom of tier 0, fantastic quality IMO!



Troy DC in Tier 0 or even high Tier 1? Not to my eyes.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hatchback* /forum/post/12412685
> 
> 
> Just saw Black Hawk Down for the first time in BD. I love the movie but I can't see how this could be considered a tier 1 transfer. Color is accurate but there is a lack of detail. IMO it is tier 3 at best, not that much better from a good upscaling of the SD-DVD.



What?! I think many, many people will disagree with you on that one. I though Black Hawk Down looked amazing and was a huge upgrade from the standard DVD.


----------



## Kevin12586

Any impressions of Superbad yet?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/12426470
> 
> 
> What?! I think many, many people will disagree with you on that one. I though Black Hawk Down looked amazing and was a huge upgrade from the standard DVD.



I haven't watched BHD lately, but I definitely don't recall that it was lacking in detail. My recollection is that it looked very nice.


----------



## clutch69




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kevin12586* /forum/post/12426605
> 
> 
> Any impressions of Superbad yet?



I have watched this three times already. FUNNY movie, nothing about the PQ gave me any WOW factor. It looked like an HD movie, but not like any tier 0 movie, probably put this in mid tier 1. Didn't notice anything wrong at all with the PQ so that's good. The audio however was great, well, whenever a song came on, it sounded VERY good. This movie has a great soundtrack. The songs sounded excellent in TrueHD audio. Whenever a song did not play, there really wasn't much of a "surround" sound as this is pretty much a dialogue driven movie. Bottom line, if you don't have a receiver that takes advantage of TrueHD, you may find the standard dvd looks fine with a good upconverting dvd player.


----------



## ay221

What does the ! exclamation/bang sign signify?


----------



## 30XS955 User

Now that I have a Blu ray player I can start commenting on the PQ of this catalog.


With regards to Spiderman 3, it's ranked too high in my opinion. Lots of shots look good, but I saw noise in the alley fight and in the scene when the Sandman first discovers his powers. I'd give is a 4.1 or so.


----------



## bplewis24

Just watched Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer. God what a horrible movie...and to think I waited 3 months for this title at the top of my netflix queue. Anyhow, I agree with it's placement in Tier 1.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ay221* /forum/post/12430630
> 
> 
> What does the ! exclamation/bang sign signify?



Any title with an exclamation mark next to it has just recently been added to the Tier rankings (within the past 2 weeks I believe).


Brandon


----------



## lgans316

FF:ROFS - Wooden acting. JA looked yuck in the Chinese wedding ceremony.


----------



## desmond212




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *clutch69* /forum/post/12430024
> 
> 
> I have watched this three times already. FUNNY movie, nothing about the PQ gave me any WOW factor. It looked like an HD movie, but not like any tier 0 movie, probably put this in mid tier 1. Didn't notice anything wrong at all with the PQ so that's good. The audio however was great, well, whenever a song came on, it sounded VERY good. This movie has a great soundtrack. The songs sounded excellent in TrueHD audio. Whenever a song did not play, there really wasn't much of a "surround" sound as this is pretty much a dialogue driven movie. Bottom line, if you don't have a receiver that takes advantage of TrueHD, you may find the standard dvd looks fine with a good upconverting dvd player.



totally agree!


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/12432652
> 
> 
> FF:ROFS - Wooden acting



It wasn't just the acting, but the plot was stupid and the direction was pretty bad. The plot centered around Mr Fantastic and Sue Storm's relationship and pending marriage, and it couldn't have been less interesting. I doubt anybody in the audience really felt any sympathy or compassion for them as characters enough to be emotionally drawn in to their plight.


Also there were so many loose ends that either didn't make sense or were never even given a hint of an explanation. For example, how does the Silver Surfer ultimately kill Galactus? All they tell us is he is the only one who can do it, and presumably it has something to do with the beacon (surfboard), but how? And why did Torch's powers suddenly become so unstable, and then miraculously return to being stable after he saves the day? I guess that was just mere convenience










Anyhow, enough with that movie. I also got a chance to watch *Eyes Wide Shut* last night. I don't remember my impressions of the DVD version a few years ago when I first saw it, but I can't imagine this being much of an improvement over it. It was very soft throughout with lots of grain to boot. I understand this was a stylistic choice, but being completely honest, if somebody put this in my PS3 and asked me to guess if it were the DVD version or the Blu-ray version I'd probably have guessed DVD. Also, all of the bonus features are in SD, so while the extra content was nice, I wouldn't double-dip on this one unless you are a complete fan of the movie.


I'd say it's somewhere around the middle-to-bottom of Tier 3.


PS3->1080p24->46XBR4 8-10 feet


Brandon


----------



## so's your face

superbad - middle tier 1


great picture, and decent sound.


although, and maybe i'm just getting old, i thought it was horribly annoying that it couldn't go 5 seconds without an f-bomb. i didn't say it offended me (it did my wifey) but after 20 minutes it was like fingernails on a chalkboard and i'm thinking what is the point? it was just distracting after a while.


----------



## so's your face




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/12432834
> 
> 
> It wasn't just the acting, but the plot was stupid and the direction was pretty bad. The plot centered around Mr Fantastic and Sue Storm's relationship and pending marriage, and it couldn't have been less interesting. I doubt anybody in the audience really felt any sympathy or compassion for them as characters enough to be emotionally drawn in to their plight.
> 
> 
> Also there were so many loose ends that either didn't make sense or were never even given a hint of an explanation. For example, how does the Silver Surfer ultimately kill Galactaca (sp?)? All they tell us is he is the only one who can do it, and presumably it has something to do with the beacon (surfboard), but how? And why did Torch's powers suddenly become so unstable, and then miraculously return to being stable after he saves the day? I guess that was just mere convenience
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyhow, enough with that movie. I also got a chance to watch *Eyes Wide Shut* last night. I don't remember my impressions of the DVD version a few years ago when I first saw it, but I can't imagine this being much of an improvement over it. It was very soft throughout with lots of grain to boot. I understand this was a stylistic choice, but being completely honest, if somebody put this in my PS3 and asked me to guess if it were the DVD version or the Blu-ray version I'd probably have guessed DVD. Also, all of the bonus features are in SD, so while the extra content was nice, I wouldn't double-dip on this one unless you are a complete fan of the movie.
> 
> 
> I'd say it's somewhere around the middle-to-bottom of Tier 3.
> 
> 
> PS3->1080p24->46XBR4 8-10 feet
> 
> 
> Brandon



like my step dad used to say about popcorn flicks, if it's fun for the eyes, it's usually bad for the brain!


----------



## John Ballentine




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/12432313
> 
> 
> Just watched Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer. God what a horrible movie...and to think I waited 3 months for this title at the top of my netflix queue. Anyhow, I agree with it's placement in Tier 1.Brandon



Still better than the first one - don't you think?


----------



## ajamils

Watched Galapagos yesterday and was amazed by the PQ. Colors are vibrant and has lot of "pop". I would place it in mid tier 1. Anyone who liked Planet Earth should definitely check it out. Even though the overall material does not match the quality of Planet Earth the PQ is definitely above and beyond PE.



(40" Mitsubishi 1080p LCD viewed from 4-5 feet.)


----------



## Elbie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Ballentine* /forum/post/12433347
> 
> 
> Still better than the first one - don't you think?



By miles!


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Elbie* /forum/post/12435073
> 
> 
> By miles!



Well, the first one had all of the character development.


----------



## LazerViking




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Ballentine* /forum/post/12433347
> 
> 
> Still better than the first one - don't you think?



At least the first didn't feature a complete massacre of Galactus. Seriously, this could have been setting up an epic conflict, one that has not been attempted on the silver screen before. But no, hes a space tornado thats a simple inconvenience in between shots of Jessica Alba emoting. Bah, what a turd of a Dodge commercial.


anyways, perhaps that is for another thread...


Superbad, very good looking and pleasing with no defect I noticed. However, due to the material, it wouldn't be the first I'd show off. I'd recommend a placement near Identity.


----------



## slateef

Watched Spiderman 3 last night, thought it was kinda soft throughout, not very impressed.


----------



## 30XS955 User




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slateef* /forum/post/12435666
> 
> 
> Watched Spiderman 3 last night, thought it was kinda soft throughout, not very impressed.



Finally a person who agrees with me.


----------



## Nexus 6

Any opinions on Robocop yet?


----------



## DOHC

Whats up with Troy? At first every1 said it was bad and now its in tier 1? Whats the deal?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/12432834
> 
> 
> 
> Anyhow, enough with that movie. I also got a chance to watch *Eyes Wide Shut* last night. I don't remember my impressions of the DVD version a few years ago when I first saw it, but I can't imagine this being much of an improvement over it. It was very soft throughout with lots of grain to boot. I understand this was a stylistic choice, but being completely honest, if somebody put this in my PS3 and asked me to guess if it were the DVD version or the Blu-ray version I'd probably have guessed DVD. Also, all of the bonus features are in SD, so while the extra content was nice, I wouldn't double-dip on this one unless you are a complete fan of the movie.
> 
> 
> I'd say it's somewhere around the middle-to-bottom of Tier 3.
> 
> 
> PS3->1080p24->46XBR4 8-10 feet
> 
> 
> Brandon



I agree. EWS looked really awful. At least the first ten minutes before I shut it off in disgust.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slateef* /forum/post/12435666
> 
> 
> Watched Spiderman 3 last night, thought it was kinda soft throughout, not very impressed.



SM3 doesn't look anything like soft to me.


----------



## bfdtv

Austin,


Have you considered adding the aspect ratio to the first post? For example:

*Chicken Little* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.78:1
*Open Season* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.85:1
*The Wild* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1
*TMNT* Video: VC-1 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Watched *Wyatt Earp* last night.


Another disappointing release from Warner.










I noticed something I have never noticed in any other release before. There were a few times when it looked like the exposure setting was changed in the camera. At first I was worried that this was my projector, but I was able to recreate the effect by rewinding to the same spot. It was like the brightness was cranked up for a second, and then it goes back to normal.


Contrast wasn't particularly good either, so there was little in the way of dimensionality. Details were usually soft, though some scenes did look pretty good.


I also noticed some artifacts, and the overall picture wasn't as clean as I would like.


I would place this at the top of Tier 3 or bottom of Tier 2.


Oh, and this movie doesn't hold a candle to Tombstone!


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bfdtv* /forum/post/12440843
> 
> 
> Austin,
> 
> 
> Have you considered adding the aspect ratio to the first post? For example:
> 
> *Chicken Little* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.78:1
> *Open Season* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.85:1
> *The Wild* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1
> *TMNT* Video: VC-1 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1



That's a very helpful suggestion. I'd second that.


What site is most historically accurate for aspect ratios? Netflix is wrong 50% of the time so I mostly go to HDD to check.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12441189
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and this movie doesn't hold a candle to Tombstone!



Agreed!


Brandon


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DOHC* /forum/post/12439181
> 
> 
> Whats up with Troy? At first every1 said it was bad and now its in tier 1? Whats the deal?



Filtered and soft, lacking any sharpness or detail.


----------



## ajamils




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12441708
> 
> 
> Filtered and soft, lacking any sharpness or detail.



are you talking about the original Troy or Troy: DC ? I thought that DC looked quiet good. Not top tier material but certainly not the worth.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajamils* /forum/post/12441838
> 
> 
> are you talking about the original Troy or Troy: DC ? I thought that DC looked quiet good. Not top tier material but certainly not the worth.



Troy DC. I wasn't saying it was among the worst. Just, as you say, not top tier material.


Its current placement is far too high, in my opinion.


----------



## 1FAST951




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bfdtv* /forum/post/12440843
> 
> 
> Austin,
> 
> 
> Have you considered adding the aspect ratio to the first post? For example:
> 
> *Chicken Little* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.78:1
> *Open Season* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.85:1
> *The Wild* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1
> *TMNT* Video: VC-1 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/12441551
> 
> 
> That's a very helpful suggestion. I'd second that.
> 
> 
> What site is most historically accurate for aspect ratios? Netflix is wrong 50% of the time so I mostly go to HDD to check.
> 
> 
> Agreed!
> 
> 
> Brandon



X10, oh please, please, do add the A/R info to the list!!!


I will like to thank the folks who are keeping up the list and all of those who have offered their reviews. I'm new (less than a month) to the BD fray and have found the info on this thread extremely valuable. I'm trying to educate myself on the finer points of PQ so I can contribute myself.


The lack of accurate A/R info from Netflix, other review sites and even the BD cases has been very frustrating to me as I tend to prefer a "full screen" display, whether anamorphic or something in the 1.85:1 range.


----------



## SuprSlow

AR info can be added, not sure I'll have time this week to do it, but I'll do it as soon as I can










Good idea.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12441930
> 
> 
> Troy DC. I wasn't saying it was among the worst. Just, as you say, not top tier material.
> 
> 
> Its current placement is far too high, in my opinion.



Why are we cribbing on the softness when Wolfgang Petersen himself OK-ed the HDM version of Troy.

Troy and Air Force One directed by Wolfgang Petersen bears the same soft look.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/12445149
> 
> 
> Why are we cribbing on the softness when Wolfgang Petersen himself OK-ed the HDM version of Troy.
> 
> Troy and Air Force One directed by Wolfgang Petersen bears the same soft look.



You are not understanding the purpose of this thread.


The disc can be 100% transparent to the master, and still not make it into Tier 1.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Meet The Robinsons* looked absolutely stunning.


What can be said? Colors that popped, incredible detail and sharpness, and excellent contrast. The image popped off the screen!


Tier 0 is right where it belongs.










On a side note: this has the same look to it as Chicken Little, which is an amazing looking disc in its own right. Not sure why Chicken Little is not in Tier 0, but that's where I think it should be.


----------



## lgans316

Identity below CE3K ? Doesn't sound fair.


----------



## avhed




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bfdtv* /forum/post/12440843
> 
> 
> Austin,
> 
> 
> Have you considered adding the aspect ratio to the first post? For example:
> 
> *Chicken Little* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.78:1
> *Open Season* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.85:1
> *The Wild* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1
> *TMNT* Video: VC-1 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1



I would like to see the Studio listed too.


----------



## Mr Man

I realise its a way off yet as these movies haven't even come out at the cinema's, but personally i cant wait for both 'Stop-Loss' & 'Jumper' to be released. Both these movies look fantastic -made for 1080p!! Does anyone know what studio's are producing them & whether they will end up on bluray or (sigh) the pink team?

If you haven't heard of these movies i recommend watching the 1080p trailer's off Stage 6.


----------



## tyorder1

I posted a while back about Hairspray. Just want to say what a great job New Line did with this movie. Top of Tier 1 bottom of tier 0. Amazing detail and color. Great pop as well. Anyone else?


Sony Ruby 1080p 119 screen 12 feet away


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/12445351
> 
> 
> Identity below CE3K ? Doesn't sound fair.



I agree


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tyorder1* /forum/post/12446676
> 
> 
> I posted a while back about Hairspray. Just want to say what a great job New Line did with this movie. Top of Tier 1 bottom of tier 0. Amazing detail and color. Great pop as well. Anyone else?
> 
> 
> Sony Ruby 1080p 119 screen 12 feet away



Detail? Not to my eyes.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mr Man* /forum/post/12446136
> 
> 
> I realise its a way off yet as these movies haven't even come out at the cinema's, but personally i cant wait for both 'Stop-Loss' & 'Jumper' to be released. Both these movies look fantastic -*made for 1080p*!!



What does that mean? Movies shot on film are scanned at 4k and I believe movies shot digitally are also 4k.


----------



## ajamils

watched POTC: AWE yesterday and loved the transfer. I'm from one of the minority group who believes that POTC: DMC P/Q is overrated. Personally, I would rate POTC: AWE higher than DMC.


-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_v

40" 1080p LCD viewed from 4-5 feets.


----------



## chirpie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/12447646
> 
> 
> What does that mean? Movies shot on film are scanned at 4k and I believe movies shot digitally are also 4k.



You misunderstand. I think he's implying that the actual subject matter lends itself to a primo hi-def presentation.


It's similar to saying, "Movies like THIS are why I love HD!"


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajamils* /forum/post/12447780
> 
> 
> watched POTC: AWE yesterday and loved the transfer. I'm from one of the minority group who believes that POTC: DMC P/Q is overrated. Personally, I would rate POTC: AWE higher than DMC.
> 
> 
> -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_v
> 
> 40" 1080p LCD viewed from 4-5 feets.



Same here.


----------



## General Kenobi




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12447818
> 
> 
> Same here.



x2


I watched AWE again over the weekend and would rate it top tier.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chirpie* /forum/post/12447788
> 
> 
> You misunderstand. I think he's implying that the actual subject matter lends itself to a primo hi-def presentation.
> 
> 
> It's similar to saying, "Movies like THIS are why I love HD!"



OK, that makes sense.


----------



## giomania

I watched Ratatouille this weekend for the first time, and I cannot believe how good it looked: My jaw dropped on the opening scene. I always wondered if I would be able to notice the difference in quality between different Blu-ray discs.


I have only begun to watch movies recently after finishing my theater. I have not really been scrutinizing the picture quality of movies...just trying to enjoy them. In the past, it would have been a different story, but after two kids, my perspective (and amount of free time) changed dramatically.


However, it was always in the back of my mind if I would be able to discern a difference between movies in different tier ratings. Never did I really wonder if I would be able to discern a difference in quality of movies within the same tier!


From my casual observations, Rat is definitely better than Cars, which coincides with the tier placement. Maybe it had something to do with the fact that there were no humans in Cars?


My wife even commented on the picture quality.


Mark


Vidikron Vision 80, 110" Stewart Studiotek 130 screen, viewed from 12 feet.


----------



## ajamils

any verdict on Rescue Dawn ?


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12440281
> 
> 
> SM3 doesn't look anything like soft to me.



It'd help if we knew what he was watching it on...didn't look soft on my setup.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bfdtv* /forum/post/12440843
> 
> 
> Austin,
> 
> 
> Have you considered adding the aspect ratio to the first post? For example:
> 
> *Chicken Little* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.78:1
> *Open Season* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.85:1
> *The Wild* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1
> *TMNT* Video: VC-1 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1




Not a bad idea though quite a taskto put ALL of the AR's in there. SUPRSLOW is managing this and I definately don't want to speak for his time so I'll defer to him. If he wants to work on this I'm all for it.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12441189
> 
> 
> Watched *Wyatt Earp* last night.
> 
> 
> Another disappointing release from Warner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed something I have never noticed in any other release before. There were a few times when it looked like the exposure setting was changed in the camera. At first I was worried that this was my projector, but I was able to recreate the effect by rewinding to the same spot. It was like the brightness was cranked up for a second, and then it goes back to normal.
> 
> 
> Contrast wasn't particularly good either, so there was little in the way of dimensionality. Details were usually soft, though some scenes did look pretty good.
> 
> 
> I also noticed some artifacts, and the overall picture wasn't as clean as I would like.
> 
> 
> I would place this at the top of Tier 3 or bottom of Tier 2.
> 
> 
> Oh, and this movie doesn't hold a candle to Tombstone!



Done


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12445336
> 
> *Meet The Robinsons* looked absolutely stunning.
> 
> 
> What can be said? Colors that popped, incredible detail and sharpness, and excellent contrast. The image popped off the screen!
> 
> 
> Tier 0 is right where it belongs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On a side note: this has the same look to it as Chicken Little, which is an amazing looking disc in its own right. Not sure why Chicken Little is not in Tier 0, but that's where I think it should be.




I'd have to go back and look as to why it was bumped down however I will say that something at the top of tier 1 or bottom of tier 0...its a pretty grey area between them in my mind...


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12446842
> 
> 
> I agree



Ok...but why?? Having not seen either film on BD I couldn't say myself. Provide some justification and I'll be happy to move it.


----------



## SuprSlow

Does this suit everyone? Suggestions? (Added AR and Studio to the Details following each title).

*Ratatouille* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Studio: Disney
*Cars* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Studio: Disney
*Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds: Live at Radio City* Video: VC-1 | Audio: True HD | AR: 1.78:1 | Studio: Sony BMG







*Pirates of the Caribbean - At World's End* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Studio: Buena Vista _(Dec. 5, 2007)_
*Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Studio: Buena Vista
*Corpse Bride* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 1.85:1 | Studio: Warner
*Meet the Robinsons* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.78:1 | Studio: Disney


----------



## lrstevens421

I watched "The Condemned" this morning and wasn't too impressed with the PQ. The movie appeared to be a little soft and often lacked depth. There were a few good scenes (the control tower) but they were few and far between, nothing to write home about. I was also expecting a little more from the 7.1 DTS-HD soundtrack. Kind of the same feeling I had after watching "The Marine", which did look a little better. Anyone else underwhelmed by this movie?


Calibrated Sony 52XBR4

Panasonic DMP-BD10

10.5 feet away from display


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/12451076
> 
> 
> Ok...but why?? Having not seen either film on BD I couldn't say myself. Provide some justification and I'll be happy to move it.



The first rhing that comes to mind is that in DMC, extreme facial closeups often have that slightly unstable "noisy" look. I did not see this at all in AWE. The profile EXTREME close-up of the nose in the first scene with multiple Jack Sparrows is probably the most impressive single HD shot I have ever seen, and that whole scene is perfect in terms of PQ.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/12451685
> 
> 
> Does this suit everyone? Suggestions?
> 
> *Ratatouille* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Studio: Disney
> *Cars* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Studio: Disney
> *Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds: Live at Radio City* Video: VC-1 | Audio: True HD | AR: 1.78:1 | Studio: Sony BMG
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Pirates of the Caribbean - At World's End* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Studio: Buena Vista _(Dec. 5, 2007)_
> *Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Studio: Buena Vista
> *Corpse Bride* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 1.85:1 | Studio: Warner
> *Meet the Robinsons* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.78:1 | Studio: Disney



I only watched a few minutes of Dave Matthews, but I did not see anything that would justify this very high placement.


----------



## bfdtv




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12452326
> 
> 
> I only watched a few minutes of Dave Matthews, but I did not see anything that would justify this very high placement.



I have to agree there. The Dave Matthews disk is good, but it's not tier0 _picture_ material. I would stick it in the first half of tier1.


This tier thread is not supposed to consider _sound quality_ in it rating, but that seems to have occurred in this case.


----------



## bfdtv




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/12451685
> 
> 
> Does this suit everyone? Suggestions? (Added AR and Studio to the Details following each title).
> 
> *Ratatouille* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Studio: Disney
> *Cars* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Studio: Disney
> *Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds: Live at Radio City* Video: VC-1 | Audio: True HD | AR: 1.78:1 | Studio: Sony BMG
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Pirates of the Caribbean - At World's End* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Studio: Buena Vista _(Dec. 5, 2007)_
> *Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Studio: Buena Vista
> *Corpse Bride* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 1.85:1 | Studio: Warner
> *Meet the Robinsons* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.78:1 | Studio: Disney



That looks good to me, although I'm not sure you need "Studio:" since that is implied / self-explanatory.


Either way, it's a nice improvement over the current list. It eliminates common forum questions such as "which are the best titles with a 1.78 or 1.85 aspect ratio" and "what are the best titles from [insert studio here]," etc.


----------



## maverick0716

Has anyone else had the chance to watch this yet? I've rented the first 2 discs so far and.....Wow! I was not expecting to the picture quality to be that good, it is insane! I really think it's one of the better looking discs (or set of discs) on either format. Superb! Great show too.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/12451049
> 
> 
> I'd have to go back and look as to why it was bumped down however I will say that something at the top of tier 1 or bottom of tier 0...its a pretty grey area between them in my mind...



I agree about the close/grey area between top of tier 1 or bottom of tier 0, but these two movies looked almost identical to my eyes, so I think they should be placed right next to each other, or at a minimum be in the same tier.


Just my opinion, and as always, I am open to other viewpoints.


Edit: btw, I did receive 2001: A Space Odyssey on Saturday, hopefully I will get a chance to watch it in the next couple of nights.


----------



## avhed




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lrstevens421* /forum/post/12452145
> 
> 
> I watched "The Condemned" this morning and wasn't too impressed with the PQ. The movie appeared to be a little soft and often lacked depth. There were a few good scenes (the control tower) but they were few and far between, nothing to write home about. I was also expecting a little more from the 7.1 DTS-HD soundtrack. Kind of the same feeling I had after watching "The Marine", which did look a little better. Anyone else underwhelmed by this movie?
> 
> 
> Calibrated Sony 52XBR4
> 
> Panasonic DMP-BD10
> 
> 10.5 feet away from display



I too was underwhelmed.


----------



## avhed




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/12451685
> 
> 
> Does this suit everyone? Suggestions? (Added AR and Studio to the Details following each title).
> 
> *Ratatouille* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Studio: Disney
> *Cars* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Studio: Disney
> *Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds: Live at Radio City* Video: VC-1 | Audio: True HD | AR: 1.78:1 | Studio: Sony BMG
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Pirates of the Caribbean - At World's End* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Studio: Buena Vista _(Dec. 5, 2007)_
> *Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Studio: Buena Vista
> *Corpse Bride* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 1.85:1 | Studio: Warner
> *Meet the Robinsons* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.78:1 | Studio: Disney



Super! The only thing else I can think of is the release date.


----------



## Ken Beck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/12441551
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> What site is most historically accurate for aspect ratios? Netflix is wrong 50% of the time so I mostly go to HDD to check.
> 
> ...
> 
> Brandon



I like to check imdb.com for aspect ratio - most discs have the original a/r now.


----------



## lrstevens421




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *avhed* /forum/post/12454501
> 
> 
> I too was underwhelmed.



Glad to see I'm not alone here, I knew this was a bad movie going in but I really wanted it to look and sound good. Ughhh


----------



## AfRoMaN787

Just watched robocop. This one is hard to judge. Some times I was thinking wow this looks pretty good and other times I was thinking this looks pretty bad. Overall I'd place it low tier 2 to upper tier 3. I'm watching on a Samsung 46 inch 1080p lcd


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/12452627
> 
> 
> Has anyone else had the chance to watch this yet? I've rented the first 2 discs so far and.....Wow! I was not expecting to the picture quality to be that good, it is insane! I really think it's one of the better looking discs (or set of discs) on either format. Superb! Great show too.



I completely agree on the PQ.


----------



## tjgar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajamils* /forum/post/12447780
> 
> 
> watched POTC: AWE yesterday and loved the transfer. I'm from one of the minority group who believes that POTC: DMC P/Q is overrated. Personally, I would rate POTC: AWE higher than DMC.
> 
> 
> -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_v
> 
> 40" 1080p LCD viewed from 4-5 feets.



I totally agree!


Tony


JVC DH1 138" BW 235/1 at 13 ft


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *avhed* /forum/post/12454552
> 
> 
> Super! The only thing else I can think of is the release date.



Release date seems a bit excessive...UNLESS its a case where there are multiple releases of a film...I'll let SuprSlow decide if he wants to go to that extent


----------



## AustinSTI

I did some shuffling this morning based on feedback.


Dave and Tim is in Top Tier 1 now.

Chicken Little is bottom of tier 0 now.

Pirates DMC was moved to bottom of Tier 0 now.


----------



## chaddy23

Recommendation - An up arrow for items moved up on the list and a down arrow for items moved down on the list. (Similar to the new items icon. Something that can be removed after say...30 days or whatever).


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chaddy23* /forum/post/12457961
> 
> 
> Recommendation - An up arrow for items moved up on the list and a down arrow for items moved down on the list. (Similar to the new items icon. Something that can be removed after say...30 days or whatever).




The problem we're running into is the forum software limits a single post to 10 images.


That's a great idea, and I'd love to implement it, but if you look through the first post, I think there are a couple of titles that were added on Dec. 5, but do not have the new icon preceding the title, simply because it's over the limit.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/12457997
> 
> 
> The problem we're running into is the forum software limits a single post to 10 images.
> 
> 
> That's a great idea, and I'd love to implement it, but if you look through the first post, I think there are a couple of titles that were added on Dec. 5, but do not have the new icon preceding the title, simply because it's over the limit.



Does that limit apply to images hosted remotely and only linked in the post?


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/12458478
> 
> 
> Does that limit apply to images hosted remotely and only linked in the post?




Yes, I believe so. It even counts smilies as images.










































































I just got this message trying to add an 11th smilie:

"Images include use of smilies, the vB code


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/12458567
> 
> 
> Yes, I believe so. It even counts smilies as images.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just got this message trying to add an 11th smilie:
> 
> "Images include use of smilies, the vB code tag and HTML tags. The use of these is all subject to them being enabled by the administrator."
> [/QUOTE]
> 
> 
> OK, either request special dispensation from the admins or simply use text ([B]up[/B]) or ([B]down[/B]) to designate a recent move.


----------



## edgary




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/12458635
> 
> 
> OK, either request special dispensation from the admins or simply use text (*up*) or (*down*) to designate a recent move.



This is a great idea. I would use (*dn*) instead, to preserve spacing.


----------



## General Kenobi

I watched about 20 minutes or so of Ratatouille last night and I completely agree with all here on this as a 0 tier. Definitely a BD benchmark simply stunning!


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/12458635
> 
> 
> OK, either request special dispensation from the admins or simply use text (*up*) or (*down*) to designate a recent move.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *edgary* /forum/post/12458910
> 
> 
> This is a great idea. I would use (*dn*) instead, to preserve spacing.



Will do. I think that will add a nice touch to the rankings.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *General Kenobi* /forum/post/12458911
> 
> 
> I watched about 20 minutes or so of Ratatouille last night and I completely agree with all here on this as a 0 tier. Definitely a BD benchmark simply stunning!



I got my copy of it last night for my birthday, can't wait to see it.


----------



## JDChapier




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *edgary* /forum/post/12458910
> 
> 
> This is a great idea. I would use (*dn*) instead, to preserve spacing.



How about (+5) or (-2) to indicate the direction and magnitude of the move?


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/12457997
> 
> 
> The problem we're running into is the forum software limits a single post to 10 images.
> 
> 
> That's a great idea [up/down arrows] , and I'd love to implement it, but if you look through the first post, I think there are a couple of titles that were added on Dec. 5, but do not have the new icon preceding the title, simply because it's over the limit.



SuprSlow, you're doing a great job and I really hesitate to bring this up. If I might make a suggestion form the eyes-aren't-as-good-as they-used-to-be set. Because some of the titles are hard to read in some of the categories because of the text color, keep the headings in the colors you now have them in but convert the title entries to black. Have new listings in red for a pre determined time, perhaps 2 weeks and any titles that have changed rankings in blue or green, whichever looks best on screen, adding whatever abbreviation you want for up or down.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/12459335
> 
> 
> SuprSlow, you're doing a great job and I really hesitate to bring this up. If I might make a suggestion form the eyes-aren't-as-good-as they-used-to-be set. Because some of the titles are hard to read in some of the categories because of the text color, keep the headings in the colors you now have them in but convert the title entries to black. Have new listings in red for a pre determined time, perhaps 2 weeks and any titles that have changed rankings in blue or green, whichever looks best on screen, adding whatever abbreviation you want for up or down.



There was a period early on when the different AVS color schemes issue was discussed. With the number of colors required for all of the tier levels, the colors that worked best for both schemes ran out before all tiers were "colored" and this means compromise colors had to be used. The ones settled on and in use now are what was decided by the thread admins (who I suspect are using AVSForum.com Black). Are you using "AVSForum.com Default?"


----------



## rydenfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/12458992
> 
> 
> I got my copy of it last night for my birthday, can't wait to see it.



Happy Birthday!







Thank you for all your time and effort.


----------



## rydenfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/12460314
> 
> 
> There was a period early on when the different AVS color schemes issue was discussed. With the number of colors required for all of the tier levels, the colors that worked best for both schemes ran out before all tiers were "colored" and this means compromise colors had to be used. The ones settled on and in use now are what was decided by the thread admins (who I suspect are using AVSForum.com Black). Are you using "AVSForum.com Default?"



I use AVSForum.BLACK, and the only color that looks fuzzy and I have trouble seeing is the Blu in Tier 0. Every other color shows up very clear. Does anybody else experiance this?


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/12460314
> 
> 
> There was a period early on when the different AVS color schemes issue was discussed. With the number of colors required for all of the tier levels, the colors that worked best for both schemes ran out before all tiers were "colored" and this means compromise colors had to be used. The ones settled on and in use now are what was decided by the thread admins (who I suspect are using AVSForum.com Black). Are you using "AVSForum.com Default?"



Darned if I know. The posts are in black type on a very light blue grey background.


----------



## edgary

You can see that information at the very end of the page, in the lower-left corner, right before the "hosting"/"powered by" information. It's a drop-down list.


Since you probably haven't changed this, you might be seeing AVSForum.com Default


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/12462195
> 
> 
> Darned if I know. The posts are in black type on a very light blue grey background.



Yep, if you don't know and never selected a color scheme, you've got "Default" which is exactly as you described. The lighter colored text is damn near invisible for us.


----------



## SuprSlow

Hmm...I'm running the Default scheme, and to me it's easier on the eyes than Black. I didn't have any involvement in the color scheme, but I think it was agreed that the current colors are the best compromise for the different forum skins. Though I'd have to go back and look to be certain.


----------



## chris0

I don't contribute to this thread, but I read it all the time as I rent/buy BR discs frequently. I just wanted to say to AustinSTI and SuprSlow that you guys go above and beyond in maintaining this thread and I very much appreciate the work you put into it. Thank you, you guys are awesome.


p.s. please don't ever make this thread into one where everyone votes on the titles. It's great as is.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/12462666
> 
> 
> Hmm...I'm running the Default scheme, and to me it's easier on the eyes than Black. I didn't have any involvement in the color scheme, but I think it was agreed that the current colors are the best compromise for the different forum skins. Though I'd have to go back and look to be certain.










It was agreed _by those running Black_ that the current colors are the best compromise for the different forum skins.


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/12463461
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was agreed _by those running Black_ that the current colors are the best compromise for the different forum skins.




lol










Is Silver the color causing the trouble? That's the hardest to see for me personally.


----------



## rydenfan

When you run black, the blue is the only one that is difficult to see.


I think in default, the silver is the tough one.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/12463501
> 
> 
> lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is Silver the color causing the trouble?



Yes, it nearly matches the background color on Default. When I look at those titles, I highlight the list like I am going to "copy" it.


----------



## Iggster




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tjgar* /forum/post/12456831
> 
> 
> I totally agree!
> 
> 
> Tony
> 
> 
> JVC DH1 138" BW 235/1 at 13 ft



x3


optoma hd 80 96" ps3 1080p 24 fps at 12 feet


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*2001: A Space Odyssey*


Ok, I had a chance to watch this great movie tonight.


My first thoughts: what in the world were people smoking who said that this belonged in Tier 0?










I am just glad that this is a dual format release, otherwise I may have been concerned about "fanboyism" taking place, but that obviously isn't the case here.


Anyway, I was a bit disappointed overall. Once again, too much softness from a Warner title. The contrast is not bad, but it isn't as good as on more recent releases, that's for sure. Some scenes did look great, but overall, it was not much better than average (though like others have said, for a movie its age, it looks pretty good). Didn't look noticeably better than the HD-Net Movies version (except it had fewer artifacts).


Let's just say in comparing it to other movies I have seen in 70mm, it doesn't come close to the detail and resolution that format is capable of resolving.


I am going to have to go against the grain here, as I can't even recommend this title for Tier 1. There are several titles in Tier 2 that are better than this imo. I recommend putting this in the top 6-8 in Tier 2.


Let the flames begin!










JVC RS-1 1080p24, 123" screen at 13.5 feet.


----------



## desmond212

Rob,


I agree with your views with reagrds 2001 however I would place at the bottom of Tier 1.


----------



## tjgar

Rob,


I agree also. Great movie, Soft PQ.


Tony


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *edgary* /forum/post/12462568
> 
> 
> You can see that information at the very end of the page, in the lower-left corner, right before the "hosting"/"powered by" information. It's a drop-down list.
> 
> 
> Since you probably haven't changed this, you might be seeing AVSForum.com Default



Thanks for the information. I changed it to black and all the colors except blue do look better.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *desmond212* /forum/post/12466512
> 
> 
> Rob,
> 
> 
> I agree with your views with reagrds 2001 however I would place at the bottom of Tier 1.



Actually, I was originally thinking I was going to vote for bottom of Tier 1, but then I realized that there are too many titles in Tier 2 that look *better* than 2001, so I couldn't justify it as a Tier 1 title.


A few titles in Tier 2 that I think look better or as good as 2001 include Ice Age, Tears of the Sun, Legends of Jazz, Aeon Flux, Sahara, and Letters from Iwo Jima.


----------



## Wryker

I'm glad I found this thread since I, finally, own some BDs and have rented several. My impression is that the Pirates series (1,2,3) should not be Tier 0 (the two that are listed). I've viewed both side by side: one BD the other DVD: one on a 72" 1080p, the other on a 62" @1080i upscaled: I could see a difference between them but it wasn't 'that' big. The difference came in the detail in the backgrounds during the movies. Other than that it wasn't that big of a difference (sound not-withstanding). I know this thread isn't about DVD vs BD but in seeing the quality I don't find the Pirates series 'that' great of a PQ on BD. Maybe a Tier 1, but not Tier 0. I see in one thread SM3 was 'demoted' however it's still showing up in 0 (if I remember right). Having viewed this one I wasn't impressed at all w/the PQ - not 'that' smooth and would not have it in Tier 0. I am watching the BD's 1080p/@24.


----------



## Wryker

Oops - ok SM3 is Tier 1.


----------



## edgary




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/12468395
> 
> 
> Thanks for the information. I changed it to black and all the colors except blue do look better.



No problem.


I am glad the white theme is the default (I used that before the upgrade to the site, when black was the default) and I really like it, but, true, the silver titles are a bit hard to read.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rydenfan* /forum/post/12464089
> 
> 
> When you run black, the blue is the only one that is difficult to see.
> 
> 
> I think in default, the silver is the tough one.



Correct, although I think this color scheme is the best compromise between the two layouts.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12466416
> 
> 
> *The contrast is not bad, but it isn't as good as on more recent releases, that's for sure.
> *


*


Did you find the black levels sometimes lacking, especially in the starfield/space scenes?


Brandon*


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *edgary* /forum/post/12469672
> 
> 
> No problem.
> 
> 
> I am glad the white theme is the default (I used that before the upgrade to the site, when black was the default) and I really like it, but, true, the silver titles are a bit hard to read.



The previous black scheme was ugly, IMO. The new black scheme is much more attractive, but dark blue and indigo are difficult to read. Neither are perfect, so it comes down to personal preference.


----------



## edgary




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/12469716
> 
> 
> The previous black scheme was ugly, IMO. The new black scheme is much more attractive, but dark blue and indigo are difficult to read. Neither are perfect, so it comes down to personal preference.



You're right. The one that was default was the now called Retro, and I, also, didn't like it and switched to White (now Default).


Agreed, it comes down to personal preference.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *edgary* /forum/post/12469738
> 
> 
> You're right. The one that was default was the now called Retro, and I, also, didn't like it and switched to White (now Default).
> 
> 
> Agreed, it comes down to personal preference.



Well, I've gone over to the dark side and selected AVSForum.com Black as my scheme . .


----------



## SuprSlow




----------



## bastion

Any input on the new Harry Potter OOTP?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/12469698
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you find the black levels sometimes lacking, especially in the starfield/space scenes?
> 
> 
> Brandon



Yes.


But not horribly so by any means. Just not up to the standards of the best titles.


----------



## edgary




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/12470012
> 
> 
> Well, I've gone over to the dark side and selected AVSForum.com Black as my scheme . .



Come back before it's too late, you must.


----------



## Wryker

what happened to the BD reviews here folks?!


----------



## Lil' Louie

Harry Potter: Order of the Pheonix Tier 1 (anywhere between Live Free or Die Hard and The Patriot). The movie was dark, but very detailed, clean and crisp. Great transfer from WB IMO. Viewed on:


Sony KDS-55A3000 - PS3 via HDMI in 1080/24p @ 7ft










I totally geeked out at the end battle. Something I've wanted to see from this series.


----------



## General Kenobi

Just an update for anyone interested in the import version of The Island. I got my copy yesterday and can confirm that audio is only DD 5.1







I have not had a chance to watch it yet but should tonight and will report back on PQ. I may try and take some pictures but my camera generates a lot of noise in low light so no promises on screen shots.


----------



## Wryker




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lil' Louie* /forum/post/12472132
> 
> 
> Harry Potter: Order of the Pheonix Tier 1 (anywhere between Live Free or Die Hard and The Patriot). The movie was dark, but very detailed, clean and crisp. Great transfer from WB IMO. Viewed on:
> 
> 
> Sony KDS-55A3000 - PS3 via HDMI in 1080/24p @ 7ft
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I totally geeked out at the end battle. Something I've wanted to see from this series.



Just peeped your website. I'm a SW nut (only the original trilogy though and before Lucas 'damaged' them). Viewing your new pics - your TV looks different in addition to your receiver etc (specifically referring to the pic w/the TV showing the screenshot w/Anakin)


----------



## Lil' Louie

PM sent.


----------



## ubik




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chris0* /forum/post/12462830
> 
> 
> I don't contribute to this thread, but I read it all the time as I rent/buy BR discs frequently. I just wanted to say to AustinSTI and SuprSlow that you guys go above and beyond in maintaining this thread and I very much appreciate the work you put into it. Thank you, you guys are awesome.



I whole-heartedly agree - thanks for the great thread. I don't feel fully qualified to participate at the moment because I am not a particularly discerning viewer and my equipment is relatively low end (Westinghouse 47" 1080p LCD). Actually, there may be some advantages to this, since the poor contrast and black levels of the panel actually do a nice job of hiding artifacts at my typical viewing distance of about 8 feet.


For example, I was extremely impressed by Curse of the Golden Flower with its fine details and wonderful colors and did not notice any of the black area problems mentioned in the Hi-Def Digest review - this has been my favorite PQ disc thus far. The lowest ranked title from the tier list I've seen is First Blood (which is towards the bottom of Tier 3 Bronze), but I thought it still looked fantastic - maybe it was just a shock compared to TNT/TBS memories of the movie, since I never owned or rented the DVD.


At any rate, I'll have to check out some titles from the Copper and Coal tiers that I was initially reluctant to try due to these rankings and other reviews, but thus far everything at Bronze and above has been A-OK in my book. Some of the lobbying for overly exact positioning of particular titles makes me smile, but I appreciate everyone's attention to detail.


----------



## AustinSTI

Rob: I haven't seen '01 but I will say your reviews have been detailed and thus I'm going to move '01 down. I think your screen size lends itself to artifact sighting and grading moreso than a 42" screen would or even my 50". Its tough to compare a screen double the size










Edit: On second thought its in Tier 1 now; are you ok with that or do you still believe it should drop to Tier 2?


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wryker* /forum/post/12472394
> 
> 
> Just peeped your website. I'm a SW nut (only the original trilogy though and before Lucas 'damaged' them). Viewing your new pics - your TV looks different in addition to your receiver etc (specifically referring to the pic w/the TV showing the screenshot w/Anakin)



Damn dude definately LOVES SW...Props!!


----------



## 1FAST951




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/12479208
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: On second thought its in Tier 1 now; are you ok with that or do you still believe it should drop to Tier 2?



Well this is my first attempt at this and I'll freely admit that I'm a newbie to the BD/HD digital world and I haven't fully developed my "eye" or "lingo" skills so far be it for me to argue with more experienced members but here are my thoughts on this movie (2001);


First I'm not a fan of the movie per se, so no ulterior motives there, I got it because when I purchased my PS3 I wanted some reference material to see how good the "BD/HD digital world" really is and it was listed in the "0" tier.


Secondly, I don't think that the fact that "it's amazing for the era it was filmed" should afford it any special treatment, it either meets the requirements to be in a certain tier or it doesn't.


Saying all that I agree it is placed properly right now (about mid tier 1). My biggest dislike about it was the entire beginning with the monkeys....I thought that entire sequence looked very grainy and soft, to the point I found it irritating. However after that I though the PQ for the rest of the film was amazing, vibrant colors (the space suits almost looked like they were covered with wet paint), great POP, very good blacks, good definition......it certainly made me say "WOW!".


While my gear isn't exactly high end, I don't think it stinks either so.....middle of the road, average user here?


80gig PS3-->HMDI-->1080p Vizio VU42L (with a reasonable calibration for now) @ 8 feet.


----------



## General Kenobi

Ok, I didn't have time to watch from start to finish but I did check out The Island last night and skipped around a bit. I'll give a more rounded impression once I've watched it all the way through but as of right now here are my thoughts:


In a few words - somewhere between Silver and Gold. The opening scene looks top gold quality... vibrant colors, sharp image, no grain, etc. but as the beginning progresses there is noticeable grain in a lot of the whites in the cloning facility. Background grain is also somewhat apparent in escape scenes but once they get outside the vibrant colors and sharp images return. Up close facial shots look super clear throughout and there are definitely some scenes that belong in both top Silver and upper gold.


I will watch it all the way through to give a better opinion of the move PQ from start to finish this weekend. I also popped this in after watching the Rat so it had a tough act to follow! Sorry no pics, my camera sucks









_Pany BD10A > 52" XBR3 @ 7-8'_


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/12479208
> 
> 
> Rob: I haven't seen '01 but I will say your reviews have been detailed and thus I'm going to move '01 down. I think your screen size lends itself to artifact sighting and grading moreso than a 42" screen would or even my 50". Its tough to compare a screen double the size
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: On second thought its in Tier 1 now; are you ok with that or do you still believe it should drop to Tier 2?



My personal opinion is to put it in the top 5 or so of Tier 2. However, if there have been a lot of other votes for a high Tier 1, I wouldn't have a problem with it being in Tier 1.....if it were placed near the bottom. In other words, I still really think it needs to be moved even further down than it is currently.


Like I said in my prior post, I am willing to keep an open mind and discuss it's placement with others. I own the disc, so I can always pop it back in.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *1FAST951* /forum/post/12479778
> 
> 
> Well this is my first attempt at this and I'll freely admit that I'm a newbie to the BD/HD digital world and I haven't fully developed my "eye" or "lingo" skills so far be it for me to argue with more experienced members but here are my thoughts on this movie (2001);
> 
> 
> First I'm not a fan of the movie per se, so no ulterior motives there, I got it because when I purchased my PS3 I wanted some reference material to see how good the "BD/HD digital world" really is and it was listed in the "0" tier.
> 
> 
> Secondly, I don't think that the fact that "it's amazing for the era it was filmed" should afford it any special treatment, it either meets the requirements to be in a certain tier or it doesn't.
> 
> 
> Saying all that I agree it is placed properly right now (about mid tier 1). My biggest dislike about it was the entire beginning with the monkeys....I thought that entire sequence looked very grainy and soft, to the point I found it irritating. However after that I though the PQ for the rest of the film was amazing, vibrant colors (the space suits almost looked like they were covered with wet paint), great POP, very good blacks, good definition......it certainly made me say "WOW!".
> 
> 
> While my gear isn't exactly high end, I don't think it stinks either so.....middle of the road, average user here?
> 
> 
> 80gig PS3-->HMDI-->1080p Vizio VU42L (with a reasonable calibration for now) @ 8 feet.



You did a *great* job here with your review!


I completely agree with you on several points, particularly the opening sequence with the monkeys. Pretty bad PQ.


I also agree with you about the fact that "it's amazing for the era it was filmed should afford it any special treatment, it either meets the requirements to be in a certain tier or it doesn't". Just like we do not consider "directors intent" here, or whether the transfer is "transparent to the master".


----------



## 1FAST951

Hey Rob, thanks for the encouraging words, it’s good to know I’m somewhat in the right track. I think right now one of my biggest problems is that I’m coming from a CRT and SD background and pretty much all the stuff I have rented and own (own about 12 titles) in the BD format have been tier two or higher, so it all looks pretty darn impressive.


Also I find myself either being able to enjoy the movie or look for PQ/sound issues…..can’t really do both at the same time unless something just pops out that is just nasty (like the aforementioned scene in 2001), talk about poor multitasking skills!










The next couple of months are going to be pretty hectic for me and I won’t have a lot of time to watch movies but my plan is to watch the movies twice, once just for the pure enjoyment of the film and the second time taking notes as I watch out PQ issues.


Another though….and I know I’m probably the only one really going against the grain with this but is it really fair to judge animated films (and I do enjoy them a lot) against/alongside conventional films? I know very little about filming/transferring processes but it seems to me that it would be much easier to make an animated film look perfect than a conventional film, sort of like apples and oranges. Case in point, currently we only have the two POC titles in tier “0” and some folks don’t even agree that they should be placed that high. So I guess what we are saying is that it is unlikely that conventional films will meet the requirements to be placed in tier “0”? In other words tier “1” conventional = tier “0” animated? Or yet another way of saying it would be; “tier “1” is as good as your going to get for a conventional film pal, so live with it”










Sorry not trying to make more work for the folks that are maintaining the list, I know they are going well above the call of duty with what they are doing, just looking to expand my knowledge with the above comment so if anyone cares to explain why I’m “looking at things” (pun intended) in the wrong way please post up…in a constructive manner please


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *1FAST951* /forum/post/12485710
> 
> 
> Hey Rob, thanks for the encouraging words, it's good to know I'm somewhat in the right track. I think right now one of my biggest problems is that I'm coming from a CRT and SD background and pretty much all the stuff I have rented and own (own about 12 titles) in the BD format have been tier two or higher, so it all looks pretty darn impressive.



The more HD that you watch, the easier it will be to determine which tier a title belongs in. I agree, though, that the majority of releases look pretty good.


You may want to intentionally watch a few low tier 3 titles and compare those to high tier 1 titles to get a good base line for your other comparisons.



> Quote:
> Also I find myself either being able to enjoy the movie or look for PQ/sound issues..can't really do both at the same time unless something just pops out that is just nasty (like the aforementioned scene in 2001), talk about poor multitasking skills!



Yes, too much truth here. It is a challenge. But, if you are watching a great movie that also has great PQ, it is a bit easier to judge both without being too distracted.







For example, I thoroughly enjoyed Mr. Brooks, but at the same time, I was blown away by the PQ. The PQ on that title was so consistently good, that I didn't feel like I needed to watch every frame solely for PQ issues.


But lesser quality movies, with lesser quality PQ is a much tougher challenge.



> Quote:
> The next couple of months are going to be pretty hectic for me and I won't have a lot of time to watch movies but my plan is to watch the movies twice, once just for the pure enjoyment of the film and the second time taking notes as I watch out PQ issues.



No way would I have the time to do that. There are too many movies out there that I want to see. I have almost 100 movies in my Netflix Queue. Ill never get to them if I watch each movie twice!


What I might do on occassion is scan the movie again after watching it all the way through, and concentrate solely on the PQ.



> Quote:
> Another though.and I know I'm probably the only one really going against the grain with this but is it really fair to judge animated films (and I do enjoy them a lot) against/alongside conventional films? I know very little about filming/transferring processes but it seems to me that it would be much easier to make an animated film look perfect than a conventional film, sort of like apples and oranges. Case in point, currently we only have the two POC titles in tier 0 and some folks don't even agree that they should be placed that high. So I guess what we are saying is that it is unlikely that conventional films will meet the requirements to be placed in tier 0? In other words tier 1 conventional = tier 0 animated? Or yet another way of saying it would be; tier 1 is as good as your going to get for a conventional film pal, so live with it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry not trying to make more work for the folks that are maintaining the list, I know they are going well above the call of duty with what they are doing, just looking to expand my knowledge with the above comment so if anyone cares to explain why I'm looking at things (pun intended) in the wrong way please post upin a constructive manner please




You are definitely not the only one who feels this way. This has been discussed numerous times before (in the "original" tier thread more than here). A decision was made to simply have the animated titles in with the live action titles. But the issues you raise in this regard are certainly valid. A title like Ratatouille will always "look better" than any live action film based movie. I placed the phrase look better in quotes, because it really depends on how you define those terms, and it is a personal preference (subjective).


----------



## General Kenobi

Ok, here are a few shots of The Island. Pleas blame any noise or blur on my crumby camera and take my word tha these were ver clear, CD pop and had vibratn colors with nise sharpness. I still think the move shoud belong somewhere between Silever and Gold bit hopefully some of the vets wooo weigh on on this one with their thoghts.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *1FAST951* /forum/post/12479778
> 
> 
> Secondly, I don't think that the fact that "it's amazing for the era it was filmed" should afford it any special treatment, it either meets the requirements to be in a certain tier or it doesn't.



Agreed.



> Quote:
> My biggest dislike about it was the entire beginning with the monkeys....I thought that entire sequence looked very grainy and soft, to the point I found it irritating. However after that I though the PQ for the rest of the film was amazing,.



Same here, for the most part. I remembered thinking the opening scene left something to be desired for a Tier 0 title, but after that there were some definite high Tier 1 scenes mixed in with some mid-to-low Tier 1 scenes.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12486702
> 
> 
> No way would I have the time to do that. There are too many movies out there that I want to see. I have almost 100 movies in my Netflix Queue. Ill never get to them if I watch each movie twice!



Same here, I have 120 movies in my Netflix queue! I'm relatively new to home theatre and have tons of movies I've never seen before that are constantly discussed on these boards.


Brandon


----------



## Gardo

A vote here for "The Searchers" as Silver at least. Wonderful Technicolor image, impressive transfer with rich colors, lots of detail, and a very filmlike image with good pop. I saw the restored version of this film in a theatre in the mid-90's, and this BD looks very close to that theatrical exhibition. Highly recommended.


----------



## Chris Blount




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sunstar715* /forum/post/12364875
> 
> 
> I would rank santa clause 3 as high tier 1, is looks beautiful
> 
> 
> ps3
> 
> 26" lcd hdtv about 3-4 feet away



Agree. Watched it last night. WOW! Looks fantastic.


----------



## SuprSlow

Added this weeks releases to Unranked:

*Girls Gone Wild: Sexiest Moments Ever 2* Video: 1080i? | Audio: DD/DTS | AR: 1.33:1 | Mantra
*Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets* Video: VC-1 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner
*Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire* Video: VC-1 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner
*Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban* Video: VC-1 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner
*Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix* Video: VC-1 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner
*Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone* Video: VC-1 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner
*High School Musical 2* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.78:1 | Disney
*Lost - The Complete Third Season* Video: ? | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.78:1 | Disney
*Masters of Horror: Season 1, Vol. 4* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.77:1 | Starz
*SOS! Tokyo Metro Explorers: The Next* Video: ? | Audio: ? | AR: ?:1 | ?


Sorry for the late update, I'll try to get the titles updates per your suggestions this afternoon or tomorrow.


Brandon


----------



## SuprSlow

Alright, titles tiered:
Superbad
Eyes Wide Shut
Galapagos
Hairspray
Robocop
Harry Potter: Order of the Phoenix
Wyatt Earp


2001 was moved down to the top of Tier 2.


If I missed any, let me know


----------



## General Kenobi




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/12492269
> 
> 
> Added this weeks releases to Unranked:
> 
> *Girls Gone Wild: Sexiest Moments Ever 2* Video: 1080i? | Audio: DD/DTS | AR: 1.33:1 | Mantra
> *Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets* Video: VC-1 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner
> *Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire* Video: VC-1 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner
> *Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban* Video: VC-1 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner
> *Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix* Video: VC-1 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner
> *Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone* Video: VC-1 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner
> *High School Musical 2* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.78:1 | Disney
> *Lost - The Complete Third Season* Video: ? | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.78:1 | Disney
> *Masters of Horror: Season 1, Vol. 4* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.77:1 | Starz
> *SOS! Tokyo Metro Explorers: The Next* Video: ? | Audio: ? | AR: ?:1 | ?
> 
> 
> Sorry for the late update, I'll try to get the titles updates per your suggestions this afternoon or tomorrow.
> 
> 
> Brandon



No worries, you're doing a great job on the thread and we all appreciate it!


Some of the grain on The Island I believe is in film style used by Bay according to some things I've read so it may be more worthy of lower gold than upper silver but a couple others should weigh in.


If anyone is in the East Bay (CA) and wants to borrow my copy for review shoot me a PM.


----------



## AfRoMaN787

Just a heads up to the mods of the thread, gridiron gang is still on the list of unranked titles even though its already under tier 2


----------



## Wryker

Ok everyone - I appreciate the attempts to rank them within each Tier however my preference (and others may agree) is that as the lists grow and grow it'll become increasingly more difficult to see what movies rank where (short of doing a ctrl+f). What I'm saying is, put them in the tiers and just keep them alphabetical. That way, noobies or any 'casual' surfer who finds this thread can easily see what titles are where. I know I know, another opinion.....


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wryker* /forum/post/12496784
> 
> 
> Ok everyone - I appreciate the attempts to rank them within each Tier however my preference (and others may agree) is that as the lists grow and grow it'll become increasingly more difficult to see what movies rank where (short of doing a ctrl+f). What I'm saying is, put them in the tiers and just keep them alphabetical. That way, noobies or any 'casual' surfer who finds this thread can easily see what titles are where. I know I know, another opinion.....



That's certainly a valid point. However, there are gradations within each tier and, short of having three or four times the number of tiers, positioning within each tier is the only way to convey that. I have struggled with the growing length myself, but I see no practical way to make the scheme easier to navigate and still have it be as informative.


Casual surfers need to slow down and smell the celluloid.


----------



## Wryker

Hmm - what about levels within the tiers? Tier 0 Levels 1-5?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wryker* /forum/post/12497511
> 
> 
> Hmm - what about levels within the tiers? Tier 0 Levels 1-5?



That isn't logical.


You might as well just have Tiers 0 through 25, its the same thing.


----------



## Wryker

I'm never illogical - too much vulcan in me.


----------



## desmond212




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gardo* /forum/post/12487293
> 
> 
> A vote here for "The Searchers" as Silver at least. Wonderful Technicolor image, impressive transfer with rich colors, lots of detail, and a very filmlike image with good pop. I saw the restored version of this film in a theatre in the mid-90's, and this BD looks very close to that theatrical exhibition. Highly recommended.



agreed. also rio bravo and wild bunch should be mid tier 3.


----------



## desmond212

Harry Potter 1


below average. stunning result considering films age and popularity.


----------



## patrick99

Hairspray is way too high in my opinion. Whether the softness is from the original or not, the softness is clearly there and as a result is a problem that prevents the current placement from being the right one.


----------



## patrick99

Order of the Phoenix is also quite a bit too high. While it certainly looks better than most Warner titles, it also is clearly inferior to the best recent releases from Fox, Disney and Sony. The softness is not as extreme as is normally the case with Warner, but this disc just does not measure up to those around it and especially below it in the current placement.


----------



## Jenova




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12498691
> 
> 
> Order of the Phoenix is also quite a bit too high. While it certainly looks better than most Warner titles, it also is clearly inferior to the best recent releases from Fox, Disney and Sony. The softness is not as extreme as is normally the case with Warner, but this disc just does not measure up to those around it and especially below it in the current placement.



I completely agree.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wryker* /forum/post/12498124
> 
> 
> I'm never illogical - too much vulcan in me.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wryker* /forum/post/12496784
> 
> 
> Ok everyone - I appreciate the attempts to rank them within each Tier however my preference (and others may agree) is that as the lists grow and grow it'll become increasingly more difficult to see what movies rank where (short of doing a ctrl+f). What I'm saying is, put them in the tiers and just keep them alphabetical. That way, noobies or any 'casual' surfer who finds this thread can easily see what titles are where. I know I know, another opinion.....



ctrl+f is their friend










Brandon


----------



## Wryker




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/12501413
> 
> 
> ctrl+f is their friend
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brandon



I concur - I was looking out for the la-z peeps out there (which I tend to be on this thread since I bounce from "last" to "first" thread and then to "find" takes more time


----------



## defton420

Hollow man should definately make tier 1.


----------



## maverick0716

Just watched Cast Away tonight. I disagree with Highdefdigest's review of this disc....it is not as good as they say. While it does have some nice looking scenes (particularly after the 4 year mark on the island), most of the movie is quite soft. Based on the overall performance of this disc I'd rate it somewhere around Layer Cake in Tier 2.


42" Panasonic Plasma (768p)

6-7 ft. viewing distance

PS3 though HDMI


----------



## lgans316

CAST AWAY

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movies.php?id=320 (4/5)
http://www.hddb.net/out.php?review=6828 (5/5)
http://www.hddb.net/out.php?review=6872 (4.5/5)
http://www.hddb.net/out.php?review=6875 (5/5)
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...ay_blu-ray.htm (Spiderman-3 Quality)


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Finally watched POTC DMC.


Well, it is definitely pretty damn good! There really isn't anything to complain of here. No artifacts at all. Sharp, clear and detailed image. Contrast was very good, but at times I thought it could have been a tad better.


The only question is whether this belongs in "Blu" (Tier 0). Well, there really aren't many titles that I can think of (film based) that look better (although I personally thought Mr. Brooks looks better) I think it is reasonable to stay there (at least for now).


----------



## Rob Tomlin

By the way, I think *Legends of Jazz* belongs in Tier 1 (near the bottom 10%). Very nice PQ (HD Video based).


----------



## bplewis24

Any other thoughts on Cast Away? I was considering picking this one up.


Brandon


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/12505537
> 
> 
> Any other thoughts on Cast Away? I was considering picking this one up.
> 
> 
> Brandon



It depends whether you want the absolutely best picture quality or a quality movie with very strong acting. IMO, the island portion of the movie was shot under extremely difficult tropical lighting so I could probably go along with maverick's tier 2 suggestion, although perhaps it could be a little higher. The story and Tom Hank's acting makes this a worthwhile addition to one's collection. And the sound during the airplane crash is stunning.


Panasonic 10a and 50" Panasonic 600U 1080i, viewed from 8'.


----------



## ubik

Any opinions on The Fly? Reviews of this seem to be pretty scarce, but I was considering it now that it's on the latest Amazon BOGO.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12505484
> 
> 
> Finally watched POTC DMC.
> 
> 
> Well, it is definitely pretty damn good! There really isn't anything to complain of here. No artifacts at all. Sharp, clear and detailed image. Contrast was very good, but at times I thought it could have been a tad better.
> 
> 
> The only question is whether this belongs in "Blu" (Tier 0). Well, there really aren't many titles that I can think of (film based) that look better (although I personally thought Mr. Brooks looks better) I think it is reasonable to stay there (at least for now).



I definitely agree that Mr. Brooks looks better than POTC2.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12506018
> 
> 
> I definitely agree that Mr. Brooks looks better than POTC2.



Well, in that case, we have two votes for Mr. Brooks in Tier 0!










(don't let me put words in your mouth Patrick).


Do you think POTC 2 belongs in Tier 0 Patrick?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12506057
> 
> 
> Well, in that case, we have two votes for Mr. Brooks in Tier 0!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (don't let me put words in your mouth Patrick).
> 
> 
> Do you think POTC 2 belongs in Tier 0 Patrick?



Rob, I think that Mr. Brooks belongs in Tier 0 and POTC2 does not. However, I think *POTC3* does belong in Tier 0.


----------



## patrick99

Btw, I thought Dave Matthews was going to be moved down?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12506464
> 
> 
> Rob, I think that Mr. Brooks belongs in Tier 0 and POTC2 does not. However, I think *POTC3* does belong in Tier 0.



Good, two votes for Mr. Brooks in Tier 0 then!










Interesting that you think POTC3 is Tier 0 but not POTC2. I haven't seen POTC3 yet.


Are there any other titles that you think belong in Tier 0 (non-animated) that aren't?


----------



## Lil' Louie

I'll be watching Mr. Brooks tonight and will give my input. As of now, DMC and AWE are well placed.


----------



## KlDesigns




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajamils* /forum/post/12449888
> 
> 
> any verdict on Rescue Dawn ?



The Movie was good but the Video and Audio were average at best. Some parts looked too soft at times while too contrasty at others.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *KlDesigns* /forum/post/12507115
> 
> 
> The Movie was good but the Video and Audio were average at best. Some parts looked too soft at times while too contrasty at others.



I thought Rescue Dawn looked fantastic for most of the movie.


----------



## 30XS955 User

Superbad- 3/5. It's not that it didn't look great because it did, but a lot of movies look legions better.


----------



## Lil' Louie

Mr. Brooks will have to wait until tomorrow night. Watched Harry Potter: Goblet of Fire - Low Tier 1. Great PQ and AQ. Again, a very dark movie like OOTP, but clean, crisp, and detailed. Not as crisp as OOTP, but definitely recommended.


Viewed on Sony KDS-55A3000 - PS3 via HDMI 1080/24p @ 7ft:


----------



## maverick0716

There's actually a thread for screenshots. They should be posted in there.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12506496
> 
> 
> Good, two votes for Mr. Brooks in Tier 0 then!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that you think POTC3 is Tier 0 but not POTC2. I haven't seen POTC3 yet.
> 
> 
> Are there any other titles that you think belong in Tier 0 (non-animated) that aren't?



I think POTC3 looks much better than POTC2. I'll be interested in your reaction once you've watched POTC3. I have several times posted questions as to whether Disney used a different compression company for POTC3 than for POTC1 and POTC2 but have not received any answer to that question.


I am not sure whether I would place these in Tier 0, but these recent Fox releases all look very good to me: Prison Break, Silver Surfer, DH4.


Mr. Brooks has the edge over these in being much more consistently spectacular.


----------



## lgans316

patrick99 -> I have been closely following up your posts since the past 2-3 weeks and it looks like most of your opinions are contradicting many members and the reviewers. I agree with you on POTC2 + BATMAN BEGINS not being reference quality as the PQ is inconsistent. I think your expectations out of HDM is exponential.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/12511231
> 
> 
> patrick99 -> I have been closely following up your posts since the past 2-3 weeks and it looks like most of your opinions are contradicting many members and the reviewers. I agree with you on POTC2 not being reference quality as the PQ is inconsistent. I think your expectations out of HDM is exponential.



If you would care to discuss any specific opinion I have expressed that you disagree with, I would be happy to do so. I recall when Batman Begins was first released and I was one of a relatively small number that complained that it was soft. I think now that view is more widely shared.


----------



## ajamils




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12506464
> 
> 
> Rob, I think that Mr. Brooks belongs in Tier 0 and POTC2 does not. However, I think *POTC3* does belong in Tier 0.



+1


-----------------------

40" 1080p LCD

Viewed from 4-5 feets


----------



## rydenfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12506057
> 
> 
> Well, in that case, we have two votes for Mr. Brooks in Tier 0!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (don't let me put words in your mouth Patrick).
> 
> 
> Do you think POTC 2 belongs in Tier 0 Patrick?



I also believe Mr Brooks belongs in Tier 0. The PQ has outstanding detail and pop with no artifact. I know it does not matter, but the Audio is incredible on this film! Now it just neeeds a better ending...


----------



## Jenova

wow, I guess I need to check out Mr. Brooks. I have been holding off because I can't stand Dane Cook


----------



## Wryker




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jenova* /forum/post/12513114
> 
> 
> wow, I guess I need to check out Mr. Brooks. I have been holding off because I can't stand Dane Cook



My lady watched in (SDDVD) and said the story was not very good...


----------



## edgary

I went through 2+ hours of horrible torture (actually, I couldn't even stand it that long) with the Phantom of the Opera movie. I'll put my displeasure of the movie aside for a minute so I can give an objective point of view.


The start of the movie has a lot of grain in it, in the black and white scenes that tell the future of the main story. This could be intended, as I found as soon as the first color scenes, that go back to the past, sharply show. The drastic change is impressive, and the very first color scene is wonderful. However, the frenzy on the theater starts and a lot of ghosting is present... throughout the whole movie (or what I saw of it)!


I think it belongs lower that where it is. Top to middle of Tier 3 seems adequate.


The movie itself was exhausting.


PS3 -> HDMI -> 1080p 42" Philips LCD -> 7-8 ft.


----------



## robertc88

I'll be watching the Potter OOTP many many times. Amongst the best I have.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wryker* /forum/post/12513254
> 
> 
> My lady watched in (SDDVD) and said the story was not very good...



Saying a movie is good or bad is very subjective. One person may think it's great, while another will think it's crap. I personally think Mr. Brooks was one of the best movies of the year.......right up my alley.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *edgary* /forum/post/12513787
> 
> 
> I went through 2+ hours of horrible torture (actually, I couldn't even stand it that long) with the Phantom of the Opera movie. I'll put my displeasure of the movie aside for a minute so I can give an objective point of view.
> 
> 
> The start of the movie has a lot of grain in it, in the black and white scenes that tell the future of the main story. This could be intended, as I found as soon as the first color scenes, that go back to the past, sharply show. The drastic change is impressive, and the very first color scene is wonderful. *However, the frenzy on the theater starts and a lot of ghosting is present... throughout the whole movie (or what I saw of it)!*
> 
> I think it belongs lower that where it is. Top to middle of Tier 3 seems adequate.
> 
> 
> The movie itself was exhausting.
> 
> 
> PS3 -> HDMI -> 1080p 42" Philips LCD -> 7-8 ft.



Wouldn't ghosting be your display? I've never heard of ghosting problems from a film transfer.


----------



## Wryker




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/12515899
> 
> 
> Saying a movie is good or bad is very subjective. One person may think it's great, while another will think it's crap. I personally think Mr. Brooks was one of the best movies of the year.......right up my alley.



True dat - true dat - I'll still watch it though myself.


----------



## Wryker




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/12510697
> 
> 
> There's actually a thread for screenshots. They should be posted in there.



There is? Where's that thread?


----------



## edgary




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/12515916
> 
> 
> Wouldn't ghosting be your display? I've never heard of ghosting problems from a film transfer.



I'm no expert, but I think ghosting is some kind of artifact that can be "developed" during a transfer. I am pretty sure it's not the TV, as I was watching the movie 300 a bit before that, and I watch a lot of basketball, and I don't see any problems. Also, I have seen it in some movies (Stir of Echoes being one of them) but not in others.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *edgary* /forum/post/12516094
> 
> 
> I'm no expert, but I think ghosting is some kind of artifact that can be "developed" during a transfer. I am pretty sure it's not the TV, as I was watching the movie 300 a bit before that, and I watch a lot of basketball, and I don't see any problems. Also, I have seen it in some movies (Stir of Echoes being one of them) but not in others.



Could over-the-top edge enhancement be construed as ghosting?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/12515899
> 
> 
> Saying a movie is good or bad is very subjective. One person may think it's great, while another will think it's crap. I personally think Mr. Brooks was one of the best movies of the year.......right up my alley.



I completely agree.


I enjoyed Mr. Brooks so much after watching it via Netflix, that I knew I had to own it. And now I do. Very good movie, with superb picture quality.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12511252
> 
> 
> If you would care to discuss any specific opinion I have expressed that you disagree with, I would be happy to do so. I recall when Batman Begins was first released and I was one of a relatively small number that complained that it was soft. I think now that view is more widely shared.



I have to back up Patrick here. His statement is accurate regarding Batman Begins. He states his opinion without being influenced by what others say or think. Yet, he is also willing to keep an open mind and discuss issues openly.


----------



## lgans316

I too agree with Rob and Patrick that Batman Begins is extremely soft and didn't look any better than the 24 Mbps MPEG-2 broadcast copy.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jenova* /forum/post/12513114
> 
> 
> wow, I guess I need to check out Mr. Brooks. I have been holding off because I can't stand Dane Cook



I'd like to see it too, but netflix isn't helping out at all. It's been at the top of my queue for weeks now.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wryker* /forum/post/12516042
> 
> 
> There is? Where's that thread?


 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=778604 


Brandon


----------



## bfdtv

I haven't seen Mr. Brooks on Blu-ray. How does it compare its PQ to Apocalypto?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12518710
> 
> 
> I have to back up Patrick here. His statement is accurate regarding Batman Begins. He states his opinion without being influenced by what others say or think. Yet, he is also willing to keep an open mind and discuss issues openly.




Thanks, Rob.










Good work in that other thread about "diminishing returns." I don't know how you have the patience to deal with people who dredge up that tired talking point about throwing away 95% compared to throwing away 98%.


----------



## OldCodger73

Because of all the discussion about Mr. Brooks I put it at the head of my Netflix queue and lo and behold much to my surprise it arrived promptly.


While I thought the picture quality was in the very good to excellent range, I'll leave it to others to decide if it warrants Tier 0, 1 or as in the list-that-must-not-be-named, Tier 2.


I was pleasantly surprised by the movie itself. It was very engrossing, enjoyable but slightly disquieting. I'd give it a solid 4 on Netflix's 5 scale. I might pick this title up if I ever need a second on a BOGO.


----------



## Jenova




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/12519057
> 
> 
> I too agree with Rob and Patrick that Batman Begins is extremely soft and didn't look any better than the 24 Mbps MPEG-2 broadcast copy.



I agree. I was kinda underwhelmed with BB.


----------



## edgary

I just saw Full Metal Jacket, and it's only problem it's a lot of variation in grain... lots. It goes from non-existent (in one of the filmed interviews) to an incredible amount of it close to the end of the movie.


It probably belongs right where it is.


PS3 -> HDMI -> 42" Philips 1080p LCD @ 7-8 ft


----------



## madpony




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/12507970
> 
> 
> I thought Rescue Dawn looked fantastic for most of the movie.



Agreed. It looked pretty excellent overall to me as well.


My setup: PS3 via HDMI, Sony 60" SXRD, playing at 1080p/24, approx. 8-9 ft. viewing distance.


----------



## ajamils




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *madpony* /forum/post/12536578
> 
> 
> Agreed. It looked pretty excellent overall to me as well.
> 
> 
> My setup: PS3 via HDMI, Sony 60" SXRD, playing at 1080p/24, approx. 8-9 ft. viewing distance.




which Tier would you place it in ?


----------



## lgans316

Rescue Dawn : Top of Tier 1 considering the partial usage of stock footage.


----------



## madpony




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajamils* /forum/post/12539101
> 
> 
> which Tier would you place it in ?



Definitely somewhere in the top half of tier 1. I can't say it is better than the discs at the very top of tier 1, but I haven't viewed all of those, either.


----------



## ajamils

Finished watching Pan's Labyrinyth. Excellent PQ from start to finish. Even though most of the movie is dark, there is no sign of noise or any artifacts. Day scenes are gorgeous with lush colors and detail. I would put it right above Hairspray. Another excellent transfer by New Line.


----------



## zinfamous




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jenova* /forum/post/12513114
> 
> 
> wow, I guess I need to check out Mr. Brooks. I have been holding off because I can't stand Dane Cook



hehe, that's a great reason. but, it is a pretty damn good movie; and I don't generally go for these types of flicks.


trust me though, if you dislike dane cook as much as I do, then you will actually Love this movie


----------



## zinfamous




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ubik* /forum/post/12475571
> 
> 
> I whole-heartedly agree - thanks for the great thread. I don't feel fully qualified to participate at the moment because I am not a particularly discerning viewer and my equipment is relatively low end (Westinghouse 47" 1080p LCD). Actually, there may be some advantages to this, since the poor contrast and black levels of the panel actually do a nice job of hiding artifacts at my typical viewing distance of about 8 feet.
> 
> 
> For example, I was extremely impressed by Curse of the Golden Flower with its fine details and wonderful colors and did not notice any of the black area problems mentioned in the Hi-Def Digest review - this has been my favorite PQ disc thus far. The lowest ranked title from the tier list I've seen is First Blood (which is towards the bottom of Tier 3 Bronze), but I thought it still looked fantastic - maybe it was just a shock compared to TNT/TBS memories of the movie, since I never owned or rented the DVD.
> 
> 
> At any rate, I'll have to check out some titles from the Copper and Coal tiers that I was initially reluctant to try due to these rankings and other reviews, but thus far everything at Bronze and above has been A-OK in my book. Some of the lobbying for overly exact positioning of particular titles makes me smile, but I appreciate everyone's attention to detail.



you know what? I still haven't seen a BD better than Curse of the Golden Flower. I only have my one set to compare, though...so I can only assume that certain transfers shine on my 42" 720p plasma, while other solid performers don't do as well (I think Black Hawk Down is crap for BD; many disagree).


Although I tend to agree on many of the tier ranking here, I find a few questionable, and wish that a voting system could be implemented as with the HD DVD ranking thread. For example: I posted one comment on how gorgeous Immortal Beloved is. I have always loved that flick, and honestly feel that the PQ is solid throughout, audio, well...of course! But, I don't think I am an expert in this realm, and that my system isn't optimized to make such resounding judgment calls. Either way, it was placed in the tier about where I suggested, based only on my comments. While I certainly agree with its ranking, I'd feel more confident about overall rankings if more weight were put behind each spot in the tier.


Likewise, 2001 was removed form its lofty spot and significantly downgraded based on a few comments. I tend to disagree with many of those comments, as the argument about grain in certain sections can be made against Black Hawk Down--which is chock full of grain--grain that is more obtrusive, imo, rather than providing legitimate effect.


Regardless, I think the guardians of this thread do an excellent job, as the rankings, on ave, seem to reflect a generally accurate assesment.


I only wonder how difficult it would be to include voting into the system? (I'm a scientist in RL; I need solid quantifiable figures







)


----------



## clutch69

Watched The Simpsons movie. WOW. Looks soooooooo good, you will never see The Simpsons look better. Audio was great too, my reciever can't decode DTS HD bitstream, but via PCM it sounded great. Upper tier 1 for sure.


----------



## AustinSTI

I've got Simpsons sitting in my house and have yet to watch it but I expect its placement to be top of 1 or 0.


To address the comments around the voting: We originally tried to use polling within AVS forum to allow this polling to take place but it cluttered up the forums and created problems. Though I felt the results were pretty accurate we abandoned this because we didn't frankly feel it was worth pursuing any further (cost, overhead, etc.). What we've also found is that Home Theater setups vary wildly and those systems are contributing factors to peoples opinions. The majority of people have an HTS that isn't 1080p just yet though the gap continues to close. In a polling application the 720p/1080i HT user would get equal weight with the top of the line 1080p HT user. there is no way to account for these variances.


We definately value everyone's opinions and try our best to address any concerns people have about placement as best we can. We definately favor those posts that provide specific detail such as time stamps, artifact information etc and I believe 2001 was moved down because of more than 'film grain' which has been debated countless times. 2001 is one of those movies I don't have and cannot comment on personally so we rely on people's initial reports. Those people who provide information about setup get intial placement typically and then when someone else or a few someone else's get the movie and provide further feedback an adjustment will typically take place if warranted.


It is also worth noting that as more movies are released and more quality transfers come out the bar gets raised for Tier 0 and thus that may shift movies down in tier ranking as we see what the best of the best really is all about (IE DMC). In that same vein a movie that was in a tier previously such as BHD was never compared to a newer film released on the format like 2001 and thus tier placement of movies within tiers may not always match up as some think they should. This is a natural evolution of the thread and should be kept in mind. I would say to anyone considering a movie purchase based on this thread that you can buy anything in tier 0, 1 and even 2 with the utmost confidence that you'll be getting a Blu-Ray worthy of the format. When it comes down to it that's what most people are looking for anyway - that and the demo quality material which Tier 0 represents.


I'm glad to continue to hear people are satisfied with our thread. We strive to treat everyone fairly but also insist on facts to back up statements. If you ever feel that is not the case PM me and we can talk one-on-one. This thread continues to be important to many people and will become even more so as the format war draws to a close in (I predict) '08.


Happy Holidays, Merry Xmas, Happy Channukah


AustinSTI


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *madpony* /forum/post/12536578
> 
> 
> Agreed. It looked pretty excellent overall to me as well.
> 
> 
> My setup: PS3 via HDMI, Sony 60" SXRD, playing at 1080p/24, approx. 8-9 ft. viewing distance.



Added


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> This thread continues to be important to many people and will become even more so as the format war draws to a close in (I predict) '08.



I have chosen, ordered and received the Panny BD30. And I have started ordering BD discs. While I will - mostly - buy a movie because I like it, I am largely guided by this thread. If a movie I want it in the bottom tier (or two) I may wait to see if it is remastered later.


I am now proudly blu.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/12547094
> 
> 
> I have chosen, ordered and received the Panny BD30. And I have started ordering BD discs. While I will - mostly - buy a movie because I like it, I am largely guided by this thread. If a movie I want it in the bottom tier (or two) I may wait to see if it is remastered later.
> 
> 
> I am now proudly blu.



Welcome to the winning team. I'm sure you'll be pleased with your purchase. I actually follow your mentality. If something just flat out sucks and is in a lower tier I won't buy it in hopes of a remaster (IE 5th element). Ironically nothing I can recall that has come out as a new release in the last 6 months has ranked lower than tier 2 so I feel pretty good buying new releases. Catalogue titles are more questionable....


----------



## Wryker




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/12547147
> 
> 
> Welcome to the winning team. I'm sure you'll be pleased with your purchase. I actually follow your mentality. If something just flat out sucks and is in a lower tier I won't buy it in hopes of a remaster (IE 5th element). Ironically nothing I can recall that has come out as a new release in the last 6 months has ranked lower than tier 2 so I feel pretty good buying new releases. Catalogue titles are more questionable....



SPEAKING of 5th element - they re-released it on BD (the remastered version that I have). Are we saying THIS one is horrible?!?!


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/12547094
> 
> 
> I have chosen, ordered and received the Panny BD30. And I have started ordering BD discs. While I will - mostly - buy a movie because I like it, I am largely guided by this thread. If a movie I want it in the bottom tier (or two) I may wait to see if it is remastered later.
> 
> 
> I am now proudly blu.




Congrats, pepar! It's about time


----------



## edgary




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wryker* /forum/post/12547246
> 
> 
> SPEAKING of 5th element - they re-released it on BD (the remastered version that I have). Are we saying THIS one is horrible?!?!



No, they are saying the first release was horrible, and the re-mastered version is very good. That's why the want to wait in hopes of a re-mastered version of the movies in the lowest tiers.


----------



## General Kenobi




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wryker* /forum/post/12547246
> 
> 
> SPEAKING of 5th element - they re-released it on BD (the remastered version that I have). Are we saying THIS one is horrible?!?!



Not to my eyes... lower/mid gold IMO. The PCM sounds fantastic too!


pepar - congrats! I love my Pany BD10A and have been going nuts since I opened the BD door and removed my HD title limits.


BTW - Can we get The Island added to bottom gold pending some other reviews?? I've watched it twice since I've had it; one time after Ratatouille and one time after King Arthur so I think I got a pretty good comparo and with the exception of DD being the best available audio I think there is enough PQ to warrant a pending place in bottom gold (at least until some more folks can weigh in).


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/12547277
> 
> 
> Congrats, pepar! It's about time



Not that I'll use it a lot, but I wanted Profile 1.1.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *edgary* /forum/post/12547428
> 
> 
> No, they are saying the first release was horrible, and the re-mastered version is very good. That's why the want to wait in hopes of a re-mastered version of the movies in the lowest tiers.



Plus a company releasing a movie in hi-def needs to Do It Right, otherwise I'm in favor of punishing them with my (closed) pocketbook.


----------



## edgary




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/12547552
> 
> 
> Plus a company releasing a movie in hi-def needs to Do It Right, otherwise I'm in favor of punishing them with my (closed) pocketbook.



Agreed!


----------



## avhed

Watched Warriors of Heaven and Earth last night. It was pretty soft looking.

I have not watched any of the titles in Bronze and Copper so I do not know which of these this title would fit in?


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *edgary* /forum/post/12547428
> 
> 
> No, they are saying the first release was horrible, and the re-mastered version is very good. That's why the want to wait in hopes of a re-mastered version of the movies in the lowest tiers.




yup that's precisely what I was saying


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *General Kenobi* /forum/post/12547452
> 
> 
> BTW - Can we get The Island added to bottom gold pending some other reviews?? I've watched it twice since I've had it; one time after Ratatouille and one time after King Arthur so I think I got a pretty good comparo and with the exception of DD being the best available audio I think there is enough PQ to warrant a pending place in bottom gold (at least until some more folks can weigh in).



Done.


----------



## ajamils

Any opinions about Mr. and Mrs Smith ?


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/12546134
> 
> 
> 
> To address the comments around the voting: We originally tried to use polling within AVS forum to allow this polling to take place but it cluttered up the forums and created problems.



Also, wasn't the voting system discouraged by the mods at some point? They set up the BD software and review forum as a way to diminish dependancy on the Tier Threads, and expressly asked the posters to stop creating polls (I think).



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/12547094
> 
> 
> I have chosen, ordered and received the Panny BD30. And I have started ordering BD discs. [/color].



Welcome to the club...now get out there and start checking out all of those titles we've been discussing the last few months!


Brandon


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Welcome to the club...now get out there and start checking out all of those titles we've been discussing the last few months!



Thank you, sir. Until I upgrade my pj from 1366x768 to 1920x1080 I'll still be mostly be reading.


----------



## ajamils




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/12549590
> 
> 
> Thank you, sir. Until I upgrade my *pj* from 1366x768 to 1920x1080 I'll still be mostly be reading.



I didn't know that *pj* came in those sizes....i always thought that they came in m, l and xl


----------



## Wryker

I know this is a blu-ray thread and as a fan of HD (I have the PS3 and a HD-A2) I love HD. I subscribe to this thread (and as soon as i get my new Aperion's hooked up I'll be posting BD reviews) but is there an HD DVD equivalent so I can read reviews on those discs?

Please - no BD Fanboy flames.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajamils* /forum/post/12549963
> 
> 
> I didn't know that *pj* came in those sizes....i always thought that they came in m, l and xl



They're European.


----------



## Wryker

Totally off the path - how do you upload your own avatar?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zinfamous* /forum/post/12542094
> 
> 
> hehe, that's a great reason. but, it is a pretty damn good movie; and I don't generally go for these types of flicks.
> 
> 
> trust me though, if you dislike dane cook as much as I do, then you will actually Love this movie


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wryker* /forum/post/12550729
> 
> 
> Totally off the path - how do you upload your own avatar?



UserCP|Control Panel|Edit Avatar


But it is a feature available only to club members.


----------



## 30XS955 User




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/12546134
> 
> 
> It is also worth noting that as more movies are released and more quality transfers come out the bar gets raised for Tier 0 and thus that may shift movies down in tier ranking as we see what the best of the best really is all about (IE DMC). In that same vein a movie that was in a tier previously such as BHD was never compared to a newer film released on the format like 2001 and thus tier placement of movies within tiers may not always match up as some think they should. This is a natural evolution of the thread and should be kept in mind.
> 
> AustinSTI



Are you sure we shouldn't lower the standards like the "other" group has?


----------



## ajamils

any word about Mr. and Mrs Smith ?


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wryker* /forum/post/12550414
> 
> 
> I know this is a blu-ray thread and as a fan of HD (I have the PS3 and a HD-A2) I love HD. I subscribe to this thread (and as soon as i get my new Aperion's hooked up I'll be posting BD reviews) but is there an HD DVD equivalent so I can read reviews on those discs?
> 
> Please - no BD Fanboy flames.


 HD DVD User's PQ & AQ Reference Thread 


Probably not polite to imply people in the thread are BD Fanboys. We like to keep it civil here










Brandon


----------



## maverick0716

I watched Paprika tonight. Although it's probably the absolute best that this type of animation can look, it is very soft, and doesn't look a whole lot better than regular DVD......the colour is good though. I'd rate it near the bottom of Tier 3. As for the movie it self.......interesting. I enjoyed it because it was a lot different than anything I've ever watched. Some may describe it as "Completely ****ed up" lol.


42" Panasonic plasma (768p)

6-7 ft.

PS3 through HDMI


----------



## Wryker




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/12551871
> 
> HD DVD User's PQ & AQ Reference Thread
> 
> 
> Probably not polite to imply people in the thread are BD Fanboys. We like to keep it civil here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brandon



All I meant by my comment was I didn't want any of 'them' to flame me. Not implying - I just know they're 'out there' (engadgethd.com)

Thanks!


----------



## rydenfan

I watched Superbad last night, and I believe it could contend with the Rat for longest load time! It seemed to take forever!


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12550878



So, I wonder what happened to your proposal to move Mr. Brooks to Tier 0? It seemed to have massive support. One of the two other people in my office who shares the BD passion reported to me today that he had watched Mr. Brooks for the first time last night and agreed with me that it is the best looking BD he has seen.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12553907
> 
> 
> So, I wonder what happened to your proposal to move Mr. Brooks to Tier 0? It seemed to have massive support. One of the two other people in my office who shares the BD passion reported to me today that he had watched Mr. Brooks for the first time last night and agreed with me that it is the best looking BD he has seen.



I certainly agree that there seems to be more than enough support to move Mr. Brooks to Tier 0!


----------



## SuprSlow

Been busy again this week guys. Hope to have some free time later today, I'll add this week's new releases and tier the titles that have been mentioned.


Sorry for the delays.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *30XS955 User* /forum/post/12551025
> 
> 
> Are you sure we shouldn't lower the standards like the "other" group has?



That's what happens when your format is on its way out...you lower your standards...we raise ours


----------



## Wryker




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/12554632
> 
> 
> That's what happens when your format is on its way out...you lower your standards...we raise ours



I love HD PERIOD. I have a PS3 for BD and my A2 for HDDVD. They both rock.


----------



## dakota81




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/12546134
> 
> 
> I've got Simpsons sitting in my house and have yet to watch it but I expect its placement to be top of 1 or 0.



I'd like to find out about The Simpsons Movie. Either it's the movie or it's my tv, I saw more color banding here than on any other movie, especially in the brown gradients. For comparison, my tv barely shows the color banding on Happy Feet, and I still cannot see the color banding one guy here complained about in Ratatouille.


I'd probably guess it's my hdtv (56" 1080p Samsung led dlp) that's more at fault, but would like to hear from others.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dakota81* /forum/post/12555336
> 
> 
> I'd like to find out about The Simpsons Movie. Either it's the movie or it's my tv, I saw more color banding here than on any other movie, especially in the brown gradients. For comparison, my tv barely shows the color banding on Happy Feet, and I still cannot see the color banding one guy here complained about in Ratatouille.
> 
> 
> I'd probably guess it's my hdtv (56" 1080p Samsung led dlp) that's more at fault, but would like to hear from others.




I'll keep my eyes out for this - do you have time codes to share for what you were seeing? This will help me scrutinize those portions of the movie and ensure we're comparing the same times...


----------



## Kevin12586

Not to derail the thread but when I saw this I thought of you Rob Tomlin. If you have Directv your movie Lawrence of Arabia will be coming on in HD next month. It should tide you over until the Blu-ray comes out next year


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dakota81* /forum/post/12555336
> 
> 
> I'd like to find out about The Simpsons Movie. Either it's the movie or it's my tv, I saw more color banding here than on any other movie, especially in the brown gradients. For comparison, my tv barely shows the color banding on Happy Feet, and I still cannot see the color banding one guy here complained about in Ratatouille.
> 
> 
> I'd probably guess it's my hdtv (56" 1080p Samsung led dlp) that's more at fault, but would like to hear from others.



The color banding on Ratatouille turned out to be mostly a problem with a colorspace setting on the guy's player.


Brandon


----------



## Wryker

Does anyone know if they plan on releasing Jurassic Park in BD? THAT would be an awesome movie in HD w/lossless sound.


----------



## Jenova

Mr. & Mrs. Smith - Okay ive watched this a few times. Overall, I'm very pleased with the PQ...very sharp, and has a nice sense of depth. I would rank this in Tier 1 above the Patriot.


Harry Potter: Order of the Pheonix - One of WB's best transfers, but still, like others have mentioned, it's not on par with the quality of Disney's or Fox's best releases. Some parts look amazing but there are some posterization in some of the dark scenes. Maybe, Tier 1 above Troy.


Samsung LNT4665F, PS3, 7 ft.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wryker* /forum/post/12556823
> 
> 
> Does anyone know if they plan on releasing Jurassic Park in BD? THAT would be an awesome movie in HD w/lossless sound.



Jurassic Park is made by Universal, which is an HD DVD exclusive company at the moment.


----------



## dakota81




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/12556025
> 
> 
> I'll keep my eyes out for this - do you have time codes to share for what you were seeing? This will help me scrutinize those portions of the movie and ensure we're comparing the same times...



Most obvious spots were at 0:05:25 against the wall of the church as the light shines in, and at 0:52:38 with the pillow Homer is laying on.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kevin12586* /forum/post/12556076
> 
> 
> Not to derail the thread but when I saw this I thought of you Rob Tomlin. If you have Directv your movie Lawrence of Arabia will be coming on in HD next month. It should tide you over until the Blu-ray comes out next year



Finally!


I don't have Directv, but I do get HDNetMovies, so I will have access to it.


They have been teasing us with this for quite a while now. Good to see that they have finally scheduled it!










I will be doing the same thing with this as I have with several other movies on HDNet: save it to my DVR's hard drive until the Blu-ray version is released! It makes for interesting comparisons.


----------



## nick2010

I finished watching Lost - Season 3, and it was much better than the broadcast versions I had previously seen. Some of it looked a bit "grainy" (although it was shot digitally) but I would rank it as being somewhere in upper tier 1.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/12559006
> 
> 
> Jurassic Park is made by Universal, which is an HD DVD exclusive company at the moment.



More relevant is that they are Spielberg movies and Steven is not part of the Universal deal.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/12560474
> 
> 
> More relevant is that they are Spielberg movies and Steven is not part of the Universal deal.



Does he actually own them? If he does, then what is Universal's name on them for? Serious question.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/12561220
> 
> 
> Does he actually own them? If he does, then what is Universal's name on them for? Serious question.



He has complete control over the distribution of his works. It is in his contracts.


From the Paramount/Dreamworks Animation Aug 20th, 2007 HD-DVD exclusivity press release :
_

"Paramount Home Entertainment will issue new releases day and date as well as catalog titles exclusively on HD DVD. Today's announcement does not include films directed by Steven Spielberg as his films are not exclusive to either format."_


And here is a piece about HD-DVD Promotions Group getting their hands smacked for saying his films were "coming soon." Follow some of the links for related stories.


----------



## Schlotkins

I'm surprise Die hard hasn't been commented on. I'm on a 50" Pioneer 5070 from about 7-8 feet playing at 1080p24 out of a PS3 firmware 2.1. My reference is the "five star" DVD versions of these films. Not sure if they were the latest and greatest or not.


Die Hard: this movie looks better than the original DVD, but sadly, I can't say it's MUCH better. There is more detail, but not a ton. I'd say mid Bronze level.


Die Hard III: This movie is a big upgrade from the SD version. I would say Silver tier in the top third.


Let the bidding begin!

Chris


----------



## ndjr

How can IMAX: Roving Mars be TIER 1 -GOLD ! it`s one of the worst and unnatural HD I have seen!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Schlotkins* /forum/post/12562455
> 
> 
> I'm surprise Die hard hasn't been commented on. I'm on a 50" Pioneer 5070 from about 7-8 feet playing at 1080p24 out of a PS3 firmware 2.1. My reference is the "five star" DVD versions of these films. Not sure if they were the latest and greatest or not.
> 
> 
> Die Hard: this movie looks better than the original DVD, but sadly, I can't say it's MUCH better. There is more detail, but not a ton. I'd say mid Bronze level.
> 
> 
> Die Hard III: This movie is a big upgrade from the SD version. I would say Silver tier in the top third.
> 
> 
> Let the bidding begin!
> 
> Chris



Excellent timing, since I just watched Die Hard 3 last night!


I was pretty happy with the PQ of this one, considering its a slightly older title. Definitely MUCH better than the SD DVD. Not the best of the best compared to many of the newer movies, but I think anyone who is a fan of this movie would be quite happy with the PQ here.


I completely agree with top third or even top 1/4 in the Silver Tier.


----------



## Rob G68




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajamils* /forum/post/12551394
> 
> 
> any word about Mr. and Mrs Smith ?



I watched Mr. and Mrs. Smith last night and I thought it looked great.

Also watched the Simpsons movie this week and it was incredible looking.


Panasonic Plasma TH-42PX77U (768P)

PS3-HDMI

10-12'


----------



## mr stroke

Got around to watching Tekkon Kinkreet last night and was very pleased, love the animation style of the film hand drawn/cg, colors pop off the screen and everything is really sharp

Id put in upper Tier 1


Sony [email protected]

Panny plasma 768

7 feet away


----------



## Kevin12586




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12560036
> 
> 
> Finally!
> 
> 
> I don't have Directv, but I do get HDNetMovies, so I will have access to it.
> 
> 
> They have been teasing us with this for quite a while now. Good to see that they have finally scheduled it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will be doing the same thing with this as I have with several other movies on HDNet: save it to my DVR's hard drive until the Blu-ray version is released! It makes for interesting comparisons.



Merry Christmas, I thought you would like the news


----------



## Schlotkins

A few more to report:


1) Rat: Unbelievable... enough said.


2) Bladerunner Final Cut: This was the first time I've seen this movie. The picture was good and there were some sharp shots. However, there was also som soft shots. I would say this movie is right around the quality I saw of 2001, except a tick better in my opinion. That would be near the top of the Silver tier or low end of the gold thread.


Chris


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Schlotkins* /forum/post/12568849
> 
> 
> A few more to report:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2) Bladerunner Final Cut: This was the first time I've seen this movie. The picture was good and there were some sharp shots. However, there was also som soft shots. I would say this movie is right around the quality I saw of 2001, except a tick better in my opinion. That would be near the top of the Silver tier or low end of the gold thread.
> 
> 
> Chris



I agree.


----------



## maverick0716

I watched Rush Hour 3 last night. Definitly very good picture quality on this one. I'd put it in the middle of Tier 1 for sure.


42" Panny Plasma (768p)

6-7 ft.

PS3 though HDMI


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Schlotkins* /forum/post/12568849
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> 
> 2) Bladerunner Final Cut: This was the first time I've seen this movie. The picture was good and there were some sharp shots. However, there was also som soft shots. I would say this movie is right around the quality I saw of 2001, except a tick better in my opinion. That would be near the top of the Silver tier or low end of the gold thread.
> 
> 
> Chris



I think anyone that is familiar with Blade Runner, and saw it in the theater would know to expect that there is going to be some softness.


I have this saved on my DVR from HDNet, and the biggest improvement that I was hoping for is in the area of contrast. Based on the screen caps in another thread, the improvement in contrast appears quite noticeable.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*28 Weeks Later*


Not bad, not great. I will agree with Tier 2, but I think it is too high in Tier 2. Some scenes were pretty soft. The contrast wasn't great, so you really didn't get much depth.


I don't think this looked better than titles like Hellboy (which should be in Tier 1 anyway), Sahara, or Ghost Rider.


Slightly above mid Tier 2 for me.


----------



## jjwinterberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12570155
> 
> 
> I think anyone that is familiar with Blade Runner, and saw it in the theater would know to expect that there is going to be some softness.
> 
> 
> I have this saved on my DVR from HDNet, and the biggest improvement that I was hoping for is in the area of contrast. Based on the screen caps in another thread, the improvement in contrast appears quite noticeable.



I watched The Final Cut last night on my AE1000 projected on a 120" screen and I was blown away by the film. Both PQ and AQ are absolutely astounding. Given the age of the film and the exceptionally difficult lighting that Ridley was shooting with (lots of fog/rain and many shots into the setting sun) I was not disappointed with the sharpness at all. But Rob hit it right it's the contract and the black levels that just blew me away. I also have to say that the audio was about the best I've heard. I'm not one who appreciates an overblown soundtrack so when I say how good the audio is I'm referring to how well it was integrated across the sound field and how well it complimented the movie.


If it were me I would rate the movie in the lower half of the tier 1 discs.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jjwinterberg* /forum/post/12572594
> 
> 
> I watched The Final Cut last night on my AE1000 projected on a 120" screen and I was blown away by the film. Both PQ and AQ are absolutely astounding. Given the age of the film and the exceptionally difficult lighting that Ridley was shooting with (lots of fog/rain and many shots into the setting sun) I was not disappointed with the sharpness at all. But Rob hit it right it's the contract and the black levels that just blew me away. I also have to say that the audio was about the best I've heard. I'm not one who appreciates an overblown soundtrack so when I say how good the audio is I'm referring to how well it was integrated across the sound field and how well it complimented the movie.
> 
> 
> If it were me I would rate the movie in the lower half of the tier 1 discs.



I just finished watching it.


The above is a great post, and saves me some typing!










I am just tickled pink (haven't used that one in a while) with this disc! It has exceeded all of my expectations. The movie has never looked better. And....as mentioned above, it has never *sounded* better either! The TrueHD soundtrack is simply superb.


Disclaimer: I am a huge fan of this film. It may be having an impact on my objectivity in terms of overall picture quality. Then again, being such a huge fan of the movie means that I would also have pretty high expectations. As said above, they have been exceeded.










As I said in the Blade Runner thread, this is my favorite HDM disc I own yet (in terms of everything coming together: fantastic movie with excellent picture and sound).


Can't wait to get to the extras.


Damn I love this movie.


----------



## SteelSD




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12570072
> 
> 
> I agree.



I disagree. Blade Runner was nowhere near the PQ of 2001 and I watched them back-to-back tonight (both holiday gifts) on a properly calibrated 40" Samsung LNT-4066F at @7 feet at 24fps.


While the PQ of Blade Runner is the best it's ever been, the 2001 PQ is simply outstanding, and not just for a movie that old. Incredible detail and solid pop throughout. While I wouldn't place 2001 in Tier 0, it's certainly better than the current Tier 2 placement (and Blade Runner belongs in low Tier 2).


Of course, I'm also the guy who produced posts nominating Galapagos for high Tier 1 or Tier 0 status. Nothing was done, yet now it's just above The Patriot? That's a joke. Unfortunately, maybe I don't have enough posts yet for my opinion to be credible even though I have a high-end 1080p set that's properly calibrated and fighter pilot vision (20/10).


Sorry to everyone for the mini-rant there, but it's starting to become obvious that this thread is open to AV "elitists" only, and that all contributions are not weighed equally.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SteelSD* /forum/post/12574249
> 
> 
> I disagree. Blade Runner was nowhere near the PQ of 2001 and I watched them back-to-back tonight (both holiday gifts) on a properly calibrated 40" Samsung LNT-4066F at @7 feet at 24fps.



I have to completely disagree.


If anything Blade Runner has *better* picture quality than 2001. I think they are pretty close overall, but Blade Runner still has a clear edge in my opinion. And I watched these within a few days of each other, and I am very familiar with both movies.



> Quote:
> While the PQ of Blade Runner is the best it's ever been, the 2001 PQ is simply outstanding, and not just for a movie that old. Incredible detail and solid pop throughout. While I wouldn't place 2001 in Tier 0, it's certainly better than the current Tier 2 placement (and Blade Runner belongs in low Tier 2).



2001 does not have "outstanding" PQ throughout in my opinion. And it is too soft overall. There are screen caps that prove this.



> Quote:
> Of course, I'm also the guy who produced posts nominating Galapagos for high Tier 1 or Tier 0 status. Nothing was done, yet now it's just above The Patriot? That's a joke. Unfortunately, maybe I don't have enough posts yet for my opinion to be credible even though I have a high-end 1080p set that's properly calibrated and fighter pilot vision (20/10).
> 
> 
> Sorry to everyone for the mini-rant there, but it's starting to become obvious that this thread is open to AV "elitists" only, and that all contributions are not weighed equally.



Stop playing the poor martyr. It isn't very becoming.


Several of my preferences haven't been moved to where I would prefer either, but I don't start crying about "AV Elitists".


----------



## chris0




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12573404
> 
> 
> Can't wait to get to the extras.
> 
> 
> Damn I love this movie.



You need to make "Dangerous Days" on disc 2 your next stop. There's some really, really good stuff in there.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chris0* /forum/post/12575065
> 
> 
> You need to make "Dangerous Days" on disc 2 your next stop. There's some really, really good stuff in there.



Thanks for the heads up. I was considering going to Disc 3 next, but I will just go to #2 based on your recommendation. Thanks.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SteelSD* /forum/post/12574249
> 
> 
> Of course, I'm also the guy who produced posts nominating Galapagos for high Tier 1 or Tier 0 status. Nothing was done, yet now it's just above The Patriot? That's a joke. Unfortunately, maybe I don't have enough posts yet for my opinion to be credible even though I have a high-end 1080p set that's properly calibrated and fighter pilot vision (20/10).



I don't think that many have seen Galapagos yet, unfortunately. I have it in my netflix queue because of your original post a few weeks ago, but it's still wayyy down on the list so I won't see it for a while.


And btw, this thread really isn't an elitist type thread. There is complete turnover from the people that used to dominate the old thread and it's moderator/admin. I rarely ever posted in the old one and have begun to contribute more so to this one now that I've picked up on the hobby a bit more. I think the admins here just want a few corroborating opinions before they make a move with a title.


Brandon


----------



## Jason One




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ndjr* /forum/post/12562851
> 
> 
> How can IMAX: Roving Mars be TIER 1 -GOLD ! it`s one of the worst and unnatural HD I have seen!



I just watched this tonight, and I completely agree. This is clearly a case of extreme noise reduction. Everything in the image has that fake plastic look, lacking any texture. It looks horrible. There is also very obvious edge ringing throughout.


In fact, if you watch the making-of documentary (Mars: Past, Present & Future), you can see clips of the movie before the noise reduction was applied, and it looks far, far better.


I'm sad to say that this BD deserves a tier 4 ranking at best. It is a big disappointment, especially for an IMAX film.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/12575601
> 
> 
> I don't think that many have seen Galapagos yet, unfortunately.



I watched a bit of this a while ago after seeing someone rave about it. It didn't look good to me. Soft.


----------



## SteelSD




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12574797
> 
> 
> I have to completely disagree.
> 
> 
> If anything Blade Runner has *better* picture quality than 2001. I think they are pretty close overall, but Blade Runner still has a clear edge in my opinion. And I watched these within a few days of each other, and I am very familiar with both movies.
> 
> 
> 2001 does not have "outstanding" PQ throughout in my opinion. And it is too soft overall. There are screen caps that prove this.



Screen caps might suggest such, but they don't "prove" such. In any case, feel free to link me. I'm not trying to be abrasive. I'd just like to compare those screenshots to what I'm seeing on my display.


Take a look at Blade Runner at @17:21 into the film (our introduction to Rachael). Maybe that example of blurry-face soured me, but I don't think so. I paused quite a bit during Blade Runner and saw many examples of soft picture quality. To be fair, we also see a good number of crisp scenes with excellent detail.


I've viewed "2001" a second time now. I've seen excellent detail and solid pop from many scenes. Early on, I wondered about softness with the scene in which the pen was floating, but that was a narrow-focus scene. The pen was crystal clear while the background was fuzzy. We see that in other scenes, and I might suggest that our attention is drawn away from the camera target because we expect everything to be crystal clear. My only concerns about the film after a second viewing are the lack of truly deep blacks and possibly some color degradation toward green on the edges over a couple of space scenes. It's not Tier 0, but it's certainly ahead of Blade Runner, IMO.


That doesn't mean my opinion is the end-all-be-all as to PQ, but I see a noticable difference between the two films, and it's not in Blade Runner's favor.



> Quote:
> Stop playing the poor martyr. It isn't very becoming.
> 
> 
> Several of my preferences haven't been moved to where I would prefer either, but I don't start crying about "AV Elitists".



No one is playing the "martyr". But when feedback is asked and then not considered (for weeks), I get a little grumpy. The comments I made about "elitism" were borne of frustration. For that, I apologize.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SteelSD* /forum/post/12581999
> 
> 
> Screen caps might suggest such, but they don't "prove" such. In any case, feel free to link me. I'm not trying to be abrasive. I'd just like to compare those screenshots to what I'm seeing on my display.



Screen caps don't prove it by themselves, but help support my opinion based on what *I saw with my own eyes on my own screen*.



> Quote:
> Take a look at Blade Runner at @17:21 into the film (our introduction to Rachael). Maybe that example of blurry-face soured me, but I don't think so. I paused quite a bit during Blade Runner and saw many examples of soft picture quality. To be fair, we also see a good number of crisp scenes with excellent detail.



I know exactly what scene you are talking about, and I very seriously doubt that anyone here will argue with you: that scene is, indeed, "soft"! But as you say, there were also a good number of "crisp" scenes with excellent detail. I thought that there were many more of those types of scenes than I was expecting, which was a fantastic surprise.



> Quote:
> I've viewed "2001" a second time now. I've seen excellent detail and solid pop from many scenes. Early on, I wondered about softness with the scene in which the pen was floating, but that was a narrow-focus scene. The pen was crystal clear while the background was fuzzy. We see that in other scenes, and I might suggest that our attention is drawn away from the camera target because we expect everything to be crystal clear. My only concerns about the film after a second viewing are the lack of truly deep blacks and possibly some color degradation toward green on the edges over a couple of space scenes. It's not Tier 0, but it's certainly ahead of Blade Runner, IMO.



First of all, I would like to commend you on your description of what you are seeing on 2001. Well done, and this is what this thread is about, as it helps further the analysis and discussion of the movies PQ.










I just found the overall quality of Blade Runner to be better than 2001. Blade Runner had fewer artifacts than 2001, better contrast and "pop", and even slightly better detail overall.....in my opinion.


I'm not saying there is a night and day difference, because there certainly isn't. They are fairly close.



> Quote:
> That doesn't mean my opinion is the end-all-be-all as to PQ, but I see a noticable difference between the two films, and it's not in Blade Runner's favor.



I feel exactly the same way, except I would say not in 2001's favor.












> Quote:
> No one is playing the "martyr". But when feedback is asked and then not considered (for weeks), I get a little grumpy. The comments I made about "elitism" were borne of frustration. For that, I apologize.



Fair enough.


Keep up the good work with your excellent descriptions as you have done here, and believe me, your comments will definitely be considered.


The people who are maintaining this list admittedly do not update it on a daily basis. In fact, it may only be weekly if that. But once they do update it, they tend to do a pretty good job and usually catch all of the titles that have been discussed for movement on the list (up or down).


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SteelSD* /forum/post/12581999
> 
> 
> Screen caps might suggest such, but they don't "prove" such. In any case, feel free to link me. I'm not trying to be abrasive. I'd just like to compare those screenshots to what I'm seeing on my display.


 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...6#post12477256 


Some screen caps start there and there are more on the final page of the thread.


Brandon


----------



## goplay912

Shakira Oral Fixation Tour, lower Tier 1


Mitsubishi HC1500 720P

100" Projection

12-ft.


----------



## SteelSD




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/12584392
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...6#post12477256
> 
> 
> Some screen caps start there and there are more on the final page of the thread.
> 
> 
> Brandon



Thanks very much. I was able to find a number of "2001" screen shots that Rob noted comparing the BD/HD formats to the HD broadcast. The reason I asked Rob for those reference shots is that I wanted to go through the film again and compare. After doing so, I have to say that my display does not show the kind of image quality degradation evident in the BD/HD comparison shots. In the initial space station arrival scenes, the image I'm getting is actually superior to the HD broadcast screen shot. I see bright starfields- not the muted blips of white as displayed in the screen shots.


I don't know how to resolve that versus what I'm seeing in the screen shots other than to trust my player, my display, and my eyes. In some shots, I do see softness around the periphery of the image, but the focus is crystal clear on the subject.


Now onto the issues I do see:


Some of the image periphery (both sides) makes me wonder about film degradation. For example, at @47:10 in the shuttle we see what appears to be a good deal of fuzziness on both sides of the frame. The most evident is what, at first glance, looks to be artifacting in the window behind Dr. Floyd's head. But I have a hard time thinking it's macro blocking. This type of thing shows up in a good number of other shots as well. At @37:30, the sides of the screen are significantly lighter than mid-screen. Ditto at 38:05 where a green bleed starts to creep in on each side as the shuttle comes in for a landing.


Anyone have thoughts on whether this is likely an issue with the master versus the transfer?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SteelSD* /forum/post/12585181
> 
> 
> Thanks very much. I was able to find a number of "2001" screen shots that Rob noted comparing the BD/HD formats to the HD broadcast. The reason I asked Rob for those reference shots is that I wanted to go through the film again and compare. After doing so, I have to say that my display does not show the kind of image quality degradation evident in the BD/HD comparison shots. In the initial space station arrival scenes, the image I'm getting is actually superior to the HD broadcast screen shot. I see bright starfields- not the muted blips of white as displayed in the screen shots.
> 
> 
> I don't know how to resolve that versus what I'm seeing in the screen shots other than to trust my player, my display, and my eyes. In some shots, I do see softness around the periphery of the image, but the focus is crystal clear on the subject.
> 
> 
> Now onto the issues I do see:
> 
> 
> Some of the image periphery (both sides) makes me wonder about film degradation. For example, at @47:10 in the shuttle we see what appears to be a good deal of fuzziness on both sides of the frame. The most evident is what, at first glance, looks to be artifacting in the window behind Dr. Floyd's head. But I have a hard time thinking it's macro blocking. This type of thing shows up in a good number of other shots as well. At @37:30, the sides of the screen are significantly lighter than mid-screen. Ditto at 38:05 where a green bleed starts to creep in on each side as the shuttle comes in for a landing.
> 
> 
> Anyone have thoughts on whether this is likely an issue with the master versus the transfer?



I know exactly what you are talking about, but I really don't know for sure if it is in the master, but my guess would be that it is, and has something to do with the photographic method that was used for those shots.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajamils* /forum/post/12551394
> 
> 
> any word about Mr. and Mrs Smith ?


 http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/564/mrandmrssmith.html 


Brandon


----------



## mr stroke









Paprika=Middle Tier 3


the PQ is all of the place and no where near the quality of other hand drawn stuff like Simpsons or Tekkon Kinkreet. PQ is soft as a babbies butt, really a let down conisdering how amazing Tekkon looks


Sony S1

Panny 58' 768

6-7 feet


----------



## Lil' Louie

Perfect placement on the simpsons movie BTW. Wonderful presentation from both the PQ and AQ dept.


Viewed on Sony KDS-55A3000 & PS3 1080/24p @ 7ft:


----------



## bplewis24

Finally got around to watching Spiderman 3. I thought it showed outstanding black-level throughout, good contrast though a bit on the warm side, and pretty good detail.


I agree it should be in the top half of Tier 1, but I think either it should be moved down a few spots or Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer should be moved up a few spots.


Edit: I re-read the review at HDD for Spiderman 3, and I particularly agree with the following:



> Quote:
> As you would expect from a new release, the source is impeccable, with rich blacks and very bright contrast. Unfortunately, this leads me to my main gripe with the image -- the darker scenes actually look the best and most dimensional. Anything brightly lit or in daylight suffers from hot whites, which flatten out depth somewhat. Fleshtones also suffer, with even close-ups of the actors faces not looking natural in texture.



I got the same impression from the night scenes. A great example is near the beginning when Harry is chasing Spiderman around the city on the hover-board at night. And conversely I got the same impressions from the bright daylight scenes, although it isn't anywhere near bad. Anyhow, very good transfer, and the special effects were very good. Also the audio was pretty good.


Brandon


----------



## lgans316

May I know why Rocky Balboa is in bottom of Silver band ? Should be on top of Tier 2.


----------



## fareedrizkalla

I think the main post that lists titles under which tier, should also list the defects present so people can get an idea why it is considered to belong to that tier.


----------



## AfRoMaN787

Just watched Arlington Road on 46 inch 1080p Samsung LCD from about 8ft. I would definitely place this movie mid tier 2.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/12588263
> 
> 
> May I know why Rocky Balboa is in bottom of Silver band ? Should be on top of Tier 2.



I've always thought that it looked way better than it's placement in the Tier list.........other people don't seem to agree.


----------



## KathyMoore

Projector: *Panasonic AE2000 1080p projector, 150 lamp hours*

Screen Resolution: *1920X1080X24p*

Screen model: *Da-Lite High Power white*

Screen Size: *133"* Projection

Distance from Screen: *18 feet*

Viewing room: *completely dark*




* * * * * * * * * *


*Cars* definitely belongs belongs in the #1 spot



The following should downgrade from Tier 0 to Tier 1
*Ratatouille
Pirates of the Caribbean - At World's End
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest*


*Terminator 2* should downgrade from Tier 3 to Tier 4


*The Devil Wears Prada* should downgrade from Tier 4 to Tier 5


----------



## cdhender

Ratatouille downgraded?? No way, sorry.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *KathyMoore* /forum/post/12592390
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Devil Wears Prada* should downgrade from Tier 4 to Tier 5



Perhaps to the *very bottom* of Tier 4.


----------



## edgary




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *KathyMoore* /forum/post/12592390
> 
> 
> Projector: *Panasonic AE2000 1080p projector, 150 lamp hours*
> 
> Screen Resolution: *1920X1080X24p*
> 
> Screen model: *Da-Lite High Power white*
> 
> Screen Size: *133"* Projection
> 
> Distance from Screen: *18 feet*
> 
> Viewing room: *completely dark*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * * * * * * * * * *
> 
> 
> *Cars* definitely belongs belongs in the #1 spot
> 
> 
> 
> The following should downgrade from Tier 0 to Tier 1
> *Ratatouille
> Pirates of the Caribbean - At World's End
> Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest*
> 
> 
> *Terminator 2* should downgrade from Tier 3 to Tier 4
> 
> 
> *The Devil Wears Prada* should downgrade from Tier 4 to Tier 5



I honestly found Ratatouille being flawless. It should definitely stay in Tier 0, in my opinion.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *KathyMoore* /forum/post/12592390
> 
> *Cars* definitely belongs belongs in the #1 spot
> 
> 
> 
> The following should downgrade from Tier 0 to Tier 1
> *Ratatouille
> Pirates of the Caribbean - At World's End
> Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest*



While I *think* I agree that Cars should be #1 overall (I was torn on that for a while), I don't necessarily agree that everything else should be out of Tier 0. If that happens there are only 4 titles left with three of them being animation titles, further illustrating the need for animation to have it's own Tier(s). Peronsally, I feel Ratatouille should stay, and I'm withholding judgement on PotC: AWE til I see it for myself. Dead Man's Chest has votes both ways I believe, but I am of the opinion that it can be "overrated" on some levels and still be Tier 0, even if it's brining up the rear.

*Personally--and I'd like others to chime in on this--I think it's time we changed up the description for Tier 0.*


Intro to tier thread:


> Quote:
> *Tier 0 - Blu (Reference)*
> 
> 
> --- The picture quality of the transfer is in pristine shape and practically perfect with no visible video artifacts. The image is so clean and sharp that it maintains a realistic feel throughout and serves as great demo material. We recommend owning at least one of these films!



and in the Tier Description:


> Quote:
> *TIER 0 -Blu-*
> 
> 
> Completely flawless picture. No artifacts whatsoever, no matter how small. Demo Material - These show just what Blu-Ray is all about and everyone should own one to show any guests in their home. Show someone one of these films and they'll want to join the Blu side!



I suggest that we take out all references to "perfect" and "flawless...no artifacts whatsoever" because it backs the Tier into a corner. Instead, emphasize that it is demo material, reference material and the best that the format has to offer. "*Best of the best*", perhaps?


I don't know that any film-to-digital transfer will ever be 100.00% perfect. And the very concept of a Tier thread is a continuum, comparing a title to other titles in the list, so descriptions focusing on a relative marker (best/reference) as opposed to an absolute marker (perfect/zero artifacts) will be subject to less scrutiny and criticism.


What say you all?


Brandon


----------



## edgary




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/12592721
> 
> 
> While I *think* I agree that Cars should be #1 overall (I was torn on that for a while), I don't necessarily agree that everything else should be out of Tier 0. If that happens there are only 4 titles left with three of them being animation titles, further illustrating the need for animation to have it's own Tier(s). Peronsally, I feel Ratatouille should stay, and I'm withholding judgement on PotC: AWE til I see it for myself. Dead Man's Chest has votes both ways I believe, but I am of the opinion that it can be "overrated" on some levels and still be Tier 0, even if it's brining up the rear.
> 
> *Personally--and I'd like others to chime in on this--I think it's time we changed up the description for Tier 0.*
> 
> 
> Intro to tier thread:
> 
> 
> 
> and in the Tier Description:
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest that we take out all references to "perfect" and "flawless...no artifacts whatsoever" because it backs the Tier into a corner. Instead, emphasize that it is demo material, reference material and the best that the format has to offer. "*Best of the best*", perhaps?
> 
> 
> I don't know that any film-to-digital transfer will ever be 100.00% perfect. And the very concept of a Tier thread is a continuum, comparing a title to other titles in the list, so descriptions focusing on a relative marker (best/reference) as opposed to an absolute marker (perfect/zero artifacts) will be subject to less scrutiny and criticism.
> 
> 
> What say you all?
> 
> 
> Brandon



Agreed, resoundingly.


----------



## bplewis24

I'd like to add something to my above points regarding the reason why I think it serves no purpose to have a Tier 0 if only 3-4 titles can fit into it.


In almost any industry/profession, the elite are considered to be in the top 5-15% of the population. That seems like a reasonable hierarchy threshold. If we apply that to the Tier thread taking the most exclusive threshold (5%), then for every 100 titles in the list, roughly 5 of those would be considered the elite. When we only had 70-100 titles, that was fair.


But doing a quick count, I got to title #100 in the top 1/4th of Tier 2. That means there are likely over 250 titles in the Tier thread at the moment. Only having 4 titles in Tier 0 would represent less than 2%, making it extremely exclusive and creates an, IMO, unnecessary barrier between those titles and the ones in the top 1/8th (or so) of Tier 1. If there's no huge dropoff between the last title in Tier 0 and the next few titles in Tier 1, I think a loosely-based mathematical approach should be taken in redefining where the line is drawn.


It seems to fit when applying it to the thread, also. Taking a quick glance, most here have proclaimed Mr Brooks is reference material. That title is about 10 spots deep into the Tier 1 category (I haven't seen it yet, cannot comment). Also, I know that The Wild is some of the best animation I've seen on the format (maybe #3 overall, IMO), so it should easily fit into a redefined category of Tier 0.


Brandon


----------



## JosephShaw

bplewis24, I agree with you for the most part. For those of us who participated in the old Tier thread and this new one after Fett left for greener shores, we remember that this was never about pitting the titles against each other, so having an exclusive Tier 0 is silly. A title is either eye candy or it's not. A title can have some subtle issues but still be mind blowing overall. I remember when Ice Age: The Meltdown was a Tier 0 title even with 3 seconds of banding. Heck, the first three entries of Tier 2 used to be Tier 0 titles in the original thread. Black Hawk Down and Kingdom of Heaven are the bottom of Tier 1 and they were also Tier 0 titles.


BTW, as of 12/26/2007 at 4:40 PM CST, the Tier list has 291 ranked entries and 145 unranked titles. Of the ranked titles, the top 5% would represent 15 titles. Of the titles overall, the top 5% would equal 22 titles.


----------



## JosephShaw




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *KathyMoore* /forum/post/12592390
> 
> 
> Projector: *Panasonic AE2000 1080p projector, 150 lamp hours*
> 
> Screen Resolution: *1920X1080X24p*
> 
> Screen model: *Da-Lite High Power white*
> 
> Screen Size: *133"* Projection
> 
> Distance from Screen: *18 feet*
> 
> Viewing room: *completely dark*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * * * * * * * * * *
> 
> 
> *Cars* definitely belongs belongs in the #1 spot
> 
> 
> 
> The following should downgrade from Tier 0 to Tier 1
> *Ratatouille
> Pirates of the Caribbean - At World's End
> Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest*
> 
> *Terminator 2* should downgrade from Tier 3 to Tier 4
> 
> *The Devil Wears Prada* should downgrade from Tier 4 to Tier 5



If you don't list reasons why, no one will take you seriously. For example, Prada was rated at 4.5 stars for visuals. It certainly is not a Tier 5 title.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *KathyMoore* /forum/post/12592390
> 
> 
> Projector: *Panasonic AE2000 1080p projector, 150 lamp hours*
> 
> Screen Resolution: *1920X1080X24p*
> 
> Screen model: *Da-Lite High Power white*
> 
> Screen Size: *133"* Projection
> 
> Distance from Screen: *18 feet*
> 
> Viewing room: *completely dark*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * * * * * * * * * *
> 
> 
> *Cars* definitely belongs belongs in the #1 spot
> 
> 
> 
> The following should downgrade from Tier 0 to Tier 1
> *Ratatouille
> Pirates of the Caribbean - At World's End
> Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest*
> 
> 
> *Terminator 2* should downgrade from Tier 3 to Tier 4
> 
> 
> *The Devil Wears Prada* should downgrade from Tier 4 to Tier 5



You are going to have to do a lot better than that if you want your "opinion" to be considered. I.e., you need to list the reasons for moving these titles.


And Ratatouille shouldn't be going *anywhere*!


----------



## lgans316

The *soft film like animation* of Ratatouille *may be* the reason for KathyMoore to request for a downgrade from Tier 0 to Tier 1. This doesn't mean that it should be downgraded to Tier 1. However I totally agree that POTC







MC doesn't deserve to be in Tier 0.


----------



## rydenfan

seems like Pan's Labyrinth got a very glowing review on highdef, I will be very curious to see what you guys say.


I am about to pull the trigger on a new 58" Samsung Plasma. I will feel more comfortable commenting once I move from 720p to 1080p.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rydenfan* /forum/post/12595143
> 
> 
> seems like Pan's Labyrinth got a very glowing review on highdef, I will be very curious to see what you guys say.
> 
> 
> I am about to pull the trigger on a new 58" Samsung Plasma. I will feel more comfortable commenting once I move from 720p to 1080p.



It's another MFing waxy DNR-ed title.


----------



## Hughmc

Agree on Rat as it should stay in Tier 0 and the soft film like image is mainly the lighting effect which is intentional. It casts a white glow throughout the film but in no way detracts from the PQ.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JosephShaw* /forum/post/12593066
> 
> 
> For example, Prada was rated at 4.5 stars for visuals.



By the same reviewer at HDD that also gave Mr. Brooks 3.5?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12596914
> 
> 
> By the same reviewer at HDD that also gave Mr. Brooks 3.5?


----------



## JosephShaw




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12596914
> 
> 
> By the same reviewer at HDD that also gave Mr. Brooks 3.5?



Touche!










I watched Prada again, and it doesn't look like a Tier 5 title to me. What am I missing?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JosephShaw* /forum/post/12601079
> 
> 
> Touche!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I watched Prada again, and it doesn't look like a Tier 5 title to me. What am I missing?



It's horribly soft.


----------



## KathyMoore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/12594457
> 
> 
> The *soft film like animation* of Ratatouille *may be* the reason for KathyMoore to request for a downgrade from Tier 0 to Tier 1. This doesn't mean that it should be downgraded to Tier 1. However I totally agree that POTC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MC doesn't deserve to be in Tier 0.



That's exactly the reason.... I'm basing my opinions when using a Panasonic AE2000 1080p projector with a Da-Lite High Power 133" screen.


If I only view the same Blu-ray discs on the Panny 58" 720P plasma in my kitchen, I would not have suggested any downgrades of those discs.


----------



## JosephShaw




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12601134
> 
> 
> It's horribly soft.



It's got softness issues, but it's nowhere near Tier 5 territory like say House of Flying Daggers. If softness is its only issue, as it has no artifacting or noise that I saw (I only skimmed through the chapters), then it's at least as good as Superman Returns.


----------



## JosephShaw

Lets get some of those untiered titles off the list. I've got 10 I've recently viewed. For all of the following I used two displays:

Mitsubishi HC3000u 720p front projector onto 112" DIY 1.1 gain 16x9 screen viewed at 14-20 ft.

Panasonic TH-42PZ77U 42" 1080p plasma viewed at 6-16 ft.


#1
*National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation - Bottom Tier 4*

A very soft and inconsistent picture. Mostly soft and subdued, though there are occasional moments where the pallet will perk up or the image will get sharp. Noisy and artifacted image in spots. Doesn't look like much care was given to this transfer. Not quite as low as upconverted DVD territory, but not much better than that either.


----------



## JosephShaw

#2
*Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone - Bottom Tier 3, just above Purple Rain*

Lots of softness in this transfer, though the film source for this one is equally as soft and most of the flaws in this image were also evident on the DVD release, which I verified on my old 32" Sony WEGA CRT set. Color palette is subdued but warm overall, and there's lots of grain. Still, the clarity is better overall than the DVD, and quality is much better than upconverted DVD. Some scenes look fantastic, like the first quidditch match. I think they did the best they could with the original here, so it is what it is.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JosephShaw* /forum/post/12602217
> 
> 
> It's got softness issues, but it's nowhere near Tier 5 territory like say House of Flying Daggers. If softness is its only issue, as it has no artifacting or noise that I saw (I only skimmed through the chapters), then it's at least as good as Superman Returns.



Remember, it wasn't me who suggested Tier 5. I suggested the bottom of Tier 4. My recollection is that Superman Returns looked a little better than Prada, but I watched each of these only once and quite a while ago.


----------



## JosephShaw

#3
*Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets - Upper Tier 2, above 28 Weeks Later*

A marked improvement in the series. Image retains some slight softness and some grain, but is light years better than Sorcerer's Stone. The color palette is greatly expanded from the previous film and there is much more color depth without looking blown out or overly saturated. No noticeable compression artifacts or EE. Overall, the brightest and most colorful of the entire series while still retaining a film-like quality and clarity.


----------



## JosephShaw

#4
*Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban - Lower Tier 1 near Curse of the Golden Flower*

The subject matter of this chapter in the story turns dark, and it's reflected in the visual style of the movie. Less color overall and I echo Kenneth Brown when he said it has a very monochromatic look to it. It seems like there's a subtle blue filtering going on in many of the dark/outdoor scenes. Lots of light and dark grays and overcast settings. Still, what color is there in exterior shots is vibrant, especially in exterior shots. A very pristine transfer that is sharp and clear with no visible compression artifacts or edge enhancement noticeable. I did not notice any banding on the Plasma, but there were a few moments of banding visible in the storm clouds in the Quidditch match on the 112" DLP display.


----------



## JosephShaw

#5
*Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire - Lower Tier 1, above Prisoner of Azkaban*

Another pristine transfer with no artifacting or EE. Lots more colorful than the last installment, but a little subdued in the use of color to reflect the mood. I owned this on an imported HDDVD, but sold it when I sold all of my HDDVDs and returned my player last year. The HDDVD import was a marked improvement over the DVD, which was also the first movie ever watched in the first official Shaw Family Movie Night (tm), and the BD is essentially the same to my memory of the HDDVD. I'm not sure if it's the same transfer than the import HDDVD, as I no longer have the disc to do an A/B test with. Lots of CG in this film, but surprisingly it all looks very good in HD, especially the dragon during the Triwizard Tournament and the underwater scenes which are heavily mixed CG and real underwater shots involving the actors. Not much noticeable grain either, though there are a plethora of dark and misty/hazy scenes. Really has a much more sharp video feel to it than previous films. Razor sharp image in fact.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JosephShaw* /forum/post/12602392
> 
> 
> #4
> *Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban - Lower Tier 1 near Curse of the Golden Flower*
> 
> A very pristine transfer that is sharp and clear with no visible compression artifacts or edge enhancement noticeable.



I haven't watched this one yet, but GOF I would not describe as "sharp and clear." I would be surprised if the earlier movie looks better than the later one. I think the new GOF looks much worse than my recollection of the UK HD DVD, but I haven't done a direct comparison.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JosephShaw* /forum/post/12602416
> 
> 
> #5
> *Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire - Lower Tier 1, above Prisoner of Azkaban*
> 
> Really has a much more sharp video feel to it than previous films. Razor sharp image in fact.



As noted in my other post, I really can't agree with that assessment.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JosephShaw* /forum/post/12602323
> 
> 
> Lets get some of those untiered titles off the list. I've got 10 I've recently viewed. For all of the following I used two displays:
> 
> Mitsubishi HC3000u 720p front projector onto 112" DIY 1.1 gain 16x9 screen viewed at 14-20 ft.
> 
> Panasonic TH-42PZ77U 42" 1080p plasma viewed at 6-16 ft.



I would base these evaluations only on the 1080p display, and IMO even 6 feet is much too far away for this display. (My viewing distance for a similar size display is 3 feet.)


----------



## JosephShaw

#6
*Lost: The Complete Third Season - Lower Tier, 1 Below Curse of the Golden Flower*

A vibrant image. This season was shot on HD Camera, and it shows: Lots of sharp detail; lush vibrant colors, and clarity, especially on wide shots. Contrast is great with lots of detail in dark scenes. Almost too sharp,as the increased clarity makes the effects shots look less than stellar and definitely made for TV. Definitely not a film-like image. The only downside is some noise in wide color fields that I spotted in 2 scenes.


----------



## JosephShaw




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12602596
> 
> 
> I would base these evaluations only on the 1080p display, and IMO even 6 feet is much too far away for this display. (My viewing distance for a similar size display is 3 feet.)



I base them on both because otherwise this tier list is useless to those without 1080p sets, which is the majority of HDTV display owners. Nothing personal, but you don't need a 1080p set to be able to discern softness/sharpness, noise, compression artifacting, EE, blown contrast, macroblocking, banding/dithering or other video problems. I even used a 32" Sony WEGA SD CRT display with a DVD to compare the DVD release of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone to the BD. I've also used a 61" JVC D-ILA display in the guest bedroom for confirming an issue I saw on another display in the house.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JosephShaw* /forum/post/12602710
> 
> 
> I base them on both because otherwise this tier list is useless to those without 1080p sets, which is the majority of HDTV display owners. Nothing personal, but you don't need a 1080p set to be able to discern softness/sharpness, noise, compression artifacting, EE, blown contrast, macroblocking, banding/dithering or other video problems.



I haven't really spent time watching a 720p display, but there used to be a down/up thread here that took screenshots, reduced the resolution to 720 and then brought it back up to 1080 and did a comparison of the result with the original. Very interesting results.


----------



## Lil' Louie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JosephShaw* /forum/post/12602416
> 
> 
> #5
> *Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire - Lower Tier 1, above Prisoner of Azkaban*
> 
> Another pristine transfer with no artifacting or EE. Lots more colorful than the last installment, but a little subdued in the use of color to reflect the mood. I owned this on an imported HDDVD, but sold it when I sold all of my HDDVDs and returned my player last year. The HDDVD import was a marked improvement over the DVD, which was also the first movie ever watched in the first official Shaw Family Movie Night (tm), and the BD is essentially the same to my memory of the HDDVD. I'm not sure if it's the same transfer than the import HDDVD, as I no longer have the disc to do an A/B test with. Lots of CG in this film, but surprisingly it all looks very good in HD, especially the dragon during the Triwizard Tournament and the underwater scenes which are heavily mixed CG and real underwater shots involving the actors. Not much noticeable grain either, though there are a plethora of dark and misty/hazy scenes. Really has a much more sharp video feel to it than previous films. Razor sharp image in fact.



I definitely agree with the placement for GOF. Nice write up BTW.


----------



## JosephShaw

#7
*Mr. and Mrs. Smith - Low Tier 1 below 300*

Sharp image with no artifacting or noise, but there's a smooth look almost to the point of softness in parts of the movie. No EE that I noticed. Color palette is mostly cool with lots of steel and gray/green-blues, though we get sepia tones in the desert scene and some colorful city nightlife scenes. Color saturation is good overall, though the primaries pop out now and again in various scenes to unnatural levels. I'd say the worst part is the stylized gunbattle (both in visual presentation and action sequence) at the end of the movie, which was far too choreographed and tried way too hard to be John Woo. The only thing it was missing was doves flying over in slow motion, and a more natural color palette.







Still, I love the feel of this movie overall.


----------



## JosephShaw

#8
*Pixar Short Films Collection - Low Tier 3*

I love Pixar, and I know that they did they best that they could with some of early the source material, but the early shorts are all uniformly soft, grainy, and overall unpleasant to watch if you're looking for HD video quality. Historically, this disc is a gem, as it shows a lot of groundbreaking moments in computer animation, but the worst of this disc is bad. The newer shorts all look great, as you'd expect CG animation to look from Pixar after Cars and Ratatouille. Lots of vivid colors and 3d pop. Some of the features show slight banding in high contrast scenes, bright lights, and night skies, but nothing too terribly noticeable.


The rating of Tier 3 is a compromise of the contents overall. If you just measure the quality of the new shorts, I'd say it's easily Tier 1 material.


----------



## JosephShaw

#9
*Weeds Season 2 - Low Tier 2, near Blood Diamond*

I love this series, and I'm glad they upgraded the video quality for this release over Season 1, which was just bad. Season 2 fixes most of the problem. Overall a marked improvement in all areas: no more contrast shift, 99% less video noise, colors are more vibrant, and everything appears much sharper. Still not a pristine image, but a much more HD feel that Season 1.


----------



## JosephShaw




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lil' Louie* /forum/post/12603046
> 
> 
> I definitely agree with the placement for GOF. Nice write up BTW.



Thank you. I'm starting to feel like a broken record after posting all of these and leaving my thesaurus at home







, but I think they're accurate to my eye. I'm sure others will chime in if they disagree.


----------



## JosephShaw

#10 is Day after Tomorrow, but I'm going to hold off on posting it right now. I want to re-examine the film tonight.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JosephShaw* /forum/post/12602710
> 
> 
> I base them on both because otherwise this tier list is useless to those without 1080p sets, which is the majority of HDTV display owners. Nothing personal, but you don't need a 1080p set to be able to discern softness/sharpness, noise, compression artifacting, EE, blown contrast, macroblocking, banding/dithering or other video problems.



Nothing personal, but I - as most here will do I believe - disagree. There is a lot that can be discerned on a really good 720p projector, but the ultimate decision on sharpness and detail needs to be done on a 1080p display. Plus, a 1080p display will most likely be newer and have better contrast and black levels. That is especially true for a front projector.


I disagree that this tier list is useless for those without 1080p; the top titles will make a 720p display shine, too.


----------



## JosephShaw




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/12603479
> 
> 
> Nothing personal, but I - as most here will do I believe - disagree. There is a lot that can be discerned on a really good 720p projector, but the ultimate decision on sharpness and detail needs to be done on a 1080p display.



Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I still strongly disagree, and you'll have a hard time changing my mind with text when my conclusions are based on the visuals I've witnessed with my own eyes. You're more than welcome to come on over and show me an example of HDM that is sharp on the 1080p plasma but isn't sharp on the 720p Mitsubishi DLP projector. You're also welcome to show me HDM that is sharp on the 720p front projector but not the 1080p plasma. I've got about 100 titles in the library, so if you have some you'd like to suggest, feel free. I think that's an appropriate litmus test before discounting 720p displays, but again, opinions vary.



> Quote:
> Plus, a 1080p display will most likely be newer and have better contrast and black levels. That is especially true for a front projector.



I suppose it's good I'm using both then, isn't it?


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JosephShaw* /forum/post/12603504
> 
> 
> Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I still strongly disagree, and you'll have a hard time changing my mind with text when my conclusions are based on the visuals I've witnessed with my own eyes. You're more than welcome to come on over and show me an example of HDM that is sharp on the 1080p plasma but isn't sharp on the 720p Mitsubishi DLP projector. You're also welcome to show me HDM that is sharp on the 720p front projector but not the 1080p plasma. I've got about 100 titles in the library, so if you have some you'd like to suggest, feel free. I think that's an appropriate litmus test before discounting 720p displays, but again, opinions vary.



Well, there's opinions and then there's facts. A 1920x1080 display is a higher resolution display than a 1280x720 one. And a 1920x1080 source needs to be down-rez'd to be shown on a 1280x720 display. And that means throwing away resolution/pixels. Less pixels means that you are seeing less detail.


So you're not really disagreeing with my opinion. You're disagreeing with the facts. As they say, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts


----------



## chris0




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JosephShaw* /forum/post/12603504
> 
> 
> Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I still strongly disagree, and you'll have a hard time changing my mind with text when my conclusions are based on the visuals I've witnessed with my own eyes. You're more than welcome to come on over and show me an example of HDM that is sharp on the 1080p plasma but isn't sharp on the 720p Mitsubishi DLP projector. You're also welcome to show me HDM that is sharp on the 720p front projector but not the 1080p plasma. I've got about 100 titles in the library, so if you have some you'd like to suggest, feel free. I think that's an appropriate litmus test before discounting 720p displays, but again, opinions vary.



I think your argument would hold more weight if you were comparing a 720p PJ with an equivalent 1080p PJ or a 720p plasma with an equivalent 1080p plasma.


But you'd have to ask the keepers of this thread how much weight they give to someone with a 720p projector. Since excess grain, EE, etc. shouldn't be things introduced simply because you're viewing a 1080p source on a 720p PJ I have a feeling they'll take your opinions into consideration and weigh them accordingly.


----------



## lgans316

AustinSTI : How about conducting Polls for Blu-rays too ?

*Die Hard* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DTS-HD MA - Vote ! 
*Die Hard with a Vengeance* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DTS-HD MA - Vote !


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chris0* /forum/post/12605078
> 
> 
> I think your argument would hold more weight if you were comparing a 720p PJ with an equivalent 1080p PJ or a 720p plasma with an equivalent 1080p plasma.
> 
> 
> But you'd have to ask the keepers of this thread how much weight they give to someone with a 720p projector. Since excess grain, EE, etc. shouldn't be things introduced simply because you're viewing a 1080p source on a 720p PJ I have a feeling they'll take your opinions into consideration and weigh them accordingly.



I would.


If anything, a 720p display might show more artifacts than the 1080p display due to "downrezzing" (but I think this is overblown). I think a picture that looks superb on 720p will likely look even better on 1080p. Similarly, a bad looking disc on a 720p display might look even worse on a 1080p display.


Besides, as long as the reviews are based on comparisons to other movies using the same (720p) display, that reviewers comments regarding tier ratings are still valid.


----------



## Xylon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12602471
> 
> 
> As noted in my other post, I really can't agree with that assessment.



Time to rejoin this thread. Don't worry I'll be gentle











I am seeing a pattern here patrick99 , Is there a VC-1 encoded movie that you don't find sharp or very good PQ? Or for that matter anything from WB? I am looking at you post history and I find that only you are the most consistent with this observation.


Very disturbing since _a clear majority_ from AVS and online reviews







said that it has an excellent PQ, consistent and sharp.


Ahh, forget a clear majority from AVS, who among you agree with patrick99 that Harry Potter 5 or any of WB movies is shall we say _soft._? Step right up. I want to see the AVS old timers opinion on PQ


----------



## Xylon

Hey now 2001 is not TIER 0 anymore! ! !


Just kidding. Why was it there in the first place?







Who recommended that up there?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Xylon* /forum/post/12605168
> 
> 
> Time to rejoin this thread. Don't worry I'll be gentle
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am seeing a pattern here patrick99 , Is there a VC-1 encoded movie that you don't find sharp or very good PQ? Or for that matter anything from WB? I am looking at you post history and I find that only you are the most consistent with this observation.
> 
> 
> Very disturbing since _a clear majority_ from AVS and online reviews
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> said that it has an excellent PQ, consistent and sharp.
> 
> 
> Ahh, forget a clear majority from AVS, who among you agree with patrick99 that Harry Potter 5 or any of WB movies is shall we say _soft._? Step right up. I want to see the AVS old timers opinion on PQ



I haven't seen any of the Harry Potter movies (I am not a fan at all), but I will say that I most certainly agree with the _generalization_ that Warner releases tend to be soft.


Warner is the most disappointing studio overall when it comes to PQ on HDM.


Are there exceptions? Of course! The Matrix movies look great. I am _extremely_ happy with Blade Runner. Corpse Bride is reference quality.


But more often than not, Warner titles tend to disappoint in the PQ department in HD, which is a surprise to me, considering they were always one of the best with DVD.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Xylon* /forum/post/12605188
> 
> 
> Hey now 2001 is not TIER 0 anymore! ! !
> 
> 
> Just kidding. Why was it there in the first place?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who recommended that up there?



I asked that very same question in this thread after viewing the movie!


Here is my post:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...postcount=1471


----------



## Xylon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12605238
> 
> 
> I asked that very same question in this thread after viewing the movie!
> 
> 
> Here is my post:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...postcount=1471



There's hope after all


----------



## Xylon

I will _pretend_ that a TIER 0 - Completely flawless picture. No artifacts whatsoever, no matter how small - mantra doesn't exist here on this thread For the sake of my sanity










With that out of the way . . . . Let me begin with . . .


At World's End over Apocalypto? Why? Who decided this? Is there a consensus on the PQ on these two titles? Or are we still on hype mode


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Xylon* /forum/post/12605168
> 
> 
> Ahh, forget a clear majority from AVS, who among you agree with patrick99 that Harry Potter 5 or any of WB movies is shall we say _soft._? Step right up. I want to see the AVS old timers opinion on PQ



I haven't seen the Harry Potter series of movies as I'm completely uninterested in the series of films. However of the WB movies I *have* seen I tend to agree with patrick99 for the most part.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Xylon* /forum/post/12605414
> 
> 
> I will _pretend_ that a TIER 0 - Completely flawless picture. No artifacts whatsoever, no matter how small - mantra doesn't exist here on this thread For the sake of my sanity



We're working to get that changed: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1#post12592721 


Feel free to chime in on it.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Xylon* /forum/post/12605414
> 
> 
> Is there a consensus on the PQ on these two titles? Or are we still on hype mode



I thought you were going to be gentle?










Brandon


----------



## SuprSlow

Alright, finally, an update










This week's new titles:
*Blade Runner* Video: VC-1 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner
*Shakira - Oral Fixation* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.78:1 | Sony BMG
*The Simpsons Movie* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Fox
*That's Entertainment: The Complete Collection* Video: VC-1 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: Various | Warner
*Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD5.1 | AR: 2.35:1 | Warner
*Underdog* Video: ? | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Disney
*Pan's Labyrinth* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 (Spanish) | AR: 1.85:1 | New Line
*Rush Hour 3* Video: ? | Audio: DTS-HD MA (7.1) | AR: 2.35:1 | New Line


Additions/updates:
Gridiron Gang removed from unranked list
The Searchers added Mid Tier 2 (Gardo)
The Wild Bunch added Mid Tier 3 (desmond212)
Rio Bravo added Mid Tier 3 (desmond212)
Cast Away added Tier 2 (maverick0716 & OldCOdger73)
Legends of Jazz up to bottom of Tier 1 (Rob Tomlin)
Mr. Brooks up to Tier 0 (Rob Tomlin & patrick99 & rydenfan)
Harry Potter: GoF added bottom Tier 1 (Lil' Louie)
Phantom of the Opera moved down to top 1/3 of Tier 3 (edgary)
Pan's Labrinyth added Top Tier 1 (ajamils)
Simpson's Movie added Top Tier 1 (clutch69)
Paprika added to bottom Tier 3 (maverick0716 & mr stroke)
Mr & Mrs Smith added mid Tier 1 (Jenova)
Die Hard added mid Tier 3 (Schlotkins)
Die Hard with a Vengeance added to bottom of Tier 1 (Schlotkins & Rob Tomlin)
Tekkon Kinkreet added to top Tier 1 (mr stroke)
Blade Runner added to Top Tier 2 (Schlotkins, patrick99, jjwinterberg, Rob Tomlin)
Rush Hour 3 added Mid Tier 1 (maverick0716)
28 Weeks Later down to Mid Tier 2 (Rob Tomlin)
Spiderman 3 down a few spots (bplewis24)
Rocky Balboa moved to top of Tier 2 (lgans316 & maverick0716)
Arlington Road added to mid Tier 2 (AfRoMaN787)

(Note: this is as far as I've gotten for now, the remainder of the tier suggestions will be added tomorrow. )



Unresolved discussions/disagreements:
Placement of POTC2
Placement of Roving Mars
Placement of Devil Wears Prada



A word about user input/rankings/AV "elitism"/other BS...


I, for one, couldn't care less if someone has 4 posts or 4,000 posts. I give equal consideration to every post as I update the thread, as I'm sure Austin and Mongoos do also. However, we're not perfect and we may miss a post here and there and leave out a valid suggestion. If we do, I apologize. Bring it to our attention and we'll address it as necessary. I haven't been around long, but I can promise you in my time, I've never purposely ignored a poster with valid input. By "valid", I mean including the Tier placement, and posting the viewing specs as required in the first post.


(As a side note, it's also a tremendous help to mention specifically where you think a title should be placed within a Tier. Some of these tiers are getting fairly large and "Mid Tier 2" covers a broad area. A fractional or percentage placement seems to be somewhat popular (i.e. - bottom 10% or bottom 1/5 of Tier 1), or you can reference a certain title that the new title should be placed near.)


Again, I apologize if anyone was offended by us mistakenly overlooking your post. It was/is an honest mistake. But as I said, bring it to our attention, and we'll be more than glad to add/shift titles as long as there is a general concensus.


----------



## mp3junkie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12605224
> 
> 
> I haven't seen any of the Harry Potter movies (I am not a fan at all), but I will say that I most certainly agree with the _generalization_ that Warner releases tend to be soft.
> 
> 
> Warner is the most disappointing studio overall when it comes to PQ on HDM.
> 
> 
> Are there exceptions? Of course! The Matrix movies look great. I am _extremely_ happy with Blade Runner. Corpse Bride is reference quality.
> 
> 
> But more often than not, Warner titles tend to disappoint in the PQ department in HD, which is a surprise to me, considering they were always one of the best with DVD.



I agree... I just watched Harry Potter and the OOTP for the second time. Again, the PQ was just a little soft and definately not razor sharp as I had hoped. Take a look at Kingdom of Heaven....now that is a razor sharp presentation. I would also agree that Goblet of Fire was a tad better in terms of PQ than OOTP. Just my opinion.


----------



## mp3junkie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mp3junkie* /forum/post/12606132
> 
> 
> I agree... I just watched Harry Potter and the OOTP for the second time. Again, the PQ was just a little soft and definately not razor sharp as I had hoped. Take a look at Kingdom of Heaven....now that is a razor sharp presentation. I would also agree that Goblet of Fire was a tad better in terms of PQ than OOTP. Just my opinion.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Xylon* /forum/post/12605414
> 
> 
> I will _pretend_ that a TIER 0 - Completely flawless picture. No artifacts whatsoever, no matter how small - mantra doesn't exist here on this thread For the sake of my sanity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With that out of the way . . . . Let me begin with . . .
> 
> 
> At World's End over Apocalypto? Why? Who decided this? Is there a consensus on the PQ on these two titles? Or are we still on hype mode



I agree with your post. Why is Apocalypto below AWE? In terms of PQ, Apocalypto is classic reference material. The PQ is breathtaking.


----------



## mp3junkie

Can someone please tell my why "Kingdom of Heaven is hoovering at the bottom of Tier 1? I found the PQ of this presentation to be exceptional. It was razor sharp throughout. Am I missing something here with this movie? "Kingdom of Heaven is reference material and should be moved to upper Tier 1 for sure.


__________

52" Sharp LCD Flat Screen 82u

Blu-ray - PS3 -80gig

HD Player - Toshiba A-30


----------



## Lil' Louie

Finally had a chance to view Mr. Brooks. Damn I loved this flick. Downside is I have to send it back to Netflix, but I will be adding it to my collection soon. PQ is outstanding, 3D, liquid smooth, and very realistic. Some dark scenes were a little grainy; but everything else was top notch. IMO, along side Casino Royale and Apocolypto is a well deserved Tier placing. Highly recommended movie.










Viewed on Sony KDS-55A3000 - PS3 1080/24p @ 7ft:


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Xylon* /forum/post/12605168
> 
> 
> Time to rejoin this thread. Don't worry I'll be gentle
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am seeing a pattern here patrick99 , Is there a VC-1 encoded movie that you don't find sharp or very good PQ? Or for that matter anything from WB? I am looking at you post history and I find that only you are the most consistent with this observation.
> 
> 
> Very disturbing since _a clear majority_ from AVS and online reviews
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> said that it has an excellent PQ, consistent and sharp.
> 
> 
> Ahh, forget a clear majority from AVS, who among you agree with patrick99 that Harry Potter 5 or any of WB movies is shall we say _soft._? Step right up. I want to see the AVS old timers opinion on PQ



Time to rejoin the thread in order to point out a pattern in my posts?


It really is no secret that I see a "pattern" of softness in Warner high def releases, going back to Batman Begins, continuing with Poseidon, The Departed, Blood Diamond, etc., etc., etc.


And I am most definitely not alone in seeing this "pattern" of softness in Warner high def releases.


HP5 looks better than most Warner high def titles, but doesn't come anywhere close to the best from Fox, Disney, and Sony.


And it really has nothing to do with VC-1. As I have said many, many, many times, a number of Universal titles look excellent.


----------



## lgans316

We can see bit rates slipping down the drain with the adoption of the new VC-1 encode which is said to produce optimal picture at low bit rates. So expect PQ cribs with Warner titles.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Xylon* /forum/post/12605188
> 
> 
> Hey now 2001 is not TIER 0 anymore! ! !
> 
> 
> Just kidding. Why was it there in the first place?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who recommended that up there?



Are you saying you think this Warner release looks *SOFT*?

















So do I.


----------



## Xylon

*Soft?*


huh?


That title is nowhere near - *Completely flawless picture. No artifacts whatsoever, no matter how small* - LOL!


An eyebrow raising response since it _was_ on "ahem" TIER 0


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/12606098
> 
> 
> [*]Rush Hour 3 added Mid Tier 1 (maverick0716)



Any more comments on Rush Hour 3? I've heard mixed reviews on this in terms of PQ so more than one source would be helpful. Anybody else pick this one up?


Brandon


----------



## KathyMoore

Can I vote for a Blu-ray movie that isn't released in the US?


I ordered "*Infernal Affairs*" from King Kong and it arrivedd

last weak.


The Blu-ray version is way better than the DVD that I have,

obviously...










Infernal Affairs Blu-ray should be placed in the top half of

Tier 2. The video transfer to Blu-ray was pretty good. There

are several scenes that appear grainy, compared directly

to the DVD version. However, it's not noticeble on plasma

screens 58" or under. I only noticed it when playing on a

1080p projector at 133" screen size.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JosephShaw* /forum/post/12608966
> 
> 
> Let's take a look at what I said, highlighting a very important part of the statement I made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, while it may not be clear because of the way I worded it, and I apologize for not being clear, but I was comparing it to the previous HP films not all films. I think a lot of the video feel has to do with the copious amounts of CG shots in the film. Either way, I stand by that statement as I've explained it.
> 
> 
> Now, if you still disagree, would you mind pointing out some scenes with timestamps to back up your claims, as per the guidelines of the thread?



What I was disagreeing with was this: "Razor sharp image in fact."


I have not yet watched HP 1,2, or 3, but I agree that HP 5 looked substantially better than HP 4 (the new version, not the earlier UK HD DVD).


----------



## JosephShaw




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12605166
> 
> 
> I would.
> 
> 
> If anything, a 720p display might show more artifacts than the 1080p display due to "downrezzing" (but I think this is overblown). I think a picture that looks superb on 720p will likely look even better on 1080p. Similarly, a bad looking disc on a 720p display might look even worse on a 1080p display.
> 
> 
> Besides, as long as the reviews are based on comparisons to other movies using the same (720p) display, that reviewers comments regarding tier ratings are still valid.



Thank you Rob. This is my point exactly. I've gone back and looked at titles that I thought favorably of on the 720p DLP projector, and my opinion hasn't changed much on the plasma.


----------



## SuprSlow

Additions/updates:
Harry Potter: SS added bottom Tier 3 (JosephShaw)
Harry Potter: CoS added upper Tier 2 (JosephShaw)
Harry Potter: PoA added lower Tier 1 (JosephShaw)
Lost - 3rd Season moved down to lower Tier 1 (JosephShaw & nick2010)
Pixar Shorts added lower Tier 3 (JosephShaw)
Weeds Season 2 added lower Tier 2 (JosephShaw)
Kingdom of Heaven moved upper Tier 1 (mp3junkie & SuprSlow)



Goblet of Fire is in lower Tier 1 for now. Keep up the discussion and we'll try to come to a reasonable compromise on it's movement up or down.



As far as the revised description for Tier 0...any suggestions/improvements?


"Tier 0 - Blu

These are reference quality titles with the cleanest and sharpest image available. Films in this tier are demo material and represent the best of the best Blu-ray has to offer."


----------



## JosephShaw




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12609163
> 
> 
> What I was disagreeing with was this: "Razor sharp image in fact."



I think we're just going to have to disagree on this one, as I'm watching HP4/GoF right now, and it looks pretty sharp to me. The weave of cloth in clothes, bark on trees, wrinkles on Hermoine's forehead on the train, the scars on Madeye Moody's face at distance in his classroom introductoin, and the stones in the castle are all pretty sharp and crystal clear, even in wide shots like Harry walking to talk to Cedric about the dragons. You can see individual stray hairs on Dumbledore's wig in the selection of the school champions for the Triwizard cup. The only part of this movie I'd classify as soft is the underwater scenes, but that is by design since they are under water.



> Quote:
> I have not yet watched HP 1,2, or 3, but I agree that HP 5 looked substantially better than HP 4 (the new version, not the earlier UK HD DVD).



Fair enough then.


----------



## remush




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/12608225
> 
> 
> Any more comments on Rush Hour 3? I've heard mixed reviews on this in terms of PQ so more than one source would be helpful. Anybody else pick this one up?
> 
> 
> Brandon



I rented it last night and since I watched the movie in theaters and wasn't too impressed by the movie I mostly paid attention to the PQ. It has amazing outdoor shots especially in the day, very crisp and clean. Even the dimmer indoor shots looked good to me. Really outstanding detail in most of the scenes, overall, I was impressed with the PQ.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/12609258
> 
> 
> Additions/updates:
> Harry Potter: SS added bottom Tier 3 (JosephShaw)
> Harry Potter: CoS added upper Tier 2 (JosephShaw)
> Harry Potter: PoA added lower Tier 1 (JosephShaw)
> Lost - 3rd Season moved down to lower Tier 1 (JosephShaw & nick2010)
> Pixar Shorts added lower Tier 3 (JosephShaw)
> Weeds Season 2 added lower Tier 2 (JosephShaw)
> Kingdom of Heaven moved upper Tier 1 (mp3junkie & SuprSlow)
> 
> 
> 
> Goblet of Fire is in lower Tier 1 for now. Keep up the discussion and we'll try to come to a reasonable compromise on it's movement up or down.
> 
> 
> 
> As far as the revised description for Tier 0...any suggestions/improvements?
> 
> 
> "Tier 0 - Blu
> 
> These are reference quality titles with the cleanest and sharpest image available. Films in this tier are demo material and represent the best of the best Blu-ray has to offer."



I had thought I remembered AustinSTI posting a while ago that Dave Matthews was going to be moved out of Tier 0. Am I misremembering? I don't think it comes close to belonging in Tier 0 or even high Tier 1.


I like the revised description for Tier 0.


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12609605
> 
> 
> I had thought I remembered AustinSTI posting a while ago that Dave Matthews was going to be moved out of Tier 0. Am I misremembering? I don't think it comes close to belonging in Tier 0 or even high Tier 1.
> 
> 
> I like the revised description for Tier 0.




I thought DM had been moved, thanks for catching that


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/12609748
> 
> 
> I thought DM had been moved, thanks for catching that



Tier 0 is looking much better now than it did a few weeks ago.











Moving to Tier 1, surely I can get some votes for moving Hairspray down?


----------



## TheLion




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12609854
> 
> 
> Tier 0 is looking much better now than it did a few weeks ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moving to Tier 1, surely I can get some votes for moving Hairspray down?



You certainly have my vote concerning Hairspray. DNRed and filtered look. Hardly any definition and texture.


----------



## SuprSlow

Added AR/Studio info to Tier 1. Working on the rest now.


Opinions on exact placement of Hairspray?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TheLion* /forum/post/12610239
> 
> 
> You certainly have my vote concerning Hairspray. DNRed and filtered look. Hardly any definition and texture.



Many thanks, W.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/12610280
> 
> 
> 
> Opinions on exact placement of Hairspray?



I would say the middle of Tier 2.


I notice that Troy DC is also way too high. I would put it about the same place as Hairspray. Very similar results.


----------



## 1FAST951

First I would like to thank Rob Tomlin for his extensive and constructive reply to my previous post a while back.


Secondly I would also like to thank the "Thread Keepers" again for doing such a great job and keeping the list up to date. Specially for adding the AR's, I know this has to be very time consuming and a real PITA.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/12609258
> 
> 
> 
> As far as the revised description for Tier 0...any suggestions/improvements?
> 
> 
> "Tier 0 - Blu
> 
> These are reference quality titles with the cleanest and sharpest image available. Films in this tier are demo material and represent the best of the best Blu-ray has to offer."



Yes, I would like something along those lines much better, it might allow a few more film based (as opposed to animated) BD's in that Tier........if they deserve it












> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/12609748
> 
> 
> I thought DM had been moved, thanks for catching that



Yeah it had been moved a couple of weeks a go.....not your imagination playing tricks on you


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Hey, lookey where Mr. Brooks is!


----------



## Wryker

Hmm - no Hellboy (US Version) on the list? To me it's Tier 1. Deep colors, very little grain.

PS3 - HDMI- Denon 2808 - HDMI- Mitsubishi 73" 73833 - 1080p/24 @10'


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12614345
> 
> 
> Hey, lookey where Mr. Brooks is!



Just for you Rob










My copy is in the mail...can't wait to see it.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/12614493
> 
> 
> Just for you Rob
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My copy is in the mail...can't wait to see it.



Hey, not just for me! Others wanted it there too!


Looking forward to your comments re both PQ and what you think of the movie itself (I like it quite a bit).


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12614629
> 
> 
> Hey, not just for me! Others wanted it there too!
> 
> 
> Looking forward to your comments re both PQ and what you think of the movie itself (I like it quite a bit).



Many others!











Btw, I think HP 5 is a bit too high. I would put it just below DH 4.


How about a vote to move Hairspray and Troy down, Rob?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12614680
> 
> 
> Many others!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Btw, I think HP 5 is a bit too high. I would put it just below DH 4.
> 
> 
> How about a vote to move Hairspray and Troy down, Rob?



Sorry Patrick, haven't seen either of them yet.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12614842
> 
> 
> Sorry Patrick, haven't seen either of them yet.



Well, I don't actually recommend that you see them, Rob.


----------



## Wryker




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wryker* /forum/post/12614401
> 
> 
> Hmm - no Hellboy (US Version) on the list? To me it's Tier 1. Deep colors, very little grain.
> 
> PS3 - HDMI- Denon 2808 - HDMI- Mitsubishi 73" 73833 - 1080p/24 @10'



again?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12614867
> 
> 
> Well, I don't actually recommend that you see them, Rob.














I do have Hairspray in my Queue, but I am NOT a fan of musicals so I am in no rush to see this.


I saw Troy on DVD and thought it was just ok as a movie, so not real motivated to see it again.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12614912
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do have Hairspray in my Queue, but I am NOT a fan of musicals so I am in no rush to see this.



It's a very mediocre musical, so I imagine it will not be a high point for you.


On the other hand, High School Musical 2 is very entertaining (although filled with EE, unfortunately).


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/12609258
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as the revised description for Tier 0...any suggestions/improvements?
> 
> 
> "Tier 0 - Blu
> 
> These are reference quality titles with the cleanest and sharpest image available. Films in this tier are demo material and represent the best of the best Blu-ray has to offer."



Sounds good to me. I, too, like the chances of more film-based material making it into this tier (like Mr Brooks, etc).


Brandon


----------



## lrstevens421

I know "Stomp the Yard" isn't a popular movie, but mid-tier 3??? It looked pretty darn good to me, certainly better than King Arthur. I was pleasanty surprised by this movie, I can't be the only one.


Sony 52XBR4

Panasonic BD30

10 Ft. away.


----------



## nick2010

Why is _Pixar Short Films Collection, Vol. 1_ in Tier 3? Is this based on the average quality of the short films? (Many of the newer ones were much better in terms of PQ)


----------



## Lil' Louie

Will be watching Hairspray in the next few days and will be sure to post MO. Also, I recommend we stick with the "rules" for Tier placement:



> Quote:
> Please Note these requirements when commenting on a movie's placement:
> 
> 
> When posting your thoughts about Tier placement please be sure to include the following or your post has no chance of impacting the tier:
> 
> 
> Screen Resolution (EX: 1920X1080X24p or 1920X1080X60p)
> 
> Screen Size (EX: 100" Projection, 50" Plasma)
> 
> Distance from Screen


----------



## Kingcarcas

What do you guys think would be better, a Tier 4 BD or Upconverted DVD on a PS3?







(Usual Suspects, Devils Rejects)


----------



## mr stroke




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Xylon* /forum/post/12605188
> 
> 
> Hey now 2001 is not TIER 0 anymore! ! !
> 
> 
> Just kidding. Why was it there in the first place?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who recommended that up there?













I cant belive you guys pulled 2001 off of Tier 0









it will be debated for ever but 2001 IMO is perfection, considering the time at which the film was made it blows me away how stunning the transfer is..and how well it holds up PQ wise next to stuff like Pirates


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kingcarcas* /forum/post/12618191
> 
> 
> What do you guys think would be better, a Tier 4 BD or Upconverted DVD on a PS3?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Usual Suspects, Devils Rejects)



The Tier 4 Blu Ray, no questions asked.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kingcarcas* /forum/post/12618191
> 
> 
> What do you guys think would be better, a Tier 4 BD or Upconverted DVD on a PS3?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Usual Suspects, Devils Rejects)



The Tier 4 BD will look better, but not much better. In fact sometimes it won't be noticeable at all during regular viewing. Those movies don't justify a double-dip if you already own the DVD version unless there are other considerations (HD audio, HD extras, etc).


Brandon


----------



## jjwinterberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mr stroke* /forum/post/12618461
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I cant believe you guys pulled 2001 off of Tier 0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it will be debated for ever but 2001 IMO is perfection, considering the time at which the film was made it blows me away how stunning the transfer is..and how well it holds up PQ wise next to stuff like Pirates



I just finished watching 2001 (I finally got my copy from WHV) and I don't think the thread will benefit from any more discussion of where the BR should be in the ranking but I think the point that Stroke makes is very valid and important in the way the thread ranks discs; and that point is how can films with mostly live filming compare with films that are animated or employ extensive CGI and or "blue screen" techniques. With the rating scale and a lot of posters emphasizing "HD Pop" as the criterion for ranking, it is very hard for the films with more live filming and more difficult lighting to have that razor sharp quality that gives the 3D-pop; also older films with more pronounced film grain are not going to have that razor sharpness.


I guess I don't know if this matters much because I like to look at the ratings as a general guide to the disc quality (especially when considering a disc upgrade) but it might be important when considering how to revise the definitions of the tiers.


Just a thought.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/12618917
> 
> 
> The Tier 4 BD will look better, but not much better. In fact sometimes it won't be noticeable at all during regular viewing. Those movies don't justify a double-dip if you already own the DVD version unless there are other considerations (HD audio, HD extras, etc).
> 
> 
> Brandon



I agree.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jjwinterberg* /forum/post/12618933
> 
> 
> I just finished watching 2001 (I finally got my copy from WHV) and I don't think the thread will benefit from any more discussion of where the BR should be in the ranking but ........



Nonsense.


There is always benefit to additional discussion on disc placements.


I would like to hear your thoughts on 2001 and where you think it should be placed. That's what this thread is all about, right?


----------



## Schlotkins

I watched the first Harry potter last night (stone). I agree it was a bit disappointing in the PQ department. It was strange - parts of the movie looked REALLY good and then parts just looked horrible like I needed to clean my glasses. I think it's current placement is probably right.


Going to watch Chamber of Secrets today and I'll report back.


Chris


----------



## avhed




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kingcarcas* /forum/post/12618191
> 
> 
> What do you guys think would be better, a Tier 4 BD or Upconverted DVD on a PS3?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Usual Suspects, Devils Rejects)



I find this an odd question. I rented Waiting before it was ranked the worse BD. I did not find it any worse than upconverted DVD.(Reon chipped Samsung BD-P1200)


----------



## haste




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *avhed* /forum/post/12625687
> 
> 
> I find this an odd question. I rented Waiting before it was ranked the worse BD. I did not find it any worse than upconverted DVD.(Reon chipped Samsung BD-P1200)



I agree. I have not found any BD movie I have seen to be worse or the same quality as a DVD. All of them have been better, but some movies don't reap the benefits of going HD as much as others.


I voted for Waiting to be the worst rated...black levels sucked and it had a lot of edge enhancement, but it still looked better than the DVD...worth the upgrade IMO, if not just for the sound or the protective coating..


----------



## dvdmike007

ID4 no detail in night or model shots others have strong colour and pop

Tier 3 high

Screen Resolution 720p watched at 1080i

Screen Size 42 3xlcd rp

Distance from Screen 1.5m


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dvdmike007* /forum/post/12627300
> 
> 
> ID4 no detail in night or model shots others have strong colour and pop
> 
> Tier 3 high
> 
> Screen Resolution 720p watched at 1080i
> 
> Screen Size 42 3xlcd rp
> 
> Distance from Screen 1.5m



Well that's disappointing. I'm assuming this is an import version as I didn't expect the US version to be out yet. Do we know if the US version will use the same encode?


Brandon


----------



## lgans316

I slightly disagree with the comments on ID4 by dvdmike007. Only the dark scenes post Area 51 seem to suffer from slightly crushed blacks. I don't think Fox will do a separate encode on the U.S version as I don't see any need for it. They have bumped the dates citing playback issues.


----------



## Schlotkins

Chamber of Secrets placement looks good to me.


Chris


----------



## Benkrishman

I'm thinking Mr. Brooks may have been placed a bit too high. Don't get me wrong, the detail in the movie was incredible, easily one of the most crisp and detailed live action movies I've seen, however there were several scene's in the movie where it looked very washed out. The only scene I can remember specifically is a shot from above the volvo(helicopter shot) while Mr. Brooks and Mr. Smith are driving around. There are several other scenes where there blacks weren't deep at all and it looked like I had the brightness set way too high on my set(I had to check a few times through the movie to make sure).


I still think the movie looks incredible, but those several scenes make me unsure if it fully deserves a Teir 0 placement.


I will add that I never saw the film in theaters so I'm not sure if the washed out scenes developed from the transfer or if it was there in the source. Other than those few scenes though the blacks are very deep and look fantastic.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

In my opinion if there are only a few scenes in a movie that don't look good, those few scenes should be noted in the review, but I don't think would prevent a title from being in Tier 0 if 95% of the rest looks superb.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12630391
> 
> 
> In my opinion if there are only a few scenes in a movie that don't look good, those few scenes should be noted in the review, but I don't think would prevent a title from being in Tier 0 if 95% of the rest looks superb.



I agree with that. Plus, I think POTC 3 (and even more so POTC 2) are subject to a lot more criticism on the basis of some scenes than Mr. Brooks is.


----------



## Zappcatt

I just got into Blue Ray..have had HD DVD for about a year.

Saw Cars and Ratatloie-awesome of course, TMNT was also very nice.


I liked Underworld, but was surprised to see it rated higher than Ant Bully. Are there issues with the BR version of Ant Bully? I have seen it on HD DVD and thought it would be rated higher than Underworld.


----------



## Benkrishman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12630391
> 
> 
> In my opinion if there are only a few scenes in a movie that don't look good, those few scenes should be noted in the review, but I don't think would prevent a title from being in Tier 0 if 95% of the rest looks superb.



I will agree with that. I just wanted to make sure that was taken into consideration when Mr. Brooks was placed where it was.


----------



## Schlotkins

Re tiers: Perhaps Tier 0 should be the top 3% or something like that instead of a hard and fast definition. Given we are closing in on 300 movies, there has to be 10 that are "demo material." Heck, we could do that for the entire list. top 3% tier 0, top 3-20% gold, 21-50% silver, 51-80% bronze, 81-97% copper bottom 3% coal.


Just a thought...


Chris


EDIT: Please don't confuse this post with not liking the current format. I figured I would mention this since we were debating the definition of Tier 0.


----------



## Xylon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/12609258
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as the revised description for Tier 0...any suggestions/improvements?
> 
> *"Tier 0 - Blu
> 
> These are reference quality titles with the cleanest and sharpest image available. Films in this tier are demo material and represent the best of the best Blu-ray has to offer."*





Better and _more_ accurate representation of your Tier rankings instead of declaring - *Completely flawless picture. No artifacts whatsoever, no matter how small.* I don't understand we have that mantra here at AVS. Especially the AVS Tier rankings. *All* the live action titles listed on Tier 0 has noticeable artifacts especially the Pirate movies.


And if you read the reviews from AVS users the AWE movie is _far_ from being _Tier 0_ and so is DMC. I really hope this is all about the real, honest PQ assessment . . . . from the caretakers of the TIER threads.


----------



## 30XS955 User

I just though I'd chime in and say that the placing of 300 is completely appropriate.


----------



## Schlotkins

My wife and I watched the third Harry potter movie tonight. I thought it looked really good and definitely deserves to be in the Gold thread. I thought there where nice sharp shots in this movie - nothing like what I remember with Batman Begins or the Prestige.


Again, my setup is a 50" Pioneer 5070 plasma from about 7-8 feet depending on how I position myself on the couch.


Chris


----------



## 30XS955 User




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Xylon* /forum/post/12631952
> 
> 
> [/b]
> *All* the live action titles listed on Tier 0 has noticeable artifacts especially the Pirate movies.
> 
> 
> And if you read the reviews from AVS users the AWE movie is _far_ from being _Tier 0_ and so is DMC. I really hope this is all about the real, honest PQ assessment . . . . from the caretakers of the TIER threads.



If you could post screen caps of the artifacted frames or give timestamps, that would be great!


----------



## Xylon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12610414
> 
> 
> I would say the middle of Tier 2.
> 
> 
> I notice that Troy DC is also way too high. I would put it about the same place as Hairspray. Very similar results.



Troy DC same tier as Hairspray!?!?!?! Similar results?


Definitely a pattern here patrick99.


Anyone agree with him?


----------



## Lil' Louie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Xylon* /forum/post/12635906
> 
> 
> Troy DC same tier as Hairspray!?!?!?! Similar results?
> 
> 
> Definitely a pattern here patrick99.
> 
> 
> Anyone agree with him?



No! Although, I don't agree with you regarding AWE and DMC either. Guess I'm in my own little world.


----------



## Xylon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *30XS955 User* /forum/post/12635711
> 
> 
> If you could post screen caps of the artifacted frames or give timestamps, that would be great!



I will eventually post more. I did post two screenshots and the usual place for AWE. You don't even need those screenshots to see them. Just read the reviews by AVS users and outside this forum.


----------



## Xylon

Again *ALL* HD movies is not perfect - No artifacts whatsoever







is reeeally reaching - look at the HD DVD TIER thread, no one is claiming artifact free because that is the awful truth.


----------



## Xylon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lil' Louie* /forum/post/12635985
> 
> 
> No! Although, I don't agree with you regarding AWE and DMC either. Guess I'm in my own little world.



One title at a time


----------



## Lil' Louie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Xylon* /forum/post/12636066
> 
> 
> One title at a time



Have at it.


----------



## eiger

Is there any particular reason 'Planet Earth' isn't higher up?


I use this as demo material all the time withthe vibrant and crisp image. Makes me wonder if it was placed lower simply because of how much hype it received.


----------



## KathyMoore

Why is Die Hard(1) in Tier 3? I bought the disc but haven't gotten around to watching it yet... still sealed...


Is the video quality really that bad?


Thanks!


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *eiger* /forum/post/12636793
> 
> 
> Is there any particular reason 'Planet Earth' isn't higher up?
> 
> 
> I use this as demo material all the time withthe vibrant and crisp image. Makes me wonder if it was placed lower simply because of how much hype it received.



It was probably placed lower because of the many mediocre scenes it has. That being said, it definitly does have some of the sharpest, cleanest looking imagery of the best titles out there........it just isn't consistant enough.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *KathyMoore* /forum/post/12640005
> 
> 
> Why is Die Hard(1) in Tier 3? I bought the disc but haven't gotten around to watching it yet... still sealed...
> 
> 
> Is the video quality really that bad?
> 
> 
> Thanks!



It should in bottom of Tier 2. PQ was great but not excellent. However it has never looked and sounded this great in any of the prior formats.


----------



## bplewis24

I was very surprised to see Babel in Tier 2. I looked up any posts on it and it appears to be a carry-over from the original Tier Thread ran by Fett. I thought the movie was very soft. Has anybody else seen it recently?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/12503022
> 
> 
> Just watched Cast Away tonight. I disagree with Highdefdigest's review of this disc....it is not as good as they say. While it does have some nice looking scenes (particularly after the 4 year mark on the island), most of the movie is quite soft. Based on the overall performance of this disc I'd rate it somewhere around Layer Cake in Tier 2.



I thought this movie was inconsistent. In the beginning it seemed soft. Then on the island it picked up quite a bit, althought still not quite demo material. I found myself disagreeing with HighDefDigest as well, mostly cause they gave it 5 stars, and I think it's closer to 4, if that.


Brandon


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I think lower Tier 2 is about right for Babel.


----------



## Benkrishman

I watched Die Hard With a Vengeance the other night and I was very, very impressed with it. It looked much better than I was expecting, especially the close ups of McClane. Those shots of him looked like it could have been shot yesterday. I think the current placement(teir 2) might be a bit low. I thought it looked better than Close Encounters of the Third kind, and I'd say it would be on par with, if not better looking than Shooter in my opinion. I'd like to see what other people think about it though(my set is not exactly reference quality







), I know I was certainly blown away when I popped it in.


PS3 @ 1080i > HDMI >Panasonic 26" CRT ~3.5 ft.


----------



## rydenfan

I watched Night at the Museum last night and found it be to crisper than I anticipated for being Mid Tier 2. I feel like Tier 2 gets a little over-shadowed, as if people feel like they should shy away from these titles when looking for films. Maybe I am incorrect in my assumption? but it just seems like there is so much emphasis on Tier 0 and Tier 1 that many people might miss out on some great titles.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rydenfan* /forum/post/12649206
> 
> 
> I watched Night at the Museum last night and found it be to crisper than I anticipated for being Mid Tier 2. I feel like Tier 2 gets a little over-shadowed, as if people feel like they should shy away from these titles when looking for films. Maybe I am incorrect in my assumption? but it just seems like there is so much emphasis on Tier 0 and Tier 1 that many people might miss out on some great titles.



In my experience, I'd say Tiers 0, 1, 2, and 3 all look great. Tier 4 is when it starts to get hit or miss......still better than DVD for sure, but not a huge jump.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12648561
> 
> 
> I think lower Tier 2 is about right for Babel.



It's been awhile since I watched it, but from what I remember, that sounds about right.


----------



## iqjumpuw

Watched The Day After Tomorrow and The Kiss of the Dragon.


The Kiss of the Dragon should be on the bottom tier 3 (bronze) possibily tier 4.


The Day After Tomorrow should be on the the top tier 3 (bronze). I watched the TDAT again just to make sure, but the PQ was definitely disappointing. I had such a high expectation for this movie's PQ.










I would agree with Spiderman 3 and Mr. Brook's tier rating here.


Viewed them on my Samsung LF4671F and PS3 using HDMI.


----------



## Schlotkins

I watched the last two harry potter flicks last night. Order of the Phoenix definitely had more 3D pop, but I almost feel the contrast was too hot in a lot of scenes and was distracting. The Goblet of Fire was very nice - it was more natural than the last movie and I think I enjoyed that PQ the most. I thought the last 3 were all very good PQ and did not suffer from the departed/batman begins softness issue.


Overall, minus my distaste of the hotness, they appear to be ranked close to what I would rank them.


Thanks,

Chris


----------



## mhtom

I don't see how Dave Matthews got pushed down so far. The picture quality is flawless, sharp and accurate, with no artifacts that I saw, and I've watched it several times. I think people are downgrading it because it's not an action movie with lots of fast-paced scenes, or an animation with vibrant colors. Those shouldn't be used to count against it. Watching this disc makes you feel like you're there right in Radio City Music Hall from a visual standpoint.


----------



## obxdiver




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mhtom* /forum/post/12650415
> 
> 
> I don't see how Dave Matthews got pushed down so far. The picture quality is flawless, sharp and accurate, with no artifacts that I saw, and I've watched it several times. I think people are downgrading it because it's not an action movie with lots of fast-paced scenes, or an animation with vibrant colors. Those shouldn't be used to count against it. Watching this disc makes you feel like you're there right in Radio City Music Hall from a visual standpoint.



I have this one on order from Amazon. Can't wait to see it. I am new to BD. I am now format neutral, and have been using this Tier list as a buying reference. DM was in Tier 0 when I ordered this BD. I love DM so I am waiting in excitement for this one. Thanks for the great review. I will post my comments in a few days after I watch it. This will also give my amps a workout.


----------



## Lil' Louie

Wow! Didn't even realize The Day After Tomorrow wasn't placed yet. Viewed it again tonight, and would confidently recommend a mid - top Tier 2 placement. I thought the PQ overall was excellent, clean, and smooth (but little "POP"). Definitely in line with Hellboy, Ghost Rider, and Underworld: Evolution.


Viewed on Sony KDS-55A3000 - PS3 1080/24p @ 7ft:


----------



## lgans316

AustinSTI-> Please implement voting mechanism as early as possible to prevent the thread going down the drain. I can be a volunteer if needed. I recently introduced voting links for 2 titles for testing purpose but in vain.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/12653977
> 
> 
> AustinSTI-> Please introduce voting mechanism as your Blu-ray Tier thread is going down the drain. I can be a volunteer if needed.



That's a pretty off the wall thing to say. Clearly you have not been following the thread, or even taken the time to read back pages. If you had, you'd find that that subject has been discussed and that there are reasons why that feature has not been implemented.


As you're still adding to your post, I'll address that as well. An off-site poll has been discussed and ruled out.


----------



## lgans316

Voting system needs to be enforced to maintain discipline. Besides a voting system I would recommend a panel of judges to override the poll results and then do the actual tier placement. This way the Tier ratings will remain genuine and do not mislead both the owners and potential buyers.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/12654048
> 
> 
> Voting system needs to be enforced to maintain discipline. Besides a voting system I would recommend a panel of judges to override the poll results and then do the actual tier placement. This way the Tier ratings will remain genuine and do not mislead both the owners and potential buyers.



Please explain how you think the present system misleads owners and potential buyers.


----------



## lgans316

Tier - 0

******

(up)Mr. Brooks Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DTS-HD MA

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Buena Vista


Tier - 1

******

(NEW)Pan's Labyrinth Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 (Spanish) | AR: 1.85:1 | New Line (Dec. 27, 2007)

(NEW)Die Hard with a Vengeance Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DTS-HD MA (Dec. 27, 2007)

Identity Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM

Ghost Rider Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM / TrueHD


Tier - 2

******

Kung Fu Hustle Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: PCM

(dn)28 Weeks Later Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DTS-HD MA

(NEW)Cast Away Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DTS-HD MA (Dec. 27,2007)


Tier - 3

******

(NEW)Robocop Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Fox(Dec. 14, 2007)

The Transporter Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: DTS-HD MA

AVP: Alien Vs. Predator Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: DTS-HD MA

Enemy of the State Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: PCM

(NEW)Die Hard Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DTS-HD M


@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@


Corrected Rating

###########


Tier - 1

******

(up)Mr. Brooks Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DTS-HD MA

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Buena Vista

(NEW)Die Hard with a Vengeance Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DTS-HD MA (Dec. 27, 2007)

Identity Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM


Tier - 2

******

Ghost Rider Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM / TrueHD

(NEW)Cast Away Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DTS-HD MA (Dec. 27,2007)

(dn)28 Weeks Later Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DTS-HD MA

(NEW)Pan's Labyrinth Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 (Spanish) | AR: 1.85:1 | New Line (Dec. 27, 2007)


Tier - 3

******

Kung Fu Hustle Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: PCM

(NEW)Die Hard Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DTS-HD MA (Dec. 27, 2007)A (Dec. 27, 2007)

Enemy of the State Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: PCM

AVP: Alien Vs. Predator Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: DTS-HD MA

The Transporter Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: DTS-HD MA

(NEW)Robocop Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Fox(Dec. 14, 2007)


@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@


Just by correcting the above doesn't mean that the Tier system will become more realistic. If a voting system won't do any good we need to figure out some other means to ensure a fair level of accuracy.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Just by correcting the above doesn't mean that the Tier system will become more realistic. If a voting system won't do any good we need to figure out some other means to ensure a fair level of accuracy.



Maybe it's a language thing, but I don't understand how *not* making your suggested changes leaves the present rankings misleading or unrealistic. A LOT of opinions went into the present rankings. Titles are put up after a few recommendations and then moved from there as members weigh in on a title's rank. After you list your equipment and viewing distance - as requested of all posters here who make rank suggestions - your opinion will be discussed, debated and considered. But like a vote, it is only one opinion. By your changes NOT being made, you should not assume that your changes were not considered. Again, your "vote" carries the weight of only one member.


Your contribution is appreciated. Obviously, you have put some thought and work into it.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> If a voting system won't do any good we need to figure out some other means to ensure a fair level of accuracy.



I'm pretty sure that nearly everybody on this thread is satisfied with the quality of the rankings.







This tier thread and its rankings are an important consideration when choosing new titles to buy, but it is not written in stone.


And just exactly how would we know if we had or didn't have a "fair level of accuracy?"


----------



## lgans316

May be you can allocate a voting panel comprising videophiles, conduct internal poll, consider the ratings from the professional reviewers and then judge the final tier placement. This is just my opinion and I don't think implementing the above is going to consume more time.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/12654510
> 
> 
> May be you can allocate a voting panel comprising videophiles, conduct internal poll, consider the ratings from the professional reviewers and then judge the final tier placement. This is just my opinion and I don't think implementing the above is going to consume more time.



That is a GREAT idea. Why don't you start a thread using that procedure?


----------



## denze

Anyone else feel animated films should be removed from the list? Sooner or later 40% of the tier 0 list will be the greatest adventures of Bambi, Seven Dwarves , & Finding Nemo. I'm aware this thread is focused on PQ. Regardless what genre or age group the flm caters to. Although, I would rather see non animated films for this list. I'ts safe to assume the majority of animated films will be either tier 0 or 1.


----------



## Schlotkins




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/12654510
> 
> 
> May be you can allocate a voting panel comprising videophiles, conduct internal poll, consider the ratings from the professional reviewers and then judge the final tier placement. This is just my opinion and I don't think implementing the above is going to consume more time.



Not going to consume more time? You are kidding right?


I personally have viewed a lot of movies on this list, many that I did NOT place in their current ranking and have never felt "misled." Sure, maybe 3 movies right next to each other I could bicker with, but that's just "noise." I personally don't very the rankings as "absolute." A movie's placement is probably +/- a few spots, especially for movies that a lot of people haven't seen or new movies.


Don't take this as not appreciating your opinion of where a movie should be ranked. I just don't think your system is going to be very good for the long run. I haven't looked at the HD-DVD ranking thread lately because the system over there involved too much overhead.


thanks

Chris


----------



## Schlotkins




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *denze* /forum/post/12654861
> 
> 
> Anyone else feel animated films should be removed from the list? Sooner or later 40% of the tier 0 list will be the greatest adventures of Bambi, Seven Dwarves , & Finding Nemo. I'm aware this thread is focused on PQ. Regardless what genre or age group the flm caters to. Although, I would rather see non animated films for this list. I'ts safe to assume the majority of animated films will be either tier 0 or 1.



I personally feel the Tier 0 tier is way too restrictive in terms of film movies. I'm sorry, but we have over 400 blu-ray's available. While we may seen some movie come out that's just unbelievable, I think we have probably seen movies as good as they are going to be. (That doesn't mean more new movies will be Tier 0/1 than in the past.) I think Tier 0 should either be modified top 5% list or just integrated back into Tier 1.


Humbly,

Chris


----------



## Wryker




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *denze* /forum/post/12654861
> 
> 
> Anyone else feel animated films should be removed from the list? Sooner or later 40% of the tier 0 list will be the greatest adventures of Bambi, Seven Dwarves , & Finding Nemo. I'm aware this thread is focused on PQ. Regardless what genre or age group the flm caters to. Although, I would rather see non animated films for this list. I'ts safe to assume the majority of animated films will be either tier 0 or 1.



I disagree - I like that this thread holds no bias regarding any genres nor should it begin to do-so.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wryker* /forum/post/12654968
> 
> 
> I disagree - I like that this thread holds no bias regarding any genres nor should it begin to do-so.



I'm with you. denze's concern is valid, but seems based on the subject of the movie and not, as it's been reiterated many times what this thread is about, how the movie makes the video side of our systems shine.


Another point here, we are not grading on a bell curve where, by definition, a percentage need to be 5 and a percentage needs to be 0. I would love it if ALL titles were Tier 0 or 1.


----------



## SuprSlow

Guys, keep in mind that Tier 0 placement is not something that myself, Austin, or Mongoos hold some nazi-like lockdown over. It's up to YOU, as you give user input, to decide what titles deserve Tier 0 placement and what titles should be Tier 1. We don't have a limit as to the number of titles that should be there, nor do we have a minimum number.


If there is a widespread problem/concern with how titles are ranked in Tier 0, I'll leave that to Austin to address.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *obxdiver* /forum/post/12650570
> 
> 
> I have this one on order from Amazon. Can't wait to see it. I am new to BD. I am now format neutral, and have been using this Tier list as a buying reference. DM was in Tier 0 when I ordered this BD. I love DM so I am waiting in excitement for this one. Thanks for the great review. I will post my comments in a few days after I watch it. This will also give my amps a workout.



This is one case where I STILL think this movie should be Tier 0 but the prevailing opinion is Tier 1. As I've said NUMEROUS times Tier 0 and 1 are Demo Quality and you shouldn't hesitate to show these off with Tier 2 being movies you shouldn't be afraid to buy and could show off as well. The front page should have this information in great detail!


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/12653977
> 
> 
> AustinSTI-> Please implement voting mechanism as early as possible to prevent the thread going down the drain. I can be a volunteer if needed. I recently introduced voting links for 2 titles for testing purpose but in vain.



I don't take kindly to demands. We try to be very accomodating but coming out and being demanding about something like that won't get you very far especially since this has been discussed over and over. I think user feedback is this thread isn't going anywhere near down the drain and is serving its purpose well.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lil' Louie* /forum/post/12652884
> 
> 
> Wow! Didn't even realize The Day After Tomorrow wasn't placed yet. Viewed it again tonight, and would confidently recommend a mid - top Tier 2 placement. I thought the PQ overall was excellent, clean, and smooth (but little "POP"). Definitely in line with Hellboy, Ghost Rider, and Underworld: Evolution.
> 
> 
> Viewed on Sony KDS-55A3000 - PS3 1080/24p @ 7ft:



I'll place it in mid tier 2 as a compromise; setups seem about the same and that gets the point across either way.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *denze* /forum/post/12654861
> 
> 
> Anyone else feel animated films should be removed from the list? Sooner or later 40% of the tier 0 list will be the greatest adventures of Bambi, Seven Dwarves , & Finding Nemo. I'm aware this thread is focused on PQ. Regardless what genre or age group the flm caters to. Although, I would rather see non animated films for this list. I'ts safe to assume the majority of animated films will be either tier 0 or 1.



Simpsons wasn't tier 0...we've debated a few times about seperating animated out but I think that'd be very confusing....


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *30XS955 User* /forum/post/12635711
> 
> 
> If you could post screen caps of the artifacted frames or give timestamps, that would be great!



This is exactly what we the caretakers need an want. If something is going to be bumped and someone has evidence we've overlooked post it. We don't have all of these movies - I haven't bought AWE yet myself - so we cannot comment on them. We base it on people who provide us the details we require and evidence to that point.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/12656585
> 
> 
> Simpsons wasn't tier 0...we've debated a few times about seperating animated out but I think that'd be very confusing....



Animation a la Simpsons, IMO, can never be as good as CGI animation. In fact, the latter gets "dumbed (rez'd) down" so it doesn't look (as) fake.


----------



## AustinSTI

So I'm looking at the tier threads front page and people's thoughts lately around tiers. I feel there are some valid points to consider and have a few thoughts I'd like to gather some opinions one before doing anything:


First: SuprSlow kicks major ass. He's done so much work to improve the thread that he deserves everyone's thanks as its such a thankless job.


Now on to the real Important Stuff. Here's what I'm considering:


Option 1) Slide Tier 0 down about 10-15 titles based on the updated text. This would take it right around Casino Royale. Before doing this I would ask for feedback on placement of those titles there. Are there any that aren't demo material or that don't just blow you away?


Option 2) Abolishing the Tier System completely and going with a 1-10 rating system 10 being the highest quality best of the best PQ, 1 being absolute ****. It would likely start out with splitting tiers 1-2-3 out and anything from say 8-10 would encompass Tiers 0 and 1 and upper Tier 2. 4-5-6 being mediocre blu-rays would probably encompass tier 3, 1 = tier 5 and 2-3 equaling tier 4.


Option 3) Leaving things as is


I refuse to go to a panel as I feel that has an elitist feel to it and everyones opinion matters. I think people have a right to have themselves heard when providing the proper information and those who manage the thread will average things out of settle disputes amongst you the users.


Please provide your thoughts and feedback. I may provide a poll for users to vote on as well depending on whether people blast these ideas or not. Remember these aren't immenent changes just ideas I have based on YOUR feedback.


----------



## Wryker

I think the person who posted about putting up polls probably (as I do) belong to the HD-DVD thread that has 'voting' for each title that helps.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Option 2) Abolishing the Tier System completely and going with a 1-10 rating system 10 being the highest quality best of the best PQ, 1 being absolute ****. It would likely start out with splitting tiers 1-2-3 out and anything from say 8-10 would encompass Tiers 0 and 1 and upper Tier 2. 4-5-6 being mediocre blu-rays would probably encompass tier 3, 1 = tier 5 and 2-3 equaling tier 4.



Isn't this really replacing six tiers with ten? Is there ever enough agreement on title placement to slice it that thin? A certain degree of ambiguity allows a loose interpretation by those who have a minor disagreement with a particular titles placement. Tighten it up and there might be more squabbling.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/12656531
> 
> 
> I'll place it in mid tier 2 as a compromise; setups seem about the same and that gets the point across either way.



I think that placement of DAT is too high. The very bottom of Tier 2 would be more appropriate. The PQ is just too soft and lacking in sharp detail to warrant the current placement.


----------



## vincentnyc

i saw dracula last nite...wow....it gives hd a bad name. the transfer was awful. no better than a dvd quality. francis ford copola should be ashamed his name is associated with the blu-ray title.


----------



## vincentnyc

i saw dave matthews was at tiers 0 awhile back..why was it move down to tiers 1? any reason? is it cuz tiers 0 is only designated for animation title only?


anyway i got this blu-ray and will see it tonite to judge for myself.


----------



## Wryker




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vincentnyc* /forum/post/12657547
> 
> 
> i saw dave matthews was at tiers 0 awhile back..why was it move down to tiers 1? any reason? is it cuz tiers 0 is only designated for animation title only?
> 
> 
> anyway i got this blu-ray and will see it tonite to judge for myself.



no - tier 0 is not 'just' for cgi titles.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Schlotkins* /forum/post/12654945
> 
> 
> I personally feel the Tier 0 tier is way too restrictive in terms of film movies. I'm sorry, but we have over 400 blu-ray's available. While we may seen some movie come out that's just unbelievable, I think we have probably seen movies as good as they are going to be. (That doesn't mean more new movies will be Tier 0/1 than in the past.) I think Tier 0 should either be modified top 5% list or just integrated back into Tier 1.
> 
> 
> Humbly,
> 
> Chris



I agree. I just don't comprehend why there is this crusade to knock all of the film-based movies (PotC, Mr Brooks) out of Tier 0 and be left with 90% animated titles and probably something shot on HD video cameras. People want Tier 0 to be comprised of 1-2 movies and nothing more, and I don't understand why. Are they perfect transfers? No. But they don't have to be, either.


Brandon


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/12656856
> 
> 
> So I'm looking at the tier threads front page and people's thoughts lately around tiers. I feel there are some valid points to consider and have a few thoughts I'd like to gather some opinions one before doing anything:
> 
> 
> First: SuprSlow kicks major ass. He's done so much work to improve the thread that he deserves everyone's thanks as its such a thankless job.
> 
> 
> Now on to the real Important Stuff. Here's what I'm considering:
> 
> 
> Option 1) Slide Tier 0 down about 10-15 titles based on the updated text. This would take it right around Casino Royale. Before doing this I would ask for feedback on placement of those titles there. Are there any that aren't demo material or that don't just blow you away?
> 
> 
> Option 2) Abolishing the Tier System completely and going with a 1-10 rating system 10 being the highest quality best of the best PQ, 1 being absolute ****. It would likely start out with splitting tiers 1-2-3 out and anything from say 8-10 would encompass Tiers 0 and 1 and upper Tier 2. 4-5-6 being mediocre blu-rays would probably encompass tier 3, 1 = tier 5 and 2-3 equaling tier 4.
> 
> 
> Option 3) Leaving things as is
> 
> 
> I refuse to go to a panel as I feel that has an elitist feel to it and everyones opinion matters. I think people have a right to have themselves heard when providing the proper information and those who manage the thread will average things out of settle disputes amongst you the users.
> 
> 
> Please provide your thoughts and feedback. I may provide a poll for users to vote on as well depending on whether people blast these ideas or not. Remember these aren't immenent changes just ideas I have based on YOUR feedback.



I'm okay with option 1. I think 12-13 total titles in Tier 0 is appropriate when looking at the list. That would put the cutoff right at either Prison Break or Apocalytpo. Prison Break is reportedly demo material, so I think people may be able to agree on that cutoff point.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wryker* /forum/post/12656901
> 
> 
> I think the person who posted about putting up polls probably (as I do) belong to the HD-DVD thread that has 'voting' for each title that helps.



And if I remember correctly (I only check that thread once every couple of weeks or so) they have roughly 10 or so titles in their top Tier, right?


Brandon


----------



## 30XS955 User

I feel as though the tier thread should be kept as is. Please, do NOT add voting.


----------



## Wryker




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/12658164
> 
> 
> I'm okay with option 1. I think 12-13 total titles in Tier 0 is appropriate when looking at the list. That would put the cutoff right at either Prison Break or Apocalytpo. Prison Break is reportedly demo material, so I think people may be able to agree on that cutoff point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if I remember correctly (I only check that thread once every couple of weeks or so) they have roughly 10 or so titles in their top Tier, right?
> 
> 
> Brandon



They have @18 titles in what it'd be considered 'top tier'.


----------



## 30XS955 User

This is probably a stupid idea but could tier 0 be expanded to 15 titles, and then every time a new title is added to tier 0 an old title must be removed?


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/12658072
> 
> 
> I agree. I just don't comprehend why there is this crusade to knock all of the film-based movies (PotC, Mr Brooks) out of Tier 0 and be left with 90% animated titles and probably something shot on HD video cameras. People want Tier 0 to be comprised of 1-2 movies and nothing more, and I don't understand why. Are they perfect transfers? No. But they don't have to be, either.



Brandon, "crusade?" A little overly dramatic, isn't it?


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/12658164
> 
> 
> I'm okay with option 1. I think 12-13 total titles in Tier 0 is appropriate when looking at the list.



That seems like an arbitrary and artificial limit.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *30XS955 User* /forum/post/12658455
> 
> 
> This is probably a stupid idea but could tier 0 be expanded to 15 titles, and then every time a new title is added to tier 0 an old title must be removed?



Arrrrggghhh! This is grading on a bell curve. Why can't there be 16 (or 60) tier 0 titles?


----------



## mhtom

I don't understand why there should be any limit to the number of films in Tier 0. If a disc has a perfect, reference-quality picture, then how does it somehow get worse? Unless some new technology or encode comes out that blows the old ones away, I don't see why Tier 0 should have a limit.


----------



## AustinSTI

Some Clarifty:


There will NEVER be a cap on the number of movies in the top tier or bell curve. In 1 year there could be 100 Tier 0 titles that are the best of the best and as we win the war this becomes more likely.

Tier 0 isn't reserved for 90% animated movies.

The thought of expanding tier 0 down was basically that those movies down to CR are the BEST OF THE BEST from my standpoint and anything above CR that doesn't represent the best of the best is misplaced right now. Nobody Debates CR is a top quality BR.


----------



## AustinSTI

No Voting Ever - Period. I've stated the reasons a few pages back.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/12658825
> 
> 
> No Voting Ever - Period.



You da man!


----------



## General Kenobi




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/12656856
> 
> 
> So I'm looking at the tier threads front page and people's thoughts lately around tiers. I feel there are some valid points to consider and have a few thoughts I'd like to gather some opinions one before doing anything:
> 
> 
> First: SuprSlow kicks major ass. He's done so much work to improve the thread that he deserves everyone's thanks as its such a thankless job.
> 
> 
> Now on to the real Important Stuff. Here's what I'm considering:
> 
> 
> Option 1) Slide Tier 0 down about 10-15 titles based on the updated text. This would take it right around Casino Royale. Before doing this I would ask for feedback on placement of those titles there. Are there any that aren't demo material or that don't just blow you away?
> 
> 
> Option 2) Abolishing the Tier System completely and going with a 1-10 rating system 10 being the highest quality best of the best PQ, 1 being absolute ****. It would likely start out with splitting tiers 1-2-3 out and anything from say 8-10 would encompass Tiers 0 and 1 and upper Tier 2. 4-5-6 being mediocre blu-rays would probably encompass tier 3, 1 = tier 5 and 2-3 equaling tier 4.
> 
> 
> Option 3) Leaving things as is
> 
> 
> I refuse to go to a panel as I feel that has an elitist feel to it and everyones opinion matters. I think people have a right to have themselves heard when providing the proper information and those who manage the thread will average things out of settle disputes amongst you the users.
> 
> 
> Please provide your thoughts and feedback. I may provide a poll for users to vote on as well depending on whether people blast these ideas or not. Remember these aren't immenent changes just ideas I have based on YOUR feedback.



I know I haven't been here long but I like it the way it is. It's too bad we can't get some kind of honors system going for some of the titles that aren't rated or are in question where anyone that owns it will share it with a few others to form an opinion as to what tier it belongs in.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *General Kenobi* /forum/post/12658856
> 
> 
> I know I haven't been here long but I like it the way it is. It's too bad we can't get some kind of honors system going for some of the titles that aren't rated or are in question where anyone that owns it will share it with a few others to form an opinion as to what tier it belongs in.




Interesting business Idea...rent out your own library


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The thought of expanding tier 0 down was basically that those movies down to CR are the BEST OF THE BEST from my standpoint and anything above CR that doesn't represent the best of the best is misplaced right now. Nobody Debates CR is a top quality BR.



Make it so! If it's a top quality BR then make it a top quality BR by including it (and everything above it) in Tier 0.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/12658825
> 
> 
> No Voting Ever - Period. I've stated the reasons a few pages back.



In my opinion, the voting system implemented in the HD DVD side is complete garbage......I don't even look at that thread anymore because of it. There's too many titles that are sabotaged by idiots screwing with the polls.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/12658164
> 
> 
> I'm okay with option 1. I think 12-13 total titles in Tier 0 is appropriate when looking at the list. That would put the cutoff right at either Prison Break or Apocalytpo. Prison Break is reportedly demo material, so I think people may be able to agree on that cutoff point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if I remember correctly (I only check that thread once every couple of weeks or so) they have roughly 10 or so titles in their top Tier, right?
> 
> 
> Brandon



I just realized that I referenced Prison Break, when I was thinking about Lost. That begs the question...isn't Lost considered the best eye-candy from a TV series available right now? It's not better than Prison Break???



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/12658521
> 
> 
> That seems like an arbitrary and artificial limit.



I can refer you to my previous post where I suggested a top 10% should be the cutoff, as that is generally considered "elite" in several contexts. It's still arbitrary and artificial so to speak, but it is based on a precedent. It's not rigid and is basically a rough starting point. As far as I'm concerned people can suggest what title they think should be the cutoff point and go with what seems to be the concensus view. I don't have any strong opinion on the matter as I haven't watched every title.


Brandon


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/12662276
> 
> 
> I just realized that I referenced Prison Break, when I was thinking about Lost. *That begs the question...isn't Lost considered the best eye-candy from a TV series available right now? It's not better than Prison Break???*



I don't know about Lost........but I recently watched the entire Season 1 of Prison Break on Blu Ray and it was insane! Some of the best picture quality I've seen on the HD formats.....period.


----------



## rydenfan

I would second Austin that Dave Matthews at Radio City should be Tier 0. This disc is demo material.


----------



## OldCodger73

Keep as is. There's enough discussion so that titles generally find their level based on group suggestions.


----------



## Lil' Louie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/12662861
> 
> 
> Keep as is. There's enough discussion so that titles generally find their level based on group suggestions.










Agreed!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/12656531
> 
> 
> I'll place it in mid tier 2 as a compromise; setups seem about the same and that gets the point across either way.



Cool!


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I can refer you to my previous post where I suggested a top 10% should be the cutoff, as that is generally considered "elite" in several contexts. It's still arbitrary and artificial so to speak, but it is based on a precedent. It's not rigid and is basically a rough starting point. As far as I'm concerned people can suggest what title they think should be the cutoff point and go with what seems to be the concensus view. I don't have any strong opinion on the matter as I haven't watched every title.



Any predetermined number limiting Tier 0 titles, IMO, is undesirable. If, for example, the number is set at 15 and another titles comes out that is every bit as good as those titles, what happens? One of the original 15 gets bumped to make room for it, or it goes in Tier 1 because Tier 0 is full? To me, both of those outcomes seem wrong, so the 15-limit would need to be raised. And if that's the answer, why have a limit in the first place. Does that make sense?


----------



## jewing1043

can anyone explain why dave matthews and tim reynolds were moved from tier 0????????????????????


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jewing1043* /forum/post/12663734
> 
> 
> can anyone explain why dave matthews and tim reynolds were moved from tier 0?


 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...postcount=1434 

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...postcount=1435 


No one challenged these posts, so it was moved.


----------



## AustinSTI

Thanks for finding those slow...I was too lazy to dig through the 62 pages...


----------



## Jenova

I also definitely felt that Dave Matthews was not Tier 0 material, although the sound was breathtaking.


----------



## DanLW

I see The Terminator isn't rated yet.


I have this one, but it's definitely the least impressive of my Blu-Ray collection. Lots of visible grain, but better than DVD. I haven't seen any Tier 5 movies, so I don't know what the standard is for coal, so I'd probably rank it as a low 4. It's about on par with Superman II: The Richard Donner cut which I also have.


My setup is 720x1280x60 on a 100" screen at about 1 width. (So what if I like to sit close?)


----------



## OhioMike

I would agree with expanding the Tier 0 down to around Casino Royale because I do feel that The Wild, Apocolypto, Kingdom of Heaven and so on are Reference material. With the current list of Tier 0 titles, what are we saying about Blu-Ray? We only feel that 7 discs will blow away our non-HD friends or new owners?

I finally got my replacement PS3 back yesterday and watched Mr. Brooks and AWE (which has been burning a whole in my cabinet for nearly a month now, laughing at me everytime I walk in the room, haunting me.) and they were both amazing. AWE finally gave me the extreme "pop" that I wasn't getting from the first 2 (though they were spectacular). Insane detail, the part where Jack's nose is sniffing up to the peanut, crazy!! Mr. Brooks was pretty much flawless and a great flick, they did mix those gun shots a little too hot though, probably pissed off the neighbors with those 3 scenes. Today's itinerary..Rescue Dawn, Mr. & Mrs. Smith, X-3 and Home of the Brave.


----------



## General Kenobi




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DanLW* /forum/post/12666844
> 
> 
> I see The Terminator isn't rated yet.
> 
> 
> I have this one, but it's definitely the least impressive of my Blu-Ray collection. Lots of visible grain, but better than DVD. I haven't seen any Tier 5 movies, so I don't know what the standard is for coal, so I'd probably rank it as a low 4. It's about on par with Superman II: The Richard Donner cut which I also have.
> 
> 
> My setup is 720x1280x60 on a 100" screen at about 1 width. (So what if I like to sit close?)



Just compare it to Total Recall







... that's about the worst BD has to offer (as far as I've seen).


----------



## Schlotkins




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/12659393
> 
> 
> In my opinion, the voting system implemented in the HD DVD side is complete garbage......I don't even look at that thread anymore because of it. There's too many titles that are sabotaged by idiots screwing with the polls.



+1 to this. I used to look at it all the time but no longer. I guess since it's not going to happen this is a waste of bandwidth but...


----------



## dspadoni




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/12662276
> 
> 
> I just realized that I referenced Prison Break, when I was thinking about Lost. That begs the question...isn't Lost considered the best eye-candy from a TV series available right now? It's not better than Prison Break???
> 
> 
> Brandon



Somewhat off topic, but speaking of Lost does anyone know when (or if) Seasons 1 and 2 might come out in Blu-ray? I'd hate to buy them in standard format only to see them re-released in hi-def a short time later.


Thanks.


----------



## tyorder1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dspadoni* /forum/post/12669845
> 
> 
> Somewhat off topic, but speaking of Lost does anyone know when (or if) Seasons 1 and 2 might come out in Blu-ray? I'd hate to buy them in standard format only to see them re-released in hi-def a short time later.
> 
> 
> Thanks.



+1


I would really like to buy all three seasons but I don't want to start with season 3. All seasons should be released. That would have made a great gift for Christmas. Maybe I'm a HDM snob, but I don't want season one and two on DVD and season three on Blu-ray. Blu-ray all the way please.


----------



## Deviation

I've only watched it once so far but I was pretty blown away by Shoot 'em Up last night. This could very well be Tier 0 material.


----------



## avhed




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/12663730
> 
> 
> Any predetermined number limiting Tier 0 titles, IMO, is undesirable. If, for example, the number is set at 15 and another titles comes out that is every bit as good as those titles, what happens? One of the original 15 gets bumped to make room for it, or it goes in Tier 1 because Tier 0 is full? To me, both of those outcomes seem wrong, so the 15-limit would need to be raised. And if that's the answer, why have a limit in the first place. Does that make sense?



He must mean around 10%, because the quality of the relases will determine the exact number.


----------



## avhed

Glad to see Santa Clause 3 in Teir 0, after viewing it last night. Picture was excellent. But what is with the strange colour in the eyes? It was not a very good movie to start with, the colouring in the eyes made it worse.


Samsung BD-P1200, Sony KD-34XS955 @ 5.5 ft


----------



## vincentnyc

i remember crank was tier 0 once...now it has move it all the way down the list? wasn't crank shot in hd cam? if so, y move down the list?


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vincentnyc* /forum/post/12671322
> 
> 
> i remember crank was tier 0 once...now it has move it all the way down the list? wasn't crank shot in hd cam? if so, y move down the list?




Crank is in Tier 0


----------



## lrstevens421

Anyone know why "Stomp the Yard" was moved?


As I posted a few pages back this movie looked pretty darn good to me. Certainly better than a few titles above it.


Sony 52XBR4 - 1080p24

Panasonic BD30

10 ft viewing distance


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/12671396
> 
> 
> Crank is in Tier 0



Now Hairspray REALLY needs to be moved down.


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12671731
> 
> 
> Now Hairspray REALLY needs to be moved down.



Yeah, I noticed that.


I'm going to update the thread tomorrow sometime, I'll take care of it then.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12671731
> 
> 
> Now Hairspray REALLY needs to be moved down.



Where do you recommend it be placed Patrick?


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DanLW* /forum/post/12666844
> 
> 
> I see The Terminator isn't rated yet.
> 
> 
> I have this one, but it's definitely the least impressive of my Blu-Ray collection. Lots of visible grain, but better than DVD. I haven't seen any Tier 5 movies, so I don't know what the standard is for coal, so I'd probably rank it as a low 4. It's about on par with Superman II: The Richard Donner cut which I also have.
> 
> 
> My setup is 720x1280x60 on a 100" screen at about 1 width. (So what if I like to sit close?)



In my opinion, The Terminator looks a lot better than Terminator 2: Judgement Day. Terminator 3 looks better than both of them.


----------



## mhtom




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jenova* /forum/post/12666256
> 
> 
> I also definitely felt that Dave Matthews was not Tier 0 material, although the sound was breathtaking.



Can I ask what you thought was lacking? I think many people downgrade this disc because it's not an action movie with fast-paced scenes or an animation with vibrant colors. To me, this disc was great detail, is sharp and has great depth, and has zero artifacts. The content itself is not exciting, as it's just two guys on stage, because that's not what the Tier thread is about. Watching this disc makes me feel like I'm there.


----------



## lgans316

(NEW)Pan's Labyrinth Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 (Spanish) | AR: 1.85:1 | New Line (Dec. 27, 2007) - Knowing that the U.S version has noticeable DNR issues I am not sure how PL can be placed in Tier 0 ?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12672017
> 
> 
> Where do you recommend it be placed Patrick?



I would say lower Tier 2, Rob.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99*  /forum/post/12676289
> 
> 
> I would say lower Tier 2, Rob.



Done


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/12674771
> 
> 
> (NEW)Pan's Labyrinth Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 (Spanish) | AR: 1.85:1 | New Line (Dec. 27, 2007) - Knowing that the U.S version has noticeable DNR issues I am not sure how PL can be placed in Tier 0 ?



I haven't seen it so I'd like feedback on it from those who have. Does it belond in 0??


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/12676865
> 
> 
> Done


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *avhed* /forum/post/12670375
> 
> 
> He must mean around 10%, because the quality of the relases will determine the exact number.



Bingo.


And on that note, since the scope of Tier 0 has been widened a bit, I think people should take a look at the list and see what they think is worthy of Tier 0 and what isn't. I haven't seen enough of the bottom half of those titles to comment on them, and it's been a long time since I've seen Kingdom of Heaven (it was actually my first BD!).



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lrstevens421* /forum/post/12671552
> 
> 
> Anyone know why "Stomp the Yard" was moved?
> 
> 
> As I posted a few pages back this movie looked pretty darn good to me. Certainly better than a few titles above it.



I haven't seen that title...would you say it's worth a rental? I was hoping it was a dancing/hip hop oriented version of School Daze, but I was told it was more of a college version of You Got Served, which I was dreading.


Brandon


----------



## Albator

Pixar short films vol 1 is now bronze?







you gotta be kidding right? When i look at For The Birds or Mater and the Ghostlight for instance, all i see there is crystal clear images and details are all unbelievable. Tier 0 if you ask me. I use it for demo and friends are all in awe when they see it. true the older short pictures arent great but why put the BD that down because of the old short movies? The newest are just great!


Pioneer Pro150FD (60 inches) with Pio 95FD and Onkyo 905NR at 6.5 feet


----------



## SuprSlow

Today's update:
Finished adding AR / Studio info to all the tiers (still working on the Unranked titles)
Fixed a couple cosmetic things I screwed up









I'll catch up on new releases ASAP.


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/12676872
> 
> 
> I haven't seen it so I'd like feedback on it from those who have. Does it belond in 0??



I'll try and watch Pan's Labyrith tonight if SWMBO lets me have the plasma.


I often wonder how a person's like or dislike of a movie colors their perception on where a movie should rank in the tiers. For example, I think Hairspray is better than Tier 2, but then I liked the movie and am a sucker for bright colors. I'm also scatching my head as to why The Battle of the Bulge is in Tier 1. Of course, I didn't care much for the movie, it seemed to last as long as the real Battle of the Bulge. Just some random thoughts.


Has anyone watched Volver in BD? I thought the DVD was a good transfer so am hoping that BD quality would be good.


Panasonic 50" 1080i, Panasonic 10A, 8'


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Albator* /forum/post/12677520
> 
> 
> Pixar short films vol 1 is now bronze?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you gotta be kidding right? When i look at For The Birds or Mater and the Ghostlight for instance, all i see there is crystal clear images and details are all unbelievable. Tier 0 if you ask me. I use it for demo and friends are all in awe when they see it. true the older short pictures arent great but why put the BD that down because of the old short movies? The newest are just great!
> 
> 
> Pioneer Pro150FD (60 inches) with Pio 95FD and Onkyo 905NR at 6.5 feet




Haven't seen it so I cannot comment; anyone else want to provide feedback??


----------



## lrstevens421




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/12677231
> 
> 
> I haven't seen that title...would you say it's worth a rental? I was hoping it was a dancing/hip hop oriented version of School Daze, but I was told it was more of a college version of You Got Served, which I was dreading.
> 
> 
> Brandon



I would say it's certainly worth a rental. My wife was in a sorority so she loves these types of films. It looks excellent on blu-ray with a very engaging TrueHD soundtrack. It should be placed no lower than mid-tier 2 right above Pearl Harbor.


It's placement in this thread is out of whack and undeserving. I tried to find a pro review of the disc, this was all I was able to find.

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/stomptheyard.html 
http://www.dvdtown.com/reviews/stomp-the-yard/4626/1 


I know some reviews can be taken with a grain of salt but these are two well respected sources.


Larone


----------



## haste




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Albator* /forum/post/12677520
> 
> 
> Pixar short films vol 1 is now bronze?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you gotta be kidding right? When i look at For The Birds or Mater and the Ghostlight for instance, all i see there is crystal clear images and details are all unbelievable. Tier 0 if you ask me. I use it for demo and friends are all in awe when they see it. true the older short pictures arent great but why put the BD that down because of the old short movies? The newest are just great!
> 
> 
> Pioneer Pro150FD (60 inches) with Pio 95FD and Onkyo 905NR at 6.5 feet





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/12678452
> 
> 
> Haven't seen it so I cannot comment; anyone else want to provide feedback??



All the movies looked flawless to me. The older ones obviously did not look as good as the more modern shorts but the video quality was superb for all. Definitely top gold tier material.


----------



## jjwinterberg

I watched "The Queen" last night and I believe that she needs to be moved down quite a bit. I found a lot of video noise and thought that the disc was overall not that great. I would put it no higher than tier III and at least below "Memento" and above "Blazing Saddles".


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *haste* /forum/post/12678829
> 
> 
> All the movies looked flawless to me. The older ones obviously did not look as good as the more modern shorts but the video quality was superb for all. Definitely top gold tier material.



I think that's too high in light of the lower quality of the older ones.


----------



## jblank74

I'll probably get lambasted for this, but in my opinion, Resident Evil needs to be mid to low Tier 3. Just looks fairly flat and much less detailed than it should be.


----------



## rydenfan

Has anybody seen The Last Waltz? I would think this film has huge hi-def potential. It is part of the amazon BOGO deal right now, but I would love to know what Tier it would be in. Thanks!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rydenfan* /forum/post/12679767
> 
> 
> Has anybody seen The Last Waltz? I would think this film has huge hi-def potential. It is part of the amazon BOGO deal right now, but I would love to know what Tier it would be in. Thanks!



I've not seen it on Blu, but I have seen the DVD.


Why would you think that this has "huge hi-def potential"? I would think just the opposite.


----------



## rydenfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12680072
> 
> 
> I've not seen it on Blu, but I have seen the DVD.
> 
> 
> Why would you think that this has "huge hi-def potential"? I would think just the opposite.




I was thinking from an audio prespective more than the visual I guess. The concert mixed with an uncompressed soundtrack could be awesome.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12680072
> 
> 
> I've not seen it on Blu, but I have seen the DVD.
> 
> 
> Why would you think that this has "huge hi-def potential"? I would think just the opposite.



I've seen it on hi-def cable and it was pretty good. Being shot on film - it is a movie - it certainly has the potential to be good if the transfer is good.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I watched *Queen: Rock Montreal & Live Aid*.


First, let me just say, if you are a Queen fan, then this is a must have. Incredible performance captured in its entirety. Mercury's voice still goes down as one of the best in Rock history.


This was shot back in 1981. Much of the concert was dark, so I am assuming that they used a fairly high speed film stock. The result is that in darker scenes, there is heavy film grain. Some people will be bothered by this.


When the white lights would brighten up the stage, the video could look very good, with good details. But there are also many shots that look very soft, including almost all shots of the audience.


The source itself looked pretty clean. Apparently they did a restoration on this title. There were still times when you could see a few dust spots though.


Overall a good presentation, especially considering how and when this was shot. I enjoyed it enough that I certainly wouldn't mind owning it (this was a Netflix rental).


I would place it in lower Tier 3, but fans should not be turned off by this placement.


By the way: the sound is SUPERB!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rydenfan* /forum/post/12680087
> 
> 
> I was thinking from an audio prespective more than the visual I guess. The concert mixed with an uncompressed soundtrack could be awesome.



Got ya.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/12680211
> 
> 
> I've seen it on hi-def cable and it was pretty good. Being shot on film - it is a movie - it certainly has the potential to be good if the transfer is good.



The difference is that is was more of a documentary than a "movie". This generally means that different cameras and film stock may have been used. Not sure though. Of course Scorsese knows how to use a camera!


----------



## AustinSTI

Make it so Rob - I haven't seen the Queen one myself...


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jblank74* /forum/post/12679572
> 
> 
> I'll probably get lambasted for this, but in my opinion, Resident Evil needs to be mid to low Tier 3. Just looks fairly flat and much less detailed than it should be.




Which RE?


----------



## cdhender

Since when is Casino Royale Tier 0? People really thinks this movie is the best that blu ray can make?


I see quite a few movies below it that are much, much better, including "Live Free or Die Hard".


----------



## JosephShaw




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/12678452
> 
> 
> Haven't seen it so I cannot comment; anyone else want to provide feedback??



Pixar shorts looks great for the newer stuff, but the older stuff looks bad. Maybe it could be moved up with a caveat? I agree that all the newer shorts look amazingly good and are easily Top Tier 1/Bottom Tier 0 material by themselves and are definitely demo quality. Having given the Pixar Shorts the original low score myself, I think maybe it is wise to re-evaluate it, as each short is capable of standing on its own.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cdhender* /forum/post/12680668
> 
> 
> Since when is Casino Royale Tier 0? People really thinks this movie is the best that blu ray can make?
> 
> 
> I see quite a few movies below it that are much, much better, including "Live Free or Die Hard".



I very much agree that DH 4 should be above CR.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12680808
> 
> 
> I very much agree that DH 4 should be above CR.



I do as well.


I am not quite sure that CR is a Tier 0 title either.


----------



## mhtom




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wryker* /forum/post/12682254
> 
> 
> In case you haven't heard yet:
> 
> http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6517192.html



Please do not get this thread locked. Can a mod delete that post please?


----------



## Wryker




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mhtom* /forum/post/12682277
> 
> 
> Please do not get this thread locked. Can a mod delete that post please?



Why would it lock the thread? It's 'news' regarding formats. Not posted to incite anything other than make others aware.


----------



## JosephShaw




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wryker* /forum/post/12682373
> 
> 
> Why would it lock the thread? It's 'news' regarding formats. Not posted to incite anything other than make others aware.



This thread is not about BD news, and mods have and will lock threads that get off topic with extreme haste. Please do not get this thread closed by posting anything that doesn't have to do with tier ranking the titles. Thanks.


----------



## OhioMike




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wryker* /forum/post/12682254
> 
> 
> In case you haven't heard yet:
> 
> http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6517192.html



Is this reliable?? I'm not too sure, as of yet, if I would consider this a good thing or not. I enjoy having both formats, but 1 format would lead to a better chance at mass adoption. On the other hand...our now favorite phrase "BOGO", may disappear and leave us back at the $25 a disc mark.


----------



## Wryker




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JosephShaw* /forum/post/12682416
> 
> 
> This thread is not about BD news, and mods have and will lock threads that get off topic with extreme haste. Please do not get this thread closed by posting anything that doesn't have to do with tier ranking the titles. Thanks.



As i said - not trying to cauze trouble - i deleted it.


----------



## SuprSlow

For the record, officially from Time Warner:

http://www.timewarner.com/corp/newsr...700383,00.html 


There's a multi-million post thread in the HDM general section, let's try to keep it there


----------



## mhtom




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wryker* /forum/post/12682373
> 
> 
> Why would it lock the thread? It's 'news' regarding formats. Not posted to incite anything other than make others aware.



Because this isn't a news thread.


----------



## Wryker




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mhtom* /forum/post/12682677
> 
> 
> Because this isn't a news thread.



True - it's a Blu-Ray thread where Blu-Ray people go so for one to get 'in-arms' over having something negative happen to the thread you should be more 'open' not not 'close-minded' about things. touchy-touchy...


ps - so every post on here pertains to PQ? didn't think so.


----------



## jblank74




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/12680300
> 
> 
> Which RE?



The first one. The others have something after Resident Evil.


----------



## LazerViking




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wryker* /forum/post/12682704
> 
> 
> True - it's a Blu-Ray thread where Blu-Ray people go so for one to get 'in-arms' over having something negative happen to the thread you should be more 'open' not not 'close-minded' about things. touchy-touchy...
> 
> 
> ps - so every post on here pertains to PQ? didn't think so.



Every post should pertain to that discussion. There are many more links below this one which can facilitate other topics. On to the subject at hand, I am one of the ones completely for the new tier 0. There is a clear divide between Casino Royale and Spider-Man 3 but that becomes much less discernible from there up.


Some adjustment requests though, Identity and Hellboy I feel might be placed a little low. As far as I know, neither have the artifacts of Underworld: Evolution and both have great contrast and depth. I know tier 2 is not a bad place to be, but I felt, at least for Identity, it rivaled many of those with Gold status.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mhtom* /forum/post/12682677
> 
> 
> Because this isn't a news thread.



But it is news than can (and will) have an impact on this thread.


For example, will we now start getting high bitrate titles from Warner? Will we notice an improvement in PQ as a result?


Will be interesting.....


----------



## space86

I'm hoping for a Batman Begins Blu Ray and

The Dark Knight Blu Ray in the Fall !


----------



## mhtom




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wryker* /forum/post/12682704
> 
> 
> True - it's a Blu-Ray thread where Blu-Ray people go so for one to get 'in-arms' over having something negative happen to the thread you should be more 'open' not not 'close-minded' about things. touchy-touchy...
> 
> 
> ps - so every post on here pertains to PQ? didn't think so.



I don't care either way, I just know the mods have much less tolerance now. Remember when they closed the HD DVD/Blu-ray forums altogether for a few days?


----------



## Wryker




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *space86* /forum/post/12684977
> 
> 
> I'm hoping for a Batman Begins Blu Ray and
> 
> The Dark Knight Blu Ray in the Fall !



I'm waiting for Jurassic Park ...IF that ever comes out.


----------



## ooms

FF2 should be T2. the grain is too much.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12681264
> 
> 
> I do as well.
> 
> 
> I am not quite sure that CR is a Tier 0 title either.



I personally think the cutoff should be right below Apocalypto. Everything under that should be Tier 1.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12684536
> 
> 
> But it is news than can (and will) have an impact on this thread.
> 
> 
> For example, will we now start getting high bitrate titles from Warner? Will we notice an improvement in PQ as a result?
> 
> 
> Will be interesting.....



I agree that the news should've stayed posted here. Just no extended discussion on the topic. Anyway, the mods need to be aware of it for the influx of posters that will be joining over the coming months and ripping our Tier thread to bits and complaining about the lack of voting. There may even be another hijack attempt










Brandon


----------



## coolhand

Just a thought:


Can we have another listing that has the movies rankings in alphabetical order? I plan on using this to decide whether to get certain titles and it becomes cumbersome to try to locate a given title.


THANKS!!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolhand* /forum/post/12690894
> 
> 
> Just a thought:
> 
> 
> Can we have another listing that has the movies rankings in alphabetical order? I plan on using this to decide whether to get certain titles and it becomes cumbersome to try to locate a given title.
> 
> 
> THANKS!!



Not trying to be rude, but this has been asked about 5 billion times now.


Again: control "F" is your friend.


The list will not be alphabetized.


----------



## coolhand

There is one useful page on this 64 page thread. You will have to pardon me if I choose not to read the ensuing 63 pages and give ideas on how to improve a sticky thread. The HD-DVD thread is much more user friendly and well done. It just so happens today is a new dawn.


----------



## OldCodger73

I watched Pan's Labyrinth last night and am quite comfortable with its current ranking. I must admit though that the movie totally grabs you and pulls you in plus there's the need to keep track of the subtitles, so I didn't spend much time looking for flaws.


Panny 50" 1080i plasma, Panny 10A BD, 8'


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/12688665
> 
> 
> Anyway, the mods need to be aware of it for the influx of posters that will be joining over the coming months and ripping our Tier thread to bits and complaining





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolhand* /forum/post/12691305
> 
> 
> The HD-DVD thread is much more user friendly and well done. It just so happens today is a new dawn.



Mods, don't say I didn't warn ya










Brandon


----------



## mhtom




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolhand* /forum/post/12690894
> 
> 
> Just a thought:
> 
> 
> Can we have another listing that has the movies rankings in alphabetical order? I plan on using this to decide whether to get certain titles and it becomes cumbersome to try to locate a given title.
> 
> 
> THANKS!!



The movie are listed in order for a reason. A movie listed in the top of a tier is better than at the bottom, so an alphabetical listing would defeat the purpose of the listing. Use Control-F to find a movie.


----------



## Partyslammer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LazerViking* /forum/post/12684274
> 
> 
> Some adjustment requests though, Identity and Hellboy I feel might be placed a little low. As far as I know, neither have the artifacts of Underworld: Evolution and both have great contrast and depth. I know tier 2 is not a bad place to be, but I felt, at least for Identity, it rivaled many of those with Gold status.



I agree 100% regarding Hellboy. It definately belongs at least at the bottom 2/3rds of Gold as it's certainly an overall superior transfer than films like "Close Encounters of the Third Kind."


T.B.


----------



## AlexanderG

Considering the shuffling going on now with Tier 0, *I'm going to go ahead and recommend Shoot 'Em Up for Tier 0 status.* It looks great, no artifacting anywhere, it's got a razor sharp image, and colors pop very well. Grain is present, as it's shot on film, but it's very very minimal and preserved as well it possibly can be. It looks very natural so to speak. The fact that there's no artifacting is especially impressive considering that there's hardly a single static shot in the entire film.


I'm watching this title on a Samsung 4066F 40" 1080p LCD TV... 15,000:1 CR, and I'm sitting about 5 feet away from the TV.


----------



## AlexanderG

Also, why the hell is Mr Brooks so high? The black levels in that disc are terrible, especially in many night shots of the city... It looks great in many indoor shots, but putting as the third most impressive Blu Ray disc is pretty wild.


----------



## hobbs47




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AlexanderG* /forum/post/12698157
> 
> 
> Also, why the hell is Mr Brooks so high? The black levels in that disc are terrible, especially in many night shots of the city... It looks great in many indoor shots, but putting as the third most impressive Blu Ray disc is pretty wild.



You/and other folks who agree with you need to chime in.When P-99 and his cronies made enough noise,it got moved up,simple as that.I agree it is too high,it looks great,just not as good as some of the stuff below it.


----------



## lrstevens421

Don't read into this the wrong way but who decides what movies go where? And if we disagree with a films placement is there some sort of vote or conversation about it? Not being cynical just trying to understand the order of things. I like this thread but I have a few questions that still remain ignored and unanswered. This thread almost feels like a secret society to me. Just my .02


----------



## lrstevens421

BTW,^^^that was un HD-DVD related.


----------



## RBFC




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lrstevens421* /forum/post/12698745
> 
> 
> Don't read into this the wrong way but who decides what movies go where? And if we disagree with a films placement is there some sort of vote or conversation about it? Not being cynical just trying to understand the order of things. I like this thread but I have a few questions that still remain ignored and unanswered. This thread almost feels like a secret society to me. Just my .02




Titles are typically moved or placed by consensus among those who post about them. The thread is "managed" by AustinSTI, with Rob Tomlin and SupRSlow assisting in the maintenance.


If you have opinions about a title, listed or unlisted, write a short synopsis of your thoughts here. Others will add their impressions that either confirm your placement in a tier, or suggest alternate placement with reasons for "disagreement". Once several posters seem to agree on the relative position in a tier for a title, one of the thread managers places it appropriately. Of course, further discussion is always invited and has resulted in titles being moved from their original location many times.


Be sure to list your associated equipment: player, TV/monitor, and viewing distance. This helps to validate your comments as to what you have observed.


I'm sure others with more time on this forum will add even better comments for you. These are my impressions after following this thread for months. Personally, I feel that running a thread of this magnitude deserves a hearty thanks. It's a difficult job that rarely pleases everyone, yet it provides a quick reference as to the relative merits of a given transfer to BD.


I hope this helps.


Lee


----------



## Lil' Louie

Excellent post Lee; and, yes, kudos to the guys who are maintaining the thread.


----------



## lrstevens421




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RBFC* /forum/post/12699152
> 
> 
> Titles are typically moved or placed by consensus among those who post about them. The thread is "managed" by AustinSTI, with Rob Tomlin and SupRSlow assisting in the maintenance.
> 
> 
> If you have opinions about a title, listed or unlisted, write a short synopsis of your thoughts here. Others will add their impressions that either confirm your placement in a tier, or suggest alternate placement with reasons for "disagreement". Once several posters seem to agree on the relative position in a tier for a title, one of the thread managers places it appropriately. Of course, further discussion is always invited and has resulted in titles being moved from their original location many times.
> 
> 
> Be sure to list your associated equipment: player, TV/monitor, and viewing distance. This helps to validate your comments as to what you have observed.
> 
> 
> I'm sure others with more time on this forum will add even better comments for you. These are my impressions after following this thread for months. Personally, I feel that running a thread of this magnitude deserves a hearty thanks. It's a difficult job that rarely pleases everyone, yet it provides a quick reference as to the relative merits of a given transfer to BD.
> 
> 
> I hope this helps.
> 
> 
> Lee



Thanks for the response. Makes sense to me, so here goes *again*:


Can someone tell me why "Stomp the Yard" was moved to mid-tier 3. When I recommended it be added to the thread a few months back another member who'd seen the movie agreed with my high tier 2 recommendation, which it was promptly placed, thanks







. Now it seems to have been moved. What troubles me the most is that no one seems to have seen this movie, atleast that's the impression I've gotten from the lack of responses to my first 2 inquiries. I think this film looks excellent, a lot better than a few titles above it. I've also posted some links to professional reviews which agree with my assesment.


The reason I continue to bring this up is because now it makes me second guess all placements In this thread (well some). How do I know this is the only title this has happened to? Anyone who know's me and has been part of any thread that I've participated in, knows that ranting and sensationalism is not my style, but this just has me wondering.....Things that make you go hmm.


Sony 52XBR4 - 1080p24

Panasonic BD30

10ft. Away

Onkyo 875


----------



## AfRoMaN787

Just watched shoot em up. This is definitely a tier 0 film, it is extremely sharp and detailed. I watched it on a Samsung 46 inch 1080p tv at about 9 feet away.


----------



## lrstevens421




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AfRoMaN787* /forum/post/12699601
> 
> 
> Just watched shoot em up. This is definitely a tier 0 film, it is extremely sharp and detailed. I watched it on a Samsung 46 inch 1080p tv at about 9 feet away.



Shoot em up looked good but I'm not sure if it deserves Tier 0. Mid to high tier 1, right around "Troy" seems like a good spot for it. There were a few scenes that were less than spectacular, although good throughout.


----------



## mhtom




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lrstevens421* /forum/post/12698745
> 
> 
> Don't read into this the wrong way but who decides what movies go where? And if we disagree with a films placement is there some sort of vote or conversation about it? Not being cynical just trying to understand the order of things. I like this thread but I have a few questions that still remain ignored and unanswered. This thread almost feels like a secret society to me. Just my .02



I think the best way to describe how the system works is that it's more qualitative (discussion) rather than quantitative (poll), like the HD DVD system.


----------



## mhtom




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AfRoMaN787* /forum/post/12699601
> 
> 
> Just watched shoot em up. This is definitely a tier 0 film, it is extremely sharp and detailed. I watched it on a Samsung 46 inch 1080p tv at about 9 feet away.



Damn, now I REALLY want to get this movie.


----------



## lrstevens421




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mhtom* /forum/post/12699711
> 
> 
> I think the best way to describe how the system works is that it's more qualitative (discussion) rather than quantitative (poll), like the HD DVD system.



Thanks, I guess my issue was movement with lack of discussion







.


----------



## AlexanderG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lrstevens421* /forum/post/12699641
> 
> 
> Shoot em up looked good but I'm not sure if it deserves Tier 0. Mid to high tier 1, right around "Troy" seems like a good spot for it. There were a few scenes that were less than spectacular, although good throughout.



Shoot 'Em Up looks vastly superior to Troy. Troy had terrible instances of softness and a few areas of artifacting, neither of which are a problem in Shoot 'Em Up.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lrstevens421* /forum/post/12699432
> 
> 
> Thanks for the response. Makes sense to me, so here goes *again*:
> 
> 
> Can someone tell me why "Stomp the Yard" was moved to mid-tier 3. When I recommended it be added to the thread a few months back another member who'd seen the movie agreed with my high tier 2 recommendation, which it was promptly placed, thanks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Now it seems to have been moved. What troubles me the most is that no one seems to have seen this movie, atleast that's the impression I've gotten from the lack of responses to my first 2 inquiries. I think this film looks excellent, a lot better than a few titles above it. I've also posted some links to professional reviews which agree with my assesment.
> 
> 
> The reason I continue to bring this up is because now it makes me second guess all placements In this thread (well some). How do I know this is the only title this has happened to? Anyone who know's me and has been part of any thread that I've participated in, knows that ranting and sensationalism is not my style, but this just has me wondering.....Things that make you go hmm.
> 
> 
> Sony 52XBR4 - 1080p24
> 
> Panasonic BD30
> 
> 10ft. Away
> 
> Onkyo 875



The only thing I could find was this post: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...9#post10735549 


If you do a search of this thread, until you brought up the Stomp the Yard topic in December, nobody had ever posted anything about it. In the post above the OP was forwarded the list from the original Tier Thread run by Fettastic. You'll notice in that post that Stomp the Yard was already Tier 3. So I'm guessing the placement of Stomp the Yard is a 100% carry over from the previous thread.


(My search was for "stomp the yard" posts)


Brandon


----------



## RBFC




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lrstevens421* /forum/post/12699751
> 
> 
> Thanks, I guess my issue was movement with lack of discussion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



Have you read the posts following yours, where you recommended placement for _Stomp the Yard_? Someone else may have disagreed, etc., causing the move.


If a title is moved that drastically without other opinions being offered, it may either be a mistake or other anomaly. If that's the case, PM one of the thread managers for more information on it.


There's really no "agenda" at work here, since folks tend to buy the titles they want to watch anyway. They use the tier thread mainly to "weed out" titles that may have exceptionally bad transfers, or they check to see what titles have garnered universal praise for their technical excellence.


Overall, use the thread as a rough guideline, since everybody has somewhat different viewing preferences and different equipment. You may discover the "line" where titles look great to you and how that correlates to that movie's position in the tier thread.


I haven't seen _Stomp the Yard_ yet, so I can't personally comment.


Once again, my two cents' worth.


Lee


----------



## JDChapier




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AlexanderG* /forum/post/12699817
> 
> 
> Shoot 'Em Up looks vastly superior to Troy. Troy had terrible instances of softness and a few areas of artifacting, neither of which are a problem in Shoot 'Em Up.



I was mesmerized by Shoot 'Em Up, by both its PQ and its awesome DTS-HD MA 7.1 soundtrack. I would rate it slightly higher than Live Free or Die Hard.


Tosh 52LX177 - 1080p24 - 9 ft

Panasonic BD30

Onkyo 905


----------



## lrstevens421




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RBFC* /forum/post/12699845
> 
> 
> Have you read the posts following yours, where you recommended placement for _Stomp the Yard_? Someone else may have disagreed, etc., causing the move.
> 
> 
> If a title is moved that drastically without other opinions being offered, it may either be a mistake or other anomaly. If that's the case, PM one of the thread managers for more information on it.
> 
> 
> There's really no "agenda" at work here, since folks tend to buy the titles they want to watch anyway. They use the tier thread mainly to "weed out" titles that may have exceptionally bad transfers, or they check to see what titles have garnered universal praise for their technical excellence.
> 
> 
> Overall, use the thread as a rough guideline, since everybody has somewhat different viewing preferences and different equipment. You may discover the "line" where titles look great to you and how that correlates to that movie's position in the tier thread.
> 
> 
> I haven't seen _Stomp the Yard_ yet, so I can't personally comment.
> 
> 
> Once again, my two cents' worth.
> 
> 
> Lee



No, I get what you're saying, much like what Brandon posted my searches have come back unsuccessful so I didn't see anyone disagree with my assesment, if they have then atleast I can justify it's placement.


----------



## lrstevens421




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AlexanderG* /forum/post/12699817
> 
> 
> Shoot 'Em Up looks vastly superior to Troy. Troy had terrible instances of softness and a few areas of artifacting, neither of which are a problem in Shoot 'Em Up.



I do agree on the spotiness of Tryo. I just wasn't blown away by Shoot 'em up, I guess I was expecting too much. I will admit that it was a VERY sharp picture. I thought the contrast ran a bit hot at times but that may have been the Director's Intent (I didn't see this one it theaters). Don't get me wrong it did look good, very good even, I'm just not sure if it deserves Tier 0 status. In fact I agree with ohers who say Casino Royale should be moved to Tier 1. Just my .02


----------



## Ian_Currie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AfRoMaN787* /forum/post/12699601
> 
> 
> Just watched shoot em up. This is definitely a tier 0 film, it is extremely sharp and detailed. I watched it on a Samsung 46 inch 1080p tv at about 9 feet away.




This movie was a total pleasure. Amazing PQ & AQ and very creative.


----------



## lrstevens421




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/12699828
> 
> 
> The only thing I could find was this post: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...9#post10735549
> 
> 
> If you do a search of this thread, until you brought up the Stomp the Yard topic in December, nobody had ever posted anything about it. In the post above the OP was forwarded the list from the original Tier Thread run by Fettastic. You'll notice in that post that Stomp the Yard was already Tier 3. So I'm guessing the placement of Stomp the Yard is a 100% carry over from the previous thread.
> 
> 
> (My search was for "stomp the yard" posts)
> 
> 
> Brandon



Then I have no idea what happened, but I would love for others who seen the movie to comment on it. I tried to find my original post but wasn't able to, I think Fett's thread was deleted.

*IT IS NOW OBVIOUS THAT IT WAS NOT MOVED IN THIS THREAD SO MY APOLOGIES TO AUSTIN*. Now let's get this movie where it belongs. Once someone sees is ofcourse







.


Thanks Brandon


----------



## lrstevens421




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ian_Currie* /forum/post/12700009
> 
> 
> This movie was a total pleasure. Amazing PQ & AQ and very creative.



A lot of people didn't like this film but I thought it was lots of fun as well. I know AQ doesn't effect the tier ranking but whoah







, this one was incredible.


----------



## nick2010

I found that the average quality of Pixar Short Films collection was closer to lower Tier 2. Having it in Tier 3 seems too low.


Sharp LC-46D62U (46" 1080p60)

Panasonic DMP-BD10

view distance approx. 7-9 feet


----------



## OhioMike

I went back and watched Casino Royale again last night due to all of the posts voting to move it back down a bit. I think this would be the correct move. I just wasn't blown away by it when compared to AWE and Mr. Brooks which I watched on Wednesday. It should probably just be #1 on Tier 1. Maybe it looks better on other set-ups, but I've seen better films on mine thus far. I was in favor of Tier 0 until re-watching, I guess I just hadn't watched it for several months and forgot that it wasn't that stellar.


----------



## lrstevens421




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OhioMike* /forum/post/12701033
> 
> 
> I went back and watched Casino Royale again last night due to all of the posts voting to move it back down a bit. I think this would be the correct move. I just wasn't blown away by it when compared to AWE and Mr. Brooks which I watched on Wednesday. It should probably just be #1 on Tier 1. Maybe it looks better on other set-ups, but I've seen better films on mine thus far. I was in favor of Tier 0 until re-watching, I guess I just hadn't watched it for several months and forgot that it wasn't that stellar.



The movie did look very good but colors were a little too oversaturated for me, it just didn't look natural.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lrstevens421* /forum/post/12700157
> 
> 
> Then I have no idea what happened, but I would love for others who seen the movie to comment on it. I tried to find my original post but wasn't able to, I think Fett's thread was deleted.
> 
> *IT IS NOW OBVIOUS THAT IT WAS NOT MOVED IN THIS THREAD SO MY APOLOGIES TO AUSTIN*. Now let's get this movie where it belongs. Once someone sees is ofcourse
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> Thanks Brandon



Yeah, Fett's threads were hijacked, unstickied, and he was suspended. So he left (or was banned) but before he did so he deleted his threads I think.


If I get a chance to watch Stomp the Yard I'll comment on it.


Brandon


----------



## lrstevens421




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/12701817
> 
> 
> Yeah, Fett's threads were hijacked, unstickied, and he was suspended. So he left (or was banned) but before he did so he deleted his threads I think.
> 
> 
> If I get a chance to watch Stomp the Yard I'll comment on it.
> 
> 
> Brandon



Wow, tough break for Fett, life on the forum shouldn't be so rough







.


Looking forward to your Stomp the Yard review, just remember we're judging PQ not the movie itself







.


Larone


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I agree that Hellboy is definitely too low.


One of us will get to moving it by tomorrow..


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lrstevens421* /forum/post/12701881
> 
> 
> Looking forward to your Stomp the Yard review, just remember we're judging PQ not the movie itself
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> Larone



I got a chance to pick this up tonight. I was really surprised at how much I enjoyed the movie. Yes, it was really predictable and deliberate in it's formula, but the lead actors were very sincere and believable and the story lulls lend themselves to dramatic dance sequences to pick the pace back up.


On the other hand, I'm sure part of the reason for the horrible reviews are due to the fact that most just won't be able to relate to this movie. If you've never been to a step show before, this probably all seems pretty corny and over the top. It is at times, but that's actually reaslitic!


On to the video...another surprise. The print was pristine. It was very clean through and through. It *is* a stylized look that runs pretty hot with the hues, and that does knock it down a bit. However, while it wasn't the most detailed I've seen, it wasn't anywhere near soft IMO. Contrast was good, even if it was cranked up a bit.


I'd say this is bottom Tier 1 material. Somewhere below 300 and above 2001 and probably League of Extraordinary Gentleman (relavant titles I've seen in that range). Where in Tier 2 did you originally rank it? I could live with the top of Tier 2.


PS3->1080p24->46XBR4 (8 feet)


Brandon


----------



## bplewis24

Oh yeah, and Bram Stoker's Dracula sucked. In the daytime shots I liked the new coloring, but in the darker/night shots everything that was claimed by Dave Mack is true. I damn near missed the scene with the superimposed writing even though I was specifically looking for it. But Lucy was a damn fine lookin' vampire.


Brandon


----------



## Hughmc

Video on Rush Hour 3 is VC-1.


----------



## lrstevens421




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/12704484
> 
> 
> I got a chance to pick this up tonight. I was really surprised at how much I enjoyed the movie. Yes, it was really predictable and deliberate in it's formula, but the lead actors were very sincere and believable and the story lulls lend themselves to dramatic dance sequences to pick the pace back up.
> 
> 
> On the other hand, I'm sure part of the reason for the horrible reviews are due to the fact that most just won't be able to relate to this movie. If you've never been to a step show before, this probably all seems pretty corny and over the top. It is at times, but that's actually reaslitic!
> 
> 
> On to the video...another surprise. The print was pristine. It was very clean through and through. It *is* a stylized look that runs pretty hot with the hues, and that does knock it down a bit. However, while it wasn't the most detailed I've seen, it wasn't anywhere near soft IMO. Contrast was good, even if it was cranked up a bit.
> 
> 
> I'd say this is bottom Tier 1 material. Somewhere below 300 and above 2001 and probably League of Extraordinary Gentleman (relavant titles I've seen in that range). Where in Tier 2 did you originally rank it? I could live with the top of Tier 2.
> 
> 
> PS3->1080p24->46XBR4 (8 feet)
> 
> 
> Brandon



Glad you enjoyed it Brandon, told ya it looked good







. It was initially listed near the top of tier 2 (top 5 or so.) To be honest it's right at home in Tier 1 also.

*AustinSTI, Rob Tomlin, SuprSlow* can we get this one moved to the bottom of Tier 1 or perhaps VERY high tier 2?


Larone


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hobbs47* /forum/post/12698666
> 
> 
> You/and other folks who agree with you need to chime in.When P-99 and his cronies made enough noise,it got moved up,simple as that.I agree it is too high,it looks great,just not as good as some of the stuff below it.



Such as? Troy DC? Hairspray? 2001? The Departed? Blood Diamond?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/12704489
> 
> 
> Oh yeah, and Bram Stoker's Dracula sucked. In the daytime shots I liked the new coloring, but in the darker/night shots everything that was claimed by Dave Mack is true. I damn near missed the scene with the superimposed writing even though I was specifically looking for it. But Lucy was a damn fine lookin' vampire.
> 
> 
> Brandon



Where would you recommend it be placed? I would agree with a Tier 3 placement myself.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lrstevens421* /forum/post/12706293
> 
> 
> Glad you enjoyed it Brandon, told ya it looked good
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . It was initially listed near the top of tier 2 (top 5 or so.) To be honest it's right at home in Tier 1 also.
> 
> *AustinSTI, Rob Tomlin, SuprSlow* can we get this one moved to the bottom of Tier 1 or perhaps VERY high tier 2?
> 
> 
> Larone



Will do.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AlexanderG* /forum/post/12698157
> 
> 
> Also, why the hell is Mr Brooks so high? The black levels in that disc are terrible, especially in many night shots of the city... It looks great in many indoor shots, but putting as the third most impressive Blu Ray disc is pretty wild.



Could you give examples of specific shots or timecodes where you are seeing something that you don't like? I am one of those who supported putting Mr. Brooks in Tier 0, and in other cases it seems that you and I generally share the same views on PQ.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Ok, I moved Hellboy up (in fact, I moved it WAY up), so if anyone thinks it was raised too high, please chime in.


Also moved Stomp the Yard up.


Dracula is currently in Tier 4, so probably no need to move that.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AlexanderG* /forum/post/12698157
> 
> 
> Also, why the hell is Mr Brooks so high? The black levels in that disc are terrible, especially in many night shots of the city... It looks great in many indoor shots, but putting as the third most impressive Blu Ray disc is pretty wild.



This was the only criticism that I had in my review:


"If there was anything at all to complain about, I did notice some noise in a couple of darker scenes in the gray areas (not in the blacks). Since this was only noticed twice, I would not reduce the overall rating much, if any, at all."


Other than that, it looks amazing.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12707129
> 
> 
> Where would you recommend it be placed? I would agree with a Tier 3 placement myself.



To be honest, I can't imagine it's noticeably better than Devil Wears Prada or Goodfellas, both of which were very soft. In fact off memory I think it's worse. I don't have much of a problem with where it is right now, but if it were moved into Tier 3 I think Goodfellas should be too.


I mean...ugh: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=426 


Brandon


----------



## AlexanderG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12707142
> 
> 
> Could you give examples of specific shots or timecodes where you are seeing something that you don't like? I am one of those who supported putting Mr. Brooks in Tier 0, and in other cases it seems that you and I generally share the same views on PQ.



Sorry, I don't have the movie anymore, I rented it from Netflix a while back. I can just remember black levels being way off on certain nighttime shots of the city. Looked like someone jacked the brightness up on my TV. Blacks never really look that deep of black either, looking sometimes like an extremely dark Navy.


Peter Bracke's Highdefdigest review nailed it with this comment:



> Quote:
> Unfortunately, black levels and particularly contrast left me disappointed. Blacks never quite look pure, which gives a slightly washed out look to the proceedings.



Peter Bracke gave the title a 3.5/5 stars, which I wouldn't agree with. I'd say Chad Varnadore is much more on point with his assessment of 4.5/5 stars. But he seems to find the same faults with the disc that Peter Bracke and I do.

From Chad Varnadore's ***************.com Mr. Brooks review:



> Quote:
> Black levels are almost wildly inconsistent though, sometimes very deep, at others deep enough that it probably won’t go noticed on higher contrast displays.



Don't get me wrong though, I think the image is great and better than most Blu Ray titles... But I think that its placement as third best looking Blu Ray disc is erroneous.


Side note: Let's get Shoot 'Em Up on the list







Tier 0 somewhere.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AlexanderG* /forum/post/12707869
> 
> 
> Sorry, I don't have the movie anymore, I rented it from Netflix a while back. I can just remember black levels being way off on certain nighttime shots of the city. Looked like someone jacked the brightness up on my TV. Blacks never really look that deep of black either, looking sometimes like an extremely dark Navy.
> 
> 
> Peter Bracke's Highdefdigest review nailed it with this comment:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peter Bracke gave the title a 3.5/5 stars, which I wouldn't agree with. I'd say Chad Varnadore is much more on point with his assessment of 4.5/5 stars. But he seems to find the same faults with the disc that Peter Bracke and I do.
> 
> From Chad Varnadore's ***************.com Mr. Brooks review:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong though, I think the image is great and better than most Blu Ray titles... But I think that its placement as third best looking Blu Ray disc is erroneous.
> 
> 
> Side note: Let's get Shoot 'Em Up on the list
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tier 0 somewhere.



I don't remember that there were many night shots of the city; I will try to watch it again and look for those.


Wrt Shoot 'Em Up, I need to watch the whole thing before reaching a placement conclusion, although based on the portion I have watched so far, it definitely looks very nice. Unfortunately, the movie itself is not exactly my cup of tea.


----------



## maverick0716

Just watched Coming To America and Resident Evil: Extinction. Based on what I saw, Coming to America very soft and has an overall flat image........I'd place down to near the top of Tier 4 (it's definitly too high right now).


Resident Evil: Extinction was an interesting one......when the movie opens, the picture actually seems blurry. It definitly picks up from there though, and I'd rate it overall low Tier 2.


42" Panasonic Plasma 768p

Sony PS3 though HDMI

6-7 ft.


----------



## LonePirate

Lost: The Complete Third Season


I think it deserves its current spot as a mid-Tier 1, possibly a spot or two higher. It's no Ratatouille; but it's easily the best PQ I've seen from a television series. Speaking of which, should we distinguish between films\\movies and television series\\documentaries?


Setup:

Sony KD-34XBR2 1080i (yes, a tube HDTV purchased in 2002 - weighs more than I do)

PS3 w/ Firmware 2.10

9' viewing distance


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/12707643
> 
> 
> To be honest, I can't imagine it's noticeably better than Devil Wears Prada or Goodfellas, both of which were very soft. In fact off memory I think it's worse. I don't have much of a problem with where it is right now, but if it were moved into Tier 3 I think Goodfellas should be too.
> 
> 
> I mean...ugh: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=426
> 
> 
> Brandon



Yep, I think it's current placement in Tier 4 is appropriate.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/12708267
> 
> 
> Just watched Coming To America and Resident Evil: Extinction. Based on what I saw, Coming to America very soft and has an overall flat image........I'd place down to near the top of Tier 4 (it's definitly too high right now).
> 
> 
> Resident Evil: Extinction was an interesting one......when the movie opens, the picture actually seems blurry. It definitly picks up from there though, and I'd rate it overall low Tier 2.
> 
> 
> 42" Panasonic Plasma 768p
> 
> Sony PS3 though HDMI
> 
> 6-7 ft.



That would put it on par with Bram Stoker's Dracula and Goodfellas. I thought it was better than both, but not by much. What about bottom of Tier 3? I'll pop it in and try and check it out some more...you could be right. I posted my opinions about it a few months ago and I may have been the only one.


HDD gives it a 3 out of 5 stars.


Brandon


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/12710661
> 
> 
> That would put it on par with Bram Stoker's Dracula and Goodfellas. I thought it was better than both, but not by much. What about bottom of Tier 3? I'll pop it in and try and check it out some more...you could be right. I posted my opinions about it a few months ago and I may have been the only one.
> 
> 
> HDD gives it a 3 out of 5 stars.
> 
> 
> Brandon



I'd say it's right around Goodfellas.....I haven't seen Bram Stoker's Dracula.


----------



## LEDme

Just a slight nitpick:


The unrated version of _Underworld_ is listed with a colon ("Underworld: Unrated") which makes it seem like "Unrated" is the movie's subtitle. I don't think anyone was confused by that but you never know.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/12704636
> 
> 
> Video on Rush Hour 3 is VC-1.



I am bumping this up again because the Video has a ? next to it and still hasn't been changed. I thought whom ever does the editing for the tiers might see it.

















Placement for it looks about right as most of it seems great, if not fantastic, but a few closeup shots actually get blurry.


All this talk about the PiP thing and BD specs, what nonsense. I checked PiP directors commentary on this disc and got bored fast. The audio drops to two channel and...ah...what is the point of even saying anymore. I am not really much into special features on discs other than some out takes or cut scenes on comedy, so I am a bit biased.


Maybe in a better title where there is a great story, great acting and SFX, PiP would be different.


P.S. Without giving story away, Chan bored me in this, and he is getting older, but Chris Tucker for some reason cracks me up with some of the s**t he says and I think it maybe more of how he says it, his delivery than what he says.


----------



## bplewis24

How do you look for and spot DNR? Fairly easy to find?


Brandon


----------



## Deviation




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lrstevens421* /forum/post/12699641
> 
> 
> Shoot em up looked good but I'm not sure if it deserves Tier 0. Mid to high tier 1, right around "Troy" seems like a good spot for it. There were a few scenes that were less than spectacular, although good throughout.



I would say that Shoot 'em Up looked noticeably superior to Troy. There were several artifacts in Troy that I noticed and I didn't see a single one while watching Shoot 'em UP.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LEDme* /forum/post/12711818
> 
> 
> Just a slight nitpick:
> 
> 
> The unrated version of _Underworld_ is listed with a colon ("Underworld: Unrated") which makes it seem like "Unrated" is the movie's subtitle. I don't think anyone was confused by that but you never know.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/12715762
> 
> 
> I am bumping this up again because the Video has a ? next to it and still hasn't been changed. I thought whom ever does the editing for the tiers might see it.



Fixed Both


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/12710661
> 
> 
> That would put it on par with Bram Stoker's Dracula and Goodfellas. I thought it was better than both, but not by much. What about bottom of Tier 3? I'll pop it in and try and check it out some more...you could be right. I posted my opinions about it a few months ago and I may have been the only one.
> 
> 
> HDD gives it a 3 out of 5 stars.
> 
> 
> Brandon



RE or Coming?


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/12710661
> 
> 
> That would put it on par with Bram Stoker's Dracula and Goodfellas. I thought it was better than both, but not by much. What about bottom of Tier 3? I'll pop it in and try and check it out some more...you could be right. I posted my opinions about it a few months ago and I may have been the only one.
> 
> 
> HDD gives it a 3 out of 5 stars.
> 
> 
> Brandon





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12684536
> 
> 
> But it is news than can (and will) have an impact on this thread.
> 
> 
> For example, will we now start getting high bitrate titles from Warner? Will we notice an improvement in PQ as a result?
> 
> 
> Will be interesting.....



We'll definately see more traffic in the thread as a result...


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *coolhand* /forum/post/12691305
> 
> 
> There is one useful page on this 64 page thread. You will have to pardon me if I choose not to read the ensuing 63 pages and give ideas on how to improve a sticky thread. The HD-DVD thread is much more user friendly and well done. It just so happens today is a new dawn.



You are welcome to PM me your thoughts on making this thread more user friendly...the first page does mention using control + F to find a title.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AlexanderG* /forum/post/12698157
> 
> 
> Also, why the hell is Mr Brooks so high? The black levels in that disc are terrible, especially in many night shots of the city... It looks great in many indoor shots, but putting as the third most impressive Blu Ray disc is pretty wild.



Post your setup information to have your opion considered. I welcome the feedback but we need to know what you are viewing on. Instructions can be found on the first page



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lrstevens421* /forum/post/12698745
> 
> 
> Don't read into this the wrong way but who decides what movies go where? And if we disagree with a films placement is there some sort of vote or conversation about it? Not being cynical just trying to understand the order of things. I like this thread but I have a few questions that still remain ignored and unanswered. This thread almost feels like a secret society to me. Just my .02



Placement is decided based on user feedback. Only those posts with proper user setup information are considered. I got tired of reminding everyone to post setups so if your want your opinion taken into account you MUST post your setup. Details are on the front page. We consider everyone's opinion and setup when making tier placements. As I've said before you shouldn't be afraid to purchase anything in the top 3 tiers - tier 0,1, and 2. We always welcome user feedback and SuprSlow, myself and Rob serve as Mods of the thread more than movie placers. We don't own every movie so your opinion is definately valuable.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RBFC* /forum/post/12699152
> 
> 
> If you have opinions about a title, listed or unlisted, write a short synopsis of your thoughts here. Others will add their impressions that either confirm your placement in a tier, or suggest alternate placement with reasons for "disagreement". Once several posters seem to agree on the relative position in a tier for a title, one of the thread managers places it appropriately. Of course, further discussion is always invited and has resulted in titles being moved from their original location many times.
> 
> 
> Be sure to list your associated equipment: player, TV/monitor, and viewing distance. This helps to validate your comments as to what you have observed.
> 
> 
> I'm sure others with more time on this forum will add even better comments for you. These are my impressions after following this thread for months. Personally, I feel that running a thread of this magnitude deserves a hearty thanks. It's a difficult job that rarely pleases everyone, yet it provides a quick reference as to the relative merits of a given transfer to BD.
> 
> 
> I hope this helps.
> 
> 
> Lee



Well put



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lrstevens421* /forum/post/12699432
> 
> 
> Thanks for the response. Makes sense to me, so here goes *again*:
> 
> 
> Can someone tell me why "Stomp the Yard" was moved to mid-tier 3. When I recommended it be added to the thread a few months back another member who'd seen the movie agreed with my high tier 2 recommendation, which it was promptly placed, thanks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Now it seems to have been moved. What troubles me the most is that no one seems to have seen this movie, atleast that's the impression I've gotten from the lack of responses to my first 2 inquiries. I think this film looks excellent, a lot better than a few titles above it. I've also posted some links to professional reviews which agree with my assesment.
> 
> 
> The reason I continue to bring this up is because now it makes me second guess all placements In this thread (well some). How do I know this is the only title this has happened to? Anyone who know's me and has been part of any thread that I've participated in, knows that ranting and sensationalism is not my style, but this just has me wondering.....Things that make you go hmm.
> 
> 
> Sony 52XBR4 - 1080p24
> 
> Panasonic BD30
> 
> 10ft. Away
> 
> Onkyo 875



This movie is in tier 1....


----------



## obxdiver

I love this thread, and yes I had to use *-F* to find something.

I know its alot of work, but is it possible to have each tier in alphabetical order?

That would make it a bit easier to find a title.

Thanks alot to the guys maintaining this list.

This thread is going to get huge amounts of traffic now with the Warner news.


----------



## AustinSTI

Made some edits this morning, cleaned some things up and made things a bit more user-friendly. Also highlighted the information needed in any posting for it to be taken into consideration for movie placement.


Cheers - the world is Blu this Monday and I expect more new folks joining the ranks of viewers and contributors.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *obxdiver* /forum/post/12720815
> 
> 
> I love this thread, and yes I had to use *-F* to find something.
> 
> I know its alot of work, but is it possible to have each tier in alphabetical order?
> 
> That would make it a bit easier to find a title.
> 
> Thanks alot to the guys maintaining this list.
> 
> This thread is going to get huge amounts of traffic now with the Warner news.



Alphabatizing the tiers causes us to maintain 2 lists which is cumbersome. The movies in the tiers stack against one another as well and that would be lost by alphabatizing. I also believe having 2 lists would be confusing to users. In short I don't plan to alphabatize unless a strong case is made for it.


I also checked out the HD-DVD thread's usability and found it to be no more user friendly than ours but I did make some formatting adjustments based on what I liked when I checked it out. I also saw no alphabatized list there either.


Welcome to the thread; glad to have you joining us.


----------



## AlexanderG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/12720360
> 
> 
> Post your setup information to have your opion considered. I welcome the feedback but we need to know what you are viewing on. Instructions can be found on the first page



I posted that information along with my Shoot 'Em Up recommendation, right above the Mr Brooks comment










Samsung 40" 4066F 1080p LCD TV 15,000:1 Contrast Ratio, Viewing Distance: 5 feet


I recommend Shoot 'Em Up for Tier 0... Someone suggested placing it around Live Free or Die Hard, and I think that sounds fairly accurate... Although, considering how high up New Line's Pan's Labyrinth is, perhaps it would be better suited above that, since Shoot 'Em Up looks much more detailed than Pan's Labyrinth, which has DNR applied. Shoot 'Em Up is a much more detailed encode than Pan's Labyrinth.


----------



## lrstevens421




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/12720360
> 
> 
> Post your setup information to have your opion considered. I welcome the feedback but we need to know what you are viewing on. Instructions can be found on the first page
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Placement is decided based on user feedback. Only those posts with proper user setup information are considered. I got tired of reminding everyone to post setups so if your want your opinion taken into account you MUST post your setup. Details are on the front page. We consider everyone's opinion and setup when making tier placements. As I've said before you shouldn't be afraid to purchase anything in the top 3 tiers - tier 0,1, and 2. We always welcome user feedback and SuprSlow, myself and Rob serve as Mods of the thread more than movie placers. We don't own every movie so your opinion is definately valuable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well put
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This movie is in tier 1....



I listed my system each time.


Sony 52XBR4 - 1080p24

Panasonic BD30

10ft. away


Stomp the yard was moved to tier 1 yesterday by Rob Tomlin after Bplewis24 agreed with my recommendation. Prior to that it was mid tier 3. Thanks.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AlexanderG* /forum/post/12721331
> 
> 
> I posted that information along with my Shoot 'Em Up recommendation, right above the Mr Brooks comment
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samsung 40" 4066F 1080p LCD TV 15,000:1 Contrast Ratio, Viewing Distance: 5 feet
> 
> 
> I recommend Shoot 'Em Up for Tier 0... Someone suggested placing it around Live Free or Die Hard, and I think that sounds fairly accurate... Although, considering how high up New Line's Pan's Labyrinth is, perhaps it would be better suited above that, since Shoot 'Em Up looks much more detailed than Pan's Labyrinth, which has DNR applied. Shoot 'Em Up is a much more detailed encode than Pan's Labyrinth.



Yup saw that - its bottom of Tier 0 now.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lrstevens421* /forum/post/12721497
> 
> 
> I listed my system each time.
> 
> 
> Sony 52XBR4 - 1080p24
> 
> Panasonic BD30
> 
> 10ft. away
> 
> 
> Stomp the yard was moved to tier 1 yesterday by Rob Tomlin after Bplewis24 seconded my recommendation. Prior to that it was mid tier 3. Thanks.



Yeah sorry I'm still out of it a bit and sometimes we thread guys don't always communicate







I try to post when i make changes, was catching up and everything.


----------



## lrstevens421




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/12721533
> 
> 
> Yeah sorry I'm still out of it a bit and sometimes we thread guys don't always communicate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I try to post when i make changes, was catching up and everything.



No problem, I jumped the gun the other day with my mini-rant. Brandon showed me that the thread was imported that way from Fett, so I guess my beef was with him







. It's all good







.


----------



## Macfan424




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/12720872
> 
> 
> Alphabatizing the tiers causes us to maintain 2 lists which is cumbersome. The movies in the tiers stack against one another as well and that would be lost by alphabatizing. I also believe having 2 lists would be confusing to users. In short I don't plan to alphabatize unless a strong case is made for it.
> 
> 
> I also checked out the HD-DVD thread's usability and found it to be no more user friendly than ours but I did make some formatting adjustments based on what I liked when I checked it out. I also saw no alphabatized list there either.
> 
> 
> Welcome to the thread; glad to have you joining us.



I'm new to BD and a lurker here who much appreciates all the effort that goes into this tread. I especially appreciate the links you provide to outside reviews (which often offer contrary views).


If it were up to me, this tread would also include a star system (as proposed a few pages back) coupled with an alphabetical list to assist in evaluating titles I'm considering. As a Mac devotee, I have no idea how +F is supposed to help find titles, as it does nothing on my machine. However, the board's search function, cumbersome as it may be, gets me there eventually.


I'd also favor some sort of polling system to broaden the base of input, as the current rankings seem to reflect the opinions of a small group of contributers, which, together with the equipment requirement (is my gear "good enough" in the eyes of the moderator to legitimatize my opinion?







) tends to create an elitist impression, even though no such thing is intended.


But these things are not up to me, and mine is only one opinion. I respect the choices that have been made, and am thankful for the information that is provided here.


----------



## AlexanderG

Shoot Em Up specs: VC-1, DTS-MA 7.1, AR: 2.40:1, PiP commentary, New Line Cinema


----------



## obxdiver




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Macfan424* /forum/post/12721643
> 
> 
> I have no idea how +F is supposed to help find titles, as it does nothing on my machine.



-F is the hot key for "Find on this Page" in your browser. I am sure the MAC browser has a similar feature. Just use the browser search to find a the title after you load page 1 of this thread.


----------



## lrstevens421

So I just finished watching "Troy - Directors Cut" on Blu-ray, I saw no reason to before because I've watched the original version on HD-DVD several times and it always looked great. Well, I must admit that this new version doesn't look as good as I remember. I definitely see all the "soft" spots others are referring to. How can the Directors cut look inferior to the original (atleast in a few scenes)?


I actually think Troy should be bumped down a few nothces.


Sony 52XBR4

Panasonic BD-30, 1080p24

10 ft. Away


----------



## Wryker

Watched Night at the Museum - it states "lossless" but, in reality, it's DTS. The ranking is accurate for where it is -but the audio should indicate what it really is.


73" Mitsubishi 73833

PS3 1080p/24

10ft.


----------



## Macfan424




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *obxdiver* /forum/post/12721737
> 
> 
> -F is the hot key for "Find on this Page" in your browser. I am sure the MAC browser has a similar feature. Just use the browser search to find a the title after you load page 1 of this thread.



Thanks. That's +F on a Mac. I thought I had tried it, but must have done something wrong.







Maybe I just needed to know what to look for. Anyway, it worked fine this time.










Thanks again!


----------



## chris0




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/12720825
> 
> 
> Made some edits this morning, cleaned some things up and made things a bit more user-friendly. Also highlighted the information needed in any posting for it to be taken into consideration for movie placement.
> 
> 
> Cheers - the world is Blu this Monday and I expect more new folks joining the ranks of viewers and contributors.



I just reread the 1st page and didn't see mention of the need to post equipment. I saw "Below is the minimum information to include in your posts:" and then a big empty space.


Edit: I just saw it. But I'm using the new default background for AVS and it's whit text on a very light blue background. I had to highlight it to read it.


----------



## Macfan424

While the hot key makes the list easier to use, an alphabetical list would still be desirable for those of us who like to make hard copies to take with us to a store. But I recognize that would entail extra work for someone, so I understand why it doesn't exist.


----------



## obxdiver

One other minor cosmetic comment.

I am using the AVSForum "Retro" skin color. This is the darkest of them all with the dark blue.

Since Tier-0 is also blue, it makes it very hard to read the tier-0 titles. I actually have to highlight the whole lists to read it. Granted, my eyes are not the best, so it may be just me.

Anyone else using the "Retro" skin having trouble seeing the blue text in Tier-0?


----------



## SuprSlow

Regarding the alphabetizing issue:


What I frequently do when maintaining/adding titles to the tiers, is copy the tier lists into Excel. I use it to count the number of titles, but it can be used to alphabetize the titles within each Tier with minimal effort.


Or, if you prefer, copy it to a text file, then import it into Excel using "|" as a character break. Title and video data will be in one column, but the rest of the info will be in Column B, C, etc.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *obxdiver* /forum/post/12722282
> 
> 
> One other minor cosmetic comment.
> 
> I am using the AVSForum "Retro" skin color. This is the darkest of them all with the dark blue.
> 
> Since Tier-0 is also blue, it makes it very hard to read the tier-0 titles. I actually have to highlight the whole lists to read it. Granted, my eyes are not the best, so it may be just me.
> 
> Anyone else using the "Retro" skin having trouble seeing the blue text in Tier-0?



There is no one color scheme that "works" across all skins. I eventually seccumbed and switched from White to the new AVS Black. Resistance is futile.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chris0* /forum/post/12722111
> 
> 
> I just reread the 1st page and didn't see mention of the need to post equipment. I saw "Below is the minimum information to include in your posts:" and then a big empty space.
> 
> 
> Edit: I just saw it. But I'm using the new default background for AVS and it's whit text on a very light blue background. I had to highlight it to read it.



Its hard to get the colorization right for all skins unfortunately











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *obxdiver* /forum/post/12722282
> 
> 
> One other minor cosmetic comment.
> 
> I am using the AVSForum "Retro" skin color. This is the darkest of them all with the dark blue.
> 
> Since Tier-0 is also blue, it makes it very hard to read the tier-0 titles. I actually have to highlight the whole lists to read it. Granted, my eyes are not the best, so it may be just me.
> 
> Anyone else using the "Retro" skin having trouble seeing the blue text in Tier-0?



I've added CMD+F for our MAC friends on the front page.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *obxdiver* /forum/post/12722282
> 
> 
> One other minor cosmetic comment.
> 
> I am using the AVSForum "Retro" skin color. This is the darkest of them all with the dark blue.
> 
> Since Tier-0 is also blue, it makes it very hard to read the tier-0 titles. I actually have to highlight the whole lists to read it. Granted, my eyes are not the best, so it may be just me.
> 
> Anyone else using the "Retro" skin having trouble seeing the blue text in Tier-0?



The challenge with the skins is that they are so opposite one another its hard to colorize for everything. Ex: one skin is Black BG and another is White BG. Those opposites make it very hard for us to colorize a thread like this for everyone. I wish there was a way the board would automatically recolorize things based on theme. Ex: On the black theme if you had black text it would change it to white.


----------



## obxdiver

I fully understand now about the colors..

Forget I mentioned it.

And, I just made me a nice Excel sheet of all the titles. I put each tier on a separate worksheet (tabs) so that I can sort by the title column and still keep the tier intact


Thanks for the suggestion


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Macfan424* /forum/post/12721643
> 
> 
> I'd also favor some sort of polling system to broaden the base of input, as the current rankings seem to reflect the opinions of a small group of contributers, which, together with the equipment requirement (is my gear "good enough" in the eyes of the moderator to legitimatize my opinion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) tends to create an elitist impression, even though no such thing is intended.



Welcome to the thread. We're happy to have you and thrilled you are posting










I appreciate your input and feedback on polling. We tried polling initially and it didn't go that well. It presents challenges and doesn't integrate well with AVS. It is also subject to ballot stuffing. We strive to take EVERYONE's opinion into account regardless of setup so as not to create an elitist feel however if someone is viewing something on a 100ft 1080p/24 Screen they are going to have an much different experience and be able to spot artifacting more readily than someone who is viewing on a 32" 720p/60 screen wouldn't you agree? Looking back there have been instances where people viewing on a 1080p/60 set (or 720p/60 - cannot recall) have confused film judder for articacting while someone on a 1080p/24 set has been able to refute that. Providing your setup is our way of getting full disclosure from our posters. You don't need make and model only resolution and viewing distance. This thread will NEVER be elitist with my name on page 1. If anyone here regardless of resolution sees an issue and provides the details around it for others to spot than others can confirm it. Which is why the details are so important. Generally we look for more than one opinion before moving a film's tiers around and the more detail you provide the more likely your voice will be heard. Feel free to PM me if you have any questions or concerns or post here - either way welcome!


----------



## Wryker

Watched Night at the Museum - it states "lossless" but, in reality, it's DTS. The ranking is accurate for where it is -but the audio should indicate what it really is.


73" Mitsubishi 73833

PS3 1080p/24

10ft.


----------



## AustinSTI

Hmmm says DTS-MA on page 1.


----------



## Wryker




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/12723368
> 
> 
> Hmmm says DTS-MA on page 1.



And on the Disc's back cover it says Dolby True HD. I selected that and hit 'select' and it's sending DTS (though higher than 448). I switched from PCM to Bitstream and my reciever obliged by switching to DTS to help confirm it.


----------



## chris0




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wryker* /forum/post/12723387
> 
> 
> And on the Disc's back cover it says Dolby True HD. I selected that and hit 'select' and it's sending DTS (though higher than 448). I switched from PCM to Bitstream and my reciever obliged by switching to DTS to help confirm it.



The PS3 can't decode or bitstream DTS HD MA, it only sends the DTS core.


Edit: My copy of NATM sayd DTS HD MA, not TrueHD


----------



## Wryker




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chris0* /forum/post/12723620
> 
> 
> The PS3 can't decode or bitstream DTS HD MA, it only sends the DTS core.



I'll have to look when I get home at the case - for audio it didn't say HD MA if i'm correct. Just True HD.


----------



## 1FAST951




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/12723250
> 
> 
> Looking back there have been instances where people viewing on a 1080p/60 set (or 720p/60 - cannot recall) have confused film judder for articacting while someone on a 1080p/24 set has been able to refute that. Providing your setup is our way of getting full disclosure from our posters.



OK totally noob question and a bit OT but pertinent to the above subject.


Could someone please explain what the /24, /60 refers to? I'm guessing frame/refresh rates? Do they apply to PJ's vs. LCD/Plasmas?


I looked up more detailed specs on my system but can't find anything regarding 24/60.....just max resolution of 1080P.


Thanks in advance-


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *1FAST951* /forum/post/12723779
> 
> 
> OK totally noob question and a bit OT but pertinent to the above subject.
> 
> 
> Could someone please explain what the /24, /60 refers to? I'm guessing frame/refresh rates? Do they apply to PJ's vs. LCD/Plasmas?
> 
> 
> I looked up more detailed specs on my system but can't find anything regarding 24/60.....just max resolution of 1080P.
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance-





This should help: http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread....ght=1080p%2F24


----------



## rydenfan

I feel like I am the only person who thinks that putting the list into an alphabetical order invalidates the accuracy of the list. Every title is discussed by multiple people and then placement is decided upon. Granted nothing is ever perfect and some title will always be a few higher or lower than possibly they ought to be; but that is still far superior to an alphabetical list. There is a very simple and useful search function for the thread. So why would we want to take a step back and not have an accurate a list as possible?


----------



## Macfan424




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/12723250
> 
> 
> ...if someone is viewing something on a 100ft 1080p/24 Screen they are going to have an much different experience and be able to spot artifacting more readily than someone who is viewing on a 32" 720p/60 screen wouldn't you agree?



Absolutely, but of necessity in the end you have to accept input from people with different equipment, and rankings will not be consistent because different people are making them, using not only different equipment but different eyes and different skill sets. (Perhaps you should ask for their eyeglass prescription, too.







)


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/12723250
> 
> 
> Looking back there have been instances where people viewing on a 1080p/60 set (or 720p/60 - cannot recall) have confused film judder for articacting while someone on a 1080p/24 set has been able to refute that...



Yes and no. Some viewers will confuse inherent film judder with 3:2 pulldown induced judder; film grain (often intentional) with electronic noise; etc., even when viewing on the same equipment. And, of course, resolution is only one part of of PQ, ranking fourth behind contrast ratio, color saturation, and color accuracy according to the ISF. If you accept their premise, a high end "720" (usually 768) unit will provide a better reference than a less well designed 1080 device. (Full disclosure, I own a 768p Pioneer 5080HD, so I could be accused of bias.







) So getting the make and model of associated equipment could be as important as resolution in evaluating someone's comments.


I don't mean to sound quarrelsome. It is not my intent to pick nits. As I said, I truly appreciate your efforts and have referred to this thread before making all my BD purchase decisions. I just believe the thread would be even better if if had a broader input base. I accept that you have your reasons for running it as you do, though.


I have one question which is a bit off topic. You mentioned ballot stuffing. Doesn't this board have safeguards to prevent that?


----------



## Macfan424




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rydenfan* /forum/post/12725073
> 
> 
> I feel like I am the only person who thinks that putting the list into an alphabetical order invalidates the accuracy of the list. Every title is discussed by multiple people and then placement is decided upon. Granted nothing is ever perfect and some title will always be a few higher or lower than possibly they ought to be; but that is still far superior to an alphabetical list. There is a very simple and useful search function for the thread. So why would we want to take a step back and not have an accurate a list as possible?



Can't speak for others, but I would want both. While I have some reservations about any kind of fine ranking (some people wind up giving too much import to minor differences), I can see the merit of the present system and wouldn't suggest abandoning it. I had the feeling that others thought the same way, an alphabetical list as a supplement, not as a replacement. But, as I've said, that's a lot more work for someone, so I wouldn't expect it to be done.


----------



## QueueCumber

Hmm, almost impossible to look things up on these lists... They aren't alphabetized.


----------



## Lil' Louie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *QueueCumber* /forum/post/12727288
> 
> 
> Hmm, almost impossible to look things up on these lists... They aren't alphabetized.



Nah, it's easier than doing a Google search.


----------



## chris0




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rydenfan* /forum/post/12725073
> 
> 
> I feel like I am the only person who thinks that putting the list into an alphabetical order invalidates the accuracy of the list. Every title is discussed by multiple people and then placement is decided upon. Granted nothing is ever perfect and some title will always be a few higher or lower than possibly they ought to be; but that is still far superior to an alphabetical list. There is a very simple and useful search function for the thread. So why would we want to take a step back and not have an accurate a list as possible?



You're not the only one. If you were the list would be alphabetized by now. The whole point of the list is to rank by PQ, top to bottom. It is the way it should be. CTRL-F works just fine.


----------



## Lil' Louie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chris0* /forum/post/12727361
> 
> 
> You're not the only one. If you were the list would be alphabetized by now. The whole point of the list is to rank by PQ, top to bottom. It is the way it should be. *CTRL-F works just fine.*






Yup yup!


----------



## LazerViking




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *QueueCumber* /forum/post/12727288
> 
> 
> Hmm, almost impossible to look things up on these lists... They aren't alphabetized.



I hope this is just a running joke by now...


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *QueueCumber* /forum/post/12727288
> 
> 
> Hmm, almost impossible to look things up on these lists... They aren't alphabetized.



Control + F is your friend.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LazerViking* /forum/post/12727563
> 
> 
> I hope this is just a running joke by now...



No kidding!


----------



## cappyxavs

any one watched the departed? where would you rate it?


i did a thread search but got nothing.


thansk for any help.


----------



## Lil' Louie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cappyxavs* /forum/post/12729134
> 
> 
> any one watched the departed? where would you rate it?
> 
> 
> i did a thread search but got nothing.
> 
> 
> thansk for any help.



Ctrl + F


----------



## Donnie Drunko

Hello, huge movie fan here. I have been reading this thread for a few weeks. I would love to help out with some of the rankings and or questions about movies. I watch a huge amount of movies (140 plus new releases in 07) Most in theater but have started watching Blu-Rays of late with my new set up. I buy Blu flicks along with getting them from netflix rentals. So here is my set up. If its good enough I would love to add some input when I have it to toss out.


40 in LCD Samsung 4071 1920x1080p Blu-ray player PS3 via HDMI


EDIT: Viewing distance 7 feet


----------



## chris0




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LazerViking* /forum/post/12727563
> 
> 
> I hope this is just a running joke by now...



It's starting to make _me_ laugh every time someone mentions it or can't find something.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Donnie Drunko* /forum/post/12729789
> 
> 
> Hello, huge movie fan here. I have been reading this thread for a few weeks. I would love to help out with some of the rankings and or questions about movies. I watch a huge amount of movies (140 plus new releases in 07) Most in theater but have started watching Blu-Rays of late with my new set up. I buy Blu flicks along with getting them from netflix rentals. So here is my set up. If its good enough I would love to add some input when I have it to toss out.
> 
> 
> 40 in LCD Samsung 4071 1920x1080p Blu-ray player PS3 via HDMI
> 
> 
> EDIT: Viewing distance 7 feet



Right on. You're definitly welcome in this thread. The rule is you just have to post your setup whenever you make a Tier recommendation.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Looks like we might have Paramount movies to review again in Blu-ray. Just a matter of when:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=972553


----------



## mhtom

Hmmm, I'm having a hard time deciding where the reissued Full Metal Jacket should go. I think it's not quite as good as HP and the Sorcerer's Stone, which I think is better than Mission Impossible. Well, I guess I'd say FMJ goes somewhere in the middle of Tier 3. This is definitely the best I've ever seen this movie, and it corrected a lot of the problems seen in the first one. The colors seemed very accurate, the black levels were OK and the sharpness was decent. The only weirdness I saw is the scene where they're in the barracks right before the Tet Offensive. The lightblubs were causing some weird effects.


My setup: Pioneer 5080 with a PS3 at 9-10 feet.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/12731427
> 
> 
> Right on. You're definitly welcome in this thread. The rule is you just have to post your setup whenever you make a Tier recommendation.



6 months later and I find out.










I didn't read the whole thread intro.


I think many might do this as well and have no idea they are suppose to list their equipment.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/12732874
> 
> 
> 6 months later and I find out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't read the whole thread intro.
> 
> 
> I think many might do this as well and have no idea they are suppose to list their equipment.



Only needed when posting a recommendation


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Macfan424* /forum/post/12725100
> 
> 
> Absolutely, but of necessity in the end you have to accept input from people with different equipment, and rankings will not be consistent because different people are making them, using not only different equipment but different eyes and different skill sets. (Perhaps you should ask for their eyeglass prescription, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) Yes and no. Some viewers will confuse inherent film judder with 3:2 pulldown induced judder; film grain (often intentional) with electronic noise; etc., even when viewing on the same equipment. And, of course, resolution is only one part of of PQ, ranking fourth behind contrast ratio, color saturation, and color accuracy according to the ISF. If you accept their premise, a high end "720" (usually 768) unit will provide a better reference than a less well designed 1080 device. (Full disclosure, I own a 768p Pioneer 5080HD, so I could be accused of bias.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) So getting the make and model of associated equipment could be as important as resolution in evaluating someone's comments.
> 
> 
> I don't mean to sound quarrelsome. It is not my intent to pick nits. As I said, I truly appreciate your efforts and have referred to this thread before making all my BD purchase decisions. I just believe the thread would be even better if if had a broader input base. I accept that you have your reasons for running it as you do, though.
> 
> 
> I have one question which is a bit off topic. You mentioned ballot stuffing. Doesn't this board have safeguards to prevent that?



I had heard that was a bit of an issue with the HD-DVD polling. While AVS prevents ballot stuffing on poll-threads they WILL NOT allow us to use poll threads for the tier. We initially tried it and it cluttered up the software forum. Our other option was to go outside of AVS and either write a polling app and enlist one on the web which HD-DVD does. That IS susceptible to ballot stuffing and inaccuracies and not worth the effort in my opinion. I don't feel you are being quarlesome - you present an intelligent argument which is ALWAYS welcome. The equipment is the level set. Like I said I don't discount or de-value a proper 720p reviewer. If you show us you've got good eyes nobody will argue. It's mainly for those folks who want to step in, provide their feedback maybe for the first time on something they see and also to filter out those who simply say 'I think movie X should be in tier 2 not tier 1' without providing any more detail or reasonsing.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *QueueCumber* /forum/post/12727288
> 
> 
> Hmm, almost impossible to look things up on these lists... They aren't alphabetized.



Please please be joking guys. We're NOT alphabatizing the list











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12731539
> 
> 
> Looks like we might have Paramount movies to review again in Blu-ray. Just a matter of when:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=972553



Thank heaven. Hope they get us Transformers ASAP







I want this format war done so we can start seeing economies of scale kick in


----------



## Macfan424




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/12733665
> 
> 
> I had heard that was a bit of an issue with the HD-DVD polling. While AVS prevents ballot stuffing on poll-threads they WILL NOT allow us to use poll threads for the tier. We initially tried it and it cluttered up the software forum. Our other option was to go outside of AVS and either write a polling app and enlist one on the web which HD-DVD does. That IS susceptible to ballot stuffing and inaccuracies and not worth the effort in my opinion. I don't feel you are being quarlesome - you present an intelligent argument which is ALWAYS welcome. The equipment is the level set. Like I said I don't discount or de-value a proper 720p reviewer. If you show us you've got good eyes nobody will argue. It's mainly for those folks who want to step in, provide their feedback maybe for the first time on something they see and also to filter out those who simply say 'I think movie X should be in tier 2 not tier 1' without providing any more detail or reasonsing.



Thanks for the explanation. It makes a strong case for the present system, although I'd still like to see the reviewer base broadened somehow. Not that I know how!







By the way, it's nice to see you don't suffer from the defensiveness that sometimes mars this board.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/12733665
> 
> 
> ...I want this format war done so we can start seeing economies of scale kick in



Amen!







The format war has threatened to make both irrelevant to the mass market, much as the SACD/DVD-A battle did on the audio side.


----------



## 1FAST951




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/12733665
> 
> 
> Please please be joking guys. We're NOT alphabatizing the list



Yes and the joke is getting old. I can understand why some folks want this, when I first started lurking the thread about two months ago I felt the same way but after reading why it's setup the way it is it made sense that it wasn't (isn't) alphabetized. As many have stated Ctrl+F works perfectly.


Also, lets remember that the guys who keep updating the thread *ARE NOT GETTING PAID FOR THE TIME THEY PUT INTO THIS!* Asking them to keep a second, alphabetized list is bit too much IMHO.


Just to review;









*HOW TO USE CTRL + F;*


1) Scroll down to the very top of the blue tier so it just shows on the bottom of your browser window.


2) Press and hold the "Ctrl" key and at the same time press the "F" key. A small window will pop up.


3) Type in the movie title you are looking for. Insure "Direction" is down (default depending on OS). Click on "Find Next" or "Next" (again depending on OS). *HINT;* It's often best to just search for part of the title to avoid spelling mistakes. So for a title like "Dawn of the Dead" you could just type "dawn" or "dead". True, you will get a few unrelated hits but it will also save you some typing.










The entire process takes at most 5 seconds.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/12720060
> 
> 
> RE or Coming?



Coming to America.


Brandon


----------



## bplewis24

Wow, this thread grew three pages overnight for me. That's a first...things are a-changin











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/12720194
> 
> 
> You are welcome to PM me your thoughts on making this thread more user friendly...the first page does mention using control + F to find a title.



I think anybody who has suggestions that are overly-cumbersome should volunteer to help out with some of the grunt-work.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rydenfan* /forum/post/12725073
> 
> 
> I feel like I am the only person who thinks that putting the list into an alphabetical order invalidates the accuracy of the list.



You aren't the only one. I think it's pretty clear that if an alphabetical version of the list was created it would require separate maintenance. The main reason why is because then you would have to have a Tier designation next to each individual title. Much too cumbersome, IMO. Those that want it mostly want it just to find titles easier, and I understand that. But it defeats the purpose of the Tier Thread.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cappyxavs* /forum/post/12729134
> 
> 
> any one watched the departed? where would you rate it?
> 
> 
> i did a thread search but got nothing.
> 
> 
> thansk for any help.



Keep in mind a thread search is only going to direct you to the discussion of that movie, and the first post. But you still have to find it within that first post using CTRL+F.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *1FAST951* /forum/post/12736163
> 
> *HOW TO USE CTRL + F;*
> 
> 
> 1) Scroll down to the very top of the blue tier so it just shows on the bottom of your browser window.
> 
> 
> 2) Press and hold the "Ctrl" key and at the same time press the "F" key. A small window will pop up.
> 
> 
> 3) Type in the movie title you are looking for. Insure "Direction" is down (default depending on OS). Click on "Find Next" or "Next" (again depending on OS). *HINT;* It's often best to just search for part of the title to avoid spelling mistakes. So for a title like "Dawn of the Dead" you could just type "dawn" or "dead". True, you will get a few unrelated hits but it will also save you some typing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The entire process takes at most 5 seconds.



Maybe this should be added to the first post ^^^


Brandon


----------



## bplewis24

Sorry for the triple post.


I know there is a good chance that this thread is going to grow a lot over the next weeks/months, and as it does so there are going to be more people demanding polling/voting. I searched out the post in that thread that caused the polling to stop:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=110 



> Quote:
> Hi All...
> 
> 
> Please be so kind TO STOP the polls. I am working on new software that will be used for the reviews and ranks of not only Disc, but even hardware.
> 
> 
> The current polls will not be ported over and will be removed, thus please kindly stop making them at this time.
> 
> 
> It may no be until tomorrow that it gets on-line, for it is a full review system that is standalone from the site, but will be part of the site like the gallery is.
> 
> 
> Thank you.



Now, I'm not sure if that plan for the full review system is still maintained or not. Regardless, up until that point polls with voting were being maintained by Austin. We were told any more would be removed, so the option was to do them at another website (







) or find another system. This is the system that we decided on to date. It has worked fine to this point, although it could get a lot harder to keep up with if there is tons of discussion on a particular title each day.


Now it seems like the HD DVD thread continued setting up polls...is that right? Did the mods stop caring if they polled or not?


Brandon


----------



## pepar

What's all this "the list is hard to read" stuff? I think members should cut and paste the first two tiers into amaz' search bar and buy them all.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/12736843
> 
> 
> Sorry for the triple post.
> 
> 
> I know there is a good chance that this thread is going to grow a lot over the next weeks/months, and as it does so there are going to be more people demanding polling/voting. I searched out the post in that thread that caused the polling to stop:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=110
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, I'm not sure if that plan for the full review system is still maintained or not. Regardless, up until that point polls with voting were being maintained by Austin. We were told any more would be removed, so the option was to do them at another website (
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) or find another system. This is the system that we decided on to date. It has worked fine to this point, although it could get a lot harder to keep up with if there is tons of discussion on a particular title each day.
> 
> 
> Now it seems like the HD DVD thread continued setting up polls...is that right? Did the mods stop caring if they polled or not?
> 
> 
> Brandon



Their polls are hosted elsewhere. True that was considered but I'm not willing to invest time and money into a polling application and its needed hosting. My original intent was to build a robust website that would have a list updating in real time and SIGNED-IN/AUTHENTICATED polling (anonymous polling wasn't acceptable because of the issues already highlighted). We were overzealous in our eagerness to do this and when we looked at the time and cost involved decided it wasn't worth it.


As time went on the HD-DVD experiment gave supporting reasons not to go to a polling application. As time goes on we can re-evaluate that but the solution in place right now is the simplest, cost-effective one we have.


----------



## bplewis24

Agreed.


Brandon


----------



## maverick0716

Just watched Blade Runner last night and Pan's Labyrinth a few days ago. Blade Runner looked VERY clean for an older movie. They definitly did a great job restoring this one and transfering to HD. I agree with it's placement at the top of Tier 2.


Pan's Labyrinth.......how on earth did this get in Tier 0? Seriously. I did not look that fantastic in my opinion......it was decent, but I've seen much better. I'd put it in upper Tier 2 personally.


42" Panasonic Plasma (768p)

Sony PS3 though HDMI

6-7 ft.


----------



## tleavit

I just found this thread. I have about 30 BR disks now that I run on my PS3 to my Onkyo 805 to my Panasonic PT-AE1000U to a Screen innovations 133" screen, I sit back at about 15 feet (front row) and 18 (rear row). mostly 1080p of course.


I absolutely agree with most the tier 0's like Cars, Rat and Simpsons (absolutly perfect movies) but was surprised to see Pirates on it. Pirates didn’t impress me much on video quality. Maybe a 1 but not a 0 for me. Same with Die Hard, I would say it was a 1.


----------



## obxdiver

Question for the gurus in the thread.

I just ordered and received "The Fifth Element" remastered version on BD from Amazon.

How do I tell that really got the Remastered version? I hate to think that I got the original version that looked like sheet.

I am waiting to break the seal until someone can help me with an answer.

Thanks


----------



## lrstevens421




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *obxdiver* /forum/post/12741400
> 
> 
> Question for the gurus in the thread.
> 
> I just ordered and received "The Fifth Element" remastered version on BD from Amazon.
> 
> How do I tell that really got the Remastered version? I hate to think that I got the original version that looked like sheet.
> 
> I am waiting to break the seal until someone can help me with an answer.
> 
> Thanks



As far as I know the remastered version is the only one for sale now. The original version has been discontinued. If you're current disc has a TrueHD soundtrack on it, it's the remastered version.


----------



## obxdiver




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lrstevens421* /forum/post/12741702
> 
> 
> As far as I know the remastered version is the only one for sale now. The original version has been discontinued. If you're current disc has a TrueHD soundtrack on it, it's the remastered version.



Very good. It indeed has the TrueHD logo on it.

I was thinking that it had the word "Remastered" on it somewhere, but I guess not.

Thanks for the re-assurance


----------



## lgans316

Watched POTC3 on both 37" and 50" Plasma. Though the PQ was clean it was softer than the first 2 parts and clearly doesn't deserve to be in Tier 0. Mid of Tier 1 would be a good placement.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Pan's Labyrinth is on its way from Netflix!


Looking forward to this one.


This is a historical release! Why? Because it is New Line's first *and* last release on HD DVD!


----------



## SteelSD

Watched 3:10 to Yuma tonight.


Viewed on a calibrated 1080p Samsung LNT-4066F at about 7 feet via my PS3.


I'd place this film right above Ghost Rider in Tier 2. There is a good deal of softness evident, particularly early on in the film and a number of potential outdoor landscape "pop" scene opportunities are missed because of it. The transfer does seem to get better in the second half of the film, but quite a few soft shots still exist.


BTW, I sure hope that my opinion of PQ doesn't stop folks from buying this film. It's a great movie and it's a great western. Amazing that an Aussie and a Brit have to come together to make a great American western happen, but such is life in this day and age.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12746681
> 
> 
> Pan's Labyrinth is on its way from Netflix!
> 
> 
> Looking forward to this one.
> 
> 
> This is a historical release! Why? Because it is New Line's first *and* last release on HD DVD!



I'm interested in reading your opinion on this disc. I have a feeling it's going to be kicked out of Tier 0 very soon.


----------



## zordac

I will admit that I have not read all the pages in this thread but it seems to me that an authenticated polling solution might be the best bet. If someone like me were to offer to build and host such a polling solution would you be interested?


----------



## lgans316

I have been requesting this for quite some time. Hope that it's introduced at some point of time.


----------



## LEDme




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *txfilmguy* /forum/post/10734649
> 
> 
> 2) Bobbing is not up-converting from standard def. It is a method of creating a 1080p/24fps file from a 1080i/30fps original. If the image is not processed correctly, the resulting file interpolates the image to create new frames in-between the actual frames of the source master. This results in the indicated stair-stepping and so-forth. Stair-stepping and jaggies can also result from up-conversion, but "bobbing" is not SD to HD up-converting. With the exception of "Enron: Smartest Guys in the Room," I do not believe there are any titles that use original SD content up-converted to HD in the main feature (and that title, because of its archival footage/documentary style, is acceptable as such).



a) why is it called "bobbing"?

b) is txfilmguy correct? bobbing doesn't mean SD to HD upcon?

c) is it true that some BDs are upconverted from SD?? they expect us to spend $$ on those?


----------



## edgary

Wow, we have a bunch of Tier 0 movies now!


I purchased the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy last night, and looking at the specs of the movies, I saw that At World's End is listed as 1080i and not 1080p like the other two movies. I haven't even opened them so I don't know what it looks like, but it seemed strange that it's only 1080i. Can anyone confirm this one way or the other?

Thanks!


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zordac* /forum/post/12747625
> 
> 
> I will admit that I have not read all the pages in this thread but it seems to me that an authenticated polling solution might be the best bet. If someone like me were to offer to build and host such a polling solution would you be interested?



Absolutely interested - PM me and let's talk.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *edgary* /forum/post/12749016
> 
> 
> Wow, we have a bunch of Tier 0 movies now!
> 
> 
> I purchased the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy last night, and looking at the specs of the movies, I saw that At World's End is listed as 1080i and not 1080p like the other two movies. I haven't even opened them so I don't know what it looks like, but it seemed strange that it's only 1080i. Can anyone confirm this one way or the other?
> 
> Thanks!



It's 1080p; the packaging was a misprint.


----------



## edgary

Thank you very much!


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zordac* /forum/post/12747625
> 
> 
> I will admit that I have not read all the pages in this thread but it seems to me that an authenticated polling solution might be the best bet. If someone like me were to offer to build and host such a polling solution would you be interested?



I would give my non-admin endorsement to that on two conditions:


1) there is sufficient demand for the polling (in other words, we don't get 15 people voting on each movie, making it subject to ballot-stuffing)


2) the admins of this thread get say on final placement within the tier as a modest manual override of sorts. They should still have some sort of control over the situation.


Brandon


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/12750504
> 
> 
> I would give my non-admin endorsement to that on two conditions:
> 
> 
> 1) there is sufficient demand for the polling (in other words, we don't get 15 people voting on each movie, making it subject to ballot-stuffing)
> 
> 
> 2) the admins of this thread get say on final placement within the tier as a modest manual override of sorts. They should still have some sort of control over the situation.
> 
> 
> Brandon



these are the types of rules that need to be thought through and put in place prior to designing an application...I'm playing with a prototype today a bit.


----------



## KlDesigns




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/12749292
> 
> 
> It's 1080p; the packaging was a misprint.



I'm surprised that such big movie companies let these misprints slide by through their art department.


The creative/art directors should be fired! =)


----------



## Macfan424




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *obxdiver* /forum/post/12741400
> 
> 
> Question for the gurus in the thread.
> 
> I just ordered and received "The Fifth Element" remastered version on BD from Amazon.
> 
> How do I tell that really got the Remastered version? I hate to think that I got the original version that looked like sheet.
> 
> I am waiting to break the seal until someone can help me with an answer.
> 
> Thanks



The seal itself says "Fifth Element *RE* BD," the RE meaning remastered. I believe the barcode ID (21520), which also is on the seal, is new, as well, but I can't confirm that.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *KlDesigns* /forum/post/12751212
> 
> 
> I'm surprised that such big movie companies let these misprints slide by through their art department.
> 
> 
> The creative/art directors should be fired! =)



At least they didn't put an HD-DVD in a Blu-Ray Box set


----------



## stumlad

Lost Season 3 belongs above Prison Break. The small object detail and close-up shots of faces reveal a lot of detail not found in most films. There is some occasional noise in dark scenes, but Pirates AWE had some as well. I say Tier 0, but move Prison Break down if you keep Lost in Tier 1 because Prison Break does not surpass it, although it's close.


Setup used:

PS3 with latest firmware

JVC RS1 front projector, 106" diagonal, high power screen


----------



## lgans316

PL doesn't deserve to be in Tier-0.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...7#post12645627


----------



## cdhender

Man some of you guys are nuts. Mr. Brooks looks great, but come on...no way it's the 4th best looking Blu-ray out there.


On a positive note, glad to see the Harry Potters (3,4,5) so high, they definitely deserve it.


----------



## Mukha




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zordac* /forum/post/12747625
> 
> 
> I will admit that I have not read all the pages in this thread but it seems to me that an authenticated polling solution might be the best bet. If someone like me were to offer to build and host such a polling solution would you be interested?



Can I request that we don't move to a polling system? This poll led me to my first and last experience with HD DVD, the movie itself was a horribly artifacted mess. If I was to vote in that poll with the descriptions listed I would have given it 1 star, but as a score out of 5 I would give it 2-2.5. Most people (around 83% it seems) are amazed with 1080p no matter what the quality of transfer.


My first experience with a tier 0 title listed here (POTC







MC) was what prompted me to get so heavily into HDM in the first place. Even though I wasn't a fan of the movie, I couldn't help but be caught up as it was a window on another world. No matter the movement on screen the background stays almost perfectly defined. A tier 0 title should be an amazing experience even if you didn't like the movie.


I like the current system as it forces people to list their previous experiences with HDM that they are judging a new title against. It also becomes clear who has a clear eye for the various compression artifacts and other filters and what is an acceptable level or not.


My equipment:

PS3 to an IN76 (720p) on a 90" screen sitting 10 feet away.


----------



## hobbs47




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cdhender* /forum/post/12760392
> 
> 
> Man some of you guys are nuts. Mr. Brooks looks great, but come on...no way it's the 4th best looking Blu-ray out there.
> 
> 
> On a positive note, glad to see the Harry Potters (3,4,5) so high, they definitely deserve it.




Agree with you on Mr Brooks.

Should be bottom of tier 0,top of tier 1,most likely the latter.

PS3-50" 1080P Panny plasma-7 feet


----------



## mike171979

Just watched 3:10 to Yuma.


I've heard it was soft, but I gotta tell ya, I was just about blown away with the outdoor scenes.


And even the dark scenes were almost devoid of grain, even if it was due to a bit of filtering.


I absolutely could not rank it lower than HP3 and Shooter, thats about where it belongs. Middle of Tier 1.


----------



## asmith96

I have over 100 blu-rays and have watched 30+, included most 'tier 0' listed on this thread...


I know there has been discussion on this thread about this title, but I finally watched the entire Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds: Live at Radio City concert last night on blu-ray.


It is, in my opinion, THE reference title for blu ray.(non-animated...the Pixar short 'Lifted' on the Ratatouille is NICE).


The detail and clarity of the picture is pristine throughout. The shots from the back of Radio City Music Hall will blow you away. In additional the sound mix(TrueHD) is perfect....I own a lot of concert dvds and a few blu ray concerts, but this is the first one that will make you feel like you are 'in the building' watching the show.


BUY THIS DISC IF YOU OWN A BLU RAY PLAYER. An added bonus: if you really like Dave without his 'band' and the brilliant talent of Tim Reynolds...this is a great concert to boot!!


Cheers-


A


----------



## AfRoMaN787

I agree 3:10 to Yuma is definitely a tier 1 title.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/12759535
> 
> 
> PL doesn't deserve to be in Tier-0.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...7#post12645627



Moved to tier 1. Thanks for the screen - very clear its not tier 0


----------



## OldCodger73

I'm continually amazed at people's inability to read and follow the instuction for listing your equipment when recommending placement for a title, no matter how many times this requirement is posted.


Drats, I must have got out of bed on the wrong side this morning.


----------



## SuprSlow

This week's new releases:
*3:10 to Yuma* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM (7.1) | AR: 2.35:1 | Lionsgate
*Sunshine* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Fox
*The Rock* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Buena Vista
*Con Air* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Buena Vista
*Man on Fire* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Fox
*Dragon Wars* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony
*Night of the Werewolf / Vengeance of the Zombies* Video: ? | Audio: ? | AR: 1.85:1 | BCI
*Sister Street Fighter / Sister Street Fighter II* Video: ? | Audio: DD1.0 | AR: 2.35:1 | BCI
*Killing Machine / Shogun's Ninja* Video: ? | Audio: DD1.0 | AR: 2.35:1 | BCI


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/12763701
> 
> 
> I'm continually amazed at people's inability to read and follow the instuction for listing your equipment when recommending placement for a title, no matter how many times this requirement is posted.
> 
> 
> Drats, I must have got out of bed on the wrong side this morning.



How about we change the font-color of the instructions... Right now it's white text on light-blue background.


----------



## LazerViking

I've got to personally recommend Sunshine for Tier 0. I may be a bit distracted by gorgeous design of the film, but I didn't see any problems in the transfer the first time through. The detail is spectacular when the light is present and the colors... my god... the colors. This has to be some of the best CGI work I've seen used in a live action film. I highly recommend any sci-fi fan pick up the blu-ray because it is an excellent effort by Fox ranking up there with Kingdom of Heaven and Rescue Dawn for the company.


----------



## Donnie Drunko

I would rank UNDERDOG below Ghost Rider. I have not seen many Silver movies yet so thats all I can go by. It was soft in spots. It did have a nice cartoonish color scheme that popped from time to time.


Samsung 71 1920x1080P

40 inch

PS3 Via HDMI

7 Feet Viewing Distance


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LazerViking* /forum/post/12768328
> 
> 
> I've got to personally recommend Sunshine for Tier 0. I may be a bit distracted by gorgeous design of the film, but I didn't see any problems in the transfer the first time through. The detail is spectacular when the light is present and the colors... my god... the colors. This has to be some of the best CGI work I've seen used in a live action film. I highly recommend any sci-fi fan pick up the blu-ray because it is an excellent effort by Fox ranking up there with Kingdom of Heaven and Rescue Dawn for the company.



This one just came in the mail for rent today........I'll post my thoughts on it either tonight or tomorrow.


----------



## LazerViking




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/12769804
> 
> 
> This one just came in the mail for rent today........I'll post my thoughts on it either tonight or tomorrow.



Awesome, I'd like to hear some other opinions. I feel I might be a bit bias due to how much I loved the movie itself.


----------



## Akali22

Having just come over from the red side (still keeping the HD DVD player), I've been looking to buy several of the blu-ray discs. Like with HD DVD, I tend to check out the PQ/AQ ratings on AVS before my purchase.


I gotta say, I really like the way it is organized on the HD DVD forum. Is there some way to implement a system for blu-ray where we know how many people voted on the disc, and what the average PQ/AQ was?


I'm not trying to rock the boat here. I just think the other voting/ranking system is a more informative way of doing this. It might take care of the problem of some people thinking movie A should be higher ranked then movie B; the general consensus would even out any irregularities in voting.


----------



## LexPlayer

Just watched Apocolypto... I'm not sure what the fuss was all about. I didn't see the sharpness as in other movies. I thought POTC:COTBP was better. As for Mr. Brooks, it was quite good, but I agree with those that find the rating a bit high. It's a shame the movie is so bad.


Just thought I could add my opinion...


----------



## edvedder

Just watched man on fire, sunshine, and 3:10 to Yuma


I think Man on fire should be tier 1. The picture was very sharp and detailed for most of its duration. For a Tony scott movie it looks very good. Some scenes have more grain then others due to the way it was filmed.


Sunshine was also really sharp and very bright. Some scenes were so bright my eyes started watering. A few scenes were blurry but that was intended by the director. I vote for tier 0 or very high tier one. One of the brightest movies i have ever scene in high def.


3:10 to Yuma was probably the worst picture quality of the bunch but thats not saying it was bad because the other two were so good. A few scenes seemed washed out and were softer then other parts of the film but the majority of the scenes had good detail. I'd say high tier 2 is a good placement.


Can't comment on audio because my reciever doesnt support lossless.


Equipment:

TV: Samsung LNT 5265F 1080p (52inch lcd)

BD players: BD30k and PS3

Reciever: Old Denon


----------



## hobbs47




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LexPlayer* /forum/post/12771010
> 
> 
> Just watched Apocolypto... I'm not sure what the fuss was all about. I didn't see the sharpness as in other movies. I thought POTC:COTBP was better. As for Mr. Brooks, it was quite good, but I agree with those that find the rating a bit high. It's a shame the movie is so bad.
> 
> 
> Just thought I could add my opinion...



Mr Brooks is a damn good movie.If I like it even with DANE COOK in it,it has to be good.


----------



## avhed




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LexPlayer* /forum/post/12771010
> 
> 
> Just watched Apocolypto... I'm not sure what the fuss was all about. I didn't see the sharpness as in other movies. I thought POTC:COTBP was better. As for Mr. Brooks, it was quite good, but I agree with those that find the rating a bit high. It's a shame the movie is so bad.
> 
> 
> Just thought I could add my opinion...



I find the rating a little high too.


Samsung BD-P1200, Sony KD-34XS955 @ 5.5 ft.


----------



## bplewis24

Tears of the Sun is one of the best transfers I've seen at it's peak. It can be inconsistent at times, but for maybe 75-80% of the movie it's Tier 0 material. The other times it falls victim to some heavy grain and occasional noise. This looks like a Tier 1 title to me. It's definitely better than my recent suggestion for Tier 1 of Stomp the Yard. Stomp is just more consistent and the print never looks less than pristine.


Larone, I'm thinking Stomp the Yard is probably better suited at the top of Tier 2...what do you think? And what do others think of Tears of the Sun in bottom of Tier 1?


PS3->1080p24->46XBR4 (8 feet)


Brandon


----------



## Kevin12586

My wife and I watched Ratatoille (sp) last night and absolutely loved it, completely agree that it is presently the best looking movie we have seen. The only complaint is that it may look TOO good, I hate (scared to death) of rats and to see them scurrying around so much I had to keep reminding myself they weren't real










Panasonic 700u projector

106" screen

720p

10' viewing distance


----------



## jewing1043

Ok


Am I the only one out there that think Rat is not the best blu movie I ever saw??


I would probably put it in the middle/lower end of tier 0


I think Apocalypto and TMNT looked better


I have yet to watch Cars or AWE on Blu but they are in my stock pile but I am willing to bet they look better


I am almost inclined to say that Cars on sd dvd looked better than Rat on Blu


just my 2 cents


just be kind and dont bash me too hard


Sony KV-36HS420

Sony PS3

7 foot viewing distance


----------



## haste




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jewing1043* /forum/post/12779431
> 
> 
> Ok
> 
> 
> Am I the only one out there that think Rat is not the best blu movie I ever saw??
> 
> 
> I would probably put it in the middle/lower end of tier 0
> 
> 
> I think Apocalypto and TMNT looked better
> 
> 
> I have yet to watch Cars or AWE on Blu but they are in my stock pile but I am willing to bet they look better
> 
> 
> I am almost inclined to say that Cars on sd dvd looked better than Rat on Blu
> 
> 
> just my 2 cents
> 
> 
> just be kind and dont bash me too hard
> 
> 
> Sony KV-36HS420
> 
> Sony PS3
> 
> 7 foot viewing distance



wow...rat is a different type of animation. its stylized differently than say cars. i kinda of thought everything in rat had a certain halo feeling to it. almost glowing...but i think thats the way Pixar intended it. although it may make the movie look a tad soft, its really not... i found the transfer flawless and sharp. it definitely belongs in tier 0.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jewing1043* /forum/post/12779431
> 
> 
> 
> I am almost inclined to say that Cars on sd dvd looked better than Rat on Blu


----------



## lrstevens421




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12780678










Indeed.


----------



## jewing1043

it could just be that it has more pop to it


it could have been that i was expecting so much from the top movie


Just my opinion but I think it needs to move down a little


I will probably watch cars and AWE on blu this weekend and let you know if they should be moved in front of RAT


----------



## Apollo5

Don't forget the watch the Ghost Light short on the Cars BD--I thought the details in the cars looked even better than the movie itself (which already looks great!)


----------



## bplewis24

Some high praise for Shoot Em Up: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=975332 


Brandon


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jewing1043* /forum/post/12779431
> 
> 
> Ok
> 
> 
> Am I the only one out there that think Rat is not the best blu movie I ever saw??
> 
> 
> I would probably put it in the middle/lower end of tier 0
> 
> 
> I think Apocalypto and TMNT looked better
> 
> 
> I have yet to watch Cars or AWE on Blu but they are in my stock pile but I am willing to bet they look better
> 
> *I am almost inclined to say that Cars on sd dvd looked better than Rat on Blu*
> 
> 
> just my 2 cents
> 
> 
> just be kind and dont bash me too hard
> 
> 
> Sony KV-36HS420
> 
> Sony PS3
> 
> 7 foot viewing distance



Come on now......so you're saying that you would put Cars SD in Blu Ray Tier 0.......wow.


----------



## Asshandler

I just watched Sunshine, and the transfer was damn near impeccable as far as I could tell.


And it sounded as good as it looked. Huge thumbs up from me.


Great film from start to finish.


----------



## divedude

I would like to put my vote in for Con Air as Tier 1. I was captivated


----------



## maverick0716

Watched Sunshine last night and was definitly impressed. Like someone else said, it's the brightest Blu Ray I've watched, lol. Very nice fine detail with dark scenes looking great as well. I'd say this is very high Tier one overall.


42" Panny Plasma (768p)

PS3 though HDMI

6-7 ft.


----------



## skizatch

Just watched Resident Evil: Extinction. Very good image quality. I would say it's at least as good at PotC: Curse of the Black Pearl.


I also watched Sunshine and agree with maverick0716's assessment. Very sharp and good detail throughout.


Samsung LN-T4671F, 46", 1080p, PS3, No noise-reduction or other filters were enabled


----------



## Nexus 6

Watched Sunshine myself last night and was extremely impressed. High tier 1 material IMO.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I put Sunshine in high Tier 1.


Those who have seen it, please feel free to indicate if you think it's current placement is about right.


----------



## Lil' Louie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12795449
> 
> 
> I put Sunshine in high Tier 1.
> 
> 
> Those who have seen it, please feel free to indicate if you think it's current placement is about right.



Agreed w/ its placement.


Viewed on Sony KDS-55A3000 - PS3 1080/24p - 7ft:


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *divedude* /forum/post/12793977
> 
> 
> I would like to put my vote in for Con Air as Tier 1. I was captivated



Hey, divedude, welcome to the thread!


I don't need to ask for your display specs, since I am quite aware of what you are viewing on!










Can you give an idea of where in Tier 1 Con Air should go?


Anyone else see Con Air yet?


----------



## divedude




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12795617
> 
> 
> Hey, divedude, welcome to the thread!
> 
> 
> I don't need to ask for your display specs, since I am quite aware of what you are viewing on!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you give an idea of where in Tier 1 Con Air should go?
> 
> 
> Anyone else see Con Air yet?



Hi Rob,


And my Qualia has a new Optical Block. I would say somewhere in the middle to lower half of Tier 1. I really thought it looked great. Although they were a little hard on the Corvettes


----------



## BluRayRay

am I the only one who thinks *SUNSHINE* deserves to be in Tier 0?


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BluRayRay* /forum/post/12796425
> 
> 
> am I the only one who thinks *SUNSHINE* deserves to be in Tier 0?



I wouldn't really argue too hard if it was put there........but high Tier 1 is no joke, as there's plenty of movies in Tier 1 that look spectacular.


----------



## Androoos

Some votes for unranked titles:


Die Hard 2: Die Harder - vote Tier 2. A really excellent transfer for such an old movie, one of the best transfers I've seen for a movie of that age. It lacked major 3D "pop" effects but it still looked very very good. Much better than the transfer from "Die Hard" and on par with "Die Hard With a Vengeance".


AC/DC Live at Donington - Tier 4. It was going to be hard to get this to look perfect due to its age but it is better than I thought. Still a great concert flick.


War - vote Tier 1. Excellent transfer, notable 3D effects, very limited artifacting. The pock marks on Jet Li's face are more visible than ever. And Jason Statham's perpetual stubble has never looked better.


----------



## mp3junkie

Why in the world did you all bump "Spiderman 3" down to Tier 1? I watched this movie again for the 4th time with my 3 year old son and it reminded me how exceptional the PQ was. The last fight scenes with Sandman, Harry, and the Black Spiderman were incredible in terms of the PQ. Please someone give your reasons for moving the film down to Tier 1? It should be at least bottom Tier 0.


----------



## Macfan424




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BluRayRay* /forum/post/12796425
> 
> 
> am I the only one who thinks *SUNSHINE* deserves to be in Tier 0?





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/12796560
> 
> 
> I wouldn't really argue too hard if it was put there........but high Tier 1 is no joke, as there's plenty of movies in Tier 1 that look spectacular.



I may not have watched enough BD's to judge, but it's hard to see how Sunshine can be faulted. Okay, I noted one scene with a touch of visible EE, but overall it would be hard to improve on the transfer.


I guess either ranking is fine with me as I don't make a big distinction between them anyway. Still, I'd vote 0... if this were a poll.










Pioneer 5080HD (768p; 50" screen)

Panasonic DMP-BD30

Viewing distance: 9'


----------



## Macfan424

Oh yes, I'd also endorse the current high placement of The Messengers.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12795449
> 
> 
> I put Sunshine in high Tier 1.
> 
> 
> Those who have seen it, please feel free to indicate if you think it's current placement is about right.



I think that placement looks about right.


Btw, I think Shoot 'Em Up should be just above Casino Royale, just below DH4.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mp3junkie* /forum/post/12798613
> 
> 
> Why in the world did you all bump "Spiderman 3" down to Tier 1? I watched this movie again for the 4th time with my 3 year old son and it reminded me how exceptional the PQ was. The last fight scenes with Sandman, Harry, and the Black Spiderman were incredible in terms of the PQ. Please someone give your reasons for moving the film down to Tier 1? It should be at least bottom Tier 0.



I agree that SM3 has been moved down too far. I also agree that it should be at the bottom of Tier 0, and definitely above CR. Actually I don't think CR belongs in Tier 0.


----------



## OldCodger73

How on earth did The Battle of the Bulge get in Tier 1? Was it put there on July 4th out of patriotic fervor? To me, it seems Tier 2 material, perhaps lower 2/3.


I watched The Rock last night and felt it was "nice". Picture in my mind was Tier 2, maybe somewhere in the middle or a little lower. Sound was also "nice" but not up to newer action movies like Live Free or Die. The movie itself was more watchable than I remember from watching on an airplane flight, maybe a 3 on Netflix's 5 star rating.


Panasonic 50" 600U 1080i, Panasonic 10a at 8'.


----------



## Donnie Drunko




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12799224
> 
> 
> I think that placement looks about right.
> 
> 
> Btw, I think Shoot 'Em Up should be just above Casino Royale, just below DH4.



+ 1 Been thinking that myself. Also I think your right about Spiderman 3 as well.


----------



## Lil' Louie

I agree with the *current* placement of CR, SP3, and Shoot'em Up.


Viewed on Sony KDS-55A3000 - PS3 1080/24p - 7ft:


----------



## mp3junkie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lil' Louie* /forum/post/12800677
> 
> 
> I agree with the *current* placement of CR, SP3, and Shoot'em Up.
> 
> 
> Viewed on Sony KDS-55A3000 - PS3 1080/24p - 7ft:



Please give a valid reason why you agree with the placement of SM3. It simply doesn't belong in Tier 1 IMO.


----------



## Lil' Louie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mp3junkie* /forum/post/12802404
> 
> 
> Please give a valid reason why you agree with the placement of SM3. It simply doesn't belong in Tier 1 IMO.



It could always be put in Tier 2.







I initially recommended Tier 0 for this title (already posted in this thread) and it was there for a time; but, in the end, I agree w/ the forumites that got this title moved (bluish blacks, occasional softness, etc.). If Tier 0 was brought down to the level of SM3, I wouldn't argue it since I feel the titles above it are placed correctly. Like maverick0716 said, "High Tier 1 is no joke."


Now, how about you give a valid reason why it belongs in Tier 0 other than the fight scenes look cool. Also, be sure to follow the thread rules for Tier placement on the first page.


----------



## lucent




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mp3junkie* /forum/post/12798613
> 
> 
> Why in the world did you all bump "Spiderman 3" down to Tier 1? I watched this movie again for the 4th time with my 3 year old son and it reminded me how exceptional the PQ was. The last fight scenes with Sandman, Harry, and the Black Spiderman were incredible in terms of the PQ. Please someone give your reasons for moving the film down to Tier 1? It should be at least bottom Tier 0.



I agree. I watched Spiderman 3 and the picture quality was amazing. I really think it should be placed low Tier 0 in my opinion. The close ups especially had some amazing detail.


Panasonic 42PZ700U(1080p, 42")

PS3-1080/60

6ft


----------



## jeffyjaixx

I vote Memoirs of a Geisha for mid Tier 1 material IMO.


----------



## Lil' Louie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12133840
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/12133619
> 
> 
> I also watched Spiderman 3 last night, and while it was pretty damn good, it's not among the absolute best available right now.........Tier 1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with that assessment.
Click to expand...




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12799370
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mp3junkie* /forum/post/12798613
> 
> 
> Why in the world did you all bump "Spiderman 3" down to Tier 1? I watched this movie again for the 4th time with my 3 year old son and it reminded me how exceptional the PQ was. The last fight scenes with Sandman, Harry, and the Black Spiderman were incredible in terms of the PQ. Please someone give your reasons for moving the film down to Tier 1? It should be at least bottom Tier 0.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that SM3 has been moved down too far. I also agree that it should be at the bottom of Tier 0, and definitely above CR. Actually I don't think CR belongs in Tier 0.
Click to expand...


Hmm...


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lil' Louie* /forum/post/12804376
> 
> 
> Hmm...



Patrick can speak for himself, but you should note that his prior post agreeing with Tier 1 was well before the shuffle took place regarding Tier 0 titles (there are more non-animated movies there now).


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lil' Louie* /forum/post/12804376
> 
> 
> Hmm...



Tier 0 used to be about half the size it is now, and that's when he made the first statement.


Brandon


----------



## Lil' Louie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12804767
> 
> 
> Patrick can speak for himself, but you should note that his prior post agreeing with Tier 1 was well before the shuffle took place regarding Tier 0 titles (there are more non-animated movies there now).





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/12805565
> 
> 
> Tier 0 used to be about half the size it is now, and that's when he made the first statement.
> 
> 
> Brandon




Ok! I'll let it slide this one time. Only 'cause it is you 2.







(I keed I keed)


----------



## Deviation

I'd place The Rock in Tier 2, right under The Day After Tomorrow.


----------



## lgans316

Sorry. Rock should be in bottom of Tier 1. Con Air deserves to be placed below DAT owing to severe EE/EH.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12804767
> 
> 
> Patrick can speak for himself, but you should note that his prior post agreeing with Tier 1 was well before the shuffle took place regarding Tier 0 titles (there are more non-animated movies there now).



Thanks, Rob. What is currently the bottom of Tier 0 used to be in Tier 1.


----------



## Jenova

I rented Rush Hour 3 this weekend. WOW! The picture is top-notch. I would consider this to be reference quality. I was very impressed.


I also saw Cast Away, and I was a bit underwhelmed with the PQ. Maybe top tier 2.


Equipment


Samsung 4665f

PS3

7ft away


----------



## jjwinterberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Deviation* /forum/post/12805950
> 
> 
> I'd place The Rock in Tier 2, right under The Day After Tomorrow.



I agree. Maybe even a little bit lower.


Also, The Queen really needs to move into the mid to lower part of tier III


----------



## thehun

Seven Years In Tibet, should be Tier0 but at least top Tier1.


----------



## mp3junkie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lil' Louie* /forum/post/12802926
> 
> 
> It could always be put in Tier 2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I initially recommended Tier 0 for this title (already posted in this thread) and it was there for a time; but, in the end, I agree w/ the forumites that got this title moved (bluish blacks, occasional softness, etc.). If Tier 0 was brought down to the level of SM3, I wouldn't argue it since I feel the titles above it are placed correctly. Like maverick0716 said, "High Tier 1 is no joke."
> 
> 
> Now, how about you give a valid reason why it belongs in Tier 0 other than the fight scenes look cool. Also, be sure to follow the thread rules for Tier placement on the first page.



I was speaking in terms of the PQ during those scenes. They were simply sharp as can be. The picture just looked amazing with little to no grain in most scenes. Also take a look in Peters' or the Sandman's apartment, you could easily see the chipped paint on the walls and door frames. The detail was stunning.


By the way, I am aware of the rules. This is my subjective view and my eyes says this picture belongs in Tier 0.


----------



## JaylisJayP

How is Waiting at the bottom of this list? Does whomever decides this really think it's the worst transfer blu-ray out there?


I thought it looked great, and at least a few of the review sites agree with me. It should be at least in the middle tiers.


This thread has absolutely zero credibility, and I'm so glad I stopped relying on it as a source for PQ rankings.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JaylisJayP* /forum/post/12815454
> 
> 
> This thread has absolutely zero credibility,



Thanks for being so helpful










Brandon


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *thehun* /forum/post/12809248
> 
> 
> Seven Years In Tibet, should be Tier0 but at least top Tier1.



I didn't think it was near that good.


Brandon


----------



## beauv

Is it worth the extra$ to buy the first two Die Hard on blu-ray or should I keep my sd-dvd?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *thehun* /forum/post/12809248
> 
> 
> Seven Years In Tibet, should be Tier0 but at least top Tier1.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/12815501
> 
> 
> I didn't think it was near that good.
> 
> 
> Brandon



I would have to say that I think Seven Years in Tibet is too low on the list (middle Tier 2)!


I thought this was a solid middle tier 1 title.


Anyone else seen it and have comments on its placement?


----------



## Nexus 6




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *beauv* /forum/post/12815562
> 
> 
> Is it worth the extra$ to buy the first two Die Hard on blu-ray or should I keep my sd-dvd?



I bought the first 2 Die Hards on BD and felt both were well worth the upgrade from SD-DVD.


----------



## beauv

Did you compare the sd version with the blu one? I cant decide if I want to buy the collection or just the last two...


----------



## mp3junkie

Okay, I have watched episodes 1 thru 8 of "Prison Break Season One" and for the most part, the PQ looks pretty good and reference material. However, does it really deserve to be placed so high in Tier 0? I don't think so as the episodes have alot of grain that can be distracting at times. Also there is a bit of softness that I noticed in some scenes. IMO the PQ is not flawless. It should be moved down to bottom Tier O or the top of Tier 1.


----------



## fronn

How is The Simpsons movie Tier 0?


Is rather visible EE haloing not an offensive enough artifact?


It was visible on a 60inch 1080p RP TV at about 9FT and a 37inch 1080p monitor at about 6FT. It isn't that hard to see.


Simpsons looks good otherwise, but tier 0 should not have any sort of EE artifacts like that if this list is to be taken seriously. Somewhere in upper Tier 1 is where it belongs according to the definitions, as the quality is very good otherwise, but the EE should be apparent to anyone sitting at a good viewing distance.


----------



## fronn

Also some wonky placements that jumped out at me:


Mr. Brooks should be upper Tier 1, in my opinion. If Shoot Em Up is properly placed (which I think it is), then Mr Brooks deserves to be below it. Mr Brooks is a good looking title, but it doesn't have enough pop and depth to be a Tier 0 in my book.


Rescue Dawn should be mid-upper Tier 1, in my opinion. There are many movies below it offering more clarity. It's a very well done movie, but it's not got the detail and sharpness that Shoot Em Up or HP: OOTP has (both of which I think are properly placed). I'd put it somewhere below Sunshine but maybe above Hellboy...


Blade Runner definitely should be somewhere in Tier 1, at least. If Close Encounters is low Tier 1, then Blade Runner deserves to be well above that, but I'd settle for right above it. The Clarity and depth of Blade Runner is superior to Close Encounters (both of which are outstanding examples of what can be done with that era of film though).


As far as titles in the unsorted list...


A Christmas story is mid tier 4, judging by the titles around there. It's soft and looks old -- no complaints about the transfer though. It is superior to the DVD, but nothing I'd show off to friends to give them a push in buying a player.


A Clockwork Orange is probably low Tier 3. It looks better than good fellas and is better than the DVD. It looks good for it's age, but not a show-off title.


Edward Scissorhand should be low Tier 2 or upper tier 3. It's colorful and sharp enough that it could possibly be used to impress a few people, but nothing amazing. It's a good transfer and I didn't notice any glaring artifacts.


Enter the Dragon should be Tier 5... it's one of those 1080i titles with stair stepping all over. Looks half resolution.


Man on Fire should be upper Tier 1 or possibly low Tier 0. It's truly a fantastic presentation of the movie. I did not see any artifacts. The clarity, depth and visible detail are outstanding.


Oldboy should be mid/low Tier 2, maybe right below Payback. It's a good transfer and has a decent amount of clarity/detail. The way the movie was filmed seems like it really prevents a lot of pop, but it does it's job.


Running with Scissors I'd put around mid/upper Tier 2. Colorful enough, clear enough, and it has enough detail... but it just isn't competition for some of the better titles.


All these are based on my viewings with a 60" 1080p TV at about 9 FT and/or a 37" 1080p monitor at about 6 FT.


A side note: Disturbia is ranked, but also listed as unranked. Same with Bubble.


----------



## lgans316

Agree with the above comments except for Enter the Dragon which looks better than Tier 3 titles and few Tier 2 titles (irrespective of the filtered 1080i transfer).


----------



## edvedder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12815642
> 
> 
> I would have to say that I think Seven Years in Tibet is too low on the list (middle Tier 2)!
> 
> 
> I thought this was a solid middle tier 1 title.
> 
> 
> Anyone else seen it and have comments on its placement?




I agree with you assessment, thought the picture quality of SYiT was very good. My vote is for mid to high tier 1 as well.




Samsung LCD 52 inch LNT 5265F (1080p)

Panasonic BMP-bd30k & PS3


----------



## haste




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JaylisJayP* /forum/post/12815454
> 
> 
> How is Waiting at the bottom of this list? Does whomever decides this really think it's the worst transfer blu-ray out there?
> 
> 
> I thought it looked great, and at least a few of the review sites agree with me. It should be at least in the middle tiers.
> 
> 
> This thread has absolutely zero credibility, and I'm so glad I stopped relying on it as a source for PQ rankings.



Crushed blacks, edge enhancement, and a terribly soft PQ. This title, without a doubt, looks even worse than House of Flying Daggers, therefore it is at the bottom of the list...


----------



## Deviation




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *haste* /forum/post/12819289
> 
> 
> Crushed blacks, edge enhancement, and a terribly soft PQ. This title, without a doubt, looks even worse than House of Flying Daggers, therefore it is at the bottom of the list...



You rank it below non-HD minicam material 28 Days Later. You rank it below 1080i bobbed garbage transfers like The Fugitive. Is that some kind of a sick joke?


----------



## haste




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Deviation* /forum/post/12819882
> 
> 
> You rank it below non-HD minicam material 28 Days Later. You rank it below 1080i bobbed garbage transfers like The Fugitive. Is that some kind of a sick joke?




It's the COAL tier...one or another title being on top isn't going to matter.

They ALL suck in this tier...thats all.


I have yet to see the two movies you mentioned on Blu. So I can't compare Waiting to those...


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fronn* /forum/post/12817521
> 
> 
> How is The Simpsons movie Tier 0?
> 
> 
> Is rather visible EE haloing not an offensive enough artifact?
> 
> 
> It was visible on a 60inch 1080p RP TV at about 9FT and a 37inch 1080p monitor at about 6FT. It isn't that hard to see.
> 
> 
> Simpsons looks good otherwise, but tier 0 should not have any sort of EE artifacts like that if this list is to be taken seriously. Somewhere in upper Tier 1 is where it belongs according to the definitions, as the quality is very good otherwise, but the EE should be apparent to anyone sitting at a good viewing distance.



I thought we discussed the EE artifacts and most of us felt it was NOT the movie itself but rather the result of some configuration with a setup. Not sure though...

Ok...went through all posts relating to Simpsons. The issue was color-banding and NOT EE which was a setup issue. As a result I'd like more information on the EE you are seeing on this movie for potential moving down. Other members have mentioned the placement as correct but its possible they missed it. Please share it with us!


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *haste* /forum/post/12820446
> 
> 
> It's the COAL tier...one or another title being on top isn't going to matter.
> 
> They ALL suck in this tier...thats all.
> 
> 
> I have yet to see the two movies you mentioned on Blu. So I can't compare Waiting to those...



Dead on...who cares its the COAL tier - they all suck nuts


----------



## pepar

Good point. What value is there in ranking titles that already have the worth of a turd?


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JaylisJayP* /forum/post/12815454
> 
> 
> How is Waiting at the bottom of this list? Does whomever decides this really think it's the worst transfer blu-ray out there?
> 
> 
> I thought it looked great, and at least a few of the review sites agree with me. It should be at least in the middle tiers.
> 
> 
> This thread has absolutely zero credibility, and I'm so glad I stopped relying on it as a source for PQ rankings.



Wow what constructive feedback







If it has zero credibility no need for you to troll in here. I think others would beg to differ and I offer up that you have little credibility. Given your post history it'd seem like you've taken the feedback of this thread before even if indirectly so because you disagree with one movie's ranking without posting any specs on your setup or any specifics on one movie this thread has no credibility? Or is it that you are just upset we don't do polling like HD-DVD does?


Haste cited specific reasons for its placement as one of the worst (and as discussed COAL movies don't get too much attention for placement one versus another cause they all suck); do you have a similar citation? Movie placement is based on facts and if someone can provide facts or specifics we are always happy to consider it, discuss and move it. Be constructive in your feedback and you are always welcome.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JaylisJayP* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> This thread has absolutely zero credibility, and I'm so glad I stopped relying on it as a source for PQ rankings.



But yet here you are.


----------



## AfRoMaN787

I've just watched seasons 1 and 2 of Weeds back to back. Season 2 should definitely swap places with season 1. The PQ of season 2 is far superior to season 1. Season 1 looks good but is very inconsistent so I would put at the bottom of tier 2 where as season 2 should be at the top.


I'm viewing with a 46 inch Samsung 1080p lcd tv from 9ft away.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12815642
> 
> 
> I would have to say that I think Seven Years in Tibet is too low on the list (middle Tier 2)!
> 
> 
> I thought this was a solid middle tier 1 title.
> 
> 
> Anyone else seen it and have comments on its placement?



To clarify, I was replying to the notion that it belonged in Tier 0. I haven't seen the film in a while so I don't remember my impressions of it (though I'm sure they're here somewhere). But I just know I didn't ever get the impression it was Tier 0 material.


Brandon


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *haste* /forum/post/12819289
> 
> 
> Crushed blacks, edge enhancement, and a terribly soft PQ. This title, without a doubt, looks even worse than House of Flying Daggers, therefore it is at the bottom of the list...



This title (Waiting) has the worst plastic face syndrome I have seen.


----------



## Ian_Currie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12822119
> 
> 
> This title (Waiting) has the worst plastic face syndrome I have seen.



Agreed.


----------



## fronn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/12820614
> 
> 
> I thought we discussed the EE artifacts and most of us felt it was NOT the movie itself but rather the result of some configuration with a setup. Not sure though...
> 
> Ok...went through all posts relating to Simpsons. The issue was color-banding and NOT EE which was a setup issue. As a result I'd like more information on the EE you are seeing on this movie for potential moving down. Other members have mentioned the placement as correct but its possible they missed it. Please share it with us!



Since taking pictures is a pain, I found some pictures from it already posted.

http://home.worldwidedvdforums.com/f...p?f=59&t=14940 


Some scenes it's more apparent then others (as you can see from the screen shots... in some of the shots you can't really tell, like the mob scene at night, but in others it is quite visible all over), but it's consistent enough that it was distracting. It isn't as offensive as many of the DVDs out there, but on BR my expectation is there that should be no EE.


Because it looks really good otherwise, I'd say high Tier 1 would be suitable... but any artifacts like that keep it out of Tier 0 in my book. Generally EE would keep it out of Tier 1 even, but this is one of the few titles I can forgive it on.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *edvedder* /forum/post/12818339
> 
> 
> I agree with you assessment, thought the picture quality of SYiT was very good. My vote is for mid to high tier 1 as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samsung LCD 52 inch LNT 5265F (1080p)
> 
> Panasonic BMP-bd30k & PS3





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/12821422
> 
> 
> To clarify, I was replying to the notion that it belonged in Tier 0. I haven't seen the film in a while so I don't remember my impressions of it (though I'm sure they're here somewhere). But I just know I didn't ever get the impression it was Tier 0 material.
> 
> 
> Brandon



I would like to get a couple more opinions on it if possible before moving it up, but right now I would be inclined to place it somewhere in middle Tier 1.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I just looked for all posts on Seven Years in Tibet and there aren't very many. I didn't see one from you Brandon.


I see it was originally placed in Mid Tier 1 back in July:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/11051022
> 
> 
> Added to mid tier 1




But there is no indication as to why or when it was moved to middle Tier 2?


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12828135
> 
> 
> I just looked for all posts on Seven Years in Tibet and there aren't very many. I didn't see one from you Brandon.
> 
> 
> I see it was originally placed in Mid Tier 1 back in July:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But there is no indication as to why or when it was moved to middle Tier 2?



Come to think of it, this is probably one of the few titles I received from Netflix that I didn't post an opinion on. It's also possible that I agreed with it's placement since I didn't make any comment on it. I'm not against it being moved up if others feel it's deserved.


Brandon


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mp3junkie* /forum/post/12816417
> 
> 
> Okay, I have watched episodes 1 thru 8 of "Prison Break Season One" and for the most part, the PQ looks pretty good and reference material. However, does it really deserve to be placed so high in Tier 0? I don't think so as the episodes have alot of grain that can be distracting at times. Also there is a bit of softness that I noticed in some scenes. IMO the PQ is not flawless. It should be moved down to bottom Tier O or the top of Tier 1.



I still think Lost has better PQ than Prison Break. Both are awesome, but the small object detail on Lost, IMO, is even better than Pirates DMC and AWE. Just look at any some of the scenes in the forests, or even better, the closeup shots of people's faces. Lost does have grain/noise in dark scenes, but so does Pirates AWE. I'm sure it's intentional. As is the case with Prison Break -- even Season 3 has it from what i've seen over broadcast fox channel.


The only weird thing about Lost is on the main intro screen that splashes the word "Lost" where it looks kinda pixelated... THis may be to a really low bit rate used for that.. I dont know, but it shouldnt count against it.



JVC RS1 106", 1080p via PS3, 11 feet back.


----------



## jonnyozero3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fronn* /forum/post/12827981
> 
> 
> Since taking pictures is a pain, I found some pictures from it already posted.
> 
> http://home.worldwidedvdforums.com/f...p?f=59&t=14940
> 
> 
> Some scenes it's more apparent then others (as you can see from the screen shots... in some of the shots you can't really tell, like the mob scene at night, but in others it is quite visible all over), but it's consistent enough that it was distracting. It isn't as offensive as many of the DVDs out there, but on BR my expectation is there that should be no EE.
> 
> 
> Because it looks really good otherwise, I'd say high Tier 1 would be suitable... but any artifacts like that keep it out of Tier 0 in my book. Generally EE would keep it out of Tier 1 even, but this is one of the few titles I can forgive it on.



I see what you're talking about in the images - like above homer's eye lids when he's in the purple car (top right photo, click twice to zoom in).


That said, EE drives me nuts and I didn't notice anything like that on my setup when I watched the movie. I have the US version FWIW.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jonnyozero3* /forum/post/12832226
> 
> 
> I see what you're talking about in the images - like above homer's eye lids when he's in the purple car (top right photo, click twice to zoom in).
> 
> 
> That said, EE drives me nuts and I didn't notice anything like that on my setup when I watched the movie. I have the US version FWIW.



There is a big discussion thread about this very issue. Some people are claiming it is a display issue. Alan Gouger says that there is NO EE on The Simpsons (and he tends to be very sensitive to EE).


----------



## fronn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jonnyozero3* /forum/post/12832226
> 
> 
> I see what you're talking about in the images - like above homer's eye lids when he's in the purple car (top right photo, click twice to zoom in).
> 
> 
> That said, EE drives me nuts and I didn't notice anything like that on my setup when I watched the movie. I have the US version FWIW.



Oh it's there in the US version too. That's what I have as well. Watch it now, I'm sure you'll notice the EE


----------



## fronn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12835592
> 
> 
> There is a big discussion thread about this very issue. Some people are claiming it is a display issue. Alan Gouger says that there is NO EE on The Simpsons (and he tends to be very sensitive to EE).



Where is this thread, I didn't see it on the first page?


I can safely say Alan Gouger is wrong in this case, whether he's usually sensitive or not. It has EE and with sharpness set at 0 on two TVs, it's visible.


It's kind of frustrating and hard to convince studios to stop using EE (to the point where haloing is visible) when the consumers that complain about it the most don't even consistently complain about it!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fronn* /forum/post/12836336
> 
> 
> Where is this thread?
> 
> 
> I can safely say Alan Gouger is wrong in this case, whether he's usually sensitive or not. It has EE and with sharpness set at 0 on two TVs, it's visible.
> 
> 
> It's kind of frustrating and hard to convince studios to stop using EE (to the point where haloing is visible) when the consumers that complain about it the most don't even consistently complain about it!
> 
> 
> Edit: Rob, do you have a link to that thread?


 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...=937873&page=6 


There was another thread that was dedicated to just the Simpsons movie and whether it had EE, but I guess it got to be so contentious that the entire thread was deleted.


----------



## grommet

Yep, The Simpsons discussion thread was deleted for some reason. There is ringing. I just popped the disc in again, and I can still see it. This is on a 30" workstation LCD used for image and video editing. I know what I'm seeing, and I can display something else with flat Simpsons-like animation and see no ringing.


It's minor, and it's likely that on many displays you may not notice it at all... especially at normal viewing distances. But, just for this, I could not call this release perfect or "Tier 0."


Some displays may make it worse, especially if there is some form of processing enabled. At home, I have to get fairly close and implicitly look for it... but it's still there.


P.S.: I wouldn't probably call this ringing "EE" in the traditional sense, since it's probably not...


----------



## fronn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12836390
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...=937873&page=6
> 
> 
> There was another thread that was dedicated to just the Simpsons movie and whether it had EE, but I guess it got to be so contentious that the entire thread was deleted.



Thanks, Rob!


I just popped the disc in again and made sure sharpness was at 0 and still saw it... Figured maybe I was remembering wrong somehow. It's still there at normal viewing distance.


Don't get me wrong... it isn't always very visible (because of the colors used) and it is never as bad as some of the other offenders (and certainly not as bad as many DVDs). But the fact that there is visible ringing at all takes it out of the Tier 0 running, in my opinion.


I can't explain how Alan isn't seeing it on his setup... you don't need zooming to see it. However, him using the idea that more people don't see it as some sort of proof is a bit silly, as that's never valid evidence of anything -- I'd say the majority of people even on this forum don't seem to have a problem with many of the artifacts anyways (look at the praise for Polar Express, for example). And using a digital camera to show us isn't much good (especially zooming in on a distance shot). Just because people aren't seeing it doesn't mean it doesn't exist -- there haven't been many animated movies and things look slightly different because of the black outline (having inked outlines on things does funny things to eyes). I found EE on the Simpsons much more visible than the EE in 2001, though... I didn't really notice it until it was pointed out by him.


Some scenes of the Simpsons show it quite readily while it's harder to see in other scenes, because of the colors and the black outline, I imagine.


I guess I'll have to wait for Xylon for some back up (if that doesn't show it then I'll readily admit there's something wrong with both of my setups, somehow)... with Alan being a mod and a respected member, there's no way I'm going to convince people otherwise and I don't have equipment to take direct captures to prove it myself.


So for now, there are other titles to worry about on the list (like all of them in my second post).


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12835592
> 
> 
> There is a big discussion thread about this very issue. Some people are claiming it is a display issue. Alan Gouger says that there is NO EE on The Simpsons (and he tends to be very sensitive to EE).



This topic makes me wonder... why would EE be used on animation in the first place?


Brandon


----------



## grommet

As I said, it's not really EE... it's ringing.







Only the folks that prepared the master will know why.


There is no reason for Xylon to back this one up. In the previous deleted thread, folks already extracted direct images from the BD into Lossless PNG for raw examination, using the same tools Xylon uses and the results were the same.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *grommet* /forum/post/12837913
> 
> 
> As I said, it's not really EE... it's ringing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only the folks that prepared the master will know why.
> 
> 
> There is no reason for Xylon to back this one up. In the previous deleted thread, folks already extracted direct images from the BD into Lossless PNG for raw examination, using the same tools Xylon uses and the results were the same.



EE is often used to mean different things. EE is the process of adding some amount of sharpening to the picture. Unfortunately this causes artifacts that look like halos, or outlining on hard edges. People usually refer to these artifacts as "Edge Enhancement" although EE itself isn't actually an artifact, but a process.


In any event, I agree that those pictures don't really look like typical EE artifacts, but "ringing". My question is, what is it that causes the ringing? Can EE cause ringing as well?


----------



## fronn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12838588
> 
> 
> EE is often used to mean different things. EE is the process of adding some amount of sharpening to the picture. Unfortunately this causes artifacts that look like halos, or outlining on hard edges. People usually refer to these artifacts as "Edge Enhancement" although EE itself isn't actually an artifact, but a process.
> 
> 
> In any event, I agree that those pictures don't really look like typical EE artifacts, but "ringing". My question is, what is it that causes the ringing? Can EE cause ringing as well?



EE is the most common generator of ringing (and the most apparent artifact of EE is ringing). Ringing is generally what people are talking about when they say EE, as far as I know. For the most part they are interchangeable :/


I incorrectly stated it as EE at the start, but I was talking about the halos/ringing. Other noise that EE causes wasn't present, as far as I could see... just the halos.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fronn* /forum/post/12838870
> 
> 
> EE is the most common generator of ringing (and the most apparent artifact of EE is ringing). Ringing is generally what people are talking about when they say EE, as far as I know. For the most part they are interchangeable :/
> 
> 
> I incorrectly stated it as EE at the start, but I was talking about the halos/ringing. Other noise that EE causes wasn't present, as far as I could see... just the halos.



Thanks.


I assume then that Grommet was referring to the halos/outlining as EE, and is differentiating with "ringing".


----------



## avhed

Watched Letters From Iwo Jima last night. I think it belongs near the bottom on Silver, not above The Prestige.


Samsung BD-P1200 Sony 34XS955 @ 5.5 ft


----------



## mp3junkie

We need to start a Poll and vote for these movies in the respective Tiers. It appears that most people are not being heard or ignored when given their PQ assessments of a particular film. There are movies that I simply don't agree with their placement. Let's exercise the democratic process and vote.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mp3junkie* /forum/post/12840552
> 
> 
> We need to start a Poll and vote for these movies in the respective Tiers. It appears that most people are not being heard or ignored when given their PQ assessments of a particular film. There are movies that I simply don't agree with their placement. Let's exercise the democratic process and vote.



This is not a democracy. It is a thread that was set up and is maintained by a few individuals who are working their tails off to accommodate everybody. AVS will not allow a poll - it's been discussed many times - did you search? - and the alternatives are not that appealing. I believe recently that someone offered to provide software that would handle polling, but I haven't read any more about it in a few days.


From what I've seen, everybody's opinions, when explained and their video gear is listed, is considered. Just because the title ranking doesn't change to suit a particular individual doesn't mean their opinion was not heard or was ignored. It only means that more people thought it was OK where it was.


----------



## CMRA

Thanks for the 1-15-08 update. I was wondering about the "Live Free..." Now I know.


----------



## cdhender




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *avhed* /forum/post/12839577
> 
> 
> Watched Letters From Iwo Jima last night. I think it belongs near the bottom on Silver, not above The Prestige.
> 
> 
> Samsung BD-P1200 Sony 34XS955 @ 5.5 ft



Yeah I don't know why the Prestige is so low. I think it looks great. Oh well, I use this thread as more general guideline than exact science. There's definitely quite a few titles that, IMO, are misplaced. Not gonna lose sleep over it though.


----------



## grommet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12839126
> 
> 
> I assume then that Grommet was referring to the halos/outlining as EE, and is differentiating with "ringing".



Correct, because it's really only subtle Ringing... and only an insider would know what caused it. I would not place The Simpsons on BD in the Edge Enhancement Hall of Shame. THX-certified Star Wars: The Phantom Menace & Die Hard 3 on DVD, I'm looking at you!










FYI:
http://www.videophile.info/Review/TPM/TPM_01.htm


----------



## lgans316

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in bottom of Tier-3 way below ROBOCOP!!! Something wrong ? It should be in mid of Tier-2.

Also Azkaban should be above Goblet of Fire.


----------



## mp3junkie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/12841332
> 
> 
> Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in bottom of Tier-3 way below ROBOCOP!!! Something wrong ? It should be in mid of Tier-2.
> 
> Also Azkaban should be above Goblet of Fire.



See this is a prime example of what I am referring to with the current Tier placements. It's all messed up. Some people make real buying decisions based on a films Tier position. Something else needs to be developed to accurately measure these movies. The way it is now, is just not working IMO.


----------



## Lil' Louie

The Condemned - Mid to high Tier 2. Good clean image with some minor grain here and there. Some softness here and there, but overall lush color in the jungle scenes. Not a lot of "POP" but definitely can be used to show off what BD is about.


As per Tier rating rules, viewed on:


Sony KDS-55A3000 (calibrated) - PS3 1080/24p - 7ft:


----------



## Xylon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/12841332
> 
> *Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in bottom of Tier-3 way below ROBOCOP!!!?*













I'm sure they will modify that error.


Right guys?


----------



## TheLion




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12835592
> 
> 
> There is a big discussion thread about this very issue. Some people are claiming it is a display issue. Alan Gouger says that there is NO EE on The Simpsons (and he tends to be very sensitive to EE).




Rob,


rest assured that Simpsons BD shows some of the most distracting ringing ever put on HDM.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mp3junkie* /forum/post/12841556
> 
> 
> See this is a prime example of what I am referring to with the current Tier placements. It's all messed up. Some people make real buying decisions based on a films Tier position. Something else needs to be developed to accurately measure these movies. The way it is now, is just not working IMO.




Of your nine posts on this thread, you've never listed your equipment as requested for your opinion to be given any consideration. And you seem to be more about criticizing the existing rankings than making positive contributions to influence the other members and the tier rankings.


"Why is Apocalypto below AWE?"


"Can someone please tell my why "Kingdom of Heaven is hoovering at the bottom of Tier 1?"


"Why in the world did you all bump "Spiderman 3" down to Tier 1? . . . Please someone give your reasons for moving the film down to Tier 1? It should be at least bottom Tier 0."


"Please give a valid reason why you agree with the placement of SM3."


"We need to start a Poll and vote for these movies in the respective Tiers. It appears that most people are not being heard or ignored when given their PQ assessments of a particular film. There are movies that I simply don't agree with their placement."


"See this is a prime example of what I am referring to with the current Tier placements. It's all messed up."


I appreciate your enthusiasm, but dropping in and criticizing without any constructiveness, and then bitching that no one is listening is not the way to influence tier rankings. In one post you acknowledged the rules, but you never complied and listed your gear. More importantly, you never gave specifics about why, how and where a particular title is mis-ranked.


Every title that is currently ranked had "valid reasons" given by members when they were originally ranked. Many titles move after the initial ranking from members giving CONSTRUCTIVE and DETAILED reasons. Blanket general statements and, especially, bomb-throwing will produce no changes.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mp3junkie* /forum/post/12841556
> 
> 
> See this is a prime example of what I am referring to with the current Tier placements. It's all messed up. Some people make real buying decisions based on a films Tier position. Something else needs to be developed to accurately measure these movies. The way it is now, is just not working IMO.



The reason it *has* been working to this point is that people can list their reasoning for why a title should be moved up or down rather than just pointing out how bad this thread is. If you spent more time giving justification for your opinions and less time complaining this thread would be a lot more productive. If you *really* want to see the thread work you should be helpful in it's process and not detrimental to it.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Xylon* /forum/post/12841985
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure they will modify that error.
> 
> 
> Right guys?



Is Harry Potter too low or is Robocop too high? I haven't seen either one, but I remember Robocop looking dreadful. I'd hope Harry Potter would be much better than that.


Brandon


----------



## AfRoMaN787

I'm the one who requested that Robocop be placed at the top of tier 3. However, after looking at some of the other titles on that list I think it should be moved closer towards the middle of tier 3


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mp3junkie* /forum/post/12840552
> 
> 
> We need to start a Poll and vote for these movies in the respective Tiers. It appears that most people are not being heard or ignored when given their PQ assessments of a particular film. There are movies that I simply don't agree with their placement. Let's exercise the democratic process and vote.



If you read the first page of the thread - NEAR THE TOP - you'd see what is required to post for your opinion to be taken into consideration. I've seen nothing of the sort from you. In the beginning we told people IN THE THREAD 'Post your info' and yet people still didn't. After a while it got old and we just put it on the front page. I'm not your mommy or your daddy. If you cannot read and follow simple instructions you shouldn't be posting in the first place. All we ask if for


1) Setup information and viewing distances.

2) Timestamps if you see something specific like EE or artifacting (screenshots are cumbersome).

3) Where you feel it should be placed


If any of the 3 are missing your post is considered invalid for consideration and will be glossed over by the mods of this thread. Go back and read page one. Constructive feedback is always valued and taken into consideration or addressed by someone.


----------



## OhioMike

Hey guys I've got a problem. I have been contributing some input here and there for the last few months. I just sold my 46" 720p RPTV on Monday and got the 40" XBR4 120hz 1080p, my problem is that with the 15-20 titles I have checked out so far, they are all reference quality!! This tv is sick...I don't know what to look for to find low quality now!! It's not the worst problem that I can think to have but all the discs just look 10x better now. Brandon..any thoughts here...you have the XBR4 as well right??


----------



## Kevin12586

Hey guys, we haven't added any movies for this year yet? The latest date I see is December 28, 2007.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kevin12586* /forum/post/12845908
> 
> 
> Hey guys, we haven't added any movies for this year yet? The latest date I see is December 28, 2007.



Haven't had anyone post VALID feedback yet. Saw recommendations on 3:10 to Yuma but with no system specs posted it got ignored...Just post your thoughts on unplaced movies with your systems specs as per page 1 and we'll get adding.


----------



## OhioMike

How do I refer to the film problem that is seen as flashing/flickering in a background? Is this digital noise? I saw this in my old tv a lot throughout Planet Earth especially on the helicopter passovers of Mountains and the Arctic and also on my new tv in the night sky background during the King and Queen sex scene of "300". I want to get my terminology correct on this going forward. Thanks.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OhioMike* /forum/post/12845993
> 
> 
> How do I refer to the film problem that is seen as flashing/flickering in a background? Is this digital noise? I saw this in my old tv a lot throughout Planet Earth especially on the helicopter passovers of Mountains and the Arctic and also on my new tv in the night sky background during the King and Queen sex scene of "300". I want to get my terminology correct on this going forward. Thanks.



Hmmm don't recall seeing that on 300; doesn't mean its not there but without seeing it I couldn't categorize the problem. Maybe someone else can comment...?


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OhioMike* /forum/post/12845882
> 
> 
> Hey guys I've got a problem. I have been contributing some input here and there for the last few months. I just sold my 46" 720p RPTV on Monday and got the 40" XBR4 120hz 1080p, my problem is that with the 15-20 titles I have checked out so far, they are all reference quality!! This tv is sick...I don't know what to look for to find low quality now!! It's not the worst problem that I can think to have but all the discs just look 10x better now. Brandon..any thoughts here...you have the XBR4 as well right??



With 1920x1080 pixels spread over 40", you will have an overall MUCH more detailed picture than 1280x720 pixels on a 46" screen. Plus, new optics and electronics make a big difference. Theoretically, at least according to ME, it should be easier for you to spot quality differences. HOWEVER, you will probably have to "retrain" yourself. Watch a few top-tier movies and a few bottom-/mid-bottom-tier movies and look for differences. My guess is that after you start spotting the differences, you will not be able to stop. You might even curse me for making the suggestion!










Oh yeah, sit closer.


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kevin12586* /forum/post/12845908
> 
> 
> Hey guys, we haven't added any movies for this year yet? The latest date I see is December 28, 2007.




Rob and Austin both have added titles this year, IIRC. I've just been dropping the ball on keeping up with the formatting, etc. I should have some free time tonight and I'll clean up dates and add this weeks new releases.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OhioMike* /forum/post/12845882
> 
> 
> Hey guys I've got a problem. I have been contributing some input here and there for the last few months. I just sold my 46" 720p RPTV on Monday and got the 40" XBR4 120hz 1080p, my problem is that with the 15-20 titles I have checked out so far, they are all reference quality!! This tv is sick...I don't know what to look for to find low quality now!! It's not the worst problem that I can think to have but all the discs just look 10x better now. Brandon..any thoughts here...you have the XBR4 as well right??



I have the same TV you have. Actually it's the 46" version. But I upgraded from a 32" 720p tv.


Bridge to Terabithia was the first movie I watched on the new TV and it was the best I had seen at that point, but I halfway expected that. There will be an adjustment period as you gauge the new level of "reference" quality for your display, but rest assured that no display is going to make Crash or Full Metal Jacket (original release) look like Tier 0.


Give it some time, rewatch some of the other movies and adjust.


Brandon


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/12846291
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah, sit closer.



Definitely.


----------



## Kevin12586




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/12847583
> 
> 
> Rob and Austin both have added titles this year, IIRC. I've just been dropping the ball on keeping up with the formatting, etc. I should have some free time tonight and I'll clean up dates and add this weeks new releases.



Thanks, I was just skimming looking for recent dates, as opposed to looking at the names of movies


----------



## lrstevens421




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mp3junkie* /forum/post/12848839
> 
> 
> Sorry, but not impressed at all by your comments. It means nothing to me. I'll continue to post as I see fit. It's my opinion. Come up with a *fair* methodology to rank these movies and then we can talk. I can assure you that others feel as I do, but may be hesitant to speak up for fear of beaing blasted on this board.



What's unfair about members giving accurate/detailed assesments? AustinSTI & Rob are not just placing titles where they see fit, they're receiving detailed explanations for title placement, even then they wait for someone else to second that recommendation. I had a misunderstanding with a title placement two weeks back and they were great at correcting it's placement. Bplewis24 agreed with my recommendation with his own detailed assesment and it was moved.


Larone


----------



## PooperScooper

A couple things. There's a special place at AVS for HT pics - I don't see how the fit in here. And, the AVS software has an "ignore list" feature. Works great!










larry


----------



## thehun

Sorry I didn't post my set up.

56" 1080p DLP [Samsung] ISF calibrated viewed from @8'


Yes, Seven Years in Tibet belongs at least on the top section of the tier1. I simply can't recall any serious flaws with this. The photography was natural with no added grain, or funky color style, so it looks just like you would view it trough your eyes + some very fine film grain which is obviously how it should be. No EE or any induced artifacts. It's current position is simply misleading to those who haven't seen it, to put it mildly.


----------



## Ian_Currie

Watched Mr. Brooks. Noticed compression artifacts in some scenes. Personally I don't think this is the 'best Bluray has to offer'.


Viewed on 9' wide screen from 12'

C3X1080 (3 chip DLP) projector


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TheLion* /forum/post/12842512
> 
> 
> Rob,
> 
> 
> rest assured that Simpsons BD shows some of the most distracting ringing ever put on HDM.



Yeah, I saw your post in that thread. Definitely doesn't sound good!


I have actually held off buying this disk for this very reason. I have it in my queue on Netflix, but it is a "very long wait".


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ian_Currie* /forum/post/12849769
> 
> 
> Watched Mr. Brooks. Noticed compression artifacts in some scenes. Personally I don't think this is the 'best Bluray has to offer'.
> 
> 
> Viewed on 9' wide screen from 12'
> 
> C3X1080 (3 chip DLP) projector



Really? Can you list a time stamp for when you saw compression artifacts? I don't recall noticing any, unless it was some of the minor noise that I did notice in the dark scenes.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lrstevens421* /forum/post/12849145
> 
> 
> What's unfair about members giving accurate/detailed assesments? AustinSTI & Rob are not just placing titles where they see fit, they're receiving detailed explanations for title placement, even then they wait for someone else to second that recommendation. I had a misunderstanding with a title placement two weeks back and they were great at correcting it's placement. Bplewis24 agreed with my recommendation with his own detailed assesment and it was moved.
> 
> 
> Larone



And just for further clarification, any time that **I** move a title (up, down, or is added to the list for the first time), I will _always_ make a post in the thread indicating that I have done so.


This is so people know that there has been a response to some recent feedback, as well as preventing any appearance of moving titles around as we see fit. This thread belongs to all of us.


----------



## homerhitter

Hey, I just watched The Departed again for the first time in a while, and I deffinately think it should be much higher in tier two, maybe even at the top. I watched it on my PS3 and 40 inch XBR4. It was relatively sharp and colorful. Awesome movie, too.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Moved *Seven Years in Tibet* up to lower Tier 1.


----------



## OhioMike

I see Pathfinder in the awaiting placement area. I just got done watching this and would place it mid-upper Tier 2 somewhere just below Underworld:Evolution. It was an overall quality picture with some pop and consistent detail. There is little color in the film because of the overall dark "mood" like EVO. There is a light intentional grain throughout which is only heavier in the beginning 12-15 minutes(flashback mode). I also own the SD version since release and the BD is lightyears ahead. The SD was very hard to discern objects due to the dark pallette, but the BD defines objects very well even in the very dark scenes. BTW: the DTS-MA core track was excellent. Can't wait to someday here it in lossless.


40"XBR4 1080p--Motion Enhancer OFF

PS3-HDMI @7.5 feet in pitch black room


----------



## jonnyozero3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TheLion* /forum/post/12842512
> 
> 
> Rob,
> 
> 
> rest assured that Simpsons BD shows some of the most distracting ringing ever put on HDM.



My vote on the Simpsons BD - it stays where it is. The ringing is non-existent on my setup. I just checked and re-checked for 10 mins; I even went frame by frame. I can barely find a hint of it on purples and blues with my nose to the 106" screen, but *nothing* at all like what is pictured around Bart's eyes. It is not noticeable at all.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by lgans316 View Post
> 
> Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone in bottom of Tier-3 way below ROBOCOP!!!?





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Xylon* /forum/post/12841985
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure they will modify that error.
> 
> 
> Right guys?



AustinSTI -> Please take care of re-positioning HP 1,HP 4 and HP 3.


----------



## chris0

When I first watched the Simpsons BR I thought it looked excellent, and agreed with some that the ringing or EE must be a setup issue. All this continuing talk about it made me pop it in for another look. There is some faint ringing, but I had to get about a foot away to see it. I used the church scene to check it out since most of the pics I've seen focused there. All of my TV's "enhancements" (mosquito NR, video NR, etc) are off and sharpness is at 0.


Perhaps Tier 0 isn't the place for it. High Tier 1 should make everyone happy, I think.


Panny 58" plasma @ 1080p/60, 11'


----------



## Lil' Louie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *PooperScooper* /forum/post/12849234
> 
> 
> A couple things. There's a special place at AVS for HT pics - I don't see how the fit in here.
> 
> 
> larry



If you mean me, I post a small thumbnail pic of my viewing screen for every title I'm recommending for Tier placement to show what I'm viewing on. If that is not welcome in this thread, LMK; and, I will cease in doing so.


----------



## lrstevens421




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12850817
> 
> 
> And just for further clarification, any time that **I** move a title (up, down, or is added to the list for the first time), I will _always_ make a post in the thread indicating that I have done so.
> 
> 
> This is so people know that there has been a response to some recent feedback, as well as preventing any appearance of moving titles around as we see fit. This thread belongs to all of us.



Make sense to me







.


----------



## Xylon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *PooperScooper* /forum/post/12849234
> 
> 
> A couple things. There's a special place at AVS for HT pics - I don't see how the fit in here. *And, the AVS software has an "ignore list" feature. Works great!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> larry



Reminds me of another TIER thread where the one in charge starts "ignoring" AVS members.


That didnt work out too well


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ian_Currie* /forum/post/12849769
> 
> 
> Watched Mr. Brooks. Noticed compression artifacts in some scenes. Personally I don't think this is the 'best Bluray has to offer'.
> 
> 
> Viewed on 9' wide screen from 12'
> 
> C3X1080 (3 chip DLP) projector



Then what is?


In other words, where do you think it should be placed? Saying it's not the best is too vague which leaves tons of room for (mis)interpretation.


Brandon


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lil' Louie* /forum/post/12851747
> 
> 
> If you mean me, I post a small thumbnail pic of my viewing screen for every title I'm recommending for Tier placement to show what I'm viewing on. If that is not welcome in this thread, LMK; and, I will cease in doing so.



Nah, Lil' Louie, I think it was me. I got excited about a new screen and linked a HUGE picture. I've since come to my senses. Try putting your thumbnail back in and see if it stays. Besides, I thought it was cute.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Xylon* /forum/post/12851834
> 
> 
> Reminds me of another TIER thread where the one in charge starts "ignoring" AVS members.
> 
> 
> That didnt work out too well



Xylon: welcome to my ignore list!


----------



## Lil' Louie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/12851864
> 
> 
> Nah, Lil' Louie, I think it was me. I got excited about a new screen and linked a HUGE picture. I've since come to my senses. Try putting your thumbnail back in and see if it stays. Besides, I thought it was cute.



Heh heh, my wife and friends have another word for it.


----------



## CheYC

I put in oceans 13 tonight and actually thought something was wrong with my connections or PS3. I popped in Harry Potter and all was well. This movie looked like barf.


----------



## JMCL

I also watched Oceans 13 last night and spent 15 minutes trying to adjust my TV because of poor picture quality of the Blu-Ray. I know it got a silver rating here, however in my opinion it looked like a normal DVD. It was very grainy with number of artifacts. I was s little disappointed in PQ.


----------



## ChoarBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JMCL* /forum/post/12855719
> 
> 
> I also watched Oceans 13 last night and spent 15 minutes trying to adjust my TV because of poor picture quality of the Blu-Ray. I know it got a silver rating here, however in my opinion it looked like a normal DVD. It was very grainy with number of artifacts. I was s little disappointed in PQ.



I agree. Oceans 13 looks just like a normal DVD


----------



## bplewis24

Guys make sure to list your equipment and viewing specs. 3 People saying the same thing in a row about a title won't go unnoticed....unless you don't adhere to the thread criteria










Brandon


----------



## CheYC

I'm using the PS3 for a Blu Ray player, Panny 50PX75U plasma tv, and all 24AWG 1.3a HDMI cables from monoprice. My picture is run through an AVR 247 as well.


I view from ~9 feet. I own several dozen BD and this is by far the worst one. As far a tier I would personally put it at 5. It looks on par if not a litle worse than some of my upconverted SD DVDs. The color was hugely oversaturated, everything looked orange/red (I understand this was the directors intent, but jeez, it was distracting) and the sound was subpar. I couldn't enjoy the movie honestly.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CheYC* /forum/post/12856594
> 
> 
> I'm using the PS3 for a Blu Ray player, Panny 50PX75U plasma tv, and all 24AWG 1.3a HDMI cables from monoprice. My picture is run through an AVR 247 as well.



Hi CheYC,


Thanks for your input. If you could please list your gear/viewing distance with your tier/rank suggestions it would make it easier for everyone to consider your opinions. Having it in a separate post might mean that your suggestion itself gets overlooked. If you are involved in follow-up posts or something other than a direct recommendation, it is not necessary to list your gear/viewing distance.


Thanks!










Jeff


P.S. For those of you unfamiliar with "sigs", they are FREE and you can use them for the above purpose and not have to remember to do it in your posts themselves.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Xylon* /forum/post/12851834
> 
> 
> Reminds me of another TIER thread where the one in charge starts "ignoring" AVS members.
> 
> 
> That didnt work out too well



I don't put anyone on my ignore list and as I've said numerous times there's no case that anyone can point to where an opinion wasn't taken into account if the necessary information was posted.


As for the potter films the original poster described 3 but posted no setup info so I disregarded it. If you feel 1 and 4 should be moved post why and we'll be happy to do so. the guys running this thread don't have all these movies so we really do rely on you guys to place movies, we're not just blowing smoke.


----------



## haste




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/12856696
> 
> 
> P.S. For those of you unfamiliar with "sigs", they are FREE and you can use them for the above purpose and not have to remember to do it in your posts themselves.



AVSforum rules state not to put "equipment" in sigs...


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *haste* /forum/post/12856776
> 
> 
> AVSforum rules state not to put "equipment" in sigs...



Look at the post just above yours. It is arm-long, specifics-laden lists that they are prohibiting, not something as generic as AustinSTI's.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/12856896
> 
> 
> Look at the post just above yours. It is arm-long, specifics-laden lists that they are prohibiting, not something as generic as AustinSTI's.



That's been like that for months too and nobody's complained. If there was an issue a mod had with my TV model being there I'd be happy to remove it.


----------



## Macfan424

Clearly, I'm not as discerning as the frequent posters here, but I just saw Aeon Flux and have a hard time understanding how it misses the Gold. It's as demo quality as any Blu-Ray I've seen, and I seen mostly highly ranked ones. Maybe I was too dazzled by the vision of Charlize dashing about in tight fitting costumes (or less) to notice any faults, but the detail was amazing. I could even see her fingerprints in one scene. Heck, I can barely see _my own_ fingerprints!


Anyway, I also agree with the recent questioning of Ocean's Thirteen's placement. In addition to everything else mentioned, to my eyes it suffers from severe black crush. How these two discs can occupy the same tier is beyond me, but, again, I admit I may not be as well qualified to judge as others here. Still, I'd nominate Aeon Flux for Gold and Ocean's Thirteen for Copper (Bronze at best).


Pioneer Kuro 5080HD (50"; 768p @ 72Hz)

Panasonic BD30 (1080p/24)

Viewing Distance: 9 ft.


----------



## SuprSlow

-Finished the AR/Studio info on the unranked list.

-Added links and AV info to most of the titles with "?" (Still can't find some info if anyone can help)

-Added this week's releases:
*Good Luck Chuck: Unrated* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM (7.1) | AR: 1.78:1 | Lionsgate
*Mr. Woodcock* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA (7.1) | AR: 2.35:1 | New Line
*Suburban Girl* Video: ? | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Image
*Breaker Morant* Video: ? | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Image
*Went to Coney Island on a Mission from God...Be Back by Five* Video: ? | Audio: ? | AR: 1.85:1 | Starz


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/12856936
> 
> 
> That's been like that for months too and nobody's complained. If there was an issue a mod had with my TV model being there I'd be happy to remove it.



That would be my guess as well. But some are letter-of-the-law people.


----------



## lrstevens421




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Macfan424* /forum/post/12857406
> 
> 
> Clearly, I'm not as discerning as the frequent posters here, but I just saw Aeon Flux and have a hard time understanding how it misses the Gold. It's as demo quality as any Blu-Ray I've seen, and I seen mostly highly ranked ones. Maybe I was too dazzled by the vision of Charlize dashing about in tight fitting costumes (or less) to notice any faults, but the detail was amazing. I could even see her fingerprints in one scene. Heck, I can barely see _my own_ fingerprints!



I agree, I think Aeon Flux should be bumped up as well. The contrast is amazing and the black levels are excellent. IMO, it's eye candy from start to finish. It should be placed no lower than mid tier 1.


Sony KDL-52XBR4

Panasonic BD30

Viewing 1080p24 @ 10ft. away.


----------



## SuprSlow

I did a little more clean-up. Deleted all of the "NEW/UP/DOWN" tags except the latest additions, added a few more links to reviews, and corrected some more mistakes (I must really suck







).


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Macfan424* /forum/post/12857406
> 
> 
> Clearly, I'm not as discerning as the frequent posters here, but I just saw Aeon Flux and have a hard time understanding how it misses the Gold. It's as demo quality as any Blu-Ray I've seen, and I seen mostly highly ranked ones. Maybe I was too dazzled by the vision of Charlize dashing about in tight fitting costumes (or less) to notice any faults, but the detail was amazing. I could even see her fingerprints in one scene. Heck, I can barely see _my own_ fingerprints!
> 
> 
> Anyway, I also agree with the recent questioning of Ocean's Thirteen's placement. In addition to everything else mentioned, to my eyes it suffers from severe black crush. How these two discs can occupy the same tier is beyond me, but, again, I admit I may not be as well qualified to judge as others here. Still, I'd nominate Aeon Flux for Gold and Ocean's Thirteen for Copper (Bronze at best).
> 
> 
> Pioneer Kuro 5080HD (50"; 768p @ 72Hz)
> 
> Panasonic BD30 (1080p/24)
> 
> Viewing Distance: 9 ft.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lrstevens421* /forum/post/12858121
> 
> 
> I agree, I think Aeon Flux should be bumped up as well. The contrast is amazing and the black levels are excellent. IMO, it's eye candy from start to finish. It should be placed no lower than mid tier 1.
> 
> 
> Sony KDL-52XBR4
> 
> Panasonic BD30
> 
> Viewing 1080p24 @ 10ft. away.



I will definitely "third" the nomination to move Aeon Flux up to Tier 1.










JVC RS1 1080p, 9 foot wide screen, Pioneer Elite HD1 -> 1080p/24, 1.5 screen widths viewing distance.


----------



## tingham

Well..I watched Bikini Destination: Triple Fantasy the other night, and I don't know why they called this production "BIKINI". All of the models were only wearing the bottom half of the bikini, for the most part. And alot of models had no bikini's whatsoever after discarding them..LOL.


It had some very good pic quality on most of the scenes. The models were ok..nothing that would make you hit the skip button on your remote. I don't quite know how to categorize this disc. If you like alot of T&A in HD you might put this in tier1...probably in the middle.


It's just a bunch of models telling you about their lives, and where their fantasy picture shoot would take place. They had some very nice close up shots of you know what, in all it's hd glory..LOL. Most of the scenes are in the desert, beach, and poolside. Overall..I liked it..what man wouldn't? If it can be found on the cheap..i recommend it.


----------



## bplewis24

So, I watched about an hour of Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End last night. Even having already seen the first two films, I am *very* impressed.


The first 15 minutes or so is at night in very low-lit conditions and it there is heavy amounts of grain in most shots. The detail doesn't suffer much, though and the grain is preserved very well. Then after that the PQ is pretty incredible. The shots on the ships, in Davey Jones' Locker, and coming back are all second-to-none. In short, I pretty much agree with the current placement.


Hopefully after I finish this one I'll get to Mr Brooks over the weekend.


Brandon


----------



## Xylon

Aeon Flux Blu-ray version?


Do we factor obvious macroblocking in the PQ thread











Just saying.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Xylon* /forum/post/12861467
> 
> 
> Aeon Flux Blu-ray version?
> 
> 
> Do we factor obvious macroblocking in the PQ thread
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just saying.



Yes. Post the time.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tingham* /forum/post/12860509
> 
> 
> Well..I watched Bikini Destination: Triple Fantasy the other night, and I don't know why they called this production "BIKINI". All of the models were only wearing the bottom half of the bikini, for the most part. And alot of models had no bikini's whatsoever after discarding them.


----------



## Xylon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/12861960
> 
> 
> Yes. Post the time.



Time? Not necessary. You guys can figure that out.

Start here then move on to the next pages for more blocky Aeon Flux Blu-ray using Mpeg-2 encode. The blocking and artifacts are too obvious to be ignored. and YES you can see them while in motion.


Suprised that some people with 92" and higher projector screens and calibrated PJs can't see them. 40" + flat panels I can ignore (pretty much ANYTHING will look good in that small screen) but not the PJ owners.


You know I don't just make comments on PQ without objective proof.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Xylon* /forum/post/12862155
> 
> 
> Time? Not necessary. You guys can figure that out.



I generally like mysteries, but why not just post the time and save us the time that it'll take to decipher what you mean?











> Quote:
> [ Start here then move on to the next pages for more blocky Aeon Flux Blu-ray using Mpeg-2 encode. The blocking and artifacts are too obvious to be ignored. and YES you can see them while in motion.
> 
> 
> Suprised that some people with 92" and higher projector screens and calibrated PJs can't see them. 40" + flat panels I can ignore (pretty much ANYTHING will look good in that small screen) but not the PJ owners.
> 
> 
> You know I don't just make comments on PQ without objective proof.



I appreciate your efforts on this, but I really don't think sending us to another thread to scroll through several pages is going to cut it.


Could you *please* just summarize and provide us with timecodes and a description of the artifacts?


----------



## obxdiver

I noticed that "_Home of the Brave_" was not rated.

I just received this movie from Netflix

This is my first "rating" post in this thread.


I have watched several of the movies in Tier-0.


I would rate this movie at the bottom of Tier-1.

Film grain is evident, but not over emphasized.

Colors are vivid.

There is a softness to the video, and that is my reason for going to the bottom of Tier-1

The movie has the DTS-HD MA track, but my Panny BD10 only passes the core DTS.

However, the battle scenes had excellent, enveloping surround information.

The bullets were flying all over the room.


My Equipment

Panny BD10 BD player running FW 2.4

7.1 Analog outs to a Lexicon DC1 (modded by Shawn Fogg to add 8 channel analog inputs)

HDMI video out @1080i to a Lumagen HDQ video processor

Lumagen 1080i video out to a 65" Mits CRT Rear Projection with 9" CRT's and professionally ISF calibrated. (Model WS-65813)

Viewing Distance 15 feet


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Xylon* /forum/post/12861467
> 
> 
> Aeon Flux Blu-ray version?



Is the HD-DVD version a different encode?


Seriously, I don't the answer. I have not actually viewed the Blu-ray version, only the HD-DVD version, so perhaps I was making assumptions that I shouldn't have been making.



> Quote:
> Do we factor obvious macroblocking in the PQ thread
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just saying.



Don't be a prick about it.


Just saying.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Yep, looks like HD-DVD and Blu-ray versions of Aeon Flux are different encodes, so I can't comment on the Blu-ray version.


----------



## lgans316

ENTER THE DRAGON - Besides the Jaggies solid PQ for a 35 year old flick. Should be top of Tier 3 above ROBOCOP. Can someone move Harry Potter-1 from bottom of Tier-3 to mid of Tier 2 ?


----------



## mp3junkie

Again I am asking whoever runs this thread to review Spiderman 3 and consider placing it in Tier 0 where it belongs. I have given so many reasons why this movie is of the elite in terms of PQ, but most don't agree and will not give it the time of day for consideration. SM3 is too low and should be moved up based on how sharp this picture is and with little to no grain present. This picture is just pristine and nothing else can be said.


___________________

Sharp 52" LCD - Calibrated

PS3 via HDMI cables

Viewing range - 8ft.


----------



## lgans316

I agree.


Requesting AustinSTI to do the following


1) Place SM3 on bottom of Tier 0 or top of Tier 1.

2) Place Harry Potter 1 of mid of Tier 2.

3) Place Enter the Dragon on top of Tier 3.

4) Place Harry Potter 3 above Harry Potter 4.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mp3junkie* /forum/post/12863316
> 
> 
> Again I am asking whoever runs this thread to review Spiderman 3 and consider placing it in Tier 0 where it belongs. I have given so many reasons why this movie is of the elite in terms of PQ, but most don't agree and will not give it the time of day for consideration. SM3 is too low and should be move up based on how sharp this picture is and with little to no grain present. This picture is just pristine and nothing else can be said.



I happen to think Spiderman 3 is about where it belongs. No way do I think it's better than Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer. The detail in night scenes was relatively great, but day scenes were about top quarter of Tier 1. I think the placement is pretty good.


What titles do you think it's better than that are already above it?


PS3->1080p24->46XBR4 (8 feet)


Brandon


----------



## lrstevens421




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12862620
> 
> 
> Yep, looks like HD-DVD and Blu-ray versions of Aeon Flux are different encodes, so I can't comment on the Blu-ray version.



Geesh, I was going off my HD-DVD version as well. Didn't realize they have different encodes. I do have the Blu-ray version as well (still in the wrapper). I'll be happy to watch again. If someone can post a time stamp for the macro blocking I'll watch for it.


----------



## mp3junkie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/12863466
> 
> 
> I happen to think Spiderman 3 is about where it belongs. No way do I think it's better than Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer. The detail in night scenes was relatively great, but day scenes were about top quarter of Tier 1. I think the placement is pretty good.
> 
> 
> What titles do you think it's better than that are already above it?
> 
> 
> PS3->1080p24->46XBR4 (8 feet)
> 
> 
> Brandon



One comes to mind very quickly and that is - Casino Royale. Although CR looked good, IMO it was grainy at times especially during the first action scenes which was a little distracting.


----------



## chris0




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mp3junkie* /forum/post/12863709
> 
> 
> One comes to mind very quickly and that is - Casino Royale. Although CR looked good, IMO it was grainy at times especially during the first action scenes which was a little distracting.



If it's still greatly detailed, has popping colors and no artifacting, EE, ringing, etc...why does grain make it lesser quality?


And the first action scenes were supposed to be like that. If a movie had a dream sequence and was shot in that hazy, dream-like soft filter style, would you rate it lower because of it?


----------



## Mr Man

I just clicked on Blade Runner & its the HD DVD.


----------



## Xylon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12862620
> 
> 
> Yep, looks like HD-DVD and Blu-ray versions of Aeon Flux are different encodes, so I can't comment on the Blu-ray version.



Rob I tought you were a regular subscriber to my thread from the beginning.


Blu-ray = 14.00 GB Mpeg-2 - that's right. That's the file size on the sucker.


HD DVD = 15.80 GB VC-1


With your HT setup (I have seen you HT pix) the artifacting and macroblocking should be more pronounced on the BD version.


----------



## Xylon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lrstevens421* /forum/post/12863494
> 
> 
> Geesh, I was going off my HD-DVD version as well. Didn't realize they have different encodes. I do have the Blu-ray version as well (still in the wrapper). I'll be happy to watch again. If someone can post a time stamp for the macro blocking I'll watch for it.



No need for specific time stamps. _Obvious_ macroblocking occurs every time there is a lot of movement in a scene (ex. fight scenes).


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/12863466
> 
> 
> I happen to think Spiderman 3 is about where it belongs. No way do I think it's better than Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer. The detail in night scenes was relatively great, but day scenes were about top quarter of Tier 1. I think the placement is pretty good.
> 
> 
> What titles do you think it's better than that are already above it?
> 
> 
> PS3->1080p24->46XBR4 (8 feet)
> 
> 
> Brandon





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mp3junkie* /forum/post/12863709
> 
> 
> One comes to mind very quickly and that is - Casino Royale. Although CR looked good, IMO it was grainy at times especially during the first action scenes which was a little distracting.



I agree that Silver Surfer looks better than SM3; I think they both should be at the bottom of Tier 0, with SS higher than SM3.


I also agree that SM3 looks better than CR. I think CR should be moved down to the top of Tier 1. CR to me looks just a bit soft, especially the first part of the movie that was filmed in the Bahamas. I believe that the people involved in making the movie have acknowledged that filtering was used; it seems particularly obvious to me in the fight "outside" the embassy in that early section of the movie which was obviously filmed on a sound stage, rather than outdoors.


----------



## Macfan424




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Xylon* /forum/post/12865315
> 
> 
> No need for specific time stamps. _Obvious_ macroblocking occurs every time there is a lot of movement in a scene (ex. fight scenes).



Not _"obvious"_ to me at all. But I'm a neophyte here, so I guess I have to take your word for it.










Can't go back to look for it as it was a Netflix rental.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Xylon* /forum/post/12865307
> 
> 
> Rob I tought you were a regular subscriber to my thread from the beginning.
> 
> 
> Blu-ray = 14.00 GB Mpeg-2 - that's right. That's the file size on the sucker.
> 
> 
> HD DVD = 15.80 GB VC-1
> 
> 
> With your HT setup (I have seen you HT pix) the artifacting and macroblocking should be more pronounced on the BD version.



I don't know about that. Either way, I didn't recall the screen cap comparisons with Aeon Flux. I own the HD DVD (it was one of the early titles that I bought).


----------



## 1FAST951




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lrstevens421* /forum/post/12858121
> 
> 
> I agree, I think Aeon Flux should be bumped up as well. The contrast is amazing and the black levels are excellent. IMO, it's eye candy from start to finish. It should be placed no lower than mid tier 1.
> 
> 
> Sony KDL-52XBR4
> 
> Panasonic BD30
> 
> Viewing 1080p24 @ 10ft. away.



I just watched this and completely agree with a mid tier one placement. As far as macroblocking.....I think there are few other threads that confirm the fact that in a lot of cases this is caused by the components being used.....NOTHING to do with how expensive they are, just the fact that some are more prone to it than others.


For the record, I watched the movie twice last W/E, as it was a Netflix rental and I got "stuck" with it over the W/E. I saw no macroblocking, my only issue with it was film grain and a bit of softness at times but not to the point that it should be placed lower than tier 1.


----------



## Macfan424




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *1FAST951* /forum/post/12867929
> 
> 
> I just watched this and completely agree with a mid tier one placement. As far as macroblocking.....I think there are few other threads that confirm the fact that in a lot of cases this is caused by the components being used.....NOTHING to do with how expensive they are, just the fact that some are more prone to it than others.
> 
> 
> For the record, I watched the movie twice last W/E, as it was a Netflix rental and I got "stuck" with it over the W/E. I saw no macroblocking, my only issue with it was film grain and a bit of softness at times but not to the point that it should be placed lower than tier 1.



I hadn't read the other threads, but did wonder about the equipment issue as I'm aware that some equipment exacerbates macroblocking more than others. As you said, it has nothing to do with quality, just technology quirks.


I watched Anon Flux twice as well and saw no suggestion of macroblocking on my Pioneer 5080HD.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12865870
> 
> 
> I agree that Silver Surfer looks better than SM3; *I think they both should be at the bottom of Tier 0, with SS higher than SM3.*
> 
> 
> I also agree that SM3 looks better than CR. *I think CR should be moved down to the top of Tier 1.* CR to me looks just a bit soft, especially the first part of the movie that was filmed in the Bahamas. I believe that the people involved in making the movie have acknowledged that filtering was used; it seems particularly obvious to me in the fight "outside" the embassy in that early section of the movie which was obviously filmed on a sound stage, rather than outdoors.



I'm on board with that. It doesn't really matter to me which movie is placed where because they're all in the same relative vicinity. But that sounds about right.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Macfan424* /forum/post/12868236
> 
> 
> I hadn't read the other threads, but did wonder about the equipment issue as I'm aware that some equipment exacerbates macroblocking more than others. As you said, it has nothing to do with quality, just technology quirks.
> 
> 
> I watched Anon Flux twice as well and saw no suggestion of macroblocking on my Pioneer 5080HD.



The problem with the equipment caveat is that most of this was taken from digital screengrabs straight from the source. It eliminates the potential for display/calibration/etc issues, assuming it's done the right way. And you'll notice that the members in those threads do try and make sure they've ironed out any potential mis-steps before a definitive verdict is given.


Nevertheless, the question to me is how far should a movie be lowered for slight macroblocking? Obviously it could never been in Tier 0, but I don't think anybody nominated it for that placement.


Brandon


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/12863367
> 
> 
> I agree.
> 
> 
> Requesting AustinSTI to do the following
> 
> 
> 1) Place SM3 on bottom of Tier 0 or top of Tier 1.
> 
> 2) Place Harry Potter 1 of mid of Tier 2.
> 
> 3) Place Enter the Dragon on top of Tier 3.
> 
> 4) Place Harry Potter 3 above Harry Potter 4.



Can someone please take care of this request ?


----------



## Lil' Louie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/12863466
> 
> *I happen to think Spiderman 3 is about where it belongs. No way do I think it's better than Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer. The detail in night scenes was relatively great, but day scenes were about top quarter of Tier 1. I think the placement is pretty good.*
> 
> 
> What titles do you think it's better than that are already above it?
> 
> 
> PS3->1080p24->46XBR4 (8 feet)
> 
> 
> Brandon



Agreed! At this point, it's just picking nits.


----------



## mp3junkie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/12870592
> 
> 
> Can someone please take care of this request ?



Good luck my friend. Have been trying for quite awhile now.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mp3junkie* /forum/post/12870696
> 
> 
> Good luck my friend. Have been trying for quite awhile now.



Yeah. I am exhausted and giving up. May God bless this fishy Tier thread.


----------



## bplewis24

I'd like to thank the mods/admins of this thread for putting up with the impatient and volunteering their time to do these thankless tasks.


Brandon


----------



## lrstevens421




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/12870853
> 
> 
> I'd like to thank the mods/admins of this thread for putting up with the impatient and volunteering their time to do these thankless tasks.
> 
> 
> Brandon



Word!


Geesh.


----------



## Lil' Louie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/12870853
> 
> 
> I'd like to thank the mods/admins of this thread for putting up with the impatient and volunteering their time to do these thankless tasks.
> 
> 
> Brandon


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lrstevens421* /forum/post/12871005
> 
> 
> Word!
> 
> 
> Geesh.



Confession: I bought Stomp the Yard







(amazon 50% off)



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lil' Louie* /forum/post/12871042



That smilie made me LOL


Brandon


----------



## chris0




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/12870853
> 
> 
> I'd like to thank the mods/admins of this thread for putting up with the impatient and volunteering their time to do these thankless tasks.
> 
> 
> Brandon



What, they shouldn't hop to it the moment 2 people post they want changes?


----------



## OhioMike

WOW...I am as dedicated to movies and hi-def as anyone, but this is supposed to be FUN. Gans: I think you're taking this a little too seriously and maybe too personally. Not all requests for changes will be made and most will take more than 2 people. Lighten up a bit and enjoy the movies. I don't agree with all the placements but it doesn't change my opinion about the films I like or keep me up at night.

The ops do this in their spare time and receive no compensation and very little praise (thanks guys!!) for their efforts...they could just say the hell with it and stop all together, how would that be for you??


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Guys, I am going through now and moving a bunch of titles per the posts of the last several days.


Please bear with me.


----------



## <><

flashpoint

definately a top tier title 0/1


----------



## tbonetommygun

just a question but i see most sites giving at world's end 4 star reviews for video quality, so should it really be in tier 0? Dead Man's chest supposedly crumbles the picture of it ( havent seen AWE but i have seen DMC)



but i ( and the reviewers) could be wrong.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OhioMike* /forum/post/12871462
> 
> 
> WOW...I am as dedicated to movies and hi-def as anyone, but this is supposed to be FUN. Gans: I think you're taking this a little too seriously and maybe too personally. Not all requests for changes will be made and most will take more than 2 people. Lighten up a bit and enjoy the movies. I don't agree with all the placements but it doesn't change my opinion about the films I like or keep me up at night.
> 
> The ops do this in their spare time and receive no compensation and very little praise (thanks guys!!) for their efforts...they could just say the hell with it and stop all together, how would that be for you??



My genuine request post has been deleted. It contains no abuse. I was just frustrated with my request being ignored. There is no need to create 5 other posts mocking me. Btw do you agree the PQ of Robocop being better than Harry Potter-1 ?


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Ok, moved the following titles:


Spider-man 3 moved to Tier 0


Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer moved to Tier 0


The Condemned moved to Tier 2


Robocop moved to mid Tier 3


The Departed moved up a few spots in Tier 2


Pathfinder placed in Tier 2


Oceans 13 moved down to Tier 3


Bikini Destinations: Triple Fantasy placed in Tier 1


Home of the Brave placed in Tier 1


Enter the Dragon placed in Tier 3


Harry Potter 1 (sorcerer's stone is HP 1, right?) moved up to mid Tier 2



The Simpson's Movie moved down to Tier 1 (due to the ringing).


Please let me know if I have missed anything, or made a mistake in the placements. Did other Harry Potter movies need to be moved?


----------



## Kroenen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/12870760
> 
> 
> Yeah. I am exhausted and giving up. May God bless this fishy Tier thread.



You're an HD DVD apologist that I've seen bash BD several times post WB's decision; your SIG is anti BD and now you're calling the Tier thread "fishy?"


----------



## lgans316

Yeah. That's why I own 49 Blu-rays and 20 HD DVDs.


----------



## Kroenen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/12871982
> 
> 
> Yeah. That's why I own 49 Blu-rays and 20 HD DVDs.



You're post history speaks for itself.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fronn* /forum/post/12817758
> 
> 
> Also some wonky placements that jumped out at me:
> 
> 
> Mr. Brooks should be upper Tier 1, in my opinion. If Shoot Em Up is properly placed (which I think it is), then Mr Brooks deserves to be below it. Mr Brooks is a good looking title, but it doesn't have enough pop and depth to be a Tier 0 in my book.
> 
> 
> Rescue Dawn should be mid-upper Tier 1, in my opinion. There are many movies below it offering more clarity. It's a very well done movie, but it's not got the detail and sharpness that Shoot Em Up or HP: OOTP has (both of which I think are properly placed). I'd put it somewhere below Sunshine but maybe above Hellboy...
> 
> 
> Blade Runner definitely should be somewhere in Tier 1, at least. If Close Encounters is low Tier 1, then Blade Runner deserves to be well above that, but I'd settle for right above it. The Clarity and depth of Blade Runner is superior to Close Encounters (both of which are outstanding examples of what can be done with that era of film though).
> 
> 
> As far as titles in the unsorted list...
> 
> 
> A Christmas story is mid tier 4, judging by the titles around there. It's soft and looks old -- no complaints about the transfer though. It is superior to the DVD, but nothing I'd show off to friends to give them a push in buying a player.
> 
> 
> A Clockwork Orange is probably low Tier 3. It looks better than good fellas and is better than the DVD. It looks good for it's age, but not a show-off title.
> 
> 
> Edward Scissorhand should be low Tier 2 or upper tier 3. It's colorful and sharp enough that it could possibly be used to impress a few people, but nothing amazing. It's a good transfer and I didn't notice any glaring artifacts.
> 
> 
> Enter the Dragon should be Tier 5... it's one of those 1080i titles with stair stepping all over. Looks half resolution.
> 
> 
> Man on Fire should be upper Tier 1 or possibly low Tier 0. It's truly a fantastic presentation of the movie. I did not see any artifacts. The clarity, depth and visible detail are outstanding.
> 
> 
> Oldboy should be mid/low Tier 2, maybe right below Payback. It's a good transfer and has a decent amount of clarity/detail. The way the movie was filmed seems like it really prevents a lot of pop, but it does it's job.
> 
> 
> Running with Scissors I'd put around mid/upper Tier 2. Colorful enough, clear enough, and it has enough detail... but it just isn't competition for some of the better titles.
> 
> 
> All these are based on my viewings with a 60" 1080p TV at about 9 FT and/or a 37" 1080p monitor at about 6 FT.
> 
> 
> A side note: Disturbia is ranked, but also listed as unranked. Same with Bubble.



I will move some of these titles around tomorrow, especially Blade Runner.


----------



## lgans316

Hi Rob,


How about placing Harry Potter-1 above ROBOCOP or somewhere in Tier 2 and AZKABAN above Goblet of Fire ?


At last. Thank you all for servicing my request. No offense. My apologies for any hard feeling caused.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/12872035
> 
> 
> Hi Rob,
> 
> 
> How about placing Harry Potter-1 above ROBOCOP or somewhere in Tier 2 and AZKABAN above Goblet of Fire ?
> 
> 
> At last. Thank you all for servicing my request. No offense. My apologies for any hard feeling caused.



I thought I put Harry Potter 1 in Tier 2?


What is the full title of Harry Potter 1? Perhaps I moved the wrong one?


----------



## lgans316

Thanks Rob. You have placed it correctly now. HP-1 = Sorcerer's Stone.


----------



## tleavit

Watched "Meet the robinsons" and I would place it low on tier 0, just about flawless movie like the other animated tier 0's like Cars and Rat. Very good movie.


Panny AE1000 14' to 133" screen played by the ps3.


Edit: I didnt see it there looking the first time before posting this but its perfectly placed right now.


----------



## James A. McGahee

I read somewhere about a great demo movie that perhaps starts out with a small screen perhaps SD and breaks into a big high def screen and brings a big WOW from viewers when it occurs. ICan't remember the details. I've been lookin for an hour for that move but can't find it. Anybody?


----------



## jonnyozero3

The Simpsons movie?


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbonetommygun* /forum/post/12871804
> 
> 
> just a question but i see most sites giving at world's end 4 star reviews for video quality, so should it really be in tier 0? Dead Man's chest supposedly crumbles the picture of it ( havent seen AWE but i have seen DMC)
> 
> 
> 
> but i ( and the reviewers) could be wrong.



Glad you brought this up again. I finished watching it this morning (I have to find something to fill my time on weekends now that football season is over







). Anyway, I'm really impressed by this title. Yeah it's grainy and a bit softer in the night time shots (which the last third is pretty much exclusively so), but I still think it holds up pretty well. The last battle scene is very detailed.


I think it's possible other titles could outshine it, and I can't wait to see Shoot 'Em Up and Mr. Brooks is in the living room waiting to be watched so it's possible those titles could surpass it. However I think it definitely belongs in Tier 0.


Brandon


----------



## bplewis24

Now, for a disagreement I have:


I rented Waiting--mostly to see Emanuelle Chriqui, and very disappointed that she played a very minor role in this not-so-great movie--and I don't see how it could be placed in Tier 5. I vaguely recall that this was recently discussed, but IMO this is penalizing the movie too much.


I get it. I understand that there is some sort of post-processing enhancement being done here. Is it DNR? I don't know, but whatever the hell they did gives each person a clay-face. It was definitely a mistake. However the rest of the PQ, black levels, shadow detail, flesh tones, color palette, etc, are all very well done. The detail and depth suffers as a result of the digital tweaking, but I don't think this film should be lower than the very bottom of Tier 3.


Also watched Stranger than Fiction tonight. Very enjoyable flick and pretty good quality for one of those early MPEG-2 films. Tier 2 seems fine. This definitely has good PQ, and proves that Tiers 0-2 are justifiable purchases for HD material.


Brandon


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/12872852
> 
> 
> Glad you brought this up again. I finished watching it this morning (I have to find something to fill my time on weekends now that football season is over
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ). Anyway, I'm really impressed by this title. Yeah it's grainy and a bit softer in the night time shots (which the last third is pretty much exclusively so), but I still think it holds up pretty well. The last battle scene is very detailed.
> 
> 
> I think it's possible other titles could outshine it, and I can't wait to see Shoot 'Em Up and Mr. Brooks is in the living room waiting to be watched so it's possible those titles could surpass it. However I think it definitely belongs in Tier 0.
> 
> 
> Brandon



I go back and forth on POTC3. It definitely belongs in Tier 0, but it is definitely not flawless. One scene that particularly sticks in my mind as problematic is when all the characters are on a sandspit in very bright sunshine with numerous ships' masts on the horizon; these masts are a mess.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12871955
> 
> 
> Ok, moved the following titles:
> 
> 
> Spider-man 3 moved to Tier 0
> 
> 
> Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer moved to Tier 0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please let me know if I have missed anything, or made a mistake in the placements. Did other Harry Potter movies need to be moved?



I'm very happy to see those changes, Rob.










What is your feeling about moving CR down to the very top of Tier 1?


----------



## agrsiv95




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *James A. McGahee* /forum/post/12872660
> 
> 
> I read somewhere about a great demo movie that perhaps starts out with a small screen perhaps SD and breaks into a big high def screen and brings a big WOW from viewers when it occurs. ICan't remember the details. I've been lookin for an hour for that move but can't find it. Anybody?



The Incredibles (Pixar) Has that effect.


Jeremy


----------



## sweetmisery

So you guys dont advise Simpsons for a GREAT experience?


----------



## Donnie Drunko

I posted this awhile back and it seems to have been ignored...


I would rank UNDERDOG below Ghost Rider. I have not seen many Silver Ranked movies yet so thats all I can go by. It was soft in spots. It did have a nice cartoonish color scheme that popped from time to time.


Samsung 71 1920x1080P-24

40 inch

PS3 Via HDMI

7 Feet Viewing Distance


I have now seen Goal! The Dream Begins which is below Ghost Rider. I would place UnderDog between those two somewhere. It was clearly not as well done as Ghost Rider but much better than Goal.Underdog is a unranked movie at the moment.


Darko Out!


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Moved the following:


Blade Runner up to Tier 1


A Christmas Story has been added to Tier 4


A Clockwork Orange has been added to Tier 3


Edward Scissorhands has been added to Tier 3


Man on Fire has been added to Tier 1


Oldboy added to Tier 2


Running with Scissors added to Tier 2


Casino Royale moved to the bottom of Tier 0


There is a vote to put Rescue Dawn in mid Tier 1. It is currently in Tier 0. Anyone else agree it should be moved down to Tier 1?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Donnie Drunko* /forum/post/12874261
> 
> 
> I posted this awhile back and it seems to have been ignored...
> 
> 
> I would rank UNDERDOG below Ghost Rider. I have not seen many Silver Ranked movies yet so thats all I can go by. It was soft in spots. It did have a nice cartoonish color scheme that popped from time to time.
> 
> 
> Samsung 71 1920x1080P-24
> 
> 40 inch
> 
> PS3 Via HDMI
> 
> 7 Feet Viewing Distance
> 
> 
> I have now seen Goal! The Dream Begins which is below Ghost Rider. I would place UnderDog between those two somewhere. It was clearly not as well done as Ghost Rider but much better than Goal.Underdog is a unranked movie at the moment.
> 
> 
> Darko Out!



Thanks, will add the above sometime today.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/12872878
> 
> 
> Now, for a disagreement I have:
> 
> 
> I rented Waiting--mostly to see Emanuelle Chriqui, and very disappointed that she played a very minor role in this not-so-great movie--and I don't see how it could be placed in Tier 5. I vaguely recall that this was recently discussed, but IMO this is penalizing the movie too much.
> 
> 
> I get it. I understand that there is some sort of post-processing enhancement being done here. Is it DNR? I don't know, but whatever the hell they did gives each person a clay-face. It was definitely a mistake. However the rest of the PQ, black levels, shadow detail, flesh tones, color palette, etc, are all very well done. The detail and depth suffers as a result of the digital tweaking, but I don't think this film should be lower than the very bottom of Tier 3.
> 
> 
> Also watched Stranger than Fiction tonight. Very enjoyable flick and pretty good quality for one of those early MPEG-2 films. Tier 2 seems fine. This definitely has good PQ, and proves that Tiers 0-2 are justifiable purchases for HD material.
> 
> 
> Brandon



I _really_ enjoyed Stranger than Fiction! Very good movie.


As to Waiting (I haven't seen it) does anyone else agree it should be moved up to Tier 3 from Tier 4?


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12875123
> 
> 
> I _really_ enjoyed Stranger than Fiction! Very good movie.
> 
> 
> As to Waiting (I haven't seen it) does anyone else agree it should be moved up to Tier 3 from Tier 4?



It's currently at the bottom of Tier 5! Going by each Tier description, I would say it belongs in Tier 3. Comparing it to other titles in that thread, I'd say at the very bottom is fine. But by all accounts it's a big step up from the DVD version, it's just those clay-faces that are pretty ugly to look at. I assume it's DNR or something.


Brandon


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mp3junkie* /forum/post/12870696
> 
> 
> Good luck my friend. Have been trying for quite awhile now.



You already admitted that most people disagree that Spiderman 3 should be in Tier 0.......yet you're still mad that they're not putting it there for you. If more people started agreeing with you then it would be moved. They can't just move a title into Tier 1 based on the opinion of 1 person.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbonetommygun* /forum/post/12871804
> 
> 
> just a question but i see most sites giving at world's end 4 star reviews for video quality, so should it really be in tier 0? *Dead Man's chest supposedly crumbles the picture of it ( havent seen AWE but i have seen DMC)*
> 
> 
> 
> but i ( and the reviewers) could be wrong.



I personally like the picture on DMC better than AWE just because it's a lot brighter and more colourful........but from a technical standpoint, they're definitly equal.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12873935
> 
> 
> I'm very happy to see those changes, Rob.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What is your feeling about moving CR down to the very top of Tier 1?*



I'd agree with that as well. It is a fanastic looking disc but it's not Tier 0 in my opinion.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sweetmisery* /forum/post/12874191
> 
> 
> So you guys dont advise Simpsons for a GREAT experience?



I think it looks great! It's quite a difference going from SD 4x3 (tv show) to HD 2.35:1 (movie).


----------



## lrstevens421




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12875029
> 
> 
> 
> There is a vote to put Rescue Dawn in mid Tier 1. It is currently in Tier 0. Anyone else agree it should be moved down to Tier 1?



Ok I thought it was just me. Mid-tier 1 would be a proper placement for this one.


Sony 52XBR4

Panasonic BD30

Viewing 1080p24 @ 10ft. away


----------



## vicw

Great thread. I have just one small concern with it. I am finding it very difficult to read the information in the Gold, Silver and Bronze sections, due to the light colors of the fonts. For me, a plain old black font for the data would be much preferred.


----------



## Deviation




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/12876296
> 
> 
> I'd agree with that as well. It is a fanastic looking disc but it's not Tier 0 in my opinion.



Why? What is Casino Royale missing to be Tier 0 material? I think it belongs there.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Deviation* /forum/post/12877643
> 
> 
> Why? What is Casino Royale missing to be Tier 0 material? I think it belongs there.



It's just not quite as sharp as other Tier 0 titles I've seen.


----------



## RBFC




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vicw* /forum/post/12877204
> 
> 
> Great thread. I have just one small concern with it. I am finding it very difficult to read the information in the Gold, Silver and Bronze sections, due to the light colors of the fonts. For me, a plain old black font for the data would be much preferred.



Try the different style options on the main forum page at the very bottom. Those will completely change the look of the type, etc.


Lee


----------



## DomNY

Greetings,


Just saw that Memoirs of a Geisha has not been rated yet. I have watched it twice and think it should be a solid Tier 1. I saw no annoying artifacts, color was great and sharpness was uniformly excellent throughout.


JVC RS1 Projector

Panny 10A BD Player with Ver 2.4 firmware

92" Greyhawk Screen @ 11 feet

Regards,

Dom


----------



## lgans316

ROCKY BALBOA should be in bottom of Tier-1. Watched in both 37" and 58" Panny Plasma. Very high bit rate encode with no visible compression artifacts and consistently sharp PQ. Awesome job by SONY.


----------



## Lil' Louie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Deviation* /forum/post/12877643
> 
> 
> Why? What is Casino Royale missing to be Tier 0 material? I think it belongs there.



I think so too. In fact, I think the PQ on it is far better than on SM3. CR's PQ is much cleaner and crisper, and has less BG noise than SM3, IMO; but, they are both in relatively close to each other, and that is good enough for me.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/12879307
> 
> 
> ROCKY BALBOA should be in bottom of Tier-1. Watched in both 37" and 58" Panny Plasma. Very high bit rate encode with no visible compression artifacts and consistently sharp PQ. Awesome job by SONY.



I found the PQ to be closer to The Transporter, HHGTTG, and Eragon. Much better than their SD counterparts, but not the same quality as the higher ranked titiles, IMO.


Viewed on Sony KDS-55A3000 - PS3 1080/24p @ 7ft:


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/12879307
> 
> 
> ROCKY BALBOA should be in bottom of Tier-1. Watched in both 37" and 58" Panny Plasma. Very high bit rate encode with no visible compression artifacts and consistently sharp PQ. Awesome job by SONY.



I've always said that I thought Rocky Balboa has incredible picture quality. I had to get them to bump it up awhile ago.


----------



## sweetmisery




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/12876316
> 
> 
> I think it looks great! It's quite a difference going from SD 4x3 (tv show) to HD 2.35:1 (movie).



Theres a number seem to be complaining about it not THAT good. But other sites states that it is even better than Ratatouille. But I might as well get it.


----------



## lrstevens421




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lrstevens421* /forum/post/12876562
> 
> 
> Ok I thought it was just me. Mid-tier 1 would be a proper placement for this one.
> 
> 
> Sony 52XBR4
> 
> Panasonic BD30
> 
> Viewing 1080p24 @ 10ft. away



Just watched Rescue Dawn for a second time, I would like to change my recommendation to high-tier 1, this film looked mostly excellent. I could see how this one could start a PQ vs. Director Intent debate. The detail in some of the outdoor scenes is draw dropping, dark scenes is where the image starts to look a little out of focus, but again I believe this is intentional.


Setup listed above in quote.


----------



## lgans316

Ignoring the usage of stock footage during the Intro, Rescue Dawn certainly deserves to be placed in bottom of Tier-0 or Top of Tier-1. The same applies to Rocky Balboa which should be placed in Tier-1.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Placed/Moved the following titles:


Memoirs of a Geisha was placed in Tier 1 (we need more votes on this title)


Waiting was moved to Tier 3


Underdog placed in Tier 2 (need more votes on this title)


Rescue Dawn moved down to Tier 1


----------



## lrstevens421

Thanks Rob.


----------



## Eurton18

Have there been any votes for where Resident Evil: Extinction should be. I'm thinking upper Tier 1 around Harry potter Order of the Phoenix.


50" Samsung 1080P DLP 1920x1080p sitting about 9 feet away


----------



## Russell_L

Here's another vote for 'Memoirs of a Geisha' for Tier 1!


Russell


Pioneer Kuro 50" PDP-5010FD at about 9 feet away

Pioneer BDP-95FD Blu-ray


----------



## DarkNessBear

So what is the best show off bluray?


I am getting my TV on Thursday and I want to show a movie that will absolutely blow everyone away.


I thought Planet Earth was like the best show off movie.

Also want something that will show off 120hz AMP perfectly. I am leaning towards Planet Earth or Ratatouille


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/12877915
> 
> 
> It's just not quite as sharp as other Tier 0 titles I've seen.



Yes, that is precisely what is wrong with CR; it is just a bit soft.


----------



## patrick99

Speaking of soft, what in the world is Santa Clause 3 doing in Tier 0?


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mp3junkie* /forum/post/12863316
> 
> 
> Again I am asking whoever runs this thread to review Spiderman 3 and consider placing it in Tier 0 where it belongs. I have given so many reasons why this movie is of the elite in terms of PQ, but most don't agree and will not give it the time of day for consideration. SM3 is too low and should be moved up based on how sharp this picture is and with little to no grain present. This picture is just pristine and nothing else can be said.
> 
> 
> ___________________
> 
> Sharp 52" LCD - Calibrated
> 
> PS3 via HDMI cables
> 
> Viewing range - 8ft.



Rob did this over the weekend. I originally placed SM3 in Tier 0 and it was moved down before Rob moved it back up.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/12863367
> 
> 
> I agree.
> 
> 
> Requesting AustinSTI to do the following
> 
> 
> 1) Place SM3 on bottom of Tier 0 or top of Tier 1.
> 
> 2) Place Harry Potter 1 of mid of Tier 2.
> 
> 3) Place Enter the Dragon on top of Tier 3.
> 
> 4) Place Harry Potter 3 above Harry Potter 4.



Again Rob Addressed this. Please include setup info in the future and specifics around why. It came across as you giving demands which we don't take kindly to.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chris0* /forum/post/12863915
> 
> 
> If it's still greatly detailed, has popping colors and no artifacting, EE, ringing, etc...why does grain make it lesser quality?
> 
> 
> And the first action scenes were supposed to be like that. If a movie had a dream sequence and was shot in that hazy, dream-like soft filter style, would you rate it lower because of it?



The Great Grain Debate...2008 edition.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mr Man* /forum/post/12865204
> 
> 
> I just clicked on Blade Runner & its the HD DVD.



Fixed



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12873935
> 
> 
> I'm very happy to see those changes, Rob.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your feeling about moving CR down to the very top of Tier 1?



I'd agree with it. It's bottom Tier 0 now...



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sweetmisery* /forum/post/12874191
> 
> 
> So you guys dont advise Simpsons for a GREAT experience?



Simpsons is a great experience. Can't go wrong in Tier 0 or Tier 1.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Donnie Drunko* /forum/post/12874261
> 
> 
> I posted this awhile back and it seems to have been ignored...
> 
> 
> I would rank UNDERDOG below Ghost Rider. I have not seen many Silver Ranked movies yet so thats all I can go by. It was soft in spots. It did have a nice cartoonish color scheme that popped from time to time.
> 
> 
> Samsung 71 1920x1080P-24
> 
> 40 inch
> 
> PS3 Via HDMI
> 
> 7 Feet Viewing Distance
> 
> 
> I have now seen Goal! The Dream Begins which is below Ghost Rider. I would place UnderDog between those two somewhere. It was clearly not as well done as Ghost Rider but much better than Goal.Underdog is a unranked movie at the moment.
> 
> 
> Darko Out!



Done - keep in mind we all (those managing the thread) have jobs, lives, kids, etc and this isn't our first priority. Just cause something doesn't happen immediately or even after a few days doesn't mean we won't get to it.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vicw* /forum/post/12877204
> 
> 
> Great thread. I have just one small concern with it. I am finding it very difficult to read the information in the Gold, Silver and Bronze sections, due to the light colors of the fonts. For me, a plain old black font for the data would be much preferred.



Sorry but on the black theme black text wouldn't appear which is what most (I believe) use. Because AVS's themes are pretty reverse of one another and because we don't have the ability to change colors based on themes displayed to users we've done the best we can to get colors to show for all. Sometimes they don't or are unclear.


----------



## teckademic

wow, there must be something wrong with my set because a lot of the titles that are in the tier 0, I would not of chosen for reference titles. I am using a ps3 connected to a samsung hls5687 watching at a distance of 8-9ft.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *teckademic* /forum/post/12882483
> 
> 
> wow, there must be something wrong with my set because a lot of the titles that are in the tier 0, I would not of chosen for reference titles. I am using a ps3 connected to a samsung hls5687 watching at a distance of 8-9ft.



Which titles would those be?


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Sorry but on the black theme black text wouldn't appear which is what most (I believe) use. Because AVS's themes are pretty reverse of one another and because we don't have the ability to change colors based on themes displayed to users we've done the best we can to get colors to show for all. Sometimes they don't or are unclear.



Text that is not specified is white with the AVSForum.com Black theme and black with the AVSForum.com Default theme. And non-specified text is yellow with AVSForum.com Retro. IOW, it changes to be visible as the theme changes. What creates the problem is that text whose color is *specified* remains that color regardless of the theme. And finding six colors that are _easy_ to read across the three themes is not possible. I eventually conceded and switched my theme to AVSForum.com Black.


A trick that I've used, and still do for one or two of the colors, is to highlight the text (like I was going to copy it) making it readily readable.


----------



## cdhender

Casino Royale is a solid Tier 1 title.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Based on additional comments from AustinSTI and others, I agree we should move CR to the top of Tier 1.


----------



## patrick99

Am I alone in thinking Rush Hour 3 is way too high? I would think somewhere in Tier 2 rather than high Tier 1 for this softish title.


----------



## OldCodger73

One could almost call this the yo-yo thread the way titles are bouncing up and down, but that's good as the more suggestions of where a title belongs should mean it finally gets to its proper spot.


One polite request please, when you quote will you please make sure the name of the title you're quoting about appears somewhere in the quote even if you have to add it yourself so everyone knows which one you're talking about. Thanks.


----------



## Kevin12586




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DarkNessBear* /forum/post/12881774
> 
> 
> So what is the best show off bluray?
> 
> 
> I am getting my TV on Thursday and I want to show a movie that will absolutely blow everyone away.
> 
> 
> I thought Planet Earth was like the best show off movie.
> 
> Also want something that will show off 120hz AMP perfectly. I am leaning towards Planet Earth or Ratatouille



See the first post in this thread. The movies are ranked from best to worst, PQ wise, based on user reviews.


----------



## cappyxavs

my buddy has a 27" sony crt tv with a dvi input. he tried to go from hdmi to dvi gets about 1 min of video then it quits. any suggestions?


he is using a hdmi to dvi adapter.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cappyxavs* /forum/post/12885258
> 
> 
> my buddy has a 27" sony crt tv with a dvi input. he tried to go from hdmi to dvi gets about 1 min of video then it quits. any suggestions?
> 
> 
> he is using a hdmi to dvi adapter.



Your buddy's TV needs to be HDCP-compliant. Early TVs with DVI did not have HDCP.


----------



## cappyxavs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/12885281
> 
> 
> Your buddy's TV needs to be HDCP-compliant. Early TVs with DVI did not have HDCP.



thanks i was affraid of this.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cappyxavs* /forum/post/12885598
> 
> 
> thanks i was affraid of this.



What is the model number?


----------



## hobbs47




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12884719
> 
> 
> Am I alone in thinking Rush Hour 3 is way too high? I would think somewhere in Tier 2 rather than high Tier 1 for this softish title.



Not alone,just in the minority.Most people seem to think it looks excellent.I agree that it looks very good and is a solid mid to lower tier 1 title.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cappyxavs* /forum/post/12885258
> 
> 
> my buddy has a 27" sony crt tv with a dvi input. he tried to go from hdmi to dvi gets about 1 min of video then it quits. any suggestions?
> 
> 
> he is using a hdmi to dvi adapter.



Component should work just fine so I'd recommend using that.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/12885008
> 
> 
> One could almost call this the yo-yo thread the way titles are bouncing up and down, but that's good as the more suggestions of where a title belongs should mean it finally gets to its proper spot.



We are having some discussions "behind the scenes" about this. We are considering requiring additional comments from other people before moving titles around (based on one person).


More details of this proposal to follow (hopefully SuprSlow or AustinSTI will chime in).


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12881889
> 
> 
> Speaking of soft, what in the world is Santa Clause 3 doing in Tier 0?



I agree with you there as well.


----------



## tleavit




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/12887197
> 
> 
> I agree with you there as well.



Well, it is about PQ and not the actual movies quality










I admit that my wife bought SC3 and they watched it but I refused to watch the movie so I cant rank it










PQ might be a 0

But the movie quality would be a 5


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/12885008
> 
> 
> One could almost call this the yo-yo thread the way titles are bouncing up and down, but that's good as the more suggestions of where a title belongs should mean it finally gets to its proper spot.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12886885
> 
> 
> We are having some discussions "behind the scenes" about this. We are considering requiring additional comments from other people before moving titles around (based on one person).
> 
> 
> More details of this proposal to follow (hopefully SuprSlow or AustinSTI will chime in).



Well, one idea we had was to add a "Needs More Input" section to our update posts. But I'll get to that in a second...


In response to some of the attitudes and insinuation that this is an "elitist" thread or that we only listen to certain posters, I can tell you that is most certainly not the case. Neither Rob, Austin, nor myself ignore anyone's input, given that it is properly qualified. By "qualified", I mean adhering to the guidelines listed in the first post (equipment, distance, etc.) and adding a little more detail to your posts than just saying "TitleABC is way too high, it was soft." Be specific, give us some idea about where it should be placed. But other than that, if you post your opinion, it is read and mostly certain given equal consideration in the placement/movement of titles. Period.


Here lies the problem: Quite often, one person will post that a title needs to be shuffled around a bit, but no one else posts a follow-up to support or disagree with the proposed moving. We, not as elitists, but as the thread "moderators", if you will, are just wanting opinions of more than one person before moving a title. It was originally placed there for a reason, and we're just trying to ensure that the majority agrees with the proposed placement. It's that democratic process some have been alluding to. We are not ignoring anyone, it's just that most of the time a tier move may not have any comment from other users, and therefore it is not moved. Now, in no way is that yours or anyone else fault, it's inherent in a thread or "system" of this nature.


So, to fix that problem, this is one of the things we have been talking about: a "*Needs More Input*" section.


How it works...usually, whenever one of us updates the original post, we'll post at the end of the thread with which movies were placed where. I'll use Rob's post from last night as an example:



> Quote:
> Placed/Moved the following titles:
> 
> 
> Memoirs of a Geisha was placed in Tier 1 (we need more votes on this title)
> 
> 
> Waiting was moved to Tier 3
> 
> 
> Underdog placed in Tier 2 (need more votes on this title)
> 
> 
> Rescue Dawn moved down to Tier 1



The Needs More Input section would go at the bottom, and include a listing of titles that have been suggested to be moved by only one person. Like this:



> Quote:
> Placed/Moved the following titles:
> 
> 
> Waiting was moved to Tier 3
> 
> 
> Rescue Dawn moved down to Tier 1
> 
> *Needs More User Input:*
> Memoirs of a Geisha placed in Tier 1 (UserA - link to post)
> Underdog placed in Tier 2 (UserB - link to post)
> etc.
> etc.



It would draw attention to any single posts that may have been missed due to the sheer volume of traffic this thread has, and also let the posters know that there opinions have been seen, and that we are not ignoring them. It may not be a perfect system, but we are not perfect people. But, it's an improvement and in my opinion, would keep people from becoming disenchanted with the way things are done. The last thing we want to do is piss anybody off, because if that happens, nobody posts here and this thread becomes useless over time.


I'll close my essay out now, but just hear me, we ARE trying, and we DO listen to every single poster. If it doesn't get added, we simply overlooked it, an honest mistake. Like I've said before, simply quote yourself or politely bring it up again and we'll take care of it.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12881889
> 
> 
> Speaking of soft, what in the world is Santa Clause 3 doing in Tier 0?





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/12887197
> 
> 
> I agree with you there as well.



This is not to pick on either one of you, but I want to use this as an example regarding some of the things that AustinSTI and SuprSlow have said.


These comments may come across as being ignored. There appears to be agreement between two people that Santa Clause 3 does not belong in Tier 0.


So?


Where _does_ it belong? Why?


Just saying a title is too high or too low isn't going to help, and the title will not be moved until more specifics are given.


----------



## Dustin44

3:10 to Yuma belongs in tier 0. I would say it belongs somewhere between Shoot em Up and Fantastic 4 RSS. Great black levels, up close details are excellent as are most of the background shots. There was a bit of grain in some of the pans of the background but not enough in my opinion to hurt the overall PQ of this movie.


Sony 1920x1080p

70" XBR2

PS3 via HDMI

10.5' viewing distance


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12888472
> 
> 
> This is not to pick on either one of you, but I want to use this as an example regarding some of the things that AustinSTI and SuprSlow have said.
> 
> 
> These comments may come across as being ignored. There appears to be agreement between two people that Santa Clause 3 does not belong in Tier 0.
> 
> 
> So?
> 
> 
> Where _does_ it belong? Why?
> 
> 
> Just saying a title is too high or too low isn't going to help, and the title will not be moved until more specifics are given.



I'm cool with that, it makes sense. The reason I don't think it should be in Tier 0 is because it just doesn't compare to titles like Apocalypto, Ratatouille, etc........the transfer is good, but it's not super sharp and it's rather bland in my opinion. I think it should be more in the lower Tier 1 range.


42" Panasonic Plasma (768p)

PS3 though HDMI

6-7 ft. viewing distance


----------



## Deviation




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dustin44* /forum/post/12890688
> 
> 
> 3:10 to Yuma belongs in tier 0. I would say it belongs somewhere between Shoot em Up and Fantastic 4 RSS. Great black levels, up close details are excellent as are most of the background shots. There was a bit of grain in some of the pans of the background but not enough in my opinion to hurt the overall PQ of this movie.
> 
> 
> Sony 1920x1080p
> 
> 70" XBR2
> 
> PS3 via HDMI
> 
> 10.5' viewing distance



3:10 to Yuma has some slight ringing/EE issues in high contrast scenes. It's a great transfer but it's not Tier 0 material.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hobbs47* /forum/post/12885736
> 
> 
> Not alone,just in the minority.Most people seem to think it looks excellent.I agree that it looks very good and is a solid mid to lower tier 1 title.



I don't recall having seen a lot of comments on it (Rush Hour 3) in this thread. It definitely doesn't look "excellent" to me. Typical mediocre looking Warner/NL encode to my eyes.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tleavit* /forum/post/12887311
> 
> 
> Well, it is about PQ and not the actual movies quality
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I admit that my wife bought SC3 and they watched it but I refused to watch the movie so I cant rank it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PQ might be a 0
> 
> But the movie quality would be a 5



This may explain the lack of comments on SC3: it is so painful to watch for so many reasons.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12888472
> 
> 
> This is not to pick on either one of you, but I want to use this as an example regarding some of the things that AustinSTI and SuprSlow have said.
> 
> 
> These comments may come across as being ignored. There appears to be agreement between two people that Santa Clause 3 does not belong in Tier 0.
> 
> 
> So?
> 
> 
> Where _does_ it belong? Why?
> 
> 
> Just saying a title is too high or too low isn't going to help, and the title will not be moved until more specifics are given.



I suspect you haven't seen this one, Rob.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/12892431
> 
> 
> I'm cool with that, it makes sense. The reason I don't think it should be in Tier 0 is because it just doesn't compare to titles like Apocalypto, Ratatouille, etc........the transfer is good, but it's not super sharp and it's rather bland in my opinion. I think it should be more in the lower Tier 1 range.
> 
> 
> 42" Panasonic Plasma (768p)
> 
> PS3 though HDMI
> 
> 6-7 ft. viewing distance





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Deviation* /forum/post/12892465
> 
> 
> 3:10 to Yuma has some slight ringing/EE issues in high contrast scenes. It's a great transfer but it's not Tier 0 material.



There's the constructive feedback we are looking for. Deviation: Where would you place 3:10? Your opinion provided specifics about why it shouldn't be tier 0 which is great, given you've seen it where do you believe it belongs? SC3 is moved down.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12892745
> 
> 
> I suspect you haven't seen this one, Rob.



I don't even know how they squeezed a trilogy out of this concept in the first place and Martin Short as Old Man Winter? UGH


----------



## Kevin12586

I just looked at the top 10 ranked movies in our list and noticed that Disney has 6 of the top 10. Say what you want about Disney (too many trailers at the beginning of their movies for example) but they have been giving us some of the best HD of any studio.


By the way, Go Giants!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## SuprSlow

This week's new releases:

*Saw IV: Unrated Director's Cut* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Lionsgate
*The Game Plan* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Disney


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Deviation* /forum/post/12892465
> 
> 
> 3:10 to Yuma has some slight ringing/EE issues in high contrast scenes. It's a great transfer but it's not Tier 0 material.



Would you be able to point out more specific places where you see ringing? I am not disagreeing, I just haven't noticed it in watching so far. More generally, I think I agree that it's not Tier 0.


----------



## OldCodger73

I notice that Volver is in the unranked section. I watched a copy from Netflix last night and while the movie is still fresh in my mind though I'd offer a review in hopes that it will spark a discussion and lead it to being placed in the Tiers.


First of all, the movie itself. If you like action flicks, this is definitely not a movie for you. It's probably a chick-flick given that all the main characters are women, but the plot is so strong and the acting is so good that it should appeal to anyone who appreciates a good drama and can handle the subtitles. I'd give it 4 1/2 stars on Netflix's 5-star rating. So come on, if need be have several glasses of your favorite beverage and give this movie a try.


The sound is adequate for a drama.


Now for PQ. This was a hard one for me, between the rapid fire subtitles and watching Penélope Cruz's cleavage. The movie was very colorful. I didn't notice any artifacts or EE but then again I didn't have much time to watch for them. My overall impression was that the PQ was pleasing with one caveat and that was that the picture was slightly soft, which I think was the director's intent. When one watches Mr. Brooks the picture is so sharp at times that the pores on Kevin Costner's face seem to leap off the screen. While this may be acceptable for a male lead, it's definitely what you don't want for your actresses. According, I'd rank this in the lower half of Tier 2.


Panny 50" 1080i plasma, Panny 10a BD player, 8' viewing distance.


----------



## hobbs47




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12892733
> 
> 
> I don't recall having seen a lot of comments on it (Rush Hour 3) in this thread. It definitely doesn't look "excellent" to me. Typical mediocre looking Warner/NL encode to my eyes.



I have seen plenty of people post on how good it looks.MAybe you are having display/seating distance issues.


----------



## maverick0716

I rented Rush Hour 3 the day it came out and I thought it looked pretty damn good. Very nice detail, good blacks and realistic colours......what more can you ask for really? That being said, I think it's definitly lower Tier 1 material.


42" Panasonic Plasma (768p)

PS3 through HDMI

6-7 ft.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/12895404
> 
> 
> I notice that Volver is in the unranked section. I watched a copy from Netflix last night and while the movie is still fresh in my mind though I'd offer a review in hopes that it will spark a discussion and lead it to being placed in the Tiers.
> 
> 
> First of all, the movie itself. If you like action flicks, this is definitely not a movie for you. It's probably a chick-flick given that all the main characters are women, but the plot is so strong and the acting is so good that it should appeal to anyone who appreciates a good drama and can handle the subtitles. I'd give it 4 1/2 stars on Netflix's 5-star rating. So come on, if need be have several glasses of your favorite beverage and give this movie a try.
> 
> 
> The sound is adequate for a drama.
> 
> 
> Now for PQ. This was a hard one for me, between the rapid fire subtitles and watching Penélope Cruz's cleavage. The movie was very colorful. I didn't notice any artifacts or EE but then again I didn't have much time to watch for them. My overall impression was that the PQ was pleasing with one caveat and that was that the picture was slightly soft, which I think was the director's intent. When one watches Mr. Brooks the picture is so sharp at times that the pores on Kevin Costner's face seem to leap off the screen. While this may be acceptable for a male lead, it's definitely what you don't want for your actresses. According, I'd rank this in the lower half of Tier 2.
> 
> 
> Panny 50" 1080i plasma, Panny 10a BD player, 8' viewing distance.



Very nice and helpful review.


And I am not just saying that because I completely agree with it either!










I did watch this but failed to post about it. Colorful, most definitely. But I definitely agree that it is soft. Lower Tier 2 is perfect.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Regarding 3:10 To Yuma:


I think I may need to watch this again before making a final recommendation on it's placement. It was good, but I don't recall being blown away or overly impressed either, but that may have been the nature of the subject matter.


Either way, I don't think it is Tier 0 material.


----------



## DarkNessBear

Why is 300 so high on the list? Doesn't it have Movie noise up the wazoo? I know it was an effect put in, but it still doesn't look good and I wouldn't use it as a demo movie.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/12897819
> 
> 
> I rented Rush Hour 3 the day it came out and I thought it looked pretty damn good. Very nice detail, good blacks and realistic colours......what more can you ask for really? That being said, I think it's definitly lower Tier 1 material.
> 
> 
> 42" Panasonic Plasma (768p)
> 
> PS3 through HDMI
> 
> 6-7 ft.



Lower Tier 1 would certainly be a better placement than where it is now. I could not force myself to watch very much of this, mainly because of the MQ, but the portions I watched did not seem to have good detail. Since you watched a rental, I won't ask for specific scene cites on the detail.


----------



## Bosox2004

Haven't seen any reviews/comments on Lost: The 3rd Season but IMO the PQ of Lost ranks in Tier 0 category. When I compare Lost to something like Apocalypto which has a very similar setting ~ I find Lost to be at least as good as Apocalypto.


----------



## hobbs47

Quick question,when submitting opinions on movies,is it fair to say that you should really watch most,if not all of a movie to give a fair opinion on PQ?


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hobbs47* /forum/post/12900627
> 
> 
> Quick question,when submitting opinions on movies,is it fair to say that you should really watch most,if not all of a movie to give a fair opinion on PQ?



Definitly.


----------



## lucent

I see that Vacancy is unranked, I just watched it so I have a suggestion for placement. I think it should belong maybe the near top of Tier 3. Most of the scenes were soft in PQ but some scenes were sharp. I didn't see any artifacts, so overall it as nice in PQ.


Panasonic 42PZ700U (42" 1080p Plasma)

1080/60

8ft


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lucent* /forum/post/12902747
> 
> 
> I see that Vacancy is unranked, I just watched it so I have a suggestion for placement. I think it should belong maybe the near top of Tier 3. Most of the scenes were soft in PQ but some scenes were sharp. I didn't see any artifacts, so overall it as nice in PQ.
> 
> 
> Panasonic 42PZ700U (42" 1080p Plasma)
> 
> 1080/60
> 
> 8ft



Now that somebody else has commented on this one, I'll repost my thoughts on it:



> Quote:
> On another note, I rented Vacancy this weekend (no idea why...oh yeah, Kate), and I wasn't overly impressed. However I think this has a lot to do with the visual style of the film. A lot more earth tones are used (greens and browns) along with the blacks, since it's an obviously "dark" movie. The shadow detail seemed good, but nothing close to a similarly styled movie in Black Snake Moan. In the movie's (Vacancy's) defense, it was filmed 95% at night, so it really never had a chance to show the range Black Snake Moan did.
> 
> 
> I'd say this is a tier 2-ish type movie, but I wouldn't recommend it for placement just yet until a few other people chime in on it



Also, the only other post I found for this title in the thread:



> Quote:
> Also, Vacancy is a quality movie that should be placed somewhere in mid tier 2. Much of the movie seems to be filmed in dark scences and thus the picture quality varies from projector to projector, but as far as I can see from my Ruby, the movie is transfered quite well. Audio is strong in this movie as well. Soundtrack kept me on the edge of the seat like a good thriller should.



So between our opinions, somewhere around low Tier 2 or the top of Tier 3 seems appropriate. Whereabouts would you place it? I haven't seen it in a while.


PS3->1080p24-46XBR4 (8-10 ft)


Brandon


----------



## bifocalprojector

I have a question that I've been wondering....


Is *"The Untouchables"* rated so low here because it is no longer

available for purchase? (therefore gets a lot fewer votes) I borrowed

it from the local public library. I had been on the library's hold list for
*more than a month* and finally got it yesterday. (the library only

has one copy, out of a total of 12 library branches in the county)


I just finished watching it last night. All I could say was WOW!!!









The picture quality was absolutely amazing for a 20-year-old film.


IMHO, *"The Touchables"* deserves to be in the upper half of *Tier 1*.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I watched Vacancy a couple of weeks ago and forgot to comment on it.


I would agree with a bottom Tier 2 to high Tier 3 placement.


----------



## lgans316

Judging from the various reviews it looks the title WAR is destined for a low Tier-2 placement due to severe black crush. Requesting the Videophiles to check on this and do an appropriate placement.


----------



## maverick0716

Just finished watching Shoot 'em Up. It definitly deserves to be where it is in Tier 0.......Fantastic picture quality with popping colours and very fine detail.


42" Panasonic Plasma (768p)

PS3 though HDMI

6-7 ft.


----------



## patrick99

In light of the macroblocking in HP5 demonstrated in this other thread, shouldn't it be moved down a bit?

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...8&postcount=63


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bosox2004* /forum/post/12900362
> 
> 
> Haven't seen any reviews/comments on Lost: The 3rd Season but IMO the PQ of Lost ranks in Tier 0 category. When I compare Lost to something like Apocalypto which has a very similar setting ~ I find Lost to be at least as good as Apocalypto.



I have only watched selections of Lost, but it did *not* look like Tier 0 material to me.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12904100
> 
> 
> In light of the macroblocking in HP5 demonstrated in this other thread, shouldn't it be moved down a bit?
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...8&postcount=63



Where should it go?


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12904103
> 
> 
> I have only watched selections of Lost, but it did *not* look like Tier 0 material to me.



Where should it go?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/12906526
> 
> 
> Where should it go?



I would put HP5 just above 300.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/12906528
> 
> 
> Where should it go?



Current placement of Lost in mid Tier 1 seems about right.


----------



## Bosox2004

With all due respect, how can you give an honest assessment of Lost if you haven't even watched the whole thing and only watched "selections"? I understand this is about personal opinion so I am not going to press the issue too much, but having seen Apocalypto and Lost, I can tell you that the 'jungle' scenes in both transfers were lush, green, and had great clarity. Skin tones and details of characters was tremendous - you can see every last freckle on Kate's face. I know that Tier I is very good, but IMO having seen both completely, I think it belongs in 0.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bosox2004* /forum/post/12907629
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect, how can you give an honest assessment of Lost if you haven't even watched the whole thing and only watched "selections"? I understand this is about personal opinion so I am not going to press the issue too much, but having seen Apocalypto and Lost, I can tell you that the 'jungle' scenes in both transfers were lush, green, and had great clarity. Skin tones and details of characters was tremendous - you can see every last freckle on Kate's face. I know that Tier I is very good, but IMO having seen both completely, I think it belongs in 0.



In my own viewing experience, I have not noticed huge variations in PQ within individual titles. Also Lost is an entire season of a TV show; I did not especially enjoy the parts that I have watched apart from the PQ. I am not willing to commit that amount of time to something I am not enjoying on any level. I very much doubt that the "professionals" who review these things watch the entire set of discs for a TV show before writing their reviews.


----------



## JimSD

I'm not sure when Rob Tomlin became one of the owners of this thread, but I'm glad to see it. I find his impressions coincide very much with mine, so his input here is very helpful. Several months ago I thought these rankings were completely out of whack, especially a low ranking for Casino Royale at the time, but the rankings now correspond with my observations pretty well so they will be useful again. Thanks for the work you guys put into it.


----------



## tleavit

I've found most movies in this list to match my opinion of the ones I own. I also trust it enough to make decisions on movies to buy (specifically older ones that I don’t have).


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Why the hell isnt Saving Private Ryan on blu ray yet?


----------



## Lil' Louie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bosox2004* /forum/post/12907629
> 
> 
> With all due respect, how can you give an honest assessment of Lost if you haven't even watched the whole thing and only watched "selections"? I understand this is about personal opinion so I am not going to press the issue too much, but having seen Apocalypto and Lost, I can tell you that the 'jungle' scenes in both transfers were lush, green, and had great clarity. Skin tones and details of characters was tremendous - you can see every last freckle on Kate's face. I know that Tier I is very good, but IMO having seen both completely, I think it belongs in 0.



Not only that, but I don't think I've seen patrick99 once list the equipment he's viewing on. No disrespect to patrick, just wondering why it is a thread rule if it's not meant for all members.


----------



## lrstevens421

I'm torn after watching this one, detail is inconsistent throughout the film but there were a few outdoor scenes that were really amazing. I did notice some _slight_ edge enhancement and a few darker scenes appeared a bit soft, but again there were a few scenes that really shined. I remember Rob asked for feedback on this one, If I were forced to vote I would put it high tier 2. Anyone else?


Sony KDL-52XBR4

Panasonic DMP-BD30

1080p24 @ 10ft away


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lrstevens421* /forum/post/12911696
> 
> 
> I'm torn after watching this one, detail is inconsistent throughout the film but there were a few outdoor scenes that were really amazing. I did notice some _slight_ edge enhancement and a few darker scenes appeared a bit soft, but again there were a few scenes that really shined. I remember Rob asked for feedback on this one, If I were forced to vote I would put it high tier 2. Anyone else?
> 
> 
> Sony KDL-52XBR4
> 
> Panasonic DMP-BD30
> 
> 1080p24 @ 10ft away



I'd definitly agree with that assessment.


----------



## CommanderCool

just ordered alexander for about 16 bucks,i'll see how it is,troy was simply amazing


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12906659
> 
> 
> I would put HP5 just above 300.



If this is the case then Goblet of Fire should be pushed to mid of Tier-2 for severe posterization / color banding in the third maze event.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JimSD* /forum/post/12910547
> 
> 
> I'm not sure when Rob Tomlin became one of the owners of this thread, but I'm glad to see it. I find his impressions coincide very much with mine, so his input here is very helpful. Several months ago I thought these rankings were completely out of whack, especially a low ranking for Casino Royale at the time, but the rankings now correspond with my observations pretty well so they will be useful again. Thanks for the work you guys put into it.



Thanks Jim. Most of the credit goes to AustinSTI. He is the one that came up with the idea to have a couple of additional members help maintain the list. Believe me, after helping out just a little so far, I realize just how much work is really required! It can take quite awhile to move just a few titles. And of course I will not move titles based solely on where I want them (unless it is a rare title that nobody else has seen/reviewed such as the Queen disc...and even then I will note it in the thread) it is based on all members opinions and resulting discussion.










The more titles that are released, the more difficult it becomes to accurately place titles. As such, the more feedback given, the better!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tleavit* /forum/post/12910643
> 
> 
> I've found most movies in this list to match my opinion of the ones I own. I also trust it enough to make decisions on movies to buy (specifically older ones that I don't have).



Great to hear, as that is the goal of the thread!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sick of Change* /forum/post/12911434
> 
> 
> Why the hell isnt Saving Private Ryan on blu ray yet?



I believe that is a Dreamworks movie, so it will probably not be on Blu-ray for quite awhile.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lrstevens421* /forum/post/12911696
> 
> 
> I'm torn after watching this one, detail is inconsistent throughout the film but there were a few outdoor scenes that were really amazing. I did notice some _slight_ edge enhancement and a few darker scenes appeared a bit soft, but again there were a few scenes that really shined. I remember Rob asked for feedback on this one, If I were forced to vote I would put it high tier 2. Anyone else?
> 
> 
> Sony KDL-52XBR4
> 
> Panasonic DMP-BD30
> 
> 1080p24 @ 10ft away



I'm still torn on this one as well (3:10 to Yuma). I'm probably going to recommend a low Tier 1 placement or top Tier 2. I did notice the slight EE as well, but it wasn't bad.


----------



## Zygon

Can anyone comment on there experience with the movie War ?

PQ?

Storyline?

Acting?

Replay shelf life?

Sound?


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Zygon* /forum/post/12914212
> 
> 
> Can anyone comment on there experience with the movie War ?
> 
> PQ?
> 
> Storyline?
> 
> Acting?
> 
> Replay shelf life?
> 
> Sound?



For sound, check the audio tier thread. War is widely being considered as *the* reference material in terms of sound.


Brandon


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12914020
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still torn on this one as well (3:10 to Yuma). I'm probably going to recommend a low Tier 1 placement or top Tier 2. I did notice the slight EE as well, but it wasn't bad.




Do you recall particular scenes where you noticed EE in 3:10, Rob? I haven't noticed it so far in watching this, but that doesn't mean it's not there.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kevin12586* /forum/post/12893397
> 
> 
> I just looked at the top 10 ranked movies in our list and noticed that Disney has 6 of the top 10. Say what you want about Disney (too many trailers at the beginning of their movies for example) but they have been giving us some of the best HD of any studio.



If you want to see some really bad EE, try watching Disney's HSM2. I guess they thought the target audience for this wouldn't be bothered by things like EE.


----------



## Kevin12586




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12915307
> 
> 
> If you want to see some really bad EE, try watching Disney's HSM2. I guess they thought the target audience for this wouldn't be bothered by things like EE.



HSM2?


----------



## Kevin12586

My wife and I watched Ocean's Thirteen last night and I COMPLETELY agree with its placement. I hardly noticed any detail and the skintones looked like the actors stayed out in the sun too long. I can't comment on EE and things like that since I don't see these things that you guys notice.


I am glad that it was a rental though, good movie, I preferred it to the second one, but not worth an HD purchase for me.


Panasonic 700u projector

106" screen

720p

10' viewing distance


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sick of Change* /forum/post/12911434
> 
> 
> Why the hell isnt Saving Private Ryan on blu ray yet?



Actually since its speilberg it may show up on Blu-Ray regardless of the paramount deal. What I suspect is that it won't show up on either HDM until Paramount comes back to Blu-Ray or the format war ends. Studios are holding big catalogue titles until there is enough saturation in the market place. The same question could be asked for LOTR and I think the answer is similar...


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kevin12586* /forum/post/12915915
> 
> 
> HSM2?



High School Musical 2.


----------



## Doug Schiller




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sick of Change* /forum/post/12911434
> 
> 
> Why the hell isnt Saving Private Ryan on blu ray yet?



Very simple reason.


Lucas and Speilberg are going to be very cautious releasing their films until the installed base grows.


Why sell a few 100,000 copies now when you can sell millions in a year.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12915291
> 
> 
> Do you recall particular scenes where you noticed EE in 3:10, Rob? I haven't noticed it so far in watching this, but that doesn't mean it's not there.



I don't recall the scene exactly, but I remember it was one of the typical scenes where you might expect to see it (with the sky as the background for example). And again, it was minor. What Tier are you leaning towards o this title? I'm going to give it another spin tonight if I have time.


----------



## Macfan424




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kevin12586* /forum/post/12915915
> 
> 
> HSM2?
























Sometimes I feel like this thread is in Chinese as people make up abbreviations on the fly. I finally concluded that if I can't figure out what the initials mean, it's probably a movie I don't care about anyway (as turned out to be the case with this one).


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12917491
> 
> 
> I don't recall the scene exactly, but I remember it was one of the typical scenes where you might expect to see it (with the sky as the background for example). And again, it was minor. What Tier are you leaning towards o this title? I'm going to give it another spin tonight if I have time.



I think 3:10 should be somewhere in Tier 1; I want to watch it again before offering an opinion on where exactly. I will look out for the EE; I tend to notice it more on repeat viewings.


----------



## Dustin44

I guess I need to watch 3:10 again as well because I thought it was very well done. I might have been off on my tier 0 claim but I do feel it is better than a low Tier 1 or top tier 2 title.


----------



## Kevin12586




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Macfan424* /forum/post/12917818
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes I feel like this thread is in Chinese as people make up abbreviations on the fly. I finally concluded that if I can't figure out what the initials mean, it's probably a movie I don't care about anyway (as turned out to be the case with this one).


----------



## stand_1998

Based on the Tier 0 description:


> Quote:
> The image is so clean and sharp that it maintains a realistic feel throughout and serves as great demo material.



I think that CR needs to be moved down to the top of Tier 1. I don't know where, specifically, the title should be.


I noticed that there were a few scenes that were suffering from grain/noise:

- right after Bond blows up the embassy, he hops over a small wall and empties out the criminal's backpack.

- at the end when Bond is shooting at the guys in the sinking building, there were a few scenes that showed a lot of grain/noise.


PS3

Sony 55" RP LCD TV


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stand_1998* /forum/post/12919042
> 
> 
> Based on the Tier 0 description:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that CR needs to be moved down to the top of Tier 1. I don't know where, specifically, the title should be.
> 
> 
> I noticed that there were a few scenes that were suffering from grain/noise:
> 
> - right after Bond blows up the embassy, he hops over a small wall and empties out the criminal's backpack.
> 
> - at the end when Bond is shooting at the guys in the sinking building, there were a few scenes that showed a lot of grain/noise.
> 
> 
> PS3
> 
> Sony 55" RP LCD TV



As I've said before, I too think that CR should be moved down from Tier 0 to the top of Tier 1, but for me the reason is not grain, which is not a defect, but rather a slight softness that I do not think we should see in Tier 0 titles.


----------



## cdhender




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12919588
> 
> 
> As I've said before, I too think that CR should be moved down from Tier 0 to the top of Tier 1, but for me the reason is not grain, which is not a defect, but rather a slight softness that I do not think we should see in Tier 0 titles.



Agreed. CR is not in the same class as the other live-action movies in that tier 0.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Doug Schiller* /forum/post/12916324
> 
> 
> Very simple reason.
> 
> 
> Lucas and Speilberg are going to be very cautious releasing their films until the installed base grows.
> 
> 
> Why sell a few 100,000 copies now when you can sell millions in a year.



very true...sucks for us though


----------



## LBFilmGuy

So are Black Hawk Down and Underworld worthy of the tier 1 in here?


Thinking of picking these up as well as Memento, but looks like Memento isn't too hot


----------



## tleavit




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sick of Change* /forum/post/12922338
> 
> 
> very true...sucks for us though



Ya, continues the usual Lucas long stance of whoring all the money he can out of his movies. That's one extreme case of an extremely enthusiastically market segment that *made* the movie into the beast it is now being continually shafted by the owner who cares more about making money off it then being an actual enthusiast himself. Putting out movies like Star Wars and Indiana Jones would bring in hundreds of thousands of new people into the market immediately.


----------



## lrstevens421




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sick of Change* /forum/post/12922353
> 
> 
> So are Black Hawk Down and Underworld worthy of the tier 1 in here?
> 
> 
> Thinking of picking these up as well as Memento, but looks like Memento isn't too hot



Black Hawk Down is low tier 1 and Underworld is high tier 2. Both are excellent titles.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tleavit* /forum/post/12922417
> 
> 
> Ya, continues the usual Lucas long stance of whoring all the money he can out of his movies. That's one extreme case of an extremely enthusiastically market segment that *made* the movie into the beast it is now being continually shafted by the owner who cares more about making money off it then being an actual enthusiast himself. Putting out movies like Star Wars and Indiana Jones would bring in hundreds of thousands of new people into the market immediately.



Yeah, Lucas is pretty ridiculous


----------



## cdhender




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lrstevens421* /forum/post/12922511
> 
> 
> Black Hawk Down is low tier 1 and Underworld is high tier 2. Both are excellent titles.



Agreed. This list isn't definitive. There are titles listed as low tier 2 that *to my eye* look better than some Tier 1 titles.


If there's a movie you just love, I wouldn't hesitate to grab it. For example, I picked up Unforgiven because I love the flick. To me it looks gorgeous in HD, better than a lot of movies above it.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cdhender* /forum/post/12922899
> 
> 
> Agreed. This list isn't definitive. There are titles listed as low tier 2 that *to my eye* look better than some Tier 1 titles.
> 
> 
> If there's a movie you just love, I wouldn't hesitate to grab it. For example, I picked up Unforgiven because I love the flick. To me it looks gorgeous in HD, better than a lot of movies above it.



True...I figured that...


I think I saw Unforgiven on amazon for a nice price, gunna pick that up also


----------



## bplewis24

I'm watching Finding Neverland (based on a reference to it in a Roger Ebert review), and I feel like I'm watching upconverted DVD here. Although it's probably slightly better than that.


----------



## Kevin12586




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lrstevens421* /forum/post/12922511
> 
> 
> Black Hawk Down is low tier 1 and Underworld is high tier 2. Both are excellent titles.



Underworld is currently rated as tier 1, not tier 2


----------



## RaiderRodney




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sick of Change* /forum/post/12922985
> 
> 
> True...I figured that...
> 
> 
> I think I saw Unforgiven on amazon for a nice price, gunna pick that up also



You should and I'll agree it is one of the nicer transfers I have watched on BD...along with Apocalypto


----------



## lrstevens421




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kevin12586* /forum/post/12927267
> 
> 
> Underworld is currently rated as tier 1, not tier 2



You're right I was looking at Underworld 2.


----------



## Kevin12586




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lrstevens421* /forum/post/12927996
> 
> 
> You're right I was looking at Underworld 2.



I figured you were


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Just a heads up: I will be gone for the weekend and will not have time to update any of the listings (weekends are when I would normally do so) that have been discussed in the last week. Hopefully AustinSTI and/or SuprSlow will be able to get to it.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Are we allowed to talk about prices and good deals on blu rays in here?


----------



## avhed

I was just looking at how many of the Blu-Ray movies on the Tier list are displayed 1.85:1. I do not remember Dreamgirls and Spiderman 1 & 2 being among them.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sick of Change* /forum/post/12931934
> 
> 
> Are we allowed to talk about prices and good deals on blu rays in here?



No, there is another thread for that.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *avhed* /forum/post/12931951
> 
> 
> I was just looking at how many of the Blu-Ray movies on the Tier list are displayed 1.78:1. I do not remember Dreamgirls and Spiderman 1 & 2 being among them.



They are all listed at 1.85:1.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/12932059
> 
> 
> They are all listed at 1.85:1.



Spiderman 2 isn't 1.85:1. I believe it's 2.35:1.


Brandon


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/12932105
> 
> 
> Spiderman 2 isn't 1.85:1. I believe it's 2.35:1.
> 
> 
> Brandon



2.40:1 according to what I'm finding.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12932004
> 
> 
> No, there is another thread for that.



k thanks


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Anyone know what the deal is with Wedding Crashers?


See the commercial all the time yet it's not even on it yet


----------



## SuprSlow

The AR may very well be wrong in some cases. 99% of that data was pulled from HDD. Point them out as you find incorrect entries and we'll fix 'em


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/12935124
> 
> 
> The AR may very well be wrong in some cases. 99% of that data was pulled from HDD. Point them out as you find incorrect entries and we'll fix 'em



The problem with the Spiderman review on HDD is that it just reviews the box set in one review. It does a separate review for Spidey 3, but 1, 2 and 3 are reviewed as a box set. And since Spidey 1 was 1.85 OAR, that's the only ratio it lists.


On my box it lists it at 2.40. IMDB lists it as 2.35. 2 and 3 are the same OAR and HDD lists Spidey 3 as 2.35. Who the hell knows what it is?


Brandon


----------



## LazerViking




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sick of Change* /forum/post/12933663
> 
> 
> Anyone know what the deal is with Wedding Crashers?
> 
> 
> See the commercial all the time yet it's not even on it yet



Hey man, may get more luck in another thread with a response. This one tends to be geared towards modifying the list or discussing the contents of it. As far as I know, no announcement from New Line. But try to keep posts here focused due to the high traffic and post count to try to minimize the clutter for those that upkeep the PQ Tier list.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12917491
> 
> 
> I don't recall the scene exactly, but I remember it was one of the typical scenes where you might expect to see it (with the sky as the background for example). And again, it was minor. What Tier are you leaning towards o this title? I'm going to give it another spin tonight if I have time.



I watched 3:10 again last night, on the lookout for EE, and it is there for sure. Minor, as you say, but definitely there. Based on this viewing, I would be inclined to place it in the lower quarter of Tier 1. In addition to the EE, there are a number of shots that are softer than one would like, for example, in the coach battle sequence early in the movie. These are not in the majority by any means and there are other shots that look good.


Apart from the PQ, this is a really fine movie. Too bad it got so little recognition in awards season. Maybe it has a chance for the cast SAG award. Do those come out next week?


----------



## maverick0716

Rented Good Luck Chuck tonight. The picture quality was good and consistent, but it was definitly a bit soft. Solid colours, but nothing eye popping or spectacular. Just a nice solid looking transfer. Mid-lower Tier 2 would be my vote.


42" Panasonic Plasma (768p)

PS3 though HDMI

6-7 ft.


----------



## Steve Schauer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/12895404
> 
> 
> I notice that Volver is in the unranked section.
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> Now for PQ. This was a hard one for me, between the rapid fire subtitles and watching Penélope Cruz's cleavage.
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> According, I'd rank this in the lower half of Tier 2.













Content quality: Tier 0. A great movie.

Penelope Cruz: Tier 0

PQ: I agree with you and Rob. Tier 2.


Samsung 4661, PS3, 8 feet.


----------



## JayPSU

I just saw Mr. Brooks tonight. I had been excited to see it because I heard it was a good movie, and also because it's ranked up there as reference quality material. While I enjoyed the movie itself, I did NOT think it was even close to reference quality material. It was like watching a movie on a tv with the contrast set too low, and the brightness set too high. This also contributed to colors that had no pop at all...very washed out. The picture seemed to highlight blues and greens. The image did, however, look very clean and often I saw too much detail of the pores on Kevin Costner's face.


So, I'd say that the movie had great detail and a clean picture with virtually no "noise." BUT, the problems of too much brightness and colors that were VERY much washed out and focused on blues and greens left me unimpressed. I'd put this movie in tier 2, and am ASTOUNDED at how high it is right now.



Sony 34" KD-XBR970

Samsung BD-1400

6 feet


----------



## mp3junkie

Thank you guys for putting Spiderman 3 where it belongs. I have been asking about this move for a very long time and I appreciate you giving this movie consideration in Tier 0 as it is much deserved.


See, I am a nice guy after all.


----------



## mp3junkie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cdhender* /forum/post/12883288
> 
> 
> Casino Royale is a solid Tier 1 title.



I totally agree... It is simply not a Tier 0 title.


----------



## darthrsg

Sunshine, somewhere in the upper 2 tiers, please. Audio was superb and PQ was top notch.


----------



## zinfamous

I agree with the placement of Rescue Dawn. There are some moments in the film that are simply gorgeous-crisp, popping colors. very good film altogether. definitely upper tier 1 (42" Samsung Plasma, about 6 feet away)


There was an issue that I noticed early on, during a scene inside the aircraft carrier, where the audio sounds as if it was recorded inside a can....anyone else notice this? or am I just late to the game?


----------



## dajuice




> Quote:
> The image is so clean and sharp that it maintains a realistic feel throughout



Kingdom of Heaven is definitly not Tier 0 material, it's pretty soft.


----------



## fales




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mp3junkie* /forum/post/12952158
> 
> 
> I totally agree... It is simply not a Tier 0 title.



I totally agree, somewhere mid Tier 1...


----------



## lgans316

I too agree. KOH deserves to be in bottom of Tier-1 or Top of Tier-2.


----------



## Donmonte




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/12953482
> 
> 
> I too agree. KOH deserves to be in bottom of Tier-1 or Top of Tier-2.



I agree also, compared to the extended cut on DVD, there was hardly any improvement. I watched them back to back on a 50inch plasma 1366*768 at 9 feet; the DVD player is a Pioneer 79avi connected through a DVDO VP30, and the Blu-ray player is a PS3. Anybody with the extended cut on DVD care to comment ?


----------



## lgans316

3:10 => Top of Tier 2 (for EE and softness in few outdoor scenes)


War => Mid of Tier 2 (for severe black crush)


Kingdom of Heaven => Bottom of Tier-1 or Top of Tier-2. Numerous soft scenes and noticeable solarization on dark scenes.


Mr and Mrs Smith => Bottom of Tier 1 as EE was noticeable in one scene (diner scene) with many scenes having a very soft over processed look. Mr and Mrs Smith should always be above KOH.


Viewed on both 37" and 50" Panny Plasma. Distance 7 ~ 9 ft.


----------



## Kevin12586




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/12953522
> 
> 
> Mr and Mrs Smith => Bottom of Tier 1 as EE was noticeable in one scene (diner scene) with many scenes having a very soft over processed look. Mr and Mrs Smith should always be above KOH.
> 
> 
> Viewed on both 37" and 50" Panny Plasma. Distance 7 ~ 9 ft.



If the entire movie is pristine but one scene has EE, does that warrant it to be ranked so low?


Not signaling you out, just using your recommendation as an example.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kevin12586* /forum/post/12954136
> 
> 
> If the entire movie is pristine but one scene has EE, does that warrant it to be ranked so low?
> 
> 
> Not signaling you out, just using your recommendation as an example.



Well, the rest of his example was "with many scenes having a very soft over processed look." Not fair to cherry pick . .


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kevin12586* /forum/post/12954136
> 
> 
> If the entire movie is pristine but one scene has EE, does that warrant it to be ranked so low?
> 
> 
> Not signaling you out, just using your recommendation as an example.



Not like that but there are many soft scenes in Smith and KOH.


----------



## bifocalprojector

which BD movie has the absolute *worst* picture quality right now?


----------



## JDChapier




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bifocalprojector* /forum/post/12955910
> 
> 
> which BD movie has the absolute *worst* picture quality right now?



You sound like an HD loyalist who wants to sell HD over BD to a fence sitter.


----------



## bifocalprojector




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JDChapier* /forum/post/12956268
> 
> 
> You sound like an HD loyalist who wants to sell HD over BD to a fence sitter.



Not at all...


I have never owned any HD DVD movie or player and I never will.


I've been a BD supporter since day 1. Actually, I'm more of a

die-hard Sony supporter...







(and have been a Toshiba-hater

for almost 15 years for a very specific reason, I spit on anything

made by Toshiba)


You'll have to pry the Blu-ray remote from my cold dead hands first...


----------



## SuprSlow

Added this week's new releases:
*Monty Python's Life of Brian* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: TrueHD/PCM | AR: 1.85:1 | Sony
*The Invasion* Video: VC-1 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.35:1 | Warner
*King of California* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 2.35:1 | First Look
*Damages: The Complete First Season* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 1.78:1 | Sony
*Daddy Day Camp* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 1.85:1 | Sony
*Dispatch: Zimbabwe, Live at Madison Square Garden* Video: ? | Audio: ? | AR: 1.78:1 | Warner
*Justin Timberlake: FutureSex/LoveShow Live from Madison Square Garden* Video: ? | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.78:1 | Sony Music


*Placements:*
Volver - Bot 1/2 Tier 2
Rush Hour 3 - Bot Tier 1
Vacancy - Bot Tier 2
War - Bot Tier 2
HP5 - above 300
3:10 to Yuma - Top Tier 2
Casino Royale - Top Tier 1
Kingdom of Heaven - Mid Tier 1

*Needs Input:*
Lost - Season 3 (Tier 0 - Bosox2004 - link )
Untouchables (Top 1/2 Tier 1 - bifocalprojector - link )
Good Luck Chuck (Bot 1/3 Tier 2 - maverick0716 - link )
Mr. & Mrs. Smith (Bot Tier 1 - lgans316 - link )
Mr. Brooks (several comments)


----------



## Kevin12586




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/12954327
> 
> 
> Well, the rest of his example was "with many scenes having a very soft over processed look." Not fair to cherry pick . .



My bad, I missed that part











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/12954392
> 
> 
> Not like that but there are many soft scenes in Smith and KOH.



Got it, sorry about the reading comprehension mistake on my part


----------



## Wryker

Can someone explain why I see commercials on TV and on my BD's for the BD Cars and it says "up to 7.1 surround sound" when that BD is only 5.1?


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wryker* /forum/post/12957590
> 
> 
> Can someone explain why I see commercials on TV and on my BD's for the BD Cars and it says "up to 7.1 surround sound" when that BD is only 5.1?



Simple answer; BD is NOT only 5.1.


----------



## Wryker




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/12958434
> 
> 
> Simple answer; BD is NOT only 5.1.



So during that commercial - it's saying BD supports up to 7.1, not that the BD Cars is 7.1. The ad comes across other-wise.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wryker* /forum/post/12960416
> 
> 
> So during that commercial - it's saying BD supports up to 7.1, not that the BD Cars is 7.1. The ad comes across other-wise.



BD "supports" _way_ more than 7.1, but right now that is how it is defined (and marketed).


----------



## eightninesuited

Is it possible to use a slightly less striking blue for the font of Tier 0? I can't read it well. I guess my monitor is not up to snuff.


How about skyblue


----------



## Desert Pilot

I certainly do appreciate all the work and commentary that goes in to making these tier rankings for BD titles. I do take them in to consideration when selecting movies to purchase...and it's fun to think about how I viewed PQ and AQ and how others feel about the movie. But, I must admit, my primary purchase decision is driven my interest in the film (story) itself.


Is it possible to figure out if there is consistency in these rankings that would help consumers? In other words, are there consistently bad transfers to BD from film which are attributable to certain engineering studios? That way, any disk produced by these firms could be avoided or pressured in to doing the job to the highest standards.


It appears to me that directors and actors and CGI studios and soundtrack composers all take pride in their work (Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven, 300, Lord of the Rings, etc). So, why would transfers to BD be anything less than the best quality?


...just a thought. Sometimes public humiliation of less than competent film transfers to BD might be a useful tool. It seemed to work for The Fifth Element.


marcus


----------



## lgans316

Q) Can these TIER rankings aid consumers?


A) *Yes as it's 95% accurate. Full credits to the sentinels of this wonderful thread for routinely updating to the best possible extent with slight exceptions in certain cases.*


----------



## dajuice




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bifocalprojector* /forum/post/12955910
> 
> 
> which BD movie has the absolute *worst* picture quality right now?



I only own a few blu-rays so far, but out of those, Silent Hill looks the worst. Horrid noise and macro-blocking out the whazoo. Funny thing is, I didn't notice these things at all when I was watching the movie the first couple times, but now going back to it, it really jumps out. Maybe because I've been spoiled by better BDs. Looking at the Tier list, SH is rated Copper, which sounds about right.


----------



## AustinSTI

I'm out of town for the next 4 weeks so I'll check in periodically but SUPR and Rob will be tiering things.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JDChapier* /forum/post/12956268
> 
> 
> You sound like an HD loyalist who wants to sell HD over BD to a fence sitter.



I think this was an honest question. If you doubt someone's intentions you can click on their name and view their past posts for confirmation or refutation of your thought. In this case JD wasn't hating; he was just asking an honest question....one I've pondered myself. Everyone wants to know what the best is...so how bad can it really get? I haven't seen a horrible title just yet cause I haven't bought any of them but I hear Oceans 13 is bad which I've yet to watch but have on my list.


----------



## General Kenobi




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dajuice* /forum/post/12964554
> 
> 
> I only own a few blu-rays so far, but out of those, Silent Hill looks the worst. Horrid noise and macro-blocking out the whazoo. Funny thing is, I didn't notice these things at all when I was watching the movie the first couple times, but now going back to it, it really jumps out. Maybe because I've been spoiled by better BDs. Looking at the Tier list, SH is rated Copper, which sounds about right.



Total Recall was pretty bad too.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *eightninesuited* /forum/post/12962749
> 
> 
> Is it possible to use a slightly less striking blue for the font of Tier 0? I can't read it well. I guess my monitor is not up to snuff.
> 
> 
> How about skyblue



That color blends in almost perfectly with the default background color.


Brandon


----------



## Macfan424




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JayPSU* /forum/post/12951942
> 
> 
> I just saw Mr. Brooks tonight. I had been excited to see it because I heard it was a good movie, and also because it's ranked up there as reference quality material. While I enjoyed the movie itself, I did NOT think it was even close to reference quality material. It was like watching a movie on a tv with the contrast set too low, and the brightness set too high. This also contributed to colors that had no pop at all...very washed out. The picture seemed to highlight blues and greens. The image did, however, look very clean and often I saw too much detail of the pores on Kevin Costner's face.
> 
> 
> So, I'd say that the movie had great detail and a clean picture with virtually no "noise." BUT, the problems of too much brightness and colors that were VERY much washed out and focused on blues and greens left me unimpressed. I'd put this movie in tier 2, and am ASTOUNDED at how high it is right now.
> 
> 
> 
> Sony 34" KD-XBR970
> 
> Samsung BD-1400
> 
> 6 feet



Well, at least someone else thinks this title may be a little overhyped here. I too suffered from overly high expectations for it.


This seems like a technically fine transfer, but not one I'd use for demonstration purposes. The detail is astounding at times, if not cinematic. I think the colors were what the director intended, though. At least they seemed appropriate to the story. However, to my eyes, well done as it is, the disc lacks the "wow" factor I expected from its tier 0 ranking.


But then, I seem to be out of step with the more influential opinion makers here.







For the most part I've given up suggesting placements for that reason, but I will venture agreement that tier 0 seems too high for Mr. Brooks.


Pioneer Kuro 5080HD (50"; 768p/72Hz)

Panasonic BD30 (1080p/24)

Viewed from 9 ft.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Macfan424* /forum/post/12967398
> 
> 
> Well, at least someone else thinks this title may be a little overhyped here. I too suffered from overly high expectations for it.
> 
> 
> This seems like a technically fine transfer, but not one I'd use for demonstration purposes. The detail is astounding at times, if not cinematic. I think the colors were what the director intended, though. At least they seemed appropriate to the story. However, to my eyes, well done as it is, the disc lacks the "wow" factor I expected from its tier 0 ranking.
> 
> 
> But then, I seem to be out of step with the more influential opinion makers here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the most part I've given up suggesting placements for that reason, but I will venture agreement that tier 0 seems too high for Mr. Brooks.
> 
> 
> Pioneer Kuro 5080HD (50"; 768p/72Hz)
> 
> Panasonic BD30 (1080p/24)
> 
> Viewed from 9 ft.



I generally don't like to make comments on posters' display equipment, but unless you are watching on a 1080p display at closer than twice screen width, you really are not seeing everything the material has to offer.


----------



## 1FAST951




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12967538
> 
> 
> unless you are watching .......at closer than twice screen width, you really are not seeing everything the material has to offer.



Is this regardless of display type? And is this your personal preference and thoughts or do you have some independent data to back this up?


Not disagreeing with you at all, just trying to learn a bit more, I keep messing around with my viewing distances but can't seem to make up my mind. Even at 8' I can generally notice more detail/sharpness than most. Meaning that in quite a few reviews in which folks complain about the lack of it, the films appear to have plenty of it to me.


ThanX


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *1FAST951* /forum/post/12968086
> 
> 
> Is this regardless of display type? And is this your personal preference and thoughts or do you have some independent data to back this up?
> 
> 
> Not disagreeing with you at all, just trying to learn a bit more, I keep messing around with my viewing distances but can't seem to make up my mind. Even at 8' I can generally notice more detail/sharpness than most. Meaning that in quite a few reviews in which folks complain about the lack of it, the films appear to have plenty of it to me.
> 
> 
> ThanX



My personal preference is viewing at about one screen width, and I know that I see things at this distance that I do not see just a bit farther away. It is not apparent to me why this should differ depending on display type.


What does your 8' viewing distance translate into in terms of screen widths?


----------



## 1FAST951




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12968530
> 
> 
> My personal preference is viewing at about one screen width, and I know that I see things at this distance that I do not see just a bit farther away. It is not apparent to me why this should differ depending on display type.
> 
> 
> What does your 8' viewing distance translate into in terms of screen widths?



My screen width is 37" (42" diagonal) so for me I guess your recommended viewing distance (less than half screen width) would be 6' or less?


Seems consistent with the closest viewing distances in most "general" guidelines I've seen for 42" diag. HDTV's (range 5-9').


Unfortunately the closest I can get is 6' due to furniture limitations. I have played around with the 7-9' range and settled on 8' mostly due to the crappy SD-Sat signal I'm stuck with for the moment. DirecTV is not giving me any decent deals on a HD upgrade as I'm still on the original 2 year contract........just a few more months to go










Sorry to go a bit OT there.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *1FAST951* /forum/post/12968926
> 
> 
> My screen width is 37" (42" diagonal) so for me I guess your recommended viewing distance (less than half screen width) would be 6' or less?
> 
> 
> Seems consistent with the closest viewing distances in most "general" guidelines I've seen for 42" diag. HDTV's (range 5-9').
> 
> 
> Unfortunately the closest I can get is 6' due to furniture limitations. I have played around with the 7-9' range and settled on 8' mostly due to the crappy SD-Sat signal I'm stuck with for the moment. DirecTV is not giving me any decent deals on a HD upgrade as I'm still on the original 2 year contract........just a few more months to go
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to go a bit OT there.



Well the viewing distance that I personally prefer would be a lot closer than 6 feet. I think that at a distance of two screen widths you are really missing out on a lot of the benefit of 1080p, as delivered on the best BDs.


I recognize that furniture can be a problem, but I think that someone who is viewing at a viewing distance of two screen widths should likewise recognize that they are not seeing all there is to see.


Two different movies, viewed from a distance of two screen widths, might seem to have equivalent PQ, but from a distance of one screen width there might be noticeable differences in PQ between the two movies.


----------



## Macfan424




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12967538
> 
> 
> I generally don't like to make comments on posters' display equipment, but unless you are watching on a 1080p display at closer than twice screen width, you really are not seeing everything the material has to offer.



Thanks for eliminating any doubt.










As I previously suspected, my equipment isn't elite enough for this thread. And neither is an old guy like me who wears eyeglasses.










In the future, I'll keep my obviously substandard opinions to myself.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Macfan424* /forum/post/12969514
> 
> 
> Thanks for eliminating any doubt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I previously suspected, my equipment isn't elite enough for this thread. And neither is an old guy like me who wears eyeglasses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the future, I'll keep my obviously substandard opinions to myself.



I am also an old guy who wears eyeglasses.










And my equipment is certainly not elite.










But this thread really is all about making fairly fine PQ distinctions. And I really do think a 1080p display is necessary for that task. A projector displaying on a ten foot screen is not.


----------



## maverick0716

For absolute worst picture quality on BD, in my opinion it goes to the original release of Full Metal Jacket. This transfer doesn't even know what sharpness is, lol. It looks like an AVERAGE DVD. Even the much hated Fugitive transfer is a lot better than FMJ.


----------



## Macfan424




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12969676
> 
> 
> I am also an old guy who wears eyeglasses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And my equipment is certainly not elite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But this thread really is all about making fairly fine PQ distinctions. And I really do think a 1080p display is necessary for that task. A projector displaying on a ten foot screen is not.



A 1080p display may be "necessary" if your *only* PQ criterion is resolution, which ISF ranks fourth in importance, behind contrast ratio, color saturation and color accuracy.


But I accept your position that only 1080p owners are welcome to comment on PQ, and, as I said, will refrain from doing so in the future.


----------



## 1FAST951

patrick99, thanks for the advice. I'll keep it in mind for further experimentation, even if I only use the closer distances for testing purposes for now.


I have a few movies I'll be watching over the next few days ranging from Tier 0 to Tier 3. Will be interesting to play around with the much shorter viewing distances.


An additional question regarding your comment;



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12969213
> 
> 
> Two different movies, viewed from a distance of two screen widths, might seem to have equivalent PQ, but from a distance of one screen width there might be noticeable differences in PQ between the two movies.



I think I understand the point you are trying to get across but if for example, I'm viewing at 8' and I feel that a particular movie has great detail/sharpness and then I move to a 5' distance and now notice objectionable grain/noise but the other positives remain the same, how should this affect my criticism of the film? These are in fact the most noticeable differences (other than my TV becoming a "big screen"







) I have encountered in the past when playing around with viewing distances.


I'm not trying to put you on the spot here, I've actually watched about 40 BD's since I got my system a few month's ago, but I'm not confident enough yet to post most of my opinions (want to make sure I'm being accurate). It seems that even the most knowledgeable members with the most $$$ gear at times, vastly disagree on where the titles should be placed.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Macfan424* /forum/post/12969937
> 
> 
> A 1080p display may be "necessary" if your *only* PQ criterion is resolution, which ISF ranks fourth in importance, behind contrast ratio, color saturation and color accuracy.
> 
> 
> But I accept your position that only 1080p owners are welcome to comment on PQ, and, as I said, will refrain from doing so in the future.



Are there any 720p displays that excel at the "top three" criteria, especially CR?


----------



## Macfan424




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/12970109
> 
> 
> Are there any 720p displays that excel at the "top three" criteria, especially CR?



Pioneer, for one. There are others that I think are good, but the Pioneer Kuro 768p displays have earned wide critical acclaim.


----------



## lrstevens421




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/12970109
> 
> 
> Are there any 720p displays that excel at the "top three" criteria, especially CR?



Pioneer Kuro 4280 & 5080, there's not much that don't excel at.


----------



## 1FAST951

Pardon the ignorance but where can I find more info on said ISF rankings?


----------



## pepar

I think you all can understand that one's display is important in seeing PQ. With all of the recent, umm . . "discussion" over some titles ranking, getting it right is important to everyone. It is not intended to be insulting. The conventional wisdom has been that only 1080p displays were new enough to have top specs in all criteria. Kuros would seem to be an exception, so I guess that should be weighed by the thread admins when considering rankings. Personally, I had originally thought that we should request eye exam results, but I was shot down.


----------



## JayPSU




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/12970109
> 
> 
> Are there any 720p displays that excel at the "top three" criteria, especially CR?



Well perhaps people using LCD tv's that are 720p may have problems with the "top three." But the three things that the Sony KD-XBR970 DOES excel with are contrast ratio, color saturation, and color accuracy. Where it has it's problems is with resolution.


Also, my complaints with Mr. Brooks did NOT have to do with resolution issues BUT with it being too bright, colors too washed out (with too much focus on blues and greens), and poor contrast. I fail to see where a 1080p display would present a better picture in the areas I have complaints about. However, feel free to rip into my display's quality.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Macfan424* /forum/post/12969937
> 
> 
> 
> But I accept your position that only 1080p owners are welcome to comment on PQ, and, as I said, will refrain from doing so in the future.



I think you know that you are putting words in my mouth, and I think you also know that I have not claimed to be in any type of position to establish rules about who is or is not welcome to comment on PQ. I was simply expressing my own personal opinions.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *1FAST951* /forum/post/12970039
> 
> 
> patrick99, thanks for the advice. I'll keep it in mind for further experimentation, even if I only use the closer distances for testing purposes for now.
> 
> 
> I have a few movies I'll be watching over the next few days ranging from Tier 0 to Tier 3. Will be interesting to play around with the much shorter viewing distances.
> 
> 
> An additional question regarding your comment;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think I understand the point you are trying to get across but if for example, I'm viewing at 8' and I feel that a particular movie has great detail/sharpness and then I move to a 5' distance and now notice objectionable grain/noise but the other positives remain the same, how should this affect my criticism of the film? These are in fact the most noticeable differences (other than my TV becoming a "big screen"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) I have encountered in the past when playing around with viewing distances.
> 
> 
> I'm not trying to put you on the spot here, I've actually watched about 40 BD's since I got my system a few month's ago, but I'm not confident enough yet to post most of my opinions (want to make sure I'm being accurate). It seems that even the most knowledgeable members with the most $$$ gear at times, vastly disagree on where the titles should be placed.



I think if you see problems when viewing at five feet, those problems should affect your evaluation of the film.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JayPSU* /forum/post/12971055
> 
> 
> Well perhaps people using LCD tv's that are 720p may have problems with the "top three." But the three things that the Sony KD-XBR970 DOES excel with are contrast ratio, color saturation, and color accuracy. Where it has it's problems is with resolution.
> 
> 
> Also, my complaints with Mr. Brooks did NOT have to do with resolution issues BUT with it being too bright, colors too washed out (with too much focus on blues and greens), and poor contrast. I fail to see where a 1080p display would present a better picture in the areas I have complaints about. However, feel free to rip into my display's quality.



Arrrgghh, nobody reads! "The conventional wisdom has been that only 1080p displays were new enough to have top specs in all criteria. Kuros would seem to be an exception, so I guess that should be weighed by the thread admins when considering rankings." If displays coming to market with less than 1080p have good specs in the other areas, then that conventional wisdom needs to be updated. Are we OK now?


----------



## JayPSU




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/12971732
> 
> 
> If displays coming to market with less than 1080p have good specs in the other areas, then that conventional wisdom needs to be updated. Are we OK now?



LOL...ok, would my display fit into the set of "good specs in other areas" to make conventional wisdom need updating?


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JayPSU* /forum/post/12972053
> 
> 
> LOL...ok, would my display fit into the set of "good specs in other areas" to make conventional wisdom need updating?



Yeah, and I think the Kuros, too.


Did you attend PSU?


----------



## OldCodger73

So have we gone elitist and comments are not welcome from 720p owners?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/12972321
> 
> 
> So have we gone elitist and comments are not welcome from 720p owners?



Absolutely, positively not!


I was still reviewing these discs on a 720p projector 9 months ago.


----------



## bifocalprojector

just finished watching "The Invasion [Blu-ray}" that I rented from BB today.


This is one of those rare BD movies that completely fills the 16x9 screen.

(even "Superbad" had tiny black bars on top/bottom)


The picture quality is okay, but the movie is boring as hell.... (sorry)


I'd say it belongs at the bottom of Tier 2, or the top of Tier 3.


But Nicole Kidman is hot, no matter how bad the movie is....


----------



## OhioMike




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Macfan424* /forum/post/12969937
> 
> 
> A 1080p display may be "necessary" if your *only* PQ criterion is resolution, which ISF ranks fourth in importance, behind contrast ratio, color saturation and color accuracy.
> 
> 
> But I accept your position that only 1080p owners are welcome to comment on PQ, and, as I said, will refrain from doing so in the future.



Yeah Mac....I mean C-net only rated your display as "The Best We Have Ever Tested LCD or Plasma"







Let them all believe what they want!! Oh yeah...what was that native contrast ratio 3000:1......


----------



## jm_etue

I guess I have too much time on my hands.


I went through the current lists (as of Jan 29) from the Blu-ray Picture Quality Tier thread and

the Audio Tier thread and compiled a list of discs on both (tier 0's & tier 1's).


The list is cross referenced with an overall score from Rotten Tomatoes 

and is in highest ranked order by them.

For fun I also cross checked to see if the disc was on the Movies with Bass thread - and noted those.

96 Ratatouille
94 Casino Royale (2006)
91 Blade Runner: The Final Cut
89 Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azakhban
79 Hellboy
79 Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl
77 Surf's Up
75 Black Hawk Down
74 Happy Feet
69 Fifth Element (Remastered)
65 Apocalypto
64 Curse of the Golden Flower
62 Patriot
62 Spiderman 3
61 Crank
60 300
60 Starship Troopers
55 Troy (Director's Cut)
54 Mr. & Mrs. Smith
54 Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
53 Immortal Beloved

45 Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End
43 Final Fantasy: Spirits Within
39 Kingdom of Heaven: The Director's Cut
37 Chicken Little
30 Underworld
27 Stomp the Yard

Not on Rotten Tomatoes:

Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds: Live at Radio City

Legends of Jazz Showcase with Ramsey Lewis



A list of the best? Probably not a great consensus - but most are safe buys I would guess.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bifocalprojector* /forum/post/12973317
> 
> 
> just finished watching "The Invasion [Blu-ray}" that I rented from BB today.
> 
> 
> This is one of those rare BD movies that completely fills the 16x9 screen.
> 
> (even "Superbad" had tiny black bars on top/bottom)
> 
> 
> The picture quality is okay, but the movie is boring as hell.... (sorry)
> 
> 
> I'd say it belongs at the bottom of Tier 2, or the top of Tier 3.
> 
> 
> But Nicole Kidman is hot, no matter how bad the movie is....



List your equipment or your opinion means nothing (according to the rules of this thread anyway)


----------



## haste

For anyone curious about viewing distances...


http://myhometheater.homestead.com/v...alculator.html 



I sit 6' feet away from my 42" LCD.


----------



## Icemage

I'd like to politely disagree with the high rating of _Pan's Labyrinth_ (US release). There is heavy digital noise reduction on this release (though reportedly the UK Blu-ray release is superior and has retained the grain).


I watched this title recently on my 50" 1080p KDS50A2000 SXRD via PS3 over HDMI at 1.7 screen width distance. Almost no visible grain present.


At _best_ the US release should be rated high Tier 2 as a result. There's "some" fine detail, but a lot of surfaces are smudged or overly uniform in color.


----------



## JimSD




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12972937
> 
> 
> Absolutely, positively not!
> 
> 
> I was still reviewing these discs on a 720p projector 9 months ago.



Rob, has your opinion of the relative ranking of those titles you watched on the 720p projector changed since you've gone to a 1080p projector? In other words, has any title increased/decreased a lot in your estimation or have they all just improved about the same going to 1080p?


----------



## 1FAST951




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *haste* /forum/post/12975929
> 
> 
> For anyone curious about viewing distances...
> 
> 
> http://myhometheater.homestead.com/v...alculator.html
> 
> 
> 
> I sit 6' feet away from my 42" LCD.



Thanks for the link haste, very informative.


----------



## sweetmisery




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JimSD* /forum/post/12977871
> 
> 
> Rob, has your opinion of the relative ranking of those titles you watched on the 720p projector changed since you've gone to a 1080p projector? In other words, has any title increased/decreased a lot in your estimation or have they all just improved about the same going to 1080p?



Yeah Im extremely curious too.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sweetmisery* /forum/post/12978012
> 
> 
> Yeah Im extremely curious too.



+1!!


----------



## Doc Ostrow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *haste* /forum/post/12975929
> 
> 
> I sit 6' feet away from my 42" LCD.



I sit 7 (recliner upright) to 8 (reclined) feet away from my 60" Sony SXRD. According to the calculator, that's about optimum for best visual acuity.


I noticed that Casino Royale has dropped to the top of Tier 1. When I watched it a few days ago, I was blown away by the sharpness and color purity of the title sequence. I also watched a bit of Ratatouille and saw absolutely no flaws. I like to sit close to a big screen to see all of that detail and also have the image fill my sight like a movie theater screen (immersion effect).


I think home theater has progressed to the point that the image and sound are better at home than in a theater. I'll still go to the theater for films that I'm really interested in (like The Hobbit) but I'll probably start renting Blu-Ray DVDs for the rest. That way, I'll kill two birds with one stone- a) I see the movie for the first time and b) I can judge the quality of the DVD. If I like the movie and the DVD quality is acceptable, I'll buy it. If many people do that, will movie studios start to release Blu-Ray DVDs day and date with movie openings?


----------



## digitaliceblast

shoot em up should not be rated above casino royal. There is wayyyy too much film grain in shoot em up to ever be above casino royal. Please make a correction to the tier0, casino royal needs to be in tier 0 above shoot em up.


----------



## avhed

Anyone seen The Last Waltz? I cannot find it on the list?


----------



## Kevin12586




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *digitaliceblast* /forum/post/12979970
> 
> 
> shoot em up should not be rated above casino royal. There is wayyyy too much film grain in shoot em up to ever be above casino royal. Please make a correction to the tier0, casino royal needs to be in tier 0 above shoot em up.



You need to post your equipment for your thoughts to be taken into consideration


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I watched *Eyes Wide Shut* the other night.


Wow. What happened here? This is pretty damn bad. Saying that this looks like an upconverted DVD is far too generous. Lacking in detail, and noise galore.


Tier 4 at best.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I just noticed that Eyes Wide Shut is in mid Tier 3. This is far too high imo.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JimSD* /forum/post/12977871
> 
> 
> Rob, has your opinion of the relative ranking of those titles you watched on the 720p projector changed since you've gone to a 1080p projector? In other words, has any title increased/decreased a lot in your estimation or have they all just improved about the same going to 1080p?



The key word that you use in your post is "relative" ranking! Relatively, I wouldn't change any of the rankings based on going from 720p to 1080p.


Titles that looked great on my 720p projector looked a bit better on my 1080p projector. Titles that looked bad on 720p, looked a bit worse on 1080p. But RELATIVE to all the other titles, there wouldn't be any movement in the recommended ranking.


And remember, the differences between my 720p and 1080p projectors is more than just resolution.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12981673
> 
> 
> I watched *Eyes Wide Shut* the other night.
> 
> 
> Wow. What happened here? This is pretty damn bad. Saying that this looks like an upconverted DVD is far too generous. Lacking in detail, and noise galore.
> 
> 
> Tier 4 at best.



I couldn't watch it, it looked so bad. I shut it off after about five minutes.


----------



## JimSD

Thanks Rob. You understood exactly what I was asking.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12981920
> 
> 
> I couldn't watch it, it looked so bad. I shut it off after about five minutes.



Would you agree that mid Tier 3 is too high? Tier 4 sound right?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JimSD* /forum/post/12981957
> 
> 
> Thanks Rob. You understood exactly what I was asking.



No problemo!


----------



## bifocalprojector




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12981694
> 
> 
> I just noticed that Eyes Wide Shut is in mid Tier 3. This is far too high imo.



I returned Eyes Wide Shut for a refund because the picture looked awful.

(fortunately I bought it from Amazon, which allows open BD returns)

*IMHO, the only reason to get the BD version is to see Nicole Kidman's

boobies and [rear end] in 1080p high definition.... sadly, the current

BD doesn't do it justice....*


----------



## bifocalprojector

another note about "The Invasion" that I watched yesterday...


When I saw this movie in the theaters, I did not notice
*Nicole Kidman's nipples showing*... but in the the BD version,

they were clearly showing... (the morning scene in the kitchen)










It was also quite funny to see her wear a dress and sneakers

in the creepy census guy scene. (in the extras)


----------



## OhioMike




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *digitaliceblast* /forum/post/12979970
> 
> 
> shoot em up should not be rated above casino royal. There is wayyyy too much film grain in shoot em up to ever be above casino royal. Please make a correction to the tier0, casino royal needs to be in tier 0 above shoot em up.



The Casino Royale move down from Tier 0 to Tier 1 was a 2 week debate in which many people posted opinions before it happened. Shoot Em Up was placed into Tier 0 by a widely unanimous vote. The film grain that you mention is completely intentional and an exact replication of the Theatrical Presentation. Please see the Shoot Em Up comparison thread, created by Xylon, to see just how good this title is, especially when up against the SD version. Thanks, MK.


----------



## dvdmike007

High GOLD for both Across the Universe and Death Sentance

Viewed at 1080i at 42 inches Sony Bravia 3xlcd RP viewed at 5.5 feet


----------



## lgans316

Vertical Limit Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.85:1 | Sony ==> Should this be in top of Tier 3 ? I thought it looked better than some of the top listed Tier-3 titles.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12982097
> 
> 
> Would you agree that mid Tier 3 is too high? Tier 4 sound right?



I would say the very bottom of Tier 4 would be an appropriate placement for EWS.


By the way, in looking through Tier 3 just now, I noticed that Dirty Dancing is currently placed there. I haven't seen this myself, but I have the sense that the general view is that this is pretty bad for PQ. Is Tier 3 the right place for this?


----------



## TheLion




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12986682
> 
> 
> I would say the very bottom of Tier 4 would be an appropriate placement for EWS.
> 
> 
> By the way, in looking through Tier 3 just now, I noticed that Dirty Dancing is currently placed there. I haven't seen this myself, but I have the sense that the general view is that this is pretty bad for PQ. Is Tier 3 the right place for this?



Dirty Dancing is "unwatchable" on a revealing setup. Extreme artifacting because of somekind of filtering (my guess is edge enhancement, could be scaling and a combination of both as well). Turn it off and returned the disc.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TheLion* /forum/post/12986880
> 
> 
> Dirty Dancing is "unwatchable" on a revealing setup. Extreme artifacting because of somekind of filtering (my guess is edge enhancement, could be scaling and a combination of both as well). Turn it off and returned the disc.



Yes, I recalled seeing very severe negative comments about DD, plus some pretty horrendous looking screencaps.


----------



## haste




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12987092
> 
> 
> Yes, I recalled seeing very severe negative comments about DD, plus some pretty horrendous looking screencaps.



I think Waiting and DD are very very similar in terms of PQ...although Waiting had slightly more detail and better color reproduction...



Both belong in coal imo...



Philips 42" 1080p LCD w/Ambilight @ 6ft viewing distance

Onkyo TX-SR605

60gb PS3


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *haste* /forum/post/12987601
> 
> 
> I think Waiting and DD are very very similar in terms of PQ...although Waiting had slightly more detail and better color reproduction...
> 
> 
> 
> Both belong in coal imo...
> 
> 
> 
> Philips 42" 1080p LCD w/Ambilight @ 6ft viewing distance
> 
> Onkyo TX-SR605
> 
> 60gb PS3



Based on the screencaps of DD that I have seen, DD is worse. I actually watched a portion of Waiting, and the main very severe problem that I recall there was a bad case of plastic face syndrome. I don't recall the sort of jaggy artifacting that I believe I have seen in screencaps of DD.


But both coal, definitely.


----------



## hobbs47




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12987839
> 
> 
> Based on the screencaps of DD that I have seen, DD is worse. I actually watched a portion of Waiting, and the main very severe problem that I recall there was a bad case of plastic face syndrome. I don't recall the sort of jaggy artifacting that I believe I have seen in screencaps of DD.
> 
> 
> But both coal, definitely.



Great,now can we all suggest tier placement based on screencaps?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hobbs47* /forum/post/12989137
> 
> 
> Great,now can we all suggest tier placement on screencaps?



Feel free to make suggestions or comments about where you think particular titles should be placed. That's what this thread is about.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12981673
> 
> 
> I watched *Eyes Wide Shut* the other night.
> 
> 
> Wow. What happened here? This is pretty damn bad. Saying that this looks like an upconverted DVD is far too generous. Lacking in detail, and noise galore.
> 
> 
> Tier 4 at best.



I originally nominated it for bottom of Tier 3. Tier 4 works for me as well.


My original comments (substitute "grain" with "noise"):


> Quote:
> Anyhow, enough with that movie. I also got a chance to watch Eyes Wide Shut last night. I don't remember my impressions of the DVD version a few years ago when I first saw it, but I can't imagine this being much of an improvement over it. It was very soft throughout with lots of grain to boot. I understand this was a stylistic choice, but being completely honest, if somebody put this in my PS3 and asked me to guess if it were the DVD version or the Blu-ray version I'd probably have guessed DVD.



Brandon


----------



## hobbs47




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12989184
> 
> 
> Feel free to make suggestions or comments about where you think particular titles should be placed. That's what this thread is about.




Ahh,I see,my bad.I thought we had to watch the actual discs on our particular setups before we could comment on tier placement.


----------



## haste




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hobbs47* /forum/post/12989304
> 
> 
> Ahh,I see,my bad.I thought we had to watch the actual discs on our particular setups before we could comment on tier placement.




thats the idea...

you are supposed to see the movies before making any comment whatsoever. then placing the specs of the system being used to display said movie.


----------



## hobbs47




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *haste* /forum/post/12989324
> 
> 
> thats the idea...
> 
> you are supposed to see the movies before making any comment whatsoever. then placing the specs of the system being used to display said movie.



I know,I was being sarcastic


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hobbs47* /forum/post/12989447
> 
> 
> I know,I was being sarcastic



Feel free to make suggestions or comments about where you think particular titles should be placed. That's what this thread is about.


----------



## hobbs47




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12989515
> 
> 
> Feel free to make suggestions or comments about where you think particular titles should be placed. That's what this thread is about.



When posting your thoughts about Tier placement please be sure to include the following or your post has no chance of impacting the tier:

Screen Resolution (EX: 1920X1080X24p or 1920X1080X60p)

Screen Size (EX: 100" Projection, 50" Plasma)

Distance from Screen


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hobbs47* /forum/post/12989856
> 
> 
> When posting your thoughts about Tier placement please be sure to include the following or your post has no chance of impacting the tier:
> 
> Screen Resolution (EX: 1920X1080X24p or 1920X1080X60p)
> 
> Screen Size (EX: 100" Projection, 50" Plasma)
> 
> Distance from Screen



Feel free to make suggestions or comments about where you think particular titles should be placed.


----------



## Rieper




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12989974
> 
> 
> Feel free to make suggestions or comments about where you think particular titles should be placed.



Feel free to make suggestions or comments about where you think particular titles should be placed.


----------



## Rieper




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12981673
> 
> 
> I watched *Eyes Wide Shut* the other night.
> 
> 
> Wow. What happened here? This is pretty damn bad. Saying that this looks like an upconverted DVD is far too generous. Lacking in detail, and noise galore.
> 
> 
> Tier 4 at best.



Did Xylon ever do a comparison of Eyes Wide Shut BD vs. DVD?


I'm sure someone here knows if he did...


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rieper* /forum/post/12991123
> 
> 
> Feel free to make suggestions or comments about where you think particular titles should be placed.



It appears that you may have missed the point I was trying to make.


----------



## hobbs47




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12989974
> 
> 
> Feel free to make suggestions or comments about where you think particular titles should be placed.



By the way, in looking through Tier 3 just now, I noticed that Dirty Dancing is currently placed there. I haven't seen this myself, but.......................


----------



## maverick0716

I'm the one who recommended Dirty Dancing for Tier 3 quite some time ago. I thought it looked quite a bit better than the DVD version anyway, and compared to other titles around it, I thought it deserved it's spot. I don't think it deserves to be with the likes of Full Metal Jacket (original release). Now that there are a lot more titles in the Tier lists, I think it could safely be moved down to the top of Tier 4 I guess.......around Goodfellas.


42" Panasonic plasma (768p)

PS3 though HDMI

6-7 ft.


----------



## OldCodger73

I watched Breaker Moran the other night. An excellent movie, one of the better anti-war ones. I thought the PQ was soft, but not painfully so, and there were some white speckling in the sky in one of the scenes. I haven't watched enough Tier 3 and 4 movies to get a good feel what they're like but would think Breaker Morant would be at the bottom of Tier 3 or upper half of Tier 4. The sound was 2 channel DTS or DD.


Panasonic 50" 600U 720p, Panasonic 10a, 8'


----------



## Rieper




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12991382
> 
> 
> It appears that you may have missed the point I was trying to make.



I'm just messin' around. No harm no foul.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12986682
> 
> 
> I would say the very bottom of Tier 4 would be an appropriate placement for EWS.
> 
> 
> By the way, in looking through Tier 3 just now, I noticed that Dirty Dancing is currently placed there. I haven't seen this myself, but I have the sense that the general view is that this is pretty bad for PQ. Is Tier 3 the right place for this?





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TheLion* /forum/post/12986880
> 
> 
> Dirty Dancing is "unwatchable" on a revealing setup. Extreme artifacting because of somekind of filtering (my guess is edge enhancement, could be scaling and a combination of both as well). Turn it off and returned the disc.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/12989290
> 
> 
> I originally nominated it for bottom of Tier 3. Tier 4 works for me as well.
> 
> 
> My original comments (substitute "grain" with "noise"):
> 
> 
> 
> Brandon



Good, we will move EWS down to Tier 4, and Dirty Dancing (thank God my wife doesn't know this is on Blu-ray yet!) to Tier 4 as well.


----------



## Bosox2004




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hobbs47* /forum/post/12989304
> 
> 
> Ahh,I see,my bad.I thought we had to watch the actual discs on our particular setups before we could comment on tier placement.



Amen! I thought it was just me... Everyone is entitled to their own opinion on PQ but how can people give an honest opinion when they either haven't even seen the movie or they have only seen bits and pieces of it. Yet, their opinions continue to get counted.


Shouldn't the minimum requirement be that you at least watched the movie you are giving an opinion on?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bosox2004* /forum/post/12994521
> 
> 
> Amen! I thought it was just me... Everyone is entitled to their own opinion on PQ but how can people give an honest opinion when they either haven't even seen the movie or they have only seen bits and pieces of it. Yet, their opinions continue to get counted.
> 
> 
> Shouldn't the minimum requirement be that you at least watched the movie you are giving an opinion on?



Whose opinion is being counted that hasn't watched the movie?


----------



## Dustin44




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12995005
> 
> 
> Whose opinion is being counted that hasn't watched the movie?



I believe they are talking about Patrick99.


When talking about EWS:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Patrick99;* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I couldn't watch it, it looked so bad. I shut it off after about five minutes.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Patrick99;* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I would say the very bottom of Tier 4 would be an appropriate placement for EWS.



When talking about Dirty Dancing:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Patrick99;* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> By the way, in looking through Tier 3 just now, I noticed that Dirty Dancing is currently placed there. I haven't seen this myself, but I have the sense that the general view is that this is pretty bad for PQ. Is Tier 3 the right place for this?





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Patrick99;* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Based on the screencaps of DD that I have seen, DD is worse. I actually watched a portion of Waiting, and the main very severe problem that I recall there was a bad case of plastic face syndrome. I don't recall the sort of jaggy artifacting that I believe I have seen in screencaps of DD.
> 
> 
> But both coal, definitely.



I believe this is still a requirement for being able to post your thoughts on a movie as well, correct?


When posting your thoughts about Tier placement please be sure to include the following or your post has no chance of impacting the tier:

Screen Resolution (EX: 1920X1080X24p or 1920X1080X60p)

Screen Size (EX: 100" Projection, 50" Plasma)

Distance from Screen


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Thanks Dustin. I missed the part where Patrick said he only watched 5 minutes of EWS.


Although, to be honest, that probably _was_ enough in this case!










Regarding Dirty Dancing, I was referring to The Lion's post, not Patricks. We do not rank titles based on screenshots in this thread.


----------



## Murilo

I am finally going to comment on this thread because I remained format neutral with ps3 and xa2, although I had only purchased HDDVD for some reason, until the warner announcement.


Anyway I purchased and watched apocalypto, american psycho (cause its one of my favorites), curse of the golden flower, and kingdom of heaven.


I agree with american psycho tier ranking, curse of the golden flower as well, like some reviews said the dvd seemed soft in places. Colors were fantastic. But I also found apocalypto's colors great and very clear, but did anyone else find it a bit soft I think both deserve tier 1, I dont think apocolypto was sharp enough to be tier 5. I thought maybe it was just my xa2, because the reon hqv I can apply a slight sharpness adjustment of +1 that made everything a bit sharper. I was begining to worry blue ray or my ps3 at 720p was soft, but kingdom of heaven looked very sharp. I watched 300 on hddvd and I thought kingdom of heaven was better blue ray.




Im just up in the air if its borderline tier 0 or 1.


Projector at 109 inch 720p.


Distance 8.5 feet


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12996937
> 
> 
> Thanks Dustin. I missed the part where Patrick said he only watched 5 minutes of EWS.
> 
> 
> Although, to be honest, that probably _was_ enough in this case!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding Dirty Dancing, I was referring to The Lion's post, not Patricks. We do not rank titles based on screenshots in this thread.



As a point of clarification, Rob, I brought up DD because I happened to notice it was in Tier 3 when I was looking through Tier 3 for another reason. I first posted about DD because I knew that it had a reputation for egregiously bad artifacting, and Tier 3 seemed very questionable for a title with such a reputation. I certainly don't take the position that Tier placement should be based on screenshots.


I do however think it is possible to arrive at a reasonable evaluation of PQ without watching the entire movie.


----------



## LazerViking




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Murilo* /forum/post/12997150
> 
> 
> ....But I also found apocalypto's colors great and very clear, but did anyone else find it a bit soft I think both deserve tier 1, I dont think apocolypto was sharp enough to be tier 5....



Hmm, I've always thought Apocalypto to be one of the sharpest live action BD's I've ever watched. Any particular scenes where this was noticed?


42" 1080i Plasma

PS3 via HDMI

Viewing around 48" (god bless apartment life)


----------



## vpn75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LazerViking* /forum/post/13000457
> 
> 
> Hmm, I've always thought Apocalypto to be one of the sharpest live action BD's I've ever watched. Any particular scenes where this was noticed?
> 
> 
> 42" 1080i Plasma
> 
> PS3 via HDMI
> 
> Viewing around 48" (god bless apartment life)



I agree...Apocalypto looks stunning. I never imagined someone could refer to its PQ as soft, though naturally some scenes looked "softer" compared to others.


----------



## Murilo

Actually after they get to jerusalem there are several demo material scenes.


I think that belongs back in tier 0 I mean.


----------



## Murilo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vpn75* /forum/post/13003873
> 
> 
> I agree...Apocalypto looks stunning. I never imagined someone could refer to its PQ as soft, though naturally some scenes looked "softer" compared to others.



Just the movie in general I think was a bit soft i noticed it mainly in the begining scenes, the later scenes were more impressive when they were captured.Im surprised you never heard anyone say it was a bit soft, I did a search on it and found alot of controversy where people found it a bit soft. Even read some online reviews where that was the only complaint because gibson shot it on a genus (sp?) camera one review said.


Comparing it to the likes of kingdom of heaven, or on hddvd king kong, I thought the picture was just a bit softer, those of course are top tier movies.


----------



## Murilo

And I keep getting these teirs mixed up because they go the opposite way the hddvd rankings did.


Anyway my rankings are.


American Psycho 4

Apocalypto 1

Curse of the golden flower 1

Kingdom of heaven 0


(720P 106 inch screen, seating about 8.5-9 feet back)


----------



## obxdiver

 Visions-Sea-Explorations-Blu-ray-HDScape 


OK

This is some definite eye candy

I saw this was not rated. I just got it from Netflix today.

The Dolby TrueHD is very nice with a tranquil instrumental only soundtrack. There is no dialog.


Many of the close up shots of the reef and fish are truly amazing.


Excellent photography in this. Everyone who loves marine life must see this on BD.


I definitely rate this near the top of Tier 0


My Equipment

Panny BD10 BD player running FW 2.4

7.1 Analog outs to a Lexicon DC1 (modded by Shawn Fogg to add 8 channel analog inputs)

HDMI video out @1080i to a Lumagen HDQ video processor

Lumagen 1080i video out to a 65" Mits CRT Rear Projection with 9" CRT's and professionally ISF calibrated. (Model WS-65813)

Viewing Distance 15 feet


_


----------



## maverick0716

Just watched Saw IV today and I was pleased with the picture quality. It is a very dark, gritty movie, but there are plenty of scenes with very good sharpness. Very realistic colours throughout, with deep blacks. I would put this right above Saw III for picture quality.


42" Panasonic plasma (768p)

PS3 though HDMI

6-7 ft.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *obxdiver* /forum/post/13004791
> 
> Visions-Sea-Explorations-Blu-ray-HDScape
> 
> 
> OK
> 
> This is some definite eye candy
> 
> I saw this was not rated. I just got it from Netflix today.
> 
> The Dolby TrueHD is very nice with a tranquil instrumental only soundtrack. There is no dialog.
> 
> 
> Many of the close up shots of the reef and fish are truly amazing.
> 
> 
> Excellent photography in this. Everyone who loves marine life must see this on BD.
> 
> 
> I definitely rate this near the top of Tier 0
> 
> 
> My Equipment
> 
> Panny BD10 BD player running FW 2.4
> 
> 7.1 Analog outs to a Lexicon DC1 (modded by Shawn Fogg to add 8 channel analog inputs)
> 
> HDMI video out @1080i to a Lumagen HDQ video processor
> 
> Lumagen 1080i video out to a 65" Mits CRT Rear Projection with 9" CRT's and professionally ISF calibrated. (Model WS-65813)
> 
> Viewing Distance 15 feet
> 
> 
> _



Nice! I used to have a Reef Tank, so I will definitely have to check this out. The previous aquarium title was less than impressive.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/13004882
> 
> 
> Just watched Saw IV today and I was pleased with the picture quality. It is a very dark, gritty movie, but there are plenty of scenes with very good sharpness. Very realistic colours throughout, with deep blacks. I would put this right above Saw III for picture quality.
> 
> 
> 42" Panasonic plasma (768p)
> 
> PS3 though HDMI
> 
> 6-7 ft.




I agree with everything you said except the "deep blacks" part. I thought Saw IV was lacking a bit in that area. Overall very good PQ though.


----------



## obxdiver




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13004914
> 
> 
> Nice! I used to have a Reef Tank, so I will definitely have to check this out. The previous aquarium title was less than impressive.



This one is NOT an aquarium title. All footage is real underwater footage from Fiji and the Bahamas. You can see every tiny piece of algae floating in the camera's field of view. You can see the individual scales on some of the fish.

The colors absolutely pop off the screen. *Very vibrant colors.*

There is also a cool Dolby True HD logo intro at the beginning with sound coming from all channels. First time I have seen that.

I will be buying this one for my demo collection. Reference quality material in my setup.


A must see.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *obxdiver* /forum/post/13005085
> 
> 
> This one is NOT an aquarium title. All footage is real underwater footage from Fiji and the Bahamas. You can see every tiny piece of algae floating in the camera's field of view. You can see the individual scales on some of the fish.
> 
> The colors absolutely pop off the screen. *Very vibrant colors.*
> 
> There is also a cool Dolby True HD logo intro at the beginning with sound coming from all channels. First time I have seen that.
> 
> I will be buying this one for my demo collection. Reference quality material in my setup.
> 
> 
> A must see.



Cool!


I tried adding it to my Netflix Queue, but it doesn't come up.


----------



## obxdiver




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13005200
> 
> 
> Cool!
> 
> 
> I tried adding it to my Netflix Queue, but it doesn't come up.



I see that it does not show BD or HD-DVD format on the main title page HERE , however, the picture they show is an HD-DVD.

But when it was in my queue I was able to choose DVD or BluRay.

It has been in my queue for at least 6 months.


----------



## vincentnyc

Watch shakira just the other nite. It should rank right below dave matthews.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Murilo* /forum/post/12997150
> 
> 
> I am finally going to comment on this thread because I remained format neutral with ps3 and xa2, although I had only purchased HDDVD for some reason, until the warner announcement.
> 
> 
> Anyway I purchased and watched apocalypto, american psycho (cause its one of my favorites), curse of the golden flower, and kingdom of heaven.
> 
> 
> I agree with american psycho tier ranking, curse of the golden flower as well, like some reviews said the dvd seemed soft in places. Colors were fantastic. But I also found apocalypto's colors great and very clear, but did anyone else find it a bit soft I think both deserve tier 1, I dont think apocolypto was sharp enough to be tier 5. I thought maybe it was just my xa2, because the reon hqv I can apply a slight sharpness adjustment of +1 that made everything a bit sharper. I was begining to worry blue ray or my ps3 at 720p was soft, but kingdom of heaven looked very sharp. I watched 300 on hddvd and I thought kingdom of heaven was better blue ray.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Im just up in the air if its borderline tier 0 or 1.
> 
> 
> Projector at 109 inch 720p.
> 
> 
> Distance 8.5 feet



please keep in mind that that size of a screen with only 720p is not exactly ideal


----------



## Murilo

Could not disagree more, there is actually a huge arguement over in the projector area about wether 1080p is worth it. I think its worth it because you can get native 1080/24 but many people cant see a difference sitting in there normal position unless they get up close, I actually tried a 1080p projector not to long ago sitting 9 feet away nobody could tell a difference in resolution unless we came in around 6 feet of the screen but my seating area is further back. I suggest you check out some of the threads there was a shootout that was hugely popular in athens nobody was guessing which was which, people swore the 720, was 1080. Unless you sit to close for 720p its a non issue. I would much rather have a good 720p projector with good blacks and deinterlacing, processing, then a mediocre more expensive 1080 display.


Its actually a hc3100 also I own, with darkchip 3 and a very sharp unforgiving picture. And I still maintain kingdom of a heaven was a sharp looking blue ray movie, apocalypto just was not a sharp enough picture for me until half way through the movie when they were captured.


----------



## Murilo

And actually I just checked my offical screen size is 104 I had to measure again and check my carada receipt.


----------



## SuprSlow

Looks like we lost a few posts


----------



## Category 5

Just watched Across the Universe, and while the movie wasn't the best I think it's probably the best looking non-animated BD I've seen yet. Full on demo material. Perfect contrast, amazing color, just enough grain to look filmic, and sharp as a tack throughout. Dolby True-HD audio to boot!


If not tier 0 then surely tier one, but I say Tier 0 if Crank can reside there.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

planet earth is really tier 2!?


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sick of Change* /forum/post/13033665
> 
> 
> planet earth is really tier 2!?



Although it has many Tier 1/Tier 0 quality scenes, there are also many scenes that aren't the greatest. Still a fantastic presentation overall though.


----------



## lgans316

I can boldly comment that The Island can be placed in top of Tier-1 or even Tier-0. Typical Michael Bay presentation.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Category 5* /forum/post/13033619
> 
> 
> Just watched Across the Universe, and while the movie wasn't the best I think it's probably the best looking non-animated BD I've seen yet. Full on demo material. Perfect contrast, amazing color, just enough grain to look filmic, and sharp as a tack throughout. Dolby True-HD audio to boot!
> 
> 
> If not tier 0 then surely tier one, but I say Tier 0 if Crank can reside there.



Totally disagree. Very disappointing PQ. Not one shot in the entire movie that looked sharp. Tier 2 to my eyes.


----------



## hobbs47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Category 5

Just watched Across the Universe, and while the movie wasn't the best I think it's probably the best looking non-animated BD I've seen yet. Full on demo material. Perfect contrast, amazing color, just enough grain to look filmic, and sharp as a tack throughout. Dolby True-HD audio to boot!


If not tier 0 then surely tier one, but I say Tier 0 if Crank can reside there.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13034048
> 
> 
> Totally disagree. Very disappointing PQ. Not one shot in the entire movie that looked sharp. Tier 2 to my eyes.




Wow,can anybody else post their opinion on this title,I haven't seen it yet.How can 2 people be so far apart on PQ on the same title?


----------



## nomunk

this Tier thread most definately has problems there is no way Spiderman 3 ( grainy as hell ) looks better than Rush Hour 3



Rush Hour 3 should most def be Tier 0


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nomunk* /forum/post/13041331
> 
> 
> this Tier thread most definately has problems there is no way Spiderman 3 ( grainy as hell ) looks better than Rush Hour 3
> 
> 
> 
> Rush Hour 3 should most def be Tier 0



While there are some titles that are up for debate, most people find the Tier lists to be fairly accurate. In the case of Rush Hour 3 and Spiderman 3, I find them both to be very similar in picture quality, and would rate them a solid Tier 1.


Oh, and when you post recommendations, don't forget to post your setup details or you opinion will not be counted and no changes will be made.


42" Panasonic Plasma

PS3 though HDMI

6-7 ft. viewing distance


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nomunk* /forum/post/13041331
> 
> 
> this Tier thread most definately has problems there is no way Spiderman 3 ( grainy as hell ) looks better than Rush Hour 3
> 
> 
> 
> Rush Hour 3 should most def be Tier 0



I Agree. Why not use a similar method to that in the HD DVD forum? At least it's based on votes.


----------



## Kevin12586




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/13042341
> 
> 
> I Agree. Why not use a similar method to that in the HD DVD forum? At least it's based on votes.



Here we go with the votes again


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/13042341
> 
> 
> I Agree. Why not use a similar method to that in the HD DVD forum? At least it's based on votes.




This has been addressed numerous times. Please use the search if you wish to see past discussions.


There are inherent flaws in both systems, but we believe this to be the best method of ranking titles.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nomunk* /forum/post/13041331
> 
> 
> this Tier thread most definately has problems there is no way Spiderman 3 ( grainy as hell ) looks better than Rush Hour 3
> 
> 
> *Rush Hour 3 should most def be Tier 0*



NO, NO, NO! Soft, soft, soft!


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/13043238
> 
> 
> This has been addressed numerous times. Please use the search if you wish to see past discussions.
> 
> 
> There are inherent flaws in both systems, but we believe this to be the best method of ranking titles.



Sometimes this thread reminds me of Groundhog Day.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nomunk* /forum/post/13041331
> 
> 
> this Tier thread most definately has problems there is no way Spiderman 3 ( grainy as hell ) looks better than Rush Hour 3
> 
> 
> 
> Rush Hour 3 should most def be Tier 0



This post reminded me to post my impressions of Rush Hour 3 which I just watched 2 nights ago:


Nice looking title. Good contrast, and pretty good detail. No artifacts to speak of. I would say bottom of Tier 1, or high Tier 2.


Certainly NOT Tier 0.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*The Brave One*


This is actually one of the better looking Warner titles I have seen in a while (I know that's not saying a lot...with Blade Runner being an exception). Pretty good detail, although there were times that I did get the feeling that DNR may have been used here. There was decent contrast, but the feeling of three dimensional depth wasn't quite as good as one would hope.


Top Tier 2 for me.


----------



## haste

I watched Monty Python's Life of Brian last night.



Huge improvement over the standard DVD. I guess there is only so much they can do to make it look ok. The original film must still be in very good shape. Hardly any dirt. I did see some white speckling here and there (VERY minor), not sure where this was coming from...source or the encode...


Some scenes were a hell of a lot grainier than others, but detail and the overall color palette were very good.





I'd rank it in the Copper tier right around Christmas Vacation.


Philips 42" 1080p/60 LCD

6 ft viewing distance

60gb PS3 doing the 3:2 pulldown


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13044468
> 
> 
> This post reminded me to post my impressions of Rush Hour 3 which I just watched 2 nights ago:
> 
> 
> Nice looking title. Good contrast, and pretty good detail. No artifacts to speak of. *I would say bottom of Tier 1, or high Tier 2.*
> 
> 
> Certainly NOT Tier 0.



As between those alternatives, my view would be high Tier 2.


Btw, Rob, as I posted in another thread, I will be interested to hear what you think of the PQ in Across the Universe when you get a chance to watch it. I was disappointed in that aspect of the movie.


----------



## Category 5




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13034048
> 
> 
> Totally disagree. Very disappointing PQ. Not one shot in the entire movie that looked sharp. Tier 2 to my eyes.



On what system? I can't beleieve anyone could think that. From 6 feet away it looks incredibly sharp on my 46" Aquos D92U. I am playing through a PS3, HDMI at 1080p, Sharpness on the 92u set to -4 (neutral), and color/contrast/brightness set according to the BD calibradtion disc (downloadable one). THere may be an occassional soft shot, but for the most part this film is RAZOR sharp, grain looks just like genuine film grain (as opposed to noise) and the color balance, contrast, and overall tonality is sublime throughout.


Are you viewing on a 720p set? A projector? Do you have 1/1 pixel mode enabled?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Category 5* /forum/post/13045378
> 
> 
> On what system? I can't beleieve anyone could think that. From 6 feet away it looks incredibly sharp on my 46" Aquos D92U. I am playing through a PS3, HDMI at 1080p, Sharpness on the 92u set to -4 (neutral), and color/contrast/brightness set according to the BD calibradtion disc (downloadable one). THere may be an occassional soft shot, but for the most part this film is RAZOR sharp, grain looks just like genuine film grain (as opposed to noise) and the color balance, contrast, and overall tonality is sublime throughout.
> 
> 
> Are you viewing on a 720p set? A projector? Do you have 1/1 pixel mode enabled?



I am watching on a 1080p LCD, at a viewing distance of one screen width. Unfortunately, I don't have 1/1 pixel feature on my display, but that has not prevented a number of other titles from looking much better than Across the Universe.


Your viewing distance (about two screen widths?) may have something to do with your not seeing the problems I am seeing. My complaints don't have to do with grain, they have to do with the fact that most of the shots in this film simply do not look anywhere near as sharp as what I have seen on the best BD releases.


----------



## reisb

Thoughts on Assassination of Jesse James??? I haven't watched it yet and was wondering if it was worth the purchase.


Samsung DLP 56" HL-R5667W

PS3 via HDMI

10' viewing distance


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *reisb* /forum/post/13046811
> 
> 
> Thoughts on Assassination of Jesse James??? I haven't watched it yet and was wondering if it was worth the purchase.
> 
> 
> Samsung DLP 56" HL-R5667W
> 
> PS3 via HDMI
> 
> 10' viewing distance



I think it's released on Blu Ray in a few weeks. It was not day and date with the standard definition release.


----------



## LazerViking




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/13047412
> 
> 
> I think it's released on Blu Ray in a few weeks. It was not day and date with the standard definition release.



Only the HD-DVD was delayed, the BD was still day and date. On that though, I haven't bought it yet so I can't comment on the quality.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13044807
> 
> 
> 
> Btw, Rob, as I posted in another thread, I will be interested to hear what you think of the PQ in Across the Universe when you get a chance to watch it. I was disappointed in that aspect of the movie.



It could be awhile, since, not surprisingly, there is already a "Long Wait" for this title at Netflix.


----------



## reisb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/13047412
> 
> 
> I think it's released on Blu Ray in a few weeks. It was not day and date with the standard definition release.



I saw it in Best Buy, but haven't purchased it yet. Not sure about the HD version, but BD is out.


----------



## sleey0




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nomunk* /forum/post/13041331
> 
> 
> this Tier thread most definately has problems there is no way Spiderman 3 ( grainy as hell ) looks better than Rush Hour 3
> 
> 
> 
> Rush Hour 3 should most def be Tier 0



Agreed. I was not that impressed with spidey 3. I bought my PS3 and it came with it. Got home, hooked everything up via HDMI to my 50A3000 and was NOT impressed. Reference material? I think not....


Casino Royale, on the other hand, was fantastic


----------



## Zeuser

Maybe I'm nitpicking here but Sunshine is listed both as Tier 1 and Not Reviewed. The link to hddb.net is the same...


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Zeuser* /forum/post/13050554
> 
> 
> Maybe I'm nitpicking here but Sunshine is listed both as Tier 1 and Not Reviewed. The link to hddb.net is the same...



Your first post is a nitpick?


Just kidding. Actually this is the type of info that we need to keep the list up to date. It's easy to miss things like this, so thanks. Hopefully we will get to do some updates this weekend.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13045663
> 
> 
> I am watching on a 1080p LCD, at a viewing distance of one screen width. Unfortunately, I don't have 1/1 pixel feature on my display, but that has not prevented a number of other titles from looking much better than Across the Universe.
> 
> 
> Your viewing distance (about two screen widths?) may have something to do with your not seeing the problems I am seeing. My complaints don't have to do with grain, they have to do with the fact that most of the shots in this film simply do not look anywhere near as sharp as what I have seen on the best BD releases.



Just curious... what titles do you feel are the "best BD releases".


----------



## maverick0716

Hmm......here in Canada it seems that the release date for The Assassination of Jesse James on Blu Ray is Feb 26. The standard definition version still came out on tuesday......lame.


----------



## Hughmc

60 inch SXRD A3000 @ 8ft.


I have Casino Royale, Pirates COBP, Curse of the Golden Flower, Black Hawk Down, Underworld, KOH, and Blade Runner, all from Tier one.


IMO Rush Hour 3 has some soft shots, not soft scenes, but overall it is sharper than any of the above mentioned. It shocked me as there were times it was easily the sharpest BD I have seen yet.


I also own 5 of the zero tier movies and Rush Hour 3 IMO is better than Crank.


I agree it should be top Tier one or low zero going by the placement and comparing it to the all the above mentioned. Either that or all of the above mentioned are not properly placed.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/13051333
> 
> 
> Just curious... what titles do you feel are the "best BD releases".



Mr. Brooks, Prison Break, Die Hard 4, Silver Surfer, Shoot 'Em Up. . .


----------



## patrick99

This is unprecedented! I actually agree with Peter Bracke on a PQ evaluation!


http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1261...nbookclub.html


----------



## OhioMike

I had a pretty good viewing day yesterday: Watched RE:Trilogy and The Rock(US ver) and will provide some feedback as most are not tiered yet.
*The Rock* was amazing. This is one of my favorite movies and it has never looked so damn good. This is a solid Low Tier 1..very sharp and accurate throughout with good pop. Right behind KOH seems good (although KOH is now too low on the chart I think)
*RE:1:* This was a quality transfer..but left me wanting a little bit more out of it after waiting so long for them to release it. Low Tier 2 would be good for now...I think a little ahead of Blood Diamond..maybe right under Behind Enemy Lines.
*RE:2:* Placed pretty well...maybe could go up a bit...but it was an improvement over dvd, just no wow factor.
*RE:3:* This was a very well done title (better be for a day and date). Very good detail, the desert setting didn't lend to a lot of pop with such a bland color palette to work with, but a very strong picture throughout. Mid to Upper Tier 1. Right under Mr & Mrs Smith would be a good starting point.

*40XBR4 1080p/24 @6.5-7 ft (my tv stand is not a footrest)

PS3

Onkyo 605----all HDMI

Pitch Black room*


----------



## rutlian




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OhioMike* /forum/post/13054743
> 
> 
> I had a pretty good viewing day yesterday: Watched RE:Trilogy and The Rock(US ver) and will provide some feedback as most are not tiered yet.
> *The Rock* was amazing. This is one of my favorite movies and it has never looked so damn good. This is a solid Mid Tier 1..very sharp and accurate throughout with good pop.
> *RE:1:* This was a quality transfer..but left me wanting a little bit more out of it after waiting so long for them to release it. Low Tier 2 would be good for now...I think a little ahead of Blood Diamond..maybe right under Behind Enemy Lines.
> *RE:2:* Placed pretty well...maybe could go up a bit...but it was an improvement over dvd, just no wow factor.
> *RE:3:* This was a very well done title (better be for a day and date). Very good detail, the desert setting didn't lend to a lot of pop with such a bland color palette to work with, but a very strong picture throughout. Mid to Upper Tier 1. Right under Mr & Mrs Smith would be a good starting point.
> 
> *40XBR4 1080p/24 @6.5-7 ft (my tv stand is not a footrest)
> 
> PS3
> 
> Onkyo 605----all HDMI
> 
> Pitch Black room*



WHAT THE HECK IS *RE* TRILOGY ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT RAMBO? KOH must be kingdom of heaven, right.


By the way have you seen EP and CR how do grade them in terms of PQ.


SYL,

PB


----------



## OhioMike

Resident Evil, most are aware of this abbreviation, so I didn't think it would be a problem. Will avoid the abbreviation's in the future to limit any confusion. Yes Kingdom of Heaven.


----------



## rutlian




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OhioMike* /forum/post/13054894
> 
> 
> Resident Evil, most are aware of this abbreviation, so I didn't think it would be a problem. Will avoid the abbreviation's in the future to limit any confusion. Yes Kingdom of Heaven.



O yeah silly me, thanks I like the movie But I have not seen the 3rd one yet. You right on THE ROCK it is also one of my fave movie the transfer is amazing. I go first to hidefdigest.com before I buy any HD movies some sort of my Quality control.










Thanks,

Peter


----------



## Bushman4

Why was this put all the way down in the SILVER AREA,


This truly shows off the beauty of BLURAY in showing colorful and natural scenes. Yes this movie has POP as the scenes sceme like your standing there.

I'll agree the sound is nothing to rave about, however the photography makes up for it.

Perhaps this should be in the second tier


----------



## Ian_Currie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bushman4* /forum/post/13061270
> 
> 
> Why was this put all the way down in the SILVER AREA,
> 
> 
> This truly shows off the beauty of BLURAY in showing colorful and natural scenes. Yes this movie has POP as the scenes sceme like your standing there.
> 
> I'll agree the sound is nothing to rave about, however the photography makes up for it.
> 
> Perhaps this should be in the second tier



I agree. Demo material.


----------



## lgans316

1) Swordfish - Looks awesome. Should be in top of Tier-2 or bottom of Tier-1

2) The Island - Revelation. Should be in top of Tier-1.

3) Ocean's Eleven - Looks gorgeous. Deserves to be in top of Tier-2.


----------



## obxdiver

Did anyone else get a chance to see *Visions of the Sea: Explorations*?

As I said earlier in the thread. It is awesome eye candy. It still shows in the unrated section, but I gave it Tier0 rating in my setup


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Has anyone else seen *The Rock* yet?


I watched it last night, and I would like to know if anyone else has an opinion on it before I give mine.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Re: Planet Earth, I think it is perfectly placed where it is. Yes, there are certainly some scenes that are demo quality. The problem is that there are also many scenes that are downright poor (and deserving of a Tier 4 placement) that include tons of video noise and lack of detail. I think averaging the disc out puts it near the top of Tier 2, which is where it is.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13063269
> 
> 
> Has anyone else seen *The Rock* yet?
> 
> 
> I watched it last night, and I would like to know if anyone else has an opinion on it before I give mine.



I shut it off after about five minutes out of irritation. Should I give it another try?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13063412
> 
> 
> I shut it off after about five minutes out of irritation. Should I give it another try?



Irritation about what? The movie itself? It's a very entertaining mindless popcorn flick (i.e. a typical Bruckheimer/Michael Bay movie, only better than most).


Even if you can't stand the movie, I would be curious to know what you think of the PQ.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13063445
> 
> 
> Irritation about what? The movie itself? It's a very entertaining mindless popcorn flick (i.e. a typical Bruckheimer/Michael Bay movie, only better than most).
> 
> 
> Even if you can't stand the movie, I would be curious to know what you think of the PQ.



Irritation about not understanding what was happening, plus my initial reaction to the PQ was not overwhelmingly positive. I will give it another try, since I did not watch enoogh to form a real opinion on the PQ.


----------



## bifocalprojector

I rented *"Chicago"* last night from the local Blockbuster store.

It was the *only* Blu-ray disc there that I haven't yet rented.

(they only have about 50 for rent) Guess I won't be going back there

for a little while...










Anyway, I am really disappointed when I watched it... the video

quality is terrible for a relatively new film like this. It's very grainy

in 90% of the movie, making it look worse than some of the HD

movies I've watched on my DirecTV HD DVR. (HD MPEG4 stream)


I searched the reviews and some claimed that the graininess was

"intentional" which I find highly unlikely....










The LPCM audio was pretty decent, however...


----------



## bifocalprojector




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13063303
> 
> 
> Re: Planet Earth, I think it is perfectly placed where it is. Yes, there are certainly some scenes that are demo quality. The problem is that there are also many scenes that are downright poor (and deserving of a Tier 4 placement) that include tons of video noise and lack of detail. I think averaging the disc out puts it near the top of Tier 2, which is where it is.



I couldn't agree with you more.







Planet Earth contains Tier 0 and Tier 5

scenes.(and everything in between)


Sometimes I wish there's a way for me to take Planet Earth and burn my

own Blu-ray disc, with only the demo-quality scenes all on one disc...









Or perhaps BBC can release a single Blu-ray disc with just the good quality

highlights, and price it at $20?


----------



## Hughmc

I mentioned a few posts back about RH3 IMO should be Top of tier one or in tier zero. I looked at the pro reviews that are linked from this thread and it seems they are polar opposites with regards to PQ. What are those two seeing or should I say what is the one reviewer seeing that I am not seeing.


I also am comparing RH3 to my tier one and zero BD's I own, hence my opinion on it's placement.


Sony 60in A3000 @ 8 ft.


----------



## SuprSlow

Hey guys, sorry about my lack of involvement this week. I've been laid up for a few days with the flu. Not fun. But on the other hand, I have been catching up on my movie watching










I'll try to get the new releases for this past week added soon.


----------



## lgans316

Hope that you have recovered fully from the flu. The Rock deserves to be below The Island which itself needs to be placed on top of Tier-1.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13063445
> 
> 
> Irritation about what? The movie itself? It's a very entertaining mindless popcorn flick (i.e. a typical Bruckheimer/Michael Bay movie, only better than most).
> 
> 
> Even if you can't stand the movie, I would be curious to know what you think of the PQ.



So, Rob, I watched all of The Rock last night so that I could respond to your request for comments. I think I agree with the following comment about placement (as well as the comment about KoH):




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OhioMike* /forum/post/13054743
> 
> *The Rock* was amazing. This is one of my favorite movies and it has never looked so damn good. *This is a solid Low Tier 1..very sharp and accurate throughout with good pop. Right behind KOH seems good (although KOH is now too low on the chart I think)*



What looked most outstanding in The Rock were the extreme close-ups of faces. There were many such shots, and almost invariably they were spectacular. If the whole movie looked this good, it would be Tier 0 for sure IMO.


Shots other than extreme close-ups were not so consistent. Some looked quite good, but others looked more average.


I agree with the HDD review that there was a small amount of occasional EE, but nothing serious.


I would compare this with DH3 (which is currently too low I think). I think DH3 is more consistent in its PQ; the close-ups may not look quite as good as The Rock, but the PQ on other shots is much, much more consistent.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Thank you Lgans316 and Patrick (and OhioMike whose prior review I had missed) re The Rock!


I completely agree with your comments Patrick. I was very impressed with the PQ on this title overall. Excellent detail 95% of the time, very good contrast, good color....just an excellent presentation.


My only slight complaint is that this picture did look a bit "edgy", probably due to minor EE.


To me, this is a very _clear_ case of a title that belongs in Tier 1!


----------



## nomunk




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/13051755
> 
> 
> 60 inch SXRD A3000 @ 8ft.
> 
> 
> I have Casino Royale, Pirates COBP, Curse of the Golden Flower, Black Hawk Down, Underworld, KOH, and Blade Runner, all from Tier one.
> 
> 
> IMO Rush Hour 3 has some soft shots, not soft scenes, but overall it is sharper than any of the above mentioned. It shocked me as there were times it was easily the sharpest BD I have seen yet.
> 
> 
> I also own 5 of the zero tier movies and Rush Hour 3 IMO is better than Crank.
> 
> 
> I agree it should be top Tier one or low zero going by the placement and comparing it to the all the above mentioned. Either that or all of the above mentioned are not properly placed.



I knew quite a few peeps would agree with me Rush Hour 3 is without a doubt demo material for Blu-Ray even highdefdigest.com come gave the video quality a 5 star, any title with PQ like this should be considered Tier 0


----------



## djoberg

I just watched Apocalypto and Rise of the Silver Surfer this weekend. Excellent transfers and they surely deserve to be in Tier 0.


I made an observation though with both of these titles that I have noticed on other titles...it seems like the PQ gets better as the movie progresses. I remember thinking in the first two or three scenes that there just wasn't the WOW factor I was expecting and then as time went on I found myself saying, "Yes, this is what Demo Material looks like!" Has anyone else experienced this?


----------



## OhioMike

Adding to my previous post...I noticed The Rock had a ? for video encoding...it is AVC.


----------



## mp3junkie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/13072737
> 
> 
> I just watched Apocalypto and Rise of the Silver Surfer this weekend. Excellent transfers and they surely deserve to be in Tier 0.
> 
> 
> I made an observation though with both of these titles that I have noticed on other titles...it seems like the PQ gets better as the movie progresses. I remember thinking in the first two or three scenes that there just wasn't the WOW factor I was expecting and then as time went on I found myself saying, "Yes, this is what Demo Material looks like!" Has anyone else experienced this?



Yes, I will say that I experience this often with titles. Maybe it's my PS3 but I do notice that around the middle and towards the end of Blu Ray movies, the PQ is gets so much better and looks stunning compaired to the beginning of the movies. Several titles come to mind (SM3, POTCB, Casino Royale, Rat movie, Apocalypto) just to name a few.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bushman4* /forum/post/13061270
> 
> 
> Why was this put all the way down in the SILVER AREA,
> 
> 
> This truly shows off the beauty of BLURAY in showing colorful and natural scenes. Yes this movie has POP as the scenes sceme like your standing there.
> 
> I'll agree the sound is nothing to rave about, however the photography makes up for it.
> 
> Perhaps this should be in the second tier



Planet Earth is not consistent. Plenty of beautiful shots, but plenty of not so hot shots as well.


----------



## Scribblez




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/13074797
> 
> 
> Planet Earth is not consistent. Plenty of beautiful shots, but plenty of not so hot shots as well.



+1


There are many great shots to show off Blu-ray and your display and then there are also many on the opposite side as well. When I first got into HDM, I used it to show my display to family and friends, but I couldn't just put in any random disk/scene and expect it to wow them. I would have to search for the best scenes that have that wow factor (ex. The overhead scene of the thousands of white birds flying together).


----------



## maverick0716

Just watched these ones recently. Starting with the Brave One.......this one looks very good, with plenty of sharpness and deep colours and blacks.....top of Tier 2 or bottom Tier 1, imo.


The Lakehouse deserves a better spot than where it's currently at. I think it should be moved to around where The Benchwarmers is.......it's solid Tier 3 material. It is kind of soft, but other than that the transfer is flawless with very good colour.......it even has it's moments of very good sharpness, though there aren't a ton of them.


The Warriors.........now, I do agree that it looks awesome for an older film.......but near the top of Tier 1? I really don't think so. This title should be in the middle of Tier 2 somewhere at the very best. It just doesn't have the sharpness to put it with the other Tier 1 titles.


42" Panasonic Plasma (768p)

PS3 though HDMI

6-7 ft. viewing distance


----------



## isamu

I just finished watching the BR of T2 on my PS3. I think the picture quality was good, but a tad on the soft side.


I compared the BR version playing in my PS3, to the Extreme Edition of my SD disc playing on my Toshiba AX-2 HD-DVD player, and to my somewhat disappointment, found the difference in the BR version to be only _slightly_ improved.


Keep in mind that my projector is native 720p, not 1080p.


Here's the thing... my Toshiba AX-2 HD-DVD player does a stunning job of upconverting sd-dvds. I think it upconverts T2 so well, that I could barely tell the difference between the BR(ps3) and the SD(Toshiba).


Have any of you compared the bluray of T2 to the EE version? Was the difference significant to you? In my opinion the transfer of the BR doesn't hold a candle to the likes of The 5th Element, Crank or King Kong.


On another note, what software do I need to run the WM9 HD theatrical cut on disc 2 on my PC? I attempted to run it but it only seems to launch in WinDVD, which I can't play since my trial sub ran out. Is there any way to get the HD version to play in any other software?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/13072737
> 
> 
> I just watched Apocalypto and Rise of the Silver Surfer this weekend. Excellent transfers and they surely deserve to be in Tier 0.
> 
> 
> I made an observation though with both of these titles that I have noticed on other titles...it seems like the PQ gets better as the movie progresses. I remember thinking in the first two or three scenes that there just wasn't the WOW factor I was expecting and then as time went on I found myself saying, "Yes, this is what Demo Material looks like!" Has anyone else experienced this?



Actually I have the opposite experience with Silver Surfer. To me, it seems that the PQ is at its best toward the beginning of the movie, and then deteriorates slightly as the movie goes on. It is as though they wanted to really impress you at the start and then felt that once you were impressed, they could ease off a little bit.


I did think, however, that Die Hard 4 and POTC 3 followed the pattern you describe: the PQ at the beginning was not as good as later on.


----------



## Desert Pilot

Regarding re-released DVDs.


Crimson Tide - absolutely a tier 1. This will absolutely show off how an older film can be made in to a truly stunning BD transfer


Fugitive - You have Tier 5 - but I wouldn't rank it quite so low. Maybe a tier 4


Total Recall - you have a tier 5. This is possibly the worst transfer to BD I have seen to date. Far worse than the fugitive.


Wall Street - I know a lot of folks hate this transfer...but I would go for tier 4.


thx...marcus


----------



## jizaref1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hobbs47* /forum/post/13035735
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> Originally Posted by Category 5
> 
> Just watched Across the Universe, and while the movie wasn't the best I think it's probably the best looking non-animated BD I've seen yet. Full on demo material. Perfect contrast, amazing color, just enough grain to look filmic, and sharp as a tack throughout. Dolby True-HD audio to boot!
> 
> 
> If not tier 0 then surely tier one, but I say Tier 0 if Crank can reside there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow,can anybody else post their opinion on this title,I haven't seen it yet.How can 2 people be so far apart on PQ on the same title?




I thought Across the Universe was stellar! Viewed 1080p on a 52in XBR2 at 9 ft. Demo material for sure. Better than Crank. Spidey 3 was good but I think not as good as AtU -- the colors and contrast and detail were striking on this one. Surely a top tier non-animated title!


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13048761
> 
> 
> It could be awhile, since, not surprisingly, there is already a "Long Wait" for this title at Netflix.



Once again, I am sorry that you will not be getting a chance to see Across the Universe soon, since my opinion of the PQ being somewhat lacking seems to be a distinct minority.


----------



## Robert MacNab




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bifocalprojector* /forum/post/13064043
> 
> 
> I rented *"Chicago"* last night from the local Blockbuster store.
> 
> It was the *only* Blu-ray disc there that I haven't yet rented.
> 
> (they only have about 50 for rent) Guess I won't be going back there
> 
> for a little while...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, I am really disappointed when I watched it... the video
> 
> quality is terrible for a relatively new film like this. It's very grainy
> 
> in 90% of the movie, making it look worse than some of the HD
> 
> movies I've watched on my DirecTV HD DVR. (HD MPEG4 stream)
> 
> 
> I searched the reviews and some claimed that the graininess was
> 
> "intentional" which I find highly unlikely....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The LPCM audio was pretty decent, however...



I just got a PS3 and my first panel so I'm not an authority on anything. I've known all my life that some of the best movies are an optical mess. Godfather 1 is all brown and out of focus. I almost left half way through it because it was making me nauseated. I never saw it mentioned in any review.


Grain is a property of black and white film. The silver crystals clump together at high ISAs. Color film is made with dyes that don't crystalize. You have to make serious development errors to get graininess in the finished product. But I don't doubt that the moguls know exactly what they're doing. I don't know if they do it for mood or to let them make the sets with cardboard and duct tape and nobody can see it. I've seen better images from a cheap camcorder than some multi-million dollar movies.


The only BDs I've seen so far are Mr. Brooks and Disturbia. I liked them both. Mr. Brooks is undersaturated. The whole movie looks gray to me.


I know it's all off topic. Greetings to y'all.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mp3junkie* /forum/post/13074689
> 
> 
> Yes, I will say that I experience this often with titles. Maybe it's my PS3 but I do notice that around the middle and towards the end of Blu Ray movies, the PQ is gets so much better and looks stunning compaired to the beginning of the movies. Several titles come to mind (SM3, POTCB, Casino Royale, Rat movie, Apocalypto) just to name a few.



I noticed the same thing with CR & Ratatouille (I haven't see SM3 or POTCB yet).


FWIW, the same is true with HD DVDs. A notable example is Shrek 3, which is rated as Demo Material on that thread. It starts out somewhat soft with colors lacking real punch, but about 1/3 way into the movie the colors start jumping out at you and there are many 3D quality scenes.


I suppose there may be many variables affecting the average movie (lighting, camera angle, etc.), but you wouldn't think these variables would be included in animated movies. So there must be other reasons for a difference in PQ throughout an animated movie.


_________________________________________

Samsung HL-S5087 DLP (viewing distance of 8 feet)

Onkyo 705 AVR

Panasonic DMP-BD30

Toshiba HD-A2

Dish VIP622 HD DVR

Cambridge Soundworks L/C/R/Surrounds

Velodyne Servo Sub


----------



## vpn75

Watched Rescue Dawn this weekend and was very impressed with the PQ. It looked very clean as well and I barely noticed any film grain. The detail in the jungle scenes was really amazing!


My setup is in my signature.


Viewing distance: 6 feet


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Desert Pilot* /forum/post/13075744
> 
> 
> Regarding re-released DVDs.
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> Fugitive - You have Tier 5 - but I wouldn't rank it quite so low. Maybe a tier 4
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> thx...marcus



It seems in the right place as is. When I watched it, it didn't seem much better than my LD copy.


Panasonic 50" 720p plasma, 10a player, 8'


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/13080575
> 
> 
> It seems in the right place as is. When I watched it, it didn't seem much better than my LD copy.
> 
> 
> Panasonic 50" 720p plasma, 10a player, 8'



That's funny because I did a direct comparison with my DVD copy, and the BD was a lot better, imo.


----------



## diceburna

Haven't visited this thread in awhile but I'm very pleased to see that Crank finally made it back up to Tier 0 status :-D


----------



## diceburna

Also this thread needs to divided up....way to broad there should be a list for ppl that have High-End professional HT setups, those that have High-End consumer setups, and so forth. B/c there is no way someone with a 65+ inch projector theater in home setup going to relate with those that have a 55 and below inch flat panel display that they've bought from BB, CC, Costco, etc.


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *diceburna* /forum/post/13084922
> 
> 
> Also this thread needs to divided up....way to broad there should be a list for ppl that have High-End professional HT setups, those that have High-End consumer setups, and so forth. B/c there is no way someone with a 65+ inch projector theater in home setup going to relate with those that have a 55 and below inch flat panel display that they've bought from BB, CC, Costco, etc.



Don't forget we need a special category for those people who have 20/10 vision.


----------



## haste




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/13087748
> 
> 
> Don't forget we need a special category for those people who have 20/10 vision.



And a category for the people that wear glasses.


----------



## rydenfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *diceburna* /forum/post/13084922
> 
> 
> Also this thread needs to divided up....way to broad there should be a list for ppl that have High-End professional HT setups, those that have High-End consumer setups, and so forth. B/c there is no way someone with a 65+ inch projector theater in home setup going to relate with those that have a 55 and below inch flat panel display that they've bought from BB, CC, Costco, etc.



Is this a project you care you take on?


----------



## pepar

We're joking, right?


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Is Crank any good?


(As a film, not in terms of PQ)


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sick of Change* /forum/post/13094131
> 
> 
> Is Crank any good?
> 
> 
> (As a film, not in terms of PQ)



A lot of people think it is a major piece of crap........I happen to like it.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/13094172
> 
> 
> A lot of people think it is a major piece of crap........I happen to like it.



Exactly. As long as you are not expecting anything more than a mindless popcorn action/comedy.


----------



## sleey0

Love Jason Stathem (sp?), but that movie was pretty bad....


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Scribblez* /forum/post/13074826
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> 
> There are many great shots to show off Blu-ray and your display and then there are also many on the opposite side as well. When I first got into HDM, I used it to show my display to family and friends, but I couldn't just put in any random disk/scene and expect it to wow them. I would have to search for the best scenes that have that wow factor (ex. The overhead scene of the thousands of white birds flying together).



Agreed.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *obxdiver* /forum/post/13062028
> 
> 
> Did anyone else get a chance to see *Visions of the Sea: Explorations*?
> 
> As I said earlier in the thread. It is awesome eye candy. It still shows in the unrated section, but I gave it Tier0 rating in my setup



I was finally able to get this in my queue, and hope to watch it relatively soon.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Since nobody else is doing it (ahem)







I finally got the chance to update the first post.


Moved *Eyes Wide Shut* down to Tier 4.


Moved *Dirty Dancing* down to Tier 4.


Moved *Rush Hour 3* down a little but left in Tier 1.


Placed *Monty Python's Life of Brian* in Tier 4.


Placed *The Rock* in Tier 1 (comments welcome on whether it is too high or low in Tier 1)


Moved *Swordfish* up a few spots in Tier 2.


There have been discussions on the following titles, but we need more discussion before any final rankings or movement for:

*Visions of Sea Explorations


Across The Universe


Vertical Limit*


Finally, I was going to place *The Brave One* near the top of Tier 2, but it isn't listed yet, so I need to wait for SuprSlow to do his thing!










If we have missed anything in the last week and a half, please do not hesitate to point it out.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13094290
> 
> 
> Exactly. As long as you are not expecting anything more than a mindless popcorn action/comedy.



yeah I figured that...might have to check it out


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13094963
> 
> 
> I was finally able to get this in my queue, and hope to watch it relatively soon.



It's got a lot of pop to it but unfortunately I couldn't watch it for more than 15 minutes. I didn't realize it wasn't a documentary. Not for me. I believe it's 1080i, but it seemed to be a good looking title through the little I watched. I'm not recommending it for placement anywhere though.


Brandon


----------



## bplewis24

About 3/4ths of the way through Gone Baby Gone right now so I'll give my impressions since nobody else has yet.


It's a solid looking movie if not a bit soft. It's got decent-to-good sharpness and detail but it's definitely not demo material. I would say so far it's looking Tier 2-ish about now. Maybe low low Tier 1 at some sections.


Edit: scratch that, there's way too much noise in dark scenes for this to be low Tier 1 IMO. More later.


Good movie though, and just be prepared to fastforward through about 9 minutes worth of trailers (not too annoying to me) and a promotional/marketing video (highly annoying).


Brandon


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13095655
> 
> 
> It's got a lot of pop to it but unfortunately I couldn't watch it for more than 15 minutes. I didn't realize it wasn't a documentary. Not for me. I believe it's 1080i, but it seemed to be a good looking title through the little I watched. I'm not recommending it for placement anywhere though.
> 
> 
> Brandon



It's not a documentary? What is it?


----------



## lgans316

OLDBOY should in the middle of Tier-3. 30 Mbps AVC and a disappointing PQ !!! Except for select scenes in Chapter 5,6 the rest barely had the HD pop. Telecine wobble is noticeable in few scenes and it's very clear that Tartan hasn't remastered Oldboy properly due to inconsistent rendition of film grain.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13095768
> 
> 
> It's not a documentary? What is it?



It's an aquatic "Nature's Journey" without the CGI/special effects.


It seems like it would be great to show off during some type of gathering or in-store showcase, but nothing I can spend an hour watching like it's a movie. I didn't make it through Nature's Journey, either. I'd much rather watch the inconsistent Planet Earth for the content.


Brandon


----------



## bplewis24

I'm going to nominate Gone Baby Gone for high Tier 2 placement, above League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. It looks good to very-good at times, and exhibited a good amount of digital noise at other times, destracting from image quality and detail. Contrast just seemed okay to me, not great. Definitely high definition and worthy BD material, but not reference IMO.


Look forward to hearing other opinions. All in all it turned out to be a very good movie, the third act really bringing out some good acting and directing/writing.


PS3->1080p24->46XBR4 (8-10 feet)


Brandon


----------



## maverick0716

Rented this one tonight. The picture quality is quite soft for the majority of this one (sometimes it even seems blurry). Some scenes are actually quite sharp though (specifically towards the end), which makes it seem very inconsistent. Overall, I wouldn't say it's bad, but it is a very murky looking movie for most of it. I'd put it around the middle or lower Tier 2 due to the clarity near the end......otherwise it would be Tier 3 in my books.


42" Panasonic Plasma (768p)

PS3 though HDMI

6-7 ft. viewing distance


----------



## patrick99

I watched most of Becoming Jane last night.


The PQ is VERY nice. I think this is definitely a Tier 0 candidate. If not that, then surely very high Tier 1.


HDD seems to be incorrect in saying this is AVC; according to the readout on my PS3, it is VC-1, with bitrates generally in the mid 30's.


This may be the first movie where I haven't found Anne Hathaway just about unbearable to watch.


This is also the first time I've seen James McAvoy. He is very good. Now I understand all the attention he's been getting.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13095327
> 
> 
> 
> There have been discussions on the following titles, but we need more discussion before any final rankings or movement for:
> 
> *Visions of Sea Explorations
> 
> 
> Across The Universe
> 
> 
> Vertical Limit*



My suggestion for Across the Universe would be just below the first Underworld.


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13095327
> 
> 
> Since nobody else is doing it (ahem)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I finally got the chance to update the first post.



Sorry, Rob










Here are the past two weeks new releases:


Feb. 12, 2008
*Gone Baby Gone* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.85:1 | Buena Vista
*We Own the Night* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 1.85:1 | Sony
*Becoming Jane* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Disney
*No Reservations* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner
*The Amateurs* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 1.85:1 | First Look
*Over America in High Definition* Video: ? | Audio: ? | AR: 1.78:1 | Topics Entertainment
*Over California in High Definition* Video: ? | Audio: ? | AR: 1.78:1 | Topics Entertainment


Feb. 5, 2008
*Celine Dion: A New Day Live in Las Vegas* Video: VC-1 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 1.78:1 | Sony
*The Assassination of Jesse James* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner
*Across the Universe* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony
*The Brave One* Video: VC-1 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner
*Crimson Tide* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Disney
*Wall Street* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Fox
*Me, Myself & Irene* Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Fox
*The Jane Austen Book Club* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 1.78:1 | Sony
*Breaker Morant* Video: MPEg-4 | Audio: DTS-HD MA 2.0 | AR: 1.78:1 | Image
*Suburban Girl* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Image
*Deadliest Catch: Season 3* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 1.78:1 | Discovery



Any errors or omissions you spot, fire away. We'll get it corrected.


----------



## 30XS955 User

If/when Paramount and Universal go BD, how will those titles be assimilated into this list?


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *30XS955 User* /forum/post/13100938
> 
> 
> If/when Paramount and Universal go BD, how will those titles be assimilated into this list?



Though the exact same process as the present titles have gotten onto the list.


----------



## bifocalprojector




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *30XS955 User* /forum/post/13100938
> 
> 
> If/when Paramount and Universal go BD, how will those titles be assimilated into this list?



We are [Blu-ray] Borg, you will be assimilated, resistance is futile...


----------



## vpn75

Any reviews of "No Reservations" yet?


----------



## diceburna




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rydenfan* /forum/post/13089639
> 
> 
> Is this a project you care you take on?



Rydenfan, im putting alot of hours and trying to snag up as much business as possible so one day I will have the time to focus on a project like this...A project like this tho will require more than just one individual imo. About Crank yes lol totally mindless, but one thing I think whats most important is the fact that they captured the film using a *Sony HDC-F950 cameras with Zeiss Digiprime Lenses.* We need more film makers using HDcams.


----------



## lgans316

Pearl Harbor should be in Top of Tier-2. It had MB written all over it though MPEG noise was noticeable in certain scenes.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/13099356
> 
> 
> Sorry, Rob
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here are the past two weeks new releases:
> 
> 
> Feb. 12, 2008
> *Gone Baby Gone* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.85:1 | Buena Vista
> *We Own the Night* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 1.85:1 | Sony
> *Becoming Jane* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Disney
> *No Reservations* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner
> *The Amateurs* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 1.85:1 | First Look
> *Over America in High Definition* Video: ? | Audio: ? | AR: 1.78:1 | Topics Entertainment
> *Over California in High Definition* Video: ? | Audio: ? | AR: 1.78:1 | Topics Entertainment
> 
> 
> Feb. 5, 2008
> *Celine Dion: A New Day Live in Las Vegas* Video: VC-1 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 1.78:1 | Sony
> *The Assassination of Jesse James* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner
> *Across the Universe* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony
> *The Brave One* Video: VC-1 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner
> *Crimson Tide* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Disney
> *Wall Street* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Fox
> *Me, Myself & Irene* Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Fox
> *The Jane Austen Book Club* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 1.78:1 | Sony
> *Breaker Morant* Video: MPEg-4 | Audio: DTS-HD MA 2.0 | AR: 1.78:1 | Image
> *Suburban Girl* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Image
> *Deadliest Catch: Season 3* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 1.78:1 | Discovery
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any errors or omissions you spot, fire away. We'll get it corrected.



Sorry from me too - I've been traveling during the weeks with severly limited time


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bifocalprojector* /forum/post/13101712
> 
> We are [Blu-ray] Borg, you will be assimilated, resistance is futile...



They will - they'll likely announce release dates so we'll handle them that way; I doubt they'll just flood the market. Looks like it'll happen soon too - Tosh is reportedly considering dropping HD-DVD...


----------



## Kevin12586




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/13117899
> 
> 
> They will - they'll likely announce release dates so we'll handle them that way; I doubt they'll just flood the market. Looks like it'll happen soon too - Tosh is reportedly considering dropping HD-DVD...



When that happens, this thread will have *so many* new movies to rate


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kevin12586* /forum/post/13119823
> 
> 
> When that happens, this thread will have *so many* new movies to rate




and how will that work out. It seems if there are hundreds and then thousands of titles after a while, the lines between tiers will blur. We might have to go back to judging how good the movie is as opposed to how it looks and sounds. Admittedly I have bought some crap because they looked great.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kevin12586* /forum/post/13119823
> 
> 
> When that happens, this thread will have *so many* new movies to rate



And some will be very bitter and demand changes to the Tier Thread or it be unstickied!


Brandon


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13128534
> 
> 
> And some will be very bitter and demand changes to the Tier Thread or it be unstickied!
> 
> 
> Brandon



Yes, and we also need to be prepared for the outcry of how unfair this thread is compared to the HD DVD Tier thread since we don't have a voting system in place. How unreasonable it is for us to prefer to actually _discuss_ picture quality rather than have anonymous voting!


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13129029
> 
> 
> Yes, and we also need to be prepared for the outcry of how unfair this thread is compared to the HD DVD Tier thread since we don't have a voting system in place. How unreasonable it is for us to prefer to actually _discuss_ picture quality rather than have anonymous voting!



Why should we trust the judgment of those who selected HD-DVD as the winner of the format war?










(Just kidding. We should be gracious winners.







)


----------



## LBFilmGuy

I can't wait until everything comes to blu ray


----------



## maverick0716

Watched Gone Baby Gone last night. I thought the picture quality was excellent, with moments of Tier 0 material here and there. There are some scenes that have a fair amount of digital noise, but it could just be film grain (the dark scenes mostly) I think that still doesn't detract from the picture quality enough to make it a Tier 2 title.......*I vote middle of Tier 1 for this one*.


42" Panasonic Plasma (768p)

PS3 though HDMI

6-7 ft. viewing distance.


----------



## rsigley

michael clayton (blu) -


pretty impressive PQ, i would give it a 4.5


colors are right, blacks are nice, faces sharp


the AQ is alright, there's not much to the movie tho, but its very simple and it works


there's one part in a bar where i feel like the whispers/background noise are way over done and it comes across as fake and distracting


my big complaint is with the directing, there's way too many scenes abusing the telephoto lens. lot of really wide shots where just the face is in focus and everything else is a blurry mess


same thing with some inside shots, it got annoying after a while


supplements this one is bare, couple of deletes scenes, two audio commentaries, and thats it


no trailers


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsigley* /forum/post/13130651
> 
> 
> michael clayton (blu) -
> 
> 
> pretty impressive PQ, i would give it a 4.5
> 
> 
> colors are right, blacks are nice, faces sharp
> 
> 
> the AQ is alright, there's not much to the movie tho, but its very simple and it works
> 
> 
> there's one part in a bar where i feel like the whispers/background noise are way over done and it comes across as fake and distracting
> 
> 
> my big complaint is with the directing, there's way too many scenes abusing the telephoto lens. lot of really wide shots where just the face is in focus and everything else is a blurry mess
> 
> 
> same thing with some inside shots, it got annoying after a while
> 
> 
> supplements this one is bare, couple of deletes scenes, two audio commentaries, and thats it
> 
> 
> no trailers



how do you abuse a telephoto lens? lol


wide shots =! telephoto


----------



## Rob Tomlin

The Host


Wow!!!


I'm pretty excited about this one! The picture quality is absolutely stunning! Detail and clarity is amazing. Every speck, pore, hair and freckle comes across incredibly clear. Contrast is superb and it give the image a very three dimensional appearance. Colors pop without being overly saturated.


There are times when the contrast is blown out a bit, but I believe that to be intentional.


This disc gets my highest recommendation in terms of PQ. In fact, I am going to recommend this for Tier 0 placement!










I notice that this is already placed in high Tier 1, but I didn't see anybody else discuss it. I did a search too. Who else has seen this title and discussed it??










As for the movie itself: I really liked it a lot! The premise of the movie has been done a million times before (mutant creature), but this was done better than just about any of them that I can think of.


The cinematography alone is nothing less than excellent. How great is it to have such great PQ when the cinematography is so good!?


This is a Korean film, with English subtitles. It might not be for everybody, but I thoroughly enjoyed how well made this film was.


Thumbs up!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wmitchell23* /forum/post/11116076
> 
> 
> Let me be first to say: The Host - Tier 0
> 
> 
> Not even 10 minutes into the film and I've said OMG twice already. The color is amazing and the amount of detail actually hurt my eyes (and that's sitting 10 ft away from a 50" display).
> 
> 
> The CGI creature is not quite believable at times but the movie is pretty cool.



Ah...there are others!


Absolutely positively agree with WMitchell23 on this one!!! Tier 0!


----------



## rsigley




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sick of Change* /forum/post/13130778
> 
> 
> how do you abuse a telephoto lens? lol
> 
> 
> wide shots =! telephoto



oh whoops sorry


whats it called then when the guy in front of in focus but they intentionally make everything else blurry


and when people are talking one person is in focus, then when the other person is talking they're in focus and everything else is blurry


oh and i don't think, =! doesn't mean does not equal, it just is a check to see if something is equal, so using it there really doesn't make sense


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsigley* /forum/post/13132848
> 
> 
> oh whoops sorry
> 
> 
> whats it called then when the guy in front of in focus but they intentionally make everything else blurry
> 
> 
> and when people are talking one person is in focus, then when the other person is talking they're in focus and everything else is blurry



Artful use of depth of field to help convey a story?


----------



## E-A-G-L-E-S

Gone Baby Gone was just abpove average - imo.

Some very nice spots, like said earlier, but too many not very good spots with artifacting and grain.

Lower Tier 2 for me.


Sony KDS-60A3000

PS3

1080p/60Hz

8' viewing distance


----------



## OhioMike

Just watched "The Assasination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford"...jesus that is a mouthful (or keyboard full as it were).

The movie blew me away...outstanding. The PQ was good but not outstanding.

There is of course a light intentional grain throughout...no problem it's a gritty western

The color was very rich and a lot of scenes really popped.

But, not as much facial and other fine detail as many reference titles

It is a solid transfer from Warner, but not demo in my opinion. I would place this in upper tier 2 right behind it's sidekick 3:10 to Yuma.

I thought through most of the movie it was lulling me to sleep, but then in the final few minutes, I realized this was one of the best written and produced movies I have seen. It all just kind of set in and bammmm....great story.

40"XBR4 1080p/24 @7ft

PS3 HDMI thru Onkyo 605

Pitch Black Room.


~MIKE~


----------



## ubik

I have a general (and hopefully non-inflammatory) question/comment about the impact of encoding artifacts on picture quality ratings - in particular, DCT block artifacts found in black regions.


As background, I recently hooked up a Blu-ray drive to my computer and have since watched several movies on a 1920x1200 24" Dell 2405FPW with a self-calibrated sRGB color profile at a viewing distance of about 2-2.5 feet. I've been very pleased by this upgrade and am now able to appreciate some fine detail of video that I do not get with my 47" Westinghouse TX 1080p HDTV at a viewing distance of about 8 feet (self-calibrated to slightly crush blacks in favor of better contrast and colors). However, the downside is that I am now able to see encoding artifacts that were not previously visible to me.


To pick two noteworthy and otherwise well-regarded examples, Underworld (Unrated) and Black Hawk Down are both crawling with block artifacts in their black regions. I have some sympathy for whomever encoded these two movies since they are very dark films with strong grain - a bad cocktail for avoiding artifacts. For the most part, these block artifacts are constrained to the dark corners of the screen rather than at the point of focus and dance around enough that they are not readily noticeable without pausing.


However, in some cases they gather together and creep into the primary focused area which makes them difficult to ignore. One example that springs to mind is early on in Underworld at approximately 10m30s. Kate Beckinsale is moving through the sewer towards a manhole. The screen blacks out for a moment and a (digital effect) spotlight appears in the center of the screen. The camera then pans vertically through the floor upward to reveal a room full of bickering werewolves that enter the scene feet first. Throughout this pan each frame is a mess of block artifacts, especially in areas at the edges of the artificial spotlight.


First the question part: are these concerns overblown in regards to treatment of picture quality? After all, using your TV stand as an elbow rest is not exactly the most common viewing environment. I am not lobbying for moving these two films from their current tier placement since they otherwise have very fine picture detail and quality.


At the same time (and now my comment), because of the prevalence of artifacts I do not believe movies like Underworld and Black Hawk Down truly belong in the Tier 1 (Gold) and should be allowed to drift downward into Tier 2. By comparison, Tier 1 should in my opinion eventually be populated by movies like Wild Hogs that are completely pristine and artifact free, but whose source material lacks that last mile of punch and pop that would push it into Tier 0 as demo material. In other words, a movie should not be Tier 1 if a better encode of the movie would improve the picture.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13132663
> 
> The Host
> 
> I notice that this is already placed in high Tier 1, but I didn't see anybody else discuss it. I did a search too. Who else has seen this title and discussed it??



I saw it but never discussed it. Or maybe I did in the other thread. Anyhow, it was a great looker but I could only stomach about 30 minutes of it before I took it out and sent it back. I couldn't stand the over acting. The scene after the mutant tears apart the city for the first time and the family comes together in the shelter area just ruined it for me...where they're all rolling around on the floor crying. lol, in retrospect it's kinda funny, but I remember being highly annoyed.


I definitely remember it being Tier 0 worthy for the most part.


Brandon


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *E-A-G-L-E-S* /forum/post/13133602
> 
> 
> Gone Baby Gone was just abpove average - imo.
> 
> Some very nice spots, like said earlier, but too many not very good spots with artifacting and grain.
> 
> Lower Tier 2 for me.
> 
> 
> Sony KDS-60A3000
> 
> PS3
> 
> 1080p/60Hz
> 
> 8' viewing distance


 My initial assessment is closer to yours. I think high Tier 2, but I could see some people wanting it lower.


Brandon


----------



## maverick0716

Wow, I guess I'm in the minority about Gone Baby Gone.......I thought it was fantastic.


----------



## maverick0716

Just watched The Devil's Rejects last night. Thought it was pretty decent overall. I think it deserves to be in the lower half of Tier 3, not Tier 4.


Another couple things that I've noticed and would like to point out........what the hell is Terminator 2 doing so high? That BD does not look good in the slightest. I've actually compared my upconverted Ultimate Edition to it (both playing at the same time, switching inputs) and there is MINIMAL difference. Terminator 1 is a much better looking disc and it's way lower on the Tier list.


42" Panasonic Plasma

PS3 though HDMI

6-7 ft. viewing distance


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/13138338
> 
> 
> Wow, I guess I'm in the minority about Gone Baby Gone.......I thought it was fantastic.



Well you nominated Mid Tier 1 I believe, while I went with High Tier 2* and the other guy went with Mid Tier 2. At least we're in the same general ball park










I think the only thing I disagreed with about your review was the impression of Tier 0 material at some points. I don't think I ever saw any scenes that were Tier 0 worthy IMO. It fluctuated between mid Tier 1 to bottom of Tier 2 for the most part.


Brandon


*Edit: I meant High Tier 2


----------



## bplewis24

Watched Wall Street today. I won't recommend for placement because I believe netflix sent me the DVD version by mistake










Brandon


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13141697
> 
> 
> Watched Wall Street today. I won't recommend for placement because I believe netflix sent me the DVD version by mistake
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brandon



Haha, I guess we're watching all the same movies, because I'm just about to watch Wall Street........it can't be as bad as DVD can it? lol


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13137761
> 
> 
> I saw it but never discussed it. Or maybe I did in the other thread. Anyhow, it was a great looker but I could only stomach about 30 minutes of it before I took it out and sent it back. I couldn't stand the over acting. The scene after the mutant tears apart the city for the first time and the family comes together in the shelter area just ruined it for me...where they're all rolling around on the floor crying. lol, in retrospect it's kinda funny, but I remember being highly annoyed.
> 
> 
> I definitely remember it being Tier 0 worthy for the most part.
> 
> 
> Brandon



Cool, another Tier 0 vote.


As for the "overacting", it's one of those things that you either get and go with or you don't. This movie has plenty of tongue in cheek moments in it. And again, the cinematography in this movie is nothing short of amazing! I'm sorry you didn't get through this one in it's entirety, as I truly believe that this is a fantastic piece of film making.


Honestly, when I first wrote my initial review, I was worried that I might look back on it later and regret that I praised it so highly. Now that I have had more time to reflect on it, I actually don't think that I praised it enough! It really is _excellent_.


Wow: I just checked out Rotten Tomatoes!!! Looks like the critics liked this as much as I do (with a whopping 92% rating!!!)!

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/host/ 



> Quote:
> Consensus: A riveting, poignant piece of film making.



Indeed.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13141934
> 
> 
> Cool, another Tier 0 vote.
> 
> 
> As for the "overacting", it's one of those things that you either get and go with or you don't. This movie has plenty of tongue in cheek moments in it. And again, the cinematography in this movie is nothing short of amazing! I'm sorry you didn't get through this one in it's entirety, as I truly believe that this is a fantastic piece of film making.
> 
> 
> Honestly, when I first wrote my initial review, I was worried that I might look back on it later and regret that I praised it so highly. Now that I have had more time to reflect on it, I actually don't think that I praised it enough! It really is _excellent_.
> 
> 
> Wow: I just checked out Rotten Tomatoes!!! Looks like the critics liked this as much as I do (with a whopping 92% rating!!!)!
> 
> http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/host/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.



Sounds good!! I just ordered The Host this afternoon and after reading the glowing reviews on rottentomatoes, Hi Def Digest, and Amazon, I'm quite sure I'll be echoing the praises of Rob and adding my vote for a Tier 0 placement.


----------



## maverick0716

I liked "The Host" for the most part, but I think they took a great idea and dragged it way too far.


----------



## maverick0716

Wall Street is pretty mediocre as far as BD's are concerned. IMO, it's definitly better than DVD, but it is very soft. The colours are fine, and there's no real banding or compression artifacting. This title should be slightly above "Crash" in Tier 4.


42" Panasonic Plasma (768p)

PS3

6-7 ft.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/13142758
> 
> 
> I liked "The Host" for the most part, but I think they took a great idea and dragged it way too far.



That is a unique take on it. What exactly was the "great idea" that they dragged too far? Because as far as the story itself, there was nothing unique about it in any way, so I don't know what the great idea was.


It's _how_ the story is told that makes it an excellent movie, not the story itself.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13142979
> 
> 
> That is a unique take on it. What exactly was the "great idea" that they dragged too far? Because as far as the story itself, there was nothing unique about it in any way, so I don't know what the great idea was.
> 
> 
> It's _how_ the story is told that makes it an excellent movie, not the story itself.



Without revealing spoilers, I'll just say that I liked the first 30 minutes quite a bit more than the rest of the movie. I saw it about 6 months ago, so I can't really go into detail.......maybe I'll rent it again.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13141690
> 
> 
> Well you nominated Mid Tier 1 I believe, while I went with High Tier 1 and the other guy went with Mid Tier 2. At least we're in the same general ball park
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the only thing I disagreed with about your review was the impression of Tier 0 material at some points. I don't think I ever saw any scenes that were Tier 0 worthy IMO. It fluctuated between mid Tier 1 to bottom of Tier 2 for the most part.
> 
> 
> Brandon



I've only watched part of GBG so I'm not ready to offer a placement recommendation yet; but based on what I've seen so far it's probably between lower Tier 1 and upper Tier 2.


This is the second recent Disney release (Becoming Jane was the first) where the HDD review has misidentified the codec as AVC when it is really VC-1, at least according to the readout on my PS3. Perhaps they were misled by the fact that the *menu* is done in AVC.


Can someone explain why they did not use a higher bitrate on this? The movie is less than two hours and the extras are quite short.


Btw the trailer for Becoming Jane on the GBG disc looks nothing like the actual movie in terms of PQ; the trailer looks awful, while the movie itself looks superb. I guess it's a function of the fact that for some reason the trailers are always done in MPEG-2, regardless of how the movie itself is done.


Another btw: after watching the trailer for No Country for Old Men, I cancelled my order.


----------



## lgans316

Once BonusView / PiP comes into effect in full swing you will begin to see lower bit rates on Blu-rays too.


Oldboy - Mid Tier-3 recommendation. Disappointing purchase and PQ.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/13142773
> 
> 
> Wall Street is pretty mediocre as far as BD's are concerned. IMO, it's definitly better than DVD, but it is very soft. The colours are fine, and there's no real banding or compression artifacting. This title should be slightly above "Crash" in Tier 4.
> 
> 
> 42" Panasonic Plasma (768p)
> 
> PS3
> 
> 6-7 ft.



I'll 2nd this.


Brandon


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13143575
> 
> 
> I've only watched part of GBG so I'm not ready to offer a placement recommendation yet; but based on what I've seen so far it's probably between lower Tier 1 and upper Tier 2.



That sounds in line with my POV. I mistakenly put that I nominated it for High Tier 1 in my 2nd post. I meant High Tier 2, like I said in my original post.


Brandon


----------



## kano1978

How often is this list updated?


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kano1978* /forum/post/13149179
> 
> 
> How often is this list updated?



It's usually updated weekly, sometimes more frequently. The three of us (Austin, Rob, and myself) are all pretty busy at the moment, so it may seem that updates have been lacking over the past week or two, but Rob's been doing a terrific job of picking up the slack.


----------



## techwisenyc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ubik* /forum/post/13133986
> 
> 
> I have a general (and hopefully non-inflammatory) question/comment about the impact of encoding artifacts on picture quality ratings - in particular, DCT block artifacts found in black regions.
> 
> 
> As background, I recently hooked up a Blu-ray drive to my computer and have since watched several movies on a 1920x1200 24" Dell 2405FPW with a self-calibrated sRGB color profile at a viewing distance of about 2-2.5 feet. I've been very pleased by this upgrade and am now able to appreciate some fine detail of video that I do not get with my 47" Westinghouse TX 1080p HDTV at a viewing distance of about 8 feet (self-calibrated to slightly crush blacks in favor of better contrast and colors). However, the downside is that I am now able to see encoding artifacts that were not previously visible to me.
> 
> 
> To pick two noteworthy and otherwise well-regarded examples, Underworld (Unrated) and Black Hawk Down are both crawling with block artifacts in their black regions. I have some sympathy for whomever encoded these two movies since they are very dark films with strong grain - a bad cocktail for avoiding artifacts. For the most part, these block artifacts are constrained to the dark corners of the screen rather than at the point of focus and dance around enough that they are not readily noticeable without pausing.
> 
> 
> However, in some cases they gather together and creep into the primary focused area which makes them difficult to ignore. One example that springs to mind is early on in Underworld at approximately 10m30s. Kate Beckinsale is moving through the sewer towards a manhole. The screen blacks out for a moment and a (digital effect) spotlight appears in the center of the screen. The camera then pans vertically through the floor upward to reveal a room full of bickering werewolves that enter the scene feet first. Throughout this pan each frame is a mess of block artifacts, especially in areas at the edges of the artificial spotlight.
> 
> 
> First the question part: are these concerns overblown in regards to treatment of picture quality? After all, using your TV stand as an elbow rest is not exactly the most common viewing environment. I am not lobbying for moving these two films from their current tier placement since they otherwise have very fine picture detail and quality.
> 
> 
> At the same time (and now my comment), because of the prevalence of artifacts I do not believe movies like Underworld and Black Hawk Down truly belong in the Tier 1 (Gold) and should be allowed to drift downward into Tier 2. By comparison, Tier 1 should in my opinion eventually be populated by movies like Wild Hogs that are completely pristine and artifact free, but whose source material lacks that last mile of punch and pop that would push it into Tier 0 as demo material. In other words, a movie should not be Tier 1 if a better encode of the movie would improve the picture.



I also think Underworld is too high. It would either be on the bottom of Tier 1 or Top of Tier 2 for me. The dark areas are extremely grainy and I have spotted block artifacts. This is on a Pio 60inch 150FD with PS3. A lot of other scenes were very sharp and great color, but overall a lot of really dark areas suffer too much from artifacts, grain and some black crush even. I am noticing a lot more now on my Pio than on my 42 inch LCD at 8 feet away. To me in comes down to how much of the PQ is top notch on the film in comparison to its problems. For example, Apocalypto for 90% of the film is Tier 0 and some scenes at the beginning have intentional film grain, but looks pristine nonetheless. In Underworld, most of best parts are Top Tier 1, but don't feel that's more than 65% of the film.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *techwisenyc* /forum/post/13151225
> 
> 
> I also think Underworld is too high. It would either be on the bottom of Tier 1 or Top of Tier 2 for me. The dark areas are extremely grainy and I have spotted block artifacts. This is on a Pio 60inch 150FD with PS3. A lot of other scenes were very sharp and great color, but overall a lot of really dark areas suffer too much from artifacts, grain and some black crush even. I am noticing a lot more now on my Pio than on my 42 inch LCD at 8 feet away. To me in comes down to how much of the PQ is top notch on the film in comparison to its problems. For example, Apocalypto for 90% of the film is Tier 0 and some scenes at the beginning have intentional film grain, but looks pristine nonetheless. In Underworld, most of best parts are Top Tier 1, but don't feel that's more than 65% of the film.



With that TV I am gunna look to you for your PQ reviews










How bad is Memento? Blood Diamond? (Hopefully you have em)


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *techwisenyc* /forum/post/13151225
> 
> 
> I also think Underworld is too high. It would either be on the bottom of Tier 1 or Top of Tier 2 for me. The dark areas are extremely grainy and I have spotted block artifacts. This is on a Pio 60inch 150FD with PS3. A lot of other scenes were very sharp and great color, but overall a lot of really dark areas suffer too much from artifacts, grain and some black crush even. *I am noticing a lot more now on my Pio than on my 42 inch LCD at 8 feet away.* To me in comes down to how much of the PQ is top notch on the film in comparison to its problems. For example, Apocalypto for 90% of the film is Tier 0 and some scenes at the beginning have intentional film grain, but looks pristine nonetheless. In Underworld, most of best parts are Top Tier 1, but don't feel that's more than 65% of the film.



That's a rather large viewing distance. . .


----------



## hobbs47




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13143575
> 
> 
> Btw the trailer for Becoming Jane on the GBG disc looks nothing like the actual movie in terms of PQ; the trailer looks awful, while the movie itself looks superb.
> 
> 
> Another btw: after watching the trailer for No Country for Old Men, I cancelled my order.



Why would you cancel your order for No Country?Did the trailer look bad for PQ or you just don't care for the movie?The movie is great so I don't think that would be the problem.Well,I would wait for reports on the actual disc,as even you said,the Becoming Jane trailer on GBG looked like crap and the real BD looked great.


----------



## CCsoftball7

What did you guys think about "Perfect Stranger?" I thought it looked quite good. Since I'm pretty new to BD I figure others can compare more subjectively than I.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hobbs47* /forum/post/13156372
> 
> 
> Why would you cancel your order for No Country?Did the trailer look bad for PQ or you just don't care for the movie?The movie is great so I don't think that would be the problem.Well,I would wait for reports on the actual disc,as even you said,the Becoming Jane trailer on GBG looked like crap and the real BD looked great.



The PQ looked just fine. I reached the conclusion I wouldn't enjoy the movie.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CCsoftball7* /forum/post/13156660
> 
> 
> What did you guys think about "Perfect Stranger?" I thought it looked quite good. Since I'm pretty new to BD I figure others can compare more subjectively than I.



It's been a while since I watched it, but my recollection is that it looked OK. Nothing particularly outstanding about either the movie or the PQ.


----------



## hobbs47




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13157809
> 
> 
> The PQ looked just fine. I reached the conclusion I wouldn't enjoy the movie.




Ahh,I see.Give it a rental,if you liked the creepiness of Mr. Brooks you might like it,although No Country is a LOT more violent.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hobbs47* /forum/post/13158482
> 
> 
> Ahh,I see.Give it a rental,if you liked the creepiness of Mr. Brooks you might like it,although No Country is a LOT more violent.



I think the trailer showed me enough to convince me that there was just about no chance I would enjoy it.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13157809
> 
> 
> The PQ looked just fine. I reached the conclusion I wouldn't enjoy the movie.



The Coen brothers are hit and miss with me. When they "hit", they hit big (Fargo, Blood Simple). When they miss, they miss really big (The Ladykillers).


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Has anyone viewed *We Own The Night* or *Resident Evil: Extinction* yet?


I have, but wanted to see if anyone else had an opinion first. Neither title is currently ranked.


----------



## hobbs47




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13162515
> 
> 
> The Coen brothers are hit and miss with me. When they "hit", they hit big (Fargo, Blood Simple). When they miss, they miss really big (The Ladykillers).



I would agree,Fargo is a masterpiece,probably even overall a better movie than No Country,but they are both EXCELLENT and very offbeat films.Not for everybody I guess.


----------



## OhioMike

Rob, I did a quick review on Extinction last week, along with the other 2 in the trilogy and The Rock




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OhioMike* /forum/post/13054743
> 
> 
> I had a pretty good viewing day yesterday: Watched RE:Trilogy and The Rock(US ver) and will provide some feedback as most are not tiered yet.
> *The Rock* was amazing. This is one of my favorite movies and it has never looked so damn good. This is a solid Low Tier 1..very sharp and accurate throughout with good pop. Right behind KOH seems good (although KOH is now too low on the chart I think)
> *RE:1:* This was a quality transfer..but left me wanting a little bit more out of it after waiting so long for them to release it. Low Tier 2 would be good for now...I think a little ahead of Blood Diamond..maybe right under Behind Enemy Lines.
> *RE:2:* Placed pretty well...maybe could go up a bit...but it was an improvement over dvd, just no wow factor.
> *RE:3:* This was a very well done title (better be for a day and date). Very good detail, the desert setting didn't lend to a lot of pop with such a bland color palette to work with, but a very strong picture throughout. Mid to Upper Tier 1. Right under Mr & Mrs Smith would be a good starting point.
> 
> *40XBR4 1080p/24 @6.5-7 ft (my tv stand is not a footrest)
> 
> PS3
> 
> Onkyo 605----all HDMI
> 
> Pitch Black room*


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Thanks Mike. Definitely agree on The Rock!



> Quote:
> RE:3: This was a very well done title (better be for a day and date). Very good detail, the desert setting didn't lend to a lot of pop with such a bland color palette to work with, but a very strong picture throughout. Mid to Upper Tier 1




I think much of your description for RE3 is right on the mark. Bland color palette and lack of contrast prevent the picture from having a lot of pop. However, I have to disagree with it having very good detail. It wasn't bad, and not exactly soft, but I didn't think that the detail lived up to the detail that other Tier 1 titles have.


Resident Evil Extinction gets a mid Tier 2 vote from me.


Anyone else?


----------



## lgans316

Placement of KOH is perfect. The Island should in Tier-0 as it has MB written all over it. Consistent 3D pop and WOW factor experience. I will re-buy The Island if released by Dreamworks as the overseas release by Warner doesn't contain lossless audio and proper supplements.


----------



## grommet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13163866
> 
> 
> Has anyone viewed *We Own The Night* or *Resident Evil: Extinction* yet?
> 
> 
> I have, but wanted to see if anyone else had an opinion first. Neither title is currently ranked.



Resident Evil: Extinction has such awful digital airbrushing on Milla's face on almost all closeups that I probably can't give it a honest evaluation. It's really, really bad when it switches to porcelain doll Milla from a slightly wider shot where she looks human; it takes me out of the movie every single time. I guess I'd put it in the upper middle part of Tier 2 if I try to force myself into ignoring part of the airbrushing...







The overall look is likely as intended on Blu-ray, but I don't think I'd call it prime HD demo material.


----------



## OhioMike

Hey Rob, considering your knowledge and equipment, I'm a little honored that our opinions have been so comparable on many titles over the past few months...I'll live with being off on 1 ~end hommage~

BTW: Just noticed your HT link (is that new?) and your Theater looks awesome! Love the colors and the lighting. How big is the room?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *grommet* /forum/post/13164334
> 
> 
> Resident Evil: Extinction has such awful digital airbrushing on Milla's face on almost all closeups that I probably can't give it a honest evaluation. It's really, really bad when it switches to porcelain doll Milla from a slightly wider shot where she looks human; it takes me out of the movie every single time. I guess I'd put it in the upper middle part of Tier 2 if I try to force myself into ignoring part of the airbrushing...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The overall look is likely as intended on Blu-ray, but I don't think I'd call it prime HD demo material.



I meant to mention the very OBVIOUS digital manipulation on Milla's face in certain scenes. I mean, really obvious and not in a good way. Very good point.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OhioMike* /forum/post/13164348
> 
> 
> Hey Rob, considering your knowledge and equipment, I'm a little honored that our opinions have been so comparable on many titles over the past few months...I'll live with being off on 1 ~end hommage~
> 
> BTW: Just noticed your HT link (is that new?) and your Theater looks awesome! Love the colors and the lighting. How big is the room?



Thanks. The room is about 20 feet long (I wish it was a bit longer so the back row would have more space behind it to aim the speakers) and 14 feet wide. It's my escape!


----------



## mp3junkie

Can anyone tell me why Prison Break Season One is in Tier 0? I just don't get it. It has grain all through the episodes. Some scenes are sharp particular those on the outside and some close ups but others are a bit soft. Take a look at disk number two and you will see what I am speaking about. It appears this title should be in upper or middle Tier 1.



___________________

Sharp 52" LCD 82 1080p - Calibrated

PS3 with HDM connections

7ft viewing distance


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13163866
> 
> 
> Has anyone viewed *We Own The Night* or *Resident Evil: Extinction* yet?
> 
> 
> I have, but wanted to see if anyone else had an opinion first. Neither title is currently ranked.



Look in the last couple of pages. I posted a brief review of "We Own The Night". I've also seen Resident Evil: Extinction and thought it was pretty damn good other than a few majorly blurry scenes. I'd probably place it in upper Tier 2 overall.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/13096461
> 
> 
> Rented this one tonight. The picture quality is quite soft for the majority of this one (sometimes it even seems blurry). Some scenes are actually quite sharp though (specifically towards the end), which makes it seem very inconsistent. Overall, I wouldn't say it's bad, but it is a very murky looking movie for most of it. I'd put it around the middle or lower Tier 2 due to the clarity near the end......otherwise it would be Tier 3 in my books.
> 
> 
> 42" Panasonic Plasma (768p)
> 
> PS3 though HDMI
> 
> 6-7 ft. viewing distance



Thanks Maverick.


On this one I will definitely agree. Very soft for the majority of the film. Contrast is lacking, no pop or three dimensionality. Did I mention the softness?










As you say, there are some scenes that look quite good. But the majority of the movie is too soft to allow those few good scenes to bring this up in overall quality of Tier 2.


I vote for high/top Tier 3.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *grommet* /forum/post/13164334
> 
> 
> Resident Evil: Extinction has such awful digital airbrushing on Milla's face on almost all closeups that I probably can't give it a honest evaluation. It's really, really bad when it switches to porcelain doll Milla from a slightly wider shot where she looks human; it takes me out of the movie every single time. I guess I'd put it in the upper middle part of Tier 2 if I try to force myself into ignoring part of the airbrushing...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The overall look is likely as intended on Blu-ray, but I don't think I'd call it prime HD demo material.



That effect was truly horrible. It occurred to me that the slightly softish look of the movie as a whole may have been to reduce the contrast between those shots and the rest of the movie. Placement of this title should definitely take those horrible shots into account.


----------



## 1FAST951




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13163866
> 
> 
> Has anyone viewed *We Own The Night* or *Resident Evil: Extinction* yet?
> 
> 
> I have, but wanted to see if anyone else had an opinion first. Neither title is currently ranked.



Watched WOTN last week. I would say tier 3 certainly below SWAT. Reasons; pretty much what has previously been said, softness/grain, lack of POP. However I can't recall at any point it being soft enough to be considered almost blurry.


Will watch Sky Captain and RE 1/2/3 this weekend so I might have a better idea as to where to position WOTN after viewing those.


----------



## DavidHir

I watched _The Rock_ the other night (Panasonic BD30 and ISF'd 60" Sony SXRD A3000 at 1080p/24). All in all, it looked quite good for a catalog title. My only complaint is some edge enhancement. However, the film grain was nicely intact and detail very good in a number of scenes. I'm thinking mid Tier 2. If it didn't have EE, maybe high Tier 2. I think Tier 1 is a bit too high.


----------



## OldCodger73

I've never seen the movie before so I can't comment on how it compared to in theatre or on DVD; however to me PQ seemed all over the place. Outdoor scenes generally seemed quite sharp with good color, some of the inside scenes, particularly of Lola's father and his mistress looked to be filmed in low grade video, they were soft and grainy. In the third segment at the start of the scene where the street person who has the money bag is at the drink counter, the stand's sign seemed distorted with a lot of what looked to me might be moiré pattern. Overall I would place PQ of RLR in the lower level of Tier 3, maybe around Superman Returns.


I watched it with the German soundtrack with English subtitles so I didn't have time to minutely examine the picture for more subtle flaws.


Panasonic 50" 720p plasma, Panasonic 10a player, 8' viewing distance


----------



## ajamils

Watched ConAir last night on my 40" 1080p LCD and I wasn't too thrilled with the PQ. It is very inconsistant. Some outdoor shots are really good while others are soft. Also the dark scenes do not have as much sharpness as we've come to expect from Blu-ray movies.


Overall, I will place it at the bottom of Tier 2 or top tier 3.


On the other hand, AQ was great with every good surround sound engagement.


----------



## DavidHir

I too viewed _Con Air_ last night (Panasonic BD30 and ISF'd 60" Sony SXRD A3000 at 1080p/24). I would probably place it mid or high Tier 3. The image looked a little washed out and had kind of a "video-like" or slightly processed look to it. Most Blu-rays look more natural or filmlike. Detail wasn't too bad (not great though) in a number of scenes, but there was some EE in some scenes too. Overall, I think it was still a decent presentation and I'd imagine a good jump from the SD DVD.


----------



## techwisenyc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13164556
> 
> 
> I meant to mention the very OBVIOUS digital manipulation on Milla's face in certain scenes. I mean, really obvious and not in a good way. Very good point.
> 
> 
> Thanks. The room is about 20 feet long (I wish it was a bit longer so the back row would have more space behind it to aim the speakers) and 14 feet wide. It's my escape!



I thought it was a good transfer overall, and not a bad job done with the limited color palette as others stated. Dark scenes to me were not terrible, but what really kills it is the horrendous blob digital effect/makeup on Milla's face. What was that all about? I would place it below Ice Age on Tier 2. It did have some top Tier 1 scenes for me, but a lot of low Tier 2 scenes as well.


Anyone think Underworld should be lowered? I say near bottom Tier 1. On a previous thread, I agreed with a posters who said that a lot of dark scenes were either crushed or nosiy/grainy. It does have a lot of pop in many of the brighter darker scenes, but not that impressive.


I sit 7.5 - 8ft from a Pio 150FD.


----------



## E-A-G-L-E-S

Michael Clayton

Tier 2

Sony KDS-60A3000

PS3 @ 1080p/60Hz

8' viewing distance


Nothing special PQ-wise, but an awesome movie!


----------



## Zygon

Just watched Tudors (uk import) last night. I'd say tier 1 at least. Lots of sharp outdoor scenes.

Tudors (uk import) Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.78:1 | Sony 




Samsung LNT4671F

7' viewing distance

PS3 @ 1080p/24Hz


----------



## DavidHir




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *E-A-G-L-E-S* /forum/post/13179868
> 
> 
> Michael Clayton
> 
> Tier 2
> 
> Sony KDS-60A3000
> 
> PS3 @ 1080p/60Hz
> 
> 8' viewing distance
> 
> 
> Nothing special PQ-wise, but an awesome movie!



Just an FYI, you have the ability to use 24hz in your set-up.


----------



## ajamils

Watched A Celine Dion: New Day last night and I'm happy to say that both AQ and PQ are absolute DEMO material. Colors are vibrant and closeups looks absolutely stunning. Even though the majority of concert setting is not very well lit, there is no lack of detail. I will vote to place this in Tier 0, above POTC: Dead Man's Chest.

Bottom line: If you are Celine fan, you just can't afford to miss this Blu-ray and if you are not, you should still get it as a demo material for AQ and PQ.


----------



## BjornK

I feel a strong urge to vent my disappointment after watching 28 days later yesterday. It was simply BY FAR *THE WORST* PQ I've ever seen so far on blu-ray. It was so bad throughout the whole movie that I just kept thinking how the PQ could be so bad, especially on a recent movie like this, even being a (supposedly) low budget horror movie.


I highly doubt if this movie was even shot using HD camcorders. They mention using digital cameras instead of film in the extras, but with the extreme softness and equally extreme edge enhancements I don't think I saw a single shot in the movie that had any more detail than any regular DVD...


Granted, the movie is already rated in tier 5, but at the top of the list. Unfortunately I have only seen Total recall from the rest of the list, but I have to say that Total recall is at least a notch or two above 28 days later in terms of PQ, so either TR should be mid-lower tier 4, or 28 should be at the very bottom of the list. At least I HOPE so for the rest of the movies sakes *SHEESH*

















My equipment:

~80" screen from about 3.5m away using a Sanyo PLV-Z4 and a PS3 with HDMI.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BjornK* /forum/post/13194463
> 
> 
> I feel a strong urge to vent my disappointment after watching 28 days later yesterday. It was simply BY FAR *THE WORST* PQ I've ever seen so far on blu-ray. It was so bad throughout the whole movie that I just kept thinking how the PQ could be so bad, especially on a recent movie like this, even being a (supposedly) low budget horror movie.
> 
> 
> I highly doubt if this movie was even shot using HD camcorders. They mention using digital cameras instead of film in the extras, but with the extreme softness and equally extreme edge enhancements I don't think I saw a single shot in the movie that had any more detail than any regular DVD...
> 
> 
> Granted, the movie is already rated in tier 5, but at the top of the list. Unfortunately I have only seen Total recall from the rest of the list, but I have to say that Total recall is at least a notch or two above 28 days later in terms of PQ, so either TR should be mid-lower tier 4, or 28 should be at the very bottom of the list. At least I HOPE so for the rest of the movies sakes *SHEESH*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My equipment:
> 
> ~80" screen from about 3.5m away using a Sanyo PLV-Z4 and a PS3 with HDMI.



Do you realize what the source was for 28 Days Later?


This title never had any chance whatsoever of even coming close to looking good in HD. In fact, there is almost no reason for it to be in HD at all.


It was shot on a consumer video camera (non HD).


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13194622
> 
> 
> It was shot on a *consumer video camera* (non HD).



Wowzers.


Brandon


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13194766
> 
> 
> Wowzers.
> 
> 
> Brandon



I should probably put a caveat in my post, as I am not 100% sure what video camera was used, but the fact is that it was shot on the DV format, which is certainly a consumer format and not HD.


----------



## BjornK




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13194622
> 
> 
> Do you realize what the source was for 28 Days Later?
> 
> 
> This title never had any chance whatsoever of even coming close to looking good in HD. In fact, there is almost no reason for it to be in HD at all.
> 
> 
> It was shot on a consumer video camera (non HD).



Read my post again, that's exactly what I suspected. Even more of a reason why this movie should be at the absolute bottom of the list...


Now, I wonder if that is noted ANYWHERE on the back cover (as it should), I doubt it


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BjornK* /forum/post/13194862
> 
> 
> Read my post again, that's exactly what I suspected. Even more of a reason why this movie should be at the absolute bottom of the list...
> 
> 
> Now, I wonder if that is noted ANYWHERE on the back cover (as it should), I doubt it



I haven't actually seen in on Blu-ray, and I have no intention to see it on Blu-ray. I saw it on DVD and it was horrible. I already knew what the source was after that, which is why I know this must suck.


I have no problem putting this at the bottom of the list based on your comments.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13194861
> 
> 
> I should probably put a caveat in my post, as I am not 100% sure what video camera was used, but the fact is that it was shot on the DV format, which is certainly a consumer format and not HD.



It was a mix of the Canon XL2 and 16mm film


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sick of Change* /forum/post/13195512
> 
> 
> It was a mix of the Canon XL2 and 16mm film



Thanks.


The 16mm makes up a small part of the film if I recall correctly. But even then, 16mm is going to look pretty crappy too.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13195552
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> The 16mm makes up a small part of the film if I recall correctly. But even then, 16mm is going to look pretty crappy too.



Yeah, when blown up to 35mm it does, but that's the look they were going for


----------



## bc501




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gail2magic* /forum/post/11016547
> 
> 
> Anyone seen Nature's Colors With The World's Greatest Music or Living Landscapes - The World's Most Beautiful Places yet? Saw the blu-ray copies of both of them today when I was shopping. Rather ask here first before I buy them.
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Gail



I was given "Living Landscapes HD: The World's Most Beautiful Places" yesterday, and it's superb, both for content and quality.

It includes excerpts from all nine of the "Living Landscapes on HD" Blu-Ray discs, and if the excerpts are any indication, from Hawaii to the Redwoods to autumn in New England to Costa Rica, all nine look to be consistently brilliant.

This is now my Blu-Ray demo disc.

Plus, it can be bought for as little as $15!

Enjoy...


Alan Perry

Victoria, BC, Canada

Panasonic DMP-BD30

Sony 50" LCD 1080p HDTV


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I watched *Man on Fire* last night.


In short: superb looking title!


This had it all in terms of PQ: great contrast, colors, and detail/clarity. No artifacts. The print was very clean. I would call this a "reference" title! You could literally count the pores in Denzel's skin!










I would put it even higher in Tier 1 than it currently is, near the very top. I do not think that a Tier 0 discussion is out of the question either.


Highly recommended.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13200013
> 
> 
> I watched *Man on Fire* last night.
> 
> 
> In short: superb looking title!
> 
> 
> This had it all in terms of PQ: great contrast, colors, and detail/clarity. No artifacts. The print was very clean. I would call this a "reference" title! You could literally count the pores in Denzel's skin!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would put it even higher in Tier 1 than it currently is, near the very top. I do not think that a Tier 0 discussion is out of the question either.
> 
> 
> Highly recommended.



I don't recall whether I have posted on this title before, but I completely agree with you, Rob. Another outstanding high bitrate, no extras (and I mean that in a good way) Fox release.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13200865
> 
> 
> I don't recall whether I have posted on this title before, but I completely agree with you, Rob. Another outstanding high bitrate, no extras (and I mean that in a good way) Fox release.



Absolutely. Fox is kicking butt right now with their top notch PQ. And yes, I did check my bitrate meter a few times, and it was quite high.


Would you even consider this for a Tier 0 placement Patrick?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13201042
> 
> 
> Absolutely. Fox is kicking butt right now with their top notch PQ. And yes, I did check my bitrate meter a few times, and it was quite high.
> 
> 
> Would you even consider this for a Tier 0 placement Patrick?



I think that's a possibility. Let me give it another look before giving a final opinion on that. It's been a few weeks since I last watched it.


----------



## E-A-G-L-E-S




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DavidHir* /forum/post/13181273
> 
> 
> Just an FYI, you have the ability to use 24hz in your set-up.




I just wish my PS3 would let me enable it.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13201071
> 
> 
> I think that's a possibility. Let me give it another look before giving a final opinion on that. It's been a few weeks since I last watched it.



No problem, take your time. There is no rush on moving it, since it is already pretty high in Tier 1. I just think, at a minimum, it needs to be even higher in Tier 1 (certainly above TFE).


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13200013
> 
> 
> I watched *Man on Fire* last night.
> 
> 
> In short: superb looking title!
> 
> 
> This had it all in terms of PQ: great contrast, colors, and detail/clarity. No artifacts. The print was very clean. I would call this a "reference" title! You could literally count the pores in Denzel's skin!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would put it even higher in Tier 1 than it currently is, near the very top. I do not think that a Tier 0 discussion is out of the question either.
> 
> 
> Highly recommended.



Fn sweet...one of my favorite movies, this is great to hear


----------



## Kevin12586




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *E-A-G-L-E-S* /forum/post/13201134
> 
> 
> I just wish my PS3 would let me enable it.



Your PS3 *DOES* allow you to use it. Go to settings and I believe BD/DVD playback, there will be an option for 1080p/24 auto/off/on. Just turn it on and you should be good to go.


----------



## fronn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13200013
> 
> 
> I watched *Man on Fire* last night.
> 
> 
> In short: superb looking title!
> 
> 
> This had it all in terms of PQ: great contrast, colors, and detail/clarity. No artifacts. The print was very clean. I would call this a "reference" title! You could literally count the pores in Denzel's skin!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would put it even higher in Tier 1 than it currently is, near the very top. I do not think that a Tier 0 discussion is out of the question either.
> 
> 
> Highly recommended.



I second this. At very least it should be top Tier 1, and I wouldn't not be against a vote for a Tier 0.


Additionally, I believe *Identity* should be in Tier 1 as well. It has an amazing amount of detail and consistency that beats out many titles that are ahead of it.


viewed on a 37" 1080p at about 6 feet and a 60inch 1080p at about 11 feet.


----------



## OhioMike

I watched *Rush Hour 3* the other night and mostly agree with it's placement...but...did anyone else think it looked a little unnatural? Like at times it seemed as if you could tell that they were in front of a fake background. The foreground (people) looked unnatural against the background (buildings or landscapes). It was a clean print with good detail and colors, but just looked a little odd at times.
*War*: I think this is pretty accurately placed but maybe down into Tier 3. Didn't notice any major artifacting or anything. It just wasn't detailed at all and a little blurry in spots. But it is truly the best surround track I have ever heard!!


40XBR4 1080p/24 @ 7ft

Onkyo 605

PS3 all HDMI

Pitch black room


----------



## divedude




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/13169356
> 
> 
> I’ve never seen the movie before so I can’t comment on how it compared to in theatre or on DVD; however to me PQ seemed all over the place. Outdoor scenes generally seemed quite sharp with good color, some of the inside scenes, particularly of Lola’s father and his mistress looked to be filmed in low grade video, they were soft and grainy. In the third segment at the start of the scene where the street person who has the money bag is at the drink counter, the stand’s sign seemed distorted with a lot of what looked to me might be moiré pattern. Overall I would place PQ of RLR in the lower level of Tier 3, maybe around Superman Returns.
> 
> 
> I watched it with the German soundtrack with English subtitles so I didn't have time to minutely examine the picture for more subtle flaws.
> 
> 
> Panasonic 50" 720p plasma, Panasonic 10a player, 8' viewing distance



I watched Lola last night. It is a great movie. Part was shot on 35mm film (scenes of Lola and Manni) and the parts without them were shot in video to give each level its own look according to the director.
http://www.sonyclassics.com/runlolar...ent/index.html 

The film portions look great and the video not so good, as it was shot before HD video. One scene at 57 minutes and another one at 63 minutes is very jaggy, but only for a few seconds. The good thing is most of the movie involves Lola and looks very good.


I would place it in mid-Tier 3 due to the video sections. Otherwise it would be higher. But I wouldn't let that keep anyone from watching the movie. It is well worth watching a few times to catch all the symbolism.


Like OldCodger73, I watched with the German soundtrack and English subtitles.


Qualia 006 - 70", BD30 and BD10, 12' viewing distance.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *divedude* /forum/post/13203838
> 
> 
> 
> Like OldCodger73, I watched with the German soundtrack and English subtitles.



That's the only acceptable way of watching!


Dubs are not acceptable.










Anyway, thanks for the review. I hope to move/add some titles tomorrow.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *divedude* /forum/post/13203838
> 
> 
> I watched Lola last night. It is a great movie. Part was shot on 35mm film (scenes of Lola and Manni) and the parts without them were shot in video to give each level its own look according to the director.
> http://www.sonyclassics.com/runlolar...ent/index.html
> 
> The film portions look great and the video not so good, as it was shot before HD video. One scene at 97 minutes and another one at 103 minutes is very jaggy, but only for a few seconds. The good thing is most of the movie involves Lola and looks very good.
> 
> 
> I would place it in mid-Tier 3 due to the video sections. Otherwise it would be higher. But I wouldn't let that keep anyone from watching the movie. It is well worth watching a few times to catch all the symbolism.
> 
> 
> Like OldCodger73, I watched with the German soundtrack and English subtitles.
> 
> 
> Qualia 006 - 70", BD30 and BD10, 12' viewing distance.



Run Lola Run - running time is 81 minutes. How come you detected artifacts at 97 minutes and 103 minutes ?


----------



## divedude




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13204089
> 
> 
> That's the only acceptable way of watching!
> 
> 
> Dubs are not acceptable.



Hi Rob,


Ja, es eben Tone besser


----------



## divedude




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13204158
> 
> 
> Run Lola Run - running time is 81 minutes. How come you detected artifacts at 97 minutes and 103 minutes ?



Delirious, it should have been 57 and 63 minutes. Thanks for the catch, I will change my post.


----------



## maverick0716

Rented these two the other night. Both of them have very similar video quality in my opinion, with the edge going to ITVOE. Good, solid transfers, with plenty of detail, but nothing majorly stunning. I'd put ITVOE high Tier 2 and Michael Clayton mid Tier 2.


42" Panasonic Plasma (768p)

PS3

6-7 ft.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13201158
> 
> 
> No problem, take your time. There is no rush on moving it, since it is already pretty high in Tier 1. I just think, at a minimum, it needs to be even higher in Tier 1 (certainly above TFE).



I watched the first half of Man on Fire again last night, and I agree that Tier 0 would be quite appropriate.


Btw, Rob, I think this title is another good example of why Paidgeek and Sony are mistaken in thinking that bitrates in the 20's are sufficient. While the bitrates in this title are frequently in the 20's, they are also often in the 30's, and I don't think this title would have looked nearly as good if Sony's bitrate practices had been used on it.


It sounds as though No Country for Old Men will be another good data point on all of this.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fronn* /forum/post/13203080
> 
> 
> I second this. At very least it should be top Tier 1, and I wouldn't not be against a vote for a Tier 0.
> 
> 
> Additionally, I believe *Identity* should be in Tier 1 as well. It has an amazing amount of detail and consistency that beats out many titles that are ahead of it.
> 
> 
> viewed on a 37" 1080p at about 6 feet and a 60inch 1080p at about 11 feet.



I agree on Identity. I hadn't realized what its current placement was.


----------



## wvasko

Newly purple and watched Die Hard Live Free and was mind boggled. 3rd Blue-Ray watched on PS3 and I am impressed with everything. It makes the move to Purple painless. After you go through the added expense it's nice when all works out as you hoped it would.


----------



## obxdiver

Just watched this BD and here is my review

Way too much grain. I would not even call this HD.

It looks like a SD upconvert.

No detail, no color pops.

The audio sucks as well. The lead vocals can hardly be heard.

The use of the center channel is almost non existent

The guitar, and drums are louder than the vocals.


Very disappointed in this one.


My Equipment

Panny BD10 BD player running FW 2.4

7.1 Analog outs to a Lexicon DC1 (modded by Shawn Fogg to add 8 channel analog inputs)

HDMI video out @1080i to a Lumagen HDQ video processor

Lumagen 1080i video out to a 65" Mits CRT Rear Projection with 9" CRT's and professionally ISF calibrated. (Model WS-65813)

Viewing Distance 15 feet


----------



## E-A-G-L-E-S




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kevin12586* /forum/post/13201635
> 
> 
> Your PS3 *DOES* allow you to use it. Go to settings and I believe BD/DVD playback, there will be an option for 1080p/24 auto/off/on. Just turn it on and you should be good to go.



You would think, but then when I play the BR it plays at 60Hz everytime?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13205556
> 
> 
> I watched the first half of Man on Fire again last night, and I agree that Tier 0 would be quite appropriate.



Excellent. I will move Man on Fire to Tier 0 later today.



> Quote:
> Btw, Rob, I think this title is another good example of why Paidgeek and Sony are mistaken in thinking that bitrates in the 20's are sufficient. While the bitrates in this title are frequently in the 20's, they are also often in the 30's, and I don't think this title would have looked nearly as good if Sony's bitrate practices had been used on it.
> 
> 
> It sounds as though No Country for Old Men will be another good data point on all of this.



I definitely am taking note of this. The bitrate did seem to be high, and the PQ immaculate.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13205589
> 
> 
> I agree on Identity. I hadn't realized what its current placement was.



Noted, and will move up based on Fronn and Patrick's comments.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *obxdiver* /forum/post/13206238
> 
> 
> Just watched this BD and here is my review
> 
> Way too much grain. I would not even call this HD.
> 
> It looks like a SD upconvert.
> 
> No detail, no color pops.
> 
> The audio sucks as well. The lead vocals can hardly be heard.
> 
> The use of the center channel is almost non existent
> 
> The guitar, and drums are louder than the vocals.
> 
> 
> Very disappointed in this one.
> 
> 
> My Equipment
> 
> Panny BD10 BD player running FW 2.4
> 
> 7.1 Analog outs to a Lexicon DC1 (modded by Shawn Fogg to add 8 channel analog inputs)
> 
> HDMI video out @1080i to a Lumagen HDQ video processor
> 
> Lumagen 1080i video out to a 65" Mits CRT Rear Projection with 9" CRT's and professionally ISF calibrated. (Model WS-65813)
> 
> Viewing Distance 15 feet



Thanks for the review. I was going to buy this too, but not now.


Anyway, when you give a review, you need to tell us what Tier you recommend that the title be placed in. Tier 4? 3?


----------



## RBFC

In reference to this "bitrate" discussion, are there any titles in both formats (besides _Nature's Journey_) that have different bitrate encodes? Another site I visit just announced the end of the format war, stating that the "more complex" Blu-Ray won and that both formats look identical on-screen. It would be great to have A/B comparisons of high/low bitrate encodes to assess the differences.


It seems that the "porting" of HD-DVD encodes and their technical limitations have just routinely been passed on to the BD versions, making comparisons of this type unavailable.


It's possible that some of the superior qualities being attributed to bitrate are the result of an exceptionally good mastering job, etc. It would serve to pinpoint the reasons for excellent PQ.


My two cents'


Lee


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RBFC* /forum/post/13207614
> 
> 
> In reference to this "bitrate" discussion, are there any titles in both formats (besides _Nature's Journey_) that have different bitrate encodes? Another site I visit just announced the end of the format war, stating that the "more complex" Blu-Ray won and that both formats look identical on-screen. *It would be great to have A/B comparisons of high/low bitrate encodes to assess the differences.*
> 
> 
> It seems that the "porting" of HD-DVD encodes and their technical limitations have just routinely been passed on to the BD versions, making comparisons of this type unavailable.
> 
> 
> It's possible that some of the superior qualities being attributed to bitrate are the result of an exceptionally good mastering job, etc. It would serve to pinpoint the reasons for excellent PQ.
> 
> 
> My two cents'
> 
> 
> Lee



Wouldn't it indeed be great?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RBFC* /forum/post/13207614
> 
> 
> In reference to this "bitrate" discussion, are there any titles in both formats (besides _Nature's Journey_) that have different bitrate encodes? Another site I visit just announced the end of the format war, stating that the "more complex" Blu-Ray won and that both formats look identical on-screen. It would be great to have A/B comparisons of high/low bitrate encodes to assess the differences.
> 
> 
> It seems that the "porting" of HD-DVD encodes and their technical limitations have just routinely been passed on to the BD versions, making comparisons of this type unavailable.
> 
> 
> It's possible that some of the superior qualities being attributed to bitrate are the result of an exceptionally good mastering job, etc. It would serve to pinpoint the reasons for excellent PQ.
> 
> 
> My two cents'
> 
> 
> Lee



This is, indeed, the question Lee. It's not like we don't have some great looking titles on HD DVD. I am still sure that the master has more to do with PQ than anything else. Yet, the question remains, just how much improvement can BD's higher bitrates make? It is difficult to make a conclusive answer to this for the reasons that you state. However, some of the best looking titles do seem to have higher bitrates, although this can be considered an over-generalization.


I think Patrick is paying closer attention to this than anybody.


----------



## obxdiver




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13207549
> 
> 
> Thanks for the review. I was going to buy this too, but not now.
> 
> 
> Anyway, when you give a review, you need to tell us what Tier you recommend that the title be placed in. Tier 4? 3?



AC/DC

I would say at the bottom of Tier 3 tor top of 4.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13207870
> 
> 
> This is, indeed, the question Lee. It's not like we don't have some great looking titles on HD DVD. I am still sure that the master has more to do with PQ than anything else. Yet, the question remains, just how much improvement can BD's higher bitrates make? It is difficult to make a conclusive answer to this for the reasons that you state. However, some of the best looking titles do seem to have higher bitrates, although this can be considered an over-generalization.
> 
> *I think Patrick is paying closer attention to this than anybody.*



I really feel, Rob, that you would be much happier with LoA on two discs with an ABR of 35 than on one disc with an ABR of 25.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OhioMike* /forum/post/13203291
> 
> 
> I watched *Rush Hour 3* the other night and mostly agree with it's placement...but...did anyone else think it looked a little unnatural? Like at times it seemed as if you could tell that they were in front of a fake background.



I watched Rush Hour 3 last night. It's an impressive looking title that's just not quite as sharp and detailed as the titles in the top of Tier 1 and Tier 0. I agree with it's placement for the most part.


PS3->1080p24->46XBR4 (8-10 feet)


Brandon


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13207549
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I definitely am taking note of this. The bitrate did seem to be high, and the PQ immaculate.



I had somehow missed this comprehensive post of yours, Rob, the last time I checked the thread.


To me, this is the key issue in BD implementation in the immediate future.


It looks as though Fox "gets it," but with no Fox insiders, it's hard to know for sure.


It looks as though Disney is also getting it now, perhaps with guidance from Panasonic Hollywood Labs (who also do some, but not all by any means, of the superlative Fox work, which is shared with Deluxe).


We have no way of knowing yet whether Warner will "get it," but Shoot 'Em Up is a promising sign.


Sony, unfortunately, doesn't "get it."


It really seems to be perverse that now that the format with the technically suprerior specs has prevailed, the studio most closely associated with the prevailing format, at least in the public mind, has chosen to unilaterally give up the video bandwidth advantage that was so significant a part of the technical superiority and give us video bitrates that could have been achieved on HD DVD (putting aside the effect on that of disc capacity).


----------



## Mamasboy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *UxiSXRD* /forum/post/11186481
> 
> 
> Stealth is Tier 3? The plot and most of the acting are absolutely horrid, but I would think Tier 1 based on PQ alone.



Stealth was the first Blu Ray that I had to check the netflix slip to make sure I wasn't watching an up converted DVD.


Still the action scenes were fun if you can stand the storyline. What happened to Jamie Fox, after Ray and Any Given Sunday I thought he would be done with these B movies and become a major star.


----------



## RacingManiac

Just saw Shoot 'Em Up and Ratatouille(sp? and I know, funny combo, lol), and the PQ review for those were spot on....fantastic looking, I wish I have a better audio system though...lol


Also bought my first BD movie which was Black Hawk Down, and I also like it a lot, the particle effect they made for the movie and such really pops at you, and I have always liked the filter they picked for the film to present that washed out look for the grittyness of the battle field...


My setup is with XBR4 40" + BDP-S300 viewed at ~7'....


----------



## Kevin12586




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *E-A-G-L-E-S* /forum/post/13207124
> 
> 
> You would think, but then when I play the BR it plays at 60Hz everytime?



Do you have it set to on or auto? Also are you using a 1080p/24 movie?


----------



## Bronco70

Watched From "From Hell" last night. Another interesting performance from Mr. Depp. Love it when directors unabashedly pay tribute to another colleague, in this case, Sergio Leone.


Film is very dark in both look and mood. Black levels are problematic at times. Fairly soft transfer. Not much pop. Worth a rental.


I would say Tier 4.


PS3>Ben 7700, 720p>133" Da-Lite Hi Power from 15'


Fun thread this.


Joe


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RacingManiac* /forum/post/13208923
> 
> 
> Just saw Shoot 'Em Up and Ratatouille(sp? and I know, funny combo, lol), and the PQ review for those were spot on....fantastic looking, I wish I have a better audio system though...lol
> 
> *Also bought my first BD movie which was Black Hawk Down, and I also like it a lot, the particle effect they made for the movie and such really pops at you, and I have always liked the filter they picked for the film to present that washed out look for the grittyness of the battle field...*
> 
> 
> My setup is with XBR4 40" + BDP-S300 viewed at ~7'....



I have to agree with you. I love the look of Black Hawk Down......spectacular!


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Ok, moved/added quite a few titles today:


AC/DC Live added to Tier 3 (bottom)


Oldboy moved down in Tier 2


Celine Dion placed in high Tier 1 (Based on one reviewer who recommended Tier 0 but we need more reviews before placing it there)


Gone Baby Gone placed in Tier 2


Man on Fire moved up to Tier 0


We Own the Night placed in Tier 3 near the top


Becoming Jane placed in High Tier 1


Identity moved up to Tier 1


The Host moved up to Tier 0


Resident Evil: Extinction placed in Tier 2 at the bottom


Con Air placed in high Tier 3


Across the Universe is placed in Tier 1 at the bottom for now. I would still like to see more reviews on this title.


Also, the following titles have not been placed on the list yet pending SuprSlow having time to add them:


Run Lola Run (will be placed in mid Tier 3)


Michael Clayton (will be placed in mid to high Tier 2, but we need more reviews)


Please let me know if anything was missed.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bronco70* /forum/post/13209664
> 
> 
> Watched From "From Hell" last night. Another interesting performance from Mr. Depp. Love it when directors unabashedly pay tribute to another colleague, in this case, Sergio Leone.
> 
> 
> Film is very dark in both look and mood. Black levels are problematic at times. Fairly soft transfer. Not much pop. Worth a rental.
> 
> 
> I would say Tier 4.
> 
> 
> PS3>Ben 7700, 720p>133" Da-Lite Hi Power from 15'
> 
> 
> Fun thread this.
> 
> 
> Joe



Thanks, just added From Hell to Top of Tier 4 (but I would like more reviews on this one if possible).


I also added Chris Botti to high Tier 3 based on my own review (didn't realize that this was still listed as unranked). There are definitely jaggies all over the place, detail isn't what it should be, and contrast isn't great. In hindsight, I may have placed it too high in Tier 3.


----------



## E-A-G-L-E-S




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kevin12586* /forum/post/13209369
> 
> 
> Do you have it set to on or auto? Also are you using a 1080p/24 movie?



On

I think - SM3


----------



## HDTV Freak




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13209985
> 
> 
> Ok, moved/added quite a few titles today:
> 
> Celine Dion placed in high Tier 1 (Based on one reviewer who recommended Tier 0 but we need more reviews before placing it there)
> 
> 
> Please let me know if anything was missed.


 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=917691 


Many say the video screams demo material (including highdef digest), also members over at bluray.com with similar comments. That should be enough to place it at Tier 0


----------



## tleavit

hmmm... I'm at a loss for once. I watched "crank" last night and just looked to see it as a tier 0. man, I cant even really judge its spot. That movie was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. It was so bad I even forgot to take a hard look at the video and sound to get a place for it.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDTV Freak* /forum/post/13210543
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=917691
> 
> 
> Many say the video screams demo material (including highdef digest), also members over at bluray.com with similar comments. That should be enough to place it at Tier 0



While I do appreciate the reference to those other threads, we really can't take them into consideration in placing titles in this list due to the fact that it is based entirely on relative comparisons to the other titles on the list.


That said, since you are the second one to recommend Tier 0, we can place it there for now, subject, as always, to further reviews.


Before doing so, can you please confirm the other titles you have seen in Tier 0?


Thanks for the comments/feedback!


----------



## RacingManiac




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tleavit* /forum/post/13210759
> 
> 
> hmmm... I'm at a loss for once. I watched "crank" last night and just looked to see it as a tier 0. man, I cant even really judge its spot. That movie was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. It was so bad I even forgot to take a hard look at the video and sound to get a place for it.



its a funny movie lol, you can't take it seriously at all.....


----------



## HDTV Freak




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13211022
> 
> 
> Before doing so, can you please confirm the other titles you have seen in Tier 0?
> 
> 
> Thanks for the comments/feedback!



Thanks for moving it to Tier 0. I've seen POTC: DMC and Open Season.


----------



## Zygon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13209985
> 
> 
> Ok, moved/added quite a few titles today:
> 
> 
> AC/DC Live added to Tier 3 (bottom)
> 
> 
> Oldboy moved down in Tier 2
> 
> 
> Celine Dion placed in high Tier 1 (Based on one reviewer who recommended Tier 0 but we need more reviews before placing it there)
> 
> 
> Gone Baby Gone placed in Tier 2
> 
> 
> Man on Fire moved up to Tier 0
> 
> 
> We Own the Night placed in Tier 3 near the top
> 
> 
> Becoming Jane placed in High Tier 1
> 
> 
> Identity moved up to Tier 1
> 
> 
> The Host moved up to Tier 0
> 
> 
> Resident Evil: Extinction placed in Tier 2 at the bottom
> 
> 
> Con Air placed in high Tier 3
> 
> 
> Across the Universe is placed in Tier 1 at the bottom for now. I would still like to see more reviews on this title.
> 
> 
> Also, the following titles have not been placed on the list yet pending SuprSlow having time to add them:
> 
> 
> Run Lola Run (will be placed in mid Tier 3)
> 
> 
> Michael Clayton (will be placed in mid to high Tier 2, but we need more reviews)
> 
> 
> Please let me know if anything was missed.



Rob,


Thanks for the update! I use this thread before I buy any BD.

I just finished Michael Clayton. I thought the movie was great, but PQ was just ok(Sound is majority dialog). Mid tier 2.


Can anyone comment on the PQ for the following titles:

The Lives of Others

Gone Baby Gone


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Zygon* /forum/post/13212393
> 
> 
> Rob,
> 
> 
> Thanks for the update! I use this thread before I buy any BD.
> 
> I just finished Michael Clayton. I thought the movie was great, but PQ was just ok(Sound is majority dialog). Mid tier 2.
> 
> 
> Can anyone comment on the PQ for the following titles:
> 
> The Lives of Others
> 
> Gone Baby Gone



Check the last couple pages for comments on Gone Baby Gone, including a couple from myself.


Brandon


----------



## lgans316

The Island should be placed in top of Tier-1 below Casino Royale. Jaw dropping Image quality (consistently sharp, 3 dimensional look, abundance of scenes with HD pop) and Sound quality with stunning Bass and channel separation.


Run Lola Run to be placed in Tier-3 just because of the Video sequences ? I think we need to re-examine the tier placement for this particular title.


----------



## Macfan424




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tleavit* /forum/post/13210759
> 
> 
> hmmm... I'm at a loss for once. I watched "crank" last night and just looked to see it as a tier 0. man, I cant even really judge its spot. That movie was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. It was so bad I even forgot to take a hard look at the video and sound to get a place for it.



+1











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RacingManiac* /forum/post/13211057
> 
> 
> its a funny movie lol, you can't take it seriously at all.....



Glad you told me. I sure couldn't tell by watching it.


----------



## Gib4500

Blood diamond- tier 5. The picture is not good at all for blu-ray. I had to take a look at the disk cover to make sure it was blu-ray. It looks like regular dvd quality.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13210046
> 
> *Thanks, just added From Hell to Top of Tier 4 (but I would like more reviews on this one if possible).*
> 
> 
> I also added Chris Botti to high Tier 3 based on my own review (didn't realize that this was still listed as unranked). There are definitely jaggies all over the place, detail isn't what it should be, and contrast isn't great. In hindsight, I may have placed it too high in Tier 3.



I think Tier 4 may be a bit harsh for From Hell. I watched parts of this when it was released, and it is indeed softer than one would like, but not deserving of Tier 4, IMO. This is one of those cases where the use of very high bitrates leaves you comfortable that the softness must be there in the source material. I would say Tier 3 is probably more appropriate.


----------



## Kevin12586




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *E-A-G-L-E-S* /forum/post/13210127
> 
> 
> On
> 
> I think - SM3



At this point I would recommend you go to the PS3 section and post in the setup/issues thread. They will be able to help you better than I can. I don't have a 1080p projector yet (getting 1 in a couple of weeks) so any other advice I give you may not be correct.


----------



## DavidHir




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13214040
> 
> 
> I think Tier 4 may be a bit harsh for From Hell. I watched parts of this when it was released, and it is indeed softer than one would like, but not deserving of Tier 4, IMO. This is one of those cases where the use of very high bitrates leaves you comfortable that the softness must be there in the source material. I would say Tier 3 is probably more appropriate.



Agreed.


----------



## DavidHir

Nice job on the recent changes, Rob.


----------



## n64ra

Man on Fire is in both blu and gold tiers right now.


----------



## JohnR_IN_LA

Just getting into Blu-Ray ... noticed theres some crappy transfers out there, amongst the good ones.


I rented "Return To Neverland" and was really disappointed. Its soft and has artifacts and is not much better than upcaled DVD...


Are there any other titles to stay away from?


----------



## jmpage2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JohnR_IN_LA* /forum/post/13215582
> 
> 
> Just getting into Blu-Ray ... noticed theres some crappy transfers out there, amongst the good ones.
> 
> 
> I rented "Return To Neverland" and was really disappointed. Its soft and has artifacts and is not much better than upcaled DVD...
> 
> 
> Are there any other titles to stay away from?



bluray.highdefdigest.com has reviews of most Blu-Ray releases and are generally "fair" in their assessments of transfers.


Return to Neverland is actually a decent transfer. There's much more color information and much better contrast in the BD version than in the SD-DVD, even if the regular DVD goes through a quality upscaler.


In particular pay attention to the scene near the end of the movie in which "Neverland" is brought to life. Very good color and detail compared to the SD version.


Not every movie is a knock your socks off kind of transfer that will simply grab you by the short hairs. However, most every transfer is an improvement over the SD upscaled version.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gib4500* /forum/post/13213702
> 
> 
> Blood diamond- tier 5. The picture is not good at all for blu-ray. I had to take a look at the disk cover to make sure it was blu-ray. It looks like regular dvd quality.



Blood Diamond isn't too great, but it certainly isn't a Tier 5 either.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13214040
> 
> 
> I think Tier 4 may be a bit harsh for From Hell. I watched parts of this when it was released, and it is indeed softer than one would like, but not deserving of Tier 4, IMO. This is one of those cases where the use of very high bitrates leaves you comfortable that the softness must be there in the source material. I would say Tier 3 is probably more appropriate.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DavidHir* /forum/post/13215116
> 
> 
> Agreed.



Thanks, will move From Hell to Tier 3.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DavidHir* /forum/post/13215122
> 
> 
> Nice job on the recent changes, Rob.



Thanks. Can't do it without you guys giving reviews!











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *n64ra* /forum/post/13215209
> 
> 
> Man on Fire is in both blu and gold tiers right now.



Thank you. It will be corrected.


----------



## DavidHir

I watched a few more this weekend....

*Crimson Tide*. I was only able to watch the first half (will finish it tonight). Very impressive! An outstanding catalog release. Very solid detail and very defined image - certainly filmlike. There were a few occasional white specs here and there, but inconsequential. There was also some slight EE in a few scenes, but nothing major. I'm going to say very high Tier 2 quality - one might be able to argue it for low Tier 1.

*The Assassination of Jesse James*. This title has been ripped in some reviews, but it looked better than I was expecting. Detail is a bit inconsistent, but actually pretty decent in some scenes. Blacks are very good - though some slight crushing in some scenes. Film grain visible, but at times there appeared to be some compression artifacting. I would say high Tier 4. Nothing great, but not atrocious.

*We Were Soldiers*. I was able to snag this from Amazon a couple of weeks ago. This is currently classified in the mid to higher tier 3 and I think that's fair. Personally, I liked the transfer because it seemed to capture the source material very well as this is a grainy film and the transfer maintained a filmlike look to it.

Viewed at 1080p/24 with ISF'd Sony 60" SXRD A3000 (dark room sitting about 9.5' back) and Panasonic BD30.


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13212740
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> Run Lola Run to be placed in Tier-3 just because of the Video sequences ? I think we need to re-examine the tier placement for this particular title.



Igans, have you watched Run Lola Run yet? If so were do you think it belongs?


No matter what the director's intent, the video segments are poor PQ and seriously distract from the PQ of the rest of the movie. Also, if you still have the movie, would you check the start of the scene in the third segment where the street person is at the drink stand. There's serious distortion in the stand's sign.


In my review I placed it around Superman Returns, which is fourth from the bottom of tier 3, so mid tier 3 sounds fair to be. But then I'm no expert.


----------



## dannyk8232

I watched the remastered version of the Fifth Element last night, and it's one of the best I've seen yet in terms of PQ.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gib4500* /forum/post/13213702
> 
> 
> Blood diamond- tier 5. The picture is not good at all for blu-ray. I had to take a look at the disk cover to make sure it was blu-ray. It looks like regular dvd quality.



Definitly not. In my opinion, the picture looks washed out at times, but there is no way that it's a Tier 5 title.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Wow so Blood Diamond is pretty bad huh?


Just got it...might have to exchange it


----------



## dannyk8232

It wasn't bad, just not stunning.


The movie, however is spectacular IMO.


----------



## Xylon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gib4500* /forum/post/13213702
> 
> 
> Blood diamond- tier 5. The picture is not good at all for blu-ray. I had to take a look at the disk cover to make sure it was blu-ray. It looks like regular dvd quality.



Are you serious?


----------



## Rob Tomlin

There are still a ton of unranked titles.


We need more reviews!


Anyone seen The Aviator for example?


----------



## lgans316

Aviator - Easy reference material. Clean and artifact free print. Mind blowing visuals and photography.


Bottom Tier 1 recommendation.


Another proof that 15 Mbps VC-1 can still produce excellent result if the master is clean.


Rob,


I have another small recommendation. Will it be possible to shift The Island to Tier BLU. I am not sure if you have it but it's pretty much clear that it's one among the few titles that has consistent 3D pop.


----------



## stumlad

My opinion on recently viewed titles:


I think Harry Potter 4 should be moved out of tier 1. There is no way it's neck and neck with Harry Potter 5.


Donnie Brasco looks really good... I'd put it in high tier 2 or even low tier 1. It's definitely better than Goblet of Fire, and yet it's somehow placed lower than Sorcerer's Stone... Can anyone honestly say that Sorcerer's Stone's PQ was BETTER than Donnie Brasco? I might even argue that Brasco was better than OOTP as well.


Mr. Brooks. Come on... Tier 0? Are you kidding? Did you see all of the scenes with bad contrast? It looked great otherwise, but definitely not Tier 0. Just because you can see Kevin Costner's wrinkles doesnt make this a reference transfer. Mid tier 1 at best.


War -If Goblet of Fire is low tier 1, War should at least be higher than that. But since I believe Goblet is overrated, I'd say War should be high tier 2. It's definitely better than Resident Evil 1 which happens to fall right above it in the lower tier 2 area.


Celine Dion - If Lost is not a Tier 0 title because of grain in dark scenes (which was probably intentional), then Celine should be knocked out too.. There is noise in darker parts of the concert...I think Shakira's Oral fixation tour looked better and belongs in low tier 0 or high tier 1.. it's currently unranked.


Setup: JVC RS1 using PS3 at 1080p, approx 10 feet away on 106" diag screen.


Edit: I'd also like to add that I think Resident Evil Extinction should be placed higher than Resident Evil 1. Resident Evil 1 has very few scenes that I would even call "great" looking. If it werent for the artifacts and the bad contrast in RE:Apocalypse, I'd say that movie looks better than RE1... which, in most scenes, it does look better.


----------



## lgans316

I agree with Stumlad. HP-4 should be in Tier-2.


----------



## techwisenyc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/13223184
> 
> 
> My opinion on recently viewed titles:
> 
> 
> I think Harry Potter 4 should be moved out of tier 1. There is no way it's neck and neck with Harry Potter 5.
> 
> 
> Donnie Brasco looks really good... I'd put it in high tier 2 or even low tier 1. It's definitely better than Goblet of Fire, and yet it's somehow placed lower than Sorcerer's Stone... Can anyone honestly say that Sorcerer's Stone's PQ was BETTER than Donnie Brasco? I might even argue that Brasco was better than OOTP as well.
> 
> 
> Mr. Brooks. Come on... Tier 0? Are you kidding? Did you see all of the scenes with bad contrast? It looked great otherwise, but definitely not Tier 0. Just because you can see Kevin Costner's wrinkles doesnt make this a reference transfer. Mid tier 1 at best.
> 
> 
> War -If Goblet of Fire is low tier 1, War should at least be higher than that. But since I believe Goblet is overrated, I'd say War should be high tier 2. It's definitely better than Resident Evil 1 which happens to fall right above it in the lower tier 2 area.
> 
> 
> Celine Dion - If Lost is not a Tier 0 title because of grain in dark scenes (which was probably intentional), then Celine should be knocked out too.. There is noise in darker parts of the concert...I think Shakira's Oral fixation tour looked better and belongs in low tier 0 or high tier 1.. it's currently unranked.
> 
> 
> Setup: JVC RS1 using PS3 at 1080p, approx 10 feet away on 106" diag screen.
> 
> 
> Edit: I'd also like to add that I think Resident Evil Extinction should be placed higher than Resident Evil 1. Resident Evil 1 has very few scenes that I would even call "great" looking. If it werent for the artifacts and the bad contrast in RE:Apocalypse, I'd say that movie looks better than RE1... which, in most scenes, it does look better.



I agree about HP4 not being a mid Tier 1 title. If anything it is a very low Tier 1 at best, but more correctly place between high to mid Tier 2.


Black Book I think is underrated PQ wise and should be higher right above Superbad. I definitely rank it above Lost Season 3 and the overrated Underworld 1, which I think should be low Tier 1(maybe High Tier 2). BB hardly had any dark scenes were it was grainy, crushed, or bad contrast. Pretty much consistent and with much pop in all close up shots and the streets in Holland were outstanding.


Lost Season 3's dark scenes whether intentional or not are horrible and really should knock this title down to low Tier 1 as well.


That means HP3 should also be bumped out of Tier 1 to mid Tier 2 as I thought the PQ on that one was worse than HP4.


Pio 150FD

PS3


----------



## lgans316

Besides HP5 I thought HP-3 had the best PQ.


----------



## ADBNZ

How in the world did Starship Troopers get into the Gold tier? It has some really nice moments, but it also has some of the worst edge enhancement I have seen on HD and an unusually high number of film contaminants (hairs, fleks, dirt). Low-Silver at best in my opinion. This is an import title (UK/Aus), so I imagine some of the people who have a copy may have a psychological leaning to push it up the ranks a bit, but it really isn't justified.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13222242
> 
> 
> Aviator - Easy reference material. Clean and artifact free print. Mind blowing visuals and photography.
> 
> 
> Bottom Tier 1 recommendation.
> 
> 
> Another proof that 15 Mbps VC-1 can still produce excellent result if the master is clean.
> 
> 
> Rob,
> 
> 
> I have another small recommendation. Will it be possible to shift The Island to Tier BLU. I am not sure if you have it but it's pretty much clear that it's one among the few titles that has consistent 3D pop.



It's been a while since I watched this, but I completely disagree. The first third of the movie looked absolutely horrible, and it was definitely not just the style of filming.


I would say this title is further proof that low bitrates produce completely unacceptable results.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *techwisenyc* /forum/post/13223269
> 
> 
> I agree about HP4 not being a mid Tier 1 title. If anything it is a very low Tier 1 at best, but more correctly place between high to mid Tier 2.
> 
> 
> Black Book I think is underrated PQ wise and should be higher right above Superbad. I definitely rank it above Lost Season 3 and the overrated Underworld 1, which I think should be low Tier 1(maybe High Tier 2). BB hardly had any dark scenes were it was grainy, crushed, or bad contrast. Pretty much consistent and with much pop in all close up shots and the streets in Holland were outstanding.
> 
> 
> Lost Season 3's dark scenes whether intentional or not are horrible and really should knock this title down to low Tier 1 as well.
> 
> 
> That means HP3 should also be bumped out of Tier 1 to mid Tier 2 as I thought the PQ on that one was worse than HP4.
> 
> 
> Pio 150FD
> 
> PS3



Agree on HP 3 and 4.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13223657
> 
> 
> It's been a while since I watched this, but I completely disagree. The first third of the movie looked absolutely horrible, and it was definitely not just the style of filming.
> 
> 
> I would say this title is further proof that low bitrates produce completely unacceptable results.



No Offense.


You are proving to be a bit rate fanatic my dear friend. If I remember correctly I think you decided to ditch Hitman Blu-ray just because it's encoded on BD-25 and assuming that the PQ will suffer because of low bit rates. However I agree with your previous comments indicating macroblocking on HP-5. Certain comments of yours makes perfect sense but in this aspect it doesn't make sense at all.


I am quoting the below from DVDTalk for reference.



> Quote:
> "To create the feel of 1920's and 30's Hollywood, the first part of the movie was filmed on a way to make it look like a two strip Technicolor production. Because of this stylistic choice, the color has the warm look of a painting, rather than the realistic look of a photograph."



All review sites have given excellent marks for PQ and Aviator deserves to be placed in Tier-1.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13223704
> 
> 
> No Offense.
> 
> 
> You are proving to be a bit rate fanatic my dear friend. If I remember correctly I think you decided to ditch Hitman Blu-ray just because it's encoded on BD-25 and assuming that the PQ will suffer because of low bit rates. However I agree with your previous comments indicating macroblocking on HP-5. Certain comments of yours makes perfect sense but in this aspect it doesn't make sense at all.
> 
> 
> I am quoting the below from DVDTalk for reference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All review sites have given excellent marks for PQ and Aviator deserves to be placed in Tier-1.



Did you miss this comment of mine?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13223657
> 
> 
> It's been a while since I watched this, but I completely disagree. The first third of the movie looked absolutely horrible, *and it was definitely not just the style of filming.*
> 
> 
> I would say this title is further proof that low bitrates produce completely unacceptable results.



One of the values of this thread I think is that the "professional" reviewers are so unreliable.


It is never a shock to me when you and I disagree.


----------



## DavidHir




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13221810
> 
> 
> There are still a ton of unranked titles.
> 
> 
> We need more reviews!
> 
> 
> Anyone seen The Aviator for example?



See my Jesse James and Crimson Tide review. Oh, I also think Crimson Tide could go for low Tier 1. Really outstanding release.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DavidHir* /forum/post/13216586
> 
> 
> I watched a few more this weekend....
> 
> *Crimson Tide*. I was only able to watch the first half (will finish it tonight). Very impressive! An outstanding catalog release. Very solid detail and very defined image - certainly filmlike. There were a few occasional white specs here and there, but inconsequential. There was also some slight EE in a few scenes, but nothing major. I'm going to say very high Tier 2 quality - one might be able to argue it for low Tier 1.[/size]



That's very promising. I bought it over the weekend and am looking forward to watching it.


Brandon


----------



## nomunk

there is no way in hell I will trust the Tier thread, any thread that puts Spider Man 3 as Tier 0 and Rush Hour 3 in Tier 1 cannot be trusted


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nomunk* /forum/post/13229755
> 
> 
> there is no way in hell I will trust the Tier thread, any thread that puts Spider Man 3 as Tier 0 and Rush Hour 3 in Tier 1 cannot be trusted



Where do you think each of those belongs?


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nomunk* /forum/post/13229755
> 
> 
> there is no way in hell I will trust the Tier thread, any thread that puts Spider Man 3 as Tier 0 and Rush Hour 3 in Tier 1 cannot be trusted



I just watched Rush Hour 3 two nights ago. Very good looking and Tier 1 is not exactly mince meat. I think it's placement is fine. Haven't seen SM3 in a while so I can't comment on it.


Brandon


----------



## Schlotkins

I saw the Aviator on HD-DVD, which I believe has the same video encode. It's been a while, but if memory served it looked pretty good. Maybe top half of tier 2.


On Crimson Tide, I have the last 20 minutes to watch but the first part of the movie was OK. The sharpness, IMHO, is a bit inconsistent, even on some of the close ups. For example, there's one of Gene Hackman where he wasn't completely in focus. However, some scenes are "The Rock" good. So, It's probably below the rock, but not too far below it.


Patrick-


This is completely off topic, but what did you think of King Kong on HD-DVD? Personally, that is still one of the absolutely best PQ movies I have seen on either blu-ray or hd-dvd. It was VC1 and I'd imagine not a very high bitrate.


Chris


----------



## techwisenyc

I have Rush Hour 3 on the way from Netflix, so look forward to contributing my opinion on it. As for New Line movies, I thought Shoote Em up PQ was great and have no problem with its placement. From the positive opinions of Pan's Labryinth it looks like New Line has been great with their transfers so far.


----------



## BigJeff




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Schlotkins* /forum/post/13230312
> 
> 
> This is completely off topic, but what did you think of King Kong on HD-DVD? Personally, that is still one of the absolutely best PQ movies I have seen on either blu-ray or hd-dvd. It was VC1 and I'd imagine not a very high bitrate.
> 
> 
> Chris



The video bit rate was high for hd dvd standards because there was some debate on whether or not a truehd track would have been possible or not. I agree though, it is the most impressive hd I have seen on either format.


----------



## DavidHir

I watched *3:10 to Yuma* tonight. Very nice looking - some of the outdoor scenes are stunning in terms of contrast, color production, and detail. However, there are some softer scenes in the movie - such as certain indoor shots, etc. and there is some very slight EE in some scenes. Film grain visible throughout the movie (which I have no problem). All in all, I agree with it being at the very top of Tier 2.


Side note: the trailer for the new Rambo movie is on this disc and it looked amazing in terms of detail and sharpness.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

I know T2 had pretty crappy PQ, but is it worth $13.25 shipped?


----------



## lgans316

Nope. Not worth it. Let's wait for Lionsgate to remaster T2 or see how the German HD DVD fairs.


----------



## alexg75

Hey fellow PQ enthusiasts,

I finally got my Panny Plasma about 2 weeks ago and have seen enough BR's to make picture quality judgements on the discs that I have seen.

Overall,I agree with the individual tier rankings,so I have no major issues with them

I just purchased the THE ROCK,CON AIR and CRIMSON TIDE and have seen bits and pieces of all three discs.

I agree that CRIMSON is tier 1 material and looks the best of all three.There is a bit of film specks here and there,but overall a very solid presentation.Any focus issues or soft shots are the fault of the original photography and not the disc.

THE ROCK also looks very good,but not as good as CT and is less vibrant than it's looked in the past.It also has more specks than CT does and more frequent.I would say mid to low tier 1.

CON AIR is the worst looking of three considering it is the youngest of the trio.There is very noticeable EE and the whole image quality looks overly-sharpened and artificial.The colors also look very flat and bland.I get the impression that this title was not re-mastered for this BR HD release and suffers for it.

It's not horrible,but it's not what it could be either.I would say low tier 2 or high tier 3.

I also saw ACROSS THE UNIVERSE and feel it's a mid to low tier 1 title.There is some black level issues here and there and the image doesn't have the snap and depth of the upper titles.This is part of the cinematography and no fault of the Blu-Ray,as it's evident that the filmakers wanted a flat depth-of-field.Overall a very good looking disc,but not among the very best.

RUSH HOUR 3 should be in the tier 1 category as well for having the same flat image quality that ACROSS THE UNIVERSE has.Actually these two titles look very similar overall......

The titles that I have been most impressed with have been SPIDER-MAN,SM 2 and NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM which are titles that rank a bit lower than I feel they should,so I would nominate them to be moved up a bit............

But it's only my opinion.

Panasonic 770U 42inch 1080p plasma--AVIA calibrated.

Viewing distance is 8ft.

Connected via HDMI from a SONY BDP-S300 BR player.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13233689
> 
> 
> Nope. Not worth it. *Let's wait for Lionsgate to remaster T2* or see how the German HD DVD fairs.



any word on when this is happening?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Schlotkins* /forum/post/13230312
> 
> 
> I saw the Aviator on HD-DVD, which I believe has the same video encode. It's been a while, but if memory served it looked pretty good. Maybe top half of tier 2.
> 
> 
> On Crimson Tide, I have the last 20 minutes to watch but the first part of the movie was OK. The sharpness, IMHO, is a bit inconsistent, even on some of the close ups. For example, there's one of Gene Hackman where he wasn't completely in focus. However, some scenes are "The Rock" good. So, It's probably below the rock, but not too far below it.
> 
> 
> Patrick-
> 
> 
> This is completely off topic, but what did you think of King Kong on HD-DVD? Personally, that is still one of the absolutely best PQ movies I have seen on either blu-ray or hd-dvd. It was VC1 and I'd imagine not a very high bitrate.
> 
> 
> Chris



It's been quite some time since I watched KK, but my recollection is that the non-CG material looked very good.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *alexg75* /forum/post/13233871
> 
> 
> Hey fellow PQ enthusiasts,
> 
> I finally got my Panny Plasma about 2 weeks ago and have seen enough BR's to make picture quality judgements on the discs that I have seen.
> 
> Overall,I agree with the individual tier rankings,so I have no major issues with them
> 
> I just purchased the THE ROCK,CON AIR and CRIMSON TIDE and have seen bits and pieces of all three discs.
> 
> I agree that CRIMSON is tier 1 material and looks the best of all three.There is a bit of film specks here and there,but overall a very solid presentation.Any focus issues or soft shots are the fault of the original photography and not the disc.
> 
> THE ROCK also looks very good,but not as good as CT and is less vibrant than it's looked in the past.It also has more specks than CT does and more frequent.I would say mid to low tier 1.
> *CON AIR is the worst looking of three considering it is the youngest of the trio.There is very noticeable EE and the whole image quality looks overly-sharpened and artificial.*The colors also look very flat and bland.I get the impression that this title was not re-mastered for this BR HD release and suffers for it.
> 
> It's not horrible,but it's not what it could be either.I would say low tier 2 or high tier 3.
> 
> I also saw ACROSS THE UNIVERSE and feel it's a mid to low tier 1 title.There is some black level issues here and there and the image doesn't have the snap and depth of the upper titles.This is part of the cinematography and no fault of the Blu-Ray,as it's evident that the filmakers wanted a flat depth-of-field.Overall a very good looking disc,but not among the very best.
> 
> RUSH HOUR 3 should be in the tier 1 category as well for having the same flat image quality that ACROSS THE UNIVERSE has.Actually these two titles look very similar overall......
> 
> The titles that I have been most impressed with have been SPIDER-MAN,SM 2 and NIGHT AT THE MUSEUM which are titles that rank a bit lower than I feel they should,so I would nominate them to be moved up a bit............
> 
> But it's only my opinion.
> 
> Panasonic 770U 42inch 1080p plasma--AVIA calibrated.
> 
> Viewing distance is 8ft.
> 
> Connected via HDMI from a SONY BDP-S300 BR player.



I haven't watched all of Con Air but definitely agree on the EE.


----------



## alexg75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13234312
> 
> 
> I haven't watched all of Con Air but definitely agree on the EE.



Yeah it's pretty noticeable and unfortunate because with just a little extra effort it could have looked GREAT!

The upside is the academy award nominated soundtrack still sound great and powerful,even at 640kbps DD on my system.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *alexg75* /forum/post/13234414
> 
> 
> Yeah it's pretty noticeable and unfortunate because with just a little extra effort it could have looked GREAT!
> 
> The upside is the academy award nominated soundtrack still sound great and powerful,even at 640kbps DD on my system.



Wrt your comments on Across the Universe, the reaction I had was that at least some of the weakness of the PQ may not have been inherent in the source material, but rather attributable to inadequate bitrates. For example the opening shot of Sturgess on the beach that ends in a tight close-up; the close-up lacks the crispness you see in the best material. Or the first overhead shot of the Princeton campus before Jude and Max first meet with the book-dropping incident just doesn't have the crisp detail this kind of panorama of buildings and trees should have.


----------



## SuprSlow

New releases:


Feb. 26, 2008
*30 Days of Night* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony
*Justice League: The New Frontier* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 1.78:1 | Warner
*Led Zeppelin: The Song Remains the Same* Video: VC-1 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 1.85:1 | Warner
*Initial D* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM (Cantonese) | AR: 2.35:1 | Tai Seng
*To Kill a King* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DD | AR: 2.35:1 | Starz



Feb. 19, 2008
*Michael Clayton* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner
*In the Valley of Elah* Video: VC-1 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner
*Run Lola Run* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 1.85:1 | Sony
*Deep Purple: Live at Montreux 2006* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD | AR: 1.78:1 | Eagle Rock
*Yes: Live at Montreux 2003* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD | AR: 1.78:1 | Eagle Rock
*Santana: Hymns for Peace, Live at Montreux 2004* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD | AR: 1.78:1 | Eagle Rock


Rob, I placed Michael Clayton and Run Lola Run at the bottom of the Unranked List so they'd be a little easier for you to locate. I was going to go ahead and rank them, but didn't know if you had a specific location within the tier in mind, given that I haven't seen these myself and couldn't provide any additional input to what's already been given.


----------



## stumlad

Phantom of the Opera is in both Silver and Bronze....


Flatliners -- I saw this last night. It's well placed. Nothing great about it, but nothing to really complain about. Since Phantom looked better than it, I would keep Phantom in Silver.


Smallville Season 6 : Silver tier. It's pretty sharp, but the overall grain that appears throughout prevents it from being higher. Is this recorded on HD cameras? If so, is the grain added in post-processing?


----------



## alexg75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13234460
> 
> 
> Wrt your comments on Across the Universe, the reaction I had was that at least some of the weakness of the PQ may not have been inherent in the source material, but rather attributable to inadequate bitrates. For example the opening shot of Sturgess on the beach that ends in a tight close-up; the close-up lacks the crispness you see in the best material. Or the first overhead shot of the Princeton campus before Jude and Max first meet with the book-dropping incident just doesn't have the crisp detail this kind of panorama of buildings and trees should have.



I honestly believe that the bitrate is not at fault--the soft,flat look is a stylistic choice employed by the filmakers.

The film's image(like many,many others),was manipulated in the post-production process by way of a DI or digital imtermidiate,which allows the Director and Cinematographer to create whatever specific look,color palette and level of detail that they choose.

BTW,the bitrate is at an average of 30mbps and comparable to many of the other BR's that are out.

Not every film and BR disc is meant to looke the same and made for HD demo purposes.

Have you seen AMERICAN GANGSTER? This is a perfect example of what many would conisder to be lackluster image quality,but it's what RIDLEY SCOTT wanted and what suits his vision of the movie.

These statements are just my opinion........


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *alexg75* /forum/post/13238836
> 
> 
> I honestly believe that the bitrate is not at fault--the *soft,flat look is a stylistic choice* employed by the filmakers.
> 
> The film's image(like many,many others),was manipulated in the post-production process by way of a DI or digital imtermidiate,which allows the Director and Cinematographer to create whatever specific look,color palette and level of detail that they choose.
> *BTW,the bitrate is at an average of 30mbps* and comparable to many of the other BR's that are out.
> 
> Not every film and BR disc is meant to looke the same and made for HD demo purposes.
> 
> Have you seen AMERICAN GANGSTER? This is a perfect example of what many would conisder to be lackluster image quality,but it's what RIDLEY SCOTT wanted and what suits his vision of the movie.
> 
> These statements are just my opinion........



I guess we can agree to disagree on whether the "soft look" was a stylistic choice; you may recall that that was a claim often made by HD DVD supporters about why the Warner dual format encodes consistently had a soft look.


But what is the basis for your statement about an ABR of 30? Watching the bitrate meter on my PS3, what I saw was pretty consistently in the mid to low 20's (and sometimes lower) and almost never even a *peak* bitrate of as much as 30.


Moreover, a Sony Pictures insider has confirmed that Sony Pictures generally considers bitrates in the mid 20's sufficient, so in light of this an ABR of 30 would be quite surprising.


----------



## alexg75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13239061
> 
> 
> I guess we can agree to disagree on whether the "soft look" was a stylistic choice; you may recall that that was a claim often made by HD DVD supporters about why the Warner dual format encodes consistently had a soft look.
> 
> 
> But what is the basis for your statement about an ABR of 30? Watching the bitrate meter on my PS3, what I saw was pretty consistently in the mid to low 20's (and sometimes lower) and almost never even a *peak* bitrate of as much as 30.
> 
> 
> Moreover, a Sony Pictures insider has confirmed that Sony Pictures generally considers bitrates in the mid 20's sufficient, so in light of this an ABR of 30 would be quite surprising.



I get what your saying,but just because the bitrate isn't maxed out on this disc or any other for matter, doesn't mean that image will suffer and be degraded.

Do you have the BR of 3:10 to YUMA?

If you do,check out the trailer for RAMBO which has a very,very low bitrate--somewhere below 10mbps and it is one of the sharpest most solid things I have seen on BR yet.Ditto for the HD trailers on some of the Sony BR's.

I think there is some sort of paranoia when a BR disc comes out-doesn't have a maxed out bitrate and the PQ isn't spectactular that the culprit is the missing megabites.

Yes I will say that when the available bitrate on BR is used,the image quality has a bit more pop to it,but that pop is very dependent on the source material and how it was shot to begin with.

That's all I'm saying......

Low bitrates on SD-DVD= decent pq

Low to mid bitrates on HD Blu-Ray=nothing to complain about 'cause it's all good! It is the best medium us consumers have to watch TRUE HD!


----------



## Schlotkins

I don't want to get the thread too off topic here with the bitrate issue, but it seems to me there has to be a lot of other factors. Universal put out some really good looking stuff on HD-DVD with VC-1 and I'm sure video that never hit 30mb/s. (ie. King Kong, Seabiscut, Hot Fuzz, etc.) I wonder if there are other things in the encoding process (some settings) that cause a picture to be softer than one would expect. I can't see how just because something is in the 20+mb/s range it can't look sharp.


That's just my opinion of course. I should say I agree with Patrick more often than not on PQ - I'm just not sure what the underlying issue is.


Chris


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Schlotkins* /forum/post/13241455
> 
> 
> I don't want to get the thread too off topic here with the bitrate issue, but it seems to me there has to be a lot of other factors. Universal put out some really good looking stuff on HD-DVD with VC-1 and I'm sure video that never hit 30mb/s. (ie. King Kong, Seabiscut, Hot Fuzz, etc.) I wonder if there are other things in the encoding process (some settings) that cause a picture to be softer than one would expect. I can't see how just because something is in the 20+mb/s range it can't look sharp.
> 
> 
> That's just my opinion of course. I should say I agree with Patrick more often than not on PQ - I'm just not sure what the underlying issue is.
> 
> 
> Chris



Well said Chris!


----------



## mp3junkie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nomunk* /forum/post/13229755
> 
> 
> there is no way in hell I will trust the Tier thread, any thread that puts Spider Man 3 as Tier 0 and Rush Hour 3 in Tier 1 cannot be trusted




Spider Man 3 is reference material and belongs in Tier 0. PQ is exceptional.


----------



## mp3junkie

Just watched Man On Fire and I must tell you this is one of the best film transfers out there. The PQ is just extraordinary. I could see the pores and bumps on Denzel's face. I was blown away.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mp3junkie* /forum/post/13242629
> 
> 
> Just watched Man On Fire and I must tell you this is one of the best film transfers out there. The PQ is just extraordinary. I could see the pores and bumps on Denzel's face. I was blown away.



Does this mean you agree with its placement in Tier 0?


----------



## dspin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sick of Change* /forum/post/13234279
> 
> 
> any word on when this is happening?



T-2 HD from Germany, out around March 20. 2008 around 42.95 + shipping. I have the BR T-2 and will be getting the German version. If the German T-2 w/ 7.1 and the stunning pq that is being touted, it should really be something to see. Anyway, after I get it, will post my opinion on the two. Lest anyone wonder why I need both, I have every edition known to man that was ever released, always wanting something better than the previous.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13234460
> 
> 
> Wrt your comments on Across the Universe, the reaction I had was that at least some of the weakness of the PQ may not have been inherent in the source material, but rather attributable to inadequate bitrates. For example the opening shot of Sturgess on the beach that ends in a tight close-up; the close-up lacks the crispness you see in the best material. Or the first overhead shot of the Princeton campus before Jude and Max first meet with the book-dropping incident just doesn't have the crisp detail this kind of panorama of buildings and trees should have.



Come on my dear friend patrick.


You are consistently insisting upon higher bit rates for silly reasons. Please shoot out your CV to all Studios and become the head of bit rate department. Starve the compressionist who starves the bit rates. Keep him at gun point to ensure that he maintains the bit rates above 25 Mbps.










Please pardon Sony Pictures this time. God bless Sony.


Last but not least do not take my comments in a negative sense. Jus kidding.


----------



## chris0




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13234460
> 
> 
> Wrt your comments on Across the Universe, the reaction I had was that at least some of the weakness of the PQ may not have been inherent in the source material, but rather attributable to inadequate bitrates. For example the opening shot of Sturgess on the beach that ends in a tight close-up; the close-up lacks the crispness you see in the best material. Or the first overhead shot of the Princeton campus before Jude and Max first meet with the book-dropping incident just doesn't have the crisp detail this kind of panorama of buildings and trees should have.



Sheesh, you remind me of a guy posting in the Panasonic 700u owners thread who looks at the screen from 6" away and finds faults with the image. How about watching the movie instead of the bit rate meter?


----------



## alexg75

Heh,heh,heh......

Well I for one thought this discussion was going nowhere and it really did.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mp3junkie* /forum/post/13242629
> 
> 
> Just watched Man On Fire and I must tell you this is one of the best film transfers out there. The PQ is just extraordinary. I could see the pores and bumps on Denzel's face. I was blown away.



Can't to find a good deal on this...it never goes on sale anywhere!


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dspin* /forum/post/13244087
> 
> 
> T-2 HD from Germany, out around March 20. 2008 around 42.95 + shipping. I have the BR T-2 and will be getting the German version. If the German T-2 w/ 7.1 and the stunning pq that is being touted, it should really be something to see. Anyway, after I get it, will post my opinion on the two. Lest anyone wonder why I need both, I have every edition known to man that was ever released, always wanting something better than the previous.



Nice...please keep me posted!


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13244183
> 
> 
> Come on my dear friend patrick.
> 
> 
> You are consistently insisting upon higher bit rates for silly reasons. Please shoot out your CV to all Studios and become the head of bit rate department. Starve the compressionist who starves the bit rates. Keep him at gun point to ensure that he maintains the bit rates above 25 Mbps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please pardon Sony Pictures this time. God bless Sony.
> 
> 
> Last but not least do not take my comments in a negative sense. Jus kidding.



Have you seen the Across the Universe BD? Do you have any comments on how it looks?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *alexg75* /forum/post/13240340
> 
> 
> I get what your saying,but just because the bitrate isn't maxed out on this disc or any other for matter, doesn't mean that image will suffer and be degraded.
> 
> Do you have the BR of 3:10 to YUMA?
> 
> If you do,check out the trailer for RAMBO which has a very,very low bitrate--somewhere below 10mbps and it is one of the sharpest most solid things I have seen on BR yet.Ditto for the HD trailers on some of the Sony BR's.
> 
> I think there is some sort of paranoia when a BR disc comes out-doesn't have a maxed out bitrate and the PQ isn't spectactular that the culprit is the missing megabites.
> 
> Yes I will say that when the available bitrate on BR is used,the image quality has a bit more pop to it,but that pop is very dependent on the source material and how it was shot to begin with.
> 
> That's all I'm saying......
> 
> Low bitrates on SD-DVD= decent pq
> *Low to mid bitrates on HD Blu-Ray=nothing to complain about 'cause it's all good!* It is the best medium us consumers have to watch TRUE HD!



At least we do agree, I think, that whatever the reason, the PQ on Across the Universe looks soft?


Did you think the mediocre low bitrate PQ on Warner's dual format releases was "nothing to complain about"?


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13244250
> 
> 
> Have you seen the Across the Universe BD? Do you have any comments on how it looks?



I think I have already mentioned to you that I haven't seen it and it may be a one off bad title from Sony. There is no need to keep on insisting about the soft look of Across the Universe.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13244318
> 
> 
> I think I have already mentioned to you that I haven't seen it and it may be a one off bad title from Sony. There is no need to keep on insisting about the soft look of Across the Universe.



Perhaps you missed Paidgeek's responses elsewhere to my comments on this title. He said he thought it was in the top 10 percent of Sony BD releases in terms of PQ.


----------



## ballen420

New to posting in the forum, but have been reading some time now, and agree with the placement of most of the movies.


I just saw 30 Days of Night yesterday, and I think it has some solid tier 1 moments in the beginning, though the majority of the movie is in the dark, and didn't seem to have that pop that was apparent in the first 1/2 hour. I would say its high tier 2, low tier 1 for placement. Some grain to this film, though I believe it was intentional.


46" XBR4 from 6-7 feet away

PS3


----------



## General Kenobi

I don't know how many votes Con Air got to be put in 3 but after watching it a couple times and comparing it to Troy DC I think it should be in the mid area of Tier 1. It does have some scenes that look somewhat washed out but the the image is pretty clean and it has nice 3D pop effects. It certainly looks better than Halloween, The Prestige, and The League which are all in Tier 2.


Just my 2¢


Pany BD10A > 52" XBR3 @ 8'


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *General Kenobi* /forum/post/13246209
> 
> 
> I don't know how many votes Con Air got to be put in 3 but after watching it a couple times and comparing it to Troy DC I think it should be in the mid area of Tier 1. It does have some scenes that look somewhat washed out but the the image is pretty clean and it has nice 3D pop effects. It certainly looks better than Halloween, The Prestige, and The League which are all in Tier 2.
> 
> 
> Just my 2¢
> 
> 
> Pany BD10A > 52" XBR3 @ 8'



To my eyes, Con Air looks considerably inferior to The Prestige. Severe EE.


----------



## bplewis24

Watched Sunshine last night. I was really pleased with the movie itself and the PQ, although I think it's placement is a tad high, but nothing to quibble too much with. I agree with this portion from HDD:



> Quote:
> The image also looks a bit flatter in the mid-range, which lessens three-dimensionality, and prevents the kind of "pop" common to the very best high-def transfers I've seen.



Overall, nice movie experience. The ending could have been less over-the-top IMO and still been a classic title, but enjoyable nonetheless.


Brandon


----------



## alexg75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13244267
> 
> 
> At least we do agree, I think, that whatever the reason, the PQ on Across the Universe looks soft?
> 
> 
> Did you think the mediocre low bitrate PQ on Warner's dual format releases was "nothing to complain about"?



Well Patrick,

I'm not sure what you mean by dual format releases?

Are you referring to a title that has been released in BOTH HD-DVD & BLU-RAY?

Please clarify for me.

I have around 23 BR discs and three of those are Warner titles.

Those titles are BLADE RUNNER,HARRY POTTER/PHOENIX and TMNT.

I will state that all titles look great with TMNT being an exceptional presentation in regards to the P & AQ.One of the best I have seen so far..........

My point is simply that If a movie on BR looks soft and/or lackluster it isn't the fault of not having a maxed out bitrate.It could just be what the filmakers INTENDED.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *alexg75* /forum/post/13248917
> 
> 
> Well Patrick,
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by dual format releases?
> 
> Are you referring to a title that has been released in BOTH HD-DVD & BLU-RAY?
> 
> Please clarify for me.
> 
> I have around 23 BR discs and three of those are Warner titles.
> 
> Those titles are BLADE RUNNER,HARRY POTTER/PHOENIX and TMNT.
> 
> I will state that all titles look great with TMNT being an exceptional presentation in regards to the P & AQ.One of the best I have seen so far..........
> *My point is simply that If a movie on BR looks soft and/or lackluster it isn't the fault of not having a maxed out bitrate.It could just be what the filmakers INTENDED.*



Yes, by dual format I mean the same encode was released on both BD and HD DVD and was thus constrained by the lower HD DVD specs. Universal was able to put out some excellent looking HD DVDs, but Warner seemed to find it harder to do that.


It sounds as though you managed to avoid the most egregious of the Warner titles, such as Blood Diamond or The Departed.


What you are saying here about softness not necessarily being the result of a low bitrate but what the filmmakers intended is precisely what the HD DVD supporters said over and over and over again to justify the soft look of the Warner releases. It sounds like you missed out on all that fun. You're fortunate. But my experience with all that colors my attitude here, I'm afraid.


----------



## DavidHir

The subject of Terminator 2 came up earlier. This was actually one of my first BD buys last year, but I haven't watched it in a while, nor on my new display.


On any rate, I watched about 45 minutes last night and I think this is probably a very high Tier 5....maybe at best very low Tier 4. (However, I would definitely rate Sleepy Hollow above T2). There are a few scenes that look a bit better than DVD, but many which don't. In addition, there seems to be some compression artifacting visible in some scenes. I don't see how this can be a low Tier 3 title IMO.


Let's hope for a remaster and lossless audio (although the DTS track sounds quite good).


----------



## alexg75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13249015
> 
> 
> Yes, by dual format I mean the same encode was released on both BD and HD DVD and was thus constrained by the lower HD DVD specs. Universal was able to put out some excellent looking HD DVDs, but Warner seemed to find it harder to do that.
> 
> 
> It sounds as though you managed to avoid the most egregious of the Warner titles, such as Blood Diamond or The Departed.
> 
> 
> What you are saying here about softness not necessarily being the result of a low bitrate but what the filmmakers intended is precisely what the HD DVD supporters said over and over and over again to justify the soft look of the Warner releases. It sounds like you missed out on all that fun. You're fortunate. But my experience with all that colors my attitude here, I'm afraid.



Again I see your point......

However I did not have any experience with HD-DVD nor have I seen the BR's of DIAMOND or DEPARTED,so I cannot comment on the apparent lack of PQ.

Although I have the SD-DVD of THE DEPARTED which has some major COMPRESSION issues,so the BLU-RAY will almost be a major improvement.

With anything,you will always have some great,some good,some bad and anything in-between........take it for what it's worth.


----------



## Johnsteph10

As much as I respect your opinion Patrick, please let's get the thread back on to the Tier subject as this isn't the place for your "Warner is soft" topics.










...though I, for the most part, agree.










Back to the subject:


I think 3:10 to Yuma should be a little higher than Tier 2 - how about bottom of Tier 1? It is a solid release though I did notice some EE/ringing. Great modernized Western.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13249015
> 
> 
> Yes, by dual format I mean the same encode was released on both BD and HD DVD and was thus constrained by the lower HD DVD specs. Universal was able to put out some excellent looking HD DVDs, but Warner seemed to find it harder to do that.
> 
> 
> It sounds as though you managed to avoid the most egregious of the Warner titles, such as Blood Diamond or The Departed.
> 
> 
> What you are saying here about softness not necessarily being the result of a low bitrate but what the filmmakers intended is precisely what the HD DVD supporters said over and over and over again to justify the soft look of the Warner releases. It sounds like you missed out on all that fun. You're fortunate. But my experience with all that colors my attitude here, I'm afraid.



Do you mean to say HD DVD tied the hands of Warner to push the bit rates ?

Come on dude. If you check benes stats thread you can find out that most of the Warner titles occupy less than 25 GB disc space.


Would you accept if I say that this is due to Warner's intention to optimize it for BD-25 and not for HD-30.


Please stop bickering about the softness on Warner titles.

God Bless Warner and save 'em from patrick










Let's move on. Appreciate your recommendations and concerns. We know what you are expecting out of HDM but the Studios don't seem to maximize on the opportunity.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13252363
> 
> 
> 
> Please stop bickering about the softness on Warner titles. God Bless Warner.



God bless a studio that is consistently giving us the softest titles of any studio?


----------



## djoberg

I've been following this thread for quite awhile and I've purchased a number of titles based on the reviews given. Thanks to all who contribute on here.


I just watched The Brave One and I was very impressed with the PQ. I see it's unranked at this time but I would suggest at least Tier 1. The sharp PQ was consistent throughout, and even the (many) night scenes were impressive. There are several scenes that have some 3D pop, and there are excellent flesh tones and natural colors with plenty of detail. The Dolby TrueHD soundtrack wasn't too shabby either. If anyone else has viewed this I'd be interested to hear what your take is on it.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13252363
> 
> 
> Would you accept if I say that this is due to Warner's intention to optimize it for BD-25 and not for HD-30.



You could say that, but it would be ignorant of reality.


Brandon


----------



## techwisenyc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/13253175
> 
> 
> I've been following this thread for quite awhile and I've purchased a number of titles based on the reviews given. Thanks to all who contribute on here.
> 
> 
> I just watched The Brave One and I was very impressed with the PQ. I see it's unranked at this time but I would suggest at least Tier 1. The sharp PQ was consistent throughout, and even the (many) night scenes were impressive. There are several scenes that have some 3D pop, and there are excellent flesh tones and natural colors with plenty of detail. The Dolby TrueHD soundtrack wasn't too shabby either. If anyone else has viewed this I'd be interested to hear what your take is on it.



Funny I also saw The Brave One tonight and have to nominate it for a High Tier 2 or even Bottom Tier 1 title. People are going to really attack this title because it's soft overall, but IMHO not killing the PQ of this film. There is 3D Pop in a lot of day scenes, however the most impressive part for me is that the dark scenes are good. There is no crush or distracting grain on dark scenes which is a plus. I say this because in HP 4, 2, 1 the dark scenes are horrible to me. They are grainy and appeared crushed too much.


Now crucify it for softness, but how can one do so when there are so many titles with High Tier 1 POP the blows us away with Tier 4 scenes meshed in. This is an overall very consistent title so low Tier 1 for me.

Please knock down HP4 to High Tier 2 and Underworld 1 to about the same.


Black Book is too low IMHO. I would say middle Tier 1 above LOST.


Pio 150FD

PS3


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Johnsteph10* /forum/post/13250485
> 
> 
> As much as I respect your opinion Patrick, please let's get the thread back on to the Tier subject as this isn't the place for your "Warner is soft" topics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...though I, for the most part, agree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Back to the subject:
> 
> 
> I think 3:10 to Yuma should be a little higher than Tier 2 - how about bottom of Tier 1? It is a solid release though I did notice some EE/ringing. Great modernized Western.



Warner's softness was just a reference point. The point that was really at issue was the PQ on the recent Sony release, Across the Universe, which I contend was compromised by using inadequate bitrates so that too much "added value" bonus material could be included on the same disc as the movie. I think the current placement at the very bottom of Tier 1 is acceptable, although perhaps a bit generous. I think 3:10 probably should be higher than AtU, whether at the top of Tier 2 or the bottom of Tier 1.


----------



## lgans316

How about Sunshine Patrick ? It's encoded at 16 Mbps. Did it look sharp enough to you ?

My order containing Sunshine is on it's way.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13254446
> 
> 
> How about Sunshine Patrick ? It's encoded at 16 Mbps. Did it look sharp enough to you ?
> 
> My order containing Sunshine is on it's way.



I've only watched it once. I don't think those averages listed on the back cover are totally trustworthy. It definitely wasn't as good, in terms of PQ, as many other recent Fox releases.


----------



## lgans316

Interesting. Sunshine got mixed reviews in many German sites for PQ but was praised a lot stateside. So does Sunshine deserve to be in Tier-1 ?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13254577
> 
> 
> Interesting. Sunshine got mixed reviews in many German sites for PQ but was praised a lot stateside. So does Sunshine deserve to be in Tier-1 ?



Tier 1 for sure. Not Tier 0.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *techwisenyc* /forum/post/13253783
> 
> 
> Funny I also saw The Brave One tonight and have to nominate it for a High Tier 2 or even Bottom Tier 1 title. There is 3D Pop in a lot of day scenes, however the most impressive part for me is that the dark scenes are good. There is no crush or distracting grain on dark scenes which is a plus. I say this because in HP 4, 2, 1 the dark scenes are horrible to me. They are grainy and appeared crushed too much.
> 
> 
> Now crucify it for softness, but how can one do so when there are so many titles with High Tier 1 POP the blows us away with Tier 4 scenes meshed in. *This is an overall very consistent title so low Tier 1 for me.*
> 
> 
> 
> Pio 150FD
> 
> PS3



I would agree with your suggestion of low Tier 1. As you and I both noted, it has many 3D POP scenes, consistently sharp PQ, and the nights scenes are impressive (in contrast to several Tier 1 titles that have, as you stated, horrible dark scenes).


Regarding it being "soft overall," I didn't think it was that soft.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/13255588
> 
> 
> I would agree with your suggestion of low Tier 1. As you and I both noted, it has many 3D POP scenes, consistently sharp PQ, and the nights scenes are impressive (in contrast to several Tier 1 titles that have, as you stated, horrible dark scenes).
> 
> 
> Regarding it being "soft overall," I didn't think it was that soft.



Considering this is a Warner dual format title, it would certainly be consistent with all past evidence for this to be soft.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13254446
> 
> 
> How about Sunshine Patrick ? It's encoded at 16 Mbps. Did it look sharp enough to you ?
> 
> My order containing Sunshine is on it's way.



Are you sure it's 16Mbps? I saw them consistently in the mid 20s and sometimes in the 30s. I just watched it 2 nights ago and recommended it for mid-to-high Tier 1.


Anyhow, I saw Crimson Tide last night. Surprisingly detailed and a very good transfer. I'd say bottom of Tier 1 or top of Tier 2. Because of the environment and lighting conditions in the areas of the ship (or wherever they shot it) it doesn't lend itself to popping off the screen in every shot, and sometimes black levels suffer, but there is a very good amount of detail in most shots, worthy of Tier 1 in most cases. I'd say the other times bring it down to *high Tier 2*.


PS3->1080p24->46XBR4 (8 feet)


Brandon


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *techwisenyc* /forum/post/13253783
> 
> 
> Funny I also saw The Brave One tonight and have to nominate it for a High Tier 2 or even Bottom Tier 1 title. People are going to really attack this title because it's soft overall, but IMHO not killing the PQ of this film. There is 3D Pop in a lot of day scenes, however the most impressive part for me is that the dark scenes are good. There is no crush or distracting grain on dark scenes which is a plus. I say this because in HP 4, 2, 1 the dark scenes are horrible to me. They are grainy and appeared crushed too much.
> 
> 
> Now crucify it for softness, but how can one do so when there are so many titles with High Tier 1 POP the blows us away with Tier 4 scenes meshed in. This is an overall very consistent title so low Tier 1 for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pio 150FD
> 
> PS3



In my review of *The Brave One* I indicated that it was one of the better Warner titles that I had seen recently. It was certainly NOT as soft as other Warner titles. I thought the contrast was just slightly lacking compared to Tier 1 titles, so I nominated it for the top of Tier 2.


It really is a pretty good looking title overall imo....just short of Tier 1 material.


----------



## stumlad

So is there enough consensus for the following:


Potter 3 and 4 are placed too high. Should be moved to mid tier silver? But definitely above 1 and 2 which should prob drop to low tier 2 at best.

Mr Brooks placed too high. Should be moved to mid-upper tier 1.


----------



## kinglerxt

would it be possible to make the text color of the SILVER (2nd best vids) a bit darker/ Its impossible to read / tool light and causes eye strain!

Can you make the silver tier more like the coal tier color text and make the coal tier dark black (ie, black list = bad) as that would help a lot

Thanks


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kinglerxt* /forum/post/13267597
> 
> 
> would it be possible to make the text color of the SILVER (2nd best vids) a bit darker/ Its impossible to read / tool light and causes eye strain!
> 
> Can you make the silver tier more like the coal tier color text and make the coal tier dark black (ie, black list = bad) as that would help a lot
> 
> Thanks



The present colors were arrived at after much discussion. There are three different color schemes that members can use for their AVS window and the present tier colors were decided upon as the best for all color schemes. Alas, it is not perfect. I even switched my browser scheme to one more favorable to the tier colors, yet one still gives me a problem. YOu could try highlighting the text like you were going to copy it.


----------



## westa6969

Now I understand this may not be a general audience type film but damn if this was one of the best Blu-Ray's I've seen and heard. The story of Jane Austin becoming Jane Austin the Author - done by the BBC and an Irish Film Studio.


Simply a visual piece of Art IMO where the visuals that were such you could seemingly reach out and touch the scenes and the realistic period piece that was exceptional as was the sound and music to support it. Keep in mind the movie starts out a bit drab in the opening sequences though the level of details is striking in that drabness but there is a purpose behind it later when you find without proper matches between sons and daughters there's next to no money - it seems that everyone in the class society is beholden to someone else and women were pretty much chattel. As the movie progresses the class differences are clearly observed - something done in this movie better than any I've seen in presenting these factors.


In a day of Special Effects redundancy that can make you yawn at times this piece stood out to examine a mirror into the life of a masterful novelist and the struggles of the facts of those times where women were chattel of sorts and how matches between the sexes were bartered and an independent woman amidst the reality of the times we can take for granted today. I'm not normally an Art's film person and rented it for the wife who is but I found this one of the best overall Blu-Rays I've seen and heard since Black Book another Sleeper.


Not for everyone I understand but it was stunning on my 57" Sharp LCD and the wife even commented in the walk scenes through the forest it was as if you could get up and walk into the damn scene it was so much that peering into the window effect and the story line presentation was refreshing compared to the run of the mill movies of late that seem to come out of a revolving file cabinet. (Though anyone familiar with "Pride and Prejudice" will see pieces of it as she was authoring parts of it within the film itself.)


Gets my Vote for Top Tier and simply quality piece from BBC and Ireland film company IMO.


----------



## DavidHir

I watched *Pan's Labyrinth* last night. Overall, it looked quite good. Some of the darker scenes had very good contrast and shadow detail. I think its current low Tier 1 ranking is good. Some scenes in the movie were very sharp and detail while others looking slightly soft in comparision. Had more of the scenes in the movie been consistently sharper, this title could have made it up to Tier 0.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *westa6969* /forum/post/13270443
> 
> 
> Now I understand this may not be a general audience type film but damn if this was one of the best Blu-Ray's I've seen and heard. The story of Jane Austin becoming Jane Austin the Author - done by the BBC and an Irish Film Studio.
> 
> 
> Simply a visual piece of Art IMO where the visuals that were such you could seemingly reach out and touch the scenes and the realistic period piece that was exceptional as was the sound and music to support it. Keep in mind the movie starts out a bit drab in the opening sequences though the level of details is striking in that drabness but there is a purpose behind it later when you find without proper matches between sons and daughters there's next to no money - it seems that everyone in the class society is beholden to someone else and women were pretty much chattel. As the movie progresses the class differences are clearly observed - something done in this movie better than any I've seen in presenting these factors.
> 
> 
> In a day of Special Effects redundancy that can make you yawn at times this piece stood out to examine a mirror into the life of a masterful novelist and the struggles of the facts of those times where women were chattel of sorts and how matches between the sexes were bartered and an independent woman amidst the reality of the times we can take for granted today. I'm not normally an Art's film person and rented it for the wife who is but I found this one of the best overall Blu-Rays I've seen and heard since Black Book another Sleeper.
> 
> 
> Not for everyone I understand but it was stunning on my 57" Sharp LCD and the wife even commented in the walk scenes through the forest it was as if you could get up and walk into the damn scene it was so much that peering into the window effect and the story line presentation was refreshing compared to the run of the mill movies of late that seem to come out of a revolving file cabinet. (Though anyone familiar with "Pride and Prejudice" will see pieces of it as she was authoring parts of it within the film itself.)
> 
> 
> Gets my Vote for Top Tier and simply quality piece from BBC and Ireland film company IMO.



It's good to hear from someone else on this title. I posted my very similar reactions after I first watched this a bit ago. I too think the PQ on this is just gorgeous. Maggie Smith's wrinkles have never looked better.


----------



## psraj

I have my Panny BD30 for 2 months and like it, specifically when combined with the Onkyo 705. However, why do feel that Blu-ray titles in general are more grainy compared to HDDVD titles? I thought POTC AWE was a top quality BD. No doubt, it does look decent, I love the uncompressed 5.1. But yesterday, I watched potc awe for an hour then switched to XA2 to watch Transformers. Immediately my wife started saying "wow, the picture looks so clear". I have noticed in general I can see very clear grains if came close to the screen with BD titles, but with HDDVD you dont see that much grains. I am not sure if it has any thing to do with HQV Rion in th XA2, or may be codecs, VC1 vs AVC.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *psraj* /forum/post/13271911
> 
> 
> I have my Panny BD30 for 2 months and like it, specifically when combined with the Onkyo 705. However, why do feel that Blu-ray titles in general are more grainy compared to HDDVD titles? I thought POTC AWE was a top quality BD. No doubt, it does look decent, I love the uncompressed 5.1. But yesterday, I watched potc awe for an hour then switched to XA2 to watch Transformers. Immediately my wife started saying "wow, the picture looks so clear". I have noticed in general I can see very clear grains if came close to the screen with BD titles, but with HDDVD you dont see that much grains. I am not sure if it has any thing to do with HQV Rion in th XA2, or may be codecs, VC1 vs AVC.



There are some outstanding looking HD DVDs (all from Universal). Transformers is not anywhere near the top rung of HD DVD releases, IMO.


----------



## tvine2000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *psraj* /forum/post/13271911
> 
> 
> I have my Panny BD30 for 2 months and like it, specifically when combined with the Onkyo 705. However, why do feel that Blu-ray titles in general are more grainy compared to HDDVD titles? I thought POTC AWE was a top quality BD. No doubt, it does look decent, I love the uncompressed 5.1. But yesterday, I watched potc awe for an hour then switched to XA2 to watch Transformers. Immediately my wife started saying "wow, the picture looks so clear". I have noticed in general I can see very clear grains if came close to the screen with BD titles, but with HDDVD you dont see that much grains. I am not sure if it has any thing to do with HQV Rion in th XA2, or may be codecs, VC1 vs AVC.



i know what you mean,but grain is part of film,i find that studio's tend to filter bd or hd dvd so they look clear and sharp.film isn't always like that.

next time your at the movies look for the grain and sometimes lack of sharpness but still looks natural.there are som bd&hd dvd's like that.


----------



## DavidHir




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *psraj* /forum/post/13271911
> 
> 
> I have my Panny BD30 for 2 months and like it, specifically when combined with the Onkyo 705. However, why do feel that Blu-ray titles in general are more grainy compared to HDDVD titles? I thought POTC AWE was a top quality BD. No doubt, it does look decent, I love the uncompressed 5.1. But yesterday, I watched potc awe for an hour then switched to XA2 to watch Transformers. Immediately my wife started saying "wow, the picture looks so clear". I have noticed in general I can see very clear grains if came close to the screen with BD titles, but with HDDVD you dont see that much grains. I am not sure if it has any thing to do with HQV Rion in th XA2, or may be codecs, VC1 vs AVC.



To be more specific, when you say "grain," are you talking film grain or compression artifacting? There is a difference to be sure. I think a lot of depends on the title or source material. A lot of Universal's older HD DVD catalog titles are "grainy" - some due to film grain, others due to some compression artifacting. Some titles might be filtered to remove film grain, but that also removes fine detail and the desired look/aesthetics of the film. Understand that grain is inherent to film and you'll see it in every analog filmed movie you see at a movie theater including Imax. There has been some discussion as to how the individual codecs handle grain on HDM, but I have no opinion on the matter.


----------



## hobbs47




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13271954
> 
> 
> There are some outstanding looking HD DVDs (all from Universal). Transformers is not anywhere near the top rung of HD DVD releases, IMO.



Disagree.Transformers looks phenomenal and WB has put out some great looking titles,right up there with the best that Universal has put out.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *psraj* /forum/post/13271911
> 
> 
> I have my Panny BD30 for 2 months and like it, specifically when combined with the Onkyo 705. However, why do feel that Blu-ray titles in general are more grainy compared to HDDVD titles? I thought POTC AWE was a top quality BD. No doubt, it does look decent, I love the uncompressed 5.1. But yesterday, I watched potc awe for an hour then switched to XA2 to watch Transformers. Immediately my wife started saying "wow, the picture looks so clear". I have noticed in general I can see very clear grains if came close to the screen with BD titles, but with HDDVD you dont see that much grains. I am not sure if it has any thing to do with HQV Rion in th XA2, or may be codecs, VC1 vs AVC.



If Transformers looks *that* much clearer compared to AWE then something may be wrong on your display chain of equipment. Not saying that AWE is the definitive HD demo disk or that much better than Transformers, but I would think there are plenty out there who would argue it's every bit as good visually as Transformers if not better. So there should not be some huge difference in visual quality, grain or not.


Brandon


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I watched "War" last night.


I was slightly disappointed as Lionsgate has given us some good quality releases, but there were actually a few instances where I noticed some artifacts, and the definition and clarity weren't as good as the better titles. Still a decent looking title though. I agree with its current placement for the most part (lower Tier 2), if not slightly higher.


----------



## DavidHir

I watched 45 minutes of *Immortal Beloved* and am quite surprised it's in the Tier 1 group. For a catalog title, I thought it looked pretty solid, but I'm thinking no higher than low Tier 2...and probably upper Tier 3.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13271954
> 
> 
> There are some outstanding looking HD DVDs (all from Universal). Transformers is not anywhere near the top rung of HD DVD releases, IMO.



I DO agree with you on this one patrick. In fact, when I "voted" on the HD DVD thread I gave it a "4" while most gave it a "5." I thought many of the night scenes were soft and definitely "grainy." If the HD DVD thread had a rating system like this thread, I would have recommended a low Tier 2 for it.


I have only seen snippets of POTC AWE, but what I have seen was much better, IMHO, than Transformers.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/13275415
> 
> 
> I DO agree with you on this one patrick. In fact, when I "voted" on the HD DVD thread I gave it a "4" while most gave it a "5." I thought many of the night scenes were soft and definitely "grainy." If the HD DVD thread had a rating system like this thread, I would have recommended a low Tier 2 for it.
> 
> 
> I have only seen snippets of POTC AWE, but what I have seen was much better, IMHO, than Transformers.



Both Transformers and POTC have almost same average bit rate. Don't blame HD DVD and bit rate for this. Blame Michael Bay and his post processing.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13275569
> 
> 
> Both Transformers and POTC have almost same average bit rate. *Don't blame HD DVD and bit rate for this.* Blame Michael Bay and his post processing.



I wasn't "blaming it on the bit rate." You probably assumed I was because I agreed with patrick, who usually does assign blame to the bit rate factor if a title is soft. I was simply agreeing with him that Transformers is NOT the reference material that MANY think it is.


My conviction is that the "voting system" on the HD DVD thread is flawed, for it allows too much of a margin of error. Plus it allows one to vote without having to state any reason for the rating they give it, thus it goes into the ballot box unchallenged.


----------



## lgans316

No offense.


I thought the other way round. The voting system on the HD DVD thread is almost perfect. The members and trolls cast their votes and the final results are slightly adjusted depending upon inputs from videophiles and professional reviews.


----------



## jeffyjaixx

Anyone see Independence Day on Blu-ray yet? Any feedback?


----------



## Bushman4

Seems 2 B alot of difference of opinion as to which tiers certain BluRays belong in.

To bad we can't have some sort of poll to establish the level. Usually the mutual consensus is a better guide to a rating.

In any event it's a good effort for what it's worth


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bushman4* /forum/post/13277377
> 
> 
> Seems 2 B alot of difference of opinion as to which tiers certain BluRays belong in.
> 
> To bad we can't have some sort of poll to establish the level. Usually the mutual consensus is a better guide to a rating.
> 
> In any event it's a good effort for what it's worth



I think this has been discussed umpteen times. The BLU tier thread is 95% accurate. Difference of opinion is only among certain members which is quite natural considering the fluctuating human mindset.


----------



## Macfan424




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/13276177
> 
> 
> ...My conviction is that the "voting system" on the HD DVD thread is flawed, ...it allows one to vote without having to state any reason for the rating they give it, thus it goes into the ballot box unchallenged.



Sort of like -- what do they call it? -- a democracy.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Macfan424* /forum/post/13278558
> 
> 
> Sort of like -- what do they call it? -- a democracy.



Here, we have the Electoral College!


----------



## Macfan424




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/13278741
> 
> 
> Here, we have the Electoral College!



LOL!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Macfan424* /forum/post/13278558
> 
> 
> Sort of like -- what do they call it? -- a democracy.



So, would you rather have a poll like in the HD DVD thread?


IMHO, neither system is perfect, but I favor the system this thread employs because of the ability to challenge one's opinion, and for a general consensus to be formed through discussion. One obvious downside to this system is that many times you only have a few chiming in with their opinions on a certain title (the "electoral college"







), and those opinions may be skewed for various reasons.


----------



## CCsoftball7




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/13278741
> 
> 
> Here, we have the Electoral College!



Well, in truth, we live in a representative democracy...not a democracy.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CCsoftball7* /forum/post/13279066
> 
> 
> Well, in truth, we live in a representative democracy...not a democracy.



Yes, that is what an electoral college gives us.


----------



## Macfan424




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/13278967
> 
> 
> So, would you rather have a poll like in the HD DVD thread?
> 
> 
> IMHO, neither system is perfect, but I favor the system this thread employs because of the ability to challenge one's opinion, and for a general consensus to be formed through discussion. One obvious downside to this system is that many times you only have a few chiming in with their opinions on a certain title (the "electoral college"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ), and those opinions may be skewed for various reasons.



Well, yes, I would prefer a poll, pretty much for the reasons you describe as the downside of the present system. I'd prefer a consensus reached by many rather than a few.


However, it's not for me to decide and I respect the views of those who run this thread. I wasn't trying to change anything or even reopen this argument. I was just amused by the wording of a justification someone posted, which implied that the opinions of the great unwashed are not to be trusted, only those of the educated elite. I'm sure that wasn't what was meant, but it was the way it came out.


----------



## Macfan424




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CCsoftball7* /forum/post/13279066
> 
> 
> Well, in truth, we live in a representative democracy...not a democracy.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/13279166
> 
> 
> Yes, that is what an electoral college gives us.



Actually, it is a republic, or more precisely, a federal republic.


Our founding fathers didn't completely trust a direct vote of the people, either.


----------



## stumlad

Watched *30 days of Night*. I'd say mid to lower tier 1. It had a lot of grain, but it was well preserved. Facial closeups were very good, and you could see the texture on people's faces. The movie had pretty good 3D feel to it most of the time.


The movie itself, however wasn't very good, IMO. I know it was based on a comic/(graphic novel), but as far as vampire movies, Underworld, Interview w a Vampire, and possibly even "Vampires" were all better than this. The directing, acting and visuals were all above average, but the movie was just weak.


Setup: JVC RS-1 at 108p24 via PS3, 106" diagonal, 16:9 screen. Sitting 10 feet away.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Macfan424* /forum/post/13279289
> 
> 
> Well, yes, I would prefer a poll, pretty much for the reasons you describe as the downside of the present system. I'd prefer a consensus reached by many rather than a few.



I respect your view, and there are definite advantages to the "poll" system. However, I still like (prefer) the criterion of having to state one's reasons for their opinion of where a title should be placed instead of a raw vote.


To illustrate, I bought Transformers based (mostly) on the fact that it was placed in the highest tier. When I viewed it for the first time I remember thinking, "How in the world can so many people be wrong"! It was a good transfer, but far from reference quality. There were some who protested at the placing of it in the top tier, but in the end "the vote won out."


Some may be thinking, "If the majority thought it was reference material, it must be." I would challenge that notion, for perhaps the majority just loved the movie (which is another thing I would question







) and thus they looked beyond the soft and grainy scenes. Whatever the reason, IMO it was an obvious mistake to place it so high and it led me (and I'm sure many others) to buy it based on that placement.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Macfan424* /forum/post/13279346
> 
> 
> Actually, it is a republic, or more precisely, a federal republic.
> 
> 
> Our founding fathers didn't completely trust a direct vote of the people, either.



Exactly!


----------



## Schlotkins

I watched the Jesse James flick last night. The movie was fairly interesting, although I won't be buying for my collection. The PQ was hard to judge because it was highly stylized. I personally didn't think it was that great. Maybe mid to lower half of Tier 2... below Music and Lyrics anyway.


Thanks,

Chris


Edit1: I see Blood Diamond is at the bottom of Tier 2. So, I would put this movie at the very bottom of that tier of in the top 10 of Tier 3.


Edit2: I've done a number of reviewed, but this is on a PS3 -> 1080p24 to a Pioneer 5070 @ 8 feet.


----------



## tvine2000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jeffyjaixx* /forum/post/13276491
> 
> 
> Anyone see Independence Day on Blu-ray yet? Any feedback?



its not out yet


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tvine2000* /forum/post/13282018
> 
> 
> its not out yet



Oh yes it is!!


Check out Amazon or other online stores.


----------



## DavidHir

I watched *Trading Places* last night and it looked outstanding for an 80's catalog title. The darker red, maroons, and blacks were very, very rich looking in many of the indoor scenes. I agree with the Tier 2 ranking, but it's Tier 1 for 80's catalog.


----------



## Macfan424




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/13283848
> 
> 
> Oh yes it is!!
> 
> 
> Check out Amazon or other online stores.



Amazon shows it as a preorder, for March 11 release.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Anyone want to comment on the Omen? It's a relatively old FOX BD so I wonder how the PQ holds up? If it was tier 3 or better I'd pick it up right now.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/13284993
> 
> 
> Anyone want to comment on the Omen? It's a relatively old FOX BD so I wonder how the PQ holds up? If it was tier 3 or better I'd pick it up right now.



I'm borrowing that one from a friend, and I might watch it tonight........I'll post my thoughts if I do.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Macfan424* /forum/post/13284316
> 
> 
> Amazon shows it as a preorder, for March 11 release.



My bad!


----------



## sammyhd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *psraj* /forum/post/13271911
> 
> 
> I have my Panny BD30 for 2 months and like it, specifically when combined with the Onkyo 705. However, why do feel that Blu-ray titles in general are more grainy compared to HDDVD titles? I thought POTC AWE was a top quality BD. No doubt, it does look decent, I love the uncompressed 5.1. But yesterday, I watched potc awe for an hour then switched to XA2 to watch Transformers. Immediately my wife started saying "wow, the picture looks so clear". I have noticed in general I can see very clear grains if came close to the screen with BD titles, but with HDDVD you dont see that much grains. I am not sure if it has any thing to do with HQV Rion in th XA2, or may be codecs, VC1 vs AVC.



I'm with you here, about this grain thing called "artistic". I just hate it!

We spend thousands of $ in a/v gear, get it calibrated seeking perfection so

my video looks like real world shots and my audio sounds like real life sounds.

But hey, in real world, when i look to people faces and stuff i don't see grain!

same goes with sharpness, some my say "to sharp is not always better".

Again, in real world, i like to see things sharp. If i don't i need eyeglasses.

Don't you love it when somebody is watching good reference material and says "Omg it's like looking thru the window", well those scenes are grainless and sharp scenes. For me that's the way bluray should be, life like,no "artistic"

grain. For me that's the way bluray should be, life like,pristine.




Hlt-6187s led dlp

ps3

oppo 980

onkyo 805 (all hdmi)

viewing at 10"


PS. I own most of the tier 0 titles and agree with most of them but i think POTC AWE is to high in tier 0 ,Celine Dion looks better


----------



## jmpage2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sammyhd* /forum/post/13287025
> 
> 
> I'm with you here, about this grain thing called "artistic". I just hate it!
> 
> We spend thousands of $ in a/v gear, get it calibrated seeking perfection so
> 
> my video looks like real world shots and my audio sounds like real life sounds.
> 
> But hey, in real world, when i look to people faces and stuff i don't see grain!
> 
> same goes with sharpness, some my say "to sharp is not always better".
> 
> Again, in real world, i like to see things sharp. If i don't i need eyeglasses.
> 
> Don't you love it when somebody is watching good reference material and says "Omg it's like looking thru the window", well those scenes are grainless and sharp scenes. For me that's the way bluray should be, life like,no "artistic"
> 
> grain. For me that's the way bluray should be, life like,pristine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hlt-6187s led dlp
> 
> ps3
> 
> oppo 980
> 
> onkyo 805 (all hdmi)
> 
> viewing at 10"
> 
> 
> PS. I own most of the tier 0 titles and agree with most of them but i think POTC AWE is to high in tier 0 ,Celine Dion looks better




I want to see the movie in the best presentation possible that the *Director, Cinematographer and Director of Photography* intended, grain and all.


Going by your attitude we should get all of the world's best art and digitize it, then get rid of all those annoying brush strokes and other "blemishes".


----------



## Bronco70




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DavidHir* /forum/post/13283961
> 
> 
> I watched *Trading Places* last night and it looked outstanding for an 80's catalog title. The darker red, maroons, and blacks were very, very rich looking in many of the indoor scenes. I agree with the Tier 2 ranking, but it's Tier 1 for 80's catalog.



Yes a very natural look ( nudge, nudge, wink,wink) Allowed?


----------



## sammyhd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jmpage2* /forum/post/13287047
> 
> 
> I want to see the movie in the best presentation possible that the *Director, Cinematographer and Director of Photography* intended, grain and all.
> 
> 
> Going by your attitude we should get all of the world's best art and digitize it, then get rid of all those annoying brush strokes and other "blemishes".



You are not getting my point..


----------



## wormraper




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sammyhd* /forum/post/13287228
> 
> 
> You are not getting my point..



and your point is??????



You say that we get all this gear and get it calibrated to watch the most lifelike images. I disagree. We do all this to see the movies in the most "filmlike" state without any added interference from our displays and audio equipment.


----------



## lgans316

Ocean's 11 & 12 => Below mid of Tier-2


Very decent PQ. Colorful and high contrast image delivering 3D pops on many occasions.

Faithfully reproduces the director's intent.


----------



## lgans316

If grain shouldn't be there then the Studios should immediately fire the below directors


1) Steven Spielberg

2) Steven Soderbergh

3) Michael Bay - The Master of Style

4) Zack Snyder


----------



## bplewis24

Just wanted to chime in on Run Lola Run.


So it appears that whoever said it was partly shot on 35mm film and handycam was correct. It seems like over 60% was shot on film, and it looks decent. Maybe Tier 2. But the other parts are some of the worst I've ever seen on HDM. In fact two scenes in particular are probably the worst. The first one is replayed 3 times in the movie, when Lola barges in on her Father and his mistress in the office. The thing is so fuzzy and pixelated it looks worse than the digizoom on a 2 megapixel camera.


The 2nd one is when the bicyclist sells his bike to the bag-man at the stand at around 59 minutes into the film. Those are some of the worst and most visible jaggies I've seen in a movie, let alone HDM. And the jaggies permeate the entire scene. For those reasons I can't see it being above Tier 3, and would probably vote for Tier 4.


That's without even getting into the yellow push and blown out whites. You can't even see the clouds in some scenes!


PS3->1080p24->XBR4 (8ft)


Brandon


----------



## sammyhd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13287340
> 
> 
> If grain shouldn't be there then the Studios should immediately fire the below directors
> 
> 
> 1) Steven Spielberg
> 
> 2) Steven Soderbergh
> 
> 3) Michael Bay - The Master of Style
> 
> 4) Zack Snyder



Yes, they are lucky i'm not ceo of the studios!!!







Ja,Ja


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13287362
> 
> 
> Just wanted to chime in on Run Lola Run.
> 
> 
> So it appears that whoever said it was partly shot on 35mm film and handycam was correct. It seems like over 60% was shot on film, and it looks decent. Maybe Tier 2. But the other parts are some of the worst I've ever seen on HDM. In fact two scenes in particular are probably the worst. The first one is replayed 3 times in the movie, when Lola barges in on her Father and his mistress in the office. The thing is so fuzzy and pixelated it looks worse than the digizoom on a 2 megapixel camera.
> 
> 
> The 2nd one is when the bicyclist sells his bike to the bag-man at the stand at around 59 minutes into the film. Those are some of the worst and most visible jaggies I've seen in a movie, let alone HDM. And the jaggies permeate the entire scene. For those reasons I can't see it being above Tier 3, and would probably vote for Tier 4.
> 
> 
> That's without even getting into the yellow push and blown out whites. You can't even see the clouds in some scenes!
> 
> 
> PS3->1080p24->XBR4 (8ft)
> 
> 
> Brandon



So Run Lola Run looks worse than Ocean's 13 ?


----------



## fjcruiser

This is a great thread. Thanks for all the hard work putting it together.


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13287366
> 
> 
> So Run Lola Run looks worse than Ocean's 13 ?



Yes, IMO, it does. Ocean's 13 is in the upper third of Tier 3. For the reasons Brandon stated and from my own viewing, Run Lola Run belongs at or near the bottom of Tier 3.


I guess a person's ranking of Run Lola Run depends on how much the home video looking section of the movie influences their choice. It doesn't bother some, while it greatly bothers others.


Panasonic 50" 720p plasma, Panasonic 10a, 8'


----------



## DavidHir




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bronco70* /forum/post/13287122
> 
> 
> Yes a very natural look ( nudge, nudge, wink,wink) Allowed?



Yes, very nice natural look indeed.


----------



## General Kenobi

Perhaps I missed it but I did not see We Own The Night on the list. If I didn't miss it I think it belongs in the lower half of tier 3. Soft image through most of the film and several scenes had noticeable artifacts. Not impressive at all IMO.


Pany BD10A > 52" XBR3 @ 8'


----------



## Drag'nGT

This has probably been asked but what is it that some real movies like Live Free or Die Hard have done to look so sharp that they compete with CGI films? I ask because I want more movies with this look and little film grain. I like a touch of it but not when I know it doesn't have to be there. Especially in dark scenes.


----------



## DavidHir




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Drag'nGT* /forum/post/13290257
> 
> 
> This has probably been asked but what is it that some real movies like Live Free or Die Hard have done to look so sharp that they compete with CGI films? I ask because I want more movies with this look and little film grain. I like a touch of it but not when I know it doesn't have to be there. Especially in dark scenes.



It depends on the type of actual film used and the style/intent which the director prefers for the movie.


----------



## rgiroux




> Quote:
> Saying any HD source (movie) "should be as real as it can be like in real world" is just plain wrong. Movies are not designed to do this. The goal is to reproduce the original film, which includes preservation of grain.



May I ask what it is about grain that people aver is preferable? The only noticeable effect I can personally feel is that it makes me think of being in a theater. I suppose this unto itself is a reason, but I imagine there must be some better thought through explanations out there. Similar to the way impressionistic painting works without being photrealistic. I must confess I don't have any film background to draw on which is why I am asking.


Grain seems odd to me because it appears to be an instance of a director using a single tool to reduce the lifelike precision of a film, whereas nearly all of the other tools(i.e. the broad spectrum of computer enhanced elements) seem to be weighted on the opposite end, working very hard to make life-like things appear even more so.


----------



## fiddlesticks

Film has grain. It's natural and beautiful.


Watched Basic Instinct, bottom of Tier 3 in my opinion. (a little late, I know)


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13287366
> 
> 
> So Run Lola Run looks worse than Ocean's 13 ?



Haven't seen Oceans 13. But it goes from solid/good looking to horrible looking between scenes. As far as I know Oceans 13 is just a stylized look that is consistent throughout.


Just to chime in on the grain discussion...I'm far from some AV purist who wants to see grain, but I understand and appreciate that it is inherent to the medium and a director's filming style. I have absolutely no problem with things shot on HD Video with no grain (and actually prefer the clean look to it), and I can live with true grain preserved immaculately within the encode.


To each their own, but knocking a format or encode for preserving the grain is silly and/or uninformed.


Brandon


----------



## bifocalprojector

I watched "No Reservations" twice. (the second time because I had

friends/family over at my house)


I'm wondering if this BD is considered a good or bad transfer. There

are many scenes where I find the 1080p picture to be absolutely

perfect... yet some scenes are just plain soft and lacking in detail.

Or was this intentional by the director?


I know this is a PQ thread... but I do want to make a quick comment

about the audio on this BD. I wish they had included a PCM 5.1

or TrueHD soundtrack. For example, the scene where Zeta-Jones

pulls out the tablecloth would probably sound really great... or

when she stabs the beef steak on the table...










Thanks!


----------



## patrick99

I don't believe there have been any comments in this thread yet about 30 Days of Night. I have been watching this for several days. The PQ varies quite a bit. Some scenes look very good. Other scenes look deficient.


There are many close-ups of faces, mostly in low light conditions. Some of these look superb, as good as any I have seen: completely stable, sharp, and defined, with every pore visible and sharp. In other close-ups, there is that shimmering instability in the pore structure that is so familiar and dissatisfying.


I believe, based on the best shots, that the quality of the source material is such that if this title had been done properly, this could have been one of the best PQ experiences on disc. As it stands, I would say very low Tier 1 or high Tier 2 (that seems to be very popular territory lately).


This title only confirms my recent dissatisfaction with Sony, but at least, in contrast to Across the Universe and Jane Austen Book Club, this title does contain some really good looking shots.


----------



## SuprSlow

This week's releases:


Mar. 4, 2008
*Ice Age* Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Fox
*Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Fox
*The Rookie* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Disney


----------



## SuprSlow

Some heavy-hitters coming next week










Mar. 11, 2008
*Appleseed Ex Machina* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 1.78:1 | Warner
*August Rush* Video: VC-1 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner
*Dan in Real Life* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.85:1 | Buena Vista
*Dogma* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony
*Gattaca* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony
*Hitman: Unrated* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Fox
*I, Robot* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Fox
*Independence Day* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Fox
*No Country for Old Men* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Buena Vista
*Sleuth* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.35:1 | Sony


----------



## wormraper




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/13292462
> 
> 
> Some heavy-hitters coming next week
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mar. 11, 2008
> *Appleseed Ex Machina* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 1.78:1 | Warner
> *August Rush* Video: VC-1 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner
> *Dan in Real Life* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.85:1 | Buena Vista
> *Dogma* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony
> *Gattaca* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony
> *Hitman: Unrated* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Fox
> *I, Robot* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Fox
> *Independence Day* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Fox
> *No Country for Old Men* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Buena Vista
> *Sleuth* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.35:1 | Sony



Sleuth looks really interesting. Kinda want to see that


----------



## ballen420




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13291763
> 
> 
> I don't believe there have been any comments in this thread yet about 30 Days of Night. I have been watching this for several days. The PQ varies quite a bit. Some scenes look very good. Other scenes look deficient.
> 
> 
> There are many close-ups of faces, mostly in low light conditions. Some of these look superb, as good as any I have seen: completely stable, sharp, and defined, with every pore visible and sharp. In other close-ups, there is that shimmering instability in the pore structure that is so familiar and dissatisfying.
> 
> 
> I believe, based on the best shots, that the quality of the source material is such that if this title had been done properly, this could have been one of the best PQ experiences on disc. As it stands, I would say very low Tier 1 or high Tier 2 (that seems to be very popular territory lately).
> 
> 
> This title only confirms my recent dissatisfaction with Sony, but at least, in contrast to Across the Universe and Jane Austen Book Club, this title does contain some really good looking shots.



I agree, as I came to the conclusion when I watched it (posted a few days back). I believe someone else posted this thought as well. Post #2815 & 2869.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ballen420* /forum/post/13245467
> 
> 
> New to posting in the forum, but have been reading some time now, and agree with the placement of most of the movies.
> 
> 
> I just saw 30 Days of Night yesterday, and I think it has some solid tier 1 moments in the beginning, though the majority of the movie is in the dark, and didn't seem to have that pop that was apparent in the first 1/2 hour. I would say its high tier 2, low tier 1 for placement. Some grain to this film, though I believe it was intentional.
> 
> 
> 46" XBR4 from 6-7 feet away
> 
> PS3



Thanks for putting the number of your post to make it easy to find.










I thought that it was about the first 15 minutes that looked the most consistently good. The scene in the diner with Ben Foster that went from about 18:00 to 21:00 was really terrible in terms of PQ. Actually I think that the "grain" in this movie was really digital compression noise.


By the way, for some incomprehensible reason, while the movie itself was encoded in AVC, the scenes used for the menu were done in MPEG-2 and looked really atrocious.


----------



## djoberg

The only time I want to see GRAIN in Hi Def is in movies like "Little House on the *Prairie*."

















All kidding aside, I do realize that film grain is intended by some directors and as long as it doesn't dominate a movie I can live with it. That being said, when I see movies that are razor-sharp from beginning to end, it tends to spoil me and I start to question a director's purpose for having grain.


----------



## ballen420




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13293167
> 
> 
> Thanks for putting the number of your post to make it easy to find.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that it was about the first 15 minutes that looked the most consistently good. The scene in the diner with Ben Foster that went from about 18:00 to 21:00 was really terrible in terms of PQ. Actually I think that the "grain" in this movie was really digital compression noise.
> 
> 
> By the way, for some incomprehensible reason, while the movie itself was encoded in AVC, the scenes used for the menu were done in MPEG-2 and looked really atrocious.



I agree, it was probably the first 15 minutes. I only watched it once (IMO the movie was a disappointment, especially the ending), but remember being impressed with the scenes outdoors in the beginning of the movie.


----------



## H.Cornerstone

Natural grain from the natural filming of movies is fine. However, the ridiculous amounts of artificial grain put into movies such as 300 and Transformers is what I cant stand. Makes the image look worse IMO and kind of defeats the purpose.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *H.Cornerstone* /forum/post/13296908
> 
> 
> Natural grain from the natural filming of movies is fine. However, the ridiculous amounts of artificial grain put into movies such as 300 and Transformers is what I cant stand. Makes the image look worse IMO and kind of defeats the purpose.



How does it "defeat the purpose" if that is _exactly_ the look that the director wanted to achieve?


----------



## H.Cornerstone




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13296935
> 
> 
> How does it "defeat the purpose" if that is _exactly_ the look that the director wanted to achieve?



Makes the image look worse. And the point of Hi-def is the to achieve the best possible picture. And are you saying Directors can't be wrong? They _want_ the artificial film grain, however, I completely disagree with that choice. I don't see a point to it, never have, never will.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *H.Cornerstone* /forum/post/13296976
> 
> 
> Makes the image look worse. And the point of Hi-def is the to achieve the best possible picture. And are you saying Directors can't be wrong? They _want_ the artificial film grain, however, I completely disagree with that choice. I don't see a point to it, never have, never will.



Oh boy....


Yes, I *am* saying that directors can't be wrong. It's their movie!


You can dislike the choice that they made for their movie.......but that doesn't make it wrong.


You may think that Picasso's paintings look funny, and that they should be more realistic.....but that doesn't mean that the artist was wrong.


----------



## hobbs47

Quote:

Originally Posted by H.Cornerstone

Makes the image look worse. And the point of Hi-def is the to achieve the best possible picture. And are you saying Directors can't be wrong? They want the artificial film grain, however, I completely disagree with that choice. I don't see a point to it, never have, never will.



^ The point of Hi-Def "MOVIES" is the best possible representation of the directors intent.You may not like it,but that's something you will have to get over,it's not going to change.Nobody wants movies to look like Discovery HD,if you do then throw your Blu-Ray player out of the window now.


----------



## hobbs47




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13296999
> 
> 
> Oh boy....
> 
> 
> Yes, I *am* saying that directors can't be wrong. It's their movie!
> 
> 
> You can dislike the choice that they made for their movie.......but that doesn't make it wrong.
> 
> 
> You may think that Picasso's paintings look funny, and that they should be more realistic.....but that doesn't mean that the artist was wrong.



Exactly,you beat me to him


----------



## bifocalprojector




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13296999
> 
> 
> Oh boy....
> 
> 
> Yes, I *am* saying that directors can't be wrong. It's their movie!
> 
> 
> You can dislike the choice that they made for their movie.......but that doesn't make it wrong.
> 
> 
> You may think that Picasso's paintings look funny, and that they should be more realistic.....but that doesn't mean that the artist was wrong.



I agree....


What was that famoust movie that they colorized? (Gone with the Wind,

Wizard of OZ or something...)


what if the Spielberg decides to shoot Jurassic Park 4 in gainy *black & white*?

will we have to buy the BD?


----------



## maverick0716

Ah! All this posting on how grain is evil is making me grind my teeth, lol.....I have nothing to add other than to agree with the comments Rob Tomlin and others have posted.


----------



## hollywoodguy

When I read this...



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sammyhd* /forum/post/13287335
> 
> 
> My point is bluray or any other HD source should be as real as it can be like in real world, not how some gay director wants me to see it.



I wanted to hit the "report post" button despite its entertainment value, but then I saw this...



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sammyhd* /forum/post/13287335
> 
> 
> Well i was lucky enough to visit the louvre museum and watched Michael Angelo's monalisa...



and I laughed so hard that I decided to let it slide. Keep 'em coming, buddy.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *H.Cornerstone* /forum/post/13296908
> 
> 
> Natural grain from the natural filming of movies is fine. However, the ridiculous amounts of artificial grain put into movies such as 300 and Transformers is what I cant stand. Makes the image look worse IMO and kind of defeats the purpose.



I'm with you in that I didn't like the artificial grain in 300, but a lot of people do because the director intended it. I believe in the case of artificial grain it's a matter of personal preference.


Brandon


----------



## HDTV Owner

Are there really two "Phantom of the Opera" Blue-Ray DVDs? (i.e., one Gold and one Silver?) One indicates Audio DD the other just indicates Audio


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDTV Owner* /forum/post/13298354
> 
> 
> Are there really two "Phantom of the Opera" Blue-Ray DVDs? (i.e., one Gold and one Silver?) One indicates Audio DD the other just indicates Audio



That's a mistake on my part, we'll get it corrected. Thanks for pointing it out


----------



## nick_rh




> Quote:
> Makes the image look worse. And the point of Hi-def is the to achieve the best possible picture. And are you saying Directors can't be wrong? They want the artificial film grain, however, I completely disagree with that choice. I don't see a point to it, never have, never will.



Then you don't have a problem with the disc; you have a problem with the movie. Solution: avoid movie.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *H.Cornerstone* /forum/post/13296908
> 
> 
> Natural grain from the natural filming of movies is fine. However, the ridiculous amounts of artificial grain put into movies such as 300 and Transformers is what I cant stand. Makes the image look worse IMO and kind of defeats the purpose.



The artificial grain in those movies is there for a reason. The extensive amount of CGI and green screen work doesn't blend very well with live action if you don't put that grain there. 300 would have looked very fake(well faker than it does now) without the grain to blend the digital backgrounds and the actors. This is the number one reason why filmmakers use artificial grain in movies.


----------



## H.Cornerstone




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/13304127
> 
> 
> The artificial grain in those movies is there for a reason. The extensive amount of CGI and green screen work doesn't blend very well with live action if you don't put that grain there. 300 would have looked very fake(well faker than it does now) without the grain to blend the digital backgrounds and the actors. This is the number one reason why filmmakers use artificial grain in movies.



I'd rather have fake than the grain. I am watching a movie about transforming robots from another planet. I don't expect it to be real. And I don't have a problem with the movie, I like the movie and want to watch it. It's just the film grain ruins the experience to me. I guess it's me growing up in the digital age. And I believe I said from the beginning I said I didn't like film grain.


----------



## Drag'nGT

I have to say that some of it is just plain stupidly done in movies. Have any of you watched 'Reign over me'? There are alot of good clear scenes in the movie and the PQ was pretty good. But when they went to eat chinese or something after court (been a while since I saw it) there is all kinds of grain. And the scene right before it had none. That's what gets people about film grain.


----------



## stumlad

I'm mixed about grain.


For something like Ratatouille, how should the high def master be created:

1) Directly copy the original digital source and scale to the resolution needed for the master

2) Copy the original digital source to Film first, and then digitize that film, and create a digital master from that.


What does it mean if one of them are correct?

1) If this is correct, then it means we were not supposed to see any grain in Ratatouille or any CGI where grain wasn't manually added. This means when you go to a traditional movie theater, you are not truly seeing the director's intent as the film they are showing it on adds grain. It also means that, outside the CGI world, grain is a byproduct of creating a movie. At some point, that grain was there to add style to a movie, but it means in some _some instances_, directors never "wanted" grain.


2) This means the grain is definitely intended, and probably means all of our CGI animations were incorrrectly transferred to DVD and high def.


I'm going with 1. I think in some cases, the grain is a byproduct of shooting on film (though there are many cases where different film stock used to create a style, or to hide special effects). The real problem however, is that there is no way to get a non-grain copy of regular film movies (that were not shot digitally shot). This means the only way to reduce grain is to artifically remove it or suppress it (DNR). In this case, I'd rather see the grain because adding DNR reduces detail even more than the grain does.


----------



## ooms

I own both these on BD. Both these movies esp FF2 are raved about for having great PQ. Now I understand, though do not agree with, that grain in movies is considered normal and many even prefer grain to no grain. It just that, there comes a point where the grain is just plain excessive. These two titles are such a case in my opinion. Don't get me wrong, both movies are sharp, with vibrant stable colors. But the grain almost makes me not want to watch them. The only other "modern" movie with more grain than these two that I have seen is 300, and we all the story behind that. FF2 is even listed as "reference" material here which I also think is absurd.


Am I the only one who thinks so much grain takes away from fully enjoying HD material?


----------



## lgans316

+1. I never considered FF2 as a reference disc due to low gamma levels giving it a very cold and dull look. Black levels were also inconsistent in the final action sequences. Pearl Harbor had MBay written all over it. I prefer the PQ/SQ of Pearl Harbor than FF2.


I think bplewis24 aka Brandon is an ardent fan of FF2. He may be able to etch out some decent comparisons between the two.


----------



## GamerGuyX

The point of Blu-ray is not to necessarily make everything look crystal-clear, but to give us the truest, most film-like presentation available. The way the movies were intended to be seen.


----------



## automata

I have discovered a trick to dealing with grain. I haven't viewed either of these BD's so I don't know if it will work but you can give it a try. Do you see that stuff all around the grain... you know... the picture. Look at that.


----------



## 1080pee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *automata* /forum/post/13306365
> 
> 
> I have discovered a trick to dealing with grain. I haven't viewed either of these BD's so I don't know if it will work but you can give it a try. Do you see that stuff all around the grain... you know... the picture. Look at that.



Well I looked for a few hours, I tweaked my settings...I still dont see it..are you sure its there?


----------



## ooms

its kinda hard focusing on the picture, when one becomes distracted by excessive grain.







AND when this grain is so excessive as to literally cover up fine detail afforded by such a sharp transfer as PH. And intentions aside, whenever I get a new movie with horrid grain, I immediately pop in Casino Royale....THIS is what I like. In the case of PH, its has way more grain than even 2001, which is what, 40 years old? It might also be some macro blocking that looks like grain in the case of PH. FF2 almost looks like grain was intentionally added.


----------



## bplewis24

All this talk about grain. Nobody cares about wheat and barley???


Brandon


----------



## chris0




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13306857
> 
> 
> All this talk about grain. Nobody cares about wheat and barley???
> 
> 
> Brandon



Only if they've undergone some sort of fermentation.


----------



## GamerGuyX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ooms* /forum/post/13306624
> 
> 
> its kinda hard focusing on the picture, when one becomes distracted by excessive grain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AND when this grain is so excessive as to literally cover up fine detail afforded by such a sharp transfer as PH. And intentions aside, whenever I get a new movie with horrid grain, I immediately pop in Casino Royale....THIS is what I like. In the case of PH, its has way more grain than even 2001, which is what, 40 years old? It might also be some macro blocking that looks like grain in the case of PH. FF2 almost looks like grain was intentionally added.



Different film stocks have different amounts of grain.


----------



## dspin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ooms* /forum/post/13306032
> 
> 
> I own both these on BD. Both these movies esp FF2 are raved about for having great PQ. Now I understand, though do not agree with, that grain in movies is considered normal and many even prefer grain to no grain. It just that, there comes a point where the grain is just plain excessive. These two titles are such a case in my opinion. Don't get me wrong, both movies are sharp, with vibrant stable colors. But the grain almost makes me not want to watch them. The only other "modern" movie with more grain than these two that I have seen is 300, and we all the story behind that. FF2 is even listed as "reference" material here which I also think is absurd.
> 
> 
> Am I the only one who thinks so much grain takes away from fully enjoying HD material?



I'm with you - I hate any Grain for any reason. With the 300, I fooled around w/the tv settings to eliminate most of it. My opinion.


----------



## wormraper

*sigh we need to have a sticky for all the grain haters and lovers to go so they can ***** to each other while the rest of us enjoy the films.


----------



## ooms

i think everyone understands grain is a normal part of film. that being said, normal doesn't mean we have to like it.







sure, many people for many different reasons appreciate and even enjoy grain in film. nothing wrong with that. lets them know its film and not some digital mess. then again, many others, myself included, hate grain. For me, it adds nothing to the movie except, well, grain. Its distracting and takes away from the pleasure of watching the movie. Yes, i understand some dont complain due to some artistic direction of the director/creator. criticizing another persons artistic approach is almost a sin in some peoples opinion. I understand.


Take a film like Casino Royale. Many say removing grain results in a softer picture, taking away detail. Clearly this movie shows it can be done. Sure, I understand the camera used, stock, etc..etc..etc... will influence the amount of grain/noise. And maybe Casino Royale used a special camera, I dont know. Point is, its perfectly possible to have a movie which is super sharp and be almost completely free of grain. Granted CR does have grain, however, its very fine and does not distract


I thought it interesting what Peter at HDD mentioned in his PQ review of Casino Royale.


"looks a bit digital and artificial."


He in fact is slightly upset because the image is too clean. It does not look like film to him, or not enough so. Peter obviously is a purist, as are most proponents of grain. Which is fine. For me, CR is a fine example of what all HD released should look like and I would give it 5 stars.


.


Bottom line is this. Some like grain, some dont. If I had things my way, I would make it so every movie was shot with end grain levels as little or even less than CR. And nothing could possibly change my mind, and I suspect same holds for the other camp.


I also think FF2 needs to be taken off the top list and put maybe around 2 or 3. Its probably the LAST movie I would use as demo material. It would probably turn people away from HD with its copious amounts of shimmering grain.


----------



## lgans316

+1 but let's see how our FF2 lover bplewis24 reacts to your comments.


Btw I love film grain.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ooms* /forum/post/13307146
> 
> 
> i think everyone understands grain is a normal part of film. that being said, normal doesn't mean we have to like it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sure, many people for many different reasons appreciate and even enjoy grain in film. nothing wrong with that. lets them know its film and not some digital mess. then again, many others, myself included, hate grain. For me, it adds nothing to the movie except, well, grain. Its distracting and takes away from the pleasure of watching the movie. Yes, i understand some dont complain due to some artistic direction of the director/creator. criticizing another persons artistic approach is almost a sin in some peoples opinion. I understand.
> 
> 
> Take a film like Casino Royale. Many say removing grain results in a softer picture, taking away detail. Clearly this movie shows it can be done. Sure, I understand the camera used, stock, etc..etc..etc... will influence the amount of grain/noise. And maybe Casino Royale used a special camera, I dont know. Point is, its perfectly possible to have a movie which is super sharp and be almost completely free of grain. Granted CR does have grain, however, its very fine and does not distract
> 
> 
> I thought it interesting what Peter at HDD mentioned in his PQ review of Casino Royale.
> 
> 
> "looks a bit digital and artificial."
> 
> 
> He in fact is slightly upset because the image is too clean. It does not look like film to him, or not enough so. Peter obviously is a purist, as are most proponents of grain. Which is fine. For me, CR is a fine example of what all HD released should look like and I would give it 5 stars.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> Bottom line is this. Some like grain, some dont. If I had things my way, I would make it so every movie was shot with end grain levels as little or even less than CR. And nothing could possibly change my mind, and I suspect same holds for the other camp.
> 
> 
> I also think FF2 needs to be taken off the top list and put maybe around 2 or 3. Its probably the LAST movie I would use as demo material. It would probably turn people away from HD with its copious amounts of shimmering grain.



Some of us here think Peter Bracke is the last person to be citing on PQ. His most recent bizarre judgment is giving this title 4.5 stars for PQ, when in my opinion it is the worst looking post-hiatus Fox release I can think of:

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1322...remporium.html 


Likewise, CR is not a title that some of us would cite as an example of the most outstanding PQ.


----------



## ooms

well i certainly didn't say CR had outstanding PQ. My reference was only to its level of grain, which I find perfectly fine. I would say The Host has better overall PQ, noticeably sharper for starters.


----------



## rydenfan

I think the few guys that wish to discuss film grain at naseum probably should start a seperate thread. It is pretty off topic from the point of this thread.


----------



## djoberg

I'm going to jump into the fray one more time and say that I agree 100% with the view expressed by ooms, but I also agree with rydenfan that it's taken us a little off topic (I say "a little," because discussing "grain" is relevant to the PQ of Blu-ray). So, perhaps we are at an impasse and should now "agree to disagree."


----------



## automata

I certainly don't begrudge someone their opinion. If you don't like/hate grain then so be it. I just don't see how some people can get so hung up on it that they can't enjoy the film. Grain is neither a compression artifact nor defect in the transfer. It is on the source. And if it is on the source, quite frankly, you should be glad it is on the BD. OP, you complain about grain covering up fine detail. How much fine detail do you think would be lost if the grain were removed either at the time of the transfer/encode or by adjusting display settings?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13306857
> 
> 
> All this talk about grain. Nobody cares about wheat and barley???
> 
> 
> Brandon



[Homer Simpson Voice] Mmmmm........beeeeer! [/Homer Simpson Voice]



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rydenfan* /forum/post/13308467
> 
> 
> I think the few guys that wish to discuss film grain at naseum probably should start a seperate thread. It is pretty off topic from the point of this thread.



No it isn't.


----------



## pepar

I both accept that 1) "grain" can detract from a title's ability to best show off our displays and projectors in a "demo" sense - the stated purpose of this thread - and 2) it is a legitimate artistic element that can be used to evoke an ambiance that helps tell the story. I am neither a grain-lover, nor a grain-hater no more than I am a lover or hater of texture used in paintings.


----------



## solo88




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ooms* /forum/post/13306624
> 
> 
> its kinda hard focusing on the picture, when one becomes distracted by excessive grain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AND when this grain is so excessive as to literally cover up fine detail afforded by such a sharp transfer as PH. And intentions aside, whenever I get a new movie with horrid grain, I immediately pop in Casino Royale....THIS is what I like. In the case of PH, its has way more grain than even 2001, which is what, 40 years old? It might also be some macro blocking that looks like grain in the case of PH. FF2 almost looks like grain was intentionally added.



2001 was shot 70 mm I believe. EXTREMELY high resolution, and it was brilliantly restored. It's meant to be viewed on gargantuan screens, so it's going to have a much finer grain structure than most films. Its age has little to do with its appearance, except maybe that few films are shot 70 mm anymore.


Pearl Harbor is most likely meant to look period, more like the footage you might capture were you in WWII. This is why no one will ever be happy with Aliens if we get a proper HD transfer. It was meant to look like war footage, so it's rather grainy, except in the rare moments there's really bright light, like from welding torches. But for the most part it's low-light (not even the patented Cameron blue filter day-for-night most of the time) and used film stock for that purpose.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/13309744
> 
> 
> I both accept that 1) "grain" can detract from a title's ability to best show off our displays and projectors in a "demo" sense - the stated purpose of this thread - and 2) it is a legitimate artistic element that can be used to evoke an ambiance that helps tell the story. I am neither a grain-lover, nor a grain-hater no more than I am a lover or hater of texture used in paintings.



Exactly how I feel.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13310310
> 
> 
> Exactly how I feel.



On the subject of grain, don't you think that many times what people refer to as grain is really compression noise? And I imagine we would all agree that compression noise has no redeeming qualities.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13310449
> 
> 
> On the subject of grain, don't you think that many times what people refer to as grain is really compression noise? And I imagine we would all agree that compression noise has no redeeming qualities.



Yes and no. Obviously compression noise has no redeeming qualities, but I don't think that it is common to confuse grain with compression noise. But perhaps I should just speak for myself.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13310449
> 
> 
> On the subject of grain, don't you think that many times what people refer to as grain is really compression noise? And I imagine we would all agree that compression noise has no redeeming qualities.



I am somewhat disadvantaged in answering that because I know the difference myself and haven't a clue as to whether others are confused.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13310601
> 
> 
> Yes and no. Obviously compression noise has no redeeming qualities, but I don't think that it is common to confuse grain with compression noise. But perhaps I should just speak for myself.






> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/13310704
> 
> 
> I am somewhat disadvantaged in answering that because I know the difference myself and haven't a clue as to whether others are confused.



Well, one way to tell is when you see someone say about a particular title that it has a lot of grain and you know that what that title really has is not grain but compression noise. . .


----------



## ces18769

w


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13310850
> 
> 
> Well, one way to tell is when you see someone say about a particular title that it has a lot of grain and you know that what that title really has is not grain but compression noise. . .



Honestly, I pretty much skip over posts on this thread talking about grain because most of them are so "out there."


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/13311023
> 
> 
> Honestly, I pretty much skip over posts on this thread talking about grain because most of them are so "out there."



I can understand that approach.


----------



## DavidHir




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/13311023
> 
> 
> Honestly, I pretty much skip over posts on this thread talking about grain because most of them are so "out there."



Exactly.


----------



## DavidHir

Just thinking...maybe we should define the difference between what film grain looks like and compression/digital noise. That might help some folks.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DavidHir* /forum/post/13311706
> 
> 
> Just thinking...maybe we should define the difference between what film grain looks like and compression/digital noise. That might help some folks.



Are you volunteering for that job?


----------



## alexg75

Wow,all this is "discussion" about film grain has gone waaaaaay beyond redundent.

This thread is divided into 2 categories.......

Those who want every movie on BR to look absolutley perfect--with no grain,noise,edge enhancement,desaturated colors or soft images regardless of any artistic decisions and intent............

And those(myself included),that care about a quality video presentation but understand and appreciate that the end result,both GOOD and BAD is a direct result of the combined artistic intent MADE by the DIRECTOR,the CINEMATOGRAPHER,the DI/telecine colorist,the compressionist and the STUDIO.......

Some decisions will satisfy the "trained",uncompromising eyes of the "pros" in this thread by offering a MAXIMUM bitrate of 50gbps,maximum sharpness,detail and "HD pop",absolutley no grain or noise AND saturated,vivid colors so it can be placed in TIER 0 and be used as demo material.

Anything else,is a DISTRACTION and unworthy of not only HIGH DEFINITION,but the BLU-RAY format itself!!!!!!!

Same goes for AUDIO,if a movie on BR sounds anything less than reference quality,than it has to be the fact that the disc DOESN'T have a lossless audio track.

Perhaps some of you need to start MAKING YOUR OWN MOVIES!!!!

I would also recommend going to www.theasc.com which is the website for the AMERICAN SOCIETY of CINEMATOGRAPHERS and AMERICAN CINEMATOGRAPHER Magazine to get an education on why a particular movie "LOOKS" the way it does.......From the filmakers themselves and not by somebody watching the BLU-RAY for the first time.


----------



## Drag'nGT




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DavidHir* /forum/post/13311706
> 
> 
> Just thinking...maybe we should define the difference between what film grain looks like and compression/digital noise. That might help some folks.



Do it and put the insert in every BD movie you can. Seriously though. Do it and we can get it placed in the first post maybe.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *alexg75* /forum/post/13312362
> 
> 
> Wow,all this is "discussion" about film grain has gone waaaaaay beyond redundent.



And, except for the fact that you're YELLING, your post hasn't changed that.


----------



## alexg75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/13312397
> 
> 
> And, except for the fact that you're YELLING, your post hasn't changed that.



Guilty as charged.........

But it is my artistic intent


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *alexg75* /forum/post/13312362
> 
> 
> Wow,all this is "discussion" about film grain has gone waaaaaay beyond redundent.
> 
> This thread is divided into 2 categories.......
> 
> Those who want every movie on BR to look absolutley perfect--with no grain,noise,edge enhancement,desaturated colors or soft images regardless of any artistic decisions and intent............
> 
> And those(myself included),that care about a quality video presentation but understand and appreciate that the end result,both GOOD and BAD is a direct result of the combined artistic intent MADE by the DIRECTOR,the CINEMATOGRAPHER,the DI/telecine colorist,the compressionist and the STUDIO.......
> 
> Some decisions will satisfy the "trained",uncompromising eyes of the "pros" in this thread by offering a MAXIMUM bitrate of 50gbps,maximum sharpness,detail and "HD pop",absolutley no grain or noise AND saturated,vivid colors so it can be placed in TIER 0 and be used as demo material.
> 
> Anything else,is a DISTRACTION and unworthy of not only HIGH DEFINITION,but the BLU-RAY format itself!!!!!!!
> 
> Same goes for AUDIO,if a movie on BR sounds anything less than reference quality,than it has to be the fact that the disc DOESN'T have a lossless audio track.
> 
> Perhaps some of you need to start MAKING YOUR OWN MOVIES!!!!
> 
> I would also recommend going to www.theasc.com which is the website for the AMERICAN SOCIETY of CINEMATOGRAPHERS and AMERICAN CINEMATOGRAPHER Magazine to get an education on why a particular movie "LOOKS" the way it does.......From the filmakers themselves and not by somebody watching the BLU-RAY for the first time.



/discussion


can we move along now?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *alexg75* /forum/post/13312362
> 
> 
> Some decisions will satisfy *the "trained",uncompromising eyes of the "pros"* in this thread by offering a MAXIMUM bitrate of 50gbps,maximum sharpness,detail and "HD pop",absolutley no grain or noise AND saturated,vivid colors so it can be placed in TIER 0 and be used as demo material.
> 
> Anything else,is a DISTRACTION and unworthy of not only HIGH DEFINITION,but the BLU-RAY format itself!!!!!!!
> 
> Same goes for AUDIO,if a movie on BR sounds anything less than reference quality,than it has to be the fact that the disc DOESN'T have a lossless audio track.
> 
> Perhaps some of you need to start MAKING YOUR OWN MOVIES!!!!



I don't believe anyone that expressed a view against grain claimed to be a "trained pro"; we were simply saying we didn't like grain, period. So, please don't misrepresent us and make us out to be elitists who are guilty of speaking condescendingly.


----------



## ooms

Ok Crank just came in the mail. wow, utterly amazing. The clarity, sharpness and pop is amazing. I can almost smell the sweat oozing out of Statham face in the frequent close ups. I understand it was shot with a 1080p/24 Digital Camera. I like this PQ even more than Casino Royale. I guess its just a generation gap. I now realize that I 100%, unequivocally prefer the look of movies like Crank over movies shot with film. The fact I grew up with video games and continue to be an image quality whore (when it comes to video games I need minimum 8xAA 16xAF or I don't even bother, seriously) may have something to do with my brains preference for digitally shot movies. If I had a good camera I would post some screens, they look even sharper than what viper had posted in the BD screenshot thread (which were already very impressive)


and alexg75, you might try not speaking in absolutes.


----------



## nick_rh




> Quote:
> On the subject of grain, don't you think that many times what people refer to as grain is really compression noise? And I imagine we would all agree that compression noise has no redeeming qualities.



To me it's usually not hard to tell the difference. Grain has a clear pattern to it -- you're seeing the makeup of the film, and the makeup of the film doesn't change. On the other hand, digital noise is random and ever-changing, from scene to scene, shot to shot, or even frame to frame. So your eye tends to get used to grain but not digital noise.


----------



## alexg75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/13313216
> 
> 
> I don't believe anyone that expressed a view against grain claimed to be a "trained pro"; we were simply saying we didn't like grain, period. So, please don't misrepresent us and make us out to be elitists who are guilty of speaking condescendingly.



that wasn't my intent at all........

everyone has an opinion and preferences.

I was callling out those who come off as experts on every aspect of why and how something SHOULD look like based SOLELY on their preferences......and worse of all,misinformation.


----------



## alexg75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ooms* /forum/post/13313307
> 
> 
> Ok Crank just came in the mail. wow, utterly amazing. The clarity, sharpness and pop is amazing. I can almost smell the sweat oozing out of Statham face in the frequent close ups. I understand it was shot with a 1080p/24 Digital Camera. I like this PQ even more than Casino Royale. I guess its just a generation gap. I now realize that I 100%, unequivocally prefer the look of movies like Crank over movies shot with film. The fact I grew up with video games and continue to be an image quality whore (when it comes to video games I need minimum 8xAA 16xAF or I don't even bother, seriously) may have something to do with my brains preference for digitally shot movies. If I had a good camera I would post some screens, they look even sharper than what viper had posted in the BD screenshot thread (which were already very impressive)
> 
> 
> and alexg75, you might try not speaking in absolutes.



I agree with you on CRANK.

It is amazing looking,no doubt.

But you can't expect every and any BR to look like that.

Hey I love how animation looks on BR,especially PIXAR,but I don't expect everything else to look the same nor do I feel that it should.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I've watched several Blu-ray movies recently, so I will give quick mini reviews on them:

*War*:


Ok, but certainly nothing special. Average detail, decent contrast. I remember thinking low Tier 2........which is exactly where it already is.

*The Invasion*:


A bit better than War, but still a mid Tier 2 title, which is not ranked on the list yet. Nicole Kidman looks great, but man, what a terrible movie.

*The Simpsons*:


I am a big fan of The Simpsons, and I certainly enjoyed the movie, but the EE is certainly there. It is minor compared to what you see on DVD, but again, there is no doubt that it is present. I did NOT see the ringing that others complain of though. Otherwise this title looked pretty good.....but I would move it down to mid Tier 1 instead of top Tier 1 where it is now.

*King of California*:


Please do NOT waste your time or money on this stupid movie! Not only was the movie horrible, but the PQ was mid Tier 3 quality at best.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13314088
> 
> *The Simpsons*:
> 
> 
> I am a big fan of The Simpsons, and I certainly enjoyed the movie, but the EE is certainly there. It is minor compared to what you see on DVD, but again, there is no doubt that it is present. I did NOT see the ringing that others complain of though. Otherwise this title looked pretty good.....but I would move it down to mid Tier 1 instead of top Tier 1 where it is now.



Aside from the small amount of EE(or ringing on it because some have argued it does not meet the classic definition of EE) I thought Simpsons was flawless.


----------



## alexg75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/13314385
> 
> 
> Aside from the small amount of EE(or ringing on it because some have argued it does not meet the classic definition of EE) I thought Simpsons was flawless.



Agreed,I for one am not bothered by small amount of EE.

Everything else is as good as it gets.


----------



## alexg75

I just finished watching "THE BRAVE ONE" and think it should be upper to mid tier 1.

The softness that was mentioned a few times here in this thread is all photographic and not something that happened in the transfer.

It's a solid looking presentation throughout and the movie itself was decent.

FTR,I don't think anything could have been improved with a higher bitrate.

Panasonic 770U 42inch 1080p Plasma

viewed at 8.5 feet

Sony BDP-S300 BR player


----------



## DavidHir




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DavidHir* /forum/post/13311706
> 
> 
> Just thinking...maybe we should define the difference between what film grain looks like and compression/digital noise. That might help some folks.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13311787
> 
> 
> Are you volunteering for that job?





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Drag'nGT* /forum/post/13312364
> 
> 
> Do it and put the insert in every BD movie you can. Seriously though. Do it and we can get it placed in the first post maybe.



I'll see what I can do. Maybe I'll type up a little description of both. Maybe a couple of screenshots comparing both would help too, though I'm not good with those.


----------



## DavidHir

I viewed *Robocop* tonight. I agree with its Tier 3 placement, but I think it looked pretty good for an 80's catalog title. As has been mentioned before, the nature of the film stock used on many movies during the 80s makes it hard for these movies to have eye candy appeal. Speaking of film grain - lots of it in this one - but no complaints.







The visible film grain kept sharpness and detail intact and gave this a very filmlike look in general. It felt as if the original look of this movie was preserved. This is by far the best I have ever seen this movie as it blows away the previous anamorphic DVD I used own. Most notably, the color production looked very natural and much better than ever before. Blacks and shadows were solid, as well. Overall, I was quite pleased.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/13314385
> 
> 
> Aside from the small amount of EE(or ringing on it because some have argued it does not meet the classic definition of EE) I thought Simpsons was flawless.



To me, that is a rather important "aside".



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *alexg75* /forum/post/13314750
> 
> 
> Agreed,I for one am not bothered by small amount of EE.
> 
> Everything else is as good as it gets.



I've been spoiled by the Pixar movies which have more of a three dimensional effect. The Simpsons looks flat by comparison. Completely different styles, I know..


As far as "not being bothered by a small amount of EE", I think you _should_ be. This should have been a flawless title, and would have been, but for the idiotic use of EE. Why would anyone use EE on a frickin' ANIMATED title? It only makes the PQ worse, without any advantages whatsoever.


----------



## DavidHir




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13315048
> 
> 
> To me, that is a rather important "aside".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been spoiled by the Pixar movies which have more of a three dimensional effect. The Simpsons looks flat by comparison. Completely different styles, I know..
> 
> 
> As far as "not being bothered by a small amount of EE", I think you _should_ be. This should have been a flawless title, and would have been, but for the idiotic use of EE. Why would anyone use EE on a frickin' ANIMATED title? It only makes the PQ worse, without any advantages whatsoever.



Agreed. One of the things that always had excited me about HDM/Blu-ray before it was released was the idea we wouldn't have to deal with EE anymore like we did with SD DVD. I was wrong.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DavidHir* /forum/post/13314990
> 
> 
> I viewed *Robocop* tonight. I agree with its Tier 3 placement, but I think it looked pretty good for an 80's catalog title. As has been mentioned before, the nature of the film stock used on many movies during the 80s makes it hard for these movies to have eye candy appeal. Speaking of film grain - lots of it in this one - but no complaints.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The visible film grain kept sharpness and detail intact and gave this a very filmlike look in general. It felt as if the original look of this movie was preserved. This is by far the best I have ever seen this movie as it blows away the previous anamorphic DVD I used own. Most notably, the color production looked very natural and much better than ever before. Blacks and shadows were solid, as well. Overall, I was quite pleased.



That's a nice review David.


You know what I like about this review best? It's the fact that you agree that this is a Tier 3 title, yet you go on to discuss how much you enjoyed the picture quality taking into account the origins of how and when the film was made.


Yes, people, even Tier 3 titles can be enjoyable and noticeably better than the DVD counterpart.


----------



## 1FAST951




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DavidHir* /forum/post/13314936
> 
> 
> I'll see what I can do. Maybe I'll type up a little description of both. Maybe a couple of screenshots comparing both would help too, though I'm not good with those.



David that would be great and much appreciated by most of us that lurk in the shadows due to our lack of knowlegde regarding the finer points of technical issues.


Too much;

























going on on this thread with no explanations.










Just joking about that last part


----------



## ooms




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *alexg75* /forum/post/13314090
> 
> 
> I agree with you on CRANK.
> 
> It is amazing looking,no doubt.
> 
> But you can't expect every and any BR to look like that.
> 
> Hey I love how animation looks on BR,especially PIXAR,but I don't expect everything else to look the same nor do I feel that it should.



Do not think I believe everything has to look like crank or CR or else is a distraction. 300 for instance did not bother me one bit even thought it has extreme grain. I think this is so because of one its visual style and two, the main attractions in 300 are wide open shots or medium range action shots. Pear harbor for instance, while it obviously has wide battle scenes, also has many intimate close ups where characters are having serious dialogue. Its during these moments that I find the grain just simply to excessive.


so i guess my accurate feelings on the subject is not that grain should never exits, but how much is appropriate. and that its OK for people like me to disagree on this point with the creators.







and i do believe the future is not film, but this:

http://bssc.sel.sony.com/Broadcastan.../hdcf950.shtml


----------



## lgans316

Even if they do a BOGO for HDC-F950 I won't be able to buy this in my lifetime.










Back to topic. Titles that needs to be revisited.


1) TMNT -> Top of Tier-1

2) FF2 -> To be in Tier-1

3) Starship Troopers -> Below Die Hard 3 in Tier-2

4) The Island -> Bottom of Tier-0

5) Pearl Harbor -> Top of Tier-2

6) Kung Fu Hustle -> Bottom of Tier-2

7) Deja Vu -> Top of Tier-2 or bottom of Tier-1

8) Oldboy : Top of Tier-3

9) Resident Evil: Extinction : Mid of Tier-2


We are seeing many new titles that shine and glow in High Definition and revisiting the current tier placements once a quarter and making comparisons with the latest glowing titles should be done.


----------



## H.Cornerstone




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ooms* /forum/post/13315918
> 
> 
> http://bssc.sel.sony.com/Broadcastan.../hdcf950.shtml



I agree with the whole "agree to disagree" on film grain.


And My hope with digital cameras more so is that if everything is digital, from the cameras to the projectors in theaters, that directors can then film movies in 30 or 60FPS which would look a LOT better and more compatible with 98% more of TVs.


----------



## alexg75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13315048
> 
> 
> To me, that is a rather important "aside".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been spoiled by the Pixar movies which have more of a three dimensional effect. The Simpsons looks flat by comparison. Completely different styles, I know..
> 
> 
> As far as "not being bothered by a small amount of EE", I think you _should_ be. This should have been a flawless title, and would have been, but for the idiotic use of EE. Why would anyone use EE on a frickin' ANIMATED title? It only makes the PQ worse, without any advantages whatsoever.



Rob,

After seeing the SD-DVD of THE SIMPSONS which has very noticeable compression issues and excessive EE throughout,the BR version to my eyes is fantastic.I just don't see/notice any EE.....I saw it on the DVD,but not on the BR......that's just me.

Now for a frame of reference,I did notice the EE on the CON AIR BR-which to me IS noticeble and dissapointing.However I still enjoyed the movie and looked past the flaws.


----------



## lrstevens421

I think this one should be bumped up from its current tier 2 position. I recommed mid tier 1 at the very least. The detail and contrast of this film is stunning. For such an older film it looks absolutely amazing. The space ships cockpit scene is a sight to behold, as are many other scenes.


Sony KDL52XBR4

Denon DVD-2500 @ 1080p24

Viewing distance: 10 feet


----------



## RaiderRodney

Love the thread and dedication to it guys, thanks a bunch










One thing I noticed that I'm confused about is Pirates 1 being in tier 1 while 2 and 3 are in 0. To me, 1 is every bit as reference quality as the other 2...if not better.


Panny 42PZ77U

PS3 @ 1080p/60

viewing distance about 8'


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I watched *Sunshine* last night, and I was pretty impressed. Of course the nature of the film and the way it was shot has an impact here, but overall it looked quite good....especially in terms of contrast, which was about as good as it gets. This was mostly evident in the space shots, with dark grays falling into deep blacks. Very nice.


On some shots, the actors faces who were on one side of the frame or the other came across very soft, probably due to using a wide angle lens. Otherwise, detail was very good.


Definitely a Tier 1 title.


Also, it is definitely worth noting how incredible the sound quality on this disc is!










I also enjoyed the movie quite a bit. It was more intelligent than most of the SciFi crap we've been getting.


Highly recommended.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RaiderRodney* /forum/post/13318479
> 
> 
> Love the thread and dedication to it guys, thanks a bunch
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One thing I noticed that I'm confused about is Pirates 1 being in tier 1 while 2 and 3 are in 0. To me, 1 is every bit as reference quality as the other 2...if not better.
> 
> 
> Panny 42PZ77U
> 
> PS3 @ 1080p/60
> 
> viewing distance about 8'



I agree with you 100% on this one, but we appear to be in the minority.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dspin* /forum/post/13306986
> 
> 
> I'm with you - I hate any Grain for any reason. With the 300, I fooled around w/the tv settings to eliminate most of it. My opinion.



How did you accomplish that?











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13307180
> 
> 
> +1 but let's see how our FF2 lover bplewis24 reacts to your comments.



Didn't know that movie was my lover











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/13310704
> 
> 
> I am somewhat disadvantaged in answering that because I know the difference myself and haven't a clue as to whether others are confused.



Being a relative novice to HDM, I would say it's very possible.


Brandon


----------



## DavidHir




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13315212
> 
> 
> That's a nice review David.
> 
> 
> You know what I like about this review best? It's the fact that you agree that this is a Tier 3 title, yet you go on to discuss how much you enjoyed the picture quality taking into account the origins of how and when the film was made.
> 
> 
> Yes, people, even Tier 3 titles can be enjoyable and noticeably better than the DVD counterpart.



Thanks, Rob. Yes, you nailed it. I plan on watching a number of similar type age/titles over the next few weeks. Original representation is what it's all about.


----------



## alexg75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13318627
> 
> 
> I agree with you 100% on this one, but we appear to be in the minority.



+1 for PIRATES COTBP.

They all look great,but for my taste TCOTBP is the best looking of the three.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *alexg75* /forum/post/13321144
> 
> 
> +1 for PIRATES COTBP.
> 
> They all look great,but for my taste TCOTBP is the best looking of the three.



Cool. That's 3 votes for COTBP to be placed in Tier 0 then, and that's where it will be moved pending further discussion and objections thereto.


----------



## nick_rh




> Quote:
> And My hope with digital cameras more so is that if everything is digital, from the cameras to the projectors in theaters, that directors can then film movies in 30 or 60FPS which would look a LOT better and more compatible with 98% more of TVs.



Well, that would mean that the studios had entirely shifted their priority to home video and abandoned any pretense of films being intended for the big screen. And it'd make me pretty sad. I'd much rather see films shot for a theater, and thereby somewhat compromised when watching at home, as opposed to films shot for the home, which would be compromised when watching in the theater.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nick_rh* /forum/post/13321690
> 
> 
> Well, that would mean that the studios had entirely shifted their priority to home video and abandoned any pretense of films being intended for the big screen. And it'd make me pretty sad. I'd much rather see films shot for a theater, and thereby somewhat compromised when watching at home, as opposed to films shot for the home, which would be compromised when watching in the theater.



I can't agree with your premise. Switching to all digital would not represent an abandonment of showing movies in cineplexes. Film is darned expensive and prints go downhill very quickly. Every showing of a digital movie would be the same pristine quality as the first. There are other benefits for using digital at every step in the process.


----------



## lrstevens421




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lrstevens421* /forum/post/13318270
> 
> 
> I think this one should be bumped up from its current tier 2 position. I recommed mid tier 1 at the very least. The detail and contrast of this film is stunning. For such an older film it looks absolutely amazing. The space ships cockpit scene is a sight to behold, as are many other scenes.
> 
> 
> Sony KDL52XBR4
> 
> Denon DVD-2500 @ 1080p24
> 
> Viewing distance: 10 feet



It took me 6 hours to finish this one (constant interuptions) but this is CERTAINLY in the wrong tier, forget about mid-tier 1, this should be high tier 1. Anyone else seen this?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lrstevens421* /forum/post/13321769
> 
> 
> It took me 6 hours to finish this one (constant interuptions) but this is CERTAINLY in the wrong tier, forget about mid-tier 1, this should be high tier 1. Anyone else seen this?



Yes, I own it. Unfortunately it is riddled with EE, and it is not as detailed or as sharp as it could be. Many of the space shots look great, but the rest not as good.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lrstevens421* /forum/post/13321769
> 
> 
> It took me 6 hours to finish this one (constant interuptions) but this is CERTAINLY in the wrong tier, forget about mid-tier 1, this should be high tier 1. Anyone else seen this?



Yeah I saw it as well and I wasn't as impressed with it as a lot of people were early on. It's great looking for a title of it's age, but I don't think it's high Tier 1 material.


Brandon


----------



## lrstevens421









, Oh well. I thought it looked great. Thanks for the input guys.


BTW, I do agree with a tier 0 placement of POTC 1.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13321877
> 
> 
> Yes, I own it. Unfortunately it is riddled with EE, and it is not as detailed or as sharp as it could be. Many of the space shots look great, but the rest not as good.



Rob, I completely agree with you on 2001. I have no doubt that this could have looked much, much better if it had not been subject to the Warner low bitrate dual format crippling effect.


----------



## Donmonte




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13321647
> 
> 
> Cool. That's 3 votes for COTBP to be placed in Tier 0 then, and that's where it will be moved pending further discussion and objections thereto.



+1

Pirates COTBP looks amazing, easily on par with its sequels, if not better







.


Panasonic 50 inch, 1366*768, 8 or 9 feet.


----------



## nick_rh




> Quote:
> I can't agree with your premise. Switching to all digital would not represent an abandonment of showing movies in cineplexes. Film is darned expensive and prints go downhill very quickly. Every showing of a digital movie would be the same pristine quality as the first. There are other benefits for using digital at every step in the process.



I'm not simply talking about switching to all digital (though I'm against that, too; I won't go into it, but read what Spielberg has said on the subject to get an idea). I'm talking about purposely switching to recording formats that are geared toward home video viewing, which is what the previous poster was suggesting.


It's entirely possible to shoot in film, then transfer to digital for exhibition. In fact, it's done all the time. You get most of the look of film without the degradation. But still, for me, nothing compares to top-quality projection of a film shot on film. That's probably because, as studies have shown, the flickering images of film induce sensations of reverie in the human mind, whereas the continuous image of video induces trance.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nick_rh* /forum/post/13322939
> 
> 
> I'm not simply talking about switching to all digital (though I'm against that, too; I won't go into it, but read what Spielberg has said on the subject to get an idea). I'm talking about purposely switching to recording formats that are geared toward home video viewing, which is what the previous poster was suggesting.
> 
> 
> It's entirely possible to shoot in film, then transfer to digital for exhibition. In fact, it's done all the time. You get most of the look of film without the degradation. But still, for me, nothing compares to top-quality projection of a film shot on film. That's probably because, as studies have shown, the flickering images of film induce sensations of reverie in the human mind, whereas the continuous image of video induces trance.



Yep...film still remains as the best medium to record an image on...4k by 4k lines whereas video gives us not even half of that


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13321647
> 
> 
> Cool. That's 3 votes for COTBP to be placed in Tier 0 then, and that's where it will be moved pending further discussion and objections thereto.



If Pirates: COTBP is going to be moved to Tier 0 it should be near the very bottom. It doesn't have quite the pop of the two sequels. It should definitely be below FF4: Silver Surfer.


----------



## techwisenyc

I thought I was in the minority with thinking this title should be in Tier 0. In fact, I was more impressed by this one overall than DMC. I think someone here also agreed with that. While DMC has shots that are more impressive than COTP, there are some scenes like when Jack goes to the bottom deck on the Pearl and is marked on his hand by Turner Sr that to me were not great at al. COTP I thought was very consistent in low Tier0 PQ which is in my book is impressive.


----------



## techwisenyc

While we are on the subject of moving titles. I greatly suggest that HP 4 and 3 be dropped out of Tier1. The dark scenes kill these titles greatly and there are other titles like Black Book and Rush Hour 3 that have way more pop and consistency than those HP titles. My other gripe is Underworld 1 which also suffers greatly in a lot dark scenes with too much grain and black crush.


----------



## lgans316

Please make a note of this too.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...7#post13316217


----------



## bottlefed1

how often does this thread get updated


----------



## djoberg

I finally got around to watching *The Host*. Its Tier 0 placement is justified, for the detail throughout the movie is absolutely amazing, along with good contrast, natural colors, and 3D POP in MANY scenes.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/13324950
> 
> 
> I finally got around to watching *The Host*. Its Tier 0 placement is justified, for the detail throughout the movie is absolutely amazing, along with good contrast, natural colors, and 3D POP in MANY scenes.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bottlefed1* /forum/post/13324676
> 
> 
> how often does this thread get updated



Hope to get some work done on it this weekend.


----------



## sharkcohen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13323863
> 
> 
> Please make a note of this too.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...7#post13316217



I'm sorry, but Starship Troopers should in my opinion remain a Tier 1 title. Otherwise, point out some time stamps for video artifacts.


Panasonic bd30

Westinghouse 1080p60 LVM-42w2 42" LCD

6 foot viewing distance


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13325355
> 
> 
> Hope to get some work done on it this weekend.



I know you love Mr Brooks, but there's only 3 or 4 people who believe it should be tier 0. Many others have said tier 1. Did you ever check the contrast problems that some of us have mentioned?


Could it be that the PQ impressed because it was rare to see such a darkly-lit movie that didn't contain a lot of grain?


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sharkcohen* /forum/post/13325471
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but Starship Troopers should in my opinion remain a Tier 1 title. Otherwise, point out some time stamps for video artifacts.
> 
> 
> Panasonic bd30
> 
> Westinghouse 1080p60 LVM-42w2 42" LCD
> 
> 6 foot viewing distance



1) The picture bears soft look at many occasions especially during the first 10 minutes and the climax sequences.


2) Slight EE on the first half of the film.


3) Grainy and Noisy between Chapters 10 - 15 and during the explosions.


Definitely not a Tier-1 title IMHO.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/13325515
> 
> 
> I know you love Mr Brooks, but there's only 3 or 4 people who believe it should be tier 0. Many others have said tier 1. Did you ever check the contrast problems that some of us have mentioned?
> 
> 
> Could it be that the PQ impressed because it was rare to see such a darkly-lit movie that didn't contain a lot of grain?



The PQ impressed because of the outstanding sharpness and clarity of the image, particularly on faces. Color palette is a creative choice.


Perhaps those who don't appreciate the sharpness of this title are watching from viewing distances where this aspect is not apparent.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *techwisenyc* /forum/post/13323835
> 
> 
> While we are on the subject of moving titles. I greatly suggest that HP 4 and 3 be dropped out of Tier1. The dark scenes kill these titles greatly and there are other titles like Black Book and Rush Hour 3 that have way more pop and consistency than those HP titles. My other gripe is Underworld 1 which also suffers greatly in a lot dark scenes with too much grain and black crush.



I agree on HP 3 and 4.


----------



## Schlotkins

I watched Michael Clayton last night. I was really impressed with this film. I have the last scene in my head and it won't leave. I rented this and I think I am actually going to buy it. I liked this movie more than the Jesse James flick, although they are certainly much different films.


Anyway, to the point of the PQ, I'd put it with Mission Impossible III in Tier 2. I had pretty low expectations on this film and I thought it looked pretty darn good. The facal closures had nice sharpness for a warner title.


Per usual, this is on a PS3 @ 1080p24 --> Pioneer 5070.


Thanks,

Chris


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13326155
> 
> 
> The PQ impressed because of the outstanding sharpness and clarity of the image, particularly on faces. Color palette is a creative choice.
> 
> 
> Perhaps those who don't appreciate the sharpness of this title are watching from viewing distances where this aspect is not apparent.



I think in order for a title to be Tier 0, the majority of people should agree it should be placed there, not where 3-4 people believe it's tier 0 and 5-6 believe it's tier 1.


Obviously with Lost, people pointed out the episodes where Jack is being held prisoner (dark and grainy, but intentional) and formed their opinion on that, even though the entire series is as sharp or sharper than anything out there (facial detail, small object detail, contrast, 3D effect, etc). Based on the dark scenes, however, I can concede it should be tier 1. Even so, I dont believe the facial detail in Mr Brooks can compete with Lost.


I believe Mr Brooks is one of the top titles, and if it were to remain in tier 0, it should be moved at the bottom. Crank was a better looking title which was just as sharp, or sharper.


Side Note: Agreed with others that HP 3 & 4 should move down... I think HP1 should move down 2.


Side Note 2: Resident Evil Extinction should move to top or upper-middle tier 2. It's definitely better than RE 1.

Don't get me wrong, I believe Mr Brooks is one of the top titles, I just think it's placed higher than it should be. If it were to remain in tier 0, it should be at the bottom... definitely below Crank.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/13327496
> 
> 
> I think in order for a title to be Tier 0, the majority of people should agree it should be placed there, not where 3-4 people believe it's tier 0 and 5-6 believe it's tier 1.
> 
> 
> Obviously with Lost, people pointed out the episodes where Jack is being held prisoner (dark and grainy, but intentional) and formed their opinion on that, even though the entire series is as sharp or sharper than anything out there (facial detail, small object detail, contrast, 3D effect, etc). Based on the dark scenes, however, I can concede it should be tier 1. Even so, I dont believe the facial detail in Mr Brooks can compete with Lost.
> 
> 
> I believe Mr Brooks is one of the top titles, and if it were to remain in tier 0, it should be moved at the bottom. Crank was a better looking title which was just as sharp, or sharper.
> 
> 
> Side Note: Agreed with others that HP 3 & 4 should move down... I think HP1 should move down 2.
> 
> 
> Side Note 2: Resident Evil Extinction should move to top or upper-middle tier 2. It's definitely better than RE 1.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I believe Mr Brooks is one of the top titles, I just think it's placed higher than it should be. If it were to remain in tier 0, it should be at the bottom... definitely below Crank.



Perhaps you could point me to an episode or better yet a specific scene in Lost that you think shows great facial detail? In previous attempts to watch Lost on BD I found both the content and the PQ so uninspiring that I quickly turned it off.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I strongly disagree with the sentiment that Crank looks better than Mr. Brooks. Crank has a very digital/processed look to it. Mr. Brooks does not.


----------



## ballen420




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13318588
> 
> 
> I watched *Sunshine* last night, and I was pretty impressed. Of course the nature of the film and the way it was shot has an impact here, but overall it looked quite good....especially in terms of contrast, which was about as good as it gets. This was mostly evident in the space shots, with dark grays falling into deep blacks. Very nice.
> 
> 
> On some shots, the actors faces who were on one side of the frame or the other came across very soft, probably due to using a wide angle lens. Otherwise, detail was very good.
> 
> 
> Definitely a Tier 1 title.
> 
> 
> Also, it is definitely worth noting how incredible the sound quality on this disc is!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I also enjoyed the movie quite a bit. It was more intelligent than most of the SciFi crap we've been getting.
> 
> 
> Highly recommended.



Agree 100%. I watched this last night and came away with the same impression. Lot of pop to it in many scenes.


Nice to see someone mention the sound quality - I was going to come on here and rave about it before seeing this review - excellent!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ballen420* /forum/post/13327848
> 
> 
> Agree 100%. I watched this last night and came away with the same impression. Lot of pop to it in many scenes.
> 
> 
> Nice to see someone mention the sound quality - I was going to come on here and rave about it before seeing this review - excellent!



Slightly OT, but I consider this further proof that Bracke at HDD is off his rocker:



> Quote:
> Let me say right up front that I was disappointed that the film's sound designers weren't more audacious with the surrounds. There are some beautifully lyrical passages in 'Sunshine,' which are accompanied by all sorts of ethereal sound effects and a hypnotic score by the band Underworld. Alas, the mix is just too front heavy. The rears just never come alive with sustained ambiance or tension













This soundtrack has some of the best use of surrounds that I have heard yet on Blu-ray!


----------



## hockeynut




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13327679
> 
> 
> Perhaps you could point me to an episode or better yet a specific scene in Lost that you think shows great facial detail? In previous attempts to watch Lost on BD I found both the content and the PQ so uninspiring that I quickly turned it off.



How about any scene?







Not sure what you are looking at.


Lost is very impressive. I see great detail in every shot. If anything, the outstanding PQ drew me in more than ever. I'm tempted to hold off watching Lost season 4 right now and just wait for it to come out on BluRay.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13327772
> 
> 
> I strongly disagree with the sentiment that Crank looks better than Mr. Brooks. Crank has a very digital/processed look to it. Mr. Brooks does not.



While I think Crank looks very nice, Mr. Brooks looks like a movie, and Crank doesn't really. I wouldn't want everything to look like Crank, while I would be quite happy if everything looked like Mr. Brooks.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hockeynut* /forum/post/13328137
> 
> *How about any scene?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what you are looking at.
> 
> 
> Lost is very impressive. I see great detail in every shot. If anything, the outstanding PQ drew me in more than ever. I'm tempted to hold off watching Lost season 4 right now and just wait for it to come out on BluRay.



That's not a very helpful response. Particularly with a TV show spread over many episodes and multiple discs, it's not really possible to have a meaningful discussion about PQ without focusing on specific scenes.


----------



## hockeynut

Sorry, I didn't mean to offend or anger.


My point is the whole season looks terrific. The excellent PQ is very consistent throughout all discs and all episodes. If you can't see it, then I don't know what else to say.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Mr. Brooks is insanely sharp and detailed. I believe it to be the best live action movie BD we have seen so far for picture quality. Its ranking right now is very appropriate.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13327679
> 
> 
> Perhaps you could point me to an episode or better yet a specific scene in Lost that you think shows great facial detail? In previous attempts to watch Lost on BD I found both the content and the PQ so uninspiring that I quickly turned it off.



I opened the case and threw in the first disc i ran into. Disc 3, episode is called Enter 77 (the first one). Watch the first 4 minutes of it. Notice the awesome jungle shot at approx 2:25. Look at how much pop that has. Then look at Sayid's face a few seconds after that. Then look at sayid's hand and the detail it shows when he holds (i think it was a compass). Note John Locke's mug throughout the 4 minute sequence... along with Kate's, Hurley's, etc.


Then watch the first minute of the next episode.. You'll even see some dark scenes that don't look anywhere near the grainy (yet intentional) first couple of episodes with Jack in prison. At the end of the minute, it will end with Claire's eye and then her face. I stopped it here because there was nothing else to prove. My first 5 minutes with 2 episodes of the first disc i picked up were awesome.


Take a look at these, and tell me if you think this is reference material or if it really belongs below the overrated Fifth Element remaster, Hellboy, Celine Dion, Wild Hogs, Spider-Man 3... Die Hard 4. The show has film grain, but it is very well distributed and better than the ones i mentioned.


----------



## techwisenyc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/13330747
> 
> 
> I opened the case and threw in the first disc i ran into. Disc 3, episode is called Enter 77 (the first one). Watch the first 4 minutes of it. Notice the awesome jungle shot at approx 2:25. Look at how much pop that has. Then look at Sayid's face a few seconds after that. Then look at sayid's hand and the detail it shows when he holds (i think it was a compass). Note John Locke's mug throughout the 4 minute sequence... along with Kate's, Hurley's, etc.
> 
> 
> Then watch the first minute of the next episode.. You'll even see some dark scenes that don't look anywhere near the grainy (yet intentional) first couple of episodes with Jack in prison. At the end of the minute, it will end with Claire's eye and then her face. I stopped it here because there was nothing else to prove. My first 5 minutes with 2 episodes of the first disc i picked up were awesome.
> 
> 
> Take a look at these, and tell me if you think this is reference material or if it really belongs below the overrated Fifth Element remaster, Hellboy, Celine Dion, Wild Hogs, Spider-Man 3... Die Hard 4. The show has film grain, but it is very well distributed and better than the ones i mentioned.



I agree that there are many great sharp and reference material scenes, but I recently watched this and Disc 4 and 5 has many out of focus shots and grainy crushed black scenes. To me going from something so great looking to something bad that was intentionally done diminishes the PQ tremendously. Those first couple of episodes of him in prison count as well unfortunately, so to me is placed in good spot. I wouldn't have a problem with it being a tad lower either.


There was a lot of posts on Lost 3 in it's own thread I believe or maybe even this one complaining of its inconsistency. Lost 3 is Tier 0 in its best shots, but it is not like that more always. For what it's worth, TV season box sets or multiple disc sets are hard to place since one disc or episode can be Tier 0, but another could be Tier 2. I agree on DH4, that some of the grain hurts it a bit, however not sure if its enough to knock it down to top Tier 1. It might be.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *techwisenyc* /forum/post/13331245
> 
> 
> I agree that there are many great sharp and reference material scenes, but I recently watched this and Disc 4 and 5 has many out of focus shots and grainy crushed black scenes. To me going from something so great looking to something bad that was intentionally done diminishes the PQ tremendously. Those first couple of episodes of him in prison count as well unfortunately, so to me is placed in good spot. I wouldn't have a problem with it being a tad lower either.
> 
> 
> There was a lot of posts on Lost 3 in it's own thread I believe or maybe even this one complaining of its inconsistency. Lost 3 is Tier 0 in its best shots, but it is not like that more always. For what it's worth, TV season box sets or multiple disc sets are hard to place since one disc or episode can be Tier 0, but another could be Tier 2. I agree on DH4, that some of the grain hurts it a bit, however not sure if its enough to knock it down to top Tier 1. It might be.



I agree with judging box sets. There's too much material, and unfortunately it doesnt all look pristine... Probably due to the fact that episodes are directed by different directors. But overall, this box set has easily over 10 hours of pure tier 0'ness, and I don't think anyone can say that the underwhelming scenes are due to bit-rate starvation or compression artifacts. I personally found the entire season to be awesome with some small areas here or there, but I think when you take the percentage of bad vs good, it's still enough to get Lost into bottom of Tier 0.


As for DH4, I think it belongs where it's at, I was just stating that I think Lost at its best looks better than DH4 at its best (but I will concede that Lost at its worst looks worse than DH4 at its worst). Oh, and in my quote when I was naming titles (and ended with DH4), the only "overrated" one I was talking about was Fifth Element.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13327772
> 
> 
> I strongly disagree with the sentiment that Crank looks better than Mr. Brooks. Crank has a very digital/processed look to it. Mr. Brooks does not.



The style of Crank suited the movie. I'm not saying I liked the style... I wouldn't want Goodfellas to look like that. I was just stating that, as far as "reference", I thought Crank was more "reference" than Mr. Brooks. I should reiterate. I liked Mr Brooks as a movie and i thought it looked great, I just dont think it belongs at the top of tier 0.


----------



## DavidHir

I watched about half of *Syriana* last night. The image had a bit of a subdued look to it - likely director's intent. The sharpness and detail were pretty good. The blacks weren't as rich as some films, but again, I think this was simply the look of the film. While some film grain was present, there also appeared to be some digital artifacting visible in a couple of scenes evident by the flickering and blockiness of clear-like "sparkles." All in all, I would place this in low Tier 2 or very high Tier 3.


----------



## Shane Martin




> Quote:
> The PQ impressed because of the outstanding sharpness and clarity of the image, particularly on faces. Color palette is a creative choice.
> 
> 
> Perhaps those who don't appreciate the sharpness of this title are watching from viewing distances where this aspect is not apparent.



I agree with the current ranking. It was super sharp and had incredible detail. An impressive title no doubt.


Speaking of impressive, I thought 30 days of night was spectacular looking. A tier 0 or 1 title for sure. Other than the film, I could find nothing with it visually and aurally.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/13332352
> 
> 
> The style of Crank suited the movie. I'm not saying I liked the style... I wouldn't want Goodfellas to look like that.



I definitely agree that the visual style (HD Video) suited Crank and its theme very well. Also agree that we don't want all movies to look like that...and Goodfellas is a good example.


Guys, sorry I didn't get to doing some updates today. Hopefully in the next couple days...unless Suprslow or AustinSTI get a chance to do it first.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Shane Martin* /forum/post/13338526
> 
> 
> I agree with the current ranking. It was super sharp and had incredible detail. An impressive title no doubt.
> 
> 
> Speaking of impressive, I thought 30 days of night was spectacular looking. A tier 0 or 1 title for sure. Other than the film, I could find nothing with it visually and aurally.



30 Days of Night is the title I have been watching repeatedly lately. Quite fascinating looking. The best shots are very good. But unfortunately this title suffers hugely from Sony's utterly irrational belief that it is not necessary to go over 30 in bitrate. Compression noise is rampant throughout.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13327679
> 
> 
> Perhaps you could point me to an episode or better yet a specific scene in Lost that you think shows great facial detail? In previous attempts to watch Lost on BD I found both the content and the PQ so uninspiring that I quickly turned it off.



Have you had a chance to look over the Lost scenes I pointed you to?


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13339439
> 
> 
> 30 Days of Night is the title I have been watching repeatedly lately. Quite fascinating looking. The best shots are very good. But unfortunately this title suffers hugely from Sony's utterly irrational belief that it is not necessary to go over 30 in bitrate. Compression noise is rampant throughout.



I have to agree with your opinion of Sony's recent encodings. Apparently somewhere in the chain they've decided 25-30 Mbps is good enough and frankly I think it's wrong. Thankfully Fox and Disney encoders don't agree...


----------



## Ghosthoffa

So I just got my BDPS300 today from BB and I picked Ratatouille as my first Blu Ray movie, visually it is amazing. (720p Sammy Plasma TV) So my quesiton is this. What other blu rays should I consider from a PQ standpoint. I have three little kids and I don't watch R Rated movies. Any advice would be had.


Thanks


----------



## luigionlsd

Casino Royale (PG-13), Pirates of the Caribbean (1-3 are all great PQ, but 3 is the absolute best), 2001: A Space Odyssey, and The Simpsons Movie are all solid choices.


----------



## ooms

Crank. Arguably the best PQ of any non animation blu ray released to date. wait till you get it, you'll think you can smell the sweat on peoples faces. (there is a "family friendly" audio track included)


----------



## Dave Mack

corpse bride.


----------



## lgans316

Average bit rate for POTC titles is 20 Mbps. So how come they are placed in Tier-0 and Tier-1 and possess superior PQ and SQ.

Oldboy - 30 Mbps - PQ sucks because of the director's intentions. Go figure.


----------



## lgans316

 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=996221


----------



## JohnR_IN_LA




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ooms* /forum/post/13347190
> 
> 
> Crank. Arguably the best PQ of any non animation blu ray released to date. wait till you get it, you'll think you can smell the sweat on peoples faces. (there is a "family friendly" audio track included)



This has to be sarcastic


----------



## psblake

meet the robinsons is the best I have seen and I have rat as well.


----------



## Ghosthoffa




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *psblake* /forum/post/13348320
> 
> 
> meet the robinsons is the best I have seen and I have rat as well.



what player are you using? do you have freeze issues?


----------



## alexg75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13347228
> 
> 
> Average bit rate for POTC titles is 20 Mbps. So how come they are placed in Tier-0 and Tier-1 and possess superior PQ and SQ.
> 
> Oldboy - 30 Mbps - PQ sucks because of the director's intentions. Go figure.



It's the same point that I made in my previous post and I agree with you.

But for some reason there are those who are convinced otherwise.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/13346515
> 
> 
> I have to agree with your opinion of Sony's recent encodings. Apparently somewhere in the chain they've decided 25-30 Mbps is good enough and frankly I think it's wrong. Thankfully Fox and Disney encoders don't agree...



It is such a great relief to hear that I am not the only one who feels this way. I agree that Fox and Disney are now leading the way on this. I don't understand how anyone can look at the recent Sony efforts and not see that something is very wrong. . .


----------



## lgans316

Patrick,


Can you please publish the list of recent Sony titles that had underwhelming PQ besides Across the Universe and We Own the Night ?

Please educate us on what went wrong.


Many here don't agree that Ocean's Trilogy has excellent PQ. Having seen the trilogy many times I am convinced that Warner has done a terrific job on the encodes. I request the viewers to turn on the director's commentary track to understand his filming style.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/13345009
> 
> 
> Have you had a chance to look over the Lost scenes I pointed you to?



I watched them once and intend to watch again but haven't yet done so. I agree that the very tight static facial close-ups look good. I think the close-ups of Dominic Monaghan from the second episode you cited probably look the best. But it seems to me that when the material in the frame becomes more complex, problems arise. My sense is that shots with a lot of foliage don't do well. I think even at BD's maximum bitrate (which Lost doesn't come close to using) shots with a lot of foliage don't do well. After I have watched these scenes again I expect to have more to say.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13348658
> 
> 
> Patrick,
> 
> 
> Can you please publish the list of recent Sony titles that had underwhelming PQ besides Across the Universe and We Own the Night ?
> 
> Please educate us on what went wrong.



I haven't seen We Own the Night. The title I was most recently discussing was 30 Days of Night. Jane Austen Book Club and Resident Evil: Extinction are other recent examples. Even Spiderman 3 displays the problems you get when you refuse to let the bitrate go over 30. Exceedingly misguided and perverse on SPE's part.


----------



## lgans316

Fine. So what's wrong with RE: Extinction ? I am very curious to know about the problems so that I can look for it.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13348674
> 
> 
> Fine. So what's wrong with RE: Extinction ? I am very curious to know about the problems so that I can look for it.



Actually that is the one I have watched the least. Apart from the much discussed horrors of the star's close-ups, it just looked somewhat bland and soft to me.


----------



## lrstevens421




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13348680
> 
> 
> Actually that is the one I have watched the least. Apart from the much discussed horrors of the star's close-ups, it just looked somewhat bland and soft to me.



Softness was a problem for me as well, honestly I thought it was intentional, much like Ultraviolet, although Ultraviolet was a bigger offender.


----------



## bassmonkeee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ooms* /forum/post/13347190
> 
> 
> Crank. Arguably the best PQ of any non animation blu ray released to date. wait till you get it, you'll think you can smell the sweat on peoples faces. (there is a "family friendly" audio track included)



Um--did your disc come with a kid friendly non-rated R version of Crank? I must have missed that in the special features....


----------



## ooms

its Rated R due to its excessive language in the normal track. the violence is nothing most 5 year old Americans have not already been exposed to. if it showed a boobie or two i would say keep the kids away. we all know the evils of the human body and how especially evil female bodies are. but its just bloody violence. and you know, violence is an American staple, so no worries, let the kiddies watch their god given content.


----------



## Rach




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ooms* /forum/post/13349627
> 
> 
> its Rated R due to its excessive language in the normal track. the violence is nothing most 5 year old Americans have not already been exposed to. if it showed a boobie or two i would say keep the kids away. we all know the evils of the human body and how especially evil female bodies are. but its just bloody violence. and you know, violence is an American staple, so no worries, let the kiddies watch their god given content.




Umm, the OP stated that he had three small kids. The sarcasm concerning nudity I'm sure was not appreciated. I don't want my kid seeing sex and nudity. Why rob them of their childhood? When I think of family friendly movies (I have a small boy), CRANK doesn't come to mind. However, Cars, POTC 1-3 and Meet the Robinsons all come to mind with outstanding PQ


----------



## stumlad

No matter what arguments are made for Res Evil Extinction. I cant see how anyone would think Potter 1,2 or RE1 looks better. I still say it should be way higher in tier 2


----------



## bassmonkeee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ooms* /forum/post/13349627
> 
> 
> its Rated R due to its excessive language in the normal track. the violence is nothing most 5 year old Americans have not already been exposed to. if it showed a boobie or two i would say keep the kids away. we all know the evils of the human body and how especially evil female bodies are. but its just bloody violence. and you know, violence is an American staple, so no worries, let the kiddies watch their god given content.



I'm sure he appreciates your advice in raising his children. Or, you know, at least as an example to read more thoroughly....


Back on topic--The 30th Anniversary Edition of Close Encounters is amazing. And, your kids might like it, too. A true classic. It's not all computer animation.


----------



## AmishFury

hairspray is a good family friendly disc... good PQ and exceptionally good AQ


also the last 3 harry potter movies (the first 2 have good transfers but pq isn't on the same level as the other 3 especially the last one)


another would be TMNT


and all the above recommendations except crank


though you're no R rated movies rule cuts out some good movies with some really good PQ like The Patriot (technically the bluray is "not rated" because of the extended cut but the theatrical cut is R (because you know... it's set during a war and people tend to bleed when wounded in combat))


----------



## AlexanderG

*No Country For Old Men - Recommend for Tier 0 Status*

Studio: Miramax/Beuna Vista

Video: AVC MPEG 4

Audio: PCM 5.1 Uncompressed 48 Khz 24-bit



Viewed on:

Samsung 40" LNT-4066F 1080p LCD TV - 15,000:1 Contrast Ratio

Viewing Distance: 6 ft


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bassmonkeee* /forum/post/13350111
> 
> 
> I'm sure he appreciates your advice in raising his children. Or, you know, at least as an example to read more thoroughly....
> 
> 
> Back on topic--The 30th Anniversary Edition of Close Encounters is amazing. And, your kids might like it, too. A true classic. It's not all computer animation.



I knew though space ships were real dang nabit. uh uh uh.


----------



## Ratnose86

Anyone picked up Gattaca or I, Robot yet? I am very interested in the PQ of these two titles.


----------



## keebler87




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ooms* /forum/post/13349627
> 
> 
> its Rated R due to its excessive language in the normal track. the violence is nothing most 5 year old Americans have not already been exposed to. if it showed a boobie or two i would say keep the kids away. we all know the evils of the human body and how especially evil female bodies are. but its just bloody violence. and you know, violence is an American staple, so no worries, let the kiddies watch their god given content.



I hope you're kidding...


seconding NCFOM for tier 0


----------



## mp3junkie

Just watched *I, Robot* and I must tell everyone that this movie is a very high Tier O film. No question about it. The PQ was absolutely stunning and sharp as can be. I was particularly impressed with close up shots of Will Smith's face. The detail was stunning. I could see every bump and gray hair on his chin. I was blown away. This is one of the best Blu-Ray movies out there. Highly recommended.


----------



## ooms




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rach* /forum/post/13349792
> 
> 
> Umm, the OP stated that he had three small kids. The sarcasm concerning nudity I'm sure was not appreciated. I don't want my kid seeing sex and nudity. Why rob them of their childhood? When I think of family friendly movies (I have a small boy), CRANK doesn't come to mind. However, Cars, POTC 1-3 and Meet the Robinsons all come to mind with outstanding PQ



of course i totally agree. nothing robs someone of their childhood quiet like seeing the nude human form. its evil.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ooms* /forum/post/13355292
> 
> 
> of course i totally agree. nothing robs someone of their childhood quiet like seeing the nude human form. its evil.



The last time I responded to a view you expressed I was in 100% agreement. Not so this time...I couldn't DISAGREE more.


I suggest you quit digging the hole you've been digging or you'll never be able to climb out.


----------



## ooms




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/13355558
> 
> 
> The last time I responded to a view you expressed I was in 100% agreement. Not so this time...I couldn't DISAGREE more.
> 
> 
> I suggest you quit digging the hole you've been digging or you'll never be able to climb out.



what are you disagreeing with me about exactly?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ooms* /forum/post/13355609
> 
> 
> what are you disagreeing with me about exactly?



I'm disagreeing with your continued sarcasm about nudity as it relates to children viewing it. (In other words, I don't really believe you when you say it [the nude human form] is evil.) As Rach said, "The sarcasm concerning nudity I'm sure was not appreciated." You don't seem to be accepting this.


You may hold the view that children should be exposed to nudity, but believe me the vast majority of people still respect the innocence of children. God help us if your view becomes the norm.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> You may hold the view that children should be exposed to nudity, but believe me the vast majority of people still respect the innocence of children. God help us if your view becomes the norm.



Ratings are handy for PRE-determining the suitability of a movie for non-adult viewers.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mp3junkie* /forum/post/13355140
> 
> 
> Just watched *I, Robot* and I must tell everyone that this movie is a very high Tier O film. No question about it. The PQ was absolutely stunning and sharp as can be. I was particularly impressed with close up shots of Will Smith's face. The detail was stunning. I could see every bump and gray hair on his chin. I was blown away. This is one of the best Blu-Ray movies out there. Highly recommended.



My copy of I, Robot is on its way from Amazon, but I fully expect this to be a Tier 0 title based on my D-Theater tape version.


----------



## eghill1125




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mp3junkie* /forum/post/13355140
> 
> 
> Just watched *I, Robot* and I must tell everyone that this movie is a very high Tier O film. No question about it. The PQ was absolutely stunning and sharp as can be. I was particularly impressed with close up shots of Will Smith's face. The detail was stunning. I could see every bump and gray hair on his chin. I was blown away. This is one of the best Blu-Ray movies out there. Highly recommended.



I agree with this 100%. I don't comment very often on the placements because I know my setup is really not impressive as what some others here have, so I just silently agree and disagree. But this is one that I have to write in and agree with. The detail and black levels on this movie are incredible. I have viewed just about every tier 0 movie on the list and this one is as good as and better than almost every one of them. I would definitely place it above Mr. Brooks without a doubt.


As far as my setup.


Samsung Hpt-4254 1080i

Viewing distance - roughly 7 feet.

( I know, not the greatest, but a bad looking movie on yours will still look bad on mine.







)


----------



## DavidHir

I watched *Michael Clayton* tonight. All in all, nothing special and probably a low Tier 3 title. The image had a slight subdued look to it and some parts looked fairly soft. Other parts of the movie had average HD detail. Blacks were okay and shadow detail was decent, but the image didn't have a lot of dimension or contrast. Film grain was somewhat noticable particularly in some darker scenes which help give this transfer a fairly decent "filmlike" look.

Setup: sitting 9.5' back from an ISF'd Sony 60" SXRD (A3000) and Panasonic BD30 at 1080p/24 in a darkened room.


----------



## sharkcohen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13339439
> 
> 
> 30 Days of Night is the title I have been watching repeatedly lately. Quite fascinating looking. The best shots are very good. But unfortunately this title suffers hugely from Sony's utterly irrational belief that it is not necessary to go over 30 in bitrate. Compression noise is rampant throughout.



It looked like film grain to me. You see the bit rate on whatever player you are using that displays it, and you assume that it's compression noise. Interesting.


I would suggest 30 Days to be a high Tier 1 release. I'd recommend Tier 0, but I haven't seen most of the releases in the Tier 0 list, yet.


Westy LVM-42w2, 1080p60, 42" LCD

Panasonic bd30

6 foot viewing distance


----------



## restart

I Robot, PQ as expected.


----------



## lgans316

A friendly advice to bit rate lovers.


To a certain extent I agree that high bit rates can solve or hide problems with PQ. However there is no point in keeping the bit rate meter ON and not watching the actual content. Even if the viewer is extremely critical about PQ and watches the content twice, once for pointing out flaws and once for watching the actual content I would still call it ridiculous as the viewer is ruining the life of the optical lens and the player.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/13346515
> 
> 
> I have to agree with your opinion of Sony's recent encodings. Apparently somewhere in the chain they've decided 25-30 Mbps is good enough and frankly I think it's wrong. Thankfully Fox and Disney encoders don't agree...



I think we may have been premature in our judgment about Fox and Disney, after sampling yesterday's releases.


The biggest disappointment for me was NCFOM. Definitely *NOT* Tier 0 to my eyes.


While I, Robot was clearly the best of the lot, it was not the transcendent perfection I expected based on the chorus of raves about the D-Theater version.


Hitman is a PQ abomination.


Dan In Real Life is unwatchably soft.


Independence Day clearly shows its age.


Gattaca (Sony) has hideous EE.


Sleuth (Sony) looks awful.


What a horribly disappointing bunch of releases.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sharkcohen* /forum/post/13357008
> 
> *It looked like film grain to me.* You see the bit rate on whatever player you are using that displays it, and you assume that it's compression noise. Interesting.
> 
> 
> I would suggest 30 Days to be a high Tier 1 release. I'd recommend Tier 0, but I haven't seen most of the releases in the Tier 0 list, yet.
> 
> 
> Westy LVM-42w2, 1080p60, 42" LCD
> 
> Panasonic bd30
> 
> 6 foot viewing distance



Well, it looked like compression noise to me.


Try watching the scene in the diner from about 18:00 to 21:00 where Ben Foster tries to get raw hamburger. Some of the close-ups look pretty good, but the longer shots tend to be both soft and filled with noise.


No way on earth is 30 Days of Night Tier 0.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13357263
> 
> 
> A friendly advice to bit rate lovers.
> 
> 
> To a certain extent I agree that high bit rates can solve or hide problems with PQ. However there is no point in keeping the bit rate meter ON and not watching the actual content. Even if the viewer is extremely critical about PQ and watches the content twice, once for pointing out flaws and once for watching the actual content *I would still call it ridiculous as the viewer is ruining the life of the optical lens and the player.*



?????


----------



## lgans316

Yes. By watching the same content twice just to nitpick and point out flaws you will be reducing the life of the player. With the projected lifespan of 2-3 years for older generation Blu lasers it's better to watch the content only when it's necessary and prolong the lifespan. I have so far bought 3 DVD players in the past 8 years and my first player didn't even last for 2 years due to weakening lens. The second player died again due to lens issue. The recent player I have has now crossed 3 years with minimal usage. If you have a 20/20 vision and extra sensory memory then you can probably watch the bit rates and the actual content simultaneously.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13358337
> 
> 
> Yes. By watching the same content twice just to nitpick and point out flaws you will be reducing the life of the player. With the projected lifespan of 2-3 years for older generation Blu lasers it's better to watch the content only when it's necessary and prolong the lifespan. I have so far bought 3 DVD players in the past 8 years and my first player didn't even last for 2 years due to weakening lens. The second player died again due to lens issue. The recent player I have has now crossed 3 years with minimal usage. If you have a 20/20 vision and extra sensory memory then you can probably watch the bit rates and the actual content simultaneously.



Surely I don't need to tell you that I just leave the bitrate meter on all the time?


----------



## ballen420




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13358029
> 
> 
> I think we may have been premature in our judgment about Fox and Disney, after sampling yesterday's releases.
> 
> 
> The biggest disappointment for me was NCFOM. Definitely *NOT* Tier 0 to my eyes.



I have to 2nd this opinion. While I thought it was a beatiful looking movie, I don't think it belongs in tier 0. I'm basing this on the Casino Royale factor - if that's at the top of Tier 1, then I believe NCFOM belongs below it. Sharp movie, lot of pop to it at times, but the PQ is not better then CR.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13358029
> 
> 
> I think we may have been premature in our judgment about Fox and Disney, after sampling yesterday's releases.
> 
> 
> The biggest disappointment for me was NCFOM. Definitely *NOT* Tier 0 to my eyes.
> 
> 
> While I, Robot was clearly the best of the lot, it was not the transcendent perfection I expected based on the chorus of raves about the D-Theater version.
> 
> 
> Hitman is a PQ abomination.
> 
> 
> Dan In Real Life is unwatchably soft.
> 
> 
> Independence Day clearly shows its age.
> 
> 
> Gattaca (Sony) has hideous EE.
> 
> 
> Sleuth (Sony) looks awful.
> 
> 
> What a horribly disappointing bunch of releases.




No offence, but it seems that almost every single Blu Ray disc that you view, you hate it.........I think that you're expecting way too much. Not every movie is going to be like looking through a window.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/13359292
> 
> 
> No offence, but it seems that almost every single Blu Ray disc that you view, you hate it.........I think that you're expecting way too much. *Not every movie is going to be like looking through a window.*



Why not?










Seriously, the studios are letting us down. There is no reason (except an inadequate bitrate possibly attributable to putting too much in the way of extras on the disc) why NCFOM couldn't have looked much better than it does, just to take the most disappointing example.


Surely being picky is the reason this Tier thread exists?


----------



## kasbane

I am getting a sinking feeling that this thread is in the beginning stages of falling apart, which would be sad since I routinely look at it for people's impressions and to see what is on the list.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/13350054
> 
> 
> No matter what arguments are made for Res Evil Extinction. I cant see how anyone would think Potter 1,2 or RE1 looks better. I still say it should be way higher in tier 2



I'll be getting this title tonight and posting my opinion on it.


Brandon


----------



## hobbs47




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13358029
> 
> 
> I think we may have been premature in our judgment about Fox and Disney, after sampling yesterday's releases.
> 
> 
> The biggest disappointment for me was NCFOM. Definitely *NOT* Tier 0 to my eyes.
> 
> 
> While I, Robot was clearly the best of the lot, it was not the transcendent perfection I expected based on the chorus of raves about the D-Theater version.
> 
> 
> Hitman is a PQ abomination.
> 
> 
> Dan In Real Life is unwatchably soft.
> 
> 
> Independence Day clearly shows its age.
> 
> 
> Gattaca (Sony) has hideous EE.
> 
> 
> Sleuth (Sony) looks awful.
> 
> 
> What a horribly disappointing bunch of releases.





Wow,you will never be pleased it seems,especially if you weren't impressed with I,Robot.I think you need to seriously think about upgrading to a bigger(and better) display,because there is definitely something wrong with what you are watching these movies on.


----------



## keebler87

I understand the rationale for not putting NCFOM in tier 0 by basing that off of Casino Royale, but could others explain what they didn't care for the PQ? I'm still pretty new to HDM so I guess I don't know what a truly stunning BD looks like...


----------



## hobbs47




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13359393
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, the studios are letting us down. There is no reason (except an inadequate bitrate possibly attributable to putting too much in the way of extras on the disc) why NCFOM couldn't have looked much better than it does, just to take the most disappointing example.
> 
> 
> Surely being picky is the reason this Tier thread exists?




I think you have unrealistic expectations as to how "films" should look.NCFOM looks exactly how it should,and it looks very good,not tier 0,I would place it in tier 1.


----------



## bplewis24












First I get excited about No Country For Old Men (I got it from amazon.com) and I Robot for being nominated Tier 0, now people are saying it's not.


Luckily I can judge for myself when they get here and even if it's "only" Tier 1 I can still be satisfied










Brandon


----------



## Macfan424




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hobbs47* /forum/post/13359793
> 
> 
> I think you have unrealistic expectations as to how "films" should look.NCFOM looks exactly how it should,and it looks very good,not tier 0,I would place it in tier 1.



I agree 100%.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hobbs47* /forum/post/13359793
> 
> 
> I think you have unrealistic expectations as to how "films" should look.NCFOM looks exactly how it should,and it looks very good,not tier 0,I would place it in tier 1.



Yes, I guess it's unrealistic to think a "film" should not have massively distracting compression noise swarming in the sky.


----------



## hobbs47




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13359965
> 
> 
> Yes, I guess it's unrealistic to think a "film" should not have massively distracting compression noise swarming in the sky.



Sounds like a display problem or your nose is to the screen.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hobbs47* /forum/post/13359991
> 
> 
> Sounds like a display problem or your nose is to the screen.



Well, I am not completely alone in observing this problem:

http://avplay.avforums.com/index.php...diareview=9234 


"Viewed on an unforgiving 10ft projection however did also reveal a number of flaws in the imagery. In the early part of the film there is surprisingly a bit of grain and dot crawl in evidence especially in the sky and desert scenes."


----------



## AlexanderG

No Country For Old Men looks exactly like how a film that hasn't been post processed to hell should look. Extremely stable picture in areas of high contrast, impressively minimal amounts of noise in dark scenes, superb black levels, and tons of depth, and of course, utterly no artifacts.


The Coens enlisted the help of Roger Deakins again to film this movie, who also helped the Coens pioneer the use of the digital intermediate in O Brother Where Art Thou? Deakins is regarded as one of the best cinematographers in the industry, and well, No Country (among his other works) definitely keeps that reputation in tact.


No Country For Old Men looks stunning, considering that half the movie takes place at night time. I don't think I've seen a single movie on Blu that retains so much detail during night shots all while keeping grain and noise to an absolute minimum.


No, some scenes may not pop like the mid day caribbean shores in Pirates of the Caribbean, but that's because you can't expect scenes with low light to pop like scenes with tons of it. Although, I would stress that the daylight scenes, especially at the beginning of No Country when Llewelyn is out hunting, represent perhaps the best quality that film can achieve, rivaling even the digitally shot PLANET EARTH on my home set up.


I'd like to hear the set ups of some of you guys that aren't too impressed with No Country for Old Men... It's not making much sense that it's not a unanimous Tier 0 pick.


----------



## Randall Morton

I watched NCFOM last night and I didn't think it looked particularly good. Maybe it looked exactly like it did on film but I was disappointed. I never saw that 3D look that a good BR usually gives.


----------



## ballen420




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AlexanderG* /forum/post/13360127
> 
> 
> I'd like to hear the set ups of some of you guys that aren't too impressed with No Country for Old Men... It's not making much sense that it's not a unanimous Tier 0 pick.



I by no means had any intention of people thinking I wasn't impressed by it. I thought it was a beautiful movie, and my judgement was based on the placement of movies in the 1st post of this thread. I thought it was excellent, but in terms of placement, I thought it was just below Casino Royale.


Numbers (0 or 1) don't mean much to me. If I was going to show a movie off on my system, and I had the choice between NCFOM or CR, I would pick CR.


I'm watching on a 46XBR4, using a PS3 at 24 FPS. I think I have a legitimate system to base my opinions on.


----------



## Nosferax




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AlexanderG* /forum/post/13360127
> 
> 
> The Coens enlisted the help of Roger Deakins again to film this movie, who also helped the Coens pioneer the use of the digital intermediate in O Brother Where Art Thou?



Speaking of O Brother... That is one movie that I would buy in an instant if it came to BR


----------



## patrick99

I haven't watched this part of the movie yet:

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=41922 



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ClaytonMG* /forum/post/704263
> 
> 
> *No Country For Old Men Compression problem...*
> 
> 
> Has anyone else noticed the absolute horrible compression in 2 scenes of this movie?
> 
> 
> From 18:25-18:35 when he's hiding under the car, you can clearly see some horrible compression artifacts in the darker are of the screen.
> 
> 
> From 1:00:36-1:00:42 is the worst though. The black becomes a solid object as the camera panned upward.
> 
> 
> Anyone else notice this?


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13360078
> 
> 
> Well, I am not completely alone in observing this problem:
> 
> http://avplay.avforums.com/index.php...diareview=9234
> 
> 
> "Viewed on an unforgiving 10ft projection however did also reveal a number of flaws in the imagery. In the early part of the film there is surprisingly a bit of grain and dot crawl in evidence especially in the sky and desert scenes."



You can't do that







You cant pick a review that supports your opinion when you typically say you disagree with the so called professional reviewers.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/13360397
> 
> 
> You can't do that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cant pick a review that supports your opinion when you typically say you disagree with the so called professional reviewers.



I am not familiar with this reviewer. The "professional reviewer" that I most often disagree with is of course our good friend P.B.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13360424
> 
> 
> I am not familiar with this reviewer. The "professional reviewer" that I most often disagree with is of course our good friend P.B.



I don't agree with PB either


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AlexanderG* /forum/post/13360127
> 
> 
> The Coens enlisted the help of Roger Deakins again to film this movie, who also helped the Coens pioneer the use of the digital intermediate in O Brother Where Art Thou?



I know this is off-topic, but has O Brother Where Art Thou been talked about as far as coming to HDM? What studio is it?


I ask because I rented it (again) on netflix a few weeks ago, and I was amazed at how good it looks on SD DVD. I was so amazed, in fact, that I watched all of the special features because some of them pertained to how they converted the film to digital and the effects it had on everything.


I couldn't help but thinking to myself, "this film is going to look awesome on HDM." I wonder if anybody else think so?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nosferax* /forum/post/13360232
> 
> 
> Speaking of O Brother... That is one movie that I would buy in an instant if it came to BR



Ahh, so somebody else possibly agrees with me? Are you saying that because you love the movie or because of the potential demo material? For me it's both, but I'm especially excited with the potential of it being a great transfer on BD.


Brandon


----------



## vpn75

I watched Dogma last night. Overall, I thought it looked pretty good. PQ was a bit inconsistent with wider shots looking noticeably softer. There was some video noise in some of the backgrounds, but otherwise the print was clean. Fine object detail was pretty solid, but the PQ lacked that real pop you associate with the best HD has to offer.


I would probably put this somewhere in the middle of Tier-2.


----------



## AlexanderG

For the O Brother fans out there - O Brother is a Touchstone release, so it will be handled by Beuna Vista when it's released on Blu Ray. As far as a Blu Ray release is concerned, all has been quiet on that front from what I know... More may be going on behind the scenes that an insider might know about, but I have no clue.


Be aware though, that O Brother was created using a 2K Digital Intermediate, and was one of the first movies to use the technology (I believe it was the first movie to use a DI for the entire film, not just for CG/effects scenes) so it's possible that the quality may not be up to par with what we're used to from 2007-2008. Also, the color palette from the film is muted and not very vibrant... O Brother may be a title that reignites the entire "directors intent vs. hd quality" debate... But then again, it could look magnificent, who's to say? I haven't seen any HD versions of it, even on cable. Perhaps someone else might be able to present some impressions?


----------



## DavidHir

I remember the SD DVD looking pretty good for O Brother. That's usually a positive sign for the eventual BD release.


----------



## 30XS955 User

No Country for Old Men, Tier 0


46-inch Sony LCD 1080p from about 4-5 feet away.


----------



## ballen420

I just watched The Reaping and IMO belongs in low tier 1. Good sharp picture quality - some really nice scenes, but I feel it's below KoH and probably a little better then 3:10 to Yuma.


----------



## bplewis24

I can tell the placement for No Country for Old Men is going to cause a stir.


I should have my copy by friday to help contribute to the madness










And thanks for the input AlexanderG.


Brandon


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ballen420* /forum/post/13361591
> 
> 
> I just watched The Reaping and IMO belongs in low tier 1. Good sharp picture quality - some really nice scenes, but I feel it's below KoH and probably a little better then 3:10 to Yuma.



I bought that in the frenzy of Warner courting but never bothered to watch it because it is after all a Warner dual format release. Perhaps I should give it a try.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

You guys really need to put away the magnifying glass and just enjoy the beauty of our blu ray movies


If highdefdigest gives NCFOM 5 out of 5 stars, I am gunna go ahead and say the PQ is pretty damn good. Mine is in the mail along with Man on Fire.


Let's have some fun here


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13362290
> 
> *I can tell the placement for No Country for Old Men is going to cause a stir.*
> 
> 
> I should have my copy by friday to help contribute to the madness
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And thanks for the input AlexanderG.
> 
> 
> Brandon



Looks that way.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13359393
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, the studios are letting us down. There is no reason (except an inadequate bitrate possibly attributable to putting too much in the way of extras on the disc) why NCFOM couldn't have looked much better than it does, just to take the most disappointing example.
> 
> 
> Surely being picky is the reason this Tier thread exists?



Oh I agree that they should look good (and in my opinion most of them do) but how do you know that they should look better? If a movie was filmed in one way or another, that makes it appear soft, then it may never look spectacular......HD or not.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/13362929
> 
> 
> Oh I agree that they should look good (and in my opinion most of them do) but how do you know that they should look better? If a movie was filmed in one way or another, that makes it appear soft, then it may never look spectacular......HD or not.



I believe that, with today's technology and level of movie-making skill, movies look EXACTLY as they were intended to look. And not all movie-makers are going for the "see-the-molecules-in-the-sweat-on-the-actor's-brow" look.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/13362929
> 
> 
> Oh I agree that they should look good (and in my opinion most of them do) but how do you know that they should look better? If a movie was filmed in one way or another, that makes it appear soft, then it may never look spectacular......HD or not.



Maybe the fact that it was nominated for an Oscar for cinematography makes me suspect that perhaps it should look better than this. . .


----------



## 30XS955 User

All I know is I'm gonna flip if Spiderman 3 and all that soft animated crap is allowed to be tier 0 but NCfOM is not.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *30XS955 User* /forum/post/13363119
> 
> 
> All I know is I'm gonna flip if Spiderman 3 and *all that soft animated crap* is allowed to be tier 0 but NCfOM is not.



Nobody hates animation more than I do. . .


----------



## jmpage2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13360375
> 
> 
> I haven't watched this part of the movie yet:
> 
> http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=41922



So you haven't even watched the whole movie yet and you've already started to nit pick it?











Maybe it hasn't occurred to some of you guys that not every shot is going to look razer sharp, or have so much post processing color and contrast enhancement done to it that the image leaps off the screen.


Ever seen what an unprocessed image looks like from a high quality 35mm camera? Often flat and uninspiring... and *gasp* there's noise!


The fact that NCFOM is getting overwhelmingly positive PQ reviews just makes me think that some of you guys spend far too much time with your noses six inches away from your TV screens.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jmpage2* /forum/post/13363261
> 
> 
> So you haven't even watched the whole movie yet and you've already started to nit pick it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe it hasn't occurred to some of you guys that not every shot is going to look razer sharp, or have so much post processing color and contrast enhancement done to it that the image leaps off the screen.
> 
> 
> Ever seen what an unprocessed image looks like from a high quality 35mm camera? Often flat and uninspiring.
> 
> 
> The fact that NCFOM is getting overwhelmingly positive PQ reviews just makes me think that some of you guys spend far too much time with your noses six inches away from your TV screens.



Am I on somebody's hit list today?


Have you watched *any portion* of this movie?


The reason so many of us find this thread valuable and interesting is that we have found that the "reviews" are not overwhelmingly reliable.


----------



## jmpage2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13363323
> 
> 
> Am I on somebody's hit list today?
> 
> 
> Have you watched *any portion* of this movie?
> 
> 
> The reason so many of us find this thread valuable and interesting is that we have found that the "reviews" are not overwhelmingly reliable.



Let's just say that I have watched many well reviewed titles that members here nitpicked and in all cases did not find the problems mentioned noticeable, certainly not to the level that it would detract from enjoying the movie in glorious 1080P.


To make matters worse, some of the most critical complainents in the past have had 720P projectors, which is laughable when what is being critiqued is 1080P source material.


----------



## nyboy42

I was thinking about this, and i was wondering if anyone could share their thoughts on this -


Well we all know that Blu-Ray discs have a resolution of 1080p but what i was wondering was what about the films that are shot in a wider angle that 1.85. Films that require the black bars on the top and bottom of a high def screen. For those films, isnt the actual resolution on the disc LESS than 1920x1080? because the black bars take up space and the full screen of the HDTV is not being used. So in reality this is not true 1080p is it? id like your thoughts, thank you


----------



## AlexanderG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nyboy42* /forum/post/13363695
> 
> 
> I was thinking about this, and i was wondering if anyone could share their thoughts on this -
> 
> 
> Well we all know that Blu-Ray discs have a resolution of 1080p but what i was wondering was what about the films that are shot in a wider angle that 1.85. Films that require the black bars on the top and bottom of a high def screen. For those films, isnt the actual resolution on the disc LESS than 1920x1080? because the black bars take up space and the full screen of the HDTV is not being used. So in reality this is not true 1080p is it? id like your thoughts, thank you



Technically, 2.35:1 matted movies have resolution that falls around 1920x960 or something like that. It has the same exact picture quality as a 1080p image, though. Just picture taking a full screen 1080p image and putting pieces of paper on the top and bottom to cover it up - It's still the same image quality, is it not? The horizontal resolution (1920) is more important than the vertical resolution (1080), anyhow.


----------



## zinfamous




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13360375
> 
> 
> I haven't watched this part of the movie yet:
> 
> http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=41922



It's pretty bad for me, but I attribute it to my set (42" Sammy Plasma). It has always had issues in certain low-light scenes. I was, in fact, distracted by large red splotches in the darker sky areas of this scene.


----------



## zinfamous




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13363032
> 
> 
> Maybe the fact that it was nominated for an Oscar for cinematography makes me suspect that perhaps it should look better than this. . .



...which shows that you don't understand the art of cinematography. Intended softness and grain has always been a component of cinematography, just as it was an important component of photography long before. there's a history to this art, and it seems a lot of people who are jumping into film these days only after the advent of HD will never get that, or care, b/c they think the definition of a quality image is ultra-sharpness. In fact...too sharp is generally worse than too soft.


Cinematography has very little to do with sharpness (hell, that's the job of the focus-puller, but he is part of the cinematographer's team). It's more about composition, mise-en-scene, angles, depth of field (part of mise-en-scene), and the types of shots that are used from scene to scene (do I use a tracking shot, a crane, a dolly? is it a medium shot or a long shot? Do I go steady cam or hand-held?). Each decision made along these lines is specifically tailored to effect the story in one way or another. influence the audience's perception of individual characters, create or remove attachment, draw significance to certain scenes in comparison to others, move the story along.


----------



## Macfan424




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zinfamous* /forum/post/13363916
> 
> 
> ... it seems a lot of people who are jumping into film these days only after the advent of HD will never get that, or care, b/c they think the definition of a quality image is ultra-sharpness. In fact...too sharp is generally worse than too soft...



Well stated.


I've long ago concluded this thread (and others like it) are about the "wow" factor. Which disc is going to most dazzle my friends? There's a place for that, and I'm not saying it's wrong, per se. I enjoy those ultra sharp renditions as much as anyone.


But too little credit is given to discs that accurately recreate the film experience, which is an equally admirable, if different, objective. Film is a different medium than video tape, but it seems that many people will not give high marks to a transfer that doesn't look like the latter.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13363032
> 
> 
> Maybe the fact that it was nominated for an Oscar for cinematography makes me suspect that perhaps it should look better than this. . .



Or perhaps they use different criteria to make that determination.


----------



## ooms




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AlexanderG* /forum/post/13363776
> 
> 
> Technically, 2.35:1 matted movies have resolution that falls around 1920x960 or something like that. It has the same exact picture quality as a 1080p image, though. Just picture taking a full screen 1080p image and putting pieces of paper on the top and bottom to cover it up - It's still the same image quality, is it not? The horizontal resolution (1920) is more important than the vertical resolution (1080), anyhow.



LOL. thats completely baseless. unless you think studios have magically put pieces of paper in their disks. the black bars DO NOT COVER ANYTHING UP. There is nothing there, its blank space. the only way what you say would make any sense was if a company took a movie originally shot in 1.85:1, and then added black bars to make it 2.35:1....which would be beyond insane. and its 1920x818.


----------



## hobbs47




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13363032
> 
> 
> Maybe the fact that it was nominated for an Oscar for cinematography makes me suspect that perhaps it should look better than this. . .



LOL-by your thinking Cars or Ratatouille should have won for best cinematography!Come on man,people with setups much better than you AND me have given rave reviews on titles you have bashed,who is right? Hey,BTW,crappy PQ aside,did you enjoy NCFOM? lol.....Friendo!


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *30XS955 User* /forum/post/13363119
> 
> 
> All I know is I'm gonna flip if Spiderman 3 and all that soft animated crap is allowed to be tier 0 but NCfOM is not.



This is getting good.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Macfan424* /forum/post/13364220
> 
> 
> I've long ago concluded this thread (and others like it) are about the "wow" factor. Which disc is going to most dazzle my friends? There's a place for that...



Yes, and that place is here. Do you disagree that a Picture Quality Tier Thread should be about which titles have the best picture quality? Cause if you do I'm at a loss as to what you think a PQ Tier Thread should be judging. All types should be subject to the same standards. Just because something is shot on film doesn't mean it is handicapped against things shot on video. They both have their faults.


Brandon


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/13362929
> 
> 
> Oh I agree that they should look good (and in my opinion most of them do) but how do you know that they should look better? If a movie was filmed in one way or another, that makes it appear soft, then it may never look spectacular......HD or not.



Exactly. Why does this issue continue to come up again and again in this thread? (not at all pointing the finger at you Maverick)



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pepar* /forum/post/13363021
> 
> 
> .... not all movie-makers are going for the "see-the-molecules-in-the-sweat-on-the-actor's-brow" look.



Yet again, exactly.


Are these two points above not clear by now?


I guess it is obvious that we will simply have to continue to deal with people coming into this thread that don't understand these relatively simple to grasp concepts.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13363032
> 
> 
> Maybe the fact that it was nominated for an Oscar for cinematography makes me suspect that perhaps it should look better than this. . .



I don't want to pile on here, but this shows a lack of understanding regarding the meaning of cinematography and its purpose.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nyboy42* /forum/post/13363695
> 
> 
> I was thinking about this, and i was wondering if anyone could share their thoughts on this -
> 
> 
> Well we all know that Blu-Ray discs have a resolution of 1080p but what i was wondering was what about the films that are shot in a wider angle that 1.85. Films that require the black bars on the top and bottom of a high def screen. For those films, isnt the actual resolution on the disc LESS than 1920x1080? because the black bars take up space and the full screen of the HDTV is not being used. So in reality this is not true 1080p is it? id like your thoughts, thank you



The aspect ratio used has NOTHING to with the resolution of the film.


There is no better medium to capture an image on than film...it is 4k by 4k, which is infinitely better than 1080P.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

3 quick mini reviews:

*Superbad*: Surprised to see this one so high in Tier 1. I didn't think it looked that great. Fine detail seemed to be somewhat lacking, and I didn't think the contrast was that great. It appears this was shot on video, which makes sense as it had a bit of digital look to it. High Tier 2. Oh, the movie was not nearly as good as I was led to believe (but it wasn't bad either).

*Good Luck Chuck*: not bad at all, but not fantastic either. I remember thinking top Tier 2, but this is what I get for not typing my review immediately after viewing: I don't remember details regarding contrast, clarity, etc. Perhaps not worth the opinion (this title hasn't been ranked yet).

*Ocean's 13*: Let's just say I agree with it's current placement in high Tier 3 and leave it at that. There were some dark scenes early in the movie that had tons of noise in it, but similar dark scenes later did not have the same noise. The color was ridiculous (even if intentional). Ok, I guess I didn't just "leave it at that", did I?


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ooms* /forum/post/13364712
> 
> 
> LOL. thats completely baseless. unless you think studios have magically put pieces of paper in their disks. the black bars DO NOT COVER ANYTHING UP. There is nothing there, its blank space. the only way what you say would make any sense was if a company took a movie originally shot in 1.85:1, and then added black bars to make it 2.35:1....which would be beyond insane. and its 1920x818.



I don't think that's what he really meant.....he just couldn't explain it very clear. Just because 2.35:1 movies have technically less resolution (giving it a smaller picture) doesn't mean that the clarity is inferior.


----------



## AlexanderG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ooms* /forum/post/13364712
> 
> 
> LOL. thats completely baseless. unless you think studios have magically put pieces of paper in their disks. the black bars DO NOT COVER ANYTHING UP. There is nothing there, its blank space. the only way what you say would make any sense was if a company took a movie originally shot in 1.85:1, and then added black bars to make it 2.35:1....which would be beyond insane. and its 1920x818.



Um, you totally misinterpreted what I said and twisted into something you felt like proving someone wrong about. Re read what I said.



> Quote:
> Just picture taking a full screen 1080p image and putting pieces of paper on the top and bottom to cover it up - It's still the same image quality, is it not?



Completely baseless? I dare you to point out what's wrong in that statement. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that statement. It's correct that black bars don't cover any information up in a 2.35:1 or 2.40:1 film, but that's absolutely NOT what I was trying to explain. I was explaining how there's no quality difference between full screen 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 1080p. Next time don't jump the gun and don't be so hasty in trying to "own" someone.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zinfamous* /forum/post/13363916
> 
> 
> ...which shows that you don't understand the art of cinematography. Intended softness and grain has always been a component of cinematography, just as it was an important component of photography long before. there's a history to this art, and it seems a lot of people who are jumping into film these days only after the advent of HD will never get that, or care, b/c they think the definition of a quality image is ultra-sharpness. In fact...too sharp is generally worse than too soft.
> 
> 
> Cinematography has very little to do with sharpness (hell, that's the job of the focus-puller, but he is part of the cinematographer's team). It's more about composition, mise-en-scene, angles, depth of field (part of mise-en-scene), and the types of shots that are used from scene to scene (do I use a tracking shot, a crane, a dolly? is it a medium shot or a long shot? Do I go steady cam or hand-held?). Each decision made along these lines is specifically tailored to effect the story in one way or another. influence the audience's perception of individual characters, create or remove attachment, draw significance to certain scenes in comparison to others, move the story along.



Although you are right about some of the aspects of cinematography...you forgot the single most important job of the DP, and that is lighting and exposure.


And when you say that too sharp is generally worse than too soft, you couldn't be more wrong. Focus is huge and will have you on the street in no time if you screw it up. This is not the DP's responsibility of course, but it his job to hire a quality camera crew


----------



## Shane Martin

Another vote for NCFOM in Tier 0.


----------



## lgans316

Wow. 3 pages of debates in 10 hours but no movements or new placements done. What's going on GoodFellas ? Let's make some tentative placement and later alter the positions depending upon more feedback.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/13365104
> 
> 
> I don't think that's what he really meant.....he just couldn't explain it very clear. Just because 2.35:1 movies have technically less resolution (giving it a smaller picture) doesn't mean that the clarity is inferior.



Actually, 'scope movies (on our BDs) do not have less resolution. Less of the display panel is used and therefore less PIXELS being used, but the resolution is the same for 1.78, 1.85, 2.35 and 2.40 films in that the pixel density in the active area is all the same.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13366055
> 
> 
> Wow. 3 pages of debates in 10 hours but no movements or new placements done. What's going on GoodFellas ? Let's make some tentative placement and later alter the positions depending upon more feedback.



I'll be honest: I am not able, nor inclined, to continue doing this myself.


I liked the idea of at least 3 members helping to maintain this thread. I don't like the idea of one member doing it, for numerous reasons (including the time it takes and the fact that I don't think any one person should appear to have sole control over the placements). Over the last month, or more, I have basically been the one to move titles around. I do it based on user feedback, of course, but my concern remains that some may feel they are being ignored etc.


This is why multiple contributors who will move titles is preferred.


This list is becoming more and more difficult to maintain in any event. We have a lot of titles now, and trying to pinpoint a placement on the list is getting extremely difficult.


It is also very difficult to gauge when a title should be moved that was placed months previously. For example, when I posted my review of The Host, it had been released more than 6 months earlier. You then have to do a search to see what the other comments were, and how many people actually reviewed it. If the placement was based on 2 reviews, and the third review comes 6 months later and disagrees with the placement by 2 Tiers, where should the title go?


I always thought the best method of doing this list would be to have a separate thread for every movie released, where people would discuss the placement of that particular title in that thread, with a link to the various threads for each title put here. However, it appears that the mods don't want that to happen (and I can appreciate where they are coming from), and it seems that we don't get as much discussion here from enough members to make the rankings more valid, and this is disappointing to me.


Don't get me wrong, I very much appreciate the feedback that people do provide here, I just wish that there was a bit more of it.


Perhaps I would be more motivated myself if I could just go back to adding my comments without having to worry about moving titles around and trying to keep people happy.


Sorry for the mini-rant.


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13366259
> 
> 
> I'll be honest: I am not able, nor inclined, to continue doing this myself.
> 
> 
> I liked the idea of at least 3 members helping to maintain this thread.



What happened to the others that were doing it?


----------



## lgans316

Understood. This is why I had requested some of you to nominate a list of Videophiles may be 5-10 people who will make their own decision and make the tier placements of titles. The nominees can also compare their assessments with the review ratings in the review sites and then make the final decision on the placements. Guys like you have rich experience and the required equipments to come up with a fair evaluation of PQ. Even if you make errors there would be some critical member like Patrick99 who can go the extra mile, put his nose on the screen and request adjustments. I think this way it's going to be easy to maintain the Tier thread.


Just my opinion.










Btw I am not a VIDEOPHILE.


----------



## Randall Morton

In NCFOM how are we supposed to know what the film version looked like if we never saw the film. Also, unless we see a pristine version of the film in the right environment, then we still don't know. I don't doubt that the disc was a faithful reproduction of the film, but when compared to other Tier 0 films,

I found the picture quality lacking.


----------



## maverick0716

Just watched Sleuth and was generally satisfied with the transfer. It's a very unique looking movie, IMO, and it does have a few scenes here and there that looked quite sharp. I'd vote for upper Tier 3. As a movie itself, the story was very cool! Very character driven film......there's only two actors (Law and Caine), and their performances are very good.


----------



## toddster63

I Saw "Slueth", tonight, and it was nice enough, rather typical Blu-ray, nothing to write home about. Tier 3 or so... (But boy does this movie suck compared to the original)...


What has blown me out of the water is "30 Days Of Night". Just GORGEOUS PQ, particularly the first 20 minutes or so that features sunlight scenes. The horror is much more horrible with such high def blood and guts...! Have to give this one a Tier 1 rating. Sound was A+ too... Haven't been so Blu-impressed since "Ratatouille". Great crisp details and depth of field, and very little grain, even in the many dark shots...


----------



## patrick99

NCFOM: Having now watched the entire movie, I continue to believe this does not belong in Tier 0. Tier 1, yes. There are actually some very good looking shots in the movie, and many not so good. In response to the comments that not every movie wants to show every pore, this movie did seem to want to do that with Tommy Lee Jones, so why not with Josh Brolin, especially in the opening scenes?


----------



## lgans316

Rob,


Please let us know your thoughts on this ?

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...postcount=3136


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13366321
> 
> Understood. This is why I had requested some of you to nominate a list of Videophiles may be 5-10 people who will make their own decision and make the tier placements of titles. The nominees can also compare their assessments with the review ratings in the review sites and then make the final decision on the placements. Guys like you have rich experience and the required equipments to come up with a fair evaluation of PQ. Even if you make errors there would be some critical member like Patrick99 who can go the extra mile, put his nose on the screen and request adjustments. I think this way it's going to be easy to maintain the Tier thread.
> 
> 
> Just my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Btw I am not a VIDEOPHILE.



So let's change the thread title to "Elitest Opinion Only"?


I find this thread valuable, that is until some contributors insist on going off on tangents.


Back to NCfOM, I watched it last night and found it totally engrossing. I'm one who enjoys the movie experience, not one who watches a movie trying to find all the PQ faults. If Mr. Brooks is high tier 0, then I would put NCfOM right below Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds at Radio City. I would also be comfortable with it in Tier 1 right below CR.


Panasonic 50" 720p, Panasonic 10a, 8' viewing distance.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13367366
> 
> 
> Rob,
> 
> 
> Please let us know your thoughts on this ?
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...postcount=3136



We are talking about the possibility of finding more people to help maintain the list. Being a "videophile" is not required. Being willing to listen to everyones opinions and consider the group consensus is required...as is having some extra time!


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13365071
> 
> 
> 3 quick mini reviews:
> 
> *Superbad*: Surprised to see this one so high in Tier 1. I didn't think it looked that great. Fine detail seemed to be somewhat lacking, and I didn't think the contrast was that great. It appears this was shot on video, which makes sense as it had a bit of digital look to it. High Tier 2. Oh, the movie was not nearly as good as I was led to believe (but it wasn't bad either).



Agreed. I found this film a bit lacking as I expected high Tier 1 quality when I saw it.


Btw, watched Galapagos two nights ago and was quite impressed with the PQ. Much better than Planet Earth through-and-through, IMO.


Also, I agree that more admin participation is going to be needed if this thread is to remain relevant. If that does not happen then a new placement protocol would have to be adopted, with separate threads for discussion and even voting necessary to allow one person to do the actual changes and another (like Super) to do the maintenance uptake on the thread. Just my 24 cents.


Brandon


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*I, Robot*:


Tier 0


This is basically an "eye candy" list, correct? If so, I don't think there is any question at all that I, Robot belongs in Tier 0. It just has that incredibly clean crisp look to it, and the sets and backgrounds are very cool. Detail is excellent, no artifacts, no EE, and superb contrast giving a good sense of three dimensionality to the picture.


I do admit that there were a few more softly focused scenes than I had remembered (from my D-Theater version), but there is no doubt that this had nothing to do with the encoding, but was the way a few shots were focused (I am referring to actors faces here).


Highly recommended!


----------



## DavidHir




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13365071
> 
> 
> 3 quick mini reviews:
> 
> *Superbad*: Surprised to see this one so high in Tier 1. I didn't think it looked that great. Fine detail seemed to be somewhat lacking, and I didn't think the contrast was that great. It appears this was shot on video, which makes sense as it had a bit of digital look to it. High Tier 2.



I too was surprised to see this placed so high. High Tier 2 is more realistic due to its lack of fine detail.


----------



## tleavit




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DavidHir* /forum/post/13369286
> 
> 
> I too was surprised to see this placed so high. High Tier 2 is more realistic due to its lack of fine detail.



Ditto!


----------



## SuprSlow

Added this weeks new releases to the Unranked List, and moved the following titles:


Celine Dion - high tier 1


Run Lola Run - low tier 3


Michael Clayton - mid tier 2


The Island - top tier 1


From Hell - mid tier 3


Man on Fire - deleted one entry


Crimson Tide - low tier 1


Assassination of Jesse James - top tier 3


We Were Soliders - top tier 3


The Aviator - bottom tier 1


Donnie Brasco - top tier 2


War - moved up a few spots


Shakira: Oral Fixation - high tier 1


HP 4 - top tier 2


HP 3 - mid tier 2


Starship Troopers - mid tier 2


Black Book - middle tier 1


Phantom of the Opera - deleted one entry


Smallville Season 6 - mid tier 2


30 Days of Night - low tier 1


Terminator 2 - low tier 4


3:10 to Yuma - bottom tier 1


The Brave One - top tier 2


Sunshine - mid tier 1


Immortal Beloved - low tier 2


Oceans Thirteen - top tier 3


We Own the Night - low tier 3


The Invasion - mid tier 2


The Simpsons - mid tier 1


King of California - mid tier 3


Pearl Harbor - top tier 2


Kung Fu Hustle - bot tier 2


Deja Vu - top tier 2


Oldboy - top tier 3


Res. Evil: Extinction - mid tier 2


Pirates 1 - tier 0


Syriana - top tier 3


I, Robot - tier 0


Dogma - mid tier 2


The Reaping - low tier 1


Superbad - high tier 2


Sleuth - top tier 3


----------



## SuprSlow

My apologies to Rob, Austin and the users of this thread. I've dropped the ball in helping out with moving titles/thread maintenance. Sometimes life gets in the way of our hobbies, but I'll try to do better.


Thanks for your patience


----------



## zinfamous




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/13365367
> 
> 
> Although you are right about some of the aspects of cinematography...you forgot the single most important job of the DP, and that is lighting and exposure.
> 
> 
> And when you say that too sharp is generally worse than too soft, you couldn't be more wrong. Focus is huge and will have you on the street in no time if you screw it up. This is not the DP's responsibility of course, but it his job to hire a quality camera crew



Ah yeah, knew I left out something










And yeah, focus is absolutely important. What I'm trying to convey about softness is that it is a choice of when and when not to use it. A lot of the criticism on these pages about "softness" comes from people that assume every image should be super sharp, which is not the case.


Assuming a focused image is the standard, which it is, choosing to go soft at the appropriate moment is when you step into the realm of art. This is why it is more important when talking about good cinematography, because deviating from the expected standard is what good art is all about.


In terms of photography, an over-sharpened image tends to look far worse than one that is soft; and historically speaking, appropriate softening has been a widely-used tool in producing expressive images. Over-sharpening is more of a recent development with the advent of digital, and in my experience, it's still shunned when compared to other techniques (PS has gotten better at this over the last few years, but good sharpening tools in digital editing have been one of the major limits for this field) Not to say that every image is better when soft, of course. But when appropriate.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/13369397
> 
> 
> My apologies to Rob, Austin and the users of this thread. I've dropped the ball in helping out with moving titles/thread maintenance. Sometimes life gets in the way of our hobbies, but I'll try to do better.
> 
> 
> Thanks for your patience



Thanks a lot for making a comeback and taking care of our requests.


----------



## SuprSlow

One thing I forgot...there has been discussion of a few titles regarding Tier 0 placement:
Mr. Brooks (lots of discussion, nothing definitive)
Lost Season 3
No Country for Old Men
Becoming Jane
TMNT (proposed move to Tier 1)
FF2 (proposed move to Tier 1)


Nothing to do with Tier 0, but 2001 had quite a bit of past discussion on current placement, a few posters suggested another move.


As always, input welcomed on these titles and those in the earlier post. Point out any inaccuracies or misplaced titles.


----------



## Macfan424




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13364819
> 
> 
> ...Do you disagree that a Picture Quality Tier Thread should be about which titles have the best picture quality? Cause if you do I'm at a loss as to what you think a PQ Tier Thread should be judging. All types should be subject to the same standards. Just because something is shot on film doesn't mean it is handicapped against things shot on video. They both have their faults...



Of course a PQ thread should be about PQ.


My point is that we don't all use the same criteria to determine what constitutes good PQ. This is the heart of the debate that has been occupying this thread recently.


Some here think that sharpness is the overriding concern, and would prefer to see it maximized, even beyond how it appeared in a theater (even though film inherently has something like 8x greater resolution than current TVs). Some want no trace of grain, even that which is part of the original film. Some discs do these things effectively and are showy demonstration pieces, but they often look more like video than film.


Others think discs should accurately replicate the theatre experience. These also offer excellent picture quality, but by altogether different standards.


I'm not advocating either approach to the exclusion of the other, only pointing out that they exist, and can lead to very different rankings. Defining the criteria used becomes especially important here, where rankings are often determined by three or four vocal members.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Macfan424* /forum/post/13370306
> 
> 
> Of course a PQ thread should be about PQ.
> 
> 
> My point is that we don't all use the same criteria to determine what constitutes good PQ. This is the heart of the debate that has been occupying this thread recently.
> 
> 
> Some here think that sharpness is the overriding concern, and would prefer to see it maximized, even beyond how it appeared in a theater (even though film inherently has something like 8x greater resolution than current TVs). Some want no trace of grain, even that which is part of the original film. Some discs do these things effectively and are showy demonstration pieces, but they often look more like video than film.
> 
> *Others think discs should accurately replicate the theatre experience.* These also offer excellent picture quality, but by altogether different standards.
> 
> 
> I'm not advocating either approach to the exclusion of the other, only pointing out that they exist, and can lead to very different rankings. Defining the criteria used becomes especially important here, where rankings are often determined by three or four vocal members.



Many posters have observed that most actual movie theater experiences consist of out-of-focus projection at a resolution that is inferior to 1080p. Is that really what we want duplicated on high def discs?


----------



## Macfan424




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13370418
> 
> 
> Many posters have observed that most actual movie theater experiences consist of out-of-focus projection at a resolution that is inferior to 1080p...



True enough.







I probably should have said something like "optimal theater experience."


----------



## DavidHir




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13370418
> 
> 
> Many posters have observed that most actual movie theater experiences consist of out-of-focus projection at a resolution that is inferior to 1080p. Is that really what we want duplicated on high def discs?



Yeah...I've heard most theaters are showing at about 1K (which puts it between 480p and 720p) after you consider worn prints, out-of-focus, etc.


I will say the theatrical experience can at least give us *something* to base things like color production and overall "look" and style of the movie.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DavidHir* /forum/post/13370728
> 
> 
> Yeah...I've heard most theaters are showing at about 1K (which puts it between 480p and 720p) after you consider worn prints, out-of-focus, etc.
> 
> 
> I will say the theatrical experience can at least give us *something* to base things like color production and overall "look" and style of the movie.



But most crucially *not* whether sharpness or softness was the intended "look". . .


----------



## DavidHir




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13370872
> 
> 
> But most crucially *not* whether sharpness or softness was the intended "look". . .



Agreed. It reminds me of my experience of seeing *I Legend* at a prominent local movie theater back in December - I was surprised at how soft it looked which is contrary to the early Blu-ray reviews.


----------



## claymanhb

This may be too much to ask...is there any way to sort this list by aspect ratio?


----------



## pepar




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *claymanhb* /forum/post/13372245
> 
> 
> This may be too much to ask...is there any way to sort this list by aspect ratio?



It's sorted by rank. Sorting it by AR, even if it could be done, would undo that.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13370872
> 
> 
> But most crucially *not* whether sharpness or softness was the intended "look". . .



correct


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Mr. Brooks Revisited*


I watched Mr. Brooks again. Still love the movie!







There have been some people who have given the opinion that this does not belong in Tier 0. Specifically, I believe that there was some criticism regarding the contrast. I just don't see this problem on my setup. I am still very impressed with this title in terms of clarity, detail, contrast and lack of EE or other artifacts. I did not notice any noise in the dark scenes that someone else had mentioned.


I stand by my Tier 0 recommendation (though I don't necessarily think that it should be as high in Tier 0 as it is).


Having watched I, Robot the night before, this was a good back to back comparison. Both are Tier 0 imo.


----------



## ooms

Becoming Jane should be moved to Tier 0. Fantastic Four 2 should be moved to bottom of Tier 1. If I wanted to show of the clarity and amazing PQ of my Samsung 5271F, there is no way in hell I would use FF2 over Becoming Jane. FF2 grain is just too excessive. Shimmering grain to boot. I dont think its even intended grain (if so a huge mistake) but noise due to bad transfer. Becoming Jane on the other hand has minimal grain and the picture has amazing 3d pop and depth. and im not the only one that thinks FF2 is not reference material.

http://www.dvdauthority.com/reviews.asp?reviewID=5406


----------



## techwisenyc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/13369380
> 
> 
> Added this weeks new releases to the Unranked List, and moved the following titles:
> 
> 
> Celine Dion - high tier 1
> 
> 
> Run Lola Run - low tier 3
> 
> 
> Michael Clayton - mid tier 2
> 
> 
> The Island - top tier 1
> 
> 
> From Hell - mid tier 3
> 
> 
> Man on Fire - deleted one entry
> 
> 
> Crimson Tide - low tier 1
> 
> 
> Assassination of Jesse James - top tier 3
> 
> 
> We Were Soliders - top tier 3
> 
> 
> The Aviator - bottom tier 1
> 
> 
> Donnie Brasco - top tier 2
> 
> 
> War - moved up a few spots
> 
> 
> Shakira: Oral Fixation - high tier 1
> 
> 
> HP 4 - top tier 2
> 
> 
> HP 3 - mid tier 2
> 
> 
> Starship Troopers - mid tier 2
> 
> 
> Black Book - middle tier 1
> 
> 
> Phantom of the Opera - deleted one entry
> 
> 
> Smallville Season 6 - mid tier 2
> 
> 
> 30 Days of Night - low tier 1
> 
> 
> Terminator 2 - low tier 4
> 
> 
> 3:10 to Yuma - bottom tier 1
> 
> 
> The Brave One - top tier 2
> 
> 
> Sunshine - mid tier 1
> 
> 
> Immortal Beloved - low tier 2
> 
> 
> Oceans Thirteen - top tier 3
> 
> 
> We Own the Night - low tier 3
> 
> 
> The Invasion - mid tier 2
> 
> 
> The Simpsons - mid tier 1
> 
> 
> King of California - mid tier 3
> 
> 
> Pearl Harbor - top tier 2
> 
> 
> Kung Fu Hustle - bot tier 2
> 
> 
> Deja Vu - top tier 2
> 
> 
> Oldboy - top tier 3
> 
> 
> Res. Evil: Extinction - mid tier 2
> 
> 
> Pirates 1 - tier 0
> 
> 
> Syriana - top tier 3
> 
> 
> I, Robot - tier 0
> 
> 
> Dogma - mid tier 2
> 
> 
> The Reaping - low tier 1
> 
> 
> Superbad - high tier 2
> 
> 
> Sleuth - top tier 3



Wow. I agree with mostly all the new placements of the titles mentioned above. I was definitely campaigning for Pirates 1 to be Tier 0 and right on. HP4 and HP3 are finally were they belong as they were very overrated before.


The raising of Black Book I totally agree with and felt from the beginning that it was not getting its due. Also, 3:10 to Yuma is just fine sneaking in to Lower Tier 1; I thought it was a fairly consistent title and a decent amount of pop.


For some reason, I did not find We Own the Night to be that bad. I know most people here agree with it being a Tier 3, so I won't argue. Just to me in my setup in look like a lower Tier 2 title.


Now for the movie I watched tonight... I Robot...


It was outstanding. I would rank it above Mr. Brooks in Tier 0. I think it beats out Pirates 2 even or very closely rivals it. There was only like 1 or 2 brief shots were in was a tad out of focus, but overall I Robot was amazing and most important consistent in Tier 0 PQ. I'm not sure about those who stated that they couldn't notice a huge difference from the SD DVD, but to me it was a huge one. Now tomorrow I'll watch NCFOM.


----------



## zinfamous




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13374923
> 
> *Mr. Brooks Revisited*
> 
> 
> I watched Mr. Brooks again. Still love the movie!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There have been some people who have given the opinion that this does not belong in Tier 0. Specifically, I believe that there was some criticism regarding the contrast. I just don't see this problem on my setup. I am still very impressed with this title in terms of clarity, detail, contrast and lack of EE or other artifacts. I did not notice any noise in the dark scenes that someone else had mentioned.
> 
> 
> I stand by my Tier 0 recommendation (though I don't necessarily think that it should be as high in Tier 0 as it is).
> 
> 
> Having watched I, Robot the night before, this was a good back to back comparison. Both are Tier 0 imo.



I agree. I've only seen Mr Brooks once, but it was excellent. My panel is very weak with dark scenes, but contrast and blacks were more-or-less flawless throughout.


----------



## chris0




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nosferax* /forum/post/13360232
> 
> 
> Speaking of O Brother... That is one movie that I would buy in an instant if it came to BR





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13360960
> 
> 
> Ahh, so somebody else possibly agrees with me? Are you saying that because you love the movie or because of the potential demo material? For me it's both, but I'm especially excited with the potential of it being a great transfer on BD.
> 
> 
> Brandon



Off Topic: Alright, between you guys talking about this movie and me seeing ads for Clooney's new/old football movie, I'm starting to jones for that old-timey goodness that is sure to be "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" on Blu-ray.


On Topic: I've been reading and using this thread for quite a while now without contributing much to it. But after reading Rob's post, and seeing as how I have a decent setup and watch my fair share of BD movies, I'll start contributing more with opinions. Tomorrow. I have to re-watch NCFOM first.


----------



## savage1005

just watched No Country. tier 0 for sure.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13374923
> 
> *Mr. Brooks Revisited*
> 
> 
> I watched Mr. Brooks again. Still love the movie!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There have been some people who have given the opinion that this does not belong in Tier 0. Specifically, I believe that there was some criticism regarding the contrast. I just don't see this problem on my setup. I am still very impressed with this title in terms of clarity, detail, contrast and lack of EE or other artifacts. I did not notice any noise in the dark scenes that someone else had mentioned.
> 
> 
> I stand by my Tier 0 recommendation (though I don't necessarily think that it should be as high in Tier 0 as it is).
> 
> 
> Having watched I, Robot the night before, this was a good back to back comparison. Both are Tier 0 imo.



Rob, I'm sure you will not be surprised to hear that I still completely agree with your positive and enthusiastic comments about Mr. Brooks.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ooms* /forum/post/13375040
> 
> *Becoming Jane should be moved to Tier 0.* Fantastic Four 2 should be moved to bottom of Tier 1. If I wanted to show of the clarity and amazing PQ of my Samsung 5271F, there is no way in hell I would use FF2 over Becoming Jane. FF2 grain is just too excessive. Shimmering grain to boot. I dont think its even intended grain (if so a huge mistake) but noise due to bad transfer. Becoming Jane on the other hand has minimal grain and the picture has amazing 3d pop and depth. and im not the only one that thinks FF2 is not reference material.
> 
> http://www.dvdauthority.com/reviews.asp?reviewID=5406



Agree on BJ, but not on moving Silver Surfer out of Tier 0. Grain is not a PQ flaw. This is most assuredly not compression noise.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13369008
> 
> *I, Robot*:
> 
> 
> Tier 0
> 
> 
> This is basically an "eye candy" list, correct? If so, I don't think there is any question at all that I, Robot belongs in Tier 0. It just has that incredibly clean crisp look to it, and the sets and backgrounds are very cool. Detail is excellent, no artifacts, no EE, and superb contrast giving a good sense of three dimensionality to the picture.
> 
> *I do admit that there were a few more softly focused scenes than I had remembered (from my D-Theater version), but there is no doubt that this had nothing to do with the encoding, but was the way a few shots were focused (I am referring to actors faces here).*
> 
> 
> Highly recommended!



Rob, I don't disagree with a Tier 0 placement for I, Robot, but how exactly do you know that the softly focused scenes have nothing to do with the encoding? Could you specify some of the shots you are talking about?


To my eyes, this encode has been compromised by inadequate bitrates. Fox wanted to load the disc with a lot of "added value" junk (press the red key for a trip to Mars, press the blue key for a trip to the center of the earth, etc.) and as an unavoidable result, the bitrate and the PQ of the movie suffered.


Does the PQ on this *really* look as good to you as Man on Fire or Mr. Brooks?


----------



## ooms




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13376512
> 
> 
> Agree on BJ, but not on moving Silver Surfer out of Tier 0. Grain is not a PQ flaw. This is most assuredly not compression noise.



yes but regardless. there comes a point where even something that is "intended" is just too much. too much of a good thing, get my drift? in the case of FF2, the only other "modern" film with this shimmering grain even more excessive that I have seen is 300, and we all know story behind that. this thread is about PQ. not artistic direction. thats why i think FF2 should be moved down. i cannot imagine anyone in their right mind would use FF2 over BJ to show of their new HD equipment. if I had a real camera i would post comparison pics and that would settle this.


----------



## lgans316

Aforementioned I don't consider FF2 as a demo title due to it's dull gamma reduced look. I love film grain but FF2 wasn't that eye candy to me. Titles like Black Hawk Down & Casino Royale had more 3D pop than FF2.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ooms* /forum/post/13376553
> 
> 
> yes but regardless. there comes a point where even something that is "intended" is just too much. too much of a good thing, get my drift? in the case of FF2, the only other "modern" film with this shimmering grain even more excessive that I have seen is 300, and we all know story behind that. this thread is about PQ. not artistic direction. thats why i think FF2 should be moved down. i cannot imagine anyone in their right mind would use FF2 over BJ to show of their new HD equipment. if I had a real camera i would post comparison pics and that would settle this.



I most definitely agree with you that the PQ in BJ is notably better than the PQ in Silver Surfer.


However, wrt the grain in SS, the only time I felt it was excessive was one time when I tried watching it with my display set on "torch" mode. . .


----------



## ooms




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13376564
> 
> 
> Aforementioned I don't consider FF2 as a demo title due to it's dull gamma reduced look. I love film grain but FF2 wasn't that eye candy to me. Titles like Black Hawk Down & Casino Royale had more 3D pop than FF2.



it really was a huge disappointment when I got. from my experience going by what the average people say on amazon is a better indicator of good PQ than some of the things posted here. also, crank need to put on TOP of Tier 0. no other movie compares.


----------



## lgans316

+1. You are right considering the fact that it's very easy to impress or convince Videophiles than the J6Ps whose expectations are always high.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13376525
> 
> 
> Rob, I don't disagree with a Tier 0 placement for I, Robot, but how exactly do you know that the softly focused scenes have nothing to do with the encoding? Could you specify some of the shots you are talking about?
> 
> 
> To my eyes, this encode has been compromised by inadequate bitrates. Fox wanted to load the disc with a lot of "added value" junk (press the red key for a trip to Mars, press the blue key for a trip to the center of the earth, etc.) and as an unavoidable result, the bitrate and the PQ of the movie suffered.
> 
> 
> Does the PQ on this *really* look as good to you as Man on Fire or Mr. Brooks?



I would put I, Robot, Mr. Brooks and Man on Fire all within a few spots of each other. All three are very close in PQ.


The reason I strongly believe that the few soft focus scenes have nothing to do with the encode is because....well, it seems obvious since there are so many other shots of actors faces that WERE sharp and detailed. Also, if you are claiming that bitrates are at fault, it really doesn't make much sense unless they are VERY low. Have you watched HD NET over satellite or cable? The average bitrate will be quite a bit lower than what we have on I, Robot, yet there are some superb looking programs on HD NET (and Discovery HD etc), despite the lower bitrates.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13377769
> 
> 
> I would put I, Robot, Mr. Brooks and Man on Fire all within a few spots of each other. All three are very close in PQ.
> 
> 
> The reason I strongly believe that the few soft focus scenes have nothing to do with the encode is because....well, it seems obvious since there are so many other shots of actors faces that WERE sharp and detailed. Also, if you are claiming that bitrates are at fault, it really doesn't make much sense unless they are VERY low. Have you watched HD NET over satellite or cable? The average bitrate will be quite a bit lower than what we have on I, Robot, yet there are some superb looking programs on HD NET (and Discovery HD etc), despite the lower bitrates.



No I have not watched HD NET, but I have watched a pretty large number of BDs, and in my observation there is a correlation between the highest bitrates and the best PQ. Of course, as many have said, that correlation is not perfect, in light of variations in the "difficulty" and quality of the source material.


I recall one scene in IR consisting of a close-up of Will Smith with a very out of focus (properly so) background where the PQ was stunning and the bitrate was only about 17. Obviously, a very out of focus background doesn't need a lot of bits. Similarly, some of the best shots in 30 Days are close-ups of the two main characters early in the movie with out of focus backgrounds and fairly low bitrates. But apart from cases like that, in the more usual case where the frame is filled with detailed information, higher bitrates are needed to produce better PQ, in my observation.


The problem I see with the PQ in IR is not just a very slight softness, but even worse an instability in the image, a swimming or swarming effect, that for me signals an inadequate bitrate. This is something I do not see in something like Becoming Jane, for example, with its consistently high bitrate.


----------



## DavidHir

I watched the first hour of *Memento* last night. A number of shots look fairly soft while occasionally some scenes come across fairly detailed and sharp. I noticed a trace of EE in some of the outdoor scenes. I will say the contrast of this movie was decent and blacks were generally quite good. I agree with its Tier 3 placement (could probably be on the lower part of the Tier).

Setup: sitting 9.5' back from an ISF'd Sony 60" SXRD (A3000) and Panasonic BD30 at 1080p/24 in a darkened room.


----------



## E-A-G-L-E-S

30 Days of Night

Tier 1 for PQ - imo.

PS3

Samsung 6187s @ 8'.

There are alot of dark scenes, but this was clean and pretty much free of artifacting.



Dan in Real Life

Tier 2 for PQ - imo

same

same

Tons of facial close-ups. Fairly good detail and limited artifacting.



Tonight, No Country for Old Men.


----------



## haste

Watched Dogma last night. This has to be one of the better discs I have seen come out of Blu-ray. I would easily pop this disc in to show off how good hi-def can be. Easily reference material, in video and sound!


The first scene does show a little bit of noise (where the old man gets beat up by the kids). I saw noise in the skyline, but not really anywhere else. There is another scene (about 15 seconds long) towards the very end that was soft compared to the rest of the movie, but the rest of the print was very very consistent. Those were the only two noticeable flaws I saw.

The black levels were perfect, I could make out all the details in Loki and Bartleby's coats and in Chris Rock's hair. This is definitely not a mid tier 2 disc, this is upper Tier 1 or possible low Tier 0. Out of all the movies I own (59) this has to be one of the best ones I've seen! Sony and Lionsgate did a fantastic job with this one.


Ps3 60gb doing 3:2 pulldown

Philips 42" LCD 1080p

6' viewing distance

Onkyo TXSR-605


----------



## bplewis24

Looks like Kenneth Brown at HDD agrees with Rob. I may have to purchase this title now (not that I didn't trust you of course, Rob







). In fact I don't even think I've seen this movie before. Whenever I saw the title "I Robot" I kept thinking "A.I." in my head.



> Quote:
> The Video: Sizing Up the Picture
> 
> 
> 
> 'I, Robot' features a jaw-dropping, reference quality 1080p/AVC-encoded transfer that easily solidified its place as my go-to demo disc of choice. The washed-metal palette of the film inhabits the screen, effortlessly rendering faultless fleshtones, dazzling primaries, and revealing shadows. Fine object detail is exceptionally sharp, boasting crisply defined edges and extensive texture clarity. I would offer a selection of showcase scenes, but I may as well begin at the opening titles and direct you to examine every shot that passes on your way to the end credits. The real kicker is how pristine the image actually is -- there isn't a hint of compression artifacts, color banding, source noise, or edge enhancement. Just how clean is the picture? Grain levels are more steady and inconspicuous than in any other filmic transfer I've reviewed.
> 
> 
> Best of all, contrast is bright and welcoming, deepening the image and creating a wondrous, three-dimensional "picture window" effect. The illusion is utterly convincing. It's rare that a video transfer actually improves upon the tone of the film, but I can't imagine watching 'I, Robot' any other way. Stomping the original DVD, outclassing the theatrical experience, and putting other Blu-ray stunners to shame, the Blu-ray edition of 'I, Robot' quite simply delivers one of the best transfers I've ever seen.



Brandon


----------



## nohjy

While I didn't love the movie (didn't hate it either), Resuce Dawn is without question tier 0. The picture quality is better than PotC: CoTBP, LFoDH and Spiderman 3.


61' JVC DiLA 1080P via PS3 @ 8ft.


----------



## stumlad

I still disagree Mr Brooks should be that high in tier 0.


There are a few in here who are rabbid fans, and if you search this thread, there are many who dont feel it belongs as high as it is either. But let's look at what others think.... I know that we don't use outside reviews to determine placement, but there's no way to deny that almost every reviewer out there does not think this is the 2nd best (non cgi) blu-ray title out there.

http://www.***************.com/fusio...hp?tid/139233/ 
http://www.dvdtown.com/reviews/mr-brooks/5527/2 
http://www.dvdauthority.com/reviews.asp?reviewID=5417 

http://dvd.themanroom.com/dvd-review.php?id=566 
http://www.dvdfuture.com/review.php?id=911 - overly critical review
http://www.blurayfan.com/bluray-movi...-brooks-movie/ -- this is a blog saying it's awesome looking, but still gives it a 4/5


Whereas PotC DMC and AWE have very strong consensus that it's one of the best, Mr Brooks does not. And there are a few here that talk about the contrast issues.


Note I did not even include the review by HighDefDigest.


All I'm saying is -- if this many people do not agree that it is the 2nd best looking movie out there, why is it still placed so high?


----------



## bplewis24

Where would you place it? I'm sorry if you already posted this info, but I'm just trying to gauge how far off you feel the placement is.


Brandon


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13382764
> 
> 
> Where would you place it? I'm sorry if you already posted this info, but I'm just trying to gauge how far off you feel the placement is.
> 
> 
> Brandon



High tier 1 or bottom of tier 0 (at best).


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I personally don't care about the "professional reviews". If I did, there would be no need to come to a thread like this. That doesn't mean that I don't read them though.


Anyway, I already said that I believe Mr. Brooks is too high in Tier 0. Most definitely Tier 0 material, but it could be lowered quite a bit in that Tier (I think the Pirate movies look better).


----------



## AlexanderG

Mr Brooks definitely doesn't deserve any spot in Tier 0 with the wildly inconsistent black levels it exhibits. Night shots shouldn't be gray on an isf calibrated TV.


----------



## E-A-G-L-E-S




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AlexanderG* /forum/post/13383031
> 
> 
> Mr Brooks definitely doesn't deserve any spot in Tier 0 with the wildly inconsistent black levels it exhibits. Night shots shouldn't be gray on an isf calibrated TV.



It could if your set is not capable of good black levels, but I'm guessing that since you got a calibration it is.

I did love that movie, but only saw it on SD so far.


----------



## facesnorth

Can any of you picture quality freaks (I mean that in a good way) comment on whether there is truly any noticeable difference between the Discovery and BBC editions of Planet Earth? When asked people will usually spout off about the different encode, 1080i/1080p, etc. I'd rather have the opinion of some people with good eyes who have seen both.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Anyone that uses HDD's reviews as a reference point for serious analysis of picture quality(or audio quality for that matter) is heading in the wrong direction. I could reel off 15-20 reviews where I've wondered if they even watched the BD to review it. The only BD reviews I consistently agree with are ones I've seen on ***************. But frankly this thread has better information than virtually 95% of the reviews I've seen. Go to
http://www.hddb.net/ to check various reviews for each Blu-ray. I would say the majority of the reviews are done on inferior equipment compared to some of our membership here.


----------



## facesnorth

I agree. This thread just saved me some money. I was all set to buy Big Fish when I noticed how low it was on the PQ scale. Check out HDD 5 stars! Now I will just rent it. That goes for several other titles as well I was about to pick up. I noticed on many of his reviews he doesn't comment on DTS HD-MA because he doesn't have the equipment to hear it (at the time, at least).


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/13384115
> 
> 
> Anyone that uses HDD's reviews as a reference point for serious analysis of picture quality(or audio quality for that matter) is heading in the wrong direction. I could reel off 15-20 reviews where I've wondered if they even watched the BD to review it. The only BD reviews I consistently agree with are ones I've seen on ***************. But frankly this thread has better information than virtually 95% of the reviews I've seen. Go to
> http://www.hddb.net/ to check various reviews for each Blu-ray. I would say the majority of the reviews are done on inferior equipment compared to some of our membership here.



While in general I agree with you, I would say that HDD is getting a bit better. I used to say about 6 months ago that you had to take 1.5 stars off any of their reviews just for good measure.


Either way, it's still just one source of information. I tend to look for 3 solid confirmations in the absence of being able to see it for myself, before I consider it a good bet.


Brandon


----------



## TREVLAN

watched Enchanted ,

PS3 via HDMI to an Anthem AVM50 , viewed on a XBR-60SXRD Calibrated sitting around 8ft away.

colors are stunning and overall great picture with quite a bit of pop. tier 1 or better IMO.


Sorry guys 1st time posted in this thread, hope I did it right.


p.s. whats up Rob T? my Anthem friend.


----------



## nohjy

No Country for Old Men top of tier 1. There is quite a bit of noise (most likely compression artifacts) in the picture during brighter scenes particularly at the beginning when Brolin's character discovers the deal gone bad. 61' 1080P JVC RPTV at 8 feet via PS3.


----------



## facesnorth




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nohjy* /forum/post/13384450
> 
> 
> No Country for Old Men top of tier 1. There is quite a bit of noise (most likely compression artifacts) in the picture during brighter scenes particularly at the beginning when Brolin's character discovers the deal gone bad. 61' 1080P JVC RPTV at 8 feet via PS3.



That's kind of a bummer. I was hoping it would be a top tier release.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *facesnorth* /forum/post/13383936
> 
> 
> Can any of you picture quality freaks (I mean that in a good way) comment on whether there is truly any noticeable difference between the Discovery and BBC editions of Planet Earth? When asked people will usually spout off about the different encode, 1080i/1080p, etc. I'd rather have the opinion of some people with good eyes who have seen both.



I haven't seen them both -- only BBC version, and my question is - if the Discovery version is 1080i60, why would it look any different than the BBC version at 1080p30 (unless I have the numbers wrong). Someone mentioned that BBC's was VC1 encoded and the Discovery version was AVC encoded. Perhaps the Discovery version had a lower bit-rate? I'm not sure.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Hitman*:


I was just a tad disappointed in this one. I expected a slick, sharp and detailed image (I've been coming to expect that from Fox) but this one didn't quite live up to what I was hoping for, as it was just slightly softer than I would like. Not the best depth either.


Top of Tier 2 to Bottom of Tier 1.


Movie was worth watching via a rental, but not much better than that.


Edit: I noticed that this is apparently a BD25, and the ABR is quite low. Take that how you will Patrick99!









*Sleuth*:


Wow, this was a really great looking title! Superb looking set, with great colors and reflective/glass type objects that are a feast for the eyes. Excellent clarity, detail and contrast. No EE or other artifacts noticed.


Sony has come up with a great looking release here. I enjoyed the movie, but wouldn't want to watch it again.


This is a Top Tier 1 title.

*Visions of the Sea: Explorations*:


This title has some really great underwater photography. Unfortunately I can't agree with the previous poster who indicated that this is a Tier 0 title. It is possible to get caught up in the beauty of the sea life and think the picture is great, but considering the nature of this type of programming (captured on HD Video), I would expect superb clarity and detail, giving that true "being there" sensation. This title does not do that. I have seen better images on Discovery HD.


I did love the music. Too bad the PQ wasn't a bit better, this would be a great title to show off the system or just let run in a loop when you have guests over.


Top Tier 2 to bottom Tier 1.


----------



## Shane Martin




> Quote:
> Superbad: Surprised to see this one so high in Tier 1. I didn't think it looked that great. Fine detail seemed to be somewhat lacking, and I didn't think the contrast was that great. It appears this was shot on video, which makes sense as it had a bit of digital look to it. High Tier 2. Oh, the movie was not nearly as good as I was led to believe (but it wasn't bad either).



I'd agree with this. So far my eyes are jiving with Rob's. He hasn't missed a beat with what I'm seeing.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/13350054
> 
> 
> No matter what arguments are made for Res Evil Extinction. I cant see how anyone would think Potter 1,2 or RE1 looks better. I still say it should be way higher in tier 2





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13359750
> 
> 
> I'll be getting this title tonight and posting my opinion on it.



Got around to watching this tonight. I would vote for somewhere around mid Tier 2. The images rarely have much depth or detail unless somebody other than Milla is on screen and/or it's not a widescreen desert shot. The color palette doesn't help and I realize that's a stylistic choice, but the contrast is blown out nonetheless. I haven't seen the Potter movies to make a comparison, but I see that it's in the bottom of Tier 2 now, and my vote would be for mid-to-low Tier 2, so I don't have a problem with it's current placement.


I thought a couple shots were pretty funny because there would be a bearded guy on screen with facial detail, offset by Milla's face on screen looking like somebody had photoshopped her. Very weird and somewhat distracting to even a non-videophile like myself. Lastly, I tried to watch some of that PiP extra feature stuff but couldn't stomach more than 5 minutes of it. I'm sorry, but I don't think I'll ever catch on to these types of extras...even if it's director's commentary. I like to watch extras separate, they are their own attraction. Considering the only reason this movie was in my queue is because of this profile 1.1 stuff, I think it's safe to say I'm just a movie person who will watch some extras on occassion. I don't want to be distracted during the movie itself.


1080p24->PS3->46XBR4 (8-10ft)


Brandon


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13348674
> 
> 
> Fine. So what's wrong with RE: Extinction ? I am very curious to know about the problems so that I can look for it.



I found it softish.


Brandon


----------



## facesnorth




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/13384743
> 
> 
> I haven't seen them both -- only BBC version, and my question is - if the Discovery version is 1080i60, why would it look any different than the BBC version at 1080p30 (unless I have the numbers wrong). Someone mentioned that BBC's was VC1 encoded and the Discovery version was AVC encoded. Perhaps the Discovery version had a lower bit-rate? I'm not sure.



I recently read a post that linked to a BBC rep annoucing that the box cover was a misprint, and the BBC version is in fact 1080i as well.


So the only difference should be the encode. (aside from the content removed for commercials and different narrators).


Has anybody seen both and can objectively relate how they compare? (without being subconsciously influenced by all the hype surrounding the bbc version)


----------



## chokeslam

Haven't been in this thread for awhile. Looking down the lists I was shocked to see Life of Brian in Tier 4, at the very least it should be Tier 3. Personally, I think it's tier 2 material.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13385118
> 
> 
> I found it softish.
> 
> 
> Brandon



No way. It looked better than the theatrical presentation. Razor sharp and lots of 3D pops in many sequences. The major distraction was the digital airbrushing on Milla's face.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13385118
> 
> 
> I found it softish.
> 
> 
> Brandon



So did I but I think it's really the airbrushed close-ups that warrant a Tier 2 placement, rather than someplace higher.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13384935
> 
> *Hitman*:
> 
> 
> I was just a tad disappointed in this one. I expected a slick, sharp and detailed image (I've been coming to expect that from Fox) but this one didn't quite live up to what I was hoping for, as it was just slightly softer than I would like. Not the best depth either.
> 
> 
> Top of Tier 2 to Bottom of Tier 1.
> 
> 
> Movie was worth watching via a rental, but not much better than that.
> 
> 
> Edit: I noticed that this is apparently a BD25, and the ABR is quite low. Take that how you will Patrick99!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Sleuth*:
> 
> 
> Wow, this was a really great looking title! Superb looking set, with great colors and reflective/glass type objects that are a feast for the eyes. Excellent clarity, detail and contrast. No EE or other artifacts noticed.
> 
> 
> Sony has come up with a great looking release here. I enjoyed the movie, but wouldn't want to watch it again.
> 
> 
> This is a Top Tier 1 title.
> 
> *Visions of the Sea: Explorations*:
> 
> 
> This title has some really great underwater photography. Unfortunately I can't agree with the previous poster who indicated that this is a Tier 0 title. It is possible to get caught up in the beauty of the sea life and think the picture is great, but considering the nature of this type of programming (captured on HD Video), I would expect superb clarity and detail, giving that true "being there" sensation. This title does not do that. I have seen better images on Discovery HD.
> 
> 
> I did love the music. Too bad the PQ wasn't a bit better, this would be a great title to show off the system or just let run in a loop when you have guests over.
> 
> 
> Top Tier 2 to bottom Tier 1.



I haven't watched enough of either Hitman or Sleuth to express a fully informed opinion yet, but my initial impression of both was fairly negative.


The trailers on Hitman had bitrates in the single digits and looked atrocious.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nohjy* /forum/post/13384450
> 
> 
> No Country for Old Men top of tier 1. There is quite a bit of noise (most likely compression artifacts) in the picture during brighter scenes particularly at the beginning when Brolin's character discovers the deal gone bad. 61' 1080P JVC RPTV at 8 feet via PS3.



Glad to see someone else is noticing that compression noise that is most noticeable in the early scenes. I think high Tier 1 is too generous.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AlexanderG* /forum/post/13383031
> 
> 
> Mr Brooks definitely doesn't deserve any spot in Tier 0 with the wildly inconsistent black levels it exhibits. Night shots shouldn't be gray on an isf calibrated TV.



Could you give us timecodes for shots that illustrate the problems you are seeing? For now though it strikes me that "wildly inconsistent black levels" may simply reflect a creative choice on the part of the director and DP.


----------



## AlexanderG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13386050
> 
> 
> Could you give us timecodes for shots that illustrate the problems you are seeing? For now though it strikes me that "wildly inconsistent black levels" may simply reflect a creative choice on the part of the director and DP.



Don't have the disc handy at the moment, but just take a look at the reviews (I believe they all bring it up). In fact, I took the "wildly incosistent black levels" line from the *************** review since I found it to be so appropriate! Blacks rarely seem to be very deep throughout the runtime, and I really don't believe it's the director's intent to have night time shots look like someone cranked the gamma or brightness on the TV.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AlexanderG* /forum/post/13386194
> 
> 
> Don't have the disc handy at the moment, *but just take a look at the reviews (I believe they all bring it up). In fact, I took the "wildly incosistent black levels" line from the *************** review since I found it to be so appropriate!* Blacks rarely seem to be very deep throughout the runtime, and I really don't believe it's the director's intent to have night time shots look like someone cranked the gamma or brightness on the TV.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13382845
> 
> *I personally don't care about the "professional reviews". If I did, there would be no need to come to a thread like this. That doesn't mean that I don't read them though.*
> 
> 
> Anyway, I already said that I believe Mr. Brooks is too high in Tier 0. Most definitely Tier 0 material, but it could be lowered quite a bit in that Tier (I think the Pirate movies look better).



I agree with Rob that the value of this thread is that we don't find the "reviews" very reliable. I don't mean to be argumentative, but I think there needs to be a specification of particular scenes, preferably with timecodes, to support this type of criticism. Perhaps others who might feel this way could provide this more specific information.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13386023
> 
> 
> I haven't watched enough of either Hitman or Sleuth to express a fully informed opinion yet, but my initial impression of both was fairly negative.



Two observations on this post:


1. I'm glad patrick that you stated that you couldn't "express a fully informed opinion yet" (because you hadn't seen enough of the movies), for oftentimes I find that the PQ gets better as the movie progresses. I said this in an earlier post and other members chimed in with the same sentiments.


2. I find it amazing that you would only watch "part of a movie." (I see from other posts of yours that this isn't an isolated event.) This leads me to wonder "Are you watching the movie mainly to critique the PQ"? IMHO, if a movie is going to be watched, especially if it's a good movie, it deserves to be *watched in one sitting.*


----------



## AlexanderG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13387183
> 
> 
> I agree with Rob that the value of this thread is that we don't find the "reviews" very reliable. I don't mean to be argumentative, but I think there needs to be a specification of particular scenes, preferably with timecodes, to support this type of criticism. Perhaps others who might feel this way could provide this more specific information.



There's a difference between disagreeing with the overall opinion of a professional review and saying that a specific problem that is cited in EVERY SINGLE REVIEW doesn't exist. In fact, the only people that seem to disagree with Mr. Brooks' inconsistent black levels are a couple of people on this forum, yourself being one of them.


Let me ask you a question - What display do you use? I'm using a professionally calibrated 1080p LCDTV with 15,000:1 contrast ratio - While it's obviously not the best TV, I'd say I can get better black level performance than most LCDs on the market. It's well within the realm of possibility that your display can't resolve black levels as well, and thus your display merely rounds all of the black details down and you can't even see the differing black levels. Also - Are you able to correctly display BTBs and WTWs?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AlexanderG* /forum/post/13387360
> 
> 
> There's a difference between disagreeing with the overall opinion of a professional review and saying that a specific problem that is cited in EVERY SINGLE REVIEW doesn't exist. In fact, the only people that seem to disagree with Mr. Brooks' inconsistent black levels are a couple of people on this forum, yourself being one of them.
> 
> 
> Let me ask you a question - What display do you use? I'm using a professionally calibrated 1080p LCDTV with 15,000:1 contrast ratio - While it's obviously not the best TV, I'd say I can get better black level performance than most LCDs on the market. It's well within the realm of possibility that your display can't resolve black levels as well, and thus your display merely rounds all of the black details down and you can't even see the differing black levels. Also - Are you able to correctly display BTBs and WTWs?



I think it's a bit premature to be engaging in interrogations about display capabilities when there has been no identification of specific problematic scenes but merely a very generalized charge about wildly inconsistent black levels.


When you say you don't have the disc handy at the moment does that mean there might be some time in the near future when you might have the disc handy and might perhaps be able to be more specific in your criticisms?


----------



## AlexanderG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13387836
> 
> 
> I think it's a bit premature to be engaging in interrogations about display capabilities when there has been no identification of specific problematic scenes but merely a very generalized charge about wildly inconsistent black levels.
> 
> 
> When you say you don't have the disc handy at the moment does that mean there might be some time in the near future when you might have the disc handy and might perhaps be able to be more specific in your criticisms?



Yeah, I should be able to get back to you in a couple of days. My friend is currently borrowing the movie due to my insistance - Regardless of PQ, the movie's great. I absolutely love Mr. Brooks... While it's not an Oscar worthy flick, it's definitely one of the best movies I saw last year.


I don't think it's premature whatsoever to engage in interrogations about display capabilities. I'm arguing that the black levels are inconsistent, you're saying they're not. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to be offensive in any way - We've agreed on many many things before in the past! There's nothing wrong with asking you what display device you're using. Although, I'm guessing based off of your reluctance to provide the information that you may not have the best display device. I'm not trying to make this a penis size contest, but if your display doesn't have that high of a contrast ratio, it would explain why you can't see the inconsistency of the black levels. It also would explain why you seem very unsatisfied with the majority of HDM releases.


I really understand where you're coming from with taking reviewers opinions with a grain of salt... I think we both can agree that we disagree with many of P.B.'s reviews. But I still would like to stress that this isn't just a qualm of the transfer from one reviewer, the issue of inconsistent black levels seems to pop up in pretty much every single review.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/13387302
> 
> 
> Two observations on this post:
> 
> 
> 1. I'm glad patrick that you stated that you couldn't "express a fully informed opinion yet" (because you hadn't seen enough of the movies), for oftentimes I find that the PQ gets better as the movie progresses. I said this in an earlier post and other members chimed in with the same sentiments.
> 
> 
> 2. *I find it amazing that you would only watch "part of a movie."* (I see from other posts of yours that this isn't an isolated event.) This leads me to wonder *"Are you watching the movie mainly to critique the PQ"?* IMHO, if a movie is going to be watched, especially if it's a good movie, it deserves to be *watched in one sitting.*



You may have noticed that there were a large number of releases this week. I was curious to sample all of them the day they arrived, rather than just watching each in turn.


I had particular reasons for being curious about each one: the enthusiastic PQ reviews for NCFOM; the enthusiastic reports on the PQ on the D-Theater version of I, Robot; the possible PQ effects on Hitman of using a BD 25; what Sleuth might tell me about where Sony is going with their encoding practices; whether Dan in Real Life would show if Becoming Jane was an aberration for Disney; whether the somewhat muted early reports on PQ on Independence Day were accurate.


So I watched a little bit of each one. Is that such a terrible crime?


In any event, I thought this thread was about PQ. It seems strange to be criticizing someone for discussing PQ in a thread whose subject is PQ.


I am buying hugely larger numbers of BDs than I ever did with DVDs, and I am certainly buying many movies on BD that I would otherwise have no interest in. I am sure the studios are delighted to have customers who behave like I do in my BD buying patterns.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AlexanderG* /forum/post/13387892
> 
> 
> Yeah, I should be able to get back to you in a couple of days. My friend is currently borrowing the movie due to my insistance - Regardless of PQ, the movie's great. I absolutely love Mr. Brooks... While it's not an Oscar worthy flick, it's definitely one of the best movies I saw last year.
> 
> 
> I don't think it's premature whatsoever to engage in interrogations about display capabilities. I'm arguing that the black levels are inconsistent, you're saying they're not. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to be offensive in any way - We've agreed on many many things before in the past! There's nothing wrong with asking you what display device you're using. Although, I'm guessing based off of your reluctance to provide the information that you may not have the best display device. I'm not trying to make this a penis size contest, but if your display doesn't have that high of a contrast ratio, it would explain why you can't see the inconsistency of the black levels. It also would explain why you seem very unsatisfied with the majority of HDM releases.
> 
> 
> I really understand where you're coming from with taking reviewers opinions with a grain of salt... I think we both can agree that we disagree with many of P.B.'s reviews. But I still would like to stress that this isn't just a qualm of the transfer from one reviewer, the issue of inconsistent black levels seems to pop up in pretty much every single review.



Well, pending your being able to be more specific in your identification of problematic shots, perhaps we might discuss in more general terms this concept of "inconsistent black levels." It is simply not apparent to me why this should be a basis for criticism. Why is it so hard to understand that the people who made the movie might want the audience to be able to see a certain amount of detail in dark scenes, such as the scene where Costner and Hurt go into the darkened house of the first victims and make their way through a dark room toward a hallway? If this scene were jet black, it would not be possible to see the furniture, the telephone, the characters, etc.?


If I am not properly understanding this concept of "inconsistent black levels" being a defect, please enlighten me.


----------



## AlexanderG

There's nothing wrong with watching a little bit of a movie to gauge the PQ of flick. In fact, that's why Disney includes the Movie Showcase feature on most of their Blu Rays - A highlight of what they feel to be the highest picture quality scenes from the movie.


Besides patrick, as far as I remember, you did specifically say that you just watched a little bit of the flicks whenever you commented on them, so it's not as if you were trying to lay down the final judgement and pull a fast one on forum readers regarding the PQ of the discs, so don't stress over it too much.


----------



## AlexanderG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13387986
> 
> 
> Well, pending your being able to be more specific in your identification of problematic shots, perhaps we might discuss in more general terms this concept of "inconsistent black levels." It is simply not apparent to me why this should be a basis for criticism. Why is it so hard to understand that the people who made the movie might want the audience to be able to see a certain amount of detail in dark scenes, such as the scene where Costner and Hurt go into the darkened house of the first victims and make their way through a dark room toward a hallway? If this scene were jet black, it would not be possible to see the furniture, the telephone, the characters, etc.?
> 
> 
> If I am not properly understanding this concept of "inconsistent black levels" being a defect, please enlighten me.



Inconsistent black levels - Some scenes have deep inky blacks, some do not. There's nothing really specific I can point out, since the black levels change pretty much from scene to scene. When you're looking at a night time shot the sky is grey rather than black, you know it's not the "film makers intent". When areas that you know should be ink black do not blend with the black bars at the top and bottom of the screen, you know black levels are off.


As far as the scene you discuss where Hurt and Costner go into the house, I understand what you're trying to say, but that's where high contrast ratio displays completely change the picture. They allow for more details to be displayed between the darkest dark and the whitest white. When I upgraded from my old 720p LCD with ~1,000:1 CR to my current TV, I was totally blown away by all of the details I was missing in dark scenes. It was incredible. Details I did not even know existed came to the surface. There's also a difference between Black Crush and what appears to be varying gamma or brightness levels. That's why I'm asking you the specs of your display, because it really DOES make a big difference...


----------



## Steeb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AlexanderG* /forum/post/13387360
> 
> 
> Let me ask you a question - What display do you use?





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/12171518
> 
> 
> I am using a Samsung 4095 LCD. I watch from a distance of about three feet.


 Link.


----------



## AlexanderG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steeb* /forum/post/13388085
> 
> Link.



Ah, 6,000:1 Contrast Ratio, if I pulled up the specs correctly.


Nothing to be ashamed about, as it's still probably a great display, but it is probably the reason why you haven't been able to see the inconsistences of black levels, patrick99... I'm not sure if that display can correctly render blacker than blacks or whiter than whites, either. If you have any Sony Pictures discs, use the test pattern easter eggs on them to test. That might be a huge culprit, as well.


----------



## 30XS955 User




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AlexanderG* /forum/post/13388045
> 
> 
> Inconsistent black levels - Some scenes have deep inky blacks, some do not. There's nothing really specific I can point out, since the black levels change pretty much from scene to scene. When you're looking at a night time shot the sky is grey rather than black, you know it's not the "film makers intent". When areas that you know should be ink black do not blend with the black bars at the top and bottom of the screen, you know black levels are off.



Actually what you seem to be describing is your set changing the brightness of the backlight from scene to scene. Sorry if you already mentioned this, but are you using an LCD?


----------



## AlexanderG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *30XS955 User* /forum/post/13388178
> 
> 
> Actually what you seem to be describing is your set changing the brightness of the backlight from scene to scene. Sorry if you already mentioned this, but are you using an LCD?



Yup, but this problem is exhibited on CRTs I've watched the disc on, as well... Which is why I'm positive that it's a problem with the disc, and not my display. Read the reviews of Mr. Brooks as well - It's a unanimously identified problem with the release.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AlexanderG* /forum/post/13388153
> 
> 
> Ah, 6,000:1 Contrast Ratio, if I pulled up the specs correctly.
> 
> 
> Nothing to be ashamed about, as it's still probably a great display, but it is probably the reason why you haven't been able to see the inconsistences of black levels, patrick99... I'm not sure if that display can correctly render blacker than blacks or whiter than whites, either. If you have any Sony Pictures discs, use the test pattern easter eggs on them to test. That might be a huge culprit, as well.



I don't spend time in showrooms comparing the capabilities of different displays and I suspect you don't either. Obviously I can't compare what I see on my display to what I might see on some display that I don't own. I look forward to comments on this subject (blacks in Mr. Brooks) from others.


----------



## chris0




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AlexanderG* /forum/post/13388153
> 
> 
> Ah, 6,000:1 Contrast Ratio, if I pulled up the specs correctly.



I'm not trying to jump in on anyone's side here, but manufacturer's posted CR ratings are more about marketing than real world experiences. If there was an agreed upon standard that everyone used for measuring CR then it might mean more, but there isn't. Besides, I don't think a high CR directly correlates to how well a set shows black details.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AlexanderG* /forum/post/13388045
> 
> 
> Inconsistent black levels - *Some scenes have deep inky blacks, some do not.* There's nothing really specific I can point out, since the black levels change pretty much from scene to scene. *When you're looking at a night time shot the sky is grey rather than black, you know it's not the "film makers intent".* *When areas that you know should be ink black do not blend with the black bars at the top and bottom of the screen, you know black levels are off*.
> 
> 
> As far as the scene you discuss where Hurt and Costner go into the house, I understand what you're trying to say, but that's where high contrast ratio displays completely change the picture. They allow for more details to be displayed between the darkest dark and the whitest white. When I upgraded from my old 720p LCD with ~1,000:1 CR to my current TV, I was totally blown away by all of the details I was missing in dark scenes. It was incredible. Details I did not even know existed came to the surface. There's also a difference between Black Crush and what appears to be varying gamma or brightness levels. That's why I'm asking you the specs of your display, because it really DOES make a big difference...




It's still not apparent to me how you "know" a particular shot should be ink black? It seems to me a night shot of sky is not necessarily ink black depending on the lighting conditions. For example, early in the movie Costner and Hurt are diriving across a bridge toward an urban setting with multi-story buildings. There are lights on the bridge and on the buildings. It is not obvious to me that the sky "should" be ink black.


----------



## AlexanderG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13388252
> 
> 
> I don't spend time in showrooms comparing the capabilities of different displays and I suspect you don't either. Obviously I can't compare what I see on my display to what I might see on some display that I don't own. I look forward to comments on this subject (blacks in Mr. Brooks) from others.



You're right, however, your display does have a relatively low contrast ratio, whether you want to realize that or not. I'm not saying that your TV can't produce a great HD image, as I'm willing to bet that it can, but your display is not equipped to resolve many details from darker scenes. And I think most would agree that the most important spec on a TV isn't resolution, but contrast ratio. The difference in dark and even white detail an increased contrast ratio can make IS huge.


The higher the contrast ratio, the deeper the blacks.The higher the contrast ratio, the more amount of shades of blacks that can be displayed, that's why I can see the inconsistences more, because my display can show more shades of black. The reason you aren't seeing the inconsistences of black level is because your TV is simply converting dark colors that are very close to black (but not black) to black... Hence you don't see many of the greys like I do.


In addition, you absolutely need to make sure that your TV is capable of displaying Blacker Than Blacks, otherwise it's just going to round down dark shades of ANY color to black, and you will thus lose detail.


----------



## AlexanderG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chris0* /forum/post/13388259
> 
> 
> I'm not trying to jump in on anyone's side here, but manufacturer's posted CR ratings are more about marketing than real world experiences. If there was an agreed upon standard that everyone used for measuring CR then it might mean more, but there isn't. Besides, I don't think a high CR directly correlates to how well a set shows black details.



Correct, but that generally only applies when comparing the CRs of different manufacturer's to one another - patrick99 and I have the same manufacturer - Samsung. Comparing the labeled "marketing speak" CR of Samsung to Sharp would be like comparing Apples to Oranges, but comparing the labeled "Marketing speak" CR of Samsung to Samsung is Apples to Apples.


It's usually valid to compare the "marketing" CR numbers of Sony and Samsung with each other - But not with Sharp, who insists on using very low numbers. Most would agree the 2,000:1 CR of their Aquos models perform almost on par with 10,000:1 CRs of Samsung... However, most would not agree that 6,000:1 Samsung compares to a 15,000:1 Samsung. I can try to explain better if this isn't doing the job.


And I would totally disagree with you in saying that high CR directly correlates to how well a set shows black details.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AlexanderG* /forum/post/13388315
> 
> 
> You're right, however, your display does have a relatively low contrast ratio, whether you want to realize that or not. I'm not saying that your TV can't produce a great HD image, as I'm willing to bet that it can, but your display is not equipped to resolve many details from darker scenes. And I think most would agree that the most important spec on a TV isn't resolution, but contrast ratio. The difference in dark and even white detail an increased contrast ratio can make IS huge.
> 
> 
> The higher the contrast ratio, the deeper the blacks.The higher the contrast ratio, the more amount of shades of blacks that can be displayed, that's why I can see the inconsistences more, because my display can show more shades of black. The reason you aren't seeing the inconsistences of black level is because your TV is simply converting dark colors that are very close to black (but not black) to black... Hence you don't see many of the greys like I do.
> 
> 
> 
> In addition, you absolutely need to make sure that your TV is capable of displaying Blacker Than Blacks, otherwise it's just going to round down dark shades of ANY color to black, and you will thus lose detail.



As I have already said, I think the usefulness of this discussion would be improved if there were more than two of us participating.


As I think I have also already said, I don't really think you have sufficiently explained the concept of why "inconsistencies in black levels" is a PQ defect.


----------



## AlexanderG

I've already specifically stated that SOME (which helps make it inconsistent, because not ALL are) night time shots look grey instead of black, or in a better description, WASHED OUT, as if the brightness and/or gamma had been elevated. That is a defect. I don't know why darker shades of black looking washed out would NOT be considered a PQ defect.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AlexanderG* /forum/post/13388391
> 
> 
> I've already specifically stated that SOME (which helps make it inconsistent, because not ALL are) night time shots look grey instead of black, or in a better description, WASHED OUT, as if the brightness and/or gamma had been elevated. That is a defect. I don't know why darker shades of black looking washed out would NOT be considered a PQ defect.



I am sure that when you get your disc back and you are able to point out which scenes you have problems with, we can have a more useful discussion on this subject, hopefully with others participating.


----------



## AlexanderG

I've already pointed out though, multiple times, but you refuse to listen, that the entire movie is inconsistent, so it would be moot to point out specific scenes that I have problems with... It wouldn't just be a couple of time codes, it would be a LIST.


I've asked you a few times to read the reviews... Not one, but multiple reviews. Have you done so yet? I can understand disagreeing with a reviewer's numerical rating of the picture quality, which is subjective, but every single review mentions inconsistences with the black levels in this movie. So, please, check them out. I've asked you multiple times whether your display can properly render blacker than blacks, but you won't answer... I asked you the CR of your display, and you wouldn't answer... I'm not asking hard questions, but moreso trying to pinpoint the problem, or in this case, why you can't see the problem... But you refuse to help. But based off of the display you have, it really would seem like your display just isn't capable of rendering very deep shades of black, and you therefore don't even know the problem exists - But that doesn't mean that the problem doesn't exist.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AlexanderG* /forum/post/13388457
> 
> 
> I've already pointed out though, multiple times, but you refuse to listen, that the entire movie is inconsistent, so it would be moot to point out specific scenes that I have problems with... It wouldn't just be a couple of time codes, it would be a LIST.
> 
> 
> I've asked you a few times to read the reviews... Not one, but multiple reviews. Have you done so yet? I can understand disagreeing with a reviewer's numerical rating of the picture quality, which is subjective, but every single review mentions inconsistences with the black levels in this movie. So, please, check them out. I've asked you multiple times whether your display can properly render blacker than blacks, but you won't answer... I asked you the CR of your display, and you wouldn't answer... I'm not asking hard questions, but moreso trying to pinpoint the problem, or in this case, why you can't see the problem... But you refuse to help. But based off of the display you have, it really would seem like your display just isn't capable of rendering very deep shades of black, and you therefore don't even know the problem exists - But that doesn't mean that the problem doesn't exist.



And I have asked you multiple times to explain why the fact that different scenes look different is a PQ defect, and I don't believe that you have provided a satisfactory explanation.


I think perhaps it would be best if we gave this discussion a rest for a while.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AlexanderG* /forum/post/13388003
> 
> 
> There's nothing wrong with watching a little bit of a movie to gauge the PQ of flick.



If it's just the first few scenes you're watching, I would have to disagree with you. I have probably watched at least a dozen movies on Blu-ray and the same amount on HD DVD that started out a bit soft, but then all-of-a-sudden the WOW factor kicks in with vibrant colors jumping out at you and 3D pops with plenty of detail.


----------



## AlexanderG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13388494
> 
> 
> And I have asked you multiple times to explain why the fact that different scenes look different is a PQ defect, and I don't believe that you have provided a satisfactory explanation.
> 
> 
> I think perhaps it would be best if we gave this discussion a rest for a while.



Because NO scenes should look WASHED out, much less some scenes looking washed out and some not looking washed out... Washed out colors is by DEFINITION a defect.


----------



## AlexanderG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/13388555
> 
> 
> If it's just the first few scenes you're watching, I would have to disagree with you. I have probably watched at least a dozen movies on Blu-ray and the same amount on HD DVD that started out a bit soft, but then all-of-a-sudden the WOW factor kicks in with vibrant colors jumping out at you and 3D pops with plenty of detail.



Oh, you're absolutely right, I've had that scenario happen to me multiple times. But as long as you're adding the disclaimer along with your impressions, then there shouldn't be a problem.


----------



## 30XS955 User




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AlexanderG* /forum/post/13388663
> 
> 
> Because NO scenes should look WASHED out, much less some scenes looking washed out and some not looking washed out... Washed out colors is by DEFINITION a defect.



How do we know that the scene just doesn't have inconsistent lighting when the camera is moved around, creating the illusion that the sky is changing color. I've heard that nighttime photography is really challenging.


----------



## nohjy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *facesnorth* /forum/post/13384694
> 
> 
> That's kind of a bummer. I was hoping it would be a top tier release.



Faces:


Some are saying NCfOM is Tier 0 and don't notice the compression artifacts, but they are there and pretty bad early in the movie. They are particularly bad in scenes with the sky taking up most of the frame. While their are some issues with compression, the picture is still very good.


John


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13388494
> 
> 
> I think perhaps it would be best if we gave this discussion a rest for a while.



Can I chime in?











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AlexanderG* /forum/post/13387360
> 
> 
> There's a difference between disagreeing with the overall opinion of a professional review and saying that a specific problem that is cited in EVERY SINGLE REVIEW doesn't exist. In fact, the only people that seem to disagree with Mr. Brooks' inconsistent black levels are a couple of people on this forum, yourself being one of them.



A specific _problem_, or a specific _observation?_ It would appear to me that it is entirely possible that the varying black levels (which do exist) is something that will be bothersome to some people but not others. I have no idea whether the variance in the black levels are due to the way the film was shot or not. The bottom line, for purposes of this thread, is whether it has a negative impact on the overall picture quality. To me, there are far more scenes with great contrast and depth than the ones with the elevated black levels, and even those scenes did little to detract from the overall PQ, especially considering the superb clarity and detail.


I would be MUCH more likely to reduce the PQ ranking of Mr. Brooks if these "problem blacks" had noise or other artifacts, but they don't....at least not to my eyes.



> Quote:
> Let me ask you a question - What display do you use? I'm using a professionally calibrated 1080p LCDTV with 15,000:1 contrast ratio - While it's obviously not the best TV, I'd say I can get better black level performance than most LCDs on the market. It's well within the realm of possibility that your display can't resolve black levels as well, and thus your display merely rounds all of the black details down and you can't even see the differing black levels. Also - Are you able to correctly display BTBs and WTWs?



I know this wasn't directed at me, but....I am using a JVC RS1 (on a 9 foot wide screen) with 15,000:1 _native_ contrast ratio. Your LCD, as far as I know, does not have a native contrast ratio that high, but probably uses a dynamic iris to achieve that spec. This can have an impact on how blacks and whites are rendered. You probably already realize this though.


My projector does display BTB and WTW.


I have watched Mr. Brooks twice now, the second time paying particular attention to the contrast and black levels because of the criticisms that you mention, including the "professional reviews". I simply don't see the few scenes with elevated black levels as a problem. The overall contrast in Mr. Brooks is great. I am not going to agree with the "professional reviews" if I don't see what they are seeing as a problem. If that negatively impacts my credibility in your eyes, or the eyes of others, so be it.


This thread and its rankings of movies is obviously extremely subjective. I have no problem at all with you or others criticizing Mr. Brooks solely on the basis of the "inconsistent black levels" if you were bothered by them. That is exactly what this thread is for, and it is exactly this type of discussion that helps make this thread _more_ credible.


----------



## nohjy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13386037
> 
> 
> Glad to see someone else is noticing that compression noise that is most noticeable in the early scenes. I think high Tier 1 is too generous.



Yeah, I think those hose who are screaming for Tier 0 for NCfOM must be watching the movie with their contrast set too low. I said top of tier 1 so as not to start an argument with the zealots. That said, it does still have many scenes where the PQ is top notch.


J


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13386023
> 
> 
> I haven't watched enough of either Hitman or Sleuth to express a fully informed opinion yet, but my initial impression of both was fairly negative.



There is very little to complain about regarding Sleuth. The overall PQ looked quite impressive. Funny, I thought for sure you would like this one since it had tons of facial closeups showing every pore and eyelash of the actors. You love that ****!


----------



## AlexanderG

Well, I can't say I disagree with a single thing you've said, Rob...


There were far more scenes with great depth, contrast, and detail than with washed out blacks.


However, I believe perhaps my definition of what a Tier 0 title is may differ from yours.


I don't feel as if these black level problems are HUGE, but I feel that from the debate on this issue, I have made it seem such. I don't think the problems are huge, but I DO think a Tier 0 title should NOT have problems such as this in its transfer. Regardless of whether or not the problems are "bothersome" to some and not to others, a Tier 0 title shouldn't even have a debate regarding that.


If Mr. Brooks is Tier 0 in its current form - Where would that place Mr. Brooks in a form that had no black level problems whatsoever? That's where I'm getting at. While the Blu Ray release of it looks great, I know it can and SHOULD look better -after all, I did see it in the theater, and there were no problems with washed out blacks, and that's why I don't think it deserves Tier 0.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AlexanderG* /forum/post/13388823
> 
> 
> Well, I can't say I disagree with a single thing you've said, Rob...



Great! No further discussion necessary!


----------



## AlexanderG

Well, I did introduce the new topic of what constitutes a Tier 0 title, that perhaps needs clarification. Tier 0 leaves no room for improvement.


----------



## Rieper




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13388845
> 
> 
> Great! No further discussion necessary!



When 'Lawrence of Arabia' comes out on Blu-ray, will you crap your pants with glee???










LOL.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AlexanderG* /forum/post/13388823
> 
> 
> Well, I can't say I disagree with a single thing you've said, Rob...
> 
> 
> There were far more scenes with great depth, contrast, and detail than with washed out blacks.
> 
> 
> However, I believe perhaps my definition of what a Tier 0 title is may differ from yours.
> 
> 
> I don't feel as if these black level problems are HUGE, but I feel that from the debate on this issue, I have made it seem such. I don't think the problems are huge, but I DO think a Tier 0 title should NOT have problems such as this in its transfer. Regardless of whether or not the problems are "bothersome" to some and not to others, a Tier 0 title shouldn't even have a debate regarding that.
> 
> 
> If Mr. Brooks is Tier 0 in its current form - Where would that place Mr. Brooks in a form that had no black level problems whatsoever? That's where I'm getting at. While the Blu Ray release of it looks great, I know it can and SHOULD look better -after all, I did see it in the theater, and there were no problems with washed out blacks, and that's why I don't think it deserves Tier 0.



I would say if there are other titles that don't have any "problems" with black levels in any scenes (that will ALWAYS be debatable) then I would just place them higher in Tier 0.










Do you see any noise or artifacts in these problem dark scenes? Or is it just the elevated black levels that bother you in those few scenes?


As for the theater comparison.....well, there are many variables there, not to mention our memory retention ability for things like that. I have ZERO doubt that my BD version of Mr. Brooks looks enormously better than what I would have seen down at one of my local cineplexes.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AlexanderG* /forum/post/13388865
> 
> 
> Well, I did introduce the new topic of what constitutes a Tier 0 title, that perhaps needs clarification. Tier 0 leaves no room for improvement.



I know, I was joking. See above.


Edit: what do you mean by no room for improvement? Every single movie shot on film will ALWAYS have room for improvement of PQ in some scenes. Period.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rieper* /forum/post/13388870
> 
> 
> When 'Lawrence of Arabia' comes out on Blu-ray, will you crap your pants with glee???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.



I hope so (uh, I think). But that remains to be seen.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AlexanderG* /forum/post/13388679
> 
> 
> Oh, you're absolutely right, I've had that scenario happen to me multiple times. But as long as you're adding the disclaimer along with your impressions, then there shouldn't be a problem.



Agreed! When I responded to patrick's post I specifically said that I was glad he didn't "express a fully informed opinion yet" because I "find that the PQ gets better as the movie progresses."


----------



## AlexanderG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13388875
> 
> 
> I would say if there are other titles that don't have any "problems" with black levels in any scenes (that will ALWAYS be debatable) then I would just place them higher in Tier 0.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you see any noise or artifacts in these problem dark scenes? Or is it just the elevated black levels that bother you in those few scenes?
> 
> 
> As for the theater comparison.....well, there are many variables there, not to mention our memory retention ability for things like that. I have ZERO doubt that my BD version of Mr. Brooks looks enormously better than what I would have seen down at one of my local cineplexes.



It's mostly just the elevated washed out blacks. I can recall seeing noise in a few select scenes, but the noise issue is practically a NON-issue so it's not really even worth bringing up... Hence me not bringing up any issues about noise in the BD release.


Yeah, let's not get into the theater comparison... You're right in that there are mmmmmmanny variables... While I just cited the black levels of the theater, I'd have to agree that aside from that, the BD of Mr. Brooks is superior to my local theaters in pretty much every single other way from sharpness to stabilitiy etc. etc. and I'm sure you know exactly what I'm talking about. It's a shame, but then again, the theaters just don't get my money like they used to - So hopefully that will encourage them to try to do something about it.


----------



## AlexanderG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13388890
> 
> 
> Edit: what do you mean by no room for improvement? Every single movie shot on film will ALWAYS have room for improvement of PQ in some scenes. Period.



By no room for improvement, I mean no room for improvement on transfer quality given current limitations in technology. Sure DVD had room for improvement in terms of resolution - But that simply wasn't practical given the limitations of DVD technology. I envision Tier 0 as being the best transfer possible on Blu Ray given the technological limitations of Blu Ray and studio mastering/transfer capabilities.


EDIT: And in regards to Mr. Brooks, black level issues do not have to be an issue whatsoever given current technological limitations.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AlexanderG* /forum/post/13388944
> 
> 
> By no room for improvement, I mean no room for improvement on transfer quality given current limitations in technology. Sure DVD had room for improvement in terms of resolution - But that simply wasn't practical given the limitations of DVD technology. I envision Tier 0 as being the best transfer possible on Blu Ray given the technological limitations of Blu Ray and studio mastering/transfer capabilities.
> 
> 
> EDIT: And in regards to Mr. Brooks, black level issues do not have to be an issue whatsoever given current technological limitations.



The thing is though, I am not convinced that the few elevated black level scenes were due to the transfer, but it is possible.


----------



## AlexanderG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13389020
> 
> 
> The thing is though, I am not convinced that the few elevated black level scenes were due to the transfer, but it is possible.



Of course it's possible! It's not as if messing up black levels is an uncommon occurance when transfering titles from theatrical to home release (regardless of format whether it be DVD or BD). I mean hell, quite a few of my movies exhibit black crush and black washout that definitely were not in the theatrical presentations.


Perhaps I'm a strange guy, but after I got into Blu Ray almost two years ago and was amazed at the quality, whenever I'd go to a theater to see a flick, I'd be on the look out for visual imperfections, and take mental notes of them to compare to the eventual home release. It's not really that hard these days, with home releases coming only a few months after theatrical releases. But improper black levels isn't really a rare problem unfortunately. I think the real problem is trying to decide whether I hate black crush or black washout more.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AlexanderG* /forum/post/13388944
> 
> 
> By no room for improvement, I mean no room for improvement on transfer quality given current limitations in technology. Sure DVD had room for improvement in terms of resolution - But that simply wasn't practical given the limitations of DVD technology. I envision Tier 0 as being the best transfer possible on Blu Ray given the technological limitations of Blu Ray and studio mastering/transfer capabilities.
> 
> 
> EDIT: And in regards to Mr. Brooks, black level issues do not have to be an issue whatsoever given current technological limitations.



In addition to your theory on Tier 0... I think for something to be tier 0, it would have to be almost unanimously considered that. Obviously 90-10 would be close enough... but Brooks is lucky to have 50-50 support. Almost everyone agrees PotC 2 & 3, Crank, Black Snake Moan,Apocalypto, and The Host should be tier 0. As for some of the others, I havent seen them (iRobot, Man on Fire).. Still watching Prison Break...


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Some really cool screen caps of *I, Robot* done by Cliff in this thread:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...6#post13389586


----------



## HDphile22

WOW I just watched/rented "28 Days Later" on Blu-Ray, it's PQ is really AWFUL!!!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I just watched The Island very carefully and believe it is placed a bit too high in Tier 1. Yes the last hour or so of the movie looks very good and probably deserves its current ranking, but the first 70 minutes or so of the movie is clearly inferior to that last hour. The first part of the movie deserves no better than a low tier 1 ranking at best. Hellboy for instance consistently beats it. I will say black levels are consistently good though. I would personally rank it right in the lower middle half of tier 1 for inconsistent quality. The compressionist must have been asleep at the wheel for the first hour.


Watching on an ISFed Pioneer PDP-6010FD Kuro plasma fed by a PS3 via HDMI at 1080/24p from 6 feet away.


----------



## AfRoMaN787

just watched Dan in Real Life. This movie is definitely tier 1 material. I would place it near the bottom of tier 1. I'm viewing from a Samsung 4665 1080p Lcd


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/13390187
> 
> 
> I just watched The Island very carefully and believe it is placed a bit too high in Tier 1. Yes the last hour or so of the movie looks very good and probably deserves its current ranking, but the first 70 minutes or so of the movie is clearly inferior to that last hour. The first part of the movie deserves no better than a low tier 1 ranking at best. Hellboy for instance consistently beats it. I will say black levels are consistently good though. I would personally rank it right in the lower middle half of tier 1 for inconsistent quality. The compressionist must have been asleep at the wheel for the first hour.
> 
> 
> Watching on an ISFed Pioneer PDP-6010FD Kuro plasma fed by a PS3 via HDMI at 1080/24p from 6 feet away.



No way. The entire movie had consistent 3D pop. The Island beats Hellboy visually which is a too dark movie.


----------



## chris0

I just finished watching NCFOM again, this time trying it patrick99's way of sitting about one screen width away, which meant sitting about 4 feet away from my 58" 1080p plasma. (Not something I do regularly, my living room just isn't set up that way.) I'd recommend Tier 0, right around LFODH. It's got excellent detail in close-ups and the long shots look beautiful.


There is some noise in those first panoramic shots, but as our bit-rate conscious friend surely noticed, some of those scenes run at 30+ Mbps even with no movement in the scene. I don't think it's compression noise, I think it's just the film grain. Everything else in the movie looks absolutely gorgeous. It's got a subdued color palate, but skin-tones look spot on, as do the blood trails in the dirt, and the daylight scenes have some really nice contrast. I think any problems people have are probably more a result of the Cohens (most likely, knowing them) post-processing every frame of the film rather than the transfer itself. Although, even on the second viewing, I found it hard to pay attention to the PQ because I kept getting sucked into the movie, friendo.


Of course I'm not able to compare the original to this transfer, but I didn't see any defects in this movie that should keep it out of Tier 0.


One thing confuses me though...on the first page of this thread, in the descriptions above the movie listings themselves, it seems the difference between Tier 0 and Tier 1 is that in Tier 1 there may be artifacts that are unnoticeable to the untrained eye. The more people participate, the more untrained eyes we're going to have suggesting different Tiers. How is one to know the difference between a movie that's Tier 0 and one that's Tier 1?


1080p Panasonic 58" plasma, calibrated by Mr. Bob

normally 10 feet away, this time 4 feet away


----------



## chris0




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AlexanderG* /forum/post/13388341
> 
> 
> It's usually valid to compare the "marketing" CR numbers of Sony and Samsung with each other - But not with Sharp, who insists on using very low numbers. Most would agree the 2,000:1 CR of their Aquos models perform almost on par with 10,000:1 CRs of Samsung... However, most would not agree that 6,000:1 Samsung compares to a 15,000:1 Samsung. I can try to explain better if this isn't doing the job.
> 
> 
> And I would totally disagree with you in saying that high CR directly correlates to how well a set shows black details.



I didn't realize that you two were comparing sets from the same manufacturer. But I still don't think CR correlates directly with how well a set can display black details. All that number measures is the difference between the blackest black and the whitest white, not a measurement at all for gradations in between. That's at least as important as CR.


I'm not trying to keep this argument going, especially since it seems to have died down now, but I don't think you can say someone isn't seeing details in dark scenes simply because the CR on their set isn't X:1.


----------



## stumlad

Just watched No Country. Mid Tier 1. Some areas look really good, and some look very good. Like others have noted, sky shots show a lot of grain. There are some soft dark scenes as well. Overall a very good transfer.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chris0* /forum/post/13391079
> 
> 
> I didn't realize that you two were comparing sets from the same manufacturer. But I still don't think CR correlates directly with how well a set can display black details. All that number measures is the difference between the blackest black and the whitest white, not a measurement at all for gradations in between. That's at least as important as CR.
> 
> 
> I'm not trying to keep this argument going, especially since it seems to have died down now, but I don't think you can say someone isn't seeing details in dark scenes simply because the CR on their set isn't X:1.



I think the point he was originally making was this -- if the black level of your display isnt very black.. i.e., it's grey. Then it may be difficult to tell if a movie has contrast issues. In Mr Brooks, there are night scenes that look incorrect because they are not dark enough. If your display isnt capable of displaying deep blacks, then you wouldn't notice that it's an issue. The movie Invasion had some very similar issues.


When LCD monitors first came out (especially for laptops), the contrast ratio was so bad that dark green text was somewhat indistinguishable from black text when your viewing angle slightly changed. Stuff that was highlighted in vanilla would sometimes appear white... Obviously LCD has come a long way, but there are still only a few that have really good black levels. There still isn't anything that can truly display black yet... and most of those have dynamic contrast ratios...


As far as shadow detail, contrast ratio may not be the only factor, but for reasons mentioned above, it can play a role. Instead of the source having "black crush", it's the display that does it.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/13389312
> 
> 
> Almost everyone agrees PotC 2 & 3, Crank, Black Snake Moan,Apocalypto, and The Host should be tier 0. As for some of the others, I havent seen them (iRobot, Man on Fire).. Still watching Prison Break...



No, almost everybody doesn't. There was and sometimes still is debate about Crank, Apocalypto and PotC 2. And even The Host didn't make Tier 0 until a couple of weeks ago.


I disagree with your assessment of what Tier 0 should require as well. I think it should just take a weighted majority.


Brandon


----------



## lgans316

There has been so many posts to judge the placement for NCFOM. Though I don't own this title it's getting tired to see so many posts and debates without proper conclusion. It's better to conduct OPINION POLLS on select and controversial titles to judge the tier placement. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## chris0




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/13391263
> 
> 
> I think the point he was originally making was this -- if the black level of your display isnt very black...



It wasn't my display he was talking about, it was patrick99's.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13391277
> 
> 
> There has been so many posts to judge the placement for NCFOM. Though I don't own this title it's getting tired to see so many posts and debates without proper conclusion. It's better to conduct OPINION POLLS on select and controversial titles to judge the tier placement. Just my 2 cents.



Since I'm a little confused about the difference between Tiers 0 and 1, and I admittedly don't have a "trained eye," I'd be happy with either, but I think it looks as good as LFODH. IMHO it's grain not compression noise that's seen, and then it boils down to that age old argument about grain.


And wasn't there just recently a call out for more participation in this thread?


----------



## lgans316

Created OPINION POLL thread for NCFOM. Please cast your vote.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1008141


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chris0* /forum/post/13391314
> 
> 
> It wasn't my display he was talking about, it was patrick99's.



... bad wording on my part...I should have said "if one's display" rather than "if your". I've never seen that TV in person, so I can't comment on it.


----------



## Xylon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/13389312
> 
> *Almost everyone agrees PotC 2 & 3, Crank, Black Snake Moan,Apocalypto, and The Host should be tier 0.*



Uh no


----------



## lgans316

POTC 2 & 3 on Tier 0 = NO. Just my opinion.


----------



## Xylon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13391529
> 
> 
> POTC 2 & 3 on Tier 0 = NO. *Just my opinion.*



It doesn't count


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13388738
> 
> *Can I chime in?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A specific _problem_, or a specific _observation?_ It would appear to me that it is entirely possible that the varying black levels (which do exist) is something that will be bothersome to some people but not others. I have no idea whether the variance in the black levels are due to the way the film was shot or not. The bottom line, for purposes of this thread, is whether it has a negative impact on the overall picture quality. To me, there are far more scenes with great contrast and depth than the ones with the elevated black levels, and even those scenes did little to detract from the overall PQ, especially considering the superb clarity and detail.
> 
> 
> I would be MUCH more likely to reduce the PQ ranking of Mr. Brooks if these "problem blacks" had noise or other artifacts, but they don't....at least not to my eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know this wasn't directed at me, but....I am using a JVC RS1 (on a 9 foot wide screen) with 15,000:1 _native_ contrast ratio. Your LCD, as far as I know, does not have a native contrast ratio that high, but probably uses a dynamic iris to achieve that spec. This can have an impact on how blacks and whites are rendered. You probably already realize this though.
> 
> 
> My projector does display BTB and WTW.
> 
> 
> I have watched Mr. Brooks twice now, the second time paying particular attention to the contrast and black levels because of the criticisms that you mention, including the "professional reviews". *I simply don't see the few scenes with elevated black levels as a problem.* The overall contrast in Mr. Brooks is great. I am not going to agree with the "professional reviews" if I don't see what they are seeing as a problem. If that negatively impacts my credibility in your eyes, or the eyes of others, so be it.
> 
> 
> This thread and its rankings of movies is obviously extremely subjective. I have no problem at all with you or others criticizing Mr. Brooks solely on the basis of the "inconsistent black levels" if you were bothered by them. That is exactly what this thread is for, and it is exactly this type of discussion that helps make this thread _more_ credible.



I am sure that you will not be surprised that I welcome your participation in this discussion, Rob.










Particularly since your participation seems to have helped give a more precise definition to the "black level" issue that AlexanderG is troubled by.


It now appears that the "problem" is not "wildly inconsistent black levels" that are manifested in scenes too numerous to identify, but rather "washed-out blacks" in a small number of scenes.


I think the next step is for someone to identify which scenes those are (since it is a small number, that should not be too hard) so that we can all consider whether we agree that these scenes show "washed-out blacks," and if they do, whether it it likely that this effect was intended by the director and DP, and if so, whether such an intended effect (if it was) should be considered a PQ defect.


Any comments on this as a procedure to follow?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13389745
> 
> 
> Some really cool screen caps of *I, Robot* done by Cliff in this thread:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...6#post13389586



Thanks for that link, Rob!










Those shot do a very good job of duplicating my viewing experience. The only shots that look truly outstanding there (and on my display) are the extreme close-ups of WS lying in bed. My recollection is that those shots don't require a very high bitrate in light of extremeness of the close-up or the fact that the pillow in the background is properly slightly out of focus. The other shots of people show the very slight softness that I see on my display; the only thing that these screenshots don't capture (not surprisingly) is the slight swimming or swarming effect that is visible on faces in many of the shots.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13392253
> 
> 
> I am sure that you will not be surprised that I welcome your participation in this discussion, Rob.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Particularly since your participation seems to have helped give a more precise definition to the "black level" issue that AlexanderG is troubled by.
> 
> 
> It now appears that the "problem" is not "wildly inconsistent black levels" that are manifested in scenes too numerous to identify, but rather "washed-out blacks" in a small number of scenes.
> 
> 
> I think the next step is for someone to identify which scenes those are (since it is a small number, that should not be too hard) so that we can all consider whether we agree that these scenes show "washed-out blacks," and if they do, whether it it likely that this effect was intended by the director and DP, and if so, whether such an intended effect (if it was) should be considered a PQ defect.
> 
> 
> Any comments on this as a procedure to follow?



Since I have watched Mr. Brooks for the second time now, I really don't have any interest myself in going back to look for timecodes for those few scenes (especially since I am not one who is bothered by it).











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13392317
> 
> 
> Thanks for that link, Rob!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those shot do a very good job of duplicating my viewing experience. The only shots that look truly outstanding there (and on my display) are the extreme close-ups of WS lying in bed. My recollection is that those shots don't require a very high bitrate in light of extremeness of the close-up or the fact that the pillow in the background is properly slightly out of focus. The other shots of people show the very slight softness that I see on my display; the only thing that these screenshots don't capture (not surprisingly) is the slight swimming or swarming effect that is visible on faces in many of the shots.



I think all those shots look great. I don't see any softness on my display. I also absolutely do not see any "swarming effect" at all, in any scene.


Are you really viewing at 3 feet?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13393318
> 
> 
> Since I have watched Mr. Brooks for the second time now, I really don't have any interest myself in going back to look for timecodes for those few scenes (especially since I am not one who is bothered by it).



Yes, I think the person who *is* bothered has the burden of identifying those scenes.












> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13393318
> 
> 
> I think all those shots look great. I don't see any softness on my display. I also absolutely do not see any "swarming effect" at all, in any scene.



I will be interested to hear if anybody else has the same slight reservations I do. Don't get me wrong, I think this is Tier 0 in spite of what I am seeing. I just suspect it could have looked just a bit better.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13393318
> 
> 
> Are you really viewing at 3 feet?



Indeed I am.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AfRoMaN787* /forum/post/13390686
> 
> 
> just watched Dan in Real Life. This movie is definitely tier 1 material. I would place it near the bottom of tier 1. I'm viewing from a Samsung 4665 1080p Lcd



I found the PQ on this so soft that I shut if off after about five minutes. And no, I am not prepared to watch any more of this in order to have a better basis for judgment.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chris0* /forum/post/13391005
> 
> 
> I just finished watching NCFOM again, this time trying it patrick99's way of sitting about one screen width away, which meant sitting about 4 feet away from my 58" 1080p plasma. (Not something I do regularly, my living room just isn't set up that way.) I'd recommend Tier 0, right around LFODH. It's got excellent detail in close-ups and the long shots look beautiful.
> 
> *There is some noise in those first panoramic shots, but as our bit-rate conscious friend surely noticed, some of those scenes run at 30+ Mbps even with no movement in the scene. I don't think it's compression noise, I think it's just the film grain.* Everything else in the movie looks absolutely gorgeous. It's got a subdued color palate, but skin-tones look spot on, as do the blood trails in the dirt, and the daylight scenes have some really nice contrast. I think any problems people have are probably more a result of the Cohens (most likely, knowing them) post-processing every frame of the film rather than the transfer itself. Although, even on the second viewing, I found it hard to pay attention to the PQ because I kept getting sucked into the movie, friendo.
> 
> 
> Of course I'm not able to compare the original to this transfer, but I didn't see any defects in this movie that should keep it out of Tier 0.
> 
> 
> One thing confuses me though...on the first page of this thread, in the descriptions above the movie listings themselves, it seems the difference between Tier 0 and Tier 1 is that in Tier 1 there may be artifacts that are unnoticeable to the untrained eye. The more people participate, the more untrained eyes we're going to have suggesting different Tiers. How is one to know the difference between a movie that's Tier 0 and one that's Tier 1?
> 
> 
> 1080p Panasonic 58" plasma, calibrated by Mr. Bob
> 
> normally 10 feet away, this time 4 feet away



Although the movie does indeed have bitrates in the thirties later on, I don't recall seeing that type of bitrate in those early scenes, and that is precisely what I think the problem is with those scenes. Those panoramic shots needed higher bitrates to do them justice, even without a lot of movement.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/13391226
> 
> 
> Just watched No Country. Mid Tier 1. Some areas look really good, and some look very good. Like others have noted, sky shots show a lot of grain. There are some soft dark scenes as well. Overall a very good transfer.



I agree with that placement. Although most of the early scenes have problems, many later scenes look excellent. Just about every shot of TLJ's face looks great.


----------



## chris0




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13393666
> 
> 
> Although the movie does indeed have bitrates in the thirties later on, I don't recall seeing that type of bitrate in those early scenes, and that is precisely what I think the problem is with those scenes. Those panoramic shots needed higher bitrates to do them justice, even without a lot of movement.



Check it again. Most are 20-25ish, but some are 30+ and still have what some are describing as "compression noise."


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13393637
> 
> 
> I found the PQ on this so soft that I shut if off after about five minutes. And no, I am not prepared to watch any more of this in order to have a better basis for judgment.



At the risk of being accused of "picking on you" or "beating a dead horse," I must repeat myself and say that MANY titles start off soft and then after 15-20 minutes the WOW factor kicks in. I'm not defending this particular title, but I do believe one needs to watch more than 5 minutes of a movie before they "rush to judgment" and condemn the PQ.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/13395558
> 
> 
> At the risk of being accused of "picking on you" or "beating a dead horse," I must repeat myself and say that MANY titles start off soft and then after 15-20 minutes the WOW factor kicks in. I'm not defending this particular title, but I do believe one needs to watch more than 5 minutes of a movie before they "rush to judgment" and condemn the PQ.



I'll agree with that. Live Free or Die Hard starts off as a Tier 1 title for about the first 25% of the movie and then for the rest of the movie becomes much sharper and basically Tier 0 quality. My guess is that the compressionists are guessing at the beginning of the movie what levels to encode the movie at and adjust as the movie goes on. Because I almost never see a movie do the reverse where the beginning looks great and the ending looks worse. This is a systematic result of the encoding process and should be carefully watched when evaluating picture quality and Tier level.


----------



## Vampyro

Great Picture overall, I have a SXRD and must say I dont get how people can say the picture is soft...One caveat I have in the PQ is the gradient I noticed when Brolin looks over his shoulder at his truck at the light coming from the headlights, there is a gradient in the light if look close...


----------



## DavidHir

I watched *Basic Instinct* tonight. It's fairly soft and not very detailed; it appears some noise reduction/filtering was done (something Lionsgate has done with other titles) as some scenes have a bit of a plastic look to it without some of the finer detail you'd expect to see even in an early 90's catalog title. Some scenes occasionally do look better than others, but all in all the scenes are somewhat consistent. This is not a bad looking movie really as part of the effect is the way the movie was shot - many of the indoor scenes are a bit subdued with a slight brownish tint to them. Outdoor scenes have pretty good contrast, but I did notice a few hints of EE, but nothing too bad really. Black levels were pretty good and some of the shadow detail wasn't too bad really. Right now it's in low Tier 3, but I think it probably belongs in mid to high Tier 4.


Oh, the infamous Sharon Stone shot did have benefit being in HD - no question.


----------



## grommet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/13395804
> 
> 
> My guess is that the compressionists are guessing at the beginning of the movie what levels to encode the movie at and adjust as the movie goes on. Because I almost never see a movie do the reverse where the beginning looks great and the ending looks worse. This is a systematic result of the encoding process and should be carefully watched when evaluating picture quality and Tier level.



I'm honestly tiring of all this back seat compressionist conjecture in this thread. (I'm really trying to limit my off-topic commenting, but it's getting hard.) The advanced codec compression process does not work that way.










I realize many people will never believe it, but overall picture quality is rarely if ever impacted by the compressionist. If you see honest compression artifacts on a correctly calibrated set in a specific sequence, sure... it's possible they didn't do their job and catch the flaw and correct it. But they are not responsible for making the whole movie look a certain way (grainy, sharp, soft, blurry, whatever, etc.)... or making the "first 25%" have less PQ like Phantom commented about Live Free.


Anyway, my real point:


Let's try to keep this thread focused on it's topic. The perceived PQ based mostly on the factors as described in the first post. I find the random conjecture on "why" wasteful here. Now, if you have access to the specific master or were the actual compressionist... feel free to post.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *grommet* /forum/post/13396805
> 
> 
> I'm honestly tiring of all this back seat compressionist conjecture in this thread. (I'm really trying to limit my off-topic commenting, but it's getting hard.) The advanced codec compression process does not work that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I realize many people will never believe it, but overall picture quality is rarely if ever impacted by the compressionist. If you see honest compression artifacts on a correctly calibrated set in a specific sequence, sure... it's possible they didn't do their job and catch the flaw and correct it. But they are not responsible for making the whole movie look a certain way (grainy, sharp, soft, blurry, whatever, etc.)... or making the "first 25%" have less PQ like Phantom commented about Live Free.
> 
> 
> Anyway, my real point:
> 
> 
> Let's try to keep this thread focused on it's topic. The perceived PQ based mostly on the factors as described in the first post. I find the random conjecture on "why" wasteful here. Now, if you have access to the specific master or were the actual compressionist... feel free to post.



I personally don't consider your post "off topic" much at all, and I am glad you posted.


I assume then that you would say that lower bitrates will not make a frame look "soft"? What would the result be of using lower bitrates?


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *grommet* /forum/post/13396805
> 
> 
> Let's try to keep this thread focused on it's topic. The perceived PQ based mostly on the factors as described in the first post. I find the random conjecture on "why" wasteful here. Now, if you have access to the specific master or were the actual compressionist... feel free to post.



I just have noticed certain patterns with HD movies so far. It may not be the compressionist at all but something upstream like the people who create the master or even how certain shots were originally filmed. I realize not every scene is shot the exact same way and thus some material may vary within a movie. In all honesty the difference between tier 0 and tier 1 material is very small in real world terms.


----------



## lgans316

+1. If you listen to the commentaries on Sahara (HD DVD) and Ocean's Trilogy (Blu-ray) you can find out what the film makers are trying to capture. To me Sahara 18 Mbps ABR VC-1 looks superior and detailed than POTC-3.


----------



## 30XS955 User




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13397088
> 
> 
> +1. If you listen to the commentaries on Sahara (HD DVD) and Ocean's Trilogy (Blu-ray) you can find out what the film makers are trying to capture. To me Sahara 18 Mbps ABR VC-1 looks superior and detailed than POTC-3.



That's fine. I've only watched PotC-2 on BD, but I found that the images had much more 3D pop than Sahara on HD DVD. This PotC title was actually the first one I saw that was so detailed and sharp that I believed a 2D image could look 3D.


IMO Sahara is still a low tier1 or high tier2, which is pretty good actually.


----------



## bplewis24

Well, since my copy of Rescue Dawn never came from Netflix this weekend (it was supposed to be here Saturday







), I watched No Country for Old Men instead tonight.


My initial impressions through the first 30 minutes were that I could see the noise/grain in the panoramic shots that has been discussed. I didn't feel it distracted from image quality enough to really call it a flaw, as the other parts in the scenes were low Tier 0 or high Tier 1 material. Throughout the middle passages things take place mostly at night, and this film holds up very well. Through this point I was still teetering between top of Tier 1 or bottom of Tier 0.


The last 30 minutes or so of the film sold it on Tier 0 for me. There is very high quality Tier 0 material throughout the last fourth of the movie, most of it centering on the character of Tommy Lee Jones. Flesh tones are excellent throughout the movie, hues always seem spot on and the detail really pops in the last section of the movie, even more than it did before that point. I especially like the scene where Chigur is driving down the street right near the end of the movie. The detail on the trees, street, lights, etc is excellent.


All in all, this is a fantastic presentation that, while not perfect, seems Tier 0 worthy to me. I would place it above Fantastic Four and below Black Snake Moan. It is also a very good movie, btw.


PS3->1080p24->46XBR4 (8 feet)


Brandon


----------



## alexg75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *grommet* /forum/post/13396805
> 
> 
> I'm honestly tiring of all this back seat compressionist conjecture in this thread. (I'm really trying to limit my off-topic commenting, but it's getting hard.) The advanced codec compression process does not work that way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I realize many people will never believe it, but overall picture quality is rarely if ever impacted by the compressionist. If you see honest compression artifacts on a correctly calibrated set in a specific sequence, sure... it's possible they didn't do their job and catch the flaw and correct it. But they are not responsible for making the whole movie look a certain way (grainy, sharp, soft, blurry, whatever, etc.)... or making the "first 25%" have less PQ like Phantom commented about Live Free.
> 
> 
> Anyway, my real point:
> 
> 
> Let's try to keep this thread focused on it's topic. The perceived PQ based mostly on the factors as described in the first post. I find the random conjecture on "why" wasteful here. Now, if you have access to the specific master or were the actual compressionist... feel free to post.



+1

I completely and totally agree........


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/13395804
> 
> 
> I'll agree with that. *Live Free or Die Hard starts off as a Tier 1 title for about the first 25% of the movie and then for the rest of the movie becomes much sharper and basically Tier 0 quality.* My guess is that the compressionists are guessing at the beginning of the movie what levels to encode the movie at and adjust as the movie goes on. Because I almost never see a movie do the reverse where the beginning looks great and the ending looks worse. This is a systematic result of the encoding process and should be carefully watched when evaluating picture quality and Tier level.



I agree with that observation about DH 4. However, I think Silver Surfer is a counter-example. The PQ is better at the beginning and gets somewhat worse later on. But Dan in Real Life is not in anything like the same league as those two.


----------



## lgans316

+1. The initial sequences on FF2 were solid but the PQ dropped especially on low light scenes and the final chase sequence.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13397967
> 
> 
> +1. The initial sequences on FF2 were solid but the PQ dropped especially on low light scenes and the final chase sequence.



And both in the case of DH 4 and in the case of Silver Surfer, the variation in PQ levels over the course of the movie correlates to a variation in bitrate levels. . .


----------



## kasbane

I just noticed The Warriors was pretty high up in Tier 1, above some great looking titles. I have it on dvd but it's crappy looking. If it is this good I may have to double dip since I love it so much.


----------



## briankmonkey

1 vote for putting Ocean's 13 at or near the bottom of the barrel, if it isn't there already.


----------



## SuprSlow

This week's releases:
*I Am Legend* Video: VC-1 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.35:1 | Warner
*Enchanted* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.35:1 | Disney


----------



## Pete

I'm sure this question must have been asked before, but I'm too lazy to read through 110 pages. My question is this: Why is animation included in with regular movies? Shouldn't the form have its own rankings? Animation -- especially modern animation -- allways looks pretty good. There's no way to judge it against the really good skin tones, lush natural colors, clean artifact-free edges, or grain-free detail of a superlative real-life film transfer.


----------



## 30XS955 User




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pete* /forum/post/13402860
> 
> 
> I'm sure this question must have been asked before, but I'm too lazy to read through 110 pages. My question is this: Why is animation included in with regular movies? Shouldn't the form have its own rankings? Animation -- especially modern animation -- allways looks pretty good. There's no way to judge it against the really good skin tones, lush natural colors, clean artifact-free edges, or grain-free detail of a superlative real-life film transfer.



I agree completely. I'll even go so far as to say that some of the supposed "tier 0" animation titles would be embarrassing to show off.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Xylon* /forum/post/13391462
> 
> 
> Uh no



Yeah -- I seemed to get that answer already







Oh well... I still believe all of those look better than Mr Brooks. What do you think of it?


Which then begs the question... how exactly is something a candidate for Tier 0 status?


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kasbane* /forum/post/13399334
> 
> 
> I just noticed The Warriors was pretty high up in Tier 1, above some great looking titles. I have it on dvd but it's crappy looking. If it is this good I may have to double dip since I love it so much.



This is one of the better looking old titles available on the HD formats, imo. It looks quite good, much better than a standard DVD.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I hadn't really noticed that with Fantastic Four 2 but I haven't seen it since it first came out on Blu-ray. I'll have to rewatch it sometime. I watched Sunshine recently and agree with its current ranking. Another excellent Fox encode, though the bitrates seem to jump around a little more than some of their other titles. I doubt this title could look any better.


----------



## djoberg

I just finished watching *30 Days of Night* and I would agree with the current Tier 1 ranking, though I wouldn't have a problem moving it up a few notches. Flesh tones were spot on, and the detail was quite impressive, especially for so many dark scenes.


I would also agree with the member who praised the audio track on this title; the Dolby TrueHD came through brilliantly on every scream and decapitation!! I must say this was one riveting horror flick.


----------



## lgans316

Re-watched Resident Evil : Extinction yesterday night on a pitch black room,

It needs to be placed below Ghost Rider. The sharpness and depth was there only in few scenes especially where the backdrops are filled with some characters/objects. The dark scenes looked murky and sometimes didn't exhibit the sharpness that was present in RE-1.

On the second viewing the quality seems to be slightly inferior for a Sony release though the bit rates were in the upper 20s.

Resident Evil needs to be placed above RE:Extinction.


----------



## Desert Pilot

Spiderman 3


I agree that this movie should remain in Tier 0. It is a superb Blu Ray for both PQ and AQ. I used the UNCOMPRESSED PCM and the sound was awesome. This will certainly be a reference disk in my collection.


Marcus


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13405369
> 
> 
> Re-watched Resident Evil : Extinction yesterday night on a pitch black room,
> 
> It needs to be placed below Ghost Rider. The sharpness and depth was there only in few scenes especially where the backdrops are filled with some characters/objects. The dark scenes looked murky and sometimes didn't exhibit the sharpness that was present in RE-1.
> 
> On the second viewing the quality seems to be slightly inferior for a Sony release though the bit rates were in the upper 20s.
> 
> Resident Evil needs to be placed above RE:Extinction.



I agree with most of this with the caveat being I haven't seen Resident Evil 1 so I'm not making any comparative judgements, just agreeing with the description of Resident Evil: Extinction. I originally voted for Mid Tier 2, which seems to be where lgans suggests it be placed.


Brandon


----------



## stumlad

Watched Gattaca. I would rate it as lower tier 2 material. It looks good, but it seems there is some EE, and even with that, it's not very sharp.... There's nothing very "WOW" about it in general. Awesome movie though.


As for Resident Evil 1. I am going to re-check this out. I remember switching back and forth between blu and the superbit version, and didnt feel it was as huge an upgrade as some of the reviewers said. With that in mind, it was probably better than Gattaca.


----------



## facesnorth




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briankmonkey* /forum/post/13400127
> 
> 
> 1 vote for putting Ocean's 13 at or near the bottom of the barrel, if it isn't there already.



I think that's how the movie was intended to be done, though...


----------



## lgans316

Ocean's 11 - Middle of Tier-2

Ocean's 12 & 13 - Bottom of Tier-2 with O13 on top of O12.


PQ looked fine to me as it faithfully represented Soderbergh's intentions and the theatrical presentation. I request the grain haters to first listen to the audio commentaries before coming to a conclusion.


IMHO I would place these titles on top of Tier-2 but with reference to the other titles and to save my face in this FORUM I recommend Mid and Bottom of Tier-2 placements.


----------



## maverick0716

Watched Hitman tonight. It has pretty damn good picture quality overall. I didn't really see anything that was bad in any way.....well maybe a couple scenes had some lighter black levels. The detail was good, with nice solid colour thoughout. I'd put this one in upper Tier 2.


42" Panasonic Plasma (768p)

PS3 though HDMI

6-7 ft. viewing distance.


----------



## DavidHir

I watched *Wall Street* last night. Given this movie was filmed on 80s filmstock as well as the duller, flatter, gray look of the film, this has never looked great nor ever will. With that said, this is the best I've ever seen it. What I noticed as far as improvements are more natural color rendition and somewhat more resolution and sharpness. Film grain is quite noticable throughout the movie and some shots are softer than others. I would say this is a low Tier 4 title.


----------



## briankmonkey




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *facesnorth* /forum/post/13406156
> 
> 
> I think that's how the movie was intended to be done, though...



Could be, I didn't watch it in the theater so I have nothing to compare it to aside from other blu-ray titles. Got through a bit more last night. Maybe I was a bit harsh as some shots are ok. Still quite a few shots have a lot of ugly macroblocking and other noise.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13406183
> 
> 
> Ocean's 11 - Middle of Tier-2
> 
> Ocean's 12 & 13 - Bottom of Tier-2 with O13 on top of O12.
> 
> 
> PQ looked fine to me as it faithfully represented Soderbergh's intentions and the theatrical presentation. I request the grain haters to first listen to the audio commentaries before coming to a conclusion.
> 
> 
> IMHO I would place these titles on top of Tier-2 but with reference to the other titles and to save my face in this FORUM I recommend Mid and Bottom of Tier-2 placements.



I disagree with the notion that commentary should have an impact on PQ judgement. IMO, these should be absolute rankings that stand on their own. There shouldn't be curves used to grade titles from the 70s, or used to grade movies with heavily stylized director's intent, etc.


If the director intended to induce filters or go for a look that stifles fine detail then by his own admission he's sacrificing PQ for his intended style, so there's grounds to lower the PQ ranking in a PQ Tier Thread.


That doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with the movie or that you're necessarily making a judgment about the director's styling. In fact I would think that a director would take note of the fact that his intended effect hit the mark and made an impact on the viewer...because after all that's what he was going for.


Brandon


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13408755
> 
> 
> I disagree with the notion that commentary should have an impact on PQ judgement. IMO, these should be absolute rankings that stand on their own. There shouldn't be curves used to grade titles from the 70s, or used to grade movies with heavily stylized director's intent, etc.
> 
> 
> If the director intended to induce filters or go for a look that stifles fine detail then by his own admission he's sacrificing PQ for his intended style, so there's grounds to lower the PQ ranking in a PQ Tier Thread.
> 
> 
> That doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with the movie or that you're necessarily making a judgment about the director's styling. In fact I would think that a director would take note of the fact that his intended effect hit the mark and made an impact on the viewer...because after all that's what he was going for.
> 
> 
> Brandon



+1


Well said!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I agree also. These rankings should not reflect director's intent but the absolute picture quality of each movie ranked against each other. Some movies because of the way they were shot can never be ranked very high. 28 Days Later might be the only movie we have on BD that is identical to the original master, but I don't see anyone clamoring to put that at the top of tier 0.


I watched "I Am Legend" today, the theatrical version. The source is very clean and for the most part the movie has minimal grain(so grain haters will really like the way it looks). Unfortunately it is not quite as sharp as the tier 0 titles. I will not call it soft but it comes close at times. Black levels are good but not great. It's a typical HD DVD limited VC-1 encode by Warner with bitrates averaging 15 Mbps, though a few action scenes average around 20 Mbps. I would place it firmly in tier 1 somewhere but I imagine some are going to push it for tier 0. I was a little disappointed considering some early reviews were calling it flawless.


60" Pioneer Kuro Plasma at 1080p/24 via PS3 at approximately 5-6 feet.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TREVLAN* /forum/post/13384376
> 
> 
> watched Enchanted ,
> 
> PS3 via HDMI to an Anthem AVM50 , viewed on a XBR-60SXRD Calibrated sitting around 8ft away.
> 
> colors are stunning and overall great picture with quite a bit of pop. tier 1 or better IMO.
> 
> 
> Sorry guys 1st time posted in this thread, hope I did it right.
> 
> 
> p.s. whats up Rob T? my Anthem friend.



It seems you were the first to post about this title, so I wanted to chip in my opinion. I watched tonight and this really is a fantastic presentation. The movie starts out with window-boxed 2-d animation that's fine, and then transitions into a widescreen live-action movie. The colors really really pop on this movie, and they don't ever seem oversaturated or enhanced, until the final 15 minutes or so when the lighting changes for the ballroom scene, but those could just be filters.


I thought the depth was definitely there in the transfer, even if it doesn't have the fine detail all the time like some of the Tier 0 films. All in all I thought it was a high Tier 1 title. That seems to be going slightly against the grain (no pun), as most are giving this 5 stars or Tier 0 type commentary for PQ. IMO it just didn't pop with detail and depth as much as some of the Tier 0 movies, but the print looks impeccable and it really is a beautiful film to watch in terms of the color palette.


I was surprised to find that by the midway point I started to like the movie, as I didn't at first. So it turned out to be a worthy rental after all. High Tier 1 for me, maybe at the very top, agreeing with my friend above. I may get a chance to watch Rescue Dawn tonight to see how that compares, which is already high Tier 1 apparenty.


PS3->1080p24->46XBR4 (8ft)


Brandon


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*XXX*


Wow. I guess Sony didn't know how to encode Blu-ray movies when they released this one. Noise galore in dark scenes. Flat image overall.


I agree with Tier 4 placement.


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13414566
> 
> 
> I may get a chance to watch Rescue Dawn tonight to see how that compares, which is already high Tier 1 apparenty.



I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this one. I'm in the middle of it now, and was surprised to see it listed in Tier 1. It's a fantasic presentation, and from what I've seen, worthy of Tier 0.


I'll need to re-read the past discussion on this and see why it's in Tier 1. I should probably finish the movie, too


----------



## chris0




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/13412060
> 
> 
> I watched "I Am Legend" today, the theatrical version. The source is very clean and for the most part the movie has minimal grain(so grain haters will really like the way it looks). Unfortunately it is not quite as sharp as the tier 0 titles. I will not call it soft but it comes close at times. Black levels are good but not great. It's a typical HD DVD limited VC-1 encode by Warner with bitrates averaging 15 Mbps, though a few action scenes average around 20 Mbps. I would place it firmly in tier 1 somewhere but I imagine some are going to push it for tier 0. I was a little disappointed considering some early reviews were calling it flawless.



I just watched this today, too, and I could go for Tier 1. I wouldn't say it's got flaws, I saw no noise or banding or any inconsistencies in color or shading, but it is definitely not as sharp as Black Snake Moan or the POTC movies. I'd guess it was done that way so the CGI wouldn't stand out and look artificial.


I'd put it right around Fifth Element in Tier 1.


58" Panasonic pz700u, PS3 @ 9'


----------



## SteelSD

*I am Legend*


Man, is this one difficult to place. In most scenes, it's Tier 0 at least on par with Live Free or Die Hard and, at times, it's the equal of any live action film I've seen on Blu Ray. But at other times (flashback sequences) the picture appears a bit soft and the CGI certainly suffers from motion blur. However, if we're including director's intent and PQ consistency versus the theatrical version in our analysis, then we need to place this film at least as high as Live Free or Die Hard as potentially higher than Apocalypto.


I'd disagree with the perfect PQ ratings this film seems to be receiving at the moment, but it's certainly Tier 0. But where in Tier 0 should it be placed? I'd welcome more feedback.


Viewed on calibrated Samsung LNT-4066F via PS3 at 24fps from 7 feet away.


----------



## maverick0716

Watched this one tonight so I thought I'd share my opinion. I was expecting greatness and wasn't disappointed. Very, very good video transfer and I didn't notice any flaws other than some black crush, which may have been intentional. Sharpness was awesome. I'd definitly agree with a Tier 0 rating.


42" Panasonic Plasma (768p)

PS3 though HDMI

6-7 ft.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/13414704
> 
> 
> I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this one. I'm in the middle of it now, and was surprised to see it listed in Tier 1. It's a fantasic presentation, and from what I've seen, worthy of Tier 0.
> 
> 
> I'll need to re-read the past discussion on this and see why it's in Tier 1. I should probably finish the movie, too



I finished this movie not too long ago. I too felt I should do some background reading on the discussion of it since it came out a while ago. But first I wanted to watch it through without being influenced.


My initial impressions--other than the first 5 minutes or so which is showing old footage--is that this is a highly impressive title. In fact I was shocked at how good it looked, considering I hadn't heard much about the movie nor did I remember much discussion about the PQ. The only issues I noticed were some spikes in grain here and there and some out of focus shots on some wide pans, but the latter seemed to be intentional, and very infrequent.


Other than those minor things, this little gem snuck up on me in terms of the PQ. The detail in the jungle was incredible, as were facial close-ups and even macro shots of several people on-screen at once showed tremendous amounts of sharp detail. The jungle was colorful as could be and there seemed to be a great amount of depth to it. *I believe this movie belongs in Tier 0*.


Now I see that it was in Tier 0 before being moved down, although I didn't see a lot of reasons given for why. High Tier 1, where it's at now, is no slouch, but I believe this is deserving of the bottom of Tier 0, and to bring this back to my earlier post, Enchanted should take the spot at the top of Tier 1.


I figure I may be in the minority on Enchanted being Tier 1, but I believe Rescue Dawn to be the superior of the two, so if they are both in Tier 0 ultimately I think Rescue Dawn should be above it.


PS3->1080p24->46XBR4 (8 ft)


Brandon


----------



## lgans316

I recommend Hostel - 1 (U.S - Director's cut) for placement in between top and mid of Tier-3.


Overall PQ is quite decent and there ain't any signs of bit rate starvation.


However white specks becomes noticeable and distracting in few scenes and the film intentionally takes a desaturated and dark look on the second half. The outdoor scenes didn't exhibit the three dimensionality that is often seen in many top tier titles.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13414566
> 
> 
> It seems you were the first to post about this title, so I wanted to chip in my opinion. I watched tonight and this really is a fantastic presentation. The movie starts out with window-boxed 2-d animation that's fine, and then transitions into a widescreen live-action movie. The colors really really pop on this movie, and they don't ever seem oversaturated or enhanced, until the final 15 minutes or so when the lighting changes for the ballroom scene, but those could just be filters.
> 
> 
> I thought the depth was definitely there in the transfer, even if it doesn't have the fine detail all the time like some of the Tier 0 films. All in all I thought it was a high Tier 1 title. That seems to be going slightly against the grain (no pun), as most are giving this 5 stars or Tier 0 type commentary for PQ. IMO it just didn't pop with detail and depth as much as some of the Tier 0 movies, but the print looks impeccable and it really is a beautiful film to watch in terms of the color palette.
> 
> 
> I was surprised to find that by the midway point I started to like the movie, as I didn't at first. So it turned out to be a worthy rental after all. High Tier 1 for me, maybe at the very top, agreeing with my friend above. I may get a chance to watch Rescue Dawn tonight to see how that compares, which is already high Tier 1 apparenty.
> 
> 
> PS3->1080p24->46XBR4 (8ft)
> 
> 
> Brandon



I'm really feeling like Will Smith in I, Robot with his views about robots so much at variance with those of everyone else.


My view of Enchanted's PQ: I was not enchanted. Softness, compression noise. Tier 2.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/13412060
> 
> 
> 
> I watched "I Am Legend" today, the theatrical version. The source is very clean and for the most part the movie has minimal grain(so grain haters will really like the way it looks). *Unfortunately it is not quite as sharp as the tier 0 titles. I will not call it soft but it comes close at times.* Black levels are good but not great. *It's a typical HD DVD limited VC-1 encode by Warner with bitrates averaging 15 Mbps, though a few action scenes average around 20 Mbps. I would place it firmly in tier 1 somewhere but I imagine some are going to push it for tier 0. I was a little disappointed considering some early reviews were calling it flawless.*
> 
> 
> 60" Pioneer Kuro Plasma at 1080p/24 via PS3 at approximately 5-6 feet.




If this isn't soft I don't know what is. Tier 0? You're joking. Tier 1? Not to me. Tier 3.


----------



## lgans316

So are you recommending I am Legend for Tier-3 ?


----------



## wormraper

I recommend putting I am legend in Tier 1. Not tier 0 material but still very sharp and detailed. Great sound as well.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wormraper* /forum/post/13415820
> 
> 
> I recommend putting I am legend in Tier 1. Not tier 0 material but still *very sharp and detailed.* Great sound as well.



?????


----------



## wormraper




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13415823
> 
> 
> ?????



yes, that's what I wrote. I understand warner can do no right with their encodes in your eyes, but that is my opinion


----------



## lgans316

I think it's now time for you XYLON to post the movie size.









You have been holding this info for quite sometime.


----------



## markrubin

some posts deleted


no member has a right to attack another for expressing an opinion


----------



## Xylon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13415757
> 
> 
> If this isn't soft I don't know what is. Tier 0? You're joking. Tier 1? Not to me. Tier 3.



No joke. I Am Legend is top notch in PQ. Sharp and detailed.


----------



## Xylon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/13395558
> 
> 
> At the risk of being accused of "picking on you" or "beating a dead horse," I must repeat myself and say that MANY titles start off soft and then after 15-20 minutes the WOW factor kicks in. I'm not defending this particular title, *but I do believe one needs to watch more than 5 minutes of a movie before they "rush to judgment" and condemn the PQ.*



For the sake of honest PQ evaluation please watch the WHOLE FREAKING MOVIE before making any recommendation and ranking PQ.


----------



## Xylon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13327772
> 
> 
> I strongly disagree with the sentiment that Crank looks better than Mr. Brooks. Crank has a very digital/processed look to it. Mr. Brooks does not.



Crank?!? Yeah, cranked contrast for the duration of the movie.


----------



## Xylon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13357263
> 
> 
> A friendly advice to bit rate lovers.
> 
> 
> To a certain extent I agree that high bit rates can solve or hide problems with PQ. *However there is no point in keeping the bit rate meter ON and not watching the actual content.* Even if the viewer is extremely critical about PQ and watches the content twice, once for pointing out flaws and once for watching the actual content I would still call it ridiculous as the viewer is ruining the life of the optical lens and the player.



Unfortunately thats the ONLY way they can _evaluate_ PQ.


----------



## Xylon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kasbane* /forum/post/13359395
> 
> 
> I am getting a sinking feeling that this thread is in the beginning stages of falling apart, which would be sad since I routinely look at it for people's impressions and to see what is on the list.



I try to watch as many BD movies as I can since I'm busy at work I have very limited time and not to mention I watch ALL of my BDs (and HD DVD) at _least_ twice in entirety on at _least_ two different viewing sets before posting an honest PQ evaluation. And sometimes more than that when I choose a movie for my screenshot thread.


Yes I can go veeerrrry nit picky (per AVS standard) but in the end I have to consider all variations because not all of them is going to look like King Kong.


----------



## madkaw

Watched I Am Legend last night, should belong in the Tier 0. Excellent PQ and AQ.


----------



## Pete




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *30XS955 User* /forum/post/13403054
> 
> 
> I agree completely. I'll even go so far as to say that some of the supposed "tier 0" animation titles would be embarrassing to show off.



Anyone else vote to exclude animation titles?.. Either that or create their own separate ranking list?


----------



## DavidHir

Leave them on the list and just indicate which titles are animated.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Xylon* /forum/post/13416176
> 
> 
> For the sake of honest PQ evaluation please watch the WHOLE FREAKING MOVIE before making any recommendation and ranking PQ.



Well, that's exactly what Patrick seems to do......watches 5 minutes and pretends he knows what the whole movie looks like.


----------



## lgans316

Got my copy of Vertical Limit from the U.K and I confirm that the actual feature film is encoded using MPEG-4 AVC. Though a very high bit rate approach has been taken to me the PQ slightly lacks the 3D pop of a modern film partially attributed to my dislike over 1.85:1 aspect ratio which I am sick and tired of watching on the regular channels. The presentation looks more video than film like. Overall a solid effort by Sony and gets a mid Tier-2 recommendation.


----------



## bplewis24

I forgot to ask, anybody know what type of cameras Rescue Dawn was shot with?


Brandon


----------



## vpn75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13418949
> 
> 
> I forgot to ask, anybody know what type of cameras Rescue Dawn was shot with?
> 
> 
> Brandon



According to IMDB:


35 mm (Fuji Super F-64D 8522, Eterna 250D 8563, Eterna 400T 8583)


Great looking movie too!


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/13418427
> 
> 
> Well, that's exactly what Patrick seems to do......watches 5 minutes and pretends he knows what the whole movie looks like.



When I watch less than the whole movie I try to state that. I watched every painful second of Enchanted.


----------



## alexg75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *madkaw* /forum/post/13416982
> 
> 
> Watched I Am Legend last night, should belong in the Tier 0. Excellent PQ and AQ.



+1

Great looking title.

And I vote for a mid tier 1 for 30 Days of Night.

Panny 42 inch 1080p 770u

Sony S300 BR player

@ 8.5ft.


----------



## Drag'nGT




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pete* /forum/post/13417622
> 
> 
> Anyone else vote to exclude animation titles?.. Either that or create their own separate ranking list?



I vote for that. Animation *should* be a given.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13420128
> 
> 
> When I watch less than the whole movie I try to state that. I watched every painful second of Enchanted.



hahahaha










I thought NCFOM and I am Legend were excellent looking. Tier 0 or high tier 1.


----------



## Schlotkins




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13398077
> 
> 
> And both in the case of DH 4 and in the case of Silver Surfer, the variation in PQ levels over the course of the movie correlates to a variation in bitrate levels. . .



Patrick-


The end result in terms of the PQ rating is the same, but there is one large potential flaw in your comment here. Is the soft PQ because of the low bit rate or is the bit rate low because the source is soft?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Schlotkins* /forum/post/13420670
> 
> 
> Patrick-
> 
> 
> The end result in terms of the PQ rating is the same, but there is one large potential flaw in your comment here. Is the soft PQ because of the low bit rate or is the bit rate low because the source is soft?



In my opinion, in these two cases, the softer PQ is a consequence of lower bitrates. As I have said many times, when the bitrate is high and the PQ is soft, at least you can feel comfortable that the soft PQ is a result of soft source material. A good example is From Hell.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13420128
> 
> 
> When I watch less than the whole movie I try to state that. I watched every painful second of Enchanted.



lol, I pity you......I don't think I can bring myself to watch that one.


----------



## Xylon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13398077
> 
> 
> And both in the case of DH 4 and in the case of Silver Surfer, the variation in PQ levels over the course of the movie correlates to a variation in bitrate levels. . .




Evaluate the PQ of the movie as a WHOLE not cherry picking scenes where your bitrates does not reach 48 mbps!


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Xylon* /forum/post/13421236
> 
> 
> Evaluate the PQ of the movie as a WHOLE not cherry picking scenes where your bitrates does not reach 48 mbps!



In my experience the PQ does often vary from scene to scene and even from shot to shot. Of course the Tier placement depends on the PQ of the movie as a whole, but that is necessarily dependent on what the PQ of each shot is. In other words, a movie with all Tier 0 shots is obviously Tier 0, but a movie with half Tier 0 shots and half Tier 1 shots is probably not Tier 0.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Xylon* /forum/post/13421236
> 
> 
> Evaluate the PQ of the movie as a WHOLE not cherry picking scenes where your bitrates does not reach 48 mbps!



Let's hold the Screenshot Thread to this standard as well











Over there it's natural to post one or two bad or good screenshots and have people that haven't seen the movie make judgements of the movie as a whole based on that. Sometimes a few screen shots are representative of the overwhelming majority of the movie and sometimes they are not.


Brandon


----------



## briankmonkey




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13421553
> 
> 
> Let's hold the Screenshot Thread to this standard as well
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Over there it's natural to post one or two bad or good screenshots and have people that haven't seen the movie make judgements of the movie as a whole based on that. Sometimes a few screen shots are representative of the overwhelming majority of the movie and sometimes they are not.
> 
> 
> Brandon



That's exactly what came to mind when reading that as well.


*I still like the screenshot thread but I don't hold it as the end all be all for that reason. Plus I'm watching my movies on my 60" 1080p set and comparing screen grabs on a tiny LCD PC monitor.


----------



## Xylon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13421553
> 
> 
> Let's hold the Screenshot Thread to this standard as well
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Over there it's natural to post one or two bad or good screenshots and have people that haven't seen the movie make judgements of the movie as a whole based on that. Sometimes a few screen shots are representative of the overwhelming majority of the movie and sometimes they are not.
> 
> 
> Brandon



When you are in my screenshot thread the nitpicking to the MAX is allowed. Some comparisons like VC-1 and AVC movies difference is indescernable while in playback so grabbing still images and magnifying them are fine to see any worthwhile difference. And THAT my friend is borderline anal nitpicking










Its true that you may only need a few screen shots to determine the general PQ some movie but that is not applicable to a TIER PQ thread. You have to step back and watch the movie. I mean _watch the movie_. No transfer is flawless and all of them have room for improvement.


Master, transfer, codec, compressionist skill and "gasp"







director's intent and age of the movie must be put into consideration.


I know one of the guideline for this BD Tier thread is "3D pop" in the image. Unfortunately that mantra is derailing honest evaluation of the BD movies. What is the point of even ranking if that is all we are looking for?


We may need a separate tier thread without using "3D pop" as the main factor .


----------



## Xylon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briankmonkey* /forum/post/13421642
> 
> 
> That's exactly what came to mind when reading that as well.
> 
> **I still like the screenshot thread but I don't hold it as the end all be all for that reason. Plus I'm watching my movies on my 60" 1080p set and comparing screen grabs on a tiny LCD PC monitor.*



Good and everyone should do that. My screenshot thread does give you a general idea what to expect. But do not limit yourself to it.


Just make sure the timings (color, brightness, contrast) match what I posted (screenshots) and what you are seeing in your viewing set.


----------



## TheLion




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13420772
> 
> 
> In my opinion, in these two cases, the softer PQ is a consequence of lower bitrates. As I have said many times, when the bitrate is high and the PQ is soft, at least you can feel comfortable that the soft PQ is a result of soft source material. A good example is From Hell.



Dear Patrick,


please allow me to chime in here with a rather critical comment about "your way of evaluating PQ".


You know me well enough to be aware of my position regarding the allocation of plenty bandwidth instead of barely enough...I guess nobody argues that "more bandwidth equals less quantization equals objectively better PQ in context with any given source".


BUT as Schlotkins stated and I continuesly tried to explain to you with all my quantization talk per PM the point is:

*Is the soft PQ because of the low bit rate or is the bit rate low because the source is soft?*


Please try to understand the following - Variable Bitrate encoding (like is used with any HDM release) is per definition a concept of CONSTANT QUALITY. To put it very simple - The compressionist sets a certain quantization parameter for any given release - this defines the relative quality in relation to the source - and the quantization level is directly linked to the available bandwidth budget and inherent characteristics of any given source (to put it very simple again: a highly detailed and dynamic source requires more bandwidth for any given quantization level than a more static one).


So - A low bitrate as isolated parameter DOESN'T tell you anything about the "quality" of any given encoding. Ergo an inherently soft,static source (=a movie shot this way on purpose or just a bad/dated transfer or for whatever other reason) is encoded at a relatively low bitrate level. BUT it can still be encoded with very low quantization -> ergo it is very close to the quality of the source DESPITE the low bitrate. Such an transfer can objectively be even "better" (truer to the source) than something like DH4 or Becoming Jane - objectively meaning encoded with lower quantization.



The other point you keep mentioning is that "there are softer scenes/shots in some transfers and the bitrate is relatively low during those". Your argument is that due to bandwidth limitations those scenes are encoded at "less than optimal bitrates" and therefor the "PQ suffers" (something like low bitrate = heavy AVC/VC-1 deblocking loop filtering = lack of definition/softer/smoother picture) - is this about right?

Well - we are now were my post started - the basic principle of VBR encoding is constant quality - therefor any given scene of a encoding is (give or take) encoded at a similar level of transparency to the source. Therefor if a given transfer shows "great shots with outstanding definition and a very high applied bitrate (which comes quite naturally with these exceptional scenes) " they are encoded at a very similar quantization level than all the softer/"lacking" shots of an given transfer.


This leads to the logic conclusion that:


- *these "softer/smoother/less detailed" scenes are much easier to encode and therefor less bitrate is necessary than with more "difficult scenes". Although both these extremes show the same relative quality to the source.*


- therefor the next logic conclusion is that bitrate limitation/starvation shows itself during scenes that are the "toughest to encode" and certainly NOT during easy shots (eg. out of focus, static,...). They don't look "nice" because they are shot this way and/or the transfer itself isn't very good - in both cases the source is to be blamed and NOT the encoding and therefor certainly NOT the low bitrate -> which is - following the VBR concept - just a consequence of the input.


*In short: Looking at the isolated parameter of "applied bitrate per shot/scene/movie" DOES NOT conclusively tell you ANYTHING about the quality of any given encoding! It can just serve as a hint about the level of quantization among other factors.*


----------



## Xylon

. . . . or we can just ask them to use null packets







so the bitrate is at 48 Mbps CBR







ala broadcast streams


----------



## TheLion




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Xylon* /forum/post/13422647
> 
> 
> . . . . or we can just ask them to use null packets
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so the bitrate is at 48 Mbps CBR
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ala broadcast streams


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Just got my copies of NCFOM and Man on Fire in the mail...can't wait to watch!


----------



## lgans316

Questions to TheLion


Thanks for the educative post on the bit rates and being vocal on DNR-ing Pan's Labyrinth.


On the other side of the fence Studios should also try relax their bandwidth limitations when they encode for Blu-ray. Studios like Warner who are wholeheartedly bit starving titles even on BD-50 with plenty of space left resulting in silly macroblocking, banding and other film artefacts. Some of their blockbuster titles were given 720p verdict in the DU test thread due to poor detailing and resolution. This situation is unacceptable as they there were plenty of scenes that could have THEORETICALLY looked better hadn't they starved the bit rates. I agree with the fact that no transfer is flawless and there are room for improvement but Studios needs to exercise better judgment by following certain rule of thumb which MAY produce some fruitful results. There was this thread Nature's Journey where many Videophiles claimed that on projection screens the high bit rate encode on Blu-ray looked clearly sharper from a certain distance than the low bit rate encode on the HD DVD.


Coming back to topic does I am Legend really belong to Tier-3 ?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Xylon* /forum/post/13421713
> 
> 
> I know one of the guideline for this BD Tier thread is "3D pop" in the image. Unfortunately that mantra is derailing honest evaluation of the BD movies. What is the point of even ranking if that is all we are looking for?
> 
> 
> We may need a separate tier thread without using "3D pop" as the main factor .



I'm confused. How does considering "3D pop" prevent "honest evaluation of the BD movies"? It either has it or it doesn't. Directors intent, for the billionth time, is irrelevant in this thread.


And nobody said "3D pop" is the MAIN factor to be considered.


----------



## TheLion




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13422863
> 
> 
> Questions to TheLion
> 
> 
> Thanks for the educative post on the bit rates and being vocal on DNR-ing Pan's Labyrinth.
> 
> 
> On the other side of the fence Studios should also try relax their bandwidth limitations when they encode for Blu-ray. Studios like Warner who are wholeheartedly bit starving titles even on BD-50 with plenty of space left resulting in silly macroblocking, banding and other film artefacts. Some of their blockbuster titles were given 720p verdict in the DU test thread due to poor detailing and resolution. This situation is unacceptable as they there were plenty of scenes that could have THEORETICALLY looked better hadn't they starved the bit rates. I agree with the fact that no transfer is flawless and there are room for improvement but Studios needs to exercise better judgment by following certain rule of thumb which MAY produce some fruitful results. There was this thread Nature's Journey where many Videophiles claimed that on projection screens the high bit rate encode on Blu-ray looked clearly sharper from a certain distance than the low bit rate encode on the HD DVD.
> 
> 
> Coming back to topic does I am Legend really belong to Tier-3 ?



Don't even get me started about Warner and bitrate-starvation







- my above comments certainly only apply to "healthy bitrate levels" (which is highly dependent on content).


For an example - have you seen the latest Potter release??? Just after the beginning - pan shot over the meadow - some of the most obvious and severe macroblocking I have ever seen in any HD presentation (including the rather high quality European OTA HD programming...I can only imagine what you guys from Japan have to say about this - given the excellent quality of most of your programming - BShi comes to my mind). If you can receive HD programming with double+ the bitrate and less macroblocking than HDM blockbuster releases something isn't right...


Releasing recent blockbuster movies in a bitrate-starved "fashion" resulting in such severe macroblocking is a disgrace for HDM (while still getting rave 5 star reviews almost across the board







). I hope - let me rephrase this - I pray this practices will change with the switch to Blu-Ray exclusivity.


Perhaps Xylon could kindly post some grabs about sequences like the before mentioned some day. Something like a "best-of Warner macroblocking"...


----------



## maverick0716

I personally agree with the "3D pop" description being lame. How can a 2D image look 3D without having an optical illusion? It's impossible. Just my opinion.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

As I said I see I Am Legend as a solid tier 1 ranking. I think it probably deserves to be somewhere around the middle near 300 or Shooter. It just isn't sharp enough for me to be a tier 0 title. Look at the facial closeups and there just isn't as much detail as any of the Pirates trilogy. The source looks very clean though and I suspect if given a Fox style encode(maxed out AVC on a BD-50 with few extras) that I Am Legend would be tier 0.


I watched Saw IV recently. I didn't have high expectations going into this for PQ and was still disappointed. It's a very low bitrate AVC encode(very rarely does it get over 20 Mbps and for long stretches hits 10-13 Mbps!) on a BD-25. Poor black levels, director's intent, and questionable bitrate levels make me rate this at best absolute bottom of tier 3 but more likely tier 4 material. Lionsgate really dropped the ball on this one.


----------



## St. Bernardus

I watched "I, Robot" last night and certainly belongs above "Mr. Brooks", which I also thought looked great, Tier 0.


Video: Samsung LNT5271F 52" @ 1080p/24 from Panny BD30 (7 Feet)

Audio: DTS-HD Master Audio bitstreamed to a Onkyo 605


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13423252
> 
> 
> I'm confused. How does considering "3D pop" prevent "honest evaluation of the BD movies"? It either has it or it doesn't. Directors intent, for the billionth time, is irrelevant in this thread.
> 
> 
> And nobody said "3D pop" is the MAIN factor to be considered.



I was confused by that as well.


Brandon


----------



## stumlad

Watched Enchanted (Netflixed it). Overall, the PQ was very good, but not up to the tier 0 or most of the tier 1. I'd put it in high tier 2 or low tier 1 max.


While I found the movie to be kinda nauseating, it wasn't horrible... either way, I'll leave that up to you to decide. Just trying to give ranking before I ship it back.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/13423303
> 
> 
> I personally agree with the "3D pop" description being lame. How can a 2D image look 3D without having an optical illusion? It's impossible. Just my opinion.



A lot of times, when people rate displays they will say it has a 3D look to it or a lot of "pop". Some say it's because a display has the ability to display bright colors while maintaining inky blacks (ansi contrast). Others say it's because of solid on/off contrast along with good gamma settings (which seems to be the newest findings).


With that in mind, some titles like Pirates, Lost, Apocalypto, Planet Earth, (and many more) are better at maximizing this effect on one's display than some flat titles (Most of the Harry Potter titles).


----------



## dolphinfan4194

This is my first post here, so I wanted to chime in on some of the BLU RAY dvd's that I have watched so far. I consider myself quite the videofile, and always look for great picture quality. I am not including animated, since most of them look great, they are animated...

*The best non animated PQ dvd's I have watched so far, in order of quality.*

*I am Legend*: Just watched it tonight and PQ is amazing. Every scene something was "Popping out at me", a 3D look throughout. Certain scenes I felt like I was looking through a window, and everything from flesh tones to the grass is in high detail. I could even see Will smiths sweat in the dark. A "WOW" disc for sure. Toss up of the Best looking Blu ray I have seen so far with Die Hard 4. Top of tier 0.

*Die Hard 4*:Top of Tier 0 (Enough said)

*Crank*: Middle to upper tier 0

*Spiderman 3*:Middle to Lower tier 0

*30 days of Night*: Lower tier 0(Could see every snowflake in some scenes.)

*Fantastic 4 Silver Surfer*: Lower tier 0

*Sunshine*: Lower Tier 0 to upper Tier 1 (Underrated film)


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Enchanted*


This was a very nice looking title. The contrast was quite good. The image was bright and vibrant. I thought sharpness was good, but it did seem that the very finest details were slightly lacking, most noticeably in finer skin/facial details. I did not notice any artifacts.


I didn't enjoy the movie much, (but the rest of the family did) and it allowed me to pay more attention to PQ since I wasn't too involved in the movie itself.










Mid to High Tier 1.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/13423303
> 
> 
> I personally agree with the "3D pop" description being lame. How can a 2D image look 3D without having an optical illusion? It's impossible. Just my opinion.



Huh?


Why in the world is it "impossible" for a movie to have a three dimensional appearance to it, with lots of depth?


Of course it's possible. It's not like we are talking about wearing the 3D glasses or anything. And even if you were, guess what? It's still "an optical illusion"!!!


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/13424294
> 
> 
> Watched Enchanted (Netflixed it). Overall, the PQ was very good, but not up to the tier 0 or most of the tier 1. I'd put it in high tier 2 or low tier 1 max.
> 
> 
> While I found the movie to be kinda nauseating, it wasn't horrible... either way, I'll leave that up to you to decide. Just trying to give ranking before I ship it back.



I'm in the same boat with you, although I thought it was at least Tier 1. I have a feeling we are going to be in the minority though.


Brandon


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TheLion* /forum/post/13422332
> 
> 
> Dear Patrick,
> 
> 
> please allow me to chime in here with a rather critical comment about "your way of evaluating PQ".
> 
> 
> You know me well enough to be aware of my position regarding the allocation of plenty bandwidth instead of barely enough...I guess nobody argues that "more bandwidth equals less quantization equals objectively better PQ in context with any given source".
> 
> 
> BUT as Schlotkins stated and I continuesly tried to explain to you with all my quantization talk per PM the point is:
> 
> *Is the soft PQ because of the low bit rate or is the bit rate low because the source is soft?*
> 
> 
> Please try to understand the following - Variable Bitrate encoding (like is used with any HDM release) is per definition a concept of CONSTANT QUALITY. To put it very simple - The compressionist sets a certain quantization parameter for any given release - this defines the relative quality in relation to the source - and the quantization level is directly linked to the available bandwidth budget and inherent characteristics of any given source (to put it very simple again: a highly detailed and dynamic source requires more bandwidth for any given quantization level than a more static one).
> 
> 
> So - A low bitrate as isolated parameter DOESN'T tell you anything about the "quality" of any given encoding. Ergo an inherently soft,static source (=a movie shot this way on purpose or just a bad/dated transfer or for whatever other reason) is encoded at a relatively low bitrate level. BUT it can still be encoded with very low quantization -> ergo it is very close to the quality of the source DESPITE the low bitrate. Such an transfer can objectively be even "better" (truer to the source) than something like DH4 or Becoming Jane - objectively meaning encoded with lower quantization.
> 
> 
> 
> The other point you keep mentioning is that "there are softer scenes/shots in some transfers and the bitrate is relatively low during those". Your argument is that due to bandwidth limitations those scenes are encoded at "less than optimal bitrates" and therefor the "PQ suffers" (something like low bitrate = heavy AVC/VC-1 deblocking loop filtering = lack of definition/softer/smoother picture) - is this about right?
> 
> Well - we are now were my post started - the basic principle of VBR encoding is constant quality - therefor any given scene of a encoding is (give or take) encoded at a similar level of transparency to the source. Therefor if a given transfer shows "great shots with outstanding definition and a very high applied bitrate (which comes quite naturally with these exceptional scenes) " they are encoded at a very similar quantization level than all the softer/"lacking" shots of an given transfer.
> 
> 
> This leads to the logic conclusion that:
> 
> 
> - *these "softer/smoother/less detailed" scenes are much easier to encode and therefor less bitrate is necessary than with more "difficult scenes". Although both these extremes show the same relative quality to the source.*
> 
> 
> - therefor the next logic conclusion is that bitrate limitation/starvation shows itself during scenes that are the "toughest to encode" and certainly NOT during easy shots (eg. out of focus, static,...). They don't look "nice" because they are shot this way and/or the transfer itself isn't very good - in both cases the source is to be blamed and NOT the encoding and therefor certainly NOT the low bitrate -> which is - following the VBR concept - just a consequence of the input.
> 
> 
> *In short: Looking at the isolated parameter of "applied bitrate per shot/scene/movie" DOES NOT conclusively tell you ANYTHING about the quality of any given encoding! It can just serve as a hint about the level of quantization among other factors.*



Hi Walter,


I know that you care as much about good PQ as I do.










Your description of the encoding process makes it sound totally and completely mechanical, as though the compressionist just sets some parameters and then goes to sleep and when he wakes up there is a finished product.


I have no first hand experience of this process, but the sense I have is that while this may be an accurate description of the first stage of the process, that there is more discretion than that at later stages, and that adjustments can be made to vary the results based on the results of the first stage.


For example, I don't really think that Jessica Alba's face is more "difficult" material than Chris Evans' face, but somebody involved in doing the compression for Silver Surfer decided to use generally higher bitrates for her than for him, for some reason.










With respect to DH 4, I am not the only one who has, in this thread, commented that the PQ improves as the movie goes along. And I am not the only one who has commented that the reverse is true with Silver Surfer.


I take it that you were as pleased with the PQ in Becoming Jane as I was?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/13423314
> 
> 
> As I said I see I Am Legend as a solid tier 1 ranking. I think it probably deserves to be somewhere around the middle near 300 or Shooter. *It just isn't sharp enough for me* to be a tier 0 title. *Look at the facial closeups and there just isn't as much detail as any of the Pirates trilogy.* The source looks very clean though and *I suspect if given a Fox style encode(maxed out AVC on a BD-50 with few extras) that I Am Legend would be tier 0.*



Actually I think some of the really tight facial close-ups are the only things in I Am Legend that look good. The shots with more information are the ones that are severely problematic. I do agree that if this had been done properly it would probably look really great.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/13424294
> 
> 
> Watched Enchanted (Netflixed it). Overall, the PQ was very good, but not up to the tier 0 or most of the tier 1. *I'd put it in high tier 2 or low tier 1 max.*
> 
> 
> While I found the movie to be kinda nauseating, it wasn't horrible... either way, I'll leave that up to you to decide. Just trying to give ranking before I ship it back.



Good to see someone else who doesn't think this is the best thing since sliced bagels.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13424373
> 
> *Enchanted*
> 
> 
> This was a very nice looking title. The contrast was quite good. The image was bright and vibrant. I thought sharpness was good, *but it did seem that the very finest details were slightly lacking, most noticeably in finer skin/facial details. I did not notice any artifacts.*
> 
> 
> I didn't enjoy the movie much, (but the rest of the family did) and it allowed me to pay more attention to PQ since I wasn't too involved in the movie itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mid to High Tier 1.



Yes, the finest details were definitely lacking, especially in faces. You didn't notice the compression noise, Rob?


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM

EDIT:


Sony Bravia 40' W3000 1080p/24

Sony S300 BDP

Viewing Distance: 7f


Both *I Am Legend* and *No Country for Old Men* should be placed in Tier 0 above Spiderman 3 and Dave Matthews, but below Apocalypto.


I'd give *I Am Legend* a slight edge over *No Country for Old Men* due to No Country's minor macro-blocking during the Josh Brolin nighttime lightning chase scene, and some slight black crush during the Brolin/Bardem shootout midway through the film.

*I Am Legend* does a have few soft scenes, particularly the scene where Smith is washing his dog Sam in the bath tub. I'm confident that the softness in this scene is inherent to the source; It's a scene with intentional soft focus and mid summer, late day sunlight streaming into the room through the glass in the window.


However, I have to say that in terms of fine detail, *No Country for Old Men* at its very best shows slightly more detail than *I Am Legend* ever demonstrates at its best, but again, I believe this is mostly due to the the influence of the different lighting particularities in each film. *I Am Legend* for the most part is more consistently sharp, even in scenes with the most oppressive darkness, and I also never noticed any macro-blocking.


Also, one last comment, this time pertaining to *The Fountain*. I need to give this a second viewing on Blu-ray before I make a recommendation, but there is absolutely no way that this movie looks worse than *The Assassination of Jesse James*. I'm going to need some support on this title, but it's likely not very popular on this forum.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cold_As_IceSMM* /forum/post/13425069
> 
> 
> *I Am Legend* does a have few soft scenes, *particularly the scene where Smith is washing his dog Sam in the bath tub.* I'm confident that the softness in this scene is inherent to the source; It's a scene with intentional soft focus and mid summer, late day sunlight streaming into the room through the glass in the window.



I found that scene particularly soft as well, but I don't agree that it is an isolated problem. . .


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13425096
> 
> 
> I found that scene particularly soft as well, but I don't agree that it is an isolated problem. . .



But could you articulate a scene with comparable conditions that doesn't exhibit the same softness? There are many scenes with similar lighting conditions, but without the influence of the glass window, and that certainly has an influence on the sharpness of the image.


And again, I was just listing one example that jumped to mind. We should be looking for patterns to see whether the softness in a given scene is intentional or not on a scene by scene basis.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cold_As_IceSMM* /forum/post/13425645
> 
> 
> But could you articulate a scene with comparable conditions that doesn't exhibit the same softness?
> 
> 
> And again, I was just listing one example that jumped to mind. We should be looking for patterns to see whether the softness in a given scene is intentional or not on a scene by scene basis.



The softness is pervasive, although that scene is especially bad. Every wide shot of the city is soft; the buildings are soft, the cars are soft, the trees are soft. Why ignore the obvious explanation? The very low bitrate in almost every shot.


----------



## ballen420

I'm voting for I am Legend near the top of tier 1. I would say it falls somewhere in between Sunshine and Casino Royale. Excellent looking film, definitely displays a number of worthy tier 0 shots, but as a whole, I don't think it ranks better then CR, or NCFOM (which I rank just below CR).


For the record, I watched the Alternate Version (sham of an ending compared to the theatrical version).


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13425703
> 
> 
> The softness is pervasive, although that scene is especially bad. Every wide shot of the city is soft; the buildings are soft, the cars are soft, the trees are soft. Why ignore the obvious explanation? The very low bitrate in almost every shot.



I don't have the means to measure bit rate, but obviously I'll take your word on it. But I thought this thread had already put to rest this bit rate issue...correlation, not causation.


How are we to determine whether the softness is intentional or not? At least between you and I, I think we can put to rest the dispute of whether or not there's softness in the image in areas of the film, because we certainly seem to agree on where it is apparent.


And pervasive in this context reads to me like hyperbole. I would describe the softness as mild, and perhaps mostly artistic in nature.


I'm thinking that perhaps the bathroom dog washing scene had some minor unintentional softness due to the glass window, but I don't think we should be blaming the trasfer for that.


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13415514
> 
> 
> I finished this movie not too long ago. I too felt I should do some background reading on the discussion of it since it came out a while ago. But first I wanted to watch it through without being influenced.
> 
> 
> My initial impressions--other than the first 5 minutes or so which is showing old footage--is that this is a highly impressive title. In fact I was shocked at how good it looked, considering I hadn't heard much about the movie nor did I remember much discussion about the PQ. The only issues I noticed were some spikes in grain here and there and some out of focus shots on some wide pans, but the latter seemed to be intentional, and very infrequent.
> 
> 
> Other than those minor things, this little gem snuck up on me in terms of the PQ. The detail in the jungle was incredible, as were facial close-ups and even macro shots of several people on-screen at once showed tremendous amounts of sharp detail. The jungle was colorful as could be and there seemed to be a great amount of depth to it. *I believe this movie belongs in Tier 0*.
> 
> 
> Now I see that it was in Tier 0 before being moved down, although I didn't see a lot of reasons given for why. High Tier 1, where it's at now, is no slouch, but I believe this is deserving of the bottom of Tier 0, and to bring this back to my earlier post, Enchanted should take the spot at the top of Tier 1.
> 
> 
> I figure I may be in the minority on Enchanted being Tier 1, but I believe Rescue Dawn to be the superior of the two, so if they are both in Tier 0 ultimately I think Rescue Dawn should be above it.
> 
> 
> PS3->1080p24->46XBR4 (8 ft)
> 
> 
> Brandon




Finished Rescue Dawn last night. Like I said earlier, I thought the PQ was superb, and that held true through the remainder of the movie. Some of the jungle scenes were amazing, and although I did notice grain spikes Brandon mentioned in a few of the night/dark scenes, I still think this is a Tier 0 title.


Aside from the use of stock footage, I don't think it could look much better given current displays' capabilities.


----------



## Cliff Stephenson

The problem with this thread (sorry) is that it's actually counter to what some of you are trying to accomplish. Believe it or not, the studios do read threads like this. The reason why people see so many titles full of edge enhancement and violated with noise reduction is because so many people complain about grain and lack of "3D" pop. Then people complain about smearing and EE. So when a studio sees that a title like Rocky (which is a MAGNIFICENT looking disc- it honestly looks better than it did theatrically) is placed in tier four under a tier three title like Young Guns (which _is_ noise reduced, but also completely corrupted with artifacting from the master) it sends the message that noise reduction and edge enhancement are preferable to natural grain and the original look of the film. So guess what? We get noise reduction to filter the grain followed by edge enhancement to compensate for the detail they happened to remove in the noise reduction stage. All in an effort to make Spider-Man look like I,Robot because "otherwise people will complain that Spider-Man is grainy."


So while all this discussion about bitrate is very scholarly, it's a useless discussion if people can't educate themselves as to what constitutes excellent picture quality at the _beginning_ of the chain. Throw all the bits at a picture you want... if it's been tampered with prior to encoding, it's already ruined.


A film like Rocky doesn't look like Ratatouille. Fortunately it looks like Rocky. To someone who loves films, a tier thread should be about which films look the most like they're supposed to. Anything less is for gadget freaks who just like to watch for big numbers.


As I said, the studios do pay attention to this stuff and this is one case, unfortunately, where we're getting exactly what some people have asked for.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cold_As_IceSMM* /forum/post/13425807
> 
> 
> I don't have the means to measure bit rate, but obviously I'll take your word on it. *But I thought this thread had already put to rest this bit rate issue...correlation, not causation.*
> 
> 
> How are we to determine whether the softness is intentional or not? At least between you and I, I think we can put to rest the dispute of whether or not there's softness in the image in areas of the film, because we certainly seem to agree on where it is apparent.
> 
> 
> And pervasive in this context reads to me like hyperbole. I would describe the softness as mild, and perhaps mostly artistic in nature.
> 
> 
> I'm thinking that perhaps the bathroom dog washing scene had some minor unintentional softness due to the glass window, but I don't think we should be blaming the trasfer for that.



Correlation rather than causation is an *opinion* that has been expressed; I would not agree that this issue has been anything like "put to rest."


Do you agree with me that there is softness in the street shots of the city?


This is a very big budget, very popular studio release. Why would so much softness be intentional?


----------



## lgans316

Excellent post and well said but having a Tier thread ain't going to cost us (at least myself) any money.

I loved the look and feel of Ocean's 13 but how many do you think will agree with me ? I would be extremely happy if Studios paid attention to this thread and try not to mess around with the transfers.


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cliff Stephenson* /forum/post/13425957
> 
> 
> The problem with this thread (sorry) is that it's actually counter to what some of you are trying to accomplish. Believe it or not, the studios do read threads like this. The reason why people see so many titles full of edge enhancement and violated with noise reduction is because so many people complain about grain and lack of "3D" pop. Then people complain about smearing and EE. So when a studio sees that a title like Rocky (which is a MAGNIFICENT looking disc- it honestly looks better than it did theatrically) is placed in tier four under a tier three title like Young Guns (which _is_ noise reduced, but also completely corrupted with artifacting from the master) it sends the message that noise reduction and edge enhancement are preferable to natural grain and the original look of the film. So guess what? We get noise reduction to filter the grain followed by edge enhancement to compensate for the detail they happened to remove in the noise reduction stage. All in an effort to make Spider-Man look like I,Robot because "otherwise people will complain that Spider-Man is grainy."
> 
> 
> So while all this discussion about bitrate is very scholarly, it's a useless discussion if people can't educate themselves as to what constitutes excellent picture quality at the _beginning_ of the chain. Throw all the bits at a picture you want... if it's been tampered with prior to encoding, it's already ruined.
> 
> 
> A film like Rocky doesn't look like Ratatouille. Fortunately it looks like Rocky. To someone who loves films, a tier thread should be about which films look the most like they're supposed to. Anything less is for gadget freaks who just like to watch for big numbers.
> 
> 
> As I said, the studios do pay attention to this stuff and this is one case, unfortunately, where we're getting exactly what some people have asked for.




I agree with everything contained in this post, which prompts me to ask who exactly in this thread is requesting grain reduction filters? I could understand what you mean if you were referring to the general publics dismay with grain upon first witnessing hi-def imagery with some titles like Spiderman 3...but the people in this thread?


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13425981
> 
> 
> Correlation rather than causation is an *opinion* that has been expressed; I would not agree that this issue has been anything like "put to rest."
> 
> 
> Do you agree with me that there is softness in the street shots of the city?
> 
> 
> This is a very big budget, very popular studio release. Why would so much softness be intentional?



Yes, I agree with all of the examples that you've referred to as being soft.


But take Ocean's 13 for example. Sizable budget, certainly a hi profile release by Warner Bros., and certainly meant for a different demograph, but an important IP release for the studio nonetheless. Why does it look like trash on Blu-ray relative to I Am Legend? Artistic influence.


I believe that there's artistic motivation behind most of the softness inherent to the image of I Am Legend. This film demonstrates to me at least that Francis Lawrence possesses a certain motivation to create something worth viewing more than once, and most the failings that are apparent in the final product are mostly due to the script.


The softness could be artistic.


----------



## lgans316

But I loved the artistic influence applied on Ocean's 13 and found the PQ to be perfectly acceptable as there were no signs of bit rate starvations and it was an accurate representation of what I saw on theater.


I am watching Last Samurai and am finding the PQ to be underwhelming. This one screams for more definition and depth considering the plethora of outdoor shots instead what Warner has really done is tactically applying DNR and EE.


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13426137
> 
> 
> But I loved the artistic influence applied on Ocean's 13 and found the PQ to be perfectly acceptable as there were no signs of bit rate starvations and it was an accurate representation of what I saw on theater.



Indeed.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cold_As_IceSMM* /forum/post/13426079
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree with all of the examples that you've referred to as being soft.
> 
> 
> But take Ocean's 13 for example. Sizable budget, certainly a hi profile release by Warner Bros., and certainly meant for a different demograph, but an important IP release for the studio nonetheless. Why does it look like trash on Blu-ray relative to I Am Legend? Artistic influence.
> 
> 
> I believe that there's artistic motivation behind most of the softness inherent to the image of I Am Legend. This film demonstrates to me at least that Francis Lawrence possesses a certain motivation to create something worth viewing more than once, and most the failings that are apparent in the final product are mostly due to the script.
> 
> 
> The softness could be artistic.



I can understand your explanation of why there might be a reason why someone intended the dog-washing scene to look soft; but why would someone want all the street scenes to look soft? It's not as though they were using CGI to change the look of the streets; the making of extras make clear that they actually dressed the streets to add grass growing through the pavement.


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13426164
> 
> 
> I can understand your explanation of why there might be a reason why someone intended the dog-washing scene to look soft; but why would someone want all the street scenes to look soft? It's not as though they were using CGI to change the look of the streets; the making of extras make clear that they actually dressed the streets to add grass growing through the pavement.



The making of extras only demonstrated live action props being appropriated on the streets, but I'm fairly certain (I think it's downright obvious) that people were removed from the back round, and other objects were planted by way of CGI. It was a combination of both live action and CGI objects, which would explain the need to shoot in a softer focus. All of the advertisements on the walls of the buildings were done by adding CGI, and I believe other objects on the ground were as well. And if this explanation is accurate, we still don't have reason to blame the transfer for the softness.


----------



## DavidHir




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cliff Stephenson* /forum/post/13425957
> 
> 
> The problem with this thread (sorry) is that it's actually counter to what some of you are trying to accomplish. Believe it or not, the studios do read threads like this. The reason why people see so many titles full of edge enhancement and violated with noise reduction is because so many people complain about grain and lack of "3D" pop. Then people complain about smearing and EE. So when a studio sees that a title like Rocky (which is a MAGNIFICENT looking disc- it honestly looks better than it did theatrically) is placed in tier four under a tier three title like Young Guns (which _is_ noise reduced, but also completely corrupted with artifacting from the master) it sends the message that noise reduction and edge enhancement are preferable to natural grain and the original look of the film. So guess what? We get noise reduction to filter the grain followed by edge enhancement to compensate for the detail they happened to remove in the noise reduction stage. All in an effort to make Spider-Man look like I,Robot because "otherwise people will complain that Spider-Man is grainy."
> 
> 
> So while all this discussion about bitrate is very scholarly, it's a useless discussion if people can't educate themselves as to what constitutes excellent picture quality at the _beginning_ of the chain. Throw all the bits at a picture you want... if it's been tampered with prior to encoding, it's already ruined.
> 
> 
> A film like Rocky doesn't look like Ratatouille. Fortunately it looks like Rocky. To someone who loves films, a tier thread should be about which films look the most like they're supposed to. Anything less is for gadget freaks who just like to watch for big numbers.
> 
> 
> As I said, the studios do pay attention to this stuff and this is one case, unfortunately, where we're getting exactly what some people have asked for.



Great points.


----------



## Cliff Stephenson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cold_As_IceSMM* /forum/post/13426024
> 
> 
> I agree with everything contained in this post, which prompts me to ask who exactly in this thread is requesting grain reduction filters? I could understand what you mean if you were referring to the general publics dismay with grain upon first witnessing hi-def imagery with some titles like Spiderman 3...but the people in this thread?



Nobody is directly asking for grain reduction, but by the very nature of the way the tier is designed:


> Quote:
> *TIER 0 -Blu-*
> 
> 
> These are reference quality titles with the *cleanest and sharpest image available*. Films in this tier are demo material and represent the best of the best Blu-ray has to offer.
> 
> *TIER 1 -GOLD-*
> 
> 
> Demo Material, but minor artifacting may be present which the untrained eye may not necessarily spot. Little if any visible compression. *Sharp image that has a lot of HD-POP effects*.
> 
> *TIER 3 -BRONZE-*
> 
> *Few HD POP effects*



The tiers themselves equate sharpness and HD pop with reference quality. The studios see that and realize that the only way to please is to try and manipulate the image to resemble something newer. Admonishing a naturally grainy title like Crash or Tomb Raider and shipping them off to the middle of tier four because they lack "3D pop" is indirectly asking a studio to alter those titles to more closely simulate tier one and two titles. That's what I'm trying to raise awareness about. By only praising a very specific look versus the praise for the "correct" look, it's a silent signal that the studios take as a complaint.


Again, I think a title like Rocky or The Devil's Rejects fits the description of a tier zero title to the letter:


> Quote:
> These are reference quality titles with the cleanest and sharpest image available.



Both of those title are the cleanest and sharpest image available... _for those films_ and I don't think you could ask for more.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Excellent post and well said but having a Tier thread ain't going to cost us (at least myself) any money.



It may not cost us monetarily, but there is more to be lost than just money.


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cliff Stephenson* /forum/post/13426377
> 
> 
> Nobody is directly asking for grain reduction, but by the very nature of the way the tier is designed:
> 
> 
> The tiers themselves equate sharpness and HD pop with reference quality. The studios see that and realize that the only way to please is to try and manipulate the image to resemble something newer. Admonishing a naturally grainy title like Crash or Tomb Raider and shipping them off to the middle of tier four because they lack "3D pop" is indirectly asking a studio to alter those titles to more closely simulate tier one and two titles. That's what I'm trying to raise awareness about. By only praising a very specific look versus the praise for the "correct" look, it's a silent signal that the studios take as a complaint.
> 
> 
> Again, I think a title like Rocky or The Devil's Rejects fits the description of a tier one title to the letter:
> 
> 
> Both of those title are the cleanest and sharpest image available... _for those films_ and I don't think you could ask for more.
> 
> 
> 
> It may not cost us monetarily, but there is more to be lost than just money.



Alright. That's clear.


I for one don't approve of the design of this thread, then.


----------



## SuprSlow

I believe part of the "problem" with this thread, and inherent in any thread of this type and purpose, is that some (most?) of us are caught in the tug-of-war between "Does this movie have jaw-dropping demo scenes?" and "Is this transfer faithful to the director/DP's intent?"


Like lgans, I liked the look of Oceans 13. But if somebody came over to my place and said "Show me how good Blu-ray can look," I'd probably put in Rescue Dawn, Rat, Planet Earth, or any number of other titles. That's not to take away from Oceans 13, but it's just not a demo disc. Were there some scenes that could be improved upon? Absolutely...but one would be hard pressed to find a disc that doesn't have a spot here or there than could use a little more work. Again, that's not to say it's a bad transfer. But in a PQ thread of this type, it's more than likely going to be ranked lower in the grand scheme precisely because of the overblown color palette, the artistic direction, etc.


And that's the limbo that some of us get caught in. Is this a Director's Intent PQ Thread, or a "Holy Mother That's a Nice Picture" PQ thread?


I'd like to know whether or not studios read this thread, but I'm inclined to believe they don't. I guess I'm just a skeptic







But, if you are reading, take this thread with a grain of salt. I believe it's intent is to serve as a guide for people looking to demo/test their equipment. As somewhat of a purist, I'd rather see the BDs on my TV as they were meant to be seen. If it's full of "300"-like grain, so be it. If it's as clean as the Pirates trio or other "Tier 0" titles, so be it.


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cold_As_IceSMM* /forum/post/13426413
> 
> 
> Alright. That's clear.
> 
> 
> I for one don't approve of the design of this thread, then.



Then of what design would you approve?


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/13426500
> 
> 
> Then of what design would you approve?



We should be using reasonable doubt to determine whether or not the image is living up the condition that the director and the production crew intended.


The easiest approach I can muster at the monent to help this situation is to divide the video tier thread into two: one for the technically inclined, and one for the artistically inclined.


But the fundamental problem is the conflict with whether or not studios should ever deviate from the source when creating a master for home video. I believe this should NEVER occur, under any circumstances; meaning, no grain reduction and edge enhancement, etc. Conversely, Blade Runner: The Final Cut is an entirely different approach to restoring a title for home video that I wholeheartedly approve of - Pan's Labyrinth is an example of something I don't approve of.


With both the avoidance of deviating from the source on the part of the studios, and our efforts to categorize Blu-ray titles into two separate tier threads, one for artistic merit, and one for technical merit, the rest should fall into place.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cold_As_IceSMM* /forum/post/13426706
> 
> 
> We should be using reasonable doubt to determine whether or not the image is living up the condition that the director and the production crew intended.
> 
> 
> The easiest approach I can muster at the monent to help this situation is to divide the video tier thread into two: one for the technically inclined, and one for the artistically inclined.
> 
> 
> But the fundamental problem is the conflict with whether or not studios should ever deviate from the source when creating a master for home video. I believe this should NEVER occur, under any circumstances; meaning, no grain reduction and edge enhancement, etc. Conversely, Blade Runner: The Final Cut is an entirely different approach to restoring a title for home video that I wholeheartedly approve of - Pan's Labyrinth is an example of something I don't approve of.
> 
> 
> With both the avoidance of deviating from the source on the part of the studios, and our efforts to categorize Blu-ray titles into two separate tier threads, one for artistic merit, and one for technical merit, the rest should fall into place.



The difficulty that has been identified in this thread from the time it was first started is that we have no way of knowing what the source material actually looks like so we don't know what problems originated in the source and what problems were introduced in going from the source to what we see on our displays. So we can't fairly evaluate how accurately what we see reproduces the source. We can, however, evaluate whether the results look good or not, and that is what we do.


----------



## ballen420




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/13426481
> 
> 
> I believe part of the "problem" with this thread, and inherent in any thread of this type and purpose, is that some (most?) of us are caught in the tug-of-war between "Does this movie have jaw-dropping demo scenes?" and "Is this transfer faithful to the director/DP's intent?"
> 
> 
> And that's the limbo that some of us get caught in. Is this a Director's Intent PQ Thread, or a "Holy Mother That's a Nice Picture" PQ thread?



Couldn't agree more with this post (cut some out of the quote for space).


My understanding, and maybe I am wrong, is that this thread was developed on the premise of "Holy Mother That's a Nice Picture", not for us to decipher what the intention of the director was.


I got into this thread to find out what had the potential to look the best on my setup, to base some of my purchases/rentals upon, and to show off the most agreed upon jaw dropping films to my friends.


There also seems to be an impression that if a film isn't in Tier 0, then it isn't great. I think there are plently of movies in tier 1 & 2 look great, but I think Tier 0 should be reserved for judging the best of the best.


Just my opinion on the intentions of this thread.


46XBR4

PS3 1080P/24

6-8 feet


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13426806
> 
> 
> The difficulty that has been identified in this thread from the time it was first started is that we have no way of knowing what the source material actually looks like so we don't know what problems originated in the source and what problems were introduced in going from the source to what we see on our displays. So we can't fairly evaluate how accurately what we see reproduces the source. We can, however, evaluate whether the results look good or not, and that is what we do.



Agreed completely.


But this is why I used the words "reasonable doubt". We examine the film stock, the lighting conditions, the influences in the environment depicted in the film that could potentially have an effect on the image, determine if the studio creating the master for the film has tampered with the source with the obvious offenders, etc, etc, etc. But this does induce an elitist approach to evaluating the artistic merits of a film, and would certainly require those that are technically inclined as a means to provide a democratic environment of fair and accurate judgment. But this would be its own separate thread, as I mentioned above...so perhaps this might work? If the studios were to keep track of both threads, it would certainly provide a much better context. But they would also have to do their part in NOT deviating from the original source, which is not what is happening right now, unfortunately.


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ballen420* /forum/post/13426945
> 
> 
> Couldn't agree more with this post (cut some out of the quote for space).
> 
> 
> My understanding, and maybe I am wrong, is that this thread was developed on the premise of "Holy Mother That's a Nice Picture", not for us to decipher what the intention of the director was.



Agreed. And this is why people like me are a thorn in the side of this premise, but there are others like me, and this is precisely why I suggest that we make two separate threads for two very different expectations.


----------



## ballen420




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cold_As_IceSMM* /forum/post/13426987
> 
> 
> Agreed. And this is why people like me are a thorn in the side of this premise, but there are others like me, and this is precisely why I suggest that we make two separate threads for two very different expectations.



Completely understandable. I think a separate thread would lead to a lot more discussion points about a film and it's intentions (like what we've started to see recently), but may be a little more difficult to moderate in terms of placement.


I think it's a great idea, and maybe the way to go would be to add more poll voting situations to it to make it somewhat easier to rank them on the grand scale.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cold_As_IceSMM* /forum/post/13425807
> 
> 
> But I thought this thread had already put to rest this bit rate issue...correlation, not causation.



The bit rate issue has not been put to rest. Some people refuse to believe it's ever a factor, and others may make too much of it. But just because there are a couple posts saying bitrate doesn't matter doesn't mean it's put to rest.


Brandon


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cliff Stephenson* /forum/post/13425957
> 
> 
> The problem with this thread (sorry) is that it's actually counter to what some of you are trying to accomplish. Believe it or not, the studios do read threads like this. The reason why people see so many titles full of edge enhancement and violated with noise reduction is because so many people complain about grain and lack of "3D" pop.



I agree with a lot of your post and disagree with this portion of it. Titles with NR and EE are lowered on the Tier scale in this thread, not raised because of it.


Brandon


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cold_As_IceSMM* /forum/post/13426987
> 
> 
> Agreed. And this is why people like me are a thorn in the side of this premise, but there are others like me, and this is precisely why I suggest that we make two separate threads for two very different expectations.



While I understand what you're suggesting, I think it would be entirely too subjective in deciding what the director and DP intended the film to look like. Like patrick said, and it bears repeating, we have no idea what the source looks like. I realize a videophile can pick out compression artifacts and imperfections involved in a transfer and rank them accordingly, but in my opinion, it would be hell trying to moderate a thread like that. Just read over the past few pages of THIS thread...


And to repeat what I said in my previous post...I'd rather see a film as it was intended. I think the vast majority of the people here share that sentiment. Please don't confuse me for someone who thinks every single BD should look like Crank or Apocalypto.


----------



## briankmonkey




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13424373
> 
> *Enchanted*
> 
> 
> This was a very nice looking title. The contrast was quite good. The image was bright and vibrant. I thought sharpness was good, but it did seem that the very finest details were slightly lacking, most noticeably in finer skin/facial details. I did not notice any artifacts.
> 
> 
> I didn't enjoy the movie much, (but the rest of the family did) and it allowed me to pay more attention to PQ since I wasn't too involved in the movie itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mid to High Tier 1.



Picked it up for $10 off yesterday as well as NCFOM at $10. Enchanted was the only choice as my little one was going to watch. I agree with you on the PQ. Somewhere in Teir 1, very good looking but better out there for sure like Mr. Brooks which I had watched a night or two before.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13427356
> 
> 
> I agree with a lot of your post and disagree with this portion of it. *Titles with NR and EE are lowered on the Tier scale in this thread, not raised because of it.*
> 
> 
> Brandon



Absolutely right.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cold_As_IceSMM* /forum/post/13426244
> 
> 
> The making of extras only demonstrated live action props being appropriated on the streets, but I'm fairly certain (I think it's downright obvious) that people were removed from the back round, and other objects were planted by way of CGI. It was a combination of both live action and CGI objects, which would explain the need to shoot in a softer focus. All of the advertisements on the walls of the buildings were done by adding CGI, and I believe other objects on the ground were as well. And if this explanation is accurate, we still don't have reason to blame the transfer for the softness.



We (in this thread and in this forum) have been having exactly the same types of discussions about Warner low bitrate releases since Batman Begins. And now we have yet another in a very long line of Warner low bitrate dual format releases with suspiciously soft PQ. I, for one, would repeat what I have said before: it seems like an amazing coincidence that all the releases from the same very successful studio have exactly the same type of PQ problem.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ballen420* /forum/post/13426945
> 
> 
> My understanding, and maybe I am wrong, is that this thread was developed on the premise of "Holy Mother That's a Nice Picture", not for us to decipher what the intention of the director was.
> 
> 
> I got into this thread to find out what had the potential to look the best on my setup, to base some of my purchases/rentals upon, and to show off the most agreed upon jaw dropping films to my friends.
> 
> 
> There also seems to be an impression that if a film isn't in Tier 0, then it isn't great. I think there are plently of movies in tier 1 & 2 look great, but I think Tier 0 should be reserved for judging the best of the best.



I completely agree and think you make good points. The other problem (not with this thread, but sometimes the readers of this thread) is that it is assumed that a judgment is being passed on the artistic style of a film with it's placement, and that's not what the thread is judging.


I remember back to the original tier threads. There was a group of AVS members that decided to partake in the thread until a couple of movies that they liked weren't placed very high. It was appropriately ranked (low) for the PQ, but because it was the "best it had ever looked" on home media and because it "faithfully represented the director's intent" (I don't know how you can even argue against such a proposition) they felt it should have been at the very top of the list despite it not looking nearly as good as the titles up there.


To this day those members bash the Tier threads at every opportunity and discount it as a place where the people who partake in it are novices who know nothing about film/movies. It is a very elitist and snobbish attitude, and ironically this tier thread is accused of being for elitists. Anyhow, all of this started because the distinction couldn't be made to discern a "faithful representation" thread from a "PQ Tier" thread.


The reality is, if a person wants to start that thread they can...but how do delineations get made between a Tier 0 (ultimately faithful representation of director's intent and how it looked in the theater) and a Tier 5 (looks nothing like it is supposed to) movie? I mean, how many movies actually differ completely from the director's intended look and visual style when it hits HDM? Hell, even Bram Stoker's Dracula would be Tier 0 in that thread because according to BD insiders the blue flame, invisible cursive overlay and black crush is exactly what Zoetrope studios wanted. So what makes a movie Tier 4 or 5? Slight EE? Strong NR? Still an overwhelming amount of titles would be Tier 0, right?


IMO, you go down a very slippery slope when you are judging something that is graded on a moving curve that adjusts for every movie, has very few standards that can't be overcome by simply saying "that's how it's supposed to look" and can only be truly judged with information that less than 5% of the viewers will even have (knowing the director's intent) unless it's in a director's statement somewhere.


It is much easier to have absolute standards that no only stay the same for each film--no matter what the type or age--but also standards that each person voting can judge because no inside knowledge is necessary to critique it. All that is needed is some simple education on film mediums and terms like edge enhancement and grain, noise reduction, etc., and using a static scale for what is demo material and what isn't.


The bottom line is that you are correct. The initial reason this thread was created was to discern which movies being released were the ultimate "wow factor" movies, because we wanted to know just how big a difference would manifest itself on HDM. As it should have, the thread has evolved a bit over time now that there is more than just a handful of "wow" titles available, but some of the same original principles should apply. I find it refreshing when a person (a few pages ago) can post that a movie is the best it's ever looked, but still recognize--and vote for--it's placement in Tier 4 (Wall Street).


Disclaimer: This is my opinion of what I think a Tier Thread should be, and I speak for myself on this.


Brandon


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cold_As_IceSMM* /forum/post/13426987
> 
> 
> Agreed. And this is why people like me are a thorn in the side of this premise, but there are others like me, and this is precisely why I suggest that we make two separate threads for two very different expectations.



I remember that was offered to one of the biggest detractors of the original Tier threads and he scoffed at it.


Brandon


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13427648
> 
> 
> We (in this thread and in this forum) have been having exactly the same types of discussions about Warner low bitrate releases since Batman Begins. And now we have yet another in a very long line of Warner low bitrate dual format releases with suspiciously soft PQ. I, for one, would repeat what I have said before: it seems like an amazing coincidence that all the releases from the same very successful studio have exactly the same type of PQ problem.



This is a good point, and I think it's due for an official explanation by Warner Bros.


Could we at least come to a temporary compromise on I Am Legend's placement? Would you agree that, where ever I Am Legend and No Country for Old Men are placed, I Am Legend should be placed higher than No Country for Old Men?


I'd like to see I Am Legend at the very bottom of Tier 0, factoring in your concerns with the image.


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13427834
> 
> 
> I remember that was offered to one of the biggest detractors of the original Tier threads and he scoffed at it.
> 
> 
> Brandon



And where is 'he' at now?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cold_As_IceSMM* /forum/post/13427880
> 
> 
> This is a good point, and I think it's due for an official explanation by Warner Bros.
> 
> 
> Could we at least come to a temporary compromise on I Am Legend's placement? *Would you agree that, where ever I Am Legend and No Country for Old Men are placed, I Am Legend should be placed higher than No Country for Old Men?*
> 
> 
> I'd like to see I Am Legend at the very bottom of Tier 0, factoring in your concerns with the image.



No, I most definitely do not agree about that.


I believe I have said before that I think an appropriate placement for NCFOM would be mid Tier 1. I was perhaps too harsh in suggesting Tier 3 for IAL, but certainly no higher than mid Tier 2.


In any event, the placement of these two titles is not something that you and I can determine just between the two of us.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13427792
> 
> 
> I completely agree and think you make good points. The other problem (not with this thread, but sometimes the readers of this thread) is that it is assumed that a judgment is being passed on the artistic style of a film with it's placement, and that's not what the thread is judging.
> 
> 
> I remember back to the original tier threads. There was a group of AVS members that decided to partake in the thread until a couple of movies that they liked weren't placed very high. It was appropriately ranked (low) for the PQ, but because it was the "best it had ever looked" on home media and because it "faithfully represented the director's intent" (I don't know how you can even argue against such a proposition) they felt it should have been at the very top of the list despite it not looking nearly as good as the titles up there.
> 
> 
> To this day those members bash the Tier threads at every opportunity and discount it as a place where the people who partake in it are novices who know nothing about film/movies. It is a very elitist and snobbish attitude, and ironically this tier thread is accused of being for elitists. Anyhow, all of this started because the distinction couldn't be made to discern a "faithful representation" thread from a "PQ Tier" thread.
> 
> 
> The reality is, if a person wants to start that thread they can...but how do delineations get made between a Tier 0 (ultimately faithful representation of director's intent and how it looked in the theater) and a Tier 5 (looks nothing like it is supposed to) movie? I mean, how many movies actually differ completely from the director's intended look and visual style when it hits HDM? Hell, even Bram Stoker's Dracula would be Tier 0 in that thread because according to BD insiders the blue flame, invisible cursive overlay and black crush is exactly what Zoetrope studios wanted. So what makes a movie Tier 4 or 5? Slight EE? Strong NR? Still an overwhelming amount of titles would be Tier 0, right?
> 
> 
> IMO, you go down a very slippery slope when you are judging something that is graded on a moving curve that adjusts for every movie, has very few standards that can't be overcome by simply saying "that's how it's supposed to look" and can only be truly judged with information that less than 5% of the viewers will even have (knowing the director's intent) unless it's in a director's statement somewhere.
> 
> 
> It is much easier to have absolute standards that no only stay the same for each film--no matter what the type or age--but also standards that each person voting can judge because no inside knowledge is necessary to critique it. All that is needed is some simple education on film mediums and terms like edge enhancement and grain, noise reduction, etc., and using a static scale for what is demo material and what isn't.
> 
> 
> The bottom line is that you are correct. The initial reason this thread was created was to discern which movies being released were the ultimate "wow factor" movies, because we wanted to know just how big a difference would manifest itself on HDM. As it should have, the thread has evolved a bit over time now that there is more than just a handful of "wow" titles available, but some of the same original principles should apply. I find it refreshing when a person (a few pages ago) can post that a movie is the best it's ever looked, but still recognize--and vote for--it's placement in Tier 4 (Wall Street).
> 
> 
> Disclaimer: *This is my opinion of what I think a Tier Thread should be, and I speak for myself on this.*
> 
> 
> Brandon



Actually, you speak for me as well in saying what you have said.


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13427955
> 
> 
> In any event, the placement of these two titles is not something that you and I can determine just between the two of us.



No, but it would certainly help to make this process easier.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13427792
> 
> 
> It is much easier to have absolute standards that no only stay the same for each film--no matter what the type or age--but also standards that each person voting can judge because no inside knowledge is necessary to critique it.
> 
> 
> Brandon



Once again I completely agree with you Brandon. This statement really says it all regarding a PQ Tier Thread, for if we don't have set standards to judge the PQ by, we will all get lost in the murky world of relativism.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cold_As_IceSMM* /forum/post/13427936
> 
> 
> And where is 'he' at now?



He's one of the ones going around trashing the tier threads any chance he gets.


Brandon


----------



## briankmonkey




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/13428056
> 
> 
> Once again I completely agree with you Brandon. This statement really says it all regarding a PQ Tier Thread, for if we don't have set standards to judge the PQ by, we will all get lost in the murky world of relativism.



Agreed 100%


----------



## AustinSTI

I come back after weeks and we're still arguing about the same things....sigh. Cmon now its not perfect sure but we're not putting garbage in the top of the list. Nobody knows a directors true intent so that argument is a little silly. Now if a director is posting here and wants to share his intent....please do.


----------



## Health Nut

The effort put into this thread is much appreciated...


----------



## facesnorth

I like the idea of creating threads with distinct purposes. It would be nice to be able to determine how well the disc displays the director's intent. Also, for older movies, it would be nice to reflect somehow that this is the best we can possibly hope for that particular title. Perhaps something different to show the gradations of scale for animation titles. And finally it's nice to be able to see a list of absolute jaw dropping, picture POP, through the window, reference video titles.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I watched Justice League:New Frontier again. For a direct to video effort I think the picture and animation quality are very good. I did notice a touch of banding in a few scenes but that is my only real complaint. I think the traditional animation style used lends itself to a good looking transfer. Bottom half of tier 1 to at worst the top of tier 2. It is a Warner VC-1 encode averaging 15-21 Mbps for most of the movie. It is not quite as sharp though as something like The Simpsons movie.


Watching on a calibrated 60" Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 from a PS3 sitting approximately 5-6 feet away.


----------



## BBYBruno

I know Hitman just came out, but does anyone know what tier it will fall under?


----------



## stumlad

I don't speak for everyone, but I think the majority of contributers in this thread do NOT like to see DNR applied to get rid of grain... nor do they like to see EE used for added sharpness. Just because someone would rather not see grain doesnt mean they want the PQ sacraficed by post-processing by someone other than the director. It just means they are not a fan of the Directors who use a lot of grain.


As for director's intent. As others have said, it's hard to tell if it's intentional or not, but if a director intentionally wants his movie to look bad, it doesnt matter how faithful the BD is ... it still looks bad. Some movies just look better than others..


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cliff Stephenson* /forum/post/13426377
> 
> 
> The tiers themselves equate sharpness and HD pop with reference quality.



This is wrong.


This is NOT a "reference" thread.


I believe this has been mentioned before. More than once.










It is an "EYE CANDY" thread. If you want to criticize it for being an EYE CANDY thread, go right ahead. But that's what it is.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13427792
> 
> 
> I completely agree and think you make good points. The other problem (not with this thread, but sometimes the readers of this thread) is that it is assumed that a judgment is being passed on the artistic style of a film with it's placement, and that's not what the thread is judging.
> 
> 
> I remember back to the original tier threads. There was a group of AVS members that decided to partake in the thread until a couple of movies that they liked weren't placed very high. It was appropriately ranked (low) for the PQ, but because it was the "best it had ever looked" on home media and because it "faithfully represented the director's intent" (I don't know how you can even argue against such a proposition) they felt it should have been at the very top of the list despite it not looking nearly as good as the titles up there.
> 
> 
> To this day those members bash the Tier threads at every opportunity and discount it as a place where the people who partake in it are novices who know nothing about film/movies. It is a very elitist and snobbish attitude, and ironically this tier thread is accused of being for elitists. Anyhow, all of this started because the distinction couldn't be made to discern a "faithful representation" thread from a "PQ Tier" thread.
> 
> 
> The reality is, if a person wants to start that thread they can...but how do delineations get made between a Tier 0 (ultimately faithful representation of director's intent and how it looked in the theater) and a Tier 5 (looks nothing like it is supposed to) movie? I mean, how many movies actually differ completely from the director's intended look and visual style when it hits HDM? Hell, even Bram Stoker's Dracula would be Tier 0 in that thread because according to BD insiders the blue flame, invisible cursive overlay and black crush is exactly what Zoetrope studios wanted. So what makes a movie Tier 4 or 5? Slight EE? Strong NR? Still an overwhelming amount of titles would be Tier 0, right?
> 
> 
> IMO, you go down a very slippery slope when you are judging something that is graded on a moving curve that adjusts for every movie, has very few standards that can't be overcome by simply saying "that's how it's supposed to look" and can only be truly judged with information that less than 5% of the viewers will even have (knowing the director's intent) unless it's in a director's statement somewhere.
> 
> 
> It is much easier to have absolute standards that no only stay the same for each film--no matter what the type or age--but also standards that each person voting can judge because no inside knowledge is necessary to critique it. All that is needed is some simple education on film mediums and terms like edge enhancement and grain, noise reduction, etc., and using a static scale for what is demo material and what isn't.
> 
> 
> The bottom line is that you are correct. The initial reason this thread was created was to discern which movies being released were the ultimate "wow factor" movies, because we wanted to know just how big a difference would manifest itself on HDM. As it should have, the thread has evolved a bit over time now that there is more than just a handful of "wow" titles available, but some of the same original principles should apply. I find it refreshing when a person (a few pages ago) can post that a movie is the best it's ever looked, but still recognize--and vote for--it's placement in Tier 4 (Wall Street).
> 
> 
> Disclaimer: This is my opinion of what I think a Tier Thread should be, and I speak for myself on this.
> 
> 
> Brandon



Actually, Brandon, you can pretty much speak for me on this issue as well!


----------



## Health Nut

Is it ok to just be thankful we have a list like this? At least we have this thread.... thank-you all again!!!


----------



## lgans316

IMHO the tier thread is 95% accurate. I have been asking people in the other forums to keep checking this tier thread and I pity those who aren't aware of this thread.


----------



## Schlotkins

Whelp, I just finished watching Wall Street, which is unranked. It is the worst PQ movie I have seen yet. Where should it go? I've seen Goodfellas and the Devil Wears Prada. (Side Note: Is DWP really below Goodfellas? I know it's soft but it has less issues than Goodfellas.)


Anyway, I'd say the bottom of Tier 4 or the top of the Coal tier. This is on a PS3 -> 1080p24 to a Pioneer 5070 from 7-8 feet.


Chris


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Schlotkins* /forum/post/13433232
> 
> 
> Whelp, I just finished watching Wall Street, which is unranked. It is the worst PQ movie I have seen yet. Where should it go? I've seen Goodfellas and the Devil Wears Prada. (Side Note: Is DWP really below Goodfellas? I know it's soft but it has less issues than Goodfellas.)
> 
> 
> Anyway, I'd say the bottom of Tier 4 or the top of the Coal tier. This is on a PS3 -> 1080p24 to a Pioneer 5070 from 7-8 feet.
> 
> 
> Chris



I think Wall Street has 4 votes for Tier 4 placement now including yours, Dave Hir, maverick and my own. It will probably be placed soon.


Brandon


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13425051
> 
> 
> Yes, the finest details were definitely lacking, especially in faces. You didn't notice the compression noise, Rob?



Nope, didn't notice any artifacts whatsoever.


----------



## stumlad

Watched 3:10 to Yuma. I agree with low tier 1, but I think it was better than 30 days of night. Also, I'm not positive but, I think it was VC-1 encoded (at least thats what I recall my PS3 saying) Can someone double check this... I got it via Netflix and already packaged it to go back. Movie was pretty good, but I'm starting to get sick of all of these movies with non-cookie-cut endings... they are starting to become cookie-cut










Do you guys really think Harry Potter 5 looked better than this title? I thought it was one step below Shooter.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13433414
> 
> 
> Nope, didn't notice any artifacts whatsoever.



Neither did I, although I wasn't looking too closely for any.


Brandon


----------



## DavidHir

I watched *No Country for Old Men* tonight. This is a very nice looking disc as many have been saying. It has excellent contrast, blacks, and color production - it's definitely a filmlike transfer as some film grain is (pleasantly) seen. I will say that while my guess is this transfer is transparent to the source (no real visible artifacts and virtually no EE except in one scene that comes to mind), it does lack the extremely fine detail and natural sharpness that has been seen in some other very top tier movies; therefore, I'd say this is a very high Tier 2 or low Tier 1 title.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/13434035
> 
> 
> Watched 3:10 to Yuma. I agree with low tier 1, but I think it was better than 30 days of night. Also, I'm not positive but, I think it was VC-1 encoded (at least thats what I recall my PS3 saying) Can someone double check this... I got it via Netflix and already packaged it to go back. Movie was pretty good, but I'm starting to get sick of all of these movies with non-cookie-cut endings... they are starting to become cookie-cut
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you guys really think Harry Potter 5 looked better than this title? I thought it was one step below Shooter.



IMHO 3:10 to Yuma looked a tad better than HP-5. Both are VC-1 encoded but Yuma has an ABR of around 24 Mbps whereas HP-5 is just 14 Mbps. The bit rates on Yuma peaks 36 Mpbs when required which is grossly missing in HP-5. However Yuma seems to suffer from color fringing as pointed out by mhafner which ain't the case with HP-5. Both titles has 1 similarity in PQ. The opening chapters on both titles look terrific but PQ takes a hit in the clarity department as the movie progresses.


----------



## chris0




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13434075
> 
> 
> Neither did I, although I wasn't looking too closely for any.
> 
> 
> Brandon



You have to sit about 3 feet away from the screen to see them.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

so I see flags of our fathers atop tier 2...never seen the film but have wanted to


is it worth a purchase? or just a rental?


----------



## lgans316

I heard it's rental at best and doesn't hold a candle to Iwo Jima in terms of film value. As usual Paramount used a very high bit rate MPEG-4 encode on Flags but didn't feature lossless audio. The overseas Blu-ray version distributed by Warner uses the HD DVD VC-1 encode for video and features 16-bit LPCM track.


----------



## Cliff Stephenson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13426806
> 
> 
> The difficulty that has been identified in this thread from the time it was first started is that we have no way of knowing what the source material actually looks like so we don't know what problems originated in the source and what problems were introduced in going from the source to what we see on our displays. So we can't fairly evaluate how accurately what we see reproduces the source. We can, however, evaluate whether the results look good or not, and that is what we do.



Unfortunately, you also can't fairly evaluate whether increasing the bitrate on a title will improve its picture quality, but people seem to have no trouble being experts on that. Unless you are the compressionist with the original master in hand and you're doing the actual encoding, you have no way to know what effect different bitrates are going to have on the picture. None, zero, period, at all. The HDCAM SR tapes that are used for masters are not uncompressed either, so is banding seen on a Blu-ray part of a DI, present in the HDCAM SR master or is it a product of MPEG2, VC1 or AVC reencodes? YOU JUST CAN'T KNOW.


It's actually easier to evaluate the original look of the film than it is to evaluate the bit budget. For one thing, we have previous versions of films with which to compare. That's why so many people were upset about Dracula. It was not representative of *every other version* that had come before. I can look at a film on disc and tell immediately if it's been mucked with. I can also tell if the grain structure looks detailed and the image looks natural.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> This is wrong.
> 
> 
> This is NOT a "reference" thread.
> 
> 
> I believe this has been mentioned before. More than once.
> 
> 
> It is an "EYE CANDY" thread. If you want to criticize it for being an EYE CANDY thread, go right ahead. But that's what it is.



But the thread is titled "PICTURE QUALITY TIER THREAD" and as I pointed out, high ranking titles are only those that exhibit "Sharp image that has a lot of HD-POP effects." So if the photographic style of the film doesn't contain those characteristics, it can't be considered reference no matter how closely the disc adheres to the original style. That's actually counter-productive without people realizing it is.


For the record, I'm not warning people that the studios MIGHT read this and be mislead. I'm say it's already happening. There are studios out there who now make grain and noise reduction a mandatory step in the mastering process. The marketing departments have read these threads and when they see that Wall Street "is the worst PQ movie I have seen yet," they freak out and two things happen... We get DNR'd/EE'd titles to more closely approximate the smooth, sharp look of Shoot 'Em Up and we get studios afraid to release anything from their back catalog. Pay attention to what's been released and you'll see a pattern. With Disney, they've dipped into their back catalog all the back to 1995 (Crimson Tide). Other than Close Encounters and now Life of Brian, Sony has no releases older than 1990 (Revenge). Sony just released a 25th anniversary special edition of Tootsie. Why was there no Blu-ray version simultaneously (like we got with Gattaca and are getting with First Knight)? Because Sony marketing worries they'll see complaints about "tier four" picture quality that also doesn't fit into the PS3 demographic. If you look at who has the largest amount of older releases, you'll also notice that they are generally the one who get the most complaints about picture quality (Warner, Fox, Universal). That's not a coincidence.


You can dismiss me and this criticism all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that this thread, and others like it, are actually doing more harm than good with the people that make decisions. If you want to call it the HD POP thread or the "Which Film's Look the Most Like Ratatouille" thread, then fine. But equating a reference image with only a very "specific" look is moving us further away from what I know we all want. In a move that some people might not believe, the studios actually do want to give us what we want, but...

This

Thread

Is

Sending

The

Wrong

Message!


I'm telling you-


----------



## lgans316

Appreciate your educative post Cliff but do you feel that the current placements are wrong or flawed with reference to eye candy-ness ?


Aforementioned I would be happy if the Studios read this and realize what we are expecting out of them. So far only 25% of the titles on HDM formats offer value sharpness and the true razor HD-pop. People are spoiled by the over processed look of Dramas that are aired on the HD channels and expect similar or better quality on HDM formats. It's easy to convince Videophile with your intellectual comments but the J6Ps with the so-called UNTRAINED eyes are expecting exponential improvements on HDM over SD DVD.


IMO DNR + EE can be the worst sins that can be committed on HDM formats.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cold_As_IceSMM* /forum/post/13425069
> 
> 
> *I Am Legend* does a have few soft scenes, particularly the scene where Smith is washing his dog Sam in the bath tub. I'm confident that the softness in this scene is inherent to the source; It's a scene with intentional soft focus and mid summer, late day sunlight streaming into the room through the glass in the window.



Perhaps the softness in this scene might just possibly be attributed to the fact that the bitrate (apart from the close-ups) is about 10?


----------



## Cliff Stephenson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13434553
> 
> 
> Appreciate your educative post Cliff but do you feel that the current placements are wrong or flawed with reference to eye candy-ness ?
> 
> 
> Aforementioned I would be happy if the Studios read this and realize what we are expecting out of them. So far only 25% of the titles on HDM formats offer value sharpness and the true razor HD-pop. People are spoiled by the over processed look of Dramas that are aired on the HD channels and expect similar or better quality on HDM formats. It's easy to convince Videophile with your intellectual comments but the J6Ps with the so-called UNTRAINED eyes are expecting exponential improvements on HDM over SD DVD.
> 
> 
> IMO DNR + EE can be the worst sins that can be committed on HDM formats.



No, I think with regard to eye candy and demo material, the rankings are fairly accurate, but this thread is called Picture Quality Tier Thread and its very easy (as has already been seen) to mistakenly insinuate that because A Christmas Story is near the bottom of the list that it has poor picture quality. Well, I had the pleasure of seeing A Christmas Story theatrically over the Christmas holiday and that Blu-ray is a fabulous looking representation of what is contained on that original negative. To me, that's the best that HD can hope to achieve. Instead this is what the studios get:
"Though more impressive than 'National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation,' 'A Christmas Story' is still far from the kind of three-dimensional, wondrous image one associates with high-def." 

"Unfortunately we are given another mediocre video transfer on another Christmas classic. When we see outdoor scenes or close-ups, we can definitely see grain, and lots of it." 


An no, when Ghostbusters comes out, I don't want it to look like American Idol. I want it to look like Ghostbusters, which has a muted, slightly soft, mid-eighties, Panavision texture to it.


As far as convincing the J6p, that's really not the issue because the studios are listening to you guys in threads like this. The people here are supposed to be smarter than the average consumer. But instead you end up with this:


> Quote:
> I disagree with the notion that commentary should have an impact on PQ judgement. IMO, these should be absolute rankings that stand on their own. There shouldn't be curves used to grade titles from the 70s, or used to grade movies with heavily stylized director's intent, etc.
> 
> 
> If the director intended to induce filters or go for a look that stifles fine detail then by his own admission he's sacrificing PQ for his intended style, so there's grounds to lower the PQ ranking in a PQ Tier Thread.



So some people are happily pushing aside the correct, intended look in favor of something else. To me, that's the wrong message. I love movies. I want to see the best version possible of "That Movie." I don't want to see the "Crank'd Out Version" of "That Movie" just because some people are more consumed with the 1s and 0s than the artistry. I mean, under those guidelines, why aren't we advocating the cropping of 2.40 films to 1.78 because it would increase resolution in the available image? Under the clear intent of this thread (which displaces artistry and intent for clarity, detail and depth), no film with a 2.4 aspect ratio should rate in the upper tiers. There goes over half of tier zero!


Again, I think people's hearts are in the right place, but I don't think they comprehend the detriment that this type of thread is actually doing when you step back and look at the big picture.


----------



## wormraper




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cliff Stephenson* /forum/post/13434643
> 
> 
> I mean, under those guidelines, why aren't we advocating the cropping of 2.40 films to 1.78 because it would increase resolution in the available image?



Actually we have threads on that crap all the time







unforunately


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cliff Stephenson* /forum/post/13434643
> 
> 
> 
> So some people are happily pushing aside the correct, intended look in favor of something else. To me, that's the wrong message. I love movies. I want to see the best version possible of "That Movie." I don't want to see the "Crank'd Out Version" of "That Movie" just because some people are more consumed with the 1s and 0s than the artistry. I mean, under those guidelines, why aren't we advocating the cropping of 2.40 films to 1.78 because it would increase resolution in the available image? Under the clear intent of this thread (which displaces artistry and intent for clarity, detail and depth), no film with a 2.4 aspect ratio should rate in the upper tiers. There goes over half of tier zero!
> 
> 
> Again, I think people's hearts are in the right place, but I don't think they comprehend the detriment that this type of thread is actually doing when you step back and look at the big picture.




This point has been made already, but apparently it needs to be made again.


Anyone who reads this thread and thinks that DNR, EE, or any other artificial ways of "improving" PQ is what we want is just not paying attention.


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13434623
> 
> 
> Perhaps the softness in this scene might just possibly be attributed to the fact that the bitrate (apart from the close-ups) is about 10?



I find it peculiar that some of the people in the know are so reticent to discuss the reasoning behind not using seamless branching on I Am Legend. Does the HD DVD replicate exactly what is on the Blu-ray version in terms of PQ information?


----------



## lgans316

Mods,


Recommending to add the below Terms and Descriptions in the first post of this thread.

The below contents are taken from the HD DVD PQ thread.

*Terms and Descriptions:*


(EE) Refers to Edge Enhancement. A digital image processing filter used by some studios to improves the apparent sharpness of the video. The creation of bright and dark highlights on either side of any line leaves the line looking more contrasted from a distance. It actually makes the picture less detailed because fine details are covered by the resulting "halo" artifacts.


(DNR) Refers to Digital Noise Reduction. A process which uses a digital filtering algorithm on the digital image data to reduce the amount of random noise (like film grain, electronic noise of the teleciné, comb filter artifacts in composite video sources, film speckles, dirt, scratches etc.) but can result in an actual loss of resolution and fine details, the exact elements of a image that define realism.


(VDF) Refers to Vertical Domain Filtering. A frequent process applied to old 1080i masters to improve their appearance on 1080i display. The vertical pixels are essentially doubled because of the filtering. When deinterlaced to 1080p for HD DVD it looks like the scan was made at 960x1080 rather than the full 1920x1080. That creates the appearance of aliased edges.


(Banding) Colour banding is a problem of inaccurate colour presentation that causes abrupt changes between shades of the same colour. For instance in displaying natural gradients (like sunsets, dawns or clear blue skies).


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13434695
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who reads this thread and thinks that DNR, EE, or any other artificial ways of "improving" PQ is what we want is just not paying attention.



I already made this declaration a while back, but yes, it certainly seems like it's an imperative to repeat things several times over in this thread. And that comment is not meant to be inflammatory, but it's certainly frustrating nonetheless.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cold_As_IceSMM* /forum/post/13434699
> 
> 
> I find it peculiar that some of the people in the know are so reticent to discuss the reasoning behind not using seamless branching on I Am Legend. Does the HD DVD replicate exactly what is on the Blu-ray version in terms of PQ information?



Under Warner's three-week lag policy, the HD DVD won't be out for several weeks.


Do you have a specific theory, or just generalized distrust?


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13434707
> 
> 
> Under Warner's three-week lag policy, the HD DVD won't be out for several weeks.
> 
> 
> Do you have a specific theory, or just generalized distrust?



The second sentence is rhetoric more than anything. But no, I don't have anything new to speculate on. I just can't image the HD DVD of I Am Legend looking like it does on Blu-ray. I just can't see it.


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM

If Warner Bros. set out to establish a benchmark to set the HD DVD and Blu-ray versions of I Am Legend on a comparable level in terms of PQ information, it would be pretty sad if that judgment turned out to be misguided and the HD DVD version still didn't live up to the bar set with the Blu-ray version. What a waste.


But of course, this is just simple speculation.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cold_As_IceSMM* /forum/post/13434733
> 
> 
> If Warner Bros. set out to establish a benchmark to set the HD DVD and Blu-ray versions of I Am Legend on a comparable level in terms of PQ information, it would be pretty sad if that judgment turned out to be misguided and the HD DVD version still didn't live up to the bar set with the Blu-ray version. What a waste.
> 
> 
> But of course, this is just simple speculation.



Except for some very early releases, every Warner high def release has been identical on both formats (except for extras). Why would they change now?


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13434745
> 
> 
> Except for some very early releases, every Warner high def release has been identical on both formats (except for extras). Why would they change now?



We'd better wait until the HD DVD version releases before I comment any further on that.


----------



## Xylon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13423252
> 
> 
> I'm confused. How does considering "3D pop" prevent "honest evaluation of the BD movies"? *It either has it or it doesn't.* Directors intent, for the billionth time, is irrelevant in this thread.



F*** the directors. What do they know? We know how their films should look. If we don't like it put their films at TIER 5







Hey where is The Searchers ? LOL!

*And nobody said "3D pop" is the MAIN factor to be considered.*


C'mon now


----------



## Xylon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/13418427
> 
> 
> Well, that's exactly what Patrick seems to do......watches 5 minutes and pretends he knows what the whole movie looks like.



We need more participation from the usual AVS _rabble rousers_







they seem to ignore TIER threads for some reason










We may need a separate TIER thread for this group of people


----------



## Xylon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TheLion* /forum/post/13423260
> 
> 
> Don't even get me started about Warner and bitrate-starvation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - my above comments certainly only apply to "healthy bitrate levels" (which is highly dependent on content).
> 
> 
> For an example - have you seen the latest Potter release??? Just after the beginning - pan shot over the meadow - some of the most obvious and severe macroblocking I have ever seen in any HD presentation (including the rather high quality European OTA HD programming...I can only imagine what you guys from Japan have to say about this - given the excellent quality of most of your programming - BShi comes to my mind). If you can receive HD programming with double+ the bitrate and less macroblocking than HDM blockbuster releases something isn't right...
> 
> 
> Releasing recent blockbuster movies in a bitrate-starved "fashion" resulting in such severe macroblocking is a disgrace for HDM (while still getting rave 5 star reviews almost across the board
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ). I hope - let me rephrase this - I pray this practices will change with the switch to Blu-Ray exclusivity.
> 
> *Perhaps Xylon could kindly post some grabs about sequences like the before mentioned some day.* Something like a "best-of Warner macroblocking"...



Well of course including "high bitrate" ones that is TIER 0 according to them










I can go to the next level of nitpicking if you like


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Xylon* /forum/post/13434844
> 
> 
> F*** the directors. What do they know? We know how their films should look. If we don't like it put their films at TIER 5
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey where is The Searchers ? LOL!
> 
> *And nobody said "3D pop" is the MAIN factor to be considered.*
> 
> 
> C'mon now



We would certainly welcome any director who would like to post in this thread and tell us whether the BD version looks the way the movie was intended to look.


----------



## vurbano

Are votes actually counted in this thread? and is there a tally?


----------



## Xylon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cliff Stephenson* /forum/post/13426377
> 
> 
> Nobody is directly asking for grain reduction, but by the very nature of the way the tier is designed:
> 
> 
> The tiers themselves equate sharpness and HD pop with reference quality. The studios see that and realize that the only way to please is to try and manipulate the image to resemble something newer. *Admonishing a naturally grainy title like Crash or Tomb Raider and shipping them off to the middle of tier four because they lack "3D pop"* is indirectly asking a studio to alter those titles to more closely simulate tier one and two titles. That's what I'm trying to raise awareness about. By only praising a very specific look versus the praise for the "correct" look, it's a silent signal that the studios take as a complaint.
> 
> 
> Again, I think a title like Rocky or The Devil's Rejects fits the description of a tier zero title to the letter:
> 
> 
> Both of those title are the cleanest and sharpest image available... _for those films_ and I don't think you could ask for more.
> 
> 
> 
> It may not cost us monetarily, but there is more to be lost than just money.



. . . . 300 for which is no discernable artifacts to be observed and its sharp and detailed PQ and among the best HD disc out there and *they* put this title at TIER 1 ? below 5th Element RM?!? Sunshine?!? Hellboy?!? Spidey 3?!? ALL the Pirates movies?!?


And you guys know why? Because its "too grainy"
















*300 is supposed to be grainy! ! ! ! !*


TIER 0


----------



## Xylon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vurbano* /forum/post/13434897
> 
> 
> Are votes actually counted in this thread? and is there a tally?



Nope. Unlike HD DVD tier thread. Very, very, very few really have influence in this TIER thread that can move movie's ranking. And lots of complaints about movies being _soft_ and _too grainy_


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Xylon* /forum/post/13434941
> 
> 
> Nope. Unlike HD DVD tier thread. Very, very, very few really have influence in this TIER thread that can move movie's ranking. And lots of complaints about movies being _soft_ and _too grainy_



Where would you rank I Am Legend?


----------



## Xylon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/13430035
> 
> 
> I come back after weeks and we're still arguing about the same things....sigh. Cmon now its not perfect sure but we're not putting garbage in the top of the list. *Nobody knows a directors true intent so that argument is a little silly.* Now if a director is posting here and wants to share his intent....please do.



*sigh*


Ok what's 300 supposed to look like?


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Xylon* /forum/post/13434914
> 
> 
> *300 is supposed to be grainy! ! ! ! !*
> 
> 
> TIER 0



We seem to be thinking on the same wavelength, and while I haven't seen 300 on any hi-def format, this is a very liberal recommendation. Tier 1 doesn't seem that unreasonable to me.


----------



## Xylon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cold_As_IceSMM* /forum/post/13434969
> 
> 
> Where would you rank I Am Legend?



Upper TIER 1 but there as just soo many movies they ranked there that is not making sense _to me_ so I can't say on top of this movie or below it.


Unlike some of the more active participants of this thread I don't penalize movies that much even if I notice any minor artifacting or softness. I really do judge the movies PQ as a whole AND compare in relation to other movies.


Consistency in PQ, sharpness and detail. With age of the film thrown in.


No fraking way I will rank The Searchers that low.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Xylon* /forum/post/13435008
> 
> 
> Upper TIER 1 but there as just soo many movies they ranked there that is not making sense _to me_ so I can't say on top of this movie or below it.
> 
> 
> Unlike some of the more active participants of this thread I don't penalize movies that much even if I notice any minor artifacting or softness. I really do judge the movies PQ as a whole AND compare in relation to other movies.
> 
> *Consistency in PQ, sharpness and detail.* With age of the film thrown in.
> 
> 
> No fraking way I will rank The Searchers that low.




I think most of us here would agree with those criteria. Applying them to particular cases is what becomes more difficult.


----------



## Xylon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/13431487
> 
> 
> I don't speak for everyone, but I think the majority of contributers in this thread do NOT like to see DNR applied to get rid of grain... nor do they like to see EE used for added sharpness. Just because someone would rather not see grain doesnt mean they want the PQ sacraficed by post-processing by someone other than the director. *It just means they are not a fan of the Directors who use a lot of grain.*
> 
> 
> As for director's intent. As others have said, it's hard to tell if it's intentional or not, but if a director intentionally wants his movie to look bad, it doesnt matter how faithful the BD is ... it still looks bad. Some movies just look better than others..



Director's intent does not matter according to them. They hate grain. Even tough a movie is supposed to look like that they penalize it.


Shoot Em Up


TIER 0 top PQ of all live action BD release. Sharper and much more detailed than the Pirates movies, Mr. Brooks, Black Snake Moan, Crank?!? DH4, FF2, The Host, Man on Fire and Spidey 3?


Or just maybe its just toooo grainy for all of you


----------



## Cliff Stephenson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13434695
> 
> 
> This point has been made already, but apparently it needs to be made again.
> 
> 
> Anyone who reads this thread and thinks that DNR, EE, or any other artificial ways of "improving" PQ is what we want is just not paying attention.



Well, that's debatable, but even if that were the case, my point is that the people in the decision making positions are the ones not paying attention. I'm trying to warn people that you have to be very careful about what you're asking for and how.


I'm just saying that I don't think people completely comprehend the effect that threads like this have on what the studios do. Ask yourself, why did we get a movie like Legend of Zorro and we still don't have Mask of Zorro?


And while this point may have been made before, I'm telling you from a certain degree of experience that the point has merit.


----------



## Xylon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13432711
> 
> 
> This is wrong.
> 
> 
> This is NOT a "reference" thread.
> 
> 
> I believe this has been mentioned before. More than once.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is an "EYE CANDY" thread. If you want to criticize it for being an EYE CANDY thread, go right ahead. But that's what it is.



"3D POP" is eye candy yes?


----------



## patrick99

For those who actually want to participate in this thread, a moderate tone is more likely to have an effect than a shrill one. For those who don't want to participate in this thread, one wonders why they choose to post here.


----------



## Xylon

Don't worry my _rants_ are just rants. I will leave this thread to you now. Its been _eye- opening_


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Xylon* /forum/post/13435048
> 
> 
> 
> Or just maybe its just toooo grainy for all of you



Hey, don't throw me in that basket. Again, I haven't seen the movie, but I agree with the abstraction.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cold_As_IceSMM* /forum/post/13435231
> 
> 
> Hey, don't throw me in that basket. Again, I haven't seen the movie, but I agree with the abstraction.



Wrt SEU, any shortcomings don't have to do with grain, but rather that some shots are not as sharp as others.


----------



## SuprSlow

I'm sorry this thread isn't perfect and doesn't suit everyone's idea of what it should be. It's purpose has been stated repeatedly, if you fail to understand that or continue to ignore it, I guess there's nothing more that can be done.


I hope everyone has a wonderful day











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13435087
> 
> 
> For those who actually want to participate in this thread, a moderate tone is more likely to have an effect than a shrill one. For those who don't want to participate in this thread, one wonders why they choose to post here.



I've wondered that as well. And thank you for posting


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/13435262
> 
> 
> I'm sorry this thread isn't perfect and doesn't suit everyone's idea of what it should be. It's purpose has been stated repeatedly, if you fail to understand that or continue to ignore it, I guess there's nothing more that can be done.
> 
> 
> I hope everyone has a wonderful day
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've wondered that as well. And thank you for posting



And thanks to you for yours as well.


----------



## Cliff Stephenson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/13435262
> 
> 
> I'm sorry this thread isn't perfect and doesn't suit everyone's idea of what it should be. It's purpose has been stated repeatedly, if you fail to understand that or continue to ignore it, I guess there's nothing more that can be done.
> 
> 
> I hope everyone has a wonderful day
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've wondered that as well. And thank you for posting



It's not about whether or not this thread is perfect. It's about the unintentional effect it has. I'm trying to provide some helpful input from inside the industry but people seem to want to be defensive versus contemplative. If having the thread is more important than any potential harm it may do, then by all means continue.


It's like talking to mayor in Jaws. The shark out there and it's feeding but he keeps mumbling about keeping the beaches open because he thought it was what was best for the town.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cliff Stephenson* /forum/post/13435398
> 
> 
> It's not about whether or not this thread is perfect. It's about the unintentional effect it has. I'm trying to provide some helpful input from inside the industry but people seem to want to be defensive versus contemplative. If having the thread is more important than any potential harm it may do, then by all means continue.
> 
> 
> It's like talking to mayor in Jaws. The shark out there and it's feeding but he keeps mumbling about keeping the beaches open because he thought it was what was best for the town.



So what exactly would you suggest we do differently?


----------



## vurbano




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Xylon* /forum/post/13434941
> 
> 
> Nope.



Thats probably why a lot of people do not participate.


----------



## Cliff Stephenson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13435564
> 
> 
> So what exactly would you suggest we do differently?



I would change the tone and specificity of this thread to be purely about demo quality without attaching that to picture quality because they're two completely separate things. You can have reference picture quality on a title that isn't exactly demo worthy. Then I would create a dedicated thread devoted to image quality that is more in consideration of the intended look and time period. Is it full of artifacting, is it over compressed, does it contain edge enhancement, is it compromised from its native state at all? And hopefully you can educate people about the artistry of film instead of focusing exclusively on the technical and hopefully encourage the studios to not be as hesitant about releasing some of these less "demo worthy" titles. How many times did Paid Geek say a title was pulled from the schedule because the master wasn't up to snuff. What exactly do you think he meant?


But what do I know, I like films more than codecs and bitrates.


----------



## lgans316

Friends, let's not get into argument mode and force the mods to temporarily lock this thread. Everyone is trying their best to contribute but with difference of opinion. Cribbers crib. Quitters Quit. Nobody is perfect and I am a Nobody.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cliff Stephenson* /forum/post/13435704
> 
> 
> I would change the tone and specificity of this thread to be purely about demo quality without attaching that to picture quality because they're two completely separate things. You can have reference picture quality on a title that isn't exactly demo worthy. Then I would create a dedicated thread devoted to image quality that is more in consideration of the intended look and time period. Is it full of artifacting, is it over compressed, does it contain edge enhancement, is it compromised from its native state at all? And hopefully you can educate people about the artistry of film instead of focusing exclusively on the technical and hopefully encourage the studios to not be as hesitant about releasing some of these less "demo worthy" titles. *How many times did Paid Geek say a title was pulled from the schedule because the master wasn't up to snuff. What exactly do you think he meant?*
> 
> 
> But what do I know, I like films more than codecs and bitrates.



That is very different behavior on the part of a studio than you were describing before. The behavior you were describing before was a studio applying EE or DNR in order to achieve what you wrongly accuse us of wanting in this thread. What you are describing now is a studio choosing simply not to release a particular title on BD because the result will not look very impressive, even if the BD is completely faithful to the source. This second type of behavior doesn't bother me at all.


----------



## OldCodger73

In the past I've found the tier thread a valuable help in making renting and buying decisions. Lately, though, it seems people are arguing and spending more energy in trying to force the thread into their idea of what it should be rather than rating movies. If you look on page one of this thread there's a large number of unranked films. It's too bad that some of the time spent in arguing your point couldn't be spent in shortening the unranked title list. My 2¢.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/13435898
> 
> 
> In the past I've found the tier thread a valuable help in making renting and buying decisions. Lately, though, it seems people are arguing and spending more energy in trying to force the thread into their idea of what it should be rather than rating movies. If you look on page one of this thread there's a large number of unranked films. It's too bad that some of the time spent in arguing your point couldn't be spent in shortening the unranked title list. My 2¢.



Perhaps you haven't noticed that recently there have been several posters who have been challenging either the basis for this thread or the manner in which it is carried out. Much of the recent discussion has been directed at attempting to respond to those challenges. If your post was directed at me, I assure you that I would much rather be discussing specific movies rather than defending the premise or operation of this thread.


----------



## Cliff Stephenson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13435786
> 
> 
> That is very different behavior on the part of a studio than you were describing before. What you are describing now is a studio choosing simply not to release a particular title on BD because the result will not look very impressive, even if the BD is completely faithful to the source. This second type of behavior doesn't bother me at all.



No, I've been saying that both are a risk from this thread:


> Quote:
> The marketing departments have read these threads and when they see that Wall Street "is the worst PQ movie I have seen yet," they freak out and two things happen... We get DNR'd/EE'd titles to more closely approximate the smooth, sharp look of Shoot 'Em Up and we get studios afraid to release anything from their back catalog.



I was using using Paid Geek's comments about pulled titles as an example of an area where this type of thread causes problems. It's not the only problem created though.



> Quote:
> The behavior you were describing before was a studio applying EE or DNR in order to achieve what you wrongly accuse us of wanting in this thread.



For **** sake, I'm not wrongly accusing anybody of wanting that. I'm not accusing anyone of wanting that at all. I'm saying people have to be cautious of how they categorize things because it can have an unintended detrimental effect!!!!


Good god, now I know why all the insiders left. You open the door a bit to give people a slight window into what occasionally goes on with the studios and you're met with a bunch of Monday morning quarterbacks trying to manufacturer loopholes to support their viewpoint instead of taking the time to actually think about what they're being told. Just find me the place where I said people are asking for DNR and EE!!!


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cliff Stephenson* /forum/post/13435704
> 
> *I would change the tone and specificity of this thread to be purely about demo quality without attaching that to picture quality because they're two completely separate things. You can have reference picture quality on a title that isn't exactly demo worthy. Then I would create a dedicated thread devoted to image quality that is more in consideration of the intended look and time period. Is it full of artifacting, is it over compressed, does it contain edge enhancement, is it compromised from its native state at all?* And hopefully you can educate people about the artistry of film instead of focusing exclusively on the technical and hopefully encourage the studios to not be as hesitant about releasing some of these less "demo worthy" titles. How many times did Paid Geek say a title was pulled from the schedule because the master wasn't up to snuff. What exactly do you think he meant?
> 
> 
> But what do I know, I like films more than codecs and bitrates.



It seems to me that the change you are proposing in this thread is relatively minor, that is changing the subject line from "PQ Tier thread" to "Demo PQ Tier thread." How does that avoid the adverse behavior on the part of studios reading the thread that you are complaining about?


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13435087
> 
> 
> For those who actually want to participate in this thread, a moderate tone is more likely to have an effect than a shrill one. For those who don't want to participate in this thread, one wonders why they choose to post here.



Yeah...seriously.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cold_As_IceSMM* /forum/post/13435231
> 
> 
> Hey, don't throw me in that basket. Again, I haven't seen the movie, but I agree with the abstraction.



I've seen the movie and I don't agree with him. But then again I guess that makes me one of the guys who must hate grain or an elitist who doesn't account for anybody else's opinion.


Brandon


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cliff Stephenson* /forum/post/13435704
> 
> 
> I would change the tone and specificity of this thread to be purely about demo quality without attaching that to picture quality because they're two completely separate things. You can have reference picture quality on a title that isn't exactly demo worthy. Then I would create a dedicated thread devoted to image quality that is more in consideration of the intended look and time period. Is it full of artifacting, is it over compressed, does it contain edge enhancement, is it compromised from its native state at all? And hopefully you can educate people about the artistry of film instead of focusing exclusively on the technical and hopefully encourage the studios to not be as hesitant about releasing some of these less "demo worthy" titles.



Didn't I just go through essentially describing the same thing a page or two back?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/13435898
> 
> 
> In the past I've found the tier thread a valuable help in making renting and buying decisions. Lately, though, it seems people are arguing and spending more energy in trying to force the thread into their idea of what it should be rather than rating movies. If you look on page one of this thread there's a large number of unranked films. It's too bad that some of the time spent in arguing your point couldn't be spent in shortening the unranked title list. My 2¢.



+1


I vote that we go back to reviewing movies using the standards set forth on page one. If anyone doesn't like those standards, or the title of this thread, they are free to go elsewhere (it's still a free country







). I'm not trying to be offensive in saying this, I simply want to avoid what I mentioned in an earlier post about the danger of getting "lost in the murky world of relativism."


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/13436615
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> 
> I vote that we go back to reviewing movies using the standards set forth on page one. If anyone doesn't like those standards, or the title of this thread, they are free to go elsewhere (it's still a free country
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ). I'm not trying to be offensive in saying this, I simply want to avoid what I mentioned in an earlier post about the danger of getting "lost in the murky world of relativism."



Totally agree.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13434703
> 
> 
> Mods,
> 
> 
> Recommending to add the below Terms and Descriptions in the first post of this thread.
> 
> The below contents are taken from the HD DVD PQ thread.
> 
> *Terms and Descriptions:*
> 
> 
> (EE) Refers to Edge Enhancement. A digital image processing filter used by some studios to improves the apparent sharpness of the video. The creation of bright and dark highlights on either side of any line leaves the line looking more contrasted from a distance. It actually makes the picture less detailed because fine details are covered by the resulting "halo" artifacts.
> 
> 
> (DNR) Refers to Digital Noise Reduction. A process which uses a digital filtering algorithm on the digital image data to reduce the amount of random noise (like film grain, electronic noise of the teleciné, comb filter artifacts in composite video sources, film speckles, dirt, scratches etc.) but can result in an actual loss of resolution and fine details, the exact elements of a image that define realism.
> 
> 
> (VDF) Refers to Vertical Domain Filtering. A frequent process applied to old 1080i masters to improve their appearance on 1080i display. The vertical pixels are essentially doubled because of the filtering. When deinterlaced to 1080p for HD DVD it looks like the scan was made at 960x1080 rather than the full 1920x1080. That creates the appearance of aliased edges.
> 
> 
> (Banding) Colour banding is a problem of inaccurate colour presentation that causes abrupt changes between shades of the same colour. For instance in displaying natural gradients (like sunsets, dawns or clear blue skies).



Done


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/13436615
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> 
> I vote that we go back to reviewing movies using the standards set forth on page one. If anyone doesn't like those standards, or the title of this thread, they are free to go elsewhere (it's still a free country
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ). I'm not trying to be offensive in saying this, I simply want to avoid what I mentioned in an earlier post about the danger of getting "lost in the murky world of relativism."



I agree with OldCougar but voting isn't gonna happen so please stop asking. We have our reasons and they are in this thread some pages back; do a search.


Let's get back to tiering threads. If you have a legitimate complaint about how the thread is run then PM a mod but keep it out of the thread. Complaints about a movie's tier placement are fine to place in a thread if they follow the guidelines from page one. I'm sorry I have to do this but this thread is about tiering movies not HOW we tier movies. Violaters will be reported to mods...


----------



## lgans316

Thanks AustinSTI for putting forth the Terms and Descriptions on the original post.



> Quote:
> In the past I've found the tier thread a valuable help in making renting and buying decisions. Lately, though, it seems people are arguing and spending more energy in trying to force the thread into their idea of what it should be rather than rating movies. If you look on page one of this thread there's a large number of unranked films. It's too bad that some of the time spent in arguing your point couldn't be spent in shortening the unranked title list. My 2¢.



I slightly disagree with the above as SuprSlow and Rob who are moderating this thread along with AustinSTI mentioned that were held up with other activities and couldn't update the tier thread. I think Suprslow took care of many of our requests last week.


I think the next bunch of titles will be ranked soon.


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13436745
> 
> 
> 
> I think the next bunch of titles will be ranked soon.



Good to know.


----------



## djoberg




AustinSTI said:


> I agree with OldCougar but *voting isn't gonna happen so please stop asking*.
> 
> 
> Did you really think I was asking for a vote? I was using the word "vote" to express my opinion; I wasn't literally asking others to vote on anything. My main point was the one you expressed, "Let's get back to Tier placement."


----------



## stumlad

I was looking through the list and kind of surprised that these werent ranked:


Bad Santa - I netflixed it, but didnt find the PQ to be all that great (tier 3). I heard that I watched the version with the worse PQ? Were there really two versions with different encodes?


Die Hard 2 - this goes above Die Hard 1, but not very much higher.


Discovery Atlas Italy: Tier 2. Looks good, but not as good as Planet Earth, but better than anything in Tier 3. Not sure exact placement, but Tier 2.


Full Metal Jacket (newer version): Mid Tier 3. Looks about as good as Flatliners.


Out for Justice: Low Tier 3. Some parts are tier 2, some are tier 4. Looks like it needs a new master.


Primeval: Mid Tier 2.. Maybe Higher.. oversaturated colors, but fairly sharp.


Return to House on Haunted Hill : Tier 3.


Note that some of my rankings are based on memory.


1080p24,PS3, JVC RS-1 with 106" diagonal 16:9 screen. 10.5 feet back.


----------



## hollywoodguy

I know the below-described result is _not_ the intention of this thread and since I usually don't participate here, I don't want to rain on anyone's parade, so please forgive me the OT post, but *I KNOW FOR A FACT* that the following is true and thought the people who do participate here regularly would want to know. Some points bolded.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cliff Stephenson* /forum/post/13434542
> 
> 
> For the record, I'm not warning people that the studios MIGHT read this and be mislead. I'm say it's already happening. *There are studios out there who now make grain and noise reduction a mandatory step in the mastering process.* The marketing departments have read these threads and when they see that Wall Street "is the worst PQ movie I have seen yet," they freak out and two things happen... *We get DNR'd/EE'd titles to more closely approximate the smooth, sharp look of Shoot 'Em Up and we get studios afraid to release anything from their back catalog*. Pay attention to what's been released and you'll see a pattern. With Disney, they've dipped into their back catalog all the back to 1995 (Crimson Tide). Other than Close Encounters and now Life of Brian, Sony has no releases older than 1990 (Revenge). Sony just released a 25th anniversary special edition of Tootsie. Why was there no Blu-ray version simultaneously (like we got with Gattaca and are getting with First Knight)? Because Sony *marketing worries they'll see complaints about "tier four" picture quality* that also doesn't fit into the PS3 demographic. If you look at *who has the largest amount of older releases*, you'll also notice that they are generally the one who *get the most complaints about picture quality* (Warner, Fox, Universal). That's not a coincidence.
> 
> 
> You can dismiss me and this criticism all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that this thread, and others like it, are actually doing more harm than good with the people that make decisions. If you want to call it the HD POP thread or the "Which Film's Look the Most Like Ratatouille" thread, then fine. *But equating a reference image with only a very "specific" look is moving us further away from what I know we all want. In a move that some people might not believe, the studios actually do want to give us what we want, but...*
> 
> This
> 
> Thread
> 
> Is
> 
> Sending
> 
> The
> 
> Wrong
> 
> Message!



Yes, that does mean studios partly misunderstand this thread, but that doesn't make the result any less damaging, especially if you care about older movies and faithful, film-like representations of them, like I know most who participate in this thread do. Sorry about the negativity, but it is what it is, so take it for what it's worth.


----------



## AustinSTI




djoberg said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/13436701
> 
> 
> I agree with OldCougar but *voting isn't gonna happen so please stop asking*.
> 
> 
> Did you really think I was asking for a vote? I was using the word "vote" to express my opinion; I wasn't literally asking others to vote on anything. My main point was the one you expressed, "Let's get back to Tier placement."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I got the main point at least
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just didn't want to start down the voting discussion. Starting next week I'll be back and more involved in making placements. I've been traveling for work so the thread has taken a backseat for the past few months for me...Supr and Rob have been doing great and have my utmost gratitude....
Click to expand...


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hollywoodguy* /forum/post/13437307
> 
> 
> I know the below-described result is _not_ the intention of this thread and since I usually don't participate here, I don't want to rain on anyone's parade, so please forgive me the OT post, but *I KNOW FOR A FACT* that the following is true and thought the people who do participate here regularly would want to know. Some points bolded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that does mean studios partly misunderstand this thread, but that doesn't make the result any less damaging, especially if you care about older movies and faithful, film-like representations of them, like I know most who participate in this thread do. Sorry about the negativity, but it is what it is, so take it for what it's worth.



You know for a fact that studios apply DNR and EE *because* of this Tier Thread? I mean, how am I to interpret that any other way? Because if you're saying you know for a fact that studios apply DNR and EE to make things look better to the average viewer you're not saying anything 90% of the folks in this thread don't already know. So, seriously, how do people draw the conclusion that DNR and EE are applied because of this thread even though titles in this thread are *downgraded* because of those very things? And why don't those same idiots read the DNR/EE master list thread while they're here browsing?


And since you have basically corroborated everything in that original post, how do you reconcile the upcoming release of a 1985 back catalog title like Passage to India with it? And that Fox does *not* get generally the most complaints for PQ, like was stated?


Brandon


----------



## SuprSlow

Good job on the Unranked List this week, folks







We're down to 131.


I went ahead and placed I Am Legend and NCFOM, both at or near the top of Tier 1. That placement seemed to be a compromise between the input given, and is a good placeholder until we can agree on something more fitting.


Comments/suggestions welcomed.


The latest:

*Mr. Brooks* - moved to bottom Tier 0

*Becoming Jane* - Tier 0

*Fantastic Four: RoSS* - moved to upper 1/3 of Tier 1

*I, Robot* - high Tier 0

*30 Days of Night* - high Tier 1

*Dan in Real Life* - top Tier 2

*Dogma* - moved up a few spots in Tier 2

*Rescue Dawn* - moved up to Tier 0

*Enchanted* - mid Tier 1

*Hitman* - high Tier 2

*Sleuth* - high Tier 1

*Visions of the Sea* - high Tier 2

*Resident Evil: Extinction* - mid Tier 2, below Ghost Rider

*Life of Brian* - moved up to top Tier 3

*The Island* - mid Tier 1

*Basic Instinct* - high Tier 4

*Gattaca* - low Tier 2

*Wall Street* - low Tier 4

*I Am Legend* - top Tier 1 (averaged from input)

*No Country for Old Men* - high Tier 1 (averaged from input)

*Hostel* - top 1/3 Tier 3

*Vertical Limit* - mid Tier 2

*Die Hard 2* - Tier 3 above DH1

*Bad Santa* - Tier 3

*Discovery Atlas: Italy* - Tier 2

*Full Metal Jacket (Deluxe Edition)* - Mid 3 near Flatliners

*Out for Justice* - low Tier 3

*Primeval* - top 1/3 Tier 2

*Return to House on Haunted Hill* - Tier 3


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/13438259
> 
> 
> Good job on the Unranked List this week, folks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're down to 131.
> 
> 
> I went ahead and placed I Am Legend and NCFOM, both at or near the top of Tier 1. That placement seemed to be a compromise between the input given, and is a good placeholder until we can agree on something more fitting.
> 
> 
> Comments/suggestions welcomed.
> 
> 
> The latest:
> 
> *Mr. Brooks* - moved to bottom Tier 0
> 
> *Becoming Jane* - Tier 0
> 
> *Fantastic Four: RoSS* - moved to upper 1/3 of Tier 1
> 
> *I, Robot* - high Tier 0
> 
> *30 Days of Night* - high Tier 1
> 
> *Dan in Real Life* - top Tier 2
> 
> *Dogma* - moved up a few spots in Tier 2
> 
> *Rescue Dawn* - moved up to Tier 0
> 
> *Enchanted* - mid Tier 1
> 
> *Hitman* - high Tier 2
> 
> *Sleuth* - high Tier 1
> 
> *Visions of the Sea* - high Tier 2
> 
> *Resident Evil: Extinction* - mid Tier 2, below Ghost Rider
> 
> *Life of Brian* - moved up to top Tier 3
> 
> *The Island* - mid Tier 1
> 
> *Basic Instinct* - high Tier 4
> 
> *Gattaca* - low Tier 2
> 
> *Wall Street* - low Tier 4
> 
> *I Am Legend* - top Tier 1 (averaged from input)
> 
> *No Country for Old Men* - high Tier 1 (averaged from input)
> 
> *Hostel* - top 1/3 Tier 3
> 
> *Vertical Limit* - mid Tier 2
> 
> *Die Hard 2* - Tier 3 above DH1
> 
> *Bad Santa* - Tier 3
> 
> *Discovery Atlas: Italy* - Tier 2
> 
> *Full Metal Jacket (Deluxe Edition)* - Mid 3 near Flatliners
> 
> *Out for Justice* - low Tier 3
> 
> *Primeval* - top 1/3 Tier 2
> 
> *Return to House on Haunted Hill* - Tier 3



Overall, my initial impression of these changes is favorable.


Two immediate qualifications:


I think moving Mr. Brooks to the very bottom of Tier 0 is a bit drastic. In any event, I think that Spiderman 3 should be moved back to the very bottom of Tier 0. I think there is no serious argument that SM3 is above Mr. Brooks.


Putting I Am Legend at the very top of Tier 1, in my opinion, is not correct. The pervasive softness, which I do not believe is inherent in the source, is inconsistent with that placement. I assume that, once more people have seen this title, there will be agreement to lower it.


----------



## Cliff Stephenson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13437863
> 
> 
> You know for a fact that studios apply DNR and EE *because* of this Tier Thread? I mean, how am I to interpret that any other way? Because if you're saying you know for a fact that studios apply DNR and EE to make things look better to the average viewer you're not saying anything 90% of the folks in this thread don't already know. So, seriously, how do people draw the conclusion that DNR and EE are applied because of this thread even though titles in this thread are *downgraded* because of those very things? And why don't those same idiots read the DNR/EE master list thread while they're here browsing?
> 
> 
> And since you have basically corroborated everything in that original post, how do you reconcile the upcoming release of a 1985 back catalog title like Passage to India with it? And that Fox does *not* get generally the most complaints for PQ, like was stated?
> 
> 
> Brandon



You know what? You're right. Forget it. You clearly know more than people who deal with the studios and get this information first hand. The fact that some of you are so ungrateful and unbending in your viewpoints sickens me. Bask in the warmth of ignorance and incomprehension. You deserve what you get.


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13438443
> 
> 
> Overall, my initial impression of these changes is favorable.
> 
> 
> Two immediate qualifications:
> 
> 
> I think moving Mr. Brooks to the very bottom of Tier 0 is a bit drastic. In any event, I think that Spiderman 3 should be moved back to the very bottom of Tier 0. I think there is no serious argument that SM3 is above Mr. Brooks.
> 
> 
> Putting I Am Legend at the very top of Tier 1, in my opinion, is not correct. The pervasive softness, which I do not believe is inherent in the source, is inconsistent with that placement. I assume that, once more people have seen this title, there will be agreement to lower it.



Fair enough.


I agree Mr. Brooks is probably too low. We'll bump it up a few spots. Haven't seen SM3 myself, so I can't comment on it. I think it was once at the bottom of 0, but got shuffled up due to other bottom feeders










I don't disagree with you (since I haven't seen the BD), but looking over the discussion of I Am Legend...there were five Tier 1 placements, four Tier 0 placements, and a vote for low 2 or high 3 (if memory serves...). It seemed as though its current placement was a good average of input so far. Being a fairly popular title, I think we'll get a lot more input over the next few weeks, and we'll see where it's placed by those who have yet to post.


I hope that doesn't seem combative and that I'm putting you off, but like I said, these are placeholders based on current input. I'm sure they'll be moved around soon.










-Brandon


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cliff Stephenson* /forum/post/13438491
> 
> 
> You know what? You're right. Forget it. You clearly know more than people who deal with the studios and get this information first hand. The fact that some of you are so ungrateful and unbending in your viewpoints sickens me. Bask in the warmth of ignorance and incomprehension. You deserve what you get.



Right...so because I don't share your viewpoint I must be ignorant and unable to comprehend it. Very similar to other rants of folks who assume that anybody who doesn't share their viewpoint of where a title should be placed must absolutely hate grain or naturalistic film elements and not know anything about the medium. It is absolutely impossible that a person can share an educated yet contrary viewpoint to their own, because of course only theirs can be right...right?


So basically a sincere discussion of these things was not what you had in mind. You only cared to enlighten us to something which we could not see for ourselves, and when discussion to the contrary is thrown back at you it only serves to prove that those in dissent are ignorant. Some might find your tactics sickening as well, especially deciding to go on a schoolboy rant instead of addressing specific questions challenging your viewpoint and assertions...and insinuiting that everybody but you is simply ungrateful, unbending and ignorant.


Please, by all means, be done with this thread and leave the ignorant to get what they "deserve."


Brandon


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/13438615
> 
> 
> Fair enough.
> 
> 
> I agree Mr. Brooks is probably too low. We'll bump it up a few spots. Haven't seen SM3 myself, so I can't comment on it. I think it was once at the bottom of 0, but got shuffled up due to other bottom feeders
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't disagree with you (since I haven't seen the BD), but looking over the discussion of I Am Legend...there were five Tier 1 placements, four Tier 0 placements, and a vote for low 2 or high 3 (if memory serves...). It seemed as though its current placement was a good average of input so far. Being a fairly popular title, I think we'll get a lot more input over the next few weeks, and we'll see where it's placed by those who have yet to post.
> 
> *I hope that doesn't seem combative and that I'm putting you off, but like I said, these are placeholders based on current input. I'm sure they'll be moved around soon.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Brandon



No problem at all. I think there is a tendency for early expressions of opinion on any popular title to be more enthusiastic than later expressed opinions. I am confident that a wise consensus will develop on this one (IAL).


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cliff Stephenson* /forum/post/13438491
> 
> 
> You know what? You're right. Forget it. You clearly know more than people who deal with the studios and get this information first hand. The fact that some of you are so ungrateful and unbending in your viewpoints sickens me. Bask in the warmth of ignorance and incomprehension. You deserve what you get.



As I said before, a more moderate tone is more likely to have an effect here.


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13438663
> 
> 
> I think there is a tendency for early expressions of opinion on any popular title to be more enthusiastic than later expressed opinions.



Most definately. I'm guilty of that myself


----------



## hollywoodguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13437863
> 
> 
> You know for a fact that studios apply DNR and EE *because* of this Tier Thread? I mean, how am I to interpret that any other way? Because if you're saying you know for a fact that studios apply DNR and EE to make things look better to the average viewer you're not saying anything 90% of the folks in this thread don't already know. So, seriously, how do people draw the conclusion that DNR and EE are applied because of this thread even though titles in this thread are *downgraded* because of those very things? And why don't those same idiots read the DNR/EE master list thread while they're here browsing?
> 
> 
> And since you have basically corroborated everything in that original post, how do you reconcile the upcoming release of a 1985 back catalog title like Passage to India with it? And that Fox does *not* get generally the most complaints for PQ, like was stated?
> 
> 
> Brandon




Brandon,


I know you're a level-headed poster here and I understand your frustration, as it is sometimes my frustration as well, but I don't know what to tell you except that studio people (especially the marketing guys) take away from direct feedback that reaches them _and_ from reading boards like this, of which this thread is a very prominent part, that the majority of people, even enthusiasts, prefer their movies clean, sharp and shiny. Looking at the top of this *picture quality*, not eye candy thread (at least that's what the title says), and it's not that hard to understand how they might arrive at that conclusion.


Now what to do with the movies that aren't clean and sharp? Either you make em clean and sharp (ugh!), or you don't publish them, or you take a chance and put them out as faithful to the source as they are probably ever going to be and get reactions like with Wall Street.


For every Passage to India, there are ten classics that are passed over for the concerns I outlined above. And as far as Fox is concerned, take a look at the threads discussing Wall Street, Die Hard I & II, Ronin, Butch Cassidy, Battle for Britain, Master and Commander, or the original Predator (I know some have only been released internationally, but the same transfers/encodes are going to be used for the US releases, so the feedback will probably be the same). The praise for Fox has been mostly for their day-and-date releases, which, coincidentally?, look clean, sharp, and shiny.


I fear I have nothing more to add and don't want to derail this thread any further. As I said, what some decision-makers are taking away from this thread may not be what the mods and posters here *intend* it to be, but it is what it is and it might be helpful for people to know that.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hollywoodguy* /forum/post/13438896
> 
> 
> Brandon,
> 
> 
> I know you're a level-headed poster here and I understand your frustration, as it is sometimes my frustration as well, but I don't know what to tell you except that studio people (especially the marketing guys) take away from direct feedback that reaches them _and_ from reading boards like this, of which this thread is a very prominent part, that the majority of people, even enthusiasts, prefer their movies clean, sharp and shiny. Looking at the top of this *picture quality*, not eye candy thread (at least that's what the title says), and it's not that hard to understand how they might arrive at that conclusion.
> 
> 
> Now what to do with the movies that aren't clean and sharp? Either you make em clean and sharp (ugh!), or you don't publish them, or you take a chance and put them out as faithful to the source as they are probably ever going to be and get reactions like with Wall Street.
> 
> 
> For every Passage to India, there are ten classics that are passed over for the concerns I outlined above. And as far as Fox is concerned, take a look at the threads discussing Wall Street, Die Hard I & II, Ronin, Butch Cassidy, Battle for Britain, Master and Commander, or the original Predator (I know some have only been released internationally, but the same transfers/encodes are going to be used for the US releases, so the feedback will probably be the same). The praise for Fox has been mostly for their day-and-date releases, which, coincidentally?, look clean, sharp, and shiny.
> 
> 
> I fear I have nothing more to add and don't want to derail this thread any further. As I said, what some decision-makers are taking away from this thread may not be what the mods and posters here *intend* it to be, but it is what it is and it might be helpful for people to know that.



As I said earlier, I for one have absolutely no problem if studios decide not to release certain older titles, at least for now, based on the fact that BD releases of these would likely end up in Tier 4. I think putting out only the best looking older titles makes perfect sense, in terms of what's best for encouraging adoption by a mass audience that would be disappointed by such releases. Of course, the alternative of applying EE or DNR is completely objectionable, but is that really happening much at this point?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Xylon* /forum/post/13434844
> 
> 
> F*** the directors. What do they know? We know how their films should look. If we don't like it put their films at TIER 5
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey where is The Searchers ? LOL!













You really need to pay attention. Your argument makes no sense. Nobody is saying F*** the directors except you. You very well know the point I was making.


28 Days Later looks like crap. It captures the "directors intent" perfectly. Should it be in Tier 0 in this thread?


Can you grasp the concept?


----------



## chris0




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hollywoodguy* /forum/post/13438896
> 
> 
> ...but I don't know what to tell you except that studio people (especially the marketing guys) take away from direct feedback that reaches them _and_ from reading boards like this, of which this thread is a very prominent part, that the majority of people, even enthusiasts, prefer their movies clean, sharp and shiny. Looking at the top of this *picture quality*, not eye candy thread (at least that's what the title says), and it's not that hard to understand how they might arrive at that conclusion.



AustinSTI, I read your warning and please don't report me for keeping this discussion going, but I have a couple of questions for the insiders.


To Hollywood, Cliff and Cold...It makes sense to me that studio types would be checking threads like this and, at least in part, make decisions about if/how to release older movies based on them. A few questions...


Do the people here represent a minority of the movie buying public? We're pretty picky about the video on the releases, but how representative are we of the movie buying public at large?


If we're in the minority, as I suspect we are, then most people buy movies on BD because they want to see the content itself, because they like the movie, no? Surely market research would reveal that. If that's the case this thread shouldn't be much of a factor.


If we're not in the minority then that means the rest of the movie buyers feel as we do, or as has been suggested that we do, and not want a movie with a less than stellar transfer even if it is as good as it gets. The market at large would then make it unlikely that studios release those films, no?


----------



## hollywoodguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13439020
> 
> 
> As I said earlier, I for one have absolutely no problem if studios decide not to release certain older titles, at least for now, based on the fact that BD releases of these would likely end up in Tier 4. I think putting out only the best looking older titles makes perfect sense, in terms of what's best for encouraging adoption by a mass audience that would be disappointed by such releases. *Of course, the alternative of applying EE or DNR is completely objectionable, but is that really happening much at this point?*



As for not releasing certain titles, I can see your point, I just happen to disagree.


As for the bolded part, at least in the case of DNR, yes, it is, but most perceive it as softness and blame it on the bitrate.


----------



## Steeb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13439020
> 
> 
> Of course, the alternative of applying EE or DNR is completely objectionable, *but is that really happening much at this point*?


 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=937873


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hollywoodguy* /forum/post/13439234
> 
> 
> As for not releasing certain titles, I can see your point, I just happen to disagree.
> 
> *As for the bolded part, at least in the case of DNR, yes, it is, but most perceive it as softness and blame it on the bitrate.*













Well, I assume the main culprit there is WB, and that this practice will end soon.


Care to comment on whether this is true of the most recent WB release?


----------



## Cliff Stephenson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13438648
> 
> 
> Right...so because I don't share your viewpoint I must be ignorant and unable to comprehend it. Very similar to other rants of folks who assume that anybody who doesn't share their viewpoint of where a title should be placed must absolutely hate grain or naturalistic film elements and not know anything about the medium. It is absolutely impossible that a person can share an educated yet contrary viewpoint to their own, because of course only theirs can be right...right?
> 
> 
> So basically a sincere discussion of these things was not what you had in mind. You only cared to enlighten us to something which we could not see for ourselves, and when discussion to the contrary is thrown back at you it only serves to prove that those in dissent are ignorant. Some might find your tactics sickening as well, especially deciding to go on a schoolboy rant instead of addressing specific questions challenging your viewpoint and assertions...and insinuiting that everybody but you is simply ungrateful, unbending and ignorant.
> 
> 
> Please, by all means, be done with this thread and leave the ignorant to get what they "deserve."
> 
> 
> Brandon



It's not about sharing a viewpoint. It's about sharing information and having people with lessor insight challenge the information in order to validate _their_ viewpoint.


I only stated that this thread is, in some ways and unbeknownst to those who participate, counter productive to what the intent is. I never said it had to cease existence or that people were wrong to evaluate the best of the best. I was merely providing a tool... information. Instead of just taking that information and using it to assist in making choices, it's met with, "Well then why do they do this and what about that and how do you explain this then?" All questions designed to invalidate the information so you don't have to be threatened with changing the way you might look at things. I have neither the time nor the patience to deal with somebody too busy trying to talk over me to realize that I'm trying to be helpful.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chris0* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Do the people here represent a minority of the movie buying public? We're pretty picky about the video on the releases, but how representative are we of the movie buying public at large?
> 
> 
> If we're in the minority, as I suspect we are, then most people buy movies on BD because they want to see the content itself, because they like the movie, no? Surely market research would reveal that. If that's the case this thread shouldn't be much of a factor.



I wouldn't say the people here represent the majority of the buying public, but they do represent the most vocal and visible. These forums are where the studios get their feedback. They check them daily. Believe it or not, it's not like studios go out and do all this market research to make decisions. They come to places like AVS and lurk to see what people want and like. Why do you think The Fifth Element got remastered? It was because of the very negative outcry from the AV websites. The average person wouldn't be able to tell the remaster from the original. It was redone because the first line of information, the web, demanded it.


I'm just frustrated because I'm trying to let people know something concrete and all I get back is, "well, if that were true, then why does this happen?" as if the conversations I've had never happened.


----------



## hollywoodguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13439289
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I assume the main culprit there is WB, and that this practice will end soon.
> 
> 
> Care to comment on whether this is true of the most recent WB release?



Other post houses/studios also use DNR. If it's not obvious, it only means it's done well. As for Warner, I don't know, but seeing that "the look" hasn't changed yet, I guess we're still waiting for Warner's "Shoot 'Em Up".


----------



## hollywoodguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cliff Stephenson* /forum/post/13439395
> 
> 
> I wouldn't say the people here represent the majority of the buying public, but they do represent the most vocal and visible. These forums are where the studios get their feedback. They check them daily. Believe it or not, it's not like studios go out and do all this market research to make decisions. They come to places like AVS and lurk to see what people want and like.



QFT. "You've got the Power!" Use it wisely.










Also keep in mind, the Blu-ray market is still really small. The more it grows, the less influence places like AVS and those who consider themselves enthusiasts will have.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hollywoodguy* /forum/post/13439424
> 
> 
> Other post houses/studios also use DNR. If it's not obvious, it only means it's done well. *As for Warner, I don't know, but seeing that "the look" hasn't changed yet, I guess we're still waiting for Warner's "Shoot 'Em Up".*



It's been my expectation that Warner's practices won't change until the dual format releases are a thing of the past. And, as you say, the look hasn't changed.


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chris0* /forum/post/13439224
> 
> 
> AustinSTI, I read your warning and please don't report me for keeping this discussion going, but I have a couple of questions for the insiders.
> 
> 
> To Hollywood, Cliff and Cold...It makes sense to me that studio types would be checking threads like this and, at least in part, make decisions about if/how to release older movies based on them. A few questions...
> 
> 
> Do the people here represent a minority of the movie buying public? We're pretty picky about the video on the releases, but how representative are we of the movie buying public at large?
> 
> 
> If we're in the minority, as I suspect we are, then most people buy movies on BD because they want to see the content itself, because they like the movie, no? Surely market research would reveal that. If that's the case this thread shouldn't be much of a factor.
> 
> 
> If we're not in the minority then that means the rest of the movie buyers feel as we do, or as has been suggested that we do, and not want a movie with a less than stellar transfer even if it is as good as it gets. The market at large would then make it unlikely that studios release those films, no?



I'm most certainly not an insider, but the quality of the film itself is the fundamental common denominator in all of the purchases that I make. I represent one of the smallest minorities in the Hi-Def market in that I have the desire to both achieve the experience of viewing the most accurate representation of the director's vision on the screen, and also to experience the most attractive Hi-def presentations available on the Blu-ray format. With the types of films that I enjoy, accurate representation and attractive presentation far too often don't intertwine, which makes it so heartbreaking for someone like me when a studio such as Warner Bros. releases Blu-ray discs such as The Fountain or The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. Both of these films are not rendered in accordance to what the director intended, but the real tragedy is that both of these films have the potential to be accurate AND attractive - certainly not I, Robot attractive, but much better than they are currently.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hollywoodguy* /forum/post/13439234
> 
> 
> As for not releasing certain titles, I can see your point, I just happen to disagree.
> 
> 
> As for the bolded part, at least in the case of DNR, *yes, it is, but most perceive it as softness and blame it on the bitrate.*



Or blame it on creative intent. Or deny it's there.


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13439557
> 
> 
> It's been my expectation that Warner's practices won't change until the dual format releases are a thing of the past. And, as you say, *the look hasn't changed.*



I disagree with this.


I Am Legend and even Blade Runner both look far beyond titles such as Syriana and Training Day pertaining to the "softness" issue.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cold_As_IceSMM* /forum/post/13439727
> 
> 
> I disagree with this.
> 
> 
> I Am Legend and even Blade Runner both look far beyond titles such as Syriana and Training Day pertaining to the "softness" issue.



Blade Runner is a very special case because WB obviously took this project very seriously, to please the audience and to please the director.


I bought Training Day but have never watched it. I sort of thought it might have predated the softness issue.


I acknowledge that IAL looks somewhat better than the typical WB release, but I agree with hollywoodguy that basically, the look hasn't changed.


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13439786
> 
> 
> Blade Runner is a very special case because WB obviously took this project very seriously, to please the audience and to please the director.
> 
> 
> I bought Training Day but have never watched it. I sort of thought it might have predated the softness issue.
> 
> 
> I acknowledge that IAL looks somewhat better than the typical WB release, but I agree with hollywoodguy that basically, the look hasn't changed.



Give Training Day a shot. It's bar none the softest title in my collection, excluding 28 Days Later of course, and I believe that viewing this title on Blu-ray will provide additional perspective.


Of course Warner Bros. continues to drag its bottom across the floor because of the HD DVD format, but saying that "the look hasn't changed" again reads to me like hyperbole.


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM

I'd also just like to say that I'm really enjoying the discussion taking place in this thread, but if I'm being reported for anything, at least call me out specifically to let me know before hand so that I can have a chance to stop. I'm not trying to be inflammatory in any way.


----------



## Schlotkins




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hollywoodguy* /forum/post/13438896
> 
> 
> For every Passage to India, there are ten classics that are passed over for the concerns I outlined above. And as far as Fox is concerned, take a look at the threads discussing Wall Street, Die Hard I & II, Ronin, Butch Cassidy, Battle for Britain, Master and Commander, or the original Predator (I know some have only been released internationally, but the same transfers/encodes are going to be used for the US releases, so the feedback will probably be the same). The praise for Fox has been mostly for their day-and-date releases, which, coincidentally?, look clean, sharp, and shiny.



Hollywood-


I just wanted to address this point. I recommended Wall Street for Tier 4 but I'm GLAD fox released it. I think I was a little harsh on it because there was some artifacts on it. I wish they would do Office Space and a bunch of other catalog titles. I don't want the studios to use this Tier thread to determine which movies get released. Give me a great movie (Groundhog day) with OK PQ over a crappy movie with good PQ.


Chris


EDIT: I should add I think people will buy it as long as they are giving us the best effort. Take TFE for example. The first round wasn't great, but the second was. I'm assuming they went and remastered it and that made up a large portion of the difference. Was Wall Street from a new master?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cold_As_IceSMM* /forum/post/13439727
> 
> 
> 
> I Am Legend and even Blade Runner both look far beyond titles such as Syriana and Training Day pertaining to the "softness" issue.



I watched Blade Runner again last night (damn, I LOVE that movie!)


It really does look fantastic. This title proves that Warner _can_ release great looking titles.


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13440338
> 
> 
> I watched Blade Runner again last night (damn, I LOVE that movie!)
> 
> 
> It really does look fantastic. This title proves that Warner _can_ release great looking titles.



Yeah, it's been a consistent favorite of mine for many years. I think the Final Cut is fantastic, and I'm ecstatic about the new color correction out of all the changes made in the transition from the Director's Cut. The Final Cut is certainly my preferred cut.


----------



## bplewis24

Can anybody confirm/deny that War is a "BD Live" title? I saw this reported casually in a tech article about the PS3 getting "BD Live" firmware soon. I have War coming today so if it is indeed a BD Live title as opposed to Bonus View 1.1 title then I'll hold on to it until he firmware update comes. HDD pretty much dubs it as a 1.1 title.


Brandon


----------



## LBFilmGuy

So with the JR sale going now I think I am gunna get crank, and either lord of war or the descent...


Are those 2 worth a purchase?


----------



## Kroenen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13440882
> 
> 
> Can anybody confirm/deny that War is a "BD Live" title? I saw this reported casually in a tech article about the PS3 getting "BD Live" firmware soon. I have War coming today so if it is indeed a BD Live title as opposed to Bonus View 1.1 title then I'll hold on to it until he firmware update comes. HDD pretty much dubs it as a 1.1 title.
> 
> 
> Brandon



Yeah I saw that as well.


I have that title, and while I haven't had a chance to view it, looking at the back of the case it only mentions, "Picture In Picture requires Profile 1.1 enabled Blu-ray player."


Contrast that with what's on the back of the Saw IV case "Requires Blu-ray Profile 2.0..." and I'd guess that War is not a BD-Live title as Profile 2.0 isn't mentioned.


I hope this helps.


----------



## E-A-G-L-E-S

Crank is an aweful movie that looks great.

LOW is a decent movie and The Descent is a pretty good flic.


----------



## Kroenen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *E-A-G-L-E-S* /forum/post/13441046
> 
> 
> Crank is an aweful movie that looks great.
> 
> LOW is a decent movie and The Descent is a pretty good flic.



I agree.


----------



## alexg75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/13436615
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> 
> I vote that we go back to reviewing movies using the standards set forth on page one. If anyone doesn't like those standards, or the title of this thread, they are free to go elsewhere (it's still a free country
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ). I'm not trying to be offensive in saying this, I simply want to avoid what I mentioned in an earlier post about the danger of getting "lost in the murky world of relativism."



++1

Let's keep to the point!


----------



## alexg75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13440338
> 
> 
> I watched Blade Runner again last night (damn, I LOVE that movie!)
> 
> 
> It really does look fantastic. This title proves that Warner _can_ release great looking titles.



Agreed,Great PQ and AQ befitting of such a GREAT film.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *E-A-G-L-E-S* /forum/post/13441046
> 
> 
> Crank is an aweful movie that looks great.
> 
> LOW is a decent movie and The Descent is a pretty good flic.



I hear crank is just mindless fun, im down for that


I like Lord of War and have never seen the descent, just seeing if the quality warrants a purchase on them


----------



## alexg75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13438443
> 
> 
> Overall, my initial impression of these changes is favorable.
> 
> 
> Two immediate qualifications:
> 
> 
> I think moving Mr. Brooks to the very bottom of Tier 0 is a bit drastic. In any event, I think that Spiderman 3 should be moved back to the very bottom of Tier 0. I think there is no serious argument that SM3 is above Mr. Brooks.
> 
> 
> Putting I Am Legend at the very top of Tier 1, in my opinion, is not correct. The pervasive softness, which I do not believe is inherent in the source, is inconsistent with that placement. I assume that, once more people have seen this title, there will be agreement to lower it.



I have seen I Am Legend twice now and I think it deserves to be in Tier 0,it is to my eyes a great looking film and easily among the best BR's I have seen.

I will say that there ARE a few shots that suffer from focus issues and slight softness,but it IS source related as it is the result of shooting with AMAORPHIC lenses,which require vast amounts of light to keep the images sharp and in focus.

There are scenes in IAL that are in low light and/or very close to Will Smith's face and handheld which makes it very difficult to keep everything looking perfect.

Apart from that,I thought that the outdoor scenes look great and the near pitch black scenes were equally as good.I did not see any EE or compression noise.

Again it is my opinion.

I also think Enchanted looks damn good,but I will not comment fully,UNTIL I have seen the whole movie.As I have only seen the first 20 minutes.


----------



## lgans316

SuprSlow,


Vertical Limit (U.K Blu-ray : AVC : LPCM 16-bit) -> Please push it down from Tier-2 to top of Tier-3 as on the second viewing I spotted EE and halos in more than 5 spots.


Sorry for the inconvenience.


----------



## chris0

I have a question for Supr, Rob and Austin.


When you guys place a movie in a certain spot in the tier rankings, it's gotta be tough sometimes to even find all the posts relating to someone's opinion of a particular movie. Take "I Am Legend" for example. A post suggesting it for a particular tier could refer to it as "I Am Legend" or "Legend" or "IAL." When many of us post about a movie we usually have one post stating where we'd like it placed and quite a few other posts just discussing the movie's PQ.


Here's my question: Would it help you three if we used a certain phrase or word when we gave our opinion of where a movie should be placed? I know there are difficulties in implementing something like that. There are still so many who come here and post without ever listing their equipment, indicating that they haven't read the first page. I'm just wondering if there's something simple we could type to make it easier for you when trying to find posts relating to tier placement.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Mr. Brooks simply shouldn't be at the bottom of tier 0. It looks better to me than titles like Crank, Live Free or Die Hard, Rescue Dawn, Spider-man 3, and POTC:COTBP. I will agree it is not the equal of the two Pirates sequels for live action film.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/13441114
> 
> 
> I hear crank is just mindless fun, im down for that
> 
> 
> I like Lord of War and have never seen the descent, just seeing if the quality warrants a purchase on them



The Descent is a very good looking BD. It was the first BD I bought and still one of my favourites.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/13441878
> 
> 
> The Descent is a very good looking BD. It was the first BD I bought and still one of my favourites.



Nice, I think I might just get all 3


----------



## crawdad62

Can someone explain the Blade Runner releases? I'm confused. There's been so many. Is there another one slated for release later?


I put a BD version in my Netflix queue and it's not even a released version. However there is a version that is Blu-Ray. Is it another "cut?"


Man I love this movie. In fact I owned the original DVD release even before I owned a DVD player but Mr. Scott has made it rather confusing. I want the BD version but I hate to buy it only to have another more complete set come out soon.


----------



## lgans316

IMO Blade Runner is a smart and straight forward SCI-FI movie. Doesn't hold a candle to The Matrix in terms of complexity and plot. Warner has done a terrific restoration job. I would recommend you to watch the Final Cut which boast the best PQ of all the cuts.


----------



## hollywoodguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13442019
> 
> 
> Doesn't hold a candle to The Matrix in terms of complexity and plot.



Rob? You still online?


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cold_As_IceSMM* /forum/post/13439954
> 
> 
> I'd also just like to say that I'm really enjoying the discussion taking place in this thread, but if I'm being reported for anything, at least call me out specifically to let me know before hand so that I can have a chance to stop. I'm not trying to be inflammatory in any way.



It can be a good discussion as long as things don't stray too far off the subject as it pertains to how to rank certain titles.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kroenen* /forum/post/13441045
> 
> 
> Yeah I saw that as well.
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Contrast that with what's on the back of the Saw IV case "Requires Blu-ray Profile 2.0..." and I'd guess that War is not a BD-Live title as Profile 2.0 isn't mentioned.
> 
> 
> I hope this helps.



Yeah I'll just chalk that article reference up to confusion about profiles.


Brandon


----------



## Kroenen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/13441114
> 
> 
> I hear crank is just mindless fun, im down for that



If you like Crank then I'd try watching it again, but with the ''Family Friendly'' audio track selected. I personally thought it was funny.


"Mocha Frappuccino!"


----------



## stumlad

Watched I am Legend. I don't know. Parts of it were Tier 0, parts were Tier 1, and parts were Tier 2. Face closeups were really good, but some of the scenery shots seemed a little soft (in comparison to other tier 0 and some tier 1 titles). For example, in some of the street shots, I couldn't make out much detail in the street. I think some of it was because it was CGI enhanced (plants and weeds growing through , etc).. in some areas it could be that the focus of the camera wasnt on the street. I'm not really sure. I think this one is hard to judge because it wasnt' consistent... may have been director's intent... I don't know.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/13441581
> 
> 
> Mr. Brooks simply shouldn't be at the bottom of tier 0. It looks better to me than titles like Crank, Live Free or Die Hard, Rescue Dawn, Spider-man 3, and POTC:COTBP. I will agree it is not the equal of the two Pirates sequels for live action film.



See, there's the few of you who really loved it, and a few of us who don't think it's *that* great. This is why it was moved to bottom of Tier 0. I don't think there's any agreement on any of the tier 0 titles







Perhaps they should be placed there alphabetically?


----------



## lgans316

*Almost Famous (U.K - Untitled) : MPEG-4 AVC | Audio: Dolby True HD 16-bit | AR: 1.85:1 | Sony*


1) Picture mostly looked soft, slightly desaturated, warm and flat emulating the 70s look.


2) Picture Quality began to shine by turning out to look colorful, vivid and slightly sharper once Stillwater enters New York which unfortunately is from the 1 hr 38 min mark. Had the PQ remained like this throughout the movie then this could have been a mid Tier-2 contender.


Overall recommending Almost Famous for bottom Tier-2 placement.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/13442784
> 
> 
> Watched I am Legend. I don't know. Parts of it were Tier 0, parts were Tier 1, and parts were Tier 2. Face closeups were really good, but some of the scenery shots seemed a little soft (in comparison to other tier 0 and some tier 1 titles).



I watched I am Legend last night, and I agree to some extent with this. There were some scenes that were a bit soft, but I found those scenes to be fairly rare. I have to disagree with Patrick's use of the term "pervasive softness", as the majority of the movie looked great.


I recommend a mid Tier 1 placement.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13442019
> 
> 
> IMO Blade Runner is a smart and straight forward SCI-FI movie. Doesn't hold a candle to The Matrix in terms of complexity and plot. Warner has done a terrific restoration job. I would recommend you to watch the Final Cut which boast the best PQ of all the cuts.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hollywoodguy* /forum/post/13442128
> 
> 
> Rob? You still online?



Heh. Let's just say that I completely disagree with that statement, but in my experience you will never change peoples minds when it comes to these types of opinions.


----------



## bplewis24

So I watched about 30 minutes of Shoot 'Em Up last night before just deciding to shut it off. But it was definitely a great looking title. I won't suggest it for placement since I didn't watch all of it, but suffice it to say I don't disagree with it's placement anyway.


Brandon


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13444364
> 
> 
> I watched I am Legend last night, and I agree to some extent with this. There were some scenes that were a bit soft, but I found those scenes to be fairly rare. I have to disagree with Patrick's use of the term *"pervasive softness"*, as the majority of the movie looked great.
> 
> 
> I recommend a mid Tier 1 placement.



As I said, complete hyperbole. And I still stand by my Tier 0 recommendation for I Am Legend, at the very bottom of Tier 0. Any softness in the scenery is by and large due to the incorporation of CGI, or in other words, the softness is mostly inherent to the source.


----------



## DavidHir

I watched *Donnie Brasco* last night and this is one very nice looking 90's catalog title. It has a filmlike look and for most of the scenes it boasts a nice _natural_ sharpness and good detail. Occasionally, some scenes were slightly soft such as some close-ups. Blacks were very solid and many of the outdoor scenes have great contrast. Right now this title is listed at a high Tier 2 which is probably just about right. This presentation blows away the DVD on my 60" display.


----------



## DavidHir




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13444374
> 
> 
> Heh. Let's just say that I completely disagree with that statement, but in my experience you will never change peoples minds when it comes to these types of opinions.



I agree with you on both points.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cold_As_IceSMM* /forum/post/13444656
> 
> 
> As I said, complete hyperbole. And I still stand by my Tier 0 recommendation for I Am Legend, at the very bottom of Tier 0. Any softness in the scenery is by and large due to the incorporation of CGI, or in other words, the softness is mostly inherent to the source.



The Tier list is judged by how good it looks, not how accurate to the source it looks.


----------



## ricwhite




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cold_As_IceSMM* /forum/post/13444656
> 
> 
> As I said, complete hyperbole. And I still stand by my Tier 0 recommendation for I Am Legend, at the very bottom of Tier 0. Any softness in the scenery is by and large due to the incorporation of CGI, or in other words, the softness is mostly inherent to the source.



Now I'm a little confused. Is the placement of a movie on the tiers a reflection of how "true" it is to the source, or is it placed based upon objective measures of picture quality?


From what *Cold_As_IceSMM* said, if "softness" or other artifacts are inherent in the source material and perfectly reproduced on disc, then it should be given a tier 0 rating? Is that what I'm reading?


I just want this clarified. According the the FAQs on the tier rankings, a tier 0 is supposed to be _so clean and sharp that it maintains a realistic feel throughout_. Therefore, if there are times in *I Am Legend* where the image turns soft -- even if true to the source material -- it appears to me that it does NOT remain "clean and sharp" that "maintains a realistic feel throughout".

It would be better placed in Tier one, right?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hollywoodguy* /forum/post/13439234
> 
> 
> As for not releasing certain titles, I can see your point, I just happen to disagree.
> 
> 
> As for the bolded part, *at least in the case of DNR, yes, it is, but most perceive it as softness and blame it on the bitrate.*





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hollywoodguy* /forum/post/13439424
> 
> 
> Other post houses/studios also use DNR. If it's not obvious, it only means it's done well. *As for Warner, I don't know, but seeing that "the look" hasn't changed yet, I guess we're still waiting for Warner's "Shoot 'Em Up".*



I don't know why I keep forgetting this, since it's such an important point.


As hollywoodguy so correctly reminds us, the relationship between softness and low bitrate, particularly in the case of Warner releases, is not that low bitrate directly causes softness, but rather that the need to use a low bitrate (because, for example, there has been a bizarre decision to include two complete versions of the movie on the disc) leads to the use of DNR so that it can be possible to use a low bitrate without producing huge amounts of compression noise. So it is the DNR that produces the softness, not the low bitrate.


In my opinion, this is the cause of the softness in I Am Legend. There is no possible way that such low bitrates could be used and that there would be no compression noise at all without DNR having been used.


In response to Rob's comment that my accusation of "pervasive softness" overstates the case, he is probably right. There are certainly close-ups of WS that look very good. However, there is a lot of softness in the movie.


For the kind of compression noise that you would expect to see at low bitrates in the absence of DNR, compare Hitman, which, now that I have watched all of it, I honestly think looks much better than IAL.


Warner's talent at putting out a DNR'd low bitrate product has improved since Batman Begins, but, in my opinion, that is all that has changed.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/13442784
> 
> 
> Watched I am Legend. I don't know. Parts of it were Tier 0, parts were Tier 1, and parts were Tier 2. Face closeups were really good, but some of the scenery shots seemed a little soft (in comparison to other tier 0 and some tier 1 titles). *For example, in some of the street shots, I couldn't make out much detail in the street. I think some of it was because it was CGI enhanced (plants and weeds growing through , etc).. in some areas it could be that the focus of the camera wasnt on the street.* I'm not really sure. I think this one is hard to judge because it wasnt' consistent... may have been director's intent... I don't know.



The "making of" features show that the plants and weeds in the streets were not CGI but rather actual objects that were used to dress the streets.


In the shots at the beginning of the movie showing just empty streets, where would the focus be?


----------



## tleavit




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13444364
> 
> 
> I watched I am Legend last night, and I agree to some extent with this. There were some scenes that were a bit soft, but I found those scenes to be fairly rare. I have to disagree with Patrick's use of the term "pervasive softness", as the majority of the movie looked great.
> 
> 
> I recommend a mid Tier 1 placement.



We watch Pans Labyrinth and I am Legend last night. I agree with the current slot of Pan's and I agree with "I am Legend" as a tier 1.


Panny AE1000 (1080p) to 133" at 15'

Samsung 71 series 120hz (1080p) 46" LCD at 15'

Sony 60' SXRD1 (Quasi 1080p) at 12'


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kroenen* /forum/post/13442642
> 
> 
> If you like Crank then I'd try watching it again, but with the ''Family Friendly'' audio track selected. I personally thought it was funny.
> 
> 
> "Mocha Frappuccino!"



LOL sounds funny


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ricwhite* /forum/post/13444905
> 
> 
> I just want this clarified. According the the FAQs on the tier rankings, a tier 0 is supposed to be _so clean and sharp that it maintains a realistic feel throughout_. Therefore, if there are times in *I Am Legend* where the image turns soft -- even if true to the source material -- it appears to me that it does NOT remain "clean and sharp" that "maintains a realistic feel throughout".
> 
> It would be better placed in Tier one, right?



I would agree with this on general principle. But I should have the movie early next week to judge for myself whether this is an accurate assesment of this particular title or not.


On another note, I watched War last night/this morning and thought it was a high Tier 2 title. I was a bit surprised that it looked better than expected because I remember it getting very average reviews when it debuted on BD. Not a bad looking title by any means, just not Tier 1 material I don't think. Right now it's in mid Tier 2 and that's borderline too low for my taste, but I can live with it.


Brandon


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM




> Quote:
> The "making of" features show that the plants and weeds in the streets were not CGI but rather actual objects that were used to dress the streets.
> 
> 
> In the shots at the beginning of the movie showing just empty streets, where would the focus be?


 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I3Gg...eature=related 


Start the clip at the 2:00 minute mark. All of the building advertisements were manipulated with CGI. The time of day was color corrected, among other things, and people and New York city traffic in the back round were also removed digitally. The city scape special effects were NOT all done practically, but rather with a combination of the two. The softness of these particular scenes on the Blu-ray disc COULD be due to a certain motivation to make the image look less jarring.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13445046
> 
> 
> 
> In response to Rob's comment that my accusation of "pervasive softness" overstates the case, he is probably right. There are certainly close-ups of WS that look very good. However, there is a lot of softness in the movie.
> 
> 
> For the kind of compression noise that you would expect to see at low bitrates in the absence of DNR, compare Hitman, which, now that I have watched all of it, I honestly think looks much better than IAL.
> 
> 
> Warner's talent at putting out a DNR'd low bitrate product has improved since Batman Begins, but, in my opinion, that is all that has changed.



I have to disagree with Hitman looking better than I Am Legend.


Speaking of which: I enjoyed Hitman as a movie more than I Am Legend (I really didn't care for it much at all). I would happily trade my copy of IAL for Hitman, despite the fact that I believe the former has the better PQ.


----------



## TVOD

Hopefully this isn't too off-topic or fanning flames.


In my experience I've not encountered an edge enhancement process, but there is the commonly used detail enhancement. This is a sharpening FIR filter typically added after video gamma has been applied. If the filter over-emphasizes the mid frequencies, then the halo outlines will appear. The thickness of the outlines is affected by the frequency and amplitude of the over-peaking. Ideally the enhancement should follow the rolloff characteristic of the video but unfortunately it's often set to someone's subjective taste. If used correctly the detail enhancement will make the image sharper with minimal outlines. It's not artificially adding detail but rather altering the balance. As mentioned before if the mids are over-peaked it can mask the higher frequency detail because the mid to high balance is made worse.


DNR is similar in that using just enough will improve the image but too much will make things worse. In my experience what can cause even greater problems is automatic dirt concealment. This can really soften the image and do just weird things to motion.


I'm really happy to see those who object to halo outlines as it's been a peeve of mine for a long time. It was too common in the SD days and has unfortunately followed us into HD. However I do disagree that any detail enhancement is a bad thing. Used properly it can help quite a bit with previous and subsequent detail loss. This is not to change the artistic image quality such as the use of optical filters, but more to compensate losses in the system.


Thanks to all who take the time to post the reviews here.


----------



## Schlotkins




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13445046
> 
> 
> ... leads to the use of DNR so that it can be possible to use a low bitrate without producing huge amounts of compression noise. So it is the DNR that produces the softness, not the low bitrate.



So is Sony using DNR then? This seems to confirm my thought that perhaps it's not low bitrate causes softness but rather a soft source that needs a low bitrate.


Chris


----------



## Phantom Stranger

There are some very good recent posts in I believe Penton-Man's insider thread over at a certain blu site about how some transfers get a little messed up step by step from the 2K digital intermediate to the final BD product and that sometimes it's the result of several different things going on that influence the final look.


I also admonish people to start knocking away unranked titles on the tier list. Do we really need 25 opinions on I Am Legend?







There are lots of catalog titles that need a ranking.


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13438443
> 
> 
> ...(clipped)...
> 
> 
> I think moving Mr. Brooks to the very bottom of Tier 0 is a bit drastic. In any event, I think that Spiderman 3 should be moved back to the very bottom of Tier 0. I think there is no serious argument that SM3 is above Mr. Brooks.



Moved up a bit, with SM3 moved to the bottom.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13441366
> 
> 
> SuprSlow,
> 
> 
> Vertical Limit (U.K Blu-ray : AVC : LPCM 16-bit) -> Please push it down from Tier-2 to top of Tier-3 as on the second viewing I spotted EE and halos in more than 5 spots.
> 
> 
> Sorry for the inconvenience.



No problem, moved











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chris0* /forum/post/13441393
> 
> 
> I have a question for Supr, Rob and Austin.
> 
> 
> When you guys place a movie in a certain spot in the tier rankings, it's gotta be tough sometimes to even find all the posts relating to someone's opinion of a particular movie. Take "I Am Legend" for example. A post suggesting it for a particular tier could refer to it as "I Am Legend" or "Legend" or "IAL." When many of us post about a movie we usually have one post stating where we'd like it placed and quite a few other posts just discussing the movie's PQ.
> 
> 
> Here's my question: Would it help you three if we used a certain phrase or word when we gave our opinion of where a movie should be placed? I know there are difficulties in implementing something like that. There are still so many who come here and post without ever listing their equipment, indicating that they haven't read the first page. I'm just wondering if there's something simple we could type to make it easier for you when trying to find posts relating to tier placement.



Thank you asking, chris










I'm not sure how Austin and Rob go about making their updates, but I read beginning at the last update post and scan the posts for titles and tier suggestions. I'm sure I've inadvertently skipped over one or two before, but I like to think I catch most of them.







As I come across a post suggesting a placement, I write it down on a notepad...the title and then the poster's tier suggestion, usually something along the lines of "bottom 1/3 of Tier 2", for example.


As far as making it easier on us...I like what I've seen several posters doing as of late. The title is *bolded* at the beginning of the post, which definately makes the post stand out as we're scanning. Another way of helping is to be as specific as your viewing experience allows. What I mean by that is if you've seen 4 or 5 titles from Tier 2, and you want to place a new title in tier two, try to give a range. "Title 1 belongs between Title 2 and Title 3 in Tier 2." "This movie belongs in Tier 2" is a very broad statement, especially with the size some of the tiers have attained as of late







We'll place it, but it might not be the exact placement you have in mind. Even if you can't give a placement referencing other titles, "top 1/4 of Tier 3" or something similar is cool with me. Every little bit of detail helps. We read all of the posts...if you go to the trouble to write out your thoughts, we'll most definately take it into account.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/13441581
> 
> 
> Mr. Brooks simply shouldn't be at the bottom of tier 0. It looks better to me than titles like Crank, Live Free or Die Hard, Rescue Dawn, Spider-man 3, and POTC:COTBP. I will agree it is not the equal of the two Pirates sequels for live action film.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/13442803
> 
> 
> See, there's the few of you who really loved it, and a few of us who don't think it's *that* great. This is why it was moved to bottom of Tier 0. I don't think there's any agreement on any of the tier 0 titles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps they should be placed there alphabetically?



Both noted. I moved SM3 to the bottom of Tier 0, which obviously bumps Mr. Brooks up.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13443619
> 
> *Almost Famous (U.K - Untitled) : MPEG-4 AVC | Audio: Dolby True HD 16-bit | AR: 1.85:1 | Sony*
> 
> 
> 1) Picture mostly looked soft, slightly desaturated, warm and flat emulating the 70s look.
> 
> 
> 2) Picture Quality began to shine by turning out to look colorful, vivid and slightly sharper once Stillwater enters New York which unfortunately is from the 1 hr 38 min mark. Had the PQ remained like this throughout the movie then this could have been a mid Tier-2 contender.
> 
> 
> Overall recommending Almost Famous for bottom Tier-2 placement.



Done, and thanks for the details


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/13448463
> 
> 
> I also admonish people to start knocking away unranked titles on the tier list. Do we really need 25 opinions on I Am Legend?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are lots of catalog titles that need a ranking.



Amen!


We need to set goals







How about less than 100 Unranked Titles by the end of May?


As many movie watchers as we've got here, that should be plenty of time


----------



## sheldonison

IMAX: Antarctica -- An Adventure of a Different Nature, is "unranked". I bought it to fill out an Amazon order for free shipping, with "I am Legend". IMax: Antarctica is a short documentary, approximately 40 minutes long, transferred from the 65mm source in all its brillance, 1.78:1. IMHO, Tier0, just 40min long is too short, but excellent show-off material. The PQ is comparable to "Rescue Dawn", but sharper, without even a hint of grain. Also sharper than "I am Legend". The other Tier0 that I own is "Becoming Jane", but I can't compare PQ because I wasn't watching that from 5 feet away from the screen.


IMax: Antarctica has some really cool underwater photography too, and the sound track is creative/humorous as it follows the penguins, as is typical of an IMAX presentation. The video also includes global warming science, and ice cores, and wonderful scenery, and some Antarctica history, and videos of the Scott and Shackleton camps.


For Antarctica comparisons, the PQ, is much much better than March of the Penguins. Basically, a 65mm negative is huge, clean, and noise free. The PQ kills the Super-16 used for March of the Penguins, which is small and grainy. Nonetheless, March of the Penguins is a darn good story, and also well worth owning, just not for the PQ.


----------



## bplewis24

Watched I Am Legend tonight. I'm a bit indifferent on the title at this point. I was expecting to either be wow'ed or disappointed based on some of the polarized reviews thus far. In truth it was neither...it was a very good transfer that is impressive in HD, but ultimately falls short of the best that I've seen so far. Most of what I noticed has been discussed before so I won't go in detail, but I would recommend for *low Tier 1* or top of Tier 2. I think of the titles that I've watched recently, Rescue Dawn and even Enchanted seemed to easily best it.


PS3->1080p24->46XBR4 (8 feet)


On another note, I did enjoy the movie. I was also expecting to be let down by the film reviews, but I actually liked it. The only problem is I can't for the life of me figure out how to view the Theatrical Ending. I decided to watch the Alternate Version the first time through. I keep switching to the Theatrical version now that I'm done with it and it keeps showing the same ending and then showing me the end menu for the "Alternate Version" as though I never changed anything. I've since learned that the difference is very minor, which is a bummer, but I'd still like to figure this out!


Brandon


----------



## chris0

The only two ways I figured out were to either eject and reinsert the disc or to let it play all through the credits, passed the digital authoring screen and let it go back to the beginning on it's own.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chris0* /forum/post/13449265
> 
> 
> The only two ways I figured out were to either eject and reinsert the disc or to let it play all through the credits, passed the digital authoring screen and let it go back to the beginning on it's own.



I already tried ejecting and reinserting, choosing the theatrical version and it's the same thing. And also let it go through the credits then choose to play the theatrical version and same thing. Go figure?


Brandon


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13449203
> 
> 
> Watched I Am Legend tonight. I'm a bit indifferent on the title at this point. I was expecting to either be wow'ed or disappointed based on some of the polarized reviews thus far. In truth it was neither...it was a very good transfer that is impressive in HD, but ultimately falls short of the best that I've seen so far. Most of what I noticed has been discussed before so I won't go in detail, but I would recommend for *low Tier 1* or top of Tier 2. I think of the titles that I've watched recently, Rescue Dawn and even Enchanted seemed to easily best it.
> 
> 
> PS3->1080p24->46XBR4 (8 feet)
> 
> 
> On another note, I did enjoy the movie. I was also expecting to be let down by the film reviews, but I actually liked it. The only problem is I can't for the life of me figure out how to view the Theatrical Ending. I decided to watch the Alternate Version the first time through. I keep switching to the Theatrical version now that I'm done with it and it keeps showing the same ending and then showing me the end menu for the "Alternate Version" as though I never changed anything. I've since learned that the difference is very minor, which is a bummer, but I'd still like to figure this out!
> 
> 
> Brandon



That's strange that you can't see the real Theatrical cut.....is your PS3 updated with the latest firmware? Maybe it's the disc (which would be very strange). I wouldn't say there's hardly any difference between the two endings........they're very, very different.


----------



## alexg75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cold_As_IceSMM* /forum/post/13444656
> 
> 
> As I said, complete hyperbole. And I still stand by my Tier 0 recommendation for I Am Legend, at the very bottom of Tier 0. Any softness in the scenery is by and large due to the incorporation of CGI, or in other words, the softness is mostly inherent to the source.



It's what I wrote as well......

So I vote for bottom of tier 0 as well.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13449203
> 
> 
> 
> On another note, I did enjoy the movie. I was also expecting to be let down by the film reviews, but I actually liked it. The only problem is I can't for the life of me figure out how to view the Theatrical Ending. I decided to watch the Alternate Version the first time through. I keep switching to the Theatrical version now that I'm done with it and it keeps showing the same ending and then showing me the end menu for the "Alternate Version" as though I never changed anything. I've since learned that the difference is very minor, which is a bummer, but I'd still like to figure this out!
> 
> 
> Brandon



I didn't think the difference in ending was "minor"... it was... different.


As for switching.... When I watched the theatrical, after movie ended (while the credits were rolling) I went to the menu and found a link to the alternate version on top. Perhaps, when watching the alternate version, it says "Theatrical Version" at the top of that menu... Try it out.. it may work.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Schlotkins* /forum/post/13447741
> 
> 
> So is Sony using DNR then? This seems to confirm my thought that perhaps it's not low bitrate causes softness but rather a soft source that needs a low bitrate.
> 
> 
> Chris



I am not prepared to accuse Sony of DNR. I usually see compression noise on Sony titles rather than unnatural smoothness. My problem with Sony is that they seem to think there is no PQ benefit to be gained from going above the mid 20s in bitrate and they seem to have a nearly absolute rule against ever going above 30. Warner's bitrates are generally much, much lower than Sony's and display no compression noise whatever, a clear sign of DNR.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13449203
> 
> 
> Watched I Am Legend tonight. I'm a bit indifferent on the title at this point. I was expecting to either be wow'ed or disappointed based on some of the polarized reviews thus far. In truth it was neither...it was a very good transfer that is impressive in HD, but ultimately falls short of the best that I've seen so far. Most of what I noticed has been discussed before so I won't go in detail, but I would recommend for *low Tier 1* or top of Tier 2. I think of the titles that I've watched recently, Rescue Dawn and even Enchanted seemed to easily best it.
> 
> 
> PS3->1080p24->46XBR4 (8 feet)
> 
> 
> On another note, I did enjoy the movie. I was also expecting to be let down by the film reviews, but I actually liked it. The only problem is I can't for the life of me figure out how to view the Theatrical Ending. I decided to watch the Alternate Version the first time through. I keep switching to the Theatrical version now that I'm done with it and it keeps showing the same ending and then showing me the end menu for the "Alternate Version" as though I never changed anything. I've since learned that the difference is very minor, which is a bummer, but I'd still like to figure this out!
> 
> 
> Brandon



I could live with that type of placement although I think mid Tier 2 would be more accurate. My personal view is that it is more important to get Tier 1 and especially Tier 0 right than to place every catalog title, which in most cases will be somewhere in Tier 3 or Tier 4 in any case.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cold_As_IceSMM* /forum/post/13445780
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I3Gg...eature=related
> 
> 
> Start the clip at the 2:00 minute mark. All of the building advertisements were manipulated with CGI. The time of day was color corrected, among other things, and people and New York city traffic in the back round were also removed digitally. *The city scape special effects were NOT all done practically, but rather with a combination of the two.* The softness of these particular scenes on the Blu-ray disc COULD be due to a certain motivation to make the image look less jarring.



I take it you are talking about the shots showing WS and Sam in high grass with buildings in the background? I think you have accurately described the manipulation on those shot, but those shots are rather unrepresentative. Much more common are pure street shots, where the most obvious effects are the weeds in the street; you aren't claiming those are CGI?


In any event, on the subject of the frequency of soft shots in the movie, can you point out some shots other than extreme close-ups that are NOT soft?


It seems to me that pretty much all the street shots are soft, and the interior shots are also generally soft. So what does that leave?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13445920
> 
> 
> I have to disagree with Hitman looking better than I Am Legend.
> 
> 
> Speaking of which: I enjoyed Hitman as a movie more than I Am Legend (I really didn't care for it much at all). I would happily trade my copy of IAL for Hitman, despite the fact that I believe the former has the better PQ.



Did you watch any of the special features on Hitman, Rob? I was surprised at how good the PQ was for the typically very low bitrate extras, compared to the PQ on the extras on other recent releases such as, say, I, Robot, 30 Days of Night, or Across the Universe.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cold_As_IceSMM* /forum/post/13444656
> 
> 
> As I said, complete hyperbole. And I still stand by my Tier 0 recommendation for I Am Legend, at the very bottom of Tier 0. Any softness in the scenery is by and large due to the incorporation of CGI, or in other words, the softness is mostly inherent to the source.



I take it you don't think DNR was used on IAL, or you wouldn't be recommending Tier 0. Does it not seem surprising to you that there is no compression noise or grain and such a smooth look with such low bitrates?


----------



## DavidHir

I watched the first 40 minutes or so of *Total Recall* last night - I'll finish it tonight. This title has gotten bashed quite a bit and I've heard the import HD DVD version looks slightly better - but I've never seen it. Honestly, I don't think it looks that bad. It's certainly an improvement over the existing DVD with greater sharpness and detail is visible without the compression artifacting. Film grain is quite visible which gives this a natural look. The image and colors are somewhat muted (reminds me of Wall Street in this regard). Total Recall is in Tier 5, but I think low Tier 4 is probably more fair.


----------



## 30XS955 User

I Am Legend shows off the power of VC1. I'd rate it mid tier 1.


Also I have no idea what the bit rate is, so this is not influencing my opinion.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13450021
> 
> 
> Did you watch any of the special features on Hitman, Rob? I was surprised at how good the PQ was for the typically very low bitrate extras, compared to the PQ on the extras on other recent releases such as, say, I, Robot, 30 Days of Night, or Across the Universe.



I almost never watch special features, and I have not seen any of the special features on Hitman or I, Robot.


If you want to ask me about the special features on Blade Runner, go right ahead.


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13450029
> 
> 
> I take it you don't think DNR was used on IAL, or you wouldn't be recommending Tier 0. Does it not seem surprising to you that there is no compression noise or grain and such a smooth look with such low bitrates?



I haven't _completely_ negated the idea that DNR was applied. Any amount of DNR applied in any Blu-ray is unfortunate as I've made clear, but I'm still of the opinion that I Am Legend is Tier 0 regardless.


What's your position on Casino Royale, as it pertains to its use of DNR and perhaps in comparison to I Am Legend, and in general?


----------



## chris0




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13449277
> 
> 
> I already tried ejecting and reinserting, choosing the theatrical version and it's the same thing. And also let it go through the credits then choose to play the theatrical version and same thing. Go figure?
> 
> 
> Brandon



When I first watched it I watched the theatrical version, but the menu at the end had "alternate version" at the top. It confused me, too. If you saw
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) will blow himself up at the end
then you watched the theatrical version.


----------



## Kevin12586

*Dragon Ball Z: Broly - The Legendary Super Saiyan/Broly - Second Coming (Double Feature)*


Wathced this last night, I am not well versed as far as you guys, but comparing it to other movies that I have seen, I would probably place it *towards the top of Tier 2*.


The colors seem vibrant, there were a few noticible soft spots, I am sure that the master is the same way, especially considering the movie is a few years old.


I then watched Dragonball Z on Cartoon network HD afterwards and could definetely see a difference between the Blu-ray and the broadcast.


If others feel otherwise, feel free to discuss.


I agree with this from HD Digest:



> Quote:
> The source doesn't appear to be softened by the digital processing, it simply looks clean and fresh. The colors are bold, the linework is crisp, and the black fills of the shadows are appropriately inky.
> 
> 
> The only drawback to the experience is that the animation still suffers from a low-budget aesthetic that results in some inconsistencies in the picture. Specifically, I caught several instances of contrast wavering, discrepancies in color stability, and a few shots that looked a bit more worn than others. That being said, it's hard to imagine these movies looking much better, and overall this release shows that even classic 2-D animation can receive a welcome boost in clarity when mastered in high definition.




PS3.....1080/24p......Panasonic 2000u......106" screen........12 feet away viewing


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13449977
> 
> 
> I take it you are talking about the shots showing WS and Sam in high grass with buildings in the background? I think you have accurately described the manipulation on those shot, but those shots are rather unrepresentative. Much more common are pure street shots, where the most obvious effects are the weeds in the street; you aren't claiming those are CGI?
> 
> 
> In any event, on the subject of the frequency of soft shots in the movie, can you point out some shots other than extreme close-ups that are NOT soft?
> 
> 
> It seems to me that pretty much all the street shots are soft, and the interior shots are also generally soft. So what does that leave?



In my opinion, near the beginning of the movie, when he's driving around in the Mustang, it's one of the clearest looking scenes I've seen on HD media.......it's fantastic. The rest of the movie is good, but not mind blowingly clear in my.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cold_As_IceSMM* /forum/post/13450963
> 
> 
> I haven't _completely_ negated the idea that DNR was applied. Any amount of DNR applied in any Blu-ray is unfortunate as I've made clear, but I'm still of the opinion that I Am Legend is Tier 0 regardless.
> 
> 
> What's your position on Casino Royale, as it pertains to its use of DNR and perhaps in comparison to I Am Legend, and in general?



I believe that the people involved in making CR (the movie, not the BD) have acknowledged using a small amount of filtering throughout. I think CR looks much better than IAL, but there is a slight bit of noticeable softness that presumably results from the filtering in the movie itself that keeps CR from being Tier 0. I believe one scene that has been identified as showing particularly noticeable filtering is the shootout "outside" the embassy near the beginning. This scene was obviously shot in a sound stage and not really outdoors and that may explain the need for filtering.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13450639
> 
> 
> I almost never watch special features, and I have not seen any of the special features on Hitman or I, Robot.
> 
> *If you want to ask me about the special features on Blade Runner, go right ahead.*



They are not fresh enough in my memory for me to say or ask anything meaningful. . .


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13451536
> 
> 
> They are not fresh enough in my memory for me to say or ask anything meaningful. . .



And they weren't provided in hi-def anyways, so they're irrelevant to the discussion in this thread; Really unfortunate that Dangerous Days wasn't at least.


Regarding I Am Legend, I'm due for another viewing tomorrow for the purpose of solidifying my opinion even further. Hopefully I'll come up with some additional examples in my favor.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chris0* /forum/post/13451318
> 
> 
> When I first watched it I watched the theatrical version, but the menu at the end had "alternate version" at the top. It confused me, too. If you saw
> *Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler
> *Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) will blow himself up at the end
> then you watched the theatrical version.



Apparently I was watching the Theatrical Version. I'm not sure how that happened but I'd assume my switch to Alternate didn't register the first time I watched it.


I see the additional minute of footage in chapter 21 and now see the alternate ending.


Brandon


----------



## chris0

PM sent.


----------



## dannyk8232

I watched The Prestige last night and was very pleased with the PQ. It's one of the more impressive transfers I've seen yet, and believe it should be ranked somewhere in Tier 1. IMO significantly better PQ than The Departed; although The Departed wasn't poor PQ by any stretch.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dannyk8232* /forum/post/13452018
> 
> 
> I watched The Prestige last night and was very pleased with the PQ. It's one of the more impressive transfers I've seen yet, and believe it should be ranked somewhere in Tier 1. IMO significantly better PQ than The Departed; although The Departed wasn't poor PQ by any stretch.



I agree with that. The Prestige is an under ranked title. It should be closer to the top of Tier 2 or even the very bottom of Tier 1. There is no way it looks worse than Weeds:Season 1 for example, which is ranked way too high.


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dannyk8232* /forum/post/13452018
> 
> 
> I watched The Prestige last night and was very pleased with the PQ. It's one of the more impressive transfers I've seen yet, and believe it should be ranked somewhere in Tier 1. IMO significantly better PQ than The Departed; although The Departed wasn't poor PQ by any stretch.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/13453845
> 
> 
> I agree with that. The Prestige is an under ranked title. It should be closer to the top of Tier 2 or even the very bottom of Tier 1. There is no way it looks worse than Weeds:Season 1 for example, which is ranked way too high.



I didn't realize it was ranked that low. It's been a while since I've seen it, but I remember being somewhat impressed with the PQ. Admittedly, this is one of the those movies where I was paying more attention to the story than the picture, but I would agree with both of you on bumping it up a few spots.


----------



## HD-Gaming

*QUESTION:* as far as the teir levels go, are the movies within the tears ranked? So is Ratatouille the #1 looking blu-ray of all the blu levels?


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Initial D*


This one is unranked, so I am doing my part by trying to lower the number of unranked titles.










Very unusual looking picture here! It has a very digital looking picture, somewhat processed. I really thought that this was shot on HD Video based on the way it looked, but it was shot on film, much to my surprise.


This means that they did some type of strange tweaking of the image. The image is definitely sharp....yet, very fine detail seemed to be lacking (no, I don't think this is inconsistent, though it might seem that way).


There was definitely some noise in the darker scenes. Contrast varied a lot, looking quite good at times, but there were also plenty of scenes where the blacks/contrast was not very impressive.


Still, overall, it looked pretty good, in a way that was appropriate to the subject matter (racing/drifting in Japan). If you are a car guy, you might enjoy the movie. Nothing particularly special, but it wasn't bad either. It is a foreign film with English subtitles. Watch out for "Tofuman"!










Hard to place this one, but I will go with mid Tier 2.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HD-Gaming* /forum/post/13454086
> 
> *QUESTION:* as far as the teir levels go, are the movies within the tears ranked? So is Ratatouille the #1 looking blu-ray of all the blu levels?



Yes.


----------



## lgans316

Black Snake Moan Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DD | AR: 2.35:1 | Paramount


I think BSM should be placed above Die Hard 4 or even may be below Cars. It's razor sharp, colorful, has terrific black levels and shadow detailing. There was not even a single soft focussed scene and the entire movie had the HD pop.


----------



## Zygon

Enchanted Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.35:1 | Disney


Top tier 1


The musical scene in the park is full of vibrant colors and sharp eye candy.

My eyes tell me this title looks better than sunshine, surfs up, and Lost.(All of which are above Enchanted)


----------



## alexg75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Zygon* /forum/post/13454931
> 
> 
> Enchanted Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.35:1 | Disney
> 
> 
> Top tier 1
> 
> 
> The musical scene in the park is full of vibrant colors and sharp eye candy.
> 
> My eyes tell me this title looks better than sunshine, surfs up, and Lost.(All of which are above Enchanted)



I would even recommend low tier 0 placement.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I see this information is missing right now on the first page, but the Island(UK import) uses VC-1 as its codec and only has a 640 kbps Dolby Digital soundtrack.


And in all the confusion a couple of tier recommendations of mine from a few days ago might have been skipped over(Saw IV, Justice League: New Frontier).


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13454861
> 
> 
> Black Snake Moan Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DD | AR: 2.35:1 | Paramount
> 
> 
> I think BSM should be placed above Die Hard 4 or even may be below Cars. It's razor sharp, colorful, has terrific black levels and shadow detailing. There was not even a single soft focussed scene and the entire movie had the HD pop.



Agreed. Still one of the best I've seen, especially given the majority of the lighting conditions throughout the scenes.


Brandon


----------



## stumlad

I just finally got around to watching Entrapment on BD. Bought this during the BOGO frenzy at Circuit City when Transformers came out. I put off watching it because it was rated so bad on the tier thread.


I must say -- based on the fact that I was expecting the picture to be almost identical to the DVD, the transfer was pretty impressive. I would never go above tier 3 on this title, but perhaps tier 4 is a little harsh. The comparisons with the DVD were easily seen. Part of this is due to the fact that the DVD is a bit darker, but even so, the detail in Connery's face, while not tier 1 or 0 like, was pretty impressive (again relative to where its placed). The opening scene, however, wasn't that great... it felt murky. The title felt soft throughout, probably comparable to Flatliners. Some of the "scenery" shots were good but soft. I think they must have used an old master. The BD comes with director's commentary, and that's about it. This means they plan on re-releasing it one day with new master, encoded in AVC along with special features found on the DVD.


The BD, frame per frame easily beats the DVD. Note that I compared this to the 2nd version of the DVD. The original one was non-anamorphic with no extras, and the 2nd one had the alternate scenes, a really annoying menuing system, but overall better PQ it was anamorphic. Of course, the first one cost me $24.99 and this was I think in 99 (Good ol' Fox ). Yup.. Triple dip for me. Good thing I got it via BOGO.


Anyway, if I had to rate it, bottom tier 3. I think it looked better than Goodfellas which is the highest Tier 4 movie I've seen. If anything, this goes to show that Tier 4 stuff is still a pretty decent upgrade over the DVD (though maybe not at full price).


----------



## maverick0716

I watched Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium tonight. Wow! What a colourful movie! The BD brings out the colour like no movie I've seen before. The sharpness is very solid, being a tad on the softer side......but it definitly works with the movie. I'd rate this one upper Tier 2.


42" Panasonic Plasma (768p)

PS3 though HDMI

6-7 ft.


----------



## bplewis24

Watched I, Robot today. Right off the bat it's clear that this is a very impressive transfer. Compared to I Am Legend it has much more consistency with it's amount of detail in each shot. Not just the indoor facial closeups, but also outdoor shots, widescreen shots and panoramic shots of the city. There aren't too many titles better than this one, but I think that PotC:3 is actually still better, and maybe a couple of others. I think it's placed in the appropriate general area, or maybe a tad high, as I would recommend for *mid Tier 0*.


PS3->1080p24->46XBR4 (8ft)


Brandon


----------



## Murilo

Watched pans labriynth, it should be higher in tier 1 or maybe even tier 0 if apocalypto is there. My only complaint was faces seemed a bit soft at times, and the same thing I felt for apocalypto and curse of the golden flower. Maybe due to the grain removal it made it softer, but Im all for removing grain which i find distracting and produces a very unclean picture, but with todays technology you should be able to remove it without softening the picture. I also still say kingdom of heaven should be teir 0, that is the sharpest blue ray I seen so far.


Again maybe its just the ps3's 720p output which might be softer.


I will reevaluate when I get my 65 panny plasma at 1080.


Current display HC3000 100 inch screen PS3, 12 feet away.


----------



## lgans316

No offense. I think you should first check the DNR / EE thread sticky thread before reserving the PQ judgment on Pan's Labyrinth.


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Murilo* /forum/post/13455790
> 
> 
> Watched pans labriynth, it should be higher in tier 1 or maybe even tier 0 if apocalypto is there. My only complaint was faces seemed a bit soft at times, and the same thing I felt for apocalypto and curse of the golden flower. Maybe due to the grain removal it made it softer, but Im all for removing grain which i find distracting and produces a very unclean picture, but with todays technology you should be able to remove it without softening the picture. I also still say kingdom of heaven should be teir 0, that is the sharpest blue ray I seen so far.
> 
> 
> Again maybe its just the ps3's 720p output which might be softer.
> 
> 
> I will reevaluate when I get my 65 panny plasma at 1080.
> 
> 
> Current display HC3000 100 inch screen PS3, 12 feet away.



I have to disagree with you on Pan's Labyrinth. DNR was very poorly applied for the Region A release, and as such, it doesn't look better than Blade Runner, and it's most certainly not comparable to Apocalypto.


In fact, I think that both Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Pan's Labyrinth are too high. 2001: A Space Odyssey looks better than Close Encounters even with 2001's use of DNR and EE.


Comparing CETK and 2001, CETK is certainly more faithful to its source, particularly the reproduction of the inherent film grain, but 2001 exhibits superior shadow delineation, fine detail clarity, and color - particularly the depth of primaries.


I'd recommend *2001: A Space Odyssey* for low *Tier 1*, *Close Encounters of the Third Kind* for mid *Tier 2* (Not expecting it to ever look any better than it does now), and *Pan's Labyrinth* for *Tier 2* somewhere above CETK.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cold_As_IceSMM* /forum/post/13455856
> 
> 
> I have to disagree with you on Pan's Labyrinth. DNR was very poorly applied for the Region A release, and as such, it doesn't look better than Blade Runner, and it's most certainly not comparable to Apocalypto.
> 
> 
> In fact, I think that both Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Pan's Labyrinth are too high. 2001: A Space Odyssey looks better than Close Encounters even with 2001's use of DNR and EE.
> 
> 
> Comparing CETK and 2001, CETK is certainly more faithful to its source, particularly the reproduction of the inherent film grain, but 2001 exhibits superior shadow delineation, fine detail clarity, and color - particularly the depth of primaries.
> 
> 
> I'd recommend *2001: A Space Odyssey* for low *Tier 1*, *Close Encounters of the Third Kind* for mid *Tier 2* (Not expecting it to ever look any better than it does now), and *Pan's Labyrinth* for *Tier 2* somewhere above CETK.



I'm not sure why the PQ on CETK has received so much praise. I'm sure that the BD looks as good as is possible for this movie, but it definitely looks nowhere near as good as the BD's of more recent movies.


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13455941
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why the PQ on CETK has received so much praise. I'm sure that the BD looks as good as is possible for this movie, but it definitely looks nowhere near as good as the BD's of more recent movies.



I'm very pleased that Sony didn't give into the temptation to remove what is already inherent to the source, and I wouldn't have it any other way, but yes, this title's PQ is highly overrated.


Where would you rank CETK?


EDIT: I'd also like to mention one particular scene from CETK. It's the scene where Richard Dreyfuss takes his wife and children out to the ridge where he witnessed one of the alien probes being pursued by the police; when Dreyfuss and his wife are having a discussion beside the truck, and the back round is out of focus, grain levels spike radically, and there's far less fine detail in the foreground then anywhere else in the film. And the back round blurring is very uneven. This scene looks terrible.


Just thought I'd mention that.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cold_As_IceSMM* /forum/post/13456001
> 
> 
> I'm very pleased that Sony didn't give into the temptation to remove what is already inherent to the source, and I wouldn't have it any other way, but yes, this title's PQ is highly overrated.
> 
> *Where would you rank CETK?*
> 
> 
> EDIT: I'd also like to mention one particular scene from CETK. It's the scene where Richard Dreyfuss takes his wife and children out to the ridge where he witnessed one of the alien probes being pursued by the police; when Dreyfuss and his wife are having a discussion beside the truck, and the back round is out of focus, grain levels spike radically, and there's far less fine detail in the foreground then anywhere else in the film. And the back round blurring is very uneven. This scene looks terrible.
> 
> 
> Just thought I'd mention that.



I think I would be inclined to say lower Tier 2.


I haven't watched the BD since it was released (largely because I wasn't overwhelmed by the PQ) so my memory of which scenes looked better and which ones looked worse is not that vivid.


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13456044
> 
> 
> I think I would be inclined to say lower Tier 2.



Yeah, I don't have a conflict with this ranking. Mid to low Tier 2 would be good.


The movie itself is still great, however.


----------



## lgans316

Though Sony did a stupendous job with the restoration, the nature of filming / film elements deployed on the last 20 minutes of the movie is sufficient enough for placing the title somewhere in Tier-2. I consider CE3K as Spielberg's weak link as it was nowhere in the league of his other 70s movie "*Duel*".


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM

Alright, so I think we have 3 supporters for the Tier 2 ranking of CETK.


2001 should really be bumped up to Tier 1.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cold_As_IceSMM* /forum/post/13456119
> 
> 
> Alright, so I think we have 3 supporters for the Tier 2 ranking of CETK.
> 
> *2001 should really be bumped up to Tier 1.*



I would agree, for example, that 2001 looks better than Dan in Real Life, but perhaps DiRL is too high?


What about Deja Vu? I haven't watched that since it came out, but a lot of people think it looks very good. Should 2001 be above DV?


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13456198
> 
> 
> I would agree, for example, that 2001 looks better than Dan in Real Life, but perhaps DiRL is too high?
> 
> 
> What about Deja Vu? I haven't watched that since it came out, but a lot of people think it looks very good. Should 2001 be above DV?



I haven't seen DiRL at all, or Deja Vu on Blu-ray, but I'm confident that 2001 looks better than Gone Baby Gone. In comparison to 3:10 to Yuma, which I have seen, and it's certainly very difficult to compare two completely different films, I think that 2001 has better color and sharpness than 3:10 to Yuma (which obviously has intentional color de-saturation). I wouldn't necessarily say that 2001 looks better overall compared to 3:10 to Yuma, but 2001 certainly has some strong assets.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cold_As_IceSMM* /forum/post/13456242
> 
> 
> I haven't seen DiRL at all, or Deja Vu on Blu-ray, but I'm confident that 2001 looks better than Gone Baby Gone. In comparison to 3:10 to Yuma, which I have seen, and it's certainly very difficult to compare two completely different films, I think that 2001 has better color and sharpness than 3:10 to Yuma (which obviously has intentional color de-saturation). I wouldn't necessarily say that 2001 looks better overall compared to 3:10 to Yuma, but 2001 certainly has some strong assets.



I agree that the PQ on GBG was quite disappointing.


My attitude toward the version of 2001 that we actually have is colored, I'm afraid, by my strong suspicion that 2001 *could* have looked much better than this. . .


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13456278
> 
> 
> I agree that the PQ on GBG was quite disappointing.
> 
> 
> My attitude toward the version of 2001 that we actually have is colored, I'm afraid, by my strong suspicion that 2001 *could* have looked much better than this. . .



I agree on both points...


But, I'm more forgiving of 2001. I'm solid on the lowest possible position of Tier 1 for 2001 for now. I don't know how much support I'll get for this one, however.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cold_As_IceSMM* /forum/post/13456283
> 
> 
> I agree on both points...
> 
> 
> But, I'm more forgiving of 2001. *I'm solid on the lowest possible position of Tier 1 for 2001 for now.* I don't know how much support I'll get for this one, however.



I would be more comfortable with the top spot in Tier 2. In part because I don't want to be rewarding the studios for inadequate work. Same reason I feel so strongly about IAL.


----------



## kasbane




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/13455473
> 
> 
> I watched Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium tonight. Wow! What a colourful movie! The BD brings out the colour like no movie I've seen before. The sharpness is very solid, being a tad on the softer side......but it definitly works with the movie. I'd rate this one upper Tier 2.
> 
> 
> 42" Panasonic Plasma (768p)
> 
> PS3 though HDMI
> 
> 6-7 ft.




I agree with this placement as well, the softness is what keeps it from being higher in my opinion.


46" Sony XBR2

PS3-HDMI

6-8 feet


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kasbane* /forum/post/13456484
> 
> 
> I agree with this placement as well, the softness is what keeps it from being higher in my opinion.
> 
> 
> 46" Sony XBR2
> 
> PS3-HDMI
> 
> 6-8 feet



The softness made it unwatchable for me. After watching about the first five minutes, and then sampling a number of chapter starts, I gave up on it and put it in my never-touch-again pile.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kevin12586* /forum/post/13451486
> 
> *Dragon Ball Z: Broly - The Legendary Super Saiyan/Broly - Second Coming (Double Feature)*
> 
> 
> Wathced this last night, I am not well versed as far as you guys, but comparing it to other movies that I have seen, I would probably place it *towards the top of Tier 2*.
> 
> 
> The colors seem vibrant, there were a few noticible soft spots, I am sure that the master is the same way, especially considering the movie is a few years old.
> 
> 
> I then watched Dragonball Z on Cartoon network HD afterwards and could definetely see a difference between the Blu-ray and the broadcast.
> 
> 
> If others feel otherwise, feel free to discuss.
> 
> 
> I agree with this from HD Digest:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PS3.....1080/24p......Panasonic 2000u......106" screen........12 feet away viewing



Done



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/13455473
> 
> 
> I watched Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium tonight. Wow! What a colourful movie! The BD brings out the colour like no movie I've seen before. The sharpness is very solid, being a tad on the softer side......but it definitly works with the movie. I'd rate this one upper Tier 2.
> 
> 
> 42" Panasonic Plasma (768p)
> 
> PS3 though HDMI
> 
> 6-7 ft.



Done


----------



## SuprSlow

This week's releases:
*Bonnie and Clyde* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD1.0 | AR: 1.85:1 | Warner
*Mendelssohn: A Midsummer Night's Dream* Video: ? | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.78:1 | Opus Arte
*Naked Beneath the Water* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DD5.1 | AR: 1.85:1 | Phoenix
*Steep* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 1.78:1 | Sony

Will update the unranked list a bit later today


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13456350
> 
> 
> I would be more comfortable with the top spot in Tier 2. In part because I don't want to be rewarding the studios for inadequate work. Same reason I feel so strongly about IAL.



I personally don't think the amount of DNR and EE used hurts the PQ enough to "punish" it, if you will.


I'm still of the opinion that out of all the Blu-ray movies I've watched over time, the Jupiter and Beyond sequence is still one of the most beautiful looking sequences I've ever seen on a Blu-ray.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cold_As_IceSMM* /forum/post/13456793
> 
> 
> I personally don't think the amount of DNR and EE used hurts the PQ enough to "punish" it, if you will.
> 
> 
> I'm still of the opinion that out of all the Blu-ray movies I've watched over time, the Jupiter and Beyond sequence is still one of the most beautiful looking sequences I've ever seen on a Blu-ray.



As in the case of IAL, it's hard to know just how much DNR was used without having a non-DNRed version for comparison purposes. . .


----------



## kasbane

Dawn and Day of the Dead should be no higher than the top of tier 4 in my opinion. Not very impressive at all.


We Are Marshall should be the top of Tier 3 or at most the bottom of Tier 2.


46" Sony XBR2

PS3-HDMI

6-8 feet


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13456830
> 
> 
> As in the case of IAL, it's hard to know just how much DNR was used without having a non-DNRed version for comparison purposes. . .



Personally, I think that I Am Legend should remain where it is until someone in the know speaks up, because I think we have a good chance of that happening.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cold_As_IceSMM* /forum/post/13456915
> 
> 
> Personally, I think that I Am Legend should remain where it is until someone in the know speaks up, because I think we have a good chance of that happening.



Do you mean a good chance of someone in the know speaking up? As opposed to getting a non-DNRed version for comparative purposes?


Do you have a specific "someone in the know" in mind?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kasbane* /forum/post/13456907
> 
> 
> Dawn and Day of the Dead should be no higher than the top of tier 4 in my opinion. Not very impressive at all.
> 
> 
> We Are Marshall should be the top of Tier 3 or at most the bottom of Tier 2.
> 
> 
> 46" Sony XBR2
> 
> PS3-HDMI
> 
> 6-8 feet



I couldn't force myself to watch very much of WAM because it was so horribly soft, but based on what I saw, Tier 2 is *not* the right place for it.


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13456965
> 
> 
> ...As opposed to getting a non-DNRed version for comparative purposes?



And how long are we going to have to wait for that...



> Quote:
> Do you have a specific "someone in the know" in mind?



No, no one specific, and even if I did know someone specific, I wouldn't call that person out.


----------



## techwisenyc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cold_As_IceSMM* /forum/post/13456283
> 
> 
> I agree on both points...
> 
> 
> But, I'm more forgiving of 2001. I'm solid on the lowest possible position of Tier 1 for 2001 for now. I don't know how much support I'll get for this one, however.



I agree with 2001 being above Gone Baby Gone. I watched this(GBG) on Saturday night and it was not Top Tier 2 PQ at all. There was so many out of focus shots and mixture of soft shots. Also, there was absolutely no 3D Pop in this title at all that I can remember. I think 2001, Rocky Balboa, and Donnie Brasco all look much better than this title.


Despite some of the issues raised with 2001 I still think it has enough Wow moments that should earn it a high Tier 2 or bottom Tier 1 placement.


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM

And a while ago when I mentioned Training Day, little did I know that it was ranked in Tier 2 above Michael Clayton...There is absolutely no way that Michael Clayton looks inferior. I request that Training Day comes down. I would place *Training Day* in *Tier 3* between Syriana and The Assassination of Jess James by the Coward Robert Ford. Softness is my main issue.


----------



## kasbane




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13456979
> 
> 
> I couldn't force myself to watch very much of WAM because it was so horribly soft, but based on what I saw, Tier 2 is *not* the right place for it.




It is very inconsistent. Some parts look very good, but too many look very poor.

Personally I think it should be right around Robocop but I am not sure if I'm being too harsh or not.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cold_As_IceSMM* /forum/post/13456119
> 
> 
> Alright, so I think we have 3 supporters for the Tier 2 ranking of CETK.
> 
> 
> 2001 should really be bumped up to Tier 1.



Do you guys think CETK looked better than Vertical Limit and Eragon? I personally thought that both of those titles were sharper and cleaner than CETK.


I'd rate CETK mid tier 3... or I'd raise those two movies to bottom tier 2 and then put CETK top tier 3.


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/13457841
> 
> 
> Do you guys think CETK looked better than Vertical Limit and Eragon? I personally thought that both of those titles were sharper and cleaner than CETK.
> 
> 
> I'd rate CETK mid tier 3... or I'd raise those two movies to bottom tier 2 and then put CETK top tier 3.



I haven't seen either.


Tier 3 for CETK is too low.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/13457841
> 
> 
> Do you guys think CETK looked better than Vertical Limit and Eragon? I personally thought that both of those titles were sharper and cleaner than CETK.
> 
> 
> I'd rate CETK mid tier 3... or I'd raise those two movies to bottom tier 2 and then put CETK top tier 3.



I thought that both Eragon and Vertical Limit left a lot to be desired in terms of PQ. If they are currently in Tier 3 I think they should stay there.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13457889
> 
> 
> I thought that both Eragon and Vertical Limit left a lot to be desired in terms of PQ. If they are currently in Tier 3 I think they should stay there.



If they stay there, I couldn't see how CETK should be placed above them. Both of these movies were more eye-pleasing than CETK. I think CETK is getting a pass because it's an old film.


----------



## Kevin12586

A correction needs to be made, this is what's listed:


Dragon Ball Z: Broly - The Legendary Super Saiyan/Broly - Second Coming (Double Feature) Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DD | AR: 1.78:1 | FUNimation



Actually, the audio track is DTS.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/13458258
> 
> 
> If they stay there, I couldn't see how CETK should be placed above them. Both of these movies were more eye-pleasing than CETK. I think CETK is getting a pass because it's an old film.



I only watched the BD of CETK once. I watched VL a few times, and I actually watched Eragon a number of times, for some reason, definitely not because of the PQ. I remember that the PQ in Eragon had a lot of problems, a lot of softness. The scene where the main character is in the butcher shop, the exterior in the background looked horrible. The shots of the forested mountains looked very soft.


I don't recall being bothered by the PQ in CETK nearly as much, but as I said, I only watched it once.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13458390
> 
> 
> I only watched the BD of CETK once. I watched VL a few times, and I actually watched Eragon a number of times, for some reason, definitely not because of the PQ. I remember that the PQ in Eragon had a lot of problems, a lot of softness. The scene where the main character is in the butcher shop, the exterior in the background looked horrible. The shots of the forested mountains looked very soft.
> 
> 
> I don't recall being bothered by the PQ in CETK nearly as much, but as I said, I only watched it once.



I'm going to revisit CETK this week. Perhaps I'm being too tough on it.


----------



## bplewis24

I only watched it once the week it was released, but my impressions of it were that is was being a bit overrated. I'm not sure how much at this point.


These were my original thoughts on it:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/12231850
> 
> 
> Watched Close Encounters of the Third Kind tonight. Wasn't too impressed with the transfer. It doesn't seem any better than The Shining to me. Pretty good movie though...my first time seeing it.
> 
> 
> For those that are waiting for the reviews to make a decision because they already own the DVD, it still seems like it would be worth buying. It has all 3 versions of the film available for viewing and three lossless audio tracks as well as numerous subtitle options.



To put that in context, I voted for Tier 2 for The Shining, and I thought it was better.


Brandon


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13458787
> 
> 
> I only watched it once the week it was released, but my impressions of it were that is was being a bit overrated. I'm not sure how much at this point.
> 
> 
> These were my original thoughts on it:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To put that in context, I voted for Tier 2 for The Shining, and I thought it was better.
> 
> 
> Brandon



How many opinions are required to form a consensus?


----------



## DavidHir

I watched the remainder of *Total Recall* last night. The second half of the movie improved slightly in image quality. Earlier, I mentioned this was probably a low Tier 4....but I think mid 4 is more appropriate to be exact.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13455820
> 
> 
> No offense. I think you should first check the DNR / EE thread sticky thread before reserving the PQ judgment on Pan's Labyrinth.



I personally think it should be much lower than it's current placement.......it doesn't look good at all.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13456506
> 
> 
> The softness made it unwatchable for me. After watching about the first five minutes, and then sampling a number of chapter starts, I gave up on it and put it in my never-touch-again pile.



I've seen plenty of movies that are much softer than Mr. Magoriums.......I suppose it doesn't help if you don't like the movie to begin with. I personally thought the movie was great!


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13456979
> 
> 
> I couldn't force myself to watch very much of WAM because it was so horribly soft, but based on what I saw, Tier 2 is *not* the right place for it.



Lol......I'm starting to have the feeling that you are watching these movies as a spectacle of sharpness first, and to watch and enjoy the film second.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Gone Baby Gone worth a purchase @ $15?


Heard it was a good film, PQ is at top of tier 2 now I see


----------



## techwisenyc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/13462912
> 
> 
> Gone Baby Gone worth a purchase @ $15?
> 
> 
> Heard it was a good film, PQ is at top of tier 2 now I see



It wasn't that bad of a movie especially for it being Ben Affleck's directorial debut. He might turn out to be a decent director in comparison to his bad acting. To me he only made an impression in Good Will Hunting. As for the Top Tier 2 PQ of this film, I have to totally disagree. Tears of the Sun, Rocky Balboa, and 2001 both look much better to me. It should probably be in mid to lower Tier 2. I think someone else here made a pitch for it to be lowered.


----------



## bplewis24

Crank is listed as 1.85:1 aspect ratio on HDD, but on my TV it appears to be more like1.78:1. Comparing it to other 1.85:1 listed titles I own there is only a very small slither of black bars at the top and bottom, as opposed to about 1/4th" of black bars at the top and bottom of true 1.85:1 titles.


Can anybody else confirm this? I also noticed that Goodfellas is incorrectly listed as 1.85:1 on the box, but in the Tier list it's correctly listed as 1.78:1, and the aspect ratio is identical to that of Crank.


We should change the AR of Crank in the first post to the accurate 1.78:1 AR.


Brandon


----------



## lgans316

 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0479884/ 

*1.85 : 1*


----------



## maverick0716

I'm kind of surprised that you even see black bars on 1.85:1 movies. Every widescreen TV I've owned or seen run a 1.85:1 movie has always been completely full screen. Most TV's have 2% to 5% overscan with 2% being considered good.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13465170
> 
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0479884/
> 
> *1.85 : 1*



It wouldn't be the first time IMDB has been wrong since I started looking into these things...they list some titles at 2.35:1 when they're really 2.4:1, etc.

And yeah I did look up IMDB to see what they had for it and noticed that it conflicts with my findings. That's why I'm trying to get confirmation from any other owners.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/13465198
> 
> 
> I'm kind of surprised that you even see black bars on 1.85:1 movies. Every widescreen TV I've owned or seen run a 1.85:1 movie has always been completely full screen. Most TV's have 2% to 5% overscan with 2% being considered good.



I have my TV set to "full pixel" mode on the PS3 input, which gives 0% overscan via 1:1 pixel mapping. It is really useful in situations like these. If I put it on "normal" I wouldn't be able to see any black bars. But the AR when using "full pixel" is identical to other titles with confirmed 1.78:1 ARs. Also I checked titles with listed 1.85:1 ARs (Mr Brooks, Spiderman 1, etc) and they all have that 1/4th" or so letterboxing confirming they are 1.85:1. But I can't find one source on the intertubes confirming the actual AR of the BD is 1.78:1.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cold_As_IceSMM* /forum/post/13458812
> 
> 
> How many opinions are required to form a consensus?



I'd say it's murky when bringing up titles from several weeks to months ago. Upon a titles initial release it's easy to note a concensus from the majority of opinions posted, but when resurrecting a discussion it's hard to track down. Considering most titles don't get much more than 8-10 opinions posted I'd say 4 votes to change a title is weighted strong enough proportionately to have it moved assuming nobody objects strongly to it.


Brandon


----------



## lgans316

90% of the sites mention AR as 1.85:1. So go with it.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13465306
> 
> 
> 90% of the sites mention AR as 1.85:1. So go with it.



I need this to be accurate as I am helping somebody with a project and the tech specs are an important part of it.


If anybody else can help confirm I would appreciate it.


Brandon


----------



## lgans316

 http://www.dvdcompare.net/comparison....php?fid=12531 (HD DVD AR 1.85:1)
http://www.dvdcompare.net/comparison....php?fid=10655 (Blu-ray AR 1.85:1)
http://www.blurayreviews.ch/reviews/...ray-review.htm (Blu-ray AR 1.85:1)
http://www.digital-movie.de/dvd-revi...asp?ArtNr=6369 (Blu-ray AR 1.85:1)
http://www.dvd-basen.dk/uk/home.php3...=ok&region=%25 

http://www.areadvd.de/hd_dvd-reviews...k_HD_DVD.shtml (*HD DVD AR 1.78:1*)


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/13460273
> 
> 
> Lol......I'm starting to have the feeling that you are watching these movies as a spectacle of sharpness first, and to watch and enjoy the film second.



As I've said before, the vast majority of movies I buy on BD, I would not have bought on SD DVD. I buy far more BDs than I ever did DVDs. So yes, in most cases if the PQ isn't good, I shut the movie off. That is certainly true with WAM, which I only bought as part of the "buy Warner" campaign.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/13460237
> 
> 
> I've seen plenty of movies that are much softer than Mr. Magoriums.......I suppose it doesn't help if you don't like the movie to begin with. I personally thought the movie was great!



The only reason I bought it was because Fox has generally been putting out outstanding PQ recently. I agree that there are many softer titles than this one, but the PQ was very disappointing in the context of recent Fox releases.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *techwisenyc* /forum/post/13463454
> 
> 
> It wasn't that bad of a movie especially for it being Ben Affleck's directorial debut. He might turn out to be a decent director in comparison to his bad acting. To me he only made an impression in Good Will Hunting. As for the Top Tier 2 PQ of this film, I have to totally disagree. Tears of the Sun, Rocky Balboa, and 2001 both look much better to me. It should probably be in mid to lower Tier 2. I think someone else here made a pitch for it to be lowered.



I agree that GBG should probably be lowered.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13465152
> 
> 
> Crank is listed as 1.85:1 aspect ratio on HDD, but on my TV it appears to be more like1.78:1. Comparing it to other 1.85:1 listed titles I own there is only a very small slither of black bars at the top and bottom, as opposed to about 1/4th" of black bars at the top and bottom of true 1.85:1 titles.
> 
> 
> Can anybody else confirm this? I also noticed that Goodfellas is incorrectly listed as 1.85:1 on the box, but in the Tier list it's correctly listed as 1.78:1, and the aspect ratio is identical to that of Crank.
> 
> 
> We should change the AR of Crank in the first post to the accurate 1.78:1 AR.
> 
> 
> Brandon



Brandon, despite all the other responses, links, etc, I have the definitive answer for you.










Widescreen Review always mentions the indicated AR, but they also actually measure the AR of the disc themselves. Regarding Crank, they indicate:


"(Principal Photography): Digital Video

(Theatrical Aspect Ratio): 1.85:1
*(Measured Disc Aspect Ratio): 1.78:1 (16:9)*"


So your observation of this being a 1.78:1 instead of 1.85:1 is spot on.


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/13455207
> 
> 
> I see this information is missing right now on the first page, but the Island(UK import) uses VC-1 as its codec and only has a 640 kbps Dolby Digital soundtrack.
> 
> 
> And in all the confusion a couple of tier recommendations of mine from a few days ago might have been skipped over(Saw IV, Justice League: New Frontier).





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kevin12586* /forum/post/13458300
> 
> 
> A correction needs to be made, this is what's listed:
> 
> 
> Dragon Ball Z: Broly - The Legendary Super Saiyan/Broly - Second Coming (Double Feature) Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DD | AR: 1.78:1 | FUNimation
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the audio track is DTS.



Both updated. Thanks for the corrections. (I think someone PM'd me about the Island info a few weeks ago, my apologies for not updating until now







)


Phantom...we'll get those added on the next update. Sorry for skipping over them










And I'll go ahead and change the info on *Crank*, as well.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13467510
> 
> 
> Brandon, despite all the other responses, links, etc, I have the definitive answer for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Widescreen Review always mentions the indicated AR, but they also actually measure the AR of the disc themselves. Regarding Crank, they indicate:
> 
> 
> "(Principal Photography): Digital Video
> 
> (Theatrical Aspect Ratio): 1.85:1
> *(Measured Disc Aspect Ratio): 1.78:1 (16:9)*"
> 
> 
> So your observation of this being a 1.78:1 instead of 1.85:1 is spot on.



Thanks Rob. It appears I need a subscription to look up other DVDs on their site...is that the case?


Brandon


----------



## lgans316

So in-case of Crank Lionsgate has opened up the aspect ratio a little bit like Optimum did with the U.K release of Pan's Labyrinth ? Quite interesting.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13467880
> 
> 
> Thanks Rob. It appears I need a subscription to look up other DVDs on their site...is that the case?
> 
> 
> Brandon



Yes, a subscription is required. I could look them up for you....for a small fee.


----------



## Cliff Stephenson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13468132
> 
> 
> So in-case of Crank Lionsgate has opened up the aspect ratio a little bit like Optimum did with the U.K release of Pan's Labyrinth ? Quite interesting.



And so does Warner Bros and Paramount.


And in the case of Crank, the original aspect ratio is 1.78:1, the intented theatrical ratio is 1.85. The actual theatrical ratio is anywhere from 1.70 to 2.0.


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cliff Stephenson* /forum/post/13468976
> 
> 
> And so does Warner Bros and Paramount.
> 
> 
> And in the case of Crank, the original aspect ratio is 1.78:1, the intented theatrical ratio is 1.85. The actual theatrical ratio is anywhere from 1.70 to 2.0.



Is this a fairly common practice? Different AR from theatres to home media?


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Independence Day*


In short, it looked really good. The best part of this presentation is the color. Very impressive. Contrast was also very good for the most part, although there were some notable exceptions. Also, there were a few dark scenes that had noticeable noise, which seemed to come out of nowhere, since the majority of the movie looked very clean.


Sharpness is good, but detail varied quite a bit. Some shots looked fantastic, with excellent facial detail (for example, the scene early in the movie when they are playing chess in the park), but most of the movie did not maintain that level of detail.


Overall a very good presentation, especially when you consider it's age. Frankly, I wasn't sure that it would look this good. If you are a fan of the movie, I doubt you would be disappointed in this disc.


Top quarter of Tier 2.


----------



## DavidHir

Nice review, Rob. I'll pick this up once I can get a sales price (i.e., $19.95 or less). Did the noise you saw look like compression artifacting?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DavidHir* /forum/post/13469570
> 
> 
> Nice review, Rob. I'll pick this up once I can get a sales price (i.e., $19.95 or less). Did the noise you saw look like compression artifacting?



Yes, actually, I did think it looked like compression artifacts. Which is surprising, because like I said, they came out of nowhere as the vast majority of the movie is clean. Didn't last long in any scene, but it is sure noticeable when it shows up.


----------



## Cliff Stephenson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/13469181
> 
> 
> Is this a fairly common practice? Different AR from theatres to home media?



Yes and no. Every flat film from Warner (those with the common 1.85 ratio) has been transferred @ 1.78 since the dawn of DVD. Paramount is another studio that simply chooses that ratio for flat films. In almost all cases, it's just a matter of opening the matting slightly to reveal a sliver more picture top and bottom. Usually, this sliver of additional image is covered by overscan anyway, so whether that area contained a thin black bar or the additional picture, everything else you're seeing is exactly the same, regardless of the ratio. With regard to the theatrical ratios, when viewing films at a commercial theater, the actual aspect ratio is a combination of a variety of things... screen masking, aperture plates, projector alignment, throw distance. There isn't a hard and fast ratio that's 100% correct. I've said before, theaters are like snowflakes... no two are the same. You can have two different auditoriums in THE SAME COMPLEX showing the same film and the framing will be different. Auditorium 1 might be 1.73:1 while Auditorium 2 is 1.91:1. That doesn't make either one right or wrong, simply different. Hell, you can show the same film in the SAME auditorium and the framing can be different.


And here's the dirty little secret that nobody really talks about because it's impossible to see. Film's in the 2.35:1 (I'm an old school scope guy) are also all over the map and there is not one true ratio that these films are presented in. From the latest issue of Widescreen Review, here are some examples:

3:10 to Yuma- 2.35:1

The Brave One- 2.36:1

Across the Universe- 2.40:1

The Kingdom- 2.34:1

War- 2.37:1

Sunshine- 2.32:1

The Game Plan- 2.37:1

Rush Hour 3- 2.33:1

Mr. Woodcock- 2.40:1

Shoot Em Up- 2.32:1


The interesting thing is that those last three titles are all New Line releases, so it isn't like there is one true ratio even within the same studio. But these variances don't leave a small black sliver at the top and bottom, so people aren't equipped to notice.


I think the biggest thing to remember is that art isn't an exact science. Film's have an approximate ratio that filmmakers account for when shooting a film. A 1.85 film doesn't have to be exactly 1.85 to be considered correct. So while Crank was originated in the 1.78:1 ratio, it was projected in ratios that were approximate to that and presented on disc in the original recorded ratio without objection from the filmmakers (Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor).


----------



## HD-Gaming

No Country is really the 7th best looking Gold tier movie? that's quite a surprise




I bought it when it came out, but haven't had a chance to watch it yet


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Nip/Tuck 4th season can be taken out of the unranked list. It's listed in Tier 2(which is too high in my opinion but I digress).


I also have a recommendation for formating about a certain unranked title. Night Of The Werewolf/Vengeance of the Zombies, even though they come in the same package are on separate discs and have different information. Both don't have this info listed on the first page but both are encoded in MPEG-4 and have 384 kbps Dolby Digital soundtracks for their native language. But one key difference is that The Night of the Werewolf BD has an aspect ratio of 1.85 while Vengeance of the Zombies is presented fullscreen(4:3) only. I believe that VOTZ is not the O.A.R. for the film but the best source BCI could get. I think these two films should be listed separately when they are eventually ranked because one looks much better than the other. I am not yet ready though to give my final tier recommendation for them.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13469428
> 
> *Independence Day*
> 
> 
> In short, it looked really good. The best part of this presentation is the color. Very impressive. Contrast was also very good for the most part, although there were some notable exceptions. Also, there were a few dark scenes that had noticeable noise, which seemed to come out of nowhere, since the majority of the movie looked very clean.
> 
> 
> Sharpness is good, but detail varied quite a bit. Some shots looked fantastic, with excellent facial detail (for example, the scene early in the movie when they are playing chess in the park), but most of the movie did not maintain that level of detail.
> 
> 
> Overall a very good presentation, especially when you consider it's age. Frankly, I wasn't sure that it would look this good. If you are a fan of the movie, I doubt you would be disappointed in this disc.
> 
> 
> Top quarter of Tier 2.



Nailed it. Perfect position but you should have also pointed out the Picture inconsistencies post Area 51.


----------



## lgans316

*Hollow Man: Director's Cut Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.85:1 | Sony*


1) Colorful, Sharp and vivid picture for about 80% of the running time.

2) Excellent fleshtone accuracy with few warm looking shots.

3) Solid Black levels

4) No major compression artifacts / EE and bit rates were on the high 20s.

5) CGI effects looked solid despite the movie's age.

6) Some mosquito noise evident on the walls and brightly lit interiors.

7) 3D pops were a bit less as most of the scenes were shot inside the labs.


No contest between the DVD and Blu-ray. I would recommend a mid Tier-2 placement.


----------



## Murilo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13455820
> 
> 
> No offense. I think you should first check the DNR / EE thread sticky thread before reserving the PQ judgment on Pan's Labyrinth.



The problem is and im well aware of all the controversy and complaining about them using DNR and small amounts of detail you can notice in still screen was removed, but hardly 95 percent of us would have noticed it in motion as one reviewer said, to my eyes in motion is how i judge a movie, not looking at pictures or pausing the video.


Yes DNR did leave the image a bit soft as i said, but I also found apocolypto faces soft. Purisits would probably agree with you because they hate the word DNR and know it was applied on pans and there was a ton of complaining, but to my eyes the film was beautiful and should be tier 1, it was just a bit soft in facial details from the dnr. Details and cgi, and colors were fantastic.


Like I said though I also found apocolypto faces a bit soft and so did I on Curse of the golden flower. They should all be tier 1.


But they were all beautiful films, great colors, good detail and clean pictures.


The only movies I seen that qualified for teir 0 in sharpness anyway is kingdom of heaven and POTC 3.


----------



## lgans316

I agree with you on the above but I think Apocalypto was shot using a variety of film stocks including HD video. IMO Apocalypto should be placed in top of Tier-1 as it didn't exhibit value sharpness demonstrated by the few of the Tier-1 titles.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13475334
> 
> 
> I agree with you on the above but I think Apocalypto was shot using a variety of film stocks including HD video. IMO Apocalypto should be placed in top of Tier-1 as it didn't exhibit value sharpness demonstrated by the few of the Tier-1 titles.



I agree with you *Apocalypto* should be in the top of Tier 1. I remember when I first viewed it there had been so much hype about it that I was sorely disappointed, especially for the first 30 minutes or so of the film (which was, IMO, quite soft and lacking detail).


----------



## techwisenyc

To me Apocalypto should make Tier 0, but be near the bottom and above at least SM3. I agree with others here that for the beginning of the film it is not extremely detailed and very grainy at times as well. However, when you start getting into where they are headed to the Mayan city, the PQ is one of the best I have ever seen. The detail, colors, and 3D POP at the Mayan city are amazing. The last part of the film is very consistently detailed IMHO as well. So the reason I say bottom Tier 0 is because I am taking at average of mid to top Tier 1 and close to High Tier 0.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cold_As_IceSMM* /forum/post/13451606
> 
> 
> And they weren't provided in hi-def anyways, so they're irrelevant to the discussion in this thread; Really unfortunate that Dangerous Days wasn't at least.
> 
> *Regarding I Am Legend, I'm due for another viewing tomorrow for the purpose of solidifying my opinion even further. Hopefully I'll come up with some additional examples in my favor.*



We are waiting eagerly for that followup. . .


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13477819
> 
> 
> We are waiting eagerly for that followup. . .



It was supposed to happen with the family, but we ended up doing something else.


I've provided ample commentary to support myself throughout the last few pages, but it seems as though I'm largely by myself.


I stand by lowest Tier 0 for this title, but I'll submit for now until I give the film another viewing.


----------



## djoberg

I just watched *Hitman* and I would suggest moving it down to at least the bottom of Tier 2 (it's towards the top now). There were _some_ decent scenes (with good contrast and detail), but they were sporadic. I thought most of the movie wasn't any better than a good upconverted DVD. Like Rob said in any earlier review of this title, it lacked sharpness and depth.


There was one redeeming feature; it has a good DTS-HD sound track with a lot of action in the surrounds and plenty of LFE material as well.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *techwisenyc* /forum/post/13476265
> 
> 
> To me Apocalypto should make Tier 0, but be near the bottom and above at least SM3. I agree with others here that for the beginning of the film it is not extremely detailed and very grainy at times as well. However, when you start getting into where they are headed to the Mayan city, the PQ is one of the best I have ever seen. The detail, colors, and 3D POP at the Mayan city are amazing. The last part of the film is very consistently detailed IMHO as well. So the reason I say bottom Tier 0 is because I am taking at average of mid to top Tier 1 and close to High Tier 0.



I agree it should stay in Tier 0. Tier 1 is too low. It's an overall great looking title. I sometimes use it as a demo.


Oh, and I'd say it's definitely a full step up from Curse of the Golden Flower which I believe belongs where it is.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/13479540
> 
> 
> I just watched *Hitman* and I would suggest moving it down to at least the bottom of Tier 2 (it's towards the top now). There were _some_ decent scenes (with good contrast and detail), but they were sporadic. I thought most of the movie wasn't any better than a good upconverted DVD. Like Rob said in any earlier review of this title, it lacked sharpness and depth.
> 
> 
> There was one redeeming feature; it has a good DTS-HD sound track with a lot of action in the surrounds and plenty of LFE material as well.



I think you are being overly harsh. The big problem I see with Hitman is the massive amount of compression noise, but at least that is preferable to DNR.


When I first watched only the first scene, my impression was pretty negative, but after watching the whole movie, I thought there was a decent amount of sharpness and detail. I think Tier 2 is the right place for it, but probably somewhat lower than where it currently is.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13479758
> 
> 
> I think you are being overly harsh. The big problem I see with Hitman is the massive amount of compression noise, but at least that is preferable to DNR.



I'm being "harsh" because I thought many scenes looked "harsh."










Seriously, besides compression noise, there were many soft scenes that lacked detail, especially the MANY dark scenes sprinkled throughout the movie. Again, to my eyes, it lacked the sharpness and detail that should characterize titles in the first 3 tiers (though there were a few scenes that were impressive).


Having said that, I'm still willing to go along with the Tier 2 placement; I just think it belongs closer to the bottom.


----------



## Jenova

No Country without a doubt is Teir 0 in my eyes. Probably one of the best looking Blu-Rays I've watched.


Although it looks good and clean overall, I can't say I was overly impressed with I Am Legend. Maybe mid Tier 1.


Samsung 4665f

PS3

6ft


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jenova* /forum/post/13480392
> 
> 
> No Country without a doubt is Teir 0 in my eyes. Probably one of the best looking Blu-Rays I've watched.
> 
> 
> Although it looks good and clean overall, I can't say I was overly impressed with I Am Legend. Maybe mid Tier 1.
> 
> 
> Samsung 4665f
> 
> PS3
> 
> 6ft



I agree and I have a hard time stomaching I Am Legend being above both No Country For Old Men and Enchanted. I voted for Low Tier 1...and I could live with mid Tier 1 if it's well below Enchanted.


Brandon


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13480540
> 
> 
> I agree and I have a hard time stomaching I Am Legend being above both No Country For Old Men and Enchanted. I voted for Low Tier 1...and I could live with mid Tier 1 if it's well below Enchanted.
> 
> 
> Brandon



I certainly agree that IAL should be the lowest of those three.


----------



## dannyk8232

I'm kind of puzzled as to why The Prestige and Planet Earth aren't up where I Am Legend is............


----------



## bplewis24

I haven't seen The Prestige in months upon months, and barely remember what it looks like. However Planet Earth is easy...there was plenty enough footage that looked bad (nearly SD quality) such that it was lowered becuse of the big inconsistencies.


Brandon


----------



## dannyk8232




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13481303
> 
> 
> I haven't seen The Prestige in months upon months, and barely remember what it looks like. However Planet Earth is easy...there was plenty enough footage that looked bad (nearly SD quality) such that it was lowered becuse of the big inconsistencies.
> 
> 
> Brandon



The Prestige and I Am Legend, IMO are very comparable in terms of quality.


I just don't see too much to complain about with Planet Earth. It is stunning to me. I don't really see any graininess or noise. Occasionally, there is a second or two of SD footage, but it says on the back cover there would be spots where only an SD camera got footage; so it's difficult to penalize the overall PQ of this...


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I think The Prestige should be higher than where it now. It was one of the early AVC encodings by Disney but it still holds up today. Solid Tier 1 material. As for I Am Legend it is not the best looking Tier 1 title. Frame by frame I would put 10-15 other Tier 1 titles clearly above it and maybe 6-10 others are its equal.


I think this discussion has been brought up before somewhere in this thread but the Silver tier is very hard to read with the standard forum's coloring. Are there any other shades of silver available? I can't be the only one when scanning the list to get headaches.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/13482632
> 
> 
> I think The Prestige should be higher than where it now. It was one of the early AVC encodings by Disney but it still holds up today. Solid Tier 1 material. As for I Am Legend it is not the best looking Tier 1 title. Frame by frame I would put 10-15 other Tier 1 titles clearly above it and maybe 6-10 others are its equal.
> 
> 
> I think this discussion has been brought up before somewhere in this thread but the Silver tier is very hard to read with the standard forum's coloring. Are there any other shades of silver available? I can't be the only one when scanning the list to get headaches.



I agree, I usually just highlight Tier 2


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Murilo* /forum/post/13475316
> 
> 
> ....I also found apocolypto faces a bit soft and so did I on Curse of the golden flower. They should all be tier 1.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13475334
> 
> 
> I agree with you on the above but I think Apocalypto was shot using a variety of film stocks including HD video. IMO Apocalypto should be placed in top of Tier-1 as it didn't exhibit value sharpness demonstrated by the few of the Tier-1 titles.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/13476134
> 
> 
> I agree with you *Apocalypto* should be in the top of Tier 1. I remember when I first viewed it there had been so much hype about it that I was sorely disappointed, especially for the first 30 minutes or so of the film (which was, IMO, quite soft and lacking detail).




Glad to see Apocalypto come up for discussion again.


Add me to the list of people who think this title does not belong in Tier 0 (as I said from the beginning).


It should be in the top 5 of Tier 1.


----------



## haste

Try changing your theme to help the silver color. black seems to work the best for me.


----------



## facesnorth




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *techwisenyc* /forum/post/13476265
> 
> 
> To me Apocalypto should make Tier 0, but be near the bottom and above at least SM3. I agree with others here that for the beginning of the film it is not extremely detailed and very grainy at times as well. However, when you start getting into where they are headed to the Mayan city, the PQ is one of the best I have ever seen. The detail, colors, and 3D POP at the Mayan city are amazing. The last part of the film is very consistently detailed IMHO as well. So the reason I say bottom Tier 0 is because I am taking at average of mid to top Tier 1 and close to High Tier 0.



I thought Apocalypto had some of the best PQ I've seen, and am surprised to see so many want to lower it's ranking.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *facesnorth* /forum/post/13484546
> 
> 
> I thought Apocalypto had some of the best PQ I've seen, and am surprised to see so many want to lower it's ranking.



If the PQ was _consistently_ good I would agree with you, but as I stated previously the first 20-30 minutes were soft and lacked detail. The remainder of the movie was Tier 0 material, but if we are to go by the standard set for Tier 0 it should be sharp and detailed from beginning to end.

*Samsung 50" 1080p DLP

Panasonic BD30

Viewed from 8'*


----------



## OldCodger73

I never could see why Apocalypto was in Tier 0. Tier 1 about a quarter of the way down sounds about right to me.


I watched Independence Day last night. It looked and sounded good for its age, probably a solid Tier 2.


I sometimes think we get too uptight about where a movie belongs. I've found that while some are better than others in PQ, overall movies in the top three tiers give a very pleasing picture.


Panasonic 50" 720p plasma, Panasonic 10a at 8'.


----------



## sheldonison




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cliff Stephenson* /forum/post/13470083
> 
> 
> Yes and no. Every flat film from Warner (those with the common 1.85 ratio) has been transferred @ 1.78 since the dawn of DVD. Paramount is another studio that simply chooses that ratio for flat films. In almost all cases, it's just a matter of opening the matting slightly to reveal a sliver more picture top and bottom. Usually, this sliver of additional image is covered by overscan anyway, so whether that area contained a thin black bar or the additional picture, everything else you're seeing is exactly the same, regardless of the ratio. With regard to the theatrical ratios, when viewing films at a commercial theater, the actual aspect ratio is a combination of a variety of things... screen masking, aperture plates, projector alignment, throw distance. There isn't a hard and fast ratio that's 100% correct. I've said before, theaters are like snowflakes... no two are the same. You can have two different auditoriums in THE SAME COMPLEX showing the same film and the framing will be different. Auditorium 1 might be 1.73:1 while Auditorium 2 is 1.91:1. That doesn't make either one right or wrong, simply different. Hell, you can show the same film in the SAME auditorium and the framing can be different...



For both 1.85:1 and 2.35:1, there's a difference between the specification for the camera aperture and the projector aperture. Which is put on the dvd/blu-ray disc? The 22mm wide camera aperture, or the slightly narrower 21mm wide projector aperture? What if its an Super-35 DI, presumably the DI has to "overscan" to account for the variation in projectors. Do they put the entire 24.9mm width on the dvd/blu-ray or use the narrower projector aperture, which would be a slight crop from the DI, or perhaps they crop from 2048 pixels to 1920 pixels????


----------



## stumlad

I'm really curious -- if we bring up each title in Tier 0 individually, how many votes would we really get for Tier 0 on any of these titles. I see plenty of disagreement for a lot of the tier 0 titles including Spider-Man 3, Apocalypto, The Host, Die Hard 4, Fantastic 4 part 2, Crank, PotC 1 and 2.


While we're re-discussing Apocalypto, should we do do the same for all of these other titles.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/13486317
> 
> 
> I'm really curious -- if we bring up each title in Tier 0 individually, how many votes would we really get for Tier 0 on any of these titles. I see plenty of disagreement for a lot of the tier 0 titles including Spider-Man 3, Apocalypto, The Host, Die Hard 4, Fantastic 4 part 2, Crank, PotC 1 and 2.
> 
> 
> While we're re-discussing Apocalypto, should we do do the same for all of these other titles.



I think the reason why this happens is because people have different definitions of Tier 0. For some, any softness at any point in the movie means it isn't Tier 0. To me that's incorrect as it implies their definition of Tier 0 means it has to be flawless.


To me Tier 0 means best of the best while meeting some expressed standards. If a movie is up to that standard and is comparable to it's peers in Tier 0 then it's worthy IMO.


Brandon


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13486571
> 
> 
> I think the reason why this happens is because people have different definitions of Tier 0. For some, any softness at any point in the movie means it isn't Tier 0. To me that's incorrect as it implies their definition of Tier 0 means it has to be flawless.
> 
> 
> To me Tier 0 means best of the best while *meeting some expressed standards*. If a movie is up to that standard and is comparable to it's peers in Tier 0 then it's worthy IMO.
> 
> 
> Brandon



Brandon,


The following is *the standard* for Tier 0 movies:


Tier 0 - Blu (Reference)



--- The picture quality of the transfer is in pristine shape and practically perfect with no visible video artifacts. *The image is so clean and sharp that it maintains a realistic feel throughout* and serves as great demo material. We recommend owning at least one of these films!


I'm not sure who set this standard, but whoever did stated in unequivocal terms that a movie deserving of a Tier 0 status must be "_so clean and sharp that it maintains a realistic feel throughout_." Going by that standard, I can't honestly place a movie like Apocalypto in Tier 0 because the first 30 minutes or so are not "clean and sharp" with a "realistic feel."


So, we're either going to live by those standards, or else we should revise them.


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/13486744
> 
> 
> Brandon,
> 
> 
> The following is *the standard* for Tier 0 movies:
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> 
> So, we're either going to live by those standards, or else we should revise them.



That was from the original tier thread, I believe.


And I'm pretty sure we revised that some time ago, but it may have been lost in an update. I'll look for it...


----------



## SuprSlow

I guess all we changed was the Tier 0 description in the ranked section of the original post.


"These are reference quality titles with the cleanest and sharpest image available. Films in this tier are demo material and represent the best of the best Blu-ray has to offer."


I think we should revisit some of the wording in the area of the original post djoberg quoted. Maybe some clarification or rewording would eliminate some of the apparent confusion.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/13486744
> 
> 
> Brandon,
> 
> 
> The following is *the standard* for Tier 0 movies:
> 
> 
> Tier 0 - Blu (Reference)
> 
> 
> 
> --- The picture quality of the transfer is in pristine shape and practically perfect with no visible video artifacts. *The image is so clean and sharp that it maintains a realistic feel throughout* and serves as great demo material. We recommend owning at least one of these films!
> 
> 
> I'm not sure who set this standard, but whoever did stated in unequivocal terms that a movie deserving of a Tier 0 status must be "_so clean and sharp that it maintains a realistic feel throughout_." Going by that standard, I can't honestly place a movie like Apocalypto in Tier 0 because the first 30 minutes or so are not "clean and sharp" with a "realistic feel."
> 
> 
> So, we're either going to live by those standards, or else we should revise them.



The main thing I would change is "practically perfect." I don't mind the clean and sharp, maintaining realistic feel throughout." And I think that there should obviously be mention of it being generally free from major artifacting, etc. Also I think there should be a listing of the types of main artifacts that are looked for when assessing PQ (which I think was done recently).


I can't remember how good Apocalypto looks or if it meets those standards. But in general if a title is substandard for a half hour as you say I'd think that's enough of the movie to disqualify it from Tier 0.


Brandon


----------



## Cliff Stephenson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sheldonison* /forum/post/13486086
> 
> 
> For both 1.85:1 and 2.35:1, there's a difference between the specification for the camera aperture and the projector aperture. Which is put on the dvd/blu-ray disc? The 22mm wide camera aperture, or the slightly narrower 21mm wide projector aperture? What if its an Super-35 DI, presumably the DI has to "overscan" to account for the variation in projectors. Do they put the entire 24.9mm width on the dvd/blu-ray or use the narrower projector aperture, which would be a slight crop from the DI, or perhaps they crop from 2048 pixels to 1920 pixels????



Yes, no and all of the above. To be honest, I'm not absolutely sure as to the definitive answer to your question, other than to say that there is, to my knowledge, no absolute hard and fast rule about how something gets transferred. That's what makes me slightly nuts about people who treat aspect ratios like a math assignment. You can have two different transfers done and when you compare them, the second will reveal less information on the left side of the picture, but more on the top. So which is correct or even preferable? You can have an image that is EXACTLY 1.85:1 and that doesn't guarantee you that it contains the most accurate image. What if a title is zoomed and then matted to 1.85:1? It's happened before. Fargo is one such title. I think, in general, there is a bit of cropping that goes along with every transfer done anymore. I also remember years ago in the laserdisc days, some scope titles didn't have the appropriate top and bottom matte (Star Trek IV comes to mind) and the transfer revealed each and every splice throughout the feature.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13487005
> 
> 
> The main thing I would change is "practically perfect." I don't mind the clean and sharp, maintaining realistic feel throughout." And I think that there should obviously be mention of it being generally free from major artifacting, etc. Also I think there should be a listing of the types of main artifacts that are looked for when assessing PQ (which I think was done recently).
> 
> 
> I can't remember how good Apocalypto looks or if it meets those standards. But in general if a title is substandard for a half hour as you say I'd think that's enough of the movie to disqualify it from Tier 0.
> 
> 
> Brandon



Just looking to hear other people's thoughts on this:


Let's say a Tier 1 title (at its best) looks better than a tier 0 title at its best, then what does that really say about the quality of those tier 0 titles?


To me, it means they are not really deserving of tier 0 and that they are only there because they are consistently very good looking... whereas titles that are 80 percent jaw-dropping get penalized more because there are occasions where it's not as good as the rest. There are a few tier 1 titles that, 80 percent of the time look better than or equal to anything in tier 0... Some underwhelming tier 0 titles that may be pretty consistent but still not really worthy of tier 0'ness... Spider-Man, Die Hard 4, Host, ... the list can go on










Edit: it's been a while since I've seen Apocalypto, but this was one of those titles that has jaw dropping visuals, but just not throughout the entire movie. Lost is another one.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/13488318
> 
> 
> To me, it means they are not really deserving of tier 0 and that they are only there because they are consistently very good looking... whereas titles that are 80 percent jaw-dropping get penalized more because there are occasions where it's not as good as the rest.



That's not what my post should convey. If a title is 80% jaw-dropping, 5% average (or below), and 15% above-average/very good, that's Tier 0 to me. But 30 minutes of above average/very good in a 90 minute movie would mean for me it's not Tier 0. It's the sum of the parts for me. A good recent example of inconsistent Tier 0 is No Country for Old Men, and a good example of inconsistent Tier1/2 is Planet Earth. The reason is simply because the bad at some point outweighs the good down the the tier chart.


Also I think I originally voted Spidey for Tier 1, so I would have no problem with it lowered, nor do I have a problem with it's current placement (mostly because it's been a while since I've seen it).


Brandon


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13488676
> 
> 
> That's not what my post should convey. If a title is 80% jaw-dropping, 5% average (or below), and 15% above-average/very good, that's Tier 0 to me. But 30 minutes of above average/very good in a 90 minute movie would mean for me it's not Tier 0. It's the sum of the parts for me. A good recent example of inconsistent Tier 0 is No Country for Old Men, and a good example of inconsistent Tier1/2 is Planet Earth. The reason is simply because the bad at some point outweighs the good down the the tier chart.
> 
> 
> Also I think I originally voted Spidey for Tier 1, so I would have no problem with it lowered, nor do I have a problem with it's current placement (mostly because it's been a while since I've seen it).
> 
> 
> Brandon



Yes, with 30 minutes of not-so-great footage, Apocalypto should prob drop to top of tier 1. My point was just to say that at their finest (more than 50 percent of the movie), some tier 1 titles look better than some of the tier 0 titles with consistent good quality throughout. Shouldn't all Tier 0 titles, in the least look as good as some mid-tier 1 titles at their best?


This is why, I agree with you about Spider-Man 3... I also believe there aren't many titles worthy of tier 0 (non-cgi).


----------



## techwisenyc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/13490187
> 
> 
> Yes, with 30 minutes of not-so-great footage, Apocalypto should prob drop to top of tier 1. My point was just to say that at their finest (more than 50 percent of the movie), some tier 1 titles look better than some of the tier 0 titles with consistent good quality throughout. Shouldn't all Tier 0 titles, in the least look as good as some mid-tier 1 titles at their best?
> 
> 
> This is why, I agree with you about Spider-Man 3... I also believe there aren't many titles worthy of tier 0 (non-cgi).



This is a fair point that many can argue against, but I do agree with you. For example, Live Free or Die Hard is a very detail title with sharp 3D Pop scenes, however to me it has flaws in the darker scenes. With that being said, to me nothing in LFODH can match the best scenes in Apocalypto and those scenes are not 5min, they are more than 50% of the film. So it is arguable and opens the door for other titles in the Tier 0 thread to be revisited. Maybe they should.


To be fair, maybe only titles that have only have 5% of less issues with 95% Tier 0 PQ should be in that Tier. From the ones I have seen, POTC 3, I Robot, POTC 2, and Mr. Brooks fit the bill. I am not counting the animation titles of course.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/13490187
> 
> 
> Yes, with 30 minutes of not-so-great footage, Apocalypto should prob drop to top of tier 1. My point was just to say that at their finest (more than 50 percent of the movie), some tier 1 titles look better than some of the tier 0 titles with consistent good quality throughout. Shouldn't all Tier 0 titles, in the least look as good as some mid-tier 1 titles at their best?
> 
> 
> This is why, I agree with you about Spider-Man 3... I also believe there aren't many titles worthy of tier 0 (non-cgi).



Man on Fire is definitely worthy of tier 1, it's the best live action BD I've seen so far


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/13490636
> 
> 
> Man on Fire is definitely worthy of tier 1, it's the best live action BD I've seen so far



It is superb.


That's why it is in Tier 0!


----------



## lrstevens421




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13490970
> 
> 
> It is superb.
> 
> 
> That's why it is in Tier 0!



As it should be, I stayed out of the nominations for this one. I didn't want my love for the film to cloud my judgement







. Excellent looking movie.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lrstevens421* /forum/post/13491034
> 
> 
> As it should be, I stayed out of the nominations for this one. I didn't want my love for the film to cloud my judgement
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Excellent looking movie.



Funny you say that. When I put up my initial review for Blade Runner, I recommended it for Tier 2 despite the fact that I was extremely pleased with how great it looked. I was worried that my love of the movie may cloud my judgment, so as it turned out it was a self fulfilling prophecy, as I really did think it was worthy of Tier 1, but I was trying to temper my enthusiasm for the film (thinking it would cloud my judgment of its PQ). It was difficult to differentiate. After a second viewing, it was very clear to me that it belongs solidly in Tier 1!


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/13490636
> 
> 
> Man on Fire is definitely worthy of tier 1, it's the best live action BD I've seen so far



I haven't seen it yet. I think you meant tier 0. I'm eager to watch this one soon.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/13491413
> 
> 
> I haven't seen it (Man on Fire) yet. I think you meant tier 0. I'm eager to watch this one soon.



My copy of Man on Fire should be here any day, along with Rescue Dawn. I will be watching I, Robot for sure this weekend (which just came in the mail this morning) and tomorrow night my wife will join me for viewing Becoming Jane. I'm eager to watch all four!


----------



## E-A-G-L-E-S

30 Days of Night

Tier 1 video

Pioneer 1150HD @ 8'

PS3

Just beautiful, but a little grain keeps it from Tier 0 for me.


No Country for Old Men

Tier 1 video

Pioneer 1150HD @ 8'

PS3

Another beautiful disc and loved the movie. And again a little bit of grain keeps it from Tier 0 for me.


*I have yet to nominate a movie for Tier 0 as I feel that should be reserved for perfection or at least near perfection.


----------



## lgans316

Only one movie perfectly complies to the Tier-0 rule. It's nothing but Black Snake Moan.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13492237
> 
> 
> Only one movie perfectly complies to the Tier-0 rule. It's nothing but Black Snake Moan.



Not true. All of the CGI/Animated titles comply.


----------



## lgans316

Besides the CGI/Animated flicks BSM is the only title that actually comply to Tier-0 rule as it's consistently razor sharp with no film artefacts. Just my opinion.


----------



## techwisenyc

^

Also, I have not seen anything better than POTC 3, aside from the animated titles of course. I Robot would be my best non-animated film. Both worthy of their High Tier 0 status.


----------



## E-A-G-L-E-S

I have not seen I Robot yet, but in my opinion POTCAWE was a Tier 1 disc.


----------



## techwisenyc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *E-A-G-L-E-S* /forum/post/13492850
> 
> 
> I have not seen I Robot yet, but in my opinion POTCAWE was a Tier 1 disc.



I'm curious which titles you think should be Tier 0 then? If POTCAWE is not Tier 0 that would mean SM3, POTCDMC, Mr Brooks and a lot others should all not be there either by your rating system?


I have yet to check out BSM, but I see it gets huge praise from some here.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *E-A-G-L-E-S* /forum/post/13492850
> 
> 
> I have not seen I Robot yet, but in my opinion POTCAWE was a Tier 1 disc.



I would have to disagree with you on this one and echo the sentiments of techwisenyc. I just watched this for the first time two nights ago and I was blown away by the razor-sharp images, especially in facial closeups.


There were some dark scenes throughout the movie (like the closing battle scene with the two ships in the vortex) that featured either heavy clouds or rain, and these certainly didn't highlight the excellent PQ that HD can produce, but aside from those there was a consistent "clean and sharp image that maintained a realistic feel throughout." This clearly met the standards of a Tier 0 placement.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13492237
> 
> 
> Only one movie perfectly complies to the Tier-0 rule. It's nothing but Black Snake Moan.



What was the difference between this transfer of this and the HD DVD one (not to get off topic, but I haven't found an answer). I'm sure they both used AVC, but was it the same encode or did BD have a higher bit rate?


----------



## lgans316

Yes. It was the same encode. AVC @20.14 Mbps. When Paramount re-enters the BLU bandwagon expect them to outperform the other Studios w.r to AV treatment as well as bonus contents on HD.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Mr. Woodcock*


In a word: soft. Too soft for my taste. Nothing to get excited about here in terms of PQ. No aspect of it stood out. Average contrast, mediocre detail and sharpness. Did I mention the softness?


Tier 3, about 5 spots down.


----------



## bplewis24

Forgot to add that I saw Independence Day last night. Somewhere around mid tier 2 seems good to me. But what really surprised me is how bad the movie was to me. Heh...


Brandon


----------



## techwisenyc

Hitman


Saw this last night and was impressed with it because I guess I wasn't expecting much PQ wise. The flim doesn't have tons of different vibrant colors or any Tier 0 3D Pop, but was very consistent. I am impressed with how Fox is handling their Dark scenes in comparison to WB and their HP titles for example. This title to me is much better than HP 1-4 as it is very consistent with mid to Top Tier 2 PQ, but at times showing us some Tier 1 goodness. The parts with grain were very consistently mild and didn't kill the PQ at all.


Dark scenes as I stated looked very good, which leads me to question why Gone Baby Gone is so high. This title beats GBG hands down. I can see it being closer to High Tier 2, or remaining where it's at, but knocking down HP 4 and GBG below it.


Note:


I think Donnie Brasco should be higher as it is very underrated and looks very good for it's age.


----------



## lgans316

+1. I was extremely impressed with the look of Hitman. Some of the color palettes used reminded me of Bourne Ultimatum. Really appreciate FOX coz they balanced their equation by compromising 25 GB space by provided a digital copy.


Proves that if the source is in good shape and with some minor tweaking low average bit rates can do certain amount of justice. Top 10 of Tier 2 is where Hitman should be placed. It may have looked better with higher bit rates but have to live with what was being offered.


War (Rogue Assassin) should be in mid of Tier-2. The biggest culprit is black levels. There were way too low and it's evident that it's caused due to excessive post processing.


----------



## djoberg

I said I would be sitting down with my better half to view *Becoming Jane* this evening and I must say it was definitely reference material. It surely deserves the Tier 0 placement is has; in fact, I believe it could be moved up to join the 2 POTC sequels.


Besides a consistent sharp and detailed picture throughout, I was thoroughly impressed with the flesh tones, the natural colors, the inky blacks, and an excellent contrast. And I agree wholeheartedly with another member who commented on the unbelievable depth in the many outdoor scenes; it truly had the "looking through a window" effect (there were many indoor scenes with 3D pop as well).


One more point. I remember sitting down with my wife about 4 months ago to watch Pride & Prejudice and I found myself squirming from beginning to end (in sheer boredom), but I actually found this movie to be quite enjoyable.


----------



## facesnorth




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/13502214
> 
> 
> I said I would be sitting down with my better half to view *Becoming Jane* this evening and I must say it was definitely reference material. It surely deserves the Tier 0 placement is has; in fact, I believe it could be moved up to join the 2 POTC sequels.
> 
> 
> Besides a consistent sharp and detailed picture throughout, I was thoroughly impressed with the flesh tones, the natural colors, the inky blacks, and an excellent contrast. And I agree wholeheartedly with another member who commented on the unbelievable depth in the many outdoor scenes; it truly had the "looking through a window" effect (there were many indoor scenes with 3D pop as well).
> 
> 
> One more point. I remember sitting down with my wife about 4 months ago to watch Pride & Prejudice and I found myself squirming from beginning to end (in sheer boredom), but I actually found this movie to be quite enjoyable.



Really, great. My wife has been asking to see this movie for a while now. How was the sound?


----------



## alexg75

I just finished watching ENCHANTED all the way through and I recommend a TIER 1 placement in the upper mids.Solid transfer and no EE nor compression artifacts.Colors are a bit muted here and there and are not quite as vivid as I was expecting.But those little nitpicks aside I say it's a good looking presentation.


----------



## lgans316

*I am Legend*


Slightly soft looking but obviously shines at the required places. However I am not fully convinced as it has less HD pop than The Island and Black Hawk Down which I consider as reference Tier-1 titles. So can be placed just below these titles in the middle of the Tier-1 pack. IAL is no way a Tier-0 title. Just my opinion.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/13491413
> 
> 
> I haven't seen it yet. I think you meant tier 0. I'm eager to watch this one soon.



Yes I meant tier 0...BAD typo










It is simply stunning


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *facesnorth* /forum/post/13502970
> 
> 
> Really, great. My wife has been asking to see this movie for a while now. How was the sound?



It was a decent PCM audio track with a very good musical score throughout the movie. As can be expected with a movie in this genre, there wasn't too much action in the surrounds or in the LFE department. But all in all, I was pleased.


----------



## lgans316

*Crimson Tide*


I wholeheartedly disagree with the current placement in Tier-1. 99% of the movie happens indoors with plenty of dark, soft focused and smoke filled shots good enough to rob off the HD pop. Also white speckles were visible at many spots and I am still wondering how so many failed to spot or mentiion about it. Mid of Tier-2 is where Crimson Tide should be. If Crimson Tide is placed above the sharp and colorful Pearl Harbor then there is something wrong with it's placement. Requesting people with the TRAINED EYES to revisit Crimson Tide.

*Man on Fire and The Host*


The Host is probably placed on the right spot but Man on Fire should be above TMNT. Man on Fire is an excellent example of a non-animated film looking better than animated ones.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13504316
> 
> 
> Man on Fire is an excellent example of a non-animated film looking better than animated ones.



My copy of Man on Fire just arrived in the mail today from Amazon. After reading your glowing remarks about it I can't wait to watch it! And yet I'm going to have to wait because I also received i, Robot, I Am Legend and Rescue Dawn in the mail yesterday and I usually watch them in the order in which they are received.


----------



## Shane Martin

Man on Fire deserves Tier 0 status. WOW, what amazing picture quality.


----------



## maverick0716

I just watched TAOJJBTCRF (How's that for an acronym? lol) and I loved the style in which it was filmed! It definitly had a very old western feel to it. That being said, because it's so stylistic, the overall sharpness and cleanliness of the transfer put's it into Tier 3.......I agree with where it's currently placed.


It's a great movie by the way.........very, very, good character study! But if you're looking for a guns blazing western flick you will be disappointed.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Shane Martin* /forum/post/13506037
> 
> 
> Man on Fire deserves Tier 0 status. WOW, what amazing picture quality.



The best I have seen so far


----------



## lrstevens421




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/13507048
> 
> 
> The best I have seen so far



As much as I LOVE this movie, it is now the second best title I've seen, right behind I robot







.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/13506352
> 
> 
> I just watched TAOJJBTCRF (How's that for an acronym? lol)



Just don't call it the Ass of JJ


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Shane Martin* /forum/post/13506037
> 
> 
> Man on Fire deserves Tier 0 status. WOW, what amazing picture quality.



Man on Fire is proof that , first and foremost, the master used is more important than the bit rate. Take a look at this:
http://hd-discs.mbmg.de/manonfire_10...-vs-bd/01.html 


Mouse over comparisons between the broadcast version at 1080i using MPEG 2 around 21 mbps versus the AVC encoded one. Obviously the fast moving scenes hold up better, but the overall look of the movie is quite amazing to begin with.


Either way, the blu-ray version belongs in Tier 0. This may be one of the few that everyone agrees on.. or at least it appears everyone agrees.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lrstevens421* /forum/post/13507077
> 
> 
> As much as I LOVE this movie, it is now the second best title I've seen, right behind I robot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



Just might have to check it out then


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lrstevens421* /forum/post/13507077
> 
> 
> As much as I LOVE this movie, it is now the second best title I've seen, right behind I robot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



+1


I just finished watching *I, Robot* and I agree with Irstevens421 (that IR is the best title I've seen), though I must add that Becoming Jane may be its equal or a close second. Having said that, I still haven't seen Man on Fire, so I will probably chime in with my opinion on that later on in the week.


----------



## Shane Martin

I Robot is awfully close. Any difference to me would be stylistic differences. Both really looked amazing.


----------



## nohjy

Just finished watching Flyboys. Its a rather trite film, but the picture is excellent. It belongs in mid-tier 1 not tier 2. This movie is just beautiful to watch. The picture is very film-like and the depth is excellent with very little in the way of artifacts. The soundtrack is very good as well. I would definitely consider this for demo material.


----------



## dannyk8232

I'm assuming it's been mentioned before, but 28 days later is intentionally awful PQ until the very end...when it looks great. The director chose to make it look terrible until the very end, when it is obviously HD...


I think this movie is unique in this regard, and ranking it is somewhat difficult because it is intended to look poor IMO.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dannyk8232* /forum/post/13509815
> 
> 
> I'm assuming it's been mentioned before, but 28 days later is intentionally awful PQ until the very end...when it looks great. The director chose to make it look terrible until the very end, when it is obviously HD...
> 
> 
> I think this movie is unique in this regard, and ranking it is somewhat difficult because it is intended to look poor IMO.



Correct


28 Days later was filmed in SD...a mix of the Canon XL1 and 8mm film, hence the reason why it looks so poor.


For the final scene, it was shot in 35mm, which is why you see it as the only HD looking images.


----------



## maverick0716

If the movie looks like crap for most of the running time........then it must be rated as crap, whether it was the director's intent or not. I have no problem ranking a movie that wasn't filmed in HD at the bottom of the list.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/13509952
> 
> 
> If the movie looks like crap for most of the running time........then it must be rated as crap, whether it was the director's intent or not. I have no problem ranking a movie that wasn't filmed in HD at the bottom of the list.



+1


----------



## lgans316

*No Country for Old Men*


Terrific PQ but spoiled by compression noise and moderate banding on the sky and night shots. Top Tier-1 recommendation and it has consistent HD pop.

*30 Days of Night*


Excellent PQ but Banding and dot crawling is visible in dim lit sequences. Current placement is wrong as there are many titles in Tier-2 that look better than this one in terms of HD pop. Should be below Aviator as it's entirely shot in the dark and offers slight HD pop we usually get from bright and outdoor sequences.


----------



## dannyk8232




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/13509952
> 
> 
> If the movie looks like crap for most of the running time........then it must be rated as crap, whether it was the director's intent or not. I have no problem ranking a movie that wasn't filmed in HD at the bottom of the list.



I agree with that, and I believe it's fair. But to lump it in with other movies which are not intended to look soft, grainy and lousy is misleading. I figured it _would_ be HD quality with a plethora of errors. But is is meant to look horrible; as opposed to a movie that was rushed to BD with a weak transfer.


I think it is better explained to somebody who hasn't seen it with an asterisk next to it's name, that's all. If I had known prior to watching it that it was shot in SD...it would have saved me a couple of hours wondering what the problem may have been with my setup.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I recently rewatched *District B13*. I think it might be placed a little too high in the tier list. Currently it is ranked in the middle of Tier 2 but watching the title now against newer transfers it should probably be lowered to the upper-half of Tier 3.


District B13 was released on BD in January of 2007. It's a fairly typical MPEG2 encode from the earlier days of Blu-ray on a BD-25(it is a relatively short feature of 84 minutes). The first half of the movie and certain intense action sequences thereafter average approximately 20-28 Mbps. The second half of the movie averages a lower 17-24 Mbps. It is interesting to point out that the bitrates occasionally peak in the 30's(the highest I personally saw was 36 Mbps), meaning this is a separate encode from the HD DVD version.


The transfer is marred by the occasional macroblocking and artifacting. Check at 16:50 into the movie for the first noticeable macroblocking. It is also a little softer than the average title in Tier 2. A few scenes have tier 2 sharpness but most of the movie due to film conditions or transfer is not as sharp as newer BD encodes. Black levels are okay but they are definitely not "inky" consistently. This title does not deserve to be ranked above titles like Secret Window or Gattaca or Babel for example.


Watching on a calibrated 60" Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080P/24 fed by a PS3 from 5 to 6 feet.


----------



## ooms

glad to see FF2 moved to tier1. def not reference material. also glad becoing jane moved up to 0. just liked i said on page 107.


----------



## lgans316

Does anyone with the current placement of 30 Days of Night and Crimson Tide ?


I have posted my thoughts in the previous posts. Something is wrong with it's placement.

It needs to be pushed down as it doesn't comply to the rules of the Tier Thread.

*Underworld (Unrated)*


Could be moved up a few spots probably above Sunshine. Terrific PQ for such a dark movie with very minimal artefacts.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13515714
> 
> 
> Does anyone with the current placement of 30 Days of Night and Crimson Tide ?
> 
> 
> I have posted my thoughts in the previous posts. Something is wrong with it's placement.
> 
> It needs to be pushed down as it doesn't comply to the rules of the Tier Thread.
> 
> *Underworld (Unrated)*
> 
> 
> Could be moved up a few spots probably above Sunshine. Terrific PQ for such a dark movie with very minimal artefacts.



First of all, since I haven't seen Crimson Tide, I can't judge its current placement, but I have seen *30 Days of Night* and I DO AGREE with it being in Tier 1. I thought the PQ was VERY GOOD, especially considering most of the scenes were night scenes. In fact, my conclusion was the same you had regarding Underworld..."Terrific PQ for such a dark movie with very minimal artifacts."


I was glad to see your positive remarks for Underworld, for I just received a copy in the mail and will be viewing it some time in the next two weeks (I have about 10 other titles to see first).


----------



## lgans316

I agree with 30 Days of Night offering good PQ but it didn't have enough outdoor / bright scenes that brings out the HD pop. From the movie's intent the current placement may be fine but with reference to the Tier Thread rule it falls short of the expectations.


----------



## DavidHir

I haven't seen 30 days, but I think Crimson Tide in upper Tier 2 is fair.


I watched *Monster House* over the weekend. I'm assuming even though this was a CG movie that the grain was intentional? I'm thinking high Tier 3 title.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13516187
> 
> 
> I agree with 30 Days of Night offering good PQ but it didn't have enough outdoor / bright scenes that brings out the HD pop. From the movie's intent the current placement may be fine but with reference to the Tier Thread rule it falls short of the expectations.



I'm confused...you say 30 Days of Night "falls short of the expectations" for Tier 1 because "it didn't have enough outdoor/bright scenes that bring out the HD pop," and yet you suggest moving Underworld up from its current placement in Tier 1. Underworld is just as "dark" or darker than 30 Days of Night (I am basing this on my recollection of watching the SD version of it a couple of years ago), so how do you reconcile this seeming contradiction?


----------



## lgans316

Yes. 30 Days of Night slightly falls short of the expectations as it doesn't have enough bright scenes and is darker than Underworld. Underworld is sharper and brighter than 30 Days of Night due to the harsh lighting conditions. Also there are less film artefacts in Underworld.


----------



## techwisenyc

^^


Same thing I was thinking. If you don't have any daytime outdoor scenes that usually provide 3D POP then you should never be in Tier 1? Yet is seems you stated that Underworld 1 should be higher when that is one dark film?


Besides me trying to understand that, I want to revisit this film as when I first watched it, I thought it was not better than a lower Tier 1 or High Tier 2 film. Many of the dark scenes are too grainy or just way too dark with much detail drown out. I understand a film this dark is tough to film, but I was not impressed after all the initial praise. It does have some outstanding closeup shots, but as whole lacking in consistent Mid- HighTier 1 PQ quality.


I would definitely say that the dark scenes in Sunshine and HP5 are much cleaner, clearer, and detailed. However, I will see this again just to make sure I wasn't maybe sleepy when I watched this.


----------



## lgans316

Yes. Please re-watch them with correct settings. To my eyes Underworld had better consistency and offered value sharpness than 30 Days of Night.


----------



## stumlad

*28 Weeks Later*


Finally got around to watching this title, and I must say, it is a mixed bag of PQ...Mainly intentional, but amazing how the PQ ranges from Tier 1 to Tier 4. Some outdoor scenery shots during daytime were tier 1 material. Some night/dark scenes where being attacked were tier 4 because of the material shown.


One thing, I'm not quite sure what it was, but at around 1 hour and 1 minute, when they are outside in the alley, it seemed that there was some major post processing occuring. The scenes had an almost blur type effect on some of the people. Almost felt like they photoshopped the images to give it some type of a banding look.


I guess it pretty much belongs where it's at... Lower tier 2.


Titles like this make it very difficult to judge the PQ. When it was supposed to look good, it looked good, when it was supposed to look bad it did.


----------



## ooms

strange how when the movie is overly grainy some use "directors intent" as a scape goat. but any other type of "flaw" and it must be a piss poor transfer


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13516187
> 
> 
> I agree with 30 Days of Night offering good PQ but it didn't have enough outdoor / bright scenes that brings out the HD pop. From the movie's intent the current placement may be fine but with reference to the Tier Thread rule it falls short of the expectations.



I agree. 30 Days of Night looked good, but wasn't impressive enough to be in Tier 1.


I personally find Underworld Evo to be better PQ than the first one, regardless of the fact that it has compression issues in certain parts of the film... those issues however, are enough to lower it, but the overall quality still belongs to Evolution... If it was re-compressed using AVC with a decent bit rate, it would win.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/13516111
> 
> 
> First of all, since I haven't seen Crimson Tide, I can't judge its current placement, but I have seen *30 Days of Night* and I DO AGREE with it being in Tier 1. I thought the PQ was VERY GOOD, especially considering most of the scenes were night scenes. In fact, my conclusion was the same you had regarding Underworld..."Terrific PQ for such a dark movie with very minimal artifacts."
> 
> 
> I was glad to see your positive remarks for Underworld, for I just received a copy in the mail and will be viewing it some time in the next two weeks (I have about 10 other titles to see first).


*30 Days of Night* is the movie I have been watching repeatedly since its release. Its PQ definitely has flaws, but at its best I think it is very good, and certainly Tier 1. It suffers from Sony's ridiculous refusal to let the bitrate go over 30, and in some shots the bitrate is inadequate even within that constraint, but still I think it looks generally great. The best shots, I think, are the close-ups of Hartnett and his character's wife talking to each other on cell-phones early in the movie.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nohjy* /forum/post/13509485
> 
> 
> Just finished watching Flyboys. Its a rather trite film, but the picture is excellent. It belongs in mid-tier 1 not tier 2. This movie is just beautiful to watch. The picture is very film-like and the depth is excellent with very little in the way of artifacts. The soundtrack is very good as well. I would definitely consider this for demo material.



It's been a while since I last watched Flyboys but when it was released I watched it repeatedly. I agree the PQ is generally very nice. Unfortunately the aerial sequences are quite soft. That might be the reason for Tier 2.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13504316
> 
> *Crimson Tide*
> 
> 
> I wholeheartedly disagree with the current placement in Tier-1. 99% of the movie happens indoors with plenty of dark, soft focused and smoke filled shots good enough to rob off the HD pop. Also white speckles were visible at many spots and I am still wondering how so many failed to spot or mentiion about it. Mid of Tier-2 is where Crimson Tide should be. If Crimson Tide is placed above the sharp and colorful Pearl Harbor then there is something wrong with it's placement. Requesting people with the TRAINED EYES to revisit Crimson Tide.
> 
> *Man on Fire and The Host*
> 
> 
> The Host is probably placed on the right spot but Man on Fire should be above TMNT. Man on Fire is an excellent example of a non-animated film looking better than animated ones.



I watched *Crimson Tide* for the first time this weekend, and I agree that Tier 2 is the place for this. Far too many soft shots for no good reason.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lrstevens421* /forum/post/13507077
> 
> 
> As much as I LOVE this movie, it is now the second best title I've seen, right behind I robot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



Sorry, I can't agree. While I think *I, Robot* is definitely Tier 0, I think *Man on Fire* looks much better.


----------



## robertc88

Well it is a BD kind of but I expect GT5 Prologue to look absolutely fantastic and early reviews I've read seems that is the case.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13517266
> 
> 
> Sorry, I can't agree. While I think *I, Robot* is definitely Tier 0, I think *Man on Fire* looks much better.



I don't.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13518831
> 
> 
> I don't.



You don't think MoF looks better *at all*, or just not *much* better?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13518939
> 
> 
> You don't think MoF looks better *at all*, or just not *much* better?



MoF looks better, just not MUCH better.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

BTW, Patrick, with the recent discussion on Apocalypto, I would be interested in hearing whether you think that title belongs in Tier 0 or Tier 1 (I think you said you needed to watch it again?).


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dannyk8232* /forum/post/13511740
> 
> 
> I think it is better explained to somebody who hasn't seen it with an asterisk next to it's name, that's all. If I had known prior to watching it that it was shot in SD...it would have saved me a couple of hours wondering what the problem may have been with my setup.



Since it seems to be confirmed that it was shot with SD cameras perhaps it should be noted in the first post. That sounds like a good idea.


Brandon


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13515714
> 
> 
> Does anyone with the current placement of 30 Days of Night and Crimson Tide ?
> 
> 
> I have posted my thoughts in the previous posts. Something is wrong with it's placement.
> 
> It needs to be pushed down as it doesn't comply to the rules of the Tier Thread.
> 
> *Underworld (Unrated)*
> 
> 
> Could be moved up a few spots probably above Sunshine. Terrific PQ for such a dark movie with very minimal artefacts.



I originally voted for High Tier 2 for Crimson Tide after struggling with low Tier 1 vs High Tier 2.


Brandon


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13519008
> 
> 
> BTW, Patrick, with the recent discussion on Apocalypto, I would be interested in hearing whether you think that title belongs in Tier 0 or Tier 1 (I think you said you needed to watch it again?).



Is there a way for us to better define what is tier 0 and what is tier 1. As a couple of us discussed, Apocalypto at its best looks better than other Tier 0 titles at their best. The defining factor for those titles is that they are consistent throughout whereas Apoc has about 33 percent good but 67 percent great.


I'm getting a blu-ray pc drive tomorrow and may start doing some frame grabs (similar to Xylon, but with the purpose to help with this tier thread). Maybe with this, and others helping out, we'll be able to do some comparisons on some of the tier 0 titles. Obviously it wont be perfect, but we can probably try to do something like 1 face closeup, 1 scenery shot, 1 in-motion, etc... Just throwing some ideas out there because I really want to help with classifying tier 0 and tier 1.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13518991
> 
> 
> MoF looks better, just not MUCH better.



I confess I am sometimes guilty of overstating things. . . .


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13519008
> 
> 
> BTW, Patrick, with the recent discussion on Apocalypto, I would be interested in hearing whether you think that title belongs in Tier 0 or Tier 1 (I think you said you needed to watch it again?).



Actually, Rob, what I need to do is watch it all the way through once. I never made it beyond the first 30 minutes and apparently, judging by recent comments, the PQ improves after that.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/13520423
> 
> 
> Is there a way for us to better define what is tier 0 and what is tier 1. As a couple of us discussed, Apocalypto at its best looks better than other Tier 0 titles at their best. The defining factor for those titles is that they are consistent throughout whereas Apoc has about 33 percent good but 67 percent great.



Not trying to be argumentative, but what's the problem with this? It's like a calculus test where there are 10 questions worth 10 points each. On 6 of the 10 questions I get 10 out of 10 points, and on the other 4 questions I get 3 out of 10 points. You on the other hand get 8 out of 10 points on all 10 questions. You still get a higher grade than me even though my understanding of several questions is more comprehensive (or of higher "quality" if you will) than yours.


I don't see a problem with applying the same sort of grading to the whole of a movie. The mode is obviously important, but so is the mean. Consistency should count for something, IMO.


Still, that's just my opinion. I don't think everybody absolutely has to adhere to an overly strict formula when judging movies. Each person has their own *subtle* differences in methodology when judging PQ. And it still comes down to some people feeling Tier 0 films are a rarity where others just feel it represents the top (elite 5-15%?) of what is available. Nevertheless, I don't see a problem with philosophical differences in this regard as the movie still falls within a continuum when the Tier designations are removed***.


This reminds me of the boxing forum I belong to and scoring discrepencies when judging fights. A thread was created to try and break down the scoring by each forumer. We asked each person to explain the general methodology behind how they score a round. For me I explained that I break each 3 minute round into thirds: The opening minute, the middle, and the final 60 seconds of the round. If a fighter wins all three minutes then he obviously wins the round on my card, but it becomes tough when Fighter A wins the first 2 minutes closely but Fighter B wins the last 60 seconds by a good margin. Even more complex when breaking it down further is to ask myself do I give a fighter the last third of the round if he only wins the last 10 seconds of the minute? The overriding theme of quality vs quantity (read: consistency) comes into play here yet again.


Bottom line is that, at that point when trying to over-analyze the minutia it becomes clear there really is no hard-and-fast scientific formula that accounts for every scenario. So each individual makes a decision based on any number of influencing factors as to which direction they lean. Yes, it is subjective, and that's why your vote only counts as one










Brandon

*** Note that the HD DVD Tier Thread uses a numerial rating to decide which movies make the top tier. While this diffuses questioning about which movies should make the top tier and which don't (it's easy enough to see that the numerical rating wasn't high enough) it should be understood that this is still an arbitrary (agreed upon) cutoff point. Why isn't the cutoff point 4.51-5.00, or 4.01-5.00, or even 4.76-5.00 for that matter, instead of whatever it is?


----------



## Steeb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13520876
> 
> 
> Actually, Rob, what I need to do is watch it all the way through once. I never made it beyond the first 30 minutes and apparently, judging by recent comments, the PQ improves after that.



So... exactly how many movies have you judged on this thread (and elsewhere) without actually watching the entire film?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steeb* /forum/post/13521088
> 
> 
> So... exactly how many movies have you judged on this thread (and elsewhere) without actually watching the entire film?



I don't believe that I have expressed any view on the PQ of Apocalypto here or elsewhere.


----------



## Steeb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13521136
> 
> 
> I don't believe that I have expressed any view on the PQ of Apocalypto here or elsewhere.



You didn't answer my question. If it helps, here's a slight variation: what percentage of the films that you've judged have you watched from beginning to end? 75%? 50%? 25%?


To put it yet another way: is it standard practice for you to post your opinions about a film's PQ without first watching the entire film?


----------



## briankmonkey

Just watched *Sunshine* last night. Really enjoyed most of the film aside from maybe the very last portion/twist which wasn't bad but could have beend done better.


I'd rate the PQ either hight Teir 1 or maybe even Teir O. Honestly it is hard for me to keep track if it is better or worse than another movie. I'm just very happy with how it looked and it sounded fantastic as well considering I didn't have a sub running at the time (waiting for my HSU VT-3 HO w/Turbo







).


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steeb* /forum/post/13521194
> 
> 
> You didn't answer my question. If it helps, here's a slight variation: what percentage of the films that you've judged have you watched from beginning to end? 75%? 50%? 25%?
> 
> 
> To put it yet another way: is it standard practice for you to post your opinions about a film's PQ without first watching the entire film?



What percentage of the times that you post in this thread do you post comments on the PQ of movies?

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...postcount=3507 

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...postcount=3218 

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/searc...=9692667&pp=30


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briankmonkey* /forum/post/13521318
> 
> 
> Just watched *Sunshine* last night. Really enjoyed most of the film aside from maybe the very last portion/twist which wasn't bad but could have beend done better.
> 
> 
> I'd rate the PQ either hight Teir 1 or maybe even Teir O. Honestly it is hard for me to keep track if it is better or worse than another movie. I'm just very happy with how it looked and it sounded fantastic as well considering I didn't have a sub running at the time (waiting for my HSU VT-3 HO w/Turbo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ).



I thought *Sunshine* was not quite at the same level in terms of PQ as some other recent Fox titles, many of which are in Tier 0. I didn't think this was Tier 0 material.


----------



## briankmonkey




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13521411
> 
> 
> I thought *Sunshine* was not quite at the same level in terms of PQ as some other recent Fox titles, many of which are in Tier 0. I didn't think this was Tier 0 material.



I'm trying to think of other mostly space environment movies or dark movies in general but can't think of many. Underworld Evolution also looks great. Well, Teir 1 is fine with me I just thought the movie had some really great looking shots. I guess its hard to compare it a to a bright sunlit movie but for a space sci-fi movie I was impressed. I Didn't notice any flaws or anything distracting.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13521072
> 
> 
> Not trying to be argumentative, but what's the problem with this? It's like a calculus test where there are 10 questions worth 10 points each. On 6 of the 10 questions I get 10 out of 10 points, and on the other 4 questions I get 3 out of 10 points. You on the other hand get 8 out of 10 points on all 10 questions. You still get a higher grade than me even though my understanding of several questions is more comprehensive (or of higher "quality" if you will) than yours.



I see your point, but based on your example, as well as my example with Die Hard 4 and Apocalypto, they should both be in tier 1 since one is a consistenly high performer, while the other can be a very-high performer but lower at times. So we're not really disagreeing...


----------



## Steeb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13521385
> 
> 
> What percentage of the times that you post in this thread do you post comments on the PQ of movies?



To be honest, I'm not surprised that you're refusing to answer my simple question. Based on how I've seen you respond to questions from others, I half-expected you to balk, but I figured I'd ask anyway, just in case.


You appear to be one of the main contributors to this thread. As such, I would think that things like "whether or not your display can handle BTB and WTW" and "whether you're watching the entire movie or a small portion before passing judgement on a film's PQ" would be pertinent to this thread. Perhaps I'm mistaken.



ETA: I'll leave you guys to it. I only popped in to ask a quick (and easily answered) question and didn't intend to turn it into a whole discussion. Sorry for the interruption.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steeb* /forum/post/13521630
> 
> 
> To be honest, I'm not surprised that you're refusing to answer my simple question. Based on how I've seen you respond to questions from others, I half-expected you to balk, but I figured I'd ask anyway, just in case.
> 
> 
> You appear to be one of the main contributors to this thread. As such, I would think that things like "whether or not your display can handle BTB and WTW" and "whether you're watching the entire movie or a small portion before passing judgement on a film's PQ" would be pertinent to this thread. Perhaps I'm mistaken.
> 
> 
> 
> ETA: I'll leave you guys to it. I only popped in to ask a quick (and easily answered) question and didn't intend to turn it into a whole discussion. Sorry for the interruption.



As I have said before, on those occasions when I make a comment on a movie's PQ without having watched the entire movie, I explicitly state that I have not seen the whole movie, and describe how much of the movie I have watched.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/13521608
> 
> 
> I see your point, but based on your example, as well as my example with Die Hard 4 and Apocalypto, they should both be in tier 1 since one is a consistenly high performer, while the other can be a very-high performer but lower at times. So we're not really disagreeing...



For full disclosure, I haven't seen Die Hard 4 to be able to agree or disagree on that specific comparison.


Brandon


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briankmonkey* /forum/post/13521513
> 
> 
> I'm trying to think of other mostly space environment movies or dark movies in general but can't think of many. Underworld Evolution also looks great. Well, Teir 1 is fine with me I just thought the movie had some really great looking shots. I guess its hard to compare it a to a bright sunlit movie but for a space sci-fi movie I was impressed. I Didn't notice any flaws or anything distracting.



Blade Runner is pretty dark, isn't it?


----------



## briankmonkey




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13522118
> 
> 
> Blade Runner is pretty dark, isn't it?



Yes and Blade Runner doesn't look nearly as good. Well I've only watched the Final cut with the best audio. Music sounds great (Vangelis rocks







) but the dialog mixed in isn't as good. Still for its age a very nice job and far superior to the DVD version which is horrible looking.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/13521608
> 
> 
> I see your point, but based on your example, as well as my example with Die Hard 4 and Apocalypto, they should both be in tier 1 since one is a consistenly high performer, while the other can be a very-high performer but lower at times. So we're not really disagreeing...



How much of DH 4 do you think is at a lower level? I think the very early scenes are the only ones that are in this category. When I rewatch the movie, I generally start at the point when they are leaving Justin Long's apartment, and from there on I don't see a notable variation in PQ.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13522165
> 
> 
> How much of DH 4 do you think is at a lower level? I think the very early scenes are the only ones that are in this category. When I rewatch the movie, I generally start at the point when they are leaving Justin Long's apartment, and from there on I don't see a notable variation in PQ.



I think DH4 is consistently very good with little variation. I was just saying that Apocalypto, at times is better than it, and at times is worse, but when averaging it they should be ranked about the same or high tier 1.


----------



## Shane Martin




> Quote:
> You don't think MoF looks better at all, or just not much better?
> 
> MoF looks better, just not MUCH better.



I agree. The differences are very minute. We're almost IMHO splitting hairs.


I watched The Game Plan this weekend. Middle of Tier 2. - currently unranked

I also watched Dan in Real Life. I agree with the current ranking of the top of tier 2.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13520876
> 
> 
> Actually, Rob, what I need to do is watch it all the way through once. I never made it beyond the first 30 minutes and apparently, judging by recent comments, the PQ improves after that.



Apocalypto looks phenomenal and Tier 0 quality after about the 45 minute mark(to the best of my memory). Bright outdoor scenes with sharp vivid colors. Apocalypto was shot on a variety of equipment and hence the source varies greatly over the course of the movie.


----------



## tino11215

Hi ,would u rate PQ of Hit Man higher then Idependence day, if so by how much,

like both movies would like your opion


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tino11215* /forum/post/13524424
> 
> 
> Hi ,would u rate PQ of Hit Man higher then Idependence day, if so by how much,
> 
> like both movies would like your opion



As I indicated to you in my PM, this is a close call for me as I placed both of these in the upper part of Tier 2. However, I really was impressed with the colors in ID4, and Hitman is pretty monochromatic. For that reason, I would give the slight edge to ID4 from a personal preference.


----------



## lgans316

+1. Hitman should be placed in bottom of Tier-1 or in top 10 in Tier-2. It has Bourne style of visual which is catchy and eye candy at spots and select angles.

*Underworld (Unrated)* : This is an underrated gem in PQ. The PQ is top notch and perfect. The visuals are consistently sharp and the fleshtones are perfect. Aforementioned should be above Sunshine.


----------



## bplewis24

Finally got a chance to watch Mr Brooks tonight. I think the contrast definitely has a negative impact on PQ at times. The question is how much? The amount of detail was incredible the majority of the movie, and not all dark scenes suffered from poor contrast. In my estimation this would be at the *bottom of Tier 0* or top of Tier 1.


Really enjoyed the movie. The very very end almost ruined it for me but then...










PS3->1080p24->46XBR4 (8-10 ft)


Brandon


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13519008
> 
> 
> BTW, Patrick, with the recent discussion on Apocalypto, I would be interested in hearing whether you think that title belongs in Tier 0 or Tier 1 (I think you said you needed to watch it again?).



Since you asked, Rob, I tried watching this last night, but I just can't get into the content of the movie. I sampled a number of chapter starts, and I would say the PQ is very similar to POTC 1 & 2. I am not the biggest fan of the PQ of those, but I would say that Apocalypto (based on my very incomplete viewing, for what it's worth) should be wherever they are.


----------



## lgans316

Aforementioned Apocalypto doesn't offer value sharpness for more than 80% of the running time as it was shot using a variety of film stocks. The best position it can be placed is bottom of Tier-0. There is no way on earth it looked better than Black Snake Moan, Rescue Dawn and Shoot Em Up. Couple of scenes looking jaw dropping doesn't mean that the PQ comply to the Tier-0 rule.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13525121
> 
> 
> As I indicated to you in my PM, this is a close call for me as I placed both of these in the upper part of Tier 2. However, I really was impressed with the colors in ID4, and Hitman is pretty monochromatic. For that reason, I would give the slight edge to ID4 from a personal preference.



I watched all of *Independence Day* for the first time last night. I thought the PQ was extremely inconsistent. There were some shots, mainly in the desert settings, that looked excellent. The one that struck me the most was the scene in the diner with the alien abductee/cropduster being ridiculed. Many other shots looked quite poor. The shots of the alien ships over the cities were the worst, of course. But that is an effects problem more than a PQ problem. Even putting those aside, though, the inconsistency is really huge. I would say low Tier 2.


I would rank *Hitman* above Independence Day. The PQ is much more consistent. While the best shots in ID are better than any shots in Hitman, the worst shots in ID are much worse than anything in Hitman.


----------



## lgans316

Bulls eye.


The PQ on ID4 wavers post Area 51. The grain structure on the dark scenes looked uneven though the color saturation and contrast was spot on. The CGI effects looked worst on ID4 than Starship Troopers despite both boasting comparable CGI takes. I think I have already mentioned about this though it was for the Japanese version which is content wise the same as the U.S version.


Hitman delivers in terms of consistency despite the muted color palette and grayish blacks and deserves to be placed in Mid Tier-2.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13526402
> 
> 
> I watched all of *Independence Day* for the first time last night. I thought the PQ was extremely inconsistent. There were some shots, mainly in the desert settings, that looked excellent. The one that struck me the most was the scene in the diner with the alien abductee/cropduster being ridiculed. Many other shots looked quite poor. The shots of the alien ships over the cities were the worst, of course. But that is an effects problem more than a PQ problem. Even putting those aside, though, the inconsistency is really huge. I would say low Tier 2.
> 
> 
> I would rank *Hitman* above Independence Day. The PQ is much more consistent. While the best shots in ID are better than any shots in Hitman, the worst shots in ID are much worse than anything in Hitman.



I can't really disagree with what you say here too much (other than I don't think the bad scenes looked REALLY bad) and I said in my review that there was inconsistency. Like you say, the good parts are better than anything in Hitman though. But I do agree Hitman is MUCH more consistent.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13526389
> 
> 
> Since you asked, Rob, I tried watching this last night, but I just can't get into the content of the movie. I sampled a number of chapter starts, and I would say the PQ is very similar to POTC 1 & 2. I am not the biggest fan of the PQ of those, but I would say that Apocalypto (based on my very incomplete viewing, for what it's worth) should be wherever they are.



Well, Patrick, I have to say: I think your taste in movies sucks!










Apocalypto is an excellent movie.


What should I expect from someone who dislikes Blade Runner?


----------



## SuprSlow

Fight!


----------



## eghill1125

^^^ We need height, weight, and arm reach to make our bets on this one.










Is either Rob or Patrick a southpaw?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13527797
> 
> 
> Well, Patrick, I have to say: I think your taste in movies sucks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apocalypto is an excellent movie.
> 
> 
> What should I expect from someone who dislikes Blade Runner?



And you forgot to mention, Rob, that I've never seen LoA!


----------



## briankmonkey




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13527797
> 
> 
> Well, Patrick, I have to say: I think your taste in movies sucks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apocalypto is an excellent movie.
> 
> 
> What should I expect from someone who dislikes Blade Runner?



Probably thought 10,000.00 B.C. was a masterpiece







Loved Apocalypto as well.


Ok, what are both of your thoughts on the actual movie Rescue Dawn. I watched the trailer last week and it looked pretty good and plus Christian Bale is awesome. Worth a blind buy?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briankmonkey* /forum/post/13528751
> 
> *Probably thought 10,000.00 B.C. was a masterpiece*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Loved Apocalypto as well.
> 
> 
> Ok, what are both of your thoughts on the actual movie Rescue Dawn. I watched the trailer last week and it looked pretty good and plus Christian Bale is awesome. Worth a blind buy?



Haven't seen 10,000 B.C. yet, but I definitely will get it on BD! Presumably by that time Warner will be doing single format encodes.


I watched even less of RD than Apoc. In the small part I watched, the PQ was not as good as other recent Fox titles.


----------



## briankmonkey




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13528861
> 
> 
> Haven't seen 10,000 B.C. yet, but I definitely will get it on BD! Presumably by that time Warner will be doing single format encodes.
> 
> 
> I watched even less of RD than Apoc. In the small part I watched, the PQ was not as good as other recent Fox titles.



Blind buy on 10,000 B.C.? You sick sick man







you've been warned











Actually I'm more curious at how the actually quality of the movie is for story, performance, etc? I know off topic but just curious. I think the trailer said it was a true story which is always kind of cool.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briankmonkey* /forum/post/13528890
> 
> 
> Blind buy on 10,000 B.C.? You sick sick man
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you've been warned



I almost never see movies in theaters so virtually all my BDs (and DVDs as well) are blind buys.


----------



## briankmonkey




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13529071
> 
> 
> I almost never see movies in theaters so virtually all my BDs (and DVDs as well) are blind buys.



Yeah, I don't go to the theaters often either as I prefer my home experience. Point is you can rent.. which would be my suggestion at most for this one. Well if you plan to have it as a comedy perhaps a buy


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briankmonkey* /forum/post/13529096
> 
> 
> Yeah, I don't go to the theaters often either as I prefer my home experience. Point is you can rent.. which would be my suggestion at most for this one. Well if you plan to have it as a comedy perhaps a buy



I've never rented a movie on a disc (or tape for that matter).


----------



## briankmonkey




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13529130
> 
> 
> I've never rented a movie on a disc (or tape for that matter).



Interesting, so now I'm curious as to how many blu-ray movies you own. Though with all the deals it usually feels easier to buy than to rent. I think I paid $10-15 for the majority of my movies. Maybe 2-3 titles total spent over $20.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briankmonkey* /forum/post/13529153
> 
> 
> Interesting, so now I'm curious as to how many blu-ray movies you own. Though with all the deals it usually feels easier to buy than to rent. I think I paid $10-15 for the majority of my movies. Maybe 2-3 titles total spent over $20.



I don't really keep a count. Probably 200, as a rough estimate. I find that the movies I buy on sales I tend not to watch, since if I am really interested I get them when they first come out. That's another reason for not renting: impatience.


----------



## briankmonkey

Makes sense. Thx


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM

10000 B.C is almost universally proclaimed as trash. Why buy trash, especially without seeing it first to see if you like it?


There's very little room for any subjective differential in this scenario.


Blind buying is unconscionable in my mind, no matter what the price.


----------



## maverick0716

Good god.......I still can't understand how Patrick starts watching so many movies and doesn't finish them. If I'm watching a movie, and it seems that I don't really like it, I at least give it a chance.......and more often than not, I actually do end up liking it by the end. I just don't see how you can appreciate the story of a movie if you're always watching little pieces of it......Maybe it's just me, but I highly doubt it.


----------



## briankmonkey

I had to split up Ocean's 13 into 4 separate nights as that is the only time I had to watch it. I feel it takes away from the experience quite a bit.. I liked the movie but I think I would have enjoyed it much more in 1 or even 2 sittings.


I can't imagine just watching fragments here and there and getting much from them unless it is a movie I had already watched all the way through previously.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/13531151
> 
> 
> Good god.......I still can't understand how Patrick starts watching so many movies and doesn't finish them. If I'm watching a movie, and it seems that I don't really like it, I at least give it a chance.......and more often than not, I actually do end up liking it by the end. I just don't see how you can appreciate the story of a movie if you're always watching little pieces of it......Maybe it's just me, but I highly doubt it.



Is it really so hard to understand how I could decide that there was absolutely nothing for me in something like Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium without watching the whole movie? In the case of both Apocalypto and Rescue Dawn, I just came to the conclusion (which arguably should have prevented me from even ordering them) that the fundamental premise was just too unpleasant for me. But sometimes, as with Hitman, I am pleasantly surprised.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briankmonkey* /forum/post/13531368
> 
> 
> I had to split up Ocean's 13 into 4 separate nights as that is the only time I had to watch it. I feel it takes away from the experience quite a bit.. I liked the movie but I think I would have enjoyed it much more in 1 or even 2 sittings.
> 
> 
> I can't imagine just watching fragments here and there and getting much from them unless it is a movie I had already watched all the way through previously.



I very seldom watch an entire movie all the way through in one sitting. Recent exceptions were Crimson Tide and Independence Day. With Man on Fire, which I hadn't seen before and didn't know the story, I had to watch it in fragments because of the nature of the subject matter. Now that I know the story, I can watch it in more extended stretches.


----------



## hollywoodguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13531401
> 
> 
> I very seldom watch an entire movie all the way through in one sitting. Recent exceptions were Crimson Tide and Independence Day. With Man on Fire, which I hadn't seen before and didn't know the story, I had to watch it in fragments because of the nature of the subject matter. Now that I know the story, I can watch it in more extended stretches.



You are a strange man. Not that there's anything wrong with that...


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hollywoodguy* /forum/post/13531826
> 
> 
> You are a strange man. Not that there's anything wrong with that...



How could you tell?


----------



## rboster

Different strokes for different folks. To resort to name calling is not acceptable. You can debate the contents of the post, but can not attack the poster.


Post deleted and infraction issued.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briankmonkey* /forum/post/13528751
> 
> 
> Probably thought 10,000.00 B.C. was a masterpiece
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Loved Apocalypto as well.
> 
> 
> Ok, what are both of your thoughts on the actual movie Rescue Dawn. I watched the trailer last week and it looked pretty good and plus Christian Bale is awesome. Worth a blind buy?



I was very dissapointed with Rescue Dawn and even Christian Bale's performance (and I love his acting).


It just didn't feel real, was pretty boring, and the pacing was off as well.


Definitely rent it.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

So wait, you have over 200 BDs patrick?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/13532200
> 
> 
> So wait, you have over 200 BDs patrick?



Like I said, it's an estimate. Is that not enough to participate in this thread?


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13531401
> 
> 
> I very seldom watch an entire movie all the way through in one sitting. Recent exceptions were Crimson Tide and Independence Day. With Man on Fire, which *I hadn't seen before and didn't know the story, I had to watch it in fragments because of the nature of the subject matter. Now that I know the story, I can watch it in more extended stretches.*



This makes no sense.


David Lynch would have a field day with you over your movie viewing practices.


You're breaking the experience by your own admission. Completely unconscionable to my mind.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/13532148
> 
> 
> I was very dissapointed with Rescue Dawn and even Christian Bale's performance (and I love his acting).
> 
> 
> It just didn't feel real, was pretty boring, and the pacing was off as well.
> 
> 
> Definitely rent it.



I would recommend a rental first as well. I actually enjoyed the movie a good deal and thought Bale was solid. The problem was the acting and writing for some of the other characters seemed stale and trite at times. And occasionally the directing and story was hard to absorb for me...almost corny. As a whole I thought it was very good, but I could see people not liking it because of some of the things I found fault with.


As far as PQ is concerned it's top notch, however.


Brandon


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briankmonkey* /forum/post/13531368
> 
> 
> I had to *split up Ocean's 13 into 4 separate nights as that is the only time I had to watch it*. I feel it takes away from the experience quite a bit.. I liked the movie but I think I would have enjoyed it much more in 1 or even 2 sittings.
> 
> 
> I can't imagine just watching fragments here and there and getting much from them unless it is a movie I had already watched all the way through previously.



I believe you still could have waited.


I personally only watch movies when I have time to view them in their entirety.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cold_As_IceSMM* /forum/post/13532250
> 
> 
> David Lynch would have a field day with you over your movie viewing practices.










Who cares?



> Quote:
> You're breaking the experience by your own admission. Completely unconscionable to my mind.



Unconscionable? Aren't we going a bit overboard? There are times when I do the same thing. I still haven't finished 2 movies that I started 2 months ago and I am fully intent on doing so. There are times where it takes me 3 hours to watch a 2 hour movie because of random pausing to do other things.


I don't know why it's such a big deal to other people what one person's viewing habits are.


Brandon


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13532302
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares?
> 
> 
> 
> *Unconscionable?* Aren't we going a bit overboard? There are times when I do the same thing. I still haven't finished 2 movies that I started 2 months ago and I am fully intent on doing so. There are times where it takes me 3 hours to watch a 2 hour movie because of random pausing to do other things.
> 
> 
> I don't know why it's such a big deal to other people what one person's viewing habits are.
> 
> 
> Brandon



You might have noticed this is the second use of the term in a fairly short period of time. Not exactly a term that I would have thought to apply to movie watching or buying habits. . .


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13532302
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unconscionable? Aren't we going a bit overboard? There are times when I do the same thing. I still haven't finished 2 movies that I started 2 months ago and I am fully intent on doing so. There are times where it takes me 3 hours to watch a 2 hour movie because of random pausing to do other things.
> 
> 
> I don't know why it's such a big deal to other people what one person's viewing habits are.
> 
> 
> Brandon



I shouldn't be derailing the thread any further, so I'll conclude by saying that films are not books. A film is designed to be viewed as a whole. And in this day of information overload, viewing a film in its entirety in one sitting certainly has benefits on the digestion of the material presented, but this principal also applies to any form of information gathering from any medium or thing.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cold_As_IceSMM* /forum/post/13532364
> 
> 
> I shouldn't be derailing the thread any further, so I'll conclude by saying that films are not books. *A film is designed to be viewed as a whole. And in this day of information overload, viewing a film in its entirety in one sitting certainly has benefits on the digestion of the material presented*, but this principal also applies to any form of information gathering from any medium or thing.



I completely agree with this. I just think we're going overboard in scrutinizing viewing habits of others. At least now you know who you would never watch a movie with










Brandon


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13532406
> 
> 
> I completely agree with this. I just think we're going overboard in scrutinizing viewing habits of others. At least now you know who you would never watch a movie with
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brandon



Yeah, you're absolutely right. Very conceited of me actually. I just get caught up on this particular issue far too often for it to be healthy with certain family members and friends. I'll lay off though.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13532234
> 
> 
> Like I said, it's an estimate. Is that not enough to participate in this thread?



Geez, that's insane.


Wanna send me some you don't particularly like?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13532270
> 
> 
> I would recommend a rental first as well. I actually enjoyed the movie a good deal and thought Bale was solid. The problem was the acting and writing for some of the other characters seemed stale and trite at times. And occasionally the directing and story was hard to absorb for me...almost corny. As a whole I thought it was very good, but I could see people not liking it because of some of the things I found fault with.
> 
> 
> As far as PQ is concerned it's top notch, however.
> 
> 
> Brandon



I agree with this as well. Nailed it in fact. To this day, I still can't decide exactly what I think of this film overall. PQ is pretty nice though.


----------



## briankmonkey

Thanks guys. I will just rent it then if I can find a place that actually carries it. If not then I'll buy it for cheap when I can.


And yes I could have waited to watch Ocean's 13 in one sitting but I didn't expect the woman to fall asleep during the first time firing it up.


----------



## Skid71

Ladies and Gents,

I know this is old hat, but I just watched "Shoot 'Em Up" for the first time. PQ was outstanding, along with the DTS-HD-MA track. Just an adrenaline-filled fun fest. Certainly one of my favorite action movies.


I'm new to the PQ analysis. With all the talk of "the master", bitrates, transfers, etc., I noticed that the flick is VC-1. What is the bitrate, what was it shot on? I'm extremely intrigued because this is the best (non-animated) title I've seen on my setup.


Looking forward to watching "Man On Fire" & "I, Robot"


Pioneer 5070

Panny [email protected]/24

8'


Thanks for all the great info and interesting discussion!










Skid


----------



## zinfamous




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/13532148
> 
> 
> I was very dissapointed with Rescue Dawn and even Christian Bale's performance (and I love his acting).
> 
> 
> It just didn't feel real, was pretty boring, and the pacing was off as well.
> 
> 
> Definitely rent it.



I absolutely loved it. I'm also a Werner Herzog fan, and I happen to think that Stroszek is one of the greatest films ever made.


Of course, I'm in a minority on that one.







...Considering there's probably 2 people on this board who have actually seen it.


----------



## zinfamous




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cold_As_IceSMM* /forum/post/13532433
> 
> 
> Yeah, you're absolutely right. Very conceited of me actually. I just get caught up on this particular issue far too often for it to be healthy with certain family members and friends. I'll lay off though.



yeah, I know where you're coming from. I interpret said poster's comments with a grain of salt based on his confessed viewing/purchasing habits.


It's simply an opinion that in my mind, has no validity to how I understand film. So...I simply ignore these posts....


----------



## rboster

*Let's get back on topic about PQ of BR titles.* No more focus on how the member chooses to view his titles.


----------



## lgans316

*Con Air*


Very good PQ and value sharpness but has a slight video look and spoiled by some high frequency EE and halos. However the HD pop was certainly there for around 60% of the running time and the EE didn't rob off much fine object detail. Also I didn't notice any dirt or white speckles which were visible in Crimson Tide.

*Should be placed in Tier-2 below Pursuit of Happiness or above Babel*


In the past 5 days I have given my views for more than 5 titles and I hope that some of it are reflected back in the tier thread.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zinfamous* /forum/post/13534688
> 
> 
> I absolutely loved it. I'm also a Werner Herzog fan, and I happen to think that Stroszek is one of the greatest films ever made.
> 
> 
> Of course, I'm in a minority on that one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...Considering there's probably 2 people on this board who have actually seen it.



I'm a big Werner Herzog fan as well, but this (Rescue Dawn) wasn't on par with his best stuff.


Speaking of which: let's get great films like *Fitzcarraldo* and *The Wrath of God* on Blu-ray!

















BTW, I just added Stroszek to my Netflix Queue.


----------



## stumlad

Finally saw *I, Robot*


Tier 0. Up there with the best of them. There were a few soft shots and a few grainy darks, but over 95 percent of the movie was very sharp and detailed. For those who think I am Legend should be Tier 0 - you should watch this and compare the two, and you'll see how this is consistently sharp where I am Legend isn't.


----------



## lgans316

My copy of I,Robot is on it's way. Watched the opening scenes of I am Legend and not so impressed with the PQ probably due to excessive usage of CGI. However it looks to be a solid Tier-1 title.


Btw I don't see anything wrong with watching a movie in installments though watched in one shot gives the best viewing experience.

*World Trade Center*


Watched the first 35 minutes. Very good PQ but it looks like the dark scenes were shot using natural lighting as it's way too dark. The outdoor scenes are crisp and detailed with noticeable MPEG noise in few aerial shots despite no signs of bit rate starvation as it ranged between 25-34 Mbps. Solid Tier-2 title.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13535418
> 
> 
> My copy of I,Robot is on it's way. *Watched the opening scenes of I am Legend and not so impressed with the PQ probably due to excessive usage of CGI. However it looks to be a solid Tier-1 title.*



Really? I thought the scenes with him driving the Shelby through NYC looked very, very, good. Like Tier 0 good. It then takes a step down to Tier 1 for the rest of the movie, imo.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/13535319
> 
> 
> For those who think I am Legend should be Tier 0 - you should watch this and compare the two, and you'll see how this is consistently sharp where I am Legend isn't.



I watched these two back-to-back (legend first) and thought the same thing.


Brandon


----------



## lgans316

Though the opening scenes in I am Legend was excellent it still wasn't sharp enough probably due to CGI or the filming style. The bit rates hovered in the 17s and I don't think it's too low or starved as per Warner standards. However I agree with the fact that filming style can affect the outcome of the PQ in many ways. Since the past few weeks I have considerably stepped up my way of viewing and analyzing the picture quality though I am yet to stick my nose on the monitor like our friend patrick. (No Offense)


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM

I think I'll be renting I, Robot, Man on Fire, and Shoot Em Up this week or next. I'll update with my impressions on each of these titles if I decide to do this.


----------



## lgans316

Cold_As_IceSMM => Why are you renting I,Robot and Man on Fire knowing that they are well made and entertaining movies ? Is it not of your taste or have been hijacked by our convoluted comments ?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13535953
> 
> 
> Though the opening scenes in I am Legend was excellent it still wasn't sharp enough probably due to CGI or the filming style. The bit rates hovered in the 17s and I don't think it's too low or starved as per Warner standards. However I agree with the fact that filming style can affect the outcome of the PQ in many ways. Since the past few weeks I have considerably stepped up my way of viewing and analyzing the picture quality though I am yet to stick my nose on the monitor like our friend patrick. (No Offense)



Good to see that a consensus seems to be forming that IAL is not among the very best in terms of PQ.


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13536153
> 
> 
> Cold_As_IceSMM => Why are you renting I,Robot and Man on Fire knowing that they are well made and entertaining movies ? Is it not of your taste or have been hijacked by our convoluted comments ?



I, Robot is simply not something that I would ever buy. I've seen it before on DVD. I'm renting it only to see the PQ.


Man on Fire, on the other hand, I consider to be one of Tony Scott's best movies. I own the All Access Collector's Edition DVD, and I would have purchased the Blu-ray on release had Fox decided to include the special features from the DVD.


----------



## ooms

i have a $25 rule. if some can find a new copy of irobot for $25 or less id get it. i dont get why people one ebay pay over $30 for a copy????????


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13535953
> 
> 
> Though the opening scenes in I am Legend was excellent it still wasn't sharp enough probably due to CGI or the filming style. The bit rates hovered in the 17s and I don't think it's too low or starved as per Warner standards. However I agree with the fact that filming style can affect the outcome of the PQ in many ways. Since the past few weeks I have considerably stepped up my way of viewing and analyzing the picture quality though I am yet to stick my nose on the monitor like our friend patrick. (No Offense)



I'm not sure what it is, but it seems Warner is consistently putting out titles that are very good but very few that are "great". Perhaps its the company doing their transfers? The few titles New Line has put out are all as good or better than Warner... even with DNR, Pan's Labyrinth looks better than 95 percent of Warner titles. I don't think it's a cause of dual format support, but hope they improve when they make some changes in the next couple of months.


Like Patrick said (yes I'm agreeing with him







), it can't be the case that all Warner movies are shot with soft lens, etc. Perhaps I am Legend is the best it will be, but I doubt the same could be said for all of their other movies.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ooms* /forum/post/13536194
> 
> 
> i have a $25 rule. if some can find a new copy of irobot for $25 or less id get it. i dont get why people one ebay pay over $30 for a copy????????



Amazon has at least one new copy for $24.99 (under "New and Used").


----------



## Ice That Jaw

**** from my experience and I have rented at least 30 blu-rays is that any movie with the VC-1 codec looks amazing on my TV! I hope they all use it in the future. Some of those Tier 0 movies looked bad too me. Spiderman 3 wasn't that sharp really.


----------



## SuprSlow

This week's releases:
*10.5 Apocalypse: The Complete Miniseries* Video: ? | Audio: DD5.1 | AR: 1.78:1 | Echo Bridge
*Alvin and the Chipmunks* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Fox
*Artie Lange's Beer League* Video: ? | Audio: DD | AR: 1.85:1 | Echo Bridge
*Behind The Yellow Line* Video: ? | Audio: ? | AR: ?:1 | Celestial
*Blackbeard* Video: ? | Audio: DD | AR: 1.78:1 | Echo Bridge
*Category 7: The End of the World* Video: ? | Audio: DD | AR: 1.78:1 | Echo Bridge
*Coyote Ugly* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Disney
*The Curse Of King Tut's Tomb: The Complete Miniseries* Video: ? | Audio: DD | AR: 1.78:1 | Echo Bridge
*Hidalgo* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Disney
*The Last Sentinel* Video: ? | Audio: DD | AR: 1.85:1 | Echo Bridge
*Unbreakable* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Disney


Update forthcoming...


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cold_As_IceSMM* /forum/post/13536131
> 
> 
> I think I'll be renting I, Robot, Man on Fire, and Shoot Em Up this week or next. I'll update with my impressions on each of these titles if I decide to do this.



I'm getting Man on Fire probably tomorrow from netflix. Can't wait.


Brandon


----------



## Blacklac

Black Hawk Down over Hitman?










Man, I don't get this. I watched a couple scenes of Black Hawk Down the other day (PS3 on a Sammy 4671f, 1080p24) and I was not impressed. At all. I don't think it looked BAD, but not a Tier 1 at all. I thought Hitman looked leaps and bounds better. Tier 1 IMO. I own BHD on SD, so I know what the movie is "supposed" to look like. I know it's not supposed to be bright and flashy, but it does not deserve a Tier 1.


If its that whole, "it looks good for MPEG2" thing, then I'm really worried about this copy of Kingdom of Heaven I have in my hands.


I also thought The Prestige looked pretty nice too, but that's way down there.


----------



## haste




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Blacklac* /forum/post/13538958
> 
> 
> Black Hawk Down over Hitman?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man, I don't get this. I watched a *couple scenes* of Black Hawk Down the other day (PS3 on a Sammy 4671f, 1080p24) and I was not impressed. At all. I don't think it looked BAD, but not a Tier 1 at all. I thought Hitman looked leaps and bounds better. Tier 1 IMO. I own BHD on SD, so I know what the movie is "supposed" to look like. I know it's not supposed to be bright and flashy, but it does not deserve a Tier 1.
> 
> 
> If its that whole, "it looks good for MPEG2" thing, then I'm really worried about this copy of Kingdom of Heaven I have in my hands.
> 
> 
> I also thought The Prestige looked pretty nice too, but that's way down there.













Seriously, please watch movies you comment on at LEAST one time all the way through. Twice would be even better...


----------



## Blacklac




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *haste* /forum/post/13539378
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, please watch movies you comment on at LEAST one time all the way through. Twice would be even better...



I can understand your thinking, but it doesn't take watching the whole movie, multiple times at that, to understand it's not Tier 1. Ok, to be more accurate, I flipped through multiple scenes enough to get a feel for each scene. Is that enough for a Professional review? Of course not. Is that what this is? Of course not. Stating my opinion, which is BHD is not Tier 1.


If you believe BHD _is_ Tier 1, feel free to say why.

_TIER 1 -GOLD-


Demo Material, but minor artifacting may be present which the untrained eye may not necessarily spot. Little if any visible compression. Sharp image that has a lot of HD-POP effects. If you are thinking about buying a movie in this tier don't hesitate. Show someone one of these films and they'll want to join the Blu side!
_


IMO, that does not describe BHD. I think Tier 2 perfectly describes BHD.


Just another reason why I put no faith in these rating systems. Seems people rate not on PQ alone, but how they feel about the movie.


Just ranting I guess...


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Blacklac* /forum/post/13538958
> 
> 
> Black Hawk Down over Hitman?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man, I don't get this. I watched a couple scenes of Black Hawk Down the other day (PS3 on a Sammy 4671f, 1080p24) and I was not impressed. At all. I don't think it looked BAD, but not a Tier 1 at all. I thought Hitman looked leaps and bounds better. Tier 1 IMO. I own BHD on SD, so I know what the movie is "supposed" to look like. I know it's not supposed to be bright and flashy, but it does not deserve a Tier 1.
> 
> 
> If its that whole, "it looks good for MPEG2" thing, then I'm really worried about this copy of Kingdom of Heaven I have in my hands.
> 
> 
> I also thought The Prestige looked pretty nice too, but that's way down there.



It's been a while since I last watched BHD. Could you be a little more specific about the ways in which you think Hitman looks better than BHD?


----------



## Blacklac




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13540126
> 
> 
> It's been a while since I last watched BHD. Could you be a little more specific about the ways in which you think Hitman looks better than BHD?



A lot more detail, more 3D pop. Background seemed very soft, often. The City shots, which is much of the movie, just looked... blah. BHD will not be what I think of when I want to pop in a Demo, which is what Tier 1 and 0 are described as.


I thought Hitman looked excellent, and also deserves better than a Tier 2, but I was more bothered with the BHD Tier 1 rating. Going by the Definition of each Tier, BHD is a "mid, to upper" Tier 2, IMO.


I didn't mean to start an uproar. I just thoguht that this thread was based upon opinions, and if I am the minority about BHD, ignore my opinion and leave it as is. But if others feel the same about this movie or any other, SPEAK UP! (Perhaps this is why the HD Tier thread is done by voting, people are more afraid to post their feelings.)


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Blacklac* /forum/post/13540300
> 
> 
> A lot more detail, more 3D pop. Background seemed very soft, often. The City shots, which is much of the movie, just looked... blah. BHD will not be what I think of when I want to pop in a Demo, which is what Tier 1 and 0 are described as.
> 
> 
> I thought Hitman looked excellent, and also deserves better than a Tier 2, but I was more bothered with the BHD Tier 1 rating.
> 
> 
> I didn't mean to start an uproar. I just thoguht that this thread was based upon opinions, and if I am the minority about BHD, ignore my opinion and leave it as is. But if others feel the same about this movie or any other, SPEAK UP! (Perhaps this is why the HD Tier thread is done by voting, people are more afraid to post their feelings.)



BHD was a very early release. Most people, including me, thought it looked very good at the time it was released, but without looking at it again now, I am not prepared to say with confidence that those original impressions hold up. A lot of very good looking BDs have been released since then, and it may be that it doesn't hold up. However, I don't remember thinking it looked soft. What I most particularly remember was liking the way the late afternoon sun looked shining on faces, buildings, and the sand on the ground.


By the way, how far into the movie did you sample scenes? Everyone agrees that the early scenes don't look very good.


----------



## Blacklac




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13540399
> 
> 
> BHD was a very early release. Most people, including me, thought it looked very good at the time it was released, but without looking at it again now, I am not prepared to say with confidence that those original impressions hold up. A lot of very good looking BDs have been released since then, and it may be that it doesn't hold up. However, I don't remember thinking it looked soft. What I most particularly remember was liking the way the late afternoon sun looked shining on faces, buildings, and the sand on the ground.



That was exactly my thinking. It was a Tier 1 when it was released. Quality has improved since then. But hey, maybe my opinion is flawed by not watching the whole movie. I figured I watched enough of the scenes I watched to assume it was not Tier 1, cause I was a little disappointed when I put it in thinking it would be, because I really liked the movie. My friend that checked it out with me felt the same way. He was a little shocked when I told him this was rated a Tier 1 on AVS.


----------



## briankmonkey

I'll pop in Black Hawk Down again to see what I think. It has been quite a while since I've wached it. Of course I want to hear the audio as well when my HSU arives in a week or two










I agree on the standards changing a bit over time being very possible.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Blacklac* /forum/post/13540465
> 
> 
> That was exactly my thinking. It was a Tier 1 when it was released. Quality has improved since then. But hey, maybe my opinion is flawed by not watching the whole movie. I figured I watched enough of the scenes I watched to assume it was not Tier 1, cause I was a little disappointed when I put it in thinking it would be, because I really liked the movie. My friend that checked it out with me felt the same way. He was a little shocked when I told him this was rated a Tier 1 on AVS.



I don't think anyone who participates here would claim that every current placement is the absolutely correct one. These rankings have been built up over a long period of time, and I think improvement in overall quality level is just one of many reasons why adjustments might be appropriate. I think we are all very open to having discussions about possible changes in position, which happen all the time.


----------



## Frank Derks

Bruce Spingsteen Live in Dublin.

Is there a Tier 6 ? Sound is ok but picture is worse than a good DVD.


Pirates of the Caribbean at worlds End is not Tier0. Some scenes lack sharpness and a few are very sharp and detailed but overall a little soft.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Frank Derks* /forum/post/13540898
> 
> 
> Bruce Spingsteen Live in Dublin.
> 
> Is there a Tier 6 ? Sound is ok but picture is worse than a good DVD.
> 
> 
> Pirates of the Caribbean at worlds End is not Tier0. Some scenes lack sharpness and a few are very sharp and detailed but overall a little soft.



I'm not as big an admirer of the PQ on the POTC films as so many seem to be. Do you have some examples of which scenes you think lack sharpness?


----------



## Frank Derks

Didn't make notes. Several scenes with the badguy talking where softer.

When she enters the water vilage and the pirates when Will Turner turns up for the first time.


The exploding first rate was ssarper than average. CGI sharpness.


In all the pq is a little inconsistant.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Frank Derks* /forum/post/13541089
> 
> 
> Didn't make notes. Several scenes with the badguy talking where softer.
> 
> When she enters the water vilage and the pirates when Will Turner turns up for the first time.
> 
> 
> The exploding first rate was ssarper than average. CGI sharpness.
> 
> 
> In all the pq is a little inconsistant.



I actually thought the whole first section of the movie, including the part you refer to with KK in the water, was somewhat soft. I think they were holding the bitrate back in that section of the movie because they needed more in the later sections of the movie, in terms of bitrate translated into disc capacity usage.


The scene where there are many masts on the horizon, on a sand spit, looked quite poor I thought.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13540945
> 
> 
> I'm not as big an admirer of the PQ on the POTC films as so many seem to be. Do you have some examples of which scenes you think lack sharpness?



Why not? The first one is still one of the best movies I have seen yet on Blu-ray in terms of overall PQ. It shines in virtually all aspects: color, contrast, detail and clarity and no artifacts.


What more can you ask for?


I have At World's End here from Netflix. Hope to watch it by this weekend.


----------



## cnikirk




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Blacklac* /forum/post/13540465
> 
> 
> That was exactly my thinking. It was a Tier 1 when it was released. Quality has improved since then. But hey, maybe my opinion is flawed by not watching the whole movie. I figured I watched enough of the scenes I watched to assume it was not Tier 1, cause I was a little disappointed when I put it in thinking it would be, because I really liked the movie. My friend that checked it out with me felt the same way. He was a little shocked when I told him this was rated a Tier 1 on AVS.



Just remember that not all films are supposed to have pop and razor sharpness. I think BHD looks very good for what it is and what it's trying to represent. Based on your observations you will probably be disappointed with KOH. I felt that film looked very good, but IMO it's a tad soft.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13541266
> 
> 
> Why not? The first one is still one of the best movies I have seen yet on Blu-ray in terms of overall PQ. It shines in virtually all aspects: color, contrast, detail and clarity and no artifacts.
> 
> 
> What more can you ask for?
> 
> 
> I have At World's End here from Netflix. Hope to watch it by this weekend.



As usual when I have a PQ problem with a movie, its the detail or sharpness that is just *slightly* lacking. I think the PQ on the third one is clearly the best of the three, but even there, it falls *a bit* short. Since you are about to watch it for the first time, pay special attention, particularly to the first section of the movie.


The only Disney release that I think looks really good is Becoming Jane.


----------



## Blacklac




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cnikirk* /forum/post/13541283
> 
> 
> Just remember that not all films are supposed to have pop and razor sharpness. I think BHD looks very good for what it is and what it's trying to represent. Based on your observations you will probably be disappointed with KOH. I felt that film looked very good, but IMO it's a tad soft.



That is true, however, that is pretty much the description on Tier 1.










Thats why I vote BHD mid Tier 2. I will watch it throughout when I get a chance.


Hopefully KOH doesn't disappoint. I really like that movie.







Atleast warning me, I'll know what to expect. Thats why I think some of these older releases should be repositioned. I had high hopes for both BHD and KOH. Yet, I thought Hitman looked excellent.


----------



## bplewis24





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Blacklac* /forum/post/13540037
> 
> 
> ...



*Edit: deleted because it has already been discussed*


But to the subject, Black Hawk Down was one of the very first movies I saw on BD. I remember it looking very good, but it's possible that with all of the new titles out if I rewatched it I could see it being placed lower. In fact this seems like a good time to rewatch it. I ended up buying the movie because I liked it so much. I just may rewatch this weekend.


Taking a brief look at the list, though, I do remember that I thought Kingdom of Heaven was better looking of the two. These were actually the two first BDs I rented from netflix when I opened my account. I notice on the list that BDH is higher.


Brandon


----------



## techwisenyc

Well it is possible that a lot of these older releases would not impress as much now. I also plan to revisit some of these first Tier 1 and 2 releases as I think there are some that should not be as high and some that were probably overlooked and deserve to be higher.


----------



## dvdmike007

*Rendition* UK EIV

Watched at 5ft on a Sony 42 inch 3xLCD RP @1080i

Played thro HDMI from a Sony PS3 60gb


Def tier 0 above Live free die hard


Stunning stable picture with 3d pop and great detail peaking at 30mbs with an AVC encode and 7.1 DTS MA


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13541160
> 
> 
> The scene where there are many masts on the horizon, on a sand spit, looked quite poor I thought.



But patrick, don't you realize that this was the director's intent.










All kidding aside, the reason there are so many of us (yes, I am included in this) that believe POTCAWE should be in Tier 0 is because it does indeed meet the standards for that tier. Except for a few isolated scenes where it is either dark, cloudy or raining, the PQ is exceptional. Take the facial closeups for example, you will be hardpressed finding a title with better detail in this area (though I believe you have some movies, like I, Robot and Becoming Jane, that are just as good). And the natural colors, excellent contrast, deep blacks, etc. are consistent through most of the movie. I simply can't see how one could question this, unless there are some factors causing your picture to distort these qualities.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13541362
> 
> 
> As usual when I have a PQ problem with a movie, its the detail or sharpness that is just *slightly* lacking. I think the PQ on the third one is clearly the best of the three, but even there, it falls *a bit* short. Since you are about to watch it for the first time, pay special attention, particularly to the first section of the movie.
> 
> 
> The only Disney release that I think looks really good is Becoming Jane.



Do you believe that the first two Pirate films are Tier 0? Or just the last one?


----------



## Entertainment72

*I AM LEGEND is definately reference material.. Tier 0!*


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford*


Let's start with the good: that would be the movie itself. Not that it is great by any means, but I thought it was very well done. I liked the documentary style that they put in every once in a while, similar to Seabiscuit.


Anyway, the good pretty much ends there, because there isn't much to be pleased about regarding PQ. Soft...soft....soft. Detail is lacking. Indoor scenes are truly poor in terms of both detail and contrast. Outdoor scenes look better, but still not particularly good.


The softness may lend itself to the style of the movie, but it doesn't make for great demo material, that's for sure.


Definitely Tier 3, and I may even put it a tad lower than it's current placement in that Tier.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Entertainment72* /forum/post/13542990
> 
> *I AM LEGEND is definately reference material.. Tier 0!*



That picture is Tier 0...the entire movie is not.


Brandon


----------



## Schlotkins

I watched (finally) Live Free or Die Hard tonight. First, I have to say as a fan of the first 3 movies, I thought the previews for this one would leave a very bad taste in my mouth... and I couldn't have been more wrong. It was really well done. Were one or two of the scenes over the top? Sure, but that's true of all of the Die Hards.


The PQ was really good. It's placement looks good to me. At the end, I said to myself that was a bit better than Casino Royale and that's how it is placed.


Chris


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Tears of the Sun*


This was an early Blu-ray release, and it was a title that was used to prove that Blu-ray could look excellent, despite some early releases that were less than stellar. The title received a LOT of acclaim for excellent PQ.


So, having viewed it for the first time yesterday, I was curious as to how it would stack up against the new releases more than a year later.


In a word: quite well! The picture is very clean, with only a few scenes showing some grain/noise. Otherwise, there was excellent detail and sharpness, and you could see the beads of sweat clearly on the actors faces. Contrast and colors were also very good.


Despite being MPEG-2, this is a very good looking disc. It is currently near the top of Tier 2. I would recommend the bottom 1/4 of Tier 1. It really is quite good.


----------



## lgans316

*Black Hawk Down vs Hitman*


There is no way on earth Hitman looked better than BHD. BHD is consistent in terms of PQ. BHD is supposed to look gritty as it's directed by another unique master of style "Ridley Scott". Hitman suffered from compression noise and banding on many instances.The bit rate was kept in check in BHD but in-case of Hitman it kept dropping below 10 in many instances and I am pretty confident that these ugly film artefacts becomes easily noticeable due to bit rate starvation. BHD should remain in Tier-1 and Hitman should be in Tier-2. BHD is easily a reference title. Doesn't mean that Hitman looked bad but there could have been some room for improvement if some elements were tweaked properly.


----------



## stumlad

I watched the Condemned (Netflixed, of course). This movie is probably ranked a little low. It has some tier 0 material, mostly tier 1, but a good amount of dark/gritty shots prevent it from staying in lower tier 1. I'd say mid to high tier 2. Probably somewhere in the upper 1/3rd. Descent is ranked above it but did not look nearly as good --- how could it... most of the movie was in extreme darkness.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13544255
> 
> *Tears of the Sun*
> 
> 
> This was an early Blu-ray release, and it was a title that was used to prove that Blu-ray could look excellent, despite some early releases that were less than stellar. The title received a LOT of acclaim for excellent PQ.
> 
> 
> So, having viewed it for the first time yesterday, I was curious as to how it would stack up against the new releases more than a year later.
> 
> 
> In a word: quite well! The picture is very clean, with only a few scenes showing some grain/noise. Otherwise, there was excellent detail and sharpness, and you could see the beads of sweat clearly on the actors faces. Contrast and colors were also very good.
> 
> 
> Despite being MPEG-2, this is a very good looking disc. It is currently near the top of Tier 2. I would recommend the bottom 1/4 of Tier 1. It really is quite good.



I felt the same way when I viewed it a couple of months ago.



> Quote:
> The other times it falls victim to some heavy grain and occasional noise. This looks like a Tier 1 title to me.



Brandon


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13542706
> 
> 
> Do you believe that the first two Pirate films are Tier 0? Or just the last one?



I think the first two are in the borderline category; could go either way.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13543623
> 
> 
> That picture is Tier 0...the entire movie is not.
> 
> 
> Brandon



+1


----------



## Blacklac




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13544420
> 
> *Black Hawk Down vs Hitman*
> 
> 
> There is no way on earth Hitman looked better than BHD. BHD is consistent in terms of PQ. BHD is supposed to look gritty as it's directed by another unique master of style "Ridley Scott". Hitman suffered from compression noise and banding on many instances.The bit rate was kept in check in BHD but in-case of Hitman it kept dropping below 10 in many instances and I am pretty confident that these ugly film artefacts becomes easily noticeable due to bit rate starvation. BHD should remain in Tier-1 and Hitman should be in Tier-2. BHD is easily a reference title. Doesn't mean that Hitman looked bad but there could have been some room for improvement if some elements were tweaked properly.



Hmm, I won't argue with you on your opinion of where the two films should be placed. Where in Hitman did you see the banding and compression noise? I admit, banding is not something I easily notice, and on a 46" screen I didn't notice any compression noise after watching it twice on BD. Although if you have a larger screen, you prob. did notice these easier.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Blacklac* /forum/post/13546119
> 
> 
> Hmm, I won't argue with you on your opinion of where the two films should be placed. Where in Hitman did you see the banding and compression noise? I admit, banding is not something I easily notice, and on a 46" screen I didn't notice any compression noise after watching it twice on BD. Although if you have a larger screen, you prob. did notice these easier.



Compression noise is totally pervasive in Hitman. The PQ looks pretty good in spite of that. I would much rather have honest compression noise than dishonest DNR, but nonetheless, I think compression noise has to be considered an artifact, although a much less serious one than DNR or EE.


----------



## techwisenyc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13546438
> 
> 
> Compression noise is totally pervasive in Hitman. The PQ looks pretty good in spite of that. I would much rather have honest compression noise than dishonest DNR, but nonetheless, I think compression noise has to be considered an artifact, although a much less serious one than DNR or EE.



I agree on this. Before I was a huge hater of compression noise, but have to admit that it is something more common with films. I watched Pan's Labryinth last night and do agree with it's placement. Unfortunately, this is a title that could have easily been top Tier 1 or bottom Tier 0, but the DNR ruins it. I have not been totally bother by DNR, however this encode had it exaggeratively applied and kills a lot of detail with a washed out sort of look. When the DNR is not applied the PQ is very top notch and impressive.


----------



## SuprSlow

Alright, a few things:


1. There's been a little discussion about moving *2001* again. Nothing conclusive. If it needs to be moved, I think we need a little more input from those who argued for it's current placement as well as those who want it moved.


2. Phantom, I placed the two titles you reviewed that I skipped last update. Also deleted Nip/Tuck S4 from Unranked, and split Werewolf/Vengeance into two separate entries.


3. I moved *Apocalypto* to the very top spot of Tier 1, for now. I think it's still up in the air as far as *0* vs. *1*, pending on what you guys decide.


4. We also have a proposal for the creation of a Tier 6 specifically reserved for Mr. Springsteen







(I keed, I keed...)





Updates:

*Dawn/Day of the Dead* - both placed top Tier 4

*We Are Marshall* - moved to Tier 3 above Robocop

*Training Day* - Tier 3 below Syriana

*CETK* - moved to low Tier 2

*Total Recall* - placed mid Tier 4

*Gone Baby Gone* - moved to bot. 1/3 Tier 2

*Saw IV* - Tier 4

*Justice League* - bot 1/3 Tier 1

*Independence Day* - mid Tier 2 (varying opinions)

*Hollow Man* - mid Tier 2

*Apocalypto* - dropped to #1 in Tier 1

*Hitman* - mid Tier 2 (varying opinions)

*No Country for Old Men* - top Tier 1

*I Am Legend* - mid Tier 1

*The Prestige* - moved up to mid Tier 1

*30 Days of Night* - top Tier 2 (varying opinions)

*Mr. Woodcock* - top Tier 3

*War* - moved to mid Tier 2

*Enchanted* - remained upper-mid Tier 1

*Crimson Tide* - dropped to mid Tier 2

*Man on Fire* - moved above TMNT

*Flyboys* - moved to mid Tier 1

*District B-13* - top half Tier 3

*Underworld* - moved above Sunshine

*Monster House* - moved to high Tier 3

*Sunshine* - remained high Tier 1

*The Game Plan* - placed in mid Tier 2

*Mr. Brooks* - remained low Tier 0

*Con Air* - moved to Tier 2 above Babel

*Spingsteen* - very last









*Assassination of Jesse James* - dropped a couple spots

*Tears of the Sun* - moved to bot. 1/4 Tier 1

*The Condemned* - top 1/3 Tier 2


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *techwisenyc* /forum/post/13547053
> 
> 
> I agree on this. Before I was a huge hater of compression noise, but have to admit that it is something more common with films. I watched Pan's Labryinth last night and do agree with it's placement. Unfortunately, this is a title that could have easily been top Tier 1 or bottom Tier 0, but the DNR ruins it. I have not been totally bother by DNR, however this encode had it exaggeratively applied and kills a lot of detail with a washed out sort of look. When the DNR is not applied the PQ is very top notch and impressive.



I disagree about Pan's Labyrinth looking _washed out_, because I typically apply the term washed out when I'm making reference to a lack of color fidelity. But it certainly has a loss of fine detail due to the DNR, hence taking on the appearance of smudgy or smeary.


----------



## Entertainment72




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13543623
> 
> 
> That picture is Tier 0...the entire movie is not.
> 
> 
> Brandon



I disagree, this movie is no less than any of the POTC's.. I can post countless photos throughout the entire movie displaying its PQ.


Of course I'm comparing IAL to what is described as Tier0's on the first thread.. if some of those are considered Tier 0's..










Spiderman 3 just to name one.


----------



## techwisenyc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cold_As_IceSMM* /forum/post/13547195
> 
> 
> I disagree about Pan's Labyrinth looking _washed out_, because I typically apply the term washed out when I'm making reference to a lack of color fidelity. But it certainly has a loss of fine detail due to the DNR, hence taking on the appearance of smudgy or smeary.



Yes washed out was not really accurate now that I look at your description. Smudgy, smeary seems more appropriate here. It really is a shame that they went crazy with DNR on this title.


I hope they don't do this with the Orphanage.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Entertainment72* /forum/post/13547819
> 
> 
> I disagree, this movie is no less than any of the POTC's.. I can post countless photos throughout the entire movie displaying its PQ.
> 
> 
> Of course I'm comparing IAL to what is described as Tier0's on the first thread.. if some of those are considered Tier 0's..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiderman 3 just to name one.



Compare I am Legend to I, Robot. This is the only way I know how to describe it... I, Robot is Tier 0 where I am Legend isn't. I'm not sure if it's the way it was shot, or if the person who mastered it didnt do a good job, or what the case is, but after watching I Robot and Man on Fire, I am wondering why there aren't more movies that look this good.


I really think studios are using old masters and when they start re-mastering we'll see a lot better results. From flipping through Unbreakable I was severely dissappointed. I need to watch it before I make a decision, but my only guess is -- old Master. I dont' buy into "it's a 10 yr old movie" because there are plenty of older movies that look great.


----------



## maverick0716

Watched The Shining last night. I thought it looked very good overall! Some close-up shots were extremelly good. It definitly deserves to be where it is in mid Tier 2.


42" Panasonic Plasma (768p)

PS3 though HDMI

6-7 ft.


----------



## aham23

so my wife made me watch Dirty Dancing. i can not believe how horrible the PQ of it was. i thought i was drunk. wait, maybe i was? i will have to check into that. later.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *aham23* /forum/post/13551371
> 
> 
> so my wife made me watch Dirty Dancing. i can not believe how horrible the PQ of it was. i thought i was drunk. wait, maybe i was? i will have to check into that. later.



Seriously? I actually thought it was pretty decent........WAY better than the regular DVD versions anyway.


----------



## lrstevens421

Just watched "Order of the Phoenix", wow!! The sense of depth in this one is amazing. Detail is great, black levels are great and I couldn't detect any edge enhancement. This movie should be moved up in teir 1, it certainly should be above "Troy" (which I think is ranked too high). I would squeeze this one right between "Shakira" and "Underworld".


Sony 52XBR4

Denon DVD2500

1080p24 @ 10ft. away


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lrstevens421* /forum/post/13551462
> 
> 
> Just watched "Order of the Phoenix", wow!! The sense of depth in this one is amazing. Detail is great, black levels are great and I couldn't detect any edge enhancement. This movie should be moved up in teir 1, it certainly should be above "Troy" (which I think is ranked too high). I would squeeze this one right between "Shakira" and "Underworld".
> 
> 
> Sony 52XBR4
> 
> Denon DVD2500
> 
> 1080p24 @ 10ft. away



What about moving Troy down instead? Can someone find those shots showing macroblocking at the very start of OotP?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/13551124
> 
> 
> Compare I am Legend to I, Robot. This is the only way I know how to describe it... I, Robot is Tier 0 where I am Legend isn't. I'm not sure if it's the way it was shot, or if the person who mastered it didnt do a good job, or what the case is, but after watching I Robot and Man on Fire, I am wondering why there aren't more movies that look this good.
> 
> 
> I really think studios are using old masters and when they start re-mastering we'll see a lot better results. From flipping through Unbreakable I was severely dissappointed. I need to watch it before I make a decision, but my only guess is -- old Master. I dont' buy into "it's a 10 yr old movie" because there are plenty of older movies that look great.



I suspect the problem with IAL is some type of DNR or similar processing.


----------



## lrstevens421




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13551522
> 
> 
> What about moving Troy down instead? Can someone find those shots showing macroblocking at the very start of OotP?



While I agree with moving Troy down, why not move Harry Potter up?


I would like to see those macroblocking shots as well.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Entertainment72* /forum/post/13547819
> 
> 
> I disagree, this movie is no less than any of the POTC's.. I can post countless photos throughout the entire movie displaying its PQ.



Well we'll just have to disagree then










Brandon


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/13547163
> 
> 
> Alright, a few things:
> 
> 
> 1. There's been a little discussion about moving *2001* again. Nothing conclusive. If it needs to be moved, I think we need a little more input from those who argued for it's current placement as well as those who want it moved.
> 
> 
> 2. Phantom, I placed the two titles you reviewed that I skipped last update. Also deleted Nip/Tuck S4 from Unranked, and split Werewolf/Vengeance into two separate entries.
> 
> 
> 3. I moved *Apocalypto* to the very top spot of Tier 1, for now. I think it's still up in the air as far as *0* vs. *1*, pending on what you guys decide.
> 
> 
> 4. We also have a proposal for the creation of a Tier 6 specifically reserved for Mr. Springsteen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (I keed, I keed...)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Updates:
> 
> *Dawn/Day of the Dead* - both placed top Tier 4
> 
> *We Are Marshall* - moved to Tier 3 above Robocop
> 
> *Training Day* - Tier 3 below Syriana
> 
> *CETK* - moved to low Tier 2
> 
> *Total Recall* - placed mid Tier 4
> 
> *Gone Baby Gone* - moved to bot. 1/3 Tier 2
> 
> *Saw IV* - Tier 4
> 
> *Justice League* - bot 1/3 Tier 1
> 
> *Independence Day* - mid Tier 2 (varying opinions)
> 
> *Hollow Man* - mid Tier 2
> 
> *Apocalypto* - dropped to #1 in Tier 1
> 
> *Hitman* - mid Tier 2 (varying opinions)
> 
> *No Country for Old Men* - top Tier 1
> 
> *I Am Legend* - mid Tier 1
> 
> *The Prestige* - moved up to mid Tier 1
> 
> *30 Days of Night* - top Tier 2 (varying opinions)
> 
> *Mr. Woodcock* - top Tier 3
> 
> *War* - moved to mid Tier 2
> 
> *Enchanted* - remained upper-mid Tier 1
> 
> *Crimson Tide* - dropped to mid Tier 2
> 
> *Man on Fire* - moved above TMNT
> 
> *Flyboys* - moved to mid Tier 1
> 
> *District B-13* - top half Tier 3
> 
> *Underworld* - moved above Sunshine
> 
> *Monster House* - moved to high Tier 3
> 
> *Sunshine* - remained high Tier 1
> 
> *The Game Plan* - placed in mid Tier 2
> 
> *Mr. Brooks* - remained low Tier 0
> 
> *Con Air* - moved to Tier 2 above Babel
> 
> *Spingsteen* - very last
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Assassination of Jesse James* - dropped a couple spots
> 
> *Tears of the Sun* - moved to bot. 1/4 Tier 1
> 
> *The Condemned* - top 1/3 Tier 2



Good work man, thanks!


----------



## BAMAVADER

To me, _*I Am Legend*_ , is an all time high for Blu-Ray video quality.


It was perfect quality IMHO.


----------



## SCEvan

Yes it was excellent, not too sharp and little to no film grain.


----------



## AKA_Ghostly

I agree it looked real good. Also Wild Hogs is another great transfer.


----------



## William

Panavision to BD makes a great transfer. It eliminates unnecessary film grain (not director intended for artistic purposes so often prevalent on Super 35).


----------



## Phantom Stranger

You haven't seen I, Robot or Man On Fire or Ratatouille or several other titles if you think I Am Legend is the best picture quality Blu-ray has to offer. Check the PQ tier thread for more information...


----------



## bob_c_b




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/13553845
> 
> 
> You haven't seen I, Robot or Man On Fire or Ratatouille or several other titles if you think I Am Legend is the best picture quality Blu-ray has to offer. Check the PQ tier thread for more information...



I own all of those titles and that still doesn't diminish how good IAL looks.


----------



## lgans316

Terrific job SuprSlow. You need to change your moniker to SuprFast.


----------



## swarm87

from what i read of the review on highdefdigest avp-r, although some feel the film sucked, has potential as a reference disc


----------



## lgans316

Too early to make predictions on AVP-R.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Blacklac* /forum/post/13546119
> 
> 
> Hmm, I won't argue with you on your opinion of where the two films should be placed. Where in Hitman did you see the banding and compression noise? I admit, banding is not something I easily notice, and on a 46" screen I didn't notice any compression noise after watching it twice on BD. Although if you have a larger screen, you prob. did notice these easier.



Banding / dot crawls was visible on the walls, certain areas of the smoke filled backgrounds and in the scene where Agent 47 gets out the bed after injection the lady with something. Some of the scenes looked awesome due to the harsh lighting while some lacked depth. The movie however was pretty good and was a faithful adaption of the video game with a subtle focus on character development.


Based upon my viewing experience I think VC-1 does a better job at low bit rates than AVC though I am not aware of the technicalities of either of these modern codecs.


----------



## TheCrackedJack




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bob_c_b* /forum/post/13553958
> 
> 
> I own all of those titles and that still doesn't diminish how good IAL looks.



It doesn't diminish it, but I don't think it's the absolute best as the post suggests.


----------



## bplewis24

I am pretty impressed. I can't say it's necessarily better or worse than any of the titles above it, but it's definitely high Tier 0 material. One thing that struck me is that this movie is very sylized in it's visual presentation, yet the PQ (eye candy-ness?) does not suffer as a whole because of it. There are plenty of out-of-focus, intentionally grainy shots and there is sometimes heavy use of filters and shaky camera-work, etc. Yet, unlike other movies, the transfer retains a great sense of depth throughout.


Brandon


----------



## lgans316

Tony Scott began playing with his camera from Enemy of the State. Did the same with Man on Fire, Domino and Deja Vu.



> Quote:
> His films are known for their rich visual style, with dazzling cinematography and beautiful production designs.
> 
> 
> Visual trademarks include heavy use of smoke, colored filters, and shafts of light breaking through windows, often through blinds.


----------



## mp3junkie

Please take a look at this documentary. It is simply ashtonishing. The PQ of the elephant seals are jaw droping. The colors are so fibrant and beautiful. The detail of the amimals are breathtaking. I was just blown away with the entire documentary.


This is what you show to your friends if you want to show off your blu-ray.


Again, take a look... I highly reccomend this visual masterpiece.


----------



## stumlad

Watched *Good Luck Chuck*.


Like Superbad and a lot of other comedies, there's no real wow in the video quality. There are some decent face closeups, but not as good as higher tier 1 face closeups. Some shots were pretty good, but overall, it averages to mid tier 2.


As for the movie, it wasn't very good... Thank you, Netflix


----------



## Entertainment72




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/13553845
> 
> 
> You haven't seen I, Robot or Man On Fire or Ratatouille or several other titles if you think I Am Legend is the best picture quality Blu-ray has to offer. Check the PQ tier thread for more information...



I have all of them and IAL is right there with them..of course no two eyes are the same.


I am not comparing IAL to I, Robot but some others that are considered Tier 0 in the original post.


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dvdmike007* /forum/post/13542461
> 
> *Rendition* UK EIV
> 
> Watched at 5ft on a Sony 42 inch 3xLCD RP @1080i
> 
> Played thro HDMI from a Sony PS3 60gb
> 
> 
> Def tier 0 above Live free die hard
> 
> 
> Stunning stable picture with 3d pop and great detail peaking at 30mbs with an AVC encode and 7.1 DTS MA



Missed your post yesterday, my apologies


----------



## sheldonison




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *William* /forum/post/13553751
> 
> 
> Panavision to BD makes a great transfer. It eliminates unnecessary film grain (not director intended for artistic purposes so often prevalent on Super 35).



Why isn't there a single tier-0 A35 (anamorphic 35mm) bd disc? There are several in the tier-1 group, like "I am Legend", which I own and I think is very good. "Sunshine", "Brave One", "Blade Runner" are all Tier-1 A35 (I haven't seen them though). Michael Clayton is a recent release A35, Tier-2. All of the tier-0 2.35:1 movies are S35 (super-35mm).


Presumably, A35 is better in the theater than S35, so why does S35 come out better on the blu-ray disc?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sheldonison* /forum/post/13555968
> 
> 
> Why isn't there a single tier-0 A35 (anamorphic 35mm) bd disc? There are several in the tier-1 group, like "I am Legend", which I own and I think is very good. "Sunshine", "Brave One", "Blade Runner" are all Tier-1 A35 (I haven't seen them though). Michael Clayton is a recent release A35, Tier-2. All of the tier-0 2.35:1 movies are S35 (super-35mm).
> 
> 
> Presumably, A35 is better in the theater than S35, so why does S35 come out better on the blu-ray disc?



Interesting observation (assuming it is accurate).


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Doctor Strange:Sorcerer Supreme*


Final recommendation: middle to high *Tier 3*


This relatively short feature at 76 minutes long is the typical blend of traditional animation and CGI one has come to expect from the recent animated Marvel features. The animation itself is simply not as good as the stuff coming from Warner and DC for its animated superhero projects like Justice League:The New Frontier.


It is encoded in AVC at a very constant 17-20 Mbps for the entire movie except for some brief action sequences where the bitrate jumps into the low 30's. It comes on a single BD-25 for those interested. Unfortunately banding and compression noise pops up frequently in the first 45 minutes of the movie. Check out the early scenes in the hospital where banding occurs on the walls. Strangely the last 30 minutes of the movie doesn't seem to exhibit as much of that even though the bitrate doesn't really change(source problem?). There are tons of scenes involving fog, clouds, and diffuse lighting that must have been hard to compress.


Black levels are above average for a HD title and in general the colors look good. This title doesn't have quite the pop one associates with animation in High Definition, though I attribute that to the quality of the animation more than anything else. There is a touch of edge enhancement but it is very slight. It probably deserves to be placed somewhere in Tier 3 around Memento or Van Wilder.


----------



## techwisenyc

*Underworld*


Well I revisted this title and it was not as bad as I initially thought. Sometimes it's amazing how much different a title can look in a different viewing. With that said, I don't think it's as good as it was praised recently. The most impressive part is the sharp details in the closeups of Selene, Vampires, and Lycans and the structures (buildings at the beginning, the mansion, underground Lycan headquarters, etc) The lighting used is incredible and deserves much praise.


The bad parts I saw which bothered me the most was background noise in a scenes were it was mostly dialogue. For example, when Kraven is talking to Selene in the Mansion angry about her pursuing Michael. It was very distracting considering the facial detail is on point. I noticed this also in scenes with Viktor talking to Selene. Since this movie is dark all around of course there are some scenes were the action is not as clear since the environment is dark.


However, it is a nice job for such a dark film transfer. I would say mid Tier 1

*Black Hawk Down*


I agree totally that this transfer holds up very well today even with it being MPEG-2 and disagree with the poster who thought it should be dropped totally into some mid Tier 2 level. No way. The amount of detail in the closeups of not only humans, but weapons and vehicles is great. I was impressed again and would actually recommend it be raised a few slots.


What prevents this from going to top Tier 1 or Tier 0 is of course the grain used in scenes like the beginning. There are also some out of focus shots asw well. The style for some reason does not cater to some, which I think is the cause for the hate on this title every now and then. For a large part of this film, this is a Top Tier 1 title indeed with occasional Tier 0 shots in the closeups. I would say High Mid Tier 1.


----------



## obxdiver

I totally disagree with the placement of this title. It is placed in Tier 2 - Silver.

I just watched this title again for the 3rd time, and I must say the sharpness and colors are Tier - 0 reference material in my setup.

I have not seen any other posts about this title except for the one I posted several weeks ago, where I recommended it be placed in Tier -0 back then.


I have watched 3/4 of the titles in Tier -0 and this one belongs there with them, somewhere in the middle.


If you want to see some of the sharpest, color popping underwater photography then you must see this BD.

Has anyone else in this thread seen this that can explain Tier 2 placement?


My Equipment

Panny BD10 BD player running FW 2.4

7.1 Analog outs to a Lexicon DC1 (modded by Shawn Fogg to add 8 channel analog inputs)

HDMI video out @1080i to a Lumagen HDQ video processor

Lumagen 1080i video out to a 65" Mits CRT Rear Projection with 9" CRT's and professionally ISF calibrated. (Model WS-65813)

Viewing Distance 15 feet


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *obxdiver* /forum/post/13562267
> 
> 
> I totally disagree with the placement of this title. It is placed in Tier 2 - Silver.
> 
> I just watched this title again for the 3rd time, and I must say the sharpness and colors are Tier - 0 reference material in my setup.
> 
> I have not seen any other posts about this title except for the one I posted several weeks ago, where I recommended it be placed in Tier -0 back then.
> 
> 
> I have watched 3/4 of the titles in Tier -0 and this one belongs there with them, somewhere in the middle.
> 
> 
> If you want to see some of the sharpest, color popping underwater photography then you must see this BD.
> 
> Has anyone else in this thread seen this that can explain Tier 2 placement?
> 
> 
> My Equipment
> 
> Panny BD10 BD player running FW 2.4
> 
> 7.1 Analog outs to a Lexicon DC1 (modded by Shawn Fogg to add 8 channel analog inputs)
> 
> HDMI video out @1080i to a Lumagen HDQ video processor
> 
> Lumagen 1080i video out to a 65" Mits CRT Rear Projection with 9" CRT's and professionally ISF calibrated. (Model WS-65813)
> 
> Viewing Distance 15 feet



Yes, I viewed it (Visions of the Sea) and was disappointed.


The clarity, detail and sharpness were lacking. Compare this to the stuff I see on DiscoveryHD, and it doesn't hold up all that well.


I agree colors are nice, but that's about it. Definition is lacking. Too bad, because I really enjoyed it otherwise, including the music.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *obxdiver* /forum/post/13562267
> 
> 
> I totally disagree with the placement of this title. It is placed in Tier 2 - Silver.
> 
> 
> Viewing Distance 15 feet



I haven't seen the title in question but I might suggest watching a portion of the feature from a closer distance(ala 5-7 feet) and see if you're still impressed by it.


----------



## djoberg

I FINALLY watched *I Am Legend* tonight and I will throw in my lot with those in the Tier 1 camp, though I must say it should be higher than it is, perhaps in the top 5 of Tier 1. I do believe there were many scenes with exceptional sharpness and detail (definitely Tier 0 material!), but they weren't as consistent as movies like I, Robot and Becoming Jane.


I will add that I really enjoyed the movie. It had just enough drama, action, suspense, and a splash of humor to keep it interesting. And being a fan of Will Smith, I would say this was his best to date.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/13434035
> 
> 
> Watched 3:10 to Yuma. I agree with low tier 1, but I think it was better than 30 days of night. Also, I'm not positive but, I think it was VC-1 encoded (at least thats what I recall my PS3 saying) Can someone double check this... I got it via Netflix and already packaged it to go back. Movie was pretty good, but I'm starting to get sick of all of these movies with non-cookie-cut endings... they are starting to become cookie-cut
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you guys really think Harry Potter 5 looked better than this title? I thought it was one step below Shooter.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13434225
> 
> 
> IMHO 3:10 to Yuma looked a tad better than HP-5. Both are VC-1 encoded but Yuma has an ABR of around 24 Mbps whereas HP-5 is just 14 Mbps. The bit rates on Yuma peaks 36 Mpbs when required which is grossly missing in HP-5. However Yuma seems to suffer from color fringing as pointed out by mhafner which ain't the case with HP-5. Both titles has 1 similarity in PQ. The opening chapters on both titles look terrific but PQ takes a hit in the clarity department as the movie progresses.



I got a chance to watch this tonight. I remember 3:10 to Yuma being in Tier 2 before. I think you're both right and I was surprised that it was that low at first. It is pretty impressive throughout the first half of the movie. I agree with lgans that the PQ starts to soften as the movie progresses though. It looks like it's in the right general area now, at least in my opinion. It could've been higher but it has a few flaws.


Brandon


----------



## lgans316

Yes observation is correct brandon. 3:10 was in Tier-2 but was pushed to bottom of Tier-1 as it just about complied with the Tier-1 rules. The PQ takes a hit as the movie progresses and it's quite disappointing. However Lionsgate did a better job with 3:10 than War which had notoriously low black levels and shadow detailing due to some lackluster post processing.


----------



## stumlad

Just watched Unbreakable. I'm not sure if this was all director's intent, or if this was a really old master, but it wasn't very good. There are very few face closeups that can even come close to titles seen in tier 2. A couple of scenery shots were decent but nothing like we've come to expect. I'm not a bit-rate person, but I checked it a few times. I saw it go into the 30s at times, but probably averaged mid-20s.


Either way, I was looking forward to this because I'm one of a few people who actually really liked this movie. It's definitely an upgrade over the DVD, but my thought is this. If that's the best it will look, well fine. However, if they used an old master and re-release it in a couple of years (remastered), it's going to be dissapointing to have to purchase it again. I don't believe this is an issue of "old movie" because Donnie Brasco was better looking and made 3 years earlier. I'd really like to find out if this was intent or just a bad master.


Low Tier 3


PS: I noticed that MI1 and MI2 are neck and neck in low tier 3. I found MI2 to be a lot sharper and overall better looking than part 1. I own them on HD DVD , but I don't think the VC1 encoding would make _that_ much difference. Can anyone who owns these on blu recheck them and see if they are that close in PQ?


----------



## obxdiver




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13562542
> 
> 
> Yes, I viewed it (Visions of the Sea) and was disappointed.
> 
> 
> The clarity, detail and sharpness were lacking. Compare this to the stuff I see on DiscoveryHD, and it doesn't hold up all that well.
> 
> 
> I agree colors are nice, but that's about it. Definition is lacking. Too bad, because I really enjoyed it otherwise, including the music.



Wow. Well...it must my Lumagen VP to the 9" CRT's that makes up the difference. In my setup, this is demo material.

Of course, some shots are not "Ratatouille" sharp, because this is UNDERWATER photography. Being a diver, I know that some of the "lacking" detail is due to the water.

Has anyone else seen this title?


Thanks


----------



## Schlotkins

I watched No Country for Old Men last night. I thought it look really, really good. However, I actually thought the Rock was better demo material. The Rock seemed to have more sharpness on a lot of the closeups.


PS3 -> 50" Pioneer 5070 Plasma @ 24p from 7-8 feet.


Chris


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *obxdiver* /forum/post/13564695
> 
> 
> Wow. Well...it must my Lumagen VP to the 9" CRT's that makes up the difference. In my setup, this is demo material.
> 
> Of course, some shots are not "Ratatouille" sharp, because this is UNDERWATER photography. Being a diver, I know that some of the "lacking" detail is due to the water.
> 
> Has anyone else seen this title?
> 
> 
> Thanks



If you read my post you would see that I have seen similar programming on DiscoveryHD (underwater reefs etc) that are quite a bit better than this title. So the "lacking" detail isn't always due to the water. But even if it is.......you are admitting there is a lack of detail, which would most certainly prevent this from being Tier 0 material (it doesn't matter what the cause of the lack of detail is....it's the fact that there IS a lack of detail).


Also, as someone else mentioned, 15 feet away from a 65" inch screen is WAY too far away to make critical evaluations re detail and sharpness.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*No Country for Old Men*


This was a nice looking title. Detail and sharpness were pretty good, as was contrast. Colors were nothing special, but that is to be expected given the backdrop of the movie.


Overall, though, I don't think of this as particularly good demo type material or eye candy.


I would also say that the detail and clarity is a bit lacking compared to other Tier 1 titles.


I am surprised to see this so high in Tier 1. I would put it at the bottom of Tier 1 myself.


Re the movie itself: man, it was great......right up until the last 10-15 minutes. The ending was horrible.


----------



## Schlotkins




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13565970
> 
> *No Country for Old Men*
> 
> 
> This was a nice looking title. Detail and sharpness were pretty good, as was contrast. Colors were nothing special, but that is to be expected given the backdrop of the movie.
> 
> 
> Overall, though, I don't think of this as particularly good demo type material or eye candy.
> 
> 
> I would also say that the detail and clarity is a bit lacking compared to other Tier 1 titles.
> 
> 
> I am surprised to see this so high in Tier 1. I would put it at the bottom of Tier 1 myself.
> 
> 
> Re the movie itself: man, it was great......right up until the last 10-15 minutes. The ending was horrible.



Rob -


Great comments. I think this agrees with my assessment above. I would definitely say the Rock was more impressive and agree lower half of Tier 1 would be more approperiate.


I also agree with your accessment of the movie... I wasn't happy with the ending either.


Cheers,

Chris


----------



## Ozymandis

I want to comment on Apocalypto. Good movie, and some incredible high-def imagery and sound. BUT. There were some inconsistencies. Scenes that were not Tier 0 material. At its best it might be demo material, but you'd want to do some skipping around


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ozymandis* /forum/post/13568055
> 
> 
> I want to comment on Apocalypto. Good movie, and some incredible high-def imagery and sound. BUT. There were some inconsistencies. Scenes that were not Tier 0 material. At its best it might be demo material, but you'd want to do some skipping around



Are you referring to the scenes where there is *intentional grain*







or that looks like a film or different camera were used?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ozymandis* /forum/post/13568055
> 
> 
> I want to comment on Apocalypto. Good movie, and some incredible high-def imagery and sound. BUT. There were some inconsistencies. Scenes that were not Tier 0 material. At its best it might be demo material, but you'd want to do some skipping around



I agree.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/13568114
> 
> 
> Are you referring to the scenes where there is *intentional grain*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or that looks like a film or different camera were used?



Speaking for myself, it has nothing to do with grain. It has to do with a lack of detail and softness in several scenes throughout the movie.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13568462
> 
> 
> I agree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking for myself, it has nothing to do with grain. It has to do with a lack of detail and softness in several scenes throughout the movie.




I own 6 Tier 0 movies and all have some sort of lack of detail and softness throughout the movies.







I am confused because I have yet to see "flawless" on any Tier 0 BD I own.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13565970
> 
> *No Country for Old Men*
> 
> 
> This was a nice looking title. Detail and sharpness were pretty good, as was contrast. Colors were nothing special, but that is to be expected given the backdrop of the movie.
> 
> 
> Overall, though, I don't think of this as particularly good demo type material or eye candy.
> 
> 
> I would also say that the detail and clarity is a bit lacking compared to other Tier 1 titles.
> 
> 
> I am surprised to see this so high in Tier 1. I would put it at the bottom of Tier 1 myself.
> 
> 
> Re the movie itself: man, it was great......right up until the last 10-15 minutes. The ending was horrible.



I think you are watching too many movies on Hi-Def.









PQ was quite consistent in terms of contrast and sharpness and has the polished look and feel of a brand new movie. So comparing to catalog titles is not correct.


NCFOM should be mid of Tier-1 due to the following reasons.


1) Banding

2) Video / Compression Noise on outdoor scenes

*War (Rogue Assassin)*


I agree with brandon that it has to be moved to mid of Tier-2. The biggest culprits are low black Levels and shadow detailing else this Blu-ray could have been a reference disc.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13569137
> 
> 
> I think you are watching too many movies on Hi-Def.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PQ was quite consistent in terms of contrast and sharpness and has the polished look and feel of a brand new movie. So comparing to catalog titles is not correct.



What are you talking about? Seriously.


Where did I compare NCFOM to "catalog titles"???


----------



## lgans316

You didn't compare but it was Schlotkins who had compared NCFOM to the Rock. But I disagree with your opinion on placing NCFOM in bottom of Tier-1 as it was definitely better looking than some of the Tier-1 titles besides few issues here and there.


Forgive my Wrong Quote.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13569596
> 
> 
> You didn't compare but it was Schlotkins who had compared NCFOM to the Rock. But I disagree with your opinion on placing NCFOM in bottom of Tier-1 as it was definitely better looking than some of the Tier-1 titles besides few issues here and there.
> 
> 
> Forgive my Wrong Quote.



No problem on the quote, I was confused since I didn't compare it to any particular title.


Anyway, as far as disagreeing with me on the placement for NCFOM, you are talking about a pretty minor disagreement since you recommend mid Tier 1 and I recommend low Tier 1.


----------



## lgans316

Cool then Rob.


FYI : Schlotkins











> Quote:
> http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000881/bio
> 
> 
> Trade Mark
> 
> 
> Actors/characters in his films are almost uniformly shot in tight, emphatic close ups, framed under the hairline and above the chin.


----------



## stumlad

Unlike what others have written, I wouldn't call the movie soft. I think the movie looked pretty good. Some of the blurriness was obviously intentional, but it didn't occur throughout. You could easily see that Brad Pitt is definitely not 34 (age he was playing as Jesse James). Face detail wasn't as good as tier 0 or 1 titles, but was easily tier 2 material. Some of the outdoor scenes looked really good. There was a few outdoor sceneery shots with snow that looked as good as most tier 1 titles, along with some shots of grass/fields. Detail on clothing was very good too. I dont' believe this movie had any contrast issues as I remember someone else mentioning.


I'd put this in low tier 2.


Note: I've never seen Casey Affleck's acting before this... he did a very good job.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/13570259
> 
> 
> Note: I've never seen Casey Affleck's acting before this... he did a very good job.



Yeah, he's a really good actor. He's also very good in Gone, Baby, Gone.....which I definitly recommend.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/13570259
> 
> 
> Unlike what others have written, I wouldn't call the movie soft. I think the movie looked pretty good. Some of the blurriness was obviously intentional, but it didn't occur throughout. You could easily see that Brad Pitt is definitely not 34 (age he was playing as Jesse James). Face detail wasn't as good as tier 0 or 1 titles, but was easily tier 2 material. Some of the outdoor scenes looked really good. There was a few outdoor sceneery shots with snow that looked as good as most tier 1 titles, along with some shots of grass/fields. Detail on clothing was very good too. I dont' believe this movie had any contrast issues as I remember someone else mentioning.
> 
> 
> I'd put this in low tier 2.
> 
> 
> Note: I've never seen Casey Affleck's acting before this... he did a very good job.



Casey Affleck was perfectly cast in this movie!


I definitely have to disagree with you on the softness issue though. It's one of the softest new releases I have seen in a long time.


----------



## aham23




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/13572158
> 
> 
> Yeah, he's a really good actor. He's also very good in Gone, Baby, Gone.....which I definitly recommend.



maybe for PQ, but strictly dealing with the movie aspect i did not like GBG. too each his own. later.


----------



## techwisenyc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *aham23* /forum/post/13572845
> 
> 
> maybe for PQ, but strictly dealing with the movie aspect i did not like GBG. too each his own. later.



I did not like GBG that much either, but thought Casey did very well in that movie. He was even better in TAOJJBTCRF and didn't think it was soft either like Rob did. I actually agree that it should be raised maybe into High Tier 3. There were many outdoor scenes that did match Tier 1 status, but of course some shots were in Tier 3 and of course they were intentional. I like the style of the movie a lot as well.


I actually didn't think he was the only coward here considering JJ shot someone else in the back as well, it's just that JJ was this outlaw that people looked up to so greatly that only if he was killed in a one on one duel would they have probably praised his killer. JJ also beat a guy in the beginning that was unarmed, so the mentality back then was really screwed. JJ deserve to get his anyway for all the bad he did.


----------



## ballen420




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/13564046
> 
> 
> Just watched Unbreakable. I'm not sure if this was all director's intent, or if this was a really old master, but it wasn't very good. There are very few face closeups that can even come close to titles seen in tier 2. A couple of scenery shots were decent but nothing like we've come to expect.
> 
> 
> Either way, I was looking forward to this because I'm one of a few people who actually really liked this movie. It's definitely an upgrade over the DVD, but my thought is this. If that's the best it will look, well fine. However, if they used an old master and re-release it in a couple of years (remastered), it's going to be dissapointing to have to purchase it again. I don't believe this is an issue of "old movie" because Donnie Brasco was better looking and made 3 years earlier. I'd really like to find out if this was intent or just a bad master.
> 
> 
> Low Tier 3



I just watched this last night and agree 100%. I'm also one of the few who really liked this movie, but the PQ was extremely disappointing. Definitely an upgrade over the DVD, but Donnie Brasco is in a different league compared to this.


Low Tier 3 may be giving it too much credit.


----------



## Schlotkins




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13569596
> 
> 
> You didn't compare but it was Schlotkins who had compared NCFOM to the Rock. But I disagree with your opinion on placing NCFOM in bottom of Tier-1 as it was definitely better looking than some of the Tier-1 titles besides few issues here and there.
> 
> 
> Forgive my Wrong Quote.



Why does it matter if it's a catalog title or not? IMO, The Rock looked better than NCFOM. I don't care if the movie is made in 2007 or 1997 or what who the director is. This thread is about PQ only. NCFOM did not have the sharpness I would expect for where it is placed.


Chris


----------



## 30XS955 User




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Schlotkins* /forum/post/13573417
> 
> 
> IMO, The Rock looked better than NCFOM. I don't care if the movie is made in 2007 or 1997 or what who the director is. This thread is about PQ only. NCFOM did not have the sharpness I would expect for where it is placed.
> 
> 
> Chris



I feel The Rock has color and dirt issues.


----------



## derturm




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dvdmike007* /forum/post/13542461
> 
> *Rendition* UK EIV
> 
> Watched at 5ft on a Sony 42 inch 3xLCD RP @1080i
> 
> Played thro HDMI from a Sony PS3 60gb
> 
> 
> Def tier 0 above Live free die hard
> 
> 
> Stunning stable picture with 3d pop and great detail peaking at 30mbs with an AVC encode and 7.1 DTS MA



Sorry, a little new to Bluray....will Renidition work on a DMP-BM30?


Thanx


----------



## HD-Gaming

what's the rank for The Assassination of Jesse James?



I couldn't find it on any list


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ballen420* /forum/post/13573300
> 
> 
> I just watched this last night and agree 100%. I'm also one of the few who really liked this movie, but the PQ was extremely disappointing. Definitely an upgrade over the DVD, but Donnie Brasco is in a different league compared to this.
> 
> 
> Low Tier 3 may be giving it too much credit.



Definitely an upgrade over the DVD. If it were to go into tier 4, it would have to be top. It looks better than Goodfellas.


----------



## djoberg

I just spent most of the afternoon watching *Kingdom of Heaven* and I was very impressed with the PQ. I'm sure those who have seen this movie are aware that the first 45-60 minutes were lacking in detail and sharpness, with some heavy grain at times. But once the PQ became sharp it was very pleasing to the eyes. And let's remember it is a 190 minute movie so there was over 2 hours of eye candy to enjoy. I believe it is where it should be (Tier 1), but if the first hour had been as good as the last 2 hours it would definitely have been a solid Tier 0.


I am a big fan of epics and this was right up there with Gladiator, Braveheart, and Troy. The battle scenes, especially the besieging of Jerusalem, was nothing short of spectacular. The DTS-HD audio track was phenomenal with plenty of material in the surrounds and jaw-dropping bass in the LFE (I listened over and over again to the awesome explosions when the Syrians were bombing the city with their tomahawk missiles....ah, I mean with their long-range catapults).


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Schlotkins* /forum/post/13573417
> 
> 
> Why does it matter if it's a catalog title or not? IMO, The Rock looked better than NCFOM. I don't care if the movie is made in 2007 or 1997 or what who the director is. This thread is about PQ only. NCFOM did not have the sharpness I would expect for where it is placed.
> 
> 
> Chris



Well said Chris.


----------



## lgans316

Perhaps I didn't frame my statement on comparing new and catalog titles properly.


The point I wanted to convey is comparing The Rock and NCFOM which was shot by different directors with unique filming styles ain't going to bring out anything conclusive in terms of placement. It's customary for Michael Bay to shoot Actors/characters in tight, emphatic close ups, framed under the hairline and above the chin. So close-ups on The Rock and other movies of MB is going to look great than some of the new movies shot by different directors.


The Rock didn't have the polished look and feel of a new film. As an action movie I love the Rock but IMO it should be below NCFOM in the Tier thread.


----------



## bplewis24

I got a chance to revisit Black Hawk Down tonight. I could see the case being made for Tier 2 for this title. The subject matter just doesn't lend itself to great PQ for long stretches of the movie. There are moments of heavy grain, subdued color palettes and large amounts of dust. Other times, when there is ample lighting and the situation calls for it there is a great amount of detail, sharpness and color depth to make this Tier 1 material.


I still think it's a very good transfer...there is absolutely nothing disappointing about it other than a few soft scenes when there's no real reason for there to be. Having said that, high Tier 2 may be more appropriate upon further reflection...at least in my opinion.


Brandon


----------



## lgans316

There are few soft shots and smoke filled scenes in BHD that robs off the background details a bit but it deserves to remain in Tier-1 as it had many scenes with tremendous 3D pop. Just compare the Superbit DVD and the Blu-ray to feel the night and day difference.


IMO if we are going to re-watch a movie with the mindset that it's going to look inferior than the previous viewing or in comparison to newer titles then it's definitely going to be reported as inferior looking. The adjustments in our judgments are sometimes due to fluctuations in mood and mindset and is completely humane. Let us ensure that BHD remains in Tier-1 as it's easily amongst the demo discs for many out here and that pops out of our mouth instantly while recommending Blu-ray to others.


----------



## SuprSlow

This week's releases:
*Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony
*The Water Horse: Legend of the Deep* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony
*The Adventures of Baron Munchausen: 20th Anniversary Edition* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 1.85:1 | Sony
*The 6th Day* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony
*Space Ace* Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: DD | AR: 1.78:1 | Digital Leisure
*Sharkwater* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 1.85:1 | National Geographic
*Yukikaze* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 1.78:1 | Bandai Visual


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Vengeance of the Zombies*


Tier recommendation: upper quarter of Tier 4


This 1972 Spanish feature(part of a double feature on Blu-ray with Night of the Werewolf) seems fairly faithful to its low budget origins and looks okay if one doesn't have high expectations. It's encoded in AVC on a BD-25 at a feature length of 88 minutes. Bitrates average around 20 Mbps with a range that mostly stays within 18 to 25 Mbps. The visual look of the film doesn't really vary. I didn't notice any compression problems.


The resulting picture is somewhat flat. Artifacting is not really a problem but there just isn't a lot of detail to the transfer. There is some light grain throughout the film. As the cover boldly proclaims "Mastered from the original camera negative", I suspect this is the same HD master they originally used for the dvd released before. My biggest gripe with the transfer was the general lack of detail in facial features and the DNR used. Purists might note that this Blu-ray is not presented in the original aspect ratio of this film(neither was the dvd I believe). It's supposed to be a 1.85 film but the BD is a fullscreen release.


I think this BD fits somewhere around the upper quarter of tier 4, possibly around Silent Hill or Talladega Nights.


----------



## Schlotkins




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13576007
> 
> 
> The point I wanted to convey is comparing The Rock and NCFOM which was shot by different directors with unique filming styles ain't going to bring out anything conclusive in terms of placement. It's customary for Michael Bay to shoot Actors/characters in tight, emphatic close ups, framed under the hairline and above the chin. So close-ups on The Rock and other movies of MB is going to look great than some of the new movies shot by different directors.



Just one last comment and them I'm going to let this go. When you go to rank a title, it doesn't matter who the director is or what they tend to do. The absolutely ONLY thing that matters is ABSOLUTE PQ. I don't put in any other factors.


On a side note, I watched 70% of Man on Fire. WOW does this title look good. I think it's in Tier 0 right now and I'd agree with that placement.


----------



## lgans316

Understood. I 100% agree with you that for PQ rating in the tier thread the only thing matters is absolute PQ. Just wanted to convey the fact on how filming style can impact the overall PQ. If you closely observe The Rock and NCFOM you can immediately notice how polished and new the latter looks which you will mostly won't notice on catalog titles which has the potential to suffer from more number of film artefacts.


----------



## stumlad

Finally watched my copy of the Departed. I got it when it came out about a year ago, but it was too soon to watch it since I saw it in the theater just 3-4 months before that.


Anyway, The placement is about right... it could probably be moved down a few notches, but there are so many titles in tier 2, it's hard to really know what goes where. Unfortunately with some of the top tier movies, watching a movie like this makes me think "slightly above average", but it is an overall good transfer and i need to remind myself that I'm spoiled.


As far as the actual moive itself, the second viewing reminded me how great this movie/story is...


----------



## dvdmike007

*The Adventures of Baron Munchausen*, its tier one to me above Underworld, stunning for its age with superb colour defenition and detail in the costumes.

Viewed at 1080i at 6ft played on a Ps3 thro hdmi on a Sony 42 inch 3xlcd RP


----------



## bplewis24

I'm nominating Sharkwater for mid-to-low Tier 3. There is apparently large amounts of stock footage used here to illustrate past misconceptions of Sharks and old documentary footage. Also there appears to be some SD film/camera footage in other parts that's upscaled for this documentary. For the majority of the rest of the film which is definitely HD, it is still rather soft, never looking much better than Tier 2 material. As a whole I'd say it belongs in Tier 3, on the low end IMO.


PS3->1080p24->46XBR4 (8 feet)


I hope to have Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story tomorrow night for viewing. Thank goodness netflix has gotten it's act together...at least for me.


Brandon


----------



## lgans316

Mods,


Please correct this typo (Redition to Rendition)

*Redition (UK) Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | EIV*


I have just ordered the Blu-ray version of *Next* and *Lucky Number Slevin*. Let me post my thoughts on the PQ once I get to watch them.


----------



## dvdmike007

*Replacement Killers*

Tier 2 under Superbad, looks great with outstanding black levels but some detail lost in indoor scenes


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13593944
> 
> 
> Mods,
> 
> 
> Please correct this typo (Redition to Rendition)
> 
> *Redition (UK) Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | EIV*


----------



## wormraper




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dvdmike007* /forum/post/13595096
> 
> *Replacement Killers*
> 
> Tier 2 under Superbad, looks great with outstanding black levels but some detail lost in indoor scenes



I second this one. I would put Replacement killers in high Tier 2. Looks kick a$$ for an older dark action movie.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Devil's Rejects*


My tier recommendation: low *Tier 2*


This title is currently ranked in the middle of Tier 4 and I feel one of the most underrated BDs on the list after viewing it. I wasn't expecting much since this was an early Blu-ray release from Lionsgate in 2006, but this BD has a wonderful film-like transfer that is better than what I remember seeing on opening weekend in the theater.


Lionsgate encoded this 110 minute feature in Mpeg2 and the bitrates average in the lower 20's with a general range of 19-27 Mbps with brief bursts that hit as high 37.1 Mbps. Facial detail is very sharp and skin texture has lots of detail. Black levels are excellent with nary a hint of macroblocking or banding. The only quibble one could bring up is the intentionally grainy style of the way the movie was filmed, but I do not consider natural film grain a defect. There is not a hint of edge enhancement or DNR in this transfer. Kudos to Lionsgate for the job they did on this movie considering many of their other early Blu-rays are not that good.


This is not a Tier 4 movie. It looks better than certain Tier 2 movies like Saw III for instance. At worst this should be near the top of Tier 3 if one can't handle the grain.


Watching on a calibrated 60" Pioneer Kuro Plasma at 1080p/24 from a PS3 and sitting approximately 5 feet away.


----------



## merlintl

I just watched "I, Robot" and was completely blown away. Wow, its like one of the best in terms of picture quality I've seen in a while. It smokes "I am Legend" and that had pretty good pic quality.


----------



## bplewis24

I'll nominate this title for *high Tier 2*. Maybe the top. During the first half of the movie the setting is the 40s and 50s. The contrast is all blown out and fine detail is lacking. As the movie progresses into the 70s and on towards contemporary time, the film starts to really open up as it is less stylized. This is a relatively small portion of the movie, however, and contrast still runs a bit hot. But this portion of the movie looks very good. It could even bump it into Tier 1, as I still don't think it's quite demo material here. Nevertheless, my placement would be high Tier 2.


PS3->1080p24->46XBR4 (8-10ft)


Brandon


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End*


Yes, another excellent looking title from the Pirates trilogy!


This is in Tier 0, and I agree that the other Pirates movies belong in Tier 0, so I had high expectations. I was not disappointed!


Perhaps the thing I found most surprising is the fact that this movie is mostly shot in dark interiors. That alone can prevent titles from looking very good. But I have to say that this title has some of the best looking dark scenes that I have ever seen!


The contrast here is superb. Lots of depth, even in the dark scenes. The delineation from dark shadow to pure black is excellent. A display with high contrast ability is a must in order to enjoy the depth that this movie has to offer.


Detail and sharpness is also very good, up there with the best.


I would have a hard time saying that this is better or worse than part 1, they are very close.


Bottom line is that it is certain Tier 0 material.


It should be noted that there are some scenes with blown highlights. I am sure this was intentional, as the scenes involve the multiple Johnny Depp's.


As for the movie: it was certainly better than part 2 (which I absolutely hated) but not quite as enjoyable as the first. And it was definitely TOO LONG!


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13602982
> 
> 
> It should be noted that there are some scenes with blown highlights. I am sure this was intentional, as the scenes involve the multiple Johnny Depp's.
> 
> 
> As for the movie: it was certainly better than part 2 (which I absolutely hated) but not quite as enjoyable as the first. And it was definitely TOO LONG!



Ditto on all that.


Btw, for any PS3 owners, I fiddled around with the BD-Live content on Walk Hard. It's pretty simple and intuitive to figure out, but all that's there are some small featurettes and some trailers. Unfortunately none of them are streamed, so it all must be downloaded first. It would make sense for all of it to be streamed because it's not like we can save it to our hard drive anyway. Nevertheless, the MIB trailer was worth checking out as well as some Adam Sandler movie. Although the print on MIB wasn't very impressive, at least from the trailer.


Brandon


----------



## techwisenyc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13602982
> 
> *Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End*
> 
> 
> Yes, another excellent looking title from the Pirates trilogy!
> 
> 
> This is in Tier 0, and I agree that the other Pirates movies belong in Tier 0, so I had high expectations. I was not disappointed!
> 
> 
> Perhaps the thing I found most surprising is the fact that this movie is mostly shot in dark interiors. That alone can prevent titles from looking very good. But I have to say that this title has some of the best looking dark scenes that I have ever seen!
> 
> 
> The contrast here is superb. Lots of depth, even in the dark scenes. The delineation from dark shadow to pure black is excellent. A display with high contrast ability is a must in order to enjoy the depth that this movie has to offer.
> 
> 
> Detail and sharpness is also very good, up there with the best.
> 
> 
> I would have a hard time saying that this is better or worse than part 1, they are very close.
> 
> 
> Bottom line is that it is certain Tier 0 material.
> 
> 
> It should be noted that there are some scenes with blown highlights. I am sure this was intentional, as the scenes involve the multiple Johnny Depp's.
> 
> 
> As for the movie: it was certainly better than part 2 (which I absolutely hated) but not quite as enjoyable as the first. And it was definitely TOO LONG!



It has excellent PQ indeed. To me POTC:AWE and I Robot are the best titles I've seen on BD. Not including the animation movies of course.


----------



## ballen420




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13602700
> 
> 
> I'll nominate this title for *high Tier 2*. Maybe the top. During the first half of the movie the setting is the 40s and 50s. The contrast is all blown out and fine detail is lacking. As the movie progresses into the 70s and on towards contemporary time, the film starts to really open up as it is less stylized. This is a relatively small portion of the movie, however, and contrast still runs a bit hot. But this portion of the movie looks very good. It could even bump it into Tier 1, as I still don't think it's quite demo material here. Nevertheless, my placement would be high Tier 2.
> 
> 
> PS3->1080p24->46XBR4 (8-10ft)
> 
> 
> Brandon



I just watched this last night as well and I agree with your assessment and this placement. I was a little disappointed in the PQ, maybe I was expecting more out of one of the first BD Live discs. Also a little disappointed in the movie, though I think I set myself up for disappointment figuring it wasn't going to be as funny as I hoped.


I watched it on the same setup - though about 6-8 feet away.


----------



## kraemer

28 days Later was filmed on an SD cam because that is all they could afford on their budget. It should have been released as an "SD" disk and labeled as such on the disk and packaging.


Thus, it should say in the picture quality rating that the source material IS NOT HD....


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ballen420* /forum/post/13604970
> 
> 
> I just watched this last night as well and I agree with your assessment and this placement. I was a little disappointed in the PQ, maybe I was expecting more out of one of the first BD Live discs. Also a little disappointed in the movie, though I think I set myself up for disappointment figuring it wasn't going to be as funny as I hoped.
> 
> 
> I watched it on the same setup - though about 6-8 feet away.



it was funny to me, but maybe it's because i went to the Chicago premiere w/John C. Reilly and he played a 2 hour set afterwards at the Cubby Bear


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ballen420* /forum/post/13604970
> 
> 
> I was a little disappointed in the PQ, maybe I was expecting more out of one of the first BD Live discs. Also a little disappointed in the movie, though I think I set myself up for disappointment figuring it wasn't going to be as funny as I hoped.
> 
> 
> I watched it on the same setup - though about 6-8 feet away.



Same here. It was funny in spots in the beginning when the story arch was pretty linear. But then about 1 hour into the film the story completely unravels and goes every which-a-way possible, and it got completely boring to me. I did love the theme of him having to overcome his "disability" to make it to the top.


Anyhow, kinda interesting how as the PQ got better the movie got worse (at least to me).


Brandon


----------



## briankmonkey

Watched War last night and I'd say it is high Teir 1. Audio was very good.


Movie itself was pretty underwhelming.


----------



## eastbaygreen

Anyone have the UK release of Beowulf? I'm surprised to see that it's not even listed in the unranked list and I've searched the thread...to no avail. Must be that it's not a US release in BluRay yet.


I've got it on order for the UK version and have read very good things about it......


Also should be receiving LiveFreeDieHard, Pans Labyrinth, and Enchanted today. Looking forward to it....ordered before I discovered this thread that ranks them very high.


----------



## Shane Martin

Rob,

I agree with you. AWE is... awe inspiring indeed.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Shane Martin* /forum/post/13612069
> 
> 
> Rob,
> 
> I agree with you. AWE is... awe inspiring indeed.













I like the play on the acronym.


----------



## stumlad

Surprisingly it wasn't a horrible movie, but I wasn't expecting much going in.


As far as PQ goes, i think it was very good. Colors were very rich, though it seems that the base black level in this movie was a little light (slightly raised contrast? Not sure). The detail on the chipmunks were as expected -- very good. The movie had film grain similar to Lost -- light, but noticeable. Some scenes it was less noticeable than others, but it wasn't distracting at all. The outdoor scenes all look very sharp and up there with some of the best, and shots that included street gravel had very good detail. Face closeups were very good when they occurred but probably a level below the best.


Overall I'd say this belongs somewhere in lower mid tier 1.


There are hardly any extras on it, so I'm sure most of that 25 GB disc went towards the movie. A couple looks and the bit rate displayed was in the low 20s going to high 20s at times. Fox has been really impressing me with their transfers.


----------



## lgans316

Question here.


I know that Across the Universe has been beaten to death by critics out here but I would like to know if it looked inferior to the below titles .



> Quote:
> *The Brave One* Video: VC-1 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner
> *Pan's Labyrinth* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 (Spanish) | AR: 1.85:1 | New Line
> 
> Bikini Destinations - Triple Fantasy Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: DD / DTS | AR: 1.78:1 | Magnolia
> 
> Santa Clause 3: The Escape ClauseVideo: VC-1 | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.85:1 | Buena Vista
> *Disturbia* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DTS | AR: 1.85:1 | Paramount
> *Tears of the Sun* Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony
> 
> Stomp the Yard Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM / TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony
> 
> Rush Hour 3 Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA (7.1) | AR: 2.35:1 | New Line
> 
> IMAX: Roving Mars Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.78:1 | Disney
> *Home of the Brave* Video: ? | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Fox


----------



## rydenfan

Has anybody watched Baron Munchausen yet? I loved this movie in the past and I am just curious how the transfer is.


----------



## lrstevens421

We own the night should be bumped down to tier 4 or placed at the very bottom of tier 3. Very soft, lacking detail, and noisy. At times I felt as if I were watching a standard dvd. Enjoyed the film though







.


Calibrated Sony 52XBR4

Denon 2500, 1080p24 @ 10ft. away.


----------



## alexg75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13613368
> 
> 
> Question here.
> 
> 
> I know that Across the Universe has been beaten to death by critics out here but I would like to know if it looked inferior to the below titles .



To my eyes,NO!


----------



## fiddlesticks

I watched this today, guess I had almost 3 hours to blow. And blow it does. The movie itself is pretty bad, but I'm a sucker for disaster movies. Lots of destruction, unitentionally-hilarious dialogue, SFX ranging from acceptable to sad, pointless side-stories, and a cast made up of no-names and has-beens.


The video is MPEG 2, and actually looked pretty good. A lot of detail in some scenes, and a sharp clean image. Some scenes were a little soft and some shots just flat out of focus, but I assume this is from the source.. Don't get whiplash from those zooms!







I'd say it's lower Tier 2 to upper Tier 3.


Sound was acceptable, I watched the DTS 5.1 track, there's also DD 5.1, Dolby Surround 2.0, and PCM 2.0. Not a lot of separation but some good effects at times and the sound was clear with moderate low-end. About as good as I would have expected it to sound for a tv-movie.


----------



## bplewis24

I think a bit more of this title than others do. The main problems with it are it doesn't stay consistently detailed (seems to get softer as the movie goes on). Part of that is cause the bright scenes tend to bloom a bit. Other than those two things it's a very good looking title. Overall I thought this was *bottom Tier 1* worthy while most others seem to prefer mid-Tier 2. I actually think it rivals Enchanted. Horrible movie though.


PS3->1080p24->46XBR4 (8-10ft)


Brandon


----------



## dvdmike007




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rydenfan* /forum/post/13614440
> 
> 
> Has anybody watched Baron Munchausen yet? I loved this movie in the past and I am just curious how the transfer is.


 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...postcount=3970


----------



## lgans316

*Next (Paramount) Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | EIV (U.K Import)*

*Video Bit rate* : 15 ~ 34 Mbps

*The Good*


Excellent detailing and Value Sharpness

Gorgeous eye candy colors

No EE / Almost grain free (No noticeable DNR) / No dirt / No print damage

*The Bad*


Slightly low black levels (similar to War - Rogue Assassin)

Few soft focussed shots

Couple of CGI scenes looked fake

*The Ugly*


Jaggies (damn it) spotted in couple of scenes that lasted for few seconds.

*Recommendation* : Below War in Tier-2. Btw War needs to be in the top 10-15 spots in Tier-2 and I feel it's ranked too low in Tier-2.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13621384
> 
> 
> I think a bit more of this title than others do. The main problems with it are it doesn't stay consistently detailed (seems to get softer as the movie goes on). Part of that is cause the bright scenes tend to bloom a bit. Other than those two things it's a very good looking title. Overall I thought this was *bottom Tier 1* worthy while most others seem to prefer mid-Tier 2. I actually think it rivals Enchanted. Horrible movie though.
> 
> 
> PS3->1080p24->46XBR4 (8-10ft)
> 
> 
> Brandon



I agree with you about the blooming. Overall it is a good looking title, but the variance in PQ along with the blooming prevent it from being Tier 1 imo. I had recommended it for top Tier 2.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Gone Baby, Gone*


This is another example of a movie whose PQ started out very poorly, then improved a lot. The first 10-15 minutes were pretty bad, very little fine detail, with smearing. No definition. Then things improved quite a bit. A few scenes actually looked quite good, but the majority of movie would be in the low Tier 2 area.


The Tier 3 scenes, some Tier 1 scenes, and mostly low Tier 2 scenes average out to a low Tier 2 ranking.....and that's exactly where it is!


Seems like I haven't had too many disagreements with placements on the list lately.










The movie: I would say that I was enjoying it quite a bit....until twist after twist after twist. By the end it was too far fetched, with too many twists to make it work. I do think Ben Affleck did a good job directing the film though.


----------



## lrstevens421




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13623290
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like I haven't had too many disagreements with placements on the list lately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ....



You've got one







, I would move "We own the Night" even further down list in Tier 3. Although I really wouldn't call that a disagreement, more like a tweak.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*30 Days of Night*


Two consecutive movies that I have watched started out with mediocre PQ in the first 10-15 minutes, only to improve as the movie progressed. However, this title improved more dramatically than Gone Baby, Gone.


There are scenes that are definitely Tier 1 material. Good definition and contrast. But the majority of the movie was high Tier 2. Contrast and clarity were just a tad short of Tier 1.


I recommend very high Tier 2.....which, again, is exactly where it is.










I have to comment on the sound: incredible in terms of bass. There are scenes that will threaten the structural integrity of your HT, but the less loud bass is every bit as impressive in terms of how well it is utilized and how tight and articulate it is.


Also, I enjoyed the movie quite a bit, which was surprising since I have never been a fan of Vampire movies (with the exception of Bram Stoker's Dracula).


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lrstevens421* /forum/post/13623323
> 
> 
> You've got one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , I would move "We own the Night" even further down list in Tier 3. Although I really wouldn't call that a disagreement, more like a tweak.



No, I meant that _I_ have not disagreed where titles that I have reviewed lately appear on the list.


----------



## lrstevens421




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13623347
> 
> 
> No, I meant that _I_ have not disagreed where titles that I have reviewed lately appear on the list.



You're a mod of this thread, you can't disagree







.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lrstevens421* /forum/post/13623359
> 
> 
> You're a mod of this thread, you can't disagree
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



I haven't moved any titles in several weeks. SuprSlow has picked up the slack in a big way.


I should get off my lazy a** and help out more though.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13623333
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Also, I enjoyed the movie quite a bit, which was surprising since I have never been a fan of Vampire movies (with the exception of Bram Stoker's Dracula).
> *


*


Are you saying you don't typically watch Vampire movies and gave this a shot and was surprised. Or do you mean you've watched plenty of Vampire movies and didn't like most of them but this one surprised you?


Reason I ask is because I've seen many Vampire movies and this was probably mediocre at best, IMO. You should watch Interview with the Vampire if you haven't seen it. If you have, then, well, I guess we just disagree with what makes a good Vampire movie







*


----------



## HDphile22

I think 30 days of Night should be in Tier 1!


----------



## Kevin12586

I watched both *Man on Fire* and *I am Legend* last night (Man on Fire first). Based on where Man on Fire is rated (I agree with it's placement 100%, great picture and movie) I agree that I am Legend should be where it is placed.


My wife actually commented on how the beginning of I am Legend looks, it could have been better. I believe the picture quality improved when they show the closeup of Will Smith waking up in bed, just before he works out. Also, the CGI could have been better than it was considering it was a big budget movie.


Overall, I got to watch 2 good movies last night


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/13623616
> 
> 
> Are you saying you don't typically watch Vampire movies and gave this a shot and was surprised. Or do you mean you've watched plenty of Vampire movies and didn't like most of them but this one surprised you?
> 
> 
> Reason I ask is because I've seen many Vampire movies and this was probably mediocre at best, IMO. You should watch Interview with the Vampire if you haven't seen it. If you have, then, well, I guess we just disagree with what makes a good Vampire movie



Yes, I have seen many vampire movies, including Interview with the Vampire....which I didn't care for. I don't care for Underworld or Blade either.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDphile22* /forum/post/13624468
> 
> 
> I think 30 days of Night should be in Tier 1!



I would not be strongly against a placement in low Tier 1, as I think it is close to being that good, but in the end, considering some of the poorer scenes, near the Top of Tier 2 works well.


----------



## zinfamous




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13565970
> 
> *No Country for Old Men*
> 
> 
> This was a nice looking title. Detail and sharpness were pretty good, as was contrast. Colors were nothing special, but that is to be expected given the backdrop of the movie.
> 
> 
> Overall, though, I don't think of this as particularly good demo type material or eye candy.
> 
> 
> I would also say that the detail and clarity is a bit lacking compared to other Tier 1 titles.
> 
> 
> I am surprised to see this so high in Tier 1. I would put it at the bottom of Tier 1 myself.
> 
> 
> Re the movie itself: man, it was great......right up until the last 10-15 minutes. The ending was horrible.



give it another shot. I was unhappy with the ending the first time I saw it in the theater. then, after i watched it again...the ending really is perfect.


The film is about Tommy Lee Jone's character--it's not about Llewelyn or Chigrugh...The more I see it, the more I like it


I went through the BD a second time, however, and noticed a blue sparkly hue in the upper right hand portion of the screen. It would show up during certain sky scenes but wasn't there all the time...pretty sure it isn't my TV (haven't seen it anywhere else, and on no other disc). It would appear throughout, but I noticed it as early as the opening scenes as Chigrugh drives down the highway.


It's extremely distracting...has anyone else noticed this?


----------



## Steve Burke

I am surprised that no one has mentioned Elton 60. IMO this looks better than Ratatouille, with brighter colors, and an overall "punchier" look, very little video noise, and very sharp. It belongs at the top of Tier 0.


When I want to demo my system, this is the disc I use.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zinfamous* /forum/post/13625485
> 
> 
> give it another shot. I was unhappy with the ending the first time I saw it in the theater. then, after i watched it again...the ending really is perfect.
> 
> 
> The film is about Tommy Lee Jone's character--it's not about Llewelyn or Chigrugh...The more I see it, the more I like it



I have to disagree about the movie being about Tommy Lee's character, because too much of the movie takes place without him. Very little of the movie is seen through his perspective. This is exactly why the ending _does not work_ in my opinion.



> Quote:
> I went through the BD a second time, however, and noticed a blue sparkly hue in the upper right hand portion of the screen. It would show up during certain sky scenes but wasn't there all the time...pretty sure it isn't my TV (haven't seen it anywhere else, and on no other disc). It would appear throughout, but I noticed it as early as the opening scenes as Chigrugh drives down the highway.
> 
> 
> It's extremely distracting...has anyone else noticed this?



No, I did not notice this.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13625746
> 
> 
> I have to disagree about the movie being about Tommy Lee's character, because too much of the movie takes place without him. Very little of the movie is seen through his perspective. This is exactly why the ending _does not work_ in my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I did not notice this.



Disagree all you want, but he is absolutely correct.


Watch it again, and pay very close attention to EVERY scene in which you see him or hear his voice in the V.O.


The ending is perfectly fitting for the theme of the film


----------



## zinfamous




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13565970
> 
> *No Country for Old Men*
> 
> 
> This was a nice looking title. Detail and sharpness were pretty good, as was contrast. Colors were nothing special, but that is to be expected given the backdrop of the movie.
> 
> 
> Overall, though, I don't think of this as particularly good demo type material or eye candy.
> 
> 
> I would also say that the detail and clarity is a bit lacking compared to other Tier 1 titles.
> 
> 
> I am surprised to see this so high in Tier 1. I would put it at the bottom of Tier 1 myself.
> 
> 
> Re the movie itself: man, it was great......right up until the last 10-15 minutes. The ending was horrible.





Rob Tomlin said:


> I have to disagree about the movie being about Tommy Lee's character, because too much of the movie takes place without him. Very little of the movie is seen through his perspective. This is exactly why the ending _does not work_ in my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> again...that's how I misinterpreted the film, at first. but you've been misled
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The film is about aging, and takes a certain perspective on on overall sense of "violence that can no be understood, or can not be explained"
> 
> 
> Initially, I took the ending to be a poor attempt to stay true to the novel; retain the mood and themes in the novel that should not be translated onto the screen (death knell of adapting a written medium to one that is primarily visual--the problem with many who complain about movies that aren't like the books that they love, but only b/c they don't know what a movie is supposed to do, etc.). yeah, that's how I first saw the ending. If you haven't watched it a 2nd time, then you should, you'll probably get it, I think.
> 
> 
> Actually, the general critical consensus is that this is, first and foremost, an allegory on death, aging, a changing world, as seen through Tommy Lee Jones. It's not about the characters--the film is a comment.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zinfamous* /forum/post/13626937
> 
> 
> The film is about aging, and takes a certain perspective on on overall sense of "violence that can no be understood, or can not be explained"



Which is hinted at in the opening narration...by Tommy Lee Jones' character










Brandon


----------



## gail2magic

Just watched this and would place it mid Tier2 below Bridge to Terabithia. There are parts of it that would be much higher. I was also very pleased with the audio. Am curious how others rank it. Am very new to trying to decide where to place films so am trying to be conservative in my review. I did not want my love of the movie to bias me by placing it too high.


This is one that I am going to buy today when I return the rental. I thoroughly enjoyed it. I think this might become a classic family film.


Gail

Sony Bravia 40 1080p

Sony Blu-Ray 300 with latest firmware upgrade

Sony Surround Sound System 5.1


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zinfamous* /forum/post/13626937
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the general critical consensus is that this is, first and foremost, an allegory on death, aging, a changing world, as seen through Tommy Lee Jones. It's not about the characters--the film is a comment.



I repeat myself: the _problem_ with the ending (and saying it is an allegory on death etc. through Jones' character) is the fact that a huge portion of the movie takes place without his character being on screen and many events occur that he doesn't have a clue about.


It isn't a matter of not "getting it". Hell, the title of the movie itself is indicative of what they want us to think the movie is "about". It just didn't work in that way, and as a result the ending fell completely flat.....with a big THUD.


----------



## aham23

on the subject of NCFOM is it not a sign of a great movie when there can be some many different interpretations? or is that a sign of a poorly director flick? or did they want it that way which makes it brilliant? or..............?


to me the movie was about the evils of greed and how it can corrupt the simpliest of things in life.


later.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I just watched Superbad and think the current placement of it in Tier 2 is perfect. Very high bitrate AVC encode with nary a compression flaw, but there had to be some weird post-processing as everything looks natural except the odd fleshtones. In some scenes the actors look like yellow/orange colored zombies.







If not for the weird fleshtones this would easily be a Tier 1 title.


----------



## lgans316

*I am Legend*


Finally got a chance to watch the full movie and both endings.


The PQ was reference at many spots. The dark and low lit interior sequences suffered from banding which can be seen on the walls. IMHO IAL is placed too low and clearly deserves to be in the top 10-12 spots in Tier-1.


Me and my wife preferred the theatrical ending over the alternate ending. Overall I am a tad disappointed with IAL as I was expecting more action.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13633346
> 
> *I am Legend*
> 
> 
> Finally got a chance to watch the full movie and both endings.
> 
> 
> The PQ was reference at many spots. The dark and low lit interior sequences suffered from banding which can be seen on the walls. IMHO IAL is placed too low and clearly deserves to be in the top 10-12 spots in Tier-1.
> 
> 
> Me and my wife preferred the theatrical ending over the alternate ending. Overall I am a tad disappointed with IAL as I was expecting more action.



I agree (I believe I recommended a mid Tier 1 placement), and also agree on being quite disappointed with the movie.


Anyone want to buy my copy?


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13629036
> 
> 
> I repeat myself: the _problem_ with the ending (and saying it is an allegory on death etc. through Jones' character) is the fact that a huge portion of the movie takes place without his character being on screen and many events occur that he doesn't have a clue about.
> 
> 
> It isn't a matter of not "getting it". Hell, the title of the movie itself is indicative of what they want us to think the movie is "about". It just didn't work in that way, and as a result the ending fell completely flat.....with a big THUD.



Come on dude, you can't be serious


Watch it again, and like I said, pay attention to everytime you see/hear TLJ


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13633346
> 
> *I am Legend*IMHO IAL is placed too low and clearly deserves to be in the top 10-12 spots in Tier-1.



Interesting, I think it's still too *high*







(IAL)


Anyhow, I watched Deliverance tonight, as I'm trying to do my part to knock some titles out of the "unranked" section. I want to nominate this for somewhere between bottom of Tier 3 and top of Tier 4.


I rented the DVD about a year ago, maybe less. But it's hard for me to make the comparison based on memory. I'm sure this BD version has better detail, but I can't tell how much, obviously. I did notice better and brighter colors, although black levels during night scenes suffer greatly. There are some passages with facial closeups in the woods that look pretty good for a print of this age, but overall this is a completely "soft" look.


This could be the best the print will ever look, but who knows. The print isn't free from defects but it's not horrible either. Overall I'm not sure this is worth an upgrade from DVD if already owned or not. It's still one helluva a movie, and for a guy who didn't own a DVD copy I have no regrets about picking up a BD copy for half price on Amazon a while back.


Audio is DD 640kbps, fyi...and I didn't check the special features.


PS3->1080p24->46XBR4 (8ft)


Brandon


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/13633508
> 
> 
> Come on dude, you can't be serious
> 
> 
> Watch it again, and like I said, pay attention to everytime you see/hear TLJ



You are right. I'm not serious. The whole thing was just a big joke.


----------



## lgans316

IMO IAL is placed too low and aforementioned it needs to be placed in top 15 spots in Tier-1.










Will soon post my thoughts on Beowulf and Lucky Number Slevin. I really envy you people in the U.S who can rent movies. Besides few titles Blu-ray rental is yet to kick off properly in Japan forcing movie lovers like me to blind buy and import movies.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13633581
> 
> 
> IMO IAL is placed too low and aforementioned it needs to be placed in top 15 spots in Tier-1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will soon post my thoughts on Beowulf and Lucky Number Slevin. I really envy you people in the U.S who can rent movies. Besides few titles Blu-ray rental is yet to kick off properly in Japan forcing movie lovers like me to blind buy and import movies.



You guys are getting some incredibly super high definition broadcast tv in a few years. What's the resolution: 7680x4320? In the US, we're still trying to go completely digital which was pushed back 3 years from 2006 to Feb 2009. Some people think it means all channels will be high def, but that's not the case. How long as 1080i been around... since the 80s? You guys have had blu-ray for many years now? You also have recorable players right?


I guess I'd still rather be here since we do get all the movies, but since Sony and many other tech companies are from Japan, you guys get first dibs on a lot of cool stuff.


Anyway, I'm sure we can exchange "you have it better" lines forever... either way, looking forward to your review on Beowulf and Lucky # Slevin. Do you have the HD DVD versions to compare with?


----------



## lgans316

Nope stumlad. Don't have the HD DVD version. I don't have the budget to buy multiple versions and compare though I used to own both versions for select titles like Face/Off and Danny the Dog (Unleashed).


Btw I yet another noob on evaluating PQ, so please do not take my comments for granted though some of it may be accurate.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13633534
> 
> 
> Interesting, I think it's still too *high*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (IAL)



I agree.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13623333
> 
> *30 Days of Night*
> 
> 
> Two consecutive movies that I have watched started out with mediocre PQ in the first 10-15 minutes, only to improve as the movie progressed. However, this title improved more dramatically than Gone Baby, Gone.
> 
> 
> There are scenes that are definitely Tier 1 material. Good definition and contrast. But the majority of the movie was high Tier 2. Contrast and clarity were just a tad short of Tier 1.
> 
> 
> I recommend very high Tier 2.....which, again, is exactly where it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to comment on the sound: incredible in terms of bass. There are scenes that will threaten the structural integrity of your HT, but the less loud bass is every bit as impressive in terms of how well it is utilized and how tight and articulate it is.
> 
> 
> Also, I enjoyed the movie quite a bit, which was surprising since I have never been a fan of Vampire movies (with the exception of Bram Stoker's Dracula).



I agree there is inconsistency, but I think the lesser quality shots are the distinct minority. I think lower Tier 1 would be more appropriate. I find the look of the better shots very appealing. Comparing with other recent Sony releases, I think this looks much, much better than, say, Across the Universe.


----------



## lgans316

To my eyes IAL looked superior and consistent than many of the titles placed between mid and bottom of Tier-1.


3:10 to Yuma, I am Legend, War, 30 Days of Night & NCFOM have one thing in common.

*LACKLUSTER ENDING*


----------



## ballen420

Not that any of this needs repeating, but I watched I, Robot and Man on Fire this weekend and those are by far two of the best movies to showcase the capabilities of BR. I think they are both properly placed, though there could be some argument for IR to be the best looking live action film on BR right now.


Spoiled weekend. Any movie I watch this week is bound to be a disappointment.


----------



## RaiderRodney




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13633454
> 
> 
> I agree (I believe I recommended a mid Tier 1 placement), and also agree on being quite disappointed with the movie.
> 
> 
> Anyone want to buy my copy?



I'm interested


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *aham23* /forum/post/13629403
> 
> 
> on the subject of NCFOM is it not a sign of a great movie when there can be some many different interpretations? or is that a sign of a poorly director flick? or did they want it that way which makes it brilliant? or..............?



I think brilliance or greatness in different interpretations comes in the form of interpreting dialogue, actions or metaphors that are ambiguous and could have several different meanings. For example many people interpret the photo at the end of The Shining to mean several different things. In the theatrical cut of I am Legend, there was debate about certain things as well (I guess I shouldn't mention because they're leading down the "spoiler" path).


In the case of Old Men, I think that is has more to do with who the central character of the plot/movie is shows the directors may have left it a bit too ambiguous and that's a different thing. IMO it was well done and while I didn't love the ending, I didn't dislike it either. I thought it was clear from the beginning who the story was central too and it was appropriately filmed in that framework, but I think it's reasonable to disagree.


Brandon


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/13633780
> 
> 
> You guys are getting some incredibly super high definition broadcast tv in a few years. What's the resolution: 7680x4320?



And here, all this time I thought lgans was in the US







. After reading this I was thinking to myself, how did I not know about this incredibly super high definition broadcast tv that was in the works for the US!?! But alas, you weren't talking about the US

















Brandon


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13635637
> 
> 
> I think brilliance or greatness in different interpretations comes in the form of interpreting dialogue, actions or metaphors that are ambiguous and could have several different meanings. For example many people interpret the photo at the end of The Shining to mean several different things. In the theatrical cut of I am Legend, there was debate about certain things as well (I guess I shouldn't mention because they're leading down the "spoiler" path).
> 
> 
> In the case of Old Men, I think that is has more to do with who the central character of the plot/movie is shows the directors may have left it a bit too ambiguous and that's a different thing. IMO it was well done and while I didn't love the ending, I didn't dislike it either. I thought it was clear from the beginning who the story was central too and it was appropriately filmed in that framework, but I think it's reasonable to disagree.
> 
> 
> Brandon



Well said.


When you consider the fact that the main criticism of this film is, without any question, the ending (as evidenced by numerous discussion threads etc.), it is obvious that the ending is controversial in terms of whether it worked or not.


I'm in the "not" camp.


----------



## Erik Tracy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cliff Stephenson* /forum/post/13439395
> 
> 
> It's not about sharing a viewpoint. It's about sharing information and having people with lessor insight challenge the information in order to validate _their_ viewpoint.
> 
> 
> I only stated that this thread is, in some ways and unbeknownst to those who participate, counter productive to what the intent is. I never said it had to cease existence or that people were wrong to evaluate the best of the best. I was merely providing a tool... information. Instead of just taking that information and using it to assist in making choices, it's met with, "Well then why do they do this and what about that and how do you explain this then?" All questions designed to invalidate the information so you don't have to be threatened with changing the way you might look at things. I have neither the time nor the patience to deal with somebody too busy trying to talk over me to realize that I'm trying to be helpful.
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't say the people here represent the majority of the buying public, but they do represent the most vocal and visible. These forums are where the studios get their feedback. They check them daily. Believe it or not, it's not like studios go out and do all this market research to make decisions. They come to places like AVS and lurk to see what people want and like. Why do you think The Fifth Element got remastered? It was because of the very negative outcry from the AV websites. The average person wouldn't be able to tell the remaster from the original. It was redone because the first line of information, the web, demanded it.
> 
> 
> I'm just frustrated because I'm trying to let people know something concrete and all I get back is, "well, if that were true, then why does this happen?" as if the conversations I've had never happened.



Cliff,

Not sure if you are still lurking about in this thread, and to the other 'veteran's of this thread - pardon my intrusion, but I've been trying to catch up on all the posts here.


Initially, I was what would be considered precisely what folks would consider the 'average consumer' just getting into BD and used the Tiered list exactly for the purposes of making consumer decisions on what discs to buy next.


And at $30 a pop for current releases, these are things I contemplate out of budgetary necessity.


So, quite naturally, I've been focusing on the top Tiers 0 and 1 for purchases.


And so, it follows then, that the Studios would be influenced by the data posted here and following consumer 'trends' in what gets purchase more....the releases that get the good reviews for 'eye candy', 'pop, etc et al.


However, Cliff brings up some excellent points as well. And I would be disappointed if Studios withhold older releases out of fear of negative reviews or Tiered rankings.


To paraphrase what Cliff mentioned that if a Studio can issue/release a movie that is 'as faithful to the original' as possible - is that considered a 'bad thing' if the resultant PQ does not 'pop'?


Well, this gets sticky as the issue may straddle the differences between what is 'faithful to the original' vs what the director/cinemaphotagrapher had to settle for?


And this gets to the issue of what was *intended* by way of purposed art (soft shot for example), or was it gaff or mistake or a limitation of the technology of the time?


If the crew responsible for the restoration of a film knows the content, knows what the director was going for then that is artistic interpretation and something that I as a consumer would want to see preserved in BD.


If a shot looked soft, or grainy, or otherwise poor from a PQ standpoint and was something clearly not intended or desired by the director/cinemaphotagrapher - even though 'faithful to the original' - shouldn't it be 'restored'? (restored meaning that the original conditions leading to the master be corrected/compensated)


Don't you think there are instances on older films where the director had to settle and if given his 'druthers' he'd want to go back and fix them - not for a directorial/artistic standpoint - but just the look/quality of a shot?


I'm all about being faithful to the original and if a film is supposed to look a certain way because that is what the director was going for, or if that is what is characteristic of a certain medium - I'm down with that.


But if a Studio slaps a BD release together and is not caring in the remastering to clean things up that clearly need them - I may not elect to open my wallet to buy that release.


I do see Cliff's point though - it is a good one - wishing principally and exclusively on PQ "pop" and "wow" may mean not getting some of the older stuff released on BD out of fear of bad reviews.


Just stirring the pot,

Erik


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13635810
> 
> 
> Well said.
> 
> 
> When you consider the fact that the main criticism of this film is, without any question, the ending (as evidenced by numerous discussion threads etc.), it is obvious that the ending is controversial in terms of whether it worked or not.
> 
> *I'm in the "not" camp.*



Me too.


----------



## N200PF

*The Adventures of Baron Munchausen*


I am in NO WAY qualified to rate this BD and place it in the appropriate tier but I was VERY disappointed in this title!!! *dvdmike007* liked in based on his comments back on the 8th (Post #3970) and gave it a tier 1. Maybe it's bacuase I watched it back to back with a couple tier 0 titles.


The color was very well done but the noise was distracting thoughout.


Anyone else watch it yet on BD? I'd be interested to see the tier others place it in.


- Peter


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gail2magic* /forum/post/13628968
> 
> 
> Just watched this and would place it mid Tier2 below Bridge to Terabithia. There are parts of it that would be much higher. I was also very pleased with the audio. Am curious how others rank it. Am very new to trying to decide where to place films so am trying to be conservative in my review. I did not want my love of the movie to bias me by placing it too high.
> 
> 
> This is one that I am going to buy today when I return the rental. I thoroughly enjoyed it. I think this might become a classic family film.
> 
> 
> Gail
> 
> Sony Bravia 40 1080p
> 
> Sony Blu-Ray 300 with latest firmware upgrade
> 
> Sony Surround Sound System 5.1



I watched Water Horse Saturday night and agree with Gail's placement of somewhere in mid Tier 2. It's a decent straightforward non-demanding movie that would make an OK family flick, though for most people without small children probably a rental. I'd rate it about 3.5 on Netflix's 5 star scale.


Panasonic 50" 780p plasma, Panasonic 10a player at 8'


----------



## b_scott

780i?


----------



## alexg75

It's a new format,haven't you heard about it?

There is also the newest,highest definition format.......1720p!







I keed,I keed


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briansemerick* /forum/post/13636719
> 
> 
> 780i?



Hey, come on, I hadn't had my second cup of tea when I typed that.


----------



## aham23

just watched I ROBOT. wow! while i dont think it is the best movie and has a low repeat value i am sooo glad i picked it up. the PQ and sound, especially the sound, are most excellence. definetly a movie i will use to demo / showcase my setup. later.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *aham23* /forum/post/13641853
> 
> 
> just watched I ROBOT. wow! while i dont think it is the best movie and has a low repeat value i am sooo glad i picked it up. the PQ and sound, especially the sound, are most excellence. definetly a movie i will use to demo / showcase my setup. later.



I actually think I, Robot has a very good rewatchability factor.


Not as good as some others in that regard (like 300), but still pretty good.


----------



## lgans316

+1. I,Robot has solid replay value. IMO Michael Bay's movies have tremendous replay value.


----------



## aham23




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13641917
> 
> 
> I actually think I, Robot has a very good rewatchability factor.
> 
> 
> Not as good as some others in that regard (like 300), but still pretty good.



no harm in that.


funny thing is i am on like a will smith marathon. i am legend, i robot, bad boys 2. the fresh prince is solid movie star for sure. later.


----------



## lgans316

SuprSlow,

*Correction* : Next (Paramount - U.K Import) is DTS-HD HR @2Mbps and NOT DTS-HD MA.


----------



## eghill1125




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *aham23* /forum/post/13644518
> 
> 
> no harm in that.
> 
> 
> funny thing is i am on like a will smith marathon. i am legend, i robot, bad boys 2. the fresh prince is solid movie star for sure. later.



I am on that same loop now too. Recent selections in order, I robot, Independence Day, and I am Legend.


Also on a Rock loop. Gridiron Gang, The Rundown, and The Game Plan. Didn't even realize these things until you mentioned it.


----------



## cleeve

I know this has been on the list for a long time, but I think Corpse Bride, while still a Tier 0 title, should definitely be near the bottom of Tier 0.


I've noticed minimal banding in the night sky on a few occasions throughout the movie.


I think this alone at least warrants it to get lowered a few spots.


Anyone else notice this?


----------



## alexg75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/13639955
> 
> 
> Hey, come on, I hadn't had my second cup of tea when I typed that.



Just messing around.......


----------



## LBFilmGuy

What happened to Black Hawk Down!?


I watched it for the 2nd time last night, and I gotta say it should be at the very top of Tier 1 if not moved into Tier 0.


It's weird because I remember the first time I watched it was when I first got my PS3 and I did notice noise in the backgrounds on the dark scenes (the ones with the general when the soldiers are out fighting). Last night though, I saw NONE of it. It looked absolutely superb. I wonder what gives?


I've noticed it's not even ranked now.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

And it still bugs me that all of the animated movies are ranked in the Tiers...I thiink they should have their own separate Tier where they compete against each other (even though they are all just about equal in superb PQ).


What do you guys think?


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/13647916
> 
> 
> What happened to Black Hawk Down!?
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> I've noticed it's not even ranked now.



BHD is in the lower third of Tier 1, just above Shooter.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Aliens Vs. Predator - Requiem*


Tier Recommendation: *Tier 0*


Fox has provided Blu-ray with yet another reference live-action movie transfer. I watched the unrated cut which runs 100 minutes. It is encoded in AVC on a BD-50 with bitrates that range over the course of the movie from 25 to 40 Mbps. The highest personal peak I saw was 42.7 Mbps on the meter. Every single moment of this BD has a wonderfully consistent picture quality, never leaving Tier 0 quality.


World class black levels run throughout the feature, which is important for this movie as much of it takes place in dark environments. Watching this BD in a completely darkened room is a must to get the full scope of this movie. There is no DNR, no edge enhancement, no compression noise or artifacts found anywhere in this transfer. It is simply a flawless encode off a brand new clean master. Shadow detail and low level light detail are phenomenal, showing off the great creature work with the Predator and Aliens. Faces on close-ups are razor sharp and there isn't a "soft" shot in the entire movie.


I might have to watch it again to make a final determination but this is my new live action reference for Blu-ray. It's hard to compare with something like I, Robot or POTC:AWE which take place in a much brighter setting, but the only thing I believe that clearly bests AVP - Requiem in HD are the direct digital tranfers of Cars and Ratatouille on Blu-ray.


Watching on a calibrated 60" Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 from a PS3 updated to firmware 2.30 over HDMI. My typical viewing distance is five to six feet.


----------



## stumlad

Waiting to read some reviews on 6th day... Anyone have this title and plan on reviewing soon? I know there are some "professional" reviews, but waiting to see what some of you guys think .


----------



## HD-Gaming

Assassination of Jesse James......what tier is this?


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Upper half of Tier 3.


----------



## tleavit

Wow... I just watched Die Hard in DTS Master HD 5.1 and I am utterly amazed at how good it sounds. Way to go Sony!


----------



## alexg75

I just saw Hitman today and pretty much agree with the general consensus of the PQ.There is a lot of inconsistency between scenes and shots in regards to color and detail.

This seems to be part of the "look" that the filmakers were going for and wholely intentional.Some of the location shots look great,but interior scenes are a mixed bag.

I honestly don't believe that the transfer to Blu-Ray is the culprit for the inconsistencies in the PQ.


----------



## alexg75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tleavit* /forum/post/13652099
> 
> 
> Wow... I just watched Die Hard in DTS Master HD 5.1 and I am utterly amazed at how good it sounds. Way to go Sony!



Picture Quality Tier Thread..........................


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Michael Clayton*


Hello, detail, where are you? Hello?


Nothing special going on here. High Tier 3 is my vote (it's currently near the bottom of Tier 2).


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13652121
> 
> *Michael Clayton*
> 
> 
> Hello, detail, where are you? Hello?
> 
> 
> Nothing special going on here. High Tier 3 is my vote (it's currently near the bottom of Tier 2).



which totally contradicts with the below reviewer who gave slightly negative reviews for IAL and NCFOM.









http://avplay.avforums.com/index.php...tlereview=9245


----------



## alexg75

I just got Pearl Harbor over the weekend and was very impressed with the PQ.I have both DVD versions of it and I have seen this movie many times,so I'm pretty familiar with it's intended "look" and style.

The BR PQ holds up very well as everything to my eyes looks right and completley faithful to what was intended by Michael Bay.

There is a slight softness that IS intentional and of course there is film grain for texture.

The colors and fleshtones in particular look natural and balanced and sharpness and detail is spot on.

I noticed that Pearl Harbor currently sits in Mid Tier 2 and I'm quite sure why,but for me it is a Tier 1 title.

Perhaps it's the grain? Or because it an,OMG! an MPEG-2 title?

Or perhaps not enough individuals have seen it.

But this is a quality presentation and one of the better BR's I have seen thus far.


----------



## lgans316

+1. I have always been vocal about Pearl Harbor as it deserves to be in at least bottom of Tier-1.


----------



## dspin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/13649188
> 
> 
> Waiting to read some reviews on 6th day... Anyone have this title and plan on reviewing soon? I know there are some "professional" reviews, but waiting to see what some of you guys think .




\\Just watched it a couple days ago.. In my opinion, 3/4 of the movie looks great. Not an I Robot, but still pretty good. Other parts of it, mainly faces can go from sharp to not. Colors of fleshtones also vary, especially faces. All in all I felt it was worth the upgrade, but I'm an Arnie fan and will replace every standard dvd for a blu.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/13648971
> 
> 
> BHD is in the lower third of Tier 1, just above Shooter.



Way too low IMO


----------



## alexg75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13652296
> 
> 
> +1. I have always been vocal about Pearl Harbor as it deserves to be in at least bottom of Tier-1.



I'll go for that as well,anyone else?


----------



## lgans316

Michael Bay likes Blu-ray. So Pearl Harbor can be in bottom of Tier-1.







Anyways PH is definitely bottom Tier-1 material.

*I,Robot*


2 words : Dynamite Image. Tier-0 PQ but I still found equal number of HD pop in IAL and NCFOM though these ones were slightly noisier in certain difficult shots.


Just received Beowulf - Blu-ray. Will skim through and post my first impressions soon.


----------



## lgans316

*Beowulf - Warner Blu-ray | VC-1 | Dolby True HD 16-bit*


Easy reference material. Looks stunning and easily rivals Ratatouille / Cars at many spots but ultimately fails to become jaw dropping. The animated characters looked awesome and showed technical perfection but owing to shooting of many scenes under very low lighting conditions took away the consistent 3D pop. Banding is noticeable in couple of scenes.


The HD DVD version released by Paramount is AVC encoded at 21 Mbps AVBR. It's a shame on Warner for encoding the overseas HD DVD/Blu-ray at a very low bit rate. The bir rate hovered between 5 ~ 24 Mbps. I am not sure how much details would have been compromised but it's a shame that Warner couldn't create a higher bit rate encode.


The volume levels were way too low forcing me to increase the sound levels by 5-6 db. I now highly suspect the HDD review on the audio front though I don't have an AVR capable of decoding the modern codecs.










Despite the above mentioned minor deficiencies I am recommending this one for Tier-0 placement above TMNT assuming that the encoded bit rate was sufficient.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13653117
> 
> *Beowulf - Warner Blu-ray | VC-1 | Dolby True HD 16-bit*
> 
> 
> Easy reference material. Looks stunning and easily rivals Ratatouille / Cars at many spots but ultimately fails to become jaw dropping. The animated characters looked awesome and showed technical perfection but owing to shooting of many scenes under very low lighting conditions took away the consistent 3D pop. Banding is noticeable in couple of scenes.
> 
> 
> The HD DVD version released by Paramount is AVC encoded at 21 Mbps AVBR. It's a shame on Warner for encoding the overseas HD DVD/Blu-ray at a very low bit rate. The bir rate hovered between 5 ~ 24 Mbps. I am not sure how much details would have been compromised but it's a shame that Warner couldn't create a higher bit rate encode.
> 
> 
> The volume levels were way too low forcing me to increase the sound levels by 5-6 db. I now highly suspect the HDD review on the audio front though I don't have an AVR capable of deciding the modern codecs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Despite the above mentioned minor deficiencies I am recommending this one for Tier-0 placement above TMNT assuming that the encoded bit rate was sufficient.



I watched only the first half hour of a borrowed copy, now returned, so I may not be permitted to have an opinion, but what I saw was very different from the above description, except for the very low bitrate part. Definitely not Tier 0, or even Tier 1, for me. The typical Warner softness was amply present.


----------



## kraemer

What about frame rate?


Shouldn't the frame rate info be posted along with the other title specs? Titles with 30 or 60 frames per second are going to have a lot more temporal resolution than 24 FPS titles.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13653432
> 
> 
> I watched only the first half hour of a borrowed copy, now returned, so I may not be permitted to have an opinion, but what I saw was very different from the above description, except for the very low bitrate part. Definitely not Tier 0, or even Tier 1, for me. The typical Warner softness was amply present.



The point I am indirectly trying to convey is if TMNT deserves to be in Tier-0 then Beowulf which looked better than TMNT to my eyes deserves to be on top on that.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13654041
> 
> 
> The point I am indirectly trying to convey is if TMNT deserves to be in Tier-0 then Beowulf which looked better than TMNT to my eyes deserves to be on top on that.



I haven't seen TMNT.


----------



## lgans316

Please do that first and let us know your thoughts. I am sure you will not recommend it any higher than Tier-2.


----------



## DavidHir




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13652121
> 
> *Michael Clayton*
> 
> 
> Hello, detail, where are you? Hello?
> 
> 
> Nothing special going on here. High Tier 3 is my vote (it's currently near the bottom of Tier 2).



I agree - I always thought Tier 2 was too high for it.


----------



## DavidHir

I watched *The Devil's Rejects* recently. I'm really surprised this is in Tier 4. Yes, it has an intentionally grainy look (similar to 300), but it has good sharpness and detail. The color and contrast come out well too making this a very filmlike presentation. I'm calling for this to get moved to at least low Tier 2.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13654221
> 
> 
> Please do that first and let us know your thoughts. I am sure you will not recommend it any higher than Tier-2.



I have absolutely no interest in watching TMNT.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13654418
> 
> 
> I have absolutely no interest in watching TMNT.



Aw c'mon. They're turtles, that are ninjas! They mutated. And on top of all that they're teenagers so they argue with each other a lot!










Anyway I watched *Predator* last night and I'm having a hard time recommending where to place it. As was known before it can have extremely heavy grain at times and none at other times. It's got lush jungle environments but it exhibits none of the vibrancy of Tears of the Sun or Rescue Dawn, which are shot in similar environments. Even the extreme facial closeups are very very soft. I want to recommend it for Tier 3 but I feel like I may be going a little easy on it because it's one of my favorites, so I welcome other opinions for feedback.


Brandon


----------



## xombi

I viewed avp: requiem last night and while I do agree the pic is very sharp, the film itself is just too damn dark, almost to the point of un-watchable. The daytime scenes also seem blown out with contrast...maybe tier 1. Oh, by the way, house of 1000 corpses should be tier 0, very crisp and sharp.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13654579
> 
> 
> Aw c'mon. They're turtles, that are ninjas! They mutated. And on top of all that they're teenagers so they argue with each other a lot!



The reason I'm not interested is that it's animation. If it were live action, with the same subject matter, I might be interested.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Is anyone else with me in moving BHD up to at least the top of Tier 1?


----------



## alexg75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13654895
> 
> 
> The reason I'm not interested is that it's animation. If it were live action, with the same subject matter, I might be interested.



Well it was already done......1990's Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles from New Line Cinema.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *alexg75* /forum/post/13657282
> 
> 
> Well it was already done......1990's Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles from New Line Cinema.



But that's not the one that I've been instructed to watch.


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/13657214
> 
> 
> Is anyone else with me in moving BHD up to at least the top of Tier 1?



Given what I've seen and remember, I would agree.


But I will add the disclaimer that I've only watched parts of it, and that was a long time ago


----------



## Wryker

Anyone have a PS3, the Denon 2808, and the BD Movie Rush Hour 3? I ask since it says 7.1 DT-MA and it 'shows' as being that when playing it however on the Denon it only shows it as 5.1 coming through. The strange part is the studio intro at the beginning of the disc and all extras in 7.1 PLAY as 7.1 on my receiver - it's just the 'movie'. I played with every setting on the PS3 and Denon but nothing changed - anyone else?


----------



## Joe Bloggs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kraemer* /forum/post/13653922
> 
> What about frame rate?
> 
> 
> Shouldn't the frame rate info be posted along with the other title specs? Titles with 30 or 60 frames per second are going to have a lot more temporal resolution than 24 FPS titles.



Well over 95% of them will all be 24fps, and I doubt any are 60 _frames_ per second at full HD res.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joe Bloggs* /forum/post/13659683
> 
> 
> Well over 95% of them will all be 24fps, and I doubt any are 60 _frames_ per second at full HD res.



Exactly.


----------



## ballen420




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/13657214
> 
> 
> Is anyone else with me in moving BHD up to at least the top of Tier 1?



I disagree. I loved the movie, thought it was an excellent transfer and absolutely worthy of being in tier 1, though I don't think it should be moved to the top.


Judging by the movies I've seen that are ranked closely, I would almost argue that it belongs below Kingdom of Heaven. I think mid to low tier 1 is where it belongs, and that is not taking anything away from the movie, but ranking it based on the placement of other movies in the tier.


----------



## lgans316

BHD is a solid middle of the pack Tier-1 title and pushing it to Tier-2 is like sentimentally hurting the BLU community who are used to instantly quoting BHD as demo disc to show off Blu-ray's capability.


----------



## ballen420




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13663313
> 
> 
> BHD is a solid middle of the pack Tier-1 title and pushing it to Tier-2 is like sentimentally hurting the BLU community who are used to instantly quoting BHD as demo disc to show off Blu-ray's capability.



I'm not sure who said to put it in tier 2. I was agreeing with it's current placement, and only made a comparison to KOH which is a few places down. IMO I think it should stay where it is, and KOH should move up a few spots.


I don't think BHD deserves to be at the top though with the likes of Apocalypto, Casino Royal, and NCFOM. I think when BHD was initially released it was reference material, but as new movies are released, and the bar gets raised, it gets pushed down a couple notches. Evolution.


This is only my personal opinion though.


----------



## General Kenobi

Just watched AVPR and the crushed blacks are so bad they are distracting. Bottom of tier 3 or somewhere in tier 4 IMO.


Pany BD10 - Sony 52" XBR3 @8'


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *General Kenobi* /forum/post/13664018
> 
> 
> Just watched AVPR and the crushed blacks are so bad they are distracting. Bottom of tier 3 or somewhere in tier 4 IMO.
> 
> 
> Pany BD10 - Sony 52" XBR3 @8'



So we have a vote for Tier 0 and a vote for Tier 4










Brandon


----------



## Topweasel




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13664169
> 
> 
> So we have a vote for Tier 0 and a vote for Tier 4
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brandon



I would personally vote Low tier 1 or high tier 2. Detail is their in the first half theirs lots of pop. Second Half the detail is there just the dark scenery removes the pop, for people complaining on crush they need to make sure they are watching it in an unlit or low lit room.


----------



## bplewis24

I watched Glory Road last night. I'm not sure if I was more disappointed in the movie or the PQ. But still I think it could be a little higher than bottom of Tier 3. I think bottom of Tier 2 is more appropriate.


Brandon


----------



## SuprSlow

Sorry for not updating, guys.







It's been a hectic week.


I'll be working on it tomorrow afternoon and tomorrow night, more than likely.


Thanks for your patience


----------



## kraemer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joe Bloggs* /forum/post/13659683
> 
> 
> Well over 95% of them will all be 24fps, and I doubt any are 60 _frames_ per second at full HD res.



With Red one in full production, and two more on the way, I don't believe that will be the case much longer....

http://www.red.com/


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kraemer* /forum/post/13665834
> 
> 
> With Red one in full production, and two more on the way, I don't believe that will be the case much longer....
> 
> http://www.red.com/



I hope you are right....but I doubt it. I think it will be many years before any serious dent is made in the use of film.


----------



## alexg75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13657768
> 
> 
> But that's not the one that I've been instructed to watch.



Double Feature?


----------



## Joe Bloggs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joe Bloggs* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Well over 95% of them will all be 24fps, and I doubt any are 60 frames per second at full HD res.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kraemer* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> With Red one in full production, and two more on the way, I don't believe that will be the case much longer....
> 
> http://www.red.com/



What I meant was that the current Blu-ray specs don't allow Full HD (1920x1080) 60 _frames_ per second encoded video to be played back, even though some cameras (like the Red) may allow it to be recorded at that res and rate.


So on blu-ray you could have:

[email protected] or 60i (I suppose this would include stuff recorded at 30p)

or

[email protected] or 25p


You might be able to get 60p but it would be at a lower resolution I think (something like 1280x720?)


So unless they change the specs (for example to include James Cameron's wanted [email protected] or other resolutions & frame rates) I think these are what we will be limited to (unless individual Blu-ray player manufacturers decide by themselves to also allow decoding of content that isn't in the Blu-ray specs (eg. [email protected] or [email protected] etc.)


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joe Bloggs* /forum/post/13666273
> 
> 
> What I meant was that the current Blu-ray specs don't allow Full HD (1920x1080) 60 _frames_ per second encoded video to be played back, even though some cameras (like the Red) may allow it to be recorded at that res and rate.



How practical would it be to put it in the specs when the overwhelming majority of the content is natively 24fps? What content is out there at 60 frames per second?


Brandon


----------



## Joe Bloggs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13666708
> 
> 
> How practical would it be to put it in the specs when the overwhelming majority of the content is natively 24fps? What content is out there at 60 frames per second?
> 
> 
> Brandon



Well, remembering that it can't be 60fps on the disc yet...

Documentaries (Planet Earth filmed partly in 50i, Nature's Journey (60i?), the HDScape documentary titles are mostly filmed with high field rate interlaced cameras - had they had access to 60p full HD cameras I'm sure they could have used those instead), concerts, music events, etc. (anything filmed with the Red and similar cameras can have 60fps and higher at 2K, 3D films will want higher than normal frame rates (because of separate images for both eyes) - and James Cameron is working on those - he also wants 48p films, most UK TV shows are recorded at 50hz (some will be 25p but others 50i - maybe some 50p at full HD?? and if the players allowed it they could put 50p at full hd on the disc too). What about Imax and other films - don't they have higher frame rates too? As digital cinema gets installed into more theatres, this will allow more variation in the frame rates yet until those rates are put into Blu-ray we'll never see them at the rate they have been filmed, and it'll also stop new higher rate films being made if there's no way to put them on Blu-ray at the rate they intend making them at (eg. if a director wants to film all his films at 60p he probably won't if Blu-ray doesn't support this full HD rate).


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ballen420* /forum/post/13664004
> 
> 
> I'm not sure who said to put it in tier 2. I was agreeing with it's current placement, and only made a comparison to KOH which is a few places down. IMO I think it should stay where it is, and KOH should move up a few spots.
> 
> 
> I don't think BHD deserves to be at the top though with the likes of Apocalypto, Casino Royal, and NCFOM. I think when BHD was initially released it was reference material, but as new movies are released, and the bar gets raised, it gets pushed down a couple notches. Evolution.
> 
> 
> This is only my personal opinion though.



Ah man I dunno, like I said when I watched it the first time I did notice noise in the BG with the scenes of the general back at the base, but on the 2nd viewing I saw NONE of it...even during the night scenes toward the end. Strange.


I think it looks just as good if not better than CR and NCFOM


----------



## Zygon

Soft Tier 3


----------



## Jester36




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Topweasel* /forum/post/13664378
> 
> 
> I would personally vote Low tier 1 or high tier 2. Detail is their in the first half theirs lots of pop. Second Half the detail is there just the dark scenery removes the pop, for people complaining on crush they need to make sure they are watching it in an unlit or low lit room.



I completely concur: Low tier 1.


----------



## 357




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Zygon* /forum/post/13670455
> 
> 
> Soft Tier 3



I concur.


----------



## eghill1125

Agree with Juno. Great movie, poor BD.


----------



## kraemer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joe Bloggs* /forum/post/13666847
> 
> 
> Well, remembering that it can't be 60fps on the disc yet...



The only place I could find the frame rate spec was on wiki, which I dont take to be the final word on the spec...










It seems really odd to me that bluray doesnt support higher framerates since every HD set out there that does 1080p will refresh at 60hz. Its even more strange that they don't support 30hz. What the heck is with that?


----------



## SuprSlow

This week's releases:
*Juno* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Fox
*Aliens vs. Predator Requiem* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Fox
*Predator* Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Fox
*Before the Devil Knows You're Dead* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Image
*Mariah Carey: Adventures of Mimi* Video: ? | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.78:1 | Image
*A Passage to India: Collector's Edition* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 1.66:1 | Sony
*Commando* Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Fox


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *General Kenobi* /forum/post/13664018
> 
> 
> Just watched AVPR and the crushed blacks are so bad they are distracting. Bottom of tier 3 or somewhere in tier 4 IMO.
> 
> 
> Pany BD10 - Sony 52" XBR3 @8'



That low because of crushed blacks? Seems a little harsh. I'm going to have to rent this one.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*No Reservations*


A chick-flick that my wife made me rent since it is on Blu-ray.










The movie pretty much sucked, and the worst thing about it was the fact that the PQ sucked almost as bad!


Very soft, muddy, and lacking any kind of pop to the image. This is the first disc I have seen in a while that looks like a DVD.


Lower half of Tier 3 at best.


Damn, Warner, please stop giving us this _crap_.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

There is no black crush in AVP: Requiem at all. I would suggest to people seeing it to calibrate your tv(preferably ISFed but even a disc like DVE would help) and then watch this movie in a darkened room. Check to see if you can properly pass blacker than black data. I also am not sure how certain displays with inherently lower ability to display black levels(LCD) might be affecting their evaluation of the picture. This is a darkly lit movie but low light and shadow detail are excellent.


----------



## lrstevens421

^^For this user calibration may be the issue, the 52XBR3 renders good blacks and shadow detail.


----------



## bplewis24

FYI, the color for the text on Glory Road needs to be changed.


Brandon


----------



## MakubeX

Wow, I can't believe "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" is in Tier 1. That is absolutely and without a doubt Tier 0 material. I am no Harry Potter fan, I think the movie itself was just ok, but in terms of PQ is was definitely excellent.


----------



## lgans316

-1. IMO HP-5 is placed slightly high in Tier-1 as it exhibited several film artefacts in the form of macroblocking, banding and contained many soft focussed shots.


----------



## unclepauly

I believe the macroblocking was put there for artistic purposes and hence HP-5 shouldn't be penalized for it.


----------



## SuprSlow

I updated the thread last night, didn't get a chance to post the updated titles.


There are a few that I didn't have because I don't have an "entry" for it yet. If your tier suggestion wasn't included, that's why







I'll work on those a couple more things soon.


As a side note, I actually got to watch a Blu-ray last night


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *unclepauly* /forum/post/13679713
> 
> 
> I believe the macroblocking was put there for artistic purposes and hence HP-5 shouldn't be penalized for it.



lol...


Brandon


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I should received Harry Potter 5 via Netflix today, so it will be interesting to see considering the variance in opinions on that one.


----------



## grommet

I know it's being picky, but using the term "macroblocking" is honestly incorrect in almost all references here. Try using "blocking" or "blocking artifact." Since most pretend to be compression experts, let's try getting the terms correct.







Now, get those bitrate meters up, experts...


----------



## nick2010

I watched _Terminator 3: Rise of The Machines_ last night. The picture quality wasn't amazing, but it was considerably better than _T2: Judgement Day_. I would recommend T3 for somewhere in Tier 2.


(This was the fixed 1080p version)


----------



## Elbie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MakubeX* /forum/post/13678809
> 
> 
> Wow, I can't believe "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" is in Tier 1. That is absolutely and without a doubt Tier 0 material. I am no Harry Potter fan, I think the movie itself was just ok, but in terms of PQ is was definitely excellent.




I feel the same about Part 3 kind of. I think it should be higher. It looks better than the first two. I have yet to watch 4 and 5.


----------



## Joe Bloggs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *grommet* /forum/post/13680721
> 
> 
> I know it's being picky, but using the term "macroblocking" is honestly incorrect in almost all references here. Try using "blocking" or "blocking artifact." Since most pretend to be compression experts, let's try getting the terms correct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, get those bitrate meters up, experts...



So what's the difference between blocking and macroblocking? Aren't they both referring to macroblocks? Blocking can have lots of different meanings*, but with macroblocking it's more obvious what is meant. There's also microblocking










*Do a search for "blocking" on google and you'll get a lot less relevant results than searching for "macroblocking"


----------



## eastbaygreen

Have watched a bit over half of this and am quite impressed (I have a 5 month-old, so time is a bit limited).


As described above, most scenes are pretty dark, so the absolute 3-D effect doesn't take hold as much, but, nonetheless, the PQ was very good for this title.


Grendel was done very well. He actually did pop a bit as he was brightly colored and no detail was compromised. Great character, imo, along the lines of Gollum in LOTR.


There are times when I was thinking "this movie is all CG?" At the same time, I was thinking "and it looks this 'real' with this high PQ?". Meaning, the detail didn't make it seem 'fake'. Only the movements of the characters made it seem fake at times. Capturing the physics of human movement seems to be the holy grail of CG at the moment. Anyway, getting off topic.


Having a tough time deciding if this is definitely Tier0 or high Tier1. I tend to think more high Tier1 since there were a few less than 'crystal' moments in the first 1/2 of the movie than my experience of listed Tier0 titles. Though, this being a CG will mean that it is more thoroughly criticized, imo. Not totally fair since this isn't your typical 'bright and shiny' CG.

I'll go with high Tier1...but don't think a low Tier0 is out of the question.


PS3 - Onkyo 805 via hdmi - Pioneer Elite 50" - 12-15' viewing distance, but checked it out from approx. 6' for a bit as well.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *eastbaygreen* /forum/post/13686389
> 
> I'll go with high Tier1...but don't think a low Tier0 is out of the question.
> 
> 
> PS3 - Onkyo 805 via hdmi - Pioneer Elite 50" - 12-15' viewing distance, but checked it out from approx. 6' for a bit as well.



So is this disc inferior to the HD DVD version? If I remember correctly Xylon was stating the HD DVD version was the best either format had to offer.


Brandon


----------



## gail2magic

I know that I am the super newest poster here but have a thought. I have been reading these posts for a very long time before I ever posted. Probably no one else gets confused....but sometimes I have no idea which movie a post is referring to. Am not sure if others that do not post here are also confused. The name of the movie is mentioned then lots of other posts then a reply that does not make it clear which one they are referring to.

Just a thought to consider........


----------



## stumlad

Wow this movie was bad. I mean, I wasn't expecting much, but I found Crank enjoyable so I figured that this would at least be as good as that, but I was really wrong. Aside from that, let's look at PQ:


I guess i can agree with low tier 0 rating... Overall sharp picture with good contrast and nothing to really complain about.


The next thing I wanted to discuss is the bit-rate of this movie. I have read some posts saying that this was so great because of the high bit rate, and I must disagree. There are bursts in this movie, but the general bit-rate stayed around the low 20s. It went down as low as 12 and went as high as 46, but on average it was in low 20's (note this is not THE average). With that said, when it was in low 20's it looked great. The higher bit rate was used for faster moving scenes, but even those had weird numbers. Sometimes they would be in the 30s, sometimes in the 20s. I even saw a case where the same scene jumped from 20 to 39 but the basic scenery did not change and the quality wasn't noticeable either.


Why was I watching the bit-rate? Well because the movie was so bad it gave me something else to do


----------



## Mark A Gonzalez

Does anyone know what tier Hitman would be rated? I saw the preview and I was going to buy it if the PQ was good.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I rewatched AVP: Requiem and can see where some people are coming from about this title. It's a darkly lit film and not really suitable for demo purposes compared to some other titles. My first opinion was the first time I had seen the film and that might have impacted my review. That being said I still think it's a virtually flawless encode and think the bottom of Tier 1 is too low for it.


There are scores of movies ranked currently above it in Tier 1 that have more artifacts and video noise and look much softer than AVP 2. There is not a soft shot in the entire movie.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13687327
> 
> 
> So is this disc inferior to the HD DVD version? If I remember correctly Xylon was stating the HD DVD version was the best either format had to offer.
> 
> 
> Brandon



Xylon reference rating was for the U.S HD DVD which was authored at a different place.


The Paramount HD DVD was AVC encoded at 21 Mbps AVBR. The Warner release is extremely bit starved and the bit rates hovers between 5 ~ 25 Mbps. The shameful and frustrating part is the extras are encoded at a slightly high bit rate than the actual feature film. The SQ ain't that great despite being lossless probably due to dial-norm and recording at very low level. The audio bit rate frequently dropped below 1.5 Mbps mark and touching 2.2 Mbps at spots. I had to turn up my receiver volume by 5~6 db to understand the dialogs.


My Tier-0 vote was based upon the placement of TMNT. If TMNT was in Tier-0 then Beowulf (Import) should be be placed above it. If TMNT was pushed to Tier-1 then Beowulf (Import) should also be pushed to Tier-1 above TMNT.


My sincere advice for stateside people is to wait for the Paramount release.


----------



## eastbaygreen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13687327
> 
> 
> So is this disc inferior to the HD DVD version? If I remember correctly Xylon was stating the HD DVD version was the best either format had to offer.
> 
> 
> Brandon



Well....just finished watching it...and I was even more impressed. So...since this is my first review, it's very possible I was trying to be a 'tough critic' or something.


I'll have to rewatch Ratatoullie, Corpse Bride and DieHard4 to compare. It may well be a solid reference PQ.



Don't have HD, so can't compare that...


----------



## lgans316

Re-watched 3:10 to Yuma. I think it should be placed in middle of Tier-1 just above Troy or above Identity. There are plenty of crystal clear and colorful scenes with tremendous HD pop. Very slight EE was noticeable in few spots but nothing intrusive. As the scenes were shot in different days the picture depth takes a slight hit. For example the opening outdoor scenes were shot in an extremely clear weather than the outdoor shots in the middle of the movie. The outdoor shots in the final sequences brings back the clarity and the depth to life as exhibited in the first few scenes. Night shots also held up pretty well with good deep blacks and shadow details without compression artefacts and no hints of bit rate starvation. Besides the color fringing LGF have done a tremendous job.


----------



## maverick0716

Just watched The Water Horse tonight........fantastic picture quality! I definitly disagree with it's current placement of mid-lower Tier 2. It should be in Tier 1 around The Brave One (at least) in my opinion. Detail was great, even in dark scenes. I didn't see any softness really, and also no compression of any kind. Excellent colour as well.


42" Panasonic Plasma (768p)

PS3 though HDMI

6-7 ft. viewing distance


----------



## shadowrage




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/13689358
> 
> 
> There are scores of movies ranked currently above it in Tier 1 that have more artifacts and video noise and look much softer than AVP 2. There is not a soft shot in the entire movie.



You guys should be blasting AVP2 for its piss-poor photography. There's no excuse for that. Use a freakin filter. You better be effin skilled if you do without. This guy, was not.


Movies with night time scenes and good photography:

No Country

30 Days of Night.

Jurassic Park.


It came off as amateurish. This film would have been 1.4 times more enjoyable with a good DP. It's been how many years since Alien and Predator debuted ? We know what they look like, we know they're dudes in suits. Show us the goods. Blacking everything out is a lazy way of dealing with a budget(that's not how you hide seams).


Tier 2(3)

The only thing the pic is good for is eye-strain.(Or is this Tier based solely on technical aspects? film-making should play a role in rankings)


I liked the film though. Awesome Sci-fi channel/B movie movie.


----------



## techwisenyc

Finally got around to seeing this title. I can definitely see why some were arguing for Tier 0 status on NCFOM. Very impressive PQ I must say with plenty of Tier 0 shots and blacks that do not succumb to any crush or compression issues. The contrast seemed a little above normal, but nothing to take away from this title.


I think this title is rank way too low. It definitely looks better than the Brave one and I would rank it above Black Hawk Down even. I love BHD, but despite it's amazing PQ, it does suffer from intentional grain and has out of focus shots. NCFOM had rarely anything. Honestly, to me it could be a Tier 0 title because it is very consistent and has enough POP to get there. Even Apocalypto had about the first 25 minutes be low Tier 1 material until it finally went Tier 0 all the way. Consistency is important.

Becoming Jane


This title was impressive as well, however Tier 0 I have to disagree with. There was a lot of out of focus shots in this movie and soft especially when Jane and john are meeting in the forest. There was a shot of the night sky and this had tremendous grain. I agree there was a lot of Tier 0 scenes, but also a lot of underwhelming scenes. I say High Tier 1.


Sometimes I don't understand how a movie can look Tier 0 to some and Tier 1 to others and then another Tier 0 to others and Tier 1 to me. Crazy.


----------



## lgans316

Well said. NCFOM is a borderline (Tier-0 vs Tier-1) title to me. Due to the video noise I had to vote for Tier-1 else it's easy Tier-0 material as it definitely had consistent HD pop.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13690714
> 
> 
> Well said. NCFOM is a borderline (Tier-0 vs Tier-1) title to me. Due to the video noise I had to vote for Tier-1 else it's easy Tier-0 material as it definitely had consistent HD pop.



Yeah, I am very curious as to why it got moved down so low in Tier 1


On the other hand I am glad to see Black Hawk Down moved toward the top of Tier 1


----------



## gail2magic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/13690465
> 
> 
> Just watched The Water Horse tonight........fantastic picture quality! I definitly disagree with it's current placement of mid-lower Tier 2. It should be in Tier 1 around The Brave One (at least) in my opinion. Detail was great, even in dark scenes. I didn't see any softness really, and also no compression of any kind. Excellent colour as well.
> 
> 
> 42" Panasonic Plasma (768p)
> 
> PS3 though HDMI
> 
> 6-7 ft. viewing distance



The Water Horse: Legends of the Deep


The copy I ordered arrived so I rewatched it. I watched it on my larger HD tv and agree..the quality is much better than I first reported. I also thought the audio was amazing. I was afraid that I had suggested it too low. It has to be one of my favorite movies this year but I am a child at heart


----------



## alexg75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13690168
> 
> 
> Re-watched 3:10 to Yuma. I think it should be placed in middle of Tier-1 just above Troy or above Identity. There are plenty of crystal clear and colorful scenes with tremendous HD pop. Very slight EE was noticeable in few spots but nothing intrusive. As the scenes were shot in different days the picture depth takes a slight hit. For example the opening outdoor scenes were shot in an extremely clear weather than the outdoor shots in the middle of the movie. The outdoor shots in the final sequences brings back the clarity and the depth to life as exhibited in the first few scenes. Night shots also held up pretty well with good deep blacks and shadow details without compression artefacts and no hints of bit rate starvation. Besides the color fringing LGF have done a tremendous job.



Agree +1


----------



## SuprSlow

My delayed post-update post:


All placements through this post have been added. If I missed you, let me know.

*Harry Potter: Order of the Phoenix* - moved to Tier 1 above Troy

*Troy* - moved down a few spots

*Good Luck Chuck* - moved to top of Tier 2

*Doctor Strange* - mid Tier 3 near Memento & Van Wilder

*Underworld* - moved to mid Tier 1

*Black Hawk Down* - moved to high Tier 1

*Visions of the Sea* - moved to upper Tier 2

*Unbreakable* - moved to low Tier 3

*No Country for Old Men* - moved to lower Tier 1

*Assassination of Jesse James* - moved to low Tier 2

*Vengeance of the Zombies* - moved to top 1/4 of Tier 1

*Adventures of Baron Munchausen* - moved to Tier 1 above Underworld

*Sharkwater* - bot 1/3 Tier 3

*Replacement Killers* - moved to Tier 2 below Superbad

*The Devil's Rejects* - moved to low Tier 2

*Walk Hard* - moved to high Tier 2

*War* - moved to top of Tier 2

*Alvin & the Chipmunks* - bot 1/3 Tier 1

*We Own the Night* - moved to bot Tier 3

*Category 7* - low Tier 2

*Next* - Tier 2, below War

*Elton 60* - Tier 0

*Water Horse* - Mid 2, near Bridge

*I Am Legend* - moved up a few spots in Tier 1

*Deliverance* - bottom Tier 3

*Corpse Bride* - lowered in Tier 0

*AVP: Requiem* - placed in lower Tier 1 for now

*Michael Clayton* - high Tier 3

*Pearl Harbor* - moved to bottom Tier 1

*Beowulf* - TBD

*House of 1000 Corpses* - Tier 0

*Glory Road* - moved to bottom Tier 2

*Juno* - mid Tier 3


----------



## b_scott

disappointing about Juno







but it's not a masterful movie anyway, visually.


----------



## Zygon

Ice Age Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Fox



Mine says *AVC* not mpeg-2


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/13695338
> 
> 
> My delayed post-update post:
> 
> *Vengeance of the Zombies* - moved to top 1/4 of Tier 1



Excellent work SuprSlow but I think you missed this in the update. It's still showing in the unranked list. I believe the original recommendation was top quarter of Tier 4 for this title. If people saw this title in Tier 1, I think the whole list's credibility would be called into question.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Thanks Super...can we move NCFOM back up to the top of tier 1 though? I'm still not sure why it was moved so low


----------



## techwisenyc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/13697777
> 
> 
> Thanks Super...can we move NCFOM back up to the top of tier 1 though? I'm still not sure why it was moved so low



+1....I totally agree. I should at least be on the Top of Tier 1.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I'm assuming that NCFOM was moved lower in Tier 1 because there were enough people (including myself) who don't think it belongs at the top of Tier 1?


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Anyone taken a look at Before the Devil Knows You're Dead?


It got a great PQ review from highdefdigest...

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1297...youredead.html 


It's a pretty damn good movie too, would definitely buy it if this review is accurate in terms of PQ


----------



## lrstevens421

Suprslow, thanks for moving "Order of the Phoenix", more importantly thanks bumping "Troy" down a few notches







.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix*


What do we have here? A high bitrate title from Warner?










A _lossless_ soundtrack?










This is what Warner needs to start doing with all of their releases, because this title looked and sounded excellent!


Contrast was very good, with good depth and dimensionality. Detail was also good, though not as impressive as the very best titles. However, there were some scenes that would look stunning, worthy of Tier 0.


This is clearly a Tier 1 title overall, and the current (new) placement is close enough to where I would place it (I would probably put it below A Scanner Darkly).


Great job Warner, now keep it up!


----------



## lrstevens421

Thanks Rob, I thought it was just me. I was blown away by Order of the Phoenix, this one totally caught me totally off guard. I don't think it's in the same league as other Tier 0 titles (Man on Fire, I Robot) but it would be right at home at the top of tier 1.


----------



## techwisenyc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13697974
> 
> 
> I'm assuming that NCFOM was moved lower in Tier 1 because there were enough people (including myself) who don't think it belongs at the top of Tier 1?



Totally disagree with it being low Tier 1. The Tier 0 pop scenes were so frequent on my display that it warrants a high ranking in that Tier.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13698142
> 
> *Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix*
> 
> 
> What do we have here? A high bitrate title from Warner?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A _lossless_ soundtrack?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what Warner needs to start doing with all of their releases, because this title looked and sounded excellent!
> 
> 
> Contrast was very good, with good depth and dimensionality. Detail was also good, though not as impressive as the very best titles. However, there were some scenes that would look stunning, worthy of Tier 0.
> 
> 
> This is clearly a Tier 1 title overall, and the current (new) placement is close enough to where I would place it (I would probably put it below A Scanner Darkly).
> 
> 
> Great job Warner, now keep it up!



I do agree with you here. HP 5 under Scanner Darkly is a good spot as it was not better than FF:R0TSS, Black Book, nor Lost Season 3; although some episodes in Lost were not Tier 1 totally, overall it is fine where it is placed.


----------



## grommet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joe Bloggs* /forum/post/13681841
> 
> 
> So what's the difference between blocking and macroblocking? Aren't they both referring to macroblocks? Blocking can have lots of different meanings*, but with macroblocking it's more obvious what is meant. There's also microblocking
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Do a search for "blocking" on google and you'll get a lot less relevant results than searching for "macroblocking"



Ok, let's just use "blocking artifacts", instead of the shorter "blocking", if you want clarity everytime.










You see, there are "macroblocks"... which is a technical term that refers to a 16 x 16 block of pixels addressed in video compression. A "macroblock" is not a problem and is not an artifact. There is no "macroblocking" unless it is in reference to chroma errors at the macroblock level.


So, if you want to play backseat compressionist... get the terms right.


----------



## umenon

Watched this with the wife last weekend. Overall very soft. Clean ... but soft.


I rate it a Tier 4.


----------



## umenon

High School Musical 2


Colors looked too vibrant ... bordering artificial. Blown out highlights on most outdoor scenes. E.g. Sky was noisy/grainy. White outfits were also overblown. Overall, colors popped. Again, a bit too exaggerated.


Rated: Tier 3


----------



## lgans316

*Face/Off (Import) Video: MPEG-4 AVC | Audio: PCM 16-bit | AR: 2.35:1 | BVHE Touchstone*

*The Good*


Good contrast and value sharpness

Excellent black levels and shadow detailing

Good image depth in outdoor scenes

Film like image quality

*The Bad*


Dirts / Speckles flashes at few spots









Highly inconsistent film grain structure









*The Ugly*


Edge Enhancement










Recommendation : Bottom of Tier-2


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13698738
> 
> *Face/Off (Import) Video: MPEG-4 AVC | Audio: PCM 16-bit | AR: 2.35:1 | BVHE Touchstone*
> 
> *The Good*
> 
> 
> Good contrast and value sharpness
> 
> Excellent black levels and shadow detailing
> 
> Good image depth in outdoor scenes
> 
> Film like image quality
> 
> *The Bad*
> 
> 
> Dirts / Speckles flashes at few spots
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Highly inconsistent film grain structure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Ugly*
> 
> 
> Edge Enhancement
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Recommendation : Bottom of Tier-2



damn, that's dissapointing


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/13697488
> 
> 
> Excellent work SuprSlow but I think you missed this in the update. It's still showing in the unranked list. I believe the original recommendation was top quarter of Tier 4 for this title. If people saw this title in Tier 1, I think the whole list's credibility would be called into question.



I think Night of the Werewolf got dropped into that Tier 1 place instead of Vengeance of the Zombies - which is even more crazy! Granted I have not seen either of these yet, but it just does not seem possible that either belong there...


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briansemerick* /forum/post/13695677
> 
> 
> disappointing about Juno
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but it's not a masterful movie anyway, visually.



I really didn't expect an independent film to have great picture quality.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/13699256
> 
> 
> I really didn't expect an independent film to have great picture quality.



yeah, the DP wasn't very good


it was shot in 35 too, what a shame


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13697974
> 
> 
> I'm assuming that NCFOM was moved lower in Tier 1 because there were enough people (including myself) who don't think it belongs at the top of Tier 1?



I would think the sky noise alone is sufficient explanation. . .


----------



## lgans316

So NCFOM looked inferior to these titles ?

*The Fifth Element (Remastered) Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Sony*

Hellboy Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | European Release) | AR: 1.85:1 | Sony

Happy Feet Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD EX | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner
*The Patriot Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony*
*The Rock Video: ? | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Buena Vista*
*Mr and Mrs Smith Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Fox*

Battle of The Bulge Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 2.76:1 | Warner

The Ant Bully Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 1.85:1 | Warner

A Scanner Darkly Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 1.85:1 | warner

Identity Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony
*Curse of the Golden Flower Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Sony*
*Troy (Director's Cut) Video: VC-1 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner*
*The Adventures of Baron Munchausen: 20th Anniversary Edition Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 1.85:1 | Sony*

The Polar Express Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD5.1 | AR: 2.35:1 | Warner

300 Video: VC-1 | Audio: PCM / TrueHD | AR: 2.35:1 | Warner
*Remember the Titans Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Buena Vista*
*Shooter Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: DD | AR: 2.40:1 | Paramount*

The Prestige Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Buena Vista

Blade Runner Video: VC-1 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner
*Alvin and the Chipmunks Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Fox*
*The Brave One Video: VC-1 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner*
*Pan's Labyrinth Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 (Spanish) | AR: 1.85:1 | New Line*

Santa Clause 3: The Escape ClauseVideo: VC-1 | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.85:1 | Buena Vista
*Disturbia Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DTS | AR: 1.85:1 | Paramount*
*Tears of the Sun Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony*

Stomp the Yard Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM / TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony


----------



## HD-Gaming




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/13695338
> 
> 
> *Assassination of Jesse James* - moved to low Tier 2






for the complaints I heard about this movie, I'm surprised it's that high


----------



## SuprSlow

Can we reach some sort of agreement on 'No Country'? Would a couple spots higher in Tier 1 be satisfactory? I haven't seen the BD myself, so where I place it is strictly from what you guys post.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Zygon* /forum/post/13696024
> 
> 
> Ice Age Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Fox
> 
> 
> Mine says *AVC* not mpeg-2



Fixed. Any tier recommendation for this one?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/13697488
> 
> 
> Excellent work SuprSlow but I think you missed this in the update. It's still showing in the unranked list. I believe the original recommendation was top quarter of Tier 4 for this title. If people saw this title in Tier 1, I think the whole list's credibility would be called into question.



That's not THAT big of a difference is it?


















> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/13698884
> 
> 
> I think Night of the Werewolf got dropped into that Tier 1 place instead of Vengeance of the Zombies - which is even more crazy! Granted I have not seen either of these yet, but it just does not seem possible that either belong there...



Good catch...


I dropped Zombies into Tier 4, and moved Werewolf back into the unranked list.


I searched, but didn't see a recommendation for Werewolf. If I missed it, let me know


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/13700796
> 
> 
> Can we reach some sort of agreement on 'No Country'? Would a couple spots higher in Tier 1 be satisfactory? I haven't seen the BD myself, so where I place it is strictly from what you guys post.



I doubt we'll reach an agreement on it. IMO it's way out of wack to have it lower than I am Legend, which shouldn't be so high. But it looks like I'm in the minority on that one. Old Men should be at least 10 spots above it, if not more.


Brandon


----------



## techwisenyc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13699468
> 
> 
> So NCFOM looked inferior to these titles ?
> 
> *The Fifth Element (Remastered) Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Sony*
> 
> Hellboy Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | European Release) | AR: 1.85:1 | Sony
> 
> Happy Feet Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD EX | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner
> *The Patriot Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony*
> *The Rock Video: ? | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Buena Vista*
> *Mr and Mrs Smith Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Fox*
> 
> Battle of The Bulge Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 2.76:1 | Warner
> 
> The Ant Bully Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 1.85:1 | Warner
> 
> A Scanner Darkly Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 1.85:1 | warner
> 
> Identity Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony
> *Curse of the Golden Flower Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Sony*
> *Troy (Director's Cut) Video: VC-1 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner*
> *The Adventures of Baron Munchausen: 20th Anniversary Edition Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 1.85:1 | Sony*
> 
> The Polar Express Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD5.1 | AR: 2.35:1 | Warner
> 
> 300 Video: VC-1 | Audio: PCM / TrueHD | AR: 2.35:1 | Warner
> *Remember the Titans Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Buena Vista*
> *Shooter Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: DD | AR: 2.40:1 | Paramount*
> 
> The Prestige Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Buena Vista
> 
> Blade Runner Video: VC-1 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner
> *Alvin and the Chipmunks Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Fox*
> *The Brave One Video: VC-1 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner*
> *Pan's Labyrinth Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 (Spanish) | AR: 1.85:1 | New Line*
> 
> Santa Clause 3: The Escape ClauseVideo: VC-1 | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.85:1 | Buena Vista
> *Disturbia Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DTS | AR: 1.85:1 | Paramount*
> *Tears of the Sun Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony*
> 
> Stomp the Yard Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM / TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony



Agreed. Now I haven't watched all those titles, but NCFOM has 3D pop going for large part of the film and has good blacks to go along with it. I don't think 300, Shooter, Pan's Labryinth(DNR killed it), nor The Prestige looks better. Even LOST looks horrible at times with the intent of grain on the episodes were Jack is captured by the others.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13700988
> 
> 
> I doubt we'll reach an agreement on it. IMO it's way out of wack to have it lower than I am Legend, which shouldn't be so high. But it looks like I'm in the minority on that one. Old Men should be at least 10 spots above it, if not more.
> 
> 
> Brandon



Well we are in the minority together here along with igans316


----------



## Rob Tomlin

SuprSlow, you missed my review for No Reservations (currently unranked). I recommend lower Tier 3.


Dude, get your **** together man!


----------



## fiddlesticks

I watched *Man on Fire* last night - probably the best looking live-action film I've seen yet in HD, save for maybe King Kong. The detail is stunning.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fiddlesticks* /forum/post/13701595
> 
> 
> I watched *Man on Fire* last night - probably the best looking live-action film I've seen yet in HD, save for maybe King Kong. The detail is stunning.



Same here...amazing stuff.


----------



## umenon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *egy971* /forum/post/10838826
> 
> 
> Bridge to Terabithia looks really good. Definitely a high tier 2.



I watched this past weekend. The quality is way up on Tier 2 .. borderline Tier 1.


----------



## ballen420




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13700988
> 
> 
> I doubt we'll reach an agreement on it. IMO it's way out of wack to have it lower than I am Legend, which shouldn't be so high. But it looks like I'm in the minority on that one. Old Men should be at least 10 spots above it, if not more.
> 
> 
> Brandon



Compeltely agree on this one. IMO the PQ of NCFOM was much better then IAL (if only I had an abbreviation for 'was much better').


I think NCFOM belongs near the top of Tier 1, while IAL belongs in the bottom 3rd.


----------



## mr stroke

Mariah Carey: Adventures of Mimi


upper Tier 2.

Looks really good in some spots(close ups) and bad in others(some wierd lines running through the screen in darker stage shots)...about on par with a concert on HDNET. PCM 5.1 audio kicks ass though










Panny 58'

768

Sony [email protected]

7-8 feet


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *umenon* /forum/post/13703589
> 
> 
> I watched this past weekend. The quality is way up on Tier 2 .. borderline Tier 1.



That was the first movie I watched with my new TV about 8 months ago. It was definitely very good PQ.


Brandon


----------



## AustinSTI

Sorry I haven't been commenting much. Things have been hectic lately; job search, baby on the way and work. Fun stuff...Anyway once I get a new job I'll be posting more. My job doesn't let me access AVS right now...boo to that


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/13705741
> 
> 
> Sorry I haven't been commenting much. Things have been hectic lately; job search, baby on the way and work. Fun stuff...Anyway once I get a new job I'll be posting more. *My job doesn't let me access AVS right now...boo to that*



No wonder you're looking for a new job.


----------



## lgans316

Another member hit by the financial crisis ? Why don't you guys pay your mortgage debts on time ?


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow*
> 
> 
> Can we reach some sort of agreement on 'No Country'? Would a couple spots higher in Tier 1 be satisfactory? I haven't seen the BD myself, so where I place it is strictly from what you guys post.



SuprSlow,


A bunch of us want NCFOM to be placed in the top 10 spots in Tier-1 above IAL. Another bunch wants it to be pushed to bottom of Tier-1. To satisfy both bunch please place it in the middle of Tier-1 but definitely above these titles


The Fifth Element (Remastered) Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Sony

Hellboy Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | European Release) | AR: 1.85:1 | Sony

Happy Feet Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD EX | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner

The Patriot Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony

The Rock Video: ? | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Buena Vista

Mr and Mrs Smith Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Fox

Battle of The Bulge Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 2.76:1 | Warner

The Ant Bully Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 1.85:1 | Warner

A Scanner Darkly Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 1.85:1 | warner

Identity Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony

Curse of the Golden Flower Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Sony

Troy (Director's Cut) Video: VC-1 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner

The Adventures of Baron Munchausen: 20th Anniversary Edition Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 1.85:1 | Sony

The Polar Express Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD5.1 | AR: 2.35:1 | Warner

300 Video: VC-1 | Audio: PCM / TrueHD | AR: 2.35:1 | Warner

Remember the Titans Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Buena Vista

Shooter Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: DD | AR: 2.40:1 | Paramount

The Prestige Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Buena Vista

Blade Runner Video: VC-1 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner

Alvin and the Chipmunks Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Fox

The Brave One Video: VC-1 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner

Pan's Labyrinth Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 (Spanish) | AR: 1.85:1 | New Line

Santa Clause 3: The Escape ClauseVideo: VC-1 | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.85:1 | Buena Vista

Disturbia Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DTS | AR: 1.85:1 | Paramount

Tears of the Sun Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony

Stomp the Yard Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM / TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony


Compression noise is definitely there but only in the sky shots and few places that has nothing to do with eye candy-ness or HD pop.


----------



## stumlad

This movie is placed too low, IMO. This is a mid to low tier 1 movie. The movie exhibits a lot of 3D pop, there's no noticeable compression noise. Grain is light, yet even, throughout the entire film. Contrast is good and shadow detail good. The only complaint is that facial closeups, for some reason were not as revealing as most tier 1 material. It's a bit strange because fine object detail is very good throughout.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13706860
> 
> 
> SuprSlow,
> 
> 
> A bunch of us want NCFOM to be placed in the top 10 spots in Tier-1 above IAL. Another bunch wants it to be pushed to bottom of Tier-1. To satisfy both bunch please place it in the middle of Tier-1 but definitely above these titles
> 
> 
> 
> Compression noise is definitely there but only in the sky shots and few places that has nothing to do with eye candy-ness or HD pop.



I wonder -- is it really compression noise we're seeing in those sky shots? Doesn't Fifth Element exhibit the same thing in the opening sequence? Why is it that there are very low bit rate titles that don't exhibit this kind of noise? It doesn't make sense... I agree it's there, I just can't figure out why..


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/13707026
> 
> 
> This movie (Waterhorse) is placed too low, IMO. This is a mid to low tier 1 movie. The movie exhibits a lot of 3D pop, there's no noticeable compression noise. Grain is light, yet even, throughout the entire film. Contrast is good and shadow detail good. The only complaint is that facial closeups, for some reason were not as revealing as most tier 1 material. It's a bit strange because fine object detail is very good throughout.



My thoughts exactly. This is not a Tier 2 title.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ballen420* /forum/post/13703593
> 
> 
> Compeltely agree on this one. *IMO the PQ of NCFOM was much better then IAL* (if only I had an abbreviation for 'was much better').



+1 on bolded


----------



## stumlad

Lgans,


How about IMO( PQ(NCFOM) > PQ(IAL) );


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13701129
> 
> 
> Dude, get your **** together man!



I must be getting old



















Update time...

*No Reservations* - lower 1/2 of Tier 3 (Rob's new favorite movie!)

*T3: Rise of the Machines* - middle of Tier 2 (any specific place this needs to be moved?)

*Beowulf (UK)* - top 1/4 of Tier 1

*3:10 to Yuma* - let's get some more input before it's moved higher. We've had a number of votes for high Tier 2, a few for low 1, which is where it is currently.

*Water Horse* - Tier 1 above 'The Brave One'

*Becoming Jane* - quite a few Tier 0 votes in the past. Anybody else in support of Tier 1?

*Jane Austen Book Club* - middle Tier 4

*High School Musical 2* - middle Tier 3

*Face/Off (UK)* - bottom Tier 2 (thanks for the info, lgans)

*Mariah Carey - Adventures of Mimi* - upper Tier 2



lgans (and anyone else), 'No Country' placed above TFE would again be near the top of Tier 1. For compromise, should it be there or somewhere around '300'?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/13709003
> 
> 
> Lgans,
> 
> 
> How about IMO( PQ(NCFOM) > PQ(IAL) );



Maybe >> to get the "much"?


----------



## SuprSlow

Since Rob said I need to get my shiz together







, I've been playing around with this spreadsheet. It's current as of this post. I may or may not maintain it, I just wanted to import what data we had, and split it by columns.


I know some of you in the past have asked for the tiers to be sorted alphabetically, here's your chance







Others, I'm not sure what use it will be to you, if at all.







I've been contemplating the idea of a database that will export the data and wrap the text with the correct UBB code & URL, but that'd be the equivalent of asking me to explain string theory










One thing that more than likely will make it to the first post from this spreadsheet is the 1/4, 1/2, and 3/4 markers in the larger tiers. I think it'd help while scanning the lists and also placing titles, especially in the monstrosity called Tier 2.

http://webpages.charter.net/suprslow...3april2008.xls


----------



## techwisenyc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/13709954
> 
> 
> 
> *3:10 to Yuma* - let's get some more input before it's moved higher. We've had a number of votes for high Tier 2, a few for low 1, which is where it is currently.



I think it would be fine above Rush Hour 3.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/13709954
> 
> *Becoming Jane* - quite a few Tier 0 votes in the past. Anybody else in support of Tier 1?



I actually think it is High Tier 1 material. It has a lot of Tier 0 shots, but also a lot of inconsistency with Tier 2 shots thrown in. Examples are the meetings between Jane and John in the woods. Shots of the night sky in some scenes are bad too.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/13709954
> 
> 
> lgans (and anyone else), 'No Country' placed above TFE would again be near the top of Tier 1. For compromise, should it be there or somewhere around '300'?



I think it deserves to be higher. Normally, i'm not stubborn about placement, but was really impressed by this title and amazed that quite a few here thought it was a low Tier 1.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *techwisenyc* /forum/post/13713322
> 
> 
> I think it would be fine above Rush Hour 3.



Agreed. I originally voted for Low Tier 1 for 3:10 to Yuma, and it had been in Tier 2 for a while before that. I also think it should be above Rush Hour.




> Quote:
> I think it deserves to be higher. Normally, i'm not stubborn about placement, but was really impressed by this title and amazed that quite a few here thought it was a low Tier 1.



Ditto this as well.


Brandon


----------



## umenon

This has probably been discussed to death (prior to my monitoring this forum) ... regardless, I watched "I, Robot" past weekend and watched "Pirates Of C - At Worlds End" yesterday.


I, Robot is phenomenally superior to POTC-AWE ! Imagine my surprise when they are just the opposite on Tier 0.


Along the same lines ... Ratatouille and Cars trounces both of them by a wide margin !! They don't deserve to be lumped together.


Can someone explain ?


Edit -

Here is what a staff reviewer at another site had to say about POTC-AWE - "The transfer is remarkable in that it displays a fine amount of grain and detail throughout the entire presentation. Grain-haters may not like this at all ... "


At the same site, about Ratatouille - "Finally, there is not a single compression artifact to be found in this AVC encode. To say that Ratatouille is reference grade would be an understatement! "




M


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *umenon* /forum/post/13713933
> 
> 
> I, Robot is phenomenally superior to POTC-AWE ! Imagine my surprise when they are just the opposite on Tier 0.



It might be superior...might. But phenomenally superior? I think not.


Brandon


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *techwisenyc* /forum/post/13713322
> 
> 
> I think it would be fine above Rush Hour 3.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually think it is High Tier 1 material. It has a lot of Tier 0 shots, but also a lot of inconsistency with Tier 2 shots thrown in. Examples are the meetings between Jane and John in the woods. Shots of the night sky in some scenes are bad too.
> 
> 
> 
> *I think it deserves to be higher. Normally, i'm not stubborn about placement, but was really impressed by this title and amazed that quite a few here thought it was a low Tier 1*.



Again, I agree...


----------



## lgans316

*Cast Away*

*The Good*


Excellent color saturation

Value sharpness and fine object detailing

Excellent and consistent PQ with good HD pop after being Cast Away

No DNR / EE / Bit rate starvation

*The Bad*


Low black levels and poor shadow detailing on the non-island sequences especially on the indoor scenes but this is how it looked in the theaters and the DVD. So can't blame the source.

Film grain becomes a bit intrusive at certain spots.

*The Ugly*


Terrible grain wavering in the opening shot. Just compare Chapter 1 vs Chapter 31.

Sporadic flashes of dirt flecks in few scenes


Recommendation : Above Donnie Brasco in Tier-2.


----------



## stumlad

This movie, like The Water Horse : Legends of the Deep, was another movie with overall very good looking scenery shots and small object detail, yet the face closeups were lacking. I dont think there was one really focused shot of Jackie Chan or Chris Tucker's face.


I think Water Horse exhibited more 3D pop than this movie, and overall looked better... so I would have to say, if Water Horse is going to be placed anywhere, it should be above Rush Hour 3. That may mean moving Rush Hour 3 down!


----------



## stumlad

Is House of 1000 Corpses really tier 0 title? Have enough people voted on it? I saw the movie on DVD a few years ago but wouldnt think it would lend itself well to HD. If many people believe it belongs there, let me know because I might just pick it up if that's the case...


----------



## kagolu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13715369
> 
> *Cast Away*
> 
> *The Good*
> 
> 
> Excellent color saturation
> 
> Value sharpness and fine object detailing
> 
> Excellent and consistent PQ with good HD pop after being Cast Away
> 
> No DNR / EE / Bit rate starvation
> 
> *The Bad*
> 
> 
> Low black levels and poor shadow detailing on the non-island sequences especially on the indoor scenes but this is how it looked in the theaters and the DVD. So can't blame the source.
> 
> Film grain becomes a bit intrusive at certain spots.
> 
> *The Ugly*
> 
> 
> Terrible grain wavering in the opening shot. Just compare Chapter 1 vs Chapter 31.
> 
> Sporadic flashes of dirt flecks in few scenes
> 
> 
> Recommendation : Above Donnie Brasco in Tier-2.



When is the release date of The Good, The Bad and The Ugly on BR.


----------



## 357

Why don't you guys just set up a voting system like they had in the HDDVD forum?


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13715369
> 
> *Cast Away*
> 
> *The Good*
> 
> 
> Excellent color saturation
> 
> Value sharpness and fine object detailing
> 
> Excellent and consistent PQ with good HD pop after being Cast Away
> 
> No DNR / EE / Bit rate starvation
> 
> *The Bad*
> 
> 
> Low black levels and poor shadow detailing on the non-island sequences especially on the indoor scenes but this is how it looked in the theaters and the DVD. So can't blame the source.
> 
> Film grain becomes a bit intrusive at certain spots.
> 
> *The Ugly*
> 
> 
> Terrible grain wavering in the opening shot. Just compare Chapter 1 vs Chapter 31.
> 
> Sporadic flashes of dirt flecks in few scenes
> 
> 
> Recommendation : Above Donnie Brasco in Tier-2.



I generally agree with this opinion. I do, however think that before he gets on the island, the picture quality is very sub par, and not spectacular in any way........but once the colour of the island comes into play, it's beautiful and sharp.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/13716017
> 
> 
> This movie, like The Water Horse : Legends of the Deep, was another movie with overall very good looking scenery shots and small object detail, *yet the face closeups were lacking. I dont think there was one really focused shot of Jackie Chan or Chris Tucker's face.*
> 
> 
> I think Water Horse exhibited more 3D pop than this movie, and overall looked better... so I would have to say, if Water Horse is going to be placed anywhere, it should be above Rush Hour 3. *That may mean moving Rush Hour 3 down!*



Agree. . .


----------



## Klamath




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/13716017
> 
> 
> I dont think there was one really focused shot of Jackie Chan or Chris Tucker's face.



You say that like it's a bad thing.


----------



## Desert Pilot

I watched "I Robot" last night. WOW! Best blu ray I've seen so far for PQ.


Marcus


----------



## rydenfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *357* /forum/post/13716273
> 
> 
> Why don't you guys just set up a voting system like they had in the HDDVD forum?



Why dont you read this thread?


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/13709003
> 
> 
> Lgans,
> 
> 
> How about IMO( PQ(NCFOM) > PQ(IAL) );



++++++++++++++++++++++1.


----------



## hobbs47




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/13716053
> 
> 
> Is House of 1000 Corpses really tier 0 title? Have enough people voted on it? .




No,it doesn't belong in tier 0,bottom of tier 1....maybe tier 2. It looks good,but not among the best of the best for PQ. How it got into tier 0,who knows.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/13709954
> 
> *Becoming Jane* - quite a few Tier 0 votes in the past. Anybody else in support of Tier 1?



I would strongly DISAGREE with those who are suggesting Tier 1 for Becoming Jane. It is an excellent transfer in every category (plenty of detail, natural colors, deep blacks, excellent contrast, lots of 3D pop, etc.).


----------



## NickG1215

Boy I wish I would've found this thread before I ordered my 5 free BRs from BVE. American Psycho was pretty disappointing for me. Great movie, but disappointing PQ.


----------



## Li'l Jimmy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/13716053
> 
> 
> Is House of 1000 Corpses really tier 0 title? Have enough people voted on it? I saw the movie on DVD a few years ago but wouldnt think it would lend itself well to HD. If many people believe it belongs there, let me know because I might just pick it up if that's the case...



click its link and read the upcoming disks review. I was curious about it too. IMO the movie stunk, part 2 was much better


----------



## mr stroke

Before the Devil knows your Dead

Mid tier 1


Looks clean as a babies ass probably because its shot on an HD camera..not as good as other HD camera movies like Crank, but still has an almost perfect picture on face close ups, color almost jumps out at you because the HD camera just looks so sharp. Looks great overall.(good movie too)










Panny 58'

768

Sony [email protected]

7-8 feet


----------



## lgans316

*The 6th Day*

*The Good*


Clean and colorful image

Decent sharpness on some close-up shots

Decent Shadow detail and contrast

No dirt / print damages

*The Bad*


Lack of fine detail due to the presence of many dark toned shots

General lack of image depth

*The Ugly*


High Contrast Halos

CGI looks dated

Some scenes looks to be DNR-ed (requesting confirmation on this from some expert)

*Recommendation* : Above Behind Enemy Lines in Tier-2


----------



## leakwoon

tier0 for water horse ! !


----------



## aham23




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/13718887
> 
> 
> I would strongly DISAGREE with those who are suggesting Tier 1 for Becoming Jane. It is an excellent transfer in every category (plenty of detail, natural colors, deep blacks, excellent contrast, lots of 3D pop, etc.).



totally agree.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *aham23* /forum/post/13726121
> 
> 
> totally agree.



+1 to leave BJ in Tier 0.


----------



## OhioMike

Hey guys

I haven't checked in for awhile. Glad to see House of 1000 corpses getting some love. Really want to see I, Robot now with all these stellar reviews. May is going to be a huge month with so many great releases, I can't wait for the National Treasures to come out. Hopefully Disney gave them the superb POTC treatment.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OhioMike* /forum/post/13727530
> 
> 
> Hey guys
> 
> I haven't checked in for awhile. Glad to see House of 1000 corpses getting some love. Really want to see I, Robot now with all these stellar reviews. May is going to be a huge month with so many great releases, *I can't wait for the National Treasures to come out. Hopefully Disney gave them the superb POTC treatment.*



I had thought these were going to be two disc sets like POTC, but I don't see any indication of this now. Anyone know for sure?


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13727594
> 
> 
> I had thought these were going to be two disc sets like POTC, but I don't see any indication of this now. Anyone know for sure?


 http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1355...ofsecrets.html 


Doesn't look like it's two discs.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *leakwoon* /forum/post/13725396
> 
> 
> tier0 for water horse ! !



I wouldn't go that far.......it should stay in Tier 1 where it currently is.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/13728008
> 
> http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1355...ofsecrets.html
> 
> 
> Doesn't look like it's two discs.



If it's just one disc with an hour of HD extras, there goes the PQ of the movie.


----------



## 357

The Orphanage is Tier 0.


----------



## lgans316

*AVP-R*

*The Good*


Clean and pristine picture

Decent 3D pop in quite a few scenes

No major film artefacts

Very deep black level

*The Bad*


Few out of focus shots robbing off image depth in outdoor scenes

Facial close-up doesn't reveal great amount of detail

*The Ugly*


Intentionally shot in very very low lighting

Incorrect default Gamma and Brightness levels. Even with a well calibrated equipment Black Levels/Gamma might require some medium boost to understand what's going on in few scenes.

*Recommendation* : Bottom of Tier-1 or Top of Tier-2


----------



## stumlad

This movie, like so many other comedies on high def, was not very impressive. The whole movie had this soft feel to it. There were some outdoor scenery shots that looked pretty good, but other than that, nothing really stood out. Face closeups were nothing to write home about. There was no real 3D pop anywhere. Small object detail, in general, wasn't very good either.


I'd have to say high tier 3. Part of thie mediocre'ness about this was probably the way it was shot, the locations they chose to shoot, etc...


----------



## maverick0716

I watched Juno tonight, and I was expecting crap, based on other people's comments on the picture quality. I was actually quite pleased with it. It was a bit soft, but not in a bad way, and it still had a surprising amount of depth. Colour was fantastic. I'd recommend either move it to the top of Tier 3 or bottom of Tier 2.


42" Panasonic Plasma (768p)

PS3 through HDMI

6-7 ft.


----------



## DevilDog151




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *357* /forum/post/13729195
> 
> 
> The Orphanage is Tier 0.



Definitly, just watched it. Good movie too. Amazing SQ as well.


----------



## b_scott

thing about Juno is a had an advance press copy on a DVD-R (probably compressed) that i got from the industry. i played it on m Samsung 1400 last night and it looked awesome. very crisp, hardly any noise. so i can't imagine how much better a BD would look or if it'd be worth it to check it out - for that particular movie.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/13733109
> 
> 
> I watched Juno tonight, and I was expecting crap, based on other people's comments on the picture quality. I was actually quite pleased with it. It was a bit soft, but not in a bad way, and it still had a surprising amount of depth. Colour was fantastic. I'd recommend either move it to the top of Tier 3 or bottom of Tier 2.
> 
> 
> 42" Panasonic Plasma (768p)
> 
> PS3 through HDMI
> 
> 6-7 ft.



I had similar impressions from Michael Clayton. I feel like I'm spoiled with BD now, because Tier 2/3 discs look good to me. Probably because I had watched some upscaled DVD a couple nights prior.


Brandon


----------



## jphillips63

Just viewed pearl Harbor last night thru my pS3 and the new Samsung LN32550 and I was dissapointed in seeing this movie tiered so low in Tier 1 From viewing some of the movies in Tier 0 thru this same setup I would have to say this movie in deeds needs to be in Tier 0


If I absolutely missed something in this movie to rank it where it's at I'd like to know so I can review this.


TV Sammy LN32A550 1080p

PS3 HDMI

AVR Sony DA 5300ES


James


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *357* /forum/post/13729195
> 
> 
> The Orphanage is Tier 0.



I very much agree. This looks really outstanding. Clearly Tier 0.


There have been some comments elsewhere about the "red in black" phenomenon. This effect is clearly intended and definitely not a PQ flaw. Surely it's not hard to understand why this would have been done in a movie like this to create a "hellish" effect.


The lead actress does a great job.


----------



## lgans316

Tier-0 rating from patrick which is seldom means that the PQ is exceptional.









Just waiting for amazon to drop the price so that I can grab a copy.


----------



## gail2magic

If anyone has a Netflix account, Netflix is allowing members to "instant" watch Orphanage online. Will give you an idea if you want to try the English subtitles or not. Looking forward now to getting the blu-ray copy more.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13737305
> 
> 
> Just waiting for amazon to drop the price so that I can grab a copy.



Same here.


Brandon


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13737431
> 
> 
> Same here.
> 
> 
> Brandon



+2


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13737305
> 
> 
> Tier-0 rating from patrick which is seldom means that the PQ is exceptional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just waiting for amazon to drop the price so that I can grab a copy.



I doubt it will go on sale anytime soon... It's priced similar to all new line titles... I am debating whether or not to blind buy


----------



## lgans316

*Air Force One (Import) Video: MPEG-4 AVC | Audio: PCM 16-bit | AR: 2.35:1 | BVHE Touchstone*

*The Good*


Film like picture quality

Colorful and exhibits value sharpness in select scenes

Excellent black levels and shadow detailing

Significantly better than the Superbit release

No EE/DNR/Print damages

*The Bad*


Image depth takes a hit due to presence of quite a few focus puller shots.

Close-up shots don't reveal that much details.

Fair amount of compression noise and dot crawling noticeable in couple of scenes.

*The Ugly*


Telecine Wobble during the opening credits.


Special note : Kick azz audio. On par with many recent titles with superior SQ.

*Recommendation* : Below Independence Day in Tier-2


----------



## stumlad

An overall decent, but mediocre catalog title as far as PQ goes. I've never seen the movie before, so I can't compare to DVD. There were some scratches and nicks/film noise (not grain) throughout. It wasnt distracting, but it was there. Small object detail wasn't very good. Face closeups were okay, but nothing great. The colors were good, contrast wasn't bad, but overall the picture was kinda soft. If i had to place it anywhere, it would be very low tier 2.


----------



## b_scott

Before the Devil Knows You're Dead Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Image


i'm no expert, but the transfer looks pristine to me. good deep blacks and sharp detail. can't speak for the sound because i'm between receivers.


Marisa Tomeii naked multiple times has helped it so far. haha










outside shots look very natural and true to color. very little grain if any.


someone else should review this though, again i'm no expert.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Bulletproof Monk
*

My tier recommendation: very low Tier 2/high Tier 3


This 103 minute feature is encoded in MPEG2 on a BD-25 with bitrates that vary consistently between 16 and 23 Mbps. The highest peak I saw was 31 Mbps but that was very brief. The back of the case states it averages 20 Mbps and I have no reason to doubt that.


The Blu-ray looks like an average High Definition transfer found in Tier 2 or 3, with okay black levels and contrast. There are minor artifacting and banding issues but nothing too serious or distracting. The only scenes that really could benefit from a newer encoding are some outdoor scenes that involve clouds in the skies.


There is light grain that runs throughout the feature, particularly in outdoor scenes. Facial detail looks pretty good and most scenes stay sharp. I saw no edge enhancement at all. It does look much better than the upconverted dvd.


My main complaint was the infrequent appearance of white speckles on the print. I don't think a casual viewer would notice it but they pop up from time to time.


This really should be placed at or near top of Tier 3, or in the bottom of Tier 2. Somewhere around Kung Fu Hustle feels right to me.


----------



## lgans316

Sorry to get off-topic.


A Japanese HD channel aired Kung Fu Hustle (UNCUT) version. It literally put the Blu-ray version to shame which is encoded at just 16 Mbps using MPEG-2. The broadcast version is 20 Mbps MPEG-2 CBR. I am pretty sure SPHE will remaster Kung Fu Hustle. The broadcast version however was scoped at 1.85:1 when the OAR is 2.35:1.


----------



## lgans316

*Enchanted Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.35:1 | Disney*


Solid mid to bottom Tier-1 material. To me it didn't look that eye candy like 3:10 or The Island which is listed in Tier-1. Though the presentation was colorful with no film artefacts it still looked a bit flat and there were quite a few focus puller shots that robbed off image depth. The Movie and the Sound quality were however terrific and I had no idea as to why my wife wept.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*The Water Horse*


The picture quality on this title is quite good overall. However, it is not Tier 0 in my opinion (some recent posts suggested placement in Tier 0). Although there are some scenes that may be Tier 0 worthy, taken as a whole it is not.


The main problem that I have is that most of the daylight scenes have very hot contrast, resulting in blown out highlights. These scenes have a really harsh look to them.


Other than that, it was very good, with lots of detail, and contrast was good in the indoor and night scenes.


It's current placement (in mid/lower Tier 1) is perfect.


----------



## lgans316

Rob,


I know that you have watched Passage to India on Blu-ray.









May we know to which tier it belongs to ?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13743300
> 
> 
> Rob,
> 
> 
> I know that you have watched Passage to India on Blu-ray.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> May we know to which tier it belongs to ?













I've been putting it off intentionally, but thanks for noticing.


I will go ahead and do it now though.

*A Passage To India*


I am going to recommend a Tier 1 placement (bottom 1/4 or so), but I know this will be controversial.


Grain haters will put this movie in Tier 3.


There is noticeable grain present. But it isn't just "present", I would prefer to say that it is "preserved"!







I think it is safe to say that no DNR was used here. As a result, the detail is very good.


Perhaps the most impressive thing about this title is the colors, which are absolutely gorgeous! It is a beautifully shot movie, and it comes across great in HD.


It is a very film-like experience, and I absolutely love it!


If you are a fan of this movie, or haven't seen it but love David Lean, or great cinematography, you will not be disappointed in this disc.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13742820
> 
> 
> The Movie and the Sound quality were however terrific and I had no idea as to why my wife wept.



lol...


Brandon


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13743332
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been putting it off intentionally, but thanks for noticing.
> 
> 
> I will go ahead and do it now though.
> 
> *A Passage To India*
> 
> *I am going to recommend a Tier 1 placement (bottom 1/4 or so), but I know this will be controversial.*
> 
> 
> Grain haters will put this movie in Tier 3.
> 
> 
> There is noticeable grain present. But it isn't just "present", I would prefer to say that it is "preserved"!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is safe to say that no DNR was used here. As a result, the detail is very good.
> 
> 
> Perhaps the most impressive thing about this title is the colors, which are absolutely gorgeous! It is a beautifully shot movie, and it comes across great in HD.
> 
> 
> It is a very film-like experience, and I absolutely love it!
> 
> 
> If you are a fan of this movie, or haven't seen it but love David Lean, or great cinematography, you will not be disappointed in this disc.



It looks more like Tier 2 to me. For a 1984 release, it looks pretty good, although the film feels more like 1964 than 1984.


----------



## kasbane

I feel this should be at least in the middle of Tier 1 if not the top, an absolutely beautiful looking movie and wonderful transfer from when I saw it in the theatre.


It's also one of the best horror films I have seen in awhile, and you could say I watch alot. More creepy and atmospheric than shocking so it won't satisfy gorehounds.


----------



## RaiderRodney




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13743225
> 
> *The Water Horse*
> 
> 
> The picture quality on this title is quite good overall. However, it is not Tier 0 in my opinion (some recent posts suggested placement in Tier 0). Although there are some scenes that may be Tier 0 worthy, taken as a whole it is not.
> 
> 
> The main problem that I have is that most of the daylight scenes have very hot contrast, resulting in blown out highlights. These scenes have a really harsh look to them.
> 
> 
> Other than that, it was very good, with lots of detail, and contrast was good in the indoor and night scenes.
> 
> 
> It's current placement (in mid/lower Tier 1) is perfect.



Watched it this weekend and I agree, while it was nice quality overall...none of the scenes were jaw-dropping. I loved the movie though


----------



## mikenike

Justin Timberlake's Concert and Appleseed Ex Machina are both Tier 2. Both are good, but Timberlake's had some scenes where the quality is DVD level (only limited to understage scenes), and Appleseed had some soft images.


----------



## SuprSlow

*Apr 22, 2008**Grieg: Piano Concerto, Symphonic Dances, In Autumn* Video: ? | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: ?:1 | Surround Records
*One Missed Call* Video: VC-1 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 1.85:1 | Warner
*The Orphanage* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | New Line
*Six Degrees Could Change the World* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 1.78:1 | National Geographic
*Sublime: Uncut* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner

*Apr 29, 2008**27 Dresses* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Fox
*First Knight* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 1.85:1 | Sony
*The Golden Compass* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | New Line
*Motley Crue: Carnival of Sins* Video: ? | Audio: ? | AR: ?:1 | Warner
*Mozart: Die Zauberflöte (The Magic Flute)* Video: ? | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.85:1 | Opus Arte
*Ocean's Eleven* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner
*Ocean's Twelve* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13744145
> 
> 
> It looks more like Tier 2 to me. For a 1984 release, it looks pretty good, although the film feels more like 1964 than 1984.



I'd be happy with either Rob's lower Tier 1 or Patrick's Tier 2, as long as it's upper Tier 2. This is a long movie that feels just the right length and looks gorgeous. If this an example of what Sony is willing to do with quality catalog titles, I think we have a lot to look forward to.


One added note, the movie made great use of the surround speakers, particluarly during crowd scenes.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/13746136
> 
> 
> I'd be happy with either Rob's lower Tier 1 or Patrick's Tier 2, as long as it's upper Tier 2. This is a long movie that feels just the right length and looks gorgeous. If this an example of what Sony is willing to do with quality catalog titles, I think we have a lot to look forward to.
> 
> 
> One added note, the movie made great use of the surround speakers, particluarly during crowd scenes.



It seems particularly unfortunate that Sony applies their rule that bitrates in the twenties are good enough to a movie with this aspect ratio. It only recently occurred to me that perhaps the reason for this rule that Sony is currently applying is to leave room for "superbit" double dips at some future point.


----------



## alexg75

So I finally p/u'd I Robot during the Target sale this past week and I must say that I am a big film of this movie as I have seen it many times.

IMO,if there is a movie that deserves to be seen in HD,I Robot is definitley one of them.Thankfully it delivers and looks fantastic!

This is a great looking presentation and easily ranks on my list as one of the best "live-action" titles I've seen on BR yet.

Detail,texture,depth and resolution are all superb.I wasn't expecting anything otherwise as this was how I Robot looked in the theater and even on the DVD,to a lesser extent.

This film was shot with great care in capturing all the details in every shot and it ceratinly shows.Great work all the way 'round!

Moving on,I want to offer my opinion on the PQ of AVP:R.

First off I know I'm in a large minority here but I enjoyed the movie for what it is,a monster vs. monster movie with a cheesy script and dialog.It is very far from ever being called a masterpiece.

So going beyond what's blatantly obvious and has already been stated by other posters here,THE PQ IS DARK.......Yes it is and that's what the Directors and Cinematographer WANTED!

Is it to everyone's liking? No

Do I like it? Well I don't dislike it.

I watched the special features and listened to the director's commentary and it is clearly stated that they wanted to hide as much of the action in shadow and create tension and suspense by not showing too much.

Does it work? Sometimes yes,sometimes no.

I do feel that AVP:R's overall PQ is getting overlooked because of most individuals preference for a brighter image and it's understandable.

But AVP:R is a solid-looking presentation and deserves to be placed at the very least,in one of the *upper spots of Tier 1.*I have seen the BR twice now and to my eyes,the image quality is pristine.There is a clarity and definition to every scene,even the darkest ones.Colors are vibrant when they need to be and there is no black crush.I did not notice any compression artifacts or edge enhancement.

On my Panasonic Plasma,I have no trouble seeing what's going on in the numerous dark scenes.I'm also watching in a very dark room even during the day.

Like I stated,the photographic style and presentation may not be to everyone's liking,but the BR's PQ is still excellent and is a direct reprensentation-good and bad-of what the filmakers wanted.

Viewed on a 42inch 1080p Panasonic Plasma.

@ 7.5 ft. Calibrated by me.

Sony BDP-S300 BR player.


----------



## techwisenyc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *alexg75* /forum/post/13748268
> 
> 
> So I finally p/u'd I Robot during the Target sale this past week and I must say that I am a big film of this movie as I have seen it many times.
> 
> IMO,if there is a movie that deserves to be seen in HD,I Robot is definitley one of them.Thankfully it delivers and looks fantastic!
> 
> This is a great looking presentation and easily ranks on my list as one of the best "live-action" titles I've seen on BR yet.
> 
> Detail,texture,depth and resolution are all superb.I wasn't expecting anything otherwise as this was how I Robot looked in the theater and even on the DVD,to a lesser extent.
> 
> This film was shot with great care in capturing all the details in every shot and it ceratinly shows.Great work all the way 'round!
> 
> Moving on,I want to offer my opinion on the PQ of AVP:R.
> 
> First off I know I'm in a large minority here but I enjoyed the movie for what it is,a monster vs. monster movie with a cheesy script and dialog.It is very far from ever being called a masterpiece.
> 
> So going beyond what's blatantly obvious and has already been stated by other posters here,THE PQ IS DARK.......Yes it is and that's what the Directors and Cinematographer WANTED!
> 
> Is it to everyone's liking? No
> 
> Do I like it? Well I don't dislike it.
> 
> I watched the special features and listened to the director's commentary and it is clearly stated that they wanted to hide as much of the action in shadow and create tension and suspense by not showing too much.
> 
> Does it work? Sometimes yes,sometimes no.
> 
> I do feel that AVP:R's overall PQ is getting overlooked because of most individuals preference for a brighter image and it's understandable.
> 
> But AVP:R is a solid-looking presentation and deserves to be placed at the very least,in one of the *upper spots of Tier 1.*I have seen the BR twice now and to my eyes,the image quality is pristine.There is a clarity and definition to every scene,even the darkest ones.Colors are vibrant when they need to be and there is no black crush.I did not notice any compression artifacts or edge enhancement.
> 
> On my Panasonic Plasma,I have no trouble seeing what's going on in the numerous dark scenes.I'm also watching in a very dark room even during the day.
> 
> Like I stated,the photographic style and presentation may not be to everyone's liking,but the BR's PQ is still excellent and is a direct reprensentation-good and bad-of what the filmakers wanted.
> 
> Viewed on a 42inch 1080p Panasonic Plasma.
> 
> @ 7.5 ft. Calibrated by me.
> 
> Sony BDP-S300 BR player.



I Robot to me is only topped by POTC 3 IMHO in regards to non-animation films.

*AVP-R*


I got a chance to watch it this weekend and enjoyed the film for what it is. I was not expecting intense development of characters or to even get attached to any. I post my thoughts further on it on the AvP:R thread.


The PQ is dark however on my 150FD plasma I did not have an issue of not being able to see anything or lack of detail in dark scenes. IMHO this film showed what black levels should be in HD. No crush, very detailed, and no heavy grain to hide things. Actually, this is what I was expecting Underworld's Black levels to be.


The director's intent for the flim to be very dark, unfortunately is not going to be appealing to many and will expose a lot of displays with poor black levels. I was very impressed with the PQ throughout as it had plenty of 3Dpop and the detail of the human close-ups and creatures, especially the Predator was fantastic.


The Predator was really bad-ass and for the most part is how they should have been in the first AvP. I would place it somewhere in *high Tier 1* because of the darkness, although I have no problem with it, does prevent it from hitting Tier 0.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/13746136
> 
> 
> I'd be happy with either Rob's lower Tier 1 or Patrick's Tier 2, as long as it's upper Tier 2. This is a long movie that feels just the right length and looks gorgeous. If this an example of what Sony is willing to do with quality catalog titles, I think we have a lot to look forward to.



I completely agree.


----------



## hughvh

Appleseed Ex Machina.


Recommend very high Tier 1 or Tier 0.


In my opinion, this is a perfect transfer. The only reason I didn't fully recommend it for Tier 0 is that the colors pop out at you like they do in Cars. But that maybe more to do with animation style than picture quality.


Viewed on a 57" DLP Mits (57734) at 1920X1080X24p from about 8-10 feet.


This is now my demo BD title for folks who come over.


----------



## SuprSlow

Thread update for today:


-Added the new releases listed here .

-Updated "?" details (as many as I could find online...if anyone has any of these discs that we are missing details for, let me know







)

-Updated Hddb.net review links (again, for as many as were available)


I'll be working on the title updates tomorrow afternoon/night.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Bubble needs to be removed from the list of unranked titles.


----------



## JohnR_IN_LA

This is a stunning Blu-Ray transfer of an older movie...


absolutely stunning....


Epic movie too, lots of TANKS and Henry Fonda!


----------



## JediSpork

I just started buying blurays and discovered this thread. A lot of older movies don't seem to come out very well on your rating list.


Do you think something like Total Recall will ever be remastered for better quality? I'm debating on if I should return it since I don't have the regular dvd.


I don't really see myself buying anything below the bronze quality list unless its a movie I don't have.


I've always heard that older movies will also be great for bluray but are they going to take the time and remaster them properly?


----------



## b_scott

if you take original film stock and it's in good condition i don't see why it can't be pristine HD - film is higher "res" than anything, right? it just takes time to master and i think they rushed out stuff from bad transfers just to milk people.


----------



## lgans316

*Predator and Commando*


Perfectly satisfies Tier-3 requirements. Though both titles were on BD-25 I have to openly appreciate Fox for not bit starving these ones especially on the difficult and night scenes. I initially thought Commando looked slightly better than Predator but ultimately Predator looked a tad better than Commando in terms of consistency and sharpness. In Commando only the first and last scenes look better as those have been shot in daylight. In-case of Predator it's pretty clear that the first half of the movie was shot using a different film stock because the second half looked crisp and clean and filled with less grain and noise. My biggest complaint on the transfer are the slightly low black and gamma levels and some intrusive grain.

*Recommendation* : Between mid and bottom of Tier-3.


----------



## Shane Martin

Rob,

Because of the Lean connection, I blindly bought Passage to India. I happen to agree with your lower tier 1 score. Regarding the movie, It does feel like a mid 60's epic and that's quite an achievement really for a 80's film. Such is the genius of Lean.


I hope this means Sony will continue to release titles of this quality.


----------



## LpChaos

Early Chronicles of Narnia reviews are indicating this might be a Tier 0 title:

Chronicles Blu-ray Review 

Chronicles Blu-ray Review #2


----------



## b_scott

just picked up a Pio 5010 (coming next week) and an Onkyo 705. have a Sammy 1400 BD player. time to start picking some good movies up










going to start with Planet Earth i think. already grabbed Dave and Tim.


----------



## lgans316

Some happy news for Patrick waits here.









http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...4#post13759834


----------



## patrick99

*27 Dresses* looks really nice. The very great strength of the PQ on this is that the faces almost always look just about perfect (there are a few shots of Marsden in a taxi that look a little off). This is the best PQ in a movie of this type (present day romantic comedy) that I can recall. This is the way Enchanted should have looked but didn't. Fine job by Deluxe. High Tier 1 in my opinion.


On a side note, the PQ on a trailer for Devil Wears Prada looks quite a bit better than I recall the movie itself actually looking. I am quite certain that the movie itself didn't look like this.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13760337
> 
> *27 Dresses* looks really nice. The very great strength of the PQ on this is that the faces almost always look just about perfect (there are a few shots of Marsden in a taxi that look a little off). This is the best PQ in a movie of this type (present day romantic comedy) that I can recall. This is the way Enchanted should have looked but didn't. Fine job by Deluxe. High Tier 1 in my opinion.



+1. Totally agree.



> Quote:
> On a side note, the PQ on a trailer for Devil Wears Prada looks quite a bit better than I recall the movie itself actually looking. I am quite certain that the movie itself didn't look like this.



The same condition applies to most of the trailers especially the FOX ones.


1) AVP-1

2) X-Men 3


Check dis out !!!

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...4#post13760124


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13760342
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Check dis out !!!
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...4#post13760124



Sorry, I didn't really understand?


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13760377
> 
> 
> Sorry, I didn't really understand?



Just wanted to point out that (a rare) 33 Mbps AVBR encode on BJ had resulted in Tier-0 rating.


Becoming Jane

VC-1

2:00:59

39,994,613,760

43,887,039,252

44.08
*33.08 Mbps*

LPCM 5.1 6912Kbps (48kHz/24-bit)

DD AC3 5.1 640Kbps


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13760389
> 
> 
> Just wanted to point out that a rare 33 Mbps AVBR encode on BJ had resulted in a Tier-0 rating.
> 
> 
> Becoming Jane
> 
> VC-1
> 
> 2:00:59
> 
> 39,994,613,760
> 
> 43,887,039,252
> 
> 44.08
> *33.08 Mbps*
> 
> LPCM 5.1 6912Kbps (48kHz/24-bit)
> 
> DD AC3 5.1 640Kbps


----------



## alwaller

I also noticed the PQ on the trailer for" The Devil Wears Prada ",if

the movie shows up on Blu-ray like this I would buy it.

Are the trailers doctor for this level of PQ ?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *alwaller* /forum/post/13760640
> 
> 
> I also noticed the PQ on the trailer for" The Devil Wears Prada ",if
> 
> the movie shows up on Blu-ray like this I would buy it.
> 
> Are the trailers doctor for this level of PQ ?



According to HDD, the actual BD of DWP was a 25gb disc, encoded using MPEG-2. The trailer for DWP on 27 Dresses was encoded using AVC. DWP was a fairly early release, and Fox's PQ improved significantly after their return from their hiatus. It is, however, misleading for the trailer to look so much better than the only version of the movie itself that is available on BD.


----------



## lgans316

I have been cribbing about this for a long time. Harry Potter and the Order of Phoenix 1080p HD trailer hit 36.5 Mbps mark which is grossly missing in the actual BD.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13761073
> 
> 
> I have been cribbing about this for a long time. Harry Potter and the Order of Phoenix 1080p HD trailer hit 36.5 Mbps mark which is grossly missing in the actual BD.



In my experience, sometimes the reverse is true. For example, Sony and Disney seem to always do their trailers in MPEG-2 despite the fact that the movie that is previewed in the trailer is done in AVC or occasionally, for Disney, in VC-1. The trailer for Becoming Jane that was on the Gone Baby Gone BD looks horrendous in comparison to the actual BD of BJ.


----------



## lujan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dannyk8232* /forum/post/13509815
> 
> 
> I'm assuming it's been mentioned before, but 28 days later is intentionally awful PQ until the very end...when it looks great. The director chose to make it look terrible until the very end, when it is obviously HD...
> 
> 
> I think this movie is unique in this regard, and ranking it is somewhat difficult because it is intended to look poor IMO.



I wish the director's wouldn't do that because I always think that it's because of one of my components and I start troubleshooting when it's the movie that has the poor PQ. The same thing happened when I saw "Ocean's 13" on HD DVD.


----------



## b_scott

yeah, Ocean's isn't a good movie for BD. found this out as well. First movie i played on my BD player and I thought it looked not much better than DVD if at all.


I recently played Cars and it was jumping off the screen


----------



## hollywoodguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13760389
> 
> 
> Just wanted to point out that (a rare) 33 Mbps AVBR encode on BJ had resulted in Tier-0 rating.



In that case you might want to ready a Tier-00 for the upcoming Jumper. Reportedly it's got AVC @ an average of 35mbps (and that includes 8 min of credits in an 88 min movie).










Don't expect a "Superbit" double-dip for that one.


----------



## ballen420




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hollywoodguy* /forum/post/13764282
> 
> 
> In that case you might want to ready a Tier-00 for the upcoming Jumper. Reportedly it's got AVC @ an average of 35mbps (and that includes 8 min of credits in an 88 min movie).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't expect a "Superbit" double-dip for that one.



Just make sure you are also prepared for one of the worst movies in history as well. I saw an advanced DVD copy and it was an awful movie.


----------



## hollywoodguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ballen420* /forum/post/13764889
> 
> 
> Just make sure you are also prepared for one of the worst movies in history as well. I saw an advanced DVD copy and it was an awful movie.



I've seen it already. It's like a reader's digest version of a movie, but "one of the worst movies in history"? How can you say that with a straight face in the same quarter that AVP:R was released?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hollywoodguy* /forum/post/13764282
> 
> 
> In that case you might want to ready a Tier-00 for the upcoming Jumper. Reportedly it's got AVC @ an average of 35mbps (and that includes 8 min of credits in an 88 min movie).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't expect a "Superbit" double-dip for that one.



I knew there was a reason I was looking forward to this. I pre-ordered it the day it went up.










But Fox is the least likely culprit on "Superbit" double-dips. Sony is the prime suspect there. I would be truly shocked if you could report an ABR of 35 on any upcoming Sony BD release (until they actually do start the "superbits").


----------



## hobbs47

^ There will never be a Blu-ray Superbit. What you see is what you get.


----------



## ballen420




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hollywoodguy* /forum/post/13765029
> 
> 
> I've seen it already. It's like a reader's digest version of a movie, but "one of the worst movies in history"? How can you say that with a straight face in the same quarter that AVP:R was released?



That's judgement is being reserved for now, as I'm on a very long wait to receive AVP:R from Netflix. From what I've read, I'm happy I didn't waste my money buying it though.


----------



## SuprSlow

Update:


-A couple people mentioned moving *Rush Hour 3* down a few spots. Should it be the bottom of Tier 1 or in to Tier 2?


-Good job on the Unranked, I think we kicked about 7 off this time around










- I added the 1/4, 1/2, and 3/4 markers into the tiers. See what you think. First Post 



*Title Movements:*

*3:10 to Yuma* - Tier 1 above Rush Hour

*No Country* - up a few spots

*Cast Away* - Tier 2 above Donnie Brasco

*Water Horse* - Above RH3

*RH3* - down (where?)

*House of 1000 corpse*s - bot Tier 1

*Before the devil knows you're dead* - mid 1

*The 6th Day* - Tier 2 above Behind Enemy Lines

*Becoming Jane* - remains in Tier 0

*The Orphanage* - Tier 0

*AVP:R* - moved up in Tier 1

*Dan in Real Life* - lowered in Tier 2 (averaged placement)

*Juno* - top Tier 3

*Air Force One (Import)* - Tier 2 below Independance Day

*Coyote Ugly* - Low Tier 2

*Bulletproof Monk* - high Tier 3

*A Passage to India* - bot 1/4 Tier 1

*Timberlake* - Tier 2

*Appleseed* - mid Tier 1 (averaged placement)

*Bubble* - removed from Unranked

*Predator* - low Tier 3

*Commando* - low Tier 3

*27 Dresses* - high Tier 1


----------



## bonham2

Good job with the update. It's looking good. I am especially happy with the placement of Predator and Commando. I think they are placed perfectly.


How do we go about ranking the unranked titles? Are we just supposed to comment on them or is there a voting system?


If we are just supposed to comment, I'll talk about Lady in the Water (which I just watched unfortunately). I think it belongs comfortably in Tier 4 (somewhere in the middle - I haven't seen all of those movies. It's definitely cleaner than T2, but not as good as Goodfellas). The picture is extremely flat and dirty. The colors are very dull and murky (although it is said to be intentional). There is noticable noise and artifacting. The only instance of "pop" that I noticed was with the CGI monster (knarl I think) at the end, and even that was underwhelming. The ONLY positive that I can say for the PQ is the blacks (which there are a lot of in this dark movie) are handled very well. I didn't notice any "jaggies" or pixelation throughout.


Viewed on 50" Sony Wega 1080i rear-projection screen from 6 feet via PS3 with component wires.


----------



## bplewis24

I like lgans' review format, so in keeping with that:

*The Good:*
Very vibrant color palette, and that was to be expected
Pretty sharp picture with very good feel of depth
Contrast is excellent

*The Bad:*
I could be wrong, but there appears to be use of DNR or digital smoothing in some spots. Pay particularly close attention whenever Nicole Kidman is on screen. I'd like to get some feedback on this
If there is no DNR or the like, then I guess some shots are much softer than others.
Colors are a bit oversaturated at times.
Fine object detail is not to the level of Tier 0 titles. This could be a result of the things mentioned above.


My vote is for *Low Tier 1*. (I disagree with placement of a lot of the titles currently in tier 1, so I can't recommend for specific placement).


PS3->1080p24->46XBR4 (8 feet)


Brandon


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13771205
> 
> 
> I like lgans' review format, so in keeping with that:
> 
> *The Good:*
> Very vibrant color palette, and that was to be expected
> Pretty sharp picture with very good feel of depth
> Contrast is excellent
> 
> *The Bad:*
> I could be wrong, but there appears to be use of DNR or digital smoothing in some spots. Pay particularly close attention whenever Nicole Kidman is on screen. I'd like to get some feedback on this
> If there is no DNR or the like, then I guess some shots are much softer than others.
> Colors are a bit oversaturated at times.
> Fine object detail is not to the level of Tier 0 titles. This could be a result of the things mentioned above.
> 
> 
> My vote is for *Mid-to-High Tier* 1. (I disagree with placement of a lot of the titles currently in high tier 1, so I can't recommend for specific placement).
> 
> 
> PS3->1080p24->46XBR4 (8 feet)
> 
> 
> Brandon



I have only watched about the first half; I plan to watch the rest tonight. I will of course report if the second half looks different from the first half.


In general, I thought the PQ was exceedingly inconsistent. Some shots looked very good; some shots looked awful. Most shots were somewhere in between.


The PQ treatment of Kidman was strikingly strange. During her first scene with Lyra, it was quite striking how the bitrate would change depending on which face was shown. The bitrate for Kidman was about 20; for Lyra maybe in the 30's. And the result was striking as well. Kidman's face looked really, really strange. Not exactly the typical DNR waxiness, but badly off.


With close-ups of the male characters, the PQ was wildly inconsistent. Some looked really good; some looked really soft. Who knows why.


The effects were also extremely inconsistent. The creatures generally looked excellent. Other effects were embarrassingly bad. The flight over the city early on looked embarrassingly fake. The surface ships looked like child's work.


I think high or mid Tier 1 is being overly generous, based on the wild inconsistency and the fact that the bad shots are really quite bad.


----------



## thehun

"We Own the Night" Upper Tier 2


Don't know if it's rated yet, it's impossible to find a title without going down the entire list, and strain my eyes. Is there a search function? Anyway,

I sit about 9' away from the equipment I have in the profile section.


----------



## b_scott

Control + F in Windows, Command + F on Mac.


or you know, Search This Thread in the upper righthand corner.


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bonham2* /forum/post/13770866
> 
> 
> How do we go about ranking the unranked titles? Are we just supposed to comment on them or is there a voting system?



No voting system. Your review and placement is exactly how's it done. Post your thoughts/placement, and it gets moved off the unranked list next update











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *thehun* /forum/post/13771856
> 
> 
> "We Own the Night" Upper Tier 2
> 
> 
> Don't know if it's rated yet, it's impossible to find a title without going down the entire list, and strain my eyes. Is there a search function?



It's currently in the bottom 1/4 of Tier 3.


As for searching, use CTRL+F on a Windows browser, or CMD+F for a Mac. (edit...And Brian beat me to it







)


----------



## b_scott

lol, look up.


----------



## SuprSlow

I edited my post


----------



## ballen420




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/13772001
> 
> 
> It's currently in the bottom 1/4 of Tier 3.



I think it needs to stay there, or even move lower into Tier 4. A lot of folks commented on this one and I believe everyone agreed it a soft flat picture throughout. Just above DVD quality.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13771592
> 
> 
> I have only watched about the first half; I plan to watch the rest tonight. I will of course report if the second half looks different from the first half.
> 
> 
> In general, I thought the PQ was exceedingly inconsistent. Some shots looked very good; some shots looked awful. Most shots were somewhere in between.



It's also interesting that the bit-rate varies greatly. Sometimes (especially during night shots) the bit-rate would hover around 10mbps. Other times it would be well over 35mbps. In fact, in an early scene (where the young girl and young boy are on the rooftop at night), when the camera is on the boy & girl, the bitrate is around 10-15 mbps. Then the camera will switch over to the maid yelling from the window and it will skyrocket up to 40mbps. Then back to the kids responding, down to 10-15 mbps. Coincidentally, the review at HDD finds black crush in some night-time shots.


I also found the panoramic shot of the flight over the city to be very soft. I think I expected that because of the CGI though. And most of the scenes with Kidman are on the softish side, but whenever the panel of male characters meets, it's consistently pretty sharp.


Brandon


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/13770014
> 
> *No Country* - up a few spots
> *The 6th Day* - Tier 2 above Behind Enemy Lines



I do not see these in the list?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13772357
> 
> 
> It's also interesting that the bit-rate varies greatly. Sometimes (especially during night shots) the bit-rate would hover around 10mbps. Other times it would be well over 35mbps. *In fact, in an early scene (where the young girl and young boy are on the rooftop at night), when the camera is on the boy & girl, the bitrate is around 10-15 mbps.* Then the camera will switch over to the maid yelling from the window and it will skyrocket up to 40mbps. Then back to the kids responding, down to 10-15 mbps. Coincidentally, the review at HDD finds black crush in some night-time shots.
> 
> *I also found the panoramic shot of the flight over the city to be very soft. I think I expected that because of the CGI though.* And most of the scenes with Kidman are on the softish side, but whenever the panel of male characters meets, it's consistently pretty sharp.
> 
> 
> Brandon



Yes, I noticed the extreme bitrate variations as well. That "rooftop" scene looked dreadful.


If they could do such a good job on the CGI on the animals, I don't understand how they could do such a poor job on effects like the flight over the city and the ships.


Some of the close-ups of Daniel Craig looked just about as soft as the Kidman shots, but others looked just fine.


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/13772388
> 
> 
> I do not see these in the list?



Thanks, I'll get that fixed.


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/13772388
> 
> 
> I do not see these in the list?



They should be there now. Not sure what I was thinking, work distracted me


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ballen420* /forum/post/13772093
> 
> 
> I think it needs to stay there, or even move lower into Tier 4. A lot of folks commented on this one and I believe everyone agreed it a soft flat picture throughout. Just above DVD quality.



I wouldn't say that at all. It's clearly better than a standard DVD. It deserves it's Tier 3 spot and no lower, in my opinion.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/13773544
> 
> 
> I wouldn't say that at all. It's clearly better than a standard DVD. It deserves it's Tier 3 spot and no lower, in my opinion.



I would agree that it should be Tier 3 at the lowest.


Brandon


----------



## lrstevens421

^^^I would say it was slightly better than SD-DVD, I do however agree with its current placement.


----------



## bonham2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13773660
> 
> 
> I would agree that it should be Tier 3 at the lowest.
> 
> 
> Brandon



For the record, what movie are you guys talking about?


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bonham2* /forum/post/13773997
> 
> 
> For the record, what movie are you guys talking about?



We Own the Night...stemming from post #4282.


----------



## lgans316

I suggest you guys to watch NEXT once it's out on Blu-ray.


I have the U.K edition of Next on Blu-ray which is VC-1 encoded and features DTS-HD HR audio @2Mbps. The distribution studio Entertainment in Video EIV has done a terrific job with the transfer. The bit rates hovered between 20 ~ 31 Mbps with no hints of starvation. It had many eye candy shots throughout the movie with hot colors and contrast. The closeups also revealed tremendous details similar to 30 Days of Night. The transfer is marred by slight aliasing and jaggies in couple of scenes that may be distracting to critical viewers.


The movie however was a let down due to a pizz poor ending like many other recent movies.


SuprSlow, Thanks for taking care of our requests.


----------



## lgans316

I disagree with the current placement of Tears of the Sun. It should be in lower Tier-2 or Tier-3 due to the presence of white specks in so many scenes. It's encoded at just 16 Mbps using MPEG-2. Glad that I sold my copy.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13775968
> 
> 
> I disagree with the current placement of Tears of the Sun. It should be in lower Tier-2 or Tier-3 due to the presence of white specks in so many scenes. It's encoded at just 16 Mbps using MPEG-2. Glad that I sold my copy.



What in the WORLD are you talking about?


White specks? Not on my copy.


It looks fantastic. Tier 3 my arse.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I voted for high Tier 3 for We Own the Night. It is quite soft.


----------



## lgans316

There is no need to pound on me like that Rob. Just my 2 cents. You can may be re-watch your copy for white specks. It flashes at many spots.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13776078
> 
> 
> There is no need to pound on me like that Rob. Just my 2 cents. You can may be re-watch your copy for white specks. It flashes at many spots.



Didn't mean to "pound you" but there simply are not a bunch of white specks on my copy, period. No need for me to re-watch it.


----------



## lgans316

Fine. I bought the U.K version which is identical to the U.S version. Sounds strange.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*PHONEbooth
*

Tier recommendation: middle of *Tier 3*


This 81 minute feature(of which 7 minutes are end credits) is encoded in MPEG2 on a BD-25. The case says video averages 26 Mbps, though I mostly saw numbers range from 23 to 28 Mbps with it rarely going outside that range.


This BD is the very definition of an average Blu-ray for picture quality. It's a decent encode but it's apparent Schumacher was aiming for a certain visual look with flat photography and somewhat muted colors. There is some minimal grain but facial detail isn't very good for the most part. At times the picture gets a little better and as high as Tier 2 quality, particularly in the outdoor scenes involving Forest Whitaker. Black levels are okay but nothing that is memorable. It does look much better than the upconverted dvd version(frankly the PHONEbooth dvd wasn't that great) overall.


The only serious problem would involve the picture-in-picture effect used sporadically thoughout the movie. The dirt from the optical mattes used to achieve this effect are obvious in High Definition when it is on screen.


An interesting comparison can be made with the theatrical trailer(also encoded in MPEG2 but at much lower bitrates) included on the disc. They obviously changed the color timing on the home video master as the colors on the trailer "pop" and are more vivid than the actual BD. Detail is a bit lower though on the trailer.


I would recommend this Blu-ray to be put somewhere in the middle of tier 3, around "From Hell" or "Enter The Dragon".


----------



## lgans316

Thanks Phantom Stranger for your review on Phone Booth which is totally opposite to the reviewers who gave excellent marks for PQ. I have this title in my amazon.co.jp order and I think it's time to remove it.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13776078
> 
> 
> There is no need to pound on me like that Rob. Just my 2 cents. You can may be re-watch your copy for white specks. It flashes at many spots.



I don't remember any specks. It's possible they were there, but not enough for me to remember the title in a negative light. IMO Tears of the Sun was a very good transfer. Much better than Tier 3.


Brandon


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13776372
> 
> 
> I don't remember any specks. It's possible they were there, but not enough for me to remember the title in a negative light. IMO Tears of the Sun was a very good transfer. Much better than Tier 3.
> 
> 
> Brandon



I dont remember any either. Tier 2.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13771205
> 
> 
> I like lgans' review format, so in keeping with that:
> 
> *The Good:*
> Very vibrant color palette, and that was to be expected
> Pretty sharp picture with very good feel of depth
> Contrast is excellent
> 
> *The Bad:*
> I could be wrong, but there appears to be use of DNR or digital smoothing in some spots. Pay particularly close attention whenever Nicole Kidman is on screen. I'd like to get some feedback on this
> If there is no DNR or the like, then I guess some shots are much softer than others.
> Colors are a bit oversaturated at times.
> Fine object detail is not to the level of Tier 0 titles. This could be a result of the things mentioned above.
> 
> 
> My vote is for *Mid-to-High Tier* 1. (I disagree with placement of a lot of the titles currently in high tier 1, so I can't recommend for specific placement).
> 
> 
> PS3->1080p24->46XBR4 (8 feet)
> 
> 
> Brandon



I'd say lower tier 1. Nicole Kidman looks photoshopped.... This was not the same effect we saw on Res Evil Extinction (and Invasion I think had the same efffect as REE). I dont remember being very impressed with any face-closeup except for perhaps Lyra(Dakota), but even those were inconsistent. Overall the movie had a very good look to it,but it wasnt quite the level of Water Horse: Legend of the Deep (though it was a better and more entertaining movie, IMO).


Also, for those who havent seen the movie, dont expect Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig to be seen in the movie very often... The real star is the girl who plays Lyra.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/13777578
> 
> 
> I'd say lower tier 1. Nicole Kidman looks photoshopped.... This was not the same effect we saw on Res Evil Extinction (and Invasion I think had the same efffect as REE). I dont remember being very impressed with any face-closeup except for perhaps Lyra(Dakota), but even those were inconsistent. Overall the movie had a very good look to it,but it wasnt quite the level of Water Horse: Legend of the Deep (though it was a better and more entertaining movie, IMO).
> 
> 
> Also, for those who havent seen the movie, dont expect Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig to be seen in the movie very often... The real star is the girl who plays Lyra.



I think even low Tier 1 is generous. I watched the second half last night and the close-ups of Kidman in this part continue to look grotesque.


I'd say high Tier 2.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13777893
> 
> 
> I think even low Tier 1 is generous. I watched the second half last night and the close-ups of Kidman in this part continue to look grotesque.
> 
> 
> I'd say high Tier 2.



Could have been better if the director of Compass had sought permission from Kubrick and inserted THE ULTIMATE KIDMAN from Eyes Wide Shut.










I hope that you guys have netflixed GC rather than buying it.

*AVP-1*


Fits Tier-3 requirements perfectly with occasional satisfying of Tier-2 requirements. I think the current placement of this one is perfect. A decent movie spoiled by disastrous and aged transfer.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13777937
> 
> 
> I hope that you guys have netflixed GC rather than buying it.



Netflix...and it's going back today!


Also, I rewatched some of it (couldn't rewatch the whole thing...the movie is entirely forgettable), and I would agree that *lower Tier 1* is more appropriate than my initial recommendation of mid-to-upper Tier 1.


Brandon


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Night Of The Werewolf*


Tier recommendation: absolute bottom of *Tier 4*


This came to Blu-ray as part of a double feature with Vengeance of the Zombies. Unfortunately it looks worse than its partner, even though it's a newer film from 1980. It's encoded in AVC on its own BD-25(each movie got its own disc) at a feature length of 92 minutes. Sadly this is a very low bitrate encoding that ranges all over the place from 4.9 to 24 Mbps. There are scenes that actually average 6 Mbps(that should only be seen on dvd) for short intervals even with movement on screen. Most of the movie hovers though between 13 and 16 Mbps.


The box says a new HD transfer from the original negatives was made "for superior picture quality!" for this Blu-ray. Sadly what they don't tell you on the box is that someone went wild with the DNR on this transfer. This is as heavy DNR as I've ever seen on a Blu-ray. I suspect the intention was to remove the grainy nature of the film, but it makes everyone in the film look like wax dolls. Detail is non-existent and at times no better than dvd. On top of this the entire movie is very soft. There really isn't a sharp shot in the entire movie. I have to believe the HD transfer was made with dvd resolution in mind.


Not surprisingly, black levels are below average and there are contrast issues at times. Banding and compression artifacts appear occasionally, particularly in smoke filled scenes and whenever the Werewolf makes an appearance. Thankfully it appears no edge enhancement was added to the transfer.


My final recommendation is the very bottom of Tier 4 for this release, but I could see some people wanting this for Tier 5. This might be the worst AVC encoding I've seen out of the hundreds of BDs I own. It's something of a shame as it's a better movie than the very dated Vengeance Of The Zombies.


Watching on a calibrated 60" Pioneer Kuro Plasma at 1080p/24 from a PS3 at a viewing distance of 6 feet.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13776293
> 
> 
> Thanks Phantom Stranger for your review on Phone Booth which is totally opposite to the reviewers who gave excellent marks for PQ. I have this title in my amazon.co.jp order and I think it's time to remove it.



I always look at the dates of the reviews for their validity. PHONEbooth came out on Blu-ray in February of 2007. Back then I probably would have given it a Tier 2 ranking, but the transfers have steadily gotten better as the studios get more familiar with High Definition transfers. I can't wait for the day when I, Robot gets bumped from Tier 0 as future BDs come out that look even more spectacular.


----------



## jphillips63




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/13783483
> 
> 
> I can't wait for the day when I, Robot gets bumped from Tier 0 as future BDs come out that look even more spectacular.




I would say as disney releases more of it's movies to BD we will see alot of the movies in Tier "0" move further down as the Disney films take over.

Not sure what all those guys do but there films are remarkable with details and colors. I can't wait to see Finding Nemo on BD as it should be tops on the list if they transfer it correctly.


James


----------



## thehun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ballen420* /forum/post/13772093
> 
> 
> I think it needs to stay there, or even move lower into Tier 4. A lot of folks commented on this one and I believe everyone agreed it a soft flat picture throughout. Just above DVD quality.



Neither flat nor soft, it's way better then it's current position.



Tears Of The Sun Tier 2 I agree, no white specks as far as I remember either.


Layer Cake Tier 2,


----------



## bonham2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jphillips63* /forum/post/13783542
> 
> 
> I would say as disney releases more of it's movies to BD we will see alot of the movies in Tier "0" move further down as the Disney films take over.
> 
> Not sure what all those guys do but there films are remarkable with details and colors. I can't wait to see Finding Nemo on BD as it should be tops on the list if they transfer it correctly.
> 
> 
> James



On the Enchanted disc (which looks amazing BTW), as you complete the trivia game they give you stills of future Disney BD released like Beauty and the Beast. Xylar took some screenshots and posted them under the Enchanted thread. The Beauty and the Beast shots look AMAZING. Disney is definitely doing something right, and it's not just their animated films. The live action portion of Enchanted looks far superior to the animated portion, imo.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *thehun* /forum/post/13783999
> 
> 
> Neither flat nor soft, it's way better then it's current position.



It makes it a lot easier to follow if the title being commented on is identified by more than an "it."


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13786677
> 
> 
> It makes it a lot easier to follow if the title being commented on is identified by more than an "it."



Definitely agree, when quoting please add the movie title you're talking about in your response or in the title of your post, that way everyone knows which movie you're talking about.


----------



## thehun

It was "We Own the Night".


----------



## stumlad

The first 20-or-so minutes looked a lot better than the rest of the movie. Once they enter the underground temple, the PQ gets bad.


Face details in the beginning were actually surprisingly good... I'd even say they were better than recent movies like Enchanted, Golden Compass, Rush Hour 3, and many more in tier 1. The problem is that this is only good for a short time... most of the dark scenes are grainy (it may be intentional, but it looks bad). Once this happens, the resolution seems to suffer because there's too much grain and darkness to make out any fine details. At times, the contrast seemed to be pumped up a little bit... not sure if that was intentional or bad transfer!?


Afterwards, I watched the trailer for AVP.. I've read about how the trailer looks better than the movie, but I didnt see any evidence of this.... unless, of course, the trailer on the AVP disc is not the same as found on other discs?


I also watched the trailer for *Planet of the Apes (remake)* -- the PQ on the trailer was horrible... does the movie look this bad? I mean it was really bad...


Also, after watching this, I'm going to put in my bid again for *Entrapment* to be raised to, at least, the level of AVP. I posted some screenshots of dvd vs bd comparison shots in a thread a while ago to show the improvment from DVD to BD. IMO, the first 20 minutes of AVP looks great, but when averaged out, Entrapment is an overall better looking movie...


----------



## lgans316

Please go through the AVP-1 trailers on discs like FF2. It's AVC encoded and looks phenomenal than the actual BD.


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/13783483
> 
> 
> I always look at the dates of the reviews for their validity. PHONEbooth came out on Blu-ray in February of 2007. Back then I probably would have given it a Tier 2 ranking, but the transfers have steadily gotten better as the studios get more familiar with High Definition transfers. I can't wait for the day when I, Robot gets bumped from Tier 0 as future BDs come out that look even more spectacular.



Definitely any picture quality reviews of non-CGI titles (which are apparently hard to screw up) that were released before the summer of 2007 have to be taken with a slight grain of salt. Tier 0 and Tier 1 are absolutely dominated by titles that have been released in the last 6-8 months. It's pretty clear that Sony, Disney and Fox are really getting a handle on how to properly encode titles for the Blu-ray format.


Judging from the latest reviews, it seems I Robot may have already been knocked off of its live action perch by either Narnia or Saawariya (or both!). I am eagerly awaiting the return of Paramount with their new titles since they have certainly shown the ability to pull off an excellent transfer and encode.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13789969
> 
> 
> Please go through the AVP-1 trailers on discs like FF2. It's AVC encoded and looks phenomenal than the actual BD.




Is it because they are Fullscreen trailers and not the widescreen? I say this because I have seen movies in HD on HD net and HBO and stars that sometimes I think they look as good or better than the BD or seem to look better compared to BD's in general. I realized it was because the picture was zoomed and filled the screen more so it "looked" better and more "resolved".


----------



## lgans316

To be honest I hate fullscreen and have plenty of love and affection towards 2.35:1 and 2:40:1.










Also it's very true that 75% of the HD trailers on a glance actually look better than the actual BD/HD DVD. Some good examples are


AVP-1

FF-1

Harry Potter and the Order of Phoenix

Batman Begins
















V for Vendetta
















Traffic


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13790632
> 
> 
> To be honest I hate fullscreen and have plenty of love and affection towards 2.35:1 and 2:40:1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also it's very true that 75% of the HD trailers on a glance actually look better than the actual BD/HD DVD. Some good examples are
> 
> 
> AVP-1
> 
> FF-1
> 
> Harry Potter and the Order of Phoenix
> 
> Batman Begins
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> V for Vendetta
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Traffic



Here is AVP trailer comparison (AVC vs MPG2)
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1026127 


Lgans, can you tell me a few discs where Batman Begins trailer is located so I can compare with the actual HD DVD? I'd also like to try Harry Potter OOP as well...


----------



## lgans316

Sorry stumland. I had the 20 Mbps MPEG-2 broadcast copy on my Japanese DVR which I sold off few months back. It was definitely better, sharper and had lots of high frequency details that were missing in the HD DVD. I think I have conveyed this point several times in Xylon's comparison thread. I am unable to prove my claims because I don't have the appropriate tools and money to etch out a decent comparison.


----------



## stumlad

This movie was dark throughout the entire film. The 1st movie was dark, but not like this. Without a display with really good contrast, I think it would be very hard to rate this movie. I have an RS1 FPJ with 15,000:1 contrast and there were times I felt it wasnt good enough to watch this movie. I want to watch it again on my plasma to see if it's better dynamic contrast will help. When you can see things, the picture is low tier 0/ high tier 1. The amount o f dark scenes just lowers it .. even though fine object detail was very good. I'd have to throw say this is a high tier 2 transfer.. It's just not eye-candy in the same sense that other tier 0/1 are.


The transfer itself seemed perfect, but I'm not sure how they had all of those dark scenes without any real noticeable film grain.. was this post-processed? I could see grain in the daytime scenes.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13795972
> 
> 
> Sorry stumland. I had the 20 Mbps MPEG-2 broadcast copy on my Japanese DVR which I sold off few months back. It was definitely better, sharper and had lots of high frequency details that were missing in the HD DVD. I think I have conveyed this point several times in Xylon's comparison thread. I am unable to prove my claims because I don't have the appropriate tools and money to etch out a decent comparison.



Are you talking about Batman Begins or AVP? I'm not trying to prove/disprove your claims with the AVP, but I wanted to say and show I couldnt see any "significant" difference... I thought it was going to be the difference between a whole "tier" rating, but that wasn't the case.


As far as Harry Potter OOP - I'd like to check that out too because I wasn't as impressed with the transfer as some others were and perhaps the trailer for that may show some difference..


----------



## lgans316

3 titles to be precise.


1) Batman Begins - HD DVD vs Trailer vs broadcast vs demo clips run on Sony showrooms - missing lots of high frequency details.

2) AVP-1 - BD vs AVC encoded trailer - same as above.

3) Harry Potter OOP - BD vs AVC encoded trailer which hit 36.5 Mbps.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13796070
> 
> 
> 3 titles to be precise.
> 
> 
> 1) Batman Begins - HD DVD vs Trailer vs broadcast vs demo clips run on Sony showrooms - missing lots of high frequency details.
> 
> 2) AVP-1 - BD vs AVC encoded trailer - same as above.
> 
> 3) Harry Potter OOP - BD vs AVC encoded trailer which hit 36.5 Mbps.



Ok.. I just re-went through AVP -- I have to re-post my thoughts on this because there's no other way to say this. Yes.. there is a huge difference between the actual movie and the trailer. First I will say the AVC AND MPG2 trailers are from the same exact source and look _almost_ identical.

The movie, however, is taken from a completely different source and looks different.


As far as the actual detail/resolution, they are about the same. The biggest difference is that the trailer contains different CGI effects. The next difference and most important is that the colors in the actual movie have been desaturated. Skin tones are basically muted so you dont see any pink/reddish faces. The trailer, however almost looks a tad bit oversaturated.


This may be why you thought there was a big difference between the trailer. The reason I didnt catch it is because I was paying more attention to resolution and film grain rather than color differences. I'll post more info in the comparison thread.


As far as Harry Potter -- What movies do you own that contain the trailer for HP OOP? Let me know and I will try to do comparisons between the actual versus trailer for that.


For Batman, I dont have the MPG2 broadcast so I doubt I'd be able to do comparisons.


----------



## lgans316

Thanks stumlad for summarizing your experience. I agree your inference that the trailer and the movie were from different sources due to the different look and feel on the actual BD. The HP OOP trailer was downloaded from http://www.demo-world.eu/trailers/qu...d-trailers.php and converted to PS3 playable format using the software PS3 Video 9.


----------



## ballen420




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13778343
> 
> 
> Netflix...and it's going back today!
> 
> 
> Also, I rewatched some of it (couldn't rewatch the whole thing...the movie is entirely forgettable), and I would agree that *lower Tier 1* is more appropriate than my initial recommendation of mid-to-upper Tier 1.
> 
> 
> Brandon



I also think low tier 1 is a proper placement for this movie. The Nicole Kidman shots were very soft, and it may be because she's starting to show her age.


Thankfully I Netflix'd this as well. I'd be curious if the studio scraps their plans for parts 2 & 3.


----------



## ballen420

First off, excellent movie, made even better by the Marissa Tomei scenes.


Anyway, I think it belongs in low tier 1, maybe even the top of tier 2. I thought it was an excellent transfer, and very sharp at times, but lacked some of that pop found in other tier 1 movies.


I think it belongs somewhere in between 30 Days of Night and 3:10 to Yuma.


----------



## b_scott

agreed as earlier on Devil. Marisa Tomei opening scene.......... ohhhh man.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ballen420* /forum/post/13796781
> 
> 
> First off, excellent movie, made even better by the Marissa Tomei scenes.
> 
> 
> Anyway, I think it belongs in low tier 1, maybe even the top of tier 2. I thought it was an excellent transfer, and very sharp at times, but lacked some of that pop found in other tier 1 movies.
> 
> 
> I think it belongs somewhere in between 30 Days of Night and 3:10 to Yuma.



I hope some others weigh in with lower placements on this (*Before the Devil* etc.), since I really don't want to have to watch the whole of this thing in order to express the negative reaction to the PQ that I had after the first few minutes. Of course it's possible I was just over-reacting to the spectacle of PSH in a nude scene. . .


----------



## b_scott

no, the PQ was really nice. and that was on a 27" Sony HS.


----------



## ballen420




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13797761
> 
> 
> I hope some others weigh in with lower placements on this (*Before the Devil* etc.), since I really don't want to have to watch the whole of this thing in order to express the negative reaction to the PQ that I had after the first few minutes. Of course it's possible I was just over-reacting to the spectacle of PSH in a nude scene. . .



I remember being disappointed with the beginning but it got better as it went along. Maybe in the top 5 or 10 of tier 2 would be a proper placement. I watched it pretty late last night, so I have no problems with others overriding my opinion on it.


----------



## lgans316

I rewatched I am Legend yesterday and made quick comparisons with The Island and Black Hawk Down. I think IAL should be placed below these titles.


----------



## Shane Martin

Regarding Before the Devil, I think it belongs in the lower tier 1 category. It's a very much under appreciated film and that's sad.


----------



## lrstevens421

I admit being a big John Legend fan but this concert looks mostly excellent in high definition. Colors were vivid, contrast and blacks were very strong. There was also a good amount of detail which took me by surprise. There were a few noisey shots but a good presentation none the less. This concert is unworthy of it's current low tier 3 placement. I recommend mid to high tier 2 for this one. I'm not sure who recommended it's current placement but I urge you to give it a re-watch.


Sony 52XBR4

Denon DVD2500 @ 10ft. away


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Before the Devil Knows You're Dead*


Tier recommendation: *Tier 1*


In general I thought this BD presented a very pleasing picture. The movie itself is 116 minutes long and encoded in AVC on a BD-25(the current listing of VC-1 in the Tier list is wrong). Bitrates typically range between 16 and 23 Mbps with it very often hovering around 20 Mbps. Very rarely does it stray outside that range except for a couple of brief peaks of 34 Mbps.


Detail is excellent for the entire picture with a sharp clean look on close-ups. I also thought there was excellent depth and dimensionality to the picture. I do not think this is a flawless encode though. If you pay attention very carefully you'll notice a small amount of jaggies and chroma noise at certain points. I also think there might have been a very slight amount of edge enhancement added to certain scenes, particularly in the 2nd half of the movie.


This Blu-ray as it stands currently is very good but I have a suspicion if Disney or Fox had encoded this movie it would have turned out even better. The master was obviously in great condition and was shot in a manner lending itself to a clean looking Blu-ray. As is I would put this somewhere in the lower half of Tier 1.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Dan In Real Life*


Tier recommendation: Bottom 1/4 of Tier 2


This is a Disney (Touchstone) title, so I always have high expectations with this studio. Unfortunately, I was a bit let down with this one.


Just not a lot of pop to the image. Detail was ok, but it wasn't particularly noteworthy either. While the overall image quality was satisfactory and better than Tier 3 titles, it isn't better than the majority of Tier 2 titles.


It's current placement is pretty close to where I think it belongs (bottom 1/4 Tier 2).


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/13802928
> 
> *Before the Devil Knows You're Dead*
> 
> 
> Tier recommendation: *Tier 1*
> 
> 
> In general I thought this BD presented a very pleasing picture. The movie itself is 116 minutes long and encoded in AVC on a BD-25(the current listing of VC-1 in the Tier list is wrong). Bitrates typically range between 16 and 23 Mbps with it very often hovering around 20 Mbps. Very rarely does it stray outside that range except for a couple of brief peaks of 34 Mbps.
> 
> 
> Detail is excellent for the entire picture with a sharp clean look on close-ups. I also thought there was excellent depth and dimensionality to the picture. I do not think this is a flawless encode though. If you pay attention very carefully you'll notice a small amount of jaggies and chroma noise at certain points. I also think there might have been a very slight amount of edge enhancement added to certain scenes, particularly in the 2nd half of the movie.
> 
> 
> This Blu-ray as it stands currently is very good but I have a suspicion if Disney or Fox had encoded this movie it would have turned out even better. The master was obviously in great condition and was shot in a manner lending itself to a clean looking Blu-ray. As is I would put this somewhere in the lower half of Tier 1.





Marisa Tomei doesn't hurt either.


----------



## techwisenyc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13803066
> 
> *Dan In Real Life*
> 
> 
> Tier recommendation: Bottom 1/4 of Tier 2
> 
> 
> This is a Disney (Touchstone) title, so I always have high expectations with this studio. Unfortunately, I was a bit let down with this one.
> 
> 
> Just not a lot of pop to the image. Detail was ok, but it wasn't particularly noteworthy either. While the overall image quality was satisfactory and better than Tier 3 titles, it isn't better than the majority of Tier 2 titles.
> 
> 
> It's current placement is pretty close to where I think it belongs (bottom 1/4 Tier 2).



I agree. The PQ is not impressive at all considering it's a Disney title, but I think this is the way it was shot. It's not horrendous, but nothing exciting either.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *techwisenyc* /forum/post/13803276
> 
> 
> I agree. The PQ is not impressive at all considering it's a Disney title, but I think this is the way it was shot. It's not horrendous, but nothing exciting either.



Right. The PQ is neither particularly impressive, nor particularly bad to the point of being distracting.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ballen420* /forum/post/13798874
> 
> 
> I remember being disappointed with the beginning but it got better as it went along. Maybe in the top 5 or 10 of tier 2 would be a proper placement. I watched it pretty late last night, so I have no problems with others overriding my opinion on it.



At what point did the PQ on *Before the Devil* start getting better? I watched a bit more last night and it wasn't getting any better.


----------



## ballen420




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13803807
> 
> 
> At what point did the PQ on *Before the Devil* start getting better? I watched a bit more last night and it wasn't getting any better.



The part with Marissa Tomei sitting on the edge of the bed was pretty good!


Honestly, I wasn't really picking the movie apart to remember where it got better, I just remember thinking it got better. This was a movie I was watching late night to enjoy the story line. I just thought it was fairly crisp throughout, though lacking the pop of some of the other tier 1 movies.


Some other folks have commented on it in more detail, maybe they'll be able to help out.


----------



## SuprSlow

This week's releases:
*The Devil's Own* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony
*First Sunday* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 1.85:1 | Sony
*Helvetica* Video: ? | Audio: DD | AR: 1.78:1 | Plexifilm
*Om Shanti Om* Video: ? | Audio: ? | AR: 1.78:1 | Eros
*Ozzfest: 10th Anniversary* Video: ? | Audio: ? | AR: ?:1 | Warner
*P.S. I Love You* Video: VC-1 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 1.85:1 | Warner
*Saawariya* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony
*Shall We Dance?* Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.85:1 | Disney
*Twister* Video: VC-1 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner


----------



## lgans316

*Lucky Number Slevin Video: VC1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA 16-bit | AR: 2.40:1 | EIV*

*The Good*


Smooth and film like image

Natural colors

Decent sharpness in certain shots

Decent black levels and contrast

*The Bad*


The entire movie had a slightly filtered (intentional) look

Image lacked depth especially on long distance shots

Quite a few shots looked muddy and dull due to the frequently changing color palette

Slight Edge Enhancement

*The Ugly*


Wallpapers,Wallpapers & Wallpapers !!!

*Recommendation:* Below Close Encounters of the Third Kind in Tier-2


----------



## b_scott

about Slevin and the filtered look - i think that was the intent.


someone review Twister, i really want to know how that one looks cause it's an HT ref disc for me


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Recruit*(UK import)


Tier recommendation: top 1/4 of *Tier 1*


I'm surprised this title hasn't been commented on yet. This 115 minute feature from Disney/Touchstone is encoded in VC-1 on a BD-50. Bitrates typically vary between 18 and 30 Mbps with peaks in the first 60 minutes frequently reaching the high 30's. The highest peak I personally saw was 46.9 Mbps! This looks nothing like a bit-starved VC-1 encode from Warner. The movie is presented in its original theatrical aspect ratio of 2.35:1 which differs from the previously released domestic dvd.


The picture itself is sharp throughout the movie with solid black levels and naturalistic colors. Contrast is also consistent with other titles of Tier 1 and fleshtones appear correct. Detail is excellent and at times competes with titles seen in Tier 0. Check out the obvious wig/hairpiece Pacino wears in the movie. There are virtually no compression problems except some minor banding in briefly seen sky shots. There are virtually no compression artifacts. Overall this is a very film-like presentation that can be used for demo material.


Honestly the only thing holding this title back from Tier 0 is the appearance of white and black specks infrequently throughout the first 45 minutes. Check exactly 32 minutes and 32 seconds into the movie for an example of this where something resembling black hair shows up for a couple of frames(freeze framing is the way to go here) in the upper right corner. I'm not sure a casual watcher would notice but it might be a problem on larger screens. It definitely looks like a problem with the print/equipment used to produce this Blu-ray.


Overall I really liked the visual quality of this Blu-ray and think it belongs near the top of Tier 1 around Hellboy or Happy Feet. The only thing holding it back from Tier 0 for me is the older print/telecine work used for the transfer.


Watching on a calibrated 60" Pioneer Kuro Plasma at 1080p/24 from a PS3 with a viewing distance of five feet.


----------



## lgans316

*I strongly disagree with the current placement of Beowulf (Import). It looked and sounded definitely better than TMNT. I request the mods to push TMNT below Beowulf in Tier-1 or Beowulf above TMNT in Tier-0.*


----------



## FreakMan09

just watched Saawariya on my Samsung Lnt4671. 10/10, The BEST LOOKING Bluray i have seen hands down.


----------



## lgans316

Expect 90% of the Indian movies to look like Saawariya provided the studio removes dirts/specks/scratches and takes care of print damages.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FreakMan09* /forum/post/13810979
> 
> 
> just watched Saawariya on my Samsung Lnt4671. 10/10, The BEST LOOKING Bluray i have seen hands down.



I guess that begs the question:


Just how many BD's have you seen?


----------



## lgans316

Saawariya may arguably be the best looking Blu-ray as reported in many review sites as the Indian DPs/Directors shoot with plenty of colors and don't have any cruel intentions like the stateside DPs/Directors who have a unique shooting style that may not be liked by the J6P.


----------



## bplewis24

Is Saawariya worth a rental? Is it culturally specific in it's genre?


Brandon


----------



## OhioMike

Watched Twister tonight.

I wasn't blown away by this the way I wanted to or was hoping to be. The daytime brightly lit scenes (no storms) looked really good, like the chapter at Aunt Meg's house. But as the light dimmed throughout storm scenes and night scenes, much of the detail was lost and had a general "glaze" over the picture.

I would compare this very closely with another so-so Warner title...Blood Diamond and would recommend it's placement right next to it.


On another note...the TrueHD soundtrack was very nice. Great surround detail and really puts you in the storm.


----------



## lgans316

No idea coz my comments were based upon the various reviews. 90% of the Indian movies are plagiarized and only a few of them are genuine. Though Saawariya bombed in the Indian Box Office you can rent this one to get a visual look and feel of Indian movies. I am pretty sure you won't like it like many Americans who don't like people fighting in one scene and dancing on the next.


----------



## AustinSTI

Glad to see everyone contributing to the thread lately. My sincere apologies for being out of touch so much lately...so much going on!!


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13811433
> 
> 
> I am pretty sure you won't like it like many Americans who don't like people fighting in one scene and dancing on the next.



lol...maybe that's what it would be like if Tarantino directed a musical? Kill Bill meets Rent










Brandon


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OhioMike* /forum/post/13811386
> 
> 
> Watched Twister tonight.
> 
> I wasn't blown away by this the way I wanted to or was hoping to be. The daytime brightly lit scenes (no storms) looked really good, like the chapter at Aunt Meg's house. But as the light dimmed throughout storm scenes and night scenes, much of the detail was lost and had a general "glaze" over the picture.
> 
> I would compare this very closely with another so-so Warner title...Blood Diamond and would recommend it's placement right next to it.
> 
> 
> On another note...the TrueHD soundtrack was very nice. Great surround detail and really puts you in the storm.



These are also pretty much my sentiments and I'm comfortable with a lower half Tier 2 placement.


This is a pretty sappy movie but one I love to listen to. The BD is a nice step up from the AC-3 LD I have.


50" Panasonic 720p plasma, Panasonic 10a player, 8'


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13813270
> 
> 
> lol...maybe that's what it would be like if Tarantino directed a musical? Kill Bill meets Rent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brandon



Kill Bill meets Hairspray to be more precise.


----------



## MJeeves

"UNTRACEABLE" starring Diane Lane.


Awesome picture quality. This is a dark and bleak film and the bluray showcases that but the sharpness and 3D of the picture is jaw-dropping!


Tier 0 in my opinion...


----------



## tingham




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MJeeves* /forum/post/13817442
> 
> 
> "UNTRACEABLE" starring Diane Lane.
> 
> 
> Awesome picture quality. This is a dark and bleak film and the bluray showcases that but the sharpness and 3D of the picture is jaw-dropping!
> 
> 
> Tier 0 in my opinion...



hmm.... Hi-def gives this title high marks for audio and video. I always liked her..especially early in her career. She was so hot in Sixpack. How does she look now in hd?. I am going to netflix this for sure.


----------



## FreakMan09




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13811014
> 
> 
> I guess that begs the question:
> 
> 
> Just how many BD's have you seen?



i have seen about 40 and own about 30. Top tier ones like I,Robot, I Am legend, Casino Royale, etc. So yea to me it looked better than those.


----------



## b_scott

just grabbed:


Pirates Trilogy

Casino Royale

Fifth Element (remaster)

Speed (for the woman)

Twister


and a Harmony ONE.


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briansemerick* /forum/post/13822687
> 
> 
> just grabbed:
> 
> Speed (for the woman)



Yours too, huh?


----------



## b_scott

yup. her favorite movie. not sure why.


got good PQ/SQ reviews from hi-def so hopefully it's nice.


----------



## b_scott

 http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/news...y_Support/1723 


of course, the day after i get Bottle Rocket on DVD. oh well. it was only like $6, ha.


----------



## gnolivos

*Flyboys should most definitely be Tier1 BLUE.* This movie has the sharpest definition and pop of all the movies I have seen... more-so than others on the Blue list. No artifacting there either... !


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gnolivos* /forum/post/13823857
> 
> *Flyboys should most definitely be Tier1 BLUE.* This movie has the sharpest definition and pop of all the movies I have seen... more-so than others on the Blue list. No artifacting there either... !



The aerial shots are soft, unfortunately. I agree that the ground shots look good.


----------



## Schlotkins

I won't go into detail since patrick99 reviewed it, but my wife and I watched 27 Dresses and it did look very good. I was honestly not expecting much and was really surprised. I was thinking Tier 1, maybe a bit lower than where it is, but it's close enough.


PS3 -> 1080p24 -> pioneer 5070 @ 7-8 feet.


Thanks,

Chris


----------



## ratm

They all look good to me.


However, Ratatoullie (sp), and Cars, on my Sammy 5084 might be the best picture of anything I have ever seen. Just incredible.


----------



## MJeeves




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tingham* /forum/post/13817736
> 
> 
> hmm.... Hi-def gives this title high marks for audio and video. I always liked her..especially early in her career. She was so hot in Sixpack. How does she look now in hd?. I am going to netflix this for sure.



Diane Lane still looks great on talk shows and in photos etc. In "UNTRACEABLE" her character really goes to Hell and back so it is a tough and un-glamourous role for her. She has looked better but that is due to the films story and subject. However, Diane Lane is still a major babe.










The film is a very dark, bleak and atmospheric film. Quite downbeat... but very good IMHO. Great picture and sound on the disc!


----------



## lgans316

I continuously cribbed about the bit starved nature of Beowulf (Import). Here's the proof.


A million thanks to benes !!!

*Beowulf: Director's Cut (2007) - Warner - Blu-ray*


Video Codec: VC-1

Average Video Bit Rate: 14.85 Mbps
















Running Time: 1:54:42

Movie Size: 19,898,591,232
















Disc Size: 31,281,197,732
















Dolby TrueHD 5.1 16-bit (975 Kbps ~ 3 Mbps) DIALNORM

DD AC3 5.1 640Kbps

In-Movie-Experience: No









*Beowulf: Director's Cut (2007) - Paramount (U.S) HD DVD*


Video Codec: MPEG-4 AVC

Average Video Bit Rate: 21.84 Mbps









Running Time: 1:54:35

Movie Size: 22,921,168,896









Disc Size: 23,272,262,096

DDPlus 5.1 1536Kbps

In-Movie-Experience: Yes


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MJeeves* /forum/post/13824707
> 
> 
> However, Diane Lane is still a major babe.



Her peak was probably around the time of Murder at 1600. That's when I first saw her and I thought she wasn't too shabby










Going back to Golden Compass...check out BD Insider Maxpower's post here :



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Maxpower1987* /forum/post/13822756
> 
> 
> Hey guys, err, I have a small request, does anyone have the US version of Golden Compass if they do would it be possible to put up a few screens. I would like to compare it to the Entertainment in Video release I have got.
> 
> 
> I've been told that there was heavy DNR applied at the mastering stage of this title for the New Line release, and I would like to confirm.



Brandon


----------



## kagolu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13828486
> 
> 
> Her peak was probably around the time of Murder at 1600. That's when I first saw her and I thought she wasn't too shabby
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Going back to Golden Compass...check out BD Insider Maxpower's post here :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brandon



I think her peak was in Unfaithful.


----------



## MJeeves




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kagolu* /forum/post/13828684
> 
> 
> I think her peak was in Unfaithful.



In "UNTRACEABLE" Diane Lane looks like she did in "THE PERFECT STORM" I think.


Back on subject... "UNTRACEABLE" is a very high quality blu-ray release. The PiP feature is superb!


----------



## djoberg

I was wondering if anyone has seen *First Knight* yet? My wife and I have been impressed with the SD version through the years and I am hoping the Blu-ray version will be stellar.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I'll post a more detailed review later, but a quick note on *The Golden Compass*:


This may be the heaviest DNR'ed title that I have seen yet.


No detail in skin textures at all.


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/13829288
> 
> 
> I was wondering if anyone has seen *First Knight* yet? My wife and I have been impressed with the SD version through the years and I am hoping the Blu-ray version will be stellar.


 http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1354/firstknight.html 


looks like average, better than upconvert.


----------



## robsis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13829342
> 
> 
> No detail in skin textures at all.



I have to agree here...at first, I thought the transfer was excellent and then, as the movie went on I noticed that same thing....little or no skin textures, like they photoshopped them out or something....definitely not a tier 0 or even high 1 at all IMO....not a bad transfer, just not a great one at all.


----------



## techwisenyc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *robsis* /forum/post/13830964
> 
> 
> I have to agree here...at first, I thought the transfer was excellent and then, as the movie went on I noticed that same thing....little or no skin textures, like they photoshopped them out or something....definitely not a tier 0 or even high 1 at all IMO....not a bad transfer, just not a great one at all.



Sounds like it was Pan's Labrynth all over again? Was it? Not sure why NL does this. The Orphanage came out great and so did Shoot em Up.


----------



## ballen420




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *robsis* /forum/post/13830964
> 
> 
> I have to agree here...at first, I thought the transfer was excellent and then, as the movie went on I noticed that same thing....little or no skin textures, like they photoshopped them out or something....definitely not a tier 0 or even high 1 at all IMO....not a bad transfer, just not a great one at all.



I agree - though I think it was most noticable on Nicole Kidman. From what I remember, the couple scenes with Daniel Craig didn't look anything like the scenes with Kidman. I bet she looks terrible in HD. Definitely looked photoshopped to me.


I don't think I could bare watching the movie again to pick out scenes though.


Damn Scientologist conspiracy if you ask me.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ballen420* /forum/post/13831271
> 
> 
> I agree - though I think it was most noticable on Nicole Kidman. From what I remember, the couple scenes with Daniel Craig didn't look anything like the scenes with Kidman. I bet she looks terrible in HD. Definitely looked photoshopped to me.
> 
> 
> I don't think I could bare watching the movie again to pick out scenes though.
> 
> 
> Damn Scientologist conspiracy if you ask me.



Yes, it is definitely most noticeable in Kidman's face.


----------



## quietmouse

I noticed "*Rendition (UK)"* is in Tier 0.


Where can I order this and will it play on US Playstation3 consoles?


Thanks!


----------



## DavidHir

I watched the first two hours of *The Patriot* last night. While the movie looked very good, did anyone think it looked just a bit "digital"? It contained some slight EE and the image just didn't have an analog/filmlike look we see from so many other BD movies. Some of the close-up shots were a bit soft too, however, this was clearly just source material or the way it was filmed. On the positive side, I'm glad the film grain remained intact as some background and non-close up scenes were quite detailed. I'd say it should be dropped down to the very top of Tier 2.


----------



## lgans316

You may be right on Patriot but the movie looked film like to me and it contained few film artefacts here and there especially in the extended footage.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briansemerick* /forum/post/13829355
> 
> http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1354/firstknight.html
> 
> 
> looks like average, better than upconvert.



Thanks!


I read the review and it sounded quite good (deep blacks, good flesh tones, natural colors, etc.) until he summed it by saying it was FLAT (which I had never heard before) and lacked 3D pop. But as most of us know, we have to take highdefdigest's reviews with a grain of salt. I will look forward to hearing from someone on the Forum to see what their opinion is.


----------



## chris0




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13831359
> 
> 
> Yes, it is definitely most noticeable in Kidman's face.



When I saw her close-ups it looked like a weird make up job more than something done to the picture itself.


----------



## maverick0716

I'll have to watch The Patriot soon.......I've owned it for months now, lol.


----------



## alexg75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13834969
> 
> 
> You may be right on Patriot but the movie looked film like to me and it contained few film artefacts here and there especially in the extended footage.



The Patriot is a great looking BLU RAY and the grit and grain are intentional and was there in the theatrical prints as well as the 3 previous DVD releases and now more noticeable on the BR.

This title needs to stay where its at......


----------



## b_scott

The Adventures of Baron Munchausen: 20th Anniversary Edition


watching this now - it's unbelieveable how great an old movie can look. i hope we get this treatment on most other classics from now on. amazing image, would think it came out this year.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chris0* /forum/post/13838736
> 
> 
> When I saw her close-ups it looked like a weird make up job more than something done to the picture itself.



Not to me.


A "weird makeup job" would have revealed some type of caked on makeup, or show at least some type of texture or skin variation. There isn't any.


----------



## JayPSU

Just saw Twister tonight and was extremely disappointed with the PQ. Colors were bad often (faces looked pink or red too often), detail was terrible at times (grass blades were not sharp looking like most HD material). But the tornado scenes were the worst of all. Terrible color, grainy looking twisters and muddled detail. I guess it's not a surprise because I remember the DVD was also not so good with regards to picture quality. SOME scenes looked good which proves that it CAN look good but I guess they didn't spend enough time on it. Tier 3 BD for me.


Samsung LNT4065F 1080p

Samsung BD1400

viewing distance 7'


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> grass blades were not sharp looking like most HD material



Sounds like Last Samurai.

*Hidalgo Video: MPEG-4 AVC | Audio: PCM 16-bit | AR: 2.40:1 | BVHE (Touchstone)*

*The Good*


Vibrant colors

Natural looking flesh tones

Value sharpness

Good to excellent detailing of close-ups

*The Bad*


Fluctuating contrast and black levels

Occasional soft focussed and flat looking shots

White specks in 2 scenes

Minor and unobtrusive Edge Enhancement

*The Ugly*


Plenty of banding and compression noise especially on sky shots probably due to excessive usage of color filters

*Recommendation:* Tier-2 1/4


----------



## bplewis24

Got a chance to watch Orphanage...very pleasing experience all the way around. I'll be buying this one someday.


Brandon


----------



## S-Blu

I think The Island should ne near the bottom of Tier 0 or near the top of Tier 1. I noticed that Mr & Mrs Smith is higher on Tier 1 than The Island. I own both I think The Island has better picture quality.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *S-Blu* /forum/post/13841727
> 
> 
> I think The Island should ne near the bottom of Tier 0 or near the top of Tier 1. I noticed that Mr & Mrs Smith is higher on Tier 1 than The Island. I own both I think The Island has better picture quality.



+100000000. The Island should at-least be in top of Tier-1 or bottom of Tier-0. It contains no film artefacts except for a slight noise in the sky shots in one scene. Has Michael Bay written all over it. IMO I would place Island even in middle of Tier-0.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13841879
> 
> 
> +100000000. The Island should at-least be in top of Tier-1 or bottom of Tier-0. It contains no film artefacts except for a slight noise in the sky shots in one scene. Has Michael Bay written all over it. IMO I would place Island even in middle of Tier-0.



You have whetted my appetite for this movie, but in trying to find a copy online there doesn't appear to be any. Does anyone know where one can purchase it?


----------



## lgans316

 www.amazon.co.uk 
www.dvd.co.uk 
www.blahdvd.com 


I bought it from the B2GOF sale that was run by amazon.co.uk a couple of months ago.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13842389
> 
> www.amazon.co.uk
> www.dvd.co.uk
> www.blahdvd.com
> 
> 
> I bought it from the B2GOF sale that was run by amazon.co.uk a couple of months ago.



Thanks (for the quick reply)!!


----------



## lgans316

Hey djoberg. Hold on buddy. Now that Paramount/DW have resumed their Blu-ray services, I request you to wait for the stateside release which I expect to be supervised by Michael BLU Bay due to his luv for Blu.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13842436
> 
> 
> Hey djoberg. Hold on buddy. Now that Paramount/DW have resumed their Blu-ray services, I request you to wait for the stateside release which I expect to be supervised by Michael BLU Bay due to his luv for Blu.



I was actually thinking the same thing shortly before I read your response. You just confirmed that I should wait for the US release.


----------



## nohjy

Rented Chronicles of Narnia (Blockbuster had it out early)and finally had a chance to watch it. The PQ is very high Tier 1 or low Tier 0. There are some compression artifacts, but other than that the picture is beautiful. I will admit it is soft in some areas, but I think much of that is a limitation in the source material. This disc is definitely reference quality - especially given the fact that its sound quality is a as good as anything I have seen.


This is really an excellent quality production. The movie is good (not great) so if you haven't seen it yet, I would recommend renting before buying. This movie would be one I would normally buy sight unseen, but alas I doubt I will want to see again.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nohjy* /forum/post/13844645
> 
> 
> I would recommend renting before buying. This movie would be one I would normally buy sight unseen, but alas I doubt I will want to see again.



That's how I felt after leaving the theatre for the original theatrical run. I was hoping for so much more since it's a book I read in high school.


Brandon


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nohjy* /forum/post/13844645
> 
> 
> Rented Chronicles of Narnia... The movie is good (not great) so if you haven't seen it yet, I would recommend renting before buying. This movie would be one I would normally buy sight unseen, but alas I doubt I will want to see again.



This is how I felt after viewing it, but I must say the trailer for the upcoming sequel looks enticingly better. Time will tell.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I have Narnia on the way from Netflix, mostly so my 9 year old can watch it. I thought of it as mostly a kids movie, no?


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13846432
> 
> 
> I have Narnia on the way from Netflix, mostly so my 9 year old can watch it. I thought of it as mostly a kids movie, no?



Unfortunately, yes...that's what the Hollywood adaptation of it amounts to.


Brandon


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13846432
> 
> 
> I have Narnia on the way from Netflix, mostly so my 9 year old can watch it. I thought of it as mostly a kids movie, no?



I can only make a judgment call based on the trailer I've seen, but I suspect the upcoming sequel(s) in the Narnia series will evolve into material suitable for all ages, something like the Harry Potter series did.


----------



## Bokchoy

I thought Narnia was a pretty awful movie, and not just because it's a kids' movie. The Harry Potter series, on the other hand, is great.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bokchoy* /forum/post/13846832
> 
> 
> I thought Narnia was a pretty awful movie, and not just because it's a kids' movie.



In truth it isn't really a kid's movie when the subject matter is considered. But in the movie the character's are so one-dimensional, the dialogue so contrived and the plot development so lacking in depth so as to make it something more along the lines of what children will find entertaining than what adults will. YMMV, as always, but that's my opinion.


Also, I watched *Before the Devil Know's You're Dead* today. Very good looking title, but lacking in contrast and black level in the night shots. I suspected it was shot on HD Video and according to IMDB it is, so maybe that has something to do with it?


Brandon


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bokchoy* /forum/post/13846832
> 
> 
> I thought Narnia was a pretty awful movie, and not just because it's a kids' movie. The Harry Potter series, on the other hand, is great.



I agree with you regarding the first Narnia movie (not that is was an awful movie, but that it was a kids' movie), but IMHO the first Harry Potter movie also left much to be desired (unless you were a 9 year old







).


----------



## lgans316

+1. Was never a fan of Narnia. Too contrived and light years behind the book. Everything happens late in the movie except for the climax.










I am pretty confident that it won't be rated above bottom of Tier-1 as the first half of the movie had inconsistent PQ.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bokchoy* /forum/post/13846832
> 
> 
> I thought Narnia was a pretty awful movie, and not just because it's a kids' movie. The Harry Potter series, on the other hand, is great.



I loathe the Harry Potter series.


I have heard the same thing from many people: that the subsequent films in the series were better "more adult" oriented. I haven't cared for any of them, including the last one (although it did have pretty good pq).


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13846986
> 
> 
> I loathe the Harry Potter series.
> 
> 
> I have heard the same thing from many people: that the subsequent films in the series were better "more adult" oriented. I haven't cared for any of them, including the last one (although it did have pretty good pq).



I'm with ya...never got into them at all


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13846986
> 
> 
> I loathe the Harry Potter series.
> 
> 
> I have heard the same thing from many people: that the subsequent films in the series were better "more adult" oriented. I haven't cared for any of them, including the last one (although it did have pretty good pq).



I refuse to watch Harry. I have no kids and just never could get into it. My brother and sister love that ****. I do however come up with porno names for the harry potter films. Such classics as:


Harry Potter and the Goblet of Goo

Harry Potter and the prisoner in his pants


----------



## b_scott

has anyone checked out David Gilmour's blu-ray?


----------



## tfoltz

My unprofessional/untrained/layman's 2 cents on movies I've seen (I don't know enough technicalities to explain in great detail); I have a Panasonic 50px80u & PS3 for blu-ray:

Ratatouille: Tier 0. Looks spectacular. No issues at all.
Cars: Tier 0. Nice and clean, in the right spot.
I, Robot: Tier 0, in the correct spot. Definitely looks great. However, I thought I would be more impressed. Some shots are the best I've seen on any live action movie, but I guess some of the intentional grain bugged me (I know, this is the way it's supposed to look, but it seemed like grain clumped up in certain areas so that it was more apparent/distracting). Still belongs around where it is at since I don't have any movie recommendations to put above it.
Pirates of the Caribbean - Dead Man's Chest: Tier 0, in the correct spot. Looked amazing. Same comments as I, Robot.
Meet the Robinsons: Move lower Tier 0. It looked decent, but hardly impressed. Some parts felt washed out. Still, it's animated and sharp, so can't move it to Tier 1.
Rescue Dawn: Move up in Tier 0, closer to I, Robot and Pirates 2. This movie looked amazing. There were a lot of wow moments for me in this.
Casino Royale: Top of Tier 1, belongs where it is at. I actually thought the grain was more spread out in this movie so that it never bugged me. Some parts looked amazing.
Galapagos: Move to Tier 0, or very top of Tier 1. Looks spectacular. Many parts wowed me.
The Patriot: Tier 1, but I would put it lower than where it is right now. Primarily because I felt overall that The Rock looked better. So either put The Rock higher, or put The Partiot lower.
The Rock: Tier 1, put above The Patriot, or lower The Patriot below The Rock.
Pan's Labyrinth: Tier 1. Belongs where it is at.
Planet Earth: Tier 2. I would put it higher in Tier 2 since some parts of it is simply amazing. However, you can't argue against a lot of the poor footage and inconsistency.
Swordfish: Tier 2. Fine where it's at.


These are the only movies I've seen, so I could only compare them against each other. 3:10 to Yuma up next for review.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briansemerick* /forum/post/13848564
> 
> 
> has anyone checked out David Gilmour's blu-ray?



Incredible lossless audio but relatively poor video which I attribute to the source material. But if you are a fan of Pink Floyd/Gilmour this is a must buy. Great performance.


----------



## robsis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/13852665
> 
> 
> Incredible lossless audio but relatively poor video which I attribute to the source material. But if you are a fan of Pink Floyd/Gilmour this is a must buy. Great performance.



I concur...I thought that the video would be better and I don't see it as much better than the upconverted SD; however, the audio is superb!


----------



## b_scott

thanks Phantom.


----------



## b_scott

P.S. I Love You was really great tonight. good solid blacks with detail in shadows (an alley scene sticks out in my mind) and little to no grain/noise. popping colors with natural look. I'd rank this up pretty high, though honestly i don't know all the titles well enough to give it a number rank. rent it for sure, at the least.


----------



## SuprSlow

This week's releases:
*The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe* Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Disney
*Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Fox
*Shinobi: Special Edition* Video: ? | Audio: ? | AR: 2.35:1 | FUNimation
*Untraceable* Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony
*Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Fox
*Mrs. Doubtfire* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Fox
*Youth Without Youth* Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.35:1 | Sony
*Blue Man Group: How to Be a Megastar Live!* Video: ? | Audio: ? | AR: ?:1 | Rhino Music
*Epic Conditions: The Weather Channel* Video: ? | Audio: ? | AR: 1.78:1 | Warren Miller Entertainment


----------



## b_scott

anyone think there would ever be a chance of new transfers for the Harry Potter movies before Phoenix? seems like they're pretty solid at Silver, but i thought i'd ask before i purchased them all - in case a better transfer of Gold or Blu quality might be around the corner when Prince comes out.


in case anyone had ESP.


----------



## b_scott

anyone? i wasn't sure if re-transfers happened often with BD. i know it happened for 5th Element at least.


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briansemerick* /forum/post/13858818
> 
> 
> anyone? i wasn't sure if re-transfers happened often with BD. i know it happened for 5th Element at least.



I highly doubt they'd reissue it. As you mentioned, they are fairly decent transfers (given reviews/ratings, I haven't seen them myself) and more than likely will not be remastered. A double-dip would probably not settle well with all the HP giftset buyers










The 5th Element was re-released because of the terrible PQ and resulting outcry of customers.


----------



## maverick0716

Well, considering they're not that bad, I'd say no.....there's no chance for re-dos on those movies. I watched Goblet of Fire last night and I thought it looked great!


----------



## b_scott

sweet, thanks. purchased.


didn't get the giftset. reviews said it was a bit tossed together with not much extra value - and the discs didn't get normal BD cases so they were resigned to the big case forever. i'd rather just grab one at a time - and they were the same price.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*The Orphanage*


Very nice looking title! What I really liked was the fact that everything looks so natural (film like?). There is lots of good detail, yet the picture is in no way overly harsh or digital looking, like some titles can be. It's nice to see that there didn't have to be a compromise here (sharp and detailed, but also digital/harsh).


Contrast is excellent, colors are pleasing (when present), and shadow detail is good.


Top of Tier 1.


Excellent movie as well. There was nothing new here, but the way in which the story was presented exceeded the vast majority of movies of this type (ghost stories).


The sound was superb too!



I see this is in Tier 0. I don't know that I would put it quite in Tier 0, as I don't think the subject matter lends itself to great demo/eye candy material.


----------



## HD-Gaming

I'm very interested to see what Tier what Narnia falls into


----------



## maverick0716

I'll be receiving Narnia very soon in the mail for rent, so I'll definitly post my thoughts.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I received Narnia in the mail today.


Probably won't be able to watch it until this weekend though.


----------



## ecommando

Just saw Saawariya (bluray) on my 1080p projector.

It's gotta be one of the best blurays in terms of image and sound quality so far.

And I've a lot of blurays/hddvds (in excess of 200)


----------



## HDphile22

Untraceable PQ sucks!


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13860203
> 
> *The Orphanage*
> 
> 
> Very nice looking title! What I really liked was the fact that everything looks so natural (film like?). There is lots of good detail, yet the picture is in no way overly harsh or digital looking, like some titles can be. It's nice to see that there didn't have to be a compromise here (sharp and detailed, but also digital/harsh).
> 
> 
> Contrast is excellent, colors are pleasing (when present), and shadow detail is good.
> 
> 
> Top of Tier 1.
> 
> 
> Excellent movie as well. There was nothing new here, but the way in which the story was presented exceeded the vast majority of movies of this type (ghost stories).
> 
> 
> The sound was superb too!
> 
> 
> 
> I see this is in Tier 0. I don't know that I would put it quite in Tier 0, as I don't think the subject matter lends itself to great demo/eye candy material.



I think patrick voted Tier-0 because the facial close-ups exhibited tremendous details and image didn't have the filtered look. Top of Tier-1 or Bottom of Tier-0. Both fine with me.


----------



## robsis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13861569
> 
> 
> I received Narnia in the mail today.
> 
> 
> Probably won't be able to watch it until this weekend though.



Rob,


I'm curious as to what you will think. I put it high tier 1 or low tier 0, but then, I like your evalutions sometimes before I watch and evaluate. There are parts of this movie that just grab me, then parts that seem soft...kinda like on Golden Compass.


Robert


----------



## lgans316

As per my viewing the first half of Narnia is Top Tier-2 PQ and the second half is Top Tier-1 PQ which means Narnia can be placed in middle of Tier-1.


----------



## robsis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13870748
> 
> 
> As per my viewing the first half of Narnia is Top Tier-2 PQ and the second half is Top Tier-1 PQ which means Narnia can be placed in middle of Tier-1.



Interesting...I thought there were several spots in the first half that would be much higher than Tier-2, more like low tier 1 at least, if not high tier 1...I'll have to re-watch it.


----------



## lgans316

*Hitman: Unrated Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Fox*


After re-watching Hitman through my eyeglasses I was simply amazed by the Picture Quality in spite of the low bit rates. I thank FOX for doing a terrific job. The good aspect of this transfer is the absence of EE and DNR. I think Hitman deserves to be placed within the top 20 spots in Tier-2 as it definitely looked better than many of the titles currently placed above it.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13870335
> 
> 
> I think patrick voted Tier-0 because the facial close-ups exhibited tremendous details and image didn't have the filtered look. Top of Tier-1 or Bottom of Tier-0. Both fine with me.



That's a very accurate description of my view on The Orphanage.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13870748
> 
> 
> As per my viewing the first half of Narnia is Top Tier-2 PQ and the second half is Top Tier-1 PQ which means Narnia can be placed in middle of Tier-1.



I agree with a mid Tier 1 placement for Narnia. The PQ never hits the Tier 0 level and a lot of times, especially in dark scenes, the faces seem quite lacking in detail. But in general, quite solid, never truly spectacular.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Across The Universe*


Finally got around to seeing this title. People may recall that there was a lot of controversy surrounding the PQ on this title, with many people saying that it had rather spectacular PQ, and a few saying it wasn't all that great. It has taken so long to get this title from Netflix, nobody probably even cares anymore!


First off, I have to say as a "Beatlemaniac" I didn't care much for the movie....at all. I would say that I enjoyed about half of the songs in terms of how they were arranged/performed. And some of the scenes were just horrible, and completely destroyed the song (such as With A Little Help From My Friends), while others were ok (I Want to Hold Your Hand).


Regarding the PQ, I have to say that I am definitely on the side of those who don't see the big deal here. There is simply nothing particularly noteworthy of the PQ. Detail is average. In fact, there is a bit of softness to most of it. Much of the picture is on the flat side, with little in the way of dimensionality or depth.


The only time the picture came close being impressive was some of the special effects/CGI scenes, but those were few and far between.


To me, this is clearly *not* a Tier 1 title. It simply is not on par with titles in Tier 1. I would put it in Tier 2, just below Ghost Rider.


I know the vast majority of the "professional" reviews out there completely contradict this.


----------



## b_scott

anyone up for a Tier 0 tv series (i think the only one?), Prison Break Season One is on Amazon Gold Box now for CHEAP.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13873242
> 
> *Across The Universe*
> 
> 
> Finally got around to seeing this title. People may recall that there was a lot of controversy surrounding the PQ on this title, with many people saying that it had rather spectacular PQ, and a few saying it wasn't all that great. It has taken so long to get this title from Netflix, nobody probably even cares anymore!
> 
> 
> First off, I have to say as a "Beatlemaniac" I didn't care much for the movie....at all. I would say that I enjoyed about half of the songs in terms of how they were arranged/performed. And some of the scenes were just horrible, and completely destroyed the song (such as With A Little Help From My Friends), while others were ok (I Want to Hold Your Hand).
> 
> *Regarding the PQ, I have to say that I am definitely on the side of those who don't see the big deal here. There is simply nothing particularly noteworthy of the PQ. Detail is average. In fact, there is a bit of softness to most of it. Much of the picture is on the flat side, with little in the way of dimensionality or depth.*
> 
> 
> The only time the picture came close being impressive was some of the special effects/CGI scenes, but those were few and far between.
> 
> *To me, this is clearly not a Tier 1 title. It simply is not on par with titles in Tier 1. I would put it in Tier 2, just below Ghost Rider.
> 
> 
> I know the vast majority of the "professional" reviews out there completely contradict this.*














This thread is a far more reliable source of PQ evaluations than the "professional" reviews.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13873430
> 
> 
> Expect a red carpet party invite from patrick for your PQ assessment.



Unfortunately I have no red carpet party access, for myself or anyone else.


----------



## maverick0716

Just watched Harry Potter OOTP last night and was definitly impressed! Very detailed image, even in the dark scenes. It definitly deserves it's spotted in upper Tier 1.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Shinobi*


Tier Recommendation: *Tier 1*


I wasn't expecting much from this BD but was surprised at how good it looked for such a minor release. The feature itself is 102 minutes long, encoded in AVC, and on a BD-25. Bitrates really jump all over the place, ranging from an absolute low of 11 Mbps to peaks exceeding 40 Mbps. Unfortunately it stays in the lower half of that range for the non-action sequences of the first hour, averaging around 15 Mbps, and I think it negatively impacts the visual quality a little.


Look very closely at the foreheads of the main actors(Oboro in particular) for some minor compression noise and slight loss of detail in a couple of scenes. Minor banding also shows up in some of the backgrounds but this is really nitpicking on my part. Fight scenes get much higher bitrates that really don't dip below the high 20's and it improves the image(Tier 0 quality for at least 30% of the movie). The situation improves somewhat in the last 45 minutes of the movie for the dramatic non-action scenes.


The source they used for this BD is immaculate and looks as clean as a major Hollywood blockbuster just released. I have no doubt the source used for the BD is Tier 0 all the way. Close-ups are razor sharp with absolutely no DNR apparent or edge haloes present. Grain is never really a distraction except for a short time in the night-time forest battle. The outdoor scenes during daylight look great with excellent detail in the texture of the clothes. Colors are bright and bold when called for by the director. There is a scene of a brightly colored forest near the end of the movie that really has to be seen to be believed. It looks like an anime cartoon brought to life it's so vivid. It's one of the most spectacular images I've seen yet on Blu-ray. Contrast is very good throughout the picture. Black levels do vary over the course of the movie, particularly in that night forest battle I mentioned earlier. It's not quite as inky as other movies of this tier.


Overall this is a solid Tier 1 movie which to me looks very close in appearance to I Am Legend(personally I feel IAL is ranked a few spots too high). I think if a major studio(not Warner though) had encoded this movie it would've ended up as a Tier 0 title, but as is this movie looks very good.


Watching on a calibrated 60" Pioneer Kuro Plasma at 1080P/24 fed by a PS3 sitting approximately 5/6 feet away. This is one of the first non-Sony BDs I've seen that has a picture pop up on the PS3's XMB for the disc. And since I don't see the audio listed here, it's Dolby TrueHD for both the English and Japanese audio.


----------



## SuprSlow

Sorry for slacking on the updates, I should be able to get to them tomorrow sometime. Thanks for your patience


----------



## lgans316

Thanks Phantom Stranger for Shinobi PQ review. I hope that the compression noise was minor and wouldn't distract the viewing experience.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13873430
> 
> 
> Expect a red carpet party invite from patrick for your PQ assessment.



Where do you think Across the Universe belongs?


----------



## lgans316

Sorry Rob. I haven't seen this movie on Blu-ray. Patrick used to be extremely critical of this particular title and you have now acknowledged him through your PQ assessment.










Just wanted to point out that he will more than happy with your assessment.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13878818
> 
> 
> Sorry Rob. I haven't seen this movie on Blu-ray. Patrick used to be extremely critical of this particular title and you have now acknowledged him through your PQ assessment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just wanted to point out that he will more than happy with your assessment.



Glad somebody is, because it appears to be a minority opinion. That's why I was wondering if you had seen it and what you thought.


----------



## Elbie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13871606
> 
> *Hitman: Unrated Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Fox*
> 
> 
> After re-watching Hitman through my eyeglasses I was simply amazed by the Picture Quality in spite of the low bit rates. I thank FOX for doing a terrific job. The good aspect of this transfer is the absence of EE and DNR. I think Hitman deserves to be placed within the top 20 spots in Tier-2 as it definitely looked better than many of the titles currently placed above it.



Yes, it looks outstanding.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/13877474
> 
> 
> Just watched Harry Potter OOTP last night and was definitly impressed! Very detailed image, even in the dark scenes. It definitly deserves it's spotted in upper Tier 1.



I agree. I also think that part 3 should be higher.


----------



## lgans316

IMO Part-3 of Harry Potter has the best PQ.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/13205429
> 
> 
> Rented these two the other night. Both of them have very similar video quality in my opinion, with the edge going to ITVOE. Good, solid transfers, with plenty of detail, but nothing majorly stunning. I'd put ITVOE high Tier 2 and Michael Clayton mid Tier 2.
> 
> 
> 42" Panasonic Plasma (768p)
> 
> PS3
> 
> 6-7 ft.



I'm quite surprised that you're the only person to comment on this movie so far. I was highly impressed with the movie itself (although I could see some people taking offense to it), so I figure more people would have watched it by now.


That said, I mostly agree with you. I was somewhat disappointed by the overall PQ of the movie because there are some scenes with a high level of detail and sharpness, and then there are stretches of time where it's lacking.


Black levels are very good, but the colors palette seemed bland and subdued, no doubt the director's intent. Nothing to complain about there. And the print appeared to be in great shape. But I fear that Warner's track record has reared it's head on the overall result in PQ on this title as from my perspective (especially the first 15 minutes or so) this title was capable of more. *Tier 2* seems fine to me.


PS3->1080p24->46XBR4 (8 feet)


Brandon


----------



## lgans316

*Twister Video: VC-1 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner*

*The Good*


Good picture quality for a decade old movie

Good colors

Respectable black levels and sharpness

No major film artefacts besides DNR (unconfirmed)

*The Bad*


Flesh tones leans towards pinkish red

Insufficient contrast

Slight lack of image depth on aerial shots

3 dimensionality exhibited in only few scenes

*The Ugly*


Facial close-ups look abysmal and doesn't reveal proper details

*Recommendation:* Bottom of Tier-2


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13879309
> 
> 
> I'm quite surprised that you're the only person to comment on this movie so far. I was highly impressed with the movie itself (although I could see some people taking offense to it), so I figure more people would have watched it by now.
> 
> 
> That said, I mostly agree with you. I was somewhat disappointed by the overall PQ of the movie because there are some scenes with a high level of detail and sharpness, and then there are stretches of time where it's lacking.
> 
> 
> Black levels are very good, but the colors palette seemed bland and subdued, no doubt the director's intent. Nothing to complain about there. And the print appeared to be in great shape. But I fear that Warner's track record has reared it's head on the overall result in PQ on this title as from my perspective (especially the first 15 minutes or so) this title was capable of more. *Tier 2* seems fine to me.
> 
> 
> PS3->1080p24->46XBR4 (8 feet)
> 
> 
> Brandon



It's been a while since I watched Elah, so my recollections of the PQ aren't precise. I believe I would have said mid Tier 2. I thought the resolution of the story was very unsatisfying.


----------



## zoro

If NARNIA is GOLD???










then Curse of the Golden Flower - Blu-ray needs to be ZERO+++


----------



## bonham2

Hey all - I know I'm about a year late to the discussion, but I just watched Apocalypto last night, and I was very impressed. It is by far the best looking live action movie I have seen on blu-ray. I do own Spiderman 3 and PotC: COTBP but I haven't watched them yet. I will agree with it's placement and the discussion that happened a few thousand posts ago about it belonging at the top of tier 1. The first 30 minutes are very unimpressive, but once the story gets going the picture is amazing.


By the way, the movie is actually really good too...as long as you don't mind reading for 2 hours. Highly recommended for at least a rental.


----------



## mbird

^ I personally think that _Apocalypto_ should belong in the bottom of Tier 0... then again, I'm not entirely sure what the problem is?


----------



## bonham2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mbird* /forum/post/13889052
> 
> 
> ^ I personally think that _Apocalypto_ should belong in the bottom of Tier 0... then again, I'm not entirely sure what the problem is?



They had this discussion a few thousand posts ago, around page 7. The first 30 minutes are very average looking, but the remainder of the movie is jaw-dropping. The question was (and I guess it still is) if consistency should play a roll in judging a movie. I'll tell you I would have no problem using Apocalypto as demo material, however, I would have to hand pick the scene. With Cars, I could just start it from the beginning or wherever it happens to start. I think that is the difference.


Still, after all of this time, to still be on the top of the gold tier, you can bet it is a pretty good looking blu-ray.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bonham2* /forum/post/13891437
> 
> 
> They had this discussion a few thousand posts ago, around page 7. The first 30 minutes are very average looking, but the remainder of the movie is jaw-dropping. The question was (and I guess it still is) if consistency should play a roll in judging a movie. I'll tell you I would have no problem using Apocalypto as demo material, however, I would have to hand pick the scene. With Cars, I could just start it from the beginning or wherever it happens to start. I think that is the difference.
> 
> 
> Still, after all of this time, to still be on the top of the gold tier, you can bet it is a pretty good looking blu-ray.



The opening scene is part of the first 30 minutes and maybe the best quality and clarity of the entire movie. It is like being in the jungle with them or looking through a window. IMO I still have yet to see a BD with the clarity of Apocalypto while maintaining quality.


I would like to see the best possible scene from Apocalypto compared to ANY best possible scene from any other BD.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/13891790
> 
> 
> The opening scene is part of the first 30 minutes and maybe the best quality and clarity of the entire movie. It is like being in the jungle with them or looking through a window. IMO I still have yet to see a BD with the clarity of Apocalypto while maintaining quality.
> 
> 
> I would like to see the best possible scene from Apocalypto compared to ANY best possible scene from any other BD.



I'd have to agree with you there. I still think Apocalypto is my favourite looking Blu Ray disc available (that I've seen).


----------



## b_scott

The Rock was jaw-dropping last night. i couldn't believe it was a catalog title. if possible i'd rank it higher, it was almost perfect.


----------



## lgans316

*The Orphanage Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | New Line*


Though the movie was nowhere in the Pan's Labyrinth league, New Line should be applauded for delivering phenomenal PQ and SQ.

Perfectly agree with the current placement.


----------



## zoro

National treasure 2, should earn Tier 0 or gold at least while film was not that good imho, i enjoyed Raiders of Lost ark, 15th time was better than watching NT2 first time


----------



## reisb

Yes, what is the verdict on PQ of NT and NT2? I've heard good reviews of both BD's, but haven't seen it on this list yet.


----------



## maverick0716

Just watched *Untraceable* last night. I wasn't expecting it to be good, but it actually was quite sharp. Everything looked the way it should be in my opinion, with plenty of detail in dark scenes. I'd put this title near the top of Tier 2, somewhere around 30 Days Of Night.


I also watched *Sharkwater*. This transfer is definitly a mixed bag due to a lot of SD footage. The HD moments are very DiscoveryHD-esque but overall not the sharpest image. I'd probably put it in the lower end of Tier 2 or even higher Tier 3.


42" Panasonic Plasma (768p)

PS3 through HDMI

6-7 ft.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/13894990
> 
> 
> Just watched *Untraceable* last night. I wasn't expecting it to be good, but it actually was quite sharp. Everything looked the way it should be in my opinion, with plenty of detail in dark scenes in my opinion. I'd put this title near the top of Tier 2, somewhere around 30 Days Of Night.
> 
> 
> I also watched *Sharkwater*. This transfer is definitly a mixed bag due to a lot of SD footage. The HD moments are very DiscoveryHD-esque but overall not the sharpest image. I'd probably put it in the lower end of Tier 2 or even higher Tier 3.
> 
> 
> 42" Panasonic Plasma (768p)
> 
> PS3 through HDMI
> 
> 6-7 ft.




I saw Untraceable as well and agree.


Sony 60in SXRD A3000 1080p at 8 ft. thru PS3 HDMI


----------



## LBFilmGuy

sheesh, was wanting to pick up the italian job at the BB sale, but it's ranked tier 4?


----------



## LBFilmGuy

then again, i have american psycho and i don't think it belongs in tier 4...you guys are a tough crowd


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/13897915
> 
> 
> then again, i have american psycho and i don't think it belongs in tier 4...you guys are a tough crowd


 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=937873










Title: American Psycho (2000)

Studio: Lionsgate

Disc: BD (USA)

Problem: EE/Ringing, DNR

Time Codes: Whole movie

Comments: An old and outdated transfer


----------



## maverick0716

Youth Without Youth is definitly a surprising transfer to me. It's fantastic! Tons of detail throughout the whole movie. I'd recommend top 1/2 of Tier 1.


42" Panasonic Plasma (768p)

PS3 though HDMI

6-7 ft.


----------



## lgans316

*Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 24-bit | AR: 2.35:1 | Fox*


Had to watch the movie twice to come up with some kind of recommendation.


The Picture Quality ranges from average to excellent. Contrast and Black Levels fluctuate. Color palette is muted. Many scenes are shot in night and foggy conditions. What more can you expect ? PQ varies dramatically. Some level of inevitable noise permeates in the fog though it lasts only for few seconds but can get quite distracting for grain haters. However the picture shines where it's supposed to. The most impressive aspect of this transfer is fine object detailing and film like picture quality.

*Recommendation*: Tier-2 1/2 below Hitman.

*CJ7 (HK Import - Region A,B,C) Video: MPEG-4 AVC | Audio: Dolby True HD 16-bit | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony*

A visual feast for the eyes even without the eyeglasses. Terrific Picture Quality. Extremely colorful. Natural contrast and amazing black levels. Value sharpness in close-up shots. I may be a bit harsh on saying that the PQ falls short of reference due to couple of focus puller shots and probability of presence of aliasing artefacts which requires confirmation from experts.

*Recommendation*: Below Black Hawk Down in Tier-1.


Why is I am Legend still in Top of Tier-1 ? It should be pushed to mid or bottom of Tier-1. It definitely didn't look better and detailed than 3:10 to Yuma despite Yuma having it's own set of inconsistencies.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2172/...df9904c0_o.jpg 
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3137/...ae1c3010_o.jpg 
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2194/...2a404cfb_o.jpg


----------



## maverick0716

I personally think IAL is better than 3:10 To Yuma as far as detail goes. The black levels in IAL were sometimes terrible, but that's my only gripe about it.


----------



## lgans316

There was plenty of banding in the climax sequences inside Neville's house. I think fine object detailing was superior in Yuma. The WOW factor was missing when I watched IAL for the second time and my guests who came for dinner were least impressed by the PQ. After this I played The Island immediately and everyone were stunned by it's jaw dropping PQ.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13897956
> 
> 
> Why is I am Legend still in Top of Tier-1 ? It should be pushed to mid or bottom of Tier-1. It definitely didn't look better and detailed than 3:10 to Yuma despite Yuma having it's own set of inconsistencies.



For the same reason Alien Vs Predator Requiem is above Lost ! (?) And for the same reason Fifth Element and Hellboy are so high and both are above No Country for Old Men. The answer... who knows?! (Note that I'm not complaining about the system in place as it will have flaws no matter what).


My question is... Is the PQ of Warriors really that good? I havent seen it, but high tier 1 for a movie from 1979 that beats the remastered Blade Runner?


----------



## AfRoMaN787

Well I've just recently watched *Phone Booth* and *Bonnie and Clyde*. Both of these movies have very good pq. I would definitely put Phone Booth in the upper 1/4 of tier 2 and Bonnie and Clyde at the bottom 3/4 of tier 2. I am watching on a 46 inch Samsung 1080p lcd from about 9ft away.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/13891790
> 
> 
> The opening scene is part of the first 30 minutes and maybe the best quality and clarity of the entire movie. It is like being in the jungle with them or looking through a window.



I couldn't DISAGREE with you more; I thought the opening scene was grainy and soft. Jump ahead 30-40 minutes and you have the best outdoor PQ I have seen in Blu-ray.


----------



## eastbaygreen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13734973
> 
> 
> I very much agree. This looks really outstanding. Clearly Tier 0.
> 
> 
> There have been some comments elsewhere about the "red in black" phenomenon. This effect is clearly intended and definitely not a PQ flaw. Surely it's not hard to understand why this would have been done in a movie like this to create a "hellish" effect.
> 
> 
> The lead actress does a great job.



I really don't think the red blacks were intentional. It was way too inconsistent.....meaning, if it was intentional, you'd think every dark cave scene or dark house scene would've had it. Most did, but not all. I also noticed it at times when there would be absolutely no reason for it as a "hellish effect". Like the back of Carlos' head in a well lit room. Or just basic shadows in Laura's face, etc.


If we ever find out if this was intended...great, but until then I can't recommend this for anything higher than middle of Tier 1, if that. I really think it's a bad transfer, and therefore has to be factored in with the otherwise Tier0 quality PQ. If it was intentional...not a good decision and/or not well done, imo.


I found the red blacks so annoying that I often missed some of the movie because I thought my equipment was on the fritz and I was daydreaming about what could be wrong.


SQ was great though....


I'm watching from about 12', 50" Pioneer Elite 720p, PS3-->HDMI-->Onkyo805


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*To Kill A King*


Tier recommendation: lowest quarter of *Tier 2*


This Blu-ray is currently unranked so I decided to give it a look. Starz has encoded this 102 minute feature in VC-1 on a BD-25. I was surprised to find this BD has a 5.1 PCM audio track which goes unmentioned on the packaging(it incorrectly lists a Dolby Digital 5.1 track that doesn't exist on the disc) and which doesn't appear by default on the disc's menu. The information found in the unranked titles list is wrong for this release.


I have to give kudos to the compressionist who did a wonderful job here. Bitrates range between 20 to 40 Mbps with it consistently around 26 to 32 Mbps. Even the difficult and frequent cloudy sky shots of England are artifact free with no banding. This is one of the better encodes I've seen lately which appears to keep much of the film's grain structure intact. Most of the film has the fine picture detail of a high Tier 2 Blu-ray, though it does vary depending on the scene. Facial and texture detail is surprisingly good at times. Check out the background shots of the brick walls in the city where I've seen lesser Blu-rays fall down. Some shots are slightly softer than others but it appears it was filmed that way.


The problems of this BD stem from a couple of things I noticed. The print used for this Blu-ray has some infrequent but definitely noticeable dirt and white specks. For a newer movie I expect a clean HD master. The other major problem is the lack of depth and dimensionality to the image and the muted colors employed throughout the movie. I suspect the movie was shot this way as it is a historical period drama set in dreary England.


Fleshtones also vary at times which distract from the overall picture. At times the main characters go from pale as a ghost one scene to tanned in other scenes. Even Cromwell's somewhat opulent style of clothing appears flat and drab. Colors just don't "pop" out of the screen like many other Blu-rays found in the upper 2 tiers. Black levels are generally okay but nothing that is superior.


There is absolutely no edge enhancement seen on the transfer but I have a feeling some light DNR might have been applied to reduce the look of grain. Some scenes appear very grainy while others look almost grain free. Unfortunately I have no other viewing experience with this movie to make a better call. Anyone see this in the theater?


Overall this is a very solid Blu-ray which I think belongs in the lower quarter of Tier 2. I would put it near Secret Window or the Shining. On a side note I think I caught a small production error during close inspection. In one scene Olivia Williams displays a very prominent and large tattoo on the lower half of her buttocks. I'm not an expert on these matters but I doubt many English women of the upper class during the 17th Century had tattoos.







I believe the standard procedure is to cover the tattoos up with makeup but I guess they missed it.


Watching on a calibrated 60" Pioneer Kuro Plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 with a viewing distance of 5 to 6 feet.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *reisb* /forum/post/13894794
> 
> 
> Yes, what is the verdict on PQ of NT and NT2? I've heard good reviews of both BD's, but haven't seen it on this list yet.



Give it a little time. It hasn't even been officially released yet. The only people with it are reviewers and from stores who break street date.


----------



## maverick0716

Just watched Narnia tonight. It excelles in many technical aspects.....no blemishes, no grain, good black detail, fantastic colour. The one important aspect where I thought it lacked slightly is fine detail.....and I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks so. Don't get me wrong, it definitly has decent sharpness, but I was expecting more from this title. I'd recommend somewhere in the lower half of Tier 1 in my opinion.


42" Panasonic plasma (768p)

PS3 though HDMI

6-7 ft.


----------



## zinfamous




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/13698027
> 
> 
> Anyone taken a look at Before the Devil Knows You're Dead?
> 
> 
> It got a great PQ review from highdefdigest...
> 
> http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1297...youredead.html
> 
> 
> It's a pretty damn good movie too, would definitely buy it if this review is accurate in terms of PQ



saw this some time ago (yeah, I know...old post, but I've been away...). I thought it was average at best. no pop...just a really good DVD quality, IMO.


didn't really like the flick either (although I was hoping that I would)


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zinfamous* /forum/post/13905532
> 
> 
> saw this some time ago (yeah, I know...old post, but I've been away...). I thought it was average at best. no pop...just a really good DVD quality, IMO.
> 
> 
> didn't really like the flick either (although I was hoping that I would)



I watched it a week or two ago. It has good detail in the day shots but struggles with contrast and black levels in the night shots. I'd say it's high Tier 2-ish.


Brandon


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Short Circuit*


Tier recommendation: absolute bottom of *Tier 3*


This 1986 movie comes to Blu-ray in only 1080i. Image has encoded the 98 minute feature in AVC on a BD-25. Unfortunately this appears to be an encode targeted for a dual format(both HD DVD and Blu-ray) release, as the video rate brickwalls around 29 Mbps. The bulk of the movie varies between 16 to 19 Mbps with dips as low as 11 Mbps. Artifacting and compression noise are common throughout the movie, particularly in the scenes with smoke or clouds of dust. Banding does occur a limited amount but it is very brief.


The master used seems to be recycled from the last time Image issued the dvd version. It looks okay for a catalog title from the 80's but doesn't really stand up to modern HD masters. The obvious problem with it is the heavy use of DNR here, which reduces the facial and hair detail in this transfer. Facial detail doesn't look much better than the upconverted dvd. I suspect they used DNR to reduce the heavy grain of the original film, which I clearly remember from my original theatrical viewing of this film. Some scenes have heavy grain while others look scrubbed clean on the disc. Black levels are generally poor with frequent black crush seen, particularly in the bunker scenes. Contrast is limited with most colors looking a little faded. The film in general is a little soft looking.


I had a tough time deciding exactly where to place this movie in the tier list. I think it should be placed at the very bottom of Tier 3, but I could see some arguing for high Tier 4. At times this Blu-ray has clear Tier 3 visual quality while in other scenes it dips to high Tier 4. I think with a new master and a Blu-ray only encode this movie would have turned out better. I think a close visual comparison for this disc could be Waiting... at the bottom of Tier 3.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/13911081
> 
> *Short Circuit*
> 
> 
> Tier recommendation: absolute bottom of *Tier 3*
> 
> 
> This 1986 movie comes to Blu-ray in only 1080i. Image has encoded the 98 minute feature in AVC on a BD-25. Unfortunately this appears to be an encode targeted for a dual format(both HD DVD and Blu-ray) release, as the video rate brickwalls around 29 Mbps. The bulk of the movie varies between 16 to 19 Mbps with dips as low as 11 Mbps. Artifacting and compression noise are common throughout the movie, particularly in the scenes with smoke or clouds of dust. Banding does occur a limited amount but it is very brief.
> 
> 
> The master used seems to be recycled from the last time Image issued the dvd version. It looks okay for a catalog title from the 80's but doesn't really stand up to modern HD masters. The obvious problem with it is the heavy use of DNR here, which reduces the facial and hair detail in this transfer. Facial detail doesn't look much better than the upconverted dvd. I suspect they used DNR to reduce the heavy grain of the original film, which I clearly remember from my original theatrical viewing of this film. Some scenes have heavy grain while others look scrubbed clean on the disc. Black levels are generally poor with frequent black crush seen, particularly in the bunker scenes. Contrast is limited with most colors looking a little faded. The film in general is a little soft looking.
> 
> 
> I had a tough time deciding exactly where to place this movie in the tier list. I think it should be placed at the very bottom of Tier 3, but I could see some arguing for high Tier 4. At times this Blu-ray has clear Tier 3 visual quality while in other scenes it dips to high Tier 4. I think with a new master and a Blu-ray only encode this movie would have turned out better. I think a close visual comparison for this disc could be Waiting... at the bottom of Tier 3.



I'm surprised to see this one get noticed by at least one person, lol. I remember loving this movie when I was very young. The sequal is actually being broadcast fairly frequently on HDNET this month....perfect timing!


----------



## zinfamous




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/13897915
> 
> 
> then again, i have american psycho and i don't think it belongs in tier 4...you guys are a tough crowd



eh, just remind yourself that you buy and watch movies for their overall, not simply b/c they look pretty (digitally--outside of cinematography, I mean.)


(ya, I know...not what this thread is about)


I've watched American Psycho maybe 15 times. The business card scene is one of my favorites out of American films over the last 10 years or so










sucks though that the source appears to suffer from mishandling on the BD.


----------



## zinfamous




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13907055
> 
> 
> I watched it a week or two ago. It has good detail in the day shots but struggles with contrast and black levels in the night shots. I'd say it's high Tier 2-ish.
> 
> 
> Brandon



ah true enough. I vaguely remember some decent detail. But sadly it was less with the Marisa Tomei boobness and more with the Phillip Seymour Hoffman naked ass, and sadly...his boobness as well. shudder


----------



## Mr Man




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/13897912
> 
> 
> sheesh, was wanting to pick up the italian job at the BB sale, but it's ranked tier 4?



LOL u choose your movies based on what tier they are in. HeHe. Kudos to the person who went to all the hard work putting this list together but if they insist on having an animated movie at #1 then its a bit moot.


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mr Man* /forum/post/13911962
> 
> 
> LOL u choose your movies based on what tier they are in. HeHe. Kudos to the person who went to all the hard work putting this list together but if they insist on having an animated movie at #1 then its a bit moot.



of course i'd go by reviews on PQ, why would i want to own a movie that looked terrible? they're not cheap.


a CGI movie will always be sharpest since it's pure digital. that's just how it is, it is accepted. why would someone artificially discount a movie's PQ because it happens to be CGI. and how is that a definition of "moot"?


Lol hehe u.


----------



## zoro

I loved IJ!


----------



## lgans316

Already realized the mistake, deleted the post and created in deals thread.


----------



## eastbaygreen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briansemerick* /forum/post/13912398
> 
> 
> of course i'd go by reviews on PQ, why would i want to own a movie that looked terrible? they're not cheap.
> 
> 
> a CGI movie will always be sharpest since it's pure digital. that's just how it is, it is accepted. why would someone artificially discount a movie's PQ because it happens to be CGI. and how is that a definition of "moot"?
> 
> 
> Lol hehe u.



Just 'cause a movie is CGI, doesn't mean it should be exempt from PQ ratings.


It might be a good idea to add a tag on CGI movies....but then again, most movies today have a certain % or CGI anyway....so, I'll just deal with animated movies as is


----------



## b_scott

Mr. Brooks didn't have much range to benefit from the DTS-MA, but man when the bullets were flying i thought i was in the middle of a gunfight. i was afraid my neighbors would think we were getting shot at!


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briansemerick* /forum/post/13920852
> 
> 
> Mr. Brooks didn't have much range to benefit from the DTS-MA, but man when the bullets were flying i thought i was in the middle of a gunfight. i was afraid my neighbors would think we were getting shot at!



Just listen to the bullet sounds in The Kingdom (HD DVD). They sound like a bunch of rubber balls being dropped on the floor from 3 feet.










Btw DTS-MA doesn't matter in this thread.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zinfamous* /forum/post/13905532
> 
> 
> saw this some time ago (yeah, I know...old post, but I've been away...). I thought it was average at best. no pop...just a really good DVD quality, IMO.
> 
> 
> didn't really like the flick either (although I was hoping that I would)



that's dissapointing to hear, but I will still pick it up eventually


and i can see how some wouldn't like it...it's definitely not for everyone


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mr Man* /forum/post/13911962
> 
> 
> LOL u choose your movies based on what tier they are in. HeHe. Kudos to the person who went to all the hard work putting this list together but if they insist on having an animated movie at #1 then its a bit moot.



LOL isn't that the point of high definition movies?










if the PQ is sub-par we might as well get the DVD versions.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/13921086
> 
> 
> LOL isn't that the point of high definition movies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if the PQ is sub-par we might as well get the DVD versions.



My policy: if the PQ is sub-par don't watch the movie at all.


----------



## Kevin12586




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13921101
> 
> 
> My policy: if the PQ is sub-par don't watch the movie at all.



Ha ha, I just rented Bullitt from Netflix and stupid me forgot to check to see where it is ranked in the thread. Before I watched it I saw it was ranked coal, I sent it back without even watching it. I will set my DVR to record it whenver it comes over in HD










I have The Host on the way now.


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13921101
> 
> 
> My policy: if the PQ is sub-par don't watch the movie at all.



i also have the opposite policy - if i movie looks amazing but it sucks, i don't bother. i just sent back Shoot'Em Up for that reason when i heard about it from a friend.


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kevin12586* /forum/post/13922029
> 
> 
> Ha ha, I just rented Bullitt from Netflix and stupid me forgot to check to see where it is ranked in the thread. Before I watched it I saw it was ranked coal, I sent it back without even watching it. I will set my DVR to record it whenver it comes over in HD
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have The Host on the way now.



well that's kinda dumb - i mean, the blu-ray will still look better than any DVR, and you had the movie right there. if you were interested in watching it you may as well have.


----------



## SuprSlow

Thanks for the updates everyone, sorry it took me so long










This week's releases:
*National Treasure* Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Disney
*V for Vendetta* Video: VC-1 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner
*Face/Off: Special Collector's Edition* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-ES Matrix | AR: 2.35:1 | Paramount
*WWE: WrestleMania 24* Video: ? | Audio: ? | AR: ?:1 | WWE Home Video
*Bee Movie* Video: ? | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 1.85:1 | Dreamworks
*Blades of Glory* Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.85:1 | Dreamworks
*Next* Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Paramount
*Anger Management* Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony
*Nature: Desert Lions* Video: ? | Audio: DD | AR: 1.78:1 | Questar
*Nature: In the Valley of the Wolf* Video: ? | Audio: DD | AR: 1.78:1 | Questar
*Nature: Shark Mountain* Video: ? | Audio: DD | AR: 1.78:1 | Questar
*Nature: Under Antarctic Ice* Video: ? | Audio: DD | AR: 1.78:1 | Questar


Updates:

*The Golden Compass* - bot 1/2 Tier 1

*Phonebooth* - top 1/4 Tier 2

*Night of the Werewolf* - bot Tier 4

*Layer Cake* - remains in Tier 2

*Entrapment* - above AVP in 2nd 1/4 Tier 3

*AVP:Reuiem* - high Tier 2

*Before the Devil Knows You're Dead* - very top Tier 2

*John Legend* - mid-top Tier 1

*Dan in Real Life* - bot 1/4 Tier 2

*Lucky Number Slevin* - below CE3K Tier 2

*The Recruit* - top 1/4 Tier 1

*Beowulf* - above TMNT Tier 0

*Twister* - near Blood Diamond, lower Tier 2

*Untraceable* - compromise in Tier 1 (one Tier 0 vote, one top Tier 2 vote)

*Flyboys* - remains in Tier 1

*Patriot* - remains in Tier 1

*Hidalgo* - top 1/4 Tier 2

*The Island* - moved to bot Tier 0

*Master and Commander* - top 1/2 of Tier 2, below Hitman

*CJ7* - Tier 1, below Black Hawk Down

*I Am Legend* - moved down in Tier 1

*The Orphanage* - down to top of Tier 1

*Hitman* - moved to top 20 of Tier 2

*Narnia* - bot 1/4 Tier 1

*Across the Universe* - Tier 2 below Ghost Rider

*Shinobi* - Tier 1 below I Am Legend's old placement

*In the Valley of Elah* - mid Tier 2

*National Treasure 2* - Tier 0

*Sharkwater* - bumped up a few spots, still in Tier 3

*Youth Without Youth* - top 1/2 Tier 1

*Bonnie & Clyde* - bot 3/4 of Tier 2

*To Kill a King* - bot 3/4 of Tier 2

*Short Circuit* - very bottom Tier 3





Phantom, can you fill me in with the specs for these two?

*Shinobi: Special Edition* Video: ? | Audio: ? | AR: 2.35:1 | FUNimation
*Short Circuit* Video: ? | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Image




Once again, if I missed anybody's post, please let me know. I've updated this over three separate nights, so I may have inadvertently skipped one.


Brandon


----------



## lgans316

Thanks a lot SuprSlow. Sounds like an exam result announcement.


Placement of few titles needs to be either put on hold or discussed furthermore.


Shinobi: Special Edition - Tier-1 - Some say it looked average

The Orphanage - down to top of Tier 1 - Should have remained in Tier-0

Phonebooth - top 1/4 Tier 2 - Phantom Stranger voted Tier-3


Also please suffix "Import" next to *Next Video: VC1 | Audio: DTS-HD HR | AR: 2.35:1 | EIV*


Disturbia is seen in Tier-1 as well as in Unranked list. I think it's better to keep it in Unranked list for time being.


----------



## b_scott

wow NT2 in the zero tier. excited to check that out.


----------



## shadowrage

Shinobi is AVC and TrueHD


To bad the tier thread doesn't take photography in to account. Otherwise Shinobi would be at the bottom of tier 2. It is a solid transfer despite the amateurishness(is that a word??) of the crew.


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13922871
> 
> 
> Thanks a lot SuprSlow. Sounds like an exam result announcement.
> 
> 
> Placement of few titles needs to be either put on hold or discussed furthermore.
> 
> 
> Shinobi: Special Edition - Tier-1 - Some say it looked average
> 
> The Orphanage - down to top of Tier 1 - Should have remained in Tier-0
> 
> Phonebooth - top 1/4 Tier 2 - Phantom Stranger voted Tier-3
> 
> 
> Also please suffix "Import" next to *Next Video: VC1 | Audio: DTS-HD HR | AR: 2.35:1 | EIV*
> 
> 
> Disturbia is seen in Tier-1 as well as in Unranked list. I think it's better to keep it in Unranked list for time being.



Thank you for your input, it is very much appreciated










I bumped The Orphanage after looking over the various placements. Several suggested Tier 1, but there were some Tier 0 votes, as well. I agree that there should be more discussion. But remember that a title's placement is never final







It seems like the top titles go through a fine tuning process for several weeks. If anyone else has seen this, by all means, post your opinions.


My bad on Phonebooth. I wrote down Phantom's placement, just overlooked it. There's also a vote for the top 1/4 of Tier 2. Has anyone else seen this?


I'll fix the "Import" tag for Next.


As for Disturbia, doing a quick search, I see two suggestions for Tier 2. Any dissenters?


And thank you for the specs, shadowrage.


----------



## Kevin12586




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briansemerick* /forum/post/13922530
> 
> 
> well that's kinda dumb - i mean, the blu-ray will still look better than any DVR, and you had the movie right there. if you were interested in watching it you may as well have.



You may be right, but I decided to send it back to get another movie from my Netflix queue. If/when it comes in HD on D* I will still have my 2 movies from Netflix as well as Bullitt on the DVR. On top of that it only has DD for audio so the advantage for the Blu-ray over the broadcast HD is even more minimal.


But if you disagree with my thinking, no problem


----------



## b_scott

haha, just saying


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/13923205
> 
> 
> Thank you for your input, it is very much appreciated
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bumped The Orphanage after looking over the various placements. Several suggested Tier 1, but there were some Tier 0 votes, as well. I agree that there should be more discussion. But remember that a title's placement is never final
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems like the top titles go through a fine tuning process for several weeks. If anyone else has seen this, by all means, post your opinions.
> 
> 
> My bad on Phonebooth. I wrote down Phantom's placement, just overlooked it. There's also a vote for the top 1/4 of Tier 2. Has anyone else seen this?
> 
> 
> I'll fix the "Import" tag for Next.
> 
> 
> As for Disturbia, doing a quick search, I see two suggestions for Tier 2. Any dissenters?
> 
> 
> And thank you for the specs, shadowrage.



I don't recall seeing any comments at all in this thread on NT2. How did it get in Tier 0? I think a more appropriate location would be high Tier 1. It just doesn't have that extra special last bit of detail that to me is what Tier 0 stands for.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13922871
> 
> *The Orphanage* - down to top of Tier 1 - *Should have remained in Tier-0*



I agree.


----------



## HighAltHD

I don't think I've ever commented on a movie on this thread (I keep a close eye on it), but since there will be ongoing talk about The Orphanage, I'd thought I'd vote with the crew that has it placed in Tier 1 - it just didn't seem as good as the Tier 0 ones to me.


The movie, however, was freakin awesome.


Geoff (PS3 - XBR4 - 10ft)


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kevin12586* /forum/post/13922029
> 
> 
> Ha ha, I just rented Bullitt from Netflix and stupid me forgot to check to see where it is ranked in the thread. Before I watched it I saw it was ranked coal, I sent it back without even watching it. I will set my DVR to record it whenver it comes over in HD
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have The Host on the way now.



I can pretty much guarantee that it would've been better PQ than on broadcast HD tv.


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13924169
> 
> 
> I don't recall seeing any comments at all in this thread on NT2. How did it get in Tier 0? I think a more appropriate location would be high Tier 1. It just doesn't have that extra special last bit of detail that to me is what Tier 0 stands for.


 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1#post13894741 


Where in Tier 1, patrick? Top 1/4?


----------



## lrstevens421

Thanks for moving John Legend







. It's new spot is very deserving.


----------



## eastbaygreen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13922871
> 
> 
> The Orphanage - down to top of Tier 1 - Should have remained in Tier-0
> 
> .



I'm really surprise by this.


Has anyone seen The Orphanage in the theaters? If so, did you notice the "red blacks" on the big screen?


Does anyone know for certain that this was an intended effect? There's another thread about this on AVS, but it seems to be at a standstill.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1020097&page=5 


It just seemed pointless and relatively random. The 3 other people I watched the movie with didn't even notice it until I asked them about it. That, to me, means only those judging the PQ would notice and, if intended, was not a very good effect...or a bad transfer?


This one has me scratching my head...


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13924209
> 
> 
> I agree.



Me too.


Brandon


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *eastbaygreen* /forum/post/13925176
> 
> 
> I'm really surprise by this.
> 
> 
> Has anyone seen The Orphanage in the theaters? If so, did you notice the "red blacks" on the big screen?
> 
> 
> Does anyone know for certain that this was an intended effect? There's another thread about this on AVS, but it seems to be at a standstill.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1020097&page=5
> 
> 
> It just seemed pointless and relatively random. The 3 other people I watched the movie with didn't even notice it until I asked them about it. That, to me, means only those judging the PQ would notice and, if intended, was not a very good effect...or a bad transfer?
> 
> 
> This one has me scratching my head...



Are there screencaps of the effect (at it's worst) in that thread?


Brandon


----------



## SCRUN68

I checked out _The Company_ blu-ray and was pretty impressed. Don't take it on my word alone, but among the movies I have seen on blu-ray, this is one was up there with Mr. Brooks for me in terms of the pop factor.


Several of the wide angle shots are just stunning. It obviously isn't demo level material or anything, but I think it could make it in tier 1 or at the very worst, the top of tier 2.


Just my humble opinion, since I noticed this one was still unranked.


----------



## b_scott

i thought Mr. Brooks looked great, save for a few really grainy night aerial shots and a couple crushed black shots.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/13924711
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1#post13894741
> 
> 
> Where in Tier 1, patrick? Top 1/4?



Sorry, I somehow missed that comment.


Yes, I think top quarter of Tier 1 would be right for NT2.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13925237
> 
> 
> Are there screencaps of the effect (at it's worst) in that thread?
> 
> 
> Brandon



I haven't seen any screencaps, but if you didn't rent the disc or still have it, the effect shows up in the early shot of the interior of the seaside cave and in the shot of Laura in bed talking to her husband when she hears a noise in the bathroom, just to mention two places that immediately come to mind.


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13925877
> 
> 
> Sorry, I somehow missed that comment.
> 
> 
> Yes, I think top quarter of Tier 1 would be right for NT2.



I went ahead and moved it so no one would run out and buy it seeing as it was in Tier 0


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Wow, I guess I am really in the minority on The Orphanage. Top Tier 1 yes, Tier 0? Not to me.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13926793
> 
> 
> Wow, I guess I am really in the minority on The Orphanage. Top Tier 1 yes, Tier 0? Not to me.



I think it's about even on both sides so far. What drawbacks did you see? The level of detail was excellent to me, and that's usually what sets movies apart from Tier 1 to Tier 0.


Brandon


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13927881
> 
> 
> I think it's about even on both sides so far. What drawbacks did you see? The level of detail was excellent to me, and that's usually what sets movies apart from Tier 1 to Tier 0.
> 
> 
> Brandon



If you go back and read my review, you will see that I did not mention any picture flaws at all. It is a very good picture. It was just missing that extra "something", whether it is a combination of contrast, sharpness and detail or what, I can't really say....perhaps even the subject matter itself. Bottom line is that I just didn't consider it Tier 0 "eye candy".


While I certainly do appreciate the quality PQ of The Orphanage, I do not think of it as a title that I would put on to show off my system to friends, and expect them to say "wow, look at that picture, that's awesome".


Perhaps I am straying a bit from the official descriptions for the various Tiers, but I'm just not a conformist.


----------



## eastbaygreen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13927930
> 
> 
> If you go back and read my review, you will see that I did not mention any picture flaws at all. It is a very good picture. It was just missing that extra "something", whether it is a combination of contrast, sharpness and detail or what, I can't really say....perhaps even the subject matter itself. Bottom line is that I just didn't consider it Tier 0 "eye candy".
> 
> 
> While I certainly do appreciate the quality PQ of The Orphanage, I do not think of it as a title that I would put on to show off my system to friends, and expect them to say "wow, look at that picture, that's awesome".
> 
> 
> Perhaps I am straying a bit from the official descriptions for the various Tiers, but I'm just not a conformist.



So, Rob, you're not using the red blacks as a deduction?


Can I ask those that have placed this in Tier 1 or Tier 0 whether they actually noticed the red blacks? To me, that was the only thing that kept it from Tier 0.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13924169
> 
> 
> I don't recall seeing any comments at all in this thread on NT2. How did it get in Tier 0? I think a more appropriate location would be high Tier 1. It just doesn't have that extra special last bit of detail that to me is what Tier 0 stands for.



We either have a conflict or NT2 was already moved. Suprslow said it was Tier 0. I just checked and it is where you said it should be. I think that is about right at high tier 1. It looks very good and is consistent.


PS3 through HDMI to Sony A3000 1080p @ 8 ft.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *eastbaygreen* /forum/post/13927977
> 
> 
> So, Rob, you're not using the red blacks as a deduction?
> 
> 
> Can I ask those that have placed this in Tier 1 or Tier 0 whether they actually noticed the red blacks? To me, that was the only thing that kept it from Tier 0.



I don't recall noticing any "red blacks" on my JVC RS1.


----------



## lgans316

As mentioned by patrick the red blacks were noticeable only in couple of scenes and to me it looked intentional but nothing distracting. The panoramic and close ups shots exhibited tremendous details which we normally see only with top tier 1 and tier 0 titles. To some the presentation may fall short of being called demo material due to the desaturated look of the movie.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13928051
> 
> 
> I don't recall noticing any "red blacks" on my JVC RS1.



I'm not even sure what a "red black" is.


----------



## eastbaygreen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/13928440
> 
> 
> I'm not even sure what a "red black" is.


 http://forums.highdefdigest.com/showthread.php?p=966743 


Check a few posts down for an example. The photo shown actually looks a bit more purple...but it doesn't really matter. The effect makes the shot look kind of like a negative. Some are saying it was only in a few spots...but I noticed it thoughout the movie.


Could there be differences between individual discs?? Doesn't seem possible, but I really don't know for sure....


----------



## lgans316

Red Blacks ok. How about this ?

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...y/HF7Y7928.jpg 
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...y/HF7Y7938.jpg 
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...y/HF7Y7940.jpg


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13927930
> 
> 
> ... but I'm just not a conformist.



A man after my own heart.










Brandon


----------



## eastbaygreen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13928542
> 
> 
> Red Blacks ok. How about this ?
> 
> http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...y/HF7Y7928.jpg
> http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...y/HF7Y7938.jpg
> http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...y/HF7Y7940.jpg



those shots don't show the issue people are having w/ the Orphanage. They look to be more of a red tint. The Orphanage issue had an almost negative effect to the picture. See my post above.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *eastbaygreen* /forum/post/13927977
> 
> 
> So, Rob, you're not using the red blacks as a deduction?
> 
> 
> Can I ask those that have placed this in Tier 1 or Tier 0 whether they actually noticed the red blacks? To me, that was the only thing that kept it from Tier 0.



I have no recollection of them, so either I thought it was intended or I just plain missed it. I plan on purchasing this title at some point so I'll check it out when I get a chance...but the original viewing was a rental.


Brandon


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13928542
> 
> 
> Red Blacks ok. How about this ?
> 
> http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...y/HF7Y7928.jpg
> http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...y/HF7Y7938.jpg
> http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...y/HF7Y7940.jpg



Everybody and everything in that movie is orange-ish yellow. What is that?


Brandon


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/13922840
> 
> 
> Phantom, can you fill me in with the specs for these two?
> 
> *Shinobi: Special Edition* Video: ? | Audio: ? | AR: 2.35:1 | FUNimation
> *Short Circuit* Video: ? | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Image
> 
> 
> Once again, if I missed anybody's post, please let me know. I've updated this over three separate nights, so I may have inadvertently skipped one.
> 
> 
> Brandon



Short Circuit's video is AVC(I'm not sure if this should be noted but it is only 1080i also). It looks like you already have the other information listed now. And "The Recruit" needs a "UK Import" added to it.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13928605
> 
> 
> Everybody and everything in that movie is orange-ish yellow. What is that?
> 
> 
> Brandon



CRUEL INTENTIONS of Steven Soderbergh.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *eastbaygreen* /forum/post/13928513
> 
> http://forums.highdefdigest.com/showthread.php?p=966743
> 
> 
> Check a few posts down for an example. The photo shown actually looks a bit more purple...but it doesn't really matter. The effect makes the shot look kind of like a negative. Some are saying it was only in a few spots...but I noticed it thoughout the movie.
> 
> 
> Could there be differences between individual discs?? Doesn't seem possible, but I really don't know for sure....



Do you (or anyone else) happen to know the approximate times this occurs? I can do some frame captures from my PC and then maybe we can see what it is.


----------



## maverick0716

I'm pretty sure that Short Circuit is 1.85:1 ratio.


----------



## sharkcohen

I think American Psycho needs to be pushed down to Coal. It's an edge enhanced mess.


Now viewing on a Samsung 46a650, 6 foot viewing distance.


----------



## eastbaygreen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/13928754
> 
> 
> Do you (or anyone else) happen to know the approximate times this occurs? I can do some frame captures from my PC and then maybe we can see what it is.



I noticed it quite frequently when I watched it. It happened on at least 1/2 of the darker scenes and I even noticed it in scenes w/ more light, but in the shadows of faces and darker areas of Carlos' hair, etc....


I'm beginning to think there are different releases of this disc. Lgans posted pics showing a totally different issue....so that makes me think he didn't see this in his copy. I can't imagine someone not noticing this, especially in a forum like this where PQ is being reviewed.


----------



## djoberg

I finally got around to watching *Rescue Dawn* and I agree wholeheartedly with its present Tier 0 status. Some of the opening scenes (such as Christian Bale's plane getting shot down) weren't that stellar, but once the jungle scenes began it was definitely eye candy. In fact, I believe the jungle scenes rival those of the best scenes in Apocalypto.


PS I also enjoyed the movie and there was excellent acting by the leads (Christian Bale and Steve Zahn).


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13928677
> 
> 
> CRUEL INTENTIONS of Steven Soderbergh.



I agree, that was intentionally cruel











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/13930627
> 
> 
> I finally got around to watching *Rescue Dawn* and I agree wholeheartedly with its present Tier 0 status. Some of the opening scenes (such as Christian Bale's plane getting shot down) weren't that stellar, but once the jungle scenes began it was definitely eye candy. *In fact, I believe the jungle scenes rival those of the best scenes in Apocalypto*.



Completely agree.


Brandon


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I think both Apocalypto and Rescue Dawn are slightly overrated in terms of PQ.


Man, I've become a real downer around here lately!


----------



## 357

National Treasure 2 is Tier 1.

Rambo is Tier 1.

Now The Orphanage belongs back in Tier 0!


----------



## Jason One




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/13928774
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure that Short Circuit is 1.85:1 ratio.



Not true. I just watched it last night, and it's definitely 2.40:1 (filmed in anamorphic Panavision, my favorite).


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jason One* /forum/post/13932346
> 
> 
> Not true. I just watched it last night, and it's definitely 2.40:1 (filmed in anamorphic Panavision, my favorite).



Oh, weird. That's kind of surprising for that type of movie.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13932213
> 
> 
> Man, I've become a real downer around here lately!



Cause all you care about is Lawrence










Brandon


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13932629
> 
> 
> Cause all you care about is Lawrence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brandon



Is there anything else that matters?










Ironically, I just finished watching a Blu-ray title that I am going to recommend for Tier 0!


Anyone want to guess what it is?


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13934693
> 
> 
> Is there anything else that matters?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ironically, I just finished watching a Blu-ray title that I am going to recommend for Tier 0!
> 
> 
> Anyone want to guess what it is?



I'm gonna guess Narnia.


Brandon


----------



## Anthony1

Ice Age: The Meltdown in Silver is absolute BLASPHEMY!!!!


Yeah, I know.... there is some banding in the sky on a few shots. BIG FREAKING DEAL! When I first got my PS3, this disk was my absolute go to disk for demo material. The opening scene with the detail in Scrat's eyeballs and fur is just ridiculous.


Oh, also, Destiny's Child: Live in Atlanta is not that bad at all. My wife wanted to check it out, and I remembered that it was ranked really low on the tier thread, and I was thinking, "I don't want to watch that, it's gonna look horrible". I actually thought that alot of it looked outstanding. Especially towards the end of the concert, there was this one part when all the girls were wearing these Spanish type outfits, and the color was just off the freaking charts.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13934693
> 
> 
> Is there anything else that matters?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ironically, I just finished watching a Blu-ray title that I am going to recommend for Tier 0!
> 
> 
> Anyone want to guess what it is?


*Patton*


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Keep the guesses comin'!











Small hint: the title in question is not currently in Tier 0 (I wont say whether it is ranked or not).


----------



## lgans316

More clues needed then.


----------



## bplewis24

Saawariya.


Brandon


----------



## maverick0716

That narrows it down to 100 or so titles........you're not giving very good hints!


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13936507
> 
> 
> Saawariya.
> 
> 
> Brandon



That's a good guess.....I bet you got it.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I guess I better just tell you, otherwise it will be built up too much!


I was _forced_ to watch this with the kids. Didn't care much for the movie, the PQ was superb, and worthy of consideration in Tier 0 in my opinion.


Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the great movie I am talking about, a soon to be classic of the cinema, is none other than:

*Alvin and the Chipmunks*











This has it all in terms of great PQ. Colors are fantastic. Excellent depth, dimensionality and contrast, very good detail and sharpness without being overly harsh. I also thought it was shot pretty good, with lots of scenes having very nice "bokeh", which adds that little extra something to the picture (something I thought was slightly lacking with The Orphanage).


I only saw one review for Alvin and the Chipmunks in this thread, and it was a vote for Tier 1. I think that is too low.


The movie wasn't horrible, but the voices (and singing) of the Chipmunks was almost as bad as fingernails on a chalkboard.


----------



## lgans316

Holy ****. Sounds interesting. I think the oversaturated colors and elevated contrast levels have helped in reproducing good details and dimensionality. Can you please post your thoughts on Juno which is getting fluctuating reviews ?


This is the best review available for Juno and the reviewer is a pretty credible person.

http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/arc...view_juno.html 
http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=67729 


ALVIN - Available for $15.49 here.

http://www.mjentertainment.net/shop/...op=dt&id=51874 


JUNO - Available for $19.49 here.

http://www.mjentertainment.net/shop/...op=dt&id=51908


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13936537
> 
> *Alvin and the Chipmunks*



lol...that was still too much buildup for Alvin and the Chipmunks










Brandon


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13936600
> 
> 
> This is the best review available for Juno and the reviewer is a pretty credible person.



That's interesting. I don't remember being that impressed with Juno. I don't remember specifics, but it struck me as a low Tier 1/high Tier 2 type of title. Maybe a notch or so below Superbad (which was a bit overrated for a while).


Aside from that, the movie is pretty good. But you have to get through the first 15 minutes of over-the-top cutesy dialogue, and into the real heart of the movie which is the nuanced relationships between the characters which subtly creeps up on you but is done pretty well. The movie itself might have been overrated as well, but it's definitely worth a look.


Brandon


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13937840
> 
> 
> lol...that was still too much buildup for Alvin and the Chipmunks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brandon



True dat!


----------



## maverick0716

haha, cool. I actually have Alvin and the Chipmunks sitting on my player waiting to be watched.


----------



## maverick0716

I thought Juno looked really good on Blu Ray. I think I recommended it for mid-high Tier 2 awhile back. I thought the movie itself was excellent.


----------



## b_scott

National Treasure 1 doesn't look all that much better than DVD in my opinion. not much pop, kinda of dull detail. i haven't looked at 2 yet.


----------



## maverick0716

When someone says not much better than the DVD......I think of Tier 4. Are you really saying that National Treasure is Tier 4?


----------



## b_scott

i'm not qualified to rate blu-rays, honestly. i'm just not noticing my detail or pop. if i had to venture a guess i'd probably say low tier 2 or high tier 3. i'm watching it during the day right now obviously so that factors in since it's not pitch black. but i wouldn't re-buy it on BD if you already have the DVD, again in my opinion. waiting for others to review. i look for skin texture and hair to pick out good detail, and i'm seing almost no extra detail there.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briansemerick* /forum/post/13938862
> 
> 
> i'm not qualified to rate blu-rays, honestly. i'm just not noticing my detail or pop. if i had to venture a guess i'd probably say low tier 2 or high tier 3. i'm watching it during the day right now obviously so that factors in since it's not pitch black. but i wouldn't re-buy it on BD if you already have the DVD, again in my opinion. waiting for others to review. i look for skin texture and hair to pick out good detail, and i'm seing almost no extra detail there.



I disagree. The face detail and small object detail weren't superb, but it was better than a lot of tier 1 entries (Enchanted being the first that springs to mind). On that same note, there were some soft shots...


The reason it isnt tier 3 is because that would mean Resident Evil looked better than this, and IMO National Treasure is WAY better looking than RE1. If I had to place a vote, I'd say high top 1/4th of tier 2 (when I say "way better" keep in mind how ridiculously huge tier 2 is


----------



## b_scott

yeah i could agree with that, not having seen RE.


----------



## nohjy

Just finished watching the follwoing:


National Treasure - lower tier one

National treasure 2 - High tier one


P.S., I Love You - Top tier 1. This is a reference quality picture that is just a tad soft in areas.


----------



## bplewis24

I'm going to recommend this for the very top if Tier 1, I guess. It's a gorgeous title with tons of deep blacks, dark rich purples and greens. It's the opposite of Enchanted in that it's a very vibrant title, but whereas Enchanted is filmed mostly in brightly lit settings, Saawariya is not. The contrast does not seem to suffer a bit from it from my point of view.


The sharpness and fine object detail are there, although it is not the best I've seen. I went back and forth on it being Tier 0 or not, so I'm going with top of Tier 1 for now. However it's certainly demo material...especially if you wanna test the black levels of your TV set










Brandon


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nohjy* /forum/post/13945211
> 
> 
> P.S., I Love You - Top tier 1. This is a reference quality picture that is just a tad soft in areas.



I agree 100%!


----------



## nohjy

One more:


Hidalgo - This title belongs in mid-to-high tier 1 and is definitely better than the Patriot and Hellboy (both of which I own). The AQ and PQ (and the fact that it is a good movie) make for an exceptional home theater experience that is not to be missed.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nohjy* /forum/post/13946339
> 
> 
> One more:
> 
> 
> Hidalgo - I would put it at the very top of tier 1. The AQ and PQ (and the fact that it is a good movie) make for an exceptional home theater experience.



I disagree. Hidalgo should be top to mid of Tier-2. Film artefacts are clearly visible and contrast fluctates from scene to scene robbing off image depth.


----------



## eastbaygreen

Bought this a couple months ago and just got around to watching it all the way thru.


Have to agree, it's one of the best non animated movies I've seen wrt PQ. AQ is also very, very good.


Will watch POTC-AWE soon to compare....


----------



## Anthony1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13936537
> 
> 
> I guess I better just tell you, otherwise it will be built up too much!
> 
> 
> I was _forced_ to watch this with the kids. Didn't care much for the movie, the PQ was superb, and worthy of consideration in Tier 0 in my opinion.
> 
> 
> Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the great movie I am talking about, a soon to be classic of the cinema, is none other than:
> 
> *Alvin and the Chipmunks*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This has it all in terms of great PQ. Colors are fantastic. Excellent depth, dimensionality and contrast, very good detail and sharpness without being overly harsh. I also thought it was shot pretty good, with lots of scenes having very nice "bokeh", which adds that little extra something to the picture (something I thought was slightly lacking with The Orphanage).
> 
> 
> I only saw one review for Alvin and the Chipmunks in this thread, and it was a vote for Tier 1. I think that is too low.
> 
> 
> The movie wasn't horrible, but the voices (and singing) of the Chipmunks was almost as bad as fingernails on a chalkboard.



You know it's funny you mentioned this movie, cause I've seen the Blu Ray a number of times myself (got a 5 and 7 year old), and I can totally agree with your take on it. The DTS HD MA soundtrack is very good as well. Colors are very nice, and some 3D pop to it. I'm not 100 percent sure I'd put it in Tier 0 though, maybe high Tier 1.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Anthony1* /forum/post/13946987
> 
> 
> You know it's funny you mentioned this movie, cause I've seen the Blu Ray a number of times myself (got a 5 and 7 year old), and I can totally agree with your take on it. The DTS HD MA soundtrack is very good as well. Colors are very nice, and some 3D pop to it. I'm not 100 percent sure I'd put it in Tier 0 though, maybe high Tier 1.



I was the one who voted for Mid Tier 1 but after re-reviewing it, I'd agree with higher tier 1. I dont think it had that extra oomph to put it in Tier 0. Perhaps it was because of the highly saturated colors... or slightly raised contrast (maybe director's intent)... Overall a solid transfer...even for BD-25.


----------



## GeneWildersHair

Watched "27 dresses" tonight, (wife's movie night pick) and I've got to say, besides the fact that it was a boring, predictable mess, I am surprised to see that it is on here as a tier 1 title? While it wasn't a terrible transfer, I still thought the picture lacked any HD-pop, and colors were not very vibrant at all. In my opinion the picture deserves to be at the top of tier 3, maybe bottom tier 2 at max. Heck if the wife even notices, and comments that the picture isn't as good as most of the BD's we've watched, then I know it's not just me being picky...


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *eastbaygreen* /forum/post/13928513
> 
> http://forums.highdefdigest.com/showthread.php?p=966743
> 
> 
> Check a few posts down for an example. The photo shown actually looks a bit more purple...but it doesn't really matter. The effect makes the shot look kind of like a negative. Some are saying it was only in a few spots...but I noticed it thoughout the movie.
> 
> 
> Could there be differences between individual discs?? Doesn't seem possible, but I really don't know for sure....



Ok... Here is a frame capture from the movie:

Orphanage red blacks 


This screenshot is very similar to the one the shown at the High Def Digest forum. I kinda see what they are talking about, but not sure what the deal is.


----------



## tbonetommygun

hmmm they look more purple to me











I think the reason many people arent seeing the "red blacks" is because they're crushing the shadow detail. On my computer monitor for instance i had no idea what you were talking about for a second.... then i raised my brightness to 100 (from 53) and could see the purple blacks. It's a CRT, and for just browsing the internet i dont mind the crushed blacks, because with my brightness turned up the monitor becomes really washed out.... but aynway.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Masters Of Horror: Season 1 Volume IV
*

tier recommendation: Bottom of *Tier 2*


As is common in these anthology shows, visual quality varies from episode to episode. The four episodes on this disc are filmed by different crews and directors with varying goals. They might as well be four separate films. My recommendation is more of an average of all four episodes than anything else.


Starz has put all 4 episodes of this particular volume on a single BD-50. All together the running time is around 242 minutes and it is presented in 1080i(a small shame that Starz didn't strike a new transfer for 1080p as all episodes were shot on film). The video is encoded in AVC. Bitrates aren't really consistent from episode to episode either. "Homecoming" looks especially bit-starved, with it rarely getting above the high teens. "Imprint" gets the best compression rates, with it regularly staying in the middle of 18-30 Mbps. The other two episodes are somewhere in between. I will say that all four episodes come from immaculate sources free of blemishes or specks or dirt.


"Imprint" looks great and is a low Tier 1 title if I ranked it on its own. Colors are bold and well saturated with excellent contrast throughout the episode. Black levels are good with minimal compression noise or artifacting. There is good depth to the picture and at times it pops. Detail is excellent with no DNR used at all. The cinematography is spectacular with each frame carefully composed in the 1.77:1 presentation. The only real negative is some momentary shots that appear a little soft and diffuse. There is some very light edge enhancement seen but it definitely would not be visible unless one specifically goes looking for it. I had to pause the picture to confirm it.


"Haeckel's Tale" is the second best looking episode on this disc and would be a solid Tier 2 title on its own. It shares many of the same attributes of "Imprint" in terms of the encode and transfer, but the director on this episode went for a flatter and more muted picture. Colors don't pop as much and the image doesn't have the depth and dimensionality of a Tier 1 Blu-ray. It's a solid film-like transfer though.


"Homecoming" is the worst looking episode of the four, with it looking no better than a very low tier 3 or high tier 4 picture. Lots of instances of black crush occur in this episode with frequent macroblocking in some of the more difficult low light scenes. Opposed to the other episodes here, facial detail is poor and images are frequently soft. Fleshtones(at least for the living humans) look strange with a hint of an orange tint. And for the grain haters this episode is the grainiest one on this volume(though that made no difference in my rating).


"Chocolate" is the third best episode for visual quality and it is a distinctly average picture, right around the middle of Tier 3. There is less black crush than "Homecoming" but it does appear. Contrast is okay with some minor artifacting and banding present.


Overall I think this BD should be put at the bottom of Tier 2, mostly on the strength of "Imprint" and "Haeckel's Tale". "Homecoming" is really the only episode here that looks poor. On a side note this is the only volume of this series that Starz decided to put four episodes on one disc. The other volumes only contain three episodes each. It will be interesting to see if Starz used the extra room on those volumes for less compression.


----------



## lgans316

Phantom Stranger,


You are the man to beat here when it comes to detailed assessment of PQ. Keep up the good job. What's your feeling on The Descent ? Is it worth a blind buy in terms of PQ ?


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe*


This one was somewhat difficult to judge in terms of overall PQ. The beginning didn't seem to have great PQ, and there was a slight fog/haze over the picture, with very flat lighting.


Then things improved greatly. Colors and contrast, which added great depth, were excellent. Detail seemed very good too, but seemed to be somewhat lacking in facial features. Skin seemed to be very pasty too. Please tell me Disney isn't using DNR!


Everything else looked so good...but it does need to be docked a bit for the lack of detail in skin.


It should be in the top 1/4 of Tier 1, which means several spots higher than it is now.


Still a very impressive picture overall.


And I enjoyed the movie almost as much as my kids!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/13947028
> 
> 
> I was the one who voted for Mid Tier 1 but after re-reviewing it, I'd agree with higher tier 1. I dont think it had that extra oomph to put it in Tier 0. Perhaps it was because of the highly saturated colors... or slightly raised contrast (maybe director's intent)... Overall a solid transfer...even for BD-25.



Re Alvin and the Chipmunks, it is funny, because it may be the slight extra saturation of the colors and better (I say better, not "raised") contrast is exactly what gives it that "extra oomph" to put it into Tier 0!










Just another example of how people look at these things differently.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/13950656
> 
> 
> Ok... Here is a frame capture from the movie:
> 
> Orphanage red blacks
> 
> 
> This screenshot is very similar to the one the shown at the High Def Digest forum. I kinda see what they are talking about, but not sure what the deal is.



I guess that screen capture shows why I didn't notice "red blacks" when I watched it....as I don't see them in that screen cap either!


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13952365
> 
> 
> I guess that screen capture shows why I didn't notice "red blacks" when I watched it....as I don't see them in that screen cap either!



Use something other than computer monitor to view. most LCD computer monitors have crappy contrast. Even so, if you look, there are several areas in the picture that have a purplish cast where it "should" be black.... Is this the result of crushed blacks... Is this a post-processed director's intention? An encoding problem? The list can go on. I have no idea except that I wouldnt call it "red blacks"


----------



## lgans316

*CRANK - features excessive edge enhancement that was intentionally added by its filmmakers, but nets a 4 out of 10 rating due to its ugly appearance*









http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/writings/hdimage.html 
http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/arc..._is_and_w.html 


Please be informed that the author/publisher of this site is an extremely credible person.


Anyone dare to comment on the above ?


----------



## maverick0716

Edge enhancement or not, 4 out of 10 for Crank is absolutely ludicrous. Are we rating these transfers on acheivements in film making or rating them on how much they pop off the screen and catch our eye? I still think Crank is one of the best when it comes to 3D pop......if not THE best.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

I have officially upgraded from my Panasonic 42PX75U to the new 50PZ80U so I will be contributing a lot more now that I have the confidence of 1080p


----------



## SuprSlow

This week's releases:
*Rambo* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Lionsgate
*Rambo: First Blood Part II* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.20:1 | Lionsgate
*Rambo III* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Lionsgate
*The Air I Breathe* Video: ? | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Image
*Dragon Tiger Gate* Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Tai Seng
*Dragon Ball Z: Dead Zone / The World's Strongest* Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 1.78:1 | FUNimation
*Strauss II: Die Fledermaus (The Bat)* Video: VC-1 | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.85:1 | Opus Arte


----------



## JayPSU

I saw National treasure 2 last night. Not the best movie content-wise, but a very good looking movie visually. Some of the night scenes where there was a chase or fast motion the picture got fuzzy, and some shots were grainy, but those would be few and far between. I think it's current ranking is very accurate as I'd also give it a top half of tier 1 rating.


Samsung LNT4065f

Samsung BD-1400

Viewing distance: 7-8 feet


----------



## dadkins

Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony


AR listed on the case says 1.85:1.











???


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JayPSU* /forum/post/13954342
> 
> 
> I saw National treasure 2 last night. Not the best movie content-wise, but a very good looking movie visually. Some of the night scenes where there was a chase or fast motion the picture got fuzzy, and some shots were grainy, but those would be few and far between. I think it's current ranking is very accurate as I'd also give it a top half of tier 1 rating.
> 
> 
> Samsung LNT4065f
> 
> Samsung BD-1400
> 
> Viewing distance: 7-8 feet



I believe, worst case scenario, it belongs above the Fifth Element in Tier 1. There was a lot of 3D pop, and it was, an overall very good transfer. If you ask me, it was on par with Die Hard 4 (which may be a bit higher than it should)


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dadkins* /forum/post/13955937
> 
> 
> Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony
> 
> 
> AR listed on the case says 1.85:1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ???



I can confirm that it is 1.85:1. Good catch.


----------



## maverick0716

I have a bunch of movies that arrived today! Rambo (bought), National Treasure 1 and 2, and The Devil's Own (rented). Can't wait!


----------



## Rob G68

I just read on Bluray.com that Sept 2nd Transformers will be coming out in Bluray!!!!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13952588
> 
> *CRANK - features excessive edge enhancement that was intentionally added by its filmmakers, but nets a 4 out of 10 rating due to its ugly appearance*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/writings/hdimage.html
> http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/arc..._is_and_w.html
> 
> 
> Please be informed that the author/publisher of this site is an extremely credible person.
> 
> 
> Anyone dare to comment on the above ?



We all know that the sharpness on Crank is cranked up (sorry for the bad pun). Crank does have a somewhat harsh digital edge to it. Some people like that, some don't. It's a personal preference, and depending on how much you like it, or don't, will impact how much is deducted for that added sharpness/harshness/edginess.


----------



## mikenike

*Saawariya*

Tier 0. The images of this BD (and even the SD version) are amazing. There are no technical problems, and the colors are amazing. Definitely one to show off your new TV.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13951593
> 
> 
> What's your feeling on The Descent ? Is it worth a blind buy in terms of PQ?



Descent's current ranking in the middle of Tier 2 seems appropriate. I haven't watched it since it came out on Blu-ray so my memory is a little hazy. It's not a perfect visual experience as much of the movie takes place in dark caves. I do remember some crushed blacks as the only thing that stuck out. Without looking at it again my best guess is that I would rank it a low Tier 2/very high Tier 3 BD.


----------



## maverick0716

I wouldn't go that low on The Descent. It's actually a very sharp, detailed BD. Yes, most of the scenes are in the dark, but they are very crisp. The scenes in the daylight are very, very good.


----------



## rutlian




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/13958092
> 
> 
> I wouldn't go that low on The Descent. It's actually a very sharp, detailed BD. Yes, most of the scenes are in the dark, but they are very crisp. The scenes in the daylight are very, very good.



Agreed on the picture quality but don't forget the audio is superb also. Listed as 6.1 pcm but my Onkyo 705 gets it 7.1 pcm, It is actually 7.1 pcm don't know why it says 6.1 PCM at the disc specs.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rutlian* /forum/post/13958179
> 
> 
> Agreed on the picture quality but don't forget the audio is superb also. Listed as 6.1 pcm but my Onkyo 705 gets it 7.1 pcm, It is actually 7.1 pcm don't know why it says 6.1 PCM at the disc specs.



It's reported to be a misprint. Can you tell us the audio bit rate in your PS3 meter ?


Lots of reviewers have given excellent marks for The Descent. I hope that the current placement is wrong.










I will soon post my impressions on Patton.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13958943
> 
> 
> 
> I will soon post my impressions on Patton.



Looking forward to that!


I hope this one lives up to the very high potential that it has (shot in 65mm)!


----------



## lgans316

Patton

*The Good*


Terrific presentation of a 38 year old catalog title. An excellent cinematic and film like presentation.

Natural color palette and very good color saturation

Interior sequences offer tremendous details and takes full advantage of the lighting

Very good texture detailing

Some scenes exhibited reference black levels

*The Bad*


Handful of outdoor shots looked flat probably due to photography's limitations or due to source elements

Flesh tones looked slightly uneven on certain characters except Patton

Resolution increase wasn't quite apparent in few scenes

Minor contrast fluctuations noticeable in certain scenes

*The Ugly*


DNR


After going through the below screenshots and carefully examining the comments from MPA Mr.Robert Harris it's very clear that Patton was a victim of DNR.
http://home.comcast.net/~m_paliulis/...es/patton2.png 
http://amir-views.com/downloads/patton2a.png 


Francis Ford Coppola introduction was in 480p

Intermission Music at 1 hr 40 min mark that lasts for about 2 mins

Hanging Mic wire in one shot

*Recommendation* : Picture Quality fluctuates between top Tier-3 and top Tier-1 but mostly falls in the Tier-1 frame. So recommending to placed in Tier-1 1/2.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3040/...008b07a6_o.jpg 
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3259/...011a28b6_o.jpg 
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3166/...35d481ea_o.jpg 
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2014/...00901f9b_o.jpg


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Thanks lgans. I assume that Patton gets your recommendation then?


----------



## lgans316

Thanks Rob. Unfortunately I don't have a massive HT gear like some of you 'coz I simply can't afford to buy one being in a foreign country and without knowing as to how long I will be put up here. I watch movies either on a 37" or a 50" Panny Plasma.


I am pretty confident Patton will look excellent on PJ systems.


----------



## Shane Martin

Rambo


My recommendation is High Tier 1. The jungle sequences look as good as Apocalypto or Rescue Dawn. There's some noticeable grain but not distractingly so.


----------



## robertc88

Seems like Bee Movie is getting good scores for PQ. I guess time will tell where it will be placed on the tier listing.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13952588
> 
> *CRANK - features excessive edge enhancement that was intentionally added by its filmmakers, but nets a 4 out of 10 rating due to its ugly appearance*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/writings/hdimage.html
> http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/arc..._is_and_w.html
> 
> 
> Please be informed that the author/publisher of this site is an extremely credible person.
> 
> 
> Anyone dare to comment on the above ?



In my humble opinion, anything more than 2 marks off for a single post-processing artifact is unreasonable. I'd give Crank no less than an 8.5 out of 10.


Brandon


----------



## bonham2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/13958058
> 
> 
> Descent's current ranking in the middle of Tier 2 seems appropriate. I haven't watched it since it came out on Blu-ray so my memory is a little hazy. It's not a perfect visual experience as much of the movie takes place in dark caves. *I do remember some crushed blacks* as the only thing that stuck out. Without looking at it again my best guess is that I would rank it a low Tier 2/very high Tier 3 BD.



You guys are always talking about this? What are crushed blacks?


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/13928670
> 
> 
> Short Circuit's video is AVC(I'm not sure if this should be noted but it is only 1080i also). It looks like you already have the other information listed now. And "The Recruit" needs a "UK Import" added to it.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dadkins* /forum/post/13955937
> 
> 
> Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony
> 
> 
> AR listed on the case says 1.85:1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ???





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/13957077
> 
> 
> I can confirm that it is 1.85:1. Good catch.



Thanks guys, corrections made










----------------


If anyone has these discs, or knows the missing specs, your assistance in this matter is appreciated









*Mariah Carey: Adventures of Mimi* Video: ? | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.78:1 | Image
*The Exorcism of Emily Rose* Video: ? | Audio: PCM | _(UK Import)_ | AR: ?:1 | ?
*50 Paintings from the Museum of Modern Art* Video: ? | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.78:1 | Image
*1,000 Places to See Before You Die: 50 Favorite Destinations* Video: ? | Audio: PCM (2.0) | AR: 1.78:1 | Image
*The Air I Breathe* Video: ? | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Image
*The Amazing World of National Geographic* Video: ? | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.78:1 | Image
*Art Wolfe: Vanishing Act* Video: ? | Audio: DD5.1 | AR: 1.78:1 | Image
*Bee Movie* Video: ? | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 1.85:1 | Dreamworks
*Behind The Yellow Line* Video: ? | Audio: ? | AR: ?:1 | Celestial
*Blackbeard* Video: ? | Audio: DD | AR: 1.78:1 | Echo Bridge
*Blue Man Group: How to Be a Megastar Live!* Video: ? | Audio: ? | AR: ?:1 | Rhino Music
*Company: A Musical Comedy* Video: ? | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Image
*The Curse Of King Tut's Tomb: The Complete Miniseries* Video: ? | Audio: DD | AR: 1.78:1 | Echo Bridge
*Epic Conditions: The Weather Channel* Video: ? | Audio: ? | AR: 1.78:1 | Warren Miller Entertainment
*Grieg: Piano Concerto, Symphonic Dances, In Autumn* Video: ? | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: ?:1 | Surround Records
*Helvetica* Video: ? | Audio: DD | AR: 1.78:1 | Plexifilm
*IMAX: Africa the Serengeti* Video: ? | Audio: ? | AR: :1 | Razor
*IMAX: Alaska Spirit of the Wild* Video: ? | Audio: ? | AR: :1 | Razor
*IMAX: Antarctica -- An Adventure of a Different Nature* Video: ? | Audio: ? | AR: :1 | Razor
*IMAX: Australia Land Beyond Time* Video: ? | Audio: ? | AR: ?:1 | Razor
*Killing Machine / Shogun's Ninja* Video: ? | Audio: DD1.0 | AR: 2.35:1 | BCI
*The Last Sentinel* Video: ? | Audio: DD | AR: 1.85:1 | Echo Bridge
*Motley Crue: Carnival of Sins* Video: ? | Audio: ? | AR: ?:1 | Warner
*Nature's Colors* Video: ? | Audio: TrueHD | AR: :1 |
*Nature: Desert Lions* Video: ? | Audio: DD | AR: 1.78:1 | Questar
*Nature: In the Valley of the Wolf* Video: ? | Audio: DD | AR: 1.78:1 | Questar
*Nature: Shark Mountain* Video: ? | Audio: DD | AR: 1.78:1 | Questar
*Nature: Under Antarctic Ice* Video: ? | Audio: DD | AR: 1.78:1 | Questar
*Om Shanti Om* Video: ? | Audio: ? | AR: 1.78:1 | Eros
*Over America in High Definition* Video: ? | Audio: ? | AR: 1.78:1 | Topics Entertainment
*Over California in High Definition* Video: ? | Audio: ? | AR: 1.78:1 | Topics Entertainment
*Ozzfest: 10th Anniversary* Video: ? | Audio: ? | AR: ?:1 | Warner
*WWE: WrestleMania 24* Video: ? | Audio: ? | AR: ?:1 | WWE Home Video
*Went to Coney Island on a Mission from God...Be Back by Five* Video: ? | Audio: ? | AR: 2.35:1 | Fox


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bonham2* /forum/post/13961897
> 
> 
> You guys are always talking about this? What are crushed blacks?



It's when details (or information) that otherwise would be present in a picture is lost in the black or very dark regions of the video. Instead of gradations of black (or more appropriately, greyscale), it's just one dark, black blob on the screen. Often times this is simply a calibration issue.


Brandon


----------



## alexg75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *robertc88* /forum/post/13961309
> 
> 
> Seems like Bee Movie is getting good scores for PQ. I guess time will tell where it will be placed on the tier listing.



Tier 0


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/13962550
> 
> 
> If anyone has these discs, or knows the missing specs, your assistance in this matter is appreciated
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Went to Coney Island on a Mission from God...Be Back by Five* Video: ? | Audio: ? | AR: 2.35:1 | Fox



I believe that disc never came out and has been canceled for Blu-ray.


----------



## zoro

Did some one watch or record, Curse of Golden Flower on STARZHD? I thought video had more richer look on STARZ compare to BR!







Btw Crouching tiger looks amazing too!


But BR COGF shines on PCM audio, that is extremely spacious!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Lady In The Water*


tier recommendation: *Tier 3*


This Warner film that was released all the way back in December of 2006 on BD looks okay despite some flaws. The 109 minute feature is encoded in VC-1 on a BD-25 and a direct port of the Warner HD DVD's video. Video bitrates range between a low of 4.9 Mbps to a high around 22.7 Mbps. Much of the BD hovers in the lower half of that range from 7 to 11 Mbps(which is as low as I've seen on any BD) for long stretches of the movie. Some scenes never get out of the single digits.


Unfortunately this leads to frequent compression artifacts, particularly in the first half of the movie. See the 12:04 mark for an example of the artifacting and compression noise. Banding pops up sporadically in background shots. This is one of the poorer compression jobs I've seen on Blu-ray.


The print used for the transfer looks relatively clean with only a couple of brief dirt spots. Thankfully no DNR is apparent, as detail remains relatively strong and in focus for the entire movie. You can easily make out Bryce Dallas Howard's freckles in closeups. In fact this is the real strength of the disc, as facial detail often looks very sharp and clear. On this matter it looks somewhat like a Tier 2 BD.


Colors are average to slightly below average for high definition, though fleshtones look very realistic and natural. Black levels are solid though nothing outstanding, with very little signs of black crush. There isn't much pop or depth to the image. Some shots are a little soft.


Overall this BD presents a very average picture for Blu-ray. I'd place it somewhere in the lower half of Tier 3. Watching on a calibrated 60" Kuro plasma in 1080p/24 from a viewing distance of 6 feet.


----------



## bonham2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13962584
> 
> 
> It's when details (or information) that otherwise would be present in a picture is lost in the black or very dark regions of the video. Instead of gradations of black (or more appropriately, greyscale), it's just one dark, black blob on the screen. Often times this is simply a calibration issue.
> 
> 
> Brandon



Can you post links to picture examples of this? I seem to remember seeing comparison pictures of some night scenes in Dirty Dancing showing exactly what you are talking about.


I also noticed this when I watched AVP:R on BD. How do you know if the crushed blacks is a result of the disc or your tv?


----------



## OhioMike




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rutlian* /forum/post/13958179
> 
> 
> Agreed on the picture quality but don't forget the audio is superb also. Listed as 6.1 pcm but my Onkyo 705 gets it 7.1 pcm, It is actually 7.1 pcm don't know why it says 6.1 PCM at the disc specs.



Maybe this is like CRANK. It says 6.1 PCM everywhere and then the PS3 shows it as 7.1...but the audio bit rate is 6.1 mbps, so maybe that is what they are referencing as opposed to channel output? Possibly...don't know for sure.


----------



## OhioMike

I have to agree with you guys about Alvin and the Chipmunks. Awesome PQ...top part of tier 1 and possibly into the bottom of tier 0. I also actually liked the movie...of course I grew up watching the Saturday morning cartoon every week and may have actually owned an audio tape (give me a break...I was frickin 6 years old). Brought back a lot of memories...ahhhh.


----------



## OhioMike

Wondering if anyone has seen the Motley Crue or Ozzfest discs yet? After being in awe of the experience after takin a flyer on the NIN BD, I am really excited to get a few more concert BD's. I'm curious if these 2 discs look and sound as good or better than the NIN disc? I'm hoping that some more of my favorite bands release BD's in the near future; Korn, Rammstein, Rob Zombie (very likely one) and Disturbed.


----------



## hobbs47




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OhioMike* /forum/post/13969307
> 
> 
> Wondering if anyone has seen the Motley Crue or Ozzfest discs yet? After being in awe of the experience after takin a flyer on the NIN BD, I am really excited to get a few more concert BD's. I'm curious if these 2 discs look and sound as good or better than the NIN disc?



From everything I have read those discs are pretty poor and nowhere near the quality of the NIN BD.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bonham2* /forum/post/13968838
> 
> 
> Can you post links to picture examples of this? I seem to remember seeing comparison pictures of some night scenes in Dirty Dancing showing exactly what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> I also noticed this when I watched AVP:R on BD. How do you know if the crushed blacks is a result of the disc or your tv?



Check out this post and look at the pictures. The context is regarding Blacker than black settings, but it gives a good indication of what black crush can do to details.


Click on the "normal" picture, which looks normal until you click on the "...with BTB" picture which shows what I think is a tree in the background.


As far as how to tell, I'm not completely sure. In the above example, the disc had an authoring issue apparently, but changing the calibration settings of the TV fixed the problem. The only real way to ensure it's not the TV is to use a calibration disc to make sure it's calibrated properly, or have it professionally done. That would serve as some sort of control measure to make sure it's not the display, but the disc.


Brandon


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zoro* /forum/post/13965416
> 
> 
> Did some one watch or record, Curse of Golden Flower on STARZHD? I thought video had more richer look on STARZ compare to BR!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Btw Crouching tiger looks amazing too!
> 
> 
> But BR COGF shines on PCM audio, that is extremely spacious!



I thought BD looked very impressive... you sure the Starz presentation didnt have DNR applied or something? I'm curious...anyone else watch this?


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OhioMike* /forum/post/13969228
> 
> 
> ...of course I grew up watching the Saturday morning cartoon every week



Same here! I guess I may have to put this in my queue now. I hated the Garfield movies so I figured this one would ruin my fond memories of the cartoon as well.


Brandon


----------



## zoro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/13970265
> 
> 
> I thought BD looked very impressive... you sure the Starz presentation didnt have DNR applied or something? I'm curious...anyone else watch this?



It was amazing PQ but was English Dub! CTHD is in CHINESE with SUB but comparatively looks subdued due to different hues used. StarzHD is the one that got me interested in Golden Flower as PQ was so intense imho.


----------



## Entertainment72

Pan's Labyrinth is 100% reference material.. by far the best PQ Blu I have seen to date.. better than any of the POTC- cars, I am legend, Rat.. wow.. it should be a reference -0 all by itself.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Entertainment72* /forum/post/13971104
> 
> 
> Pan's Labyrinth is 100% reference material.. by far the best PQ Blu I have seen to date.. better than any of the POTC- cars, I am legend, Rat.. wow.. it should be a reference -0 all by itself.



Wow........I couldn't disagree more. I personally think that it's a very bland looking DNR'd mess of a transfer. I personally don't even think it belongs in Tier 1, let alone Tier 0.


----------



## alexg75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/13972335
> 
> 
> Wow........I couldn't disagree more. I personally think that it's a very bland looking DNR'd mess of a transfer. I personally don't even think it belongs in Tier 1, let alone Tier 0.



So the DVD is better? OMG!


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *alexg75* /forum/post/13972421
> 
> 
> So the DVD is better? OMG!



No, it's way better than the DVD.....but I wouldn't put it any higher than Tier 2 in the list. The only BD's that don't look any better than regular DVD's are Tier 5 (coal) in my opinion.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Entertainment72* /forum/post/13971104
> 
> 
> Pan's Labyrinth is 100% reference material.. by far the best PQ Blu I have seen to date.. better than any of the POTC- cars, I am legend, Rat.. wow.. it should be a reference -0 all by itself.

















































PS3->1080p24->46XBR4 (8 feet)


Brandon


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Entertainment72* /forum/post/13971104
> 
> 
> Pan's Labyrinth is 100% reference material.. by far the best PQ Blu I have seen to date.. better than any of the POTC- cars, I am legend, Rat.. wow.. it should be a reference -0 all by itself.



Or.................not.


----------



## tleavit




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Entertainment72* /forum/post/13971104
> 
> 
> Pan's Labyrinth is 100% reference material.. by far the best PQ Blu I have seen to date.. better than any of the POTC- cars, I am legend, Rat.. wow.. it should be a reference -0 all by itself.



I completely agree. Great PQ. It should be in Tier 0 with the others


Panny projector to a 133" screen 1080p

46" Samsung 71 series LCD 1080p

Sony 60" SXBR Rear projection 1080i

27" Sony HDTV CRT 1080i


----------



## shadowrage




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/13972335
> 
> 
> Wow........I couldn't disagree more. I personally think that it's a very bland looking DNR'd mess of a transfer. I personally don't even think it belongs in Tier 1, let alone Tier 0.



But you can still see facial details.









The faces don't look perfectly smooth. It's DNRd, but not to hell.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *shadowrage* /forum/post/13973366
> 
> 
> But you can still see facial details.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The faces don't look perfectly smooth. It's DNRd, but not to hell.



At least to purgatory?


Brandon


----------



## DavidHir




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Entertainment72* /forum/post/13971104
> 
> 
> Pan's Labyrinth is 100% reference material.. by far the best PQ Blu I have seen to date.. better than any of the POTC- cars, I am legend, Rat.. wow.. it should be a reference -0 all by itself.



I have to disagree because it doesn't have the fine detail of reference quality (maybe because it was DNR'd).


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13973467
> 
> 
> At least to purgatory?
> 
> 
> Brandon


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Entertainment72* /forum/post/13971104
> 
> 
> Pan's Labyrinth is 100% reference material.. by far the best PQ Blu I have seen to date.. better than any of the POTC- cars, I am legend, Rat.. wow.. it should be a reference -0 all by itself.



Yes. I totally agree that the open matted U.K version of Pan's Labyrinth is 100% reference material.


----------



## maverick0716

I've seen screenshots of the two versions side by side, and there's no comparison.


----------



## Entertainment72

I agree with blu-ray.com educated assessment...









"Pan's Labyrinth is presented in it's theatrical aspect ratio of 1.85 with a VC-1 transfer that every time I checked was running at about 18 Mb/s.

So how does the transfer compare to the 35mm presentation I saw? Well New Line's Blu-ray is assuredly clearer, contrastier, more colorful, and solid that the subtitled film print. The clarity, specially in the night scenes and underground in the faun's lair is impressive. I saw things, details, for example, in the faun's "costume" that I didn't see in the theater. Specially pleasing was to see aspects of his eyes that were sharp, liquid and more vivid that I hadn't noticed previously. If the dark shots look so good, the full-daylight shots, like the one where the car caravan arrives, _look almost hyper-real_: Vidal's skin detail when we first see him impatiently waiting for the mother carrying his child to arrive is _unnerving._ With the heightened clarity his beady calculating eyes seem more malignant and disturbing specially when he smirks. The colors be it golden oranges or night blues and greens are solid and sometimes emboldened, the red blood much stronger than I saw on the theatrical print. There's almost no grain to be found. To those that like their Blu-rays to have no grain, the transfer will look perfect and be most satisfying. Apparently some grain scrubbing has been done for this transfer and it does give the film a different feel than the theatrical presentation I saw. Purist might not be pleased, but there's no denying , the lack of grain gives the film a different look, more immediate, more in your face, than the slightly grainy faded look I saw on the theater screen. The theatrical was more mystic, more dreamlike. The Blu-ray is more visceral. Instead of having the impression of seeing something filmed long ago, it feels more like watching something happening now. Does this change the movie? Maybe. I'd think first time viewers might cringe a little more from the realism of the BD. And at the same time the faun and magical creatures look a little bit more real than something coming out from a shadow."

no grain = I'm happy.. I don't give a hoot about itsappose to be there.. wa wa wa..


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Entertainment72* /forum/post/13974236
> 
> 
> I agree with blu-ray.com educated assessment...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> no grain = I'm happy.. I don't give a hoot about itsappose to be there.. wa wa wa..



That sounds just about what would be expected of a person with a blu-ray.com education







*friendly jab*


In all seriousness, when detail is removed in favor of a wax-like once-over to make it feel more "new" and "fresh", that is *not* a good thing.


Brandon


----------



## facesnorth

I feel National Treasure 2 is ranked too highly. Should be moved to lower half of tier 1 below I am Legend. Black levels were very poor (or rather, inconsistent). Lacked 3d effects and pop where it should have had them.


----------



## Arecsa




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Entertainment72* /forum/post/13974236
> 
> 
> no grain = I'm happy.. I don't give a hoot about itsappose to be there.. wa wa wa..










I wish all my movies looked the complete opposite of how they should, I love watching wax figures. Pan's Labyrinth's depressingly overly DNR'd transfer doesn't deserve to be anywhere near Tier 0.


----------



## RobertR




> Quote:
> Patton
> 
> 
> The Good
> 
> 
> Terrific presentation of a 38 year old catalog title. An excellent cinematic and film like presentation.
> 
> Natural color palette and very good color saturation
> 
> Interior sequences offer tremendous details and takes full advantage of the lighting
> 
> Very good texture detailing
> 
> Some scenes exhibited reference black levels
> 
> 
> The Bad
> 
> 
> Handful of outdoor shots looked flat probably due to photography's limitations or due to source elements
> 
> Flesh tones looked slightly uneven on certain characters except Patton
> 
> Resolution increase wasn't quite apparent in few scenes
> 
> Minor contrast fluctuations noticeable in certain scenes....
> 
> 
> 
> Note: I couldn't smell any obnoxious DNR....
> 
> 
> Unfortunately I don't have a massive HT gear like some of you 'coz I simply can't afford to buy one being in a foreign country and without knowing as to how long I will be put up here. *I watch movies either on a 37" or a 50" Panny Plasma.*



That last sentence is key. I just read a review of the _Patton_ release that makes me very disappointed:



> Quote:
> By High Frequency Information (HFI) I'm referring to a part of the image which would contain minute detail information...
> 
> 
> Information which reproduces not only on Blu, but on SD.
> 
> 
> Stubble on an actor's face, along with facial details such as tiny scars or marks seen in close-ups -- look at the worst of it and skin becomes "plastic" as in The Untouchables. Patton has this problem. Flesh has imperfections, even if heavily made up;
> 
> 
> Detail in hair;
> 
> 
> Detail on the walls of buildings, which when DNR'd looks smooth; Look at an exterior wall, be it stucco or brick and you'll see heavy detail. Look at the buildings in Patton and there is nothing.
> 
> 
> Grass, and not just a mass of green, but the ability via BD to differentiate;
> 
> 
> Trees, and not just trees, but the leaves moving, rather than being mass of green;
> 
> 
> In Patton...
> 
> 
> Dirt on a Mercedes staff car, a Jeep or a motorcycle; not just an overlay of beige dirty color -- DIRT!
> 
> 
> Blu-Ray allows this.
> 
> 
> Leather that isn't simply shiny black, but shows imperfections, grain and wear;
> 
> 
> And lastly, background information that isn't simply a mass of color.
> 
> 
> The point here is that the Blu-Ray process has the capacity and the ability to reproduce fine detail magnificently.
> 
> 
> Remove grain incorrectly, or use the wrong process, and you lose every bit of detail that has been captured within those bits of grain, and things become, well...
> 
> 
> pretty and clean...
> 
> 
> and not only totally non-representative of film.
> 
> 
> But no longer representative of the work that some might attempt to replicate.
> 
> 
> This isn't simply about grain, which DONE PROPERLY as I've explained, can be totally removed without losing a single bit of detail, or lowered to replicate any film stock ever produced. Had Warner wanted their high def of Bullitt to look like it had been shot on early '90s 5247 rather than late '60s 5254, they could have done it. They chose not to, and the proper -- original -- look of Bullitt is there in high definition.
> 
> 
> This is about making something look clean and wrong concurrently.
> 
> 
> This is something exceedingly easy to do correctly....
> 
> *On smaller screens, for example anything under around 35", this is almost moot, as the image with or without heavily applied DNR will look very similar unless one knows what they are looking for. On my 30" Sony HD CRT, Patton looked fabulous.
> 
> 
> And this presents yet another problem. If someone is working on a project and using a smaller professional monitor as opposed to viewing on a large screen, they may not see the damage that is being done.*


----------



## lgans316

I can assure you guys that the DNR on Patton is nowhere near the levels of Twister or PL or Face/Off which was easily noticeable even on smaller displays. As it's an old catalog title I didn't bother much and for a change found the PQ to be within the acceptable limits.


----------



## 357

Semi-Pro is Tier 1 material. The Eye looks pretty good as well. Wasn't really paying any attention to the movie as it sucked but will watch it again and let you guys know.


----------



## salbah3ng_bata

Regarding Pirates 3, I don't think it looked better than I,Robot. I, Robot was definitely stunning and easily looked better than Pirates 3 imo, I think Pirates 2 looked even better than the third one.


----------



## fiddlesticks




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Entertainment72* /forum/post/13974236
> 
> 
> Apparently some grain scrubbing has been done for this transfer and it does give the film a different feel than the theatrical presentation I saw. Purist might not be pleased, but there's no denying , the lack of grain gives the film a different look, more immediate, more in your face, than the slightly grainy faded look I saw on the theater screen.



It's garbage like this in reviews that make those processes more and more acceptable to the general public. Look kids, we took the grain out! Now it's more in your face! haha










Hell, from here on out, all movies should just be shot on video to please people like this. Just stop messing with *films* that have already been made.


This is a large part of why I've become much more dicriminatory about my purchases.


----------



## jostenmeat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Entertainment72* /forum/post/13971104
> 
> 
> Pan's Labyrinth is 100% reference material.. by far the best PQ Blu I have seen to date.. better than any of the POTC- cars, I am legend, Rat.. wow.. it should be a reference -0 all by itself.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/13972335
> 
> 
> Wow........I couldn't disagree more. I personally think that it's a very bland looking DNR'd mess of a transfer. I personally don't even think it belongs in Tier 1, let alone Tier 0.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tleavit* /forum/post/13973357
> 
> 
> I completely agree. Great PQ. It should be in Tier 0 with the others





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *shadowrage* /forum/post/13973366
> 
> 
> But you can still see facial details.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The faces don't look perfectly smooth. It's DNRd, but not to hell.



I have only seen the US version. Pan's is the most disappointing BD movie purchase I might have made. The faces just look terrible. I daresay the worst looking faces out of my entire collection. At moments, sometimes the cheeks of the girl remind me of some topographical map or something. Bland whitish blotch, surrounded by a less whitish ring, so forth. I was really disappointed because I enjoyed this movie a lot.


However, I must say that sometimes my greatest disappointments come when my expectations are highest. *sigh*


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jostenmeat* /forum/post/13980678
> 
> 
> I have only seen the US version. Pan's is the most disappointing BD movie purchase I might have made. The faces just look terrible. I daresay the worst looking faces out of my entire collection. At moments, sometimes the cheeks of the girl remind me of some topographical map or something. Bland whitish blotch, surrounded by a less whitish ring, so forth. I was really disappointed because I enjoyed this movie a lot.
> 
> 
> However, I must say that sometimes my greatest disappointments come when my expectations are highest. *sigh*



Wait until you see The Golden Compass!


----------



## jostenmeat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13980928
> 
> 
> Wait until you see The Golden Compass!



Fortunately, I will be spared thanks to these forums. Keep up the good input at this thread Rob, I respect your opinions on PQ.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Rambo: First Blood Part II*


tier recommendation: *Tier 2*


This is how a catalog title from the 80's should look on Blu-ray. Lionsgate has released this 1985 movie that runs 95 minutes on a single BD-25. It is encoded in VC-1 and video bitrates overall range from 13 to 41 Mbps. Scenes with little movement typically range between 16 to 22 Mbps, with the heavy action scenes frequently hovering in the mid-30's. The action scenes range mostly from 25 to 40 Mbps. This is the best I've ever seen this movie look. It blows away the 3 different dvd versions I own of this movie.


Even with the various fire, smoke, fog, and explosion shots there are no noticeable artifacts from start to finish. I was very impressed with the compression job. The jungle scenes look great. This is a very film-like transfer with no DNR present. I did spot some minor edge enhancement at times but it's not overpowering. Black levels are solid and very typical of other Tier 2 titles. Even the jungle scenes at night have good low light information.


Colors look a little flat but I guess that should be expected from material of this age. Fleshtones do vary a little from very natural looking to a little red at times. The frequent close-ups look razor sharp with nice resolution of skin and hair texture. I was very impressed by the amount of fine detail shown. The wider shots look a little softer, though that seems source related.


I did notice some very slight wobble to the film image, particularly in the first fifteen minutes of the film. Maybe a telecine issue or shoddy camerawork? I also saw two unusual artifacts that I've never really seen before. They only appear for a frame or two but they're definitely there for those watching like hawks. Check around 35:25 and 47:57 for a couple of pixels getting clipped at the top edge of the screen. It's unusual because it only happens for a couple of frames and then disappears.


The master used seems in good condition for an 80's movie, though it doesn't compare to something released this decade. A couple of faint lines show up once or twice and some very minor dirt spots pop up, but it is never distracting.


Overall I'm very happy with how this BD turned out and I can't imagine it looking any better without an expensive restoration. I think somewhere in the middle of Tier 2 is an appropriate ranking, though I think some others should chime in here for its final ranking.


Watching on a calibrated 60" Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 from a viewing distance of 5.5 feet.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

To Kill a King Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DD | AR: 2.35:1 | Starz


Someone needs to change this...audio on this is PCM and the video encode is VC-1


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/13981215
> 
> 
> To Kill a King Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: DD | AR: 2.35:1 | Starz
> 
> 
> Someone needs to change this...audio on this is PCM and the video encode is VC-1



Got it, thanks.


Nice review, btw


----------



## stumlad

We hear statements like this a lot : "For a movie from the 80s, it looks great." We even talk about how movies cant be expected to look that great seeing as how it's 5 yrs, 10 yrs, 20 yrs, 40 yrs old. I'm guilty of this too....


Then all of the sudden I watch a movie like the Warriors and wonder... just how is it that a ~30 year old movie looks better than 90+ percent of all other titles on blu-ray? Was it filmed on 65-70mm film? No. Is the bit rate hovering at 35mbps...No... Was it filmed on super-35? No.


I think the tier placement of Warriors is a tad bit over-rated, but one thing I agree with is that it's probably one of the best looking titles out there that wasn't made within the last few years.


The first thing you'll notice when you start watching this movie are the details on people's faces. They are incredibly good and very tier 0'ish. Some of the detail seen in the streets and general landscape is also extremely good. Darker scenes are nothing to scoff at either (though they are not up to par with more modern and probably post-processed films). There are some scenes where things appear a little soft, but overall, I was surprised that this movie looked as good as it did.


Overall, after removing that "wow! for an old film" sentiment, it was not up to par with Fantastic Four 2 or Lost, but probably just below that.


So what exactly does it mean that an old title like Warriors looks so good? Hopefully it means there's a ton of "old" stuff to come out that will still amaze us. I'm sure this movie was not given the royal treatment when it was made for blu-ray and HD DVD... so I'm sure it could even look a little better... I hope the same can be said for many catalog titles!


----------



## lgans316

Awesome review of Rambo II Phantom Stranger.


Stumlad, What do you think will be the correct placement for The Warriors ?


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13982125
> 
> 
> Awesome review of Rambo II Phantom Stranger.
> 
> 
> Stumlad, What do you think will be the correct placement for The Warriors ?



I would still keep it in the top 1/2 of tier 1, but I would probably put it right below Lost.. I havent seen The Rock or the couple of titles below it so I dont know if it should go above or below those, but should be above Enchanted.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Uh.....


Should we be worried?


The Tier list is completely gone except for everything above mid Tier 1!


SuprSlow or Austin, what did you do???!!?!?!?


----------



## lgans316

Oops. Was about to mention it. So many tiers missing ? Please fix this asap.


----------



## b_scott

wow, i think National Treasure 2 should be Blu tier. that was amazing detail. better than the Orphanage I think.


----------



## Entertainment72




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briansemerick* /forum/post/13983229
> 
> 
> wow, i think National Treasure 2 should be Blu tier. that was amazing detail. better than the Orphanage I think.



If it had more grain it would have been a blu tier.. this is grain country..


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Entertainment72* /forum/post/13983246
> 
> 
> If it had more grain it would have been a blu tier.. this is grain country..



No, actually, this is "detail" country!


----------



## Axatax

Is anyone else NOT able to view tiers past Gold? They seem to have disappeared off the first page?


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Axatax* /forum/post/13984180
> 
> 
> Is anyone else NOT able to view tiers past Gold? They seem to have disappeared off the first page?



Yes. Join Rob and myself in the SNAKE EYES club.







I hope that the mods of this thread fixes this problem soon.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13984193
> 
> 
> Yes. Join Rob and myself in the SNAKE EYES club.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope that the mods of this thread fixes this problem soon.



Like you guys ever watch anything outside of the first two tiers










I'm seeing the same thing here. Looks like something in the message is causing an error...


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Entertainment72* /forum/post/13983246
> 
> 
> If it had more grain it would have been a blu tier.. this is grain country..



That's kinda funny. It was just a few months ago this was accused of being grain-hater country.


Brandon


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I just hope that SuprSlow and/or Austin had saved the list somewhere.


If not, we are in a world of hurt.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13984695
> 
> 
> I just hope that SuprSlow and/or Austin had saved the list somewhere.
> 
> 
> If not, we are in a world of hurt.



I'd be surprised if SuprSlow did not have it saved somewhere.


Brandon


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13984787
> 
> 
> I'd be surprised if SuprSlow did not have it saved somewhere.
> 
> 
> Brandon



I know he was working on some type of data spreadsheet, so hopefully you are right.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13984695
> 
> 
> I just hope that SuprSlow and/or Austin had saved the list somewhere.
> 
> 
> If not, we are in a world of hurt.



I am guessing they have the info saved, but it kind of reminds me of what has happened when I lost all my "unimportant" info on my PC's when they got a virus. I never really missed it, because most of it I never looked at anymore anyway.


I know I am one of the naysayers







on this and the audio thread at times when I say I believe the line will become finer and finer when hundreds and thousands of more titles are out. I just don't see how the placement can be truly accurate.


It just seemed easier and to make more sense when the list had only a few dozen titles and there was a stark difference between most of them.


----------



## SuprSlow

Oops







I was doing some editing last night on my laptop...it crashed in mid-edit (I love Vista







), so I guess it deleted everything below that.


I've got a backup on my flash drive, I'll update in a few minutes.


----------



## bplewis24

And everything is back to normal










Were any recent changes lost that we have a way of knowing?


Brandon


----------



## robsis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/13985385
> 
> 
> Oops
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was doing some editing last night on my laptop...it crashed in mid-edit (I love Vista
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ), so I guess it deleted everything below that.
> 
> 
> I've got a backup on my flash drive, I'll update in a few minutes.



SuprSlow,


Thanx!!!


----------



## SuprSlow

It's back, sorry about the confusion. To be honest, I was in a hurry, trying to finish before the Celtics played










But for those wondering, yes, we do have backups--up to #20 now. Each time new titles are added or moved around, I make a new text file and save it to my flash drive...which I guess means I should back up my flash drive now


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/13985432
> 
> 
> And everything is back to normal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were any recent changes lost that we have a way of knowing?
> 
> 
> Brandon



Nope, the only thing lost was the changed info for "To Kill a King" that Phantom posted.


----------



## SuprSlow

We did lose a few specs changes that were made, but no title movements were affected.


I went back through and addressed all the spec corrections posted, so we're back to 100% now.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Resident Evil: Extinction
*

tier recommendation: low *Tier 1*


This Sony Blu-ray presents a very nice HD picture. The 94 minute feature is encoded in AVC on a BD-50. Video bitrates stay in a band between 20 and 40 Mbps, with much of the movie hanging around 25-30 Mbps. In benes' spec thread the scanned average video bitrate is 25.22 Mbps. There are no compression related artifacts aside from 3 seconds of minor banding I saw in one of the desert sky vistas. The master as expected for a movie of this vintage looks clean and free of imperfections.


The daytime desert scenes which make up a large percentage of the movie look incredible and easily low Tier 0 or high Tier 1 picture quality. Sure the image in these scenes run a little hot in terms of contrast and the image seems processed at times, but detail and pop are outstanding. It looks very much like something on the Discovery channel with its crystal clear images and grain free presentation. At first I thought this might have been shot on digital HD cameras it looks so clean but it isn't. Fleshtones do waver a bit, as some scenes tend to run hot with blown out whites. I did think this movie blended the CGI and the live action elements visually as well as any I've seen yet. The CGI didn't stand out like I've seen on shoddier work.


The interior shots don't hold up as well, where the image quality drops some due to the lower lighting conditions. The image remains as sharp as ever but shadow detail drops. Blacks never really achieve that inky quality that I've seen from better shot films. While there is no macroblocking I just felt that these scenes were a little lower in quality, around high Tier 2 quality. Colors as well look a little muted in these indoor scenes with poorer contrast.


There is no DNR used in the entire movie as the movie looks razor sharp and detailed throughout. Unfortunately most of Milla's close-ups have had her face digitally airbrushed, robbing them of a very natural look. For an example of this check the close-ups at 54:03 or 55:07, where her face looks more like a doll than human. A few stray untouched shots of her face(mostly from the side or during heavy action) can be seen if you want to compare. Thankfully none of the other actors/actresses get this treatment as their closeups look as good as I've seen. There seems to be a touch of sharpening added to the picture, mainly in the second half of the movie.


Overall I was very impressed with the visual quality of this Blu-ray as the daytime scenes look almost as good as anything I've seen. This movie should be bumped up to low Tier 1 at least. It outclasses the other movies in Tier 2.


----------



## lgans316

Another perfect review buddy. I re-watched RE-1 & RE-3 I think low Tier-1 would be the right spot for RE-3 and mid to bottom Tier-2 for RE-1.


Suprslow,


Thanks for restoring the missing data. Henceforth I will be taking backup of the list once a week.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13980928
> 
> 
> Wait until you see The Golden Compass!



I saw The Golden Compass, and I thought it had more detail than Pan's Labyrinth. Yes, there is some smoothing of Nicole Kidman's face, but overall, I thought detail was quite good.


----------



## stumlad

I was expecting a very good presentation since this was a new release and voted to the top of tier 1. I also saw one complaint that rated it as low as tier 3 but figured that to be an outlier...


In a nutshell, the sharpness seemed to be off. There was never a scene that truly impressed me, Closeups would have been very good except for that slight defocused look. There was even a point where they showed some newspaper articles which appeared to be slightly blurry. I could make out detail in the street-shots, but nothing great. Scenery shots also were "soft".


I knew the movie wasnt going to be that great but I was hoping for a great looking transfer. This wasn't. Not sure where the problem lies, but I could not recommend anything higher than top of tier 2, just above Good Luck Chuck.


----------



## lgans316

*Shall We Dance? Video: MPEG-4 | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.85:1 | Disney*

*The Good*


Very good and consistent image

Very good sharpness exhibited in close-up shots

Nice 3 dimensionality exhibited in all the ballroom scenes

Natural Contrast, Excellent black levels and resulting color saturation

No noticeable compression artefacts and no trace of bit rate starvation

*The Bad*


Soft looking shots as expected from movie belong to the Drama, Romance and Music Genre.

Skin tones appears slightly oversaturated at times.

*The Ugly*


Occasional flashing of white specks

*Tier recommendation*: Tier 2 below Rocky Balboa [I think I am being harsh on this one as the overall picture seem to fluctuate between low Tier-0 and mid Tier-2 but due to due to some odd reason I am recommending this one to be placed in top 20 of Tier-2.]


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/13985217
> 
> 
> I know I am one of the naysayers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> on this and the audio thread at times when I say I believe the line will become finer and finer when hundreds and thousands of more titles are out. I just don't see how the placement can be truly accurate.
> 
> 
> It just seemed easier and to make more sense when the list had only a few dozen titles and there was a stark difference between most of them.



Hugh, I don't think you are being a naysayer. I said the same thing when there were probably almost 100 fewer Blu-ray movies than there are now!


I think this is one reason that we are moving to a 1/4 Tier 1, 1/2 Tier 1 etc.


Frankly, I think we will get to the point where titles will only be ranked per the above, and will NOT be ranked separately within each 1/4 Tier. In other words, all titles in the top 1/4 of Tier 2 (etc) could be listed alphabetically.


----------



## lgans316

Good thought. Better to enlist the titles within a subset alphabetically and get rid off emotional debates.










Still haven't watched Patton ?


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13993547
> 
> *In other words, all titles in the top 1/4 of Tier 2 (etc) could be listed alphabetically.*



I agree.


----------



## b_scott

i think From Hell is wrongfully placed in Tier 3. It is at LEAST top half of Tier 2. i don't know what the person was watching it on, but on my 5010 it looked fantastic. great dark scenes with shadow detail and skin detail. not a lot of color popping scenes (as is the nature of the movie) but the reds are fantastic, and so was the green of the grass in the daytime scenes.


1080p Pioneer Kuro 50" (5010)


9.5 feet back. pitch black.


----------



## ballen420

I just watched this over the weekend and I'm casting my vote for the top of tier 1. I didn't notice any of the 'red blacks' that were discussed earlier, but I also thought it was missing something extra in order to be considered a tier 0 movie.


I think it was an extremely detailed movie, with excellent colors and contrast, but just lacked some of the pop found in a lot of the tier 0 movies. I think my friends would be amazed by the PQ, but I don't think I would choose it as one to show off the capabilites of BR.


It was an excellent movie though. Grabbed it from Netflix, but probably going to pick this one up for the collection.


46XBR4 / PS3 / 1080p/24


Edit: Just saw the current placement, and I think it's placed perfectly.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13993547
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly, I think we will get to the point where titles will only be ranked per the above, and will NOT be ranked separately within each 1/4 Tier. In other words, all titles in the top 1/4 of Tier 2 (etc) could be listed alphabetically.



This could create difficulties when one quarter became larger than the adjacent quarter.


----------



## b_scott

are Die Hard and DH2 even worth getting? there is an amazon gold box deal today for the complete saga but i don't know if it's worth paying to replace my current DVD's.


----------



## stumlad

This is the 4th in the series. The naming of the titles in this series has to be the worst.


Black is not black in this movie, it has a slight blue-ish cast to it. This can be seen within the first few seconds of the movie, and every dark scene seems to exhibit this. I'm not sure what it looked like in the theater, but I am not sure if the movie is supposed to have this bluish tint to it.


As far as the rest of the movie, it looked pretty good. Face closeups were great, but not quite up there with Tier 0 material. Dark scenes appeared grainy, but not distracting... Small object detail was good, but also not up there with the best. Most of the jungle scenes looked great, but even those weren't as good as Apocalypto or Lost. I thought I noticed some banding a few times as well.


This transfer leaves the door open for Lionsgate to release at least 2 more versions of this movie within deluxe Rambo box sets...


Top tier 2.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13994995
> 
> 
> This could create difficulties when one quarter became larger than the adjacent quarter.



How so?


That's the whole point. The WHOLE LIST is going to be too large, and attempting to shoehorn every title in a specific spot will get to the point of being impossible.


Otherwise, we would be saying that movie "X" is the 485th best looking Blu-ray out there!


I don't think it's possible to do that, nor particularly credible to attempt to do so.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13995922
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> 
> That's the whole point. The WHOLE LIST is going to be too large, and attempting to shoehorn every title in a specific spot will get to the point of being impossible.
> 
> 
> Otherwise, we would be saying that movie "X" is the 485th best looking Blu-ray out there!
> 
> 
> I don't think it's possible to do that, nor particularly credible to attempt to do so.



In general, I agree with this idea of no rankings within relatively small groups.


The difficulty I was referring to was where, at the time this new approach is started, each quarter of a particular tier has, say, 25 titles. Suppose two titles are then added to the top quarter, and two titles are added to the bottem quarter. Presumably you would want to move one title out of each into the adjacent quarter, in order to maintain quarters that have equal sizes. Which titles get moved?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13996271
> 
> 
> In general, I agree with this idea of no rankings within relatively small groups.
> 
> 
> The difficulty I was referring to was where, at the time this new approach is started, each quarter of a particular tier has, say, 25 titles. Suppose two titles are then added to the top quarter, and two titles are added to the bottem quarter. Presumably you would want to move one title out of each into the adjacent quarter, in order to maintain quarters that have equal sizes. Which titles get moved?



Ah, now I see what you are saying.


Perhaps we would need to call the Tiers something else to avoid confusion? Or just go to a 1-5 scale. The scale could be broken down to groups such as 5/5 rankings, 4.5 rankings, 4.0 etc.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13996429
> 
> 
> Ah, now I see what you are saying.
> 
> 
> Perhaps we would need to call the Tiers something else to avoid confusion? Or just go to a 1-5 scale. The scale could be broken down to groups such as 5/5 rankings, 4.5 rankings, 4.0 etc.



With a 5 point scale, everything in Tier 4 would appear as 1.5-2.0 / 5. In a way, that seems worse than they really are.


I was thinking a 10 point scale. Anything 5 or below means that standard DVD rivals the PQ of the blu-ray. Something like Goodfellas could get a 6.5. Something like 28 Days Later could get a 4... 28 Days later on blu-ray looks worse than some DVDs ( I know its a limitation of the source), but there are many standard DVDs that look better than it.


This would also allow us to give something like the Orphanage and Die Hard 2 a 9/10, whereas I, Robot, POTC3 get 9.5/10. 10/10 will be absolute perfection which we havent quite seen yet.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13996429
> 
> 
> Ah, now I see what you are saying.
> 
> 
> Perhaps we would need to call the Tiers something else to avoid confusion? Or just go to a 1-5 scale. The scale could be broken down to groups such as 5/5 rankings, 4.5 rankings, 4.0 etc.



That's a possibility. It may cause some confusion, however, when the ordering of the Tier numbers is the opposite of the numerical rankings. I think it would be a mistake to abandon the current Tier numbering system.


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13996271
> 
> 
> In general, I agree with this idea of no rankings within relatively small groups.
> 
> 
> The difficulty I was referring to was where, at the time this new approach is started, each quarter of a particular tier has, say, 25 titles. Suppose two titles are then added to the top quarter, and two titles are added to the bottem quarter. Presumably you would want to move one title out of each into the adjacent quarter, in order to maintain quarters that have equal sizes. Which titles get moved?



My original intent with the quarter system was to reorganize every so often into true 1/4s.


I don't think this would cause a problem with title placements, simply because a movie's rank is relative to other titles, not a "1/4" or "1/2" marker.


Would that be acceptable, or cause a problem since a certain movie might be moved from Tier 2 "1/4" into Tier 2 "1/2"?


----------



## tbonetommygun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13996580
> 
> 
> That's a possibility. It may cause some confusion, however, when the ordering of the Tier numbers is the opposite of the numerical rankings. I think it would be a mistake to abandon the current Tier numbering system.



agreed


I mean just look at what happened to the HD-DVD ranking system. Soon as it changed HD-DVD failed


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/13996575
> 
> 
> With a 5 point scale, everything in Tier 4 would appear as 1.5-2.0 / 5. In a way, that seems worse than they really are.
> 
> 
> I was thinking a 10 point scale. Anything 5 or below means that standard DVD rivals the PQ of the blu-ray. Something like Goodfellas could get a 6.5. Something like 28 Days Later could get a 4... 28 Days later on blu-ray looks worse than some DVDs ( I know its a limitation of the source), but there are many standard DVDs that look better than it.
> 
> 
> This would also allow us to give something like the Orphanage and Die Hard 2 a 9/10, whereas I, Robot, POTC3 get 9.5/10. 10/10 will be absolute perfection which we havent quite seen yet.



I like it!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13996580
> 
> 
> That's a possibility. It may cause some confusion, however, when the ordering of the Tier numbers is the opposite of the numerical rankings. I think it would be a mistake to abandon the current Tier numbering system.



Then you are really left with what SuprSlow says here:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/13996642
> 
> 
> My original intent with the quarter system was to reorganize every so often into true 1/4s.
> 
> 
> I don't think this would cause a problem with title placements, simply because a movie's rank is relative to other titles, not a "1/4" or "1/2" marker.
> 
> 
> Would that be acceptable, or cause a problem since a certain movie might be moved from Tier 2 "1/4" into Tier 2 "1/2"?



I guess this makes sense, yet something just doesn't seem quite right with moving titles from Tier 2 1/4 into Tier 2 1/2 without discussion.....yet, from a math standpoint based on the currnet system, it makes perfect sense.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbonetommygun* /forum/post/13996655
> 
> 
> agreed
> 
> 
> I mean just look at what happened to the HD-DVD ranking system. Soon as it changed HD-DVD failed


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/13996642
> 
> 
> My original intent with the quarter system was to reorganize every so often into true 1/4s.
> 
> 
> I don't think this would cause a problem with title placements, simply because a movie's rank is relative to other titles, not a "1/4" or "1/2" marker.
> 
> 
> Would that be acceptable, or cause a problem since a certain movie might be moved from Tier 2 "1/4" into Tier 2 "1/2"?



I think it works fine currently. It would no longer work if there are no rankings *within* quarters, as has been suggested.


----------



## SuprSlow

The 1/4 markers weren't added with the intent of making, in effect, twenty different tiers (5 tiers x 4 sub-sections), but simply as a way for everyone to more easily navigate through the rankings--namely Tier 2, since it was incredibly easy to get lost scrolling through that particular section. I guess I'm thinking of them as mile markers on an interstate. For instance, you're still on Interstate 65 (Tier 2), but you're at mile marker 258 (1/4). Probably a stupid analogy, but that's the best I can come up with










It was also created so placements could be more accurate--i.e. "top 1/4 of Tier 2" instead of "somewhere in Tier 2".


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I think we need seven tiers as a possible alternative. The six tiers idea was fine when there was only 100 titles ranked but it has become a little unwieldy. I also don't mind breaking each tier into quarters and having titles remain unranked within that particular quarter. But to preserve the integrity of the list I think Tiers 0 and 1 need to be left ranked absolutely from top to bottom. Many people look at Tier 0 for their first purchases and its importance can not be understated. I don't want people thinking "The Island"(is this really a Tier 0 title; wait until the high bitrate domestic version comes out and blows it away) looks as good as "Chicken Little".


----------



## DVD Freaky

"Shoot 'Em Up" looked decent but very surprised to see it in 'Tier 0'. It was certainly a reasonably crisp and clean transfer, but nothing spectacular in my eyes.


----------



## fiddlesticks

I watched *Gattaca* over the weekend; very similar to how Twister looked - too much DNR. Nice deep blacks, clean picture, but you can tell the grain was reduced and the detail suffers because of it.


I'd place it just above Twister in tier 3.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DVD Freaky* /forum/post/13997392
> 
> 
> "Shoot 'Em Up" looked decent but very surprised to see it in 'Tier 0'. It was certainly a reasonably crisp and clean transfer, but nothing spectacular in my eyes.



It was basically a near perfect transfer in my opinion. I wasn't a huge fan of the style, but I can't deny the technical aspects of the disc.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briansemerick* /forum/post/13995053
> 
> 
> are Die Hard and DH2 even worth getting? there is an amazon gold box deal today for the complete saga but i don't know if it's worth paying to replace my current DVD's.



Huge upgrade for all four movies in both PQ and SQ...your call.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Juno*


I had started to write this review a few days ago, when I realized that half the Tier list was missing, and I never completed it. I should have, because I am sure I have forgot some of the things I was going to mention.


I do recall the colors seeming to be overly saturated, and not in a particularly good way. Detail was good, but not excellent, and contrast was satisfactory but not noteworthy either.


I would probably put this at the bottom of Tier 2.


The movie itself was very good. It was hit or miss for the first 20 minutes or so as to whether I was going to "buy into it", as at first it seemed to really trivialize the issue and make light of it. However, the ultimate character development and interaction of the various characters (including the father and step mom) really worked well. Very well written.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/14000172
> 
> *Juno*
> 
> 
> I would probably put this at the bottom of Tier 2.
> 
> 
> The movie itself was very good. It was hit or miss for the first 20 minutes or so as to whether I was going to "buy into it", as at first it seemed to really trivialize the issue and make light of it. However, the ultimate character development and interaction of the various characters (including the father and step mom) really worked well. Very well written.



Agree with all of this.


Also I'd like to say I'm watching Across the Universe right now and I'd say it's about a Tier 2 title. Sometimes it creeps up into Tier 1 material but it's few and far between.


Brandon


----------



## DVD Freaky

I see "U2: Rattle and Hum" is set to be released on BD tomorrow. Odd, I have owned it for a couple of years now. The spec sheet on Amazon says nothing about it being a re-release.


Anyone have any info on this title?


----------



## lgans316

How many out here think that the placement of these 2 titles are quite high ?


Shinobi: Special Edition Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.35:1 | FUNimation

The Recruit (UK Import) Video: VC-1 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Disney


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14001174
> 
> 
> Agree with all of this.
> 
> 
> Also I'd like to say I'm watching Across the Universe right now and I'd say it's about a Tier 2 title. Sometimes it creeps up into Tier 1 material but it's few and far between.
> 
> 
> Brandon



And I agree with all of that!











To think that Across the Universe was getting so many high marks in this thread for a while (there was talk of Tier 0!) is confusing to me.


----------



## alexg75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/14000172
> 
> *Juno*
> 
> 
> I had started to write this review a few days ago, when I realized that half the Tier list was missing, and I never completed it. I should have, because I am sure I have forgot some of the things I was going to mention.
> 
> 
> I do recall the colors seeming to be overly saturated, and not in a particularly good way. Detail was good, but not excellent, and contrast was satisfactory but not noteworthy either.
> 
> 
> I would probably put this at the bottom of Tier 2.
> 
> 
> The movie itself was very good. It was hit or miss for the first 20 minutes or so as to whether I was going to "buy into it", as at first it seemed to really trivialize the issue and make light of it. However, the ultimate character development and interaction of the various characters (including the father and step mom) really worked well. Very well written.



Well Rob,I really enjoyed the film as well but....

I have to disagree with your assesment of JUNO's PQ.I saw it this afternoon and thought it was an extremely solid transfer.

Yes the colors are oversaturated,but so what? That's what the filmakers wanted.The contrast and black levels were very well-balanced and the detail was there without standing out and calling attention to itself.There is a slight grain to the image which adds that extra texture to the image.

I couldn't spot anything that would or could be considered a negative PQ wise,then again I'm not sitting with my face on the screen and checking the bit-rate meter hoping to find something to nitpick about.

And I'm not suggesting that YOU did,so don't get your engines a rumblin'









I recommend a least a mid to lower Tier 1 placement or bottom half placement based on the changes that are being made to the Tiers.


Panny 1080p 42inch plasma

@ 8ft

Sony BDP-S300 BR player


----------



## alexg75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14001734
> 
> 
> alexg75-> You are not alone. Check out this glowing review of Juno from Mr.Michael Mackenzie who is quite a popular critic.
> 
> http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=67729



Thanks lgans,

The review is right on the money.Have you seen JUNO yet?


----------



## alexg75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14002094
> 
> 
> Nope. I haven't seen it. Wife not interested.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Juno is among the very few titles that got extreme and wavering reviews. So thought of adding fuel to the fire.



Well it is a very charming little movie,it will not change your life,but you and the wife might enjoy it.

Are you refering to reviews about the PQ or the movie itself?


----------



## lgans316

Both. Maybe if I were an American I could engage deeper and appreciate movies like Juno. Throw me dumb action movies or some top notch flicks like Pan's Labyrinth, Oldboy, Departed, 3:10, V, Blade Runner, Patton etc, I am game for it.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/14000172
> 
> *Juno*
> 
> 
> I had started to write this review a few days ago, when I realized that half the Tier list was missing, and I never completed it. I should have, because I am sure I have forgot some of the things I was going to mention.
> 
> 
> I do recall the colors seeming to be overly saturated, and not in a particularly good way. Detail was good, but not excellent, and contrast was satisfactory but not noteworthy either.
> 
> 
> I would probably put this at the bottom of Tier 2.
> 
> 
> The movie itself was very good. It was hit or miss for the first 20 minutes or so as to whether I was going to "buy into it", as at first it seemed to really trivialize the issue and make light of it. However, the ultimate character development and interaction of the various characters (including the father and step mom) really worked well. Very well written.



I agree with the PQ comments and placement.


----------



## ballen420




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/13996938
> 
> 
> The 1/4 markers weren't added with the intent of making, in effect, twenty different tiers (5 tiers x 4 sub-sections), but simply as a way for everyone to more easily navigate through the rankings--namely Tier 2, since it was incredibly easy to get lost scrolling through that particular section. I guess I'm thinking of them as mile markers on an interstate. For instance, you're still on Interstate 65 (Tier 2), but you're at mile marker 258 (1/4). Probably a stupid analogy, but that's the best I can come up with
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also created so placements could be more accurate--i.e. "top 1/4 of Tier 2" instead of "somewhere in Tier 2".



You're analogy works for me, especially if I get broken down, I know exactly where someone needs to pick me up!










In all seriousness, I like it the way it is with the markers. I think it will get extremely difficult to start rating on a number system, especially if we start throwing decimal places into the equation. I'm sure bickering over a few points here and there will ensue (see NCFOM), and you're job of maintaining this will become a lot more difficult.


Just my opinion, but wanted to get a thanks and keep up the great work in there as well!


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/13985583
> 
> 
> I went back through and addressed all the spec corrections posted, so we're back to 100% now.



I've been taking some screen caps by extracting frames directly from movie discs on my PC and then cropping off the black bars. In this process, I've found a couple of instances where the aspect ratio does not match that shown in the tier rankings:


- 3:10 to Yuma (listed as 2.35, is actually 2.40)

- Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (listed as 2.35, is actually 2.40)


Are these type of corrections useful? If so, I can post any others that I come across.


Just for reference, here are some titles whose AR I've found to be listed correctly in the tier rankings:


Correctly Listed As 2.35:

Becoming Jane, Enchanted, Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium, The Orphanage, No Country for Old Men, Shoot 'Em Up, Wild Hogs


Correctly Listed As 2.40:

16 Blocks, 30 Days of Night, Gattaca, V for Vendetta, The Water Horse: Legend of the Deep


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/14004940
> 
> 
> Are these type of corrections useful? If so, I can post any others that I come across.
> 
> 
> Just for reference, here are some titles whose AR I've found to be listed correctly in the tier rankings:
> 
> 
> Correctly Listed As 2.35:
> 
> Becoming Jane, Enchanted, Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium, The Orphanage, No Country for Old Men, Shoot 'Em Up, Wild Hogs
> 
> 
> Correctly Listed As 2.40:
> 
> 16 Blocks, 30 Days of Night, Gattaca, V for Vendetta, The Water Horse: Legend of the Deep



As we've seen time and time again the information on the packaging is sometimes wrong so I think that information could be useful. I could see dropping Shinobi and The Recruit lower in Tier 1 to around the middle of Tier 1, though Shinobi should still be ranked ahead of it.


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/14004940
> 
> 
> I
> 
> Are these type of corrections useful? If so, I can post any others that I come across.



Yes, that would be great.


Any time someone spots an error, please post it and we'll get it changed. We get most of our info from the various review sites, so there's an inherent amount of error as a result.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/14005560
> 
> 
> Yes, that would be great.
> 
> 
> Any time someone spots an error, please post it and we'll get it changed. We get most of our info from the various review sites, so there's an inherent amount of error as a result.



Becoming Jane is VC-1, not AVC.


----------



## Shane Martin

Juno: Bottom of tier 2.


I agree with that. It's not Tier 1 material I don't think.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briansemerick* /forum/post/13993695
> 
> 
> i think From Hell is wrongfully placed in Tier 3. It is at LEAST top half of Tier 2. i don't know what the person was watching it on, but on my 5010 it looked fantastic. great dark scenes with shadow detail and skin detail. not a lot of color popping scenes (as is the nature of the movie) but the reds are fantastic, and so was the green of the grass in the daytime scenes.



I watched this last night and would probably place this in the last quarter of Tier 2 or top quarter of Tier 3. It probably does need to be moved up from its current spot in the middle of Tier 3.


It's encoded in AVC on a BD-50 with a relatively clean print but what really falls down is the actual source material here. I saw the movie in the theater and the BD looks exactly like it, which is occasionally diffused and soft on purpose. On top of that lots of camera and color timing tricks are used by the directors. I do think this BD is an excellent representation of the movie but the movie was not really shot for eye candy. I believe the directors were going for a "period" look to the film. Just my two cents.


----------



## SuprSlow

Update time:

*The Orphanage* - we're evenly split between 0 and 1. What to do?

*The Company* - bot. Tier 1

*American Psycho* - bumped to Tier 5

*Rambo* - mid Tier 1

*Alvin & The Chipmunks* - Tier 0

*National Treasure* - low Tier 1

*National Treasure 2* - mid Tier 1

*P.S. I Love You* - top Tier 1

*Saawariya* - top Tier 1

*27 Dresses* - we're all over the road on this. Averaged input yields somewhere in the lower 1/3 of Tier 2. Yay or nay?

*Masters of Horror: Vol. IV* - bot Tier 2

*Narnia* - top 1/4 Tier 1

*Patton* - mid Tier 1

*Bee Movie* - Tier 0

*Lady in the Water* - lower 1/2 Tier 3

*Semi-Pro* - mid Tier 1

*I, Robot* - moved up one spot

*Rambo: First Blood* - mid Tier 2

*The Warriors* - below FF2 & Lost, Tier 1

*Resident Evil: Extinction* - low Tier 1

*Resident Evil* - remains bot Tier 2

*Shall We Dance?* - Tier 2, below Rocky Balboa

*From Hell* - top 1/2 Tier 2 (Phantom's review noted, will adjust accordingly tomorrow)

*Gattaca* - above Twister, Tier 2

*Juno* - bot Tier 2

*Across the Universe* - remains in Tier 2

*Shinobi* - mid Tier 1

*The Recruit* - mid Tier 1, below Shinobi




And I'll update the Unranked List with this week's new releases tomorrow


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Before the Devil Knows You're Dead Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1


Video for this needs to be changed to AVC/MPEG4


----------



## lgans316

Thanks a lot Suprslow and please take care of the corrections.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

You are doing a great job SuprSlow, we all owe you a ton of gratitude!


----------



## Elbie

I still don't know how _*Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban*_ is ranked so low and not ranked at 1 or 2 for best PQ Harry Potter movies.


----------



## lgans316

+1. POA was the best looking of the series.


----------



## maverick0716

I don't see First Blood in the Tier list......maybe I'm blind.


----------



## Arecsa

Bee Movie is AVC, and certainly tier 0.


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/14008385
> 
> 
> Before the Devil Knows You're Dead Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1
> 
> 
> Video for this needs to be changed to AVC/MPEG4



Thanks.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14008819
> 
> 
> Thanks a lot Suprslow and please take care of the corrections.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/14009082
> 
> 
> You are doing a great job SuprSlow, we all owe you a ton of gratitude!



Thanks guys, I accept all major credit cards and money orders. (No checks, please)











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Elbie* /forum/post/14009809
> 
> 
> I still don't know how _*Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban*_ is ranked so low and not ranked at 1 or 2 for best PQ Harry Potter movies.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14009843
> 
> 
> +1. POA was the best looking of the series.



Where does it need to be?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/14010143
> 
> 
> I don't see First Blood in the Tier list......maybe I'm blind.



First Blood is in Tier 2, 7 spots below the 3/4 marker.


First Blood Part II is in Tier 2, just above the 1/2 marker.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Arecsa* /forum/post/14010605
> 
> 
> Bee Movie is AVC



Thanks.


----------



## lgans316

Thanks SuprSlow.


POA should be in bottom of Tier-1. For time-being please do not disturb the current placement of OOTP 'coz such a move may tingle others.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14011170
> 
> 
> POA should be in bottom of Tier-1. For time-being please *do not disturb the current placement of OOTP 'coz such a move may tingle others*.



The reason it WOULD "tingle others" is because OOTP is definitely the best looking movie in the series. I agree with you that POA should be placed higher, but it still doesn't compare to the PQ of OOTP.


I should mention that I just recently watched the whole series (within one week) and thus I was able to do a critique of the PQ of each one without having to rely on trying to remember what one looked like from the distant past.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *alexg75* /forum/post/14001530
> 
> 
> Well Rob,I really enjoyed the film as well but....
> 
> I have to disagree with your assesment of JUNO's PQ.I saw it this afternoon and thought it was an extremely solid transfer.



I would classify anything in Tier 2 as an "extremely solid transfer," so I don't disagree with him or you.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/14008326
> 
> 
> Update time:
> 
> *The Orphanage* - we're evenly split between 0 and 1. What to do?



There seems to be an even split on this so I think a good compromise is at the very top of Tier 1 or the very bottom of Tier 0.


Brandon


----------



## Elbie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/14011135
> 
> 
> Where does it need to be?



I havent seen all of the movies on the tier list, but I have seen all the HP movies recently and I believe that POA should post above HP: COS because I think the PQ is better than that movie. I will also go back and look at GOF, but POA and OOP were the best looking HP movies. Tier 2 is just too low for POA.


----------



## 357

Rambo III should be in the bottom of Tier 1 imo. Awesome quality for such an old film!

Oh and Juno is Tier 3 imo.


----------



## 357

Black Hawk Dawn should be Tier 0 by the way. The detail in the film is amazing.


----------



## stumlad

I would say Mid Tier 2. The movie had an overall harsh look to it (mainly the settings - boat, Rambo's house, etc) , and the jungle scenes, as good as they looked, did not come close to Apocalypto or Lost. They were more on the level of the Condemned, but slightly above Eragon. Darker scenes were grainy but not distracting. One thing that was weird is that black was not black, it wasn't grey either.. It was like black with a blue tint to it.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *357* /forum/post/14012420
> 
> 
> Black Hawk Dawn should be Tier 0 by the way. The detail in the film is amazing.



I still agree with this


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Elbie* /forum/post/14012374
> 
> 
> I havent seen all of the movies on the tier list, but I have seen all the HP movies recently and I believe that POA should post above HP: COS because I think the PQ is better than that movie. I will also go back and look at GOF, but POA and OOP were the best looking HP movies. Tier 2 is just too low for POA.



Re-watched Goblet of Fire. Looks like a super upconverted DVD. Plenty of banding and awful photography. 80% of the movie is dark and offers less HD pop. On compliance with the tier rule GOF belongs to bottom of Tier-2.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14016921
> 
> 
> Re-watched Goblet of Fire. Looks like a super upconverted DVD. Plenty of banding and awful photography. 80% of the movie is dark and offers less HD pop. On compliance with the tier rule GOF belongs to bottom of Tier-2.



At least GOF is WAY better than the standard DVD.......have you seen that catastrophe?


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/14017072
> 
> 
> At least GOF is WAY better than the standard DVD.......have you seen that catastrophe?



Yes. I had the SD DVD which looked terrible. The Blu-ray is definitely an improvement over the SD DVD but the WOW factor is only present on few scenes. The 3rd maze act is filled with banding and looks ugly. I think top Tier-2 is too high a placement for GOF.


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *357* /forum/post/14012420
> 
> 
> Black Hawk Dawn should be Tier 0 by the way. The detail in the film is amazing.



I strongly disagree with this for a single reason: a large number of block encoding artifacts in the black areas of the picture during a number of scenes. I think it is well-placed now near the top of tier 1 because it is otherwise most excellent as you say (especially for a 2006 release!) and these artifacts may not be noticed depending on how your display is calibrated for blacks, but the artifacts are undeniably there and could be eliminated with a new encode (which we are not likely to see until the next format







).


On a quick sweep though the list, I noticed the following spec problems:


The following movies are definitely VC-1 encodes: 3:10 to Yuma, Full Metal Jacket (Deluxe), Gone Baby Gone, Queen Rocks Montreal.


Also, The Invasion has an aspect ratio of 1.85.


I believe there also may be some inaccuracies with the codecs and/or aspect ratios of Phantom of the Opera, Good Night Good Luck, To Kill a King, Oldboy, King of California, Wall Street and The Hills Have Eyes 2, but I don't have the discs on hand to double-check at the moment.


EDIT: I forgot to mention that Gridiron Gang and Hostel are also both listed in unranked and Tiers 2 and 3 respectively.


----------



## DVD Freaky

Incidentally, do you detract points for movies with flicker problems? "Mr. Brooks" is tier 0...has flicker issues in opening credits.


----------



## SuprSlow

Specs corrected, thanks Squid. I also made corrections for all of your second list with the exception of Wall Street and Hills 2. I only looked them up online, so if you can compare those to the actual disc, that'd be preferable










This week's releases:
*Battle of Britain* Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | MGM
*A Bridge Too Far* Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | MGM
*Cloverfield* Video: VC-1 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 1.85:1 | Paramount
*Dirty Harry: Ultimate Collector's Edition* Video: VC-1 | Audio: ? | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner
*The Eye* Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Lionsgate
*Fearless Planet* Video: ? | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Image
*Final Days of Planet Earth* Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: ? | AR: 1.78:1 | Echo Bridge
*The Longest Day* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.20:1 | Fox
*Meet the Spartans: Pit of Death Edition* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Fox
*Patton* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.20:1 | Fox
*The Poseidon Adventure* Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: ? | AR: 1.78:1 | Echo Bridge
*The Recruit* Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Disney
*The Sand Pebbles* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Fox
*Semi-Pro: Let's Get Sweaty Edition* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | New Line
*Signs* Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.85:1 | Disney
*There Will Be Blood* Video: VC-1 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.35:1 | Paramount
*Weeds: Season 3* Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.78:1 | Lionsgate



DVD Freaky, I believe anything related to a transfer problem should be considered in the placement of a title. 3:2 pulldown or any other equipment related issues obviously wouldn't be factored.


----------



## 30XS955 User

Rambo. High Tier 2. Not great, but very good PQ.


----------



## Shane Martin

Watched Revenge last night. It's ranked at lower tier 2. I think that's being WAY too generous. I was thinking towards Low Tier 3. I thought the PQ was pretty poor.


----------



## bplewis24

What a very nice transfer for an older title. I have no idea of the history of this title and if this was a newly restored master, but it makes some of the older movies look very bad relatively.


The colors are excellent in everything from environments to skin tones. I believe there may have been a very slight red push, but nothing major. The detail is solid-to-pretty good. It's never rivaling any Tier 0 or Tier 1 movies in that department, but it's a pretty clean transfer and it appears free from DNR or EE (not that I can ever spot EE anyway







).


My recommendation is top quarter of Tier 2. By comparison I feel Crimson Tide is better than Passage to India, but Crimson Tide isn't in the top quarter of Tier 2. Oh well, who cares...I have There Will be Blood tonight!


PS3->1080p24->46XBR4 (8 feet)


Brandon


----------



## lgans316

*Crimson Tide*


Re-watched this great movie. Plenty of white flecks pops every now and then. Image is not that detailed and looks soft, cold and flat. Colors looked great but closeups didn't offer that much details. Underwater shots exhibited moderate to heavy banding. Should be pushed down to the very end of Tier-2.


----------



## HDphile22

The Eye, what rank??? Jessica Alba much Hotter in the HD format, than the standard DVD?


Tier 0, 1?


----------



## DVD Freaky




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/14019086
> 
> 
> DVD Freaky, I believe anything related to a transfer problem should be considered in the placement of a title. 3:2 pulldown or any other equipment related issues obviously wouldn't be factored.



Thanks for the feedback. I was watching the movie on brand new 1080p panasonic plasma, on THX mode in 1080p60 mode, via PS3. PQ looked incredible. Only issue was the flickering during credits.


No one answered my question about the new "U2: Rattle and Hum" Blu-Ray. It was released on 6/3. I own the original BD version from a couple of years ago. But there is no news about this being a re-release. Is this an error?


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DVD Freaky* /forum/post/14022945
> 
> 
> No one answered my question about the new "U2: Rattle and Hum" Blu-Ray. It was released on 6/3. I own the original BD version from a couple of years ago. But there is no news about this being a re-release. Is this an error?



Hmm...I haven't seen anything about a re-release. Who had it listed with the new date?


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DVD Freaky* /forum/post/14022945
> 
> 
> No one answered my question about the new "U2: Rattle and Hum" Blu-Ray. It was released on 6/3. I own the original BD version from a couple of years ago. But there is no news about this being a re-release. Is this an error?



This was part of the Paramount reissuing of their back-catalog of previously released Blu-ray before they had their brief fling with HD DVD. The releases should be identical (other than perhaps a fine-coating of dust from sitting in the dark corner of some warehouse for nearly a year







).


----------



## bplewis24

Well, I'll preface this by saying I haven't seen any reviews for this one yet (though I have dabbled through the review/impression thread). I noticed some words like "flawless" and "beautiful" transfer. I cannot say that I agree.


The PQ starts off pretty average and doesn't pick up til about 37 minutes in. The beginning is filled with time spent in narrow mines for drilling. The contrast in all dark scenes seems pretty bad. The blacks have a blue or green tint to them.


Of course the cinematography is excellent and the color palette does pick up after those first few moments. It's a solid transfer that is definitely HD material and has it's moments (though very brief) where it approaches the mid level of tier 1. However the detail never really approaches the level of any Tier 0 or Tier 1 titles as far as I could see. I'm assuming this is going to get largely positive reviews so I'll probably take some heat for it, but I'd nominate it for the top of *Tier 2*.


PS3->1080p24->46XBR4 (8 feet)


Brandon


----------



## lgans316

You aren't going to take the flames at least from me 'coz most of your opinions have been spot on. I am yet to receive my copy which is still on transit via TORTOISE mail.










Movies with excellent cinematography (like TWBB / M&C) doesn't seem to translate well & shine on Blu-ray and please the eye candy junta out here.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14025316
> 
> 
> Movies with excellent cinematography (like M&C) doesn't seem to translate well & shine on Blu-ray and please the eye candy junta out here.



One comparison I meant to bring up was No Country for Old Men which I felt had similar settings and was a full notch above in PQ. I think There Will be Blood has satisfying PQ, just not demo material.


Brandon


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14025328
> 
> 
> One comparison I meant to bring up was No Country for Old Men which I felt had similar settings and was a full notch above in PQ. I think There Will be Blood has satisfying PQ, just not demo material.
> 
> 
> Brandon



You are right. NCFOM was terrific in AV department from start to finish. What's up with these cinematographers ? They better keep Blu-ray and people like us in mind before having any sort of crooked intentions set for their next bunch of projects.


----------



## maverick0716

Finally watched Alvin and the Chipmunks tonight. It is a very pristine looking transfer with absolutely no artifacts, noise, etc. The colours are very vibrant and look great! Black levels are also very deep, no complaints there. Detail, for the most part is quite good, but there are more than a few other titles that I would say look "sharper". All things considered, I personally wouldn't put this one in Tier 0 (it's current placement), *I would put it in the upper half of Tier 1.*


42" Panasonic Plasma (768p)

PS3 through HDMI

6-7 ft.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14025274
> 
> 
> Well, I'll preface this by saying I haven't seen any reviews for this one yet (though I have dabbled through the review/impression thread). I noticed some words like "flawless" and "beautiful" transfer. I cannot say that I agree.
> 
> 
> The PQ starts off pretty average and doesn't pick up til about 37 minutes in. The beginning is filled with time spent in narrow mines for drilling. The contrast in all dark scenes seems pretty bad. The blacks have a blue or green tint to them.
> 
> 
> Of course the cinematography is excellent and the color palette does pick up after those first few moments. It's a solid transfer that is definitely HD material and has it's moments (though very brief) where it approaches the mid level of tier 1. However the detail never really approaches the level of any Tier 0 or Tier 1 titles as far as I could see. I'm assuming this is going to get largely positive reviews so I'll probably take some heat for it, but I'd nominate it for the top of *Tier 2*.
> 
> 
> PS3->1080p24->46XBR4 (8 feet)
> 
> 
> Brandon



Top of Tier 2 is still pretty good in my books. I expected TWBB to have a certain roughness to the transfer, and thought it would've been lower Tier 2 or higher Tier 3.......so, I'm happy to hear that it's better than I expected.


----------



## wvasko

Just finished both and I also have both SD versions. I did like the Blu-Ray versions well worth the money spent.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/14025449
> 
> 
> Top of Tier 2 is still pretty good in my books. I expected TWBB to have a certain roughness to the transfer, and thought it would've been lower Tier 2 or higher Tier 3.......so, I'm happy to hear that it's better than I expected.



I agree that anything above Tier 3 is good (I know I've said that recently). However I'm sure that people who love this movie will be expecting it to be revered much higher than a Tier 2 title.


Brandon


----------



## half vader

After all this time forgive me but I just couldn't check the whole thread (







), so sorry if this has been asked before but is there an alternate format of the list in Alphabetical format? For each tier of course - I don't mean 1 list with tier ratings after them, that'd be a bit messy.


Anyway thanks for the fun thread, it's just that it takes me absolute ages sometimes hunting up and down the tiers for a particular movie. Maybe another alternative would be to introduce more leading or even a full blank line between each line, searating the titles better. That silver tier is a killer for legibility!


Cheers!


----------



## b_scott

control + F (in windows) then type in whatever title you're looking for. easy peasy.


----------



## zoro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briansemerick* /forum/post/14027412
> 
> 
> control + F (in windows) then type in whatever title you're looking for. easy peasy.



How about Mac Os?


----------



## SuprSlow

Cmd + F


----------



## bplewis24

Review is finally up on HDD. There Will Be Blood received 4.5 stars for PQ. I feel it's closer to 4 stars than 4.5, but I do agree with this excerpt:



> Quote:
> While such details don’t appear to be as refined as they are on the BD release of ‘No Country For Old Men,’ I suspect the slight discrepancy is merely the result of the different shooting techniques employed by the two directors.



As well as this:



> Quote:
> While I did catch minor hints of trailing edge enhancement, the only real complaint I have with this transfer is that its black levels are occasionally inconsistent. Early scenes in the silver mineshaft and later shots of Plainview’s nighttime excavations have a hard time resolving the darkest portions of the screen -- areas that should be pitch black fail to overcome their deepest grays.



Brandon


----------



## b_scott

Command + F


----------



## DVD Freaky




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/14024054
> 
> 
> This was part of the Paramount reissuing of their back-catalog of previously released Blu-ray before they had their brief fling with HD DVD. The releases should be identical (other than perhaps a fine-coating of dust from sitting in the dark corner of some warehouse for nearly a year
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ).



Thanks! I own the previous version and I expect this reissue is just as grainy and unwatchable as the last.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I have There Will Be Blood here from Netflix, hope to watch it this weekend.


----------



## mbird

Master and Commander - My thoughts from one of the M&C threads:

"I just got M&C from Netflix today and took a brief look at a few scenes. From what I've seen, I'm actually pretty happy with the transfer. There is much more detail in most shots, the blacks are deeper and usually show more detail, and the colors, especially flesh tones, looked much better than the DVD. But, I think that it could look even better if given a new transfer as the quality seemed to change from shot to shot. The faces look softer than I'd expect and the print itself is dirtier than I'd like. Still, it's a nice improvement, but only if it was priced at around $20, not $30."


I'd put it somewhere in the *upper Tier 3 or bottom Tier 2*.

Across the Universe - *Mid-to-upper Tier 1*

Before the Devil Knows You're Dead - I wasn't a fan of the photography, but it generally looked pretty good, with closeups having excellent detail. Blacks often looked noisy, perhaps from the HD camera it was shot on. I'd put it somewhere in *mid Tier 2*.


----------



## FoxyMulder

Saw IV is rated in Tier 4 for being soft and having artifacting. ( just watched it ) You must have been watching a different version to me because it looked exactly how it's meant to look with some nice fine grain and detailed foreground and backgrounds....Faces were natural and free from the usual DNR mess seen on some Blu Rays....The image quality was in my opinion good enough to be rated Tier 1 ( The Cinematography on these films has a certain look but why does that count as a negative ) There is no artifacting that i saw and i'm watching on a 106inch screen which is calibrated. I also saw ( saw hmmm that could make a good joke ) anyways i also think the picture is detailed and not soft.


No the image isn't 3 dimensional and it doesn't leap out at you but it's detailed and as it should be and definately not soft.


----------



## dacdd

Watched troy the other day on the samsung 71 series. Absolutely fantastic looking blu ray. Shooter looks superb too. In fact, I dont see how spiderman is above these two titles. I also saw the orphanage which looked fantastic and wasnt a bad movie for being subtitled. I havent been able to watch many others, expect I watched we own the night and BLAH! looked bad imo. I would rank Troy>shooter>orphanage>spiderman imo.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14019460
> 
> 
> What a very nice transfer for an older title. I have no idea of the history of this title and if this was a newly restored master, but it makes some of the older movies look very bad relatively.
> 
> 
> The colors are excellent in everything from environments to skin tones. I believe there may have been a very slight red push, but nothing major. The detail is solid-to-pretty good. It's never rivaling any Tier 0 or Tier 1 movies in that department, but it's a pretty clean transfer and it appears free from DNR or EE (not that I can ever spot EE anyway
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ).
> 
> 
> My recommendation is top quarter of Tier 2. By comparison I feel Crimson Tide is better than Passage to India, but Crimson Tide isn't in the top quarter of Tier 2. Oh well, who cares...I have There Will be Blood tonight!
> 
> 
> PS3->1080p24->46XBR4 (8 feet)
> 
> 
> Brandon



Finishing up this movie now. I'd like to change my vote for bottom of Tier 1. This is a step up from There Will be Blood, IMO.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14031500
> 
> 
> Finishing up this movie now. I'd like to change my vote for bottom of Tier 1. This is a step up from There Will be Blood, IMO.



Exactly where I recommended it be placed!










I know others will disagree. After all, A Passage To India has G R A I N !


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FoxyMulder* /forum/post/14030459
> 
> 
> Saw IV is rated in Tier 4 for being soft and having artifacting. ( just watched it ) You must have been watching a different version to me because it looked exactly how it's meant to look with some nice fine grain and detailed foreground and backgrounds....Faces were natural and free from the usual DNR mess seen on some Blu Rays....The image quality was in my opinion good enough to be rated Tier 1 ( The Cinematography on these films has a certain look but why does that count as a negative ) There is no artifacting that i saw and i'm watching on a 106inch screen which is calibrated. I also saw ( saw hmmm that could make a good joke ) anyways i also think the picture is detailed and not soft.
> 
> 
> No the image isn't 3 dimensional and it doesn't leap out at you but it's detailed and as it should be and definately not soft.



Wow, Saw IV is Tier 4?!


I agree that is far too low for this title. To me it was more of a Tier 2 title.


I agree with you that the image isn't 3 dimensional (intentionally I assume) and that would probably keep it from Tier 1 for me.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/14031596
> 
> 
> Exactly where I recommended it be placed!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know others will disagree. After all, A Passage To India has G R A I N !



So what do you think of Patton ? Is bottom of Tier-1 a good spot ? It looked good to me and the DNR wasn't as bad as PL or Twister or Face/Off.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14031660
> 
> 
> So what do you think of Patton ? Is bottom of Tier-1 a good spot ? It looked good to me and the DNR wasn't as bad as PL or Twister or Face/Off.



I haven't seen Patton, as my copy has not yet arrived.


----------



## half vader




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briansemerick* /forum/post/14027936
> 
> 
> Command + F



Thanks guys, I wasn't clear enough in my post, sorry.


I know I can just do a search, that's easy, but I was sort of getting at making it a general improvement in the actual thread and working for multiple searches too, in addition to automatically seeing everything in context. As well as just a different format for searching.


And the legibility thing was as important to me as the searching thing. I know the colours have been tweaked for this reason, but the leading (space between lines) is a bit awful and makes everything hard to scan quickly. Usually they just stick things in alternating colour fields but I realise this list is a post in a thread not the whole formatted deal. I just thought maybe a line between each title would help that.


I gotta learn to be clearer, but thanks for the help!


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/14031605
> 
> 
> Wow, Saw IV is Tier 4?!
> 
> 
> I agree that is far too low for this title. To me it was more of a Tier 2 title.
> 
> 
> I agree with you that the image isn't 3 dimensional (intentionally I assume) and that would probably keep it from Tier 1 for me.




Agreed. There is NO way Saw IV is a tier 4 title and I also agree with your Tier 2 assessment of it.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Saw IV is not a very good looking BD. Compression issues all over the place. It is a very low bitrate encoding, as low as I've seen from one of the original Blu-ray only studios. On top of that I think it was purposely shot "gritty" for lack of a better term. Most scenes never look better than middle of Tier 3 at best and at times as bad as any day and date title I've seen on Blu-ray. Saw III looks much better than it to my eyes. Saw IV was never intended to look good and it simply doesn't. The entire Saw franchise is not really about reference video on BD.


In a certain "other" PQ tier list on another forum it is ranked in the middle of Tier 4...


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FoxyMulder* /forum/post/14030459
> 
> 
> Saw IV is rated in Tier 4 for being soft and having artifacting. ( just watched it ) You must have been watching a different version to me because it looked exactly how it's meant to look with some nice fine grain and detailed foreground and backgrounds....Faces were natural and free from the usual DNR mess seen on some Blu Rays....The image quality was in my opinion good enough to be rated Tier 1 ( The Cinematography on these films has a certain look but why does that count as a negative ) There is no artifacting that i saw and i'm watching on a 106inch screen which is calibrated. I also saw ( saw hmmm that could make a good joke ) anyways i also think the picture is detailed and not soft.
> 
> 
> No the image isn't 3 dimensional and it doesn't leap out at you but it's detailed and as it should be and definately not soft.



While I don't agree with the Tier 1 assessment, I do agree that it doesn't belong in Tier 4. Saw IV looked every bit as good as Saw III......which is rated higher.


----------



## maverick0716

Rented The Eye today. It looks really good! Very good black level. Lot's of detail, but not as much as Tier 0 titles. The movie's colour for the most part is fairly subdued (style of filming, not fault of disc) but when there are brighter colours on screen they really come alive. This one is definitely a Tier 1 title for me.......right in the middle, I'd say.


42" Panasonic Plasma (768p)

PS3 through HDMI

6-7 ft.


----------



## half vader

I recently looked at Superman Returns again and I think it's pretty awful PQ, lower than its rating here. Those blacks! Bluurrghh!


----------



## FoxyMulder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/14031902
> 
> 
> Saw IV is not a very good looking BD. Compression issues all over the place. It is a very low bitrate encoding, as low as I've seen from one of the original Blu-ray only studios. On top of that I think it was purposely shot "gritty" for lack of a better term. Most scenes never look better than middle of Tier 3 at best and at times as bad as any day and date title I've seen on Blu-ray. Saw III looks much better than it to my eyes. Saw IV was never intended to look good and it simply doesn't. The entire Saw franchise is not really about reference video on BD.
> 
> 
> In a certain "other" PQ tier list on another forum it is ranked in the middle of Tier 4...



Where are these compression issues you talk about....I looked hard and couldn't see any.....The bitrate was more than sufficient and i checked it again just now. As for the look why should that be an issue as it was shot that way in keeping with the subject matter in the film.


I have to strongly disagree with you as to me it's a good looking well detailed picture which is true to the original source.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/14031596
> 
> 
> Exactly where I recommended it be placed!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know others will disagree. After all, A Passage To India has G R A I N !



It definitely has heavy grain during stretches of the movie. I still think it's closer to a Tier 2 title, but I think at it's best it's better than some of the titles I initially placed above it (Crimson Tide, There Will be Blood, etc). Especially during the hike up to the Marabar Caves, the movie has some great stretches of PQ.


There Will Be Blood is much sharper at it's highest points. but that's like 5% of the movie. The rest can look average or even soft. Passage To India is a bit more consistent.


Brandon


----------



## lgans316

*Erin Brockovich (Import) Video: AVC | Audio: Dolby True HD 16-bit | AR: 1.85:1 | Sony*


Sony has delivered an extremely good looking catalog title. The director Steven Soderbergh is accustomed to using plenty of color filters, elevating contrast and adding intentional grain and I am glad to say that this one is no exception. A slight layer of unobtrusive Soderbergh grain is visible throughout the presentation. There was no hint of bit rate starvation as they hovered between 20~35 Mbps sticking around the high twenties most of the time. Black levels were quite impressive though they weren't inky. Close-ups shots looked detailed with skin tones looking a bit warm at times. The color palette looked quite oversaturated and hot strictly complying to the unique cinematographic intentions of the director. Overall the transfer definitely looked sharp and detailed than the SD DVD with a handful of scenes looking soft, flat and out of focus.

*Recommendation*: Tier-2 3/4


----------



## zoro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14033703
> 
> 
> It definitely has heavy grain during stretches of the movie. I still think it's closer to a Tier 2 title, but I think at it's best it's better than some of the titles I initially placed above it (Crimson Tide, There Will be Blood, etc). Especially during the hike up to the Marabar Caves, the movie has some great stretches of PQ.
> 
> 
> There Will Be Blood is much sharper at it's highest points. but that's like 5% of the movie. The rest can look average or even soft. Passage To India is a bit more consistent.
> 
> 
> Brandon



Imho, it also depends how much BR is faithful to orig theatric look and director's intent or way it was sot! In this regard PTI rocks, while imho, saawariya went overly contrasty compared to what I saw in the theater.


----------



## b_scott

you can't subjectively rate PQ. it gest way too complicated. has to be objective across the boards for it to hold weight.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briansemerick* /forum/post/14035464
> 
> 
> you can't subjectively rate PQ. it gest way too complicated. has to be objective across the boards for it to hold weight.



Eh?


----------



## b_scott

you can't rate PQ on a case by case basis, different for each movie. it has to be a consistent scale and grading.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briansemerick* /forum/post/14035512
> 
> 
> you can't rate PQ on a case by case basis, different for each movie. it has to be a consistent scale and grading.



I believe you're referring to a set of standards by which we judge each and every movie. As we discussed at length before, the standards for judgment are stated on the first page and we must abide by them.


So then, are you not saying that we must be objective in our judgment based on those standards? An example of being subjective would be trying to judge what a director's intent was in a given movie and perhaps giving the PQ some slack (in our rating) because "the director intended it to be soft and grainy." Again, this example was mentioned many times before and I believe we reached a consensus and said that we can't be doing that.


----------



## isu1648

Bee Movie belongs near the top of Tier 0, above Ratatouille even. UNREAL picture quality for Bee Movie.


----------



## stumlad

Is there some kind of consensus out there for what the best looking DVDs are? I know that Tier 5 means that the blu-ray doesnt look better than it's counterpart DVD, but I also believe that there are standard DVDs that look better than the blu-ray version of 28 days Later, as well as the HD DVD version of Traffic. In other words, if I were to throw some standard def DVDs in the list, some would appear higher than those two titles.


I havent seen many of the really lowly ranked titles, but my guess is there are SD titles that outshine them based on pure visuals (maybe with some mpeg2 artifacts put aside). So my question is ... what are some of the best DVDs... where would we put them in the tier thread. If they fall above some tier 4 titles, does that mean we're rating them wrong?


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14035849
> 
> 
> I believe you're referring to a set of standards by which we judge each and every movie. As we discussed at length before, the standards for judgment are stated on the first page and we must abide by them.
> 
> 
> So then, are you not saying that we must be objective in our judgment based on those standards? An example of being subjective would be trying to judge what a director's intent was in a given movie and perhaps giving the PQ some slack (in our rating) because "the director intended it to be soft and grainy." Again, this example was mentioned many times before and I believe we reached a consensus and said that we can't be doing that.



yes, i am agreeing with that, that was the intent of both my posts.


----------



## b_scott

i wasn't all that impressed with Across the Universe. I thought it was a very dark movie when you would think it would've had bright colors popping out everywhere. i think its placement is correct. still pretty sharp


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/14036166
> 
> 
> Is there some kind of consensus out there for what the best looking DVDs are? I know that Tier 5 means that the blu-ray doesnt look better than it's counterpart DVD, but I also believe that there are standard DVDs that look better than the blu-ray version of 28 days Later, as well as the HD DVD version of Traffic. In other words, if I were to throw some standard def DVDs in the list, some would appear higher than those two titles.
> 
> 
> I havent seen many of the really lowly ranked titles, but my guess is there are SD titles that outshine them based on pure visuals (maybe with some mpeg2 artifacts put aside). So my question is ... what are some of the best DVDs... where would we put them in the tier thread. If they fall above some tier 4 titles, does that mean we're rating them wrong?



Even stand out DVD titles like Star Wars Ep. III for example, wouldn't be any better than Tier 5 in my opinion. Due to muted colours (compared to other Blu Ray titles) and extremely soft picture. Also, there are Tier 5 titles that look better than their DVD counterpart......like The Fugitive......I've done side by side comparisons of the Blu Ray vs. DVD and it definitely is an improvement.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FoxyMulder* /forum/post/14033052
> 
> 
> Where are these compression issues you talk about....I looked hard and couldn't see any.....The bitrate was more than sufficient and i checked it again just now. As for the look why should that be an issue as it was shot that way in keeping with the subject matter in the film.
> 
> 
> I have to strongly disagree with you as to me it's a good looking well detailed picture which is true to the original source.



I haven't watched it since my initial comments on this particular title(which I can't seem to find in the search engine at the moment) so I can't post timecodes but one piece of evidence from the BD specifications thread is the scanned average video bitrate which is 17 Mbps AVC, which is just too low for a Blu-ray that was never intended for dual format release.


I don't believe any DNR was used on Saw IV and some scenes do look good(the opening set piece probably the best of the bunch which I would rate as a low Tier 2) but picture quality varies all over the place. What other Tier 2 titles do you believe looks approximately equal to Saw IV? I personally see lots of titles in Tier 3 and a few in Tier 4 that look like it but I would be hard pressed to find a Tier 2 title it looks like. Personally I enjoyed this movie more than Saw III, but too many inconsistent moments for me to think it could be better than Tier 3 at best.


Is it true to the original source? Probably but I believe the prevailing wisdom here in this thread is that it's very hard to read the minds of directors, so we should only judge on the final product's picture quality. Some movies by the nature of the way they are shot will never be above a certain tier even if a perfect duplicate of the master was delivered via Blu-ray. The BD of "28 Days Later" is basically the master and I don't see anyone here clamoring to put that up in Tier 0.







Just my opinion and we can agree to disagree on this particular title.


----------



## stumlad

This movie, as many probably already know, was recorded on an HD video camera. I'm not sure if it was a consumer, prosumer, or whatever, but it looked very good. The main issue was the shakiness. My wife and I were able to watch it without any problems, but a lot of people didnt like this.


Overall, when the camera was focused on something for more than a second, the visuals were extremely good. Small object detail was present... probably not quite Tier 0, but definitely high tier 1. Same goes for face closeups.


There were some scenes where grain was present (few and far between) which was weird because it only happened for a few seconds (perhaps a style setting on the camera?). Some cameras produce noise in low light conditions, but this didnt seem to suffer from that...Though I have to say that the black level wasn't always black either.


There's not really much to complain about with the PQ... it is as we would probably expect it to be. The main issue with the PQ is the way it was recorded. Shakiness and things not always in focus because of the constant movement, etc... Even with all of that, I would probably place it *Upper quarter of Tier 2*.


One thing to note... For all the realism they tried to convey with the camera, there was no way the sound came from the camera!! Definitely up there with the best sound on BD.


----------



## H.Cornerstone

I'm sorry for asking this, but It's hard to read through 111 pages. I am just curious as to why We Were Soldiers got the ranking that it did?


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *H.Cornerstone* /forum/post/14037716
> 
> 
> I'm sorry for asking this, but It's hard to read through 111 pages. I am just curious as to why We Were Soldiers got the ranking that it did?



You don't have to read through 111 pages.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/searc...rchid=10276802 


Just skip over any posts with SuprSlow as the poster, as they are likely maintenance posts and not review posts.


Brandon


----------



## eastbaygreen

Agree w/ the placement. Wow....amazing detail. Best non-animated blu ray I've seen. 3-d pop in many areas. Dark scenes were detailed. Just a great PQ title to show off your stuff.


Rescue Dawn up next on Netflix....interested to compare.


----------



## lgans316

I initially recommended bottom Tier-1 placement for Patton because I couldn't spot any major application of DNR on my equipment (37" & 50" Plasma) and also owing to lack of evidence to prove it's presence at the time of my review. However after going through the below screenshots and carefully examining the comments from MPA Mr.Robert Harris it's very clear that Patton was indeed a victim of DNR.









http://home.comcast.net/~m_paliulis/...es/patton2.png 
http://amir-views.com/downloads/patton2a.png 


Owing to this I request the mods of this thread to disregard my PQ assessment of Patton.









http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...n#post13959354


----------



## b_scott

just watched Eyes Wide Shut and i agree with the placement. decent picture in lighter scenes, and pretty good detail. but grain throughout and horrible noise in all scenes especially with the blacks - the robes looked like dancing ants. unfortunate they didn't take better care with the Kubrick releases. money grubbers


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briansemerick* /forum/post/14042976
> 
> 
> just watched Eyes Wide Shut and i agree with the placement. decent picture in lighter scenes, and pretty good detail. but grain throughout and horrible noise in all scenes especially with the blacks - the robes looked like dancing ants. *unfortunate they didn't take better care with the Kubrick releases. money grubbers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *



I saw The Shining and it looked fantastic. Also I hear 2001 looks incredibly good......so not all Kubrick films have bad transfers.


----------



## b_scott

the shining was the one that i'd heard and saw was great, but 2001 didn't look as good as it could've, i don't believe. still good though, and much better than EWS.


----------



## OhioMike

Had a nice movie day yesterday, watched all 4 Rambo's. I never saw any of these on DVD, only VHS and at the theater way back when.

Rambo I= This was a significant improvement over any time I have seen it in the past. The colors and increase in detail really brought new life to the film. However; it is still kinda low on the BD scale. I didn't expect much though out of a 1982 lower budget flick anyway. Low Tier 3 for me. God I forgot how cheesy the sound effects were on this one.


Rambo II and III= Again both saw dramatic improvements over my previous viewings. Great coloring, pretty good detail. All of the first 3 suffer from less than stellar black levels and are a bit smeary in the dark scenes. Audio improves from 1 film to the next, but is still pretty lousy. Keep rollin up the chart on these; II= mid 3 and III= high tier 3


Rambo IV= Now this film kicked some serious bahookie







Excellent detail, good coloring, black levels were solid and a very clean print (new release should be). Movie was a lot more bloody than I figured on since the first 3 were rather tame. It was one of the bloodiest action movies I've ever seen actually, which was fine by me







Audio track was slammin on my 7.1 DTS-MA capable rig. Really a great overall release. I would place this in low-mid tier 1, right around The Rock and Mr + Mrs Smith. Peace.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14025274
> 
> 
> Well, I'll preface this by saying I haven't seen any reviews for this one yet (though I have dabbled through the review/impression thread). I noticed some words like "flawless" and "beautiful" transfer. I cannot say that I agree.
> 
> 
> The PQ starts off pretty average and doesn't pick up til about 37 minutes in. The beginning is filled with time spent in narrow mines for drilling. The contrast in all dark scenes seems pretty bad. The blacks have a blue or green tint to them.
> 
> 
> Of course the cinematography is excellent and the color palette does pick up after those first few moments. It's a solid transfer that is definitely HD material and has it's moments (though very brief) where it approaches the mid level of tier 1. However the detail never really approaches the level of any Tier 0 or Tier 1 titles as far as I could see. I'm assuming this is going to get largely positive reviews so I'll probably take some heat for it, but I'd nominate it for the top of *Tier 2*.
> 
> 
> PS3->1080p24->46XBR4 (8 feet)
> 
> 
> Brandon



I only watched the first half hour or so of this (*There Will Be Blood*), but based on that, I would say high Tier 2 is generous. Both outdoor and indoor shots looked somewhat unresolved to me. Not nearly as sharp as one would expect from a new movie. I wonder who is doing Paramount's BD encodes. Does anyone know? This doesn't strike me as being the same quality level of work in the compression process that we see for Fox, Disney, or Sony.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FoxyMulder* /forum/post/14044292
> 
> 
> I think the first step is to educate people on these very forums about DNR because if we can't do that then what chance is there of educating the masses ?
> 
> 
> That Tier thread is a disgrace.




http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...92&postcount=7 



There seems to be widespread misunderstanding of the standards that are applied in this thread. I keep seeing posts like this. It is certainly not my understanding that there is a bias against grain, or in favor of DNR, in this thread.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OhioMike* /forum/post/14043630
> 
> 
> *black levels were solid* and a very clean print (new release should be).



Did you notice how the black level wasn't black? There was a bluish tint to the black.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14044268
> 
> 
> I only watched the first half hour or so of this (*There Will Be Blood*), but based on that, I would say high Tier 2 is generous. Both outdoor and indoor shots looked somewhat unresolved to me. Not nearly as sharp as one would expect from a new movie. I wonder who is doing Paramount's BD encodes. Does anyone know? This doesn't strike me as being the same quality level of work in the compression process that we see for Fox, Disney, or Sony.



Disney (Miramax) owns the overseas distribution rights for There Will Be Blood. Miramax will be releasing TWBB in the U.K next month. If the PQ of the BVHE version looks similar to the Paramount version we have to assume that either the source was only so-so or point the finger at the cinematographer.


----------



## b_scott

in RE: Becoming Jane - sharp picture, very nice in general, but the outdoor night scenes had gray blacks on my calibrated Kuro. the blacks should match the letterboxing almost perfectly, and these really lost that deep black feel. i don't know if i'd move it to Tier 1 based on that, but it's an important distracting factor. thanks.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14044375
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...92&postcount=7
> 
> 
> 
> There seems to be widespread misunderstanding of the standards that are applied in this thread. I keep seeing posts like this. It is certainly not my understanding that there is a bias against grain, or in favor of DNR, in this thread.



Ignorance.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/14044800
> 
> 
> Ignorance.



________________ is Bliss.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14044740
> 
> 
> Disney (Miramax) owns the overseas distribution rights for There Will Be Blood. Miramax will be releasing TWBB in the U.K next month. If the PQ of the BVHE version looks similar to the Paramount version we have to assume that either the source was only so-so or point the finger at the cinematographer.



Will you be picking that up? It would make for a great comparison. Somebody should suggest it to Xylon.


Brandon


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14044375
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...92&postcount=7
> 
> 
> 
> There seems to be widespread misunderstanding of the standards that are applied in this thread. I keep seeing posts like this. It is certainly not my understanding that there is a bias against grain, or in favor of DNR, in this thread.



We have now been compared to "racial profiling"!

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...5&postcount=29 


Unbelievable.


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/14045567
> 
> 
> We have now been compared to "racial profiling"!
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...5&postcount=29
> 
> 
> Unbelievable.



Ya know, I thought about that over lunch, and while I'm not the smartest man around, I've yet to come up with any logical parallels between this thread and racism.



But anyway,

*There Will Be Blood*


PQ was a mixed bag, for me. I did notice the bluish tint of the darker portions in the opening few minutes, as bplewis noted. I enjoyed the cinematography and thought it very closely resembled the style of No Country. I can't compare the BDs, as I've only seen No Country on the big screen. But, TWBB had its high points, mostly in the panoramas from what I remember. At times, it seemed a tad soft, but others detail was fairly good.


Overall, I'd agree with bplewis' placement of Top Tier 2, or maybe a tad lower, closer to the 1/4 marker.


The film itself...the more I think about it, the more I like it.








I thought it was extremely well written, and Day-Lewis gave a very convincing performance. I'd definately watch it again, but I can see where it may not be a film to suit everyone's tastes.


----------



## 357

I just watched I Robot I'd say that it should be Tier 1 at best. Black Hawk Dawn looked way better than it did imo.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *357* /forum/post/14046273
> 
> 
> Black Hawk *Dawn* looked way better than it did imo.



I've got to see this movie!










Brandon


----------



## 357

Typo


----------



## giggle




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14044375
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...92&postcount=7
> 
> 
> 
> There seems to be widespread misunderstanding of the standards that are applied in this thread. I keep seeing posts like this. It is certainly not my understanding that there is a bias against grain, or in favor of DNR, in this thread.



The reason for that is that you have a recomendation for a top tier 1 for Patton and than after reading another "review" changes their opinion of what they thought of the film. That doesn't make sense and also leads to a lack of credibility of the thread in general.


Granted the poster came clean and admitted they were wrong and also admitted that they were a newbie at reviews.


Overall I do think that you guys are doing a good job with the direction of this thread and it has come a long way but it does seem that the top tiers still seem to be geared toward the "video" movies rather than films IMO.


----------



## FoxyMulder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14044375
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...92&postcount=7
> 
> 
> 
> There seems to be widespread misunderstanding of the standards that are applied in this thread. I keep seeing posts like this. It is certainly not my understanding that there is a bias against grain, or in favor of DNR, in this thread.



Nope i have read this thread and it's geared towards a video look....You do not take into account the look that a director or cinematographer was intending and you are biased against those films which have even a little grain. This thread is placing films with natural grain lower down the Tier rating and many people are actually calling films with excessive DNR great.


Something wrong there.


----------



## Lestat Phoenix

Cloverfield mid to upper teir 1


----------



## natrone06




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FoxyMulder* /forum/post/14048510
> 
> 
> many people are actually calling films with excessive DNR great.



Like what?


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *giggle* /forum/post/14048458
> 
> 
> it does seem that the top tiers still seem to be geared toward the "video" movies rather than films IMO.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FoxyMulder* /forum/post/14048510
> 
> 
> Nope i have read this thread and it's geared towards a video look....



It puzzles me how people say such things, especially after claiming to have read through the thread. Man on Fire looks like video? Pirates of the Caribbean? Rescue Dawn? Black Snake Moan? Shoot 'em Up? Looking like video has absolutely nothing to do with anything regarding the Tier Thread and contradicts with the placement of many titles.


And like I said a couple of weeks ago, I do find it a bit comical that this thread is both accused of being biased for and against grain at the same time











> Quote:
> You do not take into account the look that a director or cinematographer was intending



Non sequitur?



> Quote:
> you are biased against those films which have even a little grain



Example? Proof?


Brandon


----------



## giggle




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14048899
> 
> 
> It puzzles me with the lack of reading comprehension, logic or attention span it takes to say such things. Man on Fire looks like video? Pirates of the Caribbean? Rescue Dawn? Black Snake Moan? Shoot 'em Up? Looking like video has absolutely nothing to do with anything regarding the Tier Thread and contradicts with the placement of many titles.
> 
> 
> And like I said a couple of weeks ago, I do find it a bit comical that this thread is both accused of being biased for and against grain at the same time
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Non sequitur?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Example? Proof?
> 
> 
> Brandon



POTC IMO does seem more like a video than a film. Black Snake Moan and Man on Fire are good examples of the tier system and are very good transfers. I cannot comment on the others as I haven't seen them.


----------



## FoxyMulder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *natrone06* /forum/post/14048771
> 
> 
> Like what?



A recent example would be Patton....Excessive DNR but because its smooth people think it looks great...This film was shot on 65mm film and should look amazing with fine detail but DNR removes fine detail. In fact check out the Longest Day thread...Same thing has happened and it has excessive DNR and a smooth look that is not like film.


As for examples of films being placed low down the Tier thread because of grain or a certain look which might not please the eye candy crowd well i already mentioned Saw 4 and just look at the list and you will see films like Superman or Superman Returns which were deliberately shot with a soft focus lens and they are given lesser ratings just because the director had a vision and the cinematographer used softer lenses and people don't agree with that on this thread so it gets marked down as being horrible when it's not. Surely if what we get on Blu Ray is what you saw in the cinema ( softness and all ) then it should be applauded as it's true to the original version. Films like Predator which look excellent and have grain are rated low ( Yes the film has inconsistent shot scenes but thats how it looked at the cinema so why the low Tier 3 rating )


Your thread is also wrong...Lethal Weapon is not bobbed ( Lethal Weapon 2 is but not the first one )


I mean 28 Days Later is Tier 5 but what you see is what you saw in the cinema and it wasn't even filmed in high definition...I guess what i am saying is that the thread seems to place more importance on eye candy releases than how the film was shot or film stock used or how it was seen at cinema's.


I mean Evil Dead 2 should be Tier 5 as it's DNRed to death and the original THX DVD version has more detail than that mess.


Oh and Crank rated Tier 0.....Pumped up contrast and artificially added grain in post production resulting in obvious edge enhancement and yet there it is as a Tier 0 because it appeals to the eye candy crowd. Just in case you fail to believe its got edge enhancement then check out the stills at this site. http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/arc..._is_and_w.html - Good site which has some nice understanding of how film and video works. Crank is an example of a post production video look.


I can't take this thread seriously ( I'm sure you don't take me seriously either )


----------



## maverick0716

You just described the whole point of this thread FoxyMulder. This thread is NOT about directors intent. This thread IS about eye candy. I thought that was made pretty clear. I for one hate DNR, and will not recommend a DNR soaked title for the high level tiers.......but when a title looks like ass, director's intent or not, then it deserves a low spot in this Tier list.....that's how it was designed.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I just watched Shoot' Em Up on Blu-ray finally and was very impressed. It's clearly a Tier 0 movie and its current placement in the Tier list seems mostly correct, though If I had my druthers it would be closer to the bottom of Tier 0. Mr. Brooks and Spider-man 3 look better than it for my tastes.


The only problem on Shoot' Em Up is the strange color timing they obviously added in post-processing(whoever did it even gets a separate credit on the Blu-ray). It really messes with the fleshtones at times. Incredible detail and the high bitrate VC-1 encode(peaks in the 40's Mbps) preserves the grain structure of the film very nicely though. Unlike Pan's Labyrinth, New Line didn't use any DNR on this transfer. What's interesting is that Monica Belluci is not shot with any filters to obscure detail. Her face in 1080P holds up remarkably well for an actress of her age. Paul Giamatti's face does not though.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/14049334
> 
> 
> You just described the whole point of this thread FoxyMulder. This thread is NOT about directors intent. This thread IS about eye candy. I thought that was made pretty clear. I for one hate DNR, and will not recommend a DNR soaked title for the high level tiers.......but when a title looks like ass, director's intent or not, then it deserves a low spot in this Tier list.....that's how it was designed.



Nailed it. I too had some dubious opinions on the tier thread when I wasn't an active participant out here. In-fact I used to get in argument with few friends out here but as days passed by I realized the intentions of this thread and adjusted by opinions. Those lemon days are now gone and all I can say is that the PQ Tier Thread is 90~95% accurate which I think is pretty darn good. Even now I am not happy with the placement of few titles but that doesn't mean that this thread is a disgrace.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *357* /forum/post/14046273
> 
> 
> I just watched I Robot I'd say that it should be Tier 1 at best.



You're kidding, right? If not, you might consider having your eyes checked.


----------



## Decepticon07




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14049693
> 
> 
> You're kidding, right? If not, you might consider having your eyes checked.



Or maybe buy a new television


----------



## bonham2

I recently just finished watching Sopranos Season 6 Part 1 and 2. I am happy to say that they both are superior to the HBO HD broadcast, which was pretty decent. I felt that both seasons had a much more consistent colors and contrast, and I never once noticed the pixelation that was evident during fast scenes that was noticeable on the HD broadcast. I did not notice any EE or DNR at all throughout the entire 2 parts. Facial detail was near perfect. For a more specific breakdown, see below:

*Part 1* - *Recommendation: Tier 2 (1st quarter, near the top - Higher than Deja Vu)* Brightness and skin tones are handled very well. Hospital scenes show the coldness of a real hospital as opposed to so many tv dramas that show hospitals as dark places. Blacks were handled well, but there was some pixelation in dark areas of the Bing. Some detail was lost in dark areas. "Pop" effect minimal, long shots show good depth. Overall, I was very pleased with the transfer but not as much as...
*

Part 2* - *Recommendation: Tier 1 (2nd half - Lower than I Am Legend, somewhere around Rush Hour 3 and Untraceable)* Overall very similar to Part 1, but the improvement lies in the blacks and depth. Daytime shots look amazing, and the dark areas of the Bing are much clearer. Facial detail is even greater (or the actors just have more wrinkles and lines). You can see every whisker in A.J.'s face and even Meadow's mustache. It's worth noting that there were some instances of artifacts in both seasons, but they were not distracting. I noticed a few in pretty much every episode, but only when I looked for them.


EDIT: Sorry, I almost forgot. I viewed both seasons on my 52" Sony 1080p LCD from approx. 6ft. away.


----------



## JayPSU

I finally got around to seeing No Country For Old Men. In addition to being a great movie, the PQ was absolutely outstanding. In my opinion, this film should be in the top half of tier 1 instead of the bottom half. It looked every bit as good as National Treasure 2, if not better and it's in the top half of tier 1. Anyway, I'd bump it up.


Samsung LNT4065f 1080p

Samsung BD-1400

Viewing distance: 7-8 feet


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *357* /forum/post/14046273
> 
> 
> I just watched I Robot I'd say that it should be Tier 1 at best. Black Hawk Dawn looked way better than it did imo.






















I would put PQ and SQ in the ref category myself.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14048972
> 
> 
> It puzzles me how people say such things, especially after claiming to have read through the thread. Man on Fire looks like video? Pirates of the Caribbean? Rescue Dawn? Black Snake Moan? Shoot 'em Up? Looking like video has absolutely nothing to do with anything regarding the Tier Thread and contradicts with the placement of many titles.
> 
> 
> And like I said a couple of weeks ago, *I do find it a bit comical that this thread is both accused of being biased for and against grain at the same time
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *



Which, of course, actually means that this Tier Thread is probably pretty well balanced!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FoxyMulder* /forum/post/14049131
> 
> 
> I guess what i am saying is that the thread seems to place more importance on eye candy releases than how the film was shot or film stock used or how it was seen at cinema's.



Well......duh.


That very fact has been mentioned in this thread approximately 2 million three hundred sixty five thousand and thirty two times.


Including this post, make that 2 million three hundred sixty five thousand and thirty three times.


Give or take.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FoxyMulder* /forum/post/14049131
> 
> 
> A recent example would be Patton....Excessive DNR but because its smooth *people think it looks great*...



Are you seriously using this as an example to criticize the entire Tier Thread?


How many actual reviews of Patton are there in this thread? One? Two?


I don't think you know as much about this thread as you pretend to know.


Edit: I just checked. There was all of _one single review_ of Patton in this thread, but you use that single review as criticism of this thread, and make the statement that Patton has "Excessive DNR but because its smooth *people think it looks great*..." Really? What "people" are you referring to?


Please explain.


----------



## Decepticon07




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/14050300
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would put PQ and SQ in the ref category myself.




Agreed. I Robot is one of the best ref discs you can buy IMO.


----------



## lgans316

*My initial assessment of Patton*

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...n#post13959354 

*My request to disregard my initial assessment*

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...n#post14042904 


As Patton has been proven to be excessively DNR-ed I now recommend it to be placed in bottom of Tier-2 instead of bottom of Tier-1 by suffixing DNR tag or note.


----------



## tbonetommygun

lgans if i may ask where did the second screenshot of Patton come from, the one with grain and without DNR?


If Patton actually looks like that without DNR I don't see why they took it away in the first place... looks much better


edit: except for the green on the sides and edge lines on the black bars...


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbonetommygun* /forum/post/14050484
> 
> 
> lgans if i may ask where did the second screenshot of Patton come from, the one with grain and without DNR?
> 
> 
> If Patton actually looks like that without DNR I don't see why they took it away in the first place... looks amazing.



The second screenshot of Patton came from Amir who had fiddled with the BD image using Photoshop.


----------



## tbonetommygun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14050499
> 
> 
> The second screenshot of Patton came from Amir who had fiddled with the BD image using Photoshop.



lol... I'm sure the real thing would look even better then!


still Amir managed to make it a lot less blurry, and added his own grain i guess? lol


----------



## lgans316

But Mr.Robert Harris had confirmed that Patton was grain-raped, and the high frequency lopped off. So can't debate further. Let our eyes be the own judge.

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...nth-hd-bd.html 



> Quote:
> The Patton Blu and Pan Blu cannot be adequately compared.
> 
> 
> They are two totally different beasts.
> 
> 
> The loss of high frequency detail on Patton is probably equivalent to 50% of that of Pan, which would make Pan unviewable.
> 
> 
> Pan appears to have been de-grained with a light hand and a bit of elegance, and without removing all of the high frequency.
> 
> *Patton was grain-raped, and the high frequency lopped off.*
> 
> 
> But it is now prettier, and almost as good a film as it was previously.


----------



## alexg75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FoxyMulder* /forum/post/14049131
> 
> 
> A recent example would be Patton....Excessive DNR but because its smooth people think it looks great...This film was shot on 65mm film and should look amazing with fine detail but DNR removes fine detail. In fact check out the Longest Day thread...Same thing has happened and it has excessive DNR and a smooth look that is not like film.
> 
> 
> As for examples of films being placed low down the Tier thread because of grain or a certain look which might not please the eye candy crowd well i already mentioned Saw 4 and just look at the list and you will see films like Superman or Superman Returns which were deliberately shot with a soft focus lens and they are given lesser ratings just because the director had a vision and the cinematographer used softer lenses and people don't agree with that on this thread so it gets marked down as being horrible when it's not. Surely if what we get on Blu Ray is what you saw in the cinema ( softness and all ) then it should be applauded as it's true to the original version. Films like Predator which look excellent and have grain are rated low ( Yes the film has inconsistent shot scenes but thats how it looked at the cinema so why the low Tier 3 rating )
> 
> 
> Your thread is also wrong...Lethal Weapon is not bobbed ( Lethal Weapon 2 is but not the first one )
> 
> 
> I mean 28 Days Later is Tier 5 but what you see is what you saw in the cinema and it wasn't even filmed in high definition...I guess what i am saying is that the thread seems to place more importance on eye candy releases than how the film was shot or film stock used or how it was seen at cinema's.
> 
> 
> I mean Evil Dead 2 should be Tier 5 as it's DNRed to death and the original THX DVD version has more detail than that mess.
> 
> 
> Oh and Crank rated Tier 0.....Pumped up contrast and artificially added grain in post production resulting in obvious edge enhancement and yet there it is as a Tier 0 because it appeals to the eye candy crowd. Just in case you fail to believe its got edge enhancement then check out the stills at this site. http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/arc..._is_and_w.html - Good site which has some nice understanding of how film and video works. Crank is an example of a post production video look.
> 
> 
> I can't take this thread seriously ( I'm sure you don't take me seriously either )



I would advise you to NOT take this thread too seriously...I know I don't.

I certainly have my issues and diagreements with the this Tier system and the placement of the titles,however this thread was started as a reference for those looking for the "eye candy" discs to show off the advantage of TRUE High Definition on their displays.

That's it plain and simple!

And I'm not trying to defend this thread or any of the members who post in this thread,I understand where you are coming from.

But the fact of the matter is that the majority of the posters on this thread really don't understand or appreciate what filmakers' intent is when it comes to the overall "look" of a particular title and WHY it looks the way it does.

If a film is very dark,there are complaints about loss of shadow detail and black crush.

If a film has a soft,hazy look then it must be the fault of an insufficent bit-rate or the dredded use of DNR.

If a film has over or undersaturated colors then it must be the fault of the entire transfer itself.

If a film is too sharp and detailed then it has edge enhancement and so on and so on.

But what if the film is SUPPOSED to look that way?

Directors,cinematographers,producers and colorists all have direct input and control on the final product for the GOOD and the BAD-regardless of our own personal preferences and tastes,beacause we all see things differently,right?

So if you take this in account,then you would not or should not take this thread as the end-all-be-all of PQ assesment,'cause brother it's not what they are selling here.

If that's what you are looking for then stick with the "pro reviewers" on other sites or try the American Cinematographer site for true assesments of PQ from an artistic and knowledgeable perspective,that's what I do.

At the end of the day,I know what I like and I trust my eyes and therefore I take the purpose of this thread at face value.

But I applaud you for stating your opinions........


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FoxyMulder* /forum/post/14049131
> 
> 
> i already mentioned Saw 4 and just look at the list and you will see films like Superman or Superman Returns which were deliberately shot with a soft focus lens and they are given lesser ratings just because the director had a vision and the cinematographer used softer lenses and people don't agree with that on this thread so it gets marked down as being horrible when it's not. Surely if what we get on Blu Ray is what you saw in the cinema ( softness and all ) then it should be applauded as it's true to the original version.



I think this would be an example of why people have a hard time believing you've read through this thread.



> Quote:
> I can't take this thread seriously ( I'm sure you don't take me seriously either )










Aye, but would you care to know the rub? Your opinion still counts if you choose to participate in the thread, no matter how unseriously people would want to take it. And that, my friend, is why the thread has value.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *alexg75* /forum/post/14050830
> 
> 
> But the fact of the matter is that the majority of the posters on this thread really don't understand or appreciate what filmakers' intent is when it comes to the overall "look" of a particular title and WHY it looks the way it does.



I have to disagree with this part of your post. Just because a film isn't rated highly does not necessarily mean that the poster doesn't understand or appreciate why it has a given look. A distinction can, and is being made. Otherwise I agree with the majority of your post.


Brandon


----------



## lgans316

+1. Don't take this thread too seriously and come to conclusions. Aforementioned folks out here try to keep the placement as accurate as possible though it's inevitable to keep the list error free. As far as this thread is concerned one doesn't need to be Videophile or a professional MPA like Robert Harris. Always remember this good old proverb "To Err is Human, To Forgive is Divine". Nobody is perfect and I am a nobody.


Btw don't be surprised or offended to see Batman Begins being placed on low Tier-2 or High Tier-3 once it's out on BD even if Nolan demands for a Tier-0 placement.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *alexg75* /forum/post/14050830
> 
> 
> But the fact of the matter is that the majority of the posters on this thread really don't understand or appreciate what filmakers' intent is when it comes to the overall "look" of a particular title and WHY it looks the way it does.



Just because people in this thread downgrade a titles PQ because of drab colors, lack of shadow detail, or "softness" does not necessarily mean that they do not understand the film makers intent.


In fact, it means that they are giving their personal opinion on the overall PQ, _regardless of the film makers intent._ This is allowed in this thread. If you disagree with that, as you apparently do, at least you know and understand what this thread is about.....and it isn't the film makers intent.


I understand what the film makers intent was when they shot 28 Days Later on a camcorder. So lets assume that the Blu-ray captures the "film makers intent" 100% accurately. Should that title be placed in Tier 0? I think not. It looks like crap. Period. That's why it is placed near the very bottom of the list _despite the fact that it may very well capture the film makers intent 100% accurately._


This thread is not intended to be a film transfer reference list. Never was. Never will be.


----------



## maverick0716

Because of this Tier list, I can guarantee you that people just getting into the Blu Ray format, will be quite impressed when they view a Tier 0 movie. I know for a fact that some newbies pick a random movie as their first Blu experience (which could happen to be Tier 5) and be so disappointed that it turns them off of Blu Ray altogether, assuming that all discs will look the same. So this Tier list can act as quite a handy guideline for a lot of people. Just a thought.


----------



## lgans316

 http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/ 

*The Orphanage - Stair-stepping ahoy!*











> Quote:
> The Blu-ray release, unfortunately, is marred by the fact that it appears to have been taken from a source with a horizontal resolution of less than 1920 pixels. A certain blockiness is evident throughout in diagonal edges, which take on a stair-stepped quality: look, for example, at Fernando Cayo's nose in Shot 7 and Mabel Rivera's cheek in Example 9. Basically, it's like a less extreme version of the effect visible in Warner's early so-called "1080i upconverted" transfers. It's not dreadful, and it's somewhat ironic that the end result actually looks somewhat better than the full 1920x1080 The Golden Compass in all its noise reduced glory, but it's disappointing nonetheless. New Line's HD output, so far, has been pretty problematic to say the least, and it's a shame (but not entirely surprising) that reviewers haven't been picking up on these faults.


*My compass is pointing to DVNR*











> Quote:
> New Line were caught red-handed applying grain-reduction techniques to their Blu-ray and HD DVD version of Pan's Labyrinth, and ever since, the more observant of us have been keeping close tabs on their treatment of films in high definition. The good news is that The Orphanage, about which I shall be posting later today, managed to escape from their clutches unmolested, but The Golden Compass has not been so lucky. Posters at the AV Science Forum were quick to pick up on a waxy appearing affecting several shots, along with the pictures to prove it. None of this was conclusive, though, particularly given that some of the shots posted looked absolutely fine, so I decided to get hold of a copy of the disc to judge for myself.
> 
> 
> My copy arrived the previous Saturday, and, having now gone through it with a fine toothcomb, my overriding impression is that two things are going on here. First of all, certain actors, particularly Nicole Kidman, have been fleeced with the same technology that assaulted Johnny Depp's cheeks and nose in Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street and Milla Jovovich's face in Resident Evil: Extinction. As unpleasant as the results are, this is ultimately an artistic choice employed by the director and as such is not something for which we can blame the technicians who encoded the disc.
> 
> 
> Secondly, however, a fairly heavy grain reduction pass appears to have been applied to the entire film. I have no idea whether this was done to the original DI master, or specifically for the Blu-ray release, but either way the results are somewhat less than pleasant. This is something that can't really be conveyed with static screenshots, but the grain has stopped being moving detail and has instead become something more akin to a static pattern imposed upon the image. The process also appears to suck fine detail from objects such as walls, fabric and the actors' skin, resulting in an image that, much of the time, looks pretty synthetic and unappealing. It appears to be present throughout, but the fact that its severity seems to vary on a shot by shot basis (compare Daniel Craig's face in Shots 4 and 5) suggests to me that this was done on a per-scene basis at the DI stage.
> 
> 
> This is not a bad-looking disc, per se, but it's also pretty far removed from what film looks like. Perhaps this was what writer/director Chris Weitz intended for his movie, but, if so, his is not a taste that I share.


----------



## alexg75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/14050963
> 
> 
> Just because people in this thread downgrade a titles PQ because of drab colors, lack of shadow detail, or "softness" does not necessarily mean that they do not understand the film makers intent.
> 
> 
> In fact, it means that they are giving their personal opinion on the overall PQ, _regardless of the film makers intent._ This is allowed in this thread. If you disagree with that, as you apparently do, at least you know and understand what this thread is about.....and it isn't the film makers intent.
> 
> 
> I understand what the film makers intent was when they shot 28 Days Later on a camcorder. So lets assume that the Blu-ray captures the "film makers intent" 100% accurately. Should that title be placed in Tier 0? I think not. It looks like crap. Period. That's why it is placed near the very bottom of the list _despite the fact that it may very well capture the film makers intent 100% accurately._
> 
> 
> This thread is not intended to be a film transfer reference list. Never was. Never will be.



Yep and I know it.....

However based on this criteria there are still inconsistencies in the Tier system.

If this thread is solely about picking out and exemplifying the BEST looking titles on Blu Ray,then why have 6 tiers when there should only be ONE?

One tier would represent only the best looking titles and not the ones that fall short for whatever reasons including looking like crap inspite of the filmakers intent,ala 28 Days Later.

It just seems to me that there is way too much padding in these Tiers if in fact the original intention and goal was to highlight the best discs to show off a display with.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *alexg75* /forum/post/14051301
> 
> 
> Yep and I know it.....
> 
> However based on this criteria there are still inconsistencies in the Tier system.
> 
> If this thread is solely about picking out and exemplifying the BEST looking titles on Blu Ray,then why have 6 tiers when there should only be ONE?
> 
> One tier would represent only the best looking titles and not the ones that fall short for whatever reasons including looking like crap inspite of the filmakers intent,ala 28 Days Later.
> 
> It just seems to me that there is way too much padding in these Tiers if in fact the original intention and goal was to highlight the best discs to show off a display with.



Many posters have said they use the fact that a title is in a low tier as a basis for questioning whether they should buy it in terms of PQ. In addition, I think it is useful to have the various higher tiers (0, 1, and 2) as a basis for differentiating between the titles with good PQ and those with outstanding PQ.


----------



## lgans316

I feel that we can leave the tier system as-is. In future we can highlight the presence of NOTICEABLE film artefacts like Dirt, DNR, EE, Halos etc as a note like follows


Patton Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.20:1 | Fox [DNR]

Patton [DNR] Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.20:1 | Fox


Con Air [EE] Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Buena Vista

Con Air Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Buena Vista [EE]


----------



## SuprSlow

Man, what happened here?










I thought it's been long settled that this *IS* an eye-candy thread and nothing more. The tier descriptions aren't perfect and probably need revising since I know more than a few people take issue with the phraseology, but the implications of a tier ranking are obvious to the average joe who may or may not read this thread, in my opinion.


I think the idea of a separate thread to judge director's intent is a fallacy in that who are WE to decide if the softness of a BD is a reflection of a poor master, low bitrate, or director's intent? Since I seem to have misplaced Mr. Spielberg's cell phone number, and I doubt he or any other directors drop in to AVS on a daily basis, I think its a little presumptuous to rank anything in that way. But whatever, if someone wants to start a thread on that basis, I'd follow it and I'd probably participate if I could be convinced that muted colors or blown out shadows or something else we don't really understand is truly an intended effect.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14051082
> 
> http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/
> 
> *The Orphanage - Stair-stepping ahoy!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *My compass is pointing to DVNR*



Regarding his review of Kingdom of Heaven:


> Quote:
> *Having said that, this is certainly one of the best MPEG-2 encodes I've seen, perhaps beaten only by Sony's Resident Evil: Apocalypse*



While I believe RE2 looked better than RE1, I still wouldnt call it the best MPEG-2 encode.


Glad he found issue with the Orphanage, but not sure what made him think RE2 is a reference MPEG2 transfer.


----------



## bplewis24

Hopefully now that somebody has started a thread for "director's intent" or "theatrical accuracy," we won't have arguments as to why that isn't taken into account in this thread.


No more arguing (except over which film looks better than another)...eternal bliss










Brandon


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14052808
> 
> 
> Hopefully now that somebody has started a thread for "director's intent" or "theatrical accuracy," we won't have arguments as to why that isn't taken into account in this thread.
> 
> 
> No more arguing (except over which film looks better than another)...eternal bliss
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brandon



Where is this magical thread?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/14052888
> 
> 
> Where is this magical thread?


 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1037935


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/14052888
> 
> 
> Where is this magical thread?



You be good, now. I don't wanna cause no trouble.


Brandon


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14053339
> 
> 
> You be good, now. I don't wanna cause no trouble.
> 
> 
> Brandon













It's all good. I will even participate. However, my prediction is that this new thread will be of very limited value in light of the other threads that already exist.


----------



## vpn75

Anyone get "The Other Boleyn Girl" yet? It got great reviews for PQ on HighDefDigest.


The movie is kind of a guilty pleasure for me because of the two beautiful lead actresses


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vpn75* /forum/post/14053465
> 
> 
> Anyone get "The Other Boleyn Girl" yet? It got great reviews for PQ on HighDefDigest.
> 
> 
> The movie is kind of a guilty pleasure for me because of the two beautiful lead actresses



My copy arrived today. But I'm going to watch Jumper first.


----------



## SuprSlow

This week's releases:
*Jumper* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Fox
*The Bucket List* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 1.85:1 | Warner
*The Other Boleyn Girl* Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 1.85:1 | Sony
*Natural Born Killers* Video: VC-1 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 1.85:1 | Warner
*The Signal* Video: ? | Audio: ? | AR: 2.35:1 | Magnolia
*The Professionals* Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.35:1 | Sony
*Broken Trail* Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 1.78:1 | Sony
*Chicago and Earth, Wind & Fire: Live at the Greek Theatre* Video: ? | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Image
*Heart: Alive in Seattle* Video: ? | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Image
*Witless Protection* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Lionsgate
*Sea Monsters: A Prehistoric Adventure (IMAX)* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 1.78:1 | National Geographic
*Over Alaska in High Definition* Video: ? | Audio: DD | AR: 1.78:1 | Topics Entertainment
*Washington the Beautiful* Video: ? | Audio: DD | AR: 1.78:1 | Topics Entertainment
*The Missing* Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*27 Dresses*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13760337
> 
> *27 Dresses* looks really nice. The very great strength of the PQ on this is that the faces almost always look just about perfect (there are a few shots of Marsden in a taxi that look a little off). This is the best PQ in a movie of this type (present day romantic comedy) that I can recall. This is the way Enchanted should have looked but didn't. Fine job by Deluxe. High Tier 1 in my opinion.



Let me start out by saying that it is very rare indeed that when Patrick thinks something looks really good that I will disagree.


Unfortunately, this is most definitely one of those cases!


I am _very_ surprised that you think so highly of this Patrick! This was simply not a very good picture at all.


You are the king of looking at facial details and textures. In light of that, I don't understand how you could think highly of this title? There are no facial features to be found. None! The skin textures are nothing but a soft blurry mush. Not a skin pore to be found anywhere.


I definitely suspect DNR.


Add to the above the less than impressive colors, average contrast and lack of depth, I vote for the top of Tier 3.


I honestly do not believe that I have ever had such a wide ranging disagreement with Patrick than this.










I know that there is at least one other vote for Tier 3. It's current placement in mid Tier 2 is too high imo.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/14054758
> 
> *27 Dresses*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me start out by saying that it is very rare indeed that when Patrick thinks something looks really good that I will disagree.
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, this is most definitely one of those cases!
> 
> 
> I am _very_ surprised that you think so highly of this Patrick! This was simply not a very good picture at all.
> 
> 
> You are the king of looking at facial details and textures. In light of that, I don't understand how you could think highly of this title? There are no facial features to be found. None! The skin textures are nothing but a soft blurry mush. Not a skin pore to be found anywhere.
> 
> 
> I definitely suspect DNR.
> 
> 
> Add to the above the less than impressive colors, average contrast and lack of depth, I vote for the top of Tier 3.
> 
> 
> I honestly do not believe that I have ever had such a wide ranging disagreement with Patrick than this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know that there is at least one other vote for Tier 3. It's current placement in mid Tier 2 is too high imo.



Well, Rob, I will take another look at it in light of your comments. But I'm going to watch Jumper first.










Btw, thanks for expressing your agreement in that other thread.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/14054758
> 
> *27 Dresses*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me start out by saying that it is very rare indeed that when Patrick thinks something looks really good that I will disagree.
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, this is most definitely one of those cases!
> 
> 
> I am _very_ surprised that you think so highly of this Patrick! This was simply not a very good picture at all.
> 
> 
> You are the king of looking at facial details and textures. In light of that, I don't understand how you could think highly of this title? There are no facial features to be found. None! The skin textures are nothing but a soft blurry mush. Not a skin pore to be found anywhere.
> 
> 
> I definitely suspect DNR.
> 
> 
> Add to the above the less than impressive colors, average contrast and lack of depth, I vote for the top of Tier 3.
> 
> 
> I honestly do not believe that I have ever had such a wide ranging disagreement with Patrick than this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know that there is at least one other vote for Tier 3. It's current placement in mid Tier 2 is too high imo.



I'd have to agree with you on that one. I watched 27 Dresses last night and it was very "blah" to me. Not overly terrible, but certainly not up to par with Tier 1 titles (or most of Tier 2 for that matter).


----------



## alexg75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/14055456
> 
> 
> I'd have to agree with you on that one. I watched 27 Dresses last night and it was very "blah" to me. Not overly terrible, but certainly not up to par with Tier 1 titles (or most of Tier 2 for that matter).




Count me in on that as well,it looks very lackluster.I don't think that any DNR was used as there is a slight grain throughout the movie and the trailer pretty much looks identicle to the final release.

I believe many D.P.'s use a slight soft focus to help actors and actrsses look a bit more youthful.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Natural Born Killers*


tier recommendation: third quarter of *Tier 2*


I would first like to go through my history with this movie before I start my review. I saw it theatrically six or seven times when it was released in 1994 and have owned virtually every home video release of it. In total I have probably seen this film in its entirety close to fifty times(and now two times on Blu-ray). I knew going in that the source material would be very difficult to reproduce faithfully on Blu-ray, as Stone used a copious amount of filmmaker's tricks to achieve his vision of the movie. Frequent shots in 8mm and 16mm film, animation, time-lapse photography, heavy grain film stock, black and white shots, aping a tube television look, and the use of colored filters are just some of the techniques Stone uses during the course of the movie. This BD is the best I've seen the movie look since the theatrical run and blows away the various dvd versions.


Warner has finally and thankfully delivered an encode that is no mere HD DVD port. The 119 minute feature is encoded in VC-1 on a BD-50. Video bitrates stay mostly in the 28-33 Mbps range with occasional peaks in the 35-39 Mbps range. The personal highest peak I saw was 41.2 Mbps for a moment. If I had to guess the entire movie averages around 30 Mbps for video alone. It's really a wonderful compression job as there is no artifacting or banding, though I did notice some minor chroma noise for literally a few seconds. The inherent grain of certain scenes is preserved wonderfully and looks exactly like the theatrical presentation. There is absolutely no bit-starving here as the encode rarely goes below 24 Mbps.


The image starts relatively soft and gets sharper as the movie progresses which is consistent with what I saw in theaters. Compare the closeups from early in the movie to closeups in the prison riot. Detail starts out no better than a high tier 3 title and by the end the BD approaches tier 1 in terms of resolution. No DNR is apparent as the shots intended to look good have very good high frequency detail and grain looks very natural and consistent with no smearing. Depending on what camera is used some scenes have a very heavy grain structure which may bother some of those who don't like that.


There are two types of edge enhancement on this BD. There is the purposely added edge enhancement to certain scenes(the Rodney Dangerfield scenes for example) to ape a television set with the sharpness control jacked up. This is obvious and done by the director for artistic reasons and something I have no problem with. There are also some very minor edge haloes I noticed near the end of the movie during a few of the scenes set in the prison which have obviously been added at some stage that has nothing to do with director's intent. It's not intrusive and really only shows up if you are looking for it in a few background shots.


Black levels are very solid for a Tier 2 title with absolutely no macroblocking. Colors at times do look a little muted and flatter than what I remember, particularly in the first 30 minutes of the film. The only real quibble I had that didn't jibe with my memory was the pharmacy scene which is presented entirely in a neon green light. In the theaters the green seemed a little bolder and sharper than the BD's presentation, though I'm not sure a casual viewer would notice the difference. The color for that scene "popped" a little more in the theater. Contrast is decent, though obviously varies from scene to scene depending on what type of lighting is used. Mickey for example is frequently shot with a hellish red glow on his face.


The shape of the master is hard to assess. It looks decent considering that Stone purposely added dirt and lines to it for artistic effect in certain scenes. I do believe that some minor dirt that wasn't there originally has crept in to Warner's transfer. Parts of the Wayne Gale interview should be immaculate but a couple of black speckles pop up. It doesn't stand out though because much of the film's image is purposely shot dirty anyway.


As a huge fan of this movie I can recommend this Blu-ray without any hesitation and think it belongs in the third quarter of Tier 2 for picture quality, though I could see some placing it slightly lower near the lower end of Tier 2 due to the inherent way it was filmed. Warner has deemed this title worthy enough to include a Dolby TrueHD soundtrack for those interested. I'm not sure this movie could ever look better on Blu-ray as Warner has really delivered the goods this time.










Watching on a calibrated 60" Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p fed by a PS3 from an approximate viewing distance of five feet.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Nice review Phantom.


----------



## lgans316

Another excellent review by Mr.Phantom Stranger. Every review from him are spot on and definitely insightful than the reviews at HDD.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14057610
> 
> 
> Another excellent review by Mr.Phantom Stranger. Every review from him are spot on and definitely insightful than the reviews at HDD.



We need to sign that guy to a contract before he leaves us for another site.


Brandon


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14057792
> 
> 
> We need to sign that guy to a contract before he leaves us for another site.
> 
> 
> Brandon



No way. If he does that we will sue him with the help of lawyers out here.


----------



## lgans316

1) Rambo - Current placement is fine

2) Rambo II - Bottom of Tier-2 or Top of Tier-3

3) Rambo III - Bottom of Tier-2 or Top of Tier-3

4) Rambo IV - Top of Tier-2 or Bottom of Tier-1 (I had initially bashed the PQ but didn't realize that I was watching it at 480p due to a strange HDMI handshake issue which was later resolved. What an amazing ACTION movie.)

5) Black Rain - Top or Mid of Tier-3. Black levels way too low. Looks like Ridley Scott fell asleep during the filming.

6) Face/Off - Mid of Tier-3. Clearly inferior to the import due to excessive DNR and abundance of dirt/flecks. This one needs to be watched from a greater viewing distance to avoid getting offended by the inconsistent PQ.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants...thank you all but you guys do an excellent job yourselves. I just try to add my two cents and hold the studios accountable to producing the best looking Blu-rays they possibly can.


----------



## lgans316

I would like some of your inputs on NEXT which was shot using Panavision Genesis HD camera. To my eyes it looks like a Tier-1 material as the picture quality is crystal clear and exhibits decent amount of 3-dimensionality. The presentation has a glossy & polished HD look which we usually don't get to see with many titles. However one thing that can be annoying on NEXT is the presence of aliasing artefacts.


Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix > NCFOM.










Suprslow, Time to swap the placements of these titles.


----------



## alexg75

*NATIONAL TREASURE:BOOK OF SECRETS*

I just finished watching this today and was really impressed with the PQ on this disc.

I see it is currently placed before the half way point of Tier 1 Gold,which is waaaay to low.

Make no mistake,this is a great looking film on BR and it certainly deserves to be in Tier 0 Reference above Spider-Man 3.

From the get go,this title impresses with it's depth and natural detail.Nothing looks over-enhanced or edgy,nor does it look soft or hazy.

Facial details in faces,clothing and textures is top-notch,just taking a look at Ed Harris' face as an example,I could clearly see every line and wrinkle in every shot he is in.

Colors have been slightly tweaked in the DI/Post-Production process,but are not overly so.This affects the fleshtones ever so slightly but not to the point of distraction.

Black levels and shadow detail are incredibely deep and solid with little to no grain or noise present.At the same time there is an abundence of detail in the many dark scenes in the film,especially during the finale.

There is no black crush that I could spot,nor EE or any compression artifacts.

This is a really well shot film to start with and it transfered perfectly to BR.

As I stated the highlight for me is the amount of depth and dimension in every shot throught the film and the clarity of the very dark scenes.

Between this,No Country,Pirates and all their animated titles I'd say DISNEY is doing Blu Ray some HD justice.

Final recommendation:

TIER 0 BLUE

Viewed on a 1080p Pansonic Plasma @ 8 ft.

Thru HDMI with a Sony BDP-S300


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *alexg75* /forum/post/14059096
> 
> *NATIONAL TREASURE:BOOK OF SECRETS*
> 
> I just finished watching this today and was really impressed with the PQ on this disc.
> 
> I see it is currently placed before the half way point of Tier 1 Gold,which is waaaay to low.
> 
> Make no mistake,this is a great looking film on BR and it certainly deserves to be in Tier 0 Reference above Spider-Man 3.
> 
> From the get go,this title impresses with it's depth and natural detail.Nothing looks over-enhanced or edgy,nor does it look soft or hazy.
> 
> Facial details in faces,clothing and textures is top-notch,just taking a look at Ed Harris' face as an example,I could clearly see every line and wrinkle in every shot he is in.
> 
> Colors have been slightly tweaked in the DI/Post-Production process,but are not overly so.This affects the fleshtones ever so slightly but not to the point of distraction.
> 
> Black levels and shadow detail are incredibely deep and solid with little to no grain or noise present.At the same time there is an abundence of detail in the many dark scenes in the film,especially during the finale.
> 
> There is no black crush that I could spot,nor EE or any compression artifacts.
> 
> This is a really well shot film to start with and it transfered perfectly to BR.
> 
> As I stated the highlight for me is the amount of depth and dimension in every shot throught the film and the clarity of the very dark scenes.
> 
> Between this,No Country,Pirates and all their animated titles I'd say DISNEY is doing Blu Ray some HD justice.
> 
> Final recommendation:
> 
> TIER 0 BLUE
> 
> Viewed on a 1080p Pansonic Plasma @ 8 ft.
> 
> Thru HDMI with a Sony BDP-S300



I strongly disagree with any suggestion of a Tier 0 placement for NT 2. While facial closeups do look quite good, wider shots tend to look a bit soft. For example, the scenes in the palace in London should have looked much, much better than they do. The material that is being photographed is very detailed (flowers, ornate furniture, architectural details) but the images don't come close to capturing that detail in a way that would do it justice.


----------



## Schlotkins

I watched The Other Boleyn Girl last night. I wasn't in my usual viewing location (I was about 4/5 feet away versus my typical 7-8 feet) so I'll qualify my rating with that. Overall, the PQ was pretty good. Closeups had some detail, but I don't think it was a top Tier1 type picture or anything like that. I'd probably say upper tier2.


The movie itself was OK... I've been worse.

PS3 1080p -> Pioneer 5070.


----------



## bplewis24

This started off as a very strong transfer. The contrast runs a bit hot, but the level of fine detail was very strong. It seemed to taper off near the middle and end, for whatever reason. In situations of low-light where strong reds and greens dominated (night club scenes, for example), the detail and depth of field began to suffer. All in all, I'd say it's a pretty strong transfer, though. Grain in tact, and no DNR from what I can tell. As usual, I couldn't spot EE if it had a sign on it, so I never comment on that.


Mid to bottom of Tier 1.


PS3->1080p24->46XBR4 (8 feet)


Brandon


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Scary Movie*


tier recommendation: *????????*


This title is going to be very tough to accurately place in the Tier list. Without two significant flaws I would without hesitation recommend a Tier 0 placement for this BD. Unfortunately both DNR and edge enhancement afflict the final picture quality which has to be taken into consideration and I think a discussion of how much it should drop based on those two huge flaws is appropriate.


Buena Vista has encoded the 88 minute feature in AVC/Mpeg4 on a BD-25. Video bitrates range from 15 to 30 Mbps with virtually no activity outside that range. My best guess is that the average is 20 or 21 Mbps as much of the BD plays at 16-22 Mbps. The A/V specifications thread lists this title as having an average video bitrate of 20.02. The transfer is artifact free aside from one or two minor instances of banding in background wall shots. I suspect that so much high frequency detail has been filtered out that this transfer was easier to compress, hence the very low bitrate for a Disney BD.


We have all seen the screen caps floating around this forum of the heavy DNR that is used extensively in this BD. It is constant for the duration of the movie and really reduces all human skin textures to a plastic doll look. It really stands out in this transfer as the movie is shot very clean in well lit environments. Anyone that wants to know the look of DNR should watch this BD. There doesn't seem to be any of the typical artifacts associated with heavy DNR usage like tearing, but fine facial and skin detail is just obliterated.


This is simply one of the heaviest uses of DNR I've ever seen on Blu-ray. The only thing I can possibly think of for this is the movie features mostly 30-something actors playing the part of high schoolers(which is an actual joke from the movie). Maybe the director thought it would make all the actors appear younger. The DNR does have this effect as the actors in this movie appear at least 10 years younger than they really are. It's still a shame as high frequency detail looks no better than an upconverted dvd.


What was even more annoying to me was the oppressive use of edge enhancement seen in this Blu-ray. Viewers on larger screens can't miss all the edge halos and ringing seen in this transfer. This is classic textbook EE and at times it's overbearing. If a viewer can't see the EE on this BD they don't know what to look for or their display is not properly calibrated.


Now that I've gotten the two flaws out of the way, in many ways this BD is a Tier 0 title. Colors and fleshtones look as good as any I've seen with the entire movie having excellent contrast with no blooming or undersaturation. Black levels are perfect with good shadow information. Many scenes remind me of something shot from the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy. The source looks as good as a catalog title(this movie originally premiered in 2000) can with very few dirt specks. There is impressive depth and dimensionality to each scene that almost achieves that fabled 3D look. The entire movie is shot razor sharp with the focus never wavering.


It's a shame I can't recommend this title for Tier 0 but Disney/Buena Vista has really messed up the transfer. How many tiers should heavy EE and massive DNR drop a title if everything else is perfect? I think my final recommendation will be the bottom of Tier 1 with an asterisk note of EE and DNR added to it. But I could see how some would want to penalize it more for its failings. With a new transfer I have no doubt this would be a Tier 0 picture. Feel free to chime in on how much we should lower this particular title for these specific flaws.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14058592
> 
> 
> I would like some of your inputs on NEXT which was shot using Panavision Genesis HD camera. To my eyes it looks like a Tier-1 material as the picture quality is crystal clear and exhibits decent amount of 3-dimensionality. The presentation has a glossy & polished HD look which we usually don't get to see with many titles. However one thing that can be annoying on NEXT is the presence of aliasing artefacts.



I've been waiting on reports of how the UK version compares to the US version before buying this title. Are they the same transfer and compression?


----------



## b_scott

wow that's way too much analysis for such a bad movie.







(Scary Movie)


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briansemerick* /forum/post/14064544
> 
> 
> wow that's way too much analysis for such a bad movie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Scary Movie)



haha exactly what i was thinking


----------



## bori




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briansemerick* /forum/post/14064544
> 
> 
> wow that's way too much analysis for such a bad movie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Scary Movie)



You want to see and even worse movie on BD rent Meet the Spartans. (Horrible) Except for Carmen Elektra.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/14063729
> 
> 
> I've been waiting on reports of how the UK version compares to the US version before buying this title. Are they the same transfer and compression?



Next (U.K Import)

VC-1 BD-50

DTS-HD HR @ 2 Mbps CBR

Extras presented in Standard Definition

Bit rates all over the map


I found the Paramount version to be slightly sharper and better sounding than the Import but both suffer from aliasing artefacts. This doesn't mean the PQ is bad but can be distracting to purist who are viewing from a very close distance.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...V#post13622243


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14064893
> 
> 
> Next (U.K Import)
> 
> I found the Paramount version to be slightly sharper and better sounding than the Import but both suffer from aliasing artefacts. This doesn't mean the PQ is bad but can be distracting to purist who are viewing from a very close distance.



Thanks, I'll probably pickup the US version then.


----------



## bonham2

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 2* - 2nd 1/4


The Bucket List is one of the most inconsistent blu-rays I have seen yet. On one hand, Morgan Freeman and Jack Nicholson have never looked so crisp and clear...and awful (due to make-up not PQ). I could literally count every pore on their faces, every crater on Jack's face, and every freckle on Freeman's body. Morgan Freeman's hair was so crisp that it rivaled the rats in Ratatouille. There is noticeable grain, but it only leads to more detail. It is not distracting in the least. Also, I did not notice one compression artifact the entire movie.


In comparison, the ladies and supporting cast were a blurry mess. I definitely suspect some DNR because their faces were generally waxy and unfocused. One of the big scenes of the movie, the race-track scene, looked terrible, IMHO. Morgan Freeman was so blurry (again I suspect DNR) that the picture looked fake. Colors were distorted and were changing mid-scene. Overall, the colors were on the dull side with a few exceptions. Blacks and shadows were handled very well. It is possible that most of my complaints may be with the focusing and not with the transfer. If this is the case, I would certainly reconsider my recommendation.


Then there were amazingly beautiful scenes like on the mountain top or when the two men are at the pyramids (the lighting was unlike anything I've seen and I loved it). The few daytime scenes that were shown rivaled some of the best pictures I've seen on blu-ray.


Make no mistake about it, the majority of the movie is tier 1 material. Unfortunately, I found myself extremely distracted with the inconsistency of the picture and detail.


----------



## robertc88

For Face/Off, the star of the show is definitely the audio. I'd give Tier 2 for PQ utilizing my Panny display and BD player.


----------



## lgans316

I think Tier-2 is too high for Face/Off (Paramount). Tier-3 below Michael Clayton would be the right spot. Import version is miles better and consistent in terms of PQ.

*Rambo: First Blood Part II Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.20:1 | Lionsgate*


Wow. Looks pretty darn good for a catalog title. Good job Lionsgate. The image quality ranges from awesome to awful but mostly remains on the +ve side. It's currently placed above ID4 & Air Force One which I think is a tad high. However I have no objections if it's placed above Face/Off (Import) in bottom of Tier-2.


----------



## SuprSlow

Just to let everyone know, I'm headed out to the Great White North for a week or so.


I'll have internet access, but my involvement will be minimal until June 21st or whenever I recover


----------



## alexg75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/14069168
> 
> 
> Just to let everyone know, I'm headed out to the Great White North for a week or so.
> 
> 
> I'll have internet access, but my involvement will be minimal until June 21st or whenever I recover



Have a nice trip


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/14069168
> 
> 
> Just to let everyone know, I'm headed out to the Great White North for a week or so.
> 
> 
> I'll have internet access, but my involvement will be minimal until June 21st or whenever I recover



SuprSlow. You will soon receive an infraction notice from us for not doing your duties and going North.







Have a safe and nice trip.


----------



## stumlad

Tier 1, mid to upper.


First off, this is on a BD 25 and the file size is only 17 GB. I did not know this going in. I checked the bit-rate meter a few times throughout, and it was all over the place. As low as 7 mbps to as high as 49.5. When the higher bit-rate was needed, it was used.


The skin texture on Jessica Alba's face was pretty revealing, as were closeups of other actors. I'd have to say that this was definitely tier 0-1 closeups.

Grain was present and pretty consistent throughout except for a couple of the outdoor, night-time scenery shots (of buildings etc). These were extremely clean and appeared to be grain free which alarmed the DNR bell. The movie has the trailer on it which looks more grainier in the same dark scenery shots of the city. It could be that they lowered the contrast to reduce the grain, or it was DNR. I don't know. As a side note, the movie looks much better than the trailer.


Because of the content of the film, there were quite a number of out of focus shots (you'd have to see the movie to know why this was intentional). Outside of those it was pretty sharp throughout, and I'd argue it was better looking than the Orphanage, but these few issues knock it down some.


To me, besides Crank, this is the best looking Lionsgate movie so far -- belongs several spots ahead of Rambo which I believe is rated too high. This would be rated higher if it werent for the few things mentioned above.


----------



## stumlad

Tier 1, Middle


For some reason, I was expecting this movie to be on par with I, Robot as far as PQ, but it wasn't. The overall transfer was very good, but it wasnt as sharp as tier 0 titles. I checked the bit-rate meter a few times and it was mainly in the 30s. I didnt really notice any DNR, and closeups were impressive, but not quite as good as the better Tier 0 titles. There was a good amount of 3D pop and it was cool to see the visuals of some of the locations that the movie brings you to.


Some of the darker scenes didn't look as HD-like as the rest of the movie, and fine object detail, while extremely good was about on par with National Treasure 2. I would rank this movie somewhere in the middle of Tier 1.


----------



## lgans316

Rambo 1: Current placement is fine.

Rambo 2/3: Bottom of Tier-2 next to each other in no particular order.

Rambo IV: Bottom of Tier-1 or Top of Tier-2. Could have been slightly sharper and colorful as exhibited by the HD trailer.


----------



## maverick0716

Just watched Short Circuit tonight. Man, this one brings back a lot of childhood memories







. This is by far the best the movie has ever looked! I was expecting pure crap due to the 1080i transfer and being a not so popular old film. I was actually surprised on how much detail there was in a lot of scenes. Yes, there was a lot of softness throughout the movie, but some closeups were quite good. I pretty much agree with it's placement at the bottom of Tier 3, but I am happy with the transfer on it.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/14073410
> 
> 
> Tier 1, Middle
> 
> 
> For some reason, I was expecting this movie to be on par with I, Robot as far as PQ, but it wasn't. The overall transfer was very good, but it wasnt as sharp as tier 0 titles. I checked the bit-rate meter a few times and it was mainly in the 30s. I didnt really notice any DNR, and closeups were impressive, but not quite as good as the better Tier 0 titles. There was a good amount of 3D pop and it was cool to see the visuals of some of the locations that the movie brings you to.
> 
> 
> Some of the darker scenes didn't look as HD-like as the rest of the movie, and fine object detail, while extremely good was about on par with National Treasure 2. I would rank this movie somewhere in the middle of Tier 1.



I thought Jumper looked somewhat better than NT2, but apart from that I agree.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/14073410
> 
> 
> For some reason, I was expecting this movie to be on par with I, Robot as far as PQ



I think it's also interesting that you and I had the same expectations for this title in terms of PQ. I haven't gotten a chance to view it yet, however.


Brandon


----------



## lgans316

Looking at the HD trailer of Jumper in Patton BD I had to lower my expectations and now it looks to be a right decision.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14075120
> 
> 
> Looking at the HD trailer of Jumper in Patton BD I had to lower my expectations and now it looks to be a right decision.



Speaking of which, I received Patton from netflix yesterday. It's a shame they used so much DNR on this title, because otherwise it would've been a great transfer. Likely up there with the best of them.


Brandon


----------



## patrick99

I see that we are under attack once again:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FoxyMulder* /forum/post/14074075
> 
> 
> Someone in the Tier picture thread is saying Scary Movie should be in Tier 1 even though they recognize the DNR and EE....Arguing that the director intended that look as to make everyone look ten years younger ( This i know for a fact is untrue since it was on BBC1 last month and had no excessive DNR or EE added and looked good )
> 
> 
> I fear if 50% of people at AVS who are supposed to have more knowledge and experience about film are all too willing to accept DNR then what chance is there of the studio's adopting a less DNR more film grain and keep the detail intact strategy.


 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...5&postcount=46 



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Xylon* /forum/post/14074139
> 
> 
> Yeah I read that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Embarrassing. Thats why my fellow AVS rabble rousers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> don't participate there.


 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...9&postcount=47


----------



## FoxyMulder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14075832
> 
> 
> I see that we are under attack once again:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...5&postcount=46
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...9&postcount=47



Stop taking my post so seriously....I was shocked and at the same time found it humorous that anyone could print such rubbish about Scary Movie and then try to justify it's look by saying maybe it's what the director intended.


I saw this movie on BBC1 just last month and it can look very good.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14075832
> 
> 
> I see that we are under attack once again:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...5&postcount=46
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...9&postcount=47



Yeah, it's pretty sad that fellow forumers have to resort to that behavior. Especially since a large part of it stems from them not getting movies placed where they think it should be in this thread...so from then on their agenda has been to bash the tier thread unreasonably so (no, not you, Foxy). There's no need for either of these threads to bash the other...both are useful.


Brandon


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FoxyMulder* /forum/post/14075888
> 
> 
> Stop taking my post so seriously....I was shocked and at the same time found it humorous that anyone could print such rubbish about Scary Movie and then try to *justify* it's look by saying maybe it's what the director intended.
> 
> 
> I saw this movie on BBC1 just last month and it can look very good.



I don't think "justify" is an accurate characterization of the post. It was more whimsical speculation, and the poster was certainly not defending the DNR, as you suggest.


"Disney/Buena Vista has really messed up the transfer."

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...postcount=4885


----------



## lgans316

What an embarrassment to this thread when all posts in the other threads look hunky dory.











Please move on Man on Fire and I,Robot to Tier-6 under Area-51.


----------



## FoxyMulder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14075959
> 
> 
> I don't think "justify" is an accurate characterization of the post. It was more whimsical speculation, and the poster was certainly not defending the DNR, as you suggest.
> 
> 
> "Disney/Buena Vista has really messed up the transfer."
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...postcount=4885



Ok they really messed up the transfer then he goes on to suggest rating it Tier 1 but put a little message next to it saying EE and DNR is there.


So you want people to waste their hard earned money on garbage by rating it highly ?


Sorry but this has nothing to do with not getting my way with any Tier recommendations and more to do with the credibility of this thread which you will lose if you place Scary Movie in Tier 1.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FoxyMulder* /forum/post/14075998
> 
> 
> Ok they really messed up the transfer then he goes on to suggest rating it Tier 1 but put a little message next to it saying EE and DNR is there.
> 
> 
> So you want people to waste their hard earned money on garbage by rating it highly ?
> 
> 
> Sorry but this has nothing to do with not getting my way with any Tier recommendations and more to do with the credibility of this thread which you will lose if you place Scary Movie in Tier 1.



I don't see Scary Movie located in Tier 1.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14075959
> 
> 
> I don't think "justify" is an accurate characterization of the post. It was more whimsical speculation, and the poster was certainly not defending the DNR, as you suggest.
> 
> 
> "Disney/Buena Vista has really messed up the transfer."
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...postcount=4885



I seriously hope that is *not* the post in question that they are referring to. What an embarassment on their part if it is.


Brandon


----------



## FoxyMulder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14076021
> 
> 
> I don't see Scary Movie located in Tier 1.



That was the suggestion from the post....Of course he was asking for further debate on the subject and hey guess what i am giving some debate by saying it looks crap.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FoxyMulder* /forum/post/14075998
> 
> 
> Ok they really messed up the transfer then he goes on to suggest rating it Tier 1 but put a little message next to it saying EE and DNR is there.
> 
> 
> So you want people to waste their hard earned money on garbage by rating it highly ?
> 
> 
> Sorry but this has nothing to do with not getting my way with any Tier recommendations and more to do with the credibility of this thread which you will lose if you place Scary Movie in Tier 1.



I take back the part where I said "no, not you Foxy." And you speak from a position of credibility? Give your opinion of where the title should be placed instead of bashing another's well-informed, articulate, and entirely reasonable opinions of where the title *could* be placed (he didn't even formally say where it should go, for Christ's sake). I'm surprised you would stoop to the level of the other members on this forum with an agenda.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FoxyMulder* /forum/post/14076037
> 
> 
> and hey guess what i am giving some debate by saying it looks crap.



Wow, your well-reasoned and detailed explanation of where this title should go has much more merit than Phantom's. I hereby officially dismiss Phantom's original review as embarassing










Brandon


----------



## FoxyMulder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14076066
> 
> 
> I take back the part where I said "no, not you Foxy." And you speak from a position of credibility? Give your opinion of where the title should be placed instead of bashing other's well-informed, articulate, and entirely reasonable opinions of where the title *could* be placed (he didn't even formally say where it should go, for Christ's sake). I'm surprised you would stoop to the level of the other members on this forum with an agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, well your well-reasoned and detailed explanation of where this title should go has much more merit than Phantom's. I hereby officially dismiss Phantom's original review as embarassing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brandon



I'm commenting specifically on Scary Movie.....Am i not allowed to question a person's post when they make such a huge error of judgment in thinking that mess is watchable. I have had my posts questioned in the past and will again and i know it's nothing personal because when i am wrong i tend to come out and admit it.


I don't claim to have any credibility but i know when a company has released garbage and are trying to sell it as a quality product....I mean come on can you seriously even place Scary Movie on this thread....You need a whole new tier category just for it...Something like Tier 6 "The worse than DVD Tier"


Lastly i have no agenda i am just shocked at how bad Scary Movie is and how someone can give it any credibility whatsoever when in reality all copies of it should be buried in the Nevada desert.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FoxyMulder* /forum/post/14076037
> 
> 
> That was the suggestion from the post....Of course he was asking for further debate on the subject and hey guess what i am giving some debate by saying it looks crap.



I would have thought that if someone genuinely wanted to debate a comment that was posted in this thread they would engage in that debate in this thread rather than commenting on the post in other threads.


----------



## FoxyMulder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14076149
> 
> 
> I would have thought that if someone genuinely wanted to debate a comment that was posted in this thread they would engage in that debate in this thread rather than commenting on the post in other threads.



Since the other threads were actually connected to the DNR debate it was appropriate to post there and let the community know that there is a very uphill struggle ahead with regards to convincing people that the smooth look is not always good....So hey i apologise if i have offended you or anyone else but i didn't get into high definition just to end up with terrible looking transfers with all the detail removed.


----------



## bonham2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sharkcohen* /forum/post/13928859
> 
> 
> I think American Psycho needs to be pushed down to Coal. It's an edge enhanced mess.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zinfamous* /forum/post/13911715
> 
> 
> eh, just remind yourself that you buy and watch movies for their overall, not simply b/c they look pretty (digitally--outside of cinematography, I mean.)
> 
> 
> (ya, I know...not what this thread is about)
> 
> 
> I've watched American Psycho maybe 15 times. The business card scene is one of my favorites out of American films over the last 10 years or so
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sucks though that the source appears to suffer from mishandling on the BD.



I'm sure you guys know that there are people that buy movies based on this thread. I bought American Psycho used because I had a buy 2 get 3 free deal and I needed one more to get free. I watched it thinking it was going to be terrible, and I was pleasantly surprised.


The way I understand the tiers, tier 5 is supposed to be "Only slightly better than DVD.Visible artifacting, softness, quality rivals upconverted DVD."


I popped in my AP DVD and this one blows it out of the water. Yes it is an edge enhanced mess and the DNR is completely overbearing, but I don't think the picture is THAT BAD. Bale (and all of the other men) have a very "plasticy" look to them, but I have always thought that this was intentional, you know, artistic choices... (I may be wrong. I never saw it in a theater.)


I don't really expect a tier bump nor do I care about it's placement. I just wanted to throw in my 2 cents. If you like the movie, don't let it's placement scare you away. For my money, the audio alone is worth the price of admission (free in my case







)


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FoxyMulder* /forum/post/14076171
> 
> 
> it was appropriate to post there and let the community know that there is a very uphill struggle ahead with regards to convincing people that the smooth look is not always good.



Foxy, look at it this way...or at least note that this is how I am viewing this from my perspective: You took an unnecessary shot across the bow and implied that the poster in question is naive to DNR and EE issues on transfers and thus the AVS community needs to fight against that naive viewpoint.


However, this is what the review in question consists of:



> Quote:
> We have all seen the screen caps floating around this forum of the heavy DNR that is used extensively in this BD. It is constant for the duration of the movie and really reduces all human skin textures to a plastic doll look. It really stands out in this transfer as the movie is shot very clean in well lit environments. Anyone that wants to know the look of DNR should watch this BD. There doesn't seem to be any of the typical artifacts associated with heavy DNR usage like tearing, but fine facial and skin detail is just obliterated.
> 
> 
> This is simply one of the heaviest uses of DNR I've ever seen on Blu-ray. The only thing I can possibly think of for this is the movie features mostly 30-something actors playing the part of high schoolers(which is an actual joke from the movie). Maybe the director thought it would make all the actors appear younger. The DNR does have this effect as the actors in this movie appear at least 10 years younger than they really are. It's still a shame as high frequency detail looks no better than an upconverted dvd.
> 
> 
> What was even more annoying to me was the oppressive use of edge enhancement seen in this Blu-ray. Viewers on larger screens can't miss all the edge halos and ringing seen in this transfer. This is classic textbook EE and at times it's overbearing. If a viewer can't see the EE on this BD they don't know what to look for or their display is not properly calibrated.



Now, after saying all of that (which is essentially what you've been saying yourself, sans the supposition regarding director's mind state), he goes on to ask:



> Quote:
> How many tiers should heavy EE and massive DNR drop a title if everything else is perfect?
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> Feel free to chime in on how much we should lower this particular title for these specific flaws.



So obviously he is just as informed as anybody needs to be with regards to the EE and DNR on this specific title and discusses it at length. Not only that, but asks for discussion with regards to how much the title should be docked for it. Instead of taking him up on that, the action by some members is to bash the review and essentially mischaracterize it and indict the credibility of the Tier Thread because of it.


That is completely unnecessary and the shoe could easily be on the other foot.


Brandon


----------



## 1FAST951




bonham2 said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sharkcohen* /forum/post/13928859
> 
> 
> I think American Psycho needs to be pushed down to Coal. It's an edge enhanced mess./QUOTE]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you guys know that there are people that buy movies based on this thread. I bought American Psycho used because I had a buy 2 get 3 free deal and I needed one more to get free. I watched it thinking it was going to be terrible, and I was pleasantly surprised.
> 
> 
> The way I understand the tiers, tier 5 is supposed to be "Only slightly better than DVD.Visible artifacting, softness, quality rivals upconverted DVD."
> 
> 
> I popped in my AP DVD and this one blows it out of the water. Yes it is an edge enhanced mess and the DNR is completely overbearing, but I don't think the picture is THAT BAD. Bale (and all of the other men) have a very "plasticy" look to them, but I have always thought that this was intentional, you know, artistic choices... (I may be wrong. I never saw it in a theater.)
> 
> 
> I don't really expect a tier bump nor do I care about it's placement. I just wanted to throw in my 2 cents. If you like the movie, don't let it's placement scare you away. For my money, the audio alone is worth the price of admission (free in my case
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )
> 
> 
> 
> *X2*
> 
> 
> I own this movie and agree with you that it's placement is way too low. Tho the PQ has issues, frankly it's not THAT bad to deserve such a low placement.
> 
> 
> And also like you, don't particularly care if it's moved up or not. While I very much appreciate this thread and the work that goes into maintaining it I personaly don't agree with a lot of the placements, but I'm a newbie, my equipment is substandard so what do I know?
> 
> 
> The only reason for my posting is to advise folks that if they've enjoyed this movie in the past, at least rent it in BR. It has, in my opinion, much better PQ in BR than in SD. You might enjoy it enough to buy the BR disc.
Click to expand...


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14076149
> 
> 
> I would have thought that if someone genuinely wanted to debate a comment that was posted in this thread they would engage in that debate in this thread rather than commenting on the post in other threads.



Exactly right.


The problem here (there are many actually) with Foxy is the fact that he has done the exact same thing before. He blasts the entire Tier thread based on single reviews, instead of taking the thread as a whole.


Remember this one?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FoxyMulder* /forum/post/14049131
> 
> 
> A recent example would be Patton....Excessive DNR but because its smooth *people think it looks great*...



And I responded:



> Quote:
> Are you seriously using this as an example to criticize the entire Tier Thread?
> 
> 
> How many actual reviews of Patton are there in this thread? One? Two?
> 
> 
> I don't think you know as much about this thread as you pretend to know.
> 
> 
> Edit: I just checked. There was all of _one single review_ of Patton in this thread, but you use that single review as criticism of this thread, and make the statement that Patton has "Excessive DNR but because its smooth *people think it looks great*..." Really? What "people" are you referring to?
> 
> 
> Please explain.



Of course there was no response by Foxy to this. Why? Because there is no way to defend his unfair characterization of this Thread?


This recent example re Scary Movie is every bit as bad, and probably worse. Unbelievable really. Not only is he referring to a single review, but that very review *specifically indicated that the transfer has DNR and EE, and that they messed up the transfer*!


He apparently is upset that the review would still consider it for Tier 1 *even though the movie has NOT been moved to Tier 1*, and doesn't even engage in discussion about it _as requested by the reviewer_!


Foxy, I don't know what your agenda is, but you really need to try harder to be more objective and see things as they really are. You are certainly not doing a very good job of it lately, sorry to say.


----------



## b_scott

i think there's a difference between accuracy to the original print and general PQ. i don't think DNR pieces should automatically be criticized. at least in this thread. but that's just me.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briansemerick* /forum/post/14077742
> 
> 
> i think there's a difference between accuracy to the original print and general PQ. i don't think DNR pieces should automatically be criticized. at least in this thread. but that's just me.



If it detracts from the picture quality, you bet they should be criticized. Although, if that same DNR title still looks better than other non DNR'd titles, it should still get a proper tier placement......regardless of the use of DNR.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briansemerick* /forum/post/14077742
> 
> 
> i think there's a difference between accuracy to the original print and general PQ. i don't think DNR pieces should automatically be criticized. at least in this thread. but that's just me.



As you can see with 2 out of the last 5 posts, it goes both ways. 1Fast and bonham feel a title has been unfairly dropped into Tier 5 simply because of EE. Foxy believes a title should be in Tier 6 because of DNR and EE while I'm betting most people won't judge it as harshly. (I can remember Waiting being in Tier 5 before I and another said it was at least Tier 3/4. The main reason it was in Tier 5 was DNR).


Anyhow, bottom line is each should be taken on a case-by-case basis. Foxy fundamentally disagrees with Phantom's placement because he or she feels excessive DNR makes it worthless. I don't think that's reasonable in principle. However, both understand and acknowledge that the DNR and EE is detrimental to the PQ on a significant level. The question is how much do you dock it? Phantom has docked it ~2 Tiers already. Some may agree with that and some may disagree. To each their own. Make your case and live with it...or don't and decide that a psuedo-democratic Tier Thread just isn't for you


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bonham2* /forum/post/14076407
> 
> 
> I'm sure you guys know that there are people that buy movies based on this thread. I bought American Psycho used because I had a buy 2 get 3 free deal and I needed one more to get free. I watched it thinking it was going to be terrible, and I was pleasantly surprised.
> 
> 
> The way I understand the tiers, tier 5 is supposed to be "Only slightly better than DVD.Visible artifacting, softness, quality rivals upconverted DVD."
> 
> 
> I popped in my AP DVD and this one blows it out of the water. Yes it is an edge enhanced mess and the DNR is completely overbearing, but I don't think the picture is THAT BAD. Bale (and all of the other men) have a very "plasticy" look to them, but I have always thought that this was intentional, you know, artistic choices... (I may be wrong. I never saw it in a theater.)
> 
> 
> I don't really expect a tier bump nor do I care about it's placement. I just wanted to throw in my 2 cents. If you like the movie, don't let it's placement scare you away. For my money, the audio alone is worth the price of admission (free in my case
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )



I agree...it is Tier 3 at _worst_


----------



## Phantom Stranger

The Scary Movie review I did speaks for itself. To the average untrained HD consumer this BD looks excellent and what I imagine they would likely consider as "Tier 0" for image quality. My personal opinion was dropping it to the bottom of Tier 1 for its faults of DNR and ringing was the right call and I still believe that. I can see how others might want to drop it further into Tier 2 or even Tier 3 but I don't speak for others, only myself.


To FoxyMulder, to where should we place this particular Blu-ray in the PQ Tier list? Have you viewed this BD in its entirety?


----------



## bonham2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/14079210
> 
> 
> I agree...it is Tier 3 at _worst_



It seems like enough people are unhappy with the placement. Why don't we take a vote.


I say *tier 3 - 2nd 1/4* over Evil Dead 2.




I know the DNR argument has been going on for a while, but I really think this thread (or the TC) needs to establish some sort of DNR guideline. Suggestions have been made to discount it, to mark movies off for it, or for "DNR" notes to be put next to it. Evil Dead 2 is probably the worst DNR I have seen and yet that one is pretty high up on the list, relatively speaking. Personally, I don't have a problem with DNR when it is used *sparingly*.


Interestingly enough, the same people that complain about DNR seem to be the same people that complain about excessive grain like in the 2nd half of Predator. If they had "cleaned" the grain out of that, people would be complaining about a lack of detail. It's definitely a touchy subject, and I don't pretend to have the answer.


----------



## 1FAST951




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bonham2* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> It seems like enough people are unhappy with the placement. Why don't we take a vote.
> 
> 
> I say *tier 3 - 2nd 1/4* over Evil Dead 2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know the DNR argument has been going on for a while, but I really think this thread (or the TC) needs to establish some sort of DNR guideline. Suggestions have been made to discount it, to mark movies off for it, or for "DNR" notes to be put next to it. Evil Dead 2 is probably the worst DNR I have seen and yet that one is pretty high up on the list, relatively speaking. Personally, I don't have a problem with DNR when it is used *sparingly*.
> 
> *Interestingly enough, the same people that complain about DNR seem to be the same people that complain about excessive grain like in the 2nd half of Predator. If they had "cleaned" the grain out of that, people would be complaining about a lack of detail. It's definitely a touchy subject, and I don't pretend to have the answer.*


*EXACTLY!!!*


I for one am a confirmed grainphobic as in prejudiced against grain not "fear of grain"







and given a choice can put up with a bit extra DNR over a bit extra grain.










But that is just me, my personal preference, a compromise I can live with.


So how do we find that happy place in our "psuedo-democratic Tier" (nice one Brandon)?










And tho I prev. said I really didn't care if it was moved I do agree that AP should be somewhere around tier 3 - 2nd 1/4.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FoxyMulder* /forum/post/14076037
> 
> 
> That was the suggestion from the post....Of course he was asking for further debate on the subject and hey guess what i am giving some debate by saying it looks crap.



With all due respect Foxy, I would suggest, after reading your last few posts, that you *tie up your legs and start chewing bubblegum* (if you're still out, I'll buy you some)!


----------



## kinggroin

I agree with the folks saying this movie is too low in placement. I've watched in on a 50" RPCRT and 90" DLP Projector, and while there is _some_ EE here and there, and _some_ DNR (though I swear it looked liked this on tape and dvd), It's still leaps and bounds better than it's counterparts.


MUCH better (especially skin tones, contrast and color).


Upper Tier 3.


----------



## lgans316

It's clear that few of our friends aren't happy with this tier thread due to their lack of understanding of the motto of this thread and how each Tier is categorized. If anyone feels frustrated with the tier thread then cool down. You haven't been physically abused or harmed or robbed off your wallet. So kindly stay away and refrain from bad mouthing or ranting about this thread in the other sections. Aforementioned the listing is 90-95% accurate. No one out here is a rocket scientist to precisely assess and pick the right spot. I think it's time to move on and stay away from distractions.

*There Will Be Blood* : 30 minutes left.


PQ is all over the place as it fluctuates between Top of Tier-3 and Bottom of Tier-0 but mostly sits on the borderline demarcating Tier-1 and Tier-2. The image maintains a sharp film-line quality with slightly less 3D effect, very few film artefacts and possesses quality of being demo Material at parts especially after the half way mark and exhibits excellent pop after the 1 hr 20 minutes mark due to shift of color palette. The close-ups look sharp but some distant shots exhibits slightly less HD pop. There is a thin layer of fine grain noticeable, skin tones don't look waxy and there is nothing to nitpick on the bit rates which remain healthy and peaks 40+ Mbps many times. Due to the muted color palette and black level inconsistencies during the first half of the presentation I recommend top Tier-2 placement probably below Rocky Balboa. Overall an excellent job done by the BD engineers at Paramount.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*There Will Be Blood*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14080456
> 
> *There Will Be Blood* : 30 minutes left.
> 
> 
> PQ is all over the place as it fluctuates between Top of Tier-3 and Bottom of Tier-0 but mostly sits on the borderline demarcating Tier-1 and Tier-2. The image maintains a sharp film-line quality with slightly less 3D effect, very few film artefacts and possesses quality of being demo Material at parts especially after the half way mark and exhibits excellent pop after the 1 hr 20 minutes mark due to shift of color palette. The close-ups look sharp but some distant shots exhibits slightly less HD pop. There is a thin layer of fine grain noticeable, skin tones don't look waxy and there is nothing to nitpick on the bit rates which remain healthy and peaks 40+ Mbps many times. Due to the muted color palette and black level inconsistencies during the first half of the presentation I recommend top Tier-2 placement probably below Rocky Balboa. Overall an excellent job done by the BD engineers at Paramount.



I just watched this last night, and your review here nearly perfectly reflects my thoughts on it as well, so you saved me a lot of typing!










The overall PQ seems to _improve_ quite a bit later in the film. It becomes sharper and more defined (in the daylight scenes).


The dark/night scenes are pretty bad. Black levels are terrible. Shadow detail sucks. Lots of scenes early in the movie are dark, so the PQ is not very impressive. Luckily, things improve nicely later on.


Some of the daylight scenes are very impressive. Very natural looking, with good detail and no signs of DNR. Colors are natural if not slightly muted, to perfectly compliment the backdrop of the story.


With the exception of the problems in the darker scenes (which lgans also points out) this would be a Tier 1 title. As it is, I completely agree with the high Tier 2 recommendation.


Re the movie itself: it wasn't what I was expecting. Day-Lewis is a tremendous actor (probably the best working today). But the story wasn't really about oil nearly as much as it was a character study. Not necessarily a bad thing, just not what I was expecting. Not a great movie, but still highly recommended simply for the performance that Daniel Day Lewis gives.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/14079318
> 
> *The Scary Movie review I did speaks for itself.* To the average untrained HD consumer this BD looks excellent and what I imagine they would likely consider as "Tier 0" for image quality. My personal opinion was dropping it to the bottom of Tier 1 for its faults of DNR and ringing was the right call and I still believe that. I can see how others might want to drop it further into Tier 2 or even Tier 3 but I don't speak for others, only myself.



It certainly does!


And I hope any criticism that you got (completely unwarranted in my opinion) doesn't dissuade you from continuing to provide your much appreciated reviews.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/14082798
> 
> *There Will Be Blood*



I voted for High Tier 2 just like you guys










Brandon


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14084839
> 
> 
> I voted for High Tier 2 just like you guys
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brandon



Both Rocky Balboa and Donnie Brasco are better looking than this movie. I would say Mid Tier 2.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

So we still only have one review in this thread for Patton?


I just finished watching it......


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/14085431
> 
> 
> So we still only have one review in this thread for Patton?
> 
> 
> I just finished watching it......



I have about 1 hour left of it and so far I'm learning towards low Tier 2.


Brandon


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/14085295
> 
> 
> Both Rocky Balboa and Donnie Brasco are better looking than this movie. I would say Mid Tier 2.



Donnie Brasco had a good vibrant picture but exhibited softness and halos on many occasions. IMO it looks slightly inferior to TWBB which retains very good sharpness and texture details.


Just my opinion.










Now watching - Black Rain - PQ is quite good and consistent than the bottom Tier-2 titles except for the black levels which is way too low. Btw this one is directed by THE legendary Ridley Scott. This is currently placed in Tier-3 which I feel is low. Will post my thoughts later.


----------



## bonham2

Just finished watching Untraceable, and I wasn't blown away by the picture. It may be a perfect recreation of the theatrical picture, but it is still not want I would consider demo material. Colors are under-saturated creating a dullness to the film that reminds me of DVD quality.


If that isn't enough, I never really felt I was looking at an HD picture. There is no detail to their faces, and I couldn't help but feel that skintones were ever-changing from scene to scene.


Don't get me wrong, this is still a nice picture, but not tier 1 qualty, IMHO. If tier 1's are supposed to be demo or semi-demo material, then this does not qualify. IMO, the very definition of tier 2 defines this BD better than anything I can say:


"The image maintains a sharp film-like quality throughout which looks real, with less 3-D effect than Tier 1 and video artifacts are far and few in between."
*

Tier Recommendation - Tier 2 - 1st half towards the top.*


EDIT: I always forget this part. 52" Sony 1080p LCD from ~ 6ft. on PS3


----------



## b_scott

*One Missed Call*


awful movie. looked decent though, some pop though rarely. not much if any noise. blue blacks on some darker scenes though.


i place it lower tier 2.


Pio 5010 from 9.5'


----------



## lgans316

Could someone out here post your thoughts on Signs ?







I am sitting on the fence on this one.


----------



## maverick0716

The Bucket List is a very good looking BD overall. I found close up facial details to be among the best available on Blu Ray......but not all the time. Like another review on this suggests, it's not consistent throughout the whole movie. Some scenes exhibited tremendous amounts of detail, while others seemed slightly out of focus. Colours and black levels were very natural, and definitely nothing to complain about. I'd say, even with it's inconsistencies, this is still a low Tier 1 disc........anything lower than the top of Tier 2, would be too low in my opinion.


42" Panasonic Plasma (768p)

PS3 though HDMI

6-7 ft.


----------



## mbird

I just finished watching _Unforgiven_. There were some shots that looked outstanding, especially the sequence with English Bob inside the train. But the scenes at night looked soft and I thought I saw macroblocking during some shots with rain. Also, I'm not sure if there was DNR applied as I saw almost no grain throughout the film - it may account for the lack of detail in the night scenes, but it was hard to tell on my family's smallish set.


I'd put it in *upper tier-3*, or even *bottom tier-2*.


----------



## HDphile22

Please Rank Jessica Alba's The Eye


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDphile22* /forum/post/14086931
> 
> 
> Please Rank Jessica Alba's The Eye



SuprSlow would be MIA till 20-Jun-2008. So expect the updates to happen after Jun/20.


----------



## bonham2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/14073410
> 
> 
> Tier 1, Middle
> 
> 
> For some reason, I was expecting this movie to be on par with I, Robot as far as PQ, but it wasn't. The overall transfer was very good, but it wasnt as sharp as tier 0 titles. I checked the bit-rate meter a few times and it was mainly in the 30s. I didnt really notice any DNR, and closeups were impressive, but not quite as good as the better Tier 0 titles. There was a good amount of 3D pop and it was cool to see the visuals of some of the locations that the movie brings you to.
> 
> 
> Some of the darker scenes didn't look as HD-like as the rest of the movie, and fine object detail, while extremely good was about on par with National Treasure 2. I would rank this movie somewhere in the middle of Tier 1.



+1


I agree. Very nice, clear picture but not tier 0 material.


----------



## jostenmeat

Igans, Rob, bplewis. I would certainly trust your opinions more than "some other guy", but I just watched *There Will Be Blood* last night. I thought the PQ was superb, top-notch. While Tier 2 seems very, very harsh to this noobie, after taking a look at some top tier-1 and tier-0s, yes they have great PQ. The thing is I think TWBB is right up there with the best of them.


Personally, I think its tier0, or at least high tier-1. Shadow detail and gradations seemed excellent. Colors that seemed muted to you guys seemed accurate to me. I wouldn't notice a shift of color palette, but mind you different scenes had very different lighting (sun directly in the face, or late afternoon, or mid-day, etc). I never detected any DNR. This noobie, however, couldn't spot EE or banding if it hit me in the head.


Just my vote. You can even weight my vote as less (say 1/10 yours'), but please consider my opinion.







For me its right up there with at least Casino Royale, Black Book (which has more pop, but I do think its movie-dependent, fancy parties etc), Rescue Dawn, Black Hawk, Apocalypto, Galapagos, Orphanage, Mr Brooks. TWBB will not be my demo disc for 15 min showings, or to show off my subwoofer, etc, but I think the PQ is fantastic for what it is.


just my humble opinion. The movie won't have quite as impressive as a color palette as some other movies, but I think its due to the content in great part. The various levels of natural (or artificial) lighting were very impressive I thought, and gave the movie subtle variations in setting in a postitive way. As for subjective opinion on the content, I give it top marks.


-jostenmeat


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jostenmeat* /forum/post/14089365
> 
> 
> Igans, Rob, bplewis. I would certainly trust your opinions more than "some other guy", but I just watched *There Will Be Blood* last night. I thought the PQ was superb, top-notch. While Tier 2 seems very, very harsh to this noobie, after taking a look at some top tier-1 and tier-0s, yes they have great PQ. The thing is I think TWBB is right up there with the best of them.
> 
> 
> Personally, I think its tier0, or at least high tier-1. Shadow detail and gradations seemed excellent. Colors that seemed muted to you guys seemed accurate to me. I wouldn't notice a shift of color palette, but mind you different scenes had very different lighting (sun directly in the face, or late afternoon, or mid-day, etc). I never detected any DNR. This noobie, however, couldn't spot EE or banding if it hit me in the head.
> 
> 
> Just my vote. You can even weight my vote as less (say 1/10 yours'), but please consider my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For me its right up there with at least Casino Royale, Black Book (which has more pop, but I do think its movie-dependent, fancy parties etc), Rescue Dawn, Black Hawk, Apocalypto, Galapagos, Orphanage, Mr Brooks. TWBB will not be my demo disc for 15 min showings, or to show off my subwoofer, etc, but I think the PQ is fantastic for what it is.
> 
> 
> just my humble opinion. The movie won't have quite as impressive as a color palette as some other movies, but I think its due to the content in great part. The various levels of natural (or artificial) lighting were very impressive I thought, and gave the movie subtle variations in setting in a postitive way. As for subjective opinion on the content, I give it top marks.
> 
> 
> -jostenmeat



I appreciate the review.


It is a very nice looking Blu-ray, with the _major_ exception being the dark scenes. Blacks were horrible. The PQ varied quite a bit from the beginning to end too. Tier 2 is a pretty good placement imo.


----------



## lgans316

Thanks jostenmeat for your comments. This tier thread is based upon the eye candy quality of the picture and not absolute PQ. We all know that the PQ was top notch on TWBB but due to the very nature of the thread and it's rules we can't recommend it to be placed higher. IMO even Ocean's trilogy have to be placed in top of Tier-2 or bottom of Tier-1 as it truly reflects the director's intentions but I simply cannot recommend them to be placed higher as it would defeat the purpose of this thread.


----------



## bplewis24

Nice review josten...the more the merrier (and all weighted equally







)

Brandon


----------



## b_scott

*Semi-Pro* definitely looks good and probably deserves the Gold tier. however, movie sucks.......


----------



## jostenmeat

Thx for the interesting replies Igans/Rob/Bp. _I will simply defer_, but once you walk away I might start scratching my head.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/14054758
> 
> *27 Dresses*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me start out by saying that it is very rare indeed that when Patrick thinks something looks really good that I will disagree.
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, this is most definitely one of those cases!
> 
> 
> I am _very_ surprised that you think so highly of this Patrick! This was simply not a very good picture at all.
> 
> 
> You are the king of looking at facial details and textures. In light of that, I don't understand how you could think highly of this title? There are no facial features to be found. None! The skin textures are nothing but a soft blurry mush. Not a skin pore to be found anywhere.
> 
> 
> I definitely suspect DNR.
> 
> 
> Add to the above the less than impressive colors, average contrast and lack of depth, I vote for the top of Tier 3.
> 
> 
> I honestly do not believe that I have ever had such a wide ranging disagreement with Patrick than this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know that there is at least one other vote for Tier 3. It's current placement in mid Tier 2 is too high imo.



I've taken another look at 27 Dresses, Rob, in response to your comments, and I agree my initial evaluation was probably too generous, but I think that you are being too harsh in yours. The kind of facial detail that you refer to (pores, etc.) is ordinarily visible (in other titles) only in fairly extreme close-ups, and this movie just really doesn't have those extreme close-ups, which I think is something of a flaw in and of itself. The whole movie pretty much is just medium shots. One of the insiders recently criticized current releases as having too many extreme close-ups, but this one suffers from the opposite problem. I would note though, that shots of the actor playing Heigl's father look pretty detailed.


Have I mentioned that the thing that bothers me most about the movie (having nothing to do with PQ) is the fact that the coffee cups (including paper ones) are always empty? Reminds me of that scene early in the EE of FOTR in the Green Dragon where the beer mugs are empty.


----------



## ballen420




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briansemerick* /forum/post/14091306
> 
> *Semi-Pro* definitely looks good and probably deserves the Gold tier. however, movie sucks.......



I watched this last week and didn't even want to comment on it. The stupid Old Spice commercials had more laughs then this movie.


It was a painful movie to watch, I didn't really nitpick the PQ, I thought it was good, but not worthly of tier 1. Probably the upper half of tier 2, below 30 Days of Night and Deja Vu.


Awful week for movies - I suffered through the pain of AVP-R as well. Terrible movie, extremely dark throughout, and the blacks were awful. I think this belong lower then it's placed now - bottom half of tier 2.


----------



## bonham2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ballen420* /forum/post/14093319
> 
> 
> Awful week for movies - I suffered through the pain of AVP-R as well. Terrible movie, extremely dark throughout, and the blacks were awful. I think this belong lower then it's placed now - bottom half of tier 2.



Really. I thought it was a pretty good picture (movie was at least entertaining, even if kind of dumb, IMO). I did notice some crushed blacks, and the ending was especially dark, but Alien movies always look like that. What are you viewing on? Are you sure it's calibrated correctly? Then again, it's perfectly possible that we just have different opinions


----------



## mbird

*Rescue Dawn* looked outstanding. It's current placement in Tier 0 is fine. The only flaw I could find was that there were some small specks throughout the film, but everything else was perfect.


----------



## HDphile22

Is it safe to say Masters of Horror: Season I, Volume I is also Silver?


----------



## ballen420




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bonham2* /forum/post/14093643
> 
> 
> Really. I thought it was a pretty good picture (movie was at least entertaining, even if kind of dumb, IMO). I did notice some crushed blacks, and the ending was especially dark, but Alien movies always look like that. What are you viewing on? Are you sure it's calibrated correctly? Then again, it's perfectly possible that we just have different opinions



I thought there were parts that were really sharp, but I thought the crushed blacks really set the PQ back (especially with the majority of the movie being dark). I have a calibrated 46" XBR4, watching through PS3 1080p/24 at about 7 or 8 feet.


Part of my issue may have been that I started watching it at dusk, so it was still a little light out in the beginning. I'm not sure if I could watch it again though to see if my opinion changes seeing it in total darkness.


I'm a huge fan of the Alien and Predator movies too, but they keep getting worse with each sequel.


----------



## b_scott

should've just done Predator 3 instead of AVP. and a new Alien movie. but that's neither here nor there.


----------



## HDphile22

I think it's safe to say all these Nature Blu-rays in the unreviewed are also all Tier 0-Tier 1 rank.


----------



## HDphile22

Is Punisher really Coal tier?


I wonder why http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/punisher.html said it was awesome?


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDphile22* /forum/post/14095796
> 
> 
> Is Punisher really Coal tier?
> 
> 
> I wonder why http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/punisher.html said it was awesome?



Look at the date of the review. Reviewers simply had no accurate scale to judge Blu-ray at that point. And HDD's reviews in general are of very little value when it comes to assessing picture quality. Does anyone want to go through and list their greatest mistakes in reviewing?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14092122
> 
> 
> I've taken another look at 27 Dresses, Rob, in response to your comments, and I agree my initial evaluation was probably too generous, but I think that you are being too harsh in yours. The kind of facial detail that you refer to (pores, etc.) is ordinarily visible (in other titles) only in fairly extreme close-ups, and this movie just really doesn't have those extreme close-ups, which I think is something of a flaw in and of itself. The whole movie pretty much is just medium shots. One of the insiders recently criticized current releases as having too many extreme close-ups, but this one suffers from the opposite problem. I would note though, that shots of the actor playing Heigl's father look pretty detailed.
> 
> 
> Have I mentioned that the thing that bothers me most about the movie (having nothing to do with PQ) is the fact that the coffee cups (including paper ones) are always empty? Reminds me of that scene early in the EE of FOTR in the Green Dragon where the beer mugs are empty.



Thanks for the follow up Patrick. I no longer have the movie, so no further follow ups from me. I will stand by my original review though, and I strongly suspect DNR here. I thought there were certainly enough scenes showing faces close enough that you would normally be able to see skin textures, but of course there weren't any.


Funny you mention the empty coffee cups..it was very noticeable.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Patton*


As everyone probably knows, this title has created some controversy elsewhere on this site, and other sites, because of the use of DNR (and EE). Some think it looks great, others think it is complete trash, and even prefer to watch the SD DVD over the Blu-ray version!


Let me get right to the point: Patton certainly does appear to have had DNR applied (I also noticed some EE, but it was minor). Faces to have that waxy appearance. What is so disappointing about this is the fact that the movie really looks great otherwise! Colors are excellent. Contrast is quite good.


I would really love to see what this title would look like without the apparent DNR, because I really think that it has the potential to look rather spectacular. Possibly even being a very top Tier 1 nominee.


Make no mistake about it though: this version is _much_ better than any DVD version, despite the DNR.


The question I am left with is how much to deduct for the DNR. In reality I should just make a recommendation based on the overall look of the disc, DNR and all. I think 3/4 the way down in Tier 2 would be appropriate. It actually looks good overall......but I think it could have been much better without the DNR.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDphile22* /forum/post/14086931
> 
> 
> Please Rank Jessica Alba's Eye



I think her eye is very pretty. Definitely Tier 1 at least.


Brandon


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/14096819
> 
> *Patton*
> 
> The question I am left with is how much to deduct for the DNR. In reality I should just make a recommendation based on the overall look of the disc, DNR and all. I think 3/4 the way down in Tier 2 would be appropriate. It actually looks good overall......but I think it could have been much better without the DNR.



I'll 2nd this. I was torn between bottom of Tier 2 or deducting lower for the DNR. Bottom line is it could've been a pretty high Tier 1 title if not for the DNR. I'd try and give a more in-depth review, but I just got back from a torturous day of jury duty










Brandon


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14097211
> 
> 
> I think her eye is very pretty. Definitely Tier 1 at least.
> 
> 
> Brandon



lol


----------



## b_scott

just got Almost Famous (UK) and i wish it had less grain. but it looks pretty good besides that (even though there's not a lot of pop):


----------



## lgans316

*Shooter Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: DD | AR: 2.40:1 | Paramount*


Jaw dropping PQ from start to finish. Razor sharp picture, vibrant colors, natural contrast, terrific deep & crushed blacks and ship load of three dimensional imagery filled with tremendous HD pop. Zero film artefacts. Despite few soft looking scenes Shooter is perfect demo material for all category of audience. Thanks to Paramount for throwing us an awesome looking title using a high bit rate MPEG-2 encode.

















The biggest disappointment is the no show of lossless audio and few focus puller shots. I was frustrated to see the top menu getting LPCM 1.5 Mbps bit rate in comparison to the actual presentation which features just DD AC3 audio @640 Kbps.










IMO Shooter should be placed in bottom of Tier-0 or Top of Tier-1.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14097852
> 
> *Shooter Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: DD | AR: 2.40:1 | Paramount*
> 
> 
> Jaw dropping PQ from start to finish. Razor sharp picture, vibrant colors, natural contrast, terrific deep blacks and ship load of three dimensional imagery filled with tremendous HD pop. Zero film artefacts. This is perfect demo material for all category of audience. Thanks to Paramount for throwing us an awesome looking title using a high bit rate MPEG-2 encode.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest disappointment is the no show of lossless audio. I was frustrated to see the top menu getting LPCM 1.5 Mbps bit rate in comparison to the actual presentation which features just DD AC3 audio @640 Kbps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMO Shooter should be placed in bottom of Tier-0 or Top of Tier-1.



So this is not just a port over from the HD-DVD (which looked pretty darn good to begin with)?


----------



## lgans316

Nope. Not a HD DVD port which was AVC encoded @20 Mbps. I am now getting a feeling that reviewers deliberately downgrade the score as soon as they see MPEG-2.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14097945
> 
> 
> Nope. Not a HD DVD port which was AVC encoded @20 Mbps. I am now getting a feeling that reviewers deliberately downgrade the score as soon as they see MPEG-2.



I think it is a very good sign that Paramount didn't just port this over from the HD-DVD.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14097945
> 
> 
> Nope. Not a HD DVD port which was AVC encoded @20 Mbps. I am now getting a feeling that reviewers deliberately downgrade the score as soon as they see MPEG-2.



Paramount almost never did HD DVD ports to Blu-ray. You have to remember that Shooter came out initially when the format war was raging and many reviewers would just wave their hand and say the transfers looked identical even when the discs did not in fact. I pay very little attention to BD reviews from before the great capitulation of Toshiba because many if not most of the online reviewers were openly rooting for HD DVD to win the format war and let their biases into the review process. High bitrate MPEG2 can look very good though it seems to be a dying codec for Blu-ray.


----------



## alexg75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/14096761
> 
> 
> Thanks for the follow up Patrick. I no longer have the movie, so no further follow ups from me. I will stand by my original review though, and I strongly suspect DNR here. I thought there were certainly enough scenes showing faces close enough that you would normally be able to see skin textures, but of course there weren't any.
> 
> 
> Funny you mention the empty coffee cups..it was very noticeable.



Rob I pretty much agree with your thoughts on 27 Dresses' PQ,but you keep mentioning that you suspect that DNR was used in the transfer because of the lack of textures.

I stated previously that the lack of textures and the slightly soft and grainy look IS intentional and part of the original photography,don't believe me?

Just take a look at every trailer of the film and they look virtually identicle to the final release.

I don't want to start the whole artistic intent issue again,but in this case the underwhelming look of 27 Dresses is NOT the fault of DNR.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briansemerick* /forum/post/14097758
> 
> 
> just got Almost Famous (UK) and i wish it had less grain. but it looks pretty good besides that (even though there's not a lot of pop):



I voted for bottom Tier-2 as the picture didn't pop until the point where Stillwater enters New York City. The grain on this can be quite distracting at times.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *alexg75* /forum/post/14098356
> 
> 
> Rob I pretty much agree with your thoughts on 27 Dresses' PQ,but you keep mentioning that you suspect that DNR was used in the transfer because of the lack of textures.
> 
> I stated previously that the lack of textures and the slightly soft and grainy look IS intentional and part of the original photography,don't believe me?
> 
> Just take a look at every trailer of the film and they look virtually identicle to the final release.
> 
> I don't want to start the whole artistic intent issue again,but in this case the underwhelming look of 27 Dresses is NOT the fault of DNR.



Thanks Alex. As I have said before, I still do not consider myself an expert by any means when it comes to identifying DNR with accuracy. All I can do is describe what I actually see. In this case, what I didn't see was skin texture/detail, which led me to believe that DNR was being used. I never said it was being used for a fact, but merely that I suspected it.


I don't recall calling it "grainy" though.


In any event, are you saying that the look was achieved merely with soft focus, or in post? Because it didn't look like a soft focus effect to me at all.


----------



## salbah3ng_bata




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14097852
> 
> *Shooter Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: DD | AR: 2.40:1 | Paramount*
> 
> 
> Jaw dropping PQ from start to finish. Razor sharp picture, vibrant colors, natural contrast, terrific deep blacks and ship load of three dimensional imagery filled with tremendous HD pop. Zero film artefacts. This is perfect demo material for all category of audience. Thanks to Paramount for throwing us an awesome looking title using a high bit rate MPEG-2 encode.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest disappointment is the no show of lossless audio. I was frustrated to see the top menu getting LPCM 1.5 Mbps bit rate in comparison to the actual presentation which features just DD AC3 audio @640 Kbps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMO Shooter should be placed in bottom of Tier-0 or Top of Tier-1.



I def agree, PQ is very good. Should be top of tier 1 or lower tier 0. Mpeg-2 Transfers can look crazy good, evident from this and Crank.


----------



## H.Cornerstone




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/14097896
> 
> 
> So this is not just a port over from the HD-DVD (which looked pretty darn good to begin with)?



Shooter was actually released on blu-ray before they made the switch back in july of 07. Since it's still mpeg 2, its the exact same disc that was released back then. But it still looks good and the exact same as the VC-1 HD-DVD.


It came out like a week or two before they made the switch though IIRC, so not too many were made.


I don't know if this answers your question or not though.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *H.Cornerstone* /forum/post/14106379
> 
> 
> Shooter was actually released on blu-ray before they made the switch back in july of 07. Since it's still mpeg 2, its the exact same disc that was released back then. But it still looks good and the exact same as the VC-1 HD-DVD.
> 
> 
> It came out like a week or two before they made the switch though IIRC, so not too many were made.
> 
> 
> I don't know if this answers your question or not though.



Now that you mention it, it may have been the Blu-ray version that I rented previously, not the HD-DVD. I just don't remember.


----------



## alexg75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/14098784
> 
> 
> Thanks Alex. As I have said before, I still do not consider myself an expert by any means when it comes to identifying DNR with accuracy. All I can do is describe what I actually see. In this case, what I didn't see was skin texture/detail, which led me to believe that DNR was being used. I never said it was being used for a fact, but merely that I suspected it.
> 
> 
> I don't recall calling it "grainy" though.
> 
> 
> In any event, are you saying that the look was achieved merely with soft focus, or in post? Because it didn't look like a soft focus effect to me at all.



Well judging by the trailers as well as the movie itself,I would say that the D.P. used a combo of very soft lighting with softer lenses and filters,plus some tweaks in the D.I./post process.

Yeah I did see a light grain throughout the film,especially in the interior of the cab scene betwwen the lead two characters.

Mind you I only saw the movie once,but because I wasn't involved in the story,I had plenty of time to notice the PQ







.

I also saw the trailer a few times as it was on the JUNO BR in full HD and it looks virtually identicle.Same lack of detail,same grain and overall soft appearence.

I am by no stretch of the imagination an expert myself,I just am a film fanatic and I have read and continue to read and research a great deal about filmaking and the technicians involved.

I remember reading that old school cinematographers used to put vasoline or silk stockings on the lenses to give a soft,glowing look for close-ups of actresses.


----------



## salbah3ng_bata

I just rewatched Black Hawk Down today and got a totally different experience from the first time I watched it. I upgraded my tv so yeah. Regarding the movie, I believe Shooter should be placed higher than BHD. BHD is good and some scenes are solid Tier 0 material, but the whole movie isn't like that. It's quite grainy too, but that doesn't bother me at all. I'm not docking points for that, I think its just not as good looking as Shooter. It def should be above BHD. Fifth Element is currently on top of BHD, I watched on my old tv and it looked damn good. I'll place my judgment on that when I re-watch it. But as of now its def Shooter PQ>BHD PQ.


----------



## gnolivos

Watched Bucket List on BR, using a 1080p 105" diag projector. One of the most detailed and crisp discs I have seen so far. Plenty of contrast throughout, delivering the 3D pop we all love. The detail on facial closeups is absolutely incredible. For the most part, shots in this disc are demo material. Some other shots are slightly softer, but still deliver the goods.


This is probably top of the GOLD list.


----------



## lgans316

*Sweeney Todd (Import) Video: VC-1 | Audio: Dolby True HD | AR: 1.85:1 | Warner*


Aforementioned the PQ ranges from very good to excellent. The scene after the opening credits exhibits lots of grain which was reported by experts to be present in the source material. Besides this the rest of the picture is near demo material with lots of crisp and sharp image with reasonable amount of HD pop. Some minor halos are visible in the colorized shots though it didn't look distracting to me. Digital airbrushing has been applied only on Todd's cheek. A moderate veneer of grain is visible throughout the presentation but adds in preserving fine details. The black levels on few scenes are too deep exposing very minimal shadow details. Check out Chapter 19 which easily ranks among the best image I have ever seen on Blu-ray. Most parts of the movie has terrific PQ and wonderful fine object and texture detailing despite the subdued color palette.


On the technical front this BLU has an average video bit rate of 24 Mbps. The bit rate on this BD is all over the place but mostly remains on the sweet spot and I am very pleased that Warner didn't disappoint on this sensitive area.


To sum up ST is one among Warner's best looking Blu-ray till date.

*Tier recommendation:* Tier-1 1/2

*Shinobi*


I felt the opposite of Phantom Stranger and other reviewers who have lauded the PQ.


At first glance, the picture quality seems to look like a perfect HD material. But take a second look to realize the kind of an average presentation this one is due to poor cinematography. The aerial view of the mountains during the climax was the only shot that exhibited true HD pop. Rest of the presentation including close-ups looked way too soft and flat . The color filters used in the movie can easily fool us by deceiving the actual PQ. The PQ of Shinobi reminds me of Last Samurai on many aspects. The film like image doesn't offer the crispness and the sharpness that most of us are accustomed to seeing with the other Blu-rays.

*Tier recommendation:* Tier-3 below The Last Samurai


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Bee Movie*


Tier 0!


Awesome.


Nuff said.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/14121443
> 
> *Bee Movie*
> 
> 
> Tier 0!
> 
> 
> Awesome.
> 
> 
> Nuff said.



Above Cars & Ratatouille or below it ?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14121714
> 
> 
> Above Cars & Ratatouille or below it ?



Below.


I would put it just above TMNT (which may be a little high on the list as it is).


----------



## maverick0716

The Other Boleyn Girl is a very solid disc. Very, very, good use of colour throughout the film......very vibrant. Detail ranged from high Tier 1 to mid Tier 2. I'd say a good overall ranking of this one would be high Tier 2.


42" Panasonic Plasma (768p)

PS3 through HDMI

6-7 ft.


----------



## b_scott

well that's just like.... your opinion, man...


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14123697
> 
> 
> Something is wrong with the placement of many titles in Tier-1.
> 
> *Troy (Director's Cut) > NCFOM*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shinobi: Special Edition - Should be in bottom of tier-2 or in top of tier-3
> 
> The Fifth Element (Remastered) - should be in bottom of tier-1
> *I am Legend should be below 3:10 to Yuma*
> 
> Rambo should be on top of I am Legend



Agree on bolded comments


----------



## General Kenobi




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14123857
> 
> 
> Agree on bolded comments



x2


I also agree with you on Rambo...


----------



## bplewis24

Agreed on Patricks agreement of the bolded comments.


Brandon


----------



## General Kenobi

I also think NT2 should be up closer to Fifth Element Remastered and The Patriot but I may need to watch these again.


I may have overlooked it but has Jumper been ranked yet?


----------



## Lookilook




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14123697
> 
> 
> Something is wrong with the placement of many titles in Tier-1.
> 
> 
> The Fifth Element (Remastered) - should be in bottom of tier-1



Agreed! If that's top of tier-1 then Black hawk down should be middle of tier-0.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14123968
> 
> 
> Agreed on Patricks agreement of the bolded comments.
> 
> 
> Brandon



I agree that No Country should be higher in Tier 1 than it is. Though that damn compression noise in the sky may be the biggest reason it is where it is... Troy does not have this problem.


I also agree with lgans that Fifth Element definitely needs to be moved down to lower tier 1. Yes, it looks better than the previous release, but it's overrated. Both Troy and NCFOM look better than this.


I dont agree than Rambo should be above I am Legend though. Rambo is top tier 2 at best IMO.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/14124397
> 
> *I agree that No Country should be higher in Tier 1 than it is. Though that damn compression noise in the sky may be the biggest reason it is where it is... Troy does not have this problem.*
> 
> 
> I also agree with lgans that Fifth Element definitely needs to be moved down to lower tier 1. Yes, it looks better than the previous release, but it's overrated. Both Troy and NCFOM look better than this.
> 
> 
> I dont agree than Rambo should be above I am Legend though. Rambo is top tier 2 at best IMO.



I would move Troy down, not move NCFOM up. Troy's problems are much more serious than NCFOM's compression noise in the sky.


----------



## bplewis24

That's what I was thinking too, Patrick.


Brandon


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14124946
> 
> 
> I would move Troy down, not move NCFOM up. Troy's problems are much more serious than NCFOM's compression noise in the sky.



Guess it's time for me to rewatch it.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Tier 3 seems awfully harsh on Shinobi. The only scene that I thought was around that quality was the forest battle at night where the black levels get clipped a little. And I generally thought detail was consistently better than a Tier 2 or Tier 3 title, though there are some soft moments scattered throughout. I will have to rewatch Last Samurai to see how it compares.


I'm not ready to give a final recommendation on Patton yet but after viewing it once I think lgns316's initial assessment of it was very good. Maybe a touch too high only because of the known DNR and edge enhancement issues. The DNR used on Patton looks wholly different and to my eyes less offensive than the absolute waxjob that something like Scary Movie had applied to it. Though I do agree with Mr. Harris that 70mm film-sourced BDs should have even more detail apparent than what ended up on the Patton Blu-ray. It still looks better than I could have ever imagined. It is just a shame knowing that it could have looked even better. I guess we can expect a double dip in 3 years.


----------



## lgans316

Thanks Phantom. Please re-watch Last Samurai to assess the true PQ of Shinobi. Many reviewers praised Last Samurai for it PQ but they didn't realize that it only looked marginally better than an upscaled DVD.


----------



## bplewis24

This doesn't appear to be a bad looking film, however it seems unnecessarily soft for much of the movie. Especially Billy Bob Thornton's face. Does he have an abnormally smooth face or was it intentionally softer than others'?


Having said that, I believe it's worthy of Tier 2. Mid to bottom.


PS3->1080p24->46XBR4 (8 feet)


Brandon


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14128496
> 
> 
> This doesn't appear to be a bad looking film, however it seems unnecessarily soft for much of the movie. Especially Billy Bob Thornton's face. Does he have an abnormally smooth face or was it intentionally softer than others'?
> 
> 
> Having said that, I believe it's worthy of Tier 2. Mid to bottom.
> 
> 
> PS3->1080p24->46XBR4 (8 feet)
> 
> 
> Brandon



Typical comedy films... they all seem this way for some reason. I'm sure there's a couple of exceptions, but so far, besides Wild Hogs, and maybe one other, there hasn't really been an outstanding title.


----------



## maverick0716

Fool's Gold is definitely a lower-mid Tier 1 disc for most of the movie. There are some instances of softness, but for the most part, the picture is very sharp. Colours are great, as well as black levels.


----------



## jayray




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/14128994
> 
> 
> Fool's Gold is definitely a lower-mid Tier 1 disc for most of the movie. There are some instances of softness, but for the most part, the picture is very sharp. Colours are great, as well as black levels.




Too bad Warner forgot this was an HD movie which should have had something better than DD 640 kbs/s. What will the excuse be, not enough space for HD sound









John


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/14121443
> 
> *Bee Movie*
> 
> 
> Tier 0!
> 
> 
> Awesome.
> 
> 
> Nuff said.




Agreed. The only thing that kept me watching this bad movie (IMO) is the AMAZING visuals. As good as anything I have seen, including Cars and Rat.


----------



## Shane Martin

Anyone else watch Men In Black yet? I'm thinking middle of tier 1 here. It's very very very good.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/14132489
> 
> 
> Agreed. The only thing that kept me watching this bad movie (IMO) is the AMAZING visuals. As good as anything I have seen, including Cars and Rat.



I didn't care for the movie itself either. Most of the jokes fell completely flat.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Patton*


tier recommendation: top 1/4 of *Tier 2*


More digital ink has been spilled about this recent Blu-ray's picture than any I can remember and so I watched it with a little trepidation. Fox has encoded the 171 minute feature in AVC on a BD-50. The back of the case states the average video bitrate is 23 Mbps, which seems accurate as per the specifications thread the scanned bitrate is 22.96 Mbps. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason why some scenes get high bitrates in the 30's and others get no higher than the high teens for extended periods. The overall range for the movie is between 14 and 46 Mbps.


In general it's a solid compression job aside from two minor quibbles. Compression noise and artifacting shows up sporadically in the shots of clouds in the sky. I think it would be noticeable even on a smaller display. Not all sky shots seem to exhibit this though as it becomes less obtrusive after the first hour. A less noticeable problem is some very minor color banding seen on the background walls of some interior scenes. Overall I was happy with this aspect of the Blu-ray's image.


For a movie of this vintage the source looks in phenomenal shape. There are a couple of stray marks and one or two scratches but overall it looks better and cleaner than many recent movies that have been released in the last five years. Colors and contrast are excellent throughout the movie. Check out the vibrant look of the green grass early in the movie. Fleshtones look very accurate and never waver. If anything the resolution of Blu-ray starts to reveal some of the tricks used to change George C. Scott's appearance.


This movie was filmed beautifully and the BD conveys that. The entire movie is very sharp and the image stays in sharp focus throughout. There is wonderful depth to the image with an almost 3D look. Some of the scenes approach Tier 0 in clarity.


So what is wrong with this transfer? The twin evils of DNR and edge enhancement. There is a moderate amount of edge enhancement applied to the transfer which is easily seen when the subtitles for the foreign dialogue appear on screen. The real negative of course noted by others in various forums is the DNR apparently used here. It definitely looks a little different to me than some of the more egregious cases I've seen of DNR on Blu-ray. The Blu-ray itself is presented grain free though this DNR seems not to have left many of the typical artifacts associated with DNR. Facial and texture detail do seem diminished, particularly coming from a 70mm film source in good shape, though it still looks more detailed than many non-DNRed Blu-rays I've seen from movies shot on 35mm.


It is a shame we can't see how this BD would have turned out with no DNR applied. I suspect it would have matched up well with many movies currently ranked at the top of Tier 1 in that state. As is this Blu-ray still looks very good and frankly better than I expected even with its problems. I recommend placing it in the top quarter of Tier 2.


Watching on a calibrated 60" Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 from a PS3 with a viewing distance of approximately five feet.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Shane Martin* /forum/post/14132707
> 
> 
> Anyone else watch Men In Black yet? I'm thinking middle of tier 1 here. It's very very very good.



That's interesting...from the trailer it looked very average to me.


Brandon


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/14132873
> 
> 
> I didn't care for the movie itself either. Most of the jokes fell completely flat.



I hear ya....I actualy fell asleep at one point, but woke up during a big sound moment.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/14133145
> 
> *Patton*
> 
> 
> tier recommendation: top 1/4 of *Tier 2*
> 
> 
> More digital ink has been spilled about this recent Blu-ray's picture than any I can remember and so I watched it with a little trepidation. Fox has encoded the 171 minute feature in AVC on a BD-50. The back of the case states the average video bitrate is 23 Mbps, which seems accurate as per the specifications thread the scanned bitrate is 22.96 Mbps. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason why some scenes get high bitrates in the 30's and others get no higher than the high teens for extended periods. The overall range for the movie is between 14 and 46 Mbps.
> 
> 
> In general it's a solid compression job aside from two minor quibbles. Compression noise and artifacting shows up sporadically in the shots of clouds in the sky. I think it would be noticeable even on a smaller display. Not all sky shots seem to exhibit this though as it becomes less obtrusive after the first hour. A less noticeable problem is some very minor color banding seen on the background walls of some interior scenes. Overall I was happy with this aspect of the Blu-ray's image.
> 
> 
> For a movie of this vintage the source looks in phenomenal shape. There are a couple of stray marks and one or two scratches but overall it looks better and cleaner than many recent movies that have been released in the last five years. Colors and contrast are excellent throughout the movie. Check out the vibrant look of the green grass early in the movie. Fleshtones look very accurate and never waver. If anything the resolution of Blu-ray starts to reveal some of the tricks used to change George C. Scott's appearance.
> 
> 
> This movie was filmed beautifully and the BD conveys that. The entire movie is very sharp and the image stays in sharp focus throughout. There is wonderful depth to the image with an almost 3D look. Some of the scenes approach Tier 0 in clarity.
> 
> 
> So what is wrong with this transfer? The twin evils of DNR and edge enhancement. There is a moderate amount of edge enhancement applied to the transfer which is easily seen when the subtitles for the foreign dialogue appear on screen. The real negative of course noted by others in various forums is the DNR apparently used here. It definitely looks a little different to me than some of the more egregious cases I've seen of DNR on Blu-ray. The Blu-ray itself is presented grain free though this DNR seems not to have left many of the typical artifacts associated with DNR. Facial and texture detail do seem diminished, particularly coming from a 70mm film source in good shape, though it still looks more detailed than many non-DNRed Blu-rays I've seen from movies shot on 35mm.
> 
> 
> It is a shame we can't see how this BD would have turned out with no DNR applied. I suspect it would have matched up well with many movies currently ranked at the top of Tier 1 in that state. As is this Blu-ray still looks very good and frankly better than I expected even with its problems. I recommend placing it in the top quarter of Tier 2.
> 
> 
> Watching on a calibrated 60" Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 from a PS3 with a viewing distance of approximately five feet.



Another excellent review Phantom.


----------



## Hughmc

I just watched Be Kind Rewind. The PQ seemed very similar to the Bucket List. Over all very detailed and on occasion some blurry shots.


I will be curious to see what the consensus or lack there of will be with BKR.


This review nailed it perfectly and describes exactly what I saw in PQ:

http://www.highdefdiscnews.com/?p=997#more-997


----------



## Schlotkins

Juno:


I watched Juno the other night. I think it looked better than it's placed - although I'd day top 1/2 of Tier 2 so it's not that big of a change. The movie was not as detailed as the tier 1 titles, but I definitely thought it was a nice transfer with some solid shots.


Setup: PS3 -> 1080p24 -> Pioneer 5070 from about 6 feet for this film.


Thanks,

Chris


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14134686
> 
> 
> I just watched Be Kind Rewind. The PQ seemed very similar to the Bucket List. Over all very detailed and on occasion some blurry shots.
> 
> 
> I will be curious to see what the consensus or lack there of will be with BKR.
> 
> 
> This review nailed it perfectly and describes exactly what I saw in PQ:
> 
> http://www.highdefdiscnews.com/?p=997#more-997



i thought it looked great. some shots were lesser because of the "old time" video shots, but that was on purpose. i haven't seen Bucket List so I can't compare the two. but i think it's probably lower tier 1.


decent movie, started out slow but it got better.


----------



## Kevin12586




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14134686
> 
> 
> I just watched Be Kind Rewind. The PQ seemed very similar to the Bucket List. Over all very detailed and on occasion some blurry shots.
> 
> 
> I will be curious to see what the consensus or lack there of will be with BKR.
> 
> 
> This review nailed it perfectly and describes exactly what I saw in PQ:
> 
> http://www.highdefdiscnews.com/?p=997#more-997





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briansemerick* /forum/post/14135506
> 
> 
> i thought it looked great. some shots were lesser because of the "old time" video shots, but that was on purpose. i haven't seen Bucket List so I can't compare the two. but i think it's probably lower tier 1.
> 
> 
> decent movie, started out slow but it got better.



Where would you rate it?


----------



## Hughmc

briansemerick placement at lower tier one is accurate. Below Rush Hour 3.


Sony A3000 60in 1080p @ 8ft through PS3


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Beowulf & Grendel*


tier recommendation: second quarter of *Tier 3*


Starz released this Blu-ray some time back in November of 2007. It is encoded in AVC on a BD-25. The 104 minute film's video bitrate typically averages between 19 to 24 Mbps. The video encode never peaks over 32 Mbps and some scenes do go as low as 14 Mbps. There are not many visible artifacts even on the numerous ocean and waterfall shots. I did notice some compression noise in a couple of the darker lit scenes, especially when fog was present.


This Blu-ray's image just doesn't overcome its source material. I don't think it was shot for eye candy as the image seems flat and restrained. Black levels get clipped a little too often for my tastes with some mosquito noise showing up in low light scenes. Low light detail is poor in general. Colors seem a little drained and fleshtones look a little washed out at times. Certain scenes then completely flip where fleshtones look too red. The image's palette seems to mostly consist of muted shades of gray and brown and green.


The master seems in perfect shape aside from one scratch that vertically runs the length of the screen in one very brief scene. The image retains a solid grain structure for the entire movie with no DNR used and almost unnoticeable edge enhancement. Despite this there is not that much superior high frequency information and visible detail. Rarely does the BD venture into Tier 2 quality. The movie seems filmed soft and diffuse at times, particularly when Sarah Polley's character or Grendel appears. This is still a very film-like transfer which is the epitome of an average looking Blu-ray.


Overall this is a solid if average Blu-ray image that I believe belongs around the second quarter of Tier 3.


----------



## maverick0716

One Missed call has a decent transfer. Meaning that it's not bad by any means, but it's also not even close to the best available. The film's colours are pretty subdued, so they don't really pop at all. The black levels are pretty good, with a tad bit of crush to them. The detail is also pretty good, but not amazing. I'd rate this one in Tier 2 somewhere in the middle. Overall, an acceptable transfer.


42" Panasonic Plasma (768p)

6-7 ft.

PS3 through HDMI


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/14133145
> 
> *Patton*
> 
> 
> tier recommendation: top 1/4 of *Tier 2*
> 
> 
> More digital ink has been spilled about this recent Blu-ray's picture than any I can remember and so I watched it with a little trepidation. Fox has encoded the 171 minute feature in AVC on a BD-50. The back of the case states the average video bitrate is 23 Mbps, which seems accurate as per the specifications thread the scanned bitrate is 22.96 Mbps. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason why some scenes get high bitrates in the 30's and others get no higher than the high teens for extended periods. The overall range for the movie is between 14 and 46 Mbps.
> 
> 
> In general it's a solid compression job aside from two minor quibbles. Compression noise and artifacting shows up sporadically in the shots of clouds in the sky. I think it would be noticeable even on a smaller display. Not all sky shots seem to exhibit this though as it becomes less obtrusive after the first hour. A less noticeable problem is some very minor color banding seen on the background walls of some interior scenes. Overall I was happy with this aspect of the Blu-ray's image.
> 
> 
> For a movie of this vintage the source looks in phenomenal shape. There are a couple of stray marks and one or two scratches but overall it looks better and cleaner than many recent movies that have been released in the last five years. Colors and contrast are excellent throughout the movie. Check out the vibrant look of the green grass early in the movie. Fleshtones look very accurate and never waver. If anything the resolution of Blu-ray starts to reveal some of the tricks used to change George C. Scott's appearance.
> 
> 
> This movie was filmed beautifully and the BD conveys that. The entire movie is very sharp and the image stays in sharp focus throughout. There is wonderful depth to the image with an almost 3D look. Some of the scenes approach Tier 0 in clarity.
> 
> 
> So what is wrong with this transfer? The twin evils of DNR and edge enhancement. There is a moderate amount of edge enhancement applied to the transfer which is easily seen when the subtitles for the foreign dialogue appear on screen. The real negative of course noted by others in various forums is the DNR apparently used here. It definitely looks a little different to me than some of the more egregious cases I've seen of DNR on Blu-ray. The Blu-ray itself is presented grain free though this DNR seems not to have left many of the typical artifacts associated with DNR. Facial and texture detail do seem diminished, particularly coming from a 70mm film source in good shape, though it still looks more detailed than many non-DNRed Blu-rays I've seen from movies shot on 35mm.
> 
> 
> It is a shame we can't see how this BD would have turned out with no DNR applied. I suspect it would have matched up well with many movies currently ranked at the top of Tier 1 in that state. As is this Blu-ray still looks very good and frankly better than I expected even with its problems. I recommend placing it in the top quarter of Tier 2.
> 
> 
> Watching on a calibrated 60" Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 from a PS3 with a viewing distance of approximately five feet.



I can't agree with a high Tier 2 placement for Patton in light of the DNR. The faces look just too grotesque. Other recent releases of films from just a few years earlier, The Professionals and The Sand Pebbles, provide a good contrast to show how different the Patton BD looks from the way an actual movie looks. The lack of grain in Patton is such a severe distortion.


I would recommend very low Tier 2, at the highest.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14140251
> 
> 
> I can't agree with a high Tier 2 placement for Patton in light of the DNR. The faces look just too grotesque. Other recent releases of films from just a few years earlier, The Professionals and The Sand Pebbles, provide a good contrast to show how different the Patton BD looks from the way an actual movie looks. *The lack of grain in Patton is such a severe distortion.
> *
> 
> I would recommend very low Tier 2, at the highest.



I have said this before, and will just add my 2 cents again. It isn't so much the *lack of grain* in Patton that makes the faces look funny, its the *lack of detail.*


You should not notice hardly any grain at all in a 65mm print. This alone makes it confusing as to why Fox used some type of DNR on this title. It's the DNR that gives us the waxy looking faces with a lack of fine detail that we see in Patton.


----------



## SuprSlow

I'm back, and it looks like I have some catching up to do










It will probably be over the course of a few days, most of the updating is done whenever I can wedge in some free time during the daily grind


----------



## giggle




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/14141275
> 
> 
> I have said this before, and will just add my 2 cents again. It isn't so much the *lack of grain* in Patton that makes the faces look funny, its the *lack of detail.*
> 
> 
> You should not notice hardly any grain at all in a 65mm print. This alone makes it confusing as to why Fox used some type of DNR on this title. It's the DNR that gives us the waxy looking faces with a lack of fine detail that we see in Patton.



Couldn't agree more. I don't think it is the grain that we love, it is the missing detail that gets lost in the removal process. The waxy faces is an attrocity.


With that being said I don't think that this even belongs in the tier 2 thread at all.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *giggle* /forum/post/14141600
> 
> 
> With that being said I don't think that this even belongs in the tier 2 thread at all.



Lower? How much lower?


Brandon


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/14141275
> 
> 
> I have said this before, and will just add my 2 cents again. It isn't so much the *lack of grain* in Patton that makes the faces look funny, its the *lack of detail.*
> 
> 
> You should not notice hardly any grain at all in a 65mm print. This alone makes it confusing as to why Fox used some type of DNR on this title. It's the DNR that gives us the waxy looking faces with a lack of fine detail that we see in Patton.



I don't know that I typically notice the grain structure in close-ups of faces, but rather in the sky, for example, or distant hills or mountains, of which there are plenty in Patton.


----------



## giggle




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14141900
> 
> 
> Lower? How much lower?
> 
> 
> Brandon



Not much lower, probably top of tier 3. Not so much for how bad it looks although the rubber faces, bothers the sh%# out of me, but b/c of how great it could have looked.


----------



## b_scott

everyone seems to discuss Patton a lot here. I couldn't even get through the movie.


i love Dr. Strangelove though.


----------



## eddy_winds




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gib4500* /forum/post/13213702
> 
> 
> Blood diamond- tier 5. The picture is not good at all for blu-ray. I had to take a look at the disk cover to make sure it was blu-ray. It looks like regular dvd quality.



Agreed. Its not good at all


----------



## b_scott

agreed it wasn't that great. although not coal.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *eddy_winds* /forum/post/14143135
> 
> 
> Agreed. Its not good at all



At all? I found the picture quality to be really good in the daytime outdoor scenes........the black levels are very lacking in that movie, but in no way should Blood Diamond be in Tier 5.


----------



## eddy_winds

Some one compared it to DVD PQ. Maybe its a lil better.









Its no Rambo


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I could see Patton somewhere around the lower half of Tier 2 if push came to shove. I myself struggled internally whether it should be placed in the first or second quarter of Tier 2. But placing it in Tier 3 puts it along such notable BDs as the nearly two year old MPEG2 encoded Training Day. I think we all agree that the DNR removed actual detail but it doesn't affect other aspects of the film's image. As Rob noted there never was going to be a lot of grain in the image even without DNR. There is an incredible depth to the image that you rarely see, even from modern movies. Lgns316 should chime in since he technically withdrew his original opinion of the Blu-ray.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14142609
> 
> 
> I don't know that I typically notice the grain structure in close-ups of faces, but rather in the sky, for example, or distant hills or mountains, of which there are plenty in Patton.



Exactly, those are perfect examples of where you are more likely to notice grain.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/14145358
> 
> 
> I could see Patton somewhere around the lower half of Tier 2 if push came to shove. I myself struggled internally whether it should be placed in the first or second quarter of Tier 2. But placing it in Tier 3 puts it along such notable BDs as the nearly two year old MPEG2 encoded Training Day. I think we all agree that the DNR removed actual detail but it doesn't affect other aspects of the film's image. As Rob noted there never was going to be a lot of grain in the image even without DNR. There is an incredible depth to the image that you rarely see, even from modern movies. Lgns316 should chime in since he technically withdrew his original opinion of the Blu-ray.



As enough beans have been spilled over the PQ of Patton I agree placing it in bottom Tier-2 by tagging a DNR note like this of course without the emoticons.

*Patton Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.20:1 | Fox [DNR]*

















I would like to know your opinions on Dragon Tiger Date. Most parts of the movie looked hot, harsh, over processed, over saturated, slightly sharpened and of course terrific. Seems to be a perfect mid Tier-1 candidate.


Currently watching Assembly (H.K Import).


Welcome back SuprSlow.


----------



## maverick0716

Finally got to watch this BD tonight, as I've been wanting to for awhile now. Predator is one of my favourite movies of all time. Much better picture quality than the DVD in my opinion. The colours are great. The detail is okay, but not good compared to many newer releases. There is also some heavy grain in some of the scenes, but I'd much rather have that, then DNR. I'd have to agree with it's current placement of lower Tier 3.......but it by no means looks like garbage...it's still puts the latest DVD release to shame.


----------



## 357

Why in the hell is Patton in Tier 1 above No Country for Old Men? I hope this is a sick joke...


----------



## lgans316

Patton was placed in Tier-1 based upon my recommendation which I withdrew once reports surfaced about excessive application of DNR. This is because I wasn't able to spot DNR immediately on my 37" & 50" Panny Plasma like I did for Face/Off, Pan's Labyrinth and Untouchables and moreover I viewed the HK version that was released before the U.S release date (June-3-2008) and there were no strong evidence of DNR being reported around that time. At the moment folks out here are pushing for bottom Tier-2 placement.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *357* /forum/post/14153325
> 
> 
> Why in the hell is Patton in Tier 1 above No Country for Old Men? I hope this is a sick joke...



There were a few votes for bottom of Tier 2 and one for the top of Tier 3. So I'll assume it's gonna get moved with the next update. We can all remain calm










Brandon


----------



## b_scott

wow, not even done with it yet - Jumper is Tier 0 for sure. amazing PQ.


----------



## lgans316

IMO Jumper is top to mid Tier-1 material. Jumper can be placed below NT-2.


I think the below titles are placed too high in Tier-1.


The Warriors Video: AVC | Audio: DD | AR: 1.85:1 | Paramount

The Rock Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Buena Vista

Mr and Mrs Smith Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Fox

Identity Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony

Troy (Director's Cut) Video: VC-1 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner

The Fifth Element (Remastered) Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Sony


We can randomly swap with some of the titles listed in Tier-1 1/2


Shooter Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: DD | AR: 2.40:1 | Paramount

No Country for Old Men Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Buena Vista

The Water Horse: Legend of the Deep Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14154083
> 
> 
> I think the below titles are placed too high in Tier-1.
> 
> 
> The Warriors Video: AVC | Audio: DD | AR: 1.85:1 | Paramount
> 
> The Rock Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Buena Vista
> 
> Mr and Mrs Smith Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Fox
> 
> Identity Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony
> 
> Troy (Director's Cut) Video: VC-1 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner
> 
> The Fifth Element (Remastered) Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Sony



I agree with you on all of these titles except Identity. Its current placement seems right to me.


----------



## bplewis24

I agree on The Warriors. Very good looking title for it's age, but high tier 1 is likely too high for that title. It may have been appropriate when it was released, though.


Brandon


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14154203
> 
> 
> I agree on The Warriors. Very good looking title for it's age, but high tier 1 is likely too high for that title. It may have been appropriate when it was released, though.
> 
> 
> Brandon



It still belongs in Tier 1, and not at the bottom either. Face closeups are better than most titles in Tier 1 including:Jumper, National Treasure 1 & 2, and Enchanted (by a long shot). it's better looking than Prestige, The Brave One, and some of the other lower tier 1 titles.


----------



## stumlad

Movies like this make me appreciate Netflix.


The movie has a soft look throughout (though it wasn't a defocused look like some other titles). It was sharp, but it wasn't sharp enough. It was an overall good looking title but with problems. There is banding in sky shots. Some night shots reveal how they raised black level to grey. There was a fair amount of non-distracting grain in the beginning of the movie, but it kinda dissappears. There appeared to be some serious dnr/photoshopping in one sequence towards the end of the movie.


Aside from that, you could make out that the background was digitally placed there. You could make out that the actors weren't really in the location they were showing. Also, at the end scene in the movie, there is a lake in the background and the water isnt even moving.


Overall, low tier 2. Would be low tier 1 if it wasnt for the issues mentioned above.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14154083
> 
> 
> IMO Jumper is top to mid Tier-1 material. Jumper can be placed below NT-2.
> 
> 
> I think the below titles are placed too high in Tier-1.
> 
> 
> The Warriors Video: AVC | Audio: DD | AR: 1.85:1 | Paramount
> 
> The Rock Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Buena Vista
> 
> Mr and Mrs Smith Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Fox
> 
> Identity Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony
> 
> Troy (Director's Cut) Video: VC-1 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner
> 
> The Fifth Element (Remastered) Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Sony
> 
> 
> We can randomly swap with some of the titles listed in Tier-1 1/2
> 
> 
> Shooter Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: DD | AR: 2.40:1 | Paramount
> 
> No Country for Old Men Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Buena Vista
> 
> The Water Horse: Legend of the Deep Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony



Don't agree with The Water Horse. See my other comment about the warriors, and as far as Identity, it's ranked appropriately...


I agree with Fifth Element. need to rewatch Troy.


----------



## salbah3ng_bata

I just watched Happy Feet last night, and it looked very good. Very clear and had that 3d pop. I watched Surf's up, I don't think it's as good as Happy Feet PQ wise, maybe I'll have to re-watch it but so far I think Happy Feet looked very good. Either top of tier 1 or mid-low tier zero.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briansemerick* /forum/post/14154020
> 
> 
> wow, not even done with it yet - Jumper is Tier 0 for sure. amazing PQ.



Sounds good!! I just ordered a copy from Amazon and you have whetted my appetite to to see it.


----------



## giggle




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/14154352
> 
> 
> It still belongs in Tier 1, and not at the bottom either. Face closeups are better than most titles in Tier 1 including:Jumper, National Treasure 1 & 2, and Enchanted (by a long shot). it's better looking than Prestige, The Brave One, and some of the other lower tier 1 titles.



Couldn't agree more. It doesn't "Pop" as much or look 3D but it is a fantasitic looking title and deserves it's placement.


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14156750
> 
> 
> Sounds good!! I just ordered a copy from Amazon and you have whetted my appetite to to see it.



it was a decent movie, i'd watch it again. set up for a sequel, too.


the effects were very fun to watch and the whole movie was crystal clear. no grain at all, and no DNR that i could tell (very detailed faces, especially Sammy)


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/14154352
> 
> 
> It still belongs in Tier 1, and not at the bottom either. Face closeups are better than most titles in Tier 1 including:Jumper, National Treasure 1 & 2, and Enchanted (by a long shot). it's better looking than Prestige, The Brave One, and some of the other lower tier 1 titles.



I haven't seen any of those except Enchanted, and I've said that title is overrated for a while now. I actually saw The Prestige but it was such a long time ago I barely remember it.


Brandon


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/14154434
> 
> 
> Movies like this make me appreciate Netflix.
> 
> 
> The movie has a soft look throughout (though it wasn't a defocused look like some other titles). It was sharp, but it wasn't sharp enough. It was an overall good looking title but with problems. There is banding in sky shots. Some night shots reveal how they raised black level to grey. There was a fair amount of non-distracting grain in the beginning of the movie, but it kinda dissappears. There appeared to be some serious dnr/photoshopping in one sequence towards the end of the movie.
> 
> 
> Aside from that, you could make out that the background was digitally placed there. You could make out that the actors weren't really in the location they were showing. Also, at the end scene in the movie, there is a lake in the background and the water isnt even moving.
> 
> 
> Overall, low tier 2. Would be low tier 1 if it wasnt for the issues mentioned above.



I completely agree with this. I also got the impression there was a lot of "green-screening" going on with the on location shots. It is overall a very inconsistent title. Some shots look very good, some are very very soft, and then some look basically too fake to take seriously, followed up by some decent looking cinematography. The movie was very average also.


My vote is for bottom of Tier 2.


PS3->1080p24->46XBR4 (8 ft)


Brandon


----------



## hobbs47

^ thanks for putting the title of the movie being quoted above the quote. It bugs the hell out of me when people quote something and you don't know what the hell they are talking about. It's not that hard people.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14157142
> 
> 
> I completely agree with this. I also got the impression there was a lot of "green-screening" going on with the on location shots. It is overall a very inconsistent title. Some shots look very good, some are very very soft, and then some look basically too fake to take seriously, followed up by some decent looking cinematography. The movie was very average also.
> 
> 
> My vote is for bottom of Tier 2.
> 
> 
> PS3->1080p24->46XBR4 (8 ft)
> 
> 
> Brandon



Based on the portion of 10,000 BC that I watched last night, very low Tier 2 sounds right.


----------



## zoro

Did some one watch BE KIND REWIND, I immensely liked the LOOK on BR of this film..extremely natural, fabulous colors, just right amount of grain!


----------



## dannyk8232

Just watched So I Married an Axe Murderer, and was very impressed with the PQ. A winner! Tier 2 material IMO.


Young Guns was very, very disappointing. Barely better than DVD. Tier 4.


----------



## bplewis24

Well, I forgot to post my impressions of this title this morning. Unfortunately I already forgot most of the details of my viewing. I won't recommend it for placement because of that, but I just wanted to chime in to say it wasn't overly impressive or disappointing. It seemed somewhere between a Tier 1-2ish title.


The only thing I do remember is that black levels during night scenes didn't seem to be on par with some of the other titles I've seen recently.


Brandon


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14154083
> 
> 
> IMO Jumper is top to mid Tier-1 material.



That may be just a bit high. Perhaps the third quarter of Tier 1. I thought the panoramic shots inside the Colosseum looked a little soft, and the final shot of the snowy river bank looked very obviously fake. Close-ups generally looked very nice. Nice grain.










I really enjoyed this movie, btw.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *salbah3ng_bata* /forum/post/14156617
> 
> 
> I just watched Happy Feet last night, and it looked very good. Very clear and had that 3d pop. I watched Surf's up, I don't think it's as good as Happy Feet PQ wise, maybe I'll have to re-watch it but so far I think Happy Feet looked very good. Either top of tier 1 or mid-low tier zero.



Thing main thing I liked about Surf's Up is the cool "camera" effects they used. It makes it seem like it's real film.


----------



## tfoltz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14154083
> 
> 
> IMO Jumper is top to mid Tier-1 material. Jumper can be placed below NT-2.
> 
> 
> I think the below titles are placed too high in Tier-1.
> 
> 
> The Warriors Video: AVC | Audio: DD | AR: 1.85:1 | Paramount
> 
> The Rock Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Buena Vista
> 
> Mr and Mrs Smith Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Fox
> 
> Identity Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony
> 
> Troy (Director's Cut) Video: VC-1 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner
> 
> The Fifth Element (Remastered) Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Sony
> 
> 
> We can randomly swap with some of the titles listed in Tier-1 1/2
> 
> 
> Shooter Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: DD | AR: 2.40:1 | Paramount
> 
> No Country for Old Men Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Buena Vista
> 
> The Water Horse: Legend of the Deep Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony



Just watched the Water Horse last night and think it shouldn't be ranked higher than where it is. I also think The Rock and Troy are in the correct locations, and if anything Troy should be moved up a few spots. I would move The Patriot down.


----------



## SuprSlow

Just a progress report...


I'm about 3/4 of the way through the next update. I'll be finishing it up and posting hopefully by lunchtime tomorrow. No changes have been made in the first post yet, but I AM working on it










Carry on...


----------



## lgans316

Thanks SuprFast.









*National Treasure Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Disney*


Agree with the current placement. I would call this transfer a bit inconsistent and borderline. It's clear that Disney is under tremendous pressure to roll out titles on Blu-ray which is forcing them to use old but cleaned up transfers. On the positive side the PQ is very good with some value sharpness, natural colors and depth effect. The outdoor scenes look 3D and offers very good HD pop. On the negative side quite a few shots are soft and slightly less detailed. The final chapters looked flat due to contrast boosting. Noise, double contours and banding were noticeable in the first 2 chapters that takes place under low lighting. The fine condition of the source material looks to have saved the AV presentation on BD.


----------



## tamahome02000

Sorry, the 96 khz 3 hr Dave Matthews blu ray is in a catagory by itself. Tier -1.


----------



## Hughmc

I saw Super Bad last night. Overall it looked very good. Black levels at times may have been a bit week. I like to see movies that I comment on the PQ at least twice, but I already returned it.







I would say middle to lower Tier one. I can't see it anywhere in the rankings or even unranked.







Hasn't this been out a while?


Also is it me or is the PQ of many BD's in general lately nothing great? As in mediocre at best.


Where are some more Demo/reference BD's?


SOny A3000 60 in @8ft. from PS3 through HDMI.


I saw the Other Boleyn Girl as well. Nothing listed in ranking either. Top of Tier 2.


Tonights viewing, The Signal. Also not listed anywhere.


These are all rentals by the way.


----------



## lgans316

Vantage Point is reported to have demo PQ. I expect the below upcoming titles to have demo PQ.


(*)Transformers

(*)Iron Man

(*)Beowulf (Now that it's in the safe hands at Paramount unlike Warner who messed up their overseas release)


IMO Superbad is mid Tier-2 material as it looked flat due to contrast boosting. Knocked Up will definitely outperform Superbad in terms of PQ.


Also I expect Batman Begins to be placed in top of Tier-3.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14162441
> 
> 
> Vantage Point is reported to have demo PQ. I expect the below upcoming titles to have demo PQ.
> 
> 
> (*)Transformers
> 
> (*)Iron Man
> 
> (*)Beowulf (Now that it's in the safe hands at Paramount unlike Warner who messed up their overseas release)
> 
> 
> IMO Superbad is mid Tier-2 material as it looked flat due to contrast boosting. Knocked Up will definitely outperform Superbad in terms of PQ.
> 
> 
> Also I expect Batman Begins to be placed in top of Tier-3.



Thanks! Sounds good for upcoming demo potential. And Superbad I am sure you are more accurate on. As I said I like to see them twice at least. The second viewing gives me more PQ assessment ability.


----------



## shadowrage




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/14159830
> 
> 
> Thing main thing I liked about Surf's Up is the cool "camera" effects they used. It makes it seem like it's real film.



They added digital grain.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14162441
> 
> 
> (*)Iron Man



I don't know... with its photography?


Speed Racer will be your new Demo King hands down.







- I totally called Cloverfield(AQ), I'm right on this one too.

If you guys haven't seen this in Digital Cinema you are in for a treat(your brain will actually melt upon seeing it, in a good way).


TDK will probably be up there too. Not even Warner could mess up TDK and Speed Racer. They both need two disc sets though. Extras and Movie won't work for either of these. has Warner ever done a 2 disc set? They always squeeze everything together.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *shadowrage* /forum/post/14162465
> 
> 
> Speed Racer will be your new Demo King hands down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - I totally called



Isn't it going to be released by Warner? 25 GB, DNR, and 640kbps DD track.







BTW, I'm not saying that 25GB makes it bad. Just noting everyone's frustration with Warner


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14162441
> 
> 
> Also I expect Batman Begins to be placed in top of Tier-3.



So is it definitely confirmed that they are not re-mastering it?


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/14162536
> 
> 
> So is it definitely confirmed that they are not re-mastering it?



A big NO







as per industry insiders and Wicky on Blu-ray.com.


----------



## maverick0716

Do they even need to? I think the Batman Begins HD DVD looks really good.......not Tier 0 good, but a solid high Tier 2.


----------



## lgans316

Ouch. High Tier 2 hurts.







Bottom Tier-2 at best.


----------



## Murilo

I watched planet earth tonight with guests new to blue ray. How is this not tier 1, or teir 0?


There is so many demo material scenes. Every review I read uses the word, demo material. Sure there is the odd scene with some noise, and banding, but the disc also said a few scenes could not be caught in hd. Still 90 percent of this is jaw dropping. I have to say its teir 0, and nearly every online professional review says the same, why so low on here?


Using projector-W5000 @1080p/24 native

Screen-High Gain 106 inch

Sitting 11 feet away.


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Murilo* /forum/post/14163271
> 
> 
> I watched planet earth tonight with guests new to blue ray. How is this not tier 1, or teir 0?
> 
> 
> There is so many demo material scenes. Every review I read uses the word, demo material. Sure there is the odd scene with some noise, and banding, but the disc also said a few scenes could not be caught in hd. Still 90 percent of this is jaw dropping. I have to say its teir 0, and nearly every online professional review says the same, why so low on here?




It was placed before I got here, but from everything I've read, it's placed lower for the very reasons you mentioned. I agree with you, there are many scenes that I would place in upper Tier 1 or even Tier 0, but it's current placement is with the entire set in mind. (That's not to imply that it can't be moved)


This is similar to the recent debate we had regarding Apocalypto. Part of the movie is Tier 1, the rest is Tier 0. Where should it be placed...? It's one of the imperfections we must deal with


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tamahome02000* /forum/post/14162401
> 
> 
> Sorry, the 96 khz 3 hr Dave Matthews blu ray is in a catagory by itself. Tier -1.



yeah, i agree it's insane.


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14162943
> 
> 
> Ouch. High Tier 2 hurts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom Tier-2 at best.



there are so many factors. watching a BD on a a vivid Vizio with a Magnovox BDP and watching the same one on an ISF calibrated Kuro with an Elite BDP will produce two completely different pictures.


which is why this thread is just a guideline, not an absolute.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14162424
> 
> 
> I saw Super Bad last night. Overall it looked very good. Black levels at times may have been a bit week. I like to see movies that I comment on the PQ at least twice, but I already returned it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say middle to lower Tier one. I can't see it anywhere in the rankings or even unranked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hasn't this been out a while?



Superbad is currently in the top 15-20 titles of Tier 2.


Brandon


----------



## giggle




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briansemerick* /forum/post/14164885
> 
> 
> there are so many factors. watching a BD on a a vivid Vizio with a Magnovox BDP and watching the same one on an ISF calibrated Kuro with an Elite BDP will produce two completely different pictures.
> 
> 
> which is why this thread is just a guideline, not an absolute.



Couldn't agree more. There is no way BB is bottom of tier 2 on either of my screens. To think Patton could be rated higher.


----------



## SuprSlow

Is it just me or is the Rambo series the most jumbled up mess of titles imaginable?


Are these placements correct? I'm confused and don't feel like going back over 23 pages










Rambo - high Tier 2 / Tier 1 1/2


Rambo II - top Tier 3 / above FaceOff bot Tier 2


Rambo III - low Tier 2


Rambo IV - upper mid Tier 2


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/14166016
> 
> 
> Is it just me or is the Rambo series the most jumbled up mess of titles imaginable?
> 
> 
> Are these placements correct? I'm confused and don't feel like going back over 23 pages
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambo - high Tier 2 / Tier 1 1/2
> 
> 
> Rambo II - top Tier 3 / above FaceOff bot Tier 2
> 
> 
> Rambo III - low Tier 2
> 
> 
> Rambo IV - upper mid Tier 2



Rambo IV is actually "Rambo". Rambo: First Blood part II is the 2nd in the series. You're right though -- worst naming of titles ever.


----------



## b_scott

i think he meant jumbled as in PQ.


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/14166090
> 
> 
> Rambo IV is actually "Rambo". Rambo: First Blood part II is the 2nd in the series. You're right though -- worst naming of titles ever.



See! Exactly my point











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briansemerick* /forum/post/14166229
> 
> 
> i think he meant jumbled as in PQ.



Actually I meant actual titles. I haven't watched the movies yet, I'm not sure which one I should watch first


----------



## b_scott

oh


----------



## salbah3ng_bata

I think he's referring to the cool camera effect of Surf's up as the way it's shot like documentary. i thought it looked good and it obviously has artificial grain, I watched surf's up on my old rptv 1080i that has convergence issues and still looked good. I'm gonna have to re-watch on my new set, but yeah Happy Feet looked very good to me.


----------



## alexg75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briansemerick* /forum/post/14164885
> 
> 
> there are so many factors. watching a BD on a a vivid Vizio with a Magnovox BDP and watching the same one on an ISF calibrated Kuro with an Elite BDP will produce two completely different pictures.
> 
> 
> which is why this thread is just a guideline, not an absolute.



I'm with you on that!


----------



## SuprSlow

*Update:*


-I still need to add new releases for the past two weeks, but here are the placements. As always, any mistakes/comments/corrections/tar-feathering/stoning/etc., let me know










HP: POA - bot Tier 1


Juno - stays put, new suggestions averaged out to it's current placement


Black Hawk Down - up a few spots Tier 1


HP GOF - bot Tier 2


Revenge - low Tier 3


A Passage to India - remains bot Tier 1


Crimson Tide - bumped down a couple spots, Tier 2


There Will Be Blood - top Tier 2


Alvin - bumped to the top of Tier 1. We have two votes for Tier 1, and one vote for Tier 0. Any more input?


Master & Commander - down a few spots in Tier 2


Before the Devil - stays put in Tier 2


Saw IV - Tier 2


The Eye - middle Tier 1


Erin Brockovich - Tier 2 3/4


Cloverfield - lower 1/2 Tier 1


Shoot Em Up - below SM3, Tier 0


Sopranos 1 - above Deja Vu, Tier 2


Sopranos 2 - near RH3, bot 1/2 Tier 1


NCFOM - top 1/2 Tier 1


27 Dresses - top Tier 3


Natural Born Killers - Tier 2 3/4


Black Rain - top-mid Tier 3 (current placement)


Face/Off - top Tier 3 (just above Clayton; averaged input)


Other Boleyn - upper Tier 2


Semi Pro - down a few spots, bot 1/2 Tier 1


Bucket List - top of Tier 2 (averaged input)


Jumper - mid Tier 1


American Psycho - 2/4 Tier 3


Untraceable - down a few spots in Tier 1


One Missed Call - (low Tier 2) / (mid Tier 2)


Unforgiven - top3/bot2


Patton - Tier 2 3/4 [DNR]


Shooter - up to top Tier 1


Sweeney Todd - Tier 1 1/2


Shinobi - bumped to the top of Tier 2, pending further input


Bee Movie - above TMNT


Troy - down a few spots


IAL - below 3:10 to Yuma


TFE - down a few spots


Mr. Woodcock - up a few spots to the bottom of Tier 2


Fool's Gold - bot 1/2 Tier 1


Be Kind Rewind - Tier 1 below RH3


Beowulf & Grendel - 2/4 Tier 3


10,000 BC - bottom Tier 2


Happy Feet - top Tier 1 (current placement)


So I Married... - Tier 2


Young Guns - moved down a few spots, top Tier 4


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/14163580
> 
> 
> It was placed before I got here, but from everything I've read, it's placed lower for the very reasons you mentioned. I agree with you, there are many scenes that I would place in upper Tier 1 or even Tier 0, but it's current placement is with the entire set in mind. (That's not to imply that it can't be moved)
> 
> 
> This is similar to the recent debate we had regarding Apocalypto. Part of the movie is Tier 1, the rest is Tier 0. Where should it be placed...? It's one of the imperfections we must deal with



Planet earth is different than a feature film...it was filmed over what, 2,000 days?


With its huge scope, 90% Tier 0 and 10% Tier 1 should still place it in Tier 0.


Just my opinion, carry on


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/14167078
> 
> 
> Planet earth is different than a feature film...it was filmed over what, 2,000 days?
> 
> 
> With its huge scope, 90% Tier 0 and 10% Tier 1 should still place it in Tier 0.
> 
> 
> Just my opinion, carry on



Understood.


But know that I'm not arguing for the current placement of PE, just trying to explain to the OP why it is placed relatively low given the reviews he'd read elsewhere.


Brandon


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/14167137
> 
> 
> Understood.
> 
> 
> But know that I'm not arguing for the current placement of PE, just trying to explain to the OP why it is placed relatively low given the reviews he'd read elsewhere.
> 
> 
> Brandon



Fo sho


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/14167019
> 
> *Update:*
> 
> 
> Shoot Em Up - below SM3, Tier 0



That strikes me a bit odd. Shoot Em Up seems superior to SM3 in all respects, IMO.


Brandon


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/14167078
> 
> 
> Planet earth is different than a feature film...it was filmed over what, 2,000 days?
> 
> 
> With its huge scope, 90% Tier 0 and 10% Tier 1 should still place it in Tier 0.
> 
> 
> Just my opinion, carry on



I would say 3% was Tier 0, 15% Tier 1, 65-70% Tier 2, and the remainder Tier 3 and yes, Tier 4 or 5 (see the section on the caves for some horrible compression artifacts).


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/14167198
> 
> 
> I would say 3% was Tier 0, 15% Tier 1, 65-70% Tier 2, and the remainder Tier 3 and yes, Tier 4 or 5 (see the section on the caves for some horrible compression artifacts).



Only 3% Tier 0?










I haven't seen all of it, just parts, and what I saw was stunning.


I am going by what Murilo said, so I am not doubting you Rob.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14167181
> 
> 
> That strikes me a bit odd. Shoot Em Up seems superior to SM3 in all respects, IMO.
> 
> 
> Brandon



+1


In fact, I am not sure that I still think SM3 even belongs in Tier 0.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/14167230
> 
> 
> Only 3% Tier 0?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen all of it, just parts, and what I saw was stunning.
> 
> 
> I am going by what Murilo said, so I am not doubting you Rob.



No worries, it's not like I am offended that others disagree with me.


That said, I will certainly stand by my statement that very few scenes in PE are Tier 0 (a few of the underwater reef shots, and some of the colorful birds are the only two that come to mind).


And I watched a couple hours of this just the other day. I think its current placement is fine.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/14167278
> 
> 
> No worries, it's not like I am offended that others disagree with me.
> 
> 
> That said, I will certainly stand by my statement that very few scenes in PE are Tier 0 (a few of the underwater reef shots, and some of the colorful birds are the only two that come to mind).
> 
> 
> And I watched a couple hours of this just the other day. I think its current placement is fine.



Sounds good...I'll have to pick it up one day and watch the whole thing.


----------



## b_scott

i love Planet Earth (haven't watched it all yet) but i agree that a lot of it is lesser quality. while it may generally look good, there are a lot of soft and grainy shots. because of all the different settings and cameras, i don't discount it for that. not tier 0 though.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/14167368
> 
> 
> Sounds good...I'll have to pick it up one day and watch the whole thing.



Absolutely!


Just because I don't think this is a superb showcase for HD overall, I very highly recommend this for a purchase because the content itself is simply outstanding!


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/14167620
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> 
> Just because I don't think this is a superb showcase for HD overall, I very highly recommend this for a purchase because the content itself is simply outstanding!



Yeah I know I've been meaning to buy it for a while now, just haven't gotten around to it


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/14167019
> 
> *Update:*
> 
> 
> Revenge - low Tier 3
> 
> 
> Saw IV - Tier 2



Great work as usual SuprSlow. I don't remember much discussion of Revenge or who recommended low tier 3 but my recollections of the Blu-ray put it a little higher like the middle of Tier 3. I still think Saw IV is a disgrace to the second Tier and hope some others watch it closely. Artifacting all over the movie and in general a little disappointing for image to me. I think it was my opinion of this transfer that drove a certain poster to start the "Artistic Intent Thread".


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tamahome02000* /forum/post/14162401
> 
> 
> Sorry, the 96 khz 3 hr Dave Matthews blu ray is in a catagory by itself. Tier -1.




I disagree. I think this is a great audio track, but overated. Infact, I have a handfull of lossy DD/DTS tracks that impress me more than this one (Earls Court DTS on the Led Zep DVD and Talking Heads Stop Making Sense to name a few). I also think the NIN Beside You In Time TrueHD is a better track than the Dave and Tim TrueHD.


Edit: Forgot I was in the PQ thread and your comments were probably in ref to PQ and not AQ. My mistake.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/14167198
> 
> 
> I would say 3% was Tier 0, 15% Tier 1, 65-70% Tier 2, and the remainder Tier 3 and yes, Tier 4 or 5 (see the section on the caves for some horrible compression artifacts).



Agreed. The PQ was ALL over the place on this one. VERY little Tier 0 material.


----------



## lgans316

Thanks a lot SuprSlow.


Rambo (2008) - High Tier 2 / Tier 1 1/2 - *Perfect*


Rambo II - top Tier 3 / above FaceOff bot Tier 2 - *Below Face/Off (Import) in bot Tier 2 would be the right spot*


Rambo III - low Tier 2 - Above Rambo II in bot Tier-2


Rambo IV - upper mid Tier 2 - I think there has been a slight misunderstanding here.


IMO Planet Earth is Tier-2 material.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/14168665
> 
> 
> Great work as usual SuprSlow. I don't remember much discussion of Revenge or who recommended low tier 3 but my recollections of the Blu-ray put it a little higher like the middle of Tier 3. *I still think Saw IV is a disgrace to the second Tier and hope some others watch it closely.* Artifacting all over the movie and in general a little disappointing for image to me. I think it was my opinion of this transfer that drove a certain poster to start the "Artistic Intent Thread".



Agree...Saw IV was an ugly movie and it probably belongs in Tier 4 IMO. There was nothing "HD" about it if you ask me. Flat image, raised contrast, resolution did not seem much higher than 480p.


----------



## SuprSlow

Thanks guys. I'll go back and take a look at Saw IV. I thought we had a few people agree on Tier 2, but I may be mistaken.


I'll also search out some posts on the Rambo series. I think I was confusing Rambo (the new one) with Rambo part I. Or something like that...


----------



## ballen420




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/14170010
> 
> 
> Agree...Saw IV was an ugly movie and it probably belongs in Tier 4 IMO. There was nothing "HD" about it if you ask me. Flat image, raised contrast, resolution did not seem much higher than 480p.



It's been a while since I've seen it, but I remember thinking the exact same thing when I did. Slightly better then DVD, but not by much. Tier 4 was my opinion.


I have Be Kind Rewind, 10,000 BC, and There will be Blood to watch this weekend. Of those 3, was never expecting BKR to have the best PQ of the bunch. I've seen TWBB on DVD, and kind of expected the dark scenes to have an impact, but expected 10,000 BC to have sharp PQ, while being a terrible movie.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14169139
> 
> 
> Rambo IV - upper mid Tier 2 - I think there has been a slight misunderstanding here.



Next time write, "what we have here, is a failure to communicate."










Brandon


----------



## b_scott

i assume Persepholis will be Tier 0 since it's animated. it's sitting at home waiting to be watched, just haven't gotten around to it yet.


----------



## OldCodger73

In one way this thread seems a little inbred in that most of the people who contibute seem to prefer a few certain types of movie, which means quite a few titles languish in the "To be rated" category.


With this in mind, here are what I feel comfortable with as a starting point for discussion of some of the unranked tiltes that I've watched, all on a Panasonic 720p 50" plasma, Panasonic 10a player at 7.5'.


Breaker Morant 3/4 Tier 3

Legend of Zorro mid Tier 2

The Longest Day Tier 1 right above Battle of the Bulge

Mrs. Doubtfire 3/4 Tier 2

A Room with a View mid to 3/4 Tier 2

The Sand Pebble Tier 1 right below The Longest Day.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/14172621
> 
> 
> In one way this thread seems a little inbred in that most of the people who contibute seem to prefer a few certain types of movie, which means quite a few titles languish in the "To be rated" category.
> 
> 
> With this in mind, here are what I feel comfortable with as a starting point for discussion of some of the unranked tiltes that I've watched, all on a Panasonic 720p 50" plasma, Panasonic 10a player at 7.5'.
> 
> 
> Breaker Morant 3/4 Tier 3
> 
> Legend of Zorro mid Tier 2
> *The Longest Day Tier 1 right above Battle of the Bulge*
> 
> Mrs. Doubtfire 3/4 Tier 2
> 
> A Room with a View mid to 3/4 Tier 2
> 
> The Sand Pebble Tier 1 right below The Longest Day.



I haven't watched TLD, but based on comments elsewhere that it has DNR that's even worse than Patton, Tier 1 seems unlikely.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/14172621
> 
> 
> Breaker Morant 3/4 Tier 3



I would agree with that placement. Most problems seemed to stem from the source print. Good movie, btw.


Brandon


----------



## FoxyMulder

Saw IV is miles better than any DVD and is very much HD material but has a look which many on this particular thread may not like......It is highly detailed and does not contain artifacting....Although this is only my opinion.


Hmmm The Sand Pebbles which is one of the finest old movie transfers to Blu Ray right below The Longest Day....How does that work out ?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14171793
> 
> 
> Next time write, "what we have here, is a failure to communicate."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brandon



I guess that's what we have.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/14171434
> 
> 
> Thanks guys. I'll go back and take a look at Saw IV. I thought we had a few people agree on Tier 2, but I may be mistaken.
> 
> 
> I'll also search out some posts on the Rambo series. I think I was confusing Rambo (the new one) with Rambo part I. Or something like that...



The first Rambo is actually called "First Blood" and there is no Rambo name in the title.


----------



## SuprSlow

I give up!


----------



## stumlad

1) First Blood

2) Rambo: First Blood part II

3) Rambo III (Rambo II: First Blood part III would be worse than this name









4) Rambo (They should have just called it John Rambo -- similar to what they did with Rocky Balboa)


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FoxyMulder* /forum/post/14172988
> 
> 
> Saw IV is miles better than any DVD and is very much HD material but has a look which many on this particular thread may not like......It is highly detailed and does not contain artifacting....Although this is only my opinion.



I agree re Saw IV. I didn't see any artifacting at all, and found the pciture to be fairly detailed. The only thing lacking was excellent contrast.



> Quote:
> Hmmm The Sand Pebbles which is one of the finest old movie transfers to Blu Ray right below The Longest Day....How does that work out ?




Edit: Sand Pebbles isn't even ranked yet!


I would say Top of Tier 2, or even bottom of Tier 1.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Twister should be top of Tier 3, not bottom of Tier 2 imo.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Almost Famous*(U.K. import)


tier recommendation: very high *Tier 3
*

Sony has encoded this 161 minute movie in AVC on a BD-50. From the specifications thread the average scanned video bitrate is 24.98 Mbps. The video encode never steps out of the 20.9 to 30 Mbps range. It seems to brickwall at 30.2 Mbps, never going over that figure, which is somewhat unusual for a video encode targeted solely for Blu-ray. That aside this BD has an excellent compression job with no artifacting or compression noise visible even during difficult scenes. Banding was non-existent. I was very impressed with this aspect of the disc.


There are other positive aspects of this Blu-ray. The HD master used looks in perfect shape for a catalog title with no blemishes or scratch marks or other stray elements that can mark a transfer. I did notice an odd annoyance occurring around the short scene involving Penny Lane alone in the gymnasium. It looks like a B-roll or something else was possibly used to splice the scene together as the color timing seems to briefly change from shot to shot.


Black levels are average to slightly below average for a Tier 2 or 3 title with no macroblocking but minor instances of clipping are seen. What drags this Blu-ray's image down into Tier 3 seems to be source related, as much of the film looks slightly soft and lacking clarity. The first 75 minutes or so look very soft. Strangely the image seems to get sharper and more detailed after that point, particularly in the last 30 minutes.


Compare Billy Crudup's closeups from early in the movie towards closeups near the end. There is almost a night and day difference. Detail seems to get much better in the latter stages of the film. It starts out in low Tier 3 quality and ends up near the top of Tier 2 resolution by the end. Much of the film's image and photography looks flat and colors look a little dull, even in some of the outside daytime scenes. There is some moderate edge enhancement noticeable but it only seems intrusive in a few shots.


I never saw this in theaters so I can't really say whether DNR has been used. There is some grain to the image which is more apparent in low light scenes. If DNR has been used it has been selectively applied as the second half of the movie shows absolutely no signs of DNR. That is why I believe the softness and lack of detail sometimes seen is probably source related.


Even with some of these problems this Blu-ray represents a very real upgrade over the domestic dvd's image. I'm not sure this movie could look much better on Blu-ray as Sony has delivered an excellent video encode that seems faithful to the source material. I recommend a very high Tier 3 placement, but the low Tier 2 ranking it currently occupies is pretty close to accurate.


Watching on a calibrated 60" Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080P/24 fed by a PS3 from a viewing distance of approximately five feet.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Twister should be top of Tier 3, not bottom of Tier 2 imo.



+1.



> Quote:
> *Almost Famous(U.K. import) - Top Tier-3*



No issues. I voted for bottom Tier-2. I thought the PQ improved around 1 hr 40 min mark once Stillwater enters NYC.


----------



## bonham2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jjwinterberg* /forum/post/12679034
> 
> 
> I watched "The Queen" last night and I believe that she needs to be moved down quite a bit. I found a lot of video noise and thought that the disc was overall not that great. I would put it no higher than tier III and at least below "Memento" and above "Blazing Saddles".



+1 for tier 3. Very inconsistent with drab, under-saturated, muted colors. The grain gets so excessive in some spots that I felt like they digitally added it on purpose...


----------



## Shane Martin

Spiderwick Chronicles - AVC - Low Tier 1. I think it's better PQ wise than There will Be Blood which is currently ranked at the top of Tier 2. I found SC to be consistently excellent


----------



## bplewis24

Has anybody else seen P.S. I Love You? I'm surprised to see it so high in Tier 1. It seems like a high Tier 2 title to me.


Brandon


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/14175611
> 
> 
> 1) First Blood
> 
> 2) Rambo: First Blood part II
> 
> 3) Rambo III (Rambo II: First Blood part III would be worse than this name
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4) Rambo (They should have just called it John Rambo -- similar to what they did with Rocky Balboa)



Sylvester Stallone wanted it to be called John Rambo......in fact he stated that a directors cut would be coming out and it will be called John Rambo, and that 100% of the profit would go to aiding the people of Burma/Myanmar.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Shane Martin* /forum/post/14177359
> 
> 
> Spiderwick Chronicles - AVC - Low Tier 1. I think it's better PQ wise than There will Be Blood which is currently ranked at the top of Tier 2. I found SC to be consistently excellent



I agree with this assessment. Just finished watching Spiderwick, and thought it was very good overall. There are moments of softness where details are not that sharp, but most of the movie is indeed, very detailed.


----------



## salbah3ng_bata

I think Behind Enemy Lines is placed high in tier 2, I just watched it and I didn't feel it was Tier 2 Category. We own the night, a tier 3 movie according to the list looked better than this movie IMO. Idk where to suggest it, but it seems like Tier 2 seems a little high for this one.


----------



## lgans316

*Cloverfield Video: VC-1 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 1.85:1 | Paramount*


Somewhere in *Tier-2 3/4* would be the right spot for Cloverfield considering the way the movie was filmed. Slight Compression noise or Edge Enhancement (not sure) was noticeable on Beth's forehead in the opening scene and on the walls when Rob and Lily go to rescue Beth.


I feel *Sunshine* is placed too high in Tier-1 'coz it didn't look any better than Narnia.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14159744
> 
> 
> That may be just a bit high. Perhaps the third quarter of Tier 1. I thought the panoramic shots inside the Colosseum looked a little soft, and the final shot of the snowy river bank looked very obviously fake. Close-ups generally looked very nice. Nice grain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really enjoyed this movie, btw.



I agree wholeheartedly with your opinion of *Jumper* patrick. I was hoping it would be Tier 0 material based on various reviews I had read, but there was a lot of inconsistency throughout, with some scenes (especially close-ups) meriting Tier 0, while other scenes (action and dark scenes, and the two you mentioned) could fall into either Tier 2 or 3. So, overall I would echo your sentiments and vote for the 3rd quarter of Tier 1.


Viewing on a Samsung HL-S5087 1080p with a Panny BD30 from 8'.


----------



## zoro

How abt BE KIND REWIND? I loved that transfer!


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Wow, Wall-E is getting incredible reviews, saying it's the best looking pixar film ever.


Can't wait for this to come to blu ray already!









http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/walle


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14180529
> 
> 
> I agree wholeheartedly with your opinion of *Jumper* patrick. I was hoping it would be Tier 0 material based on various reviews I had read, but there was a lot of inconsistency throughout, with some scenes (especially close-ups) meriting Tier 0, while other scenes (action and dark scenes, and the two you mentioned) could fall into either Tier 2 or 3. So, overall I would echo your sentiments and vote for the 3rd quarter of Tier 1.
> 
> 
> Viewing on a Samsung HL-S5087 1080p with a Panny BD30 from 8'.



The PQ was inconsistent probably due to the filming style. Nevertheless Jumper is mid Tier-1 material though I agree that there were scenes that looked bottom Tier-2 or Top Tier-3 to me.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14033718
> 
> *Erin Brockovich (Import) Video: AVC | Audio: Dolby True HD 16-bit | AR: 1.85:1 | Sony*
> 
> 
> Sony has delivered an extremely good looking catalog title. The director Steven Soderbergh is accustomed to using plenty of color filters, elevating contrast and adding intentional grain and I am glad to say that this one is no exception. A slight layer of unobtrusive Soderbergh grain is visible throughout the presentation. There was no hint of bit rate starvation as they hovered between 20~35 Mbps sticking around the high twenties most of the time. Black levels were quite impressive though they weren't inky. Close-ups shots looked detailed with skin tones looking a bit warm at times. The color palette looked quite oversaturated and hot strictly complying to the unique cinematographic intentions of the director. Overall the transfer definitely looked sharp and detailed than the SD DVD with a handful of scenes looking soft, flat and out of focus.
> 
> *Recommendation*: Tier-2 3/4



I re-watched Erin Brockovich and it looks to be better than Spiderman, Superbad and Donnie Brasco.







This is due to the rare presence of soft looking shots in the former which was quite frequent with the latter mentioned titles. For time-being this can be placed above Spiderman in Tier-2.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14182681
> 
> 
> The PQ was inconsistent probably due to the filming style. Nevertheless Jumper is mid Tier-1 material though I agree that there were scenes that looked bottom Tier-2 or Top Tier-3 to me.



You are no doubt right about the filming style being a major factor in the inconsistency of the PQ. This movie reminded me of Transformers (on HD DVD), for that too had excellent contrast, spot on flesh tones, and natural colors, but it also had many night scenes that were soft with excessive grain, and some less-than-desirable action scenes (they weren't very sharp). This, IMHO, dropped it from a Tier 0 to a Tier 1.


BTW, I have no problem with Jumper being mid Tier 1.


----------



## HDphile22

I am unsatisfied with the productivity of this thred!


A lot of movies are still in the Unranked Tier... for so long.


They NEED to be ranked!


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDphile22* /forum/post/14184181
> 
> 
> I am unsatisfied with the productivity of this thred!
> 
> 
> A lot of movies are still in the Unranked Tier... for so long.
> 
> 
> They NEED to be ranked!



And a lot of them have no reviews from us.......so how can they be ranked if no one shares their thoughts on them?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDphile22* /forum/post/14184181
> 
> 
> I am unsatisfied with the productivity of this thred!
> 
> 
> A lot of movies are still in the Unranked Tier... for so long.
> 
> 
> They NEED to be ranked!





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/14184459
> 
> 
> And a lot of them have no reviews from us.......so how can they be ranked if no one shares their thoughts on them?



Exactly.


There simply isn't enough participation here. And even if somebody gives a review, it doesn't do much good to have a title ranked based on a single review.


I'm afraid that this Tier list will lose it's value without more participation from a wider range of members.


----------



## alexg75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/14185526
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> 
> There simply isn't enough participation here. And even if somebody gives a review, it doesn't do much good to have a title ranked based on a single review.
> 
> 
> I'm afraid that this Tier list will lose it's value without more participation from a wider range of members.




Hey I have tried on my part,but I have been discouraged as of late.

Of the titles that are unranked,I have Legend of Zorro and I have seen it.


----------



## Hughmc

I watched Fools Gold last night. I noticed it is in lower tier one, but I couldn't find any discussion, reviews or recommendations when I did a search in this thread. The placement looks good to me maybe a bit lower than Rush Hour 3. It had surprisingly excellent PQ very clear and detailed.


I also agree with the last few posts. About once a month I reitterate my belief that with so many titles out and so many more coming out that are so close in PQ it is really hard and going to be harder to place titles with true accuracy.


Sony A3000 60in @ 8ft. from PS3 through HDMI.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14185643
> 
> 
> I watched Fools Gold last night. I noticed it is in lower tier one, but I couldn't find any discussion, reviews or recommendations when I did a search in this thread. The placement looks good to me maybe a bit lower than Rush Hour 3. It had surprisingly excellent PQ very clear and detailed.
> 
> 
> I also agree with the last few posts. About once a month I reitterate my belief that with so many titles out and so many more coming out that are so close in PQ it is really hard and going to be harder to place titles with true accuracy.
> 
> 
> Sony A3000 60in @ 8ft. from PS3 through HDMI.



I posted a short review on Fool's Gold about a week ago.


----------



## b_scott

Persepholis is mid Tier 0.


it's 95% black and white, and it's a cartoon. but it's very sharp and great contrast. good movie too.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I do think the unranked lists are going to grow immensely over the coming months unless we get more participation in this thread. Now that all the major studios are releasing BDs we are going to have weeks where the sheer numbers of titles are going to overwhelm us. I try to get to as many unranked titles as possible. I see Scary Movie is still unranked. I think that was skipped over in the last update. Just dump it anywhere in Tier 2.


----------



## III Space III

Is there anyway we could have some way of telling what the most recent additions to the list are? An * or something. Not too important for the new releases. It would be nice to be able to browse recent ratings. And maybe a different mark for things recently moved.


----------



## lgans316

*Let's also keep in mind that not everyone will buy or rent unranked lackluster titles like the below*



> Quote:
> The Big Hit Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.85:1 | Sony
> 
> Blackbeard Video: ? | Audio: DD | AR: 1.78:1 | Echo Bridge
> 
> Steep Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 1.78:1 | Sony
> 
> Ultimate Force Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: DD2.0 | AR: 1.85:1 | BCI
> 
> I Know Who Killed Me Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony



Here are my recommendations for the below unranked titles.


Next (Jaggies) Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Paramount - *Top Tier-2*


Ocean's Eleven Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner - *Tier-2 below Bridge to Terabithia*


Ocean's Twelve Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner - *Tier-2 below X-Men: The Last Stand. Debatable.*


Dragon Tiger Gate Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Tai Seng - *Top Tier-2. EE / Halos to be confirmed by experts but nevertheless this is a very good looking title.*


V for Vendetta Video: VC-1 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner - *Tier-2 above Independence Day.*


Disturbia - Already placed in Tier-1 which I think may be a bit high.


----------



## Elbie

I want to participate more in this, but I think I need to get my eyes trained a little bit better and research more of these terms.


----------



## mhafner

I vote for Saawariya as Tier 0. Apart from some minor DNR in some shots it's fantastic. The DNR is on the DI and not a disc issue.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/14176264
> 
> *Almost Famous*(U.K. import)
> 
> 
> tier recommendation: very high *Tier 3
> *
> 
> Sony has encoded this 161 minute movie in AVC on a BD-50. From the specifications thread the average scanned video bitrate is 24.98 Mbps. *The video encode never steps out of the 20.9 to 30 Mbps range. It seems to brickwall at 30.2 Mbps, never going over that figure, which is somewhat unusual for a video encode targeted solely for Blu-ray.* That aside this BD has an excellent compression job with no artifacting or compression noise visible even during difficult scenes. Banding was non-existent. I was very impressed with this aspect of the disc.



Unfortunately, this is Sony's very consistent practice. They have a policy (acknowledged by a SPE insider in response to my badgering) that the bitrate must not go over 30.


I don't know the reason for this misguided practice; one possibility is so that they can release superbit versions at some point in the future that actually take full advantage of the BD bandwidth capability.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/14186079
> 
> 
> I do think the unranked lists are going to grow immensely over the coming months unless we get more participation in this thread. Now that all the major studios are releasing BDs we are going to have weeks where the sheer numbers of titles are going to overwhelm us. I try to get to as many unranked titles as possible. *I see Scary Movie is still unranked. I think that was skipped over in the last update. Just dump it anywhere in Tier 2.*



I haven't seen Scary Movie, but in light of everything that has been said about the horrendous DNR in this, it seems unlikely that it belongs in Tier 2.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14186903
> 
> *Let's also keep in mind that not everyone will buy or rent unranked lackluster titles like the below*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here are my recommendations for the below unranked titles.
> 
> 
> Next (Jaggies) Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Paramount - *Top Tier-2*
> 
> 
> Ocean's Eleven Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner - *Tier-2 below Bridge to Terabithia*
> 
> 
> Ocean's Twelve Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner - *Tier-2 below X-Men: The Last Stand. Debatable.*
> 
> 
> Dragon Tiger Gate Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Tai Seng - *Top Tier-2. EE / Halos to be confirmed by experts but nevertheless this is a very good looking title.*
> 
> 
> V for Vendetta Video: VC-1 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner - *Tier-2 above Independence Day.*
> 
> *Disturbia - Already placed in Tier-1 which I think may be a bit high.*



I watched Disturbia several times when it was first released, and I would agree that Tier 1 is too high.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14188384
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, this is Sony's very consistent practice. They have a policy (acknowledged by a SPE insider in response to my badgering) that the bitrate must not go over 30.
> 
> 
> I don't know the reason for this misguided practice; one possibility is so that they can release superbit versions at some point in the future that actually take full advantage of the BD bandwidth capability.



Don't worry. There are dozens of scenes on Peter Pan and Erin Brockovich







with 32+ Mbps peaks but as you said this trend may be diminishing with mainstream releases.


----------



## ballen420

I watched Be Kind Rewind over the weekend and was very impressed. I thought it was a beautifully detailed movie. Excellent colors througout, and the outdoor city fly by scenes were gorgeous. I think it should be ranked higher then it is now - probably near the bottom of the top 1/2 of tier 1. Definitely thought it was much better the Semi Pro, and I thought it was sharper then NT2.


Movie was ok, but scene where they remake Ghostbusters made it worth watching.


I also saw 10,000 BC. Awful. Ranked perfectly, if not slightly too high.


----------



## AustinSTI

Even if you are new if you see something unranked and have an opinion we'd love to hear it. Step up to the plate...don't be afraid!


----------



## bplewis24

I agree with mhafner that Saawariya may be Tier 0, along with patrick and lgans that Tier 1 is too high for Disturbia.


And I'm thinking Spider Man 3 may be too high as well.


Brandon


----------



## b_scott

IMO Spidey 3 isn't a demo disc for BD. which is sad since it was the flagship disc.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14189786
> 
> 
> I agree with mhafner that Saawariya may be Tier 0, along with patrick and lgans that Tier 1 is too high for Disturbia.
> 
> *And I'm thinking Spider Man 3 may be too high as well.*
> 
> 
> Brandon



I made a similar comment recently. I remember (without being reminded) that I was one who previously posted that SM3 should be where it is now. My views have evolved on this one.


On Saawariya, I need to take another look at it, but based on having watched only the first few minutes a while ago, I don't recall thinking Tier 0.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14190262
> 
> 
> On Saawariya, I need to take another look at it, but based on having watched only the first few minutes a while ago, I don't recall thinking Tier 0.



It's already in High Tier 1 (which is where I voted for it), so I'd have no problem if it didn't move up the 3-4 spots necessary for it to be Tier 0. But I think it's a beautiful looking title that could be demo material for a person showing off their system to a friend.


Brandon


----------



## svalentine

Its not a movie, but The Dark Knight Prologue on Batman Begins blu-ray is the best video quality I have ever seen and I own 100+ blu-rays, including most in Tier 0.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mhafner* /forum/post/14188309
> 
> 
> I vote for Saawariya as Tier 0. Apart from some minor DNR in some shots it's fantastic. The DNR is on the DI and not a disc issue.



Others have recommended Tier 0 for this as well, and when someone like you comes in to this thread and agrees, it is definitely a title that I will need to see!


----------



## bplewis24

I went back and checked and I did vote this for the very top of Tier 1, but I considered voting for Tier 0 as well:



> Quote:
> I'm going to recommend this for the very top if Tier 1, I guess. It's a gorgeous title with tons of deep blacks, dark rich purples and greens. It's the opposite of Enchanted in that it's a very vibrant title, but whereas Enchanted is filmed mostly in brightly lit settings, Saawariya is not. The contrast does not seem to suffer a bit from it from my point of view.
> 
> 
> The sharpness and fine object detail are there, although it is not the best I've seen. I went back and forth on it being Tier 0 or not, so I'm going with top of Tier 1 for now. However it's certainly demo material...especially if you wanna test the black levels of your TV set



So I have no objection to Tier 0.


Brandon


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14188387
> 
> 
> I haven't seen Scary Movie, but in light of everything that has been said about the horrendous DNR in this, it seems unlikely that it belongs in Tier 2.



I reviewed this BD's image a few pages back in the thread. Without the DNR this is easily a Tier 0 Blu-ray. Dropping it all the way to Tier 3 doesn't really seem right to me. I suggest we put it in high Tier 2 with an asterisk for the heavy DNR and EE. Other titles like Patton that have DNR are in Tier 2 but I think we might have to go to an asterisk system in the future for many titles. I also have nothing against dropping Spider-man 3 from Tier 0. I think the bar for getting into Tier 0 should be kept high.


I finally got around to watching Jumper. What others have said here about this Blu-ray I agree with for the most part. It is a reference compression job encoded in AVC on a BD-50. With all the difficult material like the frequent jumping effect from locale to locale there is not one single artifact or hint of noise on this disc. I think this BD would have turned out worse if say Warner had encoded it. Patrick99 is right about the Colosseum scenes in Rome. I don't know what happened(maybe they had to use Italian film crews?) but the picture quality definitely slips there. The black levels also appear worse during that segment compared to the rest of the movie where the blacks are very inky.


The rest of the picture shows good resolution and detail though there is very little depth or dimensionality compared to the image seen in the best Blu-ray transfers. Filming just seems very flat aside from a few scenes. This is a very film-like transfer with no DNR present or edge enhancement seen and I believe that Jumper will never look better on Blu-ray than this disc but its current placement in the middle of Tier 1 seems fine. I might quibble to push it up three or four spots but this is a solid Tier 1 title for me. I don't think it ever really jumps to Tier 3 as some of you suggested but there are some scenes firmly in Tier 2.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mhafner* /forum/post/14188309
> 
> 
> I vote for Saawariya as Tier 0. Apart from some minor DNR in some shots it's fantastic. The DNR is on the DI and not a disc issue.



I have no comment on Saawariya itself as I have not seen it yet but I'm not sure how the Digital Intermediate having DNR should be any consideration in judging the final picture quality for the purposes of this thread. Are we supposed to grade it easier because the source is problematic? If there is a problem in the source material like DNR and it's apparent on the final image quality of the Blu-ray than the disc does have DNR.


----------



## lgans316

*Update on Shooter:*


I had initially recommend for top Tier-1 placement but after second viewing I am convinced that the High Def feel offered by NCFOM was slightly better than what was offered by Shooter due to the following reasons


1) Intentional black crush

2) Slight grain removal but nothing catastrophic.


I am pretty confident that the intentional black crush and slight grain scrubbing have been done during the process of creating the Digital Intermediate which has been Paramount's norm for newer titles.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*National Treasure 2: Book of Secrets*


Very, very nice PQ on this title! Yes, Disney comes through again. This is how it's done!


I didn't notice any artifacts. Contrast was superb, with deep blacks and excellent shadow detail. Colors looked great and natural. Detail and clarity were excellent, with an overall sharp, yet natural looking (not digital) picture.


High marks for this one! I recommend top half of Tier 1 for sure, and that's where it is placed currently. I might move it up another 4 spots or so, but that's no big deal.


For as much as I loved the PQ, I can't come close to saying the same about the movie itself. Then again, I didn't like the first one at all either, so I wasn't expecting much, and I didn't get much!


----------



## lgans316

+1 for the NT-2 assessment.



> Quote:
> I didn't get much!



These are exactly the type of flicks where you aren't expected to get much.


----------



## Syzygy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vicw* /forum/post/12877204
> 
> 
> Great thread. I have just one small concern with it. I am finding it very difficult to read the information in the Gold, Silver and Bronze sections, due to the light colors of the fonts. For me, a plain old black font for the data would be much preferred.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RBFC* /forum/post/12879114
> 
> 
> Try the different style options on the main forum page at the very bottom. Those will completely change the look of the type, etc. -- Lee



Vicw: I strongly agree.

RBFC: Your idea doesn't work. When I switched from 'Default' (where light gray is hard to read) to 'Black' or 'Retro', the blue text became unreadable.

*/rant*


C'mon, AustinSTI, you shouldn't need this to be pointed out to you! By sticking to your ridiculous color choices, you're just thumbing your nose at AVSForum members. In effect, you're saying (as Dick Cheney once said in the Senate) "go @#&% yerself."


And while I'm on a roll here, when you post overlong lines so that they wrap in the wrong places and then center them, to boot, you are once again (twice again?) dissing the membership. I really can't believe you've posted over 700 times to this forum without learning these ...

*/rant off*


... basic points of courteous posting:

(1) Make each paragraph one long line -- no embedded Enter codes (and, of course, no centering except in headers).

(2) Use colored text sparingly and _never_ use colors that _may be_ hard to read unless you really want to hide the text.


P.S.

To see how your superfluous Enter codes look to others, try changing the width of your browser window. (If the window is "Maximized," "Restore" it using the little icon next to the Close box in the upper right corner; then drag the window's left or right edge.)


----------



## RBFC




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Syzygy* /forum/post/14195637
> 
> 
> RBFC: Your idea doesn't work. When I switched from 'Default' (where light gray is hard to read) to 'Black' or 'Retro', the blue text became unreadable.



You're welcome for the suggestion. You never know how different monitors will behave when the forum skin is changed among its options. I'm sorry it didn't work for you.


Lee


----------



## Syzygy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RBFC* /forum/post/14195828
> 
> 
> You're welcome for the suggestion. You never know how different monitors will behave when the forum skin is changed among its options. I'm sorry it didn't work for you. -- Lee



I'm guessing it worked for you. But (assuming you preferred the white background -- I hope I'm not making an ass of myself







) why should you or anyone else have to switch to a less-desirable color scheme in order to be able to read AustinSTI's lists?


In other words, should Hercules have let the innkeeper Procrustes cut off his feet in the middle of the night to fit the inn's too-small bed, or was Hercules justified in slaying Procrustes to defend himself?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/14193999
> 
> 
> I have no comment on Saawariya itself as I have not seen it yet but I'm not sure how the Digital Intermediate having DNR should be any consideration in judging the final picture quality for the purposes of this thread. Are we supposed to grade it easier because the source is problematic? If there is a problem in the source material like DNR and it's apparent on the final image quality of the Blu-ray than the disc does have DNR.



I spent some more time with Saawariya last night and I am afraid I cannot agree with a Tier 0 placement for this. I question whether it even belongs in Tier 1. My huge problem with this title is that the facial close-ups do not have the sharpness and detail I see in the best BDs. The women's faces, in particular, are lacking in this regard.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/14195551
> 
> *National Treasure 2: Book of Secrets*
> 
> 
> Very, very nice PQ on this title! Yes, Disney comes through again. This is how it's done!
> 
> 
> I didn't notice any artifacts. Contrast was superb, with deep blacks and excellent shadow detail. Colors looked great and natural. Detail and clarity were excellent, with an overall sharp, yet natural looking (not digital) picture.
> 
> 
> High marks for this one! I recommend top half of Tier 1 for sure, and that's where it is placed currently. I might move it up another 4 spots or so, but that's no big deal.
> 
> 
> For as much as I loved the PQ, I can't come close to saying the same about the movie itself. Then again, I didn't like the first one at all either, so I wasn't expecting much, and I didn't get much!



Rob, I am comfortable with the current placement of NT2, and I thought the close-ups were generally excellent, buat the one place where I thought it fell short was in the sharpness and detail in broader shots, such as the interior shots in the palace in London. It seemed to me that shots like those should have had much more sharpness than they did.


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Syzygy* /forum/post/14195637
> 
> 
> Vicw: I strongly agree.
> 
> RBFC: Your idea doesn't work. When I switched from 'Default' (where light gray is hard to read) to 'Black' or 'Retro', the blue text became unreadable.
> 
> */rant*
> 
> 
> C'mon, AustinSTI, you shouldn't need this to be pointed out to you! By sticking to your ridiculous color choices, you're just thumbing your nose at AVSForum members. In effect, you're saying (as Dick Cheney once said in the Senate) "go @#&% yerself."
> 
> 
> And while I'm on a roll here, when you post overlong lines so that they wrap in the wrong places and then center them, to boot, you are once again (twice again?) dissing the membership. I really can't believe you've posted over 700 times to this forum without learning these ...
> 
> */rant off*
> 
> 
> ... basic points of courteous posting:
> 
> (1) Make each paragraph one long line -- no embedded Enter codes (and, of course, no centering except in headers).
> 
> (2) Use colored text sparingly and _never_ use colors that _may be_ hard to read unless you really want to hide the text.
> 
> 
> P.S.
> 
> To see how your superfluous Enter codes look to others, try changing the width of your browser window. (If the window is "Maximized," "Restore" it using the little icon next to the Close box in the upper right corner; then drag the window's left or right edge.)



In the time it took to type that post, you probably could've come up with a better color scheme







This is the best combo we've found given the fact that there are many different forum styles available and no one set of colors is going to suit every single user. Given the fact there is a white scheme, a black scheme, and everything in between...I think finding the perfect set of font colors is an impossibility. I know..."get rid of the colors completely", but then it becomes increasingly difficult to navigate the tiers and differentiate one from another.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14196110
> 
> 
> Rob, I am comfortable with the current placement of NT2, and I thought the close-ups were generally excellent, buat the one place where I thought it fell short was in the sharpness and detail in broader shots, such as the interior shots in the palace in London. It seemed to me that shots like those should have had much more sharpness than they did.



Weren't those shots CGI?


----------



## Syzygy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/14196902
> 
> 
> In the time it took to type that post, you probably could've come up with a better color scheme
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> I think finding the perfect set of font colors is an impossibility. I know..."get rid of the colors completely", but then it becomes increasingly difficult to navigate the tiers and differentiate one from another.



First, how can I create my own color scheme? (None of the 3 choices offered works.)


Second, is there any conceivable background that would render *all* the text readable?


Third, why not minimize the use of problematic colors by letting the text have its default color and providing your own colored bullets on each line? (I don't think it would be easy to use vBulletin's built-in list function to provide colored bullets.)


Finally (and this is the easiest thing to implement; it could be done immediately), let the list of Unranked Titles be more readable for 'Black' or 'Retro' users (a group that doesn't include me







) by changing its color from blue to the default. (As it is now, blue text on a dark background has to be selected to make it visible.)


An afterthought: Why not use *cyan* text instead of blue text in the Blu list?


P.S.

Why not save the time now being wasted in defending those colors that are hard to read, and use the time instead to _fix the problem_, benefiting all subscribers to this thread?


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> First, how can I create my own color scheme? (None of the 3 choices offered works.)



I meant offer your suggestions for improving the readability of the list.



> Quote:
> Second, is there any conceivable background that would render *all* the text readable?



I dunno.



> Quote:
> Third, why not minimize the use of problematic colors by letting the text have its default color and providing your own colored bullets on each line? (I don't think it would be easy to use vBulletin's built-in list function to provide colored bullets.)



Good idea. That's the kind of ideas/suggestions we're looking for! Far too many people (not directed at you) come in here to do nothing but complain, and offer no suggestions for improvements.



> Quote:
> An afterthought: Why not use *cyan* text instead of blue text in the Blu list?



Cyan is terribly difficult to read on lighter colored backgrounds.




> Quote:
> P.S.
> 
> Why not save the time now being wasted in defending those colors that are hard to read, and use the time instead to _fix the problem_, benefiting all subscribers to this thread?



I'm not defending anything--merely explaining why the colors are the way they are. Besides, if I knew how to fix it to please everyone, don't you think I would've already done so?


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Try using the "Retro" color scheme. Works great.


----------



## maverick0716

I'm using the AVSForum Black......and I don't have any trouble reading the Tier lists. Even if you do find it difficult to read, all you have to do is highlight the text with your mouse.....quit being so lazy.


----------



## SuprSlow

July 1, 2008 releases:
*Vantage Point* Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony
*Mad Men: Season One* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Lionsgate
*John Mayer: Where the Light Is* Video: VC-1 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 1.78:1 | Sony
*In the Line of Fire* Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony
*Gangs of New York* Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Disney
*Point Break: Pure Adrenaline Edition* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Fox
*Batman The Movie: Special Edition* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Fox
*Drillbit Taylor* Video: VC-1 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.35:1 | Paramount
*Meet the Browns: Special Edition* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Lionsgate
*Sex and Death 101* Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.78:1 | Starz
*Ganges* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 1.85:1 | BBC
*Get Smart's Bruce and Lloyd Out of Control* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 1.85:1 | Warner
*Korn: Live at Montreux 2004* Video: ? | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Eagle Rock


----------



## Syzygy

SuprSlow, what do you mean by listing 13 titles in blue? Are they going to the Blu list or to the Unranked Titles list? (I'm sure you realize that, if the Unranked Titles list had already been changed to use the default color instead of blue, there would've been no confusion.)


----------



## Syzygy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/14199696
> 
> 
> Try using the "Retro" color scheme. Works great.



Tried it. Didn't like it.










If you had read the first paragraph in my first post (posted only 15.5 hours ago) you'd have seen _"When I switched from 'Default' (where light gray is hard to read) to 'Black' or 'Retro', the blue text became unreadable."_


----------



## SuprSlow

June 24, 2008 releases:
*The Spiderwick Chronicles* Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.35:1 | Paramount
*ZZ Top: Live from Texas* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Eagle Rock
*Persepolis* Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 1.85:1 | Sony
*Sea Monsters: A Prehistoric Adventure (IMAX)* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 1.78:1 | National Geographic
*Step Into Liquid* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Lionsgate
*Washington the Beautiful* Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: DD | AR: 1.78:1 | Topics
*Rossini: La Cenerentola* Video: ? | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.85:1 | Opus Arte
*Sky Blue* Video: ? | Audio: ? | AR: 1.85:1 | Tartan


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Syzygy* /forum/post/14200263
> 
> 
> SuprSlow, what do you mean by listing 13 titles in blue? Are they going to the Blu list or to the Unranked Titles list? (I'm sure you realize that, if the Unranked Titles list had already been changed to use the default color instead of blue, there would've been no confusion.)



Those titles are today's releases, and yes, they will go to the unranked list.


----------



## SuprSlow

I changed the Unranked titles to magenta. In my opinion, that color works perfectly fine with all color schemes.


Click the link in my sig to go back to the first post...see what you think.


----------



## Syzygy

The magenta text looks great! (I see you've also changed your signature to make "Click here" line more visible on a dark background. Nice.) _*Whoops! The color of "Click here..." changed back again a few hours later! Gremlins?*_


Now that I know that you're working with me, I have another suggestion or two (of course)







...


The section of the initial post that goes "When posting your thoughts ... the forum signature rules" is always white. It's nearly invisible on the default off-white background. Please change it to use the default text color or some other, less problematic color.


Also, while revising the initial post, could someone strip out the embedded Enter codes and left-justify the narrative portions of the text?

*(I'd be happy to do all this myself in a test post, if you wish. I'd click on 'Quote', scrape out the introductory text, edit it and post it in the test area, and send you a link to it in a PM. Someone could do the Quote/scrape thing on my test post and replace the original text in the OP at the beginning of this thread.)*


----------



## tbonetommygun

soooo...... anyone have any PQ reviews?


----------



## bplewis24

Hmmm, am I the first to nominate Vantage Point? Well I'll tread lightly then










Right off the bat the image is clear and crisp, and there is a very fine veil of grain that likely isn't visible at normal or extreme viewing distances. The interesting thing is, because of the way the film is shot, you can see the same scene over and over again, but from similar and not so similar vantage points (intended).


Contrast seems very good, with decent shadow detail on display throughout most of the movie. Fine object detail varies from solid to great. The second half of the movie stays near the great end of the spectrum (a good example of this is when the *real* President is in the elevator on the way up to his hotel room). IMO it's not on par with Mr. Brooks or Shoot em Up in that area, so I'd probably put it at the *top of Tier 1*, with the caveat that if Spidey 3 remains in Tier 0 then it should probably go in there as well.


P.S. I didn't find the movie nearly as bad as the reviews it received.


Brandon


----------



## lgans316

Thanks Brandon. Was expecting Tier-0 calls out here but have to be satisfied with top tier-1 votes.


----------



## maverick0716

I watched Vantage Point tonight, but not on my usual TV......so I will view it again to get a clear opinion on it. From what I saw on the 32" Sony LCD, it looked very good! I'd probably compare it to Deja Vu.......very detailed, very clean. Great colour, and black levels. I definitely agree with the high Tier 1 recommendation, but I'll post my final thoughts on it tomorrow.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14203401
> 
> 
> Hmmm, am I the first to nominate Vantage Point? Well I'll tread lightly then
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right off the bat the image is clear and crisp, and there is a very fine veil of grain that likely isn't visible at normal or extreme viewing distances. The interesting thing is, because of the way the film is shot, you can see the same scene over and over again, but from similar and not so similar vantage points (intended).
> 
> 
> Contrast seems very good, with decent shadow detail on display throughout most of the movie. Fine object detail varies from solid to great. The second half of the movie stays near the great end of the spectrum (a good example of this is when the *real* President is in the elevator on the way up to his hotel room). IMO it's not on par with Mr. Brooks or Shoot em Up in that area, so I'd probably put it at the *top of Tier 1*, with the caveat that if Spidey 3 remains in Tier 0 then it should probably go in there as well.
> 
> 
> P.S. I didn't find the movie nearly as bad as the reviews it received.
> 
> 
> Brandon



Vantage Point really demonstrates the extreme folly of Sony's rule that the bitrate mustn't go over 30 except for the briefest moments. The visuals in this movie really cried out for the maximum possible bitrate, with the many shots of large crowds, especially in the plaza where so much of the action takes place, but also in the streets watching the motorcade. Scenes like this really demand bitrates in the high 30's to do them justice.


However, Sony's bitrate rule does not allow the bitrates to be in the high 30's, so instead the bitrates for these crowd scenes remain in the high 20's, which simply is not sufficient for this material.


The PQ of these shots of large crowds really suffers as a result of Sony's bitrate rule. Likewise, the very rapid action in much of the movie also needed higher bitrates than were given. If this were a Fox release, it would have turned out much better. Man on Fire is a good contrast, with similar settings.


I cannot agree with a high Tier 1 ranking to reward Sony for this extremely misguided practice.


I agree with Brandon that the movie itself was better than the reviews suggest.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Sony's bitrate rule does not allow the bitrates to be in the high 30's, so instead the bitrates for these crowd scenes remain in the high 20's, which simply is not sufficient for this material



Was it PaidGeek who mentioned that Sony didn't want to keep the bit rates in high 30's ? This is a disappointing rule set by Sony though we can pardon them for not bit starving their titles like our big bros at Warner.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14203898
> 
> 
> Was it PaidGeek who mentioned that Sony didn't want to keep the bit rates in high 30's ? This is a disappointing rule set by Sony though *we can pardon them* for not bit starving their titles like our big bros at Warner.



I didn't mean to suggest that Sony deserved the same type of blame that Warner does. In every respect other than this ridiculous bitrate rule, Sony does a fine job. Yes, Paidgeek acknowledged this rule in response to my badgering on the subject.


----------



## haste

Very disappointed with MiB on blu. Much softer than I expected. Will post a review after a while...


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *haste* /forum/post/14203953
> 
> 
> Very disappointed with MiB on blu. Much softer than I expected. Will post a review after a while...



Disappointing to hear. I had just received my order containing MIB today.









*Update:* I sampled few scenes and to my eyes the PQ seems to be above average. Looks like a mid Tier-2 title to me.


----------



## hobbs47




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14203884
> 
> 
> The PQ of these shots of large crowds really suffers as a result of Sony's bitrate rule. Likewise, the very rapid action in much of the movie also needed higher bitrates than were given. If this were a Fox release, it would have turned out much better. Man on Fire is a good contrast, with similar settings.
> 
> 
> I cannot agree with a high Tier 1 ranking to reward Sony for this extremely misguided practice.
> 
> .



People who need the bitrate meter to tell them when something looks good kill what little credibility this thread has. You have one guy say it's tier 0,a couple more say high tier 1,what is the problem? The bitrate meter is the worst thing that blu-ray could have implemented.


----------



## giggle




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hobbs47* /forum/post/14205001
> 
> 
> People who need the bitrate meter to tell them when something looks good kill what little credibility this thread has. You have one guy say it's tier 0,a couple more say high tier 1,what is the problem? The bitrate meter is the worst thing that blu-ray could have implemented.



Couldn't agree more. I think that people that need the bit-meter to judge picture quality are no way qualified to be judging these movies and putting them into a tier IMO.


It almost seems that the bitmeter was implemented so that when people could say it doesn't look that much better than DVD you could say "but it has to be".


Other than that I have to say their have been some very good observations/evaluations on this thread. Nice job overall.


----------



## hobbs47




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *giggle* /forum/post/14205130
> 
> 
> Other than that I have to say their have been some very good observations/evaluations on this thread. Nice job overall.



Agreed,there are a few people who post in this thread whose opinion I value,and I can tell you that they rarely,if ever,mention the bitrate of a movie,and they don't blame every little PQ anomaly on a supposed "bit-starved" transfer. Gee, do you think that maybe a certain scene might look a little soft or "off" because that's exactly how it was captured when filmed?


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14203986
> 
> 
> Disappointing to hear. I had just received my order containing MIB today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Update:* I sampled few scenes and to my eyes the PQ seems to be above average. Looks like a mid Tier-2 title to me.



What's interesting about MiB is that I used BD-Live on Dewey Cox to download and watch the first MiB trailer. It looked very bad. Horrible contrast, very soft image and black levels were non existent. Everything was a shade of blue. I expected the BD would reflect this.


Then last week I downloaded the trailer off the PSN store and it looked much better. High Tier 2 material. I wouldn't be surprised if the trailer on the BD Live supplements of Walk Hard was from the same HD master used for cable networks (which is also pretty poor).


Oh, and the bitrate meter is information. On a science forum, information is not a bad thing. Using it as a scapegoat to tear down the thread is misguided. Blindly saying "that's how it's supposed to look" is the exact opposite of "science" whereas assuming the poor PQ is always the results of low bitrates is misuse of that information. Good, honest discussion of the subject will meet somewhere in the middle instead of ignoring data and information...which is a path to ignorance.


Brandon


----------



## Lookilook




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14203986
> 
> *Update:* I sampled few scenes and to my eyes the PQ seems to be above average. Looks like a mid Tier-2 title to me.




I 2nd this. Just below MI:3 and above Spiderman2...IMO.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lookilook* /forum/post/14205785
> 
> 
> I 2nd this. Just below MI:3 and above Spiderman2...IMO.



+0.5. Below 28 Weeks Later would be the right spot.


----------



## Syzygy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hobbs47* /forum/post/14205001
> 
> 
> People who need the bitrate meter to tell them when something looks good kill what little credibility this thread has...



Objection! Refers to so-called facts not placed into evidence.


(1) It's possible that "people" see deficiencies and *then* look for a cause, such as bit-starving (the only parameter, AFAIK, that can be measured objectively by the consumer).


(2) It's likely that this thread's credibility is high (but who really knows?). Hobbs' "little credibility" jab looks like a troll to me. Please excuse me for feeding it.


----------



## Syzygy

Hey, *SuprSlow*! I have another suggestion (and it involves minimal change): Green rather than blue for the Blu-list titles. Green's readable on light _and_ dark backgrounds.


----------



## bplewis24

But but...it's blu ray, not green ray!


Just kidding, however I think that's what the idea was behind the blue font for the highest tier.


Brandon


----------



## SuprSlow

Yeah, I think that was the intent.


How about *BLUE*?


----------



## bplewis24

That shade of blue would pose trouble for those of us who use the AVS forum default color scheme.


Brandon


----------



## SuprSlow

I'm using Default, too, and it is a little too light for that background color.

*BLUE*?


That may cause problems on Retro...


edit: Although it's not the perfect color for Retro, I think it's better than the current. Default and Black looks good, IMO.


----------



## bplewis24

I'm actually okay with whatever is chosen. I rarely look at the first page and when I do it's using the search function, which highlights the movie I'm looking for. Even when I don't, I don't have a problem with any of the colors.


Brandon


----------



## maverick0716

I find it kind of funny about the discussion on how Vantage Point doesn't have high bit-rates in the large crowd scenes......Without looking at the bitrate meter (I actually watch the movie, not the meter) I was actually impressed with the detail brought out in the crowd........I could clearly see tons of detail.


----------



## Syzygy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/14206677
> 
> 
> Yeah, I think that was the intent.
> 
> 
> How about *BLUE*?



Heh,heh. I knew that was the intent.


What can one do to access all the possible colors, like the 'color=deepskyblue' you specified? Oops, never mind, I found it in the last icon I inspected: The A after Sizes. (It doesn't show a hint balloon when you float over it.)


MediumTurquoise is another sorta OK one:

MediumTurquoise
DeepSkyBlue
RoyalBlue
Blue


I must say your DeepSkyBlue looks best over all backgrounds.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/14207904
> 
> 
> I find it kind of funny about the discussion on how Vantage Point doesn't have high bit-rates in the large crowd scenes......Without looking at the bitrate meter (I actually watch the movie, not the meter) I was actually impressed with the detail brought out in the crowd........I could clearly see tons of detail.



The movie definitely had it's soft moments, though it was not pervasive like it has been in other movies. IMO this is a very good-to-excellent transfer, just not at the very top.


Brandon


----------



## Syzygy

I like SlateGray instead of "Silver" for Silver:

Silver
SlateGray
Gray
DimGray
DarkSlateGray


I don't see any good alternative to use instead of "Orange" for Gold:

Orange
SandyBrown
Wheat


----------



## Shane Martin




> Quote:
> Oh, and the bitrate meter is information. On a science forum, information is not a bad thing. Using it as a scapegoat to tear down the thread is misguided. Blindly saying "that's how it's supposed to look" is the exact opposite of "science" whereas assuming the poor PQ is always the results of low bitrates is misuse of that information. Good, honest discussion of the subject will meet somewhere in the middle instead of ignoring data and information...which is a path to ignorance.



Often it's abused though. People think high bit rate = OMFG Great transfer. Anything wrong seems to be blamed on bitrate more often than not(like the issues with VP for example). I believe it was Xylon who ripped into Lgans for his bitrate obsession a while back using an example that some of the tier 0 titles have a "low bitrate". Corpse Bride (currently in tier 0) for example is a HD DVD port.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Rambo*


tier recommendation: second quarter of *Tier 1*


Lionsgate has delivered a very solid looking Blu-ray here though it doesn't quite reach the Olympian heights of Tier 0. The 91 minute movie(which includes nearly 10 minutes of end credits) is encoded in AVC/MPEG-4 on a BD-50 with an average video bitrate of 26.88 Mbps per the specifications thread. The video encode ranges from 11 to 37.2 Mbps with most action scenes in the 24 to 34 Mbps range. I was very impressed with the compression job as noise and artifacting are virtually absent including a few tough scenes like colored smoke and jungle fog. The longer shots show no banding or chroma noise except for a few scant seconds involving fades and dissolves.


Detail and resolution are very good and on that measure this Blu-ray nears the upper echelon of Tier 1. Close-ups in general are sharp and facial micro-detail looks excellent. It's apparent that Rambo goes from a shaved to unshaved appearance by the end of the movie. There is no DNR used on this transfer and the transfer looks free of edge enhancement halos. If people want to compare high bitrate AVC versus low bitrate MPEG-2(14-20 Mbps), the deleted scenes would make an excellent basis for comparison. The deleted scenes are presented in 1080P MPEG-2 and are often just alternate takes of scenes that made the movie. From my viewing the low bitrate MPEG-2 deleted scenes produced much more compression noise and was much less detailed than the equivalent high bitrate AVC encode from the movie itself. I think screenshots could present a good example here.


As expected for a new release the master looks in immaculate shape with nary a mark or imperfection visible. I was a little dissappointed in the color fidelity and contrast presented in this movie. The Burmese jungle doesn't seem as vibrant as I've seen other jungle locales appear in High Definition. The greens of the foliage particularly seems a little flat and washed out. Whites occasionally get blown out but this is inconsistent from scene to scene. Many scenes have excellent contrast and fleshtones while others don't come out as well. Black levels vary a little as much of the darker scenes appear fine with no clipping and good shadow delineation but there a couple of shots that look closer to Tier 2. It looks to be source related in that regard. The image is a little flatter than other Tier 1 titles with less 3d pop than I expected.


Overall this Blu-ray presents a high quality image and transfer that looks very much like film. Its current ranking in the middle of Tier 1 seems appropriate.


Watching on a calibrated 60" Kuro plasma at 1080P/24 from a PS3 sitting approximately five feet away.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Nearly 410,000 page views says this thread has lots of credibility. If people get unhappy with the rankings they are welcome to contribute themselves or if that is unsatisfactory can always look to the competition:

http://forums.highdefdigest.com/showthread.php?t=8749 


Strangely their rankings are not that much different than the ones found here.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Shane Martin* /forum/post/14208310
> 
> 
> Often it's abused though. People think high bit rate = OMFG Great transfer. Anything wrong seems to be blamed on bitrate more often than not(like the issues with VP for example). I believe it was Xylon who ripped into Lgans for his bitrate obsession a while back using an example that some of the tier 0 titles have a "low bitrate". Corpse Bride (currently in tier 0) for example is a HD DVD port.



I agree it can be abused. I agree that a overall relatively lower bitrate title can have stellar PQ, and I also believe that bit-starving can negatively impact PQ, whereas many are quick to put their head in the dirt and just proclaim "that's the way it's meant to be!" no matter what the situation. That type of faith-based non-objective or scientific analysis goes over very well on AVS forums for whatever reason, but it shouldn't. Nevertheless, it's not as nuanced or as polarizing as some folks make it out to be. It's just information, and many seem to completely dismiss the fact that more bits possibly means more information visible to the human eye.


Lastly, Xylon is not an authority on the subject. He provides a valuable service to the forum and gives great contributions, but his agenda-driven arguments are just as fallable as anybody else's. And in the end it's just one person's opinion vs another in the case of lgans and Xylon.


Brandon


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14208024
> 
> 
> The movie definitely had it's soft moments, though it was not pervasive like it has been in other movies. IMO this is a very good-to-excellent transfer, just not at the very top.
> 
> 
> Brandon




Agree! Watched it last night. I would say lower top 1/2 of Tier 1 just above or below NT2.


Sony A3000 1080p @ 8ft. from PS3 through HDMI.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14209761
> 
> 
> I agree it can be abused. I agree that a overall relatively lower bitrate title can have stellar PQ, and I also believe that bit-starving can negatively impact PQ, whereas many are quick to put their head in the dirt and just proclaim "that's the way it's meant to be!" no matter what the situation. That type of faith-based non-objective or scientific analysis goes over very well on AVS forums for whatever reason, but it shouldn't. Nevertheless, it's not as nuanced or as polarizing as some folks make it out to be. It's just information, and many seem to completely dismiss the fact that more bits possibly means more information visible to the human eye.
> 
> 
> Lastly, Xylon is not an authority on the subject. He provides a valuable service to the forum and gives great contributions, but his agenda-driven arguments are just as fallable as anybody else's. And in the end it's just one person's opinion vs another in the case of lgans and Xylon.
> 
> 
> Brandon



It's somewhat surprising that this very passionate bitrate-hatred shown by some has persisted after the end of the format war.


----------



## Syzygy

These are the 40 colors available from the drop-down grid in the message-entry dialog box. (Press the tiny down arrow to the right of the big A with the thick underline. That underline has the color that will be used if you simply click on the A.)


'a' through 'e' refer to the rows in the grid; 1 though 8 to the squares in each row. For example, "a2: Sienna" is the second color in the first row.

_a1:_ *Black* Video: GHU | Audio: TruFoo | AR: 3.33:1 | Yggdrasil
_a2:_ *Sienna* Video: GHU | Audio: TruFoo | AR: 3.33:1 | Yggdrasil
_a3:_ *DarkOliveGreen* Video: GHU | Audio: TruFoo | AR: 3.33:1 | Yggdrasil
_a4:_ *DarkGreen* Video: GHU | Audio: TruFoo | AR: 3.33:1 | Yggdrasil
_a5:_ *DarkSlateBlue* Video: GHU | Audio: TruFoo | AR: 3.33:1 | Yggdrasil
_a6:_ *Navy* Video: GHU | Audio: TruFoo | AR: 3.33:1 | Yggdrasil
_a7:_ *Indigo* Video: GHU | Audio: TruFoo | AR: 3.33:1 | Yggdrasil
_a8:_ *DarkSlateGray* Video: GHU | Audio: TruFoo | AR: 3.33:1 | Yggdrasil
_b1:_ *DarkRed* Video: GHU | Audio: TruFoo | AR: 3.33:1 | Yggdrasil
_b2:_ *DarkOrange* Video: GHU | Audio: TruFoo | AR: 3.33:1 | Yggdrasil
_b3:_ *Olive* Video: GHU | Audio: TruFoo | AR: 3.33:1 | Yggdrasil
_b4:_ *Green* Video: GHU | Audio: TruFoo | AR: 3.33:1 | Yggdrasil
_b5:_ *Teal* Video: GHU | Audio: TruFoo | AR: 3.33:1 | Yggdrasil
_b6:_ *Blue* Video: GHU | Audio: TruFoo | AR: 3.33:1 | Yggdrasil
_b7:_ *SlateGray* Video: GHU | Audio: TruFoo | AR: 3.33:1 | Yggdrasil
_b8:_ *DimGray* Video: GHU | Audio: TruFoo | AR: 3.33:1 | Yggdrasil
_c1:_ *Red* Video: GHU | Audio: TruFoo | AR: 3.33:1 | Yggdrasil
_c2:_ *SandyBrown* Video: GHU | Audio: TruFoo | AR: 3.33:1 | Yggdrasil
_c3:_ *YellowGreen* Video: GHU | Audio: TruFoo | AR: 3.33:1 | Yggdrasil
_c4:_ *SeaGreen* Video: GHU | Audio: TruFoo | AR: 3.33:1 | Yggdrasil
_c5:_ *MediumTurquoise* Video: GHU | Audio: TruFoo | AR: 3.33:1 | Yggdrasil
_c6:_ *RoyalBlue* Video: GHU | Audio: TruFoo | AR: 3.33:1 | Yggdrasil
_c7:_ *Purple* Video: GHU | Audio: TruFoo | AR: 3.33:1 | Yggdrasil
_c8:_ *Gray* Video: GHU | Audio: TruFoo | AR: 3.33:1 | Yggdrasil
_d1:_ *Magenta* Video: GHU | Audio: TruFoo | AR: 3.33:1 | Yggdrasil
_d2:_ *Orange* Video: GHU | Audio: TruFoo | AR: 3.33:1 | Yggdrasil
_d3:_ *Yellow* Video: GHU | Audio: TruFoo | AR: 3.33:1 | Yggdrasil
_d4:_ *Lime* Video: GHU | Audio: TruFoo | AR: 3.33:1 | Yggdrasil
_d5:_ *Cyan* Video: GHU | Audio: TruFoo | AR: 3.33:1 | Yggdrasil
_d6:_ *DeepSkyBlue* Video: GHU | Audio: TruFoo | AR: 3.33:1 | Yggdrasil
_d7:_ *DarkOrchid* Video: GHU | Audio: TruFoo | AR: 3.33:1 | Yggdrasil
_d8:_ *Silver* Video: GHU | Audio: TruFoo | AR: 3.33:1 | Yggdrasil
_e1:_ *Pink* Video: GHU | Audio: TruFoo | AR: 3.33:1 | Yggdrasil
_e2:_ *Wheat* Video: GHU | Audio: TruFoo | AR: 3.33:1 | Yggdrasil
_e3:_ *LemonChiffon* Video: GHU | Audio: TruFoo | AR: 3.33:1 | Yggdrasil
_e4:_ *PaleGreen* Video: GHU | Audio: TruFoo | AR: 3.33:1 | Yggdrasil
_e5:_ *PaleTurquoise* Video: GHU | Audio: TruFoo | AR: 3.33:1 | Yggdrasil
_e6:_ *LightBlue* Video: GHU | Audio: TruFoo | AR: 3.33:1 | Yggdrasil
_e7:_ *Plum* Video: GHU | Audio: TruFoo | AR: 3.33:1 | Yggdrasil
_e8:_ *White* Video: GHU | Audio: TruFoo | AR: 3.33:1 | Yggdrasil


More information: *104* _named foreground colors for text_

*• LightSteelBlue* *• LightBlue* *• PowderBlue* *• LightSkyBlue* *• SkyBlue* *• DeepSkyBlue* *• DodgerBlue* *• CornflowerBlue* *• SteelBlue* *• RoyalBlue* *• Blue* *• MediumBlue*

*• PaleTurquoise* *• Aquamarine* *• MediumAquamarine* *• Aqua* *• Cyan* *• Turquoise* *• MediumTurquoise* *• DarkTurquoise* *• LightSeaGreen* *• CadetBlue* *• SeaGreen* *• DarkCyan* *• Teal*

*• LightGreen* *• PaleGreen* *• DarkSeaGreen* *• YellowGreen* *• GreenYellow* *• Chartreuse* *• LawnGreen* *• Lime* *• LimeGreen* *• SpringGreen* *• MediumSpringGreen* *• MediumSeaGreen* *• ForestGreen* *• Green* *• DarkGreen* *• OliveDrab* *• DarkOliveGreen* *• Olive* *• DarkKhaki*

*• Wheat* *• Thistle* *• Tan* *• BurlyWood* *• Gold* *• Goldenrod* *• DarkGoldenrod* *• Orange* *• DarkOrange* *• SandyBrown* *• DarkSalmon* *• LightCoral* *• Salmon* *• Coral* *• Chocolate* *• Tomato* *• Brown* *• SaddleBrown* *• Sienna* *• RosyBrown*

*• Pink* *• LightPink* *• Plum* *• LightSalmon* *• Peru* *• PaleVioletRed* *• HotPink* *• DeepPink* *• MediumVioletRed* *• IndianRed* *• OrangeRed* *• Crimson* *• Red* *• FireBrick* *• DarkRed* *• Maroon*

*• Purple* *• DarkMagenta* *• Magenta* *• Fuchsia* *• Violet* *• Orchid* *• MediumOrchid* *• DarkOrchid* *• DarkViolet* *• BlueViolet* *• MediumPurple* *• MediumSlateBlue* *• SlateBlue* *• DarkSlateBlue* *• Indigo*

*• LightGrey* *• Gainsboro* *• Silver* *• DarkGray* *• Gray* *• LightSlateGray* *• SlateGray* *• DimGray* *• DarkSlateGray*


-- There was a complete list of all 140 named colors at http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1#post14226701 -- _but someone deleted the post less than an hour after it was posted._


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Lookout*


tier recommendation: second quarter of *Tier 2*


Disney/Miramax released this Blu-ray all the way back in August of 2007. The 98 minute feature is encoded in AVC on a BD-50. The video bitrate peaks at 36 Mbps and hits a low of 20 Mbps. Most every scene though stays jumping between 27 to 33 Mbps. The specifications thread lists the average video bitrate as being 28.25. Despite the high bitrate a few momentary glimpses of posterization and banding occur. There is very little compression noise overall aside from that.


This movie was shot with the Genesis digital camera and it shows on this Blu-ray. The transfer looks somewhat similar to other movies shot with this camera like Superbad to me. There are lots of interesting comments from the director and the d.p. on the commentary on why they chose the Genesis over shooting on 35mm film for this movie. Resolution is solid for a Tier 2 Blu-ray with no DNR appearing, though it lacks the superior detail and clarity seen in better Blu-rays. Facial closeups and high frequency detail look good for most of the movie. Thankfully no edge enhancement or aliasing artifacts pop up.


Apparently the d.p. wanted to eliminate green from the color palette of the movie and went so far as changing the color timing of certain scenes to achieve a more somber monochromatic look. He also admits they erred when shooting(which they couldn't fix in post) and that is why the flashback sequences have blown out whites. Contrast is okay but color fidelity changes from scene to scene. Fleshtones look a little strange in interior scenes though nothing as bad as I saw in Superbad. The exterior daylight scenes look perfect with very natural if cold lighting.


Shadow detail definitely reveals the digital nature of this movie. There just seems to be a different feel to how film captures low level light detail(which honestly I prefer). This Blu-ray just seems to lack some of the texture that film brings to darker scenes. Even the director admits film has deeper blacks than the current state of digital camera technology. Black levels aren't bad but some minor clipping does occur from time to time.


This Blu-ray presents a very solid looking image and Disney seems to have been faithful to the source material. Due to the way the movie was shot it doesn't look quite as good as I've seen from other Blu-rays shot similarly like Superbad or Before The Devil Knows You're Dead. Those titles looked a little sharper and had more dimensionality to the picture. I recommend a solid Tier 2 ranking somewhere in the second quarter of Tier 2 around Transporter 2. Now on to another unranked title...


----------



## bplewis24

Interesting review, Phantom. Nice work.


Brandon


----------



## Shane Martin

Drillbit Taylor - Paramount - VC1 - Tier 1

I saw Drillbit Taylor tonight. My gut feeling based on how the rankings are is the film fits just above Pearl Harbor in lower half of Tier 1. It looked really good.


Paramount has a ton of extras on this and they are all in HD.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Shane Martin* /forum/post/14208310
> 
> 
> Often it's abused though. People think high bit rate = OMFG Great transfer. Anything wrong seems to be blamed on bitrate more often than not(like the issues with VP for example). I believe it was Xylon who ripped into Lgans for his bitrate obsession a while back using an example that some of the tier 0 titles have a "low bitrate". Corpse Bride (currently in tier 0) for example is a HD DVD port.



I appreciate the contributions of Xylon, in-fact I was always one among the first few to appreciate his contributions in his comparison PIX threads. Off-late he has been taking the bit rate comments too seriously and has begun to counter attack bit rate posts from select members. I seldom take comments personally and get provoked 'coz it ain't going to change anything at the end of the day.










People are happy with 10~16 Mbps encodes though they aren't sure on how much details have been compromised. I am not demanding for 40+ Mbps bit rates but just don't starve it when the opportunities and bandwidth are available in abundance.


----------



## tbonetommygun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Syzygy* /forum/post/14215765
> 
> 
> _a1:_ *Black* Video: GHU | Audio: TruFoo | AR: 3.33:1 | Yggdrasil



tales fan?










of course yggdrasil may be referring to something completely different, i dunno


----------



## Kroenen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14209761
> 
> 
> I agree it can be abused. I agree that a overall relatively lower bitrate title can have stellar PQ, and I also believe that bit-starving can negatively impact PQ, whereas many are quick to put their head in the dirt and just proclaim "that's the way it's meant to be!" no matter what the situation. That type of faith-based non-objective or scientific analysis goes over very well on AVS forums for whatever reason, but it shouldn't. Nevertheless, it's not as nuanced or as polarizing as some folks make it out to be. It's just information, and many seem to completely dismiss the fact that more bits possibly means more information visible to the human eye.
> 
> 
> Lastly, Xylon is not an authority on the subject. He provides a valuable service to the forum and gives great contributions, but his agenda-driven arguments are just as fallable as anybody else's. And in the end it's just one person's opinion vs another in the case of lgans and Xylon.
> 
> 
> Brandon



Well said.


----------



## Jason One




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/10733385
> 
> *IMAX: Roving Mars* Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.78:1 | Disney



I'm sorry to keep harping on this, but how is it possible that this massively DNRed garbage is still listed in tier 1?


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kroenen* /forum/post/14218999
> 
> 
> Well said.



Thank you sir.


So I finally got around to watching *Million Dollar Baby* last night. I scored it in a 2 for 1 deal on Amazon several months ago. I never heard any mention of the title and apparently it's because it was released so long ago.


I found the movie admittedly soft, however there didn't seem to be any other flaws in it than that. It's a good looking film otherwise, with pretty good shadow detail throughout all of the low-lit shadowy scenes throughout the movie. I noticed it's in Tier 3 towards the bottom and I think it's deserving of *top Tier 3 status*. I'm guessing years from now we'll see a BD optimized encode of this movie. I'll be looking forward to that.


PS3->1080p24->46XBR4 (6-8 feet)


edit: looking at the titles in Tier 2, I think it still belongs in Tier 3.


Brandon


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I finally got around to watching Cloverfield and think it's ranked a little too high in Tier 1. Paramount did a solid job on the disc(very high bitrate VC-1) but much of the movie has the shaky camera effect and is often out of focus on purpose. On top of that high frequency detail is not that great for a Tier 1 title. I don't believe any DNR was used, it is just the look they wanted for the movie. I think it needs to be dropped 7 or 8 spots in Tier 1 at least.


----------



## maverick0716

I watched Cloverfield the other night as well. I wasn't overly impressed, really. It definitely had it's good moments, but most of the scenes were very dark and grainy, with soft detail......something you'd expect from a digital hand held (um...lol) So I really think it deserves to be low Tier 1 at best.....maybe even high Tier 2.


----------



## OldCodger73

I watched In the Line of Fire Wednesday night. The picture was nice; I got caught up in the movie and didn't notice any edge enhancement, or excessive noise reduction, nor did I check the frame rate. Sharpness was OK, nothing special and looked a little soft at times. I'd rank this Tier 3, maybe between Michael Clayton and Crash.


Sound was so-so but adequate to the movie.


The film itself was very involving. Clint Eastwood did a good job of playing Clint Eastwood and John Malkovich was brilliant as the would be assassin. The movie was a solid 4 on Netflix's five star scale.


I wish more people on this board would stop arguing about frame rate etc and actually review some of the unranked movies, particular those that are of a type they don't normally watch. Otherwise this thread will loose all relevance. After all, Netflix is your friend.


Panasonic 50" 720p plasma, Panasonic 10a player, 7 1/2 to 8'.


----------



## Syzygy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/14223084
> 
> 
> ... After all, Netflix is your friend...



Being somewhat new here, I'm not sure whether that's a joke. (Because I got the impression that almost all denizens of this thread are buyers, not renters.)


I'm going to be a Blu-Ray renter, but I haven't even bought a player yet! I'm waiting for a Profile 2.0 player with an instant replay button on the remote. AFAIK, Sharp's the only maker currently offering an Instant Replay button (with their BD-HP20U), and they've delayed their 2nd-generation unit (the BD-HP50U) 'til at least October. The HP50 was announced prematurely at this year's CES, and at that time they were only talking about Profile 1.1...


If there are any renters here, pray tell: Does either Blockbuster or Netflix have the advantage over the other (considering only Blu-Ray)?


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Netflix has a much larger selection that Blockbuster I assume.


As yes, a lot of people in this thread do rent. I prefer to buy the ones I really want in my collection


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Syzygy* /forum/post/14227348
> 
> 
> Being somewhat new here, I'm not sure whether that's a joke. (Because I got the impression that almost all denizens of this thread are buyers, not renters.)
> 
> 
> I'm going to be a Blu-Ray renter, but I haven't even bought a player yet! I'm waiting for a Profile 2.0 player with an instant replay button on the remote. AFAIK, Sharp's the only maker currently offering an Instant Replay button (with their BD-HP20U), and they've delayed their 2nd-generation unit (the BD-HP50U) 'til at least October. The HP50 was announced prematurely at this year's CES, and at that time they were only talking about Profile 1.1...
> 
> 
> If there are any renters here, pray tell: Does either Blockbuster or Netflix have the advantage over the other (considering only Blu-Ray)?



I'm mainly a renter as well. I finally saw the light (after many years) and no longer see the point in owning a movie I will only watch once, maybe twice. That being said, I do buy, but only the must haves.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/14227435
> 
> 
> I'm mainly a renter as well. I finally saw the light (after many years) and no longer see the point in owning a movie I will only watch once, maybe twice. That being said, I do buy, but only the must haves.



+1


I have come to an age where there are not nearly as many years ahead of me as there are behind me, so I too will only buy those movies that I _think_ are "must haves."


----------



## MistyMorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14227694
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> 
> I have come to an age where there are not nearly as many years ahead of me as there are behind me, so I too will only buy those movies that I _think_ are "must haves."



another +1

The hubby and I mainly rent and only purchase those we feel we'll watch much more than once. As for the questions posed by *Syzygy*, I can only answer with our experience: We have never used BB, but we love Netflix. Since going Blu in late January, we've not had any issues getting BDs from Netflix. We're on the 3 at a time plan and normally at least one and often two of the films we've got atop our que are available as Blu. It's rare that we don't receive the movies atop our que. We've been members at NF since 2004 and haven't given a thought to changing to anyone else.


----------



## Syzygy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MistyMorn* /forum/post/14229493
> 
> 
> ... we've not had any issues getting BDs from Netflix. We're on the 3 at a time plan and normally at least one and often two of the films we've got atop our que are available as Blu. It's rare that we don't receive the movies atop our que[ue]...



I wouldn't like to receive a standard-def DVD when a BD version exists; I'd much rather wait for the BD. Isn't there a way to tell Netflix not to substitute an ordinary DVD when a BD was requested?


----------



## MistyMorn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Syzygy* /forum/post/14229524
> 
> 
> I wouldn't like to receive a standard-def DVD when a BD version exists; I'd much rather wait for the BD. Isn't there a way to tell Netflix not to substitute an ordinary DVD when a BD was requested?



Maybe we've been lucky, but we've not had a substitution of SD for BD. We only get SD if the movie we have atop our que hasn't been released in BD yet. Our default format is set to BD, so if the movie is in Blu and NF carries it, it goes into our que as BD. If the movie wasn't available on BD at the time we added it to our que, it stays in SD unless we change it. That really hasn't been an issue for us. We move the movies in our que around quite a bit and it is easy to see which SDs are now available in BD. We just use the drop menu and change. (You see a little heart icon beside DVD in the que, you know it comes in BD now and change it.) (We usually have over 400 movies in our que at any given time.)


----------



## Syzygy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MistyMorn* /forum/post/14229563
> 
> 
> We usually have over 400 movies in our que at any given time.



Wow! Managing that many titles must eat up a lot of time, unless you worry only about the first dozen or so. Currently, there are only 469 BDs in the Blu through Copper tiers (with 143 more unranked). I know, you said you rent regular DVDs too. Still, 400 is way more than I could list (and maintain).










Anyway, thanks a lot for the NF info.


----------



## maverick0716

I have 275 titles currently in my ziplist (Zip.ca) and every single one of them is either a BD or an HD DVD.......so I always get a Blu or HD disc.


----------



## mikey ra

Hello All:


I purchased the BR version of Planet of the Apes (2001). I always thought that the DVD version had a stellar transfer and was very hopeful that the Blu-ray Disc version would be as outstanding an example of HD. Unfortunately, I was disappointed as it appeared to be murky (esp. whenever the was smoke or mist - in both the dark and light scenes). Also the color was incredibly towned down (esp. in outdoor lighted scenes). I could see some detail with the costumes and makeup, but there was very little depth to any of the scenes (again, the mist/smokey scenes really affected the amount of detail and depth in the scenes).


I was wondering if anyone else had an experience where they were expecting a particular disc to be a phenominal example of a BR to show off their HD system, only to be disappointed?


----------



## jaffa69

I always check out the reviews and THE TIER THREAD for picture quality first.

PLANET OF THE APES is in TIER 4.Unless i was a diehard fan of the movie then i personaly would not have gone for it.


I do own 3 discs in TIER THREAD 4 but i new what to expect before i got them so i wasnt dissapointed


----------



## jaffa69

On the other hand PATTON is in TIER 2 and that disc is said to be PANTS









So i guess you cant even rely on that


----------



## Patsfan123

Think Tier 2 is fair enough for Patton since it blows away the DVD in terms of color and overall picture. It doesn't have the fine detail, but neither does the DVD. If no DNR had been applied it would probably be Tier 0 or a high Tier 1.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jaffa69* /forum/post/14230966
> 
> 
> On the other hand PATTON is in TIER 2 and that disc is said to be PANTS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So i guess you cant even rely on that



Have you seen it for yourself?


Brandon


----------



## jaffa69

I havnt seen PATTON myself and because of all the negative reviews on this forum i never will,unless of course i get to borrow it off somebody..I was about to buy it then didnt


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jaffa69* /forum/post/14230966
> 
> 
> On the other hand PATTON is in TIER 2 and that disc is said to be PANTS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So i guess you cant even rely on that



How do you know that you can't rely on that when you haven't even seen it?


----------



## stumlad

Ok.. I finally rewatched this movie, and I have to say that it is a stunning looking movie. Face closeups may not be quite as good as Tier 0 titles, but is definitely not disappointing in any way. The detail on the armor is extremely good, landscape, sea, etc all look incredible. The overall look of this movie is extremely pleasant to watch. The only not-so-great looking moments were a few dark scenes throughout the movie. Given that the movie is more than 3 hours long, it happens so rarely that it's not a big deal.


I noticed that this movie keeps dropping down a couple notches every couple of months, but I wanted to rewatch it to make sure I didnt remember it being better than it was...


I don't think that Rambo (4th one) can be ranked higher than this. Seriously, for those who own both, watch them both in the same sitting and compare resolution, face closeups, etc... Also, Troy has way more "eye candy" and 3D pop than Rambo.


I think Troy and National Treasure 2 are really close, and I think both of them should be moved up a few notches with National Treasure 2 having the edge over Troy.


The biggest negative I've heard against this movie was the bit-rate. I know it's low, and it's quite possible that bumping it to the high 20s/low 30s may give it a slight boost. No one will know for sure until it happens (if it ever happens)... but either way it's still an awesome looking film. I know there was a thread somewhere that claimed to show a big macro-blocking issue in one frame, but I think Xylon proved that person wrong... I need to search for it...


----------



## Coxwell

I'd like to report an incorrect information about "The Host". The proper aspect ratio is 1:85:1 and not 2:35. Highdefidgest is wrong too, I can confirm it with my own copy.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Can those of you who voted for Tim Reynolds and Dave Mathews being in Tier 0 tell me why....especially when Legends of Jazz, which looks better to me, is in mid Tier 1?


----------



## bplewis24

Has anybody else gotten a chance to check out Me, Myself & Irene? I watched it this weekend and was looking for some other opinions on it. To me it looked like a Top Tier 3 type of title.


Brandon


----------



## alexg75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14235321
> 
> *Meet the Robinsons Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.78:1 | Disney*
> 
> 
> What a picture. Bright, colorful, plenty of outdoor shots and consistently razor sharp imagery. IMO some scenes looked better than Ratatouille and Cars. I think Meet the Robinsons can be placed below Cars.
> 
> *Lives of the Others and Deja Vu* - Totally agree with the current placement
> 
> *Michael Clayton* - Looks bottom Tier-2 material to me. Fine object detailing is just average. Plenty of noticeable compression artifacts on the walls and on the actor's foreheads which were supposed to be mitigated by overseas studios with the Dutch, German and French release.



I totallyyyyyyy agree with you on Meet The Robinson's.Awesome PQ!


----------



## H.Cornerstone




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Patsfan123* /forum/post/14231127
> 
> 
> Think Tier 2 is fair enough for Patton since it blows away the DVD in terms of color and overall picture. It doesn't have the fine detail, but neither does the DVD. If no DNR had been applied it would probably be Tier 0 or a high Tier 1.



I totally agree. I watched it on my 40inch Sony v3000 and I thought it looked incredible, especially for being a nearly 40 year old movie. The colors were fantastic and the outside scenes in Africa were incredible.


And it was my first time ever seeing the movie, and it had some really great one-liners and loved the movie.


I think it should still be in Tier 1, because it's hard to tell the missing facial detail without sitting really close and with a big screen.


But I will not disagree with the Tier 2 placing just for the principle of DNR being used.


----------



## djoberg

I just watched *The Flintstones* in HD last night on Cinemax and I was blown away by the PQ. The colors were as punchy and natural as I've ever seen, and I can't remember seeing a movie with so much 3D pop and detail. Simply amazing!!


So, does anyone know if this title is being released on Blu-ray in the near future?


PS Some may be saying, "That's too corny of a movie for me." It is a bit corny, but I've got a soft spot in my heart for John Goodman and I was laughing throughout the whole flick.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

*Micheal Clayton*


Lot of great, sharp shots with awesome detail in the faces and suits of the characters. Very natural skin tones throughout. Some good shadow detail most of the time, and deep blacks, but sometimes they are crushed.


In a lot of exterior night scenes there is considerable noise, but nothing too bothersome.


I'd place it in the bottom 1/3 of Tier 2, I think Tier 3 is a little too low for it.


Excellent film btw.


Panasonic 50PZ80U, PS3 at around 6 feet.


----------



## Myth

i have the original dvd release


what about a blu ray upgrade HUGE difference? noticeable difference? nothing to write home about lol?


----------



## wormraper




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Myth* /forum/post/14247932
> 
> 
> i have the original dvd release
> 
> 
> what about a blu ray upgrade HUGE difference? noticeable difference? nothing to write home about lol?



get it man. It is a stellar transfer and the PCM track is miles and miles ahead of the DD and DTS tracks of the original and the superbit


----------



## HDphile22

What the hell about Gotham Knight? Coal? Copper? or Gold, Blue?


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Myth* /forum/post/14247932
> 
> 
> i have the original dvd release
> 
> 
> what about a blu ray upgrade HUGE difference? noticeable difference? nothing to write home about lol?



Absolutely


----------



## DevilDog151




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Myth* /forum/post/14247932
> 
> 
> i have the original dvd release
> 
> 
> what about a blu ray upgrade HUGE difference? noticeable difference? nothing to write home about lol?



IMO it has one of the biggest differences in sound quality from the DVD version. When watching it it defaults to Dolby Digital, I brought up the pop up menu and changed it to uncompressed pcm. In the first scene where it's raining and she's talking. When I changed it, right away it sounded like her voice got unmuffled and the rain filled my room more. It was amazing. The PQ is pretty good too. A little dark but more details than the DVD version. Definitely a must buy.


----------



## b_scott

alright, so who's watched Batman Begins? i just got mine from amazon, but i'm at work. i'm planning on having people over on Friday to watch it.


----------



## Shane Martin




> Quote:
> The Air I Breathe Video: ? | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Image




The correct specs are: Video: AVC | Audio: DTS HD MA |AR: 2.40:1 | Image


As far as the image quality is concerned, I'd say this is on par with another Image title "Before the Devil Knows Your Dead" so Top Tier 2 is my recommendation.


----------



## RBFC

Watched last night. Significant upgrade from the DVD. Great blacks. Some scenes looked a bit soft to me, so I'll call this one Tier 1.


60" Pioneer plasma at 10 feet, using Denon 3800BDCI.


p.s. The 6 minute prologue for _The Dark Knight_ looked fantastic, sourced from the IMAX film.


Lee


----------



## b_scott

 http://www.alleyinsider.com/2008/5/n...r_dvd_business 


what do you think? i don't think we'll be pushing 1080p over wire in 5 years. but i could be wrong.


----------



## hobbs47




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RBFC* /forum/post/14254284
> 
> 
> Watched last night. Significant upgrade from the DVD. Great blacks. Some scenes looked a bit soft to me, so I'll call this one Tier 1.
> 
> 
> 60" Pioneer plasma at 10 feet, using Denon 3800BDCI.
> 
> 
> p.s. The 6 minute prologue for _The Dark Knight_ looked fantastic, sourced from the IMAX film.
> 
> 
> Lee




+1 I think the BD looks excellent.Lower tier 1


PS3/50" 1080P Panny Plasma at 6 feet


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Kiss Of The Dragon*


tier recommendation: very bottom of *Tier 1*


Twentieth Century Fox released this 98-minute movie onto Blu-ray back in November of 2006. The disc is encoded in MPEG-2 on a BD-25. The listed average video bitrate on the back of the packaging is 18 Mbps. From the specifications thread the average scanned video bitrate is 17.6 Mbps. Unfortunately the weakest aspect of this entire disc is the compression job and it doesn't hold up to the more recent compression jobs seen on Blu-ray.


Banding and compression artifacting appear occasionally throughout the feature. Check time code 44:20 for an example when a shot of the Paris sky with the Eiffel Tower appears. Chroma noise is frequently seen in background shots on walls, particularly early in the movie. While the bitrate ranges absolutely from 13.5 to 28 Mbps, peaks rarely get above 22 or 23 Mbps, even in intense fast paced action scenes. Most of the film hovers between 16 to 19 Mbps. I have a feeling a newly minted encode with more recent compression parameters would result in an artifact free presentation that would look significantly better.


Aside from that weakness this Blu-ray represents a wonderful filmlike transfer. I can say with no uncertainty that this movie has had no DNR applied at any stage and is 100% free of edge enhancement halos. There is some very light grain but it only becomes noticeable in darker scenes. It is surprisingly well filmed and shot for an action movie. Detail and resolution are very strong and on that basis alone would rank close to the top of tier one. There is not one soft or filtered shot in the entire movie. Anyone wanting to see what Jet Li or Bridget Fonda look like up close in real life need not look any further. Every pore and scar on their faces is plainly visible. This aspect of the Blu-ray is probably the strongest part of the transfer. The image has decent depth and dimensionality, though it doesn't have as much pop as some stronger tier one titles.


Colors and contrast are excellent and appear nicely balanced. Black levels are superb with black looking very inky and stable. There is no macroblocking in darker scenes. Lower light detail is good when called for in the movie. Flesh tones look great and very accurate though there are some moments when things get washed out a little. For a catalog title that originally came out in theaters in 2001 the HD master used looks in great shape. It looks almost as good as many day and date releases in that regard. One or two specks do appear but they are hardly noticeable.


For an older Blu-ray I was pleasantly surprised at how well this disc looked considering the older MPEG-2 compression job. I would love to see what Fox could do with this master using their current practices of encoding discs (high bitrate AVC on a BD-50). As this disc currently stands it still looks good and is a solid candidate for the lowest bottom of tier one.


Watching on a 60 Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080P/24 fed by a PS3 from a viewing distance of approximately six feet.


----------



## maverick0716

I thought Kiss of the Dragon was considered to be one of the worst looking BD's? Your review kind of makes me want to rent it now, lol. High Def Digest gave the video quality a 1/5 on this one.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/14256410
> 
> 
> I thought Kiss of the Dragon was considered to be one of the worst looking BD's? Your review kind of makes me want to rent it now, lol. High Def Digest gave the video quality a 1/5 on this one.



I honestly can't even believe they saw the same disc I did but then again I stopped paying attention to their "reviews" a long time ago. I have the dvd of this movie also and the Blu-ray is a major step up from it. Aside from the compression issues it's a solid looking disc. At worst it's maybe a high Tier 2 title.


----------



## lgans316

Phantom,


Can you double check ?

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/25153...of-the-dragon/ 
http://www.dvdauthority.com/reviews.asp?ReviewID=4915 
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/kissofthedragon.html 

http://forums.highdefdigest.com/showthread.php?t=8749 (Tier-5 Average)


----------



## Phantom Stranger

The DVDtalk and HDD reviews are meaningless to me as those sites(both management and posters) heavily favored HD DVD at the times of those reviews and many of their reviews were biased against Blu-ray. The HDD review is simply wrong(as many of their reviews are) and frankly many of Kenneth S. Brown's early Blu-ray reviews are just abysmal on the technical aspects of discs. The DVDtalk reviewer is watching on a 34" Sony and gave four star picture quality to the mediocre Enemy Of The State Blu-ray.


I stand by my opinion of Kiss of the Dragon. The only problem is the low bitrate encode which produces some very noticeable artifacting(which I think is the problem Brown points out but his language describing it is very odd). I've noticed there tends to be a certain amount of groupthink that occurs once a review has been published of a title at one of the more major review sites. Patton is a very good example of that. A minor catalog title like Kiss of the Dragon can easily be labeled bad in the minds of many with just one negative review unfairly.


----------



## hobbs47

I think it's just Phantom's damn 60" Kuro(i will own one someday),it can make any disc look good.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

To give a little more popular support to my review, if you check over at Blu-ray.com four different posters have rated the video quality of Kiss of the Dragon(out of 5): 4, 4, 4, 4.5


Someone else on this thread must own this movie to give an opinion...


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RBFC* /forum/post/14254284
> 
> 
> Watched last night. Significant upgrade from the DVD. Great blacks. Some scenes looked a bit soft to me, so I'll call this one Tier 1.
> 
> 
> 60" Pioneer plasma at 10 feet, using Denon 3800BDCI.
> 
> 
> p.s. The 6 minute prologue for _The Dark Knight_ looked fantastic, sourced from the IMAX film.
> 
> 
> Lee



I concur. Bottom of Tier 1.


And the Imax clip looked amazing.










Sony A3000 60 in @ 8ft from PS3 thru HDMI


----------



## SuprSlow

This week's releases:

*Batman Begins* Video: VC-1 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner
*Batman: Gotham Knight* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 1.85:1 | Warner
*Chicago and Earth, Wind & Fire: Live at the Greek Theatre* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Image
*The Moody Blues: Lovely to See You, Live* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Image
*The Ruins: Unrated Edition* Video: VC-1 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.35:1 | DreamWorks
*Sleepwalking* Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.85:1 | Starz/Anchor Bay


Update forthcoming


----------



## James A. McGahee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/14247885
> 
> *Micheal Clayton*
> 
> 
> Lot of great, sharp shots with awesome detail in the faces and suits of the characters. Very natural skin tones throughout. Some good shadow detail most of the time, and deep blacks, but sometimes they are crushed.
> 
> 
> In a lot of exterior night scenes there is considerable noise, but nothing too bothersome.
> 
> 
> I'd place it in the bottom 1/3 of Tier 2, I think Tier 3 is a little too low for it.
> 
> 
> Excellent film btw.
> 
> 
> Panasonic 50PZ80U, PS3 at around 6 feet.



I have the HD DVD of Michael Clayton but haven't opened it yet.


Has anyone compared them?


I might exchange mine + $$ for the BR version if it is very much better in PQ or AQ.


----------



## giggle




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *James A. McGahee* /forum/post/14260040
> 
> 
> I have the HD DVD of Michael Clayton but haven't opened it yet.
> 
> 
> Has anyone compared them?
> 
> 
> I might exchange mine + $$ for the BR version if it is very much better in PQ or AQ.



Believe they are of the same transfer.


----------



## lgans316

I watched Michael Clayton yesterday and I concur with the assessment made by LBFilmGuy . There were plenty of close-up shots that exhibited value sharpness though compression artefacts were noticeable on the walls and on the actor's forehead and chin. Some mild haloing effect was also noticeable on few high contrast shots but nothing distracting. Great movie btw.

*Recommendation:* Bottom 10 spots of Tier-2


I watched Deja Vu and Aviator (U.S). I think the positions of these two titles can be swapped. I will soon receive the Dutch version of Aviator which is reported to sport a high bit rate VC-1 encode and confirmed to have lossless audio. Shall check on it and post my impressions.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14260163
> 
> 
> I watched Michael Clayton yesterday and I concur with the assessment made by LBFilmGuy . There were plenty of close-up shots that exhibited value sharpness though compression artefacts were noticeable on the walls and on the actor's forehead and chin. Some mild haloing effect was also noticeable on few high contrast shots but nothing distracting. Great movie btw.
> 
> *Recommendation:* Bottom 10 spots of Tier-2
> 
> 
> I watched Deja Vu and Aviator (U.S). I think the positions of these two titles can be swapped. I will soon receive the Dutch version of Aviator which is reported to sport a high bit rate VC-1 encode and confirmed to have lossless audio. Shall check on it and post my impressions.



Where is The Aviator currently placed?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14260291
> 
> 
> Where is The Aviator currently placed?



Near the bottom of Tier 1. It was really easy to find on page one.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14261424
> 
> 
> Near the bottom of Tier 1. It was really easy to find on page one.



Thanks.










In light of that, I agree with the suggestion that Aviator should move down and DV should move up.


----------



## zoro

Did HIDALGO gets its place yet? Which tier?


----------



## Shane Martin




> Quote:
> Sleepwalking Video: ? | Audio: ? | AR: 1.85:1 | Starz/Anchor Bay



According to Hi Def Digest the Specs are AVC Video with PCM 5.1 audio.


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zoro* /forum/post/14261876
> 
> 
> Did HIDALGO gets its place yet? Which tier?



Second 1/4 of Tier 2.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Shane Martin* /forum/post/14262000
> 
> 
> According to Hi Def Digest the Specs are AVC Video with PCM 5.1 audio.



Thank you


----------



## LBFilmGuy

*Unforgiven*


This seemed to have similar problems with the night scenes as Michael Clayton, although it faired a little worse. On top of the noise, the blacks were washed out and the interior night scenes were pretty flat. The exterior night scenes at the end faired a bit better because of the lighting.


Daytime exterior shots were excellent and natural looking along with some detailed closeups, but overall there wasn't too much 3D pop to it. Good natural looking skintones and colors throughout to help the overall PQ.


Overall a good looking BD though considering it's 15 years old. Current placement is fine with me.


The film was rather disappointing to me, given it was picture of the year and won best director I had high expectations. Not Eastwood's best IMO.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/14262785
> 
> *Unforgiven*
> 
> 
> This seemed to have similar problems with the night scenes as Michael Clayton, although it faired a little worse. On top of the noise, the blacks were washed out and the interior night scenes were pretty flat. The exterior night scenes at the end faired a bit better because of the lighting.
> 
> 
> Daytime exterior shots were excellent and natural looking along with some detailed closeups, but overall there wasn't too much 3D pop to it. Good natural looking skintones and colors throughout to help the overall PQ.
> 
> 
> Overall a good looking BD though considering it's 15 years old. Current placement is fine with me.
> 
> *The film was rather disappointing to me, given it was picture of the year and won best director I had high expectations. Not Eastwood's best IMO.*



I thought that same thing the first time I watched Unforgiven. The second time (and all after that) I watched it, I liked it a lot! Something must have clicked inside me that made me change my opinion of the movie.


----------



## redlikefire02

can we get some updates on this for christ sake? ill do them myself lol


----------



## mikey ra

Hello All:


I am noticing something on my Blu-ray Disc of HP:GoF that I was wondering was showing up on other copies. I have a Panasonic DMP-30 player and a Toshiba 52XF550 LCD. Playing at 24p.


On one scene approximately 30 minutes into the movie, I notice a bunch of inky black blotches on the left side of the screen. The scene is of the clock tower ringing its bells and comes just after the Krum character puts his name into the blue-flamed cup. The Entire left side of the screen has the amorphous black glob on the screen (I've played with brightness control and it is still there, also appears on my friend's LCD playing disc thru PS3). Was wondering of anyone else had seen this issue with their copy? I see the reviewer consensus is 4 to 4 1/2 stars for the transfer and no reviewer mentions the issue. Just thought I check "with the masses".


Thanks for any replies.


Mikey


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/14262785
> 
> *Unforgiven*
> 
> 
> This seemed to have similar problems with the night scenes as Michael Clayton, although it faired a little worse. On top of the noise, the blacks were washed out and the interior night scenes were pretty flat. The exterior night scenes at the end faired a bit better because of the lighting.
> 
> 
> Daytime exterior shots were excellent and natural looking along with some detailed closeups, but overall there wasn't too much 3D pop to it. Good natural looking skintones and colors throughout to help the overall PQ.
> 
> 
> Overall a good looking BD though considering it's 15 years old. Current placement is fine with me.
> 
> 
> The film was rather disappointing to me, given it was picture of the year and won best director I had high expectations. Not Eastwood's best IMO.



I would attribute the problems with dark and night scenes to the source. I remember the HD presentation and DVD looking the same with night scenes.


----------



## b_scott

*Dark Water*

Video codec: MPEG-2

Video resolution: 1080p

Aspect ratio: 2.35:1


5010 Kuro 1080p 24fps - 9.5 feet back, pitch black room


looked very undefined in the blacks, for a movie that was all about darkness and black water. i wasn't impressed. almost had grey blacks. PQ was just a bit above DVD. I'd place it in mid Tier 4.


Movie was ok. a step above mindless horror, but still forgettable. it's a japanese conversion, so think The Ring style.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/14266136
> 
> 
> I thought that same thing the first time I watched Unforgiven. The second time (and all after that) I watched it, I liked it a lot! Something must have clicked inside me that made me change my opinion of the movie.



I just think it wasn't his best work. His lines seemed forced and cheesy at times, until the end when there some bad ass ones










It was just too heavy handed with the "I'm not that man anymore, blah blah." It was just too obvious what was coming.


I could understand the blow up at the end in the whore house, but what bothered me was when he just grabbed the rifle from Ned behind those rocks and just started firing at the cowboy out of nowhere. He was even sober there!


----------



## SuprSlow

I just remembered I skipped over the Men in Black placement, I'll add it this weekend.


Also, I've added an asterick and note for Scary Movie (Patton has been noted for a couple weeks). Any others that should have a special note, let me know.


*Updates:*


Shoot 'Em Up - moved to Tier 0, in place of SM3


SM3 - down to Tier 1


Revenge - mid Tier 3

*Saw IV - any ideas? Varying opinions on this one...*


Rambo II (First Blood, Pt.2) - Below Face/Off


Rambo III - above FB2


Breaker Morant - 3/4 Tier 3


Legend of Zorro - mid Tier 2


Longest Day - Tier 1, above Battle of the Bulge


Mrs. Doubtfire - 3/4 Tier 2


Room with a View - 3/4 Tier 2


Sand Pebbles - lower Tier 1


Twister - top Tier 3


Almost Famous - high Tier 3


The Queen - down to Tier 3, below Memento


Spiderwick Chronicles - low Tier 1

*P.S. I Love You - still in original placement, one vote for high Tier 2. Any more input?*


Cloverfield - mid-ish Tier 2


Jumper - 3/4 Tier 1


Erin Brockovich - above SM, Tier 2


Fool's Gold - below RH3, Tier 1


Persepolis - middle Tier 0


Scary Movie - Tier 2 (asterick and note added for DNR/EE)


Next - top Tier 2


Ocean's 11 - Tier 2, below Bridge to Tera.


Ocean's 12 - Tier 2, below X-Men


Dragon Tiger Gate - top Tier 2


V for Vendetta - Tier 2, above ID4


Saawariya - up to Tier 0


Disturbia - down a few spots


Be Kind Rewind - mid Tier 1, near Semi Pro


National Treasure 2 - up about 5 spots


Vantage Point - high Tier 1, near NT2


Rambo - 2/4 Tier 1


The Lookout - 2/4 Tier 2


Drillbit Taylor - Tier 1, above Pearl Harbor


Million Dollar Baby - top Tier 3


In the Line of Fire - mid Tier 3


Troy - up, below NT2


The Host - specs corrected, thank you










Meet the Robinsons - up, below Cars


Michael Clayton - up, bot 1/4 Tier 2


Batman Begins - lower Tier 1


Kiss of the Dragon - bottom Tier 1


Deja Vu - swapped with the Aviator


Aviator - see above


The Air I Breathe - specs corrected, thank you










Unforgiven - Clint Eastwood isn't that man anymore and he's not changing the placement










Dark Water - stays, mid Tier 4


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Masters Of Horror: Season One Volume One*


tier recommendation: bottom quarter of *Tier 1*


Starz released this Blu-ray back in October of 2007. All three episodes presented here are in 1080i. The disc is encoded in AVC on a BD-50. It’s easier to break down each episode separately since each episode has its own look and there isn’t much consistency from one episode to the next. I will say that all three episodes are free of any DNR and edge enhancement rarely intrudes into the image. As expected the master used for these episodes looks immaculate with no stray marks.


“Cigarette Burns” - This 58 minute episode is the nicest looking of the three though it does have some faults. The compression job seems very good as the video bitrate varies between 20 to 43.5 Mbps with virtually no artifacting. I would guess the average is 27 or 28 Mbps with frequent peaks in the mid 30‘s. Detail is relatively good and the entire episode looks sharp and in focus. Skin tones do look a little off as everyone looks very red and black levels get clipped in a couple of scenes. If I was ranking this episode separately I would probably place it in the third quarter of tier one.


“Dreams In The Witch-House” - This 54 minute episode seems to have been given slightly less breathing space on the AVC encode as it ranges mostly from 18 to 30 Mbps though in general compression noise seems very slight. My estimate is that it averages around 23 Mbps. Skin tones look much better in this episode but this episode takes place in much darker environments. Lots of moments of black crushing occur in the second half of the episode. Some shots do look very good with excellent detail though. The image just seems a little flatter than the image found in Cigarette Burns. If I was ranking this episode separately I would place it in the top quarter of Tier 2.


“The Fair-Haired Child” - This 55 minute episode looks the weakest of the three on the disc. There is nothing wrong with the compression job as the AVC encode seems to be even better in quality with a higher average than the one found on Cigarette Burns with not a single artifact. But the source material seems to vary greatly as some shots look out of focus and some shots have this washed out look that doesn’t seem to follow any rhyme or reason. Detail goes from phenomenal to very average from scene to scene. Colors also seem to jump around a bit as skin tones change. Separately I would rank this episode in the middle of Tier 2 though it is very inconsistent.


I recommend a bottom quarter of tier one placement for this disc as much of the material looks relatively nice though there are some rough patches here and there. I thought this material looked a little better on average than the episodes I saw in volume four. It looks like Starz has used the extra space with only three episodes on this disc to deliver a better looking image.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Kiss of the Dragon Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Fox


Video codec needs to be changed to MPEG-2.


----------



## Majestyk

I don't know, Batman Beings, IMO is should NOT be classified as "Sharp image that has a lot of HD-POP effects.". (Tier 1)


Although I thought the PQ was pretty good this is definitely Tier 2 at best.


----------



## Coxwell

*The Descent Video: AVC | Audio: PCM (6.1)| (IME-Requires latest firmware) | AR: 2.35:1 | Lionsgate*


I wonder what is the correct encoding for this title. My PS3 shows MPEG2 whereas some critics reported an AVC codec. Whos is correct ?


----------



## Mel2

batman begins is tier 2 material. but cast away, mr mrs smith, spidey 2, fifth element remastered, vantage point and KOH should be bottom of tier 0. alot of 3-d pop and great detail/vibrant colors in those films. I think the letters from iwa jima should be bottom of tier 1. I found it to be impressive. I heard bank job was impressive also.


----------



## Aetherhole

Personally, I found Cast Away to be a bit soft when comparing it to other titles. It looked fantastic especially when comparing to the DVD counterpart, but it didn't look nearly as three dimensional as the Tier 0, to me. Fifth Element (remastered) again, looks really good, but lacks some of the same three-dimensional elements that seem to be required to be in Tier 0.


Mel2 what display are you using and with what blu-ray player?


----------



## bplewis24

Nice...more participation!










Brandon


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14273314
> 
> 
> Nice...more participation!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brandon



With my new TV now I feel more comfortable contributing


----------



## 357

Batman Begins belongs in Tier 2 beneath 30 Days of Night.


----------



## eric.exe

IMAX: Roving Mars - Tier 1 1/2...


bahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahaahaha


...if this list could get anymore ridiculous


----------



## bplewis24

Nice to see the maturity on display here










Brandon


----------



## eric.exe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14275041
> 
> 
> Nice to see the maturity on display here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brandon



Indeed. Whoever put Roving Mars in Tier 1 hasn't hit puberty yet. It's Tier 6 if you wanna give it a realistic rating.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Coxwell* /forum/post/14272817
> 
> *The Descent Video: AVC | Audio: PCM (6.1)| (IME-Requires latest firmware) | AR: 2.35:1 | Lionsgate*
> 
> 
> I wonder what is the correct encoding for this title. My PS3 shows MPEG2 whereas some critics reported an AVC codec. Whos is correct ?



Are you sure that your PS3 says MPEG 2? My PS3 says AVC for The Descent.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *eric.exe* /forum/post/14275059
> 
> 
> Indeed. Whoever put Roving Mars in Tier 1 hasn't hit puberty yet. It's Tier 6 if you wanna give it a realistic rating.



Finally, a suggestion. That's more like it. So can we put you down for Tier 5 since no Tier 6 exists?


I took the liberty of looking for other votes on this title and came across these:



> Quote:
> I just watched this tonight, and I completely agree. This is clearly a case of extreme noise reduction. Everything in the image has that fake plastic look, lacking any texture. It looks horrible. There is also very obvious edge ringing throughout.
> 
> 
> In fact, if you watch the making-of documentary (Mars: Past, Present & Future), you can see clips of the movie before the noise reduction was applied, and it looks far, far better.
> 
> 
> I'm sad to say that this BD deserves a tier 4 ranking at best. It is a big disappointment, especially for an IMAX film.





> Quote:
> How can IMAX: Roving Mars be TIER 1 -GOLD ! it`s one of the worst and unnatural HD I have seen!



So while there were a couple votes for Tier 1, there are 3 votes for Tier 4 and below as well. A special thanks goes out to our good friend Eric who was kind enough to participate in the thread and bring this to light.


Anybody else that has seen this title? It seems like it should be dropped to balance out the voting thus far at least. Somewhere inbetween? Tier 3?


Brandon


----------



## lgans316

*Deja Vu vs I am Legend vs Man on Fire*- I found the PQ on Deja Vu to be sharper, colorful and consistent than I am Legend. Can someone skim through these titles back to back and post their opinion ? The cinematographic techniques adopted on Deja Vu and Man on Fire are on similar lines because both have been directed by Tony Scott. Deja Vu ultimately falls behind Man on Fire as the latter exhibits tremendous details on facial close-ups and slightly more vivid colors. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Shane Martin

I'd agree with your 2 cents. I have all 3 discs and have watched them recently so my memory is solid on these. Man on Fire is truly breathtaking.


----------



## lgans316

After skimming through MIB few weeks back I thought the PQ was on similar lines to Spiderman. After watching the whole movie I felt it looked no better than RAMBO II/III which are perfect candidates for Tier-2 3/4. The grain is well preserved but beyond that this one lacks both resolution and HD pop that is offered by the titles placed in mid to top of Tier-2. The picture rarely meets Tier-1 standards. IMO this is the second disappointing recent catalog title from Sony next to their overcooked Gattaca.

*Recommendation: Tier-2 below Rambo: First Blood Part II*


----------



## Kroenen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14278407
> 
> 
> After skimming through MIB few weeks back I thought the PQ was on similar lines to Spiderman. After watching the whole movie I felt it looked no better than RAMBO II/III which are perfect candidates for Tier-2 3/4. The grain is well preserved but beyond that this one lacks both resolution and HD pop that is offered by the titles placed in mid to top of Tier-2. The picture rarely meets Tier-1 standards. IMO this is the second disappointing recent catalog title from Sony next to their overcooked Gattaca.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier-2 below Rambo: First Blood Part II*



Really? IMO I thought MiB looked pretty good. You could easily make out the pimples and porous details of Will Smith's face.


IMHO the black levels were also good as was shadow delineation. I also thought there were scenes as well that displayed depth and dimensionality.


----------



## maverick0716

Drillbit Taylor is a pretty good looking disc. Everything was good......black levels, colour saturation, and detail. Most of the movie in my opinion would be lower Tier 1 or high Tier 2. There are some instances of slightly lower detail, so I'd go with a high Tier 2 ranking overall.


42" Panasonic Plasma (768p)

PS3 though HDMI

6-7 ft.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Deja Vu looks better to me than I Am Legend. I'm pretty sure I reviewed Deja Vu at some point in this thread but can't remember what I recommended. I think Deja Vu needs to be moved up some as it is more consistent than IAL, though it probably doesn't quite have the highs IAL has.


I don't remember who nominated One Missed Call but I agree 100% with the current ranking of it. I had thought it was unranked and prepped a review of it but I guess I won't write it up now. I was going to recommend third quarter of Tier 2. Typical Warner video encode though where the VC-1 is averaging around 15 Mbps with it never peaking above 21 Mbps.


Maybe Kiss of the Dragon can be moved to the top quarter of Tier 2. I really don't view the tiers as having sharp delineations but I know some do.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kroenen* /forum/post/14278678
> 
> 
> Really? IMO I thought MiB looked pretty good. You could easily make out the pimples and porous details of Will Smith's face.
> 
> 
> IMHO the black levels were also good as was shadow delineation. I also thought there were scenes as well that displayed depth and dimensionality.



You are right but most parts of the movie exhibited less than ideal HD pop and I don't feel that the BD is miles ahead of the already good

looking Superbit edition.


I agree that we can see pimples and porous details of Will Smith's face but comparing to the close-ups in Pearl Harbor, National Treasure-2, Deja Vu etc the HD pop factor is grossly missing on MIB.


I am beginning to get a feeling that Starship Troopers may fall on similar lines though it contains many shots that can deliver enough HD pop unlike MIB where the color gamut is dominated by Black, White and Gray.


----------



## stumlad

I'm currently watching Sopranos Season 6.1. Some of the closeups are up there with tier 0 titles where you can see pores, wrinkles, etc... the problem is that things go out of focus a lot which changes the level of detail. Some episodes are better than others (probably due to different directors each episode). The "intro" doesn't look much better than the DVD, but the sound of the theme song (lossless PCM 4.6mbps) sounds better than the 448kbps DVDs of all previous seasons.


Mid tier 2.


----------



## Fanaticalism

Quick question guys, in House of Flying Daggers, did anyone notice an excessive amount of flicker?


----------



## Coxwell




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/14276166
> 
> 
> Are you sure that your PS3 says MPEG 2? My PS3 says AVC for The Descent.



Here are two pictures shot a couple minutes ago :


















http://img172.imageshack.us/my.php?i...ntmpeg2rc7.jpg 
http://img378.imageshack.us/my.php?i...tmpeg22go4.jpg 


Whatever i play the rated, unrated or "underground experience" version of the movie, the codec is still the same.

That's odd. Is someone else could share his experience on this title ?


----------



## lgans316

You are not alone Coxwell.










Either the BD we have is really MPEG-2 encoded or the codec is flagged incorrectly which has to be confirmed by experts who possess good knowledge about the internals of BD. Irrespective of the codec the PQ is quite impressive though I could notice some grain scrubbing which is not getting acknowledged in the other threads.

*Playing - The_Descent_BD_UndergroundExperience*

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2294/...f3777d17_b.jpg 
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3100/...4304a595_b.jpg 
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3013/...8497f100_b.jpg 

*Playing - The_Descent_BD_Unrated*

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3102/...25bb5310_b.jpg 
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3165/...c37594c9_b.jpg 

*Playing - The_Descent_BD_Rated*

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3131/...a652e179_b.jpg 
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3171/...8110aed5_b.jpg


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Coxwell* /forum/post/14283834
> 
> 
> Here are two pictures shot a couple minutes ago :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://img172.imageshack.us/my.php?i...ntmpeg2rc7.jpg
> http://img378.imageshack.us/my.php?i...tmpeg22go4.jpg
> 
> 
> Whatever i play the rated, unrated or "underground experience" version of the movie, the codec is still the same.
> 
> That's odd. Is someone else could share his experience on this title ?



Is it possible you've watched the special feature PiP on the disc? In the Unofficial specs thread it lists the main movie track as AVC and the PiP track as MPEG2. Is it possible that there were different production runs with an MPEG2 flag instead of AVC? That's a weird mistake on only one batch of discs.


Brandon


----------



## Mel2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aetherhole* /forum/post/14273011
> 
> 
> Personally, I found Cast Away to be a bit soft when comparing it to other titles. It looked fantastic especially when comparing to the DVD counterpart, but it didn't look nearly as three dimensional as the Tier 0, to me. Fifth Element (remastered) again, looks really good, but lacks some of the same three-dimensional elements that seem to be required to be in Tier 0.
> 
> 
> Mel2 what display are you using and with what blu-ray player?



I'm using a professionally calibrated mitsubishi 65831 diamond DLP. 60GB PS3 and a samsung bdp1400 blu-ray player all hooked up to the sony str-da5300es, their flagship receiver. fifth element had alot of 3d pop on my setup, during the battles on the cruise ship and the escape on the cruise ship. alos their landing on the planet at the end. I could probably count around a dozen scenes in all. the remastered version is a night and day difference than the first pitiful release. I've just got done watching the bank job and that is a pretty impressive disc. very nice PQ and SQ.


----------



## Coxwell




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14286126
> 
> 
> Is it possible you've watched the special feature PiP on the disc? In the Unofficial specs thread it lists the main movie track as AVC and the PiP track as MPEG2. Is it possible that there were different production runs with an MPEG2 flag instead of AVC? That's a weird mistake on only one batch of discs.
> 
> 
> Brandon



As i said in the last post, i tried the PIP called "underground experience", and it shows exactly the same video codec "MPEG2" than the others feature presentation.


----------



## SuprSlow

This week's releases:
*The Bank Job: Special Edition* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Lionsgate
*One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 1.85:1 | Warner
*Step Up 2 the Streets: Dance-Off Edition* Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.85:1 | Disney
*Shutter* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Fox
*College Road Trip* Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Disney
*Dragon Ball Z: The History of Trunks / Bardock: The Father of Goku* Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 1.78:1 | FUNimation


----------



## SuprSlow

*Update:*


Added this week's titles to the unranked list and added "Men in Black" to 2/4 Tier 2, just below 28 Weeks Later (skipped over last full update







)


----------



## Thunderbolt8

I see that some titles have been shifted up & down for a while like POTC for example: it started as tier-0, then was tier-1 for a while and is now tier-0 again. how come? (not that I dont agree with one or the other, just curious about all that back & forth)


----------



## b_scott

i disagree with current placement of Spiderwick Chronicles. I had it running on:


Samsung BDP-1400

semi-ISF Calibrated Kuro 5010-FD

1080p 24fps

8 feet back

pitch black room


and it looked at LEAST as good as Mr. Brooks if not more. I was stunned by the PQ and it should be a reference disc. Motion was very fluid. There was no noise at all, yet no DNR that I could tell - everyone had detail. incredible picture. tons of pop and 3D feel. movie was decent too.


should be lower Blu tier 0.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briansemerick* /forum/post/14305091
> 
> 
> i disagree with current placement of Spiderwick Chronicles. I had it running on:
> 
> 
> Samsung BDP-1400
> 
> semi-ISF Calibrated Kuro 5010-FD
> 
> 1080p 24fps
> 
> 8 feet back
> 
> pitch black room
> 
> 
> and it looked at LEAST as good as Mr. Brooks if not more. I was stunned by the PQ and it should be a reference disc. Motion was very fluid. There was no noise at all, yet no DNR that I could tell - everyone had detail. incredible picture. tons of pop and 3D feel. movie was decent too.
> 
> 
> should be lower Blu tier 0.



Sorry but I have to disagree. Detail was good but not great. Definitely not Tier 0 to my eyes.


----------



## maverick0716

I definitely agree with Patrick99 on this one.


----------



## Shane Martin

Ditto for once..


----------



## lgans316

I think BDs that doesn't reveal fine details on close-up shots should never be recommended for Tier-0 placement.


----------



## Tank6585

Screen Resolution: 720p60

Screen Size: 100"

Distance from Screen: 13 feet

Infoucs 7210 via PS3 HDMI


Fifth Element should be bumped down to Tier 2. While some shots were razor sharp, there were a lot of grainy scenes. Some scenes looked no better then the standard dvd upscaled version on my A30. It could be due to the older special effects, certainly a step up from standard dvd, but still not "demo" material.


----------



## Tank6585




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Thunderbolt8* /forum/post/14297988
> 
> 
> I see that some titles have been shifted up & down for a while like POTC for example: it started as tier-0, then was tier-1 for a while and is now tier-0 again. how come? (not that I dont agree with one or the other, just curious about all that back & forth)



Depends on the reviews form the users. IMO all 3 POTC should be Tier 0.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tank6585* /forum/post/14307609
> 
> 
> Screen Resolution: 720p60
> 
> Screen Size: 100"
> 
> Distance from Screen: 13 feet
> 
> Infoucs 7210 via PS3 HDMI
> 
> 
> Fifth Element should be bumped down to Tier 2. While some shots were razor sharp, there were a lot of grainy scenes. Some scenes looked no better then the standard dvd upscaled version on my A30. It could be due to the older special effects, certainly a step up from standard dvd, but still not "demo" material.



I partially agree. Though there are many scenes that didn't look good but I think pushing down to Tier-2 would be harsh move. Bottom of Tier-1 would be the right spot for TFE (Remastered).


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tank6585* /forum/post/14307609
> 
> 
> Screen Resolution: 720p60
> 
> Screen Size: 100"
> 
> Distance from Screen: 13 feet
> 
> Infoucs 7210 via PS3 HDMI
> 
> 
> Fifth Element should be bumped down to Tier 2. While some shots were razor sharp, there were a lot of grainy scenes. Some scenes looked no better then the standard dvd upscaled version on my A30. It could be due to the older special effects, certainly a step up from standard dvd, but still not "demo" material.



Are we talking about the remastered version?


Brandon


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14307958
> 
> 
> Are we talking about the remastered version?
> 
> 
> Brandon



Most probably yes 'coz it will panic everyone if the original TFE was recommended for Tier-2 placement.


----------



## 357

Fifth Element should stay where it is. You guys are blind. I would say deaf too if you knocked on the audio.


----------



## btdvox

PQ tier looks good- I saw Saawariya 2 weeks ago and bought it- Its a knockout of a BD- Audio is awesome!


I think Golden Compass should be lowered on the list- There are movies such as 310 to yuma that have much more HD pop and detail than it.


To be frank I think the amount of DNR and the PQ is just in a word: *SOFT*


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *357* /forum/post/14308276
> 
> 
> Fifth Element should stay where it is.



I agree.


----------



## Coxwell

*Saawariya*


It definitely deserves to be in the Tier O category. A top notch disc whith an incredible picture quality as well as an astonishing True HD track. What an experience ! Besides, it might well be the only movie that makes me get up and dance all around my room


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Coxwell* /forum/post/14309486
> 
> *Saawariya*
> 
> 
> It definitely deserves to be in the Tier O category. A top notch disc whith an incredible picture quality as well as an astonishing True HD track. What an experience ! Besides, it might well be the only movie that makes me get up and dance all around my room



I expressed a dissenting view on this title a while ago based on what seems to me to be a lack of detail in the faces in close-ups. Does anyone else share this view?


----------



## OldCodger73

Watched this last night. It was a decent transfer of an old movie. Sharpness wasn't up to present day standards. I'd place it in the 1/2 section of Tier 3. I can't compare it to the DVD as I only have the LD. Audio has an aggressive LFE.


The movie itself is probably one of the very best buddy movies.


Panasonic 50" 720p plasma, Panasonic 10a player, 7 1/2'


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14309605
> 
> 
> I expressed a dissenting view on this title a while ago based on what seems to me to be a lack of detail in the faces in close-ups. Does anyone else share this view?



I actually do agree with you that the level of high detail wasn't on par with some of the higher Tier 0 titles, but I believe it made up for it in other areas: black levels were great, shadow detail seemed great to me (from memory) and colors and contrast were excellent.


I think I originally recommended high Tier 1, but I could see a case being made for this in Tier 0.


Brandon


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14310073
> 
> 
> I actually do agree with you that the level of high detail wasn't on par with some of the higher Tier 0 titles, but I believe it made up for it in other areas: black levels were great, shadow detail seemed great to me (from memory) and colors and contrast were excellent.
> 
> 
> I think I originally recommended high Tier 1, but I could see a case being made for this in Tier 0.
> 
> 
> Brandon





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14307442
> 
> 
> I think BDs that doesn't reveal fine details on close-up shots should never be recommended for Tier-0 placement.



I agree with lgans on this point.


----------



## lgans316

*Batman Begins*


The PQ on this title has been in debate for months with no experts making bold statements on filtering and DNR which is hideously apparent on this bit starved encode. Very few scenes looked Tier-1 whereas most parts of the picture falls in Tier-2. There is no need to pull Tier-0 into the frame as no scenes exhibited Tier-0 details on both close-up and long distance shots.


The Dark Knight Prologue: Top Tier-1









*Recommendation:* Tier-2 above or below The 6th Day.


----------



## hobbs47




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14315370
> 
> *Batman Begins*
> 
> 
> The PQ on this title has been in debate for months with no experts making bold statements on filtering and DNR which is hideously apparent on this bit starved encode. Very few scenes looked Tier-1 whereas most parts of the picture falls in Tier-2. There is no need to pull Tier-0 into the frame as no scenes exhibited Tier-0 details on both close-up and long distance shots.
> 
> *Recommendation:* *Tier-2 above or below The 6th Day.*




This would be FAR too low.


----------



## bplewis24

I guess I have to rent this now










Brandon


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14315622
> 
> 
> I guess I have to rent this now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brandon



You can indeed buy BB if you are an ardent of it like me but unfortunately we are currently blessed with the one and only version of BB & V which is nothing but the wholehearted half-aZZed Warner Brother's CUT.


----------



## maverick0716

The Bank Job is a strange disc. The first 3/4 of the movie is pretty soft lower Tier 2 material.......but then towards the end of the movie, there is actually more detail, lower Tier 1 quality in all the shots.....it's quite a jump in my opinion. Overall, I'd still place it no higher than Tier 2 because most of the movie is soft.


42" Panasonic Plasma (768p)

PS3 through HDMI

6-7 ft.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14315370
> 
> *Batman Begins*
> 
> 
> The PQ on this title has been in debate for months with no experts making bold statements on filtering and DNR which is hideously apparent on this bit starved encode. Very few scenes looked Tier-1 whereas most parts of the picture falls in Tier-2. There is no need to pull Tier-0 into the frame as no scenes exhibited Tier-0 details on both close-up and long distance shots.
> 
> 
> The Dark Knight Prologue: Top Tier-1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Recommendation:* Tier-2 above or below The 6th Day.



I agree with this recommendation.


As an example of the softness, look at any shot of Morgan Freeman's face.


----------



## SuprSlow

Has anyone seen *Crash*?


Most reviewers gave it decent scores, but it's currently mid Tier 4. I found no reviews of it in this thread, so I assume that placement is left over from the original rankings.


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14315370
> 
> 
> this bit starved encode.
> 
> 
> low bit rate but in comparison



you really like to talk about bit rates.........


i don't know why anyone even looks at those. through the power of suggestion it will automatically taint your opinion of picture quality, no matter what. i've seen very low bit rate movies look really good to me. hell, even some HDTV looks very very sharp and we all know Comcast does 3:1.


i dunno, i just tire of hearing about bit rate. rate with your eyes, not because of a number.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briansemerick* /forum/post/14317381
> 
> 
> you really like to talk about bit rates.........
> 
> 
> i don't know why anyone even looks at those. through the power of suggestion it will automatically taint your opinion of picture quality, no matter what. i've seen very low bit rate movies look really good to me. hell, even some HDTV looks very very sharp and we all know Comcast does 3:1.
> 
> 
> i dunno, i just tire of hearing about bit rate. rate with your eyes, not because of a number.



No offense. Bit starved literally means that it's bit starved. It's plain obvious to my eyes. I rarely lower my PQ rating due to bit starvation though I have to strongly emphasize on it's unmeasured side/negative effects. I used to criticize and get into debates with few members out here who used to always speak about bit rates but later realized that it can have many side effects on the overall PQ. Even Zodiac is a bit starved encode but I still recommended it to be placed in Top Tier-1. If someone claims that it looks consistently better than NCFOM then they are open to challenge my assessment.


----------



## b_scott

Fair enough then.


I thought Begins looks excellent, but it's not Tier 0 for sure. I'd say mid to low Tier 1 is about right. General very good PQ, but there was something there I couldn't put my finger on in regards to PQ that didn't always give me the "wow" factor. which may be the bitrate. I wish they're re-captured it instead of just slapping the HD-DVD transfer on a BD. oh well.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14315662
> 
> 
> You can indeed buy BB if you are an ardent of it like me but unfortunately we are currently blessed with the one and only version of BB & V which is nothing but the wholehearted half-aZZed Warner Brother's CUT.



I fully enjoyed the film, but the problem is I've already seen it 3-4 times and I'm not interested in the current offering just for the sake of ownership. I'll wait for the double-dip. Same goes for V: I planned on pre-ordering it til I realized it would be a crippled port.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briansemerick* /forum/post/14317381
> 
> 
> through the power of suggestion it will automatically taint your opinion of picture quality, no matter what.



I disagree. A person either allows it to taint their opinion or they don't.


Brandon


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briansemerick* /forum/post/14317568
> 
> 
> Fair enough then.
> 
> 
> I thought Begins looks excellent, but it's not Tier 0 for sure. I'd say mid to low Tier 1 is about right. General very good PQ, but there was something there I couldn't put my finger on in regards to PQ that didn't always give me the "wow" factor. which may be the bitrate. I wish they're re-captured it instead of just slapping the HD-DVD transfer on a BD. oh well.



IMO the following may be key reasons for the tricky and soft PQ on BB.


1) Average master









2) Heavy duty filtering removing all the high frequency information

3) MovieSwede mentioned that anamorphic lenses can also result in soft PQ. Though this may be true the picture shouldn't have looked this soft but we have to also take this point into consideration

4) Possible application of some low to moderate DNR as the image is super clean with sub-par detailing

5) Low bit rate


----------



## DavidHir




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14317639
> 
> 
> IMO the following may be key reasons for the tricky and soft PQ on BB.
> 
> 
> 1) Average master
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2) Heavy duty filtering removing all the high frequency information
> 
> 3) MovieSwede mentioned that anamorphic lenses can also result in soft PQ. Though this may be true the picture shouldn't have looked this soft but we have take this point also into consideration.
> 
> 4) Possible application of some low to moderate DNR as the image is super clean with sub-par detailing.
> 
> 5) Low bit rate



100% agreed. Mid or high Tier 3 is all Batman Begins should be.


----------



## b_scott

whoa. that's way too low.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DavidHir* /forum/post/14317649
> 
> 
> 100% agreed. Mid or high Tier 3 is all Batman Begins should be.



Thanks.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briansemerick* /forum/post/14317668
> 
> 
> whoa. that's way too low.



+1. I too feel Tier 3 is way too low. IMO the Warner Brother's cut of BB is a solid mid~bottom Tier-2 title.


----------



## DavidHir

Re: Batman Begins...I can't justify anything higher given the obvious DNRing/filtering and lack of detail/film grain to this title. MANY close-up shots were hardly better than a decent DVD. Mid range and longer shots showed more detail and looked about 720p, but...


----------



## b_scott

what is your setup?


i watched it on a calibrated 50" Kuro (1080p) in pitch black 9 feet back and it looked very, very good. There wasn't much grain, but it's a newer movie. By comparison, Spiderwick Chronicles had zero grain and looked amazing with tons of detail.


----------



## hobbs47

Time for a BB tier poll like the HD DVD poll a couple years ago.


----------



## ppshooky

Hmm...I picked up Batman Begins yesterday on Blu-Ray, and am planning on watching it tonight with my wife.


My brother-in-law owns this movie on HD-DVD, and he told me that the HD-DVD version was reference quality. But, judging by people's reaction, this is clearly not the case? Even the HD-DVD version was not?


----------



## hobbs47




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ppshooky* /forum/post/14318101
> 
> 
> Hmm...I picked up Batman Begins yesterday on Blu-Ray, and am planning on watching it tonight with my wife.
> 
> 
> My brother-in-law owns this movie on HD-DVD, and he told me that the HD-DVD version was reference quality. But, judging by people's reaction, this is clearly not the case? Even the HD-DVD version was not?



There are many people here who think BB looks excellent. Let us know what you think after you watch it. All opinions are welcome.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/14316911
> 
> 
> Has anyone seen *Crash*?
> 
> 
> Most reviewers gave it decent scores, but it's currently mid Tier 4. I found no reviews of it in this thread, so I assume that placement is left over from the original rankings.



Crash is actually one of the worst Blu Rays I've ever seen. The black levels are absolutely horrible.


----------



## babrown92

I thought BB was a very solid transfer. Is it Tier 0, no. But i think it is a solid Tier 1. Blacks were very good in a movie that would be very easy to crush. No way does it belong in tier 3.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ppshooky* /forum/post/14318101
> 
> 
> Hmm...I picked up Batman Begins yesterday on Blu-Ray, and am planning on watching it tonight with my wife.
> 
> 
> My brother-in-law owns this movie on HD-DVD, and he told me that the HD-DVD version was reference quality. But, judging by people's reaction, this is clearly not the case? Even the HD-DVD version was not?



My personal opinion is that anything in Tier 2 or above is good looking and will have friends enjoying the HD experience. I think the question is just whether or not a) it belongs with the highest quality BDs out there and b) if it could be done better.


Brandon


----------



## maverick0716

I actually re-watched my HD DVD copy of Batman Begins last week and I definitely agree with a Tier 2 placement for it. There just isn't enough detail for it to be in Tier 1. Not to say it looks bad in any way, but it's not Tier 1.


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/14318499
> 
> 
> Crash is actually one of the worst Blu Rays I've ever seen. The black levels are absolutely horrible.



Well that doesn't sound good










Maybe I'll rent it first...


----------



## lont12




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/13998091
> 
> 
> It was basically a near perfect transfer in my opinion. I wasn't a huge fan of the style, but I can't deny the technical aspects of the disc.



Going back in time a little........ Have to agree with Mr. Freaky on this one. Just watched Shoot 'Em Up. I liked the movie and it certainly has a distinctive visual look, but I can't say it's reference quality in any way. Some good detail on close ups (if you really like to see all the pores and moles on artificially colored facial close-ups then this is the movie for you) but otherwise nothing that sets it apart from the various movies in Tier 1 or Tier 2 that I've seen. Just curious what the other folks who have seen this one have to say.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DavidHir* /forum/post/14317649
> 
> 
> 100% agreed. Mid or high Tier 3 is all Batman Begins should be.



Then we have an absolute ton of movies that are tier one and should be tier 3.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lont12* /forum/post/14319180
> 
> 
> Going back in time a little........ Have to agree with Mr. Freaky on this one. Just watched Shoot 'Em Up. I liked the movie and it certainly has a distinctive visual look, but I can't say it's reference quality in any way. Some good detail on close ups (if you really like to see all the pores and moles on artificially colored facial close-ups then this is the movie for you) but otherwise nothing that sets it apart from the various movies in Tier 1 or Tier 2 that I've seen. Just curious what the other folks who have seen this one have to say.




I agree. If we use some movies like Apocalypto as a standard for then many titles like Shoot em up don't even come close.


----------



## DavidHir




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briansemerick* /forum/post/14317850
> 
> 
> what is your setup?



ISF'd 60" SXRD A3000 and Panasonic BD30 at 1080p/24 - sitting about 8-9 feet back in dark evironment.


----------



## DavidHir




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14319479
> 
> 
> Then we have an absolute ton of movies that are tier one and should be tier 3.



I just watched Blade Runner the other night and Prisoner of Azkaban; there is NO way Batman Begins should be in the same tier with those titles.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DavidHir* /forum/post/14319909
> 
> 
> I just watched Blade Runner the other night and Prisoner of Azkaban; there is NO way Batman Begins should be in the same tier with those titles.



I agree but Tier-3 is way too low. Mid~Bottom of Tier-2 would be the right spot for BB.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Bottom quarter of Tier 2 or high Tier 3 sounds right for Batman Begins. It's simply an inferior transfer and encode by Warner. The Batman Begins BD demo disc looks better of the same material. What's the date on the video encode from the HD DVD? I believe it's around two years old and simply doesn't hold up to recent Blu-ray releases.


I'm more interested in 30 Days Of Night's placement. I finally got around to watching it(I think I got it like six months ago) and somewhat remember the arguments about it. It consistently looks like a low Tier 1 title to me. The only real negatives are some moderate edge enhancement and some strange compression noise that occasionally shows up in the snowy background. But detail is consistently excellent and it is DNR free. The grain looks very natural and untouched.


----------



## djoberg

Since I just watched my HD DVD version of Batman Begins the other night (I'm familiarizing myself with it again in preparation for The Dark Knight), I'm going to chime in and give my 2 cents worth. IMHO it is an excellent transfer and on the HD DVD thread it has a very high rating (the equivalent of Tier 1 in our thread) which I concur with. I base this opinion on the natural colors, the spot-on fleshtones, the deep black levels, and excellent contrast.


Viewing on a Samsung 1080p 50" DLP from 8' in a pitch black room.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/14322367
> 
> 
> Bottom quarter of Tier 2 or high Tier 3 sounds right for Batman Begins. It's simply an inferior transfer and encode by Warner. The Batman Begins BD demo disc looks better of the same material. What's the date on the video encode from the HD DVD? I believe it's around two years old and simply doesn't hold up to recent Blu-ray releases.
> 
> 
> I'm more interested in 30 Days Of Night's placement. I finally got around to watching it(I think I got it like six months ago) and somewhat remember the arguments about it. It consistently looks like a low Tier 1 title to me. The only real negatives are some moderate edge enhancement and some strange compression noise that occasionally shows up in the snowy background. But detail is consistently excellent and it is DNR free. The grain looks very natural and untouched.




Again I will say it. If that is true then half of the Tier one movies aren't Tier one. NO WAY based on not just BB, but many other titles. I enjoy coming here and seeing what some have to say about placement, but just how different some of our views are, IMO inherently proves the Tier system is not accurate at best and at the worst it is badly flawed. And my mantra for over a month has been when there are too many titles it will get much more difficult and it is. Look at some titles that a year ago or less were Tier 0 and they have been dropped significantly.


A great example of incorrect placement is Memento. I still maintain it is comparable and the equivalent to many middle to upper Tier one titles, yet it is Tier 3. That is just wrong and I cannot emphasize that enough as I own it.


----------



## bplewis24

I haven't seen any commentary on this title and it appears to be unranked. I got a chance to see *First Knight* for the first time tonight (see what I did there







). This is a somewhat inconsistent title. At times the print looks fresh and clean with solid-to-good detail, fine grain structure and vivid colors. Other times it looks like the print is dated as the colors fall flat and the grain becomes coarse and almost noisy. For the most part it is the former and not the latter, however.


Ultimately it wavers between some occasional low-Tier 1 material to some high-Tier 3 material. Colors at their best are vibrant and realistic, and flesh tones are spot on throughout. Black levels looked pretty good to me, especially during the battle scenes that took place at night. I think I'll recommend placement for the *bottom of Tier 2*, somewhere above Jesse James and below Gone Baby Gone.


PS3->1080p24->46XBR4 (8 feet)


Brandon


----------



## stumlad

Dont agree that Batman begins is as bad or worse than Resident Evil 1 (which is low tier 2).. it should not go into tier 3. Maybe mid tier 2, but low tier 2 and tier 3 seems harsh. Watched it two days ago... it needs to be remastered. This one was clearly mastered for DVD.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/14323335
> 
> 
> Dont agree that Batman begins is as bad or worse than Resident Evil 1 (which is low tier 2).. it should not go into tier 3. Maybe mid tier 2, but low tier 2 and tier 3 seems harsh. Watched it two days ago... it needs to be remastered. This one was clearly mastered for DVD.



I agree especially after viewing the comparison pix. The resolution increase wasn't that apparent and the video seemed to lack details.


----------



## Elbie

Yeah tier 3 for Batman Begins is low. I think that the transfer looks great, but I don't think it's tier 0.


I don't agree with some of the placements of other movies either. Especially the newer Harry Potter movies, but hell, what do I know. lol


----------



## robsis

I think tier 3 for BB is a little low. I was disappointed in the transfer, thinking that it would have been much better than it is; however, mid tier 2 seems more logical to me......


----------



## JimSD

How the heck is The Longest Day in Tier 1 above Vantage Point? While TLD is way better than the DVD, it still has some issues. The PQ of Vantage Point is one of the best I've seen for live action BDs.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JimSD* /forum/post/14327497
> 
> 
> How the heck is The Longest Day in Tier 1 above Vantage Point? While TLD is way better than the DVD, it still has some issues. The PQ of Vantage Point is one of the best I've seen for live action BDs.



+1. There must have been a mistake. I think SuprSlow will fix it sson.


----------



## bplewis24

Watched this today and thought it looked pretty damn good for it's age. The level of detail surpassed anything I saw in The First Knight, although the colors weren't always as vivid. Still though, *The Adventures of Baron Munchausen* was through and through more consistent than First Knight in the amount of detail on display. The flaws with the movie are the occasional crushed blacks and some severe spikes in grain, making it sometimes inconsistent.


I'll vote for *top of Tier 2* above There Will Be Blood, although I could live with Bottom of Tier 1. I see it's in the top half of Tier 1 right now, and that's a bit high IMO.


PS3->1080p24->46XBR4 (8 feet)


Brandon


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Alexander Revisited: The Final Cut*


tier recommendation: 2nd quarter of *Tier 2*


Warner released this 213 minute feature onto Blu-ray in October of 2007. The video encode is a direct port of the HD DVD and is compressed using VC-1. Warner strangely decided to place the movie on two BD-25s instead of one BD-50. From the video specifications thread the average video bitrate for the entire movie is 16.88 Mbps. Breaking it down further the first disc's average video bitrate is 16.17 Mbps while the second disc averages 17.92 Mbps. Rarely if ever does the video encode peak over 23 Mbps while it occasionally dips as low as 9 Mbps. There are some minor instances of posterization and compression noise, though the action scenes hold up remarkably well. The most problematic scenes for this are the long distance shots with the sweeping vistas and lots of open sky. For Warner this is a better than average compression job going off their Blu-ray history.


Colors look excellent and nicely saturated though skintones do look a tad warm at times. Contrast is better than average with most of the movie having excellent black levels, though I did see a moment or two of macroblocking. I would say this aspect of the image is a real strength of the transfer with good shadow delineation. The movie stays sharp throughout with little variance, though pop and depth goes from good to below average depending on the scene. The source used for the transfer looks relatively pristine. Even the recut scenes from the other versions of the movie blend seamlessly.


Unfortunately there is some very noticeable edge enhancement. Some scenes appear to have heavy edge halos. It does seem to disappear for stretches just to reappear later. The next problem is not so obvious at first but I think some DNR has been inconsistently applied to this transfer. What's strange is that the first 75 minutes or so of the film has good detail(maybe Tier 1) but after that resolution starts dropping and some strange looking(typical of DNR though bitstarving is another possibility) skin starts appearing.


Look closely at Jolie's face later in the movie for example. What got me suspicious was the real lack of grain visible for most of the movie. I have no theatrical experience with this movie but I can't believe it looked so grain free in the theaters. I will say this appears to be a very light form of DNR that is nowhere close to the devastating effects we've seen in some other Blu-rays but high frequency detail seems to have been partially impacted in certain segments of the movie.


Overall this is a solid Tier 2 title that unfortunately seems to be held back by some correctable problems. I recommend the second quarter of Tier 2 but I could see arguments for it to be slightly lower. I believe the inconsistent micro detail probably prevents this from being a Tier 1 title.


Watching on a 60" Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 fed from a ps3 with a viewing distance of approximately five feet.


----------



## tbonetommygun

is it seriously on 2 BD-25s?


----------



## lgans316

That's one helluva good review Phantom. Splitting the main feature into 2 BD-25s proves Warner incompetency in not exploiting the capabilities of Blu-ray.


----------



## lgans316

Zodiac - Updated review

*Zodiac (Import): VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 2.35:1 | Warner*

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3245/...75df7c13_o.jpg 
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3047/...7fd936e3_o.jpg 
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3225/...2afaf6b9_o.jpg 
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3247/...9f6a08bc_b.jpg 
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3065/...15c5f044_b.jpg 


Disc type: BD-50

Running time: 163 minutes

Movie size: 23.5 GB

Reported Disc size: 39 GB

Estimated average video bit rate: 14~16 Mbps







Compression artefacts noticeable on certain shots especially on the character's foreheads that are exposed under low lighting.


If my memory serves me right, I think the HD DVD looked a tad sharper and sounded better than this BD. Fortunately the picture quality doesn't suffer much despite the low bit rate encoding as the master format is Digital Intermediate and with the movie being filmed using Thomson Viper HD Camera.


Nevertheless the presentation looked excellent throughout though only a handful few scenes touched reference quality. The bit rate hit a peak of 36.5 Mbps and crossed 30+ Mbps mark only twice or thrice. Despite most parts of the video looking very good to excellent I can't recommend Zodiac for bottom Tier-0 or Top Tier-1 placement as I am not sure on how much the picture quality has been compromised due to low bit rate VC-1 and the usual Warner filtering process. In comparison to NCFOM and few other titles placed in Tier-1, I think Zodiac looked a tad soft.


Update: Members eric.exe and msgohan have confirmed blocking/banding artefacts by carefully examining the 1080p caps posted at dvdbeaver.

*Initial Recommendation:* Below No Country for Old Men in Tier-1
*Revised Recommendation:* Above Fifth Element in Tier-1


Some serious corrections are required to keep the tier thread more accurate.


IMO the below titles looked doesn't look any better than Vantage Point or even Zodiac.


The Warriors Video: AVC | Audio: DD | AR: 1.85:1 | Paramount

The Rock Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Buena Vista

Rambo Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Lionsgate

Mr and Mrs Smith Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Fox

The Longest Day Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.20:1 | Fox

Battle of The Bulge Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 2.76:1 | Warner


The Rock, Battle of The Bulge and Warriors looking better than Rambo is questionable. Mr and Mrs Smith is reported to exhibit DNR smearing and personally I felt it looked soft for nearly half of it's running time.


Why is *Longest Day* still placed in Tier-1 ? I think it should be pushed down to bottom of Tier-3.

*Battle of The Bulge* - Though I haven't viewed this one I am not sure if it really looks better than Fifth Element, 300, 3:10 to Yuma, Deja Vu, The Lives of Others, Blade Runner and many other titles placed in Tier-1.

*Deja Vu* - This excellent looking title should be placed above Troy (D.C).


----------



## Shane Martin




> Quote:
> Splitting the main feature into 2 BD-25s proves Warner incompetency in not exploiting the capabilities of Blu-ray



Do we know if manufacturing of BD50's has anything to do with this? Blaming Warner incompetency seems so cliche nowadays. We don't really know why.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Shane Martin* /forum/post/14329577
> 
> 
> Do we know if manufacturing of BD50's has anything to do with this? Blaming Warner incompetency seems so cliche nowadays. We don't really know why.



I believe Warner lost the benefit of the doubt some time ago.


Brandon


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14330267
> 
> 
> I believe Warner lost the benefit of the doubt some time ago.
> 
> 
> Brandon



I suspect one factor may have been not wanting to use one BD disc for a movie that required two on HD DVD.


----------



## hobbs47




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14329164
> 
> *Battle of The Bulge* - *Though I haven't viewed this one* I am not sure if it really looks better than Fifth Element, 300, 3:10 to Yuma, Deja Vu, The Lives of Others, Blade Runner and many other titles placed in Tier-1.










come on now-you have to at least skim through a movie to form an opinion.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hobbs47* /forum/post/14330806
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> come on now-you have to at least skim through a movie to form an opinion.



Unfortunately I don't have this movie and I should have requested members to skim through the movie and post their opinions which I have completely forgotten to mention.










The point I wanted to clarify is whether an old movie like Battle of the Bulge really looked better than the movies placed below it ?


----------



## ppshooky




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hobbs47* /forum/post/14318236
> 
> 
> There are many people here who think BB looks excellent. Let us know what you think after you watch it. All opinions are welcome.



While I thought the image was pretty sharp, it was not nearly as sharp as some of my other Blu-Ray movies. The Dark Knight prologue looked much better than Batman Begins.


----------



## lont12











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14319495
> 
> 
> I agree. If we use some movies like Apocalypto as a standard for then many titles like Shoot em up don't even come close.


*Shoot Em Up* - OK, I'm really curious about this one and want to see what other folks think. Agree with Hugh. After recently watching this film I was amazed to see it listed as a Tier 0 title. To my untrained eyes there are numerous Tier 1 titles that are much closer to demo material IMO. I freely admit that I am am not an expert and have no professional experience in the video industry. I go to this forum to be educated. Somebody please tell me what I am missing that makes this disc demo material. Other opinions on this forum give me lots of info on what to look for when I am considering purchasing new Blu-ray titles. And by the way....I actually liked this movie, so I'm not prejudiced by the fact that it's a bit (how shall we say...) "extreme". I just didn't think it looked that good. FYI...52XBR4 from 9 feet away. Thanks to all of you for the nice debates on this forum with a minimum of bad attitude. It's fun.


----------



## bplewis24

I'm seriously shocked that people are saying there are many titles that look better than Shoot Em Up. It was one of the best BDs I've ever seen in terms of fine object detail. It doesn't always lend itself to great scenery or cinematography, and a lot of it is shot at night, from what I remember. But in terms of sharpness/detail it's some of the best around.


Brandon


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14335664
> 
> 
> I'm seriously shocked that people are saying there are many titles that look better than Shoot Em Up. It was one of the best BDs I've ever seen in terms of fine object detail. It doesn't always lend itself to great scenery or cinematography, and a lot of it is shot at night, from what I remember. But in terms of sharpness/detail it's some of the best around.
> 
> 
> Brandon



I think the muted palette of this movie (as well as that of The Orphange) go to serve as reasons why people dont think they look as appealing (eye candy)... I think Shoot em Up is where it belongs.


----------



## stumlad

I have to knock *Fool's Gold* off its pedestal... How is it tier 1? This was shot like most other comedies... it's nothing great. Face closeups are nothing great, it's not very sharp, yet it's tier 1?


Into the blue was better looking than Fool's Gold in every way. Fool's Gold, 3rd quarter of Tier 2 under 6th day.


How many people really think *Rambo* belongs in top 1/2 of Tier 1? I would put it in upper half of tier 2. Face closeups were nothing special, the contrast was off since it wasn't truly "black", and the jungle scenes didnt look as good as Apocalypto or Lost.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/14322367
> 
> 
> The Batman Begins BD demo disc looks better of the same material.



I heard that the demo had EE applied to it. We all need to be careful because Warner may think we like EE


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/14336473
> 
> 
> I think the muted palette of this movie (as well as that of The Orphange) go to serve as reasons why people dont think they look as appealing (eye candy)... I think Shoot em Up is where it belongs.



Not that isn't why in my opinion.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lont12* /forum/post/14335370
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Shoot Em Up* - OK, I'm really curious about this one and want to see what other folks think. Agree with Hugh. After recently watching this film I was amazed to see it listed as a Tier 0 title. To my untrained eyes there are numerous Tier 1 titles that are much closer to demo material IMO. I freely admit that I am am not an expert and have no professional experience in the video industry. I go to this forum to be educated. Somebody please tell me what I am missing that makes this disc demo material. Other opinions on this forum give me lots of info on what to look for when I am considering purchasing new Blu-ray titles. And by the way....I actually liked this movie, so I'm not prejudiced by the fact that it's a bit (how shall we say...) "extreme". I just didn't think it looked that good. FYI...52XBR4 from 9 feet away. Thanks to all of you for the nice debates on this forum with a minimum of bad attitude. It's fun.



Yes! And I watched The Patriot as I own it from the free BD offer. I watched it twice and then rented Shoot Em up and seen if for the third time this weekend. The Patriot looks as good as if not better than Shoot em up.


SOny A3000 60 in @ 8ft. from PS3 through HDMI.


----------



## lont12




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14335664
> 
> 
> I'm seriously shocked that people are saying there are many titles that look better than Shoot Em Up. It was one of the best BDs I've ever seen in terms of fine object detail. It doesn't always lend itself to great scenery or cinematography, and a lot of it is shot at night, from what I remember. But in terms of sharpness/detail it's some of the best around.
> 
> 
> Brandon



Brandon- Thanks for your reply. You are one of the most trusted sources on this forum (perhaps because I generally agree with your comments.....







) so I am glad you were one of the people who responded. I agree with you that most of the film has excellent detail (althought not much superior to most Tier 1 titles IMO), but to me that was it's only redeeming quality from a techincal perspective. The color palette was unappealing (as Stumlad suggested), the picture was very flat to my eyes, and despite the level of detail it had very little "pop". Based on previous reviews I've read in the forum I thought the "pop" and "eye candy" factors were essentially what separated Tier 0 from Tier 1. I just don't see Shoot Em Up in the same demo material class as the other films in Tier 0 that I have seen. I guess I'm just prejudiced against un-natural color and the lack of that 3D see-thru-a-window effect. But it's interesting to see other people's opinions on what constitutes "reference" quality. Beauty really is a subjective thing.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lont12* /forum/post/14338163
> 
> 
> Brandon- Thanks for your reply. You are one of the most trusted sources on this forum (perhaps because I generally agree with your comments.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) so I am glad you were one of the people who responded. I agree with you that most of the film has excellent detail (althought not much superior to most Tier 1 titles IMO), but to me that was it's only redeeming quality from a techincal perspective. The color palette was unappealing (as Stumlad suggested), the picture was very flat to my eyes, and despite the level of detail it had very little "pop". Based on previous reviews I've read in the forum I thought the "pop" and "eye candy" factors were essentially what separated Tier 0 from Tier 1. I just don't see Shoot Em Up in the same demo material class as the other films in Tier 0 that I have seen. I guess I'm just prejudiced against un-natural color and the lack of that 3D see-thru-a-window effect. But it's interesting to see other people's opinions on what constitutes "reference" quality. Beauty really is a subjective thing.



Thanks for the kind words. Your comments are valid. I look at the picture quality as a "total package" of sorts, with more weight given to fine object and high frequency detail over anything else, but allowing for strengths and weaknesses in that package for ways to judge a movie's PQ.


For example, while I don't think Saawariya had the level of detail that Mr. Brooks or Shoot Em Up had, I think it made up for it with the vibrancy of it's color palette and contrast. On the other hand, while Mr Brooks had some great sharpness and detail, it suffered at times in black level and contrast, especially compared to the shadow delineation and inky blacks of Saawariya. IMO, both titles can have a case made for Tier 0 and both titles can be argued to be flawed enough to be left out. As a total package, I think they both belong. Other titles like Black Snake Moan or I, Robot are more balanced in their "total package" with less flaws, and that's why they rank higher on the tier list.


In the case of Shoot Em Up, I believe it would be very high on the "object detail" scale. It would rate as one of the top movies I've seen in that regard. In some of the other areas it would fall short of the best I've seen, but because I put more weight on it's particular strength, as total package I still feel it belongs in Tier 0.


All of this is just my opinion and my approach, by the way.


Brandon


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ppshooky* /forum/post/14334802
> 
> 
> While I thought the image was pretty sharp, it was not nearly as sharp as some of my other Blu-Ray movies. *The Dark Knight prologue looked much better than Batman Begins.*



Given that it was mastered from the IMAX film, I would sure hope so


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Shoot Em Up looks great but does have stretches where it looks more like a solid Tier 1 than a Tier 0 title. I think its current placement is pretty good though.

*Attn: SuprSlow* when you do corrections


For this title the video codec is MPEG-2. I'm about to write up a tier recommendation for this BD and can confirm that.


The Curse Of King Tut's Tomb: The Complete Miniseries Video: ? | Audio: DD | AR: 1.78:1 | Echo Bridge


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lont12* /forum/post/14335370
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Shoot Em Up* - OK, I'm really curious about this one and want to see what other folks think. Agree with Hugh. After recently watching this film I was amazed to see it listed as a Tier 0 title. To my untrained eyes there are numerous Tier 1 titles that are much closer to demo material IMO. I freely admit that I am am not an expert and have no professional experience in the video industry. I go to this forum to be educated. Somebody please tell me what I am missing that makes this disc demo material. Other opinions on this forum give me lots of info on what to look for when I am considering purchasing new Blu-ray titles. And by the way....I actually liked this movie, so I'm not prejudiced by the fact that it's a bit (how shall we say...) "extreme". I just didn't think it looked that good. FYI...52XBR4 from 9 feet away. Thanks to all of you for the nice debates on this forum with a minimum of bad attitude. It's fun.



Your post, and some of the subsequent responses, raises an important issue regarding the Tier thread. I think there is a difference between "reference" and "Demo" quality. I think that Shoot Em Up looks great, and is definitely "reference" material. Usually reference material will also serve as "Demo" material....but not always, and Shoot Em Up might be a good example of this.


The subject matter and style of shooting doesn't really lend itself all that well to Demo material, especially when compared to titles than tend to have more "eye candy" (often SciFi or movies with lots of special effects will have more eye candy than ones that don't). For example, Blade Runner has eye candy galore compared to Shoot Em Up....but it doesn't have as much fine detail.


It's a difficult balancing act that we do here. All we can do is post our opinions, and take all of these things into account when making our recommendations. I think this is one reason that it is so important to have as many people posting opinions here as possible. This is one reason I am glad that you posted yours.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/14340306
> 
> 
> Your post, and some of the subsequent responses, raises an important issue regarding the Tier thread. I think there is a difference between "reference" and "Demo" quality. I think that Shoot Em Up looks great, and is definitely "reference" material. Usually reference material will also serve as "Demo" material....but not always, and Shoot Em Up might be a good example of this.
> 
> 
> The subject matter and style of shooting doesn't really lend itself all that well to Demo material, especially when compared to titles than tend to have more "eye candy" (often SciFi or movies with lots of special effects will have more eye candy than ones that don't). For example, Blade Runner has eye candy galore compared to Shoot Em Up....but it doesn't have as much fine detail.
> 
> 
> It's a difficult balancing act that we do here. All we can do is post our opinions, and take all of these things into account when making our recommendations. I think this is one reason that it is so important to have as many people posting opinions here as possible. This is one reason I am glad that you posted yours.



A+ would read again.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/14340306
> 
> 
> Your post, and some of the subsequent responses, raises an important issue regarding the Tier thread. I think there is a difference between "reference" and "Demo" quality. I think that Shoot Em Up looks great, and is definitely "reference" material. Usually reference material will also serve as "Demo" material....but not always, and Shoot Em Up might be a good example of this.
> 
> 
> The subject matter and style of shooting doesn't really lend itself all that well to Demo material, especially when compared to titles than tend to have more "eye candy" (often SciFi or movies with lots of special effects will have more eye candy than ones that don't). For example, Blade Runner has eye candy galore compared to Shoot Em Up....but it doesn't have as much fine detail.
> 
> 
> It's a difficult balancing act that we do here. All we can do is post our opinions, and take all of these things into account when making our recommendations. I think this is one reason that it is so important to have as many people posting opinions here as possible. This is one reason I am glad that you posted yours.



I think it may be a good thing to say that we want to see 1080p detail along with a reference quality transfer for a tier 0 title. Shoot em up doesn't have the 3D pop but it isnt supposed to... you can say the same thing for tier 4 titles, but the difference is that Shoot em up offers very good fine object detail whereas most tier 4 transfers barely exhibit 720p detail


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lont12* /forum/post/14335370
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Shoot Em Up* - OK, I'm really curious about this one and want to see what other folks think. Agree with Hugh. After recently watching this film I was amazed to see it listed as a Tier 0 title. To my untrained eyes there are numerous Tier 1 titles that are much closer to demo material IMO. I freely admit that I am am not an expert and have no professional experience in the video industry. I go to this forum to be educated. Somebody please tell me what I am missing that makes this disc demo material. Other opinions on this forum give me lots of info on what to look for when I am considering purchasing new Blu-ray titles. And by the way....I actually liked this movie, so I'm not prejudiced by the fact that it's a bit (how shall we say...) "extreme". I just didn't think it looked that good. FYI...52XBR4 from 9 feet away. Thanks to all of you for the nice debates on this forum with a minimum of bad attitude. It's fun.



I partially agree with the assessment made by lont12. After re-watching Shoot Em Up I found quite a number of scenes falling in Tier-1 category. The close-ups shots revealed plenty of details but the stylistic cinematographic choices doesn't produce consistently reference PQ. I think The Host also falls in similar category. The entire climax sequence looked Tier-2 or Tier-3 to me. In-fact there were half a dozen of scenes that looked Tier-2 to me as the color palette was dominated by Gray and blooming Whites. Unfortunately I don't have this BD in possession which means I cannot re-watch the movie to correct or justify my assessment.


I think a minimum of 2 viewings is required to assess the PQ in-depth. Also I expect movies in Tier-0 to consistently exhibit reference PQ though minor drop on picture quality on couple of scenes is acceptable. Just my $0.02.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14340383
> 
> 
> I partially agree with the assessment made by lont12. After re-watching Shoot Em Up I found quite a number of scenes falling in Tier-1 category. The close-ups shots revealed plenty of details but the stylistic cinematographic choices doesn't produce consistently reference PQ. I think The Host also falls in similar category. The entire climax sequence looked Tier-2 or Tier-3 to me. In-fact there were half a dozen of scenes that looked Tier-2 to me as the color palette was dominated by Gray and blooming Whites. Unfortunately I don't have this BD in possession which means I cannot re-watch the movie to correct or justify my assessment.
> 
> 
> I think a minimum of 2 viewings is required to assess the PQ in-depth. Also I expect movies in Tier-0 to consistently exhibit reference PQ though minor drop on picture quality on couple of scenes is acceptable. Just my $0.02.



It's been a while since I watched SEU but I do recall that there were some shots that looked less impressive than others. I recall in particular shots of random thugs on a stairway that were in the less impressive category. This is somewhat common; for some reason there seems to be a feeling on the part of the compressionists that they can get away with lower picture quality when the characters on screen are not the major characters.


I personally do not agree that factors such as the choice of color palette should be part of the evaluation of Tier placement. For me, at least, it is pretty much ALL about the detail of the image.


----------



## patrick99

I would never cite Peter Bracke in support of any proposition relating to the PQ of a particular title, but Kenneth Brown is somewhat more reliable. I see that he agrees with my view on one aspect of the PQ of Vantage Point: "discerning viewers may detect hints of edge enhancement and note that *long-distance crowd shots challenge the transfer's already-high resolution*."


----------



## lont12




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14341162
> 
> 
> It's been a while since I watched SEU but I do recall that there were some shots that looked less impressive than others. I recall in particular shots of random thugs on a stairway that were in the less impressive category. This is somewhat common; for some reason there seems to be a feeling on the part of the compressionists that they can get away with lower picture quality when the characters on screen are not the major characters.
> 
> 
> I personally do not agree that factors such as the choice of color palette should be part of the evaluation of Tier placement. For me, at least, it is pretty much ALL about the detail of the image.



Thanks to all you guys who replied to my post regarding Shoot Em Up. It's obvious that most of you consider object detail to be the primary factor in your ratings, and that makes perfect sense. It is, after all, supposed to be a high-resolution format. Your responses clarify for me how each of you prioritizes the various components of an overall rating. It also shows how subjective these things are since each person will have different priorities. I think mine lean more toward an overall coherent color balance and lots of pop/eye candy, at least for a Tier 0 ranking. As an example I would site I, Robot as being quite simply the best overall live action transfer that I've ever seen. It is my reference for Tier 0 titles. But I would certainly disqualify any film from Tier 0 for anything less than exceptionally fine detail. And Shoot Em Up definitely has that (most of the time). Great discussion. Thanks.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14341170
> 
> 
> I would never cite Peter Bracke in support of any proposition relating to the PQ of a particular title, but Kenneth Brown is somewhat more reliable. I see that he agrees with my view on one aspect of the PQ of Vantage Point: "discerning viewers may detect hints of edge enhancement and note that *long-distance crowd shots challenge the transfer's already-high resolution*."



I noticed that as well and as I said before I agree that assessment. He still rates the movie pretty highly, as do I.


Brandon


----------



## PioBeer

I would put Sunshine in tier 0. The lighting and colors are simply amazing with all the glowing hues of orange, red and yellow on a pitch black background. It also has some fantastic facial detail. With the movie's unbelievable contrast, I would definately use it as a demo disc to show off what blu-ray is capable of.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Curse Of King Tut’s Tomb*


tier recommendation: bottom quarter of *Tier 3*


Echo Bridge released this 2005 television mini-series to Blu-ray in April of this year. The 170 minute feature is broken into two parts and is encoded in MPEG-2 on a single BD-25. Unfortunately Echo Bridge made a bad decision to cram 170 minutes of 1080P on a single BD-25 with MPEG-2 as the compression job looks very bad at times, especially in the last hour. Frequent macroblocking and compression artifacting appear, especially around the grainier sequences. The MPEG-2 encode simply chokes on the grain at these low bitrate levels.


The video bitrate ranges from 4.4 Mbps to a peak of 28.5 Mbps, though the encode rarely jumps into the 20’s. If I had to estimate the average video bitrate it seems to be around 12 or 13 Mbps as much of the first half of the movie hovers between 10 to 16 Mbps. What is very noticeable, particularly in the last fifty minutes, is severe bitstarving as the video bitrate dips to dvd levels for certain scenes. The extended action finale of the movie drops into a 5 to 8 Mbps range which is simply unacceptable. It’s clear to me that whoever compressed the movie simply ran out of space on the BD-25 and was desperate to fit the entire mini-series onto a single BD-25.


No DNR has been applied as the Blu-ray has a very consistent grainy look with no signs of reduced high frequency information. What did bother me was some very annoying automated digital scratch removal that peppers the source with semi-regular white specks. I noticed it more in this transfer than almost any other Blu-ray I’ve seen out of hundreds. It seems out of place because the master looks in relatively good shape outside of those anomalies. There is some persistent and at times intrusive edge enhancement applied to the transfer.


Resolution actually starts out very nicely and detail in close-ups is nearly tier 2 quality. That changes as the movie goes on and noticeably drops in the last 50 minutes as detail and resolution drop to tier 4 levels. The outdoor daytime scenes look great for the most part( which make up the bulk of the first two hours) with good contrast and solid colors. There is even some nice pop and depth to the image. Much of the film looks very sharp. Resolution and clarity only dip when the poorly done CGI appears on screen in the first half.


Unfortunately black levels are all over the map and even change within the same scene. Once again the last 50 minutes does not even look like the same film stock was used to film it as earlier in the feature. Blacks get crushed and some segments in the tomb scenes might as well happen in complete darkness. There is also some annoying mosquito noise in the darker scenes.


For a budget title I wasn’t expecting much from the image of this Blu-ray. I don’t grade image on a curve but I think this Blu-ray’s image would have turned out much better as high as Tier 2 if a major studio had handled the transfer and encoding. The first two thirds of this feature look decent and I had been planning on giving it a second quarter of Tier 3 at that point in my mind. But the last 50 minutes look very bad and nothing better than Tier 4. It is very possible that the problem is source related. Overall I recommend a bottom quarter of Tier 3 placement for this title. This Blu-ray is still a clear improvement over the upconverted dvd.


----------



## lgans316

*Broken Trail Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 1.78:1 | Sony*


Wow !!! What a gorgeous eye candy presentation. Cinematography of lush green landscapes on mountainside and valleys has translated itself gloriously and looks absolutely stunning on Blu-ray. The panoramic shots of the vistas looked crystal clear with stunning details doing full justice to the resolution. The movie is reported to be shot using a variety of film stocks which is true as few shots looked soft and less detailed with sporadic noise on the some of the skyline shots. I felt Part 2 of the presentation to look more consistent in terms of PQ than Part-1. The good news is the video is almost free of dirt or specks or print damage which can be quite distracting on full scoped presentation like this. If Edge Enhancement or compression artefacts were visible it could be minor and can go unnoticed due to the frequent occurrence of jaw dropping scenes. Also I couldn't spot any major instance of bit rate starvation as the video bitrate constantly hovered in the low 20s peaking 39~40 Mbps on few difficult shots. I am very happy to say that we are having a near reference quality Blu-ray after a long time. Overall another excellent effort from the technically prowess crew at Sony Pictures.

*Recommendation:* Bottom of Tier-0 or Top of Tier-1


----------



## hobbs47




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14347576
> 
> *Broken Trail Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 1.78:1 | Sony*
> 
> 
> Wow !!! What a gorgeous eye candy presentation. Cinematography of lush green landscapes on mountainside and valleys has translated itself gloriously and looks absolutely stunning on Blu-ray. *Recommendation:* Bottom of Tier-0 or Top of Tier-1



Even Peter Bracke agrees with you!!







I might have to check this out,how is the movie?



http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/414/...trail2006.html


----------



## lgans316

Pretty good movie. Just 184 minutes long.







Don't be misled by both the PQ and the movie during the first 6 minutes of the presentation.









Being an non-American I rarely have the patience to sit through movies that belong to Western genre but this one proved me wrong.


----------



## Shane Martin

21

Video: AVC

Audio: Dolby True HD 5.1

AR: 2.35:1

Sony


This is another excellent presentation from Sony. I could find little fault with it and would rank it in the top of tier 1. The only fault I could see would be the blown out contrast. It certainly has plenty of pop due to the Vegas casino lights and glam.


Recommendation: Top of Tier 1.


----------



## Russell_L

The Mummy / Universal / VC-1 / 2.35:1


I can't remember the last time I kept saying "WOW" out loud while watching a BD. The PQ of this disc is simply extraordinary, and way beyond anything I've seen in recent months. The clarity, sharpness, detail, color intensity, depth, dimensionality--you name it--is just incredible. This disc has major HD pop in spades. At one point, during the first battle scene, I checked my BD player's bitrate meter and saw peaks as high as 48.77 mbps. Kudos to Universal for a great initial effort and for taking advantage of BD's capacity. Hope they keep it up!


Recommendation: High Tier 0


Equipment:

Pioneer Kuro 5010FD plasma

Pioneer 95FD Blu-ray player

viewing from about 8 feet


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Shane Martin* /forum/post/14349858
> 
> 
> 21
> 
> Video: AVC
> 
> Audio: Dolby True HD 5.1
> 
> AR: 2.35:1
> 
> Sony
> 
> 
> This is another excellent presentation from Sony. I could find little fault with it and would rank it in the top of tier 1. The only fault I could see would be the blown out contrast. It certainly has plenty of pop due to the Vegas casino lights and glam.
> 
> 
> Recommendation: Top of Tier 1.




I watched this last night. I seen your post and then also read the reviews at different online sites as well as Ralph Potts review here on AVS. I want to watch this one again. I think it is no better than lower Tier one or top of Tier two at best. Compared to the Patriot for example the clarity just isn't there in closeups and facial detail and other comparitive scenes. There isn't much 3d pop if any. Vegas at night and other scenes looked accurate, but overall I cannot recommend this as a Top tier one title. As I said I am going to watch it again as I wasn't all that impressed. I really enjoyed the movie though and the soundtrack, Tru HD, was excellent.


Sony [email protected] from PS3 through HDMI.


I also watched Species and thought it wasn't that bad at all. Not deserving of a tier 3 placement. Some comments on reviews is that it is not much better than the DVD. This is just not true. I recommend Species be moved to lower Tier 2.


I also am going to use this post as an opportunity to reitterate my mantra. With so many titles now it is getting hard to place them and I understand why some are getting bumped down in the tiers. There is so many with so much close PQ that is going to be inevitable. Maybe we need to expand and allow more titles to be accurately placed instead of just bumping them down.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Russell_L* /forum/post/14350805
> 
> 
> The Mummy / Universal / VC-1 / 2.35:1
> 
> 
> Recommendation: High Tier 0
> 
> 
> Equipment:
> 
> Pioneer Kuro 5010FD plasma
> 
> Pioneer 95FD Blu-ray player
> 
> viewing from about 8 feet



























This should get interesting...as this transfer is not being highly regarded around these parts.


Brandon


----------



## haste

wow, batman begins is in tier 1? watched it last night...i'd say mid tier 2 for this title. very soft, hardly any pop to it at all...

i cannot believe it is above deja vu or house of 1000 corpses.


i would say the PQ was equivalent to Weeds: Season One...almost exactly the same now that i think about it...


the sound was also very very disappointing...it seemed like everything in the action scenes were at the same volume...no dynamicity at all with this soundtrack, very flat overall. i didnt compare the DD track to the True HD (the one i used) track though...


viewed on a Philips 42" 1080p lcd from 6ft.

ps3 doing 3:2 pulldown


----------



## St. Bernardus




Hughmc said:


> I watched this last night. I seen your post and then also read the reviews at different online sites as well as Ralph Potts review here on AVS. I want to watch this one again. I think it is no better than lower Tier one or top of Tier two at best. Compared to the Patriot for example the clarity just isn't there in closeups and facial detail and other comparitive scenes. There isn't much 3d pop if any. Vegas at night and other scenes looked accurate, but overall I cannot recommend this as a Top tier one title. As I said I am going to watch it again as I wasn't all that impressed. I really enjoyed the movie though and the soundtrack, Tru HD, was excellent.
> 
> 
> Sony [email protected] from PS3 through HDMI.
> 
> 
> I have to agree with you on 21. Last night I watched this film on a Samsung5271 at 1080/24p at 7 feet via a Panny BD30 and felt that certain scenes really looked crisp and detailed while many others looked slightly blurred. I would have to agree with the placement high Tier 2. The TrueHD soundtrack was quite nice however. I am just having trouble understanding the majority of the reviews that I have read, because to my eyes, this transfer is good but not great, especially when compared to such titles as I, Robot, Man On Fire, The Orphanage, and No Country For Old Men amongst many others. I would definitely recomend that 21 be somewhere under 30 Days of Night.


----------



## bonham2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mel2* /forum/post/14272985
> 
> 
> batman begins is tier 2 material. but cast away, mr mrs smith, spidey 2, fifth element remastered, vantage point and KOH should be bottom of tier 0. alot of 3-d pop and great detail/vibrant colors in those films. I think the letters from iwa jima should be bottom of tier 1. I found it to be impressive. I heard bank job was impressive also.



Cast Away looks great...once he gets to the island. It's just too inconsistent for tier 0, but I would definitely say tier 1 - top half.


----------



## SuprSlow

July 22, 2008 releases:
*Sunrise Earth: America's Greatest Sunrises* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 1.78:1 | Discovery
*The Mummy* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Universal
*The Mummy Returns* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Universal
*The Scorpion King* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Universal
*21* Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony
*Earth: The Biography* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD | AR: 1.78:1 | BBC
*The Perfect Storm* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD EX | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner
*I Know What You Did Last Summer* Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony
*Urban Legend* Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony
*The Exorcism of Emily Rose* Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *haste* /forum/post/14351216
> 
> 
> wow, batman begins is in tier 1? watched it last night...i'd say mid tier 2 for this title. very soft, hardly any pop to it at all...
> 
> i cannot believe it is above deja vu or house of 1000 corpses.
> 
> 
> i would say the PQ was equivalent to Weeds: Season One...almost exactly the same now that i think about it...
> 
> 
> the sound was also very very disappointing...it seemed like everything in the action scenes were at the same volume...no dynamicity at all with this soundtrack, very flat overall. i didnt compare the DD track to the True HD (the one i used) track though...
> 
> 
> viewed on a Philips 42" 1080p lcd from 6ft.
> 
> ps3 doing 3:2 pulldown



I have Batman Begins on HD-DVD. Is it the same encode? If so, I would agree that it is pretty soft and not a Tier 1 title.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/14354573
> 
> 
> I have Batman Begins on HD-DVD. Is it the same encode? If so, I would agree that it is pretty soft and not a Tier 1 title.



It's the exact same transfer and I agree with you.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Russell_L* /forum/post/14350805
> 
> 
> The Mummy / Universal / VC-1 / 2.35:1
> 
> 
> I can't remember the last time I kept saying "WOW" out loud while watching a BD. The PQ of this disc is simply extraordinary, and way beyond anything I've seen in recent months. The clarity, sharpness, detail, color intensity, depth, dimensionality--you name it--is just incredible. This disc has major HD pop in spades. At one point, during the first battle scene, I checked my BD player's bitrate meter and saw peaks as high as 48.77 mbps. Kudos to Universal for a great initial effort and for taking advantage of BD's capacity. Hope they keep it up!
> 
> 
> Recommendation: High Tier 0
> 
> 
> Equipment:
> 
> Pioneer Kuro 5010FD plasma
> 
> Pioneer 95FD Blu-ray player
> 
> viewing from about 8 feet



Mummy BD is proven to contain more DNR and slightly less EE than the HD DVD. The HD DVDs are placed in the very bottom of "3.5 / 5 - Above Average HD DVD PQ". I have watched both Mummy (U.S) and Mummy Returns (U.K - Uncut) on HD DVD several times and IMO it only deserves to be placed somewhere in mid to bottom of Tier-2. This is due to the DNR, EE, soft looking textures and edges and average black levels. Just my opinion and my apologies if I had hurt your sentiments.


----------



## Shane Martin

But it had a high bitrate???


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Shane Martin* /forum/post/14355220
> 
> 
> But it had a high bitrate???



I welcome the fact that it had higher bit rate but what's the point when the Studios encode from a putrid master.


----------



## Coxwell

*Signs*


The beginning is disappointing. There are a lot of scratches and white dots all over the surface of an image too smooth. Nevertheless, it's getting better, and some shots are particularly good : sharp, detailed facials. Not 3d-pop but fine colors though.


Recommandation : Tier 3 - 3/4. probably between Unbreakable and We own the night.

*Master and Commander*


I'm quite surprised to see it in Tier 2. I think you guys are a bit leniant with this title. Is it the fault of an incredible soundtrack that overwhelm your picture judging skills ?









I don't think it's better than Signs, even if it counts less sctratches. slick close-up, average depth and compression problems during the movements and attacks at the beggining (including the fog).


Recommandation : Tier 3 (top-middle)


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Coxwell* /forum/post/14356538
> 
> *Signs*
> 
> 
> The beginning is disappointing. There are a lot of scratches and white dots all over the surface of an image too smooth. Nevertheless, it's getting better, and some shots are particularly good : sharp, detailed facials. Not 3d-pop but fine colors though.
> 
> 
> Recommandation : Tier 3 - 3/4. probably between Unbreakable and We own the night.
> 
> *Master and Commander*
> 
> 
> I'm quite surprised to see it in Tier 2. I think you guys are a bit leniant with this title. Is it the fault of an incredible soundtrack that overwhelm your picture judging skills ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it's better than Signs, even if it counts less sctratches. slick close-up, average depth and compression problems during the movements and attacks at the beggining (including the fog).
> 
> 
> Recommandation : Tier 3 (top-middle)



+ 1.


Thanks pal for doing a faithful assessment of Signs. This is yet another dirty encode from a dirty master. Reminded me of watching a Universal title. I can accept dirts and flecks on Asian movies but on high profile Hollywood titles these are totally unacceptable


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14355120
> 
> 
> Mummy BD is proven to contain more DNR and slightly less EE than the HD DVD. The HD DVDs are placed in the very bottom of "3.5 / 5 - Above Average HD DVD PQ". I have watched both Mummy (U.S) and Mummy Returns (U.K - Uncut) on HD DVD several times and IMO it only deserves to be placed somewhere in mid to bottom of Tier-2. This is due to the DNR, EE, soft looking textures and edges and average black levels. Just my opinion and my apologies if I had hurt your sentiments.



I agree with that recommended placement and overall evaluation. However, I thought the close-ups generally looked pretty good.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/14354573
> 
> 
> I have Batman Begins on HD-DVD. Is it the same encode? If so, I would agree that it is pretty soft and not a Tier 1 title.



-1


I usually agree with your assessment Rob, but I have to disagree with you on this one. As I said in a previous post, I just watched my HD DVD of BB and I believe it's an excellent transfer (and I didn't find it to be soft) which was rated Tier 1 by our peers in the HD DVD PQ thread. I concur with that rating.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14357666
> 
> 
> -1
> 
> 
> I usually agree with your assessment Rob, but I have to disagree with you on this one. As I said in a previous post, I just watched my HD DVD of BB and I believe it's an excellent transfer (and I didn't find it to be soft) which was rated Tier 1 by our peers in the HD DVD PQ thread. I concur with that rating.



I suspect it will come as no surprise that I agree with Rob on this point.


----------



## b_scott

Vantage Point, PQ-wise was definitely top tier 1. no grain, no noise, good solid saturation throughout.


movie was OK. felt like a long 24 episode (which is what it originally was, replace Quaid with Sutherland).


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Coxwell* /forum/post/14356538
> 
> *Master and Commander*
> 
> 
> I'm quite surprised to see it in Tier 2. I think you guys are a bit leniant with this title. Is it the fault of an incredible soundtrack that overwhelm your picture judging skills ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it's better than Signs, even if it counts less sctratches. slick close-up, average depth and compression problems during the movements and attacks at the beggining (including the fog).
> 
> 
> Recommandation : Tier 3 (top-middle)



Agree with this. Tier 2 seems too high.


Brandon


----------



## DavidHir

I'm sorry - I haven't been too active in this thread as of late, but can someone please tell me how *P.S. I Love You* is at the top of Tier 1?!?! I just watched this about a month ago or so and there is NO possible way it should even be in Tier 2, let alone Tier 1.


----------



## b_scott

i thought it looked really really good. crystal clear and good natural coloring. what were you watching it on?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14347576
> 
> *Broken Trail Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 1.78:1 | Sony*
> 
> 
> Wow !!! What a gorgeous eye candy presentation. Cinematography of lush green landscapes on mountainside and valleys has translated itself gloriously and looks absolutely stunning on Blu-ray. The panoramic shots of the vistas looked crystal clear with stunning details doing full justice to the resolution. The movie is reported to be shot using a variety of film stocks which is true as few shots looked soft and less detailed with sporadic noise on the some of the skyline shots. I felt Part 2 of the presentation to look more consistent in terms of PQ than Part-1. The good news is the video is almost free of dirt or specks or print damage which can be quite distracting on full scoped presentation like this. If Edge Enhancement or compression artefacts were visible it could be minor and can go unnoticed due to the frequent occurrence of jaw dropping scenes. Also I couldn't spot any major instance of bit rate starvation as the video bitrate constantly hovered in the low 20s peaking 39~40 Mbps on few difficult shots. I am very happy to say that we are having a near reference quality Blu-ray after a long time. Overall another excellent effort from the technically prowess crew at Sony Pictures.
> 
> *Recommendation:* Bottom of Tier-0 or Top of Tier-1



I finished watching part I of Broken Trail last night. Very, very good looking title for sure. I appreciate your comments regarding the cinematography, as I also found it to be very impressive!


I didn't realize that this was a Walter Hill movie until I put it on. So far so good. I will finish it tonight, but based on what I have seen so far, I agree with the recommendation for Top Tier 1 and possible Tier 0 consideration. The only drawback I have seen thus far is the night scenes almost all appear to be quite soft.


Oh....and you were exactly right about the PQ of the first 6 minutes or so. I was worried!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Attention: *SuprSlow*


I believe the following title can be deleted from the unranked titles. It has been canceled or delayed indefinitely:


Naked Beneath the Water Video: AVC | Audio: DD5.1 | AR: 1.85:1 | Phoenix


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/14255495
> 
> *Kiss Of The Dragon*
> 
> 
> tier recommendation: very bottom of *Tier 1*
> 
> 
> Watching on a 60” Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080P/24 fed by a PS3 from a viewing distance of approximately six feet.



FYI: Viper has given 8.5/10.









http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...4#post14362784


----------



## Elbie

*Shutter*


I watched this last night and all I can say is wow. This is one of the best quality movies I have ever seen. I saw 3D pop and even my gf noticed it and she never does. When there were close ups of faces you could see the makeup, pores, blemishes etc... on their skin. It was really beautiful watching such a crappy movie. Only during black scenes did I see grain and blotches, but it was only during the start of the movie. There is also intentional grain on some of the scenes also. I think that it looks better than *Shooter*, so based on my rankings it would be tier 1 above that. I haven't seen *The Island* and I don't remember *Shoot 'Em Up* and *Alvin and the Chipmunks*. I don't know if grain in scenes will take away from being Tier 0 or not, but for now I say Tier 1.


Recommendation: Top Tier 1


----------



## Coxwell

*In the line of fire*


Another disappointment from another studio. The transfert is barely better than the first Dirty Harry which is 20 years older ! Flat and pale picture, and the worst of it, a motion blur on the top. Some shots present sometimes high definition abilities, but all in all, the picture lacks qualities that we intend to find in an HD disc.


Recommandation : Tier 3 bottom (lower than its current position)


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Coxwell* /forum/post/14364322
> 
> *In the line of fire*
> 
> 
> Another disappointment from another studio. The transfert is barely better than the first Dirty Harry which is 20 years older ! Flat and pale picture, and the worst of it, a motion blur on the top. Some shots present sometimes high definition abilities, but all in all, the picture lacks qualities that we intend to find in an HD disc.
> 
> 
> Recommandation : Tier 3 bottom (lower than its current position)



Another faithful assessment Coxwell. Keep it up.


----------



## H.Cornerstone

Not much to add, Just wanted to say I recently watched Rescue Dawn and Kingdom of Heaven, and pretty much agree with both their rankings.


However, I do feel the Kingdom of Heaven does look a little better than 300, as do some other titles below it (such as The Prestige), and would almost suggest moving that down. I know 300 is tough to judge with all the grain and the saturated colors in the background.


----------



## b_scott

anyone checked out I Know What You Did Last Summer yet?


----------



## lgans316

*Peter Pan (Import) Video: AVC | Audio: Dolby TrueHD 16-bit | AR: 2.35:1 | Sony*


Peter Pan looked better than Harry Potter - Order of Phoenix in many aspects though some may raise objections to it. After comparing this with Spiderwick Chronicles which shares similar look and feel, I can comfortably say that Peter Pan can be placed below Spiderwick which looks to be slightly better in terms of overall definition.


P.S: I accidentally deleted my assessment of Peter Pan while trying to modify this post.


----------



## Johnbutler

The Dirty Dozen being in the coal tier is appalling. It's an accurate, filmic transfer that cintains a surprising amount of detail, only getting soft when original focus wasn't so great or during an optical. THing is, it's not artifact ridden, and it's a good upgrade.


----------



## maverick0716

Just finished watching 21. I was pretty impressed with this one. It had plenty of detail with only a few soft shots in the whole movie. Colour and black levels were also great. This should definitely be in Tier 1 somewhere, maybe around the middle to lower area.


42" Panasonic Plasma (768p)

PS3 though HDMI

6-7 ft.


----------



## Coxwell

*Bonnie and Clyde*


I don't understand its rank. Compared to the last title I viewed recently (In the line of fire) which is in the upper part of the tier 3 category, this *Bonnie and Clyde* is far better in terms of sharpness, depth and definition overall. As I said it for the Petersen movie, the older ones (Dirty Harry, and Bonnie as concerned here) present paradoxically a more decent picture. There is a lovely grain all over the picture which allows lots of details on close-ups and background as well.


I recommand a *Tier 2 for this one (bottom) or top of Tier 3.*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Beer League*


tier recommendation: second quarter of *Tier 4*


Echo Bridge released this 86 minute feature on a single BD-25. The disc is encoded in MPEG-2 and the video bitrate ranges from a low of 9.5 Mbps to an absolute peak of 29.9 Mbps. Compression artifacts are much less of a problem on this BD than the other Echo Bridge title I just nominated in this thread, The Curse Of King Tut's Tomb. I would estimate the video bitrate averages 17 or 18 Mbps overall with some scenes hovering in the low teens and other scenes in the mid-20's. It's not a great encode though as several shots show artifacting and posterization. Check out the sky during some of the softball scenes for the most obvious problems. The clouds almost get lost in the grain.


The master looks in solid shape with only very minor aberrations. Contrast is relatively good and stable throughout the feature. Colors are a little flatter than I've come to expect from a typical Blu-ray and at times looks like upconverted dvd. Black levels are average, though very few scenes in this movie really test typical low light problems. Fleshtones look natural for the most part but with a slightly red tilt.


No DNR is apparent as the film retains a very consistent grain structure for the duration of the feature. The transfer does show massive edge halos with both horizontal and vertical ringing appearing at times. What really dropped the image quality in my eyes was the very poor resolution apparent on the Blu-ray. At times high frequency detail is barely above the level of an upconverted dvd. On top of that the movie is shot like a typical comedy with pedestrian camera work and very flat photography.


This particular BD is a solid Tier 4 candidate overall which rarely gets better than a low Tier 3 image. The second quarter of Tier 4 feels right for this budget title.


----------



## A4ORCE

I haven't fully read the standards for ranking the movies, but if I, Robot, Crank and Shoot em Up are ranked in the top tier, I'll say this definitely belongs there as well. I'm not one to post regularly, but I just thought it looked so impressive I had to share.










Imho, the transfer looked really good and they definitely picked right spots to show off the action in very high quality, an example being the depth of the red parts of the armor.


It'll definitely be worth the money when it's out on the shelves...


I'll write more when I work less and have more time to analyze the movie...


Edit: Here's some additional info

Television: 40" Samsung LN40A650 (The TV has great image quality as well, with crisp lines and deep blacks) @ 1080p/24 and 3ft from the screen (I know, not the best distance, but it only adds to telling you how good it really looked)


My vote goes for Tier-0 on the basis of:

- the red and lines on his armor and the way it was lit showed great depth as well as being razor sharp

- as per the first page, there were many 3d effects whenever he was in his armor and when there was any kind of action, in particular, when he blows a bad goon into a bunch of military crates, it looked as though I could reach into the monitor.

- explosions appear to jump out at you, versus explosions when I watched Rambo, where they seemed to dissipate two dimensionally.

- you can tell the studios definitely spent money on putting a lot of sharp effects into the transfer, whereas you might have another title showing

- finally, in comparison to other Tier-0 titles.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/14371323
> 
> 
> Just finished watching 21. I was pretty impressed with this one. It had plenty of detail with only a few soft shots in the whole movie. Colour and black levels were also great. This should definitely be in Tier 1 somewhere, maybe around the middle to lower area.
> 
> 
> 42" Panasonic Plasma (768p)
> 
> PS3 though HDMI
> 
> 6-7 ft.



Sorry, but I can't agree. I thought the PQ was unimpressive, with faces generally lacking crispness and detail. Bottom half of Tier 2 IMO.


----------



## rydenfan

Just picked up a new 1080P/24 61" Samsung LED based DLP. It will be fed via my Pioneer Elite 95 Blu-Ray player and I sit 10' back. So, I very much look forward to being a more active member of this thread rather than just a daily reader


----------



## ajamils




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rydenfan* /forum/post/14382329
> 
> 
> Just picked up a new 1080P/24 61" Samsung LED based DLP. It will be fed via my Pioneer Elite 95 Blu-Ray plaer and I sit 10' back. So, I very much look forward to being a more *attactive* member of this thread rather than just a daily reader



I think you meant *active*....unless you are some hot gal


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *A4ORCE* /forum/post/14381645
> 
> 
> I haven't fully read the standards for ranking the movies, but if I, Robot, Crank and Shoot em Up are ranked in the top tier, I'll say this definitely belongs there as well. I'm not one to post regularly, but I just thought it looked so impressive I had to share.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Imho, the transfer looked really good and they definitely picked right spots to show off the action in very high quality, an example being the depth of the red parts of the armor.
> 
> 
> It'll definitely be worth the money when it's out on the shelves...
> 
> 
> I'll write more when I work less and have more time to analyze the movie...



To clarify, are you speaking of the theatrical presentation of Iron Man or an extremely early insider-viewing of the home video transfer?


Brandon


----------



## bplewis24

Based on the recommendations here I ended up putting *Be Kind Rewind* near the top of my queue, and I received it ahead of 21, which I was hoping to have viewed by now.


I'm not as high on this transfer as some others appear to be. I saw several Tier 1 votes for this title, but I cannot say that I agree.


The Good: very clean looking transfer. Colors while sometimes subdued, look very natural and flesh tones look good. Black levels seems fine as well for the period of time they're on display (which is not much).


The Bad: I see no evidence of high frequency detail anywhere, save for a few isolated examples. I even read somebody mention some fine grain visible at times and I couldn't detect a hint of any. I'm not suggesting this was DNR'd, but for whatever reason "soft" came to my mind throughout the film. I know that there are some scenes shot out of focus intentionally which added to this, and towards the last 30 minutes or so the level of detail picked up a bit, but to my eyes the level of detail on display never approached the Tier 1 threshold consistently enough.


My vote is for *top quarter of Tier 2*, somewhere towards the middle or lower end. It actually has a video look to it where the edges have some sharpness but there's not much high frequency detail to speak of.


PS3->1080p24->46XBR4 (8 feet)


Btw, I really had a blast with this movie. Enjoyed it a lot.


Brandon


----------



## Kroenen

I agree with that PQ assessment buddy.


I enjoyed the film as well. I found it to be a charming story about friends and community.

*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) What I really appreciated was the non-Hollywood ending. Not being able to save the video store was sad IMO, but believable.




From this point on I vote that all bad encodes should be Sweded.


----------



## unclepauly




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14384161
> 
> 
> To clarify, are you speaking of the theatrical presentation of Iron Man or an extremely early insider-viewing of the home video transfer?
> 
> 
> Brandon



Imo he was just bragging and not really trying to add to the thread. He was trying to add to his self-worth.


----------



## lont12




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14384161
> 
> 
> To clarify, are you speaking of the theatrical presentation of Iron Man or an extremely early insider-viewing of the home video transfer?
> 
> 
> Brandon



He was speaking of the dream he had last night in which he actually had a copy of the IronMan Blu-ray in his hands. In the same dream he saw the next M. Night Shayamalan movie and it didn't suck. Both visions have about the same chance of happening in real life.........none.


----------



## jonnyozero3

^ maybe he was talking about a bootleg net copy


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I took a close look at Blade Runner:The Final Cut recently. I think its current placement is almost perfect. It is somewhat of a schizophrenic look as I thought the last hour was closer to the top of Tier 1(especially the climatic battle), while the first hour looks slightly soft at times and closer to Tier 2. There is some slight edge enhancement seen in a couple of spots.


----------



## lgans316

*Cinderella Man (Import) Video: VC-1 | Audio: LPCM 16-bit | AR: 2.35:1 | BVHE*

*The Good*


Transferred from Digital Intermediate which looks to be in pristine shape devoid of any print impurities and DNR

Deep blacks

Decent image depth

Very good fine object detailing

Few close-up shots exhibits very good sharpness

Offers a very cinematic and film like look

*The Bad*


Dark and sepia tone cinematography to depict the great depression period takes out the HD pop factor

Slightly weak contrast levels

Intentionally smoothened look on certain shots

Minor application of Edge Enhancement in couple of scenes


The bit rates hovers between 18~28 Mbps with peaks of 38+ Mbps on difficult shots though it mostly remains in mid 20s for most of the running time.

*Tier Recommendation:* Low Tier-2 above or below Kung Fu Hustle


In terms of artistic intent the video presentation is 100% faithful to what I have seen in the theater.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2004/...ccde6e43_b.jpg 
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2346/...93a40b4f_b.jpg 
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2032/...ca928060_b.jpg 
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2248/...6a3bdb4a_b.jpg 
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2016/...54a1c35e_b.jpg 
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2048/...45639a8b_b.jpg


----------



## A4ORCE




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14384161
> 
> 
> To clarify, are you speaking of the theatrical presentation of Iron Man or an extremely early insider-viewing of the home video transfer?
> 
> 
> Brandon



Home video transfer. On Blu-Ray disc.


----------



## A4ORCE




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lont12* /forum/post/14386557
> 
> 
> He was speaking of the dream he had last night in which he actually had a copy of the IronMan Blu-ray in his hands. In the same dream he saw the next M. Night Shayamalan movie and it didn't suck. *Both visions have about the same chance of happening in real life.........none.*



Hahaha... Would you like to stake money on what you just said? Perhaps you should learn some more info on the industry before making such claims...


----------



## A4ORCE




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14389324
> 
> 
> What ???????????? How come ? Can you post some screenshots of the Blu-ray and it's menu ?



We don't have menus for it yet, only the feature with audio/subtitle streams. I'll try and get some screenshots if I can (we've been pretty busy lately).


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *A4ORCE* /forum/post/14389413
> 
> 
> We don't have menus for it yet, only the feature with audio/subtitle streams. I'll try and get some screenshots if I can (we've been pretty busy lately).



Do you work for Paramount ? It would be great if you post some screenshots with the display meter ON.


----------



## lont12




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *A4ORCE* /forum/post/14389322
> 
> 
> Hahaha... Would you like to stake money on what you just said? Perhaps you should learn some more info on the industry before making such claims...



Yes.......I will be happy to wager my hard earned dollars that the next M. Night Shyamalan movie will indeed suck. As for your Blu-ray transfer....if you really have one then my apologies and thanks for the review. I will be very happy if it's as good as you say, since it's my favorite movie of the year by far (and yes, that includes the Dark Knight, which was good but IMHO not as great as all the hype surrounding it). Iron Man is one that I'll watch many times at home.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Mortuary*


tier recommendation: bottom quarter of *Tier 5*


Echo Bridge just released this Blu-ray today and it doesn’t look good at all. The 93 minute movie is encoded in MPEG-2 on a BD-25. The video bitrate ranges from 13.6 Mbps to 27 Mbps with most scenes in the low to mid 20’s. It’s not a good compression job but frankly is the least of the problems associated with the image.


The colors look drab and flat with very poor black levels at times. Detail and resolution never exceeds standard dvd. Even close-ups reveal little extra detail and information. This is a BD that never even touches tier 4 quality for a second. I have a strong suspicion this Blu-ray is derived from a dvd master, meaning this transfer is not derived from a true High Definition source. On top of that there is excessive edge enhancement halos present for the length of the movie with the added side bonus of occasional aliasing artifacts. The resolution and clarity never really exceeds anything I’ve not seen from a 480P image.


Echo Bridge should be ashamed to release this level of image quality to Blu-ray. One of the poorest images I’ve seen on Blu-ray to date. This is significantly worse than the other two Echo Bridge Bds I’ve recently watched. The bottom half of tier 5 is the highest this title should be placed.


----------



## babrown92

*Halloween*


All in all I was pretty impressed with this transfer. Daytime shots looked fantastic, in particular the scene with Loomis standing outside the hardware store while Micheal drives behind him.


The night scenes were a little inconsistent, as some shots came off as soft and some distortion. This seemed to be more a failing of the print then the transfer. Cant imagine this film looking much better than this.


Recommendation Bottom *Tier 2*


----------



## bplewis24

Uh oh, I'm watching something that is borderline Tier 0 material (so far). Will it ultimately make the cut?










Brandon


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14396513
> 
> 
> Uh oh, I'm watching something that is borderline Tier 0 material (so far). Will it ultimately make the cut?



Doomsday? The PQ reviews have been pretty overwhelmingly positive and imply a possible low Tier 0 or high Tier 1 landing place.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/14397117
> 
> 
> Doomsday? The PQ reviews have been pretty overwhelmingly positive and imply a possible low Tier 0 or high Tier 1 landing place.



umm...will let you know...watching it in a few.


----------



## kraemer

*The hunt for red october*


What the hell? I saw this one at the movie theater, so I know the source was not this ridiculously grainy. Why do they "dump" their properties on high def like this? Dont they realize that the "technophiles" are the people buying these titles and that the backlash will really kill sales?


I think instead of having a list only on AVS forum, somebody should set up a domain called bluraylist.com and only list the top two tiers as worth buying. Everything else not on the list should be left on store shelves.


----------



## b_scott

The Ruins looked flippin amazing. there are very very few dark scenes actually, and the blacks were decent not stellar. otherwise it looks top tier 1 to me. movie was OK...


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kraemer* /forum/post/14397261
> 
> *The hunt for red october*
> 
> 
> What the hell? I saw this one at the movie theater, so I know the source was not this ridiculously grainy. Why do they "dump" their properties on high def like this? Dont they realize that the "technophiles" are the people buying these titles and that the backlash will really kill sales?
> 
> 
> I think instead of having a list only on AVS forum, somebody should set up a domain called bluraylist.com and only list the top two tiers as worth buying. Everything else not on the list should be left on store shelves.



Do you really remember what a movie looked like in the theatres 18 years ago? That's impressive.


----------



## bplewis24

Somebody already guessed it, but *Doomsday* is what I had the opportunity to watch tonight. In a word: Impressive. And this is my first introduction to Universal titles in HD, which I didn't realize until I saw the logo show up. Not a bad start...and I liked their menu interface.


This movie's cinematography and shooting style runs the gamut from vistas overlooking mountaintops to dark underground sewers. I didn't know what to expect from the movie going in and I certainly can't pin down what it's visual style is like even after watching. Even the color palette can't be nailed down to a specific style...it's all over the place (just like the movie). Nevertheless, on to the PQ...


Off the bat the transfer is sharp and the source looks pristine. Black levels are great right at the get-go, as the opening scene takes place at night. The level of detail is solid-to-great in the first few passages, clearly showing what's in store. Facial detail and depth of field are very good. You can often see the pours on Bob Hoskins' aging face (







) and in one particular scene you can spot the loose fibers on the black gentleman's uniform jacket. There are some inconsistencies from time-to-time; for example, sometimes in the same scene the facial detail for one person will stand out, and in the next pan it will appear softer. I feel that's likely the way the movie was shot.


As the movie creeps into it's 2nd act (as the team of soldiers leaves the walls of the city), the movie sort of mires in dark and drab scenery, thus not allowing the PQ to necessarily shine. There are some soft and out of focus shots here, but the shadow detail and black levels are still very good.


As the film leaves this scene and heads to brightly lit fields, country and mountainsides, the PQ really takes off. We're talking high quality Tier 0 material through and through. Especially take a look at some of the scenes in the fortress/castle (the battle with Eden in the courtyard/ring area to be specific) and as they drive along the mountainside. This last half hour or so solidifies it as *Tier 0* material in my book. Somewhere above Rescue Dawn and below Man On Fire. Did I just say that?










PS3->1080p24->46XBR4 (8 feet)


This transfer really did Universal justice...too bad I can't say the same for the movie










Brandon


----------



## maverick0716

Never Back Down is an independent film that I really wasn't expecting much from, picture quality wise. I wasn't too surprised when most of the movie turned out to be pretty soft. Black levels fluctuate slightly, but colours are pretty good for the most part. Overall, I put this either lower Tier 2 or high Tier 3.


42" Panasonic Plasma (768p)

PS3 though HDMI

6-7 ft.


----------



## lgans316

Nice review Brandon. Good to hear a mid tier-0 recommendation after a long time.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14397432
> 
> 
> Somebody already guessed it, but *Doomsday* is what I had the opportunity to watch tonight. In a word: Impressive. And this is my first introduction to Universal titles in HD, which I didn't realize until I saw the logo show up. Not a bad start...and I liked their menu interface.
> 
> 
> This movie's cinematography and shooting style runs the gamut from vistas overlooking mountaintops to dark underground sewers. I didn't know what to expect from the movie going in and I certainly can't pin down what it's visual style is like even after watching. Even the color palette can't be nailed down to a specific style...it's all over the place (just like the movie). Nevertheless, on to the PQ...
> 
> 
> Off the bat the transfer is sharp and the source looks pristine. Black levels are great right at the get-go, as the opening scene takes place at night. The level of detail is solid-to-great in the first few passages, clearly showing what's in store. Facial detail and depth of field are very good. You can often see the pours on Bob Hoskins' aging face (
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) and in one particular scene you can spot the loose fibers on the black gentleman's uniform jacket. There are some inconsistencies from time-to-time; for example, sometimes in the same scene the facial detail for one person will stand out, and in the next pan it will appear softer. I feel that's likely the way the movie was shot.
> 
> 
> As the movie creeps into it's 2nd act (as the team of soldiers leaves the walls of the city), the movie sort of mires in dark and drab scenery, thus not allowing the PQ to necessarily shine. There are some soft and out of focus shots here, but the shadow detail and black levels are still very good.
> 
> 
> As the film leaves this scene and heads to brightly lit fields, country and mountainsides, the PQ really takes off. We're talking high quality Tier 0 material through and through. Especially take a look at some of the scenes in the fortress/castle (the battle with Eden in the courtyard/ring area to be specific) and as they drive along the mountainside. This last half hour or so solidifies it as *Tier 0* material in my book. Somewhere above Rescue Dawn and below Man On Fire. Did I just say that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PS3->1080p24->46XBR4 (8 feet)
> 
> 
> This transfer really did Universal justice...too bad I can't say the same for the movie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brandon



I don't have to say anything here, just quote you!










You said it perfectly. I agree this is absolutely a Tier 0 movie.

The DTSMA soundtrack to boot and if you can tolerate this genre, hold on for a immersive ride.


One of if not the best BD's to come out in a long time.

















While the female lead has beautiful facial structure and the BD flaunts it, it also really shows her mediocre skin quality of blemishes as the shots are extremely detailed.


Malcolm McDowell must have liver and or a drinking issue as the details of his nose pores are so evident.










This BD made my experience today at the local new state of the art DLP theatre watching Dark Knight pale in comparison.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briansemerick* /forum/post/14397338
> 
> 
> The Ruins looked flippin amazing. there are very very few dark scenes actually, and the blacks were decent not stellar. otherwise it looks top tier 1 to me. movie was OK...



I agree that The Ruins looks very good. As to placement, I am somewhat undecided as between top quarter and second quarter of Tier 1.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14397432
> 
> 
> Somebody already guessed it, but *Doomsday* is what I had the opportunity to watch tonight. In a word: Impressive. And this is my first introduction to Universal titles in HD, which I didn't realize until I saw the logo show up. Not a bad start...and I liked their menu interface.
> 
> 
> This movie's cinematography and shooting style runs the gamut from vistas overlooking mountaintops to dark underground sewers. I didn't know what to expect from the movie going in and I certainly can't pin down what it's visual style is like even after watching. Even the color palette can't be nailed down to a specific style...it's all over the place (just like the movie). Nevertheless, on to the PQ...
> 
> 
> Off the bat the transfer is sharp and the source looks pristine. Black levels are great right at the get-go, as the opening scene takes place at night. The level of detail is solid-to-great in the first few passages, clearly showing what's in store. Facial detail and depth of field are very good. You can often see the pours on Bob Hoskins' aging face (
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) and in one particular scene you can spot the loose fibers on the black gentleman's uniform jacket. There are some inconsistencies from time-to-time; for example, sometimes in the same scene the facial detail for one person will stand out, and in the next pan it will appear softer. I feel that's likely the way the movie was shot.
> 
> 
> As the movie creeps into it's 2nd act (as the team of soldiers leaves the walls of the city), the movie sort of mires in dark and drab scenery, thus not allowing the PQ to necessarily shine. There are some soft and out of focus shots here, but the shadow detail and black levels are still very good.
> 
> 
> As the film leaves this scene and heads to brightly lit fields, country and mountainsides, the PQ really takes off. We're talking high quality Tier 0 material through and through. Especially take a look at some of the scenes in the fortress/castle (the battle with Eden in the courtyard/ring area to be specific) and as they drive along the mountainside. This last half hour or so solidifies it as *Tier 0* material in my book. Somewhere above Rescue Dawn and below Man On Fire. Did I just say that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PS3->1080p24->46XBR4 (8 feet)
> 
> 
> This transfer really did Universal justice...too bad I can't say the same for the movie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brandon



I have only watched the first half hour, so it's too soon to reach a final judgment, but based on this portion I was just a bit disappointed. The one scene that I found extremely disappointing in terms of PQ was the cabinet meeting. The faces in that scene looked pretty consistently soft. Apart from that one scene, it looks pretty good. The faces generally look quite detailed. Based on Brandon's comments that the PQ reaches a higher level later on in the movie, I will be looking forward to that portion.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/14397449
> 
> 
> Never Back Down is an independent film that I really wasn't expecting much from, picture quality wise. I wasn't too surprised when most of the movie turned out to be pretty soft. Black levels fluctuate slightly, but colours are pretty good for the most part. Overall, I put this either lower Tier 2 or high Tier 3.
> 
> 
> 42" Panasonic Plasma (768p)
> 
> PS3 though HDMI
> 
> 6-7 ft.



I have only watched the first ten minutes of NBD so far, but at least this portion I thought was better than this review. I thought there was a surprising amount of detail for such a low budget movie. It's nice to see that Steve Nickerson's new studio is taking better advantage of the BD specs than his former one.


----------



## Elbie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briansemerick* /forum/post/14397338
> 
> 
> The Ruins looked flippin amazing. there are very very few dark scenes actually, and the blacks were decent not stellar. otherwise it looks top tier 1 to me. movie was OK...



Some of the scenes at the beginning like the sky didn't look too good, but overall it did look very good. Skin tones were overdone at some points. They looked yellowish.


----------



## kraemer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/14397421
> 
> 
> Do you really remember what a movie looked like in the theatres 18 years ago? That's impressive.



I can name every movie I have seen dating back to 1972. My friends call me when their too lazy to go to IMDB. Yes, I can tell you with all certainty that it didn't look like that in the theater.


Jan de Bont was the cinematographer on both this and die hard. Same panavision setup, same color labs. Yet die hard (crappy though the blu ray looks) has nowhere near the grain.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Elbie* /forum/post/14398961
> 
> 
> Some of the scenes at the beginning like the sky didn't look too good, but overall it did look very good. Skin tones were overdone at some points. They looked yellowish.



I think some of the sky shots with clouds looked like they were CGI.


----------



## haste

disappointed with "The Mummy". looks like DNR going on and a lot of out of focus shots (towards edges).


ill look at it more closely this weekend and write down some timestamps. im guessing this is gonna be a silver tier movie.


----------



## lont12

Just curious if anyone else was really disappointed with the PQ of The Dark Knight in theatres. Maybe I was unlucky and saw a bad presentation of the 10,000th print of the film, but it looked really soft and had poor contrast and detail. To make matters worse the dialogue was so poorly mixed (or played back, not sure which) that much of it was unintelligible. Did I just see it in a lousy theatre or did you guys have similar experiences?


----------



## Lookilook




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lont12* /forum/post/14399803
> 
> 
> Just curious if anyone else was really disappointed with the PQ of The Dark Knight in theatres. Maybe I was unlucky and saw a bad presentation of the 10,000th print of the film, but it looked really soft and had poor contrast and detail. To make matters worse the dialogue was so poorly mixed (or played back, not sure which) that much of it was unintelligible. Did I just see it in a lousy theatre or did you guys have similar experiences?




Me too. I think for 95% of the folks who have seen the IMAX Prologue on the Batman Begin BR will agree that the BRD version is far superior. Edit- At least for that 6mins anyway.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lont12* /forum/post/14399803
> 
> 
> Just curious if anyone else was really disappointed with the PQ of The Dark Knight in theatres. Maybe I was unlucky and saw a bad presentation of the 10,000th print of the film, but it looked really soft and had poor contrast and detail. To make matters worse the dialogue was so poorly mixed (or played back, not sure which) that much of it was unintelligible. Did I just see it in a lousy theatre or did you guys have similar experiences?



Going to see the Dark Knight was my first trip to the movie theatre in over 3 years. And it was also my first trip to the theatres after becoming a HD film/movie hobbyist and learning a lot about film/PQ/resolution/banding/grain,...etc (you name it).


I thought the PQ was average but what was horribly distracting was this veil of noise that actually moved in a diagonal angle downwards and in the left direction down the screen at all times. It showed during trailers and the feature presentation, so it wasn't part of the film elements. Whenever there was a light background on the screen it was like a torrential downpour of very excessive grain.


As far as the audio was concerned, it was very loud...that's all I remember.


Brandon


----------



## kraemer

Too bad you guys dont have a Santikos theater there. Every screen is DLP. The dark knight looked phenomenal, as did Wall*e and Iron man....


----------



## H.Cornerstone

I saw The Dark Knight recently and I thought it looked really good. In fact, the Dark Knight Prologue I watched looked just as good as it, and in fact, when I first saw it the first thing that came to mind was "Wow, this looks really good! Can't wait for the blu-ray!"


BTW, I saw it at the Cine Capri here in Arizona, which is a bigger screen than normal, and I think they pay more attention to making sure that the camera is perfectly focused and what not. And they have more speakers, which was awesome for this movie.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lont12* /forum/post/14399803
> 
> 
> Just curious if anyone else was really disappointed with the PQ of The Dark Knight in theatres. Maybe I was unlucky and saw a bad presentation of the 10,000th print of the film, but it looked really soft and had poor contrast and detail. To make matters worse the dialogue was so poorly mixed (or played back, not sure which) that much of it was unintelligible. Did I just see it in a lousy theatre or did you guys have similar experiences?



As I mentioned in my previous post, I saw Dark Night yesterday in a DLP theatre. The Theater is a year old. The PQ was disappointing and soft. I am very pleased watching BD's on my HT in comparison.


----------



## windwaves

I am not sure this has been noted before, but I can't help but say that a bunch of cartoons really don't say much about PQ, particularly on a relative level (that is, v.s. non animated pictures!) .... I wish they were separated from the rest, that is, from real movies.


Wouldn't it make more sense ?


----------



## b_scott

how would it though? they are real movies, and they do look that good. you know they're animated, so you can self-edit the list in your mind if you like.


----------



## Aetherhole

I just watched the US release of Beowulf: Director's cut on Blu-ray last night and was utterly amazed by the picture quality. I don't know if I need to say more than these two words: computer generated. There are a ton of incredibly dark sequences and the blacks remained inky throughout. The movie is generally very dimly lit, but there remained an incredible amount of detail throughout the movie. The colors are muted, but it does not deter from the three-dimensional feel of the image. I didn't see any banding while I was watching. I would recommend this for Tier 0.


Viewing equipment is a Pioneer Elite Pro-151FD television (1080p24 resolution)

1920x1080p24 resolution output source direct from the Pioneer BDP-51FD

Viewing distance is 10.5-11 feet from the screen


----------



## lont12




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14399998
> 
> 
> As I mentioned in my previous post, I saw Dark Night yesterday in a DLP theatre. The Theater is a year old. The PQ was disappointing and soft. I am very pleased watching BD's on my HT in comparison.



Sounds like pretty mixed reviews on the PQ, and it appears that even with DLP theatres there is still a big variable on how much care the theatre takes to present the best possible picture. I have to say that since I went the HD route at home I have almost zero interest in going to a theatre any more. The last 4 or 5 movies that I have seen at theatres (in several different locations) were clearly inferior to the PQ I get at home on even Tier 2 or 3 Blu-rays. Combine that with the increasingly common projections problems (how many times have each of us wanted to stand up in the middle of the theatre and yell "FOCUS, Please.." at the top of our lungs), the incessant cell-phone chatter from the gangbangers in the crowd, which of course you are afraid to comment on for fear of being shot in the parking lot, and the people who seems to think that movies like Shoot 'Em Up and Doomsday are perfect fare for their talkative and inquisitive little 10 year old daughter, and going out to the movies rapidly loses it's appeal. The Dark Knight may be the last movie I see on the big screen for quite some time. My 52XBR4 purchase is looking better all the time.


----------



## kraemer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lont12* /forum/post/14400784
> 
> 
> The Dark Knight may be the last movie I see on the big screen for quite some time. My 52XBR4 purchase is looking better all the time.



I have a sneaking suspicion that there is a correlation between statements like these and crummy picture quality of Bluray releases.


Alternatively, it could be a case of "special edition/remastered"=secondary sell through. Alien was released on DVD what, five times?


----------



## lont12




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kraemer* /forum/post/14400855
> 
> 
> I have a sneaking suspicion that there is a correlation between statements like these and crummy picture quality.
> 
> 
> Alternatively, it could be a case of "special edition/remastered"=secondary sell through. Alien was released on DVD what, five times?



Not arguing, just curious......what did you mean by your first comment.....that the studios and/or theatres don't care about PQ anymore at the local cinema? I would have thought just the opposite, that with the competition from Home Theatre they would be stepping up their game and adding more DLP theatres, better quality control, etc. If you meant that the whining about PQ of the videophile crowd only leads them to produce shoddier product then I'd say it's a "chicken-or-egg" proposition. I used to love going to the movies until I discovered that watching them at home was much more satisfying. Please clarify your response.... and thanks for taking the time to comment.


----------



## b_scott

i'll see Harry Potter in Nov. besides Dark Knight for the 3rd time at IMAX, i don't think there's another i need to see in theaters this year.


----------



## kraemer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lont12* /forum/post/14401250
> 
> 
> Not arguing, just curious......what did you mean by your first comment.....that the studios and/or theatres don't care about PQ anymore at the local cinema?



I should have clarified, -I am saying they dont care about *Bluray PQ* because it will eat into theatrical release revenue. I think its deliberate.


**updated the post in question to clarify.


----------



## djoberg

I saw *The Dark Knight* last week in a newly renovated theatre and I would have to echo the sentiments of those who said the PQ was disappointing. Iont12 was right in saying "...it looked really soft and had poor contrast and detail." I am hoping the Blu-ray transfer will be considerably better, for I have never seen a movie in ANY theater that could compare with Blu-ray (or HD DVD).


Having said that, the audio was quite impressive and I kept thinking, "This is going to sound great on my system, especially the lower frequencies on my Velodyne sub!"


Regarding the movie itself, I was a bit let down after all the hype about it. Don't get me wrong, I did enjoy it, but as one reviewer said (on Amazon), it was really *convoluted*; my one word description would be: *intense*!


----------



## patrick99

I watched another chunk of *Doomsday* last night. This is really *NOT* looking anything like Tier 0 to me. The resolution just isn't that great most of the time. The shots in the countryside after they leave the city did not seem particularly outstanding to me, or in the castle when they get there. I would say very low Tier 1 at the highest.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14405663
> 
> 
> I watched another chunk of *Doomsday* last night. This is really *NOT* looking anything like Tier 0 to me. The resolution just isn't that great most of the time. The shots in the countryside after they leave the city did not seem particularly outstanding to me, or in the castle when they get there. I would say very low Tier 1 at the highest.



I watched the entire movie again and totally disagree. I have been in Ireland and the terrain in Scotland/Britain is identical to Ireland and to what was filmed in Doomsday. THe detail in the country shot of grass, plants, etc was so well done it looked like I was there. Very 3d. It has better PQ, clairity and detail than The Patriot, lots of grain and is a definite Tier 0 title. Lower Tier 0, but definitely tier 0. I will put up a fight on this one as it is reference. As I said in my previous post on this movie, it is the best BD to come out PQ wise in a very long time.


----------



## b_scott

anyone watch Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle yet? i got it yesterday but haven't had the chance.


----------



## Shane Martin

I completely disagree with patrick's assessment of Doomsdayl. I know Kris Deering gave it a 5 out of 5 as well.


Tier 0 for sure. I think Brandon's placement is ideal. It looks better than Shoot Em up for sure.


----------



## haste




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briansemerick* /forum/post/14407637
> 
> 
> anyone watch Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle yet? i got it yesterday but haven't had the chance.




i watched about half of it yesterday...not the best transfer out there, but definitely acceptable for a comedy. it definitely blows "Waiting" out of the water.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Shane Martin* /forum/post/14408035
> 
> 
> I completely disagree with patrick's assessment of Doomsdayl. I know Kris Deering gave it a 5 out of 5 as well.
> 
> 
> Tier 0 for sure. I think Brandon's placement is ideal. It looks better than Shoot Em up for sure.



Way better than Shoot Em Up.


----------



## kraemer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briansemerick* /forum/post/14407637
> 
> 
> anyone watch Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle yet? i got it yesterday but haven't had the chance.



The picture quality is fine, but the movie is so bad that the picture quality is a moot point.


----------



## 357

I watched Doomsday also and I don't believe it should be Tier 0. I'll give it another look though. Tier 1 for me as if now...


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *357* /forum/post/14409569
> 
> 
> I watched Doomsday also and *I don't believe it should be Tier 0.* I'll give it another look though. Tier 1 for me as if now...



It's a relief to learn that I am not alone in feeling this way.


----------



## lont12




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14409668
> 
> 
> It's a relief to learn that I am not alone in feeling this way.



I haven't even seen Doomsday and I already know where it belongs in the rankings......It's in the brand new Platinum Tier 1.5 that is exactly halfway between Tier 0 and Tier 1. That should keep everybody happy.


----------



## stumlad

I don't think Doomsday is Tier 0, but I also don't think it's bad enough for low tier 1. The face closups and overall look of the film exceeded Jumper, but was not as good (the better word is consistent) as the higher tier 1 titles. I think the gravel of the road in the chase scene looked awesome. Face closeups were up there with the best -- when they were in focus...


I'd place it somewhere in the middle of the upper half of tier 1


----------



## Hughmc

Those that do not see Doomsday as a tier 0 title, I would suggest doing comparison watching of The Patriot, Tier 1, and a title in Tier 0 like Shoot Em up or Crank.


I not only think Doomsday is better than Shoot Em up I think it is much better.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14411557
> 
> 
> I haven't watched Doomsday but aforementioned facial and fine object detailing should be excellent and consistent during 80-90% of the closeup shots. If not the title shouldn't qualify for Tier-0 placement. Just my opinion.



Are you getting it soon?


Brandon


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14411181
> 
> 
> Those that do not see Doomsday as a tier 0 title, I would suggest doing comparison watching of The Patriot, Tier 1, and a title in Tier 0 like Shoot Em up or Crank.
> 
> 
> I not only think Doomsday is better than Shoot Em up I think it is much better.



The thing is that some don't see Shoot Em Up as deserving of tier zero. To me it really straddles the line at times. I have no comment yet on Doomsday as I simply haven't seen it yet. I'm working my way through other unranked titles unlikely to get much attention at the moment.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14411586
> 
> 
> Are you getting it soon?
> 
> 
> Brandon



No Boss. I may import Doomsday if the price drops below $20. Will be receiving the following titles next week.


1) Saints and Soldiers (U.K)

2) Days of Glory (U.K)

3) SPL (H.K)

4) The Warlords (H.K)


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lont12* /forum/post/14410261
> 
> 
> I haven't even seen Doomsday and I already know where it belongs in the rankings......*It's in the brand new Platinum Tier 1.5 that is exactly halfway between Tier 0 and Tier 1. That should keep everybody happy.*



That's a good idea actually


----------



## mike171979




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14409390
> 
> 
> Way better than Shoot Em Up.



LOL is that possible?


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/14411644
> 
> 
> The thing is that some don't see Shoot Em Up as deserving of tier zero. To me it really straddles the line at times. I have no comment yet on Doomsday as I simply haven't seen it yet. I'm working my way through other unranked titles unlikely to get much attention at the moment.




I am one of them that believes Shoot Em Up should be lower. I love the movie actually and the sound is awesome, but I saw many instances where the PQ is good, but on some closeups the detail is not there. Overall I thought the clarity and detail were good, but not Tier 0 good. Maybe mid Tier 1.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mike171979* /forum/post/14412372
> 
> 
> LOL is that possible?



No, I exaggerated to make my point. !!







Obviously it will be easy to refute the way better comment, but I tried.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lont12* /forum/post/14410261
> 
> 
> I haven't even seen Doomsday and I already know where it belongs in the rankings......It's in the brand new Platinum Tier 1.5 that is exactly halfway between Tier 0 and Tier 1. *That should keep everybody happy.*



Actually, no.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/14410321
> 
> 
> I don't think Doomsday is Tier 0, but I also don't think it's bad enough for low tier 1. The face closups and overall look of the film exceeded Jumper, but was not as good (the better word is consistent) as the higher tier 1 titles. I think the gravel of the road in the chase scene looked awesome. Face closeups were up there with the best -- *when they were in focus...*
> 
> 
> I'd place it somewhere in the middle of the upper half of tier 1



Don't out of focus close-ups count (negatively) in PQ evaluations?


I'm not suggesting that this was the only PQ negative; there was a much more general lack of the highest level of clarity in most shots.


----------



## Elbie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aetherhole* /forum/post/14400503
> 
> 
> I just watched the US release of Beowulf: Director's cut on Blu-ray last night and was utterly amazed by the picture quality. I don't know if I need to say more than these two words: computer generated. There are a ton of incredibly dark sequences and the blacks remained inky throughout. The movie is generally very dimly lit, but there remained an incredible amount of detail throughout the movie. The colors are muted, but it does not deter from the three-dimensional feel of the image. I didn't see any banding while I was watching. I would recommend this for Tier 0.
> 
> 
> Viewing equipment is a Pioneer Elite Pro-151FD television (1080p24 resolution)
> 
> 1920x1080p24 resolution output source direct from the Pioneer BDP-51FD
> 
> Viewing distance is 10.5-11 feet from the screen



I co sign this post also.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14413427
> 
> 
> Don't out of focus close-ups count (negatively) in PQ evaluations?
> 
> 
> I'm not suggesting that this was the only PQ negative; there was a much more general lack of the highest level of clarity in most shots.



Yes they do count negatively... but there were way more in-focus shots than out-of-focus. I don't think any face closup in Jumper gets to the level that Doomsday often exhibits. Perhaps if Doomsday is put in Lower tier 1, Jumper needs to be moved down as well?


----------



## stumlad

A few months ago, I and a couple others argued that the contrast in Mr Brooks was inconsistent. I have a screenshot that shows this. The tiny black bars are much blacker than the rest of the image. It's more apparent on displays with higher contrast ratios. This happens a good amount through the first half of the movie when we see the main character driving.

 


This next image shows something weird. I'm not sure what it is, but if you look behind Demi Moore's head by the window, you'll notice black bars. I'm not sure what is happening, but you can see that something looks wrong with all of them... Look to the left and right of her forehead and you'll see what i"m talking about. I don't know if it's part of the source or what it is... Be sure to open the image to its fullest size in the browser


----------



## haste

is the glass frosted or textured?


----------



## lont12

The black bars are just scared to be that close to Demi Moore. She looks like Chris Evans with a wig on. Time to lay off the HGH.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/14415994
> 
> 
> Yes they do count negatively... but there were way more in-focus shots than out-of-focus. *I don't think any face closup in Jumper gets to the level that Doomsday often exhibits.* Perhaps if Doomsday is put in Lower tier 1, Jumper needs to be moved down as well?



I don't agree with that comparison. And I think the worst face close-up shots in Doomsday are more common and worse than the worst in Jumper.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14413427
> 
> 
> Don't out of focus close-ups count (negatively) in PQ evaluations?
> 
> 
> I'm not suggesting that this was the only PQ negative; there was a much more general lack of the highest level of clarity in most shots.










I saw just the opposite. In general, Doomsday exhibited some of the highest level of clarity in most shots making it worthy of Tier 0.


There is no way Doomsday should be lower Tier one.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14416694
> 
> 
> I don't agree with that comparison. And I think the worst face close-up shots in Doomsday are more common and worse than the worst in Jumper.




I understand you and Stumlad feel Doomsday is lower Tier one, but as I said earlier I am digging my heels in on this one. I cannot disagree more with both your assessments. I know you both have some pull as I have seen in this thread in the past, but this time there is several of us who do believe it is Tier 0. If you own either The Patriot or a Tier 0 movie like Crank, do some back to back watching compared to Doomsday.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14416776
> 
> 
> I understand you and Stumlad feel Doomsday is lower Tier one, but as I said earlier I am digging my heels in on this one. I cannot disagree more with both your assessments. I know you both have some pull as I have seen in this thread in the past, but this time there is several of us who do believe it is Tier 0. If you own either The Patriot or a Tier 0 movie like Crank, do some back to back watching compared to Doomsday.



I was saying it should be in the middle of the top half of tier 1. (Tier 1 and 1/4). My last post was just to say that it beat Jumper and if Doomsday were low tier 1 jumper would need to move down below it.


----------



## kraemer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/14416089
> 
> 
> This next image shows something weird. I'm not sure what it is, but if you look behind Demi Moore's head by the window, you'll notice black bars. I'm not sure what is happening, but you can see that something looks wrong with all of them... Look to the left and right of her forehead and you'll see what i"m talking about. I don't know if it's part of the source or what it is... Be sure to open the image to its fullest size in the browser



I think there may be a screen behind the actress in that shot used to diffuse the lighting. Since the DOF is so small it would be considered imperceptible to the viewer but was probably exacerbated by the digitizing process and produced moire like patterns....


----------



## AEguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lont12* /forum/post/14399803
> 
> 
> Just curious if anyone else was really disappointed with the PQ of The Dark Knight in theatres. Maybe I was unlucky and saw a bad presentation of the 10,000th print of the film, but it looked really soft and had poor contrast and detail. To make matters worse the dialogue was so poorly mixed (or played back, not sure which) that much of it was unintelligible. Did I just see it in a lousy theatre or did you guys have similar experiences?





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lookilook* /forum/post/14399823
> 
> 
> Me too. I think for 95% of the folks who have seen the IMAX Prologue on the Batman Begin BR will agree that the BRD version is far superior. Edit- At least for that 6mins anyway.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14399837
> 
> 
> Going to see the Dark Knight was my first trip to the movie theatre in over 3 years. And it was also my first trip to the theatres after becoming a HD film/movie hobbyist and learning a lot about film/PQ/resolution/banding/grain,...etc (you name it).
> 
> 
> I thought the PQ was average but what was horribly distracting was this veil of noise that actually moved in a diagonal angle downwards and in the left direction down the screen at all times. It showed during trailers and the feature presentation, so it wasn't part of the film elements. Whenever there was a light background on the screen it was like a torrential downpour of very excessive grain.
> 
> 
> As far as the audio was concerned, it was very loud...that's all I remember.
> 
> 
> Brandon





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kraemer* /forum/post/14399923
> 
> 
> Too bad you guys dont have a Santikos theater there. Every screen is DLP. The dark knight looked phenomenal, as did Wall*e and Iron man....





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *H.Cornerstone* /forum/post/14399940
> 
> 
> I saw The Dark Knight recently and I thought it looked really good. In fact, the Dark Knight Prologue I watched looked just as good as it, and in fact, when I first saw it the first thing that came to mind was "Wow, this looks really good! Can't wait for the blu-ray!"
> 
> 
> BTW, I saw it at the Cine Capri here in Arizona, which is a bigger screen than normal, and I think they pay more attention to making sure that the camera is perfectly focused and what not. And they have more speakers, which was awesome for this movie.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14399998
> 
> 
> As I mentioned in my previous post, I saw Dark Night yesterday in a DLP theatre. The Theater is a year old. The PQ was disappointing and soft. I am very pleased watching BD's on my HT in comparison.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lont12* /forum/post/14400784
> 
> 
> Sounds like pretty mixed reviews on the PQ, and it appears that even with DLP theatres there is still a big variable on how much care the theatre takes to present the best possible picture. I have to say that since I went the HD route at home I have almost zero interest in going to a theatre any more. The last 4 or 5 movies that I have seen at theatres (in several different locations) were clearly inferior to the PQ I get at home on even Tier 2 or 3 Blu-rays. Combine that with the increasingly common projections problems (how many times have each of us wanted to stand up in the middle of the theatre and yell "FOCUS, Please.." at the top of our lungs), the incessant cell-phone chatter from the gangbangers in the crowd, which of course you are afraid to comment on for fear of being shot in the parking lot, and the people who seems to think that movies like Shoot 'Em Up and Doomsday are perfect fare for their talkative and inquisitive little 10 year old daughter, and going out to the movies rapidly loses it's appeal. The Dark Knight may be the last movie I see on the big screen for quite some time. My 52XBR4 purchase is looking better all the time.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14402750
> 
> 
> I saw *The Dark Knight* last week in a newly renovated theatre and I would have to echo the sentiments of those who said the PQ was disappointing. Iont12 was right in saying "...it looked really soft and had poor contrast and detail." I am hoping the Blu-ray transfer will be considerably better, for I have never seen a movie in ANY theater that could compare with Blu-ray (or HD DVD).
> 
> 
> Having said that, the audio was quite impressive and I kept thinking, "This is going to sound great on my system, especially the lower frequencies on my Velodyne sub!"
> 
> 
> Regarding the movie itself, I was a bit let down after all the hype about it. Don't get me wrong, I did enjoy it, but as one reviewer said (on Amazon), it was really *convoluted*; my one word description would be: *intense*!



As a former Booth Manager of a DLP Theatre I can wholeheartedly state that the DLP experience still hinges, though nowhere near as much as film, on the discerning eye of the projectionist.


In my opinion, some managers of DLP Theaters are instilled with the thought that "It's Digital and it takes care of itself. The guy that comes in every once a week with his laptop is handling everything."


Projectionists, now, just press buttons, load and transfer the movies, build the shows, and check to make sure the bulb strikes, the picture shows up, and the sound is at a good level (subjective). Then they can take an hour break to go to Wendy's because the Digital will be fine. There can be many whole hours where they don't pay attention to the auditoriums at all or are even in the booth.


(I was trained while running a booth of ten film projectors and six digital projectors for six months before the entire digital switch on all 16 screens, so I was constantly walking around to check these new Digital projectors and, literally, never took breaks.)


Here-in lies the problem. Because it's DLP, the projectionists think they can press the button and then walk away (granted, sadly, some film projectionists might do the same and wonder what went wrong later







).


While DLP does hold focus for days, it still goes a little out of focus week by week and it adds up. I am still an advocate of checking focus during the trailers of every show. But DLP is a deceptive beast to focus because it can look sharp and clean without actually being in focus. Focusing DLP is looking for sharpness and depth. I focused DLP with the fact that it was 2k resolution in my mind; therefore, I focused for the infamous "WOW" factor; the real pop and crispness one gets with only the best HD material.


If you have a projectionist that doesn't know how sharp a picture can look, how could said person ever focus the projected image to the best it can look?


Also, a disturbing thing with DLP, is the new opportunity for cost cutting... On film projectors, there was no way of controlling the Bulb's brightness. With film projectors, you literally had to purchase a certain wattage of bulb for greater or lesser brightness level on the screen. When you strike a film bulb, the brightness is what it is (100% on). But with DLP projectors, managers are given the option of starting the bulb anywhere from 75% to 110% of its total wattage rating. (Guess what they choose... part of the reason I no longer work at the DLP theater after two years







; as booth manager, I didn't approve, and it cost me...)


DISCLAIMER: Not all DLP Theaters are like this. It is an exciting and fantastic new distribution format, when done properly, and even sometimes when not... But don't think that because it's digital it is also infallible.


P.S.: With the right people in the Booth, The Dark Knight actually had stunningly great picture quality!







It's sad to hear you all saying it was soft. I worked the opening weekend at a Film Theater as the projectionist, and this movie blew my mind with how sharp and deep the picture quality was. Granted, I cheated because I was able to focus the projector myself... I don't like watching film when anyone else is in the booth...quite a predicament







. Especially since I don't work at either location anymore.


P.S.S.: A Manager at one of these theatres suggested this: "...Maybe your standards are too high." (I was floored with sadness and pride all at once...)


-AEguy-


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Good read AEGuy...hopefully theaters will realize what is going on and make it a standard to do what you do.


----------



## briankmonkey

Spiderman 3.. I'd say Tier 0, though part of me wants to go Tier 1 for all the crappy CGI scenes which there were plenty of.. Either way the movie sucks arse.


And for the dude (victum of the deleted posts)who put Dark City just above Blade Runner that sounds about right.


----------



## mbird

I was not impressed with Unbreakable - there were strange artifacts, and it didn't look filmlike at all. It had a very processed appearance. I would move it down to the top of Tier 4.


Also, I would move Paprika up near the top of Tier 3.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briankmonkey* /forum/post/14421713
> 
> 
> 
> And for the dude (victum of the deleted posts)who put Dark City just above Blade Runner that sounds about right.



Still disagree. Tier 2. DNR; EE.


----------



## briankmonkey




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14423273
> 
> 
> Still disagree. Tier 2. DNR; EE.



I was only agreeing that it looked slightly better than Blade Runner. Neither are Tier 1 IMO due to inconsistancy. Tier 2 might even be generous if we actually following the descriptions given on page 1. Hard to rate though due to the movie being Tier 1 or 0 in one scene then Tier 3-4 in the next.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/14410321
> 
> 
> I don't think Doomsday is Tier 0, but I also don't think it's bad enough for low tier 1. The face closups and overall look of the film exceeded Jumper, but was not as good (the better word is consistent) as the higher tier 1 titles. I think the gravel of the road in the chase scene looked awesome. Face closeups were up there with the best -- when they were in focus...
> 
> 
> I'd place it somewhere in the middle of the upper half of tier 1



Since my follow-up post was lost, I agree with this placement, based on outstanding PQ in the last half hour (far better than earlier sections).


----------



## Lookilook

I think Doomsday is very close to Live free or die hard in overall PQ. Definitly above Shooter...


----------



## clutch69

Anybody watch The Lost Boys yet???? I have read some reviews indicating a very good PQ, just wanted to hear from the real people.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Anyone have any ideas on retrieving some of the lost posts from this thread? Several of my recommendations unfortunately were not saved to my computer so it is like they vanished into thin air. Would google cache or something similar have this thread stored for the recent lost posts?


Update: I have recovered several pages of this thread going through Google's cache. Run a search string in Google like this (you can also use your own screen name):


phantom stranger tier site: www.avsforum.com 


and click on the cached links. Look for pages past 185 in the tier thread for lost posts. I noticed lgans316 and bplewis24 among others had recommendations that are now missing. Several of my recommendations to be reposted soon...


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Rescue Me: The Complete Third Season*


tier recommendation: middle of *Tier 2*


Sony released this show on Blu-ray in June of 2007. There are thirteen episodes spread across four separate BD-50s (if only certain other studios treated their television releases this way). The average episode runs for a length of approximately 43 minutes and all together the entire set totals approximately 572 minutes of 1080P HD material.


The video is encoded in AVC and the compression job is as good as it gets. The video bitrate for all discs ranges from a minimum of 19.8 Mbps to a peak of 42.3 Mbps, though most scenes stay firmly in the 24-31 Mbps range. I would estimate the average video bitrate is around 26 or 27 Mbps for the entire set. There is no banding or compression noise visible at all. Artifacting never appears even for brief flashes and the image appears rock solid and stable. Even during the smoky fire scenes you never really see any signs of artifacting.


Contrast is solid for a title in tier two, though objects appear slightly washed out in scenes set in the firehouse. Outdoor scenes and other interior scenes appear excellent though with very nicely balanced colors. Black levels are very solid and never really waver except for a few short scenes during actual fires. Shadow detail is better than average.


Fleshtones look accurate in general though over the course of 572 minutes there are short segments where skin looks a little under or over cooked depending on the setting. The HD master used looks in perfect shape, as the image is free of any anomalies or defects. For the most part the image is relatively grain free except for the opening credit sequence, which looks to have been shot with 16mm film.


While this transfer appears free of any type of digital noise reduction tinkering, at times moderately heavy edge haloes do appear. Most of the episodes show some form of artificial sharpening. For such a clean presentation I was a little disappointed with the overall detail revealed. It seems to be source related as exterior scenes consistently show superior detail and clarity that would earn from me a high tier two ranking. Outdoor scenes regularly show nice depth and dimension to the image with very nice detail. But interior scenes, particularly the ones in the firehouse, show slightly less detail and pop and would be around the middle of tier two for my tastes. The only scenes that ever drop into tier three quality are the smoke filled fire rescues, but these make up a relatively small portion of the overall runtime. The entire transfer is sharp throughout with few soft shots.


Sony has presented this show's image in the best presentation possible and I recommend a middle of tier two placement for this Blu-ray around Independence Day. I can't imagine this show ever looking any better as it is a giant step up from the DVDs.


Watching on a calibrated 60 Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080P/24 fed by a PS3 from a viewing distance of 5.5 feet.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Hills Have Eyes 2*


tier recommendation: middle of *Tier 1*


Fox released this Blu-ray in October of 2007. The 90 minute movie is encoded in AVC on a BD-25. The back of the case claims the average video bitrate is 18 Mbps though that number seems a bit low from what I witnessed. The video bitrate ranges from a low of 12.4 Mbps to an absolute peak of 36.1 Mbps over the course of the movie. Many scenes in the first half of the movie continuously stay in the 20's though it dips later in the movie. I can't complain about the compression job as there are no visible compression artifacts on screen, even in the many difficult shots of the desert and sky. My only small complaint is that resolution seems to drop from excellent to merely very good when some scenes hover in the 14 to 18 Mbps range. This is a very good compression job considering the source material.


The master used for this transfer looks perfect with not a single blemish or stray mark. Colors look very realistic and natural with a very solid and stable contrast to the image. Fleshtones look spot-on and never waver even in the darker segments of the feature. Black levels are deep, dark, and inky throughout the movie. The last 40 minutes or so takes place mainly in various underground tunnels and even then excellent shadow information is visible with no signs of macroblocking or banding. This Blu-ray consistently demonstrates reference quality low light detail.


The entire feature is sharp and resolution is generally excellent with no filters or DNR used to reduce micro detail. As I said earlier the only times high frequency information drops to merely very good quality is when the video bitrate drops into the teens. Even with that in mind, facial and hair detail is great most of the time. The extra detail really brings out the great makeup work done on the mutants. There is solid depth and a nice pop to the image, particularly in the first 45 minutes of the feature where it takes place in the middle of a sunny day in the desert. The image does turn a little flatter in the darker lit segments. There is some very minor edge enhancement applied to certain scenes, but I think a discerning viewer would not notice unless they were watching on a giant projection screen.


Overall I thought this BD's transfer was of excellent quality with few flaws. I recommend a placement somewhere in the middle of tier one near Semi-Pro.


Watching on a 60" calibrated Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080P/24 fed from a PS3 at a viewing distance of six feet.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Attention *SuprSlow*:


The Hills Have Eyes 2 Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Fox


video codec needs to be changed to AVC


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Masters Of Horror: Season I Volume II*


tier recommendation: third quarter of *Tier 3*


Starz released this Blu-ray in October of 2007. All three episodes are encoded in AVC and presented in 1080i on a single BD-50. As I've done before on this particular series I think it is better to review each individual episode since there is no consistent look between them. The total running time for all three episodes combined is approximately 173 minutes.


"Jenifer" - The first episode on the disc presents a middle of the road HD image that individually I would place in Tier 3. Okay resolution but the heaviest edge enhancement I've seen on a Blu-ray since Scary Movie. The look is flat for the most part with bland colors. The compression job is solid though with most of the video encode staying in the mid-20's with occasional peaks in the low 30's. Definitely not demo material but seems faithful to the source material. Colors tend to be a little flat with skintones looking a little too reddish.


"Sick Girl" - By far the worst looking episode I've seen on any of these Masters of Horror BDs. The entire episode looks soft with frequent black crush obscuring details. Resolution and detail rarely gets above tier four quality. No compression artifacting appears as the video seems encoded at even higher levels than Jenifer. I would estimate the average video bitrate in the high 20's. At times the grain looks so heavy I wondered whether this episode was shot on 16mm film. This episode is clearly tier four quality.


"Deer Woman" - The best looking episode of this particular disc, I would place it somewhere in the middle half of tier two. Resolution and clarity is very nice with a very sharp clear look. Deer Woman gets the highest bitrates I've seen on any Starz title with the AVC encode frequently peaking in the high 30's or low 40's. There are no compression artifacts or banding present and the source material looks in the best shape of the three episodes. There is some minor edge enhancement noticeable. The major problem with this transfer is the overly warm skintones throughout the episode. Everyone looks like they just came sunburned from the beach.


Combining the three episodes I would rank this title in the third quarter of tier three. While Starz seems to have used the extra space to this BD's advantage with high bitrates, these episodes simply don't look like they come from nicely shot material with the exception of Deer Woman.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Exorcism of Emily Rose*


tier recommendation: upper half of *Tier 1*


Sony just released this Blu-ray in the U.S. a few weeks ago. The 121 minute movie is encoded in AVC on a BD-50. The video encode ranges in a narrow band from 29.4 to 32.5 Mbps for the entire feature. I would estimate an average video bitrate of 31 Mbps. There are absolutely no compression problems seen in the image. The compression job is one of the best I've seen on Blu-ray.


Detail and clarity excel for long stretches of the feature, particularly in the courtroom scenes which make up most of the movie. The courtroom scenes approach tier zero in image quality. They consist of a razor sharp image with excellent contrast and color tonality. There is also a ton of pop and depth of field to the image in these scenes rarely seen in a typical drama. Of course colors are a little more restrained than what is typical in an action movie but no one should expect a modern courtroom to have bright colors splashed everywhere. Expect a more somber look and tone.


I have to commend this Blu-ray for its phenomenal black levels. There is no blooming or macroblocking as the white and black levels appear perfect. The darker scenes have impressive shadow delineation and high frequency information. Nothing gets obscured in the darker segments, even in certain tough scenes like the exorcism.


The master used looks in very good shape aside from the presence of a few isolated digital scratch removal white specks that show up. I don't think they would be noticeable to the casual viewer. The only real negative found on this transfer is the persistent edge enhancement halos added to it.


I recommend a placement somewhere in the upper half of tier one near Identity.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Here is the link to the missing page 186 via Google cache. I have no idea how long this cache will last.

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:...lnk&cd=1&gl=us 


Here is the original page 185:

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:...lnk&cd=3&gl=us


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/14425639
> 
> 
> Anyone have any ideas on retrieving some of the lost posts from this thread? Several of my recommendations unfortunately were not saved to my computer so it is like they vanished into thin air. Would google cache or something similar have this thread stored for the recent lost posts?
> 
> 
> Update: I have recovered several pages of this thread going through Google's cache. Run a search string in Google like this (you can also use your own screen name):
> 
> 
> phantom stranger tier site: www.avsforum.com
> 
> 
> and click on the cached links. Look for pages past 185 in the tier thread for lost posts. I noticed lgans316 and bplewis24 among others had recommendations that are now missing. Several of my recommendations to be reposted soon...



Thanks Phantom. I think it's better to save a local copy of our postings which we consider to be important.

*Night Watch (Japan Import) Video: AVC | Audio: Dolby True HD | AR: 1.85:1 | Fox* - *Tier 2 below MI-3*

*Day Watch (Japan Import) Video: AVC | Audio: Dolby True HD | AR: 2.35:1 | Fox* - *Tier 2 above MI-3*

*The Ruins: Unrated Edition Video: VC-1 | Audio: Dolby TrueHD | AR: 2.35:1 | DreamWorks* - *Tier 2 above Starship Troopers (Import)*

*Days of Glory (U.K Import | Jaggies) Video: AVC | Audio: DTS 1.5 Mbps | AR: 2.35:1 | Metrodome* - *Tier 2 above V for Vendetta*

*Tau ming chong aka The Warlords (Hong Kong Import) Video: AVC | Audio: DTS HD MA, Dolby True HD | AR: 2.35:1 | Mega Star* - *Tier 2 above Donnie Brasco*

*Saat po long aka SPL (Hong Kong Import | DNR|EE) Video: AVC | Audio: DTS HD MA, Dolby True HD | AR: 1.85:1 | Deltamac* - *Bottom of Tier 2*

*The Perfect Storm Video: VC-1 | Audio: Dolby True HD | AR: 2.35:1 | Warner* - *Tier 3 above Enter the Dragon*

*Disturbia Video: AVC | Audio: DTS 1.5 Mbps | AR: 1.85:1 | DreamWorks* - *Tier 2 below MI-3*


----------



## maverick0716

Dark City was quite surprising to me due to it being over 10 years old. I thought it had great picture quality, with very good overall sharpness, colour and black levels. I would compare the picture quality on this one to Blade Runner. The movie is very dark for 99% of the movie, but it still manages to retain very good sharpness with only a few moments of softness. I'd rate this one right above Blade Runner in Tier 1.


As for the movie itself.......it was really good! I had never seen it before, but I wouldn't be surprised if it inspired many moments in The Matrix......very cool.


42" Panasonic Plasma

PS3 through HDMI

6-7 ft.


I'll be reviewing Mrs. Doubtfire, and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest later this week.


----------



## jostenmeat

I'll type out my thoughts once again due to the data loss here. First of all, Im not the best judge of this stuff, but I think very little, if anything, has been said about this title.


Its pretty poor. Since I use this thread a lot in aiding my purchases, the lowest ranked title that I've seen is We Own The Night. I thought that was discernably better than MOH, so Im guessing roughly a copper tier. Who knows, maybe even coal, but I can't say.


I thought WOTN had better color and slightly better sharpness or pop, even if it wasn't very good to begin with. Very poor black detail during the couple of moments that come to mind. I didn't detect DNR, but who knows. I still can't spot EE or banding to save my life. Lol, ok, hope that helps.










Oh OTOH, I thought the content was quite decent, a worthy film to watch. DeNiro's accent reminds me a bit of his Cape Fear role.







And Charlize Theron is hardly an eyesore.


----------



## ballen420

Just wrapped up 3 movies between the weekend and a rainy Monday. I believe they are all unranked, or lost in the message deletions.


The Ruins - Some impressive jungle scenes, but nothing really spectacular. I think this belongs near the top of tier 2. It seemed to be lacking the level of detail I was expecting to come from a flick that was almost entirely filmed outdoors.


Gangs of New York - I thought this was a very nice looking title. No real pop to speak of, but most of the scenes were very sharp and colorful. I'd say top of tier 2 would be fitting, maybe even the bottom of tier 1.


Harold and Kumar: Escape from Guantanamo Bay - This was surprisingly the best looking flick of the bunch. Very sharp, excellent colors, and just the right amount of pop. Pleasantly surprised. I would say this one is definitely worthy of being in the top half of tier 1. Probably in the 2nd quarter of titles.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ballen420* /forum/post/14428281
> 
> 
> 
> Gangs of New York - I thought this was a very nice looking title. No real pop to speak of, but most of the scenes were very sharp and colorful. I'd say top of tier 2 would be fitting, maybe even the bottom of tier 1.



I haven't watched this one, but every other comment I've seen about the PQ has been extremely negative. Has anybody else here watched it?


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/14425972
> 
> 
> Dark City...The movie is very dark for 99% of the movie, but it still manages to retain very good sharpness with only a few moments of softness. I'd rate this one right above Blade Runner in Tier 1.



Isn't this the movie that supposedly has very bad DNR?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14428328
> 
> 
> I haven't watched this one, but every other comment I've seen about the PQ has been extremely negative. Has anybody else here watched it?



I believe the negatives related to it are regarding high levels of EE.


Brandon


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14428408
> 
> *Isn't this the movie that supposedly has very bad DNR?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the negatives related to it are regarding high levels of EE.
> 
> 
> Brandon



Based on my viewing, Dark City has virtually pervasive DNR that is quite bothersome as well as sporadic EE.


----------



## unclepauly

Is this "pop" you guys speak of able to be measured? I've seen this term used almost officially and would like to have measurements to rank films against each other. Kthxhai


----------



## briankmonkey




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14428408
> 
> 
> Isn't this the movie that supposedly has very bad DNR?



It is really inconsistent. Some scenes have fantastic detail and clarity (opening scene with Murdock)while others are very blurry (Jennifer Connely's first scene). Those two scenes mentioned as they are close to each other within five minutes. If the entire movie looked like the first scene it would be tier zero, if it all looked like JC's first scene tier 4.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14428479
> 
> 
> Based on my viewing, Dark City has virtually pervasive DNR that is quite bothersome as well as sporadic EE.



I noticed a bit of DNR in some of the softer looking scenes......but there were definitely a lot of sharp scenes. Even if there was a bit of DNR and EE, it wasn't absolutely horrible by any means.


----------



## b_scott

on Thursday i posted that *One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest* should be mid tier-2. even though it's the best Kubrick transfer i've seen, and a really sharp picture. it's just old, but it looks the best that i assume it ever has. definitely check it out.


----------



## briankmonkey




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/14431192
> 
> 
> I noticed a bit of DNR in some of the softer looking scenes......but there were definitely a lot of sharp scenes. Even if there was a bit of DNR and EE, it wasn't absolutely horrible by any means.



Agreed. Overall very enjoyable.


----------



## babrown92




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briansemerick* /forum/post/14431212
> 
> 
> on Thursday i posted that *One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest* should be mid tier-2. even though it's the best Kubrick transfer i've seen, and a really sharp picture. it's just old, but it looks the best that i assume it ever has. definitely check it out.



Kubrick didnt direct Cuckoo's Nest.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/14431192
> 
> 
> I noticed a bit of DNR in some of the softer looking scenes......but there were definitely a lot of sharp scenes. Even if there was a bit of DNR and EE, it wasn't absolutely horrible by any means.



Well, it wasn't as bad as Patton. . .


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *babrown92* /forum/post/14431313
> 
> 
> Kubrick didnt direct Cuckoo's Nest.



whoops, i always thought he did i guess. the cover threw me off, looks similar to the Kubrick releases. well it looks great.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briansemerick* /forum/post/14431339
> 
> 
> whoops, i always thought he did i guess. the cover threw me off, looks similar to the Kubrick releases. well it looks great.



I agree


----------



## AlexanderG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/14416089
> 
> 
> A few months ago, I and a couple others argued that the contrast in Mr Brooks was inconsistent. I have a screenshot that shows this. The tiny black bars are much blacker than the rest of the image. It's more apparent on displays with higher contrast ratios. This happens a good amount through the first half of the movie when we see the main character driving.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This next image shows something weird. I'm not sure what it is, but if you look behind Demi Moore's head by the window, you'll notice black bars. I'm not sure what is happening, but you can see that something looks wrong with all of them... Look to the left and right of her forehead and you'll see what i"m talking about. I don't know if it's part of the source or what it is... Be sure to open the image to its fullest size in the browser




YES!!!! Thanks very much, the screenshot of the cityscape is EXACTLY what I see on my TV - utterly craptastic black levels... How anyone can call a movie Tier 0 with blacks as bad as that is beyond belief. I've been arguing for months about how Mr Brook's does not belong in Tier 0, and here are the pics to prove it... Any list that places a disc with black levels this bad among the "best of the best" does not seem like a very accurate list.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/14431192
> 
> 
> I noticed a bit of DNR in some of the softer looking scenes......but there were definitely a lot of sharp scenes. Even if there was a bit of DNR and EE, it wasn't absolutely horrible by any means.



That's very interesting. I may have to move this title up in my queue. From a brief read in the comparison pix thread last week you'd think it was the worst thing to grace HD media since inception.


Brandon


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AlexanderG* /forum/post/14431835
> 
> 
> YES!!!! Thanks very much, the screenshot of the cityscape is EXACTLY what I see on my TV - utterly craptastic black levels... How anyone can call a movie Tier 0 with blacks as bad as that is beyond belief. I've been arguing for months about how Mr Brook's does not belong in Tier 0, and here are the pics to prove it... Any list that places a disc with black levels this bad among the "best of the best" does not seem like a very accurate list.



Two pictures don't prove much unless the runtime of a movie is under 10 seconds. That's the biggest problem with some comparison threads...you can skew it to fit the agenda. I'm not saying stumlad has an agenda, because I agree that the contrast was bad in spots. But the point is that 2 pictures can't give you a comprehensive understanding of the PQ of a title.


Brandon


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AlexanderG* /forum/post/14431835
> 
> 
> YES!!!! Thanks very much, the screenshot of the cityscape is EXACTLY what I see on my TV - utterly craptastic black levels... How anyone can call a movie Tier 0 with blacks as bad as that is beyond belief. I've been arguing for months about how Mr Brook's does not belong in Tier 0, and here are the pics to prove it... Any list that places a disc with black levels this bad among the "best of the best" does not seem like a very accurate list.



It strikes me that complaining about this is rather bizarre, like complainng that "the reds in this movie are not my favorite shade of red" and therefore the PQ is deficient. This extreme and obsessive over-emphasis on "black levels" to the exclusion of all else seems completely misguided to me.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14432951
> 
> 
> That's very interesting. I may have to move this title up in my queue. From a brief read in the comparison pix thread last week *you'd think it was the worst thing to grace HD media since inception.*
> 
> 
> Brandon



It's not the worst PQ in history by any means. But the DNR in particular is in fact quite bothersome.


----------



## SCRUN68

I caught The Signal last night...interesting horror flick, but terrible blu-ray. There was grain everywhere, most scenes were washed out, most blacks looked gray and there was really no pop at all.


Pretty ugly for the most part, including a few scenes that were just overwhelmingly bad looking, and this is from someone who isn't a hard-core videophile.


I'd say it belongs in copper at best.


FYI: It has DTS-MA audio and a 1:85 aspect ratio.


Audio wasn't half bad, pretty good LFE support, lots of rumbling.


----------



## b_scott

thanks, i almost rented it.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *alexg75* /forum/post/14001530
> 
> 
> Well Rob,I really enjoyed the film as well but....
> 
> I have to disagree with your assesment of JUNO's PQ.I saw it this afternoon and thought it was an extremely solid transfer.
> 
> Yes the colors are oversaturated,but so what? That's what the filmakers wanted.The contrast and black levels were very well-balanced and the detail was there without standing out and calling attention to itself.There is a slight grain to the image which adds that extra texture to the image.
> 
> I couldn't spot anything that would or could be considered a negative PQ wise,then again I'm not sitting with my face on the screen and checking the bit-rate meter hoping to find something to nitpick about.
> 
> And I'm not suggesting that YOU did,so don't get your engines a rumblin'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I recommend a least a mid to lower Tier 1 placement or bottom half placement based on the changes that are being made to the Tiers.
> 
> 
> Panny 1080p 42inch plasma
> 
> @ 8ft
> 
> Sony BDP-S300 BR player



Finally got the chance to watch Juno and I agree with the above assessment. IMO Juno is definitely top Tier-2 or bottom Tier-1 material. Though the colors were over-saturated they didn't bleed. Contrast and Black Levels looked balanced. Close-up shots were well detailed. Fine object detailing was quite impressive. Grain structure is in-tact. There were no signs of print impurities or DNR or EE or bit rate starvation. For an independent film with tight budget I couldn't ask for more besides the extras which could have been presented in HD.


Recommendation : *Top Tier-2*

http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=67729


----------



## bplewis24

Current placement of Juno is mid/lower Tier 2. I originally voted for high tier 2, and it sounds like you guys are pushing for something closer to that. I wouldn't disagree with that.


Brandon


----------



## briankmonkey

Beowulf - Tier 0 (The movie itself wasn't very good) Though if I had to rate it on the animations and facial expressions it would drop quite a bit.. Really makes me appreciate Ratatouille that much more


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briankmonkey* /forum/post/14449463
> 
> 
> Beowulf - Tier 0 (The movie itself wasn't very good) Though if I had to rate it on the animations and facial expressions it would drop quite a bit.. Really makes me appreciate Ratatouille that much more



I agree. The import version is already placed in Tier-0. I think we may be in a minority out here as members like Patrick may not be a fan of the look and feel of Beowulf. Anyways opinions vary among people and that's why we are here.







The U.S version can be placed on top of the import as it looked a hair sharper with slightly elevated contrast and black levels. The bit rates hovers in the upper 20s and low 30s which is almost twice the rate used in the import. Stacy Spears (sspears) commented that the U.S version will be encoded from a superior master.


If TMNT is pushed to Tier-1 then Beowulf can also be pushed down in parallel.


Yesterday I received the U.K version of Happy Feet which features LPCM audio. Watched few scenes in random. IMO it looks as sharp and vibrant as a Pixar release but the experience is spoiled to an extent by discernible banding. I initially thought TMNT looked better than Happy Feet but I now feel the opposite.


----------



## bori




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14449491
> 
> 
> I agree. The import is placed in Tier-0. The U.S version can be placed on top of it as it looked a hair sharper with slightly elevated contrast and black levels. I think we may be in a minority out here as members like Patrick may not be a fan of the look and feel of the movie. Anyways opinions vary among people and that's why we are here.



Yes above import, I thought it looked great and also enjoyed the movie.


----------



## briankmonkey

Yeah, I wasn't digging the look that much other, gory shrekish look. The facial animations were bland and lacking in emotion as well which IMO is very important. The water snake beasts looked pretty cool at least.


The castle on the water immediately triggered me to sing The Last Unicorn theme, my friend was thinking the same thing :-0


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14449491
> 
> 
> I agree. The import version is already placed in Tier-0. I think we may be in a minority out here as *members like Patrick may not be a fan of the look and feel of Beowulf.* Anyways opinions vary among people and that's why we are here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The U.S version can be placed on top of the import as it looked a hair sharper with slightly elevated contrast and black levels. The bit rates hovers in the upper 20s and low 30s which is almost twice the rate used in the import. Stacy Spears (sspears) commented that the U.S version will be encoded from a superior master.
> 
> 
> If TMNT is pushed to Tier-1 then Beowulf can also be pushed down in parallel.
> 
> 
> Yesterday I received the U.K version of Happy Feet which features LPCM audio. Watched few scenes in random. IMO it looks as sharp and vibrant as a Pixar release but the experience is spoiled to an extent by discernible banding. I initially thought TMNT looked better than Happy Feet but I now feel the opposite.



How did you guess?


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14449753
> 
> 
> How did you guess?



Though close-up shots exhibit tremendous details, the live animation characters can have the tendency to look soft and waxy as our brains automatically tries to envision the animated characters to real ones (Beowulf vs Man on Fire). 75% of Beowulf is dark and may not please the eye candy crowd who have the tolerance to only accept 25% darkness. Also there are quite a number of scenes that have a misty background with Silver/Gray hues that has the tendency to rob the image off three dimensionality and depth. Just my opinion.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14449765
> 
> 
> Though close-up shots exhibit tremendous details, *the live animation characters can have the tendency to look soft and waxy as our brains automatically tries to envision the animated characters to real ones* (Beowulf vs Man on Fire). 75% of Beowulf is dark and may not please the eye candy crowd who have the tolerance to only accept 25% darkness. Also there are quite a number of scenes that have a misty background with Silver/Gray hues that has the tendency to rob the image off three dimensionality and depth. Just my opinion.



I watched about a half hour of the import. I don't like animation, and the bizarre blend of animation with live action in this is just too weird for me to tolerate. So, basically, yes, you were right.


----------



## mp3junkie

Why do you guys move keep moving titles from one tier to another.? It doesn't make any sense at all. For example, Spider Man 3 was a tier 0 movie at one point, now it has been moved to tier 1. If this movie was a tier 0 then why do you move it to tier 1 after a period of time. There are several movies like that CR, SM3, AP. I just don't understand what you guys are doing. Some people make buying decisions based off these ranking but you guys are confusing the heck out of people.


Just my two cents...


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Consider the Tier rankings as always being under evaluation with new information affecting the placement of certain titles. Standards and practices have evolved over time since this list was started. As the bar is continually being raised with new releases, expect certain BDs to move down as Blu-ray releases mature even more.


----------



## 357

I lost faith in this thread some time ago.


----------



## LazerViking




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/14455758
> 
> 
> Consider the Tier rankings as always being under evaluation with new information affecting the placement of certain titles. Standards and practices have evolved over time since this list was started. As the bar is continually being raised with new releases, expect certain BDs to move down as Blu-ray releases mature even more.



Doesn't that prove the fallibility and invadlity of a tier thread though?


In all seriousness though, the tiers tend to be less a stable set of requirements because they tend to be form and evolve with every release. **** man, remember when Phantom of the Opera was the second coming of the Messiah? Stuff changes.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LazerViking* /forum/post/14456683
> 
> 
> Doesn't that prove the fallibility and invadlity of a tier thread though?



No. Why would it?


Brandon


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM

mp3junkie,


This thread's methods for evaluation involve far too much subjective opinion and/or personal conviction on the part of its participants for it to be taken seriously. The means of measuring an image and forming an opinion regarding the level of quality of that image are all within the practical limitations of each participant; in other words, as the guidelines of the original post pertain to evaluation, we each do the best that we can with what we have. And to echo Phantom, *standards and practices continue to evolve*. More importantly, the tier list and its user participants are most certainly not a manifestation of some sort of celestial dictatorship that has exclusive authority over our buying habits. The original post rightfully includes a disclaimer and description of this thread's purpose. I think this thread works reasonably well because change is accepted.


On the matter of the constantly shifting consensus of particular titles within the tier list, the only thing that I can say here is that this symptom of shifting is to be expected, and more importantly encouraged, within an environment that has aspirations to be free-thinking. The zeitgeist for the Blu-ray market will never remain the same for longer than it needs to if free-thinking is the center of it.


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *357* /forum/post/14456569
> 
> 
> I lost faith in this thread some time ago.



When it comes to the Blu-ray market, I can say with certainty that faith won't help your wallet.


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LazerViking* /forum/post/14456683
> 
> 
> Doesn't that prove the fallibility of a tier thread though?



Edited. And the answer is 'yes', imo.


----------



## Macfan424




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cold_As_IceSMM* /forum/post/14458334
> 
> 
> ...This thread's methods for evaluation involve far too much subjective opinion and/or personal conviction on the part of its participants for it to be taken seriously...



...And too small a sample, dominated by a few very vocal regulars, some of whom are not especially tolerant of others. Unfortunately, there are would be contributors who have been chased away.


That said, the thread still serves a useful purpose, and the effort that goes into maintaining the list should be applauded. It's a handy reference, if not the definitive word. The review links alone are worth a great deal.


----------



## maverick0716

Doomsday is one of the most consistently detailed and near perfect BD's I've seen in a long time. The detail for 99% of the movie is right up there with other Tier 0 titles. It also had very vibrant colours and deep black levels.....I honestly couldn't find anything to complain about. On top of the other things mentioned there's also tons of eye candy in the movie, ranging from huge fiery explosions, blood splatter, and great scenic locations. *Awesome. Not only would I recommend for Tier 0......but near the top, right below the Pirates of the Caribbean movies.*


42" Panasonic Plasma (768p)

PS3 through HDMI

6-7 ft.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Nice mav...I still gotta check that one out


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Macfan424* /forum/post/14464303
> 
> 
> ...And too small a sample, dominated by a few very vocal regulars, some of whom are not especially tolerant of others. Unfortunately, there are would be contributors who have been chased away.
> 
> 
> That said, the thread still serves a useful purpose, and the effort that goes into maintaining the list *should be applauded. It's a handy reference, if not the definitive word. The review links alone are worth a great deal.*



Yep. Totally agree.


----------



## Cliff Stephenson

Yeah, unfortunately the tier thread is fairly useless for anyone who actually cares more about films than they do about their players and displays.


The tiers don't evaluate the quality of a disc; they rank the untrained *EXPECTATIONS* of a small group of people. It's the expectation that every movie on Blu-ray should look like Ratatouille or I, Robot and when these unqualified personal _expectations_ are not met, the discs are penalized and categorized as underwhelming or poor despite how visually transparent and true to the original source they might be.


I'll give you a clear cut example of how badly maintained this ranking system is. Young Guns is listed higher than excellent titles like Rocky, Hoosiers, and Sleepy Hollow, yet it is one of the worst cases of a bobbed release on the format ever. It's damn near unwatchable. Similarly, Lethal Weapon is listed as a bobbed title when it has been shown repeatedly to not suffer those artifacts.


I understand the point of the thread, but the Olympics-style categorization of these titles shows a real contempt for the art of filmmaking and is instead about nothing but the technology of the box these get played in. I would rather see all of this energy focused on transforming the tier thread into more of an educational thread about why things look like they do, instead of complaining about a disc because your expectations were out of line. This might actually encourage some people to openly discuss and (gasp) LEARN something. Once you learn _why_ things look the way they do you can actually start to appreciate these discs even more and you might see the beauty in discs you otherwise thought were underwhelming. All this thread does otherwise is ensure that the inexperienced are worse off than when they arrived.


----------



## lgans316

So few titles among 100s getting incorrectly placed made you think that the Tier thread is badly maintained ?










AVS recently suffered database failure and data loss and the admins couldn't recover the data from Aug-3-2008. Does that mean AVS database servers are poorly maintained ?










The list is evolving and changing on a routine basis. If someone recommends a pathetic looking title for Tier-1 another person is simply going to reject it. Also titles that are placed in Tier-0 or Tier-1 could get pushed further down the list when the bar is raised by upcoming titles. The list is 90~95% accurate and I am not sure why you are picking the bad percentage of titles that are incorrectly placed.


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cliff Stephenson* /forum/post/14467575
> 
> 
> Yeah, unfortunately the tier thread is fairly useless for anyone who actually cares more about films than they do about their players and displays.
> 
> 
> The tiers don’t evaluate the quality of a disc; they rank the untrained *EXPECTATIONS* of a small group of people. It’s the expectation that every movie on Blu-ray should look like Ratatouille or I, Robot and when these unqualified personal _expectations_ are not met, the discs are penalized and categorized as “underwhelming” or “poor” despite how visually transparent and true to the original source they might be.
> 
> 
> I’ll give you a clear cut example of how badly maintained this ranking system is. Young Guns is listed higher than excellent titles like Rocky, Hoosiers, and Sleepy Hollow, yet it is one of the worst cases of a “bobbed” release on the format ever. It’s damn near unwatchable. Similarly, Lethal Weapon is listed as a “bobbed” title when it has been shown repeatedly to not suffer those artifacts.
> 
> 
> I understand the point of the thread, but the Olympics-style categorization of these titles shows a real *contempt for the art of filmmaking* and is instead about nothing but the technology of the box these get played in. I would rather see all of this energy focused on transforming the tier thread into more of an educational thread about why things look like they do, instead of complaining about a disc because your expectations were out of line. This might actually encourage some people to openly discuss and (gasp) LEARN something. Once you learn _why_ things look the way they do you can actually start to appreciate these discs even more and you might see the beauty in discs you otherwise thought were “underwhelming.” All this thread does otherwise is ensure that the inexperienced are worse off than when they arrived.



Perhaps not _contempt_, but rather, indifference, which I actually have no quarrel with. This _is_ AVScience. I see nothing wrong with taking a piece of art into another playing field for the purpose of dissection, as long as it's in another playing field, which is precisely what this thread is endeavoring. I think that it's inevitable that some amount of pseudo-science will be accepted along the way as standards and practices continue to evolve.


My point is that one's primary goal when making any kind of purchase should be to cross reference information that you come across to find an uncertain but fairly well substantiated consensus, which is a very simple and common sense point to make, but a very important one nonetheless. In other words, a best guess.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Macfan424* /forum/post/14464303
> 
> 
> ...And too small a sample, dominated by a few very vocal regulars, some of whom are not especially tolerant of others. Unfortunately, there are would be contributors who have been chased away.



That's purely your opinion. The intolerant are the ones who come in screaming and complaining about one or two movies and when their word isn't taken as gospel and the title not moved they say this thread is worthless and has no credibility and proceed to trash it from there on out. Calling people here intolerant is unfounded. Nobody has been "chased away" who actually wanted to contribute to this thread. For you to make that accusation you may want to be able to back it up with some evidence.


Brandon


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14468264
> 
> 
> That's purely your opinion. The intolerant are the ones who come in screaming and complaining about one or two movies and when their word isn't taken as gospel and the title not moved they say this thread is worthless and has no credibility and proceed to trash it from there on out. Calling people here intolerant is unfounded. Nobody has been "chased away" who actually wanted to contribute to this thread. For you to make that accusation you may want to be able to back it up with some evidence.
> 
> 
> Brandon



As usual, Brandon, you have put it just right. It really is striking the way that certain posters seem interested in discussing at most one or two favored titles (I Am Legend, for example, or black levels in Mr. Brooks) and when their view doesn't prevail, decide that the whole thread lacks credibility.


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14468350
> 
> 
> As usual, Brandon, you have put it just right. It really is striking the way that certain posters seem interested in discussing at most one or two favored titles (I Am Legend, for example, or black levels in Mr. Brooks) and when their view doesn't prevail, decide that the whole thread lacks credibility.



If this is pointed at me, I think you're bending what I've said in my previous few comments.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cliff Stephenson* /forum/post/14467575
> 
> 
> Yeah, unfortunately the tier thread is fairly useless for anyone who actually cares more about films than they do about their players and displays.
> 
> 
> The tiers don't evaluate the quality of a disc; they rank the untrained *EXPECTATIONS* of a small group of people.
> 
> 
> I understand the point of the thread, but the Olympics-style categorization of these titles shows a real contempt for the art of filmmaking and is instead about nothing but the technology of the box these get played in.



Ahh, here we go with the bull**** again. Because the thread isn't maintained the way one person wants it to be, it's completely worthless and everybody who contributes to it is uninformed, uneducated and unrealistic in their expectations. Aside from the usual condescending "contributions," this soapbox bull about the only people who care about eye candy are people who can't possibly appreciate the film more than their players/displays really serves no real purpose other than to troll the thread AND ignore the reason for the thread's existence in the first place.


The reason for the thread has been established for quite some time and is not changing to include artistic intent. That thread exists in another part of the forum and those things can be discussed there (and if you go there you'll notice it suffers from the same exact structural flaws that this one does).


If you can't comprehend that PQ evaluations *can* be made irrelevant of the artistic intent then don't blame it on the posters of this thread and imply they're not able to understand why a film looks the way it does.


Brandon


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14468408
> 
> 
> Ahh, here we go with the bull**** again. Because the thread isn't maintained the way one person wants it to be, it's completely worthless and everybody who contributes to it is uninformed, uneducated and unrealistic in their expectations. Aside from the usual condescending "contributions," this soapbox bull about the only people who care about eye candy are people who can't possibly appreciate the film more than their players/displays really serves no real purpose other than to troll the thread AND ignore the reason for the thread's existence in the first place.
> 
> 
> The reason for the thread has been established for quite some time and is not changing to include artistic intent. That thread exists in another part of the forum and those things can be discussed there (and if you go there you'll notice it suffers from the same exact structural flaws that this one does).
> 
> 
> If you can't comprehend that PQ evaluations *can* be made irrelevant of the artistic intent then don't blame it on the posters of this thread and imply they're not able to understand why a film looks the way it does.
> 
> 
> Brandon



I agree with this.


----------



## briankmonkey

I appreciate the thread, keep up the great work!



Ok, watched Shooter (very enjoyable







) and Bridget to Teribithea (didn't really care for it, not even as a kids flick.. I guess I was expecting more actual fantasy stuff) this weekend.


IMO:

Shooter should be high Tier 1

Bridge of Teribetheai maybe low Tier 1/High Tier 2


----------



## Macfan424




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14468264
> 
> 
> That's purely your opinion.



Yes it is. As virtually every other post on this thread is someone's opinion.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14468264
> 
> 
> The intolerant are the ones who come in screaming and complaining about one or two movies and when their word isn't taken as gospel and the title not moved they say this thread is worthless and has no credibility and proceed to trash it from there on out.



Agreed, as far as you go. But there is a definite elitist undercurrent here as well. (I recognize how defensive you are about that charge, but it remains my perception.)


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14468264
> 
> 
> Calling people here intolerant is unfounded. Nobody has been "chased away" who actually wanted to contribute to this thread. For you to make that accusation you may want to be able to back it up with some evidence...



People who disagree with the prevailing opinions here have been disparaged for their equipment, visual acuity, viewing conditions, judgement and/or lack of training to make a properly informed evaluation. I'm one of them and I've seen posts by others in various other threads. I don't plan to take the time required to document this, and if you choose not to believe me for that reason, so be it.


However, I've never "thrashed" the tread, per se, nor have I ever felt offended because my attempts at PQ comments were ignored in terms of tier placement. My criticism has always been what I said yesterday, no more, no less. This tread reflects the opinions of a few. That does not invalidate it, any more than professional reviews are invalid because they are the views of a single author. Both merely need to be understood in their context, and not viewed as any kind of final authority.


I will admit to being offended by being told that my opinion had no value because my equipment did not meet someone else's minimum standard. If opinions here are reserved for those sitting three feet away from their 120" screens, fine. Just say so. There's a place for that. It may not accurately reflect the experience of those with "average" screens in "average" rooms, but that may not be the thread's intent.


In any case, my response was not to savage the thread, only to quit participating in it, as effectively asked. I still refer to the lists regularly, but only occasionally read the posts, so perhaps some things have changed. If so, I apologize for any outdated observations. Admittedly, since I don't read this often, I probably should have resisted the impulse to chime in yesterday.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14468264
> 
> 
> ...That thread exists in another part of the forum and those things can be discussed there (and if you go there you'll notice it suffers from the same exact structural flaws that this one does)...



Very true. I've dropped out of that one, too.


----------



## maverick0716

I don't agree that you need the absolute best equipment to have your opinion counted in this thread.....and I don't think anyone else does either. I personally have posted many reviews and I don't have the top tier, top of the line equipment. The only time an opinion would be questioned, is if it is so far off base of all other opinions on the same title, that something might be different or possibly wrong with the particular setup. Just for example, if 5 people vote a title for Tier 1 and one votes for Tier 3........that one vote should be at least questioned (but not disregarded).


----------



## Lookilook




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14467590
> 
> 
> Also titles that are placed in Tier-0 or Tier-1 could get pushed further down the list when the bar is raised by upcoming titles.



I think this is the part that create most of the confusions, because by this criteria, i-Robot will be a tier-2 in 2009 (does that mean i-Robot BRD's PQ deteriorated over time? NO, it means better titles are avail.). Therefore, I think some sort of time stamp or astrisk indicator is needed to help casual viewers keep track of all the movements.


----------



## HDphile22

This week coming out: Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus, Camp Rock, Street King, Scorpion King 2...


----------



## briankmonkey




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDphile22* /forum/post/14469631
> 
> 
> This week coming out: Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus, Camp Rock, Street King, Scorpion King 2...



They made a sequel to the Scorpion King? I'd actually watch that if it had the Rock in it


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Macfan424* /forum/post/14469268
> 
> 
> People who disagree with the prevailing opinions here have been disparaged for their equipment, visual acuity, viewing conditions, judgement and/or lack of training to make a properly informed evaluation. I'm one of them and I've seen posts by others in various other threads. I don't plan to take the time required to document this, and if you choose not to believe me for that reason, so be it.
> 
> 
> I will admit to being offended by being told that my opinion had no value because my equipment did not meet someone else's minimum standard. If opinions here are reserved for those sitting three feet away from their 120" screens, fine. Just say so. There's a place for that. It may not accurately reflect the experience of those with "average" screens in "average" rooms, but that may not be the thread's intent.



You make good points. I agree that nobody's opinion should be disparaged because of their equipment. If one person claims to see something that another does not, then I believe it's reasonable to ask about things like calibration, viewing distance, etc., but not to generally suggest that any one person's opinion should count for more than anothers simply because of equipment.


I am of the opinion that, if this is to be a somewhat (flawed) democratic process, no one opinion should count more than anothers. It should always be the merit of the particular post that is taking into consideration. If one person simply says "this movie rocks! tier 0," I can understand it not being given much weight. I can be fine with a person like Phantom Stranger's review given a bit more weight than mine if I only say what Tier I think movie should be and not give reasons why.


That's mainly why a small set of criteria were established when casting a vote. However what you suggest does go on, but as you pointed out it goes on throughout the entirety of AVS. And it also happens to people who criticize this thread (i.e., people who say the administrators don't have elite enough equipment to maintain the thread or don't know enough about film to make good evaluations). IMO, that is at the root of the culture of the AVS community and not this thread in particular. At least it shouldn't be.


Brandon


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lookilook* /forum/post/14469504
> 
> 
> I think this is the part that create most of the confusions, because by this criteria, i-Robot will be a tier-2 in 2009 (does that mean i-Robot BRD's PQ deteriorated over time?



I don't believe that will ever be the case. Blu-ray media and film stocks have their limits, as do our display devices. I consider it highly unlikely that I, Robot will ever be in tier 2. But in the early parts of BD adoption there were only a small sample size of movies available. It makes sense that once we have a large enough sample size with ample cases of both stellar and horrible picture quality, major movements will start to settle down and you'll just get more subtle changes (like going from bottom of tier 1 to top of tier 2, etc).


Brandon


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briankmonkey* /forum/post/14469826
> 
> 
> They made a sequel to the Scorpion King? I'd actually watch that if it had the Rock in it



It has Randy Couture in it as the main bad guy, haha. Oh well, at least he could kick the Rock's ass in real life







.


----------



## briankmonkey




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/14470276
> 
> 
> It has Randy Couture in it as the main bad guy, haha. Oh well, at least he could kick the Rock's ass in real life
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



Hmm, that could be interesting as well










There was another movie that I saw a trailer for (can't remember the name) on one of my blu-ray's that I've been meaning to rent.. Basically survival of the fittest(no rules) on an Island. One of the guys I want to say was Stone Cold or another bald wrestler/UFC guy.. Looked like a good entertaining flick.


----------



## haste




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briankmonkey* /forum/post/14470342
> 
> 
> Hmm, that could be interesting as well
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was another movie that I saw a trailer for (can't remember the name) on one of my blu-ray's that I've been meaning to rent.. Basically survival of the fittest(no rules) on an Island. One of the guys I want to say was Stone Cold or another bald wrestler/UFC guy.. Looked like a good entertaining flick.



The Condemned.


wasnt bad...wasnt great. its worth a watch at least once.


----------



## briankmonkey




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *haste* /forum/post/14471037
> 
> 
> The Condemned.
> 
> 
> wasnt bad...wasnt great. its worth a watch at least once.



Thanks, just looked at IMDB, that is the one. Yeah I figure a 1 time cheese action flick


----------



## DaveBowman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cold_As_IceSMM* /forum/post/14468118
> 
> 
> My point is that one's primary goal when making any kind of purchase should be to cross reference information that you come across to find an uncertain but fairly well substantiated consensus, which is a very simple and common sense point to make, but a very important one nonetheless. In other words, a best guess.



Exactly !!!! I kinda thought that was what everyone does. Unless I like a movie so much that I don't really care about PQ and I'm gonna buy it anyway I check out several of the Blu-ray review sites and a couple forums and see what the consensus is. If the majority of reviews say it has awesome PQ then I don't really care what "Tier" it's in or if it got 4.5 stars instead of 5 stars. It's a safe bet that it's gonna look pretty good. I disagreed with many of the other reviewers on this forum regarding Shoot Em Up, but I didn't go crying to my mommy. I asked some questions and got some very well reasoned answers from the other posters that clarified their positions. It's all subjective, there is no right or wrong. But with rare exceptions I find the consensus on this forum to match the general opinions available elsewhere. Therefore....it's useful.


----------



## DaveBowman

You can always rent before you buy if you don't trust the opinons of others. Netflix is the greatest thing since somebody mixed RedBull with their favorite adult beverage. There's almost no excuse to get stuck with a bad movie anymore.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14468264
> 
> 
> That's purely your opinion. The intolerant are the ones who come in screaming and complaining about one or two movies and when their word isn't taken as gospel and the title not moved they say this thread is worthless and has no credibility and proceed to trash it from there on out. Calling people here intolerant is unfounded. Nobody has been "chased away" who actually wanted to contribute to this thread. For you to make that accusation you may want to be able to back it up with some evidence.
> 
> 
> Brandon



A+ would read again


----------



## Cliff Stephenson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14468408
> 
> 
> Ahh, here we go with the bull**** again. Because the thread isn't maintained the way one person wants it to be, it's completely worthless and everybody who contributes to it is uninformed, uneducated and unrealistic in their expectations. Aside from the usual condescending "contributions," this soapbox bull about the only people who care about eye candy are people who can't possibly appreciate the film more than their players/displays really serves no real purpose other than to troll the thread AND ignore the reason for the thread's existence in the first place.
> 
> 
> The reason for the thread has been established for quite some time and is not changing to include artistic intent. That thread exists in another part of the forum and those things can be discussed there (and if you go there you'll notice it suffers from the same exact structural flaws that this one does).
> 
> 
> If you can't comprehend that PQ evaluations *can* be made irrelevant of the artistic intent then don't blame it on the posters of this thread and imply they're not able to understand why a film looks the way it does.
> 
> 
> Brandon



No, PQ evaluations CAN'T be made irrelevant of artist intent. Demo quality can. Picture quality is a direct result of the image placed on the disc. The better that image is reproduced, the closer to our goal we have come. *It's the top to bottom ranking of good to bad that says, "if this movie doesn't look like that movie it's a poor Blu-ray," that I have a problem with.* The discussion you guys are having has no room in the Blu-ray forum, because it never actually discusses the Blu-ray disc. I would bet that the directors and cinematographers who (in your expert opinions) have produced work you deemed "poor" or "underwhelming" without any reflection on their intentions or their technical limitations would have something to complain about in this thread as well.


This thread does more harm than good, both with those new to Blu-ray and those who make decisions about what we get to see. Unfortunately, the need for a few people to prove how smart they are seems to trump the greater good. Studio releases Title A -as is- and gets complaints that it is softer and grainier than expected. Studio releases Title A -with noise reduction and artificial sharpening- and gets complaints that it's been processed. So why should the studios bother either way?? The only way to please you guys is to only release a certain type of film!!! Unfortunately, that's exactly what's happening. I can't tell you how wonderful it is that after all this waiting, we've finally gotten xXx: State of the Union and Maximum Risk instead of critical and box office failures such as Tootsie, Bridge on the River Kwai, or Silverado.


Hey Brandon, since you're an accountant, let me float this past you. If I hire you to do my taxes and I expect to get a $75,000 refund every year, can I publicly call your work "poor" and "underwhelming" when you don't meet my expectations?


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14468264
> 
> 
> That's purely your opinion. The intolerant are the ones who come in screaming and complaining about one or two movies and when their word isn't taken as gospel and the title not moved they say this thread is worthless and has no credibility and proceed to trash it from there on out. Calling people here intolerant is unfounded. Nobody has been "chased away" who actually wanted to contribute to this thread. For you to make that accusation you may want to be able to back it up with some evidence.
> 
> 
> Brandon



I have made my points clear in the past and they seem to get ignored, but maybe I am on some ignore lists.

















While I haven't been chased away, there is a strong bias that leans towards the view of about 6 posters as to where titles get placed. Apocalypto is the example I bring up over and over. Several times an equal amount of us, about 6, have called BS on some placements and movements of placements. While I don't believe one set of 6 should rule over the other, unfortunately one consistently does. I could name names not to be an ass but to make my point, but it does seem tacky if I do. And come on let's not BS each other, you that have the sway for where titles get placed know who you are.










I use this thread as a reference as well, but know beyond a doubt that on some titles, make that many titles, I am not seeing what some are and some are not seeing what I am.


Beyond having our setups side by side we then have to take each others word for what it is and hope our displays are providing the same or at least close to the same image, which I highly doubt with so many internal and external variables (displays, players, lighting, etc).


Some have display equipment that maybe excellent at resolution and cost quite a bit, but still has poor black levels. How can the displays that don't show proper blacks be used accurately to determine PQ?










I still enjoy the thread although I think we need the devil's advocates to chime in once in a while to keep things on track.


----------



## giggle

While I do see value in this thread to say that it does not have about a 6 person bias (a couple of which views are worthless IMO) is fallable. There are a definite select few that sway the tier system. I have to agree with Hughmc on this one. This thread is however well managed and when considering the content I think does a solid job. You definitely can't make everyone happy.


----------



## alexg75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14471959
> 
> 
> I have made my points clear in the past and they seem to get ignored, but maybe I am on some ignore lists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While I haven't been chased away, there is a strong bias that leans towards the view of about 6 posters as to where titles get placed. Apocalypto is the example I bring up over and over. Several times an equal amount of us, about 6, have called BS on some placements and movements of placements. While I don't believe one set of 6 should rule over the other, unfortunately one consistently does. I could name names not to be an ass but to make my point, but it does seem tacky if I do. And come on let's not BS each other, you that have the sway for where titles get placed know who you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I use this thread as a reference as well, but know beyond a doubt that on some titles, make that many titles, I am not seeing what some are and some are not seeing what I am.
> 
> 
> Beyond having our setups side by side we then have to take each others word for what it is and hope our displays are providing the same or at least close to the same image, which I highly doubt with so many internal and external variables (displays, players, lighting, etc).
> 
> 
> Some have display equipment that maybe excellent at resolution and cost quite a bit, but still has poor black levels. How can the displays that don't show proper blacks be used accurately to determine PQ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I still enjoy the thread although I think we need the devil's advocates to chime in once in a while to keep things on track.



I share your sentiments as well,so much so I stopped even trying to post a PQ review.

Why bother?

Even though this thread is supposed to be "open" and democratic,it sure doesn't come off that sometimes.


I don't have a problem with having a limited number of reviewers doing PQ assesments,It should just be stated and made clearly.


I have been in the Home Theater industry since 1996 and was a certified projectionist for 2 years.

I was also trained in Video by Mike Wood and Brent Butterworth,both are respected names in the HT industry.

So I think I know what makes bad,good and great PQ!


-ALEX


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14471959
> 
> 
> Some have display equipment that maybe excellent at resolution and cost quite a bit, but still has poor black levels. How can the displays that don't show proper blacks be used accurately to determine PQ?



It's all relative. Even on a display with poor black levels, you can tell the difference between a disc that has very bad blacks to a disc that has very good blacks. You can make a safe and accurate comparison between Blu Ray discs when comparing them all on the same display, whether it's high end or entry level.


----------



## bplewis24

Cliff, I'm going to preface this by saying that I respect that you feel you're serving the greater good by offering your opinion and suggestions on this topic. However, we so completely disagree and I feel your stance is so off-base and misguided that it obviously doesn't come off that way in my responses to you.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cliff Stephenson* /forum/post/14471730
> 
> 
> No, PQ evaluations CAN'T be made irrelevant of artist intent.



After this there isn't much left to discuss. Thankfully that means I don't have to respond to more misguided claims about how this thread is responsible for Blu-ray wrongs/shortcomings and accusations about people trying to prove "how smart they are" as if there is an agenda to judging picture quality.



> Quote:
> Hey Brandon, since you're an accountant, let me float this past you. If I hire you to do my taxes and I expect to get a $75,000 refund every year, can I publicly call your work "poor" and "underwhelming" when you don't meet my expectations?



I ask that you don't patronize me ...and that's a non-sequitur.


Brandon


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/14472126
> 
> 
> It's all relative. Even on a display with poor black levels, you can tell the difference between a disc that has very bad blacks to a disc that has very good blacks. You can make a safe and accurate comparison between Blu Ray discs when comparing them all on the same display, whether it's high end or entry leve.



This is a science forum as I am reminded many times.







Science deals with certain standards and base points to be able to differentiate what is and what isn't. If you start with a poor, inaccurate base line, i.e. black levels, then the results witnessed will be poor and inaccurate.

I understand what you are saying, but...How can one accurately tell the difference if the actual contrast ratios on some displays are less than 800:1?... and many, actually most besides plasmas are less than 800:1 in actual testing.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *giggle* /forum/post/14472069
> 
> 
> While I do see value in this thread to say that it does not have about a 6 person bias (a couple of which views are worthless IMO) is fallable. There are a definite select few that sway the tier system. I have to agree with Hughmc on this one. This thread is however well managed and when considering the content I think does a solid job. You definitely can't make everyone happy.



I disagree with you and Hugh. Don't mistake a structural flaw for a bias. There are three administrators I believe, and as far as I know none of them are partial to any group of posters. But because there's no voting system, basically the most active members are going to have the most influence on the rankings. But what happens is most people tend to lose interest when the first couple movies aren't placed where they think it should be as they take it as a sign nobody considered their vote.


For example, Hugh believes the Apocalypto votes are being ignored despite there being just as many people voting against Apocalyto as for it.


Just keep in mind that this thread has outgrown it's design. When it was restarted pretty much everybody left and stopped contributing save for a few people. I took that as my opportunity to help out and watch more movies. A voting system wasn't needed because there weren't many participants and there was still a format war going on keeping some people at bay. And when one was initially requested the mods shot it down as not being an option.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/14472126
> 
> 
> It's all relative. Even on a display with poor black levels, you can tell the difference between a disc that has very bad blacks to a disc that has very good blacks. You can make a safe and accurate comparison between Blu Ray discs when comparing them all on the same display, whether it's high end or entry leve.



Exactly.


Brandon


----------



## RBFC

One factor that seems to escape mention is how the movie actually looks under ideal commercial movie theater presentation. In my experience, film shown at commercial theaters can have an extremely wide variation in PQ. This variation could certainly influence one's perception of how the movie's ultimate PQ "scores", both at the theater and on BD. For example, if you see film "X" at a crappy theater (poorly setup projector, etc.), then the BD may represent an "astounding" jump in PQ to you. The inverse may also hold true.


Personally, I use the tier thread to get an overall consensus on a title's quality. I believe that an individual's love for certain films can influence their opinion on PQ at times as well.


I've hesitated to post impressions in the past due to my 7th gen Pioneer Elite plasma (1366 x 768) being deemed insufficient to assess PQ on 1080p material. Reading the other responses here has convinced me that this should not be the case.


Thanks,


Lee


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14472490
> 
> 
> I disagree with you and Hugh. Don't mistake a structural flaw for a bias. There are three administrators I believe, and as far as I know none of them are partial to any group of posters. But because there's no voting system, basically the most active members are going to have the most influence on the rankings. But what happens is most people tend to lose interest when the first couple movies aren't placed where they think it should be as they take it as a sign nobody considered their vote.
> 
> 
> For example, Hugh believes the Apocalypto votes are being ignored despite there being just as many people voting against Apocalyto as for it.
> 
> 
> Just keep in mind that this thread has outgrown it's design. When it was restarted pretty much everybody left and stopped contributing save for a few people. I took that as my opportunity to help out and watch more movies. A voting system wasn't needed because there weren't many participants and there was still a format war going on keeping some people at bay. And when one was initially requested the mods shot it down as not being an option.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> 
> Brandon



Brandon, while we may disagree on some issues, what is interesting is that your PQ assessments are close to mine most often. I most often see what you do when you describe PQ. Many times what you describe is what I see. Even though I know you have a FP LCD and I have an RPTV, since they are both made by Sony and have similar PQ, maybe I am seeing more of what you do then what I see others see.


For example, this is all from memory... what you saw and described when watching Doomsday is exactly what I saw. I think you called for Tier 0 and I concured. Then other posters gave their assessments and rated it no better than mid Tier 1.


It be interesting if we had the time and money and we could travel to and from each other's areas and compare.










For the record, I don't believe my comments on Apocalypto were being ignored, but my comments on the Tier thread itself I felt were being ignored. Now that more are calling BS on some assessments, recognition is being given. My comments on Apocalypto were I believed that the voice of say 6 for moving it down were heard over the voice of an equal amount that said Apocalypto shouldn't be moved, especially since it was put there by dozens back in the day. It happens that the 6 or so had the pull which you acknowledged they do as they seem to be more active and vocal. There in lies the bias with one title as an example. It doesn't mean their PQ is more accurate just that their reitterations of said placement are more profound.


----------



## cjwynes

I wanted to thank you guys for putting together this thread. I just bought my first BD player (the Sony S350), after holding out for months with hopes of digital distribution "getting there". When I spent hours downloading enough of a 720p movie over X-Box Live to actually start watching it, I started to lose hope of that happening any time soon. I saw a BD demo display at Best Buy with "Night at the Museum" that just floored me with the 3D look, and I could tell the difference between that and the stuff I was getting.


But I should have read this thread BEFORE I bought any movies, because my blind choices resulted in my buying the poorly-ranked "House of Flying Daggers". I really like the movie itself, and it was a big letdown to come home with my first BD player and pop that in and know I've seen better stuff on X-Box Live. It was grainy to the point of distraction. I found that putting my Sammy LCD into its much-maligned "cinema mode" settings concealed the graininess, but it horribly dampened the vibrant colors. The colorful art direction is supposed to be the primary aesthetic virtue of the film, so that's a horrible compromise to make. Watching it on DVD on my old SD CRT might even be preferable.


So I went out today and picked up "I Robot", "Ratatouille" and "Order of the Phoenix", hopefully those will wow me a bit more. BTW, I noticed "Prisoner of Azkabhan" is listed near the bottom of Tier 1 but also listed just below the 1/2 line in Tier 2. Are there two versions of the disc, one of which is superiour?


----------



## Cliff Stephenson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14472430
> 
> 
> I ask that you don't patronize me ...and that's a non-sequitur.
> 
> 
> Brandon



So you do or don't think it's fair to judge something based on criteria that is outside of its control. You didn't really answer the question.


And I don't feel that my stance is misguided or off-base. In fact, I know it's not. I've had these conversations with the studio people. They feel trapped by people wanting/expecting their releases to look a certain way. That's a fact. And when it comes to science, facts trump opinions.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lookilook* /forum/post/14469504
> 
> 
> I think this is the part that create most of the confusions, because by this criteria, i-Robot will be a tier-2 in 2009 (does that mean i-Robot BRD's PQ deteriorated over time? NO, it means better titles are avail.). Therefore, I think some sort of time stamp or astrisk indicator is needed to help casual viewers keep track of all the movements.



Pushed further down the list can be taken in 2 contexts.










1) Pushed down within the currently placed Tier.

2) Pushed down to the bottom Tiers which is unlikely for exceptionally looking titles like I,Robot, Man on Fire and the other ones placed in the very top of the list but could apply for the borderline titles.










The participants out here may not have a 20/20 vision but I feel they have the required skills to come up with fair assessments though some of it which are wrong and misleading have the high potential to get debunked.


2 proponents of the tier thread are MIA. They are SuprSlow and Rob Tomlin. Where are they ?


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cliff Stephenson* /forum/post/14472884
> 
> 
> And I don't feel that my stance is misguided or off-base. In fact, I know it's not. I've had these conversations with the studio people. They feel trapped by people wanting/expecting their releases to look a certain way. That's a fact. And when it comes to science, facts trump opinions.



That's actually not a fact, it's an anecdote. And further blaming this thread for the ignorance of studio execs just illustrates how misguided your stance is. It kind of amazes me that people continually use this illogical argument. Educate your studio heads on how wrong they are and quit using the Tier Thread as a scapegoat for people that are actually *paid* to do what they do for a living and still get it wrong.


Brandon


----------



## H.Cornerstone

I think this tier thread has an unjustified bad reputation.


I do not post reviews, not because I think I am pushed away, just because I know that I do not know what to look for when reviewing a movie. Yes, I can say a movie looks good or bad, but I do not know how to look for artifacts and other things like that, so I don't post reviews for that reason because I wouldn't know how to properly place it in a tier, and they're are few trusted people who do.


And people are getting upset that a movie isn't placed in the right tier and in the right spot, and etc. Does it really matter if a movie is at the top of tier 1 instead of the bottom of tier 0? I agree that Apocalypto looks really good, and I would probably say it's Tier 0, but I am not upset that its the top of tier 1 because that means it's still rated as an extremely good looking movie and I agree. If a movie is in of the top 3 tiers, it's going to look good, and i think for some reason there is a bad stigma placed on movies if it isn't top tier 1 or tier 0.


And to echo what other people have said, this is not the definitive word, it's a reference for people to go to see get a general idea of how a movie generally looks. It's just another tool to use before buying a movie, along with reviews at other sites.


As Rob Tomlin pointed out, 28 days later was shot using 480i cameras, so it probably looks as best as it can on blu-ray. So although it follows "artistic intent" it still looks crappy and someone would be upset if it was rated tier 0-2 for that reason, bought it, and discovered it didn't look to good if they didn't know it was filmed that way.


----------



## Cliff Stephenson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14473346
> 
> 
> That's actually not a fact, it's an anecdote. And further blaming this thread for the ignorance of studio execs just illustrates how misguided your stance is. It kind of amazes me that people continually use this illogical argument. Educate your studio heads on how wrong they are and quit using the Tier Thread as a scapegoat for people that are actually *paid* to do what they do for a living and still get it wrong.
> 
> 
> Brandon



Now I'm reminded of why I hate dealing with people in threads like this. There's nothing more irritating than trying to offer actual insider insight and have people so obstinate that they lack the ability to simply shut up and listen. I'm reminded of all of the people who would rather challenge Filmmixer than learn something from him.


Now, excuse me while I bow out and return to doing things for people who actually appreciate it.


But I'll leave you with one last question to ponder since I'm supposed to educate the studio heads to something you clearly know the answer to Should they release a title as is, grain and inherent softness intact, and get complaints - or utilize DNR and Edge Enhancement to eliminate the grain and softness and get complaints? Since you clearly know more than those of us who do this daily, I'm all ears as to what we're not doing right.


----------



## lgans316

Cliff,


Could you scan through the entire list and come up with your recommendations ? We are aware that about 5% of the titles are placed incorrectly and that much % is within the acceptable limits and could get corrected in due course of time.


If you don't want to come up with any recommendations we have to assume that you have come here with the sole intention to make derogatory and defaming comments by staging a protest against the tier thread which obviously makes little to no sense.


The motto and rules of the tier thread are clearly stated on the front page and I don't see any point in debating them and frequently mixing up eye candy with artistic intents.


----------



## Cinema Squid

I appreciate and enjoy reading the civil contributions to this thread and I think it is one of the highlights of this forum.


The goals of the thread and the criteria for subjective picture evaluation are very clearly stated in the first post and they have nothing to do with artistic intent (which is nigh impossible to evaluate) or even source fidelity (which is the only possible objective PQ criteria, but also not feasible to evaluate without the original source elements). That, however, does not imply that this thread or its participants condone misguided attempts to digitally enhance pictures to meet the Tier 0 criteria for sources that cannot possibly reach it.


In other words, I don't understand the confusion or the criticism that crops up periodically.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/14473961
> 
> 
> I appreciate and enjoy reading the civil contributions to this thread and I think it is one of the highlights of this forum.
> 
> 
> The goals of the thread and the criteria for subjective picture evaluation are very clearly stated in the first post and they have nothing to do with artistic intent (which is nigh impossible to evaluate) or even source fidelity (which is the only possible objective PQ criteria, but also not feasible to evaluate without the original source elements). That, however, does not imply that this thread or its participants condone misguided attempts to digitally enhance pictures to meet the Tier 0 criteria for sources that cannot possibly reach it.
> 
> 
> In other words, I don't understand the confusion or the criticism that crops up periodically.



+1


I concur with these sentiments, and those of Igans316, completely. Periodically posts have emerged which, in essence, ignore the standards set forth on page one of this thread. If we all would comply with these standards, and remember that *this thread is ALL ABOUT EYE CANDY*, we would avoid some of the contentions that have permeated the last 2-3 pages.


Having said that, I do sympathize, in measure, with those who feel their opinions don't really count at times. I have been in that position more than once. But I have also been in the position of agreeing with the consensus that has been formed. I believe Brandon hit the proverbial "nail on the head" when he intimated that the more you contribute, the more you will find that your opinion counts.


----------



## DustyMonkey1

Just watched "The Perfect Storm"


Should be placed under the "Bronze" category right around the middle. The picture was very soft, and not wowing at all. Even face close-ups were not sharp or detailed. It was about the same as an upconverted DVD. Not up to Blu-Rays usually high standards AT ALL.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DustyMonkey1* /forum/post/14474138
> 
> 
> Just watched "The Perfect Storm"
> 
> 
> Should be placed under the "Bronze" category right around the middle. The picture was very soft, and not wowing at all. Even face close-ups were not sharp or detailed. It was about the same as an upconverted DVD. Not up to Blu-Rays usually high standards AT ALL.



Seconded.










Would be great if SuprSlow updates the list.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Now we're getting back on track


----------



## Cliff Stephenson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14473886
> 
> 
> Cliff,
> 
> 
> Could you scan through the entire list and come up with your recommendations ? We are aware that about 5% of the titles are placed incorrectly and that much % is within the acceptable limits and could get corrected in due course of time.
> 
> 
> If you don't want to come up with any recommendations we have to assume that you have come here with the sole intention to make derogatory and defaming comments by staging a protest against the tier thread which obviously makes little to no sense.



It only comes off as derogatory and defaming because people are usually unwilling to actually reflect on what I'm trying to say.


It's not the list I have an issue with, it's the overall categorization of the list that causes problems, limits discourse and prohibits education. If you want to group together a number of films that all have a similarly soft, slightly grainier look, that's fine. But don't make the implication that these titles are underwhelming or poor.


Again, the groups themselves aren't really the problem, it's the language and the inferences you make that twist the thread's purpose. I would say with 100% certainty that both Crank and Predator are examples of discs that are completely perfect presentations of each of those films. But the inference is that Crank is a better disc than Predator simply because it has a cleaner photographic style and is nearly 20-years newer. What I and others have been arguing is that you allow each disc to stand on its own and not pit one against the other simply because they are shot differently. You have Rocky in the same grouping as Young Guns and Lethal Weapon 2. Rocky is a disc that is absolutely identical to the original look (and I know because I saw it theatrically last year), while Young Guns and Lethal Weapon 2 are two of the worse looking discs with horrible artifacting. So one disc does what it is supposed to do perfectly while two others have serious mastering issues, yet you're telling people that the two botched titles are as good as or better than the one done correctly. What message does that send? That artifacting is ok as long as the film or style is much cleaner to begin with?


There should be tiers for These films all look this way These films all look this way These all have this type of look and These have issues related to DNR use These titles suffer vertical filtering or aliasing. This gives people better information about the discs that are out there and (like I said) might encourage discussion about the difference in looks from film to film. Again, you have a wonderful title like Wall Street rubbing elbows with the abortion that is Dirty Dancing. There are some serious flaws in the system.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14473886
> 
> 
> The motto and rules of the tier thread are clearly stated on the front page and I don't see any point in debating them and frequently mixing up eye candy with artistic intents.



Then call it the f******g "eye candy" thread and stop hijacking the term quality and equating it with the narrowest definition possible. It's an insult to the people who work very hard to make sure these discs are the best they can be only to see that work and care disparaged because some out there don't want to be bothered with little nuisances like intent. And sorry, but until you make steps to address this, this thread is always going to get negative attention because it is flawed at its core.


----------



## Cliff Stephenson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14474021
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> 
> I concur with these sentiments, and those of Igans316, completely. Periodically posts have emerged which, in essence, ignore the standards set forth on page one of this thread. If we all would comply with these standards, and remember that *this thread is ALL ABOUT EYE CANDY*, we would avoid some of the contentions that have permeated the last 2-3 pages.
> 
> 
> Having said that, I do sympathize, in measure, with those who feel their opinions don't really count at times. I have been in that position more than once. But I have also been in the position of agreeing with the consensus that has been formed. I believe Brandon hit the proverbial "nail on the head" when he intimated that the more you contribute, the more you will find that your opinion counts.




*%@(#$&%!!!

You guys just don't f*****g get it!! When the studios read this type of list, they don't say to themselves, "Gee, we have to remember that this is just about the eye candy here." They look through things and only see the highlights that you guys call a title like Bullitt "*POOR!!*" So they say to themselves, "Better not release anymore titles like Bullitt or if we do, we should send it out to be cleaned up and sharpened. That's obviously what they want... EYE CANDY!" You can tell me they are missing the point, but that's exactly what I'm saying... THEY'RE MISSING THE POINT BECAUSE YOU GUYS ARE EQUATING STYLE WITH QUALITY.


----------



## maverick0716

Wow, man. You need to take a chill pill. It's as simple as this.......if you don't like or agree with the thread, you don't have to post in it or even read it. Your concerns seem to have turned into obsession.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/14474897
> 
> 
> wow, man. You need to take a chill pill. It's as simple as this.......if you don't like or agree with the thread, you don't have to post in it or even read it. Your concerns seem to have turned into obsession.



+1


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/14474897
> 
> 
> Wow, man. You need to take a chill pill. It's as simple as this.......if you don't like or agree with the thread, you don't have to post in it or even read it. Your concerns seem to have turned into obsession.



I agree.


Cliff you do make some valid points and I can understand your frustration but I think you are getting a little too crazy/going about this the wrong way. ie attacking some members.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14474021
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> 
> I concur with these sentiments, and those of Igans316, completely. Periodically posts have emerged which, in essence, ignore the standards set forth on page one of this thread. If we all would comply with these standards, and remember that *this thread is ALL ABOUT EYE CANDY*, we would avoid some of the contentions that have permeated the last 2-3 pages.
> 
> 
> Having said that, I do sympathize, in measure, with those who feel their opinions don't really count at times. I have been in that position more than once. But I have also been in the position of agreeing with the consensus that has been formed. I believe Brandon hit the proverbial "nail on the head" when he intimated that the more you contribute, the more you will find that your opinion counts.



Which is the very definition of bias and more contribution should not be equated with better judgement of PQ.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/14474906
> 
> 
> I agree.
> 
> 
> Cliff you do make some valid points and I can understand your frustration but I think you are getting a little too crazy/going about this the wrong way. ie attacking some members.



The tone that he is using is most definitely not one that is likely to be very effective in persuading the people he is apparently trying to persuade.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14474926
> 
> 
> The tone that he is using is most definitely not one that is likely to be very effective in persuading the people he is apparently trying to persuade.



No doubt.


----------



## Cliff Stephenson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14474926
> 
> 
> The tone that he is using is most definitely not one that is likely to be very effective in persuading the people he is apparently trying to persuade.



Unfortunately, the tone I am using is a direct result of my frustration caused by the lack of willingness by people to even _consider_ persuasion. All I get is, "It doesn't matter if your point is valid or the situation is as you describe, I don't want to have to consider altering my way of thinking to improve things."


Bottom line... The nature of the tier thread is problematic, both to the furthering of knowledge about film and Blu-ray and with regard to the message it sends to the studios about what people want. If you want to make things better, I have tried to give you the information to help move that along. If you honestly don't give a s**t, then I can't be bothered with it anymore.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cliff Stephenson* /forum/post/14474953
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, the tone I am using is a direct result of my frustration caused by the lack of willingness by people to even _consider_ persuasion. All I get is, "It doesn't matter if your point is valid or the situation is as you describe, I don't want to have to consider altering my way of thinking to improve things."
> 
> 
> Bottom line... The nature of the tier thread is problematic, both to the furthering of knowledge about film and Blu-ray and with regard to the message it sends to the studios about what people want. If you want to make things better, I have tried to give you the information to help move that along. If you honestly don't give a s**t, then I can't be bothered with it anymore.



That's just more of the same, I'm afraid. "I'm right; you're wrong; if you don't do exactly as I say, the world will come to an end tomorrow." This type of approach just has the effect of alienating the people you are addressing.


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM

Perhaps adding the word 'superficial' in the thread title before 'PQ' would suffice in the short term.


----------



## Cliff Stephenson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14474972
> 
> 
> That's just more of the same, I'm afraid. "I'm right; you're wrong; if you don't do exactly as I say, the world will come to an end tomorrow." This type of approach just has the effect of alienating the people you are addressing.



It's not about I'm right and you're wrong. It's about I'm in a position that I work with this stuff and interact with the studios daily. I'm lucky enough to have a direct line and want to help share what I know because I understand that most people aren't able to be in such a position. I would hope that people would be a bit appreciative to have access to this information. But instead, because the info doesn't exactly meet with their desires, it isn't appreciated and considered but greeted with notions that I am misguided and it's all just "b*******."


As for my tone, I've tried to say all of this before in a much gentler way, but as you say, it was just more of the same, I'm afraid. I really understand why most of the insiders have all run off. Who wants to be told that the things you know from the work you do is wrong because Rick from Montana has an internet connection and read something contrary on the internet?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cold_As_IceSMM* /forum/post/14474987
> 
> 
> Perhaps adding the word 'superficial' in the thread title before 'PQ' would suffice in the short term.



Another example of a tone that is not likely to persuade the people being addressed.


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14475001
> 
> 
> Another example of a tone that is not likely to persuade the people being addressed.



I wasn't trying to be smug with that suggestion. I'm quite serious.


I mean, personally, this thread is always factored in when I'm making a purchase, and I'm not insulted by defining this thread with such a word.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cold_As_IceSMM* /forum/post/14475133
> 
> 
> I wasn't trying to be smug with that suggestion. I'm quite serious.



Then perhaps you might try to find an adjective that doesn't have the same connotations that "superficial" has.


----------



## patrick99

I agree, though, that part of the problem seems to be a lack of understanding of what this thread is all about. Perhaps it might be a good idea to express more prominently on the first page that this thread is not primarily about evaluating fidelity to the source material, in part because that type of evaluation is nearly impossible in any event. Although when manipulation through processes like filtering or excessive DNR seems clear, that does count as a negative.


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14475176
> 
> *evaluating fidelity to the source material*, *in part because that type of evaluation is nearly impossible in any event*.



Given that we seem to now agree on this, I just don't think that we should be deluding ourselves, and more importantly, our current and potential readership, by not defining what this thread is _really_ about. And what other way is there to make a statement about what the meaning of this thread is than to use the appropriate adjective in the thread's title.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cold_As_IceSMM* /forum/post/14475283
> 
> 
> Given that we seem to now agree on this, I just don't think that we should be deluding ourselves, and more importantly, our current and potential readership, by not defining what this thread is _really_ about. And what other way is there to make a statement about what the meaning of this thread is than to use the appropriate adjective in the thread's title.



I am sorry but I do *not* agree with you that *the only way* to add clarity is by adding the word "superficial" to the thread title.


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14475306
> 
> 
> I am sorry but I do *not* agree with you that *the only way* to add clarity is by adding the word "superficial" to the thread title.



I want us to do something about the thread title.


'Superficial' was my suggestion.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cold_As_IceSMM* /forum/post/14475323
> 
> 
> I want us to do something about the thread title.
> 
> 
> 'Superficial' was my suggestion.



I expect other thread participants will have thoughts on the subject.


----------



## stumlad

Maybe someone should start a PQ-Tier-Thread Debate thread.


----------



## Steeb

I think the thread title should be changed to reflect that it's an "eye candy" thread and not a "PQ" thread. I also don't think it should be "stickied," but that's just me.


FWIW, I agree wholeheartedly with the criticisms that Cliff Stephenson has offered here. I also think it's a shame (but not surprising in the least) that many of the same posters who are considered by many to dominate this thread (and you know who you are) are the ones trying their hardest to shut Cliff down without even considering that what he says may be true.


Perhaps if you spent less time defending the thread and more time listening to constructive criticism, there would be more than a handful of posters contributing...


----------



## ballen420

Good grief. What happened in here?


I think AVS is due for another database failure and should lose the last couple days of posts!


I enjoy this forum very much, and typically use it to decide whether I should spend the couple extra bucks on the Blu-Ray over the standard DVD. That's my understanding of why it exists.


Opinions are opinions. Never have I seen an opinion sway so much that a disc is being recommended for tier 0 by one, and tier 3/4 by another. Few spots, or a tier, separating is natural in a debatable environment where everyone has different expectations and different equipement.


Let's get back to the not so scientific art of reviewing these films so that I can continue to make conscientious decisions during my impulse buying streaks!

*Edit: Enjoyed this thread.* This is the crap that is/will be driving people out of here. Poor guy on the top of page 188 just bought a blu-ray player, looking for some good discs to showcase it, and now has to read through all this junk? Hopefully he enjoyed his I-Robot purchase, and sticks to page 1. I know my comments don't matter, but if I come back, I'll be sticking to page 1 as well.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steeb* /forum/post/14475783
> 
> 
> I think the thread title should be changed to reflect that it's an "eye candy" thread and not a "PQ" thread. I also don't think it should be "stickied," but that's just me.
> 
> *FWIW, I agree wholeheartedly with the criticisms that Cliff Stephenson has offered here.* I also think it's a shame (but not surprising in the least) that many of the same posters who are considered by many to dominate this thread (and you know who you are) are the ones trying their hardest to shut Cliff down without even considering that what he says may be true.
> 
> *Perhaps if you spent less time defending the thread and more time listening to constructive criticism, there would be more than a handful of posters contributing...*



The thrust of his criticism is that the thread should be abandoned, because its basic premise is, in his opinion, fundamentally flawed. It's not apparent how that is consistent with the goal of getting more people to participate in the thread.


----------



## b_scott

watched Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy last night. 50" Pio 5010 (1080p) 24fps ON, 7 feet back.


i'd say it's better than Almost Famous, which i've seen. so i'd put it right above that, at least. but it's definitely Bronze.


----------



## Steeb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steeb* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I also think it's a shame (but not surprising in the least) that many of the same posters who are considered by many to dominate this thread (and you know who you are) are the ones trying their hardest to shut Cliff down without even considering that what he says may be true.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14475923
> 
> 
> The thrust of his criticism is that the thread should be abandoned, because its basic premise is, in his opinion, fundamentally flawed. It's not apparent how that is consistent with the goal of getting more people to participate in the thread.



That was quick.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steeb* /forum/post/14475944
> 
> 
> That was quick.



How about something more substantive?


----------



## Steeb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14475958
> 
> 
> How about something more substantive?



What would be the point? If the only thing you've gotten from Cliff's posts is, "The thrust of his criticism is that the thread should be abandoned," what more is there to say?


----------



## hobbs47




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steeb* /forum/post/14476037
> 
> 
> What would be the point? If the only thing you've gotten from Cliff's posts is, "The thrust of his criticism is that the thread should be abandoned," what more is there to say?




+1


I wish the studios were half as sensitive to criticism as the "vocal leaders" of this thread. At least we would know they are listening.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14474923
> 
> 
> Which is the very definition of bias and more contribution should not be equated with better judgement of PQ.



I really didn't intend to imply that "more contribution [is] equated with better judgment of PQ." I simply meant that the more one contributes the more he/she will find themselves in agreement with others (if they are truly adhering to the standards set forth on page one, that is).


One point I'm really trying to make is that one shouldn't quit participating because their view may not be accepted by the majority. I almost always agree with Rob Tomlin (one of the infamous "elite 6"







), but at times I don't agree with his analysis. When this occurs, his view usually (but not always) ends up being part of the consensus. I have determined that I'm not going to allow this to prevent me from participating, for experience has taught me that my opinion does count.


----------



## stumlad

So seriously, what are the suggestions to make the tier thread better?


Instead of loads of criticism, how about some concrete ways to improve the thread? I don't think anyone on here believes this thread is perfect.


----------



## Macfan424




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steeb* /forum/post/14476037
> 
> 
> What would be the point? If the only thing you've gotten from Cliff's posts is, "The thrust of his criticism is that the thread should be abandoned," what more is there to say?



+ 2.


It's really a shame that people try to shout down people like Cliff Stephenson, Filmixer and the handful of others here who have working knowledge of how the industry works and are willing to share their insights with us. We are fortunate to have them here.


We all have a right to disagree in the end, but we also would be wise to try to keep an open mind and carefully consider input from those who can offer a different perspective.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Macfan424* /forum/post/14476704
> 
> 
> + 2.
> 
> 
> It's really a shame that people try to *shout down* people like *Cliff Stephenson*, Filmixer and the handful of others here who have working knowledge of how the industry works and are willing to share their insights with us. We are fortunate to have them here.
> 
> 
> We all have a right to disagree in the end, but we also would be wise to try to keep an open mind and carefully consider input from those who can offer a different perspective.



I would say if anyone was "shouting," it was him.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Macfan424* /forum/post/14476704
> 
> 
> + 2.
> 
> 
> It's really a shame that people try to shout down people like Cliff Stephenson, Filmixer and the handful of others here who have working knowledge of how the industry works and are willing to share their insights with us. We are fortunate to have them here.
> 
> 
> We all have a right to disagree in the end, but we also would be wise to try to keep an open mind and carefully consider input from those who can offer a different perspective.



No one is trying to shout down experts but it doesn't sound pleasing when they speak in a harsh tone uttering words like s**t and f****ing.


Most of us in AVS are in good terms with experts and treat them with respect and courtesy. Out of the blue a chunk of people who never contribute just chime in, create a mess and make a big fuss as if they know everything.


For gods sake this is yet another thread in AVS and shouldn't be taken so seriously. This may not be a good place for the Hunky Dories. People who take forum comments seriously are harming themselves and they are the ones who frequently challenge the poster instead of challenging the post.


Relax buddies. Just leave the poor thread as is and as days goes by it will be like what it was a couple of days ago.


----------



## tfoltz

This would be great!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cliff Stephenson* /forum/post/14474867
> 
> 
> There should be tiers for These films all look this way These films all look this way These all have this type of look and These have issues related to DNR use These titles suffer vertical filtering or aliasing.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ballen420* /forum/post/14475863
> 
> 
> Good grief. What happened in here?
> 
> 
> I think AVS is due for another database failure and should lose the last couple days of posts!
> 
> 
> I enjoy this forum very much, and typically use it to decide whether I should spend the couple extra bucks on the Blu-Ray over the standard DVD. That's my understanding of why it exists.
> 
> 
> Opinions are opinions. Never have I seen an opinion sway so much that a disc is being recommended for tier 0 by one, and tier 3/4 by another. Few spots, or a tier, separating is natural in a debatable environment where everyone has different expectations and different equipement.
> 
> 
> Let's get back to the not so scientific art of reviewing these films so that I can continue to make conscientious decisions during my impulse buying streaks!
> 
> *Edit: Enjoyed this thread.* This is the crap that is/will be driving people out of here. Poor guy on the top of page 188 just bought a blu-ray player, looking for some good discs to showcase it, and now has to read through all this junk? Hopefully he enjoyed his I-Robot purchase, and sticks to page 1. I know my comments don't matter, but if I come back, I'll be sticking to page 1 as well.



I'm with you. This has turned pathetic with people actually supporting Cliff Stephenson's approach/rant and "shut up and listen because I know more than you" mentality. It's pretty unfortunate for AVS and it's reputation that this continues...people should be ashamed of themselves.


Brandon


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Cliff Stephenson
> 
> There should be tiers for “These films all look this way” “These films all look this way” “These all have this type of look” and “These have issues related to DNR use” “These titles suffer vertical filtering or aliasing.”



These films all look this way - http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1037935 


These have issues related to DNR use - http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=937873 


If insiders claim themselves to be experts why don't they point out flaws in the transfer ? Except FilmMixer and few others experts I seldom see contributions from other industry insiders in AVS.


There is also a PQ tier thread in HDD forums and it's more or less on similar lines to what we have here.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RBFC* /forum/post/14472626
> 
> 
> One factor that seems to escape mention is how the movie actually looks under ideal commercial movie theater presentation. In my experience, film shown at commercial theaters can have an extremely wide variation in PQ. This variation could certainly influence one's perception of how the movie's ultimate PQ "scores", both at the theater and on BD. For example, if you see film "X" at a crappy theater (poorly setup projector, etc.), then the BD may represent an "astounding" jump in PQ to you. The inverse may also hold true.
> 
> 
> Personally, I use the tier thread to get an overall consensus on a title's quality. I believe that an individual's love for certain films can influence their opinion on PQ at times as well.
> 
> 
> I've hesitated to post impressions in the past due to my 7th gen Pioneer Elite plasma (1366 x 768) being deemed insufficient to assess PQ on 1080p material. Reading the other responses here has convinced me that this should not be the case.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 
> Lee



I agree Lee…

First I do enjoy this thread. I think it should be stickied. I also think that the FEW people in this thread who are running around spinning on their eyebrows wanting things changed to suit THEIR beliefs, should do a search and revive one of the money older threads on this site that covers this very subject they are railing about.

Besides, could someone please explain to me how anyone on this site can claim to have a good idea as to how the Blu Ray version compares to what we saw in the theater 6+ months ago?


----------



## maverick0716

None of us are professional reviewers......This IS an eye candy thread, I thought that was very apparent. I personally think that this thread helps people a LOT more than it hinders them. Think of a person no so knowledgeable just getting into Blu Ray watching a Tier 5 title because they expect all Blu Rays to be perfect high definition (isn't that what the commercials suggest?) They will be disgusted and naturally think that Blu Ray is just a scam and you can barely tell a difference, which will entice them to abandon the format altogether.........but then if they see this Tier thread maybe they'll watch a demo quality BD like Apocolypto and be absolutely floored by it.


----------



## Cinema Squid

A comparison of the tier rankings in this thread to the average video score assigned to titles by online reviewers might be instructive.


I have listings for 479 Blu-ray titles that have tier rankings that also have 3639 online reviews from 90 distinct reviewers at 16 distinct websites that supplied a video score for these titles. This gives an average of 7.5 online reviews per title, which is below the ITU recommendation of 18 inputs for gathering mean opinion scores (MOS) for subjective video quality ratings, but it's a reasonable start.


I use the following translation of tier ranking to video score on a scale of 100 points where each title is linearly assigned a score within tier (ex. the top tier 0 title is given 100 and the bottom tier 0 title is given 91 with a linear gradation for the titles in between):
Code:


Code:


Tier 0: 91-100 (4.5 - 5.0 stars)
Tier 1: 81-90  (4.0 - 4.5 stars)
Tier 2: 71-80  (3.5 - 4.0 stars)
Tier 3: 61-70  (3.0 - 3.5 stars)
Tier 4: 51-60  (2.5 - 3.0 stars)
Tier 5: 41-50  (2.0 - 2.5 stars)

With this data, the mean difference between the tier thread score and the average review score is a 5.5 / 100 difference which translates to approximately half a tier or a one quarter of a star in a five star system. This shows that the tier rankings are very close to the consensus video rankings of online reviewers. I suppose this result can be interpreted as proving that "online reviewers suck just as much as the tier thread", but that is not my judgement.


The tier thread does skew towards under-ranking titles (i.e. placing them in a tier lower than the consensus review score would imply), but there are also some over-rankings. Personally, in many of these cases I think the tier thread might be doing a better job of positioning titles, but the discrepancies are worth listing.


Here are 50 titles that are potentially under-ranked by a tier or more and may deserve consideration for getting bumped higher (where each 5 point difference is half a tier):

Code:


Code:


Diff    Avg.    Tier    Title
21      84      63      Pixar Short Films Collection: Volume 1
20      81      61      Paprika
19      77      58      The Devil Wears Prada
19      70      51      Destiny's Child: Live in Atlanta
16      88      72      Dreamgirls
16      67      51      Eyes Wide Shut
16      75      59      The Fountain
16      74      58      Big Fish
16      82      66      High School Musical 2
16      69      53      Terminator 2: Judgment Day
16      71      55      The Usual Suspects
15      60      45      The Punisher
15      76      61      Run Lola Run
15      67      52      Planet of the Apes
15      77      62      We Own the Night
14      69      55      The Jane Austen Book Club
14      65      51      Reds
14      78      64      Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang
14      69      55      Dark Water
13      89      76      Bridge to Terabithia
13      88      75      The Game Plan
13      68      55      Sky High
13      86      73      The Covenant
13      62      49      Bullitt
13      90      77      Planet Earth: The Complete BBC Series
13      76      63      Speed
12      83      71      10,000 B.C.
12      54      42      Bruce Springsteen with the Sessions Band: Live in Dublin
12      88      76      Hollow Man
12      83      71      Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
12      78      66      The Last Samurai
12      80      68      The Queen
12      79      67      The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
12      63      51      Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back
12      78      66      Bad Santa
11      77      66      The Great Raid
11      72      61      Superman Returns
11      82      71      Vacancy
11      75      64      Click
11      62      51      Nacho Libre
11      87      76      Hairspray
11      73      62      The Holiday
11      84      73      Volver
11      82      71      Gattaca
11      91      80      2001: A Space Odyssey
11      84      73      The Pursuit of Happyness
11      77      66      Stealth
11      68      57      Silent Hill
11      82      71      Patton
11      92      81      I Am Legend

Here are 8 titles that are potentially over-ranked by a tier or more and may deserve consideration for getting bumped lower (where each 5 point difference is half a tier):
Code:


Code:


Diff    Avg.    Tier    Title
-11     65      76      Norbit
-11     79      90      P.S. I Love You
-11     68      79      Weeds: The Complete First Season
-12     76      88      John Legend: Live at the House of Blues
-12     80      92      Mr. Brooks
-12     56      68      National Lampoon's Van Wilder
-13     69      82      Home of the Brave
-13     61      74      Toto: Live in Amsterdam


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/14477116
> 
> 
> Besides, could someone please explain to me how anyone on this site can claim to have a good idea as to how the Blu Ray version compares to what we saw in the theater 6+ months ago?



Let's not forget that most of the time a blu-ray can appear better than the viewing in a theater because there are many theaters that do not consistently calibrate their equipment.


Let's also consider that different theaters have different screen sizes. So in one theater it may appear sharper than the other, unless your seating distance is appropriately adjusted. Some have better projectors, screens, acoustics, etc.


Now.. the ultimate... "Director's intent". I'd really like for some to prove that what we are seeing is/isn't the director's intent. It may say "Director's Cut", but that always mean the director reviewed the blu-ray. There are a few exceptions. The writers of Lost introduced Season 3 and basically said this is how it's supposed to look. But guess what...there's a thread for that already!! Even if Dracula is exactly the way Coppola intended it to look... it doesnt change the fact that many will be dissappointed with it if they upgraded from the DVD.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/14477586
> 
> 
> A comparison of the tier rankings in this thread to the average video score assigned to titles by online reviewers might be instructive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With this data, the mean difference between the tier thread score and the average review score is a 5.5 / 100 difference which translates to approximately half a tier or a one quarter of a star in a five star system. This shows that the tier rankings are very close to the consensus video rankings of online reviewers. I suppose this result can be interpreted as proving that "online reviewers suck just as much as the tier thread", but that is not my judgement.
> 
> 
> The tier thread does skew towards under-ranking titles (i.e. placing them in a tier lower than the consensus review score would imply), but there are also some over-rankings. *Personally, in many of these cases I think the tier thread might be doing a better job of positioning titles,* but the discrepancies are worth listing.



One reason many of us like the Tier thread is that we don't trust the reviewers. . .


----------



## Macfan424




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14476954
> 
> 
> ...it doesn't sound pleasing when they speak in a harsh tone uttering words like s**t and f****ing...



I certainly agree with that.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14476954
> 
> 
> ...For gods sake this is yet another thread in AVS and shouldn't be taken so seriously...



And that.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cliff Stephenson* /forum/post/14474995
> 
> 
> It's not about I'm right and you're wrong. It's about I'm in a position that I work with this stuff and interact with the studios daily. I'm lucky enough to have a direct line and want to help share what I know because I understand that most people aren't able to be in such a position. I would hope that people would be a bit appreciative to have access to this information. But instead, because the info doesn't exactly meet with their desires, it isn't appreciated and considered but greeted with notions that I am misguided and it's all just "b*******."
> 
> 
> As for my tone, I've tried to say all of this before in a much gentler way, but as you say, it was just more of the same, I'm afraid. I really understand why most of the insiders have all run off. Who wants to be told that the things you know from the work you do is wrong because Rick from Montana has an internet connection and read something contrary on the internet?



Why didn't you introduce yourself as someone in the industry right off the bat? (What do you do by the way, need an intern?







)


I think that could have set the stage a little better.


----------



## Steeb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/14480096
> 
> *Why didn't you introduce yourself as someone in the industry right off the bat?* (What do you do by the way, need an intern?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )
> 
> 
> I think that could have set the stage a little better.



He mentioned it back in March of this year, the first time he brought the subject up in this thread.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steeb* /forum/post/14480187
> 
> 
> He mentioned it back in March of this year, the first time he brought the subject up in this thread.



Well Christ...can't expect us to remember that especially when this is the first time I have seen him post here.


----------



## Steeb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/14480332
> 
> 
> Well Christ...can't expect us to remember that especially when this is the first time I have seen him post here.



The sad part is, the revelation that he's an industry insider didn't change the type of responses he received (much like it has not affected many of the the responses he's received this time.) The same handful of people that have been shrugging off what he's posted recently reacted the same way back then.


It really is a shame, imo.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steeb* /forum/post/14480466
> 
> 
> The sad part is, the revelation that he's an industry insider didn't change the type of responses he received (much like it has not affected many of the the responses he's received this time.) The same handful of people that have been shrugging off what he's posted recently reacted the same way back then.
> 
> 
> It really is a shame, imo.



Well I could see how that could have no affect on people after how he started out. With me, it did.


I think reasserting himself as such would have helped in the beginning.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/14474906
> 
> 
> I agree.
> 
> 
> Cliff you do make some valid points and I can understand your frustration but I think you are getting a little too crazy/going about this the wrong way. ie attacking some members.




He can defend himself, but he has not actually personally attacked any members. He has taken what some members have said and used it to make his points and used hyperbole to express his frustration with the dismissiveness some are showing. The last three posts including yours have now made a personal comment towards him


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14477000
> 
> 
> I'm with you. This has turned pathetic with people actually supporting Cliff Stephenson's approach/rant and "shut up and listen because I know more than you" mentality. It's pretty unfortunate for AVS and it's reputation that this continues...people should be ashamed of themselves.
> 
> 
> Brandon




Several posts back you made it seem like an us vs them proposition and this post makes it official. What is really a shame is that in an open public forum such as this it seems the few control the many and don't really like an open forum displaying their attitudes when someone disagrees.


----------



## Hughmc

I will keep coming here and used it as a reference and still enjoy the convos, but as I said before some changes are in order as some have suggested. The best and easiest way to do that is with tolerance and acceptance of each other.


----------



## lgans316

Mods,


Could you please change the name of thread to "Eye Candy Tier Thread" or something more catchy ? Let's see what effect it has.


If Studios and insiders are watching forum comments they should have done the follows


1) Re-encoded Batman Begins, V for Vendetta and Matrix. (Warner)

2) Offered 24-bit audio on titles that have 24-bit masters (Warner, Sony)

3) Stayed away from excessive DNR or EE (New Line, BVHE)

4) Offer quality film extras (Fox)

5) Offer lossless audio on titles except for the ones recorded in mono or 2.0 ch stereo (Warner - Speed Racer)

6) Offered high bit rate treatments (Warner)

7) Stop from double-dipping within a shorter duration (Warner)


Do you think the Studios give a damn about what we post ? They just ignore it and I don't believe any insider could have any major influence on the Studios that could impact the quality of the product they roll out. These kind of debates have been happening for years and we are rarely get to see Studios abiding by customer friendly policies. As end users we are bound to reserve our opinions and vent our anger or criticize them whenever they take an anti-customer route.


Some of the posters who are blindly supporting Cliff have seldom made contributions to this thread and other threads. They are just readers. All they can do is chime in, create a mess and make a big fuss by quoting faulty posts. My sincere request to them is "Don't just be readers. Try to contribute. Do something constructive to the forum that could aid others in their decision making process in some proportion."


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14480909
> 
> 
> Mods,
> 
> 
> Could you please change the name of thread to "Eye Candy Tier Thread" or something more catchy ? Let's see what effect it has.
> 
> 
> If Studios and insiders are watching forum comments they should have done the follows
> 
> 
> 1) Re-encoded Batman Begins, V for Vendetta and Matrix. (Warner)
> 
> 2) Offered 24-bit audio on titles that have 24-bit masters (Warner, Sony)
> 
> 3) Stayed away from excessive DNR or EE (New Line, BVHE)
> 
> 4) Offer quality film extras (Fox)
> 
> 5) Offer lossless audio on titles except for the ones recorded in mono or 2.0 ch stereo (Warner - Speed Racer)
> 
> 6) Offered high bit rate treatments (Warner)
> 
> 7) Stop from double-dipping within a shorter duration (Warner)
> 
> 
> Do you think the Studios give a damn about what we post ? They just ignore it and I don't believe any insider could have any major influence on the Studios that could impact the quality of the product they roll out. These kind of debates have been happening for years and we are rarely get to see Studios abiding by customer friendly policies. As end users we are bound to reserve our opinions and vent our anger or criticize them whenever they take a anti-customer route.
> 
> 
> Some of the posters who are blindly supporting Cliff have seldom made contributions to this thread and other threads. They are just readers. All they can do is chime in, create a mess and make a big fuss by quoting faulty posts. My sincere request to them is "Don't just be readers. Try to contribute. Do something constructive to the forum that could aid others in their decision making process in some proportion."



I agree with this as well.


There is a possibility, but I highly doubt it










Agree also about the last paragraph, which is why it's harder for us regulars to swallow I think.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14478277
> 
> 
> One reason many of us like the Tier thread is that we don't trust the reviewers. . .



Exactly. The only reason I initially started doing recommendations for this thread was my frustration with the typical quality of online Blu-ray reviews. There is a huge amount of groupthink among the on-line Blu-ray reviewers.


Look at what happened to Patton on Blu-ray. All it took was one very negative review (albeit from a respected source in Robert Harris) to change the tide of opinion on that particular title. It is very easy to tell the reviews written before the Harris review from the ones written after the Harris review.


As for Mr. Stephenson's concerns, it would seem he simply doesn't like the amount of influence and popularity this thread has obtained and wishes to change the criteria used to suit his purposes. If a Blu-ray presents a poor image compared to other Blu-rays in an absolute sense, I would hope this thread would report it accurately. This is not Lake Wobegon, where every Blu-ray can end up above average in picture quality. Are their flaws in the rankings? Of course, but mistakes are bound to happen in a list of hundreds.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14480909
> 
> 
> Mods,
> 
> 
> Could you please change the name of thread to "Eye Candy Tier Thread" or something more catchy ? Let's see what effect it has.
> 
> 
> Do you think the Studios give a damn about what we post ? They just ignore it and I don't believe any insider could have any major influence on the Studios that could impact the quality of the product they roll out. These kind of debates have been happening for years and we are rarely get to see Studios abiding by customer friendly policies. As end users we are bound to reserve our opinions and vent our anger or criticize them whenever they take a anti-customer route.



I agree with your other points but I think the thread title is fine as it is now. All the criteria for the list is explicitly laid out in the first post in excruciating detail. My best guess is that the studios are concerned that sales of older catalog titles are being affected by being placed low in the tiers, as customers have a tendency to research BD catalog releases they may already own on dvd. There are plenty of alternative sources to this thread for picture quality reviews for those so inclined. What the studios want from this thread means very little to me...


----------



## Steeb

For informational purposes only, I thought I would list the top ten contributers to the thread (based on number of posts.)

Code:


Code:


User Name       Posts 

patrick99        478 
Rob Tomlin       435 
lgans316         377 
bplewis24        364 
AustinSTI        234 
maverick0716     218 
SuprSlow         175 
pepar            147 
stumlad          131 
Phantom Stranger 108

 Source. 


I'll let everyone draw their own conclusions.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Damn I am just under Phantom


----------



## 357

I pretty much agree that this thread is controlled by a select few. Why would anyone waste their time and post a review when its more than likely going to be ignored?


A voting system would work much better imho... but like I said my opinion will most likely be ignored.


----------



## lgans316

No one except SuprSlow has control over this thread. It's a matter of personal liking to contribute to this thread. If you like it then you will chime in frequently. More contributions or post count doesn't reflect one's control over this thread. All are entitled to post their PQ assessments. A few advice from frequent posters doesn't mean that they are commanding others. I too wanted a voting system but over a period of time I realized why it ain't required.










I wanted to conduct restricted polling to avoid bogus votes but it wasn't embraced here by others but such is life.


1) I,Robot - Tier 0,1,2

2) Predator - Tier 1,2,3

3) Rocky - Tier 1,2,3,4

4) Ocean's 13 - Tier 1,2,3

5) There will be blood - Tier 0,1,2


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *357* /forum/post/14482276
> 
> 
> I pretty much agree that this thread is controlled by a select few. Why would anyone waste their time and post a review when its more than likely going to be ignored?
> 
> 
> A voting system would work much better imho... but like I said my opinion will most likely be ignored.



I don't know if you saw the HD DVD version of this thread before........but the same thing happened and it turned into a voting system.......and failed miserably! There was just not enough votes for it to be even considered accurate. It was more or less abandoned because of it (this was before HD DVD died of course).


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14480909
> 
> 
> Mods,
> 
> 
> Could you please change the name of thread to "Eye Candy Tier Thread" or something more catchy ? Let's see what effect it has.
> 
> 
> If Studios and insiders are watching forum comments they should have done the follows
> 
> 
> 1) Re-encoded Batman Begins, V for Vendetta and Matrix. (Warner)
> 
> 2) Offered 24-bit audio on titles that have 24-bit masters (Warner, Sony)
> 
> 3) Stayed away from excessive DNR or EE (New Line, BVHE)
> 
> 4) Offer quality film extras (Fox)
> 
> 5) Offer lossless audio on titles except for the ones recorded in mono or 2.0 ch stereo (Warner - Speed Racer)
> 
> 6) Offered high bit rate treatments (Warner)
> 
> 7) Stop from double-dipping within a shorter duration (Warner)
> 
> 
> Do you think the Studios give a damn about what we post ? They just ignore it and I don't believe any insider could have any major influence on the Studios that could impact the quality of the product they roll out. These kind of debates have been happening for years and we are rarely get to see Studios abiding by customer friendly policies. As end users we are bound to reserve our opinions and vent our anger or criticize them whenever they take an anti-customer route.
> 
> *Some of the posters who are blindly supporting Cliff have seldom made contributions to this thread and other threads. They are just readers. All they can do is chime in, create a mess and make a big fuss by quoting faulty posts. My sincere request to them is "Don't just be readers. Try to contribute. Do something constructive to the forum that could aid others in their decision making process in some proportion."*



There are definitely certain posters who never, to my recollection, have made any comments in this thread on specific actual movies but instead seem to visit here only to make general attacks on the thread and do not even offer specific constructive suggestions for improvement. It is not surprising that some of us wonder what their motivation really is.


----------



## Cliff Stephenson

Alright, I had kind of walked away from this discussion out of sheer frustration (also had a bit of work to do), but I feel compelled to address some of what has been said today.


First off, I have to apologize. I let my frustration with a select few push me into full-on tirade mode which perhaps wasn't the best way to make a point. So… sorry for that. I also should have been more vocal about my credentials so as to be clear about where my comments emanate from. Yes, I work heavily with Blu-ray and with several studios. I don't have an agenda to make one studio look bad or another look good. I'm just telling you what I know from my own experiences and conversations (a lot of what is being discussed here was a common point of discussion at Comic Con between a lot of us).



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14475923
> 
> 
> The thrust of his criticism is that the thread should be abandoned, because its basic premise is, in his opinion, fundamentally flawed. It's not apparent how that is consistent with the goal of getting more people to participate in the thread.



I never actually said anything of the sort, I suggested two things you could do to improve the situation:

A) Restructure the formatting of the tiers a bit to remove the inference that because a film, by design, has a different look than a movie like Ratatouille or I, Robot it is a poor Blu-ray. Group the films according to commonly shared looks/styles without attaching the incorrect moniker of something being "underwhelming" or "poor."


or


B) Simply change the name of the thread to “The Eye Candy/Demo Tier Thread." I know people think it's all spelled out in the intro, but this thread has been around for over a year and I STILL haven't read that intro. All I see is: "Picture Quality Thread" and a bunch of titles I'm stunned to see listed as underwhelming or poor. That's all the studios really see as well.


At least moving to option A, there's bound to be less to argue about. If you have a tier that contains titles which:
_"Have a slightly softer, aged appearance with moderate to heavy film grain"_

and another tier that contains movies with:
_"High level of detail and image depth with little to no grain"_

You can easily find films to fit into both of those categories without saying that one is better or more correct than the other. And this might encourage discussion with those less experienced about why a title like Rattle & Hum looks so grainy, rather than just tossing it away without explanation for people to just assume there is something wrong with the disc or that Paramount did a poor job.


With option B, all you have to do is change the thread title, but as least it would be a completely accurate description of what the tiers represent.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14476954
> 
> 
> No one is trying to shout down experts but it doesn't sound pleasing when they speak in a harsh tone uttering words like s**t and f****ing.



Well, to be fair, it was coming on the heels of Brandon’s response to my initial comments, "Ahh, here we go with the bull**** again." Having said that, however, I really don't have a problem with profanity and always wonder why people who use all of those same words suddenly find it shocking and inappropriate when other people use them. If you were in the room with me, I would have said things the exact same way (in fact, you'd probably hear worse).



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14476954
> 
> 
> Most of us in AVS are in good terms with experts and treat them with respect and courtesy. Out of the blue a chunk of people who never contribute just chime in, create a mess and make a big fuss as if they know everything.



So, "lgans?" I'm using my real name. You can look me up and look into my background and qualifications. And as you might be able to guess, the reason I'm not a huge poster here is because I hate dealing with situations where the guy with the highest post count often thinks he's the smartest one in the room. Generally speaking, I’ve found the higher the post count, the less they actually know because they spend all of their time talking. If some of these people stopped posting long enough to read something once in a while, they'd be surprised by how much they'll learn.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14476954
> 
> 
> Relax buddies. Just leave the poor thread as is and as days goes by it will be like what it was a couple of days ago.



I have no doubt, that's what upsets me.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14477000
> 
> 
> I'm with you. This has turned pathetic with people actually supporting Cliff Stephenson's approach/rant and "shut up and listen because I know more than you" mentality. It's pretty unfortunate for AVS and it's reputation that this continues...people should be ashamed of themselves.
> 
> 
> Brandon



I'm not even sure what this means. Are you upset that people disagree with you?


Next-



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/14480096
> 
> 
> Why didn't you introduce yourself as someone in the industry right off the bat? (What do you do by the way, need an intern?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )



PM me-











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/14481129
> 
> 
> I agree with your other points but I think the thread title is fine as it is now.



So everyone apparently agrees that it’s an eye candy thread as is, but you still don’t want to change the name to accurately reflect that? Curious…



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/14481005
> 
> 
> As for Mr. Stephenson's concerns, it would seem he simply doesn't like the amount of influence and popularity this thread has obtained and wishes to change the criteria used to suit his purposes.



That's exactly what upsets me... but it's because the outside world operates independent of your "understandings." You know what the thread means because you're in it day after day, for the studio exec that glances across 50 different pages a day; they miss it and only see the bullet points. So you have to make the bullet points clearer of you want them to see what you see.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cliff Stephenson* /forum/post/14482535
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never actually said anything of the sort, I suggested two things you could do to improve the situation:
> 
> A) Restructure the formatting of the tiers a bit to remove the inference that because a film, by design, has a different look than a movie like Ratatouille or I, Robot it is a poor Blu-ray. Group the films according to commonly shared looks/styles without attaching the incorrect moniker of something being "underwhelming" or "poor."
> 
> 
> or
> 
> 
> B) Simply change the name of the thread to The Eye Candy/Demo Tier Thread." I know people think it's all spelled out in the intro, but this thread has been around for over a year and I STILL haven't read that intro. All I see is: "Picture Quality Thread" and a bunch of titles I'm stunned to see listed as underwhelming or poor. That's all the studios really see as well.
> 
> 
> At least moving to option A, there's bound to be less to argue about. If you have a tier that contains titles which:
> _"Have a slightly softer, aged appearance with moderate to heavy film grain"_
> 
> and another tier that contains movies with:
> _"High level of detail and image depth with little to no grain"_
> 
> You can easily find films to fit into both of those categories without saying that one is better or more correct than the other. And this might encourage discussion with those less experienced about why a title like Rattle & Hum looks so grainy, rather than just tossing it away without explanation for people to just assume there is something wrong with the disc or that Paramount did a poor job.
> 
> 
> With option B, all you have to do is change the thread title, but as least it would be a completely accurate description of what the tiers represent.



I would say that option A is equivalent to abandoning the thread, since it represents a complete rejection of the approach this thread has followed from the time it was first started, in its first version.


I think many of us are open to the idea of some version of option B.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> So, "lgans?" I'm using my real name. You can look me up and look into my background and qualifications. And as you might be able to guess, the reason I'm not a huge poster here is because I hate dealing with situations where the guy with the highest post count often thinks he's the smartest one in the room. Generally speaking, I’ve found the higher the post count, the less they actually know because they spend all of their time talking. If some of these people stopped posting long enough to read something once in a while, they'd be surprised by how much they'll learn.



I didn't mean you but in general there are few non-contributing posters who just chime into threads to find faults at other posts. I have already requested the mods to change the name of the PQ tier thread to see what effect it has.


Rob Tomlin has posted 435 times in this thread. Does that mean that he actually knows less ?


I kindly request you to stop making assumptions about frequent contributors and contributions as it may hurt their sentiments and motivation to post further. I have voluntarily helped many members here and in other forums and have tried my level best to keep members updated with latest information and so on. It's ironic that fault finders intrude such type of threads and throw in hyperbolic comments.


You mentioned that the Studios execs read threads like this but to many of us we haven't seen any major progress/amendments in their customer friendly policies. All we see off-late is titles being slapped with excessive DNR, EE, print impurities, double dipping, high pricing, lossy audio, lousy encodes, minimal to zero extras etc. Once again I am not targeting these comments at you but this is what many of us have been witnessing since the boom of DVDs.


You should also go through these posts if you had missed them.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...9#post14480909 
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...8#post14482298


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14482555
> 
> 
> 
> You mentioned that the Studios execs read threads like this but to many of us we haven't seen any major progress/amendments in their customer friendly policies. *All we see off-late is titles being slapped with excessive DNR, EE, print impurities, double dipping, high pricing, lossy audio, lousy encodes, minimal to zero extras etc.* Once again I am not targeting these comments at you but this is what many of us have been witnessing since the boom of DVDs.



I agree with this comment. The studios don't seem to care what we think. If they choose to misunderstand what we are saying, that's their fault, not ours.


----------



## Cliff Stephenson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14482555
> 
> 
> I didn't mean you but in general there are few non-contributing posters who just chime into threads to find faults at other posts. I have already requested the mods to change the name of the PQ tier thread to see what effect it has.
> 
> 
> Rob Tomlin has posted 435 times in this thread. Does that mean that he actually knows less ?
> 
> 
> I kindly request you to stop making assumptions about frequent contributors and contributions as it may hurt their sentiments and motivation to post further. I have voluntarily helped many members here and in other forums and have tried my level best to keep members updated with latest information and so on. It's ironic that fault finders intrude such type of threads and throw in hyperbolic comments.
> 
> 
> You mentioned that the Studios execs read threads like this but to many of us we haven't seen any major progress in their customer friendly policies. All we see off-late is titles being slapped with excessive DNR, EE, print impurities, double dipping, high pricing, lossy audio, lousy encodes, minimal to zero extras etc. Once again I am not targeting these comments at you but this is what many of us have been witnessing since the boom of DVDs.



It's a bit odd that you automatically seem to think that I was directing that comment towards you. It was a criticism of forums in general and the notion some people equate that a high post count somehow gives them clout. If I say, "A pound is 16oz," there are people out there who exist simply to argue and need to be contrary or superior and will argue that, "no, a pound is 14oz" because they read someone else mistakenly say 14oz somewhere else. Usually, in my travels, this type of personality has a very high post count because they seem to spend a lot of time talking and trying to convince everyone how smart they are. I'm not saying that everyone with a high post count knows nothing, but the really annoying ones that I have had issues with usually do. Those are the ones I tend to want to avoid.


As for what the studios do or don't do based on comments, the studios (as hard as this may be for some to believe) really want to put out the best product they can. They want you to be happy. They don't hold secret meetings trying to figure out how best to put out a terrible disc. The problem is that everyone has a different opinion of what make a perfect disc.


For example, I'm an extras guy. I love movies and I love learning about movies. I came up on those old great laserdiscs that might only have a 30-minute documentary, a commentary, a trailer, and a $100 price tag. When Goldeneye came out, we were giddy to get a doc, commentary, and trailers all for $45!! So, I love immersing myself in this stuff, which is why I'm always confused by people who love movies enough to buy expensive rigs and Blu-ray players and then change out all of their DVDs for Blu-rays and then they go around and say, "I wish the studios would just leave off all of the extras and just give us the movie on Blu-ray." To me, that just doesn't compute. I can't fathom how someone could love movies enough to buy into this new format, but they don't seem to love them enough to want to learn about them. It honestly really baffles me.

BUT... that's how they feel. For pricing, (and this is not going to sit well with most people) I feel that one of the things DVD did that I didn't like was drop their prices to the point that it cheapened their product. Once you can get movies for $3.99, it kind of dulls the magic a bit. Back in the laserdisc days, a typical movie-only release would retail for $40 (and this was back when their was no Amazon or other discount retailers). Now I know that things have to evolve and times change, but if you look at current releases, you're paying a $10 premium for the higher quality Blu-ray disc. I don't think that's out of line at all. Sarah Conner is $29.99 for the DVD set or $39.99 for the Blu-ray. Considering you get more quality out of the Blu-ray set, shouldn't it sell for more? That new Hannah Montana movie is $34.99 for both formats. Now if you're talking about Fox catalog titles, that's a slightly different beast, but they were always the most expensive with LaserDisc, they were the most expensive with DVD, so they are pretty much repeating history. Don't worry, that will change.


But the bottom line is that for any position you can take, I can easily find a person that sits on the other side of the fence. That makes some decisions more difficult and they end up trying a lot of different things. When you ask why studios are throwing out titles with excessive EE or DNR, it's because of threads like this (which is what I've been trying to say all this time). When a studio like Lionsgate or Fox puts out a title without any any mucking with it at all, and then sees repeated comments about how a title like Terminator 2 is "underwhelming," they start to toy around with processing to make you guys happier. Now Terminator 2 has had a complete frame-by-frame restoration, while the encode might be slightly better if done now, the look of the film will not change... unless you process it to change its appearance into something closer to a "tier 0 or tier 1" title.


----------



## Cliff Stephenson




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14482585
> 
> 
> I agree with this comment. The studios don't seem to care what we think. If they choose to misunderstand what we are saying, that's their fault, not ours.












There's clearly no reason for me to talk to you guys any further.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cliff Stephenson* /forum/post/14482609
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For example, I'm an extras guy. I love movies and I love learning about movies. I came up on those old great laserdiscs that might only have a 30-minute documentary, a commentary, a trailer, and a $100 price tag. When Goldeneye came out, we were giddy to get a doc, commentary, and trailers all for $45!! So, I love immersing myself in this stuff, which is why I'm always confused by people who love movies enough to buy expensive rigs and Blu-ray players and then change out all of their DVDs for Blu-rays and then they go around and say, "I wish the studios would just leave off all of the extras and just give us the movie on Blu-ray." To me, that just doesn't compute. I can't fathom how someone could love movies enough to buy into this new format, but they don't seem to love them enough to want to learn about them. It honestly really baffles me.



You seem to have missed the point that when people are talking about whether extras should be included, the context is whether there is enough space on the disc to accommodate *BOTH* the movie itself with the highest possible PQ and AQ *AND* a large quantity of extras, possibly themselves in HD. It is only in this context that I have ever heard anyone arguing against extras, namely where including extras could lead to compromised PQ and AQ on the movie itself.


----------



## unclepauly

I'm trying to wade through these ivory towers to get to a decent blu-ray review. Can't seem to find any atm.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cliff Stephenson* /forum/post/14482618
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's clearly no reason for me to talk to you guys any further.



Well, I was about to wave white flag to your lengthy post requesting truce but the above reply is a clear indication that you dislike the notion of this thread and members like us.










Anyways we will request the mods to change the name of the thread. I have done my part but I am not sure if other posters would accept such a change.


Even HDD forums has a thread named Blu-ray PQ Tier thread. I hope you will suggest then to make similar changes over there.










Why so serious ?


----------



## Cold_As_IceSMM




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14482735
> 
> 
> *Even HDD forums has a thread named Blu-ray PQ Tier thread.*



I fail to see how this is a counter-point to the proposed idea of a thread title change.


But I'm happy that you've at least made an request to the mods.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cold_As_IceSMM* /forum/post/14482773
> 
> 
> I fail to see how this is a counter-point to the proposed idea of a thread title change.
> 
> 
> But I'm happy that you've at least made an request to the mods.



If we are considering the possibility of proposing changes to the thread title, we might also consider clarifying in the title that grain is not considered a PQ flaw in this thread, since there seems to be considerable misunderstanding on this point as well (among those who do not actually participate in this thread).


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cold_As_IceSMM* /forum/post/14482773
> 
> 
> I fail to see how this is a counter-point to the proposed idea of a thread title change.
> 
> 
> But I'm happy that you've at least made an request to the mods.



Thanks pal. Let's see if changing the thread title brings changes to it's stature.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14482851
> 
> 
> If we are considering the possibility of proposing changes to the thread title, we might also consider clarifying in the title that grain is not considered a PQ flaw in this thread, since there seems to be considerable misunderstanding on this point as well (among those who do not actually participate in this thread).



You are right. Many outsiders as well as insiders assume that posters out here are grain haters and adore over processed video. Making things worse, I have even seen comments like "The PQ tier thread is the reason behind Studios adding DNR and EE".


----------



## ballen420




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *unclepauly* /forum/post/14482664
> 
> 
> I'm trying to wade through these ivory towers to get to a decent blu-ray review. Can't seem to find any atm.



Ha! Might have to start a new thread.

*'The Newest PQ/Eye Candy/What we Feel it Should Look Like in Our Opinions Tier Thread for Blu-Ray (Really, we do have actual reviews, not just endless debates on what this thread should be)'*


Might be a long name, but guess it's the only way to not confuse anyone. I know I'm tired of wading through these comments to find a review.


This thread worked perfectly fine for a year.


Note: I have no problems with the debating, I just wish it was being done in a separate thread.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/14425876
> 
> *The Exorcism of Emily Rose*
> 
> 
> tier recommendation: upper half of *Tier 1*
> 
> 
> Sony just released this Blu-ray in the U.S. a few weeks ago. The 121 minute movie is encoded in AVC on a BD-50. The video encode ranges in a narrow band from 29.4 to 32.5 Mbps for the entire feature. I would estimate an average video bitrate of 31 Mbps. There are absolutely no compression problems seen in the image. The compression job is one of the best I've seen on Blu-ray.
> 
> 
> Detail and clarity excel for long stretches of the feature, particularly in the *courtroom scenes which make up most of the movie*. The courtroom scenes approach tier zero in image quality. They consist of a razor sharp image with excellent contrast and color tonality. There is also a ton of pop and depth of field to the image in these scenes rarely seen in a typical drama. Of course colors are a little more restrained than what is typical in an action movie but no one should expect a modern courtroom to have bright colors splashed everywhere. Expect a more somber look and tone.
> 
> 
> I have to commend this Blu-ray for its phenomenal black levels. There is no blooming or macroblocking as the white and black levels appear perfect. The darker scenes have impressive shadow delineation and high frequency information. Nothing gets obscured in the darker segments, even in certain tough scenes like the exorcism.
> 
> 
> The master used looks in very good shape aside from the presence of a few isolated digital scratch removal white specks that show up. I don't think they would be noticeable to the casual viewer. *The only real negative found on this transfer is the persistent edge enhancement halos added to it.*
> 
> 
> I recommend a placement somewhere in the upper half of tier one near Identity.



Another excellent review, Phantom. I particularly noticed the EE in the exterior shots of the farmhouse at the beginning. A small descriptive quibble: the courtroom scenes include a lot of flashbacks, so I don't know that it's completely accurate to say they make up most of the movie.


----------



## rydenfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14480909
> 
> 
> Mods,
> 
> 
> Could you please change the name of thread to "Eye Candy Tier Thread" or something more catchy ? Let's see what effect it has.
> 
> 
> If Studios and insiders are watching forum comments they should have done the follows
> 
> 
> 1) Re-encoded Batman Begins, V for Vendetta and Matrix. (Warner)
> 
> 2) Offered 24-bit audio on titles that have 24-bit masters (Warner, Sony)
> 
> 3) Stayed away from excessive DNR or EE (New Line, BVHE)
> 
> 4) Offer quality film extras (Fox)
> 
> 5) Offer lossless audio on titles except for the ones recorded in mono or 2.0 ch stereo (Warner - Speed Racer)
> 
> 6) Offered high bit rate treatments (Warner)
> 
> 7) Stop from double-dipping within a shorter duration (Warner)
> 
> 
> Do you think the Studios give a damn about what we post ? They just ignore it and I don't believe any insider could have any major influence on the Studios that could impact the quality of the product they roll out. These kind of debates have been happening for years and we are rarely get to see Studios abiding by customer friendly policies. As end users we are bound to reserve our opinions and vent our anger or criticize them whenever they take an anti-customer route.
> 
> 
> Some of the posters who are blindly supporting Cliff have seldom made contributions to this thread and other threads. They are just readers. All they can do is chime in, create a mess and make a big fuss by quoting faulty posts. My sincere request to them is "Don't just be readers. Try to contribute. Do something constructive to the forum that could aid others in their decision making process in some proportion."



Well thought out, and nicely said. Bravo!


----------



## suffolk112000

Gosh, if you believe Cliff, it sounds like the studios may actually be paying some attention to this thread.

Probably not the important people in Hollywood who call the shots make the important decisions, but at least people like Cliff can enlighten those who make such decisions.









Perhaps this thread could also be useful from the perspective that there are people out there who absolutely hate the stylized look that Hollywood gives many of its movies. Are you listening Hollywood???


Cliff, you mean you are running around here spinning on your eyebrows the way you have been and you have not even read the first page of this thread???!!!

I think that speaks for it self.


Cliff, I love movies. I have a lot of dough wrapped up in a dedicated room to watch movies. But I think most extra's are a waste of space. If I had it my way, I'd have Blu Ray discs modeled after the Superbit SD-DVD's where the space was used for the quality of the movie, not extra's.

Chalk up one example of someone who loves movies, but thinks the extra's should be only added if disc space permits after the best possible audio and video has been obtained.

Seems like there are times when these priorities seem to be reversed.


----------



## Steeb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14482585
> 
> 
> I agree with this comment. The studios don't seem to care what we think. If they choose to misunderstand what we are saying, that's their fault, not ours.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cliff Stephenson* /forum/post/14482618
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's clearly no reason for me to talk to you guys any further.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14482735
> 
> 
> Well, I was about to wave white flag to your lengthy post requesting truce but the above reply is a clear indication that you dislike the notion of this thread and members like us.



I have a hard time believing that either of you are as obtuse as you're attempting to appear. It's a shame that the vocal minority keep running off informed opinions (especially when they're coming from an insider who's offering valuable information.)


----------



## RBFC

Why don't we start a separate thread:

_*SUGGESTIONS FOR STUDIO EXECS REGARDING BLU-RAY RELEASES*_ or something to that effect?


This would address comments that industry insiders do not have time to completely read through every post to evaluate public impressions and suggestions.


Both individual titles and overall suggestions, whether studio-based or industry-based, could be included.


"lgans316" made some concise suggestions in a previous post, and comments like those could be a starting point.


Perhaps if the studios ARE looking, we could make it as convenient and clear for them to receive criticism (hopefully constructive). So, if we indeed have a chance to affect the quality of upcoming releases, we should take a responsible approach and devise an effective means of relaying our concerns.


Thoughts?


Lee


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cliff Stephenson* /forum/post/14482609
> 
> 
> But the bottom line is that for any position you can take, I can easily find a person that sits on the other side of the fence. That makes some decisions more difficult and they end up trying a lot of different things. When you ask why studios are throwing out titles with excessive EE or DNR, it's because of threads like this (which is what I've been trying to say all this time). When a studio like Lionsgate or Fox puts out a title without any any mucking with it at all, and then sees repeated comments about how a title like Terminator 2 is "underwhelming," they start to toy around with processing to make you guys happier. Now Terminator 2 has had a complete frame-by-frame restoration, while the encode might be slightly better if done now, the look of the film will not change... unless you process it to change its appearance into something closer to a "tier 0 or tier 1" title.



Here's what I think and I'm sure others agree with me...


Terminator 2. Bought it 3 times on DVD. There was an improvement each time. Blu-ray offers improvement, but waiting for the next release that comes with the extended edition and theatrical all on one disc with, perhaps a 2nd disc for extras. If that's the best it will look, well so be it... The main thought is that version # 3 on blu-ray will be yet another frame by frame remaster at 4k+ resolution which will probably look better . Perhaps we're wrong... and if we are that's okay too, because we just want it to look the best it can without any processing. We can movie into Rambo territory next










As for extras...as others have mentioned, generally speaking, most enthusiasts don't want to see the PQ/AQ compromised in order to bring those extras. Pirates, Transformers, etc are good examples of how to do extras when a movie is over 2 hours... use a second disc.


Pricing... Understandable that there's a premium to pay. It just doesnt look good for potential newcomers when Harold and Kumar go to White Castle is $25.99 at best buy, but the DVD is less than $10. As for Day and date new releases...Disney is the best as far as pricing...so far. $34.99, and with Amazon discount it's around 23.


Other thoughts... and perhaps you can clarify these:

Blu-ray catalog titles...The belief is that most are created using an HD master that were originally made for DVD.

1) This potentially means that post-processing was applied in order to allow for easier encoding for DVD.

2) If (1) is true, it means that the blu-ray encode isn't using the best possible transfer.

3) This means we can probably expect another version of the same movie, and it will probably look better when the studios decide to remaster it.


Another thought is that perhaps some studios are continuing to do this with new releases. Create an HD master, make it easier for DVD to encode, and re-use that final product for blu-ray. When the blu-ray audience is bigger, new master!


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14482526
> 
> 
> There are definitely certain posters who never, to my recollection, have made any comments in this thread on specific actual movies but instead seem to visit here only to make general attacks on the thread and do not even offer specific constructive suggestions for improvement. It is not surprising that some of us wonder what their motivation really is.



Maybe they feel the frustration of being ignored by having only a few have the sway in the thread the same way you think it doesn't matter what happens in this thread since you believe studios don't care what is being discussed. Now that someone opened the door or can of worms they are chiming in and now that they have how about keeping focused on what they are trying to say instead of pointing out they have been silent for so long and are only trying to make trouble like they enjoy it.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14482585
> 
> 
> I agree with this comment. The studios don't seem to care what we think. If they choose to misunderstand what we are saying, that's their fault, not ours.



Can you see how you have elevated yourself above the studios with this comment and how it insults Cliff and anyone else who is in the industry with a statement which is completely false and seems arrogant.







This is why he is saying he has nothing further to say.



Ken H prior to the DB failure posted in a thread something to the affect that AVS is the biggest Audio Visual forum in the world, has more sponsors of CE products and insiders who contribute and do actually pay attention to what is being said in these forums. These weren't his exact words, but he was trying to make the point that broadcasters, studios, music, gaming and other media companies do in fact pay attention to what is being discussed in these forums. We do have that much influence to whatever extent and I believe Cliff was trying to relate that fact.


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14480706
> 
> 
> He is arguing his points and those disagreeing with him are not.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14480710
> 
> 
> Several posts back you made it seem like an us vs them proposition and this post makes it official. What is really a shame is that in an open public forum such as this it seems the few control the many and don't really like an open forum displaying their attitudes when someone disagrees.



What is a shame is that you have now resorted to this stance as well despite all evidence to the contrary of what you say. Steeb started out with his blind support, and now you've joined in.


I have discussed points before with Cliff going back to several months ago on the merits of this discussion. His response has generally been to "shut up and listen" (that's a quote) or to speak about how he hates dealing with forumers like myself who he claims are just trying to show how smart they are instead of listening to his enlightened point of view (paraphrasing). That is absolutely not an open forum mentality, as you suggest it is. That is a soapbox mentality, and in fact the very mentality that was enabled months ago which drove several insiders away from these forums. Just because Cliff has taken a more acceptable tone after being called on it doesn't change the past interactions.


When questioned, or given logic and reasoning to show how his points are misguided or flawed, he has not listened or countered it with logic and reasoning, rather it has been countered with "i know what I'm talking about and you don't, so let me give you an anecdote to illustrate my point." If you choose to ignore that, fine...but don't make Cliff out to be a victim in all of this. This is not a case of him providing constructive criticism that is being ignored. It has not been ignored, it has been agreed with, parts questioned and parts argued against. THAT is what an open forum is about.


Popping in every few weeks/months to talk about how useless this thread is and how it should be renamed or abandoned in it's current form while claiming those contributing to it or defending it are simply ignorant or lack ability to do so is *not* constructive or beneficial. Plain and simple.


In case you missed it, this is the opening salvo from Cliff for this go-round:



> Quote:
> Yeah, unfortunately the tier thread is *fairly useless for anyone who actually cares more about films than they do about their players and displays*.
> 
> 
> The tiers don’t evaluate the quality of a disc; they rank the untrained EXPECTATIONS of a small group of people.
> 
> 
> I understand the point of the thread, but the *Olympics-style categorization of these titles shows a real contempt for the art of filmmaking* and is instead about nothing but the technology of the box these get played in.



Nevermind the fundamental fallibility of the merits of the post, it is not only condescending but a clear judgment of every person who participates in this thread as well as the premise of the thread in the first place. Not only is it that, but it's an unrelated (to PQ) attack to imply that a person cares little about actual film and holds a contempt of filmmaking simply because they do not rank the picture quality of a film as high as he does. And then posters have the nerve to generically characterize people who argue against that as a "vocal minority" as if to imply there's a territorial gang of posters who harass any poster who reasonably disagrees with them...and ignore whether or not they are justified in the positions they take or the things they say.


If you are going to defend him and play him off as a victim and me as some sort of bully who refuses to engage in a legitimate discussion on the merits you might want to do some digging first. This was my very first response to Cliff several months ago when he suggested that studios read this tier thread and then make EE/DNR decisions because of it:



> Quote:
> I agree with a lot of your post and disagree with this portion of it. Titles with NR and EE are lowered on the Tier scale in this thread, not raised because of it.



In fact several posters (Cold, lgans, Dave, etc) chimed in to agree with a large portion of his posts but question or raise points about parts they didn't fully accept.


Another poster responded to my quote by saying he agreed with Cliff that this thread is at the root of DNR/EE and also that it is the reason why older, back-catalogue titles are not being released. My response to him was:



> Quote:
> You know for a fact that studios apply DNR and EE because of this Tier Thread? I mean, how am I to interpret that any other way? Because if you're saying you know for a fact that studios apply DNR and EE to make things look better to the average viewer you're not saying anything 90% of the folks in this thread don't already know. So, seriously, how do people draw the conclusion that DNR and EE are applied *because of this thread* even though titles in this thread are downgraded because of those very things? And why don't those same idiots [studio heads] read the DNR/EE master list thread while they're here browsing?
> 
> 
> And since you have basically corroborated everything in that original post, how do you reconcile the upcoming release of a 1985 back catalog title like Passage to India with it?



Cliff to my line of questioning:



> Quote:
> You know what? You're right. Forget it. You clearly know more than people who deal with the studios and get this information first hand. The fact that some of you are so ungrateful and unbending in your viewpoints sickens me. Bask in the warmth of ignorance and incomprehension. You deserve what you get.



Now, contrast that with the response from the actual poster I was questioning (who may be an insider himself, but I wouldn't know):



> Quote:
> Brandon,
> 
> 
> I know you're a level-headed poster here and I understand your frustration, as it is sometimes my frustration as well, but I don't know what to tell you except that studio people (especially the marketing guys) take away from direct feedback that reaches them and from reading boards like this, of which this thread is a very prominent part, that the majority of people, even enthusiasts, prefer their movies clean, sharp and shiny. Looking at the top of this *picture quality*, not eye candy thread (at least that's what the title says), and it's not that hard to understand how they might arrive at that conclusion.
> 
> 
> Now what to do with the movies that aren't clean and sharp? Either you make em clean and sharp (ugh!), or you don't publish them, or you take a chance and put them out as faithful to the source as they are probably ever going to be and get reactions like with Wall Street.



Now I think it's pretty obvious that one is more open to actual discussion than the other. He responded to my questions with actual answers as opposed to sarcasm and claims of ignorance.


So instead of discussing the matter further with Cliff and hollywoodguy to get to the heart of why pawning off responsibility on the Tier Thread is misguided, this is my response to the former:



> Quote:
> Right...so because I don't share your viewpoint I must be ignorant and unable to comprehend it. Very similar to other rants of folks who assume that anybody who doesn't share their viewpoint of where a title should be placed must absolutely hate grain or naturalistic film elements and not know anything about the medium. It is absolutely impossible that a person can share an educated yet contrary viewpoint to their own, because of course only theirs can be right...right?
> 
> *So basically a sincere discussion of these things was not what you had in mind.* You only cared to enlighten us to something which we could not see for ourselves, and when discussion to the contrary is thrown back at you it only serves to prove that those in dissent are ignorant. Some might find your tactics sickening as well...



If you take from that a "us vs them" mentality then maybe we just see things differently. There is no "us" for me, I'm independant of this thread and do not administer it and speak for nobody but myself (and have prefaced posts of mine with that very disclaimer several times in the past).


But I absolutely do take exception to the notion that the claim of this thread being responsible for DNR and EE is free from reproach and cannot be argued against because it comes from somebody saying he knows it to happen. It completely ignores the historical impact of it on DVD. If this thread was not around--as Cinema Squid illustrated so well--there would still be several others offering similar views which could then be used as a scapegoat. Whether it be casual reviewers, reviewers from technical sites, professional film reviewers for HD media or other forums with similar threads, it all goes to prove that this is not some radical viewpoint being maintained only here on AVS.


And *all* of that completely relieves the actual perpetrators (studio heads) of the responsibility of faithfully reproducing the director's work to home media in the first place. They are the ones paid to do their jobs well and they are the ones who make the decision to alter a person's work in post-production. If they decide to take shortcuts to try and appease very casual movie-watchers (and obviously *not* those of AVS) by applying EE and DNR, only the irresponsible would blame a reviewer for that. It's akin to blaming a victim of a mugging for not carrying a weapon on them instead of holding the attacker culpable.


It also does not take into consideration these flaws in the accusation, even if the assertion is *assumed* true:


1) As pointed out several times, this thread docks points for EE/DNR, so even if you take the assertion as fact, the studio heads cannot be actually reading the thread because the opposition to DNR and EE is all over the place. If they are simply looking at the list and saying "we have to make it look like crank or shoot em up," then how irresponsible are they? How much of a mockery does it make their jobs to not take 30 minutes of due dilligence when they have the time to stroll through a forum of laymen?


2) AVS forum is currently on a crusade against DNR/EE that is only getting more vocal with every release. How do they find the Tier Thread and not see everything else going on here? Again, where is the due dilligence?


3) DNR/EE did not just start after this Tier Thread popped up. It has been around for years. There are HD masters used for cable television that are riddled with DNR/EE. How do you reconcile the fact that there is motive to add DNR/EE even when this thread is not a (assumed) considering factor?


4) DNR/EE absolutely does *not* make a movie look more like Shoot Em Up or Pirates of the Caribbean. So not only is the alleged process unfaithful to the source, waste of labor/resources, and misguided, but it's also not serving the purpose they wanted it to in the first place.


And of course there are many other facts that have to be reconciled with before any of the original assertion can not only be taken as justified, but anything other than misguided considering who is really to blame in using a random list (similar to many others) to make post-production decisions with. So yes I do take a very firm stance against the fundamental premise of Cliff's viewpoint. And there was an attempt to have an open discussion about it.


Instead of discussing it, we're left with personal attacks, straw man arguments ("these are the top 5 posters here," "this movie is ranked so low that you must be unable to comprehend how it was supposed to look," "he's a insider so it's a shame people aren't listening"), and a lot of talk that's not geared towards coming to a real solution. I can't really put into words how shameful it is for a person to continue stopping by to point out things like post count as if it proves something. And these are the people actually being defended. That is the only thing more pathetic...that people (including yourself) are suggesting that people using reason and logic to make a point are in the wrong and the ones using personal attacks and non-sequiturs to mask their intentions are in the right. Half of them (including some of the ones you claim are being shot down) are not attempting to make this thread better, they're venting frustration or simply voicing their opinion of how bad it is or in some cases taking pot-shots at it because they're upset about something that happened several months ago or in the original Tier Thread.


I have absolutely no qualms with calling bullsh** on that type of behavior if the mods don't take action against it, nor do I have a problem with challenging anybody on the reasoning or logic of their posts. Too many times people equate knowledge with the ability to correctly and accurately apply that knowledge...the two do not always go hand-in-hand, and when they don't it should *always* be discussed in an open forum.


Nevertheless, since it's apparent that I'm being considered as driving one of the insiders away and somebody who is stifling open discussion, I'll bow out. I sincerely hope that all of the people you are sticking up for stick around and continue to keep this thread as helpful as possible, since that's obviously why they're here.


Brandon


----------



## Steeb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14484601
> 
> 
> Steeb started out with his blind support, and now you've joined in.



So because I don't agree with you and the rest of the vocal minority, my support for Cliff's position must be blind?










Sadly, this type of comment doesn't surprise me in the least.


Just a hunch, but I'm betting there's a reason why there's only a handful of people who participate in this thread on a regular basis...


----------



## ballen420




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bplewis24* /forum/post/14484601
> 
> 
> Nevertheless, since it's apparent that I'm being considered as driving one of the insiders away and somebody who is stifling open discussion, I'll bow out. I sincerely hope that all of the people you are sticking up for stick around and continue to keep this thread as helpful as possible, since that's obviously why they're here.
> 
> 
> Brandon



I hope you don't bow out over this. I've appreciated your views and comments, and for the posts I've read by you, I don't see how they could ever be characterized as driving people out, or stifling open discussion.


I've appreciated just about everyone's comments, even those by Patrick when he only watches 30 minutes of a movie!


----------



## briankmonkey




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ballen420* /forum/post/14484885
> 
> 
> I hope you don't bow out over this. I've appreciated your views and comments, and for the posts I've read by you, I don't see how they could ever be characterized as driving people out, or stifling open discussion.
> 
> 
> I've appreciated just about everyone's comments, even those by Patrick when he only watches 30 minutes of a movie!



Ditto.. Brandon is one of the best posters here, it would be a shame to have him leave. I have yet to see any example of him driving somebody away for sharing an opinion.


----------



## suffolk112000

I for one do not think this thread should be changed ‘midstream’ to fit the agenda of a few.

I use this thread for many things… mainly when I am buying movies that I have seen before, but not on Blu Ray.

The other day I watched Crank. The movie was OK, but the image was stellar.

When I watch a movie, I always try to not to constantly focus on how the movie looks because it always takes me away from the movie and that is just to frustrating for me. But Crank was an exception. It was very well done from a picture quality standpoint and I could not help but notice. When the credits rolled, one of the first things I did was get on line and check this thread as I wanted to see how it ranked compared to my views. I was not surprised when I saw Crank so highly ranked by my fellow members.


Brandon… very well said in the post above. I agree...









Hopefully it is time to get back to talking movies again.


----------



## monomer

Wow, my first time reading this thread (only the last 4 pages, no way am I gonna read all 191 pages!!!)... you guys are nutz. Rating Blu-Ray PQ is not some kind of exact science or else a machine would probably be doing the rating. It's just some people's OPINIONS and that's all! Some of you guys are getting way too intense and making this all personal and more about mind control and ego than anything else. I don't take any review or reviewer too seriously because I know in the end they won't ever think or see things exactly the way I do... but big deal, so what? The way I see it is... some one started a thread and so that person gets to make up the rules. Don't like the rules? then try persuasion and if that don't work then start your own thread and make the rules the way you like... then see if anyone jumps on-board and may the best thread win. Sheeeze come on guys, the whole discussion, complete with expletives and epic-sized postings, is really silly and a waste of everybody's time. Maybe its time to move on? Please, if you don't agree with what's going on in this thread then start your own (what? you think this thread has some special powers?







)... think about it, this forum is a very big place, big enough for everyone's wishes to be explored.


----------



## DaveBowman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *monomer* /forum/post/14486728
> 
> 
> Wow, my first time reading this thread (only the last 4 pages, no way am I gonna read all 191 pages!!!)... you guys are nutz. Rating Blu-Ray PQ is not some kind of exact science or else a machine would probably be doing the rating. It's just some people's OPINIONS and that's all! Some of you guys are getting way too intense and making this all personal and more about mind control and ego than anything else. I don't take any review or reviewer too seriously because I know in the end they won't ever think or see things exactly the way I do... but big deal, so what? The way I see it is... some one started a thread and so that person gets to make up the rules. Don't like the rules? then try persuasion and if that don't work then start your own thread and make the rules the way you like... then see if anyone jumps on-board and may the best thread win. Sheeeze come on guys, the whole discussion, complete with expletives and epic-sized postings, is really silly and a waste of everybody's time. Maybe its time to move on? Please, if you don't agree with what's going on in this thread then start your own (what? you think this thread has some special powers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )... think about it, this forum is a very big place, big enough for everyone's wishes to be explored.



The last couple days have been an unfortunate digression from the norm. This forum is usually pretty informative and fun. At the very least you can refer to the rankings on the first page for a consensus of opinion on the PQ and compare that with the various other online reviews. Hopefully this forum will get back to focusing on it's intended purpose very soon.


----------



## sodmeister




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaveBowman* /forum/post/14487034
> 
> 
> The last couple days have been an unfortunate digression from the norm. This forum is usually pretty informative and fun. At the very least you can refer to the rankings on the first page for a consensus of opinion on the PQ and compare that with the various other online reviews. Hopefully this forum will get back to focusing on it's intended purpose very soon.



YEA,

No kidding,i can go on my gaming forums to read fanboy pissing contests!


----------



## babrown92

Can we not get a mod to clean up all this crap, and we can go back to getting opinions on PQ?


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steeb* /forum/post/14484672
> 
> 
> So because I don't agree with you and the rest of the vocal minority, my support for Cliff's position must be blind?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, this type of comment doesn't surprise me in the least.
> 
> 
> Just a hunch, but I'm betting there's a reason why there's only a handful of people who participate in this thread on a regular basis...



Exactly! This is what I meant earlier about Brandon's posts making it us vs them. Brandon, your assumption is wrong. Do you understand? Your opinion about what I am thinking and doing are wrong, just as Steeb is saying. I am not taking Cliff's side and I see it there is no side just discourse over how this thread works.


To set the record straight for some of the previous posters. This is not an all or nothing situation. No one is saying anyone should leave as in Brandon, you or I or anyone!


This is not some fanboy discussion or fight over nonsense.


In some of my recent posts I mentioned tolerance and acceptance of each other's ideas can go along way and avoid this kind of situation.


Again, this is not an us vs them situation. I can only speak for myself, but I do not see myself or anyone in this thread taking sides and anyone saying I am or others are taking sides are just creating a division that never existed.


I also mentioned how AVS forum has a impact on many companies in the media business from broadcasters to gaming companies, music and movie studios. Even this thread does have an impact. I was in Best Buy in Salem Oregon last summer looking to buy some BD titles that I used this thread to influence my purchasing decision. Next to me was a guy with a piece of paper he printed of his PC and on it was a list of Tier titles from this very forum. I am gregarious and since it was still HD DVD vs BD at the time I asked him what he was buying etc. The first words out of his mouth were that he did a google search for BD reviews and this thread came up. He was picking top tier titles based on thier ranking in this thread. I don't believe he was even an AVS member. This is just one small story in one small city and AVS and this thread DO have that much of an impact. I do not have knowledge of what the studios do or do not know or how much they are influenced by AVS, but I do know that Ken H the mod has said and posted in threads that we do have an influence in media decisions in the audio visual business world.


At this point I have said enough and will continue to reference this thread as well as give the input I always have. I have nothing against Brandon or anyone who posts here or anyone on AVS for that matter. Why would I? I don't know them personally. Even if I did know them and didn't care for someone, I would still try to be tolerant and accepting and get along, simply because I can. I come here for entertainment and interesting discussions about topics on a hobby I love.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

I think it's gotten to a point where people are taking this way too seriously.


IN for starting a new PQ tier thread. Of course transferring the titles to the new thread, but just starting fresh with discussions.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I would hope Brandon continues posting his thoughts on titles in this thread as he has proven himself to be a valuable contributor. I think I understand where Mr. Stephenson's concerns come from about this thread. I'm not sure a continued discussion of his points here in this actual thread will be very productive and possibly a new thread for that discussion is needed just to address those concerns (which to be frank are not new and have been rehashed before on multiple forums).


If a title change is needed I'm not sure I like the term "eye candy". It sounds a little too fanboyish for my tastes. How about "The PQ Tier thread for Demo purposes" or something to that effect? I suspect a name change is not going to fundamentally address some of the underlying problems studio insiders might have with this thread.


----------



## Hughmc

I watched The Life Before Her Eyes last night. I would say lower Tier One. Overall the movie was very consistent in terms of clarity, colors, etc., but it didn't have much 3d pop. I did notice some EE around objects like a couch on one scene or Evan Rachels Woods fingers in another, but it seemed minimal.


Sony 60in [email protected] 8ft from PS3 by HDMI.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/14487571
> 
> 
> I would hope Brandon continues posting his thoughts on titles in this thread as he has proven himself to be a valuable contributor. I think I understand where Mr. Stephenson's concerns come from about this thread. I'm not sure a continued discussion of his points here in this actual thread will be very productive and possibly a new thread for that discussion is needed just to address those concerns (which to be frank are not new and have been rehashed before on multiple forums).
> 
> 
> If a title change is needed I'm not sure I like the term "eye candy". It sounds a little too fanboyish for my tastes. How about "The PQ Tier thread for Demo purposes" or something to that effect? I suspect a name change is not going to fundamentally address some of the underlying problems studio insiders might have with this thread.



I agree. Calling it the eye candy thread sounds cheap and cheezy IMO.


----------



## Shane Martin

Then why come back to Cliff and tell him that it's an eye candy thread? It is an eye candy thread. The biggest Cliff detractors say "It's an eye candy thread".


I like the idea of "eye candy" thread and then cut off the candy at Tier 1 or tier 2 at the latest. Tiers 3 and below really contradict the idea of an eye candy thread.


----------



## Shane Martin

BTW what does everyone think of Starship Troopers. I thought it looked rather fabulous myself. Mid Tier 1 I thought.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Shane Martin* /forum/post/14487688
> 
> 
> Then why come back to Cliff and tell him that it's an eye candy thread? It is an eye candy thread. The biggest Cliff detractors say "It's an eye candy thread".
> 
> 
> I like the idea of "eye candy" thread and then cut off the candy at Tier 1 or tier 2 at the latest. Tiers 3 and below really contradict the idea of an eye candy thread.



That would dismiss the point of this thread.


We need to talk about and discuss even those titles that aren't "eye candy"


----------



## briankmonkey




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/14487704
> 
> 
> That would dismiss the point of this thread.
> 
> 
> We need to talk about and discuss even those titles that aren't "eye candy"



Beat me to it.. One of the big reasons I come here is I want to see if a title is on here. If isn't good or great looking I want to know if it would be wasting my time and or money to check out again.


----------



## Steeb

Before you guys get all up in arms over the suggestion that the thread be called the "Eye Candy" thread, I thought I would remind you a couple of posts:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13432711
> 
> 
> This is wrong.
> 
> 
> This is NOT a "reference" thread.
> 
> 
> I believe this has been mentioned before. More than once.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is an "EYE CANDY" thread. If you want to criticize it for being an EYE CANDY thread, go right ahead. But that's what it is.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/13369008
> 
> 
> 
> This is basically an "eye candy" list, correct?


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briankmonkey* /forum/post/14487738
> 
> 
> Beat me to it.. One of the big reasons I come here is I want to see if a title is on here. If isn't good or great looking I want to know if it would be wasting my time and or money to check out again.



Exactly.


----------



## Macfan424




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steeb* /forum/post/14487774
> 
> 
> Before you guys get all up in arms over the suggestion that the thread be called the "Eye Candy" thread, I thought I would remind you a couple of posts:



It makes no difference to me what it's called, but "Eye Candy" in the title would do a lot to eliminate some of the misunderstanding that inspired the last five pages of wrangling.


But we live in an era of euphemism, even if it does interfere with clear communication.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briankmonkey* /forum/post/14487738
> 
> 
> Beat me to it.. One of the big reasons I come here is I want to see if a title is on here. If isn't good or great looking I want to know if it would be wasting my time and or money to check out again.



Same for me and I would think the same for those who are not regulars or even AVS members.


----------



## lgans316

Wow. So many posts in just few hours.










My sincere request to Brandon and others is to continue contributing here and keep this thread active.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Shane Martin* /forum/post/14487693
> 
> 
> BTW what does everyone think of Starship Troopers. I thought it looked rather fabulous myself. Mid Tier 1 I thought.


*Starship Troopers Video: AVC | Audio: Dolby True HD | AR: 1.85:1 | Sony*


Mid Tier 1 sounds slightly high to me. It definitely looked great in many parts but there are more than half a dozen scenes that exhibited film artefacts in the form of mild EE, print impurities and noise that seems to be related to the source material. Nevertheless about 20%~25% of the video presentation lacked the pop that we have seen from some of the titles that are placed below mid Tier-1.


P.S: The U.S version shows more print impurities (dirt / white specks) than the U.K BD during the action scenes.


Link to my post explaining the editing error: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...4#post14450144 


My recommendation is to place the U.S BD just above or below the U.K BD which is in top of Tier-2 though I would wish to have these 2 titles above 2001: ASO.


SuprSlow,


The UK BD of Starship Troopers is from BVHE and not Sony. Please make the correction once you visit back.


Starship Troopers Video: VC-1 | Audio: PCM | (UK Import) | AR: 1.85:1 | *Sony* ==> *BVHE*


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/14487571
> 
> 
> 
> If a title change is needed I'm not sure I like the term "eye candy". It sounds a little too fanboyish for my tastes. How about "The PQ Tier thread for Demo purposes" or something to that effect? I suspect a name change is not going to fundamentally address some of the underlying problems studio insiders might have with this thread.



How about this idea...

How about we leave the thread title the way it is instead of trying to appease the minority...??

The idea of changing the name of this thread to "The PQ Tier Thread For Demo Purposes" is completely insane.









When I demo something in my theater, I never show an ENTIRE MOVIE! A demo is for short clips... chapters of a movie... etc...

Now if you want to start a thread about movies that are good for demo purposes, by all means go right ahead.

This is about the ENTIRE MOVIE on the disc... not just a five minute segment.


I have Vantage Point, The Bank Job and Celine Dion: Live in Las Vegas: A New Day coming via NetFlix. Looking forward to evaluating those titles.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/14488805
> 
> 
> How about this idea...
> 
> How about we leave the thread title the way it is instead of trying to appease the minority...??
> 
> The idea of changing the name of this thread to "The PQ Tier Thread For Demo Purposes" is completely insane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I demo something in my theater, I never show an ENTIRE MOVIE! A demo is for short clips... chapters of a movie... etc...
> 
> Now if you want to start a thread about movies that are good for demo purposes, by all means go right ahead.
> 
> This is about the ENTIRE MOVIE on the disc... not just a five minute segment.
> 
> 
> I have Vantage Point, The Bank Job and Celine Dion: Live in Las Vegas: A New Day coming via NetFlix. Looking forward to evaluating those titles.



It is not about appeasing the minority. It is about labeling as accurately as possible to denote what its true intent of the thread is so as to educate and not mislead. As I said, this doesn't have to be about us vs them. Why do some keep trying to separate posters or have them as adversaries? Masses can be asses so why should the majority rule in an open forum where everyone is equal, because the tone of it sounds like you are with us or against us and if you are a minority you have no say and that isn't right.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14488892
> 
> 
> It is not about appeasing the minority. It is about labeling as accurately as possible to denote what its true intent of the thread is so as to educate and not mislead. As I said, this doesn't have to be about us vs them. Why do some keep trying to separate posters or have them as adversaries? Masses can be asses so why should the majority rule in an open forum where everyone is equal, because the tone of it sounds like you are with us or against us and if you are a minority you have no say and that isn't right.



What is there about this thread that is so misleading??

You can read can't you?

I think this sentence is pretty revealing



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14488892
> 
> 
> Masses can be asses so why should the majority rule in an open forum where everyone is equal, because the tone of it sounds like you are with us or against us and if you are a minority you have no say and that isn't right.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Justice League: Season One*


tier recommendation: top quarter of *Tier 2*


WB released this animated television show on Blu-ray just this week. The complete season presented here runs approximately 576 minutes and is encoded in VC-1 across 3 separate BD-25s. Links at the bottom of this post can be found for the BDinfo scans for each disc (courtesy of forum member House). The video encode ranges from the low single digits to very brief peaks in the low thirties. I couldn't find any visible faults with the compression work, as the BD never shows any signs of artifacting. This type of material compresses very easy anyway and doesn't really require higher bitrates.


For those not familiar with the animated DC universe shows under the guidance of Bruce Timm, the animation style is a traditional two dimensional look with simple and clean designs. For those who have seen the BD of Justice League: The New Frontier, the animation here is not that far removed from that style (although with modern character designs in place of the retro look). Of course with this being a weekly television show (it originally aired on Cartoon Network), the animation seems slightly lower in quality than the New Frontier disc. Due to this, the animation is not as detailed as one would expect from say an animated theatrical feature.


I compared this BD directly to the upconverted dvds on my trusty old Denon 3930 dvd player. It looks like Warner has reused the exact same source or master used for the dvd set, duplicating the dvd's 4:3 aspect ratio and minor source flaws (which speaks more of the show's original production budget than anything else). The master looks in excellent shape, though both the dvd and the BD reveal some very minor flaws in the actual source animation with some infrequent banding in the background sky.


The dvds look very nice upconverted, but the true 1080P image from the BD set blows away the upconverted dvd image in several aspects. The colors on the Blu-ray image are spectacular with perfect contrast and top notch saturation. The dvds in comparison look faded and dull. Blues and reds and greens pop all over the screen as the brightly colored costumes fly about on the BD. As expected for animation, black levels are as good as it can get with the deepest and boldest blacks seen throughout the show. The Blu-ray also looks razor sharp with a surprising amount of depth and dimensionality for a traditionally animated show.


The only negative I could consistently see on this BD is the presence of what appears to be aliasing artifacts on moving objects. The static background images don't exhibit any of this, but most moving objects (mostly people or superheroes) in the foreground display this phenomenon. It also noticeable on the dvd and I suspect inherent to the way they animated the show. Just watch the black outlines of any character for a couple of minutes to see this in action. I think a more definitive answer for what is exactly going on here could only be answered by someone involved with the original production. There is the tiniest bit of edge enhancement but I had to freeze frame the image to identify it.


I've saved for last the issue that has been debated about this release since it was first announced. Warner has released this BD in a 4:3 aspect ratio, mirroring the previously available dvds. What is controversial is that this show was broadcast in both a 4:3 ratio and in a second broadcast a standard widescreen ratio, causing confusion about the proper aspect ratio for this show. Instead of relying on screen captures, I watched several episodes both ways. One was the standard 4:3 aspect ratio and the other was a matted widescreen presentation (which is exactly how the producers did it) that approximated what a widescreen release of this show would look like.


Both ways are really a mixed bag. It does seem that much of the show was meant for a widescreen look, but it is a very cramped and tight composition that is clearly not meant for all scenes. And certain episodes were clearly not animated with widescreen in mind going off the visual look. Check the two part Fury episodes for one example. Lots of important animation (like parts of faces) gets cut out if one watches them in widescreen with some very strange framing happening at times. I am satisfied with the 4:3 presentation and for those who wish to watch it in widescreen they can always zoom the picture or matte it themselves.


Warner has done a very good job on this release for picture quality (alas no lossless audio) and I recommend a tier two placement near Dogma. The only thing holding the image back from a higher placement for me is the quality of the animation compared to more expensive theatrical animation seen in the higher tiers.


Disc 1 scan: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1#post14429761 

Disc 2 scan: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...7#post14435207 

Disc 3 scan: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post14450895


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/14487571
> 
> *I would hope Brandon continues posting his thoughts on titles in this thread as he has proven himself to be a valuable contributor.* I think I understand where Mr. Stephenson's concerns come from about this thread. I'm not sure a continued discussion of his points here in this actual thread will be very productive and possibly a new thread for that discussion is needed just to address those concerns (which to be frank are not new and have been rehashed before on multiple forums).
> 
> *If a title change is needed I'm not sure I like the term "eye candy". It sounds a little too fanboyish for my tastes.* How about "The PQ Tier thread for Demo purposes" or something to that effect? *I suspect a name change is not going to fundamentally address some of the underlying problems studio insiders might have with this thread.*



+1 on the hope for continued participation from Brandon.


On the name change subject, while I posted before that I was open on this, I agree that the term "eye candy" is not the right way to go.


Perhaps instead a clear statement at the very top of the first page that this thread is not based on evaluating fidelity to the source, followed by a plain statement that grain is not a PQ flaw.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/14489165
> 
> *Justice League: Season One*
> 
> tier recommendation: top quarter of *Tier 2*



Another excellent review Phantom. AVS is looking for technical writers. Why don't members like you, brandon and few others apply for it !!


----------



## ballen420

I watched Street Kings last night. Not a huge Keanu Reeves fan, but he was actually decent in this flick. Can't say I was expecting much out of this movie, but it had a decent story, and was worth watching on a Wednesday night.


I thought the PQ was pretty impressive. There were definitely some very sharp outdoor scenes and scenes with excellent facial detail, though it didn't seem to be consistent throughout the whole movie. I would recommend low to mid tier 1 for this.


----------



## OldCodger73

Glad to see some ranking of movies again.


STARSHIP TROOPERS. Watched this the other night and was impressed. The only previous time I'd seen it was in bits and pieces on one of the HD channels. Really fast paced, I thought the director did a good job keeping it moving rapidly which helped overcome the deficiencies of his attractive but pretty inept actors. Its present ranking in the top 1/4 of Tier 2 seems about right.


THE COUNTERFEITERS. Really an interesting movie. It was shot in a gritty semi documentary style. Colors were muted going with the style, sharpness was fine. Since this is an eye candy thread, perhaps lower Tier 3, but don't let the ranking put you off, it's well worthwatching.


THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER. Were the Jack Ryan movies ranked before and then lost in the AVS meltdown? Anyway, a great movie. This is a hard one to rate, underwater shots had that wavering underwater look, so sharpness suffered slightly in those. Another issue was unshielded lights in the Red October, which caused hot spots. Maybe bottom 1/4 of Tier 2. Surrounds were very active, sometimes making the dialogue hard to hear. I thought LFE was a little weak. All in all I'm very satisfied with the transfer.


CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER. Mid Tier 2. Another satisfying transfer.


THE PATRIOT GAME. Mid Tier 2. Ditto.


One caveat, these were watched on a Panasonic 50" 720p plasma, Panasonic 10a player at 7 1/2 feet. I'm also a movie fan and if I get caught up in a movie I typically notice sharpness and color but not the other little things that are so important to some member, that is unless they are glaringly noticable.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/14494441
> 
> 
> Glad to see some ranking of movies again.
> 
> 
> STARSHIP TROOPERS. Watched this the other night and was impressed. The only previous time I'd seen it was in bits and pieces on one of the HD channels. Really fast paced, I thought the director did a good job keeping it moving rapidly which helped overcome the deficiencies of his attractive but pretty inept actors. Its present ranking in the top 1/4 of Tier 2 seems about right.
> 
> 
> THE COUNTERFEITERS. Really an interesting movie. It was shot in a gritty semi documentary style. Colors were muted going with the style, sharpness was fine. Since this is an eye candy thread, perhaps lower Tier 3, but don't let the ranking put you off, it's well worthwatching.
> 
> 
> THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER. Were the Jack Ryan movies ranked before and then lost in the AVS meltdown? Anyway, a great movie. This is a hard one to rate, underwater shots had that wavering underwater look, so sharpness suffered slightly in those. Another issue was unshielded lights in the Red October, which caused hot spots. Maybe bottom 1/4 of Tier 2. Surrounds were very active, sometimes making the dialogue hard to hear. I thought LFE was a little weak. All in all I'm very satisfied with the transfer.
> 
> 
> CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER. Mid Tier 2. Another satisfying transfer.
> 
> 
> THE PATRIOT GAME. Mid Tier 2. Ditto.
> 
> 
> One caveat, these were watched on a Panasonic 50" 720p plasma, Panasonic 10a player at 7 1/2 feet. I'm also a movie fan and if I get caught up in a movie I typically notice sharpness and color but not the other little things that are so important to some member, that is unless they are glaringly noticable.



Thanks for the multiple reviews! I was glad to read that the Jack Ryan movies looked good, especially the latter two with Harrison Ford in them. I have the SD DVDs, but I will be replacing them with Blu-rays based on your reviews.


----------



## RBFC

I'd agree with upper tier 2 for _Starship Troopers_. On my Pioneer Elite plasma, I didn't feel the blacks were as deep as they might have been. Otherwise, the title may have earned a slightly higher recommendation.


Lee


----------



## Darth Indy

Does anyone else see the macroblocking or whatever it is in Order of Phoenix on Blu-ray. Go to timestamp 2:12 and check it out. The smoke and floor macroblock and move very slowly. It is present later as well if you look at the smoke in the background.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Darth Indy* /forum/post/14498132
> 
> 
> Does anyone else see the macroblocking or whatever it is in Order of Phoenix on Blu-ray. Go to timestamp 2:12 and check it out. The smoke and floor macroblock and move very slowly. It is present later as well if you look at the smoke in the background.



What is your display device?

Seating distance?

Just curious.

Order of the Pheonix is one of the next five movies in my NF que.


----------



## Darth Indy

I'm using Sony vw-60 Black Pearl projector, seating is 12 ft. away from a 118 inch carada brilliant white screen.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Darth Indy* /forum/post/14500371
> 
> 
> I'm using Sony vw-60 Black Pearl projector, seating is 12 ft. away from a 118 inch carada brilliant white screen.



Me to!

It will be interesting to see what you are talking about.

I'll be watching this movie closely.


----------



## Hughmc

I still don't see Doomsday listed even in the unranked titles.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14502070
> 
> 
> I still don't see Doomsday listed even in the unranked titles.



SuprSlow said he was going to be busy so we haven't had updates in awhile.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Proposition*


tier recommendation: top quarter of *Tier 2*


First Look Studios released this very nice looking Blu-ray this past week. The 104-minute movie is encoded in VC-1 on a single BD-25 and appears to have been a dual format video encode originally for both Blu-ray and HD DVD. Whoever encoded the video seems to have followed WB style encoding parameters, with the average video bitrate probably around 16 Mbps. Overall most scenes range between 12 to 22 Mbps for the video encode. Most of the main feature looks artifact free, though a few minor compression problems creep up once in awhile. Some minor amounts of posterization and compression noise appears in more difficult scenes though the desert shots hold up surprisingly well throughout the movie. Many of the desert scenes look spectacular.


The HD master used for this BD looks in excellent shape and as good as many new day and date releases I’ve seen. In general this is a very clean looking movie with little visible grain except in the very short passages that take place in darker environments. I can report no DNR is seen and edge enhancement halos are totally absent.


Contrast and saturation are good but not great. I did think fleshtones looked a little yellowish at times though this seems to improve as the movie rolls along. The few scenes that test the depth of the BD’s black levels did reveal a little macroblocking and mosquito noise. The image has a nice level of micro detail and resolution but I did think it looked much flatter than many other titles I’ve viewed before. There is very little pop or depth to the picture except sporadically. At times the picture quality easily looks like a tier one title but this seems somewhat inconsistent. The image is relatively sharp looking.


I would recommend this title be placed somewhere in tier two near the top. The BD has a very nice image for a catalog title from one of the smaller studios but just doesn’t consistently measure up to tier one status for my tastes.


Watching on a calibrated 60” Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080P/24 fed from a PS3 with a viewing distance of approximately six feet.


----------



## lgans316

*Flags of Our Fathers (U.K Import) Video: VC-1 | Audio: LPCM 24-bit | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner*


While the U.S version was AVC encoded and released by DreamWorks with high bit rate video and lossy audio, the U.K version is encoded on a 50 GB disc using VC-1 that has an average video bit rate of 18~22 Mbps and LPCM audio encoded at 6.9 Mbps.


Though the color palette is desaturated, detailing is excellent especially on the action scenes and very good on the non-action scenes. Black levels were deep and inky but was slightly overshadowed by the high contrast look. Posterization is noticeable in few shots especially on the skyshots, walls and it's corners that are underexposed due to poor lighting. Though Fleshtones and texture detailing looked quite good they fall on the soft end in comparison to other titles. However the overall movie had a very smooth but film like appearance. A thin layer of grain is noticeable throughout the presentation though looking at few facial close-ups one could easily develop a suspicion that a minor degree of top laye grain removal has been performed. Thouigh I was pleased with the AV presentation, it cannot be used as demo material as it certainly lacks the pop that is exhibited by other titles in the top tiers.


Recommendation: *Below U.S version of Flags in Tier-2 assuming that it has slightly better PQ as reported in the site reviews*


----------



## haste




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steeb* /forum/post/14484672
> 
> 
> 
> Just a hunch, but I'm betting there's a reason why there's only a handful of people who participate in this thread on a regular basis...




i dont participate a whole lot because it takes a lot of time to contribute to a thread like this if done properly. i dont have that kind of time...i am constantly reading posts in this thread and this recent debacle with stupid rants has me visiting this less and less.


open-mindedness on the internet is slim to none because people on the other side of their computer monitors basically think they are a god and know everything because they dont have to answer to anybody.


anyway, i hope this whole debating thing goes away and this thread goes back to some normalcy, soon...


----------



## hakstone

Same thing happened to the SD PQ thread.

Why no mention of 'The doors' release ?


----------



## SuprSlow

I'm sorry for my absence. A lot of stuff is going on and I just haven't had the time lately. If anyone would like to help with updates, please PM me.


One other quick note: I think it's time we abandon the Unranked List. With more and more titles coming out, I think it's fruitless to keep adding titles to the list. New titles will be added to the tiers once they are recommended for placement. The list in its current form will remain, but won't be updated with new releases.



Thanks,

Brandon


----------



## patrick99

I finally finished watching *Never Back Down.* I thought the PQ was surprisingly outstanding, considering this is the first BD release from Summit (the place Steve Nickerson landed after leaving Warner last year). The detail was very nice, facial close-ups were generally really good. I can imagine that some may object to the colors, which tend toward brown and yellow, but that was clearly a stylistic choice. As with Fox releases, the company that did the authoring and compression is identified at the end of the disc. In this case it's Deluxe, which has done such nice work for Fox recently. My recommendation would be top half of Tier 1. I will be interested to hear what others think about this one.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I recently viewed Hitman and think it is ranked too high currently. My personal recommendation would be no higher than near the bottom of tier two at best. It is currently ranked in the second quarter of tier two. I read through all the opinions on this title from the thread and some would seem to agree.


It is maybe the worst compression job I've seen from Fox since they switched to AVC as their video codec of choice with most scenes averaging in the teens and compression noise and banding apparent. What is also bewildering for a new day and date Blu-ray, the master used for the transfer looks in rough shape with obvious digital scratch removal artifacts present. The transfer has a heavily processed look to it with a very flat dull image. This is not a Blu-ray transfer I would call filmlike. I also have suspicions that some light grain removal has been applied, particularly in the first half of the movie. It is not as obvious of a hack job like Scary Movie but high frequency detail and grain seem absent at times.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

From the sounds of it Phantom you think it should be even lower than bottom of tier 2


----------



## Phantom Stranger

For my tastes Hitman definitely straddles the line between the second and third tier for quality. It still looks good occasionally in spite of the problems I mentioned.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/14521239
> 
> 
> I recently viewed Hitman and think it is ranked too high currently. My personal recommendation would be no higher than near the bottom of tier two at best. It is currently ranked in the second quarter of tier two. *I read through all the opinions on this title from the thread and some would seem to agree*.



I am one them that would definitely agree with you Phantom.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *haste* /forum/post/14517966
> 
> 
> i dont participate a whole lot because it takes a lot of time to contribute to a thread like this if done properly. i dont have that kind of time...i am constantly reading posts in this thread and this recent debacle with stupid rants has me visiting this less and less.
> 
> 
> open-mindedness on the internet is slim to none because people on the other side of their computer monitors basically think they are a god and know everything because they dont have to answer to anybody.
> 
> 
> anyway, *i hope this whole debating thing goes away and this thread goes back to some normalcy, soon*...



Just read the last fews days of posts and you will see that the thread HAD returned to normalcy. Ironically, it is your post alone that brought up the subject again.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14521584
> 
> 
> Just read the last fews days of posts and you will see that the thread HAD returned to normalcy. Ironically, it is your post alone that brought up the subject again.



I was thinking the same thing


----------



## mpyw

Watched Nim's Island last night..no flaws in PQ department. sharp & details and the CGI are perfect....to me it's a Top tier 1 or entry to tier 0 title.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/14521500
> 
> 
> For my tastes Hitman definitely straddles the line between the second and third tier for quality. It still looks good occasionally in spite of the problems I mentioned.



I have watched Hitman on 37", 42" and 50" Panny Plasmas. It was me who recommended it to be placed in the top quarter of Tier-2 because I didn't notice anything severe except for some minor compression noise in couple of places. To my eyes it looked faithful to the theatrical presentation which also looked scrubbed and gritty. Close-up shots displayed value sharpness alongside aerial shots which looked film like and breathtaking. I obviously would desire for higher bit rates but given the fact that it's just a 16 Mbps AVBR encode from FOX, it still looks quite good. Many of my friends who viewed it mentioned that it looked better than some of the titles placed in Tier-1. Just my opinion.


----------



## Shane Martin

I feel Hitman is ranked just perfectly. I would agree with lgans's accessment. I thought Starship Troopers (region a) was notably underscored. I felt it was a solid mid tier 1 title.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mpyw* /forum/post/14522174
> 
> 
> Watched Nim's Island last night..no flaws in PQ department. sharp & details and the CGI are perfect....to me it's a Top tier 1 or entry to tier 0 title.



I don't think Nim's Island makes it to Tier 0, but definitely top half of Tier 1, maybe top quarter. Shots of Foster usually looked quite sharp; shots of Breslin sometimes looked just a tiny bit soft.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/14519122
> 
> 
> I'm sorry for my absence. A lot of stuff is going on and I just haven't had the time lately. If anyone would like to help with updates, please PM me.
> 
> 
> One other quick note: I think it's time we abandon the Unranked List. With more and more titles coming out, I think it's fruitless to keep adding titles to the list. New titles will be added to the tiers once they are recommended for placement. The list in its current form will remain, but won't be updated with new releases.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Brandon



I will try to consolidate and provide you the recommendation list since the last update.


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14524194
> 
> 
> I will try to consolidate and provide you the recommendation list since the last update.




Thanks. If you'd like to cover a certain range of posts, I'll get the rest. I'm making some free time tomorrow, whether the boss likes it or not


----------



## b_scott

Pirates #1 looks so freaking amazing..... and I haven't even watched #2 or 3 yet on BD:


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briansemerick* /forum/post/14525858
> 
> 
> Pirates #1 looks so freaking amazing..... and I haven't even watched #2 or 3 yet on BD:



I know.....they're really really good! The second and third actually look slightly better than the first, so you're in for a treat.


----------



## maverick0716

Mrs. Doubtfire has quite an impressive transfer for a movie made in 1993.....I honestly had to recheck when the movie was made because it looked like most newer titles. The detail was quite good for most of the movie, while colours and black levels were great. I think this deserves to be right above the 1/2 mark in Tier 2.......where it's placed now is definitely underrating it in my opinion.


42" Panasonic Plasma (768p)

PS3 though HDMI

6-7 ft.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14522530
> 
> 
> I have watched Hitman on 37", 42" and 50" Panny Plasmas. It was me who recommended it to be placed in the top quarter of Tier-2 because I didn't notice anything severe except for some minor compression noise in couple of places. To my eyes it looked faithful to the theatrical presentation which also looked scrubbed and gritty.



You know I respect your tier recommendations immensely, but I guess we will agree to disagree on this particular transfer. I never saw this movie theatrically so you would know better than I. After I watched the special features I didn't realize so much of this movie was shot on green screen with digitally filled-in backgrounds so that might explain partially what I was seeing. I just had high expectations for this BD and was let down a little.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14522530
> 
> 
> I have watched Hitman on 37", 42" and 50" Panny Plasmas. To my eyes *it looked faithful to the theatrical presentation which also looked scrubbed and gritty*.



Since Phantom responded to this, I thought I would too.


First of all, I echo the sentiments of Phantom by saying "I respect your tier recommendations immensely." But when your argument for the placement of Hitman has to do with it being "faithful to the theatrical presentation," I have to remind you that the standards set forth on page one does NOT list that as a criterion for rating a movie.


If memory serves me right, some commented on "28 Days Later" being faithful to its theatrical presentation and thus they were willing to be lenient when it came to rating it, even though they admitted the PQ was pretty bad. But many responded by saying, in essence, "If the PQ is bad, it's bad, and we can't judge a title by the theatrical presentation, the Director's intent, or by any other standard other than those set forth on page one of this thread."


Denny


----------



## lgans316

You guys are comparing 28 Days Later and Hitman which are in totally different league in terms of AV presentation. I couldn't find anything wrong with the video quality of Hitman except for compression noise on couple of shots. May be my Panny is sharper than your Kuros.










I request you folks to revisit Hitman by comparing it with titles placed in bottom of Tier-2. For example, I felt a huge difference after playing I am Legend and The Island/Deja Vu back-to-back and thought IAL looked soft. Hitman doesn't leave a lot to be desired like many titles that are placed in bottom of Tier-2.


Anyways it was just my opinion and if we have more people who recommends it to be pushed down I am perfectly fine with it.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14530420
> 
> 
> You guys are comparing 28 Days Later and Hitman which are in totally different league in terms of AV presentation.
> 
> 
> I request you folks to revisit Hitman by comparing it with titles placed in bottom of Tier-2.
> 
> 
> Anyways it was just my opinion and if we have more people who recommends it to be pushed down I am perfectly fine with it.



FWIW, I was NOT comparing the PQ of "28 Days Later" with "Hitman" (for Hitman is lightyears ahead of 28 Days Later in terms of PQ). I was simply comparing your argument of Hitman being "faithful to its theatrical presentation" to the same argument that was being made by those who were willing to cut 28 Days Later some slack because it too was faithful to its theatrical presentation. This argument, in both cases, does not hold water, because it isn't one of the standards set forth on page one for determining PQ.


In fairness to your next statement, when time permits I surely will revisit Hitman and compare it with other titles (that I have watched) in the bottom of Tier 2.


And in response to your last statement, I admire your gracious spirit to go along with others if a majority decide to move Hitman down. This is the attitude we should all have when it comes to accepting a consensus and I commend you for it.


----------



## lgans316

Thanks djoberg. Let's shoo the evil spirits that haunts this thread.







I am seeing few members bad mouthing about this thread in other threads though we seldom engage in those kind of practices. Member Shane Martin concurs with me on the current placement of Hitman whilst you and Phantom don't. Except for the ones that are obviously demo quality, we might have to periodically revisit our assessments to make fair and better judgments.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14530626
> 
> 
> Thanks djoberg. Let's shoo the evil spirits that haunts this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am seeing few members bad mouthing about this thread in other threads though we seldom engage in those kind of practices. Member Shane Martin concurs with me on the current placement of Hitman whilst you and Phantom don't. Except for the ones that are obviously demo quality, we might have to periodically revisit our assessments to make fair and better judgments.



I agree!


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14530178
> 
> 
> Since Phantom responded to this, I thought I would too.
> 
> 
> First of all, I echo the sentiments of Phantom by saying "I respect your tier recommendations immensely." But when your argument for the placement of Hitman has to do with it being "faithful to the theatrical presentation," I have to remind you that the standards set forth on page one does NOT list that as a criterion for rating a movie.
> 
> 
> If memory serves me right, some commented on "28 Days Later" being faithful to its theatrical presentation and thus they were willing to be lenient when it came to rating it, even though they admitted the PQ was pretty bad. But many responded by saying, in essence, "If the PQ is bad, it's bad, and we can't judge a title by the theatrical presentation, the Director's intent, or by any other standard other than those set forth on page one of this thread."
> 
> 
> Denny



I agree.


28 days later was shot in SD, I would hope one wouldn't place it high because it was accurate to the theatrical presentation


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/14528276
> 
> 
> I know.....they're really really good! The second and third actually look slightly better than the first, so you're in for a treat.



watching Dead Men's Chest now. this is ridiculous. I feel like these people are standing in my room. the motion is incredible - long live 24p!


----------



## leng jai

Anyone got some impressions on Afro Samurai?


----------



## conquerermtm

The list at page 1 is not updated since 07/15.......more than a month.


Anyone knows what happened?


----------



## ChoarBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *conquerermtm* /forum/post/14533683
> 
> 
> The list at page 1 is not updated since 07/15.......more than a month.
> 
> 
> Anyone knows what happened?



Their server crashed a week ago, and they had a message about how all of the newer posts were lost... I'm guessing that probably had something to do with it.


----------



## K_Thompson

DVD Talk gave the new Transformers Blu-Ray excellent ratings for both video and audio quality. They even thought it looked better than the HD-DVD version. Has anyone had a chance to check it out? I realize it won't be officially released until 9/2, but I was hoping some lucky person might have been able to pick it up pre-release.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K_Thompson* /forum/post/14535779
> 
> 
> DVD Talk gave the new Transformers Blu-Ray excellent ratings for both video and audio quality. They even thought it looked better than the HD-DVD version. Has anyone had a chance to check it out? I realize it won't be officially released until 9/2, but I was hoping some lucky person might have been able to pick it up pre-release.



That's good news, for I have a copy of the HD-DVD version and I was disappointed in it (not in the audio quality, for that was amazing). On that version the PQ is inconsistent throughout the movie; at times you have razor-sharp images with good color, contrast, inky blacks, excellent flesh tones, and some 3D pop; at other times it is soft with scenes of excessive grain. On the HD-DVD thread I rated it with what would be equivalent to a low Tier 1 on our thread, which isn't bad, but it went against the majority who listed it as Demo material from beginning to end.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *leng jai* /forum/post/14531636
> 
> 
> Anyone got some impressions on Afro Samurai?



I have a copy in my possession and probably will post a recommendation in the next couple of days.


----------



## Hughmc

The Secret:


I recommend bottom of Tier 4 or top of Tier 5 as the PQ was that underwhelming. I watched it and then read some reviews on its PQ which accurately described what I saw. After reading the review I then watched the DVD My Sassy Girl upscaled on my PS3. There was little to no difference in PQ and in fact I would say the PQ for the DVD was excellent.


PS3 to SOny A3000 @ 8ft through HDMI.


Movie was ok but rental at best if you are looking for quality PQ buys.


----------



## MelloFellow13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/14494441
> 
> 
> THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER. Were the Jack Ryan movies ranked before and then lost in the AVS meltdown? Anyway, a great movie. This is a hard one to rate, underwater shots had that wavering underwater look, so sharpness suffered slightly in those. Another issue was unshielded lights in the Red October, which caused hot spots. Maybe bottom 1/4 of Tier 2. Surrounds were very active, sometimes making the dialogue hard to hear. I thought LFE was a little weak. All in all I'm very satisfied with the transfer.



I agree with OldCodger73's assessment of the PQ for The Hunt For Red October.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14537205
> 
> 
> That's good news, for I have a copy of the HD-DVD version and I was disappointed in it (not in the audio quality, for that was amazing). On that version the PQ is inconsistent throughout the movie; at times you have razor-sharp images with good color, contrast, inky blacks, excellent flesh tones, and some 3D pop; at other times it is soft with scenes of excessive grain. On the HD-DVD thread I rated it with what would be equivalent to a low Tier 1 on our thread, which isn't bad, but it went against the majority who listed it as Demo material from beginning to end.



I highly doubt that it will be better in areas that you saw problems with. You can wish, of course, but don't get your hopes up.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

I really need to watch some more of my blu rays.


----------



## tingham

I watched 2 concert videos in the last few weeks. One was Elton..Live at MSG, and that looked incredible...definitely tier0.


I posted a while back about the Moody Blues " Lovely to See You", but I guess it got deleted when AVS went down and had to restore from a backup. This title is right up there with Elton for sure. Demo material..and deserving of tier0. I like some of the bands tunes, and they do ok performing them considering their age..but the pq is outstanding!!


50" Plasma from 10ft.

ps3


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tingham* /forum/post/14546688
> 
> 
> I posted a while back about the Moody Blues " Lovely to See You", but I guess it got deleted when AVS went down and had to restore from a backup. This title is right up there with Elton for sure. Demo material..and deserving of tier0. I like some of the bands tunes, and they do ok performing them considering their age..but the pq is outstanding!!



Good to hear about the Moody Blues as I've been meaning to pick that up. Where in tier zero would you place it?


----------



## b_scott

i thought Prom Night looked stellar. top Tier 1 material. movie was OK...


Pio 5010 1080p/24fps


9.5 feet back, pitch black.


----------



## lgans316

As SuprSlow is Super Busy, I will be consolidating the recommendations made since 07-16-08 and posting it here to ease up reflecting back in the OP.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14548066
> 
> 
> As SuprSlow is Super Busy, I will be consolidating the recommendations made since 07-16-08 and posting it here.



Awesome, thanks dude!


----------



## tingham




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/14547973
> 
> 
> Good to hear about the Moody Blues as I've been meaning to pick that up. Where in tier zero would you place it?



I would place it right below Elton. Elton seemed slightly better, but very little imo. The stage lighting in these concert B/D's makes all the difference with their pq.


I have not seen any of the movies below Elton except for POC. And since this is a concert disc..it's a different viewing experience. If the performance is filmed right, it's like you are on stage with the musicians.


----------



## DaveBowman

Anybody else see two little white dots a few inches apart at the very top and bottom of the screen during the entire movie? It was pretty easy to ignore and the PQ of the movie was great, but it's the first time I've seen this artifact on a Bluray disk. And yes, I do have my screen set to Full Pixel and that has never been a problem on any DVDs. Just wondered if it was a fluke or if it's on all the Doomsday disks.


----------



## avdork

I usually whip out Toy Story 2 for the intro to demo the gear, but now people assume it is HD instead of just an unconverted standard DVD. I have a Blu-ray player and was wondering what people use to demo the superior picture and audio in 5 minutes? Toy Story 2 was great because the intro has explosions, big lfe rumble, space, great surround effects, humour, fun, and works for any audience.


Reading through the hundreds of pages doesn't seem to help find what people use for this.


Looking for something that matches the above criteria. Ratatouille is a great movie and all, but doesn't have the excitement that Toy Story 2 has. Pirates of the Caribbean is a good one too, but where would you queue up the movie and the intro is rather slow. Cars is ok, I suppose. Looking for some "wow" stuff that lasts for about 5 minutes. Concert Blu-ray like Dave Matthews?


----------



## b_scott

i suggest Casino Royale. that whole beginning part is constant action, and it's not a cartoon. and it looks awesome.


----------



## Wryker




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *avdork* /forum/post/14552488
> 
> 
> I usually whip out Toy Story 2 for the intro to demo the gear, but now people assume it is HD instead of just an unconverted standard DVD. I have a Blu-ray player and was wondering what people use to demo the superior picture and audio in 5 minutes? Toy Story 2 was great because the intro has explosions, big lfe rumble, space, great surround effects, humour, fun, and works for any audience.
> 
> 
> Reading through the hundreds of pages doesn't seem to help find what people use for this.
> 
> 
> Looking for something that matches the above criteria. Ratatouille is a great movie and all, but doesn't have the excitement that Toy Story 2 has. Pirates of the Caribbean is a good one too, but where would you queue up the movie and the intro is rather slow. Cars is ok, I suppose. Looking for some "wow" stuff that lasts for about 5 minutes. Concert Blu-ray like Dave Matthews?



I fire up the first 5-7 minutes of Cars. Crank up the 7.1 surround sound REALLY loud so they get the full experience of audio and visual. I also use Ratatouille when the lady discovers the rats and begins shooting up her house.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Man on Fire, I Robot, Live Free or Die Hard...plenty of awesome action sequences with great PQ and SQ to choose from in these titles.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Afro Samurai: Season One director’s cut*


tier recommendation: 3rd quarter of *Tier 3*


Funimation released this animated show this week on a single BD-25. The episodes all together run a total of 131 minutes on this BD. The video is encoded in AVC with it ranging over a span of 8.8 Mbps to 36.1 Mbps from what I observed. A few scenes seem to hover in the mid-twenties but a majority of the video encode is firmly planted in the 13-16 Mbps range. I would guess the average video bitrate for the entire disc is around 17-18 Mbps. This is not a great compression job as some chroma noise and compression noise are visible at times but it seems perfectly serviceable.


For animation I was less than impressed with the final image presented here on this BD. The transfer itself looks fine but the increased resolution of 1080P seems to have revealed some weaknesses in the original animation. This is not animation on par with the quality of typical theatrical animation or even some of the better television shows. The show regularly uses some type of computerized lighting effect that makes the two dimensional animation appear to have massive color banding at times. It truly doesn’t look good and gets annoying once you notice it. On top of that there seems to be a haze or fog added to many scenes which distracts from and obscures the image. Detail looks great in the unobscured shots and more what I was expecting.


Colors are surprisingly muted and dull for an animated product. This seems to have been a conscious choice of the production team but it doesn’t help the image look bold and dynamic like many other animated programs I’ve seen on Blu-ray. Color saturation looks good occasionally but this is sporadic in nature and can vary. I would also say contrast appears limited at times, especially with the light haze that clouds certain scenes. The image just looks washed out occasionally.


The HD master used for the transfer to BD looks in perfect shape and as good as any day and date release. I can report the transfer is free of edge enhancement halos (a key for me when viewing animation) with the typical clean look of a traditionally animated program.


The image presented here seems held back more by source issues in the animation than any fault of Funimation. It is not what I would call animation screaming for 1080P but at times it does appear nice enough to allow me to recommend it for the third quarter of tier three. Unfortunately I had never seen this show before this disc, so I don't have the dvd to compare it with.


Watching on a 60” Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080P fed by a PS3 at a viewing distance of approximately six feet.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaveBowman* /forum/post/14550181
> 
> 
> Anybody else see two little white dots a few inches apart at the very top and bottom of the screen during the entire movie? It was pretty easy to ignore and the PQ of the movie was great, but it's the first time I've seen this artifact on a Bluray disk. And yes, I do have my screen set to Full Pixel and that has never been a problem on any DVDs. Just wondered if it was a fluke or if it's on all the Doomsday disks.



That sounds like a BD-Java complication. It typically gets cleared if you take the disc out and power down the player as it resets the player. Did you happen to turn on any interactive feature and then turned it off?


----------



## James A. McGahee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *avdork* /forum/post/14552488
> 
> 
> ...Looking for some "wow" stuff that lasts for about 5 minutes. Concert Blu-ray like Dave Matthews?



I would really like to see the top ten of Tier 0 moved up to "Reference Blue" and keep Reference Blue limited in number, just the very best. Maybe Reference Blue Audio, Reference Blue Video, Super Reference Blue for Audio and Video.


To me the categories are so large it makes comparing really difficult. Just a suggestion...Dividing the other categories may be more than anyone wants to take on and could easily make things even more difficult. I really do like the description of each existing category. Good job!


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *avdork* /forum/post/14552488
> 
> 
> I usually whip out Toy Story 2 for the intro to demo the gear, but now people assume it is HD instead of just an unconverted standard DVD. I have a Blu-ray player and was wondering what people use to demo the superior picture and audio in 5 minutes? Toy Story 2 was great because the intro has explosions, big lfe rumble, space, great surround effects, humour, fun, and works for any audience.
> 
> 
> Reading through the hundreds of pages doesn't seem to help find what people use for this.
> 
> 
> Looking for something that matches the above criteria. Ratatouille is a great movie and all, but doesn't have the excitement that Toy Story 2 has. Pirates of the Caribbean is a good one too, but where would you queue up the movie and the intro is rather slow. Cars is ok, I suppose. Looking for some "wow" stuff that lasts for about 5 minutes. Concert Blu-ray like Dave Matthews?



Apocalypto! Except it won't work for kids or the squemish, but the opening scene is what you are after.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *James A. McGahee* /forum/post/14554201
> 
> 
> I would really like to see the top ten of Tier 0 moved up to "Reference Blue" and keep Reference Blue limited in number, just the very best. Maybe Reference Blue Audio, Reference Blue Video, Super Reference Blue for Audio and Video.
> 
> 
> To me the categories are so large it makes comparing really difficult. Just a suggestion...Dividing the other categories may be more than anyone wants to take on and could easily make things even more difficult. I really do like the description of each existing category. Good job!



Nice suggestion but I think Tier-0 can be presumed to be Tier-BLU.










SuprSlow,


There you go.


Batman Begins Video: VC-1 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner - *Bottom Tier-1 (due to split votes)*


Vantage Point Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony - *Above or below NCFOM*


IMAX: Roving Mars Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.78:1 | Disney - *Tier-4*


Deja Vu and I am Legend - *positions swap*


The Golden Compass (DNR) Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | New Line - *Tier-2 3/4*


Saawariya Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony - *Top Tier-1*


Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Fox - *Tier-3 1/2*


The Bank Job: Special Edition Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Lionsgate - *Bottom Tier-1*


The Longest Day Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.20:1 | Fox - *Tier-3 bottom*


Alexander Revisited Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner - *2nd quarter of Tier 2*


Zodiac (Import): VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 2.35:1 | Warner - *Tier-1 below NCFOM*


The Curse Of King Tut's Tomb: The Complete Miniseries Video: ? | Audio: DD | AR: 1.78:1 | Echo Bridge - *bottom quarter of Tier 3*


Broken Trail Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 1.78:1 | Sony - *Top Tier-1*


21: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.35:1 | Sony - *Bottom Tier-1*


Species Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | MGM - *Bottom Tier-2*


Signs Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.85:1 | Disney - *Top Tier-3*


Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Fox - *Bottom Tier-2*


Shutter Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Fox - *Top 15 spots in Tier-1*


Peter Pan (Import) Video: AVC | Audio: Dolby TrueHD 16-bit | AR: 2.35:1 | Sony - Tier-1 below Spiderwick Chronicles


Bonnie and Clyde Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD1.0 | AR: 1.85:1 | Warner - *Bottom Tier-2*


Beer League Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: DD | AR: 1.85:1 | Echo Bridge - *second quarter of Tier 4*


Be Kind Rewind Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | New Line - *top quarter of Tier 2*


Cinderella Man (Import) Video: VC-1 | Audio: LPCM 16-bit | AR: 2.35:1 | BVHE - *Tier-2 above Kung Fu Hustle*


Mortuary Video: MPEG-2 | AR: 1.85 | DTS 1509Kbps - DD AC3 | Echo Bridge - *bottom quarter of Tier 5*


Doomsday: VC-1 | AR: 2.35:1 | DTS-HD MA | Universal - *Bottom of Tier-0 or Top 1/2 of Tier-1*


The Ruins: Unrated Edition Video: VC-1 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.35:1 | DreamWorks - *Top Tier-2*


The Mummy: VC-1 | AR: 2.35:1 | DTS-HD MA | Universal - *Bottom Tier-2*


The Mummy Returns: VC-1 | AR: 2.35:1 | DTS-HD MA | Universal - *Bottom Tier-2 below The Mummy*


Beowulf Video: AVC | Audio: Dolby TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Paramount - *Tier-0 above Beowulf (UK)*


Unbreakable Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Disney - *Top Tier-3*


Dark City (DNR|EE) Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | New Line - *Tier-2 3/4*


Rescue Me - The Complete Third Season Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.78:1 | Sony - *middle of Tier 2*


The Hills Have Eyes 2 Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Fox - *middle of Tier 1*


Masters of Horror: Season 1, Vol. 2 Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.77:1 | Starz - *third quarter of Tier 3*


The Exorcism of Emily Rose Video: AVC | Audio: Dolby TrueHD| | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony - *upper half of Tier 1*


Night Watch (Japan Import) Video: AVC | Audio: Dolby True HD | AR: 1.85:1 | Fox - *Tier 2 below MI-3*


Day Watch (Japan Import) Video: AVC | Audio: Dolby True HD | AR: 2.35:1 | Fox - *Tier 2 above MI-3*


Days of Glory (U.K Import | Jaggies) Video: AVC | Audio: DTS 1.5 Mbps | AR: 2.35:1 | Metrodome - *Tier 2 above V for Vendetta*


Tau ming chong aka The Warlords (Hong Kong Import) Video: AVC | Audio: DTS HD MA, Dolby True HD | AR: 2.35:1 | Mega Star - *Tier 2 above Donnie Brasco*


Saat po long aka SPL (Hong Kong Import | DNR|EE) Video: AVC | Audio: DTS HD MA, Dolby True HD | AR: 1.85:1 | Deltamac - *Bottom of Tier 2*


The Perfect Storm Video: VC-1 | Audio: Dolby True HD | AR: 2.35:1 | Warner - *Tier 3 above Enter the Dragon*


Disturbia Video: AVC | Audio: DTS 1.5 Mbps | AR: 1.85:1 | DreamWorks - *Tier 2 below MI-3*


One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 1.85:1 | Warner - *Mid Tier-2*


The Signal Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Magnolia Pictures - *Tier-4*


Juno Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Fox - *Move to Top 10 spots in Tier-2*


Starship Troopers Video: AVC | Audio: Dolby True HD | AR: 1.85:1 | Sony - *Top 1/4 of Tier-2*


Starship Troopers Video: VC-1 | Audio: PCM | (UK Import) | AR: 1.85:1 | Sony ==> BVHE - *Top 1/4 of Tier-2*


The Hunt for Red October: AVC | Audio: Dolby TrueHD | AR: 2.35:1 | Paramount - *bottom 1/4 of Tier-2*


Clear and Present Danger: AVC | Audio: Dolby TrueHD | AR: 2.35:1 | Paramount - *bottom 1/4 of Tier-2*


Patriot Games: AVC | Audio: Dolby TrueHD | AR: 2.35:1 | Paramount - *bottom of Tier-3*


Street Kings Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Fox - *Mid Tier-1*


The Proposition Video: VC-1 | Audio: Dolby True HD | AR: 2.35:1 | First Look Studios - *Top quarter of Tier-2*


Flags of Our Fathers (U.K Import) Video: VC-1 | Audio: LPCM 24-bit | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner - Below U.S version of Flags in Tier-2

The Secret Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Image Entertainment - *Tier 4 or top of Tier 5*


Afro Samurai: Season One - Director's Cut Video: AVC | Audio: Dolby TrueHD | AR: 1.78:1 | FUNimation Entertainment - *3rd quarter of Tier 3*


The Life Before her Eyes Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Magnolia - *bottom 1/4 of Tier 1*


Justice League: Season One Video: VC-1 | Dolby Digital | AR: 1.33:1 | Warner - *top quarter of Tier 2*


----------



## Hughmc

^^Great job lgans


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Holy ****e that's a lot of movies!


Thanks Igans


----------



## Cinema Squid

Oh my - you are the bee's knees lgans316!


Thank you for the hard work that must've taken.


----------



## Kevin12586

Good job lgans


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Once again lgans316 comes through in the pinch.







Great work except one title you skipped over from what I can see. Super job.

*Justice League: Season One* top quarter of Tier 2


----------



## Shane Martin

I saw "The Life Before her Eyes" last night. This was a Magnolia Pictures film presented in AVC. This is a very strong transfer. Ralph's review is spot on. I really thought it popped and had a sharp picture. My recommendation is bottom 1/4 of Tier 1.


----------



## Hammie

Hows often does the list in Post#1 get updated. It says it has not been updated since 15 July 2008.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hammie* /forum/post/14561241
> 
> 
> Hows often does the list in Post#1 get updated. It says it has not been updated since 15 July 2008.



The members who are moderating the OP have been quite busy for a while. The consolidated rankings since the last update is available here.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...0#post14554730


----------



## djoberg

I just finished watching *The Bank Job* and I was truly impressed. It definitely deserves to be in *Tier 1*, perhaps in the top of the tier. (Igans316 suggested the bottom half of Tier 1 and I would have no problem with that.)


This title had very sharp PQ throughout with natural colors, spot-on flesh tones, excellent contrast, and a lot of 3D pop. The facial closeups were as good as I've seen in any Tier 1 movie. One of the few members who reviewed this (I believe it was maverick0716) said he thought the first 3/4 of the movie was soft, but I stand by my statement that it was sharp from beginning to end.


BTW, I really liked the movie too.


----------



## Ozymandis

Finally watched my copy of Persepolis. It is a Tier-Blu release. While it is very simple, there are zero artifacts, contrast is great, and color when it's there is perfect. The audio is also fantastic. I don't know if it's demo material for me because it's a more thoughtful film but it is pretty much flawless.


Also watched Crank this week on BR for the first time. This is an older release but it's still one of the best, mid-Tier Blu for sure.


----------



## jrp44

Well I finally bought some Blu Rays after I got my PS3...


I got Black Hawk Down and Rescue Dawn...


BHD look amazing. the picture and sound were insane!


Then i put in Rescue Dawn





















































I dont know how a movie can look better then Rescue Dawn did. it was crazy!


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jrp44* /forum/post/14568711
> 
> 
> Well I finally bought some Blu Rays after I got my PS3...
> 
> 
> I got Black Hawk Down and Rescue Dawn...
> 
> 
> BHD look amazing. the picture and sound were insane!
> 
> 
> Then i put in Rescue Dawn
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont know how a movie can look better then Rescue Dawn did. it was crazy!



Welcome to the club!


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14563786
> 
> 
> I just finished watching *The Bank Job* and I was truly impressed. It definitely deserves to be in *Tier 1*, perhaps in the top of the tier. *(Igans316 suggested the bottom half of Tier 1 and I would have no problem with that.)*
> 
> 
> This title had very sharp PQ throughout with natural colors, spot-on flesh tones, excellent contrast, and a lot of 3D pop. The facial closeups were as good as I've seen in any Tier 1 movie. One of the few members who reviewed this (I believe it was maverick0716) said he thought the first 3/4 of the movie was soft, but I stand by my statement that it was sharp from beginning to end.
> 
> 
> BTW, I really liked the movie too.



I'd agree with bottom half Tier 1.


----------



## DaveBowman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/14553660
> 
> 
> That sounds like a BD-Java complication. It typically gets cleared if you take the disc out and power down the player as it resets the player. Did you happen to turn on any interactive feature and then turned it off?



Thanks Phantom- You were right, it was an "echo" of some sort of the interactive menu. The number of dots is determined by the number of interactive features you go into while viewing the film. Very strange, first time of run across that.


----------



## DaveBowman

On my way to Best Buy.....Can't wait to watch Transformers on BD tonight. If the online reviews are accurate this might be everybody's new reference disc for live action movies. I love the great animated stuff like Cars and Rat but they're just not quite the same as seeing real people. I've been waiting to see if anything could match "I, Robot" for overall quality and impact. Today could be the day. Can't wait to see the posts on here in the next couple days. Enjoy !!!!!


----------



## rboster




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *avdork* /forum/post/14552488
> 
> 
> I usually whip out Toy Story 2 for the intro to demo the gear, but now people assume it is HD instead of just an unconverted standard DVD. I have a Blu-ray player and was wondering what people use to demo the superior picture and audio in 5 minutes? Toy Story 2 was great because the intro has explosions, big lfe rumble, space, great surround effects, humour, fun, and works for any audience.
> 
> 
> Reading through the hundreds of pages doesn't seem to help find what people use for this.
> 
> 
> Looking for something that matches the above criteria. Ratatouille is a great movie and all, but doesn't have the excitement that Toy Story 2 has. Pirates of the Caribbean is a good one too, but where would you queue up the movie and the intro is rather slow. Cars is ok, I suppose. Looking for some "wow" stuff that lasts for about 5 minutes. Concert Blu-ray like Dave Matthews?



On the BR release of Batman Begins has the Dark Knight Prolgue (first 6 mins of the film and a teaser trailer)...the video is some of the best I've seen on HDM and the bass/sound is terrific as well. All self contained in this special feature segment on the disc.


----------



## tbass2k




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaveBowman* /forum/post/14572510
> 
> 
> On my way to Best Buy.....Can't wait to watch Transformers on BD tonight. If the online reviews are accurate this might be everybody's new reference disc for live action movies. I love the great animated stuff like Cars and Rat but they're just not quite the same as seeing real people. I've been waiting to see if anything could match "I, Robot" for overall quality and impact. Today could be the day. Can't wait to see the posts on here in the next couple days. Enjoy !!!!!



I think most of us will agree, Transformers looks great, but I,Robot is still the king of live action PQ.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rboster* /forum/post/14572627
> 
> 
> On the BR release of Batman Begins has the Dark Knight Prolgue (first 6 mins of the film and a teaser trailer)...the video is some of the best I've seen on HDM and the bass/sound is terrific as well. All self contained in this special feature segment on the disc.



Mastered from IMAX film ftw.


I can't wait to see the chase sequence with the 18 wheeler and the shots in hong kong that were also shot on IMAX when the blu ray comes out


----------



## Fanaticalism

I just saw Transformers, which I own on HD-DVD as well btw, and I will say that I literally had goose bumps.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fanaticalism* /forum/post/14576838
> 
> 
> I just saw Transformers, which I own on HD-DVD as well btw, and I will say that I literally had goose bumps.



Is the BD better?


----------



## Fanaticalism

IMO, there was no discernable difference between the two that was consistent through out. There were a couple of scenes that seemed a little soft in the BD, but the same could be said on behalf of the HD-DVD. All in all, I feel that the BD is ever so slighly superior in regards to PQ, but definitely superior overall.


Just for reference, I viewed them on a Pro151FD, that has been calibrated by umr, and a PS3, that again has been looked over by umr to ensure that all of the settings were optimal.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fanaticalism* /forum/post/14577788
> 
> 
> IMO, there was no discernable difference between the two that was consistent through out. There were a couple of scenes that seemed a little soft in the BD, but the same could be said on behalf of the HD-DVD. All in all, I feel that the BD is ever so slighly superior in regards to PQ, but definitely superior overall.
> 
> 
> Just for reference, I viewed them on a Pro151FD, that has been calibrated by umr, and a PS3, that again has been looked over by umr to ensure that all of the settings were optimal.










Can't wait to get it


----------



## salbah3ng_bata




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbass2k* /forum/post/14575661
> 
> 
> I think most of us will agree, Transformers looks great, but I,Robot is still the king of live action PQ.



Yeah, transformers looked great but I thought it would look better. There are scenes where it would be on par with I, Robot but it wasn't consistent enough IMO. I,Robot still is the best looking live action BD I've seen so far. Transformers is that iiiish though, soundtrack was crazy too!


----------



## DaveBowman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbass2k* /forum/post/14575661
> 
> 
> I think most of us will agree, Transformers looks great, but I,Robot is still the king of live action PQ.



I have to agree......Transformers looks great on BD and I really enjoyed it, but it is not quite up to the incredible standard of I, Robot. Also, on a purely subjective level, I think I, Robot is a superior film in terms of story, acting, concept, etc. If a friend of mine just bought a new HDTV and BD player the first movie I would tell him to watch is I, Robot.


----------



## MelloFellow13

I also thought some of the scenes in Transformers looked soft, especially when there were two people on screen - one looked sharp and focused but the other seemed a little hazy for whatever reason. This could be true to source but doesn't make for flattering PQ.


That said, I think it belongs in the gold tier, perhaps in the top of the lower half, right there with The Fifth Element and 300.


----------



## SuprSlow

Updated!!


A huge thanks to lgans for his work on the update


----------



## dvdwizards




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MelloFellow13* /forum/post/14582721
> 
> 
> I also thought some of the scenes in Transformers looked soft, especially when there were two people on screen - one looked sharp and focused but the other seemed a little hazy for whatever reason. This could be true to source but doesn't make for flattering PQ.
> 
> 
> That said, I think it belongs in the gold tier, perhaps in the top of the lower half, right there with The Fifth Element and 300.




I couldn't agree more on this.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*SuprSlow*, this placement seems to have been missed from months ago:


Masters of Horror: Season 1, Vol. 1 Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.77:1 | Starz

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...0#post14270960 


tier recommendation: bottom quarter of *Tier 1*

----------------------------------------------------------

The following title can be deleted from the unranked list as it has been delayed indefinitely/canceled:


Naked Beneath the Water Video: AVC | Audio: DD5.1 | AR: 1.85:1 | Phoenix

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Kiss of the Dragon Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Fox


Video Codec needs to be changed to MPEG-2 for Kiss of the Dragon.

------------------------------------------------------------

The Curse Of King Tut's Tomb: The Complete Miniseries Video: ? | Audio: DD | AR: 1.78:1


Video Codec can be changed to MPEG-2 for King Tut's Tomb.


----------



## lgans316

Thanks Phantom for the info. I hope SuprSlow noted these missing entries and will update the main post accordingly. My apologies for missing out the above mentioned recommendations.


----------



## Hughmc

Scorpion King 2:


middle of Tier 2. Nothing outstanding here in terms of PQ, but not bad either. It seemed the PQ got more blurry as the movie progressed, but this movie was so poor IMO that I maybe influenced by how poor of a movie it was.


Sony [email protected] from PS3 through HDMI.


----------



## lgans316

*Total Recall (U.K Import) Video: VC-1 | DTS-HD MA 16-bit | 1.78:1 or 1.85:1 ? | Optimum*


Recommendation: *Top Tier-2 or Bottom Tier-1*


Will post assessment later.


----------



## Hughmc

Transformers:


Bottom of Tier 1. The PQ is equal to Batman Begins, Bank Job, 21.


Overall it has good detail with only a few shots that have some minor blur when focusing. Black levels are deep and there is readily apparent grain. I didn't see it as having much 3D pop and IMO the PQ is very good, but not the best I have seen on BD.


I have seen Transformers on HBO HD through my Fiber cable co., transparent with no compression @ 1080i. and am using that as a comparison. I have saved it to my DVR. While it wasn't OAR on HBO, the overall PQ on the BD wasn't that much better if at all.


I am going to watch the BD of Transformers again and if I see differently the second viewing I will reassess the placement I suggested.


Sony A3000 60 in @ 8ft from PS3 through HDMI.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

That's kinda disappointing to hear about Transformers.


I don't have it yet but will soon.


----------



## BLUE-MIDNIGHT




Hughmc said:


> Transformers:
> 
> 
> _*I have seen Transformers on HBO HD through my Fiber cable co., transparent with no compression @ 1080i. and am using that as a comparison. I have saved it to my DVR. While it wasn't OAR on HBO, the overall PQ on the BD wasn't that much better if at all*_.
> 
> 
> isn't it amazing what a little light can do
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1 vote for transformers in ^1/2 of teir 1


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14602228
> 
> 
> Transformers:
> 
> 
> Bottom of Tier 1. The PQ is equal to Batman Begins, Bank Job, 21.
> 
> 
> Overall it has good detail with only a few shots that have some minor blur when focusing. Black levels are deep and there is readily apparent grain. I didn't see it as having much 3D pop and IMO the PQ is very good, but not the best I have seen on BD.
> 
> 
> I have seen Transformers on HBO HD through my Fiber cable co., transparent with no compression @ 1080i. and am using that as a comparison. I have saved it to my DVR. While it wasn't OAR on HBO, the overall PQ on the BD wasn't that much better if at all.
> 
> 
> I am going to watch the BD of Transformers again and if I see differently the second viewing I will reassess the placement I suggested.
> 
> 
> Sony A3000 60 in @ 8ft from PS3 through HDMI.



This was my opinion of the HD-DVD version as well. So, if the Blu-ray version is the same copy I would agree with you 100%.


I actually thought *21* was better.


----------



## suffolk112000

I think 21 should be towards the top of tier 1, not the bottom.

21 had great black levels and the Vegas colors looked very clean. I felt it was a very clean transfer. Just my opinion.

I believe it is better than Hellboy, The Patriot and Flyboys. All of which I recently watched on my set-up which consists of Sony VW60, 58x104 Da-Lite HCCV screen with masking sitting 12 feet from the screen. My room is totally light controlled.

I even thought there was far more shadow detail in 21 than in Celine Dion a New day and it is ranked towards the top of tier 1. If nothing else, I believe 21 should be right behind CD a New Day.

Just my observations.


----------



## maddog50

When I consider which of these to buy, I find myself going over to IMDB to check ratings.


Is there a way to incorporate any kind of IMDB rating into this listing? Even a user score and date of score would be way bad-ass!


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14602938
> 
> 
> This was my opinion of the HD-DVD version as well. So, if the Blu-ray version is the same copy I would agree with you 100%.
> 
> 
> I actually thought *21* was better.



I agree and thought 21, Rush hour 3 and a few others have better PQ than Transformers. I also looked at the HD DVD thread for PQ and was surprised to see the top tier movies there like Transformers are rated as high as they are.


----------



## Hughmc




BLUE-MIDNIGHT said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14602228
> 
> 
> Transformers:
> 
> 
> _*I have seen Transformers on HBO HD through my Fiber cable co., transparent with no compression @ 1080i. and am using that as a comparison. I have saved it to my DVR. While it wasn't OAR on HBO, the overall PQ on the BD wasn't that much better if at all*_.
> 
> 
> isn't it amazing what a little light can do
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1 vote for transformers in ^1/2 of teir 1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I am very fortunate with fiber especially when watching movies on HDNet movies as the PQ easily rivals BD quality, so when a I see a BD that is mediocre or even good PQ I tend to be a bit let down. The saving grace for BD is no motion blur or macro blocking that I do occasionally see with fast moving scenes or shots.
Click to expand...


----------



## Phantom Stranger

After rewatching Batman Begins very closely I think its current placement is solid if still a touch too high. The image looks very clean and sharp (but with surprisingly little detail) up until the last 30 minutes or so where the final attack on Gotham begins. At that point is where I start seeing some signs of bitrate starvation, particularly in the battles in the fog/smoke/gas environments where some minor noise starts appearing. I can live with the current placement though as parts of it are definite tier one material.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/14603714
> 
> 
> i think 21 should be towards the top of tier 1, not the bottom.
> 
> 21 had great black levels and the vegas colors looked very clean. I felt it was a very clean transfer. Just my opinion.
> 
> I believe it is better than hellboy, the patriot and flyboys. If nothing else, i believe 21 should be right behind cd a new day.
> 
> Just my observations.



+1


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14602938
> 
> 
> This was my opinion of the HD-DVD version as well. So, if the Blu-ray version is the same copy I would agree with you 100%.
> 
> 
> I actually thought *21* was better.



The Blu Ray version of Transformers is actually AVC encoded vs. the HD DVD version's VC-1........the Blu Ray is apparently slightly superior.


EDIT: Nevermind, I just checked and the HD DVD is also AVC encoded.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14606412
> 
> 
> +1



Well, we'll see if 21 gets some consideration to be moved a bit higer up the tier.


----------



## MrOlson10

I don't have a large amount of blu-ray's I have all the Harry Potters and Batman Begins. I think that there is to much grain through out the film and not enough 3d pop. I don't know if all the grain is from the transfer or if Bay intended it to be that way.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MrOlson10* /forum/post/14608999
> 
> 
> I don't have a large amount of blu-ray's I have all the Harry Potters and Batman Begins. I think that there is to much grain through out the film and not enough 3d pop. I don't know if all the grain is from the transfer or if Bay intended it to be that way.



I agree with you about the grain; I think it is excessive in some scenes. It could very well be that Mr. Bay intended there to be grain, but if so, he went overboard.


Having said that, some scenes are stellar and worthy of a high Tier 1 placement or even a lower Tier 0. But when you factor in the grain, and some soft scenes as well, the bottom of Tier 1 is where it belongs.


----------



## maverick0716

The grain was there in the theatres. I remember people talking about the upcoming HD releases of Transformers and how people will bash it because it has grain......turns out they were right, lol. I personally have no issues with the grain in the movie.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/14609925
> 
> 
> The grain was there in the theatres. I remember people talking about the upcoming HD releases of Transformers and how people will bash it because it has grain......turns out they were right, lol. I personally have no issues with the grain in the movie.



The grain does not take away from the PQ of the Transformers. I like the detail of grain and how it can positively add to PQ with detail. What I don't like is the grain that is over the top where the screen looks like it is crawling with ants or millions of microbes moving.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14611227
> 
> *The grain does not take away from the PQ of the Transformers*. I like the detail of grain and how it can poitively add to PQ with detail. What I don't like is the grain that is over the top where the screen looks like it is crawling with ants or millions of microbes moving.



The sentence I highlighted is debatable, and at best relative.


We have discussed the issue of grain MANY times on this thread so I refuse to "beat a dead horse," but let me just say that _*when grain takes away from the sharpness and detail of a title's PQ*_, it must be considered and cause one to lower the rating if we are going to truly abide by the standards for PQ set forth on page one. The fact that grain was the Director's intent or true to the film version is irrelevant.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

I think a lot of people confuse grain with digital noise.


And a lot of people who may be new to blu ray/high def movies come into it expecting EVERY film to be crystal clear like a pixar film. That just isn't the case.


Sure, grain may take away from perceived sharpness and pop but I don't mind it as long as it's not excessive.


----------



## Hughmc

^^ I agree with both of you as I take the middle road in grain. As I mentioned before, grain for me is an issue when the screen seems to crawl. Digital noise and grain do look almost exactly alike at times. The digital noise I disliked in Casino Royale for example is the opening scene where Daniel Craig's face looks like it is has movement like crawling bugs on it. djoberg, while I agree with you on grain, I do not see grain as an issue with Transformers as in taking away from the PQ even with our tier thread parameters. It is not distracting or really noticeable as in the screen movement example I made.


Some of the best PQ detail I have seen is on HDNet movies especially older films that have apparent grain, but it doesn't take away from the PQ IMO. For a Few Dollars more is one example.


I also want to reitterate about my having fiber cable. I am getting uncompressed HD and HDNet movies for example @ 1920x1080i looks amazing. HDNet leaves in the grain, yet the clarity and detail and overall PQ are astonishing and many well done transfers would make the cut in tier 1 of our thread as they are that good and rival many a BD.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Depending on the filmstock used, visible grain is inherent to the image film produces. I would never lower a title's ranking because it had a heavy grain look unless it visibly impacted other areas of the image like actual detail or color fidelity.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14612637
> 
> 
> djoberg, while I agree with you on grain, I do not see grain as an issue with Transformers as in taking away from the PQ even with our tier thread parameters.
> 
> 
> Some of the best PQ detail I have seen is on HDNet movies especially older films that have apparent grain, but it doesn't take away from the PQ IMO. For a Few Dollars more is one example.
> 
> 
> I am getting uncompressed HD and HDNet movies for example @ 1920x1080i looks amazing. HDNet leaves in the grain, yet the clarity and detail and overall PQ are astonishing and many well done transfers would make the cut in tier 1 of our thread as they are that good and rival many a BD.



We will have to "agree to disagree" on the movie Transformers (regarding grain affecting the PQ), but I certainly agree with you that some titles that are uncompressed look amazing, even with a measure of grain involved. Besides using Dish Network, I have a HD long range antenna for my locals and as you may know, OTA broadcasts are uncompressed and some of the material is indeed astonishing.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/14612673
> 
> 
> Depending on the filmstock used, visible grain is inherent to the image film produces. I would never lower a title's ranking because it had a heavy grain look unless it visibly impacted other areas of the image like actual detail or color fidelity.



I do agree with you on this...the movie *300* would be a perfect example of inherent grain throughout the movie NOT impacting detail or color fidelity. But there are titles where the grain DOES affect detail and sharpness and IMHO Transformers is one of them.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14612720
> 
> 
> We will have to "agree to disagree" on the movie Transformers (regarding grain affecting the PQ), but I certainly agree with you that some titles that are uncompressed look amazing, even with a measure of grain involved. Besides using Dish Network, I have a HD long range antenna for my locals and as you may know, OTA broadcasts are uncompressed and some of the material is indeed astonishing.



I also agree with you and suffolk on 21 and some other bottom of Tier 1 titles as they should be moved up. I do believe 21 looks as good as The Patriot, but I also remember 21 having as much grain as Transformers or The Patriot.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14613118
> 
> 
> I also agree with you and suffolk on 21 and some other bottom of Tier 1 titles as they should be moved up. I do believe 21 looks as good as The Patriot, but I also remember 21 having as much grain as Transformers or The Patriot.



I don't remember 21 having that much grain, but you may be right. If it does, then it would be an example of grain not affecting the sharpness, detail, and color (like Phantom brought out), for I was SO impressed with that movie from beginning to end.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14613118
> 
> 
> I also agree with you and suffolk on 21 and some other bottom of Tier 1 titles as they should be moved up. I do believe 21 looks as good as The Patriot, but I also remember 21 having as much grain as Transformers or The Patriot.




I disagree...









21 does not have equal amounts of video noise as the Patriot.

I think 21 should be right up there with Celine Dion a New Day. I actually think the contrast in 21 is better than CD. There is some great color and detail in both, but I do believe 21 has slightly better contrast.

Again, Sony VW60. Dalite 58x104 inch HCCV screen with masking. I sit 12 feet from the screen in a light controlled room.

I need to watch transformers and 21 again to compare.


Just curious... where in 21 is there excessive grain?


----------



## 357

Transformers looked way better than Batman Begins. I really don't know what you guys see in Batman Begins. I said a while ago that I believe that its a tier 2 title along the lines of 30 Days of Night. I'd rank Transformers just below Tears of the Sun.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/14613306
> 
> 
> I disagree...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 21 does not have equal amounts of video noise as the Patriot.
> 
> I think 21 should be right up there with Celine Dion a New Day. I actually think the contrast in 21 is better than CD. There is some great color and detail in both, but I do believe 21 has slightly better contrast.
> 
> Again, Sony VW60. Dalite 58x104 inch HCCV screen with masking. I sit 12 feet from the screen in a light controlled room.
> 
> I need to watch transformers and 21 again to compare.
> 
> 
> Just curious... where in 21 is there excessive grain?



Apparent, but not excessive.










To me apparent grain is good when it leaves nice contrast and detail that has almost a texture to it, but doesn't detract or distract and allows one to see right through it.


----------



## 357

The Forbidden Kingdom is Tier 0 btw. Has the best picture quality I've seen in a while. Stunning visuals.


----------



## b_scott

Transformers is high Tier 1, What Happens in Vegas is there also, maybe even low Tier 0. really impressive for the quality of movie.


----------



## maverick0716

One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest is ranked way too high in my opinion. I just watched it tonight and it wasn't terrible, but it sure wasn't up to Tier 2 caliber. There are many, out of focus scenes and the detail was only mediocre throughout. It should be bottom 3/4 of Tier 3, below Reservoir Dogs.


42" Panasonic Plasma (768p)

PS3 though HDMI

6-7 ft.


----------



## b_scott

i ranked Cuckoo's Nest in accordance to how it looked compared to how I think the original master would be - i don't think it could look much better, and apparently it never has before. take that for what you will. it's still very lifelike, it's just old.


50" Pioneer Plasma (1080p)

Pioneer BD-51 Source Direct HDMI

9ft.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briansemerick* /forum/post/14616136
> 
> 
> i ranked Cuckoo's Nest in accordance to how it looked compared to how I think the original master would be - i don't think it could look much better, and apparently it never has before. take that for what you will. it's still very lifelike, it's just old.
> 
> 
> 50" Pioneer Plasma (1080p)
> 
> Pioneer BD-51 Source Direct HDMI
> 
> 9ft.



I agree with you that it looks the best it ever has......and that it's very true to the source.......but in my opinion (and it's just an opinion) I don't think it deserves to be in Tier 2, as it doesn't look as sharp or as detailed as the titles in that tier.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14613690
> 
> 
> Apparent, but not excessive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To me apparent grain is good when it leaves nice contrast and detail that has almost a texture to it, but doesn't detract or distract and allows one to see right through it.



OK... so where do you see the grain in 21? Obviously I don't think 21 is perfect or I would recommend that it be moved even further up to the next tier. But it needs to be higher up the ranks above some of these other movies that currently are ranked higher.

I just think 21 needs to be moved to the top of tier 1.

I have made the recommendation... another person here has commented positively towards the recommendation as well. I have listed my gear and seating distance... so what does it take to move the movie up the tier??


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> so what does it take to move the movie up the tier??



Time and patience.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14621006
> 
> 
> Time and patience.



Patience Grasshopper...


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/14620971
> 
> 
> OK... so where do you see the grain in 21? Obviously I don't think 21 is perfect or I would recommend that it be moved even further up to the next tier. But it needs to be higher up the ranks above some of these other movies that currently are ranked higher.
> 
> I just think 21 needs to be moved to the top of tier 1.
> 
> I have made the recommendation... another person here has commented positively towards the recommendation as well. I have listed my gear and seating distance... so what does it take to move the movie up the tier??



I completely agree with you on where 21 should be placed regardless of the grain as the PQ is that good. I also believe a couple if not several other titles that are now near 21 in lower Tier 1 should be moved as well to the top since the PQ is virtually identical or a pier so to speak.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14622620
> 
> 
> I completely agree with you on where 21 should be placed regardless of the grain as the PQ is that good. I also believe a couple if not several other titles that are now near 21 in lower Tier 1 should be moved as well to the top since the PQ is virtually identical or a pier so to speak.



Well, I guess we'll sit back for a while, (a few days) to see if and when this happens.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/14623629
> 
> 
> Well, I guess we'll sit back for a while, (a few days) to see if and when this happens.



Just to repeat my conviction, I completely agree with suffolk and Hughmc that 21 deserves to be on the top of Tier 1. (I thought our 3 posts grouped together might be more effective.







)


----------



## stumlad

I think top tier 1 is too generous for 21. It would have to beat Vantage Point which had face-closeup details that compete with most tier 0 titles, Doomsday, the Eye, etc. I don't remember anything that stood out (don't get me wrong, great looking title, but there's a lot more competition now)...except maybe a scene where Kate Bosworth looked like she had one blue eye and one brown eye...that wasn't even a noteworthy PQ scene. I think bottom tier 1 area is more appropriate.


Update: just looking through the list again, and perhaps I'd say 21 could be higher in the bottom end of tier 1. I think the PQ was better than Blade Runner, Rush Hour 3, Res Evil 3. Possibly on par with Jumper.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/14624969
> 
> 
> I think top tier 1 is too generous for 21. It would have to beat Vantage Point which had face-closeup details that compete with most tier 0 titles, Doomsday, the Eye, etc. I don't remember anything that stood out (don't get me wrong, great looking title, but there's a lot more competition now)...except maybe a scene where Kate Bosworth looked like she had one blue eye and one brown eye...that wasn't even a noteworthy PQ scene. I think bottom tier 1 area is more appropriate.



Kate Bosworth actually does have one blue and one brown eye......not just in the movie


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/14624969
> 
> *I think top tier 1 is too generous for 21.* It would have to beat Vantage Point which had face-closeup details that compete with most tier 0 titles, Doomsday, the Eye, etc. *I don't remember anything that stood out* (don't get me wrong, great looking title, but there's a lot more competition now)...except maybe a scene where Kate Bosworth looked like she had one blue eye and one brown eye...that wasn't even a noteworthy PQ scene. I think bottom tier 1 area is more appropriate.
> 
> 
> Update: just looking through the list again, and perhaps I'd say 21 could be higher in the bottom end of tier 1. I think the PQ was better than Blade Runner, Rush Hour 3, Res Evil 3. Possibly on par with Jumper.



I very much agree that 21 does *not* belong in the top of Tier 1.


----------



## Hughmc

21 should be moved to somewhere around Sunshine and PQ is identical to Wild Hogs which I own.


The Bank Job should be moved to above Rambo and near Vantage point.


It is also a bit obvious IMO! that some titles are placed based on the movie itself, story, action having some impact, meaning for some movie content has some influence. Some called for Transformers to be at the top of Tier 1. NO WAY!! Just because the movie was fun to watch in more ways than one







, had intense action and a good sound track does not make the PQ top tier 1 eye candy. Transformers is equal to Batman Begins.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/14624969
> 
> 
> I think top tier 1 is too generous for 21. It would have to beat Vantage Point which had face-closeup details that compete with most tier 0 titles, Doomsday, the Eye, etc. I don't remember anything that stood out (don't get me wrong, great looking title, but there's a lot more competition now)...except maybe a scene where Kate Bosworth looked like she had one blue eye and one brown eye...that wasn't even a noteworthy PQ scene. I think bottom tier 1 area is more appropriate.
> 
> 
> Update: just looking through the list again, and perhaps I'd say 21 could be higher in the bottom end of tier 1. I think the PQ was better than Blade Runner, Rush Hour 3, Res Evil 3. Possibly on par with Jumper.



Umm...The Eye and Doomsday are in Tier 1 and I agree with you on Doomsday if you thought is was in Tier 0.














I maintain Doomsday should be lower Tier 0.


----------



## Hughmc

What we need is a government grant that sponsors the BD PQ thread. We get flown to whatever location, preferably Vegas, every 3 months to meet and watch a bunch of the titles that are in question for placement. We do so on a govt paid for reference system .


----------



## Hughmc

Speaking of Vegas...last night I watched


What Happens in Vegas:


Very similar PQ to Bank Job, but a bit better... This film has a lot of 3D pop. The clothing, faces, etc and definition of objects in the foreground give very much of a 3d depth to the picture. This is an eye candy film.


A bit of black crush, but mostly a very clean transfer with no noticeable EE.


I recommend lower half of Tier 1 somewhere between The Prestige and Tears of the Sun.


Sony A3000 60 in @ 8 ft. from PS3 through HDMI.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14627162
> 
> 
> 21 should be moved to somewhere around Sunshine and PQ is identical to Wild Hogs which I own.
> 
> 
> The Bank Job should be moved to above Rambo and near Vantage point.
> 
> 
> It is also a bit obvious IMO! that some titles are placed based on the movie itself, story, action having some impact, meaning for some movie content has some influence. Some called for Transformers to be at the top of Tier 1. NO WAY!! Just because the movie was fun to watch in more ways than one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , had intense action and a good sound track does not make the PQ top tier 1 eye candy. Transformers is equal to Batman Begins.



I think Transformers looks a little better than BB, but I agree that it's not top of Tier 1.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14627332
> 
> 
> I think Transformers looks a little better than BB, but I agree that it's not top of Tier 1.




I keep forgetting that BB is a little "soft" as some have said by our standards here and agree although I said it is equal to Transformers, I would say Transformers is slightly better. I have looked back at some of my previous posts and do notice I back pedal or flip flop a bit with how I think PQ looks for a title. Sometimes I cannot remember exactly the PQ on a film and have to look back at the first page to remember and reference placement.


I am really looking forward to tonights feature, The Forbidden Kingdom. 7.1 DTS MA, Lionsgate which seems to deliver especially on Audio and Jet Li and Jackie Chan. I hope it is a fun ride.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14627252
> 
> 
> What we need is a government grant that sponsors the BD PQ thread. We get flown to whatever location, preferably Vegas, every 3 months to meet and watch a bunch of the titles that are in question for placement. We do so on a govt paid for reference system .



LOL!!


So, which candidate could we count on, Obama or McCain, to deliver on this excellent suggestion?


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14627221
> 
> 
> Umm...The Eye and Doomsday are in Tier 1 and I agree with you on Doomsday if you thought is was in Tier 0.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I maintain Doomsday should be lower Tier 0.



Their argument was 21 should be "Top of tier 1". I was saying that, IMO, it's not better than the titles I mentioned. Doomsday, to me is top 1/4th tier 1, but with the few arguable titles in bottom tier 0, it wouldnt be a far fetch for it to be there.



> Quote:
> The Bank Job should be moved to above Rambo and near Vantage point.



I also thought Bank Job and Vantage Point were very similar in PQ. I still believe Rambo should be lowered to tier 2... The face closeups look soft.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Patrick999* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I think Transformers looks a little better than BB, but I agree that it's not top of Tier 1



Transformers is way sharper than Batman Begins. The CGI just isnt quite as sharp as the live action. After seeing Batman Begins again recently and some comparisons between the trailer, I think Batman Begins belongs in mid tier 2. Transformers no lower than mid tier 1.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Kate Bosworth actually does have one blue and one brown eye......not just in the movie



Prove it










Side note: does anyone know what i'm talking about? There was the scene where the main character goes to her apt about 2/3rds the way through the movie and she's standing outside by the door and they are talking.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/14626670
> 
> 
> Kate Bosworth actually does have one blue and one brown eye......not just in the movie













I love her eyes. So cool.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14627252
> 
> 
> What we need is a government grant that sponsors the BD PQ thread. We get flown to whatever location, preferably Vegas, every 3 months to meet and watch a bunch of the titles that are in question for placement. We do so on a govt paid for reference system .



Now that is what I'm talking about


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14628032
> 
> 
> LOL!!
> 
> 
> So, which candidate could we count on, Obama or McCain, to deliver on this excellent suggestion?




Whichever one thinks he will benefit from doing so no matter what they tell us. Either way if we could get what we want, like them, who really cares.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/14628275
> 
> 
> Now that is what I'm talking about



This is Art and Science is it not?










If someone can get millions in grants to measure the flow of Ketchup







coming out of the bottle and justify it as science, I am sure with the right connections and BS we could justify it. Unfortunately the economic and political times won't really allow it, but in boom times it is easier to get away with justifying it when everyone is doing well as people tend to notice less.


I can't find the article and it has been several years, but close enough:

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/j...TRY=1&SRETRY=0 


If I were a betting man, I would bet that some studios have gotten govt grants for many reasons not too far off from what I suggested. Of course it always seems easier for those that already have money to get more and somehow justify it. We just need an AV lobbyist working in our favor.



Back to reality...


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/14628212
> 
> 
> Prove it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Side note: does anyone know what i'm talking about? There was the scene where the main character goes to her apt about 2/3rds the way through the movie and she's standing outside by the door and they are talking.



Gladly! She was born with sectoral heterochromia in her right eye......it looks pretty cool actually.

http://www.katebosworthweb.com/wallp...aper1_1024.jpg 
http://www.freewebs.com/hermione_1/Kate%20Bosworth.JPG 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_Bosworth


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14628768
> 
> 
> Whichever one thinks he will benefit from doing so no matter what they tell us. Either way if we could get what we want, like them, who really cares.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is Art and Science is it not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If someone can get millions in grants to measure the flow of Ketchup
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> coming out of the bottle and justify it as science, I am sure with the right connections and BS we could justify it. Unfortunately the economic and political times won't really allow it, but in boom times it is easier to get away with justifying it when everyone is doing well as people tend to notice less.
> 
> 
> I can't find the article and it has been several years, but close enough:
> 
> http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/j...TRY=1&SRETRY=0
> 
> 
> If I were a betting man, I would bet that some studios have gotten govt grants for many reasons not too far off from what I suggested. Of course it always seems easier for those that already have money to get more and somehow justify it. We just need an AV lobbyist working in our favor.
> 
> 
> 
> Back to reality...



Hey, it could happen


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/14628851
> 
> 
> Gladly! She was born with sectoral heterochromia in her right eye......it looks pretty cool actually.
> 
> http://www.katebosworthweb.com/wallp...aper1_1024.jpg
> http://www.freewebs.com/hermione_1/Kate%20Bosworth.JPG
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_Bosworth


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/14628851
> 
> 
> Gladly! She was born with sectoral heterochromia in her right eye......it looks pretty cool actually.
> 
> http://www.katebosworthweb.com/wallp...aper1_1024.jpg
> http://www.freewebs.com/hermione_1/Kate%20Bosworth.JPG
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_Bosworth



I seriously thought you were kidding







Thought she forgot a colored contact in that scene . I never went back to check if it happened in other scenes.


----------



## maverick0716

Alexander Revisited is a title I've been wanting to watch for quite some time now. I'm pleased to say that it looks fantastic! Detail and colour are very good. The only thing that lacked sometimes was lightened black levels in certain scenes. Overall, it's a Tier 1 worthy transfer in my opinion. I'd place it just under the 1/2 mark in Tier 1. Most of the problems noted by Phantom in an earlier review I didn't notice, but I don't doubt him that they're there. This movie is visually stunning, so that's another reason I would rank it in Tier 1.


----------



## b_scott

Baby Mama was "meh" PQ wise. no pop, not many exhuberant colors. just blah all around. barely better than upscaled DVD, and if you're purchasing I wouldn't spend the extra money. Bottom of Tier 3 at least.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/14628212
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Transformers is way sharper than Batman Begins. *The CGI just isnt quite as sharp as the live action.* After seeing Batman Begins again recently and some comparisons between the trailer, I think Batman Begins belongs in mid tier 2. Transformers no lower than mid tier 1.




The softness of the CGI in Transformers is actually pretty bothersome, but I don't disagree with a mid Tier 1 placement.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Holy ****...Johnny Depp and Philip Seymour Hoffman announced as The Riddler and The Penguin in the next Nolan installment in an interview with Micheal Caine












































http://www.mtv.ca/news/article.jhtml?id=10841 


My roommate just saw it live on MSNBC also!!!


----------



## rydenfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/14631061
> 
> 
> Holy ****...Johnny Depp and Philip Seymour Hoffman announced as The Riddler and The Penguin in the next Nolan installment in an interview with Micheal Caine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.mtv.ca/news/article.jhtml?id=10841
> 
> 
> My roommate just saw it live on MSNBC also!!!









































Wow! They needed something big, but that is crazy!


----------



## rydenfan

Anyone here watched Kill Bill yet? There seem to be some big claims being made about it.


----------



## MelloFellow13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rydenfan* /forum/post/14633699
> 
> 
> Anyone here watched Kill Bill yet? There seem to be some big claims being made about it.



I loved every minute, but I'm such a fan of the movies that I was wide-eyed and just soaking it in. Next time I'll watch with a more critical eye.


But yes, it looks great.


----------



## Hughmc

The Forbidden Kingdom looks like a high Tier 1 title. I will watch it again tonight or in the next few nights to be more definitive on my suggestion for Tier placement. The movie itself is entertaining, the PQ is excellent and I really enjoyed the enveloping 7.1 DTS MA track with lots of good LFE and sound effects.


----------



## john stephens




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rydenfan* /forum/post/14633699
> 
> 
> Anyone here watched Kill Bill yet? There seem to be some big claims being made about it.



It's the best PQ I have seen to date.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *john stephens* /forum/post/14635735
> 
> 
> It's the best PQ I have seen to date.



Have you seen *I, Robot* or the *POTC* series?


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *john stephens* /forum/post/14635735
> 
> 
> It's the best PQ I have seen to date.



Whoa there that's saying a lot


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/14636449
> 
> 
> Whoa there that's saying a lot



Maybe, maybe not. Depends on how many BD's he's viewed.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/14636507
> 
> 
> Maybe, maybe not. *Depends on how many BD's he's viewed*.



That's why I asked the question I did a few posts back. Who knows, maybe he's only watched Kill Bill and 28 Days Later!







:


----------



## john stephens




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14636140
> 
> 
> Have you seen *I, Robot* or the *POTC* series?



yes I've watchedd those and own ~200 Bds. It's that good on my TV, bar none.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *john stephens* /forum/post/14637565
> 
> 
> yes I've watchedd those and own ~200 Bds. It's that good on my TV, bar none.



Awesome! You can bet I'll be renting (or buying) Kill Bill ASAP.


I'm curious...what TV do you have and what's your setup?


----------



## maverick0716

That's good news about Kill Bill......I love those movies!


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *john stephens* /forum/post/14637565
> 
> 
> yes I've watchedd those and own ~200 Bds. It's that good on my TV, bar none.




This sounds like welcome news! We have not really had an outstanding eye popping title/s on a while. There are many good Tier one titles, but so many they seem to becoming a wash in terms of being used to PQ.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14627056
> 
> 
> I very much agree that 21 does *not* belong in the top of Tier 1.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14627162
> 
> 
> 21 should be moved to somewhere around Sunshine and PQ is identical to Wild Hogs which I own.
> 
> 
> The Bank Job should be moved to above Rambo and near Vantage point.
> 
> 
> It is also a bit obvious IMO! that some titles are placed based on the movie itself, story, action having some impact, meaning for some movie content has some influence. Some called for Transformers to be at the top of Tier 1. NO WAY!! Just because the movie was fun to watch in more ways than one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , had intense action and a good sound track does not make the PQ top tier 1 eye candy. Transformers is equal to Batman Begins.




Hmmm…

Again… I am not saying 21 deserves to be at the top of tier 1. I think it should be *toward the top*.


I actually think it is better than Celine Dion a New Day, which currently resides towards the top of tier 1… (12th spot) not at the top of tier 1. I think the contrast in 21 is better than CD. Again I believe they are pretty close, but 21 is slightly better.

By the way, I own both 21 and CD.


I think 21 is better than Celine Dion.

Hellboy

The Patriot

Vantage Point

Fantastic Four Rise of the Silver Surfer

The Rock

Mr and Mrs Smith

Fly Boys


Perhaps the above movies should be moved down the list below 21??

_Again… Sony VW60, 58x104 Da-Lite HCCV Screen with masking, sitting 12 feet from the screen._


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/14637940
> 
> 
> Hmmm
> 
> Again I am not saying 21 deserves to be at the top of tier 1. I think it should be *toward the top*.
> 
> 
> I actually think it is better than Celine Dion a New Day, which currently resides towards the top of tier 1 (12th spot) not at the top of tier 1. I think the contrast in 21 is better than CD. Again I believe they are pretty close, but 21 is slightly better.
> 
> By the way, I own both 21 and CD.
> 
> 
> I think 21 is better than Celine Dion.
> 
> Hellboy
> 
> The Patriot
> 
> Vantage Point
> 
> Fantastic Four Rise of the Silver Surfer
> 
> The Rock
> 
> Mr and Mrs Smith
> 
> Fly Boys
> 
> 
> Perhaps the above movies should be moved down the list below 21??
> 
> _Again Sony VW60, 58x104 Da-Lite HCCV Screen with masking, sitting 12 feet from the screen._



You mean leave 21 where it is and move the ones you suggested below it? If that is what you are saying with all due respect, HELL NO! If it isn't I read incorrectly.


It was enough over the last year to improperly place and move down Kingdom of Heaven, Ice Age 2 and Apocalypto which IMO are all still Tier 0 titles.







I know it stirred up a hornet's nest before when discussed, but they got moved because there were a equal amount including myself who were complacent and slept while the changes were made by a small "majority".



I agree with you on 21 and say it should be placed above or below Wild Hogs.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> I think 21 is better than Celine Dion.
> 
> Hellboy
> 
> The Patriot
> 
> Vantage Point
> 
> Fantastic Four Rise of the Silver Surfer
> 
> The Rock
> 
> Mr and Mrs Smith
> 
> Fly Boys



I think Celine and Shakira can be moved to Tier 2. Celine was tier 0 at one point and i said Shakira was about as good but upon looking them over again , they just dont strike me as deserving the spots they have. The audio quality yes, but that's a different thread. So in response to 21 being as good..i agree...


I cant comment on all the titles you've named, but a few them I believe dont belong as high as they are either. Some titles were placed there over a year ago and havent really been re-evaluated. I don't know. I disagree with Vantage Point though. The face-closeups were more revealing than 21 and the scenery shots were about on par (IMO of course).


----------



## vanquint

Kill Bill's PQ may be up there with I, Robot. Pretty close imo.


----------



## callmevil

have any of u's seen "Closer"? i think it should be rank at tier 1 at least for vivid flesh tones and its near perfect presentation throughout.. and The Island is barely even Tier3.. the BD is not even sharp, theres little to no depth in any scenes...


----------



## RBFC

I'll cast my vote for Tier 0 for this one. Detail, color, shadow, etc.... it's all presented incredibly. This film is a good test, since it includes B&W elements, anime, and color photography. A great demo for your system.


Pioneer 60" plasma at 10ft. Denon DVD3800BDCI.


Lee


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *callmevil* /forum/post/14639046
> 
> 
> have any of u's seen "Closer"? i think it should be rank at tier 1 at least for vivid flesh tones and its near perfect presentation throughout.. and The Island is barely even Tier3.. the BD is not even sharp, theres little to no depth in any scenes...



i own it but haven't watched it yet. i may tonight


----------



## haste

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is listed twice in gold and silver tier. just a heads up.


----------



## b_scott

needs to be gold


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/14638179
> 
> 
> I think Celine and Shakira can be moved to Tier 2. Celine was tier 0 at one point and i said Shakira was about as good but upon looking them over again , they just dont strike me as deserving the spots they have. The audio quality yes, but that's a different thread. So in response to 21 being as good..i agree...
> 
> 
> I cant comment on all the titles you've named, but a few them I believe dont belong as high as they are either. Some titles were placed there over a year ago and havent really been re-evaluated. I don't know. I disagree with Vantage Point though. The face-closeups were more revealing than 21 and the scenery shots were about on par (IMO of course).



Hahahaha... I thought that would get someones attension.
















I just think 21 needs to be towards the top of tier 1, thats all. I think CD looks good and is in a good spot on the tier. Better than the other titles I also listed.

Hellboy

The Patriot

Vantage Point

Fantastic Four Rise of the Silver Surfer

The Rock

Mr and Mrs Smith

Fly Boys


I actually think Vantage point should be moved up a few more spots closer towards Celine Dion as well.

I have Kill Bill 1 and 2 on order and looking forward to comment.


Sony VW60, Da-Lite 58x104 HCCV screen with masking sitting 12 ft from the screen.


----------



## jaffa69

Hey guys im new to this.Is this where i post my TIER comments to get the movie into a thread?


Thanks


----------



## MelloFellow13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jaffa69* /forum/post/14642776
> 
> 
> Hey guys im new to this.Is this where i post my TIER comments to get the movie into a thread?
> 
> 
> Thanks



Right here.







There are instructions for reviewing in the OP, be sure to take a look.


----------



## jaffa69

Thanks


----------



## jaffa69

This iS my first review so please correct me if u think i may be wrong in my judgement of this movie










ERASER looks to be a product of the 90s which of course it is.The image sharpness does vary through out the movie from quite sharp on close ups to fair on long shots.Alot of scenes come across quite soft but this could be down to the way it was shot at the time,also a few scenes are a little out of focus again i think this is down to the way it was filmed rather than a problem with the encode.


Color is a little hit and miss sometimes looking quite eye popping other times looking a little muted again i think it is more down to the way the movie was filmed.


Contrast does vary throughout the movie and black levels are very hit and miss going from grey murky to quite decent deep black in some scenes.


I didnt notice any major EE or DNR.A slight grain did seem to be there giving the movie a filmlike like look.


Overall an ok image better than the dvd.


I would put this in TIER 3.1/2


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jaffa69* /forum/post/14643177
> 
> 
> This iS my first review so please correct me if u think i may be wrong in my judgement of this movie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ERASER looks to be a product of the 90s which of course it is.The image sharpness does vary through out the movie from quite sharp on close ups to fair on long shots.Alot of scenes come across quite soft but this could be down to the way it was shot at the time,also a few scenes are a little out of focus again i think this is down to the way it was filmed rather than a problem with the encode.
> 
> 
> Color is a little hit and miss sometimes looking quite eye popping other times looking a little muted again i think it is more down to the way the movie was filmed.
> 
> 
> Contrast does vary throughout the movie and black levels are very hit and miss going from grey murky to quite decent deep black in some scenes.
> 
> 
> I didnt notice any major EE or DNR.A slight grain did seem to be there giving the movie a filmlike like look.
> 
> 
> Overall an ok image better than the dvd.
> 
> 
> I would put this in TIER 3.1/2



Welcome to the thread jaffa69...and thanks for the good review.


It looks like ERASER is a very inconsistent movie, but with the redeeming features you mentioned your placement may be accurate. It's been some time since I viewed it (before its Blu-ray release), but I do remember thinking it was a good rental.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *callmevil* /forum/post/14639046
> 
> 
> have any of u's seen "Closer"? i think it should be rank at tier 1 at least for vivid flesh tones and its near perfect presentation throughout.. and The Island is barely even Tier3.. the BD is not even sharp, theres little to no depth in any scenes...



Closer should be tier 1 automatically because of Natalie Portman's stripper scene










And since it's my 1,000th post, might as well post pics of it










NWS!

*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show)


----------



## maverick0716

I viewed Closer on Blu Ray shortly after it was released and wasn't impressed at all. It just had an overall blandness to it........and the sharpness wasn't that great either.


----------



## kraemer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MelloFellow13* /forum/post/14545073
> 
> 
> I agree with OldCodger73's assessment of the PQ for The Hunt For Red October.



I dont understand how this Bluray got a silver rating instead of a bronze or lower. The PQ was ridiculously grainy. There was a LOT of analog noise throughout the film. No, I did not watch it on any sort of analog equipment whatsoever. 1080p Panasonic via HDMI.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/14641466
> 
> 
> I have Kill Bill 1 and 2 on order and looking forward to comment.



I read the reviews on Amazon on them and all the reviewers are praising the PQ just as john stephens has. That settled it for me, so I ordered the 2 volume set thru Amazon for just under 40 bills. Sweet!!


----------



## LBFilmGuy

4.5/5 PQ rating and 5/5 SQ rating from HDD for Iron Man.


Can't wait for this one









http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1571/ironman2008.html


----------



## suffolk112000

I would also like to add another recommendation.

I don’t understand why Beowolf is ranked so highly.

How Beowolf is above titles like Live Free or Die Hard and Crank is beyond me. I think Beowolf needs to be at least moved down to Tier 1. I don’t think it deserves a number 11 ranking in tier 0.


I just watched Kill Bill volume 1 and I have to say that I am completely impressed. As it stands, I think it looks like a tier 0 ranking but I need to take a look at it more closely as to how it compares to the current entry level tier 0 titles like Shoot ‘Em Up and Elton 60 – Live at Madison Square Garden. Or for that matter, how it stands up against tier 1 titles like Shooter and Casino Royale.


Sony VW60, 58x104 inch Da-Lite HCCV screen with masking @ 12' from the screen.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Doors*


tier recommendation: second quarter of *Tier 3*


Lionsgate released The Doors on Blu-ray in August of this year and I have to congratulate them on a wonderful example of an older movie done right for HD. The 140 minute movie is encoded in AVC on a BD-50. The average scanned video bitrate for the movie is 26.98 Mbps (BDInfo scan for this disc is linked at the bottom of the post courtesy of forum member Cinema Squid). This AVC video encode frequently peaks in the high 30’s and it is almost impossible to spot any compression artifacting or chroma noise throughout the main feature. Lionsgate has done an excellent compression job on this disc considering the difficult source material. I was worried going in that the concert scenes with the smoke machines would look like a mess but they show no signs of compression problems.


The transfer is very film-like with little signs of DVNR visible. In fact the grain structure of the film appears to remain intact which is plainly visible for portions of the movie. The HD master used for the transfer looks in excellent shape for a film from 1991, with little to no signs of damage or debris. The master is not perfect but in general it looks in better kept shape than many more recent films transferred to Blu-ray. Some scenes do show some very minor edge enhancement halos, but this fluctuates depending on the shot and scene. In all the transfer looks exactly what a Oliver Stone film usually looks like in the theaters.


Unfortunately for the film’s overall image Stone shot most of the movie very softly in a diffuse style. At times he also uses various color filters (most noticeably red when Morrison is using drugs or high). It appears he consciously did this to give the film a period look from the 60’s. The image remains soft for most of the movie with a very flat presentation. A haze envelopes many scenes like the ones that take place at nightclubs. Color fidelity and contrast are average at best for Blu-ray with some stretches looking worse than others. Black levels are solid looking with decent shadow delineation. I did not notice any significant macroblocking or banding.


High frequency detail looks average to below average for the third tier with the BD’s picture rarely getting into the upper reaches of tier two. Rarely do micro-details like pores or eyebrows really standout, though it does get easier to see the fake beards and sideburns some of the actors wear. Fleshtones are all over the place for artistic effect. Stone has always liked filming with different color timings and filters and he uses it for effect throughout this movie. This Blu-ray simply presents Stone’s original vision for the film faithfully, which limits how much pop or eye candy this film’s BD image can have.


Though I recommend this title be placed in the second quarter of tier three, Lionsgate has done a wonderful job transferring this movie to Blu-ray. It looks extremely faithful to the original source material and I can’t imagine a double dip of this BD ever looking any better. The image found on the Blu-ray handily beats the upconverted special edition dvd. Anyone that is a fan of this movie or the Doors in general needs this BD.


Watching on a 60” Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080P/24 fed by a PS3 from a viewing distance of six feet.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...0#post14605730


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/14652087
> 
> *The Doors*
> 
> 
> tier recommendation: second quarter of *Tier 3*
> 
> 
> [...]
> 
> 
> The transfer is very film-like with no signs of DVNR visible. In fact the grain structure of the film appears to remain intact which is plainly visible for portions of the movie. The HD master used for the transfer looks in excellent shape for a film from 1991, with little to no signs of damage or debris. The master is not perfect but in general it looks in better kept shape than many more recent films transferred to Blu-ray. Some scenes do show some very minor edge enhancement halos, but this fluctuates depending on the shot and scene. In all the transfer looks exactly what a Oliver Stone film usually looks like in the theaters.



Thanks for the evaluation Phantom. I also put some direct computer screen captures of this film in the Blu-ray HD Movie Screenshot Thread .


This is certainly a challenging movie to evaluate and I agree that it probably looks about as good as it can from what I recall of the theatrical run. If I were forced to guess, however, I would say that there was indeed a certain amount of tactical DNR applied to the film, although perhaps this can just be ascribed to a bad cocktail of heavy makeup and soft filters.


----------



## maverick0716

The Forbidden Kingdom is an excellent transfer as expected. Most of the movie has very good detail. Close up shots looked fantastic, and distance shots looked quite good as well, but not as sharp. It is a very colourful movie, and the Blu Ray really showed them off well. Black levels were also good, with maybe a tad bit of crush in some scenes....nothing major though. Overall, I'd rate this one somewhere in Tier 1.......maybe just above National Treasure 2.


42" Panasonic Plasma (768p)

PS3 though HDMI

6-7 ft.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briansemerick* /forum/post/13938823
> 
> 
> National Treasure 1 doesn't look all that much better than DVD in my opinion. not much pop, kinda of dull detail. i haven't looked at 2 yet.



Completely agree. Much of the movie seems poorly shot, dull, not at all something I would use as demo material to show off the appeal of Blu-ray. Seems way over rated in its current spot. There is one car chase sequence at night that was well shot and has some pop, but to me that's not enough to rate the film that highly. I also have not seen 2 yet.


----------



## b_scott

sunshine looks amazing


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/14653800
> 
> 
> The Forbidden Kingdom is an excellent transfer as expected. Most of the movie has very good detail. Close up shots looked fantastic, and distance shots looked quite good as well, but not as sharp. It is a very colourful movie, and the Blu Ray really showed them off well. Black levels were also good, with maybe a tad bit of crush in some scenes....nothing major though. Overall, I'd rate this one somewhere in Tier 1.......maybe just above National Treasure 2.
> 
> 
> 42" Panasonic Plasma (768p)
> 
> PS3 though HDMI
> 
> 6-7 ft.



After having watched The Forbidden Kingdom a second time, it reaffirms what I first suggested where its placement might be. I agree with your suggestion and was thinking the PQ is very similar to Curse of the Golden Flower which I own. I would suggest putting TFK right around NT2.


Sony A3000 60 in @8 ft from PS3 thru HDMI.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/14653399
> 
> 
> This is certainly a challenging movie to evaluate and I agree that it probably looks about as good as it can from what I recall of the theatrical run. If I were forced to guess, however, I would say that there was indeed a certain amount of tactical DNR applied to the film, although perhaps this can just be ascribed to a bad cocktail of heavy makeup and soft filters.



It may be possible or even probable but whoever was handling the transfer did a great job not leaving obvious signs of DNR. The lack of detail in close-ups looked more source related to me.


On another matter I watched the first Kill Bill and my initial impressions would have me recommending a top of tier one or bottom of tier zero for its placement. Disney has done a great job on this BD release.


Did The Last Waltz disappear off the tier list in some update or has it never been ranked?


----------



## suffolk112000

OK, I would like to again re-state my feelings towards some of my recent findings.

#1. Beowolf should not be in tier 0. How BW is ranked above titles like Live Free or Die Hard or Crank is beyond me. Much of the movie is not real sharp. Contrast is below what I would call average. Just not something I would call eye candy.

I think it should be ranked towards the bottom of tier 1.


#2, 21 needs to be moved towards the top of tier 1. I’ve stated my reasons, but let me add that I believe it is superior to Beowolf.


----------



## JayPSU

I just finished watching Kill Bill Volume 1. With it being a Buena Vista release, I was expecting something along the lines of No Country For Old Men. To me, Kill Bill 1 seemed a little inconsistent in it's picture quality. The opening fight sequence seemed overly bright which washed out the color a bit. However, scenes like the black and white scene right before Beatrix is shot look marvelous. The end fight sequence looks marvelous as well. I was expecting a little more overall, but this is still a high quality blu-ray. As I don't have a sound system good enough to give an opinion in that area, I won't. As for my recommendation for this movie, I'd put it no lower than somewhere in tier 1, probably the low end of tier 1 though.


Samsung LN-T4065 1080p

Samsung BD-1400

Viewing distance: 7 feet


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/14657995
> 
> 
> OK, I would like to again re-state my feelings towards some of my recent findings.
> 
> #1. Beowolf should not be in tier 0. How BW is ranked above titles like Live Free or Die Hard or Crank is beyond me. Much of the movie is not real sharp. Contrast is below what I would call average. Just not something I would call eye candy.
> 
> I think it should be ranked towards the bottom of tier 1.
> 
> 
> #2, 21 needs to be moved towards the top of tier 1. I’ve stated my reasons, but let me add that I believe it is superior to Beowolf.



Just remember that it sometimes takes a couple of weeks for your recommendations to been reviewed. Re-stating won't really help, and your opinion may not necessarily move it to the exact area you want it -- it may bump it up or down... it always depends on how many people agree or disagree with you. I'm only telling you this out of experience... not trying to be rude.


PS. I dont believe any of the animations look as good as I, Robot, Pirates, and some of the best live action tier 0 titles...


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14656862
> 
> 
> After having watched The Forbidden Kingdom a second time, it reaffirms what I first suggested where its placement might be. I agree with your suggestion and was thinking the PQ is very similar to Curse of the Golden Flower which I own. I would suggest putting TFK right around NT2.
> 
> 
> Sony A3000 60 in @8 ft from PS3 thru HDMI.



Agree. Its slightly better than Curse of the Golden flower. Maverick was right about the scenery shots looking a bit soft -- may be due to the coloring. Overall great looking title...


----------



## adelgary




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JayPSU* /forum/post/14658428
> 
> 
> I just finished watching Kill Bill Volume 1. With it being a Buena Vista release, I was expecting something along the lines of No Country For Old Men. To me, Kill Bill 1 seemed a little inconsistent in it's picture quality. The opening fight sequence seemed overly bright which washed out the color a bit. However, scenes like the black and white scene right before Beatrix is shot look marvelous. The end fight sequence looks marvelous as well. I was expecting a little more overall, but this is still a high quality blu-ray. As I don't have a sound system good enough to give an opinion in that area, I won't. As for my recommendation for this movie, I'd put it no lower than somewhere in tier 1, probably the low end of tier 1 though.
> 
> 
> Samsung LN-T4065 1080p
> 
> Samsung BD-1400
> 
> Viewing distance: 7 feet



The "inconsistencies" you noticed might be intentional decisions by the director (i.e. the transfer is being faithful to the source). You'll see more of them in KB2 as well. I think Tarantino was paying homage to lot of his favorite movie genres/eras in Kill Bill.


----------



## Hughmc

I watched "Then She Found Me" last night. It is a slow drama and not of the genre most AVSer's would enjoy.







There are no spectacular sound or visual effects.


The PQ on this BD was mediocre at best. I would suggest the bottom of Tier 3. The overall picture was soft, with little or no 3d pop. At times it seemed no better than an upconverted DVD. It seemed like heavy DNR was used.


[email protected] from PS3 thru HDMI.


----------



## djoberg

I know it's been a few weeks since the hotly debated *Doomsday* was placed in Tier 1, but I just watched it and I have to agree with several members who argued for Tier 0. As one member said, it is absolutely consistent in every scene, consistently sharp, that is. And I would argue that the contrast and black levels rival those of the POTC series. So, IMHO, I think it deserves to be at the *bottom of Tier 0*.


Samsung 50" 1080p DLP

Panasonic BD30

Viewed from 8'


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/14654106
> 
> 
> Completely agree. Much of the movie seems poorly shot, dull, not at all something I would use as demo material to show off the appeal of Blu-ray. Seems way over rated in its current spot. There is one car chase sequence at night that was well shot and has some pop, but to me that's not enough to rate the film that highly. I also have not seen 2 yet.



watched 2 soon after that post, and it looks great.


----------



## Deviation

How is Kiss of the Dragon a Tier 1 title? For that matter, how is an aliased title like The Orphanage a Tier 1 title? The Orphanage should be dropped down to Tier 2 and Kiss of the Dragon should go down to Tier 3. Nothing against Kiss of the Dragon but the substandard encode and the green sheen applied to the film definitely disqualifies it from Tier 1 ranking.


----------



## Decado2

Has anyone seen Under Siege 2?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14519695
> 
> 
> I finally finished watching *Never Back Down.* I thought the PQ was surprisingly outstanding, considering this is the first BD release from Summit (the place Steve Nickerson landed after leaving Warner last year). The detail was very nice, facial close-ups were generally really good. I can imagine that some may object to the colors, which tend toward brown and yellow, but that was clearly a stylistic choice. As with Fox releases, the company that did the authoring and compression is identified at the end of the disc. In this case it's Deluxe, which has done such nice work for Fox recently. My recommendation would be top half of Tier 1. I will be interested to hear what others think about this one.



I posted this several weeks ago and I was wondering if anyone else has watched this one yet?


----------



## b_scott

just rented Black Hawk Down, and i assume i'm in for a treat.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briansemerick* /forum/post/14669665
> 
> 
> just rented Black Hawk Down, and i assume i'm in for a treat.



Indeed you are


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/14669707
> 
> 
> Indeed you are



Ditto!


----------



## 357

I'd say Speed Racer is Tier 0 or to the very top of Tier 1. I wasn't really paying attention to the movie as it sucked but the visuals were awesome.


----------



## Shane Martin




> Quote:
> How is Kiss of the Dragon a Tier 1 title? For that matter, how is an aliased title like The Orphanage a Tier 1 title? The Orphanage should be dropped down to Tier 2 and Kiss of the Dragon should go down to Tier 3. Nothing against Kiss of the Dragon but the substandard encode and the green sheen applied to the film definitely disqualifies it from Tier 1 ranking.



Kiss of the Dragon's score is purely based on Phantom Strangers review. Orphanage looked fantastic to many of us who felt it was a Tier 0 title. Tier 1 was a compromise.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14668646
> 
> 
> I posted this several weeks ago and I was wondering if anyone else has watched this one yet?



Just me and you apparently, lol.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *357* /forum/post/14670069
> 
> 
> I'd say Speed Racer is Tier 0 or to the very top of Tier 1. I wasn't really paying attention to the movie as it sucked but the visuals were awesome.



As soon as I saw the trailer for this in theatres, I knew that it would be a good eye candy release on Blu Ray.


----------



## djoberg

My patience has finally worn thin and I'm going to vent a little. Has anyone else noticed that ever since a few of the main contributors to this thread have quit contributing, nothing seems to get done? (With the exception of the very good update awhile back from our good friend in Japan!







)


Seriously, there have been quite a few suggestions on various titles in the last 3-4 weeks for title placements or for changes in placement and all we hear is, "Have patience." I am beginning to think our voices are not being heard. Either that, or the ones who are maintaining this thread are growing lax (for whatever reason), or perhaps are even thinking of throwing in the towel. I, for one, would like to hear from those who are responsible for this thread with an explanation of what's going on.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14672741
> 
> 
> My patience has finally worn thin and I'm going to vent a little. Has anyone else noticed that ever since a few of the main contributors to this thread have quit contributing, nothing seems to get done? (With the exception of the very good update awhile back from our good friend in Japan!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )
> 
> 
> Seriously, there have been quite a few suggestions on various titles in the last 3-4 weeks for title placements or for changes in placement and all we hear is, "Have patience." I am beginning to think our voices are not being heard. Either that, or the ones who are maintaining this thread are growing lax (for whatever reason), or perhaps are even thinking of throwing in the towel. I, for one, would like to hear from those who are responsible for this thread with an explanation of what's going on.



I think SuprSlow has been extremely since the past few months. He was periodically maintaining the list until July and after that the list update has been quite SuprSlow.










If SuprSlow is continuously busy I think he will step up and request someone else to moderate the tier list. Member Cinema Squid and myself agreed to consolidate the recommendations once a fortnight making the job easier for SuprSlow to update them in the main post.


I will definitely work on consolidating the recent recommendations this weekend but it's up to to SuprSlow to reflect them back in the main thread.










My participation in AVS beyond October is in big question mark as I am on the verge of bidding farewell to Japan.










May God bless sub-prime and investment banking.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14672741
> 
> 
> My patience has finally worn thin and I'm going to vent a little. Has anyone else noticed that ever since a few of the main contributors to this thread have quit contributing, nothing seems to get done? (With the exception of the very good update awhile back from our good friend in Japan!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )
> 
> 
> Seriously, there have been quite a few suggestions on various titles in the last 3-4 weeks for title placements or for changes in placement and all we hear is, "Have patience." I am beginning to think our voices are not being heard. Either that, or the ones who are maintaining this thread are growing lax (for whatever reason), or perhaps are even thinking of throwing in the towel. I, for one, would like to hear from those who are responsible for this thread with an explanation of what's going on.



I agree with you.

I have put in several suggestions and am sort of wondering what it takes to get something done. My suggestions even had some support with a few other members. I have listed everything that is required but still nothing.

Right now I am just going to assume that the people in charge with administering this thread are extremely busy.

Though I must admit the thought has crossed my mind more than once that maybe only a select few get their opinions honored.

I am sure someone will explain to us all very soon.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14672741
> 
> 
> My patience has finally worn thin and I'm going to vent a little. *Has anyone else noticed that ever since a few of the main contributors to this thread have quit contributing, nothing seems to get done?* (With the exception of the very good update awhile back from our good friend in Japan!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )
> 
> 
> Seriously, there have been quite a few suggestions on various titles in the last 3-4 weeks for title placements or for changes in placement and all we hear is, "Have patience." I am beginning to think our voices are not being heard. Either that, or the ones who are maintaining this thread are growing lax (for whatever reason), or perhaps are even thinking of throwing in the towel. I, for one, would like to hear from those who are responsible for this thread with an explanation of what's going on.



I believe that there is absolutely no connection between the controversy that came up here a bit ago and the lack of updates. The person who does the updates has been very busy with his job. Based on my observation, he is very non-discriminating (in a good way) in taking different people's evaluations into account in making placements or moves.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14675802
> 
> 
> I believe that there is absolutely no connection between the controversy that came up here a bit ago and the lack of updates. The person who does the updates has been very busy with his job. Based on my observation, he is very non-discriminating (in a good way) in taking different people's evaluations into account in making placements or moves.



I agree. IIRC, SuprSlow said he was slammed in a few recent posts. lgans took the lead organizing the recent recommendations for tier placement into one post, so as to make SuprSlow's updating easier.


Tonight's viewing is Speedracer







and I also rented Baby Mama







. I really wanted to rent 88 min. but someone grabbed it already.


It looks like my Hollywood Video is expanding to more displays and usually they get two new BD's in a week, now they are stepping it up to three. Good news! The best part is although I rent, there are so few who rent BD's in my small town that when they are released I am the first to view which makes me feel a bit better than some dirt/crap being on a BD.


*EDIT* Baby Mama got 62% on RT, maybe it isn't that bad.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

I admit I am guilty of not watching enough blu rays lately










Will try to get on that soon


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/14675888
> 
> 
> I admit I am guilty of not watching enough blu rays lately
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will try to get on that soon



Hey buddy step it up and quit slacking.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14675802
> 
> *I believe that there is absolutely no connection between the controversy that came up here a bit ago and the lack of updates*. The person who does the updates has been very busy with his job. Based on my observation, he is very non-discriminating (in a good way) in taking different people's evaluations into account in making placements or moves.



If you will read my post again patrick, you will see that I did NOT mention "the controversy that came up here a bit ago," so I have no idea why you implied that I was connecting that to the lack of updates. I simply alluded to the fact that some of our main contributors (Rob Tomlin, Brandon, et al.) have quit contributing and from that point on it seems very little is getting done as far as placements go.


Having said that, I do believe Igans316 (and you) may be right in pointing out that SuprSlow is extremely busy, and with Rob Tomlin _apparently_ bowing out (temporarily or permanently) it puts a lot of responsibility on just one man. Whatever the case may be, it doesn't really remedy my impatience.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14676111
> 
> 
> If you will read my post again patrick, you will see that I did NOT mention "the controversy that came up here a bit ago," so I have no idea why you implied that I was connecting that to the lack of updates. I simply alluded to the fact that some of our main contributors (Rob Tomlin, Brandon, et al.) have quit contributing and from that point on it seems very little is getting done as far as placements go.
> 
> 
> Having said that, I do believe Igans316 (and you) may be right in pointing out that SuprSlow is extremely busy, and with Rob Tomlin _apparently_ bowing out (temporarily or permanently) it puts a lot of responsibility on just one man. Whatever the case may be, it doesn't really remedy my impatience.



Wait till we have dozens of titles coming out weekly or when there are too many titles in tier one and we are struggling trying to figure placement.


----------



## PioBeer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14676165
> 
> 
> Wait till we have dozens of titles coming out weekly or when there are too many titles in tier one and we are struggling trying to figure placement.



At that point maybe just a top 20 (best of the best) would suffice.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14676165
> 
> *Wait* till we have dozens of titles coming out weekly or when there are too many titles in tier one and we are struggling trying to figure placement.



I can't wait!!







(There goes my "impatience" again.







)


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14676111
> 
> 
> Whatever the case may be, it doesn't really remedy my impatience.



The obvious answer then is to collate the recommendations made in September yourself and post a summary here as lgans316 did a couple weeks ago.










I thought SuprSlow explained pretty clearly that he was bogged down at work right now and didn't have enough time to comb through all the posts, but would update the first post if others were able to gather up the requested changes for him. No controversy here (well, other than perhaps the lack of response when he asked for help)!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I had actually contemplated posting some of the same concerns djoberg posted in the past few weeks. SuprSlow has done a great job handling his duties but it might be time we advertise for a new thread moderator to share in the responsibilities with SuprSlow since he is so busy right now. I think this thread might get more participation if we can get regular weekly or biweekly updates and people can see their recommendations making a difference. Anyone care to step forward?


It does seem that some of the main contributors in this thread have decided to take a break after the recent outside attacks.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/14677101
> 
> 
> I had actually contemplated posting some of the same concerns djoberg posted in the past few weeks. SuprSlow has done a great job handling his duties but it might be time we advertise for a new thread moderator to share in the responsibilities with SuprSlow since he is so busy right now. I think this thread might get more participation if we can get regular weekly or biweekly updates and people can see their recommendations making a difference. Anyone care to step forward?
> 
> 
> It does seem that some of the main contributors in this thread have decided to take a break after the recent outside attacks.



I agree and you make excellent points. We all might enjoy it more and I admit I would appreciate seeing more care taken to updates weekly as it makes one feel more involved. It makes participating more meaningful.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/14677101
> 
> 
> I had actually contemplated posting some of the same concerns djoberg posted in the past few weeks. SuprSlow has done a great job handling his duties but it might be time we advertise for a new thread moderator to share in the responsibilities with SuprSlow since he is so busy right now. I think this thread might get more participation if we can get regular weekly or biweekly updates and people can see their recommendations making a difference. Anyone care to step forward?
> 
> 
> It does seem that some of the main contributors in this thread have decided to take a break after the recent outside attacks.



I agree.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14676111
> 
> 
> If you will read my post again patrick, you will see that I did NOT mention "the controversy that came up here a bit ago," so I have no idea why you implied that I was connecting that to the lack of updates. I simply alluded to the fact that some of our main contributors (Rob Tomlin, Brandon, et al.) have quit contributing and from that point on it seems very little is getting done as far as placements go.
> 
> 
> Having said that, I do believe Igans316 (and you) may be right in pointing out that SuprSlow is extremely busy, *and with Rob Tomlin apparently bowing out (temporarily or permanently) i*t puts a lot of responsibility on just one man. Whatever the case may be, it doesn't really remedy my impatience.



Sorry to say, but that would be permanently.


There are a variety of reasons for this, most of which should be obvious, others not so much.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/14677953
> 
> 
> Sorry to say, but that would be permanently.
> 
> 
> There are a variety of reasons for this, most of which should be obvious, others not so much.



Rob,


I am truly sorry to read this. I have always appreciated your many contributions to this thread.


Let me just say that there were some unjustified statements made by some who "visited" this thread, statements that were not constructive criticism, but rather destructive. I was hoping that you, Brandon, and others would not be intimidated by these. I know you may have other "not so obvious" reasons, but I would encourage you to rethink your decision; we would love to have you back.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/14677953
> 
> 
> Sorry to say, but that would be permanently.
> 
> 
> There are a variety of reasons for this, most of which should be obvious, others not so much.



Ahhh come on dude don't leave.


We appreciate your contributions.


----------



## TRT

I know exactly how Rob feels. I've been run out of a few threads myself because other members were offended by my less than enthusiastic support for their positions. Give him time. He may be back. This IS a good thread most of the time.


----------



## djoberg

I think 357 described *The Forbidden Kingdom* best with the words "stunning visuals." As much as I praised the movie 21 recently, this one has it beat. So, since I was recommending top Tier 1 for 21, I would recommend *bottom Tier 0* for this title. (I'm actually compromising my opinion somewhat here, for I was so impressed with this that I couldn't detect any difference between this and the best of the POTC trilogy, which are at the top of Tier 0).


For those of you who thought it should be placed in Tier 1, what was it, besides the isolated "soft spots" in outdoor scenes (in the background of outdoor scenes, I might add), that prevented you from putting it in Tier Blu?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TRT* /forum/post/14678244
> 
> 
> I know exactly how Rob feels. I've been run out of a few threads myself because other members were offended by my less than enthusiastic support for their positions. Give him time. He may be back. This IS a good thread most of the time.



I hear you, but as I implied in an earlier post, one should not be intimidated by some taking offense, ESPECIALLY when those who are offended are not "regular contributors," but rather "trolls" (is that too strong of a word?) that have a habit of "stirring up a hornet's nest."


----------



## tbass2k

I haven't been in this thread for a while, but once it gets back up and running ( and once the drama or whatever happened dissapates), Speed Racer needs to be placed in Tier 0 right under or above I,Robot. I almost wanted to lick my screen watching this, simply because it looked like candy..lol. This is what HD is all about, if this had a lossless track the whole presentation might be a little too much.







I didn't see as much detail in the faces as say I,Robot, but I believe the makeup is the culprit here; as far as the detail in the environments and everything else going on...simply amazing, I almost didn't even care what was going on in the movie, I was just in awe by the colors and detail. This is the most beautiful HD I have seen.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

If I don't get stuck playing NHL 09 all night I think I am gunna pop in Blade Runner.


Never seen the fn thing


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/14677101
> 
> 
> I had actually contemplated posting some of the same concerns djoberg posted in the past few weeks. SuprSlow has done a great job handling his duties but it might be time we advertise for a new thread moderator to share in the responsibilities with SuprSlow since he is so busy right now. *I think this thread might get more participation if we can get regular weekly or biweekly updates and people can see their recommendations making a difference. Anyone care to step forward?*



As I read your post Phantom I envisioned every member "stepping backward," leaving you out front.










Seriously, if you would feel up to the task, I believe you would make a great moderator alongside SuprSlow. Your MANY reviews have been stellar (you definitely have a "gifted pen"), which reveals not only a good knowledge of reviewing movies, but the much-needed zeal to be willing to invest your time and energy to make this thread productive.


So, how about it?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14679512
> 
> 
> as i read your post phantom i envisioned every member "stepping backward," leaving you out front.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> seriously, if you would feel up to the task, i believe you would make a great moderator alongside suprslow. Your many reviews have been stellar (you definitely have a "gifted pen"), which reveals not only a good knowledge of reviewing movies, but the much-needed zeal to be willing to invest your time and energy to make this thread productive.
> 
> 
> So, how about it?



+1


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14678285
> 
> 
> I think 357 described *The Forbidden Kingdom* best with the words "stunning visuals." As much as I praised the movie 21 recently, this one has it beat. So, since I was recommending top Tier 1 for 21, I would recommend *bottom Tier 0* for this title. (I'm actually compromising my opinion somewhat here, for I was so impressed with this that I couldn't detect any difference between this and the best of the POTC trilogy, which are at the top of Tier 0).
> 
> 
> For those of you who thought it should be placed in Tier 1, what was it, besides the isolated "soft spots" in outdoor scenes (in the background of outdoor scenes, I might add), that prevented you from putting it in Tier Blu?



For a title to be Tier 0, to me it must be near perfect. If a BD has softer background visuals, that right there kind of takes it out of Tier 0 for me. Tier 1, is by no means bad.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14678285
> 
> 
> I think 357 described *The Forbidden Kingdom* best with the words "stunning visuals." As much as I praised the movie 21 recently, this one has it beat. So, since I was recommending top Tier 1 for 21, I would recommend *bottom Tier 0* for this title. (I'm actually compromising my opinion somewhat here, for I was so impressed with this that I couldn't detect any difference between this and the best of the POTC trilogy, which are at the top of Tier 0).
> 
> 
> For those of you who thought it should be placed in Tier 1, what was it, besides the isolated "soft spots" in outdoor scenes (in the background of outdoor scenes, I might add), that prevented you from putting it in Tier Blu?



This from High Def Digest:

*Unfortunately, while I didn’t detect any edge enhancement or source noise, there are a few scenes that suffer at the hands of errant artifacting, black crush, and banding. It’s also worth noting that a few shots are slightly softer than the rest of the film. Granted, the transfer’s technical mishaps aren’t prevalent enough to severely detract from the overall presentation. However, they’re distracting enough to hold the otherwise gorgeous picture back from perfection.*


^^This is some of what I saw. Some soft shots and some black crush. There was just a little something missing or should I say apparent that made me think TFK was lacking slightly. I hold my recommendation for TFK to be placed somewhere around Curse of the Golden Flower which I see the PQ as similar or identical in many ways. Those issues keep it out of Tier 0 and even move it down to mid to lower Tier 1.


What I now do on all BD recommendations is watch the movie first. I then look at online reviews and what others in this thread think about the PQ. I then watch it again, sometimes a 3d time over several days and then give my opinion.


----------



## b_scott

you really watch a movie 3 times back to back? wow. you must have a lot of time on your hands







it's all i can do to watch the movies in my blockbuster queue.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briansemerick* /forum/post/14682931
> 
> 
> you really watch a movie 3 times back to back? wow. you must have a lot of time on your hands
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's all i can do to watch the movies in my blockbuster queue.



Not back to back. Over several days. Single, self employed, nite owl.


----------



## b_scott

well there you go







i'd still get sick of the same movie that many times. i watched The Dark Knight twice in 3 days, but that was the exception.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briansemerick* /forum/post/14683149
> 
> 
> well there you go
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i'd still get sick of the same movie that many times. i watched The Dark Knight twice in 3 days, but that was the exception.



I am only doing it for the BD titles that I recommmend for placement which is about 2 a week. I am with you. Unless a movie is phenomenal, I get bored watching it again so soon.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14683018
> 
> 
> Not back to back. Over several days. Single, self employed, nite owl.



Sounds just like me except the self employed part


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/14683677
> 
> 
> Sounds just like me except the self employed part



Did you ever watch Blade Runner?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14682888
> 
> 
> This from High Def Digest:
> 
> *Unfortunately, while I didn't detect any edge enhancement or source noise, there are a few scenes that suffer at the hands of errant artifacting, black crush, and banding. It's also worth noting that a few shots are slightly softer than the rest of the film. Granted, the transfer's technical mishaps aren't prevalent enough to severely detract from the overall presentation. However, they're distracting enough to hold the otherwise gorgeous picture back from perfection.*
> 
> 
> ^^This is some of what I saw. Some *soft shots and some black crush*. There was just a little something missing or should I say apparent that made me think TFK was lacking slightly. I hold my recommendation for TFK to be placed somewhere around Curse of the Golden Flower which I see the PQ as similar or identical in many ways. Those issues keep it out of Tier 0 and even move it down to mid to lower Tier 1.



I did see a few outdoor scenes (very brief ones, I might add) that were soft in the background. But it was sharp as ever in the forefront where the characters were, so I wasn't very critical of them. As far as black crush, I really didn't catch that, but I'll give it another viewing (sometime) and be on the lookout for that.


I guess I would be willing to strike a compromise with you by suggesting high Tier 1, but I couldn't, with a good conscience, recommend mid to lower Tier 1.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14683762
> 
> 
> Did you ever watch Blade Runner?



LOL nope! Was up until 530 this morning playing NHL 09










I'd definitely put NHL 09 in tier 0...no DNR, no EE, and no out of focus or soft shots. Everything is crystal clear.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/14684043
> 
> 
> LOL nope! Was up until 530 this morning playing NHL 09
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd definitely put NHL 09 in tier 0...no DNR, no EE, and no out of focus or soft shots. Everything is crystal clear.




I know we are off topic...

I tired the demo and should really get into it with those playing MP. Are you playing MP? I play and love Ice hockey and when I tried that demo I was impressed to say the least. Looking from the behind view of a guy on a breakaway the game looks very realistic and just how it does when you are actually on the ice.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14684208
> 
> 
> I know we are off topic...
> 
> I tired the demo and should really get into it with those playing MP. Are you playing MP? I play and love Ice hockey and when I tried that demo I was impressed to say the least. Looking from the behind view of a guy on a breakaway the game looks very realistic and just how it does when you are actually on the ice.



Well I live with 4 other guys so we share internet...I haven't tried MP cause usually it's all laggy.


BUT the be a pro mode is fn phenomenal...you create your player and start out in the AHL and work your way up to the pro team. They did an awesome job.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14679512
> 
> 
> As I read your post Phantom I envisioned every member "stepping backward," leaving you out front.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, how about it?



That is kind of you to say but I'm not sure I would have the free time over the coming months. Maybe in the future but real world work has been taking over much of my free time lately.







It's the reason why I haven't been posting more recommendations lately.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14683018
> 
> 
> Not back to back. Over several days. Single, self employed, nite owl.



Now Hughmc sounds like the perfect moderator.







It is good of you to step forward like this.


----------



## Fanaticalism

Surpirsed no one has mentioned/seen Speed Racer. This is definitely a visual treat.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fanaticalism* /forum/post/14686275
> 
> 
> Surpirsed no one has mentioned/seen Speed Racer. This is definitely a visual treat.




I did last night. I have been floating around in my head how it looks. I would say Tier 0, but I didn't care for the clarity of faces at times. It seems to have a bit of DNR or some softening on facial closeups, other than that I think it is eye candy Tier 0 material. I wonder how it would have looked had I turned my display to Vivid Mode.







The colors were already so saturated. I did get into the cars racing around the track as the visuals at times were very cool.


Sony [email protected] from PS3 thru HDMI.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/14686081
> 
> 
> That is kind of you to say but I'm not sure I would have the free time over the coming months. Maybe in the future but real world work has been taking over much of my free time lately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the reason why I haven't been posting more recommendations lately.
> 
> 
> Now Hughmc sounds like the perfect moderator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is good of you to step forward like this.



I appreciate the nod Phantom. Perhaps we need someone who is a bit more diplomatic and a little less opinionated like yourself.

















What would it entail exactly? Simply placing the recommended films in the appropriate Tiers?


I was thinking about some of concerns with delays on tier placment last night, as many of us want faster posting of recommendations. How about this and please correct me if I am mistaken. Please remember these are just suggestions and if we were to use this or an similar approach, the final method could be reached by delineation in this thread:


New releases come out on Tuesdays. The following Monday 6 days after the new releases, prior to the next set of releases the following day, we should have a decision on tier placement for those new titles as to clear them off the list ASAP. I was thinking if we use a minimum of at least 6 forum members recommending placement, then we move it to the list. If a particular title only has one, two or several recommendations by Monday's cutoff, then we add them to the tier anyway. The recommended use of 6 forum members is to hope we get more members involved on as many titles as we can. Of course this placement does not have to be final, we are just trying to expedite the new releases being added to tiers.


I know not all of us get to watch a new release the day or even week it comes out, but it seems there are enough who do watch them fairly early upon release. If there is an issue with 6 days being too soon to place titles, then we could give it another week to the following Monday. Just some thoughts.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14686296
> 
> 
> I did last night. I have been floating around in my head how it looks. I would say Tier 0, but *I didn't care for the clarity of faces at times. It seems to have a bit of DNR or some softening on facial closeups,* other than that I think it is eye candy Tier 0 material. I wonder how it would have looked had I turned my display to Vivid Mode.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The colors were already so saturated. I did get into the cars racing around the track as the visuals at times were very cool.
> 
> 
> Sony [email protected] from PS3 thru HDMI.



Based on watching part of this (*Speed Racer*) last night, the faces looked horrible to me much of the time. But it wasn't just the faces; many wider shots of groups of people looked soft as well. Another DNR job from Warner. Definitely *NOT* Tier 0, IMO.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/14686081
> 
> 
> That is kind of you to say but I'm not sure I would have the free time over the coming months. Maybe in the future but *real world work has been taking over much of my free time lately*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the reason why I haven't been posting more recommendations lately.



I understand completely Phantom...I travel for my job at least two months out of the year.


----------



## b_scott

anyone watched *The Fall* yet? i rented it but haven't watched yet. i heard it's a demo disc for sure.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14686762
> 
> 
> Based on watching part of this (*Speed Racer*) last night, the faces looked horrible to me much of the time. But it wasn't just the faces; many wider shots of groups of people looked soft as well. Another DNR job from Warner. Definitely *NOT* Tier 0, IMO.



Do you think it's DNR or could it possibly be intentional soft filming? (ie: Sky Captain, Ultraviolet, etc.) Regardless, though, if it has soft shots, it doesn't belong in Tier 0 because Director's intent has no merit in this thread. I rented Speed Racer and 88 Minutes and will be viewing them in the next day or two.......I'll post my comments soon.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/14690330
> 
> 
> Do you think it's DNR or could it possibly be intentional soft filming? (ie: Sky Captain, Ultraviolet, etc.) Regardless, though, if it has soft shots, it doesn't belong in Tier 0 because Director's intent has no merit in this thread. I rented Speed Racer and 88 Minutes and will be viewing them in the next day or two.......I'll post my comments soon.



IMO, it's DNR, but I agree that regardless of whether it's DNR or not, the result for purposes of this thread is the same.


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/14690330
> 
> 
> Regardless, though, if it has soft shots, it doesn't belong in Tier 0 because Director's intent has no merit in this thread.



i don't agree with this. you're saying if a shot is out of focus on purpose in a scene, because that's how it's supposed to look - and it looks perfectly out of focus with no DNR - that it can't be Tier 0? that doesn't seem right.


not saying Kingdom is one way or the other, but i don't agree with that.


----------



## Martez




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briansemerick* /forum/post/14689135
> 
> 
> anyone watched *The Fall* yet? i rented it but haven't watched yet. i heard it's a demo disc for sure.



YES! It's a great film, and the video quality is fantastic! I'm not enough of a videophile to really go into details (also, I've only rented it because EVERY store is sold out of bluray copies), but I'll post up my opinion..


Screen Resolution: 1920X1080X24p

Screen Size 42" LCD

Distance from Screen: About 5-6 feet.


Not once did I notice grainy scenes or an overly soft image. Everything is very sharp; though it does not always have that 3D "pop" effect, it always looks gorgeous and pristine. Looking at the current list of Tier 0 titles, I think it is between At World's End and The Host; I haven't seen any of the movies between those two on the list so I can't get more specific than that, but I think it should be just below World's End.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briansemerick* /forum/post/14690457
> 
> 
> i don't agree with this. you're saying if a shot is out of focus on purpose in a scene, because that's how it's supposed to look - and it looks perfectly out of focus with no DNR - that it can't be Tier 0? that doesn't seem right.
> 
> 
> not saying Kingdom is one way or the other, but i don't agree with that.



Yes, for the purposes of this thread, when a director does that intentionally he f'ed up his placement for a higher tier.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briansemerick* /forum/post/14690457
> 
> 
> i don't agree with this. you're saying if a shot is out of focus on purpose in a scene, because that's how it's supposed to look - and it looks perfectly out of focus with no DNR - that it can't be Tier 0? that doesn't seem right.
> 
> 
> not saying Kingdom is one way or the other, but i don't agree with that.



We were talking about Speed Racer, actually.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briansemerick* /forum/post/14690457
> 
> 
> i don't agree with this. you're saying if a shot is out of focus on purpose in a scene, because that's how it's supposed to look - and it looks perfectly out of focus with no DNR - that it can't be Tier 0? that doesn't seem right.
> 
> 
> not saying Kingdom is one way or the other, but i don't agree with that.



If one scene is out of focus because of Director's intent, it's not a big deal. If the whole movie is out of focus, then it's an issue.......for this thread anyway. This is an eye candy thread, so if it's not razor sharp, etc., then it doesn't belong with the other top tier titles. Closest to Director's intent is a good way of judging picture quality, but not in this thread.


----------



## briankmonkey




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Martez* /forum/post/14690496
> 
> 
> YES! It's a great film, and the video quality is fantastic! I'm not enough of a videophile to really go into details (also, I've only rented it because EVERY store is sold out of bluray copies), but I'll post up my opinion..
> 
> 
> Screen Resolution: 1920X1080X24p
> 
> Screen Size 42" LCD
> 
> Distance from Screen: About 5-6 feet.
> 
> 
> Not once did I notice grainy scenes or an overly soft image. Everything is very sharp; though it does not always have that 3D "pop" effect, it always looks gorgeous and pristine. Looking at the current list of Tier 0 titles, I think it is between At World's End and The Host; I haven't seen any of the movies between those two on the list so I can't get more specific than that, but I think it should be just below World's End.




Thanks Martez. I almost grabbed it last night but grabbed Speed Racer instead (didn't finish it, so far I'm not into it much), is it friendly enough for a 2.5 year old? If not I'll just watch after the boys pass out.


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/14690572
> 
> 
> If one scene is out of focus because of Director's intent, it's not a big deal. If the whole movie is out of focus, then it's an issue.......for this thread anyway. This is an eye candy thread, so if it's not razor sharp, etc., then it doesn't belong with the other top tier titles. Closest to Director's intent is a good way of judging picture quality, but not in this thread.



i agree with that, i just meant one or two purposefully artful scenes shouldn't keep something out of Tier 0.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briansemerick* /forum/post/14690593
> 
> 
> i agree with that, i just meant one or two purposefully artful scenes shouldn't keep something out of Tier 0.



True... because then Man on Fire would be tossed out of Tier 0. Many artsy intentionally grainy/harsh scenes in that movie.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14686368
> 
> 
> I appreciate the nod Phantom. Perhaps we need someone who is a bit more diplomatic and a little less opinionated like yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What would it entail exactly? Simply placing the recommended films in the appropriate Tiers?
> 
> 
> I was thinking about some of concerns with delays on tier placment last night, as many of us want faster posting of recommendations. How about this and please correct me if I am mistaken. Please remember these are just suggestions and if we were to use this or an similar approach, the final method could be reached by delineation in this thread:
> 
> 
> New releases come out on Tuesdays. The following Monday 6 days after the new releases, prior to the next set of releases the following day, we should have a decision on tier placement for those new titles as to clear them off the list ASAP. I was thinking if we use a minimum of at least 6 forum members recommending placement, then we move it to the list. If a particular title only has one, two or several recommendations by Monday's cutoff, then we add them to the tier anyway. The recommended use of 6 forum members is to hope we get more members involved on as many titles as we can. Of course this placement does not have to be final, we are just trying to expedite the new releases being added to tiers.
> 
> 
> I know not all of us get to watch a new release the day or even week it comes out, but it seems there are enough who do watch them fairly early upon release. If there is an issue with 6 days being too soon to place titles, then we could give it another week to the following Monday. Just some thoughts.



Great ideas Hugh...and maybe when you do place the movie in parenthesis you can put which 6 of us rated it. That way people will know and see their voice is being heard.


----------



## lgans316

*Proposition* : Phantom recommended for top quarter of Tier-2. IMO this is bottom Tier-1 material. The overall video presentation looked excellent with no major artefacts.


Dolby True HD + DTS-HD HR + Excellent PQ for $10.95. Keep giving us more BDs like this.









*Transformers* - Disagree with bottom Tier-1 recommendation. IMO this is clear Top Tier-1 material. Plenty of eye candy shots and tremendous details exhibited on close-up shots like any other Michael Bay movie.

*Kill Bill Vol 1* - +1 for Top Tier-1 or Bottom Tier-0 placement.

*Kill Bill Vol 2* - Tier-1 below Vantage Point. The first hour of the movie has many dark and black & white scenes which doesn't look that eye candy. Moreover Whiggles has confirmed presence of temporal noise reduction which means Vol 2 cannot be an ideal candidate for Tier-0 placement.

*Beowulf* - Can be pushed to Tier-1 provided TMNT is pushed alongside.


Aforementioned will try to consolidate the recent recommendations and post them this weekend.


----------



## Little BigFat

Hi,


First time poster, long time lurker - be nice.

*The Fall:*

I blind bought this one and it is currently my favorite Blu-Ray I own. The film can best be described as “The Princess Bride” as remade by Salvador Dali. The vision of the filmmaker alone makes it worth getting – he (Tarsem Singh) shot the film in 18 countries over a period of 4 years and financed the whole thing himself. You are doing yourself a disservice by not owning it, and I truly mean this. "The Fall" is demo material from open to close.


There is so much variety in the way the movie was shot – the opening sequence, underwater/island tropical shots, breathtaking multi-toned vistas and desserts, a green tinted hospital, and an incredible dream sequence. It must be seen to be believed and blu ray is the only way to see it. The visual fidelity is stunning and truly does justice to the vast amount of unique imagery on screen. Images are unlike anything I have ever seen before. Detail in facial close-ups won’t have you seeing every individual pore (3D pop is limited), but it does not appear plastic looking which has me ruling out DNR. Colors are vibrant and the image is clean – the opening slow mo shots in black and white/sepia evidence this wonderfully as do some early underwater scenes. Skip “Speed Racer” and buy “The Fall” instead. You’ll thank me later.
*Mid/Top Tier 0*

*Cool Hand Luke:*

Cleaner than Bonnie and Clyde, but it’s overall about what I expect from a film of its age. Details are nice (the opening sequence has some extremely clear details), but the colors aren't particularly amazing - more as a result of the way the film was shot and less so a blu ray transfer issue. The film has a couple of particularly grainy sequences, but overall the image is really nice...just not demo nice, save for fans of older films on what a blu ray can bring to some of the classics. I say it ought to reside comfortably in the middle of *tier 2*.

*The Nightmare Before Christmas*

Detail is superb throughout, easily trouncing previous DVD releases. Colors are so much cleaner than I am used to – check out the Boogie mans cave/song sequence where he is going to eat Santa Claus. I can’t think of anything in the image that bothered me – it had rich detail with no DNR, vibrant overall colors, and they made great use of the surround speakers. As such, I don’t know that I would put it above some of the CG cartoons - which tend to look cleaner in general - but I think *Tier 0* above Corpse Bride would be a great spot.

*Pushing Daisies – Season 1*:

Beautiful show with colors that fly off the screen. The show is like Amelie meets Tim Burton/Big Fish in its visual style. The biggest problem with the transfer is that because it is so good, it makes the effects stand out much more where they are lacking. Not a fan. I think it should be at the very top of *Tier 1*, maybe even bottom of *Tier 0*. I’d be curious as to what others think. I can’t really see a flaw in the image. Of all my Blu-Rays, the color on this disc is the most “booming” (the blues and yellows look particlarly gorgeous) save for a sequence or two in “The Fall.” 3D pop is also really apparent here. At least give it a rent, but a purchase wouldn't hurt either considering it costs the same as most films out there and has over 6 hours worth of content.

*Batman Begins*:

I don’t have anything to add because I am happy with the image on the disc and feel other posters have talked this one to death. However – does anyone else notice that the image is a smidge bit smushed? As in the bottom smushes up a slight bit, distorting the picture?

_42” Panasonic 1080p (TH42pz700u), 6-7 feet away, PS3 40 gig._


By the way - is anyone else excited about the blu ray release calendar for the rest of the year? There is so much goodness it is overwhelming! I am looking forward to The Godfather, L.A. Confidential, Casablanca, Wall-E, all of the Criterion BluRays (for sure getting Bottle Rocket, maybe Chungking Express and The Last Emperor, no on The Third Man), The Dark Knight, Iron Man...I need some coupons now!


----------



## b_scott

above Corpse Bride? wow.


i'm very excited to watch The Fall tonight.


----------



## Deviation

The Nightmare Before Christmas does not belong above Corpse Bride - well, at least not when you're talking about picture quality. While Nightmare is a mostly excellent disc that I would recommend to anyone, there are a couple of cuts where a distracting level of DNR is applied and there's at least one area where automated dirt/scratch removal software actually obscures Jack's arms and legs (when he's jumping off of the train in the "What's This?" chapter). These are all video problems which are not related to artistic intent


Going by descriptions of the tiers, these problems might bring Nightmare down to the top of Tier 2 but because these instances are so rare and the presentation would probably qualify as Tier 0 without them, I would recommend somewhere in the middle of Tier 1 for The Nightmare Before Christmas.

_Panasonic AE2000U 1080p at 92" from 10' away via PS3._


Oh, and while they're already there I just want to reaffirm very strongly how much Man on Fire and I, Robot belong in Tier 0. Both discs have simply stunning video quality and are among the very best this format has to offer.


----------



## Little BigFat

I haven't seen Corpse Bride in a while, so I probably jumped the gun on that one, especially considering how much better "Nightmare" looks than it ever has. I eagerly await the responses regarding "The Fall."


----------



## maverick0716

88 Minutes was definitely an underwhelming BD. The visuals are quite soft for 90% of the movie. Colors and blacks are okay, but nothing special. Lot's of digital noise throughout the whole movie. I'd say just below the 1/2 mark in Tier 3 would be fair.


42" Panasonic Plasma (768p)

PS3 through HDMI

6-7 ft.


----------



## 357

Leatherheads is high Tier 1 or bottom Tier 0. Damn good looking disc which isnt good for Renee Zellweger cause you can see how age has ravaged her face. Movie reeks btw...


----------



## Deviation

I'd recommend Miami Vice for Tier 0, somewhere around Man on Fire. As far as I'm concerned, it's a completely transparent encode where the only flaws or artifacts are those intentionally added by the director (i.e.; the video noise at night). Color, clarity and detail are superb across the board and the outdoor daytime scenes are just stunning at times.

_Panasonic AE2000U 1080p at 92" from 10' away via PS3._


----------



## b_scott

One more vote for The Fall for Tier 0. best live action Blu i've seen since Pirates. possibly even better. amazing transfer.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Deviation* /forum/post/14700947
> 
> 
> I'd recommend Miami Vice for Tier 0, somewhere around Man on Fire. As far as I'm concerned, it's a completely transparent encode where *the only flaws or artifacts are those intentionally added by the director (i.e.; the video noise at night)*. Color, clarity and detail are superb across the board and the outdoor daytime scenes are just stunning at times.
> 
> _Panasonic AE2000U 1080p at 92" from 10' away via PS3._



We can NOT dismiss flaws or artifacts because they were "intentionally added by the director." We have made that issue very clear throughout this thread. So, unless there are just one or two short scenes as you described, it will definitely not be Tier 0 material.


I should mention that I did see Miami Vice on Cinemax about a month ago and I do remember some of the night scenes (and there were at least a few of them) looking pretty bad.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briansemerick* /forum/post/14701527
> 
> 
> One more vote for The Fall for Tier 0. best live action Blu i've seen since Pirates. possibly even better. amazing transfer.



You should check out the reviews on Amazon for this title; they're saying the same thing as you and you can tell the reviewers are seasoned HD viewers. I will be ordering this movie soon!


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14701940
> 
> 
> We can NOT dismiss flaws or artifacts because they were "intentionally added by the director." We have made that issue very clear throughout this thread. So, unless there are just one or two short scenes as you described, it will definitely not be Tier 0 material.
> 
> 
> I should mention that I did see Miami Vice on Cinemax about a month ago and I do remember some of the night scenes (and there were at least a few of them) looking pretty bad.



I saw Miami Vice on HD DVD which apparently looks almost identical. It is a great looking disc most of the time......but it definitely has heavy grain in night scenes which lowers the PQ rating (for this thread anyway).


----------



## Deviation




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14701940
> 
> 
> We can NOT dismiss flaws or artifacts because they were "intentionally added by the director." We have made that issue very clear throughout this thread. So, unless there are just one or two short scenes as you described, it will definitely not be Tier 0 material.
> 
> 
> I should mention that I did see Miami Vice on Cinemax about a month ago and I do remember some of the night scenes (and there were at least a few of them) looking pretty bad.



Well.... they're not flaws or artifacts, per se. It's video noise intentionally added to some of the night scenes to make the film feel more like a documentary. If we took down transfers because of these issues, then Man on Fire and Crank would both have to be taken out of Tier 0 because of stylistic choice even though they're both amazing discs. Miami Vice on Blu-ray is right up there with those two.


maverick0716: Going by Xylon's comparison thread, the Blu-ray disc is a noticeable improvement on the HD-DVD release with regards to PQ. And I would say that only the scene where they have the call about the CI on the roof of the nightclub stood out as being particularly grainy.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Deviation* /forum/post/14702371
> 
> 
> maverick0716: Going by Xylon's comparison thread, the Blu-ray disc is a noticeable improvement on the HD-DVD release with regards to PQ. And I would say that only the scene where they have the call about the CI on the roof of the nightclub stood out as being particularly grainy.



That was the scene that stood out in my memory. It honestly doesn't bother me personally, but I've heard other people just bash that movie to no end because of it's graininess.......and because this is a "demo" or "eye candy" thread, then the Tier 0 movies have to pretty much be praised by anyone as being fantastic without a doubt.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/14691224
> 
> 
> Great ideas Hugh...and maybe when you do place the movie in parenthesis you can put which 6 of us rated it. That way people will know and see their voice is being heard.




I think this is a great idea as well. We need to get something rolling as we can see the last few days many have been posting recommendations. It seems lgans has said he may not be able to post as much and in general we aren't seeing many of the regulars we did. It feels like the placements and constructive part of this thread have stalled. I suggest we do something about it with some positive discussion.










I watched Baby Mama. This is another title I need to watch again. At times it seems like Tier 0 as it is very clear and detailed, but then their seems to be times the PQ looked soft like a filter was used. I will report back.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Little BigFat* /forum/post/14696753
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 
> First time poster, long time lurker - be nice.



Welcome to the thread. It is always nice to see new posters contribute. I should have a couple of new recommendations in the next couple of days.


I watched *Dark City* very closely this week. All the reviews harped on the DNR but to me the look of DNR on this transfer was mild at worst, though it is inconsistent. What bothered me more was the occasional scene that showed heavy edge enhancement and ringing at times. I watched the director's cut and EE halos become intrusive frequently. I'm not sure the softness and lack of detail in the close-ups of Jennifer Connelly's face are really the result of extensive DNR. It looked more to me like the director shot the scenes that way. I also saw some black crush and heavy macroblocking in a few scenes. The current placement in tier two is okay but I would push this BD down a little further possibly. Tier three wouldn't be out of the question for a transfer like this.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Little BigFat* /forum/post/14696753
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 
> First time poster, long time lurker - be nice.



Awesome first post man, thanks for this.


And yes I too am very excited for all the releases, too bad I don't have tons of $ to throw around right now


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14701940
> 
> 
> We can NOT dismiss flaws or artifacts because they were "intentionally added by the director." We have made that issue very clear throughout this thread. So, unless there are just one or two short scenes as you described, it will definitely not be Tier 0 material.
> 
> 
> I should mention that I did see Miami Vice on Cinemax about a month ago and I do remember some of the night scenes (and there were at least a few of them) looking pretty bad.



Correct.


I remember how terrible the night scenes were in the theater because of Mann's mix of low light and shooting on an HD camera.


Definitely not Tier 0.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14703335
> 
> 
> I think this is a great idea as well. We need to get something rolling as we can see the last few days many have been posting recommendations. It seems lgans has said he may not be able to post as much and in general we aren't seeing many of the regulars we did. It feels like the placements and constructive part of this thread have stalled. I suggest we do something about it with some positive discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I watched Baby Mama. This is another title I need to watch again. At times it seems like Tier 0 as it is very clear and detailed, but then their seems to be times the PQ looked soft like a filter was used. I will report back.



It seems to be picking up around here now


----------



## LBFilmGuy

*Blade Runner*


First off what version is placed here?


I watched the original theatrical cut and I have to disagree with the 1/2 of Tier 1 placement. Facial closeups were extremely detailed, colors were very vivid and accurate, and skintones were generally spot on. Overall anything that was well lit looked fantastic.


Unfortunately, a lot of this film WASN'T lit brightly, and most of the night scenes suffered from dramatic noise and an overall washed out look. Especially the ones of the cityscapes and when Indy was flying around.


Top of Tier 2 at best for me, still an excellent looking film given it's 25 years old.


----------



## Deviation

I still want to know why Kiss of the Dragon is in Tier 1 - can tier placement really be made off of the review of a single individual? And why is it listed as AVC? The US release of Kiss of the Dragon is MPEG-2 (one of the very first releases from Fox on the format) and it probably belongs in Tier 3.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Deviation* /forum/post/14705560
> 
> 
> I still want to know why Kiss of the Dragon is in Tier 1 - can tier placement really be made off of the review of a single individual? And why is it listed as AVC? The US release of Kiss of the Dragon is MPEG-2 (one of the very first releases from Fox on the format) and it probably belongs in Tier 3.



Regarding it being MPEG-2, you are absolutely right, and Phantom's review brought this out (as did another post Phantom made telling SuprSlow to correct the AVC listing).


As to your first statement, I totally agree with you that a title should NOT be placed with only one review. But what do you do when only one member has reviewed a title? Up until now the mods have allowed a placement to be made based on 1, 2, or 3 reviews. Perhaps we need to make it a rule (as others seem to be suggesting) that there has to be so many reviews before a title is placed (I believe the number 6 was suggested). That sounds good to me, except I can see where some titles might not be of great enough interest to draw 6 members to view it. Perhaps 3 or 4 might be more realistic. What say you?


----------



## James A. McGahee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14708155
> 
> 
> Regarding it being MPEG-2, you are absolutely right, and Phantom's review brought this out (as did another post Phantom made telling SuprSlow to correct the AVC listing).
> 
> 
> As to your first statement, I totally agree with you that a title should NOT be placed with only one review. But what do you do when only one member has reviewed a title? Up until now the mods have allowed a placement to be made based on 1, 2, or 3 reviews. Perhaps we need to make it a rule (as others seem to be suggesting) that there has to be so many reviews before a title is placed (I believe the number 6 was suggested). That sounds good to me, except I can see where some titles might not be of great enough interest to draw 6 members to view it. Perhaps 3 or 4 might be more realistic. What say you?



For some reason I was thinking it took 3 reviews for placement. I agree 6 may be too many but 3 or 4 should be sufficient.


----------



## Hughmc

Awesome posters are coming out of the woodwork. Can we get some movement here now?


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14708155
> 
> 
> That sounds good to me, except I can see where some titles might not be of great enough interest to draw 6 members to view it. Perhaps 3 or 4 might be more realistic. What say you?



The problem then is most titles will go unranked. Going off past history the only movies that get as many as six opinions are usually the very popular new releases. There are few movies that really even get three separate opinions outside of the blockbusters. The number of BDs being released each week is increasing and a system like that I fear would quickly kill this thread due to inertia. The list is not static and placements can always be revised over contentious listings.


As for Kiss Of The Dragon, I think some are confused with my placement for it when they go to check the various "reviews" at other sites. I've read them all and the reviews for this particular BD are garbage (as with many of the other early Blu-ray catalog releases, most of them were being reviewed by sympathetic HD DVD owners who dominated the on-line sites). When I recommended it I thought it was a high tier two or very low tier one title but others are free to chime in about it. I'm not sure tier three is appropriate but everyone is entitled to their view.


----------



## maverick0716

Speed Racer looked FANTASTIC.......just as I expected it to be. Definitely the most use of vibrant colours I have seen on a Blu Ray disc, and it looks great! It was almost perfect in my opinion. There were a few characters that had soft faces (like the Speed Racer character) but most of the movie was razor sharp. *I think this is a Tier 0 worthy title because it is absolutely demo material......right above Prison Break Season 1 would be a good spot*


42" Panasonic Plasma (768p)

PS3 through HDMI

6-7 ft.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/14710895
> 
> 
> Speed Racer looked FANTASTIC.......just as I expected it to be. Definitely the most use of vibrant colours I have seen on a Blu Ray disc, and it looks great! It was almost perfect in my opinion. There were a few characters that had soft faces (like the Speed Racer character) but *most of the movie was razor sharp.* I think this is a Tier 0 worthy title because it is absolutely demo material......right above Prison Break Season 1 would be a good spot
> 
> 
> 42" Panasonic Plasma (768p)
> 
> PS3 through HDMI
> 
> 6-7 ft.



Totally disagree. I thought the PQ was typical Warner mediocre. Tier 2 IMO.


----------



## crawdad62




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14711696
> 
> 
> Totally disagree. I thought the PQ was typical Warner mediocre. Tier 2 IMO.




Really? While I haven't seen it on BD yet (nor in the theaters) but every trailer I've seen on broadcast TV has been exactly as maverick stated. Very vibrant.


----------



## chirpie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14711696
> 
> 
> Totally disagree. I thought the PQ was typical Warner mediocre. Tier 2 IMO.




Ridiculous. The direct screen grabs off the disc don't exhibit any type of problems that would garner this much hyperbole.


Point out the flaws, please. The soft look argument probably isn't going to cut it when there's a myriad of reviews out there that use the phrase "razor sharp" in describing it.


----------



## chirpie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14690422
> 
> 
> IMO, it's DNR, but I agree that regardless of whether it's DNR or not, the result for purposes of this thread is the same.



Hmmm... I think you might be on an island with this title. There's been some softening for stylistic purposes (VERY FEW scenes), but when I can still see the pores and skin cracks behind the heavy makeup, I simply don't think that DNR has been maliciously applied. And for the intents of this thread, I see nothing in the quality of the picture that would garner placement that low.


----------



## hobbs47




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chirpie* /forum/post/14712977
> 
> 
> Ridiculous. The direct screen grabs off the disc don't exhibit any type of problems that would garner this much hyperbole.
> 
> 
> Point out the flaws, please. The soft look argument probably isn't going to cut it when there's a myriad of reviews out there that use the phrase "razor sharp" in describing it.



When someone claims to see something the direct opposite of the majority,it usually points to an equipment/calibration problem. Or that lone poster is thread crapping.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/14710868
> 
> *The problem then is most titles will go unranked. Going off past history the only movies that get as many as six opinions are usually the very popular new releases. There are few movies that really even get three separate opinions outside of the blockbusters.* The number of BDs being released each week is increasing and a system like that I fear would quickly kill this thread due to inertia. The list is not static and placements can always be revised over contentious listings.



You may be right Phantom, but I think it's worth a try to shoot for 3 or 4 reviews before placing a title. You know as well as I that one person's view is often met with a challenge, so it doesn't seem fitting to make a placement based on only one review.


If this doesn't work, I would think we would quickly recognize the failure and we could then resort to our former system of placement. I think we would all agree that we do NOT want to see the demise of this thread, so let's hope for the best and be willing to make any necessary corrections to assure the life of the thread.


PS I will be leaving on a trip this coming weekend, so my viewing is going to be limited for a couple of weeks.


----------



## crawdad62

I noticed only one review of Cool Hand Luke. Doesn't seem to have made the list yet. I plan on buying since I don't have it in any format but was curious to know whether or not it's worth the added BD premium?


----------



## briankmonkey

I just watched The Fall over the weekend, absolutely fantastic movie! I don't know if most of you would consider it Tier 0 though as it isn't one that has the 3d pop all the time that a lot want to see but it is gorgeous and the audio is very good as well.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briankmonkey* /forum/post/14713215
> 
> 
> I just watched The Fall over the weekend, absolutely fantastic movie! I don't know if most of you would consider it Tier 0 though as it isn't one that has the 3d pop all the time that a lot want to see but it is gorgeous and the audio is very good as well.



Here is the criteria for Tier 0:

*Tier 0 - Blu (Reference)



--- The picture quality of the transfer is in pristine shape and practically perfect with no visible video artifacts. The image is so clean and sharp that it maintains a realistic feel throughout.*


As you can see, the words "3D pop" aren't even included in this, so it isn't the main concern (though one can surely expect _some_ 3D pop in a film that meets the standards listed above).


If memory serves me right, everyone that has given us their take on this movie have expressed their view that it deserves a Tier 0 placement, so I believe that's where it belongs.


----------



## briankmonkey

Yeah, I've read the criteria, just not sure everybody follows the guidelines. I'm just saying don't expect it to look like iRobot or something like Speed Racer (which is ridiculously vivid/bright, lol) which I've only watched about 15 minutes of.


I agree that I don't think there are any artifacts or anything negative about the transfer. In my mind it is stunning looking.


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14713171
> 
> 
> You may be right Phantom, but I think it's worth a try to shoot for 3 or 4 reviews before placing a title. You know as well as I that one person's view is often met with a challenge, so it doesn't seem fitting to make a placement based on only one review.



The one objection I would have to that system is this...for whatever reason, it seems like most discussion of title (non-blockbuster, I.E. Transformers, etc) is done after the title is placed in the list. I believe it entices users to give their dissenting opinions on the placement and further refine its position in the list. I think people find it easier to be reactive rather than proactive. Just my opinion though












Forgot who mentioned it, but yes, I did ask for some help a couple weeks ago. lgans and Cinema Squid have volunteered to help, and for that I am extremely grateful.


I hate to see Rob Tomlin go







Not sure the full reason why, but I think everyone here respected his opinions and contributions.


Austin, if you're lurking around, you need to post to let us know you're still alive


----------



## BIG ED

Just another BIG thank you for all the work on this thread.

I was wondering what Fox would give us PQ-wise w/"PotA".

I see Disney has the top three spots!

And Fox has five in the top tier.


Consequently, Disney has none in coal & even tho Fox has one it was shot in SD.


"PotA" SD DVD gets traded in tonight!


----------



## SuprSlow

Just a quick note for lgans, Squid, and others...


I've consolidated the placements since the last update. It will take me a day or so to update the actual thread.


Thanks everyone.


----------



## alexg75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/14710895
> 
> 
> Speed Racer looked FANTASTIC.......just as I expected it to be. Definitely the most use of vibrant colours I have seen on a Blu Ray disc, and it looks great! It was almost perfect in my opinion. There were a few characters that had soft faces (like the Speed Racer character) but most of the movie was razor sharp. *I think this is a Tier 0 worthy title because it is absolutely demo material......right above Prison Break Season 1 would be a good spot*
> 
> 
> 42" Panasonic Plasma (768p)
> 
> PS3 through HDMI
> 
> 6-7 ft.



I agree with you and I vote for and recommend Tier 0!

This is a GREAT looking title and the facial softness is entirely intentional and shouldn't detract from a stellar presentation.


If the goal of this thread is to highlight gorgeous,demo-worthy PQ,then Speed Racer is the king by far.

This is crack for the eyes


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hobbs47* /forum/post/14713170
> 
> 
> When someone claims to see something the direct opposite of the majority,it usually points to an equipment/calibration problem. Or that lone poster is thread crapping.



He's a well known contributer to this thread........I would NOT say that he is thread crapping. He's entitled to his opinion just like everyone else.


----------



## Little BigFat

Crawdad62:


In my opinion, the difference seems substantial enoughto warrant Cool Hand Luke in Blu. However, there have been rumors of Warner discs getting price cuts near the holiday season. If you are unsure, I would hold out. But again - for my tastes, I think that the BluRay is definitely worth the investment. Some of the detail is great, and a Tier 2 recommendation is no slouch. For a helpful comparisons sake, what other older films do you think are worthy of obtaining in Blu over standard? If you said 2001, then I'd say go Blu.


----------



## hobbs47




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/14715640
> 
> 
> He's a well known contributer to this thread........I would NOT say that he is thread crapping. He's entitled to his opinion just like everyone else.



Then how would you explain his view on Speed Racer? Saying something looks mediocre and soft just because it's a WB release does nothing but derail this thread.


----------



## crawdad62




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Little BigFat* /forum/post/14716357
> 
> 
> Crawdad62:
> 
> 
> In my opinion, the difference seems substantial enoughto warrant Cool Hand Luke in Blu. However, there have been rumors of Warner discs getting price cuts near the holiday season. If you are unsure, I would hold out. But again - for my tastes, I think that the BluRay is definitely worth the investment. Some of the detail is great, and a Tier 2 recommendation is no slouch. For a helpful comparisons sake, what other older films do you think are worthy of obtaining in Blu over standard? If you said 2001, then I'd say go Blu.



Thank you. Already have 2001. Great BTW. Honestly at this point that's about all I'm looking at for BD. Older films that get a decent makeover. The reason I brought up CHL was that I see some of the other films of the period being a bit "iffy." What I'm really waiting for is Lawrence Of Arabia and the Criterion of The Third Man.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Last Waltz*


tier recommendation: second quarter of *tier 4*


This 70's concert film directed by Martin Scorsese was one of the first Blu-ray titles released in July of 2006. While this movie is a MGM property, the Blu-ray was prepared by Sony when they had control of MGM's home video properties. Sony has encoded the 117-minute feature's video in MPEG-2 on a BD-25. The average scanned video bitrate is 17.55 Mbps per the audio and video specifications thread. It appears that cramming the feature in MPEG-2 and including a 5.1 PCM audio track has affected the video compression job on this BD. It isn't the worst artifacting I've seen as most shots feature very little movement with the Band on stage playing their music or getting interviewed, but this compression job simply doesn't hold up to more recent Blu-rays with newer codecs and higher bitrates.


The HD master looks in good shape for a film of this vintage with just a few stray marks and anomalies. The transfer looks very film-like with no edge enhancement and absolutely no traces of DVNR. All the grain that is meant to be there is on the BD's image. I was not that impressed though with the color fidelity of the Blu-ray. It looks barely better than DVD quality with colors looking flat and drab for much of the film. The interview segments look noticeably different than the concert shots. Moments of black crush and an overall darkening of the picture occurs during those segments with poor shadow information. Fleshtones are all over the place depending on the lighting and camera angles during the concert segments. Contrast is generally solid though there are a few times when whites get blown out during the concert.


High frequency detail and resolution is a little below average for a typical Blu-ray. Some scenes look softer than others with few moments of pop or depth to the image. The image is still better than the upconverted DVD but not the leaps and bounds better I've become accustomed to on Blu-ray. In general the filming of this concert seems to have been intended for a flat looking appearance.


This was a decent looking Blu-ray when it was first released but the studios have gotten a much better handle on the capabilities of the format since then and the image is not up to the standards of today. I'm recommending a solid tier four placement for this title, though I should mention the reason to pick this up is for the 5.1 PCM soundtrack and not for the video quality. Unless you own the out of print DVD-Audio of this concert, this Blu-ray is the best way to hear this material.


Watching on a 60 Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 from a viewing distance of 5.5 feet.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hobbs47* /forum/post/14716588
> 
> 
> Then how would you explain his view on Speed Racer? Saying something looks mediocre and soft just because it's a WB release does nothing but derail this thread.



Why not ask him, Patrick99 instead of putting him on the defensive. Having a constructive discussion as to why he believes what he does will go a long way.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14711696
> 
> 
> Totally disagree. I thought the PQ was typical Warner mediocre. Tier 2 IMO.



LOL this is a joke, amirite?


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/14705043
> 
> *Blade Runner*
> *
> 
> First off what version is placed here?*
> 
> 
> I watched the original theatrical cut and I have to disagree with the 1/2 of Tier 1 placement. Facial closeups were extremely detailed, colors were very vivid and accurate, and skintones were generally spot on. Overall anything that was well lit looked fantastic.
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, a lot of this film WASN'T lit brightly, and most of the night scenes suffered from dramatic noise and an overall washed out look. Especially the ones of the cityscapes and when Indy was flying around.
> 
> 
> Top of Tier 2 at best for me, still an excellent looking film given it's 25 years old.



Anyone?


----------



## alexg75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/14717241
> 
> 
> Anyone?



The Final Cut.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/14714613
> 
> 
> The one objection I would have to that system is this...for whatever reason, it seems like most discussion of title (non-blockbuster, I.E. Transformers, etc) is done after the title is placed in the list. I believe it entices users to give their dissenting opinions on the placement and further refine its position in the list. I think people find it easier to be reactive rather than proactive. Just my opinion though



You make a a valid point SuprSlow. However, one main objection I have to allowing a title to be placed after only one review is that it may indeed be a skewed review and if someone turns to this thread simply to see what titles they should buy to show off the virtues of Blu-ray they may be misled.


To illustrate, let's say (for the sake of argument) that patrick99 was the only one giving a review for Speed Racer and he recommended Tier 2, which, in fact, he has (read the whole point being made patrick before flaming me







). Then let's say a dozen people turn to this thread to check out Speed Racer and based on their perceived reputation of this thread they decide to not rent or buy this title because it isn't in one of the top two tiers. But if we had waited for more reviews to come in we would have seen that nearly everyone else is highly recommending Tier 0, which, by majority, would be where it would be placed. Then anyone visiting this thread for the sole purpose of checking out Tier placements for new releases would not be dissuaded from buying this highly acclaimed title. I know this illustration may be the exception and not the rule, but I am convinced it could happen. So, to prevent such a thing I believe the ideal would be to have more weighing in on a title before placement.


PS I want to echo the sentiments of those who have thanked you SuprSlow for all the work you do to keep this thread up and running. It is appreciated!


----------



## suffolk112000

Well, since I feel so strongly about some of my suggestions as of late, and some here are indicating that changes in some rankings are being made, I would like to re-state my findings.

I think 21 should be towards the top of tier 1, not the bottom.

21 had great black levels and the Vegas colors looked very detailed and clean. I feel 21 is a great transfer. It is definitely a movie I would use to demo the brilliance and capabilities of Blu Ray.

I believe it is better than Hellboy, The Patriot and Flyboys. All of which I recently watched on my set-up which consists of Sony VW60, 58x104 Da-Lite HCCV screen with masking sitting 12 feet from the screen. My room is totally light controlled.

I even thought there was far more shadow detail in 21 than in Celine Dion a New day and Celine Dion is ranked towards the top of tier 1. If nothing else, I believe 21 should be right behind CD a New Day.

Others responded in favor of this as well.

I think Vantage point should be moved up the list as well.


I would also like to add another recommendation.

I don’t understand why Beowolf is ranked so highly.

How Beowolf is above titles like Live Free or Die Hard and Crank is beyond me. I think Beowolf needs to be at least moved down towards the bottom of Tier 1.

I don’t think it deserves a number 11 ranking in tier 0.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *alexg75* /forum/post/14717426
> 
> 
> The Final Cut.



Thanks.


Was planning on watching this as well.


----------



## lgans316

Transformers Video: AVC | Audio: Dolby TrueHD | AR: 2.35:1 | DreamWorks-Paramount - *Mid Tier-1*


Total Recall (U.K Import) Video: VC-1 | DTS-HD MA 16-bit | 1.78:1 or 1.85:1 ? | Optimum - *Top Tier-2*


21 Video: AVC | Audio: Dolby TrueHD | AR: 2.35:1 | Sony - *Mid Tier-1*


The Forbidden Kingdom Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 2.35:1 | Lionsgate - *Top Tier-1 (Around National Treasure-2)*


One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 1.85:1 | Warner - *Bottom 3/4 of Tier 3*


What Happens in Vegas Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | FOX - *Mid Tier-1*


Alexander Revisited Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner - *Bottom Tier-1*


Baby Mama Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Universal - *Bottom Tier-3*


Eraser Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 2.35:1 | Warner - *Top 1/2 of Tier-3*


Closer Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.85:1 | Sony - *Bottom Tier-1*


Kill Bill Vol 1 Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Miramax-BVHE - *Bottom Tier-0*


Kill Bill Vol 2 Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Miramax-BVHE - *Top Tier-1*


The Doors Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 2.35:1 | Lionsgate - *Second quarter of Tier 3*


Never Back Down Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Summit Entertainment - *Top 1/2 of Tier-1*


Speed Racer Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner - *Bottom Tier-0*


The Fall Video: AVC | Audio: Dolby TrueHD | AR: 1.85:1 | Sony - *Tier-0 between POTC-3 and The Host*


Cool Hand Luke: Deluxe Edition Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD 1.0 Mono | AR: 2.35:1 | Warner - *Mid Tier-2*


Pushing Daisies – Season 1 Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 1.78:1 | Warner - *Top 10 spots in Tier-1*


The Last Waltz Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.85:1 | MGM - *Second quarter of tier 4*


The Nightmare Before Christmas: Collector's Edition | Audio: Dolby TrueHD 7.1 | AR: 1.66:1 | Touchstone-BVHE - *Bottom Tier-1*


Leatherheads | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Universal - *Top 10~15 spots in Tier 1*

*Misc*


Bank Job - Move above Rambo and near Vantage point

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban - listed twice in Tier-1 and Tier-2. Should be in Tier-1

*Requires more votes for placement*


Beowulf - Should this be pushed to bottom of Tier-1 ?

Miami Vice - Should this be placed in Tier-0 ?

88 Minutes


P.S : I am yet to browse through the posts that were created in the past 12~14 hours.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Nice work gans, thanks dude.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lbfilmguy* /forum/post/14718127
> 
> 
> nice work gans, thanks dude.



+1


----------



## gnolivos

Watched The Fall today. Breathtaking to say the least... wonderful transfer, Tier 0 no doubt. This makes for some excellent reference demo material for video.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14718080
> 
> 
> Transformers Video: AVC | Audio: Dolby TrueHD | AR: 2.35:1 | DreamWorks-Paramount - *Mid Tier-1*
> 
> 
> Total Recall (U.K Import) Video: VC-1 | DTS-HD MA 16-bit | 1.78:1 or 1.85:1 ? | Optimum - *Top Tier-2*
> 
> 
> 21 Video: AVC | Audio: Dolby TrueHD | AR: 2.35:1 | Sony - *Mid Tier-1*
> 
> 
> The Forbidden Kingdom Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 2.35:1 | Lionsgate - *Top Tier-1 (Around National Treasure-2)*
> 
> 
> One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 1.85:1 | Warner - *Bottom 3/4 of Tier 3*
> 
> 
> What Happens in Vegas Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | FOX - *Mid Tier-1*
> 
> 
> Alexander Revisited Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner - *Bottom Tier-1*
> 
> 
> Baby Mama Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Universal - *Bottom Tier-3*
> 
> 
> Eraser Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 2.35:1 | Warner - *Top 1/2 of Tier-3*
> 
> 
> Closer Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.85:1 | Sony - *Bottom Tier-1*
> 
> 
> Kill Bill Vol 1 Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Miramax-BVHE - *Bottom Tier-0*
> 
> 
> Kill Bill Vol 2 Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Miramax-BVHE - *Top Tier-1*
> 
> 
> The Doors Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 2.35:1 | Lionsgate - *Second quarter of Tier 3*
> 
> 
> Never Back Down Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Summit Entertainment - *Top 1/2 of Tier-1*
> 
> 
> Speed Racer Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner - *Bottom Tier-0*
> 
> 
> The Fall Video: AVC | Audio: Dolby TrueHD | AR: 1.85:1 | Sony - *Tier-0 between POTC-3 and The Host*
> 
> 
> Cool Hand Luke: Deluxe Edition Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD 1.0 Mono | AR: 2.35:1 | Warner - *Mid Tier-2*
> 
> 
> Pushing Daisies – Season 1 Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 1.78:1 | Warner - *Top 10 spots in Tier-1*
> 
> 
> The Last Waltz Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.85:1 | MGM - *Second quarter of tier 4*
> 
> 
> The Nightmare Before Christmas: Collector's Edition | Audio: Dolby TrueHD 7.1 | AR: 1.66:1 | Touchstone-BVHE - *Bottom Tier-1*
> 
> 
> Leatherheads | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Universal - *Top 10~15 spots in Tier 1*
> 
> *Misc*
> 
> 
> Bank Job - Move above Rambo and near Vantage point
> 
> Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban - listed twice in Tier-1 and Tier-2. Should be in Tier-1
> 
> *Requires more votes for placement*
> 
> 
> Beowulf - Should this be pushed to bottom of Tier-1 ?
> 
> Miami Vice - Should this be placed in Tier-0 ?
> 
> 88 Minutes
> 
> 
> P.S : I am yet to browse through the posts that were created in the past 12~14 hours.



There you are I thought we lost you







...another excellent job that keeps the thread moving and valid.










A lot of good points are being made with recommendations on placements. Might I also suggest that if possible when recommending tier placement, try to watch the movie more than once and preferably 3 times maybe a day or two apart. Once for content and enjoyment and get an idea of PQ. Second and third times I am recommending to just look through at different places to see how the PQ stacks up and not actually watch the entire film again, unless it kicks ass. Just a thought.







My guess would be many already do this, but it also helps to validate our claims.


I am going to watch 88 min. tonight and look through Baby Mama again as I don't believe it is even close to Tier 3 never mind the bottom of it. I thought it was more a lower Tier 1 title and only has the one recommendation so far. I am pleased at the participation lately.


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/14715397
> 
> 
> Just a quick note for lgans, Squid, and others...
> 
> 
> I've consolidated the placements since the last update. It will take me a day or so to update the actual thread.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14718080
> 
> 
> P.S : I am yet to browse through the posts that were created in the past 12~14 hours.



Hopefully you guys didn't duplicate the work, but thanks again for all your efforts. Let me know if you need help for the next update.


----------



## jp_tech

No County For Old Men should definitely be higher, near the top of Tier 0. I just watched it again for the 4th time on my Samsung 650 and Panasonic BD30 and the PQ is absolutely amazing. The detail and colors are superb. Even the dark/night scenes look spectacular with almost no grain present. The movie itself is a masterpiece also.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14717102
> 
> 
> Why not ask him, Patrick99 instead of putting him on the defensive. Having a constructive discussion as to why he believes what he does will go a long way.



WRT Speed Racer, the actors' faces much of the time look way too soft. John Goodman's face almost always looks soft. Royalton's face almost always looks soft. Take a look at chapters 5, 6, and 7. Hirsch's face is sometimes soft, sometimes sharp. Same with Fox. It would seem that those who are praising this are giving too much weight to the vivid colors and fast-moving action sequences and not noticing the very frequent softness in the actors' faces.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14718080
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kill Bill Vol 1 Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Miramax-BVHE - *Bottom Tier-0*
> 
> 
> Kill Bill Vol 2 Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Miramax-BVHE - *Top Tier-1*



IMO, KB2 looks distinctly better than KB1. I would reverse the recommendations above.


----------



## suffolk112000

Let me also add that I don't understand why Beowolf is ranked so highly.

How Beowolf is above titles like Live Free or Die Hard and Crank is beyond me. I think Beowolf needs to be at least moved down towards the bottom of Tier 1.

I don't think it deserves a number 11 ranking in tier 0.

I also think 21 needs to be a bit higher than mid tier 1.

I think it should be tucked just in front of Celine Dion a new day.


----------



## av.pallino

Watched Persepolis last night. While the PQ is excellent. IF we are talking eye candy, this movie is not it. I am not sure it would warrant a place in tier 0 as demo material to show off Blu Ray.


Speed Racer on the other hand is tier 0. The overall visual impact is so good that the first time I was practically mesmerized by the screen. This is an amazing transfer. Up there with Cars.


----------



## Lookilook




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14719864
> 
> 
> IMO, KB2 looks distinctly better than KB1. I would reverse the recommendations above.



I second this!


----------



## alexg75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jp_tech* /forum/post/14719591
> 
> 
> No County For Old Men should definitely be higher, near the top of Tier 0. I just watched it again for the 4th time on my Samsung 650 and Panasonic BD30 and the PQ is absolutely amazing. The detail and colors are superb. Even the dark/night scenes look spectacular with almost no grain present. The movie itself is a masterpiece also.



I am sooooo with you on this,IMO NCFOM is one of the best looking BRs I have seen.

Unfortunately there are a few posters here that have some issues with noise in some of the outdoor scenes.


----------



## alexg75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14719854
> 
> 
> WRT Speed Racer, the actors' faces much of the time look way too soft. John Goodman's face almost always looks soft. Royalton's face almost always looks soft. Take a look at chapters 5, 6, and 7. Hirsch's face is sometimes soft, sometimes sharp. Same with Fox. It would seem that those who are praising this are giving too much weight to the vivid colors and fast-moving action sequences and not noticing the very frequent softness in the actors' faces.



Yes the vivid colors and the fast-moving action are in fact worth its weight in gold,or should I say BLU.

The fact has been stated more than a few times that the facial softness on the actors faces in intentional and digitally manipulated by the filmakers to give the older actors in the movie a more youthfull appearence.

This same technique has been used in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,Resident Evil:Extinction and on the face of Patrick Dempsy at the beginning of Made of Honor.

There is no amount of bits or a codec that can resolve it.....


The fact is,and it seems to be of a universal opinion,that Speed Racer IS a great looking Blu-Ray,so good that I doubt that we will see another LIVE-ACTION movie look as vivid and surreal as Racer does.


Point Blank,I had only one disc to show off the benefits and advantages of HD/Blu-Ray PQ,it would be Speed Racer.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *alexg75* /forum/post/14723674
> 
> 
> Yes the vivid colors and the fast-moving action are in fact worth its weight in gold,or should I say BLU.
> *The fact has been stated more than a few times that the facial softness on the actors faces in intentional and digitally manipulated by the filmakers to give the older actors in the movie a more youthfull appearence.*
> 
> This same technique has been used in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,Resident Evil:Extinction and on the face of Patrick Dempsy at the beginning of Made of Honor.
> 
> There is no amount of bits or a codec that can resolve it.....
> 
> 
> The fact is,and it seems to be of a universal opinion,that Speed Racer IS a great looking Blu-Ray,so good that I doubt that we will see another LIVE-ACTION movie look as vivid and surreal as Racer does.
> 
> 
> Point Blank,I had only one disc to show off the benefits and advantages of HD/Blu-Ray PQ,it would be Speed Racer.



The issue of whether it's intentional is speculative. In any event, it's viewed as a PQ flaw in REE, even though pretty clearly intentional. The softening doesn't make John Goodman look younger; it's just that his wrinkles are out of focus. Whether it's intended or not, in this thread, it should be considered a PQ flaw, and to me, it is a major one.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14724133
> 
> 
> The issue of whether it's intentional is speculative. In any event, it's viewed as a PQ flaw in REE, even though pretty clearly intentional. The softening doesn't make John Goodman look younger; it's just that his wrinkles are out of focus. Whether it's intended or not, in this thread, it should be considered a PQ flaw, and to me, it is a major one.



I think the faces are soft to simply give the film and characters a more cartoony look to it.


In this case I would not consider this to be a PQ flaw.


----------



## alexg75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14724133
> 
> 
> The issue of whether it's intentional is speculative. In any event, it's viewed as a PQ flaw in REE, even though pretty clearly intentional. The softening doesn't make John Goodman look younger; it's just that his wrinkles are out of focus. Whether it's intended or not, in this thread, it should be considered a PQ flaw, and to me, it is a major one.



Well then it is....for you.

However with that minor "flaw" Speed Racer is still stellar.

And I don't think that anyone including myself thinks any less of the overall PQ of SR because of the *facially asthetic enhancements of older actors* employed by the filmakers.


----------



## tbass2k

Everybody can argue about the skin detail all day, but the bottom line is this: Based on all the live action HD that I and many others have seen, this is at the top of the list. If this HD doesn't impress you (whether you like the movie or not), you need to do the following:

1. check to make sure your display is properly calibrated, 2. think about investing in a better display if calibration doesn't solve the problem, and as a last resort if the PQ still fails to impress, 3. go get an eye exam, you might officially have vaseline vision, where everything is DNR'ed and soft for no damn reason.


P.S. The movie was OK to me but I still would like to have it (when it's on sale) for the eye candy, and I still haven't bought a movie blindly or just for eye candy, but this might be the first.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Coma*


tier recommendation: absolute bottom of *Tier 5*


The following Blu-ray was included as a free bonus item with the October 2008 issue of Wired. It was brought to life as some unholy marketing alliance between Sony and Microsoft in conjunction with some entity labeling itself “WIMO”. The disc itself appears to have been encoded by Sony’s marketing department as the disc seems reminiscent of the Hancock BD promo disc given out earlier this summer. I’m not sure if the disc is authored incorrectly or not but my copy that displayed no visible defects stuttered several times throughout the movie and the opening menu on multiple PS3’s. I will assume my copy might have been a defective disc without more feedback.


“Coma” is a twenty-five minute short feature starring the actors Michael Madsen and George Hamilton. It is encoded in MPEG-2 on a single BD-25. Video bitrates range absolutely over a range of 9 Mbps to 26 Mbps, with most of the feature running between 18 to 25 Mbps. The average video bitrate per the specifications thread is 22.24 Mbps (BDInfo scan link courtesy of Cinema Squid at the bottom of this post). It is hard to judge the compression encode here as it appears the source material has large amounts of digital video noise and macroblocking. A strange glaze seems omnipresent over the image like a dirty plastic sheet was laid on the screen. Without knowing the details of the production I would guess it is the result of cheap optical composite work.


I’m not really sure why anyone ever thought this material was worthy to put on Blu-ray. It appears the image is encoded at only 720p on the disc. The feature appears shot on cheap digital video with some crazy lighting. Many scenes are in a garish night-vision scope look and other scenes switch to black and white for almost no reason. The only comparable material I’ve seen on Blu-ray is “28 Days Later” which was shot on an inherently low-resolution digital camera. Frankly most of the feature looks badly upconverted with aliasing artifacts all over the place.


This is by far the worst “HD” material I’ve seen committed to a Blu-ray disc yet. The disc is really only worthwhile for the five Sony movie trailers included on the disc like “Redbelt” and “Quarantine“. My recommendation for this Blu-ray is the lowest ranking possible on the entire list.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...0#post14725050


----------



## BIG ED

How do "mediocre" & Tier 2 go together?

JJ


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/14724839
> 
> 
> I'm not really sure why anyone ever thought this material was worthy to put on Blu-ray. It appears the image is encoded at only 720p on the disc. The feature appears shot on cheap digital video with some crazy lighting. Many scenes are in a garish night-vision scope look and other scenes switch to black and white for almost no reason. The only comparable material I've seen on Blu-ray is 28 Days Later which was shot on an inherently low-resolution digital camera. Frankly most of the feature looks badly upconverted with aliasing artifacts all over the place.
> 
> 
> This is by far the worst HD material I've seen committed to a Blu-ray disc yet. The disc is really only worthwhile for the five Sony movie trailers included on the disc like Redbelt and Quarantine. My recommendation for this Blu-ray is the lowest ranking possible on the entire list.



I agree that this looked godawful. I can't even imagine the reasoning for putting this promotional on a Blu-ray, since the short film would reach a larger audience if it were on DVD and the film itself does nothing to show off the capabilities of Blu-ray (would've been better served with a disc full of trailers and a Java game or BD-Live page if the goal were the latter).


Just for the heck of it, I posted the specs for Coma in the unofficial specs thread .


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14724133
> 
> 
> The issue of whether it's intentional is speculative. In any event, it's viewed as a PQ flaw in REE, even though pretty clearly intentional. The softening doesn't make John Goodman look younger; it's just that his wrinkles are out of focus. Whether it's intended or not, in this thread, it should be considered a PQ flaw, and to me, it is a major one.



All I have to say to you patrick is....*you're absolutely on your own with this one!!* If ALL the actors' faces looked like John Goodman then you might have a point, but throughout the movie the facial closeups are remarkable. Check out, for example, chapter 8 (the flesh-eating piranha scene), where you have some of the most detailed facial closeups I've ever seen. The consistency seen here (and elsewhere) would simply not exist if your assessment was true.


Bottom line: This is, as EVERYONE else has said, EYE CANDY. No denying it, no refuting it! It has properly been put in the only Tier we could assign it to: *TIER BLU*!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/14725100
> 
> 
> I agree that this looked godawful. I can't even imagine the reasoning for putting this promotional on a Blu-ray, since the short film would reach a larger audience if it were on DVD and the film itself does nothing to show off the capabilities of Blu-ray (would've been better served with a disc full of trailers and a Java game or BD-Live page if the goal were the latter).



You and Phantom have just provided us with a good example of a title that does NOT need 3 or more reviews, for why would we want to subject anyone else to something so awful? (I had suggested a minimum of 3 reviews before but this proves there will definitely be "exceptions to the rule.")


----------



## stumlad

I'm just curious what other people think of this... it's been brought up before, but what if we placed movies in their respective tiers (and partial tiers) in alphabetical order. It's becoming absurd trying to determine if movie A is 3 steps higher than movie B when you're on , what's essentially a 500+ point scale. The exception would be tier 0.


For example, Top 1/2 of Tier 1 would look like this:

Alvin and The Chipmunks

Apocalypto

...

Bank Job

...

Doomsday

..

Eye, The

...

Vantage Point


If a movie is significantly better than another movie in the respective tier (or partial) then we can create another tier or move it to a different tier (or partial) altogether.


Otherwise it's just one big complete cluster-###.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/14725610
> 
> 
> I'm just curious what other people think of this... it's been brought up before, but what if we placed movies in their respective tiers (and partial tiers) in alphabetical order. It's becoming absurd trying to determine if movie A is 3 steps higher than movie B when you're on , what's essentially a 500+ point scale. The exception would be tier 0.
> 
> 
> For example, Top 1/2 of Tier 1 would look like this:
> 
> Alvin and The Chipmunks
> 
> Apocalypto
> 
> ...
> 
> Bank Job
> 
> ...
> 
> Doomsday
> 
> ..
> 
> Eye, The
> 
> ...
> 
> Vantage Point
> 
> 
> If a movie is significantly better than another movie in the respective tier (or partial) then we can create another tier or move it to a different tier (or partial) altogether.
> 
> 
> Otherwise it's just one big complete cluster-###.



I agree with you there. I think it's time to go to an alphabetical order within categories.


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/14725610
> 
> 
> I'm just curious what other people think of this... it's been brought up before, but what if we placed movies in their respective tiers (and partial tiers) in alphabetical order.



I would support this and it seems like it would be easier to manage. I think it would be good to preserve the quarter-tier granularity of Tier 1 through 3, however, since this is where the vast majority of titles are going to fall. I am not sure the precise individual positions within a quarter-of-a-tier are really necessary or meaningful.


However, I am just a reader of the thread and not a contributor so if the folks making placement recommendations would prefer otherwise that's perfectly understandable.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

The idea of ranking the top two or three tiers absolutely and alphabetizing the lower tiers is a great idea. We might lose a little information content but it might be the only thing to make the future onslaught of titles a practical endeavor for this thread.


I still believe the top two tiers should remain sacrosanct with respect to ordering on a best to relatively worst scale.


----------



## James A. McGahee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/14726577
> 
> 
> The idea of ranking the top two or three tiers absolutely and alphabetizing the lower tiers is a great idea. We might lose a little information content but it might be the only thing to make the future onslaught of titles a practical endeavor for this thread.
> 
> 
> I still believe the top two tiers should remain sacrosanct with respect to ordering on a best to relatively worst scale.



This sounds like a very good idea to me also. Although I only read here this idea would really help in deciding what to purchase next.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/14726577
> 
> 
> The idea of ranking the top two or three tiers absolutely and alphabetizing the lower tiers is a great idea. We might lose a little information content but it might be the only thing to make the future onslaught of titles a practical endeavor for this thread.
> 
> 
> I still believe the top two tiers should remain sacrosanct with respect to ordering on a best to relatively worst scale.



Whoa! You had me running for my dictionary with the word "sacrosanct" Phantom.







For those of you who couldn't find your dictionary, it means "Regarded as sacred and inviolable." (In other words, let's NOT touch those first two Tiers!)


----------



## maverick0716

With Patriot Games I was expecting a very unsatisfactory image based on what I've heard. While there is a fair amount of mediocre looking scenes, there are almost as many decent looking ones. There are even a few moments of close facial detail that actually impressed me. *Overall, I think this BD should be about 1/2 a Tier higher than it's current placement at the bottom of Tier 3.*


42" Panasonic Plasma (768p)

PS3 though HDMI

6-7 ft.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14725385
> 
> 
> All I have to say to you patrick is....*you're absolutely on your own with this one!!* If ALL the actors' faces looked like John Goodman then you might have a point, but *throughout the movie the facial closeups are remarkable.* Check out, for example, chapter 8 (the flesh-eating piranha scene), where you have some of the most detailed facial closeups I've ever seen. The consistency seen here (and elsewhere) would simply not exist if your assessment was true.
> 
> 
> Bottom line: This is, as EVERYONE else has said, EYE CANDY. No denying it, no refuting it! It has properly been put in the only Tier we could assign it to: *TIER BLU*!



I agree that the facial close-ups in chapter 8 look good. I don't agree that "throughout the movie the facial closeups are remarkable." Sometimes they are; more often they aren't. I definitely do not agree that there is "consistency" *throughout the movie*. My "assessment" is that, faced with the constraints of a single layer disc, sometimes detail and sharpness suffered. I have no doubt that on a dual layer disc, this movie *COULD* have looked fantastic *throughout.*


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/14726577
> 
> 
> The idea of ranking the top two or three tiers absolutely and alphabetizing the lower tiers is a great idea. We might lose a little information content but it might be the only thing to make the future onslaught of titles a practical endeavor for this thread.
> 
> 
> I still believe the top two tiers should remain sacrosanct with respect to ordering on a best to relatively worst scale.



I have no objection to alphabetizing Tier 3 and below.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

What is the point of alphabetizing?


I mean, how hard is it to go in your browser and hit "find on this page" and type in the title you're looking for? That's what I have done since I first came in here.


----------



## alexg75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/14725610
> 
> 
> I'm just curious what other people think of this... it's been brought up before, but what if we placed movies in their respective tiers (and partial tiers) in alphabetical order. It's becoming absurd trying to determine if movie A is 3 steps higher than movie B when you're on , what's essentially a 500+ point scale. The exception would be tier 0.
> 
> 
> For example, Top 1/2 of Tier 1 would look like this:
> 
> Alvin and The Chipmunks
> 
> Apocalypto
> 
> ...
> 
> Bank Job
> 
> ...
> 
> Doomsday
> 
> ..
> 
> Eye, The
> 
> ...
> 
> Vantage Point
> 
> 
> If a movie is significantly better than another movie in the respective tier (or partial) then we can create another tier or move it to a different tier (or partial) altogether.
> 
> 
> Otherwise it's just one big complete cluster-###.



I also agree for the simple fact that it would make it easier to find a particular title.


----------



## jrcorwin

CTRL + F is your friend. You can find any title you wish very easily. The titles should remain ranked within the tiers rather than being alphabetized.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14727402
> 
> 
> I agree that the facial close-ups in chapter 8 look good. I don't agree that "throughout the movie the facial closeups are remarkable." Sometimes they are; more often they aren't. I definitely do not agree that there is "consistency" *throughout the movie*. My "assessment" is that, faced with the constraints of a single layer disc, sometimes detail and sharpness suffered. I have no doubt that on a dual layer disc, this movie *COULD* have looked fantastic *throughout.*



Okay, I'm willing to concede that the facial close-ups are not remarkable throughout the movie, and that there is a softness in John Goodman's face, but overall they are good, and there are quite a few scenes like chapter 8 where the facial close-ups are very natural looking and detailed.


Aside from the facial close-ups, you just can't deny the fact that the colors are amazing, the contrast is superb, the blacks are nice and inky, the whites are bright, and that it is consistently razor-sharp with a lot of 3D pop. This all adds up to Tier 0 and to suggest, as you have, that it should be placed in Tier 2, borders on ridiculous. I don't mean to offend patrick, but you are really going against the current on this one with EVERYONE (and I mean EVERYONE) singing the praises of this title and demanding a Tier 0 placement.


----------



## lgans316

I observed 3 distracting issues on the second viewing of Kill Bill Vol 1 which I didn't discern during my first viewing.


1) White flecks in couple of scenes

2) Mild Edge Enhancement

3) Obtrusive softness in many scenes which is good enough to knock it off from Tier-0


----------



## SuprSlow

The first post has been updated with recommendations through POST #6041 .


I'll post the summary in a few mins.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/14726577
> 
> 
> The idea of ranking the top two or three tiers absolutely and alphabetizing the lower tiers is a great idea. We might lose a little information content but it might be the only thing to make the future onslaught of titles a practical endeavor for this thread.
> 
> 
> I still believe the top two tiers should remain sacrosanct with respect to ordering on a best to relatively worst scale.



I agree with alphabetizing the tiers as well.

And I also agree that we should keep at least the top two or three tier placement as is, then alphabetize the rest.

I agree that as titles pour in, it will be very tough to keep up with the current grading system.


----------



## SuprSlow

Masters of Horror, Season 1, Vol 1 - bot 1/4 Tier 1


Naked Beneath the Water - Deleted from list


Kiss of the Dragon - changed to MPEG-2 & moved to Tier 3


Curse of King Tut's Tomb - changed to MPEG-2


Scorpion King 2 - mid Tier 2


Total Recall (U.K.) - top Tier 2


Transformers - 2/4 Tier 1


21 - 2/4 Tier 1


Forbidden Kingdom - Tier 1 above NT2


What Happens in Vegas - Tier 1 near Prestige


One Flew Over... - bot 3/4 Tier 3 near Resevoir Dogs


Bank Job - Tier 1 near Vantage Point


Doomsday - bottom Tier 0


Alexander: Revisted - bottom Tier 1


Baby Mama - bot Tier 3


Celine Dion - Tier 2


Shakira - Tier 2


Kill Bill, Vol. 1 - bottom Tier 0


Kill Bill, Vol. 2 - top Tier 1


Harry Potter, Azkaban - deleted silver


Eraser - Tier 3, 1/2


The Doors - 2/4 Tier Tier 3


Then She Found Me - bottom Tier 3


Speed Racer - bottom Tier 0


Proposition - bottom Tier 1


The Fall - Tier 0


Cool Hand Luke - middle Tier 2


Nightmare Before Christmas - top Tier 2


Pushing Daisies - top 10 spots Tier 1


Leatherheads - top 10-15 spots Tier 1


Dark City - Tier 3


Blade Runner - top Tier 2


Closer - bottom Tier 1


Never Back Down - top 1/2 Tier 1


The Last Waltz - 2/4 Tier 4





Awaiting placement:

Beowulf

Miami Vice

88 Minutes


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/14727115
> 
> 
> With Patriot Games I was expecting a very unsatisfactory image based on what I've heard. While there is a fair amount of mediocre looking scenes, there are almost as many decent looking ones. There are even a few moments of close facial detail that actually impressed me. *Overall, I think this BD should be about 1/2 a Tier higher than it's current placement at the bottom of Tier 3.*
> 
> 
> 42" Panasonic Plasma (768p)
> 
> PS3 though HDMI
> 
> 6-7 ft.



Actually, I agree with this.

I was impressed as well when I watched it for the first time on Blu Ray about a week ago.

I plan to watch some of this movie over again tomorrow night to re-evaluate, but as of right now, I totally agree.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/14729188
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Awaiting placement:
> 
> Beowulf
> 
> Miami Vice
> 
> 88 Minutes





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/14721671
> 
> 
> Let me also add that I don't understand why Beowolf is ranked so highly.
> 
> How Beowolf is above titles like Live Free or Die Hard and Crank is beyond me. I think Beowolf needs to be at least moved down towards the bottom of Tier 1.
> 
> I don't think it deserves a number 11 ranking in tier 0.
> 
> I also think 21 needs to be a bit higher than mid tier 1.
> 
> I think it should be tucked just in front of Celine Dion a new day.



As I said before...

I think Beowolf is currently placed to high.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jrcorwin* /forum/post/14727756
> 
> 
> CTRL + F is your friend. You can find any title you wish very easily. The titles should remain ranked within the tiers rather than being alphabetized.



I actually do use CTRL + F all the time on the first page of this thread. In fact, I believe somewhere buried within all that first page info are instructions for using the CTRL + F function.










Edit: Found it...











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/10733385
> 
> 
> 
> If you're looking for a particular title, just scroll down to the list and press Ctrl + F or (+F on a Mac)





BUT, I think it would make the ranking system much easier for those saddled with the Burdon of maintaining things.

As titles continue to be released on Blu, it is only going to become more difficult.


.02


----------



## b_scott

Sex and the City was OK. not much BD pop. Colors were muted for the most part in normal scenes without wild outfits. I'd put it maybe top tier 2? maybe mid. it really didn't seem too much like a BD to me, but it was definitely better than a DVD. more like HDTV - it had some noise especially in sky shots that seemed like more than film grain. definitely not one to show off your system.


Pio 5010 50" 1080p

Pio BDP-51FD

9 feet, pitch black


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14728569
> 
> 
> I observed 3 distracting issues on the second viewing of Kill Bill Vol 1 which I didn't discern during my first viewing.
> 
> 
> 1) White flecks in couple of scenes
> 
> 2) Mild Edge Enhancement
> *3) Obtrusive softness in many scenes which is good enough to knock it off from Tier-0*



I agree. As I said before, I think KB2 looks distinctly better than KB1.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14728362
> 
> *Okay, I'm willing to concede that the facial close-ups are not remarkable throughout the movie, and that there is a softness in John Goodman's face, but overall they are good, and there are quite a few scenes like chapter 8 where the facial close-ups are very natural looking and detailed.*
> 
> 
> Aside from the facial close-ups, you just can't deny the fact that the colors are amazing, the contrast is superb, the blacks are nice and inky, the whites are bright, and *that it is consistently razor-sharp* with a lot of 3D pop. This all adds up to Tier 0 and to suggest, as you have, that it should be placed in Tier 2, borders on ridiculous. I don't mean to offend patrick, but you are really going against the current on this one with EVERYONE (and I mean EVERYONE) singing the praises of this title and demanding a Tier 0 placement.




I do deny that it is consistently razor-sharp, and in your first paragraph you seem to agree with me on that.


When BB first came out on HD DVD, most people claimed it looked flawless.


----------



## tbass2k

Patrick, Batman Begins got praises mostly for the wonderful black levels and the fact that it was just a great movie. You are right in the fact that it was overly praised for PQ when it was obviously somewhat soft. However, Speed Racer should in no way be compared to BB in terms of PQ, there is no comparison.


----------



## hobbs47

Regarding Speed Racer, I think the majority has spoken and we can settle for the bottom of Tier 0.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbass2k* /forum/post/14730247
> 
> 
> Patrick, Batman Begins got praises mostly for the wonderful black levels and the fact that it was just a great movie. You are right in the fact that it was overly praised for PQ when it was obviously somewhat soft. However, Speed Racer should in no way be compared to BB in terms of PQ, there is no comparison.



I am not comparing the PQ of the movies. I am comparing the reactions of people to the PQ of the movies.


----------



## General Kenobi




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/14729188
> 
> 
> Total Recall (U.K.) - top Tier 2



This must have had a much better transfer for the U.K.


edit - I just noticed the US version a couple tiers down... looks like I'll have to import this one for yet another dip!


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tbass2k* /forum/post/14730247
> 
> 
> Patrick, Batman Begins got praises mostly for the wonderful black levels and the fact that it was just a great movie. You are right in the fact that it was overly praised for PQ when it was obviously somewhat soft. However, Speed Racer should in no way be compared to BB in terms of PQ, there is no comparison.



And when BB came out on HD-DVD, you could almost consider it as a first generation title. Back then, there was not a lot that could compete with it.

My guess is that in a few years, when we look at the picture quality of titles coming to Blu Ray, titles we get excited about in tier 0 could be moved down to the bottom of tier 1 or even further into tier 2 when compaired to the future crop of titles being released.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/14731859
> 
> 
> And when BB came out on HD-DVD, you could almost consider it as a first generation title. Back then, there was not a lot that could compete with it.
> 
> My guess is that in a few years, when we look at the picture quality of titles coming to Blu Ray, titles we get excited about in tier 0 could be moved down to the bottom of tier 1 or even further into tier 2 when compaired to the future crop of titles being released.



Excellent points!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14729893
> 
> 
> I do deny that it is consistently razor-sharp, and *in your first paragraph you seem to agree with me on that*.
> 
> 
> When BB first came out on HD DVD, most people claimed it looked flawless.



First of all, I agree with hobbs47 that "the majority has spoken and we can settle for the bottom of Tier 0."


Regarding the wording of my first paragraph, I was simply agreeing with you that John Goodman's face was soft at times and that not every facial close-up was as detailed as the scene in chapter 8. My comment on the movie being consistently sharp throughout had to do with every other aspect of the movie; in other words, aside from a few facial close-ups being soft, the entire rest of the movie was razor-sharp. I stand dogmatically by that statement. In fact, even the scenes where there was some softness in John Goodman's face had rich detail in his hair, his clothes, etc. and on every other person and thing in the scene.


And for the record, I did NOT react to Batman Begins in the same way that I have reacted to Speed Racer. I was fairly impressed with the former; I was floored by the latter.


----------



## Hughmc

I thought Speed Racer looked good in my initial review maybe tier 0, but I did mention the faces issue. Overall I was not as impressed by the PQ as some and think it is more of a top tier one title. I know the majority think SR is tier 0, but I wonder if all those that said it was great PQ if they liked the movie?


I also believe Baby Mama is not Tier 3, especially not bottom. It is a top to middle of tier 2 and even that maybe too far down.



Sony [email protected] 8 ft from PS3 through HDMI


As far as ranking titles in alphabetical order, I think in time it maybe unavoidable as hundreds and thousands of titles come out over the next few years. At the same time I have become more than used to using the control F function. Either way, it will work itself out or be changed.


I also watched Run, Fatboy, Run last night. I have to look at it again to make a recommendation. It is all over the place from what I could see PQ wise, but mostly good.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14732866
> 
> 
> I thought Speed Racer looked good in my initial review maybe tier 0, but I did mention the faces issue. Overall I was not as impressed by the PQ as some and think it is more of a top tier one title. I know the majority think SR is tier 0, but I wonder if all those that said it was great PQ if they liked the movie?



I, for one, did NOT care for the movie. (I hate Nascar racing or any other type of racing.) My view of it was strictly based on the standards set forth on page one.


BTW, now that you have "crossed the line" (below Tier 0) patrick may continue to "beat a dead horse."


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14732917
> 
> 
> I, for one, did NOT care for the movie. (I hate Nascar racing or any other type of racing.) My view of it was strictly based on the standards set forth on page one.
> 
> 
> BTW, now that you have "crossed the line" (below Tier 0) patrick may continue to "beat a dead horse."



Nah...I think you guys have this one nailed down as far as placement and with respect to Patrick, the overwhelming majority has spoken.


You didn't get sucked into the immersive visuals of when he was racing as an adrenalin rush? I did a bit and thought this movie was average in terms of story and charachter. I liked it, but that is about it. As someone who grew up watching SR I enjoyed the movie's take on the kid and monkey as well as the "feel" of the Original SR cartoon to some extent even if minor. As you suspect I mentioned liking it or not, because liking a film I think does have some influence in opinion about PQ.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14733000
> 
> 
> Nah...I think you guys have this one nailed down as far as placement and with respect to Patrick, the overwhelming majority has spoken.
> 
> 
> You didn't get sucked into the immersive visuals of when he was racing as an adrenalin rush? I did a bit and thought this movie was average in terms of story and charachter. I liked it, but that is about it. As someone who grew up watching SR I enjoyed the movie's take on the kid and monkey as well as the "feel" of the Original SR cartoon to some extent even if minor. As you suspect I mentioned liking it or not, *because liking a film I think does have some influence in opinion about PQ.*



Totally agree...no one wants a film they love to look bad


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/14733047
> 
> 
> Totally agree...no one wants a film they love to look bad



It is true isn't it? It is almost like one is contradicting oneself if you like the film and hate the PQ or vice versa. I also believe most if not all of us who participate in this thread are fairly objective and fair as possible even when we really like a movie that the PQ is not what we would like it to be. I believe there is some influence, but some restraint as well.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14733078
> 
> 
> It is true isn't it? It is almost like one is contradicting oneself if you like the film and hate the PQ or vice versa. I also believe most if not all of us who participate in this thread are fairly objective and fair as possible even when we really like a movie that the PQ is not what we would like it to be. I believe there is some influence, but some restraint as well.



Yeah I try to be as objective as possible but it can get tricky haha.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14728569
> 
> 
> I observed 3 distracting issues on the second viewing of Kill Bill Vol 1 which I didn't discern during my first viewing.
> 
> 
> 1) White flecks in couple of scenes
> 
> 2) Mild Edge Enhancement
> 
> 3) Obtrusive softness in many scenes which is good enough to knock it off from Tier-0



I agree with all of your points on Kill Bill Volume 1. I think it should be somewhere in the top quarter of tier one.


As for the Speed Racer debate I have no interest in watching that particular BD and have not seen it, but it should be as hard as a camel walking through the eye of a needle for a BD to make it into tier zero. Patrick99 typically has very good insight on the suggestions he makes and his stated problems with Speed Racer might drop it from tier zero in my opinion if he is correct. Maybe top of tier one for now?










Since it seems only me and one other poster had an opinion on "Kiss of the Dragon", I think we should split the difference and put it in the lower half of tier two. I believe the other poster recommended Tier 3. I still don't believe it should be ranked that low but opinions obviously will diverge on certain titles and a middle-ground is needed sometimes.


----------



## dla26

I've been watching Heroes Season 2 recently. I think it looks at least Gold tier. Anyone else have any thoughts? I haven't seen it mentioned yet.


----------



## lgans316

Thanks SuprSlow for updating the main list and please accept my apologies if I had missed out some recommendations. Kudos to the usual contributors and the new posters for keeping this misunderstood thread active.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14733581
> 
> 
> Thanks SuprSlow for updating the main list and please accept my apologies if I had missed out some recommendations. Kudos to the usual contributors and the new posters for keeping this misunderstood thread active.



I knew it was the threads fault for misunderstanding us.


----------



## BIG ED

+ many

alphabetize

*Tier 0*

0.0

0.5
*Tier 1*

1.0

1.25

1.5

1.75
*Tier 2*

2.0

2.25

2.5

2.75
*Tier 3*

3.0

3.25

3.5

3.75
*Tier 4*

4.0

4.25

4.5

4.75
*Tier 5*

5.0

5.5


Thanks again for all the work!


----------



## Little BigFat

I just picked up The Godfather and LA Confidential on BluRay today. I found LA Confidential at Borders for 19.99 which is cheaper than anywhere else I have seen it. I haven't opened the disc yet, but I have heard some really mixed things about the picture quality. I am excited for the movie itself, but can anyone comment on the PQ of either the Godfather trilogy or LA Confidential?


----------



## lotc

I know this is a very tuff thread to update and everything, but would it be possible to put all the titles in alphabetical order if possible? Its just a suggestion, I think it would make locating a certain title much easier.


-Thanks


----------



## lgans316

I think the time has to come to place titles within a Tier in alphabetical order to keep this thread kicking without any misunderstanding or hurdles.


----------



## DevilDog151

I agree with alphabetical order in each Tier, 1/4 and 1/2 With an exception to Tier Blu because they are ranked in order. with so many new movies coming out and so many being rated the lists are getting large and I find myself taking long to try to find what rating a certain movie is and sometimes passing It and thinking It wasn't reviewed. Other than that this thread is great and keep up the good work.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Little BigFat* /forum/post/14734073
> 
> 
> I just picked up The Godfather and LA Confidential on BluRay today. I found LA Confidential at Borders for 19.99 which is cheaper than anywhere else I have seen it. I haven't opened the disc yet, but I have heard some really mixed things about the picture quality. I am excited for the movie itself, but can anyone comment on the PQ of either the Godfather trilogy or LA Confidential?



You have them, how about you watch them and let us know?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14733000
> 
> 
> Nah...I think you guys have this one nailed down as far as placement and with respect to Patrick, the overwhelming majority has spoken.
> 
> 
> You didn't get sucked into the immersive visuals of when he was racing as an adrenalin rush? I did a bit and thought this movie was average in terms of story and charachter. I liked it, but that is about it. As someone who grew up watching SR I enjoyed the movie's take on the kid and monkey as well as the "feel" of the Original SR cartoon to some extent even if minor. As you suspect I mentioned liking it or not, because *liking a film I think does have some influence in opinion about PQ.*



I do think that factor is at work in the case of SR.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/14733141
> 
> 
> As for the Speed Racer debate I have no interest in watching that particular BD and have not seen it, but it should be as hard as a camel walking through the eye of a needle for a BD to make it into tier zero. *Patrick99 typically has very good insight on the suggestions he makes and his stated problems with Speed Racer might drop it from tier zero in my opinion if he is correct. Maybe top of tier one for now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *



I could hardly believe my eyes Phantom as I read your suggestion to put Speed Racer into the top of Tier 1. I strongly protest based on 3 things:


1. Until you actually see a title you have no say in where it should go (unless you are one of the moderators).


2. Your argument that "Patrick99 typically has very good insight on the suggestions he makes" simply does hold water. I have been with this thread for many months and _typically_ patrick goes against the consensus. I'm not saying patrick isn't a help to this thread, but it's a fact that patrick has not seen eye-to-eye with his peers on quite a few titles.


3. To put a title into Tier 1 when the overwhelming majority have recommended Tier 0 is faulty math. You seem to be justifying this based on one member's challenge to the majority, so my question to you is: Don't you respect the opinion of others? If you don't, you are guilty of elitism.


Before I close Phantom, you know I have respected your opinion over and over again, even to the point where I recommended you as a moderator for this thread. But your judgment here (re: Speed Racer) is disappointing and I hope you will rethink this last post.


----------



## hobbs47

Agree 100% djoberg.


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/14733141
> 
> 
> Since it seems only me and one other poster had an opinion on "Kiss of the Dragon", I think we should split the difference and put it in the lower half of tier two. I believe the other poster recommended Tier 3. I still don't believe it should be ranked that low but opinions obviously will diverge on certain titles and a middle-ground is needed sometimes.



I looked through my notes for your previous placement of Kiss of the Dragon, but couldn't locate it. I must've missed it in the search, too. But yes, I agree that we should split the difference. Thanks for bringing this up, I'll move it











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14733581
> 
> 
> Thanks SuprSlow for updating the main list and please accept my apologies if I had missed out some recommendations.



No apologies necessary. There were a few you listed that I happened to miss, so it worked out well. Thanks again for your work.


----------



## Little BigFat

LBFilmGuy:

I haven't had the time yet. Hopefully later today I can watch them. Its agonizing knowing they are sitting at home though!


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14735072
> 
> 
> I could hardly believe my eyes Phantom as I read your suggestion to put Speed Racer into the top of Tier 1. I strongly protest based on 3 things:
> 
> 
> 1. Until you actually see a title you have no say in where it should go (unless you are one of the moderators).
> 
> 
> 2. Your argument that "Patrick99 typically has very good insight on the suggestions he makes" simply does hold water. I have been with this thread for many months and _typically_ patrick goes against the consensus. I'm not saying patrick isn't a help to this thread, but it's a fact that patrick has not seen eye-to-eye with his peers on quite a few titles.
> 
> 
> 3. To put a title into Tier 1 when the overwhelming majority have recommended Tier 0 is faulty math. You seem to be justifying this based on one member's challenge to the majority, so my question to you is: Don't you respect the opinion of others? If you don't, you are guilty of elitism.
> 
> 
> Before I close Phantom, you know I have respected your opinion over and over again, even to the point where I recommended you as a moderator for this thread. But your judgment here (re: Speed Racer) is disappointing and I hope you will rethink this last post.




Watched Speed Racer last night.

All I can say is WOW! Just incredible eye candy.

I need to take a look at it again, but I can totally see what many are saying about facial detail. I felt the facial detail could have been overall a bit better. I need to take a look at a few other titles I am familiar with like Live Free or Die Hard to compare. But the colors! Wow, I have not seen anything yet on Blu Ray that would even compare. The contrast was was excellent as well during the race scenes.

Let me say that I definitely think Speed Racer is worthy of a tier 0 ranking. Where it gets ranked in the top tier needs to be further scrutinized by all.

The movie it self [email protected] with a capital S but that is not supposed to matter for this thread right? In fact, it was all I could do to keep from nodding off.

The kids loved it. Even my 2 year old daughter was mesmerized by the never ending over exaggerated colors popping up all over the screen.

So, I have placed my initial vote for Speed Racer as top tier eye candy material. Just where it gets placed in tier 0 needs further scrutiny from all.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Little BigFat* /forum/post/14736821
> 
> 
> LBFilmGuy:
> 
> I haven't had the time yet. Hopefully later today I can watch them. Its agonizing knowing they are sitting at home though!



Looking forward to hearing about them!


----------



## alexg75

I was suprised by the wife last night with a present of *THE GODFATHER Collection on BR.*

I haven't had the chance to see all 3 Godfather Discs all the way through yet and I'm not going to make any sort of TIER recommendation,I just going to give some initial impressions for those of you who care.
*THE GODFATHER I & II*-Easily the best these masterpieces have looked.I have the 2001 DVD set and have seen GF I & II many,many times over the years on various home video versions and systems,including the chronological version/cut of both GF & GF2.

None of those versions have ever come close to the visual quality and impact of these restored versions.

I actually felt like I was watching pristine 35mm prints in my HT last night.

While the images have been restored,they haven't been overly processed and cleaned.

There is plenty of grain,grit and texture....that's the first thing that sticks out and that's the way it should be.

Whites bloom out and blacks fall off into nothing and the color scheme is yellowish.

Sharpness and fine picture detail varies from scene to scene,so for those of you are expecting to see the pores and blemishes in the actors faces will be dissapointed.

But this is all intentional and the way it is supposed to look.There is no way around it! If you don't like grain,then you don't need to purchase this set and then complain about the PQ.

This is exactly how classic films should be presented,true or as close to true to the filmakers intent.....imperfections and all.

I have not had the opportunity to see any of GF III yet,so I'll add my impressions on that later on.

For the record,both GF I & GF II are amongst my absolute favorite films of all time and I felt like I was watching them for the very first time last night.

IMO,this release of The Godfather films validates what makes the BR/HD format so worthwhile and quite frankly for Blu-Ray to truly break through beyond the enthusiasts,there needs to be more releases like this.

Great work all the way around from those involved-

Robert Harris,Marty Cohen,Gordon Willis and Francis Ford Coppola as well as all the artists and technicians who did the restoration process.


----------



## Little BigFat

I agree with the initial assessment of The Godfather - they look great, but nothing in high tier categories. For what they are, they are impressive.


LA Confidential initial impressions:

The opening sequence is grainy and gritty, but as soon as the camera goes up to Bud's face, the whole thing goes clean, clear, and gives loads of 3d pop. I am amazed at how good this movie looks...it's almost too clean. I haven't seen it all the way through yet, but initial impressions are VERY high.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Nice initial impressions guys.


Looking forward to getting them myself.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14735072
> 
> 
> I could hardly believe my eyes Phantom as I read your suggestion to put Speed Racer into the top of Tier 1. I strongly protest based on 3 things:
> 
> 
> 1. Until you actually see a title you have no say in where it should go (unless you are one of the moderators).
> 
> 
> 2. Your argument that "Patrick99 typically has very good insight on the suggestions he makes" simply does hold water. I have been with this thread for many months and _typically_ patrick goes against the consensus. I'm not saying patrick isn't a help to this thread, but it's a fact that patrick has not seen eye-to-eye with his peers on quite a few titles.
> 
> 
> 3. To put a title into Tier 1 when the overwhelming majority have recommended Tier 0 is faulty math. You seem to be justifying this based on one member's challenge to the majority, so my question to you is: Don't you respect the opinion of others? If you don't, you are guilty of elitism.
> 
> 
> Before I close Phantom, you know I have respected your opinion over and over again, even to the point where I recommended you as a moderator for this thread. But your judgment here (re: Speed Racer) is disappointing and I hope you will rethink this last post.



I thought the smiley would get across that my point was only a suggestion. I have not seen Speed Racer on Blu-ray and likely won't see it anytime soon, so I have no opinion or recommendation on it. I was just trying to mediate and broker a possible placement when posters disagree on a certain title. I realize Patrick99 has very high standards when it comes to ranking titles for this thread and that others likely will disagree with his standards.


I don't see the tiers as having sharp delineations like some others do. Some titles for me near the top of tier one are just as good as some in the lower half of tier zero in my point of view. I have no problem with Speed Racer being in tier zero. I am sorry if I offended you or anyone else.


----------



## RBFC

it seems that there are various "weightings" to the criteria set forth for tier placement. Some folks will adhere to _absolute_ standards, while others will shift the importance of the evaluation criteria according to the type of film. While a title like _No Country for Old Men_ will preferentially provide a focus on facial textures and fine detail, a quasi-psychedelic _Speed Racer_ may have its unique virtues become the first-rank criterion in its evaluation.


In other words, I believe that it will be very difficult (as it's already becoming) to maintain a strict adherence to the values described in the explanation of the tier system. When a good 3-D title appears, there will be yet another criterion to be factored into a final tier judgement. Perhaps we should re-define the ranking criteria to be composed of a composite score on different visual factors.....







, thus making some room to grow into the future of BD.


Let me state for the record that the tier structure and the placement of so many titles has been handled excellently by both the mods and the contributors here. When passions for a favorite hobby/pursuit run strong, there will always be some disagreements, etc. It's a micro-political event at times, isn't it!?


I appreciate the wealth of knowledge exhibited by many posters here, who know far more about the artifacts and degradatory processes that affect PQ than I. The minor squabbles are relatively insignificant compared to the massive achievement on display.


Thanks,


Lee


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/14739608
> 
> 
> I thought the smiley would get across that my point was only a suggestion. I have not seen Speed Racer on Blu-ray and likely won't see it anytime soon, so I have no opinion or recommendation on it. I was just trying to mediate and broker a possible placement when posters disagree on a certain title. I realize Patrick99 has very high standards when it comes to ranking titles for this thread and that others likely will disagree with his standards.
> 
> *I don't see the tiers as having sharp delineations like some others do. Some titles for me near the top of tier one are just as good as some in the lower half of tier zero in my point of view.* I have no problem with Speed Racer being in tier zero. I am sorry if I offended you or anyone else.



This is how I view things as well. This is why I keep stating every so many weeks how it will be harder and harder to place titles as it more and more titles come out, but then again the opposite could happen based on your point. Who knows.







I am enjoying it and discussions either way.



I also agree 100% with RBFC. We can be passionate about our points of view and it may get intense at times, but if we try to stay focus on the logical as opposed to the emotional points of view discussions and placements will be less difficult.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/14739608
> 
> 
> I thought the smiley would get across that my point was only a suggestion. I have not seen Speed Racer on Blu-ray and likely won't see it anytime soon, so I have no opinion or recommendation on it. I was just trying to mediate and broker a possible placement when posters disagree on a certain title. I realize Patrick99 has very high standards when it comes to ranking titles for this thread and that others likely will disagree with his standards.
> 
> 
> I don't see the tiers as having sharp delineations like some others do. Some titles for me near the top of tier one are just as good as some in the lower half of tier zero in my point of view. I have no problem with Speed Racer being in tier zero. I am sorry if I offended you or anyone else.



Thanks Phantom for your reply. I really wasn't offended by your post, but I was, as I implied in my post, quite surprised.


I did catch the smiley at the end, but your words _seemed_ serious, so I took you seriously. I did realize too that you were trying to mediate, but from my vantage point it was skewed, for patrick was the ONLY ONE challenging a Tier 0 placement, so there was really no need for any mediation.


One more point...you said in this post "I don't see the tiers as having sharp delineations," but in your last post you stated, "...it should be as hard as a camel walking through the eye of a needle for a BD to make it into tier 0." Which is it? I agree with the last statement and that Tier 0 should be reserved for "the best of the best."


Anyway, no hard feelings. I still value your contributions and hope that we can forget this "bump in the road" and get on with the business of making this thread productive and one that all Blu-ray owners will want to turn to for the latest info on PQ for Blu-ray titles.


----------



## lgans316

*We Were Soldiers (AUS Import) Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Icon*

*Good Points*


Film like, intentionally grainy and gritty presentation

Strong color reproduction (especially the primaries) and excellent contrast

Average to good fine object detailing

Good shadow detailing especially during the dark sequences in Vietnam

Natural looking skin tones

*Bad Points*


Many soft looking scenes

Heavy grain obscuring background details and making the picture lacking depth

Sporadic flashing of white and black speckles during the 2nd half of the movie


Tier recommendation: *Tier-2 above Master and Commander*

http://img403.imageshack.us/my.php?i...sbdfronph9.jpg 
http://img294.imageshack.us/my.php?i...sbdbackzw0.jpg 
http://img294.imageshack.us/my.php?i...sbdinnexa6.jpg 
http://img294.imageshack.us/my.php?i...sbdtopmhh7.jpg 
http://img294.imageshack.us/my.php?i...sbdchapzl8.jpg 
http://img294.imageshack.us/my.php?i...sbdsetujj1.jpg 
http://img294.imageshack.us/my.php?i...sbdextrph7.jpg 
http://img131.imageshack.us/my.php?i...sbdpopujr4.jpg 
http://img131.imageshack.us/my.php?i...sbdscenna1.jpg 
http://img131.imageshack.us/my.php?i...sbdscenyq6.jpg 

*Red Cliff (H.K Import) | Audio: LPCM 7.1 / DTS-HD MA 7.1 / Dolby TrueHD 7.1 | AR : 2.35:1 | Mei Ah*


2 words. Dynamite image. Except for couple of soft looking scenes, the video presentation was truly breathtaking and very film like with balanced contrast, colors and black levels. Fine object, skin tones and texture detailing were impressive. Couple of CGI sequences especially the aerial views looked flat and soft but these moments doesn't last long. No instances of print impurities or PQ artefacts like NR / EE were observed except for lens flare and aliasing (??) in the rolling end credits which cannot be counted as a PQ flaw.

*Tier recommendation* : Tier-0 above Live Free or Die Hard

http://img228.imageshack.us/my.php?i...bdfrontuq1.jpg 
http://img228.imageshack.us/my.php?i...kbdbackps0.jpg 
http://img258.imageshack.us/my.php?i...dinsidezg7.jpg 
http://img258.imageshack.us/my.php?i...kbdmenuzl9.jpg 
http://img140.imageshack.us/my.php?i...apters1if8.jpg 
http://img140.imageshack.us/my.php?i...apters2dl6.jpg 
http://img258.imageshack.us/my.php?i...dextrasru8.jpg 
http://img140.imageshack.us/my.php?i...bdsetuppn5.jpg 
http://img140.imageshack.us/my.php?i...dsetup2ou9.jpg 
http://img258.imageshack.us/my.php?i...pupmenuoo6.jpg 
http://img140.imageshack.us/my.php?i...lbylpcmvf0.jpg 
http://img140.imageshack.us/my.php?i...ytruehdir0.jpg 
http://img140.imageshack.us/my.php?i...dtshdmadz0.jpg 

*30 Days Of Night (AUS Import) | Video: AVC | DTS-HD MA 24-bit | Icon*


Video encode same as Sony.

*Tier recommendation*: Above or below U.S version of 30 Days of Night.

http://img527.imageshack.us/my.php?i...bdfrontcp2.jpg 
http://img527.imageshack.us/my.php?i...sbdbackyc5.jpg 
http://img527.imageshack.us/my.php?i...bdinnerfg2.jpg 
http://img527.imageshack.us/my.php?i...topmenubx4.jpg 
http://img403.imageshack.us/my.php?i...haptersyb9.jpg 
http://img403.imageshack.us/my.php?i...pupmenuqd1.jpg


----------



## haste




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14741127
> 
> *We Were Soldiers (AUS Import) Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Icon*
> 
> *Good Points*
> 
> 
> Film like, intentionally grainy and gritty presentation
> 
> Strong color reproduction (especially the primaries) and excellent contrast
> 
> Average to good fine object detailing
> 
> Good shadow detailing especially during the dark sequences in Vietnam
> 
> Natural looking skin tones
> 
> *Bad Points*
> 
> 
> Many soft looking scenes
> 
> Heavy grain obscuring background details and making the picture lacking depth
> 
> Sporadic flashing of white and black speckles during the 2nd half of the movie
> 
> 
> Tier recommendation: *Tier-2 above Master and Commander*
> 
> http://img403.imageshack.us/my.php?i...sbdfronph9.jpg
> http://img294.imageshack.us/my.php?i...sbdbackzw0.jpg
> http://img294.imageshack.us/my.php?i...sbdinnexa6.jpg
> http://img294.imageshack.us/my.php?i...sbdtopmhh7.jpg
> http://img294.imageshack.us/my.php?i...sbdchapzl8.jpg
> http://img294.imageshack.us/my.php?i...sbdsetujj1.jpg
> http://img294.imageshack.us/my.php?i...sbdextrph7.jpg
> http://img131.imageshack.us/my.php?i...sbdpopujr4.jpg
> http://img131.imageshack.us/my.php?i...sbdscenna1.jpg
> http://img131.imageshack.us/my.php?i...sbdscenyq6.jpg



omg, give his review definite consideration because he has pictures!


----------



## Blacklac

I suggest Transporter (Japanese Twin Pack Import - Sony) Tier 1. High bitrate AVC with TrueHD 5.1. PQ is better than the US release, slightly sharper and more natural colors. US can look bitrate starved at times.


----------



## Little BigFat

I just finished *LA Confidential*. The movie has loads of 3D pop and can be best described as a very "clean" print. It just looks smooth. It has some scenes that had me considering Tier 0, some soft scenes that looked like Tier 2 material, and the intro - which is easily Tier 3 material. No DNR from what I could tell, but in looking up very close to the screen (1 foot away), it looked like there was some minor digital noise. Maybe I'm crazy though. Overall, I can't believe how "clean" the movie looks and would suggest either *bottom Tier 1 or top of tier 2*. I am really curious as to what some of you think. By the way - the movie is pure dynamite and it saddens me that it lost the best picture award to Titanic. Great dialogue, gritty violence, superb story and wonderful characters. A wonderful crime noir.


Panasonic 42" 1080p plasma

PS3 blu ray player

6-7 feet away


----------



## maverick0716

Batman: Gotham Knight is a disappointment for me. The animation styles used just do not look great in high definition. There isn't enough detail from the source to really be impressed at all. Even the colours seemed washed out for most of the time. About 2 of the episodes (out of 6) looked halfway decent, but nothing special. Also keep in mind, many different styles of animation are used, so consistency isn't a big concern here. *This title, while doing the best it can with the material, is no higher than a mid Tier 4 ranking.*


42" Panasonic Plasma (768p)

PS3 through HDMI

6-7 ft.


----------



## iansilv

could we alphabetize each list?


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *haste* /forum/post/14741149
> 
> 
> omg, give his review definite consideration because he has pictures!



May I know the point you were trying to convey ?











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *iansilv* /forum/post/14742171
> 
> 
> could we alphabetize each list?



I think this will happen soon but no idea if this will be applied for Tier-0 titles.


----------



## rydenfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *iansilv* /forum/post/14742171
> 
> 
> could we alphabetize each list?



I personally do not want to see it alphabetized. Right now the rankings are far more accurate then they would be if you alphabetized the list. It is easy to search for a specific title on the front page. I vote we keep it the way it is.


----------



## SuprSlow

After some discussion, we've decided to go ahead and alphabetize the titles within the tiers. I've started another thread with an archive copy of the thread in it's current form. That thread will be locked, and linked to in the first post of this thread. I think it's important to preserve the work and effort that's gone into the thread up to this point. The archived copy will be there as a reference.


I'll be working on the first post over the next couple of days.


----------



## b_scott

cool


----------



## SuprSlow

Because they're not...yet










It'll take me a few days. I think I'll have to do it by hand rather than sorting the data in Excel. The UBB codes freak out the sort function.


----------



## jrcorwin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/14746256
> 
> 
> Because they're not...yet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It'll take me a few days. I think I'll have to do it by hand rather than sorting the data in Excel. The UBB codes freak out the sort function.



Thank you for putting in all the work. I only have one other thing to say....


You poor bastard. Have fun.


----------



## SuprSlow




----------



## Phantom Stranger

Good luck with all the work SuprSlow. I guess it was inevitable that the list would need alphabetizing with it growing every week. I still would like to note an objection to alphabetizing tier zero and tier one. I think too much information might be lost where it really counts if those tiers went unranked. But aside from that I have no problem with the concept.


----------



## haste

wth. just as easy (if not easier) to press "ctrl-f" to find a title...


alphabetizing is dumb.


----------



## SuprSlow

Sorry, I forgot to mention that. Tier 0 will not be alphabetized. Tiers 1-5 will be. We'll see how it goes for now, and if the need arises, we can go back to the old system for Tier 1.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/14747623
> 
> 
> Good luck with all the work SuprSlow. I guess it was inevitable that the list would need alphabetizing with it growing every week. *I still would like to note an objection to alphabetizing tier zero and tier one. I think too much information might be lost where it really counts if those tiers went unranked.* But aside from that I have no problem with the concept.



I agree with you Phantom. Allow me to quote a previous post (which happens to be yours), "I believe the top two tiers should remain _sacrosanct_." I just love that word!


----------



## lgans316

Thanks to SuprSlow and others for keeping this thread active amidst tough times.


----------



## maverick0716

Deception is a great looking BD. There is fine detail everywhere, and it's consistent (even in the many dark scenes) for most of the movie's run time. Colours purposely are geared towards blue, and for the most part aren't all that vibrant. There is a very thin veil of digital noise/grain throughout most of the movie, but it does not intrude on the picture quality whatsoever. *I'd recommend this one for a lower 1/2 of Tier 1 placement.*


42" Panasonic Plasma (768p)

PS3 through HDMI

6-7 ft.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Little BigFat* /forum/post/14741944
> 
> 
> I just finished *LA Confidential*. The movie has loads of 3D pop and can be best described as a very "clean" print. It just looks smooth. It has some scenes that had me considering Tier 0, some soft scenes that looked like Tier 2 material, and the intro - which is easily Tier 3 material. No DNR from what I could tell, but in looking up very close to the screen (1 foot away), it looked like there was some minor digital noise. Maybe I'm crazy though. Overall, I can't believe how "clean" the movie looks and would suggest either *bottom Tier 1 or top of tier 2*. I am really curious as to what some of you think. By the way - the movie is pure dynamite and it saddens me that it lost the best picture award to Titanic. Great dialogue, gritty violence, superb story and wonderful characters. A wonderful crime noir.
> 
> 
> Panasonic 42" 1080p plasma
> 
> PS3 blu ray player
> 
> 6-7 feet away



Awesome...can't wait to get this. I've never even seen it


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *haste* /forum/post/14747646
> 
> *wth. just as easy (if not easier) to press "ctrl-f" to find a title...*
> 
> 
> alphabetizing is dumb.



I've said this from the beginning, but they're doing it because eventually it will become to much for the person in charge to keep track of what goes where/under which title/above which title/etc.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/14747651
> 
> 
> Sorry, I forgot to mention that. Tier 0 will not be alphabetized. Tiers 1-5 will be. We'll see how it goes for now, and if the need arises, we can go back to the old system for Tier 1.



This does suck though because all the titles will just be lumped together now.


Unless we do Tier 1/1.5/2/2.5/etc. to at least give us a little more frame of reference? More work I know


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/14749547
> 
> 
> This does suck though because all the titles will just be lumped together now.
> 
> 
> Unless we do Tier 1/1.5/2/2.5/etc. to at least give us a little more frame of reference? More work I know



You're right, that's how it will be done. The titles will be organized by 1/4 tiers. Tier 1 1/4 will be it's own set, Tier 1 1/2, etc.


----------



## robsis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/14749773
> 
> 
> You're right, that's how it will be done. The titles will be organized by 1/4 tiers. Tier 1 1/4 will be it's own set, Tier 1 1/2, etc.




Nice...thnx for all of your work, SuprSlow!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*L.A. Confidential*


tier recommendation: second quarter of *Tier 2*


Warner released this week on Blu-ray the 1997 Oscar winner for best adapted screenplay. The 137-minute main feature is encoded in VC-1 on a single BD-50. The video ranges overall between 12.8 Mbps to 35.5 Mbps, with most scenes jumping between 17 to 30 Mbps. The average video bitrate for the entire movie is 22.91 Mbps (BDInfo scan link courtesy of eric.exe). I wouldn't call the compression work here perfect but it seems reasonably solid for a Warner disc. There is a noticeable instance of blocking during the climatic shootout when the action starts heating up. If I wanted to nitpick, some of the background walls early in the movie (ala the police station) show some very minor banding if you really go looking for it, but for the most part there are no other major compression artifacts.


The HD master used for this transfer looks in great shape for a catalog title. Outside of the short running vintage stock footage segments there are very few blemishes on the film image. If one watches very closely one can tell a couple of digital scratch removals but overall this is a clean image. Colors are very solid and stable, though not as bold or dynamic as exhibited by titles in the higher tiers. Contrast is average to above average for Blu-ray depending on the scene and lighting. Fleshtones look perfect and as good as I've seen in awhile, faithfully reproducing a natural look for the entire cast. There are a few scenes where shadow detail and information drop below average with a minor amount of clipping. Black levels never reach as deep and inky as I have seen on some other top notch BDs but most scenes look solid.


It is crucial when judging this Blu-ray's level of detail to watch the entire movie for a proper accounting. By my standards there was a night and day difference between the movie in the first hour or so and then after that point. After the 65-minute mark or so there seemed to be a drastic increase in high frequency information and micro-detail. The image looks mostly the same but facial close-ups appear more detailed and sharper, even of the same actors. For an example of this compare the Kevin Spacey close-up at the 74-minute mark (which is as detailed as any close-up in the movie) with a close-up of his from the first hour. It looks to me like some very light DNR might have been selectively applied to the first hour of this transfer. Maybe they wanted to even out the look of grain across the entire film? I would say it goes looking like a title near the bottom of tier two to a very low tier one in the second half of the movie with the increased detail.


I have to make clear that if DNR was used it is barely noticeable in the image. The transfer still looks very much like film should. There is a normal weight to the look of the grain in the image. There is also the tiniest bit of edge enhancement halos in a couple of shots but for the most part this transfer lacks any added sharp processing. At times the image looked reminiscent of another Warner Blu-ray to me, Batman Begins.


I was surprised at the amount of depth the image had throughout the movie. Many scenes exhibited a large amount of pop with the actors appearing to exist within a real three dimensional space coming off the screen. It is obvious viewing this Blu-ray that the movie was expertly filmed and shot.


Overall I was very satisfied with this Blu-ray of L.A. Confidential. I was a little disappointed by the first hour or so but the image takes a clear step up after that. It looks very good for a tier two BD but never quite reaches tier one worthiness for me to recommend it any higher.


Watching on a calibrated 60 Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 from a viewing distance of six feet.


BDInfo scan:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post14751362


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/14749773
> 
> 
> You're right, that's how it will be done. The titles will be organized by 1/4 tiers. Tier 1 1/4 will be it's own set, Tier 1 1/2, etc.



That sounds excellent. Kudos to whoever came up with that idea.


----------



## lgans316

Thanks Phantom for doing another excellent review.

*Superman Returns Video: VC-1 | Audio: LPCM / Dolby TrueHD / DD | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner*


To mention that the video presentation is soft and flat looking is an understatement. Filmed using Panavision Genesis HD Camera, Primo Lenses, the same camera used to shoot movies like 21, Fantastic Four 2 etc, it is shocking and frustrating to see the video looking this soft with bare minimal fine object and texture detailing. There is absolutely no details in the facial close-ups. Banding is plainly visible on many scenes and it's been mentioned in various review sites. Contrast is weak. Black levels are just above average and can sometimes look Gray due to the sepia color palette. The video is encoded at an average bit rate of just 15 Mbps using VC-1. Being such a recent release, I am confident that the video presentation could have been made look excellent if the process of DI creation and encoding were outsourced to other competent studios. The only good part about the Blu-ray is the audio which unfortunately cannot be discussed out here.

*Tier Recommendation:* Currently placed in Tier-3 3/4. I think this one can be placed in 1/2 of Tier-3 as it definitely looked better than Perfect Storm.


SR (Superman Returns) vs SR (Speed Racer) - Tier-3 vs Tier-0


----------



## DevilDog151

On Kill Bill vol.1 there's a scene where The Bride gets a flashback to the church scene when the french woman uppercut her. It's at about 1:17:05 into the movie. The PQ in that one scene is jawdropping I paused it and just marveled at the detail even though it's a bloody/sweaty shot. I'd put it up there with the shot of Will smith waking up in I am Legend.


----------



## H.Cornerstone




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14753855
> 
> 
> Thanks Phantom for doing another excellent review.
> 
> *Superman Returns Video: VC-1 | Audio: LPCM / Dolby TrueHD / DD | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner*
> 
> 
> To mention that the video presentation is soft and flat looking is an understatement. Filmed using Panavision Genesis HD Camera, Primo Lenses, the same camera used to shoot movies like 21, Fantastic Four 2 etc, it is shocking and frustrating to see the video looking this soft with bare minimal fine object and texture detailing. There is absolutely no details in the facial close-ups. Banding is plainly visible on many scenes and it's been mentioned in various review sites. Contrast is weak. Black levels are just above average and can sometimes look Gray due to the sepia color palette. The video is encoded at an average bit rate of just 15 Mbps using VC-1. Being such a recent release, I am confident that the video presentation could have been made look excellent if the process of DI creation and encoding were outsourced to other competent studios. The only good part about the Blu-ray is the audio which unfortunately cannot be discussed out here.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation:* Currently placed in Tier-3 3/4. I think this one can be placed in 1/2 of Tier-3 as it definitely looked better than Perfect Storm.
> 
> 
> SR (Superman Returns) vs SR (Speed Racer) - Tier-3 vs Tier-0



Just out of curiosity, so is the problem with the video with the cameras, how it was shot or how it was handled in post processing?


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *H.Cornerstone* /forum/post/14754277
> 
> 
> Just out of curiosity, so is the problem with the video with the cameras, how it was shot or how it was handled in post processing?



No idea pal. Could be both. A high budget movie shot using HD camera can look soft and clean but not of this magnitude. Check out Zodiac and you will be amazed by the level of details and pop. The soft and clean look was simply too distracting to my eyes. I know that I am comparing apples vs oranges but even decade old titles like Total Recall, Rambo II and Rambo III exhibited decent pop and value sharpness which is completely lacking in Superman Returns.


----------



## shadowrage




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14754356
> 
> 
> No idea pal. Could be both. A high budget movie shot using HD camera can look soft and clean but not of this magnitude. Check out Zodiac and you will be amazed by the level of details and pop. The soft and clean look was simply too distracting to my eyes. I know that I am comparing apples vs oranges but even decade old titles like Total Recall, Rambo II and Rambo III exhibited decent pop and value sharpness which is completely lacking in Superman Returns.



That's how Singer shot it, to pay homage to the originals. It looks 100 percent identical to the theatrical version. I hated it the first time I saw it, 2 and 3rd times though I loved it. Bryan Singer is the man.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14754397
> 
> 
> To an extent, I am aware that SR was shot that way but to the average audience which modest to high expectations, the step up from upconverted SD to HD is very minimal and not justifiable. The same theory doesn't apply to the audio which is certainly demo material.



I haven't seen the SD version, but it looks a lot better than the HD broadcast version. And you tell that it's HD.

Damn that average audience that doesn't know art when they see it, that's part of the reason why Speed Racer flopped(they don't get it).


----------



## lgans316

To an extent, I am aware that SR was shot that way but to the average audience with modest to high expectations, the step up from upconverted SD to HD is very minimal and not justifiable. The same theory doesn't apply to the audio which is certainly demo material.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/14749773
> 
> 
> You're right, that's how it will be done. The titles will be organized by 1/4 tiers. Tier 1 1/4 will be it's own set, Tier 1 1/2, etc.



Sounds good. Thanks me breda.


----------



## H.Cornerstone




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14754397
> 
> 
> To an extent, I am aware that SR was shot that way but to the average audience with modest to high expectations, the step up from upconverted SD to HD is very minimal and not justifiable. The same theory doesn't apply to the audio which is certainly demo material.



And if that is the case, I think that's not a very smart thing to do... Instead of just trying to be like the originals, as awesome as they are, he should have tried to do his own thing, which he didn't, which is probably why the movie wasn't the best either.


Either way, it's disappointing to hear about the poor video quality.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14753855
> 
> *Superman Returns Video: VC-1 | Audio: LPCM / Dolby TrueHD / DD | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner*
> *Tier Recommendation:* Currently placed in Tier-3 3/4. I think this one can be placed in 1/2 of Tier-3 as it definitely looked better than Perfect Storm.



I am in complete agreement with your assessment of Superman Returns. I think Singer achieved his stated goal of mimicking the original Superman film's look too well and it definitely limits the picture quality. An insider who has seen the master says much of the banding present on the Blu-ray is in the source, though I agree it is a weak video encode that doesn't hold up to more recent ones.


----------



## Hughmc

Thanks SS for your diligence in alphabetizing.


----------



## n64ra




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *haste* /forum/post/14747646
> 
> 
> wth. just as easy (if not easier) to press "ctrl-f" to find a title...
> 
> 
> alphabetizing is dumb.



I agree. Do not alphabetize!


----------



## b_scott

does anyone have a review copy of Can't Hardly Wait yet? it comes out tomorrow and i'm grabbing it. i read a couple reviews that said solid, but nothing amazing. which is fine, the original transfer was pretty awful.


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *n64ra* /forum/post/14762045
> 
> 
> I agree. Do not alphabetize!



I see the biggest reason for alphabetizing (within quarter tiers below Tier 0) is the fact that many of the placement recommendations being made only specify the quarter tier anyway. This makes the current organization within quarter tiers somewhat misleading with a mixture of titles that have been exactly placed (i.e. Title X was deemed to be minutely better than Title Y in Tier 2-1/4) and those that have not (i.e. Title Z goes in Tier 2-1/4 with no exact title position relative to Title X/Y/etc. specified).


I do not see the exact positioning within the quarter tiers to be a constructive activity as the Blu-ray catalog continues to grow and I feel that this just represents insignificant noise and extra work for the thread maintainer to nudge some titles up or down a couple spots with each update.


----------



## maverick0716

It's perfect now. There's not much difference in picture quality for titles within the same Tier 1/4 mark......alphabetization is a very clean look.


----------



## 357

Iron man is Tier 1. Just make sure you get the right disc cause I got one of the bad ones and the audio was urine poor.


----------



## lgans316

*Traffic (German Import) Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD HR | AR: 1.78:1 | Splendid*


The PQ of this one has already been discussed to death due to Soderbergh's deliberately filming in an extremely stylized and documentary type fashion. The look and feel of the film is altered on a scene by scene basis by using different hues (yellow, blue, orange) as per the storyline. Though the natural looking shots looks only average the increase in resolution is however quite apparent due to the legible appearance of background objects like writings, drawings etc. Sporadic flashing of black flecks, mild ringing and blocking is noticeable in few scenes. Some of the blue filtered and indoor sequences offer decent pop. Due to the fluctuating photography the image doesn't offer any major HD feeling.


The good news is this is best looking version of the movie available on any format and it trounces the mediocre HD DVD released by Universal in all aspects.


Tier recommendation: *Bottom of Tier-3*


Comparison screenshots can be found here.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...6#post14457036 

*Tier Recommendation:* Bottom of Tier-3

http://img131.imageshack.us/my.php?i...bdfronthj8.jpg 
http://img521.imageshack.us/my.php?i...rbdbackut2.jpg 
http://img521.imageshack.us/my.php?i...dinsidebj0.jpg 
http://img521.imageshack.us/my.php?i...topmenujr8.jpg 
http://img521.imageshack.us/my.php?i...bdsetupgc2.jpg 
http://img521.imageshack.us/my.php?i...haptersgd0.jpg 
http://img521.imageshack.us/my.php?i...extras1vx4.jpg 
http://img521.imageshack.us/my.php?i...extras2qd1.jpg 
http://img521.imageshack.us/my.php?i...extras3fj0.jpg 
http://img521.imageshack.us/my.php?i...extras4dm3.jpg 
http://img525.imageshack.us/my.php?i...dscene1xj3.jpg 
http://img525.imageshack.us/my.php?i...dscene2kb3.jpg


----------



## haste

anyone here seen street kings yet? bad static like noise coming from the center channel during dialogue.


dts-hd ma sent pcm from a ps3 to an onkyo 605 w/ 5.1 setup.


----------



## DaveBowman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *357* /forum/post/14765579
> 
> 
> Iron man is Tier 1. Just make sure you get the right disc cause I got one of the bad ones and the audio was urine poor.



What is the "right one"?


----------



## HighAltHD




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *haste* /forum/post/14768727
> 
> 
> anyone here seen street kings yet? bad static like noise coming from the center channel during dialogue.
> 
> 
> dts-hd ma sent pcm from a ps3 to an onkyo 605 w/ 5.1 setup.



I watched Street Kings in the last week or so. I didn't have that static. PS3-Denon 3808 with 5.1 dts-hd ma. Maybe it's a bad disc or something.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/14763697
> 
> 
> It's perfect now. There's not much difference in picture quality for titles within the same Tier 1/4 mark......alphabetization is a very clean look.




Just so I know I am not losing it, the tier has not been alphabetized yet correct?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/14752746
> 
> *L.A. Confidential*
> 
> 
> tier recommendation: second quarter of *Tier 2*
> 
> 
> Warner released this week on Blu-ray the 1997 Oscar winner for best adapted screenplay. The 137-minute main feature is encoded in VC-1 on a single BD-50. The video ranges overall between 12.8 Mbps to 35.5 Mbps, with most scenes jumping between 17 to 30 Mbps. The average video bitrate for the entire movie is 22.91 Mbps (BDInfo scan link courtesy of eric.exe). I wouldn't call the compression work here perfect but it seems reasonably solid for a Warner disc. There is a noticeable instance of blocking during the climatic shootout when the action starts heating up. If I wanted to nitpick, some of the background walls early in the movie (ala the police station) show some very minor banding if you really go looking for it, but for the most part there are no other major compression artifacts.
> 
> 
> The HD master used for this transfer looks in great shape for a catalog title. Outside of the short running vintage stock footage segments there are very few blemishes on the film image. If one watches very closely one can tell a couple of digital scratch removals but overall this is a clean image. Colors are very solid and stable, though not as bold or dynamic as exhibited by titles in the higher tiers. Contrast is average to above average for Blu-ray depending on the scene and lighting. Fleshtones look perfect and as good as I've seen in awhile, faithfully reproducing a natural look for the entire cast. There are a few scenes where shadow detail and information drop below average with a minor amount of clipping. Black levels never reach as deep and inky as I have seen on some other top notch BDs but most scenes look solid.
> 
> 
> It is crucial when judging this Blu-ray's level of detail to watch the entire movie for a proper accounting. By my standards there was a night and day difference between the movie in the first hour or so and then after that point. After the 65-minute mark or so there seemed to be a drastic increase in high frequency information and micro-detail. The image looks mostly the same but facial close-ups appear more detailed and sharper, even of the same actors. For an example of this compare the Kevin Spacey close-up at the 74-minute mark (which is as detailed as any close-up in the movie) with a close-up of his from the first hour. It looks to me like some very light DNR might have been selectively applied to the first hour of this transfer. Maybe they wanted to even out the look of grain across the entire film? I would say it goes looking like a title near the bottom of tier two to a very low tier one in the second half of the movie with the increased detail.
> 
> 
> I have to make clear that if DNR was used it is barely noticeable in the image. The transfer still looks very much like film should. There is a normal weight to the look of the grain in the image. There is also the tiniest bit of edge enhancement halos in a couple of shots but for the most part this transfer lacks any added sharp processing. At times the image looked reminiscent of another Warner Blu-ray to me, Batman Begins.
> 
> 
> I was surprised at the amount of depth the image had throughout the movie. Many scenes exhibited a large amount of pop with the actors appearing to exist within a real three dimensional space coming off the screen. It is obvious viewing this Blu-ray that the movie was expertly filmed and shot.
> 
> 
> Overall I was very satisfied with this Blu-ray of L.A. Confidential. I was a little disappointed by the first hour or so but the image takes a clear step up after that. It looks very good for a tier two BD but never quite reaches tier one worthiness for me to recommend it any higher.
> 
> 
> Watching on a calibrated 60 Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 from a viewing distance of six feet.
> 
> 
> BDInfo scan:
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post14751362



I watched this last night and I didn't notice such a clear contrast between the PQ in the first hour and the rest of the movie. I do very much agree though that there is a great deal of variation in PQ from shot to shot. Many shots look excellent; many others look only OK. I know that a lot of people don't like to hear about bitrate, but IMO the PQ variation is largely attributable to that. The only "DNR" I noticed was on Basinger's face, and I'm sure that was part of the original production.


The best shots in this disc look very good, and it is heartening to know that Warner can do this when they want to.


----------



## SuprSlow

Tier 1 has been alphabetized. As I make progress, I'll put *(ABC)* beside each Tier.


----------



## rutlian

How about IRON MAN what tier this would be? Thanks


----------



## b_scott

just bought Can't Hardly Wait today, so i'll review that soon. i'm surprised no one has reviewed Shrek the Third being that it'll probably be a Tier 0 movie. i've got that one coming in the mail soon too.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/14771098
> 
> 
> Tier 1 has been alphabetized. As I make progress, I'll put *(ABC)* beside each Tier.



Looks great. That is one way to get movies bumped up or down to where some may have wanted them.


----------



## 357

Ok so far I've seen 20 minutes of Thr Happening and I'm very impressed. Tier 0 so far. Facial closeups are amazing. We are talking about texture people. I'll post more on it when I finish watching but I don't believe PQ will decay. Only complaint is that I'm not liking the audio so far but that's for another thread...


----------



## SuprSlow

The first 1/4 of Tier 2 is done.


Back to real work...


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/14771882
> 
> 
> The first 1/4 of Tier 2 is done.
> 
> 
> Back to real work...



Thanks for doing this - I definitely like the "new look".


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Shutter*


tier recommendation: bottom of *Tier 2*


Fox released this Blu-ray in July of this year. The 89-minute main feature is encoded in AVC on a BD-50. The average video bitrate advertised on the back of the packaging states “AVC at 34 MBPS” and per the specifications thread the scanned bitrate is 33.59 Mbps (courtesy of forum member Patsfan123). The video ranges for most of the running time between 30 and 37 Mbps with it rarely straying outside that band. Deluxe Digital has done an excellent job compressing the film with a flawless presentation in that regard. There is never a hint of compression noise or artifacting visible, even when the image becomes very demanding.


The image is very hard to judge overall as the director seems to have aimed for a very stylized look at times. Even taking into account stylistic choices the final image seems very inconsistent. There are many moments of beautiful, sharp images with tier one level detail but there are just as many moments that look soft and out of focus. Certain close-ups and medium range shots of both Joshua Jackson and Rachael Taylor look incredible with every pore and follicle visible. This level of detailed information varies greatly though, with many shots looking very soft and with less high frequency information. The scenes that come off worse looking would be no better than an average tier three title. It partly looks like a conscious choice by the director and partly like some incompetent filming and lighting. On top of that there is little depth to the image, with a flat look for most of the movie.


Primary colors are a little muted at times, especially for the scarier scenes. Contrast looks solid at scattered moments but it definitely looks too low or too high in many of the indoor scenes. Fleshtones look a little washed out at various points, with people that are not supposed to be very pale looking it. Black levels are okay for a majority of scenes but there are some minor instances of crushing and limited low light resolution.


I can report that absolutely no DNR has been used on this transfer with some of the “spooky” scenes looking nicely gritty with a fine layer of grain. It is refreshing to see the grain completely untampered with on a new release and a transfer look very much like film. There is also no added edge enhancement as virtually the entire movie is halo-free.


I think opinions on this BD’s image could be all over the map, with some recommending tier three and others as high as tier one. Personally I would recommend it placed in the bottom of tier two though I wouldn’t quibble with a slightly higher or lower ranking. I believe this Blu-ray to be an excellent representation of the original film and probably cannot be improved on. This is just a film image that is limited by the choices of the creative people behind the movie.


BDInfo scan:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...0#post14298980


----------



## b_scott

Can't Hardly Wait = very very grainy. just the way it was shot, not a fault of the movie. looks better than the DVD (the original release had a lot of scratches and dirt) but in general it's probably bottom of Tier 3. for fans only.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14770029
> 
> 
> I watched this last night and I didn't notice such a clear contrast between the PQ in the first hour and the rest of the movie. I do very much agree though that there is a great deal of variation in PQ from shot to shot. Many shots look excellent; many others look only OK. I know that a lot of people don't like to hear about bitrate, but IMO the PQ variation is largely attributable to that. The only "DNR" I noticed was on Basinger's face, and I'm sure that was part of the original production.
> 
> 
> The best shots in this disc look very good, and it is heartening to know that Warner can do this when they want to.



Looking forward to getting this.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I'm not going to do a long writeup but I got a chance to watch Iron Man tonight. Easily a high tier one disc, maybe a low tier zero disc. It is not the best Blu-ray I've seen but Paramount didn't let us down in the picture quality.


----------



## b_scott

The Nightmare Before Christmas needs to be put in Tier 0 ASAP. at least better than TMNT if not higher. this is demo material here folks. looks freaking amazing - i could reach out and touch the clay.







motion is amazing as well.


----------



## Bokchoy

Tekkonkinkreet does not belong in Tier 0.


I'd suggest 2, or 1.5 at most.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Awesome work so far Slow, you sir are a gentleman and a scholar.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/14774224
> 
> 
> I'm not going to do a long writeup but I got a chance to watch Iron Man tonight. Easily a high tier one disc, maybe a low tier zero disc. It is not the best Blu-ray I've seen but Paramount didn't let us down in the picture quality.



I am afraid that I have to disagree. I thought the PQ was fairly disappointing, especially for such a high profile release. The opening shot of a convoy of trucks at a distance driving through a valley looked very nice, but it was very much downhill from there, in terms of the PQ. More like high Tier 2 to my eyes.


----------



## lgans316

Iron Man - Tier bout - The clash of the P-itans (Phantom vs Patrick)


----------



## hobbs47




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14775338
> 
> 
> Iron Man - Tier bout - The clash of the P-itans (Phantom vs Patrick)



I have a good idea where the majority will side on this one too









How can one person consistantly see something others are not? It's just weird.


----------



## DaveBowman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14775338
> 
> 
> Iron Man - Tier bout - The clash of the P-itans (Phantom vs Patrick)



Just my two cents.........I think they are both right. PQ is good but it's not great. Somewhere in Tier 1. Not in the same class as I Robot, The Fall, No Country, etc. for live action PQ. Maybe not even as good as Transformers. But it's still certainly good enough to not detract from the experience. This happens to be my favorite movie of the last year (yes, that's right, I liked it better than the vastly over-rated and over-hyped Dark Knight) and like many others my opinion may be slightly skewed by "wanting" it to look as good as possible.


----------



## Hammie

Question for clarification...


Are the 1/4, 1/2, and 3/4 supposed to be better than or worse than the titles directly under the Tier#? For example, is a title in the 3/4 section of Tier 1 closer to the titles in Tier 0 or Tier 2?


Thanks!


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briansemerick* /forum/post/14774424
> 
> 
> The Nightmare Before Christmas needs to be put in Tier 0 ASAP. at least better than TMNT if not higher. this is demo material here folks. looks freaking amazing - i could reach out and touch the clay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> motion is amazing as well.



I'm a movie fan not an eye-candy aficionado and I really believe that how well I like the movie affects my view of its PQ. I thought The Nightmare Before Christmas very sophmoric and the PQ nowhere near the level of the other computer generated animation films in Tier 0. So for me, Tier 0 no; lower Tier 1 maybe. Of course YMMV.


----------



## tfoltz

Iron Man should be highest Tier 1 class; wouldn't have beef with lowest Tier 0.


----------



## RBFC

Iron Man: Tier 1


Daredevil: Tier 2


I had hoped that _Iron Man_ would have been even better, but it was a bit soft in some scenes. Pretty good color and black levels, though.

_Daredevil_ just looked flat, with reasonable clarity and definition.


60" Pio Elite Plasma at 10ft. via Denon 3800.


Lee


----------



## 357

Ok so I finshed watching the Happening and it belongs at the top of Tier 1. The movie is half Tier 0 and half Tier 1.


Land of the Dead is soft. I'm thinking Tier 3 as there was almost no 3D pop.


The Thing looks good for a movie of it's age and I'd put it in Tier 2. I must admit I'm biased though because this is my favorite Horror movie hands down.


Iron man is Tier 1. Definately not Tier 2.


I agree with the Rolling Stones @ Tier 0. Saw it a while back and never posted on it.


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/14776648
> 
> 
> I'm a movie fan not an eye-candy aficionado and I really believe that how well I like the movie affects my view of its PQ. I thought The Nightmare Before Christmas very sophmoric and the PQ nowhere near the level of the other computer generated animation films in Tier 0. So for me, Tier 0 no; lower Tier 1 maybe. Of course YMMV.



I'm a movie fan too - but as has been mentioned here many times, this thread is for eye-candy. I'm not a huge fan of Nightmare and I wouldn't own it. But it's not CGI, it's models, and in that vein it looks very very realistic to "models". It's 3-D and sharp as a tack with no grain to speak of, and that defines a demo disc.


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hammie* /forum/post/14776624
> 
> 
> Question for clarification...
> 
> 
> Are the 1/4, 1/2, and 3/4 supposed to be better than or worse than the titles directly under the Tier#? For example, is a title in the 3/4 section of Tier 1 closer to the titles in Tier 0 or Tier 2?
> 
> 
> Thanks!



The entire list is in descending order. The further down you go, the lower the ranking. So to answer your question, that section would fall closer to Tier 2, rather than Tier 0.


----------



## Shane Martin

Nightmare Before Christmas - Tier 0.


Iron Man - Tier 1 (top of).


I think patrick99 is off the deep end again.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hammie* /forum/post/14776624
> 
> 
> Question for clarification...
> 
> 
> Are the 1/4, 1/2, and 3/4 supposed to be better than or worse than the titles directly under the Tier#? For example, is a title in the 3/4 section of Tier 1 closer to the titles in Tier 0 or Tier 2?
> 
> 
> Thanks!



Tier 2


----------



## Martez

I'll throw in another vote for Iron Man being in the upper half of Tier 1. I think it's on par with Sunshine, which didn't pop much but still looked fantastic.


----------



## rsbeck

Watched The Queen tonight. It's mostly clean where intended, but very little pop, a lot of it is intentionally soft, but there are a couple of landscape scenes where blu-ray format shines through. Clearly not demo material. Agree with a bronze rating.


----------



## Coxwell

*Iron Man*


Even if the PQ is sharp and detailed, the blacks are really crushed and gray. I'am very disappointed by the dark scenes for such a recent movie. The day shots are pretty flawless, but it's truly not the same quality with the night/dark shots.

*Tier - 1*

Sound quality is something in the meantime ...


----------



## Hughmc

*IronMan*. I don't see it as a Top Tier 1 title. Allowing for bias by viewers including myself







, since it is a kick ass movie, and the genre for most on AVS who like intense visuals and audio, drop it another 1/4 to Gold Tier 1/2. It certainly isn't a flawless transfer and overall it has excellent PQ, but some of the issues mentioned even though minor place it in Gold Tier 1/2 below Kingdom of Heaven and above National Treasure.



Sony A3000 60 in @ 8ft from PS3 through HDMI.


----------



## lgans316

*Spanish Blu-ray review - Sony Pictures*

http://www.zonadvd.com/modules.php?n...content&id=848


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14783523
> 
> *Spanish Blu-ray review - Sony Pictures*
> 
> http://www.zonadvd.com/modules.php?n...content&id=848




Interesting, going by that review and his overall 4/5 stars for PQ equates to about top Tier 2, lower Tier 1.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Coxwell* /forum/post/14783191
> 
> *Iron Man*
> 
> 
> Even if the PQ is sharp and detailed, the blacks are really crushed and gray. I'am very disappointed by the dark scenes for such a recent movie. The day shots are pretty flawless, but it's truly not the same quality with the night/dark shots.



I agree -- The whole "Jericho" building sequence had dark grey "blacks". I remember seeing the camera in that sequence and saying "i cant see anything around it" Not sure if that was intended or not, but it was a bit distracting.


The PQ was definitely good, but not top notch. I would say this should go somewhere in the lower half of tier 1. PQ wasn't as good as Transformers, but not far off from it either.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/14790782
> 
> 
> I agree -- The whole "Jericho" building sequence had dark grey "blacks". I remember seeing the camera in that sequence and saying "i cant see anything around it" Not sure if that was intended or not, but it was a bit distracting.
> 
> 
> The PQ was definitely good, but not top notch. I would say this should go somewhere in the lower half of tier 1. PQ wasn't as good as Transformers, but not far off from it either.



+1. I agree exactly where it should be. Those screen caps from the spanish version look identical to what I watched last night. This is one I will have no problem viewing a few more times.


----------



## Decado2

I've seen a lot of mixed reviews on Master and Commander and Blood Diamond (two movies I'm very interested in buying if they have a good transfers). They're placed in the Silver tier here, which is pretty good. Any ideas as to what causes the differences in opinion?


----------



## jaffa69

My L.A confidential review.


Like ERASER a year before this is a product of the 90s.Unlike ERASER the picture quality is far more consistant.Blacks are deep and do not fluctuate from black to grey like the blacks in ERASER.Color is very good so is contrast.The picture is almost spotless with hardly any dirt or damage.Grain is also there which is good.I didnt notice any DNR.Maybe not as sharp as most recently shot movies but very good anyway.


Overall a very pleasing picture that should please most fans of this movie like myself










I would vote to put this in tier 2.1/2


----------



## DaveBowman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Decado2* /forum/post/14793485
> 
> 
> I've seen a lot of mixed reviews on Master and Commander and Blood Diamond (two movies I'm very interested in buying if they have a good transfers). They're placed in the Silver tier here, which is pretty good. Any ideas as to what causes the differences in opinion?



If you like Master and Commander (which I agree is a really good film, as are all of Peter Weir films) definitely get it on BD. The PQ is not demo/reference quality but it's certainly better than the DVD, and the audio on BD is in fact reference material. The problems with the PQ are most likely at the source level and the movie is not likely to ever look any better than it does on BD. Haven't see Blood Diamond.


----------



## rsbeck

Just watched 28 Days Later. Fun film, but incredibly soft and blurry for Blu-Ray. In fact, it seemed like a poorer picture than most of the upconverted DVD's I've watched. Coal might be too high a rating.


----------



## H.Cornerstone




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/14797142
> 
> 
> Just watched 28 Days Later. Fun film, but incredibly soft and blurry for Blu-Ray. In fact, it seemed like a poorer picture than most of the upconverted DVD's I've watched. Coal might be too high a rating.



Well, 28 days later was filmed using essentially 480i camera's, so that is why it looks so terrible.


----------



## Deviation

Watched three movies on the big screen tonight and I was going to come in with a detailed analysis of each but it seems that they're already in the right places.


I love Kiss of the Dragon and it's actually my favorite Jet Li movie for some reason (even including all of his pre-Hollywood work). I've previously objected to it's standing in the tier thread but when I saw it on sale I thought I'd put my money where my mouth is and pick it up.

*Kiss of the Dragon* has been moved out of Tier 1 and into Tier 3, and this is where it belongs. The film is very soft and has an extremely narrow field of focus - also, due to the natural lighting, contrast is often weak. Intentional, yes; eye candy, no. There are white speckles that appear throughout - only one or two at a time, every few minutes. Not dirt and scratches, per se, but definitely print anomalies, though you only notice them once they're pointed out to you. At least a third of this movie is obviously edge enhanced, though it's about as minor as edge enhancement can get. I'm not making excuses because EE is EE but if you're watching this on a display smaller than, say, 52", you might not even notice it. I didn't notice the macroblocking while watching it tonight but it's been previously noted. The macroblocking plus the EE and the soft focus definitely place this in Tier 3 - however, I would still recommend the Blu-ray to any fan of the film as it's definitely better than the DVD. That Hi-Def Digest review that claimed the BR was worse than the DVD is total effing BS of the worst kind. The green sheen he talked about is not present at all (colors matched my DVD, no tint to speak of) and detail is above 720p and definitely better than broadcast HD. Even if this were a clean encode with no EE or macroblocking, I'm not sure this film could rise above the top of Tier 3.

*House of 1000 Corpses* is in the lower end of Tier 1 and I think that's where it belongs. Maybe it's just because the DVD is so bad but I was shocked throughout the entire movie with just how amazingly clear and sharp this Blu-ray is. No DNR or EE is present, though Zombie used a very low-grain stock in this movie as I really only noticed it when the film was paused. Detail is outstanding. There are scratches and specks present in the print though the only scene where they really stand out is when the deputy is executed by Otis. Other than that, I can't come up with any complaints about this transfer and encode.

*The Devil's Rejects* is currently in Tier 2 and I can accept that. It's a very, very clean print and I only noticed specks of dirt twice during the movie. Focus, depth of field and detail are all very good and about the only failing this disc has from a visual standpoint is a rather heavy grain structure. It's faithful to the film and it was done intentionally to make it feel even more like a product of the 70's but I understand that this detracts from the eye candy rating. As far as I could tell, there was no DNR or EE present whatsoever. The transfer and encode for The Devil's Rejects is outstanding and this one truly feels like film when you're watching it, especially if you've got a 24p setup.


All of these were views on a 92" screen from 10' away at 1080p24 via a Panasonic PT-AE2000U.


----------



## Hammie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/14780734
> 
> 
> Tier 2





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/14779735
> 
> 
> The entire list is in descending order. The further down you go, the lower the ranking. So to answer your question, that section would fall closer to Tier 2, rather than Tier 0.



Thanks, guys!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14797676
> 
> *Speed Racer*
> 
> 
> Though I haven't watched the BD, I found many pics that certainly deserves a spot in the WAX museum. Intentional or not, this could definitely be distracting to many who are prefer natural looking skin tones and facial details. Aforementioned *excellent facial detailing in close-up shots is mandatory for a BD to be in Tier-0*.



I had mixed emotions when I read your comments above. I agree with you regarding the "wax-look" in some of the facial close-ups and that this _could_ be distracting to some. But I disagree with you that "excellent facial detailing in close-up shots is mandatory for a BD to be in Tier 0." I say this because we do NOT read of this criterion in the standards set forth on page one. What we do read is that there should be sharpness and detail throughout the movie.


My opinion, which I have stated several times in defense of a Tier 0 placement for this movie, is that even though some facial close-ups may appear soft (or as you say, "Wax-like"), those same scenes display amazing sharpness and detail as well. If you look at the pictures you posted, you can't fail to see the detail in the hair of the various actors. Or take the scene with Christine Ricci in the car...do you not agree with me that the leather seats are finely detailed?


So, IMHO, if the whole scene was soft and lacking detail, I would concede the point you are making. But when you see a consistent sharpness and detail in everything but the faces, you simply can't advance the argument for softness or lack of detail. It seems obvious to me that the director chose to use heavy makeup in those scenes, which did indeed result in covering up the facial details, but this didn't take away from the detail of anything else.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14797866
> 
> 
> I had mixed emotions when I read your comments above. I agree with you regarding the "wax-look" in some of the facial close-ups and that this _could_ be distracting to some. But I disagree with you that "excellent facial detailing in close-up shots is mandatory for a BD to be in Tier 0." I say this because we do NOT read of this criterion in the standards set forth on page one. What we do read is that there should be sharpness and detail throughout the movie.
> 
> 
> My opinion, which I have stated several times in defense of a Tier 0 placement for this movie, is that even though some facial close-ups may appear soft (or as you say, "Wax-like"), those same scenes display amazing sharpness and detail as well. If you look at the pictures you posted, you can't fail to see the detail in the hair of the various actors. Or take the scene with Christine Ricci in the car...do you not agree with me that the leather seats are finely detailed?
> 
> 
> So, IMHO, if the whole scene was soft and lacking detail, I would concede the point you are making. But when you see a consistent sharpness and detail in everything but the faces, you simply can't advance the argument for softness or lack of detail. It seems obvious to me that the director chose to use heavy makeup in those scenes, which did indeed result in covering up the facial details, but this didn't take away from the detail of anything else.



Thanks djoberg for posting your opinion.


The "excellent detailing during close-up shots" was an amendment framed by few though none had requested SuprSlow to enforce this in the Tier rules on the front page that governs this thread. I just wanted to notify people on the intentional airbrushed look applied on many characters. Aforementioned I am yet to watch to Speed Racer and I will definitely provide my inputs upon viewing it.


Btw, I attended CEATEC, 2008. The studios totally messed up the Blu-ray presentation and promotion. Will post some caps soon.


----------



## alexg75

I wanted to make a "early" Tier recommendation for *INDIANA JONES and the KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL,*which I watched all the way through this afternoon.

To my eyes,this an exceptional looking transfer and presentation and ranks easily amongst the best I've seen yet for a live-action film.

INDY is shot with a slightly stylized look to not only match the first three films in the series,but to also envoke a period look of the era which happens to be the 50's.

That being said,there is a depth and detail to the entire film that just pops off the screen.Facial detail is excellent and natural as well as flesh-tones.

Blacks are very deep and contrast is right on the money.The black level in particular is what stands out to me,as there is a good chunk of INDY 4 that takes place in the dark.

There isn't any signs of DNR or EE of any kind.......

Yes there is a few shots that have a "glowing" soft quality,but these shots never lose detail.

The colors are never oversaturated or un-natural and are balanced from scene to scene.

This is the first THX certified BR that I have seen and I must say that their involvement seems to have paid off as well as the expert work of the compressionists.

So I recommend a *Tier 0 placement* for INDY 4,right below the beloved I,Robot.

I don't expect it will be placed there as there will be the usual debates and disagreements,but I feel strongly enough to stand by my recommendation......


Panasonic 1080p 42inch Plasma

PS-3 thru HDMI

@8ft


----------



## stumlad

Overall a very good transfer, but my guess is that it was the one used for a DVD a couple of years ago as the extras mention a "possible" sequel. In this case, the sequel already exists, but they talk about it as if it doesnt.


The first thing I'll mention is contrast because I see new movies with grey blacks (of course I never know if it's intentional or not), but Lost Boys, for about 98 percent of the movie has awesome black levels. Dark scense are good and better than DVD of course, but not "great" I noticed some black crush, but hard to tell if it was intentional or not because in some cases it adds to what's happening by not being able to see it all. Outdoor day-time scenery is very good, and surprisingly has a good amount of color and pop to it (outside of house, grassy areas, the area just outside the cave, etc).


For the most part, the entire movie was fairly sharp, and easily shows at least 720p detail, but it just doesn't have that wow factor of some of the newer releases. Face closeups were very good, but not of tier 0/1 level. Colors are definitely flashy, especially the Corey Haim outfits (I don't even think those were in style when the movie was made). Grain was evident, but in some scenes heavier than others, but I would say overall very light grain. To summarize, this is a very good transfer, and if you like the movie, you wont be disappointed assuming you don't expect it to look like the Pirates movies.


I'd say put it in either Tier 2 1/2 or Tier 2 3/4.


----------



## rsbeck

Saw Madagascar tonight. Nice and consistently sharp, decent pop, sophisticated colors. I'd rate it tier 1 near top of 1/4.


----------



## jaffa69




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Little BigFat* /forum/post/14741944
> 
> 
> I just finished *LA Confidential*. The movie has loads of 3D pop and can be best described as a very "clean" print. It just looks smooth. It has some scenes that had me considering Tier 0, some soft scenes that looked like Tier 2 material, and the intro - which is easily Tier 3 material. No DNR from what I could tell, but in looking up very close to the screen (1 foot away), it looked like there was some minor digital noise. Maybe I'm crazy though. Overall, I can't believe how "clean" the movie looks and would suggest either *bottom Tier 1 or top of tier 2*. I am really curious as to what some of you think. By the way - the movie is pure dynamite and it saddens me that it lost the best picture award to Titanic. Great dialogue, gritty violence, superb story and wonderful characters. A wonderful crime noir.
> 
> 
> Panasonic 42" 1080p plasma
> 
> PS3 blu ray player
> 
> 6-7 feet away




I watched it last night and put a small review on this site.I think i recomended tier 2 1/2.

I was very impressed with the PQ.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14797676
> 
> *Speed Racer*
> 
> 
> Though I haven't watched the BD, I found many pics that certainly deserves a spot in the WAX museum. Intentional or not, this could definitely be distracting to many who are prefer natural looking skin tones and facial details. Aforementioned excellent facial detailing in close-up shots is mandatory for a BD to be in Tier-0.
> 
> 
> Resident Evil: Extinction: Excellent transfer with digital airbrushing on Milla's face ONLY.
> 
> The Island: Trademark Michael Bay PQ with digital airbrushing on Scarlet's face ONLY.
> 
> Speed Racer: Digital airbrushing on too many faces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://img262.imageshack.us/my.php?i...9790495jb0.jpg
> http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...20blu-ray1.jpg
> http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...20blu-ray3.jpg
> http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...20blu-ray4.jpg
> http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...20blu-ray8.jpg
> http://img262.imageshack.us/my.php?i...6557857qb7.jpg
> http://www.cif-forums.com/png/SR1.png
> http://www.cif-forums.com/png/SR4.png



Almost looks as if the faces were airbrushed in order to maintain a consistent look. If you saw a bunch of pores and blemishes on the characters' faces, it would create an inconsistency with the rest of the scenery. If you ask me, it looks like it probably should look, given how smooth and crisp everything else is. This does not look like a WB Filtering job as far as I can tell...


Based on these screenshots, it does make it very hard to say whether it's Tier 0 or Tier 1. Here's why -- CGI like Cars and Ratatouille are rated as Tier 0, but in those, the characters faces don't have the same amount of detail as a human. In a sense, wouldn't that mean those CGI movies should be lowered? It's obvious that Speed Racer was going for exactly this look. Smooth and colorful -- like a colorful animation flick.


On the other hand, just because something is smooth and colorful doesn't mean it should be Tier 0. I think the real test would be to find scenes that involve material that shows off 1080p moreso than the lush colors. I dont own the movie, so I can't comment on it outside of what I saw.


----------



## suffolk112000

I just watched Rescue Dawn and Hairspray tonight.

My first impressions are, how in the heck is Rescue Dawn ranked in tier 0 on this thread and how is Hairspray ranked so low half way down in tier2!? Hairspray, while not the greatest movie is pretty good eye candy. This thread is about picture quality and not the movie it self right?

Rescue Dawn is simply not better than titles like Kill Bill vol. 1, Black Hawk Down, and Casino Royal.

Sony VW60, 58x104 Da-Lite HCCV screen with masking @12 feet back in a totally light controlled room.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/14798829
> 
> 
> Almost looks as if the faces were airbrushed in order to maintain a consistent look. If you saw a bunch of pores and blemishes on the characters' faces, it would create an inconsistency with the rest of the scenery. If you ask me, it looks like it probably should look, given how smooth and crisp everything else is. This does not look like a WB Filtering job as far as I can tell...
> 
> 
> Based on these screenshots, it does make it very hard to say whether it's Tier 0 or Tier 1. Here's why -- CGI like Cars and Ratatouille are rated as Tier 0, but in those, the characters faces don't have the same amount of detail as a human. In a sense, wouldn't that mean those CGI movies should be lowered? It's obvious that Speed Racer was going for exactly this look. Smooth and colorful -- like a colorful animation flick.
> 
> 
> On the other hand, just because something is smooth and colorful doesn't mean it should be Tier 0. I think the real test would be to find scenes that involve material that shows off 1080p moreso than the lush colors. I dont own the movie, so I can't comment on it outside of what I saw.



Well, I can say without hesitation that Speed Racer is and should be ranked far ahead of Rescue Dawn.

I can not believe Rescue Dawn is ranked above Speed Racer.

Wow!!


----------



## suffolk112000

And why is Beowulf still ranked in the top tier?

So we are saying that Beowulf is the 11th best Blu Ray released in terms of visual eye candy? Ouch.

Sorry, but I gotta disagree with this...


----------



## b_scott

i wasn't too impressed with Shrek the Third for a CGI movie. definitely not a pixar type transfer. i'd maybe put it mid Tier 1, which is low for a CGI. not a lot of pop in comparison to others, and the colors were a bit muted.


anyone else?


----------



## lgans316

stumlad,


Could you please do _Iron Man HD trailer vs BD comparison pix_ ?







Thanks in advance.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briansemerick* /forum/post/14803037
> 
> 
> i wasn't too impressed with Shrek the Third for a CGI movie. definitely not a pixar type transfer. i'd maybe put it mid Tier 1, which is low for a CGI. not a lot of pop in comparison to others, and the colors were a bit muted.
> 
> 
> anyone else?



I haven't seen the Blu-ray transfer yet, but I do own the HD DVD version and it was quite soft at the beginning. Later (I believe it was about 30 minutes into the film) the colors became vibrant and the PQ as a whole was very good.


----------



## b_scott

i mean don't get me wrong, it looked good. just not Tier 0 good which is what we've come to expect with CGI transfers.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/14802599
> 
> 
> And why is Beowulf still ranked in the top tier?
> 
> So we are saying that Beowulf is the 11th best Blu Ray released in terms of visual eye candy? Ouch.
> 
> Sorry, but I gotta disagree with this...



There are a few titles in the top Tier that shouldn't be and some that aren't and should be, however I look at Tier 0 and the top of Tier 1 as a wash IMO. My old crutch using Apocalypto is my case in point. I looked at that while I had Speed racer and have to laugh. No way is Speed racer better PQ then Apocalypto, but again look at how close they are in the tiers, so in my mind the closeness and one being better than another seems to be more opinion than facts proven. Also, Curse of the Black Pearl smokes Speed Racer significantly IMO. What I also believe what is happening is no one goes back and looks at a title like Apocalypto again when watching a newer thread suggestion title, so they are going by memory, hence it gets bumped down. THis has happened to quite a few Tier 0 and upper Tier titles.


----------



## b_scott

Speed Racer is eye candy for sure. in terms of skin texture, i think it leaves something to be desired. it's definitely demo material, but maybe more towards the bottom of Tier 0.


----------



## sonyfangirl

I think Prison Break is an AWESOME Blu-Ray. Combined with Tier 0 vide0 and Master Audio, it is the reference standard for all other TV Series Blu-Rays. Fox is incredible.


Does anyone have any thoughts on Prison Break Season 3 Tier Quality? I haven't seen this one yet.


Thanks!


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sonyfangirl* /forum/post/14806171
> 
> 
> I think Prison Break is an AWESOME Blu-Ray. Combined with Tier 0 vide0 and Master Audio, it is the reference standard for all other TV Series Blu-Rays. Fox is incredible.



Shouldn't you call yourself Foxfangirl?







I agree that Prison Break looks incredible on Blu-ray.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sonyfangirl* /forum/post/14806171
> 
> 
> I think Prison Break is an AWESOME Blu-Ray. Combined with Tier 0 vide and Master Audio, it is the reference standard for all other TV Series Blu-Rays.
> 
> 
> Does anyone have any thoughts on Prison Break Season 3 Tier Quality? I haven't seen this one yet.
> 
> 
> Thanks!



Just out of curriosity... what is your display device?

We really need to list what our display device is and our viewing distance to the display.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/10733385
> 
> 
> *When posting your thoughts about Tier placement please be sure to include the following or your post has no chance of impacting the tier:*
> 
> *Screen Resolution (EX: 1920X1080X24p or 1920X1080X60p)*
> *Screen Size (EX: 100" Projection, 50" Plasma)*
> *Distance from Screen*


----------



## sonyfangirl

HAHA....that is cute. I didn't think about that.

FoxFanGirl, FoxyFanGirl....either of those work.


Sony makes some great Blu-Rays too. Gotta share the love.

It is the ones who don't have HD audio that drive me crazy. So please don't call me ParamountFanGirl.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/14806376
> 
> 
> Shouldn't you call yourself Foxfangirl?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Moody Blues: lovely to see you (Live)*


tier recommendation: 1st quarter of *Tier One*


Image released this 2005 concert with a running time of 105 minutes on Blu-ray in July of 2008. The image is presented in 1080i, which is typical of concerts shot with HD cameras. The video is encoded in AVC on a BD-50. The encode's bitrate mostly varies between 18 to 26 Mbps, with it never peaking over 31 Mbps. I would estimate the average video bitrate around 21 or 22 Mbps. The compression work appears excellent with no apparent compression problems. If you pause the screen there might be the faintest hint of chroma noise in a few of the background shots but this is virtually unnoticeable at anything more than one screen-width viewing distance.


The image is typical of the results of shooting a brightly lit concert with HD cameras on stationary subjects. Contrast is as good as it gets on Blu-ray and any problems with the fleshtones is the result of the colored light show hitting the band's faces. The concert is consistently sharp throughout with very good detail, particularly when the director switches to the upfront cameras for close-ups. You can make out the sweat coming off the face of Justin Hayward very easily. Black levels are excellent with black appearing deep and inky when called for. There is no grain or video noise that ever appears and there is no evidence of edge enhancement. There is the slight appearance of jaggies in a couple of shots but I'm not sure if that is due to the PS3's documented poor handling of native 1080i material or not.


I wouldn't call the picture perfection though. Colors are fine but not as saturated and dynamic as I've seen in some tier zero titles. At times there is a slight haze due to the heavy use of smoke machines around the band playing. It might make for a cool appearance in person but on screen the smoke distracts from the crystal clarity of the image. The image didn't have the spectacular dimensionality seen on better Bds either. I also thought the visible detail was only good in the medium distance shots where I have seen better from other BDs.


Image Entertainment has done an excellent job on this disc and I strongly recommend it for the first quarter of tier one. If we were still going by the old system I would place it in the middle of the quarter segment, though I could see how others might want to place this title in tier zero.


----------



## sonyfangirl

I apologize suffolk.


My stats:

Sony 60A3000 (1080p/24) - main

Samsung 40A550 LCD 1080p - bedroom

Samsung 32A450 LCD 720p - bedroom


Playstation 3

Denon AVR 3808CI


I watch my Blu-Rays about 10-12 feet away from my Sony 60A3000.


Heck, Prison Break also looks great on my Blu-Ray Dell Laptop which is 1920x1200.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/14806387
> 
> 
> Just out of curriosity... what is your display device?
> 
> We really need to list what our display device is and our viewing distance to the display.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sonyfangirl* /forum/post/14806488
> 
> 
> I apologize suffolk.
> 
> 
> My stats:
> 
> Sony 60A3000 (1080p/24) - main
> 
> Samsung 40A550 LCD 1080p - bedroom
> 
> Samsung 32A450 LCD 720p - bedroom
> 
> 
> Playstation 3
> 
> Denon AVR 3808CI
> 
> 
> I watch my Blu-Rays about 10-12 feet away from my Sony 60A3000.
> 
> 
> Heck, Prison Break also looks great on my Blu-Ray Dell Laptop which is 1920x1200.



Just curious... I haven't seen Prison Break yet. Might be interesting to Netflix a few episodes to check it out.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sonyfangirl* /forum/post/14806171
> 
> 
> I think Prison Break is an AWESOME Blu-Ray. Combined with Tier 0 vide0 and Master Audio, it is the reference standard for all other TV Series Blu-Rays. Fox is incredible.
> 
> 
> Does anyone have any thoughts on Prison Break Season 3 Tier Quality? I haven't seen this one yet.
> 
> 
> Thanks!



I have disc 1 coming in the mail, so I'll post my thoughts on Season 3 soon.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Overall a very nice looking title. Some issues in the opening scene in the streets with some washed out blacks and noise and a soft shot when Portman goes outside in the rain...but other than that I don't have much to complain about.


Skintones were fine, detail on closeups were crisp, and the night scenes were stellar with no noise or loss of detail. Cityscape shots looked great as well.


I would put it a little bit higher in Tier 2, maybe somewhere in the middle of the top portion. (Don't think this has been alphatized yet.)


Panasonic 1080p plasma @ about 10 feet.


----------



## djoberg

Okay, I just had a rare 4+ hours to kill so I watched *Kill Bill, Volumes 1 & 2*. They are no doubt Demo Material and IMO deserve a *Tier 0* placement. (But I'm NOT going to start a debate for moving Vol. 2 up from Tier 1.)


Both volumes give us vibrant colors (and some amazing Black and White scenes as well), inky blacks, bright whites, amazing facial detail, and enough 3D pop to satisfy the most demanding viewers. Some of the outdoor scenes in Volume 2 were the best I have ever seen, hands down!


I would be remiss if I didn't mention the excellent audio tracks. They had plenty of action for my surrounds (even in Vol. 2 which had much more dialogue than Vol. 1) and the LFE material gave my Velodyne sub a real workout. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that out of all the PCM uncompressed tracks I've heard, these two were the best.


My copy of The Fall arrived the other day so I'll be viewing that tomorrow. I trust I'm in for another "eye candy treat." We are really starting to get spoiled, aren't we?









*Samsung 50" 1080p DLP

Panasonic BD30

Viewed from 8'*


----------



## lgans316

*Transporter (Japan Import) Video: AVC | Audio: Dolby TrueHD | AR: 2.35:1 | Sony / Asmik Ace*


Image looked good but nothing great. Contrast and black levels were very good. The entire movie has an yellow-green tint. Close-up shots exhibited good amount of detail but also projects slight EE and DNR smearing. Some outdoor shots exhibited decent HD pop. The biggest problem with the video is the quirky and aged source materials from which it was transferred.


Tier recommendation: *Top of Tier-3*
*Transporter 2 (Japan Import) Video: AVC | Audio: Dolby TrueHD | AR: 2.35:1 | Sony / Asmik Ace*


2 words. Demo material. Despite the contrast running a little too hot, the image looked absolutely phenomenal. Consistently exhibited three dimensional look and HD pop with terrific detailing on all type of shots especially the tight close-ups.


Tier recommendation: *Tier-0 above Shoot 'Em Up*

*Transporter Twin Pack (Japan Import - Sony/Asmik Ace - Region Free)*

http://img151.imageshack.us/my.php?i...ackjpfrys3.jpg 
http://img151.imageshack.us/my.php?i...ackjpbaol5.jpg 

http://img118.imageshack.us/my.php?i...r1audiotq0.jpg 
http://img118.imageshack.us/my.php?i...btitlesea2.jpg 
http://img118.imageshack.us/my.php?i...haptersan1.jpg 
http://img118.imageshack.us/my.php?i...1extrasfm3.jpg 
http://img118.imageshack.us/my.php?i...r1scenesd2.jpg 

http://img512.imageshack.us/my.php?i...r2audiowo4.jpg 
http://img512.imageshack.us/my.php?i...btitlesmr2.jpg 
http://img184.imageshack.us/my.php?i...haptershn0.jpg 
http://img184.imageshack.us/my.php?i...2extrasjt5.jpg 
http://img184.imageshack.us/my.php?i...2scene1rr8.jpg 

*Happy Feet (Import) Video: VC-1 | Audio: LPCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner*


I am quite surprised to see Happy Feet placed in Tier-0 despite looking breathtaking. Every kind of shot from any angle exhibit terrific details and three dimensionality. Vivid colors and textures literally jump off the screen. While Pixar are regarded as the trend setters for animation, Animal Logic should be commended for their glorious animation efforts on this one especially the blending of live action humans in the last scenes.


The only quibble with the video is the presence of banding in couple of underwater sequences which is reported to be related to the source material.


Tier recommendation: *Tier-0 below Meet the Robinsons*

*Happy Feet (U.K Import - Warner - Region Free)*

http://img301.imageshack.us/my.php?i...bdfrontes1.jpg 
http://img301.imageshack.us/my.php?i...kbdbackur7.jpg 
http://img301.imageshack.us/my.php?i...bdsetupnf2.jpg 
http://img223.imageshack.us/my.php?i...haptersii5.jpg 
http://img223.imageshack.us/my.php?i...dextrasbs4.jpg 
http://img223.imageshack.us/my.php?i...dscene1ui4.jpg 
http://img223.imageshack.us/my.php?i...dscene2wv0.jpg - *LPCM 4.6 Mbps*


----------



## thegalaxy6

With Regards to *SPEED RACER*,


I own a Sharp Aquos LC-32DA5U, HDMI monster cable, and just bought an Insignia NS-BRDVD (bottom of the line, I know).


I'm by no means a Video expert, and I'm somewhat color-blind (so take my opinions with a grain of salt). HOWEVER; I've been somewhat underwhelmed by and large by the movies I've seen in HD. I own *IRON MAN* (don't get me wrong, it was beautiful) and have rented *MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III* (again, what impressed me most with that title was the blacks, but I digress).


Seeing *SPEED RACER* on Blu-Ray, I did notice that as cartoony and colorful as the film is (it reminded me of Warren Betty's *DICK TRACY*, but more intense), none of the colors seemed to bleed or lose clarity. WHAT DID disappoint (and I'm here to find out if this is my setup, or on the disc) is at runtime _1:46:13_ as red spray paint is being sprayed across the screen, there's a lot of pixelation.


Is it just me, or does the Blu-Ray do that, and if so, should it be Tier 0?


----------



## mrTAPOUT

I think apocalypto should def be tier 0. I own most of the tier 0 movies listed here, and I honestly think it looks as good if not better then some of the titles listed. The movie is very sharp, clean, vivid, deep, and impressive. Here are some shots I posted of it in another thread. Looks better in person, but you get the idea.


----------



## Little BigFat

If I recall correctly, most posters on this forum agree that at peak moments, Apocalypto is outstanding, demo, Tier 0 material. However, the beginning of the film takes a bit of warming up and has some image problems. Due to the inconsistency, it brings the film below Tier 0, because Tier 0 constitutes perfection - or at least as close as possible.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Welcome to the PQ thread TAPOUT


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14807455
> 
> 
> Okay, I just had a rare 4+ hours to kill so I watched *Kill Bill, Volumes 1 & 2*. They are no doubt Demo Material and IMO deserve a *Tier 0* placement. (But I'm NOT going to start a debate for moving Vol. 2 up from Tier 1.)
> 
> 
> Both volumes give us vibrant colors (and some amazing Black and White scenes as well), inky blacks, bright whites, amazing facial detail, and enough 3D pop to satisfy the most demanding viewers. Some of the outdoor scenes in Volume 2 were the best I have ever seen, hands down!
> 
> 
> I would be remiss if I didn't mention the excellent audio tracks. They had plenty of action for my surrounds (even in Vol. 2 which had much more dialogue than Vol. 1) and the LFE material gave my Velodyne sub a real workout. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that out of all the PCM uncompressed tracks I've heard, these two were the best.
> 
> 
> My copy of The Fall arrived the other day so I'll be viewing that tomorrow. I trust I'm in for another "eye candy treat." We are really starting to get spoiled, aren't we?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Samsung 1080p DLP
> 
> Panasonic BD30
> 
> Viewed from 8'*



That is great to hear, as I just got my new lossless audio setup







. I'm just waiting on the 12 guage speaker wire from Monoprice.com to come!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/14808374
> 
> 
> That is great to hear, as I just got my new lossless audio setup
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . I'm just waiting on the 12 guage speaker wire from Monoprice.com to come!



Congratulations on your new audio setup! I just bought the Onkyo 705 receiver last year (to go with my 7.1 channel speaker system) and I absolutely love it. You are in for a real audio treat with Kill Bill...even the center channel will thrill you with some excellent dialogue.


----------



## djoberg

What can I say about *The Fall*? First of all, everyone got it right this time, for it would be a crime to place it anywhere but *Tier 0*. As many have said, it doesn't have the 3D pop as some Tier 0 titles do, but it more than makes up for that with the exquisite cinematography, the vibrant colors, the natural skin tones, the excellent contrast, etc., etc. One word that comes to mind: LUSH!


The only negatives I could cite would be a jittery camera in a couple of scenes and some isolated soft spots (in background scenes).


The movie itself was very good, though perhaps a bit slow. I like the art of storytelling and The Fall excelled at this.


----------



## ballen420




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14811797
> 
> 
> What can I say about *The Fall*? First of all, everyone got it right this time, for it would be a crime to place it anywhere but *Tier 0*. As many have said, it doesn't have the 3D pop as some Tier 0 titles do, but it more than makes up for that with the exquisite cinematography, the vibrant colors, the natural skin tones, the excellent contrast, etc., etc. One word that comes to mind: LUSH!
> 
> 
> The only negatives I could cite would be a jittery camera in a couple of scenes and some isolated soft spots (in background scenes).
> 
> 
> The movie itself was very good, though perhaps a bit slow. I like the art of storytelling and The Fall excelled at this.



+1


I agree with the above, but in terms of the movie, I thought it was painfully slow at times. I think you need to be in a certain mood to watch it, and I was only in a 'it's been sitting on my coffee table for 2 weeks' mood.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14811797
> 
> 
> What can I say about *The Fall*? First of all, everyone got it right this time, for it would be a crime to place it anywhere but *Tier 0*. As many have said, it doesn't have the 3D pop as some Tier 0 titles do, but it more than makes up for that with the exquisite cinematography, the vibrant colors, the natural skin tones, the excellent contrast, etc., etc. One word that comes to mind: LUSH!
> 
> 
> The only negatives I could cite would be a jittery camera in a couple of scenes and some isolated soft spots (in background scenes).
> 
> 
> The movie itself was very good, though perhaps a bit slow. I like the art of storytelling and The Fall excelled at this.



I tried to watch The Fall after watching Deception.


To my eyes, Deception is the kind of look that belongs in Tier 0: the faces are razor sharp. In comparision, the relatively small amount of The Fall that I could bear to watch looked rather soft to me.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14812351
> 
> 
> I tried to watch The Fall after watching Deception.
> 
> 
> To my eyes, Deception is the kind of look that belongs in Tier 0: the faces are razor sharp. In comparision, the relatively small amount of The Fall that I could bear to watch looked rather soft to me.



How much of The Fall did you actually watch? I ask this because the indoor hospital scenes at the beginning were somewhat dark (not soft though, IMO). But once the lead man started telling the young girl his story, there were some very sharp outdoor scenes from all over the globe. Vivid colors, sharp details, and excellent contrast marked those scenes.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

I definitely need to check out The Fall just to see what the rave is about.


----------



## nick2010

I watched Iron Man yesterday, and I would rate its picture quality as being similar to Casino Royale, which my local Blockbuster finally replaced their copy of. I would put it in tier 1. (and I agree with the current position of Casino Royale)


Sharp LC-46D62U (46", 1080p)

6-7 feet away from the screen

Panasonic DMP-BD10, firmware v. 2.5


----------



## Columbo345

Can someone give me a quick definition lesson: what does it mean when someone says the movie had "crushed blacks?" I know it doesnt sound like a good thing, but what are they describing?


----------



## tfoltz

The brightness is so low that detail is lost and replaced with black.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Columbo345* /forum/post/14815083
> 
> 
> Can someone give me a quick definition lesson: what does it mean when someone says the movie had "crushed blacks?" I know it doesnt sound like a good thing, but what are they describing?


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Columbo345* /forum/post/14815083
> 
> 
> Can someone give me a quick definition lesson: what does it mean when someone says the movie had "crushed blacks?" I know it doesnt sound like a good thing, but what are they describing?


 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/archi.../t-794633.html


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14813022
> 
> 
> How much of The Fall did you actually watch? I ask this because the indoor hospital scenes at the beginning were somewhat dark (not soft though, IMO). But once the lead man started telling the young girl his story, there were some very sharp outdoor scenes from all over the globe. Vivid colors, sharp details, and excellent contrast marked those scenes.



I didn't make it out of the hospital.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14815405
> 
> 
> I didn't make it out of the hospital.



We all know that hospitals are gloomy, so you really should have checked out.










Seriously, I can't for the life of me understand how you can read glowing reviews by fellow-members and then only watch the first 10-15 minutes of a movie. How can you even justify renting (or purchasing) a Blu-ray by this practice? You used to at least jump ahead to other scenes to check out the PQ and I would suggest doing the same for this title. I believe you will be pleasantly surprised by the exotic cinematography from places all over the world, scenes that are rich with color and detail. I believe this will change your opinion of The Fall....and then again, maybe not.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14815897
> 
> 
> We all know that hospitals are gloomy, so you really should have checked out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, I can't for the life of me understand how you can read glowing reviews by fellow-members and then only watch the first 10-15 minutes of a movie. How can you even justify renting (or purchasing) a Blu-ray by this practice? You used to at least jump ahead to other scenes to check out the PQ and I would suggest doing the same for this title. I believe you will be pleasantly surprised by the exotic cinematography from places all over the world, scenes that are rich with color and detail. I believe this will change your opinion of The Fall....and then again, maybe not.



I will probably give it another try. The contrast with Deception was just so striking and so great that I didn't have the patience to go any further with it at the time.


----------



## SuprSlow

Alphabetizing is done. Let me know if you find any mistakes.


----------



## AustinSTI




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/14816984
> 
> 
> Alphabetizing is done. Let me know if you find any mistakes.



Nice work


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/14816984
> 
> 
> Alphabetizing is done. Let me know if you find any mistakes.



Motion to give Slow an AVS Club Membership.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/14816984
> 
> 
> Alphabetizing is done. Let me know if you find any mistakes.



Excellent work SuprSlow. I think if there are going to be no new additions to the unranked list that it can be dumped completely. That list is woefully out of date. Does anyone want to keep it?


----------



## tfoltz

My only recommendation would be to put "The" and "A" etc. after the primary title:


Example:

The Polar Express

The Prestige

The Recruit


Becomes:

Polar Express, The

Prestige, The

Recruit, The


I only mention this because it helps my small brain find titles/look through the rankings faster.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/14820333
> 
> 
> My only recommendation would be to put "The" and "A" etc. after the primary title:
> 
> 
> Example:
> 
> The Polar Express
> 
> The Prestige
> 
> The Recruit
> 
> 
> Becomes:
> 
> Polar Express, The
> 
> Prestige, The
> 
> Recruit, The
> 
> 
> I only mention this because it helps my smell brain find titles/look through the rankings faster.



I second that recommendation and in no way does that take away or complain about the excellent work Suprslow has done.










I looked at the whole list and agree from a visual standpoint it would make it easier on the eyes and brain especially as more "The" or "A" titles get added.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14775258
> 
> 
> I am afraid that I have to disagree. I thought the PQ was fairly disappointing, especially for such a high profile release. The opening shot of a convoy of trucks at a distance driving through a valley looked very nice, but it was very much downhill from there, in terms of the PQ. More like high Tier 2 to my eyes.



I can hardly believe I'm about to type the following words, but here goes:


I AGREE WITH PATRICK REGARDING *IRON MAN*!










The first half of this film was, to my eyes, not much better than a good upconverted DVD. It had excessive grain (especially in the desert and night scenes) and was quite soft. I also noticed some severe distortion in Robert Downey's face (it became very bright and it looked like it was pixelating) when he was at the benefit (I believe it was at the 1 hour 12 minute point). A little over half way through the PQ got much sharper and detailed, but even then it wasn't close to Tier 0 material, IMHO. So, at best I would suggest, as patrick did, a *high Tier 2* placement. (*or*, to be generous, a *bottom of Tier 1* placement).


Man, it was hard agreeing with patrick, but I do believe he's got this one right.










PS Let me add that if Phantom's opinion is closer to the truth (he opted for low Tier 0 or high Tier 1), then I've just got to buy myself a Kuro!


----------



## Hughmc

djoberg, I reitterate my opinion on Iron Man and I agree it should be lower than most have suggested. I said Tier 1/2. I watched it for the 4th







time last night, so I have a good handle on what it looks like.


----------



## spann-man

This is my first post to this thead that I have followed for a while. I have agreed with most ratings but I do not think Ironman should be rated as high as many have suggested. Low Teir 1 at very best in my opinion. It was great in many parts but soft in too many scenes and lacking detail. It did not help that I watched I Robot the night before which I have to say is best image quality I have seen on my setup (have not viewed any that are rated above it).


Setup is PS3 at 1080P24 to JVC RS1. 100 inch diag. at 13 ft.


----------



## Bokchoy

Yeah, I wasn't overly impressed by Iron Man.

I'd say low Tier 1.


I still think TekkonKinkreet does not deserve Tier 0. Low T1 or High T2 at most.


----------



## Fanaticalism

I am currently watching "Don't Mess with the Zohan", and film seems to have some sort of gray overcast to it. We saw it at the theaters and it most definitely did not have this overcast to it.


It is very annoying.


Pioneer Pro-151 calibrated by umr.


----------



## lgans316

Just received Iron Man, L.A Confidential, Knocked Up and Forbidden Kingdom. Will post my first impressions soon and the eye candy reviews later.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fanaticalism* /forum/post/14821879
> 
> 
> I am currently watching "Don't Mess with the Zohan", and film seems to have some sort of gray overcast to it. We saw it at the theaters and it most definitely did not have this overcast to it.
> 
> 
> It is very annoying.
> 
> 
> Pioneer Pro-151 calibrated by umr.



Welcome Fanatic! I am glad you guys are showing up in here.


----------



## Hughmc

The Happening:


This movie overall has a lot of great demo reference PQ shots, more often than not, yet the rest of the movie is all over the place. There are shots that range from demo material as I said and a few that are like DVD quality.


At 30:10 as they drive up to a brick house, the brick itself blurs into one random pattern, maybe due to a difficulty to resolve the pattern on the fly and then the camera focus when stopped shows the bricks in detail as they should look.


At 54:10 there is a quick shot of a distance that is poor dvd like PQ and then again at 54:21-29 that entire 8 seconds has the same extremely poor PQ.


There are other examples, but the above were the few I noted for reference.


Overall color and contrast were good with the colors being realistic and accurate and not over saturated or too muted. Film grain is readily apparent, yet not to the point of being distracting.


There were times the PQ was so good I wanted to say Tier 0, like when looking at the fine hairs on Zooey Deschanel's face, but there is no way it is even Tier 1 as there are too many detractions that make this more a bottom Tier 2 upper Tier 3 film.


Sony 60in A3000 @8ft from PS3 thru HDMI.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14821257
> 
> 
> I can hardly believe I'm about to type the following words, but here goes:
> 
> 
> I AGREE WITH PATRICK REGARDING *IRON MAN*!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first half of this film was, to my eyes, not much better than a good upconverted DVD. It had excessive grain (especially in the desert and night scenes) and was quite soft. I also noticed some severe distortion in Robert Downey's face (it became very bright and it looked like it was pixelating) when he was at the benefit (I believe it was at the 1 hour 12 minute point). A little over half way through the PQ got much sharper and detailed, but even then it wasn't close to Tier 0 material, IMHO. So, at best I would suggest, as patrick did, a *high Tier 2* placement. (*or*, to be generous, a *bottom of Tier 1* placement).
> 
> 
> Man, it was hard agreeing with patrick, but I do believe he's got this one right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PS Let me add that if Phantom's opinion is closer to the truth (he opted for low Tier 0 or high Tier 1), then I've just got to buy myself a Kuro!



Now, why was that so hard?










I watched the first 35 minutes of The Fall last night, which is further than I had watched the first time.


My overall impression so far is still that it is *somewhat* soft for the most part. Just because scenes are brightly lit and full of color does not mean that they are sharp.


Surely you will agree that the opening black and white sequence is notably soft?


I will try to watch more of this and update my report as I do.


----------



## lgans316

+1 to djoberg and patrick on their takes on *Iron Man*. Can't blame the encode but clearly doesn't belong in Tier-1.


Recommendation: *Top Tier-2*

*Forbidden Kingdom*: Agree with current placement. Most parts of the image quality looks fantastic and offers great HD pop though fake CGI combined with softness and flatness and crushed blacks pop in once in a while.


stumlad,


Could you please check if the opening credits on Forbidden Kingdom suffers from aliasing ?










Both Iron Man and Forbidden Kingdom exhibit inconsistencies in black levels and shadow detailing.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/14820041
> 
> 
> Motion to give Slow an AVS Club Membership.



No one is with me??


----------



## thegalaxy6

With Regards to SPEED RACER,


I own a Sharp Aquos LC-32DA5U, HDMI monster cable, and just bought an Insignia NS-BRDVD (bottom of the line, I know).


I'm by no means a Video expert, and I'm somewhat color-blind (so take my opinions with a grain of salt). HOWEVER; I've been somewhat underwhelmed by and large by the movies I've seen in HD. I own IRON MAN (don't get me wrong, it was beautiful) and have rented MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III (again, what impressed me most with that title was the blacks, but I digress).


Seeing SPEED RACER on Blu-Ray, I did notice that as cartoony and colorful as the film is (it reminded me of Warren Betty's DICK TRACY, but more intense), none of the colors seemed to bleed or lose clarity. WHAT DID disappoint (and I'm here to find out if this is my setup, or on the disc) is at runtime 1:46:13 as red spray paint is being sprayed across the screen, there's a lot of pixelation.


Is it just me, or does the Blu-Ray do that, and if so, should it be Tier 0?


----------



## lgans316

thegalaxy6,


No one needs to an expert to present an overall assessment of video quality. They can simply rely upon what they learn from forums and their own home theater experience. I am sure someone who owns Speed Racer would be able to check for the reported pixelation artifact. Members like Cinema Squid, msgohan, stumlad, Xylon, House, eric.exe etc have HTPC with appropriate tools to capture static images. For strong evidence, I request you to PM them or post the above comments in the Speed Racer discussion thread. I am sure many members with high tech gears would start advising you to change your equipment but I believe a basic video artifact like Pixelation would definitely be noticeable on any type of display within a short viewing distance.


----------



## tovarish




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bokchoy* /forum/post/14821609
> 
> 
> Yeah, I wasn't overly impressed by Iron Man.
> 
> I'd say low Tier 1.



I thought I was the only one. Movie is great, but the PQ didn't blow me away.

5010, PS3


----------



## RaiderRodney




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tovarish* /forum/post/14823382
> 
> 
> I thought I was the only one. Movie is great, but the PQ didn't blow me away.
> 
> 5010, PS3



Nope..totally agree with you guys. Looked fine...but definitely not a tier 0 or 1 title.


42pz77u

ps3


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/14820041
> 
> 
> Motion to give Slow an AVS Club Membership.



I don't know that this is ours to give, but I do believe he needs to be rewarded in some way for all the excellent work he is doing. Let me add my sincere thanks to SuprSlow for A JOB WELL DONE!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14822547
> 
> 
> Surely you will agree that the opening black and white sequence is notably soft?



I thought it was a lighting issue and not one of softness. The Director purposely gave the hospital scenes a very subdued look and he used lighting to accomplish this. It was NOT soft...and it was sharp with plenty of detail.


Or are you talking about the the railroad bridge scene?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14823650
> 
> 
> I thought it was a lighting issue and not one of softness. The Director purposely gave the hospital scenes a very subdued look and he used lighting to accomplish this. It was NOT soft...and it was sharp with plenty of detail.
> 
> 
> Or are you talking about the the railroad bridge scene?



I was talking about the railroad bridge scene; the hospital scenes weren't black and white. My original comparison was between The Fall and Deception, which to my eyes is much sharper than what I have seen so far of The Fall. My main point about The Fall is that to me it is not Tier 0.


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *thegalaxy6* /forum/post/14822733
> 
> 
> WHAT DID disappoint (and I'm here to find out if this is my setup, or on the disc) is at runtime 1:46:13 as red spray paint is being sprayed across the screen, there's a lot of pixelation.



There is definitely some pixelation in that short series of frames with the red "paint" in blocky clumps of a few tones: here's a direct frame capture where it's probably most noticeable in what should presumably be a solid red frame.


I'm not sure if this kind of minor (IMHO) thing should be enough to knock the title down if this is the only blatant instance, but it does point to possible improvement if a new "perfectionist" encode was ever made.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/14823891
> 
> 
> There is definitely some pixelation in that short series of frames with the red "paint" in blocky clumps of a few tones: here's a direct frame capture where it's probably most noticeable in what should presumably be a solid red frame.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if this kind of minor (IMHO) thing should be enough to knock the title down if this is the only blatant instance, but it does point to possible improvement if a new "perfectionist" encode was ever made.



What should knock Speed Racer down is the too frequent softness in actors' faces and other non-CGI material. While I can agree that some of the softness in faces may have been intentional filtering, the fact that it is intentional should be irrelevant in this thread. In addition, I think much of the softness was not in the source material.


----------



## MelloFellow13

If we're talking about reorganizing the Tier structure to make a little more sense, why not go with a grade system? Reference BDs can be Grade "S" or something and maintain their rankings (maybe even number them from S1 to S35), then as the tiers move down we move to a traditional letter grade:


Tier 1 (Gold) = A

Tier 2 (Silver) = B

Tier 3 (Bronze) = C

Tier 4 (Copper) = D

Tier 5 (Coal) = F


Then we can use + and - to distinguish better between titles in the same group. For example, in the case of Tier 1, the top 1/4 can be A+, the bottom 1/4 can be A-, and everything in between is just an A.


I just feel like now that we have done away with a strict ranking from top to bottom, it's time to move to a more sensible grade system which is easier to understand and discuss. Statements like "I think Iron man should be bottom tier 1, or top tier 2" would now be "I think Iron Man is between A- and B+."


Just a thought.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14823744
> 
> 
> I was talking about the railroad bridge scene; the hospital scenes weren't black and white.



The railroad bridge scene was indeed soft, but it was done that way purposely, much like the scene in Kill Bill 2 where Uma Thurman is receiving her Kung Fu training. That scene was very gritty and soft, yet we did not lower the ranking because of it. (In fact, I believe you were suggesting Tier 0 for Kill Bill 2.)


----------



## tfoltz

I think Forbidden Kingdom should be lowered in Tier 1.


Already gave my opinion on Iron Man. Many think top Tier 1; everyone from yesterday and on says bottom Tier 1 or Tier 2, so sounds like it should be mid Tier 1.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14824413
> 
> 
> The railroad bridge scene was indeed soft, but it was done that way purposely, much like the scene in Kill Bill 2 where Uma Thurman is receiving her Kung Fu training. That scene was very gritty and soft, yet we did not lower the ranking because of it. (In fact, I believe you were suggesting Tier 0 for Kill Bill 2.)



It's been a few weeks I believe since I watched KB2, and I certainly agree that sequence had a very stylized look, but my recollection is that it looked very, very different from the railroad bridge sequence in TF, and much more satisfying visually. Rather than soft, my recollection is that it was extremely grainy.


In any event, I agree that a PQ evaluation of TF should not give a great deal of weight to the relatively brief opening sequence.


----------



## 357




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14822419
> 
> 
> The Happening:
> 
> 
> bottom Tier 2 upper Tier 3.



Your assestment of bottom Tier 2 or upper Tier 3 is outrageous. This film looks a hole lot better than anything in Tier 2.


Tier 0 some scenes Tier 1 in others make it Tier 1 IMO.


----------



## ballen420




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *357* /forum/post/14825094
> 
> 
> Your assestment of bottom Tier 2 or upper Tier 3 is outrageous. This film looks a hole lot better than anything in Tier 2.
> 
> 
> Tier 0 some scenes Tier 1 in others make it Tier 1 IMO.



I agree that this by no means should be in tier 3. There are plenty of inconsistencies throughout the movie, none which justify it to be a tier 3 title though. With plenty of tier 0/1 scenes to offset those that are very soft, I think it's at least worthy of a high tier 2, if not a low tier 1 placement.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *357* /forum/post/14825094
> 
> 
> Your assestment of bottom Tier 2 or upper Tier 3 is outrageous. This film looks a hole lot better than anything in Tier 2.
> 
> 
> Tier 0 some scenes Tier 1 in others make it Tier 1 IMO.




Going by the standards we use from the first page of this thread and the definitive proof I referenced showing 8 full seconds of dvd like quality a well as there being other anomalies all throughout the film does not allow this title to be a tier 1 film. What is outrageous is even suggesting Tier 1 if one has actually seen the points I referenced, particularly the 8 second dvd like part.


From the first page:
_

Tier 2 - Silver (Good)


--- *The image maintains a sharp film-like quality throughout* which looks real, with less 3-D effect than Tier 1 and video artifacts are far and few in between.


Tier 3 - Bronze (Average)


--- Although a step up from large standard definition DVD, the transfer has added only some detail and depth with little video artifacts; doesn't POP as much, but still film-like quality._



Although The Happening may not qualify for Tier 3, the part I referenced at 54:21-29 of dvd like quality automatically eliminates Tier 1 placement and more closely resembles what Tier 2 qualifies for PQ. The Happening _*does not maintain sharp film-like quality throughout*.
_

The bottom of Tier 2 maybe more accurate, but even then maybe more than forgiving.


Like I said in my OP about The Happening, it has some amazing PQ that is some of the finest clarity on BD and could be shown as demo, but the PQ overall is not even close to Tier 0 and is disqualified for Tier 1.


----------



## robertc88

Visually stunning but there is more to it than that for a Tier placement. Nonetheless, I feel confident Sleeping Beauty will receive a high rank from more qualified folks to do so. The amount of times I paused this just to gaze at the screen speaks volumes.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14825854
> 
> 
> Going by the standards we use from the first page of this thread and the definitive proof I referenced showing 8 full seconds of dvd like quality a well as there being other anomalies all throughout the film does not allow this title to be a tier 1 film. What is outrageous is even suggesting Tier 1 if one has actually seen the points I referenced, particularly the 8 second dvd like part.
> 
> 
> From the first page:
> _
> 
> Tier 2 - Silver (Good)
> 
> 
> --- *The image maintains a sharp film-like quality throughout* which looks real, with less 3-D effect than Tier 1 and video artifacts are far and few in between.
> 
> 
> Tier 3 - Bronze (Average)
> 
> 
> --- Although a step up from large standard definition DVD, the transfer has added only some detail and depth with little video artifacts; doesn't POP as much, but still film-like quality._
> 
> 
> 
> Although The Happening may not qualify for Tier 3, the part I referenced at 54:21-29 of dvd like quality automatically eliminates Tier 1 placement and more closely resembles what Tier 2 qualifies for PQ. The Happening _*does not maintain sharp film-like quality throughout*.
> _
> 
> The bottom of Tier 2 maybe more accurate, but even then maybe more than forgiving.
> 
> 
> Like I said in my OP about The Happening, it has some amazing PQ that is some of the finest clarity on BD and could be shown as demo, but the PQ overall is not even close to Tier 0 and is disqualified for Tier 1.



I haven't watched this one yet, but I don't agree that a Tier placement should be determined on the basis of 8 seconds of the movie.


----------



## ballen420




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14826121
> 
> 
> I haven't watched this one yet, but I don't agree that a Tier placement should be determined on the basis of 8 seconds of the movie.



I think you missed that it's for 8 FULL seconds, Patrick.


Even the arguments over Apocalypto and NCFOM never got into detail based on 8 seconds of a movie.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14826121
> 
> 
> I haven't watched this one yet, but I don't agree that a Tier placement should be determined on the basis of 8 seconds of the movie.



It isn't. Watch the movie and reread my original post on my recommendation. The entire movie if the PQ is Tier 1 and then you have that 8 second blip alone would move it to Tier 2. The 8 seconds is DVD bordering on VCR quality and there is another example of the same issue lasting 2 seconds prior to this which I mentioned. There is more PQ problems than the major one I listed, but again going by standards for Tier placement quality, there is no way The Happening is Tier 1. I also look at titles in respective tiers that I have watched or owned and based placement on that as well. I own League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Ice Age 2, NIN Beside you in time, and I have watched at least another 1/2 dozen titles in top tier 2 that do not exhibit that extreme of PQ flaws as does The Happening. You have to get to the bottom of Tier 2 to begin to have some of the issues like in The Happening and still even there owning and watching some of those in bottom of Tier 2 don't even exhibit that major of a PQ flaw.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ballen420* /forum/post/14826265
> 
> 
> I think you missed that it's for 8 FULL seconds, Patrick.
> 
> 
> Even the arguments over Apocalypto and NCFOM never got into detail based on 8 seconds of a movie.



Exactly this isn't a quick one second blur. Again, are we going by standards for tier placement in the first thread or are we now making allowances as we progress?







I know there are many titles that are not exactly where they should be and some IMO beyond a reasonable doubt are right where they should be and there are a few that are way off on placement.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ballen420* /forum/post/14825498
> 
> 
> I agree that this by no means should be in tier 3. *There are plenty of inconsistencies throughout the movie, none which justify it to be a tier 3 title though*. With plenty of tier 0/1 scenes to offset those that are very soft, I think it's at least worthy of a high tier 2, if not a low tier 1 placement.



+1


I just turned my Panny BD30 off after having watched *The Happening* and I would agree with ballen420 on this one. He hits the proverbial "nail on the head" with the words I highlighted above, for even though there are MANY inconsistencies throughout the movie, there are enough sharp and detailed scenes to offset the very few bad scenes, thus preventing a Tier 3 placement.


I too would suggest a *Tier 2* placement, but perhaps *closer to the bottom* as opposed to the top of that tier. If the sharp and detailed scenes had prevailed from beginning to end, this could have easily been a high Tier 1.


As to Hughmc's comment on the 8 second blip, I completely concur with him that it is closer to the quality of VHS, which begs the question, "How in the world did that happen"? Maybe the plants affected the camera during the shooting!!


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14827040
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> 
> I just turned my Panny BD30 off after having watched *The Happening* and I would agree with ballen420 on this one. He hits the proverbial "nail on the head" with the words I highlighted above, for even though there are MANY inconsistencies throughout the movie, there are enough sharp and detailed scenes to offset the very few bad scenes, thus preventing a Tier 3 placement.
> 
> 
> I too would suggest a *Tier 2* placement, but perhaps *closer to the bottom* as opposed to the top of that tier. If the sharp and detailed scenes had prevailed from beginning to end, this could have easily been a high Tier 1.
> 
> 
> As to Hughmc's comment on the 8 second blip, I completely concur with him that it is closer to the quality of VHS, which begs the question, "How in the world did that happen"? Maybe the plants affected the camera during the shooting!!



Careful spoiler. ^^


Thank you as I had a bit of fear in my OP saying The Happening had a VCR like scene, but your confirmation puts me at ease and avoids flaming which I seem to have gotten enough of just suggesting TH is a Tier 3 title.










I agree. How did that scene ever get in there when there are some of the most pristine quality BD shots? Even if it is intentional it is ugly.


I have to say though djoberg, you even admit there are MANY inconsistencies throughout The Happening and IMO the 8 second blip and other issues makes it Tier 3 based on lower Tier 2 titles that don't even have those issues.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MelloFellow13* /forum/post/14824084
> 
> 
> If we're talking about reorganizing the Tier structure to make a little more sense, why not go with a grade system? Reference BDs can be Grade "S" or something and maintain their rankings (maybe even number them from S1 to S35), then as the tiers move down we move to a traditional letter grade:
> 
> 
> Tier 1 (Gold) = A
> 
> Tier 2 (Silver) = B
> 
> Tier 3 (Bronze) = C
> 
> Tier 4 (Copper) = D
> 
> Tier 5 (Coal) = F
> 
> 
> Then we can use + and - to distinguish better between titles in the same group. For example, in the case of Tier 1, the top 1/4 can be A+, the bottom 1/4 can be A-, and everything in between is just an A.
> 
> 
> I just feel like now that we have done away with a strict ranking from top to bottom, it's time to move to a more sensible grade system which is easier to understand and discuss. Statements like "I think Iron man should be bottom tier 1, or top tier 2" would now be "I think Iron Man is between A- and B+."
> 
> 
> Just a thought.



Not a bad idea actually...


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14827157
> 
> 
> I have to say though doberg, you even admit there are MANY inconsistencies throughout The Happening and IMO the 8 second blip and other issues makes it Tier 3 based on lower Tier 2 titles that don't even have those issues.



The inconsistencies I referred to are not all bad though. What I was really referring to was the fact that for several minutes you would have Tier 0 quality, followed by several minutes of Tier 2, followed by a minute of Tier 3 and then several minutes of Tier 1. This flick was, as you stated in an earlier post, "all over the place" as far as PQ. But there was only the one really bad scene (the 8 second blip followed by another few seconds ...the lawnmower incident) that constituted Tier 5 quality (or worse). So, all things considered, I still believe it warrants a Tier 2 placement, but towards the bottom instead of the top (as others have suggested).


Regarding your statement that "other Tier 2 titles don't have those issues," I'm not so sure about that. I haven't seen all of them so I can't speak dogmatically, but I know I have seen other movies in the first 3 tiers that have inconsistencies. They may not have anything as bad as the 8 second blip, but there are scenes that fluctuate between the different tiers. With those titles we have to strike a compromise and placing them is not the easiest thing to do.


----------



## gc8710

Ever notice how QVC and the others always show a cartoon(that's what they were called when I was a kid) when they are selling a tv.

I know it's been said here before ,but I don't think they should be listed on this thread.

Maybe start a new thread for animated movies.I just think there is just so much more technical expertise needed to make a live action Blu-Ray look good than is needed for animation.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14827333
> 
> 
> The inconsistencies I referred to are not all bad though. What I was really referring to was the fact that for several minutes you would have Tier 0 quality, followed by several minutes of Tier 2, followed by a minute of Tier 3 and then several minutes of Tier 1. This flick was, as you stated in an earlier post, "all over the place" as far as PQ. But there was only the one really bad scene (the 8 second blip followed by another few seconds ...the lawnmower incident) that constituted Tier 5 quality (or worse). So, all things considered, I still believe it warrants a Tier 2 placement, but towards the bottom instead of the top (as others have suggested).
> 
> 
> Regarding your statement that "other Tier 2 titles don't have those issues," I'm not so sure about that. I haven't seen all of them so I can't speak dogmatically, but I know I have seen other movies in the first 3 tiers that have inconsistencies. They may not have anything as bad as the 8 second blip, but there are scenes that fluctuate between the different tiers. With those titles we have to strike a compromise and placing them is not the easiest thing to do.



That is a very reasonable view. I agree based on what you are stating, bottom of Tier 2. I do think we need to address this issue of any movie having that poor a quality of scene. IMO having that shouldn't warrant particular placement and so I agree with Partick 99 on that point, but shouldn't it warrant dropping a title a complete Tier?


Do you think the 8 second blip really did look like VCR quality or is it possible contrasting the scene with high quality scenes before and after make it look worse?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14827441
> 
> 
> That is a very reasonable view. I agree based on what you are stating, bottom of Tier 2. *I do think we need to address this issue of any movie having that poor a quality of scene*. IMO having that shouldn't warrant particular placement and so I agree with Partick 99 on that point, but shouldn't it warrant dropping a title a complete Tier?
> 
> 
> Do you think the 8 second blip really did look like VCR quality or *is it possible contrasting the scene with high quality scenes before and after make it look worse*?



First of all, the 8 second blip was far from being the whole scene. Let's face it, 8 seconds isn't really that much. I referred yesterday in a post to a terrible blip that occurred in Iron Man when Robert Downey was at the Benefit standing at the bar. For a few seconds, starting at about the 1 hour 12 minute mark, his face turned really white and was sparkling (or pixelating). It was very noticeable and quite distracting. But it was only for a few seconds and had that been the only issue with the movie I wouldn't have assigned it to Tier 3 or lower based on that isolated incident.


Regarding your second point, yes the high quality scene could have obscured our judgment, but I did reverse it several times and after watching it over and over I concluded it was pretty bad. If not VHS quality, then surely a poor DVD quality. It was like the camera man switched it from HD to SD for those 8 seconds.


----------



## tfoltz

But some (many?) live action movies still look better than animation movies, so it's good to know which fall short.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gc8710* /forum/post/14827338
> 
> 
> Ever notice how QVC and the others always show a cartoon(that's what they were called when I was a kid) when they are selling a tv.
> 
> I know it's been said here before ,but I don't think they should be listed on this thread.
> 
> Maybe start a new thread for animated movies.I just think there is just so much more technical expertise needed to make a live action Blu-Ray look good than is needed for animation.


----------



## BIG ED

My "Happenings" guess:

Those full 8 seconds were shot by a 2nd unit & is how it looks on the original film elements.

I'm positive when transferring this title they did not grab a full 8 seconds of VHS video & stick it in this Tier 1 transfer.

Again, just my guess!


[never seen the BD or film]


If we're fighting this much about this title...

can't wait for the "SB" discussion too began!!! :-0


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14821257
> 
> 
> PS Let me add that if Phantom's opinion is closer to the truth (he opted for low Tier 0 or high Tier 1), then I've just got to buy myself a Kuro!



I honestly do not feel that strongly about my placement of Iron Man (which is why I didn't write a detailed recommendation) in the tier. I watched it once and gave my initial impression but I could see how others would place it lower. The BD is a little inconsistent. I feel fine with it in the lower half of tier one, though tier two seems awfully harsh.


Here is a sneak preview of my next recommendation:

*Interview With The Vampire*


tier recommendation: bottom half of *Tier 4*


One of the worst transfers I've seen yet from WB.


----------



## b_scott

I still disagree w/Nightmare Before Christmas. I'll concede to compromise since I think it should be Tier 0, but top Tier 1 is the lowest it should be. that movie is pop-o-licious and IMO almost perfect.


----------



## Deviation




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briansemerick* /forum/post/14828115
> 
> 
> I still disagree w/Nightmare Before Christmas. I'll concede to compromise since I think it should be Tier 0, but top Tier 1 is the lowest it should be. that movie is pop-o-licious and IMO almost perfect.



DNR in a few scenes plus several instances of artifacting from automated dirt and scratch removal software mean that Nightmare can never be Tier 0.


----------



## thegalaxy6




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/14823891
> 
> 
> There is definitely some pixelation in that short series of frames with the red "paint" in blocky clumps of a few tones: here's a direct frame capture where it's probably most noticeable in what should presumably be a solid red frame.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if this kind of minor (IMHO) thing should be enough to knock the title down if this is the only blatant instance, but it does point to possible improvement if a new "perfectionist" encode was ever made.



Thanks, Cinema Squid!


So, my TV's not a complete piece of junk. I did see pixelation. I've had a friend over, who had just seen *Mission: Impossible III*, and when he saw it on Blu-ray with me he was very impressed. I just thought maybe he was trying to make me feel good, lol.


I've mostly been impressed with the blacks on my TV with Blu-ray. I've "adjusted" some settings based on online Beginners Guides (using various movies to accomplish specific looks), but haven't seen the "3D POP" people refer to.

------------------------------


Just saw *Man On Fire*, and it was gorgeous and clean. The "softness" and shaky camera work at times was obviously indicative of recollecting memories, and the mind's tendency to jump in high pressure situations. There was some film grain occasionally which, IMO, merely added to certain scenes grittiness.


That all said, and as much as I enjoyed the DTS Surround, the crisp picture, and the film itself; I'm a little at a loss as to what Tier 0 really means. I'd put this at Tier 1. Clean as all get out is nice -- but where would you put something that just leaps off the screen? Is it just my TV (Sharp Aquos LC-32DA5U), or was this just a super clean film?


Again, grain of salt with my opinion.


----------



## lgans316

thegalaxy6,


Yesterday I had requested you to contact HTPC owners and now you have an answer to your question with a screenshot as evidence.










Good that you got a reply as if you had asked the same question elsewhere people might have questioned your equipment and commented about it's minuscule nature.


The good part about this Tier thread is the enormous amount of tolerance and patience exhibited by posters out here.










Just viewed parts of Knocked Up - Looks quite good. AVC encoded with bit rates hovering in the teens. Visible grain. No EE. Solid Tier-2 title. Good job by Universal. Like their menu navigation which is extremely fast and responsive.


----------



## tfoltz

Man on Fire is spectacular to my eyes. Tier 0. I agree that it can be difficult to understand all the rules, terminology, and details that place certain titles in separate tiers (I sure don't understand it all); however, I just go with how impressed I am the second or third time through and base my opinion on that (not sure anything I say affects the thread in any way, but sometimes it's fun to chime in). I'm not big on the "3D Pop" terminology, but there are certain titles that stand out, and Man on Fire is one of them for me.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *thegalaxy6* /forum/post/14829184
> 
> 
> Just saw *Man On Fire*...I'm a little at a loss as to what Tier 0 really means. I'd put this at Tier 1.


----------



## djoberg

After having just watched *Deception*, I can see why patrick was drooling over this film. It is a very clean transfer with excellent contrast and natural colors, especially the skin tones. I happened to do a search on this thread to see if anyone else reviewed this and I found the following:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...postcount=6156 


I include this because it echoes my sentiments to a tee, and his recommendation of *Tier 1* is where I would suggest placing it (though I would move it up to the *top 1/4 of the tier*).


----------



## rsbeck

Wow -- how did the excellent Batman Begins end up below the incredibly mediocre National Treasure? Begins needs to move up or Treasure down because this doesn't make sense. If I thought everything below National Treasure had worse picture quality, I would never buy any of them. Gotta fix that!


----------



## rsbeck

Watched How the West Was Won last night. What a beautiful transfer; lush, clean, beautifully shot, amazingly well preserved. Like a new print. Watched Smile Box version -- I'd like to see more old films employ this.


----------



## tfoltz

Just finished *You Don't Mess with the Zohan*. Absolutely *terrible*. A *haze* covers the ENTIRE movie. I recommend Tier 4 or 5. Maybe I'm overreacting since I just finished it, but it was so bad and distracting. There are like one or two shots of buildings where the movie looks half-way decent. I thought it was pretty funny though.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fanaticalism* /forum/post/14821879
> 
> 
> I am currently watching "Don't Mess with the Zohan", and film seems to have some sort of gray overcast to it. We saw it at the theaters and it most definitely did not have this overcast to it.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14824413
> 
> 
> The railroad bridge scene was indeed soft, but it was done that way purposely, much like the scene in Kill Bill 2 where Uma Thurman is receiving her Kung Fu training. That scene was very gritty and soft, yet we did not lower the ranking because of it. (In fact, I believe you were suggesting Tier 0 for Kill Bill 2.)



I watched the rest of The Fall last night. As a movie, it is definitely worth watching to the end. I think this may be an instance where the quality of the movie is affecting judgments on PQ.


Many of the colorful panoramic shots do look pretty good, but IMO this is another case where Sony's refusal to let the bitrate go consistently well into the 30's is affecting the results.


It was iinteresting to learn from listening to part of one of the audio commentaries that the hospital sequences and the railroad bridge sequence were filmed in South Africa.


I would say high Tier 1, but not Tier 0.


----------



## ChoarBoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/14829873
> 
> 
> Just finished *You Don't Mess with the Zohan*. Absolutely *terrible*. A *haze* covers the ENTIRE movie. I recommend Tier 4 or 5. Maybe I'm overreacting since I just finished it, but it was so bad and distracting. There are like one or two shots of buildings where the movie looks half-way decent. I thought it was pretty funny though.



I agree with this. All the beach and outdoor scenes are crap.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Interview with the Vampire*


tier recommendation: bottom half of *Tier 4*


Warner released two days ago this 1994 movie to Blu-ray. The 122-minute feature is encoded in VC-1 on a BD-25. The average video bitrate is 19.93 Mbps with the encode peaking in the very low 30's (BDInfo scan courtesy of eric.exe) at the one second time range. But most of the movie ranges between 12 and 27 Mbps with a lot of variation depending on the scene and lighting. This is not a stellar compression job, especially considering the very heavy grain structure present in the image. There are several instances of macroblocking when the encode chokes on the grain. Compression noise artifacting is very noticeable in a couple of spots. I would say this is a below average video encode on technical merits and definitely not on par with the quality of more recent BDs.


I will start with the positives of this transfer. Warner did not use any DNR on the transfer and the very grainy look of the film is retained throughout the movie. That is it for the positives and it all goes downhill from there. It looks like Warner used whatever ancient HD master they had lying around for this transfer and looks nothing like my memory of seeing this in the theater. It appears dull and faded in a general way and makes the movie look like it was from 1974 and not 1994 at times. There are several instances of digital scratch removal marks. Colors are barely better than dvd quality with low contrast in many scenes. Black levels are very odd and don't appear right in some scenes with frequent black crushing observed. Low light details get lost in the crush. For an example check out the period costumes' texture and folds which are very hard to make out. This is a much darker look to the film than I have ever seen.


This movie was never shot for eye candy (much of it appears soft-filtered and diffuse) but this might be the softest Blu-ray I've seen from a major studio out of hundreds that Ive seen. The image appears very flat with no depth at all, much like a dvd. High frequency information is barely present, with close-ups even lacking decent detail. This transfer simply never reveals the finer parts of faces, hair, and clothing that an average Blu-ray should reveal. Rarely does it ever look better than a low tier three image, with a good portion of the movie firmly planted in tier four quality.


To say I was disappointed after seeing this disc is no understatement. The source material is difficult and was never going to look incredible, but Warner has really dropped the ball on this BD. This is one of the first Bds I've seen that I can't call a major upgrade from the dvd. I would recommend a tier four placement. I'm going to speculate when Warner decides to properly remaster this movie that it will be a significant improvement over this Blu-ray.


Watching on a calibrated 60" Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080/24p fed by a PS3 from a viewing distance of approximately six feet.


BDInfo scan:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post14718725


----------



## suffolk112000

As I have indicated before, I am still amazed that Beowulf is ranked in tier 0.

Let alone the 11th best Blu Ray currently ranked!

I am not sure it should even be in tier1.


Sony VW60 58x104 Da-Lite HCCV screen with masking @ 12 feet from the screen.


----------



## djoberg

Thanks Phantom for your good review of Interview With a Vampire. It is appreciated! I was always fond of that movie but if I do end up viewing it, I will no doubt rent it.


suffolk112000, I still have not seen Beowulf, so I can't comment one way or the other, but I do sympathize with you as you continue to argue for a lowering of this title. If anyone else has viewed this lately, please chime in and give your opinion in response to our fellow-member's plea to lower it to at least Tier 1.


PS My wife just returned home from a week with our daughters in Minneapolis. Her absence allowed me to indulge myself in Blu-ray viewing (thus my many reviews as of late), but now I will be cutting back a bit. But I look forward to hearing from others, and I encourage newcomers to this thread to participate more (as Hughmc did in a recent post).


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/14834965
> 
> 
> As I have indicated before, I am still amazed that Beowulf is ranked in tier 0.
> 
> Let alone the 11th best Blu Ray currently ranked!
> 
> I am not sure it should even be in tier1.
> 
> 
> Sony VW60 58x104 Da-Lite HCCV screen with masking @ 12 feet from the screen.



The problem is number of votes. You are the only person to comment that it shouldn't be in Tier-0 when 4 or 5 members have voted for Tier-0 placement.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14836163
> 
> 
> The problem is number of votes. You are the only person to comment that it shouldn't be in Tier-0 when 4 or 5 members have voted for Tier-0 placement.



Yes, hopefully a few will come forward.

It will be interesting to see if Beowulf remains the 11th best Blu Ray on this thread.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/14836530
> 
> 
> Yes, hopefully a few will come forward.
> 
> It will be interesting to see if Beowulf remains the 11th best Blu Ray on this thread.



I am aware why you want this one to be placed in the lower Tiers and I am sure someone will soon show up supporting your take on Beowulf.


I request you to watch Happy Feet and let us know if it really belongs to Tier-1. IMO it's looked pure eye candy throughout despite some minor banding in couple of places.


----------



## Murilo

Just watched iron man, about to check out interview with the vampire.


I thought iron man looked extremely sharp, I do own a really sharp projector in the W5000 but it looked alot like transformers, from the sharpness to color pallette, and film grain. I give it a bottom Teir 0 rating it was very close to transformers in my estimation.


Benq W5000 1080p/24

92 Inch Screen 2.4 Gain

Seating about 10 feet away.


----------



## rsbeck

Watched Broken Trail tonight. I am watching on a 126" diagonal screen with a Sim2 C3X1080. This film is ranked too high. There is no way I would show this to anyone as Blu-Ray demo material. Many scenes were grainy, soft, and lit poorly. There were scenes that had 3D pop, but not enough, IMO. Best I would rank this one would be mid tier 2. No way this belongs in the same ranking as Casino Royale and Blackhawk Down or above Transformers, three very legit Blu-Ray demo reels.


I watched How The West Was Won a couple nights ago, this film was much closer to Blu-Ray demo material than Broken Trail and it is consistent from beginning to end, well shot, lush, sharp, beautiful colors, lots of pop -- check it out. This, IMO, is the type of film that should be top of tier 1.


Also, want to say it again, National Treasure is ranked way too high. It is way too inconsistent, with only a few very well shot demo quality sequences in the whole film. Much of it is soft, grainy and has no pop. It belongs in tier three or perhaps, if you're feeling generous, very bottom of tier 2. Certainly, should not be ranked above Batman Begins.



.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14836771
> 
> 
> I request you to watch Happy Feet and let us know if it really belongs to Tier-1. IMO it's looked pure eye candy throughout despite some minor banding in couple of places.



I have the HD DVD transfer of Happy Feet and it is, without a doubt, Demo material (i.e., Tier 0). I have used this title to show the virtues of HD to many friends and relatives. If the Blu-ray encode is the same it should be as good or better. I should add that the AQ was awesome as well.


----------



## Mel2

Beowulf belongs in tier 0. after watching the incredible hulk I must say it should belong in tier 0 also. fabulous transfer. fine detail, incredible blacks, colors are rich and vibrant. alot of pop in it. perfect amount of grain with no ee or dnr.


----------



## Murilo

Interview with the vampire I would class as mid teir 3.


Sure its soft but thats the way its filmed and the master was even for dvd very soft like that.


Still some scenes looked great showng fabulous detail, great colors that really popped, and great blacks, that approached teir 2. But then some shots felt like they belong in teir 4 and were not good at all.


Overall though I would say mid to lower tier 3.


I am having some bad luck with some of my favorites, first, gangs of new york, then dark city, then this.


----------



## gc8710

I have not seen Blu-Rays of any of the live action films above "The Fall" in tier 0, but I can't imagine any better looking film. Not just technically , but also the sets and costumes. Vivid colors and clarity that was fantastic.


----------



## gail2magic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gc8710* /forum/post/14838036
> 
> 
> I have not seen Blu-Rays of any of the live action films above "The Fall" in tier 0, but I can't imagine any better looking film. Not just technically , but also the sets and costumes. Vivid colors and clarity that was fantastic.



I totally agree. The video is stunning. It is the best non animated one that I have seen.


----------



## thegalaxy6




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14829256
> 
> 
> thegalaxy6,
> 
> 
> Good that you got a reply as if you had asked the same question elsewhere people might have questioned your equipment and commented about it's minuscule nature.



Igan, Thanks for the advice!


Honestly, I have no problem accepting that the Sharp Aquos LC-32DA5U, HDMI Monster cable and Insignia Blu-ray setup is a limited one -- I just want to make sure it's not making high-quality titles look merely like Upconverted DVDs. For instance, *Speed Racer* looked awesome, but I was bummed when I saw the pixelation. As long as it's been verified that it does exist for high end users as well, I know it's not _just_ me.


HOWEVER; Could my setup make the Top of the Top *I, Robot* look merely like an Upconverted DVD, or when I finally rent this one will I be amazed?


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mel2* /forum/post/14837420
> 
> 
> Beowulf belongs in tier 0. after watching the incredible hulk I must say it should belong in tier 0 also. fabulous transfer. fine detail, incredible blacks, colors are rich and vibrant. alot of pop in it. perfect amount of grain with no ee or dnr.



I can see where you might say that Beowulf would have great blacks, (I disagree) because it is such a dark movie. But to say Beowulf has vibrant, rich colors is in-correct in my opinion. Again, the movie was very dark.


And what do you mean by this?


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mel2* /forum/post/14837420
> 
> 
> ...perfect amount of grain with no ee or dnr.



How can this movie be in tier 0 with any amount of grain?


Sorry, I just don't see where Beowulf is the 11th best Blu Ray title that has currently been reviewed.


I would be curious as to what your display is, how far back you sit from the display and what your Blu Ray player is.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/14841467
> 
> 
> I can see where you might say that Beowulf would have great blacks, (I disagree) because it is such a dark movie. But to say Beowulf has vibrant, rich colors is in-correct in my opinion. Again, the movie was very dark.
> 
> 
> And what do you mean by this?
> 
> *How can this movie be in tier 0 with any amount of grain?*
> 
> 
> Sorry, I just don't see where Beowulf is the 11th best Blu Ray title that has currently been reviewed.
> 
> 
> I would be curious as to what your display is, how far back you sit from the display and what your Blu Ray player is.



Many of the people who disparage this thread accuse us of being grain-haters and thereby encouraging grain-removal and DNR.


However, it is certainly not my belief that grain is a PQ flaw or that the presence of grain prevents Tier 0 status.


----------



## RBFC

If the original movie contained grain, then the more perfectly that grain is reproduced on BD is a measure of quality. If the grain is not reproduced accurately, then how could you assume that the picture on that film stock is reproduced accurately??


Lee


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14841519
> 
> 
> Many of the people who disparage this thread accuse us of being grain-haters and thereby encouraging grain-removal and DNR.
> 
> 
> However, it is certainly not my belief that grain is a PQ flaw or that the presence of grain prevents Tier 0 status.



I agree, mine either. There is an exception though. If the grain is very distracting to where the screen looks like it is crawling and more like noise than film grain, it takes away from the PQ even as a grain lover.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14841519
> 
> 
> Many of the people who disparage this thread accuse us of being grain-haters and thereby encouraging grain-removal and DNR.
> 
> 
> However, it is certainly not my belief that grain is a PQ flaw or that the presence of grain prevents Tier 0 status.



Hmmm... I thought there was another thread for such visual content, (grain).

My big issue with Beowulf is not so much the grain but the lack of detail when compaired to other titles in both tier 0 and tier 1.


For a second there you guys had me wondering... I had to double check to make sure I was in the New Pic Quality Tier Thread for Blu Ray and not the Film Grain Allowed thread.


----------



## rsbeck

Here is the given definition of tier 0


"These are reference quality titles with the cleanest and sharpest image available. Films in this tier are demo material and represent the best of the best Blu-ray has to offer."


If the original print was poorly lit, poorly shot, then it isn't a candidate for reference quality demo material.


To me, reference titles are those where the vast majority of scenes are sharp, clean, well shot, with excellent lighting and colors, depth of field, and pop. The best that blu-ray has to offer is high resolution -- that's what constitutes a demo of Blu-Ray.


Low rez may be an artistic choice the director or cinematographer made and we all salute artistry, but that's a different thread.


I wouldn't mind seeing a thread that ranked Blu-Rays not just on picture quality but on story and other artistry, too, but this thread claims to only be about picture quality.


Some titles might have a demo sequence, but that's also a different thread. A film with mostly mediocre picture quality cannot become a reference TITLE on the basis of a sequence or two.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/14843981
> 
> 
> Here is the given definition of tier 0
> 
> 
> "These are reference quality titles with the cleanest and sharpest image available. Films in this tier are demo material and represent the best of the best Blu-ray has to offer."
> 
> 
> If the original print was grainy, poorly lit, poorly shot, then it isn't a candidate for reference quality demo material. Who would put on a grainy film to demo a blu-ray set-up? Anyone? Really? And while you're demoing it, do you point out, "this is what Blu-ray can do -- reproduce grain REALLY accurately!"
> 
> 
> To me, reference titles are those where the vast majority of scenes are sharp, clean, well shot, with excellent lighting and colors, depth of field, and pop. The best that blu-ray has to offer is high resolution -- that's what constitutes a demo of Blu-Ray.
> 
> 
> Low rez may be an artistic choice the director or cinematographer made and we all salute artistry, but that's a different thread.
> 
> 
> I wouldn't mind seeing a thread that ranked Blu-Rays not just on picture quality but on story and other artistry, too, but this thread claims to only be about picture quality.
> 
> 
> Some titles might have a demo sequence, but that's also a different thread. A film with mostly mediocre picture quality cannot become a reference TITLE on the basis of a sequence or two.



Wow couldn't have said it better my self.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/14843981
> 
> 
> Here is the given definition of tier 0
> 
> 
> "These are reference quality titles with the cleanest and sharpest image available. Films in this tier are demo material and represent the best of the best Blu-ray has to offer."
> 
> 
> If the original print was grainy, poorly lit, poorly shot, then it isn't a candidate for reference quality demo material. Who would put on a grainy film to demo a blu-ray set-up? Anyone? Really? And while you're demoing it, do you point out, "this is what Blu-ray can do -- reproduce grain REALLY accurately!"



And I just don't see Beowulf when I read the above quote.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/14844249
> 
> 
> wow couldn't have said it better my self.



+2


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/14834965
> 
> 
> As I have indicated before, I am still amazed that Beowulf is ranked in tier 0.
> 
> Let alone the 11th best Blu Ray currently ranked!
> 
> I am not sure it should even be in tier1.
> 
> 
> Sony VW60 58x104 Da-Lite HCCV screen with masking @ 12 feet from the screen.



Suffolk,


While I don't completely agree with you about Beowulf, I can understand your frustration. I've had issues with a few titles. I've asked those who ranked certain titles to justify it, and have gotten nowhere (perhaps those who voted arent around). Hellboy is a good example. Yes it's a great looking title, but top of tier 1? No one has really chimed in to defend it, but at the same time no one has agreed with me, so it remains where it's at.


As far as other movies, Mr. Brooks was the title I've complained the most about. I personally feel it's a great looking title, but not as good as Vantage Point as well as other Tier 1 titles including Apocalypto. I've argued a good deal about it, yet it remains in Tier 0. On the other hand, someone made a good point when they told me that my vote only counts once, which is most likely why it's still in Tier 0. It sucks, but he was right in saying that.


Another title that seems to be ranked very high is Rambo (the 4th one). I don't believe the face closeups are on par with even some tier 2 titles. The blacks are really dark-dark-blues and the the entire movie leans towards a cool look.


Back to Beowulf, I agree with your statement that it's not the 11th best looking title. I still think it's ranks up there with other animations, I just dont know where to place it because of the CGI / live action movie issue. Animation is going to inherently look good, but does an animation character have the complexities of a human face?


----------



## babrown92




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *thegalaxy6* /forum/post/14840040
> 
> 
> Igan, Thanks for the advice!
> 
> 
> Honestly, I have no problem accepting that the Sharp Aquos LC-32DA5U, HDMI Monster cable and Insignia Blu-ray setup is a limited one -- I just want to make sure it's not making high-quality titles look merely like Upconverted DVDs. For instance, *Speed Racer* looked awesome, but I was bummed when I saw the pixelation. As long as it's been verified that it does exist for high end users as well, I know it's not _just_ me.
> 
> 
> HOWEVER; Could my setup make the Top of the Top *I, Robot* look merely like an Upconverted DVD, or when I finally rent this one will I be amazed?




If I, Robot doesnt impress you, nothing will. Oh, and not to be an ass, but having a Monster Cable means nothing except you wasted your money.


----------



## suffolk112000

Delete:


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/14844812
> 
> 
> Suffolk,
> 
> 
> While I don't completely agree with you about Beowulf, I can understand your frustration. I've had issues with a few titles. I've asked those who ranked certain titles to justify it, and have gotten nowhere (perhaps those who voted arent around). Hellboy is a good example. Yes it's a great looking title, but top of tier 1? No one has really chimed in to defend it, but at the same time no one has agreed with me, so it remains where it's at.
> 
> 
> As far as other movies, Mr. Brooks was the title I've complained the most about. I personally feel it's a great looking title, but not as good as Vantage Point as well as other Tier 1 titles including Apocalypto. I've argued a good deal about it, yet it remains in Tier 0. On the other hand, someone made a good point when they told me that my vote only counts once, which is most likely why it's still in Tier 0. It sucks, but he was right in saying that.
> 
> 
> Another title that seems to be ranked very high is Rambo (the 4th one). I don't believe the face closeups are on par with even some tier 2 titles. The blacks are really dark-dark-blues and the the entire movie leans towards a cool look.
> 
> 
> Back to Beowulf, I agree with your statement that it's not the 11th best looking title. I still think it's ranks up there with other animations, I just dont know where to place it because of the CGI / live action movie issue. Animation is going to inherently look good, but does an animation character have the complexities of a human face?




Great points all

But your explanation in the last paragraph, which seems to me is giving animation a free pass is somewhat flawed in my opinion.









If animation does not have the detail, then there is no excuse, animated or not. Similarly, if a movie has inherit grain because that is what the director intended, on this thread it should not receive a free pass either.

My arguments are that Beowulf is not the 11th best Blu Ray title that has been reviewed in this thread. Likewise, Beowulf is not better than, Crank, Live Free or Die Hard, Kill Bill Vol. 1, Speed Racer, Black Hawk Down, Kill Bill Vol. 2, Shooter or 21.


There are little indications by others who have indicated that Beowulf is not perfect, whether they wanted to or not.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mel2* /forum/post/14837420
> 
> 
> Beowulf belongs in tier 0. after watching the incredible hulk I must say it should belong in tier 0 also. fabulous transfer. fine detail, incredible blacks, colors are rich and vibrant. alot of pop in it. perfect amount of grain with no ee or dnr.



In my opinion, any flaws what so ever should greatly jeopardize ANY movie that has been ranked the 11th best Blu Ray in this eye candy thread.


I did a little research and found the below quote regarding Beowulf during its original placement.

Seems to me that this poster has issues with the title as well. Of course, this post was over six months ago. Since then we have had some great titles come out that easily are better than Beowulf.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13653117
> 
> *Beowulf - Warner Blu-ray | VC-1 | Dolby True HD 16-bit*
> 
> 
> Easy reference material. Looks stunning and easily rivals Ratatouille / Cars at many spots but ultimately fails to become jaw dropping. The animated characters looked awesome and showed technical perfection but owing to shooting of many scenes under very low lighting conditions took away the consistent 3D pop. Banding is noticeable in couple of scenes.
> 
> 
> The HD DVD version released by Paramount is AVC encoded at 21 Mbps AVBR. It's a shame on Warner for encoding the overseas HD DVD/Blu-ray at a very low bit rate. The bir rate hovered between 5 ~ 24 Mbps. I am not sure how much details would have been compromised but it's a shame that Warner couldn't create a higher bit rate encode.
> 
> 
> The volume levels were way too low forcing me to increase the sound levels by 5-6 db. I now highly suspect the HDD review on the audio front though I don't have an AVR capable of decoding the modern codecs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Despite the above mentioned minor deficiencies I am recommending this one for Tier-0 placement above TMNT assuming that the encoded bit rate was sufficient.



Then of course, the below post was a follow up post to the above about Beowulf.

Post 4065 and 4066.









I don't seem alone anymore in my opinion of this title.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/13653432
> 
> 
> I watched only the first half hour of a borrowed copy, now returned, so I may not be permitted to have an opinion, but what I saw was very different from the above description, except for the very low bitrate part. Definitely not Tier 0, or even Tier 1, for me. The typical Warner softness was amply present.



Upon reading a little further, I found a follow-up post number 4069.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/13654041
> 
> 
> The point I am indirectly trying to convey is if TMNT deserves to be in Tier-0 then Beowulf which looked better than TMNT to my eyes deserves to be on top on that.



It seems that Beowulf was originally placed in its current spot because there was disagreement with the placement of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

At least that is the way things appear.


----------



## 42041

I'm curious as to why Transformers is so low on the list? I haven't seen I Robot, but it's at least as good as the POTC movies.. It's got a sharp, high bitrate (if you rip it, just the video stream is bigger than an entire HDDVD disc, not even counting the lossless audio and extras) transfer that's sharp and full of detail, and its a great looking movie, definitely better looking to my eyes than, say, Crank or Prison Break....


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/14847514
> 
> 
> I'm curious as to why Transformers is so low on the list? I haven't seen I Robot, but it's at least as good as the POTC movies.. It's got a sharp, high bitrate (if you rip it, just the video stream is bigger than an entire HDDVD disc, not even counting the lossless audio and extras) transfer that's sharp and full of detail, and its a great looking movie, definitely better looking to my eyes than, say, Crank or Prison Break....



Transformers overall had a consistently good picture quality, but not stellar Tier 0 and not close enough for our requirements for Tier 0. And Tier 1/4 is no slouch and only a dozen or so films away from Tier 0. A few of us have mentioned lately that for some films that are in Tier 1 their isn't a lot of difference or disparity between some of those films and Tier 0. I have been a big advocate for Apocalypto to be back in Tier 0, but really where it is at is virtually there anyway, and in my own mind it is a wash, so I am happy







. I think Phantom said recently that for all the titles we have with a few exceptions placements are fairly accurate. Those aren't his exact words, but I think he and others have made that comment. The amount of participation lately really helps to reassure each of us that we are or aren't seeing what we think we are. It has really helped IMO.


----------



## Elbie

I'm still trying to get the last three Harry Potter movies moved up. lol


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/14847514
> 
> 
> I'm curious as to why Transformers is so low on the list? I haven't seen I Robot, but it's at least as good as the POTC movies.. It's got a sharp, high bitrate (if you rip it, just the video stream is bigger than an entire HDDVD disc, not even counting the lossless audio and extras) transfer that's sharp and full of detail, and its a great looking movie, definitely better looking to my eyes than, say, Crank or Prison Break....



In short, Transformers doesn't qualify for Tier 0 because of a few scenes that are soft and grainy, which is especially true in some of the night scenes (not all, but some).


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14847698
> 
> 
> In short, Transformers doesn't qualify for Tier 0 because of a few scenes that are soft and grainy, which is especially true in some of the night scenes (not all, but some).



hm, i strongly disagree, especially considering stuff like Crank is on tier 0, which has a cheap HD camcorder look and so much EE it should be instantly disqualified based on the OP's criteria









oh well...


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/14845295
> 
> 
> It seems that Beowulf was originally placed in its current spot because there was disagreement with the placement of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.
> 
> At least that is the way things appear.



Aforementioned I had requested Beowulf to be placed in Tier-0 because TMNT which looked inferior to it was already placed in Tier-0. Moreover many members concurred with it's Tier-0 placement and it remained there for a long time. I was also fine with Beowulf being pushed to Tier-1 if TMNT was pushed alongside. Once this is done, SuprSlow can happily place Happy Feet in Tier-0 below Meet the Robinsons.


----------



## giantchicken

Sleeping Beauty is king of the hill for me right now.


----------



## stumlad

I'll start by saying I was expecting more of everything, except maybe the audio.


Seeing as how this was the 20th anniversary edition, perhaps I was expecting some type of magical restoration, but it looks like this was the best they could come up with. I have never even watched it on DVD (saw it on tv so many times, I never felt like watching it....until now). I'm not sure about the budget or the shape that the film was in, etc, but Beetlejuice was nothing great.


The colors seemed to pop, but nothing else did. Face closeups were around tier 3, possibly low tier 2 quality. It didn't appear to be DNR'd or even filtered... it was just really soft. Some of the backgrounds/scenery seemed to have decent detail, but nothing impressive by today's standards. Some areas looked sharper than others. Contrast was inconsistent. Sometimes black was black, sometimes it was gray. The sandworm sequences looked bad... it was blue-screened so you could easily tell that they weren't part of it. I'm pretty sure this was just a result of bad 80s special effects. Was this CGI? I dont even know.


The question that remains is ... is this the best they could come up with? Heck there werent even special features, and I usually dont even care about those. The worst part is that this isnt even the usual Warner catalog-priced title.


Lower Tier 3 (edited: I originally wrote possible top tier 4, but I'm retracting. I think lower tier 3 is appropriate).


So far with this and Interview with the Vampire, I'm worrying a lot more about Warner's commitment to PQ than whether it has TrueHD or DD 640. To me it seems like Warner is trying to meet a quota.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14847885
> 
> 
> Aforementioned I had requested Beowulf to be placed in Tier-0 because TMNT which looked inferior to it was already placed in Tier-0. Moreover many members concurred with it's Tier-0 placement and it remained there for a long time. I was also fine with Beowulf being pushed to Tier-1 if TMNT was pushed alongside. Once this is done, SuprSlow can happily place Happy Feet in Tier-0 below Meet the Robinsons.



I think it goes against the purpose of this thread if ratings are not genuine.

Allowing our personal feelings to get in the way just flat out ruins the credibility of everything that has been rated in this thread so far.

The problem is, from the looks of the comments below, taken from the comments above, even though this is now exposed, it looks as though things will continue status quo.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14847885
> 
> 
> …I was also fine with Beowulf being pushed to Tier-1 if TMNT was pushed alongside. Once this is done, SuprSlow can happily place Happy Feet in Tier-0 below Meet the Robinsons.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/14849354
> 
> 
> I think it goes against the purpose of this thread if ratings are not genuine.
> 
> Allowing our personal feelings to get in the way just flat out ruins the credibility of everything that has been with this thread so far.
> 
> The problem is, from the looks of the comments above, even though this is now exposed, it looks as though things will continue status quo.



This was one among the problem of the Tier thread during it's early days. However I see some good improvements in the past few weeks and I am sure many members like you would come forward with such corrections and amendments. As a fellow poster I have no major issues with Beowulf or any other titles being relocated within the tiers.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14849375
> 
> 
> This was one among the problem of the Tier thread during it's early days. However I see some good improvements in the past few weeks and I am sure many members like you would come forward with such corrections and amendments. As a fellow poster I have no major issues with Beowulf or any other titles being relocated within the tiers.



Here is the issue I see.

Beowulf was placed in tier 0 for the wrong reasons from the very beginning.

Once placed, I think it is very hard to get a title in a tier moved either up or down in status. Plus, I believe you get the sort of follow the leader effect by other members when it comes to agreement once a title has been placed.

I my self have fought this titles placement for some time now but have run in to a brick wall.

Sorry, I just don't get it. I honestly don't see what most others do in Beowulfs current tier placement.

I would again like to say that my equipment is pretty nice. Sony VW60, 58x104 inch Da-Lite HCCV screen with masking sitting 12 feet away in a totally light controlled room. I would also like to add that my projector is ISF calibrated, so I really don't see my equipment being the problem.


----------



## thegalaxy6




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *babrown92* /forum/post/14845092
> 
> 
> If I, Robot doesnt impress you, nothing will. Oh, and not to be an ass, but having a Monster Cable means nothing except you wasted your money.



Well, in the first place, I was making a point that my setup may be limited -- the last thing I was doing was "bragging". And secondly, it was open box, and pretty reasonable (compared to the rest of the store's selection, it was "cheap"). Though I've heard HDMI cables are pretty comparable in quality, regardless of price (and I've seen 'em dirt cheap online). So point taken.


PS: Haven't seen *I, Robot* on Blu-ray yet. Can't wait!


----------



## djoberg

suffolk112000,


As I said in an earlier post, I have never seen Beowulf, but I really do "feel your pain" so I'm going to make an effort to rent it in the near future so I can weigh in on this (not that my opinion will necessarily affect a change, but perhaps others will do the same and a new consensus can be formed).


I think what happens with _some_ of the titles that were placed long ago is they are never revisited. But as you have intimated time and time again, with so many new titles coming out since Beowulf it's high time to review it and possibly lower it.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14851546
> 
> 
> suffolk112000,
> 
> 
> As I said in an earlier post, I have never seen Beowulf, but I really do "feel your pain" so I'm going to make an effort to rent it in the near future so I can weigh in on this (not that my opinion will necessarily affect a change, but perhaps others will do the same and a new consensus can be formed).
> 
> 
> I think what happens with _some_ of the titles that were placed long ago is they are never revisited. But as you have intimated time and time again, with so many new titles coming out since Beowulf it's high time to review it and possibly lower it.



I haven't had the opportunity to see Beowulf either and probably won't since I stopped buying BD's and only rent. I do agree with what both of you are saying and the struggle to get some more movement on a particular title.


I also have reiterated how important it is when placing a new title near ones that were placed months or longer ago. If one owns a title in the list close to one they want placed I recommend looking through that already placed title again to see if the new placement really does deserve to be near it. Recalling PQ of titles from memory and accepting where those titles are already placed may not be a fair assessment.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14852136
> 
> 
> I also have reiterated how important it is when placing a new title near ones that were placed months or longer ago. If one owns a title in the list close to one they want placed I recommend looking through that already placed title again to see if the new placement really does deserve to be near it. *Recalling PQ of titles from memory and accepting where those titles are already placed may not be a fair assessment.*



I agree 100%! Though others tell me I have a good memory, it is far from photographic.










I should mention that I just perused the HD DVD site (which is only used for reference at this point in time) and Beowulf was one the newer titles (back in April of this year) that never got ranked. But I did read all of the reviews and everyone of them, without exception, was positive and declaring it as "demo material" or "reference quality." I recognized some of the posters as highly respected AVS members too, so when I do rent it I will do my best to remember that there are strong opinions on both sides.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14851546
> 
> 
> I think what happens with _some_ of the titles that were placed long ago is they are never revisited.



Makes sense.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14852136
> 
> 
> I also have reiterated how important it is when placing a new title near ones that were placed months or longer ago. If one owns a title in the list close to one they want placed I recommend looking through that already placed title again to see if the new placement really does deserve to be near it. Recalling PQ of titles from memory and accepting where those titles are already placed may not be a fair assessment.



And once a tite is placed... right or wrong, I can tell you first hand, that is where that title will remain.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14852233
> 
> 
> I agree 100%! Though others tell me I have a good memory, it is far from photographic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I should mention that I just perused the HD DVD site (which is only used for reference at this point in time) and Beowulf was one the newer titles (back in April of this year) that never got ranked. But I did read all of the reviews and everyone of them, without exception, was positive and declaring it as "demo material" or "reference quality." I recognized some of the posters as highly respected AVS members too, so when I do rent it I will do my best to remember that there are strong opinions on both sides.



Of course Batman Begins was also one of the high regarded HD-DVD transfers but now many say it is less than impressive since it has been released on Blu Ray. Yes, I think it is definitely worth a re visit regarding where Beowulf is currently placed as number 11 in the top tier.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/14853038
> 
> 
> And once a tite is placed... right or wrong, I can tell you first hand, that is where that title will remain.



You are wrong. Many titles have been moved across and within tiers depending on the vote count.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/14852967
> 
> 
> 90% of Transformers is Demo material that blows people away and makes people want Blu-Ray. Should be rated no lower than tier 1.
> 
> 
> Same with Batman Begins.
> 
> 
> Broken Trail is a pretty lifeless transfer -- having it ranked above Transformers and Batman Begins is absurd.
> 
> 
> I challenge anyone to tell me they would use Broken Trail for a demo over Transformers or Batman Begins.
> 
> 
> Memento is ranked too low.
> 
> 
> There has to be some logic to these rankings or they become unusable.
> 
> 
> Some beautiful titles are being punished too severely for a few scenes and some very mediocre titles are being rewarded too highly for a few nice sequences.
> 
> 
> If you have to search around for a demo sequence, it can't be a demo TITLE.
> 
> 
> If you can leave the movie playing and chances are good that almost anything you see is demo material, then it *is* a demo title.
> 
> 
> To me, Transformers and Batman Begins fall into the later category.
> 
> 
> Seriously, I cannot see how Broken Trail got ranked so high.
> 
> 
> Broken Trail should be high tier 3 or tier 2 3/4.



I feel your frustrations in getting titles moved on this thread. It seems that once they are placed, there is little to no hope in getting them moved.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/14853088
> 
> 
> I feel your frustrations in getting titles moved on this thread. It seems that once they are placed, there is little to no hope in getting them moved.



Aforementioned lots of titles have been relocated within or across tiers. Just because couple of titles remaining still doesn't mean that there ain't any hope of getting them moved.


I think the current Tier placements of Beowulf, Broken Trial and Batman Begins have been performed solely based on number of votes. If you find enough or more members concurring with your assessment then SuprSlow will definitely perform the appropriate relocation.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/14853038
> 
> 
> And once a tite is placed... right or wrong, I can tell you first hand, that is where that title will remain.



I have to disagree with you here. As Igans316 said, "many titles have been moved across or within tiers depending on the vote count." Having been with this thread for a long time, I can vouch for that statement. In fact, I was actually instrumental, along with a few other members, of getting a couple of titles moved. So, hang in there...the system really does work!


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14853083
> 
> 
> You are wrong. Many titles have been moved across and within tiers depending on the vote count.



I'll refrain here from how I'd like to respond to your comments.









But I'll say this, after looking back at the history of its original placement, I don't believe the original placement of Beowulf was for the right reasons. I believe there were other reasons that were also involved in its 11th best Blu Ray ranking.

This kind of placement takes a lot of the legitimacy from this thread in my opinion. Now, unfortunately it is much harder to move Beowulf to a tier more in line to where it should be placed.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/14852967
> 
> 
> 90% of Transformers is Demo material that blows people away and makes people want Blu-Ray. Should be rated no lower than tier 1.
> 
> 
> Same with Batman Begins.
> 
> 
> Broken Trail is a pretty lifeless transfer -- having it ranked above Transformers and Batman Begins is absurd.
> 
> 
> I challenge anyone to tell me they would use Broken Trail for a demo over Transformers or Batman Begins.
> 
> 
> Memento is ranked too low.
> 
> 
> There has to be some logic to these rankings or they become unusable.
> 
> 
> Some beautiful titles are being punished too severely for a few scenes and some very mediocre titles are being rewarded too highly for a few nice sequences.
> 
> 
> If you have to search around for a demo sequence, it can't be a demo TITLE.
> 
> 
> If you can leave the movie playing and chances are good that almost anything you see is demo material, then it *is* a demo title.
> 
> 
> To me, Transformers and Batman Begins fall into the later category.
> 
> 
> Seriously, I cannot see how Broken Trail got ranked so high.
> 
> 
> Broken Trail should be high tier 3 or tier 2 3/4.





I own Memento!! I have argued this one last year and mostly was ignored IIRC and there was only one person who responded who didn't even own the title.


Memento is a bottom of Tier 1 top of Tier 2 worse case scenario. In fact Memento was Tier 1, then Tier 2. Since you brought it up and I agree, the challenge goes out to anyone who owns Memento to say otherwise. If there is no one, it needs to be moved, or should I say it with more authority and I don't mean it to be offensive or arrogant, but I want it moved.


----------



## lgans316

Aforementioned I am perfectly fine with Beowulf being pushed to Tier-1 if TMNT is also pushed alongside and Happy Feet is moved to Tier-0 below Meet the Robinsons. See, I am in the same boat as you.







99% of the posters out here have a great deal of altruism, tolerance and patience amidst strong opposition and misunderstandings.










In-case of Batman Begins and Broken Trail we need more votes for performing relocation.


IMO, Batman Begins is a solid Tier-2 title due to average high frequency information and fine object detailing. If memory serves me right, I think Broken Trail looked excellent besides the minor amount of noise in the dark scenes. Let's remember that Broken Trail runs for more than 3 hours and only the dark sequences suffered from softness with the rest looking non-tampered and eye candy.


----------



## 42041

I'd vote Batman Begins as a Tier 2 title as well. It's not unpleasant to look at, but soft/not very detailed, kind of muted overall, sub-par bitrate... not demo material IMO.


----------



## 357

Batman Begins is clearly Tier 2. Soft and very little detail. Transformers destroys it.


----------



## Iggster

I watched tranformers the other day it was amazing t seemed better then the hd DVD. It's been a long time though since iwatched the hd DVD


Ot is thebland still around?


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Iggster* /forum/post/14853652
> 
> 
> I watched tranformers the other day it was amazing t seemed better then the hd DVD. It's been a long time though since iwatched the hd DVD
> 
> 
> Ot is thebland still around?



It should be, considering that the video stream of the blu-ray version has about 10 gigabytes more data, and the average bitrate is higher than the max video bitrate of the HDDVD spec.


----------



## rsbeck

Batman Begins doesn't look soft on my screen. I agree that Transformers surpasses it, but I wouldn't put Batman Begins in tier 2.


Just to show how absurd THAT would be -- that would put BB on the same Tier as Total Recall, which I watched last night. Total Recall barely looks better than an upconverted DVD. There's another one that throws everything off.


I would drop a few titles down, like Broken Trail, National Treasure, Total Recall. These rankings are setting me up for some real disappointments.


I bought Total Recall after seeing that Memento was ranked in tier 3. I thought anything in tier 2 would look even better. Not the case.


I watched The Bank Job tonight -- looked beautiful on my screen. I have no problem with where it is ranked in tier 1 1/4. Not to beat a dead horse, but -- again -- just don't see ranking Broken Trail above The Bank Job. It would be really nice, though, if all Blu-Ray titles looked at least as good as The Bank Job.



.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/14853759
> 
> 
> Also, how do you know the bit-rate for Batman Begins?


 http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=3338 


it's easy to determine with a blu-ray PC drive and a few programs of dubious legality.


----------



## rsbeck

Re: Bitrate. Maybe someone can help me with this. Here is a link that lists bitrates for various blu-ray titles. Some of the titles with the highest bitrates, such as 28 Days Later (35.63), are among the worst blu-ray titles I've seen. I have DVD's that look better. The Bank Job (18.32), on the other hand, with one of the lower bitrates, is among the best. What do you make of this?

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=3338


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/14853808
> 
> 
> Re: Bitrate. Maybe someone can help me with this. Here is a link that lists bitrates for various blu-ray titles. Some of the titles with the highest bitrates, such as 28 Days Later (35.63), are among the worst blu-ray titles I've seen. I have DVD's that look better. The Bank Job (18.32), on the other hand, with one of the lower bitrates, is among the best. What do you make of this?
> 
> http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=3338



Bit rate is only one component of PQ but an important one. 28 days later was sourced from a standard definition digital camera, so it's not going to look great in any case. Stuff with lots of grain should suffer the most from low bitrates, since its very hard to compress random noise.


----------



## rsbeck

Another example: David Gilmore: Remember That Night has a bitrate of 29.83 and it didn't look very good at all whereas Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds: Live at Radio City with a bitrate of 19.93 looked way better.


Scorcese's Rolling Stones Concert: Shine a Light, which looked fantastic, has a pretty high bit-rate of 30.59, but bitrate can't explain it because Remember That Night is also a concert film, has a similar bitrate (29.83) and is not nearly as impressive.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/14853821
> 
> 
> Another example: David Gilmore: Remember That Night has a bitrate of 29.83 and it didn't look very good at all whereas Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds: Live at Radio City with a bitrate of 19.93 looked way better.
> 
> 
> Scorcese's Rolling Stones Concert: Shine a Light, which looked fantastic, has a pretty high bit-rate of 30.59, but bitrate can't explain it because Remember That Night is also a concert film, has a similar bitrate (29.83) and is not nearly as impressive.



Many variables involved, especially with concerts which are generally filmed with digital HD cameras, which vary considerably in quality. But higher bitrate is always better as far as compression artifacts and preservation of detail (given that it was there to begin with) go.


----------



## rsbeck

Remember That Night seems to be poorly lit and shot for picture quality while Dave Mathews and Tim Reynolds is lit and shot far better and Shine a Light is lit and shot exquisitely.


----------



## rsbeck

Re: Broken Trail. Here's a passage from a rave review, but the reviewer still admits...


"There is some softness throughout, but it's partly a result of the film's use of soft-focus photography and doesn't really distract. My only disappointment was with some obvious noise in many scenes, especially static shots of vast landscapes etc., which sometimes appear inconsistent."

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/414/...trail2006.html 


It's his opinion that it doesn't distract -- it distracted me. "Obvious noise in many scenes..." There are some nice scenes in Broken Trail, but at this point, we should EXPECT that, we should be past the point where we get so excited about seeing a few well executed scenes in 1080 among the many scenes with noise and softness. It especially bugs me when the long shots are blurry and then cuts to close-ups are impressive. IMO, back and forth between blurry long shots and beautiful detailed close ups don't make me admire the close-ups, the contrast drives me a little buggy.


----------



## lgans316

rsbeck,


I truly respect your opinions but I kindly request you to go through the Broken Trail comments from members in the "Blu-ray software section" and the AVS review by reliable Ralph in the Blu-ray movies reviews section. I think there was some server crash due to which several messages got lost when Broken Trial and few other titles were being discussed out here.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14853203
> 
> 
> I own Memento!! I have argued this one last year and mostly was ignored IIRC and there was only one person who responded who didn't even own the title.
> 
> 
> Memento is a bottom of Tier 1 top of Tier 2 worse case scenario. In fact Memento was Tier 1, then Tier 2. Since you brought it up and I agree, the challenge goes out to anyone who owns Memento to say otherwise. If there is no one, it needs to be moved, or should I say it with more authority and I don't mean it to be offensive or arrogant, but I want it moved.



I have it and have yet to open it.


Will try to get to it this week.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

And I got about 1/4 the way through Batman Begins last week, will reserve judgment until I finish watching it in its entirety.


----------



## reisb

I've read here that Speed Racer is great quality on BD, but how is the actual movie?


Also, is Transformers BD worth buying if I already have on SD?


thanks


----------



## MelloFellow13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *reisb* /forum/post/14855857
> 
> 
> I've read here that Speed Racer is great quality on BD, but how is the actual movie?
> 
> 
> Also, is Transformers BD worth buying if I already have on SD?
> 
> 
> thanks



I love Speed Racer, it's seriously like a live-action cartoon the whole time. And there is ninjas and car fu! It's at least worth a rent!


Transformers looks fantastic on BD so my vote is yes, but it's up to you if you want to spend the cash obviously. Maybe wait til Black Friday and see if there are any sweet deals?


Regarding Memento, I agree it is ranked too low - it is one of my favorite movies and it is a very nice transfer in BD.


----------



## ballen420




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *reisb* /forum/post/14855857
> 
> 
> I've read here that Speed Racer is great quality on BD, but how is the actual movie?
> 
> 
> Also, is Transformers BD worth buying if I already have on SD?
> 
> 
> thanks



I'm going to give you the complete opposite opinion of the above.


I couldn't watch more then 30 minutes of Speed Racer, and I can watch just about any movie. Maybe it got better, maybe it didn't - but to me, it was worth sending it back right away so I could get another movie in my queue.


As for Transformers, I own the SD copy as well and wouldn't think about buying the BD copy. I rented it and thought it was good, but I don't think it's worth a purchase - especially for full price. There are so many other movies that are better looking and worth purchasing. IMO.


I do want to note that I love Memento though. So not completely opposite of above.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ballen420* /forum/post/14856445
> 
> 
> I'm going to give you the complete opposite opinion of the above.
> 
> 
> I couldn't watch more then 30 minutes of Speed Racer, and I can watch just about any movie. Maybe it got better, maybe it didn't - but to me, it was worth sending it back right away so I could get another movie in my queue.
> 
> 
> As for Transformers, I own the SD copy as well and wouldn't think about buying the BD copy. I rented it and thought it was good, but I don't think it's worth a purchase - especially for full price. There are so many other movies that are better looking and worth purchasing. IMO.



+1


I agree on both counts. Speed Racer was as sweet-looking as they get, but the movie was not my cup of tea. I ended up fastforwarding through quite a few scenes.


Regarding Transformers, I was one who voted for a bottom of Tier 1 placement because there were too many soft and grainy scenes for Tier Blu. I bought a HD DVD copy of it blind (when it first came out), but I wished I hadn't.


----------



## rsbeck

Re: Transformers.


Can someone point me to an example of a particular soft, grainy scene in transformers, so I can see exactly what you're talking about? I watched it, but either those scenes went by quickly and didn't distract me, or the picture quality of most of the movie was so good, I must have forgiven it.


----------



## rsbeck

Regarding the plot of Speed Racer; This is definitely not for everyone. I watched it with my 15 year old son, who couldn't sit through it. I gave it lots of slack. LOTS of slack. There are a number of things that *could* jar you out of the film; The mix of real actors and CGI cartoon backgrounds, the soft focus of the actors' faces compared with the super detailed, high rez CGI backgrounds, some very purple story telling and dialogue. I hung through it 'til the end -- there is a story and it isn't bad. It's an attempt at something different, which IMO merits some tolerance. I thought it was worth watching once -- don't know if I will give it a repeat.


----------



## MelloFellow13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/14856744
> 
> 
> Re: Transformers.
> 
> 
> Can someone point me to an example of a particular soft, grainy scene in transformers, so I can see exactly what you're talking about? I watched it, but either those scenes went by quickly and didn't distract me, or the picture quality of most of the movie was so good, I must have forgiven it.



Immediately after the fight between Bumblebee and Barricade, at night, when Sam and Mikaela are talking to Bumblebee. Take note of the shots of the humans and especially the close-ups. That might be the softest scene in the movie, it certainly left an impression on me.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MelloFellow13* /forum/post/14856865
> 
> 
> Immediately after the fight between Bumblebee and Barricade, at night, when Sam and Mikaela are talking to Bumblebee. Take note of the shots of the humans and especially the close-ups. That might be the softest scene in the movie, it certainly left an impression on me.



Hmmm... I'll have to give it a look.

How long does this sequence last? Seconds, Minutes... ?


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MelloFellow13* /forum/post/14856865
> 
> 
> Immediately after the fight between Bumblebee and Barricade, at night, when Sam and Mikaela are talking to Bumblebee. Take note of the shots of the humans and especially the close-ups. That might be the softest scene in the movie, it certainly left an impression on me.



Thanks -- Do you have a chapter name or number?


----------



## MelloFellow13

I just queued it up. It's in chapter 10 toward the end. The particular bit I had in mind starts at about 00:55.


Also in Chapter 11, after Optimus Prime makes his first transformation. When Mikaela says "Why are you here?" - big-time softness there.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

First of all I'd like to say *whew*! I've slogged through the entire 214 pages of this thread (over the course of about 4-5 days) to see the way this list has come about. It's been an interesting journey you guys have gone through, with various bumps along the road.



I came to this list as someone directed a link to me from the IMDB board about Blu Ray when I had some questions about quality on some titles. As a normal user and fan of Blu Ray, I'm happy that this list exists, even with the amount of shuffle that comes about on it, because I can use it as a guideline for how discs will look when I pick them up.



My equipment is fairly substandard in comparison to what everyone here is listing, we do have the ps3(80gig) and we have a toshiba 46H83. I do have a new computer which came with a Blu Ray burner (PLDS BD-RE DH-4B1S for those who are into that sorta thing), with a Samsung SyncMaster 2243wm 22" widescreen monitor (8000:1 contrast ratio, 1650x1050pixels). I'm unsure if with the equipment I have I can realistically contribute to the PQ thread, but I do enjoy reading all of the reviews and opinions that everyone has continued to present here in the thread.



The hard work that you all have put forth in the list, given the bumps & bruises that seem to occur every 4-ish months or so, is being commended by this "average jane blu ray owner"!



My personal BD collection is still fairly small, and upon seeing the list, I don't even OWN any of the Tier 0 discs, and I've been very impressed with the ones I do own. I've seen POTC-AWE but I think that's the only one on the list thus far! Although once released in Canada finally I will get the KBv1 & KBv2, and perhaps one or two of the Disney releases for the little one for Christmas or something.



The list has provided me with a good IDEA of which titles I already own on DVD that I might want to replace on BD one day (Harry Potter's come to mind) although for now my personal collection will likely consist of new titles to my collection rather than replacement titles at this time. Despite my pleading, the husband just doesn't agree that I need a $75 remastered Godfather trilogy, when I already own the DVDs from a few years ago *grumble*.



Latest additions to our collection that I am curious for reviews here are: Sex and the City, Sleeping Beauty Remastered, and Iron Man (waiting to see where that ends up on the list!). I've yet to watch the Sleeping Beauty, perhaps this week when the little one is in school, as it's intended to be a christmas present for her.



At any rate, I know this post isn't very informative for you guys here, but after slogging through the entire thread I couldn't just NOT post and give you all kudos for the work you're doing, and that it IS helping people like me, not necessarily videophiles but who do enjoy the upgrade from DVD, and that the list does help with regards to future purchases!



Keep up the good work, and apologies for the slight intrusion.


----------



## 42041

Looks like the focus guy didn't quite hit the mark in a couple of shots. But a few shots aside, it's a fantastic transfer with an big "wow" factor that should definitely be above a lot of the stuff its currently ranked below.


----------



## rsbeck

Agree.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/14853986
> 
> 
> I have it and have yet to open it.
> 
> 
> Will try to get to it this week.




I may have to eat crow on Memento. I also have to apologize for making a big to do about looking back at titles before recommending placement. djoberg agreed with me that we should look back at previous titles for side by side comparison and then I made the blunder I did concerning Memento.







I say this because I did look at Memento last night from beginning to end. It is not a Tier 1 title or even lower Tier 1. Low Tier 2 maybe more accurate in its placement. I should have looked at it again before reiterating my strong belief in placement. Apologies to all. Very embarrassing.

















EDIT* Truly a year or so ago when I got it, I thought it was one of the really good looking BD titles. How far we have come.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/14857391
> 
> 
> First of all I'd like to say *whew*! I've slogged through the entire 214 pages of this thread (over the course of about 4-5 days) to see the way this list has come about. It's been an interesting journey you guys have gone through, with various bumps along the road.
> 
> 
> 
> I came to this list as someone directed a link to me from the IMDB board about Blu Ray when I had some questions about quality on some titles. As a normal user and fan of Blu Ray, I'm happy that this list exists, even with the amount of shuffle that comes about on it, because I can use it as a guideline for how discs will look when I pick them up.
> 
> 
> 
> My equipment is fairly substandard in comparison to what everyone here is listing, we do have the ps3(80gig) and we have a toshiba 46H83. I do have a new computer which came with a Blu Ray burner (PLDS BD-RE DH-4B1S for those who are into that sorta thing), with a Samsung SyncMaster 2243wm 22" widescreen monitor (8000:1 contrast ratio, 1650x1050pixels). I'm unsure if with the equipment I have I can realistically contribute to the PQ thread, but I do enjoy reading all of the reviews and opinions that everyone has continued to present here in the thread.
> 
> 
> 
> The hard work that you all have put forth in the list, given the bumps & bruises that seem to occur every 4-ish months or so, is being commended by this "average jane blu ray owner"!
> 
> 
> 
> My personal BD collection is still fairly small, and upon seeing the list, I don't even OWN any of the Tier 0 discs, and I've been very impressed with the ones I do own. I've seen POTC-AWE but I think that's the only one on the list thus far! Although once released in Canada finally I will get the KBv1 & KBv2, and perhaps one or two of the Disney releases for the little one for Christmas or something.
> 
> 
> 
> The list has provided me with a good IDEA of which titles I already own on DVD that I might want to replace on BD one day (Harry Potter's come to mind) although for now my personal collection will likely consist of new titles to my collection rather than replacement titles at this time. Despite my pleading, the husband just doesn't agree that I need a $75 remastered Godfather trilogy, when I already own the DVDs from a few years ago *grumble*.
> 
> 
> 
> Latest additions to our collection that I am curious for reviews here are: Sex and the City, Sleeping Beauty Remastered, and Iron Man (waiting to see where that ends up on the list!). I've yet to watch the Sleeping Beauty, perhaps this week when the little one is in school, as it's intended to be a christmas present for her.
> 
> 
> 
> At any rate, I know this post isn't very informative for you guys here, but after slogging through the entire thread I couldn't just NOT post and give you all kudos for the work you're doing, and that it IS helping people like me, not necessarily videophiles but who do enjoy the upgrade from DVD, and that the list does help with regards to future purchases!
> 
> 
> 
> Keep up the good work, and apologies for the slight intrusion.



Welcome and that is nice to hear. No intrusion, keep coming back and give some feedback if and when you can. All are welcome.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Welcome glassesgirl, can't believe you read through all 214 pages!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/14858135
> 
> 
> Welcome glassesgirl, can't believe you read through all 214 pages!



Admittedly there was stuff I did skim through... but I did at least _peruse_ the entire thread, basically looking for reviews of BD I am interested in buying, and the reasons for various fluctuations on the list, etc. I found I was reading the thread backward, and finally got annoyed* enough to start from the beginning.










eta: *annoyed with backward thread reading, not w/ regards to content. =)


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/14857391
> 
> 
> Despite my pleading, *the husband just doesn't agree that I need a $75 remastered Godfather trilogy, when I already own the DVDs from a few years ago* *grumble*.



I too welcome you to the thread! It is refreshing to see a girl delving into the magical world of High Definition. And I found it very comical that you have to deal with the "Husband Factor" (us guys can relate 100%, for most of us have to deal with the Wife Factor).


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/14856744
> 
> 
> Re: Transformers.
> 
> 
> Can someone point me to an example of a particular soft, grainy scene in transformers, so I can see exactly what you're talking about? I watched it, but either those scenes went by quickly and didn't distract me, or the picture quality of most of the movie was so good, I must have forgiven it.



As I have pointed out in previous posts, I do NOT have a Blu-ray copy, so perhaps I'm not comparing "apples to apples" (i.e., if the encode is different for Blu-ray). But on my HD DVD copy there are several night scenes that are both soft and grainy (it's been awhile since I watched it so I can't speak specifically right now).


You may have read a post by patrick99 where he stated that some of the CGI scenes are soft. I recall this as well, especially in daytime scenes (at Hoover dam and the last fight scene on the city streets). The robots lacked detail and vibrant colors as a result of this.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14858481
> 
> 
> I too welcome you to the thread! It is refreshing to see a girl delving into the magical world of High Definition. And I found it very comical that you have to deal with the "Husband Factor" (us guys can relate 100%, for most of us have to deal with the Wive Factor).



LOL even though I am single I found that funny as well.


(I think she needs to find a new husband).


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/14857391
> 
> 
> My personal BD collection is still fairly small, and upon seeing the list, I don't even OWN any of the Tier 0 discs, and I've been very impressed with the ones I do own. I've seen POTC-AWE but I think that's the only one on the list thus far! Although once released in Canada finally I will get the KBv1 & KBv2, and perhaps one or two of the Disney releases for the little one for Christmas or something.



Just a tip.....but you should try ordering some BD's from Amazon.com (not Amazon.ca). I paid $39.99 for both Kill Bill's together and I'm from Canada. They ship them out of Mississauga, Ontario and there's no duty.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/14858570
> 
> 
> LOL even though I am single I found that funny as well.
> 
> 
> (I think she needs to find a new husband).




If I can find a woman who is into either playing or watching hockey and is into home theatre and gaming...and...if only.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14859515
> 
> 
> If I can find a woman who is into either playing or watching hockey and is into home theatre and gaming...and...if only.



Haha


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14859515
> 
> 
> If I can find a woman who is into either playing or watching hockey and is into home theatre and gaming...and...if only.



Dream on!


----------



## lgans316

Godfather I - Tier 2 1/2

Godfather II - Tier 2 3/4 [Too much softness than Part I]

Godfather III - Tier 1 3/4


Terrific remastering and encoding job done by Paramount under supervision of the director and Mr. RAH.


How many of you agree ? Please let me know if I am a bit harsh with the recommendations.


----------



## Acronos Myth

Guys this thread is so helpfull!!


----------



## Bronco70

Have only watched Godfather I. Tier 3. Not the great restoration that some think. Too bad.


Joe


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14860081
> 
> 
> Godfather I - Tier 2 1/2
> 
> 
> How many of you agree ? Please let me know if I am a bit harsh with the recommendations.



I would put Godfather I in the third quarter of Tier 2. I think a very good comparison can be made with Close Encounters of the Third Kind at that ranking. I have not yet had the time to watch the sequels properly.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/14860664
> 
> 
> Total Recall is ranked tier 2 and a lot of it is blurry.
> 
> I am now dreading watching Godfather 1.
> 
> 
> Please let it be better than Total Recall, if you're calling it tier 2, please let it live up to the definition of tier 2.
> 
> 
> Or, please move Total Recall down so it doesn't skew the rankings.


*Total Recall* ranked in Tier-2 is the *U.K Import*. The U.S version doesn't qualify for Tier-2.


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14860081
> 
> 
> Godfather I - Tier 2 1/2
> 
> Godfather II - Tier 2 3/4 [Too much softness than Part I]
> 
> Godfather III - Tier 1 3/4
> 
> 
> Terrific remastering and encoding job done by Paramount under supervision of the director and Mr. RAH.
> 
> 
> How many of you agree ? Please let me know if I am a bit harsh with the recommendations.



I've only watched the first two so far. Both were a beautiful restoration and mastering, giving a very film like feel. However, since this is the eye-candy thread most people will be disappointed in PQ if they are expected something that looks like some of the mindless junk in Tier 0. I would rate both Part I and II in the lowest quarter in Tier 2. Still, I'm extremely happy with the two I've seen so far. Basically, these are movies that belong in any serious Blu-ray collection.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14860744
> 
> *Total Recall* ranked in Tier-2 is the *U.K Import*. The U.S version doesn't qualify for Tier-2.



Okay, I see that the U.S. Total Recall is ranked Tier 4, which seems correct.


Thanks for the correction.


Last night, I watched two episodes of Sopranos, season 6 part 1, which is ranked tier 2 and they, along with Men in Black definitely lived up to the definition of that tier.


This restores hope.


Also watched Hellboy last night and agree with its tier 0 ranking.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

I posted last night but it didn't show up so I'm giving it one more go! =)



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14858481
> 
> 
> I too welcome you to the thread! It is refreshing to see a girl delving into the magical world of High Definition. And I found it very comical that you have to deal with the "Husband Factor" (us guys can relate 100%, for most of us have to deal with the Wife Factor).



I did notice that was a trend!! I definitely love my High Def!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/14858570
> 
> 
> LOL even though I am single I found that funny as well.
> 
> 
> (I think she needs to find a new husband).



Nah! He's very tolerant; plus it helps with whenever we have a small spat, he often comes home bearing a shiny new Blu Ray disc, much more useful than a bunch of flowers.







He also made sure my new computer not only came with a blu ray player, but a blu ray burner, instead of a standard dvd burner. He's a keeper for sure!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/14859236
> 
> 
> Just a tip.....but you should try ordering some BD's from Amazon.com (not Amazon.ca). I paid $39.99 for both Kill Bill's together and I'm from Canada. They ship them out of Mississauga, Ontario and there's no duty.



What about the shipping cost though? right now at amazon the KBv1&2 are about $22, so to get both I'd get free shipping & not have to worry about the falling dollar right now. I also live up in the middle of nowhere, generally places like to charge extra for being so remote.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14859515
> 
> 
> If I can find a woman who is into either playing or watching hockey and is into home theatre and gaming...and...if only.



Hockey! Hockey's the best! 'Course I am canadian so I think that's a prerequisite. Go Oilers! As for gaming, I tend to be oldschool there with being a recovering EQ addict n' all (although we do enjoy some ps3 & wii action 'round here as well). If only I had a sister for you!










Back on topic...


Once I get a few Tier 0 titles watched, I'm definitely going to attempt to jump in the fray slightly even with the knowledge my equipment isn't completely up to par. I feel so badly for all of you who had to suffer through the likes of Enchanted! I personally love the movie, but I'd never think of making my husband suffer through that one. Plus you need some reviews of more girly movies like Sex and the City, and I'm really looking forward to the Blu Ray release of Mamma Mia. I'm _sure_ that'll be a favourite here.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14858023
> 
> 
> I may have to eat crow on Memento. I also have to apologize for making a big to do about looking back at titles before recommending placement. djoberg agreed with me that we should look back at previous titles for side by side comparison and then I made the blunder I did concerning Memento.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I say this because I did look at Memento last night from beginning to end. It is not a Tier 1 title or even lower Tier 1. Low Tier 2 maybe more accurate in its placement. I should have looked at it again before reiterating my strong belief in placement. Apologies to all. Very embarrassing.



I rewatched Memento in the last two days. Its current placement in tier three is accurate to my eyes. A 113-minute movie encoded in MPEG-2 on a BD-25 from the early days of the format where the average video bitrate is 17.53 Mbps just doesn't hold up to the high bitrate AVC and VC-1 encodes we've seen in the past year. On top of the poor compression job on the current Memento BD (watch the black and white scenes closely where some grain drowns in the compression noise), the HD master used for the transfer has more dirt specks on it than almost any other modern movie I've seen. It is peppered with small but very noticeable black and white spots throughout the movie and is actually distracting at times.


The filming is great though and saves the old transfer. I bet a fully remastered and restored Memento could easily be an upper half tier one Blu-ray.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/14865932
> 
> 
> I rewatched Memento in the last two days. Its current placement in tier three is accurate to my eyes. A 113-minute movie encoded in MPEG-2 on a BD-25 from the early days of the format where the average video bitrate is 17.53 Mbps just doesn't hold up to the high bitrate AVC and VC-1 encodes we've seen in the past year. On top of the poor compression job on the current Memento BD (watch the black and white scenes closely where some grain drowns in the compression noise), the HD master used for the transfer has more dirt specks on it than almost any other modern movie I've seen. It is peppered with small but very noticeable black and white spots throughout the movie and is actually distracting at times.
> 
> 
> The filming is great though and saves the old transfer. I bet a fully remastered and restored Memento could easily be an upper half tier one Blu-ray.


----------



## lgans316

*Walk the Line (Extended version - Dutch Import) Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Fox*


Disc One (BD-50) - Feature Film with audio commentary

Disc Two (BD-25) - Bonus disc containing special features

Codec: MPEG-4 AVC

Average video bit rate: 30+ Mbps

Region Coding: A, B, C (Verified)


Sharpness of the image is not this film's strong suit. The color palette is vibrant and punchy. Contrast remains slightly weak and it looks the DOP applied some soft filter to emulate a period look. Though the blacks aren't inky and deep, it remains constant showing decent amount of details in the shadows. The video has a very smooth and clean appearance with a barely visible layer of film grain. Sometimes the image is so clean with almost zero grain that it tends to appears flat, soft and a bit waxy. Not sure if this is how it looked in the theaters but the usual suspicion about application of some degree of judicious grain scrubbing arise as the facial close-ups and texture details always look on the verge of turning out to be waxy. Also noticed some minor EE in couple of scenes. The facial close-ups exhibit average detail. Outdoor shots in the day time looks excellent with the night shots looking average. Though there are many scenes that offer HD pop, the image quality fluctuates between looking like Spiderwick Chronicles and Twister.


Tier recommendation: *Tier-2 3/4*

*Caps courtesy: Jojos*

   


Disc 1 :

http://img.gkblogger.com/blog/imgdb/.../259/602_3.jpg (Main Menu)
http://img.gkblogger.com/blog/imgdb/.../259/603_3.jpg (Audio)
http://img.gkblogger.com/blog/imgdb/.../259/604_3.jpg (Subtitles)
http://img.gkblogger.com/blog/imgdb/.../259/605_3.jpg (Chapters)
http://img.gkblogger.com/blog/imgdb/.../259/606_3.jpg (Extras)

http://img.gkblogger.com/blog/imgdb/.../259/607_3.jpg 
http://img.gkblogger.com/blog/imgdb/.../259/608_3.jpg 


Disc 2 :

http://img.gkblogger.com/blog/imgdb/.../259/609_3.jpg (1080p AVC)
http://img.gkblogger.com/blog/imgdb/.../259/610_3.jpg (1080p AVC)
http://img.gkblogger.com/blog/imgdb/.../259/612_3.jpg (1080p AVC)
http://img.gkblogger.com/blog/imgdb/.../259/614_3.jpg (480i/p [email protected] Hz)


----------



## makaveli42o

Just finished Indiana Jones (The new one). IMO it's a Tier 0 film.










I saw no flaws in the video. Great colors, clarity, and non of that ugly black grainy look. I cant stand that stuff...not sure if there is a word for it or not but its horrid. That stuff is all I see when I watch Transformers on HD DVD...haven't seent he Blu-Ray version yet...but if it's like the HD DVD version...it's deffently not Tier 1 rating.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *makaveli42o* /forum/post/14867628
> 
> 
> Just finished Indiana Jones (The new one). IMO it's a Tier 0 film.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I saw no flaws in the video. Great colors, clarity, and non of that ugly black grainy look. I cant stand that stuff...not sure if there is a word for it or not but its horrid. That stuff is all I see when I watch Transformers on HD DVD...haven't seent he Blu-Ray version yet...but if it's like the HD DVD version...it's deffently not Tier 1 rating.



Many would say a grainy transfer is a good transfer, because grain is part of the film...

(and IMHO, if you think transformers should be lower than tier 1, you have no business posting in this thread)


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/14867643
> 
> 
> Many would say a grainy transfer is a good transfer, because grain is part of the film...
> 
> (and IMHO, if you think transformers should be lower than tier 1, you have no business posting in this thread)



In defense of the new member you responded to I must say:


1. Transformers DOES have quite a bit of grain on the HD DVD transfer, and IMHO it is excessive and distracting.


2. He has a right to his opinion (as you do) and should NOT be told that he has no business posting in this thread.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/14867643
> 
> 
> Many would say a grainy transfer is a good transfer, because grain is part of the film...
> 
> (and IMHO, if you think transformers should be lower than tier 1, you have no business posting in this thread)



Bay?


Is that you?


----------



## Mel2

I agree about indy kotcs being tier 0. blacks were incredible as was the level of the detail. just enough grain to enhance all the little details and give the overall PQ more pop.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lbfilmguy* /forum/post/14867898
> 
> 
> bay?
> 
> 
> Is that you?



lol!


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14867882
> 
> 
> In defense of the new member you responded to I must say:
> 
> 
> 1. Transformers DOES have quite a bit of grain on the HD DVD transfer, and IMHO it is excessive and distracting.
> 
> 
> 2. He has a right to his opinion (as you do) and should NOT be told that he has no business posting in this thread.



More than second that comment. That isn't right saying someone has no business posting in this an open and free forum even if he is "wrong" or a bit off with his PQ placements all the time.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14868025
> 
> 
> More than second that comment. That isn't right saying someone has no business posting in this an open and free forum even if he is "wrong" or a bit off with his PQ placements all the time.



fair enough... screw artistic intent and bring on the waxy DNR'ed blu-rays


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/14868134
> 
> 
> fair enough... screw *artistic intent* and bring on the *waxy DNR'ed* blu-rays



If you have followed this thread at all you would have seen that the subject of "artistic intent" (or "Director's intent") has been brought up time and time again. A consensus has been formed stating that this thread is really all about "eye candy" and thus what the Director intended is irrelevant.


The standards for placement are listed on page one. If you abide by those standards there will NOT be an argument over this issue. Regarding grain, if grain is excessive and distracts from the PQ (i.e., sharpness, detail, colors, contrast, black levels, etc.) it will be pointed out as a negative factor.


One more point. DNR (and EE) have been condemned many times in this thread, so you are wrong in insinuating that we are in favor of them.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/14868134
> 
> 
> fair enough... screw artistic intent and bring on the waxy DNR'ed blu-rays



Yes, you are in the wrong thread.

You need to be in the Film Grain Allowed - Artistic Intent thread.


----------



## Hughmc

Indiana Jones and TKOTCS







(hell of a long title):


Tier 0. This has equivalent PQ to the two Pirates movies in Tier 0. I am going to watch it again as I am admittedly a bit biased since I love the Indy movies and enjoy Harrison Ford's acting. I wish all BD's could look this good. Getting new releases that are tier 3 and 4 PQ is unacceptable. I can understand older catalog titles and movies from the 50's or 60's not being great transfers, but even then we have seen some that are much better than new releases.


Sony [email protected] from PS3 thru HDMI


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/14868134
> 
> 
> fair enough... screw artistic intent and bring on the waxy DNR'ed blu-rays



No we don't like those either, so I don't know how you took what I said about someone's opinion about PQ and turned it into yet another DNR rant. While I don't care for DNR, we have enough threads complaining about it. It seems almost every release some rant about DNR.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Tudors: The Complete First Season (U.K. import)*


tier recommendation: top quarter of *Tier 1*


Sony owns the rights to this show in the U.K. and released this set to Blu-ray in December of 2007. The ten episodes are spread across three discs with the following run-times:


Disc 1 - 219 minutes on a BD-50

Disc 2 - 163 minutes on a BD-50

Disc 3 - 155 minutes on a BD-50


The video is encoded in AVC at relatively high bitrates for this amount of material. The video bitrate swings from 15 to 35.5 Mbps over the course of the episodes with it mainly hovering between 18 to 26 Mbps. I would estimate the average video bitrate to be around 22 Mbps for all three discs with semi-regular peaks in the low 30s. The compression work is uniformly excellent with no visible signs of any artifacting or banding. This is how television should be encoded on Blu-ray instead of cramming too many episodes on fewer discs.


A word about the nature of the making and production of this show. It was shot entirely with digital HD cameras and the image looks very much like typical HD video. The image presented is uniformly clean and noise free and has the typical window effect that better shot HD video exhibits. The outdoor scenes are magnificent and as nice looking as many titles in tier zero. This might be the cleanest source I've seen on Blu-ray outside of the computer-animated titles. The creative forces behind this show haven't added any fake digital grain to make the image look more like film. There is never a stray mark or dirt speck or digital scratch removal artifact. I can say without hesitation that the source is in flawless shape. Colors are nicely saturated while looking very natural. Contrast is perfect and as good as it can get on Blu-ray. It goes without saying that the presentation is razor sharp and in focus, with top-notch detail in close-ups and medium range shots. I looked long and hard for a soft scene or even a shot but I couldn't find one. Hair, skin, and clothing reveal an inordinate amount of high frequency information like razor stubble and tiny scars. There is also decent dimensionality to the image with some scenes exhibiting more three-dimensional pop than others.


While many of the interior scenes show the same properties the outdoor scenes have, there is a very small but clear step down in visual quality in some of the interior shots. The lighting here seems to play a part as most of the interior scenes are lit by torches and candles. The color timing also seems a little different, like the gamma curve was changed slightly for these portions. It slightly affects color tones and the palette, with them not looking as bold or dynamic as the better scenes. High frequency information remains as good as ever though. The image is what I would consider a solid tier one overall for these portions alone. Shadow detail doesn't appear to be affected and black levels are very deep.


No DNR has been used at all on this transfer and edge enhancement is barely present. I had to watch from two feet away to notice the faintest hint of edge enhancement. From a normal viewing distance the problem goes away completely.


Sony has done an excellent job of bringing this show to Blu-ray. I would rank it in the top quarter of tier one at the moment. I think some would want to place this in tier zero and if they did I would have no quibble with that. There is a Canadian set of this season due very soon but I doubt it will top the presentation on this U.K. set which happens to be region free.


Watching on a 60 Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080/24p fed by a PS3 from a viewing distance of approximately six feet.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14872773
> 
> 
> Indiana Jones and TKOTCS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (hell of a long title): Tier 0. This has equivalent PQ to the two Pirates movies in Tier 0.



That's good to hear Hughmc! I just ordered a copy from Amazon last night, so my anticipation is great for this movie (I too love the Indy movies and Harrison Ford's acting).


PS High Def Digest only gave it 4 stars, but what do they know?


----------



## LBFilmGuy

You guys are really excited about Indy? I heard it was god awful.


I will probably rent it just to see how good it looks.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/14873132
> 
> 
> You guys are really excited about Indy? I heard it was god awful.
> 
> 
> I will probably rent it just to see how good it looks.




It had all the appeal of the first three, but even as a fan I admit there was something missing. The 3 were 4 star movies and this was more like 2.5-3 stars, again taking into account my bias.


As far as PQ, I am committing to Tier 0 now, but upon further reviewing and input from fellow tier thread contributors







, I reserve the right to change my placement recommendation.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/14873132
> 
> 
> You guys are really excited about Indy? I heard it was god awful.
> 
> 
> I will probably rent it just to see how good it looks.



I've read mixed reviews (on Amazon and elsewhere) so I'm not expecting an Oscar-worthy movie. But I simply love watching _anything_ with Harrison Ford in it. His facial expressions alone bring a smile to my face. Add to this exceptional PQ and I feel justified in shelling out the purchase price.


Edit: Indiana Jones: TKOTCS had a majority of good reviews here:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/indi...crystal_skull/


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14873464
> 
> 
> I've read mixed reviews (on Amazon and elsewhere) so I'm not expecting an Oscar-worthy movie. But I simply love watching _anything_ with Harrison Ford in it. His facial expressions alone bring a smile to my face. Add to this exceptional PQ and I feel justified in shelling out the purchase price.
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: Indiana Jones: TKOTCS had a majority of good reviews here:
> 
> http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/indi...crystal_skull/




Within reason anything over 40% rating on RT is generally a good movie.


----------



## alexg75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14873161
> 
> 
> It had all the appeal of the first three, but even as a fan I admit there was something missing. The 3 were 4 star movies and this was more like 2.5-3 stars, again taking into account my bias.
> 
> 
> As far as PQ, I am committing to Tier 0 now, but upon further reviewing and input from fellow tier thread contributors
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , I reserve the right to change my placement recommendation.



I called for a Tier 0 recommendation a while back,so I'm with you......


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/14873161
> 
> 
> It had all the appeal of the first three, but even as a fan I admit there was something missing. The 3 were 4 star movies and this was more like 2.5-3 stars, again taking into account my bias.
> 
> 
> As far as PQ, I am committing to Tier 0 now, but upon further reviewing and input from fellow tier thread contributors
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , I reserve the right to change my placement recommendation.



Definitely NOT Tier 0 to my eyes. I have now watched the BD pretty much all the way through twice, and I never saw the really sharp and crystalline PQ that I expect from a Tier 0 title. For example, close-ups of Ford (and the other characters as well) never have that breathtakingly sharp quality that the very best BDs have. Once the heavy effects sequences start, the PQ shows the negative effects that ordinarily come with big effects. I'd say high Tier 1, at best.


As for the movie itself, I really enjoyed it. I thought Ford and LaBeouf were very good together, and Blanchett was priceless.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14875681
> 
> 
> I'd say high Tier 1, at best.
> 
> 
> As for the movie itself, I really enjoyed it. I thought Ford and LaBeouf were very good together, and Blanchett was priceless.



Coming from you patrick, a high Tier 1 recommendation is very good. So, I believe I'll be quite satisfied with the PQ.


I'm glad to hear you enjoyed the movie as well.


----------



## sleater

Anybody seen The 40 Year Old Virgin? I picked mine up in a three BD pack with Knocked Up and Forgetting Sarah Marshall. I initially watched Sarah Marshall and was pretty disappointed with the PQ for a new release movie with many outdoor tropical locale scenes in it (I would throw it in mid tier 3 land myself) but was pleased with The 40 Year Old Virgin, having owned the DVD release of it. The PQ was very nice and with my eyes I would say it deserves at least a top tier 2 placement. Definitely wayyyyy better than a 1080p upconverted dvd image.


Anyone else happen to see it?


----------



## makaveli42o

where did u pick up those three at a bundle pack? and for how much? I would be very interested in one...but havent seen one.


----------



## Hammie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *makaveli42o* /forum/post/14879392
> 
> 
> where did u pick up those three at a bundle pack? and for how much? I would be very interested in one...but havent seen one.


 Here.


----------



## Ozymandis

Sleeping Beauty- Even though the animation is very simple compared to modern films, I'm struggling to find a reason why this shouldn't be Tier 0? The image is very clean and I saw no artifacts, color looked fantastic with lots of pop, and the backgrounds were crisp. Didn't check bitrates but IMO it looked great. Audio was also very nice.


----------



## bori

The blu ray PQ is fantastic just finished watching Indiana Jones. I recommend tier 0 for Indiana Jones.


----------



## Hughmc

I will watch INdy again to reaffirm my PQ recommendation.


War, Inc.:


This was another all over the place film in terms of PQ.


The majority of War, Inc. has Tier 2 PQ, with some Tier 1 and 3 and a few rare Tier 0 shots. There seems to be black crush and EE. I recommend bottom of Tier 2 or top of Tier 3.


Sony [email protected] 8ft from PS3 thru HDMI.


----------



## TheTonik

This is my first post in this thread, not totally sure how this works, but...


I would like to recommend _Mongol_ as being a Tier 0. Or at the very least, Tier 1.


Pristine transfer. Just incredible.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TheTonik* /forum/post/14889033
> 
> 
> This is my first post in this thread, not totally sure how this works, but...
> 
> 
> I would like to recommend _Mongol_ as being a Tier 0. Or at the very least, Tier 1.
> 
> 
> Pristine transfer. Just incredible.



Welcome to the thread!


I had never heard of Mongol, but I looked it up on Amazon and it sounds interesting...and some of the reviewers mention how amazing it looks on Blu-ray. I will definitely want to see it when time allows, and I will look forward to reviewing it and hearing from others as well.


----------



## TheTonik




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14889098
> 
> 
> Welcome to the thread!
> 
> 
> I had never heard of Mongol, but I looked it up on Amazon and it sounds interesting...and some of the reviewers mention how amazing it looks on Blu-ray. I will definitely want to see it when time allows, and I will look forward to reviewing it and hearing from others as well.



Thanks for the welcome. Mongol is not only a gorgeous HD presentation, it is an excellent film as well. Based on a true story, too. I highly recommend it. (Plain-jane Dolby Digital, though...)


----------



## sonyfangirl

Hi. Could someone please evaluate Prison Break Season 3 and place it in the correct tier? Thanks.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sonyfangirl* /forum/post/14889303
> 
> 
> Hi. Could someone please evaluate Prison Break Season 3 and place it in the correct tier? Thanks.



I just finished watching the first disc (episodes 1-4). The picture quality at times can be near the top of Tier 0 quality......I mean it's probably some of the best picture quality I have seen. Unfortunately a lot of the time the picture quality is just good......and a small amount of times it can be poor. I have noticed a strange anomaly though, where there are vertical lines in the background of lighter coloured areas. I have verified that it is not the equipment, so it must be the disc.......I'm not sure if all the discs have that or if it's a defect.


----------



## maverick0716

IJatKotCS (lol) is a very clean looking BD. There are no flaws that I could point out. The colours and black levels are very nice and consistent. Detail overall is quite good, but fine detail isn't quite up to the level of other Tier 0 titles. I would rank this one in upper Tier 1.


42" Panasonic Plasma (768p)

PS3 through HDMI

7 ft.


----------



## suffolk112000

After watching IJKOTCS twice, I recommend that it be ranked in the middle of tier0 as well.

Yes, there were a couple of brief scenes where there were some soft shots, but I thought the movie had excellent contrast, great color and was definitely eye candy material.


On the other hand, maybe KOTCS should be placed in the 10th spot in tier0 since the video is far superior to Beowulf ranked number 11.









Come to think about it... isn't that how Beowulf was originally placed, because someone with enough clout ranked it above a title they disagreed with, just to prove thier point?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Mist*


tier recommendation: second quarter of *Tier 3*


The Weinstein Company via Genius Products released The Mist on Blu-ray in September of this year in a two disc edition with two separate versions of the movie. The 125-minute movie is presented in both the normal color version and a special black and white version at the director's behest. The color version found on disc one is encoded in AVC on a BD-50 while the second disc is a BD-25 holding the black and white version.


The average video bitrate for the feature on disc one is 19.78 Mbps while the feature on disc two averages 17.38 Mbps. The color version ranges from 15 to 38 Mbps overall with most of the encode varying in the 18 to 25 Mbps range. The compression work on the color version looks very solid with only one or two moments of artifacting, even when the mist envelopes the screen. The black and white version doesn't hold up quite as well, with the more visible grain looking a little more noisy with the lower bitrate encode.


I will start with my assessment of the color version. The master looks in flawless shape with no flaws or stray marks. The image is a little inconsistent going from razor sharp close-ups to very soft shots moment to moment. Contrast and colors start off very nice and maybe even over-saturated, but that goes away as the movie rolls along. High frequency information is okay but nothing out of the ordinary. Fleshtones also look off for much of the movie, with faces veering toward red at times. In fact the red blood looks ridiculously fake when shown. There is some slight edge enhancement that is visible. The image looks flat at times and black levels do get crushed a little. It just doesn't appear this movie was ever intended to be shot for eye candy.


The black and white version looked a little worse in my opinion but it made the movie "work" better from a storytelling standpoint. The creature effects blend in much better in black and white with the real world. Grain is definitely more visible in this version, particularly in the darker sequences. Unfortunately this black and white transfer doesn't look as good as a film that was actually shot on black and white film stock.


I would recommend this Blu-ray be placed in the second quarter of tier three. The Blu-ray seems to faithfully reproduce the look of the film though it just isn't the type of material that screams incredible High Definition.


Disc 1 (color version) BDInfo scan courtesy of Patsfan123:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...4#post14703214 

Disc 2 (black & white version) BDInfo scan courtesy of msgohan:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...3#post14750193


----------



## mzupeman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sleater* /forum/post/14879068
> 
> 
> Anybody seen The 40 Year Old Virgin? I picked mine up in a three BD pack with Knocked Up and Forgetting Sarah Marshall. I initially watched Sarah Marshall and was pretty disappointed with the PQ for a new release movie with many outdoor tropical locale scenes in it (I would throw it in mid tier 3 land myself) but was pleased with The 40 Year Old Virgin, having owned the DVD release of it. The PQ was very nice and with my eyes I would say it deserves at least a top tier 2 placement. Definitely wayyyyy better than a 1080p upconverted dvd image.
> 
> 
> Anyone else happen to see it?



It's definitely leaps and bounds better than the DVD, but it's riddled with edge enhancement as well as some DNR. Not a great presentation at all.


----------



## sleater




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mzupeman* /forum/post/14894629
> 
> 
> It's definitely leaps and bounds better than the DVD, but it's riddled with edge enhancement as well as some DNR. Not a great presentation at all.



Yes I recant my 2nd tier nomination after viewing it on my 92" screen with a HC5500 1080p projector. I originally watched it on my sony 40 inch xbr3 which makes just about any movie look much better than it actually is. The 3-disc BD set 40 year old virgin, knocked up and forgetting sarah marshall probably deserve a top tier 4 or bottom 3 placement range.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sleater* /forum/post/14895555
> 
> 
> Yes I recant my 2nd tier nomination after viewing it on my 92" screen with a HC5500 1080p projector. I originally watched it on my sony 40 inch xbr3 which makes just about any movie look much better than it actually is. The 3-disc BD set 40 year old virgin, knocked up and forgetting sarah marshall probably deserve a top tier 4 or bottom 3 placement range.



And you bring up a very good point that I have bit my tongue on many times while commenting and reading in this thread.

There is really nothing that can be done about that very fact, but I really believe this is the very reason I have seen some titles ranked where they are in this thread.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sleater* /forum/post/14895555
> 
> 
> Yes I recant my 2nd tier nomination after viewing it on my 92" screen with a HC5500 1080p projector. I originally watched it on my sony 40 inch xbr3 which makes just about any movie look much better than it actually is. The 3-disc BD set 40 year old virgin, knocked up and forgetting sarah marshall probably deserve a top tier 4 or bottom 3 placement range.



Or could it be that your projector is just too big and blows up the image?


----------



## sammyhd

Very nice transfer, good blacks and overall color but not the sharpest. Not exactly eye candy to me like say, speed racer or i robot. Tier 1.

By the way, i vote to keep Beowulf in tier 0










Panny BD-30

Onkyo 805

61" led dlp at 10'


----------



## stumlad

I have one more request for the first page:


The section that says this:

"When posting your thoughts about Tier placement please be sure to include the following or your post has no chance of impacting the tier:"


is in white. It's very hard to see on the light blue background. Any chance this color can be changed?


----------



## rsbeck

I never noticed that either -- it looks like a big blank spot on the page unless I highlight it.


So...


Sim2 C3X1080


126" diagonal screen.


seating distance 13 feet from screen.


National Treasure -- disagree with ranking, believe it should be tier 2 1/4.


Broken Trail -- disagree with ranking, believe it should be tier 1 3/4 or tier 2.


How The West Was Won -- recommend top of Tier One.


----------



## Hughmc

I watched IJKOTCS again. I want to say Tier 0 for this title, but there are several examples that I think warrant Top Tier 1 instead. Patrick nailed this from the first look and he maybe right saying top of Tier 1 at best.



I didn't see much 3D pop.


There are several shots of facial closeups throughout the movie that are slightly blurry.


The scene where they are riding the motorcycle around campus utilizes stunt riders about half the time. When I freeze frame on the riders their faces have a DNR waxy/blurry look to them to disguise them as stuntmen. When watching the shot in real time it is slightly blurry, again the point being to hide the stuntmen. Looking to see if the actors or stuntmen are doing the stunt is something I really look into for realism. I have been doing it for years going back to DVD. BD's(HD) clarity exposes some horrific looking stunt doubles. See Terminator movies.







Harrison Ford to his credit did a lot of his own stunts within reason on the other Indy Movies and he is a bit intense in that respect. I seen him staple that hat to his forehead so it wouldn't fly off while riding horseback in some special features. Now that is commitment beyond acting.


Several times throughout the film we have artist's intent to let light refract, if that is the proper term in this case, mostly indigo or blue on part of the screen and that detracts from the PQ IMO.


There is a white glow or cast from lighting throughout the film which seems intentional and I think slightly detracts from PQ. I love the look and intent of the lighting, I just think it takes away from potentially better PQ. It has that Ratatouille glow.


At 1:47:21-28 as Indy's buddy is scrambling around inside the temple that 7 seconds is out of focus/blurry.


The jungle scenes in terms of color and clarity of trees and plants don't come close to Apocalypto at all. I am guessing this is due to HD cameras vs film as well as a lot of it was CGI.


The grain and film like quality of the movie are excellent and maybe what mostly lend to the excellent PQ.


I enjoyed the movie, but PQ wise it doesn't meet Tier 0 standards. This is why it is important for me to watch a movie like this at least twice or run through it again looking specifically at PQ, because I would have said Tier 0 on my first view and stuck to it even with some doubts.


----------



## ballen420




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TheTonik* /forum/post/14889033
> 
> 
> This is my first post in this thread, not totally sure how this works, but...
> 
> 
> I would like to recommend _Mongol_ as being a Tier 0. Or at the very least, Tier 1.
> 
> 
> Pristine transfer. Just incredible.



+1


This movie looked amazing. Tons of outdoor scenes that really shined too. There was a lot of grain apparent in the scenes with sunset, but believe it was just film grain and should not take away from the PQ at all. I definitely recommend it for tier 0, but would be satisfied if it was placed at the top of tier 1.


I can say I didn't spend the entire movie looking for defects, as the story was excellent. They are supposed to make a trilogy out of this as well.


And while it only had a DD soundtrack, the sound was surprisingly great.


----------



## tovarish




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14875681
> 
> 
> Definitely NOT Tier 0 to my eyes. I have now watched the BD pretty much all the way through twice, and I never saw the really sharp and crystalline PQ that I expect from a Tier 0 title. For example, close-ups of Ford (and the other characters as well) never have that breathtakingly sharp quality that the very best BDs have. Once the heavy effects sequences start, the PQ shows the negative effects that ordinarily come with big effects. I'd say high Tier 1, at best.
> 
> 
> As for the movie itself, I really enjoyed it. I thought Ford and LaBeouf were very good together, and Blanchett was priceless.



I would agree with the PQ rating - Tier 1. The scenes of the landscapes were very clean, but action sequences lost something. As far as the movie itself, I can't believe they even called it Indiana Jones. It was more like Sherlock Holmes meets the X-Files. I was telling the plot to a friend who has no interest in seeing it, and he refused to believe me.


----------



## KeithTalent

Has anyone had an opportunity to watch the new Blu-ray Matrix set yet? I am about to pull the trigger on it, but was wondering what the PQ looks like and whether it's worth the additional cost right now.


I believe the HDDVD set was quite highly regarded and am hoping for the same with this.


Thanks!


PS: Thanks for the heads up on Mongol, I've been wanting to see it for a while and I'm happy to hear the Blu-ray looks great!


----------



## sammyhd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/14900150
> 
> 
> I never noticed that either -- it looks like a big blank spot on the page unless I highlight it.
> 
> 
> So...
> 
> 
> Sim2 C3X1080
> 
> 
> 126" diagonal screen.
> 
> 
> seating distance 13 feet from screen.
> 
> 
> National Treasure -- disagree with ranking, believe it should be tier 2 1/4.
> 
> 
> Broken Trail -- disagree with ranking, believe it should be tier 1 3/4 or tier 2.
> 
> 
> Dave Mathhews and Tim Reynolds -- disagree with ranking, believe it should be tier 1.
> 
> 
> How The West Was Won -- recommend top of Tier One.
> 
> 
> Shine a Light -- Recommend top of tier One/bottom of Tier 0.



+1

I also believe Dave Mathews does not belong in tier 0, it should be tier 1. But it is clearly tier 0 audio wise and that does not apply here










Panny BD-30

Onkyo 805

61" led dlp at 10'


----------



## B_S




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *KeithTalent* /forum/post/14902555
> 
> 
> Has anyone had an opportunity to watch the new Blu-ray Matrix set yet? I am about to pull the trigger on it, but was wondering what the PQ looks like and whether it's worth the additional cost right now.
> 
> 
> I believe the HDDVD set was quite highly regarded and am hoping for the same with this.
> 
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> PS: Thanks for the heads up on Mongol, I've been wanting to see it for a while and I'm happy to hear the Blu-ray looks great!



Don't know about the PQ, but in the Audio Tier Thread people have been saying that the sound quality is reference level or close to it on those discs. I almost pulled the trigger myself the other day. BB had the trilogy-box set at a decent price on Saturday.


----------



## MelloFellow13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *B_S* /forum/post/14904140
> 
> 
> Don't know about the PQ, but in the Audio Tier Thread people have been saying that the sound quality is reference level or close to it on those discs. I almost pulled the trigger myself the other day. BB had the trilogy-box set at a decent price on Saturday.



Picture quality is solid, film grain is mostly intact. Contrast is good overall but obviously color is a bit tough to judge since everything is pulled towards green or blue depending on where the scene is taking place.


The Matrix is a little less detailed than either of its sequels. It also has some scenes where contrast breaks down a bit and the black levels aren't as solid. I'd say The Matrix deserves a low T1 or high T2 rating and the others are mid T1. (Or if we'd like to go with my ratings system that I suggested and still fully support , Matrix: A-/B+, Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions: A).


The Animatrix is probably worth a high T2 (B+)... the image quality is pretty good but it pales in comparison with other animated sequences like Pixar's movies or the animated chapter of Kill Bill Vol. 1.


Viewed on pro-calibrated Pioneer Kuro 5020 at 1080p resolution, 10' distance.


----------



## KeithTalent

Great, thank you very much.


I've gone ahead and purchased it since I was able to get a good deal on it. Can hardly wait to see it on a decent setup as the last time I watched it was on my crummy laptop.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sammyhd* /forum/post/14899470
> 
> 
> By the way, i vote to keep Beowulf in tier 0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Panny BD-30
> 
> Onkyo 805
> 
> 61" led dlp at 10'



I believe the above post sort of goes hand in hand with the below quote about the 40 year old virgin.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sleater* /forum/post/14895555
> 
> 
> Yes I recant my 2nd tier nomination after viewing it on my 92" screen with a HC5500 1080p projector. *I originally watched it on my sony 40 inch xbr3 which makes just about any movie look much better than it actually is.* The 3-disc BD set 40 year old virgin, knocked up and forgetting sarah marshall probably deserve a top tier 4 or bottom 3 placement range.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/14905229
> 
> 
> I believe the above post sort of goes hand in hand with the below quote about the 40 year old virgin.



I definitely disagree. There is a huge difference between a 40in and a 60 in set and that 40 in XBR 3 I believe is a FP LCD which alone has motion and contrast issues.


I see a lot of things on my A3000 60 in I never seen on my older 50 in LCD RPTV, but that was a 788p native res and horrible black levels. Within reason those with projectors are not seeing anymore anamolies/detractions from PQ that I or others with 1080 60 in and above are seeing if setup and seating is the required distance. What you are seeing is those problems exacerbated by a bigger screen size making them "more" evident.


----------



## Little BigFat

I haven't had the chance to watch the whole film, but what I have seen has been really dissapointing, PQ wise. Very soft image, with a weak contrast where dark scenes look a bit more grey than they should. No facial details and almost no 3D pop. If I would have spent more money on it, I would have regretted my purchase. Overall, it is not worth an upgrade if you own the DVD. Top of tier 4, maybe bottom of 3 is my recommendation.


----------



## 357

AC/DC No Bull is Tier 5. They didn't put this one out for the PQ! Audio quality on the otherhand is amazing!


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sammyhd* /forum/post/14902747
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> I also believe Dave Mathews does not belong in tier 0, it should be tier 1. But it is clearly tier 0 audio wise and that does not apply here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Panny BD-30
> 
> Onkyo 805
> 
> 61" led dlp at 10'



Agree with you -- the sound -- gorgeous! Picture is very good, but not tier 0.


----------



## ua518

Anyone had a chance to review PQ for Eastern Promises yet? I'm holding off on ordering it till I get confirmation of quality from this thread


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ua518* /forum/post/14912168
> 
> 
> Anyone had a chance to review PQ for Eastern Promises yet? I'm holding off on ordering it till I get confirmation of quality from this thread



I saw the HD DVD version when it came out and the picture quality is very good. I expect the Blu Ray version to be at least as good.


----------



## steppinrazer

here's some screen shots of Eastern Promises from Cinema Squid...

they're located in the Blu-Ray Screen Shot thread

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...4#post14899404


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ua518* /forum/post/14912168
> 
> 
> Anyone had a chance to review PQ for Eastern Promises yet? I'm holding off on ordering it till I get confirmation of quality from this thread



HDD gave it 5 out of 5









http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1700...npromises.html


----------



## ua518

Thanks guys! Will be ordering very soon, along with Mongol, and maybe one or two others


----------



## ABBN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ozymandis* /forum/post/14879854
> 
> 
> Sleeping Beauty- Even though the animation is very simple compared to modern films, I'm struggling to find a reason why this shouldn't be Tier 0? The image is very clean and I saw no artifacts, color looked fantastic with lots of pop, and the backgrounds were crisp. Didn't check bitrates but IMO it looked great. Audio was also very nice.



I can't find many reviews of Sleeping Beauty, which is so odd, considering its the first Disney traditional animated film released on Blu-ray.


Anyways, it's not Tier 0. I was disappointed by the restoration. Most of the time the film looks fantastic. However sometimes the upper half the frame is "out of focus" with RGB separating. What caused this? I guess bad film scanning.


Other times I noticed they butchered the cels with digital techniques. It looks like they colored it in with a paint bucket tool. The result is an edge of different color near the black ink lines.


Another thing I noticed on the fairies is severe aliasing along the ink lines, and what looks like the cel information (I'm guessing they separated them in the computer and layered them during restoration) was outputted at 256 colors.

http://i34.tinypic.com/2hwlp36.jpg - Notice the harsh edges, and the dithering.
http://i36.tinypic.com/302svv7.jpg - The background is sharper at the bottom and gets blurry at the top. Also look at the separation in the owl.


----------



## MelloFellow13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ABBN* /forum/post/14919866
> 
> 
> Other times I noticed they butchered the cels with digital techniques. It looks like they colored it in with a paint bucket tool. The result is an edge of different color near the black ink lines.



Did you check out some of the special features? Black wasn't the only color used for outlining the cells before coloring, they actually used different color inks. That's why you see the dark blue edges around Merriweather's dress. They made a note of it in the special features because Sleeping Beauty was the last Disney movie to be hand-inked with the different colors, after that they moved on to Xerox for the pre-color cels, which is obviously all-black.


Reading your post again I might be misunderstanding what you're getting at though.


----------



## ABBN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MelloFellow13* /forum/post/14920173
> 
> 
> Did you check out some of the special features? Black wasn't the only color used for outlining the cells before coloring, they actually used different color inks. That's why you see the dark blue edges around Merriweather's dress. They made a note of it in the special features because Sleeping Beauty was the last Disney movie to be hand-inked with the different colors, after that they moved on to Xerox for the pre-color cels, which is obviously all-black.
> 
> 
> Reading your post again I might be misunderstanding what you're getting at though.



Well, the cels were hand painted on the back with cel paint after the drawings were traced in ink on the front.


What I'm describing is sometimes in the green fairy's collar. There is a light green paint near the edge of the lines. And in the middle is a different color green. It could be from the original print, but I couldn't tell you.


I just took a quick glance at the film for now, and those issues popped out at me. I'm posting to see if anyone else notices, so I know I'm not crazy.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

re: Sleeping Beauty


I do own it, but I haven't had a chance to watch it yet. My equipment's not the best, but if I do notice something bad on my screen, it'll definitely show on other peoples'. I will try to watch this week, & will look out for those items you mentioned (Green Fairy) ABBN.


----------



## tfoltz

I'm not sure why people look for problems. If it's not noticeable from a reasonable seating distance, then why dwell on it? Sleeping Beauty looks great. I feel bad for you if you notice so many problems just by glancing at the movie.


----------



## RBFC




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/14925212
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why people look for problems. If it's not noticeable from a reasonable seating distance, then why dwell on it? Sleeping Beauty looks great. I feel bad for you if you notice so many problems just by glancing at the movie.



This is a double-edged sword. The most important thing in this hobby is to sit down and truly enjoy the experience. Too much focus upon the technical aspects of BD, etc. can ruin the immersion in a good movie. Without the artistic, emotional experience of a great film, things degenerate into just another math problem.


However, there MUST be some "watch-dogging" of the quality of the products in this new format. Studios must be made to realize that care should be taken to offer media with the highest technical quality possible. Excessive use of digital "manipulation", while more convenient, must not be allowed to replace thoughtful remastering of archived content.


In any arena, it's the "perfectionists" that hold the line on the quality that trickles down to the general (less-discriminating) public. Without this supervision, time and money factors will slowly permit quality to degrade to the lowest acceptable point. (Isn't this true for virtually any business?) For Blu-Ray, much of its true capability would be squandered.


I applaud those here who take quality seriously. Because of the conscientiousness of quality-minded folks, I sit down and have memorable experiences with great films, both current and from years ago.


Lee


----------



## Symtex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RBFC* /forum/post/14925344
> 
> 
> This is a double-edged sword. The most important thing in this hobby is to sit down and truly enjoy the experience. Too much focus upon the technical aspects of BD, etc. can ruin the immersion in a good movie. Without the artistic, emotional experience of a great film, things degenerate into just another math problem.
> 
> 
> However, there MUST be some "watch-dogging" of the quality of the products in this new format. Studios must be made to realize that care should be taken to offer media with the highest technical quality possible. Excessive use of digital "manipulation", while more convenient, must not be allowed to replace thoughtful remastering of archived content.
> 
> 
> In any arena, it's the "perfectionists" that hold the line on the quality that trickles down to the general (less-discriminating) public. Without this supervision, time and money factors will slowly permit quality to degrade to the lowest acceptable point. (Isn't this true for virtually any business?) For Blu-Ray, much of its true capability would be squandered.
> 
> 
> I applaud those here who take quality seriously. Because of the conscientiousness of quality-minded folks, I sit down and have memorable experiences with great films, both current and from years ago.
> 
> 
> Lee



and because of them now i notice rasterisation, macro-blocking. BTB and WTW etc...


Knowledge is the key but sometime ignorance is a blessing.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RBFC* /forum/post/14925344
> 
> 
> 
> I applaud those here who take quality seriously. Because of the conscientiousness of quality-minded folks, I sit down and have memorable experiences with great films, both current and from years ago.
> 
> 
> Lee



I agree with this. Personally I have no concept of the amazing technology that several of the people who contribute to this thread own; it's simply not feasable for my family. I fully realize that the issues that most have with their blu-rays in this thread will likely NOT show in my personal viewing experience. But I read this information because it's interesting to me, regardless of if I think/know that things showing on the Tier 3 list for my household will likely still look as though it's tier 0 (unless it's a matter of that weird waxy-face stuff).



Plus besides all that, I do get curious if these anomalies will show through on my lower quality TV (like the issue with the green fairy in sleeping beauty). If not, great for me, in the "ignorance is bliss" world. If they do? That's really a mark on the industry -- I consider myself to be a true average jane high def user; and things SHOULD look perfect to my market base, with the lower-end equipment. But I'm really happy that there are those out there with the best-of-the-best who can challenge that, as the end result truly will just help *me* get a superior product, and not be in for so much of a shock should the opportunity arise to actually upgrade my system & suddenly have my collection look less-than-stellar.


----------



## rydenfan

Anyone watched Sweeny Todd yet??


----------



## tfoltz

I agree that there must be watch-dogging. I just don't want movies that look spectacular from a normal viewing distance to be lowered because some flaws are noticed from 4 inches away.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Symtex* /forum/post/14925405
> 
> 
> and because of them now i notice rasterisation, macro-blocking. BTB and WTW etc...
> 
> 
> Knowledge is the key but sometime ignorance is a blessing.




I agree, because we then go looking for anomalies like EE, blur, macroblocking, banding, DNR. There are several movies that I wouldn't have noticed some issues and would swear they were Tier 0. I do watch the movie first for content and although I notice the PQ, I try to enjoy the film more than looking for issues. This is also the reason I watch the film a second time or even do a third quick pass through. The first time is for content and enjoyment, the second and pass through are to look for issues. If some are watching the film only once and trying to enjoy it and look for PQ issues or lack there of, IMO they are to some extent missing or not enjoying the movie as much and with only one viewing may not see as many problems as are actually there as when you watch it a second or third time.


----------



## ABBN

I apologize. For the most part SB is fantastic. I just happen to have "golden eyes" and those issues stood out to me. I only mentioned them to advance conversation on this disc and its picture quality; which this thread is about.


If you're going to spend millions restoring a film, it's best to spare no expense and do it right the first time. We've seen the potential so it's a bit disappointing, at least to me that they let those issues get through.


----------



## Zygon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rydenfan* /forum/post/14928216
> 
> 
> Anyone watched Sweeny Todd yet??



The opening scene (Not animated opening credits) had what looked like mosquito noise. I'm not an expert on this or anything so it may have been film grain intended for the movie. It made kind of a sparkly effect in the night sky.


Overall the picture quality was good. It didn't make me say "Wow" or anything.


Tier 1


PQ aside:

Great movie with replay value



PS3 hdmi at 1080p/24

LNT4671F

7 feet distance


----------



## RBFC




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Symtex* /forum/post/14925405
> 
> 
> and because of them now i notice rasterisation, macro-blocking. BTB and WTW etc...
> 
> 
> Knowledge is the key but sometime ignorance is a blessing.



Exactly why there should be monitoring of quality, so that these artifacts are identified and dealt with as much as possible by the studios during Blu-Ray mastering.


Lee


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Batman: Gotham Knight*


tier recommendation: bottom quarter of *Tier 2*


Warner released this animated feature to Blu-ray in July. The 75-minute feature is encoded in VC-1 on a BD-25. The average video bitrate is 20.49 Mbps with the encode varying between 5.6 to 38.6 Mbps. This is an average compression job at best that does have a few flaws. There is some minor but noticeable banding present that may or may not be an inherent part of the source animation. If one looks closely there is also some chroma noise and compression noise sporadically. It is a strange video encode as some scenes average in the 30's while others hover in the low teens.


This feature is really not one continuous movie but six separate vignettes about Batman told by six different directors in different animation styles. Given that the picture quality varies from segment to segment a great deal more than a typical Blu-ray. The one segment that really drags down my recommendation is "In Darkness Dwells" which simply looks awful and not much better than dvd. If not for that one segment I would probably be recommending this BD for a high tier two placement. The other segments all look better to different degrees with much better colors and detail. There is some softness to the animation at times that appears faithful to the source material, so most of this feature doesn't compare to the best animated BDs we've seen like a Pixar movie or Sleeping Beauty.


Watching on a 60" Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 from a viewing distance of approximately six feet.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of forum member House):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...3#post14196363


----------



## djoberg

I just wrote the following review of *Indiana Jones: TKOTCS* on the Indy 4 thread:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=489 


In addition to what I wrote there, I would suggest a *middle of Tier 1* placement. There were definitely some Tier 0 scenes (the last temple scene is an excellent example of this, in fact, it was right up there with I, Robot and POTC), but there were also some poor scenes as well. For example, the jungle chase scene was very gritty-looking with a lack of detail and what looked like mosquito noise to my eyes. I would rate that 10 minute scene as Tier 3. So, all things considered, it does NOT deserve Tier Blu and I believe one would be generous in giving it a middle to top of Tier 1 placement.


----------



## stumlad

Tier Recommendation: Top quarter of Tier 1..


Think about Iron Man, but slightly better overall, and better contrast throughout the entire movie. I think, however, I saw a little bit of macro-blocking in some very fast motion/action scenes. One in particular was a huge fire/flames in the middle of the movie. It's possible that I'm wrong. I didn't rewind or pause and view, etc. i don't like doing that when I watch a movie for the first time. When the movie was over, I didnt care enough to go back so my word definitely isnt the end-all







Face closeups were very good, but IMO just a notch below some of the best tier 0. Other than that, I felt the CGI was sharper than Transformers and about on par with Iron Man.


----------



## sammyhd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14930657
> 
> 
> I just wrote the following review of *Indiana Jones: TKOTCS* on the Indy 4 thread:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=489
> 
> 
> In addition to what I wrote there, I would suggest a *middle of Tier 1* placement. There were definitely some Tier 0 scenes (the last temple scene is an excellent example of this, in fact, it was right up there with I, Robot and POTC), but there were also some poor scenes as well. For example, the jungle chase scene was very gritty-looking with a lack of detail and what looked like mosquito noise to my eyes. I would rate that 10 minute scene as Tier 3. So, all things considered, it does NOT deserve Tier Blu and I believe one would be generous in giving it a middle to top of Tier 1 placement.



+1 I agree


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RBFC* /forum/post/14925344
> 
> 
> This is a double-edged sword. The most important thing in this hobby is to sit down and truly enjoy the experience. Too much focus upon the technical aspects of BD, etc. can ruin the immersion in a good movie. Without the artistic, emotional experience of a great film, things degenerate into just another math problem.
> 
> 
> However, there MUST be some "watch-dogging" of the quality of the products in this new format. Studios must be made to realize that care should be taken to offer media with the highest technical quality possible. Excessive use of digital "manipulation", while more convenient, must not be allowed to replace thoughtful remastering of archived content.
> 
> 
> In any arena, it's the "perfectionists" that hold the line on the quality that trickles down to the general (less-discriminating) public. Without this supervision, time and money factors will slowly permit quality to degrade to the lowest acceptable point. (Isn't this true for virtually any business?) For Blu-Ray, much of its true capability would be squandered.
> 
> 
> I applaud those here who take quality seriously. Because of the conscientiousness of quality-minded folks, I sit down and have memorable experiences with great films, both current and from years ago.
> 
> 
> Lee



A+ post.


----------



## SuprSlow

Just an update...I haven't updated the first post yet, but I will post my notes detailing the recommendations to the point. Again, I've tried to address *everyone's* title placements. If you see anything left out, bring it to my attention and we'll get it worked out.


This list is in rough form. It is nothing more than a compilation of the recommendations. If a title is currently ranked and the new placement differs, I usually compromise between the two and put it somewhere in the middle. If you see a title with multiple placements (i.e. - Tier 1 / Tier 2), I'll average them and try to find a middle ground.





With that said...










Last Waltz - 2nd 1/4 Tier 4


21 - top Tier 1


Beowulf - down to Tier 1


The Fall - Tier 0


KB1 - top 1/4 Tier 1


KB2 - bot Tier 0


Persepolis - down to Tier 1


Coma - Tier 5


Patriot Games - up 1/2 Tier (3)


Sex and the City - top Tier 2


Baby Mama - top Tier 2


Kiss of the Dragon - bot 1/2 Tier 2


We Were Soldiers (AUS Import) Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Icon - Tier 2 (Master & Commander)


Red Cliff (H.K Import) | Audio: LPCM 7.1 / DTS-HD MA 7.1 / Dolby TrueHD 7.1 | AR : 2.35:1 | Mei Ah - Tier 0 above LFDH


30 Days Of Night (AUS Import) | Video: AVC | DTS-HD MA 24-bit | Icon - Below 30 Days of Night


Transporter (Japan Import) Video: AVC | Audio: Dolby TrueHD | AR: 2.35:1 | Sony / Asmik Ace - Tier 1 / top Tier 3


Transporter 2 (Japan Import) Video: AVC | Audio: Dolby TrueHD | AR: 2.35:1 | Sony / Asmik Ace - Tier 0 above Shoot 'Em Up


LA Confidential - bot Tier 1 / 2nd 1/4 Tier 2 / Tier 2 1/2


Batman: Gotham Knight - mid Tier 4 / bot 1/4 Tier 2


Deception - lower 1/2 Tier 1 / Tier 0


Superman Returns - 1/2 Tier 3


Ironman - Tier 1 (lower half) / top Tier 2


Traffic (German Import) Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD HR | AR: 1.78:1 | Splendid - bot Tier 3


The Happening - Tier 1 / bot Tier 2


Shutter - bot Tier 2


Can't Hardly Wait - bot Tier 3


Nightmare Before Christmas - Tier 0


Tekkonkinkreet - Tier 1 1/2


Shine a Light - high Tier 1


Daredevil - Tier 2


Land of the Dead - Tier 3


The Thing - Tier 2


Indiana Jones - Tier 0 (below I, Robot) / mid Tier 1


Lost Boys - Tier 2 1/2


Madagascar - Tier 1 1/4


Shrek the Third - mid Tier 1


Moody Blues - top 1/4 Tier 1


V for Vendetta - mid Tier 2


Happy Feet (Import) Video: VC-1 | Audio: LPCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner - Tier 0 below Robinsons


Forbidden Kingdom - lower in Tier 1


Interview with a Vampire - bot 1/2 Tier 4 / mid 3


Zohan - Tier 4


Broken Trail - mid Tier 2 (3/4)


Beetlejuice - lower Tier 3


Memento - bot Tier 1 / (current placement)


Happy Feet - Tier 0 below Meet the Robinsons


Godfather I - Tier 2 1/2 / Tier 3 / Tier 2 3/4


Godfather II - Tier 2 3/4


Godfather III - Tier 1 3/4


Walk the Line (Extended version - Dutch Import) Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Fox - Tier 2 3/4


The Tudors: The Complete First Season (U.K. import) - top 1/4 Tier 1


40 year old Virgin - mid Tier 3


Sleeping Beauty - Tier 0


War, Inc. - bot Tier 2


Mongol - Tier 0


The Mist - 2/4 Tier 3


NT2 - Tier 2 1/4


Dave Mathews - Tier 1


How the West Was Won - top Tier 1


Matrix - low Tier 1 (others mid Tier 1)


Animatrix - high Tier 2


American Gangster - top Tier 4


AC/DC No BUll - Tier 5


Sweeney Todd - Tier 1


Incredible Hulk - top 1/4 Tier 1


----------



## MelloFellow13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/14939756
> 
> 
> Ton of ratings



See, if we moved over to my grade system this post would be infinitely easier to understand.







Anyone want to throw their support behind it? C'mon!


----------



## 357

Hell Ride is Tier 1. I'd say top half. Movie reeked and the only thing that kept me tuned in was the abundance of boobies. So you know I examined the PQ very carefully.


I also viewed Journey to the Center of the Earth. PQ was similar to Batman Begins. So it's placement should be some where in that area. Movie was also a stinker if any of you were wondering.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/14939756
> 
> 
> Just an update...I haven't updated the first post yet, but I will post my notes detailing the recommendations to the point. Again, I've tried to address *everyone's* title placements. If you see anything left out, bring it to my attention and we'll get it worked out.
> 
> 
> This list is in rough form. It is nothing more than a compilation of the recommendations. If a title is currently ranked and the new placement differs, I usually compromise between the two and put it somewhere in the middle. If you see a title with multiple placements (i.e. - Tier 1 / Tier 2), I'll average them and try to find a middle ground.



Looks very good.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MelloFellow13* /forum/post/14939871
> 
> 
> See, if we moved over to my grade system this post would be infinitely easier to understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone want to throw their support behind it? C'mon!



I like your idea, but since we just made some changes in the rating system, I personally think we need to stick with status quo for a while and give it a chance before we make any other changes.


----------



## rsbeck

Ironman -- recommendation: Tier 1 1/4


National Treasure -- recommendation: Tier 2


Sim2 C3X1080

126" Diagonal Firehawk

Pioneer BD-05 FD Blu-Ray player





.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Memento - bot Tier 1 / (current placement)



Isn't Memento currently ranked tier 3?


I think it should be higher than 3, but I want to watch it again to refresh before making a recommendation.


----------



## Ozymandis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ABBN* /forum/post/14919866
> 
> 
> I can't find many reviews of Sleeping Beauty, which is so odd, considering its the first Disney traditional animated film released on Blu-ray.
> 
> 
> Anyways, it's not Tier 0. I was disappointed by the restoration. Most of the time the film looks fantastic. However sometimes the upper half the frame is "out of focus" with RGB separating. What caused this? I guess bad film scanning.
> 
> 
> Other times I noticed they butchered the cels with digital techniques. It looks like they colored it in with a paint bucket tool. The result is an edge of different color near the black ink lines.
> 
> 
> Another thing I noticed on the fairies is severe aliasing along the ink lines, and what looks like the cel information (I'm guessing they separated them in the computer and layered them during restoration) was outputted at 256 colors.
> 
> http://i34.tinypic.com/2hwlp36.jpg - Notice the harsh edges, and the dithering.
> http://i36.tinypic.com/302svv7.jpg - The background is sharper at the bottom and gets blurry at the top. Also look at the separation in the owl.



I rewatched it and I see the out of focus screen areas now. It isn't perfect but still for animation of that age it does look very good!



Speed Racer- the source is very processed-looking. It seems like a good transfer but the look of the film is almost smudged... tons of CG. I think Tier 1 may be more appropriate, high Tier 1 but Tier 1.


Eastern Promises- very sharp, plenty of grain, lots of detail. Low Tier 0 or high Tier 1 IMO.


Why is Persepolis being considered for a move to Tier 1? That movie looked fantastic. Someone fill me in.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Poltergeist*


tier recommendation: top quarter of *Tier 3*


Warner released this 1982 movie to Blu-ray just two weeks ago in time for Halloween. The 114-minute feature is encoded in VC-1 on a BD-25. The average video bitrate of the entire movie is 16.67 Mbps with the bulk of the encode ranging between 10.8 Mbps to 20.9 Mbps. For a low bitrate VC-1 encoding the compression work appears solid with no visible artifacting except a brief burst of macroblocking in one spot. With the video encode never really peaking over 30 Mbps, I have to conclude this encode was originally prepared when Warner was still using dual format encodes for both Blu-ray and HD DVD.


The HD master used for the transfer appears in good shape and relatively clean for a catalog title of this vintage. There are some very minor digital scratch removal artifacts present but aside from that the source looks very good. It is hard to tell if any DNR has been used. If it has it is a very light application that lets the image retain a filmlike appearance. Grain is only really noticeable in some of the nighttime interior scenes in the house. Probably the biggest negative I saw was some edge enhancement in several shots, particularly in the first hour. There is definitely some ringing seen on the roof tops of the housing subdivision and the blinds.


The image itself looks excellent compared to any prior home video version but there isn't a whole lot of eye candy. The outdoor scenes in the daytime look great and might even veer into low tier one quality but the majority of the movie takes place inside the house. The interior scenes, especially the ones that take place when the parapsychologist team does its work, look okay but nothing better than a solid tier three ranking. There are moments of softness and detail is about average for a typical BD. I will say contrast is great and fleshtones look perfect throughout the movie though. Colors are rock solid though not quite as vibrant as better HD material. Black levels are good for the most part with only one or two short scenes exhibiting any black crush.


Warner has done an excellent job of bringing this movie to Blu-ray. I was a little worried about this transfer after seeing another Warner horror catalog title, Interview With The Vampire, but Poltergeist is substantially better looking than that Blu-ray. The BD seems faithful for the most part to the source film though it doesn't make for spectacular imagery or high definition "pop". It is a significant upgrade over any dvd version I've seen of this movie. I am recommending a top quarter of tier three placement, but I could easily place this in the bottom half of tier two and probably would have if no edge enhancement had been used.


Watching on a 60" Pioneer Kuro plasma...


BDInfo scan (courtesy of forum member House):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...9#post14817279


----------



## palofex

Recommendations:


Tier 1 Top 1/4: Incredible Hulk

Tier 1 Top 1/2: Indiana Jones 4, Ironman


Sanyo Z2000 Projector, 92" Screen, Professional Calibration


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *palofex* /forum/post/14945579
> 
> 
> Recommendations:
> 
> 
> Tier 1 Top 1/4: Incredible Hulk
> 
> Tier 1 Top 1/2: Indiana Jones 4, Ironman



+1


Having seen Indy 4 and Ironman, I agree with your placements.


I just ordered Incredible Hulk from Amazon and I'm looking forward to the excellent PQ and AQ I've been reading about. From what I've read, your suggestion may turn out to be quite accurate.


----------



## maverick0716

I agree with pretty much everyone's assessment of The Incredible Hulk. High Tier 1 caliber for sure, but not Tier 0.


----------



## alexg75

I agree with a Tier 1 placement for The Incredible Hulk.

Disagree with putting Indy 4 in Tier 1,I vote for Tier 0.


1080p Panasonic plasma

PS-3 via HDMI

@ 8ft


----------



## vpn75

I just watched Speed Racer the other day and was blown away by the PQ! It was probably the most visually-impressive movie I've seen to date on BD.


Shouldn't this movie be higher up in the Tier-0 list?


----------



## RaiderRodney




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *alexg75* /forum/post/14948557
> 
> 
> I agree with a Tier 1 placement for The Incredible Hulk.
> 
> Disagree with putting Indy 4 in Tier 1,I vote for Tier 0.
> 
> 
> 1080p Panasonic plasma
> 
> PS-3 via HDMI
> 
> @ 8ft



I could almost say lower tier 0 for Indy as well but higher tier 1 would be fine too. Incredible Hulk should be slightly higher than Iron Man both solid 1's though.


42" 1080p Panasonic Plasma

PS3 - HDMI

@ 9 feet


----------



## alexg75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RaiderRodney* /forum/post/14951298
> 
> 
> I could almost say lower tier 0 for Indy as well but higher tier 1 would be fine too. Incredible Hulk should be slightly higher than Iron Man both solid 1's though.
> 
> 
> 42" 1080p Panasonic Plasma
> 
> PS3 - HDMI
> 
> @ 9 feet



Yeah that sounds about right


----------



## patrick99

The details in close-ups in Incredible Hulk were vastly better than anything in Iron Man or Indy 4.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14952004
> 
> 
> The details in close-ups in Incredible Hulk were vastly better than anything in Iron Man or Indy 4.



I can't agree with that. I'd say they were right on par with each other for the most part.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *alexg75* /forum/post/14948557
> 
> 
> Disagree with putting Indy 4 in Tier 1,I vote for Tier 0.



Indy 4 does NOT meet the high standards of Tier 0, for it does NOT have consistently sharp and detailed PQ. I have already referred, in an earlier post, to the jungle chase scene. This scene, which lasts 5-10 minutes, was very gritty-looking and lacked detail. There was also some macroblocking or mosquito noise in that scene as well. That scene alone disqualifies it for Tier 0. It should be mid to high Tier 1, at best.


----------



## Kevin12586




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vpn75* /forum/post/14951047
> 
> 
> I just watched Speed Racer the other day and was blown away by the PQ! It was probably the most visually-impressive movie I've seen to date on BD.
> 
> 
> Shouldn't this movie be higher up in the Tier-0 list?



I agree


----------



## OldCodger73

Everyone else is weighing in on Indiana Jones so I might as well too. I watched it again last night and it's definitely not Tier 0. For some of the reasons mentioned I'd place it in Tier 1-1/2 but wouldn't argue if it ends up in Tier 1-1/4.


I watched Iron Man the night after I watched Indaina Jones the first time and felt it had a slightly better picture. I'd place it 1/4 step up from wherever Indy ends up.


Panasonic 50" 720p, Panasonic 10a player, 7-1/2'


----------



## palofex

Recommendations:

Sleeping Beauty - Tier 0

Tinkerbell - Tier 0


Both are great transfers and I didn't notice a flaw in either. Even after pausing multiple times and getting much closer then normal viewing distance I couldn't see a flaw in either.


Sanyo Z2000 Projector, 92" Screen, Professional Calibration


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *357* /forum/post/14940174
> 
> 
> Hell Ride is Tier 1. I'd say top half. Movie reeked and the only thing that kept me tuned in was the abundance of boobies. So you know I examined the PQ very carefully.
> 
> 
> I also viewed Journey to the Center of the Earth. PQ was similar to Batman Begins. So it's placement should be some where in that area. Movie was also a stinker if any of you were wondering.



I thought so and it is DD 5.1.







I rented this today.


----------



## gail2magic

Am interested on what everyone here thinks of Baraka.


I saw this on the net today....

Film Critic Roger Ebert recently reviewed a copy of the upcoming Blu-ray release of 'Baraka', which is due to hit store shelves on October 28th. Calling it "the finest video disc I have ever viewed or ever imagined," the famous critic concluded that "Baraka by itself is sufficient reason to acquire a Blu-ray player."


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Finally watched Ratatouille last night...what an amazing disc.


Perfect PQ, incredible sound and awesome music. What a fun movie too, I thoroughly enjoyed it.


Demo disc of all demo discs.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Has anyone picked up Sweeney Todd yet?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/14960928
> 
> 
> Finally watched Ratatouille last night...what an amazing disc.
> 
> 
> Perfect PQ, incredible sound and awesome music. What a fun movie too, I thoroughly enjoyed it.
> 
> 
> Demo disc of all demo discs.



You are a definitely a "late bloomer" when it comes to this title







, but I surely agree with your conclusion. I would only add that we should probably distinguish it from non-animated titles; in other words, It is "the demo disc of all demo discs *among animated titles*."


I say this because when I want to show off the virtues of HD on Blu-ray, I usually show my friends _Ratatouille_ AND either _I, Robot_ or one of _POTC_ titles. That way they get to see how awesome HD is in a real life movies as well as computer generated flicks.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14961048
> 
> 
> You are a definitely a "late bloomer" when it comes to this title
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , but I surely agree with your conclusion. I would only add that we should probably distinguish it from non-animated titles; in other words, It is "the demo disc of all demo discs *among animated titles*."
> 
> 
> I say this because when I want to show off the virtues of HD on Blu-ray, I usually show my friends _Ratatouille_ AND either _I, Robot_ or one of _POTC_ titles. That way they get to see how awesome HD is in a real life movies as well as computer generated flicks.



Totally agree. Cars is up there too.


I still need to check out I, Robot as well lol.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *357* /forum/post/14940174
> 
> 
> Hell Ride is Tier 1. I'd say top half. Movie reeked and the only thing that kept me tuned in was the abundance of boobies. So you know I examined the PQ very carefully.
> 
> 
> I also viewed Journey to the Center of the Earth. PQ was similar to Batman Begins. So it's placement should be some where in that area. Movie was also a stinker if any of you were wondering.



Did you view the 3D version? If so, was it a pretty good 3D effect?


----------



## ThomasW

Just stumbled upon this thread, great one !


The UK (regionfree) release of *Capricorn One* should be Tier 5. Unfortunately. I like the old movie, but this blu-ray release was a dissapointment. Very flat, soft picture throughout. Some scenes where the dialogue sounds distorted. Have not seen a DVD version of this movie, but the DVD just might be better.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14953044
> 
> 
> Indy 4 does NOT meet the high standards of Tier 0, for it does NOT have consistently sharp and detailed PQ. I have already referred, in an earlier post, to the jungle chase scene. This scene, which lasts 5-10 minutes, was very gritty-looking and lacked detail. There was also some macroblocking or mosquito noise in that scene as well. That scene alone disqualifies it for Tier 0. It should be mid to high Tier 1, at best.



Very much agree that Indy 4 is *NOT* Tier 0.


----------



## mpgxsvcd

Baraka is definitely "Reference" quality for video. I would put it at the very top of the reference list. You HAVE TO get this movie to understand how good Blu-ray can look. I did not notice any artifacts at all and I was looking for them. Words can not describe how "PERFECT" the picture Quality is for this disc.


Baraka thread
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...8#post14963578


----------



## DaveBowman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gail2magic* /forum/post/14960513
> 
> 
> Am interested on what everyone here thinks of Baraka.
> 
> 
> I saw this on the net today....
> 
> Film Critic Roger Ebert recently reviewed a copy of the upcoming Blu-ray release of 'Baraka', which is due to hit store shelves on October 28th. Calling it "the finest video disc I have ever viewed or ever imagined," the famous critic concluded that "Baraka by itself is sufficient reason to acquire a Blu-ray player."



Just watched it last night. Reference quality in every possible way. The film may not be to everyone's taste, and for sure you have to be in the right mood for a 90 minute journey with no dialogue, narration, or plot. But it's almost impossible to find fault with the PQ. Shot on 65mm film by perfectionists and then scanned with 8K digital resolution by people who really cared about the film quality, the results are absolutely stunning. The most visually impressive BD I have yet seen. Everyone on this forum owes it to themselves to see this film at least once. The current state of the art in home video.


----------



## palofex

Recommendations


Baraka - Tier 0


Simply put, this is the best looking disc with real people in it.


Sanyo Z2000, 92" Screen, Professional Calibration


----------



## mpgxsvcd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *palofex* /forum/post/14964332
> 
> 
> Recommendations
> 
> 
> Baraka - Tier 0
> 
> 
> Simply put this is the best looking disc with real people in it.
> 
> 
> Sanyo Z2000, 92" Screen, Professional Calibration



I get the feeling that Baraka will get nothing but votes for it to be the number 1 title on the PQ list. However, I bet it won't receive that position just because its content is not compelling enough to tempt people to buy or even rent it.


When evaluated for true picture quality nothing else on Blu-ray compares to Baraka, animation or otherwise!


I did see an HD version of the movie Pulse: A Stomp Odyssey on cable the other day though. It caught my eye like the Baraka Blu-ray did and the Pulse movie was on compressed cable. I am not sure what film and cameras they used for Pulse: A Stomp Odyssey but it actually had more depth of field than Baraka.


If Pulse ever comes out on Blu-ray it might match or over take Baraka because it actually has content that the average person would enjoy. Therefore, more people would actually see it. It also has one of the best Dolby Digital tracks I have ever heard. A nice DTS-MA track of Pulse might put it on top of both the AQ and the PQ lists!


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mpgxsvcd* /forum/post/14964534
> 
> 
> I get the feeling that Baraka will get nothing but votes for it to be the number 1 title on the PQ list. However, I bet it won't receive that position just because its content is not compelling enough to tempt people to buy or even rent it.
> 
> 
> When evaluated for true picture quality nothing else on Blu-ray compares to Baraka, animation or otherwise!
> 
> 
> I did see an HD version of the movie Pulse: A Stomp Odyssey on cable the other day though. It caught my eye like the Baraka Blu-ray did and the Pulse movie was on compressed cable. I am not sure what film and cameras they used for Pulse: A Stomp Odyssey but it actually had more depth of field than Baraka.
> 
> 
> If Pulse ever comes out on Blu-ray it might match or over take Baraka because it actually has content that the average person would enjoy. Therefore, more people would actually see it. It also has one of the best Dolby Digital tracks I have ever heard. A nice DTS-MA track of Pulse might put it on top of both the AQ and the PQ lists!



Getting Baraka soon... can't wait to see it. I did hear that it has a bit of EE and possibly some DNR. Check out the Baraka thread. Not sure how or if this will affect it.


----------



## DaveBowman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/14966033
> 
> 
> Getting Baraka soon... can't wait to see it. I did hear that it has a bit of EE and possibly some DNR. Check out the Baraka thread. Not sure how or if this will affect it.



Judge for yourself. I didn't see any artifacts whatsoever, but I am not a certified videology expert. I did notice that film grain was present but it was very subtle, which I attributed to the fact it was shot on 65mm film. Also, the "making of" bonus features shows the incredible care and attention to detail that went into making the film and digitally transferring it. It's hard to believe the people involved would allow anything artificial to be added to the original print. I'm not sure I'd call the movie "eye candy" but it sure looks real. I was very impressed.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mpgxsvcd* /forum/post/14963599
> 
> 
> Baraka is definitely "Reference" quality for video. I would put it at the very top of the reference list. You HAVE TO get this movie to understand how good Blu-ray can look. I did not notice any artifacts at all and I was looking for them. Words can not describe how "PERFECT" the picture Quality is for this disc.
> 
> 
> Baraka thread
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...8#post14963578



I would have thought that the substantial EE in Baraka would have made it easy to conclude that this is clearly *NOT* Tier 0 material.


----------



## mpgxsvcd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14970400
> 
> 
> I would have thought that the substantial EE in Baraka would have made it easy to conclude that this is clearly *NOT* Tier 0 material.



Have you viewed the Blu-ray yet? If so then please tell me the exact scene position where there are any EE or artifacts at all. I viewed it on a 55 inch screen from about 6 inches and I couldn't see any flaws at all.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mpgxsvcd* /forum/post/14970666
> 
> 
> Have you viewed the Blu-ray yet? If so then please tell me the exact scene position where there are any EE or artifacts at all. I viewed it on a 55 inch screen from about 6 inches and I couldn't see any flaws at all.



As the most obvious examples, just about any time mountains or buildings were silhouetted against the sky, EE was quite obvious.


----------



## Elbie

Tier 1 for The Incredible Hulk? NO WAY!


----------



## DaveBowman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14970707
> 
> 
> As the most obvious examples, just about any time mountains or buildings were silhouetted against the sky, EE was quite obvious.



If Baraka is what EE looks like then more films should use it and I'm in the wrong forum cause I think it looks GREAT. I truly appreciate the opinions of the experts and industry insiders on this forum, but I do think in some cases they are so anxious to find flaws that they perhaps overlook how spectacular some of these video presentations are. I'm relatively new to HD and Blu-ray (about a year of experience) and I am still truly amazed when I see something as beautiful as Baraka happening in my living room.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14970400
> 
> 
> I would have thought that the substantial EE in Baraka would have made it easy to conclude that this is clearly *NOT* Tier 0 material.



well hey, Crank is still up there


----------



## b_scott

how is Elf?


----------



## 357




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/14961221
> 
> 
> Did you view the 3D version? If so, was it a pretty good 3D effect?



Nah it was a rental.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *palofex* /forum/post/14964332
> 
> 
> Recommendations
> 
> 
> Baraka - Tier 0
> 
> 
> Simply put, this is the best looking disc with real people in it.




Have you seen Black Snake Moan?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Hostel Part II*


tier recommendation: second quarter of *Tier 3*


Sony released this movie to Blu-ray around one year ago in October of 2007. The 94-minute main feature is encoded in the AVC codec on a BD-50. This is truly a spectacular compression job on difficult material with not one second of compression noise or artifacting present. Even the many difficult scenes that take place in virtual darkness show nary a hint of macroblocking. Most of the video encode hovers in the 18 to 35.5 Mbps range. I would estimate an average video bitrate of 26 Mbps.


The master source for this transfer looks in perfect condition with no problems at all like print marks or digital scratches. Grain appears natural in motion and is most visible in some lower light scenes. I do not believe any DNR has been used. There is edge enhancement and ringing in some scenes. The edge halos appear on high-contrast edges at times and do give the transfer a sort of processed look.


One of the major weak points of this transfer on Blu-ray is the obviously tweaked color timings (probably done in post production). Fleshtones look awful throughout the movie with many healthy people looking a sickly yellow. There is also little consistency to the color gamut, with some scenes looking a little washed out and other scenes looking too hot. It definitely makes the image look unnatural at times.


The tweaked color timing seems to have been done to make this transfer look darker than most other Blu-rays I've seen. Black appears deep and inky but shadow detail is poor with many walls disappearing into the blackness. Contrast appears way too heavy at times but detail is still impressive in the normally lit scenes. The image has a great sense of depth and dimensionality with a nice level of "pop" to objects in the foreground. There are a couple of moments of softness but much of the movie is sharp and in tight focus.


I am recommending this Blu-ray for placement in the second quarter of tier three. This sequel doesn't look as polished as the original movie in the franchise in terms of picture quality but does have minor positive attributes going for it. The overall darkness of the transfer and the gritty colors bring the ranking down.


Watching on a 60" Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080P/24 fed by a PS3 from a viewing distance of six feet.


----------



## James A. McGahee

Do the 3D BR disks require a 3D ready TV or do they work fine in any/most HD TVs/Projectors?

Thanks-


----------



## maverick0716

They will work on all TV's........you just have to wear the red/blue glasses.


----------



## maverick0716

I recently rented both Night Watch and Day Watch. Between the two BD's, Day Watch definitely has the better picture quality......and it is quite good. Very good colour black levels and close up facial detail. There are moments where the picture quality drops off so I can't give it a Tier 1 recommendation, but Day Watch is a solid top 1/4 Tier 2 title. Night Watch I'd place towards the bottom of Tier 2.


42" Panasonic Plasma (768p)

PS3 HDMI

7 ft.


----------



## HDphile22

I don't think I've seen any comparison threads made for Tier 0 titles.


Please post some!


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *James A. McGahee* /forum/post/14976479
> 
> 
> Do the 3D BR disks require a 3D ready TV or do they work fine in any/most HD TVs/Projectors?
> 
> Thanks-



what's a 3-D ready TV?


----------



## unclepauly




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/14980830
> 
> 
> what's a 3-D ready TV?



DLP afaik


----------



## barry v s




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/14980830
> 
> 
> what's a 3-D ready TV?




new samsung plasmas


----------



## Wryker




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *barry v s* /forum/post/14982448
> 
> 
> new samsung plasmas



And DLP's like my Mitsubishi 73833!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Architect*


tier recommendation: third quarter of *Tier 1*


I see this Blu-ray currently ranked in tier two but I watched it recently and must disagree with that placement. Magnolia released this BD all the way back in December of 2006. The Blu-ray is presented in 1080i as this movie was shot on HD video. The video is encoded in Mpeg-2 on a single BD-25, but the main feature is only 81-minutes long. In fact for such an old release the compression job holds up very nicely, with my only complaint being some very minor chroma noise apparent in a couple of background shots. The video encode hits a nadir of 20.7 Mbps and a peak of 36.8 Mbps, with most scenes varying in the 22 to 31 Mbps range. I would estimate the average video bitrate to be approximately 24.5 Mbps for the whole movie.


The image is very typical of the HD video shot look, with no grain at all. No DNR has been used and there is absolutely no artificial sharpening in any shot. Most of the main feature has that "looking through a window" look that better HD video is known for. Contrast and color fidelity are perfect throughout with very nice black levels. The image is razor sharp with a few scattered moments of softness. Shadow detail is stunning at times. It is obvious that great care was taken in shooting this movie. The main reason I wouldn't rank this BD any higher was the lack of superior detail and resolution in some scenes. There is a fabulously detailed close-up of Viola Davis at timecode 20:27 that might pass for tier zero, but other scenes don't exhibit this consistently.


I am tempted to recommend an even higher placement in tier one, but I think the third quarter of tier one is appropriate for this Blu-ray.


----------



## lgans316

*Celine Dion: A New Day Live in Las Vegas Video: VC-1 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 1.78:1 | Sony*


Why was this shifted from Tier-0 / BLU to Tier-2 ?


----------



## babrown92




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14984313
> 
> *Celine Dion: A New Day Live in Las Vegas Video: VC-1 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 1.78:1 | Sony*
> 
> 
> Why was this shifted from Tier-0 / BLU to Tier-2 ?



The more important question is why is anyone watching this?


----------



## H.Cornerstone




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDphile22* /forum/post/14979902
> 
> 
> I don't think I've seen any comparison threads made for Tier 0 titles.
> 
> 
> Please post some!



The only one that I am aware of is Cars that Xylon did when it came out.


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDphile22* /forum/post/14979902
> 
> 
> I don't think I've seen any comparison threads made for Tier 0 titles.



There are screenshots of many of these titles in the Blu-ray HD movie screenshot thread . You can also check the Blu-ray, HD-DVD & SD DVD Comparison and Blu-ray, HD-DVD & HD Broadcasts threads in the HDTV Software Media Discussion section.


----------



## sonyfangirl

Has anyone seen Baraka? How does this film compare to other Tier 0 titles?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sonyfangirl* /forum/post/14988502
> 
> 
> Has anyone seen Baraka? How does this film compare to other Tier 0 titles?



Here's the official thread for Baraka:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1#post14292711 


I've read every post and the general consensus is that Baraka is the best-looking Blu-ray title to date (bar none). This may indeed be at the top of Tier 0 if it lives up to the hype.


I just ordered a copy from Amazon a few days ago and I'm anxiously waiting for it. I should warn you though that _some_ posters thought it was boring...but this is a non-verbal documentary (except for some occasional chanting)and one must be prepared for a very unique experience. Many are saying it is very engrossing and that the PQ/AQ draws you in and never lets you out til the credits roll.


----------



## sonyfangirl

It sounds exciting for th PQ/AV quality alone. I am not a big fan of the Discovery channel or documentaries, so I am not sure I will like it. I may rent it first and see if I like it.


----------



## djoberg

Here's the short review I just posted on *The Incredible Hulk* thread:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...7#post14988507 


I would agree with the majority of members on this thread who suggested a *high Tier 1 placement*. It was definitely better, IMHO, than Iron Man. It wasn't quite equal with the POTC series, I,Robot, Man on Fire, and other Tier 0 titles, but it's close enough to justify the first quarter of Tier 1.


----------



## sonyfangirl

It is going to be a rental for me. I alread have one Hulk movie (I know they are different) and that is enough.


----------



## ajamils




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/14984313
> 
> *Celine Dion: A New Day Live in Las Vegas Video: VC-1 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 1.78:1 | Sony*
> 
> 
> Why was this shifted from Tier-0 / BLU to Tier-2 ?



I would like to know the same.


----------



## sonyfangirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajamils* /forum/post/14988603
> 
> 
> I would like to know the same.



+1. Who gets to decide this? This is an outrage! That Blu-Ray is great quality. Granted, I only bought it because it was less than $8 and I'll probably not watch it again, but there is no denying the quality of the picture and audio. I don't understand. It is pristeen.


----------



## James A. McGahee

How about the four or five BR 3D movies that are out?


Anyone seen them or recommended a tier yet?


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sonyfangirl* /forum/post/14988620
> 
> 
> +1. Who gets to decide this? This is an outrage! That Blu-Ray is great quality. Granted, I only bought it because it was less than $8 and I'll probably not watch it again, but there is no denying the quality of the picture and audio. I don't understand. It is pristeen.



Not an outrage as it's not uncommon for titles being moved across tiers. Though I don't own this BD, I have had many opportunities to sample this disc at several places and IMHO it's definitely top Tier in terms of PQ.

*The Incredible Hulk* - Agree with Top Tier-1 or bottom Tier-0 placement.


----------



## sonyfangirl

To be fair, one would have to rate these while wearing the blue and red 3D glasses. Otherwise, that's not fair.


----------



## James A. McGahee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wryker* /forum/post/14982773
> 
> 
> And DLP's like my Mitsubishi 73833!



So what is the difference in watching a 3D BR disk on a 3D ready DLP vs. a TV

that is not necessarily 3D ready?


----------



## sonyfangirl

I'm wondering te same thing!


----------



## gail2magic

I thought Baraka was amazing. The video was stunning and it evoked lots of emotions. Like one reviewer said, it shows the best and worse of man. Try to watch it from beginning to end without interruptions.


This review explains the film better than I ever could.
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...810150290/1023 

I tried to post a shorter url using tiny url but the forum xxxxx out the url..odd


I really think Tier 0.


----------



## sonyfangirl

Is it like National Geographic or more like Apocalypto (sp?)? Is there a plot?


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sonyfangirl* /forum/post/14988789
> 
> 
> Is it like National Geographic or more like Apocalypto (sp?)? Is there a plot?



Kinda like National Geographic and Planet Earth.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

How long is it? Is there a narrative or is just a bunch of random stuff thrown in?


----------



## rydenfan

I vote for Incredible Hulk Top of Tier 1 or even bottom of Tier 0. Not as sharp as I, Robot but very good. And the audio is incredible...


Samsung 61A750 61" LED DLP (ISF by UMR)

Pioneer Elite 05

sitting 10' back


----------



## dogdoctor

Ok, I stepped up to a 52" Sony W4100 1080p/24 (home calibrated) set this weekend @12ft. I'm pissed I didn't hang on to The Fall, Sleeping Beauty, and IJ4 to see the difference from a 768p to 1080p set. But I will say this Iron Man on the PS3 looked great. So knowing what is Tier 0 - then I would safely put Iron Man in Tier 1. Upper vs. Lower? Let me get a few more movies under my belt on the new TV and I'll get a better feel for the rating system. Love this thread.


----------



## rsbeck

Blu-Ray: *The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford*


Very hard to rank this one. Picture had a certain softness in many scenes, but it was obviously intentional and never unpleasant. It was soft without being blurry. What sets this apart from other blu-ray titles that are blurry and unpleasant to watch is that there are many scenes that are crystal clear and it is not at all jarring when the picture goes from the slightly soft to the crystal clear. IMO, it was a great artistic choice because you get the slight softness that creates a feeling of aged film, but yet you also get some great detail, which you don't get when the picture is blurred. Also, in dark scenes, unlike many Blu-Rays, including Batman Begins and Transformers, the blacks are inky and rock solid. Not singling Batman Begins and Transformers out as particularly egregious examples, just citing them as references because they are popular titles and should provide a reference familiar to a lot of viewers. This is not a tier one title because of the slight softness and there is too much detail, pop, solid blacks, and such a satisfying picture to punish it with a tier three ranking. I think it is perfectly ranked as tier 2 3/4.

*Tier Recommendation: Unchanged at 2 3/4*


Sim2 C3X1080

126" Diagonal Firehawk G3

Pioneer BDP-05FD


----------



## maverick0716

Just watch The Nightmare Before Christmas today. Picture quality is quite good. No real complaints, every aspect of the picture quality was fairly solid. The detail wasn't as high as most Tier 1 titles, so I'd probably recommend either bottom of Tier 1 (where it currently is) or high Tier 2. Fun movie, by the way







.....I had never seen it before.


42" Panasonic Plasma

PS3 - HDMI

7 ft.


----------



## quake1028

*Run Fatboy Run*


I don't even see this on the list, but I would place this one in the middle 1/2 or bottom 1/4 of Tier 3. Contrast is jacked on some scenes, there is some black crush, but detail is sharp for the most part and a few scenes look pretty good.

*The Incredible Hulk*


Above Kill Bill Volume 1, but I won't argue too much with the very top of Tier 1. Audio is about as good as it gets though. Mindblowing.


----------



## Decado2

Where would the new Bond releases fit?


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Decado2* /forum/post/14994012
> 
> 
> Where would the new Bond releases fit?


*Die Another Day (Mild EE throughout)* - Top Tier 2 or first quarter of Tier-2. Don't have the rest.


----------



## mpgxsvcd

What has to happen before Baraka gets added to the list? I think it is universal that it should be tier Zero if not the very top of Tier Zero.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mpgxsvcd* /forum/post/14995511
> 
> 
> What has to happen before Baraka gets added to the list? I think it is universal that it should be tier Zero if not the very top of Tier Zero.



Wait.







'coz SuprSlow updates the list only once or twice a fortnight.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mpgxsvcd* /forum/post/14995511
> 
> 
> What has to happen before Baraka gets added to the list? *I think it is universal that it should be tier Zero if not the very top of Tier Zero.*



No, it's not universal.


----------



## hobbs47




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14996726
> 
> 
> No, it's not universal.



But it is majority rule.Thanks for your input.


----------



## stumlad

I'd have to say this is a Tier 0 title. There are a couple of noteworthy "issues"


1) The blue-screen effects are obvious.... The resolution of the background images that were overlayed were way worse than the resolution of the real backgrounds. So what happens is you will see an action sequence that is blue-screened, and the trees in the background look "SD"'ish while they look stunning when normally shown. There weren't that many action sequences so it didnt happen often... but when it did it was very noticeable.


2) Face closeups rarely ever occurred, so it's not really possible to say "this has tier 0 face closeups). I think this movie can be the exception.


3) There are some differences within each frame that is due to using multiple cameras... hard to explain , but if you watch it, you'll know what i mean... But this is what makes it so awesome ... Warner didn't attempt to touch it up or do anything to ruin it.


Other than that, I couldn't believe how good this movie looked. Even the dark scenes were awesome... I think this movie's dark scenes almost rival anything else out there... There was no black crush at all, and you could see loads of detail. Contrast was perfect as well.


I'm sure this looks better than any theater was capable of displaying many years ago when it came out.


When I see a movie like this, it gives me hope that lots of the stinkers out there can be remastered and made to look this good.


Unfortunately i couldn't recommend this movie (as a movie) to anyone who doens't already like it. It's old, and the acting and many other things show it's age. Just not my kind of movie... guess i"m too young to appreciate it.


----------



## mpgxsvcd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14996726
> 
> 
> No, it's not universal.



Are you the only one who disagrees?


----------



## DaveBowman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hobbs47* /forum/post/14996817
> 
> 
> But it is majority rule.Thanks for your input.



Well sais Mr. Hobbs. I wish a couple of the "pros" on here would voice their opinions on Baraka. PhantonStranger writes very interesting reviews but they are almost always for movies that I could care less about seeing. I wish he would review a few more mainstream movies and more of the films that have divided opinons on this forum. Same for StumLad. Hard to tell who the actual "experts" are on here, but I've read some negative stuff about EE and DNR on Baraka. I wish there was somebody on here who actually knew if it was there or not. I sure don't see it.


----------



## Fanaticalism




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *James A. McGahee* /forum/post/14988667
> 
> 
> How about the four or five BR 3D movies that are out?
> 
> 
> Anyone seen them or recommended a tier yet?



I have JTTCOTE. Personally, the 3-D makes me dizzy, and I couldn't watch it. The 2-D version looks like crap.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaveBowman* /forum/post/14997891
> 
> 
> PhantomStranger writes very interesting reviews but they are almost always for movies that I could care less about seeing. I wish he would review a few more mainstream movies and more of the films that have divided opinions on this forum.



In the past I have consciously tried to recommend and place BDs that weren't likely to get much attention on this thread. In the past the bigger releases (classics and blockbusters) had multiple opinions within a week or two of release and I felt my opinion wasn't needed. But since some of the other active voices in the thread have pulled back, maybe I should start focusing on some of the more important newer releases. I might pick up Baraka but it may not be for a few weeks.


----------



## Mick47




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaveBowman* /forum/post/14997891
> 
> 
> Well sais Mr. Hobbs. I wish a couple of the "pros" on here would voice their opinions on Baraka. PhantonStranger writes very interesting reviews but they are almost always for movies that I could care less about seeing. I wish he would review a few more mainstream movies and more of the films that have divided opinons on this forum. Same for StumLad. Hard to tell who the actual "experts" are on here, but I've read some negative stuff about EE and DNR on Baraka. I wish there was somebody on here who actually knew if it was there or not. I sure don't see it.



Received today from Amazon and I was "only" going to watch a few minutes tonight. But, once you start this you can't stop. Just outstanding, the entire picture was just outstanding. Some of the material and poverty was a little unsettling but that's life. No doubt the best overall Blu Ray that I have and I have over 100. Very top of Tier 0 IMO.


----------



## alexg75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *phantom stranger* /forum/post/14999732
> 
> 
> in the past i have consciously tried to recommend and place bds that weren't likely to get much attention on this thread. In the past the bigger releases (classics and blockbusters) had multiple opinions within a week or two of release and i felt my opinion wasn't needed. But since some of the other active voices in the thread have pulled back, maybe i should start focusing on some of the more important newer releases. I might pick up baraka but it may not be for a few weeks.



yes!!!!


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/14999732
> 
> 
> But since some of the other active voices in the thread have pulled back



To the best of my knowledge, only 2 or 3 active participants have pulled back.


----------



## DaveBowman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/14999732
> 
> 
> In the past I have consciously tried to recommend and place BDs that weren't likely to get much attention on this thread. In the past the bigger releases (classics and blockbusters) had multiple opinions within a week or two of release and I felt my opinion wasn't needed. But since some of the other active voices in the thread have pulled back, maybe I should start focusing on some of the more important newer releases. I might pick up Baraka but it may not be for a few weeks.



That would be great. It's always good to have more input on the titles that most people are curious about. And I really enjoy your reviews. Thanks for taking the time.


----------



## DaveBowman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mick47* /forum/post/15000853
> 
> 
> Received today from Amazon and I was "only" going to watch a few minutes tonight. But, once you start this you can't stop. Just outstanding, the entire picture was just outstanding. Some of the material and poverty was a little unsettling but that's life. No doubt the best overall Blu Ray that I have and I have over 100. Very top of Tier 0 IMO.



Glad to see I'm not the only one. I guess all the supposed video artifacts, EE, DNR, etc. didn't spoil the film for you. Know why? Cause there aren't any.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Diary Of The Dead*


tier recommendation: third quarter of *Tier 3*


In the past month the Weinstein Company has released this new George Romero movie to Blu-ray. The 95-minute main feature is encoded in VC-1 on a BD-50. The video encode ranges from a low of 8.4 Mbps to peaks seen topping 50.0 Mbps. The average video bitrate is 30.52 Mbps (BDInfo scan below). For most scenes shot with the main camera, the encode regularly stay in the thirties with it reaching into the forties occasionally.


Considering the very difficult and varied material to encode, this is one of the best VC-1 encodes I have seen in sometime. There are no visible compression problems such as banding or noise or motion problems, even when the camera shakes and the image shifts quickly. I am sure that certain other studios who favor low video bitrates would have produced an artifact ridden mess with material this difficult to encode cleanly. There is some digital noise in a couple of the darker shots but that appears to be from the master and not the fault of the compressionist.


While there are no compression problems, Romero's creative choices in shooting this movie seems to have purposely limited how good this movie can look. Romero uses a variety of cameras and effects, including a cell phone camera, a personal camcorder, digital security video, stock television footage, and even a CRT television to deliver the image to the viewer. The bulk of the movie appears to have been shot on a digital Panasonic HDCAM in shaky handheld style, which actually gets worked into the main storyline of the movie. Most of the movie is simply not presented as eye candy. The overall look is a little soft with varying moments of sharpness. Some shots exhibit nice depth and dimensionality to the image but just as many shots look flat.


The image from the main HD camera is a typical digital video look, though lighting and colors appear muted throughout much of the movie. Black levels are passable, but there are moments of black crush and brief digital video noise in low light shots. Grayscale reproduction seems a little off, as colors appear a little dull and drained with clipped whites at times. The outdoor daylight scenes look the best with a more normal color palette for Blu-ray and something I would classify as low tier two in quality. Resolution is average at best with very minor ringing on a few scenes. Thankfully there is no use of DNR on the image, though the source elements do not appear as highly detailed as I would have liked. Fleshtones look a little washed out though this effect is inconsistent from scene to scene.


I commend the Weinstein Company for delivering a movie of this nature in the very best image possible given the limitations imposed by the source elements. This movie was not intended as eye candy and so I will recommend a placement in the third quarter of tier three for this Blu-ray.


Watching on a 60 Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 from an approximate viewing distance of six feet.


BDInfo Scan (courtesy of forum member Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post14912335


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaveBowman* /forum/post/15002897
> 
> 
> Glad to see I'm not the only one. I guess all the supposed video artifacts, EE, DNR, etc. didn't spoil the film for you. Know why? Cause there aren't any.



Considering many people say EE halos are present on the disc, which the screen grabs online show too, that's a bit hard to believe.

I can't imagine it detracts from the experience but its not top of tier 0 (ie, flawless).

(also from what I understand, it can also be caused by scaling, so maybe it was introduced when downscaling the 8k)


----------



## rsbeck

*The Fall*


To me, The Fall is like listening to trains on a stereo rather than music. Images were well resolved but surprisingly uninteresting and flat.

*Recommendation: Tier 1.25*


Sim2 C3X1080

126" Diagonal Firehawk G3

Pioneer BDP-05FD

13 feet from screen


----------



## unclepauly

So, are you saying you let the story affect your recommendation? That's the way it comes off.


----------



## rsbeck

If I were to rank The Fall based on its story, I would have recommended a much lower ranking.


----------



## DaveBowman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15010603
> 
> 
> If I were to rank The Fall based on its story, I would have recommended a much lower ranking.



Yeah, but look at the title of this forum thread........it's not "The New Wow What a Great Story" thread. If it was the vast majority of the films in Tier O and Tier 1 would be laughable. Actually, they are laughable, they just look really good.


----------



## rsbeck

IMO, tier 0 should be reserved for titles that pretty consistently demonstrate the ultimate in what Blu-ray can achieve. To do that, I don't believe the title can just have a few sequences that are ultimate demo quality nor do I believe simply being artifact free is enough. To get into Tier 0, I believe a title should also push the envelope as far as cinematography, lighting, composition, contrast, etc. Because those are things that really show off what Blu-ray has to offer.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15011304
> 
> 
> IMO, tier 0 should be reserved for titles that pretty consistently demonstrate the ultimate in what Blu-ray can achieve. To do that, I don't believe the title can just have a few sequences that are ultimate demo quality nor do I believe simply being artifact free is enough. To get into Tier 0, I believe a title should also push the envelope as far as cinematography, lighting, composition, contrast, etc. Because those are things that really show off what Blu-ray has to offer.



I appreciate your opinion and your detailed review of The Fall (in an earlier post), but this is, as DaveBowman indicated, strictly a PQ thread and the standards for placement are listed on page one. According to those standards, a vast majority of members suggested Tier 0 for this title, and while it's possible to have this title moved down a tier (by enough members revisiting the title and voting for a tier change), it is highly unlikely that it will happen.


FWIW, I thought the movie was a BOMB (I Fastforwarded through much of it), but one simply can't deny the virtues (i.e., eye candy) it has as far as PQ goes. It is indeed Tier 0 material!!


----------



## bonham2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *palofex* /forum/post/14959120
> 
> 
> Recommendations:
> 
> Sleeping Beauty - Tier 0
> 
> Tinkerbell - Tier 0
> 
> 
> Both are great transfers and I didn't notice a flaw in either. Even after pausing multiple times and getting much closer then normal viewing distance I couldn't see a flaw in either.
> 
> 
> Sanyo Z2000 Projector, 92" Screen, Professional Calibration



I agree with your Tinkerbell recommendation - Tier 0


I watched on a 52" Sony w4100 LCD from about 6 feet away, and I thought it looked great. I didn't expect much seeing as it's a DTV Disney movie, but I was really impressed.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15012037
> 
> 
> I appreciate your opinion and your detailed review of The Fall (in an earlier post), but this is, as DaveBowman indicated, strictly a PQ thread and the standards for placement are listed on page one. According to those standards, a vast majority of members suggested Tier 0 for this title, and while it's possible to have this title moved down a tier (by enough members revisiting the title and voting for a tier change), it is highly unlikely that it will happen.
> 
> 
> FWIW, I thought the movie was a BOMB (I Fastforwarded through much of it), but one simply can't deny the virtues (i.e., eye candy) it has as far as PQ goes. It is indeed Tier 0 material!!



I bought The Fall today and I am not one to buy many titles anymore, since I rent. I don't want the expense or another media type that I will most likely not watch more than once or twice taking up space. It was rated 59% on Rotten tomatoes which is a good review for since they are a tough crowd over there. I bought it because I saw it on DVD and loved it visually and enjoyed the story enough to buy it.


I got The Fall, Baraka, and the Kill Bill movies. Anyone see a trend here? Bestbuy in store now price matches with Walmart's web site, so I got all four for 93.00 which isn't bad.


I watched Get Smart last night and will review again for PQ assessment. Things are getting competitive in my small town local Hollywood for BD's as more people are getting PS3's and SA BD players. I used to go in any time of day on release day or even the day after and get the new release. That started changing a month ago. I haven't been giving my tier review recommendations for that reason. Hulk has been out two weeks and they only have one copy so I can't get a hold of it yet but will suggest placement when I do. I really want to see it too. This all bids well for BD as more and more average consumers are buying into it.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15014326
> 
> 
> I bought The Fall today and I am not one to buy many titles anymore, since I rent. I don't want the expense or another media type that I will most likely not watch more than once or twice taking up space. It was rated 59% on Rotten tomatoes which is a good review for since they are a tough crowd over there. *I* bought it because I saw it on DVD and loved it visually and *enjoyed the story enough to buy it*.



I'm glad you responded to my post Hughmc, for I made a big mistake when I replied to rsbeck. When I said that I thought the movie was a BOMB, I was actually thinking of Speed Racer. I really enjoyed The Fall (though it was a tad slow). My other comments to rsbeck were related to the Fall, for I believe it is a stellar Blu-ray that deserves a Tier 0 placement.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15014364
> 
> 
> I'm glad you responded to my post Hughmc, for I made a big mistake when I replied to rsbeck. When I said that I thought the movie was a BOMB, I was actually thinking of Speed Racer. I really enjoyed The Fall (though it was a tad slow). My other comments to rsbeck were related to the Fall, for I believe it is a stellar Blu-ray that deserves a Tier 0 placement.



I didn't want to give away anything about the The Fall, but the title does correctly imply the
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) depressing story
.


Agreed, Speed Racer sucked as even the visuals couldn't improve it much in my mind.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15012037
> 
> 
> this is, as DaveBowman indicated, strictly a PQ thread and the standards for placement are listed on page one.



My suggested ranking of *The Fall* is based on picture quality. I just believe that picture quality is based on both the quality of the transfer and the quality of the cinematography.



> Quote:
> According to those standards, a vast majority of members suggested Tier 0 for this title



My reading suggests most people have not even seen this title. However, even if everyone else were to vote for a certain ranking, if I felt differently, I would still voice my opinion. It's not the peer group pressure thread, but I do understand that the thread moderator is looking for some kind of consensus and failing that, I'm not sure how he ranks titles, maybe some sort of averaging?



> Quote:
> FWIW, I thought the movie was a BOMB (I Fastforwarded through much of it), but one simply can't deny the virtues (i.e., eye candy) it has as far as PQ goes.



Suggesting tier one is hardly denying that the title has virtues. Not to get into a pissing match, but I would also suggest that it is fair to say that my having sat through the whole thing might make me more familiar with the title than someone like yourself who by your own admission, "fast forwarded through much of it."



> Quote:
> It is indeed Tier 0 material!!



We will have to agree to disagree on that one.


----------



## rsbeck

Here is another dissenting opinion of *The Fall*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14822547
> 
> 
> 
> I watched the first 35 minutes of *The Fall* last night, which is further than I had watched the first time.
> 
> 
> My overall impression so far is still that it is *somewhat* soft for the most part. Just because scenes are brightly lit and full of color does not mean that they are sharp.
> 
> 
> Surely you will agree that the opening black and white sequence is notably soft?


----------



## rsbeck

djoberg -- Here's you responding to Patrick99, so this is not the first time -- you've debated this before...



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14823650
> 
> 
> I thought it was a lighting issue and not one of softness. The Director purposely gave the hospital scenes a very subdued look and he used lighting to accomplish this. It was NOT soft...and it was sharp with plenty of detail.



And I agree with Patrick, except that my problem with the hospital scene was that the cinematography that you call "subdued" and he called "soft" was that it was flat and uninteresting.




.


----------



## rsbeck

djoberg --


And here's you debating Brainmonkey on the same title and arguing that 3D pop isn't the main concern regarding assessment of picture quality.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/14713342
> 
> 
> Here is the criteria for Tier 0:
> 
> *Tier 0 - Blu (Reference)
> 
> 
> --- The picture quality of the transfer is in pristine shape and practically perfect with no visible video artifacts. The image is so clean and sharp that it maintains a realistic feel throughout.*
> 
> 
> As you can see, the words "3D pop" aren't even included in this, so it isn't the main concern (though one can surely expect _some_ 3D pop in a film that meets the standards listed above).
> 
> 
> If memory serves me right, everyone that has given us their take on this movie have expressed their view that it deserves a Tier 0 placement, so I believe that's where it belongs.




This does not square with the thread starters guidelines on how to assess picture quality and while reading the thread, I notice a lot of cheerleading on your part, constantly assuring everyone that everyone agrees with you, trying to quell disagreement. This also seems inconsistent with the intention of the thread. The thread starter encourages investigation and discussion, not peer group cheerleading....


----------



## boney95

Question: I have a 52' Samsung LCD 750 w the 120Hz. I've only watched 3 Blu-ray movies using my PS3. Well when watching 3 10 to Yuma, the PQ was amazing. Chacters looked 3D ect... When pushing the info button the display tells me that the PS3 is outputing 60Hz, which the TV should then bring up to 120Hz. I just recently watched Rambo and the new Indiana Jones movie, and when pushing the info button the TV displays only 24Hz. With both of these movies I didn't get that 3D effect like with Yuma. Whats the deal with this? I'm pretty sure the TV should bring everything up to 120Hz. Or with some movies do you just not get that 3D effect?


Thanks fellas.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15014646
> 
> 
> djoberg -- Here's you responding to Patrick99, so this is not the first time -- you've debated this before...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I agree with Patrick, except that my problem with the hospital scene was that the cinematography that you call "subdued" and he called "soft" was that it was flat and uninteresting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



I subsequently watched The Fall all the way through to the end, and I continued to think that there was something "off" in terms of PQ throughout the movie. I agree that the "problem" was not just a problem with the content of the movie (although once it became apparent that what the movie was really about was Roy and the little girl, rather than the story he was telling her, it did become somewhat more involving).


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15014646
> 
> 
> djoberg -- Here's you responding to Patrick99, so this is not the first time -- you've debated this before...
> 
> 
> And I agree with Patrick, except that my problem with the hospital scene was that the cinematography that you call "subdued" and he called "soft" was that it was flat and uninteresting.



I see that you spent a good hour researching some of my posts and then you responded no less than 5 times. I suggest you slow down and take a deep breath.










Seriously though, I never meant to discourage you in my response to your review of The Fall, I simply wanted to let you know that it had been reviewed at length with a number of members weighing in, the majority of them suggesting a Tier 0 placement. When this happens, it is very hard for that title to be revisited and moved to another tier. It can and does happen, but it is rare.


You are right, patrick was a dissenting vote, but if you peruse the whole thread you will see that patrick is known for challenging a consensus that has been formed; in fact, some have suggested that he has a much higher set of standards for PQ that those set forth on page one.


Regarding me being a "cheerleader" and that I'm "constantly assuring everyone that everyone agrees with me," the very fact that you produced two posts where I debated with fellow-members over their view proves that I'm not what you claim. The truth is, I have been in the minority regarding title placement on quite a few occasions.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15015341
> 
> 
> I see that you spent a good hour researching some of my posts and then you responded no less than 5 times. I suggest you slow down and take a deep breath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously though, I never meant to discourage you in my response to your review of The Fall, I simply wanted to let you know that it had been reviewed at length with a number of members weighing in, the majority of them suggesting a Tier 0 placement. When this happens, it is very hard for that title to be revisited and moved to another tier. It can and does happen, but it is rare.
> 
> *You are right, patrick was a dissenting vote, but if you peruse the whole thread you will see that patrick is known for challenging a consensus that has been formed; in fact, some have suggested that he has a much higher set of standards for PQ that those set forth on page one.*
> 
> 
> Regarding me being a "cheerleader" and that I'm "constantly assuring everyone that everyone agrees with me," the very fact that you produced two posts where I debated with fellow-members over their view proves that I'm not what you claim. The truth is, I have been in the minority regarding title placement on quite a few occasions.



I think those comments about me are just a bit inaccurate. I certainly acknowledge that I frequently argue for a lower placement than others recommend for certain titles. However, I would quarrel with the statement that describes me as "challenging a consensus that has been formed." I attempt to be part of the ongoing dialogue that occurs prior to the time anyone would say a consensus exists. I don't think that expressing a dissenting opinion is quite the same thing as challenging a consensus. When someone claims that there is universal agreement that a particular title should be in Tier 0, I don't think it is out of line for me to point out that there is not universal agreement. I don't think I am guilty of constantly going back and criticizing placements once they have been made. Likewise, I think it is inaccurate to say I have "a much higher set of standards for PQ that those set forth on page one." I think it is more accurate to say I am more stringent in the application of those standards.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15015585
> 
> 
> I think those comments about me are just a bit inaccurate. I certainly acknowledge that I frequently argue for a lower placement than others recommend for certain titles. However, I would quarrel with the statement that describes me as "challenging a consensus that has been formed." I attempt to be part of the ongoing dialogue that occurs prior to the time anyone would say a consensus exists. I don't think that expressing a dissenting opinion is quite the same thing as challenging a consensus. When someone claims that there is universal agreement that a particular title should be in Tier 0, I don't think it is out of line for me to point out that there is not universal agreement. I don't think I am guilty of constantly going back and criticizing placements once they have been made. Likewise, I think it is inaccurate to say I have "a much higher set of standards for PQ that those set forth on page one." I think it is more accurate to say I am more stringent in the application of those standards.



Perhaps I was a bit harsh in my judgment patrick, but if I were to take the time (which I don't have) I believe I could find instances where you did indeed continue to mention a contrary view after a consensus had been formed. But I will admit that, for the most part, your opposing view takes place during the process of reaching a consensus. So, I apologize for resorting to a bit of hyperbole.


Regarding your set of standards, I am thinking back several months to a statement made by Brandon (who I truly miss, for he was a very good contributor to this thread). If I do have some time I will research that, for it was his comments about your "standards" or "stringent application of set standards" that I was basing my remark on.


I should mention, for the sake of rsbeck, that I have found myself (recently) agreeing with you on occasion, even though we were in a small minority. So much for me cheerleading!


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15015889
> 
> 
> Perhaps I was a bit harsh in my judgment patrick, but if I were to take the time (which I don't have) I believe I could find instances where you did indeed continue to mention a contrary view after a consensus had been formed. But I will admit that, for the most part, your opposing view takes place during the process of reaching a consensus. So, I apologize for resorting to a bit of hyperbole.
> 
> 
> Regarding your set of standards, I am thinking back several months to a statement made by Brandon (who I truly miss, for he was a very good contributor to this thread). If I do have some time I will research that, for it was his comments about your "standards" or "stringent application of set standards" that I was basing my remark on.
> 
> 
> I should mention, for the sake of rsbeck, that I have found myself (recently) agreeing with you on occasion, even though we were in a small minority. So much for me cheerleading!



Thanks for your post.


I definitely agree that Brandon's contribution is very much missed.


And I appreciate the occasions when you have agreed with me in the minority viewpoint.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15016041
> 
> 
> I definitely agree that Brandon's contribution is very much missed.



I echo your sentiments.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15015341
> 
> 
> I see that you spent a good hour researching some of my posts



I did not set out to research your posts. I simply did a thread search on The Fall. In reading the various discussions of the title, what jumped out at me was your repeatedly asserting to anyone who questioned whether the title belongs in Tier 0 that there was already agreement that it belongs there. The term for that is "bandwagon" advertising and it is based on peer pressure, making anyone who might form a contrary opinion feel like he/she is out of step. So, it seemed, from my reading, that before a number of people could really see the title and form an opinion, you were telling the forum that there was some sort agreement already in place that it was a tier 0 title "for sure." I can spend some time searching and posting quotes to show what I am talking about to back up what I am claiming, but I don't think it is necessary since all one has to do is to scroll back to the previous page and see your comments to me, which fit the pattern precisely. Further, I don't see how it is productive to tell any poster that his/her opinion is in the minority or challenges a "consensus" or that it is fruitless to offer an opinion because it is unlikely to affect title placement. In reading the opening statements of this thread again, I note that the thread starter has stated that the purpose of the thread is to encourage discussion of these titles, he does not say the goal is to form a consensus, so it would seem that dissenting opinion, as always, should be tolerated if not encouraged. It also occurs to me that as more and more people watch a title, what seemed like a consensus may in fact change to a controversy and that is only healthy for discussion. Finally, I think it bears repeating that while debating this title, you quoted from the opening statements of the thread and completely left out that parts about 3D pop and depth in order to support your assessment. I am sure that was unintentional on your part, but it is also incorrect, so when you state that others like myself and Patrick99 are using some other criteria to judge a title and that you are using the correct criteria, this has been shown to be incorrect. Now that you have been shown that you missed the opening paragraph on how to assess picture quality, it seems to me the honorable thing to do is to accept the correction and post a retraction of your misleading statement to Brainmonkey earlier in the thread rather than to go forward telling Patrick, for example, that he is using inappropriate criteria to judge picture quality.



> Quote:
> if you peruse the whole thread you will see that patrick is known for challenging a consensus that has been formed;



Once upon a time, there was "consensus" around the notion that the earth was flat. We don't need "group think" here. Why single someone out for "challenging a consensus?" I also question whether there reall is any consensus, how this "consensus" was allegedly formed and how it has been maintained.



> Quote:
> in fact, some have suggested that he has a much higher set of standards for PQ that those set forth on page one.



Only if you fail to read the part of page one that I quoted.



> Quote:
> The truth is, I have been in the minority regarding title placement on quite a few occasions.



If this is true, then I really don't understand the comment about Patrick challenging consensus. How is your being in the minority on quite a few occasions any different from Patrick, or any other poster, "challenging consensus?"


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15016737
> 
> 
> How is your being in the minority on quite a few occasions any different from Patrick, or any other poster, "challenging consensus?"



It's one thing to be in the minority, and it's quite another thing to continue to challenge the majority. When I find myself in the minority over a given title, I give my opinion and move on, without constantly disputing the opinions of the majority.


This is all I have to say to you at this point in time rsbeck. I thought my last post to you was quite civil, and I stressed how I wasn't trying to discourage you in my first post to you. You chose not to comment on that, but rather on the negative issues. So, I guess we must, as you said earlier, "agree to disagree."


----------



## boney95

Whats up with the Civil War.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15014326
> 
> 
> I got The Fall, *Baraka*, and the Kill Bill movies.



Have you watched Baraka yet? My copy was ordered a week ago but it still hasn't arrived. Be sure to give us your take on Baraka after you've seen it.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15017042
> 
> 
> I guess we must, as you said earlier, "agree to disagree."



Agree -- let's move on.


----------



## DaveBowman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *boney95* /forum/post/15017439
> 
> 
> Whats up with the Civil War.



Haven't you heard........the South lost again.....two nights ago.


----------



## mezman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *boney95* /forum/post/15014735
> 
> 
> Question: I have a 52' Samsung LCD 750 w the 120Hz. I've only watched 3 Blu-ray movies using my PS3. Well when watching 3 10 to Yuma, the PQ was amazing. Chacters looked 3D ect... When pushing the info button the display tells me that the PS3 is outputing 60Hz, which the TV should then bring up to 120Hz. I just recently watched Rambo and the new Indiana Jones movie, and when pushing the info button the TV displays only 24Hz. With both of these movies I didn't get that 3D effect like with Yuma. Whats the deal with this? I'm pretty sure the TV should bring everything up to 120Hz. Or with some movies do you just not get that 3D effect?
> 
> 
> Thanks fellas.



It's blu-ray dependant. I have the same TV and some titles look better than others. I have not watched 3:10 to Yuma since I got the TV but I'd be surprised that the BD isn't encoded at 24hz.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *boney95* /forum/post/15014735
> 
> 
> Question: I have a 52' Samsung LCD 750 w the 120Hz. I've only watched 3 Blu-ray movies using my PS3. Well when watching 3 10 to Yuma, the PQ was amazing. Chacters looked 3D ect... When pushing the info button the display tells me that the PS3 is outputing 60Hz, which the TV should then bring up to 120Hz. I just recently watched Rambo and the new Indiana Jones movie, and when pushing the info button the TV displays only 24Hz. With both of these movies I didn't get that 3D effect like with Yuma. Whats the deal with this? I'm pretty sure the TV should bring everything up to 120Hz. Or with some movies do you just not get that 3D effect?
> 
> 
> Thanks fellas.



The 120hz or hz in general have nothing to do with the "3d" pop or affect of a movie.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15017474
> 
> 
> Have you watched Baraka yet? My copy was ordered a week ago but it still hasn't arrived. Be sure to give us your take on Baraka after you've seen it.



I watched it last night for an hour. I really wanted to watch more, but I have gaming to do.










Overall Baraka looks Tier 0, but there are a couple of spots that look a bit soft or not as detailed.


This is the first BD I have seen that the audio hit the over 11Mbps mark.










I will watch it again, but for audio/visual demo for us to impress others, I would say Baraka is reference.


I will get back with more comments on Baraka, The Fall, and Get Smart.


So far Get Smart looks good with a lot of Tier 1 and some Tier 0 quality, although some reviews rate it average to mediocre. I am thinking it is going to rate around top to middle of tier 2, but again I want to do a PQ run thru review before giving my final assessment.


----------



## SuprSlow

First post is updated with about 90% of the recommendations from my last post. Will finish the remaining 10% and also new placements, in the morning.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/15019641
> 
> 
> First post is updated with about 90% of the recommendations from my last post. Will finish the remaining 10% and also new placements, in the morning.



Good job SuprSlow! Believe me it is truly appreciated.


----------



## Mick47




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaveBowman* /forum/post/15002897
> 
> 
> Glad to see I'm not the only one. I guess all the supposed video artifacts, EE, DNR, etc. didn't spoil the film for you. Know why? Cause there aren't any.



I sure the hell didn't see any. My 50" plasma as been calibrated and I couldn't pickup any artifacts. I do pickup some artifacts on some movies but not this one. I really think there are some real head cases on this board.


----------



## Shane Martin




> Quote:
> IMO, tier 0 should be reserved for titles that pretty consistently demonstrate the ultimate in what Blu-ray can achieve. To do that, I don't believe the title can just have a few sequences that are ultimate demo quality nor do I believe simply being artifact free is enough. To get into Tier 0, I believe a title should also push the envelope as far as cinematography, lighting, composition, contrast, etc. Because those are things that really show off what Blu-ray has to offer.



IMHO, we should create a "reference tier". They would be the creme de la creme of titles(much like the Audio Tier thread). That way titles that exhibit a very minor amount of issues could still be tier 0 yet not be "the best of the best". This would satisfy both parties I think.



> Quote:
> The 120hz or hz in general have nothing to do with the "3d" pop or affect of a movie.



It can have a negative effect creating a 3d pop affect when it shouldn't. Good example: The TV's at Best Buy often show Pirates 3 which looks nothing like film(on those LCD 120hz TV's). OTOH, when I go home and go to others houses where their sets are calibrated and do not use the 120hz, they look superior at home but that's because the 3d pop effect isn't all that to me. It's the combination of that with great blacks etc that create the reference picture. I think a ton of people are fooled into thinking that everything will look like sports which pirates 3 on the Samsung 120hz LCD's at BEst Buy look like which IMHO is a disservice and a joke.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Attn: *SuprSlow*


This title in the first quarter of Tier 1


Tudors: Complete First Season Video: ? | Audio: ? | AR: ?:1 | ?


should be changed to:


Tudors: Complete First Season (UK Import) Video: AVC Audio: PCM AR: 1.78:1 Sony


Good work as always SuprSlow...


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Shane Martin* /forum/post/15020361
> 
> 
> IMHO, we should create a "reference tier". They would be the creme de la creme of titles(much like the Audio Tier thread). That way titles that exhibit a very minor amount of issues could still be tier 0 yet not be "the best of the best". This would satisfy both parties I think.



That was the whole point of why Tier 0 was created.....now you're talking about another one?


----------



## Shane Martin




> Quote:
> That was the whole point of why Tier 0 was created.....now you're talking about another one?



Tier 0 is the top 10%(lets say) of the movies in terms of PQ. The "reference" would be the top 2-3% of that even.


This is no different than the audio tier thread. To me, the 2 tier threads should be similar.


----------



## patrick99

*Baraka*


Apparently I am not alone in seeing EE here:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Paul Cordingley* /forum/post/15022258
> 
> 
> Just watched it (100" 1080p).
> 
> 
> The print is perfect, the colours are perfect, the contrast and shadow detail is absolutely extraordinary, as is the integrity of the encode. Top class, all the way.
> 
> 
> The sound is also second to none.
> 
> 
> The content itself defies description - a work of art, wholly amazing and provoking.
> 
> 
> But, inescapably, there is something wrong. The restoration feature explains that the 65mm film takes the viewer beyond 35mm, and provides a sense of immediacy and directness which lets the viewer forget they are seeing a print, and directly connects with the content. The work which went into scanning the film into 8K and so on is mind blowing.
> 
> 
> However, sadly (and deeply ironically), by adding *EDGE ENHANCEMENT*, they have failed in their quest to bring that emotional connection to the home viewer. It looked subtly digital, processed, unnatural. It holds the promise, but never quite delivers it. You know you are watching a processed image, which is precisely the effect they claim to negate. Oh man, so close. So close.
> 
> 
> I just simply do not understand.


 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=334


----------



## DaveBowman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15022293
> 
> *Baraka*
> 
> 
> Apparently I am not alone in seeing EE here:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=334



I guess I'll have to admit to not being able to see it on my TV. Maybe I need a 100" set like Paul to pick up the EE !!!!


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaveBowman* /forum/post/15023032
> 
> 
> I guess I'll have to admit to not being able to see it on my TV. Maybe I need a 100" set like Paul to pick up the EE !!!!



I could see it quite clearly on my 40" display. . . .


----------



## mpgxsvcd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15023055
> 
> 
> I could see it quite clearly on my 40" display. . . .



At 3 inches from the display though!


----------



## mpgxsvcd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/15019641
> 
> 
> First post is updated with about 90% of the recommendations from my last post. Will finish the remaining 10% and also new placements, in the morning.



Your work is always appreciated!


Here is another vote for Baraka to be at the very top of the tier zero list. It is like no other Blu-ray I have ever seen!


----------



## DaveBowman

From Paul Cordingly's post regarding Baraka: However, sadly (and deeply ironically), by adding EDGE ENHANCEMENT, they have failed in their quest to bring that emotional connection to the home viewer. It looked subtly digital, processed, unnatural.


OK, the last thing I'll say about Baraka.....Please note that 6 of the top 10 titles listed in Tier 0 are animated features (100% artificial by definition), and most of the rest rely heavily on CGI. And yet some here are questioning Baraka's quality based on some very minimal (perhaps even almost indiscernable) edge enhancement. Now that's ironic.


----------



## rsbeck

I haven't seen Baraka yet, but I will say that no matter how many Tier 0 titles at this time happen to be animated or rely on CGI, it is no reason to relax standards in order to help get more titles into tier 0.


There's no shame in being ranked in tier 1. Some very good transfers are ranked there.


I'm sensing a little frustration that there aren't more titles in tier 0, but the blame for that must go to the studios and film makers who put them out, not the people who are assessing these titles and finding problems.


IMO, Tier 0 should only have reference titles and it should be very difficult to get in.


Given what I've seen so far after watching quite a few titles, it wouldn't surprise me to see exponentially more titles in tier 1 and 2 than in tier 0 -- and that's with me crossing my fingers that we continue to get titles of that quality rather than tier 3 and 4. I think the promise of Blu-Ray has raised a lot of expectations, expectations that we would see a lot more tier 0 type titles, but we're seeing that for various reasons, very, very few live up to that promise. Hopefully that will change, but it will only change when studios and film makers step up to the challenge, not by lowering standards.


----------



## patrick99

Someone else who sees EE in Baraka:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=340


----------



## boney95




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15019136
> 
> 
> The 120hz or hz in general have nothing to do with the "3d" pop or affect of a movie.



Then explain to me why is it when I have the AMP on high (120Hz) I get the 3D pop, but when I turn the AMP off, there's no 3D pop?


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *boney95* /forum/post/15026928
> 
> 
> Then explain to me why is it when I have the AMP on high (120Hz) I get the 3D pop, but when I turn the AMP off, there's no 3D pop?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_interpolation 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flicker-free 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDTV_blur 


Hz is related to motion, refresh rate and flicker. No where do I see how 120hz makes content 3-D or more 3-D like.


Maybe someone can set the record straight. Someone that is more knowledgeable.


----------



## stumlad

Took me a while to get to this movie, but I finally did. I'll start off by saying that I'm not really a fan of mixing animation movies with live action films in the tier thread. With that said, I dont think Speed Racer belongs anywhere other than *Tier 0.* I personally feel it belongs somewhere near the top.


This movie has to be watched the whole way through to appreciate just how good and consistent it looks. Yes most of it is CGI, but it's not that soft CGI like Transformers. I think the CGI in here beats Ratatouille, Cars, etc. The resolution is awesome, and I'm not sure if anything out there beats it. The contrast is awesome, and the colors pop like you wouldn't believe.


Before reviewing this, i saw some screen shots, and I thought "this will be voted higher because it has bright colors". So I definitely went in thinking that I wouldnt be fooled by it. I will have to say that the colors do probably help make it look better than if were a bunch of muted colors. However, it's the resolution that really shines, and the colors just add to it.


The movie isnt perfect, however. There was only one real negative I saw, and it had to do with digital airbrushing. It was definitely noticeable, but it wasn't done on every face closeup. I really doubt this was DNR, and outside of the airbrushing there was nothing about this movie that I feel could have been improved as far as PQ. I think because the movie lacked grain, the 25 GB BD and bit-rate used were sufficient. As far as audio, well that's another story.


Before I watched this, I was silently a naysayer, thinking that there was no way this could be a Tier 0 title, but I was completely wrong. Digital airbrushing or not, this should definitely be in the top part of Tier 0 IMO.


This title and How the West was won prove two things to me.... 1) Warner can release good titles if they really want to, and 2) VC-1 is just as good as AVC. I havent finished Baraka, but that's also VC-1 and I see nothing about it that suggests AVC would be better.


----------



## djoberg

I completely agree with your analysis of Speed Racer.


BTW, you say you haven't finished watching Baraka yet. What is your take on it so far? If you want to wait until you've seen it all the way through to give a review, then please finish it so we can hear from you.







(I am still "patiently" waiting for my copy to come from Amazon!)


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15028513
> 
> 
> I completely agree with your analysis of Speed Racer.
> 
> 
> BTW, you say you haven't finished watching Baraka yet. What is your take on it so far? If want to wait until you've seen it all the way through to give a review, then please finish it so we can hear from you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (I am still "patiently" waiting for my copy to come from Amazon!)



Will probably watch it this weekend. I only flipped through it but it looked great (Tier 0) when I did. I wont comment on EE until I've watched the whole thing though.


----------



## lgans316

Excellent analysis stumlad. Agree with you, djoberg and others that Speed Racer SHOULD be in Tier-0.


This may disappoint Patrick who is very particular about facial details but as the details in other parts of scope image looked consistently excellent (besides the annoying airbrushing which confused me initially), this flick definitely deserves to be placed in the BLU tier.


It would have been great if Warner had upped the video bit rates and offered lossless audio.


Another BD that amazed me was Indy Jones 4. It looked sharp, detailed, consistently offered HD pop and looked uniform in 37", 42" and 50" HDTVs which ain't the case with Iron Man and Matrix.


----------



## Mick47




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaveBowman* /forum/post/15023032
> 
> 
> I guess I'll have to admit to not being able to see it on my TV. Maybe I need a 100" set like Paul to pick up the EE !!!!



Actually if you have a 1000" screen you could really pick out the flaws, 100 times the area of Patricks. He would really have fun with a screen that size. Everything would be knocked down to tier 4 or lower!!


----------



## CT_Wiebe

Mick47 -- But he would need a search-light for a projector lamp. A 1000" screen has "only







" 100 times the area of a 100" screen.


----------



## Shane Martin

I guess I'll be the first to nominate Kung Fu Panda as tier 0 at the top even above Ratatouille. A simply astonishing presentation.


----------



## ABBN

Who put Sleeping Beauty in Tier 0? It's Low Tier 1 with the out of focus shots and over use of processing to remove grain which deteriorating the cels.


----------



## Thunderbolt8

kung fu panda definately looks like tier 0 material.


----------



## mpgxsvcd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Shane Martin* /forum/post/15032159
> 
> 
> I guess I'll be the first to nominate Kung Fu Panda as tier 0 at the top even above Ratatouille. A simply astonishing presentation.



I will agree with you that Panda should be tier 0 right above Ratatouille. However, Baraka should be ahead of both of them!


When will Baraka be ranked?


----------



## djoberg

Here is the review I just posted on the *Baraka* thread:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post15033642 


After reading my review you will know instantly that I am recommending a *high Tier 0* placement, for I go so far as to say there is now a new "King of the Blu-ray hill" in Baraka. There is simply no equal to date and I truly believe the majority will concur with this assessment.


----------



## Shane Martin

The EE issues should push Baraka down.


----------



## rsbeck

Blu-Ray: *Baraka*


Blu-Ray: *The Incredible Hulk*


From beginning to end both of these titles show what can be achieved with both high resolution and great cinematography. Blacks are rock solid black, there is great depth, lots of pop, the picture just leaps off the screen. I noticed some EE in Baraka in a few scenes. IMO, dropping Baraka for the EE in a few scenes would be like dropping other titles for using animation or CGI. In other words, in this case, I wouldn't. Interesting note; The Hulk employs CGI, but it is not the CGI that helps this title into tier 0, the majority of the film does not involve CGI and the entire film is crystal clear, detailed, 3D and deep. Again, in both Baraka and The Hulk, this is due to not only high resolution, but meticulous cinematography; The artful use of light and shadow, depth of field, sophisticated contrasting colors, composition, etc. -- this really shows what Blu-Ray can achieve in the right hands. Ironically, with regard to The Incredible Hulk, both films prove you do not need animation or CGI to make a tier 0 Blu-ray.

*Tier Recommendation:*

*Baraka: Upper half of Tier 0*

*The Incredible Hulk: Bottom Quarter Tier 0*



Sim2 C3X1080

126" Diagonal Firehaw G3

Carada Masquerade

Pioneer BDP-05FD


13' from screen



.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14952004
> 
> 
> The details in close-ups in Incredible Hulk were vastly better than anything in Iron Man



Agree -- The Incredible Hulk is superior to Iron Man. Blacks are more consistently solid in dark scenes, detail and contrast are also more consistent. Iron Man is a good looking title and earns its place in tier 1, which is still a high ranking, but as I wrote above, I believe The Incredible Hulk is a solid mid tier 0 title.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15033883
> 
> 
> Blu-Ray: *Baraka*
> 
> 
> I noticed some EE in Baraka in a few scenes. IMO, dropping Baraka for the EE in a few scenes would be like dropping other titles for using animation or CGI. In other words, in this case, I wouldn't.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation:*
> 
> *Baraka: Upper half of Tier 0*



+1


I wholeheartedly agree with your recommendation, and with your point about not penalizing Baraka for EE. As I stated in my review, I didn't even see any (of course, I freely admit I have an untrained eye), and there are quite a few others (on this thread and the Baraka thread) that have not seen the EE either. I dare say, the average Joe Sixpack (or Joe the Plumber, which ever you prefer) will not notice it at all. And even if one does see EE, it is such a small issue compared with the virtues of the entire film.


Let me add that if one would compare this title with any of the other non-animated titles in Tier 0 they would have to admit that it is just as good or better. Every title that I have seen in Tier 0 is not without some flaw and yet they have been deemed good enough to qualify for Demo Material.


----------



## rsbeck

I'm not absolutely positive that the effect I am seeing in Baraka is EE. It just seems like something digital has been done to either jack up the contrast or enhance the edges, but in the scenes of which I am thinking, especially one with birds flying across a giant expanse of water, this effect helps make the scene. Baraka plays with time lapse and motion, illustrating patterns. It seems to me like this is one of the points of Baraka, to show how nature, man and animals create these patterns and to compare and contrast patterns that exist in nature, ones created by primitive man, and ones made by industrialized man. In the birds across the water scene, they needed the effect to create the pattern. Any softness and the effect would be lost. Now, I know we are not supposed to guess the director's intention, so I will throw all of that out and just say that normally EE might bother me, but in this case it doesn't. Since -- for me -- it does not detract from and is such a small part of an incredibly impressive film of such high consistency, I still recommend an upper half of tier 0 ranking. Here is a film where you could literally use any sequence, even if it included a brief scene like the birds over water, to demo the ultimate in what Blu-Ray has to offer. That, to me, is the definition of Tier 0.




.


----------



## stumlad

Saw Baraka and I pretty much agree. Yes I do see the EE, and it does need to be somewhat penalized for that....but


Split tier 0 into two halves, Baraka goes into upper half, but on the bottom of that half







What this means as far as I'm concerned is, Baraka raised the bar for live action footage. Not enough to justify a new tier, but just a slight step above the best... It means that other footage is capable of being just as good.. which means footage that matches Baraka but without EE would be placed above it.


I havent seen Kung Fu Panda yet, but with all the rave reviews, perhaps that can also go into the top 1/2 of tier 0... if its created.


This is not to say that I'm not upset about the EE and even some DNR. But as far as resolution for Live Action, I'm not sure there's anything that exhibits this much detail...


----------



## Murilo

Kill Bill vol 1.


Should be higher up teir 0 right now its almost falling off. Probably one of the best transfers I seen next to king kong. With incredible sharpness, fantastic color, great blacks. There was inconsistant grain depending on scenes but kong also suffered from that.


Also watched rescue dawn, excellent transfer, but it was a bit softer maybe due to the film or way it was filmed, I think it should be lower tier 0.


96 inch screen, 12 feet back, Benq w5000 1080p projector.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Murilo* /forum/post/15037931
> 
> 
> Kill Bill vol 1.
> 
> 
> Should be higher up teir 0 right now its almost falling off. Probably one of the best transfers I seen next to king kong. With incredible sharpness, fantastic color, great blacks. There was inconsistant grain depending on scenes but kong also suffered from that.
> 
> 
> Also watched rescue dawn, excellent transfer, but it was a bit softer maybe due to the film or way it was filmed, I think it should be lower tier 0.
> 
> 
> 96 inch screen, 12 feet back, Benq w5000 1080p projector.





I own Kill Bill 1 and 2. They are virtually identical in PQ. How they got separated is beyond me. If anyone brings up issues with 1 to argue the point, I am going to come back with issues I saw with 2 that are there, but that I am not mentioning since I think both deserve Tier 0.


Baraka is definitely Tier 0 going by our standards regardless of this ringing issue. There is a shot of the moon at night that shows some banding/ringing, but it is barely noticeable. As I said in the Baraka thread, if it isn't Tier 0, NOTHING is.


Get Smart, middle to top of Tier 2.


The Fall. Low tier 0 or top tier 1, either way is a good placement.


Sony A3000 60 in. @ 8ft through HDMI from PS3.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15038970
> 
> *Black Snake Moan*
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Unchanged in Mid Tier 0*



Totally agree. Terrific PQ but the lack of lossless audio is slightly disappointing.


----------



## Elbie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15033883
> 
> 
> Blu-Ray: *The Incredible Hulk*
> 
> 
> From beginning to end both of these titles show what can be achieved with both high resolution and great cinematography. Blacks are rock solid black, there is great depth, lots of pop, the picture just leaps off the screen. I noticed some EE in Baraka in a few scenes. IMO, dropping Baraka for the EE in a few scenes would be like dropping other titles for using animation or CGI. In other words, in this case, I wouldn't. Interesting note; The Hulk employs CGI, but it is not the CGI that helps this title into tier 0, the majority of the film does not involve CGI and the entire film is crystal clear, detailed, 3D and deep. Again, in both Baraka and The Hulk, this is due to not only high resolution, but meticulous cinematography; The artful use of light and shadow, depth of field, sophisticated contrasting colors, composition, etc. -- this really shows what Blu-Ray can achieve in the right hands. Ironically, with regard to The Incredible Hulk, both films prove you do not need animation or CGI to make a tier 0 Blu-ray. IMO, These are reference tier 0 titles. IMHO, both will make you rethink what characteristics a non-animated tier 0 title can and should possess.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation:*
> 
> *Baraka: Upper half of Tier 0*
> 
> *The Incredible Hulk: Mid Tier 0*
> 
> 
> 
> Sim2 C3X1080
> 
> 126" Diagonal Firehaw G3
> 
> Carada Masquerade
> 
> Pioneer BDP-05FD
> 
> 
> 13' from screen
> 
> 
> 
> .



I agree with TIH. No way this movie is anything then mid to high Tier 0. This movie looks great.


----------



## stumlad

*Kung Fu Panda*


Tier 0, though I wouldn't say it beats Ratatouille, Meet the Robinsons, Cars, etc.. it's about on the same level as them IMO.

*Poltergeist*

Best it has ever looked, but I dont believe it's a great looking film at all. Some of the outdoor scenes looked "good" but outside of that, the resolution looked like it wasnt even approaching 720p levels. Contrast was very good, and special effects looked dated which is a result of the better resolution.


Did this movie receive a remastering? I'm really confused why a lot of 80s movies look so low-res.


I noticed House of Wax was Tier 3.5. I just watched that recently, and my thought is -- if that's 3.5, then Poltergeist is Tier 4.5. But realistically I think House of Wax should be moved to 1st quarter of tier 3, and Poltergeist to lower quarter of Tier 3.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15028450
> 
> 
> Took me a while to get to this movie, but I finally did. I'll start off by saying that I'm not really a fan of mixing animation movies with live action films in the tier thread. With that said, I dont think Speed Racer belongs anywhere other than *Tier 0.* I personally feel it belongs somewhere near the top.
> 
> 
> This movie has to be watched the whole way through to appreciate just how good and consistent it looks. Yes most of it is CGI, but it's not that soft CGI like Transformers. I think the CGI in here beats Ratatouille, Cars, etc. The resolution is awesome, and I'm not sure if anything out there beats it. The contrast is awesome, and the colors pop like you wouldn't believe.
> 
> 
> Before reviewing this, i saw some screen shots, and I thought "this will be voted higher because it has bright colors". So I definitely went in thinking that I wouldnt be fooled by it. I will have to say that the colors do probably help make it look better than if were a bunch of muted colors. However, it's the resolution that really shines, and the colors just add to it.
> 
> 
> The movie isnt perfect, however. There was only one real negative I saw, and it had to do with digital airbrushing. It was definitely noticeable, but it wasn't done on every face closeup. I really doubt this was DNR, and outside of the airbrushing there was nothing about this movie that I feel could have been improved as far as PQ. I think because the movie lacked grain, the 25 GB BD and bit-rate used were sufficient. As far as audio, well that's another story.
> 
> 
> Before I watched this, I was silently a naysayer, thinking that there was no way this could be a Tier 0 title, but I was completely wrong. Digital airbrushing or not, this should definitely be in the top part of Tier 0 IMO.
> 
> 
> This title and How the West was won prove two things to me.... 1) Warner can release good titles if they really want to, and 2) VC-1 is just as good as AVC. I havent finished Baraka, but that's also VC-1 and I see nothing about it that suggests AVC would be better.



I agree with you.

I don't see why Speed Racer has received such a bad rap. To me, this movie just oozes eye candy. It is everything that Blu Ray should be.

I don't personally own SR. Probably never will unless I can get it dirt cheap.

The movie was hideous but I would use it regularly for demo purposes.


----------



## Thunderbolt8

baraka is a bit DNR'ed btw.


----------



## DaveBowman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Thunderbolt8* /forum/post/15041720
> 
> 
> baraka is a bit DNR'ed btw.



Just curious........how do you know that? Are you familiar with how the transfer was processed, can you see the DNR, or are you speculating? I'm not arguing, just trying to learn what to look for to better understand some of the criticisms. Try as I might I just can't see any artifacts. I wish the people who do would share some specifics with us.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

+1 to all you hard working reviewers! =)


Just another reason I am happy this thread is around. I saw a copy of Baraka at the store when I was out this morning, and the husband's birthday is coming up. I have never heard of this film but for some reason it had my blu-ray senses tingling so I grabbed it as it was the lone copy they had. Given the reviews in this thread thus far after doing a search, I think it was a good choice. Thanks for all the hard work guys!


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaveBowman* /forum/post/15041916
> 
> 
> Just curious........how do you know that? Are you familiar with how the transfer was processed, can you see the DNR, or are you speculating? I'm not arguing, just trying to learn what to look for to better understand some of the criticisms. Try as I might I just can't see any artifacts. I wish the people who do would share some specifics with us.



Try looking in the two threads dedicated to this release for a more complete discussion of the issues.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Thunderbolt8* /forum/post/15041720
> 
> 
> baraka is a bit DNR'ed btw.



Really? That's news to me. I have heard much about Edge Enhancement, but nothing (reliable) about DNR.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/15039519
> 
> 
> the lack of lossless audio is slightly disappointing.



Agree.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15042463
> 
> 
> Really? That's news to me. I have heard much about Edge Enhancement, but nothing (reliable) about DNR.



Look in xylon's thread
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u...a/78c69817.png 

Some of the areas have a very airbrushed look to them; particularly obvious with the rightmost kid's hair: details that should be there are completely smeared. It looks like what Photoshop's smart blur filter does.


Seems to only be present in some shots though...


----------



## rsbeck

*Speed Racer*:


It is possible the airbrushed faces are throwing people off and I can understand the consternation. In a reference blu-ray, we are used to seeing detailed faces. Now, of course it is an artistic choice to airbrush the face, but the criteria for assessing picture quality specifically tells us to avoid factoring a director's intention. If you don't factor in the directors intention, you are left with soft looking faces. I can understand why it is off-putting to go from sharp CGI to soft faces.


Along those lines, take a title like The Assassination of Jesse James. Here is a very pleasing title with excellent resolution, solid blacks, wonderful depth and fabulous cinematography and many scenes are crystal blu-ray clear -- BUT -- the director chose to allow some film grain in other scenes to give an old-fashioned look to create a period feeling. If you forgive the slight softness in those scenes because of the director's intention, you could easily give this title a tier 1 ranking. Instead, because we've judged the title more strictly, it is ranked at 2 3/4, as it should be.


Doesn't seem right -- to me -- to punish one title for a director's choice of softness due to film grain and then to forgive another title because of a director's choice of softness due to airbrushing.


IMO, we need to be consistent and Speed Racer needs to be docked for the soft faces -- even though the rest of the film may be reference quality.


Once again, I think people are getting a little sensitive and feeling like a tier 1 ranking is some sort of horrible punishment. There are some very, very good titles in tier 1, it is not a bad neighborhood and there is no shame in being ranked there.

*Recommendation: Tier 1*



.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15042942
> 
> *Speed Racer*:
> 
> 
> It is possible the airbrushed faces are throwing people off and I can understand the consternation. In a reference blu-ray, we are used to seeing detailed faces. Now, of course it is an artistic choice to airbrush the face, but the criteria for assessing picture quality specifically tells us to avoid factoring a director's intention. If you don't factor in the directors intention, you are left with soft looking faces. I can understand why it is off-putting to go from sharp CGI to soft faces.
> 
> 
> Along those lines, take a title like The Assassination of Jesse James. Here is a very pleasing title with excellent resolution, solid blacks, wonderful depth and fabulous cinematography and many scenes are crystal blu-ray clear -- BUT -- the director chose to allow some film grain in other scenes to give an old-fashioned look to create a period feeling. If you forgive the slight softness in those scenes because of the director's intention, you could easily give this title a tier 1 ranking. Instead, because we've judged the title more strictly, it is ranked at 2 3/4, as it should be.
> 
> 
> Doesn't seem right -- to me -- to punish one title for a director's choice of softness due to film grain and then to forgive another title because of a director's choice of softness due to airbrushing.
> 
> 
> IMO, we need to be consistent and Speed Racer needs to be docked for the soft faces -- even though the rest of the film may be reference quality.
> 
> 
> Once again, I think people are getting a little sensitive and feeling like a tier 1 ranking is some sort of horrible punishment. There are some very, very good titles in tier 1, it is not a bad neighborhood and there is no shame in being ranked there.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 1 (Between Casino Royale and Chronicles of Narnia)*



It's a great relief to finally have someone else who is prepared to acknowledge this aspect of this title.


----------



## Thunderbolt8




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15042463
> 
> 
> Really? That's news to me. I have heard much about Edge Enhancement, but nothing (reliable) about DNR.



xylon took some screens in his thread here: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1082785 


for example take the screen with the soldier (faces & jackets), its too clean and grain free.


----------



## gc8710




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mpgxsvcd* /forum/post/15033112
> 
> 
> I will agree with you that Panda should be tier 0 right above Ratatouille. However, Baraka should be ahead of both of them!
> 
> 
> When will Baraka be ranked?



Just curious. Why are cartoons listed here? And so many in Tier 0. This is ridiculous.Of couse they look good. They look good on my 13 inch 40 year old RCA.Seven of the first ten are cartoons.WTF.

Why not start another thread for cartoons and leave this for the real movies.Come on children. I could see if this was one of the sell junk channels on tv trying to sell some crap tv and they are showing (You guessed it).And people at home saying "My what a lovely picture". But I would think posters here are more sophisticated. Sheesh!

And while I'm at it. Cartoons irritate me to begin with. On principle. Some actor making millions and he goes on all the talk shows like he's the star of the movie, while the real creators make 1/50th of what these voices make . And nobody knows who these geniuses are. When I was a kid, you knew you were watching Hanna and Barbera when you watched "The Flintstones" or "Yogi Bear".Now it's a Ben Stiller movie. Sheesh again!

Also, back in the heyday of cartoons, you didn't have some actor doing the voices. They made movies. You had voice people, like Mel Blanc and other extremely talented people do voices.And they weren't movie stars, they did voices,that's was their job.Now a handful of stars have to get all the money.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gc8710* /forum/post/15044071
> 
> 
> Just curious. Why are cartoons listed here? And so many in Tier 0. This is ridiculous.Of couse they look good. They look good on my 13 inch 40 year old RCA.Seven of the first ten are cartoons.WTF.
> 
> Why not start another thread for cartoons and leave this for the real movies.Come on children. I could see if this was one of the sell junk channels on tv trying to sell some crap tv and they are showing (You guessed it).And people at home saying "My what a lovely picture". But I would think posters here are more sophisticated. Sheesh!
> 
> And while I'm at it. Cartoons irritate me to begin with. On principle. Some actor making millions and he goes on all the talk shows like he's the star of the movie, while the real creators make 1/50th of what these voices make . And nobody knows who these geniuses are. When I was a kid, you knew you were watching Hanna and Barbera when you watched "The Flintstones" or "Yogi Bear".Now it's a Ben Stiller movie. Sheesh again!



This is the PQ thread, not the best film thread. CG movies, due to being sourced directly from the original renderings, tend to have pictures as close to perfection as blu-ray allows. So, deal with it.


----------



## gc8710




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15044280
> 
> 
> This is the PQ thread, not the best film thread. CG movies, due to being sourced directly from the original renderings, tend to have pictures as close to perfection as blu-ray allows. So, deal with it.



Apples and Oranges. Not very scientific. Plus, who's watching these movies? I thought you had to be a certain age to post here.


----------



## 1brokebrother




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gc8710* /forum/post/15044071
> 
> 
> Just curious. Why are cartoons listed here? And so many in Tier 0. This is ridiculous.Of couse they look good. They look good on my 13 inch 40 year old RCA.Seven of the first ten are cartoons.WTF.
> 
> Why not start another thread for cartoons and leave this for the real movies.Come on children.!



I fully agree with you however I don't think it's that simple.. I do know that some movies have loads of CGI.. And I do think cgi can be considered animation..Also many movies have Photo Shoped touch-ups. Air brushing ect. the question is where will the posters here draw the line?

if this was my thread I would make a separate tier for animated films ...but this ain't my thread


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gc8710* /forum/post/15044326
> 
> 
> Apples and Oranges.



Not even remotely. Great demo material is great demo material, period, and those movies are usually visually gorgeous and as technically flawless as blu-ray allows, and that's what this thread is ALL about. And here's a thought: many people here do have kids, and do buy those movies.


----------



## gc8710




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15044393
> 
> 
> Not even remotely. Great demo material is great demo material, period, and those movies are usually visually gorgeous and as technically flawless as blu-ray allows, and that's what this thread is ALL about. And here's a thought: many people here do have kids, and do buy those movies.



I understand that. But I stand by my complaint. I've seen one cartoon," Ratatouille ",based on glowing reviews saying adults would enjoy it as much or more than children.I saw it on Blu-Ray.Sure it looked nice,but I wouldn't come here and rave about it.I think that would do a disservice to the movies that are real technical achievements and deserve the top spots on the Tiers."Mongol","Kill Bill 2", "The Fall " Three that come to mind. Breathtaking all.These deserve top ten consideration. I think.With all due respect to those who enjoy the cartoons with the sparkling colors .

I truly do believe that a Blu-Ray of a montage of children's water color paintings would garner a host of Tier 0 votes.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15042942
> 
> *Speed Racer*:
> 
> 
> It is possible the airbrushed faces are throwing people off and I can understand the consternation. In a reference blu-ray, we are used to seeing detailed faces. Now, of course it is an artistic choice to airbrush the face, but the criteria for assessing picture quality specifically tells us to avoid factoring a director's intention. If you don't factor in the directors intention, you are left with soft looking faces. I can understand why it is off-putting to go from sharp CGI to soft faces.
> 
> 
> Along those lines, take a title like The Assassination of Jesse James. Here is a very pleasing title with excellent resolution, solid blacks, wonderful depth and fabulous cinematography and many scenes are crystal blu-ray clear -- BUT -- the director chose to allow some film grain in other scenes to give an old-fashioned look to create a period feeling. If you forgive the slight softness in those scenes because of the director's intention, you could easily give this title a tier 1 ranking. Instead, because we've judged the title more strictly, it is ranked at 2 3/4, as it should be.
> 
> 
> Doesn't seem right -- to me -- to punish one title for a director's choice of softness due to film grain and then to forgive another title because of a director's choice of softness due to airbrushing.
> 
> 
> IMO, we need to be consistent and Speed Racer needs to be docked for the soft faces -- even though the rest of the film may be reference quality.
> 
> 
> Once again, I think people are getting a little sensitive and feeling like a tier 1 ranking is some sort of horrible punishment. There are some very, very good titles in tier 1, it is not a bad neighborhood and there is no shame in being ranked there.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 1 (Between Casino Royale and Chronicles of Narnia)*





Speed Racer should easily be higher in Tier Blu than it's listed!


----------



## rsbeck

You can usually tell when something -- like these rankings -- are being done right. It's when no one is completely happy. I'd say we're right on track.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15044962
> 
> 
> You can usually tell when something -- like these rankings -- are being done right. It's when no one is completely happy. I'd say we're right on track.




Ha ha, how true. We do all of ourselves and viewers a justice.


I reiterate my recommendation for Speed Racer. Top of Tier 1.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15044676
> 
> 
> Speed Racer should easily be higher in Tier Blu than it's listed!



Hahaha... from what I have seen, the votes for top tier placement of Speed Racer out number those who agree otherwise.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/15045307
> 
> 
> Hahaha... from what I have seen, *the votes for top tier placement of Speed Racer out number those who agree otherwise*.



By a landslide!


----------



## gc8710

37% of Tier 0 dvds are animated.Biased maybe? The point of this rating thread is .....?


----------



## H.Cornerstone




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gc8710* /forum/post/15045514
> 
> 
> 37% of Tier 0 dvds are animated.Biased maybe? The point of this rating thread is .....?



It's not biased at all. All of those movies are created digitally and when you transfer digital to digital there is no detail lost, and it is much much easier to transfer to blu-ray and which is why they look so much better. Hence why Crank looks so great even though it is an older movie using MPEG-2.


And you can still compare which Live-action movies look better compared to others. Now I am all for separating animated from live-action, but quite frankly there aren't enough to warrant that ATM.


----------



## unclepauly




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gc8710* /forum/post/15044071
> 
> 
> Just curious. Why are cartoons listed here? And so many in Tier 0. This is ridiculous.Of couse they look good. They look good on my 13 inch 40 year old RCA.Seven of the first ten are cartoons.WTF.
> 
> Why not start another thread for cartoons and leave this for the real movies.Come on children. I could see if this was one of the sell junk channels on tv trying to sell some crap tv and they are showing (You guessed it).And people at home saying "My what a lovely picture". But I would think posters here are more sophisticated. Sheesh!
> 
> And while I'm at it. Cartoons irritate me to begin with. On principle. Some actor making millions and he goes on all the talk shows like he's the star of the movie, while the real creators make 1/50th of what these voices make . And nobody knows who these geniuses are. When I was a kid, you knew you were watching Hanna and Barbera when you watched "The Flintstones" or "Yogi Bear".Now it's a Ben Stiller movie. Sheesh again!
> 
> Also, back in the heyday of cartoons, you didn't have some actor doing the voices. They made movies. You had voice people, like Mel Blanc and other extremely talented people do voices.And they weren't movie stars, they did voices,that's was their job.Now a handful of stars have to get all the money.



You derailed your own post. Lol


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15042942
> 
> *Speed Racer*:
> 
> 
> It is possible the airbrushed faces are throwing people off and I can understand the consternation. In a reference blu-ray, we are used to seeing detailed faces. Now, of course it is an artistic choice to airbrush the face, but the criteria for assessing picture quality specifically tells us to avoid factoring a director's intention. If you don't factor in the directors intention, you are left with soft looking faces. I can understand why it is off-putting to go from sharp CGI to soft faces.
> 
> 
> Along those lines, take a title like The Assassination of Jesse James. Here is a very pleasing title with excellent resolution, solid blacks, wonderful depth and fabulous cinematography and many scenes are crystal blu-ray clear -- BUT -- the director chose to allow some film grain in other scenes to give an old-fashioned look to create a period feeling. If you forgive the slight softness in those scenes because of the director's intention, you could easily give this title a tier 1 ranking. Instead, because we've judged the title more strictly, it is ranked at 2 3/4, as it should be.
> 
> 
> Doesn't seem right -- to me -- to punish one title for a director's choice of softness due to film grain and then to forgive another title because of a director's choice of softness due to airbrushing.
> 
> 
> IMO, we need to be consistent and Speed Racer needs to be docked for the soft faces -- even though the rest of the film may be reference quality.
> 
> 
> Once again, I think people are getting a little sensitive and feeling like a tier 1 ranking is some sort of horrible punishment. There are some very, very good titles in tier 1, it is not a bad neighborhood and there is no shame in being ranked there.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 1 (Between Casino Royale and Chronicles of Narnia)*



While we're at it:


Pirates of the Caribbean - AWE

Some dark scenes that dont show as much detail as the rest..


Man on Fire Video - about 5-10 percent of the movie has areas where different film stock was used and if the movie were judged solely on them, it would be tier 10.


Crank Video:

I think i saw a macro block effect somewhere


Live Free or Die Hard Video:

Softer than everything else in this list



Mr. Brooks:

Inconsistent black levels throughout. Shots of the Brooks' house arent sharp


The Island:

Warner released this... so it must suck..


Happy Feet

See "The Island"



Shoot 'Em Up

No color...too muted



On a couple of these, I'm joking, and on others I'm serious, but besides maybe 2 of them, I believe they belong in Tier 0. They all have there flaws, but Speed Racer's flaw isn't a flaw, just like Man on Fire's flaw isnt a real flaw.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gc8710* /forum/post/15044326
> 
> 
> Apples and Oranges. Not very scientific. Plus, who's watching these movies? I thought you had to be a certain age to post here.



LOL noob out of nowhere with the insults.


----------



## alexg75

I'm just jumping in here to just reiteratre what I posted a while back,SPEED RACER belongs in and needs to stay in Tier 0/Blue!

There is always a difference of opinion whenever it comes to any title.....that's a given.

But the whole point and intent of this tier thread is to highlight those titles that offer demo/reference/eye candy PQ.

Speed Racer is the very definition of this.........

As Stumlad pointed out,there are a few Tier 0/Blue titles that fall a bit short of the high standards of "reference" quality.

IMO,POTC-DMC & AWE are not amongst the best I've seen in terms of eye candy.Both of these films are intentionally drab looking color-wise and a bit overrated overall.

Live Free or Die Hard is also similar.......

Again these are my opinions and I don't expect anyone to agree with me.

But the fact of the matter is that Speed Racer is what Blu-Ray HD is all about!

Any of the scenes in Speed Racer will just WOW! anyone who sees it and isn't that what we are celebrating here in this thread?


----------



## Mel2

I think kung fu panda is tier 0 also. not as high as ratatouille but close. I agree about speed racer being high tier 1. imo, potc dmc is still the best looking non animated reference disc i've seen. at world's end has alot of reference shots in it as well. nothing has bested the "maelstrom" sequence in at world's end yet.


----------



## selimsivad

Maybe you haven't witnessed "The Grand Prix" in Speed Racer. One of the most beautiful scenes ever!


----------



## kickingrass

BARAKA


I bought this movie the other day based on recent review in Home Theater magazine.

I have to say this is THE BEST LOOKING BLURAY I HAVE EVER SEEN.

The movie was originally shot on 75mm film and scanned in at 8K resolution and down rezzed to 2k for Bluray. The sound is DTS MA at 96K/24 bit.

It is not a movie in the purest sense of the word, but a collection of scenes from 24 different countries. There is NO ANIMATION. It is all real world shots. It is about 90 minutes long and it left my jaw hanging on the floor.

The extras include a "how they did it" which describes the whole process. For example it took over two weeks just to scan it all to digital at 8k.

For comparison, I also own The Incredible Hulk and DVE Basics which includes a 4k demo clip. BARAKA blows them both out of the water.

Trust me when I tell you this is the demo to beat all demos.


Carl


----------



## restart

Finally got to saw Baraka. Too Bad for the ringing I saw. Not the perfect title. I would give it mid tier 0.


----------



## the thing wnn

I know i haven't posted on here much, so maybe my opinion is not as valid as some, but i think Baraka should be high tier 0

Yes it has a very minor amount of ringing in a few shots, i still would like to hear from the people who worked on this if EE was specifically added, or if it was a result of the down-convert or something else, but other than that, some of the shots in this were beyond stunning

I've been a fan of this film since seeing it on 70mm in London years ago on release

I've owned three different copies on DVD, two region 1's and a region 2 version.

Now i have the Region A BD and i was blown away by this

Maybe not an absolutely perfect Blu-ray, but i have yet to see a non-animated film match it or come close (I thought 'The Fall' was closest I have seen and would put that a few places higher in tier 0)


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *the thing wnn* /forum/post/15047261
> 
> 
> I know i haven't posted on here much, so maybe my opinion is not as valid as some, but i think Baraka should be high tier 0
> 
> Yes it has a very minor amount of ringing in *a few shots*, i still would like to hear from the people who worked on this if EE was specifically added, or if it was a result of the down-convert or something else, but other than that, some of the shots in this were beyond stunning
> 
> I've been a fan of this film since seeing it on 70mm in London years ago on release
> 
> I've owned three different copies on DVD, two region 1's and a region 2 version.
> 
> Now i have the Region A BD and i was blown away by this
> 
> Maybe not an absolutely perfect Blu-ray, but i have yet to see a non-animated film match it or come close (I thought 'The Fall' was closest I have seen and would put that a few places higher in tier 0)



It isn't just "a few shots."


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kickingrass* /forum/post/15047142
> 
> 
> BARAKA
> 
> 
> I bought this movie the other day based on recent review in Home Theater magazine.
> 
> I have to say this is THE BEST LOOKING BLURAY I HAVE EVER SEEN.
> 
> 
> It is all real world shots. It is about 90 minutes long and it left my jaw hanging on the floor.
> 
> 
> Trust me when I tell you this is the demo to beat all demos.
> 
> 
> Carl



I agree with you 110%!

*Word of warning*: Do NOT visit the Baraka Comparison PIX thread or your Baraka bubble will burst! Your opinion will be shattered by purists who know better than you do what you think you see (or don't see)...they will convince you that there are "tons of Blu-ray titles that have better resolution."


----------



## the thing wnn

as far as my eyes told me it was


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *the thing wnn* /forum/post/15047261
> 
> 
> Yes it has a very minor amount of ringing in a few shots, i still would like to hear from the people who worked on this if EE was specifically added, or if it was a result of the down-convert or something else, but other than that, some of the shots in this were beyond stunning



While I'm not going to claim I have golden eyes, some shots look natural, some shots look very suspect.

Here's one http://s300.photobucket.com/albums/n...1110194832.png 

The trees in the background look like they're shot on my cheapo digital camera which liberally applies EE to everything; the whole image has this subtly processed look to it.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15047915
> 
> 
> While I'm not going to claim I have golden eyes, some shots look natural, some shots look very suspect.
> 
> Here's one http://s300.photobucket.com/albums/n...1110194832.png
> 
> The trees in the background look like they're shot on my cheapo digital camera which liberally applies EE to everything; the whole image has this subtly processed look to it.



I honestly don't know anymore. Perhaps Baraka's stunning imagery makes it look better than it reallly is? When I was watching it, I was definitely admiring how three dimensional the shots looked, and the amount of detail, the contrast, etc... i.e all the positives. And perhaps the overall locations they shot and images they captured were so awesome looking that I wasn't bothered by the negatives. When I look at the shots, I do see it more (EE) and I have to say that it's now affecting my initial reaction to the title... I still believe it belongs in Tier 0...just not above all else like I was originally saying.


----------



## edved1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/14834764
> 
> *Interview with the Vampire*
> 
> 
> tier recommendation: bottom half of *Tier 4*
> 
> 
> Warner released two days ago this 1994 movie to Blu-ray. The 122-minute feature is encoded in VC-1 on a BD-25. The average video bitrate is 19.93 Mbps with the encode peaking in the very low 30’s (BDInfo scan courtesy of eric.exe) at the one second time range. But most of the movie ranges between 12 and 27 Mbps with a lot of variation depending on the scene and lighting. This is not a stellar compression job, especially considering the very heavy grain structure present in the image. There are several instances of macroblocking when the encode chokes on the grain. Compression noise artifacting is very noticeable in a couple of spots. I would say this is a below average video encode on technical merits and definitely not on par with the quality of more recent BDs.
> 
> 
> I will start with the positives of this transfer. Warner did not use any DNR on the transfer and the very grainy look of the film is retained throughout the movie. That is it for the positives and it all goes downhill from there. It looks like Warner used whatever ancient HD master they had lying around for this transfer and looks nothing like my memory of seeing this in the theater. It appears dull and faded in a general way and makes the movie look like it was from 1974 and not 1994 at times. There are several instances of digital scratch removal marks. Colors are barely better than dvd quality with low contrast in many scenes. Black levels are very odd and don’t appear right in some scenes with frequent black crushing observed. Low light details get lost in the crush. For an example check out the period costumes’ texture and folds which are very hard to make out. This is a much darker look to the film than I have ever seen.
> 
> 
> This movie was never shot for eye candy (much of it appears soft-filtered and diffuse) but this might be the softest Blu-ray I’ve seen from a major studio out of hundreds that I‘ve seen. The image appears very flat with no depth at all, much like a dvd. High frequency information is barely present, with close-ups even lacking decent detail. This transfer simply never reveals the finer parts of faces, hair, and clothing that an average Blu-ray should reveal. Rarely does it ever look better than a low tier three image, with a good portion of the movie firmly planted in tier four quality.
> 
> 
> To say I was disappointed after seeing this disc is no understatement. The source material is difficult and was never going to look incredible, but Warner has really dropped the ball on this BD. This is one of the first Bds I’ve seen that I can’t call a major upgrade from the dvd. I would recommend a tier four placement. I'm going to speculate when Warner decides to properly remaster this movie that it will be a significant improvement over this Blu-ray.
> 
> 
> Watching on a calibrated 60" Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080/24p fed by a PS3 from a viewing distance of approximately six feet.
> 
> 
> BDInfo scan:
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post14718725




Completely agree on your assessment! While better than the standard DVD, I found the colored costumes to be void of any punch, while the dark scenes (and there are many) lacked any detail at all! A big disappointment. I found the film to be exceedingly flat, no pop to it. Tier 4, perhaps Tier 5.


An excellent film with a major BD let-down. This is the reason I've yet to buy Bram Stoker's Dracula! If you really like "Interview", I suggest you rent it. Unfortunately, I couldn't, I live in the ME.


Viewing with a Sony VW60, calibrated by AVS on a 106' Carada screen @12 feet.


My 2cents.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15049674
> 
> 
> I honestly don't know anymore. Perhaps Baraka's stunning imagery makes it look better than it reallly is? When I was watching it, I was definitely admiring how three dimensional the shots looked, and the amount of detail, the contrast, etc... i.e all the positives. And perhaps the overall locations they shot and images they captured were so awesome looking that I wasn't bothered by the negatives. *When I look at the shots, I do see it more (EE) and I have to say that it's now affecting my initial reaction to the title...* I still believe it belongs in Tier 0...just not above all else like I was originally saying.



Before you continue lowering your opinion of Baraka based on screen shots, read the following post:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...8#post15052758


----------



## nohjy

Hellboy II - Tier 0

This is without question one of the best home theater experiences ever! The picture is pristine and the soundtrack is as good as it gets. Unbelieveable!!! I won't say the movie itself is that great - it's derivative as all hell - but it really is a wild ride. This is not to be missed for anyone who loves a truly immersive experience. Both on a PQ and AQ level this movie ranks in my top 5 of all time. As it stands now this is the best overall presentation (PQ+AQ)I have ever seen on Blu-Ray. So, in fact, as far as I am concerned, it is not just reference it is THE reference.


----------



## Vegaz

Anyone get the new Futurama movie and know what tier it'd be in? I was wondering if I should wait 'till I get the new TV and get it on Blu-ray or just get the DVD now. I read the cartoon argument on the other page but does it still apply when it's not a theatrical release?


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15049674
> 
> 
> I have to say that it's now affecting my initial reaction to the title...



Power of suggestion?





.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I have had JFK for about a week now and think Warner handled this BD very nicely. The regular scenes not involving stock footage look great. I am not ready to write up a recommendation yet but I am even thinking of possible tier one status for this title.


----------



## Shane Martin

Hellboy 2: Tier 0.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15053790
> 
> 
> Trees in the BACKGROUND.....in a SCREEN SHOT that you pulled off the INTERNET look like they're shot with a cheapo camera?
> 
> 
> When I look at that photo, it looks to me like the camera person had the right equipment, great light and the right set-up to get incredible contrast, resolution and detail. Are the edges so clear because the shadows are so well resolved or because of EE? Do you know for sure or are you guessing? Be honest.
> 
> 
> What I know is that when I watch the film on a 126" diagonal screen, the cinematography and resolution are consistently stunning.



The screenshot is a lossless PNG so I am assuming it is a lossless screengrab of the original frame.

Obviously this is all guesswork, but I think an educated guess can be a pretty good one. Here's something to consider:


Someone made a firmware hack for the Canon Powershot camera I've got which allows them to dump the raw sensor data and bypass the 'hidden' processing. here's a crop of the same photo I took: one from the EE'd picture the camera normally puts out http://img389.imageshack.us/img389/6488/ee1hm7.jpg 

and one from the raw version: http://img389.imageshack.us/img389/7637/raw1bo8.jpg 

(the camera's internal color balancing is a bit different from photoshop's RAW import, but its from the same shot)

I think that shot from Baraka has a similar, somewhat processed look.



and here's something which might look a bit familiar (tiny crop, not scaled):


















(anyway, im putting way too much effort into convincing people this transfer has issues







i'm sure its a great looking film but lets not be too hasty about sticking it on the top of Tier 0)


----------



## rsbeck

Those shots are interesting, but they don't look like what I see in *Baraka*. I think we may all be interpreting the picture assessment criteria differently as well, which is bound to happen. I interpret the criteria to mention EE because it can ruin the picture. It does not say that there can be no processing. If it did, I doubt many films would pass. So, I think we all have to decide which photo tricks are acceptable because they result in a great looking picture and which are unacceptable because they spoil the picture. On my 126" diagonal screen, Baraka looks terrific. I have more problem with a picture like *The Fall* because -- to my eyes -- the cinematography is boring and it results in a well resolved, but uninteresting picture. This -- to me -- is different from Baraka which -- to me -- is well resolved and has masterful and interesting cinematography. IMO, it takes great cinematography AND high resolution to create the depth, pop and three dimensional quality referenced in the picture assessment criteria. IMO, resolution alone doesn't cut it. To my mind, this is also referenced in the opening paragraphs of the thread where the OP talks about a title that is pristine, artifact free and a nice transfer, but doesn't have pop and depth so he ranks it in tier 3. I have been far kinder to The Fall.


I have not recommended Baraka for top of tier 0, only top half of tier 0.


I have recommended The Fall for low Tier 1/high tier 1 1/4.




.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15052965
> 
> 
> Before you continue lowering your opinion of Baraka based on screen shots, read the following post:
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...8#post15052758





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15053813
> 
> 
> Power of suggestion?



Perhaps! I won't deny that seeing and reading the Baraka thread has been a bad influence










I still think it's Tier 0 though and still a demo disk.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Shane Martin* /forum/post/15053926
> 
> 
> Hellboy 2: Tier 0.



More like Tier 2 IMO. I am not sure whether it was the presence of so much CGI that was responsible, but most of the movie looked quite disappointingly soft to me. I enjoyed the movie though. Much better than the first one.


----------



## maverick0716

I rented Hellboy 2 today, so I'll post my thoughts soon.


Patrick99 - Do you think that Hellboy 2 looks softer than the Hellboy 1 Blu Ray?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/15058225
> 
> 
> I rented Hellboy 2 today, so I'll post my thoughts soon.
> 
> 
> Patrick99 - Do you think that Hellboy 2 looks softer than the Hellboy 1 Blu Ray?



It's been a while since I watched Hellboy 1, but I certainly do not recall there being softness to this degree in Hellboy 1. But I also recall that there was considerably less CGI in Hellboy 1.


----------



## maverick0716

Interesting. I'm going to be viewing these two back to back, so I'll be able to get a decent comparison.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/15058267
> 
> 
> Interesting. I'm going to be viewing these two back to back, so I'll be able to get a decent comparison.



I had forgotten what studio released the first one, so I just checked. It was Sony, whereas number 2 is Universal.


----------



## Hughmc

Hellboy 2. I agree with Patrick99 on some softness and out of focus shots I saw at times especially in the beginning, but I disagree as to placement. This should be in top Tier 1. I do not see it as a Tier 0 title, but I think it has very similar PQ to most of the top tier 1 titles.


Overall it was a great ride and good movie.


----------



## nohjy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15059003
> 
> 
> Hellboy 2. I agree with Patrick99 on some softness and out of focus shots I saw at times especially in the beginning, but I disagree as to placement. This should be in top Tier 1. I do not see it as a Tier 0 title, but I think it has very similar PQ to most of the top tier 1 titles.
> 
> 
> Overall it was a great ride and good movie.




I have absolutely no idea what you guys were seeing that was as clean a transfer as any released to date. Softness... where? the picture was 3d throughout 90% of the film. Colors and depth were on par with any live action movie. There were no compression artifacts and I saw no edge enhancement or DNR. Are you trying to tell me that the tier 0s are better? Please... All of movies have shots that are inconsistent. Its the nature of the beast. No camera can get it right 100% of the time. The transfer is pristine... end of story.


JK


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nohjy* /forum/post/15059400
> 
> 
> I have absolutely no idea what you guys were seeing that was as clean a transfer as any released to date. Softness... where? the picture was 3d throughout 90% of the film. Colors and depth were on par with any live action movie. There were no compression artifacts and I saw no edge enhancement or DNR. Are you trying to tell me that the tier 0s are better? Please... All of movies have shots that are inconsistent. Its the nature of the beast. No camera can get it right 100% of the time. The transfer is pristine... end of story.
> 
> 
> JK



IMO top tier 1 and most of tier 0 particularly the bottom, minus the CGI/animated movies, are so close in PQ they are a wash. For example, I think Kill Bill 1 is exactly like Kill Bill 2. I respect your opinion on what you think the PQ is, but it is not end of story just because you say it is. We have other opinions and posters in this thread and thankfully we are getting more and more so we do the best we can at placements.


----------



## rsbeck

The difference between top tier 1 and tier 0 is often very, very subtle. In fact, I believe some tier 1 titles used to be tier 0 titles. The more titles appear, the more picky people are getting, which is only reasonable.


----------



## Rob G68

Futurama looks great. probably tier 0 or top tier 1


----------



## James A. McGahee









Without having to dig back through this thread would someone briefly describe the difference in picture quality between the two Happy Feet listed in the Blue Tier?


I noticed the Import was ranked higher. Not sure if it would play on my Samsung BD-UP5000.


Thanks for the help.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *James A. McGahee* /forum/post/15060674
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Without having to dig back through this thread would someone briefly describe the difference in picture quality between the two Happy Feet listed in the Blue Tier?
> 
> 
> I noticed the Import was ranked higher. Not sure if it would play on my Samsung BD-UP5000.
> 
> 
> Thanks for the help.



Same video encode but the import features 16/-bit LPCM audio at 4.6 Mbps.


----------



## daveshouse

Off the Baraka topic for a moment...has anyone gotten the chance to watch Band of Brothers yet? I have it but haven't had the time to watch, and was wondering how good the picture quality was.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15059933
> 
> 
> The difference between top tier 1 and tier 0 is often very, very subtle. In fact, I believe some tier 1 titles used to be tier 0 titles. The more titles appear, the more picky people are getting, which is only reasonable.



+1


I agree, the difference between the two tiers can be subtle. And yes, some titles have been moved from Tier 0 to Tier 1 and we can expect a lot more of this as time goes on, for *ideally* future transfers should become more pristine. Who knows, Tier 0 titles today may be in Tier 2 or 3 in a year or two.


----------



## Shane Martin

I watched *Transsiberian* last night from First Look. Reviews are mixed. AVS (Ralph) has the PQ ranked at a 78 meanwhile Adam at DVD Talk who I also respect has it ranked as a 5 star ranking.


It's a very clean VC1 transfer with no issues I could detect. As far as eye candy goes, it really doesn't qualify due to the material and filming locations.


Rank: Right next to "Before the Devil Knows your Dead". To me, they are very similar looking movies and transfers.


----------



## ajamils

Watched Wall*E yesterday....and I think that we have a new PQ king. Absolute stunning PQ. I would put it at the top of Tier 0.


Equipment:

Samsung LN65A46

Playstation 3

Viewing Distance: (about) 6 feet


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajamils* /forum/post/15063569
> 
> 
> Watched Wall*E yesterday....and I think that we have a new PQ king. Absolute stunning PQ. I would put it at the top of Tier 0.
> 
> 
> Equipment:
> 
> Samsung LN65A46
> 
> Playstation 3
> 
> Viewing Distance: (about) 6 feet



Sounds good! You have just whetted my appetite for the copy I just ordered from Amazon (along with Kung Fu Panda).


----------



## ajamils

(as expected) Hidef Digest agrees with my opinion of Wall*E


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*JFK*


tier recommendation: bottom quarter of *Tier 1*


Warner released this 1991 movie to Blu-ray in the past week in a digibook edition. The 205 minute feature is encoded in VC-1 on a BD-50. The average video bitrate is 18.85 Mbps (BDInfo scan link courtesy of House found below). While there are brief bursts peaking into the high thirties and low forties, most of the video encode hovers between 12 and 24 Mbps. This is a very nice compression job, with few visible artifacts. The bitrates tend to go higher for the various stock footage. There is the faint hint of some chroma noise in the backgrounds of certain indoor scenes but nothing else stands out.


Oliver Stone used a comparatively large amount of stock footage in this movie which I did not take into consideration when calculating my final recommendation. Grainy black and white television footage, 8mm footage from the Zapruder film, 16mm and video footage all comprise portions of the movie. But the normally filmed segments of the movie are on 35mm film and look great for a catalog title of this vintage.


Warner's High Definition master for this film must be in great condition as it looks pristine and in excellent shape on screen. Few if any flaws are visible, though I did notice a couple of digital scratch removal artifacts. The color palette is nicely saturated with above average fidelity. Flesh tones are rendered naturally if a tad warm in a few scenes. There is little if any edge enhancement apparent. If Warner is using DNR on their titles, it seems to produce much less impact on the final image quality than other studios. The 16mm footage looks appropriately grainy with little sign of unnatural grain or shifting fields.


The image appears razor sharp with solid detail in close-ups, though this is the weakest aspect of the transfer. High frequency information is average and probably closer to a tier two ranking for this particular aspect of the image. Shadow depth and delineation is excellent with very solid black levels. Contrast is near perfect and the image has a great sense of pop.


I am recommending this BD to be placed in the bottom quarter of tier one. I feel this is a very nice job Warner has done in releasing this movie and unlikely to be improved on given the source material.


Watching on a 60” Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 played by a PS3 (firmware 2.52) from a viewing distance of six feet.


BDInfo scan:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...0#post15002300


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ajamils* /forum/post/15063569
> 
> 
> Watched Wall*E yesterday....and I think that we have a new PQ king. Absolute stunning PQ. I would put it at the top of Tier 0.
> 
> 
> Equipment:
> 
> Samsung LN65A46
> 
> Playstation 3
> 
> Viewing Distance: (about) 6 feet



I can't wait to get this.


----------



## James A. McGahee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *James A. McGahee* /forum/post/15060674
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Without having to dig back through this thread would someone briefly describe the difference in picture quality between the two Happy Feet listed in the Blue Tier?
> 
> 
> I noticed the Import was ranked higher. Not sure if it would play on my Samsung BD-UP5000.
> 
> 
> Thanks for the help.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/15061054
> 
> 
> Same video encode but the import features 16/-bit LPCM audio at 4.6 Mbps.




Not to cause problems, but why is one rated higher than the other if this is strictly a video rating (not audio) thread??


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *James A. McGahee* /forum/post/15068067
> 
> 
> Not to cause problems, but why is one rated higher than the other if this is strictly a video rating (not audio) thread??



I've read the US version has color banding issues actually.


----------



## 6SpeedTA95

How often does the front page list get updated? I was wanting to see where Shawshank and the new Batman stackup when they come out and Band of Brothers is already out...


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *6SpeedTA95* /forum/post/15068320
> 
> 
> How often does the front page list get updated? I was wanting to see where Shawshank and the new Batman stackup when they come out and Band of Brothers is already out...



"Patience is a virtue".....This old cliche needs to be remembered when it comes to updates on this thread. New releases like the ones mentioned will need to be seen and reviewed by a number of members before a consensus is formed as to placement. This may take a number of weeks, depending on the interest of any given title. So, have patience...in time the titles you are interested in will be included in an update.


May I encourage you to participate in this thread...simply watch a Bluray title, and then post a review and suggested tier placement. Oh, and welcome to the thread!


----------



## stumlad

What Happens in Vegas


I'm not sure what it is about Romantic Comedies, but they all seem to be shot with a soft lense or something because most of them that I've seen on blu are all the same. You can see plenty of fine detail, it's just blurry. This was true of 27 dresses as well.


Either top of tier 3 with 27 dresses, or bottom quarter of Tier 2. There were really no issues with the disc other than it was soft.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hughmc* /forum/post/0
> 
> *Very similar PQ to Bank Job, but a bit better*... This film has a lot of 3D pop. The clothing, faces, etc and definition of objects in the foreground give very much of a 3d depth to the picture. This is an eye candy film.



I definitely don't agree with this. Face closeups in Bank Job were Tier 0 worthy whereas the rest of Bank Job was low tier 1/high tier 2. What Happens in Vegas is just soft all over. Face closeups aren't revealing at all... if they were, we'd actually be able to clearly see the wrinkles on Cameron Diaz (and no, i'm not putting her down..she's just getting older, no big deal). I remember looking at some of the scenery shots of NY and saying "wow that's soft". I agree with it having 3D pop though, and nice colors.


----------



## hobbs47




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *6SpeedTA95* /forum/post/15068320
> 
> 
> How often does the front page list get updated? I was wanting to see where Shawshank and the new Batman stackup when they come out and Band of Brothers is already out...



I would put Band of Brothers at mid to lower tier 1. And that is not too shabby if you look at the titles in that area.


----------



## rsbeck

*Robocop:*

*Current Placement in Tier 3 is too high.*


Very flat transfer, blacks break up in dark scenes, picture quality looks very much like an upconverted DVD. In fact, I have DVD's that look better. This one was similar in quality to Total Recall, which is ranked tier 4.

*Recommendation: tier 4*


Sim2 C3X1080

Carada Masquerade

126" Diagonal Firehawk G3

Pioneer BDP-05FD



.


----------



## rsbeck

*Omega Man*

*Current Placement in Tier 2 is too high*


Grain intact. Did not see any ringing. Some scenes are absolutely beautiful, but as soon as there is any shadow at all, and that is often, the blacks break up and turn flakey, there was banding in some scenes, and some scenes exhibited scratches and nicks. Incredibly uneven title.

*Recommendation: Tier 3*


Sim2 C3X1080

Carada Masquerade

126" Diagonal Firehawk G3

Pioneer BDP-05FD




.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *6SpeedTA95* /forum/post/15068320
> 
> 
> How often does the front page list get updated? I was wanting to see where Shawshank and the new Batman stackup when they come out and Band of Brothers is already out...



Whoa dude settle down those aren't even close to out yet, especially Shawshank.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15059003
> 
> 
> Hellboy 2. I agree with Patrick99 on some softness and out of focus shots I saw at times especially in the beginning, but I disagree as to placement. This should be in top Tier 1. I do not see it as a Tier 0 title, but I think it has very similar PQ to most of the top tier 1 titles.
> 
> 
> Overall it was a great ride and good movie.



I watched the first half of this again last night and I will stick with my Tier 2 recommendation. Apart from an occasional tight close-up, there is just a consistent and quite bothersome softness to the image. Again, it may be attributable to the very large amounts of CGI, but still it is there. Contrast this with Transformers, for example, where the CGI robots are somewhat soft, but the photography of real things is beautifully sharp and clean. In comparison, Hellboy 2 just looks consistently muddy.


----------



## Jack Gilvey

I'd be interested in the PQ differences between the two Happy Feet versions, also.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15068249
> 
> 
> I've read the US version has color banding issues actually.



This post seems to indicate that it's the UK/LPCM version with the banding, compared to the US:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1#post14807501 



Anyone? Both being Tier 0, I doubt it'd matter much, just curious.


----------



## rsbeck

*The Aviator:*

*Currently ranked too low.*


Beautiful transfer, 90% of it could easily be considered low tier 0. Blacks are solid, cinematography is striking and beautiful, picture is sharp and deep, a tiny portion of the time, the picture goes a tiny bit soft. I'm talking tiny. It is currently ranked tier 2, just below Blade Runner, The Final Cut. I love that movie, the picture on Blade Runner, The Final Cut looks very good, but the picture on The Aviator surpasses it by quite a margin. To me, The Aviator is mid Tier 1 material. Highly recommended.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 1 1/2*


Sim2 C3X1080

Carada Masquerade

126" Firehawk G3

Pioneer BDP-05FD


13' from Screen



.


----------



## James A. McGahee




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15074708
> 
> *The Aviator:*
> 
> *Currently ranked too low.*
> 
> 
> Beautiful transfer, 90% of it could easily be considered low tier 0. Blacks are solid, cinematography is striking and beautiful, picture is sharp and deep, a tiny portion of the time, the picture goes a tiny bit soft. I'm talking tiny. It is currently ranked tier 2, just below Blade Runner, The Final Cut. I love that movie, the picture on Blade Runner, The Final Cut looks very good, but the picture on The Aviator surpasses it by quite a margin. The picture on this title is also better than The Bank Job, which is ranked high tier 1 1/4. The Aviator should not be ranked below The Bank Job. To me, The Aviator is Tier 1 material. Highly recommended.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 1*
> 
> 
> 
> Sim2 C3X1080
> 
> Carada Masquerade
> 
> 126" Firehawk G3
> 
> Pioneer BDP-05FD
> 
> 
> 13' from Screen



I agree completely!!


----------



## djoberg

rsbeck,


I have the SD version of The Aviator and I've always thought that was a very good transfer, so I'll have to rent the Blu-ray version someday. It's a good movie (IMO), but one has to have a long afternoon or evening available to watch it. Thanks for the review.


----------



## stumlad

Bee Movie -- Pretty much agree with the placement in Tier 0.


Why is Shrek 3 so low in Tier 1?


----------



## zinfamous




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *daveshouse* /forum/post/15062677
> 
> 
> Off the Baraka topic for a moment...has anyone gotten the chance to watch Band of Brothers yet? I have it but haven't had the time to watch, and was wondering how good the picture quality was.



Just finished all of them tonight. I was very happy with the transfer. Lots of grainy goodness, some great detail, also some softness at times.


Sometimes the grain can become obtrusively heavy, but this is lighting issues.

For the content, the image is perfect, imo. The subject matter shouldn't be treated any other way.


However, I still think the SD was such a great piece of work, that the BD, while great, isn't leaps and bounds above it--outside of the full 1.7:1 that you get.


The audio is great, of course, but this is about PQ.


I agree with the sentiments of those that recommend mid tier 1.


If this were the artistic (true) PQ thread, I'd say tier 0


----------



## 42041

*Forgetting Sarah Marshall:*


Funny movie, but an unimpressive (though inoffensive) transfer. Consistently soft detail, muted colors, and weak contrast lead to a flat looking image; moderate EE is applied throughout. Some shots use DNR ranging from moderate to heavy; some retain grain, leading to an inconsistent appearance. Due to all the extras on the disc, the video bitrate is unimpressive (around 20mbps avg.) and compression artifacts are occasionally evident.

*Recommendation: upper Tier 3.*


Watched on Samsung LN40A650/PS3 from a few feet away.


----------



## isu1648

When did Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds get moved down to Tier 1 from Tier 0?? That is a garbage move if you ask me. That title is reference quality if ive ever seen it.


----------



## djoberg

I have to echo the sentiments of Stumlad who gave *How the West was Won* a suggested *Tier 0* placement. I would suggest somewhere *near the top* (or no lower than mid tier).


This was, by far, the best restoration I have ever seen, bar none. The cinematography is gorgeous; the colors are both natural and vivid; contrast is spot-on; and there is plenty of 3D pop. The sharpness and detail defy description in most scenes. There was a scene in chapter 10 (the raft on the rapids) that was less-than-stellar, but filming a fast motion scene in those days (1962) was not easy, so I'm willing to be forgiving and give it a pass.


The film itself was enjoyable and the all-star cast (from those days) was a treat to behold. On this first viewing I watched the SmileBox version (i.e., Cinerama Wraparound Theaterical Experience) and I doubt that I will ever watch the Widescreen Version Transfer that's also included. I would highly suggest moving closer to your screen when you do watch the SmileBox version...in my case I usually sit back 7-8 feet from my Samsung 50" 1080p DLP, but I moved my loveseat within 5 feet for this one.


The only negative was the audio. Even though it's Dolby TrueHD there was very little material for one's surrounds, and even less for your LFE channel. When listening to dialogue I had to turn my Onkyo 705 up to nearly reference levels. But this is a PQ thread, so there is no docking for poor AQ.


----------



## JayPSU

I saw disc 1 of the Band of Brother series last night. Now, keep in mind, I LOVE the series itself. But with regards to picture quality, it was very inconsistent. At times detail was excellent and it was crystal clear. At other times, the picture was extremely grainy and the detail was all gone. Colors seemed washed out, but that was mostly the intent of the director. I'd have to place this title at the bottom of tier 2.


Samsung LN-t4065f 1080p LCD

Samsung BD-1400

Viewing distance: 6 feet


----------



## rsbeck

I recommended HTWWW for low tier 0/high tier 1.


The only problem with How The West Was Won is the verticle artifacts from stitching three pictures together, which can be rather distracting at times.


Personally, I think HTWWW is ranked appropriately in tier 1, but I would have no problem if it were upgraded to bottom half tier 0.


It's a lovely title and I also loved the Smile Box version.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15079711
> 
> 
> I recommended HTWWW for low tier 0/high tier 1.
> 
> *The only problem with How The West Was Won is the verticle artifacts from stitching three pictures together*, which can be rather distracting at times.
> 
> 
> Personally, I think HTWWW is ranked appropriately in tier 1, but I would have no problem if it were upgraded to bottom half tier 0.
> 
> 
> It's a lovely title and I also loved the Smile Box version.



Yes, the verticle lines (stitching) were distracting, but thankfully it only occurred during bright scenes with it being more obvious against the blue sky.


Again, the fast motion scenes were a little soft and lacked detail, so perhaps that, along with the vertical lines, should bring it down to the bottom half of tier 0. But a Tier 1 placement would be out of the question, IMO.


I want to add that the night scenes throughout the movie were the sharpest I have ever seen.


----------



## zinfamous




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JayPSU* /forum/post/15079707
> 
> 
> I saw disc 1 of the Band of Brother series last night. Now, keep in mind, I LOVE the series itself. But with regards to picture quality, it was very inconsistent. At times detail was excellent and it was crystal clear. At other times, the picture was extremely grainy and the detail was all gone. Colors seemed washed out, but that was mostly the intent of the director. I'd have to place this title at the bottom of tier 2.
> 
> 
> Samsung LN-t4065f 1080p LCD
> 
> Samsung BD-1400
> 
> Viewing distance: 6 feet



see, now you say it's extremely grainy at times, and others in the pic comparison thread crying that the grain is all gone based on 2 (as of this post) pics being posted!


which one is it??? 


I agree with your assessment though, as it is very inconsistent. It doesn't seem as far as a departure from SD to give you the "WOW" factor.


----------



## sonyfangirl

I've heard Wall-E is the new reference Blu-Ray. I can't wait to see it!


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> There was a scene in chapter 10 (the raft on the rapids) that was less-than-stellar, but filming a fast motion scene in those days (1962) was not easy, so I'm willing to be forgiving and give it a pass.



I'm pretty sure they used a blue-screen or some similar technology. It looked as if the background was added in, and that the resolution of the background wasn't up to par with what we saw in the rest of the film.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15079950
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the verticle lines (stitching) were distracting, but thankfully it only occurred during bright scenes with it being more obvious against the blue sky.



Assume it wasn't there. What would everyone be saying? Photoshopping!! Like I put in another post, pretty much every non-cgi tier 0 title has something that we can find that's a bit distracting, so I dont think this is such a negative (intentional or not).




> Quote:
> I want to add that the night scenes throughout the movie were the sharpest I have ever seen.



Completely agree. The best detail in night/dark scenes period.


Lower Tier 0 is probably suitable.


----------



## rsbeck

*Kung Fu Panda*


What can you say? It's top shelf CGI animation. It's of similar quality to Cars, Chicken Little, and Ratatouille. In fact, it might just be the best among those. Where it belongs in Tier 0 probably depends on how you feel about CGI animation versus top level non CGI, non-animated titles. Personally, I don't think an animated film, no matter how amazing, and some of these animated films are truly amazing, can truly compete with a really well shot, well done High Rez non animated title with great cinematography. But, that's me. I usually don't like to recommend exact placements anyway.

*Recommendation: Upper half Tier 0*


Sim2 C3X1080

Carada Masquerade

126" Diagonal Firehawk G3

Pioneer BDP-05FD


13' from screen


----------



## Shane Martin

Regarding Zulu,

Isn't that the title being ripped to shreds currently for its heavy DNR?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*End Of Days
*

tier recommendation: top half of *Tier 4*


Universal released this action and horror thriller to Blu-ray in August. The 122 minute main feature is encoded in AVC on a BD-25. I have not seen the HD DVD that Universal released of this movie but apparently they have squeezed the video bitrate a little compared to that release to fit the movie on a 25 GB disc. The BD has an average video bitrate of 17.46 Mbps (BDInfo scan link courtesy of Cinema Squid below) while the HD DVD (most likely minted from the same master) had an average of 19.60 Mbps.


The Blu-ray encode is a little strange with certain action scenes, particularly those involving fireballs and explosions, peaking in the forties. Unfortunately the bulk of the movie ranges considerably lower, hovering in the teens and at times I believe impacting visible detail. I would consider this encode one of the lower average AVC bitrates I have witnessed on Blu-ray. This is not a horrible compression job but there are moments that are troublesome. Some of the darker scenes, like those in the subway tunnels of New York City, show very bad macroblocking.


Aside from the compression problems, the master used for this transfer looks problematic at best and I am being generous in saying that. This has to be an older master because it simply doesn't hold up to more recent efforts by the major studios. Dirt and speckle marks pepper the screen and make this 1999 movie appear at times to be from 1989. What is even stranger is that the source master includes a visible reel change marker. I have never seen that on any other Blu-ray unless it was an intentional part of the movie. The transfer also exhibits persistent edge enhancement halos. There is some visible grain but a few scenes demonstrate slightly odd looking grain in motion which might be indicative of DNR, though it could always be the low bitrate AVC video encode choking on the grain structure.


As for the image itself, most of the movie looks murky and dark with below average black levels and muted primary colors. Contrast is mostly below average with many scenes exhibiting slightly blown out white levels. The only scene that demonstrates true dimensionality and eye candy would be the mock crucifixion scene. The rest of the movie looks flat with very muddy detail. Black levels get crushed at times. I never really saw black look as deep and inky as I have seen on superior looking discs. Shadow detail is definitely inconsistent though it appears to get better in the last hour of the movie. Overall this is a soft image with wavering high frequency information at times.


I suspect this movie will look better on Blu-ray when Universal goes back and strikes a new HD master. I will recommend this BD be placed in the top half of tier four.


Watching on a 60 Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 from a PS3 (firmware 2.52) with an approximate viewing distance of six feet.


BDInfo scan:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post14696245


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Shane Martin* /forum/post/15083990
> 
> 
> Regarding Zulu,
> 
> Isn't that the title being ripped to shreds currently for its heavy DNR?



Yes, I think rsbeck might want to check out the Zulu thread.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15084104
> 
> 
> Yes, I think rsbeck might want to check out the Zulu thread.



That thread may have legitimate claims (of DNR) but having just read through it I see that some of the same members who were calling Baraka a DNR mess are the main critics of Zulu. Sooooo....I will reserve judgment until the true experts weigh in. (I should add that I haven't seen the Blu-ray version of Zulu but I did see Baraka and I saw no evidence of DNR and it was finally confirmed by those who are "in the know" that Baraka had absolutely no DNR.)


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15084104
> 
> 
> Yes, I think rsbeck might want to check out the Zulu thread.



It has become clear to me from reading the Baraka thread that there are quite a few on these forums who are speaking as authorities when in reality all they have to offer are opinions.


I'm not usually in the habit of checking with anyone else before forming my own opinions.


When it came to Baraka, I originally said myself that I thought I could see EE, but when the discussion advanced, I had to admit that I couldn't say for certain what I was seeing was EE. Personally, I find a person more credible when he/she admits that what he/she has is an opinion rather than trying to assert unwarranted authority and I try to behave that way myself.


There is something about the look of Zulu sometimes that reminds me of Baraka, so it wouldn't surprise me if it raised the same kind of controversy with the same sort of authoritative sounding comments being passed around. With that Baraka thread, it seemed to me like it turned into a social phenomenon with some people doing nothing more than joining in the fray by sort of standing behind these "authorities" and heckling the film.


I think the vast majority of us are just enthusiasts with opinions and there is absolutely no shame in that. I have also written that I believe we all may be interpreting the picture assessment criteria at the beginning of this thread differently, which is also to be expected.


Some people think a picture with grain looks "filmlike," others think it makes the picture soft. Some think an animated CGI title like Ratatouille or Cars is the ultimate in what blu-ray has to offer then complain that a title like Baraka doesn't look natural. One guy thought we shouldn't even be discussing animated titles. This has not been the case with Baraka, but even if one can prove EE or DNR has been employed on a certain title, it still demands that one form a subjective opinion with regard to the results. So, I believe even that sort of expertise only entitles one to an opinion.


I go back to when I used to watch Siskel and Ebert back in the early days of their program At The Movies. I learned pretty quickly that I usually agreed with Siskel. So, I didn't look for films where both of them gave thumbs up, I didn't need consensus, I only needed Siskel's thumbs up.


I'm sure people reading this thread will do similarly; they'll find they sort of jibe with one reviewer or another more of the time, or will get a sense of how different reviewers come to their opinions and will "read between the lines," etc.


Finally, I hope what we're doing is coming here to post what we see, share our enthusiasm for the medium and foster discussion.


I have posted my opinion of Zulu. I won't be changing it based on reading another thread, especially after witnessing the Baraka phenomenon. I encourage each of you to view the title and post your own observations and judgment. Let's talk about it.


We may not all agree, but we'll learn something about how each of us judges picture quality, what each of us sees when looking at a particular film, and how a bunch of people can look at the same picture and see something different.


Or, we can start ranking titles with a vote by secret ballot. 



.


----------



## bubba04

^Outstanding post above from rsbeck!! Having first viewed Baraka and having my socks knocked off with the pq, I've come full circle. Reading through the Baraka thread after viewing the movie, I found that maybe my eyes were deceiving me and I am not qualified at all to comment on the pq of Baraka because I obviously could not detect the "flaws" in the film. I then questioned my own euphoric gushing of the movie, and I started to fall into the "maybe it's not so great after all" camp. Then reading some comments from other experts in the thread, I've come all the way around back to my original thoughts on Baraka. It is a beautiful film. I've decided to view this title, as well as other films of great pq, with the best visual overview that my eyes will allow. I will accept the overall beauty of Marilyn Monroe, without always questioning how much better she could look without that mole.

Bubba04


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bubba04* /forum/post/15087952
> 
> 
> ^Outstanding post above from rsbeck!! Having first viewed Baraka and having my socks knocked off with the pq, I've come full circle. Reading through the Baraka thread after viewing the movie, I found that maybe my eyes were deceiving me and I am not qualified at all to comment on the pq of Baraka because I obviously could not detect the "flaws" in the film. I then questioned my own euphoric gushing of the movie, and I started to fall into the "maybe it's not so great after all" camp. Then reading some comments from other experts in the thread, I've come all the way around back to my original thoughts on Baraka. It is a beautiful film. I've decided to view this title, as well as other films of great pq, with the best visual overview that my eyes will allow. I will accept the overall beauty of Marilyn Monroe, without always questioning how much better she could look without that mole.
> 
> Bubba04



I didn't actually go full circle (maybe "half circle"







), but reading the Baraka thread was a real learning experience for me. It basically taught me to *believe my eyes, not someone else's eyes*.


I will not be surprised one iota if Zulu turns out to be DNR free, though the "experts" that are currently condemning it are comparing it to Patton (which, I understand, does have a lot of DNR). As I have said a number of times on this subject, I truly pity those who cannot enjoy the virtues of a movie because of a few flaws (or shall I say "perceived" flaws).


----------



## DaveBowman

Very well said rsbeck. Let's also not forget that regardless of various disagreements on this forum that many of these films are spectactularly good and deserve to be seen. I'd hate to think that anybody passes up the opportunity to see a film like Baraka just because it's not "perfect".


----------



## briankmonkey

Hellboy II, Tier 0 for PQ and SQ. Very enjoyable movie


----------



## Neil Joseph

Wall.E for upper tier 0


Kung Fu Panda for upper tier 0


Panasonic dmp bd50 blu-ray player

Sony vpl vw11HT projector

100" 16:9 silver screen

Yamaha rx-v2600 receiver

PSB 6.1 speaker setup


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I have watched Wall*E now and would place it slightly below the other Pixar titles in tier zero. Once Wall*E gets into space it looks perfect but the animators really went out of their way to make Earth look dirty in the opening scenes. Basically the presentation is flawless but I felt that both Cars and Ratatouille had slightly better visual designs. The animation looks a touch softer than previous Pixar movies. I suspect this will come down to personal taste on where exactly to place Wall*E in tier zero. This will still most likely be the best looking Blu-ray released this year though I hear Kung Fu Panda is very good also.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15086665
> 
> 
> There is something about the look of Zulu sometimes that reminds me of Baraka, so it wouldn't surprise me if it raised the same kind of controversy with the same sort of authoritative sounding comments being passed around. With that Baraka thread, it seemed to me like it turned into a social phenomenon with some people doing nothing more than joining in the fray by sort of standing behind these "authorities" and heckling the film.
> 
> 
> I have posted my opinion of Zulu. I won't be changing it based on reading another thread, especially after witnessing the Baraka phenomenon. I encourage each of you to view the title and post your own observations and judgment. Let's talk about it.



I agree there is definitely a pattern of groupthink here and elsewhere on the Internet when evaluating certain Blu-rays. Very few people have actual access to what the original film elements of any movie should look like or have knowledge of what they are supposed to look like, so suppositions and guesswork are often a hazard of rating transfers as an outsider.


I haven't seen Zulu myself but reports in that Zulu thread indicate serious over-application of DNR. A Blu-ray that has been heavily DNRed is most likely not a serious candidate for tier zero, at least in my mind. But I always try to withhold judgement on a BD until I have seen it on my own display in a calibrated environment. I am not saying your opinion of this Blu-ray is incorrect but was just pointing out some information you might find useful.


----------



## DaveBowman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Neil Joseph* /forum/post/15088925
> 
> 
> Wall.E for upper tier 0
> 
> 
> Kung Fu Panda for upper tier 0
> 
> 
> Panasonic dmp bd50 blu-ray player
> 
> Sony vpl vw11HT projector
> 
> 100" 16:9 silver screen
> 
> Yamaha rx-v2600 receiver
> 
> PSB 6.1 speaker setup



I don't know, I hear they both have liberal amounts of DNR, EE, and CGI applied. Might not be a pure enough presentation to warrant placement in the pantheon of Tier 0.


----------



## briankmonkey




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaveBowman* /forum/post/15091546
> 
> 
> I don't know, I hear they both have liberal amounts of DNR, EE, and CGI applied. Might not be a pure enough presentation to warrant placement in the pantheon of Tier 0.



LOL, did I click on a new screen cap thread


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15092520
> 
> 
> In fact, now I wonder if they are right about Patton.



you are joking, i hope


----------



## shawnmos

The OP is so hard to read.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15093906
> 
> 
> you are joking, i hope



I might be. Truth is, I haven't seen Patton and haven't read the Patton thread, either. I only read references to Patton in the Baraka thread. So, Patton was just a title that came in handy at the moment. On the other hand, I might not be. Clue me in -- why can't they possibly be wrong about Patton?


----------



## rsbeck

*IMAX: Mystery of the Nile*


47 Minutes. 1.78:1


Nice transfer. Some very beautiful shots. Grain is intact. The cinematography is excellent at times, but given the scenery covered, it most often falls into the level of pretty good. Luckily with visuals like these, it is hard to screw up.

*Recommendation: Tier 1 3/4*


Sim2 C3X1080

Carada Masquerade

125" diagonal Firehawk G3

Pioneer BDP-05FD


13' from Screen


----------



## Mel2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15091308
> 
> 
> I have watched Wall*E now and would place it slightly below the other Pixar titles in tier zero. Once Wall*E gets into space it looks perfect but the animators really went out of their way to make Earth look dirty in the opening scenes. Basically the presentation is flawless but I felt that both Cars and Ratatouille had slightly better visual designs. The animation looks a touch softer than previous Pixar movies. I suspect this will come down to personal taste on where exactly to place Wall*E in tier zero. This will still most likely be the best looking Blu-ray released this year though I hear Kung Fu Panda is very good also.



I disagree. the presentation of earth is why the PQ is top notch. the dirt looks like real dirt. the dust coming up from wall-e's tracks is as real as i've seen as is the rain and weather. the visuals in space are just icing on the cake and really seperate this from the rest of the cg animated flicks. pixar went into great detail to make the earth scenes look beyond animation and more life-like. when wall-e puts his hands in the scrap-heap it blew my mind on how real it looked. this transcends cg animated films. at times wall-e looked like a real robot. at times it looked like a real live motion picture. it's that good.


----------



## rsbeck

*Black Narcissus (UK Import)*


1.37:1


Picture quality is not in the league of an older film like The Sand Pebbles (1966), which is ranked 1 3/4, but there is a similarity. Pretty impressive transfer for a 1947 film. Clean with a consistent level of fine film grain. Blacks are pretty good and though it was mostly filmed on a studio lot in England, there are some decent outdoor visuals. You'll find the most impressive shots are the facial close-ups.

*Recommendation: Tier 3 1/4*


Sim2 C3X1080

Carada Masquerade

125" diagonal Firehawk G3

Pioneer BDP-05FD


13' from Screen



.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15098185
> 
> 
> Here's the opening sentence on the Patton thread....
> 
> 
> "This BD release is where we separate men from the boys. Film lovers who remembers movies like this in all of its grain and highly detailed glory against everyone who prefers everything with a very clean look and Zero grain."
> 
> 
> 
> Wow -- what a way to encourage an open discussion, huh? I read the first few pages. It didn't seem any different from the Baraka thread. A couple of screen grabs and then everyone making authoritative sounding comments, pontificating about what film should look like, blah, blah, blah...a lot of people rushing in to assure that they on the side of the righteous and holy.
> 
> 
> Like I say, I haven't seen the title, but I certainly wouldn't trust the process I see in that thread to tell me much of anything. It's more like a trip back to a junior high school yard.



Try watching the Patton BD and then you may understand what the complaints were all about.


----------



## briankmonkey




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15098185
> 
> 
> Here's the opening sentence on the Patton thread....
> 
> 
> "This BD release is where we separate men from the boys. Film lovers who remembers movies like this in all of its grain and highly detailed glory against everyone who prefers everything with a very clean look and Zero grain."
> 
> 
> 
> Wow -- what a way to encourage an open discussion, huh? I read the first few pages. It didn't seem any different from the Baraka thread. A couple of screen grabs and then everyone making authoritative sounding comments, pontificating about what film should look like, blah, blah, blah...a lot of people rushing in to assure that they on the side of the righteous and holy.
> 
> 
> Like I say, I haven't seen the title, but I certainly wouldn't trust the process I see in that thread to tell me much of anything. It's more like a trip back to a junior high school yard.



Unless you choose to bash Baraka you're an "ignorant apologist" How is that not a way to encourage


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15100489
> 
> 
> Okay, I hope you all agree -- we've beaten that dead horse enough -- let's move on.



You have several PMs that might help give some insight.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briankmonkey* /forum/post/15088663
> 
> 
> Hellboy II, Tier 0 for PQ and SQ. Very enjoyable movie




It really was a wild ride. glad you liked it.



I watched The Incredible Hulk last night.


The PQ was not what I was expecting and I was a bit disappointed. I didn't think it looked as good as Hellboy 2 which seems to be a top Tier 1 title. It seemed a bit soft and out of focus throughout the film. I would recommend Tier Gold either 1/2 or 3/4.


Sony [email protected] through HDMI from PS3.


----------



## djoberg

I have had *Mongol: The Rise of Genghis Khan* in my Blu-ray library for several weeks and I finally had the time to watch it. This title deserves no less than a *Tier 1* placement, preferably the *top quarter*. Let me say emphatically that it was one of the most detailed titles I have viewed, especially the facial close-ups (and there were MANY); they were absolutely amazing. I was tempted to suggest Tier 0, but the first 30-40 minutes had some rather soft and grainy night scenes. Even the day scenes lacked some detail, but from the 40 minute mark the detail was exceptional (it reminded me of Apocalypto in this respect).


It had a limited color palette (similar to Braveheart, which I can't wait to see once it comes out on Blu-ray), but the natural colors of the breathtaking landscapes yielded their own unique "eye candy." The flesh tones throughout the movie were spot on, and you could see every pore, every hair, and every bead of sweat...I found myself mesmerized by such detail!


The movie itself was quite good, though it took awhile for the pace to pick up. Rumor has it that this is the first in a proposed trilogy and I will definitely be buying the next two installments. Some may be put off by the Mongolian language (with English subtitles), but it didn't distract me one iota.


I'll just mention in closing that there was one negative: it had a mere Dolby Digital 5.1 audio track. After listening repeatedly to titles with the new high resolution audio codecs, it was disappointing, to say the least. It is bearable though, for the above average visuals draw you in and allow you to be forgiving with the audio.


----------



## Elbie

*Wall-E*


I would put Wall-E above Ratatouille. I watched Ratatouille before I watched Wall-E and I must say that Wall-E tops it in the PQ. The two movies direction is different as far as style. Ratatouille is more colorful due to being in a city and restaurant setting. Wall-E was focused around trash and dirt for a lot of the movie. The amount of detail however in the movie was amazing to me. The dirt looked realistic and crisp. When Wall-E was showing Eve his swag in his home, all the different things was just amazing. When I was watching it, it was as if I am right there with them. The cockroach even looked just like a roach. Lol The space scenes looked incredible like it was really space and when they showed the dirty Earth I was just like wow. The detail to that and making it not seem cheesy really amazed me. The robots all stood out real sharp to me. I would have to say this is the new king of animation PQ.

*Recommendation:* Tier 0


Olevia 247TFHD (47 inches)


8 ft from Screen


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mel2* /forum/post/15094454
> 
> 
> When wall-e puts his hands in the scrap-heap it blew my mind on how real it looked. this transcends cg animated films. at times wall-e looked like a real robot. at times it looked like a real live motion picture. it's that good.



I totally agree that Pixar is taking computer rendered animation to the next level. Wall*E's animation is approaching photo-realistic levels in certain scenes. I just prefer my animation to be a little cleaner and brighter. It seems the director really played with the focus and depth of field in Wall*E more than I have seen in prior animated features.


----------



## Fanaticalism

I would have to agree with all of the assessments regarding Wall E thus far. This has to be some of the best CGI to date, The color pallete, detail, and textures are by far some of the most realistic I have ever seen. IMO, this is the best animated movie to be produced.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15100428
> 
> 
> I'll get to it, eventually. I've watched both Baraka and Zulu, others titles that raised similar complaints. I think I have a pretty good understand about the cause of the "complaints." I just don't see anyone in those threads admitting that all of this stuff is really just a matter of opinion, that they are not sure they can really spot what they claim to be able to spot -- gasp -- they might even be wrong and -- gasp -- there might be some other explanation of which they may be unaware -- and that -- gasp -- reasonable people can even disagree. It just seems more like a junior high witch hunt -- see if you can spot a flaw and then you can pound your chest and proclaim your place in the cool group. Seems like the perfect recipe to get people to see the Emperor's New Clothes.
> 
> 
> I mean, come on, many of them do nothing more than look at a few screen shots on their computer screen.



In the case of Patton, at least, I think there is pretty broad agreement about the presence of substantial DNR.


----------



## BLUE-MIDNIGHT

Wall E

Top of reference

I loved the chase scene where wall-E is trying to catch the ship that picked up EVE.How it switched to a 3rd person like shot







And when eve shoots at wall-e behind the rock,The glowing Multan rock and contrasting detail around it was awesome


----------



## lgans316

*Baraka* - Recommending for *Top Tier-1* placement, not because of the infamous "Ringing" but due to the slight lack of HD pop. The biggest positive of the PQ is the staggering image depth. A little bit of color saturation would have put this in BLU slot. Just my opinion.


----------



## mpgxsvcd

Isn’t it wonderful that we are fighting to get several movies to the “VERY TOP” of tier Zero instead of arguing whether they are tier 3 or tier 2? We have seen some great quality Blu-rays in the last few weeks(Baraka, Kung Fu Panda, Wall-E). Hopefully ShawShank will continue that trend!


By the way, when will the movies above actually get ranked on the first page?


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mpgxsvcd* /forum/post/15106993
> 
> 
> Hopefully ShawShank will continue that trend



I wouldn't bet on it... For some reason, seems like just about every catalog title from the 90s is coming to HD with massive amounts of EE and DNR


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mpgxsvcd* /forum/post/15106993
> 
> 
> Isn't it wonderful that we are fighting to get several movies to the VERY TOP of tier Zero instead of arguing whether they are tier 3 or tier 2? We have seen some great quality Blu-rays in the last few weeks(Baraka, Kung Fu Panda, Wall-E). Hopefully ShawShank will continue that trend!
> 
> 
> By the way, when will the movies above actually get ranked on the first page?



Definitely.


----------



## so's your face

i'll vote for wall*e at the top as well...


absolutely stunning.


and i have watched both the dvd and blu-ray versions, the standard dvd is amazing as well.


but the blu-ray version... just, wow. truly gorgeous.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/15103679
> 
> *Baraka* - Recommending for *Top Tier-1* placement, not because of the infamous "Ringing" but due to the slight lack of HD pop. The biggest positive of the PQ is the staggering image depth. A little bit of color saturation would have put this in BLU slot. Just my opinion.



I like what mpgsxvcd said about how we're "fighting to get several movies to the 'VERY TOP' of Tier 0," for I will definitely fight for a Tier 0 placement for Baraka.










Seriously, even though there are *minor* flaws (a few cases of ringing and a slight lack of 3D pop), the consistent sharpness and detail can NOT be denied. Just about every landscape scene looks like the "best of Planet Earth." And the colors are so natural and yet vivid. These redeeming qualities meet the standards set forth for Tier 0, IMO.


----------



## SuprSlow

Just a quick note. I've start work on the next update. Will be working on it more during the day tomorrow. Should have it posted by tomorrow night.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/15103679
> 
> *Baraka* - Recommending for *Top Tier-1* placement, not because of the infamous "Ringing" but due to the slight lack of HD pop. The biggest positive of the PQ is the staggering image depth. A little bit of color saturation would have put this in BLU slot. Just my opinion.



I was going to agree with you on the lack of 3D pop, but before I committed blindly I reread the first page:

*How to assess picture quality:


What you want to look for is the sharpness of detail (does the picture have plenty of depth and pop-out of the screen or does it look real and film-like), color (are they true to reality, especially

blues, reds and greens; are blacks black and whites white), and video artifacts (is the picture bobbed or is there too much noise and edge enhancement).


Sometimes, the picture is so sharp that it’s almost three-dimensional or characters on screen appear to live in a three-dimensional space. This 3-D effect can be ruined by a picture being too soft or

out-of-focus. A good example of this is the intentional softness of Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. While the picture of the film is very good and looks very film-like, it lacks depth. However, it

still ranks in Tier 3 because it also lacks any video artifacts and the picture quality is very pristine.
*


Baraka lacks 3d pop, but as you said it has "staggering image depth" which is a tier 0 requirement.



and then there is this:

*How each Tier is categorized and other signifiers


Tier 0 - Blu (Reference)


--- The picture quality of the transfer is in pristine shape and practically perfect with no visible video artifacts. The image is so clean and sharp that it maintains a realistic feel throughout and serves as great demo material. We recommend owning at least one of these films!*


Baraka to some does have visible video artifacts, the ringing issue, therefore going by the Tier standards it shouldn't be in Tier 0, but top of Tier 1.


I don't see the ringing as much as some do and IMO Baraka should be Tier 0, but we need a consensus for placement and as I said earlier as much as I want some films to be in Tier 0, the top of Tier 1 is so close it is about the same acknowledging minor PQ artifacts.


Part of the problem some are having ranking Baraka higher and not being pleased with it is the fact that the 65mm film print tends to make the BD look more like video than film. For our tier thread we are looking for the best possible PQ regardless of film or video or am I wrong?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15109876
> 
> 
> I don't see the ringing as much as some do and IMO Baraka should be Tier 0, but *we need a consensus for placement* and as I said earlier as much as I want some films to be in Tier 0, the top of Tier 1 is so close it is about the same acknowledging minor PQ artifacts.



As you know, SuprSlow posted just before you informing us he's working on the next update. I do believe enough people have suggested a placement for Baraka which will allow him to form a consensus...and I do believe the majority voted for Tier 0.


----------



## djoberg

.......and I believe I read somewhere that if someone recommends a title placement on their 1000th post, they are automatically rewarded with that placement. So, I once again recommend Baraka for Tier 0 (mid to high tier).


----------



## Mikenificent1

Superman Returns belongs in COAL, it is THE worst Blu-Ray I've seen, I had to check to make sure it wasn't a DVD sent on accident by Netflix. TERRIBLE.


----------



## oleus




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mikenificent1* /forum/post/15110390
> 
> 
> Superman Returns belongs in COAL, it is THE worst Blu-Ray I've seen, I had to check to make sure it wasn't a DVD sent on accident by Netflix. TERRIBLE.



I agree with you 100%, I'm always amazed when people say it looks good on their system. It's murky with terrible contrast and subpar detail. Even if it's just because of how Singer filmed it, that doesn't change the fact that it's one of the least impressive HD transfers ever, especially for a movie of its type.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15109957
> 
> 
> .......and I believe I read somewhere that if someone recommends a title placement on their 1000th post, they are automatically rewarded with that placement. So, I once again recommend Baraka for Tier 0 (mid to high tier).




And up to ten family members or friends get the official Baraka key chain. It is in the fine print.


----------



## notoriousmatty

Wall-E . Obviously tier 0. It should actually get its own category of tier -0.

Baraka. Tier 1


----------



## rsbeck

I'm confused. How can Baraka have staggering depth, but lack pop? IMO, the picture just leaps off the screen. I think there's been too much hand wringing over this title based on some misinformation in another thread. I watched Baraka again just the other day. I have absolutely no qualms about putting Baraka in tier 0.


----------



## rsbeck

*The Matrix*


Here's a title for those who prefer just a tiny bit of grain. If you're a fan of the film, which I am, I think you'll be very satisfied with this transfer. There are only a few nicks on it; there are quite a few dark scenes and most look fine, but in a few of the darker ones, the blacks get a little noisy -- and some of the CGI looks a little primitive compared to today's standards. It's clean, solid, resolution is excellent, there is a lot of very fine detail and I can't imagine how this film, as the director made it, could look much better. Now, as for tier placement, what holds The Matrix back is the film maker's decision to set The Matrix in a world that appears flat, artificial, and claustrophobic -- and the cinematography reflects this. Therefore, there can be very little depth or 3d Pop. Instead, you take your pleasure in how the high resolution lets you see every bump and pock mark on Morpheus' grizzled face, the peach fuzz on Trinity's jawline near her ear, the depth of her blue eyes, the variation from one stand of hair to the next, the texture on a jacket, sweater, or wall.

*Recommendation: Tier 1 3/4*


Sim2 C3X1080

Carada Masquerade

126" Firehawk G3

Pioneer BDP-05FD


13' from screen




.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15110945
> 
> 
> I'm confused. How can Baraka have staggering depth, but lack pop? IMO, the picture just leaps off the screen. I think there's been too much hand wringing over this title based on some misinformation in another thread. I watched Baraka again just the other day. I have absolutely no qualms about putting Baraka in tier 0.



What is the "misinformation" you are referring to?


As I have said before, it seems to me that the ringing that is undeniably present in many shots in Baraka should clearly disqualify it from being in Tier 0, regardless of how exactly that ringing was produced.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15111028
> 
> 
> Please list all of the shots where you see undeniable "ringing."



So you are saying you see no ringing in the BD of Baraka?


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15111032
> 
> 
> So you are saying you see no ringing in the BD of Baraka?



I'm saying that, for me, Baraka's virtues place it easily in tier 0.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mikenificent1* /forum/post/15110390
> 
> 
> Superman Returns belongs in COAL, it is THE worst Blu-Ray I've seen, I had to check to make sure it wasn't a DVD sent on accident by Netflix. TERRIBLE.



Yikes







Unbelievable considering what it was shot on, let alone the budget it had. Sad.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15111032
> 
> 
> So you are saying you see no ringing in the BD of Baraka?



If I read the word Baraka one more time I am gunna go berserk! LOL.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15111049
> 
> 
> 
> If I read the word Baraka one more time I am gunna go berserk! LOL.



But typing it doesn't bother you?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15111012
> 
> 
> What is the "misinformation" you are referring to?
> 
> 
> As I have said before, it seems to me that the ringing that is undeniably present in many shots in Baraka should clearly disqualify it from being in Tier 0, regardless of how exactly that ringing was produced.



The "misinformation" is the highly exaggerated EE mentioned on the Baraka thread, along with false conclusions that there was DNR applied.


You say there is ringing "in many shots," and I would challenge that claim. I personally saw a few on some screenshots, but I only saw one instance on my set while the movie was IN MOTION.


Let's just let SuprSlow do his job of counting up the suggested placements (there are quite a few) and see where Baraka ends up. I'm quite confident I remember most people singing its praises and suggesting Tier 0.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15110945
> 
> 
> I'm confused. How can Baraka have staggering depth, but lack pop? IMO, the picture just leaps off the screen. I think there's been too much hand wringing over this title based on some misinformation in another thread. *I watched Baraka again just the other day. I have absolutely no qualms about putting Baraka in tier 0*.



I watched Baraka again last night and I am more amazed than ever by the amazing sharpness and detail throughout the movie.


Sorry LBFilmGuy for mentioning Baraka 4 times in these last 2 posts....I'll come visit you though at the asylum if you give me the address.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15111502
> 
> 
> The "misinformation" is the highly exaggerated EE mentioned on the Baraka thread, along with false conclusions that there was DNR applied.
> 
> *You say there is ringing "in many shots," and I would challenge that claim. I personally saw a few on some screenshots, but I only saw one instance on my set while the movie was IN MOTION.*
> 
> 
> Let's just let SuprSlow do his job of counting up the suggested placements (there are quite a few) and see where Baraka ends up. I'm quite confident I remember most people singing its praises and suggesting Tier 0.



Your experience of viewing this BD "in motion" is clearly very different from my experience with regard to the presence of ringing. While viewing Baraka "in motion" I saw ringing in many, many shots.


----------



## DaveBowman

I really love this movie and for sure it looks great, but I have to say that I don't think it has the overall visual impact of Cars or Ratatouille or several of the other Tier 0 titles. Clearly belongs in Tier 0 but I wouild disagree with those who would place it at the very top.


----------



## daveshouse

I'll probably be beaten over the head for saying this, but can we move all the Baraka discussion to a new thread, and return this thread to the way it was? I enjoy seeing a person's opinion on a rating tier for a particular movie, and the reason they came to that opinion. Plain and simple.


----------



## babrown92

Add another vote for Wall E at the top of tier 0. This is the most impressive thing I have seen on Blu-ray so far. I'd rank the pixar films Wall E - Cars- Ratatouille.


Kung Fu Panda should also be in tier 0, probably in the middle.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *babrown92* /forum/post/15112576
> 
> 
> Add another vote for Wall E at the top of tier 0. This is the most impressive thing I have seen on Blu-ray so far. I'd rank the pixar films Wall E - Cars- Ratatouille.
> 
> 
> Kung Fu Panda should also be in tier 0, probably in the middle.



My copies of both these titles are in shipment, but I'm kicking myself for choosing the Free Shipping option through Amazon...it can take up to 10 days going that route.


You are right on the mark regarding Pixar films....this is one company that you can always count on to produce top-notch animated movies. We can rate them Tier 0 before we even see them!


----------



## hobbs47

Baraka-Tier 0. You can put it into the bottom of Tier 0 if you like,but I agree with most that it is an amazing piece of eye candy,which is really what this thread is about, right?


----------



## DaveBowman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hobbs47* /forum/post/15112722
> 
> 
> Baraka-Tier 0. You can put it into the bottom of Tier 0 if you like,but I agree with most that it is an amazing piece of eye candy,which is really what this thread is about, right?



Agree with Hobbs. I vote for top half of Tier 0 for Baraka. I enjoy the Pixar films immensely but let's not forget the level of craftsmanship and attention to detail involved in making a live action film like Baraka. If one of the intentions of this thread is to motivate the various film production companies to pay more attention to PQ then we should reward Mr. Fricke and his crew for their amazing efforts on this film. The endless variables involved with live action filmmaking mean that for sheer perfection in PQ they can never compete toe-to-toe with digital animation, but that's no reason to keep them out of Tier 0.


----------



## briankmonkey




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15111035
> 
> 
> I think that with a few *cherry picked screen shots*, a little intimidation, some power of suggestion and we could probably get people to see Ringing EE and DNR on Ratatouille.



That's exactly why a person needs to watch a movie and not just stare at carefully picked screen grabs. Quite often the shots that have been picked aren't representative of the majority of a film. Plus movies look different in motion than watching a still frame.


----------



## Elbie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briankmonkey* /forum/post/15112897
> 
> 
> That's exactly why a person needs to watch a movie and not just stare at carefully picked screen grabs. Quite often the shots that have been picked aren't representative of the majority of a film. Plus movies look different in motion than watching a still frame.



Hold up! People using screen caps to determine movie PQ? lol boy oh boy I have heard it all.


----------



## General Kenobi

I watched this last night and would place it in the 3/4 of Tier 1. There were a couple aerial shots in the beginning and at the end that shown the mountain tops and a lake, during these shots I noticed the landscape to jitter or look jumpy. I've never seen this before but it could not be missed.


Other than that this was an excellent transfer, the scenes inside the cave and under the water were very impressive with solid black levels and vibrant blues and greens. Plenty of detail in facial shots and textures on the cave surfaces and the creatures... no lack of grain either







I'm very pleased with the transfer on this title. It had a decent Uncompressed PCM track too!


Sony 52" XBR3 @ 8 ft

Pany BD55


----------



## St. Bernardus

Recomendation: Tier 0


Samsung 52" 71F 1080/24P LCD @ 6 feet

Panasonic BD30 (1080/24P)

Onkyo 605 (DTS-HD MA)


----------



## Mikenificent1

I vote I am legend for low reference or high level 1. I have not seen any of the non-animated movies in "reference" on blu-ray yet except for Live Free or Die Hard and I think the picture quality of IAL is superior. The clarity and the depth of field as well as a real sense of REALISM was excellent and I would definietely say it's better than Spider Man 3 as well. If you disagree, please revisit this movie, I'm very interested in your opinions.


I also think even though it is not a full movie, that the Dark Night IMAX prologue is among THE BEST of the BEST, absolutely amazing.


JVC RS1

92" Severtson Sinature Matte White

PS3 via fiber optic HDMI

9.5' viewing distance


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mikenificent1* /forum/post/15114535
> 
> 
> I vote I am legend for low reference or high level 1. I have not seen any of the non-animated movies in "reference" on blu-ray yet except for Live Free or Die Hard and I think the picture quality of IAL is superior. The clarity and the depth of field as well as a real sense of REALISM was excellent and I would definietely say it's better than Spider Man 3 as well. If you disagree, please revisit this movie, I'm very interested in your opinions.
> 
> 
> I also think even though it is not a full movie, that the Dark Night IMAX prologue is among THE BEST of the BEST, absolutely amazing.
> 
> 
> JVC RS1
> 
> 92" Severtson Sinature Matte White
> 
> PS3 via fiber optic HDMI
> 
> 9.5' viewing distance



We had very vigorous discussions of IAL at the time it was released. As I said at the time, apart from a few sharp close-ups, too many shots looked a bit soft. Typical for a Warner release.


----------



## maverick0716

I Am Legend has some very Tier 0 moments (like the beginning especially)......but like Patrick99 says, it's inconsistent. There are some fairly soft moments, and the dark scenes in my opinion, don't look that great at all.


----------



## rsbeck

*Almost Famous (UK Import)*


A puzzle. Not exactly blurry, but slightly soft. Very drab colors most of the time. Maybe the film maker thought this would give a washed out 'faded jeans' type look. Inexplicably, there are moments and scenes where the image and colors are much more solid, contrast much better. Check out the scene towards the beginning where Stillwater is interviewed by a very stoned radio DJ. Markedly different from the scenes before and after. These better looking scenes seem to pop up from time to time and show what the title might have looked like had the entire film either been shot with this type of care for cinematography (higher resolution camera?) or maybe had the entire film been transfered with this bit-rate? Other than this, the film is clean and mostly consistent, but -- frankly -- it sort of looks like some of the better HD from TV cable On Demand service on my screen.

*Recommendation: Tier 3*


Sim2 C3X1080

Carada Masquerade

126" Firehawk G3

Pioneer BDP-05FD


13' from screen



.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Elbie* /forum/post/15112950
> 
> 
> Hold up! People using screen caps to determine movie PQ? lol boy oh boy I have heard it all.




There is more to it to that, PM for details.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/15115663
> 
> 
> I Am Legend has some very Tier 0 moments (like the beginning especially)......but like Patrick99 says, it's inconsistent. There are some fairly soft moments, and the dark scenes in my opinion, don't look that great at all.



I agree with you and patrick...definitely not Tier 0.


----------



## Mikenificent1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15115973
> 
> 
> I agree with you and patrick...definitely not Tier 0.



Don't take this the wrong way, but: How many of you have displays that allow you to accurately evaluate "dark scenes". I don't think it's a coincidence that a lot of you only find animated movies as reference level. Rear projection DLP's are known to dither in dark scenes and the panasonic 42PX75U is not known for excellent shadow detail or black level. patrick99 doesn't even mention anywhere in his profile what display he is using, for all we know he's using an LCD panel from 1999. Again not a knock, I just hope you guys consider that when saying a dark scene is not detailed. I didn't notice that in IAL. I'm curious what CRT, Kuro and JVC PJ owners think about IAL?? I could be wrong, I'm willing to see it again, are you? wait.... ok flame suit on. GO! lol


----------



## briankmonkey

I asked as well at one point.


> Quote:
> posted by Steeb
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Quote:
> 
> Originally Posted by patrick99
> 
> I am using a Samsung 4095 LCD. I watch from a distance of about three feet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the full model number is LN-S4095D.
Click to expand...


I'm using a 60" 1080p Sony SXRD 60A3000 (120hz off most of the time) at about 7.5 -9feet.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mikenificent1* /forum/post/15116317
> 
> 
> Don't take this the wrong way, but: How many of you have displays that allow you to accurately evaluate "dark scenes". I don't think it's a coincidence that a lot of you only find animated movies as reference level. Rear projection DLP's are known to dither in dark scenes and the panasonic 42PX75U is not known for excellent shadow detail or black level. patrick99 doesn't even mention anywhere in his profile what display he is using, for all we know he's using an LCD panel from 1999. Again not a knock, I just hope you guys consider that when saying a dark scene is not detailed. I didn't notice that in IAL. I'm curious what CRT, Kuro and JVC PJ owners think about IAL?? I could be wrong, I'm willing to see it again, are you? wait.... ok flame suit on. GO! lol



Brianmonkey and I have the same set.











Going by a well respected calibrator in this forum, our displays are second only to the newer Sony projectors and maybe the Kuro. Our displays do have excellent black levels, contrast and are known to have good PQ.


Having said that I used to watch all my movies on my 2004 Sony GW3 LCD RPTV which had terrible contrast and black levels. When I brought up the issue of poor contrast and black levels on a display where one is watching a BD, I think it was in this forum I was told it wouldn't matter as one could see black crush and other anomalies anyway.


I disagree! If the black levels and contrast are poor how can you really rate the depth and black levels of a BD or see them as they really should be or as close to as possible as they should be?


----------



## LBFilmGuy

4.5/5 for both Tropic Thunder and Shawshank on HDD









http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1857/tropicthunder.html 

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/683/...edemption.html


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mikenificent1* /forum/post/15116317
> 
> 
> Don't take this the wrong way, but: *How many of you have displays that allow you to accurately evaluate "dark scenes*". I don't think it's a coincidence that a lot of you only find animated movies as reference level. Rear projection DLP's are known to dither in dark scenes and the panasonic 42PX75U is not known for excellent shadow detail or black level. patrick99 doesn't even mention anywhere in his profile what display he is using, for all we know he's using an LCD panel from 1999. Again not a knock, *I just hope you guys consider that when saying a dark scene is not detailed*. I didn't notice that in IAL. I'm curious what CRT, Kuro and JVC PJ owners think about IAL?? I could be wrong, I'm willing to see it again, are you? wait.... ok flame suit on. GO! lol



First of all, you can take the flame suit off.











Secondly, take a look at my review of I Am Legend and you will see that I spoke very highly of it and actually suggested a high Tier 1 placement (just like you!):

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...3#post13563693 


And thirdly, I highlighted your remarks about "dark scenes" in your post because I never said one word about dark scenes (in my review and in my post above). So, I really don't know why you directed your post to me.


In closing, I am using a RP DLP (Samsung 1080p), but the model I purchased (HL-S series) was given favorable reviews for black levels in 2006 (in constrast to some recent reviews on current Samsung DLPs). Read the following from CNET:

http://reviews.cnet.com/projection-t...?tag=mncol;txt 


I sit back about 7 feet when viewing and I have been impressed with many night scenes in various movies (check out my recent review of How The West Was Won where I stated that it had the best night scenes I had ever seen).


Oh, one more thing. You include me in those who only consider animated movies as reference level. Read again two of my last three reviews (How The West Was Won and Baraka) where I suggested Tier 0 for both. And you can go back to all my reviews and you'll find that I nominate more non-animated titles for Tier 0 than I do animated.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15111056
> 
> 
> But typing it doesn't bother you?














> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15111068
> 
> 
> As long as he doesn't read it after he's typed it, he's probably okay.



Correct!


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15111530
> 
> 
> I watched Baraka again last night and I am more amazed than ever by the amazing sharpness and detail throughout the movie.
> 
> 
> Sorry LBFilmGuy for mentioning Baraka 4 times in these last 2 posts....I'll come visit you though at the asylum if you give me the address.



LOLOL.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mikenificent1* /forum/post/15116317
> 
> 
> Don't take this the wrong way, but: How many of you have displays that allow you to accurately evaluate "dark scenes". I don't think it's a coincidence that a lot of you only find animated movies as reference level. Rear projection DLP's are known to dither in dark scenes and the panasonic 42PX75U is not known for excellent shadow detail or black level. patrick99 doesn't even mention anywhere in his profile what display he is using, for all we know he's using an LCD panel from 1999. Again not a knock, I just hope you guys consider that when saying a dark scene is not detailed. I didn't notice that in IAL. I'm curious what CRT, Kuro and JVC PJ owners think about IAL?? I could be wrong, I'm willing to see it again, are you? wait.... ok flame suit on. GO! lol



Djoberg already answered you, and Patrick has a Kuro I believe.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mikenificent1* /forum/post/15116317
> 
> 
> Don't take this the wrong way, but: How many of you have displays that allow you to accurately evaluate "dark scenes". I don't think it's a coincidence that a lot of you only find animated movies as reference level. Rear projection DLP's are known to dither in dark scenes and the panasonic 42PX75U is not known for excellent shadow detail or black level. patrick99 doesn't even mention anywhere in his profile what display he is using, for all we know he's using an LCD panel from 1999. Again not a knock, I just hope you guys consider that when saying a dark scene is not detailed. I didn't notice that in IAL. I'm curious what CRT, Kuro and JVC PJ owners think about IAL?? I could be wrong, I'm willing to see it again, are you? wait.... ok flame suit on. GO! lol



I watch films on my Samsung LCD, and confirm my criticisms on one my CRTs. Unfortunately my memory of IAL is very fuzzy, but I thought it was an excellent transfer. Personally I think demo material should be ranked by the overall impression a movie makes rather than the worst scenes, but I guess I'm in the minority here.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15116686
> 
> 
> I watch films on my Samsung LCD, and confirm my criticisms on one my CRTs. Unfortunately my memory of IAL is very fuzzy, but I thought it was an excellent transfer. Personally I think demo material should be ranked by the overall impression a movie makes rather than the worst scenes, but I guess I'm in the minority here.



I do both as I think most do. I think most take into account overall PQ, but also mention the obvious flaws. I listed flaws in some movies, like Indy 4, but also rate the overall PQ very good to be ranked in Tier 1. Also remember the standards for each Tier have certain minimum or standard requirements for a title to be placed in that tier. Titles that are Tier 0 should have NO PQ flaws at all. I think as of late some are seeing movies like the Hulk or Hellboy 2 where the overall PQ looks good, so they automatically think Tier 0, but they really aren't qualified to be in Tier 0. Tier 0 requires more than the overall look and in fact most tiers really do as well as individual instances of PQ anomalies drop titles down in tier placement.


My fav example is Apocalypto. Overall this is undoubtedly a Tier 0 title, but there was enough input from some who said there were issues in the beginning to drop it down to the top of Tier 1, which is what the requirements to meet placements call for even if I disagree.







That is why I said what I did about Baraka as well.


----------



## Mikenificent1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15116609
> 
> 
> First of all, you can take the flame suit off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly, take a look at my review of I Am Legend and you will see that I spoke very highly of it and actually suggested a high Tier 1 placement (just like you!):
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...3#post13563693
> 
> *I actually agree 100% with your review lol*
> 
> 
> And thirdly, I highlighted your remarks about "dark scenes" in your post because I never said one word about dark scenes (in my review and in my post above). So, I really don't know why you directed your post to me.
> 
> *You said you agreed with everything with the other two, and maverick0716 had mentioned the dark scenes...*
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, one more thing. You include me in those who only consider animated movies as reference level. Read again two of my last three reviews (How The West Was Won and Baraka) where I suggested Tier 0 for both. And you can go back to all my reviews and you'll find that I nominate more non-animated titles for Tier 0 than I do animated.


*I was referring to people in this thread in general at that point in my post.*


To sum up what I think are the biggest changes needed IMO:

I am Legend: up to top tier 1

Superman Returns:way down to Coal! Maybe Kryptonite lol

3:10 to Yuma: down to top tier silver


OH and Get Smart (first to review I think): bottom tier silver


----------



## Mikenificent1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briankmonkey* /forum/post/15116413
> 
> 
> I asked as well at one point.
> 
> .



3 feet away!! holey **** lol That's one big monitor.


----------



## Mikenificent1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15116517
> 
> 
> Brianmonkey and I have the same set.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree! If the black levels and contrast are poor how can you really rate the depth and black levels of a BD or see them as they really should be or as close to as possible as they should be?



Exactly! great point


----------



## rsbeck

*I, Robot* -- just watched it -- fabulous looking title -- *top half of tier 0*.


----------



## toogood

Wall-E for top of Tier 0.


Calibrated Sharp Aquos 46" 1080p at 6 ft

PS3 via HDMI


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15116609
> 
> 
> First of all, you can take the flame suit off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly, take a look at my review of I Am Legend and you will see that I spoke very highly of it and actually suggested a high Tier 1 placement (just like you!):
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...3#post13563693
> 
> *And thirdly, I highlighted your remarks about "dark scenes" in your post because I never said one word about dark scenes (in my review and in my post above). So, I really don't know why you directed your post to me.*
> 
> 
> In closing, I am using a RP DLP (Samsung 1080p), but the model I purchased (HL-S series) was given favorable reviews for black levels in 2006 (in constrast to some recent reviews on current Samsung DLPs). Read the following from CNET:
> 
> http://reviews.cnet.com/projection-t...?tag=mncol;txt
> 
> 
> I sit back about 7 feet when viewing and I have been impressed with many night scenes in various movies (check out my recent review of How The West Was Won where I stated that it had the best night scenes I had ever seen).
> 
> 
> Oh, one more thing. You include me in those who only consider animated movies as reference level. Read again two of my last three reviews (How The West Was Won and Baraka) where I suggested Tier 0 for both. And you can go back to all my reviews and you'll find that I nominate more non-animated titles for Tier 0 than I do animated.



Similarly, I don't recall in my comments about IAL saying anything about dark scenes. My complaint about IAL is the presence of typical Warner softness in all shots except for a few very tight close-ups.


Steeb, Hobbs47, and others who are interested might want to update their files on me. I recently switched to a 52" Sony XBR6 LCD. Still watching from about one screen width (about four feet with this display).

http://reviews.cnet.com/flat-panel-t...in;contentBody


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15118830
> 
> 
> Similarly, I don't recall in my comments about IAL saying anything about dark scenes. My complaint about IAL is the presence of typical Warner softness in all shots except for a few very tight close-ups.
> 
> 
> Steeb, Hobbs47, and others who are interested might want to update their files on me. I recently switched to a 52" Sony XBR6 LCD. Still watching from about one screen width (about four feet with this display).
> 
> http://reviews.cnet.com/flat-panel-t...in;contentBody



That's a nice review on your new Sony patrick! My brother has the same set and it has amazing black levels and shadow detail, as does my Samsung. And you are right about IAL, it is the softness in some scenes that lower the rating of it.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15119682
> 
> 
> That's a nice review on your new Sony patrick! My brother has the same set and it has amazing black levels and shadow detail, as does my Samsung. And you are right about IAL, it is the softness in some scenes that lower the rating of it.



I'm very happy with it. I considered the XBR8, but based on in-store viewing, I didn't see anything that warranted the price.


----------



## Mikenificent1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15118830
> 
> 
> Similarly, I don't recall in my comments about IAL saying anything about dark scenes. My complaint about IAL is the presence of typical Warner softness in all shots except for a few very tight close-ups.
> 
> http://reviews.cnet.com/flat-panel-t...in;contentBody



There's way more than just "tight close-ups", you need to see the movie again. The most impressive shots are the aerial shots from above of the city when he's drving down the streets, those are definitely not "close-ups".


----------



## SuprSlow

Thread Marker...just ignore me


----------



## Thunderbolt8

no movie that has DNR applied more than accidentally in just few scenes should ever be possible to go tier 0.


----------



## rsbeck

Some history....



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Thunderbolt8* /forum/post/15041720
> 
> 
> baraka is a bit DNR'ed btw.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15042463
> 
> 
> Really? That's news to me. I have heard much about Edge Enhancement, but nothing (reliable) about DNR.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Thunderbolt8* /forum/post/15043235
> 
> 
> xylon took some screens in his thread here: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1082785
> 
> 
> for example take the screen with the soldier (faces & jackets), its too clean and grain free.




Especially based on screen shots.


----------



## Thunderbolt8




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15123020
> 
> 
> Everyone is entitled to write his/her own review.



not having anything against it. just so that tier 0 = reference and demo simply do not fit together with a way of processing the video which deviates from the way it is meant to be watched and intended by the director. haven't seen a DNR'ed movie in cinema yet.


----------



## briankmonkey




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15123020
> 
> 
> Based on recent experience in the Baraka thread, I doubt most of the people who make very authoritative sounding statements claiming to be able to spot such things as DNR and EE actually can, so picture quality is a matter of each individual viewer's opinion.
> 
> 
> Everyone is entitled to write his/her own review.



Exactly right


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15118830
> 
> 
> Similarly, I don't recall in my comments about IAL saying anything about dark scenes. My complaint about IAL is the presence of typical Warner softness in all shots except for a few very tight close-ups.
> 
> 
> Steeb, Hobbs47, and others who are interested might want to update their files on me. I recently switched to a 52" Sony XBR6 LCD. Still watching from about one screen width (about four feet with this display).
> 
> http://reviews.cnet.com/flat-panel-t...in;contentBody



Whoa whoa whoa...you went from a Kuro to a XBR?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15123672
> 
> 
> Whoa whoa whoa...you went from a Kuro to a XBR?



You were mistaken in thinking I had a Kuro. I'm not a plasma person.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15123711
> 
> 
> You were mistaken in thinking I had a Kuro. I'm not a plasma person.



Hmmm yeah I guess I was thinking of someone else, now I can't think of who!


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Thunderbolt8* /forum/post/15123199
> 
> 
> tier 0 = reference and demo simply do not fit together with a way of processing the video which deviates from the way it is meant to be watched and intended by the director.



1) Without access to the original print, this is always going to be a matter of opinion and individual interpretation. And remembering the way one saw it in the theater hardly counts. Memories are faulty, theater equipment varies, etc etc etc.


2) Thread moderator in opening paragraphs specifically asks that we not try to guess the director's intent. There is another BD assessment thread which allows you much more freedom in that regard.


3) In this thread, a director may have wanted his film to have a soft, flat look and the BD may recreate that perfectly, but it won't be ranked tier 0 (see #2).


----------



## hobbs47




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15118830
> 
> 
> Steeb, Hobbs47, and others who are interested might want to update their files on me. I recently switched to a 52" Sony XBR6 LCD. Still watching from about one screen width (about four feet with this display).
> 
> http://reviews.cnet.com/flat-panel-t...in;contentBody




Still too close,get over yourself dude.

BTW, my brother just got the XBR6 as well, how is the clouding on yours?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15124141
> 
> 
> 1) Without access to the original print, this is always going to be a matter of opinion and individual interpretation. And remembering the way one saw it in the theater hardly counts. Memories are faulty, theater equipment varies, etc etc etc.
> 
> 
> 2) Thread moderator in opening paragraphs specifically asks that we not try to guess the director's intent. There is another BD assessment thread which allows you much more freedom in that regard.
> 
> 
> 3) In this thread, a director may have wanted his film to have a soft, flat look and the BD may recreate that perfectly, but it won't be ranked tier 0 (see #2).



+1


We need to constantly be reminded of these points, which I TOTALLY agree with (because they reaffirm the standards set forth by the mods on page 1).


----------



## Neil Joseph

I nominate Prince Caspian for mid to upper tier 0. I just finished watching it, great detail, colours. The battle looked incredible. I was actually more impressed than with it than Pirates Of The Caribbean films.


----------



## rsbeck

I, Robot & The Incredible Hulk


Watched I, Robot last night and parts of it again this afternooon. Tonight, I have been watching The Incredible Hulk for a second time. It's interesting to watch these two films back to back because there are many similarities and several areas of contrast.


The non-animated, non CGI parts...


During these parts, both films are incredibly detailed yet manage to create a very natural look. In both films, you can see the actors' pores, light reflecting off their sweat, you can count the individual follicles of stubble, the variation in their hair, textures of their clothes, etc.


Both films have sophisticated, but different color schemes. I, Robot's color scheme is a pallet of lush neutrals, greys and beiges, clean and a tad cold. The Incredible Hulk exhibits a wide variety of colors and there is more variety from scene to scene.


The greys and beiges tend to make the scenery in I, Robot appear a tiny bit flat -- there is depth of field, but it is not accentuated as much by the play of light and shadow. More of the surrounding scenery is CGI in I, Robot.


Both films have excellent black levels and handle shadows well, but in The Hulk, the picture is deeper, there is much more play with light and shadow, and surroundings more gritty and real.


The Animated CGI parts....


The one place where I, Robot trumps Hulk is in these scenes. The CGI work in Robot blends pretty darn seamlessly, the robots as well as the CGI surroundings are very believable right up until the very end where there are a few CGI moments that are not up to the level of the rest of the film. I'm thinking of the final scene between Will Smith and Viki.


The CGI work on The Hulk, by contrast, is a tiny bit disappointing, a tad bit on the cartoonish side. The Incredible Hulk must be knocked down a bit for the slightly disappointing CGI, but I still feel it is a reference title that belongs in Tier 0, but somewhere in the bottom quarter. These are both really beautiful Blu-Ray titles that will really show off your system.


----------



## rsbeck

I was also pleasantly surprised to find that both had involving and very watchable story lines. I know we are not supposed to factor that in so I didn't, but I have to think that there are people who are looking for titles that not only look and sound fantastic, but that actually have decent stories, too.


----------



## suffolk112000

Well, after watching Wall-E, I am not sure I would put it up as high on Tier 0 as some would place it.

True, Wall-E is definitely a Tier 0 movie. But I would place it about half way down on Tier 0 at the highest.

I think the first 1/3 of the movie just does not hold up to the standard of top tier eye candy material. I think there is plenty of detail all throughout the entire movie. But the first third of the movie is just a bit lacking. It didn't have the punch like you would expect from a top tier reference movie.

The rest of the movie, when Wall-E goes into space is just pure reference material and contains as good of video quality as I have seen on a Blu Ray.

58x104 Da-Lite HCCV screen with masking. Sony VW60 and Panasonic BD30.


----------



## sammyhd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/15125875
> 
> 
> Well, after watching Wall-E, I am not sure I would put it up as high on Tier 0 as some would place it.
> 
> True, Wall-E is definitely a Tier 0 movie. But I would place it about half way down on Tier 0 at the highest.
> 
> I think the first 1/3 of the movie just does not hold up to the standard of top tier eye candy material. I think there is plenty of detail all throughout the entire movie. But the first third of the movie is just a bit lacking. It didn't have the punch like you would expect from a top tier reference movie.
> 
> The rest of the movie, when Wall-E goes into space is just pure reference material and contains as good of video quality as I have seen on a Blu Ray.
> 
> 58x104 Da-Lite HCCV screen with masking. Sony VW60 and Panasonic BD30.



Totally agree, Wall-E is tier 0 but not above Rat and Cars.


Sammy 61" led dlp (calibrated)

BD-30

10' away


----------



## rsbeck

*Zodiac (UK Import)*

*Agree With Current Placement*


The best way I can describe Zodiac is that it is just really solid. Very clean, as you would expect from a recent transfer, colors are natural, depth and detail is very, very good. Here's an example; Reading close-ups of newspaper text and handwritten letters, repeated motifs, is a pleasure. This blu-ray just has a very nice organic feel to it from beginning to end. If you're a fan of the movie, as I am, you will not be disappointed. One of the most difficult things for blu-ray transfers to handle, it seems, is dark and shadow. This is often what separates the better blu-rays from the disappointments. Zodiac, as you can imagine, has many dark scenes. Check out an early scene where Melvin Belli ducks down in the back seat of a car to avoid being seen, the sequence where the Zodiac stops a woman on the freeway and ends up abducting her, the scene inside Avery's houseboat, the sequence near the end in Vaughan's basement. This is a very consistent, well-made film and an excellent transfer.

*Recommendation: Tier 1 1/4*


Sim2 C3X1080

Carada Masquerade

126" Firehawk G3

Pioneer BDP-05FD


13' from screen



.


----------



## Mel2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Neil Joseph* /forum/post/15125549
> 
> 
> I nominate Prince Caspian for mid to upper tier 0. I just finished watching it, great detail, colours. The battle looked incredible. I was actually more impressed than with it than Pirates Of The Caribbean films.



I agree with tier 0 but in the lower half. I was more impressed with the blacks and the contrast, especially in the darker scenes. the storming of the castle was impressive as was the water creature scene. color wise, it matched the first film. it just didn't have the blow me away factor that wanted and incredbile hulk, and the POTC films have. disney didn't disappoint.


----------



## Mel2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/15125875
> 
> 
> Well, after watching Wall-E, I am not sure I would put it up as high on Tier 0 as some would place it.
> 
> True, Wall-E is definitely a Tier 0 movie. But I would place it about half way down on Tier 0 at the highest.
> 
> I think the first 1/3 of the movie just does not hold up to the standard of top tier eye candy material. I think there is plenty of detail all throughout the entire movie. But the first third of the movie is just a bit lacking. It didn't have the punch like you would expect from a top tier reference movie.
> 
> The rest of the movie, when Wall-E goes into space is just pure reference material and contains as good of video quality as I have seen on a Blu Ray.
> 
> 58x104 Da-Lite HCCV screen with masking. Sony VW60 and Panasonic BD30.



actually, the first 1/3 of it is why is deserves the highest ranking. it was so photo realistic that at times the dirt, dust, and even wall-e passed as real live objects. when he digs his hands in the scrap, that scene was so rich with detail that I had never seen in any cg animated film. even the closeups of his rust blew me away. a new ranking should be created just for wall-e.


----------



## Fanaticalism




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15123778
> 
> 
> Hmmm yeah I guess I was thinking of someone else, now I can't think of who!



It was another Patrick


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15126580
> 
> *Zodiac (UK Import)*
> 
> *Agree With Current Placement*
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 1 1/4*
> 
> 
> Sim2 C3X1080
> 
> Carada Masquerade
> 
> 126" Firehawk G3
> 
> Pioneer BDP-05FD
> 
> 
> 13' from screen
> 
> 
> 
> .



Nice review. Glad that you are in agreement with me on Zodiac. Though I haven't been posting much, it's good to see this thread kicking ass.


Patrick,


Good luck with your new HDTV. I recently bought a brand new 50" Panny Plasma after shifting base from Japan. Need to upgrade my AVR. Btw, I am a huge Plasma fan though OLED TVs will eventually become de facto in another 5~8 years.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15126580
> 
> *Zodiac (UK Import)*
> 
> *Agree With Current Placement*
> 
> 
> The best way I can describe Zodiac is that it is just really solid. Very clean, as you would expect from a recent transfer, colors are natural, depth and detail is very, very good. Here's an example; Reading close-ups of newspaper text and handwritten letters, repeated motifs, is a pleasure. This blu-ray just has a very nice organic feel to it from beginning to end. If you're a fan of the movie, as I am, you will not be disappointed. One of the most difficult things for blu-ray transfers to handle, it seems, is dark and shadow. This is often what separates the better blu-rays from the disappointments. Zodiac, as you can imagine, has many dark scenes. Check out an early scene where Melvin Belli ducks down in the back seat of a car to avoid being seen, the sequence where the Zodiac stops a woman on the freeway and ends up abducting her, the scene inside Avery's houseboat, the sequence near the end in Vaughan's basement. This is a very consistent, well-made film and an excellent transfer.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 1 1/4*



Thanks for the review on this title...I have always wanted to see this on Bluray and you have given me more incentive to do so.


BTW, I have marveled at how many reviews you've had lately. I truly envy you for the obvious free time you must have to watch movies. It's just not fair!


----------



## Elbie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15125771
> 
> 
> The CGI work on The Hulk, by contrast, is a tiny bit disappointing, a tad bit on the cartoonish side. The Incredible Hulk must be knocked down a bit for the slightly disappointing CGI, but I still feel it is a reference title that belongs in Tier 0, but somewhere in the bottom quarter. These are both really beautiful Blu-Ray titles that will really show off your system.



I am glad another person wants this movie in Tier 0 because that is where it belongs. My thing with what you said regarding the CGI is you have to realize that TIH is based on a comic book.


----------



## mpgxsvcd

Ok so this may not be a favorite of most people because of the content but I vote for *UFC: Ultimate Comebacks to be tier 1*! Ultimate fighting is not for the faint of heart and this disc is no exception. There are several scenes that contain some extremely disturbing hits.


What is great about the disc is that every single fight is in true High Definition and the bit rate is kept high enough to see every Bone crushing(Literally) hit that is delivered. If you are into UFC then this is the disc for you!


It is not exactly what I call Demo material but the video is razor sharp and extremely well defined. Hopefully, they will have more of these discs in the future. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

http://www.netflix.com/Movie/UFC_Ult...1631543615_0_0


----------



## rsbeck





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15127517
> 
> 
> I truly envy you for the obvious free time you must have to watch movies. It's just not fair!



Thanks! The good news is that I have been very lucky, have recently built a new theater and have had the opportunity to retire early so I have a lot of free time to enjoy it. The bad news is that, although I raised a fair amount of cash awhile back (about 15% from the top), I still have a chunk of my nest egg exposed to the stock market. Looking on the light side, watching films in my theater these days is much more fun than watching CNBC and witnessing what is happening to a portion of my nest egg -- it is not pretty! Also, because I am still relatively young and my wife and I started having kids relatively late and because the theater has become sort of a magnet for them and their friends as well as for my friends (and my wife), I always have people with whom to share this incredible hobby. Being able to share my enthusiasm with the rest of you on this forum is just icing on the cake!


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Elbie* /forum/post/15127960
> 
> 
> you have to realize that TIH is based on a comic book.



Agree. Also, The CGI Hulk is only on the screen a relatively small portion of the time and the rest of the film, I believe, is top quarter of tier 0 quality. When I say that the CGI Hulk is slightly disappointing, I mean *slightly* and that's only because the rest of the film is at such high quality. Personally, the CGI Hulk didn't bother me, I was too into the movie for that, but when we're talking tier zero, I believe any little defect has to be reported and weighed, but I still believe Incredible Hulk is easily a tier 0 title. It's a pretty good step above tier 1 titles.


----------



## Hughmc

I really think some need to watch the Hulk again. Overall the entire movie is not a tier 0 film. It is no better than Indy 4, and more close in PQ to films in Tier gold 3/4. I seriously hope Hulk does not make it in Tier 0, it really doesn't belong there. Great movie, amazing sound, but PQ wise it falls short of Tier 0. This placement recommendation is made after watching it 3 times and comparing it to other BD's I own with similar PQ.


----------



## Hughmc

Kung Fu panda is tier 0 obviously.


Sony [email protected] 8 ft from PS3 thru HDMI


----------



## briankmonkey

Wall-E and Kung Fu Panda, both Tier 0.. Kung Fu has a style that shows more texture detail and would go above Wall-E. Wall-E has kind of softer more natural look to it, obviously very different styles.



60A3000 @t 7.5 feet (just measured again for when the next DNR/EE hunting thread emerges







).


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briankmonkey* /forum/post/15129582
> 
> 
> Wall-E and Kung Fu Panda, both Tier 0.. Kung Fu has a style that shows more texture detail and would go above Wall-E. Wall-E has kind of softer more natural look to it, obviously very different styles.
> 
> 
> 
> 60A3000 @t 7.5 feet (just measured again for when the next DNR/EE hunting thread emerges
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ).



Robert Harris is said to have said the studios come January are going to stop the DNR/EE digital fixing stuff. It should be interesting if they do and ifthe threads continue claiming to see it or maybe the gang will find some other PQ issue to be the new drug.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briankmonkey* /forum/post/15129582
> 
> 
> Wall-E and Kung Fu Panda, both Tier 0.. Kung Fu has a style that shows more texture detail and would go above Wall-E. Wall-E has kind of softer more natural look to it, obviously very different styles.
> 
> 
> 
> 60A3000 @t 7.5 feet (just measured again for when the next DNR/EE hunting thread emerges
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ).



I just watched *Wall-E* and I wholeheartedly agree with you that it has a very soft and natural look to it, but only during the scenes on earth. But this is to be expected due to earth being post apocalyptic. All of the space scenes are bright and colorful though with a lot of 3D pop and amazing sharpness & detail. All things considered it is definitely *Tier 0*, but I don't think it should be at the top. My thinking is more *towards the middle of the tier*.


I received Kung Fu Panda along with Wall-E, so that's next on my list to view...perhaps tonight or tomorrow.


Samsung 50" 1080p DLP

Panasonic BD30 Blu-ray

Viewed from 7-8 feet


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15129003
> 
> 
> Thanks! The good news is that I have been very lucky, have recently built a new theater and have had the opportunity to retire early so I have a lot of free time to enjoy it. The bad news is that, although I raised a fair amount of cash awhile back (about 15% from the top), I still have a chunk of my nest egg exposed to the stock market. Looking on the light side, watching films in my theater these days is much more fun than watching CNBC and witnessing what is happening to a portion of my nest egg -- it is not pretty! Also, because I am still relatively young and my wife and I started having kids relatively late and because the theater has become sort of a magnet for them and their friends as well as for my friends (and my wife), I always have people with whom to share this incredible hobby. Being able to share my enthusiasm with the rest of you on this forum is just icing on the cake!



Good for you rsbeck! And I like your attitude (and family values). I appreciate you being a participant on this thread and your enthusiasm.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Tropic Thunder*


tier recommendation: top quarter of *Tier 1*


This past week DreamWorks Home Entertainment released the director's cut of this Ben Stiller directed movie to Blu-ray. The 121 minute main feature is encoded in AVC on a BD-50 with an average video bitrate of 23.81 Mbps (BDInfo scan link below courtesy of forum member eric.exe). The bulk of the encode ranges between 16 and 35 Mbps with more difficult material staying in the upper part of that range. There is not one hint of artifacting for the duration of the movie. This is an excellent compression job with no signs of banding in distant sky shots or in the haze of smoke from explosions.


The source elements look perfect but that is to be expected for a day and date release of a relatively big budget project. The image itself is razor sharp with very good camera work throughout the movie. There really are no soft moments. Micro-detail is impressive in the close-ups with skin texture and facial hair easily distinguished. Flesh tones are well-rendered, though at times I did notice some actors skewing a little redder than they normally appear like Jack Black and Nick Nolte. Black levels are inky and as close to reference as you can get. There are no moments of clipping or macroblocking in low light scenes. The darker scenes actually exhibit great shadow information and delineation. Colors do not pop as much as I have seen in most tier zero titles but certain ones like the green of the jungle appear very vivid. Contrast is also very good and does not vary over the different type of scenes.


While there are moments where the image could qualify for tier zero, I would more accurately place this Blu-ray in the first tier. The photography for this movie appears slightly flatter than the standard set in tier zero, with the depth of the image never demonstrating the typical 3-D look of the best Blu-rays. The Blu-ray does look very much like film should with a pleasing and consistent grain constituency, but I did observe some minor edge enhancement in certain scenes in the jungle. I am not sure a casual viewer would pick up on it though.


Overall I was very impressed with this Blu-ray's transfer and look, and I am recommending a placement in the top quarter of tier one. Depending on one's preferences, I could see this title as low as the second or third quarter of tier one to as high as the lower half of tier zero.


Watching on a 60 Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 (firmware 2.52) from a viewing distance of approximately 5.5 feet away.


BDInfo Scan:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post15050822


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

+1 for Phantom Stranger -- Just wanted to tell you I love reading your reviews.


----------



## briankmonkey




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15129655
> 
> 
> Robert Harris is said to have said the studios come January are going to stop the DNR/EE digital fixing stuff. It should be interesting if they do and ifthe threads continue claiming to see it or maybe the gang will find some other PQ issue to be the new drug.



Very interesting and great news if it happens! Just add that feature to blu-ray players for those that want it, we can do it on our specific model of display as well. I found my friends 1080p projector had it on by default, watching War and Predator were missing grain. I've found using the DNR on light setting actually .


Well some are seeing DNR when insiders have said none was done. I think some are confused with depth of field and out of focus shots (it does happen) at times.


----



agreed, djoberg. That sounds about right for placement. Some of those space shots are simply breathtaking











edit: hoping my wife is willing to watch Eastern Promises, the trailer looked interesting so I picked it up at Blockbuster.


----------



## rsbeck

*Rescue Dawn*

*Could Be Moved Up a Few Notches*


I am really impressed with this one. I don't see how any non CGI, non animated title could look much better than this. The cinematography is sensuous, the resolution top notch, the picture looks natural, shadows and blacks beautiful, the scenery incredible. Sure, there is some stock footage in the beginning, but that's a tiny little quibble and IMO, not worth being bothered about. Film makers seem to be struggling with ways to set a period tone. Some use a lot of film grain (Jesse James), some play with the colors (Aviator). Rescue Dawn reminds me of Life Magazine. If you're old enough to remember, perhaps you know what I mean. It was a magazine constantly lauded for its photography. As an aside, the movie itself is not a non-stop action extravaganza, but it was a riveting story and I really enjoyed it. Thanks to all who recommended it.

*Recommendation: Mid Tier 0*


Sim2 C3X1080

Carada Masquerade

126" Firehawk G3

Pioneer BDP-05FD


13' from Screen




.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briankmonkey* /forum/post/15129582
> 
> 
> Wall-E and Kung Fu Panda, both Tier 0.. Kung Fu has a style that shows more texture detail and would go above Wall-E. Wall-E has kind of softer more natural look to it, obviously very different styles.
> 
> 
> 
> 60A3000 @t 7.5 feet (just measured again for when the next DNR/EE hunting thread emerges
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ).



I agree Brian. I watched both movies for the second time and BOTH look phenomenal! But I would give the edge to KFP.

I think there is excellent detail in Wall-E. But I am afraid it falls into the category of artistic intent and the look' the director wanted to give the movie. Such a bummer

The way I see it, if Wall-E is moved to the top spot of tier 0, I think we risk opening up a can of worms for the way current and future titles are placed on this thread.

Remember, there are supposed to be no exceptions given to titles that don't have that pop and eye candy' look to them.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/15132935
> 
> 
> I agree Brian. I watched both movies for the second time and BOTH look phenomenal! But I would give the edge to KFP.
> 
> I think there is excellent detail in Wall-E. *But I am afraid it falls into the category of artistic intent and the ‘look’ the director wanted to give the movie. Such a bummer…
> 
> The way I see it, if Wall-E is moved to the top spot of tier 0, I think we risk opening up a can of worms for the way current and future titles are placed on this thread.
> 
> Remember, there are supposed to be no exceptions given to titles that don’t have that pop and ‘eye candy’ look to them*.



You are right and the more I think about Wall-E the more I think it should probably even go into the bottom of Tier 0. I know this suggestion may be booed by many, but the first 30 minutes are quite soft at times and like you implied, even though that was the director's intent we can't make an exception.


----------



## Elbie

Just because a movie doesn't have vibrant eye candy colors it doesn't mean that it doesn't look great. All of that there is in the eye of the person. Don't let the bright color of Kung Fu Panda fool you into thinking the PQ is better than Wall-E.


----------



## Shane Martin

IMHO KFP is the top of the heap. Wall E is a mid tier 0 title to me. KFP looked better and had more detail to me.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15130365
> 
> 
> +1 for Phantom Stranger -- Just wanted to tell you I love reading your reviews.



It is nice to know at least one person reads them.







As for the final placement of Wall*E, I will reiterate my view that it is definitely a high tier zero title but not the absolute best based on the aesthetic choices of the creative team. I do think it presents the highest level of detail we have ever seen on Blu-ray with the intricate level of animation. It is a consequence of Moore's Law that computer rendered animation is getting better every single year as the hardware gets cheaper and faster. Overall though the lighting choices and the ever so slight softness put it below titles like Cars for me for pure visual splendor. I have not yet seen Kung Fu Panda but that might take a backseat to the Bond BDs I am thinking of going over seriously for this thread's purposes.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Elbie* /forum/post/15133991
> 
> 
> Just because a movie doesn't have vibrant eye candy colors it doesn't mean that it doesn't look great.



Actually, in this thread it does matter...









I am not saying that Wall-E is not detailed. I just think the first part of the movie is not as visually appealing as some of the other titles at the top of tier 0.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15135181
> 
> 
> It is nice to know at least one person reads them.



Make that two.


----------



## unclepauly




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/15135903
> 
> 
> Actually, in this thread it does matter...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not saying that Wall-E is not detailed. I just think the first part of the movie is not as visually appealing as some of the other titles at the top of tier 0.



I think what you guys are talking about is more subjective. Just because I like the color blue and you like the color red doesn't mean ones better than the other. I thought this thread was more about measurable quality? I don't think you can measure if red is better than blue.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *unclepauly* /forum/post/15136335
> 
> 
> I think what you guys are talking about is more subjective. Just because I like the color blue and you like the color red doesn't mean ones better than the other. I thought this thread was more about measurable quality? I don't think you can measure if red is better than blue.



Well, I would say most of this thread is 'subjective.'

I have disagreed with many a movies placement on this site. If everyone saw things the same, I could see your point. But what you think is eye candy is apparently not exactly what I would call top of tier 0 eye candy. Thus the reasoning why some think Wall-E should be placed at the bottom of teir 0, some believe it should be placed in the middle of tier 0, (my self) and others believe it should be the top placement.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15133880
> 
> 
> You are right and the more I think about Wall-E the more I think it should probably even go into the bottom of Tier 0. I know this suggestion may be booed by many, but the first 30 minutes are quite soft at times and like you implied, even though that was the director's intent we can't make an exception.



Man, I give up on this thread







absolutely ridiculous


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/15136952
> 
> 
> Thus the reasoning why some think Wall-E should be placed at the bottom of teir 0, some believe it should be placed in the middle of tier 0, (my self) and others believe it should be the top placement.



For the record, even though I suggested placing Wall-E in the bottom of Tier 0 in my last post, my original post suggested the middle of Tier 0 and I would have no problems whatsoever with that placement.


My thinking regarding the first 30+ minutes is that because of the color palette (mostly browns because of the apocalyptic effect) it wasn't nearly as sharp or detailed as the outer space scenes, so I believe there should be a lowering of the title for that reason. Having said that, there were moments where the detail was quite good (in the scrap yard...and in Wall-E's quarters), but all things considered _it wasn't consistently sharp and detailed_.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15137222
> 
> 
> Man, I give up on this thread
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> absolutely ridiculous



Why do you find it ridiculous? Is it because _my opinion doesn't line up with yours_? If so, then maybe you should give up on this thread because you are _always_ going to find varying opinions.


Or maybe it's because I actually _changed my mind_. If so, then again maybe you should give up on this thread, for I have seen members change their mind regarding placements quite a few times. It happens...and you either accept it or give up.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15137251
> 
> 
> For the record, even though I suggested placing Wall-E in the bottom of Tier 0 in my last post, my original post suggested the middle of Tier 0 and I would have no problems whatsoever with that placement.
> 
> 
> My thinking regarding the first 30+ minutes is that because of the color palette (mostly browns because of the apocalyptic effect) it wasn't nearly as sharp or detailed as the outer space scenes, so I believe there should be a lowering of the title for that reason. Having said that, there were moments where the detail was quite good (in the scrap yard...and in Wall-E's quarters), but all things considered _it wasn't consistently sharp and detailed_.



I agree..


----------



## rsbeck

*Wall-E*


I just watched Wall-E. This is s weird one. For those who want this title in tier 0, please give me a 5 minute sequence out of Wall-E you would use as a demo. My problem with the first thirty minutes isn't the colors, they are interesting, sophisticated, saturated ---- BUT ---- the storyline calls for the Earth to be smoggy, at least I assume that's what it is because there is a haze over everything. Okay, it's interesting CGI haze, but it makes the picture soft. We've punished many other films for sequences that are neither as soft nor as long in duration.


On one hand, the CGI in Wall-E is certainly different. Objects have a feeling of density and mass, they are more palpable. On the other, look at the humans in this movie -- they have very little detail, very crude and cartoonish. I don't know how we can talk about lowering The Incredible Hulk because of a slightly disappointing CGI Hulk and then seriously consider Wall-E with such crudely drawn humans.


I saw satisfying images in Wall-E, some of the best space representations I've seen, for example, but I didn't see many satisfying sequences.


Objects have a very satisfying sharpness to them, sharper than ever. Some, like Wall-E himself, are very detailed and believable, but on many of them the inner detail seems simple and cartoonish. It is terribly inconsistent.


So, you get a sense from Wall-E that they are continuing to push the technology behind CGI, but I don't think this is the best exhibition of the new capability.


I may be booed even more loudly, but IMO, this is not a tier 0 title at all. I didn't feel that this is in the same league with any of the Tier 0 CGI titles, nor any of the non-CGI titles. I say wait until they use the new capability to make a visually more impressive movie.

*Recommendation: Tier 1*


Sim2 C3X1080

Carada Masquerade

126" Firehawk G3

Pioneer BDP-05FD


13' From Screen



.


----------



## djoberg

It's late, but I just finished watching *The Strangers* and thought I should comment on it before calling it a day. At least 90% of this was filmed at night, so there are plenty of dark scenes. And yet it is a very sharp transfer with excellent shadow detail throughout. The indoor scenes were just as crisp, and the few daytime (outdoor) scenes were reference quality.


This film reminded me of *30 Days of Night* which was discussed at length in the HD DVD thread (many moons ago







). Like The Strangers it was consistently sharp and detailed, but because of there being so many dark scenes it wasn't considered worthy of a top Tier placement (i.e., Demo Material). Perhaps the same could be said of The Strangers, but I believe it does deserve to be in *Tier 1* and I would suggest *1/4 or no lower than 1/2*.


*Spoiler Alert*


The movie itself was a good rental and being an avid fan of the Horror Genre I would say it held its own until the last 10-15 minutes. I'm not keen on slasher flicks and up until the end it relied mostly on sounds, distant visuals, and your own imagination to give you the creeps. I was warned not to watch it alone (and late at night on top of that







), so the conditions were ripe for giving me a couple of good scares. Now it's off to bed....or should I just watch another Blu-ray with all the lights on!


----------



## Mikenificent1

Has anyone else noticed that the ratings on the first page of this thread have not been updated for OVER TWO WEEKS (11/7)??? Yet the OP has been on AVS as recent as yesterday! What's the point of this thread if it's not going to be kept up to date?? If he hasn't updated the thread this long, what's the chances of him going back and reading all the posts he missed? I say slim to none.


----------



## Steeb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mikenificent1* /forum/post/15137806
> 
> 
> Has anyone else noticed that the ratings on the first page of this thread have not been updated for OVER TWO WEEKS (11/7)??? Yet the OP has been on AVS as recent as yesterday! What's the point of this thread if it's not going to be kept up to date?? If he hasn't updated the thread this long, what's the chances of him going back and reading all the posts he missed? I say slim to none.



What should be more shocking is the fact that there are a number of regular contributers who post daily (or close to it) to this thread, yet feel no compulsion to step up and lend the one remaining "thread mod" a hand with the updates. This thread used to have three "thread mods" but two have since quit, for whatever reasons. Since then, everyone else has sat idly by and let Suprslow run the show by himself.


It's pretty easy to see who posts the most in the thread - you just click on the number of replies. Until some of the frequent contributers step up and offer some assistance, I would venture to guess that the list will remain woefully outdated.


----------



## djoberg

On more thing....I also watched about a half hour of *The Fast and the Furious* on USA HD tonight. I was literally blown away by the PQ. It is, by far, the sharpest and most detailed live action movie I have ever seen on satellite tv. Simply amazing!!


I looked it up on Amazon and there is a Blu-ray release coming. I have to say I can't see how they can improve on what I saw, but if it's just as good (or a little bit better), it may succeed in topping I, Robot for the best of non-animated titles.


Edit: In all fairness, since I only watched a half hour of this title I would have to see the whole movie to make sure it stayed consistent. Sadly, I have seen razor-sharp films turn soft in various scenes so it will be interesting to see how this one pans out.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mikenificent1* /forum/post/15137806
> 
> 
> Has anyone else noticed that the ratings on the first page of this thread have not been updated for OVER TWO WEEKS (11/7)??? Yet the OP has been on AVS as recent as yesterday! What's the point of this thread if it's not going to be kept up to date?? If he hasn't updated the thread this long, what's the chances of him going back and reading all the posts he missed? I say slim to none.



Whoa slow down there turbo. It's a lot for once person to do.


----------



## selimsivad

Since no one else has a tier recommendation for these three titles, I've decided to give my two cents. This is my first time, so please be gentle.










As far is picture quality, both Blow and Casino are comparable to Casino Royale. Blacks are deep. Detail is really strong. Both have vibrant colors. Both have excellent 3D pop. Those who remember the opening title sequence and the opening shot of Vegas in Casino will be blown away!










Mirrormask, on the other hand, is a completely different story. Since it's very surreal and dreamy, the colors are sepia-like. The non CGI scenes are immaculate! Excellent close ups!







This title is comparable to The Fall, (which by the way is not Tier 0) but not as vibrant. Intentional softness shows up every now and then which fit the hallucinogenic tone of the movie.

*Recommendation for Blow and Casino: top of Tier 1

Recommendation for Mirrormask: Tier 1 1/2*


Samsung 46" LCD 1080p

PS3 at six feet


----------



## rsbeck

I would be willing to help compile rankings, but there is one problem; on many of these titles opinion vary widely. The nice thing about having SuperSlow moderate is that he can stay above the fray and be seen as impartial. I am also not sure I could keep my personal feelings aside. I prefer to offer my unbridled opinion along with everyone else and let someone else sort it all out. SS seems to do a great job, IMO. Last point, it might actually work in our favor for him to take awhile to update the rankings. Sometimes it takes a few weeks to really chew up and digest the various opinions and feelings. Taking his time lets the discussion develop and lets him hear more opinions before assigning a rank.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15137902
> 
> 
> The Fall, (which by the way is not Tier 0)



Agree.


----------



## Jenova




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15137902
> 
> 
> Since no one else has a tier recommendation for these three titles, I've decided to give my two cents. This is my first time, so please be gentle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far is picture quality, both Blow and Casino are comparable to Casino Royale. Blacks are deep. Detail is really strong. Both have vibrant colors. Both have excellent 3D pop. Those who remember the opening title sequence and the opening shot of Vegas in Casino will be blown away!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Recommendation for Blow and Casino: Tier 1
> 
> Recommendation for Mirrormask: Tier 1 1/4*
> 
> 
> Samsung 46" LCD 1080p
> 
> PS3 at six feet



I agree. Blow looked great!


I saw Tropic Thunder and this also looks wonderful, maybe top Tier 1.




Pioneer Kuro 5020FD

PS3 6 feet.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15138153
> 
> 
> I would be willing to help compile rankings, but there is one problem; on many of these titles opinion vary widely. The nice thing about having SuperSlow moderate is that he can stay above the fray and be seen as impartial. I am also not sure I could keep my personal feelings aside. I prefer to offer my unbridled opinion along with everyone else and let someone else sort it all out. SS seems to do a great job, IMO. Last point, it might actually work in our favor for him to take awhile to update the rankings. Sometimes it takes a few weeks to really chew up and digest the various opinions and feelings. Taking his time lets the discussion develop and lets him hear more opinions before assigning a rank.



I agree with these sentiments. SuprSlow does a very good job moderating the thread. Typically he waits for a couple of weeks before updating recent recommendations. I think chaos might ensue if placements were made too hasty on any one title. A vigorous and healthy discussion is needed on certain movies before a consensus can be formed.


----------



## suffolk112000

I frequent this thread quite regularly and have used it many times when stocking my rather large Netflix queue.









I have voiced my opinion on several titles that I felt were flat out ranked incorrectly. But for the most part, I have been more of a silent lurker with a few contributions per week.

I would also be willing to help in any way I could to keep things up to date for what ever that is worth.


----------



## Roachforlife

I put together this list (as of 11/24) in Excel format, with filtering and whatnot.

Ill see if I have time but maybe someone could add the Audio thread ratings onto the xls I just posted, and people could work off that going forward? Not that everyone has Excel but it is a little easier searching and whatnot


Enjoy guys


(See attached zip file with .xls inside)

 

BluRayChart.zip 70.0703125k . file


----------



## djoberg

Okay, I promised myself I would NOT resort to hyperbole in giving my review of *Kung Fu Panda*.....But I must say.....move over Ratatouille and Cars, for you are now #2 and #3 in the Blu-ray animated film line-up!! Yes, I am nominating Kung Fu Panda for *the VERY TOP of Tier 0*!


I could employ a hundred superlatives to describe this visual treat, but they would all fall infinitely short of its just due. It is, simply put, the most colorful and the most detailed animated movie to date. The vibrant colors, inky blacks and superb contrast leap off the screen. Textures abound on each character. And there is not an artifact or flaw of any kind to be seen. It is PERFECT!


Equal to the gorgeous PQ was the exhilarating Dolby TrueHD audio track. The dialogue was crisp, the surrounds were active and bright, and my LFE channel was given a workout that is rarely found in animated films. Kudos to those who succeeded in gratifying both the eyes and the ears on this release!


Not to be demeaning, but after discussing the virtues (or lack thereof) of Wall-E the last two days, I think I can safely say that it pales in comparison to Kung Fu Panda. If KFP is awarded a place at the top of the Tier Blu ladder, then Wall-E will have to be quite a few rungs below it.


Samsung HL-S5087W

Panny BD30

Onkyo 705 AVR

Viewed from 7-8 feet


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Constantine*


tier recommendation: top quarter of *Tier 2*


Warner finally released this 2005 movie to Blu-ray in October of 2008. It had been available on HD DVD since June of 2006 to give one an idea of how long they held the BD back for release. There is some dispute and question whether the Blu-ray's video encode is identical to the previously released HD DVD. The Blu-ray encode is in VC-1 on a BD-50 but it seems much of that capacity has gone to waste. A BDInfo scan of the Blu-ray revealed an average video bitrate of 11.88 Mbps, compared to the HD DVD's measured video bitrate of 13.15 Mbps. This is quite unprecedented because Warner has been known to port over the existing HD DVD video encode whenever possible for a Blu-ray unless the initial transfer had a severe flaw like in the case of the Perfect Storm. I will go out on a limb and say both encodes are identical going off of Warner Brothers' standard practices in the past. I suspect the superficial difference shown above might come from the way the discs were authored with this BD being one of Warner's first BD-Live titles.


With an average video bitrate of 11.88 Mbps (BDInfo scan courtesy of forum member House linked below), the Blu-ray does seem to present some slight compression problems to the image. Most scenes range between 9 and 12.7 Mbps for the majority of the 120 minute running time with a few scant peaks in the low twenties. The numbers definitely indicate an encode created with the more limited bandwidth of a HD DVD disc in mind. This was a good looking encode when it came out but simply does not hold up to more recent compression video encodes found on Blu-ray. There are no gross visible problems but a certain minor amount of chroma noise and compression noise can be seen in background walls. I also noticed a shot or two of banding in more difficult material. The image does look slightly filtered or "smooth" for lack of a better word.


I had forgotten the strong cinematography featured in this movie by Oscar winner Philippe Rousselot. The image is composed very nicely within the 2.35:1 frame of the feature. There are lots of strong moments of startling imagery which this transfer shows off nicely. There is little if any edge enhancement seen even though the picture has a relatively strong sense of dimension and depth. Colors are nicely saturated with the different gradations of red appearing the most spectacular (as in the Hell scenes). I would say the color palette has a tendency towards a golden amber hue with browns and yellows looking a bit warm. Contrast is strong throughout with black levels appearing deep and dark. The inky depths of black are a real strength of this transfer. Fleshtones appear very accurate to real life with no one looking underexposed or overexposed.


The Digital Intermediate this transfer was created from looks in perfect shape, with nary a mark or scratch. The CGI special effects integrate and blend very well with the live action. In fact I would call the seamless integration one of the best I have seen on Blu-ray. One of my pet peeves for viewing HD now is the increased resolution on Blu-ray revealing poorly done CGI, but never once was I taken out of the movie's world here like I have with inferior CGI.


Unfortunately the one weakness of this Blu-ray and what drops it into tier two for me is the sporadic level of awesome high frequency information, particularly in the facial close-ups. There are

momentary shots with great detail but many scenes reveal very average micro-detail. It appears the very low bitrate is obscuring some of the finer detail that would be evident on a tier one or higher ranked movie.


Warner has released an above average looking Blu-ray that I suspect might have been incredible looking with a little more care and effort on their part, especially the compression job. Depending on one's preferences I can see this movie being ranked as low as the middle of tier two. I still highly recommend checking out this very nice image in 1080p.


BDInfo scan:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...8#post14817548


----------



## djoberg

I just watched *Hellboy 2*. The PQ was very good but I'm not quite sure where it should be placed, though I would lean towards either a *low Tier 0 or top 1/4 of Tier 1* placement.


For the most part it was sharp and detailed, with perhaps some isolated softness (very rare). I was especially impressed with facial close-ups, though this is where I also noticed a recurring flaw. I'm speaking of Princess Nuala; her bright white forehead appeared to be "sparkling" or "macro-blocking" in quite a few scenes and it was very distracting. Did anyone else notice that?


There were definitely MANY Tier 0 images, including a real sense of depth (i.e., 3D pop), but the flaw just mentioned and a few rare instances of softness would probably justify a Tier 1 placement.


BTW, the AQ was superb! And I was surprised at how low I had my volume set for a DTS-HD MA track.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15144918
> 
> 
> I just watched *Hellboy 2*. The PQ was very good but I'm not quite sure where it should be placed, though I would lean towards either a *low Tier 0 or top 1/4 of Tier 1* placement.
> 
> *For the most part it was sharp and detailed, with perhaps some isolated softness (very rare).* I was especially impressed with facial close-ups, though this is where I also noticed a recurring flaw. I'm speaking of Princess Nuala; her bright white forehead appeared to be "sparkling" or "macro-blocking" in quite a few scenes and it was very distracting. Did anyone else notice that?
> 
> 
> There were definitely MANY Tier 0 images, including a real sense of depth (i.e., 3D pop), but the flaw just mentioned and a few rare instances of softness would probably justify a Tier 1 placement.
> 
> 
> BTW, the AQ was superb! And I was surprised at how low I had my volume set for a DTS-HD MA track.



Based on my viewing, HB 2 had pretty frequent softness, which I attributed to the very high concentration of CGI effects, with only occasional, sporadic sharpness in some close-ups. Based on the softness, definitely *not* Tier 0 to my eyes.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15142247
> 
> 
> Okay, I promised myself I would NOT resort to hyperbole in giving my review of *Kung Fu Panda*.....But I must say.....move over Ratatouille and Cars, for you are now #2 and #3 in the Blu-ray animated film line-up!! Yes, I am nominating Kung Fu Panda for *the VERY TOP of Tier 0*!
> 
> 
> I could employ a hundred superlatives to describe this visual treat, but they would all fall infinitely short of its just due. It is, simply put, the most colorful and the most detailed animated movie to date. The vibrant colors, inky blacks and superb contrast leap off the screen. Textures abound on each character. And there is not an artifact or flaw of any kind to be seen. It is PERFECT!
> 
> 
> Equal to the gorgeous PQ was the exhilarating Dolby TrueHD audio track. The dialogue was crisp, the surrounds were active and bright, and my LFE channel was given a workout that is rarely found in animated films. Kudos to those who succeeded in gratifying both the eyes and the ears on this release!
> 
> 
> Not to be demeaning, but after discussing the virtues (or lack thereof) of Wall-E the last two days, I think I can safely say that it pales in comparison to Kung Fu Panda. If KFP is awarded a place at the top of the Tier Blu ladder, then Wall-E will have to be quite a few rungs below it.
> 
> 
> Samsung HL-S5087W
> 
> Panny BD30
> 
> Onkyo 705 AVR
> 
> Viewed from 7-8 feet



I too believe KFP is top of tier 0.



Sony [email protected] 8 ft from PS3 thru HDMI


----------



## briankmonkey

Pretty much how I felt djoberg, lots of detail. I didn't notice any sparkling or blocking from memory but I was pretty engrossed in the film so I could have missed it. She's a hottie


----------



## zinfamous




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mikenificent1* /forum/post/15137806
> 
> 
> Has anyone else noticed that the ratings on the first page of this thread have not been updated for OVER TWO WEEKS (11/7)??? Yet the OP has been on AVS as recent as yesterday! What's the point of this thread if it's not going to be kept up to date?? If he hasn't updated the thread this long, what's the chances of him going back and reading all the posts he missed? I say slim to none.



sounds like an offer to help him out.


----------



## DaveBowman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sammyhd* /forum/post/15126114
> 
> 
> Totally agree, Wall-E is tier 0 but not above Rat and Cars.
> 
> 
> Sammy 61" led dlp (calibrated)
> 
> BD-30
> 
> 10' away



My vote is the same, mid Tier 0 for Wall E.


----------



## rsbeck

*The Godfather*


Watched it again last night from beginning to end and then did some more comparisons to the DVD (Godfather Collection) version. The blu-ray is a considerable improvement. I now believe any problems are in the source material, not in the restoration or transfer. The original cinematography is simply a challenge, some scenes are just not lit impressively and some are shot in very difficult bright light, especially the wedding scene, which is especially jarring coming out of Don Corleone's dark office. This was possibly Coppola's thematic choice to contrast the dark dealings going on with the lightness of the day's occasion. In fact, you notice that in the center of the yard, a very happy and lighthearted wedding is taking place, but in the Don's office, just outside these sunlit festivities and in shady corners, FBI men and photographers are lurking (and getting beaten up by Sonny), a grim looking Barzini directs his underling to confiscate a photographer's film and the menacing Luca Brazzi sits practicing his speech to be given inside the dark office. As the film progresses, though, the picture quality becomes more consistently impressive. At least half of the film could easily pass as mid tier one and several scenes are so clear you can see pores and imperfections in the actor's faces (as well as Robert Duval's hair plugs). The scene where Don Corleone dies in the garden is so beautifully shot, it might even pass as low tier 0. Same with the scene between Solozzo and a kidnapped Tom Hagen, Michael in the phone booth after learning his father has been shot, much of the Sicily sequence, and several others. The blu-ray restoration is cleaner with far more clarity and detail (including shadow detail) than the best DVD version previously available. Fans of the film should be very happy with this blu-ray.

*Recommendation: Tier 2*


Sim2 C3X1080

Carada Masquerade

126" Firehawk G3

Pioneer BDP-05FD


13' from screen




.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15147758
> 
> *The Godfather*
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 2*
> 
> 
> .



Totally agree. III (Bottom Tier-1) > I (Tier 2) > II (Tier 2 - bottom)


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

I've never tried to offer my opinion or review anything in here, and I've attempted to do a search but unless I want to go through 3 pages of posts for "War" I can't locate the reviews for the movie "War, Inc." to explain to me why this title is in 3/4 of tier Silver. This is my official request to _please_ be kind to the geeky girl.










Now, it was a rental not a purchase and it has gone back, so I can't go back and re-look at anything; but I do wonder why this movie is rated so high on the list.


My system is ps3 80gig, Toshiba 46H83 -- not top quality at all. Given this fact though, things tend to look rather phenominal for me, at a viewing distance of approximately 6 feet or so. So of course, this can all be taken with a grain of salt given what I've just stated -- for example, Saawariya looked pristine to me, and it is top 1/4 Gold tier(at least, the first half of it did, I didn't watch the entire thing despite how pretty it looked).


Generally I watch movies for pleasure and not to rate them; I enjoy reading the reviews here for that. But watching War, Inc. last night inspired me to come here and see where you guys had rated it, because it looked TERRIBLE on my set up. This is the first movie that truly had me distracted with how awful it looked (and I can be very forgiving; I can watch Babylon 5 dvd's of season 1 and not cringe too hard







).


Perhaps it was just the style the movie was shot in, I'm unsure. It looked to me as if the entire thing was hazed-over, and so many of the shots would be sharp for a moment and I'd perk up, only for it to get blurry almost as instantly. Overall a terribly soft picture. At any rate, it was the first time I've played a blu-ray disc in my home and wondered, "Would the DVD have looked better than this?"


I know that I'd be hard pressed to make a request to push anything UP the tier list given my substandard equipment; that _generally_ means that things should look better on my system and not worse. Unfortunately I can't really say where I think it should be pushed down to, aside from a general request of "somewhere in Tier Bronze, at least below Stargate" would likely suit it more. This movie truly irritated the heck out of me, it was almost unwatchable.


----------



## 1MaNArmY

Any forth comming word on the ranking of Kung Fu Panda and Baraka?


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15148436
> 
> 
> I've never tried to offer my opinion or review anything in here...This movie truly irritated the heck out of me, it was almost unwatchable.



Congrats on your first review -- keep 'em coming!


----------



## edved1

I just finished watching Transsiberian and would have to give it a 4.5 star rating or Tier 1. No 3D pop to it, but the colors were solid. Dark scenes revealed a lot of detail. Shadow detail was good. Close-ups showed natural skin tones. Snow scenes looked completely natural. Didn't see any edge enhancements. Sharp looking film overall.


Viewed on a calibrated Sony VW60 12.5 feet back on a 106" Carada.


The movie itself is a 9 out of 10. Very entertaining.


G.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *edved1* /forum/post/15150789
> 
> 
> I just finished watching Transsiberian and would have to give it a 4.5 star rating or Tier 1. No 3D pop to it, but the colors were solid. Dark scenes revealed a lot of detail. Shadow detail was good. Close-ups showed natural skin tones. Snow scenes looked completely natural. Didn't see any edge enhancements. Sharp looking film overall.
> 
> 
> Viewed on a calibrated Sony VW60 12.5 feet back on a 106" Carada.
> 
> 
> G.



I see that HDD lists this as First Look Studios. Is any major studio involved with the BD release?


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Great reviews lately guys!


I need to find time to watch more blu rays


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15148436
> 
> 
> I've never tried to offer my opinion or review anything in here, and I've attempted to do a search but unless I want to go through 3 pages of posts for "War" I can't locate the reviews for the movie "War, Inc." to explain to me why this title is in 3/4 of tier Silver.



Well it is in the bottom quarter of tier two, which means whoever ranked it thought it was just slightly above average considering all Blu-rays. But some of the reviews I have looked up seem to agree with your assessment of the image. Check here for a couple of independent reviews that mention this title:

http://www.hddb.net/reviews/war-inc-736027-blu-ray


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15151574
> 
> 
> Well it is in the bottom quarter of tier two, which means whoever ranked it thought it was just slightly above average considering all Blu-rays. But some of the reviews I have looked up seem to agree with your assessment of the image. Check here for a couple of independent reviews that mention this title:
> 
> http://www.hddb.net/reviews/war-inc-736027-blu-ray




Thanks, Phantom Stranger. It's good to know it's not "just me" that thought this movie looked terrible. The only thing around the Bronze tier that I own is Stargate, which I've watched multiple times; I'm sure it's rated where it is for different reasons than where War, Inc is rated, however I never felt Stargate was unwatchable, whereas War, Inc was completely distracting.


And I will go up and edit my original post, I didn't mean to suggest "Copper", I meant to suggest "Bronze" below Stargate.


----------



## Asb-123

hey, i am looking for my first blu-ray


for animation should i get


-cars

-kung fu panda

-ratitouille


for other

-Ironman

-Irobot (seen it on sd dvd 10+ times)


----------



## tfoltz

I put Wall-E just below Ratatouille. I thought the visual impact was far greater on Wall-E than Cars and Meet the Robinsons, yes even with the "dirty" earth. It definitely shouldn't be moved below Sleeping Beauty, which had a couple blurry shots that had me wiping my eyes in disbelief; though the majority of the movie was amazing.


Panasonic 50px80u

768p

9 feet seating distance


----------



## bplewis24




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Asb-123* /forum/post/15152045
> 
> 
> hey, i am looking for my first blu-ray
> 
> 
> for animation should i get
> 
> 
> -cars
> 
> -kung fu panda
> 
> -ratitouille
> 
> 
> for other
> 
> -Ironman
> 
> -Irobot (seen it on sd dvd 10+ times)



You would probably gather more opinions in the PQ Tier Thread , but I'll get you started:


The animation titles are all cream of the crop, so while Kung Fu Panda might be more visually appealing than Ratatouille (because of the visual style of the movie), I'd probably still pick up Ratatouille based on it's movie quality.


I, Robot is probably considered of higher reference quality than Ironman is. Ironman likely has a more dynamic audio track and I would say is a slightly better movie.


Brandon


----------



## bommai

I actually loved i, Robot and have watched it on SD-DVD with the DTS track. I bought it on Bluray and have watched it once. Very nice DTS-HD-Ma. I think I might watch it again this holiday season










That said, I also love Ratatouille and Cars. I have not watched Kung Fu Panda yet. I liked Iron Man but I just rented it. I did not enjoy it as much as I thought I would.


----------



## Asb-123

i saw ironman in theaters and loved it. I am looking for that one movie which you pop in to show off the new tv and sound system.


----------



## DonnerHead











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Asb-123* /forum/post/15152045
> 
> 
> hey, i am looking for my first blu-ray
> 
> 
> for animation should i get
> 
> 
> -cars
> 
> -kung fu panda
> 
> -ratitouille
> 
> 
> for other
> 
> -Ironman
> 
> -Irobot (seen it on sd dvd 10+ times)



Kung Fu Panda. Best PQ and AQ of those 3 by just a hair. I actualy like the movie the best out of those 3 as well. Just a FUN movie and the PQ/AQ are jaw dropping!


I love both Iron Man and I Robot. Get both of those


----------



## Asb-123

which out of the two would provide a better reference show.


----------



## DonnerHead




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Asb-123* /forum/post/15152459
> 
> 
> which out of the two would provide a better reference show.



Tuff call. Iron Man has the LFE advantage and is sure to impress in that department. I love I Robot overall as well, especialy the tunnel scene!










PQ, both are very good with maybe a slight advantage to I Robot, but it is very close.


For the best overall reference show, I say Iron Man.


----------



## Vegaz

I'd say Kung Fu Panda goes over Wall-E both in tier 0 but not having seen anything but Corpse Bride in that tier I can't really place them compared to others but since Corpse Bride is 0 and those 2 are better than that they're obviously 0.


Now I'm off to watch Hancock...no votes on that yet? I'll give it a try when it's over.


----------



## hdblu

I would get

cars

iron man

For my first


----------



## Art Sonneborn

IMO if only one I'd take I Robot.


Art


----------



## ew1075

I would go with Kung Fu Panda and I Robot for reference material. You can't go wrong with Cars or Ratatouille though.


----------



## stumlad

Quick opinion of Hancock.


Reminded me a lot of Shooter and Black Snake Moan because of the coloring of the film. It had like a yellow/golden tint to it and was slightly bluish (cool). The face closeups were very detailed, and the overall transfer seemed pretty flawless. Fine detail seemed very good too. Black levels were definitely black, but perhaps too dark as there were times I felt like I should have been seeing more detail in the dark scenes. Grain is apparent throughout (though in some dark scenes it wasn't as noticeable). Sony did a great job on this one (Audio was less impressive, but still good). I'd put it right under Black Snake Moan in Tier 0.


----------



## butsu

I recommend Kung Fu Panda for animation CGI and Iron Man for action with bass shaking room.I ROBOT also good for surround demonstration.


----------



## ack_bk

Kung-Fu-Panda for animation

iRobot for action


----------



## Fanaticalism




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ew1075* /forum/post/15153319
> 
> 
> I would go with Kung Fu Panda and I Robot for reference material. You can't go wrong with Cars or Ratatouille though.



I agree, KungFu Panda has both the visuals, and the audio that comes with the praise of a reference quality title.


Now, before I give my suggestion between IM, and I-R, I want to let it be known, that if I had to choose, I would take a great audio track, over one that excels in the visual aspects of a title. That being said, I would have to choose IM over I-R. For the unsuspecting viewer, I feel that IM has bit more of an "in your face" approach to the mix, while I-R has better overall fideltiy. Again, I am referring strictly to the everyday consumer, who looks for that "WOW" factor, which is something a track with a substantial amount of LFE provides.


Now, if you are looking for demo material that caters more torwards an enthusiast type demographic, they would most definitely appreciate both the better overall visual, and audio quality that I-R brings to the table. You will more than likely find yourself hardpressed to find a title with CGI better integrated than that of I-R.


Of course, this is all just a matter of my own opinion.


----------



## DonnerHead




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fanaticalism* /forum/post/15153440
> 
> 
> I agree, KungFu Panda has both the visuals, and the audio that comes with the praise of a reference quality title.
> 
> 
> Now, before I give my suggestion between IM, and I-R, I want to let it be known, that if I had to choose, I would take a great audio track, over one that excels in the visual aspects of a title. That being said, I would have to choose IM over I-R. For the unsuspecting viewer, I feel that IM has bit more of an "in your face" approach to the mix, while I-R has better overall fideltiy. Again, I am referring strictly to the everyday consumer, who looks for that "WOW" factor, which is something a track with a substantial amount of LFE provides.
> 
> 
> Now, if you are looking for demo material that caters more torwards an enthusiast type demographic, they would most definitely appreciate both the better overall visual, and audio quality that I-R brings to the table. You will more than likely find yourself hardpressed to find a title with CGI better integrated than that of I-R.
> 
> 
> Of course, this is all just a matter of my own opinion.



Very well put, and I agree


----------



## djoberg

Speaking of Hancock, I visited one of my local video stores tonight to pick out one more Blu-ray to watch before I leave for Minneapolis in the morning and I had it narrowed down to Hancock or Lost Boys:The Tribe. I picked Lost Boys 2 because of the bad reviews I've read on Hancock (story-wise, not PQ-wise). What a mistake! *Lost Boys:The Tribe* was possibly the worst transfer I've ever seen. It belongs at the *bottom of Tier Coal*....or maybe we need a new Tier for this one...how about *Tier Mud*! Anyway, save your money on this one if you've been considering seeing it...and BTW, the movie itself is almost as bad as the PQ!


I'm leaving for 4-5 days, but I hope all my fellow HD enthusiasts have a very Happy Thanksgiving!


----------



## spectator

I tried to watch I, Robot last week and I made it about 20 minutes before the bad script was just too much for me. Iron Man, on the other hand, was very fun.


----------



## cnikirk

I think you should add Wall-E to that list and pick it


----------



## pacpisces

Ratatouille and I-Robot would be my pick if from that list and only two.


But... I agree with the last poster too and would scratch out Ratatouille and get Wall-E by Pixar instead.


So Wall-E and I-Robot!


----------



## Deviation

Iron Man is a better movie but I, Robot is one of the best demo discs out there.


----------



## Vegaz

I'd put Hancock near the top of Gold 1/4 or should I not be penalizing it that much for grain?


----------



## rsbeck

I look for a combination of video, audio and plot.


If you're looking for a title that has tier 0 video along with stunning audio and pretty good plot, don't overlook Live Free or Die Hard. Incredible visuals AND sound track -- if you've got a great sub-woofer or two, this blu-ray will rattle your chairs and flap your shirt. I play a couple of sequences from Live Free or Die Hard and guests are just blown away. Jaws on the floor. Game, set, match -- no more questions.


Ironman is fun, but personally, I don't believe Ironman is tier 0 visually and the sound track is pretty good, but not the demo material that Live Free or Die Hard presents. Ironman's soundtrack is pretty flat in comparison.


The Incredible Hulk is not perfect, either, but it has incredible visuals, IMO markedly better than Ironman, great sound, decent plot, and I find it much more interesting as a demo disc than Ironman.


I, Robot has stunningly clear and detailed visuals, the color pallet leans towards beautifully rendered neutrals and grays, the soundtrack is also in the pretty good category.


Ratatouille is great visually and pretty good on audio. CGI-wise, if you're looking for both audio and video demo, as I assume, Cars is probably the better demo disc between the two. Kung Fu Panda will give Cars a fight -- it's a toss up there. I lean towards Panda because its newer and I like the variety of sights and sounds better.


Although it is not considered tier 0 in this thread, Casino Royale is also a great demo disc because it's great visually, great audio track, great for mixed company, and a great movie that hooks your audience from the first frame onward.


I, Robot, Live Free or Die Hard, Incredible Hulk, Casino Royale, Cars, Ratatouille, and Kung Fu Panda are all titles you can watch all the way through because they are great A/V demo material and they have very good plots. Though I have reservations about Wall-E, it does have a nice plot, interesting soundtrack and represents current state of the art CGI.


For me, Wall-E has problems as a demo disc. It takes a good half hour or forty minutes to get to what I would consider a demo sequence and there are only a few sequences like that in the film. For demo, I favor discs where I can just turn them on and either watch the whole thing or touch down just about anywhere and let it run and it will be a great demo. For me, Wall-E doesn't fit that description.


Bottom line: In reality, you cannot really go wrong with any of these titles. If you have a home theater, you will be glad to own any or all of them and real life guests will be impressed with any one of them, so we're kind of splitting hairs here because -- you know -- that's what we do.



Just my opinions.




.


----------



## rsbeck

Has anyone else noticed the similarities between Robocop, Transformers, Ironman, and Incredible Hulk? There's a definite formula. Guy -- or his car -- is transformed into behemoth, super powered robot -- or muscle bound green guy -- and has to battle an exponentially more gigantic super powered robot -- or muscle bound guy -- to resolve the third act.




.


----------



## rsbeck

Other trends: Every other movie seems to involve either Shia Labeouf or Penguins.


In Surf's Up, you get the harmonic convergence: Shia Labeouf stars as the voice of a Penguin.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15154148
> 
> 
> *If you're looking for a title that has tier 0 video* along with stunning audio and pretty good plot, *don't overlook Live Free or Die Hard.* Incredible visuals AND sound track -- if you've got a great sub-woofer or two, this blu-ray will rattle your chairs and flap your shirt. I play a couple of sequences from Live Free or Die Hard and guests are just blown away. Jaws on the floor. Game, set, match -- no more questions.
> 
> 
> Ironman is fun, but personally, *I don't believe Ironman is tier 0 visually* and the sound track is pretty good, but not the demo material that Live Free or Die Hard presents. Ironman's soundtrack is pretty flat in comparison.
> 
> *The Incredible Hulk is not perfect, either, but it has incredible visuals, IMO markedly better than Ironman, great sound, decent plot, and I find it much more interesting as a demo disc than Ironman.*



Very much agree with your comments on the PQ of these three titles.


----------



## unclepauly




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fanaticalism* /forum/post/15153440
> 
> 
> I agree, KungFu Panda has both the visuals, and the audio that comes with the praise of a reference quality title.
> 
> 
> Now, before I give my suggestion between IM, and I-R, I want to let it be known, that if I had to choose, I would take a great audio track, over one that excels in the visual aspects of a title. That being said, I would have to choose IM over I-R. For the unsuspecting viewer, I feel that IM has bit more of an "in your face" approach to the mix, while I-R has better overall fideltiy. Again, I am referring strictly to the everyday consumer, who looks for that "WOW" factor, which is something a track with a substantial amount of LFE provides.
> 
> 
> Now, if you are looking for demo material that caters more torwards an enthusiast type demographic, they would most definitely appreciate both the better overall visual, and audio quality that I-R brings to the table. You will more than likely find yourself hardpressed to find a title with CGI better integrated than that of I-R.
> 
> 
> Of course, this is all just a matter of my own opinion.



Edit* - Didn't see someone was looking for this type of answer.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DonnerHead* /forum/post/15152450
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kung Fu Panda. Best PQ and AQ of those 3 by just a hair. I actualy like the movie the best out of those 3 as well. Just a FUN movie and the PQ/AQ are jaw dropping!



+1


I totally agree!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15154311
> 
> 
> Very much agree with your comments on the PQ of these three titles.



I also agree with rsbeck on those 3 titles, especially his view that the PQ of The Incredible Hulk is better than that of Iron Man.


----------



## DaveBowman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Asb-123* /forum/post/15152459
> 
> 
> which out of the two would provide a better reference show.



Get the rat and the robot.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15154201
> 
> 
> Has anyone else noticed the similarities between Robocop, Transformers, Ironman, and Incredible Hulk? There's a definite formula. Guy -- or his car -- is transformed into behemoth, super powered robot -- or muscle bound green guy -- and has to battle an exponentially more gigantic super powered robot -- or muscle bound guy -- to resolve the third act.
> 
> .



I'd still rather watch those than this: Girl meets guy. They dislike each other through half of the movie until they find out they love each other. Then one does something to threaten the relationship (typically the guy), and at the end, guy chases the girl to the airport (or some other place she's run off to to) and professes his undying love.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15155321
> 
> 
> I'd still rather watch those than this: Girl meets guy. They dislike each other through half of the movie until they find out they love each other. Then one does something to threaten the relationship (typically the guy), and at the end, guy chases the girl to the airport (or some other place she's run off to to) and professes his undying love.



The PQ in those movies is usually poor in any event.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15155321
> 
> 
> I'd still rather watch those than this: Girl meets guy. They dislike each other through half of the movie until they find out they love each other. Then one does something to threaten the relationship (typically the guy), and at the end, guy chases the girl to the airport (or some other place she's run off to to) and professes his undying love.



I hear you. Especially when the device used to keep the couple apart makes you dislike one or both of them so much you're actually kind of disgusted when they get together in the end, usually at the airport or some other improbable place where the guy has to confess his mistake and his realization that he's in love publicly so the audience can beam and applaud while she runs through the crowd to jump in his arms.


----------



## DaveBowman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15155321
> 
> 
> I'd still rather watch those than this: Girl meets guy. They dislike each other through half of the movie until they find out they love each other. Then one does something to threaten the relationship (typically the guy), and at the end, guy chases the girl to the airport (or some other place she's run off to to) and professes his undying love.



Amen, brother. Good lord, how many times can Hollywood make the same "romantic comedy" movie. I'll take the old worn out Superhero/Sci-Fi/Fantasy formula over the latest Hugh Grant crap any day.


----------



## b_scott

that's why I like romantic movies like Before Sunrise/Sunset a lot more.


----------



## DaveBowman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaveBowman* /forum/post/15156543
> 
> 
> Amen, brother. Good lord, how many times can Hollywood make the same "romantic comedy" movie. I'll take the old worn out Superhero/Sci-Fi/Fantasy formula over the latest Hugh Grant crap any day.



But we digress from the intended purpose of this forum..........so let's get back on track......which Jessica Alba movie has the best PQ and shows the most Jessica? Does that qualify as getting back on topic?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15156511
> 
> 
> I hear you. Especially when the device used to keep the couple apart makes you dislike one or both of them so much you're actually kind of disgusted when they get together in the end, usually at the airport or some other improbable place where the guy has to confess his mistake and his realization that he's in love publicly so the audience can beam and applaud while she runs through the crowd to jump in his arms.



Well, I really liked Win a Date with Tad Hamilton.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaveBowman* /forum/post/15156543
> 
> 
> the latest Hugh Grant crap



On the other hand, let's be thankful that they always seem to put Hugh Grant in those movies. His appearance on the cover is easily the most reliable tip-off to stay away ever.


----------



## palofex

Just got my copy of TDK and watched it. I'm sure most of you have seen the "Dark Knight PQ Issues..." thread and what is said in that thread holds true from my experience. EE is present.


Recommendation:


The Dark Knight - 1/2 Tier 1


----------



## DaveBowman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *palofex* /forum/post/15156936
> 
> 
> Just got my copy of TDK and watched it. I'm sure most of you have seen the "Dark Knight PQ Issues..." thread and what is said in that thread holds true from my experience. EE is present.
> 
> 
> Recommendation:
> 
> 
> The Dark Knight - 1/2 Tier 1



Wow, that's really knocking it down a few pegs for the EE. I see another "Baraka" style debate in our future regarding TDK. Many of the internet reviews I've seen say the EE is minimal and it's still a reference grade title. Let the games begin !!!!!


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaveBowman* /forum/post/15157702
> 
> 
> Wow, that's really knocking it down a few pegs for the EE. I see another "Baraka" style debate in our future regarding TDK. Many of the internet reviews I've seen say the EE is minimal and it's still a reference grade title. Let the games begin !!!!!



To me anything in top half of Tier one is excellent and so close to reference and based on our PQ standards we might see this get a Tier 0 pass if it has a majority of support for it and reasonable acceptance of how it looks.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15157799
> 
> 
> To me anything in top half of Tier one is excellent and so close to reference and based on our PQ standards we might see this get a Tier 0 pass if it has a majority of support for it and reasonable acceptance of how it looks.



I would be against Tier 0 for TDK.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15157884
> 
> 
> I would be against Tier 0 for TDK.



Where would you rate it?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15157938
> 
> 
> Where would you rate it?



I would like to watch it some more before deciding on which quarter in Tier 1 I would recommend.


----------



## ballen420

Where are you guys getting TDK from?? It seems a ton of people have this early.


----------



## rsbeck

 http://www.movietyme.com/catalog/pro...ducts_id=42145


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Superman: Doomsday*


tier recommendation: second quarter of *Tier 1*


Warner released this animated feature widely to Blu-ray just yesterday, though technically Best Buy has had it for the past two weeks as an exclusive. It was originally released direct to home video in September of 2007, in this case only on the dvd format. Thankfully, by Warner releasing it now I can confirm this is a Blu-ray only encode that takes full advantage of the format's video bandwidth and is no holdover from their HD DVD days. The 77 minute movie is encoded in VC-1 on a BD-25. The average video bitrate is 16.00 Mbps per the computer program BDInfo (scan link courtesy of forum member House found below). There are momentary peaks on the video encode in the high forties and even the fifties. The highest peak I observed personally was 46.9 Mbps though this is a wildly variable encoding that also stays in the single digits at times. I would estimate that most scenes hover between 6.4 and 34.6 Mbps. This is an exemplary compression encoding with absolutely no visible problems. The image is simply free of any compression artifacts.


The animation style used for this movie is a simple and traditional two dimensional approach that is not far removed from the other recent DC universe animated projects like Justice League: New Frontier. I would definitely call this Blu-ray the best looking of all the recent animated superhero fare on Blu-ray with a slight but evident lead over the previously mentioned New Frontier BD. The source master looks in phenomenal and immaculate shape. Any flaw seems attributable to the quality of the original animation. There is some very faint horizontal banding visible in the painted dark blue backgrounds of the nighttime sky in Metropolis but I am not sure it would be noticeable to a regular viewer. Check the main fight between Doomsday and Superman for an example of what I am talking about with the banding.


The picture quality is consistently great with an incredible depth of field to the image. Characters look as if they are going to leap off the screen at points. Action scenes have a strong sense of fluidity to the animation. The sense of a three dimensional quality to the image gives this BD the fabled “pop” that even other tier one titles lack at times. It goes without saying that the image throughout is wonderfully sharp and bursting with color while maintaining perfect contrast. In fact the primary colors look bold and dynamic with the familiar red and blue costume of Superman looking pitch perfect. I was trying to compare it with my dvd copy and that version is simply unwatchable after seeing the BD in action. The colors look faded and lifeless on the dvd in comparison. The color fidelity and accuracy is a high-point of this Blu-ray transfer. Shadow and low light information appear perfectly rendered with black levels as reference as the Blu-ray format can achieve.


The only reason I am not recommending a higher tier placement for this title is the somewhat simple style of animation used for this movie. The animation, while looking clean, is not on par with the highly detailed CGI seen in tier zero. There is not the hyper-detailed backgrounds and faces seen for example in the Pixar movies.


While not the best animated movie I have seen on Blu-ray, this new release presents a great picture quality that is a stunning upgrade over the dvd version. My highest recommendation for fans of this genre. I would place this title in the second quarter of tier one but I could see this BD being ranked even higher.


BDInfo Scan:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post15062405


----------



## DaveBowman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15158856
> 
> http://www.movietyme.com/catalog/pro...ducts_id=42145



That explains everything. I heard that only the Region Free encode has the edge enhancement and DNR added. Shame you didn't wait for the US release.


----------



## hobbs47




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15158054
> 
> 
> I would like to watch it some more before deciding on which quarter in Tier 1 I would recommend.




I would place The Dark Knight in Tier 1, somewhere around Indy,Kill Bill 1,etc..


----------



## Asb-123

kung fu panda seems to be the fav animated.


It realize irobot has a little better picture but i cant get over the fact that i have seen irobot so many times and it is so boring to watch at this point.


Also, i realize there are other great movies but, my little bro is 8 and that puts alot of good movies off limit. Iron man seems at this point to be my choice as i loved it and so did he. I will also have darknight at my disposal (but not mine).


----------



## Asb-123

how do u guys feel about people recomending to watch animation on dynamic mode/ up the brightness.


----------



## Asb-123

could you tell me how disturbing the dark knight is (too much for an 8 year old?) also how much gore ect. do they show


----------



## HDphile22

I am VERY frustrated with this thread!!!


I said this before and over and over... a lot of titles are NOT listed why?










I appreciate all the effort (Don't ever get me wrong there), but sorry you really AREN'T doing that great of a job keeping titles updated!










Anyone agree with me on this?


There are a bunch of Blu-ray titles on sale Tomorrow/Black Friday, I couldn't find PQ for a lot of them, which is such a shame since most of them are out for over a couple weeks.


Please, do a Better job. I BEG the action!


Thanks!!!


----------



## unclepauly

There are other places to find quality reviews of blu ray titles. I think this thread should at least have links to them if there isn't going to be a personal review of them here.


----------



## HDphile22




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *unclepauly* /forum/post/15160529
> 
> 
> There are other places to find quality reviews of blu ray titles. I think this thread should at least have links to them if there isn't going to be a personal review of them here.




Exactly, link them if necessary. Do something instead of nothing.


Any titles that are out for at least two weeks should have NO excuse to not appear on the list!


A lot of titles I don't see on the list is over 6 months, I mean there is just simple NO excuse for it, period.










Again, I said I APPRECIATE the effort, but it has to be done BETTER!


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaveBowman* /forum/post/15159126
> 
> 
> That explains everything. I heard that only the Region Free encode has the edge enhancement and DNR added. Shame you didn't wait for the US release.



I *am* waiting for the US release. If the PQ is better on the US release, I will be glad I waited!


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDphile22* /forum/post/15160492
> 
> 
> There are a bunch of Blu-ray titles on sale Tomorrow/Black Friday, I couldn't find PQ for a lot of them, which is such a shame since most of them are out for over a couple weeks.



You don't have to wait until they are listed. Do a thread search and see if anyone has filed a review.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDphile22* /forum/post/15160548
> 
> 
> Exactly, link them if necessary.



We seem to disagree quite often with other review web-sites, so it wouldn't be appropriate to start linking to other reviews.



> Quote:
> Do something instead of nothing.



Take your own advice. Don't you have a web browser? How hard is it to load in the titles and do a web search -- why would you expect someone else to find alternate review sites for you? It takes all of about twenty seconds.


----------



## rsbeck

Go to this web-site....

http://www.google.com/ 


Type in, "Blu-Ray Reviews."


Click on the icon that says Google Search.


A bunch of review sites will appear.


Click on the links until you find a site that operates the way you like.


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDphile22* /forum/post/15160548
> 
> 
> Exactly, link them if necessary. Do something instead of nothing.
> 
> 
> Any titles that are out for at least two weeks should have NO excuse to not appear on the list!
> 
> 
> A lot of titles I don't see on the list is over 6 months, I mean there is just simple NO excuse for it, period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I said I APPRECIATE the effort, but it has to be done BETTER!



It's up to people like YOU and the rest of the users of this forum to buy/rent/borrow the Blu-rays and post reviews. I don't pull stuff out of thin air just for the sake of having a title listed.


This thread never claimed to be an exhaustive listing of Blu-rays available. I'm sorry if you've mistaken it as such. There are plenty of websites available that keep a fairly up-to-date list of Blu-rays.


As for PQ reviews, you are aware that you can click a title in the first post, be linked to HDDb.net and have a listing of multiple sites which have reviewed that disc, right?


----------



## SuprSlow

Thread updated through my last post ("thread marker"). Working on the latest placements...


----------



## HDphile22




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15160697
> 
> 
> We seem to disagree quite often with other review web-sites, so it wouldn't be appropriate to start linking to other reviews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take your own advice. Don't you have a web browser? How hard is it to load in the titles and do a web search -- why would you expect someone else to find alternate review sites for you? It takes all of about twenty seconds.




However, I just would like to come to This thread and find my answers, WITHOUT going to other links.


Thus, my complaint/concern in the first place.


If I have to go to other sites, that just goes to prove the failure of this thread.


As I said before, I APPRECIATE effort already put in this thread, I really do.


So, don't take me as someone who is totally ungrateful, but I just would love to see this thread get better, that's my Request and I think it's reasonable.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/15160998
> 
> 
> Thread updated through my last post ("thread marker"). Working on the latest placements...



+1


Thanks, SuprSlow!


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Asb-123* /forum/post/15159811
> 
> 
> could you tell me how disturbing the dark knight is (too much for an 8 year old?) also how much gore ect. do they show



As an extreme example, I let my children see Passion of the Christ and at the time my son was 11 and my daughters 14. They are very mature and well grounded, but still in my son's case I do have some regret having him see it at that age even though I explained this thoroughly and put it in context.


I would say NO to letting an 8 year old see the DK. It is too dark, too intense and too violent for children of that age. The psychological trauma alone from the negativity shown by the joker without the violence shown would be too much.


----------



## HDphile22




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/15160955
> 
> *It's up to people like YOU and the rest of the users of this forum to buy/rent/borrow the Blu-rays and post reviews. I don't pull stuff out of thin air just for the sake of having a title listed.*



But, people like ME say a title is Awesome in PQ doesn't mean it will get it listed, would it? _Not really._


Could we have some kind of PQ voting thread on every Blu-ray released so our opinion COUNTS (By voting) instead of not counting until this thread get updated?



> Quote:
> *This thread never claimed to be an exhaustive listing of Blu-rays available. I'm sorry if you've mistaken it as such. There are plenty of websites available that keep a fairly up-to-date list of Blu-rays.*



That's really Unforunate, I really thought this thread could be better!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15161163
> 
> 
> As an extreme example, I let my children see Passion of the Christ and at the time my son was 11 and my daughters 14. They are very mature and well grounded, but still in my son's case I do have some regret having him see it at that age even though I explained this thoroughly and put it in context.
> 
> 
> I would say NO to letting an 8 year old see the DK. It is too dark, too intense and too violent for children of that age. The psychological trauma alone from the negativity shown by the joker without the violence shown would be too much.




I do think it depends on the child as well. Think about other movies you've allowed your 8yo to view. Hughmc is right, TDK has a lot of psychological things going on in it, but I wouldn't classify it as "gory" except for perhaps Two-Face's er.. face.


I pondered it for a while, but my daughter has seen Batman Begins multiple times, as well as Iron Man, Transformers and The Incredible Hulk. She's 5 years old (just turned a couple months ago). She loves these movies and cried when I had to return Hulk, as that one was just a rental. Of course, she also loves Hannah Montana and High School Musical; there's no accounting for _taste_ in a child I suppose! She's aware that the new batman movie is coming out - she was upset that we didn't take her to see it in the theatre, and when she sees it here, she'll want to watch it, and I will most likely let her watch it with me.


I also think that her capacity to understand a lot of what the Joker does in the film will be limited due to her age, but she's vocal enough to let me know if she doesn't like something, and if something scares her. I do know other mothers who have allowed their kids to see TDK in the theatre, with adult supervision, at around age 6-8. However, they know their kids just as well as I know mine, and know what they might be able to handle. Use your judgement of what you know about your child, and you'll likely be able to make the right decision for your family.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15161209
> 
> 
> I do think it depends on the child as well. Think about other movies you've allowed your 8yo to view. Hughmc is right, TDK has a lot of psychological things going on in it, but I wouldn't classify it as "gory" except for perhaps Two-Face's er.. face.
> 
> 
> I pondered it for a while, but my daughter has seen Batman Begins multiple times, as well as Iron Man, Transformers and The Incredible Hulk. She's 5 years old (just turned a couple months ago). She loves these movies and cried when I had to return Hulk, as that one was just a rental. Of course, she also loves Hannah Montana and High School Musical; there's no accounting for _taste_ in a child I suppose! She's aware that the new batman movie is coming out - she was upset that we didn't take her to see it in the theatre, and when she sees it here, she'll want to watch it, and I will most likely let her watch it with me.
> 
> 
> I also think that her capacity to understand a lot of what the Joker does in the film will be limited due to her age, but she's vocal enough to let me know if she doesn't like something, and if something scares her. I do know other mothers who have allowed their kids to see TDK in the theatre, with adult supervision, at around age 6-8. However, they know their kids just as well as I know mine, and know what they might be able to handle. Use your judgement of what you know about your child, and you'll likely be able to make the right decision for your family.



I wholly agree.


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDphile22* /forum/post/15161187
> 
> 
> But, people like ME say a title is Awesome in PQ doesn't mean it will get it listed, would it? _Not really._



Yeah, actually it does. Any title that's discussed and recommended for placement in this thread gets listed.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDphile22* /forum/post/15161187
> 
> 
> Could we have some kind of PQ voting thread on every Blu-ray released so our opinion COUNTS (By voting) instead of not counting until this thread get updated?



I'm not sure how that would improve this thread. The first post has to be updated by either myself or Austin. Voting wouldn't make that process any faster.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDphile22* /forum/post/15161121
> 
> 
> However, I just would like to come to This thread and find my answers, WITHOUT going to other links.
> 
> 
> Thus, my complaint/concern in the first place.



Lots of new titles unfortunately are being missed and not placed simply because no one comments on them in the thread. There was a confluence of events a few months back in this thread that has conspired to slow placements down recently. Right when the number of new Blu-ray releases exploded several regular posters here were, for lack of a better term, attacked by outside posters for the views expressed in this thread. Understandably they have withdrawn from commenting here and we are all trying to make up the deficit slowly but surely.


If you are looking for a specific placement early I would follow SuprSlow's advice and use the search tool in the thread itself to see if anyone has made comments on it. Another option would be to add your own opinion of any title to the thread.


----------



## palofex




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Asb-123* /forum/post/15159811
> 
> 
> could you tell me how disturbing the dark knight is (too much for an 8 year old?) also how much gore ect. do they show



It all depends on your child. Its going to be hard for a child to really appreciate and understand the film in general. I personally feel that you should view the movie first and then make a decision. In my opinion there are VERY few 8 year old children that should see TDK.


Christopher Nolan himself even said that he recommended TDK not be seen by children under 14 due to the violence/dark theme/psychology.



Back on TDK PQ:


TDK has EE & DNR in a few scenes. Tier 0 means that it is a flawless transfer. TDK is not a flawless transfer therefore it cannot be Tier 0. I could see this ending up in 1/4 Tier 1 but I hold by my recommendation for 1/2 Tier 1.


If they would have left DNR & EE out of the film then I would recommend it for Tier 0 in a second. The scenes shot with the IMAX cameras are some of the best HD available...simply stunning.


----------



## lgans316

Big thanks to SuprSlow for updating the main list.










Giving pointers to internal reviews is a tedious task. You can use the "Search/Advanced Search" function to grab the review links in one-go. I tried my best to help in updating the main list but aforementioned I got seriously busy after moving out of Japan and am now sitting in a country where 256~512 Kbps is considered fast.

















I think the recent frequent posters can join hands with SuprSlow to keep the list updated once a week or fortnight.


----------



## 42041

I briefly watched some of TDK, and while the IMAX footage is stunning, the 35mm leaves much to be desired to my eyes... reminded me more of There Will be Blood than I Robot, to be frank. Ranking this one will be a bit tough, since I see a very drastic dropoff between the IMAX and 35mm. I'll watch the whole movie tomorrow, and hopefully the first 20 minutes are not representative of the overall look of the movie, because right now the 35mm portions looks very tier 2-ish to my eyes


----------



## lgans316

I re-watched Mr and Mrs. Smith. Besides the terrific looking opening sequences in Columbia and few outdoor shots, the picture looked too soft and glossy with some disturbing instances of DNR smearing and mild EE when viewed from a distance of less than 6 feet. I originally recommended for bottom Tier-1 placement but it looks like the correct spot for this BD would be Mid Tier-2.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *palofex* /forum/post/15161823
> 
> 
> TDK has EE & DNR in a few scenes.



A few scenes? That doesn't sound too heinous.



> Quote:
> The scenes shot with the IMAX cameras are some of the best HD available...simply stunning.



Can't wait to see it. I've been watching the prologue on my Batman Begins disc and it looks fantastic -- way better in my theater than it looked at the local IMAX. I hear the actual blu-ray looks even better.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15162199
> 
> 
> A few scenes? That doesn't sound too heinous



When evaluating EE, one should keep in mind that just because a certain scene is not full of haloes doesn't mean EE has not been applied to deleterious effect. Film will always look "natural" unless someone applied digital filtering to it, and to my eyes, the 35mm footage looks more like the bottom example in the following link than the top.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Unsharped_eye.jpg


----------



## wantmorehd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15162199
> 
> 
> Can't wait to see it. I've been watching the prologue on my Batman Begins disc and it looks fantastic -- way better in my theater than it looked at the local IMAX. I hear the actual blu-ray looks even better.



I'm actually looking forward to your opinion on this film as your reviews seem un-bias to me and I've agreed with some of your other rankings (ie: Ironman vs Hulk).


12 more days until mine ships (w/Baraka and Le Femme Nikita).


----------



## rsbeck

Thank you -- Happy Thanksgiving everyone!


----------



## 42041

So I watched The Dark Knight. A mixed bag, to say the least. I'd even suggest splitting it into two separate entries. The 70mm portions are fantastic. Massive detail, a great amount of depth and "pop". It's not free of technical issues, since it also exhibits some occasionally distracting ringing (that wasn't present in the Batman Begins teaser), but overall the image looks filmlike and natural, and like Baraka, it still looks great despite these issues and is likely the most impressive live action content I've seen. I'd put the 70mm segments above Baraka since the image is a bit sharper and uses the full HD frame.


The 35mm segments are unimpressive to my eyes. For some reason, with the exception of a couple scenes, the colors consistently seem dull compared to the IMAX portions, and while it has a solid amount of detail much of the time, the image never really impresses. Though some reviewers seem to disagree, personally I see a distractingly high amount of EE applied throughout the movie leading to an unpleasantly harsh look, and halo artifacts can be seen in almost every shot containing contrasting edges. Skin tones tend to be very orangey, and the overall color scheme is very drab. Fortunately I didn't see DNR at work in the vast majority of the movie (one or two shots look a bit suspect but it's a non-issue in the grand scheme of things), and grain haters will find plenty to hate. Personally, I'd go through many movies before I'd ever use this as demo material. I don't think it's as good as Iron Man or Transformers. I don't think it's as good as I Am Legend (but I do prefer it to Batman Begins, which is probably placed higher than it deserves). My initial impressions from earlier are unchanged, I'd put the 35mm portions about on par with There Will Be Blood, top tier 2 (though it doesn't have the same spotty black levels).


Overall, I'd say this blu-ray is worth having if just for the IMAX sequences, which are top shelf demo material, but most of the movie is 35mm and if you forced me to give an overall grade I'd probably put it in the low half of Tier 1 [edit: changed ranking].


(watched on a somewhat calibrated Samsung LN40A650 from a rather short distance)


----------



## lgans316

Thanks 42041. As the format war is now over, BDA can order Warner Blunders to handover the job of transfer and encoding to other Studios for new releases and also order them to focus only on vintage titles. I will still buy TDK as Warner wants me to continue supporting their double-hexa-dip policy.


Happy Thanksgiving to outstanding contributor rsbeck and everyone!


----------



## selimsivad

IMO, this movie is ranked waaaay too low. This movie is just stunning! You can see every blade of grass and ever pebble during the bulldozer scene.

Facial close ups are excellent!


The scene introducing "The Guide" is mindblowing! The blacks of space are just as inky as any movie I've ever seen. The Heart of Gold's interior is almost sterile, with detailed buttons galore! Each new environment is different and unique. The Vogons were "3D like" to me.


There was intentional softness and banding throughout the movie, but not enough to be ranked that low. It was probably ranked a long time ago and forgotten, which is understandable. Thanks for reading.










Recommendation for Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Top of Tier 2



Samsung 46" LCD 1080p

PS3 at six feet


----------



## selimsivad

Thanks SuprSlow for all you do! You hard work is so appreciated! I'm sure many others agree!










I forgot to add that in the above post.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15167083
> 
> 
> So I watched The Dark Knight. A mixed bag, to say the least. I'd even suggest splitting it into two separate entries. The 70mm portions are fantastic. Massive detail, a great amount of depth and "pop". It's not free of technical issues, since it also exhibits some occasionally distracting ringing (that wasn't present in the Batman Begins teaser), but overall the image looks filmlike and natural, and like Baraka, it still looks great despite these issues and is likely the most impressive live action content I've seen. I'd put the 70mm segments above Baraka since the image is a bit sharper and uses the full HD frame.
> 
> 
> The 35mm segments are unimpressive to my eyes. For some reason, with the exception of a couple scenes, the colors consistently seem dull compared to the IMAX portions, and while it has a solid amount of detail much of the time, the image never really impresses. Though some reviewers seem to disagree, personally I see a distractingly high amount of EE applied throughout the movie leading to an unpleasantly harsh look, and halo artifacts can be seen in almost every shot containing contrasting edges. Skin tones tend to be very orangey, and the overall color scheme is very drab. Fortunately I didn't see DNR at work in the vast majority of the movie (one or two shots look a bit suspect but it's a non-issue in the grand scheme of things), and grain haters will find plenty to hate. Personally, I'd go through many movies before I'd ever use this as demo material. I don't think it's as good as Iron Man or Transformers. I don't think it's as good as I Am Legend (but I do prefer it to Batman Begins, which is probably placed higher than it deserves). My initial impressions from earlier are unchanged, I'd put the 35mm portions about on par with There Will Be Blood, top tier 2 (though it doesn't have the same spotty black levels).
> 
> 
> Overall, I'd say this blu-ray is worth having if just for the IMAX sequences, which are top shelf demo material, but most of the movie is 35mm and if you forced me to give an overall grade I'd probably put it in the upper half of Tier 1.
> 
> 
> (watched on a somewhat calibrated Samsung LN40A650 from a rather short distance)



So how does the 35mm footage compare to Batman Begins?


----------



## OldCodger73

SuprSlow, thanks for the great job you're doing. I know it must be time consuming.


There's been quite a bit of discussion about the PQ of Wall-E and where it should be ranked because the first segment, when they're on Earth, lacks the pop of when they're in space. Because of this I think Wall-E is ranked too high and should be right below Cars.


----------



## KeithTalent




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/15168246
> 
> 
> SuprSlow, thanks for the great job you're doing. I know it must be time consuming.
> 
> 
> There's been quite a bit of discussion about the PQ of Wall-E and where it should be ranked because the first segment, when they're on Earth, lacks the pop of when they're in space. Because of this I think Wall-E is ranked too high and should be right below Cars.



But that is thoe whole point of that part of the movie. When Wall-E is on Earth it is supoposed to show how ugly and lonely the place is and I think they softened or even dirtied the image to make it feel more gritty to actually convey that. In some ways it almost feels more film-like than any previous Pixar endeavour.


Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but to me this movie steps a little bit away from the normal, happy-go-lucky Pixar films such as Cars where everything is supposed to be bright and sunny with perfect clarity. Should the ranking be punished because the filmmakers decided to do something a little different? I don't think so, but I'm no expert.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/15168246
> 
> 
> SuprSlow, thanks for the great job you're doing. I know it must be time consuming.
> 
> 
> There's been quite a bit of discussion about the PQ of Wall-E and where it should be ranked because the first segment, when they're on Earth, lacks the pop of when they're in space. *Because of this I think Wall-E is ranked too high and should be right below Cars.*



I couldn't agree more! Except I would put it in the middle of the Tier.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *KeithTalent* /forum/post/15168555
> 
> *But that is thoe whole point of that part of the movie. When Wall-E is on Earth it is supoposed to show how ugly and lonely the place is and I think they softened or even dirtied the image to make it feel more gritty to actually convey that.* In some ways it almost feels more film-like than any previous Pixar endeavour.
> 
> *Should the ranking be punished because the filmmakers decided to do something a little different*? I don't think so, but I'm no expert.



You are certainly right....it was the "Director's intent" to portray the earth as "ugly and lonely," but we have stated *over and over again* on this thread that the Director's intent is irrelevant if it takes away from the sharpness, detail, and 3D pop of the movie. So, in answer to your question...YES, the ranking of this title should be punished for the first 30+ minutes of the movie.


I personally will NOT be showing off my system using Wall-E as a Demo...unless I skip to the outer space scenes immediately. And if one has to skip ahead 30+ minutes, it definitely doesn't deserve a place at the top of Tier 0.


----------



## walterg74

Sorry for the stupid question, but what exactly do the numbers 1/4, 3/4, etc. within each tier mean???


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *walterg74* /forum/post/15168656
> 
> 
> Sorry for the stupid question, but what exactly do the numbers 1/4, 3/4, etc. within each tier mean???



1/4 is the top of the Tier, so the movie titles in that quarter have the best PQ. The PQ decreases with each succeeding quarter.


----------



## DaveBowman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15168636
> 
> 
> You are certainly right....it was the "Director's intent" to portray the earth as "ugly and lonely," but we have stated *over and over again* on this thread that the Director's intent is irrelevant if it takes away from the sharpness, detail, and 3D pop of the movie. So, in answer to your question...YES, the ranking of this title should be punished for the first 30+ minutes of the movie.
> 
> 
> I personally will NOT be showing off my system using Wall-E as a Demo...unless I skip to the outer space scenes immediately. And if one has to skip ahead 30+ minutes, it definitely doesn't deserve a place at the top of Tier 0.



I totally agree. WallE should not be ranked ahead of Cars, Rat, or Panda. They are all much more visually interesting from start to finish, and much more fun as well, which contributes to making them better "demo" material.


----------



## Hammie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15168636
> 
> 
> You are certainly right....it was the "Director's intent" to portray the earth as "ugly and lonely," but we have stated *over and over again* on this thread that the Director's intent is irrelevant if it takes away from the sharpness, detail, and 3D pop of the movie. So, in answer to your question...YES, the ranking of this title should be punished for the first 30+ minutes of the movie.
> 
> 
> I personally will NOT be showing off my system using Wall-E as a Demo...unless I skip to the outer space scenes immediately. And if one has to skip ahead 30+ minutes, it definitely doesn't deserve a place at the top of Tier 0.



I still think the entire movie is demo material. The beginning Earth scenes, although are not the sharpest scenes, portray a dusty environment very well. If you have ever been in an area that is very dusty, it is very accurate. I still think the scenes with Wall-E and his "home" are very sharp. The background outside is really the only thing that is not sharp, but that is because it is dirty and dusty. Any close up of objects is detailed, i.e., the cockroach, garbage blocks, etc.


I have to agree to KEEP it where it is CURRENTLY placed.


----------



## rsbeck

Wall-E is a tough one. The CGI employed in the film is state of the art -- even the depiction of the haze in the air that covers everything for the first 30 minutes or so is state of the art digital haze, but it is still haze and still makes the picture soft.


The softness in the first third of Wall-E is obviously *intentional*.


I hate to sound like a broken record, but if you read the opening paragraphs on how to assess picture quality, especially the reference to a title called Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, the author tells us of a transfer he considers flawless, but only ranks it tier three because of the softness of the picture, even though, the author tells us, the softness is *intentional*.


I also have a problem with the way humans are rendered in Wall-E. They are simple and cartoonish drawing. And they are in most of the shots after Wall-E gets to Axiom. I am sure that this, too, is *intentional*. The film maker is telling us, visually, that Wall-E is far more interesting in his complexity than all of these humans, who have lost their individuality due to the sterile life of automated consumerist convenience they have designed for themselves on the ship.


To me, this presents us with another paradox; state of the art CGI intentionally dumbed down to make humans that lack any of the kind of detail you would expect to see in a tier 0 title. There is no creature, for example, in Kung Fu Panda or Ratatouille drawn with such a lack of detail. Arguably, humans and human faces are one of the biggest challenges for CGI -- and Wall-E gives itself a pass and completely bypasses the challenge. This makes for a very interesting message, but uninteresting visuals -- every time humans are in the picture.


So, I admire Wall-E. I admire the state of the art CGI, the plot, the themes, the message and I appreciate the choices made to carry them out, but the fact remains that these choices also result in soft and less detailed visuals than we usually see in tier 0 titles.




.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hammie* /forum/post/15169481
> 
> 
> I still think the entire movie is demo material. The beginning Earth scenes, although are not the sharpest scenes, portray a dusty environment very well. If you have ever been in an area that is very dusty, it is very accurate. I still think the scenes with Wall-E and his "home" are very sharp. The background outside is really the only thing that is not sharp, but that is because it is dirty and dusty. Any close up of objects is detailed, i.e., the cockroach, garbage blocks, etc.
> 
> 
> I have to agree to KEEP it where it is CURRENTLY placed.



Your comments above beg the question: Would you use Wall-E as a Demo for someone who has never viewed Blu-ray before? In other words, would you actually have them sit through the first 30+ minutes hoping to WOW them with the virtues of HD?


----------



## KeithTalent




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15169648
> 
> 
> Your comments above beg the question: Would you use Wall-E as a Demo for someone who has never viewed Blu-ray before? In other words, would you actually have them sit through the first 30+ minutes hoping to WOW them with the virtues of HD?



Personally I would never use an animated film to demo for anyone. Most of my friends think those films look amazing in the theatre and when they see them at home, they say it looks as good, but it does not blow them away as it is just an animated film. For me the true reference materials are live-action movies like Crank and I, Robot; they sell the format to new people, at least from my experience.


I had friends over to watch Batman Begins the other day and two of them said it was the best thing they have seen in a home viewing experience and it convinced them to get a Blu-ray player this holiday season (well one of them was extra convinced by playing Tiger Woods for a bit on my PS3 as he's a golf nut, but still).


Maybe it just all comes down to the type of movies you prefer, I don't know. I prefer the PQ of Wall-E to Cars and Ratatouille because it is more interesting and more film-like, plus I just enjoyed the movie more overall.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *KeithTalent* /forum/post/15169750
> 
> 
> Personally I would never use an animated film to demo for anyone.



If this is true, then you should never suggest an animated title for Tier 0. I say this based on the following statement from page one:


Tier 0 - Blu (Reference)



--- The picture quality of the transfer is in pristine shape and practically perfect with no visible video artifacts. The image is so clean and sharp that it maintains a realistic feel throughout and *serves as great demo material*. We recommend owning at least one of these films!


When I use Demo material, I like to show both an animated and a non-animated title, for I believe they both have their place as reference quality material. Up until a couple weeks ago, I always used Ratatouille and I, Robot. Now I use Kung Fu Panda and either I, Robot or Baraka.


----------



## KeithTalent




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15169878
> 
> 
> If this is true, then you should never suggest an animated title for Tier 0. I say this based on the following statement from page one:
> 
> 
> Tier 0 - Blu (Reference)
> 
> 
> 
> --- The picture quality of the transfer is in pristine shape and practically perfect with no visible video artifacts. The image is so clean and sharp that it maintains a realistic feel throughout and *serves as great demo material*. We recommend owning at least one of these films!
> 
> 
> When I use Demo material, I like to show both an animated and a non-animated title, for I believe they both have their place as reference quality material. Up until a couple weeks ago, I always used Ratatouille and I, Robot. Now I use Kung Fu Panda and either I, Robot or Baraka.



It is true for me, but there are several animated titles already in Tier 0, so ranking Wall-E should be based on those already present. I wouldn't have them there if it was my list (I would have them in a separate list all together), but again, that's just me.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15168018
> 
> 
> So how does the 35mm footage compare to Batman Begins?



It's a lot sharper/more detailed than BB. If sharpness is the most important PQ measurement for you, TDK is quite acceptable in that regard.


----------



## stumlad

Is there a way we can vote to exclude animated films from the tier list? Besides a couple of banding issues on some titles, they are pretty much perfect encodes and the rest has to do with "intentional" or not.


My Vote: Remove pure cgi/animation titles from the PQ thread.


Edit: End result: 2 separate lists.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15170009
> 
> 
> Is there a way we can vote to exclude animated films from the tier list? Besides a couple of banding issues on some titles, they are pretty much perfect encodes and the rest has to do with "intentional" or not.
> 
> 
> My Vote: Remove pure cgi/animation titles from the PQ thread.



My vote would be to have two separate lists (animated and non-animated) as suggested by KeithTalent and others.


----------



## leng jai

Is it just me or do Ice Age 1/2 have serious color banding problems?


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15161209
> 
> 
> I do think it depends on the child as well. Think about other movies you've allowed your 8yo to view. Hughmc is right, TDK has a lot of psychological things going on in it, but I wouldn't classify it as "gory" except for perhaps Two-Face's er.. face.
> 
> 
> I pondered it for a while, but my daughter has seen Batman Begins multiple times, as well as Iron Man, Transformers and The Incredible Hulk. She's 5 years old (just turned a couple months ago). She loves these movies and cried when I had to return Hulk, as that one was just a rental. Of course, she also loves Hannah Montana and High School Musical; there's no accounting for _taste_ in a child I suppose! She's aware that the new batman movie is coming out - she was upset that we didn't take her to see it in the theatre, and when she sees it here, she'll want to watch it, and I will most likely let her watch it with me.
> 
> 
> I also think that her capacity to understand a lot of what the Joker does in the film will be limited due to her age, but she's vocal enough to let me know if she doesn't like something, and if something scares her. I do know other mothers who have allowed their kids to see TDK in the theatre, with adult supervision, at around age 6-8. However, they know their kids just as well as I know mine, and know what they might be able to handle. Use your judgement of what you know about your child, and you'll likely be able to make the right decision for your family.



I agree.

A lot depends on the kid.

My son is 10 and will be watching it when it comes out on Tuesday.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15170009
> 
> 
> Is there a way we can vote to exclude animated films from the tier list? Besides a couple of banding issues on some titles, they are pretty much perfect encodes and the rest has to do with "intentional" or not.
> 
> 
> My Vote: Remove pure cgi/animation titles from the PQ thread.
> 
> 
> Edit: End result: 2 separate lists.



I vote against this recommendation.

Even though there are an awful lot of animated movies in tier0, there are also a lot non animated titles as well.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaveBowman* /forum/post/15169449
> 
> 
> I totally agree. WallE should not be ranked ahead of Cars, Rat, or Panda. They are all much more visually interesting from start to finish, and much more fun as well, which contributes to making them better "demo" material.



Well I definitely do not think Wall-E should be ranked over KFPanda.


Sony VW60


----------



## Hammie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/15175160
> 
> 
> I vote against this recommendation.
> 
> Even though there are an awful lot of animated movies in tier0, there are also a lot non animated titles as well.



I agree that there should remain a single list. It's not like we are limiting the Tier 0 movies to 20 titles. ANY blu-ray can make it into the list IF it adheres to the standard posted on Page 1.


If you are not interested in animated movies, then ignore them from the list. There are still plenty of live action movies in the Tier 0 list.


----------



## Hughmc

Yay! glad to see KB 1 back in Tier 0 as it is so close to KB 2.


As far as the animated titles discussion I am a bit torn but lean toward separation. Look at the top ten. Are the Pirates moves really right in there with those titles? Do they really look as "clean" and have the 3d pop? Can we really compare them?


More or less the academy separates animation titles from the rest and maybe we should think and discuss more about doing it as well.


----------



## maverick0716

That might be a good idea actually. Have a separate Tier just for animated films, but still rank them accordingly......comparing them to each other rather than to live action films.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/15176159
> 
> 
> That might be a good idea actually. Have a separate Tier just for animated films, but still rank them accordingly......*comparing them to each other rather than to live action films*.



I have actually entertained this thought for a long time and that's why I "voted" for two separate lists in my last post.


To illustrate how practical this is, how often do we speak of "fleshtones" when reviewing an animated movie? Never!

But with live action movies this is one of the primary criteria involved in judging its placement. "Lighting" is another issue in a live action movie (bad lighting can cause softness, loss of detail, etc.) that is a non-issue in an animated title. And the list could go on. So, my conclusion is that in many respects when we try to compare live action movies with animated titles we are not comparing "apples with apples."


Some may be thinking that there will be far too many tiers if we have two separate lists, but let's face it we seem to put all animated titles in one tier (Tier 0) so we could just have one tier for animated movies.


What say you?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I like the one list personally for all titles. Are there really enough animated BDs to carry a separate list? It is not like the non-animated films are being discriminated against.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15177857
> 
> 
> I like the one list personally for all titles. Are there really enough animated BDs to carry a separate list? *It is not like the non-animated films are being discriminated against*.



I beg to differ with you on this....just look at the *top six titles in Tier 0...ALL ANIMATED MOVIES*. That looks a lot like discrimination [against non-animated titles] to me!


----------



## SuprSlow

I bumped Wall-E down a few spots.


Everyone still agree that Kung Fu Panda is top of the heap?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/15178193
> 
> 
> Everyone still agree that Kung Fu Panda is top of the heap?



KFP is definitely the top of the animated heap!


----------



## sammyhd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15178356
> 
> 
> kfp is definitely the top of the animated heap!



+1


----------



## tfoltz

I like having one list,with animated and live action together. I like to know how all blu-rays stack up against eachother.


----------



## Vegaz

I vote Tropic Thunder for top tier of gold. (I forgot it was alphabetical when voting for Hancock







)


Also forgot the stats thing before...

Samsung LN40A550

PS3 through HDMI

1080p x 24hz

6-8 feet (don't have a mesuaring tape around)


Should I bother voting for Sin City since it's only out in Canada? I haven't watched it yet but was wondering.


----------



## rsbeck

Early reviews are always appreciated. Give us the scoop.


----------



## rsbeck

I like having one list. Personally, I don't like having so many animated titles taking up the top slots, but we're all going by the picture assessment criteria when we make our recommendations. If animated titles take up the top slots, it's only because they are meeting the criteria, getting the most favorable reviews, getting the highest recommendations, having an easier time building consensus around their placement. I believe that, for various reasons, the level of difficulty for a non animated title to be placed in tier 0 is much higher and that's why you see fewer non animated titles there. My vote is to stay with the one list.





.


----------



## rsbeck

*Godfather II*


Nice transfer. Grain is intact and a little more coarse than GF. In some ways more consistent. To use a baseball metaphor, GF II hits more triples, but not as many home runs. Black levels are not quite as solid, there is a tiny bit more noise in dark scenes. Still, quite an improvement in detail and clarity over the best DVD version.

*Recommendation: Tier 2 3/4*


Sim2 C3X1080

Carada Masquerade

126" Firehawk G3

Pioneer BDP-05FD


13' from screen



.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15179393
> 
> *Godfather II*
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 2 3/4*
> 
> 
> .



Perfect assessment. Be prepared to be be amazed by the PQ of Godfather III.


----------



## HDphile22

WHat's the PQ on Dr. No and rest of Bond Movies??


----------



## suffolk112000

I just watched Aeon Flux yesterday night.

How can this title be ranked so low all the way down to tier 2? In my opinion, this is an injustice to this movie.

My only issue with it was film grain and a bit of softness at times but not to the point that it should be placed any lower than tier 1.

Aeon Flux had great blacks, vivid colors and exceptional detail.

I vote that this title be re-evaluated and moved to a mid tier 1 ranking.


Sony VW60 sitting 12.5ft from a 58x104 inch Da-Lite HCCV screen with masking.


----------



## OldCodger73

I watched the Paul Newman classic Cool Hand Luke last night. The movie was excellent, this is the first time I'd ever seen it, and the transfer, especially for an older movie was very good. I'm comfortable with its 2 1/4 ranking.


----------



## OldCodger73

I'm happy with all titles, animated or live action, included in Tier 0. After all, this is an eye candy thread and animated films are are just as much eye candy as live action.


However, if we do split Tier 0 I'd like to recommend a further split-- those crap films that no one in their right mind would watch in their entirety but might show a few minutes of to impress someone with the PQ, Crank comes readily to mind, be put in a separate Tier 0 ranking.


----------



## Acronos Myth




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/15181137
> 
> 
> I'm happy with all titles, animated or live action, included in Tier 0. After all, this is an eye candy thread and animated films are are just as much eye candy as live action.
> 
> 
> However, if we do split Tier 0 I'd like to recommend a further split-- those crap films that no one in their right mind would watch in their entirety but might show a few minutes of to impress someone with the PQ, Crank comes readily to mind, be put in a separate Tier 0 ranking.



Seems unnecesary, this list is ALL about PQ. People can do judge the actual movie quality somewhere else.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/15180930
> 
> 
> I just watched Aeon Flux yesterday night.
> 
> How can this title be ranked so low all the way down to tier 2? In my opinion, this is an injustice to this movie.
> 
> My only issue with it was film grain and a bit of softness at times but not to the point that it should be placed any lower than tier 1.
> 
> Aeon Flux had great blacks, vivid colors and exceptional detail.
> 
> I vote that this title be re-evaluated and moved to a mid tier 1 ranking.
> 
> 
> Sony VW60 sitting 12.5ft from a 58x104 inch Da-Lite HCCV screen with masking.



I have the HD DVD version and the PQ is EXCELLENT. If the Blu-ray is anywhere near the quality it should be in Tier 1. I will have to rent the Blu-ray someday to see how it compares with my HD DVD copy.


----------



## Hughmc

Hancock.


I recommend Tier 1 3/4. This movie could have easily been Tier 0, and has only one issue which is out of focus shots, but the problem is they are the norm rather than the exception and occur constantly and consistently throughout the film. It is directors intent, but we ding for that in this thread.


There is quite a bit of orange/red push in this film as well with skin tones exhibiting an unnatural look due to the color. It doesn't take away from PQ, but it is noticeable.


Sony [email protected] from PS3 through HDMI.


This is what I seen. From BluRay.com:


"Also hindering the visible level of detail is unsteady camerawork, the image not always able to focus and revel in its imagery, leaving many of the backgrounds, and some of the foregrounds, blurry and undefined."


Most other "pro" reviews say a bit of the same.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Vengeance*


tier recommendation: bottom quarter of *Tier 2*


BCI released this 2006 Thai movie to Blu-ray on July 29th of this year. The 103-minute main feature is encoded in AVC on a BD-25. The encode ranges mostly between 14.2 and 33.3 Mbps, though there are some momentary peaks as high as 39.8 Mbps. Some scenes tend to stay higher in that range while many of the less action intensive moments range in the 15 to 21 Mbps band. I would estimate the average video bitrate for the entire BD is around 21 Mbps. The compression work is light years better than on some of BCI's earlier efforts on Blu-ray. There are no significant compression artifacts visible. I would not call this a top notch job either.


For a catalog title from a country not really known for its movie productions, I was impressed with the shape of the master used for this transfer. It appears in perfect condition with no blemishes or marks. There is absolutely no DNR used and edge enhancement is not used aside from one or two stray moments. This BD looks like a natural film image that has been untampered with by processing tools. The picture is very sharp though softness does creep into the picture at times, particularly when CGI is used. Color fidelity is of average caliber for Blu-ray, with contrast wavering slightly during the course of the movie. Clarity is nice but actual detail level is a little inconsistent. Some close-ups look great with excellent high frequency information but medium range shots do not appear as good. Shadow and low light detail are a little poor, with some minor clipping of black levels in the nighttime scenes. Macroblocking never really manifests but image resolution varies during these scenes. The daylight shots are free of these problems and look much better and would warrant on their own a high tier two placement.


After being disappointed with some of the other BCI Blu-ray releases, I can say this release is a solid effort. I would recommend a tier two placement for this BD near the bottom.


Watching on a calibrated 60 Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 from a PS3 (firmware 2.52) at a viewing distance of approximately six feet.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15185379
> 
> 
> Hancock.
> 
> 
> I recommend Tier 1 3/4. This movie could have easily been Tier 0, and has only one issue which is out of focus shots, but the problem is they are the norm rather than the exception and occur constantly and consistently throughout the film. It is directors intent, but we ding for that in this thread.
> 
> 
> There is quite a bit of orange/red push in this film as well with skin tones exhibiting an unnatural look due to the color. It doesn't take away from PQ, but it is noticeable.



I was thinking it was more of a yellow/blue push than orange/red. I think Black Snake Moan and Shooter have a similar visual style as far as colors.


I dont recall that many out of focus shots. I did notice grain which is a good thing.


----------



## 42041

on further thought, I'm going to change my recommendation of The Dark Knight to lower half of tier 1 instead of top half tier 1, because it doesn't really seem fair to some of the mostly great 35mm transfers of good looking movies that didn't quite make the Tier 0 cut to be ranked alongside a title with 20-something minutes of IMAX excellence and 2 hours of visual mediocrity.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15185742
> 
> 
> I was thinking it was more of a yellow/blue push than orange/red. I think Black Snake Moan and Shooter have a similar visual style as far as colors.
> 
> 
> I dont recall that many out of focus shots. I did notice grain which is a good thing.



It seems from some of the reviews I read there was both color pushes.







I noticed the skin tones more.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15185749
> 
> 
> on further thought, I'm going to change my recommendation of The Dark Knight to *lower half of tier 1* instead of top half tier 1, because it doesn't really seem fair to some of the mostly great 35mm transfers of good looking movies that didn't quite make the Tier 0 cut to be ranked alongside a title with 20-something minutes of IMAX excellence and 2 hours of visual mediocrity.



Based on a number of viewings, I agree with that recommendation.


----------



## mpgxsvcd

Why is Baraka in the middle of tier zero? Why isn't this title right there with Panda? Please I would just like an explanation of what makes Panda better than Baraka?


Panda is great and all but I can find things to pick apart for it as well. For instance why is the sky green when they pick the Dragon Warrior? There are other things that you can nick pick about also. I just don't see how I robot is better than Baraka!


I think that Baraka got ding'd simply because not enough people saw it. The color, clarity, and contrast is unmatched by any Blu-ray title I have ever seen(Panda included).


Could the person who chooses the rankings just give a brief explanation of why he came to the conclusion that Panda was 1st and Baraka was in the middle? Also has that person seen both of those movies?


----------



## KeithTalent




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mpgxsvcd* /forum/post/15186877
> 
> 
> Why is Baraka in the middle of tier zero? Why isn’t this title right there with Panda? Please I would just like an explanation of what makes Panda better than Baraka?
> 
> 
> Panda is great and all but I can find things to pick apart for it as well. For instance why is the sky green when they pick the Dragon Warrior? There are other things that you can nick pick about also. I just don’t see how I robot is better than Baraka!
> 
> 
> I think that Baraka got ding’d simply because not enough people saw it. The color, clarity, and contrast is unmatched by any Blu-ray title I have ever seen(Panda included).
> 
> 
> Could the person who chooses the rankings just give a brief explanation of why he came to the conclusion that Panda was 1st and Baraka was in the middle? Also has that person seen both of those movies?



Probably has something to do with the discussion here: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1082785 


I haven't seen Baraka yet (apparently it is a hot title at my rental place??), so I can't comment.


Also I believe the rankings on the first page are the aggregate ranking from various members' reviews throughout the thread, he doesn't just choose the ranking based on his own impressions.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mpgxsvcd* /forum/post/15186877
> 
> 
> Why is Baraka in the middle of tier zero? Why isn’t this title right there with Panda? Please I would just like an explanation of what makes Panda better than Baraka?
> 
> 
> Panda is great and all but I can find things to pick apart for it as well. For instance why is the sky green when they pick the Dragon Warrior? There are other things that you can nick pick about also. I just don’t see how I robot is better than Baraka!
> 
> 
> I think that Baraka got ding’d simply because not enough people saw it. The color, clarity, and contrast is unmatched by any Blu-ray title I have ever seen(Panda included).
> 
> 
> Could the person who chooses the rankings just give a brief explanation of why he came to the conclusion that Panda was 1st and Baraka was in the middle? Also has that person seen both of those movies?



I don't choose the rankings, but...... Baraka has issues with ringing. While it doesnt take away from the overall awesome look of the film, it is a non-intended flaw. I still believe it's Tier 0, just not as high as I originally would've given it.


----------



## ChrisPC

I've seen one of the unranked titles: "Get Smart's Bruce & Lloyd: Out Of Control". It was good, but not Tier 0. I'd say high tier 2.


It looked like it was shot on digital, so no grain, and a few motion artifacts. Get Smart had the same look in the theatre (DLP). I haven't seen it on BD to compare yet.


PS3 to Vizio 37" 720p LCD, 5 foot viewing distance


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Watched a few BRD's last night, here's my thoughts.


*Futurama: Bender's Game*

The first movie of the night for us, this movie is currently listed in top quarter tier 1, and I believe rightly so. I am limited by my equipment, I didn't notice any problems while watching this BRD, it looked as perfect as I think a cartoon like this can look.

*Recommendation: Agree with current placement, top quarter tier 1.*


*Harold and Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay*

I did not think this looked as clean as 3:10 to Yuma looked, and I watched them back-to-back. Granted, others may find more to examine in this movie than I; admittedly there were several moments that I decided to pay more attention to decorating my christmas tree than continually watching this title. The advantage to that positioning is that I was about 2' from the TV during the parts that I did watch, and aside from content, there was not a lot of issues that caused me to cringe. I'm not willing to watch this title again (EVER!!!) to attempt to critique it any further than this, apologies for that.



I was not even going to say anything about it but I checked the front page and it did not appear on the list (and search provides only 1 recommendation for top half tier 1).

*Recommendation: I would officially recommend this title to be in the top quarter of tier silver or bottom quarter tier 1.*


*3:10 to Yuma* - I personally love this film. I think it looks fantastic on my set-up, save for a few blurred moments here and there which I think were more director's choice than an actual PQ issue. I'm certain I've watched the tier placing of this film bounce on the list a few times, anywhere between top of tier 1 and somewhere in tier 2. Currently it's in the bottom quarter of tier 1. Given when titles reach Tier 1 they all seem to be fairly close to perfect on my system, I can't recommend for this title to go any higher than it now stands, although I would have no arguments against it being moved higher should someone else suggest it.

*Recommendation: Agree with current placement, bottom quarter Tier 1.*



Equipment: ps3 to toshiba 46H83, last night's viewing anywhere between 6' to 2' distance.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Roy Orbison: Black & White Night*


tier recommendation: top quarter of *Tier 4*


Image finally released this concert to Blu-ray on September 30th of 2008 after releasing it on HD DVD in November of 2007. This disc is not a straight port of that HD DVD encode with a new audio and video encoding specifically for Blu-ray. Image has made the unfortunate decision to crop this release for widescreen displays. The proper aspect ratio for this concert is standard 4:3, but this BD is presented in a 1.78:1 widescreen ratio. While shot on film Image has also made the curious choice of using 1080i on this release. These choices automatically make this BD less than perfect from a technical standpoint.


The 64-minute concert is encoded in AVC on a BD-25. The video encode is a high bitrate compression job that never gets outside of a narrow range in the 27.4 to 33.1 Mbps band. I would estimate the average video bitrate to be approximately 30.5 Mbps. This is a solid compression job given the very difficult and grainy nature of the source material though not perfect. There are some questionable moments but it is hard to differentiate compression noise here from the smoky haze that envelops the performers on-stage at the Cocoanut Grove club.


The HD master looks in competent shape though I did notice some specks here and there. I think a very light pass of digital scratch removal has been applied to this transfer. Grain structure looks fine and natural with no edge enhancement apparent. For a concert shot entirely in black and white, grayscale reproduction looks a little off. No one will confuse this image as having any depth, with a relatively flat and soft quality to the picture. Detail is suspect at times but probably accurate to the original film source. The crowd shots from the 8mm footage look hideous and below the regular resolution of dvd. Thankfully the director chooses to remain focused on the performers with the main cameras most of the performance.


I was a little disappointed with the cropping of the image. The framing looks off compared to the originally shot 4:3 composition which I own on dvd. It is not a hack job but the shots simply look composed better in the 4:3 aspect ratio. Black levels are generally solid with no macroblocking or clipping present.


If Image had released this BD properly in its original aspect ratio, I would be giving this BD a higher recommendation somewhere in the third tier. The BD as it stands now looks okay given the difficult source film material so I will recommend a placement in the top quarter of tier four.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mpgxsvcd* /forum/post/15186877
> 
> 
> Why is Baraka in the middle of tier zero? Why isn't this title right there with Panda? Please I would just like an explanation of what makes Panda better than Baraka?
> 
> 
> Panda is great and all but I can find things to pick apart for it as well. For instance why is the sky green when they pick the Dragon Warrior? There are other things that you can nick pick about also. I just don't see how I robot is better than Baraka!
> 
> 
> I think that Baraka got ding'd simply because not enough people saw it. The color, clarity, and contrast is unmatched by any Blu-ray title I have ever seen(Panda included).
> 
> 
> Could the person who chooses the rankings just give a brief explanation of why he came to the conclusion that Panda was 1st and Baraka was in the middle? Also has that person seen both of those movies?



Mild but consistent technical issues keep it from being a 'perfect' 70mm transfer that would merit that kind of placement. I don't know if I'd place it as low as its placed now, but I think the top 35mm transfers are quite competitive with Baraka in terms of detail.

(and about your kung fu panda comment: you DO realize it's a cartoon, right







)


----------



## Zeuser




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/15181137
> 
> 
> -- those crap films that no one in their right mind would watch in their entirety but might show a few minutes of to impress someone with the PQ, Crank comes readily to mind, be put in a separate Tier 0 ranking.



Ok. I have to admit that Crank doesn't have the best plot. But DUDE! The movie is so FUN to watch. It's some of the best chewing gum action!


Like yours, this is only my opinion.


(Back to the regularly scheduled PQ thread, already in progress)


HutcH


----------



## H.Cornerstone

I am not a regular contributor by any means or someone that is an expert, BUT


With what I saw with Crimson Tide, Con-Air and the first half hour of The Mummy, and watching the Godfather i cannot agree with them all being in the same quarter tier. I know godfather is a spectacular restoration and transfer, but to me those three movies still look significantly better than the Godfather, especially Crimson Tide (in fact, I would almost suggest a lower tier 1 transfer for it). I also don't think Godfather is tier 3 so I would suggest those three movies be moved up a quarter or two in tier 2.


I was watching it at about 6 feet on a sony v3000 40 inch with playstation 3.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *H.Cornerstone* /forum/post/15192029
> 
> 
> I am not a regular contributor by any means or someone that is an expert, BUT
> 
> 
> With what I saw with Crimson Tide, Con-Air and the first half hour of The Mummy, and watching the Godfather i cannot agree with them all being in the same quarter tier. I know godfather is a spectacular restoration and transfer, but to me those three movies still look significantly better than the Godfather, especially Crimson Tide (in fact, I would almost suggest a lower tier 1 transfer for it). I also don't think Godfather is tier 3 so I would suggest those three movies be moved up a quarter or two in tier 2.
> 
> 
> I was watching it at about 6 feet on a sony v3000 40 inch with playstation 3.



Thanks for your input...keep it coming!


----------



## rsbeck

*The Proposition*


Very intense Australian Western. Nicely resolved, sharp, but natural looking, nice depth, plenty of detail, you see pores, wrinkles, imperfections in the actors' faces. A few silhouettes could raise EE suspicions, but these instances were negligible in the scheme of things. Colors were pushed at times for period effect. I could see this ranked as high as tier 1 1/4 or as low as tier 1 3/4, so I will recommend....

*Recommendation: Tier 1 1/2*


Sim2 C3X1080

Carada Masquerade

126" Firehawk G3

Pioneer BDP-05FD


13' From Screen



.


----------



## stumlad

*Tier 2.5*


Got this movie as an import from Canada along with Sin City. This comes on a 25GB disc using AVC codec (I think), but I dont know the average bit-rate. Overall it's a very good transfer with no DNR (if any, it's minimal) as I saw a lot of grain. Face Closeups can be very good at times, and while not among the best is still better than a lot of tier 1 titles. You can see dirt and scratches as well which also indicates that they did not use any touchups. The one area I thought could use improvement was the black levels. While the movie was an overall dark movie, i felt that the blacks were a bit gray at times. If I remember correctly, there was an orange push to face tones, but was most likely intentional. I did notice what may have been a split second macroblocking in a dark scene. I have to go back and look, but I'm pretty sure it was there (i dont like rewinding movies when I'm watching them because it's distracting to other people even moreso than the macroblock that only I could see










I'd recommend this to any fan of the film. I actually never saw this on DVD (tv only), but I hear it wasnt a good transfer. I've got a few other discs to get to before I watch Sin City.


Also saw the first Narnia and pretty much agree with top tier 1. Everything is great, it's just not quite as sharp as the tier 0 titles.


----------



## MelloFellow13

I don't contribute a lot of input to this thread, mostly have been lurking, but I'm going to be watching a lot of Blu-rays this holiday so I figure I'll share.









*Sin City (Canada Import) - Recommendation Top Tier 1 or low Tier 0*


Simply put, I couldn't be happier with this transfer. I forgot how much I love this movie and this Blu-ray brought it back to life for me. Anyone who's seen it knows about the contrast, and it is amazing on my Kuro. I cannot think of a better movie to showcase a TV's grayscale and contrast.


While the colors in this film are few and far between, they always pop and stand out on the screen when they are present and every nuance is intact. The detail is fantastic and closeups are spot on. The transfer is clean and pristine, with no noticeable dirt or blemishes.


As far as I'm concerned, Sin City is at least on par with movies such as Casino Royale and Kill Bill, so I'll let some others weigh in on whether it belongs in Tier 1 or Tier 0.










Setup:


Playstation 3 60GB

Onkyo 705 via HDMI

Pioneer Kuro 5020 1080p

11' from screen


----------



## reisb

Is Step Brothers Blu-ray worth the extra $$$ over SD version? Most standard comedies don't focus on PQ, so I was curious.


----------



## ballen420

This title is currently unranked, and after watching it, I can understand why. It's encoded in MPEG-2, and contains only a DD 5.1 soundtrack. While the majority of the scenes take place outdoors in the sunny desert, the PQ was modest at best. All around detail was lacking in this film, and it seemed to portray a softness thoughout. There were some scenes that were absolutely terrible, and seemed as if they were ported over from the DVD.


Recommendation - Bottom of Tier 3.


PS3 - 1080p24

46XBR4 - 6/7 feet viewing distance


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MelloFellow13* /forum/post/15194153
> 
> 
> I don't contribute a lot of input to this thread, mostly have been trolling, but I'm going to be watching a lot of Blu-rays this holiday so I figure I'll share.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Sin City (Canada Import) - Recommendation Top Tier 1 or low Tier 0*
> 
> 
> Simply put, I couldn't be happier with this transfer. I forgot how much I love this movie and this Blu-ray brought it back to life for me. Anyone who's seen it knows about the contrast, and it is amazing on my Kuro. I cannot think of a better movie to showcase a TV's grayscale and contrast.
> 
> 
> While the colors in this film are few and far between, they always pop and stand out on the screen when they are present and every nuance is intact. The detail is fantastic and closeups are spot on. The transfer is clean and pristine, with no noticeable dirt or blemishes.
> 
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, Sin City is at least on par with movies such as Casino Royale and Kill Bill, so I'll let some others weigh in on whether it belongs in Tier 1 or Tier 0.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Setup:
> 
> 
> Playstation 3 60GB
> 
> Onkyo 705 via HDMI
> 
> Pioneer Kuro 5020 1080p
> 
> 11' from screen




Thanks for the good review! I would encourage you to write a review after eaching viewing.


BTW, I'm glad to see you have the Onkyo 705; I absolutely love mine. The Audyssey set up has my 7.1 speaker system working flawlessly. I've never had such clean and tight bass from my Velodyne Servo sub (though it took a little getting used to a flat response).


----------



## unclepauly

Audessey borked the sound on my Onk 605. Maybe the 705 has an upgraded version or something. Made everything sound like I was in a cave and the bass became anemic. Pretty weird. My girlfriend got dizzy and threw up on the sofa also my dog started howling at the speakers.


----------



## quake1028




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15188550
> 
> 
> 
> *Harold and Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay*
> 
> I did not think this looked as clean as 3:10 to Yuma looked, and I watched them back-to-back. Granted, others may find more to examine in this movie than I; admittedly there were several moments that I decided to pay more attention to decorating my christmas tree than continually watching this title. The advantage to that positioning is that I was about 2' from the TV during the parts that I did watch, and aside from content, there was not a lot of issues that caused me to cringe. I'm not willing to watch this title again (EVER!!!) to attempt to critique it any further than this, apologies for that.
> 
> 
> 
> I was not even going to say anything about it but I checked the front page and it did not appear on the list (and search provides only 1 recommendation for top half tier 1).
> 
> *Recommendation: I would officially recommend this title to be in the top quarter of tier silver or bottom quarter tier 1.*
> 
> 
> *3:10 to Yuma* - I personally love this film. I think it looks fantastic on my set-up, save for a few blurred moments here and there which I think were more director's choice than an actual PQ issue. I'm certain I've watched the tier placing of this film bounce on the list a few times, anywhere between top of tier 1 and somewhere in tier 2. Currently it's in the bottom quarter of tier 1. Given when titles reach Tier 1 they all seem to be fairly close to perfect on my system, I can't recommend for this title to go any higher than it now stands, although I would have no arguments against it being moved higher should someone else suggest it.
> 
> *Recommendation: Agree with current placement, bottom quarter Tier 1.*
> 
> 
> 
> Equipment: ps3 to toshiba 46H83, last night's viewing anywhere between 6' to 2' distance.



I just recently watched these as well, and I would recommend:
*Harold and Kumar 2*: Tier 2 1/2
*3:10 to Yuma*: Tier 1 1/2


Adding:
*Be Kind Rewind*: Tier 2 1/2
*Juno*: Tier 2 3/4
*Pushing Daisies*: Tier 1 top
*Rambo*: Tier 1 top


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *unclepauly* /forum/post/15201358
> 
> 
> Audessey *borked the sound* on my Onk 605. Maybe the 705 has an upgraded version or something. Made everything sound like I was in a cave and the bass became anemic. Pretty weird. My girlfriend got dizzy and threw up on the sofa also my dog started howling at the speakers.



What in the world does "borked" mean?










Your 605 should be the same as the 705, although if memory serves me well the Audyssey EQ is more advanced on the 705. It did take me several days to get used to a completely flat response in bass (it sounded a bit dull at first), but once I did I was amazed at the accuracy on the low end, both in music and in movies.


Well, I'm about to slip another Blu-ray rental (X Files: I Want to Believe) in my Panny BD30....I'll chime in with a review later tonight.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15201790
> 
> 
> What in the world does "borked" mean?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'm about to slip another Blu-ray rental (X Files: I Want to Believe) in my Panny BD30....I'll chime in with a review later tonight.



I think he's trying to say that the sound got screwed up. Sounds like it was a bad time at unclepauly's house if it made his girlfriend sick! eek!


Curious for your review on the X-files movie. I saw it in the summer at the theatre.


----------



## SteveRS




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15189119
> 
> *Roy Orbison: Black & White Night*
> 
> 
> tier recommendation: top quarter of *Tier 4*
> 
> 
> Image finally released this concert to Blu-ray on September 30th of 2008 after releasing it on HD DVD in November of 2007. This disc is not a straight port of that HD DVD encode with a new audio and video encoding specifically for Blu-ray. Image has made the unfortunate decision to crop this release for widescreen displays. The proper aspect ratio for this concert is standard 4:3, but this BD is presented in a 1.78:1 widescreen ratio. While shot on film Image has also made the curious choice of using 1080i on this release. These choices automatically make this BD less than perfect from a technical standpoint.
> 
> 
> The 64-minute concert is encoded in AVC on a BD-25. The video encode is a high bitrate compression job that never gets outside of a narrow range in the 27.4 to 33.1 Mbps band. I would estimate the average video bitrate to be approximately 30.5 Mbps. This is a solid compression job given the very difficult and grainy nature of the source material though not perfect. There are some questionable moments but it is hard to differentiate compression noise here from the smoky haze that envelops the performers on-stage at the Cocoanut Grove club.
> 
> 
> The HD master looks in competent shape though I did notice some specks here and there. I think a very light pass of digital scratch removal has been applied to this transfer. Grain structure looks fine and natural with no edge enhancement apparent. For a concert shot entirely in black and white, grayscale reproduction looks a little off. No one will confuse this image as having any depth, with a relatively flat and soft quality to the picture. Detail is suspect at times but probably accurate to the original film source. The crowd shots from the 8mm footage look hideous and below the regular resolution of dvd. Thankfully the director chooses to remain focused on the performers with the main cameras most of the performance.
> 
> 
> I was a little disappointed with the cropping of the image. The framing looks off compared to the originally shot 4:3 composition which I own on dvd. It is not a hack job but the shots simply look composed better in the 4:3 aspect ratio. Black levels are generally solid with no macroblocking or clipping present.
> 
> 
> If Image had released this BD properly in its original aspect ratio, I would be giving this BD a higher recommendation somewhere in the third tier. The BD as it stands now looks okay given the difficult source film material so I will recommend a placement in the top quarter of tier four.



I can see what you are saying in your video critique of B&W Night.

To me it gave that 50's and 60's atmosphere to the concert.

My guests were applauding along with the audience and were completely involved in the concert experience. They had never heard DTS HD MA and were blown away!

Roy's voice had honey drippin' from my PSB Stratus Gold & Silver speakers. Sony S550 6ch analog-->Sony P9000ES analog preamp-->Aragon 8008X5.


We don't want to scare people away from a $10 blu-ray Roy Orbison performance for the ages.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SteveRS* /forum/post/15202906
> 
> 
> I can see what you are saying in your video critique of B&W Night.
> 
> To me it gave that 50's and 60's atmosphere to the concert.
> 
> My guests were applauding along with the audience and were completely involved in the concert experience. They had never heard DTS HD MA and were blown away!
> 
> Roy's voice had honey drippin' from my PSB Stratus Gold & Silver speakers. Sony S550 6ch analog-->Sony P9000ES analog preamp-->Aragon 8008X5.
> 
> 
> We don't want to scare people away from a $10 blu-ray Roy Orbison performance for the ages.



Obviously for a release like this it is all about the music and in that regard it does not disappoint. I consider the performance by Orbison and the incredible "backup" band here one of the best concerts of all-time but I consider that outside the scope of this thread. I believe this is the fifth time I have purchased this concert on various formats.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15202154
> 
> 
> Curious for your review on the X-files movie. I saw it in the summer at the theatre.



Before I say anything, I want you (geekyglassesgirl) to know I've really appreciated your reviews.


It's late and I was going to wait until tomorrow to respond, but I thought it best to give a review while things are fresh in my mind. I thought *The X Files: I Want to Believe* was a decent transfer. As usual (for The X Files), there were a lot of night scenes, but I was impressed, for the most part, with the detail (at times it was a wee bit soft). The day scenes were quite crisp as well, but I found the color palette to be limited (a lot of snow!!), and many scenes took place in a hospital. Facial close-ups were a mixed bag, with some being razor-sharp, and others a bit soft, but let me add that fleshtones were spot-on. I saw no evidence of DNR, and those who will be looking for EE will be unsuccessful.


Sooooo....even though it's somewhat hard to place this one due to the many dark scenes and a lack of colors, I would still think it's worthy of at least a *low Tier 1* or *Tier 2 1/4*.


The movie itself was definitely Grade B....not anywhere near the quality of the first movie back in 1998. The pace was REALLY slow for the first 50+ minutes, but once it picked up I started getting into it. I must confess that I have been a die hard fan of The X Files for years, so it was just good seeing Mulder and Scully back together again. If you're not a fan, you may be disappointed.


----------



## Vegaz

I haven't seen any live action movie in tier Blu (Hellboy II isn't there yet) but I would say Sin City belongs there but not sure where exactly. Noticed a very small amount of grain in about 2 scenes otherwise very clean all the way through and that scene at the very start before the movie title,the first with Marv & Goldie and one of the ones involving a car (I forget the specific one,it was an overhead shot of a red one) are flatout amazing. I even paused it a few times just to look at stuff,I really liked Becky's eyes.


Samsung LN40A550

PS3 through HDMI

1080p x 24hz

6-8 feet


----------



## ballen420

I watched Wanted last night and was surprised that the movie was better then I expected (I didn't expect much). The PQ, not so much. This film was soft throughout, lacked detail and sharpness, and can't say there was even one scene that I really appreciated. Very disappointing PQ, but I thought the AQ was excellent.


Recommendation - Tier 2 3/4


On a side note, I was the one who recommended Harold and Kumar 2 to be in tier 1. Granted it was after watching a couple other disappointing movies, but if the recommendation for H&K2 is Tier 2 1/2, then this title may be lowered into tier 3. It's been a while since I've seen it, but from what I remember, the PQ was far superior to this title.


46XBR4 1080p24

PS3 - 6-7 feet away

Onkyo 606 (that didn't bork any part of the soundtrack)


----------



## KeithTalent




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ballen420* /forum/post/15204502
> 
> 
> I watched Wanted last night and was surprised that the movie was better then I expected (I didn't expect much). The PQ, not so much. This film was soft throughout, lacked detail and sharpness, and can't say there was even one scene that I really appreciated. Very disappointing PQ, but I thought the AQ was excellent.
> 
> 
> Recommendation - Tier 2 3/4
> 
> 
> On a side note, I was the one who recommended Harold and Kumar 2 to be in tier 1. Granted it was after watching a couple other disappointing movies, but if the recommendation for H&K2 is Tier 2 1/2, then this title may be lowered into tier 3. It's been a while since I've seen it, but from what I remember, the PQ was far superior to this title.
> 
> 
> 46XBR4 1080p24
> 
> PS3 - 6-7 feet away
> 
> Onkyo 606 (that didn't bork any part of the soundtrack)



Interesting, that goes against most everything said in this thread: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1084892 with respect to PQ. I'd test it myself to see, but I thought the movie was terrible and have no desire to subject myself to it again.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ballen420* /forum/post/15204502
> 
> 
> I watched Wanted last night and was surprised that the movie was better then I expected (I didn't expect much). The PQ, not so much. This film was soft throughout, lacked detail and sharpness, and can't say there was even one scene that I really appreciated. Very disappointing PQ, but I thought the AQ was excellent.
> 
> 
> Recommendation - Tier 2 3/4
> 
> 
> On a side note, I was the one who recommended Harold and Kumar 2 to be in tier 1. Granted it was after watching a couple other disappointing movies, but if the recommendation for H&K2 is Tier 2 1/2, then this title may be lowered into tier 3. It's been a while since I've seen it, but from what I remember, the PQ was far superior to this title.
> 
> 
> 46XBR4 1080p24
> 
> PS3 - 6-7 feet away
> 
> Onkyo 606 (that didn't bork any part of the soundtrack)



I got Wanted yesterday but haven't watched it yet. I will be interested to see how the PQ looks, since most reports that I have read so far have been pretty favorable on that score.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ballen420* /forum/post/15204502
> 
> 
> 
> On a side note, I was the one who recommended Harold and Kumar 2 to be in tier 1. Granted it was after watching a couple other disappointing movies, but if the recommendation for H&K2 is Tier 2 1/2, then this title may be lowered into tier 3. It's been a while since I've seen it, but from what I remember, the PQ was far superior to this title.
> 
> 
> 46XBR4 1080p24
> 
> PS3 - 6-7 feet away
> 
> Onkyo 606 (that didn't bork any part of the soundtrack)



I think that there's now been 3 of us who've seen&reviewed H&K2, I know my suggestion was bottom tier 1/first quarter tier 2, and the other was second quarter tier 2. We're kind of all over the page with this one. Personally I think that until more people see & review it, tier 2-1/4 seems to be in the middle? I still do have the movie here but it belongs to a friend and given the content of the movie, I'm not going to watch it again to narrow it down any further. (H&K1 was much, much funnier!)


----------



## eghill1125

I don't chime in often on this thread, but read it everyday and agree most of the time with the consensus. I have to agree here with ballen on Wanted. I found nothing in the movie itself that screamed HD to me. The audio was unbelievable though. The PQ was like alot of movies I have seen and nothing jumped out saying it was great. I am not a visual pro at ratings, but do see alot of the titles and if pushed to rate, I would say it is similar to my viewing as Before The Devil Knows Your Dead. Looked about the same to me as that, maybe a bit lower.


I only have a 42" Samsung 4254 plasma

PS3 60gb

About 6 feet from screen.


So you can see why I don't comment more on PQ, but appreciate all the true evaluations of you guys here.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

I watched Speed Racer last night.


First of all I must note that this movie was absolutely stunning. The colours had me mesmerized throughout the entire viewing, wondering how the heck they got the colours to look that phenomenal. I felt as though I was in the Crayola factory and something exploded.


I moved up from my normal seat of about 6’ away, to about 3’ away from the screen so I could analyze this film while I watched it. I had two huge issues with it, and during a quick search I see that some others also had one of the same issue: FACES.


In particular, the faces of the children in the beginning of the film are what bothered me the most, and then what they did to Susan Sarandon (who otherwise looked stunning in this film) and John Goodman (who just looked like they attacked him with Grecian Formula) during the entirety. They were blurry and wax-like. The fact that they did not do this to every face I think is why it stood out to me so profoundly; I could see the pores/creases/sweat on so many other faces in this film, it caused the ones they did –whatever it was they did- to the faces that stood out to me as altered to be all the more glaring and irritating to me.


The other issue I had was a constant thick blue line around people’s heads. I might have to put the disc back on before I return it to see if I’m just crazy. The scene in particular that stands out in my head is when Speed is in Royalton’s office with the 4 contracts on the table to sign. Perhaps it’s the fact that the scene was likely filmed in a blue-screen type room or something? Either way, this entire scene all I could do was stare at this thick line around both of their figures, especially their heads. Did anyone else notice this? Am I insane? I noticed it in other places as well, but this was an easy scene to remember its presence for a long period of time; it was very distracting.


My friend loaned me this Blu Ray Disc, calling it his #1 eyecandy disc. This is his reference that he uses to show off his television, which is far superior to my own. Given how gorgeous everything else in this film was, I can understand why he would do so and consider it such. I do need to watch more of the films that are rated Tier 0 here for comparison’s sake, and I understand that the overall beauty of this film can overtake someone as it is breathtaking. That aside, with the faces alone which I’ve seen heavily penalized in this thread repeatedly, I am slightly surprised to see this film ranked in Tier 0 by this crowd, if I could notice these issues on my current equipment, which is ps3 80gig to Toshiba 46H83, sitting around 3’ from the screen for this viewing.


I do have KB1 and KB2 that I should be watching sometime in the next short while; those would be the closest to compare with Speed Racer that I have. I question the Tier 0 placement for the reasons stated above.

*Recommendation: My opinion on this film is that even with its inherent beauty, this film has some issues. Tier 1-1/4.*


----------



## ballen420




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15204672
> 
> 
> I got Wanted yesterday but haven't watched it yet. I will be interested to see how the PQ looks, since most reports that I have read so far have been pretty favorable on that score.



Very curious to your opinion on it. I was not impressed in the least bit. I had much higher expectations for the PQ then the movie itself (not that the movie was good, but entertaining enough for me to watch). AQ kept me in it for the most part.


----------



## ballen420




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15204968
> 
> 
> I think that there's now been 3 of us who've seen&reviewed H&K2, I know my suggestion was bottom tier 1/first quarter tier 2, and the other was second quarter tier 2. We're kind of all over the page with this one. Personally I think that until more people see & review it, tier 2-1/4 seems to be in the middle? I still do have the movie here but it belongs to a friend and given the content of the movie, I'm not going to watch it again to narrow it down any further. (H&K1 was much, much funnier!)



No big deal on where it lands, I just thought it was a decent looking flick when I watched it months ago. Like I said, it was after watching a couple other disappointing flicks - maybe if I watched 3:10 first (which I love), my opinion would have been different. Top 1/4 of tier 2 is fine with me.


----------



## ballen420




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *KeithTalent* /forum/post/15204658
> 
> 
> Interesting, that goes against most everything said in this thread: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1084892 with respect to PQ. I'd test it myself to see, but I thought the movie was terrible and have no desire to subject myself to it again.



I didn't really find much in terms of comments on the PQ in this thread - though most said it was good, but not really any details to their comments. They all seem to agree on the AQ though - worth watching just for the soundtrack.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15205245
> 
> 
> I watched Speed Racer last night.
> 
> 
> I had two huge issues with it, and during a quick search I see that some others also had one of the same issue: *FACES*.
> 
> 
> In particular, the faces of the children in the beginning of the film are what bothered me the most, and then what they did to Susan Sarandon (who otherwise looked stunning in this film) and John Goodman (who just looked like they attacked him with Grecian Formula) during the entirety. They were blurry and wax-like. The fact that they did not do this to every face I think is why it stood out to me so profoundly; I could see the pores/creases/sweat on so many other faces in this film, it caused the ones they did -whatever it was they did- to the faces that stood out to me as altered to be all the more glaring and irritating to me.
> 
> 
> [/b]



Regarding the FACES in Speed Racer, if you read all the reviews on it you know that those of us who suggested Tier 0 were well aware of this issue. But we concluded that it was NOT caused by DNR so it shouldn't be penalized. Why the Director chose to apply this makeup on _some_ faces and not others, is beyond me. The bottom line is you can't really call it soft (maybe cartoonish, but not soft), and you can't really say it lacks detail either (for the Director chose to give them smooth, waxy-looking faces). And any honest observer MUST concede that even in the scenes with the waxy faces, there is incredible detail in every person and object. So, I still believe it deserves a place in Tier 0.


----------



## KeithTalent




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ballen420* /forum/post/15205451
> 
> 
> I didn't really find much in terms of comments on the PQ in this thread - though most said it was good, but not really any details to their comments. They all seem to agree on the AQ though - worth watching just for the soundtrack.



I just re-read that and I suppose you are correct, there are only passing reference to the "top-notch" PQ. I must have been thinking of Xylon's comments about Wanted in the Dark knight thread. My apologies.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15205457
> 
> 
> Regarding the FACES in Speed Racer, if you read all the reviews on it you know that those of us who suggested Tier 0 were well aware of this issue. But we concluded that it was NOT caused by DNR so it shouldn't be penalized. Why the Director chose to apply this makeup on _some_ faces and not others, is beyond me. The bottom line is you can't really call it soft (maybe cartoonish, but not soft), and you can't really say it lacks detail either (for the Director chose to give them smooth, waxy-looking faces). And any honest observer MUST concede that even in the scenes with the waxy faces, there is incredible detail in every person and object. So, I still believe it deserves a place in Tier 0.





I definitely respect your opinion on this issue, and I did go back and read other reviews; I got a mixed feel from what I read, some were OK with it, and others were not. I don't expect Speed Racer to be dropped based on my recommendation, but I still felt the need to state my thoughts on it.











I also think I conceded heavily in my review how utterly gorgeous I felt the film was. The colours reminded me of the half of Saawariya that I was able to stomach before I turned that off. Positively stunning.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15205624
> 
> 
> I definitely respect your opinion on this issue, and I did go back and read other reviews; I got a mixed feel from what I read, some were OK with it, and others were not. I don't expect Speed Racer to be dropped based on my recommendation, but I still felt the need to state my thoughts on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I also think I conceded heavily in my review how utterly gorgeous I felt the film was. The colours reminded me of the half of Saawariya that I was able to stomach before I turned that off. Positively stunning.



As I am sure you know if you looked at prior comments on Speed Racer, some of us very much agree with you about the faces.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ballen420* /forum/post/15205329
> 
> 
> Very curious to your opinion on it. I was not impressed in the least bit. I had much higher expectations for the PQ then the movie itself (not that the movie was good, but entertaining enough for me to watch). AQ kept me in it for the most part.



I may not watch it until this weekend. I was somewhat planning to save it for a time when I could really enjoy it since I have been looking forward to it for the movie itself.


----------



## briankmonkey

Just watched Hancock last night (Unrated cut, though not sure what the difference is). I'd say low Tier 0 or Upper Tier 1.. The close ups looked fantastic.. A decent amount of soft scenes as well probably due to the CGI, which IMO could have been better.


Pretty fun movie for the first half or so. Got a little too serious the second half. IMO they could have kept it more light hearted after the big twist and had more fun with it. Still I enjoyed it quite a bit, just more the first half than the second.


Display is a 60" 1080p SXRD 60A3000 at 7.5 feet


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15205457
> 
> 
> Regarding the FACES in Speed Racer, if you read all the reviews on it you know that those of us who suggested Tier 0 were well aware of this issue. But we concluded that it was NOT caused by DNR so it shouldn't be penalized. Why the Director chose to apply this makeup on _some_ faces and not others, is beyond me. The bottom line is you can't really call it soft (maybe cartoonish, but not soft), and you can't really say it lacks detail either (for the Director chose to give them smooth, waxy-looking faces). And any honest observer MUST concede that even in the scenes with the waxy faces, there is incredible detail in every person and object. So, I still believe it deserves a place in Tier 0.



I thought one of the operative principles in this thread is that director's intent is irrelevant?


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15203163
> 
> 
> Before I say anything, I want you (geekyglassesgirl) to know I've really appreciated your reviews.
> 
> 
> It's late and I was going to wait until tomorrow to respond, but I thought it best to give a review while things are fresh in my mind. I thought *The X Files: I Want to Believe* was a decent transfer. As usual (for The X Files), there were a lot of night scenes, but I was impressed, for the most part, with the detail (at times it was a wee bit soft). The day scenes were quite crisp as well, but I found the color palette to be limited (a lot of snow!!), and many scenes took place in a hospital. Facial close-ups were a mixed bag, with some being razor-sharp, and others a bit soft, but let me add that fleshtones were spot-on. I saw no evidence of DNR, and those who will be looking for EE will be unsuccessful.
> 
> 
> Sooooo....even though it's somewhat hard to place this one due to the many dark scenes and a lack of colors, I would still think it's worthy of at least a *low Tier 1* or *Tier 2 1/4*.
> 
> 
> The movie itself was definitely Grade B....not anywhere near the quality of the first movie back in 1998. The pace was REALLY slow for the first 50+ minutes, but once it picked up I started getting into it. I must confess that I have been a die hard fan of The X Files for years, so it was just good seeing Mulder and Scully back together again. If you're not a fan, you may be disappointed.




Thanks for the review! I agree with your thoughts of the quality of the film's content. I wondered if part of my disappointment was that I saw it about a week after I saw The Dark Knight and my expectations were too high for the X-files movie. I'll likely rent this blu ray, because I'd like to try and watch it a little more objectively than I did in the summer, but I do not think I'll purchase it for the collection.



ps - Thanks for the kind words; I hope you don't regret them now that you know my thoughts on Speed Racer! I'm just trying to contribute where & when I can, even with my sub-par equipment.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15205725
> 
> 
> I thought one of the operative principles in this thread is that director's intent is irrelevant?



I agree with you 100%; in fact, I have stated this over and over again. But the *real issue* is not the Director's intent in this title, the real issue is that there are no artifacts or softness due to DNR, so it shouldn't be penalized.


Now the argument might be advanced, "But the waxy faces aren't natural-looking, and they lack the detail we would normally see." To this I would counter that the colors aren't natural-looking in Speed Racer either (the Director chose to hype them up, as did the Director in movies like Kill Bill 1 & 2) but I haven't read one negative comment about that. Instead the colors have been extolled by virtually everyone.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15205792
> 
> 
> Thanks for the review! I agree with your thoughts of the quality of the film's content. I wondered if part of my disappointment was that I saw it about a week after I saw The Dark Knight and my expectations were too high for the X-files movie. I'll likely rent this blu ray, because I'd like to try and watch it a little more objectively than I did in the summer, but I do not think I'll purchase it for the collection.
> 
> 
> 
> ps - Thanks for the kind words; I hope you don't regret them now that you know my thoughts on Speed Racer! I'm just trying to contribute where & when I can, even with my sub-par equipment.



If I had just seen The Dark Knight before viewing The X Files I too would have been sorely disappointed.


I meant the kind words regarding your excellent reviews, even though we don't see eye-to-eye on Speed Racer. I respect every reviewer's opinion and the last thing I want to see is people going along with someone else's view just to "keep the peace." In other words, I value your opinion and I'm thankful for your honesty.


----------



## rsbeck

I agree with geekyglassesgirl (G3?) on the faces in Speed Racer.


It shouldn't matter if the effect is intentional -- it's there and that's all we can judge.


Having said that, it's ranked low in tier 0, so it is being punished somewhat, but it wouldn't bother me if it were lowered to tier 1. That's where I recommended.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15205943
> 
> 
> I agree with you 100%; in fact, I have stated this over and over again. But the *real issue* is not the Director's intent in this title, the real issue is that there are no artifacts or softness due to DNR, so it shouldn't be penalized.
> 
> 
> Now the argument might be advanced, "But the waxy faces aren't natural-looking, and they lack the detail we would normally see." To this I would counter that the colors aren't natural-looking in Speed Racer either (the Director chose to hype them up, as did the Director in movies like Kill Bill 1 & 2) but I haven't read one negative comment about that. Instead the colors have been extolled by virtually everyone.



Assuming it is an effect that is applied only to faces, my recollection is that the last Resident Evil release was penalized for that sort of thing.


----------



## babrown92

I watched wanted last night. I'd go for mid tier 1. Detail in the close-ups, solid blacks, overall a very solid transfer. Nothing was eyepopping like I Robot, but overall I thought the transfer was very solid, no EE no DNR.


By the way, I love the movie. For a mindless action pic, it was fantastic, the climax alone is worth the price of admission. Over-the-top, well acted, and plenty of violence. Just what the doctor ordered.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15205943
> 
> 
> the real issue is that there are no artifacts or softness due to DNR, so it shouldn't be penalized.



Not sure where this rule originates -- the way I read the picture assessment criteria, it shouldn't matter how the picture comes to be soft or lack detail -- in fact, I believe that's why the thread starter has advised that we avoid trying the guess the director's intention and instead just give our opinion of the results.



> Quote:
> To this I would counter that the colors aren't natural-looking in Speed Racer either (the Director chose to hype them up



Agree -- I also found this a bit off-putting.



> Quote:
> as did the Director in movies like Kill Bill 1 & 2) but I haven't read one negative comment about that. Instead the colors have been extolled by virtually everyone.



I have yet to watch KB 1 & 2, they are in the pile to be watched soon.


----------



## Steeb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15206103
> 
> 
> Assuming it is an effect that is applied only to faces, my recollection is that the last Resident Evil release was penalized for that sort of thing.



Can I ask why you haven't volunteered yourself to help out Suprslow with moderating this thread? You have more posts (by a long shot) in this thread than anyone else, average multiple posts per day, and obviously have a major influence on the placement of most titles on the list. So what's stopping you from stepping up and helping out the one person (the other two have quit for whatever reason) who's left updating the thread? Is it just that you can't be bothered?


To be fair, the exact same questions should probably be extended to lgans316 as well.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steeb* /forum/post/15206151
> 
> 
> Can I ask why you haven't volunteered yourself to help out Suprslow with moderating this thread? You have more posts (by a long shot) in this thread than anyone else, average multiple posts per day, and obviously have a major influence on the placement of most titles on the list. So what's stopping you from stepping up and helping out the one person (the other two have quit for whatever reason) who's left updating the thread? Is it just that you can't be bothered?
> 
> 
> To be fair, the exact same questions should probably be extended to lgans316 as well.



Can I ask why you care?


----------



## Steeb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15206212
> 
> 
> Can I ask why you care?



Just curious. It just seems like someone who participates more than anyone else in the thread would have an interest in helping to keep the list up-to-date, especially when that someone has a major influence on where titles are placed.


Now how about answering my questions?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steeb* /forum/post/15206240
> 
> 
> Just curious. It just seems like someone who participates more than anyone else in the thread would have an interest in helping to keep the list up-to-date, especially when that someone has a major influence on where titles are placed.
> 
> 
> Now how about answering my questions?



I don't participate nearly as much as I used to and I definitely don't think that I have any more influence than anyone else who posts a comment.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steeb* /forum/post/15206240
> 
> 
> Now how about answering my questions?



He's under no obligation to answer your question.


Let's get back to evaluating picture quality.




.


----------



## Steeb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15206349
> 
> 
> He's under no obligation to answer your question.



I never said he was. He answered my question with a question. Since I answered his question, I asked him again to answer mine. My questions were directly related to the thread and had nothing to do with how he spends his time.


Regardless, he answered the question I asked, so I really don't know (or care) what your problem is.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Let's get back to evaluating picture quality.



You guys don't evaluate picture quality - you judge movies based on their "eye candy" appeal. Huge difference.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steeb* /forum/post/15206449
> 
> 
> You guys don't evaluate picture quality - you judge movies based on their "eye candy" appeal.



Fair enough -- so, let's get back to judging movies based on their eye candy appeal -- the topic of the thread.


----------



## Hughmc

I never felt Speed Racer was Tier 0. I didn't just have an issue with the faces. I was disappointed because I just did not see the eye popping, reference material some think it is. To me overall Speed Racer looked a bit soft and in my original placement recommendation I said Top of Tier 1.


----------



## Hughmc

Wall E. Defintely Tier 0, but where. I didn't think it looked anything like KFP, but I thought it still looked incredible. The differences in artistic intent by the animators/directors makes it hard to really say one is better than the other. Sure they are different and KFP seems so clear and sharp and has wow like none other, but Wall E and the way it looked really impressed me. I know intent doesn't matter for our purposes and the look of the end result it what we judge. I guess Wall E is more comparable to Ratatouille. I just looked at the list and think Wall E's placement is perfect.










Sony [email protected] 8ft from PS3 through HDMI


----------



## aC39

I agree Hugh, but I'm equally stuck. See I bought KFP when everyone was oohing and aahing over it here and watched it, and frankly I'm shocked that some people thought it a better movie than Wall-E (not technically, the film itself). It really just felt like a kids movie, whereas Wall-E seemed to work on more than one level, whether it was intended or not.


KFP is definitely designed to be a "cleaner" looking movie with bright colors and beautiful animated recreations of asian landscapes and architecture, but my personal preference (whatever that's worth) in a lot of ways found more beauty in the muted brown landscape shots of earth in Wall-E than in KFP. I realize this thread doesn't take quality of film into account, but just technical quality, so yes I agree the artistic styling of Wall-E does take away from the general wow factor that's present in KFP or even in many cases still Ratatouille, Can we hyphenate them on the first line? hehe.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Has anyone here seen The Shawshank Redemption yet & have any initial comments on the transfer? I did a search but came up empty. I'm unsure when this was released, I saw it at the store for the first time this afternoon; it's a book with the BRD inside.


----------



## oleus

finally got around to watching LA Confidential - this is one of my favorite movies of all time and i was very disappointed in the PQ. seems extremely flat and often quite soft...i'm actually shocked it's anywhere in tier 1.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15207261
> 
> 
> I never felt Speed Racer was Tier 0. I didn't just have an issue with the faces. I was disappointed because I just did not see the eye popping, reference material some think it is. To me overall Speed Racer looked a bit soft and in my original placement recommendation I said Top of Tier 1.



But as you have said before Hugh, there really isn't much difference between low Tier 0 and top Tier 1, so we are probably "straining at a gnat" here.


FWIW, we were talking earlier about Speed Racer and the issue of waxy faces, and that it should be penalized for this. I think the placement of it towards the very bottom of Tier 0 is a just penalty for those who have an issue with that. If one thinks it doesn't belong in Tier 0 at all for the waxy facials then we would also have to remove other titles from Tier 0 based on a flaw or two, including ones like Baraka for its issue with ringing (i.e., halos). I believe many would consider that being too harsh, and IMO the same holds true for Speed Racer.


Enough said! We should move on, especially since Speed Racer was discussed *at length* before it was finally placed in Tier 0.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*X-Files: Fight The Future*


tier recommendation: top quarter of *Tier 3*


Twentieth Century Fox released this 1998 feature film onto Blu-ray yesterday. Fox has included both the theatrical cut and the extended cut of the movie on a single BD-50 encoded in AVC. The extended cut has a running time of 122 minutes with nearly eight minutes of that run-time taken up by end credits.


Unfortunately this is one of the lower average video bitrate encodes I have seen Fox release in the past year. The back of the packaging indicates an average video bitrate of 20 Mbps (AVC) which I have no reason to doubt. The encode ranges from a low of 11.8 Mbps to an absolute peak of 32.2 Mbps, with most scenes hovering in the high teens and low twenties. The compression work here is serviceable at best but does have some minor flaws. Check out time-code 07:39 in the extended cut for the beginning of some poorly compressed skies. There is also some slight but visible banding during the shots in the snowy white fields of Antarctica. Why Fox chose this particular movie with heavy grain to use low bitrate AVC is beyond me. I can only assume the decision to include both cuts of the movie with Bonus View features has hurt the overall compression work done for this BD.


The master used for this transfer looks in okay shape for a ten year old catalog title but does not compete with more recent releases. In general it looks clean but I did notice a couple of dirt marks and specks. There is also a split-second shot near the end of the movie where a dark vertical line or scratch running the length of the screen is briefly visible on the far left edge of the image. There is the presence of edge enhancement halos in many shots and it pops up throughout the movie. It is not the worst sharpening I have seen but more discerning viewers will clearly see it watching this BD. The consistent and heavy grain structure looks relatively untampered with here, though as noted above the low bitrate AVC encoding has a few problems accurately capturing it at times without some very minor artifacts visible.


Upon watching this Blu-ray yourself, make sure to watch beyond the first twenty or thirty minutes to render a judgment on the picture. The opening scenes look the worst of the entire transfer with a lack of detail and an inherent softness to them. The image quality gets stronger as the movie plays with the last hour looking closer to a high tier two title. The interior scenes tend to look significantly better with more definition and sharpness over some of the outdoor shots. Black levels are generally solid though colors are only average looking for a film on Blu-ray. There are no contrast problems and flesh tones look accurate to the tone of the movie. High frequency information does appear questionable at times but I would attribute that to the original source material more than anything else. No one is going to confuse this transfer with eye candy as the image is flat with little depth for much of the movie.


Overall I was satisfied with how this BD turned out, though I do think this film can produce a better image on Blu-ray if it ever gets a thorough restoration. This BD looks significantly better than the dvd versions I have seen of this movie but it is not the revelation superior BDs in higher tiers have shown. The image looks faithful to the source film material though I admit I really do not remember much of my experience with this movie in the theaters. I will recommend a placement in the top quarter of tier three for now but I could see this being placed in the second quarter of tier three also.


Watching on a 60” Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 from a PS3 (firmware 2.53) at an approximate viewing distance of six feet.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15208975
> 
> 
> But as you have said before Hugh, there really isn't much difference between low Tier 0 and top Tier 1, so we are probably "straining at a gnat" here.
> 
> 
> FWIW, we were talking earlier about Speed Racer and the issue of waxy faces, and that it should be penalized for this. I think the placement of it towards the very bottom of Tier 0 is a just penalty for those who have an issue with that. If one thinks it doesn't belong in Tier 0 at all for the waxy facials then we would also have to remove other titles from Tier 0 based on a flaw or two, including ones like Baraka for its issue with ringing (i.e., halos). I believe many would consider that being too harsh, and IMO the same holds true for Speed Racer.
> 
> 
> Enough said! We should move on, especially since Speed Racer was discussed *at length* before it was finally placed in Tier 0.



You got me!...


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15208452
> 
> 
> Has anyone here seen The Shawshank Redemption yet & have any initial comments on the transfer? I did a search but came up empty. I'm unsure when this was released, I saw it at the store for the first time this afternoon; it's a book with the BRD inside.



I believe it was officially released yesterday. Haven't seen it yet, but I will be getting it soon.


----------



## JayPSU

I saw Home Alone this evening and I honestly couldn't tell a single difference between the blu-ray and the dvd. Not a single difference. It looked awful, a complete waste of time. No picture clarity, reds were wayyyyy too red, picture was very fuzzy. I'd rate it as a tier 5 blu-ray. Some DVD's look better than this blu-ray did. Very disappointing.


Samsung LN-T4065f (professionally calibrated)

Samsung BD-1400

Viewing Distance: 7 feet


----------



## b_scott

Home Alone


is weird. it runs an average 33 mbps, but the picture looks like Copper or Coal to me.


I don't have the original to compare it too, but it looks really grainy and not very sharp. I would not recommend an upgrade if you already own it, and if you don't you're probably better off $$ wise by buying the DVD.


----------



## MelloFellow13

Time for another review from MelloFellow13.









*Wanted - Recommendation Top Tier 2*


I had never watched this movie and I am really glad I bought it - what a fun ride!! However, the picture quality just didn't stand out that much. I thought the movie on a whole was pretty soft, with some scenes looking worse than others. Detail was average, although contrast and colors were good.


I feel like the picture quality of Wanted is about on par with some of the other action movies I own, Spider-man 2 and Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines stand out in my mind, and they just so happen to be in the same quadrant of Tier 2, so that's the recommendation I am making. It's still a great Blu-ray and great in hi-def, but not nearly reference level.


At least the explosive audio makes up for the disappointing picture quality!!










Setup:


Playstation 3 60GB

Onkyo 705 via HDMI

Pioneer Kuro 5020 1080p

11' from screen


----------



## lgans316

Tier-2 for Wanted is not what I expected. I would like to hear from few more people before making any decision to remove it from my pre-order.










Steeb,


I have helped SuprSlow twice in updating the main list. The update was quite a huge one comprising about a month backlog of recommendations. After moving out of Japan and with the slow Internet connection speed, I am unable to sit patiently, consolidate the rankings and send it to SuprSlow.


I request people with high speed Internet connection to assist SuprSlow.


----------



## stumlad

Let's try to come to some sort of consensus here with Speed Racer...


Those who say keep it out of Tier 0 say that the face closeups are not detailed enough (though IMO some are very detailed while others appear to be airbrushed -- tho not even close to the level of Resident Evil 3).


Remember that Tier 0 is still an average. I can find many frames in any movie in Tier 0 and make it look bad. Overall, however, the movie is either jaw dropping, amazing, very good, average, below average, bad. Or however you want to rate it. In this case, Speed Racer falls under the category of jaw dropping with the exception of some of the face closeups. If there are other flaws in speed racer, please point them out.


Let's look at one other highly regarded Tier 0 movie: Man on Fire. This is an awesome looking title...except for the many short spans where there is raw-grainy looking footage. I dont think there are many who say Man on Fire does not belong in Tier 0, but for those of you who think it's Tier 0, how can you accept its PQ issues while saying Speed Racer isn't worthy?


I could have picked other Tier 0 titles, but chose this one because it's another example where there overall movie is jaw dropping, except the intentional pieces of footage where it wasn't supposed to be.


If face-closeups are so important, then shouldnt many of the animations get knocked down? Heck, in I, Robot, do we ever really see a good face closeup of the female lead? Wasn't there airbrushing done to her ?


----------



## MelloFellow13

Wanted has the same kinds of issues that Iron Man did, I'd say. I might have been too critical of Wanted but then the same thing happened with IM - it too will probably balance out around the Tier 1 mark. I originally was going to say low Tier 1 or Tier 2, but it felt to me like it was more on par with the movies I mentioned which is why I ultimately decided Tier 2.


Again, I'm new at this review thing so don't take my word as gospel or anything.


----------



## MelloFellow13

*From Dusk Til Dawn (Canada Import) - Recommendation low Tier 2*


Another blind buy for me - this movie is CRAZY haha. The picture quality was pretty inconsistent - some of the earlier scenes actually looked great, but later in the movie there are scenes where the contrast is poor and things feel a little washed out. Detail isn't that great either. Also, the print is dirty, specks and blotches are everywhere in this film - although they may very well be intentional knowing the Rodriguez/Tarantino track record.










I'd say the picture quality is on par other movies I own such as The Shining and The Hunt for Red October, so my recommendation is the bottom 1/4 of Tier 2. Still noticibly hi-def but too inconsistent.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

I didn't mean to restart the debate on Speed Racer. =/ I just didn't happen to see it until a couple weeks after everyone else did. Sorry!! I also think I had bigger issue with the big dark lines I saw on people in certain scenes in Speed Racer than I did with the faces (although the faces were glaring). I popped the BRD in my computer to see if it looked any different - that scene with Speed & the contracts to be signed - and still saw it on my computer, but I have no clue how to take a screenshot of a BRD (and feel all the more stupid for not knowing how to do this!!)to try and show what I'm referring to.


Moving on...


I only saw one review in here so far for Narnia: Prince Caspian; I'll be able to provide one for that in the next day or so. I've only seen the first half thus far, it's a lot longer than I anticipated and I needed to get my daughter to bed & we will finish it tomorrow after she's home from school. I had some issues with the beginning of it; I'm going to rewatch the part I had problem with to double check.


----------



## Dave Mack

Sin City is about the best BD I've seen yet. Highly recommended.


----------



## sammyhd

The new PQ thread for blu-ray=eye candy=speed racer=tier 0....










HL-t6189s led dlp

BD-30

PS3

Onkyo 805


----------



## alexg75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steeb* /forum/post/15206449
> 
> 
> I never said he was. He answered my question with a question. Since I answered his question, I asked him again to answer mine. My questions were directly related to the thread and had nothing to do with how he spends his time.
> 
> 
> Regardless, he answered the question I asked, so I really don't know (or care) what your problem is.
> 
> 
> 
> You guys don't evaluate picture quality - you judge movies based on their "eye candy" appeal. Huge difference.



Oooooooooh Snap!!!!


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oleus* /forum/post/15208568
> 
> 
> finally got around to watching LA Confidential - this is one of my favorite movies of all time and i was very disappointed in the PQ. seems extremely flat and often quite soft...i'm actually shocked it's anywhere in tier 1.



Really?


I finally got around to watching it as well and agree with the placement. Pristine transfer with great contrast, inky blacks, detailed closeups and no hint of EE or DNR.


I was mostly impressed by the night scenes where I expected to see a lot of noise, but didn't see any.


----------



## Mel2

Wanted is lower tier 0, maybe top of tier 1 if you really want to knit pick. the tier 2 reference is absurd. it's a reference quality encode according to reviews at home theater mag and high def digest. PQ kind of reminds me of crank. I put it a notch below incredible hulk.

Prince Caspian- tier 0. incredible detail and razor sharp. blacks and contrast were excellent. all that mixed with the beautiful scenery makes this one of the best and clean transfers I've seen.


----------



## Coxwell

I haven't come back here for a while.

*Tropic Thunder - Tier 1*


A beautiful disc with razor sharp edges and definition all over the movie. Color rendition gets the maximum mark but the contrast is maybe too high. oversaturated ?

I wouldn't recommand it for Tier Reference because of the lacks in dark shots. The blacks look a bit too grey, and some disturbing digital noise appears in a few scenes.

Recommanded.


----------



## eghill1125

I would still have to agree with Wanted being top of tier 2. Like I said yesterday, I don't add alot of opinions on the rankings because my TV is a 42" and that would make things look alot better to me than someone with a 110" screen, but I do see a ton of these movies and I generally feel the same about where the titles get placed with others. Wanted came out PQ wise as the same to me as Before The Devil Knows Your Dead which is right along the lines of MelloFellow's viewing. AQ is unbelievable and movie was a fun watch, but I was hoping for better for the PQ. Just an opinion. Top of Tier 2 seems right by my viewing.


----------



## ballen420




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mel2* /forum/post/15212882
> 
> 
> Wanted is lower tier 0, maybe top of tier 1 if you really want to knit pick. the tier 2 reference is absurd. it's a reference quality encode according to reviews at home theater mag and high def digest. PQ kind of reminds me of crank. I put it a notch below incredible hulk.
> 
> Prince Caspian- tier 0. incredible detail and razor sharp. blacks and contrast were excellent. all that mixed with the beautiful scenery makes this one of the best and clean transfers I've seen.



No offense, but I strongly disagree and feel tier 0 is absurd. I'm very surprised that you feel it could remind you of Crank - especially when Crank was one of those pictures that was all about eye candy and '3D pop'. Wanted didn't display any of those same qualities.


I still believe this is a tier 2 title, but would have no problems with it being in the bottom of tier 1. Again, these are all opinions, and ultimately should be placed where the majority feel it should.


----------



## Jenova




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MelloFellow13* /forum/post/15210944
> 
> 
> Time for another review from MelloFellow13.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Wanted - Recommendation Top Tier 2*
> 
> 
> I had never watched this movie and I am really glad I bought it - what a fun ride!! However, the picture quality just didn't stand out that much. I thought the movie on a whole was pretty soft, with some scenes looking worse than others. Detail was average, although contrast and colors were good.
> 
> 
> I feel like the picture quality of Wanted is about on par with some of the other action movies I own, Spider-man 2 and Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines stand out in my mind, and they just so happen to be in the same quadrant of Tier 2, so that's the recommendation I am making. It's still a great Blu-ray and great in hi-def, but not nearly reference level.
> 
> 
> At least the explosive audio makes up for the disappointing picture quality!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Setup:
> 
> 
> Playstation 3 60GB
> 
> Onkyo 705 via HDMI
> 
> Pioneer Kuro 5020 1080p
> 
> 11' from screen



I thought Wanted looked fantastic! It had a nice film-like look, but with enough pop, sharpness, and detail that you expect from a new release. Maybe bottom or middle Tier 1 for me










And hey look, we almost have the same EXACT setup (cept my distance was about 8')


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15212384
> 
> 
> I didn't mean to restart the debate on Speed Racer. =/ I just didn't happen to see it until a couple weeks after everyone else did. Sorry!! I also think I had bigger issue with the big dark lines I saw on people in certain scenes in Speed Racer than I did with the faces (although the faces were glaring). I popped the BRD in my computer to see if it looked any different - that scene with Speed & the contracts to be signed - and still saw it on my computer, but I have no clue how to take a screenshot of a BRD (and feel all the more stupid for not knowing how to do this!!)to try and show what I'm referring to.



It's good that we discuss this stuff because there are always exceptions. According to Tier 0:



> Quote:
> The picture quality of the transfer is in pristine shape and practically perfect with no visible video artifacts. The image is so clean and sharp that it maintains a realistic feel throughout and serves as great demo material. We recommend owning at least one of these films!



We could have debates on this forever right? "realistic feel" -- that wold disqualify a lot of movies if we interpret that to say it should look like real life. All the CGI animations would disappear. Crank would disappear. Even aritifacts... I'm sure we can find plenty of artifacts in most of the Tier 0 titles.


The problem is, some people refer to the rule to disqualify a title, while other titles clearly break rules as well.


Anyway, back to speed racer. Can you give me a specific time where these big dark lines occur ? Are they blocks or like striped lines? If you can tell me, I can try to take a screen shot. Does it occur once or twice, or throughout the entire movie?


----------



## beauv




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ballen420* /forum/post/15213737
> 
> 
> no offense, but i strongly disagree and feel tier 0 is absurd. I'm very surprised that you feel it could remind you of crank - especially when crank was one of those pictures that was all about eye candy and '3d pop'. Wanted didn't display any of those same qualities.
> 
> 
> I still believe this is a tier 2 title, but would have no problems with it being in the bottom of tier 1. Again, these are all opinions, and ultimately should be placed where the majority feel it should.



+1


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15214889
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, back to speed racer. Can you give me a specific time where these big dark lines occur ? Are they blocks or like striped lines? If you can tell me, I can try to take a screen shot. Does it occur once or twice, or throughout the entire movie?



I see it often throughout the entire movie. It's like someone took a cobalt blue jiffy marker and drew an edge around people who are likely standing in front of a blue screen; almost like what I'd expect to see out of an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation; what would look awesome back in 1987, falling exceedingly short of the mark 21 years later.



The scene that showed it to me the most was Chapter 10, which begins at 39:51. I can't stand Power DVD or whatever the hell this program that came on my computer is, but I was able to grab a few times around where it occurs. It happens almost throughout the scene, but in the close-ups the blue edge is gone, it's more in the shots of them standing or walking.


Here are some times where I was able to pause it for you check out:


40:16 - I can see it on Speed's shoulder and Royalton's arm, which is draped over Speed's shoulder.


40:26 - All the way down Royalton's back and leg.


40:35 - From the top of Speed's head until the end of his sleeve on his left (my right) side.



Perhaps this is normal for this type of movie, I don't know, and I'm just being too picky. I'm usually extremely happy with the picture we get on our tv (toshiba 46H83, not exactly top of the line), and many issues I've seen people bring up in this thread are not apparent on my equipment and I get to live in happy, but ignorant, bliss.



What I do know is, this blue line appeared often throughout this movie. I had begun to question myself yesterday, wondering if it was just my TV's quality working against me instead of for me as it usually does. But when I popped it into my computer and still saw the same thing, well, maybe I'm not crazy. My monitor and my television are both using different blu ray players (computer has PLDS BD-RE DH-4B1S google tells me that's a Phillips, and TV uses 80gig ps3). My computer monitor is Samsung 2243WM, if that makes any difference, and my OS is Windows Vista.



I'm ok if Speed Racer stays in tier 0, even if my recommendation is 1-1/4. Speed Racer was a beautiful movie to watch, but the blue line irritated the hell out of me.


Oh, for when I watched SR, I was about 3' from my screen, and I am maybe 12" from the monitor when I was looking for time stamps to give you for the blue lines.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15215918
> 
> 
> I see it often throughout the entire movie. It's like someone took a cobalt blue jiffy marker and drew an edge around people who are likely standing in front of a blue screen; almost like what I'd expect to see out of an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation; what would look awesome back in 1987, falling exceedingly short of the mark 21 years later.
> 
> 
> 
> The scene that showed it to me the most was Chapter 10, which begins at 39:51. I can't stand Power DVD or whatever the hell this program that came on my computer is, but I was able to grab a few times around where it occurs. It happens almost throughout the scene, but in the close-ups the blue edge is gone, it's more in the shots of them standing or walking.
> 
> 
> Here are some times where I was able to pause it for you check out:
> 
> 
> 40:16 - I can see it on Speed's shoulder and Royalton's arm, which is draped over Speed's shoulder.
> 
> 
> 40:26 - All the way down Royalton's back and leg.
> 
> 
> 40:35 - From the top of Speed's head until the end of his sleeve on his left (my right) side.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this is normal for this type of movie, I don't know, and I'm just being too picky. I'm usually extremely happy with the picture we get on our tv (toshiba 46H83, not exactly top of the line), and many issues I've seen people bring up in this thread are not apparent on my equipment and I get to live in happy, but ignorant, bliss.
> 
> 
> 
> What I do know is, this blue line appeared often throughout this movie. I had begun to question myself yesterday, wondering if it was just my TV's quality working against me instead of for me as it usually does. But when I popped it into my computer and still saw the same thing, well, maybe I'm not crazy. My monitor and my television are both using different blu ray players (computer has PLDS BD-RE DH-4B1S google tells me that's a Phillips, and TV uses 80gig ps3). My computer monitor is Samsung 2243WM, if that makes any difference, and my OS is Windows Vista.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm ok if Speed Racer stays in tier 0, even if my recommendation is 1-1/4. Speed Racer was a beautiful movie to watch, but the blue line irritated the hell out of me.
> 
> 
> Oh, for when I watched SR, I was about 3' from my screen, and I am maybe 12" from the monitor when I was looking for time stamps to give you for the blue lines.



What you're describing sounds like edge enhancement (EE). I don't recall noticing it, but perhaps I was so irritated by the softness that I overlooked it.


----------



## ChrisPC




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15215918
> 
> 
> 
> What I do know is, this blue line appeared often throughout this movie. I had begun to question myself yesterday, wondering if it was just my TV's quality working against me instead of for me as it usually does. But when I popped it into my computer and still saw the same thing, well, maybe I'm not crazy.




I just watched SR last night and didn't see it, but I wasn't looking for it. I did see some odd outlines on people here and there for a second or two. I think it was due to the CGI compositing and not video compression. All in all, I would give it Tier 0.


----------



## 42041

Keep in mind that Speed Racer was shot on digital cameras, which can have annoying purple fringing artifacts due to the way CCD sensors work. (though I haven't seen this movie and have no desire to, so I don't know for sure what the issue looks like)


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ChrisPC* /forum/post/15216987
> 
> 
> I just watched SR last night and didn't see it, but I wasn't looking for it. I did see some odd outlines on people here and there for a second or two. I think it was due to the CGI compositing and not video compression. All in all, I would give it Tier 0.




I think this is the biggest part of my problem with it -- I wasn't looking for it. It stood out so I noticed it.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15217062
> 
> 
> Keep in mind that Speed Racer was shot on digital cameras, which can have annoying purple fringing artifacts due to the way CCD sensors work. (though I haven't seen this movie and have no desire to, so I don't know for sure what the issue looks like)



Would that not then be a strike against it's picture quality? Or is this something that is just accepted and ignored? I'm asking honestly and not sarcastically. I hesitated sharing my opinion, but figured it was still valid; if this is something that doesn't 'count' I'd really like to know.







I'm just a housewife who likes to watch pretty things in high definition with a tendency for pickiness; far from an expert here.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15217303
> 
> 
> I'm just a housewife who likes to watch pretty things in high definition with a tendency for pickiness; far from an expert here.



You're an expert in the realm that matters most in here; your experience, what you see, and your opinion.


I think we're a healthier organism if we hear opinions from a wide array of people.




.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15215918
> 
> 
> I see it often throughout the entire movie. It's like someone took a cobalt blue jiffy marker and drew an edge around people who are likely standing in front of a blue screen; almost like what I'd expect to see out of an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation; what would look awesome back in 1987, falling exceedingly short of the mark 21 years later.
> 
> 
> 
> The scene that showed it to me the most was Chapter 10, which begins at 39:51. I can't stand Power DVD or whatever the hell this program that came on my computer is, but I was able to grab a few times around where it occurs. It happens almost throughout the scene, but in the close-ups the blue edge is gone, it's more in the shots of them standing or walking.
> 
> 
> Here are some times where I was able to pause it for you check out:
> 
> 
> 40:16 - I can see it on Speed's shoulder and Royalton's arm, which is draped over Speed's shoulder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 40:26 - All the way down Royalton's back and leg.
> 
> 
> 40:35 - From the top of Speed's head until the end of his sleeve on his left (my right) side.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps this is normal for this type of movie, I don't know, and I'm just being too picky. I'm usually extremely happy with the picture we get on our tv (toshiba 46H83, not exactly top of the line), and many issues I've seen people bring up in this thread are not apparent on my equipment and I get to live in happy, but ignorant, bliss.
> 
> 
> 
> What I do know is, this blue line appeared often throughout this movie. I had begun to question myself yesterday, wondering if it was just my TV's quality working against me instead of for me as it usually does. But when I popped it into my computer and still saw the same thing, well, maybe I'm not crazy. My monitor and my television are both using different blu ray players (computer has PLDS BD-RE DH-4B1S google tells me that's a Phillips, and TV uses 80gig ps3). My computer monitor is Samsung 2243WM, if that makes any difference, and my OS is Windows Vista.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm ok if Speed Racer stays in tier 0, even if my recommendation is 1-1/4. Speed Racer was a beautiful movie to watch, but the blue line irritated the hell out of me.
> 
> 
> Oh, for when I watched SR, I was about 3' from my screen, and I am maybe 12" from the monitor when I was looking for time stamps to give you for the blue lines.



I'll take a look... but if i find the movie unwatchable after this, I'll hold you responsible







Then again, I'm not really sure if I liked the movie or not... Anyway, I'll try to take some frame captures so we can all see.



> Quote:
> Would that not then be a strike against it's picture quality? Or is this something that is just accepted and ignored? I'm asking honestly and not sarcastically. I hesitated sharing my opinion, but figured it was still valid; if this is something that doesn't 'count' I'd really like to know. I'm just a housewife who likes to watch pretty things in high definition with a tendency for pickiness; far from an expert here.



None of us are experts, we're just picky people in general. When most of us mention any of these things to non-videophiles, they look at us and laugh.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/15212119
> 
> 
> I request people with high speed Internet connection to assist SuprSlow.



I understand completely lgans316. I remember trudging around sites on a dial-up connection in the past and doing anything on the Internet was a slow and painful exercise. I still hope you will be able to recommend placements for this thread.










I think having geekyglassesgirl give her opinion here is a needed voice for this thread. Females have a genetic advantage in color vision ability over males. We seem to be picking up lots of new posters here lately which can only be a good thing for the quality of the final results.


----------



## stumlad

Here are 3 caps from the time frames you mentioned. I see it, but wouldn't say its anywhere near as bad as blue-screen outline effects of many other movies/tv shows.
   


Here are a few other shots.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*X-Files: I Want To Believe*


tier recommendation: third quarter of *Tier 1*


Twentieth Century Fox released this to Blu-ray in the past week. Once again they have included both an extended cut of the movie and the theatrical cut on a single BD-50 encoded in AVC. The extended cut runs a length of 108 minutes. The back of the BD packaging indicates the average video bitrate to be 19.5 Mbps which seems close enough to what I observed. The video encode ranges from 11.3 Mbps to a high of 36.7 Mbps, but the bulk of the movie hovers in the 14 to 24 Mbps band.


The compression work here is credited to Panasonic Blu-ray Disc Authoring and Compression Services in Hollywood, California. I was pleasantly surprised at how good this video compression job was after watching the first X-Files Blu-ray the other day. There are no significant compression artifacts visible except two ultra brief shots of compression noise and one barely visible instance of macroblocking. The source appears less grainy and cleaner than the first movie, which seems to have allowed the low bitrate AVC video encode to faithfully reproduce the image without problems. I still would have preferred a higher average video encode but I can not quibble with the results.


I saw this feature in movie theaters twice (maybe one of the only persons in the world going off its box office gross revenue) and the second time around I was very conscious to pay attention to how it looked to compare it to the future Blu-ray release. All I can say is that Fox has done a spectacular job transferring this movie to Blu-ray. This BD simply outclasses what I saw theatrically both times at different venues in terms of picture quality. I was a little disappointed at the visual look of this film in the theaters, which seemed a somewhat dull and dank image at times. It does appear they have slightly changed the color timing for this transfer to the betterment of the image. Flesh tones look a touch redder and darker on the Blu-ray though nothing that stands out from other Blu-rays.


The HD master that this Blu-ray is sourced from looks in perfect shape with absolutely no stray marks or scratches or dirt. Colors exhibit a strong sense of color fidelity and range and might be the main difference with the prints I saw in theaters. Shadow detail and low light information is very nicely rendered with excellent black levels for the entirety of the feature. The image shows strong depth and dimensionality with solid pop, typical of a good tier one Blu-ray. There really are no soft moments with excellent clarity and sharp resolution throughout the feature. I was very impressed by the amount of fine detail visible in the faces of Mulder and Scully. Their ages are starting to show with visible wrinkles and lines.


There is no use of digital airbrushing or DVNR to change anything here. In fact high frequency detail is great even in medium and long depth shots. There is some minor ringing visible in a few scenes (particularly early in the movie) but it looks much less intrusive than what is on the Fight The Future BD. The flesh tones do look slightly warmer on this disc than what I saw in the theaters. Scully looked washed out and pale in the theaters by comparison.


After watching this twice in theaters I am stunned at how good this Blu-ray's visual quality turned out. It does appear a little tweaking has been done for this transfer but the results speak for themselves. The results blew away all my expectations for this movie's picture quality. I am recommending a placement in the third quarter of tier one. I would highly recommend this BD to all fans of the X-Files.


----------



## LunchboxGTI

I picked up Mad Men Season one on Black Friday. I watched this show on AMC HD and the PQ was not very great. I popped in the Blu-Ray last night and was blown away at the level of detail! I own many of the Tier 0 titles and I feel that this belongs in the Tier 0 category.


If you've never had the chance to check out the show, you won't be disappointed.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15219232
> 
> 
> 
> I think having geekyglassesgirl give her opinion here is a needed voice for this thread. Females have a genetic advantage in color vision ability over males. We seem to be picking up lots of new posters here lately which can only be a good thing for the quality of the final results.



Thanks Phantom Stranger!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15219345
> 
> 
> Here are 3 caps from the time frames you mentioned. *I see it*, but wouldn't say its anywhere near as bad as blue-screen outline effects of many other movies/tv shows.



I'm just glad you can also see it too. I'm not crazy!


You quoted this to me earlier:



> Quote:
> The picture quality of the transfer is in pristine shape and practically perfect with no visible video artifacts. The image is so clean and sharp that it maintains a realistic feel throughout and serves as great demo material. We recommend owning at least one of these films!



With this movie, whenever I saw that blue line stuff, it broke the 'realistic feel' for me; I was reminded that what I was watching was a movie. I have children that are disney-freaks and I am an avid sci-fi fan, so watching a crayola-esque cartoon-based-live-action movie was still able to be 'real' to me, as much as watching something such as this could be. This is the last I'll talk about Speed Racer in this thread, and my final explanation for my tier 1-1/4 reccomendation instead of tier 0.


----------



## zinfamous




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LunchboxGTI* /forum/post/15219736
> 
> 
> I picked up Mad Men Season one on Black Friday. I watched this show on AMC HD and the PQ was not very great. I pooped in the Blu-Ray last night and was blown away at the level of detail! I own many of the Tier 0 titles and I feel that this belongs in the Tier 0 category.
> 
> 
> If you've never had the chance to check out the show, you won't be disappointed.



Good to hear. the PQ on AMC HD was indeed terrible. I've noticed some HD broadcasts have this "crushed" color palate, where flesh tones appear smudged. Very noticeable in faces. I saw this throughout the 2nd season of Mad Men and on a few ABC HD programs.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15219232
> 
> 
> I understand completely lgans316. I remember trudging around sites on a dial-up connection in the past and doing anything on the Internet was a slow and painful exercise. I still hope you will be able to recommend placements for this thread.



It took nearly 8 minutes to load the Dark Knight Comparison PIX thread.










It would be great if you or geekyglassesgirl can help SuprSlow or co-moderate this thread.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/15221421
> 
> 
> It took nearly 8 minutes to load the Dark Knight Comparison PIX thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would be great if you or geekyglassesgirl can help SuprSlow or co-moderate this thread.













I'm pretty new here & just started to contribute, but if you want me to help out I'm willing to pitch in; feel free to PM me to give me more info about what to do.


----------



## Vegaz

I'd put Wanted in the same tier as Iron Man wich would be Gold 2? The numbers are after the list so it's a bit confusing there.


I thought it was odd there was one scene that was so much better looking than any other one in the movie and I don't know why it was. It's the one where Fox and Wesly are doing the train training at night,that particular scene is absolutly gorgeous and if the rest of the movie looked like that _then_ I'd say it should be in 0 but it's just the one scene for some reason. Even the later scene on the train at night didn't look as good as that one. Was that like a one off IMax scene?


----------



## stumlad

Top Tier 1


I'd rate this as slightly better than the first one. This movie had a slight blue push to it, similar, but not as strong as Hancock. I don't recall the first having this. My guess is that this whole blue/cool look will be something that, when watching it 10 yrs from now we'll look back and say "it has that cheesy 00's look". Anyway... enough of that. Overall a great presentation. The movie had solid black levels, and shadow detail in dark scenes was very good. There were a few spots where you could tell the actors were in front of a blue-screen(similar to discussion with Speed Racer). Most of the time things were really sharp, but not quite to the level of some of the tier 0 titles. Its tough because it's slightly better than the first, but not sure if it's enough to put it in low Tier 0. Grain was very very light in this movie. The sound is awesome too.


----------



## lgans316

I have changed my opinion about *Iron Man* as it gets better with every viewing. There is plenty of fine object detailing in comparison to the DVD. I now feel Iron Man should belong somewhere in Mid of Tier-1.

*Speed Racer*: Bottom of Tier-0 or Top Tier-1 would be the right spot. There are some minor compression artifacts but it still looks eye candy.


To please everyone just put the friggin BD in both Tier-0 and Tier-1 and invite more trouble.










God Bless Blunder brothers.


----------



## rsbeck

*JFK*


Very solid transfer. A pleasure to watch. Natural looking with what looked to me like very fine grain intact. Facial close ups are very impressive, often revealing pores and skin imperfections. Colors are pushed slightly or undersaturated at times for period effect, but beautifully done. Similarly, in some shots, whites are blown out for either period or daydream effect, but IMO the cinematography is very tasteful and organic. Didn't see anything to raise DNR or EE suspicions. Did not see any noise in dark scenes. Even the very grainy stock footage (and recreated stock footage) that appears from time to time is well handled. Fans of this film will be very pleased.


Agree with current placement

*Recommendation: Bottom Quarter of Tier 1*


Sim2 C3X1080

Carada Masquerade

126" Firehawk G3

Pioneer BDP-05FD


13' from Screen




.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/15222118
> 
> 
> I now feel Iron Man should belong somewhere in Mid of Tier-1.



Which is where it is!


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15222384
> 
> *JFK*
> 
> 
> Very solid transfer. A pleasure to watch. Natural looking with what looked to me like very fine grain intact. Facial close ups are very impressive, often revealing pores and skin imperfections. Colors are pushed slightly or undersaturated at times for period effect, but beautifully done. Similarly, in some shots, whites are blown out for either period or daydream effect, but IMO the cinematography is very tasteful and organic. Didn't see anything to raise DNR or EE suspicions. Did not see any noise in dark scenes. Even the very grainy stock footage (and recreated stock footage) that appears from time to time is well handled. Fans of this film will be very pleased.
> 
> 
> Agree with current placement
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 1 3/4*
> 
> 
> Sim2 C3X1080
> 
> Carada Masquerade
> 
> 126" Firehawk G3
> 
> Pioneer BDP-05FD
> 
> 
> 13' from Screen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



Seconded. Finally a fitting release for this movie.


----------



## djoberg

I would have to agree with everyone else who saw *Tropic Thunder* and recommend *Tier 1: 1/4*, though I would have no argument if others suggested low Tier 0.


This transfer was VERY consistent with vivid colors, outstanding contrast, deep blacks, and a lot of depth. The jungle scenes, which dominated the film, were lush and as detailed as I've ever seen (comparable to Rescue Dawn, Lost, etc.). Facial close-ups were remarkable and fleshtones were natural. I saw no evidence of any artifacts, banding, EE, DNR, or any other post-processing flaws.


I should add that the AQ was amazing and with my wife gone for the day I was able to crank it up.







My Velodyne sub had my whole basement shaking during select scenes and I was in "audio Nirvana."


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian


My daughter and I enjoyed this movie over a 2-night viewing due to its length, and today I reviewed a couple of scenes for the purpose of this review.


The night scenes in this movie present with a blue or cool hue throughout. I found that the longer this movie went on, the stronger the PQ seemed to get.


The introduction chase scene gave me a bit to worry about, as in the first 4.5 minutes had a lot of blur and glowing on the horses, right before the titles began to appear on the screen. I was scared that this would run throughout the movie, but it does not. What I am unsure of is whether or not the glow/blur that distorted my picture for this scene was a result of the blue hue or if it was caused by something else.


Another scene I had heard people having issue with is the siege on the castle, which occurs approximately 1hr 5min into the movie, so I just re-watched it. The only problem I had with this time frame of the movie was with the backgrounds. The backgrounds tended to get fuzzy/pixelated for me. I'm unsure if this is due to compression or due to the fog that is present during the scene mixed with the blue hue of it being night-time. At any point in this time frame, according to my ps3's info, it would bounce anywhere from 11mpbs to 25mpbs for those of you who look into that sort of thing.


Whatever I was _supposed_ to be focused on during the scene, whether it was faces or CGI mice etc, and those parts looked fantastic. I was most impressed with the mice in this movie, they looked phenomenal. Perhaps it was the fact that the mice looked so very good that the background looked so poorly around them. This was especially noticeable around 1hr8min. The mice look pristine, but the background had some strange pixels. The blue hue also made Susan's red arrows pop immensely whenever they were on the screen.


It is very possible my issue with the backgrounds is related to my television and its handling of black; however every other black coloured object appeared to be true to me, just not the foggy bluish backgrounds.


The daytime scenes were flawless on my display. Water, ice, fire - all looked gorgeous. At times the background colours felt slightly muted, but the costumes & objects still appeared to have rich tones.


I've tried to be as thorough as possible with this review as I have to return this BRD today, although I'm sure we'll end up owning it at some point given my daughter's affinity for it.


Overall I think anyone who purchases or watches this movie will be satisfied with its presentation on this release. The issues I mentioned above were relatively minor in my experience with this movie, especially given the length and story. Nothing in the picture quality of this movie ruined the movie for me.


I would be ok if the consensus found this to be a Tier 1 movie, as I am limited by my equipment(ps3 to Toshiba 46H83), but the issues I had with Prince Caspian were minor in comparison to my issues with Speed Racer, so as that stands, *my recommendation is Tier 0, at least above Speed Racer.*


----------



## djoberg

I bit the bullet and rented *Hancock*, even though I was warned that the movie itself was deplorable. This was a solid transfer that was VERY close in PQ to Tropic Thunder (minus the beautiful cinematography and detailed jungle scenes), and I think I would give it the same placement....in other words *Tier 1: 1/4*. I agree with whoever it was that said there were some out-of-focus shots, and I observed a couple of soft scenes as well (most notably the last action scene in the hospital). If it weren't for these, it could easily have been a Tier 0 title.


Oh, and as far the movie, I was expecting such a rotten storyline and acting that I was pleasantly surprised by it. Don't take this the wrong way; it's not Oscar nominee material, or even one that I would purchase, but it was an okay rental.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MelloFellow13* /forum/post/15210944
> 
> 
> Time for another review from MelloFellow13.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Wanted - Recommendation Top Tier 2*
> 
> 
> I had never watched this movie and I am really glad I bought it - what a fun ride!! However, the picture quality just didn't stand out that much. I thought the movie on a whole was pretty soft, with some scenes looking worse than others. Detail was average, although contrast and colors were good.
> 
> 
> I feel like the picture quality of Wanted is about on par with some of the other action movies I own, Spider-man 2 and Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines stand out in my mind, and they just so happen to be in the same quadrant of Tier 2, so that's the recommendation I am making. It's still a great Blu-ray and great in hi-def, but not nearly reference level.
> 
> 
> At least the explosive audio makes up for the disappointing picture quality!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Setup:
> 
> 
> Playstation 3 60GB
> 
> Onkyo 705 via HDMI
> 
> Pioneer Kuro 5020 1080p
> 
> 11' from screen



I watched Wanted again after watching it last night. At first, I'd say it was Tier 1 1/2. I now easily agree with MelloFellow13's recommendation of top of Tier 2.


Immediately afterwards, I popped in both Blade Runner and 2001. Even though they're different genres, no scene in Wanted appeared sharper than those two! Softness and dull picture quality made me lower the recommendation. It was over the top fun, but by no means is it reference material.


PS3, Samsung 46'', six feet


----------



## Shane Martin

Prince Caspian

Tier 0 around Mr Brooks. I couldn't detect any issues at my listening distance of 9 feet from my 50" Panasonic Plasma display. Day time sequences looked the best I've seen from a non animated movie. Night sequences which will generate the most controversy looked good on my display.


----------



## Mikenificent1

Hate to start another one, but I finally saw Baraka yesterday and was dissapointed. This is NOT a reference/tier 0 disc! I rate it second half tier 1. The picture is very soft, way too soft to even be considered for tier 0. I can understand if you think it's sharp on a 50" plasma and you sit far away, but on a FP screen you can really see its flaws, if you can't you need a new screen.


JVC RS1

92" Severtson Signature Matte White

PS3 2.52

9.5' viewing distance

Light controlled environment


----------



## HDphile22

*X-files: Fight The Future*


GREAT PQ, IMO.


Agreed?


----------



## babrown92

*Shawshank Redemption*


I watched this last night and was pretty blown away by how good it looked. Plenty of depth and 'pop' throughout. I didnt notice any EE or DNR, closeups looked fantastic. I think I might recommend this for low tier 0 or high tier 1.


Very impressive picture.


----------



## OldCodger73

Did a quick run through of the first page and didn't see The Visitor ranked. Anyway I watched it last night and was really impressed by it, both as a gripping smale scale drama with excellent acting and for its PQ. Close ups of the actors were tack sharp, showing pores and blemishes that reminded me of Mr. Brooks. Non close ups were very good to excellent. I didn't notice any EE or the other thngs that some people on this thread complain about but, to be quite frank, I got very caught up in the movie and wasn't looking for them. I would rate it either in the 1 1/4 or 1 1/2 position,


Panasonic 720p 50" plasma, Panasonic 10a player, 7 1/2'


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15226645
> 
> 
> I would have to agree with everyone else who saw *Tropic Thunder* and recommend *Tier 1: 1/4*, though I would have no argument if others suggested low Tier 0.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15228354
> 
> 
> I bit the bullet and rented *Hancock*, even though I was warned that the movie itself was deplorable. This was a solid transfer that was VERY close in PQ to Tropic Thunder (minus the beautiful cinematography and detailed jungle scenes), and I think I would give it the same placement....in other words *Tier 1: 1/4*.



OK, I think I have successfully confused myself while reading through the most recent tiering suggestions. I was always under the impression that the fractions referred to the titles *below* the label - e.g. *Tier 1: 1/4* begins with 21, Adventures of Baron Munchausen, Ant Bully, etc.


In other words, the top of tier 1 is just "Tier 1" and the bottom of Tier 1 is "Tier 1: 3/4". This made sense to me in terms of fractional increments: Tier 1.00 (TOP) -> Tier 1.25 (1/4) -> Tier 1.50 (1/2) -> Tier 1.75 (3/4) -> Tier 2.00 (TOP) -> etc.


I am having a vague feeling of dÃ©jÃ* vu that someone already set me straight on this question, but obviously I don't remember the answer...


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mikenificent1* /forum/post/15232121
> 
> 
> Hate to start another one, but I finally saw Baraka yesterday and was dissapointed. This is NOT a reference/tier 0 disc! I rate it second half tier 1. The picture is very soft, way too soft to even be considered for tier 0.



-1.......I totally disagree!


And good luck trying to "start another one." This title has been through the ringer and after a very lengthy discussion it was awarded its rightful place in Tier 0.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/15233273
> 
> 
> OK, I think I have successfully confused myself while reading through the most recent tiering suggestions. I was always under the impression that the fractions referred to the titles *below* the label - e.g. *Tier 1: 1/4* begins with 21, Adventures of Baron Munchausen, Ant Bully, etc.
> 
> 
> In other words, the top of tier 1 is just "Tier 1" and the bottom of Tier 1 is "Tier 1: 3/4". This made sense to me in terms of fractional increments: Tier 1.00 (TOP) -> Tier 1.25 (1/4) -> Tier 1.50 (1/2) -> Tier 1.75 (3/4) -> Tier 2.00 (TOP) -> etc.
> 
> 
> I am having a vague feeling of dÃ©jÃ* vu that someone already set me straight on this question, but obviously I don't remember the answer...



Hey Cinema Squid....don't feel bad about being confused as to the "fractional increments"...I was confused for quite awhile as well. But when you think about it, 1/4 can only mean one thing and that is: the *first quarter* of the tier. And thus when you get to the bottom it could hardly be called 3/4....3/4 has to be the *third quarter* of the tier. What's confusing is that the last quarter (the bottom section) doesn't have a fractional designation, though in reality it is the *fourth quarter* (which we could call 4/4). Does this make sense?


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDphile22* /forum/post/15232893
> 
> *X-files: Fight The Future*
> 
> GREAT PQ, IMO.
> 
> Agreed?



It looks decent considering it is a minor catalog title from a decade ago. I do think it might have looked a little better if they had eliminated all the extras and seamless branching features. Since I do not foresee Fox douple dipping on it I recommend it to fans of the series. No better version is coming...


I do not use that terminology Cinema Squid when I recommend titles for placement. The top quarter of tier one (tier 1 1/4) starts with Alvin and the Chipmunks right now. The second quarter of tier one ( tier 1 2/4) starts with 21 at the moment and so on. I refer to the last quarter in each tier as the bottom quarter.


I finally got around to viewing *Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull*. I think this BD should be placed in tier zero. The only visual flaw that stands out is a yellowish or golden push to the fleshtones. This might be my new reference standard compression encode for live action film. And it goes without saying that the cinematography is excellent. It only has a moment or two of slight softness for a couple of the CGI-heavy sequences.


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15234586
> 
> 
> Hey Cinema Squid....don't feel bad about being confused as to the "fractional increments"...I was confused for quite awhile as well. But when you think about it, 1/4 can only mean one thing and that is: the *first quarter* of the tier.



Gotcha - that makes sense. I was reading things as "one", "one and one-quarter", "one and a half", "one and three quarters", "two" rather than "first quarter of one" "second quarter of one", "third quarter of one", "fourth quarter of one", "first quarter of two", etc.


The reason I had asked is that I was going to volunteer to collate interim results like lgans316 did before and I wanted to make sure I was interpreting everyone's vote correctly. Glad to have the correction in advance!


----------



## Mick47




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15234540
> 
> 
> -1.......I totally disagree!
> 
> 
> And good luck trying to "start another one." This title has been through the ringer and after a very lengthy discussion it was awarded its rightful place in Tier 0.



Absolutely correct. This is a top half tier 0. Not one of the digital cartoons!! Great stuff, real people, great picture/sound.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15234965
> 
> 
> Written to Mikenificent...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMO, *anyone is welcome to an opinion on any title* no matter how many times it has been through the wringer and though a discussion may stall for awhile until more people see it, all discussions are ongoing.
> 
> 
> No need to discourage anyone from contributing.
> 
> 
> I'm happy with Baraka's placement and I certainly don't think it is soft, but if enough people, however late to the party, think it is, why shouldn't the moderator consider moving it? He's moved titles before after they've rested in a certain slot for awhile, no reason he wouldn't again.



With all due respect rsbeck, I don't believe I was implying that his opinion didn't count. But I gave *my opinion* of his opinion (his opinion that Baraka is "NOT a reference/Tier 0 disc) by saying I disagreed with him. Am I welcome to my opinion?


And as for me discouraging him from contributing, I was just trying to inform him that Baraka was one title that has been discussed at great length already. Of course one has the right to revisit any title, but I thought he may have been relatively new to this thread and was unaware of the grueling debate we had over this title before it was finally given a placement. I will admit that I could have been more "gentle" in my response to him, but having read what he said about Baraka in another thread (how 90% of it was soft), I felt I needed to be more direct with him.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15235101
> 
> 
> With all due respect rsbeck, I don't believe I was implying that his opinion didn't count.



I may have overreacted to your comment, "good luck starting another one."



> Quote:
> I will admit that I could have been more "gentle" in my response to him, but having read what he said about Baraka in another thread (how 90% of it was soft), I felt I needed to be more direct with him.



I *do* think some of the misinformation in the other Baraka thread is still having an effect.


Here's an interesting tid-bit; Surfing the net last night, I came across an A/V forum where Robert Harris contributes. Harris has called Baraka a reference blu-ray. I can try to find it again if you're interested. Another interesting point, at least to me, is that some of the other familiar faces in the Baraka thread also contribute there and if you read around you see that Harris has repeatedly told them the dangers of trying to use screen grabs.



.


----------



## rsbeck

Here's where you can find Harris' comments on Baraka....

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...ml#post3452893


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15235682
> 
> 
> Here's where you can find Harris' comments on Baraka....
> 
> http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...ml#post3452893



Thanks for the link; I found the comments by Mr. Harris to be....shall I say....reassuring.


Regarding Mr. Harris warning some of the dangers of using screen grabs, he has suffered verbal abuse for his warnings from some who *think* they know more than they really do. I have contributed a little in the Baraka thread and one of the lessons I have learned there (besides the unreliability of screenshots) is that there is not the respect given to the people who really are knowledgeable when it comes to films and the whole process of making a Blu-ray transfer from a film.


----------



## quake1028

*Step Brothers* - Solid transfer, not going to wow anyone, no real pop to speak of. I didn't notice any glaring flaws either, and the movie isn't exactly filmed to be a looker in the first place. It does have some nice detail and is artifact free, from what I could tell, as it should be for being a brand new movie. With all that being said, I would vote for *Tier 2 1/2*.


Panny TH-42PZ800U 1080p

PS3 through HDMI

4.5 ft


Next up: *Star Wars: The Clone Wars*.


----------



## 42041

Just watched *Wall-E*. Not much to add that hasn't already been discussed ad nauseum. I think they went for a look that more resembles something actually shot with cameras rather than a 3D rendering for much of the movie, so in many scenes it doesn't have that razor sharp pixelly detail that most 3D animated titles do, but it's beautifully done and there's not much to complain about as far as the BD transfer goes. My one annoyance: inexplicably, 20GB of the disc is empty, completely wasted space. For a 90 minute movie they could've gone with a much higher video bitrate and made it even better looking... did they think they were encoding this for HDDVD or something










I'd put this in high Tier 0. I think its current spot is about right.


And another side note... the endless trailers, title cards, and loading screens on some BDs are getting really obnoxious







Do I really need a 10 second title card telling me how my disc may take 2-3 minutes to load







It's unfortunate that the additional interactivity Blu-Ray is capable of gives the mastering people even more ways to annoy me before the movie begins... do they even test these things? Surely they would realize how irritating this is?


(watched on PS3/Samsung LN40A650/about 3 feet away)


----------



## Columbo345




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15236920
> 
> 
> Just watched *Wall-E*. Not much to add that hasn't already been discussed ad nauseum. I think they went for a look that more resembles something actually shot with cameras rather than a 3D rendering for much of the movie, so in many scenes it doesn't have that razor sharp pixelly detail that most 3D animated titles do, but it's beautifully done and there's not much to complain about as far as the BD transfer goes. My one annoyance: inexplicably, 20GB of the disc is empty, completely wasted space. For a 90 minute movie they could've gone with a much higher video bitrate and made it even better looking... did they think they were encoding this for HDDVD or something
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd put this in high Tier 0. I think its current spot is about right.
> 
> 
> And another side note... the endless trailers, title cards, and loading screens on some BDs are getting really obnoxious
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do I really need a 10 second title card telling me how my disc may take 2-3 minutes to load
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's unfortunate that the additional interactivity Blu-Ray is capable of gives the mastering people even more ways to annoy me before the movie begins... do they even test these things? Surely they would realize how irritating this is?
> 
> 
> (watched on PS3/Samsung LN40A650/about 3 feet away)



I also noticed Wall E is very good, but not exactly razor sharp and reference, and I expected reference. So either they were going for an intentional look, like you said, or they didn't quite do the best job they could've is definitely a good question.


I'm also a little annoyed by the trailers/warning screens/loading screens (although I find the images they use for the loading image kind of amusing)

For some reason all of the waiting annoys me more on BD than it ever did on DVD. Maybe it's because I'm more eager to get into the movie right away.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15236920
> 
> 
> 
> And another side note... the endless trailers, title cards, and loading screens on some BDs are getting really obnoxious
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do I really need a 10 second title card telling me how my disc may take 2-3 minutes to load
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's unfortunate that the additional interactivity Blu-Ray is capable of gives the mastering people even more ways to annoy me before the movie begins... do they even test these things? Surely they would realize how irritating this is?





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Columbo345* /forum/post/15237006
> 
> 
> 
> I'm also a little annoyed by the trailers/warning screens/loading screens (although I find the images they use for the loading image kind of amusing)
> 
> For some reason all of the waiting annoys me more on BD than it ever did on DVD. Maybe it's because I'm more eager to get into the movie right away.




I can't stand it especially on movies for the kids!! GAH!



I watched Hancock last night. I didn't write up a nice review for it as it was really late & the husband decided he wanted to go rent movies at 11pm & made me watch Vantage Point first. Several others have suggested it should sit somewhere in tier Gold; I can agree with this assessment by the other trusted reviewers here. The movie looked great on my screen, and I didn't think it was a bad movie overall given the storyline-stinkers we've been watching lately (Harold & Kumar, Speed Racer & Vantage Point, I'm looking at YOU).


----------



## Mick47

 http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=2140


----------



## suffolk112000

While everyone is busy fighting over the placement of Baraka, Wall-E, Speed Racer and such, my son and I sat down to watch Narnia Prince Caspian last night.

I have read through most of the posts on this thread, but have yet to see any reviews of Prince Caspian…?

Maybe the reviews are just buried amongst all the Baraka posts…??









First of all I have to say, why is there not more talk about this movie!?! After all, it has been out for a few weeks now.

I was pleasantly surprised that Narnia Prince Caspian is easily a top tier 0 Blu Ray. PC is now going to be one of my demo Blu Rays when showcasing my theater. Great detail, outstanding sharpness, inky blacks and colors are vibrant.

Except for the unfortunate fact that there were a few scenes that I felt were slightly soft, this is one of the best Blu Rays I have watched to date.



Sony VW60. Da-Lite 58x104 HCCV screen with masking sitting 12.5 feet from the screen in a light controlled room.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mick47* /forum/post/15238195
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=2140



Thanks Mick47! I agree with one of the responses listed on that site which said, "...this was an incredible disc and deserves all the awards and rave reviews it gets."


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/15238442
> 
> 
> While everyone is busy fighting over the placement of Baraka, Wall-E, Speed Racer and such, my son and I sat down to watch Narnia Prince Caspian last night.
> *I have read through most of the posts on this thread, but have yet to see any reviews of Prince Caspian?*
> 
> Maybe the reviews are just buried amongst all the Baraka posts??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *First of all I have to say, why is there not more talk about this movie!?!* After all, it has been out for a few weeks now.
> 
> I was pleasantly surprised that Narnia Prince Caspian is easily a top tier 0 Blu Ray. PC is now going to be one of my demo Blu Rays when showcasing my theater. Great detail, outstanding sharpness, inky blacks and colors are vibrant.



I think you need to go back and look again....I just did a Search on Prince Caspian and I found 5 reviews. Four of them sang its praises and suggested Tier 0, one gave it a Tier 1 placement.


I just received the "Narnia bundle" (both Narnia movies on Blu-ray) from Amazon on Friday and I plan to watch at least the first one this afternoon or tonight. Or maybe I'll do a "Narnia marathon" and watch them both!







At any rate, I'm looking forward to seeing them, especially after all of the rave reviews from posters here and elsewhere.


----------



## OldCodger73

Regarding my comments in post number 7203, Last night I rewatched The Bank Job, which is ranked in Tier 1 1/4. TBJ seems to be the type of movie that appeals to many of the people who offer their reviews here and has been reviewed enough to have found it proper place in the rankings. In my opinion The Visitor's PQ is superior to that of TBJ and it should be placed in the top level of Tier 1.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15238553
> 
> 
> I think you need to go back and look again....I just did a Search on Prince Caspian and I found 5 reviews. Four of them sang its praises and suggested Tier 0, one gave it a Tier 1 placement.
> 
> 
> I just received the "Narnia bundle" (both Narnia movies on Blu-ray) from Amazon on Friday and I plan to watch at least the first one this afternoon or tonight. Or maybe I'll do a "Narnia marathon" and watch them both!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At any rate, I'm looking forward to seeing them, especially after all of the rave reviews from posters here and elsewhere.



Like I said... all the Narnia posts must be buried amongst the 100's of Baraka posts.









Forgive me for missing all five of them.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/15238442
> 
> 
> While everyone is busy fighting over the placement of Baraka, Wall-E, Speed Racer and such, my son and I sat down to watch Narnia Prince Caspian last night.
> 
> I have read through most of the posts on this thread, but have yet to see any reviews of Prince Caspian?
> 
> Maybe the reviews are just buried amongst all the Baraka posts??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all I have to say, why is there not more talk about this movie!?! After all, it has been out for a few weeks now.
> 
> I was pleasantly surprised that Narnia Prince Caspian is easily a top tier 0 Blu Ray. PC is now going to be one of my demo Blu Rays when showcasing my theater. Great detail, outstanding sharpness, inky blacks and colors are vibrant.
> 
> Except for the unfortunate fact that there were a few scenes that I felt were slightly soft, this is one of the best Blu Rays I have watched to date.
> 
> 
> 
> Sony VW60. Da-Lite 58x104 HCCV screen with masking sitting 12.5 feet from the screen in a light controlled room.



I did a huge review of this film http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...postcount=7196 in that post. =) It was just released on Dec 2 here, though, so I figured more reviews would flutter in within the next week or so. As djoberg says, there's at least a handful of us who've chimed in on this film.


----------



## zinfamous




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/15232946
> 
> 
> Did a quick run through of the first page and didn't see The Visitor ranked. Anyway I watched it last night and was really impressed by it, both as a gripping smale scale drama with excellent acting and for its PQ. Close ups of the actors were tack sharp, showing pores and blemishes that reminded me of Mr. Brooks. Non close ups were very good to excellent. I didn't notice any EE or the other thngs that some people on this thread complain about but, to be quite frank, I got very caught up in the movie and wasn't looking for them. I would rate it either in the 1 1/4 or 1 1/2 position,
> 
> 
> Panasonic 720p 50" plasma, Panasonic 10a player, 7 1/2'



agreed. fantastic flick and great presentation. Amazing how a small flick like this can show up without the EE/DNR so many complain about, yet the big flicks like TDK get tossed through the wringer...


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15238553
> 
> 
> I think you need to go back and look again....I just did a Search on Prince Caspian and I found 5 reviews. Four of them sang its praises and suggested Tier 0, one gave it a Tier 1 placement.
> 
> 
> I just received the "Narnia bundle" (both Narnia movies on Blu-ray) from Amazon on Friday and I plan to watch at least the first one this afternoon or tonight. Or maybe I'll do a "Narnia marathon" and watch them both!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At any rate, I'm looking forward to seeing them, especially after all of the rave reviews from posters here and elsewhere.



I was the one who gave it a Tier 1. Mainly because the face closeups were not as good as most of the tier 0 titles. It wasnt much better looking than the first. However, I can understand a counter-argument of Speed racer face closeups. With that, I wouldn't mind a low tier 0 placement...


I just watched The Messenger last night, and the first 10 minutes of that movie is what face closeups should look like. Too bad it had other inconsistencies (black level, ringing, etc).


Patrick, I'd like to hear your take on Messenger and Prince Caspian since you are known for liking movies with good face closeup shots.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15236920
> 
> 
> And another side note... the endless trailers, title cards, and loading screens on some BDs are getting really obnoxious



+1


Thankfully we have the "Skip" button for that; if I hold the skip button down it can cycle through a half dozen trailers or more in about 10 seconds.


----------



## quake1028

*Star Wars: The Clone Wars*


I guess no one has reviewed this yet, so I will give it a shot. This title looks really, really good in a lot of places. I'm talking Tier 0 material. Lightsaber duels and the space fights have tons of 3d pop and just leap off of the screen. Everything is well detailed, as should be expected from a brand new digital transfer. The video encode is solid, bitrate ranges from a low of around 9 to an extreme peak of around 42Mbps, with the average being somewhere in the high teens or low 20's if I had to guess. The only small nitpick I could find was some banding in the background and skyline of some scenes, and some brief moments of softness, but those could easily be the fault of the animation, not of the transfer. Regardless, I think it's just enough to push this one out of Tier 0, but I wouldn't complain too much if others wanted it there.

*Final Tier Recommendation: Tier 1 1/4*

*Panny TH-42PZ800U 1080p

PS3 through HDMI

4.5 ft*


Next up: *Transsiberian*


----------



## djoberg

I can't believe I just sat through both installments of The Chronicles of Narnia (approximately 4 hrs. 45 minutes with a "one hour intermission"....a guy's gotta eat, you know







), and I didn't even have any kids watching it with me!

*The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe* has already been reviewed multiple times and afforded a placement in *Tier 1*, which I agree with, so I will spare you a long review (although I would probably knock it down from 1/4 to *1/2*). The first hour and a half consisted of primarily winter scenes without much color, and some of them seemed quite soft to my eyes. Once spring came it wasn't just the vegetable world that came to life, but the PQ did too! Colors were vibrant, contrast was punchy, blacks were inky, and every daytime scene was sharp and detailed.


I believe I had a real advantage watching *Prince Caspian* immediately afterwards, for it was obvious to me that they upped the ante on this transfer....it was simply amazing!! I am so impressed with it that I am tempted to nominate it for high Tier 0 (above the POTC titles), but there is one slight factor keeping me back. I am referring to the facial close-ups that stumlad mentioned. I have to agree with him that they weren't quite as detailed as they could have been. Having said that, there were some close-ups of various soldiers and the dwarfs that rival any I've seen in other Tier 0 movies. And at the very end they showed close-ups of Susan and Lucy and I could count every freckle on both of their faces. So, all things considered I would place this in the *middle of Tier 0*. Anything less than that would be a travesty, IMHO.


To justify my opinion, let me add that that the PQ was razor-sharp from beginning to end. Even the nighttime scenes were incredible (almost as good as the night scenes in How The West Was Won), with excellent shadow detail. The lush landscapes (amazing cinematography!!) were also sharp and detailed...dare I say that some of them were comparable to those in Baraka! And the colors, contrast, and blacks were even more outstanding than in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Another standard for Tier 0 is 3D pop, and it was not lacking in that department either. You just have to see this to believe it!


I want to add that I really enjoyed Prince Caspian (if I hadn't, I doubt I would have made it through in one sitting). It was *much* more "mature," and fast-paced, and the CGI was top-notch. Some have compared it to The Lord of the Rings; I doubt that I would go that far, but it was very engaging. I highly recommend it!


Samsung HL-S5087W

Panny BD30

Viewed from 7'


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15242508
> 
> 
> It was *much* more "mature," and fast-paced, and the CGI was top-notch. Some have compared it to The Lord of the Rings; I doubt that I would go that far, but it was very engaging. I highly recommend it!
> 
> '



The problem with Prince Caspian is that it was rated PG. Each fight produced a few drops of blood, as you saw each character with a slight cut on their heads. Overall it was more action packed and entertaining than the first...though I think the first was better, this one is more rewatchable.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15242654
> 
> 
> The problem with Prince Caspian is that it was rated PG. Each fight produced a few drops of blood, as you saw each character with a slight cut on their heads.



Personally, I would not consider that a "problem." Movies that have top-notch PQ, a good storyline (with plenty of action) AND are family-friendly are rare these days, so I welcome them.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15242508
> 
> *The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe* has already been reviewed multiple times and afforded a placement in *Tier 1*, which I agree with, so I will spare you a long review (although I would probably knock it down from 1/4 to *1/2*). The first hour and a half consisted of primarily winter scenes without much color, and some of them seemed quite soft to my eyes.



Agree. *Lion, Witch & Wardrobe* is nice looking title, but tier 1 seems just a tad high.


I, too, would be more comfortable if it were *2nd or 3rd quarter of tier 1*.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15235682
> 
> 
> Here's where you can find Harris' comments on Baraka....
> 
> http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/...ml#post3452893



It seems surprising that he makes no mention at all of the ringing that some of us find so distracting while watching this one.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15239682
> 
> 
> I was the one who gave it a Tier 1. Mainly because the face closeups were not as good as most of the tier 0 titles. It wasnt much better looking than the first. However, I can understand a counter-argument of Speed racer face closeups. With that, I wouldn't mind a low tier 0 placement...
> 
> 
> I just watched The Messenger last night, and the first 10 minutes of that movie is what face closeups should look like. Too bad it had other inconsistencies (black level, ringing, etc).
> 
> 
> Patrick, I'd like to hear your take on Messenger and Prince Caspian since you are known for liking movies with good face closeup shots.



I have been watching Prince Caspian quite a bit, actually. I think it looks distinctly better in PQ than the first movie.


In terms of face close-ups, I thought the close-ups of Miraz and his wife holding the baby on the balcony looked very good, as did the close-up of the general after he has said he lost three men in an incident, and close-ups of the professor generally looked good.


Were you thinking of close-ups of the younger actors with your comment that the face close-ups were somewhat lacking?


While I think the PQ in PC is quite good, I think it could have looked even better if they had used more than just two thirds of the disc for the movie.


The pacing of the movie seems rather slow to me at times.


----------



## lgans316

Patrick & others,


Awaiting your opinions on Wanted and The Kingdom. The HD DVD of Kingdom boasted near reference PQ. For some, it looks Tier-2 and for few, it looks Tier-0.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/15243303
> 
> 
> Patrick & others,
> 
> 
> Awaiting your opinions on Wanted and The Kingdom. The HD DVD of Kingdom boasted near reference PQ.



I watched about two thirds of The Kingdom and the PQ was very, very good. Judging from the bitrates, the BD could not be a port of the HD DVD.


I've watched Wanted once all the way through, but I want to watch it some more before commenting.


----------



## quake1028

The BD is indeed MP4 while the HD DVD was VC1. I have seen the HD DVD, and on this scale I would rate it low Tier 0. I haven't had a chance to see the BD yet.


----------



## quake1028

*Transsiberian*


Brad Anderson is an interesting director. Session 9, The Machinist, and now Transsiberian. That's a pretty eclectic body of work. Anyway, on to the point of this thread. Transsiberian is not a movie that is really going to wow people on BD. The main reason for this is the locations of the movie. A lot of the movie is spent inside a cramped train, with bland, uninspiring colors. The outside shots do look better, but they are of rundown, snow covered locations, so again, there is only so good they can look. The average bitrate range for the video encode is somewhere the mid teens and the low twenties. Faces are my main problem for this transfer, they look like they have undergone some DNR in a few scenes, either that or the picture is just overall soft, because facial details do not pop in most of the scenes. And, since a lot of this movie is facial closeups, that hinders the scoring. There is grain in a few scenes and a few brief moments of macro blocking. Overall, it looks better than DVD, but this isn't a reference grade transfer, and I'm not sure it ever could have been due to the limitations it inherently had.

*Final Tier Recommendation: Tier 3 1/2*

*Panny TH-42PZ800U 1080p

PS3 through HDMI

4.5 ft*


Next up: *Speed Racer*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15242821
> 
> 
> Agree. *Lion, Witch & Wardrobe* is nice looking title, but tier 1 seems just a tad high.
> 
> 
> I, too, would be more comfortable *if it were tier 1 1/4 or tier 1 1/2*.



Actually, it is in Tier 1:1/4 right now. I was suggesting it could be knocked down to Tier 1:1/2.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15243290
> 
> 
> In terms of face close-ups, *I thought the close-ups of Miraz and his wife holding the baby on the balcony looked very good, as did the close-up of the general after he has said he lost three men in an incident, and close-ups of the professor generally looked good.*
> 
> 
> Were you thinking of close-ups of the younger actors with your comment that the face close-ups were somewhat lacking?



You are right patrick, those close-ups were very good. I had especially forgotten about the professor; there was much detail in his face in every shot.


I'm sure stumlad will respond to you, but when I gave my review and stated that some of the facial close-ups were lacking detail, I was especially thinking of Peter, Edmund, and Prince Caspian. Of course they are all young, so we can't expect the detail we would see in one older with more facial hair, wrinkles, etc., but I still thought they looked a bit flat. And even Susan's and Lucy's faces lacked detail in some shots. It wasn't until the end that I could see every freckle on their faces.


To my eyes, these were the only anomalies throughout the whole movie, so it is still deserving of a spot in Tier 0 (preferably mid to top of the tier). I will most definitely be using this title as Demo material!


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15244553
> 
> 
> You are right patrick, those close-ups were very good. I had especially forgotten about the professor; there was much detail in his face in every shot.
> 
> 
> I'm sure stumlad will respond to you, but when I gave my review and stated that some of the facial close-ups were lacking detail, I was especially thinking of Peter, Edmund, and Prince Caspian. Of course they are all young, so we can't expect the detail we would see in one older with more facial hair, wrinkles, etc., but I still thought they looked a bit flat. And even Susan's and Lucy's faces lacked detail in some shots. It wasn't until the end that I could see every freckle on their faces.
> 
> 
> To my eyes, these were the only anomalies throughout the whole movie, so it is still deserving of a spot in Tier 0 (preferably mid to top of the tier). I will most definitely be using this title as Demo material!



I really didn't have problems with the close-ups of those younger actors; I thought the close-ups of the younger actors in this movie were notably better than in the prior movie.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15244748
> 
> 
> I really didn't have problems with the close-ups of those younger actors; *I thought the close-ups of the younger actors in this movie were notably better than in the prior movie*.



I agree, though I still don't think they were reference quality.


As I stated in my review, Prince Caspian overall was a MUCH better transfer. The colors and contrast were richer, the depth was greater, and it was as sharp and detailed (even at night!) as can be.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15244553
> 
> 
> I'm sure stumlad will respond to you, but when I gave my review and stated that some of the facial close-ups were lacking detail, I was especially thinking of Peter, Edmund, and Prince Caspian. Of course they are all young, so we can't expect the detail we would see in one older with more facial hair, wrinkles, etc., but I still thought they looked a bit flat. And even Susan's and Lucy's faces lacked detail in some shots. It wasn't until the end that I could see every freckle on their faces.



I'll just respond to yours







Watch the Messenger. There is a young girl in the beginning of that movie, and the face closeups on her are noticeably better than any of the children/teens and Caspian . It's unfortunate there were other issues with it. Oh and you can see Milla without all the photoshopping


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15242508
> 
> 
> I can't believe I just sat through both installments of The Chronicles of Narnia (approximately 4 hrs. 45 minutes with a "one hour intermission"....a guy's gotta eat, you know
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ), and I didn't even have any kids watching it with me!
> 
> *The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe* has already been reviewed multiple times and afforded a placement in *Tier 1*, which I agree with, so I will spare you a long review (although I would probably knock it down from 1/4 to *1/2*). The first hour and a half consisted of primarily winter scenes without much color, and some of them seemed quite soft to my eyes. Once spring came it wasn't just the vegetable world that came to life, but the PQ did too! Colors were vibrant, contrast was punchy, blacks were inky, and every daytime scene was sharp and detailed.
> 
> 
> I believe I had a real advantage watching *Prince Caspian* immediately afterwards, for it was obvious to me that they upped the ante on this transfer....it was simply amazing!! I am so impressed with it that I am tempted to nominate it for high Tier 0 (above the POTC titles), but there is one slight factor keeping me back. I am referring to the facial close-ups that stumlad mentioned. I have to agree with him that they weren't quite as detailed as they could have been. Having said that, there were some close-ups of various soldiers and the dwarfs that rival any I've seen in other Tier 0 movies. And at the very end they showed close-ups of Susan and Lucy and I could count every freckle on both of their faces. So, all things considered I would place this in the *middle of Tier 0*. Anything less than that would be a travesty, IMHO.
> 
> 
> To justify my opinion, let me add that that the PQ was razor-sharp from beginning to end. Even the nighttime scenes were incredible (almost as good as the night scenes in How The West Was Won), with excellent shadow detail. The lush landscapes (amazing cinematography!!) were also sharp and detailed...dare I say that some of them were comparable to those in Baraka! And the colors, contrast, and blacks were even more outstanding than in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Another standard for Tier 0 is 3D pop, and it was not lacking in that department either. You just have to see this to believe it!
> 
> 
> I want to add that I really enjoyed Prince Caspian (if I hadn't, I doubt I would have made it through in one sitting). It was *much* more "mature," and fast-paced, and the CGI was top-notch. Some have compared it to The Lord of the Rings; I doubt that I would go that far, but it was very engaging. I highly recommend it!
> 
> 
> Samsung HL-S5087W
> 
> Panny BD30
> 
> Viewed from 7'



I do agree with you. Definitely eye candy material. That is what this thread is all about... right?









I need to go back and look at some scenes that give some good facial close-ups again. But I noticed some slight softness in a few scenes as well. But I definitely believe Narnia PC should be tier 0 material. As of right now, I would have to say I agree with you that it should be placed about mid tier 0.

I have not seen the legendary Baraka yet, so it will be interesting to see how the cinematography stacks up between the two once I get a chance to rent Baraka.



It is good to see that I am not the only one who felt this way about NPC.

Just to add... I felt Narnia Price Caspian was better than the first.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/15245262
> 
> 
> I do agree with you. Definitely eye candy material. That is what this thread is all about... right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have not seen the legendary Baraka yet, so it will be interesting to see how the cinematography stacks up between the two once I get a chance to rent Baraka



Yes, that is what this thread is all about!


Do yourself a favor and go rent Baraka ASAP. You will be amazed at the sharpness and detail throughout. The non-verbal format may not be your cup of tea, but it does have an excellent sound track that is reference quality.


----------



## quake1028

*Speed Racer*


(I know this was has been discussed in detail, but I just got around to watching it.) Ho. Lee. Crap. That's the thought that kept popping into my mind during this movie. The colors, the depth, the detail, all of it gorgeous and jaw dropping. Sure, there are scenes where facial detail is noticeably soft, and while I know we are supposed to disregard director intent, I just cannot penalize this otherwise flawless (to my eyes) transfer. This movie, at it's best, is the best live action BD transfer I have ever seen. Now, of course a lot of that has to do with the flashy material it is working with, but I have never (yet) seen an image that popped as much and felt quite as real at times as this one did. If some want to follow the letter of the law and knock this down into Tier 1 for a slight hiccup here and there, that is their business, I won't be one of them.

*Final Tier Recommendation: Tier 0*

*Panny TH-42PZ800U 1080p

PS3 through HDMI

4.5 ft*


Next up: *???*


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15244489
> 
> 
> Actually, it is in Tier 1:1/4 right now. I was suggesting it could be knocked down to Tier 1:1/2.



Hmmmm, I must be reading it differently. I see it currently ranked tier 1, so I was agreeing with you that it would be better ranked 1/4 or 1/2 below where it is ranked now, which I read as either 1 1/4 or 1 1/2.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15243274
> 
> 
> It seems surprising that he makes no mention at all of the ringing that some of us find so distracting while watching this one.



I'm pretty well convinced that the "ringing" along with the myriad other problems people in the Baraka thread claim to see are the result of a few misrepresentative screen grabs mixed with peer pressure and the power of suggestion.


IMO, The fact that Harris;


1) Warns that trusting screen grabs is problematic.


2) Watches on a 100" screen


3) Watches in motion, not screen grabs.


4) Has to have some of the best eyes in the biz.


5) Does not mention seeing the various and sundry "flaws" that others claim to see after being exposed to the Baraka thread.


Lends pretty good support to this theory.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15247323
> 
> 
> Hmmmm, I must be reading it differently. I see it currently ranked tier 1, so I was agreeing with you that it would be better ranked 1/4 or 1/2 below where it is ranked now, which I read as either 1 1/4 or 1 1/2.



You must have missed Cinema Squid's post regarding the fractional readings in tiers. He too thought that the first list of titles was simply Tier 1, but in reality the first list is Tier 1:1/4 (the 1/4 is at the bottom of the list, which makes it confusing). Here is the post where I replied to him with an attempt to explain it (and he did reply back saying he now sees it):

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...6#post15234586 


I believe it would be much clearer to all if SuprSlow put the fractional increments at the top of the list instead of on the bottom. The last quarter would then be listed as 4/4.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15247419
> 
> 
> I'm pretty well convinced that the "ringing" along with the myriad other problems people in the Baraka thread claim to see are the result of a few misrepresentative screen grabs mixed with peer pressure and the power of suggestion.
> 
> 
> IMO, The fact that Harris;
> 
> 
> 1) Warns that trusting screen grabs is problematic.
> 
> 
> 2) Watches on a 100" screen
> 
> 
> 3) Watches in motion, not screen grabs.
> 
> 
> 4) Has to have some of the best eyes in the biz.
> 
> 
> 5) Does not mention seeing the various and sundry "flaws" that others claim to see after being exposed to the Baraka thread.
> 
> 
> Lends pretty good support to this theory.



I saw very clear ringing when I watched Baraka in motion.


----------



## Hughmc

I know when I first see a new title, I like others am impressed when the PQ looks outstanding. My first reaction and thought is to hope and want tier 0 placement. I say this because I think the transfers of late have been getting better and better in general for new releases, but I think at the same time we are too quick to claim tier 0 for a title.

*Wanted*: Tier 1 Gold.


Overall this title has outstanding PQ, but I don't believe it merits tier 0. IMO it doesn't have any major flaws or even anything really noticeable that would detract from PQ, but for our purposes it really didn't have a lot of 3d pop or jump out at you as in eye candy PQ. It is a very solid transfer and I think Tier 1 Gold is a proper placement and if it weren't alphabetical I would place it at the top.







I think it looks better than the new Indiana Jones movie which had some very noticeable PQ issues.


I really have to call BS on anyone saying Wanted is Tier 2 or for that matter anywhere lower than top to 1/4 tier 1. Even from the individual BD software movie threads, the PQ "science" naysayers who "know better" than everyone working in the movie industry are saying Wanted is reference.










Sony [email protected] from PS3 through HDMI.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15247446
> 
> 
> I believe it would be much clearer to all if SuprSlow put the fractional increments at the top of the list instead of on the bottom. The last quarter would then be listed as 4/4.



I don't know about that. It seems clear to me. The first group is tier 1, next is tier 1 1/4, then 1 1 /2, then 1 3/4 and this is followed by tier 2, etc. The way you explain it, with 1 1/4 being the first rank in tier 1, doesn't make any sense to me.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15248250
> 
> 
> I don't know about that. It seems clear to me. The first group is tier 1, next is tier 1 1/4, then 1 1 /2, then 1 3/4 and this is followed by tier 2, etc. The way you explain it, with 1 1/4 being the first rank in tier 1, doesn't make any sense to me.



I had to look again at the list due to the discussion. I thought tier 1/4 was the top of Gold.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15247419
> 
> 
> I'm pretty well convinced that the "ringing" along with the myriad other problems people in the Baraka thread claim to see are the result of a few misrepresentative screen grabs mixed with peer pressure and the power of suggestion.
> 
> 
> IMO, The fact that Harris;
> 
> 
> 1) Warns that trusting screen grabs is problematic.
> 
> 
> 2) Watches on a 100" screen
> 
> 
> 3) Watches in motion, not screen grabs.
> 
> 
> 4) Has to have some of the best eyes in the biz.
> 
> 
> 5) Does not mention seeing the various and sundry "flaws" that others claim to see after being exposed to the Baraka thread.
> 
> 
> Lends pretty good support to this theory.



Being a cynic with 20/15 vision I have to call BS on 4.







I know you said some of the best...


----------



## rsbeck

*Sleeping Beauty*


Beautiful, first class restoration of a Disney classic. Colors are beautifully saturated, lines are wonderfully sharp, and there is pretty good depth and pop. I do not believe this title can look any better than this. However, this is still a cartoon with simplistic drawing, especially compared to other tier 0 animated titles. Despite all of its various virtues, I do not see this as a tier 0 title. At some point, I think we have to stop being so impressed with animation and stop going so easy on animated titles. Just my opinion.

*Recommendation: 3rd quarter of tier 1*


Sim2 C3X1080

Carada Masquerade

126" Firehawk G3

Pioneer BDP-05FD


13' from screen


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15248332
> 
> 
> Being a cynic with 20/15 vision I have to call BS on 4.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know you said some of the best...


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15248250
> 
> 
> I don't know about that. It seems clear to me. The first group is tier 1, next is tier 1 1/4, then 1 1 /2, then 1 3/4 and this is followed by tier 2, etc. The way you explain it, with 1 1/4 being the first rank in tier 1, doesn't make any sense to me.



FWIW, Cinema Squid did agree with me...and it looks like Hugh does too. But to really settle this issue I think SuprSlow should chime in. If he doesn't know for sure, no one does.










Edit: Oh, and Phantom Stranger replied to Cinema Squid with the same view that I had. But again, let's wait for the moderator to give us the scoop before we "debate" the issue any further.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15248310
> 
> 
> I had to look again at the list due to the discussion. I thought tier 1/4 was the top of Gold.



Mine goes to eleven.


----------



## rsbeck

Maybe I'm all screwed up, but it seems like tier 1 should be higher than tier 1 1/4.


Would be nice if Super Slow could straighten all of you guys out so you can get your minds right like me.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15248408
> 
> 
> Maybe I'm all screwed up, but it seems like tier 1 should be higher than tier 1 1/4.
> 
> 
> Would be nice if Super Slow could straighten all of you guys out so you can get your minds right like me.










I like your sense of humor rsbeck...it's refreshing.


Let's see if you can still laugh when YOU are proved wrong.


----------



## rsbeck

*There Will Be Blood*


Beautiful transfer of the film that won the 2007 Academy Award for Cinematographer Robert Elswit. The opening scene in the silver mine is dimly lit and poorly resolved at first, but this sequence quickly gives way to Daniel Plainview's transition to oil discovery and the picture turns to glorious sharpness, contrast, detail, and pop. Colors are pushed or desaturated and whites allowed to blow out at times for period effect and this has a tendancy to rob some of the vistas of full contrast and detail, but the effect is beautiful. Otherwise, look at representative scenes like the one where Plainview gives his first "oilman" speech, you can see every imperfection in his face, every nap on his jacket, etc. A very fine layer of grain is intact and nothing to raise suspicions of DNR. There are tons of beautiful shots in this film with beautiful blacks, loads of detail and interesting use of light and dark. This title is ranked tier 2 right now and I don't think this is a terrible injustice or anything, but I see it as slightly better than that, better than other titles at that rank and more in line with the PQ of titles in the bottom quarter of tier 1.

*Recommendation: Bottom Quarter of Tier One*


Sim2 C3X1080

Carada Masquerade

126" Firehawk G3

Pioneer BDP-05FD



.


13' From Screen


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15248506
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like your sense of humor rsbeck...it's refreshing.
> 
> 
> Let's see if you can still laugh when YOU are proved wrong.



Smile, maybe. Laugh? Never!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15248310
> 
> 
> I had to look again at the list due to the discussion. I thought tier 1/4 was the top of Gold.



This is what I think as well. Once we get clarification of how this is, i'll go back and edit my posts where I've suggested things to be in Tier 1 if my thoughts were incorrect.


----------



## Hughmc

Prince Caspian:


Tier 0. This is a reference title PQ wise with 3d pop galore and no noticeably visual anomalies on my setup.


Tell me this isn't 3d pop:









http://www.highdefdiscnews.com/revie...image5full.jpg 


To me the field of depth is stunning and most of the film is like that. If it weren't for those damn CGI/animation titles we might have a top Tier 0 title. IMO it more than gives iRobot and the POTC films a run for their money.


Good film, great PQ.


I recommend Tier 0 as high as it can go near iRobot.


[email protected] from PS3 through HDMI.


----------



## rsbeck

Not be argumentative, but if the moderator means to have the tier ranks below each group of titles, why is there no rank below the final grouping in Tier 1, for example, that ends with Untraceable? Since there isn't, this leads to me think the rankings are listed above each group, with 1 being above the first group, 1/4 above the second, etc.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15248706
> 
> 
> Not be argumentative, but if the moderator means to have the tier ranks below each group of titles, why is there no rank below the final grouping in Tier 1, for example, that ends with Untraceable? Since there isn't, this leads to me think the rankings are listed above each group, *with 1 being above the first group*, 1/4 above the second, etc.



The problem with this thinking is that there ISN'T a "1" above the first group. At the beginning of the tier we simply see "Tier 1-GOLD" and that designation is for the whole tier, not just the top quarter.


Anyway....let's be patient, I'm sure SuprSlow will chime in soon to enlighten us (unless he lives up to his name, that is







).


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *quake1028* /forum/post/15246412
> 
> *Speed Racer*
> 
> 
> (I know this was has been discussed in detail, but I just got around to watching it.) Ho. Lee. Crap. That's the thought that kept popping into my mind during this movie. The colors, the depth, the detail, all of it gorgeous and jaw dropping. Sure, there are scenes where facial detail is noticeably soft, and while I know we are supposed to disregard director intent, I just cannot penalize this otherwise flawless (to my eyes) transfer. This movie, at it's best, is the best live action BD transfer I have ever seen. Now, of course a lot of that has to do with the flashy material it is working with, but I have never (yet) seen an image that popped as much and felt quite as real at times as this one did. If some want to follow the letter of the law and knock this down into Tier 1 for a slight hiccup here and there, that is their business, I won't be one of them.
> 
> *Final Tier Recommendation: Tier 0*
> 
> *Panny TH-42PZ800U 1080p
> 
> PS3 through HDMI
> 
> 4.5 ft*
> 
> 
> Next up: *???*



Welcome to the party! A cold jug of milk for you!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15248633
> 
> 
> Prince Caspian:
> 
> 
> Tier 0. This is a reference title PQ wise with 3d pop galore and no noticeably visual anomalies on my setup.
> 
> 
> I recommend Tier 0 as high as it can go near iRobot.



Good choice Hugh! That makes 6 votes for Tier 0 and only 1 vote for Tier 1.


For the record, I would NOT be disappointed if PC makes it to the top of the non-animated titles (even though I suggested mid tier due to a few not-so-detailed facial close-ups).


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15248852
> 
> 
> Anyway....let's be patient, I'm sure SuprSlow will chime in soon to enlighten us (unless he lives up to his name, that is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ).



Okay, so...whatever you call the tier in which LW&W is currently ranked, I agree that it should be lowered by a quarter ranking or two.


----------



## Hughmc

I looked again and the designation for each quarter of Tier 1 is at the bottom of the Tier with Tier gold 1 4/4 just not being listed at the end of the gold tier.


Right? Tier gold 1/4 is designated at the bottom of the tier and everything above it is that tier which is how I must have perceived it before.


----------



## rsbeck

4/4 is a whole number and 1 4/4 = 2. You trying to start trouble?


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15249203
> 
> 
> 4/4 is a whole number and 1 4/4 = 2. You trying to start trouble?




Maybe that is why it isn't listed as 4/4. Please don't hurt me.







No trouble here, just trying to confuse myself more. Is it working?


----------



## rsbeck

It's only making me feel more and more alone.


During the Holiday Season.


Thanks!!!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15249124
> 
> 
> Okay, so...whatever you call the tier in which LW&W is currently ranked, I agree that it should be lowered by a quarter ranking or two.



Agreed!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15249203
> 
> 
> 4/4 is a whole number and 1 4/4 = 2. You trying to start trouble?



lol!


----------



## quake1028

I agree with the majority:


1/4 is the first quarter in the tier, everything above it is that

1/2 is the second quarter in the tier, everything above it is that


etc., etc.


I used to think like rsbeck that 1 and 1 1/4 were separate but after reading some explanations and looking at it again, I have come around to the other way of looking at it.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15249232
> 
> 
> Maybe that is why it isn't listed as 4/4. Please don't hurt me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No trouble here, just trying to confuse myself more. Is it working?



LOL again!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *quake1028* /forum/post/15249395
> 
> 
> I agree with the majority:
> 
> 
> 1/4 is the first quarter in the tier, everything above it is that
> 
> 1/2 is the second quarter in the tier, everything above it is that
> 
> 
> etc., etc.
> 
> 
> I used to think like rsbeck that 1 and 1 1/4 were separate but after reading some explanations and looking at it again, I have come around to the other way of looking at it.



Good Man!!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15249232
> 
> 
> Maybe that is why it isn't listed as 4/4. Please don't hurt me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No trouble here, just trying to confuse myself more. Is it working?





It's definitely working to confuse me! Admittedly, that's not difficult... I'm busy admonishing myself b/c I encountered the final copy of The Shawshank Redemption yesterday at the store, purchased it, and proceeded to forget it in my vehicle. My husband has it today so I couldn't watch it; AND it's -35C outside today so I'm thinking I may have ruined the disc by forgetting it in there.










This confusion over the ranking system is like trying to decide which way the lady's twirling to me, because I can now see both ways this system could be interpreted, like I can see her spin in either direction.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15249412
> 
> 
> AND *it's -35C outside today* so I'm thinking I may have ruined the disc by forgetting it in there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I can now see both ways this system could be interpreted*,



First of all, just how close to the arctic circle are you? I live on the Minnesota/North Dakota border and it's still +20F here.


Secondly, once you see the truth (about the ranking system) you will never again "see both ways this system could be interpreted."


----------



## rsbeck

Personally, I don't know how a title can be ranked 1 4/4 and still be ranked under tier 1, but maybe that's because I am stubbornly clinging to a base 10 numbering system.


----------



## rsbeck

Let's see if we can find some common ground. Do we all agree that being ranked 1 1/4 is better than being ranked 1 3/4?


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15249617
> 
> 
> First of all, just how close to the arctic circle are you? I live on the Minnesota/North Dakota border and it's still +20F here.
> 
> 
> Secondly, once you see the truth (about the ranking system) you will never again "see both ways this system could be interpreted."



Around 300 miles or so south of the arctic circle.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15249630
> 
> 
> Let's see if we can find some common ground. Do we all agree that being ranked 1 1/4 is better than being ranked 1 3/4?



I do agree with that statement, rsbeck!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15249661
> 
> 
> Let's see if we can find some common ground. Do we all agree that being ranked 1 1/4 is better than being ranked 1 3/4?



We are DEFINITELY are on common ground now rsbeck!










I'm just starting to watch the Buccaneers versus Panthers game on ESPN and it made me think: Why don't we name our quarters like they do in football? Let's just have "1st quarter" at the top, followed by "2nd quarter," and so on?


This is a simple solution to what we have discovered to be something quite confusing!


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15249803
> 
> 
> Why don't we name our quarters like they do in football? Let's just have "1st quarter" *at the top*, followed by "2nd quarter," and so on?



That would make sense -- I would absolutely support it. Hope you don't mind me bolding your text.


----------



## rsbeck

And the Lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe...


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15249843
> 
> 
> That would make sense -- I would absolutely support it. *Hope you don't mind me bolding your text*.



Not at all....for it is absolutely essential that each quarter is designated as such *at the top*. Okay, back to my football game....I must keep my priorities straight!


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15248633
> 
> 
> Prince Caspian:
> 
> 
> Tier 0. This is a reference title PQ wise with 3d pop galore and no noticeably visual anomalies on my setup.
> 
> 
> Tell me this isn't 3d pop:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.highdefdiscnews.com/revie...image5full.jpg
> 
> 
> To me the field of depth is stunning and most of the film is like that. If it weren't for those damn CGI/animation titles we might have a top Tier 0 title. IMO it more than gives iRobot and the POTC films a run for their money.
> 
> 
> Good film, great PQ.
> 
> 
> I recommend Tier 0 as high as it can go near iRobot.
> 
> 
> [email protected] from PS3 through HDMI.



After watching more of this again tonight, I have to agree. I think this movie should be in the upper portion of tier 0.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

If you look at the main list you see the numbers are meant to be place markers (ie 1/4 means you are 1/4th of the way through the tier) to easily separate the list when viewing and not titles. We went to the quarter system because many felt it was becoming an impossible task to accurately place titles on a one to one basis with the increasing number of releases.


And rsbeck is a recommending machine that is putting to shame many old time regulars here. Good work..there are way too many unranked and popular titles missing from the list that need placement.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15249332
> 
> 
> It's only making me feel more and more alone.
> 
> 
> During the Holiday Season.
> 
> 
> Thanks!!!



You are not alone!


Let's see, Home Theatre with occasional loneliness, but peace and no one to talk back at or to you, or a woman,







no offense GGG. Now if I and some other single males who are into HT and tech can find a woman into it as much as GGG and she isn't already taken, I am there.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15249888
> 
> 
> And the Lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe...



My buddy and I always joke about the Holy Hand Grenade. And of course you have Tim the Enchanter and the Abyss of Nothingness.


Love that python stuff.


----------



## selimsivad

 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...=#post15250584


----------



## Vegaz

I was slightly confused about gold to begin with,now I'm more confused. I'm also in favor of having Gold 1,Gold 2 etc.


----------



## lovingdvd

Did not see Star Wars Clone Wars or Space Chimps on the master list in first thread. I'd put both of these solidly in the Tier 1 group.


----------



## Fanaticalism

TDK


Bottom portion of Tier 1.


I can't say enough of how good this movie is. Everytime I see it, it saddens me that we will never have the graces of Ledger on film, or as the Joker again. It truly is difficult to focus on the overall PQ of this film, as you are so immersed in the movie.


The AR changes were actually tastfully done, and never detract you from the movie. In some scenes, you don't even notice it, as when the changes occur, it is typically from a light scene (Full screen), to a dark scene (letterboxed), which the bars blend right into the bezel anyway (the beauty that is a Pro151).


Comparing the shots the Bale from some of his others movies such as the Prestige, the details seem a bit enhanced in some portions, especially when he is in his temporary "batcave". You can see some of the EE, making the details appear unnatural.


I will say, that this film demands excellent contrast, as any display without it, will appear to have a gray overlay to it throughout a lot of portions of the movie (Began to watch it on another display we have in the house, and it just wasn't up to snuff).


All in all, the PQ was pretty decent, and a must buy in my book. There were only a few scenes where the PQ dropped off. My judgement may be a little harsh, but atm, it is the way I feel. I plan to watch this again, and pay even closer attention to details. Can't say it will be easy though, as the acting, dramatics, and overall experience just suck me in everytime!


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Can't wait to get my copy of TDK tomorrow


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15250165
> 
> 
> If you look at the main list you see *the numbers are meant to be place markers (ie 1/4 means you are 1/4th of the way through the tier)* to easily separate the list when viewing and not titles.



Yes, that is the way I understand it also.


----------



## lgans316

Patrick,


Were you able to watch Wanted ?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/15252048
> 
> 
> Patrick,
> 
> 
> Were you able to watch Wanted ?



I've only watched it once; I want to watch it again. My first impression was to be pleased with the PQ, but that is just a preliminary assessment, and I want to be able to watch it again paying more attention to the PQ.


----------



## ballen420




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15250165
> 
> 
> If you look at the main list you see the numbers are meant to be place markers (ie 1/4 means you are 1/4th of the way through the tier) to easily separate the list when viewing and not titles. We went to the quarter system because many felt it was becoming an impossible task to accurately place titles on a one to one basis with the increasing number of releases.



This was my understanding as well when the markers were placed in the tiers.


1/4

-----

1/2

-----

3/4

-----

Bottom


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ballen420* /forum/post/15252603
> 
> 
> This was my understanding as well when the markers were placed in the tiers.
> 
> 
> 1/4
> 
> -----
> 
> 1/2
> 
> -----
> 
> 3/4
> 
> -----
> 
> Bottom



This is true, but it's still means that the "top" of the tier is "1/4" and this is what some members were having trouble understanding. They thought 1/4 was actually the second list of titles in the tier.


I still believe it would be much easier for everyone if the designations were listed at the top of each quarterly list. It could be "1st quarter," "2nd quarter," etc. or "Gold 1," "Gold 2," etc.


----------



## mrTAPOUT

I noticed Rescue Dawn is not on the list. I was very suprised at how great the quality is. The picture is near flawless in my eyes. The movie takes place in a jungle. the colors are very vivid, clean and sharp transfer, and no noticeable EE. I like that its full screen also. I hate black bars.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mrTAPOUT* /forum/post/15253306
> 
> 
> I noticed Rescue Dawn is not on the list. I was very suprised at how great the quality is. The picture is near flawless in my eyes. The movie takes place in a jungle. the colors are very vivid, clean and sharp transfer, and no noticeable EE. I like that its full screen also. I hate black bars.



Rescue Dawn is listed in Tier 0...the 27th title from the top.


----------



## rsbeck

*Hancock*


Excellent transfer and luscious cinematography. Some of the best blacks and color saturation I've seen on Blu-Ray. Shadow and shadow detail is excellent. No noise in evidence. It's reach out and touch, count the pores on faces sharp and yet it looks natural with very fine film grain intact, nothing to cause DNR or EE controversy. It reminds me of the PQ, look and feel of tier O title Black Snake Moan. So, what keeps it from being a tier 0 title? In the first bunch of sequences, the film maker chose to use hand held cameras to simulate the unsteadiness of Hancock's inebriation. This causes some of the pictures to waver momentarily out of tier 0 PQ. Also, the action sequences are on hyper speed, which often causes motion blur. Still, there are lots and lots of not just great shots, but reference quality shots and the overall look of this film really shows off the ultimate in what blu-ray can do. I feel the overall PQ quality is better than Iron Man; more resolution, detail and saturation, black levels and handling of shadows in a whole different league. Iron Man is ranked in the second quarter of Tier 1. The question becomes; how much do you lower this title for the moments of "softness?" I will lean conservative.

*Recommendation: Second quarter of tier 1*


Sim2 C3X1080

Carada Masquerade

126" Firehawk G3

Pioneer BDP-05FD


13' From Screen



.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mrTAPOUT* /forum/post/15253306
> 
> 
> I noticed Rescue Dawn is not on the list. I was very suprised at how great the quality is. The picture is near flawless in my eyes. The movie takes place in a jungle. the colors are very vivid, clean and sharp transfer, and no noticeable EE. I like that its full screen also. I hate black bars.



Agree completely. Rescue Dawn is deservedly ranked tier 0 and I still think it could easily be moved up a few notches. Very impressive title. Check tier 0 again -- it's there.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15253025
> 
> 
> I still believe it would be much easier for everyone if the designations were listed at the top of each quarterly list. It could be "1st quarter," "2nd quarter," etc. or "Gold 1," "Gold 2," etc.



Agree -- I believe this would eliminate any confusion.


----------



## kcushing




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15253025
> 
> 
> I still believe it would be much easier for everyone if the designations were listed at the top of each quarterly list. It could be "1st quarter," "2nd quarter," etc. or "Gold 1," "Gold 2," etc.



I also agree. Either that or we leave them as they are and refer to them as 1.0, 1.25. 1.5, 1.75, and then 2.0


I am fine with either way, but it seems to me that either the labeling needs to change or the way we refer to them.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15254450
> 
> *Hancock*
> 
> 
> Excellent transfer and luscious cinematography. Some of the best blacks and color saturation I've seen on Blu-Ray. Shadow and shadow detail is excellent. No noise in evidence. It's reach out and touch, count the pores on faces sharp and yet it looks natural with very fine film grain intact, nothing to cause DNR or EE controversy. It reminds me of the PQ, look and feel of tier O title Black Snake Moan. So, what keeps it from being a tier 0 title? In the first bunch of sequences, the film maker chose to use hand held cameras to simulate the unsteadiness of Hancock's inebriation. This causes some of the pictures to waver momentarily out of tier 0 PQ. Also, the action sequences are on hyper speed, which often causes motion blur. Still, there are lots and lots of not just great shots, but reference quality shots and the overall look of this film really shows off the ultimate in what blu-ray can do. I feel the overall PQ quality is better than Iron Man; more resolution, detail and saturation, black levels and handling of shadows in a whole different league. Iron Man is ranked in the second quarter of Tier 1. The question becomes; how much do you lower this title for the moments of "softness?" I will lean conservative.
> 
> *Recommendation: Second quarter of tier 1*
> 
> 
> Sim2 C3X1080
> 
> Carada Masquerade
> 
> 126" Firehawk G3
> 
> Pioneer BDP-05FD
> 
> 
> 13' From Screen
> 
> 
> 
> .



I recommended Tier 1 3/4 as I thought the film could have been Tier 0 as well, but I thought the overall PQ had many out of focus shots being the norm rather than the exception. I think we are the same page when you call it soft?


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15254740
> 
> 
> I think we are the same page when you call it soft?



Yeah, soft is not the right word. I agree with you -- the picture wavers out of focus. However I would not agree that this is the norm. It it were, it would be terrible to watch. I guess it's a glass half full or half empty kind of thing. I see the glass as mostly full and it's a really nice glass full of a really nice beverage in a really nice bar in one of my favorite cities on a beautiful day in May.....


----------



## rsbeck

I would not argue with a first quarter of tier 1 placement for Hancock, but I would argue with third quarter of tier 1 --- it's in a differet league fro those titles as well as some of the titles in the second quarter of 1. I think second quarter of tier 1 for Hancock is conservative and fair.


----------



## ChrisPC




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15254943
> 
> 
> Next, I would suggest we be as tough on animated titles. For example, why is it we want to punish a non-animated title that is mostly tier 0 for any moment of softness, yet Wall-E is soft for the first third of the film and yet is ranked tier 0? Not to cane that expired quadruped, but as long as we're punishing softness, let's revisit Wall-E and take it out of tier 0 for the same issue. Let's have some consistency.



Pixar has stated that they wanted Wall-E to look softer than their other films. They even went so far as to simulate spherical lens distortion, to make it look like a 35MM Panavision film. Therefore, the softness was the director's intent.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ChrisPC* /forum/post/15255116
> 
> 
> Pixar has stated that they wanted Wall-E to look softer than their other films. They even went so far as to simulate spherical lens distortion, to make it look like a 35MM Panavision film. Therefore, the softness was the director's intent.



That only lends support to the argument in favor of lowering Wall-E.


The picture assessment criteria at the beginning of *this* thread specifically say that the film maker's intention is immaterial, we are only to judge the result.


If Pixar admits Wall-E's picture is soft, how can we place it in tier 0?


I think we are rewarding Wall-E for its CGI technology, which is first rate, rather than for it's PQ, which is soft -- and soft for a long time.


Otherwise, we'd have to raise a whole bunch of other titles to tier 0, including Hancock, based on director's intention.


That would be a disaster of biblical proportions. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!

Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!


----------



## Toe

IMO the Police Certifiable BR is the best looking concert BR to date. Tier 0 vote from me.


----------



## 42041

It's not any softer than most film transfers on Tier 0, just not pixel-sharp like a 3d rendering and uses a lot of shallow depth of field effects. I think WallE is beautifully done and will stay firmly near the top of my demo material list.


----------



## Supertrapped

Dark Knight is







on BR


The IMAX scenes are incredible!


----------



## kcushing




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Supertrapped* /forum/post/15256304
> 
> 
> Dark Knight is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> on BR
> 
> 
> The IMAX scenes are incredible!



Mine shiped last night, but I won't have it for a couple days yet.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15255192
> 
> 
> That only lends support to the argument in favor of lowering Wall-E.
> 
> 
> The picture assessment criteria at the beginning of *this* thread specifically say that the film maker's intention is immaterial, we are only to judge the result.



In that case, the criteria renders this thread quite useless, IMO. For decades now, I've been so frustrated by the side of this argument the thread criteria seems to promote. If we ignore the _intended_ picture, how can we evaluate a technology's ability to render anything? And, even just in _practical_ terms, what's the point of ignoring the intended picture? The purpose of the Wall-E BD is not to demonstrate Blu-ray crispness, it is to demonstrate the movie, Wall-E!


This philosophy used to aggravate me no end when I read the disc reviews in Widescreen Review. They would deduct points when PQ/AQ-reviewing a disc of an old catalog title because the movie was in black-and-white or had, say, a mono soundtrack. Thus, they would argue, it could not represent the "best" that the format could look/sound.


Well, DUH!


And, furthermore, WHO CARES?! The point is not to make Casablanca look and sound the best that a movie can look and sound, but to make it look and sound the best that _Casablanca_ can look and sound. And if you deduct points because of production values of the source-material, you leave an uneven playing-field and I'm left with no idea how well that disc represents the best that Casablanca can look and sound, only how well it represents the best that some theoretical "ideal" movie can look and sound.


HOW FREAKIN' USELESS IS THAT?!


/rant


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Dark Knight
*

tier recommendation: *third quarter of Tier 1*


The most anticipated Blu-ray release of all-time, Warner Bros. Pictures has released this Christopher Nolan helmed movie today in a very good looking release that does have some minor problems. The 152-minute main feature is encoded in VC-1 on a BD-50. The average video bitrate is 24.00 Mbps, derived from a BDInfo computer scan (scan courtesy of forum member House linked below). This Blu-ray represents the best compression work I have ever seen from a Warner title, with absolutely no macroblocking or banding or compression noise throughout the movie. It is simply an excellent video encode that appears transparent to the source HD master. There are regular peaks in the forties for the video encode with no bitrate starvation, even in the darker lit scenes. I am very grateful that Warner decided to place the bulk of extras on a second disc to give the video encode of this long movie breathing room.


For the most part the changing aspect ratio for the IMAX portions appears seamless to the viewer. The source master looks in very good shape in terms of dirt or specks. There are no noticeable anomalies on the image, even during the special effect sequences. Unfortunately I did notice the application of intrusive edge enhancement haloes at times. A few scenes appear severely over-sharpened and if anything, look worse in motion on my display than from the screen caps seen here in other threads. This is the only negative of this transfer but it is definitely present and visible. I would imagine even an untrained eye would notice it on larger screens. It did not ruin my enjoyment of this movie’s picture quality but it is disappointing. Outside of the sharpening the transfer appears very film-like with no apparent tinkering. Grain structure appears normal and fluid with no strange motion artifacts.


The color black is rendered superbly, with excellent gray-scale and a deep inky quality to the darker lit scenes. There is a great shot later in the movie with the Joker’s face surrounded by pitch blackness. Shadow detail and depth reveal a fantastic amount of low light information like the Batman’s suit in all its glory. In fact I would rate the black levels here as among the best the Blu-ray format has to offer.


This film presents incredible cinematography throughout that really brings Gotham to life. Contrast is solid with slightly muted colors that tend toward cooler tones. I did find the flesh tones a little overcooked in a few indoor scenes but this is a minor quibble. Close-ups reveal very fine detail, though this does not appear to have the razor sharp appearance that higher ranked tier titles possess. The image has a nice consistent depth to it but no one will confuse this with a Michael Bay directed movie with loads of three dimensional pop. It is obvious the film was carefully shot, with the frame of the image being composed with a greater overall coherence and purpose than any other blockbuster I have ever witnessed.


Overall I was very happy with this Blu-ray's image quality outside of the dreaded edge enhancement. I would be recommending a higher tier placement without it frankly, but it is there and does slightly distract from the final image quality and assessment. I am recommending this BD be placed in the third quarter of tier one.


Watching on a calibrated 60” Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080P/24 from a PS3 (firmware 2.53) at an approximate viewing distance of six feet.


BDInfo Scan:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...7#post15119577


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15255290
> 
> 
> It's not any softer than most film transfers on Tier 0.



I wonder how many would agree that most titles in Tier 0 are as soft as the first third of Wall-E. Anyone? Let's see some hands....


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15257430
> 
> 
> I wonder how many would agree that most titles in Tier 0 are as soft as the first third of Wall-E. Anyone? Let's see some hands....



And I wonder how many people would use Prison Break to demo their HT setup before Wall-E...


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15257430
> 
> 
> I wonder how many would agree that most titles in Tier 0 are as soft as the first third of Wall-E. Anyone? Let's see some hands....



My hand is.....DOWN! You are absolutely right rsbeck about the first 30+ minutes of Wall-E being soft. That's why I was pushing for low Tier 0.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15257370
> 
> 
> Well then, I would advise you to read the other thread where director's intention is factored.



The problem is that I think this Wall-E example perfectly illustrates that this thread's criteria is fundamentally undefinable. I mean, if we take the criterion at face-value, how can we say that this section of Wall-E _is_ soft? It's a CGI render. It's _exactly_ as soft and as sharp as the rest of the movie because it is rendered in exactly the same way and delivered onto the disc in exactly the same way. It's just aesthetically different material... but we're not supposed to consider aesthetics. Therefor, by virtue of the digital source, I think that, according to this criterion, a perfectly reasonable argument can be made that the sequences _are_ soft and a perfectly reasonable argument can be made that they _are not at all_ soft. Where does that leave the criterion?



For that matter, if we're not going to consider artistic intent in this thread, shouldn't we only be considering 1.78:1-framed discs? After all, anything else is clearly not exploiting the medium for everything it is capable of. This factor alone should drop Wall-E down to Tier 5!


----------



## Hammie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kcushing* /forum/post/15254593
> 
> 
> I also agree. Either that or we leave them as they are and refer to them as 1.0, 1.25. 1.5, 1.75, and then 2.0
> 
> 
> I am fine with either way, but it seems to me that either the labeling needs to change or the way we refer to them.



Thinking like an engineer and seeing things in a decimal format, I have always read them as kcushing denotes them.


0.00

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

.

.

.


This makes the most LOGICAL sense to ME. YMMV.


----------



## HDphile22

I VOTE Dark Knight as Tier 0... PQ is Reference material, period.


NO Less!


I seen a LOT of Blu-rays, but Dark Knight is Incredible above the others!


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15258250
> 
> 
> Alive and well with a perfectly reasonable basis for discussion; one with perfectly reasonable arguments on both sides.



Very well. In honor of this distinction, I hereby nominate Wall-E for the top of Tier 0 and for the bottom of Tier 5.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDphile22* /forum/post/15258299
> 
> 
> I VOTE Dark Knight as Tier 0... PQ is Reference material, period.
> 
> 
> NO Less!



















i'll refrain from commenting


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15258303
> 
> 
> Very well. In honor of this distinction, I hereby nominate Wall-E for the top of Tier 0 and for the bottom of Tier 5.



You must have enjoyed that Sally Field movie Sybil.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15258481
> 
> 
> You must have enjoyed that Sally Field movie Sybil.



Hey, I'm just doing my best to interpret the thread criteria.


What do you think of the letterboxing issue I raised? I mean, honestly, can we really consider a disc that utterly WASTES 20% of its resolution-potential to only have "minor issues"? If the director's intent doesn't matter...


----------



## spectator

Here's one:


If I bring home a disc in a package marked "Apocalypse Now", pop it into my player and am greeted by a pristine Tier 0 presentation of Kung-Fu Panda, should I consider this "Apocalypse Now" release to be Tier 0? After all, if director's intent doesn't matter...


Whee! This is fun!


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15258651
> 
> 
> Honestly? I thought it was disingenuous, sarcastic, and perfectly in line with the rest of your visit.



I'll cop to all of that, but honestly, I'm not raising this issue to make trouble, to play devil's advocate or to be a contrarian for the sake of entertaining myself. I'm having fun with over-the-top examples, but my concern is a legitimate one, made in earnest. I think ignoring intent creates a logical fallacy, especially when it concerns material that isn't even sourced from film.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15258656
> 
> 
> should I consider this "Apocalypse Now" release to be Tier 0?



Yes and possibly a collector's item.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15258701
> 
> 
> I'll cop to all of that, but honestly, I'm not raising this issue to make trouble, to play devil's advocate or to be a contrarian for the sake of entertaining myself. I'm having fun with over-the-top examples, but my concern is a legitimate one, made in earnest. I think ignoring intent creates a logical fallacy, especially when it concerns material that isn't even sourced from film.



I agree that you can't simply disregard artistic intent. If you penalized every scene in a movie where part of the image may be outside the focus plane, I think many movies might be coming off Tier 0. That's ridiculous.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15258679
> 
> 
> Complaining about it seems about as worthwhile as going to a clothing store and complaining that they should sell vinyl record albums.



I'm not complaining about it; I'm trying to point out that it is fundamentally broken/unworkable. This doesn't upset me, it's just something I think needs to be considered and resolved by anyone trying to get some use out of this thread. This "Tier" stuff is taken so seriously around here, with debates about _sub-Tier_ placement, it's all just a little absurd if people are ignoring the big picture that the whole argument is a logical impossibility.


Just my opinion, shared with the intent to get people to re-examine their picture priorities/philosophies.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15258701
> 
> 
> my concern is a legitimate one



Hey -- I'll be the judge of that. 



> Quote:
> I think ignoring intent creates a logical fallacy



I find that it makes things cleaner for this particular thread. I love the recent Godfather restoration and heaped all kinds of praise on it. Is it tier 0 demo material according to the criteria of this thread? Of course not, but it is easily tier 0 material according to the director's intent thread. I don't have any problem compartmentalizing.



.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15258711
> 
> 
> If you penalized every scene in a movie where part of the image may be outside the focus plane, I think many movies might be coming off Tier 0.



Good point. By the thread's criteria, any out-of-focus material is "soft", regardless of Blu-ray transfer quality.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15258756
> 
> 
> I love the recent Godfather restoration and heaped all kinds of praise on it. Is it tier 0 demo material according to the criteria of this thread? Of course not, but it is easily tier 0 material according to the director's intent thread.



Fair enough. If that's your approach to this thread, I will seriously suggest that you do indeed take me up on my 'only consider 1.78:1-framed material' proposal. If your aim is "How pretty can Blu-ray make a picture, completely in the abstract?", surely absolute picture resolution should be a pretty high priority.


Then again, the lesser the resolution, the higher the available bit-rate devoted to improving the remaining resolution. Oh, what to do, what to do?


----------



## zinfamous




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15257964
> 
> 
> The problem is that I think this Wall-E example perfectly illustrates that this thread's criteria is fundamentally undefinable. I mean, if we take the criterion at face-value, how can we say that this section of Wall-E _is_ soft? It's a CGI render. It's _exactly_ as soft and as sharp as the rest of the movie because it is rendered in exactly the same way and delivered onto the disc in exactly the same way. It's just aesthetically different material... but we're not supposed to consider aesthetics. Therefor, by virtue of the digital source, I think that, according to this criterion, a perfectly reasonable argument can be made that the sequences _are_ soft and a perfectly reasonable argument can be made that they _are not at all_ soft. Where does that leave the criterion?
> 
> 
> 
> For that matter, if we're not going to consider artistic intent in this thread, shouldn't we only be considering 1.78:1-framed discs? After all, anything else is clearly not exploiting the medium for everything it is capable of. This factor alone should drop Wall-E down to Tier 5!



Had I my druthers, this thread would be about honest PQ--as accurate a representation of the picture as one could possibly hope to obtain with the current technology.


In this case, Wall-E would be on as equal footing as any flick in tier 0, as I honestly think all of those currently are. The rendering in Wall-E is perfect, soft when it's supposed to be, sharp and detailed when it is. The humans lack detail as the plot would be compromised had it been any other way.


The use of depth of field is revolutionary in this film, and is nothing you wouldn't see in a live action flick. It really boggles my mind when people here complain about softness in certain scenes during a rack focus. seriously....


I'm glad that there remains an artistic intent thread, but to be honest, (and I know this is a forum for tech geeks more than it is for film buffs--I can perfectly accept that), PQ should be defined by the artist, by the content.


In such cases, I think a wee bit of DNR could be acceptable when it is not intrusive. Ideally, I suppose, filtering wouldn't exist, but film makers have been battling against grain throughout the history of the industry. Sometimes in embraced, and appropriately so, but content exists where excessive grain is more intrusive to the text than what the filmmaker might prefer.


Either way, not everyone's going to win on this. I think both threads serve their own purposes, and I think everything currently in Tier 0 that I have seen deserves to be there. I tend to look at those films as equals anyway...


----------



## zinfamous




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15258775
> 
> 
> Good point. By the thread's criteria, any out-of-focus material is "soft", regardless of Blu-ray transfer quality.



yep.



as I said...it boggles the mind.


Still, you have to accept that this is a techy forum, not a film forum.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zinfamous* /forum/post/15258917
> 
> 
> Still, you have to accept that this is a techy forum, not a film forum.



I accept that it may be, but not that it should stay so!


That said, I certainly don't intend to be the preacher on the street-corner. I've made my point, probably clearly enough, and I'm done.


Nice post, BTW.


----------



## djoberg

I believe this will be the fourth review of *The Dark Knight* on this thread and quite frankly I'm amazed that 2 out of the 3 previous reviews opted for a Tier 1 placement (and those were for third and fourth quarter at that). I will throw in my lot with HDphile22 and suggest a *Tier 0* placement.


What I would ask of those who voted for Tier 1 is this: What would disqualify this title for being in Tier 0? Let me say that I did indeed see some slight ringing in several scenes (as Phantom indicated), but IMO it was not that distracting (unless, of course, you paused your tv to stare at it!!). Aside from this anomaly, I saw no other artifacts or flaws of any kind.


What impressed me the most in TDK were (again, as Phantom mentioned) the black levels and shadow detail. They were PHENOMENAL!! We are treated to many city night scenes and I would borrow from the review of Ralph Potts by saying, "The nighttime cityscapes were breathtaking!" If you have an HDTV (with high contrast) that is able to deliver deep blacks you will be awed! The scene with the Joker being questioned with just his painted face centered in pitch black is another one that will WOW you.


Daytime scenes are razor-sharp too with bright contrast, vibrant colors, amazingly accurate fleshtones, deep (and defined) blacks, and facial close-ups as detailed as they come.


There were quite a few action scenes and I saw no motion blur at all. Every detail remained intact.


I know this is a PQ thread, but I would be remiss if I didn't comment on the incredible AQ. If this were an AQ thread I would nominate it for one of the top 5 in Tier 0! It is pure sonic bliss, with crisp dialogue, and plenty of action in the surrounds and the LFE channel.


I will end by being more specific with the placement. I believe it deserves, at the very least, *mid Tier 0* placement. As I compare this with other Tier 0 non-animated movies it rivals Man On Fire, the POTC series, and even I, Robot. If you think I'm wrong in this, by all means answer my question above (as to what would disqualify it from a Tier 0 spot). Again, I DID see a few instances of "ringing" (i.e., halos), but I really had to look for them to see them, so they were NOT distracting to my eyes.


----------



## unclepauly

I agree, director's intent should not take away from a movie's ranking. I for one want directors to use more creativity, not follow a strict guideline of what gives the most fidelity.


----------



## MelloFellow13

*The Dark Knight - Recommendation Tier 1 second quarter*


I could spend a lot of time talking about the detail, the contrast, the sharpness, but these have all been mentioned and I agree with everything which has been said about them. So, here is my logic behind MY recommendation:


1. The Dark Knight looks better than Batman Begins. I don't think there will be many out there who disagree with me. As far as I can tell, Batman Begins has some minor issues with softness and fine details, some shots feel like they have black crush, and overall the wow factor isn't very present. For The Dark Knight, that wow factor was present, although not 100% persistent, throughout. Still, the IMAX work is remarkable, and the contrast and shadow detail is just about the best I've seen on any live action BD.


2. However, TDK is not without faults. The EE and ringing, while not distracting, is enough of an offense to drop this title out of the reference tier (see the definitions of the tiers in the OP if you don't believe me







). I don't think the PQ is better than Kill Bill and since that is the movie which presently rounds out the reference tier, it's only fair to place TDK in Tier 1. This movie is much like Iron Man - spectacular in most places but falls short of perfection. Therefore I recommend a comparable ranking for TDK.


Feel free to weigh in on my opinions.










Setup:


60GB Playstation 3

Onkyo 705 via HDMI

Pioneer Kuro 5020 1080p

11' away from screen


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15258997
> 
> 
> What I would ask of those who voted for Tier 1 is this: What would disqualify this title for being in Tier 0? Let me say that I did indeed see some slight ringing in several scenes (as Phantom indicated), but IMO it was not that distracting (unless, of course, you paused your tv to stare at it!!). Aside from this anomaly, I saw no other artifacts or flaws of any kind.



Like I said in my review, I think the 35mm segments have an unpleasant digital look and are visually bland. As some might say, it lacks "pop" and I think many titles in Tier 1 are more impressive.


----------



## zinfamous




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15258976
> 
> 
> I accept that it may be, but not that it should stay so!
> 
> 
> That said, I certainly don't intend to be the preacher on the street-corner. I've made my point, probably clearly enough, and I'm done.
> 
> 
> Nice post, BTW.



I honestly wish there was another corner in these forums to discuss film.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MelloFellow13* /forum/post/15259164
> 
> 
> However, TDK is not without faults. *The EE and ringing, while not distracting, is enough of an offense to drop this title out of the reference tier*
> 
> 
> Feel free to weigh in on my opinions.



If slight ringing in a few scenes disqualifies a title from being in Tier 0, then Baraka should be knocked down a tier. Can I see a show of hands for moving Baraka to Tier 1?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15259172
> 
> 
> Like I said in my review, I think the 35mm segments have an unpleasant digital look and are visually bland. As some might say, it lacks "pop" and I think many titles in Tier 1 are more impressive.



I just did a search of your posts and I couldn't find a review by you on this thread.


Regarding the 35mm segments having "an unpleasant digital look and are visually bland," my viewing experience was just the opposite. I thought scenes looked quite natural and were anything but bland....they were sharp, IMO.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zinfamous* /forum/post/15258917
> 
> 
> Still, you have to accept that this is a techy forum, not a film forum.



I guess this works if you accept the idea that the methodology employed in the other forums where people look at a few screen grabs and jump on the "I'm not buying" bandwagon -- even though professionals in the business continually tell you this methodology is flawed -- is the true sign of loving film as opposed to technology.


I think you guys are doing a little unearned grandstanding.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *unclepauly* /forum/post/15259110
> 
> 
> I agree, director's intent should not take away from a movie's ranking. I for one want directors to use more creativity, not follow a strict guideline of what gives the most fidelity.



Really? That is great.







But I think you are in the WRONG thread.

Perhaps you should give this one a try.









http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1037935 


I am a fan of film creativity by the director as well. The problem is, I don't agree with what many directors do to some of what could have been pretty good movies. But then that is just my opinion. I realize others like it... To each their own.

I suppose that is why I don't go to the Film Grain Allowed - Artistic Intent Thread and try to ram my personal opinions down their throat.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I can see where others are coming from about the Dark Knight's picture quality but the ringing was very distracting at times to me. Once you have trained yourself to look for it, it is hard to miss in certain BD transfers. I could see it ranked higher in tier one than what I recommended but the absolute highest I personally could see it ranked is the bottom of tier zero. If we still followed the old system I would have ranked this right near the middle of tier one. Outside of picture quality considerations, this is one great and flawless movie. But I always try to separate my personal feelings on the quality of the movie from influencing my recommendations and placements.


As for director's intent, we have hashed this discussion out before but I will reiterate my feelings once more. For the vast majority of Blu-ray releases we simply have no insight or access to what the director intended on any film, and thus have focused this thread only on the end visual product. I think some people get upset when a favored movie of their own gets placed low in the rankings. Each Blu-ray's image has to stand on its own, if its animation or live action film, and introducing arguments that something should be ranked higher because the director wanted it to look that way is a non-starter in my opinion. Not all films are created equally capable of great picture quality from creation...


----------



## rsbeck

Excellent explanation and post, Phantom Stranger, as usual. Thanks.


----------



## Fanaticalism




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fanaticalism* /forum/post/15251390
> 
> 
> TDK
> 
> 
> Bottom portion of Tier 1.
> 
> 
> I can't say enough of how good this movie is. Everytime I see it, it saddens me that we will never have the graces of Ledger on film, or as the Joker again. It truly is difficult to focus on the overall PQ of this film, as you are so immersed in the movie.
> 
> 
> The AR changes were actually tastfully done, and never detract you from the movie. In some scenes, you don't even notice it, as when the changes occur, it is typically from a light scene (Full screen), to a dark scene (letterboxed), which the bars blend right into the bezel anyway (the beauty that is a Pro151).
> 
> 
> Comparing the shots the Bale from some of his others movies such as the Prestige, the details seem a bit enhanced in some portions, especially when he is in his temporary "batcave". You can see some of the EE, making the details appear unnatural.
> 
> 
> I will say, that this film demands excellent contrast, as any display without it, will appear to have a gray overlay to it throughout a lot of portions of the movie (Began to watch it on another display we have in the house, and it just wasn't up to snuff).
> 
> 
> All in all, the PQ was pretty decent, and a must buy in my book. There were only a few scenes where the PQ dropped off. My judgement may be a little harsh, but atm, it is the way I feel. I plan to watch this again, and pay even closer attention to details. Can't say it will be easy though, as the acting, dramatics, and overall experience just suck me in everytime!



I have just seen this movie again, and I feel that my initial assessment maintains in tact. However, I could see how it may be placed slightly above Tier 1 3/4, but above 1 1/2, I just don't see it happening.


----------



## quake1028

I vote bottom of Tier 0 or Tier 1 1/4 for Dark Knight. I need another viewing to be sure. However, I did notice (to my eyes) that the second half of the film looked markedly better than the first half. Did anyone else notice this? Maybe it's because there were finally some daylight scenes in the second half? Hard to tell, and as I said, I need another viewing to be sure.


----------



## Hughmc

Director's intent. We don't really ding or lower a title because of Director's intent, we lower it based on how it looks, how the PQ is or isn't and while that maybe the director's intent to have a certain look I see it as two different things. I thought that is what we did, please correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## unclepauly




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *unclepauly* /forum/post/15259110
> 
> 
> I agree, director's intent should not take away from a movie's ranking. I for one want directors to use more creativity, not follow a strict guideline of what gives the most fidelity.



Okay after reading through some of yous(!) guys posts and re-reading the 1st post I will have to agree that directors intent is not a factor and overall PQ is what is measured "in this thread". Okay, I've got it. I was not aware of the other thread thanks for pointing it out. Now I'm off to see what kind of state that thread is in.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15259771
> 
> 
> I can see where others are coming from about the Dark Knight's picture quality but the ringing was very distracting at times to me. *Once you have trained yourself to look for it, it is hard to miss* in certain BD transfers.



I was once tempted to "train myself to look for it [ringing]", but thankfully I resisted that temptation.










On a serious note Phantom, I sympathize with you and others who are easily distracted by ringing (i.e., halos) and thus I can see why you would feel compelled to penalize a title for this. But perhaps more people are NOT bothered by slight halos (if and when they see them). This presents a real problem in determining placement based on this one criterion.


There are other factors involved with seeing ringing, mainly, screen size and seating distance. From other threads I have learned that the larger one's screen is, the greater the chance is of seeing and being distracted by halos, and this is especially true of those with front projectors and very large screens. Again, the majority of us probably have smaller screens (42"-61") and thus the majority will not be affected to the point of distraction. (I know there will be exceptions to this rule...like you, patrick, and others.)


I don't know if there is a solution to judging this particular criterion when we don't all see it (or if we do see it, we're not bothered by it). It's not like judging contrast, black levels, fleshtones, etc., which are criteria that we can all see and agree on. But I do think we need to be considerate of these subjective differences, and it is refreshing to see you making a compromise here because you recognize these differences.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15259376
> 
> 
> I just did a search of your posts and I couldn't find a review by you on this thread.
> 
> 
> Regarding the 35mm segments having "an unpleasant digital look and are visually bland," my viewing experience was just the opposite. I thought scenes looked quite natural and were anything but bland....they were sharp, IMO.



post #7039 (or close to it)

(edit: I'll repost it here, so it doesn't get lost among the post-street date reviews)


"So I watched The Dark Knight. A mixed bag, to say the least. I'd even suggest splitting it into two separate entries. The 70mm portions are fantastic. Massive detail, a great amount of depth and "pop". It's not free of technical issues, since it also exhibits some occasionally distracting ringing (that wasn't present in the Batman Begins teaser), but overall the image looks filmlike and natural, and like Baraka, it still looks great despite these issues and is likely the most impressive live action content I've seen. I'd put the 70mm segments above Baraka since the image is a bit sharper and uses the full HD frame.


The 35mm segments are unimpressive to my eyes. For some reason, with the exception of a couple scenes, the colors consistently seem dull compared to the IMAX portions, and while it has a solid amount of detail much of the time, the image never really impresses. Though some reviewers seem to disagree, personally I see a distractingly high amount of EE applied throughout the movie leading to an unpleasantly harsh look, and halo artifacts can be seen in almost every shot containing contrasting edges. Skin tones tend to be very orangey, and the overall color scheme is very drab. Fortunately I didn't see DNR at work in the vast majority of the movie (one or two shots look a bit suspect but it's a non-issue in the grand scheme of things), and grain haters will find plenty to hate. Personally, I'd go through many movies before I'd ever use this as demo material. I don't think it's as good as Iron Man or Transformers. I don't think it's as good as I Am Legend (but I do prefer it to Batman Begins, which is probably placed higher than it deserves). My initial impressions from earlier are unchanged, I'd put the 35mm portions about on par with There Will Be Blood, top tier 2 (though it doesn't have the same spotty black levels).


Overall, I'd say this blu-ray is worth having if just for the IMAX sequences, which are top shelf demo material, but most of the movie is 35mm and if you forced me to give an overall grade I'd probably put it in the low half of Tier 1 [edit: changed ranking].


(watched on a somewhat calibrated Samsung LN40A650 from a rather short distance)"


The 35mm is pretty sharp but not exceptionally so, and while I don't HATE it, it doesn't strike as Tier 0 demo material from my close TV viewing distance. The EE issues I have aren't as obvious on my 21" CRT so I imagine the size/distance has a lot to do with it, but the aesthetics aspect still falls short for my tastes. 90% of the movie is murky dark interior or night shots, and while this is entirely subjective, it's not my idea of eye candy.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15259945
> 
> 
> I was once tempted to "train myself to look for it [ringing]", but thankfully I resisted that temptation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On a serious note Phantom, I sympathize with you and others who are easily distracted by ringing (i.e., halos) and thus I can see why you would feel compelled to penalize a title for this. But perhaps more people are NOT bothered by slight halos (if and when they see them). This presents a real problem in determining placement based on this one criterion.
> 
> 
> There are other factors involved with seeing ringing, mainly, screen size and seating distance. From other threads I have learned that the larger one's screen is, the greater the chance is of seeing and being distracted by halos, and this is especially true of those with front projectors and very large screens. Again, the majority of us probably have smaller screens (42"-61") and thus the majority will not be affected to the point of distraction. (I know there will be exceptions to this rule...like you, patrick, and others.)
> 
> 
> I don't know if there is a solution to judging this particular criterion when we don't all see it (or if we do see it, we're not bothered by it). It's not like judging contrast, black levels, fleshtones, etc., which are criteria that we can all see and agree on. But I do think we need to be considerate of these subjective differences, and it is refreshing to see you making a compromise here because you recognize these differences.




djoberg, you hit on something I have been wanting to comment on which is big screens. I even got more or less a confirmation from AVS owner Alan Gouger when I asked him, I think in the DK thread he started, if the issue is the ones doing the transfers are not seeing them on big screens hence they don't see the issues they might or might not cause when trying to "better" a film PQ wise.


I know we have a few exceptions like How the West Was Won and Prince Caspian for example, but if I was an outsider just learning about Home Theater and big screens and also looking at big screen monitors like many of us have, I would say BD within reason is not as big as an issue with PQ as much as some saying BD's look like crap on a big screen blown up is a PQ issue. Now don't take me wrong I AM NOT KNOCKING big screens or elevating BD in the same thought, I am merely stating the obvious from reading post after post from owners of both. As much as I want to get a projector from what I have seen even in high end showrooms and from what some here claim, I am more than hesitant especially when I have one of the highest rated displays for last year and it is very film like in its quality.


----------



## Juicyjucie3303

Picked up Batman and Horton Hears a who today...


Batman has been discussed to death at this point, so I won't really comment on that one










Horton on the other hand, I was very surprised and pleased. I saw this one at the drive in this summer with the girlfriend, and didn't really catch just how much detail there was in this movie. Right now I don't really have a feel of where it should fall, but it looked pretty darn good to me on my first hd viewing of it.


----------



## selimsivad

Just finished "The Dark Knight."

The IMAX scenes were amazing.

The black levels were through the roof.


But the only the only thing I could think about was...


"IF THIS IS HD, I WONDER HOW BAD THE DVD LOOKS!"


No joke!











PS3, Samsung 46", six feet.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15260122
> 
> 
> The black levels were through the roof.



Ideally, shouldn't they be through the floor?


----------



## Beta Tester




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/15255222
> 
> 
> IMO the Police Certifiable BR is the best looking concert BR to date. Tier 0 vote from me.



Have you seen Elton 60? I am wondering how the PQ compares.


----------



## Vegaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *quake1028* /forum/post/15259911
> 
> 
> However, I did notice (to my eyes) that the second half of the film looked markedly better than the first half. Did anyone else notice this?



I thought so too. The IMAX stuff makes me want to put it in 0 but as I said with Sin City I haven't seen a live action in 0 though it was easy to vote that for there. I think overall it balances out to top of gold/gold 1/top quater. If it was all IMAX quality then I'd have no problem saying 0. I plan on watching Kill Bill at some point so maybe it'll change after that.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl












Well, I think I'm having TV issues. I watched TDK this afternoon after watching BB this morning, and some messed up things happened at a certain point in the movie. Unfortunately, I cannot see it when I put the disc in my computer, nor could I see it when I stopped by at a friend's house this evening. I compared with my problems I was having with Speed Racer on his tv (it was his disc to begin with) and still saw the same purple line there on his TV, but the weird thing that was showing up on TDK was not there. *sigh* I didn't think it could be a problem with my TV b/c the issue only showed up during one scene (the scene where Bruce & Natascha crash Rachel & Harvey's dinner date, about 20ish minutes into the movie).



I was thinking my friend's TV had something on that was fixing things, but he checked the settings and they were all turned off. Both Batman Begins, and the majority of TDK looked really good, but I refuse to believe I'm now seeing phantom purple lines where they don't exist!!



*grumble* Sorry for the off topic post; I was just looking forward to jumping in with you guys and tossing my 2cents on in as well but I don't feel I can until i figure out this issue.











on a more on topic note, I think saying either "Gold 1, Gold 2, Gold 3, Gold 4 etc" or "1.00, 1.25, 1.50, 1.75 etc." would help.



and on a side note, I think I need to rent Wall-E because I really want to know what you guys are talking about. I haven't seen it, either in the theatre or at home.


----------



## H.Cornerstone

So I am watching the Dark Knight and so far I agree with what people have said, IMAX scenes are incredible, rest so so.


Anyways, I am watching the scenes in the makeshift bat cave, and you can really tell where there shirt ends and whatnot, like extremely clearly, and you can see black. Is this EE?


----------



## Hughmc

DK:


Tier 1 Gold 1/2

















Sony [email protected] from PS3 through HDMI


The BD viewing was a vast improvement for me over my local state of the art DLP theatre. I really enjoy my home setup.










I have a different opinion of this film now and think much better of it than my first viewing. It could have been an off day for me when I seen it at the theatre.











Most of this film on BD is Tier 0, Imax footage, to top tier 1, 35mm footage, PQ, but there are some issues though very minor. I noticed some very slight motion blurring just a couple of times as well as the ringing. Overall the transition from one format to the other was fluid and barely noticeable, but a couple of times I noticed a slight break in continuity in the film from one scene to the next. I would bet most who didn't know or weren't told about it might not remember or have paid much attention to it. I also think going back and forth between the two formats lends itself to PQ scrutiny for our purposes in this thread. If films do this kind of thing and the transition from one scene to another is poor and affects the movies flow, I think it should be counted against PQ. Overall it was a fun ride and the PQ was good to excellent. I would rate it 4.5 out of 5.


----------



## zinfamous




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15259452
> 
> 
> I guess this works if you accept the idea that the methodology employed in the other forums where people look at a few screen grabs and jump on the "I'm not buying" bandwagon -- even though professionals in the business continually tell you this methodology is flawed -- is the true sign of loving film as opposed to technology.
> 
> 
> I think you guys are doing a little unearned grandstanding.













for the record, I think TDK is a sub-par transfer, and a decent flick. Not great by any means, so I'm not so much "insulted" that it was "ruined" by a transfer that it didn't deserve.


I also think 90% of what happened on that is Nolan's doing. He is not a god, despite what many want to think.


....does this clear things up?


----------



## LBFilmGuy

So uhhh, what scenes are you guys seeing this EE and "ringing" in TDK? Despite being a cinematographer I still do not see it nor have the trained eye to see it, and maybe I should keep it that way


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zinfamous* /forum/post/15260606
> 
> 
> I also think 90% of what happened on that is Nolan's doing.



So much for honoring the director's intention.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15256950
> 
> *The Dark Knight
> *
> 
> tier recommendation: *third quarter of Tier 1*



I agree with that recommendation.


----------



## rsbeck

*The Dark Knight*


This blu-ray looks fantastic. Sure, there are a couple of frames with what appears to be EE (which I also saw when I viewed it at my local IMAX). I watch with a 9.5' Wide Constant Width Screen Set-Up and I sit less than 1.4 times screen width. To give you an idea, if you have a 60" display, you'd have to sit 5 to 6 feet away (depending on AR) to equal this. Trust me, it is not a problem when seen at this size and distance and for 99.9% of the population these few brief frames will not "ruin" this terrific blu-ray by any stretch of the imagination. The wide screen segments look great and the full screen segments look even better. The wide screen segments alone should be bottom quarter of tier 0; the blacks are excellent, contrast terrific, shadow detail tremendous, you see pores and imperfections, you see textures on shirts and jackets, it's reach out and touch, count the strands of hair and stubble PQ. There is no title in tier 1 with this type of PQ (according to THIS thread's criteria). Iron Man? Bank Job? Not even in the same city, much less ball-park. Blackhawk Down? Nope. The wide screen segments will remind you of the tier 0 title, Live Free or Die Hard. The full screen IMAX segments, amazingly, are even better. Half the time, you have to check to see if the AR has changed. I believe this blu-ray offers such an embarrassment of riches, people are simultaneously getting spoiled by it, comparing it to itself and becoming disappointed by the scenes that are just excellent rather than jaw dropping. Perspective is desperately needed here.

*Recommendation: Top half of Tier 0*.


Sim2 C3X1080

Carada Masquerade

126" Diagonal Firehawk G3

PIoneer BDP-05FD


13' from screen



.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15259452
> 
> 
> I guess this works if you accept the idea that the methodology employed in the other forums where people look at a few screen grabs and jump on the "I'm not buying" bandwagon -- even though professionals in the business continually tell you this methodology is flawed -- is the true sign of loving film as opposed to technology.
> 
> 
> I think you guys are doing a little unearned grandstanding.



Generally, in this thread we try to respect each other's opinions, and recognize that what we are expressing here are merely opinions, and that there can be honest and sincere disagreements on these issues.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15260774
> 
> 
> what we are expressing here are merely opinions



Yep.


----------



## HDphile22




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MelloFellow13* /forum/post/15259164
> 
> *The Dark Knight - Recommendation Tier 1 second quarter*
> 
> 
> I could spend a lot of time talking about the detail, the contrast, the sharpness, but these have all been mentioned and I agree with everything which has been said about them. So, here is my logic behind MY recommendation:
> 
> 
> 1. The Dark Knight looks better than Batman Begins. I don't think there will be many out there who disagree with me. As far as I can tell, Batman Begins has some minor issues with softness and fine details, some shots feel like they have black crush, and overall the wow factor isn't very present. For The Dark Knight, that wow factor was present, although not 100% persistent, throughout. Still, the IMAX work is remarkable, and the contrast and shadow detail is just about the best I've seen on any live action BD.
> 
> 
> 2. However, TDK is not without faults. The EE and ringing, while not distracting, is enough of an offense to drop this title out of the reference tier (see the definitions of the tiers in the OP if you don't believe me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ). I don't think the PQ is better than Kill Bill and since that is the movie which presently rounds out the reference tier, it's only fair to place TDK in Tier 1. This movie is much like Iron Man - spectacular in most places but falls short of perfection. Therefore I recommend a comparable ranking for TDK.
> 
> 
> Feel free to weigh in on my opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Setup:
> 
> 
> 60GB Playstation 3
> 
> Onkyo 705 via HDMI
> 
> Pioneer Kuro 5020 1080p
> 
> 11' away from screen




Look, I believe PQ should be based on what *MAJORITY* of the movie looks like.


And, Majority of *Dark Knight* is Tier 0 PQ. Only a few scenes are Tier 1 and below, IMO it should NOT bring the overall PQ down.


Tier 0 stands for Reference Material, and Dark Knight certainly qualifies most of the movie!


Flaws that are small % should have NO weight at all, unless it's very bad/noticeable the parts that are Reference material HAS to be Recognized Much more than these minor flaws.


This shouldn't just apply to Dark Knight, but ALL movies!


----------



## HDphile22




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Juicyjucie3303* /forum/post/15260039
> 
> 
> Picked up Batman and Horton Hears a who today...
> 
> 
> Batman has been discussed to death at this point, so I won't really comment on that one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Horton on the other hand, I was very surprised and pleased. I saw this one at the drive in this summer with the girlfriend, and didn't really catch just how much detail there was in this movie. Right now I don't really have a feel of where it should fall, but it looked pretty darn good to me on my first hd viewing of it.



Doesn't surprise me.


ALL the new Animated films should be Tier 0, period.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDphile22* /forum/post/15260869
> 
> 
> Look, I believe PQ should be based on what *MAJORITY* of the movie looks like.
> 
> 
> And, Majority of *Dark Knight* is Tier 0 PQ. Only a few scenes are Tier 1 and below, IMO it should NOT bring the overall PQ down.
> 
> 
> Tier 0 stands for Reference Material, and Dark Knight certainly qualifies most of the movie!
> 
> 
> Flaws that are small % should have NO weight at all, unless it's very bad/noticeable the parts that are Reference material HAS to be Recognized Much more than these minor flaws.
> 
> 
> This shouldn't just apply to Dark Knight, but ALL movies!



I think most would agree that flaws that are really limited to just a few minutes should not prevent Tier 0, but I think that those of us who see issues in the PQ of TDK believe that the scenes with issues go well beyond that threshold and that only the relatively small number of IMAX scenes would qualify as Tier 0.


----------



## HDphile22




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15260927
> 
> 
> I think most would agree that flaws that are really limited to just a few minutes should not prevent Tier 0, but I think that those of us who see issues in the PQ of TDK believe that the scenes with issues go well beyond that threshold and that only the relatively small number of IMAX scenes would qualify as Tier 0.



Ok


Honestly, you wouldn't show off Dark Knight on Blu-ray the most to someone who has never seen what HD look like. Dark Knight is NOT a MUST-Demo material, to you?


I know this is a Great movie and all, but as I watched it on Blu-ray the ONE thing that I think the most is "This is GOTTA be that movie to show friends, and everybody" not because the movie is great but it looks Awesome too!


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDphile22* /forum/post/15260970
> 
> 
> Ok
> 
> 
> Honestly, you wouldn't show off Dark Knight on Blu-ray the most to someone who has never seen what HD look like. Dark Knight is NOT a MUST-Demo material, to you?
> 
> 
> I know this is a Great movie and all, but as I watched it on Blu-ray the ONE thing that I think the most is "This is GOTTA be that movie to show friends, and everybody" not because the movie is great but it looks Awesome too!



I think Prince Caspian would be a much more likely choice for that purpose.


----------



## Shane Martin

My impressions:

*TDK:* *Top 1/4 of Tier 1*. I don't think it's totally tier 0 material. I think anything with EE should not be in the Reference Tier.

*Narnia PC:* I believe I mentioned this before. I felt it deserves to be right next to POTC AWE. Simply dazzling. *My ranking: High Tier 0 next to POTC AWE
*


Wanted: My initial impression is mid tier 1. I need to watch it again as I wasn't really paying attention to the PQ. I was more awestruck by the visual audacity the film has in terms of the story.

*Nim's Island* - Currently Unranked. *My recommendation: Tier 1 1/4.* Other than some noise I saw, I really can't knock this transfer much. Reviewers are knocking it because it doesn't fit their expectations. From a transfer standpoint, there's little to complain about. It's razor sharp with lots of pop.


Display: Panasonic 509uK Plasma

Seating distance 8-9 feet back.

Sony PS3 via HDMI.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Shane Martin* /forum/post/15262380
> 
> 
> My impressions:
> 
> *TDK:* *Top 1/4 of Tier 1*. I don't think it's totally tier 0 material. I think anything with EE should not be in the Reference Tier.
> 
> *Narnia PC:* I believe I mentioned this before. I felt it deserves to be right next to POTC AWE. Simply dazzling. *My ranking: High Tier 0 next to POTC AWE
> *
> 
> 
> Wanted: My initial impression is mid tier 1. I need to watch it again as I wasn't really paying attention to the PQ. I was more awestruck by the visual audacity the film has in terms of the story.
> 
> *Nim's Island* - Currently Unranked. *My recommendation: Tier 1 1/4.* Other than some noise I saw, I really can't knock this transfer much. Reviewers are knocking it because it doesn't fit their expectations. From a transfer standpoint, there's little to complain about. It's razor sharp with lots of pop.
> 
> 
> Display: Panasonic 509uK Plasma
> 
> Seating distance 8-9 feet back.
> 
> Sony PS3 via HDMI.



First of all, thanks for your good reviews Shane! I agree wholeheartedly with you on Prince Caspian.


Secondly, your point about EE disqualifying titles from Tier 0 reminds me of a question I posed yesterday: Do you believe Baraka should be moved down to Tier 1? It too has ringing (i.e., halos) in several scenes. If you do, I believe you will have a hard time convincing the majority of this.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Shane Martin* /forum/post/15262380
> 
> 
> I think anything with EE should not be in the Reference Tier.



I agree. I think visible EE should be a disqualification, on principle, even if not on overall performance-balance/enjoyability.


That EE should even appear on any transfer that wasn't originally sourced for SD DVD is shameful and unacceptable, IMO.


----------



## Shane Martin

djoberg,

EE should not be present on any HD disc. I think this should be a rule of thumb. The whole point of EE seems to be wasted when you have this much resolution available to you. TDK may be unintentional as I've read but it's there. I think Baraka, if the EE is there, should be knocked down to High Tier 1. I haven't seen Baraka so I can't recommend placement. There's no way I would place judgement on something that I've only seen via screenshots. I also tend to discount opinions from those that sit with their nose up to the screen. 4 feet from a 52" screen is not normal. Judging PQ from a distance like that is unrealistic at best.


----------



## b_scott

I'm glad I still have never said "hey, that's EE" - I don't know what it would look like and I'm glad, because I don't want it to detract from the movie.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDphile22* /forum/post/15260869
> 
> 
> 
> And, Majority of *Dark Knight* is Tier 0 PQ. Only a few scenes are Tier 1 and below, IMO it should NOT bring the overall PQ down.
> 
> 
> Tier 0 stands for Reference Material, and Dark Knight certainly qualifies most of the movie!



You use the same type of argument that I've used with some titles (Speed Racer, Lost S3, and a couple others)... it's about the overall average:


But in this case, I don't think Dark Knight would be Tier 0 (IMO) if it didn't have the EE. It was about on the same level as Iron Man, but not quite up to the new Hulk movie... it looked great, but nothing mindblowing.


----------



## Shane Martin

Lgans,

I know you mentioned "The Kingdom". I should have a look at it by the weekend. I have the HD DVD as well. If the PQ is the same(which I suspect it will be), then it should be a solid tier 1 title. To my eyes, Eastern Promises looks a notch better. I haven't seen the BR yet of EP but the HD DVD PQ would qualify as Tier 0 material.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Shane Martin* /forum/post/15262871
> 
> 
> Lgans,
> 
> I know you mentioned "The Kingdom". I should have a look at it by the weekend. I have the HD DVD as well. If the PQ is the same(which I suspect it will be), then it should be a solid tier 1 title. To my eyes, Eastern Promises looks a notch better. I haven't seen the BR yet of EP but the HD DVD PQ would qualify as Tier 0 material.



I only watched part of EP on BD but I thought The Kingdom on BD looked better.


----------



## lovingdvd

I was surprised that I did not see the TV series Hero's Season 1 - 3 on the list. Anyone have thoughts on its PQ? I'm trying to decide between watching Season 1 off of Blu-ray via Netflix HD streaming to the XBOX 360 or just renting the Blu-ray.


It'll take me a long time to get through 24 episodes so I'd rather not tie up a spot in my queue by renting the disc. However if the sound and PQ is significantly better it'll be worth it. Thanks.


----------



## HDphile22




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15260734
> 
> *the dark knight*
> 
> 
> this blu-ray looks fantastic. Sure, there are a couple of frames with what appears to be ee (which i also saw when i viewed it at my local imax). I watch with a 9.5' wide constant width screen set-up and i sit less than 1.4 times screen width. To give you an idea, if you have a 60" display, you'd have to sit 5 to 6 feet away (depending on ar) to equal this. Trust me, it is not a problem when seen at this size and distance and for 99.9% of the population these few brief frames will not "ruin" this terrific blu-ray by any stretch of the imagination. *The wide screen segments look great and the full screen segments look even better. The wide screen segments alone should be bottom quarter of tier 0; the blacks are excellent, contrast terrific, shadow detail tremendous, you see pores and imperfections, you see textures on shirts and jackets, it's reach out and touch, count the strands of hair and stubble pq. There is no title in tier 1 with this type of pq (according to this thread's criteria). Iron man? Bank job? Not even in the same city, much less ball-park. Blackhawk down? Nope. The wide screen segments will remind you of the tier 0 title, live free or die hard. The full screen imax segments, amazingly, are even better.* half the time, you have to check to see if the ar has changed. I believe this blu-ray offers such an embarrassment of riches, people are simultaneously getting spoiled by it, comparing it to itself and becoming disappointed by the scenes that are just excellent rather than jaw dropping. Perspective is desperately needed here.
> 
> *recommendation: Top half of tier 0*.
> 
> 
> Sim2 c3x1080
> 
> carada masquerade
> 
> 126" diagonal firehawk g3
> 
> pioneer bdp-05fd
> 
> 
> 13' from screen
> 
> 
> 
> .


*Exactly!!!*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Shane Martin* /forum/post/15262811
> 
> 
> djoberg,
> 
> EE should not be present on any HD disc. I think this should be a rule of thumb. The whole point of EE seems to be wasted when you have this much resolution available to you. TDK may be unintentional as I've read but it's there. *I think Baraka, if the EE is there, should be knocked down to High Tier 1*.



As I mentioned previously, you will DEFINITELY have an argument on your hands regarding Baraka. And as far as I'm concerned, you will have an argument as well with your opinion of TDK.


To state so dogmatically that EE should disqualify a title from Tier 0 when many, if not most, don't even see it, is absurd. I'm sorry for being so blunt, but the idea that one slight flaw should knock a title down from being reference quality is just plain WRONG. (Yes, I said "slight flaw," for even professional reviewers who have seen the ringing in TDK say it isn't distracting and that it's still reference quality.)


Let me add Shane that I would bet you I could find minor flaws in EVERY (non-animated) title in Tier 0, so we aren't saying a title is absolutely perfect when we place it in Tier 0; what we are saying is that as a whole it represents the best Blu-ray has to offer and we are proud to use these titles as Demo material to show off the virtues of HD.


----------



## HDphile22

Comparasion Pics between Dark Knight and POTC, Dark Knight and Narnia: PC...


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15263146
> 
> 
> As I mentioned previously, you will DEFINITELY have an argument on your hands regarding Baraka. And as far as I'm concerned, you will have an argument as well with your opinion of TDK.
> 
> 
> To state so dogmatically that EE should disqualify a title from Tier 0 when many, if not most, don't even see it, is absurd. I'm sorry for being so blunt, but the idea that one slight flaw should knock a title down from being reference quality is just plain WRONG. *(Yes, I said "slight flaw," for even professional reviewers who have seen the ringing in TDK say it isn't distracting and that it's still reference quality.)*
> 
> 
> Let me add Shane that I would bet you I could find minor flaws in EVERY (non-animated) title in Tier 0, so we aren't saying a title is absolutely perfect when we place it in Tier 0; what we are saying is that as a whole it represents the best Blu-ray has to offer and we are proud to use these titles as Demo material to show off the virtues of HD.



Whether or not the EE in TDK is a "slight flaw" is a matter of opinion and, in this thread, the discussion on this subject is still ongoing and really at a rather early stage.


----------



## H.Cornerstone

I would vote The Dark Knight for Top of Tier 1. To me, Tier 0 means perfect transfer without any major flaws. Now, the Imax scenes are demo material in my mind. Some of the best I have scene on blu-ray. However, the 35mm are not, they just don't jump out at you like a I'Robot or a Pirates of the Caribbean. They seemed to me to be very incosistant, in that the night scenes were better than the day scenes. And while yes, most of the movie is great, I just don't see it that much better Than the Hulk or Iron Man. The one scene in the makeshift bat cave was horrible, I could definitely see something going on with that scene.


I think the Imax Scenes are top of tier 0 material, and the 35mm scenes are top of teir 1 material. And since most of the movie is in 35mm. I vote for it at the very top of tier 1.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15263146
> 
> 
> I'm sorry for being so blunt, but the idea that one slight flaw should knock a title down from being reference quality is just plain WRONG.



What, then, does "reference quality" mean? I thought the idea of calling something "reference quality" pretty much did equate to "perfection", at least as far as can be perceived. If we have some titles we _can_ consider to have achieved "perfection" (the Tier 0 animated stuff you mention), how can we consider anything identifiably lower quality to be "reference quality"? Shouldn't "reference quality" mean the best quality that has been achieved on the format? And in this case, that means a picture that is essentially "flawless". If you can "refer" to something not flawed, why "refer" to something flawed?


----------



## Shane Martin




> Quote:
> Let me add Shane that I would bet you I could find minor flaws in EVERY (non-animated) title in Tier 0, so we aren't saying a title is absolutely perfect when we place it in Tier 0; what we are saying is that as a whole it represents the best Blu-ray has to offer and we are proud to use these titles as Demo material to show off the virtues of HD.



Flaws are one thing. But EE is *not* what BR is about. For example, I can live with the closeup issues in Speed Racer therefore knocking it down to tier 1 would be an issue for me. That's directors intent. However EE is in the same league as a compression artifact. It doesn't belong and should detract from the overall score. The titles currently in Tier 0 do not have these kind of issues. The issues we knock them down on are generally artistic choices and if the closeups aren't nearly as good as the upper Tier 0 titles. EE is a different thing all together. DNR should also be in the same boat as EE.


I don't care if I can't see DNR(I really don't and readily admit it) but if DNR is found to be present on the disc, I think it should disqualify it from Tier 0.


Being in this thread, I fully expect that I will get an argument on 99% of the titles I post about. Opinions are just that. The beauty of this thread is we don't just focus on one man's opinion. We look at the opinion of the whole. I think so far, the opinion of the whole is leaning towards it being a Tier 1 title with the EE being a problem.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *H.Cornerstone* /forum/post/15263279
> 
> 
> I would vote The Dark Knight for Top of Tier 1. To me, Tier 0 means perfect transfer without any major flaws. Now, the Imax scenes are demo material in my mind. Some of the best I have scene on blu-ray. However, the 35mm are not, they just don't jump out at you like a I'Robot or a Pirates of the Caribbean. They seemed to me to be very incosistant, in that the night scenes were better than the day scenes. And while yes, most of the movie is great, I just don't see it that much better Than the Hulk or Iron Man. *The one scene in the makeshift bat cave was horrible, I could definitely see something going on with that scene.*
> 
> 
> I think the Imax Scenes are top of tier 0 material, and the 35mm scenes are top of teir 1 material. And since most of the movie is in 35mm. I vote for it at the very top of tier 1.



I could be wrong, but I thought there were several scenes in that location, and I agree that they were among the worst looking scenes.


----------



## H.Cornerstone




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15263332
> 
> 
> I could be wrong, but I thought there were several scenes in that location, and I agree that they were among the worst looking scenes.



There were, I meant the 2nd one, but didn't really know how to explain it without giving out any spoilers.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15263210
> 
> 
> Whether or not the EE in TDK is a "slight flaw" is a matter of opinion and, in this thread, the discussion on this subject is still ongoing and really at a rather early stage.



Patrick, I know that you and others (like Phantom) are sensitive to EE and thus to YOU it isn't a slight flaw. I admit that, and like I said to Phantom, I sympathize with you. But I have read MANY posts, here and elsewhere, on various titles that have EE, and the majority of members either don't see it, or they aren't distracted by it.


A case in point would be Baraka. You know very well the long and arduous discussion we had over EE and whether or not it deserved a place in Tier 0. The fact is...it was finally awarded its rightful place in Tier Blu in spite of the presence of EE in some scenes. You may not like that (because of your sensitivity to EE), but the majority spoke and said that even with EE present it wasn't bad enough to disqualify it from being classified as reference quality.


I suspect we will have a long and hotly debated discussion with regards to The Dark Knight. At the end of the day it will finally be placed somewhere (I'm hoping it is awarded a mid to top Tier 0 placement). Until then, I am simply stating my opinion and trying to answer challenges to my opinion.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDphile22* /forum/post/15260970
> 
> 
> Honestly, you wouldn't show off Dark Knight on Blu-ray the most to someone who has never seen what HD look like. Dark Knight is NOT a MUST-Demo material, to you?



The IMAX scenes? Yes.

The 35mm? Absolutely not. I see absolutely no reason this should be ranked above anything in the top of Tier 1.


With Baraka, I could see how it merited Tier 0 placement despite its flaws. This one, I just don't get the Tier 0 guys.


----------



## HDphile22




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15263317
> 
> 
> What, then, does "reference quality" mean? I thought the idea of calling something "reference quality" pretty much did equate to "perfection", at least as far as can be perceived. If we have some titles we _can_ consider to have achieved "perfection" (the Tier 0 animated stuff you mention), how can we consider anything identifiably lower quality to be "reference quality"? Shouldn't "reference quality" mean the best quality that has been achieved on the format? And in this case, that means a picture that is essentially "flawless". If you can "refer" to something not flawed, why "refer" to something flawed?



Reference Quality means a title that is Guranteed to WOW a friend, co-worker, spectators how Blu-rays should look at it's Best.


Nothing is Perfect!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Shane Martin* /forum/post/15263329
> 
> 
> I don't care if I can't see DNR(I really don't and readily admit it) but if DNR is found to be present on the disc, I think it should disqualify it from Tier 0.



So, you're saying that you would actually disqualify a title from Tier 0 because of another member's opinion?










Honestly Shane, how could you, with a good conscience, lower the ranking of a title for something you don't even see? I know we are to respect the opinions of other members but I think you're taking it a bit too far.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15263442
> 
> 
> The IMAX scenes? Yes.
> 
> The 35mm? Absolutely not. I see absolutely no reason this should be ranked above anything in the top of Tier 1.



Let the games (i.e., debate) begin!!


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15263370
> 
> 
> Patrick, I know that you and others (like Phantom) are sensitive to EE and thus to YOU it isn't a slight flaw. I admit that, and like I said to Phantom, I sympathize with you. But I have read MANY posts, here and elsewhere, on various titles that have EE, and the majority of members either don't see it, or they aren't distracted by it.
> 
> 
> A case in point would be Baraka. You know very well the long and arduous discussion we had over EE and whether or not it deserved a place in Tier 0. The fact is...it was finally awarded its rightful place in Tier Blu in spite of the presence of EE in some scenes. You may not like that (because of your sensitivity to EE), but the majority spoke and said that even with EE present it wasn't bad enough to disqualify it from being classified as reference quality.
> 
> *I suspect we will have a long and hotly debated discussion with regards to The Dark Knight. At the end of the day it will finally be placed somewhere* (I'm hoping it is awarded a mid to top Tier 0 placement). *Until then, I am simply stating my opinion and trying to answer challenges to my opinion.*



You will notice that I did not mention Baraka in my post.


I am glad to see that your response describes the debate about TDK (bolded parts) in a way that I totally agree with.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDphile22* /forum/post/15263456
> 
> 
> Reference Quality means a title that is Guranteed to WOW a friend, co-worker, spectators how Blu-rays should look at it's Best.
> 
> 
> Nothing is Perfect!



Any decent HD content will wow someone who hasn't seen the best the format can look, that means little. Planet Earth will wow, but it's not a reference transfer. Reference represents the best the format has to offer (and I'd say a lot of stuff in Tier 0 doesn't). Personally, I think applying that label to TDK is absolutely laughable, but that's why this thread is a democracy.


I guess the good thing is, many people will probably pick up a blu-ray player just because this movie has come out, and if most people are happy with it, that's good for the format.


----------



## JayPSU

The Dark Knight:


I thought this movie, for the most part, looked absolutely stunning. There were a few scenes like the outdoor scene at night with Bruce Wayne and Rachel where the picture was almost a little blurry. But for the most part, detail was incredibly high, blacks were perfect, colors were absolutely perfect, and action shots were terrific. Obviously the Imax shots were even better. Those very few blurry scenes were not enough to ruin the 95% of the movie that looked stunning. Maybe I'm biased because I also loved the movie, but i don't think so. I narrowly gave this one a nod into tier 0 as almost the entire movie gives the Pirates movies a run for their money.


Samsung LN-T4065f 1080p LCD

Samsung BD-1400

Viewing Distance: 7'


----------



## HDphile22

Just watched Narnia: Prince Caspian, there is NO WAY that movie is better PQ than Dark Knight!


Much MORE Blurrier


Give me a Break!!!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15263317
> 
> 
> What, then, does "reference quality" mean? I thought the idea of calling something "reference quality" pretty much did equate to "perfection", *at least as far as can be perceived*.



I won't respond to all the points you made spectator, but the one I highlighted is worth discussing in light of the argument we are having over EE. What Tier suggestion should a person give TDK if they really do "perceive" it as perfection? In other words, if one views TDK and fails to see the EE that is in question (or any other flaws), or they see it but it doesn't bother them at all, *wouldn't that be perfection in their eyes*? There is an old adage that says, "Perception is reality," and perhaps we should apply that adage in our debate over TDK.


This point also addresses what Shane was stating earlier about how he would lower a title if it has DNR, even though he himself can't see it. In my thinking Shane is lowering his _perception of reality_ to suit a fellow-member's opinion.


The bottom line is we have to call it like we see it (or don't see it







)!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDphile22* /forum/post/15263944
> 
> 
> Just watched Narnia: Prince Caspian, there is NO WAY that movie is better PQ than Dark Knight!
> 
> 
> Much MORE Blurrier
> 
> 
> Give me a Break!!!



Oh man! You just "burst my bubble" HDphile! I thought you and I were going to agree on everything (







), but we certainly don't agree on this one. Prince Caspian is currently the Blu-ray that I will slip into my Panny BD30 to show off the virtues of HD (along with Kung Fu Panda in the animated genre).


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDphile22* /forum/post/15263944
> 
> 
> Much MORE Blurrier



doesn't help your case


----------



## HDphile22

*Dark Knight*









*Narnia: Prince Caspian*










Used an Old ass Digital Camera so quality isn't great. But It's way better on Dark Knight, IMO


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDphile22* /forum/post/15264225
> 
> 
> Used an Old ass Digital Camera so quality isn't great. But It's way better on Dark Knight, IMO



Yeah, that's a totally objective comparison










I don't know why even read this thread, any time I do it just annoys me. I'll just post my recommendations and shut up from now on.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15264414
> 
> 
> 
> TDK is reference quality. Not just the IMAX segments, the wide screen segments.
> 
> 
> 
> *TDK is a top half of tier 0 title*.



In your opinion?


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15264414
> 
> 
> 
> Some have said TDK belongs in top quarter of tier 1. But, even the wide screen segments of TDK are superior to anything in the top quarter of tier 1.



At this point I'm convinced we saw different movies


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15264505
> 
> 
> In your opinion?



We've already established that what we are offering is our opinions.


----------



## HDphile22




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15264432
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's a totally objective comparison
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why even read this thread, any time I do it just annoys me. I'll just post my recommendations and shut up from now on.



Look...


3D Pop is MUCH less in Prince Caspian than Dark Knight.


In TDK, just about every scene, you can Clearly see people's pores, facial, clothing SO detailed!


Doesn't look that way at all in Prince Caspian, PC looks good, but it in NO way surpassed The Dark Knight in 3D effect it look too Flat!


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15264528
> 
> 
> At this point I'm convinced we saw different movies



It wouldn't surprise me to find that we look for completely different things in PQ, cinematography, lighting, framing, color, night time versus daytime scenery, etc. Also, wouldn't surprise me to to find that place different values on various aspects of PQ.


IMO, handling of blacks and detail is what tends to really separate the better titles from each other.


I watch on a 126" diagonal screen in a totally light controlled room, so differences in the handling of light and shadow, shadow detail, pop, texture, etc. become a lot more obvious at this size and in this environment.


----------



## rsbeck

If anyone is interested, here is what Robert Harris had to say about TDK....


The Dark Knight from Warner is unequivocally, undeniably and absolutely gorgeous in every way.


It will undoubtedly be THE modern film release of 2008 used to show off one's system to believers and non-believers alike.


Hat's off to WB.


Extremely Highly Recommended.


RAH

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:...n&ct=clnk&cd=2


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDphile22* /forum/post/15264225
> 
> 
> Used an Old ass Digital Camera so quality isn't great. But It's way better on Dark Knight, IMO



Sorry man, but I can take a picture from I, Robot and make it look worse than something from tier 5.


I agree Prince Caspian isn't quite at the level that some are saying. The scenery shots and backgrounds are like the POTC movies and look great, but the face closeups are nowhere as close. Even so, the movie is , in general, more eye-pleasing than Dark Knight. Don't get me wrong, Dark Knight, despite its flaws, is still an awesome looking movie, but it's just not at the same level as some of the other Tier 0 titles.


Back when Batman Begins came out, people were judging the Dark Knight IMAX prologue (7-8 minute intro) as a Top Tier 1 transfer... And this was without the EE.


Do you think that Dark Knight looks better than Incredible Hulk?


----------



## HDphile22

I don't find Anna P more attractive than Maggie G, but in this case I prefer the PQ in Dark Knight over Prince Caspian

*Rachel*









*Susan*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15264574
> 
> 
> Cont'd...
> 
> 
> Is Ratatouille "perfect." Is King Fu Panda "perfect." Does a lack of EE and DNR render a title "perfect." Is that really all it takes for a blu-ray title to be perfect?
> 
> 
> I suggest we throw out the word "perfect." It doesn't help clarify, it only muddies the discussion.
> 
> 
> There's no such thing as a "perfect" title.
> 
> 
> TDK is not perfect. Nothing is. Not Wall-E, not Ratatouille, not the Pirate movies, nothing. So, let's not trot out the "P" word.



+1


Absolutely right! As I stated before, a reference quality title is one which we would use to show off the best that Blu-ray has to offer. Blu-ray titles are not "perfect," but there are titles that are better than others and can successfully WOW viewers and whet their appetite for HD (or for buying the title that is being used as a demo).


----------



## Mel2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDphile22* /forum/post/15263944
> 
> 
> Just watched Narnia: Prince Caspian, there is NO WAY that movie is better PQ than Dark Knight!
> 
> 
> Much MORE Blurrier
> 
> 
> Give me a Break!!!



It is better and not even close. one of the sharpest and cleanest transfers i've seen. reference from beginning to end. DK is below spider-man 3 in lower tier 1.


----------



## HDphile22




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDphile22* /forum/post/15264763
> 
> 
> I don't find Anna P more attractive than Maggie G, but in this case I prefer the PQ in Dark Knight over Prince Caspian



My bad, I typoed...


I actually meant I find Anna P Much more attractive...


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15264743
> 
> 
> Do you think that Dark Knight looks better than Incredible Hulk?



IMO, The Incredible Hulk should be a tier 0 title.


There are whole stretches of TDK *wide screen segments* that absolutely equal the best scenes in The Incredible Hulk and the best scenes in The Incredible Hulk are easily top half of tier 0 quality.


----------



## HDphile22

The Dark Knight is Incredible looking, but I think people are Intentionally putting it down, just because of VERY VERY unrealistic expectations not met, though.


----------



## HDphile22

Here is another Picture comparasion from my Sucky Camera

*Dark Knight*










*Prince Caspian*












Oh, BTW, None of these shot of Dark Knight are even IMAX ones, they are all just the Widescreen ones!


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15264773
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> 
> Absolutely right! As I stated before, a reference quality title is one which we would use to show off the best that Blu-ray has to offer. Blu-ray titles are not "perfect," but there are titles that are better than others and can successfully WOW viewers and whet their appetite for HD (or for buying the title that is being used as a demo).



Right on.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15264574
> 
> 
> Does a lack of EE and DNR render a title "perfect." Is that really all it takes for a blu-ray title to be perfect?



Who suggested that?


Fair enough to your point that nothing is "perfect", but my point is that if we can recognizably identify (as a group) that one title displays artifacts while another does not, how can we consider the former title to be "reference quality" while the latter title remains on the market?


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15264831
> 
> 
> IMO, The Incredible Hulk should be a tier 0 title.
> 
> 
> There are whole stretches of TDK *wide screen segments* that absolutely equal the best scenes in The Incredible Hulk and the best scenes in The Incredible Hulk are easily top half of tier 0 quality.



I'll admit that there are a few titles in Tier 1 that can easily be placed in Tier 0, and vice versa..


I do wonder if the sharpening was added to TDK because of the flack that Batman Begins received.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDphile22* /forum/post/15264834
> 
> 
> The Dark Knight is Incredible looking, but I think people are Intentionally putting it down, just because of VERY VERY unrealistic expectations not met, though.



And I think it's going the other way, the hype around this movie must have inflated people's opinions of the blu-ray.

I'm really not making any unreasonable demands here. I just want a new film transfer to look like new film. Of course I doubt you'll ever see it my way, since I think Prince Caspian obliterates TDK PQ-wise.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15264877
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough to your point that nothing is "perfect", but my point is that *if we can recognizably identify (as a group) that one title displays artifacts* while another does not, how can we consider the former title to be "reference quality" while the latter title remains on the market?



Herein lies the problem spectator, we will probably NEVER "recognizably identify (as a group) that one title displays artifacts while another does not." I have been a member of the Forum for going on 3 years and in all that time I have NEVER seen a 100% consensus regarding any given title.


Currently we are debating The Dark Knight and already we have such a divergence of views...some see EE and say it's unbearable...others don't see EE...and yet others, like myself, see EE in a few isolated scenes and they are not distracting. I submit to you that you CAN INDEED have a reference quality title even if there is EE, for the simple reason stated above....that some aren't even seeing it, and some that do see it aren't distracted by it.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDphile22* /forum/post/15264834
> 
> 
> The Dark Knight is Incredible looking, but I think people are Intentionally putting it down, just because of VERY VERY unrealistic expectations not met, though.



When the majority of PQ complaints about TDK relate to the EE which could've been more easily _not_ added than added, as it was, how can you call the expectations of those who complain unrealistic? Regardless of how good you think TDK looks, it could've been transferred without EE at _less_ expense to the studio and I think most will agree that a lack of visible EE artifacts pretty much _always_ represents a PQ improvement over the presence of same artifacts.


----------



## SuprSlow

Phantom and patrick are correct, the 1/4 system was first implemented as a means of "navigating," if you will, your way through the tiers. Tier 1 and Tier 2 were becoming enormous and it was extremely difficult to tell exactly where you were in the tier since it took up multiple screens while scrolling.


I never intended to create 4 tiers within each of the original 4 (Gold, Silver, etc...), but that's what it morphed into.


As for placements, I view the 1/4 markers as headings...i.e. - describing the titles below. So when someone says Tier 1 1/4, it goes in the second "set" under Tier 1. I apologize if that's confusing, but by inference it seemed that most posters thought the same. We frequently see "Title X should go in the top 1/4 of Tier 1."


If the majority would like them renumbered, I have no problem with that.


----------



## HDphile22




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15265006
> 
> 
> And I think it's going the other way, the hype around this movie must have inflated people's opinions of the blu-ray.
> 
> I'm really not making any unreasonable demands here. I just want a new film transfer to look like new film. Of course I doubt you'll ever see it my way, since I think Prince Caspian obliterates TDK PQ-wise.



One of the MOST important aspect of a PQ I find to be 3D Pop.


Don't know why with Prince Caspian, the 3D pop just LACKS! It certainly is way more 3D pop in Dark Knight than PC!


If you have to rank Dark Knight in Tier 1 (Which is Great enough I guess), I have to see it on the 1st 5 spots in Tier 1, anywhere below 1st 5 of Tier Gold is Blashphemy!!!


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15265036
> 
> 
> Herein lies the problem spectator, we will probably NEVER "recognizably identify (as a group) that one title displays artifacts while another does not."



Are you saying that you can't see the EE artifacts in the TDK caps that display them?! Regardless of whether you notice them in motion, regardless of whether they distract you, personally, if you can agree from looking at the caps (and how can you not?) that they _exist_, it is not much of a leap to expect that they might be problematic to _someone_- especially if some are complaining about it. This, I think, is the basis of the 'I can't see it, but I'll rate it lower if others can' comments. It may not bother _you_, but you have to acknowledge that it objectively exists, yes? And if you can agree that it exists, are you suggesting that those who say that it does bother them are lying about that?


----------



## rsbeck

Godfather is a wonderful title and a fabulous transfer, was overseen by not just the director, but the Cinematographer, etc. and it far surpasses the previous DVD release, but there's no way Godfather will make it into tier 0 *in this thread* because 99.9% of the population is not going to use The Godfather blu-ray to demo their system.


----------



## Shane Martin




> Quote:
> So, you're saying that you would actually disqualify a title from Tier 0 because of another member's opinion?
> 
> 
> Honestly Shane, how could you, with a good conscience, lower the ranking of a title for something you don't even see? I know we are to respect the opinions of other members but I think you're taking it a bit too far.



I won't rank a title if I haven't seen it. I don't think a title deserves a tier 0 ranking if it in fact has DNR or EE. I would need proof. Even on my 50" set, I do see EE on TDK but it's not distracting. I'd hardly call it offensive as the usual suspects often do. It is there though. If it's on my "small" set, it's noticeable on a bigger set.


I don't think there will be an argument that DNR or EE don't exist on certain titles. I think there are plenty of folks even here willing to give Baraka a high score despite the EE. The scoring which really is a rather splitting hairs difference is where the issue is at. Tier 1 even lower tier 1 is hardly poor. It represents the top 10% of all BR titles or very close. What we have to get past is the subjective aspects of "does EE or DNR bother you?". Since we score films based on an overall score based on the whole, we should do the same for EE and DNR. If on the whole, we the majority think that zyz movie has EE or DNR, then we should knock it down some.



> Quote:
> Harris watches on a 100" front projector.



Harris is just another man with an opinion in the end. I know his credentials but his reviews in the past have been questioned pretty heavily. I can't blindly accept that RAH is the PQ god and what he says goes.


> Quote:
> Prince Caspian is currently the Blu-ray that I will slip into my Panny BD30 to show off the virtues of HD (along with Kung Fu Panda in the animated genre).



Right now based on what's out, I agree with you 100%.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15265044
> 
> 
> Very easily. I can understand your (and others) desire to simplify the vetting process down to simply ID'ing titles that have what appears to be an artifact versus those that don't, but personally, I reject that kind of simplicity. It simply isn't that simple.



-snip-


Nice argument.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15265044
> 
> 
> Finally, not to beat a dead horse, but there is another thread where that is the prevailing methodology, so there is no need to try to force this thread to become the clone of that one.



If you take such an effort to be my cause, you are mistaken about my motivations.


----------



## HDphile22

I think this Perfectly applies to Prince Caspian



> Quote:
> A good example of this is the intentional softness of Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. *While the picture of the film is very good and looks very film-like, it lacks depth*. However, it
> 
> still ranks in Tier 3 because it also lacks any video artifacts and the picture quality is very pristine


----------



## stumlad

Look at the 2nd pic in this post and compare it to the first:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post15178812 


Is that not distracting?


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15265174
> 
> 
> Look at the 2nd pic in this post and compare it to the first:
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post15178812
> 
> 
> Is that not distracting?



That's the issue I've got with this whole film. That shot is the perfect storm of glowing edges so its worse than most, but the entire movie is processed this way (and as you can see, the trailer is sharper)


----------



## HDphile22

Comon, just look at these PROOF of pictures that Dark Knight is much Vibrant and 3D-ish than Prince Caspian!


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15265097
> 
> 
> We have many titles here in tier 2 and 3 that do not have any visible artifacts and there's no way those titles look as good as tier 0 and tier 1 titles that do -- according to the criteria of *this* thread.



Well, obviously it's not the _only_ criterion! The question is "Would or would not those titles that _do_ have artifacts look better without them?"


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDphile22* /forum/post/15265225
> 
> 
> Comon, just look at these PROOF of pictures that Dark Knight is much Vibrant and 3D-ish than Prince Caspian!



Hyped contrast does not a good transfer make. I prefer PC even in your photos (except the first shot which is out of focus)


----------



## Shane Martin




> Quote:
> If you have to rank Dark Knight in Tier 1 (Which is Great enough I guess), I have to see it on the 1st 5 spots in Tier 1, anywhere below 1st 5 of Tier Gold is Blashphemy!!!



That's where I would have it actually. I think 1/2 or 3/4 the way down in Tier 1 is not sufficient and probably shouldn't be considering the number of folks who want it in Tier 0. Therefore a nice balance(which thread tends to do) is the top part of Tier 1. I think it's inoffensive to have it at that slot.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Shane Martin* /forum/post/15265125
> 
> 
> Harris is just another man with an opinion in the end. I know his credentials but his reviews in the past have been questioned pretty heavily. I can't blindly accept that RAH is the PQ god and what he says goes.



100% agreement. His is just another opinion, but for those who claim that good eyes, picture judging expertise and a large front projection screen is what separates people who praise TDK from those who do not, Robert Harris' view directly contradict that notion. It is also notable that he basically quotes the intention of this thread, so I think that should add some weight to his opinion only based on relevance. Still, I agree -- ultimately -- these are all just opinions, his included.


----------



## Shane Martin




> Quote:
> Comon, just look at these PROOF of pictures that Dark Knight is much Vibrant and 3D-ish than Prince Caspian!



Your photos look awful I'm sorry. They show nothing of what i'm seeing on either transfer.


----------



## HDphile22




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15265246
> 
> 
> Hyped contrast does not a good transfer make. I prefer PC even in your photos (except the first shot which is out of focus)



Well I PREFER Dark Knight, so I guess it's more about personal taste what PQ should look like than definitive ...ALL subjective.


The Vibrantness and 3Dness has won me, not so with Prince Caspian!


Althugh Prince Caspian IS Crisp, it lacks 3D, and Depth!


I Will Demo Dark Knight the Most any day than PC.


----------



## Shane Martin

I think this says it best and we should apply it. Superslow ends up doing this I think which is looking at what most of us have said and create a score based on the majority rather than the vocal minority.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post15223925 



> Quote:
> Sure, some claims are nonsense. Separate the good from the bad, but do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Some of the criticism is also very justified. And some is not. Which is which must be discussed soberly. People are going overboard on both sides. A reasonable middle ground position is more and more difficult to maintain.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15265272
> 
> 
> Until they release two versions, IMO, it is immaterial. You can only judge what you've got, no sense crying over what you didn't get for Christmas, so to speak.













Now you're making the ultimate argument in favor of factoring director's intent!


If this is how you feel, just take the best available transfer of your favorite movie and call that your "reference" disc.


I thought we were looking for the best transfers, regardless of content?


----------



## b_scott

the TDK pictures above have a lot of red push. either the camera or TV is not calibrated correctly.


----------



## HDphile22




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Shane Martin* /forum/post/15265269
> 
> 
> Your photos look awful I'm sorry. They show nothing of what i'm seeing on either transfer.



Sorry, but I just DON'T have quality equipment (But it's still the SAME TV, Same camera so the outcome should be comparable).


I mean, if you have Quality equipment by all means post shots that show Prince Caspian much better than Dark Knight, but if you even prefer these pictures of Prince Caspian I've already posted, I guess we will never agree!


To me, these pictures, The Dark Knight definitely look better, as I already explained why.


----------



## b_scott

I own TDK and i rented Caspian - I can try to do comparison pics tonight if I think about it. Canon XSi, Pioneer 5010.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/15265418
> 
> 
> I own TDK and i rented Caspian - I can try to do comparison pics tonight if I think about it. Canon XSi, Pioneer 5010.



No need, the screen grabs are out there. Search them out on blu-ray.com or xylon's threads.


----------



## ballen420

Aren't there threads for pix already?


Forgive me if I'm wrong, but last I checked this thread isn't the alternative to the bible. Weigh in with your thoughts and placements, and majority wins. No one is going to die if it's placed in tier 1 vs tier 0.


Create a separate thread to debate - this is getting worse then NCFOM.


----------



## HDphile22

HA HA HA ...


The Dark Knight - 4 and half stars.
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1825/darkknight.html 



But, why the movie itself is not at least 4 and half stars?


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDphile22* /forum/post/15263944
> 
> 
> Just watched Narnia: Prince Caspian, there is NO WAY that movie is better PQ than Dark Knight!
> 
> 
> Much MORE Blurrier
> 
> 
> Give me a Break!!!



No it isn't more blurry or blurry at all like you claim.


I don't know what you are seeing, but that is not what I seen when watching both. I don't know where you got your screen caps of Prince Caspian, but the caps I am showing from High def disc news show exactly what I saw and beyond a reasonable doubt refute your claim that Caspian lacks 3d pop.

Attachment 126514 

Attachment 126515 

Attachment 126516 



Or right from the site in full screen same pics and use your zoom to make it full page with windows picture viewer and prepared to be amazed:

http://www.highdefdiscnews.com/revie...image2full.jpg 

http://www.highdefdiscnews.com/revie...image3full.jpg 

http://www.highdefdiscnews.com/revie...image4full.jpg 

http://www.highdefdiscnews.com/revie...image5full.jpg 

http://www.highdefdiscnews.com/revie...image6full.jpg


----------



## HDphile22

No need?


I guess NOT if you think this already


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15265246
> 
> 
> I prefer PC even in your photos (except the first shot which is out of focus)



I don't agree at all!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDphile22* /forum/post/15265092
> 
> 
> One of the MOST important aspect of a PQ I find to be 3D Pop.
> 
> 
> Don't know why with Prince Caspian, the 3D pop just LACKS! It certainly is way more 3D pop in Dark Knight than PC!
> 
> 
> If you have to rank Dark Knight in Tier 1 (Which is Great enough I guess), I have to see it on the 1st 5 spots in Tier 1, anywhere below 1st 5 of Tier Gold is Blashphemy!!!




Once we get out of Tier 0, the titles are listed alphabetically per quarter. I don't think that anyone has any blasphemous intentions in the thread, though.


----------



## HDphile22




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15265547
> 
> 
> No it isn't more blurry or blurry at all like you claim.
> 
> 
> I don't know what you are seeing, but that is not what I seen when watching both. I don't know where you got your screen caps of Prince Caspian, but the caps I am showing from High def disc news show exactly what I saw and beyond a reasonable doubt refute your claim that Caspian lacks 3d pop.
> 
> Attachment 126514
> 
> Attachment 126515
> 
> Attachment 126516





I always said PC is a good looking title, it looks crisp, but No it certainly doesn't have as much 3D pop as Dark Knight does, IMO.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDphile22* /forum/post/15265573
> 
> 
> 3D pop



I've always found this a funny little term. Unless we're talking about a literal 3D title, is this effect even desirable in dispassionate PQ terms?


I suppose it may be a measure of the rendering of the finest level of picture-details-as-texture, if you consider the psycho-optic effect that, in natural vision, distant objects are subtly obscured by environmental particulates and this helps produce our impression of depth.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDphile22* /forum/post/15260869
> 
> 
> Look, I believe PQ should be based on what *MAJORITY* of the movie looks like.
> 
> 
> And, Majority of *Dark Knight* is Tier 0 PQ. Only a few scenes are Tier 1 and below, IMO it should NOT bring the overall PQ down.
> 
> 
> Tier 0 stands for Reference Material, and Dark Knight certainly qualifies most of the movie!
> 
> 
> Flaws that are small % should have NO weight at all, unless it's very bad/noticeable the parts that are Reference material HAS to be Recognized Much more than these minor flaws.
> 
> 
> This shouldn't just apply to Dark Knight, but ALL movies!



Look, what you believe and what is actually the standard for PQ we use in this thread are two different things. You believe the PQ should be based on the majority of the movie looks like. For purposes of this thread that is not what we believe or what the intent of this thread is or what the only criteria is.


For example the majority of a movie could have a tier 0 look to it, but if it has a few issues that are obvious and distracting, those issues automatically disqualify it from Tier 0.


If we aren't qualifying films this way then I have been doing it wrong and or the intent of this thread has changed. This is why I made a comment the other day about many of us wanting and hoping films to make tier 0, like Wanted or Indiana Jones and others, but their are flaws that disqualify those to be placed in tier 0.


----------



## HDphile22

Just rank it up at the TOP in Tier 1 and be done with it, I am fine with that, but Don't rank it low Tier 1...


It doesn't deserve that low!


The movie is great looking MOST of the time, and is certainly the title that most HD owners will be show off to friends, family NO less than Prince Caspian or Iron Man... I am sure!


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15265683
> 
> 
> I've always found this a funny little term. Unless we're talking about a literal 3D title, is this effect even desirable in dispassionate PQ terms?
> 
> 
> I suppose it may be a measure of the rendering of the finest level of picture-details-as-texture, if you consider the psycho-optic effect that, in natural vision, distant objects are subtly obscured by environmental particulates and this helps produce our impression of depth.



I agree that "3D pop" is a term that does not really aid in sound evaluation of PQ.


----------



## HDphile22

Ok

*TIER 1 - GOLD (ABC)


Demo Material, but minor artifacting may be present which the untrained eye may not necessarily spot. Little if any visible compression. Sharp image that has a lot of HD-POP effects. If you are thinking about buying a movie in this tier don't hesitate. Show someone one of these films and they'll want to join the Blu side!*


Tier 1 is good enough, but make sure place it at TOP of Tier 1 to be fair.


rsbeck (I believe) has already argued why he thinks The Dark Knight looks better than most of Tier 1 titles, so I won't bother myself.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDphile22* /forum/post/15265573
> 
> 
> I always said PC is a good looking title, it looks crisp, but No it certainly doesn't have as much 3D pop as Dark Knight does, IMO.



On my system it definitely did and those pics NOT from my system prove it.


Here is from the same site with Dark Knight pics. I think they look awesome, but better than Caspian or more 3D pop, certainly not and I think overall the Caspian pics looks slightly better. I usually don't put a lot of weight in caps, but since they are from the same site I believe the comparison should be fair.

http://highdefdiscnews.com/reviews/t...image1full.jpg 

http://highdefdiscnews.com/reviews/t...image2full.jpg 

http://highdefdiscnews.com/reviews/t...image3full.jpg 

http://highdefdiscnews.com/reviews/t...image4full.jpg 

http://highdefdiscnews.com/reviews/t...image5full.jpg 

http://highdefdiscnews.com/reviews/t...image6full.jpg 


The last three caps actually are a bit blurry and disappointing in comparison to Caspian in particular.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15265314
> 
> 
> I thought we were looking for the best transfers, regardless of content?



Not at all. Not in this thread. Some great transfers do not have the inherent qualities to make it into tier 0. Look in the opening paragraphs of the thread, the thread starter specifically references a transfer that is flawless and pristine, yet ranks it tier 3 because it is soft. So, first you need great source material, then you need a great transfer. If 99% of the title is tier 0 demo material, IMO, it's a tier 0 demo title. IMO, the very claim that a title can't be tier 0 if it has an artifact is more applicable to the other thread than this one. Trying to force that criteria here, IMO, doesn't fly.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDphile22* /forum/post/15265784
> 
> 
> Ok
> 
> *TIER 1 - GOLD (ABC)
> 
> 
> Demo Material, but minor artifacting may be present which the untrained eye may not necessarily spot. Little if any visible compression. Sharp image that has a lot of HD-POP effects. If you are thinking about buying a movie in this tier don't hesitate. Show someone one of these films and they'll want to join the Blu side!*
> 
> 
> Tier 1 is good enough, but make sure place it at TOP of Tier 1 to be fair.
> 
> 
> rsbeck (I believe) has already argued why he thinks The Dark Knight looks better than most of Tier 1 titles, so I won't bother myself.



This is exactly how I see DK being ranked based on the link from the first page you provided, it perfectly fits the Tier 1 GOLD bill. I believe I called for Tier 1 1/2. which if Gold just one level below the top Gold. The issue we have now compared to when that statement of reference for qualifying was made it that we now have divisions in Tiers.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15260627
> 
> 
> So uhhh, what scenes are you guys seeing this EE and "ringing" in TDK? Despite being a cinematographer I still do not see it nor have the trained eye to see it, and maybe I should keep it that way



Did anyone answer me here?


----------



## HDphile22

 http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/760_1_large.jpg 

http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/760_2_large.jpg 

http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/760_3_large.jpg 

http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/760_4_large.jpg 

http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/760_5_large.jpg 
http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/760_6_large.jpg 
http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/760_7_large.jpg 
http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/760_8_large.jpg 
http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/760_9_large.jpg 
http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/760_10_large.jpg 
http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/760_11_large.jpg 
http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/760_12_large.jpg 
http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/760_13_large.jpg 
http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/760_14_large.jpg 
http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/760_15_large.jpg 
http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/760_16_large.jpg 
http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/760_17_large.jpg 
http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/760_18_large.jpg 
http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/760_19_large.jpg 
http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/760_20_large.jpg 


BTW, do you all agree X-files: Fight The Future is actually really good looking for a 10 years old flick?


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15265831
> 
> 
> Did anyone answer me here?



I didn't see it LB. sorry for not replying earlier. What I did see early on in the film was some very slight motion blur maybe from compression in one or two shots and I haven't seen it mentioned.







I am coming from a point of view of having watched Caspian and then DK and IMO Caspian is Tier 0 and DK just falls short hence me recommending Tier 1.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Well I'd to hear the exact shots that have this "EE" and "haloing" in them...I have seen posts on other forums posting pics to prove their point and I still can't see it.


----------



## rsbeck

Super Slow -- thanks for the clarification. Personally, I like Djoberg's suggestion of having 4 gradations under each rank and listing the quarter ranks above each group.


1, 1.25, 1.5, and 1.75.


But, I will go along with whatever we do.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15265942
> 
> 
> Well I'd to hear the exact shots that have this "EE" and "haloing" in them...I have seen posts on other forums posting pics to prove their point and I still can't see it.



You must be immune to the power of suggestion and peer group pressure.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15265955
> 
> 
> You must be immune to the power of suggestion and peer group pressure.



I guess so










In for responses from Patrick and Shane and all the others who see it.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15265942
> 
> 
> Well I'd to hear the exact shots that have this "EE" and "haloing" in them...I have seen posts on other forums posting pics to prove their point and I still can't see it.



Have you looked at the TDK comparison pics thread in this forum?


One scene where the EE is particularly notable is the pencil trick scene.


For example, shots of the TV in that scene have clear EE along the outside edges of the TV.


In the scene where Gordon is told the DNA on the Joker card has been identified, there is clear EE along the back of his jacket.


The comparison pics thread has many other examples.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15265955
> 
> 
> You must be immune to the power of suggestion and *peer group pressure*.



People who are familiar with this thread might say the same thing about me.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15265942
> 
> 
> Well I'd to hear the exact shots that have this "EE" and "haloing" in them...I have seen posts on other forums posting pics to prove their point and I still can't see it.



I usually don't either, but I don't have a big screen projector. 60 inch here which shows flaws, but most often I don't see the ringing or if I do I ignore it.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15265978
> 
> 
> Have you looked at the TDK comparison pics thread in this forum?
> 
> 
> One scene where the EE is particularly notable is the pencil trick scene.
> 
> 
> For example, shots of the TV in that scene have clear EE along the outside edges of the TV.
> 
> 
> In the scene where Gordon is told the DNA on the Joker card has been identified, there is clear EE along the back of his jacket.
> 
> 
> The comparison pics thread has many other examples.



I did not notice this on my 50" 1080p plasma and I was sitting about 5 feet away.


I will go back and look again, but will most likely have to pause it in order to even notice it.


To me, this is all pretty ludicrous and is extremely nitpicky.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15265978
> 
> 
> Have you looked at the TDK comparison pics thread in this forum?
> 
> 
> One scene where the EE is particularly notable is the pencil trick scene.
> 
> 
> For example, shots of the TV in that scene have clear EE along the outside edges of the TV.
> 
> 
> In the scene where Gordon is told the DNA on the Joker card has been identified, there is clear EE along the back of his jacket.
> 
> 
> The comparison pics thread has many other examples.



I just looked at the pics from Xylons caps again. The tv you mentioned is a blur in that shot, how can you see EE if the tv itself is a blur?


I see the ringing in the joker's jacket in the cap as it looks like a purple haze where the jacket should be more delineated/defined. I can say that on the fly the ringing around the joker's purple jacket is NOT as noticeable as in the cap which makes Robert Harris' point.


I also read Xylons comments and noticed he is using some antagonistic points of view that I know in the past would have been deleted because they incite flame wars. From that first page:

*Where is the consistency? The first person to give me an excuse "Oh because its 35mm. It's not fair!", I will put you in my ignore list or call The Pope. I have read that loooong thread by Alan concerning the PQ issues. He was right. There is PQ issues. If you can't see the problems in your setup then that is fine. I will not insult you for that. By reason of sight, personal preference, lack of knowledge or just your HT equipment is not "good enough" to show every detail. To some people they are forgetting why you are here in the first place. I can understand there is some tolerance level to some people regarding DNR or EE. But there is just instances where these manipulations on films is just too much to ignore. Of course we are going to be hearing lots of excuses and "explanations" but who are they fooling? Me?*


You know, if I never saw the film and went into that thread, I would think it would be a tier 2 or 3 film ranked title.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15265831
> 
> 
> Did anyone answer me here?



I can remember two specific scenes with halos, the primary one being the police parade scene (the halos outline many of the uniforms). I also detected halos in the scene where a detective is in an interrogation room with the Joker (there were very slight halos around the edges of the detective's suit). But I want to stress that I really had to look for them (especially the 2nd one mentioned) and they did not distract me. (Now wouldn't it be something if someone who sees EE easily responds and tells me there was no EE in the 2nd scene I mentioned!







)


Having said that, I don't believe spectator or anyone else is lying when they say they see ringing and it bothers them. I give them that, and I do sympathize with them. But for those of us who "see it differently," we are compelled to call it as we see it, thus opinions are going to vary.


I do agree with whoever it was that said, in essense, "Let's just give our opinion and let the moderator count the votes and place it accordingly." I will, at the end of the day, live with whatever decision is made....and I won't lose any sleep over it either.










But until the mod gives TDK a placement....the war rages on!


----------



## rsbeck

Out of curiosity,


Here's what's on my pile of titles to watch;


1) Narnia: Caspian


2) The Day The Earth Stood Still


3) Step Brothers


4) Shawshank Redemption


5) Great Expectations


6) When We Left Earth


Trying to decide what to review next.


Anyone have a request?


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15265997
> 
> 
> People who are familiar with this thread might say the same thing about me.



Maybe. Or, maybe you're susceptible to it from the other threads based on the fact that there is a lot of intimidation going on in those other threads. You either see what they see, complain as loud as they, or you're out. It's easier to be an individual here in this land of misfit toys.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15266154
> 
> 
> I just looked at the pics from Xylons caps again. The tv you mentioned is a blur in that shot, how can you see EE if the tv itself is a blur?



I probably could have been clearer. The two examples I gave are from my own viewing of the disc and not from any screencaps. Both cases involve examples where the shot is fairly static for a while so there is plenty of time to see the EE. I am talking about shots directly of the TV with the guy from Hong Kong on the screen. In the pencil trick scene there are also shots of the gangsters where there is clear EE around the shoulders on black leather jackets.


----------



## HDphile22

What about Wanted and Hancock, none of these are ranked.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15266169
> 
> 
> Out of curiosity,
> 
> 
> Here's what's on my pile of titles to watch;
> 
> 
> 1) Narnia: Caspian
> 
> 
> 2) The Day The Earth Stood Still
> 
> 
> 3) Step Brothers
> 
> 
> 4) Shawshank Redemption
> 
> 
> 5) Great Expectations
> 
> 
> 6) When We Left Earth
> 
> 
> Trying to decide what to review next.
> 
> 
> Anyone have a request?


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDphile22* /forum/post/15266223
> 
> 
> What about Wanted and Hancock, none of these are ranked.



Already reviewed Hancock, don't have Wanted, but others have reviewed it. Use thread search, the reviews will come up.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15266201
> 
> 
> Maybe. Or, maybe you're susceptible to it from the other threads based on the fact that there is a lot of intimidation going on in those other threads. You either see what they see, complain as loud as they, or you're out. It's easier to be an individual here in this land of misfit toys.



I wasn't talking about TDK but rather about numerous prior occasions when I have been a fairly lonely voice in dissent (Speed Racer, for example).


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15266169
> 
> 
> Out of curiosity,
> 
> 
> Here's what's on my pile of titles to watch;
> 
> 
> 1) Narnia: Caspian
> 
> 
> 2) The Day The Earth Stood Still
> 
> 
> 3) Step Brothers
> 
> 
> 4) Shawshank Redemption
> 
> 
> 5) Great Expectations
> 
> 
> 6) When We Left Earth
> 
> 
> Trying to decide what to review next.
> 
> 
> Anyone have a request?



I would really like your take on Prince Caspian. As you know, many have weighed in already with their view, and it has been referenced often in our discussion over TDK, so it would be good to have another opinion on it as we venture closer to its placement.


BTW, how in the world did you get The Day The Earth Stood Still on your pile?


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDphile22* /forum/post/15266223
> 
> 
> What about Wanted and Hancock, none of these are ranked.



Yet! The jury is still out.







We have had many comments and recommendations on both.


If I recall from the recommendations, I would guess Hancock will be lower Tier 1 and Wanted upper Tier 1. Both look really good.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15266244
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking about TDK but rather about numerous prior occasions when I have been a fairly lonely voice in dissent (Speed Racer, for example).



I was just joshing you. You are definitely an individual and I appreciate that. As you might recall, I have suported you in your dissent, even when I have disagreed with you.


----------



## HDphile22




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15254450
> 
> *Hancock*
> 
> 
> Excellent transfer and luscious cinematography. Some of the best blacks and color saturation I've seen on Blu-Ray. Shadow and shadow detail is excellent. No noise in evidence. It's reach out and touch, count the pores on faces sharp and yet it looks natural with very fine film grain intact, nothing to cause DNR or EE controversy. It reminds me of the PQ, look and feel of tier O title Black Snake Moan. So, what keeps it from being a tier 0 title? In the first bunch of sequences, the film maker chose to use hand held cameras to simulate the unsteadiness of Hancock's inebriation. This causes some of the pictures to waver momentarily out of tier 0 PQ. Also, the action sequences are on hyper speed, which often causes motion blur. Still, there are lots and lots of not just great shots, but reference quality shots and the overall look of this film really shows off the ultimate in what blu-ray can do. I feel the overall PQ quality is better than Iron Man; more resolution, detail and saturation, black levels and handling of shadows in a whole different league. Iron Man is ranked in the second quarter of Tier 1. The question becomes; how much do you lower this title for the moments of "softness?" I will lean conservative.
> 
> *Recommendation: Second quarter of tier 1*
> 
> 
> Sim2 C3X1080
> 
> Carada Masquerade
> 
> 126" Firehawk G3
> 
> Pioneer BDP-05FD
> 
> 
> 13' From Screen
> 
> 
> 
> .




Yea Hancock looks good! Charlize Theron looks even Better!


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15266222
> 
> 
> I probably could have been clearer. The two examples I gave are from my own viewing of the disc and not from any screencaps. Both cases involve examples where the shot is fairly static for a while so there is plenty of time to see the EE. I am talking about shots directly of the TV with the guy from Hong Kong on the screen. In the pencil trick scene there are also shots of the gangsters where there is clear EE around the shoulders on black leather jackets.



Gunna eat then fire mine up again and look for this.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15266259
> 
> 
> I was just joshing you. You are definitely an individual and I appreciate that. As you might recall, I have suported you in your dissent, even when I have disagreed with you.



I also recall that you came to my defense when I was being badgered by someone, and I appreciated that.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15266244
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking about TDK but rather about numerous prior occasions when I have been a fairly lonely voice in dissent (Speed Racer, for example).



Yeah, you definitely "march to the beat of your own drum" patrick....I'll give you that.







And sometimes, even though it may be rare, I'm marching with you.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15266292
> 
> 
> Gunna eat then fire mine up again and look for this.



And the shot of Gordon later on.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15266307
> 
> 
> Yeah, you definitely "march to the beat of your own drum" patrick....I'll give you that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And sometimes, even though it may be rare, I'm marching with you.



Well, I am always happy for company in my little corner.


----------



## quake1028

I will have these tomorrow and will offer up reviews of them:
*

The Day the Earth Stood Still

Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery*


----------



## quake1028




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/15265084
> 
> 
> Phantom and patrick are correct, the 1/4 system was first implemented as a means of "navigating," if you will, your way through the tiers. Tier 1 and Tier 2 were becoming enormous and it was extremely difficult to tell exactly where you were in the tier since it took up multiple screens while scrolling.
> 
> 
> I never intended to create 4 tiers within each of the original 4 (Gold, Silver, etc...), but that's what it morphed into.
> 
> 
> As for placements, I view the 1/4 markers as headings...i.e. - describing the titles below. So when someone says Tier 1 1/4, it goes in the second "set" under Tier 1. I apologize if that's confusing, but by inference it seemed that most posters thought the same. We frequently see "Title X should go in the top 1/4 of Tier 1."
> 
> 
> If the majority would like them renumbered, I have no problem with that.



I think we do need some re-working. As a new reviewer, I have mistaken 1 1/4 for the top of Tier 1, meaning I was off by a 1/4 Tier on almost all of my reviews. It's just not clear enough, IMO.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *quake1028* /forum/post/15266355
> 
> 
> I think we do need some re-working. As a new reviewer, I have mistaken 1 1/4 for the top of Tier 1, meaning I was off by a 1/4 Tier on almost all of my reviews. It's just not clear enough, IMO.



You are so right, in fact, I thought all along that I had finally figured it out....and I hadn't, so some of my suggested placements were 1/4 off too.


I still believe the simplest route to go is to *list each quarterly ranking at the top of each quarter*. I don't see how anyone could go wrong then. It could be as follows (giving Tier Gold as an example of all the tiers below Tier Blu):


Tier 1: GOLD


1st Quarter

2nd Quarter

3rd Quarter

4th Quarter


or


Gold 1

Gold 2

Gold 3

Gold 4


or


1

1 1/4

1 1/2

1 3/4


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15266255
> 
> 
> I would really like your take on Prince Caspian



Okay, I'll get to that one next.



> Quote:
> BTW, how in the world did you get The Day The Earth Stood Still on your pile?


 http://www.amazon.com/Earth-Stood-St...8951046&sr=8-1 



It's the classic with Michael Rennie, not the new one with Keanu Reeves.


----------



## briankmonkey




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc;15266154I* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> just looked at the pics from Xylons caps again. The tv you mentioned is a blur in that shot, how can you see EE if the tv itself is a blur?
> 
> 
> I see the ringing in the joker's jacket in the cap as it looks like a purple haze where the jacket should be more delineated/defined. I can say that on the fly the ringing around the joker's purple jacket is NOT as noticeable as in the cap which makes Robert Harris' point.
> 
> 
> I also read Xylons comments and noticed he is using some antagonistic points of view that I know in the past would have been deleted because they incite flame wars. From that first page:
> 
> 
> Where is the consistency? The first person to give me an excuse "Oh because its 35mm. It's not fair!", I will put you in my ignore list or call The Pope. I have read that loooong thread by Alan concerning the PQ issues. He was right. There is PQ issues. If you can't see the problems in your setup then that is fine. I will not insult you for that. By reason of sight, personal preference, lack of knowledge or just your HT equipment is not "good enough" to show every detail. To some people they are forgetting why you are here in the first place. I can understand there is some tolerance level to some people regarding DNR or EE. But there is just instances where these manipulations on films is just too much to ignore. Of course we are going to be hearing lots of excuses and "explanations" but who are they fooling? Me?
> 
> 
> You know, if I never saw the film and went into that thread, I would think it would be a tier 2 or 3 film ranked title..



Or the PQ is awful according MovieSwede who indeed has not seen the blu-ray and commented in that thread based on pics. Some of us like to watch movies and not just hunt for slight imperfections in carefully selected frames.


I haven't watched it all the way through yet to give a fair ranking, but from the random scenes I've checked out I'm pretty much in agreement with Ralph Potts comments. It looks great for the most part with some flaws here and there. I'm guessing it looks better than Batman Begins which a lot of people praised the PQ for on the HD DVD. I'll have to compare them when I can once I've watched all the way through.


The Xylon thread probably has more deleted posts than survinging posts..


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15266439
> 
> 
> It's the classic with Michael Rennie, not the new one with Keanu Reeves.



I had no idea this was out on Blu-ray. I remember watching this as a young teenager...one of my first Sci-Fi flicks. I recall being impressed with the acting and the central message. I'll look forward to your review.


----------



## HDphile22

My brief review of Prince Caspian... nothing professional just casual. It does have comparasion vs Dark Knight since it's debated.





Prince Caspian is very vivid, crisp nature scenes are great for the most part!


Is it one of the Best?


Of course. I am NOT going to argue that it's poor or anything.










Yes, the details on the armors, clothings are as good if not better than Dark Knight, which is arguable, but one thing for sure that is for some reason the 3D pop effect for like the actors faces, which pales in comparasion.


You don't see textures on the faces at all!


A major difference between a movie like Prince Caspian and Dark Knight is that PC is mostly in the day, and TDK is mostly at night.


It seems to me, that very different capabilities of cameras were used to film scenes from each these movies, which causes this.


Both movies are outstanding in their own right, but personally I prefer if Prince Caspian have more 3D pop to the character's faces, like The Dark Knight does.


Since it doesn't, I can't justify give Prince Caspian a higher rank than Dark Knight. While others may have difference of opinion on what's important in PQ... the lack of details of faces is just NOT good enough to me!


----------



## rsbeck

*Super Slow*



> Quote:
> So when someone says Tier 1 1/4, it goes in the second "set" under Tier 1.



That's exactly how I interpreted it, so none of my recommendations would need changing. Thanks!


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briankmonkey* /forum/post/15266447
> 
> 
> Or the PQ is awful according MovieSwede who indeed has not seen the blu-ray and commented in that thread based on pics. Some of us like to watch movies and not just hunt for slight imperfections in carefully selected frames.
> 
> 
> I haven't watched it all the way through yet to give a fair ranking, but from the random scenes I've checked out I'm pretty much in agreement with Ralph Potts comments. It looks great for the most part with some flaws here and there. I'm guessing it looks better than Batman Begins which a lot of people praised the PQ for on the HD DVD. I'll have to compare them when I can once I've watched all the way through.
> 
> 
> The Xylon thread probably has more deleted posts than survinging posts..



And you know where I stand besides on two feet. At the top of that "PQ" comparison thread is a copy of a statement made by a mod which I agree with to some extent, but has been taken to the extreme. How about we are with you and against you. We love film and want accurate reproduction as well, but we "see" things differently and that doesn't make us wrong and and others right or vice versa. Frustrating at times!


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15266496
> 
> 
> I had no idea this was out on Blu-ray. I remember watching this as a young teenager...one of my first Sci-Fi flicks. I recall being impressed with the acting and the central message. I'll look forward to your review.



It's always been a favorite of mine. I've had it on VHS and DVD. Looking forward to the Blu-ray!


----------



## rsbeck

klaatu barada nikto


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15266541
> 
> *Super Slow*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly how I interpreted it, so none of my recommendations would need changing. Thanks!




Uh oh! I think some of us thought differently. Oh well.







I can't remember now, but will make note from here on out. I did based my Caspian and DK recommends on what Supr and you are saying, so those are good.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15266160
> 
> 
> I can remember two specific scenes with halos



I recall others as well. Some, I am fairly sure are from EE, but I am not certain that these are unintended. They have to do with silhouettes -- and I notice these in many transfers -- I assume the decision is made to use EE because even the halo can help make the silhouette more distinct from the background. On the other hand, how can we be absolutely certain that these halos are not due to a specifically placed light, from the way the film was exposed, from a choice made by the director/cinematographer?


I suspect the hunt for EE is much like telling someone to not think of a red polar bear. Once you've been told that, all you can think of is red polar bears. In other words, I suspect some people might just know enough about EE to be dangerous -- to themselves. After awhile, that's all they can see -- in every lighting effect, every light that highlights an edge. And, this being the nature of the male animal, no one wants to say, "I think I see EE, but I'm not sure," etc. Instead, all of these guys speak with incredible certainty and authority -- and some of them bully and taunt.


There's a lot of pressure to see EE and a lot o phenomenon that can produce EE like effects. It's the perfect recipe for an attack of red polar bears.


I suspect that most of the stuff -- especially from the screen grabs -- is not EE. If the picture was loaded with EE, I think Robert Harris would have noticed and commented. Many times, reading around that forum, I've seen him try to educate some of the guys from the screen grab forums here, try to tell them what to look for, how to interpret some of the phenomenon they report, try to tell them to quit relying on screen grabs, etc. And, my reading tells me a lot of those guys don't want to be confused with facts.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15266628
> 
> 
> Uh oh! I think some of us thought differently. Oh well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't remember now, but will make note from here on out. I did based my Caspian and DK recommends on what Supr and you are saying, so those are good.



We are not alone, for I just copied this from a post made by Phantom Stranger:


I do not use that terminology Cinema Squid when I recommend titles for placement. The top quarter of tier one (tier 1 1/4) starts with Alvin and the Chipmunks right now. The second quarter of tier one ( tier 1 2/4) starts with 21 at the moment and so on. I refer to the last quarter in each tier as the bottom quarter.


This just goes to show you we definitely NEED to mark each quarterly section *AT THE TOP*. Think of all the recommendations Phantom has given us for placements in tiers below Tier 0....and they were all a quarter off.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15266320
> 
> 
> And the shot of Gordon later on.



I see no halos around the tv or on the guys suits...I am sitting about 4 feet away.


I even paused it and still don't see it.


What shot of Gordon are you talking about?


----------



## LBFilmGuy

I really, really hope these halos you guys are talking about ARE NOT from when the light hits the lens at a certain angle, usually straight on.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15266725
> 
> 
> I suspect the hunt for EE is much like telling someone to not think of a red polar bear. Once you've been told that, all you can think of is red polar bears. In other words, I suspect some people might just know enough about EE to be dangerous -- to themselves. After awhile, that's all they can see -- in every lighting effect, every light that highlights an edge. And, this being the nature of the male animal, no one wants to say, "I think I see EE, but I'm not sure," etc. Instead, all of these guys speak with incredible certainty and authority -- and some of them bully and taunt.
> 
> 
> There's a lot of pressure to see EE and a lot o phenomenon that can produce EE like effects. It's the perfect recipe for an attack of red polar bears.



I had to laugh when I read about "red polar bears" rsbeck because it jarred the memory of one night many years ago...I was just about to call it a night and my brother called me and said, "Hey Bro...did I ever tell you about the guy who had trouble going to sleep one night when he was told NOT to think about the words White Buffalo?" Of course the man couldn't get those words out of his mind....and NEITHER COULD I!!!!


I suspect you are absolutely correct about this....THE POWER OF SUGGESTION. Okay, now I'm going to get flamed!


----------



## briankmonkey




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15266952
> 
> 
> I really, really hope these halos you guys are talking about ARE NOT from when the light hits the lens at a certain angle, usually straight on.



There are some legit complaints on halos, though I would not be surprised if you situation fits as well. After all people have confused depth of field and out of focus shots for DNR as well as motion blur for other issues.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15266793
> 
> 
> This just goes to show you we definitely NEED to mark each quarterly section *AT THE TOP*. Think of all the recommendations Phantom has given us for placements in tiers below Tier 0....and they were all a quarter off.



However SuprSlow is handling it seems not to affect my recommendations







. He has always correctly placed them in the past from what I can tell. But I have no problem with the idea of naming the individual quarters within each tier.


The Dark Knight discussion seems to have exploded in this thread. We have had more posts in the last 24 hours than the last couple of months put together it seems. I understand the highly contentious nature of this title and maybe we should move to a one-time poll for this BD and this BD alone. I typically believe that ranking these Blu-rays is more art than science at times, but in this case maybe a poll is needed to ensure a defensible consensus for the credibility of the ranking.


I would also like to mention a suggestion for the main rankings page. I thought the following proverb in Latin might be a nice little addition to the first post in the thread.


"Oculi plus vident quam oculus"


which roughly translates to


"Several eyes see more than only one."


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briankmonkey* /forum/post/15267000
> 
> 
> There are some legit complaints on halos, though I would not be surprised if you situation fits as well. After all people have confused depth of field and out of focus shots for DNR as well as motion blur for other issues.



Seriously, that's what makes me take most people's thoughts on PQ with a grain of salt.


It's so sad to see superb titles like TDK get knocked because of ignorance or lack of knowledge of photography...I am not naming names, just talking in general. I would assume those providing "professional" reviews on sites like HDD would know what they're looking at, but who knows.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15267014
> 
> 
> However SuprSlow is handling it seems not to affect my recommendations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . He has always correctly placed them in the past from what I can tell. But I have no problem with the idea of naming the individual quarters within each tier.
> 
> 
> The Dark Knight discussion seems to have exploded in this thread. We have had more posts in the last 24 hours than the last couple of months put together it seems. I understand the highly contentious nature of this title and maybe we should move to a one-time poll for this BD and this BD alone. I typically believe that ranking these Blu-rays is more art than science at times, but in this case maybe a poll is needed to ensure a defensible consensus for the credibility of the ranking.
> 
> 
> I would also like to mention a suggestion for the main rankings page. I thought the following proverb in Latin might be a nice little addition to the first post in the thread.
> 
> 
> "Oculi plus vident quam oculus"
> 
> 
> which roughly translates to
> 
> 
> "Several eyes see more than only one."



Phantom you said you saw halos and EE, right? What specific shots please.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15267035
> 
> 
> Phantom you said you saw halos and EE, right? What specific shots please.



While I did not write down timecodes, I noticed what appears to be edge enhancement or ringing in several different shots. The absolute worst that comes to mind is the long shots of the lighted ceiling in the temporary underground "batcave" or whatever it was. I found that worse than the infamous police crowd shot that has made the rounds in other threads here. There are also some moments when Morgan Freeman goes to Hong Kong to meet the accountant. Patrick99 also named a couple of shots that exhibit it. I definitely counted multiple instances of it.


I have seen guesses but nothing confirmed by insiders of course that the master used for the transfer has this sharpening baked in. Some have speculated that Warner did not transfer the IMAX portions and the 35mm portions separately for the master and then splice the portions together, but used the the 35mm blowup to IMAX for the transfer's source.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15265790
> 
> 
> IMO, the very claim that a title can't be tier 0 if it has an artifact is more applicable to the other thread than this one.



Interesting thought. I can see where you're going that if the aim in this thread is more along the lines of 'pretty pictures' in the abstract, the impact of artifacts on the proper reproduction of the actual movie itself is maybe not so important. It _does_ impact the abstract prettiness, of course, but if the majority of the disc is artifact-free, that portion can be used as your demo material. That a couple of scenes look problematic doesn't matter since you're not actually watching the movie.


Of course, this begs the question of how much that "softness" in the first third of Wall-E should matter for this thread's purposes. Just use the other two-thirds, right?


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15267014
> 
> 
> "Oculi plus vident quam oculus"
> 
> 
> which roughly translates to
> 
> 
> "Several eyes see more than only one."



Beautiful. Excellent suggestion. I support that.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Okay I paused the long shot of the police lineup and i do see a light glow around them, mainly down by their legs.


I had to pause it and get about a foot from the screen to notice it though.


Hardly distracting, especially in real time.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15265838
> 
> 
> Read the opening paragraphs on picture assessment, 3D pop is emphasized over and over. If you don't think it is desirable, you're using different criteria out of step with this thread.



I'm not saying it isn't. I'm trying to explore what it really means and how it can be evaluated in measurable PQ terms, as it's another of those rather vague and very subjective terms that runs a bit contrary to the kind of "objective" measurement that leads to things like quarter-Tier-level evaluations.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15267244
> 
> 
> Okay I paused the long shot of the police lineup and i do see a light glow around them, mainly down by their legs.
> 
> 
> I had to pause it and get about a foot from the screen to notice it though.
> 
> *Hardly distracting, especially in real time*.



Exactly!


----------



## LBFilmGuy

I honestly don't know how any of you guys notice this stuff other than reading every page of every thread where people sit and analyze every frame looking for ANY sort of flaw to knock the PQ of a title and post screen shots for the everyone else to study and agree upon.


Seems silly to me.


If it was blatant then fine, but stuff like this shouldn't be an issue.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15267224
> 
> 
> That a couple of scenes look problematic doesn't matter since you're not actually watching the movie.



It's interesting that you would guess that I am not actually watching the movie. That's the exact opposite of my experience. I would say that a few problematic scenes don't affect me BECAUSE I am watching the movie.




> Quote:
> Of course, this begs the question of how much that "softness" in the first third of Wall-E should matter for this thread's purposes. Just use the other two-thirds, right?



Well, you're certainly welcome to write your own review and make that argument. However, we have dropped other titles like Speed Racer and Hancock quite a bit for relatively little transgressive softness. I understand and support that because my interpretation of the assessment criteria is that softness is the worst transgression.


I just want us to be consistent.


If we lower these other titles for relatively little softness, it doesn't make sense to me to have Wall-E up in tier 0 when the first demo sequence doesn't take place until at least 30 minutes into the film. I also think that if we lower Speed Racer based on some lack of detail in some faces, how do we have Wall-E in tier 0 when the humans in the second half of the film are all so cartoonish and simplistic, lacking in detail? Now, I know that these are artistic choices and I applaud them, but I also compartmentalize, so while I appreciate the choices made by the film maker to tell his story and carry out his themes, I feel I [we] must still lower the title and treat it no differently than other titles.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15267292
> 
> 
> I honestly don't know how any of you guys notice this stuff other than reading every page of every thread where people sit and analyze every frame looking for ANY sort of flaw to knock the PQ of a title and post screen shots for the everyone else to study and agree upon.
> 
> 
> Seems silly to me.
> 
> 
> If it was blatant then fine, but stuff like this shouldn't be an issue.



I understand your point exactly. Most of the transfer looks awesome with the IMAX scenes easily making my own personal idea of tier zero. Frankly I think some of the accusations in other threads about this BD being DNRed badly are ridiculous. But the edge enhancement, albeit minor and sporadic, did stick out like a sore thumb to me at various times. In my mind that is enough of a negative to drop a title half a tier at least and that is what I based my final recommendation on.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *briankmonkey* /forum/post/15266447
> 
> 
> Or the PQ is awful according MovieSwede who indeed has not seen the blu-ray and commented in that thread based on pics. Some of us like to watch movies and not just hunt for slight imperfections in carefully selected frames.
> 
> 
> I haven't watched it all the way through yet to give a fair ranking, but from the random scenes I've checked out I'm pretty much in agreement with Ralph Potts comments. It looks great for the most part with some flaws here and there. I'm guessing it looks better than Batman Begins which a lot of people praised the PQ for on the HD DVD. I'll have to compare them when I can once I've watched all the way through.
> 
> 
> The Xylon thread probably has more deleted posts than survinging posts..



Speak of the devil. I got back home and looked at the DK thread and sure enough my post got deleted. They really don't like when I comment on that quote in the OP by a mod even when I agree with it and at the same time when I say there is more to it than that.


I now believe beyond a reasonable doubt there is an agenda to promote one way of thinking over another and be exclusive instead of inclusive, not by all, but a small minority who have a lot to say because they are more vocal.


Why do I think this is wrong, because I believe it does in injustice to HT and BD and instead of promoting it and trying to improve it, it hurts rather than helps.







Now I know why Hollywood and the real experts stay away and don't listen anymore. What a shame really.











Back to picking apart DK which I still maintain looks fantastic flaws and all.


----------



## SuprSlow

Just a quick note...I've been working most of the afternoon on the latest update, I'm through post #7400 right now and will finish the rest first thing tomorrow.


Also, the 1/4 tier debacle will be addressed in the update, as well


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/15267850
> 
> 
> Just a quick note...I've been working most of the afternoon on the latest update, I'm through post #7400 right now and will finish the rest first thing tomorrow.
> 
> 
> Also, the 1/4 tier debacle will be addressed in the update, as well



Excellent -- thanks!


----------



## sleater

I will throw my 2 cents worth on TDK vs Prince Caspian. I just watched both films back-to-back. It was a LONG afternoon for me.


Overall my vote goes Prince Caspian is tier 0 material, but lower tier 0. I looked for DNR, EE, ringing, softness, etc. I found next to none. Yes the up close facial details are the one knock-down that could have been slightly more jaw dropping. As for 3d pop, it's not as good as iRobot but it's good.


TDK I feel belongs in Tier 1 1/4 aka Tier 1.25 range Basically for those who think it should be higher compare the IMAX scenes with the regular 35mm scenes. The IMAX sequences/shots are what I think are top of the line tier 0 for live action on par with Baraka. The rest of the movie is GREAT but it does not match those scenes in my eyes. They are just THAT much better. The scene of the bat bike shot in IMAX going through the mall was jaw dropping. If the entire movie looked this great then it would hands down beat Prince Caspian.


92" screen

1080p HC5500

Sony S350


----------



## Incindium

I'm really surprised that after searching through this thread I only saw one reference to Hellboy II The Golden Army? Have none of you guys evaluated it for PQ?


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sleater* /forum/post/15267894
> 
> 
> The IMAX sequences/shots are what I think are top of the line tier 0 for live action on par with Baraka. The rest of the movie is GREAT but it does not match those scenes in my eyes. They are just THAT much better.



This just supports my contention that the IMAX sequences are spoiling some of us so much that we are then comparing TDK to itself rather than to other titles.


That's why I made sure to scrutinize only the wide screen sequences for a long stretch -- to compare only the wide screen sequences to other titles.


IMO, Even the wide screen sequences are easily tier 0.


There is no title in Tier 1 of the same quality as TDK wide screen.


IMO, you can't punish TDK because it can't compare to itself, you have to compare it to other titles.


On that basis, TDK is top half of tier 0.


It's reference material and I'd be willing to bet that 99.9% of the population would use it as demo -- over Ratatouille, Kung Fu Panda, Wall-E, Cars.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15267696
> 
> 
> I now believe beyond a reasonable doubt there is an agenda to promote one way of thinking over another and be exclusive instead of inclusive, not by all, but a small minority who have a lot to say because they are more vocal.
> 
> 
> Why do I think this is wrong, because I believe it does in injustice to HT and BD and instead of promoting it and trying to improve it, it hurts rather than helps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now I know why Hollywood and the real experts stay away and don't listen anymore. What a shame really.



Ironically Hugh, I have read posts from the "small minority" you referred to who have accused some of us of the same thing....they say we have an agenda to promote the "Blu-ray gospel" (that everything looks fine, there are no flaws, and there is no need for any improvement). They also conclude that our efforts are hurting and not improving the Blu-ray format.


As is most often the case, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/15267850
> 
> 
> Just a quick note...I've been working most of the afternoon on the latest update, I'm through post #7400 right now and will finish the rest first thing tomorrow.
> 
> 
> Also, the 1/4 tier debacle will be addressed in the update, as well



You are a good man, SuprSlow!


----------



## zinfamous




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15267262
> 
> 
> I'm not saying it isn't. I'm trying to explore what it really means and how it can be evaluated in measurable PQ terms, as it's another of those rather vague and very subjective terms that runs a bit contrary to the kind of "objective" measurement that leads to things like quarter-Tier-level evaluations.



I have come to accept what once used to be termed "3-D Pop" in the early days of HDM is now interpreted as evidence of the evil EE, and some DNR.


Of course, I could be way off on this assessment, so please...someone explain the difference?


----------



## quake1028

After watching several scenes again, and again:

*The Dark Knight: Tier 0, lower half*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15268070
> 
> 
> This just supports my contention that the IMAX sequences are spoiling some of us so much that we are then comparing TDK to itself rather than to other titles.
> 
> 
> It's reference material and I'd be willing to bet that 99.9% of the population would use it as demo -- over Ratatouille, Kung Fu Panda, Wall-E, Cars.



Your first point above is spot-on, though I'm sure some will say that they aren't comparing TDK to itself, but rather they're judging the wide screen sequences by the standards set forth on page one (and I can well imagine that _some_ are doing this, but _not all_).


Regarding the second point above, it will be interesting to see if you would include Prince Caspian as a demo over the other titles mentioned. I'm leaving tomorrow for 2-3 days and I may not have access to a WI-FI for our laptop, so I will anticipate reading your review on Prince Caspian when I return home (unless you have a review in before tomorrow at noon).


I do believe you will be impressed with PC, but one area that doesn't stand out in PC that really shines in TDK is the black levels, and this is because there are few night scenes to show off deep blacks and shadow detail. But this is more than made up for in the daytime scenes that are filled with beautiful cinematography, vivid colors, excellent contrast, accurate fleshtones, and, IMO, a good sense of depth. Happy viewing!


----------



## sleater




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15268070
> 
> 
> On that basis, TDK is top half of tier 0.
> 
> 
> It's reference material and I'd be willing to bet that 99.9% of the population would use it as demo -- over Ratatouille, Kung Fu Panda, Wall-E, Cars.



I would demo any of the animated titles before TDK to truly show off bluray. I would demo an IMAX TDK scene before any other live-action movie. Not the entire film.


I directly compared TDK to Prince Caspian having watched them both in one afternoon (5+ hours in my HT room... lazy day today). Due to PC's richer environments, I would easily demo it way before TDK's 35mm scenes. I WOULD definitely demo any of TDK's IMAX scenes. But it's a question of are we demoing entire films or select scenes? If it's the entire film, PC wins.


Yes I was comparing TDK to itself - if the IMAX scenes ARE in fact better than the 35mm scenes, then wouldn't that in itself prove the point that the 35mm portion (majority of the film) could be better? I'm not saying they are BAD at all in fact I said in my initial thoughts that they are GREAT.


I respect your opinion and yes TDK is a well done transfer of a brilliant film.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15267337
> 
> 
> I also think that if we lower Speed Racer based on some lack of detail in some faces, how do we have Wall-E in tier 0 when the humans in the second half of the film are all so cartoonish and simplistic, lacking in detail?



Hmm... So, if you see a sharp, accurate transfer of a documentary about outsider art, do you lower its evaluation because the subject matter is stick figures in crayon?


This goes back to the same (arguably) unanswerable question about whether or not that first third of Wall-E _is_, in fact, "soft". As far as the computers that rendered it are concerned, it is _precisely_ as soft as the rest of the movie. And the only reason that we perceive it to be softer than the rest is because the rest uses a sharper focus than that established in the first third. If Wall-E ended with that first third and we never saw it appear any "sharper", would we still consider it "soft"?


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15268299
> 
> 
> Regarding the second point above, it will be interesting to see if you would include Prince Caspian as a demo over the other titles mentioned. I'm leaving tomorrow for 2-3 days and I may not have access to a WI-FI for our laptop, so I will anticipate reading your review on Prince Caspian when I return home (unless you have a review in before tomorrow at noon).



As is often the case, I am waiting for others in the house to free up time so they can join me, but one way or another, I will watch at least a portion of Caspian and get some impressions up before you leave.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I think some might find this interesting. Here are the latest words (unedited) I could find on the Dark Knight from Robert Harris and partly why he pulled his initial review from another forum:

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=389 

_I'm afraid that I'm still a bit up in the air as to the precise roadmap for the production of the Blu-ray, in some cases attempting to cull fact from fiction.


I saw the film in Imax at a theater near LAX a couple of weeks ago with my son, and the image was extremely interesting. To my eye, and I could have been wrong, the body of the film did not appear to be full anamorphic 35, but more fitting the proportions of 1.85, giving a far less jolting transition from 70/15 to 35/4.


Second, I noted several (very minor) instances of digititis (digititus?) on the 35/4 footage.


If the BD is based upon the Imax element, and not a combination of the 35 and 65, then it presumably would have been taken not from a film element, but from the data files prepared for the creation of the 15 perf.


The various questions on my part, are what led be to remove my HTF posting, until I have the time to sort out the facts.


Bottom line is that TDK is a glorious Blu-ray disc. Unfortunately, we're getting some noise from those that our friend Penton calls the "scientists," who are seeing some devilish things in the Blu that I find easy to overlook.


Is there an occasional digital hiccup? Certainly.


Does it in any way negate the fact that TDK is reference quality?


Not in my book.


If anyone has real info as to the workflow, please post.
_


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15268070
> 
> 
> There is no title in Tier 1 of the same quality as TDK wide screen



Can you please post a screen grab of a scene you think is superior to anything in the top of Tier 1? Im genuinely curious.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sleater* /forum/post/15268312
> 
> 
> Due to PC's richer environments, I would easily demo it way before TDK's 35mm scenes. I WOULD definitely demo any of TDK's IMAX scenes. But it's a question of are we demoing entire films or select scenes? If it's the entire film, PC wins.



IMO, to be in tier 0, the vast majority of the title should be tier 0 quality. You should be able to turn it on and leave it on or plunk down just about anywhere and it will be demo quality.



> Quote:
> Yes I was comparing TDK to itself - if the IMAX scenes ARE in fact better than the 35mm scenes, then wouldn't that in itself prove the point that the 35mm portion (majority of the film) could be better? I'm not saying they are BAD at all in fact I said in my initial thoughts that they are GREAT.



IMO, the wide screen portions are lower half tier 0, along the lines of tier 0 title Live Free or Die Hard and the IMAX segments are upper quarter tier 0, competing with the likes of I. Robot. If I were limited to the wide screen segments of TDK, I would still rank it tier 0, but lower half. In that sense, yes, the wide screen segments could be better just like a lot of bottom tier 0 titles could be better.[/quote]


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sleater* /forum/post/15268312
> 
> 
> Yes I was comparing TDK to itself - *if the IMAX scenes ARE in fact better than the 35mm scenes, then wouldn't that in itself prove the point that the 35mm portion (majority of the film) could be better*?



If I can take a stab at this (though I'm sure rsbeck will tune in shortly







), I would say that even if the 35 mm scenes are inferior to the IMAX scenes it does NOT mean that they do not meet the standards for Tier 0. In fact, *the reason you see some titles at the top of the tier and some titles at the bottom is because (need I state the obvious?) some titles look better than others (though they all have been deemed worthy of Tier Blu)*.


So, if the 35 mm scenes are inferior to the IMAX scenes, they could be better. But they could still be good enough to be placed in Tier 0.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15268367
> 
> 
> Can you please post a screen grab of a scene you think is superior to anything in the top of Tier 1? Im genuinely curious.



Let's start here; What do you feel is the most impressive tier 1 title? Also, if you don't mind my asking, what size and what type of screen do you use?


----------



## djoberg

Whoa....my post came up and lo and behold, so did rsbeck's. And it looks like we are on the same wave length in our answer. I'll bet many of you were thinking the exact same thing.


----------



## Vegaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Incindium* /forum/post/15267998
> 
> 
> I'm really surprised that after searching through this thread I only saw one reference to Hellboy II The Golden Army? Have none of you guys evaluated it for PQ?



There's a few,mostly for 0. I forgot to vote for it after watching it. I think I have to revote for everything anyway as I was confused with the Gold stuff. Good thing none are listed yet other than Wall-E and Kung Fu Panda.


----------



## Hughmc

From Phantom's post and here is the key point especially coming from one of the most respected reviewers in the business, Robert Harris:


"who are seeing some devilish things in the Blu that I find easy to overlook."


----------



## musick




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15267696
> 
> 
> Speak of the devil. I got back home and looked at the DK thread and sure enough my post got deleted.



so now it looks like the conversation is just going to litter this area ... I hope not


please follow the thread's instructions or please move on



> Quote:
> PLEASE READ AND FOLLOW THE FOLLOWING BEFORE POSTING COMMENTS ABOUT A MOVIE'S TIER:
> 
> 
> Movies are placed based on user feedback. We always strive to honor user feedback and at least listen to people's viewpoints on tier placement before settling differences inopinion. In order to do so we require certain information to be included in your posts. If you do not post this information in your post you can expect your opinion to be ignored as we feel asking for this
> 
> information has been clearly stated multiple times. Below is the minimum information to include in your posts:
> 
> 
> When posting your thoughts about Tier placement please be sure to include the following or your post has no chance of impacting the tier:
> 
> 
> Screen Resolution (EX: 1920X1080X24p or 1920X1080X60p)
> 
> Screen Size (EX: 100" Projection, 50" Plasma)
> 
> Distance from Screen
> 
> 
> If you are citing a problem with a disk's tier placement please provide timings when possible so they can be reviewed for artifacting. You are welcome to include this info your
> 
> 
> signature if you like as to my knowledge it doesn't violate the forum signature rules


----------



## Elbie

I see a lot of nitpicking with TDK due to it being one of the biggest movies ever and people expecting it to look so good that it is life like. The IMAX scenes spoiled the hell out of us and they do look good, but so does the rest of the movie. I saw no problem with the regular footage at all. All the claims for ringing, EE, DNR, and all of the other terms are stuff you will notice during pausing or screen shots like some have said. Some of the stuff have been said by reviewers is due to the Imax footage, but seriously, there isn't a movie in Tier 1 that can even challenge the regular footage of TDK and I can argue for some of the movies I have seen in Tier 0. If the movie did not have any IMAX footage I believe this would be in Tier 0. The footage solidifies it to be in Tier 0 IMO. You cannot penalize the movie because the non-IMAX footage does not look as top notch as the IMAX footage because at the end of the day the IMAX cameras are more powerful and better quality than a 35mm camera correct? I seriously do not understand and will never understand how people can give honest opinions of a movies PQ when they look at still screen shots of movies. Doesn’t that defeat the purpose? This is movie picture quality, not photo picture quality.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *musick* /forum/post/15268621
> 
> 
> so now it looks like the conversation is just going to litter this area ... I hope not
> 
> 
> please follow the thread's instructions or please move on




Just so you are aware I believe the discussions we have are after the placement each of us recommends. It is when we recommend placement that we list our specs. A far as I know and believe, the discussions we have afterward regarding a title are not counted for or against the title, again only the posts which actually recommend placement are counted.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15268452
> 
> 
> Let's start here; What do you feel is the most impressive tier 1 title? Also, if you don't mind my asking, what size and what type of screen do you use?



I use a 40" Samsung 650 LCD, and view it from slightly more than 2 feet. Closer than what is considered 'proper' distance, but I think an issue is an issue regardless of where you sit. I'll also check black level and motion issues on my CRT monitor, since LCDs can't really convey inky blacks.

Which is most impressive is a tough one to answer, since different movies take different stylistic approaches. I think No Country For Old Men is an excellent example of a movie with a more subdued visual style, it has a natural crispness but without that grungy, hard look that bothers me so much in TDK (like this shot for instance http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/302_8_1080p.jpg )


----------



## quake1028




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *quake1028* /forum/post/15268285
> 
> 
> After watching several scenes again, and again:
> 
> *The Dark Knight: Tier 0, lower half*


*

Panny TH-42PZ800U 1080p

PS3 through HDMI

4.5 ft*


Added so my vote gets counted







.


----------



## MelloFellow13

SuprSlow and co. - I still stand by the grading system I recommended earlier...

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...php?p=14824084 








C'mon guys, if you like the idea voice your support and if not then say so and I won't be offended, just don't let it be ignored again.


----------



## rsbeck

Caspian:


Initial impression after one hour of viewing; Fine grain intact which gives a very natural, pleasing, some would say film-like quality. The opening shows a woman in bed sweating, which is very detailed, but then the picture goes noticeably soft for about the next 20 minutes, especially faces. I'm guessing it is from this early portion of the film that HD took his soft looking screen grabs. There are nice shots here and there to give a preview of this title's capabilities, but the overall impression for the first 20 minutes or so is just slightly soft. If you're comparing this to TDK, TDK starts off with a pretty lengthy IMAX sequence, which everyone agrees is stunning -- versus Caspian, which starts off soft and includes a sequence that is stylized with a very blue cast, with crushed blacks and silhouettes to establish a motif. Not much competition there. TDK wins by a landslide. But, I hate doing that. At about 45 minutes, Caspian noticeably improves again. At this point, the cinematography turns positively and consistently glorious with lots of detail, wonderful contrast, beautiful scenery, fabulous colors, etc. I am going to guess that reviewers are basing their raves more on later parts of the film than earlier.



.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MelloFellow13* /forum/post/15269138
> 
> 
> SuprSlow and co. - I still stand by the grading system I recommended earlier...
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...php?p=14824084
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon guys, if you like the idea voice your support and if not then say so and I won't be offended, just don't let it be ignored again.



I like the idea, because it has stronger quality connotations than some arbitrary number. (personally I would have a much easier time giving a movie a letter grade rather than assigning it to a tier)


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MelloFellow13* /forum/post/15269138
> 
> 
> SuprSlow and co. - I still stand by the grading system I recommended earlier...
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...php?p=14824084
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon guys, if you like the idea voice your support and if not then say so and I won't be offended, just don't let it be ignored again.



I would welcome it as well.


----------



## Murilo

Watching batman and sin city canada.


Sin City I would put Teir 1 Half way-To upper area.



Batman what a mixed bag.


Some scenes look great, some scenes look bad.


Im not sure. I would say top teir 2. Not teir 0 by any means (only the imax scenes belong there)




Benq W5000 1080P, sitting about 9-10 feet away.


----------



## Fanaticalism




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15267292
> 
> 
> I honestly don't know how any of you guys notice this stuff other than reading every page of every thread where people sit and analyze every frame looking for ANY sort of flaw to knock the PQ of a title and post screen shots for the everyone else to study and agree upon.
> 
> 
> Seems silly to me.
> 
> 
> If it was blatant then fine, but stuff like this shouldn't be an issue.



Just to clear the air on my stance, and what outside influences may have had on my overall assessment of this film. If you read my thoughts on TDK, you will see that the scene/s that I pointed out in particluar, were the scenes in the temporary batcave, which atleast to my knowledge, was never mentioned in the dedicated "TDK" thread, and I mentioned it well before anyone in this specific thread. There were other scenes that just didn't seem right, as they looked "oversharpened" to my eyes, but the "batcave" scenes just absolutely screamed out at me.


Now, my ranking of the TDK are just following suit of what the rules for placement are in the first post of this thread. Personally, I have no quams if this did end up as a "Reference" title. It definitely has a lot of things going for it, that could jolt it to that status. Is this is my new demo disc? ABSOLUTELY! The audio quality on this disc is just to die for to my ears, and overall contrast, and cinematics are simply stunning. It is a film, that even the non-enthusiast can see, and immediately appreciate, even if it isn't their "type" of movie.


----------



## Fanaticalism




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Murilo* /forum/post/15269373
> 
> 
> Watching batman and sin city canada.
> 
> 
> Sin City I would put Teir 1 Half way-To upper area.
> 
> 
> 
> Batman what a mixed bag.
> 
> 
> Some scenes look great, some scenes look bad.
> 
> 
> Im not sure. *I would say top teir 2.* Not teir 0 by any means (only the imax scenes belong there)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Benq W5000 1080P, sitting about 9-10 feet away.



OOF! Tier 2 seems very rough. I saw this movie twice before I hinted at a ranking, only firmly planting my suggestion after the 3rd viewing. The only issues I saw with this film were sharpening in certain scenes.


According to the tier system, this one most definitely does not belong in tier 2.


----------



## briankmonkey




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15267696
> 
> 
> Speak of the devil. I got back home and looked at the DK thread and sure enough my post got deleted. They really don't like when I comment on that quote in the OP by a mod even when I agree with it and at the same time when I say there is more to it than that.
> 
> 
> I now believe beyond a reasonable doubt there is an agenda to promote one way of thinking over another and be exclusive instead of inclusive, not by all, but a small minority who have a lot to say because they are more vocal.
> 
> 
> Why do I think this is wrong, because I believe it does in injustice to HT and BD and instead of promoting it and trying to improve it, it hurts rather than helps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now I know why Hollywood and the real experts stay away and don't listen anymore. What a shame really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Back to picking apart DK which I still maintain looks fantastic flaws and all.



Yeah, pretty much all of the good insiders left during the format war nonsense. I've lost count of how many of my posts were deleted as well.. Some were just straight honest questions like "Do you see halo in this picture, where?" as I was honestly trying to understand why somebody said that every single portion of TDK has halos. I just went through it again at 3-4 feet and still feel the EE is mild. The digital noise or whatever though definitely makes the jump to imax feel more dramatic at that distance. Very gritty look.


So I'd say Tier 1 highest maybe Top Tier 2, just due to the fact that the bright scenes don't look that great, though the dark scenes look pretty good, still not reference. It wasn't reference in the theater by any means so I never expected Tier 0 long before it hit blu-ray.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15268802
> 
> 
> I use a 40" Samsung 650 LCD, and view it from slightly more than 2 feet. Closer than what is considered 'proper' distance, but I think an issue is an issue regardless of where you sit.



Well, just on the face of it, watching a 40" LCD screen from two feet away is going look quite different from watching a 3 chip DLP front projector on a 9.5' wide screen from 13' feet away. So, this alone might explain our differing viewpoints on titles.



> Quote:
> I think No Country For Old Men is an excellent example of a movie with a more subdued visual style, it has a natural crispness but without that grungy, hard look that bothers me so much



I have No Country, but I haven't watched it yet. I'll check it out. I'll try to get to it tomorrow.



.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Elbie* /forum/post/15268659
> 
> 
> seriously, there isn't a movie in Tier 1 that can even challenge the regular footage of *TDK*...if the movie did not have any IMAX footage I believe this would be in *Tier 0*.



100% agreement.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fanaticalism* /forum/post/15269507
> 
> 
> Is this is my new *demo* disc? ABSOLUTELY!



Nailed it.



.


----------



## Fanaticalism




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15269838
> 
> 
> With that statement, I think you answered all of your own questions.



I don't remember asking any questions.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fanaticalism* /forum/post/15269859
> 
> 
> I don't remember asking any questions.



Me, neither. Edited. Went with nails instead.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

I think there needs to be a therapy group for us. LOL











I am still in for TDK @ mid Tier 0 at the least.


----------



## Fanaticalism




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15269902
> 
> 
> Me, neither. Edited. Went with nails instead.














> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15269933
> 
> *I think there needs to be a therapy group for us. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> I am still in for TDK @ mid Tier 0 at the least.



That is one therapy session I wouldn't mind.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Elbie* /forum/post/15268659
> 
> 
> ... but seriously, there isn't a movie in Tier 1 that can even challenge the regular footage of TDK and I can argue for some of the movies I have seen in Tier 0.



Just to name a few: Apocalypto, Lost S3, Sunshine, The Incredible Hulk, Bank Job, Vantage Point, Casino Royale


If you want to move some of these into Tier 0, then perhaps Dark Knight can get there underneath these.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15269933
> 
> 
> I think there needs to be a therapy group for us. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am still in for *TDK @ mid Tier 0* at the least.



That was my initial suggestion for placement and I'm sticking by it.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15269148
> 
> 
> Caspian:
> 
> 
> Initial impression after one hour of viewing; Fine grain intact which gives a very natural, pleasing, some would say film-like quality. The opening shows a woman in bed sweating, which is very detailed, but then the picture goes noticeably soft for about the next 20 minutes, especially faces. I'm guessing it is from this early portion of the film that HD took his soft looking screen grabs. There are nice shots here and there to give a preview of this title's capabilities, but the overall impression for the first 20 minutes or so is just slightly soft. If you're comparing this to TDK, TDK starts off with a pretty lengthy IMAX sequence, which everyone agrees is stunning -- versus Caspian, which starts off soft and includes a sequence that is stylized with a very blue cast, with crushed blacks and silhouettes to establish a motif. Not much competition there. TDK wins by a landslide. But, I hate doing that. At about 45 minutes, Caspian noticeably improves again. At this point, the cinematography turns positively and consistently glorious with lots of detail, wonderful contrast, beautiful scenery, fabulous colors, etc. I am going to guess that reviewers are basing their raves more on later parts of the film than earlier.
> 
> 
> 
> .



Thanks for weighing in before I leave town, but I was disappointed in your findings (20 minutes of softness and crushed blacks). I'll have to view it again but my recollection is that it was sharp from start to finish with perhaps a few isolated scenes where it was slightly soft. I do NOT remember any crushed blacks.


So, where would you place it?


----------



## SuprSlow

Thread marker.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15270457
> 
> 
> Just to name a few: Apocalypto, Lost S3, Sunshine, The Incredible Hulk, Bank Job, Vantage Point, Casino Royale
> 
> 
> If you want to move some of these into Tier 0, then perhaps Dark Knight can get there underneath these.



You and I agree quite often stumlad, but NOT on this call. If I had time, I would pick some of those titles apart that you listed and describe why they're in Tier 1. Apocalypto (which definitely started out with 30+ minutes of softness) and Vantage Point (not nearly as sharp as TDK and the black levels don't even compare) come to mind instantly.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Murilo* /forum/post/15269373
> 
> 
> Batman what a mixed bag.
> 
> 
> Some scenes look great, some scenes look bad.
> 
> 
> Im not sure. *I would say top teir 2*. Not teir 0 by any means (only the imax scenes belong there).



You're obviously kidding, right?


----------



## OldCodger73

Hey guys and gal, here's a suggestion. There's been way too much discussion of TDK and where it belongs in the rating, definitely enough to allow SuprSlow to place it where he thinks it belongs factoring in all the recommendations. Let's move on.


I was really excited the last few days to see how many new pages in this thread hoping to see some new titles discussed, only to find all the wrangling about TDK. It seems periodically that this thread goes off on tangents like director intent, EE, DNR and now TDK and invariably one or more of our valuable reviewers get their feelings hurt and leaves the thread. It's the Christmas season, let's all mellow out. Have another eggnog.


----------



## oleus

TDK Imax footage is easily Tier 0 - the rest of the disc is such a mixed bag it's hard to place it, IMHO. Some of it looks great (especially during the second half of the film) but a good portion of it looks overprocessed/sharpened and lacks a film-like look.


watching 1080p on a 120" screen so maybe the flaws are just easier to see, especially in the early 35mm scenes.


----------



## Elbie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15270457
> 
> 
> Just to name a few: Apocalypto, Lost S3, Sunshine, The Incredible Hulk, Bank Job, Vantage Point, Casino Royale
> 
> 
> If you want to move some of these into Tier 0, then perhaps Dark Knight can get there underneath these.



I still don't know why The Incredible Hulk isn't in Tier 0 in the first place because that movie is reference in my eyes. The Bank Job, Vantage Point, and Casino Royale I cannot agree with. I'd have to go back and look at Apocalypto. Haven't seen Lost S3 and Sunshine. I should have put in my comment from the movies I have seen.


----------



## DaveBowman

I'm just happy to see that we are now arguing about TDK instead of Baraka. Wherever TDK ends up I think we should put it right next to Baraka just for the hell of it.










PS- Since we are supposed to actually vote on this stuff, here's mine:


Baraka - Top half of Tier 0

TDK - Bottom half of Tier 0 (right below Baraka, defining the mid-point of Tier 0) How's that for symmetry?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15272128
> 
> 
> You're obviously kidding, right?



Some of us have the same reaction to the Tier 0 recommendations for this title.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15272525
> 
> 
> Some of us have the same reaction to the Tier 0 recommendations for this title.



The difference being there are quite a few of us recommending Tier 0, but Murilo is the only one recommending Tier 2.


----------



## ballen420




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/15272244
> 
> 
> Have another eggnog.



That eggnog got a little whiskey in it? Good luck, it's not going to end anytime soon. 10 pages and counting - ridiculous. And people complain about the time it takes for updates to be made to the rankings - kind of tough when you go through 10 pages of crap.


----------



## 42041

To step away from the TDK topic for a second, is there an IMAX feature release on blu-ray that isn't garbage? Every one I see pop up on blu-ray.com looks like a bad 35mm transfer


----------



## 30XS955 User

For me, TDK goes to the middle of Tier 2. It meets the description on pg. 1 perfectly.


46'' Sony Bravia 1080p

viewed from 6 feet.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/15272244
> 
> 
> Hey guys _and gal_










A glass of crisp Canuck brew sent your way, OldCodger!



I know I was confused with the rating's system so I looked back at my recent ratings. Here they are clarified (I think!)




War Inc - Recommend Tier 3.25/Bronze 2nd Quarter


Futurama Bender's Game - 1.00/Gold 1st Quarter


Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay - 2.00/Silver 1st Quarter


3:10 to Yuma - 1.75/Gold 4th Quarter


Speed Racer - 1.00/Gold 1st Quarter


The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian - Tier 0, at least above Speed Racer's current placement(hopefully higher).



I wanted to be able to write a nice review of TDK & then my tv messed up (it's fixed now thank goodness). It's been discussed intensely, and I have actually enjoyed reading everyone's opinion on this, whether I agree with the side or not.



I personally feel that Prince Caspian looks better to me than TDK. The IMAX scenes are gorgeous, but I feel the EE bugged me and the scenes in the "batcave" were pretty hard to watch, there are others but those are the worst of the bunch. This is definitely a movie I would be willing to partake in a double-dip should a better encode/transfer(whatever the proper term is) be offered, as I love it, and I feel there's enough that could & should be corrected to warrant the want/need for a new disc.



I haven't seen Wall-E yet so I can't comment on the comparisons between the two.



I would be happy with this title appearing in Tier 0, but I would like it to be placed below Prince Caspian as I personally felt it was superior. However, I am not willing to fight for TDK to be within Tier 0; I would also be happy if it landed in Tier 1.00/Top quarter of Gold/Gold 1 (just trying to be clear







). Given the amount of problems many of us are having with TDK, I completely understand why this title needs some talk to figure out where to place it.


*The Dark Knight - Bottom Tier 0 or Tier 1.00/Gold 1st Quarter.*



ps3 80gig to toshiba 46h83, viewing distance approx 3feet.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15272555
> 
> 
> The difference being there are quite a few of us recommending Tier 0, but Murilo is the only one recommending Tier 2.



Not any more





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *30XS955 User* /forum/post/15272838
> 
> 
> For me, TDK goes to the middle of Tier 2. It meets the description on pg. 1 perfectly.


----------



## sleater




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oleus* /forum/post/15272259
> 
> 
> TDK Imax footage is easily Tier 0 - the rest of the disc is such a mixed bag it's hard to place it, IMHO. Some of it looks great (especially during the second half of the film) but a good portion of it looks overprocessed/sharpened and lacks a film-like look.
> 
> 
> watching 1080p on a 120" screen so maybe the flaws are just easier to see, especially in the early 35mm scenes.



I 100% agree with this. I watched it on my 40" XBR3 from 4.5' and it looked really really good but was a little inconsistent. On my 92" screen 1080p LCD projector at 9 feet it looked more inconsistent but still good. The IMAX material and some 35mm scenes are tier 0, but on the whole I stick with my Tier 1 1/4 rating (of course viewing is subjective and we will likely not convince one another that the other is correct). Suprslow will have his work cut out for him.


EDIT:

Of the non-animated tier 0 films I own iRobot, Baraka, Pirates Movies, Crank, Speed Racer, and Rescue Dawn. I would also place my copies of HellboyII, Tropic Thunder, Prince Caspian, and Sin City in the lower part of this Tier. To my eyes, all of these movies are more eye-pleasing that TDK is and thus TDK should not be in Tier0. Baraka kills it hands down and I tried three different viewing screens to make sure (including 24" computer monitor).


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15273136
> 
> 
> "Film-like" is another abused word. What's interesting to me is that the IMAX sequences appear to have very little visible grain -- very similar to Baraka -- I would have thought the IMAX sequences would draw the "non-film-like" complaint.



An imax frame is huge (10x the size of the 35mm, 4x the size of 70mm/5perf film like baraka(if i remember right)), but you can still see a very fine layer of grain. I think it looks very film-like.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15271209
> 
> 
> I was disappointed in your findings (20 minutes of softness and crushed blacks).



I'm sure the blue cast and crushed blacks to which I am referring are intentional, it's a stylized look, but it's still there.



> Quote:
> I'll have to view it again but my recollection is that it was sharp from start to finish with perhaps a few isolated scenes where it was slightly soft.



I only watched half before my daughter had to go to bed. We'll watch the other half later today and I will spend more time. I just wanted to give you some initial impressions before you left. I'd also be curious to hear from you after you've watched the first twenty minutes or so again.



> Quote:
> So, where would you place it?



I couldn't give a recommendation based on such a cursory viewing. Even the times to which I referred, 20 minutes and 45 minutes, are very rough estimates. I'll have a better idea after spending more time with it.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15273185
> 
> 
> I think it looks very film-like.



I would agree, but I would also add that there are several types of look that all look film-like to me. I also understand that some people prefer not just grain intact, but a softer look and associate it with film and I am sympathetic to this view. I have praised titles with these qualities, but in keeping with the goals of this thread, I have still recommended lower placements.


----------



## briankmonkey

I can't really say what is and doesn't look like film as there is a such a huge variety of experiences as to what I've viewed in the theater from film. Unless I can afford to bring the reel home then I'm not going to have the same experience on my display.. Plasma's, LCD's, CRT's, DLP's, 1080p projector's none look the same as they did in the theaters that use film. Certainly isn't a bad thing IMO, just different.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15273136
> 
> 
> All you have to do is listen to the complaints of those who come in and continually dump on this thread and its goals to know that there are many people who want to change the goals of this thread to match the others.



As long as you're not talking about me when you say this, we're all good.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15273136
> 
> 
> If we keep following this schizo path, I predict cartoons will continue to dominate the top levels of tier 0 in this thread. No one expects them to be "film-like" and discussions of EE and DNR don't apply, so they can have that razor sharp look and neither side minds.
> 
> 
> So, we end up with the titles that least offend in an effort to please both the people who agree with the goals of this thread and the people whose preferences are probably served better in other threads.
> 
> 
> I can't think of a better way to make this thread irrelevant than to try to please all camps all the time to be all things to all people.
> 
> 
> Anyone wondering why CGI cartoons dominate tier 0 need look no further than this discussion. We end up with them by default.



I don't see how the dominance of CGI cartoons isn't a natural product of following this thread's criteria alone. Ignoring the intents of other threads, it seems quite logical to me that CGI cartoons have this one in a headlock.


----------



## oleus

Tropic Thunder's PQ was jaw dropping, IMHO. Probably the best BD i've seen yet on my projector.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15271267
> 
> 
> You and I agree quite often stumlad, but NOT on this call. If I had time, I would pick some of those titles apart that you listed and describe why they're in Tier 1. Apocalypto (which definitely started out with 30+ minutes of softness) and Vantage Point (not nearly as sharp as TDK and the black levels don't even compare) come to mind instantly.



If I have time, I will post a few snaps of each movie... I'll look for a very good face closeup, a very good scenery shot and perhaps multiple people, medium distance... And I wont be unfair about it like others (blurry , out of focus shots, etc). I will try to get some that I believe represent the best it has to offer. No IMAX for Dark Knight though because that's a different story.


I can't do Vantage or Bank Job since I dont own them, but if it makes you feel better , I voted Tier 1 for both of them. I voted Tier 1 For the new Hulk, but after a 2nd watching, a low tier 0 placement wouldn't be bad.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15274277
> 
> 
> Possibly, with the exception of Wall-E, which I believe has been placed in tier 0 due to the votes of those who believe the "softness" in Wall-E is "film-like" and praise it for that reason.



Not to belabor the Wall-E "softness" thing, but I think it's one case where, while we're not supposed to consider content in this thread, still requires looking at from a different perspective because of the production technique. In the sense that the "soft" part of Wall-E is a perfectly sharp rendering of a not-sharp subject, are we acknowledging that there is some subject matter/content which can simply _never_ achieve a top-Tier placement, regardless of Blu-ray production quality? For example, would a movie that takes place in a pea-soup fog automatically be disqualified?


And that leads me to my next question. Why did we decide that a "sharp" image is necessarily the kind we want to show off or the only kind that can represent the best image-reproduction capabilities of Blu-ray?


Indulge me:


Imagine a theoretical Transformers 2. The first half of the movie takes place in a foggy, overcast town. Everything is hazy and atmospheric. Visible distance and depth-of-field are miniscule. Suddenly the monumental blast-wave of some intergalactic superweapon scorches the earth and utterly obliterates the fog. Suddenly everything has the eye-popping crispness of the first Transformers movie, with sharply defined edges and beautifully gradient, richly saturated colors. The rest of the movie features the kind of imagery that rings the bell of this thread's top-Tier criteria.


Now, wouldn't _that_ demonstrate the capabilities of Blu-ray, the way the transition from black-and-white wowed you with the power of color in The Wizard of Oz? Wouldn't the presence of the foggy, unsharp scenes actually _enhance_ the appearance of the sharper scenes? Wouldn't you rather demo something like that? Mind you, I'm not talking about poorly-rendered "soft" material, I'm talking about something like Wall-E: excellent production-values, accurate transfer to disc, but _intentionally_ soft.


I'm not trying to suggest the "director's intent" criteria again; I'm wondering why "sharp" is the only kind of image we're deeming representative of Blu-ray's peak resolving capability.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15274645
> 
> 
> 
> Indulge me:
> 
> 
> Imagine a theoretical Transformers 2. The first half of the movie takes place in a foggy, overcast town. Everything is hazy and atmospheric. Visible distance and depth-of-field are miniscule. Suddenly the monumental blast-wave of some intergalactic superweapon scorches the earth and utterly obliterates the fog. Suddenly everything has the eye-popping crispness of the first Transformers movie, with sharply defined edges and beautifully gradient, richly saturated colors. The rest of the movie features the kind of imagery that rings the bell of this thread's top-Tier criteria.



There are movies like that which are put into tier 1 (Apocalypto).


It you watch Flatliners, you'll see, it's (overall) a very good transfer. Good contrast, no visible artifacts, etc, but the problem is, in general, it's a "soft" movie that could at times be mistaken for a movie that was 720p (or even less). Tier 0 means that the resolution of blu-ray is taken advantage of along with everything else that makes a movie look good. The term "sharp" is a generic way of saying that IMO.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15274772
> 
> 
> Tier 0 means that the resolution of blu-ray is taken advantage of along with everything else that makes a movie look good.



I would argue that in the "soft" parts of Wall-E, the resolution is _absolutely_ taken advantage of to make the movie look good! Compare those scenes on DVD and they _do not_ look the same. The subject matter of those scenes is just as finely/precisely resolved as the rest of the movie; it's just that it's soft, fuzzy stuff being finely/precisely resolved instead of hard, angular stuff.


----------



## tfoltz

Wall*E belongs at the high end of Tier 0, and for my eyes offers a more impressive "eye-candy" viewing than Kung Fu Panda. The softness argument gets old.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15270457
> 
> 
> Just to name a few: Apocalypto, Lost S3, Sunshine, The Incredible Hulk, Bank Job, Vantage Point, Casino Royale
> 
> 
> If you want to move some of these into Tier 0, then perhaps Dark Knight can get there underneath these.



I was thinking the same. Again my fav example Apocalypto. I know, I know the first half hour is blah blah....Seriously. If any of you wanting TDK to be tier 0, don't just say you remember Apocalypto watch it again or run through it to check PQ as I did this am. I called for DK to be placed at Tier 1 1/2. It isn't a tier 0 movie , but it certainly isn't tier 2.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

No offense to you LCD users, but it seems the majority of complaints of EE and this other stuff is coming from those displays, or ones with 120" screens where you're sitting very close.


Can we get everyone to post their placement again and what kind of display they're using? Just want to see if my theory is correct.


----------



## SuprSlow

Alright, we're updated through post #7584. It looks like there are only a few placements between here and there, I'll grab them tomorrow while I'm working on some other things.

*One poster suggested and several people agreed with a 1.0, 1.25, 1.5 system. I think this clarifies things on both ends, and somewhat coincides with what we've been doing all along. So...I've added the appropriate markers for each tier. From here on, we'll refer to them by this naming convention. I think it's fairly intuitive and is very similar to the "old" method, so it shouldn't be too confusing.







*


Also, I haven't forgotten about renaming the titles beginning with "THE." That's one of the items I plan to work on tomorrow. (I.E. - "The Punisher" to "Punisher, The") Makes the alphabetizing flow a little better.


With that, here are placements. Please remember that any of these can be moved provided there is enough support for it. Nothing is set in stone, and I realize that several titles are still being hotly debated. Don't let the placement(s) of said title(s) discourage you from expressing your opinion.










Aviator - Tier 1.75


Zulu (UK Import) - down a couple spots, Tier 0


Black Narcissus: moved from Tier 3.5 to 3.25


The Incredible Hulk - bottom Tier 0, based on latest suggestion weighted with previous


Narnia: Prince Caspian - placed near middle of Tier 0


Wall E - dropped to mid Tier 0


UFC: Ultimate Comebacks - Tier 1.25


Tropic Thunder - Tier 1.0


Rescue Dawn - up a few spots


The Strangers - Tier 1.25


Blow - Tier 1.0


Casino - Tier 1.0


Mirrormask - Tier 1.5


Constantine - top 1/4 Tier 2


Hellboy 2 - low Tier 0


The Godfather - remains in Tier 2.75


War, Inc. - down to Tier 3.0


Transsiberian - up to Tier 1.75


Hancock - Tier 1.0


Lost Boys: The Tribe - Tier 5


Ironman - remains Tier 1.25


Dark Knight - Tier 1.0


Superman: Doomsday - Tier 1.25


Mr. and Mrs. Smith - down to Tier 1.5


Hitchhiker's Guide - moved up to Tier 2.75


Godfather II - remains in Tier 2.75


Aeon Flux - up to Tier 1.75


Vengeance - Tier 2.75


Harold & Kumar: Guantanamo Bay - Tier 2.0


Roy Orbison: Black & White Night - Tier 4.0


Crimson Tide - up to Tier 2.5


Con Air - up to Tier 2.5


The Mummy - up to Tier 2.5


The Proposition - up to Tier 1.5


From Dusk Til Dawn (Canada) - Tier 2.5


Sin City - Tier 1.0


Warriors of Heaven and Earth - Tier 3.75


3:10 to Yuma - up to Tier 1.5


Be Kind Rewind - down to Tier 2.25


Juno - down to Tier 2.25


Pushing Daisies - remains Tier 1.0


Rambo - remains Tier 1.25


The X Files: I Want to Believe - Tier 2.5


Wanted - Tier 1.5


Speed Racer - remains lower Tier 0


X-Files: Fight The Future - Tier 3.0


Home Alone - Tier 5


Mad Men: Season 1 - middle Tier 0


Shawshank Redemption - low Tier 0


The Visitor - Tier 1.0


Indiana Jones - remains Tier 1.0


Step Brothers - Tier 2.5


Star Wars - The Clone Wars - Tier 1.25


Narnia: Lion, Witch... - down to Tier 1.25


Sleeping Beauty - down in Tier 0


There Will Be Blood - remains in Tier 2.0


Police Certifiable - mid Tier 0


Nim's Island - Tier 1.25


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Thanks for the hard work, SuprSlow!


----------



## MelloFellow13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15275304
> 
> 
> No offense to you LCD users, but it seems the majority of complaints of EE and this other stuff is coming from those displays, or ones with 120" screens where you're sitting very close.
> 
> 
> Can we get everyone to post their placement again and what kind of display they're using? Just want to see if my theory is correct.



My recommendation was 1.5, I'm on a Pioneer Kuro 5020 plasma.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

I forgot to add mine










Mid Tier 0 with a Panasonic 50PZ80U plasma


----------



## MelloFellow13

I should say that even though my rec for TDK was 1.5 and I stand by it, I have absolutely no problem with it being 1.0 like it is right now.


----------



## SuprSlow

Also added Phantom's quote to the first post.










Speaking of Phantom...do you have the audio/AR specs for Vengeance? I can't find them anywhere...


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/15275449
> 
> 
> Speaking of Phantom...do you have the audio/AR specs for Vengeance? I can't find them anywhere...



According to Gabriel Power's review at DVDActive it's:

Video: AVC | Audio: DD 5.1 (Thai) | AR: 2.35:1 | BCI Eclipse


Of course, if Phantom has the disc handy he can give any corrections to that.


P.S. Thanks again for all the hard word, SuprSlow!


----------



## Fanaticalism




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15275304
> 
> 
> No offense to you LCD users, but it seems the majority of complaints of EE and this other stuff is coming from those displays, or ones with 120" screens where you're sitting very close.
> 
> 
> Can we get everyone to post their placement again and what kind of display they're using? Just want to see if my theory is correct.



Pioneer Elite Pro-151 @ 9FT calibrated by umr

Pioneer Elite BDP-05 set to professional with high speed transmission set to "on"

Denon 3808ci set to passthrough.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/15275449
> 
> 
> Also added Phantom's quote to the first post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of Phantom...do you have the audio/AR specs for Vengeance? I can't find them anywhere...



Can you please change the color of the white text on the first post to something else? White on light blue isnt very easy to read.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15274912
> 
> 
> I was thinking the same. Again my fav example Apocalypto. I know, I know the first half hour is blah blah....Seriously. If any of you wanting TDK to be tier 0, don't just say you remember Apocalypto watch it again or run through it to check PQ as I did this am. I called for DK to be placed at Tier 1 1/2. It isn't a tier 0 movie , but it certainly isn't tier 2.



I am going to re-review Apocalypto soon (when i do the screen grabs). I do not remember the first 30 minutes being soft as others have said -- though maybe reviewing it will show me different.


I dont think Dark Knight belongs in Tier 2. I still say it's about as good as Iron Man...wherever in Tier 1 that is.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fanaticalism* /forum/post/15275771
> 
> 
> Pioneer Elite Pro-151 @ 9FT calibrated by umr
> 
> Pioneer Elite BDP-05 set to professional with high speed transmission set to "on"
> 
> Denon 3808ci set to passthrough.



And your vote was?


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15275304
> 
> 
> No offense to you LCD users, but it seems the majority of complaints of EE and this other stuff is coming from those displays, or ones with 120" screens where you're sitting very close.
> 
> 
> Can we get everyone to post their placement again and what kind of display they're using? Just want to see if my theory is correct.




ps3 80gig to toshiba 46h83, about 3feet away. I voted either bottom tier 0 or 1.00. But even when I was farther away from the screen I could still see the EE --- and also on my computer monitor when I tried it. monitor is a samsung 2243wm, and it's a phillips blu ray burner & i'm about 12" from the screen when I was viewing it on here.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15275304
> 
> 
> No offense to you LCD users, but it seems the majority of complaints of EE and this other stuff is coming from those displays, or ones with 120" screens where you're sitting very close.
> 
> 
> Can we get everyone to post their placement again and what kind of display they're using? Just want to see if my theory is correct.



voted low tier 1, i watch movies on a 40" Samsung LN40A650 LCD (any extraneous image processing turned off) from about 2 feet away, and also on my 21" Sony CRT monitor. Between the two technologies' strengths and weaknesses, I think I cover most bases. I don't know what your theory is, but LCDs do not (inherently) add edge enhancement or whatever other digital nasties I see in TDK.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/15275328
> 
> 
> Alright, we're updated through post #7584.



Excellent work -- thanks!


----------



## Fanaticalism




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15275866
> 
> 
> And your vote was?



I voted for anywhere in tier 1.5-, but I also stated that it would not bother me one bit, if it ended up in a better position.


----------



## Fanaticalism

Are people using these sets in an office setting, that they are able to sit 3FT- from their sets?


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fanaticalism* /forum/post/15276287
> 
> 
> Are people using these sets in an office setting, that they are able to sit 3FT- from their sets?



I currently have it set up like a computer monitor.


----------



## Shane Martin




> Quote:
> Can we get everyone to post their placement again and what kind of display they're using? Just want to see if my theory is correct.


*Top of Tier 1

Panasonic 9UK Plasma 8-9 Feet Away*


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/15275768
> 
> 
> According to Gabriel Power's review at DVDActive it's:
> 
> Video: AVC | Audio: DD 5.1 (Thai) | AR: 2.35:1 | BCI Eclipse
> 
> 
> Of course, if Phantom has the disc handy he can give any corrections to that.



Those specifications are correct. My recommendations always list video codec and the studio somewhere in the body of the review which are personally verified by me, so a search on my posts or the title of the movie in this thread usually will lead to my review. The 5.1 Dolby Digital soundtrack on Vengeance is only 448 kbps if that matters.


I also think *X-Files: I Want To Believe* might have been placed by mistake, SuprSlow. The only two recommendations I can find in the thread for that BD are by me for the third quarter of tier one and djoberg's for "low tier one/first quarter of tier two". But maybe I missed something? Once again, excellent work SuprSlow.


----------



## rsbeck

*Step Brothers*


Here's a title that will make you wonder whether you really want this much resolution. Between John C. Reilly, Richard Jenkins and Will Farrell, it is a parade of perfectly resolved bad skin. For a comedy where eye candy is not the point, this is still a well shot film and an excellent transfer. Grain is intact and detail is there in abundance. Wanna see what a tongue licking white dog poop might look like up close and perfectly resolved in glorious high def? Here's your chance. I don't believe this title can look any better than this. If you're a fan of the film on the fence, go ahead and jump.

*Recommendation: Tier 2.50*


Sim2 C3X1080

Carada Masquerade

126" Firehawk G3

Pioneer BDP-05FD


13' From Screen



.


----------



## unclepauly




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15276675
> 
> *Step Brothers*
> 
> 
> Here's a title that will make you wonder whether you really want this much resolution. Between John C. Reilly, Richard Jenkins and Will Farrell, it is a parade of perfectly resolved bad skin. For a comedy where eye candy is not the point, this is still a well shot film and an excellent transfer. Grain is intact and detail is there in abundance. Wanna see what a tongue licking white dog poop might look like up close and perfectly resolved in glorious high def? Here's your chance. I don't believe this title can look any better than this. If you're a fan of the film and are on the fence, go ahead and jump.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 2.50*
> 
> 
> Sim2 C3X1080
> 
> Carada Masquerade
> 
> 126" Firehawk G3
> 
> Pioneer BDP-05FD
> 
> 
> 13' From Screen
> 
> 
> 
> .



Such a low score for such a glowing review.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fanaticalism* /forum/post/15276287
> 
> 
> Are people using these sets in an office setting, that they are able to sit 3FT- from their sets?



That's just a byproduct of how my living room is set up. If i go sit in a certain spot that's how close I end up being to the TV. I don't sit there for everyday viewing but when I'm watching for a review i'll go sit over there.


----------



## Hughmc

OK, so titles are placed where we voted and I am sure we all appreciate the work SS does. There are a couple of placements that I think are a bit off as I would guess most do have an issue with a few, but we really need to revisit and rethink DK and Hancock both in Tier 1.0.


I voted for DK tier 1.5 and Hancock tier 1.75. While I may have rated them closely, I now believe they aren't really close in PQ even if they are both in tier 1.


I could change my recommendation for DK, but I am ok with it in tier 1.0 just not Hancock in there with it. Darn, how did this happen? lol









*LBfilmguy,*


Sony A3000 LCD RPTV @ 8ft from PS3 thru HDMI and I don't see the ringing halos unless I get within 2 ft of my display. I also have excellent vision 20/15, but have not trained my eyes to spot it. While some may spot it on their own, I have confirmation from several forum members who complain about EE/DNR frequently, that they have indeed trained themselves to spot EE and when you do there is no going back. It is most noticeable to those who work with graphics and software like Photoshop and use digital sharpening tools to "enhance" the picture. I have been one of the skeptics who has tried to understand both perspectives and have more often than not called several of the seemingly fussy members to task. Well after having gotten close to my display and with further discussion in the DK pix comparison thread with some who really see the PQ issues in DK, I am more than convinced they are indeed seeing what they claim. I even tried to make light of it by being sarcastic and saying the solution for big screen owners is to sit further back, but really that is absurd and there are some BD's that blown up on big screen look really good. SO there does seem to be an issue with how they are transferring these films to BD and the ones doing it aren't seeing what the BD's look like that are digitally enhanced and shown on a big screen.


I can almost guarantee if I do get a projector and go big screen I am going to see things I wish I didn't. I just hope I don't see the halo issues when the day comes that I decide to take the plunge.


----------



## agcohn

Shawshank is being ranked Tier 0? I honestly couldn't recommend it higher than Tier 3. The image is so soft.


----------



## H.Cornerstone

I voted very top of Tier 1, watching it with a 40 inch Sony v3000, PS3 about 5-6ft away.


----------



## dolphinfan4194

I just watched the TDK tonight and would have to rate in at the top of tier 0. The movie overall is reference quality, and the IMAX Scenes blew me away. I have never seen anything that could even compare to the quality of some of the overhead shots in or action sequences filmed in the IMAX format.


I'm not sure how you rate your movies, or by what standards but I actually thought Kung Fu Panda was too cartoonish, colorful, and fake for my standards. I actually thought Cars was 10 times bettter in detail and realism.


The top 10 Blu Ray movies for PQ I have watched so far are in no order:


1)TDK

2)Cars

3)I Robot

4)Man on Fire

5)Die Hard 4

6)Crank

7)Sunshine

8)Wanted

9)Matrix

10)I am Legend


(These are movies that I would show someone brand new to Blu ray as demo discs)

I am sure I am missing some out. (Vantage Point, 30 days of night, The Descent ect..)


Just my 2 cents...


FYI - I am watching these movies on a

42inch Toshiba 1080P LCD about 8-10 feet away

Signature Series 7.1 surround speakers

Oknyo 7.1 reciever

Toshiba Blu Ray Player.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dolphinfan4194* /forum/post/15278035
> 
> 
> (Who wathes movies inches away? Of course you will find pixelation and artifacts.)



Like I said... issues are issues regardless of distance. I see no point to HD if I'm going to sit halfway across the room (im one of those weirdos who sits near the front of the movie theater.. unfortunately regular DVDs do not allow me the same experience).


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15278058
> 
> 
> Like I said... issues are issues regardless of distance.



Well, to be fair, the HDTV standard was established with a particular range of viewing-distances-per-screen-size in mind and telecine operators design software using these same standards-based expectations. Asking a disc to live up to scrutiny in a capacity that falls outside of its operating parameters is not very reasonable, IMO.


I'm not going to be satisfied if I expect 4k resolution from a Blu-ray, either, but is it reasonable for me to expect that? Or to complain that I'm not getting it?


----------



## dolphinfan4194




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15278058
> 
> 
> Like I said... issues are issues regardless of distance. I see no point to HD if I'm going to sit halfway across the room.



I disagree absolutely 100%. There are recommended viewing distances for optimal picture clarity and quality for every size screen.


I used to sell T.V's a couple years ago and my suggestion for you would be to get a 27inch Dell LCD. That was the clearest at any distance.


Why would you even sit that close to a large TV?


If you want to see no pixelation at all get a tube TV. You can put your nose up to the screen and enjoy. While your at it also take your surround sound system and re-arange all the speakers and put them 2 inches from your ears as well.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dolphinfan4194* /forum/post/15278100
> 
> 
> I disagree absolutely 100%. There are recommended standards for proper viewing distances for every size screen. Why would you even sit that close to a large TV?
> 
> 
> My only suggestion for you would be to get a 27inch Dell LCD. I used to sell T.V's a couple years ago and that was the clearest at any distance.
> 
> 
> If you want to see no pixelation at all get a tube tv. You can put your nose up to the screen and enjoy. While your at it also take your surround sound system and re-arange all the speakers and put them 2 inches from your ear as well.



I think that's definitely overstating things. I don't know exactly what the distance is, but its slightly less than a screen width, and I find it very comfortable and immersive.

I'm not criticizing pixelation. I know what kind of issues I can expect from where I sit. I'm perfectly happy with transfers like I Robot and POTC. TDK just doesn't do it for me outside the IMAX sequences.

anyway, i think ive made my point enough, hope this thread changes topic soon


----------



## dolphinfan4194




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15278156
> 
> 
> I think that's definitely overstating things. I don't know exactly what the distance is, but its slightly less than a screen width, and I find it very comfortable and immersive.
> 
> I'm not criticizing pixelation. I know what kind of issues I can expect from where I sit. I'm perfectly happy with transfers like I Robot and POTC. TDK just doesn't do it for me outside the IMAX sequences.
> 
> anyway, i think ive made my point enough, hope this thread changes topic soon



To each is own I guess. Until Technology reaches the point that most BD's can be seen at 4 or 5 feet you are going to have a problem unfortunately.


Anyways I though the regular footage in TDK was lower tier 0, and the imax scenes were in a completely different tier. maybe tier -1. They were surreal. Best that I have seen.


----------



## hobbs47




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dolphinfan4194* /forum/post/15278019
> 
> 
> FYI - I am watching these movies on a
> 
> 42inch Toshiba 1080P LCD about 8-10 feet away
> 
> Signature Series 7.1 surround speakers
> 
> Oknyo 7.1 reciever
> 
> Toshiba Blu Ray Player.



How's that Toshiba Blu-ray player working out for ya?

doh!


----------



## Beta Tester




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dolphinfan4194* /forum/post/15278019
> 
> 
> I just watched the TDK tonight and would have to rate in at the top of tier 0. The movie overall is reference quality, and the IMAX Scenes blew me away. I have never seen anything that could even compare to the quality of some of the overhead shots in or action sequences filmed in the IMAX format.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how you rate your movies, or by what standards but I actually thought Kung Fu Panda was too cartoonish, colorful, and fake for my standards. I actually thought Cars was 10 times bettter in detail and realism.
> 
> 
> The top 10 Blu Ray movies for PQ I have watched so far are in no order:
> 
> 
> 1)TDK
> 
> 2)Cars
> 
> 3)I Robot
> 
> 4)Man on Fire
> 
> 5)Die Hard 4
> 
> 6)Crank
> 
> 7)Sunshine
> 
> 8)Wanted
> 
> 9)Matrix
> 
> 10)I am Legend
> 
> 
> (These are movies that I would show someone brand new to Blu ray as demo discs)
> 
> I am sure I am missing some out. (Vantage Point, 30 days of night, The Descent ect..)
> 
> 
> Just my 2 cents...
> 
> 
> FYI - I am watching these movies on a
> 
> 42inch Toshiba 1080P LCD about 8-10 feet away
> 
> Signature Series 7.1 surround speakers
> 
> Oknyo 7.1 reciever
> 
> Toshiba Blu Ray Player.



You are sitting 3 screen widths away (I used 9', the mid-range of what you specified). At that distance, you would not notice the artifacts that you would notice at 1.75X (the recommended ratio for 2.35 movies? Someone more knowledgeable in home theater design will have to pitch in.). Mine is currently at 2X, and I find it is not immersive enough.


[EDIT]: Sorry, I notice that someone else has already raised the issue.


----------



## Fanaticalism




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hobbs47* /forum/post/15278398
> 
> 
> How's that Toshiba Blu-ray player working out for ya?
> 
> doh!



I think he meant upconvert player?


----------



## Toe

*Dark Knight................lower tier 0*


JVC RS1

Stewart Studiotek 130 94" screen in a bat cave (no pun intended







) black velvet lined hole of a HT.


First off, the IMAX scenes were in a class by themselves IMHO. WOW. The non IMAX scenes were not consistent, but the VAST majority of them looked very good IMO. Black levels, shadow detail, color, overall detail, sharpness all was fantastic for the most part. I hate to use this term but it is appropriate here....3D pop was fantastic on this title.


As far as EE, I simply would not have seen it if I had not seen Xylons thread. Even though I did see Xylons thread, I spotted this "issue" less than a handful of times during the course of the film and ALL the times I saw it were from screens in his thread that poped up in the film that I recognized and at that point I looked for it (and found it). Now, when I did see it I simply was not distracted by it. It certainly did not take me out of the film, and honestly it was so minor I would almost call it a non issue. That whole thread is so blown out of proportion from what I saw tonight, but I know everyone has a dif tolerance for these type of things. There is absolutely no way I would have seen this had I not known about it before hand, and even seeing it the few times I did was not distracting to me personaly. The major reviews put this "issue" into perspective VERY well IMO the same which unfortunately cant be said for AVS.


Anyway, lower tier 0 is my vote for the Dark Knight.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Toe you agree with exactly what I said a few pages back


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15278636
> 
> 
> Toe you agree with exactly what I said a few pages back



I just found this....




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15267292
> 
> 
> I honestly don't know how any of you guys notice this stuff other than reading every page of every thread where people sit and analyze every frame looking for ANY sort of flaw to knock the PQ of a title and post screen shots for the everyone else to study and agree upon.
> 
> 
> Seems silly to me.
> 
> 
> If it was blatant then fine, but stuff like this shouldn't be an issue.



Agreed







I was actualy shocked at how good the DK looked to me after reading all the crap on AVS the past week or so. I realy dont understand how people could let something this minor overshadow the numerous other PQ aspects that this film did so well. Oh well....


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/15278645
> 
> 
> I just found this....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15278653



lol










I wont go on and on about this (or maybe I will







), but the police in the street shot that is so famous from Xylons thread happened so quick in the actual film I dont know how anyone could catch the EE from viewing in real time. It was like "oh, there is that shot...oh its gone"







I was looking for it and did not even have time to catch it.










Anyway, this transfer rocks overall IMO.


----------



## Vegaz

I just watched The Hulk today and afterwards I see here it's in 0 and gold is straightened out so I'll clear up my previous votes since there wasn't a whole lot of them


Blu 0

The Dark Knight (I think it's better than The Hulk overall so I can actually vote it here now)

Hellboy II


Gold 1.0

Tropic Thunder

Hancock


Gold 1.25

Wanted


Samsung LN40A550

PS3 through HDMI

1080p x 24hz

6-8 feet


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/15278666
> 
> 
> lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wont go on and on about this (or maybe I will
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ), but the police in the street shot that is so famous from Xylons thread happened so quick in the actual film I dont know how anyone could catch the EE from viewing in real time. It was like "oh, there is that shot...oh its gone"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was looking for it and did not even have time to catch it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, this transfer rocks overall IMO.



Seriously.


I had to pause it and study it less than a foot from my screen to see it.


Silly.


----------



## 42041

just watched the first episode of *Lost Season 4*

Pretty decent TV show transfer, but suffers from a case of dark knight-itis... if you don't mind that processed EE'd look, you probably won't mind it here. Most of the daylit scenes have a solid but not exceptional amount of detail, and I didn't see any DNR. Blacks are solid but the quality of the dark scenes varies quite a bit. Occasionally a distractingly crappy looking shot will pop up. No complaints about flesh tone reproduction. The trailer for Swing Vote in the beginning of the disc looked much better to my eyes (exceptionally good actually... I heard the movie sucked, but if the BD looks like the trailer, it might be a strong Tier 0 contender).

i might change my recommendation as I see more, right now I'm thinking *low tier 1*.


I also think I'll stop posting these recommendations because all this nitpicking is slowly making blu-ray not very fun for me










1920x1080/24p

PS3/40" Samsung LN40A650 LCD/about 3 feet away


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15278698
> 
> 
> just watched the first episode of *Lost Season 4*
> 
> Pretty decent TV show transfer, but suffers from a case of dark knight-itis... if you don't mind that processed EE'd look, you probably won't mind it here. Most of the daylit scenes have a solid but not exceptional amount of detail, and I didn't see any DNR. Blacks are solid but the quality of the dark scenes varies quite a bit. Occasionally a distractingly crappy looking shot will pop up. No complaints about flesh tone reproduction. The trailer for Swing Vote in the beginning of the disc looked much better to my eyes.
> 
> i might change my recommendation as I see more, right now I'm thinking *low tier 1*.
> 
> *I also think I'll stop posting these recommendations because all this nitpicking is slowly making blu-ray not very fun for me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *



I am starting to feel the same way.


Maybe we should just delete this thread and enjoy our blu ray movies and the beauty that they are (in general)...spectacular looking and sounding films we can enjoy at home in a way we've never seen before.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15278698
> 
> 
> just watched the first episode of *Lost Season 4*
> 
> 
> 
> I also think I'll stop posting these recommendations because all this nitpicking is slowly making blu-ray not very fun for me



I hope you change your mind. I think the one screen width viewing distance perspective needs more representation here than just from me.


----------



## rsbeck

*No Country For Old Men*


Agree with Current Ranking


Excellent transfer. Fine grain intact. Desert sequences reminded me of similar ones in There Will Be Blood, colors appearing to be slightly desaturated, which robs the scenery of a tiny bit of detail, but is a nice effect that serves the mood of the story. Plot doesn't lend itself to a lot of eye candy, but what is here is well shot and well resolved. You can see the texture of clothes and every imperfection in Tommy Lee Jones' face.

*Recommendation: Tier 1.25*


Sim2 C3X1080

Carada Masquerade

126" Firehawk G3

Pioneer BDP-05FD


13' From Screen



.


----------



## hokieirish




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15278698
> 
> 
> just watched the first episode of *Lost Season 4*
> 
> Pretty decent TV show transfer, but suffers from a case of dark knight-itis... if you don't mind that processed EE'd look, you probably won't mind it here. Most of the daylit scenes have a solid but not exceptional amount of detail, and I didn't see any DNR. Blacks are solid but the quality of the dark scenes varies quite a bit. Occasionally a distractingly crappy looking shot will pop up. No complaints about flesh tone reproduction. The trailer for Swing Vote in the beginning of the disc looked much better to my eyes (exceptionally good actually... I heard the movie sucked, but if the BD looks like the trailer, it might be a strong Tier 0 contender).
> 
> i might change my recommendation as I see more, right now I'm thinking *low tier 1*.
> 
> 
> I also think I'll stop posting these recommendations because all this nitpicking is slowly making blu-ray not very fun for me



I agree with pretty much everything you said. The crappy looking shots are definitely drastacting, but they're rare enough to not take too much away from the quality. The beach scenes, much like season 3, are gorgeous. I feel like packing everything up and heading to hawaii everytime they show the ocean. Low tier 1 sounds about right. It's close to being on par with Season 3.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15278716
> 
> 
> I am starting to feel the same way.
> 
> 
> Maybe we should just delete this thread and enjoy our blu ray movies and the beauty that they are (in general)...spectacular looking and sounding films we can enjoy at home in a way we've never seen before.



Nah...then we would have to sacrifice complaining and misery for happiness...oh wait!


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15278812
> 
> 
> Plot doesn't lend itself to a lot of eye candy, but what is here is well shot and well resolved.



Depends on your definition of eye candy. To my eye, a well-represented shot from No Country For Old Men is 1,000 times the eye candy that Speed Racer will _ever_ be.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/15278594
> 
> 
> Dark Knight................lower tier 0
> 
> 
> JVC RS1
> 
> Stewart Studiotek 130 94" screen in a bat cave (no pun intended
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) black velvet lined hole of a HT.
> 
> 
> First off, the IMAX scenes were in a class by themselves IMHO. WOW. The non IMAX scenes were not consistent, but the VAST majority of them looked very good IMO. Black levels, shadow detail, color, overall detail, sharpness all was fantastic for the most part. I hate to use this term but it is appropriate here....3D pop was fantastic on this title.
> 
> 
> As far as EE, I simply would not have seen it if I had not seen Xylons thread. Even though I did see Xylons thread, I spotted this "issue" less than a handful of times during the course of the film and ALL the times I saw it were from screens in his thread that poped up in the film that I recognized and at that point I looked for it (and found it). Now, when I did see it I simply was not distracted by it. It certainly did not take me out of the film, and honestly it was so minor I would almost call it a non issue. That whole thread is so blown out of proportion from what I saw tonight, but I know everyone has a dif tolerance for these type of things. There is absolutely no way I would have seen this had I not known about it before hand, and even seeing it the few times I did was not distracting to me personaly. The major reviews put this "issue" into perspective VERY well IMO the same which unfortunately cant be said for AVS.
> 
> 
> Anyway, lower tier 0 is my vote for the Dark Knight.



I just got to a WI FI in downtown Minneapolis so I'm able to check the thread. After seeing Toe's post I just had to weigh in and say my experience was EXACTLY the same regarding *The Dark Knight.* The only difference is I would vote for *mid Tier 0.*


BTW, excellent work on the update SuprSlow!


Samsung HL-S5087W DLP

Panny BD30

Viewed from 7'


----------



## mrTAPOUT

TDK is gold imo. Clean looking film with great detail and clarity. Imax scenes are flawless. Watching on kuro 5080


----------



## b_scott

TDK is at least Gold 1/4. But I might put it bottom of zero also, because of the IMAX.


----------



## DaveBowman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15278804
> 
> 
> I hope you change your mind. I think the one screen width viewing distance perspective needs more representation here than just from me.



Here's the problem with the one screen width viewing distance.........it's totally unrealistic for the vast majority of us. Based on a quick review of the specs given by most of the people on this forum I'd say the average viewing distance is about 2 screen widths. For sure you will see more flaws and artifacts the closer you sit, and the difference between a 1 and 2 screen width viewing distance is significant. But if your TV is in a room that also doubles as a real world living environment and if you watch the movies with other people (hint...) its pretty tough to live with anything less than 2 screen widths. I think this is where a lot of the diversity of opinion on this forum originates. Like several others have mentioned, I will continue to enjoy the films that look good to me and take the criticisms of the "perfectionists" with a grain of salt.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15278710
> 
> 
> The Dark Knight
> 
> 
> LBFilmguy, Vegaz, Toe, and Dolphinfan --
> 
> 
> If you've read the discussion of this title, you know I agree with your thoughts on it.
> 
> 
> It helps the mod count your vote if you guys put the title and your tier recommendation in bold.



Thanks for the tip







I went and bolded it.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/15280830
> 
> 
> But I might put it bottom of zero also, because of the IMAX.



What is it about the IMAX material that _lowers_ your rating?


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15279743
> 
> 
> I just got to a WI FI in downtown Minneapolis so I'm able to check the thread. After seeing Toe's post I just had to weigh in and say my experience was EXACTLY the same regarding *The Dark Knight.* The only difference is I would vote for *mid Tier 0.*
> 
> 
> BTW, excellent work on the update SuprSlow!
> 
> 
> Samsung HL-S5087W DLP
> 
> Panny BD30
> 
> Viewed from 7'



Nice







It would not bother me in the least if it ended up in mid tier 0 considering how strong the positive elements were to the PQ on this title which FAR outweighed any minor negative. It was funny, the 2 people I was with kept commenting on how good the picture looked, and not just the IMAX scenes either. One of the first shots of Morgan Freeman for example (non IMAX) everyone ooohed and ahhhed over







That guy has such a fantastic face for capturing on film.....so many little details to take in.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaveBowman* /forum/post/15280889
> 
> 
> Here's the problem with the one screen width viewing distance.........it's totally unrealistic for the vast majority of us.



I don't think it matters that it's "unrealistic" for the rest of us- after all, what does everyone else's enjoyment have to do with any individual's personal experience?


Why it _does_ matter, IMO, is that viewing that close is out of 'spec' for the format and, thus, making unreasonable demands of it. BDs aren't made with this viewing range in mind.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15281473
> 
> 
> I don't think it matters that it's "unrealistic" for the rest of us- after all, what does everyone else's enjoyment have to do with any individual's personal experience?
> 
> 
> Why it _does_ matter, IMO, is that viewing that close is out of 'spec' for the format and, thus, making unreasonable demands of it. BDs aren't made with this viewing range in mind.



The "typical" viewing distance is too far away to appreciate all the benefits of 1080p.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15279526
> 
> 
> Depends on your definition of eye candy. To my eye, a well-represented shot from No Country For Old Men is 1,000 times the eye candy that Speed Racer will _ever_ be.



1,000 times? That's a lot. I could understand 100.


BTW, you have a lot of opinions, why aren't you writing your own reviews so your viewpoint can be represented?


----------



## sleater

Oh Oh... looks like TDK tier 0 warriors are banding together...


Quick, establish a perimeter!


Man the battle towers!

*Tier 1.25*, I am happy with it being in *Tier 1.0*


Thanks Suprslow for your work.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaveBowman* /forum/post/15280889
> 
> 
> Here's the problem with the one screen width viewing distance.........it's totally unrealistic for the vast majority of us.



One screen width is one thing, member 42041 says he sits two feet away from a 40" LCD screen. And -- hey -- to each his own and IMO there's value in hearing from someone who sits that close, but I would just ask those who view that way to disclose it in all reviews and recommendations.


Also, in an ideal world, Patrick and 42041, you guys might include a little perspective. You know, like, "this is what I see, but then, of course, I sit really close so a lot of you other guys either might not see it or you might need to get really close to see what I am seeing." That kind of thing.



> Quote:
> Based on a quick review of the specs given by most of the people on this forum I'd say the average viewing distance is about 2 screen widths.



For the record, I sit about 1.35 X Screen Width, but I am watching a 126" diagonal screen in a dedicated theater.


----------



## DaveBowman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15281959
> 
> 
> The "typical" viewing distance is too far away to appreciate all the benefits of 1080p.



Maybe. And one screen width viewing distance is so close that only about 1 out of 100 movies looks good. So which of us do you suppose is enjoying their Blu-ray experience more? I view my 52XBR4 from 8 ft away and I can certainly tell the difference between a good transfer and a poor one at that distance. I'll stick with my admittedly "compromised" solution.


----------



## Beta Tester




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15282289
> 
> 
> One screen width is one thing, member 42041 says he sits two feet away from a 40" LCD screen. And -- hey -- to each his own and IMO there's value in hearing from someone who sits that close, but I would just ask those who view that way to disclose it in all reviews and recommendations.
> 
> 
> Also, in an ideal world, Patrick and 42041, you guys might include a little perspective. You know, like, "this is what I see, but then, of course, I sit really close so a lot of you other guys either might not see it or you might need to get really close to see what I am seeing." That kind of thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the record, I sit about 1.35 X Screen Width, but I am watching a 126" diagonal screen in a dedicated theater.



My guess is that most with a front projection system sit about 1.7 screen widths away, and those with flat-panels sit about 3 widths away. That is a significant difference, and may partially account for the divergence of opinions.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15282289
> 
> 
> One screen width is one thing, member 42041 says he sits two feet away from a 40" LCD screen. And -- hey -- to each his own and IMO there's value in hearing from someone who sits that close, but I would just ask those who view that way to disclose it in all reviews and recommendations.
> 
> 
> Also, in an ideal world, Patrick and 42041, you guys might include a little perspective. You know, like, "this is what I see, but then, of course, I sit really close so a lot of you other guys either might not see it or you might need to get really close to see what I am seeing." That kind of thing.



Taking out a tape measure, I'm viewing from about 32" to 3', so roughly 1 screen width. I don't think that's an unreasonable distance.

I believe I have included that info in all my recommendations. Except when I forget, like my Lost one. That has now been remedied.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Beta Tester* /forum/post/15282341
> 
> 
> My guess is that most with a front projection system sit about 1.7 screen widths away, and those with flat-panels sit about 3 widths away. That is a significant difference, and may partially account for the divergence of opinions.




I am about 1.7-1.8 from my 94" screen.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15282098
> 
> 
> BTW, you have a lot of opinions, why aren't you writing your own reviews so your viewpoint can be represented?



I'm really only interested in this thread's criteria from an observational/theoretical perspective. When I feel compelled to review a title, it will be to describe how well the disc represents the potential of the movie, not of the format.


----------



## spectator

I sit roughly one picture-width from my 16x9 1080p screen. From this distance, I'm never distracted by pixelation or luma-spectrum aliasing, but I can always immediately identify a 720p source and most of the commonly referenced filtering artifacts (visible DNR and EE, etc.) are very apparent to me.


----------



## OldCodger73

I don't know how or why Home Alone ended up in Tier 5 Coal. It was slightly soft but with good color and looked fine. I'd definitely put in Tier 3.75.


There was a lot of discussion in the Home Alone thread with some people feeling it wasn't better than the DVD while others felt it was significantly better. To me 3.75 seems about right.


Panasonic 50" 720p plasma, Panasonic 10a player 7.5'


----------



## Beta Tester




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Beta Tester* /forum/post/15282341
> 
> 
> My guess is that most with a front projection system sit about 1.7 screen widths away, and those with flat-panels sit about 3 widths away. That is a significant difference, and may partially account for the divergence of opinions.



Just to clarify, I am referring to screen *width*, not diagonal.


----------



## Shane Martin

I watched _*Revolver*_ the other night. There's nothing really wrong here with the transfer but there's nothing really right about it either. I think from a PQ stand point it equals Men in Black. The movie however is a royal mess. I hated it. I saw it mainly because of Jason Statham.

*Revolver* - Recommendation *Tier 2.25*

Panasonic 9UK Plasma

8-9 Feet away


----------



## ballen420




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Shane Martin* /forum/post/15283382
> 
> 
> I watched _*Revolver*_ the other night. There's nothing really wrong here with the transfer but there's nothing really right about it either. I think from a PQ stand point it equals Men in Black. The movie however is a royal mess. I hated it. I saw it mainly because of Jason Statham.
> 
> *Revolver* - Recommendation *Tier 2.25*
> 
> Panasonic 9UK Plasma
> 
> 8-9 Feet away



Couldn't agree more. Worst movie I have ever seen - can't remember if I even made it through it. Guy Ritchie movie's can't be any more hit or miss. From what I remember, I agree with the placement, if not a little lower.


----------



## SuprSlow

Corrected the X-Files placement, and removed all white color tags from the OP


----------



## b_scott

Watched *Elf* last night finally. It was a decent transfer but not very poppy. I'd do Tier 3.25 for it. Wish it was a little better but it seems like the holidey films aren't getting very special treatment.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Just for full disclosure, I was curious and had a tape measurer handy. For my reviews I was mistaken -- that seat is actually 4' away not 3'. Doubt it makes a difference. Out of curiosity I measured to where I usually hang out is about 10' away, and I have a 46" tv.


The majority of the issues that I've mentioned in my handful of reviews were noticeable from either location (maybe my glasses are just really good or something!). I never had to go up to my TV to examine anything; I like participating and offering my opinion to the thread (and I think if it's upsetting some people then stepping back is probably a good thing, people shouldn't be getting angry or upset by this sort of thing!), but I'm not going out of my way to try and see the issues I've mentioned. I, like I'm sure the rest of you are doing, am just trying to provide as accurate of a description of what I see as I can when I post. =)


----------



## quake1028

*Kung Fu Panda*


I can't say much, except to say that this is the very best thing I have ever laid my eyes on. Best animated transfer on Blu-ray, and top of Tier 0 confirmed. Left me speechless at times.

*Tier Recommendation: Top of Tier 0, unchanged*

*Panny TH-42PZ800U 1080p

PS3 through HDMI

4.5 ft*

*Next Up: The Day the Earth Stood Still*


(BTW, I sit a little more than 1 screen width away, and I enjoy it. I also have a 27" HD CRT that I sit about the same distance from and I enjoy that. So I have the best of both worlds.)


----------



## dolphinfan4194

A few DVD's I would like to rate, and examples of demo scenes.

*TDK* - *Top of Tier 0*.(imax scenes or any of the "sonic" Cell phone blue scenes, entire scene of hospital blowing up....nuff said)
*Crank*- *Middle to upper tier 0* (scene in bathroom where he is blowing smoke, pool scene, numerous scenes where you can also see almost ever clothing fiber and detail while in the car)
*Man on Fire*- *Top of tier 0* (scene where she is abducted is breathtaking, stunning detail)
*Sunshine*- *Tier 1 Upper Gold* (the sun alone put this in the tier, visual feast)
*Wanted* - *Tier 1 Gold* (opening scene where he breaks through the glass)
*Cars* - *Top of tier 0* (whole movie, cars look like real toys)
*Matrix*- *Middle to Upper tier 0* (any scene with trinity and the reflection of her black leather)
*Die hard 4* - *Middle to upper Tier 0* (fighter jet scene, rolling truck scene)
*I Robot* - *Top of tier 0* (party for the eyes, unreal detail and depth. Scene where he is getting attacked by the robots in the tunnel)


Later....


42inch Toshiba LCD

Samsung Blu Ray player

Oknyo 7.1 reciever

Pro Cinema Definitive Series speakers (amazing detail)


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck*  /forum/post/15282004
> 
> 
> Also, full disclosure: You guys that sit 2 feet away from an LCD screen, how about noting that in all of your reviews like the mod has asked so we can put your reviews into context?



Plus ad your equipment list please.

I am seeing a lot of comments with no equipment lists. Hopefully those views are not being considered.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/15285433
> 
> 
> Plus ad your equipment list please.
> 
> I am seeing a lot of comments with no equipment lists. Hopefully those views are not being considered.




I thought when we first list our recommendation we list our equipment and when we comment on the titles in later posts we are discussing the merits of why or why not a particular title gets placed and we don't need to list our equip everytime we comment. Or if I misread did you just mean when they first comment and recommend?


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Beta Tester* /forum/post/15282856
> 
> 
> Just to clarify, I am referring to screen *width*, not diagonal.



Me, too. My understanding is that with 1080 projectors the ideal sitting position for immersion is somewhere between 1.3 and 1.5 X SW. I have a constant width set-up, my screen is 9.5' wide and I sit about 13' from screen, which is roughly 1.4 X SW.


----------



## suffolk112000

You guys are joking right? I just had to say that!!









The Dark Knight is not in tier0!!??

TDK is one of the best looking, visually stunning titles representing Blu Ray.

I just finished watching it for the second time in my theater.

This movie has it all the whole package.

Complete eye candy.

I'll say it again, isn't that what this thread is all about??

Inky blacks, great shadow detail. In fact, I left my masking open because of the aspect ratio changes, (which I hope does not become a Hollywood habit) but I was not bothered by not being able to use the masking.

Believe me, once you have masking, you become incredibly spoiled and those pesky black bars become distracting.

Anyway, TDK not only has great contrast, but an equally stunning visual color array. Some of the day scenes like when the Joker blew up the hospital were crisp and full of detail. The close-ups of the Jokers face were loaded with detail.

The IMAX scenes were just incredible. The letterbox scenes didn't quite have that 3d pop, but there was nothing about them that should pull this movie out of Tier Blu. The cinematography was incredible in both the IMAX and letterboxed screen shots.

I personally can not say enough about this titles eye candy qualities.


Top half of tier0 and I must also add that TDK has equally incredible audio!

Oh, by the way, light controlled room, ISF calibrated Sony VW60. 58x104 inch Da-Lite HCCV screen sitting 12.5 feet from the screen.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I'm going to give my two cents on TDK since this one seems to have generated more discussion than probably any Blu-ray released to date.


As I stated in Xylons thread: overall I actually thought it looked pretty damn good. Things like contrast, color, depth and detail were very good. In fact, I would say that this title looks better than the vast majority of releases from Warner (I know, this isn't saying much).


Of course the IMAX scenes looked fantastic. It would have been cool if the whole movie was shot that way. I did not find the switching between IMAX back to 2.35 to be very distracting.


The only negative to the presentation is the digital/processed/sharpened look that is present in many scenes. Yes, there are some scenes that have edge halos, but they are actually pretty minor. I definitely did not see edge halos/outlines through the majority of the movie that are typical of the EE artifacts that we were/are used to seeing with other titles/DVD's.


I was viewing this on my 9 foot wide screen, and again, I have to say that it looked really good overall. I wish that it didn't have quite as much of a digital/processed look to it as it does, but then again, many people complained about Batman Begins as being too soft (a sentiment that I actually agree with). This most certainly is NOT soft looking. If anything, just the opposite.


My guess would be that the majority of people will think that this looks fantastic, but I can't disagree with those who think that it has a digital appearance to it. What I would disagree with is the statement/opinion that it looks like garbage, because that is absolutely not the case by a long shot.


I think in the final analysis it comes down to a very personal preference in terms of what you prefer your Blu-ray movies to look like. If you like "film like" images, then you may be more likely to be bothered by the digital/processed look of this title. But let me not imply that this digital/processed look is overwhelming, because it isn't.


I think this is a title that can be used as an example of the differences between this thread and the "film grain allowed...directors intent" thread. This film will probably not be nominated in that thread, yet should rightly be placed in Tier 1 in this thread.


From my perspective, about mid Tier 1 would be about right, which would be a little lower than where it is now.


It can't be in Tier 0 because it does have some artifacts.


I very much agree with Phantom Strangers assessment of this title.


----------



## lgans316

Welcome back Rob.


42041: Please don't feel agitated with the screen size and viewing distance comments.


I just received Wall-E and KFP. Will post my impressions after viewing them. Also got my 3 weeks old Plasma, semi-professionally calibrated yesterday.


I feel ashamed for not being able to contribute like before after moving out of Japan and falling victim to the slow internet connection.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/15286322
> 
> 
> Welcome back Rob.
> 
> 
> 42041: Please don't feel agitated with the screen size and viewing distance comments.
> 
> 
> I just received Wall-E and KFP. Will post my impressions after viewing them. Also got my 3 weeks old Plasma, semi-professionally calibrated yesterday.
> 
> 
> I feel ashamed for not being able to contribute like before after moving out of Japan and falling victim to the slow internet connection.



Thanks, and speaking of KFP....holy cow! Best of the best. Incredible. Unreal. Awesome. Fantastic. Superb.


Should I go on?










KFP goes to the very top, or right under Ratatouille. I think they are both on par with each other, but since they are both virtually flawless, it is purely a personal preference as to which look you like better.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/15286137
> 
> *The Dark Knight* is not in tier0!!??
> 
> TDK is one of the best looking, visually stunning titles representing Blu Ray.
> 
> I just finished watching it for the second time in my theater.
> 
> This movie has it all the whole package.
> 
> Complete eye candy.
> 
> I'll say it again, isn't that what this thread is all about??
> 
> Inky blacks, great shadow detail. In fact, I left my masking open because of the aspect ratio changes, (which I hope does not become a Hollywood habit) but I was not bothered by not being able to use the masking.
> 
> Believe me, once you have masking, you become incredibly spoiled and those pesky black bars become distracting.
> 
> Anyway, TDK not only has great contrast, but an equally stunning visual color array. Some of the day scenes like when the Joker blew up the hospital were crisp and full of detail. The close-ups of the Jokers face were loaded with detail.
> 
> The IMAX scenes were just incredible. The letterbox scenes didn't quite have that 3d pop, but there was nothing about them that should pull this movie out of Tier Blu. The cinematography was incredible in both the IMAX and letterboxed screen shots.
> 
> I personally can not say enough about this titles eye candy qualities.
> 
> *Top half of tier0* and I must also add that TDK has equally incredible audio! Oh, by the way, light controlled room, ISF calibrated Sony VW60. 58x104 inch Da-Lite HCCV screen sitting 12.5 feet from the screen.



Just want to remind you...


The mod has asked us, in order to make it easier for him, to put the title of the blu-ray and your recommendation in bold.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15286345
> 
> 
> 
> Should I go on?



Hi Rob, looking through the archives, I know you used to participate here more and I have read your comments over in the screen grab threads where IMO you are one of the voices of reason.


Great to see you posting over here again.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15286449
> 
> 
> Hi Rob, looking through the archives, I know you used to participate here more and I have read your comments over in the screen grab threads where IMO you are one of the voices of reason.
> 
> 
> Great to see you posting over here again.



Thanks, and I am hoping to get Brandon to post here again as well.


----------



## rsbeck

That'd be great.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Great review, Rob! Welcome back to the thread! I know I wasn't around when you were posting here but I read the majority of the thread through when I found this forum.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15286279
> 
> 
> I'm going to give my two cents on TDK since this one seems to have generated more discussion than probably any Blu-ray released to date.
> 
> 
> As I stated in Xylons thread: overall I actually thought it looked pretty damn good. Things like contrast, color, depth and detail were very good. In fact, I would say that this title looks better than the vast majority of releases from Warner (I know, this isn't saying much).
> 
> 
> Of course the IMAX scenes looked fantastic. It would have been cool if the whole movie was shot that way. I did not find the switching between IMAX back to 2.35 to be very distracting.
> 
> 
> The only negative to the presentation is the digital/processed/sharpened look that is present in many scenes. Yes, there are some scenes that have edge halos, but they are actually pretty minor. I definitely did not see edge halos/outlines through the majority of the movie that are typical of the EE artifacts that we were/are used to seeing with other titles/DVD's.
> 
> 
> I was viewing this on my 9 foot wide screen, and again, I have to say that it looked really good overall. I wish that it didn't have quite as much of a digital/processed look to it as it does, but then again, many people complained about Batman Begins as being too soft (a sentiment that I actually agree with). This most certainly is NOT soft looking. If anything, just the opposite.
> 
> 
> My guess would be that the majority of people will think that this looks fantastic, but I can't disagree with those who think that it has a digital appearance to it. What I would disagree with is the statement/opinion that it looks like garbage, because that is absolutely not the case by a long shot.
> 
> 
> I think in the final analysis it comes down to a very personal preference in terms of what you prefer your Blu-ray movies to look like. If you like "film like" images, then you may be more likely to be bothered by the digital/processed look of this title. But let me not imply that this digital/processed look is overwhelming, because it isn't.
> 
> 
> I think this is a title that can be used as an example of the differences between this thread and the "film grain allowed...directors intent" thread. This film will probably not be nominated in that thread, yet should rightly be placed in Tier 1 in this thread.
> 
> 
> From my perspective, about mid Tier 1 would be about right, which would be a little lower than where it is now.
> 
> 
> It can't be in Tier 0 because it does have some artifacts.
> 
> 
> I very much agree with Phantom Strangers assessment of this title.



Welcome back Rob. Middle of Tier 1 is what I recommended for DK as well.


----------



## Fanaticalism

I agree with everything that Rob has mentioned. According to the description of the current ranking system set forth in the first post, TDK can not be placed in the "Reference" category.


Do *I* feel that it is a "reference" title? That would be an emphatic YES! *If* the screening process for placement were to change, and be very specific as to what is allowed, then the overall process would have to be compromised.


TDK has qualities that no other title released to date exhibits (Just my opinion of course), which *I* feel is the main reason why so many feel that it is a "reference" title.


Now, I can agree with those on both sides of the arguement, but again, it is not what the *descriptions for placement of this thread* entail. It is this reason, and reason alone, that I ranked it in the manner that I did, which was Tier 1.5.


----------



## Fanaticalism

*"Jet Li, Fearless" Recommendation bottom of Tier 2*


This was a decent overall transfer, but there were quite a few scenes that were soft, and I noticed excessive blur in others. I can't say that were any scenes that "wowed" me.


Pioneer Elite Pro-151 calibrated by umr

Pioneer Elite BDP-05 set to professional w/ High Speed Transmission "on"

Denon 3808ci set to passthrough

Distance, approximately 9FT


----------



## Ozymandis

Trying to think of what Blu-rays I've watched since I last posted. I think:


Tropic Thunder- Tier 1.0 seems fair. It wasn't perfect but overall a well-done transfer of a recent movie. The film itself was a little long but it did have some LOL moments, especially from its two big cameos.


The Dark Knight- Tier 1.25 maybe 1.0. It has some noticeable processing, yes the IMAX sections were fantastic but the whole movie was not always consistent. To me, the audio sounded a bit muted, too.


Wall-E- Another reference Pixar release, surprise surprise! The only thing I could gripe about was that the source was a bit softer than Cars even though unlike Ratatouille it had a lot of clean lines which made it more obvious. I do agree with rating it below both of those movies, especially Ratatouille which I would call a rich transfer, or as rich as you're going to get from a CGI movie. But it's reference quality and demo material without a doubt. Below Crank and The Host? No freakin' way. Lot of this list is screwy IMO but ah well.


Usual Suspects- good movie, mediocre Blu-ray. Just a little bit better than an upconverted DVD.


Using a Sony 60A3000 at 9 feet or so, Yamaha V661, PS3 with latest update.


----------



## zinfamous




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fanaticalism* /forum/post/15286753
> 
> 
> I agree with everything that Rob has mentioned. According to the description of the current ranking system set forth in the first post, TDK can not be placed in the "Reference" category.
> 
> 
> Do *I* feel that it is a "reference" title? That would be an emphatic YES! *If* the screening process for placement were to change, and be very specific as to what is allowed, then the overall process would have to be compromised.
> 
> *TDK has qualities* that no other title released to date exhibits (Just my opinion of course), which *I* feel is the main reason why so many feel that it is a "reference" title.
> 
> 
> Now, I can agree with those on both sides of the arguement, but again, it is not what the *descriptions for placement of this thread* entail. It is this reason, and reason alone, that I ranked it in the manner that I did, which was Tier 1.5.



What type of qualities?


----------



## zinfamous

Whoa!


Wall-E was sent below the Pirates movies? Blasphemy! As long as animation seems to remain in this ranking system, I can't imagine an argument that would have it ranked more than one spot below Cars.


mark this post for 6 months later, when the definition for "perfect softness" has been established...or however else the majority wants to "redefine" previously acceptable/unpalatable criteria... what was once "3D Pop" is now DNR...


----------



## zinfamous




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15279526
> 
> 
> Depends on your definition of eye candy. To my eye, a well-represented shot from No Country For Old Men is 1,000 times the eye candy that Speed Racer will _ever_ be.



xInfinity


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15286488
> 
> 
> Thanks, and I am hoping to get Brandon to post here again as well.



It would be great to welcome back another veteran poster like Brandon.









*Wall-E*


Reference PQ while on Earth despite being dirty, scorched and dusty but when inside the Axiom the image simply didn't look three dimensional, especially due to the over polished looking interiors. We all know that the soft film-like appearance is what the film crew had intended but from an eye candy perspective, Wall-E, unfortunately doesn't deserve to be in placed Tier-0 due to the pervasive softness










The movie as such was nice and pleasant but I thought it lacked the usual Pixar emotional connection as abundantly found in Ratatouille, Finding Nemo and The Incredibles.


Tier recommendation: *Tier 1.0*


The Matrix: *Tier 1.75*

Matrix Reloaded & Revolutions: *Tier 2.25*


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15286279
> 
> 
> I'm going to give my two cents on TDK since this one seems to have generated more discussion than probably any Blu-ray released to date.
> 
> 
> As I stated in Xylons thread: overall I actually thought it looked pretty damn good. Things like contrast, color, depth and detail were very good. In fact, I would say that this title looks better than the vast majority of releases from Warner (I know, this isn't saying much).
> 
> 
> Of course the IMAX scenes looked fantastic. It would have been cool if the whole movie was shot that way. I did not find the switching between IMAX back to 2.35 to be very distracting.
> 
> 
> The only negative to the presentation is the digital/processed/sharpened look that is present in many scenes. Yes, there are some scenes that have edge halos, but they are actually pretty minor. I definitely did not see edge halos/outlines through the majority of the movie that are typical of the EE artifacts that we were/are used to seeing with other titles/DVD's.
> 
> 
> I was viewing this on my 9 foot wide screen, and again, I have to say that it looked really good overall. I wish that it didn't have quite as much of a digital/processed look to it as it does, but then again, many people complained about Batman Begins as being too soft (a sentiment that I actually agree with). This most certainly is NOT soft looking. If anything, just the opposite.
> 
> 
> My guess would be that the majority of people will think that this looks fantastic, but I can't disagree with those who think that it has a digital appearance to it. What I would disagree with is the statement/opinion that it looks like garbage, because that is absolutely not the case by a long shot.
> 
> 
> I think in the final analysis it comes down to a very personal preference in terms of what you prefer your Blu-ray movies to look like. If you like "film like" images, then you may be more likely to be bothered by the digital/processed look of this title. But let me not imply that this digital/processed look is overwhelming, because it isn't.
> 
> 
> I think this is a title that can be used as an example of the differences between this thread and the "film grain allowed...directors intent" thread. This film will probably not be nominated in that thread, yet should rightly be placed in Tier 1 in this thread.
> 
> 
> From my perspective, about mid Tier 1 would be about right, which would be a little lower than where it is now.
> 
> 
> It can't be in Tier 0 because it does have some artifacts.
> 
> 
> I very much agree with Phantom Strangers assessment of this title.



I will join the chorus in welcoming you back, Rob. You have been missed.


Your recommended placement for TDK is about the same as mine (I believe I recommended third quarter of Tier 1; which under the new convention I believe would be described as Tier 1.5).


I think you are correct to describe the major flaw in the PQ of TDK as being a digital/processed look, since I agree that often the halos are not obvious and nonetheless the PQ looks slightly "off."


It would be very nice to have Brandon back as well.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fanaticalism* /forum/post/15286764
> 
> *"Jet Li, Fearless" Recommendation bottom of Tier 2*
> 
> 
> This was a decent overall transfer, but there were quite a few scenes that were soft, and I noticed excessive blur in others. I can't say that were any scenes that "wowed" me.



+1 but for the H.K import. Image quality ranged from looking average to excellent with only few shots offering Tier-1 pop.

*Fearless (H.K Import - AVC/DTS-HD MA/LPCM - Edko - Region A)*

http://img243.imageshack.us/my.php?i...bdfrontqg9.jpg 
http://img243.imageshack.us/my.php?i...kbdbackiq5.jpg 
http://img243.imageshack.us/my.php?i...haptersut8.jpg 
http://img243.imageshack.us/my.php?i...dextrasqo1.jpg 
http://img243.imageshack.us/my.php?i...bdsetupfo4.jpg 
http://img247.imageshack.us/my.php?i...pupmenuji2.jpg 
http://img247.imageshack.us/my.php?i...dtshdmaii9.jpg 
http://img247.imageshack.us/my.php?i...kbdlpcmlb5.jpg


----------



## Fanaticalism




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zinfamous* /forum/post/15286912
> 
> 
> What type of qualities?



Extreme contrast, superb shadow detail (Non EE of course







), depth of field, cinematography,excellent gradation of color, and the list goes on.


Keep in mind, that I noted "Of course, these are just my opinions".


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zinfamous* /forum/post/15286912
> 
> 
> What type of qualities?




I would say the IMAX scenes in particular held these qualities. There were quite a few of those scenes that looked better than anything (not counting animation) I have ever seen in my HT.


----------



## zinfamous




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fanaticalism* /forum/post/15287322
> 
> 
> Extreme contrast, superb shadow detail (Non EE of course
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ), depth of field, cinematography,excellent gradation of color, and the list goes on.
> 
> 
> Keep in mind, that I noted "Of course, these are just my opinions".



good to hear.


so if depth of field is one of these qualities, then I wonder why people slam Wall-E so much?


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*Stargate: Continuum*


I did a search and could not come up with this title anywhere in the thread; has anyone else here seen this?


The hubs and I popped this disc in last night. I am an avid Stargate fan and would recommend this title to anyone who loves the SG-1 universe, even if you didn’t like the show much after Richard Dean Anderson’s departure it’s still worthwhile. Continuum is a somewhat standalone movie, although it’s centred on the Gould Ba’al. The cameos by Richard Dean Anderson make this movie; as much as I loved Ben Browder on _Farscape_ he never seemed to mesh with me in the SG-1verse.


In other words, there’s no Ori-junk in it. That’s all in _Stargate: The Ark of Truth_.


As this is a DTV release, it’s fairly obvious the budget was limited. I feel that DNR was not applied on this film as it has a prevalent grain throughout the entire thing. There was a distinct lack of detail overall, and the colours were subdued and even overly saturated. Some glaring evidence of EE was present, and on the flip side, there were several shots that were blurry and out of focus.


The only part in this film that gave me a smile over its PQ was the joy of seeing the Stargate Swoosh & Puddle in this format as it’s the best representation of that important element of this series.


Much of this movie needs to be taken with a grain of salt, and given the poorer-than-the-best episodes writing and the picture quality of this film; the only people I would ever share this movie with would have to also be die-hard Stargate fans. Suspension of disbelief is very important with this one if you want to enjoy it (a glass of wine or bottle of beer may assist







).

*Recommendation for Stargate: Continuum – Tier 3.00*

*Equipment:* ps3 80gig to Toshiba 46H83, 4-5 feet away.

*SuprSlow:* info for _Stargate: Continuum_ in case you don’t have it: Video: AVC|Audio DTS-HD5.1 Master Lossless Audio|AR: 1.78:1|MGM/Fox (both are listed on the back together) but only MGM is on the spine.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15286407
> 
> 
> Just want to remind you...
> 
> 
> The mod has asked us, in order to make it easier for him, to put the title of the blu-ray and your recommendation in bold.



OK!! I'll do just that.







Thanks


----------



## Hammie

Can you help me understand what softness is? I have read through a good majority of the posts and am confused by what people mean. I am not putting out any examples because I want to hear what you all say and not have a bunch of people agree or disagree with what I type.


Thanks!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fanaticalism* /forum/post/15286753
> 
> 
> I agree with everything that Rob has mentioned. According to the description of the current ranking system set forth in the first post, TDK can not be placed in the "Reference" category.
> 
> 
> Do *I* feel that it is a "reference" title? That would be an emphatic YES! *If* the screening process for placement were to change, and be very specific as to what is allowed, then the overall process would have to be compromised.
> 
> 
> TDK has qualities that no other title released to date exhibits (Just my opinion of course), which *I* feel is the main reason why so many feel that it is a "reference" title.
> 
> 
> Now, I can agree with those on both sides of the arguement, but again, it is not what the *descriptions for placement of this thread* entail. It is this reason, and reason alone, that I ranked it in the manner that I did, which was Tier 1.5.



I wanted to quote this post because I think it is a very good example of someone who is paying attention and "gets" this thread (and no, not because he says that he agrees with everything I mentioned







).


It is important that we try to stay true to the original intent of this thread, and this means paying attention to the requirements/definitions for certain tiers.


Ok, I admit it, this post is also a perfect lead-in to another title that was the subject of much controversy: *Baraka*.


Let me just say that I think overall Baraka looks fantastic. There are some scenes that look a little "flat" in terms of contrast, but those scenes are in the minority.

*That being said, Baraka does have some EE.*


For this reason alone, I do not believe that we can put it in Tier 0, which is where it currently resides.


Recall the definition/requirement for Tier 0: "no visible video artifacts". Baraka therefore is precluded from Tier 0.


I would recommend the top of Tier 1.


.....and yes, I have to get used to the new Tier numbering system.


SuprSlow: thanks for the incredible amount of hard work that I _know_ is involved in maintaining this thread.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hammie* /forum/post/15288555
> 
> 
> Can you help me understand what softness is? I have read through a good majority of the posts and am confused by what people mean. I am not putting out any examples because I want to hear what you all say and not have a bunch of people agree or disagree with what I type.
> 
> 
> Thanks!



I think the pic below is an example of slight softness (the skin texture tends to be smooth, and the pores are not well defined...an overall lack of clarity):


----------



## 5mark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15286279
> 
> 
> From my perspective, about mid Tier 1 would be about right, which would be a little lower than where it is now.
> 
> 
> It can't be in Tier 0 because it does have some artifacts.



I wasn't going to weigh in on TDK because there doesn't seem like much chance for a consensus. But I pretty much agree with Rob's diplomatic viewpoints. Although the EE probably bothered me a little more than it did him. The over processed/digital/over sharpened look definitely was taking me out of the movie. It was made even worse by the comparisons to the great looking IMAX shots. I wound up turning my sharpness control way down, which made it much more watchable. Sure it was a compromise, but it helped even out the PQ between the two formats. I was able to get more into the movie and enjoy the excellent blacks, color, and depth that the transfer had to offer.

*Recommend tier 1.5 placement for TDK.*


RS1/8ft wide 2.35:1 screen/8ft viewing distance


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fanaticalism* /forum/post/15286753
> 
> 
> According to the description of the current ranking system set forth in the first post, TDK can not be placed in the "Reference" category.



Like all Bibles, that one, too is open to interpretation. I certainly don't interpret that picture assessment criteria that way.



> Quote:
> Do *I* feel that it is a "reference" title? That would be an emphatic YES! *If*



If you feel a blu-ray is a reference title, I don't see anything in the picture assessment criteria that prohibits you from being consistent and recommending reference placement. You're not obligated to have anyone else's opinion but your own.



> Quote:
> Now, I can agree with those on both sides of the argument



Nahhhh -- that's too easy.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hammie* /forum/post/15288555
> 
> 
> Can you help me understand what softness is?



IMO, there are several types of softness and they are not all created equal.


The softness that particularly bothers me is due to a lack of resolution or data saturation.


Color desaturation is employed on some titles and this can be effective for setting a mood, but can also result in a loss of some detail.


Some people complain about softness that is due to grain. Sometimes grain can make a picture soft, but there are a lot of factors at play and maybe others with more expertise can weigh in on this, but in my experience, most of the time when grain is intact, it does not stop the picture from being sharp, detailed and 3D, as well as possessing a pleasingly natural look to it.


So, I have seen titles that others have called soft that have looked perfectly sharp and natural to me.


I've also seen grainy titles that were soft and I suspect this has more to do with factors like the original film stock -- because some film is grainier or has a coarser grain than others -- age and care of the original print, quality of camera lens, depth of field effects, lighting, etc.


Sometimes a film maker wants the picture to look soft to serve the purpose of his story and will employ any number of techniques including soft focus. If that's the case, then IMO, you have to weigh it out and make a judgment on how soft, how much of the time, and how much you believe it should count against the title.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *5mark* /forum/post/15289616
> 
> 
> I wasn't going to weigh in on TDK because there doesn't seem like much chance for a consensus. But I pretty much agree with Rob's diplomatic viewpoints. Although the EE probably bothered me a little more than it did him. The over processed/digital/over sharpened look definitely was taking me out of the movie. It was made even worse by the comparisons to the great looking IMAX shots. I wound up turning my sharpness control way down, which made it much more watchable. Sure it was a compromise, but it helped even out the PQ between the two formats. I was able to get more into the movie and enjoy the excellent blacks, color, and depth that the transfer had to offer.
> 
> *Recommend tier 1.5 placement for TDK.*
> 
> 
> RS1/8ft wide 2.35:1 screen/8ft viewing distance



Glad you weighed in. We have had many say tier 0 for DK, but it seems more are coming out with a Tier 1.5 recommendation to bring the title back down to earth.


For me it isn't the ringing that is an issue as I really don't see it on my size screen unless 2 ft away, but I noticed the motion blur or compression smearing more than just a few times including seeing it in the Imax scenes. I did get confirmation from another poster in the DK comparison pix thread that he saw the motion blur also. It was evident with camera pans while the actors were in motion. It wasn't constant or the norm, but it did happen on several occasions that were distractions and took me out of the movie. There was also a couple of times that switching aspect ratios was noticeable and the transition not fluid and IMO that too takes away from eye candy PQ even if it is minor. I thought most of the time it wasn't noticeable or an issue.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15290076
> 
> 
> Glad you weighed in. We have had many say tier 0 for DK, but it seems more are coming out with a Tier 1.5 recommendation to bring the title back down to earth.
> 
> 
> For me it isn't the ringing that is an issue as I really don't see it on my size screen unless 2 ft away, but I noticed the motion blur or compression smearing more than just a few times including seeing it in the Imax scenes. I did get confirmation from another poster in the DK comparison pix thread that he saw the motion blur also. It was evident with camera pans while the actors were in motion. It wasn't constant or the norm, but it did happen on several occasions that were distractions and took me out of the movie. There was also a couple of times that switching aspect ratios was noticeable and the transition not fluid and IMO that too takes away from eye candy PQ even if it is minor. I thought most of the time it wasn't noticeable or an issue.



I did not notice any motion blur or compression smearing. The AR was NEVER bothersome IMO and actualy only helped to draw me into the picture.


Dont understand the "bring the title back down to earth" comment implying that your opinion (and those who agree with you) somehow has more weight than others. I respect the fact you feel this is a tier 1.5 title even though I dont agree with you, how about showing the same respect for those of us who feel overall that this is a tier 0 title even if you dont agree with us (I voted lower tier 0)?


This title more than ANY other has shown me just how subjective PQ actualy is. Even the issues that are present on this disc have a range of opinion from "non issue" to "devastating" and anywhere inbetween. It is obvious to me that certain aspects of PQ draw attention more than others depending on the person. What caught my eye in this transfer were mostly positive aspects with the "issues" being far in the background and VERY minor in the grand scheme of things. For others the issues become center stage which is OK as well. We are all just dif and there is no right and wrong IMO.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15289712
> 
> 
> Like all Bibles, that one, too is open to interpretation. I certainly don't interpret that picture assessment criteria that way.
> 
> 
> If you feel a blu-ray is a reference title, I don't see anything in the picture assessment criteria that prohibits you from being consistent and recommending reference placement. You're not obligated to have anyone else's opinion but your own.



I think, as I said before, that we should not be free to interpret the Tiers for ourselves, but recommend placements based on the criteria enumerated in the first post.


Tier 0 says "no visible artifacts". If _he_ sees artifacts, he should not recommend Tier 0, even if he otherwise believes that it is the best looking Blu-ray that he has ever seen.


I know that seems a bit counter-intuitive, but I think we need to remember that Tier 0 is reserved for pretty much perfect looking titles.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15289832
> 
> 
> IMO, there are several types of softness and they are not all created equal.
> 
> 
> The softness that particularly bothers me is due to a lack of resolution or data saturation.
> 
> 
> Color desaturation is employed on some titles and this can be effective for setting a mood, but can also result in a loss of some detail.
> 
> 
> Some people complain about softness that is due to grain. Sometimes grain can make a picture soft, but there are a lot of factors at play and maybe others with more expertise can weigh in on this, but in my experience, most of the time when grain is intact, it does not stop the picture from being sharp, detailed and 3D, as well as possessing a pleasingly natural look to it.
> 
> 
> So, I have seen titles that others have called soft that have looked perfectly sharp and natural to me.
> 
> 
> I've also seen grainy titles that were soft and I suspect this has more to do with factors like the original film stock -- because some film is grainier or has a coarser grain than others -- age and care of the original print, quality of camera lens, depth of field effects, lighting, etc.
> 
> 
> Sometimes a film maker wants the picture to look soft to serve the purpose of his story and will employ any number of techniques including soft focus. If that's the case, then IMO, you have to weigh it out and make a judgment on how soft, how much of the time, and how much you believe it should count against the title.



That is a _great_ summary.


----------



## rsbeck

*The Day The Earth Stood Still:*


Very nice transfer of the Robert Wise science fiction classic. Grain is intact, saw nothing to raise EE or DNR controversy. Saw some very fine specks a couple of times, I assume from some remaining damage to the original, but it was well into the film and very, very brief in an otherwise excellent (I'm assuming) restoration. Otherwise it was very clean and those with smaller displays may not notice it at all. I have had this title on VHS, DVD, and now on Blu-Ray and this is a huge improvement. For the most part, the resolution and clarity is very good for such an old film and many times absolutely stunning. Data saturation seems very, very solid. For stretches, you can see texture in jackets, shirts and ties, count the pores and imperfections in faces, individual hairs, the peach fuzz on the boy's jaw near his ear, the nap on the professor's jacket, and easily read the very clear chalk calculations on his blackboard. If you want to see how great black and white film can look, you owe it to yourself to check this out, plus you get the added kitsch value of seeing various late forties, early fifties paraphernalia like the earliest television sets in crystal clear 1080p. Blacks, grays, and shadow detail are great, check out the scene near the end where Klaatu and Patricia Neal are stuck in an elevator with a shadow/grid playing across their faces, or when the boy follows Klaatu back to the space ship. Titles like this show just how sumptuous black and white can be. How to rank a title like this? This looks way better than any upconverted DVD, the best scenes and sequences are reference quality for black and white and have plenty of 3D pop. It's just a little inconsistent. I see it in the same rank as Godfather II.

*Recommendation: Tier 2.00*


Sim2 C3x1080

Carada Masquerade

126" Firehawk G3

Pioneer BDP-05FD


13' From Screen


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15290076
> 
> 
> Glad you weighed in. We have had many say tier 0 for DK, but it seems more are coming out with a Tier 1.5 recommendation to bring the title back down to earth.
> 
> 
> For me it isn't the ringing that is an issue as I really don't see it on my size screen unless 2 ft away, but I noticed the motion blur or compression smearing more than just a few times including seeing it in the Imax scenes. I did get confirmation from another poster in the DK comparison pix thread that he saw the motion blur also. It was evident with camera pans while the actors were in motion. It wasn't constant or the norm, but it did happen on several occasions that were distractions and took me out of the movie. There was also a couple of times that switching aspect ratios was noticeable and the transition not fluid and IMO that too takes away from eye candy PQ even if it is minor. I thought most of the time it wasn't noticeable or an issue.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/15290126
> 
> 
> I did not notice any motion blur or compression smearing. The AR was NEVER bothersome IMO and actualy only helped to draw me into the picture.
> 
> 
> Dont understand the "bring the title back down to earth" comment implying that your opinion (and those who agree with you) somehow has more weight than others. I respect the fact you feel this is a tier 1.5 title even though I dont agree with you, how about showing the same respect for those of us who feel overall that this is a tier 0 title even if you dont agree with us (I voted lower tier 0)?
> 
> 
> This title more than ANY other has shown me just how subjective PQ actualy is. Even the issues that are present on this disc have a range of opinion from "non issue" to "devastating" and anywhere inbetween. It is obvious to me that certain aspects of PQ draw attention more than others depending on the person. What caught my eye in this transfer were mostly positive aspects with the "issues" being far in the background and VERY minor in the grand scheme of things. For others the issues become center stage which is OK as well. We are all just dif and there is no right and wrong IMO.



See, this is the kind of discussion that is good for the thread.


Toe, I don't believe that Hugh meant any disrespect for people who think TDK should be Tier 0 with his "back down to earth" comment.


And I _completely_ agree with you about your statement that "this title more than ANY other has shown me just how subjective PQ actually is". I would say that Baraka is a close second.


That being said, I do think it is important that none of us participating in this thread give the impression that contrary opinions are not allowed or considered, regardless of whether the contrary opinion is that the PQ of a title is better or worse than the majority opinion.


The more people who participate in this thread the better. I was glad to see 5mark post his comments, even though he has a crappy projector.


----------



## union1411

TDK *Tier 2* (very distracting EE)


Mits4900/100" screen/9 foot viewing distance


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15290251
> 
> 
> Tier 0 says "no visible artifacts".



Reference was made to the opening paragraphs of the thread. It's true that there are references above the rankings themselves that say "No visible artifacts." However, it is also true that in the opening paragraphs, it says,


"What you want to look for is the sharpness of detail (does the picture have plenty of depth and pop-out of the screen or does it look real and film-like), color (are they true to reality, especially blues, reds and greens; are blacks black and whites white), and video artifacts (is the picture bobbed or is there *too much* noise and edge enhancement."


So, what I gather from this is that we are to look for suitability as demo material, to look *for* qualities like plenty of depth, 3D, detail, sharpness, etc. Looking for the ultimate in what Blu-Ray has to offer. I would submit that in addition to high resolution, excellent cinematography is need to achieve this kind of depth. I also interpret that the OP wants you to judge whether *too much* noise and edge enhancement, which is a judgment call. There are all kinds of ways to sharpen a picture and many different levels of sharpening, so IMO, one has to come to an opinion on how much is too much, how much it takes to render the picture too soft, how much robs the picture of its depth, etc. This is all subjective. Personally, I don't want to see this boiled down to a binary process so simplistic that all one need to do is post a screen grab of a still shot with what appears to be ringing along with a lot of anecdotal observations in order to override the rest of the membership. I've seen the result of that kind of process in the other threads -- it sets people up to do nothing more than hunt for artifacts, real or imagined. IMO, we already have enough threads like that and I don't want to see this thread go that way, nor do I believe it should or will.


All that needs to happen is everyone give his or her opinion, report what he or she sees and make his or her recommendation.


Then, the moderator sorts it all out and assigns a rank.


This is the way it's working and Super Slow does a great job of sorting and ranking; just to prove it; neither side is completely happy.


Everyone gets to weigh in, we hear from more people, and the votes of those who are made miserable by the tiniest artifact are not given more weight than those who've spent countless hours watching and evaluating Blu-Rays, who may also have the ability to spot artifacts, but who are slightly more tolerant -- I submit that these people, too, represent very picky videophiles, bring a wealth of experience, and should be represented.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/15290126
> 
> 
> I did not notice any motion blur or compression smearing. The AR was NEVER bothersome IMO and actualy only helped to draw me into the picture.
> 
> 
> Dont understand the "bring the title back down to earth" comment implying that your opinion (and those who agree with you) somehow has more weight than others. I respect the fact you feel this is a tier 1.5 title even though I dont agree with you, how about showing the same respect for those of us who feel overall that this is a tier 0 title even if you dont agree with us (I voted lower tier 0)?
> 
> 
> This title more than ANY other has shown me just how subjective PQ actualy is. Even the issues that are present on this disc have a range of opinion from "non issue" to "devastating" and anywhere inbetween. It is obvious to me that certain aspects of PQ draw attention more than others depending on the person. What caught my eye in this transfer were mostly positive aspects with the "issues" being far in the background and VERY minor in the grand scheme of things. For others the issues become center stage which is OK as well. We are all just dif and there is no right and wrong IMO.



I used the back down to earth phrase, because this film alone and all it entails immediately elevates it for almost everyone in terms of story, acting, PQ and AQ. I used the phrase, because the last two months we have had many more contributors to this thread. I used the phrase because I do think too many are wanting and rushing to claim tier 0 recommendation on a title and they don't seem to be doing more than one viewing of it. Some recommended Indy 4 for tier 0 and I watched it several times and pointed out in my posts with time stamps several serious issues with it that are noticeable on my 60 in display. There is no way INDY 4 is tier 0 not with those obvious issues.


The motion blur or smearing and the two poor or noticeable changes from the imax to 35mm footage is the reason I know I cannot recommend tier 0, but overall the PQ was close to flawless. Then we have the issue of ringing and although I don't see it or ding the film for that many are seeing the halos. I would still say it is demo or reference, but that doesn't mean it is flawless. I say all of this after having seen Prince Caspian which is flawless, and I do think it is a full tier above DK.

*Ok, people. Let's be honest.*


How many of you who voted tier 0 thinking this is one of the best if not the best film of the year? How many thought the action, plot and cinematography made it one of the best films of the year? How many just simply love Batman?

How many of those recommending tier 0 were blown away by the overall experience therefore having some influence in the recommendation for tier 0. I know it can work both ways as some maybe negatively influenced in terms of recommending PQ for a film, but I am asking the tier 0 group to tell us how they think about the film. Don't you think if you really loved DK and the genre and it gets good reviews to reaffirm, that your placement or wanting it to be tier 0 is a little influenced? I am not saying anyone is ignoring PQ issues, but I am saying there maybe some bias.


And Rob is right I mean no disrespect to anyone. If I come across that way I apologize. I just think the hype in general over this title helps elevate it to out of this world status. One, it is Batman. Two Heath Ledger dies. Ledger is now most likely up for and will win an oscar. Hollywood video by me opened up at midnite to 1:00 am just for DK. Thats a little over the top for even this type of film. You know what I mean?


As much as I love action, adventure and intense violence in movies, having watched Caspian and DK back to back, I actually like Caspian better overall. FOR me knowing what I am into that says a lot as I didn't expect that to happen. DK looks awesome, but if you really want to see one of the best if not the best non animated title on BD check out Caspian. Actually if gives the top tier 0 animated films a run for their money.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15290334
> 
> 
> See, this is the kind of discussion that is good for the thread.
> 
> 
> Toe, I don't believe that Hugh meant any disrespect for people who think TDK should be Tier 0 with his "back down to earth" comment.
> 
> 
> And I _completely_ agree with you about your statement that "this title more than ANY other has shown me just how subjective PQ actually is". I would say that Baraka is a close second.
> 
> 
> That being said, I do think it is important that none of us participating in this thread give the impression that contrary opinions are not allowed or considered, regardless of whether the contrary opinion is that the PQ of a title is better or worse than the majority opinion.
> 
> 
> The more people who participate in this thread the better. I was glad to see 5mark post his comments, even though he has a crappy projector.



Hi Rob







Hopefully you are right and my perception was wrong about Hughs comment. Either way, that comment was not needed and many no doubt would perceive it the way I did.


I agree with everything else you said though







Also, I agree with 5mark having a crappy projector







( like both of you, I also have an RS1







)


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15290444
> 
> 
> I used the back down to earth phrase, because this film alone and all it entails immediately elevates it for almost everyone in terms of story, acting, PQ and AQ. I used the phrase, because the last two months we have had many more contributors to this thread. I used the phrase because I do think too many are wanting and rushing to claim tier 0 recommendation on a title and they don't seem to be doing more than one viewing of it. Some recommended Indy 4 for tier 0 and I watched it several times and pointed out in my posts with time stamps several serious issues with it that are noticeable on my 60 in display. There is no way INDY 4 is tier 0 not with those obvious issues.
> 
> 
> The motion blur or smearing and the two poor or noticeable changes from the imax to 35mm footage is the reason I know I cannot recommend tier 0, but overall the PQ was close to flawless. Then we have the issue of ringing and although I don't see it or ding the film for that many are seeing the halos. I would still say it is demo or reference, but that doesn't mean it is flawless. I say all of this after having seen Prince Caspian which is flawless, and I do think it is a full tier above DK.
> 
> *Ok, people. Let's be honest.*
> 
> 
> How many of you who voted tier 0 thinking this is one of the best if not the best film of the year? How many thought the action, plot and cinematography made it one of the best films of the year? How many just simply love Batman?
> 
> How many of those recommending tier 0 were blown away by the overall experience therefore having some influence in the recommendation for tier 0. I know it can work both ways as some maybe negatively influenced in terms of recommending PQ for a film, but I am asking the tier 0 group to tell us how they think about the film. Don't you think if you really loved DK and the genre and it gets good reviews to reaffirm, that your placement or wanting it to be tier 0 is a little influenced? I am not saying anyone is ignoring PQ issues, but I am saying there maybe some bias.
> 
> 
> And Rob is right I mean no disrespect to anyone. If I come across that way I apologize. I just think the hype in general over this title helps elevate it to out of this world status. One, it is Batman. Two Heath Ledger dies. Ledger is now most likely up for and will win an oscar. Hollywood video by mean opened up at midnite to 1:00 am just for DK. You know what I mean?
> 
> 
> As much as I love action, adventure and intense violence in movies, having watched Caspian and DK back to back, I actually like Caspian better overall. FOR me knowing what I am into that says a lot as I didn't expect that to happen. DK looks awesome, but if you really want to see one of the best if not the best non animated title on BD check out Caspian. Actually if gives the top tier 0 animated films a run for their money.



I see I was right in my perception unfortunately.....










This argument could also go the other way in all due respect Hugh. Some people will be EXTRA HARD on a high profile title which I have seen just as much of around here (Xylons thread). It can work both ways (and has in the case of the DK).


If you want to know why I voted tier 0 (lower), read my review. Things that stood out to me were positive aspects, not negative. Asking me to re-explain why my vote does not mesh with yours just reinforces my perception of your previous comment. What stood out to you and others were more negative aspects which is also OK. We all dont agree and that is OK as well. I am certainly NOT going to ask you to explain your vote and suggest that you have judged extra hard because the DK is such a high profile title though just becasue I dont agree with your PQ assessment.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15290443
> 
> 
> Reference was made to the opening paragraphs of the thread. It's true that there are references above the rankings themselves that say "No visible artifacts." However, it is also true that in the opening paragraphs, it says,
> 
> 
> "What you want to look for is the sharpness of detail (does the picture have plenty of depth and pop-out of the screen or does it look real and film-like), color (are they true to reality, especially blues, reds and greens; are blacks black and whites white), and video artifacts (is the picture bobbed or is there *too much* noise and edge enhancement."
> 
> 
> So, what I gather from this is that we are to look for suitability as demo material, to look *for* qualities like plenty of depth, 3D, detail, sharpness, etc. Looking for the ultimate in what Blu-Ray has to offer. I would submit that in addition to high resolution, excellent cinematography is need to achieve this kind of depth. I also interpret that the OP wants you to judge whether *too much* noise and edge enhancement, which is a judgment call. There are all kinds of ways to sharpen a picture and many different levels of sharpening, so IMO, one has to come to an opinion on how much is too much, how much it takes to render the picture too soft, how much robs the picture of its depth, etc. This is all subjective. Personally, I don't want to see this boiled down to a binary process so simplistic that all one need to do is post a screen grab of a still shot with what appears to be ringing along with a lot of anecdotal observations in order to override the rest of the membership. I've seen the result of that kind of process in the other threads -- it sets people up to do nothing more than hunt for artifacts, real or imagined. IMO, we already have enough threads like that and I don't want to see this thread go that way, nor do I believe it should or will.
> 
> 
> All that needs to happen is everyone give his or her opinion, report what he or she sees and make his or her recommendation.
> 
> 
> Then, the moderator sorts it all out and assigns a rank.
> 
> 
> This is the way it's working and Super Slow does a great job of sorting and ranking; just to prove it; neither side is completely happy.
> 
> 
> Everyone gets to weigh in, we hear from more people, and the votes of those who are made miserable by the tiniest artifact are not given more weight than those who've spent countless hours watching and evaluating Blu-Rays, who may also have the ability to spot artifacts, but who are slightly more tolerant -- I submit that these people, too, represent very picky videophiles, bring a wealth of experience, and should be represented.



I think you are saying reference is or should be flawless, but it seems you are taking what is said in the first paragraph,"too much" and then connecting it to Tier 0 qualifiers.


This is what Tier 0 says:


Tier 0 - Blu (Reference)
*--- The picture quality of the transfer is in pristine shape and practically perfect with no visible video artifacts. The image is so clean and sharp that it maintains a realistic feel throughout and


serves as great demo material. We recommend owning at least one of these films!
*


The too much noise and EE comments are meant as qualifiers for titles that aren't tier 0 or for levels of those PQ issues becoming greater in lower tiers.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15290334
> 
> 
> Toe, I don't believe that Hugh meant any disrespect for people who think TDK should be Tier 0 with his "back down to earth" comment.




He may not intend disrespect, but calling one position "down to earth" implies something negative about the other.



> Quote:
> That being said, I do think it is important that none of us participating in this thread give the impression that contrary opinions are not allowed or considered



When some posters pontificate, based on their interpretation of the assessment criteria, that inclusion in the top tier is based on their ability to find something objectionable, that automatically implies a discounting of contrary interpretations, opinions, assessments, etc.



> Quote:
> The more people who participate in this thread the better.



Completely agree.



.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15290516
> 
> 
> I think you are saying reference is or should be flawless



I didn't say that.



> Quote:
> but it seems you are taking what is said in the first paragraph,"too much" and then connecting it to Tier 0 qualifiers.



Exactly -- because it is called picture assessment criteria. It tells you how to assess picture quality for this thread.


It doesn't say this is how to assess picture quality only for lower tiers.


It's no different from any other bible, the opening paragraphs have ambiguities and contradictions.


What do you do when your bible has ambiguities and contradictions? You interpret.


It isn't polite to force one's interpretation upon another.


So, we have one religion, if you will, who interpret the criteria one way and we have another religion interpreting it another.


Just makes this a very human process.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/15290493
> 
> 
> I see I was right in my perception unfortunately.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This argument could also go the other way in all due respect Hugh. Some people will be EXTRA HARD on a high profile title which I have seen just as much of around here (Xylons thread). It can work both ways (and has in the case of the DK).
> 
> 
> If you want to know why I voted tier 0, read my review. Things that stood out to me were positive aspects, not negative. Asking me to re-explain why I my vote does not mesh with yours just reinforces my perception of your previous comment. *What stood out to you and others were more negative aspects which is also OK. We all dont agree and that is OK as well*.



Your last sentence is not true. I said and believe it is a fantastic looking title and I said it in previous posts, I just do not believe it is tier 0.


I don't just focus on the negative when recommending tier placement or discussing PQ. Both positive and negative aspects stand out to me. You are saying the positive aspects stood out and not the negative. Are you saying you didn't see any negative PQ anomalies?


I also did say in a couple of posts back that an over hyped title could get dinged and I agree the opposite can be true, but my point is focused on those wanting tier 0 and asking a straightforward question that I meant in no way to be demeaning. I simply wanted to see if some would be willing to discuss how the film overall may affect their placement recommendation if it even does.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15290251
> 
> 
> Tier 0 says "no visible artifacts". If _he_ sees artifacts, he should not recommend Tier 0, even if he otherwise believes that it is the best looking Blu-ray that he has ever seen.



I'd be fine with this as long as we did a cleanup of the Tier 0 titles-- namely move the ones that do exhbit artifacts or other issues with the transfer. So do you think if we can either demonstrate or point to areas where problems exist, those titles should be moved out?


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15290565
> 
> 
> Your last sentence is not true. I said and believe it is a fantastic looking title and I said it in previous posts, I just do not believe it is tier 0.
> 
> 
> I don't just focus on the negative when recommending tier placement or discussing PQ. Both positive and negative aspects stand out to me. You are saying the positive aspects stood out and not the negative. Are you saying you didn't see any negative PQ anomalies?
> 
> 
> I also did say in a couple of posts back that an over hyped title could get dinged and I agree the opposite can be true, but my point is focused on those wanting tier 0 and asking a straightforward question that I meant in no way to be demeaning. I simply wanted to see if some would be willing to discuss how the film overall may affect their placement recommendation if it even does.



Well then it should be asked of those who dont see it as tier 0 as well, and those who dont see it as tier 2...tier 1, etc.....My point is that argument goes both ways (and has) and nobody should have to re-explain their vote because of that. By you suggesting we do that just tells me you feel your opinion has more weight and value than somebody elses since you cant understand how someone could place it in tier 0.


I am not saying the PQ is perfect but I have not seen a perfect non animated title myself. What I am saying is what caught my eye were positive aspects. If I had not looked at Xylons thread, chances are I would not have even noticed the EE as I am not sensitive to those things. Even being aware of it and looking for it (due to Xylons thread), I only caught it a handfull of times and it was SO MINOR to MY EYES that it was practicaly a non issue, again IMO and to MY EYES.


I am sorry for suggesting that you focused more on the negative as I was wrong about that after reading your previous comments.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15290444
> 
> 
> I just think the hype in general over this title helps elevate it to out of this world status.



Fair enough. That might very well be the case, but there are plenty of other people in this forum who believe a lot of negative hype, bullying, and peer group pressure has originated from over in the screen grab forum and believe that this is also clouding judgment, making it nearly impossible for a whole other contingent to put this title in perspective.


So, what?


What are we going to do about it?


I suggest that we all write our recommendations, debate the merits of the title as long as it stays productive, and then move on.


Right now, I don't see much in the way of productive discussion about TDK.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Day Watch*


tier recommendation: *Tier 2.75*


Fox released this 2006 Russian movie to Blu-ray here in the U.S. on September 9th of this year. The 145-minute main feature is encoded in AVC on a BD-50. The average video bitrate is 29.48 Mbps per the BDInfo scan. The video encode ranges between 11 Mbps to peaks nearing 40 Mbps, with most scenes constantly hovering in the 30's. The high video bitrates are needed for this transfer as the source film appears very grainy and noisy at times. I would not call it a perfect encode compared to some others I have seen, but it does handle the very heavy grain structure without dissolving into a mass of compression noise.


Trying to find a suitable tier placement was a little difficult as the image is very inconsistent. There are scenes that go from razor sharp clarity with high tier one detail to soft shots that are no better than low tier three quality overall. The outdoor nighttime scenes especially look awful, with bad lighting and rampant black crush and poor contrast. Fleshtones look okay for the most part but color fidelity seems limited for a good Blu-ray. Contrast is also pushed very hard but this aspect varies quite a lot over the course of the movie. Normal scenes exhibit a nice level of high frequency information with every pore and hair strand visible but the image does become slightly softer and less detailed during the special effects sequences (which are largely aided by CGI). I have to attribute some of these inconsistencies to this being a Russian movie production. The camera work appears below average for Hollywood standards, with objects coming in and out of focus during shots.


Unfortunately it appears that edge enhancement has been applied at various points to this transfer, probably trying to hide some of the inherent softness in a few scenes. The edge haloes are not littered throughout but they show up with a vengeance when they do appear. One scene shows a birdcage that appears to have a force field around it from the artificial sharpening. The sharper scenes demonstrate good depth and dimensionality at least. I cannot quite decide if DNR has been applied. There are healthy amounts of grain but a few scenes look a little suspicious, like some minor DNR might have been used.


Considering the whole of the transfer, I would recommend a placement in tier 2.75. There are some flaws and I would have no problem with this BD being placed even lower in the third tier. The resolution of Blu-ray seems to reveal that this movie was not a big budget Hollywood production. It does look good at times but this is no demo material.


Watching on a 60 Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080P/24 from a PS3 (firmware 2.53) at a viewing distance of approximately six feet.


BDInfo Scan (courtesy of forum member Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1#post14638461


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15290563
> 
> 
> I didn't say that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly -- because it is called picture assessment criteria. It tells you how to assess picture quality for this thread.
> 
> 
> It doesn't say this is how to assess picture quality only for lower tiers.
> 
> 
> It's no different from any other bible, the opening paragraphs have ambiguities and contradictions.
> 
> 
> What do you do when your bible has ambiguities and contradictions? You interpret.
> 
> 
> It isn't polite to force one's interpretation upon another.
> 
> 
> So, we have one religion, if you will, who interpret the criteria one way and we have another religion interpreting it another.
> 
> 
> Just makes this a very human process.



I do disagree then. Those qualifiers about too much EE and noise are used to judge all tiers, but as far as tier 0 goes those films are meant to be qualified as having none of those issues and hence we have a qualifier for each tier like tier 0:


The picture quality of the transfer is in pristine shape and practically perfect with *no visible video artifacts*. The image is so clean and sharp that it maintains a realistic feel throughout and serves as great demo material. We recommend owning at least one of these films!


From the first page:

No visible artifacts phrase from tier 0 categorizers and signifiers further qualifies the assess PQ paragraph above it.


Even tier 1 goes onto say the video artifacts are next to nothing which means it has some, which exactly describes DK. Of course if you don't see them you don't vote or recommend based on something you don't see.


Then tier 2 goes onto say video artifacts are few and far between. From there we drop off to barely above DVD quality in tier 3 and then equal to upconverted DVD quality.


Tier 0 should be virtually flawless and it is true, there are quite a few titles there that aren't flawless and should be dropped down to tier 1, but we are going by a vote system and since some people don't see all the issues films get placed as they should.


----------



## quake1028

Netflix ended up sending me Prince Caspian unexpectedly (it was on short wait), so I will dig into that one next, then TDTESS.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15290563
> 
> 
> I didn't say that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly -- because it is called picture assessment criteria. It tells you how to assess picture quality for this thread.
> 
> 
> It doesn't say this is how to assess picture quality only for lower tiers.
> 
> 
> It's no different from any other bible, the opening paragraphs have ambiguities and contradictions.
> 
> 
> What do you do when your bible has ambiguities and contradictions? You interpret.
> 
> 
> It isn't polite to force one's interpretation upon another.
> 
> 
> So, we have one religion, if you will, who interpret the criteria one way and we have another religion interpreting it another.
> 
> 
> Just makes this a very human process.




I interpreted the picture assessment criteria in a very similar way when I read through all of it in the first post. There is some contradiction which is going to lead to interpretation unfortunately and opens up titles like the DK and others in tier 0 to be accepted there.


----------



## Fanaticalism




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15290251
> 
> 
> I think, as I said before, that we should not be free to interpret the Tiers for ourselves, but recommend placements based on the criteria enumerated in the first post.
> 
> 
> Tier 0 says "no visible artifacts". If _he_ sees artifacts, he should not recommend Tier 0, *even if he otherwise believes that it is the best looking Blu-ray that he has ever seen.*
> 
> 
> I know that seems a bit counter-intuitive, but I think we need to remember that Tier 0 is reserved for pretty much perfect looking titles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a _great_ summary.




You said it perfectly there. This thread isn't about my "feelings", but about what the first post of this thread qualifies as "reference". It clearly states "no visual artifacts", and quite a few that have rated this film as "reference", can be noted as saying things along the lines of " I didn't find the EE distracting at all, nor consistent throughout the movie". Well, EE is an artifact, that was obviously visible, regardless of how long, or how frequent it was on screen.


It is a "reference" BD to *me*, as I stated before, it has elements that set it above the rest for *me*.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/15290493
> 
> 
> This argument could also go the other way in all due respect Hugh. Some people will be EXTRA HARD on a high profile title which I have seen just as much of around here (Xylons thread). It can work both ways (and has in the case of the DK).



Well, if a movie is being nominated for the hallowed ranks of reference blu-rays, I don't see a good reason why I shouldn't be hard on it.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15290640
> 
> 
> Fair enough. That might very well be the case, but there are plenty of other people in this forum who believe a lot of negative hype, bullying, and peer group pressure has originated from over in the screen grab forum and believe that this is also clouding judgment, making it nearly impossible for a whole other contingent to put this title in perspective.
> 
> 
> So, what?
> 
> 
> What are we going to do about it?
> 
> 
> I suggest that we all write our recommendations, debate the merits of the title as long as it stays productive, and then move on.
> 
> 
> Right now, I don't see much in the way of productive discussion about TDK.




For the record I am more or less against the screen "crap" threads and more often than not I go into those threads and play devil's advocate. I think they do BD and AVS as a forum an injustice when pros who really work in film and know film come into those threads and tell the "experts" they are wrong and yet they, the real pros, don't come back and visit anymore due to the overzealous egos and belief that what they are showing in screen caps is gospel.


I try to be voice of reason and don't like the extremism. I try to find a middle ground with respect to these PQ issues and beliefs some have in wanting as close to possible film reproduction.


My mantra is that is doesn't have to be all or nothing or you are with us or against us. We can have both and discuss both.


I want both. I want a BD to look close to film as possible, but I also want eye candy, so grain doesn't bother me unless the screen is literally crawling I welcome it. Prince Caspian is reference, it is eye candy, but it is also grain intact and very film like. One can have it all!


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15290606
> 
> 
> I'd be fine with this as long as we did a cleanup of the Tier 0 titles-- namely move the ones that do exhbit artifacts or other issues with the transfer. So do you think if we can either demonstrate or point to areas where problems exist, those titles should be moved out?



I can pretty much guarantee you that with a big enough screen and a camera lens of the right magnitude, I could find something wrong with any title. So, do we want to debate and how big a screen and how powerful a lens?


Whoever wrote the opening paragraph asking us to judge whether there's *too much* noise or enhancement was wise.


Leave it up to human judgment.


Humans have managed to do everything else right, why not this?


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15290743
> 
> 
> Well, if a movie is being nominated for the hallowed ranks of reference blu-rays, I don't see a good reason why I shouldn't be hard on it.



That was not the debate. The argument was people who are being to hard or to relaxed because it is such a popular high profile title (the content). A movie should not get judged extra hard or not hard enough just because it is high profile content.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15290757
> 
> 
> I can pretty much guarantee you that with a big enough screen and a camera lens of the right magnitude, I could find something wrong with any title. So, do we want to debate and how big a screen and how powerful a lens?




No!. I think we have to respect each other views and each others equipment. We can question and discuss why someone feels the way they do about a title. We might find out they are seeing something on a bigger screen that we don't on a smaller screen, but that shouldn't change each of our own views.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/15290780
> 
> 
> That was not the debate. The argument was people who are being to hard or to relaxed because it is such a popular high profile title (the content). *A movie should not get judged extra hard or not hard enough just because it is high profile content*.



I agree.







And to qualify my statement earlier. What I meant was for anyone really with any title. Does the quality of the film acting, action, sound, etc possibly influence us to some extent in what we "see" and recommending PQ? I think many times it can for both positive and negative PQ assessments. This is why I watch a film at least two times and scan it just for PQ the third time to see if I was biased and really into the film or not.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15290745
> 
> 
> when pros who really work in film and know film come into those threads and tell the "experts" they are wrong



What do you make of the fact that Robert Harris called TDK gorgeous in every way and that is is demo material you can show to believers and non-believers alike?


Read the threads over there -- it is exactly like you describe. Harris is a pro, can obviously spot artifacts, and calls TDK reference material. That tells me that this is all just a matter of opinion.



> Quote:
> My mantra is that is doesn't have to be all or nothing or you are with us or against us. We can have both and discuss both.



That's cool. We need more of that.



> Quote:
> I want both. I want a BD to look close to film as possible, but I also want eye candy, so grain doesn't bother me unless the screen is literally crawling I welcome it.



I feel the same way.



> Quote:
> Prince Caspian is reference, it is eye candy, but it is also grain intact and very film like. One can have it all!



I don't know about Caspian. It has grain intact and yet, to my eye, there is some weird softness that begins to disappear as the film unfolds, getting more and more clear, with grain still intact.


But, also, a quick visit to the screen grab forum reveals that a poster over there has already pronounced Caspian film-like and reference, so all these people running over here to proclaim Caspian reference and preferable to TDK, is it real or just more people responding to peer pressure. You say you are a devil's advocate over there, but your opinions very closely mirror those I find over there. I trust that you just happened to come to similar conclusions, but.......you know. I'm just sayin'....


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15290680
> 
> 
> those films are meant to be qualified as having none of those issues



This is like different religions quoting different parts of the bible.


Believe me, I've read the opening paragraphs as well as what is above the tiers and I've come to an understanding that works for me and I also understand that others have an understanding that doe not work for me, but works for them. Cool. It's life on planet earth -- we're all just trying our best. Just like Sammy Jenkis.



> Quote:
> some people don't see all the issues



I understand that this is a position with some snob appeal, but I don't buy it. All you have to do is read what posters are saying. Just about everyone concedes that TDK has some issues. So, most everyone recommending tier 0 see issues. They're just going by a different biblical interpretation.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15290845
> 
> 
> But, also, a quick visit to the screen grab forum reveals that a poster over there has already pronounced Caspian film-like and reference, so all these people running over here to proclaim Caspian reference and preferable to TDK, is it real or just more people responding to peer pressure. You say you are a devil's advocate over there, but your opinions very closely mirror those I find over there. I trust that you just happened to come to similar conclusions, but.......you know. I'm just sayin'....



I'm not going to say you're wrong, because I'm sure the peer pressure element is present to some extent, but my first impressions of both movies were screencaps I saw several days before either of Xylon's threads were created.


(and about the post someone made about focusing only on the negative... I did say that the IMAX shots are some of the best live action content I've seen)


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15290757
> 
> 
> I can pretty much guarantee you that with a big enough screen and a camera lens of the right magnitude, I could find something wrong with any title. So, do we want to debate and how big a screen and how powerful a lens?
> 
> 
> Whoever wrote the opening paragraph asking us to judge whether there's *too much* noise or enhancement was wise.
> 
> 
> Leave it up to human judgment.
> 
> 
> Humans have managed to do everything else right, why not this?



Well, if we say a title can't go in because of artifacts, then we'd have to remove titles with easily demonstrable artifacts... right?


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

I think all we can do is keep rating titles. I felt sort of bad a while back there when I reviewed Speed Racer and it ended up bringing up some harsh feelings, but I figure the more input the better and even if I did vote for it to be in Tier 1 rather than Tier 0, it didn't get moved and that's fine. If others see it and vote similar, it might get moved down.


The list is constantly evolving since more people come in and express their opinion. I'm happy to read what everyone has to say, and I know everyone is going to see things differently than I do.


If you think things in the top tier need to be reevaluated, do that. Watch the movies and review them. Things might move, things might not, it's a slow process. I plan on watching KB1 & 2 tonight with a friend and I'm curious to see if *I* think they are worthy of the bottom tier 0 placing they already hold, or if I think they look better, or possibly worse.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fanaticalism* /forum/post/15290736
> 
> 
> This thread isn't about my "feelings", but about what the first post of this thread qualifies as "reference".



I hear you. You go by your interpretation, you try to assess accordingly and you try to not violate the terms of the assessment criteria as you interpret them. That shows a lot of integrity. I feel the same way about director's intent. I feel I can usually tell what a director has intended and personally, I would like to give a break to certain titles because I admire either the film, the director, or the intention, but I try to put that aside. Similarly, there are titles for which I don't personally care that I have recommended for tier 0 because I know they have everything needed according to my interpretation of the criteria.



> Quote:
> It is a "reference" BD to *me*, as I stated before, it has elements that set it above the rest for *me*.



Thanks for taking the time to explain -- appreciate it -- helps me understand where you're coming from.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15290443
> 
> 
> Reference was made to the opening paragraphs of the thread. It's true that there are references above the rankings themselves that say "No visible artifacts." However, it is also true that in the opening paragraphs, it says,
> 
> 
> "What you want to look for is the sharpness of detail (does the picture have plenty of depth and pop-out of the screen or does it look real and film-like), color (are they true to reality, especially blues, reds and greens; are blacks black and whites white), and video artifacts (is the picture bobbed or is there *too much* noise and edge enhancement."
> 
> 
> So, what I gather from this is that we are to look for suitability as demo material, to look *for* qualities like plenty of depth, 3D, detail, sharpness, etc. Looking for the ultimate in what Blu-Ray has to offer. I would submit that in addition to high resolution, excellent cinematography is need to achieve this kind of depth. I also interpret that the OP wants you to judge whether *too much* noise and edge enhancement, which is a judgment call. There are all kinds of ways to sharpen a picture and many different levels of sharpening, so IMO, one has to come to an opinion on how much is too much, how much it takes to render the picture too soft, how much robs the picture of its depth, etc. This is all subjective. Personally, I don't want to see this boiled down to a binary process so simplistic that all one need to do is post a screen grab of a still shot with what appears to be ringing along with a lot of anecdotal observations in order to override the rest of the membership. I've seen the result of that kind of process in the other threads -- it sets people up to do nothing more than hunt for artifacts, real or imagined. IMO, we already have enough threads like that and I don't want to see this thread go that way, nor do I believe it should or will.
> 
> 
> All that needs to happen is everyone give his or her opinion, report what he or she sees and make his or her recommendation.
> 
> 
> Then, the moderator sorts it all out and assigns a rank.
> 
> 
> This is the way it's working and Super Slow does a great job of sorting and ranking; just to prove it; neither side is completely happy.
> 
> 
> Everyone gets to weigh in, we hear from more people, and the votes of those who are made miserable by the tiniest artifact are not given more weight than those who've spent countless hours watching and evaluating Blu-Rays, who may also have the ability to spot artifacts, but who are slightly more tolerant -- I submit that these people, too, represent very picky videophiles, bring a wealth of experience, and should be represented.



I will say that you have done a very admirable job in making your case, sir. What do you do for a living?










In the end, I still disagree with it, and think that when it comes to Tier 0 we can use both subjective and objective factors, but I respect what you have said here.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15290444
> 
> 
> I used the back down to earth phrase, because this film alone and all it entails immediately elevates it for almost everyone in terms of story, acting, PQ and AQ. I used the phrase, because the last two months we have had many more contributors to this thread. I used the phrase because I do think too many are wanting and rushing to claim tier 0 recommendation on a title and they don't seem to be doing more than one viewing of it. Some recommended Indy 4 for tier 0 and I watched it several times and pointed out in my posts with time stamps several serious issues with it that are noticeable on my 60 in display. There is no way INDY 4 is tier 0 not with those obvious issues.
> 
> 
> The motion blur or smearing and the two poor or noticeable changes from the imax to 35mm footage is the reason I know I cannot recommend tier 0, but overall the PQ was close to flawless. Then we have the issue of ringing and although I don't see it or ding the film for that many are seeing the halos. I would still say it is demo or reference, but that doesn't mean it is flawless. I say all of this after having seen Prince Caspian which is flawless, and I do think it is a full tier above DK.
> 
> *Ok, people. Let's be honest.*
> 
> 
> How many of you who voted tier 0 thinking this is one of the best if not the best film of the year? How many thought the action, plot and cinematography made it one of the best films of the year? How many just simply love Batman?
> 
> How many of those recommending tier 0 were blown away by the overall experience therefore having some influence in the recommendation for tier 0. I know it can work both ways as some maybe negatively influenced in terms of recommending PQ for a film, but I am asking the tier 0 group to tell us how they think about the film. Don't you think if you really loved DK and the genre and it gets good reviews to reaffirm, that your placement or wanting it to be tier 0 is a little influenced? I am not saying anyone is ignoring PQ issues, but I am saying there maybe some bias.
> 
> 
> And Rob is right I mean no disrespect to anyone. If I come across that way I apologize. I just think the hype in general over this title helps elevate it to out of this world status. One, it is Batman. Two Heath Ledger dies. Ledger is now most likely up for and will win an oscar. Hollywood video by me opened up at midnite to 1:00 am just for DK. Thats a little over the top for even this type of film. You know what I mean?



Quite simply: I think you are not giving people here enough credit.


You are basically accusing people who think this should be Tier 0 of having that opinion merely because they think the movie itself is great? I don't think that is fair.


I thought it was the best movie I have seen in probably a year, but no Tier 0 from me.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15290904
> 
> 
> Well, if we say a title can't go in because of artifacts, then we'd have to remove titles with easily demonstrable artifacts... right?



Why you!!!!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15290845
> 
> 
> What do you make of the fact that Robert Harris called TDK gorgeous in every way and that is is demo material you can show to believers and non-believers alike?
> 
> 
> Read the threads over there -- it is exactly like you describe. Harris is a pro, can obviously spot artifacts, and calls TDK reference material. That tells me that this is all just a matter of opinion.



Mr. Harris was not giving his opinion based on a "Tier Thread" either. If he did, would he put it in Tier 0 despite the fact that he does mention "digititus" showing up in some scenes? Not if he believes that the "digititus" constitutes artifacts, and he goes by the letter of the law regarding requirements for Tier 0!


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15290945
> 
> 
> What do you do for a living?



I work in the PR department at Warner Brothers. Kidding!!!! 


If you're wondering if I am a lawyer. I'm not. You need more than two years of college to do that kind of work!



> Quote:
> In the end, I still disagree with it, and think that when it comes to Tier 0 we can use both subjective and objective factors, but I respect what you have said here.



Thanks -- that's all I ever wanted. Joking aside, I appreciate your comments, too, but I already complimented you last night, so I've got to hold back a little today.


Someday, I am going to have to learn how to use the smilies. I'm just putting it off as long as possible.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15290996
> 
> 
> Mr. Harris was not giving his opinion based on a "Tier Thread" either. If he did, would he put it in Tier 0 despite the fact that he does mention "digititus" showing up in some scenes?



Yes. Yes, he would. I'm sure of it.



> Quote:
> Not if he believes that the "digititus" constitutes artifacts, and he goes by the letter of the law regarding requirements for Tier 0!



Yeah, but I'm pretty sure he would read the opening paragraphs and interpret them as I do. Now, look what we're doing, we're both reading the same Robert Harris comments and drawing different conclusions. It never stops!


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15290845
> 
> 
> What do you make of the fact that Robert Harris called TDK gorgeous in every way and that is is demo material you can show to believers and non-believers alike?
> 
> 
> Read the threads over there -- it is exactly like you describe. Harris is a pro, can obviously spot artifacts, and calls TDK reference material. That tells me that this is all just a matter of opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's cool. We need more of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I feel the same way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about Caspian. It has grain intact and yet, to my eye, there is some weird softness that begins to disappear as the film unfolds, getting more and more clear, with grain still intact.
> 
> 
> But, also, a quick visit to the screen grab forum reveals that a poster over there has already pronounced Caspian film-like and reference, so all these people running over here to proclaim Caspian reference and preferable to TDK, is it real or just more people responding to peer pressure. You say you are a devil's advocate over there, but your opinions very closely mirror those I find over there. I trust that you just happened to come to similar conclusions, but.......you know. I'm just sayin'....




I am laughing with you on the last sentences...No way in hell do I let those pics, or opinions really influence what I see or believe I am seeing. I am too arrogant, opinionated and more so stubborn to allow that. If you check my post history and ask a few in this thread where I stand you will see what I am saying is true. For example, *I got permanently banned from the Baraka thread* and that was right before the actual pro who was involved with doing the transfer came into that thread and said NO EE was used.. Darn! I think he then left and never returned when the "experts" said he was wrong. Sheesh. The guy worked on the damn thing and knew exactly what he did and erroneous claims were still made. That is what I mean when I said many times, that type of mentality does a disservice to AVS and does nothing to promote HD, Home theatre and BD, but instead is a detriment to them.


I spent over an hour in that DK comparison thread with movieswede and I think Davemack and discussing and debating EE with both who both see the halos/ringing from EE and I don't see them. I finally thought about getting closer to my set to see if I could see them and I did, but at two feet away!







No worries there as I will never sit that close. Since I didn't see them and I since there is no definitive professional proof of using EE I called BS, but then the proof was shown.


Rob Tomlin has also more often than not questioned some PQ anomalies some are seeing and saying some of it might be chromatic aberrations. With my own skeptical thinking and seeing those posts questioning like Rob's, who by the way works with or knows about photography and graphics software, I tend to call into question if what some are seeing is what they say it is or are they just following the crowd and making that claim.


One thing I have learned from those like Davemack is once you train yourself to notice halos there is no going back according to him as you really notice them. I have no desire for that what so ever.


Again, none of this is all or nothing nor does it have to be, but I can only speak for myself.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15291066
> 
> 
> the actual pro who was involved with doing the transfer came into that thread and said NO EE was used.



Are you sure he worked on the actual film? I don't remember reading that, but then again, I mostly skimmed the thread.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15290945
> 
> 
> I will say that you have done a very admirable job in making your case, sir. What do you do for a living?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the end, I still disagree with it, and think that when it comes to Tier 0 we can use both subjective and objective factors, but I respect what you have said here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite simply: I think you are not giving people here enough credit.
> 
> 
> You are basically accusing people who think this should be Tier 0 of having that opinion merely because they think the movie itself is great? I don't think that is fair.
> 
> 
> I thought it was the best movie I have seen in probably a year, but no Tier 0 from me.




I am not accusing people of voting tier 0 based on the movie itself being great, but I am saying it liking a movie or not does tend to influence us.

I said it that way and it came out that way, but I really don't mean it like that. In post #7740 I said this which is what I really am trying to say:


And to qualify my statement earlier. What I meant was for anyone really with any title. Does the quality of the film acting, action, sound, etc possibly influence us to some extent in what we "see" and recommending PQ? I think many times it can for both positive and negative PQ assessments. This is why I watch a film at least two times and scan it just for PQ the third time to see if I was biased and really into the film or not.


Like Angelina's ass in Wanted. How was the PQ is that scene guys?


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15291082
> 
> 
> Are you sure he worked on the actual film? I don't remember reading that, but then again, I mostly skimmed the thread.




It probably got deleted or he got banned.


----------



## Ozymandis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/15287022
> 
> 
> It would be great to welcome back another veteran poster like Brandon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Wall-E*
> 
> 
> Reference PQ while on Earth despite being dirty, scorched and dusty but when inside the Axiom the image simply didn't look three dimensional, especially due to the over polished looking interiors. We all know that the soft film-like appearance is what the film crew had intended but from an eye candy perspective, Wall-E, unfortunately doesn't deserve to be in placed Tier-0 due to the pervasive softness



If we're punishing movies for softness in the sources (and I don't think that's unfair necessarily), then Speed Racer should not be in Tier 0 because that movie seemed me to lack a lot of detail period.


Wall-E is certainly Tier 0. Is it top of the tier, like Ratatouille, Cars, or Kung Fu Panda? No. But it's still gorgeous, absolutely true to source, and a nice piece of demo material.


Hell, Apocalypto has scenes that are better demo material than probably half of Tier 0 if not 75% but don't get me started on where I disagree with some of the current placements


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15291096
> 
> 
> I am not accusing people of voting tier 0 based on the movie itself being great, but I am saying it liking a movie or not does tend to influence us.
> 
> I said it that way and it came out that way, but I really don't mean it like that. In post #7740 I said this which is what I really am trying to say:
> 
> 
> And to qualify my statement earlier. What I meant was for anyone really with any title. Does the quality of the film acting, action, sound, etc possibly influence us to some extent in what we "see" and recommending PQ? I think many times it can for both positive and negative PQ assessments. This is why I watch a film at least two times and scan it just for PQ the third time to see if I was biased and really into the film or not.
> 
> 
> Like Angelina's ass in Wanted. How was the PQ is that scene guys?



Thanks Hugh.


You literally made me laugh out loud with that last sentence!


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15291066
> 
> 
> I am laughing with you on the last sentences...



Excellent!



> Quote:
> Since I didn't see them and I since there is no definitive professional proof of using EE I called BS, but then the proof was shown.



That's cool and I get that part of the hobby. I really do. But, I can't think of anything more boring than dueling screen caps and I hope we don't get into that over here. I'd rather we each write our own reviews, try to discuss these titles amicably, debate them as best we can given our limitations and at the end of the day let god -- or Super Slow -- sort it all out.


I guess the motto on my money should read,


"In Super Slow I trust."



> Quote:
> Again, none of this is all or nothing nor does it have to be, but I can only speak for myself.



Cool.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ozymandis* /forum/post/15291249
> 
> 
> If we're punishing movies for softness in the sources (and I don't think that's unfair necessarily), then Speed Racer should not be in Tier 0 because that movie seemed me to lack a lot of detail period.
> 
> 
> Wall-E is certainly Tier 0. Is it top of the tier, like Ratatouille, Cars, or Kung Fu Panda? No. But it's still gorgeous, absolutely true to source, and a nice piece of demo material.
> 
> 
> Hell, Apocalypto has scenes that are better demo material than probably half of Tier 0 if not 75% but don't get me started on where I disagree with some of the current placements



Did I hear Apocalypto mentioned? My ears were ringing. Now your talking.











To this day even with owning several top tier 0 titles and ones that are impressive like Hellboy2, if I want to impress anyone, I just put in Apocalypto and let the boar scene do its thing. Trust me. That alone sucks people into not wanting to stop watching even when they have said they have to go, I can't seem to get rid of them.







But that train has long left the station...onward.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Sleeping Beauty*


Tier Recommendation: ZERO!


I watched this incredible Blu-ray disc last night. I put this in my player at 10:30, thinking I would just get an idea of what it looked like, and watch the entire movie the next day. I was so mesmerized by the PQ of this title, there was no way that I was going to turn it off!


What a fantastic looking picture. I was almost giddy while watching this. There is just a beautiful "glow" to the picture, perhaps due to the use of hand-inked cels combined with the Super Technirama 70 process.


In many ways I really prefer this style of animation over the current generation of CGI created films.


This is pure art, at it's best! The detail in the backgrounds is great. The color is fantastic...again, especially with the glow effect.


I give this title my highest recommendation, and I am very happy to see that this title already resides in Tier 0, despite the fact that it was made in the 1950s.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15291112
> 
> 
> It probably got deleted or he got banned.



Well either way, I certainly hope people don't just give the pro's a free pass. They are the ones putting out these flawed transfers, after all. The day I can't make a perfectly halo-less 8k to 1080p downscale in photoshop is the day I'll buy into that excuse


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15291096
> 
> 
> Like Angelina's ass in Wanted. How was the PQ is that scene guys?



When I get my copy of American Psycho from Australia I will ensure that I provide a detailed and accurate PQ analysis of the first 5-10 minutes of that film.


----------



## djoberg

Well, I missed a couple of days of posts while in Minneapolis, but after reading them I concluded this thread is becoming more like a Soap Opera....in other words, you can miss a couple of days and still get right back on track.










Seriously though, even though I'm a dyed-in-the-wool advocate of Tier 0 for TDK, I'm ready to move on. As I stated in a previous post, I'm not going to lose any sleep because it's been placed in Tier 1 (even though it was in placed there erroneously







.....back off guys, I'm just kidding!).


I do want to offer a short word in defense of Hugh...I've followed his posts in several threads and I've always found him to be a "voice of reason" and "unbiased" (except for his recent assessment of TDK....again, only kidding







), so I give him the benefit of the doubt on the comments he made about "down to earth."


Before I close, I found Rob's (oh...welcome back Rob, good to have you back) recent review of Sleeping Beauty interesting. I have the title, but I haven't watched it yet. So, he has whetted my appetite for it and with a blizzard underway up here in the good old Upper Midwest, I may just watch that along with a couple of other titles tomorrow.


----------



## b_scott

Just watched Wall-E, Horton Hears a Who, and Star Wars - Clone Wars all in the past two days.


All amazing BLU tier, place at the top where you like







Pio 5010, Pio 51-FD, 9 feet back.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15291393
> 
> 
> Well either way, I certainly hope people don't just give the pro's a free pass. They are the ones putting out these flawed transfers, after all. The day I can't make a perfectly halo-less 8k to 1080p downscale in photoshop is the day I'll buy into that excuse



We don't or shouldn't get into this over here, but if someone who is confirmed to be a pro and worked on the transfer says emphatically they did or didn't do something I would take his word even over some photos showing "proof" on the net. When you, I or anyone that are lay people think they KNOW better than the ones in the industry who actually do the work, than we have issues that negatively impact this forum, BD and Home Theatre, particularly for new adopters who might take the "experts" word over the real pro, just because the experts are more vocal. The real pros have no agenda really and nothing to prove except to better their craft. I don't mean pro reviewers by the way as our opinions are as valid.










Sadly I have been to a few different forums where the inside pros do post and they don't speak highly of those threads or AVS with regards to our "experts", so they, the pros don't come here anymore.







IMO we can be a lot more tolerant and a lot less critical.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15291768
> 
> 
> Well, I missed a couple of days of posts while in Minneapolis, but after reading them I concluded this thread is becoming more like a Soap Opera....in other words, you can miss a couple of days and still get right back on track.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously though, even though I'm a dyed-in-the-wool advocate of Tier 0 for TDK, I'm ready to move on. As I stated in a previous post, I'm not going to lose any sleep because it's been placed in Tier 1 (even though it was in placed there erroneously
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .....back off guys, I'm just kidding!).
> 
> 
> I do want to offer a short word in defense of Hugh...I've followed his posts in several threads and I've always found him to be a "voice of reason" and "unbiased" (except for his recent assessment of TDK....again, only kidding
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ), so I give him the benefit of the doubt on the comments he made about "down to earth."
> 
> 
> Before I close, I found Rob's (oh...welcome back Rob, good to have you back) recent review of Sleeping Beauty interesting. I have the title, but I haven't watched it yet. So, he has whetted my appetite for it and with a blizzard underway up here in the good old Upper Midwest, I may just watch that along with a couple of other titles tomorrow.



Thanks, djoberg, I do appreciate the kinds words. In defense of virtually everyone in this thread I think we have a very tolerant group contributing and the participation in here has been off the charts for the better has it not?


djoberg, as far as DK, I did watch it again and it really does look fabulous, just you know where I stand besides on two feet.


----------



## dolphinfan4194

This site is usually very reputable at placing Blu ray movies at appporximately where they should be on PQ.


That is what I thought....


I can not believe that *The Dark Knight* is not in *upper tier 0*.


HighDefDigest rank it in the top 6, (second best non animated film to I Robot) and Blu-Ray.com rank it in the top 16.(right next to cars).


I uses to come here for DVD recommendations first, but I have to say that now I will be going to other sites first, and then come here. Other sites just seem to have it right.


Some Quotes on TDK from reputable sites and professional reviewers:


"Above all, the tremendous definition and delineation within dark areas of the screen push the picture of The Dark Knight all the way to reference quality." (Blu-Ray.com)


"I found no artifacts, such as aliasing or pixelization -- the edge enhancement, if slight, is clearly visible in longer shots (such as the parade sequence). It is the only element of this presentation that deserves any knocks, though hardly a fatal flaw. In all other respects, 'The Dark Knight' is a stunner." (HighDefDeigest)


"This is one spectacular looking Blu-ray, not the least because of the unbelievable sharpness and depth of field of the IMAX sequences. The Dark Knight is a marvel of detail and rich, glorious black levels. For a film as purposefully dark as this one, colors are amazingly well saturated, with top-notch contrast." (DVDTalk)


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15291696
> 
> 
> When I get my copy of American Psycho from Australia I will ensure that I provide a detailed and accurate PQ analysis of the first 5-10 minutes of that film.



That is one title I acquired through the five free BD deal when purchasing a PS3.


Let me guess, our Batman guy prances around butt naked.







I watched it, but really didn't focus much on that part.


I will have to see if my twin 17 year old daughters watch it more than once, seeing they fell for Bale in the Newsies movie.







FOr a laugh check him out in Newsies singing and dancing no less.










For the record Angelina and her butt did zero to influence my recommendation for tier placement for Wanted.







If that was her?, for some reason she doesn't do much for me, but I digress.


Bale really is a phenomenal actor. Check him out in The Machinist. He did that film just prior to Batman begins and lost one third of his entire body weight and then had to bulk up and work out for BB. Serious dedication there as he was literally concentration camp look and weight in the Machinist.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dolphinfan4194* /forum/post/15291979
> 
> 
> This site is usually very reputable at placing Blu ray movies at appporximately where they should be on PQ.
> 
> 
> That is what I thought....
> 
> 
> I can not believe that *The Dark Knight* is not in *upper tier 0*.
> 
> 
> HighDefDigest rank it in the top 6, (second best non animated film to I Robot) and Blu-Ray.com rank it in the top 16.(right next to cars).
> 
> 
> I can name other countless sites as well that would disagree with the assessment of TDK here, but will not.
> 
> 
> I uses to come here for DVD recommendations first, but I have to say that now I will be going to other sites first, and then come here. Other sites just seem to have it right.



well, then I'll make sure to avoid those sites like the plague








http://www.hdimage.org/images/xf0lze...inowh_dk10.png This is just below I Robot? Really


----------



## Hughmc

Another thought I had and it has been discussed but maybe needs more focus, pun intended.


Do the 35mm scenes really look that bad or do they really just look "worse" when seen back to back with the Imax shots? I am not knocking anyone's opinion or what they are seeing in the 35mm shots, but in life there are examples or analogies that can be made in comparison.


example: Paint colors or colors in general look one way unless they are contrasted with another color side by side and then they can look lighter or darker or more or less colorful.


example: When I pour coffee into a mug and add cream, the color sure looks darker in a white or light cup then when it is in a darker cup.


example: When I put on those corny looking cardboard 3D glasses for a few minutes and then look at real grass, it looks weird and different in color and contrast, because the glasses have temporarily acclimated my eyes to those colors the glasses have when viewed through them. The grass hasn't changed color, but *my eyes have changed perception of the color* due to contrast of the 3D glasses.


example: Most often I dress in jean, shorts or tshirts for my work since my business is landscaping. Most often the places I go like banks, they seem me dress and look the same day in and day out. There have been a couple of times where I where a suit or dress "nicely" and the attention and comments I get are nice, but quite frankly BS. They say things like you clean up well and look good in a suit. I am not saying they in their opinion aren't right







as I do "look better", but really, do I really look better or just different. I mean really I look the same everything else besides the clothes being equal, but as the saying goes the clothes do make the person.










If I ever do come into millions and am well off someday I will dress average to poor just to screw with people and vanity.











It really is human nature and the psychology of the brain and the way we see things that make comparisons what they are. If you have something as stunning as the Imax shots, they could make normally excellent PQ shots look average.


I didn't see any ringing in the Imax shots or for that matter at all, but I did see motion blur in those Imax shots where I didn't with the 35mm shots.


Again, I am not taking away or trying to change anyone's opinion by saying the above, I am simply saying the great looking Imax shots can make those relatively good 35 mm shots look worse by default of them running back to back. That doesn't change or take away from the fact some are seeing ringing or other PQ issues.


----------



## zinfamous




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15291943
> 
> 
> We don't or shouldn't get into this over here, *but if someone who is confirmed to be a pro and worked on the transfer says emphatically they did or didn't do something I would take his word even over some photos showing "proof" on the net. When you, I or anyone that are lay people think they KNOW better than the ones in the industry who actually do the work, than we have issues that negatively impact this forum, BD and Home Theatre, particularly for new adopters who might take the "experts" word over the real pro, just because the experts are more vocal.* The real pros have no agenda really and nothing to prove except to better their craft. I don't mean pro reviewers by the way as our opinions are as valid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly I have been to a few different forums where the inside pros do post and they don't speak highly of those threads or AVS with regards to our "experts", so they, the pros don't come here anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMO we can be a lot more tolerant and a lot less critical.



yep


----------



## Mick47

Solid Tier 0, excellent pq all the way through. The black level detail was just outstanding. In that area I have not seen better. If Kill Bill 1 & 2 are Tier 0 (which I have both, and Baraka as well as other Tier 0) then DK is a step above KB1 & 2.


----------



## Fanaticalism




> Quote:
> *Originally posted by Hughmc* With my own skeptical thinking and seeing those posts questioning like Rob's, who by the way works with or knows about photography and graphics software, I tend to call into question if what some are seeing is what they say it is or are they just following the crowd and making that claim.




Hugh, as I have mentioned before, I chimed in with my thoughts well before anyone here in this thread. I also noted the scenes (batcave) where I saw additional sharpening, which to my knowledge, were never ever mentioned Xylons thread. Soon after, a few others chimed in saying that those scenes also bothered them.


So, because I can see the EE, that means that I am simply following suit, even though those scenes were never mentioned, and I posted well before anyone else?


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fanaticalism* /forum/post/15292418
> 
> 
> Hugh, as I have mentioned before, I chimed in with my thoughts well before anyone here in this thread. I also noted the scenes (batcave) where I saw additional sharpening, which to my knowledge, were never ever mentioned Xylons thread. Soon after, a few others chimed in saying that those scenes also bothered them.
> 
> 
> So, because I can see the EE, that means that I am simply following suit, even though those scenes were never mentioned, and I posted well before anyone else?



No, I was asking a question if SOME are possibly doing that and I should have put a question mark at the end of that sentence instead of making like it is a statement of fact. Really I admit it looks like it is an inflammatory comment and I should not have put it in and it should be left alone.










My apologies to anyone.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15292280
> 
> 
> Another thought I had and it has been discussed but maybe needs more focus, pun intended.
> 
> 
> Do the 35mm scenes really look that bad or do they really just look "worse" when seen back to back with the Imax shots? I am not knocking anyone's opinion or what they are seeing in the 35mm shots, but in life there are examples or analogies that can be made in comparison.
> 
> 
> example: Paint colors or colors in general look one way unless they are contrasted with another color side by side and then they can look lighter or darker or more or less colorful.
> 
> 
> example: When I pour coffee into a mug and add cream, the color sure looks darker in a white or light cup then when it is in a darker cup.
> 
> 
> example: When I put on those corny looking cardboard 3D glasses for a few minutes and then look at real grass, it looks weird and different in color and contrast, because the glasses have temporarily acclimated my eyes to those colors the glasses have when viewed through them. The grass hasn't changed color, but *my eyes have changed perception of the color* due to contrast of the 3D glasses.
> 
> 
> example: Most often I dress in jean, shorts or tshirts for my work since my business is landscaping. Most often the places I go like banks, they seem me dress and look the same day in and day out. There have been a couple of times where I where a suit or dress "nicely" and the attention and comments I get are nice, but quite frankly BS. They say things like you clean up well and look good in a suit. I am not saying they in their opinion aren't right
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as I do "look better", but really, do I really look better or just different. I mean really I look the same everything else besides the clothes being equal, but as the saying goes the clothes do make the person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I ever do come into millions and am well off someday I will dress average to poor just to screw with people and vanity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It really is human nature and the psychology of the brain and the way we see things that make comparisons what they are. If you have something as stunning as the Imax shots, they could make normally excellent PQ shots look average.
> 
> 
> I didn't see any ringing in the Imax shots or for that matter at all, but I did see motion blur in those Imax shots where I didn't with the 35mm shots.
> 
> 
> Again, I am not taking away or trying to change anyone's opinion by saying the above, I am simply saying the great looking Imax shots can make those relatively good 35 mm shots look worse by default of them running back to back. That doesn't change or take away from the fact some are seeing ringing or other PQ issues.




I think you are on to something with this. As I said in my review, some of those IMAX shots were considerably above anything I have seen in my HT as far as live action shots. I realy think it is more that the IMAX shots look that good as compared to the 35mm shots looking bad overall (of course there is still the EE issues that bother some so much).



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15291943
> 
> 
> We don't or shouldn't get into this over here, but if someone who is confirmed to be a pro and worked on the transfer says emphatically they did or didn't do something I would take his word even over some photos showing "proof" on the net. When you, I or anyone that are lay people think they KNOW better than the ones in the industry who actually do the work, than we have issues that negatively impact this forum, BD and Home Theatre, particularly for new adopters who might take the "experts" word over the real pro, just because the experts are more vocal. The real pros have no agenda really and nothing to prove except to better their craft. I don't mean pro reviewers by the way as our opinions are as valid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly I have been to a few different forums where the inside pros do post and they don't speak highly of those threads or AVS with regards to our "experts", so they, the pros don't come here anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMO we can be a lot more tolerant and a lot less critical.



Well said Hugh, and agreed 100%.







I have also seen the non favorable talk so to speak from insiders on other forums about are so called "pros". There is a point some of our "pros" need to take a step back IMO and humble themselves a bit.


----------



## Ozymandis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15291321
> 
> 
> Did I hear Apocalypto mentioned? My ears were ringing. Now your talking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To this day even with owning several top tier 0 titles and ones that are impressive like Hellboy2, if I want to impress anyone, I just put in Apocalypto and let the boar scene do its thing. Trust me. That alone sucks people into not wanting to stop watching even when they have said they have to go, I can't seem to get rid of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that train has long left the station...onward.



Ya I know people argued and argued about that forever but it's still got to be said. Also, the temple scene, wow. I too got a bunch of titles listed as Tier 0 but Apocalypto is at times better than most of 'em. If only it were more consistent










I asked this earlier in the thread but didn't get a response- why was Persepolis moved down from Tier 0?


----------



## Shane Martin

I think we should stop trying to beat the dead horse and move on with ranking films. In the end, I think given the vast array of opinions it works out in the end. Credit to Superslow who has to wade thru the various opinions and find a middle ground. Given the number of Tier 0 and Tier 1 and 2 rankings for TDK, I think he was being quite fair giving it a Tier 1 rating. It's a fair middle ground to everyone.


Can we all agree to disagree and move on? That way we can get back to ranking films instead of going round and round and never solving the issue. The endless debate gets tiring on everyone. At some point, we just need to bury the hatchet.


----------



## Shane Martin

On to a score...

I watched Step Brothers tonight in it's unrated form. I won't mention the movie but I will say I wholeheartedly agree with rsbeck's score on this.


Title: *Step Brothers Unrated*

My ranking: *Tier 2.5*


Panasonic 9UK Plasma

PS3

8-9 feet away.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/15292548
> 
> 
> I have also seen the non favorable talk so to speak from insiders on other forums about are so called "pros". There is a point some of our "pros" need to take a step back IMO and humble themselves a bit.



I couldn't agree more.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Well hey guys...been gone a few days and the debate is still raging about TDK huh?










Welcome back Robby!


On a new note, has anyone picked up the Band of Brother's box set yet?


----------



## lgans316

*Zulu (UK Import) Video: AVC | Audio: DD | AR: 2.25:1 | Paramount

Rendition (UK) Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | EIV*


The above Tier-0 BDs are said to have moderate to major application of DNR.









*Incredible Hulk, The Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Universal*


Please change video encode from VC-1 to AVC.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15291943
> 
> *We don't or shouldn't get into this over here, but if someone who is confirmed to be a pro and worked on the transfer says emphatically they did or didn't do something I would take his word even over some photos showing "proof" on the net.* When you, I or anyone that are lay people think they KNOW better than the ones in the industry who actually do the work, than we have issues that negatively impact this forum, BD and Home Theatre, particularly for new adopters who might take the "experts" word over the real pro, just because the experts are more vocal. *The real pros have no agenda really and nothing to prove except to better their craft.* I don't mean pro reviewers by the way as our opinions are as valid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly I have been to a few different forums where the inside pros do post and they don't speak highly of those threads or AVS with regards to our "experts", so they, the pros don't come here anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMO we can be a lot more tolerant and a lot less critical.



Based on quotes from authoritative sources, it appears that sharpening was applied in the production of the IMAX version of TDK.


So, it is theoretically possible that someone who was involved in the encoding of the BD could come on here or some other forum and say that no sharpening was applied during the encoding, and that could be true and yet not be inconsistent with there being sharpeing in the BD, since it may have come in earlier in the processing chain.


In addition, the sentiment that "insiders" never have an agenda is naive.


----------



## Hammie

Rob and rsbeck,


Thanks for the clarification.


On some posts (that I cannot locate right now), it seemed some consider softness when the background is out of focus. I personally do not consider this soft if the main item on the scene has a sharp focus.


This out of focus background is called bokeh. Bokeh is influenced by the aperture of the lens being used. As a hobby photographer, a good bokeh is always well received. Now it does have its time and place since it can add or distract from a scene.


I'm hoping to start offering up some reviews but I am waiting on my new set to arrive. Hopefully, I will be getting it this week.


----------



## Shane Martin




> Quote:
> The above Tier-0 BDs are said to have moderate to major application of DNR



rsbeck reviewed it and mentioned he didn't see any dnr. That's the only review currently here.


----------



## Shane Martin

*Dr Seuss's Horton Hears a Who*


I watched Dr Seuss's Horton Hears a Who last night. I have to say this looks breathtaking. I don't think it looks quite as good as Kung Fu Panda but it's awful close. When you read the description of Tier 0, it applies here in spades.


My score: *Tier 0 right below Meet the Robinsons*


Panasonic 9UK Plasma

PS3 via HDMI

8-9 feet back


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15293576
> 
> 
> Based on quotes from authoritative sources, it appears that sharpening was applied in the production of the IMAX version of TDK.
> 
> 
> So, it is theoretically possible that someone who was involved in the encoding of the BD could come on here or some other forum and say that no sharpening was applied during the encoding, and that could be true and yet not be inconsistent with there being sharpeing in the BD, since it may have come in earlier in the processing chain.
> 
> 
> In addition, the sentiment that "insiders" never have an agenda is naive.



Exactly Patrick.


And especially for purposes of this thread, does it really matter where in the chain it was added, or what they call it? If the issues are there, we rank the title accordingly based on how bothersome/intrusive they are to us.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15293515
> 
> 
> 
> On a new note, has anyone picked up the Band of Brother's box set yet?



I've got it, but haven't watched yet.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Shane Martin* /forum/post/15294498
> 
> 
> rsbeck reviewed it and mentioned he didn't see any dnr.



I would not say that I can be certain there is no DNR employed in Zulu. I said it wouldn't surprise me if Zulu raised similar controversy to Baraka. There are some faces that appear waxy, just like in Baraka. I recommended Zulu for bottom quarter of tier 0. Currently, though it was moved down a little, it is still higher than I would put it.


----------



## b_scott

Narnia: Caspian - watching now. Definite film grain obvious throughout. Motion is good though. Definitely bottom Blu tier IMO. Very sharpy and crazy 3D pop. Not too many dark scenes yet, but light scenes look amazing.


----------



## 5mark




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15290334
> 
> 
> The more people who participate in this thread the better. I was glad to see 5mark post his comments, even though he has a crappy projector.



Well patrick99 put out a call for more 1xSW viewers to voice their opinions. So I thought I should chime in, even with my crappy projector.







(BTW, it's been Lumagen HDP calibrated, so there!)










Sitting close is definitely a trade off at times since softness and artifacts are more noticeable. But it can be breathtaking with a really great transfer.


Here's a couple I'd like to see re-placed:

*Spiderman 3: Middle of tier 0*

I'm not a huge fan of the color palette, but the majority of this title is very sharp and detailed while staying clean and filmlike. A small amount of fine film grain keeps it looking natural most of the time. It has great blacks and plenty of eye candy and 3D pop. The Peter/Harry air battle and the final battle are two of the most gorgeous dark scenes I've ever seen.

*Fantastic Four 2: lower tier 0*

This title takes my breath away in countless scenes by looking as sharp as I can possibly imagine while staying natural and filmlike. Some transfers make it seem like my projector actually has more resolution than it does and this is one of them. There is a little inconsistency at times, but overall a very demo worthy title.

*The Patriot: Tier 2.5?*

Admittedly it's been awhile, but the main thing I took away from this one was it was the most EE/ringing I'd seen on a BD at the time. Any thoughts on moving this down?


----------



## quake1028

A couple of quickie ratings, will add some more detailed comments in later.

*The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian*

After watching both, I would certainly use TDK over this as a demo, and I think that film looks markedly better than this one, even though they are great transfers, and great (TDK) and very good (Caspian) movies to boot.
*Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.00*

*Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery*

Wow. I'm sure this film has never looked so good. The color palette lends itself nicely to BD, but there are some things I never wanted to see in such great resolution (Austin's teeth).
*Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.75*

*The Day the Earth Stood Still*

Gorgeous, crisp black and white transfer. This has never looked better, either, and it's one of the best restorations I've ever seen, but it still falls quite a bit behind Casablanca, to these eyes.
*Tier Recommendation: Tier 2.25*

*Panny TH-42PZ800U 1080p

PS3 through HDMI

4.5 ft*


----------



## zinfamous




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hammie* /forum/post/15294355
> 
> 
> Rob and rsbeck,
> 
> 
> Thanks for the clarification.
> 
> 
> On some posts (that I cannot locate right now), it seemed some consider softness when the background is out of focus. I personally do not consider this soft if the main item on the scene has a sharp focus.
> 
> 
> This out of focus background is called bokeh. Bokeh is influenced by the aperture of the lens being used. As a hobby photographer, a good bokeh is always well received. Now it does have its time and place since it can add or distract from a scene.
> 
> 
> I'm hoping to start offering up some reviews but I am waiting on my new set to arrive. Hopefully, I will be getting it this week.



I think bokeh is pretty well-understood around these parts, but I know what you mean. It seems a lot of reviewers here ignore a lot of well-established techniques of film when it comes to their reviews.


I believe what people refer to as "3 D pop" is bokeh. Then again, a lot of this "3 D pop" now falls into the unfavorable realm, as it seems to be evidence of "EE." Ironically, it seems that those would complain about soft backgrounds would also complain about digital processing--which lends itself to a collapsed background. Both preferences conflict with each other, of course.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15297721
> 
> *Zulu*
> 
> 
> Just watched it again. Watching it now, with some judicial pausing, I really cannot defend my original review. I am still not altogether positive that the facial waxiness is not due to make-up -- BUT -- by pausing, I was able to isolate a few frames where, in a brief scene, an actor's face exhibited none of the waxiness. Instead you could see his pores, more like the better blu-rays I have seen recently. In those frames, you can also see a lot more texture in his uniform, which shows how much detail is missing in the rest of the film. Whether the rest of the actors are wearing unfortunate make-up, as I once believed, or it is DNR, it is a lack of detail and now I see it even in landscapes. Many of the landscape shots look like the ones I have seen recently in films like There Will Be Blood or No Country For Old Men where detail is missing because of desaturated colors for mood effect, except the colors are not desaturated. There is also quite a bit of obnoxious ringing. Don't know what to say, except I blew it on that one. When you stone me, I just ask that you go easy around my face and head. My mother has requested an open casket.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 4*



Oh man, you're not going to believe this but based on your original recommendation of Tier 0 I ordered 20 copies to give to some of my friends and relatives this holiday season!







Just kidding, of course.










I am surprised though at the leap....from Tier 0 to Tier 4. Was it really that bad after a second viewing? At any rate, don't feel bad rsbeck, it's not just women that have the right to change their minds.







No offense Geekyglassesgirl!


I ended up watching the Vikings rout the Arizona Cardinals today so I haven't even watched a movie yet. I have time for one so I think I'll slip in Zulu....uh, I mean Sleeping Beauty.


----------



## b_scott

Yeah.......not having viewed the movie, but going from Tier 0 to Tier 4 - either you're wrong or something is wrong with the grading system. No way could that big of a mistake be made. Unless you changed your criteria.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hammie* /forum/post/15294355
> 
> 
> Rob and rsbeck,
> 
> 
> Thanks for the clarification.
> 
> 
> On some posts (that I cannot locate right now), it seemed some consider softness when the background is out of focus. I personally do not consider this soft if the main item on the scene has a sharp focus.
> 
> 
> This out of focus background is called bokeh. Bokeh is influenced by the aperture of the lens being used. As a hobby photographer, a good bokeh is always well received. Now it does have its time and place since it can add or distract from a scene.
> 
> 
> I'm hoping to start offering up some reviews but I am waiting on my new set to arrive. Hopefully, I will be getting it this week.



Now you may have opened a can of worms and I am curious. Could bokeh cause EE or what seems to be EE? And or is it the use of highlight enhancement, and edge management?

Rob Tomlin mentioned chromatic aberrations before. Might they be what some are seeing and or related to bokeh?


Anyone see EE in these pictures?

http://www.dofpro.com/cgigallery.htm


----------



## b_scott

I love bokeh


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Sublime: Uncut*


tier recommendation: *Tier 4.5*


Warner released this direct-to-video feature to Blu-ray on April 22nd of 2008. The 113-minute movie is encoded in VC-1 on a BD-25 and is a direct port of the video encode from the HD DVD version. I would estimate the average video bitrate at approximately 17 Mbps. The encode ranges from 12 to 29.5 Mbps with a majority of the scenes hovering in a narrower band between 15 and 22 Mbps. This video encode is typical of early Warner compression work on their lesser movies, with some minor posterization and chroma noise. The most disturbing artifact is some macroblocking that appears a couple of times.


As a low budget affair, it looks like this movie was filmed in 16mm. There is a soft and fuzzy quality to this transfer. The very heavy grain structure appears uncompromised and natural with no DNR, though I did notice maybe the slightest of edge enhancement halos once or twice. Much of the image appears little better than dvd with colors surprisingly poor. High frequency information looks average in close-ups but medium and long range shots are frequently obscured and blurry. Darker scenes involving low light and darkness come off very poor, with shadow delineation and fidelity showing the limits of the budget apparently. The image simply looks flat with little depth. There are never really any moments when this BD ever gets better than very low tier three quality.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/15298384
> 
> 
> I love bokeh



'



It seems I do as well and Prince Caspian is loaded with it and so are a some of the other "3D pop" films I have seen lately. It is really noticeable with HD.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

For rsbeck, maybe you should try a thought experiment. If everything about the Zulu Blu-ray was the same but it had no visible DNR, what would your ranking be then? We ran into a similar issue ranking Patton. Outside of the DNR and EE, Patton looks very good to my eyes. I think something like heavy DNR should probably drop a title one or two tiers from its proper ranking without those negatives. I still have not seen the Zulu BD yet so I can not comment on it. We can always give it a compromise ranking and then give it an asterisk.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15298239
> 
> 
> Now you may have opened a can of worms and I am curious. Could bokeh cause EE or what seems to be EE? And or is it the use of highlight enhancement, and edge management?
> 
> Rob Tomlin mentioned chromatic aberrations before. Might they be what some are seeing and or related to bokeh?
> 
> 
> Anyone see EE in these pictures?
> 
> http://www.dofpro.com/cgigallery.htm



This is about the extent of chromatic aberration I see in movies most of the time: if you really squint, you can see hairline red and cyan outlines around the objects contrasting against the sky, though it varies with the lens. http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/711_2_1080p.jpg Admittedly I'm no pro photographer, but I don't know of an optical phenomenon that would cause bright white outlines around edges, unless there's some fibers being backlit on someone's clothes maybe.

With TDK, it's pretty obvious what wasn't the fault of cameras and film, since the trailer doesn't have the glowing outlines like the BD, and looks about as fantastic as a low bitrate internet trailer can look (and if they kept that look and tweaked the contrast a bit, it would've gotten an unreserved tier 0 placement from me... ah, what coulda been







)


----------



## Fanaticalism

*Short Circuit Recommendation Bottom of Tier 4*


I would like to start off by saying, that this film brings back quite a few childhood memories, and definitely puts me in a "happy place".










However, I was not the least impressed with this transfer. There was no grain whatsoever due to the excessive DNR, and I mean excessive! It wasn't one of those situations where only certain portions/characters were "cleaned" up, but the entire film was this way.


The only positive to this film, was that all in all, the majority of the film was in focus, with decent color, and umm... that's about it










Pioneer Elite Pro-151 calibrated by umr

Pioneer Elite BDP-05 set to professional w/ High Speed Transmission "on"

Denon 3808ci set to passthrough

Distance, approximately 9FT


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15290666
> 
> *Day Watch*
> 
> 
> tier recommendation: *Tier 2.75*
> 
> 
> Fox released this 2006 Russian movie to Blu-ray here in the U.S. on September 9th of this year. The 145-minute main feature is encoded in AVC on a BD-50. The average video bitrate is 29.48 Mbps per the BDInfo scan. The video encode ranges between 11 Mbps to peaks nearing 40 Mbps, with most scenes constantly hovering in the 30's. The high video bitrates are needed for this transfer as the source film appears very grainy and noisy at times. I would not call it a perfect encode compared to some others I have seen, but it does handle the very heavy grain structure without dissolving into a mass of compression noise.
> 
> 
> Trying to find a suitable tier placement was a little difficult as the image is very inconsistent. There are scenes that go from razor sharp clarity with high tier one detail to soft shots that are no better than low tier three quality overall. The outdoor nighttime scenes especially look awful, with bad lighting and rampant black crush and poor contrast. Fleshtones look okay for the most part but color fidelity seems limited for a good Blu-ray. Contrast is also pushed very hard but this aspect varies quite a lot over the course of the movie. Normal scenes exhibit a nice level of high frequency information with every pore and hair strand visible but the image does become slightly softer and less detailed during the special effects sequences (which are largely aided by CGI). I have to attribute some of these inconsistencies to this being a Russian movie production. The camera work appears below average for Hollywood standards, with objects coming in and out of focus during shots.
> 
> 
> Unfortunately it appears that edge enhancement has been applied at various points to this transfer, probably trying to hide some of the inherent softness in a few scenes. The edge haloes are not littered throughout but they show up with a vengeance when they do appear. One scene shows a birdcage that appears to have a force field around it from the artificial sharpening. The sharper scenes demonstrate good depth and dimensionality at least. I cannot quite decide if DNR has been applied. There are healthy amounts of grain but a few scenes look a little suspicious, like some minor DNR might have been used.
> 
> 
> Considering the whole of the transfer, I would recommend a placement in tier 2.75. There are some flaws and I would have no problem with this BD being placed even lower in the third tier. The resolution of Blu-ray seems to reveal that this movie was not a big budget Hollywood production. It does look good at times but this is no demo material.
> 
> 
> Watching on a 60 Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080P/24 from a PS3 (firmware 2.53) at a viewing distance of approximately six feet.
> 
> 
> BDInfo Scan (courtesy of forum member Cinema Squid):
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1#post14638461



I agree with most of your assessment, but putting it in Tier 3 would way too low IMO. There are just too many great looking shots. While there were some out of focus shots, when they were in focus (which was more often than not), the detail level was top tier 1 or and tier 0 for face closeups (Dark Knight couldn't touch it). I agree with the black crush and some occasional ringing, but it definitely wasn't EE'd throughout. Though I wonder what the heck happened in that birdcage scene... special fx?







While I think it was inconsistent, I'd say that overall it's a *Tier 2.25*... I'd say 2.5 the lowest...


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15298239
> 
> 
> Now you may have opened a can of worms and I am curious. Could bokeh cause EE or what seems to be EE? And or is it the use of highlight enhancement, and edge management?
> 
> Rob Tomlin mentioned chromatic aberrations before. Might they be what some are seeing and or related to bokeh?
> 
> 
> Anyone see EE in these pictures?
> 
> http://www.dofpro.com/cgigallery.htm



Bokeh has absolutely nothing at all to do with EE.


Chromatic aberration can be confused with EE, but bokeh can't.....at least I wouldn't think.


All bokeh is is the out of focus parts of the image, and it is normally used for creative effect, and to make the subject stand out against the background.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15298717
> 
> 
> This is about the extent of chromatic aberration I see in movies most of the time: if you really squint, you can see hairline red and cyan outlines around the objects contrasting against the sky, though it varies with the lens. http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/711_2_1080p.jpg Admittedly I'm no pro photographer, but I don't know of an optical phenomenon that would cause bright white outlines around edges, unless there's some fibers being backlit on someone's clothes maybe.
> 
> With TDK, it's pretty obvious what wasn't the fault of cameras and film, since the trailer doesn't have the glowing outlines like the BD, and looks about as fantastic as a low bitrate internet trailer can look (and if they kept that look and tweaked the contrast a bit, it would've gotten an unreserved tier 0 placement from me... ah, what coulda been
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )



Yes, the best way to tell the difference between chromatic aberration and EE is that CA will have the tell tale signs of color fringing on the hard edges.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15299335
> 
> 
> I agree with most of your assessment, but putting it in Tier 3 would way too low IMO. There are just too many great looking shots. While there were some out of focus shots, when they were in focus (which was more often than not), the detail level was top tier 1 or and tier 0 for face closeups (Dark Knight couldn't touch it). I agree with the black crush and some occasional ringing, but it definitely wasn't EE'd throughout. Though I wonder what the heck happened in that birdcage scene... special fx?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While I think it was inconsistent, I'd say that overall it's a *Tier 2.25*... I'd say 2.5 the lowest...



I had a hard time coming up with an overall score for Day Watch. Some really great looking scenes mixed with some very average material. I suspect this has to do with the film itself and not the transfer, but if the visual quality had been a little more consistent I would have probably given it a high tier two ranking. I could see a mid-tier two ranking though and get your point.


----------



## Beta Tester

IMO Police Certifiable should be placed below Elton 60. It looks good but it does not have the same degree of 3D pop that the latter has. Elton 60 is still my demo BD of choice.


--------


88" 16x9 diagonal screen

Panasonic AE900

11' away (1.7X screen width)


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15299397
> 
> 
> I had a hard time coming up with an overall score for Day Watch. Some really great looking scenes mixed with some very average material. I suspect this has to do with the film itself and not the transfer, but if the visual quality had been a little more consistent I would have probably given it a high tier two ranking. I could see a mid-tier two ranking though and get your point.



Yeah, the inconsistencies do make it hard to judge...What did you think of Night Watch?


----------



## lovingdvd

*Horton Hears a Who*


Great looking movie! Lower part of Tier 0 or upper Tier 1. Great color saturation, detail, contrast, everything. I deducted some points for it being a *tad* soft.


I believe the slight softness was intentional by the studio as part of its artistic style. It was very film-like especially for an animated movie. I really did like this. However throughout the movie I found myself wanting to focus more, like I was expecting it to have that sharp feel like other animated movies. Best way to describe it would be if you defocused the lens a bit.


Again, it looks great, but I don't think it quite fits the description of Tier 0, or if it does, it's right on the edge. Although I might pull it out as demo material there are a lot of other movies I'd pull out first.


BTW as a side note the sound is truly fantastic in this movie in DTS-MA HD, especially the LFE. Wow. Now that could be the best LFE I've heard in an animated movie yet!


Observations made viewing a JVC RS1, 106" diag 15 foot viewing distance.


----------



## Fanaticalism

Better than KungFu Panda? KFP has a pretty dynamic track, so this is saying a lot. I'll have to check the audio tier thread. If others validate this, I'll have to pick it up.


On another note. I noticed that a lot of the animated material finds its way into the "Reference" tiers of this thread. Personally, I feel that animation has an unfair advantage, and should have its ranking system, or atleast a dedicated tier for them, and them alone. I feel that it is a lot harder to capture, and produce "reference" quality "live" action films, than it is to produce animation.


I wonder, does anyone else feel the same way?


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15298462
> 
> 
> For rsbeck, maybe you should try a thought experiment. If everything about the Zulu Blu-ray was the same but it had no visible DNR, what would your ranking be then?



That's an interesting challenge. Without the EE and DNR, it would probably be an upper half of tier 1 title based on what I've seen recently. As for how it looked to me today, I am struggling to come up with a comparison. Give me a few days to come back to it. Thanks for the suggestion and for relating your experience with Patton. Much appreciated.


----------



## rsbeck

*I Am Legend*


Agree With Current Placement


This is a good looking transfer, but strangely, not an excellent one. Grain did not appear to be intact. Detail, while excellent in some shots, hinting at what was possible, is just average when weighed against a lot of recent releases. Cinematography may serve the story, but does not provide the kind of exceptional visuals it would take to raise the score. Though I have no numbers, I suspect bit-rate might have something to do with it, too. Maybe someone with data can help me out or correct me if I am wrong. People and things in this one just don't have the solidity that I suspect would come with greater data saturation. Blacks and shadow detail? Again, good, but not great. It probably sounds like I am being too harsh on this one, but I am just puzzling over why this one is pretty good, but fails to wow. I could possibly see this ranked a quarter higher, but comparing IAL to similarly ranked titles I've seen recently, I think it is placed fairly in its current spot.

*Recommendation: Tier 1.75*


Sim2 C3X1080

Carada Masquerade

126" Firehawk G3

Pioneer BDP-05FD


13' From Screen


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15300229
> 
> *I Am Legend*
> 
> 
> Agree With Current Placement
> 
> 
> This is a good looking transfer, but strangely, not an excellent one. Grain did not appear to be intact. Detail, while excellent in some shots, hinting at what was possible, is just average when weighed against a lot of recent releases. Cinematography may serve the story, but does not provide the kind of exceptional visuals it would take to raise the score. Though I have no numbers, I suspect bit-rate might have something to do with it, too. Maybe someone with data can help me out or correct me if I am wrong. People and things in this one just don't have the solidity that I suspect would come with greater data saturation. Blacks and shadow detail? Again, good, but not great. It probably sounds like I am being too harsh on this one, but I am just puzzling over why this one is pretty good, but fails to wow. I could possibly see this ranked a quarter higher, but comparing IAL to similarly ranked titles I've seen recently, I think it is placed fairly in its current spot.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 1.75*
> 
> 
> Sim2 C3X1080
> 
> Carada Masquerade
> 
> 126" Firehawk G3
> 
> Pioneer BDP-05FD
> 
> 
> 13' From Screen



The bitrate was often very low. It's been said by those in a position to know that Warner filters everything, and that comment certainly applies to IAL, IMO.


----------



## rsbeck

I know this title has its fans and I was happy to watch it, but it just left me with the vague feeling that it could have been better. Maybe bit-rate explains it, maybe filtering, maybe seeing Will Smith I am bound to compare it to I, Robot and Hancock, but I have also seen a lot of mid to low tier one titles lately and IAL, IMO, fits right in at 1.75.


----------



## rsbeck

I'd still like to see There Will Be Blood moved up to tier 1.75. I suspect it's being punished too hard for the opening scene in the silver mine. It goes on to have some stunning visuals and, to me, compares favorably to titles at that rank.


Anyone want to support me in getting it moved up a quarter?


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15300303
> 
> 
> I'd still like to see There Will Be Blood moved up to tier 1.75. I suspect it's being punished too hard for the opening scene in the silver mine. It goes on to have some stunning visuals and, to me, compares favorably to titles at that rank.
> 
> 
> Anyone want to support me in getting it moved up a quarter?



It's being put in Top Tier-2 not only because of the opening scene but also due to some PQ inconsistencies like high amplitude EE, black level fluctuations and desaturated look in the first half of the movie. At the same time, there shouldn't be any concerns placing TWBB in Tier 1.75.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lovingdvd* /forum/post/15299705
> 
> *Horton Hears a Who*
> 
> 
> Great looking movie! Lower part of Tier 0 or upper Tier 1. Great color saturation, detail, contrast, everything. I deducted some points for it being a *tad* soft.
> 
> 
> I believe the slight softness was intentional by the studio as part of its artistic style. It was very film-like especially for an animated movie. I really did like this. However throughout the movie I found myself wanting to focus more, like I was expecting it to have that sharp feel like other animated movies. Best way to describe it would be if you defocused the lens a bit.
> 
> 
> Again, it looks great, but I don't think it quite fits the description of Tier 0, or if it does, it's right on the edge. Although I might pull it out as demo material there are a lot of other movies I'd pull out first.
> 
> 
> BTW as a side note the sound is truly fantastic in this movie in DTS-MA HD, especially the LFE. Wow. Now that could be the best LFE I've heard in an animated movie yet!
> 
> 
> Observations made viewing a JVC RS1, 106" diag 15 foot viewing distance.



Haven't you heard? We are no longer allowing reviews from people who have RS1's!










Seriously though, it's good to see you posting here and I hope you will continue to do so.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15300303
> 
> 
> I'd still like to see There Will Be Blood moved up to tier 1.75. I suspect it's being punished too hard for the opening scene in the silver mine. It goes on to have some stunning visuals and, to me, compares favorably to titles at that rank.
> 
> 
> Anyone want to support me in getting it moved up a quarter?



Not me.


High Tier 2 is perfect.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15300299
> 
> 
> I know this title has its fans and I was happy to watch it, but it just left me with the vague feeling that it could have been better. Maybe bit-rate explains it, maybe filtering, maybe seeing Will Smith I am bound to compare it to I, Robot and Hancock, but I have also seen a lot of mid to low tier one titles lately and IAL, IMO, fits right in at 1.75.



It has to be filtering or something... Apparently the new collector's edition contains a high bit-rate encode of the theatrical version, but according to reviews, it doesnt do anything to really improve the PQ. If it's not filtering, then it's just the way it was shot. I dont know anymore.


----------



## lovingdvd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fanaticalism* /forum/post/15299890
> 
> 
> Better than KungFu Panda? KFP has a pretty dynamic track, so this is saying a lot. I'll have to check the audio tier thread. If others validate this, I'll have to pick it up.
> 
> 
> On another note. I noticed that a lot of the animated material finds its way into the "Reference" tiers of this thread. Personally, I feel that animation has an unfair advantage, and should have its ranking system, or atleast a dedicated tier for them, and them alone. I feel that it is a lot harder to capture, and produce "reference" quality "live" action films, than it is to produce animation.
> 
> 
> I wonder, does anyone else feel the same way?



Yes, I'd say it is better specifically as far as LFE is concerned. With KFP I thought the audio sounded great but nothing unusual jumped out to me about the LFE in particular.


With Horton Hears a Who the LFE was just "wow". Very, very deep response, full, etc. Some of the deepest bass I've heard come out of my HSU sub which is audible down to 16hz (verified via test signals). A few action movies like Transformers had this deep bass as well, as did Nine Inch Nails. However what was cool about it it with this movie is that it was used a lot. So instead of getting that low bass treat just a few times as with most movies it was used quite frequently - but not enough to be tiresome or annoying.


If you can, give it a rent if you have doubts before buying - you won't be disappointed!


----------



## KeithTalent

Has anyone seen Lost: Season 4 yet?


I started watching this on Friday and, wow, I was blown away by how great it looked. Super sharp colours, great facial details, though I did find a few of the very dark scenes a bit muddy.


I'm only on a 48" Sammy though, so I'd like to see what others, with better equipment think of the transfer.


KT


----------



## eghill1125




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *KeithTalent* /forum/post/15302101
> 
> 
> Has anyone seen Lost: Season 4 yet?
> 
> 
> I started watching this on Friday and, wow, I was blown away by how great it looked. Super sharp colours, great facial details, though I did find a few of the very dark scenes a bit muddy.
> 
> 
> I'm only on a 48" Sammy though, so I'd like to see what others, with better equipment think of the transfer.
> 
> 
> KT



Yes. You are right. There are some of the facial scenes and the beach scenes that are as good as any Blu-Ray out there and there are also alot of blotchy looking dark scenes. It must be different cameras used through-out the show. I noticed much of the same watching the first few episodes on TV too. The BD is representative of the way it looked on TV with the dark scenes. Still looks really good and a fanatastic show. If only I could figure out what is happening.... I am as lost now as I ever have been on this show


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lovingdvd* /forum/post/15299705
> 
> *Horton Hears a Who*
> 
> 
> Great looking movie! Lower part of Tier 0 or upper Tier 1. Great color saturation, detail, contrast, everything. I deducted some points for it being a *tad* soft.
> 
> 
> I believe the slight softness was intentional by the studio as part of its artistic style. It was very film-like especially for an animated movie. I really did like this. However throughout the movie I found myself wanting to focus more, like I was expecting it to have that sharp feel like other animated movies. Best way to describe it would be if you defocused the lens a bit.
> 
> 
> Again, it looks great, but I don't think it quite fits the description of Tier 0, or if it does, it's right on the edge. Although I might pull it out as demo material there are a lot of other movies I'd pull out first.
> 
> 
> 
> BTW as a side note the sound is truly fantastic in this movie in DTS-MA HD, especially the LFE. Wow. Now that could be the best LFE I've heard in an animated movie yet!
> 
> 
> Observations made viewing a JVC RS1, 106" diag 15 foot viewing distance.


*Horton Hears a Who tier 1 gold*


I watched Horton last night and agree with your PQ review







I am also using a RS1.


On a side note, I did not think the audio was anything special. I thought the LFE was good, but definately not in the same league as KFP (I also think Chicken Little has considerably better LFE compared to Horton) to my ears and definately a few notches down from the best non animated LFE type movies (Tansf, Iron Man, TIH, HB2, Cloverfield, etc.....). Hoton is still a overall great audio package, just not up there with the best in any way IMO.


----------



## OldCodger73

Paramount is to be commended for bringing out this 1964 catalog title, one that I'm sure will only have limited sales as it's not an action picture. It's fun to watch Peter O'Toole, Richard Burton and Sir John Gieguld chew up the scenery.


Now to PQ. Color was fair, a lot of scenes were in a castle so there was a lot of grey but that made O'Toole's costumes really stand out. In some of the outdoor scenes there seemed to be a slight color shift in the sky within the scene. Sharpness ran from acceptable on some closeups to DVD like on longer shots. All in all I think Paramount probably did the best they could with what they had barring a complete restoration of the film. Recommended placement *Tier 4.5*.


Panasonic 50" 720p plasma, Panasonic 10A player, 7 1/2'.


----------



## dave42

I tried searching, but couldn't find much in this thread....what is the best BD to rent for surround sound?


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dave42* /forum/post/15302991
> 
> 
> I tried searching, but couldn't find much in this thread....what is the best BD to rent for surround sound?



Try this thread...

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...ighlight=audio


----------



## rsbeck

*Great Expectations (UK IMPORT)*


1:33.1, Black and White, PAL


Reasonably solid transfer of David Lean’s 1946 adaptation of the classic Charles Dickins novel. Grain is intact, nothing to raise EE or DNR controversy. Some damage to original is evident, especially in black-outs. Most of the story takes place either indoors or in misty outdoor English locales. Detail and clarity is consistently very good and sometimes excellent. Check out early scenes with the convict Magwitch. Doesn't reach the stunning heights of that other recent black and white restoration The Day The Earth Stood Still, but has a pleasingly natural look with a consistent quality that makes it very easy to watch.

*Recommendation: Tier 3.00*


Sim2 C3X1080

Carada Masquerade

126" Firehawk G3

Pioneer BDP-05FD


13' From Screen


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15304729
> 
> *Great Expectations*
> 
> 
> 1:33.1, Black and White
> 
> 
> Reasonably solid transfer of David Lean's 1946 adaptation of the classic Charles Dickins novel. Grain is intact, nothing to raise EE or DNR controversy. Some damage to original is evident, especially in black-outs. Most of the story takes place either indoors or in misty outdoor English locales. Detail and clarity is consistently very good and sometimes excellent. Check out early scenes with the Convict. Doesn't reach the stunning heights of that other recent black and white restoration The Day The Earth Stood Still, but has a pleasingly natural look with a consistent quality that makes it very easy to watch.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 3.75*
> 
> 
> Sim2 C3X1080
> 
> Carada Masquerade
> 
> 126" Firehawk G3
> 
> Pioneer BDP-05FD
> 
> 
> 13' From Screen



Nice. This is a foreign release, correct?


Did they do a restoration for this? I don't believe so, but it is possible that I didn't hear about it.


----------



## reisb

I'm looking at Amazon B2G1 deal. There are 2 Casino Royale. 2 disc coll. ed + BD live and standard blu ray. Are they both same transfer, so PQ is identical?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15300103
> 
> 
> Oh, hey -- did you ever watch the first 15 minutes or so of Caspian again? The part with the stylized blue tint and shadows is under the opening titles. The first time things start to improve is when they leave the train station and find themselves on a beach. Haven't had a chance to watch the whole thing, just watched the first 15 minutes or so again.



I just watched the first 20 minutes again. The first 8 1/2 minutes are a nightscene (in the castle and the chase through the meadows and forest)...I thought there was a lot of detail, even with the stylized blue tint. The next 4 minutes were in the city and train station and again I thought the detail, colors, fleshtones, and contrast were spot-on. And then at 12 1/2 minutes they find themselves at the beach with an obviously brighter scene and richer color palette (which would account for what one might consider even sharper and more detailed PQ). The scene at the ruins (starting at 14:20) was simply stunning.


So, I guess we didn't see the same thing this time rsbeck. I surely wouldn't say there was any softness in any of those scenes, even the blue tint scenes had good shadow detail and depth.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15299692
> 
> 
> Yeah, the inconsistencies do make it hard to judge...What did you think of Night Watch?



I have seen it in a movie theater only. Sorry I can not be any help.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *reisb* /forum/post/15305018
> 
> 
> I'm looking at Amazon B2G1 deal. There are 2 Casino Royale. 2 disc coll. ed + BD live and standard blu ray. Are they both same transfer, so PQ is identical?



The Casino Royale Blu-rays have identical video encodes.


----------



## moematthews

*The Devil Wears Prada*


1366X768X60fps 55" Plasma

13 feet from the screen


The opening 30 minutes I've seen of this film looked considerably better to me than its Tier 4 rating. The beginning is full of gorgeous cityscapes and street shots of New York. Colour is varied and well-saturated. Great skin tones. Overall PQ might be a touch soft, but I think it should be rated higher.


Interestingly, the review to which it is linked gives it very good marks for PQ, and I completely agree with the reviewer's assessment. I think it should be a Tier 2 at minimum.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15291343
> 
> *Sleeping Beauty*
> 
> 
> Tier Recommendation: ZERO!
> 
> 
> I watched this incredible Blu-ray disc last night. I put this in my player at 10:30, thinking I would just get an idea of what it looked like, and watch the entire movie the next day. I was so mesmerized by the PQ of this title, there was no way that I was going to turn it off!
> 
> 
> What a fantastic looking picture. I was almost giddy while watching this. There is just a beautiful "glow" to the picture, perhaps due to the use of hand-inked cels combined with the Super Technirama 70 process.
> 
> 
> In many ways I really prefer this style of animation over the current generation of CGI created films.
> 
> 
> This is pure art, at it's best! The detail in the backgrounds is great. The color is fantastic...again, especially with the glow effect.
> 
> 
> I give this title my highest recommendation, and I am very happy to see that this title already resides in Tier 0, despite the fact that it was made in the 1950s.



Okay Rob, I just watched *Sleeping Beauty* and I'm definitely in agreement with you on the amazing colors with the "glow effect." And the details, especially in any of the forest scenes, were fantastic. But I simply can't agree with you on your recommendation of Tier 0, for IMO the best I could recommend would be *Tier 1.0*.


There is something that this animated film lacks that are in all the Tier 0 titles...and that something is *DEPTH*. Most scenes are sooooo one dimensional that we can't possibly assign this to Tier 0 if we going to go by the standards set forth on page one. Even the forest scenes that have remarkable detail lack depth. Depth (i.e., 3D pop) is definitely a must for Tier 0 and this title just doesn't have it.


As rsbeck said in his review of Sleeping Beauty, the characters are (because of the age of this movie) so cartoonish, and let's face it there is absolutely no depth in any one of the characters. They are FLAT!


Having said all this, I will say it is still an amazing restoration and I do believe it deserves a spot in Tier 1 for the rich colors, the amazing detail, the lack of artifacts, and the mesmerizing "glow."


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I understand what you are saying, but I still think that this title does have depth. It's just a different type of depth that was used when they were doing cel animation.


Heck, I was imagining how many layers of cels were used to create the depth that this movie has.


I'm definitely sticking with my Tier 0 recommendation for this title. Eye candy galore.


----------



## Beta Tester

I noticed the Dark Knight is ranked above Dave Matthews. DM was shot on HD and there is no grain or video noise or EE or artifical digital look to it. IMO it is eye candy. I have not seen TDK BD yet, but from all of the descriptions about the 35mm segments, can it be ranked above DM?


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15306997
> 
> 
> I understand what you are saying, but I still think that this title does have depth. It's just a different type of depth that was used when they were doing cel animation.
> 
> 
> Heck, I was imagining how many layers of cels were used to create the depth that this movie has.
> 
> 
> I'm definitely sticking with my Tier 0 recommendation for this title. Eye candy galore.



Gahhhh I can't wait to see this. I bought it the day it came out but it's been hidden because it's for my 5yo daughter for Christmas. She'll know if I opened it; she's too smart. Both of your reviews sound great for this classic. A complete upgrade from the _VHS tape_ we have of it... I can't even watch that, it hurts my eyes it is so old.


I'm also happy that it came with a normal DVD so she can watch it elsewhere... I wish all disney titles did that instead of digital copy; I might be willing to purchase Wall-E if it had a dvd attached to it.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15304856
> 
> 
> Nice. This is a foreign release, correct?



Yes, it's a UK Import, PAL format, I should have included that in the review, I'll edit and add this.



> Quote:
> Did they do a restoration for this?



Not sure, I'll do some checking.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15305982
> 
> 
> I surely wouldn't say there was any softness in any of those scenes, even the blue tint scenes had good shadow detail and depth.



In my viewing, most of the faces, outside of the sweaty lady that opens the film, are soft the first bunch of times you see the various characters, but they get sharper later in the film. Deeper into the film, you start to see the pores, wrinkles and imperfections and of course, as you say, the scenery becomes more and more incredible. You know the problem? We've agreed too much lately, so it was time. But seriously, I doubt we'll be more than half a tier apart on our recommendations. Might also be because I sit 1.4 times SW. Try moving a foot closer each time you watch it until you agree with me.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Beta Tester* /forum/post/15307383
> 
> 
> I noticed the Dark Knight is ranked above Dave Matthews.



Some explanation is in order. In tier 0, titles are ranked in order of quality. In tier 1 onward, they are ranked within 1/4 tiers and listed alphabetically. So, both Dave Mathhews and TDK are ranked in the first quarter of tier 1. TDK is only listed higher than DM because R comes before V. Dark before Dave.



> Quote:
> DM was shot on HD and there is no grain or video noise or EE or artifical digital look to it. IMO it is eye candy.



No doubt Dave Mathhews is a great looking (and sounding!) title. There's no shame in being ranked tier 1. A lot of great looking titles are ranked at that level.


----------



## Fanaticalism




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Beta Tester* /forum/post/15307383
> 
> 
> I noticed the Dark Knight is ranked above Dave Matthews. DM was shot on HD and there is no grain or video noise or EE or artifical digital look to it. IMO it is eye candy. I have not seen TDK BD yet, but from all of the descriptions about the 35mm segments, can it be ranked above DM?



The movie needs to be seen, before any preemptive assessments are made. Besides that, what RSbeck said.


----------



## b_scott

wait, what? How did Dave and Tim get moved to Tier 1? That's ridiculous. It's one of the ultimate live action blu-rays out there. WTF? It's demo material for sure. And almost every Magnolia Home Theater section uses it as such.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15306997
> 
> 
> It's just a different type of depth



Hey -- what're you doin' -- interpreting the opening paragraphs differently?!!!


----------



## rsbeck

If you guys want DM moved, and you haven't already, write reviews and recommend tier 0 and give your reasoning. Personally, I think it's a lovely title and I can see why an A/V store that sells video displays as well as audio gear would use it for demos. If I were them, I'd have it on a constant loop, too. I use DM whenever I want to demo my theater's ability to recreate music with damn good video to boot.


But, IMO, DM is ranked fairly and maybe even a little generously where it is. It doesn't

compete with other tier 0 titles.


But, look -- it's ranked side by side with titles like Casino Royale, TDK, The Fall, Blackhawk Down....it's ranked very highly!


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15307703
> 
> 
> Hey -- what're you doin' -- interpreting the opening paragraphs differently?!!!



Hahah










I also just watched *Sleeping Beauty*. Everything looks fabulous except for the animated characters which look "softer" or "more blurry" than the rest of the drawings. *Tier 1.0* Yes, it looks great overall, but there's no denying that the characters dont have as much detail as the backgrounds. I did think it had pretty good depth though.


----------



## maverick0716




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *reisb* /forum/post/15305018
> 
> 
> I'm looking at Amazon B2G1 deal. There are 2 Casino Royale. 2 disc coll. ed + BD live and standard blu ray. Are they both same transfer, so PQ is identical?



Identical transfers. The collectors edition has Dolby TrueHD for sound, whereas the original version is uncompressed PCM.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15307600
> 
> 
> Might also be because I sit 1.4 times SW. Try moving a foot closer each time you watch it until you agree with me.



Or......you could move back to 1.8 times SW (like I am)!


----------



## unclepauly




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/15302815
> 
> 
> Paramount is to be commended for bringing out this 1964 catalog title



Not to demean the rest of your post but, what does "catalog" mean when used this way? I've heard it alot and just wondered why the term was used to describe a title. Every time I hear it I instantly get pictures of sears catalogs in my mind. Silly question sorry


----------



## H.Cornerstone

*Top Gun*


I am surprised this hasn't been reviewed yet, I picked it up cyber monday for 12.99 and finally watched it tonight.


Overall, looks very good for a 20+ year old movie. You can tell _some_ dnr has been applied, as there is little grain, but not too much as you can still see detail in the older characters faces, not so much Tom Cruise and the other fighter pilots though. Good detail, and some of the figher pilot scenes look fantastic, as does the sound. Overall, solid transfer that provided solid amount of detail, and exceeded my expectations.

*Therefore I would recommend it in Tier 3.0*


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *unclepauly* /forum/post/15308182
> 
> 
> Not to demean the rest of your post but, what does "catalog" mean when used this way? I've heard it alot and just wondered why the term was used to describe a title. Every time I hear it I instantly get pictures of sears catalogs in my mind. Silly question sorry



Catalog simply means "older." Think of it as archive, as in films that have been restored and remastered.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15308141
> 
> 
> Or......you could move back to 1.8 times SW (like I am)!



Okay, just to be a good sport, I'll sit in the wrong position so I can see what you're seeing.  Seriously, you try sitting closer and I'll try sitting a little further -- it'll be interesting to see what we see.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15304856
> 
> 
> Did they do a restoration for this?



Update: According to this web-site, Great Expectations was one of ten films that were restored by the BFI National Archive in partnership with Granada International, as part of the David Lean Film Restoration Project, sponsored by the David Lean Foundation:

http://www.davidleanfoundation.org/s.../pressrelease1


----------



## Shane Martin




> Quote:
> But, IMO, DM is ranked fairly and maybe even a little generously where it is. It doesn't
> 
> compete with other tier 0 titles.



Didn't you score it Mid tier 0 or am I confused?


----------



## moematthews




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15307744
> 
> 
> If you guys want DM moved, and you haven't already, write reviews and recommend tier 0 and give your reasoning. Personally, I think it's a lovely title and I can see why an A/V store that sells video displays as well as audio gear would use it for demos. If I were them, I'd have it on a constant loop, too. I use DM whenever I want to demo my theater's ability to recreate music with damn good video to boot.
> 
> 
> But, IMO, DM is ranked fairly and maybe even a little generously where it is. It doesn't
> 
> compete with other tier 0 titles.
> 
> 
> But, look -- it's ranked side by side with titles like Casino Royale, TDK, The Fall, Blackhawk Down....it's ranked very highly!



I agree that the ranking is generous, and it has to do with picture quality. The opening graphics of the "Radio City" sign, which are followed by pictures of the building from the outside are fabulous, but the main feature lacks clarity and contrast. The tell-tale sign is the wood grain on the acoustic guitars. I have seen so many other concert DVDs where the grain and texture of the wood just leaps out at you - it is so clearly defined against a darker background. On this DVD, that simply doesn't happen. The overall picture is flat and lacks contrast. Oddly enough, there are a couple of brief moments later in the DVD where there is an amber stage light shining on them, and it improves the contrast tremendously. I am very surprised at the number of reviews I've read that say this is a "reference quality" DVD. Having watched The Dark Knight and the second half of Dave Matthews back-to-back yesterday (I watched the first half a day earlier), there is really no comparison. Most of this DVD has a "barely HD" look. No complaints with the sound, though. I'm a 2 channel audio guy primarily, and the mixing really favours the front two channels.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moematthews* /forum/post/15309874
> 
> 
> I agree that the ranking is generous, and it has to do with picture quality. The opening graphics of the "Radio City" sign, which are followed by pictures of the building from the outside are fabulous, but the main feature lacks clarity and contrast. The tell-tale sign is the wood grain on the acoustic guitars. I have seen so many other concert DVDs where the grain and texture of the wood just leaps out at you - it is so clearly defined against a darker background. On this DVD, that simply doesn't happen. The overall picture is flat and lacks contrast. Oddly enough, there are a couple of brief moments later in the DVD where there is an amber stage light shining on them, and it improves the contrast tremendously. I am very surprised at the number of reviews I've read that say this is a "reference quality" DVD. Having watched The Dark Knight and the second half of Dave Matthews back-to-back yesterday (I watched the first half a day earlier), there is really no comparison. Most of this DVD has a "barely HD" look. No complaints with the sound, though. I'm a 2 channel audio guy primarily, and the mixing really favours the front two channels.



I haven't seen Dave Matthews, but I saw Shakira and Celine Dion and while those are pretty much flawless encodes, I agree that *they just don't compete with top tier movies*. They are, however, leaps and bounds better than DVD concerts in both sound and video. I originally recommended Tier 1 for those, but I then recommended they get moved to Tier 2 because they are just not even close to titles in Tier 1 when doing direct comparisons. Of course when some saw them moved down, people started complaining which brought Celine back to Tier 1.


----------



## moematthews




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15310013
> 
> 
> I haven't seen Dave Matthews, but I saw Shakira and Celine Dion and while those are pretty much flawless encodes, I agree that *they just don't compete with top tier movies*. They are, however, leaps and bounds better than DVD concerts in both sound and video. I originally recommended Tier 1 for those, but I then recommended they get moved to Tier 2 because they are just not even close to titles in Tier 1 when doing direct comparisons. Of course when some saw them moved down, people started complaining which brought Celine back to Tier 1.



What I should have mentioned was that I have seen some HD concerts, whether on HD DVD or the televison network HD Net, that are simply everything you would expect of HD. To use your terms, they compete favourably with top tier movies in every respect. I was disappointed when I first watched Dave Matthews; it is not as clear, sharp or "contrasty" as those other concerts I mentioned. I just went out and bought it without reading any reviews. (Note that reading reviews probably would not have changed my purchase decision, because the majority of reviews are glowing!) I was wondering if something might be wrong with my player, so I looked for some reviews. Sound and Vision Magazine seemed to agree with my assessment, but another poster provided a number of links to reviews saying that it is basically the highest quality transfer. Frankly, I just don't see it - if anything, I'm seeing the OPPOSITE - and I'm confused by that.


----------



## b_scott

It's not even a transfer, it was shot on HD cameras and done digitally. It doesn't get any less artifact-y.


what TV are you watching this on, and what player?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15307744
> 
> 
> If you guys want DM moved, and you haven't already, write reviews and recommend tier 0 and give your reasoning. Personally, I think it's a lovely title and I can see why an A/V store that sells video displays as well as audio gear would use it for demos. If I were them, I'd have it on a constant loop, too. I use DM whenever I want to demo my theater's ability to recreate music with damn good video to boot.
> 
> 
> But, IMO, DM is ranked fairly and maybe even a little generously where it is. It doesn't
> 
> compete with other tier 0 titles.
> 
> 
> But, look -- it's ranked side by side with titles like Casino Royale, TDK, The Fall, Blackhawk Down....it's ranked very highly!



I completely agree.


If anything, Dave Matthews is ranked slightly on the high side (but definitely belongs in Tier 1)


----------



## Matt_Stevens

Zulu tier 0? How is this possible? A complete travesty, one every bit as horrid as PATTON and LONGEST DAY gets tier 0?


This is the biggest joke of 2008.


----------



## DaveBowman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fanaticalism* /forum/post/15299890
> 
> 
> Personally, I feel that animation has an unfair advantage, and should have its ranking system, or atleast a dedicated tier for them, and them alone. I feel that it is a lot harder to capture, and produce "reference" quality "live" action films, than it is to produce animation.
> 
> 
> I wonder, does anyone else feel the same way?



Yes, a lot of us agree with you. It's a massive understatement to say that its harder to make reference quality live action film compared to animated. There is no comparison in terms of control over all the variables that go into high PQ. But rather than have a separate tier for animated we can all do our own "editing" of the top couple tiers. I happen to love many of the animated movies (how could anybody not recognize the genius of the Pixar films?) but I don't think it's fair to truly compare them to live action film. Having said that, I still think the best live action films make better demo material because they are closer to real life and that is what everyone's "reference" really is.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaveBowman* /forum/post/15311069
> 
> 
> But rather than have a separate tier for animated we can all do our own "editing" of the top couple tiers.



I agree. What would be the point of a separate list? Is it easier to produce a reference animated disc? Often. Does that mean that animated features have an "unfair" advantage? Well, that would necessitate competition, wouldn't it? What does competition have to do with accurately rating individual titles on their own merits? Does _Fight Club_ care which rating _The Lion King_ gets? Any production company that wishes to give itself this "unfair" advantage is entirely at liberty to make an animated film instead of a live-action one.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15310589
> 
> 
> I completely agree.
> 
> 
> If anything, Dave Matthews is ranked slightly on the high side (but definitely belongs in Tier 1)



Agree with DM being in tier 1, especialy after seeing the Police Certifiable which is a clear (no pun intended) step above DM overall in PQ.


----------



## tfoltz

I like to see how animated films match up with live action. I do not want separate threads or tiers for them.


----------



## moematthews




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/15310492
> 
> 
> It's not even a transfer, it was shot on HD cameras and done digitally. It doesn't get any less artifact-y.
> 
> 
> what TV are you watching this on, and what player?



Brand new Panasonic BD-35 and a Hitachi 55HDX99 Director's Series Plasma. Attached via HDMI to a Marantz SR8001 AVR, then via HDMI to the TV. HD DVD player set up exactly the same way. I have seen some excellent PQ on my BD35 in the short time I've had it.


Artifacts are not a problem; it's the lack of sharpness, clarity and contrast. Looks flat and a bit washed out. As I mentioned above, seeing the wood grain of the guitars contrasting against the musicians' skin tones, black T-shirts and dark background just does not have the clarity and pop that I've seen on other concerts. The difference in PQ among this Blu-ray and "The Dark Knight", "Spiderman 3", "Trans-Siberian" and "The Devil Wears Prada" was easily noticeable. What's odd is that the opening graphics and scenes outside Radio City Music Hall look great, but it becomes noticeably worse once the cameras move inside and the musicians are on stage.


For comparison purposes, I even switched over to my HD DVD player for the 2006 Music Cares Tribute to James Taylor (which I'm assuming would also have been shot on HD cameras) and it's not even close. That concert is razor sharp, with incredible colour saturation, beautiful modelling of faces and a real sense of depth.


So, my TV and both players are capable of producing high quality HD images. I'm just not sure why this isn't the case with the Dave Matthews Blu-ray. In looking at these posts, there seems to be a smattering of opinion that it does not belong in the very top tier - unlike what many pro reviews have said. I really can't figure it out - it just doesn't look very good.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/15311361
> 
> 
> I like to see how animated films match up with live action. *I do not want separate threads or tiers for them*.



You have no need to worry then; we've already discussed this at some length (recently, in fact) and the majority said "leave as is."


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Shane Martin* /forum/post/15309815
> 
> 
> Didn't you score it Mid tier 0 or am I confused?



I didn't review Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds. When I joined this thread it was already in tier 0 and I lobbied to have it brought down. I received some support and it was dropped. I think it is a nice looking and even better sounding title -- just not tier 0.


----------



## 357

*Planet Terror (Scratch Free Version)---Tier 0*


Watch this for yourselves. It's incredible. I'm not going to go into detail.


----------



## rsbeck

I don't want to see a separate list for animated titles, but I would like to see us be a little tougher on them. I think we tend to be a little wowed by the technology, sort of like marveling over really well done simulated wood flooring. If "really well done" simulated wood strikes you as a funny notion, you'll understand how I feel about CGI animation. We strike down live action films for any lack of detail, but I would argue that no matter how impressive, none of the animated titles are as detailed as the best live action. For argument's sake, let's take Ratatouille. Imagine a live action film where the faces were only as detailed as these. You'd be hunting for the reason. DNR, low bit-rate, faulty cinematography. Look how we lowered Speed Racer because of some airbrushed faces. Those faces, even though air brushed, are arguably more detailed than most of the cartoon faces we see. CGI animal fur is incredibly impressive these days, but is it really as detailed and have all of the natural variation of real animal fur? How about CGI human hair? We marvel over being able to see individual whiskers and it is truly marvelous, but is it as amazing as real human hair where no two strands really look alike? Same with clothing. The best CGI is now showing some texture in clothing, but -- again -- if we saw the same lack of texture detail in live action film -- look at the difference between clothing texture in Pan's Labrynth versus the UK import -- we'd drop the title and we'd be looking for an explanation for the lack of detail. Look at the haze in the first 30 minutes of Wall-E. If a live action film had hazy visuals for the first 30 minutes and you suggested it for tier 0, you'd be hooted out of here. Why are we so impressed? Because it is really well simulated haze, along with an incredible simulation of.....blurred details. Look at the lack of detail in the humans that populate AXIOM. Further, I think the 3D pop criteria is causing us to over rate CGI animated titles. Why? Because we're so impressed with 3D animation. In live action films, we are not as immediately impressed with the fact that objects seen on screen have more than two dimensions.


----------



## MelloFellow13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *357* /forum/post/15312459
> 
> *Planet Terror (Scratch Free Version)---Tier 0*
> 
> 
> Watch this for yourselves. It's incredible. I'm not going to go into detail.



Wow... I can't wait to get my hands on this one!!


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15312733
> 
> 
> I don't want to see a separate list for animated titles, but I would like to see us be a little tougher on them. I think we tend to be a little wowed by the technology, sort of like marveling over really well done simulated wood flooring. If "really well done" simulated wood strikes you as a funny notion, you'll understand how I feel about CGI animation. We strike down live action films for any lack of detail, but I would argue that no matter how impressive, none of the animated titles are as detailed as the best live action. For argument's sake, let's take Ratatouille. Imagine a live action film where the faces were only as detailed as these. You'd be hunting for the reason. DNR, low bit-rate, faulty cinematography. Look how we lowered Speed Racer because of some airbrushed faces. Those faces, even though air brushed, are arguably more detailed than most of the cartoon faces we see. CGI animal fur is incredibly impressive these days, but is it really as detailed and have all of the natural variation of real animal fur? How about CGI human hair? We marvel over being able to see individual whiskers and it is truly marvelous, but is it as amazing as real human hair where no two strands really look alike? Same with clothing. The best CGI is now showing some texture in clothing, but -- again -- if we saw the same lack of texture detail in live action film -- look at the difference between clothing texture in Pan's Labrynth versus the UK import -- we'd drop the title and we'd be looking for an explanation for the lack of detail. Look at the haze in the first 30 minutes of Wall-E. If a live action film had hazy visuals for the first 30 minutes and you suggested it for tier 0, you'd be hooted out of here. Why are we so impressed? Because it is really well simulated haze, along with an incredible simulation of.....blurred details. Look at the lack of detail in the humans that populate AXIOM. Further, I think the 3D pop criteria is causing us to over rate CGI animated titles. Why? Because we're so impressed with 3D animation. In live action films, we are not as immediately impressed with the fact that objects seen on screen have more than two dimensions.



Personally, I think picking apart the specifics of a movie's visual aesthetic is where this thread goes wrong. If a movie takes full advantage of the HD medium and is relatively free of technical issues, then to me, at least, it's an exemplary blu-ray, even if a movie is not constant eye candy. I'd say Wall-E definitely has plenty of places where the format is used to its full extent.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*Mamma Mia! The Movie*
*

SuprSlow:* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA 5.1 | AR: 2.40:1 | Universal


I'll spare you the entire thesaurus; this movie is downright gorgeous on my TV. I need to watch it again to give it a fair review as I did notice a few issues in a couple places but overall I felt this movie was comparable with Speed Racer or Kill Bill v2. I will not be surprised if this film ends up in low Tier 0 or 1.00. Unfortunately I spent the majority of the time dancing around with my little son while watching this (he really took to Dancing Queen *snicker*his dad is gonna kill me); my daughter will be home soon and I'll be watching it again with her & I can pay more attention.


I just wanted to get this out there quickly that I think if any of you are hesitant on this title because, well, it's MAMMA MIA, you likely can use the excuse that it has a pretty darn good PQ to help justify it belonging in your collection. In particular any scene that showed the water, and I personally enjoyed the night-time scenes, I felt they were very rich. Proper review forthcoming!


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15313844
> 
> 
> Personally, I think picking apart the specifics of a movie's visual aesthetic is where this thread goes wrong. If a movie takes full advantage of the HD medium and is relatively free of technical issues, then to me, at least, it's an exemplary blu-ray, even if a movie is not constant eye candy. I'd say Wall-E definitely has plenty of places where the format is used to its full extent.





I have to check myself at times, but the reason we do pick apart a movie's visual aesthetics is because for purposes of this thread we don't care about director's intent, a certain look, grain or no grain, etc. Simply this thread's focus is does the PQ look good or bad and have anomalies or not that add or take away from PQ. We don' care how the BD got to where it did in terms of PQ, we only care if that PQ is eye candy or not. How that is determined is different for some compared to others, but it is an eye candy thread.


I think Wall E is at the top of Tier 0 and I didn't have an issue with the beginning. Although it had the white, bright look or softness to it, the detail and depth were still amazing. Look at Wall E himself and other objects in the first half hour as they were as detailed as the rest of the film.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15312733
> 
> 
> I don't want to see a separate list for animated titles, but I would like to see us be a little tougher on them. I think we tend to be a little wowed by the technology, sort of like marveling over really well done simulated wood flooring. If "really well done" simulated wood strikes you as a funny notion, you'll understand how I feel about CGI animation. *We strike down live action films for any lack of detail, but I would argue that no matter how impressive, none of the animated titles are as detailed as the best live action. For argument's sake, let's take Ratatouille. Imagine a live action film where the faces were only as detailed as these.* You'd be hunting for the reason. DNR, low bit-rate, faulty cinematography. Look how we lowered Speed Racer because of some airbrushed faces. Those faces, even though air brushed, are arguably more detailed than most of the cartoon faces we see. CGI animal fur is incredibly impressive these days, but is it really as detailed and have all of the natural variation of real animal fur? How about CGI human hair? We marvel over being able to see individual whiskers and it is truly marvelous, but is it as amazing as real human hair where no two strands really look alike? Same with clothing. The best CGI is now showing some texture in clothing, but -- again -- if we saw the same lack of texture detail in live action film -- look at the difference between clothing texture in Pan's Labrynth versus the UK import -- we'd drop the title and we'd be looking for an explanation for the lack of detail. Look at the haze in the first 30 minutes of Wall-E. If a live action film had hazy visuals for the first 30 minutes and you suggested it for tier 0, you'd be hooted out of here. Why are we so impressed? Because it is really well simulated haze, along with an incredible simulation of.....blurred details. Look at the lack of detail in the humans that populate AXIOM. Further, I think the 3D pop criteria is causing us to over rate CGI animated titles. Why? Because we're so impressed with 3D animation. In live action films, we are not as immediately impressed with the fact that objects seen on screen have more than two dimensions.



I pretty much agree. I will say, in defense, a lot of animations do display 1080p resolution, but they are easier to encode. Film is harder because of the grain which is constantly moving from one frame to the next. Makes more work for the encoder.


I agree with you on Speed Racer. The faces, even after airbrushing or photoshopping, still reveal way more detail than most animated characters. But even so , the visuals in that rival any animated title which is why I believe it belongs in Tier 0.


As a side note, I flipped through the first Ice Age and I was extremely underwhelmed.. Part 2 looks a lot better. I wont make a tier recommendation because i didnt watch the whole thing, but if the entire movie is like what I saw, i'd give it a tier 4 or 5.


----------



## tfoltz

Agree completely.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15314418
> 
> 
> I think Wall E is at the top of Tier 0 and I didn't have an issue with the beginning. Although it had the white, bright look or softness to it, the detail and depth were still amazing. Look at Wall E himself and other objects in the first half hour as they were as detailed as the rest of the film.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15313844
> 
> 
> Personally, I think picking apart the specifics of a movie's visual aesthetic is where this thread goes wrong.



Talking about level of detail not visual aesthetic.



> Quote:
> If a movie takes full advantage of the HD medium and is relatively free of technical issues, then to me, at least, it's an exemplary blu-ray, even if a movie is not constant eye candy.



That seems like a lower standard. To say a title is an exemplary blu-ray is not the same as saying a title is the reference for what blu-ray can achieve.



> Quote:
> I'd say Wall-E definitely has plenty of places where the format is used to its full extent.



I would say there are plenty of titles that meet this lower standard, but are not reference and would not belong in tier 0.


For example, in Step Brothers, the blu-ray format is consistently used to its fullest extent and it has no visible technical issues of any note, but there's no way this title is tier 0.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15314418
> 
> 
> I have to check myself at times, but the reason we do pick apart a movie's visual aesthetics is because for purposes of this thread we don't care about director's intent, a certain look, grain or no grain, etc. Simply this thread's focus is does the PQ look good or bad and have anomalies or not that add or take away from PQ. We don' care how the BD got to where it did in terms of PQ, we only care if that PQ is eye candy or not. How that is determined is different for some compared to others, but it is an eye candy thread.



I couldn't have said it better myself!


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15314616
> 
> 
> I will say, in defense, a lot of animations do display 1080p resolution, but they are easier to encode. Film is harder because of the grain which is constantly moving from one frame to the next. Makes more work for the encoder.



Excellent points. I would just say that this is another reason to be more impressed with top tier non-animated titles.



> Quote:
> I agree with you on Speed Racer. The faces, even after airbrushing or photoshopping, still reveal way more detail than most animated characters. But even so , the visuals in that rival any animated title which is why I believe it belongs in Tier 0.



I don't have any problem with where Speed Racer is currently placed. I use Speed racer as an example only because it used to be ranked higher and was dropped because of the lack of detail in some of the actors' faces. Why do we complain about DNR? The way I read the thread criteria, it is not so much because it is a technical issue, but because it is a PQ issue. Because DNR strips away detail, leaving faces, for example, very smooth and unnatural looking. To me, it shouldn't matter how a title comes to lack tier 0 detail just like we should ignore director's intent. So, it seems inconsistent to me to drop films like Speed Racer because of this lack of detail or to drop films employing DNR because of the lost detail and not apply the same standard across the board.


----------



## biffawheeliebin

Hi guys, long time reader - never really had the time to post!


From what I gather, the placement of this title has caused a certain amount of debate. My impressions from watching it are that obviously the IMAX scenes have a lot more clarity than the standard 35mil footage. I found myself somewhat disappointed with the basic 35mil transfer as for me it didn't possess the same amount of depth as other top live action transfers. I realise this means I have high standards, but THIS was meant to be the definitive Blu-Ray release. I also found the PQ to be slightly on the soft side, as well as EE being quite evident. My slight resentment could be heightened due to the fact that it kept cutting between the amazing IMAX sequences. Quite frankly viewing anything else after such draw dropping PQ would come as a disappointment. The Image did fluctuate though and in the end I was left wishing that the entire movie was filmed on IMAX stock. I can but dream.


I think its current placement is a good compromise.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15314616
> 
> 
> As a side note, I flipped through the first Ice Age and I was extremely underwhelmed.. Part 2 looks a lot better. I wont make a tier recommendation because i didnt watch the whole thing, but if the entire movie is like what I saw, i'd give it a tier 4 or 5.



I was in an Ultimate Electronics store in Minneapolis on Saturday and they had the Blu-ray Ice Age on display on one of their Samsung LN40A650 LCDs (a VERY nice tv!) and it looked positively HORRIBLE! I have been thinking of buying that set for my wife (she watches her own programming most of the time on an old Sony Trinitron), but if I had shown her that she would have laughed me out of the store (even if I had tried to persuade her that it wasn't the tv, but a bad Blu-ray transfer).


I watched about 15 minutes of it and I would agree with stumlad....if the whole movie looked like the garbage I saw it would be in Tier 4 or 5 (bottom of 5, actually).


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *biffawheeliebin* /forum/post/15314837
> 
> 
> Hi guys, long time reader - never really had the time to post!
> 
> 
> From what I gather, the placement of this title has caused a certain amount of debate. My impressions from watching it are that obviously the IMAX scenes have a lot more clarity than the standard 35mil footage. I found myself somewhat disappointed with the basic 35mil transfer as for me it didn't possess the same amount of depth as other top live action transfers. I realise this means I have high standards, but THIS was meant to be the definitive Blu-Ray release. I also found the PQ to be slightly on the soft side, as well as EE being quite evident. My slight resentment could be heightened due to the fact that it kept cutting between the amazing IMAX sequences. Quite frankly viewing anything else after such draw dropping PQ would come as a disappointment. The Image did fluctuate though and in the end I was left wishing that the entire movie was filmed on IMAX stock. I can but dream.
> 
> 
> I think its current placement is a good compromise.



You fell into the same snare as many other reviewers by comparing TDK with TDK!










You should be comparing the 35 mm segments with the standards set forth on page one, and IMHO those segments still were reference quality, albeit bottom of Tier 0 quality.


BTW, what made you "gather [that] the placement of this title has caused a certain amount of debate"?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *biffawheeliebin* /forum/post/15314837
> 
> 
> Hi guys, long time reader - never really had the time to post!
> 
> 
> I think its current placement is a good compromise.



I just noticed that this was your first post. I hope I didn't come across too harsh in my first response to you, for the last thing I want to do is discourage you from posting. Please accept my apology for using sarcasm.


FWIW, your last statement is very good....TDK's "current placement is a good compromise" (based on the many reviews that were posted).


----------



## rsbeck

*The Professionals*


2:35.1, Technicolor, 1966


Classic Western with Lee Marvin and Burt Lancaster. Fine grain is intact, color gorgeous, contrast solid, detail consistent and abundant; pores and imperfections in faces, texture in clothing, character and variation in red, yellow, and orange mountain and desert scenery. No telltale signs of DNR. Every rock along the railroad tracks is delineated. Original seems to be in pristine shape, no tears, dirt or speckles in evidence. A few times, I thought I might have seen evidence of scratch repair -- I'll defer to others more experienced in this area. Only knock on this otherwise gorgeous title is some apparent ringing in evidence from time to time, tiny bit of noise in shots of open sky. Blacks, shadow detail, excellent. A few times, sharpness decreased slightly in low light scenes, but no visible noise.

*Recommendation: Tier 1.50*


Sim2 C3X1080

Carada Masquerade

126" Firehawk G3

Pioneer BDP-05FD


13' From Screen


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *biffawheeliebin* /forum/post/15314837
> 
> 
> I think [TDK's] current placement is a good compromise.



Agree. Welcome to the forum!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15313844
> 
> 
> Personally, I think picking apart the specifics of a movie's visual aesthetic is where this thread goes wrong. If a movie takes full advantage of the HD medium and is relatively free of technical issues, then to me, at least, it's an exemplary blu-ray, even if a movie is not constant eye candy. I'd say Wall-E definitely has plenty of places where the format is used to its full extent.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15314418
> 
> 
> I have to check myself at times, but the reason we do pick apart a movie's visual aesthetics is because for purposes of this thread we don't care about director's intent, a certain look, grain or no grain, etc. Simply this thread's focus is does the PQ look good or bad and have anomalies or not that add or take away from PQ. We don' care how the BD got to where it did in terms of PQ, we only care if that PQ is eye candy or not. How that is determined is different for some compared to others, but it is an eye candy thread.



Hugh, great job on responding to the post above.


It continues to amaze me that after 7800 posts and thousands of views, there are still people that do not understand the purpose of this thread.


"If a movie takes full advantage of the HD medium and is relatively free of technical issues, then to me, at least, it's an exemplary blu-ray, even if a movie is not constant eye candy."


There is a separate thread for those very types of transfers. This isn't it.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem*


Tier Recommendation: 2.75


I was a bit disappointed with this title. The only reason that I even bothered watching this was in the hope that I would have a great audio/video experience, because I had not heard too many good things about the movie itself.


The PQ wasn't particularly good. Contrast was a bit flat overall, and this is not a good thing for a mostly dark movie. Also, when there were daylight scenes, the colors look pretty poor, and appear smeared and over-saturated.


Detail wasn't horrible, but it was not as good as I would expect from a newer release like this either.


I would recommend Tier 2.75 and think 2.0 is a bit too high.


Oh, the audio was very good. Movie itself sucked hard.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15314345
> 
> 
> Last two posts regarding Zulu and the tier thread. I have brought up several times that I believe some want or hope a film is going to be eye candy and tier 0 and after one viewing rush to judgement. I also believe we have some contributors that are looking to nitpick and downgrade a title only after one viewing. IMO, I believe to fairly judge a title one should watch at least 3 times. One for the movie itself and I am sure the videophiles will notice PQ and if there are issues or not. Second time focus more on PQ, yet watch the entire film again. The third time scan through from beginning to end just focusing on PQ. I cannot tell you how many times I thought a title after a first viewing seemed like it was better than it was after a second or third viewing.
> 
> 
> As far Zulu and the tier thread, I believe there has only been one or two recommendations for placement and the one who said tier 0 watched it again and yesterday dropped his placement recommendation to tier 4.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know the disparity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am expecting Zulu to be dropped in the tiers. Unfortunately if only one, two or a few see a film and recommend placement that is where the film will be placed.
> 
> 
> I am not telling those those that already know what the PQ thread is about, but I am reminding them we have a wide variety of opinions of how we should or shouldn't be rating movies in that thread. Some like grain some don't. Some are ok with some issues and don't notice them and others are hardcore and notice everything and don't cut any slack. We are constantly discussing parameters and what is and isn't eye candy, and what are and aren't artifacts and issues. We have had a flood of new contributors to the thread and it seems to be for the better of the thread and is welcomed.
> 
> 
> Personally I want as close to film like reproduction as possible and at the same time want eye candy. I think the majority of those that post in the PQ tier thread want the same, but the main intent in that thread is eye candy. We want the best possible looking PQ on BD that we can get. Director's intent and things like out of focus or blurry screen shots are penalized by our ranking system, but I think more often than not many really good looking, eye candy BD's are ones that have obvious grain and a film like quality. I may not be successful, but when possible I try to bring the two together.
> 
> 
> Look at the differences of opinion in the Baraka and DK threads as disparities about PQ assessment there are frequent. Some that I would have thought would have blasted Baraka or DK didn't and some that I thought wouldn't have blasted it did. We have had fence jumpers.



Hugh posted this in the Zulu thread, and I think he raised a few good points (I dont agree with all of it, including the idea that a title should be viewed 3 times before giving a review) that should be discussed here.


I think that we should have a requirement that before any title is placed anywhere in the Tier list, there should be at least three different recommendations/reviews for it.


Placing a title like Zulu in Tier 0, especially in light of another thread here at AVS slamming the PQ, based on just one or two reviews is a bit suspect.


The downside to this is that you will have some more obscure titles that will remain unranked for a longer period of time. The solution: more people getting involved and giving their opinion!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15316237
> 
> 
> I think that we should have a requirement that before any title is placed anywhere in the Tier list, *there should be at least three different recommendations/reviews for it*.
> 
> 
> Placing a title like Zulu in Tier 0, especially in light of another thread here at AVS slamming the PQ, based on just one or two reviews is a bit suspect.
> 
> 
> The downside to this is that you will have some more obscure titles that will remain unranked for a longer period of time. The solution: more people getting involved and giving their opinion!



We did discuss this very thing awhile back Rob (it must have been during your absence from this thread) and most of us agreed with your conclusion that there should be at least 3 recommendations before placement. But we also highlighted the "downside" of obscure titles remaining unranked. If memory serves me right we didn't reach a positive consensus, and obviously there have been title placements since then based on less than 3 reviews.


I was one that emphasized the need for more than one or two reviews because of possible bias or other factors that could cause a recommendation to be skewed. Perhaps, in light of the recent issue with Zulu, we should discuss this subject again.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15315354
> 
> 
> Hugh, great job on responding to the post above.
> 
> 
> It continues to amaze me that after 1600 posts and thousands of views, there are still people that do not understand the purpose of this thread.
> 
> 
> "If a movie takes full advantage of the HD medium and is relatively free of technical issues, then to me, at least, it's an exemplary blu-ray, even if a movie is not constant eye candy."
> 
> 
> There is a separate thread for those very types of transfers. This isn't it.




Rob, while I understand the intent of this thread and I try to follow it, I want both the eye candy and film like PQ.










I am an idealist, but also a realist. I think we can build a bridge between those "hardcore evil anti DNR/EE people" (I am kidding of course) and this thread and for BD as a whole to better it.


Lol, Rob I was thinking of posting that which I posted in Zulu thread here as I just read it again. I appreciate you having done it as it looks a wee bit less self serving when someone else does it.










Have you noticed Rob how many more we do have contributing? If memory serves me it seems we have more than we ever have which is a good thing.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15316336
> 
> 
> We did discuss this very thing awhile back Rob (it must have been during your absence from this thread) and most of us agreed with your conclusion that there should be at least 3 recommendations before placement. But we also highlighted the "downside" of obscure titles remaining unranked. If memory serves me right we didn't reach a positive consensus, and obviously there have been title placements since then based on less than 3 reviews.
> 
> 
> I was one that emphasized the need for more than one or two reviews because of possible bias or other factors that could cause a recommendation to be skewed. Perhaps, in light of the recent issue with Zulu, we should discuss this subject again.



+1


I think this is a very good idea to revisit the topic of having a minimum amount of recommendations before placement. And I believe you are right Djoberg, we never did come to a consensus or settle on a minimum of recommendations before placement rule.


I posted what I did in the Zulu thread, because a few posters seen someone's link to our thread and us placing Zulu in tier 0 and when they did they said they will never return here again. As anyone can see from my post that Rob posted here, I went on to mention how there was only one review of Zulu so far and even that poster changed his recommendation radically. I was trying to temper a bit of the rush to judgement of this thread and its posters and come to their defense. Their is no fault here and I have the utmost respect for Rsbeck and his views. He is certainly trying to do the right thing and his diligence in re-evaluating Zulu speaks to that issue.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15316434
> 
> 
> Rob, while I understand the intent of this thread and I try to follow it, I want both the eye candy and film like PQ.



Absolutely!


What people need to understand is what the term "eye candy" means. Many people give it a negative connotation, but I don't know why. For my money, Lawrence of Arabia in 70mm is the most incredible "eye candy" that you can ask for! And yet....it is still "film like".










Of course you can certainly still have eye candy that is not film like too, such as anything shot with an HD cam.


To me, the term eye candy is used to describe a picture that simply looks gorgeous and take the directors intent out of the equation. It either looks great, or it doesn't, regardless of intent.



> Quote:
> I am an idealist, but also a realist. I think we can build a bridge between those "hardcore evil anti DNR/EE people" (I am kidding of course) and this thread and for BD as a whole to better it.



I would like to think so as well.



> Quote:
> Lol, Rob I was thinking of posting that which I posted in Zulu thread here as I just read it again. I appreciate you having done it as it looks a wee bit less self serving when someone else does it.



No problem, you made some very valid points.



> Quote:
> Have you noticed Rob how many more we do have contributing? If memory serves me it seems we have more than we ever have which is a good thing.



I absolutely have noticed, and its great! It is also part of the reason that I started posting in the thread again. I want to continue to encourage the additional participation, and certainly do not want to do anything to discourage it. Sometimes I worry that by posting too much, it can discourage others from doing so. And look how many posts I have in this thread in just the last few hours.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15316507
> 
> 
> I think this is a very good idea to revisit the topic of having a minimum amount of recommendations before placement.
> 
> 
> I posted what I did in the Zulu thread, because a few posters seen someone's link to our thread and us placing Zulu in tier 0 and when they did they said they will never return here again. As anyone can see from my post that Rob posted here, I went on to mention how there was only one review of Zulu so far and even that poster changed his recommendation radically. I was trying to temper a bit of the rush to judgement of this thread and its posters and come to their defense. Their is no fault here and I have the utmost respect for Rsbeck and his views. He is certainly trying to do the right thing and his diligence in re-evaluating Zulu speaks to that issue.



Agreed! Let's hope others will chime in and hopefully we will reach a consensus this time. I believe it will actually be easier for SuprSlow too if we can settle this issue.


I am glad for your zeal Hugh being carried over into other threads and for *defending* the PQ thread in those other threads. This thread may (and does) have its faults and weaknesses, but overall it's serving a great purpose. I know my Blu-ray libary has grown considerably since I started reading this thread and I attribute this to the good recommendations of my fellow-members.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15316507
> 
> 
> Their is no fault here and I have the utmost respect for Rsbeck and his views. He is certainly trying to do the right thing and his diligence in re-evaluating Zulu speaks to that issue.



Thank you.


----------



## SuprSlow

For the time being, I've removed Zulu from the rankings. Let's see where the discussion goes, and we'll place it at a later time. My apologies to any who were forever scarred










As for the suggestion to wait for multiple opinions before placement...that's cool with me. What do you guys think about applying that only to Tier 0 and Tier 1, since that is usually our most "contested" rankings? And generally, less popular titles get little attention, and tend to fall in the lower tiers, anyway. And I'm afraid we'd be waiting forever for multiple opinions on some titles. Just an idea...I'm open to anything within reason










BTW, welcome back, Rob







It's great to see so much activity in here now, from new and old faces alike.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15316695
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> 
> What people need to understand is what the term "eye candy" means. Many people give it a negative connotation, but I don't know why. For my money, Lawrence of Arabia in 70mm is the most incredible "eye candy" that you can ask for! And yet....it is still "film like".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you can certainly still have eye candy that is not film like too, such as anything shot with an HD cam.
> 
> 
> To me, the term eye candy is used to describe a picture that simply looks gorgeous and take the directors intent out of the equation. It either looks great, or it doesn't, regardless of intent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to think so as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No problem, you made some very valid points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I absolutely have noticed, and its great! It is also part of the reason that I started posting in the thread again. I want to continue to encourage the additional participation, and certainly do not want to do anything to discourage it. Sometimes I worry that by posting too much, it can discourage others from doing so. And look how many posts I have in this thread in just the last few hours.



While I am trying to remove the word should from my shaming vocabulary, there should be no embarrassment on your part with your postings. "Our" rambling on the keyboard may just spurn some lurkers or less involved posters to say to themselves, "hey wait a minute I agree or don't agree" and therefore they contribute even when they might not want to contribute. Then again you maybe right, they might just want us to STFU.

















And I think the "Dark Knight" removed another one of my posts from that DK comparison pix thread.


----------



## rsbeck

My question is -- how many of those griping about Zulu have even seen it? If they've seen it, where is their review? If they haven't, what are they going on? A screen grab thread? So, they read a screen grab thread and then congratulate themselves for falling in with the peanut gallery? I notice there are people in here trying to watch and review these titles and then there is a contingent that simply comes here to gripe about the thread, the tiers, the criteria, whatever -- hardly or never write a review. I'm sorry that I made a mistake with Zulu. I tried my best at the time and I blew it. I'm sure that's not my only mistake, I'm sure I have made others, too. But, usually I am just one voice of many, which is the way it should be. I encouraged others to view the title and weigh in, but no one ever did. I won't defend my mistake, but I will defend this thread. When I joined this forum, I purchased a number of titles because they were ranked tier 0. Between the time I purchased them and the time I went to watch and review them, a number of those had been moved to lower tiers. What does that tell me? That this thread and the tiers are always evolving, errors are corrected, assessments get better and better and as more titles come out, standards get higher and higher. I think this is a damn good thread and I challenge anyone who wants to make it better to jump in and start posting reviews.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I have no problem with the requirement of multiple recommendations needed for the bigger titles (though where one draws the line between big and everything else gets a little hairy). But lots of the more obscure titles would never get ranked if every submission required multiple reviews. I would estimate a good 30% to 40% of the current rankings were based on one sole review. I do think a tier zero placement needs multiple people backing it for that lofty rank though. I think the current system works pretty well because poorly placed titles are usually moved based on feedback from others down the road. Most posters here have a good sense of what level of visual quality fit into each tier. I think it would also make SuprSlow's job more difficult as one title might have two or three recommendations spread out over months of posts.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/15316970
> 
> 
> As for the suggestion to wait for multiple opinions before placement...that's cool with me. *What do you guys think about applying that only to Tier 0 and Tier 1*, since that is usually our most "contested" rankings?



I would go along with that SuprSlow. Those two tiers are obviously the most "important" (as far as people looking for good demo discs) and anything placed there should be based on at least three recommendations.


May I suggest that when we do have a recommendation for one of those tiers by only one person, other members should make every effort to watch that title in order to expedite the forming of a consensus. I feel bad what happened with Zulu and I believe we could have spared rsbeck some unnecessary anguish if we had responded to his (implied) plea for others to watch it.


----------



## Fanaticalism




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15312733
> 
> 
> I don't want to see a separate list for animated titles, but I would like to see us be a little tougher on them. I think we tend to be a little wowed by the technology, sort of like marveling over really well done simulated wood flooring. If "really well done" simulated wood strikes you as a funny notion, you'll understand how I feel about CGI animation. We strike down live action films for any lack of detail, but I would argue that no matter how impressive, none of the animated titles are as detailed as the best live action. For argument's sake, let's take Ratatouille. Imagine a live action film where the faces were only as detailed as these. You'd be hunting for the reason. DNR, low bit-rate, faulty cinematography. Look how we lowered Speed Racer because of some airbrushed faces. Those faces, even though air brushed, are arguably more detailed than most of the cartoon faces we see. CGI animal fur is incredibly impressive these days, but is it really as detailed and have all of the natural variation of real animal fur? How about CGI human hair? We marvel over being able to see individual whiskers and it is truly marvelous, but is it as amazing as real human hair where no two strands really look alike? Same with clothing. The best CGI is now showing some texture in clothing, but -- again -- if we saw the same lack of texture detail in live action film -- look at the difference between clothing texture in Pan's Labrynth versus the UK import -- we'd drop the title and we'd be looking for an explanation for the lack of detail. Look at the haze in the first 30 minutes of Wall-E. If a live action film had hazy visuals for the first 30 minutes and you suggested it for tier 0, you'd be hooted out of here. Why are we so impressed? Because it is really well simulated haze, along with an incredible simulation of.....blurred details. Look at the lack of detail in the humans that populate AXIOM. Further, I think the 3D pop criteria is causing us to over rate CGI animated titles. Why? Because we're so impressed with 3D animation. In live action films, we are not as immediately impressed with the fact that objects seen on screen have more than two dimensions.



Very well said.


IMO, it is just too easy to be "wowed" with animated films. Do they look great? Absolutely, but if you ask me, I just can't see myself rating them over live action, reference tier titles.


----------



## Fanaticalism




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15317054
> 
> 
> While I am trying to remove the word should from my shaming vocabulary, there should be no embarrassment on your part with your postings. "Our" rambling on the keyboard may just spurn some lurkers or less involved posters to say to themselves, "hey wait a minute I agree or don't agree" and therefore they contribute even when they might not want to contribute. Then again you maybe right, they might just want us to STFU.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I think the "Dark Knight" removed another one of my posts from that DK comparison pix thread.



IMO, when a thread is fairly active, it lures, and encourages others to contribute.


Again, IMO, a bunch a posts with just recommendations is rather boring. The fun behind this thread are the actual conversations, and a how one derives to certain conclusions in terms of tier placement. A heated discussion once in a while, IMO, is a good thing, as it forces us to think outside the box.


In the end, you actually come away from it with a little more knowledge, regardless of whether we publicly admit to it or not.


----------



## rsbeck

*Bullitt*


1.85:1, 1968, Warner Brothers


Pretty coarse grain intact and very consistent from scene to scene. In stretches, you can see lots of detail; textures of faces, for example. Color is excellent and blacks and shadow very good. I observed what appeared to be ringing from time to time. This will not be to everyone's taste, but I like that they left the late sixties grain alone, love that look, the color, and a lot of the detail. I don't have the DVD, so I could not do any comparisons. Steve McQueen is great and of course it was fun to see the car chase around late sixties San Francisco. For film and film history buffs, in the extras there is a feature called The Cutting Edge: The Magic of Editing which is in hi-def, excellent, and almost worth the price of the disc all by itself.

*Recommendation: Tier 4.0*


Sim2 C3X1080

Carada Masquerade

126" Firehawk G3

Pioneer BDP-05FD


13' From Screen


----------



## sleater

*Sleeping Beauty*


I was excited by the tier 0 reviews from a couple contributors. It had potential to be there (in the bottom) but unfortunately the few out of focus shots stuck out like a sore thumb. The scenes of The Prince and a couple of 'Briar Rose' in the forest as well as a few others were completely out of focus taking you right out of the moment. I would have to offer a *Tier 1.75* recommendation - I believe it belongs in the lowest tier 1 category due to these few jarring segments. I'm not quite sure why the restoration process did such a good job on the vast majority of the picture but could not do better on these short segments. The background mattes are quite nice as is the cell animation - like others stated it is a nice look compared with the CGI stuff that so quickly became the norm as of late. The sound is quite spectacular as well on this 50 year old classic. Definitely worth a viewing.


Mits HC5500 1080p LCD PJ

92" Greywolf II

Sony S350

10' From Screen


----------



## 42041

*Tropic Thunder*

Not much negative to say about this one. Very pleasant, film-like transfer; wish all comedies looked this good (talking to you, Universal). Minor complaints: the blacks always were a shade lighter than the letterboxes for some reason, and it's not as sharp as some tier 0 titles. I'm satisfied with its current *top Tier 1* placement.


(PS3/Samsung LN40A650 LCD/1080p24/1 screen width away)


----------



## Vegaz

*The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor*


I found it to be rather inconsistant. Some shots were really top notch whlie others were soft and blurry looking. I'd say there was more soft/blurry than top notch. Overall I'd say it's about the same quality as Wanted (with higher highs and lower lows) wich would put it in Gold 1.5.


I'd like to add that the sound is excellent. I don't have a fancy sound system and apprently this TV doesn't have the best speakers so when even I can tell,you know it's good. I'm pretty sure the floor actually shook during one scene.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15314324
> 
> *Mamma Mia! The Movie*
> *
> 
> SuprSlow:* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA 5.1 | AR: 2.40:1 | Universal
> 
> 
> I'll spare you the entire thesaurus; this movie is downright gorgeous on my TV. I need to watch it again to give it a fair review as I did notice a few issues in a couple places but overall I felt this movie was comparable with Speed Racer or Kill Bill v2. I will not be surprised if this film ends up in low Tier 0 or 1.00. Unfortunately I spent the majority of the time dancing around with my little son while watching this (he really took to Dancing Queen *snicker*his dad is gonna kill me); my daughter will be home soon and I'll be watching it again with her & I can pay more attention.
> 
> 
> I just wanted to get this out there quickly that I think if any of you are hesitant on this title because, well, it's MAMMA MIA, you likely can use the excuse that it has a pretty darn good PQ to help justify it belonging in your collection. In particular any scene that showed the water, and I personally enjoyed the night-time scenes, I felt they were very rich. Proper review forthcoming!



I just ordered this based on your recommendation. So it had better be good.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15318289
> 
> 
> I just ordered this based on your recommendation. So it had better be good.




















Is it bad that I thought, "Oh no, Patrick99 will probably see a gazillion things wrong with this film*!!"











My 2nd viewing yesterday was even more mish-mashed than the first, but I do plan on watching it _yet again_ today. I can't stop singing ABBA songs.



edited to add:

*just b/c this is the internet and my 'playful' nature may not come across properly, I _do_ mean this with respect & fun, as I have found upon reading this thread that you & I have a very similar opinion on movies.


----------



## Shane Martin

I think we should consider what Phantom Stranger says. There are a bunch of the more obscure titles that would never get ranked.


I think that in the end, we get it right when it's all said and done.


I wouldn't pay attention to the moaning crowd that doesn't participate here. It's like the people that don't vote in an election suddenly after the election feel the need and desire to complain about the result. Frickin' vote next time!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15318978
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it bad that I thought, "Oh no, Patrick99 will probably see a gazillion things wrong with this film*!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My 2nd viewing yesterday was even more mish-mashed than the first, but I do plan on watching it _yet again_ today. I can't stop singing ABBA songs.
> 
> 
> 
> edited to add:
> 
> *just b/c this is the internet and my 'playful' nature may not come across properly, I _do_ mean this with respect & fun, as I have found upon reading this thread that you & I have a very similar opinion on movies.



You were the first one to write in about Mamma Mia and I believe you mentioned it may end up in low Tier 0 or Tier 1.0. This is a classic example of what I stated last night when I said that after a member reviews a title that may be in the first two tiers, the rest of us should try to view it soon so a consensus can be formed.


Having said that, my wife really wants to see it, so I plan to rent it tomorrow or Friday (unless our local video stores don't carry it in Blu-ray....that was the case with Zulu or I would have watched that title so I could have added my voice to rsbeck's).


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15318978
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it bad that I thought, "Oh no, Patrick99 will probably see a gazillion things wrong with this film*!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My 2nd viewing yesterday was even more mish-mashed than the first, but I do plan on watching it _yet again_ today. I can't stop singing ABBA songs.
> 
> 
> 
> edited to add:
> 
> *just b/c this is the internet and my 'playful' nature may not come across properly, I _do_ mean this with respect & fun, as I have found upon reading this thread that you & I have a very similar opinion on movies.



I'm a longstanding Streep fan, so I come into it with a positive predisposition for that reason alone.


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15319177
> 
> 
> You were the first one to write in about Mamma Mia and I believe you mentioned it may end up in low Tier 0 or Tier 1.0. This is a classic example of what I stated last night when I said that after a member reviews a title that may be in the first two tiers, the rest of us should try to view it soon so a consensus can be formed.
> 
> 
> Having said that, my wife really wants to see it, so I plan to rent it tomorrow or Friday (unless our local video stores don't carry it in Blu-ray....that was the case with Zulu or I would have watched that title so I could have added my voice to rsbeck's).



I don't think I could stomach it to rate it


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15317839
> 
> *Bullitt*
> 
> 
> Steve McQueen is great and of course it was fun to see *the car chase* around late sixties San Francisco.
> *Recommendation: Tier 4.5*



I've always loved Bullitt! And that car chase was so memorable...especially the part where Steve McQueen's (I think it was his) car loses *five hub caps*!!!!


----------



## moematthews




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15319977
> 
> 
> I've always loved Bullitt! And that car chase was so memorable...especially the part where Steve McQueen's (I think it was his) car loses *five hub caps*!!!!



Totally off-topic and not in keeping with the purpose of this thread, but this was absolutely one of my favourite movies on HD DVD - with all its grain and detail. It really looks like FILM. The distinctive late 60s\\early 70s colour mentioned by rsbeck - especially noticeable in the first scene inside the hotel when the guy asks for messages - is just fantastic.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15319177
> 
> 
> You were the first one to write in about Mamma Mia and I believe you mentioned it may end up in low Tier 0 or Tier 1.0. This is a classic example of what I stated last night when I said that after a member reviews a title that may be in the first two tiers, the rest of us should try to view it soon so a consensus can be formed.
> 
> 
> Having said that, my wife really wants to see it, so I plan to rent it tomorrow or Friday (unless our local video stores don't carry it in Blu-ray....that was the case with Zulu or I would have watched that title so I could have added my voice to rsbeck's).



I hope you guys enjoy it! If your wife really wants to see it, chances are very high she'll enjoy it. I hope a ton of reviews come in for this one, as while I do think it looks really good, I need to eye it better than I did with my viewings yesterday, but figured I should get the seed planted out there. I'm also limited by my equipment which could also be why.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15319411
> 
> 
> I'm a longstanding Streep fan, so I come into it with a positive predisposition for that reason alone.



Well ok that's good to know.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/15319419
> 
> 
> I don't think I could stomach it to rate it




Awww, it's really good! Give it a try!







I don't blame you to be honest, my husband keeps rolling his eyes at me when I ask him if he wants to watch it with me.


----------



## b_scott

if I hear that song again I will have to punch someone in the face. I just will.


----------



## selimsivad

*The Man Who Fell To Earth*


TMWFTO looked spectacular! It's cinematography was "out of this world!"







The contrast was PERFECTLY natural looking! There was a few smudges at the bottom of the screen every now and then, but not really distracting (at least not to me). They actually made the movie feel more "film-like."










In fact, it's the most film-like Blu to date. It felt "projected," even though I watched on my 46" Sammy. There was a beautiful layer of grain throughout the entire film. Close facial scenes were detailed and natural looking! If there was softness, it was backround and very minor. All of the psychedelic scenes looked better than ever!










Just yesterday, I stated that Shawshank was my "catalog" title to show how how good an older movie can look. I just changed my mind!










It's easily lower Tier 0, but the smudges will dock it a few points.

*Tier Recommendation: Top of Tier 1*


PS3-Samsung 46"-nine'


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/15319419
> 
> 
> I don't think I could stomach it to rate it



If my wife enjoys it, I'll enjoy her enjoying it!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15320432
> 
> 
> I hope you guys enjoy it! If your wife really wants to see it, chances are very high she'll enjoy it. I hope a ton of reviews come in for this one, as while I do think it looks really good, I need to eye it better than I did with my viewings yesterday, but figured I should get the seed planted out there. *I'm also limited by my equipment* which could also be why.



I did read some "professional" reviews (i.e., High Def Digest) and they gave a very negative review on the PQ, but I always take their review with a grain of salt.


Regarding you being "limited by my equipment," I thought I remember you saying you had a 46" Toshiba HDTV. If so, that's not too shabby, and that more than qualifies you to assess PQ and to give a review.


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/15316970
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> As for the suggestion to wait for multiple opinions before placement...that's cool with me. What do you guys think about applying that only to Tier 0 and Tier 1, since that is usually our most "contested" rankings? And generally, less popular titles get little attention, and tend to fall in the lower tiers, anyway. And I'm afraid we'd be waiting forever for multiple opinions on some titles. Just an idea...I'm open to anything within reason
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...



SuprSlow your suggestion about multiple recommendations before being placed in Tier 0 or 1 would work fine for popular film, particularly action and animation which are two types of movies popular with those who contribute the most to this thread, but would be a disservice to some of the newer small scale dramas that tend to get overlooked, The Visitor is one that comes readily to mind. If a movie picks up a recommendation for Tier 0 or 1, why not place in the ratings with maybe a (provisional) after it? That might spur other people to review the movie.


Anyway, keep up the good work.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/15321296
> 
> 
> If a movie picks up a recommendation for Tier 0 or 1, why not place in the ratings with maybe a (provisional) after it? That might spur other people to review the movie.



Excellent suggestion.


----------



## rsbeck

Geekyglassesgirl -- I've managed to avoid Mama Mia until now, but it is on the way. No pressure.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15320955
> 
> 
> I did read some "professional" reviews (i.e., High Def Digest) and they gave a very negative review on the PQ, but I always take their review with a grain of salt.
> 
> 
> Regarding you being "limited by my equipment," I thought I remember you saying you had a 46" Toshiba HDTV. If so, that's not too shabby, and that more than qualifies you to assess PQ and to give a review.



I do, I have a toshiba 46h83. I have television-envy of just about everyone. The husband has no interest in going to a projector, but given my constant nagging & whining, he's starting to bend on getting a new tv that is less bulky than this one (probably plasma). Maybe on boxing day sales or something!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15321494
> 
> 
> Geekyglassesgirl -- I've managed to avoid Mama Mia until now, but it is on the way. No pressure.



Bwahaha... _you all_ will be singing ABBA tunes with me. Sequins not required.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15321738
> 
> 
> I do, I have a toshiba 46h83. I have television-envy of just about everyone. The husband has no interest in going to a projector, but given my constant nagging & whining, *he's starting to bend on getting a new tv that is less bulky than this one (probably plasma*). Maybe on boxing day sales or something!



If I went with any of the new flat panel tvs, I would want a plasma (preferably the Pioneer Kuro or Panasonic's high end 800 series), or Samsung's or Sony's new LCD with LED lighting. They have excellent black levels and shadow detail, along with accurate colors, and this, to me, is the biggest criteria.


My current Samsung DLP (50") does have deep blacks and good shadow detail, but it fails to resolve fully a 1080i signal when upscaling to 1080p. There are some other issues as well that leave something to be desired, but until I can afford a $5,000 flat panel, and can persuade my wife that we *need* it, I am satisfied with my Sammy.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sleater* /forum/post/15317891
> 
> *Sleeping Beauty*
> 
> 
> I was excited by the tier 0 reviews from a couple contributors. It had potential to be there (in the bottom) but unfortunately the few out of focus shots stuck out like a sore thumb. The scenes of The Prince and a couple of 'Briar Rose' in the forest as well as a few others were completely out of focus taking you right out of the moment. I would have to offer a *Tier 1.75* recommendation - I believe it belongs in the lowest tier 1 category due to these few jarring segments. I'm not quite sure why the restoration process did such a good job on the vast majority of the picture but could not do better on these short segments. The background mattes are quite nice as is the cell animation - like others stated it is a nice look compared with the CGI stuff that so quickly became the norm as of late. The sound is quite spectacular as well on this 50 year old classic. Definitely worth a viewing.
> 
> 
> Mits HC5500 1080p LCD PJ
> 
> 92" Greywolf II
> 
> Sony S350
> 
> 10' From Screen




Thanks for your review. You do raise very valid points regarding the out of focus shots. They do exist. Obviously I was not bothered by them as much as you were.


It would be interesting to hear how many people think this is a big issue.


It's still a Tier 0 in my opinion.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*Mamma Mia! The Movie*


I wrote a preliminary review for this yesterday because I was absolutely excited about this movie. Granted, I loved this in the theatre, and while I would not describe myself as the biggest ABBA fan in the world, I did grow up listening to this music because of my parents and then a bit of a resurgence while I was in college. I've never seen the play, but I would go in a heartbeat if I was in a city where it was playing.


The colours in this movie are phenomenal; comparable to both Speed Racer or Saawariya. That being said, I did have an issue with whites *very rarely* in this movie; I don't think it's EE but more... blooming? I think that's the phrase, but I'm unsure. An example of this can be seen in an old man walking off of the boat when Meryl Streep's friends arrive on the island; I see a big halo around his hair, which is white. I popped it into my computer to double check, and it's still there - 11min38sec area of the movie. I also saw it around 1hr19min40ish seconds, on Sophie's wedding veil. If ever figure out how to take a screenie of a BluRay i will try to show y'all what I mean (I also saw this in Kill Bill v2 when Uma was in the wedding dress talking with Bill at the chapel).


During the night scenes (bachelorette party) I find the colours to be fantastic. Rich, bright, beautiful... I can't think of what word to use to describe it short of using every word available. It is so similar to Speed Racer (without the dark purple line that bothered me in that film due to blue screen). I am also madly in love with the water throughout this film. Maybe it's because it's sparkly; I do like sparkly. It's cartoonish with the colours being so bright and lush, but I don't find it's in a bad way. If TDK had colours like this it would be strange and out of place; in a fun movie such as this it fits perfectly and is presented in a fantastic manner.


An unfortunate spot with this movie, I have to admit, they did something to a few faces. I don't know what they did. Perhaps trying to de-age Meryl, but it's also present on Sophie at times, but not always. Someone with more experience in this will have to identify it, as I cannot. As Speed Racer is a common comparison throughout this review from me, I must say it is NOTHING NEAR AS BAD as the faces that were messed with in whatever manner they did in Speed Racer. But it is definitely noticeable.


Because of the few issues I've noted, I cannot in good conscience recommend this to be in Tier 0, especially due to the recent criticism small flaws have caused. I stand by this film being equal to Speed Racer and Kill Bill v2, but I personally recommended Speed Racer to be tier 1.00, and it sits in Tier 0 (as is KBv2).

Recommendation for Mamma Mia! The Movie - Tier 1.00


Equipment: ps3 80gig to Toshiba 46H83, approx 4' viewing distance (white issue double checked on Phillips PLDS BD-RE DH-4B1S to Samsung Synchmaster 2243wm, approx 12-16 distance)


*Updated Recommendation for Mamma Mia! The Movie: Tier 1.50


Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic Panasonic TH-58PZ800U, THX setting. Approx 7.5' viewing distance.*

************



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15322232
> 
> 
> If I went with any of the new flat panel tvs, I would want a plasma (preferably the Pioneer Kuro or Panasonic's high end 800 series), or Samsung's or Sony's new LCD with LED lighting. They have excellent black levels and shadow detail, along with accurate colors, and this, to me, is the biggest criteria.
> 
> 
> My current Samsung DLP (50") does have deep blacks and good shadow detail, but it fails to resolve fully a 1080i signal when upscaling to 1080p. There are some other issues as well that leave something to be desired, but until I can afford a $5,000 flat panel, and can persuade my wife that we *need* it, I am satisfied with my Sammy.




I think the one he was looking at was Panasonic 65" TH65PZ850 according to my search of the store's website.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Star Wars: The Clone Wars
*

tier recommendation: *Tier 1.75*


On November 11th of this year, Warner released this computer animated Star Wars project to Blu-ray. The 98-minute feature is encoded in VC-1 on a BD-50. The average video bitrate is 18.08 Mbps per the BDInfo scan. The video encode ranges from the low teens to a few momentary peaks in the low thirties. I expect the video compression work on an animated title to be flawless, and while this is a solid looking encode, it does exhibit a few minor flaws. A casual viewer will not notice but there are some moments of banding in the background and the faintest hint of chroma noise. Minor noise also pops up briefly but I will give the benefit of the doubt and say that is source related and not the fault of the VC-1 encode.


For a wholly computer rendered film I was a little disappointed with the image quality overall. There is nothing wrong per se with the animation, but it clearly is not on par with the quality seen in a Pixar or even Shrek theatrical movie. The level of detail in the character models and the backgrounds rarely exceeds the standards of television animation. Facial features look strange and unrealistic with virtually no texture. The non-human creatures seem to get more attention from the animators, with more realistic detailing and textures. The best looking character model in the entire film in terms of detail is Jabba the Hut’s uncle, who really plays a very minor role in the overall plot. I can report that the master used for this transfer is pristine with no imperfections at least.


Outside of the brilliant hues of the various light sabers, colors do not jump off the screen like they do in superior animation. The color gamut used appears a little dull and dirty at times. Contrast is perfect, with the very solid black levels getting shown off when the action switches to the pitch-black star fields of space. I did notice a few sporadic edges that appear to have aliasing artifacts but I would imagine this was due to the quality of the source animation. The entire movie is relatively sharp though there are moments with an animated haze or lighting effect that softens the picture. I also have to lodge a minor complaint with the composition and framing of the image. I have a suspicion that the original animation was not designed for a scope presentation. Several different scenes are framed poorly with animation being cut off at the top and bottom of the screen.


This BD is very nice looking compared to the average BD, but it is clearly not of the caliber of the finest computer rendered animation we have on the Blu-ray format. Overall I would place this title in tier 1.75.


Watching on a 60” Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 from a PS3 (firmware 2.53) at a viewing distance of six feet.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of forum member DigitalfreakNYC):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post15030815


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15316063
> 
> *Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem*
> 
> 
> Tier Recommendation: 2.75



I can not agree with that low of a placement for _AVP: Requiem_. I do see some merits in your comments, but the daylight scenes are razor sharp and exhibit superior resolution to virtually all titles placed in tier two. I do admit that this is a very dark transfer with limited contrast at times.


----------



## saprano

The dark knight should be tier 0






































The imax scenes of course


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15323801
> 
> 
> I think the one he was looking at was Panasonic 65" TH65PZ850 according to my search of the store's website.



First of all, thanks for the good review of Mamma Mia. I have a rental copy reserved for Friday and I'm looking forward to the vivid colors and, of course, the "sparkly" waters!










The Panasonic you mentioned would be an EXCELLENT choice! Right now Amazon has it listed for under 5 Grand, but there is a hefty shipping price.


----------



## b_scott

*Band of Brothers* is outstanding. Someone more articulate than me should review it, but I think it's Tier 1.25 at least. Maybe even low Blu.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15323982
> 
> 
> I can not agree with that low of a placement for _AVP: Requiem_. I do see some merits in your comments, but the daylight scenes are razor sharp and exhibit superior resolution to virtually all titles placed in tier two. I do admit that this is a very dark transfer with limited contrast at times.



What can I say Phantom? I agree with you the vast majority of the time. This just isn't one of them. I didn't find the daylight scenes to be very satisfying, particularly because of the over-saturated and unnatural colors.


----------



## Vegaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/15321296
> 
> 
> SuprSlow your suggestion about multiple recommendations before being placed in Tier 0 or 1 would work fine for popular film, particularly action and animation which are two types of movies popular with those who contribute the most to this thread, but would be a disservice to some of the newer small scale dramas that tend to get overlooked, The Visitor is one that comes readily to mind. If a movie picks up a recommendation for Tier 0 or 1, why not place in the ratings with maybe a (provisional) after it? That might spur other people to review the movie.
> 
> 
> Anyway, keep up the good work.



Isn't it better to get it right than get it fast? I think it's more a disservice to do it fast and get it wrong than wait and get it right. There should be some limit of course,like after say 6-8 weeks if there's only 2 votes.


All this Mama Mia talk is making me want to rent Singstar ABBA on PS3.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vegaz* /forum/post/15324883
> 
> 
> Isn't it better to get it right than get it fast? I think it's more a disservice to do it fast and get it wrong than wait and get it right. There should be some limit of course,like after say 6-8 weeks if there's only 2 votes.



Exactly.


I really don't see why it's such a big deal to want to get a movie placed in the rankings based on one or two reviews. If people are that desperate to see where a title would be ranked based on one or two reviews, they can use the search feature to see if any reviews/recommendations were given, and give those the appropriate weight.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15322828
> 
> 
> Thanks for your review. You do raise very valid points regarding the out of focus shots. They do exist. Obviously I was not bothered by them as much as you were.
> 
> 
> It would be interesting to hear how many people think this is a big issue.
> 
> 
> It's still a Tier 0 in my opinion.



Whoa whoa whoa...shouldn't out of focus shots (especially for an animated title) be weighed just as heavily as a little EE found in TDK (that most with an untrained eye) didn't notice?










You saying "obviously I was not bothered by them as much as you were" is exactly what everyone was saying about TDK who think it's Tier 0.


Not trying to start another war, just asking a question Rob.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15290444
> 
> 
> I used the back down to earth phrase, because this film alone and all it entails immediately elevates it for almost everyone in terms of story, acting, PQ and AQ. I used the phrase, because the last two months we have had many more contributors to this thread. I used the phrase because I do think too many are wanting and rushing to claim tier 0 recommendation on a title and they don't seem to be doing more than one viewing of it. Some recommended Indy 4 for tier 0 and I watched it several times and pointed out in my posts with time stamps several serious issues with it that are noticeable on my 60 in display. There is no way INDY 4 is tier 0 not with those obvious issues.
> 
> 
> The motion blur or smearing and the two poor or noticeable changes from the imax to 35mm footage is the reason I know I cannot recommend tier 0, but overall the PQ was close to flawless. Then we have the issue of ringing and although I don't see it or ding the film for that many are seeing the halos. I would still say it is demo or reference, but that doesn't mean it is flawless. I say all of this after having seen Prince Caspian which is flawless, and I do think it is a full tier above DK.
> 
> *Ok, people. Let's be honest.*
> 
> 
> How many of you who voted tier 0 thinking this is one of the best if not the best film of the year? How many thought the action, plot and cinematography made it one of the best films of the year? How many just simply love Batman?
> 
> How many of those recommending tier 0 were blown away by the overall experience therefore having some influence in the recommendation for tier 0. I know it can work both ways as some maybe negatively influenced in terms of recommending PQ for a film, but I am asking the tier 0 group to tell us how they think about the film. Don't you think if you really loved DK and the genre and it gets good reviews to reaffirm, that your placement or wanting it to be tier 0 is a little influenced? I am not saying anyone is ignoring PQ issues, but I am saying there maybe some bias.
> 
> 
> And Rob is right I mean no disrespect to anyone. If I come across that way I apologize. I just think the hype in general over this title helps elevate it to out of this world status. One, it is Batman. Two Heath Ledger dies. Ledger is now most likely up for and will win an oscar. Hollywood video by me opened up at midnite to 1:00 am just for DK. Thats a little over the top for even this type of film. You know what I mean?
> 
> 
> As much as I love action, adventure and intense violence in movies, having watched Caspian and DK back to back, I actually like Caspian better overall. FOR me knowing what I am into that says a lot as I didn't expect that to happen. DK looks awesome, but if you really want to see one of the best if not the best non animated title on BD check out Caspian. Actually if gives the top tier 0 animated films a run for their money.



I think this is a perfect exacmple of how Wall-E is so highly ranked by some here.


----------



## quake1028




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15325182
> 
> 
> Whoa whoa whoa...shouldn't out of focus shots (especially for an animated title) be weighed just as heavily as a little EE found in TDK (that most with an untrained eye) didn't notice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You saying "obviously I was not bothered by them as much as you were" is exactly what everyone was saying about TDK who think it's Tier 0.
> 
> 
> Not trying to start another war, just asking a question Rob.



I was going to post almost this exact same thing. If you want to be letter of the law for one title, it should be for all titles.


Currently watching *Baraka*. Will put up my 2 cents when I'm done.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15325182
> 
> 
> Whoa whoa whoa...shouldn't out of focus shots (especially for an animated title) be weighed just as heavily as a little EE found in TDK (that most with an untrained eye) didn't notice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You saying "obviously I was not bothered by them as much as you were" is exactly what everyone was saying about TDK who think it's Tier 0.
> 
> 
> Not trying to start another war, just asking a question Rob.



Sure they should. But every film based movie, even those in tier 0 have some slightly out of focus scenes.


The Dark Knight has an overall digital/processed look which is present ALL THE TIME (except for the IMAX shots), which is why I would put that in mid Tier 1. By contrast, the out of focus shots in Sleeping Beauty are not present all the time.


Obviously I am not the only one who thinks it belongs in Tier 0, as it was already there before I made my recommendation. I admit that the issue does exist. Whether it is enough of an issue to remove from Tier 0 is open for discussion, which is why I asked how many people were really bothered by it.


Overall, I still think it is amazing eye candy, and a true work of art.


----------



## quake1028

*Baraka*


I know everyone is bored to death of this title, and the endless debate over it, but I was finally just able to secure a rental copy. A lot of this looks fantastic. Picture window has never been more appropriate. However, to my eyes, there were a few brief moments of some shots that weren't as crisp or focused as others, so that hurts it a bit. But, when this title is at it's best, I don't think it can be beat, because of the nature of the movie. I didn't really see any of the EE that caused a lot of complaints, but then again I didn't see any in Dark Knight, either (although I did see some in Prince Caspian), so obviously I am not as sensitive to it as some. A few moments of fault can't keep this one from it's lofty perch.

*Final Tier Recommendation: Tier 0, a few spots below where it is.*

*Panny TH-42PZ800U 1080p

PS3 through HDMI

4.5 ft*


Next up: *???*


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15325617
> 
> 
> Sure they should. But every film based movie, even those in tier 0 have some slightly out of focus scenes.
> *
> 
> The Dark Knight has an overall digital/processed look which is present ALL THE TIME (except for the IMAX shots), which is why I would put that in mid Tier 1. By contrast, the out of focus shots in Sleeping Beauty are not present all the time.*
> 
> 
> Obviously I am not the only one who thinks it belongs in Tier 0, as it was already there before I made my recommendation. I admit that the issue does exist. Whether it is enough of an issue to remove from Tier 0 is open for discussion, which is why I asked how many people were really bothered by it.
> 
> 
> Overall, I still think it is amazing eye candy, and a true work of art.



Yeah but herein lies the problem as I do not agree with this statement and neither do many of us in this thread.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

If Baraka is in Tier 0 despite all of that EE debate TDK should be as well.


----------



## sleater

*Sweeny Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street*


Just watched this one. Very good film-like transfer with minor noise here and there, very good contrast (most of the movie consists of dark scenes) and no noticeable post processing EE. Blacks are not as inky as I'd have liked, but it's probably more my LCD PJ than anything. Some shots slightly on the softer side - probably more due to director's intent than doing a bad transfer - although I did not catch this one in theatres. Film-like through and through. Nice also that it's true 16X9 aspect ratio for a change.

*Recommendation Tier 1.50*


I only watched it once so this is just a quick vote to throw out there, I searched and sadly this title was overlooked by everyone. Phantom Stranger? Anyone? It's a really interesting musical that showcases the singing talents of all involved - most of whom have never sung a note in their lives prior to this film. Doesn't show.


1080p LCD projector 92" High Contrast Grey Screen 10 feet distance blah blah.


Side Note: I am not ashamed to have ordered Mamma Mia and quite enjoy ABBA and there should be no shame in stating that. Most grown men will be silently bobbing in their seats pretending to be highly disinterested in the pop talents of Swedes. Not I. Yes I'm a girly man.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15325717
> 
> 
> Yeah but herein lies the problem as I do not agree with this statement and neither do many of us in this thread.



I didn't say that you did. So what is the problem?


I was giving you the basis for _my_ opinion and it's reasoning. Whether you agree with it or not is a matter for SuprSlow to take into account. To say that you don't agree with my opinion, and "herein lies the problem" doesn't even make sense.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15325721
> 
> 
> If Baraka is in Tier 0 despite all of that EE debate TDK should be as well.



Well, if enough people agree with you and voice that opinion, it will happen. Personally I don't think Baraka's little issues are nearly as bothersome, and I find it much more visually impressive and still completely can't see how 80% of TDK is even remotely tier 0 material, but I guess we look for different qualities...


----------



## sleater




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15325832
> 
> 
> Well, if enough people agree with you and voice that opinion, it will happen. Personally I don't think Baraka's little issues are nearly as bothersome, and I find it much more visually impressive and still completely can't see how 80% of TDK is even remotely tier 0 material, but I guess we look for different qualities...



+1 Wholeheartedly agree with this statement. Not to beat a dead horse, but I strongly feel that the IMAX TDK scenes are clearly Tier 0, whilst the rest of the movie is pretty inconsistent but definitely somewhere in Tier 1. On the whole, however, the movie falls short of Tier 0 glory when all is said and done (IMHO).


In TDK I didn't have to look very hard to see noticeable EE in at least 5 scenes (not just the infamous temp. batcave, or parade sequence), whereas in Baraka I had to study screenshots online, sit up close to my screen and really try hard to see ringing/EE in very few shots and convince myself that it was actually there. I then felt dirty and had to take a shower immediately.


----------



## Desert Pilot

I've watched the newly released Fearless (w. Jet Li) on BD. Excellent film and I would place it in the reference quality category. Both picture and audio, to me anyway, seem superb.


thanks! Marcus


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15324655
> 
> 
> What can I say Phantom? I agree with you the vast majority of the time. This just isn't one of them. I didn't find the daylight scenes to be very satisfying, particularly because of the over-saturated and unnatural colors.



You do not have to say anything. I do agree the colors appeared oversaturated at times. I guess we will have to agree to disagree about this Blu-ray.







It has been several months since I even viewed it.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sleater* /forum/post/15325817
> 
> *Sweeny Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street*
> 
> I only watched it once so this is just a quick vote to throw out there, I searched and sadly this title was overlooked by everyone. Phantom Stranger? Anyone?



I saw this on cable in HD and have no intention of picking it up on Blu-ray unless someone wants to donate it to me.







Do I remember correctly lgans316 mentioning this at some point or is my memory playing tricks on me?


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15325824
> 
> 
> I didn't say that you did. So what is the problem?
> 
> 
> I was giving you the basis for _my_ opinion and it's reasoning. Whether you agree with it or not is a matter for SuprSlow to take into account. To say that you don't agree with my opinion, and "herein lies the problem" doesn't even make sense.



What I meant was the fundamental problem of this thread.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15325721
> 
> 
> If Baraka is in Tier 0 despite all of that EE debate TDK should be as well.



I think Baraka is in tier 0 because it simply got voted to be placed there by a majority and I don't think that majority noticed or cared about the EE.


I think I voted tier 1 for Baraka and DK. At least I am consistent, Ha ha







and I didn't see the EE in either, thankfully.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15326035
> 
> 
> What I meant was the fundamental problem of this thread.



There is no fundamental problem with this thread. It's perfect!


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15326102
> 
> 
> I think Baraka is in tier 0 because it simply got voted to be placed there by a majority and I don't think that majority noticed or cared about the EE.
> 
> 
> I think I voted tier 1 for Baraka and DK. At least I am consistent, Ha ha
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and I didn't see the EE in either, thankfully.



Again though, that's my point. Other than those who studied the screen shots of TDK and a few others who noticed the EE, the majority did not/does not see the EE in TDK.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rob tomlin* /forum/post/15326209
> 
> 
> there is no fundamental problem with this thread. It's perfect!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :d



Haha


----------



## LBFilmGuy

In other news, TDK sold 1.7 million copies on BD in its first week. :eek3:

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/sh...k_Barrier/2341


----------



## lgans316

I feel *Man on Fire* should be placed above *I,Robot*. The imagery is consistently razor sharp and colorful unlike I,Robot where the color palette in parts of the movie looked less vibrant and subdued.


----------



## rsbeck

*Elvis Costello And The Imposters-Live in Memphis*


1.78:1, DTS 5.1 surround.


Up close and personal with Elvis and his band doing a date in a small club. Appears to be shot with hi-def video cameras. No grain. Very sharp; pores, stubble, sweat -- you know the routine. Lit pretty well so blacks and colors are excellent, etc. Looks like what it is, hi-def digital. Audio Quality: Sounds like what it is; a club date with Elvis and his band. Elvis comes across very clear and the band sounds grungy like you'd expect in that setting. Die hard Costello fans will want this.

*Recommendation: Tier 2.50*


Sim2 C3X1080

Carada Masquerade

126" Firehawk G3

Pioneer BDP-05FD


13' From Screen


----------



## lgans316

*Kung Fu Panda*


Creativity at it's zenith. Top class movie besides few boring sequences. Much better and creative than Wall-E in terms of entertainment value, visual and animation quality.


Tier Recommendation: *Tier-0 below or above Meet the Robinsons*


1080X24p / 50" Plasma / 8ft


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15326218
> 
> 
> Again though, that's my point. Other than those who studied the screen shots of TDK and a few others who noticed the EE, the majority did not/does not see the EE in TDK.



I was maybe the only one that dinged DK for some motion blur I noticed even in the Imax scenes in the beginning, that and two times where the transition from 35mm to Imax or back was noticeable and I thought was a detriment to PQ. Those were the only reasons I knocked it down to tier 1.


I do see your point and think there are some, not the hardcore PQ zealots, but there are some that don't see PQ issues. They hear about PQ issues from us or others by reading about them in posts and though they don't see them they "know" they exist and ding a title for them. I don't really think that is right either. Within reason if one's equipment is more than adequate to give a decent picture, they should only be worried or reporting on what they see and not what they don't see. Discussing it is one thing, but listing it when one doesn't see it and basing their tier recommendation on it is another. Contributors really only need to recommend a title based on what they see, not what someone else sees or lists in a review.


Finally, the last sentence got out what I was trying to say. Just ignore the rest of the post and read the last sentence.







It would have been much easier if I posted that first.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/15324639
> 
> *Band of Brothers* is outstanding. Someone more articulate than me should review it, but I think it's *Tier 1.25* at least. Maybe even low Blu.



Watched an episode earlier tonight. Holy Mother this looks great! Grain is intact, excellent vintage look. Gorgeous! Not ready to do the full-on review, but based on what I've seen so far, I think you are in the right ball-park.


----------



## rsbeck

*Mr. Brooks*


Disagree with Current Placement


Good looking title. Very fine grain is intact, image for the most part is razor sharp, especially faces; pores, imperfections in skin, etc. Colors are pushed for effect. No visible noise, but contrast and handling of reduced light varies in quality from scene to scene. Apparent ringing evident in a few shots. Image solidity varies, usually beautifully saturated, but a little washed out a few times. I'm going to guess this was placed in tier 0 quite awhile ago. Based on the quality of titles we've seen recently, I believe this is now a solid mid tier 1 blu-ray. Still very good looking and I enjoyed the story immensely (Costner and Hurt are an excellent dark, twisted, creepy, comedy duo), but not tier 0.

*Recommendation: Tier 1.25*


Sim2 C3X1080

Carada Masquerade

126" Firehawk G3

Pioneer BDP-05FD


13' From Screen


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15325617
> 
> 
> Sure they should. But every film based movie, even those in tier 0 have some slightly out of focus scenes.
> 
> *The Dark Knight has an overall digital/processed look which is present ALL THE TIME (except for the IMAX shots), which is why I would put that in mid Tier 1. By contrast, the out of focus shots in Sleeping Beauty are not present all the time.*
> 
> 
> Obviously I am not the only one who thinks it belongs in Tier 0, as it was already there before I made my recommendation. I admit that the issue does exist. Whether it is enough of an issue to remove from Tier 0 is open for discussion, which is why I asked how many people were really bothered by it.
> 
> 
> Overall, I still think it is amazing eye candy, and a true work of art.



I completely agree with the bolded comment, Rob. Based on my recollection of SB, the out of focus shots were minimal (although I would have preferred they not be there, of course). In contrast, all the non-IMAX scenes in TDK look "off" to varying degrees. In fact, although I watched TDK a number of times when I first got it, at this point when I consider rewatching it, my reaction is no, I really don't want to experience that PQ again.


----------



## lgans316

rsbeck,


You have just reopened the can of Worms.







Mr. Brooks is heading to kill you.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/15327063
> 
> 
> rsbeck,
> 
> 
> You have just reopened the can of Worms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Brooks is heading to kill you.



Uh oh. Well, maybe it's good to open up that can and let those worms have some air. 


I mean no harm.


I'm just reporting what I saw.


Trying to do my part.


Doing my duty.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15327079
> 
> 
> Uh oh. Well, maybe it's good to open up that can and let those worms have some air.
> 
> 
> I mean no harm.
> 
> 
> I'm just reporting what I saw.
> 
> 
> Trying to do my part.
> 
> 
> Doing my duty.



I was one of the strongest proponents of a Tier 0 placement for Mr. Brooks at the time it was released, but based on a recent partial viewing, I agree that there are aspects of the PQ that may not hold up against more recent releases. The great strengths of the PQ are the sharp details in faces, particularly Costner and Hurt, but there are some scenes that look a bit washed out.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15327086
> 
> 
> The great strengths of the PQ are the sharp details in faces, particularly Costner and Hurt



No disagreement there.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

So I watched Blood Diamond last night and The Godfather tonight. Seeing them back to back has me disagreeing with their placements as they are both in 2.75 here.


Surely Blood Diamond has its issues (I assume most have seen it) but when compared to the Godfather in the same tier it is a much better looking title. I would place it at the top of *Tier 2, Tier 2.25 at worst.*


I think most people have given the Don quite a bit of slack because it is 36 years old and one of the classics of American cinema, but I'd place at *mid Tier 3 at best.* The film does look better toward the 2nd half, but struggles throughout with the many low light scenes with tons of noise, quite a few soft shots, and lots of hot contrast in the opening outdoor scenes. This is at its best during most of the outdoor scenes...with some shots looking nice and sharp showing great detail but unfortunately these are few and far between. Colors and skin tones are accurate and well done though. Overall I was still pleased with the restoration all things considered.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15327049
> 
> *Mr. Brooks*
> 
> 
> Disagree with Current Placement
> 
> 
> Good looking title. Very fine grain is intact, image for the most part is razor sharp, especially faces; pores, imperfections in skin, etc. Colors are pushed for effect. No visible noise, but contrast and handling of reduced light varies in quality from scene to scene. Apparent ringing evident in a few shots. Image solidity varies, usually beautifully saturated, but a little washed out a few times. I'm going to guess this was placed in tier 0 quite awhile ago. Based on the quality of titles we've seen recently, I believe this is now a solid mid tier 1 blu-ray. Still very good looking and I enjoyed the story immensely (Costner and Hurt are an excellent dark, twisted, creepy, comedy duo), but not tier 0.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 1.25*
> 
> 
> Sim2 C3X1080
> 
> Carada Masquerade
> 
> 126" Firehawk G3
> 
> Pioneer BDP-05FD
> 
> 
> 13' From Screen



Glad there are more people who agree with me. I've been saying this forever







My main problem was the inconsistent black levels. I agree though that it is a great looking movie... I even own it and enjoy the story.


Just another note for others. Perhaps we should all revisit some of the *older* tier 0/1 titles and see if we still agree with our original placements. I'm still shocked that nothing comes close to I, Robot as far as new releases.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/15326697
> 
> *Kung Fu Panda*
> 
> 
> Creativity at it's zenith. Top class movie besides few boring sequences. Much better and creative than Wall-E in terms of entertainment value, visual and animation quality.
> 
> 
> Tier Recommendation: *Tier-0 below or above Meet the Robinsons*
> 
> 
> 1080X24p / 50" Plasma / 8ft



To quote the words of another:


"You have just reopened the can of worms."







Kung Fu Panda is coming to kill you.










There was an overwhelming majority that recommended the "top of the heap (tier)" for KFP, and I really believe we got that one right.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15327627
> 
> 
> Perhaps we should all revisit some of the *older* tier 0/1 titles and see if we still agree with our original placements. *I'm still shocked that nothing comes close to I, Robot* as far as new releases.



You need not be shocked, for there are two titles that come close to I, Robot in my book: The Dark Knight and Prince Caspian!!


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15327876
> 
> 
> You need not be shocked, for there are two titles that come close to I, Robot in my book: The Dark Knight and Prince Caspian!!



Man on Fire WOWs me more than I,Robot.










KFP is few steps behind the animation quality of Pixar's Ratatouille and Cars but is definitely sharper than these two. Meet the Robinsons boasts the best image in terms of contrast and texture details. Happy Feet also looks excellent but who knows, it could have looked better if it was encoded by Disney.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/15328338
> 
> 
> Man on Fire WOWs me more than I,Robot.



I'll have to watch Man on Fire again. I remember it being worthy of Tier 0, but I don't recall it being better than I, Robot. But maybe you're right....


Regarding Kung Fu Panda, I still think it deserves to be "King of the Blu-ray Hill."


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15327086
> 
> 
> I was one of the strongest proponents of a Tier 0 placement for Mr. Brooks at the time it was released, but based on a recent partial viewing, I agree that there are aspects of the PQ that may not hold up against more recent releases. The great strengths of the PQ are the sharp details in faces, particularly Costner and Hurt, but there are some scenes that look a bit washed out.



I think that I was the second one to nominate Mr. Brooks for Tier 0 for the same reasons that you did. The details and clarity are simply superb.


I do recall others previously saying that contrast was not as good as it could be, especially for a Tier 0 title. Based on that discussion, I remember re-watching it and I agreed that the blacks/contrast were weak in some spots, but that I still thought the percentage of those shots was low enough to keep my recommendation at Tier 0.


This is where SuprSlow's job becomes very difficult. If someone doesn't go through the thread to see how many are recommending Tier 0 vs Tier 1 etc, should we rely on him to do so? I don't think so. It's hard enough for him just keeping up on new titles, nevermind older ones that are being revisited.


As such, I would submit that if some people want a title like Mr. Brooks to be revisited and it's current placement reconsidered (and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that...in fact I think it should be encouraged as it helps strengthen the credibility of the placements), then they should take it upon themselves to search through the thread for posts that have discussed that title, and quote them in a post for SuprSlow to read.


Also, I think that post should include all recommendations, not just those that are in agreement with the person wanting the title moved from its current placement.


----------



## jutang

Just saw X-flies I Want to Believe and wasn't impressed by it's overall look. Details on Mulder and Sculy's face are fine, but background colors don't pop and grain seen on walls such as the locker room tile wall. Quality was less than my HD programming on dish network.


I would down grade it to tier 2-2.5 range.


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15327001
> 
> 
> Watched an episode earlier tonight. Holy Mother this looks great! Grain is intact, excellent vintage look. Gorgeous! Not ready to do the full-on review, but based on what I've seen so far, I think you are in the right ball-park.



there are a few darker scenes that are questionable black level, but it may be the intended crushed look. then again I wasn't watching in pitch black like I normally do.


series looks gorgeous. And I know this isn't the thread for it, but audio is amazing as well. I thought we were at war!


----------



## aC39




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/15326697
> 
> *Kung Fu Panda*
> 
> 
> Creativity at it's zenith. Top class movie besides few boring sequences. Much better and creative than Wall-E in terms of entertainment value, visual and animation quality.
> 
> 
> Tier Recommendation: *Tier-0 below or above Meet the Robinsons*
> 
> 
> 1080X24p / 50" Plasma / 8ft



I realize this has been a back and forth in this thread (and on the fora in general), but I have to disagree here. Not in the PQ placement, but in the comparison to Wall-E in terms of actual film quality and entertainment.


Having watched both a couple of times, Wall-E has proven to be a expertly crafted emotional ride with amazing cinematography, set design, character design, and story. I feel it works on a few levels; preachy green (although supposedly unintended), fun story for kids, and emotional deeper elements for adults.


KFP on the other hand struck me as a completely formulaic kids movie. The humor is often very juvenile (and I'm not saying I don't find juvenile humor funny, I do, just calling it what it is), the story was predictable, and the ending felt rather anti-climactic. I'm not saying the character design wasn't good, or that the voice acting wasn't well done or anything like that. I do think it was a good movie for what it was, but I just don't see the comparison to Wall-E. The many hidden references were a nice touch though.


Everyone is free to disagree, that's the point of opinions, and I don't put mine forth as superior to yours. I just thought it was worth noting my reasons for disagreeing


----------



## djoberg

I just watched *Wanted* and I would recommend *Tier 1.5*. The most outstanding feature of this title were the fleshtones and facial close-ups; they were incredible. But I believe it lacked sharpness and detail in some scenes, and the colors and black levels were nothing to boast of. I think I may be generous in my recommendation and I would have no argument if it got placed in Tier 1.75.


----------



## Hammie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Shane Martin* /forum/post/15319078
> 
> 
> I think we should consider what Phantom Stranger says. There are a bunch of the more obscure titles that would never get ranked.
> 
> 
> I think that in the end, we get it right when it's all said and done.
> 
> 
> I wouldn't pay attention to the moaning crowd that doesn't participate here. It's like the people that don't vote in an election suddenly after the election feel the need and desire to complain about the result. Frickin' vote next time!



How about if multiple reviews don't flow in for a title for a week or so, then place/rank it. Other titles battling for a tier0 or tier1 placement can go on a little longer before being placed.


I don't think a title should be penalized from being placed just because a bunch of people have not watched it.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/15329556
> 
> 
> there are a few darker scenes that are questionable black level, but it may be the intended crushed look. then again I wasn't watching in pitch black like I normally do.




To my eyes, Band Of Brothers employs a few techniques that I have been seeing in a number of films going for a vintage look. Some colors are pushed, usually sort of a golden color and some colors seem to be a tad desaturated to give sort the look of an old photograph. Additionally, the contrast is set so that whites blow out a little (notice the light coming in through windows). This is to imitate the type of film that was used back in the forties which had that effect. Some films I've seen recently that employ this look are; Godfather, There Will Be Blood, and JFK. Still, the look achieved by Band of Brothers is fabulous. I saw grain some lower light shots, but that's also natural and in keeping with the look.


----------



## fleaman

*2001: A Space Odyssey>* Maybe this has been covered before, but hidef Digest gave this disc a GLOWING review, reference marks>

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/453/...ceodyssey.html 

*The Video: Sizing Up the Picture:*

_Presented with identical 1080p/VC-1 transfers on Blu-ray and HD DVD, this remastered release of '2001: A Space Odyssey' features a revelatory upgrade in picture quality that's likely to leave fans buzzing with excitement. Colors are magnificent, rich, and stable from beginning to end -- skintones are perfectly saturated and primary hues are bold and vibrant. Blues and reds receive the most noticeable improvement from past DVD editions, but the entire palette is striking. I'm also happy to report that contrast is dead-on, black levels are inky, and shadow delineation reveals a variety of elements formerly cloaked in darkness.


Fine detail sets a new bar for high definition catalog releases. Facial imperfections are a cinch to spot, hair is crisply defined, and the star fields are flawless. I paused on several occasions to note actors' naturally splotchy skin and chipped fingernails. There are even scenes in this transfer that I completely re-watched just to have another chance to explore the intricacies of the sets and props. For the first time, I was able to read all of the small text Kubrick strategically placed across the film. Call me obsessed, but I found myself completely fascinated by these minor details that I'd previously been unable to enjoy. Pay close attention to the barren wilderness in the opening scenes, the space station electronics, and the slightest etchings on the ships floating above Earth. My apologies for sounding like Captain Adjective, but this transfer is just that beautiful.


The print is in excellent condition and isn't marred by softness, edge enhancement, scratches, or any distracting instances of source noise. There isn't a hint of the blockiness that haunts 'A Clockwork Orange' and the transfer easily surpasses the new 2-disc Special Edition DVD (as well as every other previous home video release of the film). As I watched this Blu-ray, I searched for something to complain about, but I'm happy to report that I failed to find a single thing. '2001: A Space Odyssey' has set a new bar for catalog transfers in high definition. For a film that's nearly forty years old, this high-def release is nothing short of a godsend._
*

Why the discrepancy between Tier-2 here and hidef's review?*


Comments??


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fleaman* /forum/post/15330588
> 
> *2001: A Space Odyssey>* Maybe this has been covered before, but hidef Digest gave this disc a GLOWING review, reference marks>
> 
> http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/453/...ceodyssey.html
> 
> *The Video: Sizing Up the Picture:*
> 
> _Presented with identical 1080p/VC-1 transfers on Blu-ray and HD DVD, this remastered release of '2001: A Space Odyssey' features a revelatory upgrade in picture quality that's likely to leave fans buzzing with excitement. Colors are magnificent, rich, and stable from beginning to end -- skintones are perfectly saturated and primary hues are bold and vibrant. Blues and reds receive the most noticeable improvement from past DVD editions, but the entire palette is striking. I'm also happy to report that contrast is dead-on, black levels are inky, and shadow delineation reveals a variety of elements formerly cloaked in darkness.
> 
> 
> Fine detail sets a new bar for high definition catalog releases. Facial imperfections are a cinch to spot, hair is crisply defined, and the star fields are flawless. I paused on several occasions to note actors' naturally splotchy skin and chipped fingernails. There are even scenes in this transfer that I completely re-watched just to have another chance to explore the intricacies of the sets and props. For the first time, I was able to read all of the small text Kubrick strategically placed across the film. Call me obsessed, but I found myself completely fascinated by these minor details that I'd previously been unable to enjoy. Pay close attention to the barren wilderness in the opening scenes, the space station electronics, and the slightest etchings on the ships floating above Earth. My apologies for sounding like Captain Adjective, but this transfer is just that beautiful.
> 
> 
> The print is in excellent condition and isn't marred by softness, edge enhancement, scratches, or any distracting instances of source noise. There isn't a hint of the blockiness that haunts 'A Clockwork Orange' and the transfer easily surpasses the new 2-disc Special Edition DVD (as well as every other previous home video release of the film). As I watched this Blu-ray, I searched for something to complain about, but I'm happy to report that I failed to find a single thing. '2001: A Space Odyssey' has set a new bar for catalog transfers in high definition. For a film that's nearly forty years old, this high-def release is nothing short of a godsend._
> *
> 
> Why the discrepancy between Tier-2 here and hidef's review?*
> 
> 
> Comments??



One of the reasons this thread is so valuable is because reviews like that are so unreliable.


----------



## fleaman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15330636
> 
> 
> One of the reasons this thread is so valuable is because reviews like that are so unreliable.



But I did some searching in this thread and found quite a few praising and voting this disc to Tier-0 (which it might have been at??), others protesting the Tier-2 level saying it should be Tier-1 at least. One very influential poster her might have got it moved to the Tier-2 level...it seems.


I found posts here from people who really liked this disc....top level votes.


I mean, it goes from a Tier-0 to Tier-2 (in votes I guess) , what does that tell you about this thread


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fleaman* /forum/post/15330755
> 
> 
> I mean, it goes from a Tier-0 to Tier-2 (in votes I guess) , what does that tell you about this thread



That it represents the average of the opinions people voiced on it? That's how this thread works. I don't necessarily agree with many placements, but everyone is bothered by different stuff so a higher placed title will have a higher chance of being visually satisfying to more people out there, at least.


----------



## fleaman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15330867
> 
> 
> That it represents the average of the opinions people voiced on it? That's how this thread works. I don't necessarily agree with many placements, but everyone is bothered by different stuff so a higher placed title will have a higher chance of being visually satisfying to more people out there, at least.



It was at Tier-0, Votes seem to range from Tier-0 to Top of Tier-2. It seems the average would put it somewhere in Tier-1. I didn't find any votes below the top of Tier-2....and maybe only 1 or 2 votes for Tier-2.


Most of the Votes seem to put in in the Tier-1 range. I didn't search the Whole thread though.


It seems strange that the lowest votes it got by a few is where it is placed (top of Tier-2), all other votes seem to be above that Tier.


And some of those demoting votes seemed out of place...one poster comparing it to Ice Age







That doesn't at all seem fair comparing PQ of a 100% digital animated movie to a Film IMO.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fleaman* /forum/post/15330919
> 
> 
> It was at Tier-0, Votes seem to range from Tier-0 to Top of Tier-2. It seems the average would put it somewhere in Tier-1. I didn't find any votes below the top of Tier-2....and maybe only 1 or 2 votes for Tier-2.
> 
> 
> Most of the Votes seem to put in in the Tier-1 range. I didn't search the Whole thread though.
> 
> 
> It seems strange that the lowest votes it got by a few is where it is placed (top of Tier-2), all other votes seem to be above that Tier.
> 
> 
> And some of those demoting votes seemed out of place...one poster comparing it to Ice Age
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't at all seem fair comparing PQ of a 100% digital animated movie to a Film IMO.



What was your review of the movie?


----------



## fleaman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15331564
> 
> 
> What was your review of the movie?



I don't have it! I was considering buying it, checked the rating here, then saw the review on hidef Digest...thought, hmm, strange. Did some thread searching and found it did rate Tier-0 at one point. So, now just confused.


Maybe this particular title is not easily agreed upon here, I dunno


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fleaman* /forum/post/15331817
> 
> 
> I don't have it! I was considering buying it, checked the rating here, then saw the review on hidef Digest...thought, hmm, strange. Did some thread searching and found it did rate Tier-0 at one point. So, now just confused.
> 
> 
> Maybe this particular title is not easily agreed upon here, I dunno



Have you looked at this thread?

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...=927750&page=4 


Or this one?

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...highlight=2001


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15328681
> 
> 
> search through the thread for posts that have discussed that title, and quote them in a post for SuprSlow to read....not just those that are in agreement with the person wanting the title moved from its current placement.



I could see how that might open up another can of worms with some feeling that quotes have been taken out of context, quote have ben presented to favor an agenda, etc.


Personally, I don't have a vested interest in where Mr. Brooks is placed. I'd rather give my opinion, raise the issue and see how others feel. If some have the title and want to look at it again, that's great. If my opinion is not enough to get a conversation going or enough to lower the title, or what have you, I can live with that, too.


Or, it might just turn out like any other recommendation. Just like we might have to wait awhile for more than one review of a film before placement, it might take awhile for more people to watch Mr. Brooks and weigh in before the snowball either does or does not accumulate weight.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fleaman* /forum/post/15330755
> 
> 
> what does that tell you about this thread



That the thread is always a work in progress, that at any given point in time it can be imperfect, that placements for titles is long term process sometimes with multiple destinations, that people can look at the same picture see different things, that it can be a messy process, that this is ultimately a discussion thread and that, to have a place in the discussion, it helps if you post a review and recommendation rather just rag on the thread or on reviews others have posted.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fleaman* /forum/post/15330588
> 
> *2001: A Space Odyssey>*
> *Why the discrepancy between Tier-2 here and hidef's review?*
> 
> 
> Comments??



Placements here represent our best efforts to place a title according to our various interpretations of the criteria listed at the beginning of the thread.


High Def Digest is not obligated to employ these criteria.


----------



## fleaman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15332000
> 
> 
> it helps if you post a review and recommendation rather just rag on the thread or on reviews others have posted.



I wasn't ragging, my quote was in contrast (and context) to the poster that discredited hidef digests reviews relative to this thread (his post inferring this thread is golden compared to hidef digest). When searching this thread I noticed a lot of disagreement about 2001's placement in Tier-2, and I didn't find anyone voting it below where it currently resides. It seemed strange, but whatta I know










It was just an observation....I was checking out the ratings before I purchase as I'm sure you do, and became confused over the discrepancies.


----------



## fleaman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15331868
> 
> 
> Have you looked at this thread?
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...=927750&page=4
> 
> 
> Or this one?
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...highlight=2001



I read all 4pgs of the 1st link, just the 1st page and last 2 pages of the 2nd link (19 pgs long







).


They aren't rating the Tier of 2001, but I get the impression that most of the posts are in pretty high praise....at least above Tier-2 level it would seem. Seems to be only 1 or 2 posters that talk of the PQ in a Tier-2 level.


----------



## fleaman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15330867
> 
> 
> That it represents the average of the opinions people voiced on it? That's how this thread works. I don't necessarily agree with many placements, but everyone is bothered by different stuff so a higher placed title will have a higher chance of being visually satisfying to more people out there, at least.



But the lowest votes were Tier-2 (and very few of them), most of the votes were above this. If one is to place as an average, it shouldn't be at Tier-2, no?


----------



## fleaman

Ok, so I searched "2001" on this thread, I counted 2 (3 at the MOST) posters saying 2001 should be Tier-2. Every other poster says Tier-0 (which it was at) to Tier-1 (20+ posters?).


Of the 2 or 3 posters wanting 2001 to be Tier-2, one of them compared it to Ice Age







, and it seemed like the others were expecting more of the PQ since it was shot on 70mm, that the 'potential' of the 70mm format wasn't achieved, one even saying they wanted to punish Warner (by rating it lower) for not capturing the full potential of 70mm.


Of course I probably missed a bunch of posts on this, but I did click on pretty much every post that came up in my '2001' search and it all seems to go contrary to a Tier-2 ranking. Much of the posts I saw were in protest to the Tier-2 ranking, saying it should be bumped to Tier-1.


By law of averages it should not be at Tier-2, but maybe this isn't how the thread works....


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fleaman* /forum/post/15331817
> 
> 
> I don't have it! I was considering buying it, checked the rating here, then saw the review on hidef Digest...thought, hmm, strange. Did some thread searching and found it did rate Tier-0 at one point. So, now just confused.
> 
> 
> Maybe this particular title is not easily agreed upon here, I dunno



I haven't seen it either, so I can't help you out with my thoughts. The reason I chose to start participating in this thread is because I think it needs more opinions, and we all see different things when we view; there's also a vast array of equipment and experience throughout. I think it's fun, otherwise I wouldn't participate.


rsbeck is right when he says that the thread is a work in progress; I don't think we'll ever have 100% agreement on what title is placed where, but I think that's also part of the fun.



I also think with regards to actual placements on the chart, there's been quite the turnover in the thread and somehow SuprSlow got left holding the reigns by himself. I don't know how the innerworkings of the thread behind the scenes works; if every vote is logged into a spreadsheet or something and then an average is taken from that or what. It would be quite the undertaking to create such a form at this time should that not exist, but not impossible. I think this thread and list was spawned from another, so the initial data wouldn't be in here I don't think (but could very easily be wrong on that score!).


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fleaman* /forum/post/15332532
> 
> 
> Ok, so I searched "2001" on this thread, I counted 2 (3 at the MOST) posters saying 2001 should be Tier-2. Every other poster says Tier-0 (which it was at) to Tier-1 (20+ posters?).



If you're a fan of the film and it received that many tier 1 votes, I would say it is well worth checking out. Even at a 2 ranking, it is going to be better than the DVD. There are many fabulous blu-rays ranked tier 2. Titles are often downgraded for very subtle qualities that most people wouldn't notice. In this thread, we don't give a title credit for being the best version available, but if you're a fan of the film, often that's all you need to know. Did you get a sense from reading the individual reviews what you might expect from it?


----------



## fleaman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15332741
> 
> 
> Did you get a sense from reading the individual reviews what you might expect from it?



Yes, I sensed somewhere in the Tier-1 region. I will get the disc, I'm not expecting Tier-0 performance, but was just a bit shocked at the HiDef review and its rating here. Then after doing some searching here, it seems like it should be in the Tier-1 range.


My purpose is to look at the rankings first and avoid what happened with the 1st 5th Element Blu-ray, which many said looked worse than their SD DVD superbit version







, Then they remastered it and I ordered it.


I have 20*10* on SD DVD and it's PQ is Horrible (don't think it is even anamorphic)...I don't want to make that mistake again.


Seems the 2001 Blu-ray is pretty darn good and I won't have to wait for a remastered 2nd try version.


I'm watch on a DLP front projector, 60" wide screen.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fleaman* /forum/post/15332532
> 
> 
> Ok, so I searched "2001" on this thread, I counted 2 (3 at the MOST) posters saying 2001 should be Tier-2. Every other poster says Tier-0 (which it was at) to Tier-1 (20+ posters?).
> 
> 
> Of the 2 or 3 posters wanting 2001 to be Tier-2, one of them compared it to Ice Age
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , and it seemed like the others were expecting more of the PQ since it was shot on 70mm, that the 'potential' of the 70mm format wasn't achieved, one even saying they wanted to punish Warner (by rating it lower) for not capturing the full potential of 70mm.
> 
> 
> Of course I probably missed a bunch of posts on this, but I did click on pretty much every post that came up in my '2001' search and it all seems to go contrary to a Tier-2 ranking. Much of the posts I saw were in protest to the Tier-2 ranking, saying it should be bumped to Tier-1.
> 
> 
> By law of averages it should not be at Tier-2, but maybe this isn't how the thread works....



I thought placement went by majority of votes and not the average of votes, but if that is true then it contradicts the placement of 2001. And as you said even if it was the average of votes, it shouldn't be in tier 2










Let's assume fleaman did correctly find all posts for recommending 2001. How then is it in tier 2?


From the first page of this thread.

*How it works:*

_The list is continuously changing with each new release, so check the list frequently to see where the picture quality of your favorite film rates. Also, the list is not definitive but rather constantly evolving according to *majority rule*, meaning that a film within a particular tier can be moved if the *majority feels* the picture quality of said film should be rated higher or lower. In this way, we remain objective and the opinion of others is equally heard._


What say the jury?











Which this then could open a whole other can of worms with no disrespect or fault finding with Suprslow, but how many other titles are out of place?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

_2001_ looks very good for what it is and a high tier two placement is nothing to be displeased over. Most of the titles in tiers zero, one, and two can be bought without worrying about the visual quality of the Blu-ray at all. Tier two Blu-rays are still significantly above average considering all the movies released. Tier three is where you start to see more plain looking and average BDs.


There are lots of reviews and reviewers on the Internet and frankly not all of them are reliable. Many do not list their criteria as this thread does for picture quality and all too often they assign numerical scores that really do not mean much. Some reviewers have never seen a bad looking Blu-ray apparently and others let their personal opinion of the movie's quality affect parts of the evaluation it shouldn't.


I would recommend you take a chance on _2001_, currently in the lowly tier two, and come back and give us your opinion of where it should rank.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15330867
> 
> 
> That it represents the average of the opinions people voiced on it? That's how this thread works. I don't necessarily agree with many placements, but everyone is bothered by different stuff so a higher placed title will have a higher chance of being visually satisfying to more people out there, at least.



I don't think that is accurate. Reference my post above.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15327263
> 
> 
> So I watched Blood Diamond last night and The Godfather tonight. Seeing them back to back has me disagreeing with their placements as they are both in 2.75 here.
> 
> 
> Surely Blood Diamond has its issues (I assume most have seen it) but when compared to the Godfather in the same tier it is a much better looking title. I would place it at the top of *Tier 2, Tier 2.25 at worst.*
> 
> 
> I think most people have given the Don quite a bit of slack because it is 36 years old and one of the classics of American cinema, but I'd place at *mid Tier 3 at best.* The film does look better toward the 2nd half, but struggles throughout with the many low light scenes with tons of noise, quite a few soft shots, and lots of hot contrast in the opening outdoor scenes. This is at its best during most of the outdoor scenes...with some shots looking nice and sharp showing great detail but unfortunately these are few and far between. Colors and skin tones are accurate and well done though. Overall I was still pleased with the restoration all things considered.



No one is gunna argue with me on this?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

If you read every post in the thread that mentions "2001" it is quite easy to see how _2001_ ended up near the top of the second tier. There was some discussion about it earlier this year by respected contributors to this thread like Patrick99 who said "I would be more comfortable with the top spot in Tier 2. In part because I don't want to be rewarding the studios for inadequate work. Same reason I feel so strongly about IAL." A few others argued for very low tier one ranking but many seemed to agree with a tier two placement. The beauty of this thread is the complete and above the board transparency of the process. I am happy with its current placement though I have not personally seen this Blu-ray in a while.


While searching the thread I came across an interesting post by Cinema Squid that I had forgotten about and it would be interesting to see him update the data. He broke the rankings into a score and compared the tier list to a database of on-line reviewers:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...6#post14477586


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15332982
> 
> 
> No one is gunna argue with me on this?



I agree The Godfather could be lowered a little if others feel that way. I liked the placement when the Blu-ray initially came out, but it probably did get over ranked a little because it is one of the greatest movies of all-time.


----------



## rsbeck

To me, Godfather has way more high points than Godfather II. My only complaint is that I do not feel Godfather and Godfather II should be ranked at the same tier. So, wherever Godfather ends up, IMO Godfather II should be a quarter rank or so below it. Personally, I went back and forth between Godfather Blu-Ray and my previous best version which was the Godfather collection on DVD. So, I spent quite a bit of time with it. I think a lot depends on your tolerance/appreciaton for grain. I am satisfied with Godfather's tier 2.75 rank and if anything, I think it is ranked a little low. So, if one of us thinks it's too high, one too low, and one just right -- maybe it is in the right place.


In some ways, Godfather II is easier to watch because, though it's PQ doesn't hit the high points of Godfather, the PQ is more consistent and sometimes that's easier on the eyes. Still as far as reference demo material, there are a number of segments in Godfather that I would gladly use as demo material.


----------



## fleaman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15333010
> 
> 
> If you read every post in the thread that mentions "2001" it is quite easy to see how _2001_ ended up near the top of the second tier. There was some discussion about it earlier this year by respected contributors to this thread like Patrick99 who said *"I would be more comfortable with the top spot in Tier 2. In part because I don't want to be rewarding the studios for inadequate work*. Same reason I feel so strongly about IAL." A few others argued for very low tier one ranking but many seemed to agree with a tier two placement. The beauty of this thread is the complete and above the board transparency of the process. I am happy with its current placement though I have not personally seen this Blu-ray in a while.



Patrick99 was one of the 2/3 posters comfortable with the Tier-2 rating, and as he said it himself, it was partly a retaliation vote (not solely on PQ). Another used Ice Age as an example against 2001, which is not at all fair IMO.


Again, I looked at almost All of the postings from my '2001' search and could find at most 3 individual posters that were OK with the Tier-2 ranking. Now, those individual posters did post A LOT about this, but of course I was counting the individuals, not the post counts. I could find only 2 posters who were strong on the Tier-2 ranking, everyone else (15+ posters?) was above this ranking.


I read most every '2001' post in this thread search (came up with 4pgs of posts), I came away with it thinking this was a Tier-1 title. But I did at first think there was a lot of negative posting, then I realized those posts were by the same posters, so once I ruled out those 2 or 3 posters (post counts), it became a clear Tier-1 ranking.....at least that's how it seemed to me.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fleaman* /forum/post/15332806
> 
> 
> 
> My purpose is to look at the rankings first and avoid what happened with the 1st 5th Element Blu-ray, which many said looked worse than their SD DVD superbit version
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , Then they remastered it and I ordered it.




I get what you mean for sure. I have hesitated in ordering American Psycho and am considering getting a copy from Australia just due to input from this and other threads, and that's one of my favourite movies. I think, however, if the title was as bad as the 1st 5th Element, I don't think it would make it in the top 3 tiers, it would be down in the bottom.


I think the only instance of something going from Tier 0 to something really low is the recent Zulu incident...


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15332982
> 
> 
> No one is gunna argue with me on this?



I would if it was a rental at HV, but I don't want to buy it.










If I did I certainly wouldn't argue with you, but I will discuss it.


----------



## Shane Martin




> Quote:
> If Baraka is in Tier 0 despite all of that EE debate TDK should be as well.



I haven't seen Baraka yet but if the EE is noticable by me, it won't be in tier 0. Nothing with EE or DNR deserves to be in Tier 0. I haven't seen Baraka as the material just doesn't really interest me.


I think me and Rob argued back and forth(on the same side) for the current placement of Mr Brooks. I still believe it's a solid lower tier 0 title. The biggest complaints were lobbied against the contrast of the movie which I personally had no issues with.


Regarding Man on Fire and I Robot, I think they are interchangeable. I could go either way but placing one above the other wouldn't matter much in the long run IMHO.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15332893
> 
> 
> I thought placement went by majority of votes and not the average of votes, but if that is true then it contradicts the placement of 2001. And as you said even if it was the average of votes, it shouldn't be in tier 2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's assume fleaman did correctly find all posts for recommending 2001. How then is it in tier 2?
> 
> 
> From the first page of this thread.
> 
> *How it works:*
> 
> _The list is continuously changing with each new release, so check the list frequently to see where the picture quality of your favorite film rates. Also, the list is not definitive but rather constantly evolving according to *majority rule*, meaning that a film within a particular tier can be moved if the *majority feels* the picture quality of said film should be rated higher or lower. In this way, we remain objective and the opinion of others is equally heard._
> 
> 
> What say the jury?



I think you are interpreting the "majority rules" standard correctly Hugh. However, there may be cases where a title may get 10 votes for low Tier 0 and 9 votes for Tier 1.25, and in a case like that I'm not sure it would be right to automatically place it in low Tier 0. Perhaps with that small of a margin there would be an average ruling and then it would be placed in Tier 1.0.


I could be wrong but I'm thinking this is how SuprSlow may be handling some titles where the "majority" is only one vote or so above the "minority." Obviously if there's an overwhelming majority it should be placed exactly where the majority is recommending it to be placed.


Does this sound fair?


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15325617
> 
> 
> Sure they should. But every film based movie, even those in tier 0 have some slightly out of focus scenes.
> 
> 
> The Dark Knight has an overall digital/processed look which is present ALL THE TIME (except for the IMAX shots), which is why I would put that in mid Tier 1. By contrast, the out of focus shots in Sleeping Beauty are not present all the time.
> 
> 
> Obviously I am not the only one who thinks it belongs in Tier 0, as it was already there before I made my recommendation. I admit that the issue does exist. Whether it is enough of an issue to remove from Tier 0 is open for discussion, which is why I asked how many people were really bothered by it.
> 
> 
> Overall, I still think it is amazing eye candy, and a true work of art.



Besides the issue he brought up, you didnt think that the animated characters were much softer than the backgrounds throughout the entire movie?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Shane Martin* /forum/post/15333379
> 
> 
> I haven't seen Baraka yet but *if the EE is noticable by me, it won't be in tier 0*. Nothing with EE or DNR deserves to be in Tier 0. I haven't seen Baraka as the material just doesn't really interest me.



I highlighted the key words Shane, for your vote should be based on what you see, not on what you don't see. I think we went over this ground before and we concluded that even if a respected member says there's EE, we are NOT to allow that to influence our vote.


BTW, even though the subject matter of Baraka may not interest you, I would think that extremely sharp and detailed PQ would give you enough incentive to give it a rental.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/15326304
> 
> 
> I feel *Man on Fire* should be placed above *I,Robot*. The imagery is consistently razor sharp and colorful unlike I,Robot where the color palette in parts of the movie looked less vibrant and subdued.



Disagree. Man of Fire could technically be put in Tier 1 because it's not consistenly razor sharp because there are many scenes where there is an intended super-grainy look. Despite saying that, I believe it is where it belongs... but in general, we punish many other titles for the same type of thing (intended defects). The only flaw with I, Robot, IMO is the softness/airbrushed look of the leading lady's face in the movie (i dont remember her name)


----------



## rsbeck

Mr. Brooks --


IMO, it isn't necessarily the contrast problems, pushed color, data saturation, or ringing problems that should bring Brooks out of tier 0, it is just that the strengths of Mr. Brooks have become commonplace to titles in mid tier 1 and even tier 2. It is no longer exceptional to find titles where we see the pores and imperfections in faces, for example. This is coming to be expected. Other than that, Brooks is a nice looking title, very solid, well-shot, certainly deserving of a place in tier 1.25 next to other fabulous titles like No Country For Old Men, but no longer exceptional enough to stay in tier 0.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15327876
> 
> 
> You need not be shocked, for there are two titles that come close to I, Robot in my book: The Dark Knight and Prince Caspian!!



I disagree. If Prince Caspian had face closeups like I, Robot, then perhaps. To me, it's like Speed Racer in that everything is sharp except for the actor's faces... Both belong in lower tier 0. I wont comment on Dark Knight because enough has been said on that


----------



## rsbeck

As for the charge that TDK has a "sharpened look." This seems awfully vague to me. Of course, everyone is welcome to an opinion and is welcome to prefer any particular look, but aside from some apparent ringing in some still shots that are on screen for fractions of a second, there has been no evidence put forward to back the charge that the entire film has been "sharpened" or even what that means. If the film has been processed in a way that left other artifacts besides these few instances of ringing or that left the picture soft, reduced detail, or took away depth -- what is the evidence?


Can someone who feels the entire film has been "sharpened" weigh in on this?


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15333690
> 
> 
> I disagree. If *Prince Caspian* had face closeups like I, Robot, then perhaps. To me, it's like Speed Racer in that everything is sharp except for the actor's faces.



+1 Same problem I'm having with Caspian only not all through the film, but in stretches.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15333690
> 
> 
> I disagree. If Prince Caspian had face closeups like I, Robot, then perhaps. To me, it's like Speed Racer in that everything is sharp except for the actor's faces... Both belong in lower tier 0. I wont comment on Dark Knight because enough has been said on that




Say what on those face closeups?

http://www.highdefdiscnews.com/revie...image2full.jpg 


^^And once you get it to load, make sure to right click to magnify to proper size and rez.


I saw amazing detail in the facial closeups that were very detailed. Pores and soft facial hair on women are very visible and detailed throughout most of the film.







IMO Prince Caspian is one of the best non animated titles on BD and as good as the POTC films and should be placed equally to them. One of the best BD's yet with grain intact and detailed and at the same time having serious 3d pop making it eye candy.


And no way the faces look anything like in Speed Racer.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15333716
> 
> 
> As for the charge that TDK has a "sharpened look." This seems awfully vague to me. Of course, everyone is welcome to an opinion and is welcome to prefer any particular look, but aside from some apparent ringing in some still shots that are on screen for fractions of a second, there has been no evidence put forward to back the charge that the entire film has been "sharpened" or even what that means. If the film has been processed in a way that left other artifacts besides these few instances of ringing or that left the picture soft, reduced detail, or took away depth -- what is the evidence?
> 
> 
> Can someone who feels the entire film has been "sharpened" weigh in on this?



There is a certain way a film scan that hasn't been over-sharpened looks. Sorry if that's too vague, but just compare the BD with the 1080p trailers here, the difference isn't very subtle to my eyes http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/thedarkknight/ If I really went halo hunting, I could likely find one in just about every shot in the movie, but that's missing the forest for the trees, if I may use that awful expression.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15320895
> 
> *The Man Who Fell To Earth*
> 
> 
> TMWFTO looked spectacular! It's cinematography was "out of this world!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The contrast was PERFECTLY natural looking! There was a few smudges at the bottom of the screen every now and then, but not really distracting (at least not to me). They actually made the movie feel more "film-like."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, it's the most film-like Blu to date. It felt "projected," even though I watched on my 46" Sammy. There was a beautiful layer of grain throughout the entire film. Close facial scenes were detailed and natural looking! If there was softness, it was backround and very minor. All of the psychedelic scenes looked better than ever!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just yesterday, I stated that Shawshank was my "catalog" title to show how how good an older movie can look. I just changed my mind!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's easily lower Tier 0, but the smudges will dock it a few points.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Top of Tier 1*
> 
> 
> PS3-Samsung 46"-nine'



As much as I loved this movie, I'd like to apologize for ranking this title too high! I just watched it again. I stand by my original descriptions, but it is a little soft. Let's just say that I wasn't in the right "mind state!"









*The Man Who Fell From Earth*
*Tier Recommendation: Top of Tier 3*

PS3-Samsung 46"-nine'


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15333716
> 
> 
> As for the charge that TDK has a "sharpened look." This seems awfully vague to me.
> 
> 
> Can someone who feels the entire film has been "sharpened" weigh in on this?



I'm with you regarding the "sharpened look" rsbeck. It seems to me we want a picture to be sharp (it's one of the standards set forth on page one). I see nothing in the criteria on page one which tells us to be on the lookout for a picture that is "too sharp" or that has a "digital look" to it. Here is the only thing I read about sharpness:

_Sometimes, the picture is so sharp that it's almost three-dimensional or characters on screen appear to live in a three-dimensional space. This 3-D effect can be ruined by a picture being too soft or out-of-focus. A good example of this is the intentional softness of Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. While the picture of the film is very good and looks very film-like, it lacks depth. However, it still ranks in Tier 3 because it also lacks any video artifacts and the picture quality is very pristine._


So....*being sharp is GOOD*! But as the mod goes on to say this sharpness "can be ruined by a picture being too soft or out-of-focus." I don't believe TDK falls into the category of being "too soft or out-of-focus."


----------



## Hughmc

Speed racer caps:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...20blu-ray1.jpg 

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...20blu-ray3.jpg 

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...20blu-ray4.jpg 

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...20blu-ray8.jpg 


Now this one is excellent, but the first four don't even compare to Prince Caspian as Caspian facial closeups from what I saw looked noticeably better and detailed. I watched it for the third time by the way and still was very impressed.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...20blu-ray7.jpg 


That is my take and I am sticking to it.


----------



## b_scott

can't hotlink to those pics, they don't come up.


----------



## Hughmc

Try this link for caps from the same site but for Caspian. I am using Mozilla and no issues on loading, but one can go to the dvd beaver site and search and find them as well. Again when you do get the pics to load be sure to right click to scale to full screen size.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...an_blu-ray.htm


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15334200
> 
> 
> I don't believe TDK falls into the category of being "too soft or out-of-focus."



I don't, either. But, I know an animated title that fits that description and still resides in tier 0. I don't know. This "sharpened" thing is awfully vague. Sort of like "cooties."


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15334073
> 
> 
> compare the BD with the 1080p trailers here, the difference isn't very subtle to my eyes



You're comparing your BD to an apple TV trailer that you watch on your computer screen?


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15334073
> 
> 
> There is a certain way a film scan that hasn't been over-sharpened looks.



What's the science behind making a "sharpened" scan?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15333047
> 
> 
> I agree The Godfather could be lowered a little if others feel that way. I liked the placement when the Blu-ray initially came out, but it probably did get over ranked a little because it is one of the greatest movies of all-time.



I really should just completely disqualify myself from ranking the Godfather movies. I'm too biased. I think they look fantastic, but I am very familiar with what kind of shape the film elements were in, having seen both of them at The Academy (Samuel Goldwyn) Theater in Beverly Hills. The restoration is nothing short of remarkable.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fleaman* /forum/post/15333183
> 
> 
> Patrick99 was one of the 2/3 posters comfortable with the Tier-2 rating, and as he said it himself, it was partly a retaliation vote (not solely on PQ). Another used Ice Age as an example against 2001, which is not at all fair IMO.
> 
> 
> Again, I looked at almost All of the postings from my '2001' search and could find at most 3 individual posters that were OK with the Tier-2 ranking. Now, those individual posters did post A LOT about this, but of course I was counting the individuals, not the post counts. I could find only 2 posters who were strong on the Tier-2 ranking, everyone else (15+ posters?) was above this ranking.
> 
> 
> I read most every '2001' post in this thread search (came up with 4pgs of posts), I came away with it thinking this was a Tier-1 title. But I did at first think there was a lot of negative posting, then I realized those posts were by the same posters, so once I ruled out those 2 or 3 posters (post counts), it became a clear Tier-1 ranking.....at least that's how it seemed to me.



In looking over this thread the last week or so, I have come to the conclusion that it seems that there is now a general feeling that any title placed in Tier 2 isn't very good. This really isn't the case. Tier 2 titles are still very good looking titles, just not the best possible.


I own 2001, and there is some pretty bad EE and ringing on this one. If you don't tend to be bothered by that, it probably will look pretty good to you. There is still good detail.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Shane Martin* /forum/post/15333379
> 
> 
> I haven't seen Baraka yet but if the EE is noticable by me, it won't be in tier 0. Nothing with EE or DNR deserves to be in Tier 0. I haven't seen Baraka as the material just doesn't really interest me.
> 
> 
> I think me and Rob argued back and forth(on the same side) for the current placement of Mr Brooks. I still believe it's a solid lower tier 0 title. The biggest complaints were lobbied against the contrast of the movie which I personally had no issues with.
> 
> 
> Regarding Man on Fire and I Robot, I think they are interchangeable. I could go either way but placing one above the other wouldn't matter much in the long run IMHO.



I pretty much agree on all three points.



Between Man on Fire and I, Robot, it really comes down to a personal preference in terms of the style of the film making and how it was shot. I prefer I, Robot with the futuristic style with lots of metallic objects (I like shiny things)!











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15333716
> 
> 
> As for the charge that TDK has a "sharpened look." This seems awfully vague to me. Of course, everyone is welcome to an opinion and is welcome to prefer any particular look, but aside from some apparent ringing in some still shots that are on screen for fractions of a second, there has been no evidence put forward to back the charge that the entire film has been "sharpened" or even what that means. If the film has been processed in a way that left other artifacts besides these few instances of ringing or that left the picture soft, reduced detail, or took away depth -- what is the evidence?
> 
> 
> Can someone who feels the entire film has been "sharpened" weigh in on this?



Sure. It doesn't look natural. It looks processed!










Seriously, you say "there has been no evidence put forward to back the charge that the entire film has been sharpened". Well, for purposes of this thread, it doesn't matter whether there has been any "evidence" of it! How does it actually look? That's all we care about in this thread, right?


As far as describing the sharpened/processed look, the best way I can describe it is everything has a harder "edgy" look to it. It does not look natural in terms of what you would expect film to look like. The grain seems to take on a higher contrast, which again, is indicative of some type of sharpening.


People who are familiar with photoshop and the unsharp mask tool would be somewhat familiar with what is meant by a sharpened/digital look. In fact, see the post quoted below from 42041 for another description regarding sharpening and where it is used: scanning. I have scanned 35mm film and 4 x 5 film. If oversharpened, the digital file will take on a harsher look, similar to what I see in TDK.


Don't get me wrong. This sharpened/digital look isn't way over the top, or I wouldn't be recommending it for Tier 1.75. I still think it looks pretty darn good overall. But it could and would look even better without the sharpned/processed look.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15334073
> 
> 
> There is a certain way a film scan that hasn't been over-sharpened looks. Sorry if that's too vague, but just compare the BD with the 1080p trailers here, the difference isn't very subtle to my eyes http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/thedarkknight/ If I really went halo hunting, I could likely find one in just about every shot in the movie, but that's missing the forest for the trees, if I may use that awful expression.



I pretty much agree.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15334017
> 
> 
> I saw...facial closeups that were very detailed. Pores and soft facial hair on women are very visible and detailed



I saw this, too. In some shots. In fact, I saw this kind of detail on almost all of the characters at some points in the film -- but there were also stretches where faces were soft. So, it wouldn't surprise me if someone could produce some great screen caps from the film and it didn't surprise me when someone posted some that appeared soft.


I also agree with Djoberg that there are stretches where scenery rivals that of Baraka.


Question is -- how much to dock the title for the soft faces in parts of the film?


Of course, my other pet question would be -- once we penalize titles like Speed Racer and Caspian for having faces that lack detail, how do we *not* punish animated titles with faces that lack detail?


If this thread is to make sense, we should try to have some consistency.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15334200
> 
> 
> I'm with you regarding the "sharpened look" rsbeck. It seems to me we want a picture to be sharp (it's one of the standards set forth on page one). I see nothing in the criteria on page one which tells us to be on the lookout for a picture that is "too sharp" or that has a "digital look" to it. Here is the only thing I read about sharpness:
> 
> _Sometimes, the picture is so sharp that it's almost three-dimensional or characters on screen appear to live in a three-dimensional space. This 3-D effect can be ruined by a picture being too soft or out-of-focus. A good example of this is the intentional softness of Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. While the picture of the film is very good and looks very film-like, it lacks depth. However, it still ranks in Tier 3 because it also lacks any video artifacts and the picture quality is very pristine._
> 
> 
> So....*being sharp is GOOD*! But as the mod goes on to say this sharpness "can be ruined by a picture being too soft or out-of-focus." I don't believe TDK falls into the category of being "too soft or out-of-focus."



I really think that some clarification needs to be made here.


This may largely be an issue of semantics.


Of course sharpness is good. We often equate sharpness with detail, and detail is good.


But when we are referring to sharpness in a negative way, we are discussing the _application of some type of sharpening filter/tool during the transfer process_.


In other words it is the application of _artificial sharpening to a film image_ that is the problem. I think they went a bit too far with TDK, and as a result, the picture has a slight processed and artificially sharpened look to it.


By complete contrast, for example, watching a glorious 70mm print of Lawrence of Arabia you will see "sharpness" in the best possible definition of that term: with detail that is incredible to see. Yet, there is no harsh look to it in any way, shape, or form. It has a natural solidity to the picture that must be seen to be appreciated.


If any of you get the chance to see a movie in true 70mm, I very highly recommend that you do so. You won't regret it!


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15334017
> 
> 
> Say what on those face closeups?
> 
> http://www.highdefdiscnews.com/revie...image2full.jpg
> 
> 
> ^^And once you get it to load, make sure to right click to magnify to proper size and rez.
> 
> 
> I saw amazing detail in the facial closeups that were very detailed. Pores and soft facial hair on women are very visible and detailed throughout most of the film.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMO Prince Caspian is one of the best non animated titles on BD and as good as the POTC films and should be placed equally to them. One of the best BD's yet with grain intact and detailed and at the same time having serious 3d pop making it eye candy.
> 
> 
> And no way the faces look anything like in Speed Racer.



Watch the Messenger and compare the face closeups of the girl in the beginning of the movie to any shot on any child in Prince Caspian.


Oh, and look at these...

  
 


Keep in mind there is no grain, and sometimes people confuse lack of grain for lack of detail (not saying you do). There are obvious face touchups throughout the movie, but the detail in everything else is really good IMO.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15334739
> 
> 
> Seriously, you say "there has been no evidence put forward to back the charge that the entire film has been sharpened".



Yes. I'm curious. I'd like to know if there is any science to this.



> Quote:
> Well, for purposes of this thread, it doesn't matter whether there has been any "evidence" of it! How does it actually look? That's all we care about in this thread, right?



Right on. 100% agreement. But, it would help us all be more articulate if we could talk about real phenomenon. If there is a way to scan a film that renders a "sharpened" look, it would be good to know that. If there isn't, it would be good to know that, too. If there is evidence to support the notion that the film has been sharpened, it would be good to know that as well.



> Quote:
> If oversharpened, the digital file will take on a harsher look, similar to what I see in TDK.



Okay, just so we're clear -- you're not asserting that the film was scanned with some sharpening employed, you're only saying that the film has an appearance similar to a picture that has been treated that way?


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15334767
> 
> 
> I saw this, too. In some shots. In fact, I saw this kind of detail on almost all of the characters at some points in the film -- but there were also stretches where faces were soft. So, it wouldn't surprise me if someone could produce some great screen caps from the film and it didn't surprise me when someone posted some that appeared soft.



True. My original point wasnt to say there were 0 good looking face closeups, but that overall, face detail wasnt up to some of the best (I, Robot, Pirates, Man on Fire).



> Quote:
> Question is -- how much to dock the title for the soft faces in parts of the film?
> 
> 
> Of course, my other pet question would be -- once we penalize titles like Speed Racer and Caspian for having faces that lack detail, how do we *not* punish animated titles with faces that lack detail?
> 
> 
> If this thread is to make sense, we should try to have some consistency.



I definitely agree with your stance on animated titles.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15334832
> 
> 
> face detail wasnt up to some of the best (I, Robot, Pirates, Man on Fire).



I hear you.



> Quote:
> I definitely agree with your stance on animated titles.



Excellent!


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15334784
> 
> 
> I really think that some clarification needs to be made here.
> 
> 
> This may largely be an issue of semantics.
> 
> 
> Of course sharpness is good. We often equate sharpness with detail, and detail is good.
> 
> 
> But when we are referring to sharpness in a negative way, we are discussing the _application of some type of sharpening filter/tool during the transfer process_.
> 
> 
> In other words it is the application of _artificial sharpening to a film image_ that is the problem. I think they went a bit too far with TDK, and as a result, the picture has a slight processed and artificially sharpened look to it.
> 
> 
> By complete contrast, for example, watching a glorious 70mm print of Lawrence of Arabia you will see "sharpness" in the best possible definition of that term: with detail that is incredible to see. Yet, there is no harsh look to it in any way, shape, or form. It has a natural solidity to the picture that must be seen to be appreciated.
> 
> 
> If any of you get the chance to see a movie in true 70mm, I very highly recommend that you do so. You won't regret it!



Rob,


I saw Tron, Return of the Jedi and a few others in 70 mm back in the day. Very impressive with some of it as I remember being extremely immersive. I will never forget the ride through the forests of Endor or the light cycles in Tron.


I have also seen Lawrence on Hdnet movies through my local fiber cable co. and have it recorded on my DVR. It is a truly beautiful movie and awesome transfer they have with excellent reference PQ. It doesn't hurt that it is considered one of the greatest films of all time.


----------



## Fanaticalism

*Mummy 3 Tier recommendation 1*


Here were my thoughts on this film, whiich I posted in the thread started by Alan...



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fanaticalism* /forum/post/15334933
> 
> 
> Alan, I agree with your assessment, but, at the beginning of the movie, where the they close up on Lis' face, it almost appears DNR'd. I am very familiar with him, as I am sure we all are. He doesn't have the greatest of skin.
> 
> 
> You even need not look further than the film itself. Torwards the end, when he is fully restored, you can see that his skin s no longer "perfect". Showing the imperefections of his skin in a better light.



Pretty much explains my recommendation.


This was the only portion of the film that looked off to me. Other than that, it was a very good transfer, and found nothing else wrong with it. Colors were nicely saturated, contrast was fully exposed when called upon.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15334821
> 
> 
> If there is a way to scan a film that renders a "sharpened" look, it would be good to know that. If there isn't, it would be good to know that, too. If there is evidence to support the notion that the film has been sharpened, it would be good to know that as well



Absolutely, you get enhancement/sharpening algorithms with every kind of image manipulation software I've used, and any consumer flatbed scanner software (and yes, they produce the edgy look and the white halos around certain edges). I suspect film labs and DVD authoring facilities have all that functionality and more. So I have to wonder, where do the white halos come from, if not from some form of digital processing? They're not on any film negatives I've ever shot and had developed, and they're not on many of the movies shot on the same Kodak film stock; they're not in the apple trailers of TDK. Whether it's digital edge enhancement or not, I obviously can't say with 100% certainty without being there, but the evidence that some kind of post-production screwup occured is strong.


Another possibility that's been brought up by one of the film restoration guys is that it could be caused by the photochemical processing of the prints that were used, but I know nothing about that side of photography.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15334980
> 
> 
> Another possibility that's been brought up by one of the film restoration guys is that it could be caused by the photochemical processing of the prints that were used, but I know nothing about that side of photography.



I've heard that, too. So, there are at least two possible explanations for phenomena described as "ringing" or "halos" and we don't always know the cause. So, even "ringing" or "halos" are not proof that a film has been "sharpened." So, isn't possible that you're seeing a halo caused by photochemical processing and making an assumption?


----------



## lgans316

I stand by my original tier recommendation of the Godfather trilogy.

*Godfather-1* : Tier 2.25
*Godfather-II* : Tier 2.75
*Godfather-III* : Tier 1.75


This is one title where screenshots doesn't reveal the actual PQ.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Ok, if you guys think that the term "sharpened" or "digital/processed" look is too vague, let me try to give an example.


The first picture is the original grab by Xylon, which I have not touched. I've used this shot because it actually looks a bit soft compared to the rest of the film:











In this shot below, I have taken that grab and I have applied sharpening in photoshop, using the unsharp mask tool. Do you see how everything now has a harsh look? See how the grain is exaggerated because of the increased contrast? This is how TDK looks.....but obviously not nearly this bad. I applied a lot of sharpening in order to make a point:


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

You know... I don't think I'll _ever_ get sick of opening a thread to be greeted with a screenful of Christian Bale. Even if the pic is all messed up.











I blame you for bringing me OT, Rob.










*Tropic Thunder*


So, the husband goes to the video store tonight to rent _Close Encounters of the Third Kind_ and he comes home with... Tropic Thunder.










Needless to say I was not amused. This was a movie in my personal _I never ever plan on seeing this_ list. I'm actually not easy to offend, but.. dayum. I've lost a lot of respect for Ben Stiller (not that I had a lot, I suppose) due to this movie.


Anyway, I've found this movie's PQ to be up to par with my feelings on (surprise, surprise) Speed Racer and Mamma Mia. I tried to find issues with it because of my annoyance with watching it to begin with, and I can't find anything that others haven't already mentioned in their reviews (black not as dark as the black bars on my tv among others) but overall this movie presents nicely on my screen, it's just unfortunate to me that the scenery comes at the price of having to watch this content.


*Recommendation: Agree with current placement Tier 1.00*

*Equipment:* ps3 80gig to toshiba 46H83, approx 4-5' viewing distance.


----------



## rsbeck

Rob -- thanks for taking the time to do that, I understand what you're saying, but TDK looks nothing like either the first or second picture when I watch it in my theater.


----------



## fleaman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15334739
> 
> 
> In looking over this thread the last week or so, I have come to the conclusion that it seems that there is now a general feeling that any title placed in Tier 2 isn't very good. This really isn't the case. Tier 2 titles are still very good looking titles, just not the best possible.
> 
> 
> I own 2001, and there is some pretty bad EE and ringing on this one. If you don't tend to be bothered by that, it probably will look pretty good to you. There is still good detail.



Just to be clear, I was never really arguing about what kind of quality Tier-2 is, I was arguing that I could only find 2 or 3 individual posters (yes, you were one of them) that recommend Tier-2 to 2001. Yet I find many many posters (15+??) that recommended Tier-0 to Tier-1, so just going by the voting rules system, I couldn't understand why 2001 was placed at Tier-2 with only 2 or 3 individual posters recommending that?


And regarding the EE/Ringing> In that specific thread about 2001 there were screenshots comparing the HD-net version vs. the Blu-ray version, I think it was you that said the Blu-ray version wasn't much better and yet those screenshots showed some horrendous EE on the HD-net Version and practically no EE on the Blu-Ray version.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Grubert* /forum/post/15318382



Thread link for those screenshot pics> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post15318382 


Ah, just found your comment regarding HD-net vs. blu-ray version>



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12466416
> 
> *2001: A Space Odyssey*
> 
> Didn't look noticeably better than the HD-Net Movies version (except it had fewer artifacts).
> 
> 
> Let's just say in comparing it to other movies I have seen in 70mm, it doesn't come close to the detail and resolution that format is capable of resolving.
> 
> 
> I am going to have to go against the grain here, as I can't even recommend this title for Tier 1. There are several titles in Tier 2 that are better than this imo. I recommend putting this in the top 6-8 in Tier 2.
> 
> .



Again, I'm not at all questioning _Your_ vote for Tier-2...just to be clear!! It's just that besides your vote, I could only find one other solid vote and a 'maybe' vote. The mass majority of votes were all above Tier-2.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15334200
> 
> 
> I'm with you regarding the "sharpened look" rsbeck. It seems to me we want a picture to be sharp (it's one of the standards set forth on page one). I see nothing in the criteria on page one which tells us to be on the lookout for a picture that is "too sharp" or that has a "digital look" to it. Here is the only thing I read about sharpness:
> 
> _Sometimes, the picture is so sharp that it's almost three-dimensional or characters on screen appear to live in a three-dimensional space. This 3-D effect can be ruined by a picture being too soft or out-of-focus. A good example of this is the intentional softness of Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. While the picture of the film is very good and looks very film-like, it lacks depth. However, it still ranks in Tier 3 because it also lacks any video artifacts and the picture quality is very pristine._
> 
> 
> So....*being sharp is GOOD*! But as the mod goes on to say this sharpness "can be ruined by a picture being too soft or out-of-focus." I don't believe TDK falls into the category of being "too soft or out-of-focus."



You aren't seriously arguing that artificial sharpening should not be considered a PQ defect in this thread?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15323801
> 
> *Mamma Mia! The Movie*
> 
> 
> I wrote a preliminary review for this yesterday because I was absolutely excited about this movie. Granted, I loved this in the theatre, and while I would not describe myself as the biggest ABBA fan in the world, I did grow up listening to this music because of my parents and then a bit of a resurgence while I was in college. I've never seen the play, but I would go in a heartbeat if I was in a city where it was playing.
> 
> 
> The colours in this movie are phenomenal; comparable to both Speed Racer or Saawariya. That being said, I did have an issue with whites *very rarely* in this movie; I don't think it's EE but more... blooming? I think that's the phrase, but I'm unsure. An example of this can be seen in an old man walking off of the boat when Meryl Streep's friends arrive on the island; I see a big halo around his hair, which is white. I popped it into my computer to double check, and it's still there - 11min38sec area of the movie. I also saw it around 1hr19min40ish seconds, on Sophie's wedding veil. If ever figure out how to take a screenie of a BluRay i will try to show y'all what I mean (I also saw this in Kill Bill v2 when Uma was in the wedding dress talking with Bill at the chapel).
> 
> 
> During the night scenes (bachelorette party) I find the colours to be fantastic. Rich, bright, beautiful... I can't think of what word to use to describe it short of using every word available. It is so similar to Speed Racer (without the dark purple line that bothered me in that film due to blue screen). I am also madly in love with the water throughout this film. Maybe it's because it's sparkly; I do like sparkly. It's cartoonish with the colours being so bright and lush, but I don't find it's in a bad way. If TDK had colours like this it would be strange and out of place; in a fun movie such as this it fits perfectly and is presented in a fantastic manner.
> 
> 
> An unfortunate spot with this movie, I have to admit, they did something to a few faces. I don't know what they did. Perhaps trying to de-age Meryl, but it's also present on Sophie at times, but not always. Someone with more experience in this will have to identify it, as I cannot. As Speed Racer is a common comparison throughout this review from me, I must say it is NOTHING NEAR AS BAD as the faces that were messed with in whatever manner they did in Speed Racer. But it is definitely noticeable.
> 
> 
> Because of the few issues I've noted, I cannot in good conscience recommend this to be in Tier 0, especially due to the recent criticism small flaws have caused. I stand by this film being equal to Speed Racer and Kill Bill v2, but I personally recommended Speed Racer to be tier 1.00, and it sits in Tier 0 (as is KBv2).
> 
> *Recommendation for Mamma Mia! The Movie - Tier 1.00*
> 
> *Equipment:* ps3 80gig to Toshiba 46H83, approx 4' viewing distance (white issue double checked on Phillips PLDS BD-RE DH-4B1S to Samsung Synchmaster 2243wm, approx 12-16 distance)



I watched about two thirds of this and I was impressed at how good the best shots looked. The PQ was just a bit inconsistent, and there were a few face close-ups, particularly toward the beginning, that were a bit soft, but in general this looked quite good, especially the genuine outdoor shots.


I agree with ggg that the water looked particularly impressive.


I thought the wide landscape shots (water, cliffs, trees) looked even sharper and clearer than comparable shots in Prince Caspian.


The biggest complaint I had was that so much of the movie seemed to have been filmed on a sound stage. The entire villa seemed to have been built on a sound stage, with a painted fake sky and water backdrop.


For those who are interested, the bitrate was generally quite generous.


Universal really seems to be doing things in a very good way in terms of PQ.










I will wait until I have finished watching the whole thing before offering a Tier recommendation.


----------



## Shane Martin




> Quote:
> Question is -- how much to dock the title for the soft faces in parts of the film?
> 
> 
> Of course, my other pet question would be -- once we penalize titles like Speed Racer and Caspian for having faces that lack detail, how do we *not* punish animated titles with faces that lack detail?



Speaking from me personally, I deduct about a 1/4 to 1/2 tier based on lack of facial detail. Animated or not, both need to be treated the same.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Shane Martin* /forum/post/15336083
> 
> 
> Speaking from me personally, I deduct about a 1/4 to 1/2 tier based on lack of facial detail. Animated or not, both need to be treated the same.



I think it's absolutely ridiculous that you would deduct points for lack of details in a transfer of a film that never had them in the first place, but at least you guys are taking the criteria of the thread seriously and applying it even-handedly, however silly _I_ may think it is. I applaud you for that.


----------



## quake1028

*Redbelt*


Redbelt looks really good on Blu-ray. At times I think it could sneak into Tier 0. Facial details are very good throughout, with maybe a few scenes where they aren't as razor sharp as they could be. Black levels are outstanding, and I didn't notice any EE or other artifacts. What brings the score down is some moments of clear motion blur/smudging and some moments of softness that are quite noticeable. The bitrate on this one is rock solid - it barely ever dips below 30 mbps, and for 99% of the movie I would say it's between 30 and 31. Skintones are dead on, colors are well defined and not over saturated. A few missteps keep this from Tier 0, but it's still a very good looking title, and a good movie to boot.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.50*

*The Bank Job*


The Bank Job is highly rated already, and for good reason. Facial details are magnificent, skintones are spot on, and everything is crisp and detailed. The only things I can see to nitpick are some moments of fuzzy softness and the fact that the color palette isn't really meant to wow. That's not the fault of the transfer, but for purposes of this thread, I don't think this one looks as "dazzling" as it needs to to be in Tier 0. I think this title is fairly rated, and I really cannot come up with a reason to move it up or down at all.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.25 (Unchanged)*
*

Panny TH-42PZ800U 1080p

PS3 through HDMI

4.5 ft*


----------



## spectator

Okay, I can't stop myself from asking the questions this brings up...


The implication here is that depictions of faces should necessarily feature pores, wrinkles, etc.- that, without these details, they are inaccurate. If this applies to stylized cartoon faces, does it also apply to photographed inhuman iconic representations of faces? When Jim Carrey dons the titular disguise in "The Mask", does the picture quality suffer? Are points deducted in that emotional moment when Rocky stares up at his bronze statue on the steps in Philadelphia?


And does this dogmatism apply to particular rules about the "realistic" representation of other kinds of objects? Will a theoretical future Blu-ray of "Star Wars" lose points whenever the lightsabers are on-screen because they don't cast proper shadows and, thus, don't accurately depict real light-sources?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15336341
> 
> 
> Okay, I can't stop myself from asking the questions this brings up...
> 
> 
> The implication here is that depictions of faces should necessarily feature pores, wrinkles, etc.- that, without these details, they are inaccurate. If this applies to stylized cartoon faces, does it also apply to photographed inhuman iconic representations of faces? When Jim Carrey dons the titular disguise in "The Mask", does the picture quality suffer? Are points deducted in that emotional moment when Rocky stares up at his bronze statue on the steps in Philadelphia?
> 
> 
> And does this dogmatism apply to particular rules about the "realistic" representation of other kinds of objects? Will a theoretical future Blu-ray of "Star Wars" lose points whenever the lightsabers are on-screen because they don't cast proper shadows and, thus, don't accurately depict real light-sources?



Not all of us who post in this thread agree with the position you are criticizing here (namely that faces of animated characters in animated features should have the same level of detail seen in live action faces of human actors).


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15336381
> 
> 
> Not all of us who post in this thread agree with the position you are criticizing here (namely that faces of animated characters in animated features should have the same level of detail seen in live action faces of human actors).



Just to be clear (as a non-porous cartoon face), I mean neither to criticize nor to imply universal agreement/agenda.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15335423
> 
> 
> You aren't seriously arguing that artificial sharpening should not be considered a PQ defect in this thread?



I guess what I'm suggesting is that to some (myself included) TDK does NOT look like it was "sharpened" or that it has a "digitally processed" look. Obviously to others, like Rob, it does. To me it looked like the standard set forth on page one for Tier 0.....sharp and detailed (with a 3D look because it is so sharp). That's a good thing, IMO, and not a PQ defect.


I, like rsbeck, have been curious when some have used the term sharpened in connection with TDK and I can see with Rob's screenshots above that Christian Bale's face doesn't look right...it looks unnatural. But as rsbeck said and I agree, I do NOT see that when I watch the movie, and I have watched it 3 times now.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15334950
> 
> 
> Rob,
> 
> 
> I saw Tron, Return of the Jedi and a few others in 70 mm back in the day. Very impressive with some of it as I remember being extremely immersive. I will never forget the ride through the forests of Endor or the light cycles in Tron.
> 
> 
> I have also seen Lawrence on Hdnet movies through my local fiber cable co. and have it recorded on my DVR. It is a truly beautiful movie and awesome transfer they have with excellent reference PQ. It doesn't hurt that it is considered one of the greatest films of all time.



Hugh, just to let you know, those films that you saw in 70mm were not _filmed_ in 70mm. That makes a huge difference. Thats why I said in my post to see a "true" 70mm film. I believe that the films that you mention involved blowing up the 35mm print to 70mm for exhibition. They will still look better than 35mm versions because the 70mm will retain more of the resolution contained on the original 35mm film.


I also have Lawrence on my DVR from HD-Net. It certainly looks better than the DVD versions, but overall I was a bit disappointed as it still falls far short of a 70mm film viewing. I'm hoping the eventual Blu-ray release will look better.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fleaman* /forum/post/15335381
> 
> 
> Just to be clear, I was never really arguing about what kind of quality Tier-2 is, I was arguing that I could only find 2 or 3 individual posters (yes, you were one of them) that recommend Tier-2 to 2001. Yet I find many many posters (15+??) that recommended Tier-0 to Tier-1, so just going by the voting rules system, I couldn't understand why 2001 was placed at Tier-2 with only 2 or 3 individual posters recommending that?
> 
> 
> And regarding the EE/Ringing> In that specific thread about 2001 there were screenshots comparing the HD-net version vs. the Blu-ray version, I think it was you that said the Blu-ray version wasn't much better and yet those screenshots showed some horrendous EE on the HD-net Version and practically no EE on the Blu-Ray version.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thread link for those screenshot pics> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post15318382
> 
> 
> Ah, just found your comment regarding HD-net vs. blu-ray version>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I'm not at all questioning _Your_ vote for Tier-2...just to be clear!! It's just that besides your vote, I could only find one other solid vote and a 'maybe' vote. The mass majority of votes were all above Tier-2.



I think you have done a very good job in making your case. I really do. I do not think 2001 belongs in Tier 1, but based on the facts that you have provided, I agree that reconsideration should be given to moving it up.


Having said that, I would request that if you are going to quote my reviews, to please quote the entire post so it is not taken out of context. For example, when I gave my review, I was very aware of the fact that I was in the minority on this one:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/12466416
> 
> *2001: A Space Odyssey*
> 
> 
> Ok, I had a chance to watch this great movie tonight.
> 
> 
> My first thoughts: what in the world were people smoking who said that this belonged in Tier 0?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am just glad that this is a dual format release, otherwise I may have been concerned about "fanboyism" taking place, but that obviously isn't the case here.
> 
> 
> Anyway, I was a bit disappointed overall. Once again, too much softness from a Warner title. The contrast is not bad, but it isn't as good as on more recent releases, that's for sure. Some scenes did look great, but overall, it was not much better than average (though like others have said, for a movie its age, it looks pretty good). Didn't look noticeably better than the HD-Net Movies version (except it had fewer artifacts).
> 
> 
> Let's just say in comparing it to other movies I have seen in 70mm, it doesn't come close to the detail and resolution that format is capable of resolving.
> 
> 
> I am going to have to go against the grain here, as I can't even recommend this title for Tier 1. There are several titles in Tier 2 that are better than this imo. I recommend putting this in the top 6-8 in Tier 2.
> 
> 
> Let the flames begin!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JVC RS-1 1080p24, 123" screen at 13.5 feet.



In hindsight, I may have been a little harder on 2001 simply due to the fact that it is a 70mm film, so expectations ran very high. They were not met.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15336813
> 
> 
> They will still look better than 35mm versions because the 70mm will retain more of the resolution contained on the original 35mm film.



35 blow-ups also tend to look better than 35 release prints because the lamps in (most) commercial 70mm projectors are more powerful than those in 35mm projectors, so you get a higher-con image, as well.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15333716
> 
> 
> As for the charge that TDK has a "sharpened look." This seems awfully vague to me. Of course, everyone is welcome to an opinion and is welcome to prefer any particular look, but aside from some apparent ringing in some still shots that are on screen for fractions of a second, there has been no evidence put forward to back the charge that the entire film has been "sharpened" or even what that means. If the film has been processed in a way that left other artifacts besides these few instances of ringing or that left the picture soft, reduced detail, or took away depth -- what is the evidence?
> 
> 
> Can someone who feels the entire film has been "sharpened" weigh in on this?



Agreed. I will take it even a step further and tell you that I... "gasp" actualy... "gasp"... like the look of the Dark Knight.







It is noticably sharper to my eyes than a lot of films and for this film, I like it. I think it is totaly appropriate when you consider the IMAX footage as well which is very sharp. This digitizing would not work or look good on a lot of films, but I actualy like the way it looks for the Dark Knight in particular (especialy when you consider the IMAX footage). It sounds like Nolan is thrilled with it (the BR from what I have read of the discussion yesterday) as well and what we are seeing is more an artistic decision than anything. Whatever happened, to my eyes it certainly does not look over "digitized" or "oversharpened". I know a lot of people do not agree with this, but my eyes tell me this is a great looking presentation all around.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15335423
> 
> 
> You aren't seriously arguing that artificial sharpening should not be considered a PQ defect in this thread?



Patrick, that question is sort of like, "have you stopped beating your wife?"


It also assumes something that has not been proven.


At this point, "sharpened look" is simply an aesthetic appraisal.


----------



## fleaman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15336858
> 
> 
> Having said that, I would request that if you are going to quote my reviews, to please quote the entire post so it is not taken out of context. For example, when I gave my review, I was very aware of the fact that I was in the minority on this one:



Hi Rob,


The reason I snipped your quote was because it was in context to your recent quote that the Blu-ray version had bad ringing/EE, but if 'you' (as in I or others) weren't bothered by that, it could look really good. I snipped that older quote of yours because you had addressed the ringing/EE issue when you mentioned it 'didn't look noticeably better than the HD-net version', which seemed to have very bad ringing in it (according to the screen shots).


So, if you are bothered by ringing/EE, the blu-ray version should have looked much better to you than the HD-net version (just going by your older quote). But yes, in the older quote you addressed other things too (softness, etc.).


Again, you have the right to vote 2001 into Tier-2, that I wasn't really questioning, but I didn't notice that the 2 strongest supporters for Tier-2 ranking mentioned the expectations of 70mm and disappointment with the Blu-ray version not measuring up to that....even though this title is ranking into a sea of 35mm films. It's almost like you should have a separate Tier listing for just 70mm films, along with also ranking it in the regular 35mm Tier list...which might make that ranking in the regular Tier list more fair and based solely on Blu-ray PQ and not handicapping the title 'cos it was shot on 70mm.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15337978
> 
> 
> Patrick, that question is sort of like, "have you stopped beating your wife?"
> 
> 
> Where did he argue that? It also assumes something that has not been proven.
> 
> 
> At this point, "sharpened look" is simply an aesthetic appraisal.
> 
> 
> I think you are above these sorts of rhetorical techniques.



The post I was responding to included the following:

*I see nothing in the criteria on page one which tells us to be on the lookout for a picture that is "too sharp" or that has a "digital look" to it.*


It seemed to me that in this statement he was taking the position I asked about.


----------



## fleaman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15336858
> 
> 
> I think you have done a very good job in making your case. I really do. I do not think 2001 belongs in Tier 1, but based on the facts that you have provided, I agree that reconsideration should be given to moving it up.
> 
> .



Ok, I have more precise facts now. This is what I did:


I searched '2001' in this thread, wrote down the posters names for each ranking vote (I only counted the Tier-2 votes last time), this is what I got>


Tier-2 > 2 votes, + (1) 'maybe' vote (poster not ranking it, but inferring Tier-2)

Tier-1 > 7 votes, + (1) 'maybe' vote (not ranking but inferring Tier-1)

Tier-0 > 3 votes


There were also 3 members who posted they really liked and raved about PQ, but didn't give a ranking.


Note that the two Tier-2 votes where for placing 2001 at the TOP of Tier-2, all other votes were above that ranking.


I have the list of posters names if needed.


----------



## rsbeck

Interesting Q & A with Robert Harris that I found on another site ---


Originally Posted by SBrooks1


All I know is at the 1:29:26 mark of Dark Knight, you can clearly see SOMETHING outlining Batman's profile of his mask as he's facing towards the left. Penton, if you could check out that specific time stamp and let me know what it is in your infinite wisdom I would greatly appreciate the free education.



Harris replies...


You're quite correct. There is "something" there. TDK went through a myriad of processes toward the creation of the final film (in multiple formats) as well as the Blu-ray disc.


Might this be some digital anomaly? Possible.

*It is just as possible that the effect is as shot, with the high contrast of the black mask vs. the bright surroundings being recorded by the grain* and affected by the processing as we're seeing it.


As I've noted elsewhere, I felt that I saw a fewshots with something digital occurring in Imax projection. And I mention that not in any way to demean the work performed on the film elements, but more as something that simply passed through my consciousness as I was viewing the film.


It is acknowledged that when viewing film, I tend to see the insects on the leaves as opposed to either the trees or the forest.


145 minutes of superlative entertainment.


10 seconds of something unusual that may get one's attention.


It seems that too many people have begun to look far too closely at Blu-ray discs.


To my eye, The Dark Knight is a winner on all levels.


Enjoy the film!

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=416


----------



## rsbeck

It seems to me we have two issues;


1) Subjective impression -- this is where I think we should dwell. We each have a right to our subjective impression of any given title.


2) Authoritative assertions -- I think we should refrain from making assertions about things unless we can be certain and 99.9% of the time, we cannot. None of us are close enough to the process to speak with such authority, to separate titles which have been "sharpened" from those that have not, cannot say which halos are the result of sharpening, which are the result of a photo-chemical process, and which are due to a high contrast shot as mentioned above with the reflection being recorded by the grain.


To me, there's no need for number two, pun unintentional. All we need to do is stick to giving our subjective appraisal of a film, give our recommendation and let the mod sort it all out.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15338680
> 
> 
> So, now we have a third possible explanation for halos.
> 
> *Interesting that Harris says the 10 seconds worth of hiccups he saw were in the IMAX presentation*, not in the 2.35:1 segments.
> 
> *It is my impression that everyone here has roundly praised the IMAX segments*.



Good point!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

OT -- but I have nobody to share this with who'll _truly_ understand except you guys (my mommy friends will not care!).


The husband took me out today AND BOUGHT ME A NEW TV! =)


It's not the same one that we were looking at as the price was just too high for us, but we got the same tv in 58" instead of 65". Panasonic TH58PZ800 plasma.



I'm really curious to re-watch the movies I've already rated on my Toshiba on this new one. It will be delivered in about 45 minutes!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15339367
> 
> 
> OT -- but I have nobody to share this with who'll _truly_ understand except you guys (my mommy friends will not care!).
> 
> 
> The husband took me out today AND BOUGHT ME A NEW TV! =)
> 
> 
> It's not the same one that we were looking at as the price was just too high for us, but we got the same tv in 58" instead of 65". Panasonic TH58PZ800 plasma.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm really curious to re-watch the movies I've already rated on my Toshiba on this new one. It will be delivered in about 45 minutes!



I'm happy for you! I am quite sure you will be more than pleased with the Panasonic; it has been given rave reviews in Home Theater Magazine, Sound & Vision, and elsewhere. It still may not have the deep blacks that a Kuro does, but it comes close and from what I've heard the average consumer may not notice a difference (of course, you're not an "average consumer"







). Have fun re-watching all your Blu-rays!


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15339367
> 
> 
> OT -- but I have nobody to share this with who'll _truly_ understand except you guys (my mommy friends will not care!).
> 
> 
> The husband took me out today AND BOUGHT ME A NEW TV! =)
> 
> 
> It's not the same one that we were looking at as the price was just too high for us, but we got the same tv in 58" instead of 65". Panasonic TH58PZ800 plasma.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm really curious to re-watch the movies I've already rated on my Toshiba on this new one. It will be delivered in about 45 minutes!



Congrats... that was one of the TVs I was considering before I bought my Samsung. You should check how 24hz mode looks on that TV. I heard from some that the flicker is near unwatchable, and from some that it doesn't look any worse than a cinema film projector, but it was enough to scare me off


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15339367
> 
> 
> The husband took me out today AND BOUGHT ME A NEW TV! =)



Congratulations!


----------



## fleaman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15339367
> 
> 
> OT -- but I have nobody to share this with who'll _truly_ understand except you guys (my mommy friends will not care!).
> 
> 
> The husband took me out today AND BOUGHT ME A NEW TV! =)



You know it's strange, as much as all the girls I know love watching movies and love watching movies on my projector even more







, it's strange there aren't more girls like you on these AVS forums


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15339367
> 
> 
> OT -- but I have nobody to share this with who'll _truly_ understand except you guys (my mommy friends will not care!).
> 
> 
> The husband took me out today AND BOUGHT ME A NEW TV! =)
> 
> 
> It's not the same one that we were looking at as the price was just too high for us, but we got the same tv in 58" instead of 65". Panasonic TH58PZ800 plasma.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm really curious to re-watch the movies I've already rated on my Toshiba on this new one. It will be delivered in about 45 minutes!



Very cool! Congrats!!!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Thanks for humouring me guys.










It's here now, sitting in a box for me to stare at.


----------



## rsbeck

How's the picture quality on that box?


----------



## fleaman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15339367
> 
> 
> but we got the same tv in 58" instead of 65". Panasonic TH58PZ800 plasma.



"too-close-to-the-arctic-circle"> A 58" Plasma should help warm you up this time of the year too


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15339659
> 
> 
> How's the picture quality on that box?



Tier 5.00!!!!







I need some burly men to come set it up for me now.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fleaman* /forum/post/15339666
> 
> 
> "too-close-to-the-arctic-circle"> A 58" Plasma should help warm you up this time of the year too



OMG we totally need that today, too. It's -34C/-29F here today. Brr!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fleaman* /forum/post/15338052
> 
> 
> Hi Rob,
> 
> 
> The reason I snipped your quote was because it was in context to your recent quote that the Blu-ray version had bad ringing/EE, but if 'you' (as in I or others) weren't bothered by that, it could look really good. I snipped that older quote of yours because you had addressed the ringing/EE issue when you mentioned it 'didn't look noticeably better than the HD-net version', which seemed to have very bad ringing in it (according to the screen shots).
> 
> 
> So, if you are bothered by ringing/EE, the blu-ray version should have looked much better to you than the HD-net version (just going by your older quote). But yes, in the older quote you addressed other things too (softness, etc.).
> 
> 
> Again, you have the right to vote 2001 into Tier-2, that I wasn't really questioning, but I didn't notice that the 2 strongest supporters for Tier-2 ranking mentioned the expectations of 70mm and disappointment with the Blu-ray version not measuring up to that....even though this title is ranking into a sea of 35mm films. It's almost like you should have a separate Tier listing for just 70mm films, along with also ranking it in the regular 35mm Tier list...which might make that ranking in the regular Tier list more fair and based solely on Blu-ray PQ and not handicapping the title 'cos it was shot on 70mm.



No, there should not be a separate Tier listing for just 70mm films. They should all be judged against each other. My point was that I may have subconsciously voted it down lower because of my high expectations in light of it being a 70mm film. I didn't knock it down for that reason on purpose however, as seen by the fact that I said there were other movies in Tier 2 that looked just as good or better.....that weren't 70mm titles.


----------



## fleaman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15339753
> 
> 
> My point was that I may have subconsciously voted it down lower because of my high expectations in light of it being a 70mm film. I didn't knock it down for that reason on purpose however, as seen by the fact that I said there were other movies in Tier 2 that looked just as good or better.....that weren't 70mm titles.



There's a reason you're a highly respected contributor here







You're honesty is beyond reproach.


BTW, any word on Lawrence on Blu-Ray? I have that on superbit and wanted to do a showing of it months ago to friends, but now that I own a Blu-ray player, only Blu will do for that title! Hopefully they'll do a smacking job on it! The SD DVD restored version is still marvelous









One of my Favorite movies! Talk about standing the test of time in just about all areas and how relevant it is, especially in today's times.


----------



## rsbeck

*Body Heat*


This is a film that always had a soft focused look. I spent some time going back and forth between my DVD and the blu-ray and the blu-ray is a significant improvement. Purists will admire that it remains true to the soft look intended by the film maker and those looking for a an improvement over the DVD will want to consider this, but those looking for demo material will more likely pass this by. Some speckles from damage to original.

*Recommendation: Tier 4.5*


Sim2 C3X1080

Carada Masquerade

126" Firehawk G3

Pioneer BDP-05FD


13' From Screen


----------



## fleaman

I have a question about noise-free-blacks: How is this artifact factored into the ratings? I've noticed the Blu-ray isn't immune to this, and I thought this artifact would be gone in Blu-ray, but nope










I'm not sure how much my PJ has to do with it, but when I pause a frame I'm talking about the noisy low level blacks that are 'still' when paused, not the dithering I get from my PJ (dithering still moves when paused).


I read some of the official AVS blu-ray reviews (by Ralph Potts) and noticed how he wrote of I, Robot: "Inky noise free blacks, superb shadow detail with high delineation...".


I'm I expecting too much that most all Blu-ray titles should be like that? I thought the bit rate and better encoding (non-mpeg-2) of Blu-ray would just about eliminate this issue, but after watching some more titles, it seems not


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15338810
> 
> 
> It seems to me we have two issues;
> 
> 
> 1) Subjective impression -- this is where I think we should dwell. We each have a right to our subjective impression of any given title.
> 
> 
> 2) Authoritative assertions -- I think we should refrain from making assertions about things unless we can be certain and 99.9% of the time, we cannot. None of us are close enough to the process to speak with such authority, to separate titles which have been "sharpened" from those that have not, cannot say which halos are the result of sharpening, which are the result of a photo-chemical process, and which are due to a high contrast shot as mentioned above with the reflection being recorded by the grain.
> 
> 
> To me, there's no need for number two, pun unintentional. All we need to do is stick to giving our subjective appraisal of a film, give our recommendation and let the mod sort it all out.



If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it'll take some extremely compelling evidence to convince me that it isn't, for all intents and purposes, at least an aquatic bird of some kind.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fleaman* /forum/post/15340014
> 
> 
> I have a question about noise-free-blacks: How is this artifact factored into the ratings?



Remember that "noise" and grain are very often used interchangeably. In a transfer where grain is left intact, you will often see grain in low light sequences. Also, remember that there are a number of ways to handle transfers, including grain, with differing techniques, differing levels of grain reduction, going for different looks, etc. So, like most everything else, there is no real factoring, you just have to make a subjective call as to whether the "noise" is distracting to you, how much you think it affects the demo quality of the disc, etc. Some love that the grain is left alone and look for grainy blacks to confirm it, some don't, some like it sometimes and not others, depending on various factors.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15340113
> 
> 
> If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it'll take some extremely compelling evidence to convince me that it isn't, for all intents and purposes, at least an aquatic bird of some kind.



That's a new take on the scientific method.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15336813
> 
> 
> Hugh, just to let you know, those films that you saw in 70mm were not _filmed_ in 70mm. That makes a huge difference. Thats why I said in my post to see a "true" 70mm film. I believe that the films that you mention involved blowing up the 35mm print to 70mm for exhibition. They will still look better than 35mm versions because the 70mm will retain more of the resolution contained on the original 35mm film.
> 
> 
> I also have Lawrence on my DVR from HD-Net. It certainly looks better than the DVD versions, but overall I was a bit disappointed as it still falls far short of a 70mm film viewing. I'm hoping the eventual Blu-ray release will look better.



Thanks for clarifying and correcting me on that Rob. I do remember now about the 'blown up" 70mm and I did reference IMDB.


It seems the live action sequences of Tron were shot in 65mm.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084827/technical 


Here is a theatre that is now closed but I used to go to it and it was 20 min or less from where I lived. It had a curved screen like Imax. It was a very impressive theater and it is where I seen Tron a third time.


Here is the theater that was in Syosset:

http://cinematreasures.org/theater/3510/ 


And here is more detail about the sound and visual systems as well as some of the amazing films that were shown there in very high quality. Todd AO, etc.

http://www.in70mm.com/news/2003/syosset/index.htm 


I never got to experience it in its heyday. What a treat is must have been. I can tell you from what I remember, Tron looked and sounded amazing in that theatre.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15338810
> 
> 
> It seems to me we have two issues;
> 
> 
> 1) Subjective impression -- this is where I think we should dwell. We each have a right to our subjective impression of any given title.
> 
> 
> 2) Authoritative assertions -- I think we should refrain from making assertions about things unless we can be certain and 99.9% of the time, we cannot. None of us are close enough to the process to speak with such authority, to separate titles which have been "sharpened" from those that have not, cannot say which halos are the result of sharpening, which are the result of a photo-chemical process, and which are due to a high contrast shot as mentioned above with the reflection being recorded by the grain.
> 
> 
> To me, there's no need for number two, pun unintentional. All we need to do is stick to giving our subjective appraisal of a film, give our recommendation and let the mod sort it all out.



#2 is my gripe about what the BD forum here has turned into. I think in some ways while it is an eye opener and helps all of us learn more in hopes of getting better quality, more film like BD's, it is also a detriment to the format and HD and not what some make it out to be.


----------



## Hughmc

Rob, could you also explain to me and us or if you like give a link for the difference between filming in 70mm, cinematographic process in 70mm and blowing up in 70mm? I know you are fairly knowledgeable and you know me well enough to know I am not challenging your knowledge, but rather trying to garner it and share it with everyone.










I could look it up, but instead of what might be some dry reading and me wasting time not finding a good source, I enjoy the human connection and would much rather discuss it here.


----------



## Hughmc

*Traitor:*


I am surprised no one has mentioned this one yet. I need to watch it again a couple of times before recommending placement. The movie itself didn't do much for me for some reason, but the PQ looked really good. At first I thought the PQ was average and nothing to look at, but then as the film progressed, it seemed to have lots of good grain and detail and facial closeups were excellent. There were some minor issues. I thought this title had a film like quality to it. As of now I am thinking tier 1.5 or 1.75, but I have a feeling it may end up lower in the top of tier 2. After another viewing and run through I will make my recommendation.


----------



## Jack Gilvey

Mid Tier 0 makes sense for Tinkerbell. While it doesn't boast the level of fine present in the higher-ranked animated titles, the colors and light effects can be breathtaking.


----------



## quake1028




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15339367
> 
> 
> It's not the same one that we were looking at as the price was just too high for us, but we got the same tv in 58" instead of 65". Panasonic TH58PZ800 plasma.



Congrats! My brother has the 42" version, which I have been watching all of my stuff on recently until I get my new TV after Christmas. It's a phenomenal set.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15339367
> 
> 
> OT -- but I have nobody to share this with who'll _truly_ understand except you guys (my mommy friends will not care!).
> 
> 
> The husband took me out today AND BOUGHT ME A NEW TV! =)
> 
> 
> It's not the same one that we were looking at as the price was just too high for us, but we got the same tv in 58" instead of 65". Panasonic TH58PZ800 plasma.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm really curious to re-watch the movies I've already rated on my Toshiba on this new one. It will be delivered in about 45 minutes!



Very nice! Welcome to the Panny family


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15340246
> 
> 
> Rob, could you also explain to me and us or if you like give a link for the difference between filming in 70mm, cinematographic process in 70mm and blowing up in 70mm? I know you are fairly knowledgeable and you know me well enough to know I am not challenging your knowledge, but rather trying to garner it and share it with everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could look it up, but instead of what might be some dry reading and me wasting time not finding a good source, I enjoy the human connection and would much rather discuss it here.



It's simple. Filming in 65/70 is just that, running the 65/70mm film through the camera and exposing the image on that film.


Blowing up to 70mm is blowing up 35mm to 70mm. Basically the same as blowing up the 8mm/16mm shots in Natural Born Killers to 35mm for theaters to run it. Doing so obviously exposes more grain and is detriment to the image. Going from 8/16 to 35 is worse than going from 35 to 65/70 though because of the grain structures of each stock.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fleaman* /forum/post/15339830
> 
> 
> There's a reason you're a highly respected contributor here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're honesty is beyond reproach.
> 
> 
> BTW, any word on Lawrence on Blu-Ray? I have that on superbit and wanted to do a showing of it months ago to friends, but now that I own a Blu-ray player, only Blu will do for that title! Hopefully they'll do a smacking job on it! The SD DVD restored version is still marvelous
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of my Favorite movies! Talk about standing the test of time in just about all areas and how relevant it is, especially in today's times.



All I know is that they continue to work on it. The last word from Robert Harris is that they are doing everything possible at Sony to "get it right". Hopefully it will be out sometime in the new year!


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15340896
> 
> 
> All I know is that they continue to work on it. The last word from Robert Harris is that they are doing everything possible at Sony to "get it right". Hopefully it will be out sometime in the new year!



We are gunna need 20 foot wide screens to truly enjoy it though


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15340246
> 
> 
> Rob, could you also explain to me and us or if you like give a link for the difference between filming in 70mm, cinematographic process in 70mm and blowing up in 70mm? I know you are fairly knowledgeable and you know me well enough to know I am not challenging your knowledge, but rather trying to garner it and share it with everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could look it up, but instead of what might be some dry reading and me wasting time not finding a good source, I enjoy the human connection and would much rather discuss it here.



Here ya go!


The first one discusses the 35mm to 70mm blow up process:

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/Widescreen/35-70mm.htm 

http://www.timeout.com/film/chicago/...g-picture.html 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Panavision_70 


When I saw Lawrence at The Academy Theater, the presenter held up a 70mm film reel in one hand, and a 35mm film reel in the other hand. The difference in size was amazing!


Nothing beats a larger negative for the best image quality you can get. All photographers know this. I looked for another article discussing the difference in film sizes, but I couldn't find the one that I was looking for (it's on my old computer, I recently switched to a Mac), but I did find this one which gives you an idea (although it is a bit cluttered looking, and based on still cameras, but the concept is the same):

http://www.minoxlab.com/Don_Krehbiel/mpl/dknegsiz.htm


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15340933
> 
> 
> We are gunna need 20 foot wide screens to truly enjoy it though



There is far too much truth in that statement to even be funny!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *quake1028* /forum/post/15340828
> 
> 
> Congrats! My brother has the 42" version, which I have been watching all of my stuff on recently until I get my new TV after Christmas. It's a phenomenal set.



Thanks! The store (a mom & pop type of place) gave us a decent price & they gave us a guarantee that if it's offered for any less before the new year (boxing day sales up here!) they'll adjust what we paid for it, that way they could get it out of the store ASAP and deliver it rather than wait for us to go back in a week's time.


I put in a request to my brother to buy the Wall-E blu ray for my daughter for christmas. I'm really curious since there's been so much debate about it lately. It's what they were playing on the majority of their plasmas when we went in today.


----------



## zinfamous




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15340992
> 
> 
> Thanks! The store (a mom & pop type of place) gave us a decent price & they gave us a guarantee that if it's offered for any less before the new year (boxing day sales up here!) they'll adjust what we paid for it, that way they could get it out of the store ASAP and deliver it rather than wait for us to go back in a week's time.
> 
> 
> I put in a request to my brother to buy the Wall-E blu ray for my daughter for christmas. I'm really curious since there's been so much debate about it lately. It's what they were playing on the majority of their plasmas when we went in today.



Wall-E is a gorgeous film, any way you look at it.


----------



## djoberg

Okay, if I can stop dancing long enough to write this review of *Mamma Mia* (yeah....you will want to sing and dance while watching this, even if you can't sing and dance...but don't feel bad, neither can half the actors in the film!!), I'll give it a shot.


In short, there were indeed some vivid colors....and the sparkly waters were there too (geekyglassesgirl), along with some decent nighttime scenes with fairly good black levels and shadow detail, but other than that, there's not much to write home to Mama about!


It definitely suffered from over saturated colors at times, and most of the fleshtones and facial close-ups were simply horrendous. It was simply too BRIGHT most of the time and I had to check the Picture Mode on my tv remote to see if I had it on Dynamic Mode (which I didn't...it was still on Movie Mode). Seriously, it looked like the sets do in the showroom of B&M stores.


Sooooo.....because I'm in such a happy mood from all those great ABBA hits, I'm going to be generous and suggest *Tier 2.5*. Sorry GGG, but that's the best I can do!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*2001: A Space Odyssey*


tier recommendation: *Tier 1.75*


With the recent Sturm und Drang about this Blu-ray's placement I decided to re-watch it carefully. Warner released this 148-minute Stanley Kubrick epic to Blu-ray in October of 2007. The Blu-ray is encoded in VC-1 and is identical to the HD DVD video encode released simultaneously. The average video bitrate is 13.39 Mbps according to the BDInfo scan, keeping in mind the peak video bitrates are limited to HD DVD's maximum specifications. Fortunately the compression work done here is the probably the best low bitrate VC-1 encoding I have ever seen. It is obvious great care was taken by the compressionist to create an artifact free presentation. In this regard I have no complaints at all.


Overall a catalog title from 1968 should not look this good, but it is apparent the original film elements must be in fabulous condition. The beauty of filming with 65mm film shines through here with excellent detail and stunning cinematography. Unfortunately the only thing really marring this transfer is some noticeable ringing at various points. It is bad enough that it has to affect my final placement. Without the ringing present I would be recommending a placement in tier 1.25. With it I am recommending a placement in tier 1.75, though a quartile higher ranking would not bother me. I agree the current Blu-ray of this movie looks very good, but I do believe a better version is possible down the road.


----------



## fleaman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15339719
> 
> 
> OMG we totally need that today, too. It's -34C/-29F here today. Brr!



Wow....well that's a damn good reason to stay inside watching Blu-Rays on the Plasma


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Sin City* (Canada Import)


Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.0


I really love the visual style of this movie. This movie has a ton of eye candy (not just the good looking women either)! Even though it is mostly black and white, the occasional splash of color truly stands out against the otherwise monochromatic image.


Contrast is very good, though on the high said in many scenes, which is no doubt intentional. Clarity and detail is very good indeed, if not just a tad short of the very best titles in that regard.


I'm extremely happy with this title. This is one that I always looked forward to, expecting it to look great in HD, and it does!


Definitely top of Tier 1, and consideration for Tier 0 is certainly valid.


----------



## Hammie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15339367
> 
> 
> OT -- but I have nobody to share this with who'll _truly_ understand except you guys (my mommy friends will not care!).
> 
> 
> The husband took me out today AND BOUGHT ME A NEW TV! =)
> 
> 
> It's not the same one that we were looking at as the price was just too high for us, but we got the same tv in 58" instead of 65". Panasonic TH58PZ800 plasma.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm really curious to re-watch the movies I've already rated on my Toshiba on this new one. It will be delivered in about 45 minutes!



Congrats! I have the 50 inch version coming today around noon.


I think we are buying my in-laws the 42 inch version for Christmas.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15342536
> 
> *Sin City* (Canada Import)
> 
> 
> Definitely top of Tier 1, and consideration for Tier 0 is certainly valid.



That's good news -- mine is en route!


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15341410
> 
> 
> Okay, if I can stop dancing long enough to write this review of *Mamma Mia* (yeah....you will want to sing and dance while watching this, even if you can't sing and dance...but don't feel bad, neither can half the actors in the film!!), I'll give it a shot.
> 
> 
> In short, there were indeed some vivid colors....and the sparkly waters were there too (geekyglassesgirl), along with some decent nighttime scenes with fairly good black levels and shadow detail, but other than that, there's not much to write home to Mama about!
> 
> 
> It definitely suffered from over saturated colors at times, and *most of the fleshtones and facial close-ups were simply horrendous*. It was simply too BRIGHT most of the time and I had to check the Picture Mode on my tv remote to see if I had it on Dynamic Mode (which I didn't...it was still on Movie Mode). Seriously, it looked like the sets do in the showroom of B&M stores.
> 
> 
> Sooooo.....because I'm in such a happy mood from all those great ABBA hits, I'm going to be generous and suggest *Tier 2.5*. Sorry GGG, but that's the best I can do!



Now that I have watched the whole movie I think my initial PQ evaluation was overly generous. There are some very good looking genuine outdoor scenes at the beginning but the PQ of the scenes at the villa (which the making of extra confirms to have been built on a sound stage) don't come close to the PQ of the genuine outdoor scenes.


I don't agree that "most" of the facial close-ups were "horrendous"; some were disappointing, some were much better than that.


So the PQ is fairly inconsistent, ranging from Tier 0 in some genuine outdoor shots to maybe Tier 3 in some dark shots.


I think Tier 2.5 is a bit harsh. Perhaps 1.75 or 2.0.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15343098
> 
> 
> Now that I have watched the whole movie I think my initial PQ evaluation was overly generous. There are some very good looking genuine outdoor scenes at the beginning but the PQ of the scenes at the villa (which the making of extra confirms to have been built on a sound stage) don't come close to the PQ of the genuine outdoor scenes.
> 
> 
> I don't agree that "most" of the facial close-ups were "horrendous"; some were disappointing, some were much better than that.
> 
> 
> So the PQ is fairly inconsistent, ranging from Tier 0 in some genuine outdoor shots to maybe Tier 3 in some dark shots.
> 
> 
> I think Tier 2.5 is a bit harsh. Perhaps 1.75 or 2.0.



You never cease to amaze me patrick! On most titles you are so critical and you usually end up going with a recommendation lower than the majority. But with this title you are being, IMO, very generous.


I will admit some of the outdoor scenes were very good, but they were "few and far between." Again, my biggest gripe with this movie was how BRIGHT it was. Didn't you find this to be true? And the brightness affected MANY of the facial shots; in fact, I saw what looked like slight pixelating or macroblocking on some faces. I truly did check my tv remote thinking I had accidentally hit my Picture Mode button and that it was on Dynamic.


I *might* be a little harsh with my recommended placement, but I couldn't see this being any higher than let's say 2.25.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15343142
> 
> 
> You never cease to amaze me patrick! On most titles you are so critical and *you usually end up going with a recommendation lower than the majority*. But with this title you are being, IMO, very generous.
> 
> 
> I will admit some of the outdoor scenes were very good, but they were "few and far between." Again, my biggest gripe with this movie was how BRIGHT it was. Didn't you find this to be true? And the brightness affected MANY of the facial shots; in fact, I saw what looked like slight pixelating or macroblocking on some faces. I truly did check my tv remote thinking I had accidentally hit my Picture Mode button and that it was on Dynamic.
> 
> 
> I *might* be a little harsh with my recommended placement, but I couldn't see this being any higher than let's say 2.25.



I didn't have the reaction of thinking "this is too bright" while watching the movie. Now that you have made this observation, it may be that the filmmakers used excessive brightness on the soundstage of the villa in an attempt to make it look more like genuine outdoor shots rather than a soundstage with painted sky and sea backdrops. The use of that sound stage set remains my biggest complaint about the movie.


Since only three of us have commented on this one so far, it's hard to know what the majority view of a meaningful number of posters will be.


In any event, there's not much distance between my low of 2.0 and your high of 2.25.


On a side note, I was surprised to see the brief bit after the end of the movie identifying Deluxe as the company that did the compression. Prior to this, I only recall seeing this type of crediting (sometimes Deluxe, sometimes Panasonic) on Fox discs. Is this the first time Universal has done this?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15343190
> 
> 
> I didn't have the reaction of thinking "this is too bright" while watching the movie. Now that you have made this observation, it may be that the filmmakers used excessive brightness on the soundstage of the villa in an attempt to make it look more like genuine outdoor shots rather than a soundstage with painted sky and sea backdrops. The use of that sound stage set remains my biggest complaint about the movie.
> 
> 
> Since only three of us have commented on this one so far, it's hard to know what the majority view of a meaningful number of posters will be.
> 
> 
> In any event, there's not much distance between my low of 2.0 and your high of 2.25.
> 
> 
> On a side note, I was surprised to see the brief bit after the end of the movie identifying Deluxe as the company that did the compression. Prior to this, I only recall seeing this type of crediting (sometimes Deluxe, sometimes Panasonic) on Fox discs. Is this the first time Universal has done this?



I didn't watch the credits at the end patrick, so I can't respond to your question about Deluxe doing the compression.


I did a Search on this title and I found one thread where they are already doing screenshots. Would you believe that Xylon actually referred to this movie as "reference quality"? After a second viewing he lowered his opinion to "excellent." Everyone that's chiming in there is singing its praises. Maybe I'll have to watch it again today before I return it, for if "those guys" are that enamored with it I must have had something in my eyes that threw my judgment off.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15343142
> 
> 
> You never cease to amaze me patrick! On most titles you are so critical and you usually end up going with a recommendation lower than the majority. But with this title you are being, IMO, very generous.



Sometimes I wonder what kind of reputation I have for rating movies? Do people think that I am too generous overall, or too picky?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15343624
> 
> 
> I didn't watch the credits at the end patrick, so I can't respond to your question about Deluxe doing the compression.
> 
> 
> I did a Search on this title and I found one thread where they are already doing screenshots. Would you believe that Xylon actually referred to this movie as "reference quality"? After a second viewing he lowered his opinion to "excellent." Everyone that's chiming in there is singing its praises. Maybe I'll have to watch it again today before I return it, for if "those guys" are that enamored with it I must have had something in my eyes that threw my judgment off.



We should remember that there is a difference between what may be considered "reference" and where said reference title will reside in the Tier thread.


A reference transfer simply means that it is close to the master as possible. No artifacts, no DNR, no EE etc.


In short, a reference title could easily wind up being in Tier 4 here.


The example that I always use to illustrate this point is 28 Days Later. This was shot with non HD video cameras. The Blu-ray version may be 100% accurate to the source (in fact, it probably is) so it could be considered "reference". Yet, where does it reside on the Tier list? It looks like crap.


So, unless you were seeing artifacts such as EE, or DNR etc., which they apparently aren't in Xylon's thread, the fact that they consider it reference, or close to reference, is not necessarily contradictory to how you saw the disc in terms of placement on the Tier list.


----------



## b_scott

watched *War, Inc.* last night.


IMO, it looked like crap for a BD. barely better than DVD upconverted, if that. Has anyone else seen this movie? The blacks were grey, and the picture was really grainy in a bad way.


----------



## Shane Martin

I watched *Smart People* last night. This is a Disney/Miramax presentation using the AVC codec. The bitrate (if you care about that) hovered in the mid 20's. I checked the remain time a lot so that's how I know










Facial detail is mostly good. There are a few soft shots but otherwise the transfer is fairly sharp and pleasing.


Current ranking: *Unranked*

My ranking: *Tier 1.75*
Panasonic 50" 9UK Plasma

PS3 via HDMI

seating distance - 8-9 feet back


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15344070
> 
> 
> We should remember that there is a difference between what may be considered "reference" and where said reference title will reside in the Tier thread.
> 
> 
> A reference transfer simply means that it is close to the master as possible. No artifacts, no DNR, no EE etc.
> 
> 
> In short, a reference title could easily wind up being in Tier 4 here.
> 
> 
> The example that I always use to illustrate this point is 28 Days Later. This was shot with non HD video cameras. The Blu-ray version may be 100% accurate to the source (in fact, it probably is) so it could be considered "reference". Yet, where does it reside on the Tier list? It looks like crap.
> 
> 
> So, unless you were seeing artifacts such as EE, or DNR etc., which they apparently aren't in Xylon's thread, the fact that they consider it reference, or close to reference, is not necessarily contradictory to how you saw the disc in terms of placement on the Tier list.



Thanks Rob...that makes perfectly good sense.


I must say though that _some_ posters on the Mamma Mia thread were also praising the PQ as well, without a word of censure.


Now I never meant to imply (in my review) that the whole title was bad, for it did have some very good scenes of Greece that rival those in films like Baraka or Prince Caspian (in other words, Tier 0 quality). But there were also some very brightly-lit scenes (especially the ones filmed in the London studio) that resulted in over saturated colors and waxy-looking faces. There were enough of those to cause me to recommend a Tier 2 placement.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15342536
> 
> *Sin City* (Canada Import)
> 
> 
> Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.0
> 
> 
> I really love the visual style of this movie. This movie has a ton of eye candy (not just the good looking women either)! Even though it is mostly black and white, the occasional splash of color truly stands out against the otherwise monochromatic image.
> 
> *Contrast is very good, though on the high side in many scenes, which is no doubt intentional.* Clarity and detail is very good indeed, if not just a tad short of the very best titles in that regard.
> 
> 
> I'm extremely happy with this title. This is one that I always looked forward to, expecting it to look great in HD, and it does!
> 
> 
> Definitely top of Tier 1, and consideration for Tier 0 is certainly valid.



Based on the comparison thread between the Canadian and Japanese versions, I would have to say that I was wrong when I said that the hot contrast was intentional.


The Japanese version does not blow the highlights to the same degree as the Canadian version.


I think I should probably dock Sin City (canada) version more than I did for the blown highlights. Still a Tier 1 title, but no consideration for Tier 0.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15343624
> 
> 
> I didn't watch the credits at the end patrick, so I can't respond to your question about Deluxe doing the compression.



I don't think I was mistaken in seeing that identification after the credits on Mamma Mia; I was interested in whether Universal has included a similar identification on other releases. I don't think I watched Wanted to the end of the credits, for example, so I don't know whether there was something similar there.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/15344160
> 
> 
> watched *War, Inc.* last night.
> 
> 
> IMO, it looked like crap for a BD. barely better than DVD upconverted, if that. Has anyone else seen this movie? The blacks were grey, and the picture was really grainy in a bad way.




I've seen it. I thought it looked bad, but I will never ever watch it again to confirm anything, I hated it. It was one of my first reviews in this thread, I believe it got dropped after I mentioned it. As far as I'm concerned, it could be dropped lower. I watched it using my toshiba so I have always been worried about my recommendations since my TV is a hunk of junk.



Patrick99 & djoberg:


Ok Djoberg at first i thought you were just being plain mean!!! I've watched it 5 or 6 times now (my daughter loves this so I'm constantly having to play it again) but it's all been on my toshiba. When I put the disc in my computer, I had no issues with it, but I also did not watch it from start to finish on here, just looked for the specific issues I had on the tv.


I had no idea I'd be getting a new TV this soon (it was truly a surprise) so I probably would have held off on any reviews had I known. Once the TV is set up, I plan on watching it again, so maybe your issues with it will be more apparent to me. Perhaps the colours on my toshiba are messed up or something b/c I didn't have issue with oversaturation or with skin tones. I'll post more thoughts on this after watching again on the Panasonic (I'm going insane, it's STILL. IN. THE. BOX. GAHHHH!!!).


I'm glad you still seemed to enjoy the movie though (hope the wife did too!) because I feel bad now that you got it b/c of my recommendation if it indeed looked that poor on your set.


----------



## b_scott

yeah i had hopes it would be like Grosse Point Blank, and had a lot of the same characters and interactions - at least for awhile. Such a slow movie, it really wasn't good at all.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15344701
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patrick99 & djoberg:
> 
> 
> Ok Djoberg at first i thought you were just being plain mean!!! I've watched it 5 or 6 times now (my daughter loves this so I'm constantly having to play it again) but it's all been on my toshiba. When I put the disc in my computer, I had no issues with it, but I also did not watch it from start to finish on here, just looked for the specific issues I had on the tv.
> 
> 
> I had no idea I'd be getting a new TV this soon (it was truly a surprise) so I probably would have held off on any reviews had I known. Once the TV is set up, I plan on watching it again, so maybe your issues with it will be more apparent to me. Perhaps the colours on my toshiba are messed up or something b/c I didn't have issue with oversaturation or with skin tones. I'll post more thoughts on this after watching again on the Panasonic (I'm going insane, it's STILL. IN. THE. BOX. GAHHHH!!!).
> 
> 
> I'm glad you still seemed to enjoy the movie though (hope the wife did too!) because I feel bad now that you got it b/c of my recommendation if it indeed looked that poor on your set.



In case I didn't mention, I did enjoy the movie itself, despite the fact that I was so bothered by the fact that so much of it was filmed on a sound stage. I particularly liked both the staging and the music for Lay All Your Love On Me (which wasn't filmed on that wretched sound stage, of course







).


Also the song that Meryl sings on the way to the church (I forget the title) was very effective, I thought. Likewise not filmed on the sound stage.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/15344716
> 
> 
> yeah i had hopes it would be like Grosse Point Blank, and had a lot of the same characters and interactions - at least for awhile. Such a slow movie, it really wasn't good at all.



I know, I had the same hopes for that movie (War, Inc) as well. It's hard to search for on this thread. Here's a link to my original post on it if you're interested:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...=#post15148436 



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15344790
> 
> 
> In case I didn't mention, I did enjoy the movie itself, despite the fact that I was so bothered by the fact that so much of it was filmed on a sound stage. I particularly liked both the staging and the music for Lay All Your Love On Me (which wasn't filmed on that wretched sound stage, of course
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ).
> 
> 
> Also the song that Meryl sings on the way to the church (I forget the title) was very effective, I thought. Likewise not filmed on the sound stage.



I think that was "the winner takes it all" that Meryl was singing. I think my head has turned into one big blur of EveryTitleABBAHasEverReleased since we bought it. I have... 5 days until we are allowed to watch Sleeping Beauty (and hopefully Wall-E) so maybe I'll get a bit of a break from Mamma Mia then!











I also agree w/ you on the Lay All Your Love on Me scene. Plenty of eyecandy for _everyone_ in that one.


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15148436
> 
> 
> I've never tried to offer my opinion or review anything in here, and I've attempted to do a search but unless I want to go through 3 pages of posts for "War" I can't locate the reviews for the movie "War, Inc." to explain to me why this title is in 3/4 of tier Silver. This is my official request to _please_ be kind to the geeky girl.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, it was a rental not a purchase and it has gone back, so I can't go back and re-look at anything; but I do wonder why this movie is rated so high on the list.
> 
> 
> My system is ps3 80gig, Toshiba 46H83 -- not top quality at all. Given this fact though, things tend to look rather phenominal for me, at a viewing distance of approximately 6 feet or so. So of course, this can all be taken with a grain of salt given what I've just stated -- for example, Saawariya looked pristine to me, and it is top 1/4 Gold tier(at least, the first half of it did, I didn't watch the entire thing despite how pretty it looked).
> 
> 
> Generally I watch movies for pleasure and not to rate them; I enjoy reading the reviews here for that. But watching War, Inc. last night inspired me to come here and see where you guys had rated it, because it looked TERRIBLE on my set up. This is the first movie that truly had me distracted with how awful it looked (and I can be very forgiving; I can watch Babylon 5 dvd's of season 1 and not cringe too hard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ).
> 
> 
> Perhaps it was just the style the movie was shot in, I'm unsure. It looked to me as if the entire thing was hazed-over, and so many of the shots would be sharp for a moment and I'd perk up, only for it to get blurry almost as instantly. Overall a terribly soft picture. At any rate, it was the first time I've played a blu-ray disc in my home and wondered, "Would the DVD have looked better than this?"
> 
> 
> I know that I'd be hard pressed to make a request to push anything UP the tier list given my substandard equipment; that _generally_ means that things should look better on my system and not worse. Unfortunately I can't really say where I think it should be pushed down to, aside from a general request of "somewhere in Tier Bronze, at least below Stargate" would likely suit it more. This movie truly irritated the heck out of me, it was almost unwatchable.



Yeah, I completely agree with everything stated. I was distracted the whole time at the crappy quality.


Pioneer Kuro 5010 50" (1080p)

Pioneer BDP-51FD

9' back, pitch black


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15344858
> 
> 
> I don't think screen shots are a substitute for watching the actual disc, but certain things come through in screen shots that accurately represent what you see when you watch the actual disc.
> 
> 
> This whole line of argument that screen shots are worthless reminds me of the format war talking points. Much of it is marketing propaganda put forth by the extremely misguided camp that thinks that any criticism of any specific BD release is harmful to the success of the format as a whole and that any criticism of a specific BD is motivated by hostility to the format.



I agree with you Patrick.


I think most of you here know how I feel with regard to the importance of watching these discs in motion in order to make a valid assessment of overall PQ. It is a must. Things DO look different when watched in motion.


However, I also believe that correctly captured screen grabs are definitely indicative of what is actually on the disc. We just need to be careful how we interpret what we are seeing. Was a screen grab taken from a scene where the subject was moving fast? If so, it will obviously look slightly blurry.


Patrick, there is another side to this coin though: it seems that people in the screen capture threads are not at all accepting of the idea that people can actually enjoy the PQ of a certain title _despite what some people think they see on screen captures_. Then you hear those people basically say that anyone who thinks the title looks great are idiots that must be viewing their 27" TV from 15 feet away.


It truly is sad that the stupid format war ever took place. There is so much animosity remaining it is incredible. People who disagree with each other on PQ accuse the other side of either being a "Sony fanboy who will never criticize a Blu-ray disc" or "an HD-DVD zealot who wants Blu-ray to fail so they will criticize BD every chance they get".


If the format war never existed, we wouldn't have to worry about these types of accusations being made, and we could just concentrate on having open, honest discussion about PQ.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15344893
> 
> 
> Therefore it appears that my assumption that the blown highlights were intentional was wrong.



Isn't it possible the Canadian transfer is truer to the director's intentions?



> Quote:
> I was somewhat bothered by the blown out highlights.



My copy is on the way, so I don't have a reference, but I've seen blown highlights before that, IMO, contributed to a very striking look that I still consider to be eye candy.



> Quote:
> I do recall seeing some "grain" (it isn't true film grain since it was shot on an HD camera) but it was not bothersome to me at all.



I don't usually find grain bothersome. I believe Zodiac was shot with similar cameras and I believe grain was added in post and it looks great to me.


----------



## rsbeck

*Zulu* (the final review, I promise)


This title seems to be causing controversy all over the internet with one side claiming Zulu is the best thing since automated toast and the other warning that just one viewing is enough to make one's head twitch like those guys chasing Tim Robbins in Jacob's Ladder. The truth probably lies somewhere between Missouri and Colorado.


The good:


The film was shot in technicolor, much of it in 65mm, and Zulu fills the screen with wide open vistas, Drakensburg Mountain scenery, battlefields, and Zulu ceremonies with enough contrast, color and detail to rival those seen in another controversial title, Baraka. It was intended to be a wide screen spectacle in the vein of films like How The West Was Won. There is so much resolution at times that you can see things you were clearly not intended to see, like the silver filling in Michael Caine's molar when he shouts, a thin line of blue eye shadow intended to make him seem heavy lidded and fey, or the brush strokes in the blood already on a spear before it enters a soldier.


Face the music:


So, what's the problem? In a word, faces. Zulu has been the subject of accusations of excessive DNR. I'll be the first to admit that I am no expert on DNR, but some of the screen grabs that I've seen in support of the accusation do not seem to hold up under critical viewing. It is quite clear to me that at least a few of the shots with strange looking faces are the result of pancake and other types of make-up. When I originally watched the film, this was my assumption. When I pause the film and look close, there is some evidence to support this conclusion. You can see some sort of make-up was applied to the preacher and his daughter to make them appear light skinned and "Norwegian." Another type of make-up was apparently applied to the soldiers to make them appear tanned (and sunburnt) from toiling in the hot sun of South Africa.


However, there are other shots where you can see the pores and imperfections in faces very clearly resolved and these stand in contrast to the faces that are either heavily made up, suffer from DNR or some combination of the two. This certainly lends support to the conclusion that at least some of the faces are missing detail due to excessive DNR.


Against the grain


Some people are going to like Zulu because there is very little grain left on the transfer. Some will feel this makes the picture more clear. Because much of the picture was shot in 65mm, I would expect the grain to be very fine when compressed to blu-ray. Frankly, in titles like Baraka and the Imax segments of TDK, I cannot always detect the grain because, to my eyes, it is so fine. However, I read a quote from a professional I trust who confirmed that grain is missing, so this also leads to the conclusion that excessive DNR was employed.


I've read that some people are comparing the level of DNR employed in Zulu to that employed in both Patton and Longest Day. However, I've also read that the levels employed in those two films is quite different, so I don't know what value to place on these comments. I have not seen these other two blu-rays so I cannot make a comparison. Based on the Patton screen grabs I've seen, I am inclined to think the comparison is a bit of hyperbole, but without seeing Patton in my theater, I cannot be sure. Since most of the folks commenting on Zulu do not seem to have seen the title, I doubt they can, either.


For the purposes of this thread, I do not believe it matters why some of the faces lack detail and appear unnatural. I believe the title should be docked no matter the cause. However, to me, there's another legit issue involved; The excessive use of DNR. I enjoy eye candy and firmly endorse the value of this thread, but I also believe that we should do whatever we can to encourage the studios to avoid the over use of DNR, to leave grain intact and I believe these goals are not incompatible.


Some will find the look of Zulu quite acceptable and, IMO, it is great to have this landmark film in high definition. Those viewing on relatively smaller displays from more than 1.5 screen widths and who are not bothered by DNR in other titles like Patton might not find these instances in Zulu objectionable. Even in this state, this is the best it has ever looked and is likely the best version we will see. Fans of the film will have a tough decision to make.


Others will be very bothered that grain is not intact and that some detail is missing due to the apparent over use of DNR.


For that reason, I going to recommend that Zulu have a note in parenthesis next to the title warning that the transfer has been affected by DNR.


Personally, watching from 1.4 X SW on a 126" screen with no pausing, while following the action of the story, I find some of the faces a little weird looking. This keeps it from being demo material. I would love to see a transfer with the grain left intact. However, there remains so much to recommend Zulu that I still enjoy it.


I recommend that it be placed a quarter of a tier above Patton.

*Recommendation: Tier 2.5*


Sim2 C3X1080

Carada Masquerade

126" Firehawk G3

Pioneer BDP-05FD


13' From Screen


----------



## Scubawoman

*Sting Bring on the Night* *Tier 4.5*


The concert footage was much better than the documentary video. There was a lot of grain and dirt especially in the beginning. White sparkles throughout the video. Definitely showing age. The concert footage was clear with good color but still with sparkles throughout similar to the quality of an upconverted dvd with Toshiba XA2.


----------



## rsbeck

*Dog Day Afternoon*


1.85:1, 1975


Disagree With Current Placement


Medium grain intact; detail, color, and contrast excellent and very consistent from beginning to end. This makes Dog Day Afternoon an absolute pleasure to watch. You see textures in faces, strands of hair, beads of sweat, not a hint of DNR, nor did I see anything remotely resembling a halo. I searched the thread and could find no review of Dog Day, so I do not know how it arrived in its current tier 3.0 placement. In an effort to rank this, I immediately watched portions of a few other discs to refresh my memory. Fans of film and of this film should be ecstatic. Highly recommended.

*Recommendation: Tier 2.25*


Sim2 C3X1080

Carada Masquerade

126" Firehawk G3

Pioneer BDP-05FD


13' From Screen


----------



## stumlad

I can't speak for how well it compares to previous DVD transfers, because I've never seen the movie before. I've heard of the TV show, and I even saw the American remake called Point of No Return (though I didnt even know it was a remake). Overall, it was a very good transfer. I did not notice any DNR, but did notice some overly sharp edges at times (sharpening, EE, I dunno). Some face closeups are really good, but not of the Tier 0 level. The visual style of the film was a bit strange as it seemed to have a green push to it, but I'm sure that was intentional. There were a few 3D pop moments, but not many - mainly some of the scenes in Venice. Black levels seemed good but quite true black, and some crush seemed to occur. There were some scenes were certain areas of the picture seemed out of focus (perhaps the lense that was used?). I would say the visuals were a bit inconsistent from scene to scene. Sometimes it was Tier 1 matieral, other times Tier 4. It looked better more often than it did worse, but I'd give it a *Tier 2.75* recommendation


----------



## djoberg

I can hardly believe that I'm reviewing the 2nd "chick flick" in as many days, but my wife is leaving for a few days so I decided to rent *Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2* (along with Mamma Mia) to treat her to a double feature. We had seen the 1st installment several months ago and it was quite enjoyable, so we thought we'd take a gamble on this being a worthy sequel.


I am happy to say that the PQ on this was consistently good; in fact, I'm tempted to recommend a Tier 0 placement, but I'm going to be conservative and vote for *Tier 1.0*. It was very sharp and detailed throughout, and it even ended in Greece with some fantastic outdoor shots that were just as good or better than in Mamma Mia (and it had those lush sparkly waters too







). Colors were natural and vibrant, contrast was spot-on, and the whites and blacks were as they should be: bright and inky! Flesh tones were amazing with remarkable detail in facial close-ups. And last, but not least, there were quite a few scenes with incredible depth.


So why not Tier 0, you ask? Because there were a few isolated scenes that were slightly out-of-focus, and there were a couple of facial close-ups where I detected what I call "sparkles" (not to be confused with sparkles in the blue waters







), or possibly "mosquito noise" (at any rate it was video noise of some kind).


Oh, and the movie was fairly good, but guys be warned, you may need a box of tissues for this one (so be careful who you watch it with).


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15348098
> 
> 
> I can hardly believe that I'm reviewing the 2nd "chick flick" in as many days, but my wife is leaving for a few days so I decided to rent *Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2* (along with Mamma Mia) to treat her to a double feature. We had seen the 1st installment several months ago and it was quite enjoyable, so we thought we'd take a gamble on this being a worthy sequel.
> 
> 
> I am happy to say that the PQ on this was consistently good; in fact, I'm tempted to recommend a Tier 0 placement, but I'm going to be conservative and vote for *Tier 1.0*. It was very sharp and detailed throughout, and it even ended in Greece with some fantastic outdoor shots that were just as good or better than in Mamma Mia (and it had those lush sparkly waters too
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ). Colors were natural and vibrant, contrast was spot-on, and the whites and blacks were as they should be: bright and inky! Flesh tones were amazing with remarkable detail in facial close-ups. And last, but not least, there were quite a few scenes with incredible depth.
> 
> 
> So why not Tier 0, you ask? Because there were a few isolated scenes that were slightly out-of-focus, and there were a couple of facial close-ups where I detected what I call "sparkles" (not to be confused with sparkles in the blue waters
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ), or possibly "mosquito noise" (at any rate it was video noise of some kind).
> 
> 
> Oh, and the movie was fairly good, but guys be warned, you may need a box of tissues for this one (so be careful who you watch it with).



Sparkly water and a box of kleenex needed, you say? Hrm. Maybe I should use THAT as the first movie to watch on my tv... I think I'm headed up to the video store shortly; there's no Oilers game on tonight.


----------



## DrDon

A number of off topic and/or bickering posts have been removed. Warnings sent. Let's talk about the topic and not each other, please.


Doc

Professional Cat Herder


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15348115
> 
> 
> Sparkly water and a box of kleenex needed, you say? Hrm. Maybe I should use THAT as the first movie to watch on my tv... I think I'm headed up to the video store shortly; there's no Oilers game on tonight.



Go for it! I believe you would love this movie, especially if you saw the first installment and liked that one.


Again, I'm happy for you with your new Panny. I'll be curious to hear what title you end up "breaking it in" with.


----------



## HomieG

You were all so right. Watched "Black Hawk Down" on blu ray last night. Totally awesome video and audio. So much so, had to rewind and re-view some parts just for the great experience!.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I posted some screen shots that I took of Sin City just for fun. They can be seen in this thread:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1#post15350259 


Note the bad pixelation in the shot of the red Cadillac (look at the trunk).


----------



## rsbeck

Nice pics.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15349169
> 
> 
> Go for it! I believe you would love this movie, especially if you saw the first installment and liked that one.
> 
> 
> Again, I'm happy for you with your new Panny. I'll be curious to hear what title you end up "breaking it in" with.




I ended up renting Sisterhood/Pants2 & Burn After Reading. I'll watch Sisterhood shortly, but we watched Burn After Reading last night.


I did a search and found nothing; I'm unsure if this has been reviewed yet. I'll post my thoughts on it in a bit.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15350315
> 
> 
> I posted some screen shots that I took of Sin City *just for fun*.



Let's hope your taking of screenshots remains "just for fun" (some take them way too seriously).










Looking at your pics has made me want to see Sin City again, so thanks Rob for posting them.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15350576
> 
> 
> Let's hope your taking of screenshots remains "just for fun" (some take them way too seriously).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looking at your pics has made me want to see Sin City again, so thanks Rob for posting them.



Yes, definitely just for fun! There are far too many variables in screen shots taken with a digital camera off a screen to be of much value in determining actual PQ. I mean I can point out some things that I do see, such as the pixelation in the trunk of the Cadillac, but things like contrast, color, and even sharpness are things that will vary greatly depending on the camera settings as well as adjustments in photoshop. Not to mention calibration of the computer monitor etc etc.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15350612
> 
> 
> Yes, definitely just for fun! There are far too many variables in screen shots taken with a digital camera off a screen to be of much value in determining actual PQ. I mean I can point out some things that I do see, such as the pixelation in the trunk of the Cadillac, but things like contrast, color, and even sharpness are things that will vary greatly depending on the camera settings as well as adjustments in photoshop. Not to mention calibration of the computer monitor etc etc.



Based on your screenshots, it looks like Tier 0 stuff. I mean I remember seeing Shoot em up which is considered Tier 0, but I dont think that looked as good as Sin City. I have the movie, but havent watched it yet. Maybe I'll watch tonight and write up my review. I still have no idea how to get the good camera screenshots from my projector.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*Burn After Reading*


This is the first movie we watched (aside from about 30 minutes of TDK) on my new set.


Burn After Reading seemed to get worse the longer we watched it, both story & PQ wise. The EE became very glaring and downright obtrusive the longer I watched this. I wasn’t looking for it but there it was, staring me right in the face!


Faces throughout this movie were untouched as far as I can tell. Details were pronounced on every one that went across my screen: wrinkles, pores, facial hair; all present and accounted for.


There was a very natural tone to the colours, almost subdued but not quite. Although I suppose given the content I’ve been watching as of late, it’s not hard for something to look subdued to me.

*Recommendation for Burn After Reading: Tier 2.00*

*Equipment:* ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800U, THX factory setting. Approx 7.5’ viewing distance.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2*


OK Djoberg, I think we're going to set each other up for a battle royal SotTP2 vs Mamma Mia! I'm having the exact opposite reaction to this movie than you did.


The faces look like porcelain they are so blurred to me. If I hadn't seen so much detail on the faces during Burn After Reading, I would think that perhaps it was something wrong with my settings, but I found this movie to be entirely too soft, and when the movie had the out of focus shots it was almost unbearable.


The movie was OK and I am glad that I did have the box of Kleenex handy.







The water was indeed sparkly, and the colours were very natural throughout. Despite that, the softness was very distracting to me, I felt as though I needed to clean my glasses. I understand wanting to have these characters look young, but sharp would not be a word I personally would use to describe anything I saw in this film.

*Recommendation for Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2: Tier 2.50*

*Equipment:* ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800U, THX factory setting. Approx 7.5' viewing distance.


----------



## rsbeck

I've got Sin City, Mama Mia, and Traveling Pants Deux on my to watch pile.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15352215
> 
> *Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2*
> 
> 
> OK Djoberg, I think we're going to set each other up for a battle royal SotTP2 vs Mamma Mia! I'm having the exact opposite reaction to this movie than you did.
> 
> 
> The faces look like porcelain they are so blurred to me. If I hadn't seen so much detail on the faces during Burn After Reading, I would think that perhaps it was something wrong with my settings, but I found this movie to be entirely too soft, and when the movie had the out of focus shots it was almost unbearable.
> 
> 
> The movie was OK and I am glad that I did have the box of Kleenex handy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The water was indeed sparkly, and the colours were very natural throughout. Despite that, the softness was very distracting to me, I felt as though I needed to clean my glasses. I understand wanting to have these characters look young, but sharp would not be a word I personally would use to describe anything I saw in this film.
> 
> *Recommendation for Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2: Tier 2.50*
> 
> *Equipment:* ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800U, THX factory setting. Approx 7.5' viewing distance.



What can I say? I guess I'm at a loss for words, for I truly thought you'd be joining me in extolling the PQ on this title. All I can really say is that on my Sammy DLP it was sharp and detailed throughout with accurate skin tones. Here is a review that DOES agree with mine:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...0#post15089670


----------



## old_man

*Zulu - Lower part of Tier 0*


Screen Resolution - 1920X1080i

Screen Size - 42" Plasma

Viewing Distance - 10'


Thoroughly enjoyed the film and the detail of the picture. Would recommend to any new HDTV viewers.


----------



## alwaller

On my lowly 720p TDK reference


----------



## Vegaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15351012
> 
> 
> Based on your screenshots, it looks like Tier 0 stuff.



I think it is tier 0,I already voted,was the second to vote. I really didn't see any reason it shouldn't be 0. From the pic thread the Japanese one does look a bit better but I don't think that means the Canadian one shouldn't be in 0 too just lower.


----------



## rsbeck

*Police: Certifiable - Live in Buenos Aires*


Disagree with Current Ranking


Pretty ho-hum Hi-Def video of a Police concert with pretty typical concert lighting. Lots of stuff going on, but nothing particularly intricate or detailed. Some things are sharp, like the red guitar, but visuals of the band are a little soft. Does not have the level of detail expected of a tier 0 or even tier 1 title. *Shine A Light is ranked tier 1.25 based on my review and based on further viewing, I would like to lower that recommendation to tier 2.0.* I feel that Shine A Light is more impressive than The Police: Certifiable.

*Recommendation: Tier 2.5*


Sim2 C3X1080

Carada Masquerade

126" Firehawk G3

Pioneer BDP-05FD


13' From Screen


----------



## rsbeck

*Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants II*


Solid low tier 1/high tier 2 title. Well shot, nice colors, nice contrast, nice saturation, nicely sharp, at least the characters, but not the last word in detail. You see textures in faces, strands of hair, but not pores. Not until we meet the blonde girl's father. Bokeh is beautiful, but it is used quite a bit here to set these ladies in a soft focus chick-flick world. Some nice scenic shots during Santorini sequences. There's nothing to really knock here, but nothing to really distinguish it, either. Notice how often I have to use the word, "nice." A nice, solid, workmanlike blu-ray. If you're a fan of this film, I don't think it can look any better than this. I am going to split the difference between Djoberg and GeekyGlassesGirl.

*Recommendation: Tier 2.00*


Sim2 C3X1080

Carada Masquerade

126" Firehawk G3


13' From Screen


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15354582
> 
> *Police: Certifiable - Live in Buenos Aires*
> 
> 
> Disagree with Current Ranking
> 
> 
> Pretty ho-hum Hi-Def video of a Police concert with pretty typical concert lighting. Don't want to hurt any feelings, but no way this belongs anywhere near tier 0, or even tier 1. As far as blu-ray concerts I've seen, this is at least a full tier below Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds, which is generously ranked tier 1 and at least a full tier below Shine a Light, which is more appropriately ranked tier 1.25. This is maybe a quarter tier above the Elvis Costello concert I watched a few days ago and only because it's in a stadium with a few more things to look at. I recommended 2.75 for the Costello concert. As a side note, the AQ is also unimpressive. This is not for video demo. Just like the EC concert, this is of interest mainly for die hard Police fans.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 2.5*
> 
> 
> Sim2 C3X1080
> 
> Carada Masquerade
> 
> 126" Firehawk G3
> 
> Pioneer BDP-05FD
> 
> 
> 13' From Screen



I only watched parts of this, so perhaps I should not be commenting, but I agree that this was not too impressive in terms of PQ. I also agree that in terms of concert discs, Shine a Light (which I have watched multiple times) is much better in every way.


----------



## 42041

Finished watching *The Godfather, part 2*. Man, what a great film.

The transfer was great, given the limitations of the source material and the BD format. I saw no attempts to do any destructive revisionism, and it's very natural and film-like during the best moments.. Unfortunately many shots exhibit more coarse grain than blu-ray video bitrates can resolve without getting all mushy, and you're reminded you're watching heavily compressed digital video. Given that this is a long movie and it uses all the space BD has, this is likely the best this movie can look on home video in 2008. Ah, lossless HD can't come soon enough









current *Tier 2.75* placement is fine


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15354631
> 
> 
> Finished watching *The Godfather, part 2*. Man, what a great film.
> 
> The transfer was great, given the limitations of the source material and the BD format. I saw no attempts to do any destructive revisionism, and it's very natural and film-like during the best moments.. Unfortunately many shots exhibit more coarse grain than blu-ray video bitrates can resolve without getting all mushy, and you're reminded you're watching heavily compressed digital video. Given that this is a long movie and it uses all the space BD has, this is likely the best this movie can look on home video in 2008. Ah, lossless HD can't come soon enough
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> current *Tier 2.75* placement is fine



+1. Agree with 2.75 for Godfather II.


----------



## rsbeck

I'd still like to see Godfather at least a quarter tier above Godfather II.

*Godfather 2.50*

*Godfather II 2.75*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15354607
> 
> *Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants II*
> 
> 
> Solid low tier 1/high tier 2 title. Well shot, nice colors, nice contrast, nice saturation, nicely sharp, at least the characters, but not the last word in detail. You see textures in faces, strands of hair, but not pores. Not until we meet the blonde girl's father. Bokeh is beautiful, but it is used quite a bit here to set these ladies in a soft focus chick-flick world. Some nice scenic shots during Santorini sequences. There's nothing to really knock here, but nothing to really distinguish it, either. Notice how often I have to use the word, "nice." A nice, solid, workmanlike blu-ray. If you're a fan of this film, I don't think it can look any better than this. *I am going to split the difference between Djoberg and GeekyGlassesGirl*.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 1.75*



Blessed are the peacemakers!










You and I, for the most part, are in agreement (except I would substitute the word "nice" with "very good" or even "excellent"), though I would still opt for Tier 1.0 in lieu of Tier 1.75. (Hey, I just remembered you said once that you thought our recommendations would always be no more than 1/4 to 1/2 tier apart....that means this title will have to be bumped up a notch or two.







)


All kidding aside, I will be happy to see this somewhere in Tier 1. Anything lower would be a travesty, IMO.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vegaz* /forum/post/15354081
> 
> 
> I think it is tier 0,I already voted,was the second to vote. I really didn't see any reason it shouldn't be 0. From the pic thread the Japanese one does look a bit better but I don't think that means the Canadian one shouldn't be in 0 too just lower.



I just finally watched *Sin City* for myself.


It has some awesome visuals, and overall is a very good transfer even for an AVC encoded blu-ray at only 14mbps average. I will say however that I did see blocking and noticed the blown out whites that Rob was talking about.


The macro blocking was actually in the first scene. Now typically I sit 10 ft away from my 106" diagonal screen (92" wide) which is probably about 1.3 screen width's away. I paused it and walked up about 4 feet away from the screen and saw _a few_. Did I get unlucky and pause it at its worst? In motion at my normal seating distance, I thought I noticed it on a couple of occassions as well.


There appeared to be a couple of "soft" spots, but when comparing this to Shoot em up, I think Sin City looks better... but Shoot em up has no macro-blocking (or at least its not visible to me). I think any DNR that was applied was done in a smart way as the face details did not seem to suffer, it was more like the backgrounds.


Overall, I'd have to go with *Tier 1.0* and it's only because I know that the higher bit-rate would have propelled this to Tier 0 because of lack of macro-blocks. I have 0 regret in purchasing this title and honestly, I'd rather have the few occassions of macro-blocking with dabs of background DNR than to have almost any one of the Warner Filter jobs out there (this coming from someone who, at first, doubted that Warner was filtering).


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

We never returned our movies yesterday like we were supposed to, so I think I might give SotTP2 a second viewing. Perhaps I was too harsh on it. I could be overwhelmed w/ the new set too










It just felt weird with everyone looking so porcelain. I understand in a way why they did this to the film. It's a chick-flick. Women are the ones who are going to be watching this film (my husband bolted the room as soon as he realized what he was watching) are going to see how perfect their skin is etc. I just know I've seen both America Fererra and Alexis Bledel in other things and they didn't look so perfect. It was weird-looking to me.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15356608
> 
> 
> We never returned our movies yesterday like we were supposed to, so I think I might give SotTP2 a second viewing. Perhaps I was too harsh on it. I could be overwhelmed w/ the new set too
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It just felt weird with everyone looking so porcelain. I understand in a way why they did this to the film. It's a chick-flick. Women are the ones who are going to be watching this film (my husband bolted the room as soon as he realized what he was watching) are going to see how perfect their skin is etc. I just know I've seen both America Fererra and Alexis Bledel in other things and they didn't look so perfect. It was weird-looking to me.



Have you had your set calibrated? While I do most of my viewing on my projector, I also have a Panasonic plasma, and I know that without good calibration faces look like clay. If this is happening on all of your movies, then it may be a calibration issue. I guess if not, it's just the movie. Havent seen it so I cant comment on that.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15355330
> 
> 
> (Hey, I just remembered you said once that you thought our recommendations would always be no more than 1/4 to 1/2 tier apart....that means this title will have to be bumped up a notch or two.



I remember saying I didn't think we'd be more than 1/2 tier apart on Caspian, but I don't remember ruling out the possibility of being further apart on other titles. I could be talked into going lower on the Traveling britches before higher, but I feel comfortable at 1.75.


----------



## rsbeck

*The Professionals*


Based on further viewing:


All of this rewatching, trying to find placement recommendations has made me appreciate the quality of The Professionals. I think I was just a tiny bit tough on that one with my 1.75 recommendation. I'd like to bump my recommendation .25 of a tier.

*Recommendation: Tier 1.5*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15357200
> 
> 
> I remember saying I didn't think we'd be more than 1/2 tier apart on Caspian, but I don't remember ruling out the possibility of being further apart on other titles. I could be talked into going lower on the Traveling britches before higher, but I feel comfortable at 1.75.



I thought you were kidding when you had said that, just as I was when I said it (that's why I had the smiley face).


Again, I would argue strongly for anything less than Tier 1 for SOTTP2. It is a "very good" transfer, which is just as good as most titles in Tier 1.


----------



## Shane Martin

*The Bank Job*


Agree with current ranking


I watched Bank Job last night. This is a very nice transfer. I could find little to fault with on this transfer and completely agree with it's current placement.

_50" Panasonic 9UK Plasma

Sony PS3 via HDMI

Seating distance ~ 8-9 Feet back._


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15356832
> 
> 
> Have you had your set calibrated? While I do most of my viewing on my projector, I also have a Panasonic plasma, and I know that without good calibration faces look like clay. If this is happening on all of your movies, then it may be a calibration issue. I guess if not, it's just the movie. Havent seen it so I cant comment on that.



No, not yet on the calibration. But, right before I watched Sisterhood/pants, I watched Burn After Reading and that film had faces that were perfect (other reasons caused my lowish rating for it). Pores, facial hair, wrinkles etc. I could see more of George Clooney than I ever needed to. I actually watched Mamma Mia last night when we got home from a christmas party, and although I had a bit too much wine, I could still see all the detail on the faces in that too (except the weird crap that is going on with Meryl/Amanda -- going to revisit this with a sober viewing though).



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15357669
> 
> 
> Well, then I'll stick with my 1.75 recommendation and let you duke it out with GeekyGlassesGirl. But, be careful, I hear she throws a mean right cross.













I still plan on rewatching this today before I return it.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Otis*


recommendation: *Tier 3.5*


A direct-to-video feature from 2007, Warner released this 100-minute movie to Blu-ray on October 7th, 2008. The video is encoded in VC-1 on a BD-25 with an average bitrate of approximately 25 Mbps. The encode ranges mostly between 19.6 Mbps and 37.4 Mbps, with the majority of scenes remaining in the 20’s. This is one of the better Warner compression encodes with no visible artifacting or macroblocking. Posterization and compression noise are completely absent from the picture and the encode seems very faithful to how the source material was shot, retaining superior fine detail.


The entire feature was shot with HD digital cameras and the odd lighting used at times does seem to affect the picture negatively. Indoor scenes look great with proper lighting, but some video noise does appear in the outdoor scenes that take place at night. The master looks in great condition otherwise with no stray marks or anomalies. There are no edge enhancement halos present with absolutely zero signs of DNR tampering or processing.


My main complaint is the overblown whites and in general the color balance and contrast of the entire picture. The entire movie seems a little over bright, with blacks never appearing darker than a deep gray. Because of this colors look a little washed out, particularly in the scenes in Otis’ home and dungeon. Fleshtones look a little flat and off by just a smidge.


Some scenes involving the titular character Otis appear to have been shot in a slightly soft and diffuse manner, losing some of the sharpness that the more normal “family” scenes exhibit. A high point of this transfer is the great high frequency information demonstrated throughout the feature. Facial close-ups consistently reveal natural blemishes the actors would probably like to hide and actually add to the creepiness factor of Otis. In this regard only the Blu-ray might be worthy of tier two.


For an extremely minor catalog title, Warner has given this movie a solid treatment on Blu-ray. Do not expect a huge amount of eye candy in the picture though. A placement in tier 3.5 seems appropriate.


----------



## rsbeck

*Sin City*


1.85:1, Mostly Black and White


Definitely eye candy of a sort and should be on anyone's short list of titles to show off the sharpest and most defined detail possible with blu-ray. The only quibbles I have are with the picture assessment criteria....

*does it look real and film-like), color (are they true to reality, especially blues, reds and greens; are blacks black and whites white)*


Here's a title where blacks are definitely black and whites certainly white. Sin City has an intentionally stylized look that is incredibly striking and impressive to the eye, but it would be difficult to argue that the color scheme is anywhere near "true to reality." On the other hand, we have other CGI and animated titles in tier 0 with similar problems. What do we do here? Do we give Sin City a pass as we do CGI titles, hold it to a different standard because it is more like live action, hold both CGI and live action titles to similar standards, or create a separate category with different assessment criteria?


Further, this title really demonstrates the capabilities of hi-def video when in the hands of an artist, so saying this is hi-def video is sort of like saying filet mignon is meat, but there's no mistaking this for film -- this is video. For those who might argue that the absence of grain makes the picture sharper or more detailed, I would ask you to take a look at The Day The Earth Stood Still. This will show you exactly how 3D, lush and detailed a black and white film can be. That look would be inappropriate to Sin City where the film maker is going for a flatter, comic book style, but according to the criteria, we should ignore director's intent. I didn't recommend TDTESS for a higher tier because it does not maintain that stunning quality consistently and because it is in black and white.


Along that line, I would like to get a clarification. I never asked anyone, but I have been taking it upon myself to dock black and white titles like TDTESS and Great Expectations at least half tier because they are black and white. I wonder how the rest of you feel about this? I feel like I need to either raise my recommendations on those titles or else dock Sin City similarly.

*Recommendation: 1.25*


Sim2 C3X1080

Carada Masquerade

126" Firehawk G3

Pioneer BDP-05FD


13' From Screen


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15356413
> 
> 
> I just finally watched *Sin City* for myself.
> 
> 
> It has some awesome visuals, and overall is a very good transfer even for an AVC encoded blu-ray at only 14mbps average. I will say however that I did see blocking and noticed the blown out whites that Rob was talking about.
> 
> 
> The macro blocking was actually in the first scene. Now typically I sit 10 ft away from my 106" diagonal screen (92" wide) which is probably about 1.3 screen width's away. I paused it and walked up about 4 feet away from the screen and saw _a few_. Did I get unlucky and pause it at its worst? In motion at my normal seating distance, I thought I noticed it on a couple of occassions as well.
> 
> 
> There appeared to be a couple of "soft" spots, but when comparing this to Shoot em up, I think Sin City looks better... but Shoot em up has no macro-blocking (or at least its not visible to me). I think any DNR that was applied was done in a smart way as the face details did not seem to suffer, it was more like the backgrounds.
> 
> 
> Overall, I'd have to go with *Tier 1.0* and it's only because I know that the higher bit-rate would have propelled this to Tier 0 because of lack of macro-blocks. I have 0 regret in purchasing this title and honestly, I'd rather have the few occassions of macro-blocking with dabs of background DNR than to have almost any one of the Warner Filter jobs out there (this coming from someone who, at first, doubted that Warner was filtering).



Thanks for the excellent review. Completely agree on the macroblocking, which I didn't really notice on my first viewing. It's definitely there though, and yes, I would certainly expect it to be because of low bitrates.


After my second viewing, I would lower my recommendation to *Tier 1.5* for Sin City.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15359478
> 
> *Sin City*
> 
> 
> 1.85:1, Mostly Black and White
> 
> 
> Definitely eye candy of a sort and should be on anyone's short list of titles to show off the sharpest and most defined detail possible with blu-ray. The only quibbles I have are with the picture assessment criteria....
> 
> *does it look real and film-like), color (are they true to reality, especially blues, reds and greens; are blacks black and whites white)*
> 
> 
> Here's a title where blacks are definitely black and whites certainly white. Sin City has an intentionally stylized look that is incredibly striking and impressive to the eye, but it would be difficult to argue that the color scheme is anywhere near "true to reality." On the other hand, we have other CGI and animated titles in tier 0 with similar problems. What do we do here? Do we give Sin City a pass as we do CGI titles, hold it to a different standard because it is more like live action, hold both CGI and live action titles to similar standards, or create a separate category with different assessment criteria?
> 
> 
> Further, this title really demonstrates the capabilities of hi-def video when in the hands of an artist, so saying this is hi-def video is sort of like saying filet mignon is meat, but there's no mistaking this for film -- this is video. For those who might argue that the absence of grain makes the picture sharper or more detailed, I would ask you to take a look at The Day The Earth Stood Still. This will show you exactly how 3D, lush and detailed a black and white film can be. That look would be inappropriate to Sin City where the film maker is going for a flatter, comic book style, but according to the criteria, we should ignore director's intent. I didn't recommend TDTESS for a higher tier because it does not maintain that stunning quality consistently and because it is in black and white.
> 
> 
> Along that line, I would like to get a clarification. I never asked anyone, but I have been taking it upon myself to dock black and white titles like TDTESS and Great Expectations at least half tier because they are black and white. I wonder how the rest of you feel about this? I feel like I need to either raise my recommendations on those titles or else dock Sin City similarly.
> 
> *Recommendation: 1.5?* (Open to further discussion)



I agree with Tier 1.5 for Sin City.


As for B&W, I absolutely do NOT think that a title should be docked points for simply being black and white.


The title should be judged as a whole. How does it look overall? Is it eye candy? How does it compare to the best eye candy titles on the list?


Since there is no color, it is entirely possible that a B&W title will automatically receive a lesser score since there are no colors to "pop off the screen". But I certainly don't think that it should be automatic, because some B&W films can have astonishing "eye candy" on their own merit. A well shot B&W movie can show beautiful gradations from inky blacks all the way through to the bright whites, and good shadow delineation along the way.

*The Man Who Wasn't There* is a good, fairly recent example of incredible B&W cinematography that I consider top notch "eye candy"!


----------



## quake1028

*The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor*


The Mummy looks very good in a lot of places. Especially the scenes of the Chinese New Year celebration, almost everything around Shangri-La, and a lot of facial closeups. Color rendering is excellent. Contrast is good, whites aren't hot or overblown, and that's important with the amount of snow in this movie. The faults I find that knock this down from Tier 0 or higher Tier 1 are some scenes of softness, which I agree with HDD are mainly in the CGI scenes, and thus probably unavoidable. But they are still there. Black levels are also very good, and I didn't find any hints of artifacting or EE. Overall this is a really good looking movie. Too bad the actual movie is pretty bad.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.25*
*

Panny TH-42PZ800U 1080p

PS3 through HDMI

4.5 ft*


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15360124
> 
> 
> Thanks for the excellent review. Completely agree on the macroblocking, which I didn't really notice on my first viewing. It's definitely there though, and yes, I would certainly expect it to be because of low bitrates.
> 
> 
> After my second viewing, I would lower my recommendation to *Tier 1.5* for Sin City.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with Tier 1.5 for Sin City.
> 
> 
> As for B&W, I absolutely do NOT think that a title should be docked points for simply being black and white.
> 
> 
> The title should be judged as a whole. How does it look overall? Is it eye candy? How does it compare to the best eye candy titles on the list?
> 
> 
> Since there is no color, it is entirely possible that a B&W title will automatically receive a lesser score since there are no colors to "pop off the screen". But I certainly don't think that it should be automatic, because some B&W films can have astonishing "eye candy" on their own merit. A well shot B&W movie can show beautiful gradations from inky blacks all the way through to the bright whites, and good shadow delineation along the way.
> 
> *The Man Who Wasn't There* is a good, fairly recent example of incredible B&W cinematography that I consider top notch "eye candy"!



I agree...HDD gave Casablanca a pefect 5/5 for its PQ. Anyone checked that out yet?


----------



## Shane Martin

I agree also. We don't dock it because it's in B&W. We judge it as Rob has mentioned.


I saw Casablanca. It looks beautiful.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15360124
> 
> 
> some B&W films can have astonishing "eye candy" on their own merit. A well shot B&W movie can show beautiful gradations from inky blacks all the way through to the bright whites, and good shadow delineation along the way.



100% Agreement.



> Quote:
> *The Man Who Wasn't There* is a good, fairly recent example of incredible B&W cinematography that I consider top notch "eye candy"!



I'll check it out. In the meantime, I should raise my recommendations on TDTESS and Great Expectations -- thanks!


----------



## rsbeck

Adjusted Recommendations:


Reason: I previously docked them unnecessarily for being Black and White.

*The Day The Earth Stood Still........tier 2.0*

*Great Expectations......................tier 3.0*


----------



## rsbeck

I've asked for Casablanca for Christmas, so I may have it in the next few days -- can't wait to see it.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Shane Martin* /forum/post/15360632
> 
> 
> I agree also. We don't dock it because it's in B&W. We judge it as Rob has mentioned.
> 
> 
> I saw Casablanca. It looks beautiful.



Where's the review and placement?


----------



## 42041

I thought Casablanca looked fantastic on HDDVD, though it was one of the first discs I rented after I got my combo drive so I may just have been happy to see anything in 1080p at that point. Is it the same transfer/video encode?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15360734
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll check it out. In the meantime, I should raise my recommendations on TDTESS and Great Expectations -- thanks!



Just for clarification, The Man Who Wasn't There isn't on Blu-ray yet. Probably not the best example to give in that regard.


----------



## rsbeck

*Concert Blu-Rays*


I wasn't comfortable with just shooting from the hip, so I just spent more time with each of the titles in my collection so I could be a little more scientific. I will mention Audio Quality for those who are interested, but I did not let AQ affect recommendations. For recommendations, I am comparing these to other titles at these ranks.


General comments:


These are rock stars and film makers are obviously asked to make them look good, which precludes detailed close-ups. So, you see a lot of soft focus techniques and/or fog machines. The exception to this turns out to be Elvis Costello. So, here goes...

*Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds*


When all is considered, this one is the half n' half of the harvest. Though it is generally soft, you get some moments with close, detailed visuals of the lads and their instruments and Radio City affords some interesting visuals.

*Recommendation: Tier 1.75*

*Shine a Light*


Directed by Martin Scorcese, this is easily the artiest with cameras swooping, lots of angles and quick cuts, generating its own kind of visual energy. Scorcese mixes different film stocks, goes from intentionally grainy black and white to high-def video, lets you get close enough to be in the action with the band, lets you see wrinkles and facial texture, which are in abundance, but no pores. The set and lighting at the Beacon theater is easily the most interesting of the four. This is a second review with a lower recommendation this time based on further review.

*Recommendation: Tier 2.0*

*Elvis Costello and the Attractions: Live in Memphis*


Elvis and the band let the cameras get right in there to show pores, every piece of stubble, imperfections, bald spots, and the beads of sweat that cover his face as the night goes on. Consistently the sharpest and shows the finest detail of the four. Black levels are also very good for a concert video where lighting often washes things out. Nothing too arty here -- just a very sharp picture and a lot of close-ups -- puts you right up on stage with the band. Club doesn't offer much in the way of visual interest. Compares very well with tier 2.5 titles like Step Brothers.

*Recommendation: Tier 2.50*

*The Police: Certifiable*


The least detailed of the four. Camera rarely lets you get close enough to the band to make out pores or imperfections. This to me is a requirement of any tier 0 or tier 1 title and you are seeing this kind of detail now even in tier 2.5 titles like Step Brothers. There's nothing else on screen particularly detailed. Instruments are mostly solid colored, no wood grain. Fog machines add mist to the proceedings. Pretty generic concert video. I am giving this title a break on fine detail and ranking it even with Elvis Costello based on it being in a bigger arena with more going on. This is a re-review with same recommendation based on viewing all four titles in one afternoon and compare/contrasting.

*Recommendation: Tier 2.5*


Sim2 C3X080

Carada Masquerade

126" Firehawk G3

Pioneer BDP-05FD


13' From Screen


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15360893
> 
> 
> Just for clarification, The Man Who Wasn't There isn't on Blu-ray yet. Probably not the best example to give in that regard.



I guess we should call it The Blu-Ray That Wasn't There.


Right now, The Day The Earth Stood Still is my black and white reference. Some incredible sequences. I'll be on the look-out for Man Who Wasn't There.


Thanks!


----------



## Shane Martin




> Quote:
> Where's the review and placement?



I only saw the HD DVD version.


rsbeck,

I COMPLETELY disagree with you regarding The Police Certifiable disc. I assume you have the ability to listen to it via lossless right? If so I can't imagine it not being a reference quality track to anyone. To me it sounded spectacular. It's also a reference quality grade at Audio Tier thread.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Shane Martin* /forum/post/15361102
> 
> 
> I COMPLETELY disagree with you regarding The Police Certifiable disc.



I would just ask you to compare the Police to other titles. Personally, I have to go down to tier 3.0 to find a comp.


----------



## quake1028

*Live Free or Die Hard*


This horse has probably been beaten to death, but I will say this: this movie is everything Blu-ray should be, visually. I couldn't really find any flaws here. Black levels, contrast, colors and facial details are off the charts. If anything, I think this one could be moved up. To my eyes it looks better than Black Snake Moan and Prince Caspian for sure, and probably even Baraka, when you take into account this is a live action movie and all.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0, moved up*
*

Panny TH-42PZ800U 1080p

PS3 through HDMI

4.5 ft*

*Next: Burn After Reading & Death Race*


----------



## rsbeck

*Tommy Boy*


Medium/fine Grain is intact and very consistent, satisfyingly sharp yet natural looking from beginning to end, not a hint of a halo anywhere. Comedy where eye candy is not the point, but well shot and nicely saturated with pleasing PQ.

*Recommendation: Tier 2.75*


Sim2 C3X1080

Carada Masquerade

126" Firehawk G3

Pioneer BDP-05FD


13' From Screen


----------



## Beta Tester




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15360978
> 
> *The Police: Certifiable*
> 
> 
> Here, Sting and the boys are constantly enveloped with man-made fog. Surroundings do not provide much visual interest, the band is shot mostly from straight on with zooms getting you pretty close, but most of the visuals are pretty soft. The least impressive sound quality of the four. I would call it pretty good.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 3.00*



Since I am not a fan of the Police, I watched this only with the intention of comparing it to Elton 60, which is my demo disc for its outstanding PQ and AQ. IMO Certifiable's PQ is definitely not as good as Elton 60, and should not be ranked above it. IMO it also does not belog in Tier 0.


----------



## stumlad

I noticed *Gangs of New York* is unranked. I recommend *Tier 5*. One of the worst blu-rays ever. I'm sure some of you who have seen it would agree. EE to the max.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15362490
> 
> 
> I noticed *Gangs of New York* is unranked. I recommend *Tier 5*. One of the worst blu-rays ever. I'm sure some of you who have seen it would agree. EE to the max.



Although I refuse to rent it and support that abortion of a blu-ray, if the screen caps are an accurate representation, it deserves to be among the worst of the worst.


----------



## Shane Martin




> Quote:
> I COMPLETELY disagree with you regarding The Police Certifiable disc.
> 
> I would just ask you to compare the Police to other titles. Personally, I have to go down to tier 3.0 to find a comp.



Video quality wise, I think you are in the ballpark. I need to rewatch it again with the intent of judging the PQ.


AQ wise: I think you are way off.


----------



## Shane Martin

*Wall-E*


Current placement - *Middle of Tier 0.*

My placement: *Towards the bottom of Tier 0*


I viewed Wall E tonight. I saw there was some debate on this title and wanted to view it for myself while also watching the film. I happen to agree with the guys on the negative side of this film's PQ. It certainly isn't an eye popping movie though at times it does look gorgeous. It's certainly Tier 0 most of the time but the early sequences aren't quite as sharp and detailed as the rest of the film. I thought Corpse Bride looked better to me. One of Pixar's weaker PQ efforts but if the bottom 1/3 of Tier 0 is their bottom end, that's a great track record to have.

_50" Panasonic 9UK Plasma

PS3 via HDMI

8-9 Feet back_


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Shane Martin* /forum/post/15364031
> 
> *Wall-E*
> 
> 
> Current placement - *Middle of Tier 0.*
> 
> My placement: *Towards the bottom of Tier 0*
> 
> 
> I viewed Wall E tonight. I saw there was some debate on this title and wanted to view it for myself while also watching the film. I happen to agree with the guys on the negative side of this film's PQ. It certainly isn't an eye popping movie though at times it does look gorgeous. It's certainly Tier 0 most of the time but the early sequences aren't quite as sharp and detailed as the rest of the film. I thought Corpse Bride looked better to me. One of Pixar's weaker PQ efforts but if the bottom 1/3 of Tier 0 is their bottom end, that's a great track record to have.
> 
> _50" Panasonic 9UK Plasma
> 
> PS3 via HDMI
> 
> 8-9 Feet back_



+1


That's exactly where I had recommended placement Shane. I think it would take quite a few others to actually bring about a change in its current spot, but it's nice to know that some are not automatically recommending top half of Tier 0 for every animated title.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15364320
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> 
> That's exactly where I had recommended placement Shane. I think it would take quite a few others to actually bring about a change in its current spot, but it's nice to know that some are not automatically recommending top half of Tier 0 for every animated title.



I hope to finally watch Wall-E today or tomorrow.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

I watched Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2 again yesterday, and I haven't changed my mind on my rating. I still found the picture overall really soft, especially faces. I just don't feel this picture is Tier 1 at all; I could maybe be convinced to go up to 2.00-2.25 instead of my original rating of 2.50, but I'm just going to have to disagree with you on this one, djoberg!



As for Mamma Mia, I do think I can lower my praise slightly now that I have the new set. Not much, as I still agree with my original sentiments on the picture, but the digital "enhancement" they did on Meryl and Amanda in some scenes can be distracting, I also noticed a couple more out of focus shots than I did before. I don't see the issue with skin tones though. I'm going to lower my recommendation for Mamma Mia to Tier 1.50. I'll go dig up my old post and edit it to reflect my rating, but also will post here:


*Updated Recommendation for Mamma Mia! The Movie: Tier 1.50*

*Equipment:* ps3 80gig to Panasonic Panasonic TH-58PZ800U, THX setting. Approx 7.5' viewing distance.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15365367
> 
> 
> I watched Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2 again yesterday, and I haven't changed my mind on my rating. I still found the picture overall really soft, especially faces. I just don't feel this picture is Tier 1 at all; I could maybe be convinced to go up to 2.00-2.25 instead of my original rating of 2.50, but I'm just going to have to disagree with you on this one, djoberg!
> 
> 
> 
> As for Mamma Mia, I do think I can lower my praise slightly now that I have the new set. Not much, as I still agree with my original sentiments on the picture, but the digital "enhancement" they did on Meryl and Amanda in some scenes can be distracting, I also noticed a couple more out of focus shots than I did before. I don't see the issue with skin tones though. I'm going to lower my recommendation for Mamma Mia to Tier 1.50. I'll go dig up my old post and edit it to reflect my rating, but also will post here:
> 
> 
> *Updated Recommendation for Mamma Mia! The Movie: Tier 1.50*
> 
> *Equipment:* ps3 80gig to Panasonic Panasonic TH-58PZ800U, THX setting. Approx 7.5' viewing distance.



GGG, how did you feel about the use of a sound stage set for so much of the movie? I'm not sure that this is a pure PQ issue, but I think it did have an effect, since the genuine outdoor shots tended to look so much better.


BTW, I was sorry to hear in listening to the director commentary last night that they cut Lay All Your Love somewhat because "Benny and Bjorn thought it went on too long."


----------



## tfoltz

Wall-E is right below Ratatouille in my opinion, both of which should be above Kung Fu Panda.


I put *Dark Knight at Tier 1.75*.


Panasonic Plasma 50px80u.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15365554
> 
> 
> GGG, how did you feel about the use of a sound stage set for so much of the movie? I'm not sure that this is a pure PQ issue, but I think it did have an effect, since the genuine outdoor shots tended to look so much better.
> 
> 
> BTW, I was sorry to hear in listening to the director commentary last night that they cut Lay All Your Love somewhat because "Benny and Bjorn thought it went on too long."




It honestly didn't bother me, Patrick99. The outdoor scenes did look better but I still think the sound stage scenes looked good too (just not AS good).


I haven't watched any specials or the commentaries yet, but a big ol /rude to B&B for cutting that scene!



I'm going to hate this movie by the end of Christmas break though, it's on AGAIN right now. I'm not watching it, my daughter is (how funny it is to have a 5 year old singing ABBA... I'll have to put TDK on again when this is over, there's just too much happiness in the house right now j/k j/k). But even with my glasses off so I can type here, I still many details clearly on Mamma Mia. ["when you're gone... how can I... even try... to go on..." sing it, Pearce







]


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15365690
> 
> 
> It honestly didn't bother me, Patrick99. The outdoor scenes did look better but I still think the sound stage scenes looked good too (just not AS good).
> 
> 
> I haven't watched any specials or the commentaries yet, but a big ol /rude to B&B for cutting that scene!
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to hate this movie by the end of Christmas break though, it's on AGAIN right now. I'm not watching it, my daughter is (how funny it is to have a 5 year old singing ABBA... I'll have to put TDK on again when this is over, there's just too much happiness in the house right now j/k j/k). But even with my glasses off so I can type here, I still many details clearly on Mamma Mia. ["when you're gone... how can I... even try... to go on..." sing it, Pearce
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ]



There is one extra devoted entirely to the filming of Lay All etc. It includes lyrics that didn't make it into the movie.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/15365571
> 
> 
> Wall-E is right below Ratatouille in my opinion, both of which should be above Kung Fu Panda.
> 
> 
> I put *Dark Knight at Tier 1.75*.
> 
> 
> Panasonic Plasma 50px80u.



Whoa! You've got the first one too high and the second one too low!


----------



## DaveBowman

There haven't been a lot of posts about this movie and since it's right before the holidays I just wanted to offer a quick recommendation to anyone looking for a good old-fashioned family movie. It's a Disney CGI direct to video disc that apparently had quite a bit of input from some Pixar folks, and it rocks. Definitely more of a kids movie without a lot of the more grown-up subtexts of modern animated films, but don't let that put you off. I won't get into debating if it belongs in this or that part of Tier 0 but suffice to say that I guaranty you will not be disappointed by the PQ. The colors alone put most of the Tier 0 titles to shame, and in many ways it's the most impressive thing I've yet seen on my 52XBR. The fact that it's in HDTV screen-filling 1.78:1 aspect ratio rather than the more typical 2.35 or 2.40 widescreen ratio makes it that much more visually impressive. It covers every single pixel of your screen in vibrant colors. Suitable for the whole family with nothing even remotely objectionable for the kids and absolutely stunning to look at. You can thank me after Christmas. Cheers !!!!!!


----------



## tfoltz

Never. Also, lets give *Ice Age* a ranking. I put it in *Tier 2.75*. It has a lot of quality shots with great depth; however, some parts are soft with a bland appearance, and the sky often has faint color banding. A pleasant watch, but somewhat distracting.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15366195
> 
> 
> Whoa! You've got the first one too high and the second one too low!


----------



## babrown92

I really wish we could create a separate section for animated films. Almost every modern day computer animated film is going to be a tier 0 title, there's no reason for them not to be.


I say create a animated tier and stack them that way.


It's kind of ridiculous to be comparing the PQ of the Shawshank Redemption and the Godfather to Happy Feet and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *babrown92* /forum/post/15366714
> 
> 
> I really wish we could create a separate section for animated films. Almost every modern day computer animated film is going to be a tier 0 title, there's no reason for them not to be.
> 
> 
> I say create a animated tier and stack them that way.
> 
> 
> It's kind of ridiculous to be comparing the PQ of the Shawshank Redemption and the Godfather to Happy Feet and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.



Funny you would make this post right after someone just recommended Ice Age for Tier 2.75!


----------



## spectator

Mod edit: Thanks for your points...but let's drop it and move on


----------



## babrown92

I think the process of developing an animated film and a live action film are different enough to warrant separate tiers. One is created inside a computer, the other is created in the physical world...pretty big differences.


I love animated movies as much as the next guy, but I think they are closer to video games than actual real-life films.


It would be like comparing the performance of cars vs. motorcycles...sure they are both modes of transportation but vastly different and thus should be seperated.


Just my opinion.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *babrown92* /forum/post/15367014
> 
> 
> One is created inside a computer, the other is created in the physical world...pretty big differences.



Let me ask again... which is Star Wars Episode 1?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *babrown92* /forum/post/15367014
> 
> 
> I love animated movies as much as the next guy, but I think they are closer to video games than actual real-life films.














> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *babrown92* /forum/post/15367014
> 
> 
> It would be like comparing the performance of cars vs. motorcycles...sure they are both modes of transportation but vastly different and thus should be seperated.



Sure, you could define them as significantly different things, but you could also define them as exceedingly similar things and, for the purposes of this thread, what would be the value/point of splitting them up?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15366843
> 
> 
> And there's a reason for them to be in a separate list?
> 
> 
> What's an "animated" movie, anyway? Is Star Wars Episode 1 a live-action movie or an animated movie? Or both?
> 
> 
> How 'bout a separate list for 'good' movies and 'bad' movies?
> 
> 
> How 'bout a separate list for children's movies?
> 
> 
> How 'bout a separate list for sequels?
> 
> 
> How 'bout a separate list for foreign movies?
> 
> 
> How 'bout a separate list for movies adapted from other mediums?
> 
> 
> 
> What's the point?



You forgot to mention a separate list for Color and Black & White movies!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Is it really that difficult to look down the list a bit in Tier 0 and find the live action ones that have been recommended to be on the list that high? I've never understood the big beef some people have with the animated titles being there. If I'm trying to find something on the list I use the find function of my web browser when I'm on the main page, or I just y'know... read the list.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15367078
> 
> 
> You forgot to mention a separate list for Color and Black & White movies!



I "forgot" to mention about 1,000 other distinctions I can think of off the top of my head. This is the slippery slope we set out upon whenever we try to define 'genres'. _Any_ way we slice it, there are weird exceptions which fall outside (or between) the definitions. In the end, I think you just have to say "This is some content; does it do anything for you or not?"


----------



## gc8710




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *babrown92* /forum/post/15367014
> 
> 
> I think the process of developing an animated film and a live action film are different enough to warrant separate tiers. One is created inside a computer, the other is created in the physical world...pretty big differences.
> 
> 
> I love animated movies as much as the next guy, but I think they are closer to video games than actual real-life films.
> 
> 
> It would be like comparing the performance of cars vs. motorcycles...sure they are both modes of transportation but vastly different and thus should be seperated.
> 
> 
> Just my opinion.



I addressed this subject a few weeks back. Got completely shut down .I just revisited today to ask about opinions concerning PQ of "ENCOUNTERS AT THE END OF THE WORLD", but it looks like this thread is still mostly about cartoons.Oh well.


----------



## tfoltz

If you say so. I have my problems with a lot of the rankings as much as the next person; but that's the point of the thread - finding a common ground amongst differing views for the picture quality of ALL blu-ray movies. Whatever movies are recently released often get the most discussion, whether is be animated or live action.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gc8710* /forum/post/15367373
> 
> 
> ...but it looks like this thread is still mostly about cartoons.Oh well.


----------



## Hughmc

It doesn't matter if titles are animated or not. If this thread is as simple as distinguishing and placing films in tiers based on eye candy alone, and it is, then having separate tiers makes no sense for the intent and purpose of this thread.


This is no different than director's intent. If the top ten films in tier 0 are animated/CGI and always will be then that is what they are and where they should be. If we never see non-aninated films in the top spot then so be it. Eye candy people! If we don't want the thread to work that way then change it and it will no longer be an eye candy thread. We can then take into account director's intent...yadda yadda blah blah blah. What a can of worms it will open up if we do and pages of debate will ensue.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/15366531
> 
> 
> Never. Also, lets give *Ice Age* a ranking. I put it near the top of *Tier 2.75* (right below 10,000 B.C.). It has a lot of quality shots with great depth; however, some parts are soft with a bland appearance, and the sky often has faint color banding. A pleasant watch, but somewhat distracting.



I haven't seen Ice Age from beginning to end, but I did see it being demoed in Ultimate Electronics last week and it looked horrendous. Besides the banding, it lacked detail big time. I couldn't believe they had it on display when they had so many other options. Anyway, from the 15 minutes that I saw I thought it was more like low Tier 3 or high Tier 4.


----------



## rsbeck

I think Babrown and gc8710 have a point that need not be rejected out of hand.


Look at the thread criteria, which includes...

*does it look real and film-like), color (are they true to reality*


Based on this, we should probably throw most of the animated, CGI and titles shot on video out of the top tier. How many of them look real and film like and have colors true to reality?


The "film grain allowed" thread separates titles shot on film from those shot on video and I think there is some sense to it. Applying film based criteria to animated and titles shot on video is really not appropriate and we've obviously overlooked the thread criteria in order to get these "eye candy" titles into the top tier. So, we should at least think about this -- either changing the criteria and throw out the parts about "film-like" and "color (are they true to reality?" Or creating a separate category where these criteria are not included.


Also, it doesn't really make sense to knock titles for employing DNR to remove the grain while making titles with grain compete against animated and titles shot on video.


I could see how having separate categories would actually cause less arguing.


People coming into the thread would have a much easier time finding what they are seeking. I can understand the argument that says one can look past the animated titles because most of us know which ones are animated, but it is a lot less obvious which ones are shot on video.


And, let's face it, people seems to have pretty radical differences in their tolerance/appreciation for film grain. Those who want to avoid it will have a much easier time and those who want to avoid titles without grain, likewise.


Something to at least think about.


----------



## tfoltz

I agree a lot of chunks of the movie are not great, but there are other nice portions to off-set some of these bland areas. Regardless, to anyone who's watched the entire movie in your home, where do you rank it?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15368253
> 
> 
> I haven't seen Ice Age from beginning to end, but I did see it being demoed in Ultimate Electronics last week and it looked horrendous. Besides the banding, it lacked detail big time. I couldn't believe they had it on display when they had so many other options. Anyway, from the 15 minutes that I saw I thought it was more like low Tier 3 or high Tier 4.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I believe breaking the tier list down into separate categories is inherently wrong. Once we break it down between live-action and animation, there will be calls for further divisions and other unforeseen consequences. Even considering animation alone, you have the split between traditional hand-drawn animation and computer-rendered animation. If anything the future of movies is the blending of animation (mainly CGI) with live actors, as seen in something like Beowulf.


The current list is strong enough to consider all forms of movies and entertainment; from the concerts shot on HD video to the latest Hollywood blockbuster shot on 35mm film. Does animated material have an inherent advantage over regular filmed material for the purposes of this thread? Probably, but that has not stopped us from ranking many incredible filmed transfers in tier zero and tier one.


I understand the calls for separating animated material, but I can not support this idea of creating a separate list for animation. I believe it would make the entire tier system less relevant and useful.


----------



## 1brokebrother

We could start a "Blu-Ray Pic quality no cartoons!" thread..you could copy past the list from here then delete the cartoons and you'll have a ready made thread..just an idea,, but it should end all arguments...that will be $5,123 for my arbratration fee..

bet ya'll went to college too


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15368260
> 
> 
> 
> Something to at least think about.



No, it's not.


It has been thought about and discussed previously in this thread on numerous occasions. Not that I should expect it to stop.


Why do we have to continue reinventing the wheel in this thread over and over again?


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Forgetting Sarah Marshall*

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*


This was one of the less impressive Blu-ray's that I have seen in quite awhile. There really isn't much to praise. Colors were not pleasing, there was an overall softness to the image, and contrast was quite flat.


There were a few scenes early in the movie that were imitating a television broadcast in 4:3 aspect ratio. It was interesting that these scenes were more detailed than the rest of the movie.


I'm perfectly satisfied with its current ranking at Tier 3.0.


I enjoyed the movie itself more than I thought I would. The PQ is another matter.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Wall-E*
*

Tier Recommendation: mid Tier 0*


I just finished watching this very impressive title. Wow. New ground was broke here. The use of shallow depth of field and selective focus was extremely well done.


Yes, the scenes on Earth were flat in terms of color and sharpness, but the majority of the movie contains plenty of pure eye candy. Colors and details are fantastic. Reflections off the white body of Eve were very realistic and detailed.


Definitely reference material. Mid Tier 0 is perfect.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15368935
> 
> 
> No, it's not.



LOL.



> Quote:
> It has been thought about and discussed previously in this thread on numerous occasions.



Sounds like an issue that won't go away.



> Quote:
> Why do we have to continue reinventing the wheel in this thread over and over again?



I think what we have is pretty darn good and certainly seems to function well over time, but I wouldn't compare it to the invention of the wheel.


I don't believe it does us any harm to consider anything that might improve the thread.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15368890
> 
> 
> I believe breaking the tier list down into separate categories is inherently wrong.



This has always been my position, too, but the further we go, the more I feel like we could make a few changes to improve the thread.


Make it even better.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15369342
> 
> 
> This has always been my position, too, but the further we go, the more I feel like we could make a few changes to improve the thread.
> 
> 
> Make it even better.



Except the change that you propose will not accomplish that. Just the opposite actually.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15369484
> 
> 
> Except the change that you propose will not accomplish that. Just the opposite actually.



Thanks for weighing in. 


I think the strongest argument against separate categories was this...


"If anything the future of movies is the blending of animation (mainly CGI) with live actors, as seen in something like Beowulf." -- Phantom Stranger


Personally, I think the thread works as is, but I think sometimes it works because of the criteria and sometimes in spite of the criteria. I think we all define eye candy much like the Supreme Court defines pornography; we know it when we see it. At some point, I'm sure we'll figure out a way to improve the process. In fact, we've made changes to the thread recently. IMO, breaking the tiers into quarters was a great idea and makes the tiers and recommendations much more manageable.


I just don't want to discourage people from making suggestions.


Not that I, or anyone else, could, but, you know....


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15369956
> 
> 
> Thanks for weighing in.
> 
> 
> I think the strongest argument against separate categories was this...
> 
> 
> "If anything the future of movies is the blending of animation (mainly CGI) with live actors, as seen in something like Beowulf." -- Phantom Stranger
> 
> 
> Personally, I think the thread works as is, but I think sometimes it works because of the criteria and sometimes in spite of the criteria. I think we all define eye candy much like the Supreme Court defines pornography; we know it when we see it. At some point, I'm sure we'll figure out a way to improve the process. In fact, we've made changes to the thread recently. IMO, breaking the tiers into quarters was a great idea and makes the tiers and recommendations much more manageable.
> 
> 
> I just don't want to discourage people from making suggestions.
> 
> 
> Not that I, or anyone else, could, but, you know....



For the record, I had recommended something similar to breaking tiers into quarters before I stopped posting in this thread, and specifically recommended listing movies alphabetically in those tiers instead of trying to pinpoint exact placement. It was obvious that the thread would go that route eventually due to the ever increasing number of releases.


There is a big difference between doing that and recommending a separation of live action and animated titles.


As already mentioned, if you are going to separate animated titles, then why not separate Black and White titles?


If you are going to do that, why not separate movies by aspect ratios, such as 2.35:1, 1.85:1, 1.78:1, 1.33:1 etc?


If you are going to do that, why not separate movies by decades?


Etc.


You obviously "get" this thread as shown by your statement that we know eye candy when we see it. I don't really understand what would be accomplished by removing animated titles from the list.


----------



## tfoltz

There is 0 point to make separate threads/lists. People would end up wondering how the lowest ranked animation movie holds up against the best live-action film, etc.


This thread answers all those questions with one quality list. Want to know which animation movie ranks the best? Its right here. Want to know the best live action? Right here. Want the prettiest movie with robots? I, Robot. Oh wait, you want an animation movie with robots? Get wall-e.


This provides a detailed list for ALL blu-ray movies. Nothing else is needed. Separate lists will just have people wondering how the best/worst of each list ranks with the other list(s), which is what we already have answered here. Separation is deconstructing the wheel. Down with segregation; this was figured out decades ago.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15370131
> 
> 
> There is a big difference between doing that and recommending a separation of live action and animated titles. As already mentioned, if you are going to separate animated titles, then why not separate Black and White titles?
> 
> If you are going to do that, why not separate movies by aspect ratios, such as 2.35:1, 1.85:1, 1.78:1, 1.33:1 etc?



I don't find this as strong as the other argument against previously cited.



> Quote:
> I don't really understand what would be accomplished by removing animated titles from the list.



Since it has never been tried, we have no way of knowing what would be accomplished, we can only speculate. Some are speculating that one separation and we would go nuts, nothing to stop us from an orgy of further sub groupings, dogs living with cats -- mass hysteria!! My guess is -- we'd probably find that it would improve some things and make other things worse. Some would like it better and some wouldn't. Or, vice versa.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/15370218
> 
> 
> People would end up wondering how the lowest ranked animation movie holds up against the best live-action film, etc.
> 
> This thread answers all those questions with one quality list.



Hopefully, people will still wonder how the lowest ranked animation title holds up against the highest ranked live-action film. The tiers are good, but they are not the last word. Ideally, IMO, they're just a starting point for investigation.



> Quote:
> Down with segregation; this was figured out decades ago.


----------



## tfoltz

I agree that the rankings are just a starting point. I disagree where a lot of titles are ranked, just as others would disagree where I rank many movies. But its as good a list as any, and a lot of thought goes into most rankings, including yours, which only helps.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Well, how about somewhat of a comprimise? If someone really wants to start a seperate list for animated titles, start one up. See how it goes in there, meanwhile leave this thread as-is. If the animated only titles thread has decent feedback, maybe it would be OK to eliminate them from this list? Is there any reason -besides the work involved- that those who want a list such as that can't start one up?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15370466
> 
> 
> Well, how about somewhat of a comprimise? If someone really wants to start a seperate list for animated titles, start one up. See how it goes in there, meanwhile leave this thread as-is. If the animated only titles thread has decent feedback, maybe it would be OK to eliminate them from this list? Is there any reason -besides the work involved- that those who want a list such as that can't start one up?



I'm willing to bet that the mods would not allow a separate Tier thread for animated titles.


And I wouldn't blame them one bit.


----------



## rsbeck

Can we try bussing the animated titles to another neighborhood?


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*The Strangers*

*Tier recommendation: 2.75*


This is a very dark movie, with very few daylight scenes. The dark scenes are average at best compared with other dark movies on Blu-ray. Detail and colors are all average. Shadow detail is pretty good though.


Definitely very little eye candy here. Probably just good enough to be in Tier 2, but just barely. It's pretty close to Tier 3 in my opinion.


I think it is ranked far too high currently (at Tier 1.25). I would have been very disappointed if I had rented this based on that high Tier rating.


As for the movie itself: not a single redeeming quality. Every cliched horror trick in the book was used here. I felt like I could have done a MST3K monologue while watching this one, it was so easy to know exactly what was going to happen next.


----------



## Hammie

Then the question is what defines an animated film? Does it have to be completely animated? What about a mixture where CGI is introduced in a live action film? It can become too cumbersome to filter what is allowed and what isn't.


I agree to leave this list as is and if someone wants to start their own thread, then go for it.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hammie* /forum/post/15370563
> 
> 
> Then the question is what defines an animated film?



I guess just letting ME decide would be out of the question?


----------



## Vegaz

*Death Race*


Someone in the TDK disagreements mentioned that maybe because people loved the movie so much they might've been over rating it. This might have the opposite effect for me in that I was so sucked into the movie itself I might under rating it.


It wasn't bad but there wasn't much that really had any pop. The only time I felt there was anything with pop were the stage screens. It says Death Race Stage 1 etc. before each stage and has a wide shot of the island. The night scenes and blacks were really good,especially with the scenes near the end. Grain is present all the way so obviously intentional. The style of the movie itself also kind of makes it hard to place. By definition it would likely be in Silver 2.0 but I think it's just staying true to the artistic style of the movie so I'll vote for Gold 1.75


----------



## rsbeck

I just think it is a little inconsistent to have this in the criteria...

*does it look real and film-like), color (are they true to reality*


And then have a number of titles in the top tier that do not fit that criteria. It seems like there is already an understanding that some titles are to be assessed differently from others -- even though there is no criteria listed for which ones are to be held to that standard and which ones are not. I would agree that not all titles should be held to that standard. In fact, maybe no titles should be held to that standard.


But -- hey -- if it doesn't bother anyone else, I'm cool.


I agree that the system, though not perfect, is working perfectly.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15368992
> 
> *Forgetting Sarah Marshall*
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.0*
> 
> 
> This was one of the less impressive Blu-ray's that I have seen in quite awhile. There really isn't much to praise. Colors were not pleasing, there was an overall softness to the image, and contrast was quite flat.
> 
> 
> There were a few scenes early in the movie that were imitating a television broadcast in 4:3 aspect ratio. It was interesting that these scenes were more detailed than the rest of the movie.
> 
> 
> I'm perfectly satisfied with its current ranking at Tier 3.0.
> 
> 
> I enjoyed the movie itself more than I thought I would. The PQ is another matter.



Your actual review and Tier placement don't seem to match. Seems like you should place it in Tier 4.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15370524
> 
> 
> I'm willing to bet that the mods would not allow a separate Tier thread for animated titles.
> 
> 
> And I wouldn't blame them one bit.



Ahh ok.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15370555
> 
> 
> 
> As for the movie itself: not a single redeeming quality. Every cliched horror trick in the book was used here. I *felt like I could have done a MST3K monologue while watching this one*, it was so easy to know exactly what was going to happen next.




That right there is the exact reason why I have a special spot waiting on my shelf for the release of "Twilight" on Blu Ray. It was so spectacularly awful, _Manos: The Hands of Fate_ has to move over for it.


----------



## Mel2

*Revolver*

*Tier recommendation: Tier 0* . in the middle, around black snake moan.


beautiful transfer. sony's finest looking catalog title imo. excellent contrast levels and very deep blacks. the fine detail and smoothness is impressive. if you like "pop", this has it in spades.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15370131
> 
> 
> For the record, I had recommended something similar to breaking tiers into quarters before I stopped posting in this thread, and specifically recommended listing movies alphabetically in those tiers instead of trying to pinpoint exact placement. It was obvious that the thread would go that route eventually due to the ever increasing number of releases.
> 
> 
> There is a big difference between doing that and recommending a separation of live action and animated titles.
> 
> 
> As already mentioned, if you are going to separate animated titles, then why not separate Black and White titles?
> 
> 
> If you are going to do that, why not separate movies by aspect ratios, such as 2.35:1, 1.85:1, 1.78:1, 1.33:1 etc?
> 
> 
> If you are going to do that, why not separate movies by decades?
> 
> 
> Etc.
> 
> 
> You obviously "get" this thread as shown by your statement that we know eye candy when we see it. I don't really understand what would be accomplished by removing animated titles from the list.



Animated titles interest me almost not at all (although I have watched parts of many of the BD ones just to see what the fuss was all about), but I strongly agree that they should not be separated out. I agree with Rob that there is no principled basis for doing so, or for stopping there if you did.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15370555
> 
> *The Strangers*
> 
> *Tier recommendation: 2.75*
> 
> 
> This is a very dark movie, with very few daylight scenes. The dark scenes are average at best compared with other dark movies on Blu-ray. Detail and colors are all average. Shadow detail is pretty good though.
> 
> 
> Definitely very little eye candy here. Probably just good enough to be in Tier 2, but just barely. It's pretty close to Tier 3 in my opinion.
> 
> 
> I think it is ranked far too high currently (at Tier 1.25). I would have been very disappointed if I had rented this based on that high Tier rating.
> 
> 
> As for the movie itself: not a single redeeming quality. Every cliched horror trick in the book was used here. I felt like I could have done a MST3K monologue while watching this one, it was so easy to know exactly what was going to happen next.



I just did a search on this title Rob and it turns out that I was the only one who had reviewed it before....and yes, I had suggested Tier 1.25. This illustrates the need for there being more than one recommendation before a title is placed.


I'll have to watch that one again, but if you look at my review I bring out that the nighttime scenes were very sharp, comparing them to scenes in 30 Days of Night. And the few daytime scenes were also sharp and detailed. But I will rewatch it someday, though I remember quite vividly being impressed with it.


It would be good for some of you to watch this title so we can have a more accurate representation of the movie. Oh, BTW, I didn't think the movie was as bad as Rob thought it was either. In fact, where most horror movies today resort to blood and gore, this one relied heavily upon sounds and images to produce a scare (until the last 15 minutes), and IMO they were very effective. I thought it was worth a rental.


----------



## djoberg

Here is the review of The Strangers by High Def Digest:

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1672/strangers2008.html 


As you will see, he praises the PQ and the AQ, which was the same conclusion that I drew. I'm not giving this link to support my view, but rather to stir up others to see this so we can reach a consensus on this title. I never wanted it to receive a placement based on my review alone.


----------



## Shane Martin

*Burn After Reading*


I viewed this Coen Brothers flick late last night. I'd mention the bitrate but I don't think anyone cares







Needless to say, I didn't care for the film much. I love the Coen Brothers but this seemed like a poorly done pet project meant for good fun. It had a couple of laughs but even the directors admitted the movie was about dumb people in Washington and then jumped around a bit on what the plot was. The movie followed that tone as well. What a mess! It's more disappointing because it's the Coen Brothers who I hold with high regard.


PQ Wise: It looked decent but nothing special. Tier 2 is what it screamed out at me throughout. The EE was pretty glaring as this film seemed oversharpened. Faces and facial detail were excellent.


Score: *Tier 2.0*


Equipment: Panasonic 50" 9UK Plasma, PS3 thru HDMI. 8-9 feet back seating distance.


----------



## Shane Martin

I agree with Rob 100% about separation and animated films. There's no need for separation.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/15372986
> 
> 
> They also give Ice Age and Ice Age: The Meltdown a 4.5/5 in video quality



I quoted them because it's another _opinion_ and not because they never get it wrong. I do think they got it right though on The Strangers.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Shane Martin* /forum/post/15373471
> 
> 
> I agree with Rob 100% about separation and animated films. There's no need for separation.



I agree with Rob or whoever it was that said this subject was already discussed at length and we don't need to revisit it.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Shane Martin* /forum/post/15372598
> 
> *Burn After Reading*
> 
> 
> I viewed this Coen Brothers flick late last night. I'd mention the bitrate but I don't think anyone cares
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Needless to say, I didn't care for the film much. I love the Coen Brothers but this seemed like a poorly done pet project meant for good fun. It had a couple of laughs but even the directors admitted the movie was about dumb people in Washington and then jumped around a bit on what the plot was. The movie followed that tone as well. What a mess! It's more disappointing because it's the Coen Brothers who I hold with high regard.
> 
> 
> PQ Wise: It looked decent but nothing special. Tier 2 is what it screamed out at me throughout. The EE was pretty glaring as this film seemed oversharpened. Faces and facial detail were excellent.
> 
> Score: *Tier 2.0*
> 
> 
> Equipment: Panasonic 50" 9UK Plasma, PS3 thru HDMI. 8-9 feet back seating distance.





Glad to see it wasn't just me who felt this way!


----------



## Shane Martin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Rob Tomlin View Post
> 
> Forgetting Sarah Marshall
> 
> 
> Tier Recommendation: 3.0
> 
> 
> This was one of the less impressive Blu-ray's that I have seen in quite awhile. There really isn't much to praise. Colors were not pleasing, there was an overall softness to the image, and contrast was quite flat.
> 
> 
> There were a few scenes early in the movie that were imitating a television broadcast in 4:3 aspect ratio. It was interesting that these scenes were more detailed than the rest of the movie.
> 
> 
> I'm perfectly satisfied with its current ranking at Tier 3.0.
> 
> 
> I enjoyed the movie itself more than I thought I would. The PQ is another matter.



+1. Not a great transfer by any means. No depth which was surprising considering the locales.


----------



## gc8710




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15373846
> 
> 
> I agree with Rob or whoever it was that said this subject was already discussed at length and we don't need to revisit it.



Well I’d like to revisit it. After reading all the criteria one should use when judging a dvd, many contradictions and problems can be found. As stated, the three main things to look for are sharpness, color, and video artifacts. Color should be true to reality, impossible in cartoons. Another problem I have is the explanation on how each Tier is categorized. Tier 0, the one jam packed with cartoons is described exactly as follows,

--- The picture quality of the transfer is in pristine shape and practically perfect with no visible video artifacts. The image is so clean and sharp that it maintains a realistic feel throughout and serves as great demo material. We recommend owning at least one of these films!.

Only three sentences one of which states a realistic feel is required. Impossible with cartoons.

Now if one examines the statistical evidence found in Tier 0, one can see that these criteria are not being used by those here judging PQ. A simple percentage comparison is all that is needed. Of the top 25 dvds,12 are cartoons. 48%. This percentage is so drastically higher than the actual percentage of Blu-Rays that are cartoons as opposed to live action that one can safely conclude without a doubt that the qualities found in cartoons and not in live movies are what is being used to judge PQ as being worthy of top billing. I won’t presume to state what these qualities are, but they are not those found in the instructions on page 1 of this thread. And since this is a wonderful AV Science forum, key word being science, I think this subject does need to be revisited.


----------



## tfoltz

Give me a break. Many "live" movies have fake backgrounds and lighting; do those produce true to reality colors more than an animation movie?


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

I think the _science_ involved in creating those Tier 0 _cartoons_ is pretty amazing.


My friend, who also has a Panasonic Plasma (the 50" 850U model vs my 58" 800U model) and I were discussing this sort of thing the other day. Remember that computer animated show, _Reboot_? It was canadian, so I'm unsure if it was available to everyone. Back when I went to college, it looked phenomenal. But neither of us could imagine watching _Reboot_ on our current sets, without bursting the bubble of what was so technically awesome back in 1994.


----------



## rsbeck

It has not been my experience that reviewers in this thread are judging live action titles based on cartoon standards. I think reviewers are reading between the lines of the criteria and making interpretations that work for them and we have varying tastes and interpretations. Some people interpret transfers without grain to be sharper and more 3D and the criteria do emphasize those qualities. I also believe animated titles are not as heavily scrutinized because they appeal to some part of our brain that bypasses critical judgment with regard to color, realism, etc. We're wowed by the fact that CGI can make things 3D, wowed by what some perceive as extra clarity due to the lack of grain, and wowed by the level of detail much moreso than the level of detail we take for granted in a live action title.


I would just be curious -- how many of you -- when demoing your system for your most sophisticated videophile friends -- will use an animated title, which sequences, and why?


Personally, I never use animated titles and not one of my friends, when given a choice, has ever chosen an animated title to judge the quality of my system. When I suggest an animated title like Ratatouille, Kung Fu Panda, or Wall-E, they just look at me funny and ask to see what else I have.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/15372986
> 
> 
> They also give Ice Age and Ice Age: The Meltdown a 4.5/5 in video quality
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of Ice Age: The Meltdown, I think this movie looks similar to Ice Age in many ways (banding, bland, soft, etc.), however, there are no redeeming shots that portray depth, which I felt was present in Ice Age. So I put *Ice Age: The Meltdown in Tier 3.5*.



WOw!. Tier 3.5. Soft, no depth? We aren't watching the same thing PQ wise that is for sure.







This movie is much better eye candy than even it current unfair tier 2 ranking. How did it end up there?







To me these movies even with some PQ anomalies are still eye candy and look amazing. For the record Ice Age 2 used to be in Tier 0. How did Ice age end up in unranked titles.














I think we have some serious discussion necessary on these titles as their placements are off IMO. Oh and not an animation debate as we have enough of that already.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I think some readers here get a little confused about the tier descriptions from the main post. I personally use them as guidelines only, not holy writ that needs to be followed with every Blu-ray I recommend a placement. Honestly I see the various tiers comprising a bell-shaped distribution curve from top to bottom for picture quality, with tier three generally representing the average visual quality on the Blu-ray format.


I would recommend to lurkers to read several weeks worth of posts in this thread to get an idea of how posters justify their placements. Most of us give explicit reasons why we give certain rankings. It is somewhat analogous to the legal concept of _stare decisis_, where judges are obligated to follow the precedents established in prior decisions. This thread has a long history of discussion that informs and guides our thinking and judgments on rankings.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15372003
> 
> 
> I just did a search on this title Rob and it turns out that I was the only one who had reviewed it before....and yes, I had suggested Tier 1.25. This illustrates the need for there being more than one recommendation before a title is placed.



Ah....so YOU are the guilty one!




















> Quote:
> I'll have to watch that one again, but if you look at my review I bring out that the nighttime scenes were very sharp, comparing them to scenes in 30 Days of Night. And the few daytime scenes were also sharp and detailed. But I will rewatch it someday, though I remember quite vividly being impressed with it.



At best, I would say the night scenes were "adequate" in terms of sharpness. But that sure isn't enough to equate to Top Tier Eye Candy!


My point is that the transfer itself might be fine, but the fact that 90% of it is so dark, I just can't imagine putting this in Tier 1 of an eye candy thread. Would you put this title on as a demo for people who have never seen blu-ray before? Would you expect someone who isn't familiar with Blu-ray to be impressed by watching this title?



> Quote:
> It would be good for some of you to watch this title so we can have a more accurate representation of the movie.



Definitely. This is a good example of why we shouldn't place titles in the list based on one or two reviews. Three minimum.











> Quote:
> Oh, BTW, I didn't think the movie was as bad as Rob thought it was either. In fact, where most horror movies today resort to blood and gore, this one relied heavily upon sounds and images to produce a scare (until the last 15 minutes), and IMO they were very effective. I thought it was worth a rental.



While I agree that many horror movies today rely on blood and guts, that doesnt mean that there isnt also a long tradition of horror movies that also rely on sounds and images to create tension. Did I jump a time or two during this movie? Yes. But that alone doesn't make a good movie. That said, I was probably harder on it than I needed to be. I mean, I didn't turn it off before it was over, so it did keep my attention.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15372399
> 
> 
> Here is the review of The Strangers by High Def Digest:
> 
> http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1672/strangers2008.html
> 
> 
> As you will see, he praises the PQ and the AQ, which was the same conclusion that I drew. I'm not giving this link to support my view, but rather to stir up others to see this so we can reach a consensus on this title. I never wanted it to receive a placement based on my review alone.



Again, people who do reviews are not doing them in terms of a Tier thread (eye candy), although they might address some of the same factors that we use here, such as sharpness, contrast etc.


Some of the important statements in that review are: "....showcases *difficult material* in fine fashion".


"...the majority of 'The Strangers' takes place in the last remaining hours before dawn, *it's a relentlessly dark film*".


I just don't think that such a dark movie provides enough eye candy moments to be worth of Tier 1. Tier 1 should be reserved for very impressive PQ, the type that you would not hesitate to put on for friends to demo what Blu-ray has to offer. The type of material that would make someone say "oh wow, that looks incredible"!


I don't see The Strangers doing that at all.


The review does go on to talk about how good shadow detail is, which I completely agree with. However, I was not as impressed with the sharpness to the degree that Bracke was.


The only reason I put this in Tier 2.75 is because it is a decent transfer. Let's remember that tier 2 is still very respectable stuff. But Tier 1 should be reserved for the best eye candy titles out there. Tier 0 is for the very rare special titles that get everything right in spades.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15354582
> 
> 
> * Police: Certifiable - Live in Buenos Aires
> 
> 
> Disagree with Current Ranking
> 
> 
> Pretty ho-hum Hi-Def video of a Police concert with pretty typical concert lighting. Don't want to hurt any feelings, but no way this belongs anywhere near tier 0, or even tier 1. As far as blu-ray concerts I've seen, this is at least a full tier below Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds, which is generously ranked tier 1 and at least a full tier below Shine a Light, which is more appropriately ranked tier 1.25. This is maybe a quarter tier above the Elvis Costello concert I watched a few days ago and only because it's in a stadium with a few more things to look at. I recommended 2.75 for the Costello concert. As a side note, the AQ is also unimpressive. This is not for video demo. Just like the EC concert, this is of interest mainly for die hard Police fans.
> 
> Recommendation: Tier 2.5
> 
> 
> Sim2 C3X1080
> 
> Carada Masquerade
> 
> 126" Firehawk G3
> 
> Pioneer BDP-05FD
> 
> 
> 13' From Screen
> *


*


I cant think of a post I have disagreed with more than this one in all due respect. I own Dave and Tim, and have seen Shine a Light and I would put Certifiable a notch above both of those in PQ. Infact, overall this is the most impressive BR concert disc I have seen for PQ, but I know many disagree with that which is OK.


What realy amazes me though is your comment on the audio quality







I dont think there is one person who has voted anything but reference for this in the audio thread. I could understand less than a ref vote, but to flat out say it is unimpressive is pretty shocking to me. This recording/mix blows Shine a Light out of the water (which is tech a pretty bad mix, but they were going for a certain type of presentation with this one which I personaly dont think worked) and is atleast on par with Dave and Tim IMO. I wont get this thread off topic more than this post, but your findings are amazing to me. I wish all BR concert recordings/mixes could be at the level of Certifiable.*


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15374562
> 
> 
> I think some readers here get a little confused about the tier descriptions from the main post. I personally use them as guidelines only, not holy writ that needs to be followed with every Blu-ray I recommend a placement. Honestly I see the various tiers comprising a bell-shaped distribution curve from top to bottom for picture quality, with tier three generally representing the average visual quality on the Blu-ray format.
> 
> 
> I would recommend to lurkers to read several weeks worth of posts in this thread to get an idea of how posters justify their placements. Most of us give explicit reasons why we give certain rankings. It is somewhat analogous to the legal concept of _stare decisis_, where judges are obligated to follow the precedents established in prior decisions. This thread has a long history of discussion that informs and guides our thinking and judgments on rankings.



I could not agree more, and could not have said it better myself.


Res Ipsa Loquitur.


----------



## gc8710




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15374247
> 
> 
> I think the _science_ involved in creating those Tier 0 _cartoons_ is pretty amazing.
> 
> 
> My friend, who also has a Panasonic Plasma (the 50" 850U model vs my 58" 800U model) and I were discussing this sort of thing the other day. Remember that computer animated show, _Reboot_? It was canadian, so I'm unsure if it was available to everyone. Back when I went to college, it looked phenomenal. But neither of us could imagine watching _Reboot_ on our current sets, without bursting the bubble of what was so technically awesome back in 1994.



I was very clear in stating that the "science" I was referring to is the science aspect of ranking movies by PQ. NOT, the science involved in making animated movies.Due to the plethora of cartoons in Tier 0, that variable,I.E. animation, dictated that the results are

skewed and invalid scientifically speaking.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Are we seriously trying to apply "science" to a PQ thread involving "eye candy"?


This thread is more subjective than objective.


If it was based on science, people wouldn't need to be giving their _opinions_.


----------



## djoberg

^


Rob,


You and I are actually on the same page regarding _some of the points_ in The Strangers. Where I think we would disagree, and what you address above in depth, is whether or not a title with a high percentage of dark scenes is worthy of a Tier 1 placement. Take The Dark Knight for an example; is not the majority of that title at night or in low-lit areas? I believe it is. Yet the majority of members recommended it for either a Tier 0 or Tier 1 placement.


I believe a title like this can be demo material, just as a Black and White title could be. There was a brief discussion regarding Black and White titles after rsbeck's review The Day The Earth Stood Still and if memory serves me right you even said it shouldn't be docked because of it lacking colors. So, why should a title that is filmed mostly at night or in lowly-lit areas be penalized? I don't think it should be.


Having said that, I do concur with you that it wouldn't be the title I would instantly grab to introduce Blu-ray to a newcomer to HD. But I could envision using it as a demo to a veteran HD consumer to show off the virtues of Blu-ray in dark scenes (especially black levels and shadow detail).


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15374795
> 
> 
> ^
> 
> 
> Rob,
> 
> 
> You and I are actually on the same page regarding _some of the points_ in The Strangers. Where I think we would disagree, and what you address above in depth, is whether or not a title with a high percentage of dark scenes is worthy of a Tier 1 placement. Take The Dark Knight for an example; is not the majority of that title at night or in low-lit areas? I believe it is. Yet the majority of members recommended it for either a Tier 0 or Tier 1 placement.
> 
> 
> I believe a title like this can be demo material, just as a Black and White title could be. There was a brief discussion regarding Black and White titles after rsbeck's review The Day The Earth Stood Still and if memory serves me right you even said it shouldn't be docked because of it lacking colors. So, why should a title that is filmed mostly at night or in lowly-lit areas be penalized? I don't think it should be.
> 
> 
> Having said that, I do concur with you that it wouldn't be the title I would instantly grab to introduce Blu-ray to a newcomer to HD. But I could envision using it as a demo to a veteran HD consumer to show off the virtues of Blu-ray in dark scenes (especially black levels and shadow detail).



All valid points. I also recommended TDK for lower Tier 1.


In reviewing my post, I should not have given the overall impression that a title should automatically be precluded from Tier 1 just because it is a dark movie.


But if you compare The Strangers to TDK, while they are both dark, they are a different type of dark! I know that sounds ridiculous, but its the way I see it. TDK has more contrast, whereas The Strangers was more of a flat look, with almost no images that really stood out. TDK has many more scenes that did that...and the percentage of dark scenes is not as high as The Strangers.


I'd really like to have some others watch this and give their feedback.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15374354
> 
> 
> I would just be curious -- how many of you -- when demoing your system for your most sophisticated videophile friends -- will use an animated title, which sequences, and why?



Personally rsbeck, I will, for most people, use a live action title like I, Robot, Baraka, The Dark Knight, or Prince Caspian, to show off the virtues of Blu-ray. But sometimes, and especially with "older" relatives and friends, I will use Kung Fu Panda or Ratatouille in addition to the live action titles as demos. Older people who grew up with animated titles like Sleeping Beauty are simply amazed at how far animation has come, especially in terms of _depth_ and _detail_. So, I do believe animated titles have their place as demo material.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15374779
> 
> 
> Are we seriously trying to apply "science" to a PQ thread involving "eye candy"?
> 
> 
> This thread is more subjective than objective.
> 
> 
> If it was based on science, *people wouldn't need to be giving their opinions*.




But they/we would anyway. Ha Ha!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15374845
> 
> 
> All valid points. I also recommended TDK for lower Tier 1.
> 
> 
> In reviewing my post, I should not have given the overall impression that a title should automatically be precluded from Tier 1 just because it is a dark movie.
> 
> *But if you compare The Strangers to TDK, while they are both dark, they are a different type of dark! I know that sounds ridiculous, but its the way I see it. TDK has more contrast, whereas The Strangers was more of a flat look, with almost no images that really stood out. TDK has many more scenes that did that...and the percentage of dark scenes is not as high as The Strangers.*
> 
> 
> I'd really like to have some others watch this and give their feedback.



I agree with your points (highlighted above) Rob, and that's why I nominated TDK a full Tier above my recommendation for The Strangers.


I also would like to see others weigh in on this title.


----------



## Shane Martin

Science in a subjective thread? LOL. Science has no business in this thread. This is a subjective eye candy thread.



> Quote:
> Give me a break. Many "live" movies have fake backgrounds and lighting; do those produce true to reality colors more than an animation movie?



A good example of this is the most recent discussion of "Mamma Mia" which used fake backgrounds and in some cases is being docked PQ wise because of it. I know Peter Bracke at HDD gave it a lower score because of it. This movie IMHo would look so much better if it were filmed on location in Greece.


----------



## gc8710




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15374779
> 
> 
> Are we seriously trying to apply "science" to a PQ thread involving "eye candy"?
> 
> 
> This thread is more subjective than objective.
> 
> 
> If it was based on science, people wouldn't need to be giving their _opinions_.



I sure am. Everything we do, say or experience involves science .Even ranking “eye candy” needs a scientific aspect to make it valid. In todays world, however science is taking a back seat, way back, to empty words. How’s that working out? But this is way, way off subject. Let me try this simple analogy as my final, final attempt to convince anyone here to agree with my argument. Here goes, in college, a teacher is giving a Biology exam. Before the exam he says that anyone in his class who is female, under 120 lbs, and has blond hair, will receive an extra 20 points in calculating their final score. When the scores are posted, unless she is really stupid, who is going to dominate the top of the list? Sound fair? Animated movies are those girls. And I making an animated movie with my PC is that stupid girl.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15374354
> 
> 
> 
> I would just be curious -- how many of you -- when demoing your system for your most sophisticated videophile friends -- will use an animated title, which sequences, and why?



I actually don't have any animated (except sleeping beauty which I have yet to see... TOMORROW I'm sure we'll see it!) blu rays in my collection yet. However, at the beginning of Enchanted (I think) there's an ad for Cars, and it looks fantastic. I'd show that to people. I'm hoping we also get Wall-E tomorrow. Of course, the majority of the people we know also have young children. My collection is not very large at this moment, but if I was showing the TV off _today_ I'd use Mamma Mia (any scene with water) or IMAX portions of TDK. If I actually owned any of the Tier 0 animated titles, though I'd definitely use them.



If as a parent, I'm going to have to _suffer_ through watching a multitude of Disney etc. repeatedly, I darn well want it to look as perfect as possible. This would also be part of the reason for my lack of animated titles on Blu Ray. If more came with the DVD - like Sleeping Beauty does - I'd buy them willingly; at least then they could be watched in the play room too.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gc8710* /forum/post/15374736
> 
> 
> I was very clear in stating that the "science" I was referring to is the science aspect of ranking movies by PQ. NOT, the science involved in making animated movies.Due to the plethora of cartoons in Tier 0, that variable,I.E. animation, dictated that the results are
> 
> skewed and invalid scientifically speaking.




/sarcasm metre set to 0.


Yes, I understood what you were saying. I still feel the results are accurate given the way the movies are created they tend to have a superior PQ and shouldn't be penalized because of that.



While I like the list as-is, as the Tier 0 gets larger, it wouldn't bother me _terribly_ to have 2 Tier 0's. One for Animated/Cartoons (IMO consisting of the _standard_ Disney/Pixar/Dreamworks animated titles) and one for Everything Else. After Tier 0, have everything stay the way it is. If anything, it might cease the "omg there's too many animated in Tier 0!" argument from happening repeatedly.


If there's a title that shows up on Blu Ray that seems to meet both categories (for quick example, say... Mary Poppins or that silly jarr jarr binks starwars movie), then rate it for _both_ versions of Tier 0 if it happens to qualify for that ranking, otherwise just recommend it for the appropriate tier. It's not like the movies that make it into Tier 0 aren't debated a ton anyway; I don't feel anything would slip on by. Just a (rambled!) thought.


----------



## lgans316

Mina Sama,


Wishing you and your family, a Merry Xmas and a very happy, safe, prosperous, recession free, artistic and eye candy BLU-New Year'2009.


Just received Prince Caspian, The Kingdom, Hellboy II & Wanted. Will try to post my impressions upon watching them.


----------



## OldCodger73

Watched *Sleeping Beauty* the other night. Good crisp picture, richly saturated colors. Agree with present *Tier 0* rating. Personally I don't care for the look of the 1950s and 1960's Disney animated films, too flat looking almost like a comic book and the colors look garish. I'm looking forward to the late 1930 and 1940 features coming in the next two years.

*Mongol* was a pleasant surprise. Great scenic vistas and a story told in the epic fashion of yesteryear. Nice sharpness, although on a few scenes it seemed focus was slow to pop into place. All in all I agree with present placement in *Tier 0*.


Have The Third Man and Burn After Reading under the tree plus Casablanca and possibly The Day the Earth Stood Still and Prince Caspian coming when we do our weather delayed family Christmas on Saturday or Sunday.


Best wishes for the holidays.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/15374642
> 
> 
> I cant think of a post I have disagreed with more than this one in all due respect. I own Dave and Tim, and have seen Shine a Light and I would put Certifiable a notch above both of those in PQ. Infact, overall this is the most impressive BR concert disc I have seen for PQ, but I know many disagree with that which is OK.



Well, I have agreed with you on many things, we were bound to hit a bump sooner or later.



> Quote:
> What realy amazes me though is your comment on the audio quality
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont think there is one person who has voted anything but reference for this in the audio thread. I could understand less than a ref vote, but to flat out say it is unimpressive is pretty shocking to me.



I probably shouldn't have gotten into the sound -- that's a different thread. I will just say that I have been an audiophile much longer than a video enthusiast, so I have definite opinions about music reproduction. I don't take part in the blu-ray audio thread so I have no idea what goes into the judgments there. If you would like to discuss the AQ further, I'd be happy to do so by PM so we don't clutter this thread.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15374871
> 
> 
> So, I do believe animated titles have their place as demo material.



I didn't mean to indicate that animated titles have no place as demo material for anyone. I was just relating my experience and I wanted to hear from some of my esteemed colleagues -- wanted to hear your experience. When I have shown the latest CGI titles to people such as you mention, they are impressed. They usually say, "wow -- can you believe what they can do now?" But, they don't say, "wow -- what an amazing picture." Not like they do when I demo a live action title. It's different. I interpret them to be wowed by the CGI technology in one instance, the quality of the picture in the other. Again -- that's just my experience.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15375029
> 
> 
> Of course, the majority of the people we know also have young children.



Same here. Our youngest is 10 and we also have young nieces and nephews. So, I certainly collect animated titles and show them to both youngsters and to company that is mixed young and old.



> Quote:
> My collection is not very large at this moment, but if I was showing the TV off _today_ I'd use Mamma Mia (any scene with water) or IMAX portions of TDK. If I actually owned any of the Tier 0 animated titles, though I'd definitely use them.



I hear you.



> Quote:
> While I like the list as-is, as the Tier 0 gets larger, it wouldn't bother me _terribly_ to have 2 Tier 0's. One for Animated/Cartoons (IMO consisting of the _standard_ Disney/Pixar/Dreamworks animated titles) and one for Everything Else. After Tier 0, have everything stay the way it is. If anything, it might cease the "omg there's too many animated in Tier 0!" argument from happening repeatedly.
> 
> 
> If there's a title that shows up on Blu Ray that seems to meet both categories (for quick example, say... Mary Poppins or that silly jarr jarr binks starwars movie), then rate it for _both_ versions of Tier 0 if it happens to qualify for that ranking, otherwise just recommend it for the appropriate tier. It's not like the movies that make it into Tier 0 aren't debated a ton anyway; I don't feel anything would slip on by. Just a (rambled!) thought.



Thanks for your comments!


----------



## rsbeck

Enjoy the holidays everyone!


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15376583
> 
> 
> Well, I have agreed with you on many things, we were bound to hit a bump sooner or later.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I probably shouldn't have gotten into the sound -- that's a different thread. I will just say that I have been an audiophile much longer than a video enthusiast, so I have definite opinions about music reproduction. I don't take part in the blu-ray audio thread so I have no idea what goes into the judgments there. If you would like to discuss the AQ further, I'd be happy to do so by PM so we don't clutter this thread.




I realy should not be surprised as audio, especialy music, is so subjective. 2 dif audiophiles can have a totaly dif opinion on the same mix/recording which is what happened here and is totaly cool







I know you and I are usualy in agreement which is probably why this caught me so off gaurd considering how far apart we were on this one. Its all good though as I enjoy and respect your opinions even if we disagree on occasion










Back on topic.....I just watched the Polar Express 3d, but wont even attempt to rank it as I watched it with the 3d glasses







It was probably the holiday drinking, but man it was awesome in 3d even with the gimmicky red/blue glasses!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15376601
> 
> 
> When I have shown the latest CGI titles to people such as you mention, they are impressed. They usually say, "wow -- can you believe what they can do now?" But, they don't say, "wow -- what an amazing picture." Not like they do when I demo a live action title. It's different. I interpret them to be wowed by the CGI technology in one instance, the quality of the picture in the other. Again -- that's just my experience.



I remember the first time I showed an older couple Ratatouille...they were impressed by both the CGI technology and the PQ (the colors, depth, and detail). But I do agree with you 100% that most people would rather see a live picture and thus the WOW factor is greater when I demo a live action title.


----------



## 42041

Just watched *American Gangster*


I wouldn't say it's awful, but not a very good PQ disc. The biggest issue is the consistent softness. Looks like film from 3 decades ago. The black levels could've been tweaked better; things that should be completely black are usually lighter than the letterboxes. Some EE/what-have-you halos are present in many shots, but the image still looks quite film-like, maybe because the image was too soft for any EE to really bring out any harshness like in the case of TDK. I didn't notice distracting instances of denoising, but compression mush is often evident, the video bitrate tends to hover well below 20mbps... cramming a 3 hour movie onto a disc with many extras isn't a great idea I think.


The current Tier 4 placement seems a bit harsh. It's really not a terrible transfer, just a completely unimpressive one for a 2007 movie. I don't think it's as bad as The 40 Year Old Virgin or American Psycho, so I'd put it in:
*Tier 3.0*


(PS3/Samsung LN40A650 LCD/1080p24/1 screen width away)


----------



## djoberg

I watched *National Treasure 2* on Tuesday and I agree with its current placement of *1.75*. I won't comment on this title other than to say that the fleshtones and facial close-ups with as good as I've seen, especially those of Ed Harris and Harvey Keitel. HD has really succeeded in showing how these two men have aged, but I thoroughly enjoyed seeing every wrinkle, pore, and facial hair.


I also thought the movie was better than the first one. They were wise in using some seasoned actors who played their parts well.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Merry Christmas everyone, to both the regular contributors and the lurkers. I hope everyone gets the tier zero Blu-rays you want as presents.


----------



## Shane Martin




> Quote:
> but compression mush is often evident, the video bitrate tends to hover well below 20mbps... cramming a 3 hour movie onto a disc with many extras isn't a great idea I think.



It has 2 versions of the film on the disc as well. It's pretty crowded.


----------



## Shane Martin

I watched the following recently:

*A Christmas Story*

Current Placement: Tier 4

My placement: *Tier 4*


Christmas Story is a classic American film that regardless of how pretty it looks will always get viewed at my house during Christmas. A better than DVD quality transfer but it doesn't look like the other High Def films I have from that era.

*Trading Places*

Current ranking: Tier 2 3/4

My ranking: *Tier 2 1/2*


I braced myself for this movie because I expected a poor transfer but what Paramount has released is mighty fine. Certainly not up with the best High Def images but it certainly looks good for its age and compared to other moves of this era which are notably soft. I didn't dig up other threads to see if it had some DNR but it would appear the faces looked a bit pasty for my tastes.

*Panasonic 50" 9UK Plasma, Sony PS3 via HDMI, 8-9 feet back viewing distance*


----------



## Hughmc

*Merry Christmas!*


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Merry Christmas!!


We did get a couple of blu rays for Christmas (Heroes s1 & s2, American Gangster & Kingdom of Heaven) but unfortunately... Wall-E & Horton _DVD's_ were given to my daughter (and opened up instantly so I can't even return them for the BRDs!!). I think the universe is against me having Wall-E on Blu Ray.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15377607
> 
> 
> I watched *National Treasure 2* on Tuesday and I agree with its current placement of *1.75*. HD has really succeeded in showing how these two men have aged.



Not only has Nic Cage aged but he is also the ugliest looking actor in Hollywood. It's disgusting to seeing him paired with young and good looking actresses.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/15380818
> 
> 
> Not only has Nic Cage aged but he is also the ugliest looking actor in Hollywood. It's disgusting to seeing him paired with young and good looking actresses.



Actually, I was referring to Ed Harris and Harvey Keitel, not Nicolas Cage. But I do agree with you regarding Mr. Cage's looks!


----------



## moviegeek

I don't know who put Clear And Present Danger as a tier 2.75 but I think it's reference,the PQ and AQ is top notch.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Shane Martin* /forum/post/15380031
> 
> 
> I watched the following recently:
> 
> *A Christmas Story*
> 
> Current Placement: Tier 4
> 
> My placement: *Tier 4*
> 
> 
> Christmas Story is a classic American film that regardless of how pretty it looks will always get viewed at my house during Christmas. A better than DVD quality transfer but it doesn't look like the other High Def films I have from that era.



I agree on all counts.


Love this movie. Pure classic. But yes, Tier 4 is appropriate.


----------



## stumlad

Quick overview:


Black Levels: Superb


Face Closeups: Inconsistent. At times I thought I was watching a romantic comedy. Faces looked a bit blurred (not DNR, but softened focus) While there were a few good ones, they were mainly softer than you'd expect.


Scenery/long distant shots: Very good, but not as good when a lot of CGI as it looked softer.


Overall, the transfer looked fine, but I guess it was the way it was shot that got in the way. The movie had a different look than the first two, but overall was a better, sharper transfer. There was a slight blue push as seen in many other recent films (Hancock, Prince Caspian, etc).

*Tier 1.75*


Side note: audio was absolutely awesome.


----------



## rsbeck

*Burn After Reading*


1.85:1


Shot on Super 35, which tends to have very fine grain (same as Rescue Dawn), which appeared intact on my 126" screen. Those with relatively smaller displays may not see the grain because it is so fine. Saw what appeared to be ringing in a few shots, may or may not be EE. Detail, contrast, saturation, black level, shadow detail, all very, very good. Skin texture, pores, imperfections, every piece of stubble, strands of hair -- all consistently clear and sharp. This one reminded me a lot of Mr. Brooks, which IMO, is ranked too high. Same stylized look with blue push, same detailed faces, same kind of ringing, but without the contrast problems. For what was billed as a comedy where one would assume eye candy is not the point, the picture is much better than usual. Very little about which to complain. I take it as a positive that more and more, we do not consider this kind of quality exceptional. As for the movie, it is some kind of hybrid, not quite comedy, despite actors exhibiting funny behavior, and not quite a thriller, despite the tension building plot, music, and direction. Skin tones started looking a little pale towards the end. IMO, somewhere between 1.75 and 2.0 in PQ. If you're a fan of the film, I doubt it can look much better than it does.

*Recommendation: Tier 2.0*


Sim2 C3X1080

Carada Masquerade

126" Firehawk G3

Pioneer BDP-05FD


13' From Screen


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15374926
> 
> 
> I agree with your points (highlighted above) Rob, and that's why I nominated TDK a full Tier above my recommendation for The Strangers.
> 
> 
> I also would like to see others weigh in on this title.



Do you know if the two versions of The Strangers on the BD are entirely separate encodes, as with I Am Legend, or whether seamless branching was used? I have watched approximately the first 20 minutes, and the bitrate seems rather low, which would suggest two separate encodes.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Good news guys and girls!


I am signing up for Netflix within the next week, so I will have blu rays flowing through like water! Can't wait to be able watch tons more BDs










Hope everyone had a great Christmas!


----------



## rsbeck

Same here -- hope you all had a fantastic holiday.


----------



## rsbeck

Casablanca -- Not ready to review yet, but I watched it today and it looks very good.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15381898
> 
> 
> Do you know if the two versions of The Strangers on the BD are entirely separate encodes, as with I Am Legend, or whether seamless branching was used? I have watched approximately the first 20 minutes, and the bitrate seems rather low, which would suggest two separate encodes.


Code:


Code:


The Strangers: Unrated (seamless branching)                     VC-1    1:27:31 15,474,278,400# 17,613,899,840  23.57   17.04           DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1
        The Strangers: Theatrical (seamless branching)          VC-1    1:25:11 15,017,281,536#                 23.50   16.97           DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/15381932
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> The Strangers: Unrated (seamless branching)                     VC-1    1:27:31 15,474,278,400# 17,613,899,840  23.57   17.04           DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1
> The Strangers: Theatrical (seamless branching)          VC-1    1:25:11 15,017,281,536#                 23.50   16.97           DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1



Even with seamless branching, the bitrate is appallingly low.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15365690
> 
> 
> It honestly didn't bother me, Patrick99. The outdoor scenes did look better but I still think the sound stage scenes looked good too (just not AS good).
> 
> *I haven't watched any specials or the commentaries yet, but a big ol /rude to B&B for cutting that scene!*
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to hate this movie by the end of Christmas break though, it's on AGAIN right now. I'm not watching it, my daughter is (how funny it is to have a 5 year old singing ABBA... I'll have to put TDK on again when this is over, there's just too much happiness in the house right now j/k j/k). But even with my glasses off so I can type here, I still many details clearly on Mamma Mia. ["when you're gone... how can I... even try... to go on..." sing it, Pearce
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ]



Now that I have watched the deleted scenes on MM, I think they made the right choice to go with the shorter version of Lay All.


----------



## AlexanderG

*Shawshank Redemption*


One of my favorite movies ever, but can't really agree with placement in tier 0. While it looked stunning for a film that's ~15 years old, it just can't compare with other live action tier 0 titles that it's placed around such as Shoot 'Em Up, Doomsday, and The Incredible Hulk. Somewhere in Tier 1 is fair, but current placement suggests the quality of the movie may be influencing picture quality assessment.


Also, I saw a few strange compression errors in some black fade in/fade outs. Note though, that I wouldn't consider these "compression errors" any sort of problem that would keep the title out of tier 0 if I believe the picture quality was, in general, as good as those titles I just mentioned. I'm only really bringing it up to see if anyone else saw it as well.


Set up information:

Panasonic Viera 42" Plasma TH-42PZ80U

1080p resolution

20,000:1 static contrast ratio - 1,000,000:1 dynamic

Viewing distance - 6 feet away.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15381896
> 
> *Burn After Reading*
> 
> 
> 1.85:1
> 
> 
> Shot on Super 35, which tends to have very fine grain (same as Rescue Dawn), which appeared intact on my 126" screen. Those with relatively smaller displays may not see the grain because it is so fine. Saw what appeared to be ringing in a few shots, may or may not be EE. Detail, contrast, saturation, black level, shadow detail, all very, very good. Skin texture, pores, imperfections, every piece of stubble, strands of hair -- all consistently clear and sharp. This one reminded me a lot of Mr. Brooks, which IMO, is ranked too high. Same stylized look with blue push, same detailed faces, same kind of ringing, but without the contrast problems. For what was billed as a comedy where one would assume eye candy is not the point, the picture is much better than usual. Very little about which to complain. I take it as a positive that more and more, we do not consider this kind of quality exceptional. As for the movie, it is some kind of hybrid, not quite comedy, despite actors exhibiting funny behavior, and not quite a thriller, despite the tension building plot, music, and direction. Skin tones started looking a little pale towards the end. IMO, somewhere between 1.75 and 2.0 in PQ. If you're a fan of the film, I doubt it can look much better than it does.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 2.0*
> 
> 
> Sim2 C3X1080
> 
> Carada Masquerade
> 
> 126" Firehawk G3
> 
> Pioneer BDP-05FD
> 
> 
> 13' From Screen



I'm not disputing your rec. b/c I had the same rec for this title(as did someone else recently I believe), but I'm just curious about the EE aspect. When I watched this (it was a rental and I do not plan on ever watching this again) as the movie went on, the EE seemed to get more glaring for me. Could that be a difference in our two methods of viewing this (58" plasma vs 126" projector)? I agree with you completely on several of your points; the facial details were fantastic.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15381971
> 
> 
> Now that I have watched the deleted scenes on MM, I think they made the right choice to go with the shorter version of Lay All.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15382662



I'll be interested to hear what you think if you watch the deleted scenes.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15382692
> 
> 
> I'll be interested to hear what you think if you watch the deleted scenes.




I'll watch once the husband is back to work, I think he'll kill me if I put that disc in again. I made him watch it one day and he didn't... _appreciate_ it as much as I do.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15381898
> 
> 
> Do you know if the two versions of The Strangers on the BD are entirely separate encodes, as with I Am Legend, or whether seamless branching was used? I have watched approximately the first 20 minutes, and the bitrate seems rather low, which would suggest two separate encodes.



I had no idea patrick about the encodes until Igans316 posted. I would be curious to get your take on this title AFTER you watch the whole thing. And please, do NOT let the rather low bitrate influence your judgment!


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15383082
> 
> 
> I had no idea patrick about the encodes until Igans316 posted. I would be curious to get your take on this title AFTER you watch the whole thing. And please, do NOT let the rather low bitrate influence your judgment!



Based on the first twenty minutes, I would say the low bitrate corresponded with a fairly unimpressive PQ.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15383082
> 
> 
> I had no idea patrick about the encodes until Igans316 posted. I would be curious to get your take on this title AFTER you watch the whole thing. And please, do NOT let the rather low bitrate influence your judgment!



I had no idea this title had such low bitrates when I watched it, so it didn't influence my opinion. But, in hindsight, it makes sense.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15383618
> 
> 
> I had no idea this title had such low bitrates when I watched it, so it didn't influence my opinion. But, in hindsight, it makes sense.



So, that begs the question: Why were Mr. Bracke and myself impressed with the PQ? Please....be gentle with me if you respond.










I would still love to hear from other members on this title Rob, for on _my Samsung_ and with _my eyes_, it looked pretty good.


----------



## stumlad

I saw the Strangers and didnt find anything particularly wrong with the encode. I wasn't very impressed with it either. I know that I couldn't see any clear shots of Liv Tyler's face, but I attribute that to soft focus on faces -- similar to the new Mummy and lots of other titles/Romantic comedies/etc.


I couldn't give a tier rating because, outside of that I dont remember much other than i didnt like the movie at all.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15383674
> 
> 
> So, that begs the question: Why were Mr. Bracke and myself impressed with the PQ? Please....be gentle with me if you respond.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would still love to hear from other members on this title Rob, for on _my Samsung_ and with _my eyes_, it looked pretty good.



Let's not forget that I recommended this for Tier 2.75. Not exactly an indication that I thought anything was particularly wrong with it. It just isn't particularly good either.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15383753
> 
> 
> I saw the Strangers and didnt find anything particularly wrong with the encode. I wasn't very impressed with it either. I know that I couldn't see any clear shots of Liv Tyler's face, but I attribute that to soft focus on faces -- similar to the new Mummy and lots of other titles/Romantic comedies/etc.
> 
> 
> I couldn't give a tier rating because, outside of that I dont remember much other than i didnt like the movie at all.



There you go.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15383753
> 
> 
> I saw the Strangers and didnt find anything particularly wrong with the encode. I wasn't very impressed with it either. I know that I couldn't see any clear shots of Liv Tyler's face, but I attribute that to soft focus on faces -- similar to the new Mummy and lots of other titles/Romantic comedies/etc.
> 
> *I couldn't give a tier rating because, outside of that I dont remember much other than i didnt like the movie at all.*



Based on the first twenty minutes, I am having pretty much the same reaction.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15382662
> 
> 
> Could that be a difference in our two methods of viewing this (58" plasma vs 126" projector)?



Could be. How far away from your plasma are you sitting? I sit 1.4 x Screen Width. I was watching Unforgiven the other day, which has quite a bit of ringing. From where I was sitting, it was noticeable, but only slightly distracting, but when I moved about 4 feet closer to get a better look, which put me about 1 x Screen Width, it looked horrendous. Could also have something to do with the way your display is set-up. My understanding is that, some displays, even if you don't turn the sharpness up, have sharpening employed that can exacerbate the problem. Have you checked your settings? A full ISF calibration can be expensive, but you might want to check into a calibration disc to help set up your display.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15383753
> 
> 
> I saw the Strangers and didnt find anything particularly wrong with the encode. I wasn't very impressed with it either. I know that I couldn't see any clear shots of Liv Tyler's face, but I attribute that to soft focus on faces -- similar to the new Mummy and lots of other titles/Romantic comedies/etc.
> 
> 
> I couldn't give a tier rating because, outside of that I dont remember much other than i didnt like the movie at all.



You didn't comment on sharpness or detail, or the lack thereof. What do you think? Again, on my set the shadow detail was very good.


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15381896
> 
> 
> Burn After Reading
> 
> 
> 1.85:1
> 
> 
> Shot on Super 35, which tends to have very fine grain (same as Rescue Dawn), which appeared intact on my 126" screen. Those with relatively smaller displays may not see the grain because it is so fine. Saw what appeared to be ringing in a few shots, may or may not be EE. Detail, contrast, saturation, black level, shadow detail, all very, very good. Skin texture, pores, imperfections, every piece of stubble, strands of hair -- all consistently clear and sharp. This one reminded me a lot of Mr. Brooks, which IMO, is ranked too high. Same stylized look with blue push, same detailed faces, same kind of ringing, but without the contrast problems. For what was billed as a comedy where one would assume eye candy is not the point, the picture is much better than usual. Very little about which to complain. I take it as a positive that more and more, we do not consider this kind of quality exceptional. As for the movie, it is some kind of hybrid, not quite comedy, despite actors exhibiting funny behavior, and not quite a thriller, despite the tension building plot, music, and direction. Skin tones started looking a little pale towards the end. IMO, somewhere between 1.75 and 2.0 in PQ. If you're a fan of the film, I doubt it can look much better than it does.
> 
> 
> Recommendation: Tier 2.0
> 
> 
> Sim2 C3X1080
> 
> Carada Masquerade
> 
> 126" Firehawk G3
> 
> Pioneer BDP-05FD
> 
> 
> 13' From Screen



I watched this last night and pretty much agree with the above. Regarding color, the Coens sometime play with color balance in their films, O Brother, Where Art Thou? is a prime example, so maybe the blue cast-- which I didn't notice as I was so caught up in the film-- was deliberate. I agonized over placement, either Tier 1.75 or *Tier 2.0* and will go with the latter.


Now as to the movie itself. I really liked it. I thought the acting was great, particularily Brad Pitt, who can act after all. Some people complain that the movie doesn't make any sense but I didn't have a problem figuring out what was going. Whether it was the intent or not, I think in one way Burn After Reading perfectly captures the bizarre happenings in Washington, D.C. over the last eight years.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15383994
> 
> 
> Could be. How far away from your plasma are you sitting? I sit 1.4 x Screen Width. I was watching Unforgiven the other day, which has quite a bit of ringing. From where I was sitting, it was noticeable, but only slightly distracting, but when I moved about 4 feet closer to get a better look, which put me about 1 x Screen Width, it looked horrendous. Could also have something to do with the way your display is set-up. My understanding is that, some displays, even if you don't turn the sharpness up, have sharpening employed that can exacerbate the problem. Have you checked your settings? A full ISF calibration can be expensive, but you might want to check into a calibration disc to help set up your display.



I don't know if I can even get a pro calibration done here, I really do live in the middle of nowhere, but my friend came over with... um... some blu ray calibration disc thing he bought from Amazon. It's not Avia, but maybe DVE Basics or something? Anyway he tweaked some things with it. Admittedly when he was playing the disc I zoned out a bit wrapping christmas presents, the guy's voice was _dull_! It had a colour strip thing you looked through to set up the blue/red/green, and thanks to it's wonderfully placed pause symbol in the middle of a big white area, I got to experience my first taste of Image Retention (for about 30 seconds but still, the guy lectured on and on about IR and then did THAT?!) on my plasma.











I'm about 7.5-8" away from the 58" screen. I can go farther back, but don't have that disc anymore to check.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/15384197
> 
> 
> I watched this last night and pretty much agree with the above. Regarding color, the Coens sometime play with color balance in their films, O Brother, Where Art Thou? is a prime example, so maybe the blue cast-- which I didn't notice as I was so caught up in the film-- was deliberate. I agonized over placement, either Tier 1.75 or *Tier 2.0* and will go with the latter.
> 
> 
> Now as to the movie itself. I really liked it. I thought the acting was great, particularily Brad Pitt, who can act after all. Some people complain that the movie doesn't make any sense but I didn't have a problem figuring out what was going. Whether it was the intent or not, I think in one way Burn After Reading perfectly captures the bizarre happenings in Washington, D.C. over the last eight years.




I didn't have issue with figuring the movie out either, I just didn't particularly care for it. I tend to like darker comedies, but just not my cup of tea I suppose!


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15384138
> 
> 
> You didn't comment on sharpness or detail, or the lack thereof. What do you think? Again, on my set the shadow detail was very good.



I do remember shadow detail and black levels being good in some of the outdoor shots where you could see trees. It did appear they played with the color (perhaps an orange push?) I just dont recall any specifics other than that. Like I said earlier, nothing impressed me much but I also didn't think anything was really wrong with it.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15384228
> 
> 
> I didn't have issue with figuring the movie out either, I just didn't particularly care for it. I tend to like darker comedies, but just not my cup of tea I suppose!



If you like dark comedies, check out Mr. Brooks. Sounds like you're sitting at least 1.5 x SW, so it isn't the distance.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/15384197
> 
> 
> I watched this last night and pretty much agree with the above. Regarding color, the Coens sometime play with color balance in their films, O Brother, Where Art Thou? is a prime example, so maybe the blue cast-- which I didn't notice as I was so caught up in the film-- was deliberate.



I would guess it was deliberate. I've seen this effect in other films as well, like Mr. Brooks, which I feel is ranked too high at tier 0, but still should be ranked mid tier 1. When it is done well, it can be a nice look.



> Quote:
> I agonized over placement, either Tier 1.75 or *Tier 2.0* and will go with the latter.



I felt the same way. Very close to recommending 1.75.



> Quote:
> Now as to the movie itself. I really liked it. I thought the acting was great, particularily Brad Pitt, who can act after all. Some people complain that the movie doesn't make any sense but I didn't have a problem figuring out what was going.



I was enjoying it, too. The end was awfully abrupt. I couldn't believe it when the credits started to roll. I also thought Brad Pitt was the funniest thing about the film.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/15384197
> 
> 
> Now as to the movie itself. I really liked it. I thought the acting was great, particularily Brad Pitt, who can act after all. Some people complain that the movie doesn't make any sense but I didn't have a problem figuring out what was going. *Whether it was the intent or not, I think in one way Burn After Reading perfectly captures the bizarre happenings in Washington, D.C. over the last eight years*.



Regarding your take on the "intent" of the movie, I'm sure if George Clooney had anything to do with Hollywood's "message" in this movie, you are no doubt right on the mark.










I was thinking of renting this today, but all the Blu-ray copies were rented (and I refuse to rent a SD copy anymore). I'm leaving Sunday for 5 days so I may not see it until next weekend.


----------



## rsbeck

Another great undiscovered black comedy, but only out on DVD is A Shock to The System. A great performance by Michael Caine and about as dark as a dark comedy can get.


----------



## Shane Martin




> Quote:
> but I'm just curious about the EE aspect. When I watched this (it was a rental and I do not plan on ever watching this again) as the movie went on, the EE seemed to get more glaring for me. Could that be a difference in our two methods of viewing this (58" plasma vs 126" projector)?



Those with large 126" screens should be able to detect the EE easier than those of us with smaller


----------



## SlaughterX

That blue font is really hard on the eyes...


----------



## hobbs47




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/15374642
> 
> 
> I cant think of a post I have disagreed with more than this one in all due respect. I own Dave and Tim, and have seen Shine a Light and I would put Certifiable a notch above both of those in PQ. Infact, overall this is the most impressive BR concert disc I have seen for PQ, but I know many disagree with that which is OK.
> 
> 
> What realy amazes me though is your comment on the audio quality
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont think there is one person who has voted anything but reference for this in the audio thread. I wish all BR concert recordings/mixes could be at the level of Certifiable.



Just picked up The Police BD today and I agree 100%.It is definitely one of the best concert discs available with regards to PQ/AQ.

There were a few soft shots of Sting,but they were few and far between.


----------



## Elbie

Can we revisit _*Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix*_ and _*Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban*_?


I plan to rewatch the whole Harry Potter series. I just think those two movies are too low on the PQ list.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hobbs47* /forum/post/15386621
> 
> 
> Just picked up The Police BD today and I agree 100%.It is definitely one of the best concert discs available with regards to PQ/AQ.



To me, saying The Police is one of the best _concert_ discs available with regard to PQ is pretty faint praise.


I look at the lowest ranked tier 0 title, The Incredible Hulk. As a demo, this is leagues away from The Police, Dave Matthews, Rolling Stones, Elvis Costello.


Go down to tier 1; Casino Royale, Blackhawk Down, The Fall. The Police, Dave and the others are nowhere near that league as a demo of blu-ray PQ.


1.25; Iron man, The Bank Job, No Country For Old Men, Zodiac -- The Police, Dave and the rest cannot compete in that league.


1.5; 3:10 to Yuma and The Proposition -- The Police, Dave and the gang lose again.


The first place I am comfortable placing the Police, is tier 2.5.


But -- hey -- that's me.


"Oculi plus vident quam oculus." - "Several eyes see more than only one."


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Elbie* /forum/post/15386940
> 
> 
> Can we revisit _*Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix*_ and _*Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban*_?
> 
> 
> I plan to rewatch the whole Harry Potter series. I just think those two movies are too low on the PQ list.


*Azkaban* should be above *Phoenix* in Tier 1.5 & 1.75 respectively.


Strong disagree with the current placement of the Matrix sequels, *Matrix Reloaded* & *Matrix Revolutions*. They should be in Tier-2.25 or 2.5. Though facial close-ups exhibited very good details the basic look and feel of the movie wasn't eye candy. Also there is macroblocking and encoding glitch in Revolutions and there were many scenes plagued by noise and intrusive softness.

*The Kingdom Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Universal*


Peter Berg like Paul Greengrass is quite infamous for heavy usage of shaky camera during filming and this one is no exception. Facial close-ups in some shots exhibited excellent details while few others looked out of focus, blurry and soft. There was slight to moderate noise in dark sequences besides inconsistent grain structure. Fine object detailing was quite good. The stylistic color scheme applied suits the theme of the movie but not in terms of objective PQ. Reviewers commented that the contrast was hot but I felt it was on the lower end in comparison to titles like Narnia & Wanted. Despite many shots looking very good, this one only deserves to be in *Tier-1.75*, due to the filming style and the noise/inconsistent grain structure.


I initially commented that the HD DVD boasted near reference PQ but it looks like there are so many BDs that have surpassed the initial benchmark PQ.


----------



## djoberg

As long as we're in the "revisiting titles" mode, how about *The Golden Compass*. I just watched the credits roll on this title and IMHO the current Tier 2.75 is way too low. I believe it deserves a *Tier 1.75* placement.


As I looked over the arguments that were given for a Tier 2.75 placement the chief one seemed to be DNR as seen in Nicole Kidman's face and others. One highly respected member (I'm speaking of you Rob!







) went so far as to say that ALL the faces lacked detail. I'm here to tell you that this is simply not true, for though Mrs. Kidman's face is atrocious, there are others (such as Sam Elliott, Daniel Craig, et al.) that had extremely detailed facial close-ups.


One of the biggest virtues of TGC is the MANY scenes with incredible depth (i.e., 3D pop). Add to this some vivid colors, better-than-average contrast, decent blacks, and plenty of sharp and detailed scenes (including some amazing landscapes) and you have a disc that can rightly be called _demo material_.


Does it deserve a Tier 0 standing? Certainly NOT! But if you dock it for the DNR and a few soft scenes, it's still worthy of Tier 1.


Just to add some weight to my opinion, there were three well-respected members who all voted for a low tier 1 placement....maverick0716, ballen420, and bplewis (aka Brandon).


So, my vote is to revisit this and try to move it up a full tier from where it is now.


----------



## Hammie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15384220
> 
> 
> I don't know if I can even get a pro calibration done here, I really do live in the middle of nowhere, but my friend came over with... um... some blu ray calibration disc thing he bought from Amazon. It's not Avia, but maybe DVE Basics or something? Anyway he tweaked some things with it. Admittedly when he was playing the disc I zoned out a bit wrapping christmas presents, the guy's voice was _dull_! It had a colour strip thing you looked through to set up the blue/red/green, and thanks to it's wonderfully placed pause symbol in the middle of a big white area, I got to experience my first taste of Image Retention (for about 30 seconds but still, the guy lectured on and on about IR and then did THAT?!) on my plasma.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm about 7.5-8" away from the 58" screen. I can go farther back, but don't have that disc anymore to check.



You can search here for ISF calibrators in Canada.


----------



## Hammie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15387386
> 
> 
> To me, saying The Police is one of the best _concert_ discs available with regard to PQ is pretty faint praise.
> 
> 
> I look at the lowest ranked tier 0 title, The Incredible Hulk. As a demo, this is leagues away from The Police, Dave Matthews, Rolling Stones, Elvis Costello.
> 
> 
> Go down to tier 1; Casino Royale, Blackhawk Down, The Fall. The Police, Dave and the others are nowhere near that league as a demo of blu-ray PQ.
> 
> 
> 1.25; Iron man, The Bank Job, No Country For Old Men, Zodiac -- The Police, Dave and the rest cannot compete in that league.
> 
> 
> 1.5; 3:10 to Yuma and The Proposition -- The Police, Dave and the gang lose again.
> 
> 
> I look all the way down to 2.75 where I see Master and Commander, Jesse James, and Close Encounters. To me, The Police is becoming competitive and it starts to be a little more difficult to make a decision.
> 
> 
> The first place I am comfortable placing the Police, is tier 3.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, to me, even if that were true, which I dispute, is that enough to make a title demo material? There are titles like Step Brothers at tier 2.5. It is perfectly sharp, not a soft picture in the entire film. You can see every pore in Will Farrell and John C. Reilly's face, every strand of hair -- perfectly. Is that enough to make it demo material? So, just seeing Sting standing on a stage, playing a bass and singing, no particular art to the lighting or direction, not a particularly interesting set, a lot of long and medium shots mixed in with close ups, man-made fog drifting through the picture isn't enough to get me to place this title alongside others in upper tiers.
> 
> 
> I'm a huge Elvis Costello fan and on his Blu-ray, you can see him perfectly resolved in 1080p. Incredibly sharp all the way through, mostly close-ups where you can see every pore, every tiny bead of sweat. Way sharper than The Police. I recommended tier 2.5 for Elvis Costello. Why? Because, to me, just seeing a performer really well resolved is not enough. I recommended 2.5 because I think it compares to Step Brothers.
> 
> 
> If I am standing at Best Buy and someone walks up and asks me what to use to demo his video system and there are titles on the shelves from tier 0, 1, and 2. I am not going to tell this person to use The Police. I'd recommend Step Brothers over The Police. If the shelf contained only titles from tier 3, I would start to consider The Police a viable candidate. So, that's how I arrive at a tier 3 recommendation.
> 
> 
> But -- hey -- that's me.
> 
> 
> "Oculi plus vident quam oculus." - "Several eyes see more than only one."



I agree that I would not suggest a concert Blu-ray as demo material UNLESS they specifically asked, "what concert video is best on Blu-ray." At that point, I would probably say Nine Inch Nails. I haven't seen the Police but between that one and the Rolling Stones one, I liked NIN better. But again, not as my number one demo disc.


----------



## hobbs47




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15387386
> 
> 
> I'm a huge Elvis Costello fan and on his Blu-ray, you can see him perfectly resolved in 1080p. Incredibly sharp all the way through, mostly close-ups where you can see every pore, every tiny bead of sweat. Way sharper than The Police. I recommended tier 2.5 for Elvis Costello. Why? Because, to me, just seeing a performer really well resolved is not enough.



How could the Costello disc be better then? Can it be any better? Should we put a ceiling on concert discs,maybe the bottom of tier 2 since most of them are shot on video and don't have the resolution of film? All I know is on my setup,The Police disc looks and sounds GREAT, on par with the best concert discs I have seen(NIN,Shakira,Elton,Foo). I don't care where you put concert blurays in this eye candy/tier thread,but don't try to tell me they are not DEMO worthy.


----------



## Dave Mack




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ozymandis* /forum/post/14879854
> 
> 
> Sleeping Beauty- Even though the animation is very simple compared to modern films...













Are you comparing this to modern computer animated films?

If not, name one modern traditional cel animated film, (actual drawings) that is more complex.


----------



## quake1028

Some quick and dirty ratings, will fill in more later.

*Death Race*
*Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.75*

*Burn After Reading*
*Tier Recommendation: Tier 2.25*

*The House Bunny*
*Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.75*

*Panny TH-42PZ800U 1080p

PS3 through HDMI

4.5 ft*


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hobbs47* /forum/post/15388026
> 
> 
> How could the Costello disc be better then? Can it be any better?



To me, Costello is better because the visuals of the performers are sharper. You consistently see every pore, every piece of stubble. This is not the case with The Police.



> Quote:
> Should we put a ceiling on concert discs,maybe the bottom of tier 2



I do believe concerts have inherent limitations, but I wouldn't want to impose a ceiling on them. I would just say that if we are not going to separate any categories out and all titles have to compete with every other title in every other category, then concert blu-rays have to compete with films and, come on, when a typical concert blu-ray has to compete with titles like Incredible Hulk, Casino Royale, Ironman and so on -- there's no kidding around -- IMO, the average concert film isn't going to compete.



> Quote:
> All I know is on my setup,The Police disc looks and sounds GREAT, on par with the best concert discs I have seen(NIN,Shakira,Elton,Foo).



Cool. I enjoy having a few concert blu-rays in my collection because sometimes I want to demo the music reproduction capabilities and it is more fun if there is a pretty good picture to go with it.



> Quote:
> I don't care where you put concert blurays in this eye candy/tier thread,but don't try to tell me they are not DEMO worthy.



I certainly would never tell you what you have to find demo worthy. I'm just giving you my opinion and my reasoning.


----------



## rsbeck

*Chungking Express*


1.66:1, Cantonese with English subtitles


Criterion Collection's first blu-ray. Here's a title that will put the director's intent clause under the stress test. This critically acclaimed art film was shot on a strict budget, usually in a hurry with handheld cameras and no location permits -- much of it at night under fluorescent lights. I've read in other reviews that this blu-ray is a huge improvement over the DVD, that the director, Wong Kar Wai, was involved in the transfer and that the look of the original was perfectly preserved. This is all very admirable and to be lauded, but won't help much for the purpose of this thread. The director employed time lapse wipes and blurred action, shot in difficult light on cheap film stock. The result is commendably artistic, but somewhat soft and subdued. Purists and fans of the film will no doubt be pleased with the loving care that Criterion Collection has lavished on Chungking Express, but those looking strictly for demo material will look elsewhere.

*Recommendation: Tier 4*


Sim2 C3X1080

Carada Masquerade

126" Firehawk G3

Pioneer BDP-05FD


13' From Screen


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hammie* /forum/post/15387945
> 
> 
> I would probably say Nine Inch Nails. I haven't seen the Police but between that one and the Rolling Stones one, I liked NIN better. But again, not as my number one demo disc.



Thank you -- sounds interesting. I'll keep an eye out for NIN.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hobbs47* /forum/post/15386621
> 
> 
> Just picked up The Police BD today and I agree 100%.It is definitely one of the best concert discs available with regards to PQ/AQ.
> 
> There were a few soft shots of Sting,but they were few and far between.



Glad you liked it as much as I did. It is overall my favorite concert disc for A/V







Very clean and sharp picture, and the audio......







Reference all the way IMO.


----------



## Shane Martin




> Quote:
> Here's a title that will put the director's intent clause under the stress test.



Given this is an eye candy thread, Director's Intent doesn't matter.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Shane Martin* /forum/post/15389372
> 
> 
> Given this is an eye candy thread, Director's Intent doesn't matter.



Agree. "This is all very admirable and to be lauded, but won't help much for the purpose of this thread."


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/15388467
> 
> 
> It is overall my favorite concert disc for A/V



In what tier would you place Certifiable and which title in that tier do you feel The Police compares?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Bone Collector (UK import)*


recommendation: *Tier 2.75*


A thriller from 1999, Sony released this catalog title to Blu-ray on June 2nd of 2008 in the UK with no region coding. The movie is a Universal property here in the U.S. and has yet to be released in a domestic BD version. The 117-minute main feature is encoded in AVC on a BD-50 with an average video bitrate of 26.92 Mbps per the BDInfo scan. This is a very typical compression encode that is seen on many of Sony's catalog titles, with the video bitrate rarely straying from a narrow band of 25 to 31.7 Mbps. The film looks faithfully encoded to the source material with no major or minor compression related artifacts aside from a couple of split-second moments of noise. The relatively heavy grain structure in the darker scenes never break up and produce macroblocking.


Any weaknesses seen in this transfer appear to stem from the master, which does not look to be newly minted. In general there are very small but noticeable debris marks on it, particularly in the first 30 minutes of the movie. The master appears slightly soft in this period, but does sharpen up afterwards and would probably rank in tier three for picture quality. It is a decent looking master of a minor catalog title from the 90's, but no one will mistake this for a newer movie. There are no edge enhancement haloes or ringing seen throughout the feature.


At first I believed this transfer might have been filtered at some point but I now believe the somewhat soft facial detail is the result of soft-focus filming. The grain structure looks very natural and consistent and untouched by digital processing. High frequency detail is above average for the scenes focusing on Denzel's character with nice contrast and solid color. It does appear that Angelina Jolie was filmed a little softer by the director, which does slightly impact the clarity and sharpness of some scenes.


Black levels are very solid looking, especially considering much of the movie takes place in the sewers of New York City. Shadows are highly detailed with nice delineation of the darker environments. It is true that the overall image is slightly flat, with only standard depth and focus for the Blu-ray format.


I will recommend a placement in tier 2.75 for this import. Sony appears to have done a good job of bringing this movie to Blu-ray, which I doubt can really look any better given the source material.


Watching on a 60 Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 from a PS3 (firmware 2.53) at a viewing distance of approximately six feet.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15392082
> 
> 
> In what tier would you place Certifiable and which title in that tier do you feel The Police compares?





I voted lower tier 0 for PQ (and feel it compares well with those titles) and voted reference for audio quality in the audio thread.


----------



## rsbeck

*Shawshank Redemption*


There is a lot to like about the transfer of this classic, but some things that trouble. Color, blacks and shadow are very good, but picture is a tiny bit soft. I saw no hint of ringing or halos, nothing to indicate EE. However, to my eyes, grain does not appear to be intact and detail is missing from faces and hands, which appears to be the result of DNR. If I am correct, the DNR does not appear as horrific as the Patton screen grabs I've seen nor as heavy as Zulu, but on my 126" screen, faces and hands appear slightly, though similarly, unnatural -- enough to be a bit distracting. Those familiar with Morgan Freeman will notice that his face is awfully smooth and missing some of its trademark detail and texture. Tim Robbins appears to have no pores. What lends weight to the conclusion that this is the result of DNR is that eyebrows and stubble are also a little soft. Shawshank appears on my screen like a solid mid tier 2 title.

*Recommendation: Tier 2.50*


Sim2 C3X1080

Carada Masquerade

126" Firehawk G3

Pioneer BDP-05FD


13' From Screen


----------



## DGNeo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mel2* /forum/post/15370887
> 
> *Revolver*
> 
> *Tier recommendation: Tier 0* . in the middle, around black snake moan.
> 
> 
> beautiful transfer. sony's finest looking catalog title imo. excellent contrast levels and very deep blacks. the fine detail and smoothness is impressive. if you like "pop", this has it in spades.



Could not agree more. Actually the 2nd movie I got on Blu-Ray. The quality on this picture is superb. Smooth, crisp, beautiful colors. Was extremely impressed with both movie and quality.


Panasonic TH-42PX80U

Panasonic DMP-BD55 w/ 4.5' HDMI

8' Away from TV


----------



## Shane Martin

I gave my review of Revolver earlier. Beyond the movie being a terd, I have to say the video quality was not Tier 0 to me.


----------



## 42041

So out of some sick sense of morbid curiosity, I just watched Disaster Movie...

I hope I will be excused for downloading a 720p rip of this one instead of even giving it a rental (so I don't think giving a ranking would be appropriate, though my hunch is tier 1.25)....


tragically, this is a way better transfer than the reigning #2 worst movie of all time on IMDB deserves... as far as 720p can resolve, there's a very good amount of detail, and a perfectly film-like image. Contrast and flesh tones are usually on the money.

If you, like me, have some sick fascination with witnessing the nadir of American cinema, I doubt you will be disappointed with the visual aspect of the movie. But for the love of all that is holy, please don't pay for it


----------



## Shane Martin

Tonights Viewing: *Traitor*


Good movie except for the 2 easy to see plot twists. Once the first one is revealed, the 2nd one is all too predictable. This is too bad as it was a solid movie despite that.


PQ Wise: Very solid PQ. Great detail in the faces but contrast and brightness appeared to be all over the place. The PQ is very similar to "The Kingdom".


Current ranking: Unranked

My ranking: *Tier 1.75*


Panasonic 9UK 50" Plasma, PS3 via HDMI, 8-9 feet back seating distance.


----------



## lgans316

42041,


Another proof that god-awful movies get excellent treatment from the Studios to the extent of featuring plethora of extras, which often gets wiped out from the mainstream titles to engage in quadra-hexa dips. For instance, Fox is aware that a double dip of Meet of Spartans will hurt their reputation and Warner knows that a double dip of TDK will again sell million copies.


I am 1/2 way through Hellboy II: The Golden Army and it doesn't look Tier-BLU to my eyes. The CGI on most parts until half time is underwhelming and could be the reason for the pervasive softness. I will finish the second half, compare with Hellboy-1 and post my final impressions.


I agree with the current placement of Wanted.


----------



## hAPPY1977

*The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor*

*Recommendation: Tier 0*


Resolution: 1920X1080X24p

Screen: 128" cinemascope, VPL-VW50

Veiwing distance: 15"

_Video_

Video codec: MPEG-4 AVC

Aspect ratio: 2.35:1

_Audio_

English: DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1


----------



## stumlad

I disagree with its 3.0 tier rating. The movie was probably never meant to look good to begin with. There were a few shots that approached Tier 2 level, but for the most part, it was a drab looking movie with very little detail. Black levels were all over the place. Small object detail was almost non existent. There were a couple of shots where they panned the camera over certain areas to give us a better view (appeared they were trying to make us see something), but it was too hard to make out. It was a step above DVD quality (prob a big upgrade from DVD, but not much better looking that decent DVD titles).


Great movie though.

*Tier 4.5*


----------



## Beta Tester




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15388370
> 
> 
> just say that if we are not going to separate any categories out and all titles have to compete with every other title in every other category, then concert blu-rays have to compete with films and, come on, when a typical concert blu-ray has to compete with titles like Incredible Hulk, Casino Royale, Ironman and so on -- there's no kidding around -- the average concert film isn't going to compete.



I compared Elton 60 to Ratatouille and I Robot, and Elton 60 looks much better to me. The image is crisp, no video noise to speak of, and the colors are wonderful. IMO it is the best eye candy BD.


I don't have KFP, currently at the very top of Tier 0 (and have no intentions of getting it), so I don't know how Elton 60 would compare.


----------



## rsbeck

*Mama Mia*


This reminded me of Traveling Pants II. Similar strengths and similar, though more troubling, weaknesses. Saw no evidence of ringing or DNR, but female faces do have a strange unnatural appearance, even the young girls. Not sure what effect they were attempting. Color, brightness and focus seemed just slightly off -- made me feel like I wanted to fiddle with my settings. For want of a better description, the picture seemed bright, yet mushy. Weird. Apologies to GeekyGlassesGirl.

*Recommendation: 2.50*


Sim2 C3X1080

Carada Masquerade

126" Firehawk G3

Pioneer BDP-05FD


13' From Screen


----------



## Hammie

I watched Wanted last night and was pretty impressed with it. I thought the overall movie was fairly sharp, especially with facial close-ups (my wife made the comment that Ms. Jolie is really starting to show her age on one of her early close-ups). There were a few shots that looked soft during the fight scenes (one of the last one especially).


My initial ranking would be *Tier 1.5*.


Samsung LN46A860

Panasonic BD35

8' viewing distance


PS - I may update my review if it appears any different during a second viewing.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15395060
> 
> *Mama Mia*
> 
> 
> This reminded me of Traveling Pants II. Similar strengths and similar, though more troubling, weaknesses. Saw no evidence of ringing or DNR, but female faces do have a strange unnatural appearance, even the young girls. Not sure what effect they were attempting. *Color, brightness and focus seemed just slightly off* -- made me feel like I wanted to fiddle with my settings. For want of a better description, the picture seemed bright, yet mushy. Weird. Apologies to GeekyGlassesGirl.
> 
> *Recommendation: 2.75*
> 
> 
> Sim2 C3X1080
> 
> Carada Masquerade
> 
> 126" Firehawk G3
> 
> Pioneer BDP-05FD
> 
> 
> 13' From Screen



You had the same experience as I did (highlighted above). And would you believe our recommended placement is only a quarter difference? I could surely live with yours, but to appease GGG and others who thought is was better I think 2.5 would be fair.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*snicker* please don't appease to me! While I personally feel Mamma Mia deserves to be a Tier 1 title, especially given the fact that I've seen it at least 12 times now (shoot... me... now!!!), I can't help what you guys are seeing on your sets. While I did rate it higher on my older set, I still stand by my thoughts that it's at least tier 1 quality on my plasma as well (where at least 9 of the viewings have occurred). I don't want anyone to feel they need to change their view on anything because of me... although I do appreciate the kind way in which you guys have done so


















Last night I watched Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World. I didn't watch it closely enough to give a full on critique, but I would have to disagree that Mamma Mia would be the same category as Master and Commander (currently ranked 2.75). I was severely disappointed; even my husband (who came in about halfway through the movie) wondered if we were watching the DVD instead of the Blu Ray. It was so soft and washed out. I think this was the first time my heart actually sank when I was presented with the quality.


----------



## rsbeck

GeekyGlassesGirl (Can I call you G3?), what did you make of the women's faces? I recall you had a visceral reaction to the faces in Traveling Pants II. I thought it was much worse here. Also, where I felt the soft focus "chick flick" world of Traveling Pants was due to the use of Bokeh, here I didn't find the soft focus as artful, just kind of a fuzzy look. I watched Master and Commander a few weeks and a whole bunch of film ago. I didn't review it, but I recall checking its placement and thinking it was placed fairly. I don't recall having an overtly negative reaction to M & C, but I would have to watch it again to refresh my memory. I didn't think Mama Mia's PQ was terrible, either. But, I would have a hard time going up much more than a quarter tier. But, not to appease you, cuz -- I know you don't want that. More to appease Djoberg -- he doesn't mind a little appeasing.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15397417
> 
> 
> GeekyGlassesGirl (Can I call you G3?), what did you make of the women's faces? I recall you had a visceral reaction to the faces in Traveling Pants II. I thought it was much worse here. Also, where I felt the soft focus "chick flick" world of Traveling Pants was due to the use of Bokeh, here I didn't find the soft focus as artful, just kind of a fuzzy look. I watched Master and Commander a few weeks and a whole bunch of film ago. I didn't review it, but I recall checking its placement and thinking it was placed fairly. I don't recall having an overtly negative reaction to M & C, but I would have to watch it again to refresh my memory. I didn't think Mama Mia's PQ was terrible, either. But, I would have a hard time going up much more than a quarter tier. But, not to appease you, cuz -- I know you don't want that. More to appease Djoberg -- he doesn't mind a little appeasing.




My original placement with Toshiba was 1.00 for Mamma Mia, and then I watched it again (and again... and again...) on the Panasonic plasma, I docked it down to tier 1.50, because of the... whatever it was they did to Meryl and Amanda's faces. It's not present throughout the entire film, only sometimes, and when I watch I only tend to see it on those two -- the men's faces and other women througout have plenty of detail, as does the film as a whole in my opinion. Travelling Pants 2 (watched twice on the plasma)felt entirely too soft and lacked some detail throughout the entire thing to me, along with the weird faces. It was more of an overall thing I felt with Pants 2, although I felt the colours were nice and natural. (eta, and my end result for this film was a Tier 2.00 rec.)


I know we talked about it before, and I can see detail with the setup we have on the Panasonic, as the faces in Burn After Reading were almost too detailed! (it enhanced to me how I thought Brad Pitt was a little too old for the role he played







)



Oh and by all means, call me G3, that's fine. I never thought i'd post when i picked my name for here, it is a bit on the longish side!


----------



## selimsivad

Just finished one of my favorite movies of all time, The Fugitive.

This is by far the worst Blu Ray transfer I've ever seen!

Tier 5 is too kind!









I think I'll rent the DVD, just to see if it looks better upconverted!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15387586
> 
> 
> As long as we're in the "revisiting titles" mode, how about *The Golden Compass*. I just watched the credits roll on this title and IMHO the current Tier 2.75 is way too low. I believe it deserves a *Tier 1.75* placement.
> 
> 
> As I looked over the arguments that were given for a Tier 2.75 placement the chief one seemed to be DNR as seen in Nicole Kidman's face and others. One highly respected member (I'm speaking of you Rob!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) went so far as to say that ALL the faces lacked detail. I'm here to tell you that this is simply not true, for though Mrs. Kidman's face is atrocious, there are others (such as Sam Elliott, Daniel Craig, et al.) that had extremely detailed facial close-ups.
> 
> 
> One of the biggest virtues of TGC is the MANY scenes with incredible depth (i.e., 3D pop). Add to this some vivid colors, better-than-average contrast, decent blacks, and plenty of sharp and detailed scenes (including some amazing landscapes) and you have a disc that can rightly be called _demo material_.
> 
> 
> Does it deserve a Tier 0 standing? Certainly NOT! But if you dock it for the DNR and a few soft scenes, it's still worthy of Tier 1.
> 
> 
> Just to add some weight to my opinion, there were three well-respected members who all voted for a low tier 1 placement....maverick0716, ballen420, and bplewis (aka Brandon).
> 
> 
> So, my vote is to revisit this and try to move it up a full tier from where it is now.




All I can tell you is that this one still sticks out in my mind today as one of the worst examples of DNR I have ever seen. Apparently some of this was intentional. Who cares. I still found it to be very annoying. Tier 2 is being generous for this title. Tier 1? Crazy talk.


I've noticed that djoberg seems to be one of the more generous raters in this thread.










I have zero intention of revisiting this title, since I didn't care for it in any way, shape, or form.


----------



## Mel2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DGNeo* /forum/post/15393338
> 
> 
> Could not agree more. Actually the 2nd movie I got on Blu-Ray. The quality on this picture is superb. Smooth, crisp, beautiful colors. Was extremely impressed with both movie and quality.
> 
> 
> Panasonic TH-42PX80U
> 
> Panasonic DMP-BD55 w/ 4.5' HDMI
> 
> 8' Away from TV



Kris deering praised it as well in his review. enjoyed it more than statham's action crap. very good film.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15399187
> 
> 
> Just finished one of my favorite movies of all time, The Fugitive.
> 
> This is by far the worst Blu Ray transfer I've ever seen!
> 
> Tier 5 is too kind!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think I'll rent the DVD, just to see if it looks better upconverted!



Warner transferred it improperly and has never redone it. I strongly recommend people to stay away from that Blu-ray.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15398630
> 
> 
> My original placement with Toshiba was 1.00 for Mamma Mia, and then I watched it again (and again... and again...) on the Panasonic plasma, I docked it down to tier 1.50, because of the... whatever it was they did to Meryl and Amanda's faces. It's not present throughout the entire film, only sometimes, and when I watch I only tend to see it on those two -- the men's faces and other women througout have plenty of detail, as does the film as a whole in my opinion.



I may be reading something that isn't there, but I get the feeling I put you on the defensive with regard to your recommendation and that was not my intention -- I just wanted to hear your thoughts and I appreciate you sharing them. I'm okay with your recommendation. I don't think the object of our discussion and debate should be to come to an agreement on where a title should be ranked. I love it that Super Slow makes the placements because, IMO, that should encourage us to simply post our unbridled opinions rather try to guess what the group wants to hear. I agree with you, there should be no appeasing.



> Quote:
> Oh and by all means, call me G3, that's fine. I never thought i'd post when i picked my name for here, it is a bit on the longish side!



Believe me, it's a great handle, but G3 will save some time.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15401540
> 
> 
> I may be reading something that isn't there, but I get the feeling I put you on the defensive with regard to your recommendation and that was not my intention -- I just wanted to hear your thoughts and I appreciate you sharing them. Personally, I am okay with members here having wildly divergent opinions. I don't want to see us all round off our rough edges to try to fit in with each other. I enjoy hearing strong divergent opinions and I don't think the object of our discussion and debate is to necessarily come to an agreement. To me, it is so we can all see things through a bunch of different eyeballs. It is Super Slow who has to sift it all and make the placement. I love that because that should encourage us even more to simply post our unbridled opinions rather try to guess what the group wants to hear. I'm a big believer, as I know you are, too, that Super Slow does a great job of sorting and placing. That's just a long way to say I respect your viewpoint, opinion and recommendations even when they're quite different from mine. To get along with me, you only have to agree with me, like, once a month or so to tide me over. The rest of the time, feel free to go crazy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Believe me, it's a great handle, but G3 will save some time.



Nope, not on the defensive! It's all good. I think i was just trying to pick my words right is all (I think I originally was posting up there I thought Pants2 was _devoid_ of detail & realized it was too harsh of a word







) and had kids going nuts so I cut it short.



But since I'm some of the lone estrogen being injected into this thread (speak up other ladies if you are there!!), I will be _slightly_ stereotypical & reserve the right to go crazy whenever my lil' heart desires











With regards to *Master & Commander*, I think I just wanted it to look prettier. Given my affinity for how water looks (maybe it's because all the water here is frozen 8 months of the year!), I was disappointed. It did not look bad but it could have been better. After a bit we put on the trivia pop-up mode which often took up half the screen, which is also why I know I have not given it a fair shake. It is one of the titles we actually own though so I know I will do this soon & post better thoughts on it.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15401642
> 
> 
> had kids going nuts so I cut it short.



I hear you.



> Quote:
> But since I'm some of the lone estrogen being injected into this thread (speak up other ladies if you are there!!), I will be _slightly_ stereotypical & reserve the right to go crazy whenever my lil' heart desires



LOL. I look forward to it!



> Quote:
> With regards to *Master & Commander*, I think I just wanted it to look prettier. Given my affinity for how water looks (maybe it's because all the water here is frozen 8 months of the year!), I was disappointed. It did not look bad but it could have been better. After a bit we put on the trivia pop-up mode which often took up half the screen, which is also why I know I have not given it a fair shake. It is one of the titles we actually own though so I know I will do this soon & post better thoughts on it.



Do you have a surround system with sub-woofer? Master and Commander has a great sound track, which probably helped. Also, if you go from Mama Mia to Master and Commander, you could get ocular whiplash. It's definitely low on the pretty-meter.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

I tried to PM you so as to not take the thread too far off track, rsbeck, but your inbox is full!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15401751
> 
> 
> Do you have a surround system with sub-woofer? Master and Commander has a great sound track, which probably helped. Also, if you go from Mama Mia to Master and Commander, you could get ocular whiplash. It's definitely low on the pretty-meter.




We do but things still are not hooked up correctly since we had to swap the whole room around for the new TV. Worry not, we didn't go from MM to M&C though, that would have been a crazy swap. Just a few hours worth of HDTV on the dish, nothing special.


----------



## ricwhite




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15399420
> 
> 
> All I can tell you is that this one still sticks out in my mind today as one of the worst examples of DNR I have ever seen. Apparently some of this was intentional. Who cares. I still found it to be very annoying. Tier 2 is being generous for this title. Tier 1? Crazy talk.
> 
> 
> I've noticed that djoberg seems to be one of the more generous raters in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have zero intention of revisiting this title, since I didn't care for it in any way, shape, or form.



I would place Golden Compass on tier 2.0. Yes, it has a lot of DNR, but the image is often quite detailed and clear and the colors are fine.


Equipment: Epson Home Cinema 1080 UB Projector / 106" DaLite High Power Screen / Toshiba HD-A35 HD DVD Player / Panasonic DMP-BD30 Blu-ray Player / Onkyo TX-SR605 Receiver / Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ7 Digital Camera


Topic: The Golden Compass - Blu-ray


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Wow!


Thanks Ric, I think you just made my case for me!


After seeing those pics, I think I am even more confident in saying that low Tier 2 is being quite generous for that title!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15401899
> 
> 
> Wow!
> 
> 
> Thanks Ric, I think you just made my case for me!
> 
> 
> After seeing those pics, I think I am even more confident in saying that low Tier 2 is being quite generous for that title!





Rob, you're not basing your thoughts on screenshots, now, are you? Tsk tsk!


(I'm kidding, I'm kidding!!!







)


----------



## Rob Tomlin

















j


The shot of Sam Elliot is only slightly better.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15401922
> 
> 
> Rob, you're not basing your thoughts on screenshots, now, are you? Tsk tsk!
> 
> 
> (I'm kidding, I'm kidding!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )



LOL! I know you are kidding, but on a serious note, these shots do demonstrate exactly what I recall about this movie...a real lack of detail in facial features.


This is such a subjective issue though, that some people will not be bothered by this aspect as much as I was. It is far too distracting to me.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15401841
> 
> 
> I tried to PM you so as to not take the thread too far off track, rsbeck, but your inbox is full!



I'll fix that.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15401953
> 
> 
> LOL! I know you are kidding, but on a serious note, these shots do demonstrate exactly what I recall about this movie...a real lack of detail in facial features.
> 
> 
> This is such a subjective issue though, that some people will not be bothered by this aspect as much as I was. It is far too distracting to me.




It's exactly what bothered me about Sisterhood of Traveling Pants 2. It drove me nuts.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15401899
> 
> 
> Wow!
> 
> 
> Thanks Ric, I think you just made my case for me!
> 
> 
> After seeing those pics, I think I am even more confident in saying that low Tier 2 is being quite generous for that title!



Let's not forget that ricwhite prefers SUBDUED look.


----------



## rsbeck

That picture of Nicole Kidman actually looks more pleasing to me than what they did with Meryl Streep and some of the other women's faces in Mama Mia. Are you sure this is the result of DNR and not some sort of soft focus or airbrush effect? I also see something like this at times in the kid's faces in Prince Caspian -- less than the full Kidman, a little more towards the little girl in the top picture. To my eyes, even some of the men in Caspian seem to have less detail in their faces earlier than later. It's weird.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15402624
> 
> 
> That picture of Nicole Kidman actually looks more pleasing to me than what they did with Meryl Streep and some of the other women's faces in Mama Mia. Are you sure this is the result of DNR and not some sort of soft focus or airbrush effect? I also see something like this at times in the kid's faces in Prince Caspian -- less than the full Kidman, a little more towards the little girl in the top picture. To my eyes, even some of the men in Caspian seem to have less detail in their faces earlier than later. It's weird.



It looks as though the DP intentionally lit them this way with a little tweaking in post. Nothing to do with DNR or any other transfer "flaw."


This is what I gather from just looking at these screens, I have never seen the film.


----------



## rsbeck

*Constantine*


Some demo worthy sequences towards the end and some very sharp close-ups of intricate objects from time to time, but most of the film just a tiny bit soft and a tiny bit flat. I mean tiny. Colors tend to be subdued. Blacks, contrast, shadow and facial details are all pretty good. Did not note any ringing or halos nor anything to raise DNR suspicions. I suspect fans of the film will be reasonably satisfied. Appears to me like a solid upper tier 2 title.

*Recommendation: Tier 2.25*


Sim2 C3X1080

Carada Masquerade

126" Firehawk G3

Pioneer BDP-05FD


13' From Screen


----------



## b_scott

in RE: to Golden Compass. I really think Kidman was shot/DNR'd that way on purpose, so she had an unnatural clarity and glow about her.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15402624
> 
> 
> That picture of Nicole Kidman actually looks more pleasing to me than what they did with Meryl Streep and some of the other women's faces in Mama Mia. Are you sure this is the result of DNR and not some sort of soft focus or airbrush effect? I also see something like this at times in the kid's faces in Prince Caspian -- less than the full Kidman, a little more towards the little girl in the top picture. To my eyes, even some of the men in Caspian seem to have less detail in their faces earlier than later. It's weird.



Like I said: "...intentional or not".


----------



## DJ Mike TJG

If you're going to have Beetlejuice at 3.25, you can easily move Home Alone up from it's Tier 5 rating to at least 3.25 - they're both of comparable quality, and more detailed than their counterpart DVD releases - and I have both on DVD for reference (Family Fun DVD of Home Alone, not the shoddy original)!


----------



## b_scott

I agree Home Alone is not 5. Maybe 4.0 tier. But it looks better than upconverted DVD and there can be a little pop.


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DJ Mike TJG* /forum/post/15404719
> 
> 
> If you're going to have Beetlejuice at 3.25, you can easily move Home Alone up from it's Tier 5 rating to at least 3.25 - they're both of comparable quality, and more detailed than their counterpart DVD releases - and I have both on DVD for reference (Family Fun DVD of Home Alone, not the shoddy original)!



I'm another one puzzled by a Tier 5 rating for Home Alone. I think it's as good PQ-wise as Twister which is rated *Tier 3*.


Panasonic 50" 720p plasma, Pasasonic 10a, 7.5'


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15404285
> 
> 
> Like I said: "...intentional or not".



No argument from me on that -- agree 100%.


----------



## ballen420




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Shane Martin* /forum/post/15393671
> 
> 
> I gave my review of Revolver earlier. Beyond the movie being a terd, I have to say the video quality was not Tier 0 to me.



I agree on both points (terd and not Tier 0). I didn't make it through the whole movie, but if it had the qualities of tier 0, I would have watched the whole thing just for the PQ. This certainly wasn't the case - and there is no way I'd waste any time watching it again. I don't think I made comments when I saw it, but I have to vote against tier 0.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15396908
> 
> 
> Last night I watched Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World. I didn't watch it closely enough to give a full on critique, but I would have to disagree that Mamma Mia would be the same category as Master and Commander (currently ranked 2.75). I was severely disappointed; even my husband (who came in about halfway through the movie) wondered if we were watching the DVD instead of the Blu Ray. It was so soft and washed out. I think this was the first time my heart actually sank when I was presented with the quality.



If you have a receiver capable of TrueHD or DTS-MA (can't remember which codec is used), this is one of the best sounding BD I've ever heard. I hated the movie, but it was worth watching just for the sound effects. As for PQ, I recall it being low tier 2, high tier 3. Nothing special.


----------



## Vegaz

How should a TV series be properly rated? Same as movies or should other things be taken into account?


----------



## b_scott

agreed.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Top 10 Black and White


Top 10 2.35 AR


Top 10 1.85 AR


Top 10 movies with Ben Stiller


Top 10 movies directed by Spielberg


Top 10 disaster movies


Top 10 sequels


Top 10 releases by Fox


Top 10 releases by Warner


Top 10 movies with no DNR


Top 10 War movies


Top 10 combo CGI/Live action movies


Top 10 movies shot on HD Video


etc


etc


etc


----------



## nick2010

*The Dark Knight*


I agree with the current placement of this movie. Overall the processing of the 35 mm scenes was noticeable, but the "halos" were not always easily visible on my setup unless I looked for them. There was still a lot of detail for the most part and the IMAX scenes help make up for the lower quality 35 mm scenes.

*WALL-E*


While the picture quality of the movie was excellent, I agree that the Earth sequences were (intentionally) hazy and were not "eye candy". However, in my opinion a movie should not have to be all eye-candy to deserve a higher placement, in this case I suggest that WALL-E be placed just below the two Pirates of the Caribbean films. WALL-E isn't all "eye candy", but sharper details are still present in many parts of those scenes.


Sharp LC-46D62U (1080p60, 46")

6.5 feet away from screen

PS3


----------



## ballen420

Ha! As much as I hate comparing an animated flick to a live action, count me as a vote against this. As noted above, this would get ridiculous.


My suggestion, start a website with this if you think it's valuable. There would be way to many threads here, and I'm sure the mods would be 100% against it.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15406534
> 
> 
> Separate thread for animated titles revisited:
> 
> 
> The more I think about this and other recent debates, the more I think another thread for blu-ray titles might be a very good idea, but not just for animated titles and not to separate anything out from the rankings on this thread. I would keep this thread exactly as is. I've noticed some people are very interested in certain genres, like concert blu-rays. Some are interested in films with grain. I also noticed that some people were worried that once you start making sub categories, we'd never stop. That would be a negative for this thread, but could actually be a positive in a different kind of thread.
> 
> 
> How many of you are familiar with a restaurant review service call Zaggat? Zaggat rates all of the restaurants in a particular city and generates a general ranking similar to what we do here; all types of food competing with each other and ranked by quality.
> 
> 
> But, deeper in the book, you will get all kinds of lists; top ten romantic restaurants, top ten Thai restaurants, top ten restaurants with views, etc. etc.
> 
> 
> I would propose another thread with similar top ten lists.
> 
> 
> Top ten blu-rays for all around picture quality, audio quality and plot.
> 
> 
> Top ten concert blu-rays
> 
> 
> Top ten film based blu-rays with grain intact.
> 
> 
> Top ten comedies.
> 
> 
> Top ten musicals.
> 
> 
> Top ten animated blu-rays.
> 
> 
> Top ten mixed genre blu-rays.
> 
> 
> And so on and so on.....I think some of these top ten lists would be very helpful and his other thread could link up nicely with three threads already in existence and complement them rather than compete with them. For example, the top ten comedies would be listed and their PQ ranking would come from this thread. The top ten film based would have to be cleared through the Grain Allowed thread. The top ten for all around PQ, AQ and plot would get their PQ rating from this thread, the AQ rating from the AQ thread and everyone could debate on that thread about stories and plots, etc.



A separate top 10 list type thread could be pretty fun, but sounds like a lot of maintenance! Especially when someone would ask "Why isn't X on Y list?" Someone would have to keep a good record of where all the movies end up... *shouts* NOT IT!


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15407176
> 
> 
> A separate top 10 list type thread could be pretty fun, but sounds like a lot of maintenance! Especially when someone would ask "Why isn't X on Y list?" Someone would have to keep a good record of where all the movies end up... *shouts* NOT IT!



Darn, I had you penciled in as the moderator. In fact, I used a calligraphy pen. That ink is hard to erase!


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ballen420* /forum/post/15407097
> 
> 
> There would be way to many threads here, and I'm sure the mods would be 100% against it.



All top ten lists would go in one separate thread. This thread would not change.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15406887
> 
> 
> Top 10 Black and White
> 
> 
> Top 10 2.35 AR
> 
> 
> Top 10 1.85 AR
> 
> 
> Top 10 movies with Ben Stiller
> 
> 
> Top 10 movies directed by Spielberg
> 
> 
> Top 10 disaster movies
> 
> 
> Top 10 sequels
> 
> 
> Top 10 releases by Fox
> 
> 
> Top 10 releases by Warner
> 
> 
> Top 10 movies with no DNR
> 
> 
> Top 10 War movies
> 
> 
> Top 10 combo CGI/Live action movies
> 
> 
> Top 10 movies shot on HD Video
> 
> 
> etc
> 
> 
> etc
> 
> 
> etc



The joke that keeps on giving.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15407237
> 
> 
> Darn, I had you penciled in as the moderator. In fact, I used a calligraphy pen. That ink is hard to erase!




I'm incapable of being impartial.







It would just become GeekyGlassesGirl's Top 10 lists, and I don't own many discs so it would be very short.







I would employ a moderator's veto and Mamma Mia would be ranked #1 in every list even if it didn't fit.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15407300
> 
> 
> I'm incapable of being impartial.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would just become GeekyGlassesGirl's Top 10 lists, and I don't own many discs so it would be very short.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would employ a moderator's veto and Mamma Mia would be ranked #1 in every list even if it didn't fit.



LOL. I bet you use this same argument to get out of jury duty. Sorry, that ink is already dry!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15407319
> 
> 
> LOL. I bet you use this same argument to get out of jury duty. Sorry, that ink is already dry!




Nah. Before I was the geeky housewife, I worked for the Department of Justice and just went to the Jury office and had my name taken off the jury list. DoJ workers here are allowed to do that b/c of conflict of interest. I just never went back there and had it put back on.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15407300
> 
> 
> I'm incapable of being impartial.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would just become GeekyGlassesGirl's Top 10 lists, and I don't own many discs so it would be very short.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would employ a moderator's veto and *Mamma Mia* would be ranked #1 in every list even if it didn't fit.



So, G3, have you watched the deleted scenes yet?


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15407415
> 
> 
> So, G3, have you watched the deleted scenes yet?



hee! I think I need a break from Mamma Mia for a bit, although I bet I am forced to watch it again tomorrow. If I am, I will make sure to watch them then. My daughter's out on a playdate today so I am crossing my fingers for a MammaMiaFree day.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15407282
> 
> 
> The joke that keeps on giving.



Ditto!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15399420
> 
> 
> 
> I've noticed that djoberg seems to be one of the more generous raters in this thread.



Tell that to geekyglassesgirl concerning my rating of Mamma Mia.


----------



## Shane Martin

rsbeck,

I hope you weren't serious with that list idea.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Shane Martin* /forum/post/15409072
> 
> 
> rsbeck, I hope you weren't serious with that list idea.



Why?


You think adding one more thread would be like crossing the beams in Ghostbusters?


If it were added and you didn't want to participate, you would be powerless to avoid it?


It would be like cheating and this thread would get jealous?


----------



## LBFilmGuy

LOL this thread has gotten out of control with the hypothetical situations


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lbfilmguy* /forum/post/15409363
> 
> 
> lol this thread has gotten out of control with the hypothetical situations



lol.


----------



## rsbeck

Ironically, the place to propose a new thread is probably in a new thread.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15409450
> 
> 
> Ironically, the place to propose a new thread is probably in a new thread.




I was going to suggest that.







It is being overrun and getting off topic a bit too much as of late. I will have about 4 recommendations of BD placements tomorrow. I have watched a few I just haven't taken the time to post, but I have been keeping up with the fun.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I have *Wanted* and *Prince Caspian* here, hope to watch in the next couple of days.


----------



## rsbeck

*Horton Hears a Who*


Very impressive CGI. At one point, I turned to my 14 year old daughter and asked, "what do you think of what they're doing now with CGI?" And she responded, "it's crazy." With Wall-E and Horton, which are some of the latest CGI titles, you can see the progress of the technology. Objects are acquiring a feeling of density and mass that makes them feel more palpable than ever before. As the story opens, there's a close up of a drop of water falling off of a leaf where the water has such a feeling of density, it looked more like it would have the viscosity of oil. Like my daughter says, "crazy!" Objects and animals are also acquiring more fine detail and skin texture. In other ways, the closer they get to approximating reality, the more dangerous it becomes. Certain parts of the image raise expectations that other parts cannot match and the parts that don't have that look of hyper reality start to stick out more and there is some of that inconsistency here in Horton. If the most impressive parts of Horton are a glimpse into what's coming, to paraphrase my daughter, it's only going to get crazier. Side note: I also enjoyed the sound track. Not the biggest work out for the sub-woofer, but a pleasing surround mix of symphonic music and sound effects.

*Recommendation: Tier 1.0*


Sim2 C3X1080

Carada Masquerade

126" Firehawk G3

Pioneer BDP-05FD


13' From Screen


----------



## rsbeck

*When We left Earth*


This is not for those seeking demo material, but for those who are interested in a wonderful documentary about the NASA space program from the very beginning to walking in space to the moon landing and beyond and want to see all of that old footage looking as good as it can possibly look, which is awfully good, this is for you. The oldest footage is grainy, but beautifully restored. Recent interviews with the astronauts are shot on hi-def video and are integrated very nicely. The series is well-structured and keeps you riveted. The sound track is also very effective.

*Recommendation: Tier 2.75*


Sim2 C3X1080

Carada Masquerade

126" Firehawk G3

Pioneer BDP-05FD


13' From Screen


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nick2010* /forum/post/15407058
> 
> *The Dark Knight*
> 
> 
> I agree with the current placement of this movie. Overall the processing of the 35 mm scenes was noticeable, but the "halos" were not always easily visible on my setup unless I looked for them. There was still a lot of detail for the most part and the IMAX scenes help make up for the lower quality 35 mm scenes.
> 
> *WALL-E*
> 
> 
> While the picture quality of the movie was excellent, I agree that the Earth sequences were (intentionally) hazy and were not "eye candy". However, in my opinion a movie should not have to be all eye-candy to deserve a higher placement, in this case I suggest that WALL-E be placed just below the two Pirates of the Caribbean films. WALL-E isn't all "eye candy", but sharper details are still present in many parts of those scenes.
> 
> 
> Sharp LC-46D62U (1080p60, 46")
> 
> 6.5 feet away from screen
> 
> PS3




I just have to laugh at all the support Wall-E gets.

Members seem determined to force this title to the top of tier0.

Maybe we should just get it over with and move Wall-E to the top of tier0 right now and get it out of the way.

Example: We chastise The Dark Knight for having a few scenes that show “halos,” yet the whole first half of Wall-E was muted, dull and completely sub-par in regards to what eye candy should be.

Yet Wall-E is placed higher than Dark Knight and it seems even this rating is not high enough!

To me there is just very little standard in how movies are placed on this thread.

When I show off my theater, I put in the Dark Knight... not Wall-E. Isn't that what the whole point of this thread is supposed to be about??


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*Sleeping Beauty*


Finally being able to secure a “Mamma Mia Free” morning, I did so by suggesting to my daughter that instead we watch Sleeping Beauty, “the Blue one”.


The restoration they’ve done to this movie is fantastic; I hope that Disney puts this sort of care into all of their restoration efforts (looking forward to Pinocchio this spring).


I feel the colour saturation is fantastic, even though my preferred viewing is using the THX picture mode on my Panasonic which tends to be darker; I flipped through the various picture modes throughout the beginning of the movie just to check them out.


I think my only issue is at various points throughout the film it seems out of focus. I don’t claim to understand how or why this happens, and with the care that it seems Disney put into this release I wonder if there was anything that could even have been done about it; whatever the case may be, it still affected the PQ for me when it did occur.


This Blu Ray release of Sleeping Beauty is something that is worth showing off to other film enthusiasts who may not be interested in animation if for any other reason but to show just how nearly-pristine a movie such as this could be restored and presented upon high quality home theatre equipment.


I find myself struggling with where to recommend this title for the PQ list. For what this movie is, it’s absolutely gorgeous and I honestly think this is the best it could ever look and is nearly flawless to my eyes, with the exception being the slight focus issue; and so my battle begins.

*Recommendation for Sleeping Beauty: Tier 0, near the bottom of the list


Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800U, THX setting. Approx 7.5’ viewing distance.*


----------



## DaveBowman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/15414524
> 
> 
> I just have to laugh at all the support Wall-E gets.
> 
> When I show off my theater, I put in the Dark Knight... not Wall-E. Isn't that what the whole point of this thread is supposed to be about??



Amen, brother. Couldn't agree more. I love Wall-E for its creativity and content but as pure "eye candy" it doesn't hold a candle to TDK, or for that matter Cars, Ratatoulie, Panda, Transformers, I Robot, Baraka, Speed Racer, TinkerBell, or many many more. I would even reach for IronMan to demo my system before I'd think about using Wall-E. It's vastly overrated.


----------



## Shane Martin

Suffolk,

I agree with you 100% regarding Wall E. That's why I ranked it down towards the bottom of tier 0 where it belongs.



> Quote:
> Not the biggest work out for the sub-woofer



What kind of sub do you have? I have to wonder because the early sequences are killer for the lfe. I had to wonder if you were kidding with this statement. This graph shows there is tremendous amounts of LFE energy
http://www.imagebam.com/image/ab3c3820886123


----------



## DaverJ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15415097
> 
> *Sleeping Beauty*
> 
> 
> *snip*
> 
> 
> I think my only issue is at various points throughout the film it seems out of focus. I don't claim to understand how or why this happens, and with the care that it seems Disney put into this release I wonder if there was anything that could even have been done about it; whatever the case may be, it still affected the PQ for me when it did occur.
> 
> 
> *snip*



The Disney studio (Walt in particular, with the help from longtime collaborator Ub Iwerks ) was fascinated with film "tricks" and special effects. They were early pioneers (often the first mainstream studio) of various film techniques, putting money toward experimenting with photographic effects. They even released the first commercial surround sound process .


Because these effects were untested and not perfected, there were often flaws as a result of the process. Focus was a big issue with effects that required multiple exposures.


I'm not sure which particular scenes from Sleeping Beauty you are referencing, but its not surprising considering what they were attempting with the technology they had. They did the best they could, and its very impressive what and how they did at the time. But I believe the flaws are in the original master print, and even though it looks dated and/or flawed today, it's a part of film history.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaveBowman* /forum/post/15415451
> 
> 
> Amen, brother. Couldn't agree more. I love Wall-E for its creativity and content but as pure "eye candy" it doesn't hold a candle to TDK, or for that matter Cars, Ratatoulie, Panda, Transformers, I Robot, Baraka, Speed Racer, TinkerBell, or many many more. I would even reach for IronMan to demo my system before I'd think about using Wall-E. It's vastly overrated.



Yes, I enjoyed Wall-E as well. Wall-E is not a demo source for me when I show off my home theater either.









I don't think Wall-E is tier0 material. Unless you are talking about the 2nd half of the show.

This movie is supposed to be about eye candy.

I often get the impression the standards are different for some movies.

Some movies are blasted for a few frames of softness or halo's while others, like Wall-E are given a pass even though several chapters do not meet the requirements stated on the first page of this thread.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaveBowman* /forum/post/15415451
> 
> 
> Amen, brother. Couldn't agree more. I love Wall-E for its creativity and content but as pure "eye candy" it doesn't hold a candle to TDK, or for that matter Cars, Ratatoulie, Panda, Transformers, I Robot, Baraka, Speed Racer, TinkerBell, or many many more. I would even reach for IronMan to demo my system before I'd think about using Wall-E. It's vastly overrated.



No, I don't think Wall-E compares to The Dark Knight either.

I am sure we'll be getting some feedback on my comments soon.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaverJ* /forum/post/15415865
> 
> 
> I'm not sure which particular scenes from Sleeping Beauty you are referencing, but its not surprising considering what they were attempting with the technology they had. They did the best they could, and its very impressive what and how they did at the time. But I believe the flaws are in the original master print, and even though it looks dated and/or flawed today, it's a part of film history.




Agreed. I think the movie looks fantastic, save for the slight focus issue and bestowed accolaides upon Disney for their restoration in my review. Since it's a PQ thread, though, I felt I had to take it into account and did so with the recommendation for the bottom of Tier 0 instead of higher.


Thanks for the info, that was really neat.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Shane Martin* /forum/post/15415643
> 
> 
> What kind of sub do you have?



All of my gear is listed in my public profile under "about me."



> Quote:
> I have to wonder because the early sequences are killer for the lfe.



I'm not sure why you are having a problem with my stating that this film is not the biggest work-out for one's sub-woofer. Is it because you believe it does deserve that prize? I made a special note to praise the soundtrack for having a pleasing surround mix of symphonic music and sound effects. I stand by that.



> Quote:
> This graph shows there is tremendous amounts of LFE energy
> http://www.imagebam.com/image/ab3c3820886123



Is this your support for the contention that Horton's soundtrack is more than a pleasing surround mix of symphonic music and sound effects, but is also the premier work-out for one's sub-woofer? I would need to see graphs of Horton compared to about 20 other titles before I would be tempted to make that claim.


If you want to discuss this further, I would suggest PM so we don't clutter this thread with audio discussion.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Shane Martin* /forum/post/15415643
> 
> 
> Suffolk,
> 
> I agree with you 100% regarding Wall E. That's why I ranked it down towards the bottom of tier 0 where it belongs.



Ditto!


I'm not surprised that this title keeps getting brought up, for the first 30+ minutes is clearly NOT eye candy. I believe those who want this on the top of Tier 0 are refusing to adhere to the standards set forth on page one. They no doubt love the fact that it is creative and that it breaks away from the norm. And, in fairness, those "dusty" and "post-apocalyptic" scenes do look good....BUT they are NOT eye candy!


I can hardly believe I just wrote what I did, seeing that I am one of the most "generous raters" on this thread.










Well, back to my business in Minneapolis (where we are experiencing a fierce snowstorm)....I am thankful for a friend with a wireless network so I can keep up-to-date on this thread.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/15414524
> 
> 
> When I show off my theater, I put in the Dark Knight... not Wall-E. Isn't that what the whole point of this thread is supposed to be about??



And I do the exact opposite. There's many placements I don't agree on, but this thread is represents the collective opinion of the posters, and lets not pretend this is anything but subjective. (Though I would use the IMAX segments as demo material, but consistency isn't TDK's strength)


----------



## oleus

glad i'm not crazy - i popped in WALL-E expecting to be blown away and was not.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Universe: The Complete Season One*


tier recommendation: *Tier 3.5*


A & E Home Video released this 2007 television series to Blu-ray on November 18th. All thirteen episodes plus an additional documentary are included here on three BD-50s. The first two discs contain five episodes apiece that run for approximately 44 minutes each, for a total running time of 220 minutes. The last BD-50 contains three episodes at 44 minutes each and a 90 minute documentary for a total of 222 minutes.


The image is presented in 1080i which I believe was the same resolution when it was broadcast on cable. The video is encoded in AVC in a range that varies from a low of 9.4 Mbps to a peak of 41.2 Mbps. I would estimate the average video bitrate for all three discs to be somewhere around 22 or 23 Mbps. There is some banding visible at times on the more complex CGI animation. I also noticed a hint of chroma noise and compression noise but these artifacts were very brief in nature. Overall this is a decent compression job but nothing outstanding compared to recent Blu-ray releases.


Placing this title in the tier list was a little difficult at first considering the widely varying quality of some of the source material. The typical episode consists mainly of a combination of CGI, interviews with scientists and academics working in the field, and archival stock footage. At times the CGI looked very good that would merit tier one quality on its own with excellent colors and contrast, but I was a little surprised at how inconsistent some of the CGI looked. It goes from razor sharp to blurry depending on the CGI section. I assume that some of it was never rendered at anything but standard resolution. A minor problem is that some of the CGI exhibits a small amount of aliasing but that might be me being very picky. The interviews are more consistent in appearance, apparently having been shot with HD cameras under controlled conditions. Separately I would consider them high tier three in quality with some moments looking as good as tier two generally. Flesh tones are excellent throughout these interviews though high frequency information and detail is somewhat less than impressive. The older NASA stock footage is generally in rough shape and much of it looks like it was transferred from analogue videotape.


Black levels are fully resolved with the CGI animations looking particularly good. No edge enhancement or ringing is visible on the image. Outside of the archival footage, which really does not make up much of the running time, the image seems clear of damage marks or dirt specks.


I usually do not talk about the visual quality of extras, but the feature-length documentary included here, Beyond The Big Bang, is truly the highlight of the entire set. It appears the production budget and standards for this extra were of higher quality than the main series and it is plainly evident. Probably the best written feature on the entire set, the image is simply superior to the standard episodes. A high tier two ranking would not be out of the question if this extra was being ranked on its own merits, with consistently better detail and depth to the image. All the CGI here looks uniformly excellent, though it is still a notch below the detail seen in theatrical features like the Pixar films.


While I have never personally seen the dvd version of this show, it was released in non-anamorphic resolution and I have to believe that this Blu-ray represents a serious upgrade over that limited presentation. Overall I am recommending a placement in tier 3.5 but readers should understand that much of the image looks vastly better than that ranking.


----------



## rsbeck

The thread is about all of us posting reviews and recommendations. At the end of the day, the moderator, Super Slow, sifts and weighs all of the recommendations and places the title. I don't like having so many animated titles up there, but I have to say that based on the reviews we see, I think Super Slow is placing them appropriately. If you disagree with a ranking, you are welcome to post a review and recommend a different placement. Rankings quite often change when posters disagree with placements, but it takes some momentum. Wall-E has been moved down twice, so its place is not carved in stone. To participate and enjoy this thread and these rankings, one has to realize that like any democracy, your vote counts, but it only counts as one vote. It also helps to get a feel for the rankings and learn to read between the lines based on your own preferences. Personally, I know that the chances are very good that I will enjoy the picture quality on most tier 1 live action titles more than any tier 0 animated. Once you customize the list for yourself, the rankings become very useful. Based on previous comments, the moderator skims through all of the discussion where we argue among ourselves and pays a lot more attention to reviews, so the best way to get your particular point of view represented is to post reviews.


----------



## Ozymandis

Kung Fu Panda- got a chance to check this out, got it for the kids, and it's right where it belongs- very top of Tier 0. There can't really be any other place for it, the picture is perfect and leaps off of the screen throughout, and to my ears the audio was fantastic as well. I was expecting to be impressed having read this thread... and I was. It started with the staggering dream fight sequence, which looked similar to the Heavenly Sword animes (PS3 game), and what followed was pure reference-quality perfection










The movie wasn't bad either. It was not at the level of Pixar's movies (save Cars, which IMO it smashed) but was enjoyable and the kids really liked it.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Shane Martin* /forum/post/15415643
> 
> 
> Suffolk,
> 
> I agree with you 100% regarding Wall E. That's why I ranked it down towards the bottom of tier 0 where it belongs.
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of sub do you have? I have to wonder because the early sequences are killer for the lfe. I had to wonder if you were kidding with this statement. This graph shows there is tremendous amounts of LFE energy
> http://www.imagebam.com/image/ab3c3820886123



Besides a few moments (horton hitting the ground a few times, the balls bouncing toward the end of the movie in the observatory, and the stampede toward the end), I did not find the LFE to be anything special in Horton either. I am running dual PB13's and a 12/2 Ultra in a fully enclosed 12x17.5 room ~1500 cuft. The LFE in this movie in not even close to the class of movies like Cloverfield, Transf, TIH, HB2, etc....and KFP also tops this one no problem in the LFE department IMO. I thought Hortons overall soundtrack was realy good, but it is not a LFE standout film. I thought Ralph got this one right in his review with the 4/5 score for both dynamics and LFE extension (KFP he rated 5/5 for both which I also agree with). Sorry to get off topic.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Wanted*

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*


Well, this film was a real sleeper for me. I had pretty low expectations, and was presently surprised by how entertaining it was. It didn't take itself too seriously, which made it a lot easier to accept and go along for the (wild) ride.


I thought this was an excellent looking title! Facial details are well preserved here, with no signs of DNR. Fine film grain is left intact.


Sharpness and detail is very good, with above average clarity. A few shots were slightly softer though. Colors were mostly quite warm and pleasing. Contrast varied a bit, but was excellent overall with many scenes having a very impressive sense of depth.


This disc has a very film like look to it. As stated above, grain is well preserved. Even though it may not be the very best eye candy in terms of subject matter, I think it comes very close to being a reference disc.


I do think that it's current placement is on the low side, and it is fully deserving of a Tier 1.25 placement.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15417741
> 
> *Wanted*
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.25*
> 
> 
> I do think that it's current placement is on the low side, and it is fully deserving of a Tier 1.25 placement.



That's very generous of you Rob!










Seriously, I do agree with you that it is a good-looking title.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15417891
> 
> 
> That's very generous of you Rob!



Hehe. You're never going to let me live that one down, are ya!?


----------



## babrown92

I vote Wall-E to the top above Kung Fu Panda. Wall-E looks fantastic!


----------



## RBFC




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15417741
> 
> *Wanted*
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.25*
> 
> 
> Well, this film was a real sleeper for me. I had pretty low expectations, and was presently surprised by how entertaining it was. It didn't take itself too seriously, which made it a lot easier to accept and go along for the (wild) ride.
> 
> 
> I thought this was an excellent looking title! Facial details are well preserved here, with no signs of DNR. Fine film grain is left intact.
> 
> 
> Sharpness and detail is very good, with above average clarity. A few shots were slightly softer though. Colors were mostly quite warm and pleasing. Contrast varied a bit, but was excellent overall with many scenes having a very impressive sense of depth.
> 
> 
> This disc has a very film like look to it. As stated above, grain is well preserved. Even though it may not be the very best eye candy in terms of subject matter, I think it comes very close to being a reference disc.
> 
> 
> I do think that it's current placement is on the low side, and it is fully deserving of a Tier 1.25 placement.



I concur with 1.25 for *Wanted*.


Great sound, too.


Lee


----------



## nick2010




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *babrown92* /forum/post/15417996
> 
> 
> I vote Wall-E to the top above Kung Fu Panda. Wall-E looks fantastic!



I find it surprising that you would post such a high rating of WALL-E after my lower recommendation of putting it just below POTC 2 was criticized by over a half page of posts.


----------



## hurleyjj

Into The Wild


I think this title should be in the top tier. It's currently not even listed probably because it's such a recent release. It's PQ is absolutely amazing throughout most of it.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> I just have to laugh at all the support Wall-E gets.
> 
> When I show off my theater, I put in the Dark Knight... not Wall-E. Isn't that what the whole point of this thread is supposed to be about??



I haven't watched TDK but I agree that Wall-E doesn't belong to Tier-0. Top Tier-1 would be the right spot for Wall-E from an eye candy perspective. To show off my HT gear, I will put in Man on Fire, I,Robot, KFP or Transformers.


Tier 1.25 or Tier 1.5 for Wanted - both fine by me. Entertaining & very good looking flick.


----------



## xMx Reaper xMx

Okay, so i know this may sound rediculous, but im curious.


is this list in order?

meaning that Kung Fu Panda is the best looking of the Blu-Rays and so on and so forth?


i mean i realize theyre put into tiers, but is each individual tier also put in order?


or does this thread say that kung fu panda, and the movies listed directly after that are all very close in quality and all could deserve the top spot?


sorry for the questions, but i was an early HDDVD adopter, and i remember the PQ thread that they had.


if this could take they're style and then implement that into the tier system, that would be wonderful.


generally, what they did was just take each individual title, and put its average rating next to the movie, so then people could understand the reviews people gave it. with this system, yeah they're listed, but they're not given anything else besides they're name, runtime, etc.


Not trying to bash on the thread or anything, its a wonderful thing and helps for me to choose new movies to purchase, and things for me to watch.


so please dont take this post with any type of negativity, think of it as more of a suggestion on how to do things better, for the sake of everyone.


i hope my suggestion receives some consideration, as i believe the HDDVD thread merits some applause for the way they pulled of their thread.


thanks to all who read this, and sorry for the lengthy post.


----------



## Acronos Myth

I think it works fine.


For example, the blu tier ones, are indeed ranked in order from best to worst (of course the worst one is still considered amazing looking), according to general consensus.


All the other tiers have the movies grouped with similar quality ones, in various sub-tiers.


----------



## xMx Reaper xMx

the thing about that is... i had no idea thats the way it worked.

there was no explanation explaining some thing like the situation you just said.


i mean, i'm not dumb.

i understand the way the system works.

i just think that for the argument of ease of use, i think each one should be given a star rating, and that it should be told to the people looking at the list, that they are indeed in order.


see at first, this is how i assumed it was.


that all of the titles in tier 0, were just grouped there.

i felt that, yeah it was the general consensus that these titles deserved to be in this bracket, but i didnt feel or i guess recognize, that all of the titles were actually ranked as well, and the reason for this is the absence of a rating next to the title, such as for example a 5/5 for kung fu panda, or anything of the like.


if you wanted, we could adopt the rating system that the HDDVD PQ thread used which was as follows:

*This was quoted from FrancescoP*

"NOTE: This list uses the Bayesian weighted rating formula (the same of IMDB.com top 250)

(WR) = (v ÷ (v+m)) × R + (m ÷ (v+m)) × C

where:

R = average for the movie (mean) = (Rating)

v = number of votes for the movie = (votes)

m = minimum votes required to be listed

C = the mean vote across the whole report"





how could this not better the system?

it would make it much easier for new readers, and make it very easy to skim and compare.


if anyone would like to check out their system here's the link to they're thread: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=942015 


now, before everyone starts saying how i am some HDDVD fanboy that's popping out of the woodwork or something of the like, i would just like to point out that it never hurts to draw inspiration from a competitor (well, at one point) to better something of your own.


just a recommendation.


----------



## rsbeck

We could use a little explanation at the top of the blu tier explaining that it is ranked best to worst and then on top of the remaining tiers explaining that they are in alphabetical order.


----------



## rsbeck

*Wanted*


Excellent transfer. Anyone looking for all of the texture and detail missing from Morgan Freeman's face in Shawshank will find it here in Wanted. Grain appears intact, but does seem to vary just a bit from medium coarseness early on to much finer later. Still, no sign of excessive DNR and not a hint of a halo. This is a well shot, well composed title with a natural feel and organic cinematography that help you ease into this alternate reality like slipping into a pair of old Reeboks. Wanted, with its sly humor, excellent color, contrast, detail, black levels, saturation, and shadow detail is very easy to watch and enjoy. Wanted appears on my screen like a very solid mid tier one title. I don't think it is unfairly ranked at 1.5, but I would have no problem if it were raised a quarter tier to reside next to comparable titles like No Country, Zodiac, and The Bank Job.

*Recommendation: Tier 1.25*


Sim2 C3X1080

Carada Masquerade

126" Firehawk G3

Pioneer BDP-05FD


13' From Screen


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Finally signed up for Netflix baby! Woo hoo!










Can't wait to be able to watch and review an endless amount of BDs


----------



## unclepauly

LBFilmGuy, what took so long? Netflix is like the only choice where I live. Unless I wanted to spend $1000 on blu-rays I only watch once.


----------



## Myth

why didn't avs review sleeping beauty? this movie is easily tier 0


edit


just seen that it was in the tier 0 section.(as deserved)


still can't figure out why i missed it before or why they didn't review it


----------



## 1MaNArmY

any word on Death Race placement?


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15420970
> 
> *Wanted*
> 
> 
> Anyone looking for all of the texture and detail missing from Morgan Freeman's face in Shawshank will find it here in Wanted.



...Morgan Freeman's face in Shawshank *& Batman Begins* will find it here in Wanted.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/15421798
> 
> 
> ...Morgan Freeman's face in Shawshank *& Batman Begins* will find it here in Wanted.



Have you finished watching Hellboy 2 yet, lgans?


----------



## DaveBowman

I apologize for going off topic but there doesn't seem to be much activity on the AVS Dish Network thread. If there is a better thread on this topic please let me know what it's called so I can find it. I am considering switching from Comcast (Houston) to Dish Network's TurboHD service due to Comcast's pathetic HD channel lineup, which amazingly has not added any new channels in almost a year and is actually dropping some of the better channels. Anybody care to share their experience with TurboHD or Dish Network in general. Thanks.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15420970
> 
> *Wanted*
> 
> 
> Excellent transfer. Anyone looking for all of the texture and detail missing from Morgan Freeman's face in Shawshank will find it here in Wanted. Grain appears intact, but does seem to vary just a bit from medium coarseness early on to much finer later. Still, no sign of excessive DNR and not a hint of a halo. This is a well shot, well composed title with a natural feel and organic cinematography that help you ease into this alternate reality like slipping into a pair of old Reeboks. Wanted, with its sly humor, excellent color, contrast, detail, black levels, saturation, and shadow detail is very easy to watch and enjoy. Wanted appears on my screen like a very solid mid tier one title. I don't think it is unfairly ranked at 1.5, but I would have no problem if it were raised a quarter tier to reside next to comparable titles like No Country, Zodiac, and The Bank Job.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 1.25*
> 
> 
> Sim2 C3X1080
> 
> Carada Masquerade
> 
> 126" Firehawk G3
> 
> Pioneer BDP-05FD
> 
> 
> 13' From Screen



Looks like we have enough support to move Wanted to Tier 1.25 then.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Knocked Up*


tier recommendation: *Tier 2.5*


Released to Blu-ray on September 30th of this year, Universal released a movie that had been on HD DVD for some time. Presented here on a BD-50 are both the theatrical cut, clocking in at 128-minutes, and an unrated cut at 132-minutes. The 2007 Judd Apatow directed comedy is encoded in AVC with an average video bitrate of 19.94 Mbps for the unrated cut. There is a very narrow range this encode varies between from 18.1 Mbps to 22.2 Mbps, with a few momentary peaks seen in the high 20's. I will call this a competent compression encoding sourced from a very clean looking digital intermediate. If one is being precise I saw some minor and faint instances of compression noise in the backgrounds of solid colored walls. Personally I feel a higher video bitrate allotted might have improved this aspect a little but the inclusion of multiple cuts with U-Control features seems to have limited the bit budget available.


The image is consistently sharp and has a high degree of clarity. The master used for the transfer looks in great shape with zero flaws aside from four or five tiny digital scratch removal spots. This transfer is really a tier one caliber picture if not for two problems. Flesh tones are all over the map, with many scenes featuring Caucasians that look more sickly yellow than a more natural appearance. Katherine Heigl seems to get the brunt of this odd color timing but others are affected sporadically throughout the feature. Color tonality in general seems a little off in this transfer, with only black appearing unaffected. Black levels and low light information are very nice here, revealing most of the action that takes place in darker environments.


The other, smaller negative I witnessed was only average facial and skin texture and fine detail. There is no DNR used here for those concerned but the image has a slightly flat look compared to better Blu-ray transfers. The grain structure looks pleasing and very normal for a film source. Edge enhancement is mostly absent with one or two scenes exhibiting ultra-thin halos that normal viewers probably will not pick up on.


I will recommend a placement in tier 2.5 for this Universal Blu-ray. This is not great demo material but seems relatively faithful to the source material. It reminds me of another transfer seen on Blu-ray featuring Seth Rogen, the Sony movie “Superbad”.


Watching on a 60” Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 from a PS3 (firmware 2.53) with a viewing distance of approximately six feet.


BDInfo Scan for the Unrated Cut (courtesy of forum member DigitalfreakNYC):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1#post15032521


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15422912
> 
> 
> Looks like we have enough support to move Wanted to Tier 1.25 then.



Well, you have my support -- what else do you need?


----------



## Hammie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15422912
> 
> 
> Looks like we have enough support to move Wanted to Tier 1.25 then.



I'll concede and say that 1.25 is a fine adjustment from my 1.5 recommendation.


It was on the cusp of 1.25 anyway for me.


----------



## KeithTalent

Stupid question, but is Gangs of New York still unranked because there are a tonne of varied opinions on it? I thought it was determined to be an awful transfer?


Only asking because my rental place just shipped it to me and I am wondering what to expect.


KT


----------



## ricwhite




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15422912
> 
> 
> Looks like we have enough support to move Wanted to Tier 1.25 then.



Interesting. I gave Wanted it a 3.5 out of 5 in PQ. Especially "average" in shadow detail although much of the movie was rather devoid of much depth or detail -- at least for me. Didn't notice much DNR or EE and the movie had a gritty grainy look -- which is fine. But there was no "pop" or wow factor at all. Out of the 100 or so Blu-rays I've viewed, I thought it was average and, honestly, I had a very tough time even finding ANY outstanding screenshots to post -- which is a rarely. Heck, even Romancing the Stone (which I viewed right after) I thought had slightly better PQ than Wanted. And, just to erk Rob







, I think Golden Compass has better PQ than Wanted -- and I"m being honest.

*Spoiler Warning:* *The following screenshots may display spoiler content. View at your own risk.*

*Equipment:* Epson Home Cinema 1080 UB Projector / 106" DaLite High Power Screen / Toshiba HD-A35 HD DVD Player / Panasonic DMP-BD30 Blu-ray Player / Onkyo TX-SR605 Receiver / Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ7 Digital Camera

*Blu-ray Movie Title:* Wanted

*Overall Picture Quality Rating:* Good 3.5/5


----------



## Hughmc

I "wanted" to be a stick in the mud, because I thought from memory that Wanted was more middle or lower tier one.


Well, here is what I thought after seeing it several weeks back and I can't find a post after searching what I recommended if I even did







:
*

If I recall from the recommendations, I would guess Hancock will be lower Tier 1 and Wanted upper Tier 1. Both look really good.*



I have to get back on track as my memory and input has been lacking as of late. Holidays and an ice hockey tournament this weekend have me wiped out.










I have been following the thread and I would agree with:

*Wanted: Tier 1.25.*


Thinking back I seem to remember the PQ being very similar to Iron Man.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ricwhite* /forum/post/15426096
> 
> 
> Interesting. I gave Wanted it a 3.5 out of 5 in PQ. Especially "average" in shadow detail although much of the movie was rather devoid of much depth or detail -- at least for me. Didn't notice much DNR or EE and the movie had a gritty grainy look -- which is fine. But there was no "pop" or wow factor at all. Out of the 100 or so Blu-rays I've viewed, I thought it was average and, honestly, I had a very tough time even finding ANY outstanding screenshots to post -- which is a rarely. Heck, even Romancing the Stone (which I viewed right after) I thought had slightly better PQ than Wanted. And, just to erk Rob
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , I think Golden Compass has better PQ than Wanted -- and I"m being honest.



Well, this thread is full of differing opinions, and this is one where I completely disagree with yours...although I did note some soft scenes in my review (which is one reason I didn't recommend it for Tier 1.0). I thought contrast was just fine. "Devoid of depth and detail"!? I think not.


----------



## ricwhite

Romancing the Stone is likely a 2.75 or 3.00 tier. I rated it a 3.75/5 PQ. Good colors and fairly good detail for an older film. Many of the scenes had depth and clarity. Sound, on the other hand, was pretty bad.

*Spoiler Warning:* *The following screenshots may display spoiler content. View at your own risk.* :rant:

*Equipment:* Epson Home Cinema 1080 UB Projector / 106" DaLite High Power Screen / Toshiba HD-A35 HD DVD Player / Panasonic DMP-BD30 Blu-ray Player / Onkyo TX-SR605 Receiver / Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ7 Digital Camera

*Blu-ray Movie Title:* Romancing the Stone

*Overall Picture Quality Rating:* Good 3.75/5


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *1MaNArmY* /forum/post/15421791
> 
> 
> any word on Death Race placement?





I am going to watch a 3rd time







to make sure, but so far I see Death Race some where in Tier 2. The PQ was disappointing. In fact almost every BD since watching Prince Caspian has been a bit of a let down. Some are really good, but Caspian set the bar for me for live action film right up there with Pirates.


----------



## Hughmc

Hey Ric, those shots look amazing, really for both films. Your setup seems to do them justice and restore my faith in pursuing a projector eventually.










Romancing looks so good from those shots it makes me want to see the BD.










I also see you made mention of Golden Compass. I watched it on HBO last nite. It was zoomed for Full Screen







, but I can say that what I saw was NOT DNR but was an intentionally soft focus used on most of the film. I know the DNR has been the biggest complaint about the BD, but wonder if the transfers might be the same then that would explain some thinking it was DNR. I have fiber cable by the way and My HD PQ many times rivals BD.


----------



## ricwhite




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15426494
> 
> 
> Hey Ric, those shots look amazing, really for both films. Your setup seems to do them justice and restore my faith in pursuing a projector eventually.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romancing looks so good from those shots it makes me want to see the BD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I also see you made mention of Golden Compass. I watched it on HBO last nite. It was zoomed for Full Screen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , but I can say that what I saw was NOT DNR but was an intentionally soft focus used on most of the film. I know the DNR has been the biggest complaint about the BD, but wonder if the transfers might be the same then that would explain some thinking it was DNR. I have fiber cable by the way and My HD PQ many times rivals BD.



"Something" was done to Golden Compass. I'm not sure if was DNR or some intentional softening. But it really didn't distract me a whole lot except for Nicole Kidman. When I first saw her on screen, I had to do a double take and squint. I was looking for facial texture, but none was there only a very soft appearance. I knew they must have done something. But other aspects of the film appeared quite detailed and sharp. Colors were good and so was lighting. So, there was "pop" there, certainly. I can understand how some are really bothered by possible post-processing, but I just brushed it off and enjoyed the movie (which really wasn't very good).


Here are just a few screens of Golden Compass. Remember to take all screenshots with a grain of salt.


Topic: The Golden Compass - Blu-ray


----------



## ricwhite

When I look for "general" picture quality, I look for obvious artifacts and then I notice colors, clarity, detail, depth, and the "pop" or "wow" factor. I don't care about "director's intent." If the director wanted the image to be totally black for the whole movie and it was perfectly reproduced, I would give the PQ a very low score. I wouldn't be able to notice clarity, detail, depth, or any "pop" or "wow" factor. I don't care if that's what the director intended or not. I base my judgments on how amazing the overall image is to my eyes. This is where I get into trouble, because many people analyze extensively down to the microscopic level and penalize immensely any EE or DNR. So if a movie had some DNR, it is trashed and dropped probably two tiers, even if all else is intact and looks great.


Take Wanted and Golden Compass, for example. Some really trashed Golden Compass for some facial detail loss via camera work or post-processing. Yet, to me, Golden Compass STILL had more clarity, depth, and "pop" than, say, the movie Wanted.


So, this is what I see with Wanted on my screen :



















And this is what I see with Golden Compass on my screen:



















Then I read that Wanted is Tier 1 and Golden Compass is Tier 3 and the explanation is that Wanted doesn't have DNR and Golden Compass does.


My eyes say that Golden Compass has more clarity, depth and "pop" than Wanted and that's the way I rate it. I rate it on purely what is a more pleasing optical experience, and I will get severely criticized for it. But that's okay. I can only relate what I actually see and feel and it certainly is an opinion. Others might look at those shots and instantly say that Wanted is BY FAR much better than the Golden Compass shots. To each his own. I have long ago decided that being baffled and bewildered is just one of the traits necessary to be a home theater owner.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *unclepauly* /forum/post/15421390
> 
> 
> LBFilmGuy, what took so long? Netflix is like the only choice where I live. Unless I wanted to spend $1000 on blu-rays I only watch once.



Haha very good question...I guess for the past year or so since I've had my BD setup there haven't been nearly as many "want to watch BDs" as there is now.


Exciting stuff!


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ricwhite* /forum/post/15427040
> 
> 
> Then I read that Wanted is Tier 1 and Golden Compass is Tier 3 and the explanation is that Wanted doesn't have DNR and Golden Compass does.
> 
> 
> My eyes say that Golden Compass has more clarity, depth and "pop" than Wanted and that's the way I rate it. I rate it on purely what is a more pleasing optical experience, and I will get severely criticized for it. But that's okay.



I couldn't have said it better myself! I posted this about a month ago concerning Wanted:



I watched Wanted again after watching it last night. At first, I'd say it was Tier 1 1/2. I now easily agree with MelloFellow13's recommendation of top of Tier 2.


Immediately afterwards, I popped in both Blade Runner and 2001. Even though they're different genres, no scene in Wanted appeared sharper than those two! Softness and dull picture quality made me lower the recommendation. It was over the top fun, but by no means is it reference material.


The reason I used BR and 2001 was because of their Tier 2 rankings.



PS3, Samsung 46'', six feet


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ricwhite* /forum/post/15427040
> 
> 
> When I look for "general" picture quality, I look for obvious artifacts and then I notice colors, clarity, detail, depth, and the "pop" or "wow" factor. I don't care about "director's intent." If the director wanted the image to be totally black for the whole movie and it was perfectly reproduced, I would give the PQ a very low score. I wouldn't be able to notice clarity, detail, depth, or any "pop" or "wow" factor. I don't care if that's what the director intended or not. I base my judgments on how amazing the overall image is to my eyes. This is where I get into trouble, because many people analyze extensively down to the microscopic level and penalize immensely any EE or DNR. So if a movie had some DNR, it is trashed and dropped probably two tiers, even if all else is intact and looks great.
> 
> 
> Take Wanted and Golden Compass, for example. Some really trashed Golden Compass for some facial detail loss via camera work or post-processing. Yet, to me, Golden Compass STILL had more clarity, depth, and "pop" than, say, the movie Wanted.
> 
> 
> So, this is what I see with Wanted on my screen :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this is what I see with Golden Compass on my screen:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then I read that Wanted is Tier 1 and Golden Compass is Tier 3 and the explanation is that Wanted doesn't have DNR and Golden Compass does.
> 
> 
> My eyes say that Golden Compass has more clarity, depth and "pop" than Wanted and that's the way I rate it. I rate it on purely what is a more pleasing optical experience, and I will get severely criticized for it. But that's okay. I can only relate what I actually see and feel and it certainly is an opinion. Others might look at those shots and instantly say that Wanted is BY FAR much better than the Golden Compass shots. To each his own. I have long ago decided that being baffled and bewildered is just one of the traits necessary to be a home theater owner.



I can't believe that you think that those shots from Golden Compass look better than the shot of Morgan Freeman in Wanted (the first shot from Wanted is from the first scene in the movie in the office, and that whole scene looks pretty bad and is not representative of the rest of the movie).


Those shots from Golden Compass show clipped highlights and an overall slightly washed out appearance. The shot from Wanted with Morgan Freeman doesn't have that problem, but does show lots of detail and clarity.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Here is an example of what _*I*_ saw when I watched The Golden Compass (from Xylon's thread):











So it's not just Nicole Kidman that had DNR issues/softness.


----------



## rsbeck

To me, facial details are very important for a few reasons;


1) Faces are usually the focal point of a given scene. If there is a problem with facial detail that renders the face unnatural looking, it's a bigger problem to me than if there is a problem in the background. The bigger the problem with face, the more distracting and more I will dock the title.


2) If the facial details look right and you can see the skin texture, pores, and imperfections perfectly resolved, and if grain is intact, you've got pretty good evidence that the title has not been subjected to excessive DNR and this along with point #1 above goes a long way towards being able to relax into a film. Granted, a lot of film makers do not want to show all of the pores and imperfections on leading ladies, so some allowance has to be given for soft focus techniques, etc. But, some of these techniques are better and render a more natural look than others.


3) In a demo thread that proposes to find titles that demonstrate what blu-ray can achieve, I believe one of the most impressive things blu-ray can achieve is to resolve facial details, including pores and imperfections. Having said that, it has to be something of a priority to the film maker to make sure that happens. Certain types of lighting and camera angle helps to make pores and imperfections visible and sometimes a film maker has other things on his mind when composing a scene. Ultimately none of that matters, we don't care about director's intent, we're just looking for demo material.


The last thing I will say is that I really don't like to see us going to screen shots in this thread. Those screen shots do not recreate the experience of watching Wanted. I've seen screen shots from film with which I was unimpressed that look amazing and I've seen unimpressive screen shots from films that I thought looked amazing. I've seen enough to know I do not trust screen shots.


----------



## rsbeck

Oh, and one more thing -- Happy New Year!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15428025
> 
> 
> To me, facial details are very important for a few reasons;
> 
> 
> 1) Faces are usually the focal point of a given scene. If there is a problem with facial detail that renders the face unnatural looking, it's a bigger problem to me than if there is a problem in the background. The bigger the problem with face, the more distracting and more I will dock the title.
> 
> 
> 2) If the facial details look right and you can see the skin texture, pores, and imperfections perfectly resolved, and if grain is intact, you've got pretty good evidence that the title has not been subjected to excessive DNR and this along with point #1 above goes a long way towards being able to relax into a film. Granted, a lot of film makers do not want to show all of the pores and imperfections on leading ladies, so some allowance has to be given for soft focus techniques, etc. But, some of these techniques are better and render a more natural look than others.
> 
> 
> 3) In a demo thread that proposes to find titles that demonstrate what blu-ray can achieve, I believe one of the most impressive things blu-ray can achieve is to resolve facial details, including pores and imperfections. Having said that, it has to be something of a priority to the film maker to make sure that happens. Certain types of lighting and camera angle helps to make pores and imperfections visible and sometimes a film maker has other things on his mind when composing a scene. Ultimately none of that matters, we don't care about director's intent, we're just looking for demo material.
> 
> 
> The last thing I will say is that I really don't like to see us going to screen shots in this thread. Those screen shots do not recreate the experience of watching Wanted. I've seen screen shots from film with which I was unimpressed that look amazing and I've seen unimpressive screen shots from films that I thought looked amazing. I've seen enough to know I do not trust screen shots.



I agree with every point that you have made here, including the last one.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15428041
> 
> 
> Oh, and one more thing -- Happy New Year!




I agree with this as well.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15428088
> 
> 
> I agree with every point that you have made here, including the last one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with this as well.





Ditto Rob, without the full quote.







The screenie Rob posted of Daniel Craig (from Xylon's thread) made me cringe.


Happy New Year everyone!


----------



## eci

*Event Horizon* is a Tier 0 imo.


Best 3D pop I have seen yet, extremely pristine image throughout. I haven't been this impressed since Crank.


1920x1080p60


Sony 70" KDS-R70XBR2 calibrated by Jeff Meier


12.5' from screen


PS3 1080p60 over HDMI to Denon 4306. Dolby THD decoded by PS3.


----------



## ricwhite

All good points for debate here. Without "picking out" screenshots (which I agree really isn't fair), I still feel that "overall" Wanted is a step or two down from the top in terms of PQ. In fact, if I were asked to go to my BD library and choose, say, 20 BD movies as the top reference titles in my library, Wanted wouldn't be one of them. Not even in the top 20. So, I, personally, wouldn't put it in the tier 0 or 1. I was actually "disappointed" in it. I would probably place it mid-tier 2.








Anyway, that's the way I seez it.


Now . . . I'm off to my theater to greet the New Year by finishing Band of Brothers.


----------



## nick2010

*Kung Fu Panda*


I completely agree with keeping this at the top of Tier 0. I have not seen any movie that has nearly as much "3-D Pop" as this.


(1080p60, 46" display, 6.5' view distance, PS3)

*Lost - Season 4*


I haven't finished watching all of the episodes yet but I noticed that facial details are often very visible during brighter scenes. However, during darker scenes there is a lot of noise in the image. So far I would rate it as being somewhere in Tier 1, but I will give a more specific recommendation after I watch all of the episodes. Here are a few screenshots to make this clearer:


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nick2010* /forum/post/15428443
> 
> 
> (Possible Spoilers)



Um, how about you post text links in that case, for people who have not yet seen Season 4...

(or don't post them at all for that matter, unless you've got some specific issue to point out, since there's another thread for screenshots)


----------



## lgans316

ricwhite,


Was your personal rating of 3.5/5 for Wanted because of the oversaturated colors and high contrast look ? I have closely followed your screenshots and scoring pattern and I feel you have a slight bias towards subdued colors. I am forced to ask such a question as you have given better rating for Batman Begins over Man on Fire in your screenshots thread.










Patrick,


I have watched Hellboy 2 and only a handful of shots looked Tier-0 to me. The CGI was so unimpressive in many sequences that it made the entire scope image look soft. Also, couple of scenes revealed minor blocking that might have been caused due to lower bit rates. IMO, Tier 1.5 or 1.75 would be the correct spot.


----------



## stumlad

First off, I'll say this is one of my favorite movies of all time. Definitely in the top 5.


Now onto the PQ... I see it's in Tier 0. I completely disagree. The movie is soft in general. There are hardly any moments in the entire movie that make me say "wow that's 1080p detail". I popped in the DVD after watching the blu-ray (I have the old DVD version where Warner used the cardboard cases). The BD is definitely a step up.


Black levels fluctuate in the movie, but are probably intentional. Shadow detail is good, but not great (though great in comparison to DVD). Far distance shots look good, but they are soft. Face closeups are better than average. Some shots where the face takes up the entire screen look pretty good. I could see grain but it was like most Warner titles. You could see pin-stripes in the prison uniforms which, on the dvd would be sometimes a blurry mess. The texture of clothing wasn't as easily visible.


This movie was directed by Frank Darabont who also directed the Mist. The Mist was also kinda soft and not so eye-popping. I'd have to say that Shawshank looks about on par with that movie. One great thing is that I didnt notice any EE, and you can say this movie has a film-like look.


As far as tier placement, I'd have to say *Tier 2.75*


There is no way this movie visually measures up to the likes of anything in Tier 0 or even Tier 1. Tier 2.25 has Day after tomorrow and Departed which both were better than Shawshank. Tier 2.5 may be worthy but it has Into the Blue (which really shocks me how low it is, but even so, it's better than Shawshank).


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*The Game Plan*


Simply put: this is a great looking title.


I really have no idea why it is sitting down in mid Tier 2.


This is top notch PQ. Detail, sharpness and clarity are excellent. Colors have good saturation, without going over the top. Contrast and depth is very impressive, with good shadow detail. Several scenes have a real sense of three dimensionality.


Certainly no hint of DNR here. Facial details are extremely well preserved.


This is the second time I have viewed this movie in its entirety (family viewing) and I remembered being impressed with it on my first viewing several months ago. I could not find a post here reviewing it though, and I don't know that there is more than one review in this thread on this title. All I can say is that I am still very impressed, and its current placement is far too low.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0 to 1.25 (at worst)*


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/15428642
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patrick,
> 
> 
> I have watched Hellboy 2 and only a handful of shots looked Tier-0 to me. The CGI was so unimpressive in many sequences that it made the entire scope image look soft. Also, couple of scenes revealed minor blocking that might have been caused due to lower bit rates. IMO, Tier 1.5 or 1.75 would be the correct spot.



I had a very similar reaction to Hellboy 2, lgans. I thought that most of the movie looked soft, probably because of the CGI. I would say no higher than 1.75.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15429212
> 
> *The Game Plan*
> 
> 
> Simply put: this is a great looking title.
> 
> 
> I really have no idea why it is sitting down in mid Tier 2.
> 
> 
> This is top notch PQ. Detail, sharpness and clarity are excellent. Colors have good saturation, without going over the top. Contrast and depth is very impressive, with good shadow detail. Several scenes have a real sense of three dimensionality.
> 
> 
> Certainly no hint of DNR here. Facial details are extremely well preserved.
> 
> 
> This is the second time I have viewed this movie in its entirety (family viewing) and I remembered being impressed with it on my first viewing several months ago. I could not find a post here reviewing it though, and I don't know that there is more than one review in this thread on this title. All I can say is that I am still very impressed, and its current placement is far too low.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.0 to 1.25 (at worst)*



I only watched a few minutes of this when it was first released, but the main reason I shut it off was that I wasn't happy with the PQ. I wasn't seeing much facial detail. Perhaps the PQ improves later on?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15429702
> 
> 
> I only watched a few minutes of this when it was first released, but the main reason I shut it off was that I wasn't happy with the PQ. I wasn't seeing much facial detail. Perhaps the PQ improves later on?



That's incomprehensible to me. This title has some of the best facial details I've seen.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*Phantom of the Opera

Current Ranking: 2.5*


Since this is an older Blu Ray release, I can find only 1 actual review in this version of the thread for this film.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *edgary* /forum/post/12513787
> 
> 
> I went through 2+ hours of horrible torture (actually, I couldn't even stand it that long) with the Phantom of the Opera movie. I'll put my displeasure of the movie aside for a minute so I can give an objective point of view.
> 
> 
> The start of the movie has a lot of grain in it, in the black and white scenes that tell the future of the main story. This could be intended, as I found as soon as the first color scenes, that go back to the past, sharply show. The drastic change is impressive, and the very first color scene is wonderful. However, the frenzy on the theater starts and a lot of ghosting is present... throughout the whole movie (or what I saw of it)!
> 
> 
> I think it belongs lower that where it is. Top to middle of Tier 3 seems adequate.
> 
> 
> The movie itself was exhausting.
> 
> 
> PS3 -> HDMI -> 1080p 42" Philips LCD -> 7-8 ft.



I did a search for this movie on the thread* after about 30 minutes into it. I initially thought the reviewer was a bit harsh and wondered what the heck he was expecting when viewing, “The Phantom of the Opera”. As far as movie quality, what I got was exactly what I received; a film version of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s stage production. It was a bit longer than I expected given they did add in a few more scenes and was filled with over-acting and a fun performance in the background by Minnie Driver.


Picture Quality wise, there are several scenes where they are “in the future” and it’s covered with an abundance of what must be fake grain, in black and white and bad aging makeup applied to 2 of the characters. The movie overall presents with nice colour on my set, but there is an overall softness on the details. The softness applied looked like it was deliberate with cameras, as well as with liberal use of makeup. The effect this had on me was not one of disappointment like it is in other films; instead it made me feel as though they were filming this movie like it was a dream-sequence as well as an on-stage production; like they were covered in pancake makeup to be on stage rather than film.


There were several moments where the movie seemed to have difficulty with focus, and there was one scene that caused me to genuinely laugh out loud with how horrible it looked – an underwater-drowning scene where they obviously did not have the correct aspect ratio selected for this camera; whether it was a mistake or directors choice, it looked so terrible that they had stretched the image to match the rest of the movie. It reminded me of when I go into a local bar and the aspect ratio on their big screen tv has been messed with to just fill all the “black bars”. It was glaringly awful.


At first I had no idea what the reviewer quoted above was talking about with ghosting. Now, I don’t really know what he meant with his review; but then THIS HAPPENED:


(I apologize in advance in triplicate for the fact that I’m putting pictures in this thread, that my camera work is so shoddy and that my living room is a bit of a mess. I put them behind a spoiler tag so they aren't as obtrusive to people who don't care about this.)
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show)




























Now please tell me, what the HELL is this??? If this is what the other person is referring to, I only noticed it a couple of more times throughout the film, most abundantly during this scene. I double checked on my computer’s blu ray player and it’s there too, so it’s definitely not a problem with my television.


What it all boils down to for me is, while I enjoyed this movie and found it pleasant to watch, in light of the softness, lack of detail, the weird aspect ratio “error” and these crazy lines that appear on it, I actually agree with the other reviewer that this movie should be dropped down a few notches.

*Recommendation for The Phantom of the Opera: Tier 3.25

Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800U, THX setting. Approx 7.5’ viewing distance.*


*Initially I searched for "phantom" and got like 17 pages of results b/c of Phantom Stranger. Changing search to "opera" helped a lot more.










Also, should I be putting that I've got HDMI connector in my equipment? I don't think I could even use my TV without it.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15429702
> 
> 
> I only watched a few minutes of this when it was first released, but the main reason I shut it off was that I wasn't happy with the PQ. I wasn't seeing much facial detail. Perhaps the PQ improves later on?



LOL Patrick with another infamous 4 minute review.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15432187
> 
> 
> LOL Patrick with another infamous 4 minute review.



Sorry, I am not going to waste two hours of my life watching a movie that has neither acceptable PQ nor anything else to recommend it. Perhaps you have different priorities?


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15432219
> 
> 
> Sorry, I am not going to waste two hours of my life watching a movie that has neither acceptable PQ nor anything else to recommend it. Perhaps you have different priorities?



Well, according to Rob it has very nice PQ. So unless you're gunna sit and watch the entire film I think it's only fair to reserve judgment on that title.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15432250
> 
> 
> Well, according to Rob it has very nice PQ. So unless you're gunna sit and watch the entire film I think it's only fair to reserve judgment on that title.



I did note the *possibility* that the PQ *might* improve later on in the movie. We all know that typically the PQ during the first few minutes is *completely unrepresentative* of the movie as a whole.


----------



## Dustin44




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15429212
> 
> *The Game Plan*
> 
> 
> Simply put: this is a great looking title.
> 
> 
> I really have no idea why it is sitting down in mid Tier 2.
> 
> 
> This is top notch PQ. Detail, sharpness and clarity are excellent. Colors have good saturation, without going over the top. Contrast and depth is very impressive, with good shadow detail. Several scenes have a real sense of three dimensionality.
> 
> 
> Certainly no hint of DNR here. Facial details are extremely well preserved.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.0 to 1.25 (at worst)*



I have to agree with Rob on The Game Plan the PQ was excellent in my opinon.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15429702
> 
> 
> I only watched a few minutes of this when it was first released, but the main reason I shut it off was that I wasn't happy with the PQ. I wasn't seeing much facial detail. Perhaps the PQ improves later on?




You gave up on the PQ after only a few minutes, and the movie itself because of it?


----------



## nick2010




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15428640
> 
> 
> Um, how about you post text links in that case, for people who have not yet seen Season 4...
> 
> (or don't post them at all for that matter, unless you've got some specific issue to point out, since there's another thread for screenshots)



That's a good point, I'll edit out the two that contained mild spoilers. The issues that they are meant to point out is the low-level noise and varying facial details.


----------



## SlaughterX

Is the Canadain version of Kill Bill just as good as the US one, are they the same encode?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15432219
> 
> 
> Sorry, I am not going to waste two hours of my life watching a movie that has neither acceptable PQ nor anything else to recommend it. Perhaps you have different priorities?



The irony is that the main reason I was able to sit through the entirety of this movie twice was due to the superb PQ.


----------



## ricwhite




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/15428642
> 
> 
> ricwhite,
> 
> 
> Was your personal rating of 3.5/5 for Wanted because of the oversaturated colors and high contrast look ? I have closely followed your screenshots and scoring pattern and I feel you have a slight bias towards subdued colors. I am forced to ask such a question as you have given better rating for Batman Begins over Man on Fire in your screenshots thread.



True, I prefer more "natural-looking" colors versus what I perceive to be overly-saturated. As you also observed, I also have an issue with overly contrasty images where whites are blown off the scale. Although movies with high contrast tend to have excellent facial or close detail and clarity (i.e. Wanted), it often dulls and flattens mid- to long-range detail, clarity, and depth. Close images have "pop" while the longer range images tend not to -- at least from my perspective. Also, darker images "tend" to limited the range of depth and "pop" -- depending on how it's filmed. Thus, brighter scenes that are not overly-contrasted tend to produce the best clarity, detail and depth and that 3D-like appearance that produces the "wow" factor. I guess all of those elements can be considered "biases" on my part.


As far as the Batman Begins vs. Man on Fire ratings, I really cannot comment since I have not seen Man on Fire. Those ratings were done by another viewer, not me. Batman Begins was one of the first movies I actually rated and, if seen again now, I would likely modify my original ratings some, I suppose.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SlaughterX* /forum/post/15433247
> 
> 
> Is the Canadain version of Kill Bill just as good as the US one, are they the same encode?



They are identical. I have been hoping someone gives a placement for the Omen collection in this thread.


----------



## rsbeck

To me, a succession of bright images is not only boring, it does not allow one to see differences in picture quality between different titles. IMO, it is the artful use of light and shadow that not only produces depth and pop, but sophistication and interest in an image.


Further, we often talk about "blacks" and "black levels" in a given title and some of this has to do with the transfer, but a good portion of it has to do with the cinematography and the artful use of light and shadow. Too much shadow and the camera will have trouble resolving the image. Not enough light and you won't have enough contrast for your eye to perceive the darker part of the image as black. Because what we usually perceive as an inky black is not really inky black, but it appears so because when you have light and contrast in the picture, you will perceive the darker part of the image as black. So, the perception of inky blacks and excellent black levels has as much to do with the cinematography as with the transfer.


In addition, IMO, one of the things that most distinguishes blu-ray from DVD is the resolution of shadow detail. With lower resolution, this often turns to mud, with the best blu-rays, one of the most sensuous pleasures is seeing shadow detail so well resolved, making for a more interesting and sophisticated image.


So, IMO, one of the biggest differences between titles is how contrast, blacks, and shadow detail are presented and this has much to do with the artful use of light and shadow.


IMO, titles that are simply a succession of bright images present for themselves a lower level of difficulty, sophistication, and interest and these titles will have a more difficult time exhibiting the ultimate in what Blu-Ray can achieve in comparison to a title that also employs the artful use of light and shadow.


Finally, I think we all know that one of the reasons A/V stores turn the brightness up so high on their flat panel displays is because less sophisticated buyers will always pick the brighter images. More sophisticated buyers know that it isn't the handling of the brighter images that distinguish the quality of panels, it is the handling of blacks, gray scale performance and shadow detail that often show the most marked differences and set the better panels apart from the average. Same with with projectors.


If you are a person who prefers bright images, please don't take offense. This is just my opinion. But, I would bet this is just one more reason we often have such differing responses to some of these titles.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15397417
> 
> 
> I didn't think Mama Mia's PQ was terrible, either. But, I would have a hard time going up much more than a quarter tier. *But, not to appease you, cuz -- I know you don't want that. More to appease Djoberg -- he doesn't mind a little appeasing.*



Yeah, I don't mind a little appeasing.










GGG....I was only kidding when I said we should up the ranking on Mamma Mia to appease you. I know you are thick-skinned, which I appreciate.







So, I will stick to my 2.50 recommendation and it should be interesting to see where it finally gets placed. I am wondering though if others are going to weigh in so we can get SuprSlow to place it. If no one else chimes in, then it looks like it will be put somewhere in Tier 2 (based on the few votes thus far).


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15434531
> 
> 
> Yeah, I don't mind a little appeasing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GGG....I was only kidding when I said we should up the ranking on Mamma Mia to appease you. I know you are thick-skinned, which I appreciate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, I will stick to my 2.50 recommendation and it should be interesting to see where it finally gets placed. I am wondering though if others are going to weigh in so we can get SuprSlow to place it. If no one else chimes in, then it looks like it will be put somewhere in Tier 2 (based on the few votes thus far).










I hope others watch it too, but I'm not holding my breath given the title itself.



rsbeck -- I do like me some bright colours but IMO they have a place on my shelf but don't encompass it, that's for sure. I understand your thoughts on this issue completely!



Now, one of you go up and read my review on Phantom and tell me what the heck those lines are in the pics behind the spoiler!











I'm hoping to get some reviews done in the next few days. I watched Ghost Town today, but it was rather blah and I got kind of sleepy through it so I don't know if I'll bother doing a good review of it. The PQ was of the "meh" variety to me, although I didn't really have much of a problem with it, it just wasn't very sharp or detailed.



Hoping to watch La Femme Nikita either tonight or tomorrow since I'm eating the late charges on it now!


----------



## 357

I've only seen a bit of Appaloosa but of what I've seen it's hidieous.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15416727
> 
> 
> And I do the exact opposite. There's many placements I don't agree on, but this thread is represents the collective opinion of the posters, and lets not pretend this is anything but subjective. (Though I would use the IMAX segments as demo material, but consistency isn't TDK's strength)



OK... Nothing consistent about Wall-E either except for the fact that for the first 1/3 of the movie it is not eye candy. Don’t get me wrong, you have the right to your opinion. After all, Wall-E is a cute little story.

But why it gets such high praise on this thread is beyond me. Especially when movies such as Dark Knight are chastised for having instances of imperfection, yet the first 1/3 of Wall-E is simply not demo material for my eyes.

Last night we had a party that as always ended up in the home theater.

The chosen movie by guests was Dark Knight.

Since I had already seen TDK four previous times since I bought it,







(what can I say, that is what guests seem to choose lately) I used the opportunity to critique the movie instead of getting wrapped up in the storyline.

Unfortunately, what I believe is happening with many on this thread is The Dark Knight is competing with it self. What I mean is, many on this thread are comparing the 2.35:1 scenes to the IMAX scenes. True, when compared to the gorgeous IMAX shots the 2.35:1 scenes are not on the same level.

But then the IMAX scenes are simply phenomenal. I have yet to see a Blu Ray with the same three dimensional depth these IMAX scenes deliver. The first scene with the bank robbery is 6+ minutes long. During this scene your eyes are subjected and quickly become accustomed to a visual experience of 3 dimensional pop like no other.

To quote one of our un-suspecting guests who sat directly next to me, about four or five minutes into the movie.

“This is Incredible…I am buying a new Blu Ray player!”

In fact, as I gazed around the theater, everyone was completely engrossed in the experience.


Now, again I ask, isn’t that what this thread is supposed to be about…???


During the 2.35:1 sequences I tried watching for all of the imperfections that some on this thread are talking about. I am sorry, but I just don’t see anything that should limit this movie from residing in tier0.

This movie has it all. Incredible contrast, brilliant color and a crisp 3-D pop that leaves me wondering what kind of potential Blu Ray has with performance like this so early in its life cycle.

In the end, I think it is simply ridiculous that TDK is not in tier0.

I move that Dark Knight be moved out of tier1 and up into tier0 ahead of Wall-E. In fact, I think they should swap rankings.

My reason: while I agree that Wall-E is a fine visual experience in itself. I just can not get my self past the first 1/3 of Wall-E and its lack of pop. If you could somehow lop off the first potion of the movie, I would have a completely different view of where Wall-E belongs.

Panasonic BD30, Sony VW60, 58x104 Da-Lite HCCV screen with masking.


----------



## djoberg

^


I think you're "beating a dead horse" suffolk112000, even though I agree with you 110%!! If you and I had our way (and quite a few others), these two titles would be reversed.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15435491
> 
> 
> ^
> 
> 
> I think you're "beating a dead horse" suffolk112000, even though I agree with you 110%!! If you and I had our way (and quite a few others), these two titles would be reversed.



I've seen titles moved, long after they were placed in a tier.









What can I say... I am optimistic...


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/15435409
> 
> 
> OK... Nothing consistent about Wall-E either except for the fact that for the first 1/3 of the movie it is not eye candy. Don't get me wrong, you have the right to your opinion. After all, Wall-E is a cute little story.



Eye candy is not an empirical measurement







I'm not sure when this thread even became about only that. To me picture quality is more than that; it's a combination of many factors, including the artistry of the movie and the quality of the transfer to HD. Considering Wall-E is a direct transfer from the digital renderings, it is perfectly consistent, and exactly as good as the movie can and should look on blu-ray, and from an artistic perspective, I think it's beautifully done (all 90 minutes of it). Believe me, I am just as puzzled by the praise TDK is getting.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ricwhite* /forum/post/15433557
> 
> 
> True, I prefer more "natural-looking" colors versus what I perceive to be overly-saturated. As you also observed, I also have an issue with overly contrasty images where whites are blown off the scale. Although movies with high contrast tend to have excellent facial or close detail and clarity (i.e. Wanted), it often dulls and flattens mid- to long-range detail, clarity, and depth. Close images have "pop" while the longer range images tend not to -- at least from my perspective. Also, darker images "tend" to limited the range of depth and "pop" -- depending on how it's filmed. Thus, brighter scenes that are not overly-contrasted tend to produce the best clarity, detail and depth and that 3D-like appearance that produces the "wow" factor. I guess all of those elements can be considered "biases" on my part.
> 
> 
> As far as the Batman Begins vs. Man on Fire ratings, I really cannot comment since I have not seen Man on Fire. Those ratings were done by another viewer, not me. Batman Begins was one of the first movies I actually rated and, if seen again now, I would likely modify my original ratings some, I suppose.



Thanks ric for reverting with fair and honest comments. If it's not Man on Fire, it could be some other oversaturated title like Transporter-2 which is currently placed above Batman Begins. Btw, I totally agree that brighter scenes with balanced contrast yield best clarity and depth.










I am still unsatisfied with the PQ of Hellboy-II. I still feel Hellboy-1 had slightly better PQ, probably due to better or less CGI.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15435628
> 
> 
> Eye candy is not an empirical measurement
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I'm not sure when this thread even became about only that.* To me picture quality is more than that; it's a combination of many factors, including the artistry of the movie and the quality of the transfer to HD.



I didn't do a check on this 42041, but I'm going to assume you haven't been with this thread all that long. I say this because I've been with it for about a year now and *IT'S ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT EYE CANDY!!*


Regarding your comments about "artistry of the movie" and "the quality of the transfer to HD," if you're talking about the "director's intent" and the "Blu-ray remaining true to its source," then you have obviously missed the whole point of this thread, for we have stated over and over again that those points are irrelevant. We do NOT take into consideration either the director's intent or the accuracy of the transfer.


Take, for example, the movie Mamma Mia. There is a thread for that movie where it is receiving unending praises because it is true to its source (i.e., it looks just like the film seen at the Cinema) and thus they are calling it "reference quality." But in this thread it is being judged according to all the standards set forth on page one, which has nothing to do with "artistry" or "the quality of the transfer to HD," but rather with sharpness, detail, depth, contrast, colors, etc. So, let us remind ourselves that this thread is:

ALL ABOUT EYE CANDY!!


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15435628
> 
> 
> Eye candy is not an empirical measurement
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure when this thread even became about only that. To me picture quality is more than that; it's a combination of many factors, including the artistry of the movie and the quality of the transfer to HD. Considering Wall-E is a direct transfer from the digital renderings, it is perfectly consistent, and exactly as good as the movie can and should look on blu-ray, and from an artistic perspective, I think it's beautifully done (all 90 minutes of it). Believe me, I am just as puzzled by the praise TDK is getting.



I believe you are in the wrong thread then.









Since director intent is important to YOU. I think this is where you want to be.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1037935


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15435771
> 
> ALL ABOUT EYE CANDY!!



Ok, but clearly my eye candy is not another's eye candy. Obviously if a movie is consistently soft like American Gangster or The Godfather, I'm not going to say it's a Tier 0 film even if it is exactly as it was meant to look. But Wall-E is consistently sharp where it needs to be (ie, where the "camera" is focusing). If your complaint is that it's not colorful enough, you could certainly make the same criticism of The Dark Knight.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15435771
> 
> 
> I didn't do a check on this 42041, but I'm going to assume you haven't been with this thread all that long. I say this because I've been with it for about a year now and *IT'S ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT EYE CANDY!!*
> 
> 
> Regarding your comments about "artistry of the movie" and "the quality of the transfer to HD," if you're talking about the "director's intent" and the "Blu-ray remaining true to its source," then you have obviously missed the whole point of this thread, for we have stated over and over again that those points are irrelevant. We do NOT take into consideration either the director's intent or the accuracy of the transfer.
> 
> 
> Take, for example, the movie Mamma Mia. There is a thread for that movie where it is receiving unending praises because it is true to its source (i.e., it looks just like the film seen at the Cinema) and thus they are calling it "reference quality." But in this thread it is being judged according to all the standards set forth on page one, which has nothing to do with "artistry" or "the quality of the transfer to HD," but rather with sharpness, detail, depth, contrast, colors, etc. So, let us remind ourselves that this thread is:
> 
> ALL ABOUT EYE CANDY!!



Exactly...


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15435846
> 
> 
> Ok, but clearly my eye candy is not another's eye candy. Obviously if a movie is consistently soft like American Gangster or The Godfather, I'm not going to say it's a Tier 0 film even if it is exactly as it was meant to look. But Wall-E is consistently sharp where it needs to be (ie, where the "camera" is focusing). If your complaint is that it's not colorful enough, you could certainly make the same criticism of The Dark Knight.



I think you would be more happy spending your time in the Film Grain Allowed thread.

I am not saying this to be a smart...

But your personal tastes just don't align with the intent of this thread.

That is perfectly fine. That is your opinion.

I am just saying this because I can see right now, you won't be very happy with the way films are ranked on this thread.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15435846
> 
> 
> Ok, but clearly my eye candy is not another's eye candy.



With all due respect 42041 (and I do respect your opinion), we do NOT have the liberty to set our own standards for what represents "eye candy." The criteria is listed on page one and if we adhere to those standards we won't be making comments like "my eye candy is not another's eye candy."


On page one it is clearly stated that if a movie is "soft," it will be penalized in this thread. The first 30+ minutes of Wall-E *are soft*! I realize it was the director's intent to give it this appearance (for it is a post-apocalyptic earth that is intended to look lifeless and dismal) and thus we could say it looks perfect (i.e., just the way it should under those circumstances). But according to this thread's standards it DOESN'T look perfect; it is soft (and lacking, at times, sharpness and detail).


You may not like these standards, but they are what they are. Take them....or leave them!


----------



## 357

Appaloosa= There Will Be Blood


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15435946
> 
> 
> On page one it is clearly stated that if a movie is "soft," it will be penalized in this thread. The first 30+ minutes of Wall-E *is soft*!



And intentionally so. The film maker blurred the detail and rendered the image soft in an effort to simulate an atmosphere filled with haze. Yes, the assessment criteria say we are supposed to punish this, but this is a CGI title and many people judge animated titles by personal standards. To move it out of tier 0, you'd have to either get a bunch of people to change their tier 0 recommendations or get a whole bunch of people to recommend tier 2. I don't see either happening. So, it isn't just 42041, a lot of people voted tier 0 for Wall-E. Wall-E is bad enough, what about Sleeping Beauty? I think Sleeping Beauty is a fabulous restoration and has never looked better, but I do not believe it belongs in tier 0 or even at the top of tier 1.


----------



## rsbeck

At this point, I think we're beyond beating a dead horse. I think we're working the dead horse's head stone with a fingernail file.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15436023
> 
> 
> And intentionally so. The film maker blurred the detail and rendered the image soft in an effort to simulate an atmosphere filled with haze. Yes, the assessment criteria say we are supposed to punish this, but this is a CGI title and many people judge animated titles by personal standards. To move it out of tier 0, you'd have to either get a bunch of people to change their tier 0 recommendations or get a whole bunch of people to recommend tier 2. I don't see either happening. So, it isn't just 42041, a lot of people voted tier 0 for Wall-E. Wall-E is bad enough, what about Sleeping Beauty? I think Sleeping Beauty is a fabulous restoration and has never looked better, but I do not believe it belongs in tier 0 or even at the top of tier 1.



I have not seen the Blu version of Sleeping Beauty so I can not comment on those comments.

I think Wall-E slid into the top tier because of many issues. Unfortunately those issues had very little to do with what the first page of this thread is about.

From what I have seen, I seem to have voters in agreement with my recent assesment of Wall-E.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15436039
> 
> 
> At this point, I think we're beyond beating a dead horse. I think we're working the dead horse's head stone with a fingernail file.



Like I recently said and others have said as well.

No titles rankings are permanent on this thread and that is the way it should be.

I think my comments are more than warranted.

There seems to be an awful lot of people on this thread who agree that Wall-E is not Eye-Candy for the first 1/3 of the movie.

So I ask how in the heck did Wall-E make it to the top tier in the first place when I have seen titles banished from tier0 for having just a few frames of imperfection?


I think this case needs to be re-opened your honor.


----------



## tfoltz

Agree 100%. I'm amazed that so many keep trying to "prove" that they are correct with regard to tier rankings, and that others are flat out wrong. Are people so unwilling to accept that people have different views?


Everyone needs to provide their own tier ranking for individual movies, let it get averaged out, and move on.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15435628
> 
> 
> Believe me, I am just as puzzled by the praise TDK is getting.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15435946
> 
> 
> With all due respect 42041 (and I do respect your opinion), we do NOT have the liberty to set our own standards for what represents "eye candy."



Well, unfortunately that's the way it must be, since people's perceptions are so different and this is hardly an objective matter. Some might think the presence of well-resolved film grain (like in Transformers) is indicative of an excellent transfer, others would penalize for it. Some penalize Wall-E for constant use of selective focus and hazy visuals, but to my eyes, if at least something in the shot is sharp, then it's a sharp shot. But like it has been said, this horse reeks and desperately needs to be buried, so lets just agree to disagree and let the thread mods sort it out


----------



## tfoltz

Honestly, many of you need to get a grip. You are not the eye-candy police. Everyone can rank movies where they think they belong, whether you agree or not. If you keep carrying on like this I don't anticipate many new posters.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/15436219
> 
> *Honestly, many of you need to get a grip. You are not the eye-candy police.* Everyone can rank movies where they think they belong, whether you agree or not. If you keep carrying on like this I don't anticipate many new posters.



I do have a grip, I'm gripping (i.e., firmly grasping) the standards set forth on page one.










I believe I can speak for others (suffolk112000, rsbeck, et al.) when I say that we are not trying to "police" this thread; we are trying to remind people what the standards are for judging PQ. If one tries to introduce other standards (such as "director's intent" or "the Blu-ray transfer is true to the film presentation"), they need to be reminded that they are not adhering to the set standards set forth on page one.


Again, if you (or anyone else) don't like those standards, then use the freedom you have to abandon this thread and seek out other threads that are more to your liking.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15436023
> 
> 
> And intentionally so. The film maker blurred the detail and rendered the image soft in an effort to simulate an atmosphere filled with haze. Yes, the assessment criteria say we are supposed to punish this, but this is a CGI title and many people judge animated titles by personal standards. To move it out of tier 0, you'd have to either get a bunch of people to change their tier 0 recommendations or get a whole bunch of people to recommend tier 2. I don't see either happening. So, it isn't just 42041, a lot of people voted tier 0 for Wall-E. Wall-E is bad enough, what about Sleeping Beauty? I think Sleeping Beauty is a fabulous restoration and has never looked better, but I do not believe it belongs in tier 0 or even at the top of tier 1.



+1......I said the same thing using different words.


Regarding Sleeping Beauty, in my review of that title I recommended Tier 1.0, but I would have no problem with it being lower than that.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15436205
> 
> 
> Well, unfortunately that's the way it must be, since people's perceptions are so different and this is hardly an objective matter. Some might think the presence of well-resolved film grain (like in Transformers) is indicative of an excellent transfer, others would penalize for it. Some penalize Wall-E for constant use of selective focus and hazy visuals, but to my eyes, if at least something in the shot is sharp, then it's a sharp shot. But like it has been said, this horse reeks and desperately needs to be buried, so lets just agree to disagree and let the thread mods sort it out



Again, your in the wrong thread!

One of these days, I've got to get over to the Film Grain Allowed thread and ask how members determine how a movie was intended to look at the theater and how the Blu Ray compares to what they saw 6 months ago.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/15436219
> 
> 
> Honestly, many of you need to get a grip. You are not the eye-candy police. Everyone can rank movies where they think they belong, whether you agree or not. If you keep carrying on like this I don't anticipate many new posters.



As long as there are people who disagree with a ranking, (and there seems to be a sizable group) the possibility of re-evaluating that ranking should be open for debate.


----------



## RBFC

Interesting discussion!


As set forth in the opening page, this thread lists movies as they are subjectively judged according to the criteria listed on that page. This does not mean that one cannot enjoy the visual quality of a title that received a ranking beneath what one personally believes. As listed, titles in Tier 2 all look very good.... way better than upconverted SD-DVD. Yet, "debates" over a .25 tier difference of opinion take on a near-religious fervor.


This tier thread has been a wonderful GENERAL resource for me as I decide which titles to purchase. For blind buys, a tier ranking of 3 or below usually puts up a warning flag. For titles I truly want (double-dip, etc.), lower tier rankings simply help me to form reasonable expectations for the PQ of the Blu-Ray version.


As we fight too vigorously over the relative merits of two similar-position titles, which is like saying "Do you like this orange or this apple better?", I believe that fine distinctions have limited meaning.


In other words, you could take ANY title in Tier 1 or above and play it for newbies to Blu-Ray. They would be incredibly impressed, and the rest of the experience would hinge on the substance of the film itself. While I understand that serious enthusiasts delve more deeply into the technical aspects of the discs, let's not miss the forest for the trees. Sure, many of these discs could be technically a bit better, but please don't go so far as to destroy the enthusiasm for seeing many films in the best presentation they've ever received.


Thanks to all who offer so much time to share their thoughts and experiences here. Your work is appreciated.


Lee


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/15436347
> 
> 
> Again, your in the wrong thread!
> 
> One of these days, I've got to get over to the Film Grain Allowed thread and ask how members determine how a movie was intended to look at the theater and how the Blu Ray compares to what they saw 6 months ago.



How so? Like I said, I don't think The Godfather is top shelf PQ, even though it is a top shelf film transfer, so that thread isn't quite what I'm looking for here. What I'm saying is, "eye candy", "depth", "pop" are all extremely subjective qualities, let's not misconstrue them as anything other than that.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I would not call director's intent totally irrelevant for the purposes of this thread. While the final image on-screen is what this thread focuses on, knowledge of what the director and creative staff behind the film were trying to achieve can often illuminate and guide us. Knowing the decisions and creative process behind a film can often lead us to make better informed judgments of picture quality. It helps to know for instance that the Pixar movies are all transferred digitally from the original computer files, meaning we are seeing it closer to the intended master than any other regular film.


----------



## lgans316

42041,


Some elements in your PQ evaluation methodology are beyond the eye candy requirements and scope of this thread. For instance, Wall-E may be true to the source but it certainly doesn't look eye candy in comparison to titles like KFP, Cars, Ratatouille etc. 28 Days Later could in Tier-0 as the BD is 100% faithful to the filmmaker's intent but doesn't stand a chance in this thread as in reality it does look awful. The scope of the eye candy evaluation methodology also includes compression/video related artifacts and DNR/EE.


Artistic intent thread could be a better (not the right) spot for you, as you definitely possess better knowledge than average videophiles but unless the transfer is director approved or how the filmmaker's wanted or confirmed by industry insiders, we have absolutely no clue on whether or not, the BD was faithful to the source elements. If the image looks film-like and appealing without any visible artifacts, it straightaway creeps into the recommended list, despite the picture looking flat/soft, looking less three dimensional and hardly giving you that HD feeling.


So problems are everywhere and I think some things are to be taken with a pinch of salt. However, we can and should revisit the placements once in a while to ensure thread consistency and fairness.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15436480
> 
> 
> How so? Like I said, I don't think The Godfather is top shelf PQ, even though it is a top shelf film transfer, so that thread isn't quite what I'm looking for here. What I'm saying is, *"eye candy", "depth", "pop" are all extremely subjective qualities*, let's not misconstrue them as anything other than that.



Your question has been answered =>"eye candy", "depth", "pop" are all extremely subjective qualities.


----------



## babrown92

I realize that the 1st part of Wall-E is softer than the space parts, but to me the effect used looks fantastic. In fact I am more impressed with the 1st half than the space parts. That's why I will always say Wall-E needs to be at the top of tier 0.


The 'softness' of wall-e is a special effect used by the filmmakers, and it is one that I find very visually pleasing. So much so that I call it great eye candy.


Top of tier 0


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I am a little surprised to hear so many calls for dropping Wall*E out of tier zero. I do agree with some of the comments about the first section of the movie on Earth, but it still exhibits the hallmarks of a tier zero caliber Blu-ray during those scenes. The detail is still amazing and in fact might have more animated detail than any other animated Blu-ray released yet. The color palette is mostly brown during that section but it is a living, dynamic brown that looks very realistic.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15436540
> 
> 
> I would not call director's intent totally irrelevant for the purposes of this thread. While the final image on-screen is what this thread focuses on, knowledge of what the director and creative staff behind the film were trying to achieve can often illuminate and guide us. Knowing the decisions and creative process behind a film can often lead us to make better informed judgments of picture quality. It helps to know for instance that the Pixar movies are all transferred digitally from the original computer files, meaning we are seeing it closer to the intended master than any other regular film.



I believe your comments may serve to "muddy the waters." Either this thread is concerned about a director's intent or it isn't. I personally don't believe one needs to know what the director's intent is in order to judge the PQ of any given title. One only needs to be willing to adhere to the standards on page one, period!


You say, "knowledge of what the director and creative staff behind the film were trying to achieve can often illuminiate and guide us." How so? Why do we need such knowledge to discern whether or not a movie is sharp and detailed, with good colors, contrast, black levels, shadow detail, 3D pop, etc.? I believe the only "knowledge" one needs, is the knowledge of the standards for judging PQ listed on page one (and one or two functioning eyes







).


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15436346
> 
> 
> +1......I said the same thing using different words.
> 
> 
> Regarding Sleeping Beauty, in my review of that title I recommended Tier 1.0, but I would have no problem with it being lower than that.




I know I recently reviewed Sleeping Beauty and I recc'd bottom Tier 0, and I do think that I'd have a problem with it being lower than Tier 1.0, but that's still part of why I actually like this thread. I can disagree with people but I respect the opinions of others and hope that others can do so for mine as well.


I also think that there's been so many people debating repeatedly regarding Wall-E, I am unsure what the *actual* reviews have come up with in comparison to the reactions by people repeatedly being mentioned any time the subject comes up, if it is making it seem like there's a lot more views wanting that title lowered. I haven't seen the blu ray yet in order to do my own review of this title, once I actually am able to I might attempt the search of this thread to dig out the actual recommendations by people to see where it stands, but definitely not until then.


It's times like these I feel bad for SuprSlow having to go through all this information!


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15436581
> 
> 
> I am a little surprised to hear so many calls for dropping Wall*E out of tier zero. I do agree with some of the comments about the first section of the movie on Earth, but it still exhibits the hallmarks of a tier zero caliber Blu-ray during those scenes.



Phantom,


I felt the other way. The earth shots with the rustic and scorched setting looked fantastic and had PIXAR written all over it. However, the Axiom sequences looked soft to me eyes and didn't give me the WOW factor like other Tier-0 animated titles. Maybe I shouldn't have watched KFP immediately after Wall-E.


----------



## Hughmc

Regardless of director's intent I thought the beginning of Wall E was/is eye candy to me just a different sought of eye candy than the rest of the film.


I do agree we have some very obvious eye candy titles that almost no one in their right mind would argue with, like Kung Fu Panda for example. The issue I think we are having besides director's intent is, like some have said, one's eye candy is not another's eye candy.


I loved all of Wall E visually and did not ding it for how it looked at any point in the film.


I don't think moving Wall E down and out of Tier 0 is justified though even having stated what I did about eye candy being each to his/her own. IMO the point I made about KFP more aptly applies and I have to disagree with anyone saying even the first 30 min. is not eye candy.


And if anyone looks again at Tier 1.0 there isn't any film there that really compares to Wall E in terms of eye candy even my beloved Apocalypto. How can we move it to where it doesn't belong or compare to?


----------



## Hughmc

*Eagle Eye: Tier 2* This was disappointing PQ

*Death Race: tier 1.75* The PQ was all over the place on this, but having watched it for the third time, it seems to be good overall.

*The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emporer: tier 1.0 or low tier 0 or even higher.* This is a reference transfer and could easily be tier 0. Amazing how one of the crappiest movies of the year has some of the best BD PQ and AQ. The movie was just too over the top with lines and overacting, but def could have been better.

*Mamma Mia: tier 2.25
* This had that white, bright glow to it and average PQ. I didn't mind Meryl Streep or really anyone else singing, until Pierce Brosnan, who I enjoy as an actor, started singing, ugh, that was ugly. I didn't care for the over acting and this was one of those films I could see right through the acting easily, although many films as of late I am having that issue. Either the acting sucks or I am seeing too many films.









*Traitor: tier 1.5
* Overall really good PQ. It will be interesting how some rate this and Eagle Eye. At first I wasn't too impressed with Traitor, but then I noticed good grain, and good detail on closeups.

*X Files: I want to believe: tier 2.5* I thought the PQ was mediocre on this film and that went along with the acting and story.







Some times the PQ was not much better than upconverted DVD.









*Sony [email protected] 8ft from PS3 thru HDMI*


I am going to watch Strangers tonight and then Ghost town tomorrow. I don't know how The Strangers flew under my radar as I completely missed it.


----------



## Mel2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15436581
> 
> 
> I am a little surprised to hear so many calls for dropping Wall*E out of tier zero. I do agree with some of the comments about the first section of the movie on Earth, but it still exhibits the hallmarks of a tier zero caliber Blu-ray during those scenes. The detail is still amazing and in fact might have more animated detail than any other animated Blu-ray released yet. The color palette is mostly brown during that section but it is a living, dynamic brown that looks very realistic.



I was more impressed with the first half hour also. the scenes in the junkyards had that photo realistic look that some of the objects actually looked real. hell, they could've put a real robot in those scenes and surrounded it with animation and I would've been fooled. pixar upped the ante on the animation. I can't believe that some are blinded by bright colors in KFP when wall-e set the bar on what animation can really achieve. realism. I still put it in the top of tier 0.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15436788
> 
> 
> I can disagree with people but I respect the opinions of others and hope that others can do so for mine as well.



Absolutely!




> Quote:
> It's times like these I feel bad for SuprSlow having to go through all this information!



I can't speak for Super Slow, but based on his comments and maybe projecting a bit, I am guessing he probably leans pretty heavy on the scroll button during the bickering and pays most of his attention to the reviews. I think that's why he asked us to put our recommendations in bold type, so he'd know when to slow down and take note. And when I say lean pretty heavily on the scroll button, I mean until until it starts to smoke.


----------



## rsbeck

I'm impressed with Wall-E, but I am impressed with the CGI technology. The CGI technology employed in Wall-E is superior to anything that has come before it. So, if we are comparing the technology employed, Wall-E should be placed above all other animated titles. It makes the CGI in Ratatouille, for example, look like it was done by an etch-a-sketch. And, to me, this just serves my point. I predict that, in a few years, CGI is going to be so sophisticated that we will look back on the titles that are at the top of our rankings today, they will appear really unsophisticated and we will wonder how in the world we could have found them superior to live action films. IMO, the answer will be that we were simply impressed by the advance in CGI at the time -- that it had nothing to do with picture quality, it had to do with the technology. To me, comparing these animated CGI titles to really good live action films is sort of like comparing a synthesized orchestra to the New York Symphony. No one would be so foolish as to prefer the synthesizer, right? Well, go back and listen to all of that music from the 80's with the synthesized drum machines. Today, now that we're over being impressed with the technology, the drum machine in those songs sounds awful and it makes you wonder how anyone listened to it or why anyone ever would have used one instead of a live drummer when a live drummer sounds so much more natural.


It is interesting to me to hear posters talk about the level of detail in Wall-E. This is a level of detail that we take for granted in a live action film.


If we had a live action film where the air was loaded with haze for the first 30 minutes, haze that blurred the detail, I wager no one here would be calling that detail, and no one would be recommending that title for tier 0.


We've punished live action titles for far less softness than Wall-E exhibits. There isn't one live action title in tier 0 that has 1 solid minute of softness like the first 30 minutes of Wall-E. So, we have a lot of people on the board who appreciate what Pixar has accomplished with the advancement of CGI, who appreciate animation. So much so that tier 0 is dominated by animated titles -- even though you have to completely ignore parts of the assessment criteria to place them there. And this place is a democracy so when these titles get the votes they are placed at the top of tier 0 as they should. But, it is interesting to hear from people who stress the assessment criteria so literally when it comes to live action titles but become so diffuse when it comes to animated titles. All I can say is that the animation thing is truly a phenomenon.


Like always, please don't take offense. We're all just chewing the fat here.


Just trying to provide Super Slow with more fly-over territory.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15436953
> 
> *Eagle Eye: Tier 2* This was disappointing PQ



Disagree on Eagle Eye. I thought the PQ looked very good. Very nice facial detail. I would say at least Tier 1.25.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15433467
> 
> 
> The irony is that the main reason I was able to sit through the entirety of this movie twice was due to the superb PQ.



Game Plan is one of a large number of BDs I gave away recently, so I cannot give it another look.


----------



## ballen420

Traitor - 1.75

KFP - Top of 0

Wanted - Tier 2 (just to reiterate a previous ranking)


Halfway though Band of Brothers. Excellent transfer with the majority of it being tier 1.25 quality. Tough to rank 10 episodes as one, but the majority of it is within tier 1.


----------



## sleater




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15437263
> 
> 
> To me, comparing these animated CGI titles to really good live action films is sort of like comparing a synthesized orchestra to the New York Symphony. No one would be so foolish as to prefer the synthesizer, right? Well, go back and listen to all of that music from the 80's with the synthesized drum machines. Today, now that we're over being impressed with the technology, the drum machine in those songs sounds awful and it makes you wonder how anyone listened to it or why anyone ever would have used one instead of a live drummer when a live drummer sounds so much more natural.
> 
> 
> It is interesting to me to hear posters talk about the level of detail in Wall-E. This is a level of detail that we take for granted in a live action film.



At first I pretty much agreed with this comment pretty wholeheartedly, but after some thought I kept thinking _but I DO like the cgi animation visuals more than live action ones_ in terms of PQ "eye candy". The much talked about 'softness' in the first 1/3 of WALLE to my eyes is nothing close to what we refer to as softness in live action films. I consider this a classic example of softness http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...4#post15427934 When I watch WALLE's earth portion yes, there is a soft brownish dusty haze that envelops the earth but the animation is still razor-sharp especially on close and medium range shots. Long shots are haze-y, not _soft_ to my eyes. And the detail is tremendous.


It really is a question if you find a great photograph of a real orange in all its glory more eye appealing than a CGI apple that is rendered beautifully but still does not quite look like a REAL apple, a nice beautiful CGI apple. rsbeck, I would think, would prefer the real orange. I would prefer the fake apple. Maybe it's because it's a new, novel use of technology that in 25 years will make me look like the Cro-Magnon man. My eyes are just more impressed with it. It's shiny and awe-inspiring. A real orange, well I see those everyday.


BUT I will say I was not at all happy with the highly cartoonish stylized humans lacking in detail both skin and clothing wise that are in WALLE - especially when they use live action humans i.e. Fred Willard to contrast them against. It took me right out of the film because the de-evolved humans are so extremely un-human looking. Perhaps that was the point after 700 some odd years of de-evolving, but I feel the story editors/animators could have handled it more realistically. Either render realistic looking obese humans, or don't incorporate live action humans!


I am happy with WALLE's current placement in Tier 0 and will defend that it is more eye-candy-ish than TDK's 35mm scenes any day of the week. The IMAX scenes....well not so much.


LMAO to rsbeck re: SuprSlow's 'fly-over' territory.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sleater* /forum/post/15438029
> 
> 
> At first I pretty much agreed with this comment pretty wholeheartedly, but after some thought I kept thinking _but I DO like the cgi animation visuals more than live action ones_ in terms of PQ "eye candy". The much talked about 'softness' in the first 1/3 of WALLE to my eyes is nothing close to what we refer to as softness in live action films. I consider this a classic example of softness http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...4#post15427934 When I watch WALLE's earth portion yes, there is a soft brownish dusty haze that envelops the earth but the animation is still razor-sharp especially on close and medium range shots. Long shots are haze-y, not _soft_ to my eyes. And the detail is tremendous.
> 
> 
> It really is a question if you find a great photograph of a real orange in all its glory more eye appealing than a CGI apple that is rendered beautifully but still does not quite look like a REAL apple, a nice beautiful CGI apple. rsbeck, I would think, would prefer the real orange. I would prefer the fake apple. Maybe it's because it's a new, novel use of technology that in 25 years will make me look like the Cro-Magnon man. My eyes are just more impressed with it. It's shiny and awe-inspiring. A real orange, well I see those everyday.
> 
> 
> BUT I will say I was not at all happy with the highly cartoonish stylized humans lacking in detail both skin and clothing wise that are in WALLE - especially when they use live action humans i.e. Fred Willard to contrast them against. It took me right out of the film because the de-evolved humans are so extremely un-human looking. Perhaps that was the point after 700 some odd years of de-evolving, but I feel the story editors/animators could have handled it more realistically. Either render realistic looking obese humans, or don't incorporate live action humans!
> 
> 
> I am happy with WALLE's current placement in Tier 0 and will defend that it is more eye-candy-ish than TDK's 35mm scenes any day of the week. The IMAX scenes....well not so much.
> 
> 
> LMAO to rsbeck re: SuprSlow's 'fly-over' territory.



I very much agree that the first part of WALL-E looks much more pleasing and impressive than the later parts.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15437332
> 
> 
> Disagree on Eagle Eye. I thought the PQ looked very good. Very nice facial detail. I would say at least Tier 1.25.



I agree overall it had good, but not great PQ, plenty of grain, not much pop, or anything outstanding. IMO that ranks it somewhere in *tier one*. Then there was a lot of out of focus and blurry shots throughout, hence my *tier 2* recommendation.


Here are some caps from Hi Def disc news which rates it high as well for PQ. All of them on the page link to bigger rez versions that go full screen and then you can right click to zoom. SOme like the first two pics look really good, but then check out the third pic with BillyBob and Rosario Dawson and then below them the third pic from the screenshots with Shia using a cell phone which looks like some DNR was applied to his face and then the last pic also shows what I saw quite a few times in the film. I then based my recommendation for *tier 2* that which I saw.

http://www.highdefdiscnews.com/?p=9483


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15438141
> 
> 
> I agree overall it had good, but not great PQ, plenty of grain, not much pop, or anything outstanding. IMO that ranks it somewhere in *tier one*. Then there was a lot of out of focus and blurry shots throughout, hence my *tier 2* recommendation.
> 
> 
> Here are some caps from Hi Def disc news which rates it high as well for PQ. All of them on the page link to bigger rez versions that go full screen and then you can right click to zoom. SOme like the first two pics look really good, but then check out the third pic with BillyBob and Rosario Dawson and then below them the third pic from the screenshots with Shia using a cell phone which looks like some DNR was applied to his face and then the last pic also shows what I saw quite a few times in the film. I then based my recommendation for *tier 2* that which I saw.
> 
> http://www.highdefdiscnews.com/?p=9483



Medium range shots like the one of Dawson and Thornton never (in any movie) have the kind of facial detail you see in good close-ups. Perhaps I am missing your point, but that shot looks no worse to me than comparable shots in Prince Caspian, for example.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15436824
> 
> 
> Regardless of director's intent I thought the beginning of Wall E was/is eye candy to me just a different sought of eye candy than the rest of the film.
> 
> 
> I do agree we have some very obvious eye candy titles that almost no one in their right mind would argue with, like Kung Fu Panda for example. The issue I think we are having besides director's intent is, *like some have said, one's eye candy is not another's eye candy*.



I really have to take issue with the statement highlighted above Hugh. Like I said last night in a post, if we all adhering to the same standards set forth on page one I can't see how "one's eye candy is not another's eye candy."


If we have a title that is truly eye candy, we're all going to be feasting on the virtues of it, whether it be natural vivid colors, good contrast, inky blacks, bright whites, 3D pop, etc. There really should be no difference of opinion about that (ideally). But when there is softness, or in the case of Wall-E a definite haze that takes away from the virtues just mentioned, I can't see how one can call that eye candy. Page one states that it should be penalized for that very thing.


Okay, I'll get off my soapbox now.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15438585
> 
> 
> But when there is softness, or in the case of Wall-E a definite haze that takes away from the virtues just mentioned, I can't see how one can call that eye candy.



Perhaps because some people think the look of haze can be appealing and interesting subject-matter. It's really not that difficult to understand.


Maybe I like looking at mud and torrential rain. If rendered well, _Woodstock_ and _The Perfect Storm_ may appeal to me.


Maybe I like looking at neon lights and polished machinery. If rendered well, _Tron_ and _Speed Racer_ may appeal to me.


Just as with actual candy (you like licorice; I like peppermints), not everyone is going to have the same taste in eye candy. I think the parameters of this thread leave enough room for this fact.


This is what I was getting at earlier, when I asked who decides what subject-matter is "appealing". I used the same example of the beginning of Wall-E to state my case that I think well-rendered haziness can be very beautiful and captivating and that the ability to resolve it is also challenging to a display system and thus can make a very appealing and informative demo when it's done well.


----------



## babrown92

Some penalize Wall-E for the effects used in the 1st part of the film, others like myself reward it. The level of detail and realism is amazing in my eyes.


Some say that CGI should be judged the same as live-action, I say the two are so different that my eyes will never be able to judge them the same way. More reason for a separate tier for animation.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15438835
> 
> 
> Perhaps because some people think the look of haze can be appealing and interesting subject-matter. It's really not that difficult to understand.
> 
> *Maybe I like looking at mud and torrential rain.* If rendered well, _Woodstock_ and _The Perfect Storm_ may appeal to me.
> 
> 
> Maybe I like looking at neon lights and polished machinery. If rendered well, _Tron_ and _Speed Racer_ may appeal to me.
> 
> 
> Just as with actual candy (you like licorice; I like peppermints), not everyone is going to have the same taste in eye candy. I think the parameters of this thread leave enough room for this fact.
> 
> 
> This is what I was getting at earlier, when I asked who decides what subject-matter is "appealing". I used the same example of the beginning of Wall-E to state my case that *I think well-rendered haziness can be very beautiful* and captivating and that the ability to resolve it is also challenging to a display system and thus can make a very appealing and informative demo when it's done well.



If one were to follow your view to the letter, the end result would be *pure relativism*. Why should we even have standards if each member is entitled to pick his or her own idea of eye candy?


According to your reasoning, one could watch a title like The Fog, where many scenes literally have _dense fog_ in them, and come away saying, "Man, that was the most realistic-looking fog I have ever seen, it was just beautiful....that's pure eye candy to me!" But IMO I would look at those scenes and say, "Man, I could hardly see anything in those scenes, there wasn't any detail, or sharpness, or color, or contrast, or black levels, or 3D pop....there was zero eye candy to me!" The first person is going by their version of eye candy, but I would be adhering to the standards set forth on page one.


Alright, I know some of you are saying, "I thought he was off his soapbox." But I just had to respond to spectator in order for us to avoid relativism in this thread.


----------



## spectator

To use another example, think about _Speed Racer_ for a minute. Bright, garish and *ahem* cartoony, right?


Now, think about _Saving Private Ryan_. Desaturated, subdued and textured, right?


Now, I think most of us would probably agree that, well-presented, both of these movies could be reasonably argued to be "eye candy", correct? Now, considering how different the looks of these movies are from each other, is it such a stretch to imagine that there might be someone who particularly enjoys the exaggerated look of _Speed Racer_ and would find _Saving Private Ryan_ wholly unsatisfactory in providing the kaleidoscopic color "pop" that would really show off her/his gear? Or that there might be someone who would find _Speed Racer_ to be headache-inducingly over-the-top and would much rather demo the subtler color gradations of _Saving Private Ryan_?


Both of these theoretical aficionados may grudgingly admit that both movies can be considered "eye candy" but might _never_ be interested in going anywhere near their less-preferred movie for demo purposes.


One guy who wants to spend $50k on a show-off car may walk away with a Range Rover because of how impressively it handles off-road obstacles.


One guy who wants to spend $50k on a show-off car may walk away with an Acura NSX because of how quickly it eats up the local racetrack.


One guy who wants to spend $50k on a show-off car may walk away with a Mercedes because of how comfortably he can luxuriate in it.


They are _all_ very high-performance cars, but with different performance priorities. "Eye candy" can be the same. One man's _Wall-E_ is another man's _Crank_.


----------



## babrown92




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15438925
> 
> 
> If one were to follow your view to the letter, the end result would be *pure relativism*. Why should we even have standards if each member is entitled to pick his or her own idea of eye candy?



So now we are going to start telling people what they think looks appealing? That should be fun!


I have an idea, how about someone makes out a worksheet for all of us to print, that way we can just check off all the predetermined requisites for "eye" candy" as we see them in the movie.


We can then send in our worksheets to you, you can grade them and then let us know if we enjoyed the PQ of the film we just watched. That way we can leave people's opinions on what looks good totally out of the equation.


Who's with me!?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *babrown92* /forum/post/15439012
> 
> 
> I have an idea, how about someone makes out a worksheet for all of us to print, that way we can just check off all *the predetermined requisites for "eye" candy"* as we see them in the movie.



The "predetermined requisites for eye candy" are on page one!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15435846
> 
> *Ok, but clearly my eye candy is not another's eye candy.* Obviously if a movie is consistently soft like American Gangster or The Godfather, I'm not going to say it's a Tier 0 film even if it is exactly as it was meant to look. But Wall-E is consistently sharp where it needs to be (ie, where the "camera" is focusing). If your complaint is that it's not colorful enough, you could certainly make the same criticism of The Dark Knight.



This post has generated a lot of discussion, so I guess I will weigh in on where I stand.


I agree with the statement that what is one man's eye candy may not be another man's eye candy.


How could this not be true? I'm sure that there are people in this thread that are of the opinion that a Black and White movie could never be put in Tier 0 due to the simple fact that there are no colors to pop off the screen.


Others, myself included, would not hesitate to put a beautifully shot Black and White movie in Tier 0, and consider it pure "eye candy".


This thread is not absolute. It involves a lot of subjective criteria, and what constitutes eye candy is certainly that.


Let's not confuse the objective factors listed in the first post as trying to tell us what constitutes eye candy. It may tell us that we should deduct/reduce a ranking if a title doesn't have good depth or sharpness, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the title itself may not constitute good eye candy overall.


In short, we need to evaluate these titles on a comprehensive basis, taking numerous factors into account. Some factors will have a bigger positive or negative impact on some people than others. That's the very nature of this thread.


The recent discussion on Wall-E is a perfect example that proves what is one mans eye candy is not anothers. Many are arguing it should be lower because the first 1/3 of the movie is drab and not sharp. Others, like myself, find the first 1/3 to be very impressive looking, especially with the use of selective focus which, to me, actually makes those scenes look sharper and have more depth than many scenes later in the movie.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15438835
> 
> 
> Perhaps because some people think the look of haze can be appealing and interesting subject-matter. It's really not that difficult to understand.
> 
> 
> Maybe I like looking at mud and torrential rain. If rendered well, _Woodstock_ and _The Perfect Storm_ may appeal to me.
> 
> 
> Maybe I like looking at neon lights and polished machinery. If rendered well, _Tron_ and _Speed Racer_ may appeal to me.
> 
> 
> Just as with actual candy (you like licorice; I like peppermints), not everyone is going to have the same taste in eye candy. I think the parameters of this thread leave enough room for this fact.
> 
> 
> This is what I was getting at earlier, when I asked who decides what subject-matter is "appealing". I used the same example of the beginning of Wall-E to state my case that I think well-rendered haziness can be very beautiful and captivating and that the ability to resolve it is also challenging to a display system and thus can make a very appealing and informative demo when it's done well.



Very well said...and worth quoting.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15438925
> 
> 
> According to your reasoning, one could watch a title like The Fog, where many scenes literally have _dense fog_ in them, and come away saying, "Man, that was the most realistic-looking fog I have ever seen, it was just beautiful....that's pure eye candy to me!" But IMO I would look at those scenes and say, "Man, I could hardly see anything in those scenes, there wasn't any detail, or sharpness, or color, or contrast, or black levels, or 3D pop....there was zero eye candy to me!" The first person is going by their version of eye candy, but I would be adhering to the standards set forth on page one.



You would be adhering to _one interpretation of_ the standards set forth on page one.


This isn't just my "reasoning", it's my real-world experience. Is it not the case that this very scenario you describe happens every day? I appreciate your interest in the pursuit of one arbitrary and "objective" standard for the sake of absolutes, but I just don't think it is possible. The only way I can imagine that we could achieve it is to simply write off the opinions of some of the participants (as in, well-rendered haze cannot be considered "eye candy") and, again, I ask: who decides what does and does not qualify as "eye candy"? There are as many opinions as there are people. It will forever be a subjective quality whether we pretend to have a unified, "objective" standard or not.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15439124
> 
> 
> Very well said...and worth quoting.



Thanks, man!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15439087
> 
> 
> This post has generated a lot of discussion, so I guess I will weigh in on where I stand.
> 
> 
> I agree with the statement that what is one man's eye candy may not be another man's eye candy.
> 
> 
> How could this not be true? I'm sure that there are people in this thread that are of the opinion that a Black and White movie could never be put in Tier 0 due to the simple fact that there are no colors to pop off the screen.
> 
> 
> Others, myself included, would not hesitate to put a beautifully shot Black and White movie in Tier 0, and consider it pure "eye candy".
> 
> 
> This thread is not absolute. It involves a lot of subjective criteria, and what constitutes eye candy is certainly that.
> 
> 
> Let's not confuse the objective factors listed in the first post as trying to tell us what constitutes eye candy. It may tell us that we should deduct/reduce a ranking if a title doesn't have good depth or sharpness, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the title itself may not constitute good eye candy overall.
> 
> 
> In short, we need to evaluate these titles on a comprehensive basis, taking numerous factors into account. Some factors will have a bigger positive or negative impact on some people than others. That's the very nature of this thread.
> 
> 
> The recent discussion on Wall-E is a perfect example that proves what is one mans eye candy is not anothers. Many are arguing it should be lower because the first 1/3 of the movie is drab and not sharp. Others, like myself, find the first 1/3 to be very impressive looking, especially with the use of selective focus which, to me, actually makes those scenes look sharper and have more depth than many scenes later in the movie.




I agree with you here Rob (except the Wall-E stuff as I haven't seen it yet). Personal examples for me would be easily my thoughts on both Mamma Mia and Speed Racer. I don't feel Speed Racer is a Tier 0 title, not when it has those faces and those purple lines from blue screen, so very glaring to me, despite how fantastic the rest of the title looks. Especially with so many people docking Mamma Mia down to a tier 2, when I think it belongs up in tier 1 (1.75 at the LOWEST IMO).



I also agree that there are several titles that everyone will say WOW!! to, but there's so much variety between all of us that not everyone's going to be pleased by one another's selections.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15439131
> 
> 
> You would be adhering to _one interpretation of_ the standards set forth on page one.
> 
> 
> This isn't just my "reasoning", it's my real-world experience. Is it not the case that this very scenario you describe happens every day? I appreciate your interest in the pursuit of one arbitrary and "objective" standard for the sake of absolutes, but I just don't think it is possible. The only way I can imagine that we could achieve it is to simply write off the opinions of some of the participants (as in, well-rendered haze cannot be considered "eye candy") and, again, I ask: who decides what does and does not qualify as "eye candy"? There are as many opinions as there are people. It will forever be a subjective quality whether we pretend to have a unified, "objective" standard or not.



Regarding your first statement above, that's your _interpretation_ that "I would be adhering to one interpretation of the standards set forth on page one."










After reading all of the recent posts favoring your position, I am forced to conclude that you are right in your last statement...."It will forever be a subjective quality whether we pretend to have a unified, 'objective' standard or not." This is called relativism, which is what many people seem to want.


Perhaps I have been wrong for the last year in assuming that the criteria on page one was to be taken seriously and that it should be our guiding principle when assessing PQ. For if one could seriously watch a movie like The Fog (I know this example is extreme, but it does serve to illustrate my point) and still find redeeming qualities in the many scenes of dense fog (where you virtually can't see anything except fog), to the point where they would call it eye candy and desire to use it as demo material for their friends and loved ones, then this thread is purely subjective and we truly are only pretending to have an objective standard.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15439828
> 
> 
> Regarding your first statement above, that's your _interpretation_ that "I would be adhering to one interpretation of the standards set forth on page one."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After reading all of the recent posts favoring your position, I am forced to conclude that you are right in your last statement...."It will forever be a subjective quality whether we pretend to have a unified, 'objective' standard or not." This is called relativism, which is what many people seem to want.
> 
> 
> Perhaps I have been wrong for the last year in assuming that the criteria on page one was to be taken seriously and that it should be our guiding principle when assessing PQ. For if one could seriously watch a movie like The Fog (I know this example is extreme, but it does serve to illustrate my point) and still find redeeming qualities in the many scenes of dense fog (where you virtually can't see anything except fog), to the point where they would call it eye candy and desire to use it as demo material for their friends and loved ones, then this thread is purely subjective and we truly are only pretending to have an objective standard.



It is neither purely objective or subjective, but a combination of both. This is why I think it is important that when people make a Tier recommendation that they state the basis for their recommendation so that others can see how much was based on the objective factors set forth in the first post and how much is based on more subjective factors such as overall eye candy appeal.


Does that make sense? Sometimes I think I confuse myself!


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15437098
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't speak for Super Slow, but based on his comments and maybe projecting a bit, I am guessing he probably leans pretty heavy on the scroll button during the bickering and pays most of his attention to the reviews. I think that's why he asked us to put our recommendations in bold type, so he'd know when to slow down and take note. And when I say lean pretty heavily on the scroll button, I mean until until it starts to smoke.



He's not the only one. It's really disappointing to log on and find three new pages since the last time I was here and discover that most of it is discussion rather than ratings of movies that haven't been reviewed yet.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15440065
> 
> 
> It is neither purely objective or subjective, but a combination of both. This is why I think it is important that when people make a Tier recommendation that they state the basis for their recommendation so that others can see how much was based on the objective factors set forth in the first post and how much is based on more subjective factors such as overall eye candy appeal.
> 
> 
> Does that make sense? Sometimes I think I confuse myself!



That DOES make sense Rob, and I hope I never insinuated that every recommendation would be purely objective. In my thinking the subjectivity comes in when you consider the many variables where we may have different viewing experiences (i.e., screen size, seating distance, quality of display, and even how good one's eyes are).


Where I have a problem is when someone extols the PQ of a title _without_ backing up their recommendation with the standards on page one. Some have made vague comments like, "It looks good to me," and yet when challenged about the lack of depth, detail, vivid colors, good contrast, 3D pop, or any of the other standards on page one, they become evasive. In fairness I will say that you, spectator and others have, when challenged as to your praise of Wall-E, given reasons from page one that you see in those first 30+ minutes (in your case you cite the _depth_ that is present). So, in those situations I can accept your subjective evaluation because you are still trying to adhere to the standards on page one.


Well, enough already. I am growing weary of trying to defend my position (and I'm sure most of you are growing even wearier of me doing so), so I think I'll go visit one of my local video stores and pick out a good Blu-ray to watch.


----------



## anddytza

Kung Fu Panda is the bestest animation of the year :X


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15439828
> 
> 
> Regarding your first statement above, that's your _interpretation_ that "I would be adhering to one interpretation of the standards set forth on page one."



Touche!











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15439828
> 
> 
> Perhaps I have been wrong for the last year in assuming that the criteria on page one was to be taken seriously and that it should be our guiding principle when assessing PQ.










So disagreement with your interpretation of the criteria constitutes a failure to take same criteria "seriously"? I'm not arguing against those criteria (or even your own application of them, per se), just that they ought to be applied in the awareness that the "ideal" is both a moving target and a target located in a different position for everyone.


I think it's very telling that in your example, you proclaim that you "can't see anything because of the fog". You're not seeing _nothing_, you're seeing _the fog_ (the subject of the movie!) and wishing you were seeing something _else_. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have a hard time believing that you would consider lowering your score for _Kung Fu Panda_, supposing that you had a personal hatred for pandas, because one of those horrible furry beasts keeps standing in the middle of the frame and blocking the stuff you're trying to see that's behind it. No, you correctly recognize that a panda is what we are _supposed_ to be seeing and that that panda is well and accurately rendered on the screen... just like the fog.


Forests, trees... you know the drill.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15439737
> 
> 
> I don't feel Speed Racer is a Tier 0 title, not when it has those faces and those purple lines from blue screen, so very glaring to me, despite how fantastic the rest of the title looks. (1.75 at the LOWEST IMO).



No offense, but I totally disagree.










Ever since you've posted about your "purple lines," I've searched for them. Are you using "pan and scan" to view your movies? I personally think Speed Racer should be higher than it is, right under Dead Man's Chest (since it incorporates both live action and CGI perfectly). Again, I'm not on the attack, just stating my opinion on Speed Racer.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15440437
> 
> 
> I think it's very telling that in your example, you proclaim that you "can't see anything because of the fog". You're not seeing _nothing_, you're seeing _the fog_ (the subject of the movie!) and wishing you were seeing something _else_.



Okay.....one more time (really, this is the last post on this subject







)!


Of course I would be seeing _fog_, but I wouldn't be seeing _the things I'm looking for in demo material_; namely, sharpness, detail, 3-D pop, etc. Again, read over the criteria on page one and you will see what we are to look for in demo quality discs. If you can honestly look at fog and see any of these, then I'd have to ask you what you're drinking or smoking or popping when you are viewing fog!


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15440583
> 
> 
> No offense, but I totally disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ever since you've posted about your "purple lines," I've searched for them. Are you using "pan and scan" to view your movies? I personally think Speed Racer should be higher than it is, right under Dead Man's Chest (since it incorporates both live action and CGI perfectly). Again, I'm not on the attack, just stating my opinion on Speed Racer.



As long as we are beating dead horses today, some of us who didn't notice purple lines think that Speed Racer should be disqualified from Tier 0 by the general softness in the faces and in other non-CGI stuff. . .


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15440585
> 
> *Okay.....one more time (really, this is the last post on this subject
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )!*
> 
> 
> Of course I would be seeing _fog_, but I wouldn't be seeing _the things I'm looking for in demo material_; namely, sharpness, detail, 3-D pop, etc. Again, read over the criteria on page one and you will see what we are to look for in demo quality discs. If you can honestly look at fog and see any of these, then I'd have to ask you what you're drinking or smoking or popping when you are viewing fog!



Promise?


----------



## ballen420




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15440352
> 
> 
> Where I have a problem is when someone extols the PQ of a title _without_ backing up their recommendation with the standards on page one. Some have made vague comments like, "It looks good to me," and yet when challenged about the lack of depth, detail, vivid colors, good contrast, 3D pop, or any of the other standards on page one, they become evasive.



No offense, but this thread is all about what 4 or 5 regulars think. It seems their word is the be all and end all. This list isn't going anywhere beyond AVSForum.com, so I'm still at a loss as to why there are always 3 pages of bickering for every 1 page of reviews (that's probably being generous too).


Some of us like to participate in this thread with the thought of helping others with blind buys and debates on double dipping. Most of us get discouraged after actually reading the thread. Those that do end up posting, most likely won't bother going into detail because they know (for the most part) their comments aren't going to matter.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15440687
> 
> 
> As long as we are beating dead horses today, some of us who didn't notice purple lines think that Speed Racer should be disqualified from Tier 0 by the general softness in the faces and in other non-CGI stuff. . .



Somebody call PETA for those poor horses!










They were a little oversaturated, which some consider soft.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ballen420* /forum/post/15440711
> 
> 
> This list isn't going anywhere beyond AVSForum.com, so I'm still at a loss as to why there are always 3 pages of bickering for every 1 page of reviews (that's probably being generous too).



You can call it "bickering". I don't see any. I see honest exploration and debate on the finer points of the thread's criteria, which I think is an important thing, both to understand (and perfect) what we are doing and to keep everyone reminded of the important distinctions they need to consider when determining and sharing their PQ opinions. For _me_, this dialogue is much more important than any one opinion on any one title, but the beauty of this thread is that discussion space is a virtually limitless commodity and anyone who wants to interject 20 pages of reviews into our criteria blather is free (within the forum's guidelines) to do so. However, if making space to keep the criteria discussion alive is really bothering you despite the available space, just say the word and I'll back off for a while to give your scrolling finger a break.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15440583
> 
> 
> No offense, but I totally disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ever since you've posted about your "purple lines," I've searched for them. Are you using "pan and scan" to view your movies? I personally think Speed Racer should be higher than it is, right under Dead Man's Chest (since it incorporates both live action and CGI perfectly). Again, I'm not on the attack, just stating my opinion on Speed Racer.





Actually something's amiss in the quote you did of mine. The "1.75 at the lowest" was in reference my thoughts on the fact that others are saying Mamma Mia is mid-to-low Tier 2, not Speed Racer. My recommendation for Speed Racer was Tier 1.00 (and my Mamma Mia rec is 1.50).


I'm insulted that you think I'm using Pan and Scan to watch my movies. The hell?? Of course I'm not. I even checked Speed Racer for the purple lines on my new Panasonic TH-58PZ800U plasma in THX setting, when my friend brought it over. Someone else helped me with regards to the purple lines, they posted screenshots for me earlier in the thread when I first asked questions about it.


They are there. I saw it on my old Toshiba 46H83, I saw it on my friend's Panasonic TH-50PZ850U plasma in some sort of custom setting, I saw it on my Samsung 2243WM LCD monitor on my computer, and they existed in the screenshots of the timecodes I requested as well, not by me as I have no clue how to do screenshots of Blu Ray so there's no way I altered them, and was told it was likely a result of the blue-screen, which is fine and dandy but IMO since it's not there 100% of the time, it could have been cleaned up better for either theatrical or blu ray release, since they did a good job of it for the most part. *takes breath after run-on sentence* It affected my viewing of this movie, and I put it into consideration in my review and recommendation, along with the weird faces on children/select adults in that film.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15441157
> 
> 
> Actually something's amiss in the quote you did of mine. The "1.75 at the lowest" was in reference my thoughts on the fact that others are saying Mamma Mia is mid-to-low Tier 2, not Speed Racer. My recommendation for Speed Racer was Tier 1.00 (and my Mamma Mia rec is 1.50).
> 
> 
> I'm insulted that you think I'm using Pan and Scan to watch my movies. The hell?? Of course I'm not. I even checked Speed Racer for the purple lines on my new Panasonic TH-58PZ800U plasma in THX setting, when my friend brought it over. Someone else helped me with regards to the purple lines, they posted screenshots for me earlier in the thread when I first asked questions about it.
> 
> 
> They are there. I saw it on my old Toshiba 46H83, I saw it on my friend's Panasonic TH-50PZ850U plasma in some sort of custom setting, I saw it on my Samsung 2243WM LCD monitor on my computer, and they existed in the screenshots of the timecodes I requested as well, not by me as I have no clue how to do screenshots of Blu Ray so there's no way I altered them, and was told it was likely a result of the blue-screen, which is fine and dandy but IMO since it's not there 100% of the time, it could have been cleaned up better for either theatrical or blu ray release, since they did a good job of it for the most part. *takes breath after run-on sentence* It affected my viewing of this movie, and I put it into consideration in my review and recommendation, along with the weird faces on children/select adults in that film.



Again, by no means did I intend to insult you. I'm not that guy. But of all the Blu I own, this is my baby! Seeing it in theaters made me go high def. There was no way I could own it on DVD, or on my old TV!


I bought it on day one, and haven't noticed any flaws visually (the audio issues would take up another paragraph). When you first posted your "purple lines" comment, I immediately popped in Speed Racer. I also viewed the screenshots. If they exist, maybe I should feel lucky that I don't see them!










I can understand people having issues with the faces. To me, it makes them look more "cartoonish," which I love!










Ironically, when Royalton has his arm on Speed's shoulder, both Speed and I said "WOW" at the same time!


----------



## ballen420




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15440880
> 
> 
> You can call it "bickering". I don't see any. I see honest exploration and debate on the finer points of the thread's criteria, which I think is an important thing, both to understand (and perfect) what we are doing and to keep everyone reminded of the important distinctions they need to consider when determining and sharing their PQ opinions. For _me_, this dialogue is much more important than any one opinion on any one title, but the beauty of this thread is that discussion space is a virtually limitless commodity and anyone who wants to interject 20 pages of reviews into our criteria blather is free (within the forum's guidelines) to do so. However, if making space to keep the criteria discussion alive is really bothering you despite the available space, just say the word and I'll back off for a while to give your scrolling finger a break.



Post away. I was only responding to djoberg's comment on why people post short comments about films they viewed, and why they don't bother getting into the back and forth on why it should be in tier 1 instead of tier 0.


I can make the concious decision not to return or post here. Page 1 will serve my needs for deciding if a movie is worth purchasing.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ballen420* /forum/post/15440711
> 
> 
> No offense, but this thread is all about what 4 or 5 regulars think. It seems their word is the be all and end all.



You can take this up with SuprSlow, but I believe placement for any title is decided by EVERY vote, not just by 4 or 5 regular posters.


As far as some of us discussing (in detail) issues such as criteria for placement, that is one of the things I like about this thread. Before Blu-ray won the format war I used to visit the HD DVD thread quite often and for the most part placement for titles was decided there by a raw vote. No one was obligated to tell other members why they voted for a particular tier placement and thus there were not any *healthy* debates that challenged certain placements. I looked at this as a weakness in that thread and thus I see it (debates over titles) as a strength on this thread. I guess I'm saying I agree 100% with what spectator said in his last post...COOL!


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15441915
> 
> 
> I guess I'm saying I agree 100% with what spectator said in his last post...COOL!










Now what?!











"I'm just a dog, chasing cars. I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it."


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15440687
> 
> 
> As long as we are beating dead horses today, some of us who didn't notice purple lines think that Speed Racer should be disqualified from Tier 0 by the general softness in the faces and in other non-CGI stuff. . .










And hey... the purple lines weren't my only problem with it of course! That horse is now property of Elmer's, btw!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ballen420* /forum/post/15440711
> 
> 
> No offense, but this thread is all about what 4 or 5 regulars think. It seems their word is the be all and end all. This list isn't going anywhere beyond AVSForum.com, so I'm still at a loss as to why there are always 3 pages of bickering for every 1 page of reviews (that's probably being generous too).
> 
> 
> Some of us like to participate in this thread with the thought of helping others with blind buys and debates on double dipping. Most of us get discouraged after actually reading the thread. Those that do end up posting, most likely won't bother going into detail because they know (for the most part) their comments aren't going to matter.



When I first found AVS (october I think), I actually read through this entire thread. What I noticed is it goes through it's various ups and downs. It has it's regulars and then people join in, people leave, more come in, more leave etc. More people have been posting lately and it's been cool. I don't think that just the regulars' voices are heard though, but other people need to post in order for more opinions to be out there. I think it's counter productive to complain that 5-ish voices are being heard if nobody else is willing to talk too.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15440880
> 
> 
> You can call it "bickering". I don't see any. I see honest exploration and debate on the finer points of the thread's criteria, which I think is an important thing, both to understand (and perfect) what we are doing and to keep everyone reminded of the important distinctions they need to consider when determining and sharing their PQ opinions. For _me_, this dialogue is much more important than any one opinion on any one title, but the beauty of this thread is that discussion space is a virtually limitless commodity and anyone who wants to interject 20 pages of reviews into our criteria blather is free (within the forum's guidelines) to do so. However, if making space to keep the criteria discussion alive is really bothering you despite the available space, just say the word and I'll back off for a while to give your scrolling finger a break.



/agree.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15441409
> 
> 
> Again, by no means did I intend to insult you. I'm not that guy. But of all the Blu I own, this is my baby! Seeing it in theaters made me go high def. There was no way I could own it on DVD, or on my old TV!
> 
> 
> I bought it on day one, and haven't noticed any flaws visually (the audio issues would take up another paragraph). When you first posted your "purple lines" comment, I immediately popped in Speed Racer. I also viewed the screenshots. If they exist, maybe I should feel lucky that I don't see them!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand people having issues with the faces. To me, it makes them look more "cartoonish," which I love!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ironically, when Royalton has his arm on Speed's shoulder, both Speed and I said "WOW" at the same time!




My buddy who loaned me this said this is his #1 eyecandy movie. He was mad at me that I found any fault with it, although he did kind of look away guiltily when I complained about the faces, and he gave me a glare when I pointed the purple line out to him.







Even when he came over to help me set up my new tv, he brought a select stack of discs with him that are his "tester" discs, and he saved Speed Racer for last with his flair for dramatics over this. Once I showed him the purple lines (even bigger since his TV is a 50" panny plasma and mine's 58") and giggled like the evil girl I am, I then subjected him to the water on Mamma Mia.







I just don't think it's Tier 0; and that's OK because I never intend on owning it. If I ever do watch the whole thing again, I'd best have a home-made Cosmoblanca in hand and be playing a drinking game!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15442048
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now what?! :d
> 
> 
> 
> "i'm just a dog, chasing cars. I wouldn't know what to do with one if i caught it."



lol!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Harold & Kumar Go To White Castle*


tier recommendation: *Tier 3.0*


One of the last New Line Blu-rays released before Warner subsumed the studio and its releases, this is a solid presentation marred by two main negatives. Released to Blu-ray on July 29th of 2008, the 88-minute movie from 2004 is encoded in the VC-1 codec on a BD-50. The average video bitrate is 25.93 Mbps per the BDInfo scan. The compressionists at New Line did a very nice job producing a BD that shows virtually no artifacting. The video encode stays mostly in the 19.4 to 38.9 Mbps range with some scenes hovering in the 30's. This is a quality, high bitrate VC-1 encoding that handles the image without any problems.


The picture demonstrates very consistent colors and contrast. Color saturation and fidelity are excellent with natural if very slightly blown-out flesh tones. The dream sequence particularly stands out here with some nice "pop" and striking colors. In this regard it clearly ranks well within the second tier for quality. Lighting seems very even and naturalistic throughout the movie. There does appear to be a touch of softness at times to the image. Facial and micro-detail are slightly below average for the Blu-ray format but black levels are generally well resolved. I only noticed one instance of any possible black crush.


The film elements used to produce this Blu-ray look in very good shape with no flaws aside from one exception. During Harold and Kumar's visit to Princeton, a split-second shot of what appears to be hair flashes on-screen. I will now move on to the two main negatives of this transfer. Digital noise reduction has definitely been applied to this transfer to reduce grain and visible detail. The entire film here looks completely free of grain with the corresponding loss of fine detail in the actors' skin and the cloth textures. Some facial detail still remains but everyone in the film looks slightly waxy. It does not look as bad as Patton for instance but it appears to be slightly more offensive than the typical filtered Warner look.


The other negative is a dreadful sharpening consistently applied throughout the main feature. Edge enhancement halos are thick and noticeable right from the start. The zipper on Kumar's jacket looks hideous because of this processing and sticks out.


Despite the DNR and EE added to the transfer, this is not an awful looking catalog Blu-ray. It still looks significantly better than the dvd in all key areas of the image. I will recommend a placement at the top of tier three. I was contemplating a placement in the lower half of tier two but the negatives are too obvious to me for that high of a placement.


Watching on a 60 Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 (firmware 2.53) from an approximate viewing distance of six feet.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of forum member Aaron*C):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...6#post14398606


----------



## Hammie

WOW!!


Two new pages since I was last here about what equates to better detail. just thought I would put in my two cents. I look for sharpness in the MAIN FOCAL POINT OF THE SCENE. I could care less about fog or dust or haze in the background. As long as the person or thing that the scene is addressing is sharp and in focus, I'm happy. This is how I base most of my photographic criteria around and this is what I base my video criteria around. I understand director's/artist's intent, but I try to put that aside as best I can. Sometimes you just can't and have to base on what it is, i.e., The Matrix has a very green hue to many of the scenes but we don't ding it because of this. If we say that the colors are not realistic, we would have to disqualify it due to the lack of realistic colors.


I won't go into detail about all the movies that have put a number of horses through the glue factory, but that is how I interpret and evaluate movies (although I have only posted one meager review thus far, my resolution is to post more-- at least one a month).


----------



## rsbeck

*Mongol*


Starts off a tiny bit soft and flat, but if you're patient, this title will reward you. Grain appeared intact and did not see any sign of ringing or halo. For long stretches in the beginning, the scenery is very good, but not up to reference standards, but after about 40 minutes, things pick up, scenery begins to pop and there are some tier 0 type demo sequences; incredible scenery, facial texture, costumes, the works. This is a lovely title with many virtues including a very natural looking picture that is very easy to watch. I cannot recommend tier 0 because it didn't exhibit tier 0 qualities consistently and didn't exhibit those qualities until quite deep into the film, but this is easily a solid mid tier 1 title.

*Recommendation: Tier 1.5*


Som2 C3X1080

Carada Masquerade

126" Firehawk G3

Pioneer BDP-05FD


13' From Screen


----------



## rsbeck

Wall-E


I know this was long and contentious and several quadrupeds were sacrificed in the making of this discussion, but I would like to thank the Wall-E proponents for exercising great patience and generosity in explaining their appreciation of the film and all of its aspects. Certainly helped me understand the reasoning behind your recommendations. I agree with many of these viewpoints to one degree or another, but still believe the title should be ranked a bit lower -- but in the scheme of things, though this place is really just barely controlled chaos a lot of the time, when you get down to it, I really don't think we are all very far apart on this title. I think the lowest anyone has recommended is tier 1 and it sits in mid tier 0. Same with that other contentious title, TDK. Some recommended mid tier 1, some upper tier 0 -- those were the extremes -- and it sits at the top of tier 1. In both cases, the title sits a little lower than where some people would place it and a little higher than where others would. The ironic truth is that we have other titles where the split is much wider, but for some reason we don't get 10 pages of discussion on those. Go figure.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RBFC* /forum/post/15436476
> 
> 
> Interesting discussion!
> 
> 
> As set forth in the opening page, this thread lists movies as they are subjectively judged according to the criteria listed on that page. This does not mean that one cannot enjoy the visual quality of a title that received a ranking beneath what one personally believes. As listed, titles in Tier 2 all look very good.... way better than upconverted SD-DVD. Yet, "debates" over a .25 tier difference of opinion take on a near-religious fervor.
> 
> 
> This tier thread has been a wonderful GENERAL resource for me as I decide which titles to purchase. For blind buys, a tier ranking of 3 or below usually puts up a warning flag. For titles I truly want (double-dip, etc.), lower tier rankings simply help me to form reasonable expectations for the PQ of the Blu-Ray version.
> 
> 
> As we fight too vigorously over the relative merits of two similar-position titles, which is like saying "Do you like this orange or this apple better?", I believe that fine distinctions have limited meaning.
> 
> 
> In other words, you could take ANY title in Tier 1 or above and play it for newbies to Blu-Ray. They would be incredibly impressed, and the rest of the experience would hinge on the substance of the film itself. While I understand that serious enthusiasts delve more deeply into the technical aspects of the discs, let's not miss the forest for the trees. Sure, many of these discs could be technically a bit better, but please don't go so far as to destroy the enthusiasm for seeing many films in the best presentation they've ever received.
> 
> 
> Thanks to all who offer so much time to share their thoughts and experiences here. Your work is appreciated.
> 
> 
> Lee



Wow… lots of things to touch on here in all of these pages!

Well if we were talking about moving TDK from the lower half of tier 1 to the top half of tier one, I would agree.

But we are talking about moving it from tier one to the top tier.

I think we are dangerously close to setting a whole new precedent if Wall-E is left in tier0.

How many titles currently reside in tier1 because they have instances of imperfection, yet 1/3 of Wall-E is soft, muted, blurred and simply lacks the detail that many movies below it bring to the table.

Are we going to change the way we review titles??

No-longer do I want to see a movie discriminated against if it has instances or minor issues of imperfection.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15439087
> 
> 
> This post has generated a lot of discussion, so I guess I will weigh in on where I stand.
> 
> 
> I agree with the statement that what is one man's eye candy may not be another man's eye candy.
> 
> 
> How could this not be true? I'm sure that there are people in this thread that are of the opinion that a Black and White movie could never be put in Tier 0 due to the simple fact that there are no colors to pop off the screen.
> 
> 
> Others, myself included, would not hesitate to put a beautifully shot Black and White movie in Tier 0, and consider it pure "eye candy".
> 
> 
> This thread is not absolute. It involves a lot of subjective criteria, and what constitutes eye candy is certainly that.
> 
> 
> Let's not confuse the objective factors listed in the first post as trying to tell us what constitutes eye candy. It may tell us that we should deduct/reduce a ranking if a title doesn't have good depth or sharpness, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the title itself may not constitute good eye candy overall.
> 
> 
> In short, we need to evaluate these titles on a comprehensive basis, taking numerous factors into account. Some factors will have a bigger positive or negative impact on some people than others. That's the very nature of this thread.
> 
> 
> The recent discussion on Wall-E is a perfect example that proves what is one mans eye candy is not anothers. Many are arguing it should be lower because the first 1/3 of the movie is drab and not sharp. Others, like myself, find the first 1/3 to be very impressive looking, especially with the use of selective focus which, to me, actually makes those scenes look sharper and have more depth than many scenes later in the movie.



Oh, I think you could put a black and white film in tier0. If it was razor sharp. Had great shadow detail etc... etc...

The issue would probably come down to the fact that in all likely hood if the film were in B&W, it would probably be older. Therefore inherently the film would probably lack the deep detail we expect in a teir0 title.


By the way Rob, I disagree with you. The first 1/3 of Wall-E is dull and is very soft.

I agree with an earlier post that someone brought up pointing out how some would be running around here spinning on their eyebrows railing that the fog in the movie The Fog was the most realistic and detailed fog they had ever seen in a movie.

I have seen movies banished from tier0 because of they were inherently dark due to the story line.

I am telling you, for what ever the reason, there has been a major push to get Wall-E to the top.

Why I’ll never know.









All I am saying is, if some of you want to keep this movie in tier0, then I think a new precedent will be set. Maybe it will be time to go back and review some other titles in tier1.

Seems like tier0 is going to get awfully large.

If you relate this thread to sports, we might love a player because he was loyal to a particular team or he was a fan favorite, but not every player can be in the hall of fame.










I can not wait for the next movie ranking to come along that gets thrown in tier 1 because it has a couple of instance of halos or a scene of softness.

Those on the other side will be able to bring up Wall-E as an example of more tolerance.









I figure tier0 is going to need a few more pages by this time next year.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15439828
> 
> 
> Regarding your first statement above, that's your _interpretation_ that "I would be adhering to one interpretation of the standards set forth on page one."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After reading all of the recent posts favoring your position, I am forced to conclude that you are right in your last statement...."It will forever be a subjective quality whether we pretend to have a unified, 'objective' standard or not." This is called relativism, which is what many people seem to want.
> 
> 
> Perhaps I have been wrong for the last year in assuming that the criteria on page one was to be taken seriously and that it should be our guiding principle when assessing PQ. For if one could seriously watch a movie like The Fog (I know this example is extreme, but it does serve to illustrate my point) and still find redeeming qualities in the many scenes of dense fog (where you virtually can't see anything except fog), to the point where they would call it eye candy and desire to use it as demo material for their friends and loved ones, then this thread is purely subjective and we truly are only pretending to have an objective standard.



I think this is yet another example of my point...

If we leave Wall-E in the top tier, a new more lenient standard for ranking titles will have been set.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *babrown92* /forum/post/15438856
> 
> 
> Some penalize Wall-E for the effects used in the 1st part of the film, others like myself reward it. The level of detail and realism is amazing in my eyes.
> 
> 
> Some say that CGI should be judged the same as live-action, I say the two are so different that my eyes will never be able to judge them the same way. More reason for a separate tier for animation.



Actually, I think the IMAX shots in TDK blow away anything Wall-E has to offer.

It is the 2.35:1 shots that penalize TDK because I think people compare them to the IMAX shots. But I believe even the the 2.35 shots still are teir0 material.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15436824
> 
> 
> Regardless of director's intent I thought the beginning of Wall E was/is eye candy to me just a different sought of eye candy than the rest of the film.
> 
> 
> I do agree we have some very obvious eye candy titles that almost no one in their right mind would argue with, like Kung Fu Panda for example. The issue I think we are having besides director's intent is, like some have said, one's eye candy is not another's eye candy.
> 
> 
> I loved all of Wall E visually and did not ding it for how it looked at any point in the film.
> 
> 
> I don't think moving Wall E down and out of Tier 0 is justified though even having stated what I did about eye candy being each to his/her own. IMO the point I made about KFP more aptly applies and I have to disagree with anyone saying even the first 30 min. is not eye candy.
> 
> 
> And if anyone looks again at Tier 1.0 there isn't any film there that really compares to Wall E in terms of eye candy even my beloved Apocalypto. How can we move it to where it doesn't belong or compare to?



Well, The Dark Knight is unbelievably in tier1 and I believe it is superior to Wall-E.

Is Wall-E a different sort of eye candy as set forth by the standards on the first page of this thread??

I don't have a problem with leaving TDK in tier1 so long as Wall-E is placed below it.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15436788
> 
> 
> I know I recently reviewed Sleeping Beauty and I recc'd bottom Tier 0, and I do think that I'd have a problem with it being lower than Tier 1.0, but that's still part of why I actually like this thread. I can disagree with people but I respect the opinions of others and hope that others can do so for mine as well.
> 
> 
> I also think that there's been so many people debating repeatedly regarding Wall-E, I am unsure what the *actual* reviews have come up with in comparison to the reactions by people repeatedly being mentioned any time the subject comes up, if it is making it seem like there's a lot more views wanting that title lowered. I haven't seen the blu ray yet in order to do my own review of this title, once I actually am able to I might attempt the search of this thread to dig out the actual recommendations by people to see where it stands, but definitely not until then.
> 
> 
> It's times like these I feel bad for SuprSlow having to go through all this information!



I wonder what you mean by the below comment from the above quote...?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15436788
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *actual* reviews have come up...



I suggest you watch the movie.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15436581
> 
> 
> I am a little surprised to hear so many calls for dropping Wall*E out of tier zero. I do agree with some of the comments about the first section of the movie on Earth, but it still exhibits the hallmarks of a tier zero caliber Blu-ray during those scenes. The detail is still amazing and in fact might have more animated detail than any other animated Blu-ray released yet. The color palette is mostly brown during that section but it is a living, dynamic brown that looks very realistic.



You think Wall-E is better than KFP!?!?!




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15436581
> 
> 
> I am a little surprised to hear so many calls for dropping Wall*E out of tier zero. I do agree with some of the comments about the first section of the movie on Earth, but it still exhibits the hallmarks of a tier zero caliber Blu-ray during those scenes. *The detail is still amazing and in fact might have more animated detail than any other animated Blu-ray released yet.* The color palette is mostly brown during that section but it is a living, dynamic brown that looks very realistic.



I liked Wall-E to, but lets be realistic about how we rank titles here...

Again, I think leaving Wall-E is setting a dangerous precedent for the way movies are ranked on this thread.

If so, then tier0 could get awfully packed with Blu Ray titles because the standards will have now been lowered.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *babrown92* /forum/post/15436572
> 
> 
> I realize that the 1st part of Wall-E is softer than the space parts, but to me the effect used looks fantastic. In fact I am more impressed with the 1st half than the space parts. That's why I will always say Wall-E needs to be at the top of tier 0.
> 
> 
> The 'softness' of wall-e is a special effect used by the filmmakers, and it is one that I find very visually pleasing. So much so that I call it great eye candy.
> 
> 
> Top of tier 0



So if you have a crowd of 50 people standing around wanting to see your set-up and see what potential Blu Ray has... are you telling me you would show them the first 1/3 of Wall-E and not the last half of the movie!?







Ya right...


Come on people, I think we are letting our own personal bias get in the way of subjective ranking.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/15446493
> 
> 
> I wonder what you mean by the below comment from the above quote...?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you watch the movie.




by *actual* reviews I meant where people have posted their review of Wall-E versus the discussion of Wall-E. They are different, and the actual reviews are the ones that count for the purpose of title placement. In the discussion there are several people stating their points repeatedly especially when the topic comes back up again, so there are a ton more discussion posts versus reccomendation posts. I'm curious to see how many reviews there are for Wall-E, where someone said "I watched Wall-E, I thought This-n-That about it, and I recommend it to be in Tier X.XX, watched on My Blu Ray Player, on My TV, from A Specific Viewing Distance."


I plan on watching the movie... I had hoped we were going to get it for Christmas but my brother bought the DVD for my daughter instead of the BRD (and they opened it up before I could exchange it). I should be getting a copy of it tonight, hopefully watch it in the next couple of days, then at least I'll understand what you guys are talking about.







When I watch a movie and do a review, I always do a search for the movie and check out other reviews prior to posting, so I'll be doing that before I post a review of Wall-E.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/15446443
> 
> 
> Actually, I think the IMAX shots in TDK blow away anything Wall-E has to offer.
> 
> It is the 2.35:1 shots that penalize TDK because I think people compare them to the IMAX shots. But I believe even the the 2.35 shots still are teir0 material.



I've come to the conclusion that none of us truly agree on half of the tier 0 and tier 1 titles whether it's animations, live action, etc.. A long time ago I mentioned we should just have a voting system similar to the HD DVD thread, but that would be the equivalent of sacrilege according to some.


To me, if we are voting and our votes "count", then what's the point of having someone go through a thread and physically count and average it out when we can have it done with software? In the very least someone could maintain it to check for outliers -- e.g. 1/10 for i, Robot, or 10/10 for Gangs of New York. It wouldn't be a perfect system, but then again, neither is this. At least with the voting system, people would feel that their vote means something.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/15446391
> 
> 
> 
> By the way Rob, I disagree with you. The first 1/3 of Wall-E is dull and is very soft.



Since I don't agree with this statement, there is little point in discussing it further. I disagree that the first 1/3 of Wall-E is "dull and is very soft".




> Quote:
> I am telling you, for what ever the reason, there has been a major push to get Wall-E to the top.
> 
> Why I’ll never know.



Because most people think that it belongs there?



> Quote:
> All I am saying is, if some of you want to keep this movie in tier0, then I think a new precedent will be set. Maybe it will be time to go back and review some other titles in tier1.
> 
> Seems like tier0 is going to get awfully large.
> 
> If you relate this thread to sports, we might love a player because he was loyal to a particular team or he was a fan favorite, but not every player can be in the hall of fame.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can not wait for the next movie ranking to come along that gets thrown in tier 1 because it has a couple of instance of halos or a scene of softness.
> 
> Those on the other side will be able to bring up Wall-E as an example of more tolerance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I figure tier0 is going to need a few more pages by this time next year.



Oh please stop being so dramatic.


One title being in Tier 0 that you don't agree with does not equate to some dangerous new standard being established.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*La Femme Nikita*


It's been quite some time since I watched this movie; likely it was on videotape and I was in high school when I did. This movie was a rental for me, but it is an excellent story, and I would not hesitate to add it to my collection. I watched it in original French dialogue and used subtitles, rather than watch the English dub of this movie, which is present in DolbyHD. I don't have the case for any other specifics on the data of this movie, though.


There was a decent amount of grain present throughout this title, and I don't think there was any over-processing on the details within, however this movie did see-saw around with regards to its PQ. Some of my problem with it may have been some scenes that seemed to use some absolutely horrible stock footage. But then there were some utterly elegant scenes where facial features were just slightly off from pristine; you could see the details but they were a hair shy of being absolutely sharp. Perhaps my expectations on that score are too high; although they were close. Colours mostly seemed true to me, although there were times it felt a little off.


Given the nature of how I watched this (subtitles & in French) I did become very absorbed into the story; every once in a while there would be a sharp edge that would seem as though it had been enhanced in some way (generally I would notice this on her trainer's clothing) that reminded me of the type of EE present in a few scenes in TDK. When I would see it I would analyze the screen in front of me and see if I could notice it elsewhere but I had no luck finding any instance where I could find anything additional to that.


I think this movie is fantastic and I hope others watch it despite the fact that it's French and dated. Hopefully the fact that it can be watched in a dubbed format might help others discover this gem of a movie. I watched a few scenes after it was done using the dub to see how it sounded, and it was pretty good.


The inconsistencies throughout the movie definitely affect its overall PQ in my opinion. The only other review of this film in the thread is by *stumlad*, and I agree with his review & recommendation of Tier 2.75.

*Recommendation for La Femme Nikita: Tier 2.75*
*Equipment:* ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800U on THX setting, approx. 7.5' viewing distance.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15447731
> 
> 
> A long time ago I mentioned we should just have a voting system similar to the HD DVD thread, but that would be the equivalent of sacrilege according to some.
> 
> 
> T*o me, if we are voting and our votes "count", then what's the point of having someone go through a thread and physically count and average it out when we can have it done with software?* In the very least someone could maintain it to check for outliers -- e.g. 1/10 for i, Robot, or 10/10 for Gangs of New York. It wouldn't be a perfect system, but then again, neither is this. At least with the voting system, people would feel that their vote means something.



Your statement (highlighted) above makes a lot of sense stumlad. For SuprSlow's sake, I would be willing to go to a voting system similar to the one they had on the HD DVD thread.


However, I wouldn't want to take the debates out of the mix. I still think it is profitable to hear *why* someone voted for a particular placement and to have a healthy exchange (i.e., debate) over titles that are, shall we say, controversial.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/15446475
> 
> 
> Well, The Dark Knight is unbelievably in tier1 and I believe it is superior to Wall-E.
> 
> Is Wall-E a different sort of eye candy as set forth by the standards on the first page of this thread??
> 
> I don't have a problem with leaving TDK in tier1 so long as Wall-E is placed below it.



Unbelievably? Why?

"Demo Material, but minor artifacting may be present which the untrained eye may not necessarily spot. "

Seems like just the spot.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15448068
> 
> 
> Your statement (highlighted) above makes a lot of sense stumlad. For SuprSlow's sake, I would be willing to go to a voting system similar to the one they had on the HD DVD thread.
> 
> 
> However, I wouldn't want to take the debates out of the mix. I still think it is profitable to hear *why* someone voted for a particular placement and to have a healthy exchange (i.e., debate) over titles that are, shall we say, controversial.



The problem with this is that if you go to a pure voting system, the debates would automatically be "taken out of the mix".


In other words, you could still have the debates, but they would have no bearing at all on the actual placements of titles since you are using a pure voting system. Also, why would people even bother to have a debate if it isn't going to make a difference? Just register your vote and move on. That's why I never cared for the HD-DVD Tier thread, and I believe that is why there was very little discussion/debate there.


This is why a pure voting system has been repeatedly rejected in this thread.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15448175
> 
> 
> The problem with this is that if you go to a pure voting system, the debates would automatically be "taken out of the mix".
> 
> 
> In other words, you could still have the debates, but they would have no bearing at all on the actual placements of titles since you are using a pure voting system. Also, why would people even bother to have a debate if it isn't going to make a difference? Just register your vote and move on. That's why I never cared for the HD-DVD Tier thread, and I believe that is why there was very little discussion/debate there.
> 
> 
> This is why a pure voting system has been repeatedly rejected in this thread.



I agree very strongly with your comments on this subject, Rob. The discussion here of people's reasons for reaching their conclusions is an essential part of what gives this thread its value.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15447731
> 
> 
> I've come to the conclusion that none of us truly agree on half of the tier 0 and tier 1 titles whether it's animations, live action, etc.. A long time ago I mentioned we should just have a voting system similar to the HD DVD thread, but that would be the equivalent of sacrilege according to some.
> 
> 
> To me, if we are voting and our votes "count", then what's the point of having someone go through a thread and physically count and average it out when we can have it done with software? In the very least someone could maintain it to check for outliers -- e.g. 1/10 for i, Robot, or 10/10 for Gangs of New York. It wouldn't be a perfect system, but then again, neither is this. At least with the voting system, people would feel that their vote means something.



Maybe this would be a good thing to consider since nobody wants to see their post scrolled past or flown over.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15447766
> 
> 
> Since I don't agree with this statement, there is little point in discussing it further. I disagree that the first 1/3 of Wall-E is "dull and is very soft".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because most people think that it belongs there?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please stop being so dramatic.
> 
> 
> One title being in Tier 0 that you don't agree with does not equate to some dangerous new standard being established.



Actually it does.

How many times do we place titles in the top tier by comparing them to the title in front of it??


Oh I see, I am just not an expert in this like some of you are. Please!

Fine, you guys go ahead and have your way. That is usually how it goes around here anyway.

Just remember that the next time a title gets chastised in this thread because it has minor instances of softness or haloing, I'll happily bring up the tier0 poster child Wall-E.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15448175
> 
> 
> The problem with this is that if you go to a pure voting system, the debates would automatically be "taken out of the mix".
> 
> 
> In other words, you could still have the debates, but they would have no bearing at all on the actual placements of titles since you are using a pure voting system. Also, why would people even bother to have a debate if it isn't going to make a difference? Just register your vote and move on. That's why I never cared for the HD-DVD Tier thread, and I believe that is why there was very little discussion/debate there.
> 
> 
> This is why a pure voting system has been repeatedly rejected in this thread.




What debate? I think I'll leave this statement alone.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15447666
> 
> 
> by *actual* reviews I meant where people have posted their review of Wall-E versus the discussion of Wall-E. They are different, and the actual reviews are the ones that count for the purpose of title placement. In the discussion there are several people stating their points repeatedly especially when the topic comes back up again, so there are a ton more discussion posts versus reccomendation posts. I'm curious to see how many reviews there are for Wall-E, where someone said "I watched Wall-E, I thought This-n-That about it, and I recommend it to be in Tier X.XX, watched on My Blu Ray Player, on My TV, from A Specific Viewing Distance."
> 
> 
> I plan on watching the movie... I had hoped we were going to get it for Christmas but my brother bought the DVD for my daughter instead of the BRD (and they opened it up before I could exchange it). I should be getting a copy of it tonight, hopefully watch it in the next couple of days, then at least I'll understand what you guys are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I watch a movie and do a review, I always do a search for the movie and check out other reviews prior to posting, so I'll be doing that before I post a review of Wall-E.



Well, I would say much of this discussion HAS been about the placement Wall-E.

The topic has come back up again because the placement of Wall-E is controversial in my opinion. You can't talk about where a movie should be placed with out debating why it should be placed in a recommended spot. Thus you will have posts that talk about a movies placement without the bold type.

And of course as it states in the first page of this thread, it should not be considered a crime to review the placement of a movie from time to time.


I think this post leads directly to my next point.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15437098
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> 
> I can't speak for Super Slow, but based on his comments and maybe projecting a bit, I am guessing he probably leans pretty heavy on the scroll button during the bickering and pays most of his attention to the reviews. I think that's why he asked us to put our recommendations in bold type, so he'd know when to slow down and take note. And when I say lean pretty heavily on the scroll button, I mean until until it starts to smoke.



Really...

I really hope the person in charge of ranking titles is not scrolling past or flying over certain posts just because their recommendations may not be in bold. It is comments such as yours that gives others who contribute to this thread the impression that only a few members voice counts on this thread.









I do in fact remember it being said we should now enter our tier placement recommendations in bold. But no post should be scrolled past or flown over, because there are an awful lot of points that get brought up later in the debate that should also be considered in a movies placement.

Funny, I ask why we should have to follow such a trivial rule to the T' anyway when we don't even follow the standards set on the first page of this thread, which I would argue is the objective of this thread.

Anyways in keeping with this rule, just in case someone scrolled by or flew over my previous points *I recommend that Wall-E be placed in the top portion of tier1.

I think The Dark Knight should be ranked in the lower portion of tier0.

Sony VW60, Da-Lite 58x104 inch HCCV screen with masking sitting 12.5 feet from the screen in a light controlled room.*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15448175
> 
> 
> The problem with this is that if you go to a pure voting system, the debates would automatically be "taken out of the mix".
> 
> 
> In other words, *you could still have the debates, but they would have no bearing at all on the actual placements of titles since you are using a pure voting system.* Also, why would people even bother to have a debate if it isn't going to make a difference? Just register your vote and move on. That's why I never cared for the HD-DVD Tier thread, and I believe that is why there was very little discussion/debate there.
> 
> 
> This is why a pure voting system has been repeatedly rejected in this thread.



I guess I'm not following your logic above (highlighted) Rob, for in what way is our debating titles having a bearing on the actual placements of titles in our current system (read my whole post before jumping to conclusions here







)? In our current system we recommend a placement (which is equivalent to a "vote"), we give our reasons for doing so (at least some of do), and then SuprSlow looks at the recommendations and places a title accordingly. SuprSlow isn't determining placement of a title by the reasons we give for our recommendation; he determines placement by the recommendations (i.e., votes) alone.


So, the only real difference between the process of placement on this thread and the old HD DVD thread is that here we expect a member to state a reason (or reasons) for his vote (instead of a raw vote). But in the end it's still the "vote" that determines the placement.


Let me add (and I think this is where you're really coming from) that where a debate *can* make a difference, is when other members who have not seen a title are exposed to reviews where they can be "on the lookout" for things (such as DNR, EE, artifacts, etc.) that are mentioned, and if they do indeed recognize these flaws they may end up giving it a lower recommendation than they would have if they had not been made aware of what to look for. It could work the other way too by seeing reviews that mention favorable things to look for that may result in a higher recommendation.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15448582
> 
> 
> I guess I'm not following your logic above (highlighted) Rob, for in what way is our debating titles having a bearing on the actual placements of titles in our current system (read my whole post before jumping to conclusions here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )? In our current system we recommend a placement (which is equivalent to a "vote"), we give our reasons for doing so (at least some of do), and then SuprSlow looks at the recommendations and places a title accordingly. SuprSlow isn't determining placement of a title by the reasons we give for our recommendation; he determines placement by the recommendations (i.e., votes) alone.
> 
> 
> So, the only real difference between the process of placement on this thread and the old HD DVD thread is that here we expect a member to state a reason (or reasons) for his vote (instead of a raw vote). But in the end it's still the "vote" that determines the placement.
> 
> 
> Let me add (and I think this is where you're really coming from) that where a debate *can* make a difference, is when other members who have not seen a title are exposed to reviews where they can be "on the lookout" for things (such as DNR, EE, artifacts, etc.) that are mentioned, and if they do indeed recognize these flaws they may end up giving it a lower recommendation than they would have if they had not been made aware of what to look for. It could work the other way too by seeing reviews that mention favorable things to look for that may result in a higher recommendation.



It is also not totally unheard of for someone to modify his or her initial recommendation based on subsequent discussion.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/15448435
> 
> 
> Really...I really hope the person in charge of ranking titles is not “scrolling past” or “flying over” certain posts just because their recommendations may not be in bold. It is comments such as yours that gives others who contribute to this thread the impression that only a few members voice counts on this thread.



I do not believe Super Slow's request for bold print on recommendations is unreasonable and if you are saying you think I am one of the few whose votes count, you should take note that I am constantly advising posters who complain to post reviews and when posters forget to bold their recommendations, I have reminded them. I post these comments to the forum so all new posters can see them. So, I do not follow your logic here. What I am saying is this; if you want your position represented here, post a review -- that's what the mod reads. And he has asked us to put the title and our recommendation in bold print to make them easier for him find and count. It also says in the opening paragraphs to list your gear when you post a review. So, there is a protocol here. Once you follow it, your viewpoint, as represented by your review and recommendation, will be counted. If you fail to follow the protocol, how do you expect the moderator to factor your view into the final recommendation? By factoring the intensity of your complaint? Does that seem reasonable to you?


Now, once you've posted a review and recommendation, you are welcome to discuss the placement, challenge others on their reviews, see if you can get people to change their recommendations. I've seen many people here change their recommendations based on further viewing or based on the fact that as we get more titles, what once may have seemed like a reference title no longer competes with the new reference titles.


I've also seen the moderator move a title that has been placed for a long time because as more people watch it and weigh in, the new recommendations are either higher or lower and this causes him to move it.


Personally, I am not happy with where some of the titles are placed, but I have seen the reviews that have gone into the placement and I believe that the moderator places them fairly based on the reviews that title has received. What more can you ask of him?


Bottom line: This is a democracy, so you are entitled to one vote, but to place that vote, you must follow the protocol. Once you place that vote, you must realize that everyone else's vote counts, too. Sometimes, you are out-voted. I guarantee you, everyone on this forum has been out-voted at one point or another and has had to deal with it. There is seldom universal agreement on any given title and that should surprise no one. Someone is always going to be unhappy. The best evidence that the forum is working properly, IMO, is that usually people on both sides of any given issue are equally unhappy. That tells me the moderator is doing an excellent job of splitting the baby.



> Quote:
> But no post should be “scrolled past” or “flown over,” because there are an awful lot of points that get brought up later in the debate that should also be considered in a movies placement.



I disagree. If the discussion causes someone to change a recommendation and that change is posted in bold for Super Slow to see -- that's when I would expect him to take note. Also, I cannot speak for Super Slow. I wrote that I was basing my comment on a projection. He may scan the discussion to see if there is any movement, but I wouldn't expect him to read every word written in this forum -- so much of it is just people venting.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15448649
> 
> 
> It is also not totally unheard of for someone to modify his or her initial recommendation based on subsequent discussion.



Agreed!


I should have mentioned that in my last post (in the last paragraph), for indeed our reasons for a placement can affect a modification of an initial recommendation. This is why I would NOT go along with a raw vote without the ability to discuss the reasons for your vote. In fact, I used to argue this point on the HD DVD thread. That thread was flawed, IMO, because of that. Not that this thread is perfect, but it is arguably better because of the ability to debate titles.


When I responded to stumlad my thinking was that perhaps there would be a way to have a raw vote AND discussions (debates), thus it would be easier for SuprSlow to count votes and make a placement, and at the same time there could be discussions so that placements could be challenged and recommendations affected by such debates.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15448175
> 
> 
> The problem with this is that if you go to a pure voting system, the debates would automatically be "taken out of the mix".
> 
> 
> In other words, you could still have the debates, but they would have no bearing at all on the actual placements of titles since you are using a pure voting system. Also, why would people even bother to have a debate if it isn't going to make a difference? Just register your vote and move on. That's why I never cared for the HD-DVD Tier thread, and I believe that is why there was very little discussion/debate there.
> 
> 
> This is why a pure voting system has been repeatedly rejected in this thread.



Do the debates really do any good? How many times have you seen someone say "I see your point. You're right, let's move it down two tiers?"


I like to see people's reviews, and I like to see flaws pointed out that I perhaps didn't catch. That would be my reason for coming to the thread and reading what people have to say. "I gave ___ x/10 of y/10 because of ___." Then someone says "That's not __ that you're seeing, it's ____". I don't see why the debates would have to stop?


I understand that we want people to review the movies, but how many times do you see a review and then a bunch of replies that aren't full reviews, but a statement or two stating their disagreement? And those votes count just as much right?


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15448776
> 
> 
> 
> When I responded to stumlad my thinking was that perhaps there would be a way to have a raw vote AND discussions (debates), thus it would be easier for SuprSlow to count votes and make a placement, and at the same time there could be discussions so that placements could be challenged and recommendations affected by such debates.



I'd be perfectly fine with requiring a review in order to submit a vote.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15448910
> 
> 
> Do the debates really do any good? How many times have you seen someone say "I see your point. You're right, let's move it down two tiers?"
> 
> 
> I like to see people's reviews, and I like to see flaws pointed out that I perhaps didn't catch. That would be my reason for coming to the thread and reading what people have to say. "I gave ___ x/10 of y/10 because of ___." Then someone says "That's not __ that you're seeing, it's ____". I don't see why the debates would have to stop?
> 
> *I understand that we want people to review the movies, but how many times do you see a review and then a bunch of replies that aren't full reviews, but a statement or two stating their disagreement? And those votes count just as much right?*



So, are you proposing that something does not count as a "review" unless it satisfies a minimum word count requirement?


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15448685
> 
> 
> I do not believe Super Slow's request for bold print on recommendations is unreasonable and if you are saying you think I am one of the few whose votes count, you should take note that I am constantly advising posters who complain to post reviews and when posters forget to bold their recommendations, I have reminded them. I post these comments to the forum so all new posters can see them. So, I do not follow your logic here. What I am saying is this; if you want your position represented here, post a review -- that's what the mod reads. And he has asked us to put the title and our recommendation in bold print to make them easier for him find and count. It also says in the opening paragraphs to list your gear when you post a review. So, there is a protocol here. Once you follow it, your viewpoint, as represented by your review and recommendation, will be counted. If you fail to follow the protocol, how do you expect the moderator to factor your view into the final recommendation? By factoring the intensity of your complaint? Does that seem reasonable to you?
> 
> 
> Now, once you've posted a review and recommendation, you are welcome to discuss the placement, challenge others on their reviews, see if you can get people to change their recommendations. I've seen many people here change their recommendations based on further viewing or based on the fact that as we get more titles, what once may have seemed like a reference title no longer competes with the new reference titles.
> 
> 
> I've also seen the moderator move a title that has been placed for a long time because as more people watch it and weigh in, the new recommendations are either higher or lower and this causes him to move it.
> 
> 
> Personally, I am not happy with where some of the titles are placed, but I have seen the reviews that have gone into the placement and I believe that the moderator places them fairly based on the reviews that title has received. What more can you ask of him?
> 
> 
> Bottom line: This is a democracy, so you are entitled to one vote, but to place that vote, you must follow the protocol. Once you place that vote, you must realize that everyone else's vote counts, too. Sometimes, you are out-voted. I guarantee you, everyone on this forum has been out-voted at one point or another and has had to deal with it. There is seldom universal agreement on any given title and that should surprise no one. Someone is always going to be unhappy. The best evidence that the forum is working properly, IMO, is that usually people on both sides of any given issue are equally unhappy. That tells me the moderator is doing an excellent job of splitting the baby.
> 
> 
> I disagree. If the discussion causes someone to change a recommendation and that change is posted in bold for Super Slow to see -- that's when I would expect him to take note. Also, I cannot speak for Super Slow. I wrote that I was basing my comment on a projection. He may scan the discussion to see if there is any movement, but I wouldn't expect him to read every word written in this forum -- so much of it is just people venting.



I don't have an issue with it. I posted my latest recommendation in bold.

I do have an issue with a moderator not reading EVERY POST ON THIS THREAD!

I do and I am not even a thread moderator!

If reading every post is that big of a deal, then with all due respect, maybe it is time to hand over the reigns to someone more devoted.









Don't get me wrong, we ALL appreciate what those who volunteer their time are doing, but there should be no scanning of posts or fly over's tolerated. Sorry if this sounds cold, but I think this should be a requirement of the job.

Oh, and I do realize that everyone's vote counts once, but there are plenty here who have also chimed in to move Wall-E off tier0. I would think a tier0 ranking would be an OVERWHELMING vote that the movie is Eye Candy. From what I am seeing, this is hardly the case.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15448936
> 
> 
> I'd be perfectly fine with requiring a review in order to submit a vote.



Me too...

If nothing else, be prepared to explain or elaborate a little bit to someone's question as to why you want the title placed where you recommended it.


----------



## selimsivad

There's no need to reinvent the wheel.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Ah, the tumult that seems to occur like clockwork in this thread like the cycles of the Moon. I doubt anyone that reads this thread agrees with every single placement of each Blu-ray. I would not get so hung up on any one title like Wall*E. To be honest I am relatively happy with its current placement and have enjoyed the discussion it generated here. But I am a little upset at the insinuation that SuprSlow is doing anything but the most admirable of jobs moderating this thread. He is doing an excellent job for something that is completely voluntary and without pay.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/15446475
> 
> 
> Well, The Dark Knight is unbelievably in tier1 and I believe it is superior to Wall-E.
> 
> Is Wall-E a different sort of eye candy as set forth by the standards on the first page of this thread??
> 
> I don't have a problem with leaving TDK in tier1 so long as Wall-E is placed below it.




Why has Wall E. become the battleground of all or nothing. Why, I don't know as the first 30 min should not be this controversial. No way should Wall E be below DK. It shouldn't leave tier 0 period. I wasn't going to comment further, but it seems you want to take on everyone who disagrees with your view on it, so fine you got it from me as well. You are taking this to extremes and IMO it needs to stop. Opinion is one thing , but after pages and pages of debate much of which I am sure you read, we hear you but disagree, so there is no need to keep pushing.


Most importantly where I believe your comment was completely erroneous is when you said Wall E is "very dull and soft" in the first 30 min. You really believe that? That is what you really saw? It had the "haze" as mentioned, but in no way was it very dull or very soft, no way and your comment seems like exaggerated hyperbole just to drive home your point of disagreement.


In post # 8554 you stated: *"Oh I see, I am just not an expert in this like some of you are. Please!

Fine, you guys go ahead and have your way. That is usually how it goes around here anyway."*


This is not our way vs your way and it is NOT by any means how it goes around here. It seems more than apparent you are saying that because you are not getting it your way. Welcome to life or something like it.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15449429
> 
> 
> Ah, the tumult that seems to occur like clockwork in this thread like the cycles of the Moon. I doubt anyone that reads this thread agrees with every single placement of each Blu-ray. *I would not get so hung up on any one title like Wall*E.* To be honest I am relatively happy with its current placement and have enjoyed the discussion it generated here. But I am a little upset at the insinuation that SuprSlow is doing anything but the most admirable of jobs moderating this thread. He is doing an excellent job for something that is completely voluntary and without pay.




This is what I am thinking and saying as well. There are plenty of titles that we could do this with and I feel the same about Apocalypto and I do mention it as a reference from time to time about where I feel it should be placed, but I don't keep up posting paragraphs and pages of my opinion pushing my agenda. I let it go and know that where it is IMO is just as good as tier 0, because I know in my mind what I think of it.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15449429
> 
> 
> But I am a little upset at the insinuation that SuprSlow is doing anything but the most admirable of jobs moderating this thread. He is doing an excellent job for something that is completely voluntary and without pay.



I wholeheartedly agree with you! I have commended him many times and I take this opportunity to do so again.


I'm sure your comments had nothing to do with any of my posts that mentioned SuprSlow, but for the record I want to state that when I did refer to SuprSlow in recent posts my concern was that he has so much work to do that if we had a simpler voting system it would make his job much easier. Again, he's doing an admirable job, but I would love to help "lighten his load."


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/15448435
> 
> 
> Well, I would say much of this discussion HAS been about the placement Wall-E.
> 
> The topic has come back up again because the placement of Wall-E is controversial in my opinion. You can't talk about where a movie should be placed with out debating why it should be placed in a recommended spot. Thus you will have posts that talk about a movies placement without the bold type.
> 
> And of course as it states in the first page of this thread, it should not be considered a crime to review the placement of a movie from time to time.
> 
> 
> I think this post leads directly to my next point.
> 
> [/b]




I never said that the discussion of Wall-E (or any title)was bad, nor am I confused between the discussion vs recommendation posts. I like the discussion we have over movies. I think you are seeing some sort of attack in my posts that simply is not there. My wondering what the actual tier placements people have recommended vs. the discussion was simply that... *my wondering about what the actual placements are*. I don't know what I've done in my posts to confuse you on that.


I just know with the constant discussion on a title like Wall-E, it may seem as though there's a lot of people thinking it's Tier 1 or Tier 0 or Tier _whatever_ spot, given the topic is coming up rather often, so the same people will say their thoughts on the subject again b/c it's another discussion with another poster who comes on in and either railroads against the thread with the "why is Wall-E in tier 0!!!" or "why is Wall-E not HIGHER in tier 0!!" or what have you, people will answer them. I think you're reading more into my post than I'm intending, so I apologize if I'm not being clear.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

I also think perhaps instead of a voting system, maybe there should be a running tally or something? The thought about a straight vote IMO doesn't leave a lot of room for someone to change their mind. Perhaps it's the fact that I'm a girl







but I like leeway to change my mind on things.


----------



## Hughmc

I watched both The Strangers and Ghost Town and both I will watch again and make my recommendations, but so far what I seen in Ghost town was very impressive. If anyone wants to see a beautiful and cinematographic expose of NYC this film is it. How it films Ny is just stunning! and I can't stress that enough. It has to be seem for that alone. As of now Ghost town is high tier one and if it wasn't for a few out of focus close ups this could be a tier 0 film. It has very realistic and spot on colors, has 3d pop, grain and some incredible detail.


It also doesn't hurt that Ghost town is a very enjoyable film to watch.. What a pleasant treat.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15449606
> 
> 
> I also think perhaps instead of a voting system, maybe there should be a running tally or something? The thought about a straight vote IMO doesn't leave a lot of room for someone to change their mind. Perhaps it's the fact that I'm a girl
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but I like leeway to change my mind on things.



Wow you are open minded, imagine that.









For all intensive purposes I was raised by my mom much more so than my dad, so I can relate and yet I can also be stubborn. Nothing personal.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15438585
> 
> 
> I really have to take issue with the statement highlighted above Hugh. Like I said last night in a post, if we all adhering to the same standards set forth on page one I can't see how "one's eye candy is not another's eye candy."
> 
> 
> If we have a title that is truly eye candy, we're all going to be feasting on the virtues of it, whether it be natural vivid colors, good contrast, inky blacks, bright whites, 3D pop, etc. There really should be no difference of opinion about that (ideally). But when there is softness, or in the case of Wall-E a definite haze that takes away from the virtues just mentioned, I can't see how one can call that eye candy. Page one states that it should be penalized for that very thing.
> 
> 
> Okay, I'll get off my soapbox now.



I do respect your and everyone's opinion in this thread even if I disagree.







I wanted to let you know I saw this post yesterday and didn't ignore it, but just wanted to not keep up the flames.







You do make good points.


----------



## Vegaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ballen420* /forum/post/15440711
> 
> 
> This list isn't going anywhere beyond AVSForum.com



Not true. It gets around to some other places.


----------



## slimm




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15449606
> 
> 
> I also think perhaps instead of a voting system, maybe there should be a running tally or something? The thought about a straight vote IMO doesn't leave a lot of room for someone to change their mind. Perhaps it's the fact that I'm a girl
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but I like leeway to change my mind on things.



Don't vote until your mind is made up, however long that takes.


----------



## RBFC

To make things much simpler per title, a poll thread with choices of tier could be created for each new title. SuprSlow could then just scan the # of votes for tier placement and arrive at a quick consensus.


We would need a master thread that contained all the polls in one spot, so that they couldn't drift around the forum.


Individual discussion threads about debated titles (per Rob's concerns that debates would be eliminated) could be created, and placements reviewed as a result. In this way, we could all state our opinions about controversial titles in an organized fashion AND provide one easy access to all voting on a title's tier placement.


Just another idea.....


Lee


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15449049
> 
> 
> So, are you proposing that something does not count as a "review" unless it satisfies a minimum word count requirement?



No. The goal of the thread is for people to write reviews in order to make a tier placement, but not every tier recommendation comes by way of a review (me included). Does that mean it counts any less? And if not, then why can't we just vote? Why not have a voting system that has an override where something can be manually moved if enough debate says it should be.



below directed at all:

By the way -- just to be clear-- I never suggested this as a way of saying I was dissatisfied with the work done by SuprSlow. It was just to say that he's basically taking our tier recommendations and averaging them to make an accurate tier placement. It's obvious that it's a lot of work for him or anyone to keep up with.... Not only that, if someone recommends a tier placement twice, how does that count ? Is a second vote ignored? Does anyone remember you already voted? I am just saying, it's a lot of work, and it can be made easier for him or anyone else who wants to sort them.


In general, all I'm trying to do is help make it more friendly for newcomers who want to come in and have their vote counted. You can tell by the countless posts that a lot of people feel ignored. That has to be a sign that somethings wrong.


----------



## RBFC




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15449831
> 
> 
> And if not, then why can't we just vote? Why not have a voting system that has an override where something can be manually moved if enough debate says it should be.



Looks like Stumlad is thinking along similar lines here....


Lee


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slimm* /forum/post/15449778
> 
> 
> Don't vote until your mind is made up, however long that takes.




I only actually changed my mind once... I lowered my rec of Mamma Mia, went back to my original post on it and changed it (the thread had not been updated by SuprSlow yet), because I got a new television. So it was an extreme situation (going from RP to Plasma!) in that instance.


----------



## RBFC

Examining the structure of the poll threads, one may vote AND (if they wish) post a reply to elaborate on the topic. If the poll method was instituted for PQ, then all discussion about a certain title would be located in one easy-to-find place. The current thread is so long that searching for other opinions on a certain title's PQ is a tedious affair.


This seems, to me, to contain the best of both worlds. Simple voting, with an organized method to enter into discussion about each title. Each title's poll thread would contain the total vote AND all pertinent discussion/debate. Quarter tier placements could easily be mentioned in the discussion section, if poll options don't allow for enough choices.


I believe that others, as well as myself, would participate more if the PQ listings were organized in this fashion.


Anyone else?


Lee


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/15448378
> 
> 
> Actually it does.
> 
> How many times do we place titles in the top tier by comparing them to the title in front of it??
> 
> 
> Oh I see, I am just not an expert in this like some of you are. Please!
> 
> Fine, you guys go ahead and have your way. That is usually how it goes around here anyway.
> 
> Just remember that the next time a title gets chastised in this thread because it has minor instances of softness or haloing, I'll happily bring up the tier0 poster child Wall-E.



Good grief man, are you really serious about this?


Why in the world are you comparing things like halos, which are an unwanted digital _artifact_ to the _intentional_ look of Wall-E and what _you_ consider to be "softness"? Do you really not see the distinct difference between the two?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15448582
> 
> 
> I guess I'm not following your logic above (highlighted) Rob, for in what way is our debating titles having a bearing on the actual placements of titles in our current system (read my whole post before jumping to conclusions here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )? In our current system we recommend a placement (which is equivalent to a "vote"), we give our reasons for doing so (at least some of do), and then SuprSlow looks at the recommendations and places a title accordingly. SuprSlow isn't determining placement of a title by the reasons we give for our recommendation; he determines placement by the recommendations (i.e., *votes) alone*.



Well, I hate to be the one to break this news to you, but: *this is not correct.*


If it is correct, then there was a major change to this thread that I was not aware of, and I would appreciate it if someone could point me to a post indicating this change.


If you go back to the beginning of this thread, you will see that it was never intended to be based on pure voting. In fact, the OP (AustinSTi) indicated that certain requirements were being made so that he could attempt to know how much weight to give a posters recommendation. For example, someone making a recommendation based on viewing a 25" screen 14 feet away, on an old LCD with crappy black levels, will not be given the same weight as someone else viewing on a much larger screen at a closer viewing angle with better contrast specs.


So if the former poster recommends a title for Tier 0, and the other poster recommends a Tier 2, the title could very well be placed in Tier 2, not Tier 1 (which would be the average for these two recommendations) for obvious reasons.


This is why this thread has always had more credibility than the HD-DVD thread in my opinion.


This is the very basis for requiring a listing of equipment and viewing distance (and I admit that many of us, myself included, have gotten away from posting this info).


So, again, your statement that SuprSlow places titles based solely on "votes alone" is *100% wrong.*



> Quote:
> So, the only real difference between the process of placement on this thread and the old HD DVD thread is that here we expect a member to state a reason (or reasons) for his vote (instead of a raw vote). But in the end it's still the "vote" that determines the placement.



No sir, see above.



> Quote:
> Let me add (and I think this is where you're really coming from) that where a debate *can* make a difference, is when other members who have not seen a title are exposed to reviews where they can be "on the lookout" for things (such as DNR, EE, artifacts, etc.) that are mentioned, and if they do indeed recognize these flaws they may end up giving it a lower recommendation than they would have if they had not been made aware of what to look for. It could work the other way too by seeing reviews that mention favorable things to look for that may result in a higher recommendation.



This is true, but it certainly isn't the only, or even the main reason, for the debates/discussions. Think of SuprSlow (or AustinSTi) as the "Judge", and we are here to make our "case" for a titles placement. This is what happens, at least to a degree.


This is not to say that even those people who simply list their equipment and viewing distance and make a Tier recommendation without giving a narrative review will have those votes ignored. I am simply saying that they may not be given the same weight as a review that does give a detailed review.


I find it very surprising that we are having this discussion and that people (especially a contributor like you) don't realize that this is how this thread works.


Believe me, this thread has had its share of criticism, and one of the main ones was that it is NOT based purely on votes.


Another reason for debate is to attempt to come as close as possible to a consensus. People can change their minds or at least agree to a compromise in placement of a title. If a majority of posters agree that a certain title should be moved up or down, it will be. This is one thing that makes the thread so valuable.


----------



## djoberg

^


Rob, you make some valid points (especially concerning equipment used and seating distance), but if you have read the last 3 or 4 pages you would have to admit that "what once was, is no more." This thread may have started out with all of the prerequisites you alluded to, but I believe it has evolved, more or less, into "every man's vote counts."


Again, I'm not going to *debate* every point you mention above, but if you were to take a survey of every member I think you would be very surprised to find out that many feel their vote counts, whether their vote is accompanied with a review or not. I certainly don't believe that most members would think that SuprSlow would give more weight to a lengthy review over a shorter one. I've been with this thread for about a year and I was NEVER under that impression. If what you say is true, then I guess Phantom Stranger's reviews would always be the tie breaker!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15450569
> 
> 
> ^
> 
> 
> Rob, you make some valid points (especially concerning equipment used and seating distance), but if you have read the last 3 or 4 pages you would have to admit that "what once was, is no more." This thread may have started out with all of the prerequisites you alluded to, but I believe it has evolved, more or less, into "every man's vote counts."
> 
> 
> Again, I'm not going to *debate* every point you mention above, but if you were to take a survey of every member *I think you would be very surprised to find out that many feel their vote counts, whether their vote is accompanied with a review or not.*



Hello?


Where did I state otherwise?


What I said was that some votes are not given the same weight as other votes! I didn't say that certain votes don't count at all. Did you miss this part of my post:



> Quote:
> This is not to say that even those people who simply list their equipment and viewing distance and make a Tier recommendation without giving a narrative review will have those votes ignored. I am simply saying that they may not be given the same weight as a review that does give a detailed review.



And again, please point me to a post or posts by SuprSlow or AustinSTi indicating that titles are placed purely on raw votes.


You may recall that I used to help AustinSTi and SuprSlow in placements of these titles, and I can assure you that those placements were not based purely on raw votes.


One point that Suffolk made that has some merit is the idea that a title that is going to be placed in tier 0 should probably have more than a simple majority to be placed there. For example, lets say a title has 6 votes for Tier 0 and 5 votes for Tier 1.25. Should the title automatically be placed in Tier 0? I don't think so. And yes, I recognize that this is an argument in Suffolk's favor in terms of moving Wall-E down.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15450494
> 
> 
> This is not to say that even those people who simply list their equipment and viewing distance and make a Tier recommendation without giving a narrative review will have those votes ignored. *I am simply saying that they may not be given the same weight as a review that does give a detailed review.*



I think you are speaking of out both sides of your mouth, for in one breath you say that one's vote will not be ignored, but then you go on to say that it "may not be given the same weight as a review that does give a detailed review."


Just what does that latter statement mean? Does it mean that if I were to post a short review (without any details) on let's say The Dark Knight and Phantom Stranger gave a 150 word review on the same title (with more eloquent language and with a better knowledge of DNR, EE, artifacts, etc.), SuprSlow may very well give more weight to Phantom's review? And if so, how much weight? Just what does "more weight" mean?


I must confess Rob, you have succeeded in confusing me, and to be quite frank, I don't like what I'm reading from you. You are coming across (in my thinking) as somewhat of an elitist and I could see where newbies coming to this thread would be intimidated by such language and would be inclined not to give their opinion on a movie (lest their review is not sophisticated enough to be given "more weight").


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15450897
> 
> 
> I think you are speaking of out both sides of your mouth, for in one breath you say that one's vote will not be ignored, but then you go on to say that it "may not be given the same weight as a review that does give a detailed review."



This is not speaking out of both sides of the mouth at all.


It isn't even contradictory. Please explain how this is speaking out of both sides of my mouth?


Just because one vote may not be given the same weight as another vote doesn't mean that other vote is being "ignored". I guess I really fail to see the confusion/issue here.











> Quote:
> Just what does that latter statement mean? Does it mean that if I were to post a 50 word review on let's say The Dark Knight and Phantom Stranger gave a 150 word review on the same title (with more eloquent language and with a better knowledge of DNR, EE, artifacts, etc.), SuprSlow may very well give more weight to Phantom's review? And if so, how much weight? Just what does "more weight" mean?



I think we would have a more meaningful discussion if you stopped making strawman arguments, and stopped trying to attribute statements to me that I did not make, like you did above (when you said that I said that some people votes do not count...which I NEVER said).


Seriously, do you really think that I am making an argument that a 150 word review will be given more weight than a 50 word review?


No. Doing so would be based on pure raw data.










But I am saying that it is possible that someone who gives a very detailed and thorough review, like Phantom Stranger usually does, his vote may be given more weight than a two sentence review. All reviews are considered though. Always have been.



> Quote:
> I must confess Rob, you have succeeded in confusing me, and to be quite frank, I don't like what I'm reading from you. You are coming across (in my thinking) as somewhat of an elitist and I could see where newbies coming to this thread would be intimidated by such language and would be inclined not to give their opinion on a movie (lest their review is not sophisticated enough to be given "more weight.")



If I have confused you, it is because you were already confused by thinking that the placements were being made based on raw voting data, which has simply NEVER been the case in this thread.


If anything, I should have _clarified_ things for you, not confused you.


As for the "elitism" charge, I don't know why you would throw that charge my way? All I have done was point out how the titles are ranked in this thread, since day one. Now, suddenly, you think it is "elitist"?


Is it also elitist to say that people viewing on front projection systems with 1080p projectors will be given more weight than those viewing on 25" sets from 13 feet away, with a 1500:1 contrast ratio? If that is elitist, should we no longer do that?


And remember, as far as the elitism charge, I am one who feels that even people who have 720p displays are perfectly capable of giving valid opinions here, as are people with smaller displays, as long as their viewing distance is reasonable.


----------



## 1brokebrother

this thread is better than discussing the BCS championship VS a playoff..


----------



## djoberg

^


Rob,


You never did answer the one question I asked more than once:


What does it mean that one person's vote may be given "more weight" than another person's? That sounds to me like you're saying my vote counts, but it may not count as much as another person's.


How in the world does that work in real life? In other words, how does SuprSlow actually make such judgments when he's deciding whose vote is worthy of "more weight?" I guess what I'm really asking is, "Once SuprSlow has decided someone's vote carries more weight, how does he go about placing titles based on that?" If you don't want to speak for SuprSlow, then tell me how you used to make such judgment calls when you were helping him and Austin decide placements.


I would also like to hear from others on this, for I have to believe that there may be some pretty strong opinions on this.


----------



## RBFC

For what it's worth, I PM'ed Rob several months back and told him that I wasn't sure if I should post reviews of PQ due to my 7th gen Pioneer Elite plasma not being 1080p. I felt that the regular contributors would frown upon opinions gathered from a display that was not able to reproduce full resolution of each title.


ROB'S RESPONSE: (paraphrased) Lee, you should feel free to post your opinions on PQ. With your display, you will still be able to see qualitative differences between titles.


He encouraged me to participate, even though I felt that I was not an "elite" videophile.


I don't think that criticizing him for being "elitist" is fair or accurate.


I've still been hesitant, simply because it's not yet clear whether individual opinions count the same as "regular poster opinions". Quite frankly, I also don't always have the time to read through 3-4 pages of bickering new posts every time I log in.


I offered a suggestion for re-formatting the rating process above, and there have been zero comments in regard to this. Any thoughts?


Lee


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RBFC* /forum/post/15451321
> 
> 
> I've still been hesitant, simply because it's not yet clear whether individual opinions count the same as "regular poster opinions".
> 
> 
> Lee



Lee,


The irony in your post is that you defended Rob for not being elitist and then you say you're hesitant to write a review "because it's not yet clear whether individual opinions count the same as 'regular poster opinions'." Would you consider it "elitist" if you found out for certain that regular posters have more clout on this thread?


I'm trying to make the case that every person's vote should be equal (unless their screen size is so small or their seating distance is so far that they can't really evaluate the PQ of a HD title). As long as they meet the requirement of listing (at one time or another) their equipment and seating distance, their vote should be equal to that of anyone else, whether they give a detailed review or not. I'm not trying to stir up a hornet's nest; I am truly concerned by what Rob has said about "more weight" being given to some posters over others.


----------



## RBFC




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15451439
> 
> 
> Lee,
> 
> 
> The irony in your post is that you defended Rob for not being elitist and then you say you're hesitant to write a review "because it's not yet clear whether individual opinions count the same as 'regular poster opinions'." Would you consider it "elitist" if you found out for certain that regular posters have more clout on this thread?
> 
> 
> I'm trying to make the case that every person's vote should be equal (unless their screen size is so small or their seating distance is so far that they can't really evaluate the PQ of a HD title). As long as they meet the requirement of listing (at one time or another) their equipment and seating distance, their vote should be equal to that of anyone else, whether they give a detailed review or not. I'm not trying to stir up a hornet's nest; I am truly concerned by what Rob has said about "more weight" being given to some posters over others.




I simply felt that regular posters had more clout because their display setup and knowledge of the video process was superior to mine. There exists, to me, a huge difference between having "clout" just because you post more (and lengthier) comments AND someone having superior technical gear/knowledge that may reveal flaws that are not visible to the majority.


It all depends on how we wish this thread to be perceived. It can be seen as a quasi-professional review resource, considering all the minutae under examination. It can also be seen as a subjective mess, since there is still bickering about the criteria by which a title is ranked. Before we bicker about elitism, etc., the decision should be made about what the intent of the thread is.


As for "professionalism" and "clout", what would be the response if the head of Pixar posted that he felt _Wall-E_ should be Tier 3, as it doesn't match the original master as well as he'd like? If he then pointed out areas in which the BD falls short, would that matter? Should his greater knowledge of the comparison carry more weight? IMO, yes. However, since most all of us don't have access to that level of information, we must satisfy ourselves that we like or don't like the appearance of a certain title on BD.


In the same vein, I was concerned about posting reviews because I simply don't have adequate knowledge of the various artifacts and their manifestation on BD. My display, a Pioneer Elite PRO1540HD at 12 feet, could also be considered sub-standard to develop meaningful evaluations of PQ.


We do have individuals who have more knowledge and experience in identifying artifacts, however miniscule, that deprive a BD of being a "perfect" presentation. They may well feel that their opinion should carry more weight than the first-time poster who just got their first flat screen and don't even have it user-calibrated yet.


So, is this a public-opinion thread? Or is it an attempt to have a review resource that can withstand moderate scrutiny by industry professionals? Remember, the public loves iPods and mp3 files, while professional recording engineers (like Dr. Aix, etc.) know what the recorded medium is truly capable of. For whom is this thread intended?


That's why I've spent time discussing both sides of the debate. The intent of the thread is nebulous.


Lee


----------



## Hammie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15451439
> 
> 
> Lee,
> 
> 
> The irony in your post is that you defended Rob for not being elitist and then you say you're hesitant to write a review "because it's not yet clear whether individual opinions count the same as 'regular poster opinions'." Would you consider it "elitist" if you found out for certain that regular posters have more clout on this thread?
> 
> 
> I'm trying to make the case that every person's vote should be equal (unless their screen size is so small or their seating distance is so far that they can't really evaluate the PQ of a HD title). As long as they meet the requirement of listing (at one time or another) their equipment and seating distance, their vote should be equal to that of anyone else, whether they give a detailed review or not. I'm not trying to stir up a hornet's nest; I am truly concerned by what Rob has said about "more weight" being given to some posters over others.



Personally, I have learned HOW to review movies based on some of the regulars and their detailed evaluations/reviews. I also understand that the reason why they ask for details about our TVs, seating distance, etc. as noted on page 1 of the thread is to better understand how well we can actually qualitatively evaluate a movie.


Whose opinion would you value more and give a stronger weight to on a movie review, Ebert and Roeper or that guy at your office who has a strong infatuation with a certain red stapler?


----------



## RBFC




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hammie* /forum/post/15451694
> 
> 
> Personally, I have learned HOW to review movies based on some of the regulars and their detailed evaluations/reviews. I also understand that the reason why they ask for details about our TVs, seating distance, etc. as noted on page 1 of the thread is to better understand how well we can actually qualitatively evaluate a movie.



I've learned a great deal as well. Just note that many posters either don't supply that info about equipment/setup, either because they miss it or are semi-embarrassed that their opinion will bashed over those issues.



> Quote:
> Whose opinion would you value more and give a stronger weight to on a movie review, Ebert and Roeper or that guy at your office who has a strong infatuation with a certain red stapler?



NO contest, of course. Exactly why I posed the question I did. Is it an attempt at semi-professional review (and subject to peer review) or is it for the masses who simply vote for what looks best to them. The endless bickering points to the fact that we haven't decided yet. If pro is the goal, then some sort of "vetting" procedure must be developed.


Lee


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hammie* /forum/post/15451694
> 
> 
> Whose opinion would you value more and give a stronger weight to on a movie review, Ebert and Roeper or that guy at your office who has a strong infatuation with a certain red stapler?



I've been asking real and honest questions, unlike your rhetorical question above.










Seriously though, I have been a regular on this thread for almost a year and I've given MANY reviews, including some that were lengthy and detailed. And yet I have NEVER considered my opinion to be of "more weight" than others.


Your question above seems to imply that we should *honor* the opinion of regular and long-standing posters more than others. My question is still this:


If we're going to give "more weight" to some posters, how is that actually translated into placing titles?


I recall some months ago when there were quite a few members recommending a Tier 0 placement for a particular title and there was only one or two suggesting Tier 1 or below. One day a member wrote in and said (I'm paraphrasing now), "I think we should really consider member so and so (who was voting for a very low placement), for he has been active on this thread since its inception, and has had a very critical eye when analyzing titles." I responded by saying it would be a travesty to ignore the majority because of one member's good standing on this thread."


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RBFC* /forum/post/15451840
> 
> 
> Is it an attempt at semi-professional review (and subject to peer review) or is it for the masses who simply vote for what looks best to them. The endless bickering points to the fact that we haven't decided yet.
> 
> 
> Lee



Lee, I have ALWAYS considered this thread to be for the masses who simply vote for what looks best to them. And if I took the time I could produce MANY posts that echo that same sentiment. If I am wrong about this, then I might as well abandon this thread, for I do NOT consider myself a "semi-professional."


----------



## Phantom Stranger

The voting issue only seems to become a topic whenever a very popular movie on Blu-ray generates widely diverging viewpoints, as we have in the case of Wall*E or the Dark Knight. All recommendations from everyone that posts are considered, regular contributor or not to this thread. But I will say that I give more credence to a poster with whom I am familiar with based off prior posting history.


It allows me to examine the quality and consistency of their recommendations and that helps to shape my opinion of the recommendation. I think I understand the evaluation and thought processes that lead the regular posters to their placements most of the time and that information can be very useful. A new poster here that posts a one word recommendation for a movie usually does not get much consideration from me personally. Rome was not built in a day but this thread is very welcoming of newcomers in general. There are significant contributors here who have had major impact on the tier list that did not even post here before a couple of months ago.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15449831
> 
> 
> if someone recommends a tier placement twice, how does that count ? Is a second vote ignored? Does anyone remember you already voted?



I have changed my recommendation on several titles based on further viewing, further evaluation, as I watch more and more titles and get a better frame of reference, and as more titles come out and the competition for higher tier placement gets tougher. IMO, this is the way it should be.


People should feel free to change recommendations for any number of valid reasons.


I always note when I am changing my recommendation and I state the reason.



> Quote:
> You can tell by the countless posts that a lot of people feel ignored. That has to be a sign that somethings wrong.



I don't mean to be hard hearted, but I have little sympathy for those who complain, but who do not post review and then complain further that they have little influence. It's a lot easier to knock the thread if one is not involved in it and it is a lot easier to understand how the thread works if one is grappling with the assessment criteria. If someone disagrees with a placement, but is not posting reviews and recommendations then that person has limited his own influence and has only him or herself to blame.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RBFC* /forum/post/15451321
> 
> 
> For what it's worth, I PM'ed Rob several months back and told him that I wasn't sure if I should post reviews of PQ due to my 7th gen Pioneer Elite plasma not being 1080p. I felt that the regular contributors would frown upon opinions gathered from a display that was not able to reproduce full resolution of each title.



Many important PQ qualities can easily be seen at 720p, and as long as people are aware of the limitations of their displays I personally have no problem with such recommendations. With my LCD I keep in mind LCD's tendency to blur motion and wash out dark scenes with backlight glow, so I refrain from commenting upon issues that might be related to that, and I hope 720p users will refrain from making judgement calls that might be resolution/downscaling related.


(going to watch 2001 in a bit here, yay)


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15449511
> 
> 
> you said Wall E is "very dull and soft" in the first 30 min. You really believe that? That is what you really saw? It had the "haze" as mentioned, but in no way was it very dull or very soft, no way



I don't think Wall-E is dull in the first 30 minutes, but I think it's disingenuous not to at least concede that the haze intentionally makes the picture soft. They certainly didn't approximate an atmosphere full of haze that makes everything look sharper.


I can appreciate if someone wants to say the soft hazy effect looks like impressionist art or that while it is hazy and soft it is still "eye candy," but I don't think it does anything for the Wall-E debate to deny that the hazy effect is a soft focus effect that approximates the blur you would see if the objects on screen were seen through the dirty haze the artist has rendered.


It stands to reason, IMO, that the artistry is in rendering a pretty realistic picture of not only the haze but the softening effect it would have.


So, I think it would only be reasonable to at least concede the point that Wall-E's detractors have a legitimate concern and that is the softness in the first 30 minutes and how this fits with the assessment criteria.


Other posters have conceded the picture is soft and still recommend it for top of tier 0.


No one is imagining the soft picture.


The debate is centered around some people being concerned about it while others proclaim it eye candy.


That's a legit debate between two reasonable points of view and likely will never be settled.


----------



## RBFC




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15451907
> 
> 
> Lee, I have ALWAYS considered this thread to be for the masses who simply vote for what looks best to them. And if I took the time I could produce MANY posts that echo that same sentiment. If I am wrong about this, then I might as well abandon this thread, for I do NOT consider myself a "semi-professional."



If that's the case, then a simple poll with majority consensus would suffice.


The amount of keyboard energy expended here leans strongly against this.


As an example, take the TV show _"Who Wants to be a Millionaire?"_. There were three different assistance options when seeking the correct answer to the posed question. First, you could phone a friend for help. Second, you could rely on a panel of three highly-educated individuals. Lastly, you could poll the audience of 100+ persons of unknown education/knowledge. Statistical analysis of the results showed that the audience polling was far more consistently correct (larger sample size).


The moral here: A small # of repeatable posters here can inject consistent preferences into the sample. Whether you or I personally agree with the opinions of those posters is immaterial. The effect exists. While I believe that the "regulars" exhibit a high degree of thoughtfulness and quality, would statistical scrutiny support the adequacy of the sample size? I hope you can understand what issues newcomers to this thread face.


We can't have it both ways with the current system.


Lee


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Another "for what it's worth", I was really super scared of posting in this forum. Stupidly scared considering it's on the internet, and fairly anonymous. A big part of it had to do with my limited equipment with the Toshiba 46H83 being pretty sub-par in comparison to what I was seeing people write their reviews with, and also there was the whole "I'm a girl, will I be taken seriously?" side of things that may not really exist but is still something I felt.



The reason I decided to jump in was that I noticed there simply was not enough people still posting their thoughts on things, and the brunt seemed to be on about 5-10 people. More voices are needed, and no one made fun of my equipment, and were generally fairly nice with welcoming my input into the thread. I want to help and contribute especially considering some of the content I will happily watch may not be the same as everyone else (*cough*chickflick*cough*). It helps that my equpiment is upgraded, but my eyes are still the same eyes!



I was made to feel comfortable here by everyone and I really appreciate that. I'm glad to share my views where and when I can, and I encourage others to do so as well. The more the merrier! If you're reading this and you aren't contributing, come out and play!


----------



## lgans316

Friends,


Why so serious...that too on New Year when millions of people are losing peace of mind due to work and economy. Forums like these are meant for relaxation. Members should never signout of a forum with a bad feeling. Wall-E is requesting members to remain on earth and is happy to be in top Tier-1 provided Eva is placed in bottom of Tier-0.


----------



## djoberg

I thought it best to take leave of my 2-day soapbox a couple of hours ago, and what better way than to escape to a deserted island. Sooooo....I rented *Nim's Island*, which is currently rated at *Tier 1.25*. I believe the few who recommended this placement are right on the money.


This is a very consistent title, with sharp and detailed outdoor scenes (lush island scenes that rival those of Lost), incredible skin tones and facial close-ups, and natural, vivid colors. I also was impressed with the depth of all the island scenes, especially those in the jungle. Some of the indoor scenes were not as good, but overall this is demo material that deserves the Tier 1.25 status it has been given.


PS G3, you would love the sparkly waters!


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RBFC* /forum/post/15451680
> 
> 
> what would be the response if the head of Pixar posted that he felt _Wall-E_ should be Tier 3, as it doesn't match the original master as well as he'd like?



Some posters in favor of Wall-E's placement in tier 0 have claimed Pixar has confirmed that they were intentionally going for a soft picture effect with Wall-E. The assessment criteria specifically say that it doesn't matter if the softness is intentional, a title is to be punished for softness. This seems written specifically for cases like Wall-E.


We've also had cases in this forum where posters have made claims about processing that was applied to a title only to have insiders who performed the transfer chime in and correct them.


This thread is a messy, all too human process.


Ultimately, if you read the opening paragraphs, the OP states...

*the tier system is intended as a means of encouraging each other to watch new releases (whether they are day-and-date or catalog), express our opinion concerning the picture quality and see how it compares to reviews published on this site or other websites.*


I think we should all keep this in mind. The thread is ultimately intended to encourage discussion and evaluation to see how our opinion compares to others -- not to define reality. Sometimes we find that our opinion doesn't match anyone else's. So, what? IMO, that's the beauty of this thread -- to see how everyone can look at the same picture and see something different. By reading all of the various viewpoints, you get more milage out of your blu-ray, you get to see it through any number of different eyes. So, with that in mind, all reviews are valuable and this thread is stronger if we get to hear from a wide variety of people with varying types of gear, taste, and experience. I also love the opening line of the thread that Phantom Stranger added...

*"Oculi plus vident quam oculus." - "Several eyes see more than only one."*



.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/15452241
> 
> 
> Friends,
> 
> 
> Why so serious...



ROFL. You mean, "why so serious-ahhhhhh....?"


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15452231
> 
> 
> The reason I decided to jump in was that I noticed there simply was not enough people still posting their thoughts on things, and the brunt seemed to be on about 5-10 people. More voices are needed,



My point exactly. I want to know what more people think. There are a lot more new titles coming out now than there were when this tier thread was created. 5-10 people cannot watch all of the movies which means there will be titles with only one vote.


It's understandable that a voting system will introduce a new element since people who dont specify their reasons can blindly vote... Okay, well let's come up with some other type of system where we can get more input then. Why does it have to be the way it was written when there were only 5 new titles coming out each week?


We debate about everything else, why not work together and debate about a way where we can help this thread grow with the growing number of titles?


All I know is Shawshank Redemption is in Tier 0 while Wall-E and Dark Knight are still being debated. Both of which make Shawshank look like DVD.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15452447
> 
> 
> All I know is *Shawshank Redemption* is in Tier 0 while Wall-E and Dark Knight are still being debated. Both of which make Shawshank look like DVD.



I don't know if you noticed my review, but I recommended 2.5 for Shawshank and i would have no problem going down .25 to match your 2.75. I was torn between 2.5 and 2.75 anyway.


Here is a title where a couple of people have recommended tier 0 and you and I have recommended mid to bottom of tier 2. This is to what I was referring earlier when I said we had other titles with a far wider gulf between recommendations. I agree with you -- of the titles in tier 0, Shawshank is of far more concern.


----------



## rsbeck

Here is another poster who shares a concern about *Shawshank*...



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *agcohn* /forum/post/15277903
> 
> *Shawshank* is being ranked Tier 0? I honestly couldn't recommend it higher than *Tier 3*. The image is so soft.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15452511
> 
> 
> I don't know if you noticed my review, but I recommended 2.5 for Shawshank and i would have no problem going down .25 to match your 2.75. I was torn between 2.5 and 2.75 anyway.
> 
> 
> Here is a title where a couple of people have recommended tier 0 and you and I have recommended mid to bottom of tier 2. This is to what I was referring earlier when I said we had other titles with a far wider gulf between recommendations. I agree with you -- of the titles in tier 0, Shawshank is of far more concern.



You sparked my curiosity here rsbeck, so I did a Search on Shawshank. I only saw one recommendation for Tier 0 (and that member said he would have no problem with high Tier 1), so how in the world did it get placed in Tier 0?


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15452511
> 
> 
> I don't know if you noticed my review, but I recommended 2.5 for Shawshank and i would have no problem going down .25 to match your 2.75. I was torn between 2.5 and 2.75 anyway.



Didn't notice as there have been way too many posts recently. Perhaps some of it is my fault







2.5 or 2.75 is fine...just as long as it's far from Tier 0











> Quote:
> Here is a title where a couple of people have recommended tier 0 and you and I have recommended mid to bottom of tier 2. This is to what I was referring earlier when I said we had other titles with a far wider gulf between recommendations. I agree with you -- of the titles in tier 0, Shawshank is of far more concern.



And this is a good argument why the pure voting system doesn't work. Too many votes that may not even be based on the guidelines of the thread... but really, over 8000 posts and one person is supposed to sift through it all and determine which titles were voted on, who voted on them, and if they met the guidelines of the post, etc.. Then perhaps read the debates and see what the outcome of the debates were? It just seems like too much work for one person. And it really makes it hard for that one to be reliable in the way he/she interprets the placements after seeing all of these posts. This is why, more recently, we've been told to state our recommendation in bold ... Isn't this essentially equivalent to voting? Like I said, we don't have to do voting, but perhaps we can all brainstorm and come up with something to make it easier/better/etc.


----------



## ricwhite

Just viewed The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian and thought this was one of the best movies I've viewed this year in terms of picture quality. I gave it a 4.75/5 -- obviously a tier 0. I actually thought it was just slightly above Wall E, personally. Very close though.


A few screenshots below, but with the obvious disclaimers: It was difficult to get the exposure and colors perfectly correct. So, take these with a grain of salt.

*Spoiler Warning:* *The following screenshots may display spoiler content. View at your own risk.*

*Equipment:* Epson Home Cinema 1080 UB Projector / 106" DaLite High Power Screen / Toshiba HD-A35 HD DVD Player / Panasonic DMP-BD30 Blu-ray Player / Onkyo TX-SR605 Receiver / Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ7 Digital Camera

*Blu-ray Movie Title:* The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian

*Overall Picture Quality Rating:* Reference Quality 4.75/5


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15452434
> 
> 
> ROFL. You mean, "why so serious-ahhhhhh....?"




























> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15452447
> 
> 
> My point exactly. I want to know what more people think. There are a lot more new titles coming out now than there were when this tier thread was created. 5-10 people cannot watch all of the movies which means there will be titles with only one vote.
> 
> 
> It's understandable that a voting system will introduce a new element since people who dont specify their reasons can blindly vote... Okay, well let's come up with some other type of system where we can get more input then. Why does it have to be the way it was written when there were only 5 new titles coming out each week?
> 
> 
> We debate about everything else, why not work together and debate about a way where we can help this thread grow with the growing number of titles?
> 
> 
> All I know is Shawshank Redemption is in Tier 0 while Wall-E and Dark Knight are still being debated. Both of which make Shawshank look like DVD.



I think Shawshank is an example of a title that only had a couple of reviews before making it onto the list during a massive update. I have this, so I will make an effort to watch & review it this week sp there will be another view to add.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15452423
> 
> 
> I thought it best to take leave of my 2-day soapbox a couple of hours ago, and what better way than to escape to a deserted island. Sooooo....I rented *Nim's Island*, which is currently rated at *Tier 1.25*. I believe the few who recommended this placement are right on the money.
> 
> 
> This is a very consistent title, with sharp and detailed outdoor scenes (lush island scenes that rival those of Lost), incredible skin tones and facial close-ups, and natural, vivid colors. I also was impressed with the depth of all the island scenes, especially those in the jungle. Some of the indoor scenes were not as good, but overall this is demo material that deserves the Tier 1.25 status it has been given.
> 
> 
> PS G3, you would love the sparkly waters!










Did someone say sparkly water??? I'll have to give this a rent soon! Thanks for the heads up!


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15452633
> 
> 
> You sparked my curiosity here rsbeck, so I did a Search on *Shawshank*. I only saw one recommendation for Tier 0 (and that member said he would have no problem with high Tier 1), so how in the world did it get placed in Tier 0?



Here is a post from selimsivad....



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15334145
> 
> 
> As much as I loved this movie, *I'd like to apologize for ranking this title too high!* I just watched it again. I stand by my original descriptions, but it is a little soft. Let's just say that I wasn't in the right "mind state!"



Here is another valid reason for changing a recommendation!


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15451929
> 
> 
> The voting issue only seems to become a topic whenever a very popular movie on Blu-ray generates widely diverging viewpoints, as we have in the case of Wall*E or the Dark Knight. All recommendations from everyone that posts are considered, regular contributor or not to this thread. But I will say that I give more credence to a poster with whom I am familiar with based off prior posting history.
> 
> 
> It allows me to examine the quality and consistency of their recommendations and that helps to shape my opinion of the recommendation. I think I understand the evaluation and thought processes that lead the regular posters to their placements most of the time and that information can be very useful. A new poster here that posts a one word recommendation for a movie usually does not get much consideration from me personally. Rome was not built in a day but this thread is very welcoming of newcomers in general. There are significant contributors here who have had major impact on the tier list that did not even post here before a couple of months ago.



There are a number of things said in this post that I agree with completely so I'm just going to quote the whole thing while adding some additional thoughts to the "fly-over zone".










To put hopefully provide a little perspective and a basis of comparison of this thread to other PQ ranking resources, I present a few different off-site resources which hopefully no one will mind (and obviously, we also have here on AVS Ralph Pott's excellent reviews , the Film Grain Allowed - Artistic Intent Thread and HD Disk EE and DNR Thread which are all useful and informative resources in and of themselves).


The closest and most obvious analog to this thread is the High-Def Digest Forum Tiers Thread whose ranking criteria and results are arranged quite similarly, although it is managed somewhat differently since the moderator is one of the most active participants. Another option is to view the PQ rankings of individual review sites and reviewers individually. Some sites allow this option from their review listings or you can try out this page to sort and filter things for a number of high profile review sites. You can see a purely user vote-based system in action by perusing the Blu-ray.com user video rankings . An alternative to averaging user scores is to average the reviewer scores for titles as presented on this page .


My not really explicitly stated point is that there are many ways to slice and dice PQ and none of them are going to be perfect for everyone. The process occurring in this thread is very dynamic and due to its inherent chaotic nature, I don't believe that it can ever be perfect even for those who agree with its fundamental premise. Nor should it be, in my opinion, since it is this organic characteristic that gives this thread the personality which makes it a unique and interesting resource.


As a final note: I don't believe I've seen anyone dig out a set of complete tier votes (with post links for the votes themselves as well as any "seconds" that agree with a review) for a specific title that make a pure average of votes. This might be the most constructive way to argue for a change in a controversial placement which could have possibly occurred from oversight rather than malice if there is a feeling some votes were not counted here and there.


----------



## rsbeck

And another concerned poster ---



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AlexanderG* /forum/post/15382391
> 
> *Shawshank Redemption*
> 
> 
> One of my favorite movies ever, but *can't really agree with placement in tier 0*. While it looked stunning for a film that's ~15 years old, it just can't compare with other live action tier 0 titles that it's placed around such as Shoot 'Em Up, Doomsday, and The Incredible Hulk. *Somewhere in Tier 1 is fair*.



Doesn't rank it as low as Stumlad, agcohn and I, but also wants it out of tier 0. He might lower his ranking if he finds out he's not alone in wanting it out.


It appears that selimsivad recommended tier 0 right before a cut-off period, it was placed, and then selimsivad watched again, erased his first, corrected his review, but the correction will probably be applied in the next round of rankings.


----------



## RBFC




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/15452752
> 
> 
> As a final note: I don't believe I've seen anyone dig out a set of complete tier votes (with post links for the votes themselves as well as any "seconds" that agree with a review) for a specific title that make a pure average of votes. This might be the most constructive way to argue for a change in a controversial placement which could have possibly occurred from oversight rather than malice if there is a feeling some votes were not counted here and there.



Which is exactly why I recommended the poll/post style thread. We would have a quickly-accessible vote/rating count. We would also have all discussions/debates about a particular title in one location. It would also be fine to require a post that accompanies one's poll vote to give an explanation of the tier ranking voted upon. As long as the rank vote was always included in the explanatory post, members could then decide if they would personally give credence to an outlier vote.


Members could still place more weight on the rankings given by their preferred posters, since there would still be the opportunity for those posters to submit the same in-depth reviews we all enjoy. You'd just be able to read the back-and-forth discussion about a particular title in a series of continuous posts.


SuprSlow could then merely see if there were any new posts about a certain title (ALL IN ONE CONVENIENT SPOT) and readjust the tier ranking of that title if necessary. This would eliminate "fly-overs", since he'd merely have to see if the raw poll vote count had changed. Requests to change one's vote on a particular title could be placed in a separate thread specifically for that purpose (also easy for SuprSlow to see any new posts).


However, there has been ZERO comment about this suggestion for reformatting, so I might assume that it's not an option of interest.


Lee


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sleater* /forum/post/15438029
> 
> 
> It really is a question if you find a great photograph of a real orange in all its glory more eye appealing than a CGI apple that is rendered beautifully but still does not quite look like a REAL apple, a nice beautiful CGI apple. rsbeck, I would think, would prefer the real orange. I would prefer the fake apple. Maybe it's because it's a new, novel use of technology that in 25 years will make me look like the Cro-Magnon man. My eyes are just more impressed with it. It's shiny and awe-inspiring. A real orange, well I see those everyday.



I hear you. Funny thing is -- when it comes to art, I prefer painting to photography. Now, I am going to get the photographers in the forum PO'd.

And when it comes to painting, I much prefer abstract fauvist impressionism and expressionism. I have never acquired a taste for still life painting. In fact, in Wall-E, I was most impressed with the pictorial story told with various types of art ending with impressionism that ran under the final credits. That was very cool. As I recall, the music was good, too.



.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *1brokebrother* /forum/post/15451179
> 
> 
> this thread is better than discussing the BCS championship VS a playoff..



LOL! Don't get me started on that subject (HUGE Trojans fan here)!!!











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15451279
> 
> 
> ^
> 
> 
> Rob,
> 
> 
> You never did answer the one question I asked more than once:
> 
> 
> What does it mean that one person's vote may be given "more weight" than another person's? That sounds to me like you're saying my vote counts, but it may not count as much as another person's.



But I _did_ answer your question. What do you mean it "sounds" like I am saying someone's vote may not count as much as someone elses? I am stating that is, in fact, exactly right. I'm sorry that this comes as such a shock to you.







I am not trying to be "elitist" by bringing this up either. I am just trying to clarify for you the way that this thread has been run from day one.


Don't take it so personal. You are obviously a well respected regular contributor, and your votes/recommendations obviously carry a lot of weight.



> Quote:
> How in the world does that work in real life? In other words, how does SuprSlow actually make such judgments when he's deciding whose vote is worthy of "more weight?" I guess what I'm really asking is, "Once SuprSlow has decided someone's vote carries more weight, how does he go about placing titles based on that?" If you don't want to speak for SuprSlow, then tell me how you used to make such judgment calls when you were helping him and Austin decide placements.



It works exactly as I stated previously. For example, if you only have two people voting on a title, and one person who possibly had only given one or two posts in this thread previously and had a 25" inch display with poor specs viewed from 15 feet away votes for Tier 0 vs a Tier 2 rating from a known contributor with a good front projection system at a viewing distance of 1.5 screen widths, there is a good chance that if a title is placed based on those two votes that it may go into Tier 2, instead of Tier 1 (the "average").


Yes, people have been concerned about this before, and it has been thoroughly discussed before too. The best way to avoid this type of concern? *Have as many people as possible contribute!!!* This is something that I have always very strongly advocated here, and I always will. I am glad to see that Lee (RBFC) confirmed this with his post (quoted below). He also confirms what I said earlier about encouraging people to post their opinions even if they have an older set, and even if it is "only" 720p.


The more people voting, the much smaller chance there will be that this issue would ever even come up.



> Quote:
> I would also like to hear from others on this, for I have to believe that there may be some pretty strong opinions on this.



And like most other discussions that come up regarding how this thread is run, it has been discussed before.










I am happy to see several posts made after yours which indicate to me that most people understand why some votes may not be given the exact same weight as others.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RBFC* /forum/post/15451321
> 
> 
> For what it's worth, I PM'ed Rob several months back and told him that I wasn't sure if I should post reviews of PQ due to my 7th gen Pioneer Elite plasma not being 1080p. I felt that the regular contributors would frown upon opinions gathered from a display that was not able to reproduce full resolution of each title.
> 
> 
> ROB'S RESPONSE: (paraphrased) Lee, you should feel free to post your opinions on PQ. With your display, you will still be able to see qualitative differences between titles.
> 
> 
> He encouraged me to participate, even though I felt that I was not an "elite" videophile.
> 
> 
> I don't think that criticizing him for being "elitist" is fair or accurate.



Thanks Lee.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15451929
> 
> 
> The voting issue only seems to become a topic whenever a very popular movie on Blu-ray generates widely diverging viewpoints, as we have in the case of Wall*E or the Dark Knight. *All recommendations from everyone that posts are considered, regular contributor or not to this thread. But I will say that I give more credence to a poster with whom I am familiar with based off prior posting history.*
> 
> 
> It allows me to examine the quality and consistency of their recommendations and that helps to shape my opinion of the recommendation. I think I understand the evaluation and thought processes that lead the regular posters to their placements most of the time and that information can be very useful. *A new poster here that posts a one word recommendation for a movie usually does not get much consideration from me personally.* Rome was not built in a day but this thread is very welcoming of newcomers in general. There are significant contributors here who have had major impact on the tier list that did not even post here before a couple of months ago.



Thank you for saying, in a much more articulate manner, what I have been trying to get across in my last few posts.










And you are exactly right about relative newcomers having a big impact on this thread.


Again, everyone's votes DO count. The only exception to this rule is when the vote/recommendation is given by a woman. This thread would lose credibility rather quickly if we ever allowed that to happen.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/15452752
> 
> 
> 
> As a final note: I don't believe I've seen anyone dig out a set of complete tier votes (with post links for the votes themselves as well as any "seconds" that agree with a review) for a specific title that make a pure average of votes. *This might be the most constructive way to argue for a change in a controversial placement* which could have possibly occurred from oversight rather than malice if there is a feeling some votes were not counted here and there.



Absolutely. As I stated earlier, think of SuprSlow as the "judge" and we have to make our "case" in front of him.


For example, rsbeck has just done this with The Shawshank Redemption. He made his case by finding other posts that agreed with him, and also found posts by one of the members who had originally voted for Tier 0 who had changed their minds. This is the correct way to do it, and it makes SuprSlows job much easier.


I would fully expect Shawshank to be moved based on the posts put together by rsbeck. We have to do a little work ourselves in this thread if we want it to work the best that it can.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RBFC* /forum/post/15453001
> 
> 
> Which is exactly why I recommended the poll/post style thread. We would have a quickly-accessible vote/rating count. We would also have all discussions/debates about a particular title in one location. It would also be fine to require a post that accompanies one's poll vote to give an explanation of the tier ranking voted upon. As long as the rank vote was always included in the explanatory post, members could then decide if they would personally give credence to an outlier vote.
> 
> 
> Members could still place more weight on the rankings given by their preferred posters, since there would still be the opportunity for those posters to submit the same in-depth reviews we all enjoy. You'd just be able to read the back-and-forth discussion about a particular title in a series of continuous posts.
> 
> 
> SuprSlow could then merely see if there were any new posts about a certain title (ALL IN ONE CONVENIENT SPOT) and readjust the tier ranking of that title if necessary. This would eliminate "fly-overs", since he'd merely have to see if the raw poll vote count had changed. Requests to change one's vote on a particular title could be placed in a separate thread specifically for that purpose (also easy for SuprSlow to see any new posts).
> 
> 
> However, there has been ZERO comment about this suggestion for reformatting, so I might assume that it's not an option of interest.
> 
> 
> Lee



Lee, this is a good idea, and.....get ready for it......it has been discussed before!










Not only has it been discussed before...but it was also tried before. Unfortunately the moderators did not allow it. If I recall correctly they said something to the effect of requiring all of the Tier recommendation/polls/votes to take place only in this thread.


----------



## RBFC




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15453215
> 
> 
> 
> Lee, this is a good idea, and.....get ready for it......it has been discussed before!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not only has it been discussed before...but it was also tried before. Unfortunately the moderators did not allow it. If I recall correctly they said something to the effect of requiring all of the Tier recommendation/polls/votes to take place only in this thread.



Sorry to have missed this earlier. I lurked here before registering, too.


The number of titles coming out, coupled with the increasing amount of discussion (a result of all of us learning more about film, BD, and transfer artifacts) about those titles, is resulting in a huge morass for SuprSlow to dig through.


Why not ask Mr. Gouger for a new forum, where only PQ and AQ ratings were discussed in a poll/post format? Since we are now involved in one format only (for new titles) and the growth of the catalog has been significant, couldn't you agree that this request might be revisited? Looking at the number of thread views and responses, it would seem that the PQ/AQ discussions might merit their own section. It would certainly clear up the confusion we are now experiencing.


Overall, my comments should not be construed to imply that I feel any of the posters (or their opinions) have been anything but good contributors. Reformatting would allow a flow to the discussions that are the heart of this thread.


I'll send SuprSlow a PM on this. It can't hurt. This is what I get for having a slow surgical schedule during the holidays!










Lee


----------



## 30XS955 User

TDK

High Tier 2. I think they ran out of standard makeup during the production and someone got the bright idea to just go around rubbing spackle all over the actors and the environment.


Panasonic 46pz85u viewed from about 7 or 8 feet.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ricwhite* /forum/post/15452652
> 
> 
> Just viewed The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian and thought this was one of the best movies I've viewed this year in terms of picture quality. I gave it a 4.75/5 -- obviously a tier 0. I actually thought it was just slightly above Wall E, personally. Very close though.
> 
> 
> A few screenshots below, but with the obvious disclaimers: It was difficult to get the exposure and colors perfectly correct. So, take these with a grain of salt.
> 
> *Spoiler Warning:* *The following screenshots may display spoiler content. View at your own risk.*
> 
> *Equipment:* Epson Home Cinema 1080 UB Projector / 106" DaLite High Power Screen / Toshiba HD-A35 HD DVD Player / Panasonic DMP-BD30 Blu-ray Player / Onkyo TX-SR605 Receiver / Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ7 Digital Camera
> 
> *Blu-ray Movie Title:* The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian
> 
> *Overall Picture Quality Rating:* Reference Quality 4.75/5



I couldn't agree more. I think this is the best live action film BD release this year in terms of PQ and it ranks at the top near or with the Pirates films. In some ways it is unfortunate that the content doesn't appeal to more people to garner more attention and discussion for this title and less for other controversial titles







, because it really is one of the finest looking BD's we have. I rank it in top 5 of PQ to date. It is just simply stunning and a pleasure to watch.


----------



## 42041

*2001: A Space Odyssey*


This movie was filmed in 70mm, and really makes me long for the day studios will decide to do that again (surely with the immense budgets modern blockbusters have, and the fact that most big blockbusters get IMAX blowup releases that would benefit from it, this isn't a ridiculous proposition







). I daresay the detail in many shots in this movie outdoes many modern Super 35 films. Facial closeups were quite impressive. The transfer isn't perfect, but it is pretty good. The minimal 70mm film grain seems to have been left in peace. The bitrate meter doesn't clock in at anything impressive so I have to wonder if this could've been better with a BD-exclusive encode, but I didn't spot distracting overcompression uglies.


There's consistency issues typical of older films and the black levels tend to fluctuate between shots (doesn't logic dictate that space should always be letterbox black?). While I could whine about the EE halos present pretty consistently throughout the film, I'll leave that for the Dark Knight and Baraka threads and just be happy that for the first time in the 40 years since this film was released, I can watch it in my home and get a pretty reasonable approximation of the effect it might have had in a theater projecting 70mm. Hopefully a remastered version will happen in the future, but in the meantime this release will likely satisfy most fans of the film.

*Tier 1.5*


(PS3/Samsung LN40A650 LCD/1080p24/1 s.w. away)


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*Enchanted*


This is an older title. Actually, this title has the honour of being my very first Blu Ray disc purchase. This actually meant something to me on both BRD and DVD (my first DVD purchase was Shakespeare in Love). I loved this movie in the theatre and I absolutely love it with every viewing I've had of it since I first bought it right after I got my ps3.


Since it's older, I'll spare you all my usual blah-dity-blahblah that I usually accompany with my reviews (you're welcome!







). This title is currently resides in Tier 1.25, and I completely concur with this rating. It is very pleasing to my eyes, and although it's not perfect like a Tier 0 title, it's pretty darn beautiful.

*Recommendation for Enchanted: Agree with current placement of Tier 1.25*
*Equipment:* ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-PZ800U, THX setting, approximately 7.5' viewing distance.


On a side note, I finally have in my hands a copy of Wall-E on BRD! Yay! Also, I was subjected to Mamma Mia tonight for the 13 or 14th time... and I still love it.







(No, patrick99 I didn't watch the extras but it's still in my ps3 so I plan on watching those in the morning! I'll PM you once I watch them to try and keep from bringing the thread off topic!!)


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Holy hell this thread has become a chore to read.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15449511
> 
> 
> Why has Wall E. become the battleground of all or nothing. Why, I don't know as the first 30 min should not be this controversial. No way should Wall E be below DK. It shouldn't leave tier 0 period. I wasn't going to comment further, but it seems you want to take on everyone who disagrees with your view on it, so fine you got it from me as well. You are taking this to extremes and IMO it needs to stop. Opinion is one thing , but after pages and pages of debate much of which I am sure you read, we hear you but disagree, so there is no need to keep pushing.
> 
> 
> Most importantly where I believe your comment was completely erroneous is when you said Wall E is "very dull and soft" in the first 30 min. You really believe that? That is what you really saw? It had the "haze" as mentioned, but in no way was it very dull or very soft, no way and your comment seems like exaggerated hyperbole just to drive home your point of disagreement.
> 
> 
> In post # 8554 you stated: *"Oh I see, I am just not an expert in this like some of you are. Please!
> 
> Fine, you guys go ahead and have your way. That is usually how it goes around here anyway."*
> 
> 
> This is not our way vs your way and it is NOT by any means how it goes around here. It seems more than apparent you are saying that because you are not getting it your way. Welcome to life or something like it.



First, I think there are some that would HIGHLY disagree with your 'My Way or the Highway' comments.










Well I sat down again to watch Wall-E.

True, the movie is a wonderful piece of work by Pixar, but I still stand by my previous observations of Wall-E.

During that first 30+ minutes there is heavy softness. Colors are muted and video detail is limited at best. There are short segments in close-up shots where the rust, scratches, dents and the many blemishes in Wall-E's tired looking chassis are clearly evident. But even in some of these short instances, if you look beyond the close-up shots of Wall-E and note the background detail, it is muted by the directors intent of haze covering the earth.

Once you get past those initial 30+ minutes of Wall-E's life on earth, the screen comes alive with color. This is where the movie tries making up for all that three dimensional pop that was missing in the first 1/3 of the movie. But again, notice I said tries. What quickly comes to mind for me is the movie Speed Racer. There is very minimal detail in the facial features of the humans. There are no close-ups revealing the pours of the humans on the AXIOM. Now if I recall Speed Racer was heavily slammed for this defect. True, Speed Racer still resides in tier0, but it is behind Wall-E. I want to know, does Speed Racer exhibit the same lack of detail that Wall-E presents for 45 minutes? I now say 45 minutes because, remember the AXIOM returns to Earth and the soft hazy environment the film started with.

So I ask It has been a while since I last saw Speed Racer, but were there other issues that should keep Speed Racer behind Wall-E?

Since the standard has been set and it is clear that Wall-E is firmly positioned at the top of this thread (I still can not believe Wall-E is ranked the 21st best title on this thread) I believe we need to re-evaluate other titles below Wall-E to see where they should be placed.

Lets start by looking at Speed Racer.
*I move that Speed Racer be moved above Wall-E in tier0.*


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15450344
> 
> 
> Good grief man, are you really serious about this?
> 
> 
> Why in the world are you comparing things like halos, which are an unwanted digital _artifact_ to the _intentional_ look of Wall-E and what _you_ consider to be "softness"? Do you really not see the distinct difference between the two?



Because ROB... intended or not, haze and halo's are imperfections. You know this as well as anyone on this thread!!

Arguments in favor of overlooking intentional imperfections are better suited for the other thread.

Right


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15450494
> 
> 
> Well, I hate to be the one to break this news to you, but: *this is not correct.*
> 
> 
> If it is correct, then there was a major change to this thread that I was not aware of, and I would appreciate it if someone could point me to a post indicating this change.
> 
> 
> If you go back to the beginning of this thread, you will see that it was never intended to be based on pure voting. In fact, the OP (AustinSTi) indicated that certain requirements were being made so that he could attempt to know how much weight to give a posters recommendation. For example, someone making a recommendation based on viewing a 25" screen 14 feet away, on an old LCD with crappy black levels, will not be given the same weight as someone else viewing on a much larger screen at a closer viewing angle with better contrast specs.
> 
> 
> So if the former poster recommends a title for Tier 0, and the other poster recommends a Tier 2, the title could very well be placed in Tier 2, not Tier 1 (which would be the average for these two recommendations) for obvious reasons.
> 
> 
> This is why this thread has always had more credibility than the HD-DVD thread in my opinion.
> 
> 
> This is the very basis for requiring a listing of equipment and viewing distance (and I admit that many of us, myself included, have gotten away from posting this info).
> 
> 
> So, again, your statement that SuprSlow places titles based solely on "votes alone" is *100% wrong.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No sir, see above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is true, but it certainly isn't the only, or even the main reason, for the debates/discussions. Think of SuprSlow (or AustinSTi) as the "Judge", and we are here to make our "case" for a titles placement. This is what happens, at least to a degree.
> 
> 
> This is not to say that even those people who simply list their equipment and viewing distance and make a Tier recommendation without giving a narrative review will have those votes ignored. I am simply saying that they may not be given the same weight as a review that does give a detailed review.
> 
> 
> I find it very surprising that we are having this discussion and that people (especially a contributor like you) don't realize that this is how this thread works.
> 
> 
> Believe me, this thread has had its share of criticism, and one of the main ones was that it is NOT based purely on votes.
> 
> 
> Another reason for debate is to attempt to come as close as possible to a consensus. People can change their minds or at least agree to a compromise in placement of a title. If a majority of posters agree that a certain title should be moved up or down, it will be. This is one thing that makes the thread so valuable.



If Superslow is reading every comment and not just taking for account everyone's final rankings, then there is no need to put our rankings in BOLD then is there???


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15453037
> 
> 
> I hear you. Funny thing is -- when it comes to art, I prefer painting to photography. Now, I am going to get the photographers in the forum PO'd.
> 
> And when it comes to painting, I much prefer abstract fauvist impressionism and expressionism. I have never acquired a taste for still life painting. In fact, in Wall-E, I was most impressed with the pictorial story told with various types of art ending with impressionism that ran under the final credits. That was very cool. As I recall, the music was good, too.
> 
> 
> .



That is all good and well, but I think we need to step back and remember that this thread does not take film artistry into account. That is up for debate in another thread that I have linked to so many times now that I can not remember.









So whether the haze in Wall-E is art, directors intent or what ever you want to call it, it still makes the picture soft for 30 plus minutes in the opening scenes and should be ranked accordingly on this thread.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15452757
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that selimsivad recommended tier 0 right before a cut-off period, it was placed, and then selimsivad watched again, erased his first, corrected his review, but the correction will probably be applied in the next round of rankings.



The movie I viewed was The Man Who Fell From Earth. I made the mistake of watching after a few glasses of wine. As good as it looked to me then, I should have not put out a review so quick!


So after work, I decided to watch with no distractions. Visually stunning, but no way is it Tier 0 (anyone who's watched it can attest to that). Regarding a cutoff date, the movie hasn't even been ranked yet.










All of my reviews but that one have been typed after a second viewing. My apologizes, it won't happen again.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15453121
> 
> 
> LOL! Don't get me started on that subject (HUGE Trojans fan here)!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I _did_ answer your question. What do you mean it "sounds" like I am saying someone's vote may not count as much as someone elses? I am stating that is, in fact, exactly right. I'm sorry that this comes as such a shock to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not trying to be "elitist" by bringing this up either. I am just trying to clarify for you the way that this thread has been run from day one.
> 
> 
> Don't take it so personal. You are obviously a well respected regular contributor, and your votes/recommendations obviously carry a lot of weight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It works exactly as I stated previously. For example, if you only have two people voting on a title, and one person who possibly had only given one or two posts in this thread previously and had a 25" inch display with poor specs viewed from 15 feet away votes for Tier 0 vs a Tier 2 rating from a known contributor with a good front projection system at a viewing distance of 1.5 screen widths, there is a good chance that if a title is placed based on those two votes that it may go into Tier 2, instead of Tier 1 (the "average").
> 
> 
> Yes, people have been concerned about this before, and it has been thoroughly discussed before too. The best way to avoid this type of concern? *Have as many people as possible contribute!!!* This is something that I have always very strongly advocated here, and I always will. I am glad to see that Lee (RBFC) confirmed this with his post (quoted below). He also confirms what I said earlier about encouraging people to post their opinions even if they have an older set, and even if it is "only" 720p.
> 
> 
> The more people voting, the much smaller chance there will be that this issue would ever even come up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And like most other discussions that come up regarding how this thread is run, it has been discussed before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am happy to see several posts made after yours which indicate to me that most people understand why some votes may not be given the exact same weight as others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Lee.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for saying, in a much more articulate manner, what I have been trying to get across in my last few posts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you are exactly right about relative newcomers having a big impact on this thread.
> 
> 
> Again, everyone's votes DO count. The only exception to this rule is when the vote/recommendation is given by a woman. This thread would lose credibility rather quickly if we ever allowed that to happen.



I think there are an awful lot of people on this thread that feel their vote does not count... detailed review or not… capabilities of their equipment or not.

I am not throwing out any accusations, but I have seen many a comment by members that state only a few seem to hold any weight around here.

I think ranking someone’s recommendation based on equipment is also a slippery slope. Example: What if you have someone with a 50 inch flat panel that is considered low/middle of the road but they have had their set professionally calibrated. Then the next guy has a set that he/she has spent twice as much on and the set is regarded as middle/high end but their set is not calibrated. Do you disrespect the guy with the lower end equipment any less? What if the guy with the lower end set forgets to add the small detail that their set is calibrated.


As long as we are headed down this path... now take into consideration the room environment. What about those of us who have Home Theaters specifically built for watching movies vs. those that have a 50 inch flat panel in their living room? Should the vote of the person with the living room surround system carry any less weight?

There are just way to many variables for this kind of voting.

I do believe some sort of input as to why a member ranked the title needs to be added. But I think a small description is all that should be needed.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/15454376
> 
> 
> What quickly comes to mind for me is the movie Speed Racer. There is very minimal detail in the facial features of the humans. There are no close-ups revealing the pours of the humans on the AXIOM. Now if I recall Speed Racer was heavily slammed for this defect. True, Speed Racer still resides in tier0, but it is behind Wall-E. I want to know, does Speed Racer exhibit the same lack of detail that Wall-E presents for 45 minutes? I now say 45 minutes because, remember the AXIOM returns to Earth and the soft hazy environment the film started with.
> 
> So I ask It has been a while since I last saw Speed Racer, but were there other issues that should keep Speed Racer behind Wall-E?
> 
> Since the standard has been set and it is clear that Wall-E is firmly positioned at the top of this thread (I still can not believe Wall-E is ranked the 21st best title on this thread) I believe we need to re-evaluate other titles below Wall-E to see where they should be placed.
> 
> Lets start by looking at Speed Racer.
> *I move that Speed Racer be moved above Wall-E in tier0.*



At this point, I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. I'm glad you mentioned Speed Racer. Lots of pop and vibrant colors, even in backround shots. Since it's the best example of CGI well incorporated with real people, I believe it should reside under Dead's Man Chest.










As much as I believe this, there are many who don't feel the same way I do. It's been said again and again, Tier 0 and 1 are not that far apart. Being the adult I am, I can live with Speed's lower Tier 0.


I'm even siding with whoever wants Apocalypto in 0. But you don't see three pages worth of complaints. "Oculi plus vident quam oculus."


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/15454469
> 
> 
> If Superslow is reading every comment and not just taking for account everyone's final rankings, then there is no need to put our rankings in BOLD then is there???



Exactly what I was trying to say. It's too much work for SuprSlow or anyone else to sift through it all... and then by encouraging more people to recommend tier placements (which is the ultimate goal), it'll be even harder. Especially when there needs to be weights applied to a person's recommendation based on review, etc -- is that really being followed right now?


I really like the weighted recommendation, but is it feasible anymore? If we want it to be, we need to come up with an improved way to do it


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15454934
> 
> 
> In reply to suffolk:At this point, I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. I'm glad you mentioned Speed Racer. Lots of pop and vibrant colors, even in backround shots. Since it's the best example of CGI well incorporated with real people, I believe it should reside under Dead's Man Chest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As much as I believe this, there are many who don't feel the same way I do. It's been said again and again, Tier 0 and 1 are not that far apart. Being the adult I am, I can live with Speed's lower Tier 0.
> 
> 
> I'm even siding with whoever wants Apocalypto in 0. But you don't see three pages worth of complaints. "Oculi plus vident quam oculus."



I agree with you and Suffolk about Speed Racer and and agree with you about Apocalypto... Oh, and btw, Apocalypto HAS been debated...a lot!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15453121
> 
> 
> But I _did_ answer your question. What do you mean it "sounds" like I am saying someone's vote may not count as much as someone elses? I am stating that is, in fact, exactly right. I'm sorry that this comes as such a shock to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not trying to be "elitist" by bringing this up either. I am just trying to clarify for you the way that this thread has been run from day one.



Okay Rob, I believe I have reached closure on this issue. I now know and accept the fact that our actual reviews along with a recommended placement is factored into the placing of titles by SuprSlow.


But I must confess that until this subject came up I was ignorant of this. When I read the first page I focused on the 3 items that were listed as requirements for recommending a placement:


1. Screen resolution

2. Screen size

3. Seating distance


I didn't read anything that led me to believe that one's analysis of a title (i.e., a review) was also a requirement, and that if one gave their recommendation without one their vote wouldn't carry as much weight.


Having said that, I do see, as Phantom Stranger pointed out, that we would naturally "give more credence to a poster with whom we are familiar based off prior posting history." But I didn't realize that SuprSlow was doing the same thing when making placements. I truly did believe he was "adding up the votes" and trying to arrive at some kind of an average based on those votes. And I still believe if a survey was taken by all who contribute to this thread we would find that I wasn't alone in this thinking.


Let me just add that after learning what I have I feel all the more for the immense task SuprSlow has in sifting through everyone's reviews, for now I realize that besides wading through all the recommendations (i.e., votes), he also has the solemn responsibility of judging each member's ability to analyze titles in order to determine how much weight that member's vote will have.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15453452
> 
> 
> I couldn't agree more. I think this is the best live action film BD release this year in terms of PQ and it ranks at the top near or with the Pirates films. In some ways it is unfortunate that the content doesn't appeal to more people to garner more attention and discussion for this title and less for other controversial titles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , because it really is one of the finest looking BD's we have. I rank it in top 5 of PQ to date. It is just simply stunning and a pleasure to watch.



*I also agree that Chronicles should be ranked higher in tier0.* Good luck.

One thing you might want to remember is to put your recommendation in bold type so that it does not get "scanned past" or "flown over" by those in charge.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15454934
> 
> 
> At this point, I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. I'm glad you mentioned Speed Racer. Lots of pop and vibrant colors, even in backround shots. Since it's the best example of CGI well incorporated with real people, I believe it should reside under Dead's Man Chest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As much as I believe this, there are many who don't feel the same way I do. It's been said again and again, Tier 0 and 1 are not that far apart. Being the adult I am, I can live with Speed's lower Tier 0.
> 
> 
> I'm even siding with whoever wants Apocalypto in 0. But you don't see three pages worth of complaints. "Oculi plus vident quam oculus."



I am absolutely serious about my comments regarding Speed Racer and I believe they are valid.

AS far as your three pages of comments.

There is not one title that I know of on this thread that has been given such a free pass as Wall-E. I firmly believe that any other title with 45 minutes of the type of image detail that Wall-E *does not present* would be firmly planted in tier 1 or two.

So there is a bit more to my stance than just moving Wall-E a half of a tier.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15455015
> 
> 
> Okay Rob, I believe I have reached closure on this issue. I now know and accept the fact that our actual reviews along with a recommended placement is factored into the placing of titles by SuprSlow.
> 
> 
> But I must confess that until this subject came up I was ignorant of this. When I read the first page I focused on the 3 items that were listed as requirements for recommending a placement:
> 
> 
> 1. Screen resolution
> 
> 2. Screen size
> 
> 3. Seating distance
> 
> 
> I didn't read anything that led me to believe that one's analysis of a title (i.e., a review) was also a requirement, and that if one gave their recommendation without one their vote wouldn't carry as much weight.
> 
> 
> Having said that, I do see, as Phantom Stranger pointed out, that we would naturally "give more credence to a poster with whom we are familiar based off prior posting history." But I didn't realize that SuprSlow was doing the same thing when making placements. I truly did believe he was "adding up the votes" and trying to arrive at some kind of an average based on those votes. And I still believe if a survey was taken by all who contribute to this thread we would find that I wasn't alone in this thinking.
> 
> 
> Let me just add that after learning what I have I feel all the more for the immense task SuprSlow has in sifting through everyone's reviews, for now I realize that besides wading through all the recommendations (i.e., votes), he also has the solemn responsibility of judging each member's ability to analyze titles in order to determine how much weight that member's vote will have.



When a title is ranked, I would also like to see Superslows documentation as to how he gave rankings to a vote.

Is my vote worth 3/4 of a vote while Rob Tomlins vote is worth 1 whole vote. I would then like to see the results of those who voted clearly stated.

So it would read something like:

Suffolk112000: 3/4 vote

Rob Tomlin: 1 vote

Djoberg: 1/4 vote

Etc… etc…

By the way, I would hope that as long as one voted with a reasonable explanation, that person should be granted a whole vote.


----------



## selimsivad

Honestly, the WALL-E debate seems to be more "left brain vs right brain." I see both sides of the discussion, but overall I side with the pro Tier 0 crowd.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/15454376
> 
> 
> First, I think there are some that would HIGHLY disagree with your 'My Way or the Highway' comments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I sat down again to watch Wall-E.
> 
> True, the movie is a wonderful piece of work by Pixar, but I still stand by my previous observations of Wall-E.
> 
> During that first 30+ minutes there is heavy softness. Colors are muted and video detail is limited at best. There are short segments in close-up shots where the rust, scratches, dents and the many blemishes in Wall-E's tired looking chassis are clearly evident. But even in some of these short instances, if you look beyond the close-up shots of Wall-E and note the background detail, it is muted by the directors intent of haze covering the earth.
> 
> Once you get past those initial 30+ minutes of Wall-E's life on earth, the screen comes alive with color. This is where the movie tries making up for all that three dimensional pop that was missing in the first 1/3 of the movie. But again, notice I said tries. What quickly comes to mind for me is the movie Speed Racer. There is very minimal detail in the facial features of the humans. There are no close-ups revealing the pours of the humans on the AXIOM. Now if I recall Speed Racer was heavily slammed for this defect. True, Speed Racer still resides in tier0, but it is behind Wall-E. I want to know, does Speed Racer exhibit the same lack of detail that Wall-E presents for 45 minutes? I now say 45 minutes because, remember the AXIOM returns to Earth and the soft hazy environment the film started with.
> 
> So I ask It has been a while since I last saw Speed Racer, but were there other issues that should keep Speed Racer behind Wall-E?
> 
> Since the standard has been set and it is clear that Wall-E is firmly positioned at the top of this thread (I still can not believe Wall-E is ranked the 21st best title on this thread) I believe we need to re-evaluate other titles below Wall-E to see where they should be placed.
> 
> Lets start by looking at Speed Racer.
> *I move that Speed Racer be moved above Wall-E in tier0.*



I'm still curious about the "muted colors" you bring up... If that's a big negative for you, how could you think The Dark Knight is Tier 0? It's a very dark, gray movie...


----------



## selimsivad

I consider Black Hawk Down a "muted color" movie, but no way it shouldn't be a Tier 0 ranking IMO.


----------



## sleater




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/15454376
> 
> 
> (I still can not believe Wall-E is ranked the 21st best title on this thread) I believe we need to re-evaluate other titles below Wall-E to see where they should be placed.
> 
> Lets start by looking at Speed Racer.
> *I move that Speed Racer be moved above Wall-E in tier0.*



Do a search on Speed Racer and find many members with valid arguments that it should be ranked LOWER not HIGHER.


I am a bit hesitant in taking you on Suffolk given your hyper attention to small details and persistence in making your point of view (which of course IS still a valid POV) win over those of others... but I need to address your WALL-E fascination.


If you do a bit of research you will find that most other reviews and forums rank WALL-E very high. On this tier ranking list it is #2 only behind KFP http://forums.highdefdigest.com/blu-...m-blu-ray.html 

Here it is #4 on the list http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/top.ph...g&sortby=video 

Here it is rated #6 for video quality on its list http://www.cinemasquid.com/MovieMatr...ion=Descending 


There are others.


So either something's up with your point of view on WALL-E's supposed glaring deficiencies or everybody else is completely off their rockers.


WALL-E is at #21 on this thread and that, in my mind, is pretty darned good that we can see its minor flaws (a dirty earth and cartoonish humans) but still recognize that it absolutely belongs in Tier 0. Not at the top, mind you, but at #21.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15454860
> 
> 
> The movie I viewed was The Man Who Fell From Earth.



Did you ever review Shawshank?


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15455318
> 
> 
> I'm still curious about the "muted colors" you bring up... If that's a big negative for you, how could you think The Dark Knight is Tier 0? It's a very dark, gray movie...



It is not a dark gray movie. There are plenty of scenes where Dark Knight is shot in daylight conditions or bright room conditions.

The difference between the dark knight and Wall-E is that during the dark scenes in Dark Knight, I can see clear detail. The detail is not muted on my calibrated Sony VW60 shinning on a 58x104 Da-Light HCCV screen from 12.5 feet.









Now if The Dark Knight had been filmed with a sandstorm or lots of fog, I'd feel the same way about TDK as I do about Wall-E.

Of course if you think all movies that display night scenes in this thread should be hammered for it in their rankings, than I'd say Superslow has his work cut out for him.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/15455221
> 
> 
> So it would read something like:
> 
> Suffolk112000: *3/4 vote*
> 
> Rob Tomlin: 1 vote
> 
> Djoberg: *1/4 vote*



Hey, no fair! How come you got a 3/4 vote and I only got a 1/4 vote?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15454942
> 
> 
> Exactly what I was trying to say. It's too much work for SuprSlow or anyone else to sift through it all... and then by encouraging more people to recommend tier placements (which is the ultimate goal), it'll be even harder. Especially when there needs to be weights applied to a person's recommendation based on review, etc -- is that really being followed right now?
> 
> 
> I really like the weighted recommendation, but is it feasible anymore? If we want it to be, we need to come up with an improved way to do it



It is no more or less feasible than it ever has been.


Let me repeat myself again, and perhaps add more clarification so that this can be put to rest (hopefully). The only time that the "weighted" voting really would come into play is when there are very few votes on a title.


I have already given an example of this twice previously.


Once you get to the point where you have four or more votes on a title, I don't think there is much consideration given to the weighted criteria.


For example, a title that has numerous votes, like TDK, I would expect that the placement was probably based pretty much by simply adding up the votes.


When there are only two or three votes, the weighted voting may come into play.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15455404
> 
> 
> Did you ever review Shawshank?


 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...0#post15305330


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15455359
> 
> 
> I consider Black Hawk Down a "muted color" movie, but no way it shouldn't be a Tier 0 ranking IMO.



It h been a while since I last saw Black Hawk Down, but I don't remember BHD as being muted.









At least not in the same capacity as Wall-E.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sleater* /forum/post/15455379
> 
> 
> Do a search on Speed Racer and find many members with valid arguments that it should be ranked LOWER not HIGHER.
> 
> 
> I am a bit hesitant in taking you on Suffolk given your hyper attention to small details and persistence in making your point of view (which of course IS still a valid POV) win over those of others... but I need to address your WALL-E fascination.
> 
> 
> If you do a bit of research you will find that most other reviews and forums rank WALL-E very high. On this tier ranking list it is #2 only behind KFP http://forums.highdefdigest.com/blu-...m-blu-ray.html
> 
> Here it is #4 on the list http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/top.ph...g&sortby=video
> 
> Here it is rated #6 for video quality on its list http://www.cinemasquid.com/MovieMatr...ion=Descending
> 
> 
> There are others.
> 
> 
> So either something's up with your point of view on WALL-E's supposed glaring deficiencies or everybody else is completely off their rockers.
> 
> 
> WALL-E is at #21 on this thread and that, in my mind, is pretty darned good that we can see its minor flaws (a dirty earth and cartoonish humans) but still recognize that it absolutely belongs in Tier 0. Not at the top, mind you, but at #21.



I didn’t know that we were basing our views on others outside this thread. In case you have not noticed. I don’t follow the leader.









The longer many of you keep making exceptions for Wall-E the more it makes me laugh.

Am I wrong in my assessment of Speed Racer? Was not one of the main negatives in THIS THREAD against SR due to lack of facial detail?

Well I say Wall-E exhibits these same traits with the humans on the AXIOM. And these are the coverted scenes in Wall-E that everyone rails about.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15455419
> 
> 
> Hey, no fair! How come you got a 3/4 vote and I only got a 1/4 vote?



Sorry...









I didn't want the 1/4 vote.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/15454933
> 
> 
> I am not throwing out any accusations, but I have seen many a comment by members that state only a few seem to hold any weight around here.



At this point, it is time for you to either put up some evidence or move on. Use the thread search feature and pull up all of the Wall-E reviews. If you find some reviews recommending a lower ranking for Wall-E that you feel are being ignored, post excerpts and links.


If you search the thread and can find no evidence that anyone's vote has been ignored, do the right thing and come back and apologize to the moderator for your accusation.


I think you're going to find that the vast majority here voted for not just tier 0, but a lot of folks voted for top of tier 0 and you're going to have a very difficult time finding votes for less than tier 0.


So, go ahead, walk a mile in the moderator's shoes and then come back and tell us what you find. I predict you will find that no one's vote has been ignored. In fact, what you are asking is the reverse, you are asking that a few votes for lower placement should be weighted far above the many votes recommending tier 0 placement.


Personally, I am not going to read anything more from you until you do this.


Either present some evidence to back up your complaint or apologize to the moderator.




> Quote:
> I do believe some sort of input as to why a member ranked the title needs to be added. But I think a small description is all that should be needed.



If you fail to follow the protocol, you have only yourself to blame if your vote is not counted.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/15455494
> 
> 
> I didn't know that we were basing our views on others outside this thread. In case you have not noticed. I don't follow the leader.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The longer many of you keep making exceptions for Wall-E the more it makes me laugh.
> 
> Am I wrong in my assessment of Speed Racer? Was not one of the main negatives in THIS THREAD against SR due to lack of facial detail?
> 
> Well I say Wall-E exhibits these same traits with the humans on the AXIOM. And these are the coverted scenes in Wall-E that everyone rails about.



I have neither seen nor have any desire to see Speed Racer, however this is getting firmly into animated vs. live action territory. The humans in Wall-E are not humans, they are 3D caricatures. Judging them by the same criteria is absolutely silly.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15455520
> 
> 
> At this point, it is time for you to either put up some evidence or move on. Use the thread search feature and pull up all of the Wall-E reviews. If you find some reviews recommending a lower ranking for Wall-E that you feel are being ignored, post excerpts and links.
> 
> 
> If you search the thread and can find no evidence that anyone's vote has been ignored, do the right thing and come back and apologize to the moderator for your accusation.
> 
> 
> I think you're going to find that the vast majority here voted for not just tier 0, but a lot of folks voted for top of tier 0 and you're going to have a very difficult time finding votes for less than tier 0.
> 
> 
> So, go ahead, walk a mile in the moderator's shoes and then come back and tell us what you find. I predict you will find that no one's vote has been ignored. In fact, what you are asking is the reverse, you are asking that a few votes for lower placement should be weighted far above the many votes recommending tier 0 placement.
> 
> 
> Personally, I am not going to read anything more from you until you do this.
> 
> 
> Either present some evidence to back up your complaint or apologize to the moderator.
> 
> 
> If you fail to follow the protocol, you have only yourself to blame if your vote is not counted.



HA!! So are you telling me that if I find complaints about Wall-E it will be moved down.

I didn't think so.










But actually, you can look back since I have been debating Wall-E and find some dissention.

Did I accuse anyone!!?? I simply stated that some had stated this through out the course of this thread.


I have offered my services to help co-moderate when the topic was brought up not so long ago so don't even go there.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15455578
> 
> 
> I have neither seen nor have any desire to see Speed Racer, however this is getting firmly into animated vs. live action territory. The humans in Wall-E are not humans, they are 3D caricatures. Judging them by the same criteria is absolutely silly.



Is it??

They are in the same thread, thus they should be ranked accordingly.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15455578
> 
> 
> Judging them by the same criteria is absolutely silly.




We judge live action titles based on how much fine detail is present and resolved. We should absolutely judge cartoons the same way. IMO, judging live action titles and penalizing them for lack of detail and then rewarding simplistic cartoons without detail is rather silly.


A reference title of any sort ought to show the ultimate in what blu-ray can achieve. That's why we expect to see facial texture resolved. There's no way to construe the resolution of simplistic cartoons as being equal to live action titles where fine detail is resolved. The simplistic cartoon has set a low bar for itself and does not provide the source material for blu-ray reference.


So, a number of criteria have to be ignored to recommend Wall-E as a reference title in this forum.


I don't think the Wall-E for tier 0 contingent does any good for the thread by arguing that people are imagining that Wall-E is soft or that it is okay for cartoons to be simplistic and lack detail.


Here is where the moderator might exercise some weighted voting; if members are reviewing Wall-E and saying, "I recommend tier 0 for Wall-E because I don't mind if cartoons are soft for lengthy periods and undetailed for other lengthy periods," perhaps those recommendations, since they are not according to the criteria, should be given less weight, while those that cite the criteria should be given more.


Personally, I think the more the Wall-E contingent defends Wall-E, the more damage is done to their case. I think you guys are better off just saying Wall-E is eye candy to you rather than saying it is silly to expect detail in a cartoon.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15455759
> 
> 
> We judge live action titles based on how much fine detail is present and resolved. No reason we should not judge cartoons the same way. IMO, judging live action titles and penalizing them for lack of detail and then rewarding simplistic cartoons without detail is rather silly.
> 
> 
> A reference title of any sort ought to show the ultimate in what blu-ray can achieve. That's why we expect to see facial texture resolved. There's no way to construe the resolution of simplistic cartoons as being equal to live action titles where fine detail is resolved. The simplistic cartoon has set a low bar for itself and does not provide the source material for blu-ray reference.
> 
> 
> So, a number of criteria have to be ignored to recommend Wall-E as a reference title in this forum.
> 
> 
> I don't think the Wall-E for tier 0 contingent does any good for the thread by arguing that people are imagining that Wall-E is soft or that it is okay for cartoons to be simplistic and lack detail.
> 
> 
> Here is where the moderator might exercise some weighted voting; if members are reviewing Wall-E and saying, I recommend tier 0 for Wall-E because I don't mind if cartoons are soft for lengthy periods and undetails for other lengthy periods, perhaps those recommendations, since they are not according to the criteria, should be given less weight, while those that cite the criteria should be given more.
> 
> 
> Personally, I think the more the Wall-E contingent defends Wall-E, the more damage is done to their case. I think you guys are better off just saying Wall-E is eye candy to you rather than saying it is silly to expect detail in a cartoon.



You're misrepresenting what I'm saying. Wall-E has plenty of detail where it's supposed to be. But it is silly to penalize Wall-E for humans not looking like humans, because they are NOT human. Sorry, but I think the idea of completely disregarding the artistic values and choices of movies is utterly and completely ridiculous for the purposes of this thread, and I shall not be doing that no matter how many times people bring it up.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15455759
> 
> 
> We judge live action titles based on how much fine detail is present and resolved. We should absolutely judge cartoons the same way. IMO, judging live action titles and penalizing them for lack of detail and then rewarding simplistic cartoons without detail is rather silly.
> 
> 
> A reference title of any sort ought to show the ultimate in what blu-ray can achieve. That's why we expect to see facial texture resolved. There's no way to construe the resolution of simplistic cartoons as being equal to live action titles where fine detail is resolved. The simplistic cartoon has set a low bar for itself and does not provide the source material for blu-ray reference.
> 
> 
> So, a number of criteria have to be ignored to recommend Wall-E as a reference title in this forum.
> 
> 
> I don't think the Wall-E for tier 0 contingent does any good for the thread by arguing that people are imagining that Wall-E is soft or that it is okay for cartoons to be simplistic and lack detail.
> 
> 
> Here is where the moderator might exercise some weighted voting; if members are reviewing Wall-E and saying, "I recommend tier 0 for Wall-E because I don't mind if cartoons are soft for lengthy periods and undetailed for other lengthy periods," perhaps those recommendations, since they are not according to the criteria, should be given less weight, while those that cite the criteria should be given more.
> 
> 
> Personally, I think the more the Wall-E contingent defends Wall-E, the more damage is done to their case. I think you guys are better off just saying Wall-E is eye candy to you rather than saying it is silly to expect detail in a cartoon.



You have got to be kidding me!!!

The bar for animation should be the same as live action since we are judging them in the same thread!


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15455759
> 
> 
> A reference title of any sort ought to show the ultimate in what blu-ray can achieve. That's why we expect to see facial texture resolved.



So then it seems you are saying Wall-E should not be in tier0 then???



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15455759
> 
> 
> So, a number of criteria have to be ignored to recommend Wall-E as a reference title in this forum.



You have got to be kidding me!!!









I cannot believe you just said that. So then we are publicly giving Wall-E a free pass over titles that have been slammed by these very same issues.

Why do you all love Wall-E so much?? If Wall-E is not getting favored, it sure seems like it is from my point of view.


----------



## Steeb

It's a good thing no one's overreacting or anything. It's nice to see that everyone's keeping this in perspective.


Carry on.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15455877
> 
> 
> You're misrepresenting what I'm saying. Wall-E has plenty of detail where it's supposed to be. But it is silly to penalize Wall-E for humans not looking like humans, because they are NOT human. Sorry, but I think the idea of completely disregarding the artistic values and choices of movies is utterly and completely ridiculous for the purposes of this thread, and I shall not be doing that no matter how many times people bring it up.



Ah, now a little of the true feelings/views of how people vote in this thread begin to come out.









I am all about everyone's vote counting but your seem to be ignoring the standards of this thread. I really think your statement needs to be reviewed when considering future voting.

To comment a bit further to this quote, there have been a lot of movies that had plenty of detail when they were supposed to, but because they don't have consistent detail through out, they were banished to lower tiers.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steeb* /forum/post/15456062
> 
> 
> It's a good thing no one's overreacting or anything. It's nice to see that everyone's keeping this in perspective.
> 
> 
> Carry on.



It is pretty aggravating to see Wall-E get a free pass while other movies must tow the line.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15455445
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...0#post15305330



I meant, did you ever review Shawshank in this thread?


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/15455669
> 
> 
> HA!! So are you telling me that if I find complaints about Wall-E it will be moved down.
> 
> I didn't think so.



No, if I had meant to say that I would have written something different.


Go back and read my challenge. If you fail to come back with something yet show you had the time to do so by continually writing your exact same complain over and over, this will confirm that you cannot meet the challenge and have no case.



> Quote:
> Did I accuse anyone!!??



Yes. You've accused the moderator of unfairly placing Wall-E based on the notion that he has ignored some votes. If that is not your accusation, then what is your complaint? I'll save you time; your complain is that your vote is not weighted enough to overcome the votes of countless others. Why should anyone pay attention to your complaint? IMO, You've met no objective standard to get to the first stage where your complaint even deserves a hearing.



> Quote:
> I have offered my services to help co-moderate when the topic was brought up not so long ago so don't even go there.



Excellent --- here's your chance to audition for the part. Act as moderator. Go through the thread and tally up the votes for Wall-E and come back and give us a report. Let's see how you would moderate.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15455877
> 
> 
> Sorry, but I think the idea of completely disregarding the artistic values and choices of movies is utterly and completely ridiculous for the purposes of this thread, and I shall not be doing that no matter how many times people bring it up.



Do you think your vote should be given less weight given that you admit your vote is based on your disdain and disregard for the thread's criteria?


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/15455968
> 
> 
> 
> So then it seems you are saying Wall-E should not be in tier0 then?



Dude, how many times do I need to write the same thing to you?


I have written several times that *I* do not believe Wall-E belongs in tier 0.


My review is in this thread. I recommended tier 1. Wall-E sits a little higher than where I would put it, but its placement is based on the votes of a lot of other people in the thread. Thus, I have been out-voted. That's life. Everyone on this thread has been out-voted at one point or another and has had to deal. So, I have written my review, made my recommendation, given my opinion, stated my disagreement with the placement -- it's all on record. Having said all of that, I will say it again -- I believe Super Slow has placed the title exactly where I would have *if I were the moderator*. Because, as the moderator, I would have had to place it based on the preponderance of recommendations for tier 0 and the paucity of recommendations for a lower placement. So, here I am -- I am someone who is sympathetic to your view of Wall-E's placement, yet I totally disagree that it should be moved just because you've managed to fill a lot of space by repeating the same complaint over and over. Please try to keep track of who you are debating and what position the person holds!


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15455877
> 
> 
> But it is silly to penalize Wall-E for humans not looking like humans, because they are NOT human.



IMO, This argument holds little weight. Where would this logic lead? I suppose it would be okay for the space ship to lack detail and be rendered as

a very simplistic drawing --- because it is not a space ship, it is a drawing of one. Why should animas have detailed fur -- they are not really animals. Etc. Etc. Etc.


----------



## stumlad

*Tier Recommendation 2.5*


Finally got around to watching the first Bond film on blu-ray. I've actually never seen the whole movie before. Anyway, the restoration job was very well done as this 1962 film looked very pleasing. Some of the facial details, while nowhere near the top tier 0 titles, revealed plenty of detail. Black levels didn't appear to be spot-on, but they were very close. There was a good amount of grain, but none of it was thick grain. There were a few macro-blocks pointed out in the screenshot threads (from the grain), but I dont recall seeing it (at least not in a way I'd consider distracting). The bit-rates were in the 30s, so there's little doubt that any filtering was done to this title. Small object detail was good but not great. Some of the shots of the beach, sand, grass and trees looks very good.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/15454376
> 
> 
> First, I think there are some that would HIGHLY disagree with your 'My Way or the Highway' comments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I sat down again to watch Wall-E.
> 
> True, the movie is a wonderful piece of work by Pixar, but I still stand by my previous observations of Wall-E.
> 
> During that first 30+ minutes *there is heavy softness. Colors are muted and video detail is limited at best.* There are short segments in close-up shots where the rust, scratches, dents and the many blemishes in Wall-E's tired looking chassis are clearly evident. But even in some of these short instances, if you look beyond the close-up shots of Wall-E and note the background detail, it is muted by the directors intent of haze covering the earth.
> 
> Once you get past those initial 30+ minutes of Wall-E's life on earth, the screen comes alive with color. This is where the movie tries making up for all that three dimensional pop that was missing in the first 1/3 of the movie. But again, notice I said tries. What quickly comes to mind for me is the movie Speed Racer. There is very minimal detail in the facial features of the humans. There are no close-ups revealing the pours of the humans on the AXIOM. Now if I recall Speed Racer was heavily slammed for this defect. True, Speed Racer still resides in tier0, but it is behind Wall-E. I want to know, does Speed Racer exhibit the same lack of detail that Wall-E presents for 45 minutes? I now say 45 minutes because, remember the AXIOM returns to Earth and the soft hazy environment the film started with.
> 
> So I ask It has been a while since I last saw Speed Racer, but were there other issues that should keep Speed Racer behind Wall-E?
> 
> Since the standard has been set and it is clear that Wall-E is firmly positioned at the top of this thread (I still can not believe Wall-E is ranked the 21st best title on this thread) I believe we need to re-evaluate other titles below Wall-E to see where they should be placed.
> 
> Lets start by looking at Speed Racer.
> *I move that Speed Racer be moved above Wall-E in tier0.*




"Heavy softness, video detail is limited at best". I know this is your opinion and this is what your eyes are seeing, but that is just not true. I mean really I don't know how else to get the point across to you and I understand what you believe you are seeing, but to say there is heavy softness and virtually no video detail is wrong. Really come on, no video detail? You understand for there to be no video detail one would virtually not be able to discern anything on the screen. Suffolk, having viewed Wall E several times and reading reviews upon reviews including on this forum that is wrong and just not true as no one but you are saying that.


It just isn't true and again even if it is what you are "seeing" and it is your belief I am calling BS on your over exaggerating stance. I also understand you don't want to let this go and keep this debate going, but there is no way in clear conscience I can sit back while you push this erroneous opinionated belief about Wall E.


No absolutely no on Speed Racer IMO. I still maintain it is a tier 1 title and that has nothing to do with the blurry at times faces. I thought overall the movie did not represent Tier 0 eye candy other than the colors, I actually thought the entire film did not exhibit true tier 0 qualities.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15456472
> 
> 
> I meant, did you ever review Shawshank in this thread?



no.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sleater* /forum/post/15455379
> 
> 
> Do a search on Speed Racer and find many members with valid arguments that it should be ranked LOWER not HIGHER.
> 
> 
> I am a bit hesitant in taking you on Suffolk given your hyper attention to small details and persistence in making your point of view (which of course IS still a valid POV) win over those of others... but I need to address your WALL-E fascination.
> 
> 
> If you do a bit of research you will find that most other reviews and forums rank WALL-E very high. On this tier ranking list it is #2 only behind KFP http://forums.highdefdigest.com/blu-...m-blu-ray.html
> 
> Here it is #4 on the list http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/top.ph...g&sortby=video
> 
> Here it is rated #6 for video quality on its list http://www.cinemasquid.com/MovieMatr...ion=Descending
> 
> 
> There are others.
> 
> 
> So either something's up with your point of view on WALL-E's supposed glaring deficiencies or everybody else is completely off their rockers.
> 
> 
> WALL-E is at #21 on this thread and that, in my mind, is pretty darned good that we can see its minor flaws (a dirty earth and cartoonish humans) but still recognize that it absolutely belongs in Tier 0. Not at the top, mind you, but at #21.



This is how I feel and you said it better than I could in my post. I respect Suffolk's views, but I think he is being over zealous with his opinion on the first 30 min. of Wall E.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/15456151
> 
> 
> It is pretty aggravating to see Wall-E get a free pass while other movies must tow the line.




This is all your belief.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15457495
> 
> 
> no.



Okay, then I was mistaken. I wrote that you had not only reviewed Shawshank in this thread, but that you had changed your review. Now, I see that you were referring to The Man Who Fell To Earth. Sorry about that, but I'm glad we cleared that up.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15457520
> 
> 
> This is how I feel and you said it better than I could in my post. I respect Suffolk's views, but I think he is being over zealous with his opinion on the first 30 min. of Wall E.



I agree with this, Hugh. No surprise, I also agree with you that Speed Racer does not belong in Tier 0, but I'm not going to campaign to lower it or anything. I watched Wall-E today, and I'm going to watch it again tomorrow before I do a review of it, but overall I found the movie to have a very beautiful PQ, even the "soft" 30 minutes at the beginning.


----------



## Hughmc

And then we have all these comments Suffolk from back when you first reviewed Wall E and gave your opinion about other's recommendations. You have really contradicted yourself and I think your original views were more accurate and reasonable. Suffolk, your replies are in bold to posts you quoted and responded to.


" *Wall-E*
*Well, after watching Wall-E, I am not sure I would put it up as high on Tier 0 as some would place it.
True, Wall-E is definitely a Tier 0 movie. But I would place it about half way down on Tier 0 at the highest.

I think the first 1/3 of the movie just does not hold up to the standard of top tier eye candy material. I think there is plenty of detail all throughout the entire movie. But the first third of the movie is just a bit lacking. It didn’t have the punch like you would expect from a top tier reference movie.

The rest of the movie, when Wall-E goes into space is just pure reference material and contains as good of video quality as I have seen on a Blu Ray.

58x104 Da-Lite HCCV screen with masking. Sony VW60 and Panasonic BD30."*


_Originally Posted by briankmonkey View Post

Wall-E and Kung Fu Panda, both Tier 0.. Kung Fu has a style that shows more texture detail and would go above Wall-E. Wall-E has kind of softer more natural look to it, obviously very different styles.

60A3000 @t 7.5 feet (just measured again for when the next DNR/EE hunting thread emerges )._


*"I agree Brian. I watched both movies for the second time and BOTH look phenomenal! But I would give the edge to KFP.
I think there is excellent detail in Wall-E. But I am afraid it falls into the category of artistic intent and the ‘look’ the director wanted to give the movie. Such a bummer…

The way I see it, if Wall-E is moved to the top spot of tier 0, I think we risk opening up a can of worms for the way current and future titles are placed on this thread.

Remember, there are supposed to be no exceptions given to titles that don’t have that pop and ‘eye candy’ look to them."*

_Originally Posted by Elbie View Post

Just because a movie doesn't have vibrant eye candy colors it doesn't mean that it doesn't look great._

*"Actually, in this thread it does matter...

I am not saying that Wall-E is not detailed. I just think the first part of the movie is not as visually appealing as some of the other titles at the top of tier 0."*
_


Quote:

Originally Posted by unclepauly View Post

I think what you guys are talking about is more subjective. Just because I like the color blue and you like the color red doesn't mean ones better than the other. I thought this thread was more about measurable quality? I don't think you can measure if red is better than blue_.


*"Well, I would say most of this thread is 'subjective.'

I have disagreed with many a movies placement on this site. If everyone saw things the same, I could see your point. But what you think is eye candy is apparently not exactly what I would call top of tier 0 eye candy. Thus the reasoning why some think Wall-E should be placed at the bottom of teir 0, some believe it should be placed in the middle of tier 0, (my self) and others believe it should be the top placement."*



_Quote:

Originally Posted by djoberg View Post

For the record, even though I suggested placing Wall-E in the bottom of Tier 0 in my last post, my original post suggested the middle of Tier 0 and I would have no problems whatsoever with that placement.


My thinking regarding the first 30+ minutes is that because of the color palette (mostly browns because of the apocalyptic effect) it wasn't nearly as sharp or detailed as the outer space scenes, so I believe there should be a lowering of the title for that reason. Having said that, there were moments where the detail was quite good (in the scrap yard...and in Wall-E's quarters), but all things considered it wasn't consistently sharp and detailed._


*"I agree.."*



All of the above are taken from pages 230 and 231 of this thread. You have really contradicted yourself compared to those original posts you made concerning Wall E. IMO you were closer to being realistic then and now have gone on a bit of an erroneous mission.









_________


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15457716
> 
> 
> And then we have all these comments Suffolk from back when you first reviewed Wall E and gave your opinion about other's recommendations. You have really contradicted yourself and I think your original views were more accurate and reasonable. Suffolk, your replies are in bold to posts you quoted and responded to.
> 
> 
> " *Wall-E*
> *Well, after watching Wall-E, I am not sure I would put it up as high on Tier 0 as some would place it.
> True, Wall-E is definitely a Tier 0 movie. But I would place it about half way down on Tier 0 at the highest.
> 
> I think the first 1/3 of the movie just does not hold up to the standard of top tier eye candy material. I think there is plenty of detail all throughout the entire movie. But the first third of the movie is just a bit lacking. It didn't have the punch like you would expect from a top tier reference movie.
> 
> The rest of the movie, when Wall-E goes into space is just pure reference material and contains as good of video quality as I have seen on a Blu Ray.
> 
> 58x104 Da-Lite HCCV screen with masking. Sony VW60 and Panasonic BD30."*
> 
> 
> _Originally Posted by briankmonkey View Post
> 
> Wall-E and Kung Fu Panda, both Tier 0.. Kung Fu has a style that shows more texture detail and would go above Wall-E. Wall-E has kind of softer more natural look to it, obviously very different styles.
> 
> 60A3000 @t 7.5 feet (just measured again for when the next DNR/EE hunting thread emerges )._
> 
> 
> *"I agree Brian. I watched both movies for the second time and BOTH look phenomenal! But I would give the edge to KFP.
> I think there is excellent detail in Wall-E. But I am afraid it falls into the category of artistic intent and the look' the director wanted to give the movie. Such a bummer
> 
> The way I see it, if Wall-E is moved to the top spot of tier 0, I think we risk opening up a can of worms for the way current and future titles are placed on this thread.
> 
> Remember, there are supposed to be no exceptions given to titles that don't have that pop and eye candy' look to them."*
> 
> _Originally Posted by Elbie View Post
> 
> Just because a movie doesn't have vibrant eye candy colors it doesn't mean that it doesn't look great._
> 
> *"Actually, in this thread it does matter...
> 
> I am not saying that Wall-E is not detailed. I just think the first part of the movie is not as visually appealing as some of the other titles at the top of tier 0."*
> _
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> Originally Posted by unclepauly View Post
> 
> I think what you guys are talking about is more subjective. Just because I like the color blue and you like the color red doesn't mean ones better than the other. I thought this thread was more about measurable quality? I don't think you can measure if red is better than blue_.
> 
> 
> *"Well, I would say most of this thread is 'subjective.'
> 
> I have disagreed with many a movies placement on this site. If everyone saw things the same, I could see your point. But what you think is eye candy is apparently not exactly what I would call top of tier 0 eye candy. Thus the reasoning why some think Wall-E should be placed at the bottom of teir 0, some believe it should be placed in the middle of tier 0, (my self) and others believe it should be the top placement."*
> 
> 
> 
> _Quote:
> 
> Originally Posted by djoberg View Post
> 
> For the record, even though I suggested placing Wall-E in the bottom of Tier 0 in my last post, my original post suggested the middle of Tier 0 and I would have no problems whatsoever with that placement.
> 
> 
> My thinking regarding the first 30+ minutes is that because of the color palette (mostly browns because of the apocalyptic effect) it wasn't nearly as sharp or detailed as the outer space scenes, so I believe there should be a lowering of the title for that reason. Having said that, there were moments where the detail was quite good (in the scrap yard...and in Wall-E's quarters), but all things considered it wasn't consistently sharp and detailed._
> 
> 
> *"I agree.."*
> 
> 
> 
> All of the above are taken from pages 230 and 231 of this thread. You have really contradicted yourself compared to those original posts you made concerning Wall E. IMO you were closer to being realistic then and now have gone on a bit of an erroneous mission.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _________



Nice find...









Interesting to see how I once felt towards Wall-E.

But like many have done on this thread, once reviewing the movie again, I have dropped my high praise of the movie somewhat. Once one watches it three or four times, (at least for me) my position changed even further.

It is nice to see that I never thought Wall-E should have been towards the top of tier0 like some on here.

Furthermore, the more I thought about the standards of this thread and what I thought we SHOULD be following, I realized I might have been caught up in Wall-E world like many on this thread seem to be.

I guess the one big thing this does prove is that I DO NOT HAVE AN AGENDA AGAINST Wall-E.

My defiance is purely genuine.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/15458022
> 
> 
> Nice find...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting to see how I once felt towards Wall-E.
> 
> But like many have done on this thread, once reviewing the movie again, I have dropped my high praise of the movie somewhat. Once one watches it three or four times, (at least for me) my position changed even further.
> 
> It is nice to see that I never thought Wall-E should have been towards the top of tier0 like some on here.
> 
> Furthermore, the more I thought about the standards of this thread and what I thought we SHOULD be following, I realized I might have been caught up in Wall-E world like many on this thread seem to be.
> 
> I guess the one big thing this does prove is that I DO NOT HAVE AN AGENDA AGAINST Wall-E.
> 
> My defiance is purely genuine.



For what it is worth, even though you have changed your opinion and even though I went out of my way to show the contradiction







, you definitely have my support for changing your mind and point of view regarding any title. I am also more than impressed with the humility you are showing and willingness to discuss what you claimed then and now. You have my respect.


For the record, I never thought Wall E was top 0 either.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15458174
> 
> 
> For what it is worth, even though you have changed your opinion and even though I went out of my way to show the contradiction
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , you definitely have my support for changing your mind and point of view regarding any title. I am also more than impressed with the humility you are showing and willingness to discuss what you claimed then and now. You have my respect.
> 
> 
> For the record, I never thought Wall E was top 0 either.




Hey, it happens all the time on this thread. I have seen many make changes to where a title has been ranked. I believe this is my first change, but then I may have forgotten another instance. Had I thought about it, I would have gladly went to that post you quoted and posted my initial feelings of Wall-E before I began railing about my changed stance. I would have gladly stated why I initially ranked it where I did... and why I have changed my stance.

Again, this is why we re-evaluate titles occasionally on this thread. Or at least we are supposed to be able to without getting grief for it.


----------



## stumlad

I think the point Suffolk was trying to make -- and, Suffolk, correct me if I am putting words into your mouth:


A title like Apocalypto is punished for it's not-so-eye candy in the first 30 minutes, yet Wall-E isn't. Some say "Apocalypto doesnt look as good in the first 30 minutes" and it gets moved down to Tier 1... while he and others say the same thing about Wall-E, yet there it still sits in Tier 0.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15457474
> 
> 
> ...but there is no way in clear conscience I can sit back while you push this erroneous opinionated belief about Wall E.



So now you know where I am coming form then?


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15458339
> 
> 
> I think the point Suffolk was trying to make -- and, Suffolk, correct me if I am putting words into your mouth:
> 
> 
> A title like Apocalypto is punished for it's not-so-eye candy in the first 30 minutes, yet Wall-E isn't. Some say "Apocalypto doesnt look as good in the first 30 minutes" and it gets moved down to Tier 1... while he and others say the same thing about Wall-E, yet there it still sits in Tier 0.



Yaaaaaa....

Thank you!!!!!

Yet another example.


----------



## selimsivad

*REVOLVER*


I've just finished Revolver after a second viewing. I've read a few reviews where it's been called Tier 0 and a "turd" of a movie!










As for the movie itself, the pro-turd group are right on the money! The acting was unbelievable! No one was convincing, especially Andre Benjamin.










As for the picture quality, it looked pretty good. Colors were intentionally bright and oversaturated, especially Ray Liotta's character. Backrounds, for the majority of the movie, was intentionally not in focus. This all fit the style of the movie.


The movie's brightness washes out the black levels. For me, this takes it out of Tier 0 consideration.


A reviewer before me mentioned it's 3D pop factor. I don't think I've seen this much pop in Blu! I think the unfocused backround assisted in the pop factor. Excellent cinematography, horrible predictable story. The second viewing was only to make an unbiased recommendation.



*Revolver

Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.25

PS3-Samsung 46" 1080p-nine*'


----------



## Rob Tomlin

To Suffolk and others who think that Wall-E needs to be moved down, I would strongly recommend that you go back in this thread and quote as many votes as possible in order to make your case.


You have spent a lot of time and energy discussing your opinion about why Wall-E should be moved down. I think some of that energy may be better spent by tallying up the posts that support your position. Just a thought.


----------



## rsbeck

Suffolk --


A lot of live action titles have been punished for less softness than Wall-E. This has been said already. To get the title moved, you need to get a number of people who want the title moved. Enough so that it overcomes all of the people who have voted for tier 0. Unless you can get a whole bunch of people to concede your points and change their votes, your bill will never get out of committee. I see you never met the challenge made to you a few pages back and you still don't have the goods. At this point, this is sort of like a filibuster. All of your points have been made more than once. I am going to ask you politely to please move on.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15457703
> 
> 
> I agree with this, Hugh. No surprise, I also agree with you that Speed Racer does not belong in Tier 0, but I'm not going to campaign to lower it or anything.



Do you also agree with this statement that I made yesterday?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15453121
> 
> 
> Again, everyone's votes DO count. The only exception to this rule is when the vote/recommendation is given by a woman. This thread would lose credibility rather quickly if we ever allowed that to happen.



That was just for you, but I got no love for my (weak) attempt at humor.


----------



## selimsivad

*Mr. Brooks*


Mr Brooks was an excellent, entertaining movie! Think American Psycho, without the satirical, over the top story.










The movie has a blue tint, which may distract viewers. For me, it represented the "cool" composure of Kevin Costner's character.


The picture is crisp and clean, with a light layer of grain. Facial details were excellent, with nice shadow levels. Skin tones looked very natural. Clothing textures looked amazing!










As good as it looks, Mr. Brooks is not Tier 0. Black level were not consistant with Tier 0. Sometimes they looked good, sometimes they did not. Never were they "inky." Contrast levels could have been raised a notch.


*Mr. Brooks

Tier Recommendation: top of Tier 1

PS3-Samsung 46" 1080p-nine*'


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15458986
> 
> *Mr. Brooks*
> 
> 
> Mr Brooks was an excellent, entertaining movie! Think American Psycho, without the satirical, over the top story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The movie has a blue tint, which may distract viewers. For me, it represented the "cool" composure of Kevin Costner's character.
> 
> 
> The picture is crisp and clean, with a light layer of grain. Facial details were excellent, with nice shadow levels. Skin tones looked very natural. Clothing textures looked amazing!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As good as it looks, Mr. Brooks is not Tier 0. Black level were not consistant with Tier 0. Sometimes they looked good, sometimes they did not. Never were they "inky." Contrast levels could have been raised a notch.
> 
> 
> *Mr. Brooks
> 
> Tier Recommendation: top of Tier 1
> 
> PS3-Samsung 46" 1080p-nine*'



Good review. I especially like the fact that you brought up the "blue tint", which is something I am not sure that I mentioned in my review, but it is certainly there. Frankly, I really liked the effect myself, and found it perfectly complimentary to the subject matter. I loved the movie too.


I am one of the people who recommended this for Tier 0, but I know that there have been several people who have recommended it for Tier 1 based on the black levels. Even though I disagree with this and think it is a Tier 0 title, I would guess that if you go back through the thread, there are probably enough votes for Tier 1 to have this title moved down from Tier 0.


This is a good example of how contributors to this thread need to help make it better by doing some work themselves instead of relying solely on SuprSlow. Mr. Brooks was first reviewed long ago. Reviews continue to slowly come in. If only 1 review comes in every two or three months, it is possible that this review may not get the attention that it deserves unless someone goes back in the last 6 months or more to tally up the other reviews and summarize them in a post.


We really need to not only help SuprSlow, but help ourselves as well.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15458831
> 
> 
> Do you also agree with this statement that I made yesterday?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was just for you, but I got no love for my (weak) attempt at humor.



Rob, I have to admit this flew right over my head as well, which means I did not read your post as thoroughly as I should have







, because if I did you would have gotten a big sarcastic thumbs up from me with your humor as I can relate to how you are poking fun at things.


Which speaking of women, now that you saw Wanted, what was your PQ rating again for Wanted? In particular that scene we had a laugh about earlier on with Jolie when I asked how many noticed the PQ...!


----------



## Obi-Al-Kenobi

Anybody knows a good documental about the space, planets and stars on blu-ray.


My father likes all about the outer space and want to give him a good documental about it. Which one you would recomend me?


----------



## rsbeck

Obi --


Check out When We Left Earth. It's a documentary about the Nasa space program starting from the beginning and covers the first launches, orbit, space walk, lunar landing and on through the space shuttle. It's a great documentary, very entertaining and all of the old footage has been restored beautifully. Some of the footage is incredible. This is not tier 0 demo material, but it is a terrific documentary and definitely benefits from blu-ray.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/15458390
> 
> 
> So now you know where I am coming form then?




Yes, but IMO Speed Racer is Tier 1, Apocalypto tier 0, but top of tier 1 is fine and a wash. I can see why some are saying Apocalypto is not tier 0 based on the digital noise using an HD camera in poorly lit forest that gives it that "grainy" snow look. At the same time the opening scene in the forest looks like nothing I have seen to date in HD. It looks amazing and crystal clear. I don't promote nor do I ding a film for director's intent. I ding or promote based on my opinion of what eye candy is. So while I don't promote the director's intent in Wall E as being a positive for higher recommendation, in this case I am not dinging it either based on the "haze" and simply see it as eye candy of a different sought.


The very controversial titles are all with a stone's throw of each other and so close in many ways, hence I think the controversies. I have yet to see anyone argue that something in tier 0 should be tier 3 or lower, and I have yet to see anyone say something in tier 3 or 4 or even for that matter that something in tier 2 should be tier 0. It is these borderline titles causing the issues, because based on opinions and a lot of facts they are very close in proximity.


----------



## HDDVDRocks




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Obi-Al-Kenobi* /forum/post/15459517
> 
> 
> Anybody knows a good documental about the space, planets and stars on blu-ray.
> 
> 
> My father likes all about the outer space and want to give him a good documental about it. Which one you would recomend me?



Wall-E isn't really a documental, but it has some great shots of outer space.


As far as the tier discussion for Wall-E:


"Get a life, will you people? I mean for God's sake, it's it's just a TV show" - Shatner


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Obi-Al-Kenobi* /forum/post/15459517
> 
> 
> Anybody knows a good documental about the space, planets and stars on blu-ray.
> 
> 
> My father likes all about the outer space and want to give him a good documental about it. Which one you would recomend me?


 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...3#post15417193


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15453121
> 
> 
> Again, everyone's votes DO count. The only exception to this rule is when the vote/recommendation is given by a woman. This thread would lose credibility rather quickly if we ever allowed that to happen.



















































You best be careful. I'm slowly converting my women-friends to High Definition. The onslaught that could occur by the crazies who are "Twilight" freaks alone... oh my. If "Edward" won't be considered Top Tier 0, I fear for the board.







Stores will have teenage girls as well as the freaky mommy-crowd (believe me, they exist in droves and _they are scary_!) gone insane for high definition if they created a Twilight High Definition package (blu ray player, TV, exclusive Twilight content available with the BRD packaged for it...).


And for those of you who have no clue of what I am talking about... you will.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15459493
> 
> 
> Rob, I have to admit this flew right over my head as well, which means I did not read your post as thoroughly as I should have
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , because if I did you would have gotten a big sarcastic thumbs up from me with your humor as I can relate to how you are poking fun at things.



That's what I get for writing such a long winded post!



> Quote:
> Which speaking of women, now that you saw Wanted, what was your PQ rating again for Wanted? In particular that scene we had a laugh about earlier on with Jolie when I asked how many noticed the PQ...!



I liked it and recommended Tier 1.25.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15459668
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You best be careful. I'm slowly converting my women-friends to High Definition. The onslaught that could occur by the crazies who are "Twilight" freaks alone... oh my. If "Edward" won't be considered Top Tier 0, I fear for the board.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stores will have teenage girls as well as the freaky mommy-crowd (believe me, they exist in droves and _they are scary_!) gone insane for high definition if they created a Twilight High Definition package (blu ray player, TV, exclusive Twilight content available with the BRD packaged for it...).
> 
> 
> And for those of you who have no clue of what I am talking about... you will.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15458986
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Brooks was an excellent, entertaining movie! Think American Psycho, without the satirical, over the top story.



Ok, my interest is peaked...


















> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15459493
> 
> 
> Rob, I have to admit this flew right over my head as well, which means I did not read your post as thoroughly as I should have
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , because if I did you would have gotten a big sarcastic thumbs up from me with your humor as I can relate to how you are poking fun at things.
> 
> 
> Which speaking of women, now that you saw Wanted, what was your PQ rating again for Wanted? In particular that scene we had a laugh about earlier on with Jolie when I asked how many noticed the PQ...!



I figured you'd get a chuckle out of my above quote... especially considering what you're talking about in this post, Hughmc. *snicker*


BTW, I'm going to see this title eventually, and I'm expecting Angelina to look Tier 0 in that scene.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/15456136
> 
> 
> Ah, now a little of the true feelings/views of how people vote in this thread begin to come out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am all about everyone’s vote counting but your seem to be ignoring the standards of this thread. I really think your statement needs to be reviewed when considering future voting.
> 
> To comment a bit further to this quote, there have been a lot of movies that had plenty of detail when they were supposed to, but because they don’t have consistent detail through out, they were banished to lower tiers.



Everyone here is offering their own interpretation of the rankings anyway... what's another one? I do not see the words "eye candy" anywhere in the OP. I do not see a quantifiable definition of eye candy given in the OP. I see that the tier 0 description says "no visible video artifacts", so you could throw TDK right out, really.

I won't penalize a cartoon for not being live action, or cartoonish humans for not looking like real humans. If you have a problem with that, then simply scroll past my recommendations, and I'll do likewise, because we are clearly on completely different pages here. To me this is a picture quality thread, and wall-e's is pristine.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15459169
> 
> 
> Good review. I especially like the fact that you brought up the "blue tint", which is something I am not sure that I mentioned in my review, but it is certainly there. Frankly, I really liked the effect myself, and found it perfectly complimentary to the subject matter. I loved the movie too.
> 
> 
> I am one of the people who recommended this for Tier 0, but I know that there have been several people who have recommended it for Tier 1 based on the black levels. Even though I disagree with this and think it is a Tier 0 title, I would guess that if you go back through the thread, there are probably enough votes for Tier 1 to have this title moved down from Tier 0.
> 
> 
> This is a good example of how contributors to this thread need to help make it better by doing some work themselves instead of relying solely on SuprSlow. Mr. Brooks was first reviewed long ago. Reviews continue to slowly come in. If only 1 review comes in every two or three months, it is possible that this review may not get the attention that it deserves unless someone goes back in the last 6 months or more to tally up the other reviews and summarize them in a post.
> 
> 
> We really need to not only help SuprSlow, but help ourselves as well.



Thanks! Glad you liked it.









To me, it didn't have that "magic" that Tier 0 requires.

Disagreeing is healthy from time to time.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15459169
> 
> 
> Frankly, I really liked the effect myself, and found it perfectly complimentary to the subject matter. I loved the movie too.



For those who liked this, you should try Dexter. Coming out on blu Tuesday (1/6/09)












> Quote:
> I am one of the people who recommended this for Tier 0, but I know that there have been several people who have recommended it for Tier 1 based on the black levels. Even though I disagree with this and think it is a Tier 0 title,



Do you agree that the black levels are inconsistent?


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15459731
> 
> 
> For those who liked this, you should try Dexter. Coming out on blu Tuesday (1/6/09)



I loved the first season, one of my favorites in recent memory, though I've yet to check out the second and third. I really recommend the TV fans pick this up if they haven't seen the show yet. It was filmed on digital cameras, I believe, so it'd be pretty hard to screw up this release.


----------



## rsbeck

*The Searchers*


My tier 0 reference for how old Westerns can look on blu-ray is How The West Was Won. My tier 1.5 reference is The Professionals. The Sand Pebbles, ranked 1.75 is not a Western, but is an older film that looks great on blu-ray. The Searchers, one of my favorite films, does not look as good as these. Not sure exactly why. I noted some very thin ringing in several scenes and some faces appear just slightly clay-like and smeared. Near the end of the film, there is a very brief shot of John Wayne's face perfectly resolved and looking natural with all of the detail intact. This shows what is very often missing in the rest of the film. A lot of this film was shot in the Monument Valley. I would expect this footage to look incredible on blu-ray. Instead, it is a little flat. Having said all of that, This is not a bad looking title. If you are a fan of the film, it is plenty watchable -- it is just a little soft and lacks a little detail and pop compared to my other higher tier references.

*Recommendation: Tier 2.75*


Sim2 C3X1080

Carada Masquerade

126" Firehawk G3

Pioneer BDP-05FD


13' From Screen


----------



## stumlad

We need this thread to have google search capability.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15459729
> 
> 
> Thanks! Glad you liked it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To me, it didn't have that "magic" that Tier 0 requires.
> 
> Disagreeing is healthy from time to time.



We agree more than we disagree when it comes to Mr. Brooks, but yes, disagreement and discussion is a big part of improving the placements of titles.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15459731
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree that the black levels are inconsistent?



It depends on your definition of "consistent"!










When I watched it a second time following the discussions of the black levels, if I recall correctly, I only noticed two scenes where there seemed to be an issue.


I didn't think that was/is enough to move it from Tier 0.


----------



## lgans316

Friends,


I don't like the idea of mentioning the equipment info when it can be known by visiting the member's public profile. Saves space and minimizes redundancy.


Totally agree that *Narnia: Prince Caspian* deserves a spot in *Tier-0*. I watched *Wall-E* for the third time yesterday night and I still feel it *doesn't belong* to *Tier-0*. The strange part is, I loved the image quality in the earth sequences as opposed to the sequences inside Axiom.


----------



## rsbeck

Mr. Brooks --


This is one of my new favorite movies. I've been recommending it to people I know will like it and I've been getting great feedback. I likely never would have discovered it had it not been ranked in tier 0. I think it is a great looking title, but I think it is a tier 1.25 title, which is still a very high ranking, still considered demo material, and still recognizes that it has many virtues that make it deserving of a 1.25. I just believe the competition for tier 0 (and tier 1.0!) has become tougher since Mr. Brooks was first released.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

We now interrupt our regularly scheduled broadcast for something a little different...

*Sleeping Beauty*


tier recommendation: *Tier 6.31749*


Released at some point in the distant past, I was totally underwhelmed by what I saw in this transfer and am mystified how it achieved a tier zero placement. The 75-minute (which seems awfully short to me) main feature is encoded in AVC on a BD-50 with an average video bitrate of 24.06 Mbps. I really have to question the hacks at Disney for not using the superior MPEG-2 video codec on this transfer. The total lack of artifacts was troubling to me. Where is the chroma noise and color banding when you need it? I also think they could have saved the use of a BD-50 for a more important movie, like Dark Water or Gone In Sixty Seconds.


The original source master looks suspiciously pristine with no visible grain. It must have been DNRed to oblivion. Facial detail looks very weak. I realize Aurora is supposed to be 16 years old, but her face shows no acme or blemishes at all! Hair looks like one solid color with little texture at times. This seems to be another shoddy Disney Blu-ray. Have those jokers ever gotten it right? On a side note I think Miley Cyrus would have been a better choice to play Aurora. The studio really lost its head on that by not casting a well-known actress. I also have to question the flesh tones. Some of the actors do not even look like real humans with the exaggerated color timing. Aurora turns green in the face at one point!


Another disappointment was the total lack of any sharpening or edge enhancement, though I corrected that by turning up the sharpness setting as high as I could on my display. I will warn prospective buyers that black bars dominate the picture here. It is sad a studio would release a Blu-ray that doesn't fill up the screen in this day and age. I pay good money to see more than a black wall on my screen.


Overall I would place this Blu-ray in tier 6.31749 with a caveat that I could and probably will change my mind at any time. I only watched the first 3 minutes of the movie but I made sure to pay attention very carefully. Anyone that disagrees with this ranking will be shot on sight.


Watching on a 20” 1992 Sanyo CRT television set at 480i from an approximate viewing distance of twenty feet. I even think I was sober during this period.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

^ That may very well be the funniest post I have read in this thread!


You really had me worried there for a minute.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15460152
> 
> 
> You really had me worried there for a minute.



I thought the thread could handle a light bit of levity and a normal recommendation for Sleeping Beauty at this point would just become "fly-over country".







I do think it could be bumped up a couple of spots in tier zero (I did say I could change my mind) or Shoot'Em Up moved down a couple of spots.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15460103
> 
> *Sleeping Beauty*
> 
> 
> tier recommendation: *Tier 6.31749*



-snip-


I know 2009 is still young, but that's the post of the year, if you ask me.


----------



## Hughmc

*Ghost Town: Tier 1.0*.

IMO this film really looks good. It has a very natural and realistic color palate, healthy amounts of grain and good detail on closeups. While I did see one out of focus facial closeup near the end, it seemed to be the only one. I have no problem with this film being put in the top of tier 1. As I had mentioned earlier, the cinematography of NY is just a delight. It really does justice to the nuance of the look and feel of NY. I will watch this again, especially upon further pro reviews that seem to see it different than I did. I may have some bias for liking the film itself, as it is hard not to like, and the shots of NY which also influenced my take of how good I think it looks.


Sony [email protected] from PS3 thru HDMI.
*

The Strangers: Tier 2.5*


This maybe one of the poorest looking Uni titles I have seen. It does have some of the best detail I have seen on a BD, the problem is it happens only about 6 times for about 3-5 seconds.










PQ ranges from VCR quality to top of tier 0.


My children watched it after having seen it in the theatre and they said it was much scarier at home. Of course the soundtrack (5.1) which has a strong surround presence in my HT 7.1 setup made it all that much more intense. This film had the feel of Open Water in terms of the mindset.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15460103
> 
> 
> We now interrupt our regularly scheduled broadcast for something a little different...
> 
> *Sleeping Beauty*
> 
> 
> tier recommendation: *Tier 6.31749*
> 
> 
> Released at some point in the distant past, I was totally underwhelmed by what I saw in this transfer and am mystified how it achieved a tier zero placement. The 75-minute (which seems awfully short to me) main feature is encoded in AVC on a BD-50 with an average video bitrate of 24.06 Mbps. I really have to question the hacks at Disney for not using the superior MPEG-2 video codec on this transfer. The total lack of artifacts was troubling to me. Where is the chroma noise and color banding when you need it? I also think they could have saved the use of a BD-50 for a more important movie, like Dark Water or Gone In Sixty Seconds.
> 
> 
> The original source master looks suspiciously pristine with no visible grain. It must have been DNRed to oblivion. Facial detail looks very weak. I realize Aurora is supposed to be 16 years old, but her face shows no acme or blemishes at all! Hair looks like one solid color with little texture at times. This seems to be another shoddy Disney Blu-ray. Have those jokers ever gotten it right? On a side note I think Miley Cyrus would have been a better choice to play Aurora. The studio really lost its head on that by not casting a well-known actress. I also have to question the flesh tones. Some of the actors do not even look like real humans with the exaggerated color timing. Aurora turns green in the face at one point!
> 
> 
> Another disappointment was the total lack of any sharpening or edge enhancement, though I corrected that by turning up the sharpness setting as high as I could on my display. I will warn prospective buyers that black bars dominate the picture here. It is sad a studio would release a Blu-ray that doesn't fill up the screen in this day and age. I pay good money to see more than a black wall on my screen.
> 
> 
> Overall I would place this Blu-ray in tier 6.31749 with a caveat that I could and probably will change my mind at any time. I only watched the first 3 minutes of the movie but I made sure to pay attention very carefully. Anyone that disagrees with this ranking will be shot on sight.
> 
> 
> Watching on a 20” 1992 Sanyo CRT television set at 480i from an approximate viewing distance of twenty feet. I even think I was sober during this period.



Ahahaha Phantom comes through with the best review ever.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15460103
> 
> 
> We now interrupt our regularly scheduled broadcast for something a little different...
> 
> *Sleeping Beauty*
> 
> 
> tier recommendation: *Tier 6.31749*
> 
> 
> Released at some point in the distant past, I was totally underwhelmed by what I saw in this transfer and am mystified how it achieved a tier zero placement. The 75-minute (which seems awfully short to me) main feature is encoded in AVC on a BD-50 with an average video bitrate of 24.06 Mbps. I really have to question the hacks at Disney for not using the superior MPEG-2 video codec on this transfer. The total lack of artifacts was troubling to me. Where is the chroma noise and color banding when you need it? I also think they could have saved the use of a BD-50 for a more important movie, like Dark Water or Gone In Sixty Seconds.
> 
> 
> The original source master looks suspiciously pristine with no visible grain. It must have been DNRed to oblivion. Facial detail looks very weak. I realize Aurora is supposed to be 16 years old, but her face shows no acme or blemishes at all! Hair looks like one solid color with little texture at times. This seems to be another shoddy Disney Blu-ray. Have those jokers ever gotten it right? On a side note I think Miley Cyrus would have been a better choice to play Aurora. The studio really lost its head on that by not casting a well-known actress. I also have to question the flesh tones. Some of the actors do not even look like real humans with the exaggerated color timing. Aurora turns green in the face at one point!
> 
> 
> Another disappointment was the total lack of any sharpening or edge enhancement, though I corrected that by turning up the sharpness setting as high as I could on my display. I will warn prospective buyers that black bars dominate the picture here. It is sad a studio would release a Blu-ray that doesn't fill up the screen in this day and age. I pay good money to see more than a black wall on my screen.
> 
> 
> Overall I would place this Blu-ray in tier 6.31749 with a caveat that I could and probably will change my mind at any time. I only watched the first 3 minutes of the movie but I made sure to pay attention very carefully. Anyone that disagrees with this ranking will be shot on sight.
> 
> 
> Watching on a 20 1992 Sanyo CRT television set at 480i from an approximate viewing distance of twenty feet. I even think I was sober during this period.



I can't help but agree with others. There isn't a sentence that isn't funny. Thanks for the laugh Phantom and levity at such "troubled times" in this thread.







I will be sure to break out the VHS copy of SB that I have since it makes the BD look like silent era films.


----------



## lgans316

Shame on you Phantom the Stranger, for forgetting to include this para.










"It's a shame on BVHE for making Sleeping Beauty look like Waking Ugly. They should have contacted New Line or Warner for authoring and encoding as the BD neither exhibits any major compression/film artifacts nor doesn't feature lo(u)ssy audio in Original language."


----------



## rsbeck

*Gone, Baby, Gone*


Gritty drama where eye candy is not the point. Cinematography is effective, but reflective of the somber nature of the story. Grain appears intact and did not note any ringing or halos. What is here is well-shot and well transfered. Starts off a little soft, but sharpens up and has a very natural feel. Given the source material, I don't believe the title can look much better than this.

*Recommendation: Tier 2.75*


Sim2 C3X1080

Carada Masquerade

126" Firehawk G3

Pioneer BDP-05FD


13' From Screen


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15460103
> 
> 
> Facial detail looks very weak. I realize Aurora is supposed to be 16 years old, but her face shows no acme or blemishes at all!



Reeeeeal funny.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15460103
> 
> 
> Watching on a 20 1992 Sanyo CRT television set at 480i from an approximate viewing distance of twenty feet.



Phantom, I honestly believe your review could have landed you the absolute, heaviest, *weighted* vote of all time....if you had only moved two feet closer!!


----------



## RBFC

Phantom,


Thanks, I sure needed that!


Lee


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Phantom Stranger, thanks for the laugh this morning!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15460152
> 
> 
> ^ That may very well be the funniest post I have read in this thread!
> 
> 
> You really had me worried there for a minute.



At first glance, me too! I was like... OMGWTF _Phantom Stranger didn't like Sleeping Beauty?_ Has all gone to hell with this world??


Then I actually opened my eyes and read it.







Serves me right for coming to this of all threads without having coffee yet.


----------



## Hammie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15460103
> 
> 
> We now interrupt our regularly scheduled broadcast for something a little different...
> 
> *Sleeping Beauty*
> 
> 
> tier recommendation: *Tier 6.31749*
> 
> 
> Released at some point in the distant past, I was totally underwhelmed by what I saw in this transfer and am mystified how it achieved a tier zero placement. The 75-minute (which seems awfully short to me) main feature is encoded in AVC on a BD-50 with an average video bitrate of 24.06 Mbps. I really have to question the hacks at Disney for not using the superior MPEG-2 video codec on this transfer. The total lack of artifacts was troubling to me. Where is the chroma noise and color banding when you need it? I also think they could have saved the use of a BD-50 for a more important movie, like Dark Water or Gone In Sixty Seconds.
> 
> 
> The original source master looks suspiciously pristine with no visible grain. It must have been DNRed to oblivion. Facial detail looks very weak. I realize Aurora is supposed to be 16 years old, but her face shows no acme or blemishes at all! Hair looks like one solid color with little texture at times. This seems to be another shoddy Disney Blu-ray. Have those jokers ever gotten it right? On a side note I think Miley Cyrus would have been a better choice to play Aurora. The studio really lost its head on that by not casting a well-known actress. I also have to question the flesh tones. Some of the actors do not even look like real humans with the exaggerated color timing. Aurora turns green in the face at one point!
> 
> 
> Another disappointment was the total lack of any sharpening or edge enhancement, though I corrected that by turning up the sharpness setting as high as I could on my display. I will warn prospective buyers that black bars dominate the picture here. It is sad a studio would release a Blu-ray that doesn't fill up the screen in this day and age. I pay good money to see more than a black wall on my screen.
> 
> 
> Overall I would place this Blu-ray in tier 6.31749 with a caveat that I could and probably will change my mind at any time. I only watched the first 3 minutes of the movie but I made sure to pay attention very carefully. Anyone that disagrees with this ranking will be shot on sight.
> 
> 
> Watching on a 20 1992 Sanyo CRT television set at 480i from an approximate viewing distance of twenty feet. I even think I was sober during this period.



So, if I understand that this post was just a joke, I can be rest assured that there are no black bars in this film? Because they really show the clouding and flashlighting on my TV and I hate that!


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hammie* /forum/post/15462178
> 
> 
> So, if I understand that this post was just a joke, I can be rest assured that there are no black bars in this film?



Yes, not to worry. None of these so-called 'black bars'; only lovingly delineated grey strips. There's a lovely moment near the end of the film in which the prince goes riding through one of them on horseback. You can _almost_ make him out, but it's just a _little bit_ too dark.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15460103
> 
> 
> 
> Watching on a 20 1992 Sanyo CRT television set at 480i from an approximate viewing distance of twenty feet. I even think I was sober during this period.



Awesome setup! Sober is IMPORTANT!


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15459704
> 
> 
> Ok, my interest is peaked...



I rented it. As soon as the movie ended, I found a used copy on eBay for 16.00, including shipping!


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15462785
> 
> 
> Awesome setup! Sober is IMPORTANT!



With 2001: A Space Odyssey, I find that a good bottle of Burgundy, well-metered across the span of a viewing, improves PQ immensely (especially as you reach the Jupiter sequence).


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15463209
> 
> 
> With 2001: A Space Odyssey, I find that a good bottle of Burgundy, well-metered across the span of a viewing, improves PQ immensely (especially as you reach the Jupiter sequence).



I reviewed The Man Who Fell From Earth after a half bottle of pinot noir. Let's just say it really helped with the visuals!


After watching sober, I had to change my review!


----------



## spectator

selimsivad, you quote Blade Runner in your sig and you enjoy pinot noir and Criterion Blu-rays...


I think I'm developing a man-crush.


----------



## SuprSlow

I've been working on the latest update over the past few days, so bear with me. It'll be posted soon.


I've still got another few pages of posts to sort through, but so far, there are around 98 unique title placements


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/15465712
> 
> 
> I've been working on the latest update over the past few days, so bear with me. It'll be posted soon.
> 
> 
> I've still got another few pages of posts to sort through, but so far, there are around 98 unique title placements




Since I'm a girl I can get away with this. **HUG** I don't envy your task.


(Just remember. Ignore what the boys have said. MAMMA MIA IN TIER 1!!!







)


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15463472
> 
> 
> selimsivad, you quote Blade Runner in your sig and you enjoy pinot noir and Criterion Blu-rays...
> 
> 
> I think I'm developing a man-crush.



Here's the dealbreaker:
*SPEED RACER > THE DARK KNIGHT!*


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15460249
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> The Strangers: Tier 2.5
> 
> 
> This maybe one of the poorest looking Uni titles I have seen. It does have some of the best detail I have seen on a BD, the problem is it happens only about 6 times for about 3-5 seconds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PQ ranges from VCR quality to top of tier 0.
> 
> 
> My children watched it after having seen it in the theatre and they said it was much scarier at home. Of course the soundtrack (5.1) which has a strong surround presence in my HT 7.1 setup made it all that much more intense. This film had the feel of Open Water in terms of the mindset.
> *


*


Watched this last night, and I can pretty much agree. Overall it was well lit and shot but it just didn't WOW me at any time. A lot of the blacks were crushed and lacked detail. I didn't see any scenes that looked like VHS quality though? And didn't really see any worthy of tier 0 either. Some were definitely top of tier 1 though.


2.5 is fine with me.


Panasonic PZ80U via PS3 at about 8 feet.*


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15460249
> 
> *Ghost Town: Tier 1.0*.
> 
> IMO this film really looks good. It has a very natural and realistic color palate, healthy amounts of grain and good detail on closeups. While I did see one out of focus facial closeup near the end, it seemed to be the only one. I have no problem with this film being put in the top of tier 1. As I had mentioned earlier, the cinematography of NY is just a delight. It really does justice to the nuance of the look and feel of NY. I will watch this again, especially upon further pro reviews that seem to see it different than I did. I may have some bias for liking the film itself, as it is hard not to like, and the shots of NY which also influenced my take of how good I think it looks.
> 
> 
> Sony [email protected] from PS3 thru HDMI.




I watched this on new year's day as a rental. It's gone now, and I never did a proper review of it, but it was fairly good like you stated. I don't think I personally would call it Tier 1.0, but I could see it landing somewhere between Tier 1.5-2.0 for sure once more people see it!


I liked Ricky Gervais in this for sure. *The spoiler might ruin the movie so don't click if you want to watch it.*
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) I wish that more of the stories of the dead people were followed through on... like the Nurse, I'd have liked to see what kept her behind! Or Naked Guy!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15468023
> 
> 
> Watched this last night, and I can pretty much agree. Overall it was well lit and shot but it just didn't WOW me at any time. A lot of the blacks were crushed and lacked detail. I didn't see any scenes that looked like VHS quality though? And didn't really see any worthy of tier 0 either. *Some were definitely top of tier 1 though.
> *
> 
> 2.5 is fine with me.



I was glad to read your remark (highlighted) above. I thought much of the movie was Tier 1 quality. I didn't notice any crushed blacks and I thought there was very good detail and that's why I voted for a Tier 1.5 placement.


In my defense of this recommendation there were several "professional" online reviews (that means reviews that have a lot of *weight*







) that gave it a high score, with special mention of the accurately rendered blacks and good shadow detail. I must say I am quite mystified by you and others taking issue with the blacks and detail.


I am curious....you say 2.5 would be fine with you, yet you acknowledge that some scenes were tier 1. Does that mean that you actually thought some scenes were tier 3 or 4 quality?


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15468023
> 
> 
> Watched this last night, and I can pretty much agree. Overall it was well lit and shot but it just didn't WOW me at any time. A lot of the blacks were crushed and lacked detail. I didn't see any scenes that looked like VHS quality though? And didn't really see any worthy of tier 0 either. Some were definitely top of tier 1 though.
> 
> 
> 2.5 is fine with me.
> 
> 
> Panasonic PZ80U via PS3 at about 8 feet.



Hey LB. The VCR like shots were more at the beginning and there was a mention of bitrates but not actual numbers in some recent previous thread page discussions. I looked at the bitrate and it was at 75 kbps at times.







Any less and the damn BD would have to be off or paused. I think I stream music at double or more those bitrates at times on the net.







Then near the end there were some remarkably clear shots, but again there weren't many nor did they last long. They probably just looked better against the previous hour+ of crappy PQ. This was actually a Rogue Pictures release and Uni was the distributor, so I don't know if Rogue was responsible for the transfer or not possibly letting Uni off the hook. Then again the way it was filmed might be all intentional as to let Uni off the hook anyway.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15468155
> 
> 
> I was glad to read your remark (highlighted) above. I thought much of the movie was Tier 1 quality. I didn't notice any crushed blacks and I thought there was very good detail and that's why I voted for a Tier 1.5 placement.
> 
> 
> In my defense of this recommendation there were several "professional" online reviews (that means reviews that have a lot of *weight*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) that gave it a high score, with special mention of the accurately rendered blacks and good shadow detail. I must say I am quite mystified by you and others taking issue with the blacks and detail.
> 
> 
> I am curious....you say 2.5 would be fine with you, yet you acknowledge that some scenes were tier 1. *Does that mean that you actually thought some scenes were tier 3 or 4 quality?*



I did. As I mentioned when I quoted LB's review I was astonished how poor the PQ was at times especially at the beginning. Really 2.5 is even generous. It could easily be put in the top of tier 3 or even lower yet.


----------



## Hughmc

OMG! I just looked at where The Strangers is placed. No, No, No. I can't emphasize enough how wrong that placement is.







The Strangers is in there with Transformers, Underworld, Curse of the Golden Flower, and The Patriot in tier 1.25?







Impossible! No offense to how many or whom the recommendations were made by, but it is really out of place, way out of place. The transfer in terms of our thread purposes, is not eye candy and is downright horrible.










That means Apocalypto and Wall E should be placed on a new category above tier 0 call it platinum.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15468801
> 
> 
> I did. As I mentioned when I quoted LB's review I was astonished how poor the PQ was at times especially at the beginning. Really 2.5 is even generous. *It could easily be put in the top of tier 3 or even lower yet.*



NO WAY JOSE!!










You and I are usually pretty close on reviews Hugh, but this time you're way off the mark.










Have you read the following:

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1672/strangers2008.html 


Now I know that it can be taboo bringing the boys from High Def Digest into this, but how can his 4.5/5 stars rating be so far off? IMHO it isn't that far off, though his rating would probably translate into the bottom of Tier 0, which would be too generous.


I know a few of you have chimed in on this, but I would still like to hear more members give their input...and especially those of you who are going to recommend somewhere in Tier 1!


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15468155
> 
> 
> I was glad to read your remark (highlighted) above. I thought much of the movie was Tier 1 quality. I didn't notice any crushed blacks and I thought there was very good detail and that's why I voted for a Tier 1.5 placement.
> 
> 
> In my defense of this recommendation there were several "professional" online reviews (that means reviews that have a lot of *weight*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) that gave it a high score, with special mention of the accurately rendered blacks and good shadow detail. I must say I am quite mystified by you and others taking issue with the blacks and detail.
> 
> 
> I am curious....you say 2.5 would be fine with you, yet you acknowledge that some scenes were tier 1. Does that mean that you actually thought some scenes were tier 3 or 4 quality?



Yeah...there was little detail on the main character's suit for most of it. Just flat black. The tier 1 shots I did notice were mainly closeups when they were talking at the dinner table or in other areas that were more brightly lit that normal, and the daytime scenes toward the end...but like hugh said those were few and far between.


Overall I felt the film was mid to lower tier 2...those few tier 1 shots don't really bump it up much for me.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15468851
> 
> 
> OMG! I just looked at where The Strangers is placed. No, No, No. I can't emphasize enough how wrong that placement is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Strangers is in there with Transformers, Underworld, Curse of the Golden Flower, and The Patriot in tier 1.25?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Impossible! *No offense to how many or whom the recommendations were made by*, but it is really out of place, way out of place.



No offense taken Hugh....yep, that would be me you're speaking of, for would you believe SuprSlow placed this based on my recommendation alone! That just goes to show you what can happen when your review *CARRIES SO MUCH WEIGHT*!!


----------



## Hughmc

this from HT forum more accurately describes what I saw which again for our purposes validates the fact that The Strangers is NOT eye candy or even close:


*Visual Quality: 3.5/5*

*Visually there really isn't much to say here,* the print is clean and the transfer is without any glaring edge enhancement or other similar defects, but this is a very dark film and one that *doesn't make a point of having grand vistas or intense burst of color or loads of on screen detail, it is subtle, sparse and unassuming,* letting the actors emotional presence have all the spotlight.


Blu Ray .com and Hi def disc news give it a 3.5 as well. I don't know what Peter Bracke at HD digest saw outside of the black levels he mentioned, but he rated it 4.5 stars for PQ it looks like and that is way off.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Hey, LBFilmguy and Hugh, where were you when I was having this same discussion with djoberg?!


Glad to see others feel like I do.


Hey, djoberg, looks like my recommendation at low Tier 2 for The Strangers might not be so bad after all, eh?


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15468933
> 
> 
> NO WAY JOSE!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and I are usually pretty close on reviews Hugh, but this time you're way off the mark.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read the following:
> 
> http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1672/strangers2008.html
> 
> 
> Now I know that it can be taboo bringing the boys from High Def Digest into this, but how can his 4.5/5 stars rating be so far off? IMHO it isn't that far off, though his rating would probably translate into the bottom of Tier 0, which would be too generous.
> 
> 
> I know a few of you have chimed in on this, but I would still like to hear more members give their input...and especially those of you who are going to recommend somewhere in Tier 1!



Im my last post you will see I mentioned other sites as well including HD digest. No worries about what you or I think as I think I am going to take a little or a lot of heat (patrick99 ha ha for my recommendation of Ghost Town. GGG and some pro reviews have brought that down to earth a bit.


Also I think it would all do us well to remember pro reviews are looking at the transfer a bit differently as they may love a transfer for good blacks and no PQ anomalies amd call that flawless or perfect even with no 3D pop, but they aren't looking at eye candy like we are.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15469059
> 
> 
> Hey, LBFilmguy and Hugh, where were you when I was having this same discussion with djoberg?!
> 
> 
> Glad to see others feel like I do.
> 
> 
> Hey, djoberg, looks like my recommendation at low Tier 2 for The Strangers might not be so bad after all, eh?



Seriously Rob, as I mentioned earlier I try not to let week to week new releases get to far past, which are generally only a couple a week from my local HOllywood video.







It flew over my head or I wasn't into Liv doing horror back in Oct.







Otherwise I would have been there in the discussion.







Oh well, here we are now.







I have to run to a hockey game and will catch up later.


----------



## selimsivad

Hey guys, I need your help.


I just rented Ocean's Eleven. Man, does it look good! Easily the best this movie has ever looked!










Currently, it's ranked at 2.25. I'll post a review after a second viewing. Halfway through, I'd probably bump it up to 2.00.










What's strange is the sequels, 12 and 13, are ranked lower in order. So, according to the Tier rankings, 11 is the best looking and 13 is the worst!










Can anyone verify this? Is it that big of a dropoff in quality? I'm looking to buy the Trilogy set, but this could be a dealbreaker.










Thanks!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15468933
> 
> 
> NO WAY JOSE!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and I are usually pretty close on reviews Hugh, but this time you're way off the mark.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read the following:
> 
> http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1672/strangers2008.html
> 
> 
> Now I know that it can be taboo bringing the boys from High Def Digest into this, but how can his 4.5/5 stars rating be so far off? IMHO it isn't that far off, though his rating would probably translate into the bottom of Tier 0, which would be too generous.
> 
> 
> I know a few of you have chimed in on this, but I would still like to hear more members give their input...and especially those of you who are going to recommend somewhere in Tier 1!




Your same high def digest gave Mamma Mia 4/5 stars for HD video quality.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15469002
> 
> 
> this from HT forum more accurately describes what I saw which again for our purposes validates the fact that The Strangers is NOT eye candy or even close:
> 
> 
> *Visual Quality: 3.5/5*
> 
> *Visually there really isn't much to say here,* the print is clean and the transfer is without any glaring edge enhancement or other similar defects, but this is a very dark film and one that *doesn't make a point of having grand vistas or intense burst of color or loads of on screen detail, it is subtle, sparse and unassuming,* letting the actors emotional presence have all the spotlight.



Thanks for posting this Hugh. I think this is a perfect summation of what The Strangers looks like....and it certainly isn't something that will be very impressive to show to friends or family. There just isn't much at all to be impressed with. Even low Tier 2 might be on the slightly high side.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I completely gave up on posting reviews from HighDefDigest to support my position on any title for numerous reasons, the most important being that there is simply no consistency at all. I may agree 100% with one review, and disagree 100% on the next. I find myself agreeing with little more than 50% of their reviews, so they have very little credibility with me.


It would obviously be hypocritical to post one of their reviews to support a placement if you are not also going to give credit to one of their reviews that completely contradicts you on another title's placement.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15469068
> 
> 
> Also I think it would all do us well to remember *pro reviews are looking at the transfer a bit differently as they may love a transfer for good blacks and no PQ anomalies amd call that flawless or perfect even with no 3D pop, but they aren't looking at eye candy like we are*.



You obviously didn't take the time to read Mr. Bracke's review, for it is a glowing analysis and everything he says about it is indeed referring to "eye candy." Read it!


I believe this may be a case where some (maybe not you, but perhaps others) are going to naturally fault this title because 90% of it takes place at night. But on my Samsung HL-S5087W paired with a Panny BD30 at 7 feet the dark scenes looked awesome. I believe I compared it to 30 Days of Night (which was also primarily dark scenes), but IMO it was even better.


Right now it looks like it's going to be lowered a tier (unless some more *weighty* reviews come in favoring my position), but whatever happens it won't be lowered in my estimation.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15469129
> 
> 
> Your same high def digest gave Mamma Mia 4/5 stars for HD video quality.



Yeah, like I said of their review of The Strangers...they were a bit too generous.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Agree to disagree, because The Strangers is most certainly not in the same Tier as 30 Days of Night.....much less better!










You really are all alone on this one djoberg. 1 is a lonely number.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15469059
> 
> 
> Hey, djoberg, looks like my recommendation at low Tier 2 for The Strangers might not be so bad after all, eh?



I guess I had best cling to the old adage, "Different strokes for different folks."


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15469231
> 
> 
> Agree to disagree, because The Strangers is most certainly not in the same Tier as 30 Days of Night.....much less better!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> You really are all alone on this one djoberg. 1 is a lonely number*.



Do I detect a little animosity here Rob?










Actually, I'm not alone, for I'm in fairly good company with Peter Bracke. I do respect his opinion and the ability he has to judge PQ in Blu-ray titles. I find that I agree with him more often than not...but then he is probably considered a "generous rater" like myself.


----------



## djoberg

Rob,


I thought you might be interested in seeing this thread on The Strangers and how even DavidHir is giving this flick a thumbs up:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...3#post15423733 


So, I guess I'm not as ALONE as you thought I was (except on this particular thread).


----------



## LBFilmGuy

LOL dj you're way too sensitive.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15469291
> 
> 
> Do I detect a little animosity here Rob?



Oh boy. Not at all!


I'm quite surprised that you feel this way. I thought that we knew each other better than this?


I have absolutely no animosity towards you (or your opinion on ANY title) at all. No way. No shape. No form. Just the opposite actually, as I very much enjoy your posts here.


This is just a thread about pq. Nothing too serious!



> Quote:
> Actually, I'm not alone, for I'm in fairly good company with Peter Bracke. I do respect his opinion and the ability he has to judge PQ in Blu-ray titles. I find that I agree with him more often than not...but then he is probably considered a "generous rater" like myself.



Peter Bracke doesn't post in this thread, and his reviews are not based on the overall criteria of this thread either. Does he say that The Strangers is "A Tier 1 title"? So yes, you are alone in your recommendation for Tier 1 in this thread.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15469618
> 
> 
> LOL dj you're way too sensitive.



I'm glad someone else thinks so.


I was starting to worry that I was coming across as a real A**hole.


----------



## robobob

Sorry to jump in here but I need some feedback about: Blade Runner (Five-Disc Complete Collector's Edition) [Blu-ray]


I searched for this, so please pardon me if this is a known issue with this Blu-ray.


I love the movie but the Final cut seems to be suffering in around 20% of the scenes from some telecine-like visual artifacts, especially in high contrast, low APL scenes.


Something like horizontal halo-ing, where if there is any bright section anywhere along a horizontal section of the image, that entire section shows a horizontal banding of light.


I tried to adjust my projector in various ways, in case the high contrast scenes were highlighting (pun intended) flaws in the projector but it definitely appears to be in the source.


Others have mentioned that the Final Cut got a makeover and they increased the contrast through digital remastering.


The trouble is made more obvious because when an edit occurs to a slightly different angle/lighting setup, the picture becomes gorgeous again, and the horizontal banding is gone.


It is enough to take me out of the future world Scott creates so I am wondering if anyone else has noticed this?


Thanks!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15469435
> 
> 
> Rob,
> 
> 
> I thought you might be interested in seeing this thread on The Strangers and how even DavidHir is giving this flick a thumbs up:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...3#post15423733
> 
> 
> So, I guess I'm not as ALONE as you thought I was (except on this particular thread).



Ok, now this post really does concern me. Please don't take it the wrong way, or that I have "animosity" towards you, but a pet peeve of mine is when things are misquoted, or links are provided that supposedly support someones position which, in reality, do not.


Such is the case here.


I read the thread that you linked above thinking that David Hir and others were discussing _how good the picture quality is_, and this was proof that you were "not alone" in your rankings on this movie.


After reviewing that thread, _*there isn't one single sentence given by ANYONE about the PQ of this title!*_


Are you referring to the quality of the movie itself, not the PQ? Because that is not what we were talking about.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15469618
> 
> 
> LOL dj you're way too sensitive.



I guess my wife and 5 daughters have rubbed off on me after all.










No, actually I'm just exhibiting what I see all the time on this thread; namely, a MALE EGO! How many times have we seen one member recommend a title that differs from the majority and then everyone seems to be all over him? (patrick, are you there?







) When this happens the natural response is to defend your position, right?


Don't worry though LB, I'll get over it. In fact, rest assured, I won't lose any sleep over this tonight.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15137902
> 
> 
> Recommendation for Mirrormask: Tier 1 1/2
> 
> 
> This title is comparable to *The Fall, (which by the way is not Tier 0)* but not as vibrant. Intentional softness shows up every now and then which fit the hallucinogenic tone of the movie.



Did *The Fall* appear to be "processed" at all to you? I just watched it, and while it had very good PQ, some of the "story" sequences seem to look a bit EE'd or something. I didn't see a lot of ringing, but it looked off to me. Even so, I'd recommend a *Tier 1.5* for it. Havent watched MirrorMask yet.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15469849
> 
> 
> I guess my wife and 5 daughters have rubbed off on me after all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually I'm just exhibiting what I see all the time on this thread; namely, a MALE EGO! How many times have we seen one member recommend a title that differs from the majority and then everyone seems to be all over him? (patrick, are you there?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) When this happens the natural response is to defend your position, right?
> 
> 
> Don't worry though LB, I'll get over it. In fact, rest assured, I won't lose any sleep over this tonight.



Right, but we're not attacking you or "all over you." We are simply disagreeing.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Everyone should check out our fellow forum member Cinema Squid's website. He takes multiple review scores from various sites and averages them. Here is the listing for _The Strangers_, which comes out on its average video score as an 82 out of a 100 point scale across ten separate reviews:

http://www.cinemasquid.com/MovieDeta...x?MovieId=1048 


Though I do think he should add the tier ranking score to his tally of reviews for the sake of thoroughness.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15470072
> 
> 
> Did *The Fall* appear to be "processed" at all to you? I just watched it, and while it had very good PQ, some of the "story" sequences seem to look a bit EE'd or something. I didn't see a lot of ringing, but it looked off to me. Even so, I'd recommend a *Tier 1.5* for it. Havent watched MirrorMask yet.



The characters all had a "sheen" to them. It's been a while but, I don't think it was EE.


The Fall didn't do it for me. Too boring.


Let me know what you think about MirrorMask if you decide to give it a try. Kind of an abstract Alice in Wonderlandlike story.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15470591
> 
> 
> Everyone should check out our fellow forum member Cinema Squid's website. He takes multiple review scores from various sites and averages them. Here is the listing for _The Strangers_, which comes out on its average video score as an 82 out of a 100 point scale across ten separate reviews:
> 
> http://www.cinemasquid.com/MovieDeta...x?MovieId=1048
> 
> 
> Though I do think he should add the tier ranking score to his tally of reviews for the sake of thoroughness.



Thanks Phantom for the link. I had no idea Cinema Squid was providing this resource, but I have added it to my Shortcuts.


Of course I'm also thankful to see such a good average on the Video Score for The Strangers....82 is listed as VERY GOOD, and in reading through the reviews I can say the majority were impressed with the PQ, especially the black levels, shadow detail, and depth.


So, once again I must say....I'm not alone in my view on the PQ of this title (except in this thread....so far).


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15470747
> 
> 
> Thanks Phantom for the link. I had no idea Cinema Squid was providing this resource, but I have added it to my Shortcuts.
> 
> 
> Of course I'm also thankful to see such a good average on the Video Score for The Strangers....82 is listed as VERY GOOD, and in reading through the reviews I can say the majority were impressed with the PQ, especially the black levels, shadow detail, and depth.
> 
> 
> So, once again I must say....I'm not alone in my view on the PQ of this title (except in this thread....so far).



A score of 82 is "very good"....but it is only a couple points above 79 or 80, which is "good". Hmm...sounds like low Tier 2 to me.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15471120
> 
> 
> A score of 82 is "very good"....but it is only a couple points above 79 or 80, which is "good". Hmm...sounds like low Tier 2 to me.



As I have noted before, I only watched about 20 minutes of *The Strangers*, but on that basis, Rob's recommendation sounds on the mark to me. The PQ was somewhat soft, not impressive in any way.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15470072
> 
> 
> Did *The Fall* appear to be "processed" at all to you? I just watched it, and while it had very good PQ, some of the "story" sequences seem to look a bit EE'd or something. I didn't see a lot of ringing, but it looked off to me. Even so, I'd recommend a *Tier 1.5* for it. Havent watched MirrorMask yet.


*The Fall* "looked off" to me as well. Not EE'd, but a bit soft.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15469231
> 
> 
> Agree to disagree, because The Strangers is most certainly not in the same Tier as 30 Days of Night.....much less better!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really are all alone on this one djoberg. 1 is a lonely number.



I've watched 30 Days of Night many, many times, in large part because of the PQ. One of Sony's very best in that regard. So I completely agree.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15469199
> 
> 
> You obviously didn't take the time to read Mr. Bracke's review, for it is a glowing analysis and everything he says about it is indeed referring to "eye candy." Read it!



The reviewer you refer to is the clearest example of the "inconsistency" Rob mentions in that site's PQ reviews.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15469849
> 
> 
> I guess my wife and 5 daughters have rubbed off on me after all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually I'm just exhibiting what I see all the time on this thread; namely, a MALE EGO! How many times have we seen one member recommend a title that differs from the majority and then everyone seems to be all over him? (patrick, are you there?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) When this happens the natural response is to defend your position, right?
> 
> 
> Don't worry though LB, I'll get over it. In fact, rest assured, I won't lose any sleep over this tonight.



Congrats on the five daughters, that is awesome!


----------



## Hughmc

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phantom Stranger

"_Everyone should check out our fellow forum member Cinema Squid's website. He takes multiple review scores from various sites and averages them. Here is the listing for The Strangers, which comes out on its average video score as an 82 out of a 100 point scale across ten separate reviews:
_
http://www.cinemasquid.com/MovieDeta...x?MovieId=1048 

_Though I do think he should add the tier ranking score to his tally of reviews for the sake of thoroughness."_





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15470747
> 
> 
> Thanks Phantom for the link. I had no idea Cinema Squid was providing this resource, but I have added it to my Shortcuts.
> 
> 
> Of course I'm also thankful to see such a good average on the Video Score for The Strangers....82 is listed as VERY GOOD, and in reading through the reviews I can say the majority were impressed with the PQ, especially the black levels, shadow detail, and depth.
> 
> 
> So, once again I must say....I'm not alone in my view on the PQ of this title (except in this thread....so far).




The following is all just my opinion and not concrete, just some thoughts, so can be taken with that in mind.


Although I do go to review sites to see what they have to say and I use some info and pics to make a point I believe in to qualify the PQ, IMO those sites are looking and rating PQ overall. While we are doing the same we are also, but more importantly for this thread, looking for eye candy. I too look at the overall PQ, but there is more to it than that. I don't believe the pro reviewers are rating based on eye candy alone, if at all, even though they are rating the PQ.


I see tier 0 as the ultimate in eye candy, 5 stars equivalent of pro reviews, tier 1 as eye candy, 4 stars equivalent of pro reviews and tier 2 while it has good PQ is moving away from real eye candy/demo/reference status, and down the tiers accordingly PQ is NOT eye candy, 3 stars equivalent of pro reviews and so on.


I think this is the case with The Strangers, where some pro reviews may say the BD transfer of a film is pristine and no PQ issues are apparent. We see it and then rank it, but we at times don't see anything outstanding. We see it as average or mediocre "eye candy" and so it gets placed in tier 2 and lower.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15471829
> 
> 
> The following is all just my opinion and not concrete, just some thoughts, so can be taken with that in mind.
> 
> 
> Although I do go to review sites to see what they have to say and I use some info and pics to make a point I believe in to qualify the PQ, *IMO those sites are looking and rating PQ overall. While we are doing the same we are also, but more importantly for this thread, looking for eye candy.* I too look at the overall PQ, but there is more to it than that. I don't believe the pro reviewers are rating based on eye candy alone, if at all, even though they are rating the PQ.



You make a valid point Hugh about professional reviewers judging PQ overall, BUT they also make some very specific statements about the PQ that just so happens to be related to the criteria for "eye candy" on page one.


Most of the reviewers listed on Cinema Squid's site that reviewed The Strangers favorably specifically mentioned the "rich, deep blacks," the "excellent detail," and the amazing "depth." Those are three essential criteria listed on page one of this thread that we look for in assessing PQ. If those 3 are present in a title that title is to be rewarded. Perhaps those 3 ingredients don't automatically put a title in Tier 0, but IMO they can result in a title being put in Tier 1, especially if the title is free from DNR, EE, or any kind of artifacts.


The bottom line here is THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE THAT ARE LIKING WHAT THEY SEE WHEN THEY WATCH "THE STRANGERS," and THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT LIKING WHAT THEY SEE WHEN THEY WATCH THE STRANGERS. Such is the nature of the beast (the "beast" I refer to in this case is "us"), and I believe this has been the case with virtually EVERY title mentioned on this thread. I suspect we will never have a title that receives universal praise and is afforded the same tier placement by everyone.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15471688
> 
> 
> The reviewer you refer to is the clearest example of the "inconsistency" Rob mentions in that site's PQ reviews.



That's your opinion patrick, which you're entitled to.


The fact of the matter is when we talk about someone's reviews being "inconsistent," we're simply saying their view is _inconsistent with ours_. If we fault them for that, it's because we want them to see things _our way_ , which, again, is inherent in our nature.


Like I said in my last post to Hugh, we are never going to see eye to eye on any given title. Take the great Wall-E debate which we had, you had many praising the first 30+ minutes and calling it great "eye candy." Then you had others (myself included) docking Wall-E for those same minutes because we viewed the "haze" in some scenes as soft and hindering detail. Why don't we all see it the same way? Beats me, but it does prove my point.


This is not a novel thought, but I believe we have to get back to respecting another member's opinion. It's one thing to disagree with someone's view; it's another thing to make statements that tend to put someone down (like your statement about Mr. Bracke above). As you know, I'm all for a healthy debate over the issues of a title, but I'm not in favor of debating someone's person or merits.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15472694
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a novel thought, but I believe we have to get back to respecting another member's opinion. It's one thing to disagree with someone's view; it's another thing to make statements that tend to put someone down (like your statement about Mr. Bracke above). As you know, I'm all for a healthy debate over the issues of a title, but I'm not in favor of debating someone's person or merits.



I don't believe Bracke is a member here and he most definitely did not post a comment in this thread. As a general principle, in this thread, I think it's best for us to express our own opinions and not cite people who don't participate in this thread as support for our opinions.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15472694
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a novel thought, but I believe we have to get back to respecting another member's opinion. It's one thing to disagree with someone's view; it's another thing to make statements that tend to put someone down (like your statement about Mr. Bracke above). As you know, I'm all for a healthy debate over the issues of a title, but I'm not in favor of debating someone's person or merits.



I really don't understand this. What I mean is I agree that we shouldn't personally attack other members and their opinions here (that should go without saying), but: 1) Bracke isn't a member here and doesn't post in this thread; 2) calling someone's reviews "inconsistent" hardly equates to being personal.


By the way, you never responded to this:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15469435
> 
> 
> Rob,
> 
> 
> I thought you might be interested in seeing this thread on The Strangers and how even DavidHir is giving this flick a thumbs up:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...3#post15423733
> 
> 
> So, I guess I'm not as ALONE as you thought I was (except on this particular thread).





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15469807
> 
> 
> Ok, now this post really does concern me. Please don't take it the wrong way, or that I have "animosity" towards you, but a pet peeve of mine is when things are misquoted, or links are provided that supposedly support someones position which, in reality, do not.
> 
> 
> Such is the case here.
> 
> 
> I read the thread that you linked above thinking that David Hir and others were discussing _how good the picture quality is_, and this was proof that you were "not alone" in your rankings on this movie.
> 
> 
> After reviewing that thread, _*there isn't one single sentence given by ANYONE about the PQ of this title!*_
> 
> 
> Are you referring to the quality of the movie itself, not the PQ? Because that is not what we were talking about.



I'm curious as to what point you were trying to make here.


EDIT: I see Patrick beat me to the punch re Bracke.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Regarding *The Fall*, this is a disc that I watched when I wasn't participating in this thread, but I also agree that it was not very impressive, and something was definitely "off" about it.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15473369
> 
> 
> I don't believe Bracke is a member here and he most definitely did not post a comment in this thread. As a general principle, in this thread, I *think it's best for us to express our own opinions and not cite people who don't participate in this thread as support for our opinions.*



Perhaps you are right patrick, but aren't you being a little hypocritical seeing you have cited the opinions of others outside this thread before?


I personally have no problem citing others outside this thread, for if they are truly giving an opinion on a title we're discussing that is relevant to the critieria on page one, I think it's helpful. I said last night that I have added Cinema Squid's site to my Shortcuts and I for one plan to avail myself of that resource (I'm sure Cinema Squid had that in mind when he designed that site), and I may even be quoting reviewers from there if I feel it's timely and profitable.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Peter Bracke is welcome to join the discussion here in this thread if he so chooses, but I agree with patrick99 that citing any one outside review is a weak argument for the purposes of this thread. Finding a reliable reviewer for picture quality on Blu-ray is harder than finding one specific grain of sand on a beach. Did anyone else notice Kenneth Brown is now reviewing Blu-rays for Blu-ray.com? I wonder if that means he is leaving HDD?

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=2231


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15450494
> 
> 
> If you go back to the beginning of this thread, you will see that it was never intended to be based on pure voting. In fact, the OP (AustinSTi) indicated that certain requirements were being made so that he could attempt to know how much weight to give a posters recommendation. For example, someone making a recommendation based on viewing a 25" screen 14 feet away, on an old LCD with crappy black levels, will not be given the same weight as someone else viewing on a much larger screen at a closer viewing angle with better contrast specs.
> 
> 
> So if the former poster recommends a title for Tier 0, and the other poster recommends a Tier 2, the title could very well be placed in Tier 2, not Tier 1 (which would be the average for these two recommendations) for obvious reasons.
> 
> 
> This is why this thread has always had more credibility than the HD-DVD thread in my opinion.
> 
> 
> This is the very basis for requiring a listing of equipment and viewing distance (and I admit that many of us, myself included, have gotten away from posting this info).
> 
> 
> This is true, but it certainly isn't the only, or even the main reason, for the debates/discussions. *Think of SuprSlow (or AustinSTi) as the "Judge", and we are here to make our "case" for a titles placement. This is what happens, at least to a degree.
> *
> 
> This is not to say that even those people who simply list their equipment and viewing distance and make a Tier recommendation without giving a narrative review will have those votes ignored. *I am simply saying that they may not be given the same weight as a review that does give a detailed review.*



Rob, I am choosing to answer the question you posed to me (about the thread I referred you to) with this post (see especially the highlighted sentences).


In this post you are taking me back to the beginning of the thread to support your view that a detailed review may be given more weight than a recommendation for placement without a review. You are right in pointing to the requirements for listing our equipment and seating distance (for that is clearly stated on page one), but you are absolutely wrong in using page one to imply that another requirement is giving a detailed review. No where on page one does it say anything about giving detailed reviews, period.


So, I could say the same thing as you did (about having a pet peeve when someone directs us to another link, post, etc. to justify their position when, in reality, it does not), for page one does not address your position of SuprSlow possibly giving more weight to someone who gives a detailed review.


Bottom line: We're both guilty as charged!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15473489
> 
> 
> Peter Bracke is welcome to join the discussion here in this thread if he so chooses, but *I agree with patrick99 that citing any one outside review is a weak argument for the purposes of this thread.* Finding a reliable reviewer for picture quality on Blu-ray is harder than finding one specific grain of sand on a beach. Did anyone else notice Kenneth Brown is now reviewing Blu-rays for Blu-ray.com? I wonder if that means he is leaving HDD?
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=2231



Then doesn't it bother you that patrick has done this very thing?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15473470
> 
> 
> Perhaps you are right patrick, but aren't you being a little hypocritical seeing you have cited the opinions of others outside this thread before?



I won't ask you to undertake the task of finding cases where I have done that, but if I have, it was probably more for conversational purposes rather than as support for a view in which I was in a small minority. I have absolutely no problem expressing a view on the PQ of a particular release that no one else shares.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Instead of talking around the issue why not just ask directly?


*Hey, SuprSlow! When you've got a minute, could you explain to us your process placing titles, as this seems to be a matter of debate right now, and it'd be much better hearing how you do it from you rather than a lot of speculation?*


Thank you!











(bolded so he can hopefully notice it amongst all the posts!)


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15473721
> 
> 
> I won't ask you to undertake the task of finding cases where I have done that, but if I have, it was probably more for conversational purposes rather than as support for a view in which I was in a small minority. I have absolutely no problem expressing a view on the PQ of a particular release that no one else shares.



I'm glad you're not going to ask me patrick, for I don't have the time.










But I remember at least one occasion....you were being ridiculed for your stance on a title (your recommendation was much lower than anyone else) and you were being accused of being the only one who would have such a view; you then responded by directing us to another thread where others shared your same view.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15473698
> 
> 
> Then doesn't it bother you that patrick has done this very thing?



Since you are making such a big deal out of this, perhaps I should, after all, ask you to bring forward some examples, so that we can evaluate and discuss them.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15473668
> 
> 
> Rob, I am choosing to answer the question you posed to me (about the thread I referred you to) with this post (see especially the highlighted sentences).
> 
> 
> In this post you are taking me back to the beginning of the thread to support your view that a detailed review may be given more weight than a recommendation for placement without a review. You are right in pointing to the requirements for listing our equipment and seating distance (for that is clearly stated on page one), but you are absolutely wrong in using page one to imply that another requirement is giving a detailed review. No where on page one does it say anything about giving detailed reviews, period.
> 
> 
> So, I could say the same thing as you did (about having a pet peeve when someone directs us to another link, post, etc. to justify their position when, in reality, it does not), for page one does not address your position of SuprSlow possibly giving more weight to someone who gives a detailed review.
> 
> 
> Bottom line: We're both guilty as charged!



Well, I wish I could just agree with you and move on, but....I can't.










If you take the quoted post of mine in context (without deleting the posts that I was responding to, which are missing) it is obvious that I never said that the "beginning of the thread supports (my) view that a detailed review may be given more weight than a recommendation for placement without a review".


My statement about detailed reviews having more weight was much further down in that post, and again, was after I had quoted something that you had said. There was no connection between that and "the beginning of the thread" which was several paragraphs previous.


When I referred to the beginning of the thread, it was with regard to the requirements of listing equipment and seating distance, and that the thread was *"never intended to be based on pure voting"* (my exact words).


In any event, I think we can probably all agree that it is time to move on....


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15473806
> 
> 
> I'm glad you're not going to ask me patrick, for I don't have the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I remember at least one occasion....you were being ridiculed for your stance on a title (your recommendation was much lower than anyone else) and you were being accused of being the only one who would have such a view; *you then responded by directing us to another thread where others shared your same view.*



Well, it seems to me that is not in the same category as citing a *reviewer* as support. I willingly acknowledge that I probably have done what you describe here.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15473860
> 
> 
> In any event, I think we can probably all agree that it is time to move on....



Agreed!


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15473698
> 
> 
> Then doesn't it bother you that patrick has done this very thing?



If he has done that in the past then it was suspect when he did it also. Typically his opinions on picture quality tend to be some of the more independent thinking in this thread. I personally try to stay away from outside reviews as much as possible when formulating my own placements, as many of the "professional" reviewers seem to give mild indifference and nonchalance to the picture quality rating.


On a different matter, I am considering rewriting the tier descriptions in the first post for a more complete and accurate guide to newer readers. Of course I would only do this if there was interest in this, but I imagine the first post gets many viewers who really do not follow the conversation going on in the thread.


Many posters seem to constantly cite the descriptions in their placements and I think it might be time for a more complete listing of each tier's general assessment. I am not sure that many realize the current tier descriptions were just copied over from the original HD DVD tier way back in the beginning of the format with few alterations.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15473915
> 
> 
> 
> On a different matter, I am considering rewriting the tier descriptions in the first post for a more complete and accurate guide to newer readers. Of course I would only do this if there was interest in this, but I imagine the first post gets many viewers who really do not follow the conversation going on in the thread.
> 
> 
> Many posters seem to constantly cite the descriptions in their placements and I think it might be time for a more complete listing of each tier's general assessment. I am not sure that many realize the current tier descriptions were just copied over from the original HD DVD tier way back in the beginning of the format with few alterations.



I think what you are proposing is an excellent idea. I agree that there is a tendency for some newer participants to treat those descriptions a bit too much as sacred text. I assume that your proposed revisions would be submitted for general discussion here.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15473915
> 
> 
> On a different matter, I am considering rewriting the tier descriptions in the first post for a more complete and accurate guide to newer readers. Of course I would only do this if there was interest in this, but I imagine the first post gets many viewers who really do not follow the conversation going on in the thread.
> 
> 
> Many posters seem to constantly cite the descriptions in their placements and I think it might be time for a more complete listing of each tier's general assessment. I am not sure that many realize the current tier descriptions were just copied over from the original HD DVD tier way back in the beginning of the format with few alterations.



I agree with patrick; that would be an excellent idea.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15473915
> 
> 
> On a different matter, I am considering rewriting the tier descriptions in the first post for a more complete and accurate guide to newer readers.



We've also had some confusion about how the tiers are listed.


It would be helpful to include at the top of the blu tier that these are listed in rank from best to worst and above the others that they are simply in alphabetical order.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15474158
> 
> 
> I agree with patrick; that would be an excellent idea.



I strongly third this idea!


I was looking at the descriptions just last night, and man, they really do need to be updated badly.


----------



## rsbeck

As for the recent discussion, it seems like the argument was about whether or not Djoberg was alone in his assessment of a particular title. I'm not sure why we would attempt to invalidate someone's opinion in this manner. Several times, I've seen cases where one poster is the lone dissenter on title in the short run only to find that in time others view the title and momentum changes.


As for rewriting the opening paragraphs, if this is going to happen, I would suggest that if we are going to assess animated titles based on different criteria, this should be stated at the top and the differing criteria for animated titles should be listed.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15474287
> 
> 
> As for the recent discussion, it seems like the argument was about whether or not Djoberg was alone in his assessment of a particular title. *I'm not sure why we would attempt to invalidate someone's opinion in this manner.* Several times, I've seen cases where one poster is the lone dissenter on title in the short run only to find that in time others view the title and momentum changes.



I, for one, did not view the discussion as anything like an attempt to invalidate his opinion, but rather an effort to determine what the prevailing, consensus, or compromise view was.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15474407
> 
> 
> I, for one, did not view the discussion as anything like an attempt to invalidate his opinion, but rather an effort to determine what the prevailing, consensus, or compromise view was.



Exactly.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Uh oh, Wall E is up next in my Netflix que.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15475428
> 
> 
> Uh oh, Wall E is up next in my Netflix que.



I guess that gives us about 3 months to steel ourselves.


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15471120
> 
> 
> A score of 82 is "very good"....but it is only a couple points above 79 or 80, which is "good". Hmm...sounds like low Tier 2 to me.



The way I would be inclined to map the tier placements to a 100-point and 5-star scale would be as follows:

Code:


Code:


Tier 0: 90-100% (4.5-5.0 stars) (Excellent)
Tier 1: 80-90%  (4.0-4.5 stars) (Very Good)
Tier 2: 70-80%  (3.5-4.0 stars) (Good)
Tier 3: 60-70%  (3.0-3.5 stars) (Decent)
Tier 4: 50-60%  (2.5-3.0 stars) (Bad)
Tier 5:

This would put The Strangers solidly in the bottom quarter of Tier 1 based on average reviewer scores which I would still interpret as "very good" but verging on dropping down to Tier 2. Obviously, this is just a hypothetical example and not meant to reflect my own opinions on The Strangers. Also, there may be a better way to map the tiers onto a point scale but the above seems to get results that roughly match reviewer scores.


----------



## unclepauly




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15475654
> 
> 
> I guess that gives us about 3 months to steel ourselves.



lol


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/15475919
> 
> 
> The way I would be inclined to map the tier placements to a 100-point and 5-star scale would be as follows:
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> Tier 0: 90-100% (4.5-5.0 stars) (Excellent)
> Tier 1: 80-90%  (4.0-4.5 stars) (Very Good)
> Tier 2: 70-80%  (3.5-4.0 stars) (Good)
> Tier 3: 60-70%  (3.0-3.5 stars) (Decent)
> Tier 4: 50-60%  (2.5-3.0 stars) (Bad)
> Tier 5:
> 
> This would put The Strangers solidly in the bottom quarter of Tier 1 based on average reviewer scores which I would still interpret as "very good" but verging on dropping down to Tier 2. Obviously, this is just a hypothetical example and not meant to reflect my own opinions on The Strangers. Also, there may be a better way to map the tiers onto a point scale but the above seems to get results that roughly match reviewer scores.







Quote:

Originally Posted by Phantom Stranger

"Everyone should check out our fellow forum member Cinema Squid's website. He takes multiple review scores from various sites and averages them. Here is the listing for The Strangers, which comes out on its average video score as an 82 out of a 100 point scale across ten separate reviews:

http://www.cinemasquid.com/MovieDeta...x?MovieId=1048 


Though I do think he should add the tier ranking score to his tally of reviews for the sake of thoroughness."




Quote:

Originally Posted by djoberg View Post

Thanks Phantom for the link. I had no idea Cinema Squid was providing this resource, but I have added it to my Shortcuts.


Of course I'm also thankful to see such a good average on the Video Score for The Strangers....82 is listed as VERY GOOD, and in reading through the reviews I can say the majority were impressed with the PQ, especially the black levels, shadow detail, and depth.


So, once again I must say....I'm not alone in my view on the PQ of this title (except in this thread....so far).



*

That is pretty much what I said when I see our tier thread equivalent to the pro reviews.







And yes I am confident with more tier thread contributor reviews The Strangers will end up in tier 2.


From my post earlier:

The following is all just my opinion and not concrete, just some thoughts, so can be taken with that in mind.


Although I do go to review sites to see what they have to say and I use some info and pics to make a point I believe in to qualify the PQ, IMO those sites are looking and rating PQ overall. While we are doing the same we are also, but more importantly for this thread, looking for eye candy. I too look at the overall PQ, but there is more to it than that. I don't believe the pro reviewers are rating based on eye candy alone, if at all, even though they are rating the PQ.


I see tier 0 as the ultimate in eye candy, 5 stars equivalent of pro reviews, tier 1 as eye candy, 4 stars equivalent of pro reviews and tier 2 while it has good PQ is moving away from real eye candy/demo/reference status, and down the tiers accordingly PQ is NOT eye candy, 3 stars equivalent of pro reviews and so on.


I think this is the case with The Strangers, where some pro reviews may say the BD transfer of a film is pristine and no PQ issues are apparent. We see it and then rank it, but we at times don't see anything outstanding. We see it as average or mediocre "eye candy" and so it gets placed in tier 2 and lower.*


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Chungking Express (Criterion)*


This is the first BD that I have watched from the Criterion Collection. I hope they will be releasing many of their titles on BD as soon as possible.


Unfortunately, this disc does not impress in terms of PQ. Black levels are horrifyingly bad. Not only are they not black (rather a dark gray), but the darkest scenes have lots of ugly grain and/or noise. Is it possible this is in the source? Sure it is....but I don't really care for purposes of this thread.


Overall contrast and depth is a bit below average.


Detail and clarity also leaves a bit to be desired, but detail isn't too bad. There is a slight softness to the picture.


The colors are not very impressive either. Pretty muted and flat. Really, the blacks (or lack thereof) and noise in the darkest parts of the image are the biggest problems with this title.


I was thinking I was going to recommend this for Tier 3.75, but after looking at the titles that are already there, they look better than this, so:
*Tier Recommendation: 4.0*


Fans of the movie: don't think that this score is indicative that the movie is not watchable, because that is not accurate. Many scenes look decent.


As for the movie itself: I definitely enjoyed the _style_ of the movie tremendously! I really love the way it was shot. Very unique, and it, combined with the music (I still can't get "California Dreamin' out of my mind) did an excellent job of setting a mood. Unfortunately, the story itself left a lot to be desired.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/15475919
> 
> 
> The way I would be inclined to map the tier placements to a 100-point and 5-star scale would be as follows:
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> Tier 0: 90-100% (4.5-5.0 stars) (Excellent)
> Tier 1: 80-90%  (4.0-4.5 stars) (Very Good)
> Tier 2: 70-80%  (3.5-4.0 stars) (Good)
> Tier 3: 60-70%  (3.0-3.5 stars) (Decent)
> Tier 4: 50-60%  (2.5-3.0 stars) (Bad)
> Tier 5:
> 
> This would put The Strangers solidly in the bottom quarter of Tier 1 based on average reviewer scores which I would still interpret as "very good" but verging on dropping down to Tier 2. Obviously, this is just a hypothetical example and not meant to reflect my own opinions on The Strangers. Also, there may be a better way to map the tiers onto a point scale but the above seems to get results that roughly match reviewer scores.



This is where you get into a real slippery slope.


For example, according to what you have stated here in terms of equating these ratings to the Tiers, the title that I just reviewed (Chungking Express) should be placed in mid Tier 1







because it's score is an "84" (which is better than the score given for The Strangers)!


I defy _anyone_ who participates regularly in this thread to watch Chungking Express and recommend it for Tier 1!


No way, no how would Chungking Express ever make it anywhere close to Tier 1 in this thread!


All this does is prove to me how worthless it is to try to equate "pro reviews" to the placements of titles in this Tier thread.


I do very much appreciate what you have done with your site though, and I have added it to my bookmarks. It's a great resource for disc reviews. It just isn't particularly helpful regarding Tier placements in my opinion.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15475428
> 
> 
> Uh oh, Wall E is up next in my Netflix que.



I watched it on sunday but want to give it another view before I write anything... i'm skeered.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15476868
> 
> 
> I watched it on sunday but want to give it another view before I write anything... i'm skeered.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15476841
> 
> 
> I defy _anyone_ who participates regularly in this thread to watch Chungking Express and recommend it for Tier 1!



This is how this thread falls down for me. When I go by the 'letter of the law' (the thread's explicit criteria), I'd have to rate Chungking Express pretty low. When I go by the 'spirit of the law' (the thread's aim to find "eye candy" or "demo" material), I'd _absolutely_ put it into something like Tier 1. Its picture is very "stylized" and does not represent the real world in a way that most would consider a "realistic" or "accurate" rendering nor a close approximation of the qualities of the naked eye. However, the same can be said of Speed Racer, which is sitting pretty toward the top of the list. This release is _exactly_ what _I_ would call "eye candy", but it fails against much of the specific criteria, as you describe.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15476841
> 
> 
> All this does is prove to me how worthless it is to try to equate "pro reviews" to the placements of titles in this Tier thread.



This, I absolutely agree with. The aim and criteria of this thread is so specific (and strongly slanted), I think it's bound to be much too far away from the typical professional reviewer's own aim and criteria to be reasonably correlated at all.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15477139
> 
> 
> This is how this thread falls down for me. When I go by the 'letter of the law' (the thread's explicit criteria), I'd have to rate Chungking Express pretty low. When I go by the 'spirit of the law' (the thread's aim to find "eye candy" or "demo" material), I'd _absolutely_ put it into something like Tier 1. Its picture is very "stylized" and does not represent the real world in a way that most would consider a "realistic" or "accurate" rendering nor a close approximation of the qualities of the naked eye. However, the same can be said of Speed Racer, which is sitting pretty toward the top of the list. This release is _exactly_ what _I_ would call "eye candy", but it fails against much of the specific criteria, as you describe.



I know what you are saying (I think) and I actually agree with you. If we were to rate Chungking Express in terms of its cinematography and shooting style and how that equates to eye candy, I would rate it as Tier 1 as well. Like I said, I really liked the style of the movie and the way that it was shot. Very impressive, and no doubt is what makes this such a highly regarded film.


But in terms of our criteria here, it is deserving of a low rating. I found the dark scenes to be very distracting.



> Quote:
> This, I absolutely agree with. The aim and criteria of this thread is so specific (and strongly slanted), I think it's bound to be much too far away from the typical professional reviewer's own aim and criteria to be reasonably correlated at all.



Exactly. The key is that the criteria of the two are too different to be reasonably correlated.


----------



## stumlad

I dont know how I'd rank Tier 0, but I would say it's closer to 95-100 than it is 90-100


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15477553
> 
> 
> Very impressive, and no doubt is what makes this such a highly regarded film.



That's certainly part of it, but it's story, too. Read an essay or two about the way the film relates and relates to Hong Kong (and its recent history) and you may come away with a deeper appreciation for what's going on in the story than your first viewing left you with.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15476841
> 
> 
> No way, no how would Chungking Express ever make it anywhere close to Tier 1 in this thread!



I recommended the exact same tier 4.0 placement for Chungking even though, like you, I applaud the style of the film and enjoyed it immensely.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15477987
> 
> 
> That's certainly part of it, but it's story, too. Read an essay or two about the way the film relates and relates to Hong Kong (and its recent history) and you may come away with a deeper appreciation for what's going on in the story than your first viewing left you with.



I probably shouldn't have come across as hard on the story as I did, because I did enjoy it to a degree. The movie kept my interest throughout. For some reason, it reminded me a bit of Lost in Translation.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15478595
> 
> 
> I recommended the exact same tier 4.0 placement for Chungking even though, like you, I applaud the style of the film and enjoyed it immensely.



Cool.







I didn't even realize that anyone else had reviewed this title yet.


----------



## rsbeck

IMO, readers often need to go past the first page tier placements and into the thread search to find individual reviews for this very reason; sometimes we're looking for titles to investigate for demo purposes, but other times, we are interested in owning a copy of the particular film and need to know how it looks on blu-ray.


Like Rob has just done with Chungking Express, there are several reviewers here who try to address both issues when reviewing a title so anyone who pulls up individual reviews can get an opinion. New posters are sometimes confused to read what looks like a great review followed by a lower tier placement, but that is because it is the demo capability alone that goes into the ranking.


Some titles, due to the inherent nature of the content can only provide the source material for, say, a tier 2.5 ranking at their best. So, the title may have received a wonderful restoration and a fabulous transfer, may be a classic that belongs in every film lover's library, but will not be ranked any higher than 2.5.


I think we all agree there are many titles like Chungking Express that are not necessarily demo material, but that benefit from higher resolution and are well worth owning on blu-ray and that there are also plenty of great films with great stories that do not provide the source material for placement in the upper tiers, but are still well-shot and well transfered and film lovers with a blu-ray set-up would be glad to have these in their collections.


Conversely, I think we all know that some of the titles that provide source material for blu-ray demo are not necessarily the most rewarding titles on the basis of their stories.


----------



## rsbeck

Chungking Express is a film that proves the adage that necessity is the mother of invention. With a very small budget, the film maker was forced to shoot very quickly with available (overhead florescent) light on cheap film stock because he could not afford the costs of lengthy shoots, expensive film stock, or location permits. He turned these challenges into artistic opportunities which resulted in a daring visual style that also includes time lapse and stop action wipes and smears. It looks like no other film you're likely to see. I do not own the DVD, but other reviewers have commented that the film maker oversaw the transfer and the blu-ray version is an immense improvement. So, here's the perfect example of a film that perfectly matches the director's intent and has enjoyed wonderful treatment from Criterion.


Blu-ray demonstrates the ultimate in what this title can achieve, but this is not the material to demonstrate the ultimate in what blu-ray can achieve.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15479002
> 
> 
> Not to say it couldn't be done, but of the concert videos I've seen so far, I haven't seen anything in the source material that would cause me to rank one above 1.75 and I would rank most below that. Not to be hard hearted. Only because of the inherent limitations involved in the source material.



I have seen excellent looking concert discs but they tend to fall within a certain category. The best looking are typically shot inside an indoor venue without the trappings of most concerts (smoke machines, bizarre lighting, etc.) and in well-lit environments on the newer HD video cameras. It is true though that many concerts are poorly shot affairs with substandard equipment.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15479248
> 
> 
> I have seen excellent looking concert discs but they tend to fall within a certain category. The best looking are typically shot inside an indoor venue without the trappings of most concerts (smoke machines, bizarre lighting, etc.) and in well-lit environments on the newer HD video cameras. It is true though that many concerts are poorly shot affairs with substandard equipment.



Agree, excellent points, as usual, but I would go even further and say that even when they are well shot with excellent gear, similar to some films that are well shot with excellent gear, concert videos have inherent limitations.


A concert video is essentially a video of a stage production.


Even compared with other stage productions like, let's say, Phantom of The Opera or Miss Saigon, the typical rock concert offers considerably less of that which is exclusively visual to hold the interest of and entertain the eye.


Now, compare the concert video to an upper tier film like The Incredible Hulk, Live Free or Die Hard, Casino Royale, Iron Man, Transformers, etc.


So, just like how certain films can be well shot with excellent gear, yet even in the best of circumstances cannot achieve a high ranking, I would argue that the same holds true for the vast majority of concert videos.


Blu-ray may demonstrate the ultimate in what a concert video can achieve, but I would argue that the average concert video does not provide the source material to demonstrate the ultimate in what blu-ray can achieve.


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15476841
> 
> 
> This is where you get into a real slippery slope.
> 
> [...]
> 
> All this does is prove to me how worthless it is to try to equate "pro reviews" to the placements of titles in this Tier thread.



I fully agree that there is a certain amount of disconnect between the tiering system and pro reviewers, although perhaps not quite as much as would be expected. I would say that the ideal pro reviewer would blend an eye candy perspective with the perspective of artistic intent which is a challenging and perhaps self-contradictory task. In practice, it seems to me that a good portion of reviewers actually practice eye candy evaluation for newer and "less important" catalog films, while applying artistic intent and source integrity metrics to respected classic films. There are also some reviewers that do not believe in assigning scores to PQ at all which is very understandable, since the concept of ranking PQ on a linear points scale almost naturally leads to something like the criteria of this thread if the scores are going to make any kind of consistent sense.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Here is the first draft of the new description for Tier 0 (Blu). Any comments, suggestions, corrections, or ideas are welcomed on its development. Any grammar aficionados or proof-readers are welcome to improve it or its writing structure.


_The Blu-rays in this tier represent the best picture quality currently possible on the format. They are all demo discs that one could use to impress the uninitiated into what is possible on Blu-ray visually. Without question these Blu-rays represent a quantum leap in picture quality in comparison to the best dvds and a significant advantage over average looking Blu-rays. Every single Blu-ray in this tier consistently demonstrates a reference quality high-definition image to the viewer. These transfers continue to impress visually at very close viewing distances (i.e., less than 1.5 screen widths from your display) and on larger projection screens over 100.


The hallmarks of a Blu-ray in tier zero in general are the following qualities:


An artifact-free video compression encoding that shows virtually no signs of chroma noise, banding, posterization, aliasing, macroblocking, compression noise, etc.


Superior high frequency information that is easily visible; including but not limited to: ultra-fine detail in general, human facial and skin texture visible down to the pores, consistently superior small object detail and background information.


A razor-sharp but unprocessed image that looks real in its best moments with excellent focus. There will be a depth and dimensionality to the picture that often gives the illusion of three dimensions on your display, with objects in the foreground appearing to pop off the screen and visually separate from objects in the background.


Black levels that are perfect or near perfection, with the best shadow detail and a deep and uniformly solid consistency to black-colored objects in the image. Color palettes may vary but typically primary colors in this tier will jump off the screen in a dynamic way that appears stunning. Color tonality and fidelity are as good as they can appear in this format.


A transfer free of unneeded post-processing of the original film or source master elements; including but not limited to: visible edge enhancement or ringing of any kind that results in obvious halos, digital noise reduction that results in the alteration of the original grain structure of the image, alteration of the originally intended aspect ratio or viewable image area.


The transfer of the Blu-ray will be sourced from a pristine master with zero visible flaws or anomalies._


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/15480309
> 
> 
> I fully agree that there is a certain amount of disconnect between the tiering system and pro reviewers, although perhaps not quite as much as would be expected. I would say that the ideal pro reviewer would blend an eye candy perspective with the perspective of artistic intent which is a challenging and perhaps self-contradictory task. In practice, it seems to me that a good portion of reviewers actually practice eye candy evaluation for newer and "less important" catalog films, while applying artistic intent and source integrity metrics to respected classic films. There are also some reviewers that do not believe in assigning scores to PQ at all which is very understandable, since the concept of ranking PQ on a linear points scale almost naturally leads to something like the criteria of this thread if the scores are going to make any kind of consistent sense.



I agree with all of this, with the possible exception of how much disconnect there is between this Tier system and pro reviewers. There are too many variables. It may work some of the time (for example, your site shows that titles like Cars, Ratatouille, the Pirates movies etc. all would go in Tier 0) but there are many others, such as Chungkind Express that are _way_ off.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15480327
> 
> 
> Here is the first draft of the new description for Tier 0 (Blu). Any comments, suggestions, corrections, or ideas are welcomed on its development. Any grammar aficionados or proof-readers are welcome to improve it or its writing structure.
> 
> 
> _The Blu-rays in this tier represent the best picture quality currently possible on the format. They are all demo discs that one could use to impress the uninitiated into what is possible on Blu-ray visually. Without question these Blu-rays represent a quantum leap in picture quality in comparison to the best dvds and a significant advantage over average looking Blu-rays. Every single Blu-ray in this tier consistently demonstrates a reference quality high-definition image to the viewer. These transfers continue to impress visually at very close viewing distances (i.e., less than 1.5 screen widths from your display) and on larger projection screens over 100”.
> 
> 
> The hallmarks of a Blu-ray in tier zero in general are the following qualities:
> 
> 
> An artifact-free video compression encoding that shows virtually no signs of chroma noise, banding, posterization, aliasing, macroblocking, compression noise, etc.
> 
> 
> Superior high frequency information that is easily visible; including but not limited to: ultra-fine detail in general, human facial and skin texture visible down to the pores, consistently superior small object detail and background information.
> 
> 
> A razor-sharp but unprocessed image that looks real in its best moments with excellent focus. There will be a depth and dimensionality to the picture that often gives the illusion of three dimensions on your display, with objects in the foreground appearing to pop off the screen and visually separate from objects in the background.
> 
> 
> Black levels that are perfect or near perfection, with the best shadow detail and a deep and uniformly solid consistency to black-colored objects in the image. Color palettes may vary but typically primary colors in this tier will jump off the screen in a dynamic way that appears stunning. Color tonality and fidelity are as good as they can appear in this format.
> 
> 
> A transfer free of unneeded post-processing of the original film or source master elements; including but not limited to: visible edge enhancement or ringing of any kind that results in obvious halos, digital noise reduction that results in the alteration of the original grain structure of the image, alteration of the originally intended aspect ratio or viewable image area.
> 
> 
> The transfer of the Blu-ray will be sourced from a pristine master with zero visible flaws or anomalies._



I'm very impressed. Obviously some serious consideration was given to this description and it shows.


Seriously, I have read this over several times now, and I really don't think there is anything to add or edit. Well done!


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Looks pretty damn good Phantom. Nice work.


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15480402
> 
> 
> I agree with all of this, with the possible exception of how much disconnect there is between this Tier system and pro reviewers. There are too many variables. It may work some of the time (for example, your site shows that titles like Cars, Ratatouille, the Pirates movies etc. all would go in Tier 0) but there are many others, such as Chungking Express that are _way_ off.



Yup, that is certainly the truth and I do not deny that the numbers I am producing even have a certain inherent dubiousness to them because of the problem of incompatible ranking scales for video quality and for the other aspects (content, audio, extras) as well. Even the way to combine these into a "total" single score is fraught with pitfalls, since the perceived relative weights for each aspect of a Blu-ray release are unique to each viewer and can even differ in importance based on how that viewer plans to experience the film (for example, watching a crappy film simply because of outstanding PQ or AQ, extras be damned).


That's why it always boggles my mind when this thread receives attacks based on its fundamental premise. Not every video release is meant to be experienced in the same way nor should they be and the tenets of this thread are very clearly laid out (and becoming clearer thanks to Phantom's very well-written Tier 0 revision!).


----------



## RBFC

Nice work, Phantom!


I obviously took some time to consider how to present each point, and the end result is both clear and concise.


Lee


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/15465712
> 
> 
> I've been working on the latest update over the past few days, so bear with me. It'll be posted soon.
> 
> 
> I've still got another few pages of posts to sort through, but so far, there are around 98 unique title placements





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15473750
> 
> 
> Instead of talking around the issue why not just ask directly?
> 
> 
> *Hey, SuprSlow! When you've got a minute, could you explain to us your process placing titles, as this seems to be a matter of debate right now, and it'd be much better hearing how you do it from you rather than a lot of speculation?*
> 
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (bolded so he can hopefully notice it amongst all the posts!)



I too would like to see how you place titles.

In fact, I would like to see it taken a step further. For each placement, I would like to see each persons vote publically posted for all to see so that we can see why a title was placed where it was.


----------



## RBFC

*Within Temptation: Black Symphony Tier 2.75*


This concert video is shown in 1080i and shot with multiple cameras. The overall image quality is fairly good for the conditions under which it was filmed. The prologue is filmed in black and white, shifting to color as the band joins the onstage orchestra.


The image is sharp enough, but lacking the fine detail of higher tier titles. Note: for a concert video, higher tier placement is almost impossible to me (from the majority I've seen). _Dave Matthews_ is one exception that perhaps merits a Tier 2 rating, for instance.


Since much of the feel of this group is quasi-gothic, black levels and shadow detail are an important part of the presentation. Nothing spectacular here, IMO, but pleasant enough to watch.


Finally, colors were fairly solid. Limited in use, color was acceptable for titles in this tier.


This was pretty cool to watch, and the audio is another story...










Lee


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*applaud* Phantom Stranger!


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15469112
> 
> 
> Hey guys, I need your help.
> 
> 
> I just rented Ocean's Eleven. Man, does it look good! Easily the best this movie has ever looked!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Currently, it's ranked at 2.25. I'll post a review after a second viewing. Halfway through, I'd probably bump it up to 2.00.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's strange is the sequels, 12 and 13, are ranked lower in order. So, according to the Tier rankings, 11 is the best looking and 13 is the worst!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can anyone verify this? Is it that big of a dropoff in quality? I'm looking to buy the Trilogy set, but this could be a dealbreaker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks!



No review necessary, as Ocean's Eleven is correcty placed in Tier 2.25.


----------



## rsbeck

Excellent work, extremely clear and logical. A few points that occur to me regarding this section;



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15480327
> 
> 
> A transfer free of unneeded post-processing of the original film or source master elements; including but not limited to: visible edge enhancement or ringing of any kind that results in obvious halos, digital noise reduction that results in the alteration of the original grain structure of the image, alteration of the originally intended aspect ratio or viewable image area. The transfer of the Blu-ray will be sourced from a pristine master with zero visible flaws or anomalies.[/i]



I could see how some of this could lead to problems.


1) When you say unnecessary post processing: My understanding is that Zulu, to cite a recent example, was sourced from a very dirty print and that, according to the people who did the work, it needed several passes through a cleaning process to remove the debris. Along with the dirt, they also lost some of the grain and detail, especially from some of the faces. We may trust that the cleaning was needed, but the result is still less than satisfactory. So, I just worry about the word "unneeded." Perhaps, "excessive."?


2) Outside of perhaps yourself, how many of us will be able to judge whether the title was sourced from a pristine master? I can see this scaring anyone but the most expert away from reviewing.


3) We've learned that ringing or halos can be caused by three things; Edge Enhancement, Photo Chemical Processing and when grain records light reflections from a high contrast edge. I've asked the Grain Allowed thread if they know of a sure-fire way to tell the difference between an instance where ringing was caused by EE and when it was caused by something benign and have received no answer. We've already seen instances where people have made very authoritative claims about how some films were processed only to be corrected by the people who did the work. I ould prefer that we not have criteria that sets people up to make judgments like these or to gain advantage from making authoritative sounding pronouncements when most of the time, we have no way of knowing what has caused the ringing or halo. I would prefer that we concentrate instead on making subjective judgments about the results. If the ringing is distracting to the reviewer, just like director's intent, it shouldn't matter how

the ringing came to appear on the picture, if it is not, same thing applies. This again, I believe, will keep us focused on judging that which we know, our opinion of the picture and keep us from making pronouncements about things which we cannot know.


That's all I've got for now. Really appreciate the work you're putting into this.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Good points rsbeck.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15480327
> 
> 
> These transfers continue to impress visually at very close viewing distances (i.e., less than 1.5 screen widths from your display) and on larger projection screens over 100.



How much less than 1.5 SW from display? At some point, it goes beyond spec and becomes a little unrealistic to keep expecting a title to impress.



> Quote:
> Superior high frequency information that is easily visible; including but not limited to: ultra-fine detail in general, *human facial and skin texture visible down to the pores*, consistently superior small object detail and background information.



Are we going to make exceptions for animated titles? If so, let's spell it out.



> Quote:
> A razor-sharp but unprocessed image that *looks real* in its best moments with excellent focus.



Same question -- should we expect an animated title to "look real"? If not, is there an alternative criteria for animated titles?


Thanks again for your work an let me add my applause to the others.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15481249
> 
> 
> Good points rsbeck.



Thanks!


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15481179
> 
> 
> 1) When you say unnecessary post processing: My understanding is that Zulu, to cite a recent example, was sourced from a very dirty print and that, according to the people who did the work, it needed several passes through a cleaning process to remove the debris. Along with the dirt, they also lost some of the grain and detail, especially from some of the faces. We may trust that the cleaning was needed, but the result is still less than satisfactory. So, I just worry about the word "unneeded." Perhaps, "excessive."?
> 
> 
> 2) Outside of perhaps yourself, how many of us will be able to judge whether the title was sourced from a pristine master? I can see this scaring anyone but the most expert away from reviewing.
> 
> 
> 3) We've learned that ringing or halos can be caused by three things; Edge Enhancement, Photo Chemical Processing and when grain records light reflections from a high contrast edge. I've asked the Grain Allowed thread if they know of a sure-fire way to tell the difference between an instance where ringing was caused by EE and when it was caused by something benign and have received no answer. We've already seen instances where people have made very authoritative claims about how some films were processed only to be corrected by the people who did the work. I ould prefer that we not have criteria that sets people up to make judgments like these or to gain advantage from making authoritative sounding pronouncements when most of the time, we have no way of knowing what has caused the ringing or halo. I would prefer that we concentrate instead on making subjective judgments about the results. If the ringing is distracting to the reviewer, just like director's intent, it shouldn't matter how
> 
> the ringing came to appear on the picture, if it is not, same thing applies. This again, I believe, will keep us focused on judging that which we know, our opinion of the picture and keep us from making pronouncements about things which we cannot know.



1) I agree with your suggestion of "excessive" and it will be in the next draft.


2) That statement could be reworded very easily. I was mostly referring to obvious and gross defects in the image attributable to the source like digital scratch removal artifacts that stand out, hair and dirt marks, stains, and other flaws that should be visible to all but the most oblivious viewer.


3) I do agree the topic of edge enhancement is a tricky affair, but I think most of the people reading this thread are familiar with it and how it looks on Blu-ray. Should we make the presence of bad edge enhancement a disqualifier for tier zero? I do not think these are absolute rules in any sense, hence why I said "in general".


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15481303
> 
> 
> Are we going to make exceptions for animated titles? If so, let's spell it out.
> 
> 
> Same question -- should we expect an animated title to "look real"? If not, is there an alternative criteria for animated titles?



I knew this question would be raised by someone and was hoping the regular contributors would illuminate the path to take. I do have some things in mind for animation that would be more explicit in its description.


----------



## 42041

I think each movie needs to be evaluated within its own parameters; in the absence of obvious transfer issues like banding and macroblocking, I don't think its our place to proscribe how movies "should" look, and the eye candy factor will boil down to the individual reviewer's aesthetic and how much they're bothered or impressed by aspects of the film's visuals.


Sin City is a very visually impressive movie that I'd use as demo material in a second, but I'm not going to tell them they should've made it colorful and rendered the fleshtones accurately. Transformers uses a very high contrast color scheme that is anything but realistic, but it's also near the top of my demo material list. Same goes for Ratatouille and Wall-E, with their simplified humans and Wall-E's lens effects.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15480327
> 
> 
> digital noise reduction that results in the *alteration of the original grain structure* of the image



Not sure how many of us could judge this without access to the original. It is my understanding that there are ways to massage grain that leave grain and detail intact depending on the elegance of the process and the hand of the person doing the work.


Also, in most cases, I think a lot of us can tell if there is grain or not, but it becomes very difficult when judging films sourced from larger negatives as the grain can become so fine as to be very difficult to perceive throughout a film.


I hate to add more difficulty to your job, but I would suggest an alternative that would help set up an average enthusiast to write a report from which we could glean some of the important information. What I mean is this; An average viewer can tell if faces and skin look natural, whether or not the pores and imperfections are resolved. This, along with natural looking grain might give us a pretty good indication of whether or not DNR or any other technique like soft focus or airbrushing has been excessively applied.


I know this seems like a lot of suggestions, but I'm just trying to help.


----------



## Vegaz

*Babylon AD*


There's 3 different parts of this movie and I think they belong in 3 different tiers.


Russia is dark and gritty,there's nothing to pop other than in one scene and I would say it's about the same quality as Deathrace here so the same ranking of 1.75.


Alaska/Canada is very snowy,very white and very nice looking,one scene in particular when they're sitting in some snow looking at the northren lights is quite the eye candy. This part I'd put in 1.25 as what I'm pretty sure was DNR was noticeable during one section so it gets knocked down a bit.


New York is shown at night and full of neon/otherwise flashy lights. This is the point the main action sequence happens (after wich the movie goes horribly,horribly wrong,I thought it was pretty good untill here) so there's a lot more going on here than in Russia but not quite as pretty as Alaska/Canada. I'd say this part would be 1.5.


Overall it balances out to Gold 1.5.


----------



## rsbeck

*7th Voyage of Sinbad*


1.66:1, 1958, Technicolor


Seeing this Ray Harryhausen stop motion animation/live action costume swords and sorcery classic on blu-ray was was like time traveling back to my first saturday afternoon matinee at the local 1920's era crumbling art deco motion picture palace called the Fox California. You know you're in for a primitive special effects kitsch extravaganza of epic proportions when the opening title appears with the announcement, "Filmed in Dynamation, the New Miracle of the Screen!" However transparent most of the special effects are now to savvy viewers brought up on "making of" specials, one effect that still amazes is Ray Harryhausen's stop motion animation, what we've come to know as "claymation." This is a fabulous restoration and a must for film lovers as well as students of film and special effects history. Grain is wonderfully intact, no signs of halos. Some slight ringing was visible in a select few shots, but so few I doubt this was due to anything unsavory. Picture offers a smorgasboard of vibrant hues wonderfully captured in Technicolor and is consistently sharp and detailed; you can see the edges of the fake goatees meant to turn light skinned actors into Arabians (that's all it takes, right?) If you don't find yourself chuckling helplessly through this blu-ray, your heart must be as cold as one of the paper mache' boulders on the set of The 7th Voyage of Sinbad.

*Recommendation: Tier 2.75*


Sim2 C3X1080

Carada Masquerade

126" Firehawk G3

Pioneer BDP-05FD


13' From Screen


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15480327
> 
> 
> Here is the first draft of the new description for Tier 0 (Blu). Any comments, suggestions, corrections, or ideas are welcomed on its development. Any grammar aficionados or proof-readers are welcome to improve it or its writing structure.
> 
> 
> _The Blu-rays in this tier represent the best picture quality currently possible on the format. They are all demo discs that one could use to impress the uninitiated into what is possible on Blu-ray visually. Without question these Blu-rays represent a quantum leap in picture quality in comparison to the best dvds and a significant advantage over average looking Blu-rays. Every single Blu-ray in this tier consistently demonstrates a reference quality high-definition image to the viewer. These transfers continue to impress visually at very close viewing distances (i.e., less than 1.5 screen widths from your display) and on larger projection screens over 100.
> 
> 
> The hallmarks of a Blu-ray in tier zero in general are the following qualities:
> 
> 
> An artifact-free video compression encoding that shows virtually no signs of chroma noise, banding, posterization, aliasing, macroblocking, compression noise, etc.
> 
> 
> Superior high frequency information that is easily visible; including but not limited to: ultra-fine detail in general, human facial and skin texture visible down to the pores, consistently superior small object detail and background information.
> 
> 
> A razor-sharp but unprocessed image that looks real in its best moments with excellent focus. There will be a depth and dimensionality to the picture *that often gives the illusion of three dimensions on your display, with objects in the foreground appearing to pop off the screen and visually separate from objects in the background.*
> 
> 
> Black levels that are perfect or near perfection, with the best shadow detail and a deep and uniformly solid consistency to black-colored objects in the image. Color palettes may vary but typically primary colors in this tier will jump off the screen in a dynamic way that appears stunning. Color tonality and fidelity are as good as they can appear in this format.
> 
> 
> A transfer free of unneeded post-processing of the original film or source master elements; including but not limited to: visible edge enhancement or ringing of any kind that results in obvious halos, digital noise reduction that results in the alteration of the original grain structure of the image, alteration of the originally intended aspect ratio or viewable image area.
> 
> 
> The transfer of the Blu-ray will be sourced from a pristine master with zero visible flaws or anomalies._



Very good work, Phantom. Thanks for taking the time and care to do this.


Based on an initial review, I have reservations about what I bolded. I think the whole concept of "3D pop," which this passage seems to incorporate, is misleading. Perhaps something like Crank at its best has it, but it is not something I see very much even on the best looking discs. For example, I think the concept may improperly favor a grain-free image. In addition, the notion of "separating from the background" sounds too much like what you see with EE, although I know you address that subject elsewhere.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15480327
> 
> 
> Superior high frequency information that is easily visible; including but not limited to: ultra-fine detail in general, human facial and skin texture visible down to the pores, consistently superior small object detail and background information.



Add something about being able to see texture in clothing?



> Quote:
> typically primary colors in this tier will jump off the screen in a dynamic way that appears stunning.



Do we want to emphasize primary colors or give special credit to titles with a more sophisticated color scheme?


----------



## patrick99

Perhaps some further emphasis on sharpness versus softness. For example, that softness is generally a defect, but that what matters is that the portion of the frame that is supposed to be in focus is sharp, so that everything else can be soft as a result of being out of focus, and that is ok.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15481179
> 
> 
> I've asked the Grain Allowed thread if they know of a sure-fire way to tell the difference between an instance where ringing was caused by EE and when it was caused by something benign and have received no answer.



For the purposes of _this_ thread, _is_ there such a thing as ringing created by "something benign"? If we are to ignore artistic intent and evaluate only the end product, I would think that if any instance of "ringing" were to be considered undesirable, they would _all_ have to be, no matter what stage they became a part of the image nor how inherent they are within it. In the same way that a deliberately softened or hazy shot might not ever be considered 'top tier' source material, a natural photographic effect which produces ringing still leaves us with... ringing.


----------



## sleater

Although it may seem counterintuitive, sometimes less actually _is_ more when it comes to describing a general outline for what classifies a title into each tier. The more descriptors that are added, it seems the more difficult a time each title has for satisfying _all_ aspects of the tier classification. I realize that many would view this as a good thing.


I appreciate the work put in with the hope of making the 'guidelines' more clear for posters/reviewers, however I worry about the resulting tier adjustments and imminent onslaught of 'if this is the new criteria then _THIS_ title has no place in tier 0 / tier 1.xx / tier 2.xx... It seems a whole new thread would almost need to be created with the new criteria.


Perhaps we need clearer guidelines but the more vague they are kept, the more we will be able to defend our title placements?


Anyway don't get me wrong I think the guidelines are in need of revision, just not a laundry list of specific criteria that will spark widespread panic. I don't envy Suprslow. Or Phantom.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sleater* /forum/post/15483708
> 
> 
> Although it may seem counterintuitive, sometimes less actually _is_ more when it comes to describing a general outline for what classifies a title into each tier. The more descriptors that are added, it seems the more difficult a time each title has for satisfying _all_ aspects of the tier classification.



I agree with this, as I think we ought to (reasonably) account for the fact that everyone has somewhat different priorities when it comes to PQ issues. I think everyone can generally understand broader descriptors about 'quality' levels (and apply their own interpretations), but when people are put off to differing degrees by DNR, EE, etcetera, we need to be able to bring our own taste and perspective to the table.


----------



## sleater

*The Happening*


M Night Shyamalan's latest film is a nice looking 1.85 AR title with next to no CGI whatsoever which is a pleasant change. Film grain is fully intact with no noticeable post processing done to the image. There are a couple soft looking shots but for the most part the film is quite razor sharp. The colour palette is a little subdued, making the film maintain a realistic feel/appearance. Mostly outdoor shots that are nice and natural looking. Not much in the way of 'eye candy' in this one, however. The house sequence at the latter portion of the film showcases some black levels that are a little washed out and not the deep, dark blacks that would bump this film up to a higher level. With that said, they are not bad but just not outstanding.

*Recommendation Tier 2.50*


As for the movie itself, this one was hammered by critics for its premise and acting, or lack thereof. I believe Shyamalan was trying to do his best Hitchcock impression and I personally enjoyed the movie for what it was. And it is rated R for good reason with some truly brutal death scenes.


HC5500 1080p LCD PJ

92" 2.8 Gain Screen 10' V.D

Sony S350 BDP


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sleater* /forum/post/15483708
> 
> 
> Although it may seem counterintuitive, sometimes less actually _is_ more when it comes to describing a general outline for what classifies a title into each tier. The more descriptors that are added, it seems the more difficult a time each title has for satisfying _all_ aspects of the tier classification. I realize that many would view this as a good thing.
> 
> 
> I appreciate the work put in with the hope of making the 'guidelines' more clear for posters/reviewers, however I worry about the resulting tier adjustments and imminent onslaught of 'if this is the new criteria then _THIS_ title has no place in tier 0 / tier 1.xx / tier 2.xx... It seems a whole new thread would almost need to be created with the new criteria.
> 
> 
> Perhaps we need clearer guidelines but the more vague they are kept, the more we will be able to defend our title placements?
> 
> 
> Anyway don't get me wrong I think the guidelines are in need of revision, just not a laundry list of specific criteria that will spark widespread panic. I don't envy Suprslow. Or Phantom.



+1


First of all, I truly thank Phantom for the time and effort involved in drafting up a description for Tier Blu. I believe he covered all the bases. Having said that, I agree with sleater that it _may_ be too detailed and as a result somewhat intimidating, especially for the average visitor to this thread, but possibly even for some of the *seasoned* members who post here.


The part of Phantom's description that I'm primarily referring to is the following line:


"An artifact-free video compression encoding that shows virtually no signs of *chromo noise, banding, posterization, aliasing, macroblocking, compression noise*, etc."


I wonder how many of us are familiar with all of these terms and can readily identify them while viewing a title. I, for one, am NOT familiar with chromo noise or posterization and thus I wouldn't know what to look for to identify these anamolies. So, I would suggest that we either limit the description to the more well-known artifacts and flaws or else educate everyone as to what each term means and how to identify it. Of course if we choose the latter then the description will be even longer and like sleater said, "sometimes less is actually more."


I want to reiterate that Phantom is to be applauded for his efforts, but perhaps there is the need for the description to be more simple and concise.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sleater* /forum/post/15483708
> 
> 
> Although it may seem counterintuitive, sometimes less actually _is_ more when it comes to describing a general outline for what classifies a title into each tier. The more descriptors that are added, it seems the more difficult a time each title has for satisfying _all_ aspects of the tier classification. I realize that many would view this as a good thing.
> 
> 
> I appreciate the work put in with the hope of making the 'guidelines' more clear for posters/reviewers, however I worry about the resulting tier adjustments and imminent onslaught of 'if this is the new criteria then _THIS_ title has no place in tier 0 / tier 1.xx / tier 2.xx... It seems a whole new thread would almost need to be created with the new criteria.
> 
> 
> Perhaps we need clearer guidelines but the more vague they are kept, the more we will be able to defend our title placements?
> 
> 
> Anyway don't get me wrong I think the guidelines are in need of revision, just not a laundry list of specific criteria that will spark widespread panic. I don't envy Suprslow. Or Phantom.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15483814
> 
> 
> I agree with this, as I think we ought to (reasonably) account for the fact that everyone has somewhat different priorities when it comes to PQ issues. I think everyone can generally understand broader descriptors about 'quality' levels (and apply their own interpretations), but when people are put off to differing degrees by DNR, EE, etcetera, we need to be able to bring our own taste and perspective to the table.



I agree with this as well. We should probably try to shorten the description, hitting just the most important aspects.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15477987
> 
> 
> That's certainly part of it, but it's story, too. Read an essay or two about the way the film relates and relates to Hong Kong (and its recent history) and you may come away with a deeper appreciation for what's going on in the story than your first viewing left you with.



I just gave my Netflix rating for Chungking Express (I went ahead and gave it 4 stars!), and they have a link to Roger Ebert's review. Here is part of what he said:


"This is the kind of movie you'll relate to if you love film itself, rather than its surface aspects such as story and stars".


Very much how I feel. It really is a film lovers movie.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15484420
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> 
> First of all, I truly thank Phantom for the time and effort involved in drafting up a description for Tier Blu. I believe he covered all the bases. Having said that, I agree with sleater that it _may_ be too detailed and as a result somewhat intimidating, especially for the average visitor to this thread, but possibly even for some of the *seasoned* members who post here.
> 
> 
> The part of Phantom's description that I'm primarily referring to is the following line:
> 
> 
> "An artifact-free video compression encoding that shows virtually no signs of *chromo noise, banding, posterization, aliasing, macroblocking, compression noise*, etc."
> 
> 
> I wonder how many of us are familiar with all of these terms and can readily identify them while viewing a title. I, for one, am NOT familiar with chromo noise or posterization and thus I wouldn't know what to look for to identify these anamolies. *So, I would suggest that we either limit the description to the more well-known artifacts and flaws or else educate everyone as to what each term means and how to identify it.* Of course if we choose the latter then the description will be even longer and like sleater said, "sometimes less is actually more."
> 
> 
> I want to reiterate that Phantom is to be applauded for his efforts, but perhaps there is the need for the description to be more simple and concise.



I don't think it is fair to assume that people coming to this thread for the first time will be familiar with any of the terms for artifacts. I agree that we should not go overboard in a listing of potential artifacts, but I think the first post should contain an explanation of the major ones, such as DNR and EE.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15484595
> 
> 
> I don't think it is fair to assume that people coming to this thread for the first time will be familiar with any of the terms for artifacts. I agree that we should not go overboard in a listing of potential artifacts, but I think the first post should contain an explanation of the major ones, such as DNR and EE.



As you know patrick, there is a list of common terms and descriptions on page one (before the descriptions of each tier), so DNR, EE, and banding are defined. But most of the list that I referred to are NOT included in that section so whatever terms the final draft includes will need to be added under "Common Terms and Descriptions."


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15484697
> 
> 
> As you know patrick, there is a list of common terms and descriptions on page one (before the descriptions of each tier), so DNR, EE, and banding are defined. But most of the list that I referred to are NOT included in that section so whatever terms the final draft includes will need to be added under "Common Terms and Descriptions."



Looking back at that list just now, I would suggest eliminating terms that don't relate to PQ. Thus, I would propose eliminating all the terms relating to audio, plus terms like IME and BD-J. And make sure that the remaining terms relating solely to PQ are defined in a way that is easy to understand.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15484798
> 
> 
> Looking back at that list just now, I would suggest eliminating terms that don't relate to PQ. Thus, I would propose eliminating all the terms relating to audio, plus terms like IME and BD-J. And make sure that the remaining terms relating solely to PQ are defined in a way that is easy to understand.



I second that motion!


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sleater* /forum/post/15483708
> 
> 
> Perhaps we need clearer guidelines but the more vague they are kept, the more we will be able to defend our title placements?
> 
> 
> Anyway don't get me wrong I think the guidelines are in need of revision, just not a laundry list of specific criteria that will spark widespread panic. I don't envy Suprslow. Or Phantom.



I agree with this and with the sentiments expressed by Patrick99, Rob Tomlin, and Djoberg.


Based on this, here are my thoughts;


Our current tier placements have generally been the result of encouraging each of our reviewers to draw from his or her own subjective opinion of what constitutes the ultimate in what can be achieved with blu-ray technology while ignoring director's intent.


My only problem with the current criteria as stated is that some of the titles in the blu tier seem to directly contradict the criteria. To me, this threatens the logic of the forum and looks a little weird.


Since I don't believe any of us want to have to re-review every title, I agree that we ought to be very careful about putting anything specific into the criteria that would encourage such a mess.


If we want simple criteria that will apply to films with grain intact as well as films shot on video and animated titles, then we should probably take a less is more approach and take out terms like "film-like" which can be vague anyway. Similarly, we should take out terms like "feels real" because it is similarly vague and can be interpreted both objectively and subjectively and I think we would all agree that we're interested in subjectivity here.


As for DNR and EE, I think we can be absolutely consistent by treating these and other flaws the same way as we do other PQ aspects -- especially since we very often do not know the provenance of the particular halo or ringing and have been proven wrong on enough occasions to give us pause when making conclusions when it isn't necessary -- if the halo or ringing bothers the reviewer, it shouldn't matter how it comes to appear. If it doesn't bother the reviewer, likewise. Like other aspects, leave it up to the subjective taste of the reviewer making the recommendation.


Also, I have no idea what wars were fought here in the past so please forgive me if I wander into an area that is still sensitive, but I see many reviewers from this thread over in the Grain Allowed thread, so I assume most of us are "bi-thread" friendly. I believe this thread and the Grain Allowed thread can compliment each other and that we should just go ahead and recognize and provide a link to the other thread. Why? Because we already have a thread where DNR and EE are discussed and where titles are penalized. Let that thread do the lifting on that score. What I am saying is this; We have our list, which is based on our criteria and then we provide a link to the other thread and say that if EE and DNR are a concern to you, you can use both lists to make your decision. So, a title may be tier blu here, but dinged for EE over there and between the two threads, a person can make up their own mind. Maybe someone would only buy a title if it satisfied the criteria of both threads. This might also help encourage people who disagree with the goals of this thread from trying to turn this thread into a carbon copy of the other one. ***Please, this is just a suggestion for discussion. This is not a joke. I am serious. I put some thought into this and hope you will put the same thought into your responses. I'd like to hear your opinions on this. Thank you.


Finally, I can't thank Phantom Stranger enough for taking on this task and I think this is a welcome opportunity to make the tiers consistent with the criteria above them and to make this thread as well as the other one more useful and more sensible to more people.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15486286
> 
> 
> I agree with this and with the sentiments expressed by Patrick99, Rob Tomlin, and Djoberg.
> 
> 
> Based on this, here are my thoughts;
> 
> 
> Our current tier placements have generally been the result of encouraging each of our reviewers to draw from his or her own subjective opinion of what constitutes the ultimate in what can be achieved with blu-ray technology while ignoring director's intent.
> 
> 
> My only problem with the current criteria as stated is that some of the titles in the blu tier seem to directly contradict the criteria. To me, this threatens the logic of the forum and looks a little weird.
> 
> 
> Since I don't believe any of us want to have to re-review every title, I agree that we ought to be very careful about putting anything specific into the criteria that would encourage such a mess.
> 
> 
> If we want simple criteria that will apply to films with grain intact as well as films shot on video and animated titles, then we should probably take a less is more approach and take out terms like "film-like" which can be vague anyway. Similarly, we should take out terms like "feels real" because it is similarly vague and can be interpreted both objectively and subjectively and I think we would all agree that we're interested in subjectivity here.
> 
> 
> As for DNR and EE, I think we can be absolutely consistent by treating these and other flaws the same way as we do other PQ aspects -- especially since we very often do not know the provenance of the particular halo or ringing and have been proven wrong on enough occasions to give us pause when making conclusions when it isn't necessary -- if the halo or ringing bothers the reviewer, it shouldn't matter how it comes to appear. If it doesn't bother the reviewer, likewise. Like other aspects, leave it up to the subjective taste of the reviewer making the recommendation.
> 
> *Also, I have no idea what wars were fought here in the past so please forgive me if I wander into an area that is still sensitive, but I see many reviewers from this thread over in the Grain Allowed thread, so I assume most of us are "bi-thread" friendly. I believe this thread and the Grain Allowed thread can compliment each other and that we should just go ahead and recognize and provide a link to the other thread. Why? Because we already have a thread where DNR and EE are discussed and where titles are penalized. Let that thread do the lifting on that score. What I am saying is this; We have our list, which is based on our criteria and then we provide a link to the other thread and say that if EE and DNR are a concern to you, you can use both lists to make your decision. So, a title may be tier blu here, but dinged for EE over there and between the two threads, a person can make up their own mind. Maybe someone would only buy a title if it satisfied the criteria of both threads. This might also help encourage people who disagree with the goals of this thread from trying to turn this thread into a carbon copy of the other one. ***Please, this is just a suggestion for discussion. This is not a joke. I am serious. I put some thought into this and hope you will put the same thought into your responses. I'd like to hear your opinions on this. Thank you.*
> 
> 
> Finally, I can't thank Phantom Stranger enough for taking on this task and I think this is a welcome opportunity to make the tiers consistent with the criteria above them and to make this thread as well as the other one more useful and more sensible to more people.



My recollection (and I could be remembering incorrectly) was that the grain-allowed thread was started based on what I believe is an erroneous view that this thread is hostile to grain.


In any event, I think EE and DNR should be no less relevant here than there because they are objective PQ flaws.


One significant difference is that the other thread is based on the notion that director's intent is knowable and relevant. In this thread, director's intent is irrelevant (in part because it is difficult to determine what the director's intent actually was; but that's not the only reason of course.)


----------



## rsbeck

One more idea:


It seems to me that we keep running into problems with titles appearing in the blu-tier based on few reviews. Personally, I am for making it very tough to get into the blu-tier since arguably it most represents the forum's goals and criteria.


The more I think about it, the more I think that even three recommendations should not be enough for a title to get into the blu-tier. I'm thinking we should wait until a title has at least five reviews. In the meantime, I believe we should have a "PENDING" box beneath the blu tier with a disclaimer that says the title has been NOMINATED for the blu-tier, but hasn't been reviewed by enough of our reviewers to be included yet.

This should encourage more of us to acquire and review any title that has been nominated and I would think provide a little sense of urgency. I think it would also save some disappointment that results from finding a title in the blu tier, raising expectations, only to see the title moved down a month later after more people have seen it. You buy one from the "pending" box and you know you're getting one that still has a question mark above its head, you know what you're getting into. I just don't believe we should have a title in the blu-tier that hasn't been seen and reviewed by a significant number of our reviewers -- and I think we need a mechanism to alert the membership that a title has been nominated for blu so we can get more reviews in place before the title is moved.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15486460
> 
> 
> My recollection (and I could be remembering incorrectly) was that the grain-allowed thread was started based on what I believe is an erroneous view that this thread is hostile to grain.




Thank you. I suspected this might be the case. I don't believe this thread is hostile to grain, but I appreciate that we have a thread that makes a concerted effort to encourage it. No matter the reasoning behind the split, I hope we can put old feelings aside and, at least from our end, draw on the better angels of our nature to go ahead and open up a link to that thread.


Next, we will open up talks with North Korea. 



> Quote:
> In any event, I think EE and DNR should be no less relevant here than there because they are objective PQ flaws.



I'm not saying they should be irrelevant. I am saying these issues should be exactly as relevant as they are to each reviewer. So, one reviewer can say "this title didn't look to me because of the PQ especially what appears to me to be ringing and/or DNR." Another can say, "this title looks great to me and I do recommend it for blu despite what others perceive as flaws." I mean, that's basically what's happening now. I believe that what I propose will hopefully remove some of the impetus to rag on each other. I believe we should also trust our reviewers and our process. If a title has enough flaws and if we wait until enough reviewers have seen it, there's a pretty good chance that a title with serious flaws is not going to make blu-tier.


On the other hand, I think I can speak for at least some small portion of the reviewers here when I say that since this is a demo thread, I don't think it makes sense to keep a title out of the blu tier *HERE* if the vast majority of the title is deemed demo worthy based on a few flaws. I think we should be weighted to look for virtues. But, again, I say leave it up to the reviewers. If you review the title, your view and your vote will go into its placement.



> Quote:
> One significant difference is that the other thread is based on the notion that director's intent is knowable and relevant. In this thread, director's intent is irrelevant (in part because it is difficult to determine what the director's intent actually was; but that's not the only reason of course.)



Yes, and this is a significant difference. What happens now? People come into the thread complaining about director's intent and what do we do? We give them a ham sandwich and a link to the other thread. I say let's just formalize this avenue and state it right up front that there is another thread and that some readers may wish to use both of them to make their decisions.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15486706
> 
> 
> Thank you. I suspected this might be the case. I don't believe this thread is hostile to grain, but I appreciate that we have a thread that makes a concerted effort to encourage it. No matter the reasoning behind the split, I hope we can put old feelings aside and, at least from our end, draw on the better angels of our nature to go ahead and open up a link to that thread.
> 
> 
> Next, we will open up talks with North Korea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying they should be irrelevant. I am saying these issues should be exactly as relevant as they are to each reviewer. So, one reviewer can say "this title didn't look to me because of the PQ especially what appears to me to be ringing and/or DNR." Another can say, "this title looks great to me and I do recommend it for blu despite what others perceive as flaws." I mean, that's basically what's happening now. I believe that what I propose will hopefully remove some of the impetus to rag on each other. I believe we should also trust our reviewers and our process. If a title has enough flaws and if we wait until enough reviewers have seen it, there's a pretty good chance that a title with serious flaws is not going to make blu-tier.
> 
> 
> On the other hand, I think I can speak for at least some small portion of the reviewers here when I say that since this is a demo thread, I don't think it makes sense to keep a title out of the blu tier *HERE* if the vast majority of the title is deemed demo worthy based on a few flaws. I think we should be weighted to look for virtues. But, again, I say leave it up to the reviewers. If you review the title, your view and your vote will go into its placement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and this is a significant difference. What happens now? People come into the thread complaining about director's intent and what do we do? We give them a ham sandwich and a link to the other thread. I say let's just formalize this avenue and state it right up front that there is another thread and that some readers may wish to use both of them to make their decisions.



I certainly have no objection to having a link to the other thread, perhaps with a disclaimer that the other thread is based on an erroneous premise concerning this one.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15486865
> 
> 
> i certainly have no objection to having a link to the other thread, perhaps with a disclaimer that the other thread is based on an erroneous premise concerning this one.



lol.


----------



## rsbeck

Another point: I think we can help educate new reviewers and set them up to look for virtues by saying something in the assessment criteria about looking for resolution of fine details including pores and imperfections in skin, individual hairs in eyebrows, individual pieces of stubble, textures in clothing, do faces look natural? Then, we can say that if it is a film based title, does the grain appear intact? If the grain is intact, faces look natural, and you can see pores, texture and other fine detail, chances are going to be pretty good that excessive DNR has not been applied. And this helps keep us focused on PQ -- we're looking for these things because they are associated with higher resolution and better PQ. If we don't have these things, it is likely caused by DNR, but let's short circuit that argument, we don't care about the reason faces look unnatural or that eyebrows are smeared or texture detail isn't evident, we want to penalize for that no matter how it comes to be. Let's be consistent -- we don't care about intent, we are only judging the results. An average enthusiast that might become nervous about his/her ability to spot DNR would feel a lot more confident about his or her ability to spot pores, individual hairs in eyebrows, texture in clothing.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15484697
> 
> 
> As you know patrick, there is a list of common terms and descriptions on page one (before the descriptions of each tier), so DNR, EE, and banding are defined. But most of the list that I referred to are NOT included in that section so whatever terms the final draft includes will need to be added under "Common Terms and Descriptions."



Completely agree


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15484798
> 
> 
> Looking back at that list just now, I would suggest eliminating terms that don't relate to PQ. Thus, I would propose eliminating all the terms relating to audio, plus terms like IME and BD-J. And make sure that the remaining terms relating solely to PQ are defined in a way that is easy to understand.



Completely agree and something that I have wanted for some time.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15486460
> 
> 
> My recollection (and I could be remembering incorrectly) was that the grain-allowed thread was started based on what I believe is an erroneous view that this thread is hostile to grain.
> 
> 
> In any event, I think EE and DNR should be no less relevant here than there because they are objective PQ flaws.
> 
> 
> One significant difference is that the other thread is based on the notion that director's intent is knowable and relevant. In this thread, director's intent is irrelevant (in part because it is difficult to determine what the director's intent actually was; but that's not the only reason of course.)



Completely agree with all the points here. DNR and EE are visible flaws that lower the picture quality. Maybe a coda near the top of the main page explaining the general tier system and that we do not consider director's intent.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15486517
> 
> 
> One more idea:
> 
> 
> It seems to me that we keep running into problems with titles appearing in the blu-tier based on few reviews. Personally, I am for making it very tough to get into the blu-tier since arguably it most represents the forum's goals and criteria.
> 
> 
> The more I think about it, the more I think that even three recommendations should not be enough for a title to get into the blu-tier. I'm thinking we should wait until a title has at least five reviews. In the meantime, I believe we should have a "PENDING" box beneath the blu tier with a disclaimer that says the title has been NOMINATED for the blu-tier, but hasn't been reviewed by enough of our reviewers to be included yet.
> 
> This should encourage more of us to acquire and review any title that has been nominated and I would think provide a little sense of urgency. I think it would also save some disappointment that results from finding a title in the blu tier, raising expectations, only to see the title moved down a month later after more people have seen it. You buy one from the "pending" box and you know you're getting one that still has a question mark above its head, you know what you're getting into. I just don't believe we should have a title in the blu-tier that hasn't been seen and reviewed by a significant number of our reviewers -- and I think we need a mechanism to alert the membership that a title has been nominated for blu so we can get more reviews in place before the title is moved.



I like this idea for tier zero, though five reviews sounds a little high for many movies other than blockbusters and might introduce a little bias. Maybe three independent reviews? Further discussion might be needed here...


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15486706
> 
> 
> I'm not saying they should be irrelevant. I am saying these issues should be exactly as relevant as they are to each reviewer. So, one reviewer can say "this title didn't look to me because of the PQ especially what appears to me to be ringing and/or DNR." Another can say, "this title looks great to me and I do recommend it for blu despite what others perceive as flaws." I mean, that's basically what's happening now. I believe that what I propose will hopefully remove some of the impetus to rag on each other. I believe we should also trust our reviewers and our process. If a title has enough flaws and if we wait until enough reviewers have seen it, there's a pretty good chance that a title with serious flaws is not going to make blu-tier.
> 
> 
> Yes, and this is a significant difference. What happens now? People come into the thread complaining about director's intent and what do we do? We give them a ham sandwich and a link to the other thread. I say let's just formalize this avenue and state it right up front that there is another thread and that some readers may wish to use both of them to make their decisions.



Personally I would be opposed to linking to the other thread for fear it might confuse new readers. It has been widely stated that many new Blu-ray owners, not knowing much about the format, use this tier list as the basis to make their initial purchases. It might hurt the hegemony of this thread...


I will attempt to go back and incorporate as many of the various suggestions in the second draft as I can and we can go from there. I think this tier description can serve as a template for the later tiers.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15487349
> 
> 
> If we don't have these things, it is likely caused by DNR, but let's short circuit that argument, we don't care about the reason faces looks unnatural or that eyebrows are smeared or texture detail isn't evident, we want to penalize for that no matter how it comes to be. Let's be consistent -- we don't care about intent, we are only judging the results. An average enthusiast that might become nervous about his/her ability to spot DNR would feel a lot more confident about his or her ability to spot pores, individual hairs in eyebrows, texture in clothing.



I am not sure we need to dumb it down so much, but I could rewrite that section to focus on the typical negatives associated with DNR like you stated. I do not think this tier description needs to be a complete guide to picture quality, but I thought it prudent to list many of the common characteristics of the best Blu-rays for example. I really do not think the thread is going to function much differently with this new description but the law of unintended consequences can always become a problem. I do not think the new description should really affect anyone's consideration of placement and they can follow whatever criteria they have been using in the past. I think being more explicit in some of the characteristics does help though, more than leaving it as simple as it is now.


----------



## nismo604

I just picked this title up for $15.00 and I can see why this title is in Tier 0, the detail was tremendous, and it was also an enjoyable film to watch.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15487575
> 
> 
> I am not sure we need to dumb it down so much, but I could rewrite that section to focus on the typical negatives associated with DNR like you stated. I do not think this tier description needs to be a complete guide to picture quality, but I thought it prudent to list many of the common characteristics of the best Blu-rays for example.



I agree with this. There are certain virtues and pleasures that are made possible by higher resolution and are the hallmark of the best blu-ray titles and I agree with you that a list of these would be prudent.



> Quote:
> I really do not think the thread is going to function much differently with this new description but the law of unintended consequences can always become a problem. I do not think the new description should really affect anyone's consideration of placement and they can follow whatever criteria they have been using in the past. I think being more explicit in some of the characteristics does help though, more than leaving it as simple as it is now.



100% agreement.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15487477
> 
> 
> I like this idea for tier zero, though five reviews sounds a little high for many movies other than blockbusters and might introduce a little bias. Maybe three independent reviews? Further discussion might be needed here...



I hear you, but the problem with that is blockbusters only get on the list after being fully vetted while smaller audience titles can get in blu tier with only three reviews. Then, they sit there like little time bombs until more people can see them. I don't think 5 reviews is too many when we're talking about giving the forum's stamp of approval on a title. Having a PENDING box will make it easy to get nominated for blu tier which will bring the title to everyone's attention, but requiring 5 reviews makes it more difficult to get a title placed there. Requiring three reviews with no pending box means the title remains invisible until three reviews come in and no way to know which titles have been nominated unless one reads every post every day -- and even then it can be easy to miss.



> Quote:
> I will attempt to go back and incorporate as many of the various suggestions in the second draft as I can and we can go from there. I think this tier description can serve as a template for the later tiers.



I hope you are not regretting your decision to do this work -- I will probably wear out my keys using the same letters over and over to thank you for taking this on.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15487977
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you are not regretting your decision to do this work -- I will probably wear out my keys using the same letters over and over to thank you for taking this on.



I too would emphasize how grateful I am, Phantom, that you are undertaking this extremely worthwhile task.


----------



## dachness

I would like to thank every one who has and is contributing to this thread. I am a new AV enthusiast and use this thread to determine what is worth purchasing versus borrowing with netflix. I am not the type to collect blu-rays or DVDs so when I do decide to purchase one it better be good.


This thread has helped me with that. So far my blu-ray collection consists of Beowoulf which I got on blackfriday. Thanks to the iPhone and this thread I was able to make an informed purchase decision.


Daniel


----------



## stumlad

Hey guys..glad we're opening up to change









*Band of Brothers*

I did a search and it appears that this title has been voted for Tier 1 twice, but for some reason it's in Tier 2.0.


I say *Tier 1.75*. While it may be slightly filtered (when compared to the HD DVD version), it is still visually impressive. The footage varies in the way it was shot as an artistic expression (muted gray/green look through most of it) which works really well IMO. There are also varying degrees of grain throughout.


Face closeups can be Tier 0 material at times. Black levels are generally good, though some dark areas show grain while others don't. The episodes were directed by different people and they all have their own "feel" to them, but overall they all look very good. I didnt notice any real compression artifacts, but there was one scene where i noticed some banding. Nothing to take away from the overall experience.


----------



## rsbeck

I've only seen two episodes of Band of Brothers so far. I think Band of Brothers has a lot of great things going for it. Tier 2.0 is way too low and tier 0 would be too high. Based on what I am seeing, it looks like a solid mid tier 1 title to me. I would be waffling between 1.5 on the low side and 1.25 on the high.


----------



## djoberg

One word comes to mind after viewing *88 Minutes*...LACKLUSTER! The colors were drab, the black levels were almost nonexistent, the contrast was poor, there was zero 3D pop, and sharpness & detail were flat (a few isolated scenes of Seattle were fairly sharp with some detail). The only redeeming quality that I noticed were some fairly decent skin tones and the facial close-ups of Al Pacino were impressive. I would have to place this near the bottom of the pack....perhaps *Tier 4.0*. I did notice one other review and he was recommending the middle of tier 3, which would be generous. That reviewer also mentioned a lot of digital noise and he was absolutely correct, especially on those who had faces with light complexion.


Oh, and the movie itself....let's just say I was hoping that instead of 107 minutes long they would have reduced it to 88 minutes!

















Doesn't this review make you want to go right out and rent 88 minutes? Actually, it would be nice if someone did, for with only 2 reviews thus far it may never get placed.


----------



## 42041

What are the "representative" movies for tier 3 and 4? 40-Year Old Virgin and American Psycho are in Tier 3, and the PQ on those is dreadful on a level that I can't imagine 88 Minutes approaches.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15489363
> 
> 
> What are the "representative" movies for tier 3 and 4? 40-Year Old Virgin and American Psycho are in Tier 3, and the PQ on those is dreadful on a level that I can't imagine 88 Minutes approaches.



I have seen the following titles in Tier 4:


The Devil Wears Prada

Firewall

Italian Job

Tomb Raider

Stir of Echoes


I believe 88 Minutes is comparable to several of these (Firewall, Italian Job, & Tomb Raider). It was very soft and gritty, and lacked all of the things I mentioned in my review. In fact, at times it looked equal to or worse than an upconverted DVD. It may have had a few isolated scenes worthy of Tier 2 or 3, but all things considered Tier 4.0 seems right.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15489249
> 
> 
> with only 2 reviews thus far it may never get placed.



I believe one review is enough for placement in tiers 1 through 5.


I thought it was just tier 0 that needed more reviews.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15489363
> 
> 
> 40-Year Old Virgin and American Psycho are in Tier 3, and the PQ on those is dreadful



Should they be moved down? A tier 3 title should still look decent. I have AS, but haven't watched yet.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15486460
> 
> 
> My recollection (and I could be remembering incorrectly) was that the grain-allowed thread was started based on what I believe is an erroneous view that this thread is hostile to grain.
> 
> 
> In any event, I think EE and DNR should be no less relevant here than there because they are objective PQ flaws.
> 
> 
> One significant difference is that the other thread is based on the notion that director's intent is knowable and relevant. In this thread, director's intent is irrelevant (in part because it is difficult to determine what the director's intent actually was; but that's not the only reason of course.)



This is all 100% accurate as far as I am concerned Patrick.


But, despite the fact that the other thread was started based on an erroneous premise, it still serves it's purpose. That thread has just as many, if not more, problems/challenges as this one, since it is largely based on the directors intent, which takes a lot of information/research to even know. I think this is why that thread doesn't get near the amount of posts or views that this one gets.


As far as the grain issue: I don't hate grain, but I do dislike ugly, unintentional grain. Chungking Express has at least two or three scenes that are a perfect example of this. The darkest scenes exhibit very poor black levels with a large amount of ugly grain that is very distracting...to the point of taking you out of the movie.


It may very well be 100% accurate to the source, which would theoretically mean it would be placed on that "grain allowed" thread, but it gets a Tier 4 placement here.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15489623
> 
> 
> I believe one review is enough for placement in tiers 1 through 5.
> 
> 
> I thought it was just tier 0 that needed more reviews.



On 9/24 SuprSlow posted an update and on the bottom 3 titles were listed with the caption above them: Awaiting Placement. This was 5 days after a member had posted a review for 88 minutes. This did surprise me because The Strangers was placed with only one review.


After rethinking 88 minutes I would probably go along with the bottom of Tier 3, but not any higher than that.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15489646
> 
> 
> Should they be moved down? A tier 3 title should still look decent. I have AS, but haven't watched yet.



I watched them a long time ago, I'll have to re-view them to give a proper ranking. Both of those movies are very soft and filtered, and 40-YOV in particular has an abominable amount of DNR and halos that makes it look like a smeary upconvert.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15489363
> 
> 
> 40-Year Old Virgin and American Psycho are in Tier 3, and the PQ on those is dreadful.....



I haven't seen these titles, but if the PQ truly is "dreadful" why are they in Tier 3? Tier 3 is labeled as average and "dreadful" PQ would probably land a title in Tier 5.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15489363
> 
> 
> What are the "representative" movies for tier 3 and 4? 40-Year Old Virgin and American Psycho are in Tier 3, and the PQ on those is dreadful on a level that I can't imagine 88 Minutes approaches.



I still strongly disagree with American Psycho in Tier 3. It's Tier 2 at worst.


----------



## clutch69




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15490142
> 
> 
> I still strongly disagree with American Psycho in Tier 3. It's Tier 2 at worst.



Yeah American Psycho is fine in tier 3, the opening sequence is bad, just like the credits, but once the movie gets going, it is 3 for sure. I got it for 15 bucks, love the movie so why not.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15490142
> 
> 
> I still strongly disagree with American Psycho in Tier 3. It's Tier 2 at worst.



It was one of the first HD titles I rented, so my memory might be failing me... I'll have to watch it again. Maybe dreadful isn't the word, but I remember it being soft.


here's some 40YOV screen caps (the BD uses an identical video encode): http://www.hdmovies.co.nz/hddvd.php?...20Old%20Virgin 

Even someone who doesn't place much value in screen grabs would probably agree that's decidedly below average. Someone who has seen the movie recently or has the disc handy should weigh in...


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Draft #2 (comments, concerns, grammar, ideas, etc. welcomed)


Note: For the purposes of this tier system, when evaluating the visual quality of each Blu-ray we do not take director's intent into consideration. This list represents an absolute ranking system where every commercially available Blu-ray's picture quality is directly compared against every other release. Consult the thread itself for further questions.

*Tier Zero (Blu)*
_The Blu-rays in this tier represent the best picture quality currently possible on the format. They are all demo discs that one could use to impress the uninitiated into what is possible on Blu-ray visually. Without question these Blu-rays represent a quantum leap in picture quality in comparison to the best dvds and a significant advantage over average looking Blu-rays. Every single Blu-ray in this tier consistently demonstrates a reference quality high-definition image to the viewer. These transfers continue to impress visually at very close viewing distances (i.e., approximately 1.5 screen widths from your display) and on larger projection screens over 100.


A Blu-ray in tier zero will typically exhibit the following characteristics in general, though it should be remembered these are only guides to evaluating picture quality and not prerequisites for placement in tier zero:


An artifact-free video compression encoding that shows virtually no signs of chroma noise, banding, posterization, aliasing, macroblocking, compression noise, etc.


Superior high frequency information that is easily visible; including but not limited to: ultra-fine detail in general like the cloth and fabric texture of clothing, fully resolved hair from both animals and humans, human facial and skin texture visible down to the pores, consistently superior small object detail and background information. For animated material the image will demonstrate photo-realistic qualities at times with exquisitely rendered details.


A razor-sharp but unprocessed image that looks real in its best moments with excellent focus. There will be a palpable sense of depth and dimensionality to the picture that will give the optical illusion of three-dimensionality at times. This quality makes objects in the foreground appear closer to the viewer than objects in the background, colloquially known as pop to videophiles and enthusiasts. All visible objects in the image will be clearly delineated but sharpness can vary in the frame at any one time if there is a particular focus to the image.


Black levels that are perfect or near perfection, with the best shadow detail and a deep and uniformly solid consistency to black-colored objects in the image. Color palettes may vary but typically primary colors in this tier will jump off the screen in a dynamic way that appears stunning. Color tonality and fidelity are as good as they can appear in this format. More sophisticated color schemes will be completely resolved down to subtle gradations of each hue and shade of the color gamut.


A transfer free of excessive post-processing of the original film negative or source master elements that visibly degrades the image; including but not limited to: visible halos as a result of edge enhancement or other causes like photo-chemical manipulation, any digital noise reduction process or filtering that results in a noticeable impact on the grain structure of the image (e.g., shifting grain that freezes and does not move like film grain should appear in motion), alteration of the originally intended aspect ratio or viewable image area without the director's approval.


The transfer of the Blu-ray will be sourced from a master with virtually zero visible flaws or anomalies. This entails an image free and clear of print damage, dirt, specks, cue marks, telecine wobble, and other flaws that should be absent from a new and pristine transfer of source material in excellent condition._


----------



## SuprSlow

I've compiled all the placements/recommendations through this post. And holy hell I have a headache after the last few pages










I think there are a few things I should address. Most of the discussion has been settled, and there's no need to dredge up those subjects.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ballen420* /forum/post/15440711
> 
> *No offense, but this thread is all about what 4 or 5 regulars think. It seems their word is the be all and end all.* This list isn't going anywhere beyond AVSForum.com, so I'm still at a loss as to why there are always 3 pages of bickering for every 1 page of reviews (that's probably being generous too).
> 
> 
> Some of us like to participate in this thread with the thought of helping others with blind buys and debates on double dipping. Most of us get discouraged after actually reading the thread. Those that do end up posting, most likely won't bother going into detail because *they know (for the most part) their comments aren't going to matter.*



These statements couldn't be any further from the truth. I'm sorry if you feel this way, but every single recommendation is read and counted. I, and others, would appreciate it if blanket statements such as these are not made.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/15455221
> 
> 
> When a title is ranked, I would also like to see Superslows documentation as to how he gave rankings to a vote.
> 
> Is my vote worth 3/4 of a vote while Rob Tomlins vote is worth 1 whole vote. I would then like to see the results of those who voted clearly stated.
> 
> So it would read something like:
> 
> Suffolk112000: 3/4 vote
> 
> Rob Tomlin: 1 vote
> 
> Djoberg: 1/4 vote
> 
> Etc etc
> 
> By the way, I would hope that as long as one voted with a reasonable explanation, that person should be granted a whole vote.



I neither have the time nor the energy nor the desire to post a detailed account of every placement in this thread. See the above reply. I count every single placement/suggestion/recommendation/vote/whateveryouwanttocallit. Rob said it best re: "weighting votes." If a title receives more than 3 or 4 placements, I lean more towards a general average. If there are only two recommendations, I'm inclined to favor the one with some detail of why they placed the title where they did. There are often "hit-and-run" placements, and most of the time, those are the outliers when the votes are tallied. I.E. - "HEY GUYS, MOVIE XXX KICKED A** - TIER 0!"




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15473750
> 
> 
> Instead of talking around the issue why not just ask directly?
> 
> 
> *Hey, SuprSlow! When you've got a minute, could you explain to us your process placing titles, as this seems to be a matter of debate right now, and it'd be much better hearing how you do it from you rather than a lot of speculation?*
> 
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (bolded so he can hopefully notice it amongst all the posts!)



I'm not ignoring your post







I'll post a quick summary of my normal routine. I expect to be out most of the day tomorrow, but should have some time tomorrow afternoon/evening.



Also, I'd like to thank Phantom for volunteering to rewrite the descriptions. They are in desperate need of a rewrite, and who better than our resident journalist







I don't know the source of those original descriptions...I think Austin copied them from the original Tier thread. I honestly have no idea. I'm looking forward to seeing what Phantom comes up with. Looks like we're off to a great start with Tier 0.


Remember...*constructive* criticism helps, and that doesn't just apply to rewriting the descriptions.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

When I get some time I will go through and create a list of links/glossary for the more technical items. Though if anyone wants to step up and handle that it would be fine with me.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*X-Files: I Want To Believe*


Yes, I went ahead and rented this despite my better judgment. I was a big fan of the TV show back in the day. I was worried that I might be let down by this movie, and it would be nothing more than a chance to try and cash in on prior success. Well, the movie wasn't that bad, but it wasn't particularly good either.


That also sums up my feelings on the PQ. This is one of those titles where there really isn't much to complain about in terms of anything being wrong with the transfer itself, but there is not too much to praise either.


Contrast, shadow detail and blacks were all admirable. In fact, shadow detail was quite good. Detail was also acceptable, with no signs of DNR. Yet, the PQ overall just wasn't particularly noteworthy compared to the best titles, such as those in Tier 1 or certainly Tier 0.


I guess the best way to describe it is a lack of eye candy.










I see this title is currently in Tier 1.75, which I think is too high.
*Tier Recommendation: 2.5*


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/15490605
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I neither have the time nor the energy nor the desire to post a detailed account of every placement in this thread. See the above reply. I count every single placement/suggestion/recommendation/vote/whateveryouwanttocallit. Rob said it best re: "weighting votes." If a title receives more than 3 or 4 placements, I lean more towards a general average. If there are only two recommendations, I'm inclined to favor the one with some detail of why they placed the title where they did. There are often "hit-and-run" placements, and most of the time, those are the outliers when the votes are tallied. I.E. - "HEY GUYS, MOVIE XXX KICKED A** - TIER 0!"



Thank you for posting this.


I think this post is a great example of why 99% of the people participating in this thread are happy to have you be the one who does the actual placements.


Thanks again for the hard work, and be sure to place X-Files: I Want To Believe in Tier 2.5, since my recommendation came after your post above saying you have completed all the new placements.


----------



## sleater

Thanks Suprslow for enlightening us about your 'process' a little. I am pleased to know that unlike some members suggest/claim, you do in fact read through all the posts in the thread.


Re: *The 40 Year Old Virgin*, I have both the DVD and BD of this title and can say without any hesitation that the BD is far superior. That being said, it is slightly worse than the two other Apatow Universal movies Knocked Up and Forgetting Sarah Marshall which I would place in the middle of Tier 3. If my fondness for the movie itself could influence my placement of its PQ, I would place The 40 Year Old Virgin in *Tier 3.75*. If I only alowed my eyes to influence me, it would be knocked down to *Tier 4.0*. It really is an over-processed and slightly soft looking transfer. Comparable to the likes of Hitch I suppose...


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15490673
> 
> *X-Files: I Want To Believe*
> 
> 
> Yes, I went ahead and rented this despite my better judgment. I was a big fan of the TV show back in the day. I was worried that I might be let down by this movie, and it would be nothing more than a chance to try and cash in on prior success. Well, the movie wasn't that bad, but it wasn't particularly good either.
> 
> 
> That also sums up my feelings on the PQ. This is one of those titles where there really isn't much to complain about in terms of anything being wrong with the transfer itself, but there is not too much to praise either.
> 
> 
> Contrast, shadow detail and blacks were all admirable. In fact, shadow detail was quite good. Detail was also acceptable, with no signs of DNR. Yet, the PQ overall just wasn't particularly noteworthy compared to the best titles, such as those in Tier 1 or certainly Tier 0.
> 
> 
> I guess the best way to describe it is a lack of eye candy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see this title is currently in Tier 1.75, which I think is too high.
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.5*



Ummm....I think we have a vast difference of opinion here Rob.







I kid, I kid. We are seeing the same thing, but I did feel or see rather some of it as only good as upconverted DVD.







Here is my post from when I rated it a week or so ago:

_*X Files: I want to believe: tier 2.5*


I thought the PQ was mediocre on this film and that went along with the acting and story. Some times the PQ was not much better than upconverted DVD._


----------



## Hughmc

*Righteous Kill: Tier 0*


I thought this BD video looked incredible overall. It has some of the best, off the charts facial detail I have seen on any BD. I really think this title could be tier 0 and I am recommending it regardless of the following. There are about 1/2 dozen or so scenes with director's intent that use a Closed Circuit camera, "worse" than VHS quality look or is it. Although intentional it somehow still looks good. I am really having a tough time dinging for director's intent here seeing the whole BD looks so good and really good enough to give a run to the Pirates movies or Prince Caspian. I really like the look of this BD, so I see it as eye candy. The 3D look was strong and detail was incredible if ones looks at small details like clothing and other fine objects. There is also one other time there is some blurring or smearing of Al Pacino near the end on a closeup, but that is about the worst I seen and only saw that one time.


I could see this getting placed in tier 1 somewhere around the middle to top, but I see this as demo in many ways to show off ones display and how good BD can look, so I recommend tier 0.


I also wouldn't mind doing some of those things to Carla Gugino, not that extreme in reality of course, but man she looks yummy as always. When you see it you will see what I mean without giving anything more away. She alone is *eye candy*.







Just thinking about it...Ok, time to get the adrenaline in check.










Tonight's viewing, break out the bing, bang, bong. Pineapple Express.










I can't believe some of the new BD releases Hollywood Video got this week of which there are 5 or 6. Three have less than 10% rating on Rotten tomatoes.







Wow! What ****e Hollywood is putting out, the industry that is. Terrible.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15492237
> 
> 
> Ummm....I think we have a vast difference of opinion here Rob.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I kid, I kid. We are seeing the same thing, but I did feel or see rather some of it as only good as upconverted DVD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is my post from when I rated it a week or so ago:
> 
> _*X Files: I want to believe: tier 2.5*
> 
> 
> I thought the PQ was mediocre on this film and that went along with the acting and story. Some times the PQ was not much better than upconverted DVD._




So, I'm not sure if we agree or disagree!










We agree on Tier 2.5, but I certainly thought it looked better than upconverted DVD. A BD that looks like upconverted DVD would be no higher than the bottom of Tier 3...and more likely Tier 4 imo.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15492346
> 
> 
> So, I'm not sure if we agree or disagree!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We agree on Tier 2.5, but I certainly thought it looked better than upconverted DVD. A BD that looks like upconverted DVD would be no higher than the bottom of Tier 3...and more likely Tier 4 imo.




It certainly didn't all look like upconverted DVD, to clarify just at times and certainly less than more, but overall I thought the BD PQ was flat or average. Somehow we still see the same recommending 2.5 so that says something. I think when I reviewed it I was thinking it was a low tier 1 or top tier 2 and then the times it looked mediocre or like unconverted DVD was why I knocked it down further. I could see this title in lower tier 2 or even upper 3, but will stick with 2.5.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15492386
> 
> 
> I could see this title in lower tier 2 or even upper 3, but will stick with 2.5.



Man, that's harsh Hugh!


I don't believe there were many reviews on this title. I know I voted for either 1.75 or 2.0, and then Phantom, who was really impressed with it, recommended the 3rd quarter of tier 1 (I think that would mean 1.5). At any rate, it was finally placed at 1.75 and now with you and Rob thinking 2.5 it may very well go down another level (perhaps 2.0 or 2.25). But tier 3 would be a travesty, IMO.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

At worst I consider _X-Files:I Want To Believe_ a 2.0 or 2.25 title. Granted it is not a very flashy image but everything about it is solidly above average in all dimensions for picture quality. It looked much better on Blu-ray than my multiple theatrical viewings of the movie.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15492559
> 
> 
> Man, that's harsh Hugh!
> 
> 
> I don't believe there were many reviews on this title. I know I voted for either 1.75 or 2.0, and then Phantom, who was really impressed with it, recommended the 3rd quarter of tier 1 (I think that would mean 1.5). At any rate, it was finally placed at 1.75 and now with you and Rob thinking 2.5 it may very well go down another level (perhaps 2.0 or 2.25). But tier 3 would be a travesty, IMO.



I just glanced at the Chris Botti BD I picked up mainly for the 96khz/24bit PCM track and the video is indeed crappy. 1080i maybe part of the problem with deinterlacing etc, but it is terrible PQ and it looks like DVD at times. I can see why it is tier 3 bronze and that could even be lower, but comparing Chris Botti to what I remember about the X files, I do now think tier 3 would be harsh for the X files. Chris Botti may need to be moved down lower







, but I see that title as not too controversial or pivotal, so to be blunt, I don't really care that much as where it is now is fine.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15492570
> 
> 
> At worst I consider _X-Files:I Want To Believe_ a 2.0 or 2.25 title. Granted it is not a very flashy image but everything about it is solidly above average in all dimensions for picture quality. It looked much better on Blu-ray than my multiple theatrical viewings of the movie.




It seems most of what I am seeing now on BD makes the theatre pale, which is good for us, but bad for cinema viewing, hence just one of many reasons I don't go to the theatre anymore. Home is tough to beat for pauses for bathroom breaks alone.










I also know that if I watch a mediocre or poor title after having watched a tier 0 or tier 1 title, the aforementioned title probably gets a harsher opinion from me about it in contrast and comparison simply by default of having watched a better looking BD. I cannot remember, but this may have been the case with X files, since I viewed quite a few good titles around that time. Hellboy 2, DK, and a few others.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15490588
> 
> 
> Draft #2 (comments, concerns, grammar, ideas, etc. welcomed)
> 
> 
> Note: For the purposes of this tier system, when evaluating the visual quality of each Blu-ray we do not take director's intent into consideration. This list represents an absolute ranking system where every commercially available Blu-ray's picture quality is directly compared against every other release. Consult the thread itself for further questions.
> 
> *Tier Zero (Blu)*
> _The Blu-rays in this tier represent the best picture quality currently possible on the format. They are all demo discs that one could use to impress the uninitiated into what is possible on Blu-ray visually. Without question these Blu-rays represent a quantum leap in picture quality in comparison to the best dvds and a significant advantage over average looking Blu-rays. Every single Blu-ray in this tier consistently demonstrates a reference quality high-definition image to the viewer. These transfers continue to impress visually at very close viewing distances (i.e., approximately 1.5 screen widths from your display) and on larger projection screens over 100.
> 
> 
> A Blu-ray in tier zero will typically exhibit the following characteristics in general, though it should be remembered these are only guides to evaluating picture quality and not prerequisites for placement in tier zero:
> 
> 
> An artifact-free video compression encoding that shows virtually no signs of chroma noise, banding, posterization, aliasing, macroblocking, compression noise, etc.
> 
> 
> Superior high frequency information that is easily visible; including but not limited to: ultra-fine detail in general like the cloth and fabric texture of clothing, fully resolved hair from both animals and humans, human facial and skin texture visible down to the pores, *consistently superior small object detail and background information.* For animated material the image will demonstrate photo-realistic qualities at times with exquisitely rendered details.
> 
> 
> A razor-sharp but unprocessed image that looks real in its best moments with excellent focus. There will be a palpable sense of depth and dimensionality to the picture that will give the optical illusion of three-dimensionality at times. This quality makes objects in the foreground appear closer to the viewer than objects in the background, colloquially known as pop to videophiles and enthusiasts. All visible objects in the image will be clearly delineated but sharpness can vary in the frame at any one time if there is a particular focus to the image.
> 
> 
> Black levels that are perfect or near perfection, with the best shadow detail and a deep and uniformly solid consistency to black-colored objects in the image. Color palettes may vary but typically primary colors in this tier will jump off the screen in a dynamic way that appears stunning. Color tonality and fidelity are as good as they can appear in this format. More sophisticated color schemes will be completely resolved down to subtle gradations of each hue and shade of the color gamut.
> 
> 
> A transfer free of excessive post-processing of the original film negative or source master elements that visibly degrades the image; including but not limited to: visible halos as a result of edge enhancement or other causes like photo-chemical manipulation, any digital noise reduction process or filtering that results in a noticeable impact on the grain structure of the image (e.g., shifting grain that freezes and does not move like film grain should appear in motion), alteration of the originally intended aspect ratio or viewable image area without the director's approval.
> 
> 
> The transfer of the Blu-ray will be sourced from a master with virtually zero visible flaws or anomalies. This entails an image free and clear of print damage, dirt, specks, cue marks, telecine wobble, and other flaws that should be absent from a new and pristine transfer of source material in excellent condition._



The only part I think maybe an issue IMO is what I highlighted in bolded red. I say this because the part about background information being consistently superior, I don't know if many BD's even in tier 0 exhibit that description. I could be looking at it wrong and thinking it means something less than I am thinking it does, but I am a bit concerned about that one part. If someone could clarify or explain better how our current tier 0 rankings reflect that descriptor I would appreciate it as to help me understand better. Many times if not all the time I see background detail on even the best BD's blurred or hard to render when close up shots are so detailed and have that "pop". Are we talking about this kind of thing, links below? How does it relate to what I am asking, if it even does?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jo...with_Bokeh.jpg 


from this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15490588
> 
> 
> Draft #2 (comments, concerns, grammar, ideas, etc. welcomed)
> 
> 
> Note: For the purposes of this tier system, when evaluating the visual quality of each Blu-ray we do not take director's intent into consideration. This list represents an absolute ranking system where every commercially available Blu-ray's picture quality is directly compared against every other release. Consult the thread itself for further questions.
> 
> *Tier Zero (Blu)*
> _The Blu-rays in this tier represent the best picture quality currently possible on the format. They are all demo discs that one could use to impress the uninitiated into what is possible on Blu-ray visually. Without question these Blu-rays represent a quantum leap in picture quality in comparison to the best dvds and a significant advantage over average looking Blu-rays. Every single Blu-ray in this tier consistently demonstrates a reference quality high-definition image to the viewer. These transfers continue to impress visually at very close viewing distances (i.e., approximately 1.5 screen widths from your display) and on larger projection screens over 100”.
> 
> 
> A Blu-ray in tier zero will typically exhibit the following characteristics in general, though it should be remembered these are only guides to evaluating picture quality and not prerequisites for placement in tier zero:
> 
> 
> An artifact-free video compression encoding that shows virtually no signs of chroma noise, banding, posterization, aliasing, macroblocking, compression noise, etc.
> 
> 
> Superior high frequency information that is easily visible; including but not limited to: ultra-fine detail in general like the cloth and fabric texture of clothing, fully resolved hair from both animals and humans, human facial and skin texture visible down to the pores, consistently superior small object detail and background information. For animated material the image will demonstrate photo-realistic qualities at times with exquisitely rendered details.
> 
> 
> A razor-sharp but unprocessed image that looks real in its best moments with excellent focus. There will be a palpable sense of depth and dimensionality to the picture that will give the optical illusion of three-dimensionality at times. This quality makes objects in the foreground appear closer to the viewer than objects in the background, colloquially known as “pop” to videophiles and enthusiasts. All visible objects in the image will be clearly delineated but sharpness can vary in the frame at any one time if there is a particular focus to the image.
> 
> 
> Black levels that are perfect or near perfection, with the best shadow detail and a deep and uniformly solid consistency to black-colored objects in the image. Color palettes may vary but typically primary colors in this tier will jump off the screen in a dynamic way that appears stunning. Color tonality and fidelity are as good as they can appear in this format. More sophisticated color schemes will be completely resolved down to subtle gradations of each hue and shade of the color gamut.
> 
> 
> A transfer free of excessive post-processing of the original film negative or source master elements that visibly degrades the image; including but not limited to: visible halos as a result of edge enhancement or other causes like photo-chemical manipulation, any digital noise reduction process or filtering that results in a noticeable impact on the grain structure of the image (e.g., shifting grain that “freezes” and does not move like film grain should appear in motion), alteration of the originally intended aspect ratio or viewable image area without the director's approval.
> 
> 
> The transfer of the Blu-ray will be sourced from a master with virtually zero visible flaws or anomalies. This entails an image free and clear of print damage, dirt, specks, cue marks, telecine wobble, and other flaws that should be absent from a new and pristine transfer of source material in excellent condition._



I have read this through a few times and my first reaction is -- this is excellent. I am really impressed with your clarity and the way you have sifted and processed all of the suggestions into this piece. I have a few small suggestions -- can I give them to you tomorrow? If I can be of help to you on the glossary, please PM me and let me know how I can be of service. Thanks again for your excellent work!


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15492932
> 
> 
> The only part I think maybe an issue IMO is what I highlighted in bolded red. I say this because the part about background information being consistently superior, I don't know if many BD's even in tier 0 exhibit that description. I could be looking at it wrong and thinking it means something less than I am thinking it does, but I am a bit concerned about that one part. If someone could clarify or explain better how our current tier 0 rankings reflect that descriptor I would appreciate it as to help me understand better. Many times if not all the time I see background detail on even the best BD's blurred or hard to render when close up shots are so detailed and have that "pop". Are we talking about this kind of thing, links below? How does it relate to what I am asking, if it even does?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jo...with_Bokeh.jpg
> 
> 
> from this:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh



I have NEVER heard of the term bokeh, but what you are referring to with the background out of focus or "blurred" is simply depth of field. DOP depends on the length of the lens and its focal point, there are other factors involved but I'll try not to get too crazy.


For example, that picture you posted was shot on an extremely long lens and has a very shallow depth of field, it squeezes the background toward the subject in focus. You can tell this by how 'blurry' the background is. The longer the lens, the less depth of field it has, meaning the less it can keep in focus.


For landscape shots and shots needing a lot of stuff in focus, you will use a shorter lens that has a larger depth of field that can keep more in focus.


Hope this helps.


----------



## selimsivad

What do you guys think about the bokeh in Revolver? Without it, I don't think I could have finished the movie! In fact, it *WAS* the movie!


----------



## stumlad

Phantom:


In addition to the other things you've mentioned, another way to describe "razor sharp" perhaps: A title that consistently maximizes the full resolution of the blu-ray format (1920x1080). This is what I think separates a Tier 2.0 perfect encode from a Tier 0 perfect encode.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15494555
> 
> 
> This is what I think separates a Tier 2.0 perfect encode from a Tier 0 perfect encode.










If it doesn't consistently maximize the resolution of Blu-ray, how can an encode be considered "perfect"?


----------



## HT.1

Wow

First I want to say WOW! I love this thread!









This is a great thread! I have been following it for quite a while now and have even bought a few movies because of some of the recommendations of this thread. So for that, I say thanks!


----------



## chumpy

Whomever said Band of Brothers is a 2.0 is crazy. I just finished watching it for the third time since I purchased it on Blu-ray and it is easily a 1.0 if not a 0.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chumpy* /forum/post/15494780
> 
> 
> Whomever said Band of Brothers is a 2.0 is crazy. I just finished watching it for the third time since I purchased it on Blu-ray and it is easily a 1.0 if not a 0.



If this were the Artistic Intent thread, I'd agree with you, but here in gleaming spit-shined land, I think 2.0 is pretty appropriate. You must acknowledge the picture is pretty grainy. Delicious? Yes. _This_ thread-approved? Not so much.


----------



## chumpy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15494920
> 
> 
> If this were the Artistic Intent thread, I'd agree with you, but here in gleaming spit-shined land, I think 2.0 is pretty appropriate. You must acknowledge the picture is pretty grainy. Delicious? Yes. _This_ thread-approved? Not so much.



You must be sitting a foot away from the TV then because I never saw any grain...


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chumpy* /forum/post/15494950
> 
> 
> You must be sitting a foot away from the TV then because I never saw any grain...



1.7 feet, to be precise.


----------



## chumpy

 http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screen...151&position=1 


That's the grainiest picture I have ever seen. Heck I can't even watch it it's so grainy...Grainy...Grainy...Grainy. I love that word.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15490588
> 
> 
> Draft #2 (comments, concerns, grammar, ideas, etc. welcomed)
> 
> 
> Note: For the purposes of this tier system, when evaluating the visual quality of each Blu-ray we do not take director's intent into consideration. This list represents an absolute ranking system where every commercially available Blu-ray's picture quality is directly compared against every other release. Consult the thread itself for further questions.
> 
> *Tier Zero (Blu)*
> _The Blu-rays in this tier represent the best picture quality currently possible on the format. They are all demo discs that one could use to impress the uninitiated into what is possible on Blu-ray visually. Without question these Blu-rays represent a quantum leap in picture quality in comparison to the best dvds and a significant advantage over average looking Blu-rays. Every single Blu-ray in this tier consistently demonstrates a reference quality high-definition image to the viewer. These transfers continue to impress visually at very close viewing distances (i.e., approximately 1.5 screen widths from your display) and on larger projection screens over 100”.
> 
> 
> A Blu-ray in tier zero will typically exhibit the following characteristics in general, though it should be remembered these are only guides to evaluating picture quality and not prerequisites for placement in tier zero:
> 
> 
> An artifact-free video compression encoding that shows virtually no signs of chroma noise, banding, posterization, aliasing, macroblocking, compression noise, etc.
> 
> 
> Superior high frequency information that is easily visible; including but not limited to: ultra-fine detail in general like the cloth and fabric texture of clothing, fully resolved hair from both animals and humans, human facial and skin texture visible down to the pores, consistently superior small object detail and background information. For animated material the image will demonstrate photo-realistic qualities at times with exquisitely rendered details.
> 
> 
> A razor-sharp but unprocessed image that looks real in its best moments with excellent focus. There will be a palpable sense of depth and dimensionality to the picture that will give the optical illusion of three-dimensionality at times. This quality makes objects in the foreground appear closer to the viewer than objects in the background, colloquially known as “pop” to videophiles and enthusiasts. All visible objects in the image will be clearly delineated but sharpness can vary in the frame at any one time if there is a particular focus to the image.
> 
> 
> Black levels that are perfect or near perfection, with the best shadow detail and a deep and uniformly solid consistency to black-colored objects in the image. Color palettes may vary but typically primary colors in this tier will jump off the screen in a dynamic way that appears stunning. Color tonality and fidelity are as good as they can appear in this format. More sophisticated color schemes will be completely resolved down to subtle gradations of each hue and shade of the color gamut.
> 
> 
> A transfer free of excessive post-processing of the original film negative or source master elements that visibly degrades the image; including but not limited to: visible halos as a result of edge enhancement or other causes like photo-chemical manipulation, any digital noise reduction process or filtering that results in a noticeable impact on the grain structure of the image (e.g., shifting grain that “freezes” and does not move like film grain should appear in motion), alteration of the originally intended aspect ratio or viewable image area *without the director's approval*.
> 
> 
> The transfer of the Blu-ray will be sourced from a master with virtually zero visible flaws or anomalies. This entails an image free and clear of print damage, dirt, specks, cue marks, telecine wobble, and other flaws that should be absent from a new and pristine transfer of source material in excellent condition._




I question the comments in red because it brings into the equation of, Directors Intent.

I can see a big issue with this portion of the description, if these comments are approved.

If I am off base, please enlighten me.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HT.1* /forum/post/15494627
> 
> 
> Wow
> 
> First I want to say WOW! I love this thread!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a great thread! I have been following it for quite a while now and have even bought a few movies because of some of the recommendations of this thread. So for that, I say thanks!



Welcome HT.1.

I see you have been a member for a few years now...

Ever been to a MEMI meet?


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15494608
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it doesn't consistently maximize the resolution of Blu-ray, how can an encode be considered "perfect"?



Easily. If the blu-ray doesn't have 1080p detail, but matches the source perfectly, then it's still a perfect encode right? Think 28 days later and some new releases that just dont have the fine object detail that higher tier titles have.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chumpy* /forum/post/15494950
> 
> 
> You must be sitting a foot away from the TV then because I never saw any grain...



Are you joking?


If not, check out this thread:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...=band+brothers


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chumpy* /forum/post/15494950
> 
> 
> You must be sitting a foot away from the TV then because I never saw any grain...



I am watching BoB right now.









I am only on disc two and am very impressed with what I am seeing thus far. Before I started watching it at home, I had only seen portions of BoB demoing on the array of flat screens at Best Buy. In that situation it appeared extremely grainy. However, on my Sony VW60, it is on another level altogether. The video looks much more impressive.

I guess that is just a great example of how someone's display can affect their opinions of a movie.









Until I get through the entire series, I'll reserve my opinion.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15495374
> 
> 
> Easily. If the blu-ray doesn't have 1080p detail, but matches the source perfectly, then it's still a perfect encode right? Think 28 days later and some new releases that just dont have the fine object detail that higher tier titles have.



Ah, I get you. So, a good encode of 'Hoop Dreams', for example.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/15490605
> 
> 
> I've compiled all the placements/recommendations through this post. And holy hell I have a headache after the last few pages
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think there are a few things I should address. Most of the discussion has been settled, and there's no need to dredge up those subjects.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These statements couldn't be any further from the truth. I'm sorry if you feel this way, but every single recommendation is read and counted. I, and others, would appreciate it if blanket statements such as these are not made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I neither have the time nor the energy nor the desire to post a detailed account of every placement in this thread. See the above reply. I count every single placement/suggestion/recommendation/vote/whateveryouwanttocallit. Rob said it best re: "weighting votes." If a title receives more than 3 or 4 placements, I lean more towards a general average. If there are only two recommendations, I'm inclined to favor the one with some detail of why they placed the title where they did. There are often "hit-and-run" placements, and most of the time, those are the outliers when the votes are tallied. I.E. - "HEY GUYS, MOVIE XXX KICKED A** - TIER 0!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not ignoring your post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll post a quick summary of my normal routine. I expect to be out most of the day tomorrow, but should have some time tomorrow afternoon/evening.
> 
> 
> 
> Also, I'd like to thank Phantom for volunteering to rewrite the descriptions. They are in desperate need of a rewrite, and who better than our resident journalist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know the source of those original descriptions...I think Austin copied them from the original Tier thread. I honestly have no idea. I'm looking forward to seeing what Phantom comes up with. Looks like we're off to a great start with Tier 0.
> 
> 
> Remember...*constructive* criticism helps, and that doesn't just apply to rewriting the descriptions.



Hmmm...

I am not saying you should put in a detailed written account of every placement in this thread.

All I am asking is that you take what you are currently using to keep track of each members recommendation of placement of a title and copy/paste it in one post, once you make a thread adjustment.

Or are you going by memory on everything and simply don’t have things documented?

You must have some documentation of what people recommend… and the weight you gave each vote... don’t you? If so, just put it in the post.


I just figured as long as we are making adjustments to this thread, why not add this as well?

Besides, I would think the transparency would be great for the thread.


----------



## chumpy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15495431
> 
> 
> Are you joking?
> 
> 
> If not, check out this thread:
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...=band+brothers



Nice thread and I would say Mr. Hanky about sums it all up correctly on page 8:


"In these shots, the quality of the noise is very close in the visible levels and slightly more aggressively scrubbed in the less-visible extreme levels on the br. Macroblock artifacts are kept to a minimum in the hdvd, but the br goes just that extra step to take compression artifacts to a nearly nonexistent level. Some have said the hdvd seems just a tad more "sharp", but the reality may be that the detail is pretty much the same in either, but the increased strength of block artifacts in the hdvd may be just enough to make it seem sharper.


In that sense, the br version should not be so unwelcome by anyone who seeks a representative rendition of this video series. It's still got the noise, detail is intact (compared to any other version you could get your hands on), and compression artifact strength is nicely pushed to the edge of nonexistence.


Just my 2 cts."


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chumpy* /forum/post/15494950
> 
> 
> You must be sitting a foot away from the TV then because I never saw any grain...



there is a lot of grain in the dark scenes. I'm not complaining, but it's true.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chumpy* /forum/post/15495668
> 
> 
> Nice thread and I would say Mr. Hanky about sums it all up correctly on page 8:
> 
> 
> "In these shots, the quality of the noise is very close in the visible levels and slightly more aggressively scrubbed in the less-visible extreme levels on the br. Macroblock artifacts are kept to a minimum in the hdvd, but the br goes just that extra step to take compression artifacts to a nearly nonexistent level. Some have said the hdvd seems just a tad more "sharp", but the reality may be that the detail is pretty much the same in either, but the increased strength of block artifacts in the hdvd may be just enough to make it seem sharper.
> 
> 
> In that sense, the br version should not be so unwelcome by anyone who seeks a representative rendition of this video series. It's still got the noise, detail is intact (compared to any other version you could get your hands on), and compression artifact strength is nicely pushed to the edge of nonexistence.
> 
> 
> Just my 2 cts."



I guess I'm confused as to what you're trying to say? It seemed as if you were saying "Band of Brothers is not grainy"


The pictures in that thread are pretty good evidence to support that it in fact is a grain heavy title (even the DVD). Some scenes have more grain than others. Some of the shots in Austria hardly have any... It's based on the feel they were trying to convey.


In no way is all of this grain a "bad thing", but for the purpose of this thread, Band of Brothers "eye candy" level does not meet the criteria for a Tier 0 title. IMO, it's a visually stunning show, but based on the criteria of the thread, I'd say 1.75 or 1.5 max. I believe its current 2.0 rating is too low. If you're talking about Tier 1.0 or 1.25, then you're competing with titles that are more aesthetically pleasing.


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15495374
> 
> 
> Easily. If the blu-ray doesn't have 1080p detail, but matches the source perfectly, then it's still a perfect encode right? Think 28 days later and some new releases that just dont have the fine object detail that higher tier titles have.



I agree but I also accept the purpose of this thread.


It's for showing off your HT to guests. And perfect encodes of 16mm films are not eye candy.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/15495932
> 
> 
> I agree but I also accept the purpose of this thread.
> 
> 
> It's for showing off your HT to guests. And perfect encodes of 16mm films are not eye candy.



That was my point. We can have a perfect encode with no macro-blocking, ringing, DNR, etc, but it may not maximize the full 1920x1080 resolution of blu-ray which means, in this particular thread, it's not Tier 0 worthy. If you backtrack in the thread, you'll see what I was originally trying to say.


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15496028
> 
> 
> That was my point. We can have a perfect encode with no macro-blocking, ringing, DNR, etc, but it may not maximize the full 1920x1080 resolution of blu-ray which means, in this particular thread, it's not Tier 0 worthy. If you backtrack in the thread, you'll see what I was originally trying to say.



ah sorry, I misread your meaning.


----------



## rsbeck

Band of Brothers


There are plenty of titles in the upper tiers with grain evident. The assessment criteria, as they are right now, specifically mention avoiding titles with excessive DNR and to look for titles that are "film-like" and appear real.


The new criteria being written now also caution about titles with excessive DNR. The reason for this is that DNR removes grain and detail along with it.


There is nothing wrong with grain, grain is the best evidence that a title has not suffered excessive DNR and we have plenty of titles in the upper tiers with grain evident. One of the pleasures of blu-ray is that the higher resolution allows you to see the grain so that blu-ray can look like film whereas DVD with its lower resolution cannot.


So, there's absolutely no reason grain should keep Band of Brothers from the upper tiers.


IMO, anyone who tells you different has misunderstood the assessment criteria here.


If the title looks good to you and you consider it eye candy, you can recommend accordingly.


Wanted is a recent title with grain evident throughout that many of us recently recommended for tier 1.25.


Band of Brothers is certainly eye candy to me, partly because of the grain. There might be a few things that keep me from recommending tier 0, but grain isn't one of them. I will have no problem recommending it for mid to upper tier 1 if the quality continues through the remaining episodes.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15493726
> 
> 
> I have NEVER heard of the term bokeh, but what you are referring to with the background out of focus or "blurred" is simply depth of field. DOP depends on the length of the lens and its focal point, there are other factors involved but I'll try not to get too crazy.













Your username is LB"FILM"Guy and you have NEVER heard of the term "bokeh"?!?!?


Your statement that bokeh is merely referring to depth of field is not exactly accurate. Bokeh specifically refers to the _*out-of-focus areas of the image*_.


By complete contrast, depth of field refers to the portion of the image _*that appears sharp (in focus)*_.


Bokeh can play a fairly important part in the overall look of an image, and can really add to the feeling of depth by making the subject stand out from the blurred background.


Some photographers pay a lot of money for a lens that has that magical "creamy" bokeh, such as the legendary Nikkor 85mm f1.4 lens.









http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15497301
> 
> 
> There are plenty of titles in the upper tiers with grain evident. The assessment criteria, as they are right now, specifically mention avoiding titles with excessive DNR and to look for titles that are "film-like" and appear real.
> 
> 
> The new criteria being written now also caution about titles with excessive DNR.
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with grain, grain is the best evidence that a title has not suffered excessive DNR and we have plenty of titles in the upper tiers with grain evident.
> 
> 
> So, there's no reason grain should keep Band of Brothers from the upper tiers.
> 
> 
> If the title looks good to you and you consider it eye candy, you can recommend accordingly.
> 
> 
> Wanted is a recent title with grain evident throughout that many of us recently recommended for tier 1.25.
> 
> 
> Band of Brothers is certainly eye candy to me, partly because of the grain, and I will have no problem recommending it for mid to upper tier 1 if the quality continues through the remaining episodes.



There are plenty of titles with grain that are recommended very high, but there are a lot of parts in Band of Brothers where the grain is really heavy (and thick) and for demo-purposes, you wouldnt show those scenes which is why I believe it gets a knock. Some dark scenes are very grainy as well -- which is the reason why Lost S3 isn't in Tier 0 according to many... generally speaking, Lost is a more visually eye-pleasing. This is why I can't place BoB in Tier 1.25 or tier 1.0 -- my opinion of course...I'm just clarifying because I don't want it to seem that I dislike the grain... i truly think it was wonderfully done and wish that there wasnt any filtering applied by Warner.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15497301
> 
> 
> titles that are "film-like" and appear real.



Aren't these contradictory terms? Not that film cannot suggest aspects of reality, but to the extent that we are _aware_ that something is "film-like", aren't we necessarily referring to aspects of the picture which _differentiate it_ from reality? To my mind, the term "film-like" refers to things like photographic (as opposed to ocular) exposure levels, the appearance of grain and frame-rate-derived motion artifacts- all things which contribute to the picture appearing _un_real.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15497532
> 
> 
> There are plenty of titles with grain that are recommended very high, but there are a lot of parts in Band of Brothers where the grain is really heavy (and thick) and for demo-purposes, you wouldnt show those scenes which is why I believe it gets a knock. Some dark scenes are very grainy as well -- which is the reason why Lost S3 isn't in Tier 0 according to many... generally speaking, Lost is a more visually eye-pleasing. This is why I can't place BoB in Tier 1.25 or tier 1.0 -- my opinion of course...I'm just clarifying because I don't want it to seem that I dislike the grain... i truly think it was wonderfully done and wish that there wasnt any filtering applied by Warner.



Since there is so much grain remaining, I don't know how much filtering was done, I can only judge the results, which are beautiful. I've only watched the first two episodes, so maybe I haven't seen some problem scenes that you mention, but I have seen lower light scenes with grain apparent and I have found them consistent with a film-like look with grain intact.


I have not seen Lost so I cannot comment, but if it was dinged simply because of grain, that's still an individual judgment call. If others don't like the grain, that's their opinion and they are entitled to it, but there's no reason anyone else has to adopt that opinion or recommend according to someone else's taste.


Like I say, I have seen issues that would keep it out of tier 0 or tier 1.0, but unless I see something in the remaining episodes, I am thinking somewhere between 1.25 and 1.5.


----------



## b_scott

check out the scenes in and under foxholes - you'll see what I mean.


I think it deserves to be mid-Tier 1 for this thread's purposes.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15497690
> 
> 
> Since there is so much grain remaining, I don't know how much filtering was done, I can only judge the results, which are beautiful. I've only watched the first two episodes, so maybe I haven't seen some problem scenes that you mention, but I have seen lower light scenes with grain apparent and I have found them consistent with a film-like look with grain intact.
> 
> 
> I have not seen Lost so I cannot comment, but if it was dinged simply because of grain, that's still an individual judgment call. If others don't like the grain, that's their opinion and they are entitled to it, but there's no reason anyone else has to adopt that opinion or recommend according to someone else's taste.
> 
> 
> Like I say, I have seen issues that would keep it out of tier 0 or tier 1.0, but unless I see something in the remaining episodes, I am thinking somewhere between 1.25 and 1.5.



I am in the same spot on BoB and I do agree with this assessment.

I don't think I can give it a tier0 ranking from what I have seen thus far. But to be far and balanced, I need to watch the whole series before jumping to conclusions.

For what it is worth, BoB has been everything everyone has said it would be... and then some.


----------



## HT.1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/15495357
> 
> 
> Welcome HT.1.
> 
> I see you have been a member for a few years now...
> 
> Ever been to a MEMI meet?



Thanks...







What is a HEMI meet?


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15492932
> 
> 
> The only part I think maybe an issue IMO is what I highlighted in bolded red. I say this because the part about background information being consistently superior, I don't know if many BD's even in tier 0 exhibit that description. I could be looking at it wrong and thinking it means something less than I am thinking it does, but I am a bit concerned about that one part.



It will be amended in the next revision.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15493398
> 
> 
> I have read this through a few times and my first reaction is -- this is excellent. I am really impressed with your clarity and the way you have sifted and processed all of the suggestions into this piece. I have a few small suggestions -- can I give them to you tomorrow? If I can be of help to you on the glossary, please PM me and let me know how I can be of service. Thanks again for your excellent work!



That sounds fine.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15494555
> 
> 
> Phantom:
> 
> In addition to the other things you've mentioned, another way to describe "razor sharp" perhaps: A title that consistently maximizes the full resolution of the blu-ray format (1920x1080). This is what I think separates a Tier 2.0 perfect encode from a Tier 0 perfect encode.



Good suggestion and I will incorporate the idea into the next revision.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/15495307
> 
> 
> I question the comments in red because it brings into the equation of, Directors Intent.
> 
> I can see a big issue with this portion of the description, if these comments are approved.
> 
> If I am off base, please enlighten me.



The only real exception to the rule of ignoring director's intent for me is the alteration of the originally composed image or aspect ratio. Most films are carefully shot and prepared for a certain composition and framing of the image by the director or cinematographer, and the deviating from the intended aspect ratio usually turns out disastrous on the overall impact of the image quality. This information is widely available most of the time on every Blu-ray release, so I think this should be added. We do not have to be dogmatic about this but I thought it might inform new readers better.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15499998
> 
> 
> 
> The only real exception to the rule of ignoring director's intent for me is the alteration of the originally composed image or aspect ratio. Most films are carefully shot and prepared for a certain composition and framing of the image by the director or cinematographer, and the deviating from the intended aspect ratio usually turns out disastrous on the overall impact of the image quality. This information is widely available most of the time on every Blu-ray release, so I think this should be added. We do not have to be dogmatic about this but I thought it might inform new readers better.



Hmmm...

I don't think that was what this thread was originally about, but hey what ever you guys want to do... its your thread.

I can see your point about a movies aspect ratio, yes I can agree on that but the rest of the description...


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15499998
> 
> 
> The only real exception to the rule of ignoring director's intent for me is the alteration of the originally composed image or...



I think we are dangerously close to the film grain allowed thread and you are opening the doors to an awful lot of discrepancy.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HT.1* /forum/post/15498392
> 
> 
> Thanks...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is a HEMI meet?


*H*ome Theater *E*nthusiasts of *MI*ichigan.









We are a very active group usually averaging about 3 or 4 meets per year.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15497499
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your username is LB"FILM"Guy and you have NEVER heard of the term "bokeh"?!?!?
> 
> 
> Your statement that bokeh is merely referring to depth of field is not exactly accurate. Bokeh specifically refers to the _*out-of-focus areas of the image*_.
> 
> 
> By complete contrast, depth of field refers to the portion of the image _*that appears sharp (in focus)*_.
> 
> 
> Bokeh can play a fairly important part in the overall look of an image, and can really add to the feeling of depth by making the subject stand out from the blurred background.
> 
> 
> Some photographers pay a lot of money for a lens that has that magical "creamy" bokeh, such as the legendary Nikkor 85mm f1.4 lens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field



LOL I just now clicked that link and the first line reads this:


"Bokeh (derived from Japanese, a noun boke 暈け, meaning "blurred or fuzzy") is a photographic term referring to the appearance of out-of-focus areas in an image produced by a camera lens using a shallow depth of field."


That's exactly what I described, maybe you didn't read my entire post?










"Bokeh" has everything to do with DOP. Just because it refers to "just the background" doesn't mean it has nothing to do with DOP.


And it's a Japanese term, shouldn't be so shocking that a white boy who grew up in Southern California hasn't heard it.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Whoa whoa whoa...all this talk of BoB and no talk of the EE!?


I haven't watched it yet, but look at these screens...shouldn't this be hammered more than TDK?










Now that my eye is trained I am ruined











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *whitestang06* /forum/post/15486280
> 
> 
> Some more from Band of Brothers


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15501536
> 
> 
> LOL I just now clicked that link and the first line reads this:
> 
> 
> "Bokeh (derived from Japanese, a noun boke 暈け, meaning "blurred or fuzzy") is a photographic term referring to the appearance of out-of-focus areas in an image produced by a camera lens using a shallow depth of field."
> 
> 
> That's exactly what I described, maybe you didn't read my entire post?



Well, I admit that it is somewhat down to semantics, which is why I said that your statement was "not *exactly* accurate". In other words, to _create_ bokeh, you have to use a shallow depth of field. But shallow depth of field is not bokeh. As I said, depth of field actually refers to the sharp (in focus) area of the image, boken the blurry (out of focus area).



> Quote:
> "Bokeh" has everything to do with DOP. Just because it refers to "just the background" doesn't mean it has nothing to do with DOP.



What is DOP?


Do you mean DOF? If so, yes they are clearly related, since you need a shallow DOF in order to get the bokeh.


But again: DOF = sharp (in focus) part of image; Bokeh = blurry (out of focus) part of image.



> Quote:
> And it's a Japanese term, shouldn't be so shocking that a white boy who grew up in Southern California hasn't heard it.



Hey, I'm a white boy who grew up in SoCal too, but bokeh is a term that I have been familiar with for several years, but photography is one of my hobbies.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15501624
> 
> 
> Whoa whoa whoa...all this talk of BoB and no talk of the EE!?
> 
> 
> I haven't watched it yet, but look at these screens...shouldn't this be hammered more than TDK?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that my eye is trained I am ruined





I don't see any signs of obvious EE in those pictures.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15501624
> 
> 
> Whoa whoa whoa...all this talk of BoB and no talk of the EE!?



I figure the presence of distracting EE on a catalog release of a 2001 mini-series doesn't really merit the same amount of outrage as on a new release of TDK's magnitude (and every version of BoB, from the HD broadcasts to the HDDVD, has the EE present, so its probably too much to expect them to create a whole new master for the blu-ray release)


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15501650
> 
> 
> Well, I admit that it is somewhat down to semantics, which is why I said that your statement was "not *exactly* accurate". In other words, to _create_ bokeh, you have to use a shallow depth of field. But shallow depth of field is not bokeh. As I said, depth of field actually refers to the sharp (in focus) area of the image, boken the blurry (out of focus area).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is DOP?
> 
> 
> Do you mean DOF? If so, yes they are clearly related, since you need a shallow DOF in order to get the bokeh.
> 
> 
> But again: DOF = sharp (in focus) part of image; Bokeh = blurry (out of focus) part of image.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I'm a white boy who grew up in SoCal too, but bokeh is a term that I have been familiar with for several years, but photography is one of my hobbies.



LOL okay dude, you're splitting hairs now.


And yes I meant DOF not DOP.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15501706
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see any signs of obvious EE in those pictures.



What!? Look at the guys helmet strap in the first picture, the outline of the guys crouching down, then the guys entire face that is screaming (especially the left side by his mouth.)


If that's not EE, what is it?


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15501726
> 
> 
> I figure the presence of distracting EE on a catalog release of a 2001 mini-series doesn't really merit the same amount of outrage as on a new release of TDK's magnitude (and every version of BoB, from the HD broadcasts to the HDDVD, has the EE present, so its probably too much to expect them to create a whole new master for the blu-ray release)



Hmmmmm, EE is EE.


It's not like BoB was shot in 1980 on 16mm.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Is this an example of what you think is EE? Because that just looks like the lighting to me. If that was EE, you would see it in the rest of the image too. I don't.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15501779
> 
> 
> Is this an example of what you think is EE? Because that just looks like the lighting to me. If that was EE, you would see it in the rest of the image too. I don't.



I dunno dude, that doesn't look natural to me. Look a little further above it too.


And what about all the rest of the screens?


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Here is an example of where you would definitely see EE if it was applied, against a long hard edge, with contrasting light and dark colors. If it is present here, it is pretty minor.











By the way, are these actual screen grabs direct from the disc, or are these taken with a camera?


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15501794
> 
> 
> I dunno dude, that doesn't look natural to me. Look a little further above it too.
> 
> 
> And what about all the rest of the screens?


 http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/751_7_1080p.jpg 

the halos seem to be pretty subdued compared to some releases. I don't have the blu-rays so I couldn't say how consistently.


----------



## deltasun

Some bokeh's are definitely smoother than others. Case in point, the scene between Ms. Swann and Sao Feng in POTC:AWE has bokeh that is fairly grainy. But, the conversation between Denzel and Walken in Man on Fire is very smooth.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15501857
> 
> 
> Here is an example of where you would definitely see EE if it was applied, against a long hard edge, with contrasting light and dark colors. If it is present here, it is pretty minor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, are these actual screen grabs direct from the disc, or are these taken with a camera?



Again, what about the bright white light around his face? What is that?


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15501706
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see any signs of obvious EE in those pictures.



Me, neither.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15501868
> 
> http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/751_7_1080p.jpg
> 
> the halos seem to be pretty subdued compared to some releases. I don't have the blu-rays so I couldn't say how consistently.



Thanks for posting that. I would say that I am starting to see what _may_ be EE here, but as you say, very minor:


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15501925
> 
> 
> Again, what about the bright white light around his face? What is that?



Light?


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Well that is what I saw in the infamous police lineup scene in TDK, the white light outlining the officers...so if that wasn't the EE then where was it?


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15501985
> 
> 
> Light?



Okay...so then who has the screen of the EE in the police lineup from TDK?


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15501954
> 
> 
> Thanks for posting that. I would say that I am starting to see what _may_ be EE here, but as you say, very minor:



It's more evident around the gun barrel of the tank, and the underside of the machine gun mounted on the tank.


I'm guessing on the helmet shot, the fibers are being backlit and causing that glow.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15501929
> 
> 
> Me, neither.



That makes three of us!


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Well good it seems I don't have the eye for EE yet then










Still though, someone please post TDK shot of the lineup and show me where the EE is, cause what I saw in these BoB shots is what I saw there and thought was EE.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15502184
> 
> 
> Well good it seems I don't have the eye for EE yet then


 http://www.videophile.info/Guide_EE/Page_01.htm


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15502184
> 
> 
> Well good it seems I don't have the eye for EE yet then
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still though, someone please post TDK shot of the lineup and show me where the EE is, cause what I saw in these BoB shots is what I saw there and thought was EE.



EE is associated with "ringing" and "halos," but EE isn't the only thing that can cause ringing or halos, so even if we are able to spot this phenomenon, we should be careful about jumping to conclusions.


----------



## Hughmc

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hughmc
_The only part I think maybe an issue IMO is what I highlighted in bolded red. I say this because the part about background information being consistently superior, I don't know if many BD's even in tier 0 exhibit that description. I could be looking at it wrong and thinking it means something less than I am thinking it does, but I am a bit concerned about that one part._



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15499998
> 
> 
> It will be amended in the next revision.



Hi Phantom. Thanks for your diligence and response. Part of my comment was also a question for some or all of you to help educate me on how some of you take into account things like bokeh. There sure seems to be alot of bokeh used on BD's to really give that 3d pop to foreground images, but then what about the background if it is intentionally blurred to heighten contrast to make the foreground stand out? I don't ding for the blurry background I look at the entire frame/picture. If the foreground has that stunning pop and detail that some of the best BD's exhibit, but the background is blurry, I do sought of ignore the background since the foreground is "eye candy". It also depends from shot to shot, movie to movie my judgement if it is eye candy or not. How do you fellow tier thread members judge the bokeh affect? Do you ding a title if the background is blurry on shot where the foreground is stunning? Oh and vice versa can apply to as in what if the center is blurred, but the surrounding image is stunningly clear and detailed? The tv show on Starz HD, Crash, they use bokeh a lot where just the center of the frame is in focus. I understand the director going for a certain look, but in the case of Crash the way it is used I don't care for as most of the image is out of focus and I so want to seem more HD detail in each frame, but I can't.


----------



## SuprSlow

I've posted a partial update to the first post. Approx. 1/3 of the latest round of placements have been added.


I've also added a "Placement Holdings" section below the Tier listings. We'll use this space for any title movements into or out of Tiers 0 or 1. If a new title only has one vote for either of those tiers, it will go into the Holdings list. If an existing title is proposed to move out of 0 or 1, it will need a little support before that movement is made...same for moving a title into 0 or 1 from a lower tier. Hope this makes sense










By special request, we've also added another Tier

















I hear there's some football game on tonight...so I'll be watching that. More updates to come tomorrow.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15501954
> 
> 
> Thanks for posting that. I would say that I am starting to see what _may_ be EE here, but as you say, very minor:




I see very thin ringing in a couple of places in this shot. May or may not be due to EE, may or may not be distracting in motion from viewing position.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15502125
> 
> 
> It's more evident around the gun barrel of the tank, and the underside of the machine gun mounted on the tank.



Ah, correct you are (regarding under the machine gun). I don't think the EE around the main barrel is that much more obvious, but the machine gun is.











Ok, that's the last one, I promise!



> Quote:
> I'm guessing on the helmet shot, the fibers are being backlit and causing that glow.



Yes, or something similar.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15502462
> 
> 
> I see very thin ringing in a couple of places in this shot. May or may not be due to EE, may or may not be distracting in motion from viewing position.



Agreed on all counts.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15502129
> 
> 
> That makes three of us!



4










I never see EE/halos unless extremely obvious and/or pointed out to me. I don't believe it is always EE when some are so quick to claim it is. I mean no disrespect LBfilmguy, but you gave us a perfect example of what I see happening in those screen caps threads in this forum all to often. I think there are other issues causing what looks to be EE/halos, but many are quick to jump on the EE band wagon. I am not knocking those who are accurate when there really is EE, but I am calling into question the rush to judgment of characterization of EE when *NO ONE ACTUALLY KNOWS, BUT THEY ARE GUESSING.*


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15502551
> 
> 
> 4
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never see EE/halos unless extremely obvious and/or pointed out to me. I don't believe it is always EE when some are so quick to claim it is. I mean no disrespect LBfilmguy, but you gave us a perfect example of what I see happening in those screen caps threads in this forum all to often. I think there are other issues causing what looks to be EE/halos, but many are quick to jump on the EE band wagon. I am not knocking those who are accurate when there really is EE, but I am calling into question the rush to judgment of characterization of EE when *NO ONE ACTUALLY KNOWS, BUT THEY ARE GUESSING.*



I am just going by what I saw (or thought I saw in the police lineup shot of TDK.)


I still can't get over how anyone could notice EE at all unless it is glaringly obvious.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15490588
> 
> 
> Draft #2 (comments, concerns, grammar, ideas, etc. welcomed)
> 
> *Tier Zero (Blu)*
> 
> _The Blu-rays in this tier represent the best picture quality currently possible on the format. They are all demo discs that one could use to impress the uninitiated into what is possible on Blu-ray visually. Without question these Blu-rays represent a quantum leap in picture quality in comparison to the best dvds and a significant advantage over average looking Blu-rays. Every single Blu-ray in this tier consistently demonstrates a reference quality high-definition image to the viewer.
> _


_


Suggestion: Condense and shorten. Something like, "Titles in this tier can be used to demonstrate the ultimate in what can be achieved with blu-ray technology and consistently offer a reference quality high definition image to the viewer.





Quote:
These transfers continue to impress visually at very close viewing distances (i.e., approximately 1.5 screen widths from your display) and on larger projection screens over 100.

Click to expand...


This part is excellent. Gotta run for dinner. I'll have more later. Thanks!_


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/15502456
> 
> 
> I've posted a partial update to the first post. Approx. 1/3 of the latest round of placements have been added.
> 
> 
> I've also added a "Placement Holdings" section below the Tier listings. We'll use this space for any title movements into or out of Tiers 0 or 1. If a new title only has one vote for either of those tiers, it will go into the Holdings list. If an existing title is proposed to move out of 0 or 1, it will need a little support before that movement is made...same for moving a title into 0 or 1 from a lower tier. Hope this makes sense
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By special request, we've also added another Tier
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hear there's some football game on tonight...so I'll be watching that. More updates to come tomorrow.



Wow, you had me worried.







That is good stuff.







We needed another tier.! We could have an HDlite tier, kidding of course.







You could nickname it the PS tier.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15502551
> 
> 
> I think there are other issues causing what looks to be EE/halos, but many are quick to jump on the EE band wagon. I am not knocking those who are accurate when there really is EE, but I am calling into question the rush to judgment of characterization of EE when *NO ONE ACTUALLY KNOWS, BUT THEY ARE GUESSING.*



Some cases are very obvious but you are correct that some movies fall into a twilight area where it could EE or something else entirely.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15502575
> 
> 
> I am just going by what I saw (or thought I saw in the police lineup shot of TDK.)
> 
> 
> I still can't get over how anyone could notice EE at all unless it is glaringly obvious.




As I said I am clueless to EE, that is until I get a projector from what I am told.










Again, nothing personal LB, I just thought you thinking it was EE on the BoB screen shot is a good example to use, especially since it is so relevant of a topic on this forum and on this page. Thanks for understanding.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/15502456
> 
> 
> By special request, we've also added another Tier


----------



## Hughmc

If anyone could give feedback on my post # 8946 I would appreciate it as it would help me better understand parameters for PQ judgement that some of you are using or think about when qualifying PQ.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15502629
> 
> 
> As I said I am clueless to EE, that is until I get a projector from what I am told.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, nothing personal LB, I just thought you thinking it was EE on the BoB screen shot is a good example to use, especially since it is so relevant of a topic on this forum and on this page. Thanks for understanding.



For sure...like I said I looked and looked for it on TDK in that police lineup shot, and what I see in the BoB shots in what I saw on the legs of the police officers.


So when I saw it again here with BoB, I attributed it to EE. Like you said and I've said before, this is a common misconception.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15502575
> 
> *I still can't get over how anyone could notice EE at all unless it is glaringly obvious*.



You said it LB...I totally agree! And quite frankly, I don't even try to see EE anymore, unless someone posts a screenshot and says, "Here it is!"










Seriously though, we (you, me, and many others) can consider ourselves BLESSED for not having EEphobia.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/15502456
> 
> 
> By special request, we've also added another Tier










I think we might want to discuss dumping the unranked titles list from the first page. Anyone have problems with that? It has not been updated in a very long time and is so incomplete that it might confuse new readers.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15502439
> 
> 
> Hi Phantom. Thanks for your diligence and response. Part of my comment was also a question for some or all of you to help educate me on how some of you take into account things like bokeh. There sure seems to be alot of bokeh used on BD's to really give that 3d pop to foreground images, but then what about the background if it is intentionally blurred to heighten contrast to make the foreground stand out? I don't ding for the blurry background I look at the entire frame/picture. If the foreground has that stunning pop and detail that some of the best BD's exhibit, but the background is blurry, I do sought of ignore the background since the foreground is "eye candy". It also depends from shot to shot, movie to movie my judgement if it is eye candy or not. How do you fellow tier thread members judge the bokeh affect? Do you ding a title if the background is blurry on shot where the foreground is stunning? Oh and vice versa can apply to as in what if the center is blurred, but the surrounding image is stunningly clear and detailed?



Personally for my tastes it depends on how it is implemented on a title-to-title basis. I am more forgiving if the visual effect "works" well, though I guess there have to be limits.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15502575
> 
> 
> I still can't get over how anyone could notice EE at all unless it is glaringly obvious.



I like to sit closer to my TV than most...

i don't really look for halos when I watch movies, but if something seems "off" and unnatural about the image to my eyes, I almost always find them lurking around the edges.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15502727
> 
> 
> You said it LB...I totally agree! And quite frankly, I don't even try to see EE anymore, unless someone posts a screenshot and says, "Here it is!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously though, we (you, me, and many others) can consider ourselves BLESSED for not having EEphobia.



Exactly how I feel.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15502850
> 
> 
> I like to sit closer to my TV than most...
> 
> i don't really look for halos when I watch movies, but if something seems "off" and unnatural about the image to my eyes, I almost always find them lurking around the edges.



Yeah I remember giving you a hard time about that.










Can someone seriously post screens of the EE in TDK? Don't want to open the can of worms just want to see.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15502912
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone seriously post screens of the EE in TDK? Don't want to open the can of worms just want to see.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15502727
> 
> 
> You said it LB...I totally agree! And quite frankly, I don't even try to see EE anymore, unless someone posts a screenshot and says, "Here it is!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously though, we (you, me, and many others) can consider ourselves BLESSED for not having EEphobia.




I am one of the "blessed" as well as I just dont see it unless it is pointed out to me and I look for it which I dont do when simply enjoying a movie.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15502972



doesn't that shot look like crap in general bordering on DVD quality?


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15503181
> 
> 
> doesn't that shot look like crap in general bordering on DVD quality?



it's a close up of a small area of the frame.


----------



## Vegaz

*Supernatural Season 3*


There's not much bright color in the series,mostly a muted tone,but when it's there it pops. In particular the episode "Dream A Little Dream of Me". Seeing through the eyes of a vampire in "Fresh Blood" in all red is very nice. In the intentionally badly shot "Ghostfacers" episode (parodying reality TV shows and seems to have been shot with webcams/handycams except the intro and outro) the special effects really stand out.


Grainyness all the way through.


I know what softness is,whatever the opposite (good) of softness is (depth? sharpness?) this has lots of it,I really haven't seen better face detail in anything. Downright scary in the episode "Time is on My Side". Resulting facial damage from various brawls really comes through too. In one of the funniest scenes during "Mystery Spot" even the blood splatter is fairly detailed.


Blacks are very good and of course with the nature of the show there's a lot of them.


1:78:1 ratio


I vote for Gold 1.25


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Revision #3


Note: For the purposes of this tier system, when evaluating the visual aesthetic quality of each Blu-ray we do not take director's intent into consideration. This list represents an absolute ranking system where every commercially available Blu-ray's picture quality is directly compared against every other release. Consult the thread itself for further questions.

*Tier Zero (Blu)*
_The Blu-rays in this tier represent the best picture quality currently possible on the format and could all be considered reference material. One could use them as demo discs to impress the uninitiated into what is currently possible on Blu-ray visually. These Blu-rays represent a quantum leap in picture quality in comparison to the best dvds and a significant advantage over average looking Blu-rays. These transfers continue to impress visually at very close viewing distances (i.e., approximately 1.5 screen widths from your display) and on larger projection screens over 100”.


A Blu-ray in tier zero will typically exhibit the following characteristics in general, though it should be remembered these are only guides to evaluating picture quality and not prerequisites for placement in tier zero:


An artifact-free video compression encoding that shows virtually no signs of chroma noise, banding, posterization, aliasing, macroblocking, compression noise, etc.


Superior high frequency information that is easily visible; including but not limited to: ultra-fine detail in general like the cloth and fabric texture of clothing, fully resolved hair from both animals and humans down to the individual strands, human facial and skin textures visible down to the pores, consistently superior small object detail. For animated material, the image will demonstrate photo-realistic qualities at times with exquisitely rendered precision of the artificial environment.


A razor-sharp but unprocessed image that looks real in its best moments exhibiting excellent focus, delineation, and clarity. The image will utilize the maximum resolution of the Blu-ray format (1920x1080) consistently to its fullest extent. There will be a palpable sense of depth and dimensionality to the picture that will give the optical illusion of three-dimensionality at times. This quality makes objects in the foreground appear closer to the viewer than objects in the background, colloquially known as “pop” to videophiles and enthusiasts.


Black levels that are perfect or near perfection with the best shadow detail, and a deep and uniformly solid consistency to black-colored objects in the image. Color palettes may vary but typically primary colors in this tier will jump off the screen in a dynamic way that appears stunning. Color tonality and fidelity are as good as they can appear at this resolution. More sophisticated color schemes will be completely resolved, down to the subtle gradations of each hue and shade of the color gamut.


A transfer free of excessive post-processing of the original film negative or source master elements that visibly degrades the image; including but not limited to: visible halos as a result of edge enhancement or other causes such as photochemical manipulation, any digital noise reduction process or filtering that results in a noticeable impact on the grain structure of the image (e.g., shifting grain that “freezes” and does not move like film grain naturally should appear in motion), alteration of the originally intended aspect ratio or viewable image area.


The transfer of the Blu-ray will be sourced from a master with virtually zero visible flaws or anomalies. This entails an image free of print damage, dirt, specks, cue marks, telecine wobble, and other flaws that should be absent from a new and pristine transfer of source material in excellent condition._


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15503229
> 
> 
> it's a close up of a small area of the frame.



Exactly. Don't be mislead by how this very big blow up looks. For that matter, the EE is actually less noticeable while watching the movie than it is in that shot because that portion of the scene is so much smaller than it appears here.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15502341
> 
> 
> EE is associated with "ringing" and "halos," but EE isn't the only thing that can cause ringing or halos, so even if we are able to spot this phenomenon, we should be careful about jumping to conclusions.



Yeah... there are plenty of DVDs that exhibit halos/ringing and no EE was applied.... first one that comes to mind is Prince Caspian. Ringing, but no EE. Can it just be a compression issue?


If BoB had EE, it wasn't very apparent to me when I watched it. Not saying it wasnt there, just saying it wasn't something that I noticed.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15502014
> 
> 
> Okay...so then who has the screen of the EE in the police lineup from TDK?



You mean this: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post15178812 ?


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15503635
> 
> 
> You mean this: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post15178812 ?



That's Iron Man...


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15503555
> 
> 
> Exactly. Don't be mislead by how this very big blow up looks. For that matter, the EE is actually less noticeable while watching the movie than it is in that shot because that portion of the scene is so much smaller than it appears here.



Right, so how about some normal size shots that aren't blown up?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15503694
> 
> 
> Right, so how about some normal size shots that aren't blown up?



Dude, I'm done doing your work for you!


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15503712
> 
> 
> Dude, I'm done doing your work for you!













I just don't feel like looking through all 46 pages of that thread.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15503670
> 
> 
> That's Iron Man...



Wait for it to finish loading completely. It's the Dark Knight,but you see the iron man stuff because previous posts havent finished loading


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Uh oh, Wall E is here


----------



## rsbeck

*Phantom Stranger*


Suggested revision #4:


[snipped, see revision #5]


----------



## sleater




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15504756
> 
> *Phantom Stranger*
> 
> 
> Suggested revision #4:
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> Note: For the purposes of this tier system, when evaluating the visual aesthetic quality of each Blu-ray we do not take director's intent into consideration. This list represents an absolute ranking system where every commercially available Blu-ray's picture quality is directly compared against every other release. (Those who are interested may want to use the thread search feature to peruse the individual reviews that contributed to these placements.)
> 
> *Tier Zero (Blu)*
> 
> _Titles in this tier can be used to demonstrate the ultimate in what can be achieved with blu-ray software. They consistently offer a reference quality high definition image that continues to impress both at immersive viewing distances (i.e., approximately 1.5 screen widths from your display) and on larger projection screens over 100”.
> 
> 
> A Blu-ray in tier zero will typically exhibit the following characteristics:
> 
> 
> A razor-sharp, but natural looking image free of excessive post-processing including Edge Enhancement, halos, or ringing.
> 
> 
> A palpable sense of depth, density and presence that at times will give the illusion of three-dimensionality, a quality colloquially known as “pop” to videophiles and enthusiasts.
> 
> 
> Exquisite resolution of ultra-fine detail in general and including subtle variation and texture in surfaces, fabric and clothing, individual strands of hair, and human faces including imperfections and pores. Animated material will often demonstrate photo-realistic qualities with exquisitely rendered artificial environments.
> 
> 
> Excellent contrast, superb shadow detail, and deep and inky blacks without macroblocking.
> 
> 
> Resolution of the subtle gradations and hues of sophisticated color schemes. Primary colors will seem to jump off the screen in a dynamic way that can be stunning.
> 
> 
> A film based title will exhibit grain that appears intact, free of excessive digital noise reduction or any filtering that results in a noticeable impact including smeared, clay-like, or waxy looking faces, missing detail in general or grain that “freezes” and does not move naturally.
> 
> 
> No alteration from the originally intended aspect ratio or viewable image area.
> 
> 
> An artifact-free video compression encoding that shows virtually no signs of compression or chroma noise, *banding*, posterization, aliasing, etc.
> 
> 
> A transfer sourced from a master free of print damage, dirt, specks, cue marks, *telecine wobble*, and other flaws._



I really think this is a most excellent revision suggestion rsbeck, well done.


I bolded telecine wobble because it seems to me that this would be more dependent on the viewer's equipment - mainly the refresh rate their television/projector is operating at or player is outputting. And banding seems to plague certain television models but I suppose that it may be evident in an actual BD encode gone horribly wrong. I still do not know what posterization is but I researched it and yes, it would be a bad thing to have on a BD. Maybe these technical words can be linked to wikipedia or some other resource rather than someone having to come up with a glossary of terms. The less intimidating the first page is the more newcomers may feel 'qualified' to post a review.


I think this shorter version gets to the meat of the issues so to speak. Just I wouldn't want someone to penalize a film's PQ for banding or telecine wobble when these issues, in my mind, are much more dependent on the viewing equipment. But maybe they _could_ be present in badly encoded BDs, I just haven't witnessed this personally.


Great work though. For real.


EDIT: http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Posterization good for posterization enlightenment.


----------



## rsbeck

Thanks -- I went a little further. I figure we can always add some back if necessary.


----------



## rsbeck

*Phantom Stranger*


Suggested revision #5: The Fifth Cut is the Deepest.


---------------------------------------------------



Note: For the purposes of this tier system, when evaluating the visual aesthetic quality of each Blu-ray we do not take director's intent into consideration. This list represents an absolute ranking system where every commercially available Blu-ray's picture quality is directly compared against every other release. (Those who are interested may want to use the thread search feature to peruse the individual reviews that contributed to these placements.)

*Tier Zero (Blu)*

_Blu-ray titles in this tier consistently offer reference level demonstration quality high definition images that continue to impress both at immersive viewing distances (approximately 1.5 screen widths from display) and on larger projection screens over 100”.


A Blu-ray in tier zero will typically exhibit the following characteristics:


A razor-sharp image with a palpable sense of depth, "pop", density and presence that will often appear almost "3D".


Exquisite resolution of ultra-fine detail in general and including subtle variation in surface texture, fabric, individual strands of hair, and human faces down to the imperfections and pores. Animated material will often demonstrate photo-realistic qualities and will feature beautifully rendered environments.


Excellent contrast, superb shadow detail, and deep and inky blacks without macroblocking.


Sophisticated color schemes will be completely resolved, down to the subtle gradation and variation of each hue and shade. Primary colors will seem to "jump off the screen."


A film based title will; exhibit grain that moves naturally and appears intact, be free of excessive digital noise reduction or any filtering that results in a noticeable impact including smeared, clay-like, or waxy looking faces or missing detail in general.


"Halos" or "ringing" are either non-existent or not visible or frequent enough to be distracting while picture is viewed in motion from immersive viewing distances.


No alteration from the originally intended aspect ratio or viewable image area.


An artifact-free video compression encoding.


A transfer sourced from a master free of print damage._


----------



## patrick99

My personal "immersive viewing distance" is one screen width, not 1.5.


In general, I think the effort to tighten up the description is a move in the right direction.


----------



## sleater




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15505278
> 
> 
> in general, i think the effort to tighten up the description is a move in the right direction.



+1


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sleater* /forum/post/15505684
> 
> 
> +1



+2


I'm really impressed with revision #5....it addresses the main criteria without intimidating anyone.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15503803
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't feel like looking through all 46 pages of that thread.



All you need to do is look at page 1. That's where most of the screen grabs are posted.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15507007
> 
> 
> All you need to do is look at page 1. That's where most of the screen grabs are posted.



Or he can go to this link:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post15178812 


wait for all the images on the page to finish loading, and then he can see it there. Posted by cakefoo


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Death Race*


Wow, this is truly a superb looking title! The best that I have seen in quite some time.


This title excels in every important way in terms of "eye candy" except one: color. The backdrop is a prison that is on an island with one bridge leading to it. Everything is somewhat monochromatic, with few examples of bright colors.


That being said, everything else is fantastic. Black levels are deep which helps create excellent clarity and depth. Detail is also excellent with fine details on the actor’s skin, leather jackets and the interior of the prison all looking very impressive, with no signs of DNR at all.


In fact, there is a fine layer of grain present here, which tells me that the detail is being very well preserved.


Again, this title excels in the most important areas of PQ except color: detail, clarity, black level, depth and shadow detail.


The movie itself was WAY better than I expected. Don't get me wrong: the story itself is exactly what you would expect with a title like "Death Race", and there are virtually no surprises in that regard. However, how the story was told was done pretty well, with some decent acting, especially by Joan Allen (who looks pretty good here, but there is so much clarity and detail in this disc that you could see that her makeup was applied a bit on the thick side). Overall a fun "guilty pleasure".


I'm struggling a bit with placement on this one. I do have to consider Tier 0 here, but in the end I think it may fall just a tad short of that top ranking. That being said, I won't be surprised to see others recommend this title for Tier 0.
*Tier Recommendation: 1.0*


I think Universal is giving us some of the best looking new releases.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15507406
> 
> 
> This title excels in every important way in terms of "eye candy" except one: color. The backdrop is a prison that is on an island with one bridge leading to it. Everything is somewhat monochromatic, with few examples of bright colors.



Does it have to be The Wizard of Oz to qualify as "eye candy"? Obviously, a de-saturated movie can't show you what Blu-ray can do with color saturation, but then... a saturated movie can't show you what Blu-ray can do with de-saturation, either, can it?


I guess the question I'm getting at is "Does a title have to represent _everything_ that Blu-ray can do to be the best kind of demo material?" If the answer is yes, we may never find an ultimate demo disc that isn't just a bunch of test patterns.


----------



## spectator

*1080p PLUGE*


While the blacks are very well delineated and there is no apparent visible noise reduction or edge enhancement, the colors are only 75% saturated, so I can't, in good conscience, rank the image highly.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15507510
> 
> 
> Does it have to be The Wizard of Oz to qualify as "eye candy"? Obviously, a de-saturated movie can't show you what Blu-ray can do with color saturation, but then... a saturated movie can't show you what Blu-ray can do with de-saturation, either, can it?
> 
> 
> I guess the question I'm getting at is "Does a title have to represent _everything_ that Blu-ray can do to be the best kind of demo material?" If the answer is yes, we may never find an ultimate demo disc that isn't just a bunch of test patterns.



Absolutely not!!


As I have stated before, I see no reason at all why a Black and White movie couldn't be in Tier 0.


I was simply stating that one aspect of eye candy that many people do consider important is lacking, due to the subject matter of the film itself.


I hope I didn't imply that I didn't vote for Tier 0 due to the lack of bright colors, because that isn't the case.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sleater* /forum/post/15504838
> 
> 
> EDIT: http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Posterization good for posterization enlightenment.



Thanks for the link! Here's another helpful source:

http://en.mimi.hu/photography/posterization.html 


Edit: There are many articles on that link which show a variety of BEFORE and AFTER pictures showing posterization.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15507936
> 
> 
> I hope I didn't imply that I didn't vote for Tier 0 due to the lack of bright colors, because that isn't the case.



Ah! Thanks for the clarification. That was indeed the impression I'd gleaned from your explanation.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Revision #7?


Note: For the purposes of this tier system, when evaluating the visual aesthetic quality of each Blu-ray in all tiers, we do not take director's intent into consideration. This list represents an absolute ranking system where every commercially available Blu-ray's picture quality is directly compared against every other release. Those who are interested may want to use the thread search feature to peruse the individual reviews that contributed to these placements for further clarification.

*Tier Zero (Blu)*

_Blu-ray titles in this tier consistently offer reference level, demonstration worthy high-definition picture quality that continues to impress both at viewing distances approximately 1.5 screen widths from the display and on larger projection screens over 100”.


A Blu-ray in tier zero will generally exhibit the following characteristics:


A razor-sharp image with a palpable sense of depth, pop, dimension and presence that will appear almost three-dimensional at times.


Exquisite resolution of ultra-fine detail in general and demonstrating subtle variation in surface texture, fabric, individual strands of hair, and human faces down to the imperfections and pores. Animated material will often demonstrate photo-realistic qualities and will feature beautifully rendered environments.


Excellent contrast, superb shadow detail, and the deepest black levels without macroblocking or clipping.


Sophisticated color palettes will be completely resolved, down to the subtle gradation and variation of each hue and shade. Primary colors will appear striking and dynamic to the average viewer.


A film based title will exhibit grain that moves naturally and appears intact. It will also be free of excessive digital noise reduction or any filtering that results in a noticeable impact on the image including smeared or waxy looking faces, and missing high frequency detail in general.


Halos or ringing are either non-existent or not visible enough to be distracting while the image is viewed in motion from standard viewing distances.


No alteration from the originally intended aspect ratio or viewable image area.


An artifact-free video compression encoding that shows virtually no signs of chroma noise, banding, posterization, aliasing, macroblocking, compression noise, and other encoding deficiencies.


The transfer of the Blu-ray will be sourced from a master with virtually zero visible flaws. This entails an image free of print damage, dirt, specks, cue marks, and other flaws that should be absent from a new and pristine transfer of source material in excellent condition._


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sleater* /forum/post/15504838
> 
> 
> I think this shorter version gets to the meat of the issues so to speak. Just I wouldn't want someone to penalize a film's PQ for banding or telecine wobble when these issues, in my mind, are much more dependent on the viewing equipment. But maybe they _could_ be present in badly encoded BDs, I just haven't witnessed this personally.



I am not sure how to say this politely but telecine wobble and banding are definitely flaws that are on currently existing Blu-rays and have absolutely nothing to do with what equipment you view it on. A good portion of the animated titles on Blu-ray show banding at times that is inherent to the picture. Once we get this tier description out of the way we will work on a link or glossary for the more technical terms.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15505278
> 
> 
> My personal "immersive viewing distance" is one screen width, not 1.5.



My rule of thumb for viewing distance that is very revealing of true picture quality is...50" display equals 5' distance, 60" display equals 6' distance, and so on. But I realize that few are comfortable that close and I think 1.5 screen widths is an acceptable compromise.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15507936
> 
> 
> Absolutely not!!
> 
> As I have stated before, I see no reason at all why a Black and White movie couldn't be in Tier 0.



I really hope people do not get the wrong impression. Movies in black and white can easily make tier zero under the right circumstances, and from a technical standpoint it should almost be easier for them to make it if transferred properly. Excellent grayscale consideration is something we might want to add to the new tier description.


----------



## SuprSlow

Completed placements:


1. Wall-E - lowered in Tier 0

2. Step Brothers - Tier 2.5

3. Shawshank - Tier 2.75

4. Dark Knight - remains Tier 1.0

5. Tropic Thunder - remains Tier 1.0

6. Hancock - Tier 1.0

7. Wanted - Tier 1.25

8. Lost Season 4 - Tier 1.75

9. Home Alone - Tier 3.75

10. Elf - Tier 3.25

11. Sunshine - Tier 1.0

12. Jet Li's Fearless - Tier 2.75

13. Stargate Continuum - Tier 3.0

14. Baraka - remains Tier 0

15. The Day the Earth Stood Still - Tier 2.0

16. Day Watch - Tier 2.5

17. Sleeping Beauty - down a bit in Tier 0

18. Horton Hears a Who - Tier 1.0

19. Narnia - Prince Caspian - lower Tier 0

20. Zulu - Tier 2.5 (w/ DNR note)

21. Sublime: Uncut - Tier 4.5

22. Short Circuit - Tier 4.0

23. Becket - Tier 4.5

24. Great Expectations (UK Import) - Tier 3.0

25. Top Gun - Tier 3.0

26. Mamma Mia! - Tier 2.25 (don't kill me GGG







)

27. Bullitt - up to Tier 4.5

28. Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor - Tier 1.25

29. The Man Who Fell to Earth - Tier 3.0

30. Star Wars: The Clone Wars - dropped to Tier 1.5

31. Band of Brothers - Tier 1.5

32. Sweeney Todd - remains Tier 1.5

33. Elvis Costello - Tier 2.5

34. Kung Fu Panda - remains at top Tier 0

35. Mr. Brooks - down to Tier 1.0 (don't kill me Rob







)

36. Blood Diamond - up 1/4 to Tier 2.5

37. Godfather - remains Tier 2.75

38. X-Files: I Want to Believe - down 1/4 to Tier 2.0

39. 2001 - up to Tier 1.75

40. Body Heat - Tier 4.5

41. Tinkerbell - remains mid Tier 0

42. Sin City (Canada Import) - down 1/4 to Tier 1.25

43. Sting: Bring on the Night - Tier 4.5

44. Dog Day Afternoon - up to Tier 2.25

45. La Femme Nakita - Tier 2.75

46. Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2 - Tier 1.5

47. Burn After Reading - Tier 2.0

48. Godfather II - remains Tier 2.75

49. Otis - Tier 3.5

50. Tommy Boy - Tier 2.75

51. Gangs of New York - Tier 5

52. Ice Age - Tier 2.75

53. Forgetting Sarah Marshall - Tier 3.0

54. The Strangers - down to Tier 2.5

55. Death Race - Tier 1.5

56. American Gangster - up to Tier 3.25

57. Trading Places - up 1/4 to Tier 2.5

58. Golden Compass - moved up to Tier 2.5 for now, added note for DNR

59. Chunking Express - Tier 4.0

60. The Bone Collector (UK Import) - Tier 2.75

61. Traitor - Tier 1.75

62. Oldboy - moved down to Tier 3.5

63. Constantine - Tier 2.25

64. Home Alone - up to Tier 3.5

65. When We Left Earth - Tier 2.75

66. The Universe: The Complete Season One - Tier 3.5

67. Knocked Up - Tier 2.5

68. Romancing The Stone - Tier 2.75

69. The Game Plan - up to Tier 1.0

70. Phantom of the Opera - down to Tier 3.25

71. Harold & Kumar Go To White Castle - Tier 3.0

72. Nim's Island - remains Tier 1.25

73. Enchanted - remains Tier 1.25

74. Speed Racer - above Wall-E, Tier 0

75. Dr. No - Tier 2.5

76. The Searchers - down 1/4 to Tier 2.5

77. Gone, Baby, Gone - remains Tier 2.75

78. Within Temptation: Black Symphony - Tier 2.75

79. 7th Voyage of Sinbad - Tier 2.75

80. The Happening - down 1/4 to Tier 2.50

81. 88 Minutes - Tier 3.75


_________________________________________________________




After some more thought, I think this is how we should handle the Placement Holdings. Titles will be placed here when there is only a single placement suggestion. This is to prevent gross misplacements and allow a group concensus to be formed. (This list will still deal only with Tier 0 and Tier 1 placements/movements.)

Titles that are currently*unranked* will remain on the list for a week or two, so to give others time to watch and review accordingly. If after a week or so, no other reviews are given, it will be placed into the Tier as originally suggested. If there are other reviews, they will be considered as any other would, and the title will placed accordingly.

Titles that are currently*ranked* (in Tiers 0 & 1--or proposed to be moved to Tiers 0 & 1) will be added to the list. If the placement gathers support from other posters, it will be moved. If no one else agrees on the suggested movement, it will be taken off the list after a sufficient amount of time. I have performed a cursory thread search for each of these titles, and I feel that the variety of opinions warrants further discussion. Understand that with something of this nature, some titles will have to be handled on a case-by-case basis, depending on the direction the discussions take. *Feel free to do your own thread search to find others' points of view.*
Opinions are, of course, welcome.


The format is as follows:
*Title* - Tier X (# of votes) // Tier Y (# of votes) - Current Ranking

*Placement Holdings (Jan. 9, 2009):*

*Matrix, The* - mid Tier 0 (I) // Tier 1.75 (I) - Currently Tier 1.75

*Matrix Reloaded* - Tier 2.25 (I) - Currently Tier 1.5

*Matrix Revolutions* - Tier 2.25 (I) - Currently Tier 1.5

*Fearless (H.K. Import)* - Tier 2.75 (I) / Tier 0 (I) - Currently Unranked

*Spiderman 3* - middle Tier 0 (I) - Currently Tier 1.0

*Fantastic Four 2* - lower Tier 0 (I) - Currently Tier 1.25

*Patriot* - Tier 2.5 (I) - Currently Tier 1.25

*Austin Powers* - Tier 1.75 (I)

*Police* - below Elton 60 (I) // Tier 2.5 (II) - Currently Tier 0

*Devil Wears Prada, The* - Tier 2.? (I) - Currently Tier 4.0

*Planet Terror* - Tier 0 (I) - Currently Unranked

*Professionals, The* - Tier 1.25 (I) - Currently Unranked

*AVP: Requiem* - Tier 2.75 (I) - Currently Tier 2.0

*Man on Fire* - above I, Robot; Tier 0 (I)

*Redbelt* - Tier 1.5 (I) - Currently Unranked

*Smart People* - Tier 1.75 (I) - Currently Unranked

*Dave Mathews* - Tier 1.75 (I) - Currently Tier 1.0

*Shine a Light* - Tier 2.0 (I) - Currently Tier 1.25

*Revolver* - Tier 0, near BSM (II) // Tier 1.25 (I) // Tier 2.25 (I) - Currently Unranked

*Live Free or Die Hard* - up in Tier 0 (I) - Currently Tier 0

*Mongol* - current spot Tier 0 (I) / Tier 1.5 (I) - Currently Tier 0

*Clear and Present Danger* - Tier 0 (I) - Currently Tier 2.75

*Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban* - Tier 1.5 (I) - Currently Tier 1.75

*Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix* - Tier 1.75 (I) - Currently Tier 1.25

*The Kingdom* - Tier 1.75 (I) - Currently Unranked

*The House Bunny* - Tier 1.75 (I) - Currently Unranked

*Into the Wild* - Tier 0 (I) - Currently Unranked

*Event Horizon* - Tier 0 (I) - Currently Unranked

*Eagle Eye* - Tier 2.0 (I) // Tier 1.25 (I) - Currently Unranked

*Ghost Town* - Tier 1.0 (I) - Currently Unranked

*The Fall*- Tier 1.5 (I) - Currently Tier 1.0

*Babylon AD* - Tier 1.5 (I)



I realize AVP: Requiem is not in either Tier 0 or 1, but with the wide array of opinions on this one, maybe some others can chime in on it's placement.





That's it for now. Remember, if you have a problem with one of these placements, let's discuss it civilly. Feel free to do you own research in the thread to find others' placements. If I missed a recommendation, it was done completely on accident. It gets rather cumbersome to sort through so many titles at times, but I do my best. Also, no placement is final, this is a group effort and sometimes it takes a few tries to get it right.










Hope everyone has a great weekend










-Brandon


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15510536
> 
> 
> I really hope people do not get the wrong impression. Movies in black and white can easily make tier zero under the right circumstances, and from a technical standpoint it should almost be easier for them to make it if transferred properly. *Excellent grayscale consideration is something we might want to add to the new tier description.*



I completely agree Phantom...and I do think it would be good to add something about grayscale to the tier description.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/15510641
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 35. Mr. Brooks - down to Tier 1.0 (don't kill me Rob
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )
> 
> 
> ...




Not at all. Yes, I still think it is a Tier 0, but as I said in a previous post recently, there appeared to be enough votes to move it out of that tier (by the less experienced people here who have no idea what they are talking about).


----------



## djoberg

^


As always, GOOD JOB SUPRSLOW!!


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15510363
> 
> 
> Revision #7?
> _A razor-sharp image with a palpable sense of depth, pop, *dimension* and presence that will appear almost three-*dimensional* at times.
> _



Excellent revision. I'm down to the nitty nit-pick level, but here goes; my only qualm is using dimension twice in the sentence.


Suggestion: Either eliminate the first, substitute another word, or end the sentence after the word "presence."


Examples:


1) A razor-sharp image with a palpable sense of depth, pop, and presence that will appear almost three-dimensional at times.


2) A razor-sharp image with a palpable sense of depth, pop, dimension and presence.


3) A razor-sharp image with a palpable sense of depth, pop, saturation and presence that will appear almost three-dimensional at times.


4) A razor-sharp image with a palpable sense of depth, pop, solidity, and presence that will appear almost three-dimensional at times.


5) A razor-sharp image with a palpable sense of depth, pop, density and presence that will appear almost three-dimensional at times.


6) A razor-sharp image with a palpable sense of depth, pop, _________ and presence that will appear almost three-dimensional at times.



My vote would be either 1 or 3.


The only other suggestion I might have is -- should we mention *black and white* cimenatography? Something like this?


Sophisticated color palettes and black and white cinematography will be completely resolved, down to the subtle gradation and variation of each hue and shade. Primary colors will appear striking and dynamic.



Can't think of anything else.


Other than those, I think it says everything we need to say.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15510536
> 
> 
> I think 1.5 screen widths is an acceptable compromise.



I agree.


Note: It says *approximately* 1.5 screen widths.


I searched for quite awhile and while it may well be interesting to have input from reviewers who sit that close to their monitors, I cannot find anyone in the recommendation business, neither SMPTE nor THX, who recommends 1.0 Screen Widths from screen as an optimum seating distance. Further, I don't believe we ought to be in the business of guaranteeing or claiming that any title will remain impressive at that distance, for a number of reasons. Doing so would open up a can of slippery creatures; in order to make that claim, it would create a situation where either any reviewer recommending a title for tier 0 would logically need to watch from that distance in order to make that assurance or we'd need to wait for a review from someone who sits that close -- I think either situation would be unreasonable. Between SMPTE and THX, THX recommends the closest viewing, 1.54 times SW, as the optimum seating position for immersion, so I think saying *approximately* 1.5 X SW is reasonable. Many sites that recommend seating distances warn against sitting too close. I think it is reasonable to assure that anyone sitting approximately near the closest seating position recommended as optimum can count on the image remaining impressive. Anyone who sits closer should do so at their own risk.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/15510641
> 
> 
> Hope everyone has a great weekend
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Brandon



Same to you and excellent work -- thanks!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Brandon! A knife, right through my heart!! *dies*



hehehe j/k. You did a FANTASTIC job with everything. Once I convince the Mommy Crew to come on over here, Mamma Mia will be top Tier 0. *snicker*


----------



## Hammie

Tier 0 Blu


Everything in this list is ranked in order to best to worst (if you can say that in this tier







)


In other words, these all effing kick a$$!!!!


j/k







You guys are doing a great job on this description's write-up.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/15510641
> 
> 
> Completed placements:


*Matrix, The* - mid Tier 0 (I) // Tier 1.75 (I) - Currently Tier 1.75


1.75 is fine. Disagree with moving it up.


*Professionals, The* - Tier 1.25 (I) - Currently Unranked


I believe I am the only one to review The Professionals. I recommend 1.5, but I would not oppose 1.25.


*Shine a Light* - Tier 2.0 (I) - Currently Tier 1.25


I believe I am the only one to review Shine a Light. I originally recommended 1.25, but it was one of my first reviews and based on further viewing, I can no longer recommend 1.25. Now that I have watched a lot of tier 1.75 and 2.0 titles, I believe SaL compares well with titles ranked 2.0.


*Police* - below Elton 60 (I) // Tier 2.5 (II) - Currently Tier 0


Strongly believe this should not be in tier 0.


*Live Free or Die Hard* - up in Tier 0 (I) - Currently Tier 0


I support this move.


*Mongol* - current spot Tier 0 (I) / Tier 1.5 (I) - Currently Tier 0


Support moving this down.


*The Fall*- Tier 1.5 (I) - Currently Tier 1.0


I would support moving The Fall to 1.25.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15511552
> 
> 
> Once I convince the Mommy Crew to come on over here, Mamma Mia will be top Tier 0. *snicker*



One can only hope your "power of persuasion" fails to "convince the Mommy Crew to come on over"!










Let's face it 3G, you have a daunting task ahead of you. To convince a bunch of females to jump into the HD arena is one thing (remember now, you are a BIG "exception to the rule"), and then for them to actually be as impressed with Mamma Mia's PQ as you are is another thing.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15511740
> 
> 
> One can only hope your "power of persuasion" fails to "convince the Mommy Crew to come on over"!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's face it 3G, you have a daunting task ahead of you. To convince a bunch of females to jump into the HD arena is one thing (remember now, you are a BIG "exception to the rule"), and then for them to actually be as impressed with Mamma Mia as you are is another thing.



I know this is off topic but I am actually trying really hard on this score. I already convinced one of my "mommy friends" to get her husband a ps3 for christmas. I showed her some of Xylon's screenies of the DVD of Mamma Mia vs the BRD and she was amazed, as well as the ones from Sleeping Beauty.



And you will be pleased as punch to know that when she was wondering about a title to recommend to her for family viewing (she has a 10year old boy and a 3 year old girl), *I told her to rent Speed Racer.* Of course I first recommended Prince Caspian but that is actually the sole BRD they own so far.











They all know I'm a sci fi freak (sg:1, farscape, firefly, BSG, ds9 etc), and make fun of me constantly for it. The technology side of things is just yet another thing they can giggle at me for, but some of them are starting to turn around!!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15511848
> 
> 
> I know this is off topic but I am actually trying really hard on this score. I already convinced one of my "mommy friends" to get her husband a ps3 for christmas. I showed her some of Xylon's screenies of the DVD of Mamma Mia vs the BRD and she was amazed, as well as the ones from Sleeping Beauty.
> 
> 
> 
> And you will be pleased as punch to know that when she was wondering about a title to recommend to her for family viewing (she has a 10year old boy and a 3 year old girl), *I told her to rent Speed Racer.* Of course I first recommended Prince Caspian but that is actually the sole BRD they own so far.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They all know I'm a sci fi freak (sg:1, farscape, firefly, BSG, ds9 etc), and make fun of me constantly for it. The technology side of things is just yet another thing they can giggle at me for, but some of them are starting to turn around!!



Hey G3...I would actually love to see you convert all your "mommy friends" over to this amazing technology, so GOOD LUCK in this worthy endeavor! Oh, and after you win them over, maybe you could take a shot at persuading my wife.










BTW, good choices (Speed Racer & Prince Caspian) for recommendations for your friend!


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15507406
> 
> *Death Race*
> 
> 
> Wow, this is truly a superb looking title! The best that I have seen in quite some time.
> 
> 
> This title excels in every important way in terms of "eye candy" except one: color. The backdrop is a prison that is on an island with one bridge leading to it. Everything is somewhat monochromatic, with few examples of bright colors.
> 
> 
> That being said, everything else is fantastic. Black levels are deep which helps create excellent clarity and depth. Detail is also excellent with fine details on the actor’s skin, leather jackets and the interior of the prison all looking very impressive, with no signs of DNR at all.
> 
> 
> In fact, there is a fine layer of grain present here, which tells me that the detail is being very well preserved.
> 
> 
> Again, this title excels in the most important areas of PQ except color: detail, clarity, black level, depth and shadow detail.
> 
> 
> The movie itself was WAY better than I expected. Don't get me wrong: the story itself is exactly what you would expect with a title like "Death Race", and there are virtually no surprises in that regard. However, how the story was told was done pretty well, with some decent acting, especially by Joan Allen (who looks pretty good here, but there is so much clarity and detail in this disc that you could see that her makeup was applied a bit on the thick side). Overall a fun "guilty pleasure".
> 
> 
> I'm struggling a bit with placement on this one. I do have to consider Tier 0 here, but in the end I think it may fall just a tad short of that top ranking. That being said, I won't be surprised to see others recommend this title for Tier 0.
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.0*
> 
> 
> I think Universal is giving us some of the best looking new releases.




Really you thought it that good? I recall wanting it to be better for placement, but I also remember thinking when it looked average at times it looked fairly good.

I recommended 1.75 as I thought overall the PQ was good, but was also not consistent and seemed to be all over the place from tier 0 to tier 2+. I also thought I remember quite a few out of focus shots and or blurring on some quick pans or movement.







I might rent this again to refresh my memory. I did watch it at least twice.


For what it isn't worth, ha ha... from Hidefdisc news: "All in all this earns a respectable “4 Star Rating“. This is a fine transfer just not as good as some of the more recent Universal efforts."


This is how I felt as I have seen better recent Uni releases.


I will be curious what you think of Righteous Kill then in comparison, because I see pro reviewers saying it was good, but not great, meanwhile I thought it was possible tier 0.



Bummer for Horton Hears a Who being placed in tier 1. I still think it is reference, demo eye candy. Oh well.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15510993
> 
> 
> 1) A razor-sharp image with a palpable sense of depth, pop, and presence that will appear almost three-dimensional at times.
> 
> 
> The only other suggestion I might have is -- should we mention *black and white* cimenatography? Something like this?
> 
> 
> Sophisticated color palettes and black and white cinematography will be completely resolved, down to the subtle gradation and variation of each hue and shade. Primary colors will appear striking and dynamic.



Choice #1 you listed looks fine to me and will be in the next draft. I will see what I can do about the black and white consideration.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15511848
> 
> 
> I know this is off topic but I am actually trying really hard on this score. I already convinced one of my "mommy friends" to get her husband a ps3 for christmas. I showed her some of Xylon's screenies of the DVD of Mamma Mia vs the BRD and she was amazed, as well as the ones from Sleeping Beauty.
> 
> The technology side of things is just yet another thing they can giggle at me for, but some of them are starting to turn around!!



I will have to protest though if such things as Louis Vuitton handbags and diamond necklaces from Tiffany became the definition of "eye candy" in this thread...


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15512549
> 
> 
> Really you thought it that good? I recall wanting it to be better for placement, but I also remember thinking when it looked average at times it looked fairly good.
> 
> I recommended 1.75 as I thought overall the PQ was good, but was also not consistent and seemed to be all over the place from tier 0 to tier 2+. I also thought I remember quite a few out of focus shots and or blurring on some quick pans or movement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I might rent this again to refresh my memory. I did watch it at least twice.
> 
> 
> For what it isn't worth, ha ha... from Hidefdisc news: "All in all this earns a respectable 4 Star Rating. This is a fine transfer just not as good as some of the more recent Universal efforts."
> 
> 
> This is how I felt as I have seen better recent Uni releases.
> 
> 
> I will be curious what you think of Righteous Kill then in comparison, because I see pro reviewers saying it was good, but not great, meanwhile I thought it was possible tier 0.



I have had more time to ponder the PQ of Death Race and.................YES I still think it was that good. In fact, after looking at the Tier 1.0 movies closer, I am more confident than ever in my recommendation for 1.0 and possible consideration for 0.


I only noticed a couple of scenes that were soft and out of focus. They _were_ noticeable, and I recall thinking "that's too bad" since the rest of the film was so sharp and detailed.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15512562
> 
> 
> 
> I will have to protest though if such things as Louis Vuitton handbags and diamond necklaces from Tiffany became the definition of "eye candy" in this thread...



Perhaps if they show up in the Sex and the City sequel... I do recall a rather ugly LV bag in the movie that's been released (I should watch it again to rate it's PQ!). I wouldn't worry about it though! Those are things that are definitely off my radar. Why do you think I come hang out here with you boys? I put my kids stuff in a backpack (ooo it's made by _Swiss Army_, do I get plus points for that?), I don't need any sort of specialty bags!



Dude, the amount of Blu Rays I could buy with the $$ for a Coach bag? My husband knows better -- hence I got a plasma tv for christmas instead of jewelry and my best friend got me blu rays.



Okay sorry sorry for all the OT-ness of my posts. I've been bad this week and haven't even watched any BRD's since Wall-E on Sunday and I am hoping to watch that again before I have to return it to my friend tomorrow so I can write a review on it.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15512620
> 
> 
> I put my kids stuff in a backpack (ooo it's made by _Swiss Army_, do I get plus points for that?)



Yes.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15512603
> 
> 
> I have had more time to ponder the PQ of Death Race and.................YES I still think it was that good. In fact, after looking at the Tier 1.0 movies closer, I am more confident than ever in my recommendation for 1.0 and possible consideration for 0.
> 
> 
> I only noticed a couple of scenes that were soft and out of focus. They _were_ noticeable, and I recall thinking "that's too bad" since the rest of the film was so sharp and detailed.



Rob, you "forced" me to rent it again, so the game is afoot.







As I said before, I remember thinking it looked good, yet I wanted it to look better almost like I knew it was better and when I changed my focus it was. If that makes any sense.



I really can't understand my Hollywood Video. Not only did they get the blu ray new releases listed on their site which are generally a few per week, they also got some titles I never heard of and aren't even listed available as BD's on their site. It must be that we are in a college town.











GGG would love to know they have The Women (total chick flick







from what the 18yr old employee at HV told me), which I didn't rent, but I did rent The Wackness which I will watch tonight. I have to say though with Eva Mendes in The Women, I just might have to give it a "review". Is it possible a movie is "eye candy", but in tier 5?


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15512620
> 
> 
> Perhaps if they show up in the Sex and the City sequel... I do recall a rather ugly LV bag in the movie that's been released (I should watch it again to rate it's PQ!). I wouldn't worry about it though! Those are things that are definitely off my radar. Why do you think I come hang out here with you boys? I put my kids stuff in a backpack (ooo it's made by _Swiss Army_, do I get plus points for that?), I don't need any sort of specialty bags!
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, the amount of Blu Rays I could buy with the $$ for a Coach bag? My husband knows better -- hence I got a plasma tv for christmas instead of jewelry and my best friend got me blu rays.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay sorry sorry for all the OT-ness of my posts. I've been bad this week and haven't even watched any BRD's since Wall-E on Sunday and I am hoping to watch that again before I have to return it to my friend tomorrow so I can write a review on it.



You better bump that Wall E up and give it a good review,







as it is now officially below Speed Racer.


----------



## djoberg

*Eagle Eye* is a hard one to call. It is a very stylized movie with a definite blue tint in many scenes and a golden tint in others. This doesn't hinder detail, but it does make for some rather *unnatural* looks. Perhaps the greatest redeeming feature throughout were facial close-ups, with the majority revealing every pore, freckle, pimple, stubble, etc.....definitely Tier 0 quality here! There were a number of out-of-focus shots, yet I saw no evidence of DNR, EE, digital noise, motion artifacts, or other anomalies. I was not impressed with the color palette, though it would be harsh to call it drab. The contrast was so-so, but nothing to brag about. All things considered I would place it in *Tier 1.75*.


Oh, and if this was also an audio thread, I would vote for Tier 1.0....it had plenty of action in the surrounds (with amazing accuracy and brightness) and top-notch material in the LFE channel too (though limited to a few scenes).


The movie itself was a good rental. I quit trying to "figure everything out" early on and just sat back and enjoyed the ride (and believe me it was FAST and BUMPY). **Spoiler* Comment*: At one point in the movie I looked at my new Motorola Krave cellphone sitting next to me and was tempted to flush it down the toilet!


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15513828
> 
> *Eagle Eye* is a hard one to call. It is a very stylized movie with a definite blue tint in many scenes and a golden tint in others. This doesn't hinder detail, but it does make for some rather *unnatural* looks. Perhaps the greatest redeeming feature throughout were facial close-ups, with the majority revealing every pore, freckle, pimple, stubble, etc.....definitely Tier 0 quality here! There were a number of out-of-focus shots, yet I saw no evidence of DNR, EE, digital noise, motion artifacts, or other anomalies. I was not impressed with the color palette, though it would be harsh to call it drab. The contrast was so-so, but nothing to brag about. All things considered I would place it in *Tier 1.75*.
> 
> 
> Oh, and if this was also an audio thread, I would vote for Tier 1.0....it had plenty of action in the surrounds (with amazing accuracy and brightness) and top-notch material in the LFE channel too (though limited to a few scenes).
> 
> 
> The movie itself was a good rental. I quit trying to "figure everything out" early on and just sat back and enjoyed the ride (and believe me it was FAST and BUMPY). **Spoiler* Comment*: At one point in the movie I looked at my new Motorola Krave cellphone sitting next to me and was tempted to flush it down the toilet!



Make sure the phone is off before flushing.

















I agree Eagle Eye is a tough call. I was unimpressed overall with the PQ, but the movie was ok.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15512659
> 
> 
> Yes.



Woot! Hooray for Swiss Army backpacks! (Complete with Laptop Pocket!)



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15513235
> 
> 
> GGG would love to know they have The Women (total chick flick
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> from what the 18yr old employee at HV told me), which I didn't rent, but I did rent The Wackness which I will watch tonight. I have to say though with Eva Mendes in The Women, I just might have to give it a "review". Is it possible a movie is "eye candy", but in tier 5?



I haven't seen The Women yet, but I think it is at my video store. Maybe I'll rent it soon. I have a backlog of things I want to get through now, although most of it is older (read: cheaper!) blu rays I picked up recently. Except Serenity I suppose, that's new to BRD.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15513244
> 
> 
> You better bump that Wall E up and give it a good review,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as it is now officially below Speed Racer.



My plans for tonight fell through so I'm going to watch it again tonight, I promise.







Although I'm hesitant to help your agenda since you recommended a certain movie Tier 2.25.


----------



## 42041

*Planet Terror*

(obviously, for the purposes of this thread, you'd watch the "scratch free" version, so that's the one I'll rate)

This is a tough one for me to rank... on one hand, the detail and resolution are often squarely in Tier 0, and I think any HD newcomers would be impressed. On the other hand, it takes place almost entirely at night, and I didn't find it particularly visually stimulating. Like most films shot on digital cameras, it's a very solid video presentation. Facial details are usually excellent, though occasionally smeared (probably intentionally). Black levels and contrast are solid. I didn't detect any EE problems. Compression isn't the cleanest I've seen, but nothing too distracting.

*Tier 1.25*


as a side note, yet another disc which leaves about ~7 gigabytes of disc space completely empty ... how lazy









(PS3/Samsung LN40A650 LCD/1080p24/1 SW away)


----------



## Coxwell

*The Matrix*


A bit disappointed by this transfer, and, moroeover, from what i've read about it. Colors and sharpness are quite good but the dark scenes are a bit crushed and grey in the edge of the right and left sides. A lot of digital noise in dark scenes too. A overall good transfert though, but i can't place it in the upper chart of Tier 1.
*Correction : Tier 2*


Pioneer 50" G9

Panasonic BD35

Distance viewing : about 7 feet.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Coxwell* /forum/post/15515335
> 
> *The Matrix*
> 
> 
> A bit disappointed by this transfer, and, moroeover, from what i've read about it. Colors and sharpness are quite good but the dark scenes are a bit crushed and grey in the edge of the right and left sides. A lot of digital noise in dark scenes too. A overall good transfert though, but i can't place it in the upper chart of Tier 1.
> *Recommandation : Tier 1.75*
> 
> 
> Pioneer 50" G9
> 
> Panasonic BD35
> 
> Distance viewing : about 7 feet.



+1. Exactly what I had recommended long time ago.










Terrific job SuprSlow. I know how tough it is to dig through list and make a note of the recommendations.

*Correction*


Beowulf (UK) Video: VC-1 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner => Please _move from_ Tier-0 and place it above U.S Beowulf placed in *Tier-1*.


Kudos to al who are striving hard to make amendments. Shame on myself for not being able to contribute much due to work and horrendous Internet bandwidth.










rsbeck,


Felt few words were missing.


3) A razor-sharp image with a palpable sense of depth, pop, saturation and presence that will appear almost three-dimensional *TO MOST OF US* at times.


----------



## DaDeuce

Can I make a suggestion?


If we could add the date of the last list update to the thread title, it would make it easier to just glance at it.


Also I think if we could add markers that said when something was new on the list or if something moved up or down that would be wonderful. Sometimes I come in here and see that the list was updated, but can't figure out if something is new or if it just moved, etc.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaDeuce* /forum/post/15516539
> 
> 
> Can I make a suggestion?
> 
> 
> If we could add the date of the last list update to the thread title, it would make it easier to just glance at it.



I think that is an excellent suggestion. That would be easy to add and change every time an update is made.



> Quote:
> Also I think if we could add markers that said when something was new on the list or if something moved up or down that would be wonderful. Sometimes I come in here and see that the list was updated, but can't figure out if something is new or if it just moved, etc.



This used to be done. Unfortunately, it adds a lot of additional work (and time) to maintaining the list. It's hard enough trying to stay up to date as it is. This just complicated things too much, and would be even more difficult now with all the new releases that we get.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Perhaps a hotlink to the post SuprSlow makes when he does his updates? He always explains them. Just have the date like this:


Last List Update: January 9, 2009 by SuprSlow 


Then people could just click it and see his post, and see what all the most recent movement was.


----------



## DaDeuce




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15516873
> 
> 
> Perhaps a hotlink to the post SuprSlow makes when he does his updates? He always explains them. Just have the date like this:
> 
> 
> Last List Update: January 9, 2009 by SuprSlow
> 
> 
> Then people could just click it and see his post, and see what all the most recent movement was.



The hotlink is a good idea! Even though I browse this thread a few times a week, I never knew he did this. This thread moves so fast that I guess I always miss it.


----------



## djoberg

^


I agree with Rob...that's a very good suggestion DaDeuce!


G3....Excellent idea!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Throwing myself into the fire.










*Wall-E*


I know that this title is debated hard on this board, and I love to see what everyone has to say on it. I'm just going to go forward and present my views as best as I can, and hopefully choose the right words so I'm not quoted and dinged in a but you said... quote.










Everything stated is my own personal opinion, so please take it as such.










I've watched Wall-E twice* now, almost a week apart. Both times I was blown away by how simply gorgeous this movie looks. Unlike the majority of the crowd, I was very impressed by the first 30 minutes, rather than underwhelmed. I did not see the haze as a detractor to the quality of what was being shown. It felt like realistic weather to me, and I think it's overly exaggerated just how much it is the focal point of the screen during the Earth sequence. When something was on focus on the screen, I found the detail to be amazing, with a shout-out to the fire on the Zippo; it was spectacular to me.


The sequences in outer space took my breath away. There were several spots that I would love to have as backgrounds on my computer they were so pretty. When the movie switched to the Axiom, it felt more along the lines of a CGI-cartoon rather than a CGI-representation of reality. I don't feel that this was a minus on the part of the movie, it just was a different perspective on things, the strange reality that this society had created for itself floating aboard these cruise ships for 700 years, becoming a caricature of what it once was. It is like they filmed two different sorts of movies and pasted them together; some people like myself, liked this and others did not.


If I look at it the same way I looked at The Dark Knight, which in a way is in a similar situation given the IMAX portions vs the 35mm portions of the movie, I have to compare it the same way too. For example TDK gets plus points from me for the beauty of the IMAX but gets negatives from me for its 35mm portion because of how they messed it up on the transfer.


When I look at Axiom and Earth portions of Wall-E, however, I am not disappointed with either portion, but _they are different_ because it is CartoonyCGI vs RealisticCGI. I think both sides' of this movie excel and do not feel that one side trumps the other. I can concede that I see how this might not be the case for everyone. I most certainly am irritated that the copy I own is on DVD, as I would gladly have this title in my collection to show off this film**, and am saddened I must return the BRD to my friend today.


As I timidly toss my glove into the Wall-E rumble, I present you gentlemen (and ladies if you're there - can't give up hope!) with my recommendation.

*Recommendation for Wall-E: Tier 0, within the top 20***.


Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800U, approx 7.5' viewing distance.*


*The second viewing I used the Geek Trivia Track, it was HILARIOUS.


** rsbeck - I'd show the scene with Wall-E and Eve in the trailer, in and around the zippo action.










*** I have not seen many of the movies in the Top 20 of Tier 0, but I did not feel comfortable rating it just below Ratatouille, which was my initial thought. I feel that Wall-E is as good as Rat was, but it's hard to make a precise placement for me on this. I'm sorry I cannot be more specific than that, but I feel it should be higher in Tier 0 than it currently sits.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

That's a great review GGG!


----------



## fleaman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Coxwell* /forum/post/15515335
> 
> *The Matrix*
> 
> 
> A bit disappointed by this transfer, and, moroeover, from what i've read about it. Colors and sharpness are quite good *but the dark scenes are a bit crushed and grey in the edge of the right and left sides. A lot of digital noise in dark scenes too.* A overall good transfert though, but i can't place it in the upper chart of Tier 1.
> *Recommandation : Tier 1.75*
> 
> 
> Pioneer 50" G9
> 
> Panasonic BD35
> 
> Distance viewing : about 7 feet.



The DVD version is pretty bad too (what I outlined in *bold* above), how much better is the Blu ray over DVD on just those faults?


I noticed the next 2 Matrix movies on DVD had very good blacks and very little digital noise in the dark scenes. I almost want to get Blu on just the first Matrix only.....


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15518632
> 
> 
> 1st Stab at Tier Gold
> 
> 
> Titles in tier Gold are demo worthy and exhibit similar quality to those in tier blu, but with a few qualifications;
> 
> 
> May briefly waver out of reference quality transfer or picture quality in ways that are considered minor and *which may not even be noticeable to those with untrained eyes or who are following the action on screen.*



I don't think this bolded portion adds anything. It is either noticeable to the reviewer or it isn't. We don't care about "untrained eyes", and we don't want to use "following the action on screen" as an excuse for some PQ issues.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15518707
> 
> 
> We don't care about "untrained eyes"



Not defending it, happy to take it out, but I got the untrained eye part from the current description above tier gold;


_Demo Material, but minor artifacting may be present which the *untrained eye* may not necessarily spot._




> Quote:
> we don't want to use "following the action on screen" as an excuse for some PQ issues.



Agree. It's also redundant. It's just another way of saying the issue is considered minor, which is already covered.


.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15518703
> 
> 
> G3 -- nice review -- excellent work. For me, the demo scene would be Wall-E and Eve outside the ship motoring around in space with the help of the fire extinguisher.



Thanks! I actually agree with you; for some reason I thought you wanted to know what one would pick as a demo scene from the first 30min, so I picked that one as it was my fave from that part of the movie.







Another favourite of mine would be when Wall-E is latched on to Eve's ship as it leaves Earth and we see space for the first time. That would actually be my #1 pick, there were so many spots in that area I wish I could do screenies so I could make some backgrounds for my computer from that section.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15518949
> 
> 
> for some reason I thought you wanted to know what one would pick as a demo scene from the first 30min, so I picked that one as it was my fave from that part of the movie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another favourite of mine would be when Wall-E is latched on to Eve's ship as it leaves Earth and we see space for the first time. That would actually be my #1 pick, there were so many spots in that area I wish I could do screenies so I could make some backgrounds for my computer from that section.



That's another great shot. Amazing representations of space!


I did ask for the demo sequence from the first 30 minutes -- I'll check that one out again. Thanks!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15518994
> 
> 
> That's another great shot. Amazing representations of space!
> 
> 
> I did ask for the demo sequence from the first 30 minutes -- I'll check that one out again. Thanks!



NP! The little details in Wall-E's trailer really impressed me and I'm pretty sure they are in there for a while around that Zippo spot.



Maybe I just really liked the fire... hrm... sparkly water and then pretty CGI fire, and I have no issue with the weather-like haze? I guess I have an affinity for earthy-type _elemental-type_ stuff in my eye candy! High Definition Hippie much, self?


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15516873
> 
> 
> Perhaps a hotlink to the post SuprSlow makes when he does his updates? He always explains them. Just have the date like this:
> Last List Update: January 9, 2009 by SuprSlow
> 
> Then people could just click it and see his post, and see what all the most recent movement was.



An excellent suggestion that I fully support.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Revision #8 and hopefully the final one...


Note: For the purposes of this tier system, when evaluating the visual quality of each Blu-ray in all tiers, we do not take director's intent into consideration. This list represents an absolute ranking system, where every available Blu-ray's picture quality is directly compared against every other release. Those who are interested may want to use the thread search feature to peruse the individual reviews that contributed to these placements for further clarification. Tier placements can change over time as feedback warrants.

*Tier Zero (Blu)*

_Blu-ray titles in this tier consistently offer reference level, demonstration worthy high-definition picture quality that continues to impress both at viewing distances approximately 1.5 screen widths from the display and on larger projection screens over 100.


A Blu-ray in Tier Zero will generally exhibit the following characteristics:


A razor-sharp image with a palpable sense of depth, pop, and presence that will appear almost three-dimensional at times.


Excellent contrast, superb shadow detail, and the deepest black levels without macroblocking or clipping.


Exquisite resolution of ultra-fine detail in general and demonstrating subtle variations in surface textures, fabrics, individual strands of hair, and human faces down to the imperfections and pores. Animated material will often demonstrate photo-realistic qualities and will feature beautifully rendered or drawn environments.


Sophisticated color palettes will be completely resolved, down to the subtle gradation and variation of each hue and shade. Primary colors will appear striking and dynamic to the average viewer. Black-and-white material will exhibit top-notch and accurate grayscale reproduction.


A film-based title will exhibit a normal grain structure that moves naturally and appears intact. It will also be free of excessive digital noise reduction or filtering that results in a noticeably negative impact on the image, including waxy looking faces and missing high frequency detail in general.


Halos or ringing are either non-existent or not visible enough to be distracting while the image is viewed in motion from standard viewing distances.


No alteration from the originally intended aspect ratio or viewable image area.


An artifact-free video compression encoding that shows virtually no signs of chroma noise, banding, posterization, aliasing, macroblocking, compression noise, and other encoding deficiencies.


The transfer of the Blu-ray will be sourced from a master with virtually zero visible flaws. This entails an image free of print damage, dirt, specks, cue marks, and other flaws that should be absent from a new and pristine transfer of source material in excellent condition._


----------



## djoberg

I visited my local video store and being it was Saturday I had little to pick from in the Blu-ray department that I hadn't already seen. So, I ended up renting *The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor*. I see it's currently at 1.25, but I'm going to side with stumlad on this one and recommend a *Tier 1.75* placement. I thought it was somewhat inconsistent in areas, especially in facial close-ups (where I tend to be very particular) and in some of the sweeping landscapes.


The colors were natural and good, contrast seemed balanced, black levels were exceptional, and I believe it was void of any flaws or artifacts. It had a thin layer of grain which, to me, gave it a nice film-like look without restricting detail. On the negative side (in addition to what I already mentioned) I didn't notice a lot of scenes with 3D pop and there was definitely some softness (primarily during scenes in caves and tombs).


The movie itself was ABSURD!


I see I'm in a small minority by recommending Tier 1.75, for most are voting for low Tier 0 or high Tier 1. This has me worried for I may be jeopardizing my "generous rater" status!


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15519290
> 
> 
> An excellent suggestion that I fully support.



+1. Great idea.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15519587
> 
> 
> Revision #8 and hopefully the final one...
> 
> 
> Note: For the purposes of this tier system, when evaluating the visual quality of each Blu-ray in all tiers, we do not take director's intent into consideration. This list represents an absolute ranking system, where every available Blu-ray's picture quality is directly compared against every other release. Those who are interested may want to use the thread search feature to peruse the individual reviews that contributed to these placements for further clarification. Tier placements can change over time as feedback warrants.
> 
> *Tier Zero (Blu)*
> 
> _Blu-ray titles in this tier consistently offer reference level, demonstration worthy high-definition picture quality that continues to impress both at viewing distances approximately 1.5 screen widths from the display and on larger projection screens over 100.
> 
> 
> A Blu-ray in Tier Zero will generally exhibit the following characteristics:
> 
> 
> A razor-sharp image with a palpable sense of depth, pop, and presence that will appear almost three-dimensional at times.
> 
> 
> Excellent contrast, superb shadow detail, and the deepest black levels without macroblocking or clipping.
> 
> 
> Exquisite resolution of ultra-fine detail in general and demonstrating subtle variations in surface textures, fabrics, individual strands of hair, and human faces down to the imperfections and pores. Animated material will often demonstrate photo-realistic qualities and will feature beautifully rendered or drawn environments.
> 
> 
> Sophisticated color palettes will be completely resolved, down to the subtle gradation and variation of each hue and shade. Primary colors will appear striking and dynamic *to the average viewer*. Black-and-white material will exhibit top-notch and accurate grayscale reproduction.
> 
> 
> A film-based title will exhibit a normal grain structure that moves naturally and appears intact. It will also be free of excessive digital noise reduction or filtering that results in a noticeably negative impact on the image, including waxy looking faces and missing high frequency detail in general.
> 
> 
> Halos or ringing are either non-existent or *not visible enough* to be distracting while the image is viewed in motion from standard viewing distances.
> 
> 
> No alteration from the originally intended aspect ratio or viewable image area.
> 
> 
> An artifact-free video compression encoding that shows virtually no signs of chroma noise, banding, posterization, aliasing, macroblocking, compression noise, and other encoding deficiencies.
> 
> 
> The transfer of the Blu-ray will be sourced from a master with virtually zero visible flaws. This entails an image free of print damage, dirt, specks, cue marks, and other flaws that should be absent from a new and pristine transfer of source material in excellent condition._




Excellent -- only nit-picks are:


We have a few titles in tier 0 with visible ringing -- is that covered by the qualification about them not being visible enough to be distracting?


"To the average viewer" seems unnecessary.


Otherwise, excellent and continued improvement -- thanks!


----------



## sleater




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15517373
> 
> 
> *The second viewing I used the Geek Trivia Track, it was HILARIOUS.



I agree with your review quite completely. I also viewed it with the Geek Trivia Track and it _almost_ mirrors the reality in this thread with some of us guys spewing geeky technobabble about picture quality like the guys go on and on with their Star Wars references and speaking in Huttese etc. But I could probably safely place you G3 in with the boys in this regard










Bring in the other moms and maybe they can laugh at us like the gal laughed at the 2 feuding guys in that trivia track! We need a little more balance at times...


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Revision #9


Note: For the purposes of this tier system we do not take director's intent into consideration when evaluating the visual quality of each Blu-ray. This list represents an absolute ranking system, where every available Blu-ray's picture quality is directly compared against every other release. Those who are interested may want to use the thread search feature to peruse the individual reviews that contributed to these placements for further clarification. Tier placements can change over time as feedback warrants.

*Tier Zero (Blu)*

_Blu-ray titles in this tier consistently offer reference level, demonstration worthy high-definition picture quality that continues to impress both at viewing distances approximately 1.5 screen widths from the display and on larger projection screens over 100”.


A Blu-ray in Tier Zero will generally exhibit the following characteristics:


A razor-sharp image with a palpable sense of depth, pop, and presence that will appear almost three-dimensional at times.


Excellent contrast, superb shadow detail, and the deepest black levels without macroblocking or clipping.


Exquisite resolution of ultra-fine detail in general and demonstrating subtle variations in surface textures, fabrics, individual strands of hair, and human faces down to the imperfections and pores. Animated material will often demonstrate photo-realistic qualities and will feature beautifully rendered or drawn environments.


Sophisticated color palettes will be completely resolved, down to the subtle gradation and variation of each hue and shade. Primary colors will appear striking and dynamic. Black-and-white material will exhibit top-notch and accurate grayscale reproduction.


A film-based title will exhibit a normal grain structure that moves naturally and appears intact. It will also be free of excessive digital noise reduction (DNR) or filtering that results in a noticeably negative impact on the image, including waxy looking faces and missing high-frequency detail in general.


Halos and ringing artifacts are either absent or not visible enough to be distracting from standard viewing distances.


No alteration from the originally intended aspect ratio or viewable image area.


An artifact-free video compression encoding that shows virtually no signs of chroma noise, banding, posterization, aliasing, macroblocking, compression noise, and other encoding deficiencies.


The transfer of the Blu-ray will be sourced from a master with virtually no visible flaws. This entails an image free of print damage, dirt, specks, cue marks, and other flaws that should be absent from a new and pristine transfer of source material in excellent condition._


----------



## djoberg

^


There is no need for another Revision....#9 is EXCELLENT! Once again, good job Phantom.


----------



## djoberg

G3,


I do commend you for your good and detailed review of Wall-E.


Of course, I don't agree totally with your recommendation, for I think it should actually be at the bottom of Tier 0 (if not the top of Tier 1). I would ask you what I have asked others and please be deliciously honest:


Would you really use Wall-E as a demo to introduce the virtues of Blu-ray to a newcomer to HD? And let's say, hypothetically, that they only had a half hour to spare. Would you actually play the first 30 minutes of Wall-E to try to win them over to Blu-ray?


I'm not trying to be *mean*, I'm just wondering if you were that impressed with the first 30 minutes.


----------



## rsbeck

*Phantom Stranger* --



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15520522
> 
> 
> ^
> 
> 
> There is no need for another Revision....#9 is EXCELLENT! Once again, good job Phantom.



+1. Agree -- no more nits from my end -- excellent work.


----------



## rsbeck

*Dan in Real Life*


Agree With Current Placement


Very fine grain was noticeable at times. Noted thin ringing at times and larger halos a few others -- enough to give a faint impression of being soft around the edges. For a comedy where eye candy is not the point, there is some Rhode Island scenery and some warm looking interiors shot in a rustic cabin. Not much in the way of ultra-fine detail, couldn't make out pores and imperfections in faces. Some colors seemed pushed ever so slightly. Steve Carell's face sort of reminded me of tera cotta pottery. Still, a very watchable comedy.

*Recommendation: tier 2.75*


Sim2 C3X1080

120" Firehawk G3

13' From Screen


----------



## stumlad

I bought this during the month it came out, but haven't gotten around to watching it until tonight.


I have to say I was a bit dissappointed. It was definitely better than my DVD from 2000, but it had very little small object detail. It felt like a Warner filter job (excluding a few of Warner's better titles). I saw grain in the beginning and thought there was hope, but there were areas were grain didnt seem to exist. This movie was remastered in 2006, and I'm wondering how representative this blu-ray is of that remaster.


I noticed a bit of ringing throughout. It wasn't bad, and didn't appear in all areas, but I could see it in some of the scenes where you see mountain tops and other objects with the sky as the background. Black levels were decent, and there were no real bad fluctuations which was a plus. Nova's hair looked detailed but not to the level you'd expect on blu-ray. Face closeups were nothing to brag about.


I was thinking this title would look a bit better than Dr. No, but I was wrong. To top it off, my disc skipped twice from the scratches caused by bad packaging.

*Tier 3.75*, but I could probably go even go lower.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15519721
> 
> 
> I visited my local video store and being it was Saturday I had little to pick from in the Blu-ray department that I hadn't already seen. So, I ended up renting *The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor*. I see it's currently at 1.25, but I'm going to side with stumlad on this one and recommend a *Tier 1.75* placement. I thought it was somewhat inconsistent in areas, especially in facial close-ups (where I tend to be very particular) and in some of the sweeping landscapes.
> 
> 
> The colors were natural and good, contrast seemed balanced, black levels were exceptional, and I believe it was void of any flaws or artifacts. It had a thin layer of grain which, to me, gave it a nice film-like look without restricting detail. On the negative side (in addition to what I already mentioned) I didn't notice a lot of scenes with 3D pop and there was definitely some softness (primarily during scenes in caves and tombs).
> 
> 
> The movie itself was ABSURD!
> 
> 
> I see I'm in a small minority by recommending Tier 1.75, for most are voting for low Tier 0 or high Tier 1. This has me worried for I may be jeopardizing my "generous rater" status!



IMO, Mummy 3 is a good example of a movie that has a perfect encode, but just isnt quite as eye-pleasing as some of the higher ranked titles. As far as the movie being "absurd", I think all 3 of them are, but I think what made this one worse was the dialog (or lack of). It wasn't witty like the first two . Also, there was no chemistry between the actors . The sound is the only thing stopping me from selling it. I know this is off topic so I'll shut it


----------



## rsbeck

Tier Gold version #4


Snipped -- see version #5.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian*


I recently indicated my belief that Universal is giving us some of the best PQ when it comes to new releases. I still believe that to be the case, but the champion has been, and remains, Disney in my opinion.


Prince Caspian is another example of the great releases that Disney puts on Blu. This one looks nothing less than fantastic!


Blacks, shadow detail, and overall all contrast is excellent. Colors look great. Detail and textures are very well preserved, and there are certainly no signs of DNR whatsoever. Skin pores and freckles are clearly resolved.


While watching this movie, it was obvious to me that this is a Tier 0 title, and the thing that I kept thinking was if there is only one word that you could use to describe the main difference between a Tier 0 title and other titles it would be: *CLARITY.*


Any yes, the CLARITY here is simply superb. There are some scenes that were a bit less impressive than the rest, but those were pretty rare. Overall, this is a fantastic looking title, certainly deserving of its Tier 0 ranking.

*Tier Recommendation: Zero* (I agree with the current placement)


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15520169
> 
> 
> Revision #9
> 
> 
> Note: For the purposes of this tier system we do not take director's intent into consideration when evaluating the visual quality of each Blu-ray. This list represents an absolute ranking system, where every available Blu-ray's picture quality is directly compared against every other release. Those who are interested may want to use the thread search feature to peruse the individual reviews that contributed to these placements for further clarification. Tier placements can change over time as feedback warrants.
> 
> *Tier Zero (Blu)*
> 
> _Blu-ray titles in this tier consistently offer reference level, demonstration worthy high-definition picture quality that continues to impress both at viewing distances approximately 1.5 screen widths from the display and on larger projection screens over 100”.
> 
> 
> A Blu-ray in Tier Zero will generally exhibit the following characteristics:
> 
> 
> A razor-sharp image with a palpable sense of depth, pop, and presence that will appear almost three-dimensional at times.
> 
> 
> Excellent contrast, superb shadow detail, and the deepest black levels without macroblocking or clipping.
> 
> 
> Exquisite resolution of ultra-fine detail in general and demonstrating subtle variations in surface textures, fabrics, individual strands of hair, and human faces down to the imperfections and pores. Animated material will often demonstrate photo-realistic qualities and will feature beautifully rendered or drawn environments.
> 
> 
> Sophisticated color palettes will be completely resolved, down to the subtle gradation and variation of each hue and shade. Primary colors will appear striking and dynamic. Black-and-white material will exhibit top-notch and accurate grayscale reproduction.
> 
> 
> A film-based title will exhibit a normal grain structure that moves naturally and appears intact. It will also be free of excessive digital noise reduction (DNR) or filtering that results in a noticeably negative impact on the image, including waxy looking faces and missing high-frequency detail in general.
> 
> 
> Halos and ringing artifacts are either absent or not visible enough to be distracting from standard viewing distances.
> 
> 
> No alteration from the originally intended aspect ratio or viewable image area.
> 
> 
> An artifact-free video compression encoding that shows virtually no signs of chroma noise, banding, posterization, aliasing, macroblocking, compression noise, and other encoding deficiencies.
> 
> 
> The transfer of the Blu-ray will be sourced from a master with virtually no visible flaws. This entails an image free of print damage, dirt, specks, cue marks, and other flaws that should be absent from a new and pristine transfer of source material in excellent condition._



Well, I hate to do this, but....I do have to make another suggestion in light of my just completed viewing of a Tier 0 title (Prince Caspian referenced above).


As I said in that review, if you were to limit the description of what constitutes great picture quality to a single word, that word, to me, would be *CLARITY.*


Why? Because I think that single word encompasses so many of the other descriptions. In other words, if you have "ringing" or edge outlining or other artifacts, it is going to negatively impact the clarity of the image.


Blacks not deep, contrast weak? That will have a negative impact on the overall clarity of the image. Colors bleed or look unnatural? That will reduce the appearance of the overall clarity too. DNR? That will most certainly prevent the title from having good clarity.


The word "clarity" is not mentioned one time in the above description. Clarity is the single most important thing that I look for when reviewing a title for this thread, so I would love to see it incorporated somewhere in the description.


Perhaps simply adding it to the end of the first paragraph as follows would suffice:


"A razor-sharp image with a palpable sense of depth, pop, and presence that will appear almost three-dimensional at times, _resulting in superb clarity._"


Personally I am not overly excited about the term "razor-sharp" either, now that I think about it. "Razor sharp" is something that I might equate more to HD video than film based movies. I don't think that most of the films in Tier 0 would be considered "Razor" sharp. Yes, we are definitely picking nits now!










I would simply remove the word "razor" and leave the word "sharp".


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15522136
> 
> *The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian*
> 
> 
> I recently indicated my belief that Universal is giving us some of the best PQ when it comes to new releases. I still believe that to be the case, but the champion has been, and remains, Disney in my opinion.
> 
> 
> Prince Caspian is another example of the great releases that Disney puts on Blu. This one looks nothing less than fantastic!
> 
> 
> Blacks, shadow detail, and overall all contrast is excellent. Colors look great. Detail and textures are very well preserved, and there are certainly no signs of DNR whatsoever. Skin pores and freckles are clearly resolved.
> 
> 
> While watching this movie, it was obvious to me that this is a Tier 0 title, and the thing that I kept thinking was if there is only one word that you could use to describe the main difference between a Tier 0 title and other titles it would be: *CLARITY.*
> 
> 
> Any yes, the CLARITY here is simply superb. There are some scenes that were a bit less impressive than the rest, but those were pretty rare. Overall, this is a fantastic looking title, certainly deserving of its Tier 0 ranking.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Zero* (I agree with the current placement)



+1. My favorite looking BD this year by quite a bit. I enjoyed the movie itself and well as it was fairly entertaining. I really thinks this looks very similar to the Pirates movies in general and specifically for our thread purposes, eye candy.


Now I know our thread is about eye candy and I understand how some feel about Speed Racer, but IMO I think Caspian is in a whole other league above Speed Racer in terms of demo/reference, the grain thread and our eye candy thread. Caspian, within reason, is how I would want every live action BD to look. I would love to see this on a projector at home as I bet it looks amazing.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15522392
> 
> 
> +1. My favorite looking BD this year by quite a bit. I enjoyed the movie itself and well as it was fairly entertaining. I really thinks this looks very similar to the Pirates movies in general and specifically for our thread purposes, eye candy.
> 
> 
> Now I know our thread is about eye candy and I understand how some feel about Speed Racer, but IMO I think Caspian is in a whole other league above Speed Racer in terms of demo/reference, the grain thread and our eye candy thread. Caspian, within reason, is how I would want every live action BD to look. I would love to see this on a projector at home as I bet it looks amazing.



Hugh, I have to agree with all of this.


After watching 2 1/2 hours of this Tier 0 title I came to realize that it is important to watch a Tier 0 title every once in awhile in order to keep a good reference point clearly in mind. In fact, having watched Caspian within a couple of days of Death Race, I would now say that my comments about Death Race possibly being Tier 0 worthy are not accurate. Caspian is definitely a full tier ahead of Death Race.


I also thought exactly the same thing that you did regarding Caspian looking a lot like the Pirate films.


I enjoyed this quite a bit, more so than the first one. Unfortunately, it sounds like Disney will not be making any more of the Narnia films.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15522430
> 
> 
> Hugh, I have to agree with all of this.
> 
> 
> After watching 2 1/2 hours of this Tier 0 title I came to realize that it is important to watch a Tier 0 title every once in awhile in order to keep a good reference point clearly in mind. In fact, having watched Caspian within a couple of days of Death Race, I would now say that my comments about Death Race possibly being Tier 0 worthy are not accurate. Caspian is definitely a full tier ahead of Death Race.
> 
> 
> I also thought exactly the same thing that you did regarding Caspian looking a lot like the Pirate films.
> 
> 
> I enjoyed this quite a bit, more so than the first one. *Unfortunately, it sounds like Disney will not be making any more of the Narnia films.*




That is what I read in one of the other forum threads. Bummer as I thought everything about these films is engaging. Great stories, beautiful locations to show off the stunning cinematography, good acting, and fairly convincing CGI and more. Sad really if true.










Oh and butt kicking top of the charts BD eye candy transfers.











And Rob, that is why I questioned your take on Death Race. It has been a month or so since I had seen it and everything, yes everything since then has been help up to Caspian's eye candy, therefore making me more critical. I think some BD's are good looking, then Caspian comes along and even the really good looking ones are not in the same "tier".



Looking at tier 0, not only should Caspian be above Shoot em Up and Doomsday, but they really don't hold a candle compared to it and that is not an exaggeration. Caspian really should be above Crank, which I own.







In fact with our new tier 0 guidelines I challenge anyone to watch Doomsday and Shoot em up and explain how those two remain in tier 0 especially in comparison to Caspian. IMO There is a serious disconnect we need to address with those placements.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I agree that Caspian looks better than both Crank and Shoot Em Up! When I said I agree with it's current ranking, that doesn't mean that there aren't other titles that I think are misplaced.


I think it is a matter of moving both of those titles below Caspian. I haven't seen Doomsday.


Edit: check that. I have seen Doomsday. I don't remember thinking that it was a Tier 0 title. I don't think that I ever reviewed it here. I didn't like the movie.


----------



## rsbeck

Revision #10


Note: For the purposes of this tier system we do not take director's intent into consideration when evaluating the visual quality of each Blu-ray. This list represents an absolute ranking system, where every available Blu-ray's picture quality is directly compared against every other release. Those who are interested may want to use the thread search feature to peruse the individual reviews that contributed to these placements for further clarification. Tier placements can change over time as feedback warrants.

*Tier Zero (Blu)*

_Blu-ray titles in this tier consistently offer reference level, demonstration worthy high-definition picture quality that continues to impress both at viewing distances approximately 1.5 screen widths from the display and on larger projection screens over 100”.


A Blu-ray in Tier Zero will generally exhibit the following characteristics:


A *sharp* image with a palpable sense of depth, *clarity*, and presence that will often appear almost three-dimensional.


Excellent contrast, superb shadow detail, and the deepest black levels without macroblocking or clipping.


Exquisite resolution of ultra-fine detail, fabric and surface textures, individual strands of hair, and human faces down to the imperfections and pores. Animated material will often exhibit photo-realistic qualities and will feature beautifully rendered environments.


Sophisticated color palettes will be completely resolved down to the most subtle gradations. Primary colors will appear striking and dynamic. Black-and-white material will exhibit top-notch and accurate grayscale reproduction.


A film-based title will exhibit natural grain structure free of excessive digital noise reduction (DNR) or filtering that results in a noticeable impact on the image, including waxy looking faces and missing high-frequency detail in general.


Halos and ringing artifacts are either absent or not visible enough to be distracting from standard viewing distances.


No alteration from the originally intended aspect ratio or viewable image area.


An artifact-free video compression encoding that shows virtually no signs of chroma noise, banding, posterization, aliasing, macroblocking, compression noise, and other encoding deficiencies.


The transfer of the Blu-ray will be sourced from a master with virtually no visible flaws. This entails an image free of print damage, dirt, specks, cue marks, and other flaws that should be absent from a new and pristine transfer of source material in excellent condition._



.


----------



## rsbeck

*Tier 1 (Gold)* #5 (with input from Phantom Stranger)


Blu-rays in this tier are also demo worthy and exhibit many of the same qualities as titles in tier zero (Blu), albeit with a few qualifications: May contain brief periods where quality drops from reference or may exhibit reference quality transfer, but in general slightly below tier 0 in terms of visual interest, detail, clarity or pop.



.


----------



## rsbeck

*Tier Two (Silver)* version #1

_Blu-rays in this tier often contain segments that exhibit many of the same qualities as titles in tier zero (Blu), but may be noticeably less consistent and drop further from reference during these periods than titles in tier 1, or may exhibit high quality transfer and a significant improvement over previous DVD versions, but in general slightly below tier 1 level of visual interest, detail, clarity or pop._



.


----------



## rsbeck

*Tier 3* (Bronze) version #1


Blu-rays in this tier often contain moments with many of the same qualities as titles in tier zero (Blu), but will be noticeably less consistent and drop further from reference during these periods than titles in tier 2, or may exhibit reasonable quality transfer and a noticeable improvement over previous DVD versions, but in general a notch below tier 2 level of visual interest, detail, clarity and will have few moments of 3D pop.


----------



## rsbeck

*Tier 4* (Copper)


Blu-rays in this tier sometimes contain moments of very high quality, and some of these still represent noticeable improvement over previous DVD versions, but titles in this tier are usually either from seriously flawed transfers or very good transfers of source material that is difficult for any number of reasons, for example; age, damage to original, or artistic decisions that render a soft picture.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15522136
> 
> *The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian*
> 
> 
> I recently indicated my belief that Universal is giving us some of the best PQ when it comes to new releases. I still believe that to be the case, but the champion has been, and remains, Disney in my opinion.
> 
> 
> Prince Caspian is another example of the great releases that Disney puts on Blu. This one looks nothing less than fantastic!
> 
> 
> Blacks, shadow detail, and overall all contrast is excellent. Colors look great. Detail and textures are very well preserved, and there are certainly no signs of DNR whatsoever. Skin pores and freckles are clearly resolved.
> 
> 
> While watching this movie, it was obvious to me that this is a Tier 0 title, and the thing that I kept thinking was if there is only one word that you could use to describe the main difference between a Tier 0 title and other titles it would be: *CLARITY.*
> 
> 
> Any yes, the CLARITY here is simply superb. There are some scenes that were a bit less impressive than the rest, but those were pretty rare. Overall, this is a fantastic looking title, certainly deserving of its Tier 0 ranking.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Zero* (I agree with the current placement)



Ah, we finally agree Rob! And I do like that word CLARITY too!


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15523479
> 
> 
> Ah, we finally agree Rob! And I do like that word CLARITY too!



There is nothing to criticize on the PQ of Prince Caspian. It looks vivid, lustrous and there are plenty of stunning eye candy moments. Thanks to the excellent cinematography. I think this one can be placed above the POTCs. The only problem with this flick was it put me to sleep several times as I found the story to be too dragging.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15522642
> 
> 
> Revision #10
> 
> A sharp image with a palpable sense of depth, clarity, and presence that will often appear almost three-dimensional.
> 
> *Sophisticated color palettes will be completely resolved down to the most subtle gradations.* Primary colors will appear striking and dynamic. Black-and-white material will exhibit top-notch and accurate grayscale reproduction.



Everything looks fine but I will offer two small edits for consideration...

_A sharp image with a palpable sense of depth, clarity, and presence that will often appear nearly three-dimensional in nature._

_Sophisticated color palettes will be completely resolved down to the most subtle gradations of each color.
_


----------



## rsbeck

Revision #(ours goes to) 11 -- The Final Frontier?


Note: For the purposes of this tier system we do not take director's intent into consideration when evaluating the visual quality of each Blu-ray. This list represents an absolute ranking system, where every available Blu-ray's picture quality is directly compared against every other release. Those who are interested may want to use the thread search feature to peruse the individual reviews that contributed to these placements for further clarification. Tier placements can change over time as feedback warrants.

*Tier Zero (Blu)*

_Blu-ray titles in this tier consistently offer reference level high-definition picture quality that continues to impress both at viewing distances approximately 1.5 screen widths from the display and on larger projection screens over 100”.


A Blu-ray in Tier Zero will generally exhibit the following characteristics:


A sharp image with a palpable sense of depth, clarity, and presence that will often appear nearly three-dimensional in nature.


Excellent contrast, superb shadow detail, and the deepest black levels without macroblocking or clipping.


Exquisite resolution of ultra-fine detail, fabric and surface textures, individual strands of hair, and human faces down to the imperfections and pores. Animated material will often exhibit photo-realistic qualities and will feature beautifully rendered environments.


Sophisticated color palettes will be completely resolved down to the most subtle gradations of each hue. Primary colors will appear striking and dynamic. Black-and-white material will exhibit top-notch and accurate grayscale reproduction.


A film-based title will exhibit natural grain structure free of excessive digital noise reduction (DNR) or filtering that results in a noticeable impact on the image, including waxy looking faces and missing high-frequency detail in general.


Halos and ringing artifacts are either absent or not visible enough to be distracting from standard viewing distances.


No alteration from the originally intended aspect ratio or viewable image area.


An artifact-free video compression encoding that shows virtually no signs of chroma noise, banding, posterization, aliasing, macroblocking, compression noise, and other encoding deficiencies.


The transfer of the Blu-ray will be sourced from a master with virtually no visible flaws. This entails an image free of print damage, dirt, specks, cue marks, and other flaws that should be absent from a new and pristine transfer of source material in excellent condition._



.


----------



## rsbeck

I have a slight problem with this line:

*Black-and-white material will exhibit top-notch and accurate grayscale reproduction.*


I tend to think grayscale reproduction has a lot to do with one's display.


Anyone have another suggestion?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Revision #11 looks like a winner to me.


----------



## rsbeck

Grayscale resolution?


----------



## rsbeck

Black-and-white material will exhibit grayscale resolution that's like buttuh!


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15524096
> 
> 
> Revision #11 looks like a winner to me.



Excellent -- I think we're very, very close. I can see the finish line from here.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I think the unstated point of reference for the list is viewing on a properly calibrated display, so I have no problem with an accurately reproduced grayscale mention.


----------



## rsbeck

To me, great black and white is lush, rich, deep, great shadow detail, excellent delineation of each shade from black to white.....


[Best James Brown] Somebody....hep me!


----------



## rsbeck

I'm going to take a nap. When I wake up, if the money is on the table, I'll know I have a partner.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15523479
> 
> 
> Ah, we finally agree Rob! And I do like that word CLARITY too!



Oh noes! Does this mean that I too am getting a reputation of being a generous rater?!

























> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15524093
> 
> 
> I have a slight problem with this line:
> 
> *Black-and-white material will exhibit top-notch and accurate grayscale reproduction.*
> 
> 
> I tend to think grayscale reproduction has a lot to do with one's display.
> 
> 
> Anyone have another suggestion?



I don't get this. All aspects of PQ have a lot to do with one's display, including color accuracy, black levels, contrast, and ability to fully resolve 1080p resolution. Why any different for grayscale reproduction?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Happening
*

tier recommendation: Tier *2.25*


Released on October 7th of 2008 by Fox, this M. Night Shyamalan movie looks consistently above average on Blu-ray. The 90-minute main feature is encoded in AVC on a BD-50. The average video bitrate is 29.84 Mbps per the BDInfo scan. The video encoding, done by Deluxe Digital Studios, is an example of wonderful compression quality for the Blu-ray format. The video encode stays in a very narrow band between 26.8 and 32.6 Mbps for most of the feature with one or two isolated peaks at 37 Mbps. There are simply no compression deficiencies or artifacts at all. Even the very difficult credit sequences, with what appears to be clouds in time-lapse photography, show no problems whatsoever.


I would call this transfer a very natural film-like presentation. There are no signs of DNR anywhere with a pleasing grain structure present throughout the movie. Most of the time there are absolutely no halos but a 20 second scene of Mark Wahlberg in a field did show some possible edge enhancement. But overall I would call this one of the least processed transfers I have seen lately on Blu-ray.


Colors are slightly flat at times compared to Blu-rays in higher tiers, though this seems a conscious decision of the director and cinematographer. Facial close-ups look very good at times and in this regard would easily qualify for tier one, even high tier one. I would not say this picture has the greatest sense of depth. In this aspect it is clearly tier two in caliber. The black levels are solid with little if any clipping, but nothing that stands out particularly. Shadow detail is okay and everything appears fully resolved in darker scenes.


I can strongly recommend this Blu-ray's visual quality as a faithful transfer and representation of material that was never designed to reach the aesthetic Olympian heights of tier zero.


Watching on a 60 Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 played on a PS3 (firmware 2.53) from an approximate viewing distance of six feet.


BDInfo Scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...6#post14819536


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sleater* /forum/post/15520097
> 
> 
> I agree with your review quite completely. I also viewed it with the Geek Trivia Track and it _almost_ mirrors the reality in this thread with some of us guys spewing geeky technobabble about picture quality like the guys go on and on with their Star Wars references and speaking in Huttese etc. But I could probably safely place you G3 in with the boys in this regard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bring in the other moms and maybe they can laugh at us like the gal laughed at the 2 feuding guys in that trivia track! We need a little more balance at times...



OMG It was so funny, especially the Huttese. I've heard of people learning to speak Klingon but _Huttese_?!?!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15520579
> 
> 
> G3,
> 
> 
> I do commend you for your good and detailed review of Wall-E.
> 
> 
> Of course, I don't agree totally with your recommendation, for I think it should actually be at the bottom of Tier 0 (if not the top of Tier 1). I would ask you what I have asked others and please be deliciously honest:
> 
> 
> Would you really use Wall-E as a demo to introduce the virtues of Blu-ray to a newcomer to HD? And let's say, hypothetically, that they only had a half hour to spare. Would you actually play the first 30 minutes of Wall-E to try to win them over to Blu-ray?
> 
> 
> I'm not trying to be *mean*, I'm just wondering if you were that impressed with the first 30 minutes.



*snicker* Djoberg, I know you're not trying to be mean. The answer to your question is undoubtedly, undisputedly yes. If I was in the situation you describe, I would have no issue showing them the beginning of Wall-E as I found it to be gorgeous. I feel both "sides" of Wall-E have their merits, and I sat here in awe looking at the crisp detail that was put in to the beginning. This is also why I did not want to do a review based on 1 viewing of Wall-E, especially since it's so debated here, I wanted to make sure the _awe-factor_ of it stuck with me the 2nd time around -- and it did.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15522136
> 
> *The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian*
> 
> ...
> *Tier Recommendation: Zero* (I agree with the current placement)



Fantastic review, Rob. I agreed with your assessment of Prince Caspian from what I remember of my viewing/review. This one was a rental for me, so I wonder if I would feel differently about it if I watched it with my new TV as it was one of the few titles I did review using my Toshiba. I know i had a couple issues with certain places with it, and I'm curious if it was due to the quality of that set. All these recent reviews of it make me want to see it again!


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/15523676
> 
> 
> There is nothing to criticize on the PQ of Prince Caspian. It looks vivid, lustrous and there are plenty of stunning eye candy moments. Thanks to the excellent cinematography. I think this one can be placed above the POTCs. *The only problem with this flick was it put me to sleep several times as I found the story to be too dragging.*



I agree. I thought the pacing was often very slow. Perhaps that helps explain the lower BO, and in turn why Disney, at least, will not be involved in a Narnia 3. So they are putting their money into Tron 2 instead.


----------



## lgans316

*L.A. Confidential & JFK*: Do these really deserve to be in *Tier 1.5* & *1.75* respectively ? Not sure about JFK but I have viewed L.A confidential twice and IMO, it didn't look any better than a Tier 2.25 title. Please correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## rsbeck

Caspian,


IMO, the remainder of the film is more impressive than the first ten minutes, but no question the vast majority of the title is reference material and any nit-picks with regard to the beginning should not bring it out of tier 0.




.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/15524846
> 
> *L.A. Confidential & JFK*: Do these really deserve to be in *Tier 1.5* & *1.75* respectively ? Not sure about JFK but I have viewed L.A confidential twice and IMO, it didn't look any better than a Tier 2.25 title. Please correct me if I am wrong.



I would support moving *JFK to 2.0* and *Confidential to 2.25.*


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15524096
> 
> 
> Revision #11 looks like a winner to me.



Done!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15526011
> 
> 
> Caspian,
> 
> 
> IMO, the remainder of the film is more impressive than the first ten minutes, but no question the vast majority of the title is reference material and any nit-picks with regard to the beginning should not bring it out of tier 0. Regarding where it is placed in tier 0, IMO, it is rather silly to have Caspian below The Police: Certifiable or Mongol. I do agree that when you watch truly consistent reference material such as that in most of Caspian and then you watch some of the other tier 0 titles, you quickly realize some of the others do not belong in tier 0. Of the titles I've seen in tier 0 that, IMO, do belong in tier 0, I would say Caspian, because it fills the screen with more interesting things to see and offers more in the way of visual appeal, belongs above Black Snake Moan, which, IMO, deserves to stay where it is currently placed.



I certainly agree that Caspian is better than Black Snake Moan, but I think the latter movie is currently placed too high anyway (in fact I don't think it is a Tier 0 title).


----------



## Phantom Stranger

My recommendation for JFK was the bottom quarter of tier one and I will stand by that assessment.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post15066252 


My recommendation for L.A. Confidential was the second quarter of tier two:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...6#post14752746


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15526610
> 
> 
> I certainly agree that Caspian is better than Black Snake Moan, but I think the latter movie is currently placed too high anyway (in fact I don't think it is a Tier 0 title).



Since you think Mr. Brooks is Tier 0, are you saying that Mr. Brooks looks better than Black Snake Moan?


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15524579
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *snicker* djoberg, i know you're not trying to be mean. The answer to your question is undoubtedly, undisputedly yes. If i was in the situation you describe, i would have no issue showing them the beginning of wall-e as i found it to be gorgeous. I feel both "sides" of wall-e have their merits, and i sat here in awe looking at the crisp detail that was put in to the beginning. This is also why i did not want to do a review based on 1 viewing of wall-e, especially since it's so debated here, i wanted to make sure the _awe-factor_ of it stuck with me the 2nd time around -- and it did.



+1

Loved your review!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/15523676
> 
> 
> There is nothing to criticize on the PQ of Prince Caspian. It looks vivid, lustrous and there are plenty of stunning eye candy moments. Thanks to the excellent cinematography. I think this one can be placed above the POTCs. The only problem with this flick was it put me to sleep several times as I found the story to be too dragging.



I would have no problem whatsoever seeing Prince Caspian above the POTCs.


As far as the story dragging, I was so captivated by the PQ that it kept my interest from beginning to end. I did think the story was better than the first installment (The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe).


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/15523676
> 
> 
> Oh noes! Does this mean that I too am getting a reputation of being a generous rater?!



You're getting close, but you're not quite there yet!







Once you do arrive, I'll be the first one to welcome you to the "generous rater" club.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15524579
> 
> 
> *snicker* Djoberg, I know you're not trying to be mean. The answer to your question is undoubtedly, undisputedly yes. If I was in the situation you describe, I would have no issue showing them the beginning of Wall-E as I found it to be gorgeous. I feel both "sides" of Wall-E have their merits, and I sat here in awe looking at the crisp detail that was put in to the beginning. This is also why I did not want to do a review based on 1 viewing of Wall-E, especially since it's so debated here, I wanted to make sure the _awe-factor_ of it stuck with me the 2nd time around -- and it did.



"To each their own."










FWIW, if I had a newcomer to HD in my home theater room and they only had a half hour, I would slip in Prince Caspian. That title has such a broad spectrum of visuals (as rsbeck intimated in a recent post) to feast one's eyes upon. Oh, and by all means you should rent Prince Caspian again to view on your new Panny.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15527167
> 
> 
> "To each their own."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FWIW, if I had a newcomer to HD in my home theater room and they only had a half hour, I would slip in Prince Caspian. That title has such a broad spectrum of visuals (as rsbeck intimated in a recent post) to feast one's eyes upon. Oh, and by all means you should rent Prince Caspian again to view on your new Panny.




I also think it would depend on the person I was showing it to. Some of my friends would appreciate Wall-E more than others. Others would need to be hit with the sledgehammer-of-subtlety that is Speed Racer-type eye-candy.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15527372
> 
> 
> I also think it would depend on the person I was showing it to. Some of my friends would appreciate Wall-E more than others. Others would need to be hit with the sledgehammer-of-subtlety that is Speed Racer-type eye-candy.



Good point!


I had my nephew and his wife over one day to show them what HD looked like and I ended up showing them some prime scenes from Planet Earth. My nephew was impressed but his wife said, "I can't see any difference between this and my standard def cable channels." (I was completely frustrated with her at that point!) Then I popped in Ratatouille and she finally acquiesced and said, "Yeah, that looks pretty good." If I would have had Speed Racer in my library back then (a year ago) I probably would have used that to WOW her.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15526909
> 
> 
> Since you think Mr. Brooks is Tier 0, are you saying that Mr. Brooks looks better than Black Snake Moan?



I'm sure you are capable of doing the math.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15527040
> 
> 
> I would have no problem whatsoever seeing Prince Caspian above the POTCs.
> 
> 
> As far as the story dragging, I was so captivated by the PQ that it kept my interest from beginning to end. I did think the story was better than the first installment (The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe).



I am going to scan through POTC2/3 and Prince Caspian again, but I do not recall face closeups in Prince Caspian to be of the same level. Of course, it's been a while, and perhaps POTC is on a pedestal that it needs to be knocked down from.


----------



## H.Cornerstone

*Hellboy II*


Just watched this tonight on my *Sony V3000 40 inch with Playstation 3*, and have to say, I was really impressed. This movie is really for Blu-ray much more than the first one as it the first one seemed to have toned down colors, while this one was more natural, and has some scenes in some really bright places. Great transfer in which you can really see the detail that they went into with the make-up, even in dark scenes (which there are quite a few in the movie). I remember others complaining about the CGI, which I agree was sub-par, especially when comparing it to the costumes and other created props, but still better than I Am Legend.


Anyways, this is a excellent transfer that really shows a lot of detail and clarity (Rob's word of the day!), and the fine details Del Torro did to make this movie.

*Recommendation: Agree with current placement in Tier 0.*


Side note:


Anyone know what the true AR of Crank is? On the back of the Blu-ray box it says 2:35:1, yet it takes up my entire screen with no black bars. And I notice that it is listed as 1.78:1. Is that just to designate that it does not have any black bars?


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15529820
> 
> 
> I do not recall face closeups in Prince Caspian to be of the same level.



You've hit on the only issue that holds Caspian back, IMO.


It does not consistently meet this tier 0 criteria...

*human faces down to the imperfections and pores.*


Now, this is often because these are kids and they do not have a lot of imperfections and large pores, but that's not our concern --- that's director's intent. But, even the adults with lots of character in their faces are not consistently resolved down to the pores. This demands some patience. But, that cuts both ways, too. Later in the film, at one point or another, you do finally get to see the kids' faces resolved down to the fine detail so you can see the kids' faces do have some character -- it just demands the right lighting and camera angle and this was obviously not a priority. Understandable, perhaps, but -- again -- director's intent.


Some of the indoor shots are also not lit for the best contrast.


So, Caspian is not perfect, but ---


I think Caspian makes up for this in some measure by filling the screen with lots of interesting and detailed scenery, costumes, and some scenes with each of the actors resolved down to the pores and imperfections -- you do eventually get to see them. Some of the reason we do not see more pores is because the kids are seldom shot in close-up, they are part of the scenery and many of the scenic shots best anything one can get in the best nature blu-rays, with incredible detail, contrast, subtle variation, texture, etc.


IMO, Caspian has enough virtues for tier 0.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I agree that there are some scenes in Prince Caspian that have weak contrast (some of the early interior scenes in particular). Like you say, though, there is enough virtues overall to overcome the few shortcomings to put it in Tier 0.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *H.Cornerstone* /forum/post/15530134
> 
> 
> Anyone know what the true AR of Crank is? On the back of the Blu-ray box it says 2:35:1, yet it takes up my entire screen with no black bars. And I notice that it is listed as 1.78:1. Is that just to designate that it does not have any black bars?



It's filmed on digital cameras that put out a 1920x1080 frame, so I'm assuming full screen is the correct AR for that movie.


----------



## rsbeck

*Persepolis*


Disagree with current 1.0 ranking.


First, I must say that I really enjoyed this film and admire the way it was put together. It is a hand drawn animated title and this was an excellent artistic decision, but I see this very similar to Chungking Express. While I admire the artistic decision to go for a very spare, very stripped down, very 2D, very graphic art type look, anyone looking for demo material is going to be sorely disappointed by this. I cannot in good conscience recommend this title for tier 1.0 when another mostly black and white title that offers far more in the way of visual interest, Sin City, sits in tier 1.25.


I searched and only found two reviews for this title.


This one...



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ozymandis* /forum/post/14566854
> 
> 
> Finally watched my copy of Persepolis. It is a Tier-Blu release. While it is very simple, there are zero artifacts, contrast is great, and color when it's there is perfect. The audio is also fantastic. I don't know if it's demo material for me because it's a more thoughtful film but it is pretty much flawless.


 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...4#post14566854 


This review seems to be talking more about the transfer than about the picture and I agree this film has benefitted from a fine transfer to high resolution blu-ray. However, the poster concludes without even endorsing it as demo material. Tier 1 is still considered demo material.


And this one...



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *av.pallino* /forum/post/14722061
> 
> 
> Watched Persepolis last night. While the PQ is excellent. IF we are talking eye candy, this movie is not it. I am not sure it would warrant a place in tier 0 as demo material to show off Blu Ray.


 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1#post14722061 


Doesn't specify a tier recommendation only that it shouldn't be in tier 0 and another assertion that this isn't demo material. I agree, but tier 1.0 through 1.75 is also for demo material. I'm not trying to put this film down. It has its charms and unique beauty -- otherwise, I would be recommending a lot lower. It's an off-beat little art film with a lot of story interest and I highly recommend it as a film. However, while blu-ray may help bring out the ultimate in what this title has to offer -- the blacks are black, the whites white, the lines sharp -- I don't feel Persepolis offers enough to warrant a place in the upper tiers. I would place it next to my beloved The Day The Earth Stood Still....

*Recommendation: Tier 2.0*


Sim2 C3X1080

126" Firehawk G3

13' From Screen


----------



## rsbeck

Persepolis, cont'd...


Here's a site where you can watch some extensive trailers and get an idea what I am talking about. Check it out....

http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony/p...epolis_lg.html


----------



## rsbeck

Sin City Trailer for comparison....

http://www.apple.com/trailers/mirama...dwightr_1.html


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15530610
> 
> 
> Persepolis, cont'd...
> 
> 
> Here's a site where you can watch some extensive trailers and get an idea what I am talking about. Check it out....
> 
> http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony/p...epolis_lg.html



I havent seen it, so I cant make an official tier recommendation, but the material in the movie does not seem to have the eye candy, detail, and 3D pop needed to fit the Tier 1 criteria... unless the material in the trailer isn't representative of the movie. I just think the style doesnt lend itself to eye candy (i.e. demo purposes to convert someone to blu-ray).


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaDeuce* /forum/post/15516539
> 
> 
> Can I make a suggestion?
> 
> 
> If we could add the date of the last list update to the thread title, it would make it easier to just glance at it.
> 
> 
> Also I think if we could add markers that said when something was new on the list or if something moved up or down that would be wonderful. Sometimes I come in here and see that the list was updated, but can't figure out if something is new or if it just moved, etc.



Great suggestion. The board software automatically tags the end of the post with the time/date stamp of the latest edit. However, sometimes I make small edits that don't have much to do with the actual title placements, so that time stamp could be misleading. I've added a "Latest Update" line at the beginning of the thread












> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15516792
> 
> 
> This used to be done. Unfortunately, it adds a lot of additional work (and time) to maintaining the list. It's hard enough trying to stay up to date as it is. This just complicated things too much, and would be even more difficult now with all the new releases that we get.



Rob is correct. We have done this in the past, and while I think it's very useful, it does take a ton of time to implement and keep updated. We also used to put an *(UP)* or *(DOWN)* tag for titles that were moved. But, as you can imagine, it became problematic when we are moving or placing almost 100 titles, like in the latest update.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15516873
> 
> 
> Perhaps a hotlink to the post SuprSlow makes when he does his updates? He always explains them. Just have the date like this:
> 
> 
> Last List Update: January 9, 2009 by SuprSlow
> 
> 
> Then people could just click it and see his post, and see what all the most recent movement was.



Thanks







Added to the first post, as mentioned above.





And thanks to everyone who picked nits







with the revised Tier 0 description, especially Phantom who spearheaded the rewrite. It's been added to the first post. Nice job to all. Let's see what we can do with the others.


Not sure if I posted about it earlier, but the Unranked Titles section has been removed.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15530607
> 
> *Persepolis*
> 
> 
> Disagree with current 1.0 ranking.
> 
> 
> First, I must say that I really enjoyed this film and admire the way it was put together. It is a hand drawn animated title and this was an excellent artistic decision, but I see this very similar to Chungking Express. While I admire the artistic decision to go for a very spare, very stripped down, very 2D, very graphic art type look, anyone looking for demo material is going to be sorely disappointed by this. I cannot in good conscience recommend this title for tier 1.0 when another mostly black and white title that offers far more in the way of visual interest, Sin City, sits in tier 1.25.
> 
> 
> I searched and only found two reviews for this title.
> 
> 
> This one...
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...4#post14566854
> 
> 
> This review seems to be talking more about the transfer than about the picture and I agree this film has benefitted from a fine transfer to high resolution blu-ray. However, the poster concludes without even endorsing it as demo material. Tier 1 is still considered demo material.
> 
> 
> And this one...
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1#post14722061
> 
> 
> Doesn't specify a tier recommendation only that it shouldn't be in tier 0 and another assertion that this isn't demo material. I agree, but tier 1.0 through 1.75 is also for demo material. I'm not trying to put this film down. It has its charms and unique beauty -- otherwise, I would be recommending a lot lower. It's an off-beat little art film with a lot of story interest and I highly recommend it as a film. However, while blu-ray may help bring out the ultimate in what this title has to offer -- the blacks are black, the whites white, the lines sharp -- I don't feel Persepolis offers enough to warrant a place in the upper tiers. I would place it next to my beloved The Day The Earth Stood Still....
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 2.0*
> 
> 
> Sim2 C3X1080
> 
> 126" Firehawk G3
> 
> 13' From Screen



I watched this awhile back, and I will strongly support your Tier 2.0 recommendation. Persepolis shouldn't be ranked any higher than that for the very reasons that you state in your review.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15529327
> 
> 
> I'm sure you are capable of doing the math.



To each his own.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/15524846
> 
> *L.A. Confidential & JFK*: Do these really deserve to be in *Tier 1.5* & *1.75* respectively ? Not sure about JFK but I have viewed L.A confidential twice and IMO, it didn't look any better than a Tier 2.25 title. Please correct me if I am wrong.



I'm about to pop in JFK now. It's my first time watching! I've heard so many good things about this flick. I'll let you know what I think about it's ranking.


----------



## H.Cornerstone




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15530370
> 
> 
> It's filmed on digital cameras that put out a 1920x1080 frame, so I'm assuming full screen is the correct AR for that movie.



Yeah, it is full screen, which is why I never understood why the Blu-ray box for the movie says it's 2.35:1.


----------



## Coxwell




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fleaman* /forum/post/15517787
> 
> 
> The DVD version is pretty bad too (what I outlined in *bold* above), how much better is the Blu ray over DVD on just those faults?
> 
> 
> I noticed the next 2 Matrix movies on DVD had very good blacks and very little digital noise in the dark scenes. I almost want to get Blu on just the first Matrix only.....



I owned the remastered DVD but, it was a long time ago. I can't recall how was the PQ. Nevertheless, I aml not quite satisfied with the BD of Matrix. Maybe i'm just too perfectionnist







, and the studio cannot get any upgrade from the current source.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15532704
> 
> 
> To each his own.



Which is exactly the way this thread should be: each participant giving their _own_ opinion, regardless of whether it conforms to what the majority thinks.


Needless to say, I can give numerous examples of placements that I completely disagree with. You've come up with only one such example.


----------



## rsbeck

*Persepolis* ---



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15531624
> 
> 
> unless the material in the trailer isn't representative of the movie. *I just think the style doesnt lend itself to eye candy (i.e. demo purposes to convert someone to blu-ray)*.



Thank you.


Ordinarily, I would not post a link to a trailer, but I felt that the trailer actually condenses some of the best moments and presents the visual style of Persepolis in its best light. Since I am recommending a lower placement, I felt the trailer would give the title its best defense.


----------



## rsbeck

*Persepolis --*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15532320
> 
> *I watched this awhile back, and I will strongly support your Tier 2.0 recommendation.* *Persepolis* shouldn't be ranked any higher than that for the very reasons that you state in your review.



Thank you.


----------



## rsbeck

*Mongol --*

*Disagree With Current Tier 0 Placement.*


IMO, The story of this title's placement is an interesting study....


Here are the reviews Mongol has received:


This is the one that got the ball rolling....



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TheTonik* /forum/post/14889033
> 
> 
> This is my first post in this thread, not totally sure how this works, but...I would like to recommend _Mongol_ as being a Tier 0. Or at the very least, Tier 1. Pristine transfer. Just incredible.


 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...3#post14889033 


First review and not a very confident vote for tier 0.



Second ---



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ballen420* /forum/post/14901275
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> 
> This movie looked amazing. Tons of outdoor scenes that really shined too. There was a lot of grain apparent in the scenes with sunset, but believe it was just film grain and should not take away from the PQ at all. I definitely recommend it for tier 0, but *would be satisfied if it was placed at the top of tier 1.* *I can say I didn't spend the entire movie looking for defects,* as the story was excellent.


 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post14901275 


Another less than confident vote for tier 0 -- another reviewer who says he'd be satisfied with tier 1 -- says he was caught up in the story, didn't really look for defects.


Third....



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15101152
> 
> 
> I have had *Mongol: The Rise of Genghis Khan* in my Blu-ray library for several weeks and I finally had the time to watch it. This title deserves no less than a *Tier 1* placement, preferably the *top quarter*. Let me say emphatically that it was one of the most detailed titles I have viewed, especially the facial close-ups (and there were MANY); they were absolutely amazing. I was tempted to suggest Tier 0, but *the first 30-40 minutes had some rather soft and grainy night scenes. Even the day scenes lacked some detail, but from the 40 minute mark the detail was exceptional* (it reminded me of Apocalypto in this respect).
> 
> 
> It had a limited color palette (similar to Braveheart, which I can't wait to see once it comes out on Blu-ray), but the natural colors of the breathtaking landscapes yielded their own unique "eye candy." The flesh tones throughout the movie were spot on, and you could see every pore, every hair, and every bead of sweat...I found myself mesmerized by such detail!


 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post15101152 


This is an emphatic vote for tier 1, says he would prefer the top quarter, cannot recommend tier 0.


4rth....



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/15376219
> 
> *Mongol* was a pleasant surprise. Great scenic vistas and a story told in the epic fashion of yesteryear. Nice sharpness, although on a few scenes it seemed focus was slow to pop into place. All in all I agree with present placement in *Tier 0*.


 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...9#post15376219 


5th --

*Mongol*


Starts off a tiny bit soft and flat, but if you're patient, this title will reward you. Grain appeared intact and did not see any sign of ringing or halo. For long stretches in the beginning, the scenery is very good, but not up to reference standards, but after about 40 minutes, things pick up, scenery begins to pop and there are some tier 0 type demo sequences; incredible scenery, facial texture, costumes, the works. This is a lovely title with many virtues including a very natural looking picture that is very easy to watch. I cannot recommend tier 0 because it didn't exhibit tier 0 qualities consistently and didn't exhibit those qualities until quite deep into the film, but this is easily a solid mid tier 1 title.

*Recommendation: Tier 1.5*

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...0#post15445750 



You've got two less than confident votes for tier 0, one emphatic vote for tier 1, cannot recommend tier 0, one "don't-rock-the-boat" vote agreeing with the rank after it had been placed and one vote for tier 1.5. I don't believe this should be enough to keep Mlongol in tier 0, much less 16th from the bottom in tier 0.


For much of Mongol's running time, the scenic shots are nice, but not tier 0 quality, more like Planet Earth or Blue Planet quality. Those titles are tier 2.0 and 2.25. It has some tier 0 type demo segments deep into the film, but so does Planet Earth and many other titles. This really should not be enough to place the title in tier 0 or even high in tier 1.


I strongly urge that we take this title out of tier 0.


Thank you.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15533499
> 
> 
> Which is exactly the way this thread should be: each participant giving their _own_ opinion, regardless of whether it conforms to what the majority thinks.
> 
> 
> Needless to say, I can give numerous examples of placements that I completely disagree with. You've come up with only one such example.



I couldn't agree more! 99.9% of the time we seem to be on the same page.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15534485
> 
> *Mongol --*
> 
> *Disagree With Current Tier 0 Placement.*
> 
> 
> You've got two less than confident votes for tier 0, one emphatic vote for tier 1, cannot recommend tier 0, one "don't-rock-the-boat" vote agreeing with the rank after it has been placed and one vote for tier 1.5. I don't believe this should be enough to keep Mlongol in tier 0, much less 16th from the bottom in tier 0.
> 
> 
> I strongly urge that we take this title out of tier 0.



Agree 100%! After reading the recommendations you listed I'm wondering how it even got into Tier 0.


----------



## daveshouse

I may have missed this and I apologize because I usually do a good job of keeping up, but when did this arrive on the first page?


TIER 6.31749 -GARBAGE- (ABC)


Sleeping Beauty Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.55:1 | Disney



It's in Tier 6.31749 and in Tier 0?


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *daveshouse* /forum/post/15534674
> 
> 
> I may have missed this and I apologize because I usually do a good job of keeping up, but when did this arrive on the first page?
> 
> 
> TIER 6.31749 -GARBAGE- (ABC)
> 
> 
> Sleeping Beauty Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.55:1 | Disney
> 
> 
> 
> It's in Tier 6.31749 and in Tier 0?




Perhaps SuprSlow should hotlink the Tier 6.31749 to the joke that it belongs with.







hehehe.



It arrived a couple of days ago, with a lot of fear at the addition of a new tier... and then laughter.











ETA: Here's SuprSlow's post. http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...6#post15502456


----------



## daveshouse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15534723
> 
> 
> Perhaps SuprSlow should hotlink the Tier 6.31749 to the joke that it belongs with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hehehe.
> 
> 
> 
> It arrived a couple of days ago, with a lot of fear at the addition of a new tier... and then laughter.



LOL thanks for clearing that one up for me. I must have overlooked it. Good stuff!


----------



## spbull472

*Madagascar*


Not sure if this is the place to post this particular inquiry but I was directed to this thread.


My setup:

AVR: Denon AVR-2809ci

BR Player: 160gb PS3


I'm connected via HDMI (Blue Jeans), using LPCM.


When navigating the disc menu (scenes, extras, etc), I will get random popping noises. Not a click with each navigation movement, but a click every so often. This does not happen with my other BluRay Discs. Has anyone else experienced this with Madagascar? I've googled "popping noises will navigating Madagascar disc menu" but haven't been getting any hits.


Thanks in advance and if this is the wrong thread, I apologize.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spbull472* /forum/post/15535064
> 
> *Madagascar*
> 
> 
> Not sure if this is the place to post this particular inquiry but I was directed to this thread.
> 
> 
> My setup:
> 
> AVR: Denon AVR-2809ci
> 
> BR Player: 160gb PS3
> 
> 
> I'm connected via HDMI (Blue Jeans), using LPCM.
> 
> 
> When navigating the disc menu (scenes, extras, etc), I will get random popping noises. Not a click with each navigation movement, but a click every so often. This does not happen with my other BluRay Discs. Has anyone else experienced this with Madagascar? I've googled "popping noises will navigating Madagascar disc menu" but haven't been getting any hits.
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance and if this is the wrong thread, I apologize.



I will venture a guess. The popping noises _may very well be_ related to your AVR and that particular Blu-ray disc and the solution _may be_ a firmware update for your receiver. I suggest you find the thread for your Denon receiver (type in the exact model number of your Denon AVR in the "Google Search AVS" at the top of this page) and ask the members there if they have had this "popping" problem with Madagascar. Again, a simple firmware update may be the solution to the problem.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Here is my first take on tier 5. Any comments, questions, edits, ideas or suggestions are welcomed...

*Tier Five - Charcoal (Unacceptable)*

_The titles in this tier have severe limitations in their picture quality that is strongly underwhelming compared to the average Blu-ray. The image has deficiencies in multiple areas that would be obvious upon a casual viewing. Without question the Blu-rays in tier five are among the worst looking on the market. At various times the picture quality is hard to distinguish from upscaled dvd material. Softness, artifacting, poor source material, limited resolution and clarity are general characteristics of titles in this tier._


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *daveshouse* /forum/post/15534674
> 
> 
> I may have missed this and I apologize because I usually do a good job of keeping up, but when did this arrive on the first page?
> 
> 
> TIER 6.31749 -GARBAGE- (ABC)
> 
> Sleeping Beauty Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.55:1 | Disney
> 
> 
> It's in Tier 6.31749 and in Tier 0?



My apologies for the confusion.







To the first post I added a link to the explanation.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15534723
> 
> 
> Perhaps SuprSlow should hotlink the Tier 6.31749 to the joke that it belongs with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hehehe.
> 
> 
> It arrived a couple of days ago, with a lot of fear at the addition of a new tier... and then laughter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ETA: Here's SuprSlow's post. http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...6#post15502456



I hereby nominate GGG as Official Hotlinker. Seconded?


Thanks


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15535903
> 
> 
> Here is my first take on tier 5. Any comments, questions, edits, ideas or suggestions are welcomed...
> 
> *Tier Five - Charcoal (Unacceptable)*
> 
> _The titles in this tier have severe limitations in their picture quality that is strongly underwhelming compared to the average Blu-ray. The image has deficiencies in multiple areas that would be obvious upon a casual viewing. Without question the Blu-rays in tier five are among the worst looking on the market. At various times the picture quality is hard to distinguish from upscaled dvd material. Softness, artifacting, poor source material, limited resolution and clarity are general characteristics of titles in this tier._



The only suggestion I would have Phantom is that you could end the description with the following words:


"As a result of these deficiencies and the utter worthlessness of these titles, one might choose to use these discs as a substitute for charcoal while grilling your favorite food."


----------



## rsbeck

One little addition...




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15535903
> 
> 
> 
> *Tier Five - Charcoal (Unacceptable)*
> 
> _The titles in this tier have severe limitations in their picture quality that is strongly underwhelming compared to the average Blu-ray. The image has deficiencies in multiple areas that would be obvious upon a casual viewing. Without question the Blu-rays in tier five are among the worst looking on the market. At various times the picture quality is hard to distinguish from upscaled dvd material. Softness, artifacting, poor source material, limited resolution and clarity are general characteristics of titles in this tier. *Other than that, they are fabulous!*_






Kidding, of course.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/15536022
> 
> 
> I hereby nominate GGG as Official Hotlinker. Seconded?



Aye.


----------



## rsbeck

But seriously, Phantom's Tier Five looks like a keeper. No nits here.


----------



## rsbeck

*Mongol* --



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15534646
> 
> 
> Agree 100%! After reading the recommendations you listed *I'm wondering how it even got into Tier 0*.



I can see how a mistake could have been made. A number of the votes had verbiage like, "Maybe tier 0." If you're scrolling through, trying to get a handle on the voting and you've got a lot of titles to place, it could easily look like a groundswell for tier 0. But, this is why I am serious when I say that tier 0 represents all of the work we do in this forum. I believe it should be very difficult for a title to get in there and that if it is going to represent our work, then a title shouldn't get in there without at least 5 reviews. Think about this. Do we want a title in tier 0 that has not even been seen by 5 of our reviewers?


I've heard some speculation that maybe three might suffice, but look at this situation with Mongol and you can see that even three is not enough. I know that 5 sounds like a lot, but I don't believe it is too much. If we are going to put this thread's stamp of approval on a title by placing it in tier 0, claiming it is ultimate demo material, I believe we ought to wait until at least 5 of us have reviewed it.


----------



## Hughmc

this is an interesting link I found ricwhite provided in a post from the 3000.oo and up projector thread, "Show us your screenshots".

http://www.rmwhome.com/Imagescurrent...Q%20Rubric.pdf 

*Blu-ray Picture Quality Rubric*

*5 Reference Quality* - Perfect transfer. Incredible detail and depth with excellent clarity, sharpness, and amazing pop. Perfect color reproduction and shadow detail. No artifacts or blemishes. Wow factor off the charts.

*4.75 Reference Quality* - Nearly perfect transfer. Excellent detail, depth, sharpness, and clarity with amazing pop throughout almost all of the print. Excellent color reproduction and shadow detail. No artifacts or blemishes. Wow factor extremely high.

*4.5 Excellent Quality* - Nearly perfect transfer. Excellent detail, depth, sharpness, and clarity with excellent pop in most of the print. Excellent color reproduction and shadow detail. Few if any artifacts or blemishes.

*4.25 Excellent Quality* - Excellent transfer with excellent detail, depth, sharpness, and clarity. Pop and wow factor is present in many scenes. Excellent color reproduction and very good shadow detail. Occasional artifacts or blemishes.

*4.0 Excellent Quality* - Excellent transfer with great detail, depth, sharpness, and clarity in much of the movie. Some pop and 3D-like images in some scenes with a few flat scenes. Very good color reproduction and shadow detail. Occasional artifacts or blemishes.

*3.75 Very Good Quality* - Transfer shows very good detail, depth, sharpness, and clarity in most of the movie with only some flat or dull images. May have a few scenes which pop in a 3D-like way on screen. Very good color accuracy with some loss in shadow detail. Some artifacts and blemishes.

*3.5 Good Quality* . Average Blu-ray transfer with good detail, depth, sharpness, and clarity in much of the movie. Not many 3D-like scenes. Some images appear dull and flat. Color accuracy is fine. Some loss in shadow detail. Some artifacts and blemishes.

*3.25 Good Quality* . Slightly below average Blu-ray transfer with okay detail, depth, sharpness, and clarity in much of the movie. Few, if any, 3D images. Only okay color accuracy and shadow detail. Noticeable artifacts and blemishes.

*3 Fair quality* . Below average Blu-ray transfer with noticeable issues with detail, depth, sharpness, or clarity. No 3D-like scenes. Possible issues with color reproduction and shadow detail. Noticeable artifacts and blemishes.

*2.5 Somewhat Poor Quality*. Below average Blu-ray transfer with many issues with detail, depth, sharpness, or clarity. Artifacts. Only slightly better than up-converted SD-DVD.

*2 Poor Quality*. Doesn't look like Blu-ray. Detail, depth, sharpness, and clarity is on par with up-converted SD material. Hard to find any noticeable difference with the standard definition counterpart.

*1 Awful Quality*. Actually looks the same or even worse than previously released standard definition versions.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15538149
> 
> 
> Aye.



Aye 2!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15538293
> 
> *Mongol* --
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can see how a mistake could have been made. A number of the votes had verbiage like, "Maybe tier 0." If you're scrolling through, trying to get a handle on the voting and you've got a lot of titles to place, it could easily look like a groundswell for tier 0. But, this is why I am serious when I say that tier 0 represents all of the work we do in this forum. *I believe it should be very difficult for a title to get in there and that if it is going to represent our work, then a title shouldn't get in there without at least 5 reviews. Think about this. Do we want a title in tier 0 that has not even been seen by 5 of our reviewers?*
> 
> 
> I've heard some speculation that maybe three might suffice, but look at this situation with Mongol and you can see that even three is not enough. I know that 5 sounds like a lot, but I don't believe it is too much. If we are going to put this thread's stamp of approval on a title by placing it in tier 0, claiming it is ultimate demo material, I believe we ought to wait until at least 5 of us have reviewed it.



I would have no problem requiring 5 reviews for a Tier 0 placement.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15538838
> 
> 
> 
> I would have no problem requiring 5 reviews for a Tier 0 placement.



I agree. The only exception, of course, would be if I am the only one recommending the Tier 0 placement.










Seriously though, five is pushing it. Four should be fine, unless all four votes come from the notorious liberal raters like djoberg.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15538910
> 
> 
> I agree. The only exception, of course, would be if I am the only one recommending the Tier 0 placement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously though, five is pushing it. Four should be fine, unless all four votes come from the notorious liberal raters like djoberg.




Unless it's Mamma Mia. Then djoberg's just a hater.











If being the "Official Hotlinker" just entails what I've been doing already, then I'm all for it.


----------



## spectator

*Wall-E*


Fascinating to see just how far they decided to go with the artificial film grain in the blown-out peaks of the red laser spots.


Meanwhile, I can find not a nit to pick.

*Recommendation: Tier 0*


Stick _that_ in your controversy and smoke it!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15538910
> 
> 
> Four should be fine, unless all four votes come from the notorious liberal raters like djoberg.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15538991
> 
> 
> Unless it's Mamma Mia. Then djoberg's just a hater.



Hey, come on you two....even "liberal _raters_" and "Mamma Mia _haters_" have feelings.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Well, I haven't seen Mamma Mia yet, but my wife is making me rent it, and I will be FORCED to watch it AGAINST MY WILL. Once I have, I will probably join the Mamma Mia haters club since I really tend not to like musicals. My least favorite genre.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15539383
> 
> 
> Well, I haven't seen Mamma Mia yet, but my wife is making me rent it, and I will be FORCED to watch it AGAINST MY WILL. Once I have, I will probably join the Mamma Mia haters club since I really tend not to like musicals. My least favorite genre.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15538991
> 
> 
> If being the "Official Hotlinker" just entails what I've been doing already, then I'm all for it.



There may be some snack duty involved.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15538838
> 
> 
> I would have no problem requiring 5 reviews for a Tier 0 placement.



Beauty -- thanks!


----------



## rsbeck

I've liked musicals before; Singin' in the Rain, My Fair Lady, The King and I, West Side Story, Fiddler on the Roof, Grease.....it's just been a few years since they've made one I've liked.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15540209
> 
> 
> I've liked musicals before; Singin' in the Rain, My Fair Lady, The King and I, West Side Story, Fiddler on the Roof, Grease.....it's just been a few years since they've made one I've liked.



I agree with that.


----------



## rydenfan




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15540209
> 
> 
> I've liked musicals before; Singin' in the Rain, My Fair Lady, The King and I, West Side Story, Fiddler on the Roof, Grease.....it's just been a few years since they've made one I've liked.



Have you tried Sweeny Todd?


----------



## SuprSlow

Normally I hate musicals, but for some reason I liked Across the Universe. However, I have a feeling Mamma Mia would fall under the "hate" category. I've made my wife sit through my nerd stuff (When We Left Earth, etc.) so I just may have to endure (sleep)











I have no problems with requiring four or five reviews for a Tier 0 placement. I'll try to keep the first post updated with links to the respective reviews until we get enough.


----------



## iresq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15539383
> 
> 
> Well, I haven't seen Mamma Mia yet, but my wife is making me rent it, and I will be FORCED to watch it AGAINST MY WILL. Once I have, I will probably join the Mamma Mia haters club since I really tend not to like musicals. My least favorite genre.



Yeah, my wife's on me to get this as well. It's been in my Netflix cue for a while with 'long wait', as far as she knows.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15539321
> 
> 
> Hey, come on you two....even "liberal _raters_" and "Mamma Mia _haters_" have feelings.



Feeeeeeeeeeeeeelings.... wooah-oah-oah.... feeeeeeeeeeeeelings!!











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15539383
> 
> 
> Well, I haven't seen Mamma Mia yet, but my wife is making me rent it, and I will be FORCED to watch it AGAINST MY WILL. Once I have, I will probably join the Mamma Mia haters club since I really tend not to like musicals. My least favorite genre.



Your wife sounds like my kinda gal.







My husband abandoned me when I watched Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2, to go play on his computer instead. He was forced to watch Mamma Mia with me and a friend after we went out to a party thing though, but that also meant he had at least 5 beers into him.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15540136
> 
> 
> There may be some snack duty involved.



Chocolate Chip cookies and Rice Krispie snacks for all!! I'll make some Puppy Chow (addictive and yummy!) if you all behave.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/15541280
> 
> 
> Normally I hate musicals, but for some reason I liked Across the Universe. However, I have a feeling Mamma Mia would fall under the "hate" category. I've made my wife sit through my nerd stuff (When We Left Earth, etc.) so I just may have to endure (sleep)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problems with requiring four or five reviews for a Tier 0 placement. I'll try to keep the first post updated with links to the respective reviews until we get enough.




I'm scared to watch Across the Universe. But if you must sleep through Mamma Mia then you must support my agenda to take over the world me in my "It at least belongs in Tier 1!!" camp. Just watch the pretty sparkly water and call it a day. Although you may have some nightmares of James Bond bursting into song, Walther PPK in one hand, vodka martini in the other.


I also agree that 4 or 5 votes for Tier 0. I'm sure the rest of it will fall into place (additional votes coming in after it's been placed can be added in to the other support for Tier 0 if it lands in Tier 1 maybe?).



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *iresq* /forum/post/15541347
> 
> 
> Yeah, my wife's on me to get this as well. It's been in my Netflix cue for a while with 'long wait', as far as she knows.




You're MEAN!! You better watch out b/c she might just go out and buy it next time she's at the Local Big Box store if you make her wait too long.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15541475
> 
> 
> Feeeeeeeeeeeeeelings.... wooah-oah-oah.... feeeeeeeeeeeeelings!!



Hey, can I help it that I lived with no less than *SIX* females for years?!?!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15541475
> 
> 
> Chocolate Chip cookies and Rice Krispie snacks for all!! I'll make some Puppy Chow (addictive and yummy!) if you all behave.



I actually checked out that link and I guess I'd be willing to do some tricks (sit, heel, roll over, etc.) for those goodies!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15541475
> 
> *You're MEAN*!! You better watch out b/c she might just go out and buy it next time she's at the Local Big Box store if you make her wait too long.



Do you remember me saying (when I gave my review on Mamma Mia) that I enjoyed watching my wife enjoy the flick? So, not all of us guys are MEAN!


----------



## stumlad

The second planet of the apes starts out looking like a DVD from 1999. I think it was because of the way they used to overlay text on movies, but even so, it was bad. After the main credits get out of the way, it looks much better. I would say it's a good half-a-tier better than the first movie. You could see that some of the actors who are considered "extras" were wearing cheap masks compared to the main ones who had more work done to them. Some of the face closeups on the main character and Nova were pretty good, but still, there was nothing that really wowed me about this. *Tier 3.25*


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15539383
> 
> 
> Well, I haven't seen Mamma Mia yet, but my wife is making me rent it, and I will be FORCED to watch it AGAINST MY WILL. Once I have, I will probably join the Mamma Mia haters club since I really tend not to like musicals. My least favorite genre.




I feel for you Rob. One of the good qualities of my GF is she does NOT like musicals, so I lucked out as far as this goes! Funny thing is I actualy do enjoy a few musicals (few and far between) and she gives me a little **** for it!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15540209
> 
> 
> I've liked musicals before; Singin' in the Rain, My Fair Lady, The King and I, West Side Story, Fiddler on the Roof, Grease.....it's just been a few years since they've made one I've liked.



Other than Singin' in the Rain, I don't care for any of those movies.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rydenfan* /forum/post/15541125
> 
> 
> Have you tried Sweeny Todd?



I have, and I liked it. Didn't think it was great, but it was certainly enjoyable (somehow that word doesn't seem right when talking about a movie involving a lot of blood) enough. I'd recommend Sweeney Todd to anyone.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *iresq* /forum/post/15541347
> 
> 
> Yeah, my wife's on me to get this as well. It's been in my Netflix cue for a while with 'long wait', *as far as she knows.*














There are some other musicals that I like, just not many. I didn't care for Chicago. Simply hate Moulin Rouge. Etc.


I do enjoy The Sound of Music, sappy as it is, and *Dancer in the Dark* is an excellent movie. One reason I like Dancer in the Dark is that the musical sequences fit the story itself so much better than most.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15542156
> 
> 
> I do enjoy The Sound of Music, sappy as it is, and *Dancer in the Dark* is an excellent movie. One reason I like Dancer in the Dark is that the musical sequences fit the story itself so much better than most.



The Sound of Music is a classic; I DO enjoy that. Another musical that we watched often in our house was The Newsies, starring Batman, ah, I mean starring Christian Bale (when he was like 18 years old). My daughters just love that flick (and my wife and I do too).


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15541868
> 
> 
> Do you remember me saying (when I gave my review on Mamma Mia) that I enjoyed watching my wife enjoy the flick. So, not all of us guys are MEAN!



Oh I only meant the guy I quoted when I made that comment, so you're safe on that score.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15541831
> 
> 
> Hey, can I help it that I lived with no less than *SIX* females for years?!?!



Girl power!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15541852
> 
> 
> I actually checked out that link and I guess I'd be willing to do some tricks (sit, heel, roll over, etc.) for those goodies!



I made all that stuff for my friends for Christmas, they loved it. Addictive good stuff! Good thing Christmas is only once per year...



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/15542065
> 
> 
> I feel for you Rob. One of the good qualities of my GF is she does NOT like musicals, so I lucked out as far as this goes! Funny thing is I actualy do enjoy a few musicals (few and far between) and she gives me a little **** for it!



*snicker* That's hilarious. Reminds me of how I'm the one who wanted the Plasma TV and the husband wants to get new furniture. Talk about a role reversal!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15542328
> 
> 
> The Sound of Music is a classic; I DO enjoy that. Another musical that we watched often in our house was The Newsies, starring Batman, ah, I mean starring *Christian Bale*(when he was like 18 years old). My daughters just love that flick (and my wife and I do too).



*swoon*











I'll be back in a bit with a Matrix (just the first one) review. I'm watching certain parts on the DVD first, and then will post one on up.







Is it just me or is the EE on the DVD just dreadful? I've had it on for like 5 minutes and I'm cringing!!! I think I'm getting even worse with my pickiness... soon DVDs will be outright banned from my living room I think.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15541475
> 
> 
> 
> I'm scared to watch Across the Universe.



Why?


----------



## deltasun

I actually prefer the extended preview of the movie to the actual movie, but that's just me.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15538838
> 
> 
> I would have no problem requiring 5 reviews for a Tier 0 placement.



Whether we run with 5, 4 or whatever, what's the fate of a title that never crosses this threshold but also never receives a lesser review?


Suppose some fairly obscure or unpopular title comes along and garners 3 Tier 0 reviews (and no other reviews). Is it going to end up in Tier 1 (because it does not yet qualify for Tier 0)? Is it going into an 'insufficient data' holding pen and never being ranked at all? What happens?


As much as I generally agree with a skeptical slant to proceedings, wherein a title must 'prove' itself, I think we need to have a uniform standard for 'sufficient data' across _all_ Tiers. If it takes 5 reviews to land in Tier 0, it should take 5 reviews to land in Tier 3.


----------



## tfoltz

This is becoming more of a social hangout than a PQ discussion thread. Also, I don't think 5 reviews are necessary to put a movie in tier 0.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15541475
> 
> 
> Chocolate Chip cookies and Rice Krispie snacks for all!! I'll make some Puppy Chow (addictive and yummy!) if you all behave.



Cancel all of the other interviews!



> Quote:
> I also agree that 4 or 5 votes for Tier 0.



Excellent.



> Quote:
> I'm sure the rest of it will fall into place (additional votes coming in after it's been placed can be added in to the other support for Tier 0 if it lands in Tier 1 maybe?).



That's how I would envision it. 5 reviews before placement in tier 0, but after it is placed, all of the usual rules would still apply. If the next batch of reviews recommend higher or lower placement, it should still move like any other title.


.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/15541280
> 
> 
> Normally I hate musicals, but for some reason I liked Across the Universe.



That one was bearable, but it broke the unspoken rule governing musicals for the past thirty years and actually used great songs.



> Quote:
> I have no problems with requiring four or five reviews for a Tier 0 placement. I'll try to keep the first post updated with links to the respective reviews until we get enough.



Excellent -- will there be a place where we can see which titles have been nominated for tier 0? If we have a place where we would easily access that, I think it would provide some sense of urgency to the rest of us see those and post a review.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/15543863
> 
> 
> This is becoming more of a social hangout than a PQ discussion thread.



All work and no play? You get a bunch of people in one thread with common interests -- bound to be some socializing.


----------



## rsbeck

Mama Mia --


I didn't hate it. I was mystified by it. I've heard songs by Abba before that I've kind of liked. I'm not sure, but I don't think any of them were in Mama Mia. I couldn't quote you a lyric or hum a tune from this musical if I were being threatened with a dentist's drill. I sat there thinking, "who would like this?" Next thing I know, my wife, daughters, and their friends are going around the house singing all the songs and asking me to load up Mama Mia one mo' time. It's a cult, I tell ya.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15543370
> 
> 
> *snicker* That's hilarious. Reminds me of how I'm the one who wanted the Plasma TV and the husband wants to get new furniture. Talk about a role reversal!



I like your style










It is hilarious though over here. I talked up Phantom of the Opera (which is one of the musicals I actualy like. has sentimental value as I saw the play in NY on Chistmas Day in 01) to the GF and her 2 daughters (14 & 12) and I almost got laughed out of the room about 1/3 the way through as they all quit watching!







Oh well










Give Across the Universe a try as that is actualy one of the other musicals I enjoyed (if you like the Beatles at all).


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*La Femme Nikita*


I'm a big fan of Luc Besson, and this movie is vintage Besson. The style and mood he creates here is simply superb, and the story is better than the majority of Besson's films (which normally aren't his strongest point).


My very first impression of PQ was not positive, as the opening credits looked horrible. Thankfully, the rest of the movie improved a lot, and the titles were not indicative of things to come.


There is a fine layer of grain throughout the film, and dark scenes exhibit increased grain which I might actually refer to as noise. The darker scenes seem to struggle in terms of contrast, and they don't look completely natural.


Overall detail is pretty good, but there are definitely scenes that look soft. This varies throughout the film, with some scenes looking very impressive, and others quite soft.


Colors are not particularly impressive, but do seem to suit the style of the film.


I was impressed with how clean the print was. Very few noticeable instances of dirt or scratches.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*


I see this is currently at Tier 2.75, which is only a quarter tier higher than my recommendation. However, I would submit that there is a bigger difference between tier 2.75 and 3.0 than one might think. We are talking about different tiers here. As happy as I am with how Nikita looks overall, I can't recommend it for anywhere in Tier 2, as the overall PQ just doesn't hold up compared to other Tier 2 titles.


Anyway, I really enjoyed watching this again. I forgot just how much I enjoy it.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/15544681
> 
> 
> 
> Give Across the Universe a try as that is actualy one of the other musicals I enjoyed (if you like the Beatles at all).



I'm a huge Beatlemaniac, but I loathed Across the Universe.


There were way too many scenes in that movie that caused me to do this:










Part of the problem is everyone interprets Beatles songs differently in terms of what they mean. This is a good thing. When you have a film like Across the Universe that interprets their songs in a way that may be completely different, well, it just doesn't work.


Far too many of the songs were sung to a very cheesy and cliched backdrop. One example: soldiers carrying the Statue of Liberty across a tabletop Vietnam to the classic Beatles song 'She's So Heavy'. Are you kidding me?










I'm sorry, but the Beatles and their music deserve FAR better than this.


You want to experience the Beatles music? You would be MUCH better served by listening to one of their CD's than wasting your time on this crap.


But that's just me.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

As far as requiring 5 votes before a title makes it into Tier 0, I completely agree in principle, but I think reality is going to be a completely different matter.


I still don't think that we have enough participation here to allow for this, and many titles will never receive enough votes to qualify unless you are talking about very high profile releases such as TDK.


It would be interesting to see how many votes each of the current Tier 0 titles have.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15545382
> 
> *La Femme Nikita*
> 
> 
> I'm a big fan of Luc Besson, and this movie is vintage Besson. The style and mood he creates here is simply superb, and the story is better than the majority of Besson's films (which normally aren't his strongest point).
> 
> 
> My very first impression of PQ was not positive, as the opening credits looked horrible. Thankfully, the rest of the movie improved a lot, and the titles were not indicative of things to come.
> 
> 
> There is a fine layer of grain throughout the film, and dark scenes exhibit increased grain which I might actually refer to as noise. The darker scenes seem to struggle in terms of contrast, and they don't look completely natural.
> 
> 
> Overall detail is pretty good, but there are definitely scenes that look soft. This varies throughout the film, with some scenes looking very impressive, and others quite soft.
> 
> 
> Colors are not particularly impressive, but do seem to suit the style of the film.
> 
> 
> I was impressed with how clean the print was. Very few noticeable instances of dirt or scratches.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.0*
> 
> 
> I see this is currently at Tier 2.75, which is only a quarter tier higher than my recommendation. However, I would submit that there is a bigger difference between tier 2.75 and 3.0 than one might think. We are talking about different tiers here. As happy as I am with how Nikita looks overall, I can't recommend it for anywhere in Tier 2, as the overall PQ just doesn't hold up compared to other Tier 2 titles.
> 
> 
> Anyway, I really enjoyed watching this again. I forgot just how much I enjoy it.



I did recommend this to be 2.75 but it wouldn't break my heart if it was lowered to tier 3. I think besides mine, only Stumlad's(& now yours) review exists for this film.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15545765
> 
> 
> I did recommend this to be 2.75 but it wouldn't break my heart if it was lowered to tier 3. I think besides mine, only Stumlad's(& now yours) review exists for this film.



Thanks. I actually mostly agree with both your review and Stumlad's, it's really just the final conclusion that I differ with.


Stumlad said this:



> Quote:
> Sometimes it was Tier 1 matieral, other times Tier 4. It looked better more often than it did worse, but I'd give it a Tier 2.75 recommendation



I agree with some scenes being Tier 1, and others being Tier 4 as the PQ varied quite a bit. But again, overall, I think it falls short of Tier 2.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15545694
> 
> 
> I still don't think that we have enough participation here to allow for this, and many titles will never receive enough votes to qualify unless you are talking about very high profile releases such as TDK.



I hear your concern, but I know that if I see something nominated for tier 0, I will make a special effort to review it -- I'm betting others will, too. I believe we should be able to say to anyone using our tier system that at least 5 of our reviewers have seen any title that is in our reference tier.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15545912
> 
> 
> Thanks. I actually mostly agree with both your review and Stumlad's, it's really just the final conclusion that I differ with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with some scenes being Tier 1, and others being Tier 4 as the PQ varied quite a bit. But again, overall, I think it falls short of Tier 2.




Yeah the Tier 4 stuff was probably what I described as the horrible stock footage looking stuff. Like I said, wouldn't break my heart to see it go down a notch, I could support that decision with no problem.


It truly was great to see that movie again though! I forgot that Jean Reno from Léon(hey, is that on Blu Ray yet? Must google...) was in it, that was a nice treat.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*The Matrix*


It's been since the original release of the DVD since I've seen this film. I remember watching it on my PS2 - my first DVD player! - and trying to figure out how to use the follow the white rabbit special feature. I have no idea what happened to my copy of the original DVD, but when I borrowed this Blu Ray from my friend who got the Ultimate Matrix Blu Ray recently, he also handed me the DVD from his other boxed set to compare long with it.


There are some aspects of The Matrix that completely underwhelmed me, and I wondered if it was much better than the DVD. Then I plunked the DVD in and I couldn't handle watching that for more than 10 minutes, so yes... it's a marked improvement over DVD in my eyes.


I had an expectation of more crispness out of this Blu Ray than I got, though. Facial close-ups had details, but I felt that I needed more out of them, if that makes any sense. Of course I saw scars and pock-marks and peach fuzz on close-ups but I still _felt_ they could be better. In some close ups it was like the detail on their noses was distorted, but the rest of their face remained intact. Much of the film was a lot softer than I remembered on top of it all, and I had problems with focus in some areas. Possibly all director's intent stuff, but that's not the mantra here. There were things that still left me impressed, most notably in my head being Trinity's outfit (who can deny Carrie-Anne Moss is rockin' it in that movie? Not I.).


Even though I had read the threads on the Matrix, the other reviews in this thread, as well as through word of mouth and was already in possession of the knowledge that this was not a pristine transfer, my hopes still held out until I could see it with my own eyes. It fell short for me, plain and simple. The colours were what I was expecting, but not on the palate to me of being true to Eye Candy, very flat and muted. Perhaps if this movie was somehow crisper (I hesitate to say sharper here) or clearer, even with the colours they used it could possibly be eye-popping to me, but the softness I felt in some scenes made it more subdued.


Either way, when I plunked the DVD copy in to check out some scenes (the white room with Neo & Morpheus in particular) the noise and blurriness of the picture made me very much appreciate the amount it's been cleaned up for Blu Ray. I just don't think it's clean or clear _enough_ for Tier 1, and definitely not Tier 0 in my opinion.

*Recommendation for The Matrix (original) - Tier 2.00


Equipment: ps3 to Panasonic TH-58PZ800U THX setting, approx 7.5' viewing distance.*


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15545645
> 
> 
> I'm a huge Beatlemaniac, but I loathed Across the Universe.
> 
> 
> There were way too many scenes in that movie that caused me to do this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Part of the problem is everyone interprets Beatles songs differently in terms of what they mean. This is a good thing. When you have a film like Across the Universe that interprets their songs in a way that may be completely different, well, it just doesn't work.
> 
> 
> Far too many of the songs were sung to a very cheesy and cliched backdrop. One example: soldiers carrying the Statue of Liberty across a tabletop Vietnam to the classic Beatles song 'She's So Heavy'. Are you kidding me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but the Beatles and their music deserve FAR better than this.
> 
> 
> You want to experience the Beatles music? You would be MUCH better served by listening to one of their CD's than wasting your time on this crap.
> 
> 
> But that's just me.



lol. Rob, totaly understand and respect your opinion, and I agree that there are certainly better ways to experience the Beatles music. I actualy felt very similar to how you do for the first ~1/3 of the movie, but then it started to work for me for whatever reason even though it was cheesy as all hell







By the end of the movie I actualy enjoyed the experience for whatever reason, but again I understand your feelings. By the way, I certainly did not like it enough to add it to my collection







Part of it I am sure is that I am only a casual Beatles fan and I can see how a real fan of the Beatles could HATE this. If they did something similar with the Dead, I would be flat out pissed!







I still say for those curious to give it a rent since opinions are all over the map on this one.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/15546141
> 
> 
> lol. Rob, totaly understand and respect your opinion, and I agree that there are certainly better ways to experience the Beatles music. I actualy felt very similar to how you do for the first ~1/3 of the movie, but then it started to work for me for whatever reason even though it was cheesy as all hell
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the end of the movie I actualy enjoyed the experience for whatever reason, but again I understand your feelings. By the way, I certainly did not like it enough to add it to my collection
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Part of it I am sure is that I am only a casual Beatles fan and I can see how a real fan of the Beatles could HATE this. If they did something similar with the Dead, I would be flat out pissed!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I still say for those curious to give it a rent since opinions are all over the map on this one.



If it shows up again on my HD movie channel I'll record it on my DVR and give it a chance. I know the husband for sure will NOT watch this one, though, and it's about $7 a crack for me to rent blu ray's up here (zip.ca is not much of an option when you live in the arctic either, turnaround's not worth it). I guess if it needs more reviews for the thread I might rent it, we'll see.










*Patrick99* -- I finally watched the Mamma Mia special features. You are on the money for the extended Lay All Your Love On Me scene -- that additional stuff would have ruined it completely.







And my fear of Across the Universe was just word-of-mouth that it was not very good.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15546022
> 
> 
> I hear your concern, but I know that if I see something nominated for tier 0, I will make a special effort to review it -- I'm betting others will, too. I believe we should be able to say to anyone using our tier system that at least 5 of our reviewers have seen any title that is in our reference tier.



We'll see how it works. When you say 5 reviews, this means that you can have 3 people vote tier 0 and 2 people vote tier 1? Or do you need 5 people voting for Tier 0 to put it there?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15546076
> 
> 
> Yeah the Tier 4 stuff was probably what I described as the horrible stock footage looking stuff. Like I said, wouldn't break my heart to see it go down a notch, I could support that decision with no problem.
> 
> 
> It truly was great to see that movie again though! I forgot that Jean Reno from Léon(hey, is that on Blu Ray yet? Must google...) was in it, that was a nice treat.



You know what I was hoping? When they called in "the cleaner" (which is what Leon was in Besson's next movie) I was hoping that his name was going to be Leon (remember they talked about a dumb friend named Leon earlier in the movie), and that the subsequent film was based on his character.
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Of course, that wouldn't work since Victor (the cleaner) died in this film.



Jean Reno is in another Besson film that I personally love: The Big Blue (Le Grand Bleu). Id love to see this on BD soon, along with Leon.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15546119
> 
> *The Matrix*
> 
> 
> It’s been since the original release of the DVD since I’ve seen this film. I remember watching it on my PS2 - my first DVD player! - and trying to figure out how to use the “follow the white rabbit” special feature. I have no idea what happened to my copy of the original DVD, but when I borrowed this Blu Ray from my friend who got the Ultimate Matrix Blu Ray recently, he also handed me the DVD from his other boxed set to compare long with it.
> 
> 
> There are some aspects of The Matrix that completely underwhelmed me, and I wondered if it was much better than the DVD. Then I plunked the DVD in and I couldn’t handle watching that for more than 10 minutes, so yes... it’s a marked improvement over DVD in my eyes.
> 
> 
> I had an expectation of more crispness out of this Blu Ray than I got, though. Facial close-ups had details, but I felt that I needed more out of them, if that makes any sense. Of course I saw scars and pock-marks and peach fuzz on close-ups but I still _felt_ they could be better. In some close ups it was like the detail on their noses was distorted, but the rest of their face remained intact. Much of the film was a lot softer than I remembered on top of it all, and I had problems with focus in some areas. Possibly all director’s intent stuff, but that’s not the mantra here. There were things that still left me impressed, most notably in my head being Trinity’s outfit (who can deny Carrie-Anne Moss is rockin’ it in that movie? Not I.).
> 
> 
> Even though I had read the threads on the Matrix, the other reviews in this thread, as well as through word of mouth and was already in possession of the knowledge that this was not a pristine transfer, my hopes still held out until I could see it with my own eyes. It fell short for me, plain and simple. The colours were what I was expecting, but not on the palate to me of being true to Eye Candy, very flat and muted. Perhaps if this movie was somehow crisper (I hesitate to say “sharper” here) or clearer, even with the colours they used it could possibly be eye-popping to me, but the softness I felt in some scenes made it more subdued.
> 
> 
> Either way, when I plunked the DVD copy in to check out some scenes (the white room with Neo & Morpheus in particular) the noise and blurriness of the picture made me very much appreciate the amount it’s been cleaned up for Blu Ray. I just don’t think it’s clean or clear _enough_ for Tier 1, and definitely not Tier 0 in my opinion.
> 
> *Recommendation for The Matrix (original) – Tier 2.00
> 
> 
> Equipment: ps3 to Panasonic TH-58PZ800U THX setting, approx 7.5’ viewing distance.*



Excellent review! I think the Matrix could probably be moved down a tad from it's current 1.5 tier ranking, maybe 1.75 or 2.0.


Speaking of the Matrix, I still consider it an excellent movie (despite the fact that the brothers Wachowski have released a lot of crap since). Keanu Reeves himself (of all people) does a great job of explaining what makes it such a good film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrXCH...autologin=true 



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/15546141
> 
> 
> lol. Rob, totaly understand and respect your opinion, and I agree that there are certainly better ways to experience the Beatles music. I actualy felt very similar to how you do for the first ~1/3 of the movie, but then it started to work for me for whatever reason even though it was cheesy as all hell
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the end of the movie I actualy enjoyed the experience for whatever reason, but again I understand your feelings. By the way, I certainly did not like it enough to add it to my collection
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Part of it I am sure is that I am only a casual Beatles fan and I can see how a real fan of the Beatles could HATE this. If they did something similar with the Dead, I would be flat out pissed!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I still say for those curious to give it a rent since opinions are all over the map on this one.



I do agree that the opinions on the film are all over the place, just like the opinions of it's PQ were as well!


----------



## Hughmc

Musicals. I agree Across the Universe is good, and Sweeney Todd is ok, more for the movie than the singing, although that seems to contradict saying it is a good musical. There were also a few others the last two years that I think are musicals and were excellent. August Rush for one and also that one with the Irish guy who played guitar and the girl from czech I think it was who played the piano. I can't remember the name of that one either, but it is excellent as well.


Djoberg, my daughters love Newsies as well, at least they used to now they are 18 as of today, yes twins. I think it was xtian Bale that did it for them as well. I think he actually sang in that movie and I believe David Krumholtz was in it as well.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/15543863
> 
> 
> This is becoming more of a social hangout than a PQ discussion thread. Also, I don't think 5 reviews are necessary to put a movie in tier 0.



I don't believe this thread is becoming a "social hangout," but at times this is what we do when reviews aren't coming in like crazy. This is one way we can "lighten up" after having some heated debates about certain titles.










As far as having 5 reviews for Tier 0, I believe it is a very good idea and as rsbeck said in a recent post, some members will make every effort to watch one that is being nominated for that tier. I, for one, will make that effort, for I LOVE EYE CANDY!! (Even if the story-line of the movie may not appeal to me.)


In answer to Rob's question above, I believe the answer (from rsbeck) will be that there must be 5 reviews in all, even if 1 or 2 of them were voting for tier 1. Correct me rsbeck if I'm wrong in assuming this to be your answer.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15546292
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what I was hoping? When they called in "the cleaner" (which is what Leon was in Besson's next movie) I was hoping that his name was going to be Leon (remember they talked about a dumb friend named Leon earlier in the movie), and that the subsequent film was based on his character.
> *Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler
> *Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Of course, that wouldn't work since Victor (the cleaner) died in this film.
> 
> 
> 
> Jean Reno is in another Besson film that I personally love: The Big Blue (Le Grand Bleu). Id love to see this on BD soon, along with Leon.



I hoped for the same thing!! I haven't seen the other movie, but if it's of the same quality as Nikita & Leon, I'd definitely check it out.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Next Avengers: Heroes Of Tomorrow*


recommendation: *Tier 1.75*


This direct-to-video movie from Marvel was released on Blu-ray by Lionsgate on September 2, 2008. The 78-minute main feature is encoded in AVC on a BD-25. The video encode ranges from a low of 15.2 Mbps to peaks nearing 40 Mbps. Most of the feature stays in the 20's with brief bursts into the 30's. I would estimate the average video bitrate at 24 Mbps. Compression quality is fine but not perfect. There are some faint moments of posterization in the background of certain scenes and a whisper of spurious compression artifacting in one scene. But these are nitpicks more than anything else and I think the average viewer would probably not notice these artifacts.


As befitting an animated superhero movie with a comic book heritage, the color palette is consistently rich and bold throughout. All colors are nicely saturated and jump off the screen in certain moments. Black levels are absolutely perfect with a striking and uniform consistency to black-colored objects. The line art is simply not on par with Disney theatrical animation, but is superior to prior Marvel efforts on Blu-ray. The animation style is a simple and clean look for the main characters. No one will confuse the image with some hyper-detailed style seen in some anime. I will say the backgrounds are more detailed than in the other Marvel animated movies I have seen. Character animation is fluid in action scenes with a good sense of natural movement.


The source material must be in flawless shape. This is as pristine and flawless an image as I have seen on Blu-ray in terms of master defects. The image looks totally unprocessed with no edge enhancement or digital filtering applied to the transfer. I would venture that this Blu-ray is incredibly faithful to the original animation art cels.


I will recommend a placement in tier 1.75 for this animated feature featuring simple line drawings with brilliant color rendition. Marvel has definitely improved the picture quality of this animated feature compared to prior efforts. The only thing holding the image back from getting a higher placement is the lack of animated detail in certain moments.


Watching on a 60 Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 from a PS3 (firmware 2.53) at an approximate viewing distance of six feet.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15546392
> 
> 
> I hoped for the same thing!! I haven't seen the other movie, but if it's of the same quality as Nikita & Leon, I'd definitely check it out.



Le Grand Bleu is completely different than Nikita and Leon, but it has Besson's style and mood (largely created by the music of Eric Serra, which is GREAT).


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15546218
> 
> 
> 
> *Patrick99* -- I finally watched the Mamma Mia special features. You are on the money for the extended Lay All Your Love On Me scene -- that additional stuff would have ruined it completely.



Glad to hear you agree, G3.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Speaking of Besson, has anyone got a chance to view _The Messenger_ yet for the purposes of this thread?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15545645
> 
> 
> I'm a huge Beatlemaniac, but I loathed Across the Universe.
> 
> 
> There were way too many scenes in that movie that caused me to do this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Part of the problem is everyone interprets Beatles songs differently in terms of what they mean. This is a good thing. When you have a film like Across the Universe that interprets their songs in a way that may be completely different, well, it just doesn't work.
> 
> 
> Far too many of the songs were sung to a very cheesy and cliched backdrop. One example: soldiers carrying the Statue of Liberty across a tabletop Vietnam to the classic Beatles song 'She's So Heavy'. Are you kidding me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but the Beatles and their music deserve FAR better than this.
> 
> 
> You want to experience the Beatles music? You would be MUCH better served by listening to one of their CD's than wasting your time on this crap.
> 
> 
> But that's just me.



You and I have exchanged comments on this movie before, Rob, of course.










As you know, I am *not* a huge Beatles fan. I thought the movie was extremely uneven, and many of the numbers were indeed cringe-inducing. But for me, enough of them worked well enough that I can enjoy certain parts of the movie quite a bit. The PQ is mediocre, however.


----------



## Hughmc

Rob, I watched Death Race again. I recommended 1.75. I think it could go slightly higher based on all the positive attributes you mentioned. IMO, I wouldn't go higher than 1.5 based on Death Race itself and in comparison to BD's in that tier. I just don't see it as the equivalent of anything higher.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15546580
> 
> 
> Rob, I watched Death Race again. I recommended 1.75. I think it could go slightly higher based on all the positive attributes you mentioned. IMO, I wouldn't go higher than 1.5 based on Death Race itself and in comparison to BD's in that tier. I just don't see it as the equivalent of anything higher.



I've been trying to rent Death Race at one of our local video stores but they only keep one Blu-ray copy of each title and this one is always out when I try. I am tempted to go with Netflix, but I only pay $1.99 locally (for one night) and that's pretty hard to beat. As soon as I see it I'll weigh in.


PS I'm looking forward to seeing Joan Allen in that kind of role.


----------



## deltasun

For $18/month, I get 24 Netflix movies a month if I "watch" the movie the night I get it. Pretty good deal, IMHO.


For new releases, the trick is to return your movies on either Friday or Saturday and you're pretty much guaranteed to get THAT Tuesday's releases on Tuesday. They'll mail it Monday.


----------



## rsbeck

*Friday Night Lights*


Fine natural grain apparent throughout, no signs of halos or ringing -- excellent transer. This is a fabulous looking blu-ray. A lot of it was filmed using hand-held and colors have been tweaked, lending this beautifully shot high octane edge of your seat sports flick a black and white cinema verite' look and feel, even though there's no mistaking that this was filmed in color. Though a lot of it was shot using hand held and the camera has that unsteady docu-feel, clarity and focus is amazingly well maintained and this blends seamlessly with the quick cut energetic style. Ultra fine detail is here in abundance as you can see pores, single strands of hair, every piece of stubble, and clothing texture wonderfully resolved. The picture is deep, lush, and three dimensional throughout. On a side note: Soundtrack is also tons of fun and for my money, this is one of the best football films I've seen. Highly recommended.

*Recommendation: Tier 1.25*


Sim2 C3X1080 -- 13' From 126" Screen


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15546651
> 
> 
> I've been trying to rent Death Race at one of our local video stores but they only keep one Blu-ray copy of each title and this one is always out when I try. I am tempted to go with Netflix, but I only pay $1.99 locally (for one night) and that's pretty hard to beat. As soon as I see it I'll weigh in.
> 
> 
> PS I'm looking forward to seeing Joan Allen in that kind of role.



This is in reference to how Joan Allen looks in the movie. I don't think it is a spoiler, but in case:


*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Lol, sad but true, she has naturally occurring DNR in that film. She looks hideous and weird compared to how she looks in the Bourne movies.


----------



## deltasun

How do you all describe the grain (outside of the characters) in Pirates 3, during the scene between Sao Feng and Ms. Swann?


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15546292
> 
> 
> We'll see how it works. When you say 5 reviews, this means that you can have 3 people vote tier 0 and 2 people vote tier 1? Or do you need 5 people voting for Tier 0 to put it there?



5 reviews, doesn't have to be unanimous. I would propose that Super Slow weigh the 5 reviews as per usual.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15547160
> 
> *Friday Night Lights*
> 
> 
> Fine natural grain apparent throughout, no signs of halos or ringing -- excellent transer. This is a fabulous looking blu-ray. A lot of it was filmed using hand-held and colors have been tweaked, lending this beautifully shot high octane edge of your seat sports flick a black and white cinema verite' look and feel, even though there's no mistaking that this was filmed in color. Though a lot of it was shot using hand held and the camera has that unsteady docu-feel, clarity and focus is amazingly well maintained and this blends seamlessly with the quick cut energetic style. Ultra fine detail is here in abundance as you can see pores, single strands of hair, every piece of stubble, and clothing texture wonderfully resolved. The picture is deep, lush, and three dimensional throughout. On a side note: Soundtrack is also tons of fun and for my money, this is one of the best football films I've seen. Highly recommended.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 1.0*
> 
> 
> Sim2 C3X1080 -- 13' From 126" Screen



HDD is that you?


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15545645
> 
> 
> When you have a film like Across the Universe that interprets their songs in a way that may be completely different, well, it just doesn't work.



Exactly my problem with it -- too many personal associations already in place and none of them jive with the movie. People who didn't grow up with the Beatles probably have a huge head start on enjoying Universe.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15547372
> 
> 
> HDD is that you?



What do you mean?


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15547384
> 
> 
> What do you mean?



I read HDDs review on FNL last night and you used some of their exact words...coincidence, or not, pretty funny.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15547390
> 
> 
> I read HDDs review on FNL last night and you used some of their exact words...coincidence, or not, pretty funny.



Hmmmm....I just read their review and I don't see much resemblance except a lot of common words like grain, detail, hand-held cameras, cinema verite' style.....not sure how anyone would review it without those words.

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/1944...ghtlights.html


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/15547122
> 
> 
> For $18/month, I get 24 Netflix movies a month if I "watch" the movie the night I get it. Pretty good deal, IMHO.
> 
> 
> For new releases, the trick is to return your movies on either Friday or Saturday and you're pretty much guaranteed to get THAT Tuesday's releases on Tuesday. They'll mail it Monday.



That is awesome if you can actually get 24 titles per month! I was with Netflix a few years ago and they weren't too successful in providing the titles I wanted at a particular time, or, they were slow in getting them to me. But it sounds as if things have changed, so I will reconsider renting from them again.


I have been satisfied with one of the local video stores here, for they *usually* have the title I want, and it's only $1.99 for a new release, or $ .99 for a Blur-ay that's been on the shelf for a month or so.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15546292
> 
> 
> I think the Matrix could probably be moved down a tad from it's current 1.5 tier ranking, maybe 1.75 or 2.0.
> 
> 
> Speaking of the Matrix, I still consider it an excellent movie (despite the fact that the brothers Wachowski have released a lot of crap since). Keanu Reeves himself (of all people) does a great job of explaining what makes it such a good film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrXCH...autologin=true



I didn't watch the entire movie, but I decided to put the Matrix in and watched about 30 minutes, skipping through various parts, and I have to take back what I said. I think it looks pretty darn good, and its current placement in Tier 1.5 is fine.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

My first take...comments, concerns, suggestions, grammar or syntax corrections welcomed.

*Tier Four – Copper (Substandard)*

_The Blu-rays in this tier represent acceptable but below-average picture quality that is underwhelming for the format. While still visually superior to upscaled standard definition material, the differences are less obvious upon casual inspection. The image may have deficiencies in one or more areas. Compression problems, softness, a lack of depth, troublesome source material, and poorly transferred masters are some of the common problems exhibited in tier four. Titles in this tier are all still watchable though and should not prevent a fan from considering them for purchase._


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15549352
> 
> 
> I didn't watch the entire movie, but I decided to put the Matrix in and watched about 30 minutes, skipping through various parts, and I have to take back what I said. I think it looks pretty darn good, and its current placement in Tier 1.5 is fine.



Memory can play some funny tricks occasionally.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15549352
> 
> 
> I didn't watch the entire movie, but I decided to put the Matrix in and watched about 30 minutes, skipping through various parts, and I have to take back what I said. I think it looks pretty darn good, and its current placement in Tier 1.5 is fine.




It's actually currently sitting in Tier 1.75. The other two are in 1.5 though.



edited to add: perhaps the parts I was underwhelmed with were ones that you skipped through.







I did watch the whole thing.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15549395
> 
> 
> It's actually currently sitting in Tier 1.75. The other two are in 1.5 though.
> 
> 
> 
> edited to add: perhaps the parts I was underwhelmed with were ones that you skipped through.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did watch the whole thing.



oops, right you are, I looked at the wrong ones.


P.S. I have watched it in its entirety before, but I guess I never did a review on it in this thread. Like Phantom said, memory can play tricks on us, which is why I popped it back in to see if it would jog my memory. Of the 30 minutes I saw, it looked good.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15549414
> 
> 
> oops, right you are, I looked at the wrong ones.
> 
> 
> P.S. I have watched it in its entirety before, but I guess I never did a review on it in this thread. Like Phantom said, memory can play tricks on us, which is why I popped it back in to see if it would jog my memory. Of the 30 minutes I saw, it looked good.



Oh, definitely! I was just buggin' ya.


----------



## rsbeck

*American Gangster*


Let me first say that I enjoyed the narrative, but my dominant thought about the PQ while watching this blu-ray was, "what went wrong?" I've read speculation that the film maker wanted this look and I've even read where reviewers have called this look, "film-like." This looks nothing like film to me. Film-like, to me, does not inspire descriptions like; low resolution, flat, soft, weak contrast, missing detail, dull. Maybe this is an improvement over the DVD and maybe the film maker intended this look -- I cannot comment on that. I can only compare the PQ to better blu-rays, including many I've seen recently that do have a natural look with grain apparent throughout that still look sharp, detailed, high resolution, deep, with excellent contrast.

*Recommendation: 4.0*


Sim2 C3X1080 -- 13' from 126" Screen


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15549371
> 
> 
> My first take...comments, concerns, suggestions, grammar or syntax corrections welcomed.
> 
> *Tier Four - Copper (Substandard)*
> 
> _The Blu-rays in this tier represent acceptable but below-average picture quality that is underwhelming for the format. While still visually superior to upscaled standard definition material, the differences are less obvious upon casual inspection. The image may have deficiencies in one or more areas. Compression problems, softness, a lack of depth, troublesome source material, and poorly transferred masters are some of the common problems exhibited in tier four. Titles in this tier are all still watchable though and should not prevent a fan from considering them for purchase._




My only concern is that there are titles in tier four that have received excellent transfers and still exhibit significant improvements over their DVD predecessors. I'm thinking of titles I've reviewed like Bullitt, Body Heat, and

Chungking Express. I would just like something in the tier description to alert those using the thread that finding a title in this their doesn't always mean something is wrong. I see you've begun to address this by referring to challenging source material, but I would like to see it be made even more explicit that placing a title in tier four doesn't always mean there is something wrong -- sometimes a title looks as good as it possibly can and will still be tier four.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15549395
> 
> 
> It's actually currently sitting in Tier 1.75.



1.75 was my recommendation;

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post15110995 


I can see both G3 and RT's points, but I feel pretty solid about 1.75.


----------



## rsbeck

*Bonnie and Clyde*


What a wonderful restoration. B & C has never looked so good. Natural grain is apparent throughout, no sign of DNR. I noted some thin faint ringing in a few shots on high contrast edges, but I really had to look for it and this is on a 126" screen. There are a few softer shots here and there -- and fans of the film will recall the soft, muted "dream-like" sequence when Bonnie visits her mother, but other than that, fine detail is rendered nicely -- right down to the chicken pox scar on Faye Dunaway's forehead. This may not be the sharpest blu-ray in your collection, but it is sharp enough and has a very natural feeling that makes it a pleasure to watch and provides lots of reasons to be impressed.

*Recommendation: Tier 2.5*


Sim2 C3X1080 -- 13' From 126" Screen


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15557006
> 
> *Bonnie and Clyde*
> 
> 
> What a wonderful restoration. B & C has never looked so good. Natural grain is apparent throughout, no sign of DNR. I noted some thin faint ringing in a few shots on high contrast edges, but I really had to look for it and this is on a 126" screen. There are a few softer shots here and there -- and fans of the film will recall the soft, muted "dream-like" sequence when Bonnie visits her mother, but other than that, fine detail is rendered nicely -- right down to the chicken pox scar on Faye Dunaway's forehead. This may not be the sharpest blu-ray in your collection, but it is sharp enough and has a very natural feeling that makes it a pleasure to watch and provides lots of reasons to be impressed.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 2.5*
> 
> 
> Sim2 C3X1080 -- 13' From 126" Screen



I'm glad to read this about Bonnie & Clyde, for I have always loved that movie. I just may have to join Netflix to get movies like this, for our local video stores aren't too keen on getting older titles. And then again I may just break down and buy this one!


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15558719
> 
> 
> I'm glad to read this about Bonnie & Clyde, for I have always loved that movie. I just may have to join Netflix to get movies like this, for our local video stores aren't too keen on getting older titles. And then again I may just break down and buy this one!




"Breakdown, its all right." -- Tom Petty


----------



## stumlad

This was a step up from the first two, and a lot more consistent. The chimp clothing was a bit clearer and it was easier to see the texture. Also the chimp hair was more fine and easier to make out than in the first two. Face closeups were good, but nothing great... another step up from the first two. Black levels were surprisingly good, but i felt there were parts that had some crushing detail. I'm not sure if I should go with Tier 2.75 or Tier 3.0. If i give it a 3.0, I think I'd have to drop the first movie to 4.0. It's a tough call, but I will say *Tier 2.75*


----------



## Coxwell

*Matrix Reloaded & Matrix Revolutions*


A tiny adavance from the first opus, but the quality of these two sequels vary too often between sequences so it's quite difficult to do a proper evaluation. The major flaws are the black and gray colors. There are too much noise in the dark scenes, and specially in the edges (as I reported a couple messages above about the first film). A lot of day light shots are a bit grainy - the kind of grain that could bother most of viewers. I think the whole trilogy doesn't deserve to be higher than *Tier 2*, no matter what we could read in different websites which rate these are the very best of high def pictures (sic).

*Recommandation : Tier 2*


Pioneer 50" G9

Panasonic BD35

Distance fo viewing : about 7 feet


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Coxwell* /forum/post/15559979
> 
> *Matrix Reloaded & Matrix Revolutions*
> 
> *Recommandation : Tier 2*



Pretty close to my earlier recommendation for Tier 2.25.










Agree with *Tier 1.75* for *The Matrix* which I had already recommended long time ago.


----------



## djoberg

I see that King Kong is soon to be released on Blu-ray (or perhaps it already is). I also heard that it is the identical encode as the HD DVD release except the audio track is DTS-HD MA in lieu of Dolby Digital Plus 5.1. As some of you may know, when HD DVD was still in the running King Kong was on the top of the heap on their PQ thread. I, for one, agreed with that recommendation. So, ya all (a little Southern lingo!) are in for a real treat! I may even double dip here just to get the new audio track.


Having said that, I have seen a thread where a very small minority are finding faults with the transfer and thus they disagree with the rave reviews from other consumers and professionals. I won't say anything about this, for it's been almost a year since I've seen my HD DVD copy and perhaps I would find anomalies now that I didn't see before. It will be interesting to hear from those of you who end up viewing it.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15564034
> 
> 
> I see that King Kong is soon to be released on Blu-ray (or perhaps it already is). *I also heard that it is the identical encode as the HD DVD release* except the audio track is DTS MA in lieu of Dolby Digital 5.1. As some of you may know, when HD DVD was still in the running, King Kong was on the top of the heap on their PQ thread. I, for one, agreed with that recommendation. So, ya all (a little Southern lingo!) are in for a real treat! I may even double dip here just to get the new audio track.
> 
> 
> Having said that, I have seen a thread where a very small minority are finding faults with the transfer and thus they disagree with the rave reviews from other consumers and professionals. I won't say anything about this, for it's been almost a year since I've seen my HD DVD copy and perhaps I would find anomalies now that I didn't see before. It will be interesting to hear from those of you who end up viewing it.



Based on the relevant threads here, it does not appear to be identical, just very similar.


----------



## Wryker




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15564063
> 
> 
> Based on the relevant threads here, it does not appear to be identical, just very similar.



Most discs that were HDDVD only before BD became the only dish to eat when converted to BD have used the same transfer. Some, Transformers I believe, did some different encoding (and different extras etc) but I would really find it hard to believe to see a difference watching either the HDDVD or BD on a 1080p system IMO.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wryker* /forum/post/15564171
> 
> 
> Most discs that were HDDVD only before BD became the only dish to eat when converted to BD have used the same transfer. Some, Transformers I believe, did some different encoding (and different extras etc) but I would really find it hard to believe to see a difference watching either the HDDVD or BD on a 1080p system IMO.



Universal does not seem to be following the practice of using the identical encode. I am not contending there will be a noticeable difference.


----------



## Hughmc

It will be interesting to see where KK gets placed in our tier thread. One would think we have better transfers now to compare to like Caspian and others. I wonder if it will make tier 0.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I still have my HD-DVD







version of Kong. I haven't watched it in quite some time. Going by memory, I know that it looks pretty damn good, but it might fall a tad short of Tier 0.


One of these days I will get off my lazy butt and put all my HD DVD's up for sale. I'm guessing their value isn't going up!


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15567747
> 
> 
> I still have my HD-DVD
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> version of Kong. I haven't watched it in quite some time. Going by memory, I know that it looks pretty damn good, but it might fall a tad short of Tier 0.
> 
> 
> One of these days I will get off my lazy butt and put all my HD DVD's up for sale. I'm guessing their value isn't going up!



I more than look forward to your take on its PQ. This will be a rental for me as I am guessing my Hollywood Video will be getting it in like they did Batman Begins when it was released for the first time on BD. I have seen KK many times in HD, but not on HD DVD.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

*Wall E
*

Okay folks, I FINALLY got around to watching Wall E, and let me say that it is easily one of the best films of 2008...I enjoyed every single frame of it. It is the epitome of brilliant storytelling with very little dialogue and easily the cutest most well done Pixar film to date.


NOW, on to the important stuff.


I am SHOCKED at how many people in this thread knock the PQ for the first half hour of the film. The first half hour to me is by far the best that Pixar has put out to date. The photo realism, use of focus and depth of field, lighting and reflections, overall detail and sense of depth and reality is UNBELIEVABLE. I just watched as the credits roll and I saw that Roger Deakins (one of the top DPs in the film business) was the main visual consultant along with Dennis Muren, and it shows, especially in the scenes on earth. They were simply breathtaking. How anyone could not see the incredible achievement that was made here let alone KNOCK the PQ of the whole title for this is beyond me. This is easily the most realistic looking animated title ever made.


In fact, I found the PQ of all the shots on earth and the ones in the trash dump area on the ship to better than the ones onboard the ship. The rest of the film was on par with Ratatouillie but seriously looked like a cartoon compared with the ones on Earth which are Top Tier 0 no doubt.
*

I would place Wall E at the top of Tier 0* but have not seen Kung Fu Panda so I will settle with it being right underneath it.


Incredible stuff.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15569314
> 
> *Wall E
> *
> 
> I am SHOCKED at how many people in this thread knock the PQ for the first half hour of the film. The first half hour to me is by far the best that Pixar has put out to date.



For once, we have someone who agrees with me on the sheer brilliance of animation Pixar has put in the first half hour.










However, the sequences inside Axiom left me underwhelmed and subsequently prompted me to recommended it for Top Tier-1 placement.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/15569352
> 
> 
> For once, we have someone who agrees with me on the sheer brilliance of animation Pixar has put in the first half hour.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, the sequences inside Axiom left me underwhelmed and subsequently prompted me to recommended it for Top Tier-1 placement.













You know I felt the same about the rest of the film, but then thought about it and realized it's as good as anything else we've seen from Pixar.


I think we were so awestruck by how incredible the shots on earth were that anything else was like childs' play like I said in my post, which is also what I think happened to a lot of people with TDK in terms of how ridiculously good the IMAX scenes looked.


----------



## rsbeck

There's no doubt that the level of the CGI in Wall-E sets a new standard, but when you watch Horton Hears a Who, you see that this is what's coming. However, I had a problem with the cartoonish drawings once they got to AXIOM, too, and it definitely was not because I was overwhelmed by the first half-hour, so I don't think that's the explanation. It is simply the theme of the film that Wall-E's world is more complex while the one the humans have built for themselves is simple, sterile, primary colored, and this plus the conveniences have caused the humans to lose their individuality -- they've become featureless blobs. So, it's intentional. I appreciate the themes, but we're not supposed to excuse the level of detail based on the theme. On the other hand, we have now changed the assessment criteria to better accommodate animated titles, so Wall-E is no longer such a glaring contradiction to the assessment criteria. I think Wall-E is in a good spot where it is. More stuff is coming down the pike employing this level of CGI. If the theme of the next one doesn't call for hazy visuals for one part of the film and simplistic ones in the other, we can put that one on top.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15569432
> 
> 
> There's no doubt that the level of the CGI in Wall-E sets a new standard, but when you watch Horton Hears a Who, you see that this is what's coming. However, I had a problem with the cartoonish drawings once they got to AXIOM, too, and it definitely was not because I was overwhelmed by the first half-hour, so I don't think that's the explanation. It is simply the theme of the film that Wall-E's world is more complex while the one the humans have built for themselves is simple, sterile, primary colored, and this plus the conveniences have caused the humans to lose their individuality -- they've become featureless blobs. So, it's intentional. I appreciate the themes, but we're not supposed to excuse the level of detail based on the theme. On the other hand, we have now changed the assessment criteria to better accommodate animated titles, so Wall-E is no longer such a glaring contradiction to the assessment criteria. I think Wall-E is in a good spot where it is. More stuff is coming down the pike employing this level of CGI. If the theme of the next one doesn't call for hazy visuals for one part of the film and simplistic ones in the other, we can put that one on top.



Well, like I said, the cartoony look to the rest of the film is still on par with Ratatouille which is ranked #2 in Tier 0.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/15569352
> 
> 
> For once, we have someone who agrees with me on the sheer brilliance of animation Pixar has put in the first half hour.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, the sequences inside Axiom left me underwhelmed and subsequently prompted me to recommended it for Top Tier-1 placement.




Didn't you read my review ?







I loved the first 30min.











My husband wants me to rate the PQ on "The House Bunny".







I think he's going to force me to watch it b/c I made him watch Mamma Mia.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15569457
> 
> 
> Well, like I said, the cartoony look to the rest of the film is still on par with Ratatouille which is ranked #2 in Tier 0.



I agree with that, too.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15569314
> 
> 
> * How anyone could not see the incredible achievement that was made here let alone KNOCK the PQ of the whole title for this is beyond me.
> *


*


I couldn't see it because of the haze ! That was the main issue with me LB. Yes, there was some incredible detail in a few shots in the first 30 minutes, but many of the outside shots were just too hazy and definitely lacked detail.


I wasn't going to say anything LB, but you really did set forth a challenge by saying how shocked you were that anyone wouldn't love the first 30 minutes. Can't you just accept the fact that some of us were turned off by the haze?! To me it was rather DULL-looking (especially compared to animated titles like Kung Fu Panda, Cars, etc.).*


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15570613
> 
> 
> I couldn't see it because of the _haze_ ! That was the main issue with me LB. Yes, there was some incredible detail in a few shots in the first 30 minutes, but many of the outside shots were just too _hazy_ and definitely lacked detail.
> 
> 
> I wasn't going to say anything LB, but you really did set forth a challenge by saying how shocked you were that anyone wouldn't love the first 30 minutes. Can't you just accept the fact that some of us were turned off by the haze?! To me it was rather DULL-looking (especially compared to animated titles like Kung Fu Panda, Cars, etc.).



Agree. Was the first 30 minutes of Wall-E a great feat in animation? Yes. Did it look great? Yes. The problem, for me, was that it wasn't _AS_ eye-candy-like as Kung Fu Panda, Cars, Open Season etc.


I dont think anyone is saying it's "bad".


----------



## Postmoderndesign

The Usual Suspects Blu-ray is clearly an improvement over the DVD. The picture quality is uneven with some of it in the 4 range as rated, but some parts are in the 2 range. I would suggest moving it up into the 3s.


----------



## Hammie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Postmoderndesign* /forum/post/15570983
> 
> 
> The Usual Suspects Blu-ray is clearly an improvement over the DVD. The picture quality is uneven with some of it in the 4 range as rated, but some parts are in the 2 range. I would suggest moving it up into the 3s.



That's too bad that it is so low. This is probably my favorite movie of all time. I have not seen it on BD yet but sad to here of the quality.


----------



## sleater

The great WALL-E divide seems to highlight the subjective nature of categorizing a film into the proper 'eye candy' tier. I am glad the descriptors (particularly Tier0) were updated to better guide us when reviewing a title. I recall many used the term SOFT when describing the first 30 mins of WALL-E and others declared it was brilliantly realistic and the best CGI they've seen. I can see both sides of the argument really - it comes down to what is considered eye candy, which is the subjective part. While one person sees haze covering up the image making it appear *softer* and thus knocks down the PQ, another sees the haze highlighting the realism and accurate rendering of a brown, dirty earth unlike any other CGI cartoon before and knocks UP the PQ. Lord help you if you throw around words like director's intent...


Anyway, I can now appreciate rsbeck's initial opinions about how animations didn't truly fit the Tier criteria. When I re-watched WALL-E [the first 1/3 of the film] I thought 'this is much better CGI than even Kung Fu Panda' but I reflected and realised it wasn't _better eye candy_ than Kung Fu Panda. There lies the difference in my opinion.


----------



## lgans316

*Tier-0 - Minor Rule change request*.

_*No alteration from the originally intended aspect ratio or viewable image area.*_


Can the above be rephrased as "No *major* alteration from the originally intended aspect ratio or viewable image area." ?


For instance, 1.85:1 to 1:78:1 doesn't mean much of difference. Please correct if my understanding is wrong.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sleater* /forum/post/15571687
> 
> 
> one person sees haze covering up the image making it appear *softer*



Meanwhile, those of us who step back for a second quickly realize that the haze _is_ the image.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/15571785
> 
> _*No alteration from the originally intended aspect ratio or viewable image area.*_



I question the inclusion of this rule in this thread in the first place. I don't see how *ahem* intended aspect-ratio is relevant to the thread's interests. How does a panned-and-scanned image violate the eye-candy ideal except in ways which relate to director's intent and storytelling (which, to my understanding, are supposed to be largely ignored here)?


To my thinking, the only way aspect-ratio is relevant to this thread is in the idea that any image in a ratio _other than_ 1.78:1 cannot be using the delivery system to the most eye-popping-potentialliestness of its ability and, therefor, should be dinged for it.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15569457
> 
> 
> Well, like I said, the cartoony look to the rest of the film is still on par with Ratatouille which is ranked #2 in Tier 0.



The level of CGI employed in Wall-E is not just on par with Rat, to my eye, it is a quantum leap forward. But, to Rat's credit, the humans are certainly more detailed than the cartoonish humans in Wall-E, so I cannot agree with you there.


Further, let's put this in perspective. It's not like some want Wall-E in a tier by itself above tier 0 while others are suggesting tier 3. This isn't a debate between those who appreciate Wall-E and those who would rather gouge out their own eyes than watch Wall-E. You're talking, at worst, a debate between those who want tier 0 and those who wanted it a little lower in tier

0 or at the top of tier 1. I am always a little taken aback at how people can get so offended when someone wants to put a title at the top of tier 1 rather than tier 0. Personally, I don't see it as such a slam. We've all talked about how the difference between tier 1.0 and tier 0 can be very subtle, so I don't know why the debate between putting a title in tier 0 versus tier 1 can sometimes become so heated. It's a debate between those who love the film and those who love it a little less. In Wall-E's case, between those who apparently can find nothing to criticize and those also appreciate it but who can find a few things to criticize. Unless you're saying that Wall-E is perfect, why should we ask the reviewers here to avoid scrutinizing any title -- that's what we do here.


Also, let's recognize that the assessment criteria have been changed to better accommodate animated titles, which is what some of us were asking for -- specifically so that a title like Wall-E would not contradict the assessment criteria. So, even some of the people who wanted Wall-E to be placed a little lower have made an effort to change the change the criteria to accommodate it. So, Wall-E has been treated very well here. IMO, it's hard to make a case that Wall-E has been treated badly while it sits in tier 0 below assessment criteria that were changed to help accommodate it.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15571851
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, those of us who step back for a second quickly realize that the haze _is_ the image.



With all due respect spectator, the haze is NOT the image. There is haze IN the image, but the image is certainly not limited to haze. Take all the scenes where Wall-E is collecting *junk* and moving it up the pile. There is a constant haze that to my eye is obscuring the detail in objects, buildings, etc. Was it supposed to look like that? You bet! Does it look as good as it can? More than likely. Is it pure eye candy all the way through? Herein lies the difference in opinion.


I really was hoping the Wall-E debate was closed, once and for all. And I believe rsbeck's last email should be taken to heart by all of us. We ALL appreciate Wall-E, but not to the same extent. Let's "agree to disagree" and move on.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15572601
> 
> 
> There is haze IN the image, but the image is certainly not limited to haze.



Of course the image isn't _limited to_ haze, but you speak of it as if the haze is not a part of the image and is, instead, interfering with your opportunity to see something else. My point is that they aren't trying to show you something else because the haze is part of what they're trying to show you.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15572601
> 
> 
> Let's "agree to disagree" and move on.



Okay. I wasn't trying to re-open anything.


----------



## 42041









noooooo, anything but the wall-e debate again


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/15571785
> 
> *Tier-0 - Minor Rule change request*.
> 
> _*No alteration from the originally intended aspect ratio or viewable image area.*_
> 
> 
> Can the above be rephrased as "No *major* alteration from the originally intended aspect ratio or viewable image area." ?
> 
> 
> For instance, 1.85:1 to 1:78:1 doesn't mean much of difference. Please correct if my understanding is wrong.



I do not think anyone here is worried about the slight conversion from 1.85:1 to 1.78:1 and I agree that very minor alterations like that are quite acceptable. A change that small hardly impacts the visual quality of the cinematography. I am not sure we need to explicitly state that in the tier description but if others want to chime in on this, that is fine.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15571899
> 
> 
> I question the inclusion of this rule in this thread in the first place. I don't see how *ahem* intended aspect-ratio is relevant to the thread's interests. How does a panned-and-scanned image violate the eye-candy ideal except in ways which relate to director's intent and storytelling (which, to my understanding, are supposed to be largely ignored here)?
> 
> 
> To my thinking, the only way aspect-ratio is relevant to this thread is in the idea that any image in a ratio _other than_ 1.78:1 cannot be using the delivery system to the most eye-popping-potentialliestness of its ability and, therefor, should be dinged for it.



Are you familiar with the concept of cinematography? Alteration of a movie's intended aspect ratio has a huge impact on the final visual look of a movie, almost always to the detriment of the image. Virtually every movie you watch that is produced in Hollywood has the director and cinematographer spending massive amounts of time preparing the visual look of each scene.


Most scenes are carefully framed and lighted for a certain aspect ratio that has a major impact on the visual look of the film to the end-user. Framing and composition are not to be overlooked when evaluating the picture quality of a particular Blu-ray. Or do you think Nolan and his d.p. just got lucky on The Dark Knight when filming the IMAX sequences for example? Destroying the carefully composed framing with panning to a 4:3 image will almost always ruin that and hurt the picture quality.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15573206
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> noooooo, anything but the wall-e debate again



The widely divergent opinions on this title are driving the debate. Unfortunately one ranking is never going to satisfy the two different camps on Wall*E.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15573675
> 
> 
> Are you familiar with the concept of cinematography? Alteration of a movie's intended aspect ratio has a huge impact on the final visual look of a movie, almost always to the detriment of the image. Virtually every movie you watch that is produced in Hollywood has the director and cinematographer spending massive amounts of time preparing the visual look of each scene.
> 
> 
> Most scenes are carefully framed and lighted for a certain aspect ratio that has a major impact on the visual look of the film to the end-user. Framing and composition are not to be overlooked when evaluating the picture quality of a particular Blu-ray. Or do you think Nolan and his d.p. just got lucky on The Dark Knight when filming the IMAX sequences for example? Destroying the carefully composed framing with panning to a 4:3 image will almost always ruin that and hurt the picture quality.













I knew this was coming. _Of course_ I understand cinematography and the concept of framing. *I am talking about the criteria and objectives of this thread.* Per its stated aims, this thread is *not about framing and composition*. It is not about *art* at all. It is about "eye candy" imagery, regardless of its expense to directors' and cinematographers' intentions.


I argue that, per the stated criteria of this thread, letterboxed or pillarboxed releases are inherently substandard. If you can (again, in accordance with the stated criteria of this thread) coherently argue otherwise, please go for it.


Meanwhile, I am not advocating the value of panned-and-scanned releases for the purpose of this thread, either. Naturally, an image that was clearly compromised from its evident original framing can be less pleasing to the eye for it and should also be docked points. All I am saying is that, per the criteria of this thread, 1.78:1-framed movies have an inherent advantage over, say, 2.39:1-framed movies.

*None of this has anything to do* with my own personal viewing preferences which, incidentally, always favor preservation of the original intended aspect-ratio.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15573944
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I knew this was coming. _Of course_ I understand cinematography and the concept of framing. *I am talking about the criteria and objectives of this thread.* Per its stated aims, this thread is *not about framing and composition*. It is not about *art* at all. It is about "eye candy" imagery, regardless of its expense to directors' and cinematographers' intentions.
> 
> 
> I argue that, per the stated criteria of this thread, letterboxed or pillarboxed releases are inherently substandard. If you can (again, in accordance with the stated criteria of this thread) coherently argue otherwise, please go for it.
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, I am not advocating the value of panned-and-scanned releases for the purpose of this thread, either. Naturally, an image that was clearly compromised from its evident original framing can be less pleasing to the eye for it and should also be docked points. All I am saying is that, per the criteria of this thread, 1.78:1-framed movies have an inherent advantage over, say, 2.39:1-framed movies.



I am not sure we have been reading the same thread then and I can not agree with most of your points. A well composed image with unique and visually interesting composition and cinematography is "eye candy" for the purposes of this thread. I think some have gotten the wrong impression. The only thing this thread is striving for is to ascertain the best looking Blu-rays on an absolute basis. Anything that can positively or negatively impact picture quality can and will be considered in my view.


"All I am saying is that, per the criteria of this thread, 1.78:1-framed movies have an inherent advantage over, say, 2.39:1-framed movies."


I have no idea where this notion even comes from. Most people, even those who have no knowledge of filmmaking, instinctively prefer the look of a scope film with its wider vistas and field of vision. It certainly has never been a criteria for this thread.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15574195
> 
> 
> The only thing this thread is striving for is to ascertain the best looking Blu-rays on an absolute basis.



Absolute?!











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15574195
> 
> 
> "All I am saying is that, per the criteria of this thread, 1.78:1-framed movies have an inherent advantage over, say, 2.39:1-framed movies."
> 
> 
> I have no idea where this notion even comes from. Most people, even those who have no knowledge of filmmaking, instinctively prefer the look of a scope film with its wider vistas and field of vision. It certainly has never been a criteria for this thread.



It has never been one in practice, but I believe it is there in philosophy.


Here's the gist of my argument: A 'Scope ratio film is only using (for purposes of argument, let's say) 80% of the geometric resolution available in the Blu-ray format. If picture resolution/sharpness/detail is one of the principal criterion of an "eye-candy" picture, how can a picture which achieves, _at best,_ 80% of what it _could_ possibly compete with a picture which doesn't have this restriction, everything else being equal?


To use an extreme example, suppose someone released a film in a 1,920.00:1 aspect-ratio and gave it an _excellent_ letterboxed Blu-ray transfer resulting in an OAR-accurate image exactly 1 pixel high. Could you honestly call such an image "eye-candy"? If not, where do you draw the line?


Ridiculous extreme example, sure. And, again, please bear in mind that I am not saying that I have *any* problem with letterboxed movies- quite the contrary, in fact. Can you understand my argument, though, in terms of this thread?


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15570613
> 
> 
> I couldn't see it because of the _haze_ ! That was the main issue with me LB. Yes, there was some incredible detail in a few shots in the first 30 minutes, but many of the outside shots were just too _hazy_ and definitely lacked detail.
> 
> 
> I wasn't going to say anything LB, but you really did set forth a challenge by saying how shocked you were that anyone wouldn't love the first 30 minutes. Can't you just accept the fact that some of us were turned off by the haze?! To me it was rather DULL-looking (especially compared to animated titles like Kung Fu Panda, Cars, etc.).



Oh come on...you guys are acting like every single shot was loaded with so much haze and dust you couldn't see anything.


Sure the long establishing shots had a lot of it but it didn't take away from the PQ at all for me.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15574403
> 
> 
> It has never been one in practice, but I believe it is there in philosophy.
> 
> 
> Here's the gist of my argument: A 'Scope ratio film is only using (for purposes of argument, let's say) 80% of the geometric resolution available in the Blu-ray format. If picture resolution/sharpness/detail is one of the principal criterion of an "eye-candy" picture, how can a picture which achieves, _at best,_ 80% of what it _could_ possibly compete with a picture which doesn't have this restriction, everything else being equal?



I understand your argument but I have never seen one instance of that argument advanced in this thread to criticize a specific Blu-ray. Basically that idea boils down to the limitations inherent in the Blu-ray format, because they did not allow for an anamorphic enhancement in the specifications. If others feel that is appropriate criteria then I would like to hear about it.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/15571785
> 
> *Tier-0 - Minor Rule change request*.
> 
> _*No alteration from the originally intended aspect ratio or viewable image area.*_
> 
> 
> Can the above be rephrased as "No *major* alteration from the originally intended aspect ratio or viewable image area." ?



My two cents:


I'm not so sure we need this included in the first post at all. If the goal is to determine the best looking blu-ray's on an "absolute basis" (and it is), then the issue of whether the OAR has been modified really doesn't necessarily preclude such a title from being placed in Tier 0 on its own. Yes, it will automatically be considered simply by virtue of the AR's overall impact on the picture. In other words, it is already being considered anyway.


Also, this can open a can of worms. For example, where would The Last Emperor fall? The Blu-ray is framed at 2.0:1, which is different than the theatrical prints at 2.35:1. However, this new AR was done by the DP, supposedly with the directors approval for release on Blu-ray. What a mess!


In any event, I don't think it would be right to preclude a title like The Last Emperor from Tier 0 just because the OAR has been changed. It is a different debate, in my opinion, not necessarily related to what we do in terms of PQ in this thread. It also starts to infuse the issue of directors intent, which is something we pretty much stay away from in this thread in terms of evaluating PQ.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15574403
> 
> 
> Absolute?!



I _believe_ what he means by "absolute" is that we do not take into account things like directors intent.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Latest drafts of Tiers 4 & 5...input or rubber stamp welcomed.

*Tier Four - Copper (Substandard)*

_Blu-rays in this tier represent acceptable but below-average picture quality that is underwhelming for the format. While still visually superior to upscaled standard definition material, the differences are less obvious upon casual inspection. The image may have deficiencies in one or more areas. Compression artifacts, softness, poor black levels, a lack of depth, questionable source material, and poorly transferred masters are some of the common problems exhibited in tier four. Some Blu-rays in this tier do represent significant upgrades over the dvd but are constrained in image quality due to visual limitations of the original source material. Titles in this tier are all watchable though and should not prevent a fan from considering them for purchase._


*Tier Five - Charcoal (Unacceptable)*

_The titles in this tier have severe limitations in their picture quality that is strongly underwhelming compared to the average Blu-ray. The image has deficiencies in multiple areas that would be obvious upon a casual viewing. Without question the Blu-rays in tier five are among the worst looking on the market. At various times the picture quality is hard to distinguish from upscaled dvd material. Softness, artifacting, poor source material, limited resolution and clarity are general characteristics of titles in this tier._


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15573096
> 
> 
> Of course the image isn't _limited to_ haze, but you speak of it as if the haze is not a part of the image and is, instead, interfering with your opportunity to see something else. My point is that they aren't trying to show you something else because the haze is part of what they're trying to show you.



You're now describing director's intent


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15574544
> 
> 
> In any event, I don't think it would be right to preclude a title like The Last Emperor from Tier 0 just because the OAR has been changed. It is a different debate, in my opinion, not necessarily related to what we do in terms of PQ in this thread. It also starts to infuse the issue of directors intent, which is something we pretty much stay away from in this thread in terms of evaluating PQ.



The original version of the statement had a reference for that specific situation but was cut in one of the revisions to save space I guess. If we cut that entire provision out then I think it is necessary to add a line or two about proper cinematography and composition.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Appaloosa*


I have read some reviews as well as some posts here at AVS about this movie, and it appears that many people didn't actually care for the movie much. Not sure why, because I really enjoyed it. It is a typical Western, and there isn't anything unique about the story, but the execution was very well done. Thumbs up from me.


That's where the recommendation ends though, because overall the PQ was rather disappointing. There is a softness throughout most of the movie, although there are definitely a few exceptions. Nevertheless, overall clarity was definitely lacking.


In fact, a large portion of scenes had an overall haze to the image. I would guess this is due to a combination of factors, including the way the film was lit. That said, I can't help but wonder (and I rarely bring up bitrates in doing my reviews): I noticed the bitrates on this title were pretty darn low at times. I have no idea why, but they were. Does this play a role in the less than stellar PQ? I don't know. I can't say that I really noticed any compression artifacts though, and that's usually what you will notice with bit-starved titles.


The overall contrast was poor, especially in the darkest scenes. Colors were good though and appeared natural and perfectly appropriate with the setting of the film.


I have no idea whether this is accurate compared to the master print, but either way, it falls short of the best titles, and is certainly below average for a new release.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.25*


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15574637
> 
> 
> The original version of the statement had a reference for that specific situation but was cut in one of the revisions to save space I guess. If we cut that entire provision out then I think it is necessary to add a line or two about proper cinematography and composition.



I don't think we need to add any language about "proper cinematography and composition" myself. These do have an impact on how an image will look, obviously, but I see no reason to try and tell people what constitutes "proper" cinematography and composition in this thread.


In other words, this is not a cinematography/composition thread. Titles are not placed based in terms of how good the cinematography is. For example, La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc contains some amazing cinematography, but it is doubtful that it would ever be placed in Tier 0 if released on Blu for various reasons, including the condition of the original elements (if they exist) and the limitation inherent in the equipment that the film was made with.


I think the issue of OAR or composition would just complicate things for purposes of this thread. This doesn't mean that we can't, or shouldn't, discuss these things in our respective reviews.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15574769
> 
> 
> I don't think we need to add any language about "proper cinematography and composition" myself. These do have an impact on how an image will look, obviously, but I see no reason to try and tell people what constitutes "proper" cinematography and composition in this thread.
> 
> 
> In other words, this is not a cinematography/composition thread. Titles are not placed based in terms of how good the cinematography is. For example, La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc contains some amazing cinematography, but it is doubtful that it would ever be placed in Tier 0 if released on Blu for various reasons, including the condition of the original elements (if they exist) and the limitation inherent in the equipment that the film was made with.
> 
> *I think the issue of OAR or composition would just complicate things for purposes of this thread. This doesn't mean that we can't, or shouldn't, discuss these things in our respective reviews*.



Agreed.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15574769
> 
> 
> I don't think we need to add any language about "proper cinematography and composition" myself. These do have an impact on how an image will look, obviously, but I see no reason to try and tell people what constitutes "proper" cinematography and composition in this thread.
> 
> 
> In other words, this is not a cinematography/composition thread. Titles are not placed based in terms of how good the cinematography is. For example, La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc contains some amazing cinematography, but it is doubtful that it would ever be placed in Tier 0 if released on Blu for various reasons, including the condition of the original elements (if they exist) and the limitation inherent in the equipment that the film was made with.
> 
> *I think the issue of OAR or composition would just complicate things for purposes of this thread. This doesn't mean that we can't, or shouldn't, discuss these things in our respective reviews.*




I agree, I think that if there is a negative result of the aspect ratio upon the picture quality, it will speak for itself when we see it with our own eyes and do our reviews/recommendations for the film in question.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15574654
> 
> *Appaloosa*
> 
> 
> I have read some reviews as well as some posts here at AVS about this movie, and it appears that many people didn't actually care for the movie much. Not sure why, because I really enjoyed it. It is a typical Western, and there isn't anything unique about the story, but the execution was very well done. Thumbs up from me.
> 
> 
> That's where the recommendation ends though, because overall the PQ was rather disappointing. There is a softness throughout most of the movie, although there are definitely a few exceptions. Nevertheless, overall clarity was definitely lacking.
> 
> 
> In fact, a large portion of scenes had an overall haze to the image. I would guess this is due to a combination of factors, including the way the film was lit. That said, I can't help but wonder (and I rarely bring up bitrates in doing my reviews): I noticed the bitrates on this title were pretty darn low at times. I have no idea why, but they were. Does this play a role in the less than stellar PQ? I don't know. I can't say that I really noticed any compression artifacts though, and that's usually what you will notice with bit-starved titles.
> 
> 
> The overall contrast was poor, especially in the darkest scenes. Colors were good though and appeared natural and perfectly appropriate with the setting of the film.
> 
> 
> I have no idea whether this is accurate compared to the master print, but either way, it falls short of the best titles, and is certainly below average for a new release.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.25*




+1. Watched this a few nights ago. Agree on all accounts.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15575662
> 
> 
> +1. Watched this a few nights ago. Agree on all accounts.



You watched it a few nights ago but failed to give us a review...on a newly released title no less?


Shame on you!


----------



## selimsivad

*JFK*


I got a chance to see JFK. I had a time watching this one. The movie had a very "bright" intentional look to it. Blacks were deep, but this lighting decision makes me want it lowered one notch. It currently resides in 1.75.


*JFK

Tier Recommendation: Top of Tier 2

PS3-Samsung 46" 1080p-seven*'


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15575924
> 
> 
> You watched it a few nights ago but failed to give us a review...on a newly released title no less?
> 
> 
> Shame on you!


----------



## selimsivad

I stopped by my local Blockbuster on the way home from work. Out the corner of my eye, I saw what looked like King Kong. Looked again, and my eyes did not decieve me!










I nervously waited in the checkout line, just knowing someone would scan it and deny me a rental. The attendant smiled. I smiled back, knowing someone dropped the ball!










I flipped through the disc, just to check out the PQ. This is not a recommendation. But if I had a gun to my head, I'd easily give it a lower tier 0. I'll review tomorrow night.


----------



## lgans316

Glad to hear that selimsivad. I think many would vote Top Tier-1 for KK.

*How about removing the para related to OAR from Tier-0 rule ?*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/15577074
> 
> 
> Glad to hear that selimsivad. I think many would vote Top Tier-1 for KK.



....or somewhere in Tier 0 (if it's as good or better than the HD DVD transfer).










I'm leaving for a 5 day snowmobiling/skiing trip up the North Shore of Lake Superior tomorrow and we're leaving our laptop home, so I'll look forward to seeing reviews on King Kong when I get home late Wednesday night.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15574769
> 
> 
> I don't think we need to add any language about "proper cinematography and composition" myself. These do have an impact on how an image will look, obviously, but I see no reason to try and tell people what constitutes "proper" cinematography and composition in this thread.
> 
> 
> In other words, this is not a cinematography/composition thread. Titles are not placed based in terms of how good the cinematography is. For example, La Passion de Jeanne d'Arc contains some amazing cinematography, but it is doubtful that it would ever be placed in Tier 0 if released on Blu for various reasons, including the condition of the original elements (if they exist) and the limitation inherent in the equipment that the film was made with.
> 
> 
> I think the issue of OAR or composition would just complicate things for purposes of this thread. This doesn't mean that we can't, or shouldn't, discuss these things in our respective reviews.



The tide here seems to be turning against the idea of including any reference to the originally intended aspect ratio of a Blu-ray which is fine though I do think the description loses a minor but notable criterion that aids readers in rendering judgments on picture quality.


I should not have phrased my statement using the word "proper". I believe excellent cinematography and framing and everything that entails leads to better looking imagery on Blu-ray and every other format a movie might be shown on. Is that not the purpose of this thread, to find the best looking image quality on Blu-ray? I do not see how a poorly shot film with ill-conceived cinematography can end up in tier zero. It is obviously not the sole criterion for making tier zero, but then again none of the criteria listed currently are treated that way.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15577180
> 
> 
> ....or somewhere in Tier 0 (if it's as good or better than the HD DVD transfer).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm leaving for a 5 day snowmobiling/skiing trip up the North Shore of Lake Superior tomorrow and we're leaving our laptop home, so I'll look forward to seeing reviews on King Kong when I get home late Wednesday night.



Have fun, it is flipping freezing there. be safe and stay bundles.







KK will still be here when you get back, just not in tier 0.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/15577074
> 
> 
> Glad to hear that selimsivad. I think many would vote Top Tier-1 for KK.
> 
> *How about removing the para related to OAR from Tier-0 rule ?*



I am thinking the same lgans that is my guess where it will end up, but who knows. You HD DVD owners should give us an idea of how it compares to the BD and what we have in our tier 0, since it was a tier 0 reference for HD DVD. Early reports seem to say they are about a wash in terms of PQ.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15577345
> 
> 
> Have fun, it is flipping freezing there. be safe and stay bundles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KK will still be here when you get back, just not in tier 0.



Thanks Hugh! Yeah, we've been in the deep freeze for about a month, but starting tomorrow we have a warming trend so we're taking advantage of that by going on this trip.


I really have no idea where King Kong will end up. It's been nearly a year since I watched my HD DVD version, but back then it was the best live action title there was. I've seen a lot of excellent titles since then so my perspective on KK may very well change after I view it again.


----------



## Vegaz

_RocknRolla_


It's in italics instead of bold because I'm not actually voting but wanted to comment. I thought it was amazing,especially the wide shots at the start and particularly one later in the movie of a boat with the city in the backround. I couldn't see a single thing wrong with it. That's why I'm not voting/reviewing. I'm more inclined to believe there is something wrong with it that I'm just not seeing than that it's really anywhere near as good as I think it looks wich would be the best non-animated BR I've seen. There's no grain,is that an indicator of something? I know it's still 10 days away from offically being out so no one else will probably comment for a while. I haven't seen Crank or I,Robot so don't know if it'd be up there with those or not *if* it is as good as I think it looks.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15577543
> 
> 
> WHAT!? You're the one saying all of the haze was the focus of all the shots on earth.
> 
> 
> Ay yi yi.



is that how you say it?


Now that I see it in writing it might be aye, aye, aye.







but yours looks more foreign and suave.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vegaz* /forum/post/15577632
> 
> _RocknRolla_
> 
> 
> It's in italics instead of bold because I'm not actually voting but wanted to comment. I thought it was amazing,especially the wide shots at the start and particularly one later in the movie of a boat with the city in the backround. I couldn't see a single thing wrong with it. That's why I'm not voting/reviewing. I'm more inclined to believe there is something wrong with it that I'm just not seeing than that it's really anywhere near as good as I think it looks wich would be the best non-animated BR I've seen. There's no grain,is that an indicator of something? I know it's still 10 days away from offically being out so no one else will probably comment for a while. I haven't seen Crank or I,Robot so don't know if it'd be up there with those or not *if* it is as good as I think it looks.



It's filmed digitally, so minimal to no "grain" (or sensor noise, in this case) is normal.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15577311
> 
> 
> I believe excellent cinematography and framing and everything that entails leads to better looking imagery on Blu-ray and every other format a movie might be shown on. Is that not the purpose of this thread, to find the best looking image quality on Blu-ray? I do not see how a poorly shot film with ill-conceived cinematography can end up in tier zero. It is obviously not the sole criterion for making tier zero, but then again none of the criteria listed currently are treated that way.



I agree with this. IMO, the quality of the cinematography is often one of the key differences between an image that looks flat and one that has dimension, one where fine detail is apparent and one where fine detail is obscured, and is very often the key to getting great contrast and blacks.


----------



## rsbeck

*John Mayer: Where The Light Is*


This is a concert video, but it was shot on film and enjoys an excellent transfer to blu-ray. Natural medium grain is apparent throughout and I did not note any halos or ringing. Blacks and shadow detail are fantastic. I really like the look of this concert video compared what I've seen from some others. The visuals are calm and striking --atypical for concert video fare. This vid has a unique format. As it opens, we find Mr. Mayer atop a hill overlooking Los Angeles with amplifier and guitar noodling jazzy improvs. Next, we go to the theater where he opens for himself doing his own songs "unplugged" in T-shirt and jeans. Next, he and two side-men, including Steve Jordan on drums, don black suits with ties and we see the featured act, which is the John Mayer Trio. Here, Mayer goes in a different direction than we've seen before, very effectively exploring his inner Hendrix/Stevie Ray blues/rock guitar hero. Finally, we see the headliner, the John Mayer pop group. The sonics throughout are excellent. What holds this back from the upper tiers, IMO, is something I have noticed is very typical of all of these concert videos. These are pop stars and -- aside from Elvis Costello -- you rarely get to see ultra-fine detail down to the pores and imperfections. Without the music, I doubt these videos would hold one's interest long based only on the visuals. Interesting camera work and thoughtful lighting raise the visual interest here compared to some, but not enough to compete with upper tier live action titles and I believe we must make that comparison to go along with the assessment criteria, which say, *this list represents an absolute ranking system, where every available Blu-ray's picture quality is directly compared against every other release.* IMO, this looks good and the look is certainly appropriate to the performance, but I just do not believe that a concert video can compete with the visual interest of upper tier live action and animated titles. Having said that, I don't believe this title can look (or sound) any better than it does here. Fans of John Mayer and those looking for audio demo material will be extremely pleased with this blu-ray.

*Recommendation: Tier 2.75*


Sim2 C3X1080 -- 13' From 126" Screen


----------



## rsbeck

Band of Brothers


Just watched the 3rd episode and wanted to report. If anything, the visual quality is improving and I'm starting to think more in the range of 1.0 to 1.25. I also want to deal with a few issues: First, the accusation of DNR. I see natural looking grain throughout, I see facial detail down to the pores, individual pieces of stubble, individual hairs in eyebrows and lot of ultra fine texture in clothing. I see nothing to raise suspicion that BoB has been subjected to excessive DNR. Zip. Nada. Second, the accusation of EE. Interestingly, this episode contained the shot of the tank....

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post15502462 


This was on screen a split second and -- yes -- I did see the ringing -- BUT -- that was the only shot in the entire episode with anything remotely resembling ringing or a halo. So, why would they apply EE to one split second shot? Doesn't make sense to me. I don't see any evidence so far that EE has been applied.


Finally, the visual effects are really impressive. I don't know how many women would like this, but I have to think most guys would love it. It's not only eye candy, it's guy candy! And the consistency is incredible -- one great shot after another.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15577966
> 
> 
> This was on screen a split second and -- yes -- I did see the ringing -- BUT -- that was the only shot in the entire episode with anything remotely resembling ringing or a halo. So, why would they apply EE to one split second shot? Doesn't make sense to me. I don't see any evidence so far that EE has been applied.



I haven't seen BoB on BD, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's an artistic decision they employed to give it an edgier, starker look...


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15577998
> 
> 
> I haven't seen BoB on BD, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's an artistic decision they employed to give it an edgier, starker look...



Aside from the split second tank shot, I haven't seen anything in the three episodes I've watched that indicates EE as an artistic decision or otherwise.


----------



## rsbeck

*The Visitor*


Disagree with Current 1.0 ranking


I really enjoyed this little character study/drama. Fine grain apparent throughout, no halos or ringing noted. This title perfectly fits the category of nice, easy to watch, well shot films with excellent transfer to blu-ray, but where eye-candy is not the point. I found one review recommending 1.25 or 1.5, one agreeing with that post, but only referring to the transfer, not the PQ according to this thread's criteria and then a review from the original reviewer changing his mind to recommend 1.0. Although I agree that this title has received an excellent transfer, offers excellent facial detail, and will never look better, based on the source material, I can't agree with placing it so high. Mine is the third review, so you have one review of 1.0, one vote with no review, but agreeing to 1.25 or 1.5 saying it is an excellent transfer (misunderstanding of the thread criteria) and this one....

*Recommendation: Tier 2.0*


Sim2 C3X1080 -- 13' From 126" Screen


----------



## rsbeck

*The Visitor* --- The History


First review...



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/15232946
> 
> 
> Did a quick run through of the first page and didn't see The Visitor ranked. Anyway I watched it last night and was really impressed by it, both as a gripping smale scale drama with excellent acting and for its PQ. Close ups of the actors were tack sharp, showing pores and blemishes that reminded me of Mr. Brooks. Non close ups were very good to excellent. I didn't notice any EE or the other thngs that some people on this thread complain about but, to be quite frank, I got very caught up in the movie and wasn't looking for them. *I would rate it either in the 1 1/4 or 1 1/2 position,*
> 
> 
> Panasonic 720p 50" plasma, Panasonic 10a player, 7 1/2'


 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...6#post15232946 



2nd vote -- agreeing....



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zinfamous* /forum/post/15239583
> 
> *agreed*. fantastic flick and great presentation. Amazing how a small flick like this can show up without the EE/DNR so many complain about, yet the big flicks like TDK get tossed through the wringer...




1st reviewer changes his mind...



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/15238575
> 
> *Regarding my comments in post number 7203*, Last night I rewatched The Bank Job, which is ranked in Tier 1 1/4. TBJ seems to be the type of movie that appeals to many of the people who offer their reviews here and has been reviewed enough to have found it proper place in the rankings. *In my opinion The Visitor's PQ is superior to that of TBJ and it should be placed in the top level of Tier 1*.


 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post15238575 



3rd review...

*The Visitor*


Disagree with Current 1.0 ranking


I really enjoyed this little character study/drama. Fine grain apparent throughout, no halos or ringing noted. This title perfectly fits the category of nice, easy to watch, well shot films with excellent transfer to blu-ray, but where eye-candy is not the point. I found one review recommending 1.25 or 1.5, one agreeing with that post, but only referring to the transfer, not the PQ according to this thread's criteria and then a review from the original reviewer changing his mind to recommend 1.0. Although I agree that this title has received an excellent transfer, offers excellent facial detail, and will never look better, based on the source material, I can't agree with placing it so high. Mine is the third review, so you have one review of 1.0, one vote with no review, but agreeing to 1.25 or 1.5 saying it is an excellent transfer (misunderstanding of the thread criteria) and this one....

*Recommendation: Tier 2.0*


Sim2 C3X1080 -- 13' From 126" Screen


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15577998
> 
> 
> I haven't seen BoB on BD, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's an artistic decision they employed to give it an edgier, starker look...



So far I have only watched the first episode, but the image is much more stylized than I expected. It looks very good, but it is clear they were going for a very specific "period" look.


----------



## rsbeck

We don't need to go round and round about whether or not the haze is part of the image. Of course it is. But, that argument could be used to place any title in tier 0. Softness is Body Heat? Part of the image. Etc. So, this is just a variation of arguing artists' intent and seems to be based on a repeated misunderstanding of the assessment criteria. Using the assessment criteria, I think a better argument in favor of Wall-E's first 30 minutes can be made using this criteria....

*Animated material will often exhibit photo-realistic qualities and will feature beautifully rendered environments.*


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15579970
> 
> *The Visitor* is another one of the discs that I watched previously that I did not give a review on.
> 
> 
> I did not enjoy this movie nearly as much as you, and I wouldn't recommend it. Far too slow, and the political message really tries to knock you over the head, without ever even considering the other side of the issue.
> 
> 
> In any event, I completely agree with your review and recommended placement. It is a pretty good looking title overall, but it isn't impressive enough to be in Tier 1.
> 
> *Tier 2.0 or 2.25 sounds right to me*.



Thank you.

*I'd be okay with 2.0*.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Under Siege 2: Dark Territory*


recommendation: *Tier 3.25*


Warner Bros. released this 1995 movie to Blu-ray in the U.S. on September 2, 2008. The 99-minute main feature is encoded using VC-1 on a BD-25 with few extras and no lossless audio. A European BD of this movie from Warner had been available since early in 2008, so I do not believe this is a recently done encode. At first I thought this was a port of a HD DVD derived transfer, but the video bitrate does peak, if ever so briefly and rarely, well into the 30's, meaning it was created with the limits of Blu-ray in mind (barely though). Most of the video encode varies between 15.4 Mbps to 29.3 Mbps, with an average video bitrate I would estimate at ~21 Mbps.


Compared to most of the Blu-rays I have seen lately, the compression work on this BD is inadequate at best. Posterization is occasionally seen throughout the movie, particularly in the background of solid colored walls. The many scenes filled with smoke show some minor compression noise. Macroblocking is evident in a couple of different scenes where the combination of the grain structure against the sky clearly reveals it. It is not that bad overall but there are flaws in this aspect of the image.


The master used as the source of this transfer looks in great shape for a catalog title from the 90's with virtually no anomalies or flaws. If someone had told me the movie was from 2005 instead of 1995 it would have made more sense. My only complaint in this area is that colors look just the slightest bit faded at times which might indicate an older master. Edge halos are basically nonexistent except for some very thin ones in the last thirty minutes. The grain structure looks very natural except for one short instance, where I will surmise the low video bitrate compromised the visual integrity of it. This appears to be a transfer that has not been filtered or over processed at all.


The image itself is very average looking for the Blu-ray format. Contrast is very good throughout the feature except for a scene near the end of the movie which involved some type of special effects. Fine detail is very evident in facial close-ups, though this level of detail varies depending on the scene. Medium and long-range shots look a little softer, with less high-frequency information visible. Flesh tones look accurate to the setting of each scene. I would not call this a super sharp image but I think it meets the general standards set by other tier three titles. There is not any great depth to the image and at times it can look flat in comparison to the higher tiers. One strong point of the transfer is the relatively good black levels demonstrated throughout the feature with little sign of any clipping. Seagal's black jacket, which he wears for almost the entire movie, always looks good with a nice inky quality that might have become a blob with poor black levels in the darker segments. Shadow detail is solidly average for tier three.


While I was not expecting much from this BD, Warner Bros. has delivered decent looking picture quality here that deserves to be placed in tier 3.25.


Watching on a 60 Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 (firmware 2.53) from a viewing distance of six feet.


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15578095
> 
> *The Visitor* --- The History
> 
> 
> First review...
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...6#post15232946
> 
> 
> 
> 2nd vote -- agreeing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1st reviewer changes his mind...
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post15238575
> 
> 
> 
> 3rd review...
> 
> *The Visitor*
> 
> 
> Disagree with Current 1.0 ranking
> 
> 
> I really enjoyed this little character study/drama. Fine grain apparent throughout, no halos or ringing noted. This title perfectly fits the category of nice, easy to watch, well shot films with excellent transfer to blu-ray, but where eye-candy is not the point. I found one review recommending 1.25 or 1.5, one agreeing with that post, but only referring to the transfer, not the PQ according to this thread's criteria and then a review from the original reviewer changing his mind to recommend 1.0. Although I agree that this title has received an excellent transfer, offers excellent facial detail, and will never look better, based on the source material, I can't agree with placing it so high. Mine is the third review, so you have one review of 1.0, one vote with no review, but agreeing to 1.25 or 1.5 saying it is an excellent transfer (misunderstanding of the thread criteria) and this one....
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 2.25*
> 
> 
> Sim2 C3X1080 -- 13' From 126" Screen



For my own education and to become a better reviewer, can you give reasons for dropping it other than it doesn't look impressive enough, which is basically what both you and Rob are saying. "Impressive enough" is a pretty vague statement.


----------



## Vegaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15577708
> 
> 
> It's filmed digitally, so minimal to no "grain" (or sensor noise, in this case) is normal.



Would that also explain why it looks so damn good? (I think so anyway)


----------



## 42041

*Ghost Town*


Another solid release from Dreamworks, this is a pleasant, quite natural looking BD with not too much to complain about as far as the transfer goes. Although some shots are very detailed, many are on the softer side. If all you want from life is too see detailed closeups of Ricky Gervais's mug, this BD won't disappoint, and grain seems to be intact to my eyes. The black level is sometimes pushed too deep and shadow details are clipped , but during my viewing I didn't find it particularly bothersome. For some reason, the credit text is really ugly and pixelated, but I'll let that one slide










some people might find the mild softness more offputting, but for my tastes, this is
*Tier 1.75*


(watched on friend's PS3/samsung ln40a550 LCD, double checked on my sony 21" CRT monitor)


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/15582869
> 
> 
> For my own education and to become a better reviewer, can you give reasons for dropping it other than it doesn't look impressive enough, which is basically what both you and Rob are saying. "Impressive enough" is a pretty vague statement.



In all honesty, I don't think it was fair of me to make a recommendation on this title. I did not write down any notes from that viewing, and I am going by memory. I can't even give a good recitation of what was good and what wasn't so good about this title, so I withdraw my prior recommendation for Tier 2.0 to 2.25.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Tropic Thunder*


I've had this Blu-ray sitting at home for more than two weeks from Netflix. I kept putting off watching it because I know it is a comedy and I have heard some negative things about it, including the review by GeekyGlassesGirl saying how she lost a lot of respect for Ben Stiller because of this movie.


Well, at the risk of damaging my own credibility (if I had any







) I have to say that this film was fantastic! Yes, I had very low expectations going in, but this movie impressed me a lot. Biting satire, makes fun of Hollywood and how ridiculous it can be, *superb acting* by at least four members of this cast, and even the cinematography is excellent (no surprise there with someone like John Toll as the DP).


As someone who is very rarely impressed with comedies, this film was a complete success in my opinion. Although a comedy, many of the so called jokes have a serious bite to them. I think this film could easily wind being considered a cult classic. Ben Stiller did a great job both acting (nobody is better at this type of comedy than him) and directing. Needless to say, I highly enjoyed and recommend this film!


With all that out of the way, I actually found this one hard to place in the Tier rankings. No doubt about it, there were scenes in this film that were Tier 0 worthy! The problem I had was that there were also scenes that belonged squarely in the middle of Tier 3! For example, in the early scenes where the crew was back at their hotel and the party, those scenes were not impressive at all. Low contrast and lacking in detail. There were other scenes later in the film that were this way as well.


Yet, the majority of scenes looked fantastic. Facial pores and detail were extremely well preserved. Contrast in many of the jungle scenes was excellent, and colors were very impressive looking. Overall clarity in the best scenes was very impressive.


I'm going to discount this title for the less impressive scenes a quarter of a Tier though, because there were enough of them in my opinion to require such a reduction, despite the fact that most of the film looks fantastic.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*


P.S. Did I mention how much I enjoyed the movie?


----------



## DrDon

Bickering removed. Stay on topic.


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15586497
> 
> 
> In all honesty, I don't think it was fair of me to make a recommendation on this title. I did not write down any notes from that viewing, and I am going by memory. I can't even give a good recitation of what was good and what wasn't so good about this title, so I withdraw my prior recommendation for Tier 2.0 to 2.25.



Rob, I wasn't attacking your statement. I really do want to become a better more critical reviewer as I often watch movies that normally tend not to get viewed by most of the regular reviewers.


Also, I don't feel that I have any vested interest in seeing that The Visitor remains in Tier 1.0. I know at times I become so engrossed in a movie that I'm not critical enough in my evaluations. I hope more people watch the movie so it arrives in its proper ranking based on consensus of all those who review it.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/15586885
> 
> 
> Rob, I wasn't attacking your statement. I really do want to become a better more critical reviewer as I often watch movies that normally tend not to get viewed by most of the regular reviewers.
> 
> 
> Also, I don't feel that I have any vested interest in seeing that The Visitor remains in Tier 1.0. I know at times I become so engrossed in a movie that I'm not critical enough in my evaluations. I hope more people watch the movie so it arrives in its proper ranking based on consensus of all those who review it.



Thank you for the follow up. For clarification, I did not in any way consider your post/questions as attacking my statement! In fact, I very much appreciate the fact that you asked the questions that you did, because when I considered them I realized that I could not answer them!


Under those circumstances, I realized that it was not fair for me to make a Tier recommendation when I can't even specify what the basis for the recommendation was.


Your post was perfectly appropriate and on point, as well as helpful since you made me re-assess my recommendation.


----------



## rsbeck

Oldcoger73 -- I agree with Rob about the civility of your question, which makes me want to watch The Visitor again so I can give you a more detailed answer. I've seen three or four films since then and I want to refresh my memory.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15586744
> 
> *Tropic Thunder*
> 
> 
> I've had this Blu-ray sitting at home for more than two weeks from Netflix. I kept putting off watching it because I know it is a comedy and I have heard some negative things about it, including the review by GeekyGlassesGirl saying how she lost a lot of respect for Ben Stiller because of this movie.





Yeah, I did. But it's ok if other people watch & enjoy things I don't. I just wish I'd stayed away. I'm heavily involved in the special needs community, and so I'm sure you can figure out why this movie was so very offensive to me.



On topic, I watched *The Pineapple Express* last night, but I was drinking so I didn't do a review on it. I've got to return it today, so I don't know if I will be watching it again, however when I was trying to see what was wrong with it, I couldn't really find anything. I saw no EE that I could identify, and there was decent grain throughout and the colours were fairly natural for a film like this. There were moments of softness, or just me enjoying the wine, I'm unsure which







. I'm curious as to what others think about this film, I won't be surprised if it ends up in *Tier 1*, but I could have missed a lot too.



The movie itself was ok, but it did end up a little more violent than I was expecting! I'm not anti-violence, I just wasn't totally expecting it!


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15587092
> 
> 
> Yeah, I did. But it's ok if other people watch & enjoy things I don't. I just wish I'd stayed away. I'm heavily involved in the special needs community, and so I'm sure you can figure out why this movie was so very offensive to me.
> 
> 
> 
> On topic, I watched *The Pineapple Express* last night, but I was drinking so I didn't do a review on it. I've got to return it today, so I don't know if I will be watching it again, however *when I was trying to see what was wrong with it*, I couldn't really find anything. I saw no EE that I could identify, and there was decent grain throughout and the colours were fairly natural for a film like this. There were moments of softness, or just me enjoying the wine, I'm unsure which
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . I'm curious as to what others think about this film, I won't be surprised if it ends up in *Tier 1*, but I could have missed a lot too.
> 
> 
> 
> The movie itself was ok, but it did end up a little more violent than I was expecting! I'm not anti-violence, I just wasn't totally expecting it!



G3, does that suggest that you had the sense that there was "something" wrong with it? I didn't order this one, based partly on the general sense that the PQ on comedies frequently falls short.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15587202
> 
> 
> G3, does that suggest that you had the sense that there was "something" wrong with it? I didn't order this one, based partly on the general sense that the PQ on comedies frequently falls short.




I just figured because I was drinking I might have been missing something that others would find glaring, so I didn't want to review it when I wasn't confident I would be giving a quality review on it, if that makes sense. I like to be able to have a good foot to stand on behind the thoughts I post here.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15587234
> 
> 
> I just figured because I was drinking I might have been missing something that others would find glaring, so I didn't want to review it when I wasn't confident I would be giving a quality review on it, if that makes sense. I like to be able to have a good foot to stand on behind the thoughts I post here.



Ok. Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15587092
> 
> 
> Yeah, I did. But it's ok if other people watch & enjoy things I don't. I just wish I'd stayed away. I'm heavily involved in the special needs community, and so I'm sure you can figure out why this movie was so very offensive to me.



I think that if you thought one of the purposes of this movie was to make fun of special needs people, then you may have missed the entire point of the movie. Like I said in my review, this is more a commentary on Hollywood than anything else.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15587689
> 
> 
> I think that if you thought one of the purposes of this movie was to make fun of special needs people, then you may have missed the entire point of the movie. Like I said in my review, this is more a commentary on Hollywood than anything else.




I didn't think that. I just didn't want to get into specifics in this thread, it'd derail it and is a little more personal than I'd like to share at AVS. I can PM you if you'd like to know more of my reasoning, but otherwise, I'm glad you enjoyed the movie, it just wasn't my cup of tea. I had significant warnings towards whether or not I should watch it, and I made a poor judgement call for myself by watching it when I should have just turned it off/not watched it at all. I'm not one for boycotting anything or what have you, I know I made a mistake here. It doesn't stop me from being disappointed in what I saw, though, but it likely would have been better if I just hadn't seen it at all.



I'm just too damn curious most of the time to heed my own warnings though.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Salvage*


recommendation: *Tier 5*


The independent distributor Echo Bridge Home Entertainment brought this 2006 film to Blu-ray on July 29, 2008. The 79-minute main feature is encoded in MPEG-2 on a BD-25. The image is presented in 1080i and the average video bitrate per the BDInfo scan is 23.46 Mbps. Compression quality here is poor and barely better than broadcast quality with numerous artifacts.


There is not much to say about the image as it never looks better than upconverted standard definition NTSC. I would strongly bet this transfer is from nothing more than an upconverted dvd master. Real resolution never looks better than a good dvd. To be fair this is not the worst looking title in tier five, that would be _Coma_ or _Mortuary_.


BDInfo Scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...10#post9044310


----------



## H.Cornerstone




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15586744
> 
> *Tropic Thunder*
> 
> 
> I've had this Blu-ray sitting at home for more than two weeks from Netflix. I kept putting off watching it because I know it is a comedy and I have heard some negative things about it, including the review by GeekyGlassesGirl saying how she lost a lot of respect for Ben Stiller because of this movie.
> 
> 
> Well, at the risk of damaging my own credibility (if I had any
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) I have to say that this film was fantastic! Yes, I had very low expectations going in, but this movie impressed me a lot. Biting satire, makes fun of Hollywood and how ridiculous it can be, *superb acting* by at least four members of this cast, and even the cinematography is excellent (no surprise there with someone like John Toll as the DP).
> 
> 
> As someone who is very rarely impressed with comedies, this film was a complete success in my opinion. Although a comedy, many of the so called jokes have a serious bite to them. I think this film could easily wind being considered a cult classic. Ben Stiller did a great job both acting (nobody is better at this type of comedy than him) and directing. Needless to say, I highly enjoyed and recommend this film!
> 
> 
> With all that out of the way, I actually found this one hard to place in the Tier rankings. No doubt about it, there were scenes in this film that were Tier 0 worthy! The problem I had was that there were also scenes that belonged squarely in the middle of Tier 3! For example, in the early scenes where the crew was back at their hotel and the party, those scenes were not impressive at all. Low contrast and lacking in detail. There were other scenes later in the film that were this way as well.
> 
> 
> Yet, the majority of scenes looked fantastic. Facial pores and detail were extremely well preserved. Contrast in many of the jungle scenes was excellent, and colors were very impressive looking. Overall clarity in the best scenes was very impressive.
> 
> 
> I'm going to discount this title for the less impressive scenes a quarter of a Tier though, because there were enough of them in my opinion to require such a reduction, despite the fact that most of the film looks fantastic.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.25*
> 
> 
> P.S. Did I mention how much I enjoyed the movie?



I agree, I surprisingly enjoyed the movie and it was a lot better than I thought, and there were many moments were I busted off laughing.


----------



## selimsivad

*King Kong*


WOW! King Kong looks good, but not Tier 0 good.


The movie starts off showing zoo scenes, and detail is top notch. Fur from the simians and tigers show every stand! Some scenes appeared to have an intentional soft look due to the lighting. I also noticed a the tint changed from warm to cool, depending on location.


Overall, faces and clothing reveal top of the line resolution. Black levels are excellent! Colors looked true to llfe. No detail was lost in darker scenes!


Picture quality improves once they arrive to their "destinaiton." Shadow detail there rivals the best Blu Ray has to offer!










The CGI looked believable. Kong himself looked amazing, especially his fur, battle scars, and facial elements! The dinosaurs and various creatures had a nice pop factor. Some backround shots had a soft, intentional feel. Peter Jackson tried and succeeded giving those shots a vintage matte look.










King Kong falls short of Tier 0, but rivals the best in Tier 1. This is the best the movie has looked to me (I've never watched the HD DVD version). Due to some soft backrounds, I can understand some recommending Tier 1.25. I think the movie's attention to detail lands it at the top of Tier 1.










*King Kong

Tier Recommendation: top of Tier 1

PS3-Samsung 46" 1080p-seven*'


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15588774
> 
> *Salvage*
> 
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 5*



Really admire your patience and perseverance. Keep rocking dude.










selimsivad,


Thanks for posting your impressions on KK. The DNR / Filtering on the last set of caps posted by Xylon on his thread *de*motivated me to remove KK from my shopping bag. Another missed opportunity.


----------



## 42041

*Burn After Reading*


I don't know if I can say the same about the movie, but the PQ is quite excellent. The sharpness/detail is, more often than not, Tier 0 caliber, with very fine details and the texture of skin and cloth clearly resolved. There's some quality cinematography here, but I doubt this will be eye candy for most people, as it has a washed out, brownish color palette and a lot of grain. Contrast and black levels are about where they should be. There's often what looks like a subtle bit of edge enhancement employed in some shots, but I didn't find it too distracting.

*Tier 1.5*


(PS3/Samsung LN40A650 LCD/1080p24/1SW away)


edit: to add a who-cares postscript, the video is actually VC-1 encoded, not AVC as it's listed in the OP


----------



## rsbeck

*Big Fish*


Disagree With Current 4.0 ranking.


I could only find one mention of Big Fish in the entire thread....



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *slksc* /forum/post/11010865
> 
> 
> Just finished watching Big Fish. *I thought it was one of the better BD's in terms of PQ that I've seen*, and HiDef Digest gave it 4.5 stars for video. So *it's surprising to me that it's listed here as low as Tier 4.*


 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post11010865 


Like this poster, I have no idea why Big Fish is ranked so low. Fine to medium natural grain is apparent throughout, no sign of ringing or halos. Faces are often detailed down to the pores, individual strands of hair, blacks, shadow and contrast is excellent and the whole film just has a very natural, consistent, easy to watch look about it. If you saw the film in the theater, it looks exactly the same here. I really don't know how it could look any better. Tim Burton is looking to make an emotional connection with his imagery, so sometimes the image can be a tiny bit soft for effect, but when it is, it still looks fine, not distracting at all. Big Fish looks great on blu-ray and fans of the film should be very pleased.


Since there are no other reviews and I am the second person to mention that the current ranking is too low, I'd like to request that Big Fish be moved up.

*Recommendation: Tier 2.50*


Sim2 C3X1080 -- 13' From 126" Screen


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Hancock*


recommendation: *Tier 1.25*


Sony Pictures released this superhero movie to Blu-ray on November 25, 2008. They have provided two different versions of the movie on here via seamless branching, with the original theatrical cut running 92 minutes and an unrated cut running 102 minutes. The main features are encoded in AVC on a single BD-50. The average video bitrate for the unrated version per the BDInfo scan is 24.69 Mbps while the theatrical version clocks in at 24.57 Mbps.


As is typical for a Sony Blu-ray authored in the past year, the video encode stays in a relatively narrow range from 20.6 Mbps to 31.2 Mbps for the entire movie, with most action scenes staying comfortably in the top half of that range. Outside of the first 25 minutes or so, this is a flawless video encode in terms of compression quality. But a few stray moments of artifacting and slight banding do show up in that first portion, which makes this just a very solid encoding overall.


The Digital Intermediate this transfer was struck from looks in immaculate shape with absolutely no flaws or anomalies present. The grain structure of the original film looks completely unprocessed with no signs of digital noise reduction visible. I will note that a few scenes showed added edge enhancement that is quite visible. The one scene that first struck me with it was the train collision. It appears that whoever was supervising the transfer decided to selectively sharpen some of the softer CGI sequences to match the naturally sharper regular scenes, because the non-CGI scenes show absolutely no halos or ringing at all. Many scenes do exhibit the fabled three-dimensional pop that makes objects appear to have real depth on-screen. There is a frequent sense of this excellent depth to the image, particularly in the wide shots.


The picture consistently demonstrated superior high-frequency information throughout at all levels. Tight shots of the actors revealed extraordinary micro-detail with no apparent filters or camera tricks to obscure detail. In this regard I would rank this as an image that holds up well in comparison to the better titles located in tier zero. Every texture and surface feature is superbly rendered with top-notch clarity. Contrast is excellent, if just the tiniest bit boosted, with color tonality veering slightly towards the warm range. The only thing that really bothered me was the consistent red push that flesh tones exhibited, which simply distracted from my enjoyment of the otherwise spectacular image quality. The deepest black levels are apparent with exceptionally fine shadow details fully resolved in all moments and no moments of black crush noticeable.


Overall I was very impressed with the very nice and consistent image quality of this Blu-ray. My recommendation is to lower it though from its current tier 1.0 status to the lower ranking of tier 1.25. The sporadic edge enhancement and the horribly inaccurate flesh tones force me to drop its ranking. Without those problems I would have no qualms placing it in the lower half of tier zero.


Watching on a 60” Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 (firmware 2.53) from a viewing distance of six feet.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Patsfan123):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...6#post15151906


----------



## babrown92

I agree with placing *Tropic Thunder* near the top of *Tier 1*, Rob's review is pretty much how I feel.


As for the movie itself, I thought it was hilarious! Especially the Simple Jack stuff, man I wish they could do an entire Simple Jack movie! Ben Stiller playing a retard was gold.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Bangkok Dangerous*


It looks like I am the first to review this disc. Perhaps if others reviewed it before me, I wouldn't have wasted my time! Not only is the movie itself bad, but so is the picture quality.


There is a heavy layer of grain present through most of the film. I am not a grain hater, but this grain was too much for me and I found it to be distracting, intentional or not.


Also, due to the heavy grain, the clarity of the image and details are somewhat lacking. Colors never look right to me, sometimes being overly saturated and other times looking flat. They never looked accurate.


Contrast varied greatly, but overall was quite poor in many scenes. There were some night scenes on the street that looked good, but most of the dark interior scenes looked pretty bad.


This is a disappointing disc in terms of PQ, especially for a new release. The only redeeming quality is the sound, which is quite good.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.75*


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15597196
> 
> *Bangkok Dangerous*
> 
> 
> It looks like I am the first to review this disc. Perhaps if others reviewed it before me, I wouldn't have wasted my time! Not only is the movie itself bad, but so is the picture quality.



You actually thought it would be good?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15597220
> 
> 
> You actually thought it would be good?



I never said I thought the movie itself would be "good". But combining a bad movie with bad PQ was very disappointing. The AQ was the only redeeming feature.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15592245
> 
> *Big Fish*
> 
> 
> I have no idea why Big Fish is ranked so low. Fine to medium natural grain is apparent throughout, no sign of ringing or halos. Faces are often detailed down to the pores, individual strands of hair, blacks, shadow and contrast is excellent and the whole film just has a very natural, consistent, easy to watch look about it. If you saw the film in the theater, it looks exactly the same here. I really don't know how it could look any better. Tim Burton is looking to make an emotional connection with his imagery, so sometimes the image can be a tiny bit soft for effect, but when it is, it still looks fine, not distracting at all. Big Fish looks great on blu-ray and fans of the film should be very pleased.



Good to hear. This was one of my favorite DVDs. The present ranking is the only reason I have yet to rent.


----------



## Hughmc

For anyone interested there is an excellent discussion going on in the KK comparison pix thread. There are two insiders, one who owns an authoring house and one who works in one doing transfers to BD. It is nice seeing facts about encodes, transfers, equipment used etc. being discussed as opposed to laymen speculation.










One of them provided a link which is a fairly easy read even for us laymen. I haven't read it all in detail, but I got to page 11 and it has a lot of info about grain and compression and how it is handled. Really good stuff.

http://www.digitalvision.se/resource...u-ray_Disc.pdf


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15597749
> 
> 
> Good to hear. This was one of my favorite DVDs. The present ranking is the only reason I have yet to rent.



I hear you. I've had Big Fish sitting on my shelf for months and that tier four ranking always leapt into my head every time I went to watch it. Finally took the plunge and I am glad I did.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15598470
> 
> 
> For anyone interested there is an excellent discussion going on in the KK comparison pix thread. There are two insiders, one who owns an authoring house and one who works in one doing transfers to BD. It is nice seeing facts about encodes, transfers, equipment used etc. being discussed as opposed to laymen speculation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of them provided a link which is a fairly easy read even for us laymen. I haven't read it all in detail, but I got to page 11 and it has a lot of info about grain and compression and how it is handled. Really good stuff.
> 
> http://www.digitalvision.se/resource...u-ray_Disc.pdf




Thanks for the heads up!


----------



## rsbeck

"I don't break character until I've done the DVD commentary." -- Robert Downey, Jr. in Tropic Thunder

*Tropic Thunder*


Have to agree. Shockingly good picture for a comedy. In fact, it would be great for any genre. This is sort of like asking what would it be like if we crossed a satire of Hollywood convention, conceit, and phony sanctimony with the picture quality of Rescue Dawn. Seriously -- most of it is _that_ good. Fine natural grain throughout, didn't see any halos or ringing, blacks, shadow, and contrast extremely satisfying and well handled. Ultra fine detail everywhere, three dimensional jungle scenery. It's true that there is a lot of tasteless humor here, but most of it is in the service of a larger point about Hollywood. I found it more of a smiler than a laugher most of the time and some of the pee-caca seemed a little gratuitous, but no matter what you think of the movie, are you looking for a comedy with demo quality visuals? Baraka on laughing gas? You've found it here. I agree with Rob's review and I would not object to a little higher ranking. I could see ranking this as high as the very bottom of tier 0.

*Recommendation: 1.0*


Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From 126" Screen


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15598943
> 
> 
> "I don't break character until I've done the DVD commentary." -- Robert Downey, Jr. in Tropic Thunder
> 
> *Tropic Thunder*
> 
> 
> Have to agree. Shockingly good picture for a comedy. In fact, it would be great for any genre. This is sort of like asking what would it be like if we crossed a satire of Hollywood convention, conceit, and phony sanctimony with the picture quality of Rescue Dawn. Seriously -- most of it is _that_ good. Fine natural grain throughout, didn't see any halos or ringing, blacks, shadow, and contrast extremely satisfying and well handled. Ultra fine detail everywhere, three dimensional jungle scenery. It's true that there is a lot of tasteless humor here, but most of it is in the service of a larger point about Hollywood. I found it more of a smiler than a laugher most of the time and some of the pee-caca seemed a little gratuitous, but no matter what you think of the movie, are you looking for a comedy with demo quality visuals? Baraka on laughing gas? You've found it here. I agree with Rob's review and I would not object to a little higher ranking. I could see ranking this as high as the very bottom of tier 0.
> 
> *Recommendation: 1.0*
> 
> 
> Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From 126" Screen



Thanks for a very nice review, and glad to hear that you also enjoyed this movie a lot. I agree with all of your comments on the movie itself, particularly when you say "It's true that there is a lot of tasteless humor here, but most of it is in the service of a larger point about Hollywood". That sums it up very well.


As for the PQ, there is no question that some of it is Tier 0. But as I mentioned, there is the scene fairly early in the movie, at the party, that is high Tier 3 material, so I gave it a Tier 1.25 recommendation. Still, we are splitting hairs here, and if you take that one early scene out of the movie (it lasts several minutes) this is clearly a Tier 1.0 at minimum, with Tier 0 consideration. I'm glad to see your review, and I look forward to more of them coming in.


There were lots of great quotes in this movie, and you mentioned one of them in your review.


One of the conversations that I loved, that I forgot to mention in my review and thought was perfect for this thread (and AVS in general) was when they were talking about Blu-ray vs HD-DVD in the format war, and something to the effect of how smart Sony was to have a built in Blu-ray player with every PS3!










This movie has really stayed with me since I watched it a few days ago. Out of curiosity I checked to see what the critics thought of this film at Rotten Tomatoes, and it received a _very_ high score of 83%!! Not that I always agree with critics of course, but in this case I completely agree with the consensus on this film.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/tropic_thunder/


----------



## rsbeck

Rob -- In trying to come up with a recommendation, I figured anything higher than bottom quarter of tier 0 or lower than 1.25 would make me uncomfortable, so I pegged it at 1.0. I seriously thought about recommending bottom quarter of tier 0, but I figured the few flaws should bring it down to 1.0. All roads lead to 1.0. Also, I thought I detected something in your review that told me you might want to recommend a tiny bit higher. Did I misread that? On the comfort meter, how would you feel with Thunder at 1.0? The Sony PS3 rant is hilarious and Downey, Jr. is scary/funny. Method comedy. Great performance.


----------



## sleater




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15599991
> 
> 
> One of the conversations that I loved, that I forgot to mention in my review and thought was perfect for this thread (and AVS in general) was when they were talking about Blu-ray vs HD-DVD in the format war, and something to the effect of how smart Sony was to have a built in Blu-ray player with every PS3!



If you watch with the commentary they actually had to go back and re-dub this section in ADR because the actor Jay Baruchel, who was improvising this speech, had originally said he thought HD DVD would be the winner!










Also, Downey Jr. keeps his character until the end credits where he changes to the K. Lazarus character it's pretty funny. Ben Stiller sounds a little annoyed by him. It's a fun commentary.


And I would vote it lower *Tier 0* myself, a couple indoor scenes may have been low Tier 1 or high 2 but they were not glaring and did little to detract from the overall eye candy IMO.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15600141
> 
> 
> Rob -- In trying to come up with a recommendation, I figured anything higher than bottom quarter of tier 0 or lower than 1.25 would make me uncomfortable, so I pegged it at 1.0. I seriously thought about recommending bottom quarter of tier 0, but I figured the few flaws should bring it down to 1.0. All roads lead to 1.0. Also, I thought I detected something in your review that told me you might want to recommend a tiny bit higher. Did I misread that? On the comfort meter, how would you feel with Thunder at 1.0? The Sony PS3 rant is hilarious and Downey, Jr. is scary/funny. Method comedy. Great performance.



No, I would say that you are reading me quite well. Because overall the PQ is simply superb, but for that one major scene. My difficulty comes from having to decide how much to knock it for that one scene (and a few others that didn't last nearly as long).


The facial details in many scenes are as good as you will see in any Blu-ray released to date.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15600141
> 
> 
> Rob -- In trying to come up with a recommendation, I figured anything higher than bottom quarter of tier 0 or lower than 1.25 would make me uncomfortable, so I pegged it at 1.0. I seriously thought about recommending bottom quarter of tier 0, but I figured the few flaws should bring it down to 1.0. All roads lead to 1.0. Also, I thought I detected something in your review that told me you might want to recommend a tiny bit higher. Did I misread that? On the comfort meter, how would you feel with Thunder at 1.0? The Sony PS3 rant is hilarious and Downey, Jr. is scary/funny. Method comedy. Great performance.



Even for as much as I disliked Tropic Thunder, I still did agree with the rating of 1.0.



Still no one for The Pineapple Express, eh?



I recieved my Bond boxed sets today!!







After I finish torturing the husband with bad reality tv, I plan on popping in Dr. No. As far as I can find in the thread only stumlad has reviewed it so far? I can't find any other reviews, I'd love to hear other opinions on this if you've seen it (even if it's not a real review, just curious!).


----------



## logicman1

Just purchased "Step Into Liquid" Bluray. Actually, a very good movie even if you're not a surfer, but not the best upconvert. The packaging says "7.1 DTS HD Master Audio" but my receiver never detected it and the Setup Menu never showed it as an option.


Tier 2.5 for PQ

Tier 3.0 for Audio


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15600263
> 
> 
> Even for as much as I disliked Tropic Thunder, I still did agree with the rating of 1.0.



Cool.



> Quote:
> Still no one for The Pineapple Express, eh?



Is that a stoner comedy? I've got young teens in the house. That one might land in my humor discomfort zone.



> Quote:
> I recieved my Bond boxed sets today!!



Looking forward to those reviews -- I've been eyeing them, but do not have any.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15600243
> 
> 
> The facial details in many scenes are as good as you will see in any Blu-ray released to date.



Agree. I felt the same way about black levels, shadow and contrast -- very solid. IMO, much better than Iron Man, for example.


----------



## H.Cornerstone




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15600263
> 
> 
> Even for as much as I disliked Tropic Thunder, I still did agree with the rating of 1.0.
> 
> 
> 
> Still no one for The Pineapple Express, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> I recieved my Bond boxed sets today!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After I finish torturing the husband with bad reality tv, I plan on popping in Dr. No. As far as I can find in the thread only stumlad has reviewed it so far? I can't find any other reviews, I'd love to hear other opinions on this if you've seen it (even if it's not a real review, just curious!).



I watched it, didn't review it as when I watched it I was sick







but it's a great transfer and a good movie too.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15600403
> 
> 
> Cool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that a stoner comedy? I've got young teens in the house. That one might land in my humor discomfort zone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looking forward to those reviews -- I've been eyeing them, but do not have any.



Yeah Tropic Thunder was one of my first reviews I think, so it was with the Toshiba.



The Pineapple Express is one we did not watch around our daughter for sure. It is most definitely a "stoner" movie -- I probably would have enjoyed it more in college than I do now (although wine helped it a bit). The violence in it though would be more what I'd worry about for kids, it had some 'Reservoir Dogs' type violence in it.


I picked up the Bonds thanks to the Blu Ray special buys thread giving a heads up, I found them for $29.95 per set from Amazon.ca from their boxing day sale! Since I'm already in Canada and I went a little insane with the order on top of the Bond sets (Firefly, also $29.95 and KB1 & 2 for $9.95 each as a gift for a friend, plus some gifts for the hubster) it was all free shipping plus a $10 off code. Score!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *H.Cornerstone* /forum/post/15600560
> 
> 
> I watched it, didn't review it as when I watched it I was sick
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but it's a great transfer and a good movie too.



Thanks!







Appreciate that!


----------



## Toe

*Elton 60 Live at Madison Square Garden Tier 0*


This is one pristine looking disc. I am sure some of you guys could find something wrong with it, but I could not. One of the more impressive discs I have seen in my HT even though I only made it through a little over half the show (the material did very little for me). Unless something went wrong in the last 1.5 hours that I did not watch, I very much agree with the current tier 0 placement. I dont jump in here all that much, but thought I would throw out my vote on this one as it was VERY impressive.


RS1 94" Stewart 130 ~12 ft back.


----------



## Vegaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15587092
> 
> 
> On topic, I watched *The Pineapple Express* last night, but I was drinking so I didn't do a review on it. I've got to return it today, so I don't know if I will be watching it again, however when I was trying to see what was wrong with it, I couldn't really find anything. I saw no EE that I could identify, and there was decent grain throughout and the colours were fairly natural for a film like this. There were moments of softness, or just me enjoying the wine, I'm unsure which
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . I'm curious as to what others think about this film, I won't be surprised if it ends up in *Tier 1*, but I could have missed a lot too.
> 
> 
> 
> The movie itself was ok, but it did end up a little more violent than I was expecting! I'm not anti-violence, I just wasn't totally expecting it!



I watched it but the day after Rock N Rolla so I was kinda like "back to this again?" after being so impressed by RNR. Certianly wasn't bad. I wasn't paying much attention to PQ since I got pretty into the movie itself and thought it was funny. I agree it's in gold somewhere,not 1.0 but one of the other 3 but wasn't paying enough attention to actually vote.


I was allowed to watch Jay & Silent Bob/Cheech & Chong well before I was 18 and took it as a lesson of what _not_ to do.


*Small spoiler*
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) At one point one of them actually says all the trouble started because they were smoking weed and that they shouldn't do it any more.


----------



## rsbeck

Maybe I should thank Toe for posting that review because it really backs up what I have been saying about these concert videos. If one is not interested in them for the music, there's no way the picture alone would hold anyone's interest over the length of the running time. Would anyone here vote a live action title into tier 0 if the visuals alone wouldn't hold your attention until the end?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15601177
> 
> 
> Maybe I should thank Toe for posting that review because it really backs up what I have been saying about these concert videos. If one is not interested in them for the music, there's no way the picture alone would hold anyone's interest over the length of the running time. Would anyone here vote a live action title into tier 0 if the visuals alone wouldn't hold your attention until the end?



Yes.


Cinematography does tend to play a role in our reviews I think, but it is not a cinematography thread. It is a picture quality thread, and live music concerts are very much capable of producing superb picture quality worthy of Tier 0.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15601177
> 
> 
> Maybe I should thank Toe for posting that review because it really backs up what I have been saying about these concert videos. If one is not interested in them for the music, there's no way the picture alone would hold anyone's interest over the length of the running time. Would anyone here vote a live action title into tier 0 if the visuals alone wouldn't hold your attention until the end?





Picture alone would not hold my interest over the length of any media. I have played plenty of games that looked amazing, but due to content I did not finish them. I am sure that I could pick out a movie or two in the tier 0 thread that I did not finish as well that I would still vote into tier 0. Another thing to keep in mind, the EJ show is ~3hrs and 20min long....(33 songs) the almost 2hrs I did watch was enough for me personaly.


So to answer your question, absolutely would I vote a live action title into tier 0 (assuming of course the visuals deserved tier 0 rating from my perspective) if the visuals alone would not hold my interest till the end otherwise it would be called bias.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15602825
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> Cinematography does tend to play a role in our reviews I think, but it is not a cinematography thread. It is a picture quality thread, and live music concerts are very much capable of producing superb picture quality worthy of Tier 0.



Most of these concert videos cannot provide ultra-fine detail down to the pores and imperfections and in a concert video that is mostly centered on one performer, if that performer is not as detailed as we would expect not only from a tier 0 title, but one worthy of tier 1, I just don't see how it should go into the upper tiers next to titles with more ultra-fine detail and more things to interest the eye over a length of time. Look at our discussion of Tropic Thunder. We want to ding it for a few scenes with less than tier 0 PQ. And this is with a title that has tons and tons of visual interest, all of the actors are resolved down to the pores, there are incredibly detailed sets and jungle scenery, etc. If I take that level of scrutiny to the video concerts I've seen, there's no way they don't get dinged because they cannot maintain tier 0 PQ for any length of time if at all. They just don't hold up under the same scrutiny.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I promised something like this a little earlier and wanted to give a first outline for a list and guide to the technical terms some of us use and rely on for accurate placement. If there are no objections we can add it to the first post of the thread.


Glossary and instruction guides for common terms and useful items in rating picture quality for the purposes of this thread:


Aspect Ratio - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(image) 


Blu-ray - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu_ray 


Cinematography - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinematography 


Color Timing - http://www.digitalvision.se/white_1l...nalgrade_1.htm 


Compression Encoding Process - http://www.digitalvision.se/resource...u-ray_Disc.pdf 


Digital Intermediate (DI) - http://www.digitalvision.se/white_op...workflow_1.htm 


Digital Noise Reduction (DNR) - http://www.cinedrome.ch/hometheater/dvd/dnr/text.html ; http://www.digitalvision.se/download...mpensation.htm 


Edge Enhancement (EE) - http://www.videophile.info/Guide_EE/Page_01.htm 


Macroblocking - http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_te...i=56319,00.asp 


Master Source Quality - http://uk.imdb.com/Sections/DVDs/dvd-review#source 


Posterization - http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=840193 


Telecine - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecine 


Video Artifacts - http://uk.imdb.com/Sections/DVDs/dvd...ideo-artifacts 


Viewing Distance Calculator - http://myhometheater.homestead.com/v...alculator.html


----------



## rsbeck

Excellent -- thanks Phantom.


----------



## haste

Watched "First Sunday" last night. I'm putting my two cents(not even worth that) in for top of Tier 1, low Tier 0. Very Very detailed comedy here. Talking about seeing detail on faces/costumes/hair, this movie has it. Black levels, color reproduction, all top notch on my system.


Viewing on a 42" Philips 1080p LCD from 6' via HDMI from my computer.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15602825
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> Cinematography does tend to play a role in our reviews I think, but it is not a cinematography thread. It is a picture quality thread, and live music concerts are very much capable of producing superb picture quality worthy of Tier 0.



Agreed, and this is what I experienced with EJ and why I voted the way I did


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/15604154
> 
> 
> Agreed, and this is what I experienced with EJ and why I voted the way I did



I'm interested to hear your thoughts as to which tier 0 titles you believe Elton John Compares, especially with regard to these tier 0 criteria...

*Exquisite resolution of ultra-fine detail, fabric and surface textures, individual strands of hair, and human faces down to the imperfections and pores.*


----------



## rsbeck

*The Man Who Fell to Earth*


Criterion


Natural medium/coarse grain apparent throughout and no sign of ringing or halos. There are some scenes where the actors are resolved down to the pores and imperfections and there are times when you can pick out fine detail in clothing, but this is not a film with a lot of visual interest. It was made on a modest budget with scenes shot in mostly mundane settings. There is some kitsch factor in the fact that everything visual in the picture just screams mid 70's. Remember when the hip decor choice of the day was to have redwood boards set at a diagonal? Women all have very specific to the mid 70's pre-punk disco hair styles. I'm sure Criterion has given us a faithful transfer, but we have contrast problems, noise in dark scenes, blacks lose traction, frequently a slight annoying softness to the picture, lighting is very mundane. Not much to recommend it for PQ or visual interest.

*Recommendation: Tier 4.0*


Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From 126" Screen


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15604861
> 
> *The Man Who Fell to Earth*
> 
> 
> Criterion
> 
> 
> Natural medium/coarse grain apparent throughout and no sign of ringing or halos. There are some scenes where the actors are resolved down to the pores and imperfections and there are times when you can pick out fine detail in clothing, but this is not a film with a lot of visual interest. It was made on a modest budget with scenes shot in mostly mundane settings. There is some kitsch factor in the fact that everything visual in the picture just screams mid 70's. Remember when the hip decor choice of the day was to have redwood boards set at a diagonal? Women all have very specific to the mid 70's pre-punk disco hair styles. I'm sure Criterion has given us a faithful transfer, but we have contrast problems, noise in dark scenes, blacks lose traction, frequently a slight annoying softness to the picture, lighting is very mundane. Not much to recommend it for PQ or visual interest.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 4.0*
> 
> 
> Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From 126" Screen



Plus the movie, which starts with a fairly interesting premise, totally falls apart at about the 2/3 to 3/4 point. For me it was a battle to finish it.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/15605706
> 
> 
> Plus the movie, which starts with a fairly interesting premise, totally falls apart at about the 2/3 to 3/4 point. For me it was a battle to finish it.



I agree. Took some determination.


----------



## rsbeck

*Casablanca*


1944, 1.33:1


Presented in its original aspect ratio of 1.33:1. The first thing that jumps out at me is that if there is grain, it is often incredibly fine and difficult for me to see. This is surprising for a film of this vintage. So, I am going to guess that some DNR clean-up has been performed here, but performed with a pretty elegant hand because quite a bit of detail is left intact, there are no tell-tale signs of _excessive_ DNR, and faces look very natural. You will recall that Casablanca has always had a touch of soft focus and perhaps this is why grain could be massaged without harming the look of the film. I did see a halo now and again, but so infrequently that I could not make any determination of EE. Other than these considerations, what we have here looks great. Contrast, blacks, and clarity in older restored films can vary quite a bit from scene to scene. Here, you get a very clean, damage free, consistent, easy to watch picture with a lot of impressive detail intact. So, other than a few small considerations, this is an excellent restoration and I believe most fans of the film will be extremely happy.

*Recommendation: Tier 2.25*


Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From 126" Screen


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15606309
> 
> *Casablanca*
> 
> 
> 1944, 1.33:1
> 
> 
> Presented in its original aspect ratio of 1.33:1. The first thing that jumps out at me is that if there is grain, it is often incredibly fine and difficult for me to see. This is surprising for a film of this vintage. So, I am going to guess that some DNR clean-up has been performed here, but performed with a pretty elegant hand because quite a bit of detail is left intact, there are no tell-tale signs of _excessive_ DNR, and faces look very natural. You will recall that Casablanca has always had a touch of soft focus and perhaps this is why grain could be massaged without harming the look of the film. I did see a halo now and again, but so infrequently that I could not make any determination of EE. Other than these considerations, what we have here looks great. Contrast, blacks, and clarity in older restored films can vary quite a bit from scene to scene. Here, you get a very clean, damage free, consistent, easy to watch picture with a lot of impressive detail intact. So, other than a few small considerations, this is an excellent restoration and I believe most fans of the film will be extremely happy.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 2.25*
> 
> 
> Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From 126" Screen




Thanks for the review! I really want to get this but can't justify the price of the boxed set it comes in. I haven't seen it in a long, long time. Sounds like they did a decent job with the transfer to BRD!


----------



## LBFilmGuy

HDD gave Casablanca a perfect 5/5 PQ rating


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15606711
> 
> 
> Thanks for the review! I really want to get this but can't justify the price of the boxed set it comes in. I haven't seen it in a long, long time. Sounds like they did a decent job with the transfer to BRD!



The boxed set price bothered me, too. I asked for it for Christmas so I could avoid being confronted with the price. Got a birthday coming up? You know, Arbor Day is coming up and there's nothing like a new blu-ray to signify the importance of trees. I think you will really enjoy it.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15606844
> 
> 
> HDD gave Casablanca a perfect 5/5 PQ rating



I haven't read much HDD before, so I'm curious -- do they take into account softness the same way we do here? I could totally see this one being a case of the movie being a terrific transfer but directors intent getting in the way of it being Tier 0.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15606906
> 
> 
> The boxed set price bothered me, too. I asked for it for Christmas so I could avoid being confronted with the price. Got a birthday coming up? You know, Arbor Day is coming up and there's nothing like a new blu-ray to signify the importance of trees. I think you will really enjoy it.




Birthday's in April... but my anniversary is next week....







Although it's too late to have something shipped to the arctic by then. I should plant the seed for April though.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15606970
> 
> 
> I haven't read much HDD before, so I'm curious -- do they take into account softness the same way we do here?



They are under no obligation to apply the criteria we do. I completely understand why they would rate it 5/5, but going by this thread's criteria, I cannot do so.



> Quote:
> I could totally see this one being a case of the movie being a terrific transfer but directors intent getting in the way of it being Tier 0.



Exactly.



> Quote:
> I should plant the seed for April though.



I believe Arbor day is also in April. Go for the Arbor Day/Birthday combo gift. Nothing says Arbor Day quite like a new Blu-Ray.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15603816
> 
> 
> Most of these concert videos cannot provide ultra-fine detail down to the pores and imperfections



Why do you say this? I don't understand it.


What makes you think that concert videos can't show ultra fine detail?











> Quote:
> and in a concert video that is mostly centered on one performer, if that performer is not as detailed as we would expect not only from a tier 0 title, but one worthy of tier 1, I just don't see how it should go into the upper tiers next to titles with more ultra-fine detail and more things to interest the eye over a length of time.



You are correct in the first part, but not in the second part.


I.e, if you do not believe that the detail/clarity is as good on a concert disc as other titles in Tier 0 (or Tier 1, or 2 or 3 or 4 for that matter) then you should rank the title accordingly.


But the last part of your last sentence should have no bearing on your PQ assessment: " ...and more things to interest the eye over a length of time".


This has never been part of how we assess picture quality. It isn't really relevant to picture quality. It may be relevant to how interesting the overall visual experience is, but that is not what we are concerned with here.



> Quote:
> Look at our discussion of Tropic Thunder. We want to ding it for a few scenes with less than tier 0 PQ. And this is with a title that has tons and tons of visual interest, all of the actors are resolved down to the pores, there are incredibly detailed sets and jungle scenery, etc. If I take that level of scrutiny to the video concerts I've seen, there's no way they don't get dinged because they cannot maintain tier 0 PQ for any length of time if at all. They just don't hold up under the same scrutiny.




If you think they don't hold up in Tier 0, then you should not vote them into Tier 0. I just fail to see the connection/comparison between concert videos and movies like Tropic Thunder? You should apply the same criteria: how is the overall contrast? Black levels? How well are fine details preserved? Overall clarity? Lack of artifacts? EE? DNR?


You almost sound as though a Tier 0 title MUST show close ups of actors faces so we can actually see the pores in their faces, which is obviously not the case. You can have a concert video where the camera is fixed in a wide angle shot, never showing any close ups at all, and still be capable of displaying fine details. Many people seem to be confused by this fact, and I am not sure why. The details that may be revealed will be different on a wide angle shot than a close up shot of a face for example, but fine details are fine details, regardless of what it is, or how big it is. For example, being able to see the fine details of the texture of the microphone when it only takes up a very small portion of the screen can show how well fine details are being resolved. The fact that it is a microphone and not skin pores should make absolutely no difference in terms of evaluating that titles ability to show fine details or its overall PQ score.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15606309
> 
> *Casablanca*
> 
> 
> 1944, 1.33:1
> 
> 
> Presented in its original aspect ratio of 1.33:1. The first thing that jumps out at me is that if there is grain, it is often incredibly fine and difficult for me to see. This is surprising for a film of this vintage. So, I am going to guess that some DNR clean-up has been performed here, but performed with a pretty elegant hand because quite a bit of detail is left intact, there are no tell-tale signs of _excessive_ DNR, and faces look very natural. You will recall that Casablanca has always had a touch of soft focus and perhaps this is why grain could be massaged without harming the look of the film. I did see a halo now and again, but so infrequently that I could not make any determination of EE. Other than these considerations, what we have here looks great. Contrast, blacks, and clarity in older restored films can vary quite a bit from scene to scene. Here, you get a very clean, damage free, consistent, easy to watch picture with a lot of impressive detail intact. So, other than a few small considerations, this is an excellent restoration and I believe most fans of the film will be extremely happy.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 2.25*
> 
> 
> Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From 126" Screen



Excellent review of a great film!


I think Tier 2.25 is about right. It looks great, but there are many (intentionally) soft scenes.


I still own the HD DVD, so I am assuming the PQ is the same on Blu.


----------



## H.Cornerstone




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15607192
> 
> 
> They are under no obligation to apply the criteria we do. I completely understand why they would rate it 5/5, but going by this thread's criteria, I cannot do so.



If I am not mistaken, wouldn't a review site also take into account the expectations for the movie? They see a 50 + year old movie and see a great transfer and therefore give it a 5/5 because they did such an excellent job doing so?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *H.Cornerstone* /forum/post/15609041
> 
> 
> If I am not mistaken, wouldn't a review site also take into account the expectations for the movie? They see a 50 + year old movie and see a great transfer and therefore give it a 5/5 because they did such an excellent job doing so?



Exactly right.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Thanks for the explanations, guys. Much appreciated!!


----------



## Hughmc

*Wall E*. I know, not again. I watched it again last night as I wanted some time to pass and get a fresh approach at the PQ. There is no doubt IMO this is a tier 0 reference title. Really it does have state of the art animation. I also think the parts in Axiom were just as good and tier 0 in terms of PQ even though the color palette had changed. I know we have our opinions and what we consider eye candy for our thread purposes and I can understand the opinions of those that say the haze is an issue. What I will say to qualify how I feel about the haze and the movie in general is that the PQ really does NOT change except for the haze once they leave the earth, really it doesn't. Look at Wall E. when he is on the Axiom, no different than when he is on earth in terms of the colors and detail of the character. Wall E looks exactly the same throughout the video and IMO there really isn't that drastic a difference even with the haze, because as I said above the PQ is really the same and consistent throughout. Somehow we have qualified separating the first 30 min. due to the haze and I have to disagree with that having watched it again. With all due respect for those that believe the haze is an issue, I think we have taken the haze issue too far and have missed the forest for the trees. I know the haze is an opinion issue and I respect that as I have mine.










Finally let me say that I believe Wall E. will win several Oscars including best animated feature. I don't know if an animated film can win best cinematography or any other awards from the technical production category, but Wall E. should at least be nominated for some.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15597196
> 
> *Bangkok Dangerous*
> 
> 
> It looks like I am the first to review this disc. Perhaps if others reviewed it before me, I wouldn't have wasted my time! Not only is the movie itself bad, but so is the picture quality.
> 
> 
> There is a heavy layer of grain present through most of the film. I am not a grain hater, but this grain was too much for me and I found it to be distracting, intentional or not.
> 
> 
> Also, due to the heavy grain, the clarity of the image and details are somewhat lacking. Colors never look right to me, sometimes being overly saturated and other times looking flat. They never looked accurate.
> 
> 
> Contrast varied greatly, but overall was quite poor in many scenes. There were some night scenes on the street that looked good, but most of the dark interior scenes looked pretty bad.
> 
> 
> This is a disappointing disc in terms of PQ, especially for a new release. The only redeeming quality is the sound, which is quite good.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.75*



I thought, emphasis on past tense thought, it was tier 2 title give or take. I do remember the grain being the type that is like ants crawling on the screen and is most apparent in the actors faces at times. It wasn't the whole movie, but it was noticeable and distracting and on my display looks as I said above and is the type of grain that really bothers me as it looks more like digital noise than grain. I did look at several pro reviews who dinged it fairly heavily as well. The movie itself I thought I would dislike based on poor reviews it received but surprisingly I actually liked it.














The 7.1 mix is outstanding and one of the best, but that alone certainly isn't enough.


I never gave a review and in fact have been a bit slacking in recommendations for the last couple of weeks although I have been watching BD's. I need to be little more proactive.


P.S. Rob Tomlin, I need to stop looking at Rotten Tomatoes before seeing films as at least a half dozen recent BD's I have watched have been rated 20% or less.







Yikes that is sad. Babylon AD is another as is Righteous Kill and although they were no award winners, I still like them. I must be bored.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15610057
> 
> *Wall E*. I know, not again. I watched it again last night as I wanted some time to pass and get a fresh approach at the PQ. There is no doubt IMO this is a tier 0 reference title. Really it does have state of the art animation. I also think the parts in Axiom were just as good and tier 0 in terms of PQ even though the color palette had changed. I know we have our opinions and what we consider eye candy for our thread purposes and I can understand the opinions of those that say the haze is an issue. What I will say to qualify how I feel about the haze and the movie in general is that the PQ really does NOT change except for the haze once they leave the earth, really it doesn't. Look at Wall E. when he is on the Axiom, no different than when he is on earth in terms of the colors and detail of the character. Wall E looks exactly the same throughout the video and IMO there really isn't that drastic a difference even with the haze, because as I said above the PQ is really the same and consistent throughout. Somehow we have qualified separating the first 30 min. due to the haze and I have to disagree with that having watched it again. With all due respect for those that believe the haze is an issue, I think we have taken the haze issue too far and have missed the forest for the trees. I know the haze is an opinion issue and I respect that as I have mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finally let me say that I believe Wall E. will win several Oscars including best animated feature. I don't know if an animated film can win best cinematography or any other awards from the technical production category, but Wall E. should at least be nominated for some.



I recommended the #2 spot on Tier 0, what do you recommend?


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15610057
> 
> 
> 
> Finally let me say that I believe Wall E. will win several Oscars including best animated feature. I don't know if an animated film can win best cinematography or any other awards from the technical production category, but Wall E. should at least be nominated for some.



IMO, WALL-E should get a best pic nod!


Ten years from now, hopefully sooner, people will look back at this Pixar masterpiece and use it as a benchmark for animation and beyond.










WALL-E and EVE said so much without saying a damn thing!


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15610194
> 
> 
> I recommended the #2 spot on Tier 0, what do you recommend?




I own Ratatouille and replacing it with Wall E. is a tough call as far as this thread and how I think about both. I would agree with you, but however insignificant it would be placing one on top of the other in terms of differences, a tie may be more appropriate.







That would be a first. I do think it is too low in the tier and should be close to the top. It is far better PQ than several BD's just above it. KFP is so hard to top.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15610305
> 
> 
> I own Ratatouille and replacing it with Wall E. is a tough call as far as this thread and how I think about both. I would agree with you, but however insignificant it would be placing one on top of the other in terms of differences, a tie may be more appropriate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be a first. I do think it is too low in the tier and should be close to the top. It is far better PQ than several BD's just above it. KFP is so hard to top.



The only reason I recommended the 2 spot is because I haven't seen KFP yet. Otherwise, it's top Tier 0 for me.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15610057
> 
> *Wall E*. I can understand the opinions of those that say the haze is an issue.



The haze was an issue for me when we still had the old assessment criteria, but now that we have changed the assessment criteria, I have no problem with Wall-E in tier 0. Now, there is language in the assessment criteria that can be used to make a good argument for Wall-E. IMO, there wasn't before. I just didn't like having assessment criteria saying one thing and the titles beneath contradicting them. I no longer believe that is the case with animated titles. I believe that is still the case with some of the concert videos, though.


Regarding the haze, I never had a problem with the colors. Never thought they were drab. I always said I thought the colors were sophisticated and interesting. In fact, I like the colors on Earth better than the more simplistic fast food primary colors on Axiom. I think you could make an argument that the haze in the first 30 minutes of Wall-E is sort of like impressionist art. I don't think that is such a stretch, either, nor do I believe it is purely unintentional. At the end of the film, under the final credits, there is an animated sequence depicting the development and history of art and it stops with impressionism. To me, that sequence under the final credits representing impressionism is one of the most impressive of the whole film!


Given that, I don't think the visuals are nearly as impressive when you get inside Axiom.

*I think Wall-E is fine where it is.*



.


----------



## Hughmc

*Max Payne: 1.75*


I am going to watch this again, but right now I am thinking it is at about 1.75. It has some beautiful shots and scenes of NY rendered in an artistic way that I really enjoyed. The PQ is all over the place from borderline tier 0 down to tier 4 due to artists intent with blurred and out of focus shots. Most of the PQ is really good though, particularly in the beginning where it averages a 1.5-1.0 rating.



Sony [email protected] from PS3 through HDMI.


----------



## Beta Tester




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15603816
> 
> 
> Most of these concert videos cannot provide ultra-fine detail down to the pores and imperfections and in a concert video that is mostly centered on one performer, if that performer is not as detailed as we would expect not only from a tier 0 title, but one worthy of tier 1, I just don't see how it should go into the upper tiers next to titles with more ultra-fine detail and more things to interest the eye over a length of time.



I have Ratatouille which is currently #2 in Tier 0, and I would rank Elton 60 above it for PQ. I don't have KF Panda which is ranked #1.


----------



## Elbie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15610422
> 
> 
> The only reason I recommended the 2 spot is because I haven't seen KFP yet. Otherwise, it's top Tier 0 for me.



I co sign. Top of Tier 0 for me also. KFP is all bright and colorful and Wall E has a lot of brown and dirt and people penalize it. *shrugs


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Beta Tester* /forum/post/15610656
> 
> 
> I have Ratatouille which is currently #2 in Tier 0, and I would rank Elton 60 above it for PQ. I don't have KF Panda which is ranked #1.



What kind of display do you have, and what is your viewing distance? I'm just curious because the last couple of times I trusted a tier 0 recommendation for a concert video, I was left disappointed. The sound is usually awesome, and the video definitely displays a lot of resolution, but they never seem to compare with anything in Tier 0 and usually nothing in Tier 1 either. They look great for what they are, and probably match the source. Is this one really that much better than the rest?


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15610610
> 
> *Max Payne: 1.75*
> 
> 
> I am going to watch this again, but right now I am thinking it is at about 1.75. It has some beautiful shots and scenes of NY rendered in an artistic way that I really enjoyed. The PQ is all over the place from borderline tier 0 down to tier 4 due to artists intent with blurred and out of focus shots. Most of the PQ is really good though, particularly in the beginning where it averages a 1.5-1.0 rating.
> 
> 
> 
> Sony [email protected] from PS3 through HDMI.




Hey Hughmc, how was the movie?




I had the same issue with Wall-E, I want it higher in Tier 0, but I haven't seen enough of the Tier 0 titles in order to specify where. I thought it was as good as Rat, but I haven't seen KFP and the nearest live action ones I saw were the Pirates movies, but I was not rating things back when I saw those so I can't remember how it would compare.



I'm going to try and make a point to watch more of the currently-ranked Tier 0 titles so I canhave a better judgement. I've seen several of the lower Tier 0 titles, but a lot of the higher ones I don't own/haven't rented yet. Several of the Disney ones aren't even available to rent OR buy here (I've been wanting Cars for quite some time but may just have to suck it up and get it from Amazon.ca).


----------



## Beta Tester




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15611390
> 
> 
> What kind of display do you have, and what is your viewing distance? I'm just curious because the last couple of times I trusted a tier 0 recommendation for a concert video, I was left disappointed. The sound is usually awesome, and the video definitely displays a lot of resolution, but they never seem to compare with anything in Tier 0 and usually nothing in Tier 1 either. They look great for what they are, and probably match the source. Is this one really that much better than the rest?



Panasonic AE900, at 1.8X screen width. Elton 60 is the disc I use when demo'ing my HT. BTW content-wise the 2nd half is IMO better than the first. I also have Police Certifiable, and IMO it is not in the same league as EJ60 (PQ-wise).


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Beta Tester* /forum/post/15612986
> 
> 
> Panasonic AE900, at 1.8X screen width. Elton 60 is the disc I use when demo'ing my HT. BTW content-wise the 2nd half is IMO better than the first. I also have Police Certifiable, and IMO it is not in the same league as EJ60 (PQ-wise).



What % of the time that Elton is in the picture would you say he is resolved down to the facial pores and imperfections, single strands of hair on head or eyebrows, or other ultra-fine detail. Are there moments of softness? How much better than the Police? Like Stumlad, I also feel like I have been burned a few times trusting very enthusiastic reviews for concert videos. Can you tell us the specific Tier 0 criteria you are using? Also, you mention Ratatouille, are there other non-animated titles in Tier 0 you feel Elton compares to? If so, again, based on which tier 0 criteria? Thanks.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15613074
> 
> 
> Are there moments of softness?



When the camera pans down to Elton's gut.


----------



## Hammie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15610546
> 
> 
> The haze was an issue for me when we still had the old assessment criteria, but now that we have changed the assessment criteria, I have no problem with Wall-E in tier 0. Now, there is language in the assessment criteria that can be used to make a good argument for Wall-E. IMO, there wasn't before. I just didn't like having assessment criteria saying one thing and the titles beneath contradicting them. I no longer believe that is the case with animated titles. I believe that is still the case with some of the concert videos, though.
> 
> 
> Regarding the haze, I never had a problem with the colors. Never thought they were drab. I always said I thought the colors were sophisticated and interesting. In fact, I like the colors on Earth better than the more simplistic fast food primary colors on Axiom. I think you could make an argument that the haze in the first 30 minutes of Wall-E is sort of like impressionist art. I don't think that is such a stretch, either, nor do I believe it is purely unintentional. At the end of the film, under the final credits, there is an animated sequence depicting the development and history of art and it stops with impressionism. To me, that sequence under the final credits representing impressionism is one of the most impressive of the whole film!
> 
> 
> Given that, I don't think the visuals are nearly as impressive when you get inside Axiom.
> 
> 
> I think I'll stop right there.
> 
> 
> 
> .



I agree with you. I was less impressed with the Axiom scenes than the Earth scenes.


----------



## stumlad

Mini-reviews:

*Conquest of the Planet of the Apes*

The 4th in the series. It keeps going downhill of course, but.... The PQ was pretty good. I'd say better than the first two, but not as consistent as the third. The movie was darker and therefore had a lot of scenes where there wasn't a lot of fine detail to be seen. *Tier 3.25*

*Jewel of the Nile*

Mixed bag. Dark scenes were bad, jungle scenes were really good. Since I've been watching the Apes series, i"ll compare it to them. This movie has an overall better look, but from scene to scene it is inconsistent unlike the third Apes movie which may not have looked quite as good but was more consistent. I'd place this in *Tier 2.75*.

*Patriot Games*

The entire movie looks like it has this static grain that kinda reminds me of Glad Press N Seal. It doesn't move much and it's there the whole time (even in the opening Paramount logo scene). Overall I thought the movie looked pretty good, and better than it's 3.5 tier rating. Some scenes were softer than others, some looked high tier 1 quality. Not as visually appealing as Jewel of the Nile, but not far behind. *Tier 3*

*Wanted*

I do not agree with the Tier 1.25 rating. I didnt think the movie looked any better than Iron Man and maybe slightly better than the new Mummy. Not to say I thought the movie looked lousy, but there were scenes that I thought should have looked better. All the scenes in the textile shop looked soft. I did not see the level of detail I'm accustomed to. Okay, so we finally got to see Morgan Freeman's face without DNR, but I still dont believe this is the best Morgan freeman closeup possible on BD. I seriously believe Band of Brothers with all of it's intentional non-eye-candiness looks better than this. I'll have to go with *Tier 1.75* And as a side note... Angelina Jolie looks like she became anorexic...


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15592245
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea why Big Fish is ranked so low. Fine to medium natural grain is apparent throughout, no sign of ringing or halos. Faces are often detailed down to the pores, individual strands of hair, blacks, shadow and contrast is excellent and the whole film just has a very natural, consistent, easy to watch look about it. If you saw the film in the theater, it looks exactly the same here. I really don't know how it could look any better. Tim Burton is looking to make an emotional connection with his imagery, so sometimes the image can be a tiny bit soft for effect, but when it is, it still looks fine, not distracting at all. Big Fish looks great on blu-ray and fans of the film should be very pleased.
> 
> 
> Since there are no other reviews and I am the second person to mention that the current ranking is too low, I'd like to request that Big Fish be moved up.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 2.50*
> 
> 
> Sim2 C3X1080 -- 13' From 126" Screen



I rented Big Fish yesterday. Your descriptions were on point, but the movie seemed a little too soft for Tier 2.5.


I'd say PQ is more like "Beetlejuice" and "Elf" versus titles like "Memento" and "V for Vendetta."


*Big Fish

Tier Recommendation: Tier 3.25

PS3-Samsung 46" 1080p-seven*'


----------



## selimsivad

*The Express*


The Express is the story of Ernie Davis, the first African American to win the Heisman Trophy. Set in the 1960's, it displays many negative racial stereotypes endured by Davis. Some of the language may not be for suitable for sensitive viewers.


While watching the first ten minutes, I had very high expectations for the picture quality! It's easily bottom of Tier 0 material.










The picture quality seemed to get worse as the movie progressed. For the most part, facial features, clothing textures, and blades of grass were very detailed. There was a nice layer of grain throughout. The movie displayed above average black levels and shadow depth. There is a sepia color tone throughout the film.


Like I mentioned before, the more I watched, the worse the picture quality got! Details displayed earlier got softer.










For the first time ever, I noticed what could be edge enhancement. I saw a fair share of halos, especially in darker scenes. It could be intentional lighting. If there's anyone with more knowledge on the subject who has viewed this movie, feel free to comment.


All of the football games looked pretty good. Blood, dirt, and grass stains on uniforms showed average detail for Blu Ray.


Overall, I was disappointed in the regression of PQ. It started off Tier 0, and ended up near the top of Tier 2.


























*The Express

Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.75

PS3-Samsung 46" 1080p-seven*'


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15607421
> 
> 
> Excellent review of a great film!
> 
> 
> I think Tier 2.25 is about right. It looks great, but there are many (intentionally) soft scenes.
> 
> 
> I still own the HD DVD, so I am assuming the PQ is the same on Blu.



We love to see all the facial details but Casablanca came from a time when it seemed to be standard practice to soft focus on actresses' faces to make them look more glamorous. In many scenes Bogart's face also seems to have been shot with soft focus, perhaps to de-emphasis the age difference between him and Bergman.


----------



## 42041

*Kung Fu Panda*

A very good looking title, but frankly I was more impressed by Ratatouille. Pixar has that artistry in their 3d animation that the other animation houses haven't quite matched IMO. (I have not seen Cars or the other animated films in Tier 0, so I can't speak for those)

so, voting to move it *just a bit lower Tier 0*. Hopefully someone else agrees?


(Samsung LN40A650 LCD/PS3)


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15614224
> 
> 
> I rented Big Fish yesterday. Your descriptions were on point, but the movie seemed a little too soft for Tier 2.5.
> 
> 
> I'd say PQ is more like "Beetlejuice" and "Elf" versus titles like "Memento" and "V for Vendetta."
> 
> *Big Fish
> 
> Tier Recommendation: Tier 3.25
> 
> PS3-Samsung 46" 1080p-seven*'



I think this may be a Wall-E type of thing where some people don't mind the softness is Wall-E, I didn't mind the slight softness in some scenes. I felt that going down to 2.5 was enough punishment. IMO, all softness is not created equal. To me, the PQ in Big Fish is far better than Almost Famous, which is ranked 3.0 and certainly on par with The Searchers which is ranked 2.5. Those are two movies I have watched very recently, so they are fresh in my memory. So, we may just have an honest disagreement between two reasonable viewpoints, but I will say that even your 3.25 is more fair than where Big Fish is currently ranked at 4.0. So, we both like it better than where it is ranked. I like it that you agree with my review and description if not my tier recommendation. At least I've got that going for me.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15615413
> 
> 
> I think this may be a Wall-E type of thing where some people don't mind the softness is Wall-E, I didn't mind the slight softness in some scenes. I felt that going down to 2.5 was enough punishment. IMO, all softness is not created equal. To me, the PQ in Big Fish is far better than Almost Famous, which is ranked 3.0 and certainly on par with The Searchers which is ranked 2.5. Those are two movies I have watched very recently, so they are fresh in my memory. So, we may just have an honest disagreement between two reasonable viewpoints, but I will say that even your 3.25 is more fair than where Big Fish is currently ranked at 4.0. So, we both like it better than where it is ranked. I like it that you agree with my review and description if not my tier recommendation. At least I've got that going for me.



You're right, Tier 4 was an injustice! I haven't seen Almost Famous in Blu yet, so I can't commit on it.


I watched it twice, and there were many scenes where I felt I was watching a DVD! The "introduction of the twins" scene has some ugly "ringing" around the spotlight. Colors were vibrant, but the PQ displayed little to no depth.


I love the movie, and loved your review. Hopefully, we get some kind of future remastering for this modern fairytale











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15547160
> 
> *Friday Night Lights*
> 
> 
> Fine natural grain apparent throughout, no signs of halos or ringing -- excellent transer. This is a fabulous looking blu-ray. A lot of it was filmed using hand-held and colors have been tweaked, lending this beautifully shot high octane edge of your seat sports flick a black and white cinema verite' look and feel, even though there's no mistaking that this was filmed in color. Though a lot of it was shot using hand held and the camera has that unsteady docu-feel, clarity and focus is amazingly well maintained and this blends seamlessly with the quick cut energetic style. Ultra fine detail is here in abundance as you can see pores, single strands of hair, every piece of stubble, and clothing texture wonderfully resolved. The picture is deep, lush, and three dimensional throughout. On a side note: Soundtrack is also tons of fun and for my money, this is one of the best football films I've seen. Highly recommended.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 1.25*



I just got this in the mail. I'll watch tonight and review tomorrow. One of my favs!


----------



## HT.1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15610057
> 
> *Wall E*. I know, not again. I watched it again last night as I wanted some time to pass and get a fresh approach at the PQ. There is no doubt IMO this is a tier 0 reference title. Really it does have state of the art animation. I also think the parts in Axiom were just as good and tier 0 in terms of PQ even though the color palette had changed. I know we have our opinions and what we consider eye candy for our thread purposes and I can understand the opinions of those that say the haze is an issue. What I will say to qualify how I feel about the haze and the movie in general is that the PQ really does NOT change except for the haze once they leave the earth, really it doesn't. Look at Wall E. when he is on the Axiom, no different than when he is on earth in terms of the colors and detail of the character. Wall E looks exactly the same throughout the video and IMO there really isn't that drastic a difference even with the haze, because as I said above the PQ is really the same and consistent throughout. Somehow we have qualified separating the first 30 min. due to the haze and I have to disagree with that having watched it again. With all due respect for those that believe the haze is an issue, I think we have taken the haze issue too far and have missed the forest for the trees. I know the haze is an opinion issue and I respect that as I have mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finally let me say that I believe Wall E. will win several Oscars including best animated feature. I don't know if an animated film can win best cinematography or any other awards from the technical production category, but Wall E. should at least be nominated for some.



There sure is an awful lot of opinion about Wall-E.

I have seen it on Blu before, but not on anything that I could offer up a true opinion on it. But now that I have my new set-up almost assembled,







it might be worth a view and review.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15611405
> 
> 
> Hey Hughmc, how was the movie?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had the same issue with Wall-E, I want it higher in Tier 0, but I haven't seen enough of the Tier 0 titles in order to specify where. I thought it was as good as Rat, but I haven't seen KFP and the nearest live action ones I saw were the Pirates movies, but I was not rating things back when I saw those so I can't remember how it would compare.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to try and make a point to watch more of the currently-ranked Tier 0 titles so I canhave a better judgement. I've seen several of the lower Tier 0 titles, but a lot of the higher ones I don't own/haven't rented yet. Several of the Disney ones aren't even available to rent OR buy here (I've been wanting Cars for quite some time but may just have to suck it up and get it from Amazon.ca).



Max Payne was ok if you are an adrenalin lover, like Mark Wahlberg, the hot women, loud guns and explosions, know the video game and are male. Other than that you might like it.







Just kidding, sought of...


It is ok for a popcorn flick to kill time, but if you have a 5.1 system with a good sub MP maybe the best DTS MA track I have heard yet. It is really an incredible listening experience. If the movie was a bit better I might consider owning it for the sound alone.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Sounds like there is more support for Wall E being moved to upper Tier 0


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15614004
> 
> *Wanted*
> 
> I do not agree with the Tier 1.25 rating. I didnt think the movie looked any better than Iron Man and maybe slightly better than the new Mummy. Not to say I thought the movie looked lousy, but there were scenes that I thought should have looked better. All the scenes in the textile shop looked soft. I did not see the level of detail I'm accustomed to. Okay, so we finally got to see Morgan Freeman's face without DNR, but I still dont believe this is the best Morgan freeman closeup possible on BD. I seriously believe Band of Brothers with all of it's intentional non-eye-candiness looks better than this. I'll have to go with *Tier 1.75* And as a side note... Angelina Jolie looks like she became anorexic...



I think Wanted looks excellent and is fully deserving of the 1.25 placement. There were some scenes that were softer, but not many. Facial details are very impressive.


Anyway, I completely agree about Angelina. She has a very "drawn" look about her now. Not good.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15616592
> 
> 
> Sounds like there is more support for Wall E being moved to upper Tier 0



Okay, I just got home from a much-needed vacation and the snowmobiling (on beautiful Lake Superior State trails) was so awesome I didn't even miss watching Blu-rays....well _almost_, that is. And now that I'm back I see the *Wall-E* debate is back as well!










I'm gonna to stick to my original recommendation of *middle of Tier 0*. Even with the new criteria that favors animated films, I still believe Wall-E was *too soft* for the first 30 minutes. I'm NOT speaking strictly of the haze, but rather of an overall softness that precluded the punch (i.e., sharpness) that a top of tier 0 title should have.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15610546
> 
> 
> The haze was an issue for me when we still had the old assessment criteria, but now that we have changed the assessment criteria, I have no problem with Wall-E in tier 0. Now, there is language in the assessment criteria that can be used to make a good argument for Wall-E. IMO, there wasn't before. I just didn't like having assessment criteria saying one thing and the titles beneath contradicting them. I no longer believe that is the case with animated titles. I believe that is still the case with some of the concert videos, though.
> 
> 
> Regarding the haze, I never had a problem with the colors. Never thought they were drab. I always said I thought the colors were sophisticated and interesting. In fact, I like the colors on Earth better than the more simplistic fast food primary colors on Axiom. I think you could make an argument that the haze in the first 30 minutes of Wall-E is sort of like impressionist art. I don't think that is such a stretch, either, nor do I believe it is purely unintentional. At the end of the film, under the final credits, there is an animated sequence depicting the development and history of art and it stops with impressionism. To me, that sequence under the final credits representing impressionism is one of the most impressive of the whole film!
> 
> 
> Given that, I don't think the visuals are nearly as impressive when you get inside Axiom.
> 
> 
> I think I'll stop right there.
> 
> 
> 
> .




Impressionist art?? Please.























Is this thread about art or eye candy?









Sadly, I knew this would happen with this thread when the tier0 guidelines were changed to what they currently are.

I suppose eventually we'll just merge the Film Grain Allowed thread with this thread.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/15618075
> 
> 
> Impressionist art?? Please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this thread about art or eye candy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, I knew this would happen with this thread when the tier0 guidelines were changed to what they currently are.
> 
> I suppose eventually we'll just merge the Film Grain Allowed thread with this thread.




Can art not be eye candy?


----------



## suffolk112000

Oh it can...

But this quote


> Quote:
> *No alteration* from the originally intended aspect ratio *or viewable image area.*



...from the NEWLY REVISED standards of tier0 on the first page leads dangerously close to blending director intent with eye candy if you ask me and I think rsbecks last post is a good example of it.

But hey it's your thread Rob


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15617864
> 
> 
> Okay, I just got home from a much-needed vacation and the snowmobiling (on beautiful Lake Superior State trails) was so awesome I didn't even miss watching Blu-rays....well _almost_, that is. And now that I'm back I see the *Wall-E* debate is back as well!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm gonna to stick to my original recommendation of *middle of Tier 0*. Even with the new criteria that favors animated films, I still believe Wall-E was *too soft* for the first 30 minutes. I'm NOT speaking strictly of the haze, but rather of an overall softness that precluded the punch (i.e., sharpness) that a top of tier 0 title should have.



SOFT!? Dude...please watch it again and tell me what parts are soft in the first 30 mins.


----------



## Beta Tester




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15618250
> 
> 
> Can art not be eye candy?



It is eye candy - sometimes the "art" part tags along for the ride. For me, the artistic part is completely irrelevant. This is an eye candy thread, I hope that is not being changed.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15618407
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, you can go screw yourself despite the fact that I agree with you.
> 
> 
> Thanks.



That was beautiful... though I am really not surprised at your words of wisdom.


----------



## rsbeck

Big Fish....



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15615668
> 
> 
> I watched it twice, and there were many scenes where I felt I was watching a DVD!



I never felt that at all. I really enjoyed the consistency and quality of the image. For me, it was really film-like and pleasing. I've never seen a DVD look like this.



> Quote:
> The "introduction of the twins" scene has some ugly "ringing" around the spotlight.



I couldn't fault it for that.



> Quote:
> Colors were vibrant, but the PQ displayed little to no depth.



Again, I disagree. To me, it was very 3D, but not the hyper reality 3D that one would expect for a tier 0 title, more like a natural easy to watch organic 3D that keeps you in the picture rather than admiring the eye-popping PQ. So, for me, that's why I would not recommend tier 0 or tier 1.0 through 1.75, but when I see a film that is this easy to watch and enjoy with so little about which to complain, with such a natural look about it, which I love, I believe that mid tier 2 is the perfect place for it.


Just my opinion.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Beta Tester* /forum/post/15618590
> 
> 
> It is eye candy - sometimes the "art" part tags along for the ride. For me, the artistic part is completely irrelevant. This is an eye candy thread, I hope that is not being changed.



And it should be irrelevant... but I often have to question if art does not have SOME weight to how movies get ranked on this thread.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/15618760
> 
> 
> And it should be irrelevant... but I often have to question if art does not have SOME weight to how movies get ranked on this thread.



But that's the point. if a movie is artistically unappealing, how could it possibly be eye candy to me?


----------



## Deviation




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15618567
> 
> 
> SOFT!? Dude...please watch it again and tell me what parts are soft in the first 30 mins.



All of it? It's not fault of the disc (which I think is technical perfection) as it was all intentional but Ratatouille and Cars stand out much more as a result. You can admire what they're doing in Wall-E from an artistic standpoint but it's just not as visually striking at the beginning as Pixar's two preceding efforts on Blu as a result.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15618804
> 
> 
> I guess we have to have the Wall-E debate again..........
> 
> 
> I wouldn't mind if we were covering new ground, but when we just digest the same wad of grass over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It gets a little stale.





Oh really??

You certainly don't mind giving us YOUR opinion about Wall-E.









I wonder if anyone pointed this out to you when you posted YOUR OPINIONS about Wall-E at the top of this page?


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deviation* /forum/post/15618862
> 
> 
> all of it? It's not fault of the disc (which i think is technical perfection) as it was all intentional but ratatouille and cars stand out much more as a result. You can admire what they're doing in wall-e from an artistic standpoint but it's just not as visually striking at the beginning as pixar's two preceding efforts on blu as a result.


----------



## Deviation




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15616681
> 
> 
> Anyway, I completely agree about Angelina. She has a very "drawn" look about her now. Not good.



Hopefully it won't be a lasting thing. I think it was mostly the result of the effort to lose weight after giving birth and she'll likely fill out a bit and look healthier over time.


Uhh... I'll get back on topic now...


I thought Wanted looked great.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *suffolk112000* /forum/post/15618737
> 
> 
> That was beautiful... though I am really not surprised at your words of wisdom.



Of course you are not surprised. You couldn't possibly be surprised by my post when you post crap like this:



> Quote:
> But hey… it’s your thread Rob…



You've done this before too. I don't know what your problem is, but if you really feel this way, why on earth do you continue to post in this thread? Are you a martyr? Do you have something to prove? Do you just like to cause trouble? Inferiority complex?


Seriously, did I do something to hurt your feelings previously, or make you feel that you were being ignored? Or are you just someone who becomes very upset when others don't agree with you?


What were you trying to convey when you said "..but hey....it's your thread Rob...














" ?


----------



## stumlad

Same director as Man on Fire, and done in a VERY similar style.


This is where the whole Tier 0'ness gets weird. Just like Man on Fire, there are those moments of huge amounts of grain which, if judged alone, would not get a tier 0 rating... and I ask myself -- but do I still think it looks great? The answers is -- yes I do. Does this fit the criteria though? MoF is really high up there which is why I ask? I'd still like to hears others' thoughts on this.


Now, I don't have Man on Fire (rented it), but the similarity was obvious from the beginning. In Domino, the face details were just like MoF where it was obvious they had pores and wrinkles, etc... Keira had no (obvious) DNR or airbrushing done either. I'm not sure what they do to make the details so clear, is it the type of cameras, lenses, film? Just like MoF, there are those pushes towards yellow and green. In this movie, I noticed there were areas we werent meant to see (black crush?). I'm sure it was stylized, but it does remove a bit of fine detail that we could have otherwise seen. Grain levels fluctuate throughout, depending on the scene.


Now this was put out by New Line (DNR kings), and to add to that, it was on a BD-25 (but with TrueHD). I was amazed at how well this held up and believe it almost looks as good as Man on Fire. There were a couple of soft shots here and there, but they looked defocused on purpose. With that said, going back to my question/info from earlier.. Is Man on Fire too stylized (bleeding colors, wacky contrast, etc) to fit the criteria of Tier 0? I think it belongs in Tier 0, but perhaps it's too high? Either way, I'd put Domino a few steps below it (wherever it ends up)... so for right now I'll say *Mid Tier 0*


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15618985
> 
> 
> What were you trying to convey when you said "..but hey....it's your thread Rob...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " ?



Especially when everyone knows it's not your thread......



It's MY thread!


----------



## rsbeck

Stumlad -- I haven't see MoF or Domino, but I'm curious, why should grain make a title unfit for tier 0? I wouldn't agree with that. If you look at the criteria, they say that a film based title should have natural grain.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15619019
> 
> 
> Especially when everyone knows it's not your thread......
> 
> 
> 
> It's MY thread!














> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15619048
> 
> 
> Stumlad -- I haven't see MoF or Domino, but I'm curious, why should grain make a title unfit for tier 0? I wouldn't agree with that. If you look at the criteria, they say that a film based title should have natural grain.



It just depends on how the grain looks. What is meant by "natural grain"?


For example, I definitely lowered my ranking of Bangkok Dangerous because of the grain as I felt that it was overdone and actually took away from the image quality.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15618985
> 
> 
> Of course you are not surprised. You couldn't possibly be surprised by my post when you post crap like this:
> 
> 
> You've done this before too. I don't know what your problem is, but if you really feel this way, why on earth do you continue to post in this thread? Are you a martyr? Do you have something to prove? Do you just like to cause trouble? Inferiority complex?
> 
> 
> Seriously, did I do something to hurt your feelings previously, or make you feel that you were being ignored? Or are you just someone who becomes very upset when others don't agree with you?
> 
> 
> What were you trying to convey when you said "..but hey....it's your thread Rob...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " ?



I guess if I said something to you like what you just posted/directed towards me, I'd apologize to you.

But what do I have to apologize to you about Rob?

If I did, let me have it. Post what I said to you.

My reaction was to your childish comment to me.

I might strongly disagree about a topic, and I have a few that I am passionate about, but I would not say/post those type of remarks to someone.


----------



## Deviation




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15619048
> 
> 
> Stumlad -- I haven't see MoF or Domino, but I'm curious, why should grain make a title unfit for tier 0? I wouldn't agree with that. If you look at the criteria, they say that a film based title should have natural grain.



The "tier 0" shots in Man on Fire absolutely have grain... but Tony Scott warps and distorts a lot of shots in post and those cuts, while stylized and intentional, wouldn't qualify for the same placement. It's similar to Crank in that fashion, though Man on Fire is a better looking disc, IMO.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15619081
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It just depends on how the grain looks. What is meant by "natural grain"?



Natural grain is when the grain has bran and nuts and stuff. 



> Quote:
> For example, I definitely lowered my ranking of Bangkok Dangerous because of the grain as I felt that it was overdone and actually took away from the image quality.



I would say grain can be very natural, organic and pleasing because with the grain intact, there is lots of detail and the picture has character that you cannot get with HD video, or other times it can also be coarse and distracting, but in my experience, in those instances, something else is usually wrong which causes problems, not just the grain. I've seen titles with pretty coarse grain that look gorgeous. So, IMO, it is a judgment call. If the pic looks good, vote high, if it looks crap, vote low, but that's different from if you see grain vote low and if you don't, vote high. Know what I mean?


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15619048
> 
> 
> Stumlad -- I haven't see MoF or Domino, but I'm curious, why should grain make a title unfit for tier 0? I wouldn't agree with that. If you look at the criteria, they say that a film based title should have natural grain.



I personally like grain. I'm sure you've seen that grain types vary... Sometimes there is so much grain that it causes the visuals to be less appealing -- in that you wouldn't show that scene to somebody to sell them on blu-ray. If you were to examine the scene, you wouldn't find a lot of detail behind it because it's so thick and coarse that it doesn't leave a lot to be seen behind it. Now, it's great that this grain is well preserved by the encode, but I guess i would relate it to watching a title where there are sequences of heavy fog or "haze"







And the answer is, just because it's perfectly preserved, it doesnt mean it's eye-candy.


As a side note, I noticed that a lot of titles get knocked for having grainy dark scenes... Should the dark grainy scenese be considered a bad thing or a good thing? I personally think it is good, but others think it's not visually appealling which is why I question it all










To summarize, I feel Domino is about on par with Man on Fire... if that belongs in Tier 0, Domino belongs there a few spots below it. If Man on Fire is too grainy or stylized to be in Tier 0, then Domino should drop. I personally feel both are awsome looking, but can understand how there could be a decent gap in ratings (if someone were to say low tier 1).


----------



## Toe

Anybody watch King Kong yet?


----------



## Hughmc

*"No alteration from the originally intended aspect ratio or viewable image area."*


I don't see how that has anything to do with the artistic look of a film other than changing the aspect ratio which as far as the Wall E. debate is not what we are discussing. As far as artist/directors intent IMO I see our thread be about neither promoting or dinging it.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15619201
> 
> 
> I personally like grain. I'm sure you've seen that grain types vary... Sometimes there is so much grain that it causes the visuals to be less appealing -- in that you wouldn't show that scene to somebody to sell them on blu-ray. If you were to examine the scene, you wouldn't find a lot of detail behind it because it's so thick and coarse that it doesn't leave a lot to be seen behind it.



I hear you -- see my post to Rob on same topic.



> Quote:
> Now, it's great that this grain is well preserved by the encode, but I guess i would relate it to watching a title where there are sequences of heavy fog or "haze"



LOL. You are an evil man. 



> Quote:
> As a side note, I noticed that a lot of titles get knocked for having grainy dark scenes... Should the dark grainy scenese be considered a bad thing or a good thing? I personally think it is good, but others think it's not visually appealling which is why I question it all



I've seen it look good and right -- Band of Brothers -- and I've seen it look bad -- Omega Man -- I think it's a judgment call.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15618250
> 
> 
> Can art not be eye candy?




Yes I think it can and is at times and at the same time we are looking at it as eye candy even if we mention it as an artistic look.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Beta Tester* /forum/post/15618590
> 
> 
> It is eye candy - sometimes the "art" part tags along for the ride. For me, the artistic part is completely irrelevant. This is an eye candy thread, I hope that is not being changed.



Bingo!


----------



## Deviation




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15619201
> 
> 
> As a side note, I noticed that a lot of titles get knocked for having grainy dark scenes... Should the dark grainy scenese be considered a bad thing or a good thing? I personally think it is good, but others think it's not visually appealling which is why I question it all



How would you rank Miami Vice then? I think that's as close to technical perfection as I've seen out of a live action Blu-ray but Mann intentionally added grain/noise to the nighttime shots in that movie, which keeps it out of tier 0 at this time.


Actually... what happened to Miami Vice? I know it's been discussed in this thread before and I would have sworn that it was on the tier list but I'm not seeing it right now.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/15619221
> 
> 
> Anybody watch King Kong yet?




You looking for trouble?










Not yet, but I am hoping my local HV gets it in. They have been getting more titles on BD per week than their website lists and they have a lot of titles new and catalogue for sale. Things are really looking up for BD.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15618567
> 
> 
> SOFT!? Dude...please watch it again and tell me what parts are soft in the first 30 mins.



For the record (and I've stated this before), there are some very sharp and detailed scenes during the first 30+ minutes. But there are also some scenes, notably the scenes where Wall-E is gathering *junk*, where skyscrapers and other objects are dull and lacking detail (and I'm speaking even of objects that are relatively close up falling into that same category). This, IMO, should be penalized, and this means it doesn't deserve a top ranking in tier 0.


But let's be fair guys (and G3), this IS a good-looking title and no one has denied that, so I believe some are "straining at the gnat" in some respects. It has a very commendable placement at present and for some to be almost demanding the top spot in tier 0 seems a bit overreaching.


----------



## Deviation

I won't get a chance to watch it until Saturday but I bet Kong will end up in tier 1.25. It has it's imperfections but it's still a stunning visual feast if Xylon's screenshot thread is anything to go by.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15619081
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is meant by "natural grain"?



On a serious note, when we were condensing the assessment criteria, we had all kinds of different wording and some of the concerns were frozen or unnatural grain structures and excessive DNR. Eventually, it all got condensed into "natural grain," which is a little vague, but covers a lot of it. I think it's enough that we all know what it means in general and it saved a lot of too wordy and too specific verbiage.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15619287
> 
> 
> You looking for trouble?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not yet, but I am hoping my local HV gets it in. They have been getting more titles on BD per week than their website lists and they have a lot of titles new and catalogue for sale. Things are really looking up for BD.













I hear you. My local stores have been steadily getting better and better.....It has been nice actualy going and picking out a movie instead of just getting them through the mail


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Deviation* /forum/post/15619299
> 
> 
> I won't get a chance to watch it until Saturday but I bet Kong will end up in tier 1.25. It has it's imperfections but it's still a stunning visual feast if Xylon's screenshot thread is anything to go by.



That seems like a good estimate going off my memory of my HD-DVD which at the time was one of my favorite discs for PQ (AQ as well). I have my BR copy here, but not sure when I will get the chance to watch it (its a long one!) Maybe Fri.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15619295
> 
> 
> For the record (and I've stated this before), there are some very sharp and detailed scenes during the first 30+ minutes. But there are also some scenes, notably the scenes where Wall-E is gathering *junk*, where skyscrapers and other objects are dull and lacking detail (and I'm speaking even of objects that are relatively close up falling into that same category). This, IMO, should be penalized, and this means it doesn't deserve a top ranking in tier 0.
> 
> 
> But let's be fair guys (and G3), this IS a good-looking title and no one has denied that, so I believe some are "straining at the gnat" in some respects. It has a very commendable placement at present and for some to be almost demanding the top spot in tier 0 seems a bit overreaching.



Djoberg, my real issue with where it is in relation to Speed Racer, but even more so Doomsday, Shoot 'Em Up, and two I own Hellboy2 and Curse of the Black Pearl. IMO it is or should be above those which I believe goes along with what you said and that is middle of tier 0. That would put it up about 14 places around Live Free or Die Hard.


Since we are "all" engaged and present, how about an in thread poll on a title like this we are still having vigorous debate over?. Not intent on excluding anyone, but we would vote to either leave it where it is over move it up and the most votes decides. Then maybe we can also decide to put a month or more moratorium on discussing moving it if we were all to agree. Just a thought.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15619011
> 
> 
> Same director as Man on Fire, and done in a VERY similar style.
> 
> 
> This is where the whole Tier 0'ness gets weird. Just like Man on Fire, there are those moments of huge amounts of grain which, if judged alone, would not get a tier 0 rating... and I ask myself -- but do I still think it looks great? The answers is -- yes I do. Does this fit the criteria though? MoF is really high up there which is why I ask? I'd still like to hears others' thoughts on this.
> 
> 
> Now, I don't have Man on Fire (rented it), but the similarity was obvious from the beginning. In Domino, the face details were just like MoF where it was obvious they had pores and wrinkles, etc... Keira had no (obvious) DNR or airbrushing done either. I'm not sure what they do to make the details so clear, is it the type of cameras, lenses, film? Just like MoF, there are those pushes towards yellow and green. In this movie, I noticed there were areas we werent meant to see (black crush?). I'm sure it was stylized, but it does remove a bit of fine detail that we could have otherwise seen. Grain levels fluctuate throughout, depending on the scene.
> 
> 
> Now this was put out by New Line (DNR kings), and to add to that, it was on a BD-25 (but with TrueHD). I was amazed at how well this held up and believe it almost looks as good as Man on Fire. There were a couple of soft shots here and there, but they looked defocused on purpose. With that said, going back to my question/info from earlier.. Is Man on Fire too stylized (bleeding colors, wacky contrast, etc) to fit the criteria of Tier 0? I think it belongs in Tier 0, but perhaps it's too high? Either way, I'd put Domino a few steps below it (wherever it ends up)... so for right now I'll say *Mid Tier 0*



Stumlad, I think you need to go with your gut on this one. *I trust your reviews and I think you have a good eye.* We've had a few reviews that have been almost spot on with one another, so I can say that with confidence.



I think some of us need to step back and remember that we all are doing this as a hobby, and we have to have a certain amount of trust in one another that we're doing the best we can to report back what we've been seeing on our respective screens. We all have different displays/calibrations/viewing distances/personal preferences, and we'll all pick out different things to one another. Personally I love it when the _discussion_ happens, but when the discussion evaporates into bickering, I become a sad panda.











More reviews for Wall-E are going to come in because of people waiting for Netflix/rentals/bought it cheaper/etc. It doesn't need to be a debate every time someone writes a review on it. I think we're at a point where we all kind of know where each other stands on it. In the end, everyone deserves a chance to give their review and have their thoughts count, but does it _really_ need to overrun the thread this much anymore?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/15619221
> 
> 
> Anybody watch King Kong yet?



Toe,


I haven't seen the Blu-ray transfer yet, but as I stated in an earlier post I do have the HD DVD copy and I decided to watch it just before I left on my trip last Friday. I hadn't seen it for about a year and I was surprised to find that I was NOT as impressed with it as I was back then. (I conclude from this experience that titles are definitely getting better and are raising the bar.)


If the Blu-ray encode is the same, I suspect it will end up somewhere in Tier 1. From what I saw on the HD DVD transfer, I would vote for possibly Tier 1.0 or 1.25. It WILL be interesting to see how what others think of the Blu-ray version and I have no doubt that opinions will be mixed.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15619287
> 
> 
> You looking for trouble?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not yet, but I am hoping my local HV gets it in. They have been getting more titles on BD per week than their website lists and they have a lot of titles new and catalogue for sale. Things are really looking up for BD.



My local walmart got that(King Kong) in yesterday, and you know I live in the middle of nowhere







Hopefully your store nearby gets it in soon for you! There's a few other titles I want before this one, but I've never seen it so I may just have to splurge if it looks really good. Any sparkly water in it perchance?


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15619386
> 
> 
> My local walmart got that(King Kong) in yesterday, and you know I live in the middle of nowhere
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully your store nearby gets it in soon for you! There's a few other titles I want before this one, but I've never seen it so I may just have to splurge if it looks really good. Any sparkly water in it perchance?



I don't know about sparkly water, but there is plenty of water and blood in water, waterfalls which I don't remember if they sparkle... does that count?


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15619375
> 
> 
> Toe,
> 
> 
> I haven't seen the Blu-ray transfer yet, but as I stated in an earlier post I do have the HD DVD copy and I decided to watch it just before I left on my trip last Friday. I hadn't seen it for about a year and I was surprised to find that I was NOT as impressed with it as I was back then. (I conclude from this experience that titles are definitely getting better and are raising the bar.)
> 
> 
> If the Blu-ray encode is the same, I suspect it will end up somewhere in Tier 1. From what I saw on the HD DVD transfer, I would vote for possibly Tier 1.0 or 1.25. It WILL be interesting to see how what others think of the Blu-ray version and I have no doubt that opinions will be mixed.



I agree 100% about title PQ getting better and better overall. I had confirmation on this very topic today when I was in HV today and starting talking with another customer who is NOT like us in terms of how into it and knowledgeable we are, but he made the comment that he has noticed the PQ has gotten better. I then explained why I think it is happening and I mentioned AVS and our input.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15619375
> 
> 
> Toe,
> 
> 
> I haven't seen the Blu-ray transfer yet, but as I stated in an earlier post I do have the HD DVD copy and I decided to watch it just before I left on my trip last Friday. I hadn't seen it for about a year and I was surprised to find that I was NOT as impressed with it as I was back then. (I conclude from this experience that titles are definitely getting better and are raising the bar.)
> 
> 
> If the Blu-ray encode is the same, I suspect it will end up somewhere in Tier 1. From what I saw on the HD DVD transfer, I would vote for possibly Tier 1.0 or 1.25. It WILL be interesting to see how what others think of the Blu-ray version and I have no doubt that opinions will be mixed.



Thanks djoberg. This is exactly what I was wondering which is how well will it stand up today considering all the amazing releases that have come between now and then. I am sure it will still look amazing to my eyes, but probably not quite to the degree (this was pure reference IMO when it came out on HD-DVD, but that was a long time ago and improvements have been made in that time) that it did when it first hit HD-DVD. We will see


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15619347
> 
> 
> Djoberg, my real issue with where it is in relation to Speed Racer, but even more so Doomsday, Shoot 'Em Up, and two I own Hellboy2 and Curse of the Black Pearl. IMO it is or should be above those which I believe goes along with what you said and that is middle of tier 0. That would put it up about 14 places around Live Free or Die Hard.
> 
> 
> Since we are "all" engaged and present, how about an in thread poll on a title like this we are still having vigorous debate over?. Not intent on excluding anyone, but we would vote to either leave it where it is over move it up and the most votes decides. Then maybe we can also decide to put a month or more moratorium on discussing moving it if we were all to agree. Just a thought.



Hugh, I would have no problem with Wall-E being moved up as you indicated. I just don't think it deserves a place at the very top or even in the top 10.


Having said that, I commend G3 for her "words of wisdom" and believe we do need to remind ourselves of our mutual love of this fantastic hobby and of all the variables that enter into our individual viewing experience (different displays, calibrations, viewing distance, etc. that she mentioned). I truly value all of the opinions of my fellow-members, even if we disagree. And as I've said many times, my Blu-ray library has grown immensely thanks to all of you recommending various titles and I thank each of you for your input.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Deviation* /forum/post/15619276
> 
> 
> How would you rank Miami Vice then? I think that's as close to technical perfection as I've seen out of a live action Blu-ray but Mann intentionally added grain/noise to the nighttime shots in that movie, which keeps it out of tier 0 at this time.
> 
> 
> Actually... what happened to Miami Vice? I know it's been discussed in this thread before and I would have sworn that it was on the tier list but I'm not seeing it right now.



I've never seen Miami Vice. I did see screenshots, and the blu-ray looks better than the DNR'd HD DVD. Other than that, I can't make any comments.


----------



## RBFC

*KING KONG: TIER 1*


Saw this tonight. There was very good detail in most shots, but occasional softness is one factor that keeps this one down a notch. I also saw what looks like DNR to me, with "pasty-face" appearances too often for comfort. Contrast is a bit hot, but not to the point of overblowing it. Picking aside, it looks quite good, and therefore deserving of the Tier 1 rank. Kong looks pretty good for CGI, too.


Lee


----------



## selimsivad

Here's my King Kong review:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...3#post15591043 


I recommended the top of Tier 1, but would have no problem with anyone else recommending Tier 1.25. The good outweights the occasional softness IMO.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15547160
> 
> *Friday Night Lights*
> 
> 
> Fine natural grain apparent throughout, no signs of halos or ringing -- excellent transer. This is a fabulous looking blu-ray. A lot of it was filmed using hand-held and colors have been tweaked, lending this beautifully shot high octane edge of your seat sports flick a black and white cinema verite' look and feel, even though there's no mistaking that this was filmed in color. Though a lot of it was shot using hand held and the camera has that unsteady docu-feel, clarity and focus is amazingly well maintained and this blends seamlessly with the quick cut energetic style. Ultra fine detail is here in abundance as you can see pores, single strands of hair, every piece of stubble, and clothing texture wonderfully resolved. The picture is deep, lush, and three dimensional throughout. On a side note: Soundtrack is also tons of fun and for my money, this is one of the best football films I've seen. Highly recommended.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 1.25*




^

What he said.









I forgot how good this movie is!



*Friday Night Lights

Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.25

PS3-Samsung 46" 1080p-seven*'


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15619295
> 
> 
> For the record (and I've stated this before), there are some very sharp and detailed scenes during the first 30+ minutes. *But there are also some scenes, notably the scenes where Wall-E is gathering *junk*, where skyscrapers and other objects are dull and lacking detail (and I'm speaking even of objects that are relatively close up falling into that same category).* This, IMO, should be penalized, and this means it doesn't deserve a top ranking in tier 0.
> 
> 
> But let's be fair guys (and G3), this IS a good-looking title and no one has denied that, so I believe some are "straining at the gnat" in some respects. It has a very commendable placement at present and for some to be almost demanding the top spot in tier 0 seems a bit overreaching.



I am one of those who think the first 30 minutes look much better than the rest of the movie, but I recall at least one shot of a street where a building on the right (about ten stories) looked quite unimpressive in terms of detail.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15620115
> 
> 
> I am one of those who think the first 30 minutes look much better than the rest of the movie, but I recall at least one shot of a street where a building on the right (about ten stories) looked quite unimpressive in terms of detail.



That makes us three here! who thinks the first 30 mins and the earth sequences looked much better than the rest of the movie. As discussed to death, artistic intent plays less role in the eye candy thread if cruel intents diminishes the pop factor.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15620155
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every single live action title in tier 0 and most in tier 1.0 through 1.75 meets this criteria. You see faces resolved down to the pores and imperfections. It's now in the tier 0 criteria. In a concert video where the performers are the main attraction, I think it absolutely ought to meet that same standards as other live action titles. Why should concert videos get a pass? Concert videos ought to be held to the same standard as any other live action title. We should scrutinize them and hold them to the same high standards, wring our hands over every shot, just like we do with any other title up for a spot in our upper tiers. If a concert video is recommended for tier 0, I think it is only fair to ask that the person making the recommendation to cite the specific criteria under which he/she is recommending. I especially do not believe we should be voting titles into our reference tier based on some of the extremely few very cursory reviews we've seen.



I agree that I expect a Tier 0 title (other than animation) to include plenty of very detailed close-ups of faces.


----------



## rsbeck

*Concert Videos*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15620169
> 
> *I agree that I expect a Tier 0 title (other than animation) to include plenty of very detailed close-ups of faces*.



Excellent -- Thank you for weighing in.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15620188
> 
> *Concert Videos*
> 
> 
> Excellent -- Thank you for weighing in.



I too agree that very good to excellent detailing of facial close-ups is a must for the BD to be in Tier-0. There are flicks like HTWWW that looks excellent without possessing much of facial close-up shots.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15607383
> 
> 
> What makes you think that concert videos can't show ultra fine detail?



The reason a lot of concert videos, especially the ones I have seen, cannot show ultra-fine detail usually has to do with the lighting, camera proximity, and sometimes soft-focus. I do not believe most of us would vote a live action title into tier 0 with the kind of visuals some of these concert videos exhibit. IMO, there's no other title in tier 1.0 through 1.75, for example, as soft and undetailed as Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds. The Police: Certified is also underwhelming. Haven't seen Elton John yet, but the fact that the two guys promoting it for tier 0 won't answer questions about ultra-fine detail has me a little worried.



> Quote:
> You almost sound as though a Tier 0 title MUST show close ups of actors faces



Every single live action title in tier 0 and most in tier 1.0 through 1.75 meets this criteria. You see faces resolved down to the pores and imperfections. It's now in the tier 0 criteria. In a concert video where the performers are the main attraction, I think it absolutely ought to meet the same high standards expected of other live action titles.



.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/15620241
> 
> *I too agree that very good to excellent detailing of facial close-ups is a must for Tier-0.*




Excellent -- thank you, too!


----------



## lgans316

rsbeck,


I understand and appreciate the deep rooted nature of your opinion w.r to concert BDs but as long as they comply to Tier-0 rules, I still believe they too deserve a chance to be in Tier-0. I have seen some Japanese concert videos in local HD channels when I was in Japan and a nice bunch of them exhibited that ultra fine detail than few of the live action titles placed in bottom Tier-0/1 didn't exhibit.


We can make a note in the first page that it MAY not be fair to compare the PQ of a live action Vs. concert videos but as objective facts outweighs subjective ones mix ups are inevitable. If needed, we can create a separate sub Tier ranking for concert and animated BDs.


For instance,

*Animation*


Tier-0 -> Ratatouille, Cars etc

Tier-1 -> Beowulf

Tier-2 -> Ice Age


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15620169
> 
> 
> I agree that I expect a Tier 0 title (other than animation) to include plenty of very detailed close-ups of faces.



Say what?










We need some clarification here. Are you saying that a Tier 0 title *must contain close up shots of actors faces?*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/15620241
> 
> 
> I too agree that very good to excellent detailing *of* facial close-ups is a must for the BD to be in Tier-0. There are flicks like HTWWW that looks excellent without possessing much of facial close-up shots.



The key word there is "of". *IF* a film contains close up shots of actors faces, of course they should show excellent detail.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15620243
> 
> 
> The reason a lot of concert videos, especially the ones I have seen, cannot show ultra-fine detail usually has to do with the lighting, camera proximity, and sometimes soft-focus. I do not believe most of us would vote a live action title into tier 0 with the kind of visuals some of these concert videos exhibit.



Of course this is correct. But it goes without saying. If in fact the lighting, camera angles and soft focus result in an image that isn't worthy of Tier 0 it doesn't go there.


But there is no reason that a concert video CAN'T have superb lighting, perfect camera angles, and very sharp focus, which may result in a Tier 0 ranking!



> Quote:
> You almost sound as though a Tier 0 title MUST show close ups of actors faces





> Quote:
> Every single live action title in tier 0 and most in tier 1.0 through 1.75 meets this criteria. You see faces resolved down to the pores and imperfections. It's now in the tier 0 criteria.



I think (and seriously hope) that we are talking past each other here, but since you directly quoted me above ("you make it sound as though a Tier 0 title MUST show close ups of actors faces) I am not so sure.


Let me ask you (and everyone else in this thread) point blank:

*Do you believe that in order for a non-animated title to be in Tier 0 that title MUST contain close up shots of actors faces?*


If so, I would have to very strongly disagree. It is completely arbitrary to have this ridiculous requirement. We might as well call this the "awesome facial close ups where you can see skin pores and acne Tier thread".










Seriously, it makes no sense to me. IF there are close ups, then they most certainly should be well detailed and exhibit great clarity, texture etc. But this is true of ANY image in Tier 0....not just actors faces.


Again, I hope that I have confused what you guys are saying. I hope you are saying that WHEN there are close up of actors faces, they should be revealing of pores, etc. I hope you are NOT saying that in order for a title to be in Tier 0 it MUST HAVE close up shots of actors faces.



> Quote:
> In a concert video where the performers are the main attraction, I think it absolutely ought to meet the same high standards expected of other live action titles.



Absolutely 100% agreement. I would hope nobody would say otherwise.


----------



## DrDon

Thread rolled back to before the bickering began. Some legitimate posts may have been lost in the rollback. Further bickering may result in being banned from participation in this thread.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Thanks DrDon!


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Ok, can we go back to the issue of whether close up shots of actors faces are required for a title to be in tier 0?


Patrick99 said something to the effect of "if a title does not have close ups of actors faces, it will necessarily be lacking the fine details required of Tier 0".


I personally think that this shows a misunderstanding of PQ. If you think this through, it just doesn't make sense. How does the lack of a close up of actors faces mean that there will necessarily be a lack of fine detail?










Fine detail can be shown in hundreds of different subjects, from flowers to concrete walls, to pollen or dust floating in the air. And none of these things requires a "close up" either. In fact, when you are able to see fine details from a wide angle shot, it is even more impressive than a close up, because it is more difficult to do.


I hope we can reach an agreement that the arbitrary requirement of a title containing close ups of actors faces to be in Tier 0 is not a good idea, and there really is no basis for it.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15621844
> 
> 
> 
> Let me ask you (and everyone else in this thread) point blank:
> 
> *Do you believe that in order for a non-animated title to be in Tier 0 that title MUST contain close up shots of actors faces?*



I would say a definite NO to this question Rob. There are titles like How The West Was Won that has few if any facial close-ups (which was more characteristic in movies of that era) and yet no one will deny that it is worthy of a Tier 0 status. It has sharpness and detail that one finds in very few films and it is consistent throughout the movie.


But as you emphasized, IF there are facial close-ups, there must be significant detail (i.e., pores, stubble, moles, etc.) to qualify for Tier 0.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15631775
> 
> 
> Ok, can we go back to the issue of whether close up shots of actors faces are required for a title to be in tier 0?
> 
> 
> Patrick99 said something to the effect of "if a title does not have close ups of actors faces, it will necessarily be lacking the fine details required of Tier 0".
> 
> 
> I personally think that this shows a misunderstanding of PQ. If you think this through, it just doesn't make sense. How does the lack of a close up of actors faces mean that there will necessarily be a lack of fine detail?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fine detail can be shown in hundreds of different subjects, from flowers to concrete walls, to pollen or dust floating in the air. And none of these things requires a "close up" either. In fact, when you are able to see fine details from a wide angle shot, it is even more impressive than a close up, because it is more difficult to do.
> 
> 
> I hope we can reach an agreement that the arbitrary requirement of a title containing close ups of actors faces to be in Tier 0 is not a good idea, and there really is no basis for it.



Rob, I completely agree. Detail can be found in MANY things, and a close up of an actors face should definately NOT be a requirement for tier 0 status. To require a close up of an actors face for tier 0 makes no sense to me at all.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15621844
> 
> 
> We need some clarification here. Are you saying that a Tier 0 title *must contain close up shots of actors faces?*



I think part of the problem is talking about concert videos in such a general way. I have seen some problems that many of them have in common, but I haven't seen every concert video and I wouldn't rule out the possibility that someone could come along and make one that is far better than what I have seen so far. I just haven't seen any that I would put in our reference tier.


As for facial close ups, I think the best answer is that it depends.


If a concert video has enough virtues to overcome a lack of high resolution facial close-ups then we can judge accordingly.


I am most interested in scrutinizing concert videos to the same extent that we do other titles and I have some misgivings about some of the concert videos we have in our upper tiers.


This is my main concern -- to make sure that anything we put in our reference tier or upper tiers has been thoroughly scrutinized.


We all put in a lot of work to make sense of these rankings according to a set of criteria and the reference and upper tiers represents us and the work we do.



> Quote:
> Do you believe that in order for a non-animated title to be in Tier 0 that title MUST contain close up shots of actors faces?



I would say that in a concert video where the performers are the main attraction, if there are not high resolution close ups of the performers' faces, then the title had better have something else awfully amazing to offer over the length of its running time to compete in tier 0. Off the top of my head, I have a hard time imagining what that could be, but who knows?


I never would have thought we'd get a comedy with enough virtues to warrant consideration for tier 0 and then we get Tropic Thunder, so never say never.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

^ nice dodge!










Really, it is a yes or no answer, because the question is very specific. Either facial close ups are required or they aren't.


I still think you are concentrating too much on the subject matter rather than the PQ.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15631787
> 
> 
> I would say a definite NO to this question Rob. There are titles like How The West Was Won that has few if any facial close-ups (which was more characteristic in movies of that era) and yet no one will deny that it is worthy of a Tier 0 status. It has sharpness and detail that one finds in very few films and it is consistent throughout the movie.



Do you think concert videos should contain high resolution close-ups to be considered for tier 0 or 1.0 through 1.75?


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

My thoughts on this issue are this: If a film doesn't have facial closeups, it must have something ELSE that would be showing extreme details. I think whatever the focal point of the shot is, that is what needs the detail. If I'm watching a nature show, and it's showing me trees... how detailed are the trees I'm looking at? Or the animals? I haven't seen How the West was Won, but I would determine based on it's placement here in Tier 0 that it must have a fantastic clarity of some sort in order to warrant it's placement.



I don't care WHAT I'm watching -- Concert, Movie, Sports, Documentary, Nature show, Animated CGI/Plain animation (Sleeping Beauty) whatever -- the focal point of the shot needs to have detail, clarity, crispness, proper focus, etc.


I have both DVDs and .avi's that show faces with details right down to pores, imperfections, and what have you, but that doesn't mean the entire picture displayed to me has all the elements required to have a Tier 0 Blu Ray PQ ranking. It just means it was a good close-up. For example, for me when I put in the Matrix DVD after I watched the Blu Ray, in the "Morpheus gives Neo the Pill" scene, you can see plenty of facial detail on both characters. But the picture itself still looked terrible because it was a DVD. I hope this makes sense.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15631932
> 
> 
> ^ nice dodge!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really, it is a yes or no answer, because the question is very specific. Either facial close ups are required or they aren't.



Disagree. I stand by my point. Judge them by their virtues. In Caspian, or How The West Was Won, we don't get as many close-ups, but those are practically nature videos with actors as part of the landscape. As nature videos, they are better than Planet Earth, Blue Planet, so IMO, they could go into tier 0 as nature videos even if they had no actors.


I've yet to see a concert video where I would say the same thing; that the surroundings are so incredible and so well resolved, with such perfect light, that the performers are just part of this incredible set, but like I say, I haven't seen them all and never say never.




> Quote:
> I still think you are concentrating too much on the subject matter rather than the PQ.



Disagree. It's the picture that concerns me and the PQ of the concert videos in question that I find underwhelming and not appropriate for tier 0. I also think you know my concern for PQ in the upper tiers, so I would appreciate it if you would plug that concern in when you read my comments.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15631981
> 
> 
> My thoughts on this issue are this: If a film doesn't have facial closeups, it must have something ELSE that would be showing extreme details. I think whatever the focal point of the shot is, that is what needs the detail. If I'm watching a nature show, and it's showing me trees... how detailed are the trees I'm looking at? Or the animals? I haven't seen How the West was Won, but I would determine based on it's placement here in Tier 0 that it must have a fantastic clarity of some sort in order to warrant it's placement.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care WHAT I'm watching -- Concert, Movie, Sports, Documentary, Nature show, Animated CGI/Plain animation (Sleeping Beauty) whatever -- the focal point of the shot needs to have detail, clarity, crispness, proper focus, etc.
> 
> 
> I have both DVDs and .avi's that show faces with details right down to pores, imperfections, and what have you, but that doesn't mean the entire picture displayed to me has all the elements required to have a Tier 0 Blu Ray PQ ranking. It just means it was a good close-up. For example, for me when I put in the Matrix DVD after I watched the Blu Ray, in the "Morpheus gives Neo the Pill" scene, you can see plenty of facial detail on both characters. But the picture itself still looked terrible because it was a DVD. I hope this makes sense.



Perfect sense. Complete agreement.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/15631861
> 
> 
> Rob, I completely agree. Detail can be found in MANY things, and a close up of an actors face should definately NOT be a requirement for tier 0 status. To require a close up of an actors face for tier 0 makes no sense to me at all.



I agree with this.

If we are going to require that tier0 titles have to show facial close-ups to be considered for tier0 placement, that seems to be waking on the fine line of director intent. Plus it seems like there will have to be a bunch of movies that need to be reviewed in tier0 if this requirement were enforced.

To me, it should not matter. If there happens to be no, or very few facial close-ups in the movie, a movie should not be penalized because of this. Of course if the movie is soft or blurred or perhaps the colors are over saturated, (as examples) then this is another issue all together and a movie should therefore be punished.

At least in this thread.


----------



## rsbeck

At some point, I would love to move past the general and hypothetical concert video and toward the specific.


How many of you have seen The Police: Certifiable?


Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds?


If you've seen them and they are fresh enough in your mind to comment, do you feel these are deserving of their current placements?


The Police: Certifiable is placed in the middle of tier 0.


Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds are placed in tier 1.0.


Why, or why not?


What are their virtues? How do they compare with other titles at that rank?


Do these videos have enough ultra-fine detail and all of the other things we expect to see of a highly ranked non-animated title?


Please be as specific as you can.


Thanks.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15631981
> 
> 
> My thoughts on this issue are this: If a film doesn't have facial closeups, it must have something ELSE that would be showing extreme details. I think whatever the focal point of the shot is, that is what needs the detail. If I'm watching a nature show, and it's showing me trees... how detailed are the trees I'm looking at? Or the animals? I haven't seen How the West was Won, but I would determine based on it's placement here in Tier 0 that it must have a fantastic clarity of some sort in order to warrant it's placement.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care WHAT I'm watching -- Concert, Movie, Sports, Documentary, Nature show, Animated CGI/Plain animation (Sleeping Beauty) whatever -- *the focal point of the shot needs to have detail, clarity, crispness, proper focus, etc*.



Exactly!!


You'll have to check out How The West Was Won someday G3; the sharpness and detail of EVERY focal point (which, in this case, is usually a breathtaking landscape) are stunning!


----------



## spectator

If you'll indulge me a little, I think I can tie it all together:


* my comment about the relative aesthetic values of different lighting schemes


* the question of the necessity of facial close-ups to top-tier status


* the whole "director's intent" thang


Here's the deal: the idea of top-tier releases requiring facial close-ups speaks to a closed and absolutist concept of image quality which assumes that image quality is a one-dimensional continuum and is strictly consistent and quantifiable. No concession is made for the idea that different circumstances/media can demand different qualities or priorities from the criteria for image quality.


When I described my preference for "live event"-style lighting from a concert video, I was really speaking to the idea that the kind of experience I _prefer_ is dependent upon the kind of material I'm watching. If a musician's face is evenly and cleanly displayed, they don't look like they do when you see them in an exciting live concert, do they? You may be able to identify fine details in their faces, but how does it help you enjoy a "concert" experience when the players look more as if they're playing in a doctor's office than a smoky bar?


The reason for this discrepancy is making the mistake of thinking that *the musicians* are the "subject" of the video. The real "subject" of the video is *the musicians in the environment*. Another (infamous) example would be the opening of Wall-E, in which the subject is not *Wall-E*, but *Wall-E in hazy environs*.


This is one of the reasons that trying to examine picture quality in a vacuum that ignores "director's intent" is futile and foolish, but that's just my opinion.


The bottom line, that I hope we all can agree on, is that picture quality is not a single line that leads from 'poor' to 'great'. We are all aware of these shifting criteria, on _some_ level, so even if we agree to treat picture quality as a one-dimensional continuum, we will have different individual picture quality priorities on a subconscious level. Any attempts to apply an absolute and singular arbitrary rule to the examination of picture quality can't help but break down.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15631943
> 
> 
> Do you think concert videos should contain high resolution close-ups to be considered for tier 0 or 1.0 through 1.75?



Let me say this, I agree 100% with G3 when she states that "the focal point of the shot needs to have detail, clarity, crispness, proper focus, etc." So, one would _think_ that the focal point in a concert would be, for the most part, the band that is performing (which would include facial close-ups), and thus those virtues outlined by G3 should prevail in the shots of the band.


I have to admit I'm not an avid fan of concert videos though I do watch them occasionally on HDNet and Palladia. In every concert I've seen there have always been facial close-ups of the band (or solo artist), and the detail is usually amazing.


To answer your question directly (with a YES or NO), I would still have to say NO, because there could be a rare occasion where, for whatever reason, there are not facial close-ups of the band, and then one would have to determine placement based on the detail seen from farther back (and from other criteria as well). If a concert excelled in every other area, meeting the criteria for Tier 0 placement outlined on page one, then it too could be given such a ranking. But again, I can't envision this (a concert without facial close-ups) happening but rarely.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15632311
> 
> 
> To answer your question directly (with a YES or NO), I would still have to say NO, because there could be a rare occasion where, for whatever reason, there are not facial close-ups of the band, and then one would have to determine placement based on the detail seen from farther back (and from other criteria as well). If a concert excelled in every other area, meeting the criteria for Tier 0 placement outlined on page one, then it too could be given such a ranking. But again, I can't envision this happening but rarely.



100% agreement.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15631868
> 
> 
> I think part of the problem is talking about concert videos in such a general way. I have seen some problems that many of them have in common, but I haven't seen every concert video and I wouldn't rule out the possibility that someone could come along and make one that is far better than what I have seen so far. I just haven't seen any that I would put in our reference tier.
> 
> 
> As for facial close ups, I think the best answer is that it depends.
> 
> 
> If a concert video has enough virtues to overcome a lack of high resolution facial close-ups then we can judge accordingly.
> 
> 
> I am most interested in scrutinizing concert videos to the same extent that we do other titles and I have some misgivings about some of the concert videos we have in our upper tiers.
> 
> 
> This is my main concern -- to make sure that anything we put in our reference tier or upper tiers has been thoroughly scrutinized.
> 
> 
> We all put in a lot of work to make sense of these rankings according to a set of criteria and the reference and upper tiers represents us and the work we do.
> 
> 
> I would say that in a concert video where the performers are the main attraction, if there are not high resolution close ups of the performers' faces, then the title had better have something else awfully amazing to offer over the length of its running time to compete in tier 0. Off the top of my head, I have a hard time imagining what that could be, but who knows?
> 
> 
> I never would have thought we'd get a comedy with enough virtues to warrant consideration for tier 0 and then we get Tropic Thunder, so never say never.



Concert videos and documentaries are definitely on a different platform from the terms of judgeable content for this thread. I do see where you are coming from I think.









But we can not allow our selves to judge one Blu Ray differently than the next because it is a concert, documentary, or an animated movie. We have to take what evidence we have and place it amongst the ranks as best we can.

If for example, all we have in a concert video is one camera angle thru the entire show with the camera sitting atop a piano focusing on the performer. (that would certainly be a boring concert video) Then unfortunately that is all we have and we should judge the disc accordingly. Is everything in the shot focused? Do the colors look natural? Is this something that you would use to show your friends as demo material?

Most of the time, there is more than one shot in a concert video. I have never seen a case with the example I just gave. Usually the crowd is panned, the band is shown along with the stage setting.

In that case, there should be plenty of opportunities to judge proper placement of the disc. In some cases, one could argue that a music video could actually have some advantage over a movie, because of the brilliant spectacle that is created on stage.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15631981
> 
> 
> My thoughts on this issue are this: If a film doesn't have facial closeups, it must have something ELSE that would be showing extreme details. I think whatever the focal point of the shot is, that is what needs the detail. If I'm watching a nature show, and it's showing me trees... how detailed are the trees I'm looking at? Or the animals? I haven't seen How the West was Won, but I would determine based on it's placement here in Tier 0 that it must have a fantastic clarity of some sort in order to warrant it's placement.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care WHAT I'm watching -- Concert, Movie, Sports, Documentary, Nature show, Animated CGI/Plain animation (Sleeping Beauty) whatever -- the focal point of the shot needs to have detail, clarity, crispness, proper focus, etc.
> 
> 
> I have both DVDs and .avi's that show faces with details right down to pores, imperfections, and what have you, but that doesn't mean the entire picture displayed to me has all the elements required to have a Tier 0 Blu Ray PQ ranking. It just means it was a good close-up. For example, for me when I put in the Matrix DVD after I watched the Blu Ray, in the "Morpheus gives Neo the Pill" scene, you can see plenty of facial detail on both characters. But the picture itself still looked terrible because it was a DVD. I hope this makes sense.























> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15632013
> 
> 
> Perfect sense. Complete agreement.



If you agree with everything that GGG says here, we are in agreement. It seems a little contradictory to what you have said previously, but like I said, if you agree with this post I think we have an understanding.


I would still like to hear from Patrick99 on this issue.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15632311
> 
> 
> In every concert I've seen there have always been facial close-ups of the band (or solo artist), and the detail is usually amazing.



Of the blu-ray concert videos I've watched so far, I would only say that of Elvis Costello. I would not say this of Dave Matthews or The Police: Certifiable and I would love it if you -- and others -- would take a look at these two videos and give me your opinion.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15632365
> 
> 
> 
> If you agree with everything that GGG says here, we are in agreement.



I think she is saying the exact same thing I said, but -- hey -- I haven't had my first cup of coffee yet, so.....



> Quote:
> It seems a little contradictory to what you have said previously, but like I said, if you agree with this post I think we have an understanding.



I'm curious, if you compare the post of mine that you called a dodge to G3's post, where do you see the inconsistency?


If you mean what I've written prior to today, I think the real problem has been talking about concert videos in a hypothetical way. For example, I keep saying that I wouldn't rule out the possibility that a concert video could come along that would warrant consideration for tier 0 and you keep writing back to me that one shouldn't say it is impossible, so I'm not sure what went wrong, but I can certainly acknowledge that I may not have been as articulate as I could have been and I would chalk that up to the difficulty in talking about concert videos in a hypothetical way rather than commenting on specific concert videos.


Have you seen either of the two concert videos I mentioned?


I think you may have mentioned seeing Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds.


----------



## tfoltz

Agree 100%. I do not believe facial close ups are required for Tier 0. This is a picture quality thread, not facial quality.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15631775
> 
> 
> Fine detail can be shown in hundreds of different subjects, from flowers to concrete walls, to pollen or dust floating in the air. And none of these things requires a "close up" either. In fact, when you are able to see fine details from a wide angle shot, it is even more impressive than a close up, because it is more difficult to do.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Youth Without Youth*


recommendation: middle of *Tier Zero*


Perfection. Stunning. Revelation. I see those terms thrown around frequently when describing reference level Blu-rays, but Sony has delivered a transfer and image truly worthy of those designations on Youth Without Youth. When I bought into Blu-ray it was mainly for movies with spectacular imagery and startling clarity, and this BD delivers that quality in spades.


Initially released to theaters in 2007, this Francis Ford Coppola film was released to Blu-ray on May 13, 2008. The 124-minute main feature is encoded in AVC on a BD-50. The average video bitrate is 27.89 Mbps per the BDInfo scan. The video encode ranges mostly between 25.5 Mbps to 33.1 Mbps and it peaks nearly at 40 Mbps. There is not one single problem whatsoever with the compression work here and it ranks among the best I have seen. If only all Blu-rays could look this free of artifacts.


Shot using the same digital HD camera that Crank was made with, the picture is devoid of any grain or noise. The darker lit scenes are devoid of the noise that some HD video-shot productions are prone to. There is a remarkable clarity to the picture throughout the movie and reminds one of looking through a real window at times. I could not see one moment of anything that even hinted at digital noise reduction or any other process that would obscure fine detail.


The master used for the transfer is in immaculate shape with zero defects. This is not a film-like image as the movie was simply not shot on film, but the cinematography is world-class. Every scene and shot looks carefully calculated and composed, with a wonderful and unique visual appearance highlighted by excellent framing and lighting for maximum visual effect. The interplay between light, shadow, and color in the image is spectacular.


Most scenes demonstrate an excellent sense of depth and dimensionality. The outdoor scenes are just incredible in their ability to convey a deep perspective to the image. The entire movie is razor sharp and stays in focus throughout on par with other tier zero titles. There are no soft moments lasting even seconds in length. Shadow detail and information looks splendid. Rarely have I seen human faces demonstrate so much high-frequency information in low light scenes. Witness Tim Roth's face at timecode 36:33, lit by bluish tinted moonlight, which shows every inch of his facial features in excellent detail. Black levels are great for the most part outside of one or two scenes later in the movie. There is a wonderful inky quality to them, as seen in the shots when Tim Roth's face is completely silhouetted in reverse in a pitch-black cave.


High-frequency information and micro-detail consistently exceeded my expectations. There are no filters used to obscure any detail or mark on any of the actors. For an example of top-notch and revealing skin texture typically seen here, check out timecode 35:14. Flesh tones look as accurate as they possibly can, with none of the over saturation or contrast seen sometimes in worse transfers. Contrast is very good with incredible color rendition. Some scenes are bathed in a slightly golden glow depending on the setting itself. Coppola really plays with light and color to convey the mood and tone of each scene. The color red purposely pops off the screen with excellent fidelity when the movie's action involves the Nazis for example.


There are a couple of very minor things that one may notice that prevents this Blu-ray from ranking any higher than the middle of tier zero. A couple of scenes, most noticeably the ones set in India, exhibit a minor amount of ringing on high-contrast edges. It is ever so brief and makes up such a small portion of the overall running time that I did not consider it significant enough to mark the transfer down. It may very well be the result of the camera that was used to shoot the movie. Another quibble one might notice is the couple of short scenes that have very slightly blown-out whites at the upper-end of the contrast range.


To say I was impressed by the picture quality presented is an understatement. This is one of the most faithful and best looking transfers I have ever seen on Blu-ray. I do not agree with its current ranking in tier 1.25 and recommend it be placed in the middle of tier zero somewhere. It is clearly superior to many titles currently ranked there, including titles like The Island, Speed Racer, Shoot' Em Up, and Rescue Dawn. I would like others to give this disc a viewing for proper placement.


Watching on a 60 Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 (firmware 2.60) at a viewing distance of six feet.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...0#post13909650


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15632469
> 
> 
> I think she is saying the exact same thing I said, but -- hey -- I haven't had my first cup of coffee yet, so.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious, if you compare the post of mine that you called a dodge to G3's post, where do you see the inconsistency?
> 
> 
> If you mean what I've written prior to today, I think the real problem has been talking about concert videos in a hypothetical way. For example, I keep saying that I wouldn't rule out the possibility that a concert video could come along that would warrant consideration for tier 0 and you keep writing back to me that one shouldn't say it is impossible, so I'm not sure what went wrong, but I can certainly acknowledge that I may not have been as articulate as I could have been and I would chalk that up to the difficulty in talking about concert videos in a hypothetical way rather than commenting on specific concert videos.
> 
> 
> Have you seen either of the two concert videos I mentioned?
> 
> 
> I think you may have mentioned seeing Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds.



I read GGG's excellent post as concluding that facial close ups are NOT REQUIRED to be in Tier 0. You haven't been willing to answer this question with a direct response. That's where I see the inconsistency.


I know you are concentrating on concert discs, but to me it makes zero difference whether it is a concert disc or live action etc.


As GGG said, "If a film doesn't have facial closeups, it must have something ELSE that would be showing extreme details".


Exactly right.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/15632797
> 
> 
> Agree 100%. I do not believe facial close ups are required for Tier 0. This is a picture quality thread, not facial quality.



I agree that close-ups should not be a requirement of course since some material simply never calls for them, but highly revealing facial detail in tight shots are almost always a good indicator for high-end picture quality. Facial details are the most relevant of course because humans' visual systems have evolved to distinguish facial differences more than any other object. But there are proxies for it that work almost as well in revealing excellent high-frequency information. Fabric textures and well delineated, individual strands of hair are some of the other items I look for in the best transfers. Blades of grass should also look great.


----------



## stumlad

I agree that not every Tier 0 title must have strong face closeups. But I will say that, when a title does, i tend to favor it more


...unless the overall scenery is so astonishing that I can't help but say wow like this:
http://www.cinemasquid.com/MovieImages.aspx?MovieId=995 



Then there's the rarity of something like this which has great face closeups and backgrounds:
http://www.cinemasquid.com/MovieImages.aspx?MovieId=2 

... not in Tier 0, but IMO, it is.


Tv shows....
http://www.cinemasquid.com/MovieImages.aspx?MovieId=160 


...That look awesome, but I personally dont feel look as awesome as this:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...3#post15521483 

(wait for the images to load, dont scroll or anything... it will eventually come up. Remember, these are "pictures" of someones screen... It is post #1968)



In my opinion, these are Tier 0 titles. Not everyone agrees which is why they arent all in Tier 0 (which is fine by me). I'm not sure how to categorize these titles other than they show a tremendous amount of detail and for the most part look great throughout.


I'd rather let a few bad scenes slide versus calling something "Tier 0" that I feel never approaches the level of details that these do..


But in the end it all comes down to preference right?


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Paul McCartney: The Space Within Us*


Many of you know that I am a Beatlemaniac. So, I was really looking forward to this one. Paul rules!


Unfortunately, this disc does anything but rule!










The PQ on this disc is very disappointing. Tons of shots literally have what looks like electrical interference going through them. Many dark shots of the audience also exhibit tons of noise.


Some of the shots of the stage/performers look decent, but even those never arise above tier 2. Fine detail is rarely seen.


Even the way the concert was shot was poor. Very fast cuts back and forth between Paul and the audience. In fact, I don't think I have ever seen a concert video that spent quite so much time showing the crowd as this one. And like I said, these shots were very poor, so it weighs down the PQ score.


On top of everything else, the sound quality was pretty poor as well. Paul's voice rarely comes across clearly. Instead he often sounds muffled.

*Tier Recommendation: 4.0*


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15633011
> 
> *Paul McCartney: The Space Within Us*
> 
> 
> Even the way the concert was shot was poor. Very fast cuts back and forth between Paul and the audience. In fact, I don't think I have ever seen a concert video that spent quite so much time showing the crowd as this one. And like I said, these shots were very poor, so it weighs down the PQ score.



I have this concert on dvd and I totally agree about the poor editing. It looks like someone with ADD cut the video.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15632888
> 
> *Youth Without Youth*
> 
> 
> recommendation: middle of *Tier Zero*
> 
> 
> Perfection. Stunning. Revelation. I see those terms thrown around frequently when describing reference level Blu-rays, but Sony has delivered a transfer and image truly worthy of those designations on Youth Without Youth. When I bought into Blu-ray it was mainly for movies with spectacular imagery and startling clarity, and this BD delivers that quality in spades.
> 
> 
> ...



Wow.


Needless to say, this will be added to my Netflix Queue asap!











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15633049
> 
> 
> I have this concert on dvd and I totally agree about the poor editing. It looks like someone with ADD cut the video.



You would think someone working with such a high profile artist would be extremely well qualified, but it certainly does not appear to be the case here.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15632013
> 
> 
> Perfect sense. Complete agreement.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15632183
> 
> 
> Exactly!!
> 
> 
> You'll have to check out How The West Was Won someday G3; the sharpness and detail of EVERY focal point (which, in this case, is usually a breathtaking landscape) are stunning!





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15632365
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would still like to hear from Patrick99 on this issue.



Thanks guys.







I'm curious about Patrick99's view on this too. I'll also have to look for a copy of HTWWW too.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15632888
> 
> *Youth Without Youth*
> 
> 
> recommendation: middle of *Tier Zero*
> 
> 
> ...



Excellent review, Phantom Stranger! You've made me want to seek this movie out and watch it. I'm going to have to look for it at the video store.


----------



## Hughmc

I too agree facial closeups are not a tier 0 requirement. I cannot weigh in yet on the concert videos. I have two, Nine Inch Nails and Chris Botti, but those are not the ones in question as Botti for example has known PQ issues and its placement is correct.


I watched Swing Vote last night and it has some of the best PQ on BD, but it has some intentional blurring on facial closeups. It is too bad as it could be a tier 0 title. I will rate it later after watching again.


I also saw the preview for The Spirit on one of the recent BD's I saw. HOLY!














If we could get the BD to look like that preview, move aside KFP. The PQ is amazing on that preview on the BD.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15632974
> 
> 
> I agree that close-ups should not be a requirement of course since some material simply never calls for them, *but highly revealing facial detail in tight shots are almost always a good indicator for high-end picture quality. Facial details are the most relevant of course because humans' visual systems have evolved to distinguish facial differences more than any other object.* But there are proxies for it that work almost as well in revealing excellent high-frequency information. Fabric textures and well delineated, individual strands of hair are some of the other items I look for in the best transfers. Blades of grass should also look great.



To respond to Rob and G3, this gets close to expressing why I think facial close-ups are so important. They are by far the best test of how good the PQ is, and other types of material are, IMO, highly inadequate proxies.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I promised I would get around to this so here is my latest draft for the bottom three tiers. Input or criticism welcomed. The bottom two tiers have been posted before...

*Tier Three - Bronze (Average)*

_The titles here are the epitome of average picture quality among all Blu-rays. Image quality for this tier will always be superior to upscaled dvd in comparison, but will lack the demo potential of the higher tiers. Minor flaws or slight limitations in the source material may be present, but these transfers are worth the upgrade from the dvd version. The picture will typically lack the depth and pop exhibited in the higher tiers. Detail and clarity will be solid and present a pleasing image at standard viewing distances. In many cases the difference between this tier and the surrounding tiers is an issue of consistency to the picture quality._

*Tier Four - Copper (Below Average)*

_This tier represents acceptable but below-average picture quality that is underwhelming for the format. While still visually superior to upscaled standard definition material, the differences are less obvious upon casual inspection. The image may have deficiencies in one or more areas. Compression artifacts, softness, poor black levels, a lack of depth, questionable source material, and poorly transferred masters are some of the common problems exhibited in tier four. Some Blu-rays in this tier do represent significant upgrades over the dvd but are constrained in image quality due to visual limitations of the original source material. Titles in this tier are all watchable though and should not prevent a fan from considering them for purchase._


*Tier Five - Charcoal (Unacceptable)*

_The titles in this tier have severe limitations in their picture quality that is strongly underwhelming compared to the average Blu-ray. The image has deficiencies in multiple areas that would be obvious upon a casual viewing. Without question the Blu-rays in tier five are among the worst looking on the market. At various times the picture quality is hard to distinguish from upscaled dvd material. Softness, artifacting, poor source material, limited resolution and clarity are general characteristics of titles in this tier._


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15633470
> 
> 
> To respond to Rob and G3, this gets close to expressing why I think facial close-ups are so important. They are by far the best test of how good the PQ is, and other types of material are, IMO, highly inadequate proxies.



I don't mean to deminish the importance of facial close-ups, they are definitely something I look for. I just don't want to be stuck in a box that states they are a REQUIREMENT either, because I don't think they _have_ to be present.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15633470
> 
> 
> To respond to Rob and G3, this gets close to expressing why I think facial close-ups are so important. They are by far the best test of how good the PQ is, and other types of material are, IMO, highly inadequate proxies.



Thanks Patrick. I agree that facial detail makes an easy test to help determine PQ with regard to its overall resolution and clarity. But the fact that a title may not display this easy test doesn't make it any less capable of having all the attributes that are required of a tier 0 placement.


I disagree that other materials are "highly inadequate proxies".


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15633491
> 
> 
> I promised I would get around to this so here is my latest draft for the bottom three tiers. Input or criticism welcomed. The bottom two tiers have been posted before...
> 
> *Tier Three - Bronze (Average)*
> 
> _The titles here are the epitome of average picture quality among all Blu-rays. Image quality for this tier will always be superior to upscaled dvd in comparison, but will lack the demo potential of the higher tiers. Minor flaws or slight limitations in the source material may be present, but these transfers are worth the upgrade from the dvd version. The picture will typically lack the depth and pop exhibited in the higher tiers. Detail and clarity will be solid and present a pleasing image at standard viewing distances. In many cases the difference between this tier and the surrounding tiers is an issue of consistency to the picture quality._



For some reason "epitome" has a negative connotation to me (not saying that it should). This is a nitpick, but perhaps we could change the word epitome and replace it with "representative"?



> Quote:
> *Tier Four - Copper (Below Average)*
> 
> _This tier represents acceptable but below-average picture quality that is underwhelming for the format. While still visually superior to upscaled standard definition material, the differences are less obvious upon casual inspection. The image may have deficiencies in one or more areas. Compression artifacts, softness, poor black levels, a lack of depth, questionable source material, and poorly transferred masters are some of the common problems exhibited in tier four. Some Blu-rays in this tier do represent significant upgrades over the dvd but are constrained in image quality due to visual limitations of the original source material. Titles in this tier are all watchable though and should not prevent a fan from considering them for purchase._



I would probably remove the term "acceptable" from the first sentence. I really don't know that I agree that Tier 4 titles are "acceptable". I think conveying the idea that they are "below average" is all that is needed. We are talking about the next to last tier here, so whether the PQ in this tier is "acceptable" seems questionable to me.




> Quote:
> *Tier Five - Charcoal (Unacceptable)*
> 
> _The titles in this tier have severe limitations in their picture quality that is strongly underwhelming compared to the average Blu-ray. The image has deficiencies in multiple areas that would be obvious upon a casual viewing. Without question the Blu-rays in tier five are among the worst looking on the market. At various times the picture quality is hard to distinguish from upscaled dvd material. Softness, artifacting, poor source material, limited resolution and clarity are general characteristics of titles in this tier._



Tier 5 looks good to me!


Thanks again for all the hard work on this.


----------



## SuprSlow

Just a quick note...


Sorry for my absence this week. We've been fairly busy with doctor visits and family stuff now that we found out my wife is pregnant







It's our first, we're pretty excited.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/15634095
> 
> 
> Just a quick note...
> 
> 
> Sorry for my absence this week. We've been fairly busy with doctor visits and family stuff now that we found out my wife is pregnant
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's our first, we're pretty excited.



Yaaaaay!! Congrats!!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/15634095
> 
> 
> Just a quick note...
> 
> 
> Sorry for my absence this week. We've been fairly busy with doctor visits and family stuff now that we found out my wife is pregnant
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's our first, we're pretty excited.



That's awesome!


----------



## FoxyMulder

I don't often pop in here but should Scary Movie really be 2.5 and also The Golden Compass has not been proven to be heavily DNRed yet Scary Movie has and i would add The Golden Compass actually looks very good and the fantasy setting and world actually means any DNR that might have been done to it works in it's favor.


Now a trailer has been produced showing a sharper image but that trailer is also showing an uncomplete film if you look at the floor in the banquet hall you can clearly see it's unfinished thus the softening of the image may well have been applied post production to better serve the fantasy world/fairytale visuals in much the way Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow had a softer image for it's fantasy world.


I think Scary Movie belongs in Tier 5 as it not only has very excessive DNR which removes a lot of detail but the edge enhancement on it is horrendous.


This is what it says on page 1....

*Tier 2 - Silver (Good)*

The image maintains a sharp film-like quality throughout which looks real, with less 3-D effect than Tier 1 and video artifacts are far and few in between.


Scary Movie does not qualify based on that criteria for 2.5 but it does qualify for Tier 5 of this thread.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/15634095
> 
> 
> Just a quick note...
> 
> 
> Sorry for my absence this week. We've been fairly busy with doctor visits and family stuff now that we found out my wife is pregnant
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's our first, we're pretty excited.



Congratulations!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15632888
> 
> *Youth Without Youth*
> 
> 
> recommendation: middle of *Tier Zero*
> 
> 
> I would like others to give this disc a viewing for proper placement.



I'm on my way to the video store right now Phantom, so if they have a Blu-ray copy I'll rent it and watch it tonight. You sure have whetted my appetite for it!


----------



## rsbeck

2.5 does seem awfully high for Scary Movie. I would strongly support moving it to tier 5.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/15634095
> 
> 
> Just a quick note...
> 
> 
> Sorry for my absence this week. We've been fairly busy with doctor visits and family stuff now that we found out my wife is pregnant
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's our first, we're pretty excited.



Way to go SuprSlow! Congrats to you and your wife. Only 4 more and you'll catch up to us!


----------



## FoxyMulder

Well all i would say is if you want to put *Heavy DNR* next to a film title then add it to Con Air and Scary Movie or The Untouchables with it's terrible frozen grain backgrounds and a few others on the list so as to make it more complete.


I would have thought it's going to be less eye candy though if the films had major DNR and also has excess EE spoiling the show. So perhaps a consideration for the thread to take into account considering the wording of each Tier on page 1.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15634354
> 
> 
> 2.5 does seem awfully high for Scary Movie. I would strongly support moving it to tier 5.



Was it Scary Movie 1 or 4 that had so much DNR it looked like a cartoon?


----------



## FoxyMulder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15634424
> 
> 
> Was it Scary Movie 1 or 4 that had so much DNR it looked like a cartoon?



Scary Movie 1


Isn't this a beautiful looking gorgeous transfer with high detail levels










Thats a direct screen grab with no image manipulation and presented at 1920x1080 using PNG file format.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

I just did a search of the thread and saw that there was a debate about Scary Movie back in June 2008 as well.



Foxy, all the info for the first page is currently being re-written. I'm not sure what's all been applied over there yet, but I know even today Phantom Stranger posted another set of criteria to be reviewed by the thread for the first page.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15632974
> 
> 
> I agree that close-ups should not be a requirement of course since some material simply never calls for them, but highly revealing facial detail in tight shots are almost always a good indicator for high-end picture quality. Facial details are the most relevant of course because humans' visual systems have evolved to distinguish facial differences more than any other object. But there are proxies for it that work almost as well in revealing excellent high-frequency information. Fabric textures and well delineated, individual strands of hair are some of the other items I look for in the best transfers. Blades of grass should also look great.



Excellent points.


----------



## FoxyMulder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15634473
> 
> 
> I just did a search of the thread and saw that there was a debate about Scary Movie back in June 2008 as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Foxy, all the info for the first page is currently being re-written. I'm not sure what's all been applied over there yet, but I know even today Phantom Stranger posted another set of criteria to be reviewed by the thread for the first page.



Thats ok then but hopefully everyone will gaze upon that image of Scary Movie and be scared that it could happen one day to their favorite film










I'm rewriting my own thread and will be adding a link to that scary pic lol


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FoxyMulder* /forum/post/15634519
> 
> 
> Thats ok then but hopefully everyone will gaze upon that image of Scary Movie and be scared that it could happen one day to their favorite film
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm rewriting my own thread and will be adding a link to that scary pic lol



I haven't actually seen it on Blu Ray. I did the search of the thread to see if I could find any other reviews of it, and found the debate over it from last June. The pic you posted is pretty nasty though! I saw it after I posted earlier, b/c I think we were posting at the same time.



I like the movie well enough, it seems to re-air on TV often enough. If the prices of blu ray rentals where I live ever go down, I'll give it a review, but at the cost of $6.75 for one-day rental right now up here... I'll hold off and just watch it if it happens to be on TV







Heck maybe eventually my Walmart will get it as one of their $8 titles, especially if it looks that bad!


----------



## mf1111

Got no kids so I don't ever rent cartoons.But I had to see what the fuss is about with WALL-E.Got the blu-ray. Can somebody help me out on my picture settings when watching this.What do I look for? I'm mostly interested in adjustments to picture and brightness settings because I never move tint from 0 and color I can eyeball pretty good. I'm good at adjusting my 42pz700 with live people, but I am clueless here. I see it has high marks in PQ so any help would be appreciated.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15634336
> 
> 
> Rob Tomlin, Speaking of Golden Compass, wasn't that the one you were criticizing for lack of highly resolved facial detail?



Absolutely! It was by far my biggest complaint of that title.


That said, it doesn't come close to looking like that capture from Scar Movie!







I haven't seen Scary Movie, but based on that screen cap, it sure seems that Tier 2 is WAY too high.


This is yet another example of why having more people participating here the better. Thanks for bringing that one up Foxy.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FoxyMulder* /forum/post/15634472
> 
> 
> Scary Movie 1
> 
> 
> Isn't this a beautiful looking gorgeous transfer with high detail levels
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats a direct screen grab with no image manipulation and presented at 1920x1080 using PNG file format.



Yes.. it's great... Not only did they smooth it down, they even added a little EE to top it off.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15634444
> 
> 
> Disagree. I think my response is exactly as direct as G3's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't see much difference between these two quotes.



She has made it clear that it is *NOT a requirement* that a title have facial close-ups in order to be in Tier 0. I get the impression that you agree with this, but it seems that you will not entirely concede the point.


If I am misinterpreting that, please let me know. I'm just trying to make sure that we have a consensus on the issue.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15633875
> 
> 
> Thanks Patrick. I agree that facial detail makes *an easy test* to help determine PQ with regard to its overall resolution and clarity. But the fact that a title may not display *this easy test* doesn't make it any less capable of having all the attributes that are required of a tier 0 placement.
> 
> 
> I disagree that other materials are "highly inadequate proxies".



Rob, I think that characterizing facial detail simply as "an easy test" is putting it in a way that does not give nearly enough weight to this consideration.


But, in any event, this is clearly one of those issues on which my view is in a very small minority, so let's agree that the consensus view is different from mine and let's agree to move on from this issue.


----------



## 42041

I'm curious, do some of you sit there with a pen and paper and take notes as you watch a movie
















We're making enjoying a movie's visuals way more complicated than it needs to be...


----------



## LBFilmGuy

JESUS! This debate is still going on facial closeups even after you guys got put in the corner for timeout!?










Here's my take.


First of all, it is rare to find a feature film without ANY facial closeups. They are the most common shot in film making, and for good reason.


With that said, facial closeups are the one thing we can truly be objective on when judging, because after all, we are all human and know what a face looks like up close. When we see a razor sharp, highly detailed face on blu ray is simply awesome because it looks as though we are looking right at the person in real life.


I agree that if it so happens that a feature film has NO facial closeups, then yes, it needs to have something else to it that is extremely amazing and wowing. As amazing as long establishing shots of scenery or cities may be, they still won't be able to exhibit the fine detail of a facial closeup because of the distance of the camera. Now, if it's full of closeups of other things, then we can have a discussion on how good those closeups look.


Whew.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Max Payne*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15610610
> 
> *Max Payne: 1.75*
> 
> 
> I am going to watch this again, but right now I am thinking it is at about 1.75. It has some beautiful shots and scenes of NY rendered in an artistic way that I really enjoyed. The PQ is all over the place from borderline tier 0 down to tier 4 due to artists intent with blurred and out of focus shots. Most of the PQ is really good though, particularly in the beginning where it averages a 1.5-1.0 rating.



I agree with the PQ on this one varying a lot. More so that most movies. I had a hard time trying to pin this one down because of the variance, but throughout most of it I was going back and forth between Tier 1.75 to Tier 2.0.


I could live with either of those.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*



P.S. The SQ was excellent (even if the bass was actually a bit hot), but the movie itself wasn't very good at all.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

On that note, I am about to watch Dark City.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/15634095
> 
> 
> Just a quick note...
> 
> 
> Sorry for my absence this week. We've been fairly busy with doctor visits and family stuff now that we found out my wife is pregnant
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's our first, we're pretty excited.



Congrats brother!


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15634625
> 
> 
> Absolutely! It was by far my biggest complaint of that title.
> 
> 
> That said, it doesn't come close to looking like that capture from Scar Movie!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen Scary Movie, but based on that screen cap, it sure seems that Tier 2 is WAY too high.
> 
> 
> This is yet another example of why having more people participating here the better. Thanks for bringing that one up Foxy.



.


Man that screen is hilarious. Looks worse than DVD.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15634893
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> Man that screen is hilarious. Looks worse than DVD.



It looks like an impressionist painting.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/15634095
> 
> 
> Sorry for my absence this week. We've been fairly busy with doctor visits and family stuff now that we found out my wife is pregnant
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's our first, we're pretty excited.



Congratulations on the news, SuprSlow.










To Rob Tomlin and Rsbeck, your suggested changes will be incorporated into the next draft.


Scary Movie is a very difficult movie to place accurately for the purposes of this thread. I can not agree it looks as bad as a tier five title. The titles in tier five look truly awful (I have seen most of them and many of them were placed there on my recommendation) and frankly no better than a very bad dvd. Take away the heavy DNR and EE (problems applied to the master when transferring it, not in the original photography) and you probably have a Blu-ray that looks good enough to be in tier one. I could see low tier three or tier four if one really penalizes it for the problems cited.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Rob did you see my thoughts on the facial closeups?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15635087
> 
> 
> Rob did you see my thoughts on the facial closeups?



Yep. I agree with some of it, but disagree with parts too.


The important point is that we reach a consensus that facial closeups are not a *requirement* for a title to be in tier 0.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15635216
> 
> 
> Yep. I agree with some of it, but disagree with parts too.
> 
> 
> The important point is that we reach a consensus that facial closeups are not a *requirement* for a title to be in tier 0.



What do you disagree with?


BRB, Dark City Director's Cut time.


----------



## RBFC

In my opinion, when a BD presents facial closeups, that can be used as an evaluative factor. The criteria for facial closeup quality aren't too hard to interpret objectively. Of course, great facial closeups should not save a film that has poor quality in other shots, etc.


If a film does not show facial closeups, then other subjects shown may be evaluated for detail and lack of post-processing (as well as original photographic quality). To expect facial closeups on ALL high-ranked BDs isn't realistic, since there are _Planet Earth_-like films that offer good quality without facial shots. There will also be more films that may not offer closeups, and they should have a fair chance of being rated on their merits.


Lee


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RBFC* /forum/post/15635529
> 
> 
> Of course, great facial closeups should not save a film that has poor quality in other shots, etc.



Agree -- Excellent point.


----------



## 42041

Well, going against any bit of common sense I possess, I just ordered a new TV







only a week or so until it's out with the LCD, and in with the Pioneer Kuro Elite







I can't wait.


I'll have to re-watch The Dark Knight and see if it's any more pleasant on a TV that can actually do the black levels justice...


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15635244
> 
> 
> What do you disagree with?



I'll just go ahead and address all of your post.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15634855
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, it is rare to find a feature film without ANY facial closeups. They are the most common shot in film making, and for good reason.



Exactly correct. As such, this issue would not even come up very often.



> Quote:
> With that said, facial closeups are the one thing we can truly be objective on when judging, because after all, we are all human and know what a face looks like up close. When we see a razor sharp, highly detailed face on blu ray is simply awesome because it looks as though we are looking right at the person in real life.



I agree with this too. It's just easier to relate being able to see someones skin pores as "being there" than some other subjects, mostly due to the fact that it is people faces that we see up close more than other items.



> Quote:
> I agree that if it so happens that a feature film has NO facial closeups, then yes, it needs to have something else to it that is extremely amazing and wowing.



I agree for the most part. I would prefer to phrase it as a movie either has lots of amazing detail and clarity or it doesn't. Amazing detail and clarity does NOT require a facial close up.




> Quote:
> As amazing as long establishing shots of scenery or cities may be, they still won't be able to exhibit the fine detail of a facial closeup because of the distance of the camera. Now, if it's full of closeups of other things, then we can have a discussion on how good those closeups look.



This is the part that I do not agree with. As I said before, a wide angle shot is absolutely capable of revealing fine detail and clarity. The notion that you have to have an extreme close up to show fine detail is wrong, and I think that is what you are implying here. If it's not, then disregard my disagreement!












> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RBFC* /forum/post/15635529
> 
> 
> In my opinion, when a BD presents facial closeups, that can be used as an evaluative factor. The criteria for facial closeup quality aren't too hard to interpret objectively. Of course, great facial closeups should not save a film that has poor quality in other shots, etc.
> 
> 
> If a film does not show facial closeups, then other subjects shown may be evaluated for detail and lack of post-processing (as well as original photographic quality). To expect facial closeups on ALL high-ranked BDs isn't realistic, since there are _Planet Earth_-like films that offer good quality without facial shots. There will also be more films that may not offer closeups, and they should have a fair chance of being rated on their merits.
> 
> 
> Lee



Bingo! Thanks Lee.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15635877
> 
> 
> Well, going against any bit of common sense I possess, I just ordered a new TV
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> only a week or so until it's out with the LCD, and in with the Pioneer Kuro Elite
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't wait.
> 
> 
> I'll have to re-watch The Dark Knight and see if it's any more pleasant on a TV that can actually do the black levels justice...



I have a friend who just bought the same set. Very sweet!










Which size did you get?


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15635971
> 
> 
> I have a friend who just bought the same set. Very sweet!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which size did you get?



Only the 50", but coming from a 40", I ain't complaining...


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15636024
> 
> 
> Only the 50", but coming from a 40", I ain't complaining...



Same size my friend has. You'll love it. He's still drooling over his! After you recover from the credit card bill, I recommend having it ISF calibrated in order to squeeze out every drop of performance, especially since the Elite has extra controls over the non-Elite version that an ISF tech can dial in.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15635877
> 
> 
> Well, going against any bit of common sense I possess, I just ordered a new TV
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> only a week or so until it's out with the LCD, and in with the Pioneer Kuro Elite
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't wait.
> 
> 
> I'll have to re-watch The Dark Knight and see if it's any more pleasant on a TV that can actually do the black levels justice...



Oh man, talk about a huge step up! Congrats man.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15635950
> 
> 
> This is the part that I do not agree with. As I said before, a wide angle shot is absolutely capable of revealing fine detail and clarity. The notion that you have to have an extreme close up to show fine detail is wrong, and I think that is what you are implying here. If it's not, then disregard my disagreement!



No, you're right, but I disagree that you disagree.










Of course there can be fine detail in long shots, but not as there would be in a closeup of that same building/scenery.


Think about real life, the closer you are to something, the more intricate details you can see.


----------



## HT.1

Well, for what it is worth, I suggest there should be no requirement of facial close-ups on a disc to make it eligible for Tier 0. This of course would be assuming that the rest of the movie/documentary/concert was reference quality.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

*Dark City*


I disagree with its current top Tier 3 placement. Comparing it to the Godfather, it is supremely better. Then again, I think the Godfather should be Mid Tier 3 at best.


Anyway, this film looks pretty damn good. Given the noir that it is, it holds lights and shadows very well. The production design and cinematography are top notch, every shot in the city is incredible.


Most shots show facial detail nicely, although there are quite a few soft shots here and there (especially of Connelly) and at the end on the pier. Some noise is found in the darker areas of the shots at points, but nothing distracting at all.
*Recommendation: Mid Tier 2*


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15632974
> 
> 
> I agree that close-ups should not be a requirement of course since some material simply never calls for them, but highly revealing facial detail in tight shots are almost always a good indicator for high-end picture quality. Facial details are the most relevant of course because humans' visual systems have evolved to distinguish facial differences more than any other object. But there are proxies for it that work almost as well in revealing excellent high-frequency information. Fabric textures and well delineated, individual strands of hair are some of the other items I look for in the best transfers. Blades of grass should also look great.



Wait till you see Swing Vote as it is the exception to the rule that usually excellent PQ almost always has excellent facial closeups. Swing Vote maybe the same if not better PQ at times than the Pirates films except for one area, the facial closeups. Swing Vote seems to intentionally blur them. I don't think it is DNR, but it could be as well as simply having the camera out of focus for a brief time while filming the facial closeups. The whites are a bit hot and that lends some of the facial closeups looking washed out.


Here are some pics from it. When selecting them they can be zoomed by clicking on them again. It really gives a good idea how clear and detailed this BD is. IF not for the facial closeups I would say with Swing Vote we have a new live action BD king or at least a close rival to the Pirates movies.



http://www.movieweb.com/gallery/PGnq...OtMQSUqdSJzZ12 



I looked at HD Digest and Peter Bracke's review of Swing Vote and he is clueless.







Eye candy this title is.


----------



## Hughmc

Suprslow congratulations on the news.


42041 enjoy your new display.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15634856
> 
> *Max Payne*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with the PQ on this one varying a lot. More so that most movies. I had a hard time trying to pin this one down because of the variance, but throughout most of it I was going back and forth between Tier 1.75 to Tier 2.0.
> 
> 
> I could live with either of those.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75 to 2.0*
> 
> 
> 
> P.S. The SQ was excellent (even if the bass was actually a bit hot), but the movie itself wasn't very good at all.



It is hard to rate these ones isn't it? When the PQ ranges from tier 0-4 and spends most of its time in mid tier 1, my thought while watching is always, where the bleep is this going to go.










I have seen a half dozen titles or more like this and they do seem to end up about the same place.


----------



## Deviation




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15636576
> 
> *Dark City*
> 
> 
> I disagree with its current top Tier 3 placement. Comparing it to the Godfather, it is supremely better. Then again, I think the Godfather should be Mid Tier 3 at best.
> 
> 
> Anyway, this film looks pretty damn good. Given the noir that it is, it holds lights and shadows very well. The production design and cinematography are top notch, every shot in the city is incredible.
> 
> 
> Most shots show facial detail nicely, although there are quite a few soft shots here and there (especially of Connelly) and at the end on the pier. Some noise is found in the darker areas of the shots at points, but nothing distracting at all.
> *Recommendation: Mid Tier 2*



I have to strongly agree with your assessment of Dark City if you think it belongs in tier 2. It's a smeary DNR mess on par with Patton with instances of ringing as well. Then again, for that matter, I think Patton should be lowered to tier 3.


DNR isn't a total killer for me - For example, I still think Pan's Labyrinth and The Golden Compass provide great images. Pan's Labyrinth is right where it belongs in lower/mid tier 1, as far as I'm concerned. I might even raise up The Golden Compass a bit if I had my way.


But Patton and Dark City really suffer just from the pure severity of the DNR applied. On a front projection setup, both titles (which are both movies I love) are kinda hard to watch just because the people look so incredibly unnatural. It's a real shame as both movies obviously have worthwhile masters and the encoder decided to do some awful things to them.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Deviation* /forum/post/15636881
> 
> 
> I have to strongly agree with your assessment of Dark City if you think it belongs in tier 2. It's a smeary DNR mess on par with Patton with instances of ringing as well. Then again, for that matter, I think Patton should be lowered to tier 3.
> 
> 
> DNR isn't a total killer for me - For example, I still think Pan's Labyrinth and The Golden Compass provide great images. Pan's Labyrinth is right where it belongs in lower/mid tier 1, as far as I'm concerned. I might even raise up The Golden Compass a bit if I had my way.
> 
> 
> But Patton and Dark City really suffer just from the pure severity of the DNR applied. On a front projection setup, both titles (which are both movies I love) are kinda hard to watch just because the people look so incredibly unnatural. It's a real shame as both movies obviously have worthwhile masters and the encoder decided to do some awful things to them.



Well I am only recommending moving it up 1/4th to 1/2 a Tier, it's nothing drastic.


I mentioned the soft faces, I am not so sure about it being smeared with DNR though. I haven't seen Patton, but based on the screens of it, Dark City isn't anywhere close.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15636524
> 
> 
> No, you're right, but I disagree that you disagree.














> Quote:
> Of course there can be fine detail in long shots, but not as there would be in a closeup of that same building/scenery.
> 
> 
> Think about real life, the closer you are to something, the more intricate details you can see.



Got ya! I see what you are saying. It's really a matter of _perspective_. You are obviously correct that you will see different details up close than you do from a distance.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15637089
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got ya! I see what you are saying. It's really a matter of _perspective_. You are obviously correct that you will see different details up close than you do from a distance.


----------



## stumlad

*Max Payne*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15636614
> 
> 
> It is hard to rate these ones isn't it? When the PQ ranges from tier 0-4 and spends most of its time in mid tier 1, my thought while watching is always, where the bleep is this going to go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have seen a half dozen titles or more like this and they do seem to end up about the same place.



I'd be happy with *Tier 1.75 or 2.0*. It had a desaturated look with the added trendy blue push which kinda made it look dull ... There was a lot of detail but not like Shoot em up or Sin City.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15634855
> 
> 
> With that said, facial closeups are the one thing we can truly be objective on when judging, because after all, we are all human and know what a face looks like up close. When we see a razor sharp, highly detailed face on blu ray is simply awesome because it looks as though we are looking right at the person in real life.



I disagree completely. When I watch a movie on Blu-ray, I'm not looking at a person; I'm looking at a person as interpreted by a cinematographer through a medium involving lighting design, a lens system and (usually) photographic emulsion. If a close-up feels to me as if I'm actually looking at a real person, it can be a fun and exciting experience, but it isn't one I'm looking for and it isn't one I expect or desire from a movie on Blu-ray because it isn't necessarily how the movie is supposed to look.


I know this is the "director's intent" argument, which has no business in this thread. That's totally fine with me and I have no problem ignoring that with respect to my considerations for this thread. However, even though I will not consider "director's intent" when I rate for this thread, I cannot agree that a facial close-up of a person in a movie is something that can be universally compared against an arbitrary and inflexible standard.


Take, for example, the POV shots of the Scarecrow's psychedelic drug victims in Batman Begins. Sure, they are facial close-ups of Cillian Murphy, but that is not the _only_ content of those shots. They also use a distortion effect to convey the delirium of the drug and this is just as much the subject of the shot as is Cillian Murphy's face.


Now other examples of the impact of storytelling agenda on a close-up may not often be as obvious, but I defy anyone to find a single facial close-up in the history of cinema in which the only subject is a person's face. If you can find such a shot, I will happily judge it only on the merits of the accurate representation of that face and the similarity of the shot to the experience of looking at a living person. Until then, just because I'm going to ignore "director's intent" in here doesn't mean I have to pretend that a facial close-up is _only_ a facial close-up any more than a shot of a fire truck is a shot of an asparagus plant.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15637163
> 
> *Max Payne*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be happy with *Tier 1.75 or 2.0*. It had a desaturated look with the added trendy blue push which kinda made it look dull ... There was a lot of detail but not like Shoot em up or Sin City.



So, you are taking the easy way out too, huh?










We should probably try to decide between 1.75 or 2.0, since they are actually completely different tiers.


To me, if it is this close (and it is) I personally would probably prefer to rate it in the lower tier, with the idea of keeping our standards high.


So, I will go back and change my vote from "between 1.75 to 2.0" to Tier 2.0.


----------



## spectator

That's a dangerous game you play, Rob. While there's something to be said for skepticism, I don't think arbitrarily choosing the lower rating does any service to the protection of a "higher standard". If something that potentially meets a higher standard is arbitrarily knocked down, the standard is being ignored and this devalues it just as much (if not more). It cuts both ways.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15637233
> 
> 
> That's a dangerous game you play, Rob. While there's something to be said for skepticism, I don't think arbitrarily choosing the lower rating does any service to the protection of a "higher standard". If something that potentially meets a higher standard is arbitrarily knocked down, the standard is being ignored and this devalues it just as much (if not more). It cuts both ways.



I understand exactly what you are saying, and in hindsight I could have phrased it better.


What I should have said is that the title is a close call between tier 1.75 and 2.0, and the reason for that is trying to determine how much to knock it down for the less impressive shots. Intead of recommending it for the higher tier 1 placement (which should be reserved for superb looking titles) I prefer to recommend 2.0 because of so many less than impressive scenes in this film.


Frankly, where I really screwed up was not giving a definitive recommendation to begin with.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15637279
> 
> 
> Intead of recommending it for the higher tier 1 placement (which should be reserved for superb looking titles) I prefer to recommend 2.0 because of so many less than impressive scenes in this film.



I like your reasoning here. I think the way to a decision is to look at the text describing the categorical "brush" you're going to "tar" it with.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15637311
> 
> 
> I like your reasoning here. I think the way to a decision is to look at the text describing the categorical "brush" you're going to "tar" it with.



Eh?


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15637311
> 
> 
> I like your reasoning here. I think the way to a decision is to look at the text describing the categorical "brush" you're going to "tar" it with.













You need to take a breather I think.


----------



## Deviation




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15636936
> 
> 
> Well I am only recommending moving it up 1/4th to 1/2 a Tier, it's nothing drastic.
> 
> 
> I mentioned the soft faces, I am not so sure about it being smeared with DNR though. I haven't seen Patton, but based on the screens of it, Dark City isn't anywhere close.



Most of the faces in Dark City look like they do in the following shots:
http://www.imageviper.com/displayima...VSxylonbd1.png 
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u...y/ec6b4ae7.png 


These faces have no detail at all. It's really, truly ugly. You can see more in the comparison thread: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1053561


----------



## HT.1

*Traitor*

I just watched Traitor last night.

Great movie.

I agree with the current tier1 assessment.
*I think I would rank Traitor right in the middle of tier1.*

For the most part, I felt the image was pretty sharp through the whole movie, but I noticed some softness on some of the facial close-ups.

Colors were vibrant and life-like. Shadow detail was close to what I would consider tier0 quality.

The bottom line, if I were showing off my theater, I can think of many other movies that I would use to show off my new home theater set-up.

Panasonic AE3000 sitting 9 feet from the screen.


I also just watched Wall-E and was very impressed.

I'll have to watch it again and gather my thoughts for a ranking.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15638040
> 
> *The Last Emperor*
> 
> 
> 2:1, 1987, Criterion
> 
> 
> Here is another title destined for controversy. If you haven't already heard, Emperor was originally released in a 2.35:1 aspect ratio, but here Criterion, at the insistence of the Cinematographer, Vittorio Storaro, with the approval of Bernardo Bertolucci, has released the blu-ray in 2:1. As you know, this means some information has been lost from the sides of the frame. Most of the time this is not particularly distracting, but I have to say that I really would have preferred the original aspect ratio -- I think it added to the epic feel of the film and even though, once you accept the new aspect ratio, it is mostly not a distraction, it does noticeably intrude a few times and you become aware of the effect of the new framing. Natural grain is intact and consistent throughout, *some thin ringing noted a few times on high contrast edges*. Some are going be disappointed because *occasionally there are scenes with a slightly soft and dim appearance*. Personally, I believe this is due to Mr. Storaro's exquisite and masterful use of soft natural light. It takes a lot of skill to shoot in such light and to achieve the type of results he does. If you consider the _quality_ of the light Mr. Storaro captures and the amount of shadow detail you're getting, you'll be impressed. IMO, it is really beautiful. Having said that, I recognize this will not be to everyone's liking and even for me, although I will be happy to screen this for guests, this will keep Emperor from being demo material. *Black levels are excellent*, detail is not always as apparent as it might have been with more light, but there are *plenty of sharper scenes with more light, lots of detail, saturation, excellent contrast, beautiful use of color, faces detailed down to the pores and imperfections, exquisite fine detail in fabric and clothing, single strands of hair, arresting imagery, and impressive scenery*. Aspect ratio issues aside, this is a significant upgrade in PQ from the DVD and unless the film maker changes his mind and approves another release with the original aspect ratio, this is likely the best option you're going to have if you want to collect this title.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 2.25*
> 
> 
> Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From Screen



My take on your excellent review is that if the first two highlighted areas above are the only negatives, it should be given a higher rating. I say this because the last highlighted sentence sounds so incredible it practically eclipses the flaws. Regarding the change in AR, will one even notice if they are not familiar with the original?


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15637454
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to take a breather I think.










I do? What do you not understand about my post? Seems perfectly reasonable and intelligible to me...


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15639114
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do? What do you not understand about my post? Seems perfectly reasonable and intelligible to me...



I didn't get it either.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15639796
> 
> 
> I didn't get it either.



That makes three of us!


----------



## spectator

You guys didn't get my post or didn't get LBFilmGuy's reaction to it?


If you're talking about my post, all I was saying is that when you're on the fence about the precise numbering of a title, you can use the text explanation of the tiers to guide you to the one you feel best characterizes it.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15639941
> 
> 
> You guys didn't get my post or didn't get LBFilmGuy's reaction to it?
> 
> 
> If you're talking about my post, all I was saying is that when you're on the fence about the precise numbering of a title, you can use the text explanation of the tiers to guide you to the one you feel best characterizes it.



ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh


----------



## FoxyMulder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *agcohn* /forum/post/15639908
> 
> 
> 2.35:1 is not the format that "The Last Emperor" was shot on. That is just the aspect ratio of its original theatrical release.
> 
> 
> 2:1 is the original aspect ratio of the film, so it is most certainly not losing material from the sides. Instead, material was added back onto the top and bottom of the print.



It was shot and framed for a theatrical scope 2.35:1 presentation using Technovision cameras as indeed was Apocalypse Now.


It is losing information at each side and if you do some research into Storaro you will understand why he is doing this....He is wrong to do it.


You are mistakingly thinking this was shot Super 35 where extra information can be in the top and bottom part of the frame and it wasn't and there is no extra information there.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FoxyMulder* /forum/post/15640000
> 
> 
> It was shot and framed for a theatrical scope 2.35:1 presentation using Technovision cameras as indeed was Apocalypse Now.
> 
> 
> It is losing information at each side and if you do some research into Storaro you will understand why he is doing this....He is wrong to do it.
> 
> 
> You are mistakingly thinking this was shot Super 35 where extra information can be in the top and bottom part of the frame and it wasn't and there is no extra information there.



Exactly. And I see that he deleted his post.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15641323
> 
> 
> This was a tough one for me to score, but ultimately I always try to come back to a few guiding principles; Ultimately, where would I rank this if I were making a list for someone visiting our thread looking for demo material? Since I have to admit that since even though I will not hesitate to screen the title for guests interested in seeing what I consider to be a very good transfer of *The Last Emperor* to blu-ray, and even though I will probably end up enjoying the title more than those who will perhaps find the softer scenes more objectionable, I still would not use the title as a demo disc, so I cannot in good conscience recommend it to the demo tiers 0 or 1.0 through 1.75.
> 
> *I have listed the virtues one can expect to find, but I did not feel these virtues were exhibited consistently enough to warrant a higher ranking.*
> 
> 
> I also do not feel that 2.25 is a negative recommendation by any means. These days, I believe one can find very solid, very watchable high resolution software in tiers 2.0 through 2.75.



You make a very good case for your suggested placement, and if the virtues "were [not] exhibited consistently enough to warrant a higher ranking" then you made a good choice. I was just thrown a bit by all the superlatives you used to describe the virtues you saw and it made me think it may at least be a candidate for Tier 1.


At any rate, Tier 2 is not, as you indicated, a negative recommendation. I agree wholeheartedly with that.


Well, I just got back from the video store where I rented Traitor, so it's off to the land of Blu-ray for me!


----------



## rsbeck

Djoberg -- Did you rent Youth Without Youth last night? I've ordered it. I was looking forward to your review!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15641731
> 
> 
> Djoberg -- Did you rent Youth Without Youth last night? I've ordered it. I was looking forward to your review!



Our local stores only had the SD version, so I'll either have to start renting with Netflix again or else buy it.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Strangers*


recommendation: *Tier 2.5*


Since my recommendation is the same as the current placement, I will not do my usual style of review. I was a little disappointed by this transfer from Universal overall considering it is a new release from the last six months. The original photography on the film appears dark and murky but it does not look like a lot of care was taken in transferring this film to Blu-ray.


Good compression work leaves no obvious defects, so problems should not be visible. But this very low average bitrate VC-1 encode on a BD-25 leaves a lot to be desired. The encode is credited to Deluxe Digital Studios, who have done excellent work on many Blu-rays for other studios, so I am not quite sure what went wrong here. Without having any inside information, I have to believe this movie would look much better if Universal had taken full advantage of Blu-ray's technical limits.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...9#post15129789


----------



## djoberg

*Traitor* had many redeeming qualities and I would go along with its current rating of *Tier 1.75*, though I could just as easily agree with a Tier 1.50 placement.


More than anything, I was very impressed with the skin tones and facial close-ups (which easily met the criteria for Tier 0); they were remarkable in almost every scene except for a few scenes with high contrast where some detail was lost. Blacks were spot on as was shadow detail. Colors were natural, but somewhat muted at times. Sharpness, detail, and depth were all present as well, but there were a few scenes with heavy grain where these three virtues suffered the most. Scenes with light grain (and there were many) were excellent, giving it a nice film look without hindering sharpness and detail. I did detect a little digital noise, but only a couple of times. Overall it is a nice transfer and definitely worthy of a Tier 1 ranking.


The movie itself: I enjoyed it, though I'm a real sucker for political thrillers and so I'm usually quite biased. Don Cheadle and Guy Pearce were at the top of their game, IMO.


----------



## rsbeck

*Election*


2.35:1, 1999


Fine to medium grain apparent throughout, no ringing or halos noted. Election is a quirky off-beat dialogue driven comedy with very little emphasis on the visuals. Everything here is sharp and well saturated, but there is very little opportunity for impressive detail. Faces are generally not lit or shot in order to exhibit fine detail, but it does become apparent in a few scenes. Having said all of that, Election is proficiently shot and transfered and this very watchable edition is a significant improvement over the DVD.

*Recommendation: tier 3.50*


Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From 126" Screen


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15642311
> 
> *The Strangers*
> 
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 2.5*
> 
> 
> Since my recommendation is the same as the current placement, I will not do my usual style of review. I was a little disappointed by this transfer from Universal overall considering it is a new release from the last six months. The original photography on the film appears dark and murky but it does not look like a lot of care was taken in transferring this film to Blu-ray.
> 
> 
> Good compression work leaves no obvious defects, so problems should not be visible. But this very low average bitrate VC-1 encode on a BD-25 leaves a lot to be desired. The encode is credited to Deluxe Digital Studios, who have done excellent work on many Blu-rays for other studios, so I am not quite sure what went wrong here. Without having any inside information, I have to believe this movie would look much better if Universal had taken full advantage of Blu-ray's technical limits.
> 
> 
> BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...9#post15129789



I agree with everything you said re The Strangers. I voted for tier 2.75, so we are close, but I appear to have knocked it down a tad more for the reasons that you have stated above.


----------



## agcohn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15641447
> 
> 
> Exactly. And I see that he deleted his post.



I was incorrect. I had read an article by Storaro, in which he had said that 2:1 was always his and Bertolucci's intended format for the film, but that they had to compromise on 2.35:1 for the theatrical release.


Because it wouldn't make sense for them to shoot the film anamorphic if that wasn't what they intended, I had assumed that they had shot it 2:1 but cropped to 2.35:1. Obviously, I was incorrect.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *agcohn* /forum/post/15643200
> 
> 
> I was incorrect. I had read an article by Storaro, in which he had said that 2:1 was always his and Bertolucci's intended format for the film, but that they had to compromise on 2.35:1 for the theatrical release.
> 
> 
> Because it wouldn't make sense for them to shoot the film anamorphic if that wasn't what they intended, I had assumed that they had shot it 2:1 but cropped to 2.35:1. Obviously, I was incorrect.



Nobody could blame you for the confusion, that's for sure. Frankly none if it really makes sense to me.


P.S. Welcome to the forum and the thread.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15643065
> 
> 
> I agree with everything you said re The Strangers. I voted for tier 2.75, so we are close, but I appear to have knocked it down a tad more for the reasons that you have stated above.



To be honest I could easily see it placed in tier 2.75. When we went to the quarter-division system I think we lost just a little bit of latitude placing titles exactly.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15642828
> 
> *Election*
> 
> 
> 2.35:1, 1999
> 
> 
> Fine to medium grain apparent throughout, no ringing or halos noted. Election is a quirky off-beat dialogue driven comedy with very little emphasis on the visuals. Everything here is sharp and well saturated, but there is very little opportunity for impressive detail. Faces are generally not lit or shot in order to exhibit fine detail, but it does become apparent in a few scenes. Having said all of that, Election is proficiently shot and transfered and this very watchable edition is a significant improvement over the DVD.
> 
> *Recommendation: tier 3.50*



I watched it a few hours ago. Huge improvement over the DVD! My major issue with the transfer was the appearance of speckles everywhere!









Without them, this would easily be top of Tier 3 material. I agree with your placement.



*Election

Tier Recommendation: Tier 3.50

PS3-Samsung 46" 1080p-seven*'


----------



## lgans316

*Dark Knight, The Video: VC-1 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40/1.78:1 | Warner*


I might be slammed for the below but let me say what I think.

*Positive points*
IMAX shots
Daylight scenes

*Negative points*
Artificially sharpened imagery of the non-IMAX portions.
Grain rendering and structure doesn't look natural. It looks enhanced and digital due to sharpening.
Aspect ratio change for IMAX sequences from 1.40:1 to 1.78:1.
Slight black crush in few dark sequences.
Some sort of flickering during the daylight IMAX shots, noticeable from a distance of
Way too many scenes exhibiting moire and aliasing on my Plasma.


After viewing TDK, I immediately viewed Batman Begins and despite BB looking soft and filtered, it didn't have the unnatural and artificially sharpened look of TDK.


Tier recommendation: *Tier 1.75*


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15643874
> 
> 
> I agree with your placement.



Excellent -- Thanks!


----------



## rsbeck

*Henry Poole is Here*


2.35:1, 2008


Fine natural grain apparent and consistent throughout, very thin ringing noted a few times on high contrast edges. Henry Poole is a quirky, off-beat, heartfelt dramedy that is mostly dialogue driven and set in pretty mundane surroundings. Still, film maker provides lots of close-ups with ultra-fine detail; pores and imperfections, peach fuzz, single strands of hair with subtle variation visible from one strand to the next, strands of eyebrow, eyelash, stubble, camera seems to caress not just the actors, but surfaces, turning a stucco wall, for example, into a sharp detailed moonscape. Scenes are lit a little on the hot side at times, but there are also scenes employing artful use of light and shadow where contrast and shadow detail are excellent. Color and saturation feel good. Very organic, consistent, natural looking, easy to watch blu-ray.

*Recommendation: Tier 1.75*


Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From 126" Screen


----------



## FoxyMulder

I would like to nominate Scary Movie for Tier 5 as it fits the criteria for that tier perfectly.


I believe the thread would lose it's integrity if this movie is placed anywhere except Tier 5 as it does not fit into the criteria for Tier 4 which demands a decent picture and yet with all the excess DNR and edge enhancement Scary Movie is robbed of every last ounce of HD detail and for good measure ugly edge enhancement is added to pretend it's sharper than it actually is.


Now it's my belief that in the case of Scary Movie this EE and DNR could be baked into the master but it's still a firm Tier 5 all the way. Those with smaller screens please imagine just how bad it gets when viewing on a large projection system as EE and DNR on smaller sets doesn't look nearly as bad and i say that from personal experience as i haven't always had a projection system.


I nominate The Simpsons for Tier 2


It contains ringing as a result of a low pass filter which also removes some of the finer detail which should be present on this animated title. Tier 1 demands better than this with no ringing thus i think moving it to Tier 2 is appropriate.


I nominate Crank for Tier 2 as although it looks super sharp the reason for this is edge enhancement as it was sharpened post production at the approval of the director. Films with edge enhancement can not be considered demo reference material and the edge enhancement is consistent throughout the film and those with very large sets or projection systems will easily notice this issue. Having a small halo around images and people should disqualify any film from being true reference and so i vote it for Tier 2


I also nominate Pirates of the Caribbean - Curse of the Black Pearl for Tier 1 since it also suffers from mild edge enhancement and thus cannot be considered true demo reference material. The sequels though are Demo all the way.


I would nominate 3:10 to Yuma for Tier 2 as it contains aliasing ( jaggies ) from the beginning of the film all the way to the end - If that issue wasn't there then i think Tier 1 but since it is it can be very distracting and an issue for Tier 1 which requires video artifacts being next to nothing...Obviously video artifacts in the form of jaggies are there from the start to the finish of the movie thus Tier 2.


I'm not sure why Pan's Labyrinth is in Tier 1.5 and would personally move that to Tier 3 since it has had excess DNR applied and fine detail is destroyed thus it's hardly demo material as regards this thread and its softer than it should be thus Tier 3 recommendation.


I would have Total Recall in Tier 3 also.


I would nominate Con Air for Tier 4


I would like to recommend the German Import version of Silent Hill be placed in Tier 1


I would also recommend The X Files - Fight The Future is placed in Tier 3


I would recommend placing The Untouchables in Tier 4 since image HD detail is destroyed through use of DNR and the films backgrounds have a frozen grain structure which looks absolutely hideous.


I recommend Romancing The Stone be placed in Tier 1.5 as it's image is sharp and detailed and it has no ee or dnr applied to it and is one of the finest catalogue titles to hit the Blu Ray format to date.


I would recommend moving Face/Off to Tier 4 since it has high levels of DNR which destroy the detail levels and cause smearing in motion and frankly it looks ugly on larger screens because of this.


I would recommend Tier 5 for Evil Dead 2 - There are screencaps on AVS showing that the original DVD release has MORE detail than this abomination of a transfer thus it belongs in Tier 5


I would have First Blood in Tier 5 due to lack of HD detail and smoothing/smearing issues due to overuse of DNR.


I recommend Tier 2 for The Dark Knight due to the 35mm filmed scenes looking a little too processed with EE thus not Demo.


Whether everyone sees some of these issues is relevant to your screen size and viwing distances but since this is a Demo material thread i believe the worst looking titles which have excess DNR or EE or Aliasing or other major issues should be moved down the list because otherwise people will rent or buy these and perhaps view on their large screen projection systems and be disappointed.


----------



## djoberg

FoxyMulder,


That's quite the list you've come up with! I don't have time this morning to respond to all the titles I'd like to, but I will say right now that you are very harsh on some titles. Take, for example, The Dark Knight and Pan's Labyrinth. These two titles were debated at length and both of them were finally placed where they currently are based on an averaging of MANY votes. Many of us thought they were placed too low, but we bowed to the voices of our fellow-members. Your recommendations for these two are, to put it bluntly, ridiculous.


I don't say this to be cruel, but IMO you are too obsessed with EE and DNR and this obsession is causing you to be too critical with movies that are indeed "demo material." You have a right to your opinion, but in my opinion you are way off base.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15645549
> 
> 
> FoxyMulder,
> 
> 
> That's quite the list you've come up with! I don't have time this morning to respond to all the titles I'd like to, but I will say right now that you are very harsh on some titles. Take, for example, The Dark Knight and Pan's Labyrinth. These two titles were debated at length and both of them were finally placed where they currently are based on an averaging of MANY votes. Many of us thought they were placed too low, but we bowed to the voices of our fellow-members. Your recommendations for these two are, to put it bluntly, ridiculous.
> 
> *I don't say this to be cruel, but IMO you are too obsessed with EE and DNR and this obsession is causing you to be too critical with movies that are indeed "demo material." You have a right to your opinion, but in my opinion you are way off base.*



Surely there must be a more balanced way of expressing disagreement than this.


----------



## FoxyMulder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15645549
> 
> 
> FoxyMulder,
> 
> 
> That's quite the list you've come up with! I don't have time this morning to respond to all the titles I'd like to, but I will say right now that you are very harsh on some titles. Take, for example, The Dark Knight and Pan's Labyrinth. These two titles were debated at length and both of them were finally placed where they currently are based on an averaging of MANY votes. Many of us thought they were placed too low, but we bowed to the voices of our fellow-members. Your recommendations for these two are, to put it bluntly, ridiculous.
> 
> 
> I don't say this to be cruel, but IMO you are too obsessed with EE and DNR and this obsession is causing you to be too critical with movies that are indeed "demo material." You have a right to your opinion, but in my opinion you are way off base.



I guess thats why i don't take part in this thread more often because people dismiss EE/DNR as being irrelevant to how the image quality looks when it's very relevant but to answer your point....No i am not obsessed with EE and DNR but i do know a Demo reference title when i see it and i thought my opinions came with valid points but instead you chuck the derogatory "obsessed with DNR/EE line at me".


I was reading the Tier descriptions when i came up with my recommendations and i believe you should read them closely too and then tell me why The Dark Knight and Pans Labyrinth deserve to be so high on a Demo material thread. The descriptions clearly talk about artifacts when deciding on placement and what is EE if not an artifact that shouldn't be there.


I do not believe Pans Labyrinth should be where it is as there are superior editions of it available from overseas without the filtering.


How you can possibly think a filtered of its high frequencies thus robbed of the very finest detail possible Blu Ray should be high on the Tiers is beyond me and your only response is to say its ridiculous. If the highest possible detail is missing due to filtering then how can it be reference ?


Perhaps you should think carefully what a Demo - Reference thread should be about if you are so willing to allow mediocre transfers a high place on your lists - Indeed not your lists but OUR lists as it belongs to us all.


----------



## RBFC




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FoxyMulder* /forum/post/15645829
> 
> 
> Indeed not your lists but OUR lists as it belongs to us all.



It's very hard to keep our personal preferences out of our submissions here. The advancement of those personal preferences (and the vehement attempts to have others adopt that viewpoint) caused the closure of this thread recently.


I may be the only one writing these opinions, but I believe that there are many folks who read this thread in disbelief. The lack of structure and flow, coupled with the intermittent bickering, make it very hard to discern what comments are entered about any single title.


Why don't one of the interested parties begin a separate thread where a consensus on "how to evaluate the criteria in PQ ratings" can be reached? This would eliminate the scattered approach to the ratings thread.


IMO,


Lee


----------



## Steeb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15645549
> 
> 
> FoxyMulder,
> 
> 
> That's quite the list you've come up with! I don't have time this morning to respond to all the titles I'd like to, but I will say right now that you are very harsh on some titles. Take, for example, The Dark Knight and Pan's Labyrinth. These two titles were debated at length and both of them were finally placed where they currently are based on an averaging of MANY votes. Many of us thought they were placed too low, but we bowed to the voices of our fellow-members. *Your recommendations for these two are, to put it bluntly, ridiculous.*
> 
> *I don't say this to be cruel, but IMO you are too obsessed with EE and DNR and this obsession is causing you to be too critical with movies that are indeed "demo material." You have a right to your opinion, but in my opinion you are way off base*.



Wow. That's very open-minded of you, djoberg.


I don't see how you guys can ever expect to have more than a handful of people contributing when you have regulars posting responses like the one above.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FoxyMulder* /forum/post/15645829
> 
> 
> I was reading the Tier descriptions when i came up with my recommendations and i believe you should read them closely too and then tell me why The Dark Knight and Pans Labyrinth deserve to be so high on a Demo material thread. The descriptions clearly talk about artifacts when deciding on placement and what is EE if not an artifact that shouldn't be there.
> 
> 
> I do not believe Pans Labyrinth should be where it is as there are superior editions of it available from overseas without the filtering.
> 
> 
> How you can possibly think a filtered of its high frequencies thus robbed of the very finest detail possible Blu Ray should be high on the Tiers is beyond me and your only response is to say its ridiculous. If the highest possible detail is missing due to filtering then how can it be reference ?
> 
> 
> Perhaps you should think carefully what a Demo - Reference thread should be about if you are so willing to allow mediocre transfers a high place on your lists - *Indeed not your lists but OUR lists as it belongs to us all.*



Well said.


I welcome your thoughts here, and even if I disagree with some of your recommended placements, you obviously put a lot of thought into your post, and stated clearly your reasons for your opinions and how they correlate to the Tier descriptions.


We can't ask for more than that.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FoxyMulder* /forum/post/15645829
> 
> 
> I do not believe Pans Labyrinth should be where it is as there are superior editions of it available from overseas without the filtering.



I have yet to see the US release, but I recently received the UK release of Pan's Labrynth, so I can review that one and if it is superior to the US release, at least we should recommend the better version. Have you seen the UK release? If so, where would you recommend it be placed?


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Mamma Mia!*


Well, my wife finally forced me to sit through this movie. As I said previously, I am generally not a fan of musicals, so I was quite fearful that this one would be somewhat painful to sit through.


Well, my fears were, indeed, well founded! This was not very enjoyable for me at all. In fact, seeing Pierce Brosnan trying to sing was like listening to fingernails on a chalkboard. Truly horrendous.










As for the PQ, color me unimpressed. We have just had a rather extensive discussion in this thread about the importance of facial details. Well, there are virtually NO facial details to be seen here! And no, I am not exaggerating. Something is wrong here. Whether it is DNR or intentional digital airbrushing I don't know (I would guess the latter) but it is extremely noticeable. Skin texture is very smoothed out and "plugged". Skin pores? Where?


Then there are the colors. They are off. Not only are they over saturated, but there is a red/yellow tint as well. Skin tones do not look good at all.


Now, the strange thing is, regarding detail, there is actually some decent detail to be seen in other objects....just not the skin tones (which may be indicative of intentional digital airbrushing).


Contrast, depth, and black levels are all very good to excellent.


So, there are some good attributes here, but I was definitely very much distracted by the lack of facial detail and the over saturated colors that looked very "pasty".


I feel very confident in my review of this disc, due to the simple fact that pretty much the only thing I did through it's entirety was pay attention to the PQ as the movie itself did less than nothing for me.








*Tier Recommendation: 2.75*


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FoxyMulder* /forum/post/15645829
> 
> *I guess thats why i don't take part in this thread more often because people dismiss EE/DNR as being irrelevant to how the image quality looks when it's very relevant* but to answer your point....No i am not obsessed with EE and DNR but i do know a Demo reference title when i see it and i thought my opinions came with valid points but instead you chuck the derogatory "obsessed with DNR/EE line at me".
> 
> 
> I was reading the Tier descriptions when i came up with my recommendations and i believe you should read them closely too and then tell me why The Dark Knight and Pans Labyrinth deserve to be so high on a Demo material thread. The descriptions clearly talk about artifacts when deciding on placement and what is EE if not an artifact that shouldn't be there.
> 
> 
> I do not believe Pans Labyrinth should be where it is as there are superior editions of it available from overseas without the filtering.
> 
> 
> How you can possibly think a filtered of its high frequencies thus robbed of the very finest detail possible Blu Ray should be high on the Tiers is beyond me and your only response is to say its ridiculous. If the highest possible detail is missing due to filtering then how can it be reference ?
> 
> 
> Perhaps you should think carefully what a Demo - Reference thread should be about if you are so willing to allow mediocre transfers a high place on your lists - Indeed not your lists but OUR lists as it belongs to us all.



There are multiple points of view expressed in this thread, and I, for one, am in total agreement with you about the fact that EE and DNR are very serious PQ flaws. I hope you will not take one response as being representative of everyone who participates in this thread.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15647103
> 
> 
> There are multiple points of view expressed in this thread, and I, for one, am in total agreement with you about the fact that EE and *DNR are very serious PQ flaws.*



Then why were you so generous in your rating of Mamma Mia?!


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15647273
> 
> 
> Then why were you so generous in your rating of Mamma Mia?!



I must have been temporarily seduced by the enduring power of the ABBA music into overlooking it . . .


----------



## Rob Tomlin




----------



## rsbeck

There are a lot of aspects that go into PQ and we have a variety of reviewers here. What unites us all is a desire to recommend titles with the best possible PQ according to a set of criteria. It goes without saying that we all weigh various virtues and flaws differently. Personally, I appreciate that Foxy's recommendations show a familiarity with the criteria, that he takes the aims of this thread seriously, that he wants to to help make the best possible recommendations.


We're not always going to agree here and since we want to make the best recommendations possible, challenge and passionate debate is always interesting and healthy as long as we try to keep it at least _relatively_ civil.


It can be a messy process here. Anyone coming into the thread should understand that. But, over time, though we may go through some rough water, and though it may not be on one's preferred time-line, we usually get things right eventually.


"Oculi plus vident quam oculus." - "Several eyes see more than only one."


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15646930
> 
> 
> I feel very confident in my review of this disc, due to the simple fact that pretty much the only thing I did through it's entirety was pay attention to the PQ



I feel your pain. 



> Quote:
> Tier Recommendation: 2.75



Exactly where I originally recommended.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15647571
> 
> 
> I feel your pain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly where I originally recommended.



Good to know.


I actually looked for a review by you, but I couldn't find it using the search feature? Can you link to it?


----------



## Deviation




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FoxyMulder* /forum/post/15645207
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why Pan's Labyrinth is in Tier 1.5 and would personally move that to Tier 3 since it has had excess DNR applied and fine detail is destroyed thus it's hardly demo material as regards this thread and its softer than it should be thus Tier 3 recommendation.



It's my opinion that people seriously overstate the amount of DNR present in Pan's Labyrinth. While it is there and it can be seen it's nowhere near the level present in some of the atrocities out there and there is still a huge amount of detail present. Even on a front projection setup, Pan's Labyrinth is just loaded with detail and eye candy. If it wasn't for the DNR, it'd be tier 0 material but as it is, I think the furthest I'd move it down is to 1.75.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15647622
> 
> 
> Can you link to it?



Here's a post which quotes my original review and recommendation of 2.75 and asks me to raise my recommendation.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...3#post15395753 


Read the discussion that follows and here's the post where I agree to move my recommendation up .25 to make it 2.5.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...7#post15397417


----------



## FoxyMulder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Deviation* /forum/post/15647681
> 
> 
> It's my opinion that people seriously overstate the amount of DNR present in Pan's Labyrinth. While it is there and it can be seen it's nowhere near the level present in some of the atrocities out there and there is still a huge amount of detail present. Even on a front projection setup, Pan's Labyrinth is just loaded with detail and eye candy. If it wasn't for the DNR, it'd be tier 0 material but as it is, I think the furthest I'd move it down is to 1.75.



The reason that title was specifically mentioned as being one that should be moved down the list by me to Tier 3 is because a superior edition with much finer detail exists and can be bought from either Germany, France or the UK.


The USA version is significantly softer due to that DNR and less detailed as a result and according to the exact wording used for each Tier it really should not be on either Tier 0, 1 or 2 unless the Tier wording is going to be changed.


I guess if you want to leave it on the list at it's current placement then perhaps you should consider the European versions for Tier 1 although i do not think it's perfect enough for Tier 0 which i think should have nothing but the absolute best eye candy on it with absolutely no issues.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15647710
> 
> 
> Here's a post which quotes my original review and recommendation of 2.75 and asks me to raise my recommendation.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...3#post15395753
> 
> 
> Read the discussion that follows and here's the post where I agree to move my recommendation up .25 to make it 2.5.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...7#post15397417



Thanks. I very much agree with the comments that you made in your original review. You noticed the same things that troubled me: lack of facial details and the color being off.


As for you raising your recommendation from 2.75 to 2.5, I don't see any reason given for doing so (other than a tongue in cheek comment about appeasing djoberg or G3). I know djoberg wasn't particularly impressed with the title either.


G3 loves the movie too much to be objective.


----------



## rsbeck

Just want to add the we've recently pulled a few titles down substantially due to DNR and the assessment criteria have recently been changed to emphasize natural looking grain in film based titles along with pores and imperfections in faces, so I think it is fair to say there is a concern for DNR here.


EE, IMO, becomes more problematic because I happen to watch on a 126" screen and a lot of films have thin ringing or a halo now and again and it isn't always due to EE. I originally reported that The Professionals had some ringing, then it turned out, after I read some discussion in another thread, it wasn't EE. This has happened on other titles as well. With regard to TDK, I saw halos and ringing when I viewed it at my local IMAX. If anything, the blu-ray is a huge improvement over what I saw at the theater.


IMO, in this thread, we cannot and should not rank titles based on the detail they might have had only on the detail and other PQ virtues and flaws the particular release we are given exhibits when we view it.


In that regard, if the halo or ringing is persistent and distracting, which is a judgment call, then it is degrading the PQ and one should review and recommend accordingly.


Also, we do have an assertion in the assessment criteria that our reference titles will continue to impress on 100"+ screens, so we may want to keep that in mind to make sure any ringing, halos or other flaws will not be distracting at that size so we can stand behind that guarantee.


----------



## Deviation




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15647902
> 
> 
> With regard to TDK, I saw halos and ringing when I viewed it at my local IMAX. If anything, the blu-ray is a huge improvement over what I saw at the theater.



Actually, the noise reduction and ringing present in The Dark Knight come directly from the IMAX master, which would be why you remember it. The people at IMAX seem to mistakenly believe that the application of DNR and EE helps 35mm film look better on their screens. The 35mm presentation in standard theaters did not have this issue.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

FoxyMulder -- thanks for your input. I am sure your notes will be taken into consideration when SuprSlow updates the list next. What equipment & viewing distance do you use when you watch movies to make recommendations?


Mamma Mia NaySayers -- *plugs fingers into ears* LALALA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!










I'm hoping now that I got ABBA singstar for the ps3, my daughter's focus will remain shifted to that instead of watching the movie 3-4x per week. I did notice a huge difference in the movie when I accidentally watched it in "Custom" mode on my TV instead of "THX" mode (Panasonic TH-58PZ800U) -- admittedly, it did look a lot worse when the movie was not darkened the way it, in my opinion, should be watched on my set, which is the dark THX mode. The only faces I thought lacked detail were Meryl's and Amanda's -- I saw plenty of detail on the guys' faces, I'm puzzled that you didn't, Rob! Like The Lion King, Aladdin, and The Little Mermaid before it though, my daughter's love for Mamma Mia has created a stinging source of hatred for it deep within my soul now.


----------



## FoxyMulder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15647960
> 
> 
> FoxyMulder -- thanks for your input. I am sure your notes will be taken into consideration when SuprSlow updates the list next. What equipment & viewing distance do you use when you watch movies to make recommendations?



I used to have just a standard television back in the DVD days and came into these forums and wondered why people put down The Phantom Menace so much because on my television it looked so good










After i bought my projector and started viewing at 106 inches i then realised what everyone meant by it looking so bad. I actually now view using a Panasonic AE-3000.


So size does matter but then as you rightly ask what is my viewing distance and that matters too.


I view from roughly 8 feet away ( give or take a few inches either way )


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15647805
> 
> 
> Thanks. I very much agree with the comments that you made in your original review. You noticed the same things that troubled me: lack of facial details and the color being off.
> 
> 
> As for you raising your recommendation from 2.75 to 2.5, I don't see any reason given for doing so (other than a tongue in cheek comment about appeasing djoberg or G3). I know djoberg wasn't particularly impressed with the title either.
> 
> 
> G3 loves the movie too much to be objective.



Right now, looking at my notes and searching my memory, I am actually wondering why I recommended as high as I did, but it is also possible that the things that bothered me have grown in my imagination. They certainly haven't shrunk. Since my youngest daughter never seems to tire of the Mia that is Mama, I have plenty of opportunities to revisit that one. Let me spool it up sometime in the next few days and refresh my memory. This will be the perfect time to do so as it just happens I have been on a steak of viewing mid tier 2 titles so I have quite a few references fresh in my mind.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15647960
> 
> 
> 
> Mamma Mia NaySayers -- *plugs fingers into ears* LALALA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm hoping now that I got ABBA singstar for the ps3, my daughter's focus will remain shifted to that instead of watching the movie 3-4x per week. I did notice a huge difference in the movie when I accidentally watched it in "Custom" mode on my TV instead of "THX" mode (Panasonic TH-58PZ800U) -- admittedly, it did look a lot worse when the movie was not darkened the way it, in my opinion, should be watched on my set, which is the dark THX mode. The only faces I thought lacked detail were Meryl's and Amanda's -- I saw plenty of detail on the guys' faces, I'm puzzled that you didn't, Rob!



I don't know what to tell you, but I am adamant that I did not see any noticeably better detail in the males faces than the females. They were all smoothed over.


I found this pic from Xylons thread. He didn't do too many captures in that thread, but here is one that has a males face in it:











No facial details to be seen there. It's a smoothed over mess.


Also, this capture shows the ugly colors, which look smeared (notice how the whites are not truly white, but have a tint of color to them):













> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15648272
> 
> 
> Right now, looking at my notes and searching my memory, I am actually wondering why I recommended as high as I did, but it is also possible that the things that bothered me have grown in my imagination. They certainly haven't shrunk. Since my youngest daughter never seems to tire of the Mia that is Mama, I have plenty of opportunities to revisit that one. Let me spool it up sometime in the next few days and refresh my memory. This will be the perfect time to do so as it just happens I have been on a steak of viewing mid tier 2 titles so I have quite a few references fresh in my mind.




Sounds good.


I'm also going to try to take another look at the recently discussed Dave Matthews disc within the next couple of days.


----------



## HT.1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15642710
> 
> *Traitor* had many redeeming qualities and I would go along with its current rating of *Tier 1.75*, though I could just as easily agree with a Tier 1.50 placement.
> 
> 
> More than anything, I was very impressed with the skin tones and facial close-ups (which easily met the criteria for Tier 0); they were remarkable in almost every scene except for a few scenes with high contrast where some detail was lost. Blacks were spot on as was shadow detail. Colors were natural, but somewhat muted at times. Sharpness, detail, and depth were all present as well, but there were a few scenes with heavy grain where these three virtues suffered the most. Scenes with light grain (and there were many) were excellent, giving it a nice film look without hindering sharpness and detail. I did detect a little digital noise, but only a couple of times. Overall it is a nice transfer and definitely worthy of a Tier 1 ranking.
> 
> 
> The movie itself: I enjoyed it, though I'm a real sucker for political thrillers and so I'm usually quite biased. Don Cheadle and Guy Pearce were at the top of their game, IMO.



What he said...









Yup pretty much my assesment of it as well.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15648355
> 
> 
> Also, this capture shows the ugly colors, which look smeared (notice how the whites are not truly white, but have a tint of color to them)



See what happens, Rob? You give in to watching Mamma Mia! and now you sound like a laundry detergent commercial.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15648455
> 
> 
> See what happens, Rob? You give in to watching Mamma Mia! and now you sound like a laundry detergent commercial.



Tide Laundry Detergent = Tier 0!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

OK, Rob. I just wasted like... an hour!! sitting on the floor, trying to take pictures of my screen, to show you facial detail in Mamma Mia. Unfortunately, my camera & my photography skills are both SORELY lacking, and everything ended up a blurred mess, no matter what setting I tried to use. I can't screenshot either, but then I sat here, disappointed with what showed up on my screen after wasting all this time in an attempt at taking a decent photo, and realized -- Rob was busy cringing while watching this movie to see it clearly.










I strongly disagree with you on this score, but eh... I'm so fricken sick of this movie now I don't really care anymore. The lack of facial detail & overall softness in Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2 upset me far worse than anything in Mamma Mia, though.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15649170
> 
> 
> OK, Rob. I just wasted like... an hour!! sitting on the floor, trying to take pictures of my screen, to show you facial detail in Mamma Mia. Unfortunately, my camera & my photography skills are both SORELY lacking, and everything ended up a blurred mess, no matter what setting I tried to use. I can't screenshot either, but then I sat here, disappointed with what showed up on my screen after wasting all this time in an attempt at taking a decent photo, and realized -- Rob was busy cringing while watching this movie to see it clearly.



Post timecodes of the scenes you think demonstrate superior detail if you wish to pursue this any further. To be honest I think screen grabs just clutter up this thread, though a link is a good compromise usually.


To FoxyMulder and anyone else that reads this thread, I would not put so much faith and dogmatic adherence to the tier descriptions when placing titles here. They are guides and nothing more in determining placement. Recommending a BD like Scary Movie for tier five for example indicates a lack of familiarity with the current titles in that tier in my opinion. DNR and EE are just one of many considerations when placing a BD in the tier list here. There is a continuum of picture quality to consider from absolute best to worst, and typically a title within one tier will resemble the other titles in that tier. This is just my opinion of course.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FoxyMulder* /forum/post/15645829
> 
> 
> I guess thats why i don't take part in this thread more often because *people dismiss EE/DNR as being irrelevant to how the image quality looks when it's very relevant* but to answer your point....No i am not obsessed with EE and DNR but i do know a Demo reference title when i see it and i thought my opinions came with valid points but instead you chuck the derogatory "obsessed with DNR/EE line at me".
> 
> *I was reading the Tier descriptions when i came up with my recommendations and i believe you should read them closely too and then tell me why The Dark Knight and Pans Labyrinth deserve to be so high on a Demo material thread.* The descriptions clearly talk about artifacts when deciding on placement and what is EE if not an artifact that shouldn't be there.



Allow me to quote an excerpt from the criteria for Tier 0 on page one:


"A film-based title will exhibit natural grain structure *free of excessive digital noise reduction (DNR)* or filtering that results in a noticeable impact on the image, including waxy looking faces and missing high-frequency detail in general.


"Halos and ringing artifacts are either absent or *not visible enough to be distracting* from standard viewing distances."


According to the highlighted sentences above there must be "excessive DNR" to cause one to penalize a title to the point of disqualifying it from being demo material. I do not believe The Dark Knight or Pan's Labyrinth had excessive DNR, and this was the conclusion that the majority reached when a consensus was finally formed for placement. So, we (those who participate on this thread) do NOT think DNR is irrelevant, but we do believe it has to be excessive in order to penalize a title.


Regarding EE, which causes halos or ringing, the description (above) reads that if it is "not visible enough to be distracting from standard viewing distances" it is not to be penalized. Again, with both titles in question (The Dark Knight and Pan's Labyrinth), the majority of reviewers felt that the EE was not bad enough to disqualify them from being Demo material.


Now you may very well disagree with this conclusion, but in this thread the majority rules and one must accept the placement that is eventually reached. I'm not implying that one can't revisit a title and challenge a former placement, but one should at least respect what others had formerly concluded.


I want to say that I probably came across quite harsh (or maybe even abrasive) in my response to your list of suggested placements, but if you take into account the very lengthy debate we had on both of these titles (especially The Dark Knight), and the fact that EE and DNR was discussed until we had exhausted that subject, you might begin to understand why I was so defensive over those two titles.


I would ask you a question in closing: Were you visiting this thread when those two titles were being discussed? If you were, did you participate in it? I'm asking this because if you were involved at all you know that we discussed The Dark Knight to death and I'm just curious as to whether or not you respect the conclusion that was reached after every argument was exhausted by those who had an opinion.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15649339
> 
> 
> Post timecodes of the scenes you think demonstrate superior detail if you wish to pursue this any further. To be honest I think screen grabs just clutter up this thread, though a link is a good compromise usually.




The photos i took are so bad that the timecodes didn't show up even, and yeah... I am not interested in pursuing it any further than that after I realized how much time i'd wasted (the husband had the daughter out to a movie, and instead of relaxing, I put Mamma Mia on AGAIN? Shame on me!!) on this, when I simply don't care anymore. I just don't think that ALL the characters have had their detail rubbed away in the way that Meryl & Amanda's have, and that's good enough for me.







But yeah I would have posted links to the pics if they were worth uploading.


----------



## jutang

*Ghost Town*


It's a great looking transfer with excellent details seen on all the actors. The colors were accurate and popped with no significant film grain. Blacks looked excellent, but agree with a previous poster that it may have been slightly over done, but at the same time can't say it took away any details.


I would put this Tier 1.0 to 1.25.


----------



## rsbeck

*The Notebook*


Grain inconsistent, hard to see at times, ringing noted in many scenes. The Notebook is a teenage romance novel for the big screen. Picture is slightly soft throughout. Fine detail is nowhere to be seen. Faces are smooth, eyebrows indistinct, individual strands of hair, clothing and surface textures hard to distinguish. Plenty of opportunity for detail but soft focus romance style buries detail in a slight blur. According to a review I read, this blu-ray is still apparently a significant improvement over the DVD. I can only imagine what the DVD must be like.

*Recommendation: Tier 5.0*


Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From Screen


----------



## FoxyMulder

To Phantom Stranger and Djoberg....Enjoy YOUR thread as i'm done with it - I thought i would give it a go after being a little harsh on it originally but really i'm now done.


I kindly suggest you start thinking about people who view on large projection systems since if you cannot notice EE in The Dark Knight or the excessive DNR in the USA edition of Pans Labyrinth then i don't know what to say other than bye.


Majority rules ? Well so far i have seen more agree with me regarding Scary Movie and moving it to tier 5 than have agreed with you but hey why argue....You bring the thread down when you keep such crap so high up on these lists.


As for the suggestion to not bother too much about the Tier descriptions - Why are they there then ?


Anyways this thread just doesn't feel that friendly and i'm not going to spend my time arguing Tier placements when you tell me not to even bother with the Tier descriptions so will i not be a part of it anymore....That should please some.


----------



## lgans316

The EE in TDK's 35 mm shots is blatantly visible even on my 50" Plasma. The grain simply doesn't look film. It looks too digital to my eyes. The first comment that came out of my noob wife and sister was "_why does the picture look unnaturally sharp?_"


I found out another filming flaw. Part of the chopper can be reflecting in the glass window of the building between 1m:08s ~ 1m:10s mark during the prologue.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FoxyMulder* /forum/post/15653097
> 
> 
> I kindly suggest you start thinking about people who view on large projection systems since if you cannot notice EE in The Dark Knight or the excessive DNR in the USA edition of Pans Labyrinth then i don't know what to say other than bye.



I do NOT have a large projection system FoxyMulder so I can't relate to your experience. I DO believe you and others who have said they notice EE and DNR in titles on their large screens and I actually feel for you. But my thought has always been that one must _report what they see or don't see_! So, with the titles mentioned above I truly did not see excessive EE in The Dark Knight or excessive DNR in Pan's Labyrinth and so I gave them a higher mark than you would have. It turned out that the majority had the same experience as I did and I'm sure this can be attributed, for the most part, to the majority having smaller screens (though I do remember a few with large projection systems saying they didn't have a problem with EE in the Dark Knight).


I do want to say that my initial response to your list of recommendations was a knee jerk reaction to your take on The Dark Knight and Pan's Labyrinth and I do apologize for the lack of tact on my part in that post. If you were to read my posts over the last year you would see that this is NOT a normal reaction by me; in fact, I usually go out of my way to encourage people to participate and I try to avoid elitism like I would the bubonic plague. So, I hope you accept this apology and would reconsider your decision to have nothing to do with this thread.


PS As far as your comments regarding Phantom's post, I'll let him answer for himself on that.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/15653522
> 
> *The EE in TDK's 35 mm shots is blatantly visible even on my 50" Plasma. The grain simply doesn't look film. It looks too digital to my eyes.* The first comment that came out of my noob wife and sister was "_why does the picture look unnaturally sharp?_"



Likewise on my 52" LCD.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15654563
> 
> 
> Likewise on my 52" LCD.



I count myself lucky that I don't see it on my 50" Samsung DLP.


----------



## spectator

For me, the EE in TDK was quite visible, but not distracting in the slightest. I always prefer a title to have no EE, but when it looks like it did on TDK, it doesn't bother me. The digital look didn't really bother me, either, though, again, I would prefer it not be there.


If Aladdin's genie allowed me to magically remove _one_ of these maladies, I would definitely wipe out the processed look before the EE.


----------



## babrown92

The EE in Dark Knight is definitely visible on my 46" Samsung LCD. I'm not usually one who can point out things like EE and DNR while just watching a film, but this one was so obvious.


----------



## rsbeck

IMO, it is as important to be able to spot a title's virtues as it is to be able to spot its flaws.


With regard to EE, I notice people often use ringing or halo and EE interchangeably, but we should all know by now that halos or ringing can be caused by at least three phenomenon and two of the them are not EE, not due to post processing. So, I really wish we would stop posting conclusions when it isn't necessary to do so. Reporting ringing or halo is factual, concluding it is due to EE generally demands more expertise than most of us have, more knowledge about the original print than it is possible for us to have.


Further, we've already seen where certain titles were accused of suffering EE because of some ringing and then we find out it isn't due to EE, that the ringing was caused by something less nefarious.


How many other titles have been incorrectly accused of EE? No one knows.


Charging a film with EE without more investigation rather than just reporting the ringing or halo in most cases is not factual.


On my 126" screen, I have spotted halos and ringing on many titles that have been judged to be free of issues. So, there is also a little play in the line when it comes to ringing and halos. Spot it on one title and it is branded, spot it in another and it is judged to be no big deal, probably caused by something other than EE. How is that judgment made? No answer. How can it be a huge deal with one title and no big deal with another? It stands to reason, there must be some level of ringing or halo that is acceptable, even to those for whom it is of major concern. So even for the most concerned among us, it is obviously still a judgment call. So, let's understand once and for all that it is a judgment call -- and that's how it is treated in our assessment criteria.


Regarding DNR; on my screen, it is pretty easy to see that The Searchers has some ringing, grain has been altered, and faces do not look natural, they look a little smeared just like you usually see with DNR. Maybe not Patton smeared, but smeared none-the-less. I am really surprised that this film has escaped notice. Do a thread search here in the blu-ray section and you will find nothing but raves for this The Searchers, no mention of any problems with grain, ringing, or unnatural looking faces, you never see anyone accusing the title of EE or DNR.


So, I can only conclude that the same is true with DNR. There must be some level that is acceptable even to some of us for whom this is the major issue. So the acceptable level of DNR, too, is obviously a judgment call. However, with our new assessment criteria, there should be no way for a title with altered grain and unnatural looking faces where pores are not resolved as in the case of The Searchers to make it into our reference tier.


Personally, I find excessive DNR more of a problem than some ringing. Excessive DNR usually affects faces, which, arguably, are the focal point of almost any scene where ringing, especially thin ringing, which I have found to be the most common, is far more easy to ignore unless I make a concerted effort to look for it, which I do only when viewing a title for review.


----------



## rsbeck

Interesting Q & A with Robert Harris ---


Originally Posted by SBrooks1


All I know is at the 1:29:26 mark of Dark Knight, you can clearly see SOMETHING outlining Batman's profile of his mask as he's facing towards the left. If you could check out that specific time stamp and let me know what it is in your infinite wisdom I would greatly appreciate the free education.


Robert Harris replies...


You're quite correct. There is "something" there. TDK went through a myriad of processes toward the creation of the final film (in multiple formats) as well as the Blu-ray disc.


Might this be some digital anomaly? Possible.


It is just as possible that the effect is as shot, with the high contrast of the black mask vs. the bright surroundings being recorded by the grain and affected by the processing as we're seeing it.


As I've noted elsewhere, I felt that I saw a fewshots with something digital occurring in Imax projection. And I mention that not in any way to demean the work performed on the film elements, but more as something that simply passed through my consciousness as I was viewing the film.


It is acknowledged that when viewing film, I tend to see the insects on the leaves as opposed to either the trees or the forest.


145 minutes of superlative entertainment.


10 seconds of something unusual that may get one's attention.


To my eye, The Dark Knight is a winner on all levels.


----------



## rsbeck

I post the Harris Q & A for a few reason; so we can see that he cautions the poster against making conclusions about EE, that he offers an alternate explanation for ringing on high contrast edges, which I find to be the most common, that he offers his judgment with regard to the ratio of flaws to *virtues*. Not that anyone has to agree with his opinion, only to consider Harris' _methodology_. Arguably, he has forgotten more than most of us will ever know, so if anyone could make a determination, I would suggest it would be him, yet he avoids making conclusions about EE and considers alternate explanations for the phenomenon. I also post it because I think it is an example of how this expert weighs flaws and virtues. His opinion is his alone and his reputation should not weigh against anyone else's. The point is that each of us can use this methodology to come to our own opinions regarding any title's PQ and value as a demo disc.


----------



## rsbeck

The last point I want to make and upon which I hope we all agree is this;


TDK is one of our most controversial titles. Some have judged it to be a reference quality demo disc, others have judged it to be a low tier one or, as in Foxy's case, a tier 2 title.


We are all entitled to our opinion and we welcome all reviews no matter how long a title has been placed.


There is no reason we have to come to a consensus on any title. We have a highly praised moderator here who will weigh all of the reviews and make a placement. There should be no fear of posting a review or opinion that is out of the mainstream.


Placements may come from a majority vote, but that doesn't obligate anyone to adopt the opinion of the majority. Since the placement is most often an averaging of the various opinions, it stands to reason there is no majority opinion on most titles.


Finally, we've had titles that have been placed in our reference tier and have stayed there for months until more people viewed them and they were finally scrutinized more closely and moved to lower tiers, so even the length of time that a title has enjoyed its placement is no guarantee of staying power and no reason to accept its placement.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15655966
> 
> 
> he offers an alternate explanation for ringing on high contrast edges



So, does the ringing in the particular shot being discussed in this Q & A appear on the (conventional theatrical master-sourced) DVD, as well?


----------



## selimsivad

Looking at the Tier list this morning, I've noticed a few titles that IMO should be ranked differently. These are titles that I feel have been overlooked since newer titles have been released:


The Adventures of Baron Munchausen: 20th Anniversary Edition
*From Tier 1.25 to Tier 2.00*

The Rock
*From Tier 1.25 to Tier 2.25*


From Dusk Til Dawn (CA Import)
*From Tier 2.50 to Tier 3*


The Assassination of Jesse James
*From Tier 2.75 to 3.50*


Peace


----------



## patrick99

I personally would prefer not to see quotes in this thread from other sites.


----------



## rsbeck

I found that on AVS. When the subject is a technical issue such as EE, I believe we should admit what we don't know and try to become informed by experts. I believe it will add to the quality of our reviews. We discuss this issue every day and it goes into almost every review. IMO, we should welcome anything that will help us to become more knowledgeable about these issues to help us give the best recommendations possible.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15656322
> 
> 
> I believe we should admit what we don't know and try to become informed by experts.



Blasphemy!


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15656322
> 
> *I found that on AVS.* When the subject is a technical issue such as EE, I believe we should admit what we don't know and try to become informed by experts. I believe it will add to the quality of our reviews. We discuss this issue every day and it goes into almost every review. IMO, we should welcome anything that will help us to become more knowledgeable about these issues to help us give the best recommendations possible.



Link?


I think it is particularly undesirable to post quotes from elsewhere on subjects such as what you acknowledge is "one of our most controversial titles."


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15656362
> 
> 
> I think it is particularly undesirable to post quotes from elsewhere on subjects such as what you acknowledge is "one of our most controversial titles."










Why? Wouldn't the controversial titles be the most appropriate arena for which to expand our perspectives?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15656395
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Wouldn't the controversial titles be the most appropriate arena for which to expand our perspectives?



Posting quotes from elsewhere in support of one position or another on "one of our most controversial titles" is not what this thread is about.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15656443
> 
> 
> Posting quotes from elsewhere in support of one position or another on "one of our most controversial titles" is not what this thread is about.



To my understanding, discussing those titles _is_ what this thread is about and posting quotes from elsewhere can contribute to that. And why shouldn't it?


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FoxyMulder* /forum/post/15653097
> 
> 
> To Phantom Stranger....Enjoy YOUR thread as i'm done with it - I thought i would give it a go after being a little harsh on it originally but really i'm now done.
> 
> 
> I kindly suggest you start thinking about people who view on large projection systems since if you cannot notice EE in The Dark Knight or the excessive DNR in the USA edition of Pans Labyrinth then i don't know what to say other than bye.
> 
> 
> Majority rules ? Well so far i have seen more agree with me regarding Scary Movie and moving it to tier 5 than have agreed with you but hey why argue....You bring the thread down when you keep such crap so high up on these lists.
> 
> 
> As for the suggestion to not bother too much about the Tier descriptions - Why are they there then ?
> 
> 
> Anyways this thread just doesn't feel that friendly and i'm not going to spend my time arguing Tier placements when you tell me not to even bother with the Tier descriptions so will i not be a part of it anymore....That should please some.



I have nothing against you personally or otherwise. This thread is bigger than any one poster and is clearly not "my" thread. Did you read my recommendation for The Dark Knight in this very thread? We had pages of discussion about this one title specifically regarding edge enhancement and the conversion of the IMAX segments compared to the 35mm segments.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...0#post15256950 

You are welcome to contribute to this thread but please respect the tenets of what this thread is based on when recommending placements. You made a laundry listing of about ten different BDs in your post and some of your placements seemed extremely low given the generally accepted criteria and standards that most of us use here. This is not the same criteria as the artistic intent thread you maintain very well.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15656187
> 
> 
> I personally would prefer not to see quotes in this thread from other sites.



I agree. I have read reviews even from respected reviewers about picture quality that do not make a lot of sense sometimes. I think for some it is about getting free Blu-rays and nothing more. There is a certain amount of groupthink regarding most online reviews about certain titles. It is mind-boggling the number of times I have seen reviewers claim the encodes are exactly identical to a prior HD DVD release when it has been proven not to be the case via BDInfo scans. A well-laid out argument needs no external validation except the clarity of its own logic.


----------



## rsbeck

I would just repeat so the point isn't missed...



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15655966
> 
> 
> I post the Harris Q & A for a few reason; so we can see that he cautions the poster against making conclusions about EE, that he offers an alternate explanation for ringing on high contrast edges, which I find to be the most common, that he offers his judgment with regard to the ratio of flaws to virtues. Not that anyone has to agree with his opinion, only to consider Harris' _methodology_.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15656590
> 
> 
> I would just repeat so the point isn't missed...



If that was your purpose, it would have been very much preferable if the quotes did not deal with "one of our most controversial titles."


----------



## Steeb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15656538
> 
> 
> You are welcome to contribute to this thread but please respect the tenets of what this thread is based on when recommending placements. You made a laundry listing of about ten different BDs in your post and some of your placements seemed extremely low given the generally accepted criteria and standards that most of us use here. This is not the same criteria as the artistic intent thread you maintain very well.



The problem, of course, is that he used the descriptions from the first post as a guide for where to place the titles he was ranking and you responded with "I would not put so much faith and dogmatic adherence to the tier descriptions when placing titles here. They are guides and nothing more in determining placement."


So in one post, you complain because he's following the written guidelines of the thread to the point of "dogmatic adherence," then you complain that he's not "respect{ing} the tenets of what this thread is based on when recommending placements." So which is it? Is he not following the rules of the thread, or is he following them too strictly?


The bottom line is, he posted some recommendations and included his reasoning behind them. It doesn't matter one bit if you (or anyone else) agrees with them, as they're his opinions.


I've said it before, but it bears repeating: the actions and attitudes of some (not all) of the regulars in this thread have kept (and continue to keep) others from participating in this thread to such an extent that there will likely always be only a small handful of posters contributing at any given time. It seems to me that pushing away those who don't share your opinions is awfully counterproductive for a thread like this, but what do I know?


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15656668
> 
> 
> If that was your purpose, it would have been very much preferable if the quotes did not deal with "one of our most controversial titles."



Why would that matter? I think we're all adult (enough) and capable of reading opinions we may disagree with without feeling personally affronted.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steeb* /forum/post/15656767
> 
> 
> 
> I've said it before, but it bears repeating: the actions and attitudes of some (not all) of the regulars in this thread have kept (and continue to keep) others from participating in this thread to such an extent that there will likely always be only a small handful of posters contributing at any given time. It seems to me that pushing away those who don't share your opinions is awfully counterproductive for a thread like this, but what do I know?



I too was disappointed with some of the responses FM received to his list of recommendations here. I agree that this is not the way we should be responding to someone who makes a serious, well-intentioned effort to participate here.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steeb* /forum/post/15656767
> 
> 
> The problem, of course, is that he used the descriptions from the first post as a guide for where to place the titles he was ranking and you responded with "I would not put so much faith and dogmatic adherence to the tier descriptions when placing titles here. They are guides and nothing more in determining placement."
> 
> 
> So in one post, you complain because he's following the written guidelines of the thread to the point of "dogmatic adherence," then you complain that he's not "respect{ing} the tenets of what this thread is based on when recommending placements." So which is it? Is he not following the rules of the thread, or is he following them too strictly?
> 
> 
> The bottom line is, he posted some recommendations and included his reasoning behind them. It doesn't matter one bit if you (or anyone else) agrees with them, as they're his opinions.
> 
> 
> I've said it before, but it bears repeating: the actions and attitudes of some (not all) of the regulars in this thread have kept (and continue to keep) others from participating in this thread to such an extent that there will likely always be only a small handful of posters contributing at any given time. It seems to me that pushing away those who don't share your opinions is awfully counterproductive for a thread like this, but what do I know?



FoxyMulder has admitted in the past to not agreeing with the course of direction this thread takes. That is fine and it drove him to create his own thread. I could go title by title and deconstruct each of his recommendations and why many of them did not seem to use any recognizable criteria from this thread. I am not trying to attack him personally but the actual recommendations he placed. Virtually every single poster here has had his individual opinions of picture quality on specific titles attacked at some point and I think that is fair game. If he wants to open up the discussion (again) about changing the nature of this thread, he is welcome to do it.


He has also come at an inopportune time citing the thread descriptions when we are in the middle of the process for rewriting them. In fact I am just about to post a new draft for tiers 2-5. The current ranking of each BD themselves are frankly more important than what any tier description says, but the older descriptions were woefully out of date and needed an update.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Latest draft of the tier descriptions with the suggested additions. Anyone that has any problem with anything here, please speak up about it. Comments, suggestions, and corrections welcomed...


*Tier Two – Silver (Good)*

_The titles of this tier represent nice picture quality that is considered above-average and a significant upgrade over standard definition. The image will demonstrate a sharp nature that begins to approach a stronger quality of depth and dimensionality not present in the lower ranked tiers. Typically the image will lack any of the major deficiencies seen in the lower tiers such as visible compression artifacts, inappropriate application of post-processing tools, master defects, etc. While the Blu-rays ranked here are not truly worthy of being demo quality, they are visually pleasing to a casual watcher of HD material._

*Tier Three - Bronze (Average)*

_The titles in this tier are representative of average picture quality considered amongst all Blu-rays. Image quality characteristic of this tier will always be superior to upscaled dvd but will lack the demo potential of the higher tiers. Minor flaws or slight limitations in the original source material may be present but these transfers are worth the upgrade from the dvd version. The picture will typically lack the depth and pop exhibited in the higher tiers. Detail and clarity will be solid and present a pleasing image at standard viewing distances. In many cases the difference between this tier and the surrounding tiers is an issue of consistency to the picture quality. Some titles ranked in this tier look as good as they possibly can on Blu-ray given the limitations in the original photography and are faithful to the existing source material._

*Tier Four - Copper (Below Average)*

_This tier represents below-average picture quality that is underwhelming for the format. While still visually superior to upscaled standard definition material, the differences are less obvious upon casual inspection. The image may have deficiencies in one or more areas. Compression artifacts, softness, poor black levels, a lack of depth, questionable source material, and poorly transferred masters are some of the common problems exhibited in tier four. Some Blu-rays in this tier do represent significant upgrades over the dvd but are constrained in image quality due to visual limitations of the original source material. Titles in this tier are all watchable though and should not prevent a fan from considering them for purchase.
_

*Tier Five - Charcoal (Unacceptable)*

_The titles in this tier have severe limitations in their picture quality that is strongly underwhelming compared to the average Blu-ray. The image has deficiencies in multiple areas that would be obvious upon a casual viewing. Without question the Blu-rays in tier five are among the worst looking on the market. At various times the picture quality is hard to distinguish from upscaled dvd material. Softness, artifacting, poor source material, limited resolution and clarity are general characteristics of titles in this tier._


----------



## jewing1043




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15656070
> 
> 
> The last point I want to make and upon which I hope we all agree is this;
> 
> 
> TDK is one of our most controversial titles. Some have judged it to be a reference quality demo disc, others have judged it to be a low tier one or, as in Foxy's case, a tier 2 title.
> 
> 
> We are all entitled to our opinion and we welcome all reviews no matter how long a title has been placed.
> 
> 
> There is no reason we have to come to a consensus on any title. We have a highly praised moderator here who will weigh all of the reviews and make a placement. There should be no fear of posting a review or opinion that is out of the mainstream.
> 
> 
> Placements may come from a majority vote, but that doesn't obligate anyone to adopt the opinion of the majority. Since the placement is most often an averaging of the various opinions, it stands to reason there is no majority opinion on most titles.
> 
> 
> Finally, we've had titles that have been placed in our reference tier and have stayed there for months until more people viewed them and they were finally scrutinized more closely and moved to lower tiers, so even the length of time that a title has enjoyed its placement is no guarantee of staying power and no reason to accept its placement.







I 100% agree with this


This entire thread is solely based on opinion

everybody is entitled to one

and should not be harassed because of their opinion


I used to enjoy coming here to check this thread to see if I should see a certain movie or not strictly based on how it looked not whether or not I would enjoy the movie


The next thing you know people wil be asking for their eyesight numbers along with their equipment and viewing distance and the measured candle power of any light source in the room and the angle to the screen and main viewing area


please

take these views and placements with a grain of salt and form your OWN OPINION about pic quality


----------



## Steeb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15657248
> 
> 
> I could go title by title and deconstruct each of his recommendations and why many of them did not seem to use any recognizable criteria from this thread.



If that's the case, then why did you post this: "I would not put so much faith and dogmatic adherence to the tier descriptions when placing titles here. They are guides and nothing more in determining placement." To me, your complaint/criticism seemed to be that he was following the guidelines too strictly, yet now your tune has changed dramatically. Why is that? Could you please explain how what you posted before is not contradicted by what you're saying now?




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I am not trying to attack him personally but the actual recommendations he placed. Virtually every single poster here has had his individual opinions of picture quality on specific titles attacked at some point and I think that is fair game.



And therein lies the problem. What possible good does it do to "attack" the recommendations/opinions of those trying to contribute? How does that in any way help the thread? If you're trying to minimize the number of opinions to the point that consensus is all but guaranteed, then I'd say the plan is working splendidly. If you're not, perhaps it's time to rethink how you guys react to opinions that differ from your own. There's a huge difference between "debating" or "discussing" and "attacking." Imo, there should be more of the former and quite a bit less of the latter.


It's often not what you say, but how you say it. (Ironic coming from me, I know, but it's still the truth.) Tell me honestly - do you think that the responses his post elicited from djoberg and you encouraged or discouraged lurkers from jumping in and contributing?


Edited to add: I realize I'm really not contributing anything but hot air with these posts, so I'll stop now. I've said my piece and made my point as well as I possibly could - no need to derail the thread anymore.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I have never been dismissive of new posters to this thread. Behind the scenes I have worked as hard as possible to get as many of the posters who used to post here to come back and I value everyone who makes regular contributions to the tier list. This is a high profile thread that generates a lot of interest and discourse as you can see. I lurked at this site for many years before posting a single thought. Every lurker and newbie is encouraged to post their opinions here but I would recommend getting familiar with how this thread operates and not being contemptuous of it or its process. The discussions here do get heated at times but in the end we agree to disagree usually in a civil manner.


If anyone wishes to discuss this further with me, I think it more appropriate to take it to pm's, as it horribly distracts from the tone of the thread. Just one Stranger among many...


----------



## FoxyMulder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15657248
> 
> 
> I could go title by title and deconstruct each of his recommendations and why many of them did not seem to use any recognizable criteria from this thread. I am not trying to attack him personally but the actual recommendations he placed.



Fine then please "deconstruct" my recommendation for Evil Dead II and when you are finished i will post the screencaps showing how an old DVD transfer of the movie actually looks MORE detailed than the Blu Ray edition.


I only used the criteria printed on the first page but hey if you keep changing it to suit your own opinion then no one else's views will matter.


Furthermore i took considerable time to actually look at the criteria for each Tier before i posted my opinions so for you to then post this response well all i can say is i'm kinda disappointed as i really did try and make an effort to post reasonable recommendations based on current criteria.


I feel this thread is elitist and it's now put me off participating. There are some nice good honest people taking part that are trying their best but i feel i am not wanted in this thread.


You bring up the Film Grain/Artistic Intent thread i started.....That has a different intent to this thread and indeed Bullitt which is Tier 5 here is on the main list there. That thread does not in any way compete with this one and was started to promote fabulous film like titles which are not eye candy but retain their cinematic qualities. Now i understand fully how this thread operates and it's about the eye candy aspect so when you bring this up it seems to me you are bringing it up as a way to say i'm not understanding this thread or how it works....I do understand.


Basically you have said you could analyse each film title and the recommendations i made and pull my recommendations to shreds....By all accounts thats the act of someone who has got too big for their boots and thinks only their opinions count.


Well have fun with your opinions....I'll read the thread but i'm done taking part in it.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15657751
> 
> 
> I would recommend getting familiar with how this thread operates and not being contemptuous of it or its process.



Very familiar with it thanks. You were contemptuous of my opinions and i'm no newbie.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15645825
> 
> 
> Surely there must be a more balanced way of expressing disagreement than this.



Yes there is. IMO there the truth lies somewhere in between.



I have followed this discussion for the last two days and have read over Foxy Mulders posts particularly the first where he makes the recommendations. I too agree he has the right to his opinions as do we all, but opinions on recommendations are just that, opinions and that does not mean or dictate where a title is placed is absolute once someone has recommended it.


I look at all titles as equal PQ going into watching them. The following is not exact or 100% how I rate titles, but it is a bit of guideline I use. When I recommend a title for placement, I do not simply say based on this issue or that it automatically is a tier 2 title. I start at tier 0 I guess for all titles. As I start to watch I rate what the overall PQ is. If the BD is mostly tier 1.5 material, that gives me a general idea of where I am starting. If 25% of that title also has tier 0 quality PQ I may up it a bit to 1.25 or even 1.00. If the title has 25% tier 2 or 3 PQ quality throughout, I then dropped it from the 1.5 spot to 2 or so.


I don't just look at a title and simply say, "ok that is a tier 2.5 title. I don't look at a title and say it has this anomaly so that automatically places it in tier 2.75. It is the overall PQ look I am most concerned with being eye candy or not and then each of the issues pros or cons that can move that title up or down.


Foxy, I bring all of that up and if you visit this thread again please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems you are looking at a title and its issues and saying that is where it belongs and only where it belongs because you have said so and therefore this thread has no merit if it doesn't get placed where you say. This is where I have to agree with djoberg, as that is not how this thread works. Other's have their opinion and titles are placed accordingly. We are looking for eye candy and while we look at issues and rate videos based on those issues we are really looking for eye candy more and what everyone feels is eye candy as opposed to things like director's intent, film grain, trying to attain the most film like quality, etc. This does not mean we don't use the above mentioned in our evaluations, it means we don't give them total control over how to rate. Most of the time there is no way an HD video is going to look like film, but that doesn't mean it isn't eye candy or demo material for BD. Crank and Apocalypto are two examples.


Foxy, again correct me if I am wrong, but aren't you claiming that if the titles don't get placed where you are saying then there is something wrong with this thread and its criteria?


Anyone else is welcome to correct me if I misconstrued Foxy's points.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15658244
> 
> 
> From having dealt with both Foxy and Phantom, I believe that when it comes to PQ you two have much that you share in common and the things that are dividing you here should not be insurmountable. I hate to comment on a particular poster in the open forum, but since I have nothing disparaging to say, I will venture forth; If the debate about the finer points of PQ were to fall into party lines, I would call Foxy a moderate, not at all an extremist. I have no idea what battles were fought here in the past and I would really hope we could move forward. I believe Foxy's thread and this thread are very complimentary -- I post on both of them and I've seen many others from this thread do the same. In fact, our thread provides a link to Foxy's thread right in the opening paragraphs. What I appreciate about Foxy's original post, the one that began this discussion.....
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...7#post15645207
> 
> 
> is that he does not try to assert the agenda of his own thread. Instead, he assumes the goals of this thread, and makes what I interpret to be a good faith effort to participate according to our criteria. There is one line that could be seen as inflammatory....
> 
> 
> "*I believe the thread would lose it's integrity if this movie is placed anywhere except Tier 5....*"
> 
> 
> And perhaps, based on old battles, this line could be taken the wrong way. But, I would just point out that I have seen lines like this used by many of our posters when making recommendations; that any other placement would be a travesty, would be ridiculous, would be insane and plenty of other colorful assertions.
> 
> 
> If you look at the totality of Foxy's post, you'll notice that it basically alludes to the criteria for various tiers and he *nominates* titles to various tiers.
> 
> *Foxy cannot demand that any title be placed in a particular tier, he can make recommendations and his recommendations will be weighed along with the others.*
> 
> 
> IMO, Foxy's recommendations could and have provided the basis for some interesting discussion. If some of us have tired of discussing these titles, we can always scroll through the discussion.
> 
> 
> I can also vouch for Phantom and his outreach to new reviewers. As for "attacking" certain recommendations. I'd be willing to bet Phantom would clarify his comment to better communicate that he means "challenge." Since we all want to make the best recommendations, each recommendation is fair game and can be challenged by other posters. Anyone posting here should understand that and should be thick skinned enough to stand up to some challenge and debate. It helps to know the basis for your recommendation.
> 
> *To me, it is also disrespectful to the thread and all of the effort we put into it to ask us to accept recommendations without challenge or debate.*
> 
> 
> I also question posters who ask for more civility and then slam the entire thread. If disparaging one poster is uncivil, what would you call disparaging the entire thread, which disparages everyone who spends their efforts here?
> 
> 
> If anyone out there has a doubt about whether you are wanted here, I think anyone here would say we welcome the participation of anyone who is willing to wrestle with these criteria in an effort to help this thread give the best possible service to those who come here looking for ranked recommendations.



Interesting as I wasjust trying to make a point and understand as well. His posts for recommendations come across as absolutes or am I reading wrong?


I also agree that anyone is welcome here and it seems most who are not here anymore is because they voluntarily left because of difference mainly due to the thread NOT going their way or other posters agreeing with them. I honestly can't say I know of any that have been banned. I also believe dismissive comments like this thread may not be for you are not helpful or welcoming. I know that thought is expressed many times in the PQ comparison pic threads, and I understand it, but I don't agree on the basis of it coming across as exclusive or snooty even if it has good intent. It is a wall not a bridge and we need less walls and more bridges.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Like I said a while ago, this thread has become a chore to read and nuisance to read.


We need to figure something out.


----------



## Wryker




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15658587
> 
> 
> Like I said a while ago, this thread has become a chore to read and nuisance to read.
> 
> 
> We need to figure something out.



I concur.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15658587
> 
> 
> Like I said a while ago, this thread has become a chore to read and nuisance to read.
> 
> 
> We need to figure something out.



I apologize as I am one of the long winded posters, but isn't that what the first page is really about? One can go to the first page and see the titles ranked and no discussion to distract. Or did you mean the current type of discussion is an issue, but not where we debate PQ of titles?


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15658779
> 
> 
> I apologize as I am one of the long winded posters, but isn't that what the first page is really about? One can go to the first page and see the titles ranked and no discussion to distract. Or did you mean the current type of discussion is an issue, but not where we debate PQ of titles?



I have been a part of this thread for about a year now, and it is now more debates/long winded posts/arguments over the most minute things/bickering/back handed compliments/attacks/rolling eyes/anything else along these lines than reviews and quality posts.


The problem is, I don't really see a solution to it. EVERYONE has a different set of eyes, a different display, and a different bias/opinion. It is the inherit problem of this thread.


----------



## suffolk112000




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/15653522
> 
> 
> The EE in TDK's 35 mm shots is blatantly visible even on my 50" Plasma. The grain simply doesn't look film. It looks too digital to my eyes. The first comment that came out of my noob wife and sister was "_why does the picture look unnaturally sharp?_"
> 
> 
> I found out another filming flaw. Part of the chopper can be reflecting in the glass window of the building between 1m:08s ~ 1m:10s mark during the prologue.



I guess I just don't see what your talking about either regarding DK.









58x104" Da-Lite HCCV screen - Sony VW60 from 12 feet.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Righteous Kill*


This is a solid, if not particularly great, looking transfer. It seems to do everything relatively well, but doesn't particularly excel at anything either. I don't think there is anything to be disappointed with, but it is not demo material either.


Detail and clarity is good overall, as is contrast, black levels, and colors. It's really a decent middle of the road title.


Despite having De Niro and Pacino, though, I certainly can't recommend this movie, as it wasn't very good.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15659185
> 
> *Righteous Kill*
> 
> 
> This is a solid, if not particularly great, looking transfer. It seems to do everything relatively well, but doesn't particularly excel at anything either. I don't think there is anything to be disappointed with, but it is not demo material either.
> 
> 
> Detail and clarity is good overall, as is contrast, black levels, and colors. It's really a decent middle of the road title.
> 
> 
> Despite having De Niro and Pacino, though, I certainly can't recommend this movie, as it wasn't very good.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.25*



WTF? A PQ review in the "Mixed Martial Arts Thread?" Who does this guy think he is?

















I just rented Eastern Promises. I'll attempt to leave a review after watching (only if I don't have to step in "The Octagon").


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15659185
> 
> *Righteous Kill*
> 
> 
> This is a solid, if not particularly great, looking transfer. It seems to do everything relatively well, but doesn't particularly excel at anything either. I don't think there is anything to be disappointed with, but it is not demo material either.
> 
> 
> Detail and clarity is good overall, as is contrast, black levels, and colors. It's really a decent middle of the road title.
> 
> 
> Despite having De Niro and Pacino, though, I certainly can't recommend this movie, as it wasn't very good.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.25*



I thought some of the facial closeups were off the charts but that was about it for eye candy, well that and Carla, but for purposes of this thread she doesn't count.


----------



## tfoltz

I agree with LBFilmGuy. I now skip all posts that don't have a tier recommendation. Everything else is just a wall of text.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15659392
> 
> 
> WTF? A PQ review in the "Mixed Martial Arts Thread?" Who does this guy think he is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just rented Eastern Promises. I'll attempt to leave a review after watching (only if I don't have to step in "The Octagon").



I see what you did there.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15659361
> 
> 
> I'm sure everyone sees something different, but this is what I see when I read Foxy's post...
> 
> *I would like to nominate* Scary Movie for Tier 5 as it fits the criteria for that tier perfectly.
> 
> 
> I believe the thread would lose it's integrity if this movie is placed anywhere except Tier 5 *as it does not fit into the criteria for Tier 4* which demands a decent picture and yet with all the excess DNR and edge enhancement Scary Movie is *robbed of every last ounce of HD detail* and for good measure ugly edge enhancement is added to pretend it's sharper than it actually is.
> 
> 
> Now it's *my belief* that in the case of Scary Movie this EE and DNR could be baked into the master but *it's still a firm Tier 5 all the way.* Those with smaller screens please imagine just how bad it gets when viewing on a large projection system as EE and DNR on smaller sets doesn't look nearly as bad and i say that from personal experience as i haven't always had a projection system.
> 
> *I nominate* The Simpsons for Tier 2
> 
> 
> It contains ringing as a result of a low pass filter which also *removes some of the finer detail* which should be present on this animated title. Tier 1 demands better than this with no ringing thus *i think* moving it to Tier 2 is appropriate.
> 
> *I nominate* Crank for Tier 2 as although it looks super sharp the reason for this is edge enhancement as it was sharpened post production at the approval of the director. Films with edge enhancement can not be considered demo reference material and the edge enhancement is consistent throughout the film and those with very large sets or projection systems will easily notice this issue. Having a small halo around images and people should disqualify any film from being true reference and *so i vote it for Tier 2*
> 
> *I also nominate* Pirates of the Caribbean - Curse of the Black Pearl for Tier 1 since it also suffers from mild edge enhancement and thus cannot be considered true demo reference material. The sequels though are Demo all the way.
> 
> 
> I would *nominate* 3:10 to Yuma for Tier 2 as it contains aliasing ( jaggies ) from the beginning of the film all the way to the end - If that issue wasn't there then i think Tier 1 but since it is *it can be very distracting and an issue for Tier 1* which requires video artifacts being next to nothing...Obviously video artifacts in the form of jaggies are there from the start to the finish of the movie thus Tier 2.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why Pan's Labyrinth is in Tier 1.5 and would *personally* move that to Tier 3 since it has had excess DNR applied and *fine detail is destroyed* thus it's hardly *demo material as regards this thread* and its softer than it should be thus Tier 3 *recommendation.*
> 
> 
> I would have Total Recall in Tier 3 also.
> 
> 
> I would *nominate* Con Air for Tier 4
> 
> 
> I would like to *recommend* the German Import version of Silent Hill be placed in Tier 1
> 
> 
> I would also *recommend* The X Files - Fight The Future is placed in Tier 3
> 
> 
> I would *recommend* placing The Untouchables in Tier 4 since image *HD detail is destroyed* through use of DNR and the films backgrounds have a *frozen grain structure* which looks absolutely hideous.
> 
> 
> I *recommend* Romancing The Stone be placed in Tier 1.5 as it's image is sharp and detailed and it has no ee or dnr applied to it and is one of the finest catalogue titles to hit the Blu Ray format to date.
> 
> 
> I would *recommend* moving Face/Off to Tier 4 since it has high levels of DNR which destroy the *detail levels and cause smearing in motion* and frankly it looks ugly on larger screens because of this.
> 
> 
> I would *recommend* Tier 5 for Evil Dead 2 - There are screencaps on AVS showing that the original DVD release has MORE detail than this abomination of a transfer thus it belongs in Tier 5
> 
> 
> I would have First Blood in Tier 5 due to *lack of HD detail and smoothing/smearing issues* due to overuse of DNR.
> 
> 
> I *recommend* Tier 2 for The Dark Knight due to the 35mm filmed scenes looking a little too processed with EE thus not Demo.
> 
> 
> Whether everyone sees some of these issues is relevant to your screen size and viwing distances but *since this is a Demo material thread* i believe the worst looking titles which have excess DNR or EE or Aliasing or other major issues *should be moved down the list because otherwise people will rent or buy these and perhaps view on their large screen projection systems and be disappointed.*[/b]
> 
> __________________



I see all that it is his opinion, but I am asking when he was and is questioned and some like djoberg said he disagrees, it then seemed like it was an absolute, like his way or the highway. His way or the thread has no integrity. It implies NONE of us have integrity with rating PQ.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wryker* /forum/post/15658675
> 
> 
> I concur.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/15659446
> 
> 
> I agree with LBFilmGuy. I now skip all posts that don't have a tier recommendation. Everything else is just a wall of text.



I knew I'd have some lurkers speak up and agree with me.










Just know as a regular poster in here, I feel your pain and am tired of it.


----------



## Hughmc

*Appaloosa: Tier 2.75*


I only see one review of this and it is from Rob Tomlin recommending 3.25 and then rsbeck agreeing 100%.










I agree that overall the title is disappointing and lacks some clarity and detail. What I found interesting was the mid range shots of people, which even in good titles is iffy at times, and long range scenery shots looked fairly good. In fact some of the long range scenery shots were beautiful and very clear, but that maybe more due to cinematography and vistas than the actual shots themselves being excellent PQ. The closeup shots, inside and dark scenes were average to mediocre PQ.


I really liked this movie and thought it was going to be a bit more boring based on what some has said, but it was an excellent story. Rob, you mentioned bit rates in your review. This video is on a BD 25g disc and I think it shows. Even the Tru HD track was very low in volume and had to be cranked.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15659392
> 
> 
> WTF? A PQ review in the "Mixed Martial Arts Thread?" Who does this guy think he is?














> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15659429
> 
> 
> I thought some of the facial closeups were off the charts but that was about it for eye candy, well that and Carla, but for purposes of this thread she doesn't count.



The facial details were adequate, but I wouldn't say they were "off the charts". Carla did indeed look quite nice.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15659586
> 
> *Appaloosa: Tier 2.75*
> 
> 
> I only see one review of this and it is from Rob Tomlin recommending 3.25 and then rsbeck agreeing 100%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that overall the title is disappointing and lacks some clarity and detail. What I found interesting was the mid range shots of people, which even in good titles is iffy at times, and long range scenery shots looked fairly good. In fact some of the long range scenery shots were beautiful and very clear, but that maybe more due to cinematography and vistas than the actual shots themselves being excellent PQ. The closeup shots, inside and dark scenes were average to mediocre PQ.
> 
> 
> I really liked this movie and thought it was going to be a bit more boring based on what some has said, but it was and excellent story. Rob, you mentioned bit rates in your review. This video is on a BD 25g disc and I think it shows. Even the Tru HD track was very low in volume and had to be cranked.



Interesting point regarding the mid range shots. I agree that it is largely the interior shots that brings the overall score down a lot.


I enjoyed the movie itself too. Nothing new, by any stretch, but well executed, and some good acting.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15659586
> 
> *Appaloosa: Tier 2.75*
> 
> 
> I only see one review of this and it is from Rob Tomlin recommending 3.25 and then rsbeck agreeing 100%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that overall the title is disappointing and lacks some clarity and detail. What I found interesting was the mid range shots of people, which even in good titles is iffy at times, and long range scenery shots looked fairly good. In fact some of the long range scenery shots were beautiful and very clear, but that maybe more due to cinematography and vistas than the actual shots themselves being excellent PQ. The closeup shots, inside and dark scenes were average to mediocre PQ.
> 
> 
> I really liked this movie and thought it was going to be a bit more boring based on what some has said, but it was and excellent story. Rob, you mentioned bit rates in your review. This video is on a BD 25g disc and I think it shows. Even the Tru HD track was very low in volume and had to be cranked.



I tried renting this the other day Hugh, but all copies were already out. I'll get it ASAP, for I love Westerns!


I ordered Youth Without Youth this last weekend from Amazon and it should be here later this week. Phantom's review really got me psyched and my anticipation is great! Amazon had MANY good reviews on the movie itself and it sounds like real "brain food." That will be a welcome relief after some of the mindless flicks I've been seeing lately.


----------



## rsbeck

There are some funny lines in Appaloosa. Not sure they are all believable, but funny and a little different than what you see in most Westerns. The picture had a weird quality to it. I was almost sure it had been shot on HD video and was surprised to check and find out it was film. Given that Harris said he was going for a classic look, I was surprised to see it so shorn of grain and with that flat look.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15659827
> 
> 
> There are some funny lines in Appaloosa. Not sure they are all believable, but funny and a little different than what you see in most Westerns. The picture had a weird quality to it. I was almost sure it had been shot on HD video and was surprised to check and find out it was film. Given that Harris said he was going for a classic look, I was surprised to see it so shorn of grain and with that flat look.



Something is definitely "off" about it, that's for sure.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15659884
> 
> 
> I skip all posts that do not refer to my prodigious early 20th century stamp collection.
> 
> 
> Some days, there's hardly anything to read.



I'll speak out. I am a single person who lives alone, has family back east and gets out a only a couple of times a week to play ice hockey as that is most of the extent of my socializing. AVS forum and in particular the PQ thread has been and is a place to socialize for me. I am gregarious, verbose and love the convos, all of them, even the heated ones, because I believe we CAN all get along. Thinking about this I can't help but think there must be some on here who are totally alone, handicapped, not many or any friends or social structure and for them it is the only place to enjoy thier hobby and conversation.


I know we have a thread in the AMp section that is strictly about FW upgrades and DOES NOT allow conversation or debate about them. It is just a straight FW thread and is very dry, but I understand and respect that.


Having said that the whole purpose or should I say main purpose of forums on the net is to have discussion, debate and more. I see this forum as much of the same. It is the ties that bind us to a hobby and the ability to discuss the hobby.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15659982
> 
> 
> I'll speak out. I am a single person who lives alone, has family back east and gets out a only a couple of times a week to play ice hockey as that is most of the extent of my socializing. AVS forum and in particular the PQ thread has been and is a place to socialize for me. I am gregarious, verbose and love the convos, all of them, even the heated ones, because I believe we CAN all get along. Thinking about this I can't help but think there must be some on here who are totally alone, handicapped, not many or any friends or social structure and for them it is the only place to enjoy thier hobby and conversation.
> 
> 
> I know we have a thread in the AMp section that is strictly about FW upgrades and DOES NOT allow conversation or debate about them. It is just a straight FW thread and is very dry, but I understand and respect that.
> 
> 
> Having said that the whole purpose or should I say main purpose of forums on the net is to have discussion, debate and more. I see this forum as much of the same. It is the ties that bind us to a hobby and the ability to discuss the hobby.



Your post is understandable, but unfortunately the ratio of PQ posts to "heated discussions" is too uneven.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15659982
> 
> 
> I'll speak out. I am a single person who lives alone, has family back east and gets out a only a couple of times a week to play ice hockey as that is most of the extent of my socializing. AVS forum and in particular the PQ thread has been and is a place to socialize for me. I am gregarious, verbose and love the convos, all of them, even the heated ones, because I believe we CAN all get along. Thinking about this I can't help but think there must be some on here who are totally alone, handicapped, not many or any friends or social structure and for them it is the only place to enjoy thier hobby and conversation.
> 
> 
> I know we have a thread in the AMp section that is strictly about FW upgrades and DOES NOT allow conversation or debate about them. It is just a straight FW thread and is very dry, but I understand and respect that.
> 
> 
> Having said that the whole purpose or should I say main purpose of forums on the net is to have discussion, debate and more. I see this forum as much of the same. It is the ties that bind us to a hobby and the ability to discuss the hobby.



+1


Very good thoughts Hugh! I too enjoy the social aspect of this thread and the camaraderie between fellow-members.


----------



## spectator

It sounds like, at the moment, things are swinging toward an idea I mentioned a couple days ago, so I'll suggest it again:


We could split the thread into a "PQ Reviews Only" thread and a "Discussion About PQ Reviews" thread. It seems like every few days someone says "Too much noise in this thread!" and then everyone has to sound off and declare "Yeah, too much!" or "It's not noise to me!" I can't think of a better way to end that cycle.


----------



## rsbeck

*Legends of Jazz*


Agree with Current Placement


1.78:1


Like a lot of concert videos, Legends was shot on HD video. For the purposes of this thread, Legends is quite a bit better than most of the concert discs I've seen. There are a number of things that make it better; First, the lighting is better than anything else I've seen. Second, there is more ultra-fine detail on display. Often, faces take up a good portion of the 1.78:1 image and you can see pores and imperfections, single strands of eyebrow, mustache, subtle variations between different strands of hair. You can see fine mesh and tiny lettering on microphones, close-ups of the piano where you can see hundreds of tiny indentions on the black keys perfectly resolved. Fine texture in clothing -- check out Clark Terry's tie! You see fine grain in guitars, you can make out John Pizzarelli's name on the head of his guitar neck, grain in the wood of the studio stand-up bass player's bass where the finish has worn away. Plus, it is very consistent as far as focus. You don't go from a real soft shot to a super sharp one very often, if at all. Most of the concert videos I've seen are incredibly uneven. IMO, it is much harder to watch when you are constantly going from sharp to soft. What holds Legends back from tier 0 is the soft shots and slight contrast problems. Many prefer the look of HD video to film, but HD video has its challenges. It takes a lot of light to shoot HD video, which can cause problems. How these challenges are handled is often what makes the difference between excellent PQ and problematic PQ. Legends is very successful, the lighting is very controlled so performers look very natural, detail is evident, softness and contrast problems are kept to a tolerable level.

*Recommendation: Tier 1.5*


Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From 126" Screen


----------



## rsbeck

*Elton John 60th: Live at Madison Square Garden*


Disagree With Current Placement


1.78:1


Also shot on HD, Elton John's 60th is rock and roll spectacle at its finest. I can easily see what the excitement is all about. John is at his piano amidst a huge set, which is captured well here and effectively communicates that you are witnessing an event of somewhat mythic proportions. The way the film maker handles HD's need for copious amounts of light is to set the band in front of a huge video screen with an impressive light show going non-stop. The most impressive shots are those where the camera pulls back and you see hundreds of tiny white lights, almost a star scape in effect with Eton John seemingly one of the constellations. Nice. Now for the negatives; Elton John's face often takes up a generous portion of the 1.78:1 screen, but he has not been lit or shot to exhibit fine facial detail. So, his face, to me, is just as off-putting as any DNR affected face in Zulu. His face seems to have been shot with some sort of soft focus effect. So, you get these weird juxtapositions where you get a close-up of John's hand on the piano keys and you can see the pores and single strands of hair -- then you cut to John's blurred face where you cannot make out a single pore, eyebrows and hair are indistinct, where the only single strands of hair you can make out are sticking out from the back of his neck into the light. Long shots are often problematic with HD video and they definitely are here. Long shots are soft and light control becomes a problem. Contrast often shifts right in the middle of a shot and often varies from shot to shot, which means they match up very poorly. There were times when I was tempted to admire the happenings on the video screen behind the band until I realized -- duh -- the reason it would look sharp from so far back is because....we're so far back! Nice trick. I can see why nobody wanted to answer when I asked about the level of ultra-fine detail in this video. It's hard to find. Don't get me wrong, Elton's 60th can be fun to watch, just no fun to review. If you're looking for problematic scenes to remember for the review, they pile up quickly. If you're not reviewing it, it's easy to get caught up in the bigness of it all, the flashing lights, the stimulation. If you're looking for impressive detail and things to match tier 0 criteria, you get very frustrated. I would compare Elton John to my recent review of The Last Emperor. Same potential, same problems. Huge, interesting set, some impressive scenes, but too much softness and not consistent enough for our demo tiers 0 or 1.0 through 1.75. I would recommend .25 lower than my recommendation for Emperor and a full tier below Legends of Jazz. Legends was small and intimate, but detailed, Elton was big and momentus, but soft and problematic.

*Recommendation: Tier 2.5*


Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From 126" Screen


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15661308
> 
> 
> Elton John's face often takes up a generous portion of the 1.78:1 screen, but he has not been lit or shot to exhibit fine facial detail. So, his face, to me, is just as off-putting as any DNR affected face in Zulu.



Really?! So, if you had attended this concert in person, might you have left it muttering "Would've been a great show if it hadn't looked so DNR'd!"?


I just don't get how you can want to apply this particular criterion to this kind of content. To me, seeing that kind of extremely revealing lighting in a live concert would look distractingly unfamiliar/inappropriate. I'm willing to call that kind of image more-or-less objectively "better" for most feature films, but I've never been to a live concert that looked like a film and I'm not sure I'd want to.


----------



## rsbeck

From the assessment criteria...

*Notice: For the purposes of this tier system we do not take director's intent into consideration when evaluating the visual quality of each Blu-ray. This list represents an absolute ranking system, where every available Blu-ray's picture quality is directly compared against every other release.*


I just compared Elton to both a film and another concert video.


If it looks just like a real concert with problematic lighting and indistinct faces, I consider that director's intent. I can't recommend this for the demo tiers. We have better titles to recommend for reference demo. 2.50 is not a negative recommendation. I just posted a review where I praised the heck out of The Last Emperor and recommended 2.25. The sets are easily as impressive in that title, lighting is better, a lot more fine detail is on display, similar problems with softness, but contrast and shadow detail is far better on Emperor, Elton far more inconsistent.


I stand by my recommendation. I believe it is fair.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15657298
> 
> *Tier Four - Copper (Below Average)*
> 
> _While still visually superior to upscaled standard definition material, the differences are less obvious upon casual inspection. Some Blu-rays in this tier do represent significant upgrades over the dvd
> _
> 
> *Tier Five - Charcoal (Unacceptable)*
> 
> _At various times the picture quality is hard to distinguish from upscaled dvd material._



Nice write up Phantom. Suggesting some minor changes.

*Tier Four - Copper (Below Average)*

_While still visually *better than* upscaled standard definition material, the differences are less obvious upon casual inspection. Some Blu-rays in this tier do represent significant upgrades over the dvd
_

*Tier Five - Charcoal (Unacceptable)*

_At various times the picture quality is hard to distinguish from dvd material._


----------



## selimsivad

*Eastern Promises*


There was a beautiful, light layer of grain throughout the film. "3D pop" lovers, you will be pleased! Viggo leaps off the screen in every scene he's in! Great cinematography for a 1.78:1 flick.










Be warned, this movie is not for anyone sensitive to violence and/or gore! EP has many realistic scenes demonstrating cutting and slicing of body parts. Blood is essential to any Cronenberg story!










Skin tones were slightly reddish, but not in a distracting way. Blacks were magestic, which gave way to excellent shadowing. Pores, wrinkles, hair and clothing textures looked good. Details in backround shots were above average. This movie is currently ranked at the top of Tier 1. IMO, I see Tier 1.25. It looks excellent, but slightly falls short of 1.00. What a great film!










Peace.










*Eastern Promises

Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.25

PS3-Samsung 46" 1080p-seven*'


----------



## FoxyMulder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15659467
> 
> 
> I see all that it is his opinion, but I am asking when he was and is questioned and some like djoberg said he disagrees, it then seemed like it was an absolute, like his way or the highway. His way or the thread has no integrity. It implies NONE of us have integrity with rating PQ.



I have my own thread which i moderate and i let it flow and do not interfere or dictate in that thead so why would you even think i am trying to dictate in someone else's thread.....Not at all i recommended Tier placements thats all.


I even gave solid reasons for most of the placements and indeed i see one of my recommendations was already in Tier 3 ( X Files - Fight The Future )


What bothered me is the hoopla that followed.....It bothers me i need to defend myself and constantly write replies ( like this one )


Disagree with my recommendations all you like but was the hoopla which followed my posting really necessary.


The only thing i mentioned with regards to thread integrity was that Scary Movie was so bad it shouldn't be anywhere but Tier 5 and i stick by that and say the same about Evil Dead II.....Imagine you are a newcomer to these boards and own a projection system and you want some suggestions for great looking movies on Blu Ray...You like Scary Movie and Evil Dead II so you buy or rent them based on this threads high placement of both....You get them home and are shocked to discover Evil Dead II looks worse than your old THX DVD edition and Scary Movie has gone all wax central and there are halos around everyone.


I think that would indeed call into question the thread integrity in the eyes of the person who bought it. That doesn't mean i am demanding it be placed anywhere....It means i am giving my thoughts and reasons and if you want to ignore them then go right ahead but i used the Tier criteria for my decisions and if there is no real Tier criteria or if you are going to constantly change it to suit your personal objectives then how am i or anyone else supposed to understand the recommendation procedure.


Some of us want to give our reasons and move on...We don't want to spend five pages in conflict with people.


This is how i see a thread like this.....I state my reasons and if i have proof be it in the form of screencaps to back me up on what i have seen then i post them....Other people come in and post what they think and if they disagree they post a detailed response as to why they disagree with any evidence they may have to back up their statement.


Now the Captain of the ship ( the thread starter ) comes into the thread and looks over the debate and proof provided if it was included and places the film in the correct Tier....No arguing or squabbling and their say is final based on the debate.


The Tier Criteria and the wording on it should be the grounds on which each film title is placed so you need to get the wording right and stick with it and stick by it's principles and the wording has to be clear so that if the wording for example Tier 5 says "No better than an upscaled DVD" then you take that into account and Evil Dead II is on that list ( thats how i read it when recommending )


Thats my thoughts on how the thread could be better and i don't want to get into a huge hoopla again....Arguments quite frankly put me off and i prefer to state well thought out reasons and leave it at that.


I do not wish to rock any boat here and these views are strictly my own....I just don't want to get into endless debates though so will stick to the other threads and maybe just view this one from time to time.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15661414
> 
> 
> If it looks just like a real concert with problematic lighting and indistinct faces, I consider that director's intent.



If it looks like a film, with subtly delineated faces, that would be director's intent, too! It doesn't matter whether the look was intended or not- like I'm supposed to in this thread, I'm only evaluating the final product. The difference is that I don't want the same rigid thing from that final product, regardless of the content.


Would you knock a film for not looking like a concert? So, why would you knock a concert for not looking like a film?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15661414
> 
> 
> I stand by my recommendation. I believe it is fair.



I'm sure it is and I don't question your evaluation skills or sincerity. I just can't understand why you'd have the same criteria for movies and concerts and director's intent has nothing to do with it.


----------



## Incindium




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15661264
> 
> 
> It sounds like, at the moment, things are swinging toward an idea I mentioned a couple days ago, so I'll suggest it again:
> 
> 
> We could split the thread into a "PQ Reviews Only" thread and a "Discussion About PQ Reviews" thread. It seems like every few days someone says "Too much noise in this thread!" and then everyone has to sound off and declare "Yeah, too much!" or "It's not noise to me!" I can't think of a better way to end that cycle.



As a spectator of this thread I would totally agree with this. I like to read the PQ reviews but with all the back and forth arguing about ratings and discussion of what are the criteria for a Tier I think the value of the thread is diminished. Plus I would say it makes people less likely to participate in the PQ rating/reviewing.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15661264
> 
> 
> It sounds like, at the moment, things are swinging toward an idea I mentioned a couple days ago, so I'll suggest it again:
> 
> 
> We could split the thread into a "PQ Reviews Only" thread and a "Discussion About PQ Reviews" thread. It seems like every few days someone says "Too much noise in this thread!" and then everyone has to sound off and declare "Yeah, too much!" or "It's not noise to me!" I can't think of a better way to end that cycle.




At first, I was against it. Now, it makes sooooo much sense.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I can almost guarantee that the mods will not allow a separate thread that would do nothing but discuss this thread.


----------



## haste




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15663907
> 
> 
> I can almost guarantee that the mods will not allow a separate thread that would do nothing but discuss this thread.



Yeah, this thread almost needs a whole other sub-forum for discussions.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15663907
> 
> 
> I can almost guarantee that the mods will not allow a separate thread that would do nothing but discuss this thread.



Why not? If we can have separate threads for pics comparisons of _individual titles_, why would a 'reviews' thread and a 'reviews discussion' thread be too much?


----------



## spectator

rsbeck, I agree completely. I think anyone disinterested in the discussion aspects of this thread should just scroll past them. However, from experience with the thread, I suspect we'll never be rid of requests to can the discussion unless and until we do something like giving the requesters the concession of a discussion-free version they can look at. Personally, I'd rather have just the one thread, but I know my tastes aren't the only ones being served here and I'm trying to come up with a helpful compromise.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15664419
> 
> 
> I don't want to be unsympathetic, but I really don't see the problem or what profit comes from these complaints. If one only wants to read the reviews, it could not be easier, just use your scroll button and stop at the reviews -- voila -- problem solved. I just don't see what sense it makes to try to control the flow of give and take or the length of any discussion. Discussions take as long as they take and every computer comes with a scroll button. No one is forced to read anything but reviews. How does it make sense to create a whole separate forum for the discussions, causing all kinds of work to maintain reference points when it is so exceedingly simple to scroll past any discussion in which one is uninterested? There is also some irony in that the complaining posts are also off-topic, so you go off-topic to complain and start an off-topic discussion to complain about discussions that are at least on-topic. I also question the motive for the complaint posts. What does it add to the discussion? Aren't the complaint posts really only designed to make the complainer feel better, to feel superior, to feel above and unsullied by the fray? How about a separate thread where people who don't like discussions can post their complaints so they don't interrupt the flow and don't pull discussions off-topic?



I actually do agree completely, in contrast to the prior poster.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15664513
> 
> 
> I actually do agree completely, in contrast to the prior poster.













So, your complete agreement is different from my complete agreement?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15664523
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, your complete agreement is different from my complete agreement?



Surely you realize that your initial statement of "complete agreement" was totally negated by everything that came after it?


----------



## spectator

Good points, all, rsbeck.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15664620
> 
> 
> Surely you realize that your initial statement of "complete agreement" was totally negated by everything that came after it?



No, I don't, because my initial statement of "complete agreement" was followed only by a brief explication of same agreement and then by the mention of an alternative I would be willing to accept despite my complete agreement.


However, if you can find something in my post which 'negates' my complete agreement, I'll mail you a cookie.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15664661
> 
> 
> No, I don't, because my initial statement of "complete agreement" was followed only by a brief explication of same agreement and then by the mention of an alternative I would be willing to accept despite my complete agreement.



The "concession" or "compromise" you proposed was basically to accept exactly what those who are unhappy with the current situation would like to see.


In any event, I agree with Rob Tomlin that the mods would veto the idea of parallel threads.


----------



## rsbeck

Bottom line: Anyone coming to this thread should and I would suspect does realize that it is a big human sprawling mess with reviews, debates, spats, fraternal socializing and sometimes even links to snack recipes. But, it can very easily be made manageable. You can skip it all and just read the tiers at the beginning of the thread, you can use thread search and pull up just the reviews, or you can read the forum daily and just scroll past any post that doesn't contain the identifying bold lettering indicating that it is a review.


Problem solved.


----------



## sleater




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15664478
> 
> 
> rsbeck, I agree completely. I think anyone disinterested in the discussion aspects of this thread should just scroll past them. However, from experience with the thread, *I suspect we'll never be rid of requests to can the discussion unless and until we do something like giving the requesters the concession of a discussion-free version they can look at.* Personally, I'd rather have just the one thread, but I know my tastes aren't the only ones being served here and I'm trying to come up with a helpful compromise.



This 'discussion free' version that would solve all our problems is called PAGE 1. A user interested only in Tier Placement alone simply has to check where his/her movie of choice is situated on page one. If they would like to know why/how it was placed where it is, there is a simple thread search tool. And yes, the scroll bar is another simple solution to avoiding the 'problematic' discussion. The practice of bolding a title review with its placement in the tier serves this purpose very well. IMO we should leave well enough alone on this one - I personally have a limited life like Hugh and tend to lurk this thread to death, and the discussion is passionate and interesting, if seldom on topic. Topic being eye candy yes or no, I suppose. Perhaps a DISCLAIMER on PAGE 1 to these sentiments might appease some folks... although I'm sure PAGE 1 doesn't need much more verbiage.

_Edit: sorry for repeating rsbeck's post above, pretty much verbatim!_


----------



## Incindium

If a separate thread is out of the question how about a defined template made mandatory for review posts that would make them easily identified with specific words that would allow one to do a search that only return all review posts or review posts for a specific title?


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15664848
> 
> 
> Bottom line: Anyone coming to this thread should and I would suspect does realize that it is a big human sprawling mess with reviews, debates, spats, fraternal socializing and sometimes even links to snack recipes. But, it can very easily be made manageable. You can skip it all and just read the tiers at the beginning of the thread, you can use thread search and pull up just the reviews, or you can read the forum daily and just scroll past any post that doesn't contain the identifying bold lettering indicating that it is a review.
> 
> 
> Problem solved.



This is what I have been saying. The first page is the reviews/recommendations although it doesn't have the wordy text some use when doing the actual recommendation. The rest of the thread after that is discussion. Most who do a recommendation for a title include a paragraph or sometimes more. They do so to explain in detail why they are recommending a title for placement. This then opens a door for others to discuss and debate those issues. This is how the thread works. I respect some don't like what they see as clutter, but this is how this thread and really most of AVS works.


----------



## RBFC

I will resubmit my suggestion for group consideration.


We could have the PQ thread composed of sub-threads that each deal with one title. Each title's thread would be set up as a POLL, with the numerical PQ Tier ratings as choices. Then, each title would have a clear, instantly accessible tally of tier votes. Discussion about each title could all be carried out in the replies to that thread, exactly as the discussions play out now. However, the discussion would flow smoothly and uninterrupted, since reviews of other titles would not be intermingled.


1. Poll voting makes tier vote tally instantly accessible. Individuals wishing to change their already-submitted vote could PM SuprSlow with changes. SuprSlow could instantly assign titles to tiers based upon the votes.


2. All discussion on a certain title located in one easily-found spot. The same level of discussion could be had, but in a more orderly fashion.


3. SuprSlow was in favor of this idea when I mentioned it to him. Others in this thread have also responded favorably.


If we raise some consensual support, we could probably get the thread restructured in this manner.


Thoughts?


Lee


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Incindium* /forum/post/15665526
> 
> 
> If a separate thread is out of the question how about a defined template made mandatory for review posts that would make them easily identified with specific words that would allow one to do a search that only return all review posts or review posts for a specific title?



When I do a search all posts relevant to that title come up and I know it maybe too many or a pain for some, but really for me it isn't. I start scanning and clicking on each one and can read fairly quickly to see if it pertains and if not I move on to the next. I enjoy seeing and reading all related posts to the discussion, so it is not an issue for me.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RBFC* /forum/post/15665688
> 
> 
> I will resubmit my suggestion for group consideration.
> 
> 
> We could have the PQ thread composed of sub-threads that each deal with one title. Each title's thread would be set up as a POLL, with the numerical PQ Tier ratings as choices. Then, each title would have a clear, instantly accessible tally of tier votes. Discussion about each title could all be carried out in the replies to that thread, exactly as the discussions play out now. However, the discussion would flow smoothly and uninterrupted, since reviews of other titles would not be intermingled.
> 
> 
> 1. Poll voting makes tier vote tally instantly accessible. Individuals wishing to change their already-submitted vote could PM SuprSlow with changes. SuprSlow could instantly assign titles to tiers based upon the votes.
> 
> 
> 2. All discussion on a certain title located in one easily-found spot. The same level of discussion could be had, but in a more orderly fashion.
> 
> 
> 3. SuprSlow was in favor of this idea when I mentioned it to him. Others in this thread have also responded favorably.
> 
> 
> If we raise some consensual support, we could probably get the thread restructured in this manner.
> 
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Lee



That is a large change in the structure and mechanics of the tier system. I think a change that large would almost require a parallel effort for a trail period to see if that system is viable in operation. If I am being obtuse, I am simply saying to create that system in another thread entirely while still maintaining this thread, so if it fails it will have no impact on all the work that has gone into creating this thread. If it proves popular and stable, then we can decide to eliminate the current system that has been proven already to work in practice. That is a big leap of faith that a change like that would automatically work well.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RBFC* /forum/post/15665688
> 
> 
> I will resubmit my suggestion for group consideration.
> 
> 
> We could have the PQ thread composed of sub-threads that each deal with one title. Each title's thread would be set up as a POLL, with the numerical PQ Tier ratings as choices. Then, each title would have a clear, instantly accessible tally of tier votes. Discussion about each title could all be carried out in the replies to that thread, exactly as the discussions play out now. However, the discussion would flow smoothly and uninterrupted, since reviews of other titles would not be intermingled.
> 
> 
> 1. Poll voting makes tier vote tally instantly accessible. Individuals wishing to change their already-submitted vote could PM SuprSlow with changes. SuprSlow could instantly assign titles to tiers based upon the votes.
> 
> 
> 2. All discussion on a certain title located in one easily-found spot. The same level of discussion could be had, but in a more orderly fashion.
> 
> 
> 3. SuprSlow was in favor of this idea when I mentioned it to him. Others in this thread have also responded favorably.
> 
> 
> If we raise some consensual support, we could probably get the thread restructured in this manner.
> 
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> 
> Lee



I am very strongly opposed to this. I think the current arrangement works reasonably well.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15665867
> 
> 
> I am very strongly opposed to this. I think the current arrangement works reasonably well.



I agree.


----------



## KeithTalent




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Incindium* /forum/post/15665526
> 
> 
> If a separate thread is out of the question how about a defined template made mandatory for review posts that would make them easily identified with specific words that would allow one to do a search that only return all review posts or review posts for a specific title?



I try not to post in here, for various reasons, but I read this thread religiously and I just wanted to show my support for this idea. I find searching for actual reviews to be quite time consuming as so many posts come up with only a fleeting reference to a title. If there was a way to flush out the reviews, I know it would make my life a lot easier.


I actually read pretty much every post in this thread, but going back to look for a review on a movie I just watched can be painful.


KT


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15666001
> 
> 
> where almost every movie, CD, book, toaster or camera is rated 4.5 stars.



I can see positives and negatives to this kind of thread re-arrangement, but I really see no reason to expect that doing it would suddenly cause everyone in here to abandon their critical faculties.


----------



## spectator

I think on sites like Amazon or blu-ray.com, the people voting are talking up their favorite titles. Pretty much everything has some fans, so pretty much everything has a group of folks who are excited by it and take the time to rate it highly.


Around here, sure we are also fans of our favorite movies and, naturally, we're going to gravitate to those titles. However, we're not reviewing the movies themselves; we're reviewing the presentation of those movies (with which we are usually already familiar). This should cut down on the fannish tendency to rate all of our own stuff highly and everything we don't have poorly.


This thread, in its existing framework, already exhibits our ability to do this. All we're talking about is rearranging that framework, so why would the reviews change?


----------



## RBFC

My recommendation would merely organize all the discussion on each title into a coherent whole. The content and flavor of the discussions need not be altered in the least.


If there is concern about "drive-by" voting (valid concern, BTW), we could make it mandatory that voters place a comment in the replies when voting. We can place whatever qualifications for voting that we wish.


My first consideration when forming this suggestion was to make SuprSlow's job more efficient. An easily viewable tally is the answer for that.


The second consideration is to have all discussion on a particular title in one identifiable location.


I don't believe that the majority of this thread's readers feel that it's fine just as it is. My opinion, and truly just trying to help.


I admire the knowledge and passion of the main contributors here. Your comments have helped me to purchase discs with confidence.


Lee


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RBFC* /forum/post/15666730
> 
> 
> My recommendation would merely organize all the discussion on each title into a coherent whole. The content and flavor of the discussions need not be altered in the least.
> 
> 
> If there is concern about "drive-by" voting (valid concern, BTW), we could make it mandatory that voters place a comment in the replies when voting. We can place whatever qualifications for voting that we wish.
> 
> 
> My first consideration when forming this suggestion was to make SuprSlow's job more efficient. An easily viewable tally is the answer for that.
> 
> *The second consideration is to have all discussion on a particular title in one identifiable location.*
> 
> 
> I don't believe that the majority of this thread's readers feel that it's fine just as it is. My opinion, and truly just trying to help.
> 
> 
> I admire the knowledge and passion of the main contributors here. Your comments have helped me to purchase discs with confidence.
> 
> 
> Lee



The idea of "subthreads" with a separate one for each title is just not structurally feasible, even if it were desirable, which I don't think it is.


----------



## RBFC

It could be formatted in the same way that Ralph Potts' review section has been set up.


Lee


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RBFC* /forum/post/15667265
> 
> 
> It could be formatted in the same way that Ralph Potts' review section has been set up.
> 
> 
> Lee



That would require an entirely separate subforum. I don't think the mods and admins would like that, and I certaintly wouldn't like it either.


----------



## Obi-UWS

Can anyone here tell me when in fact any change or addition took place on the Rankings on Page One.

Not the language used but the list of movies.

That's why I stop by, but it seems to have been some time.









Thanks.


----------



## Incindium




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Obi-UWS* /forum/post/15667517
> 
> 
> Can anyone here tell me when in fact any change or addition took place on the Rankings on Page One.
> 
> Not the language used but the list of movies.
> 
> That's why I stop by, but it seems to have been some time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.



There is date and time on the top of Page One that says when it has been updated. It links to a post detailing the changes as well.


----------



## Obi-UWS

Thank you very much.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15665867
> 
> 
> I am very strongly opposed to this. *I think the current arrangement works reasonably well*.



I have been visiting and posting on this thread for over a year now and IMO, to echo the words of patrick, "the current arrangement works reasonably well." Like Phantom said in an earlier post (yesterday, I believe), one needs to familiarize themselves with the thread (i.e., study the Tier descriptions on page one and read various reviews to get a feeling for the process of making placements), and then START POSTING REVIEWS!. I personally read reviews for a couple of months before I posted my first review (though this is NOT said to set down a hard and fast rule)....for _me_ that was the time it took for me to feel comfortable being a part of the process of helping to make placements.


Again, I'm not setting down a rule here, but this thread is vastly different from a mere polling thread; it involves a bit of time and energy on the part of the members who post. And, it also involves some patience as we wait for the "discussion period" on any given title to run its course so that a placement can be made. From my vantage point, I am more than satisfied with this thread. Having been a part of the HD DVD PQ thread, which was more or less a mere polling thread, I was thrilled to learn that the Blu-ray thread allowed more participation and the ability to challenge reviews on titles. This might not be for everyone, but for those who favor this approach to placing movie titles, IT WORKS REASONABLY WELL (hey, I said that already, didn't I?







).


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Ultimate Avengers Collection*


tier recommendation: *Tier 2.75*


Released on April 24 of 2007, this BD was distributed by Lionsgate. The collection comprises of two separate direct-to-video Marvel movies, Ultimate Avengers 1 and Ultimate Avengers 2. The first main feature has a running time of 71-minutes while the sequel runs 72-minutes. Both of them are contained on one BD-50 and are encoded in MPEG-2. The movies consist of traditional cel animation with the occasional CGI object thrown in for effect. There is a strong sense of continuity between the character designs and settings in each movie.


Per the BDInfo scan, the first movie has an average video bitrate of 22.10 Mbps and the sequel an average video bitrate of 20.15 Mbps. It is hard to judge this title solely on the compression work as the original animation appears to have an inherent amount of banding in certain backgrounds. Distant sky shots show the color banding at its worst. The first movie in particular has some moments of posterization and aliasing early in the movie that is plainly visible and distracting. I would have probably called this a solid compression encode if this was still 2007 though, but it does not hold up as well to the better encodes seen today. At least chroma noise seems to be kept at a minimum.


The overall quality of the animation is a little inconsistent between the two movies. The sequel looks slightly, but appreciably better in quality than the first movie. On its own I probably would not have any problem recommending tier 2.25 or 2.5 for it, but the original movie is inferior with sloppier animation and less fluid animated motion, lowering my overall score for this disc. Neither of these features ever really approach the better animation seen in theatrical movies. My main complaint besides the poor frame rates was the lack of fully saturated and dynamic primary colors. The red of Iron Man's armor, the blue of Captain America's uniform, and the green of the Hulk's skin do not jump off the screen compared to the colors seen in Sleeping Beauty for example. I also would not go into viewing this expecting hyper-detailed drawings. The animation looks only slightly better in this regard than standard Saturday-morning cartoon fare. If you have seen one of these recent animated Marvel movies you will know what to expect.


Black levels are excellent and the image is mostly sharp. The masters for both features look in great condition, aside from one or two questionable moments in the first movie. I will recommend a placement in tier 2.75, slightly lower than the current placement of tier 2.5.


Watching on a 60” Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 (firmware 2.60) viewing from a distance of six feet.


BDInfo Information (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...10#post9044310


----------



## LBFilmGuy

I am totally in favor of RBFC's idea.


Hell, all it would take is to create a Blu Ray PQ Review subforum. Then we could have threads for each title and their ratings as voted.


Then at the top we could have a sticky of all the top titles.


Simple.


I don't see what the big deal is about what you say Patrick. It's not hard to create a subforum in vbulletin...and why wouldn't they like it?


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15668494
> 
> 
> I am totally in favor of RBFC's idea.
> 
> 
> Hell, all it would take is to create a Blu Ray PQ Review subforum. Then we could have threads for each title and their ratings as voted.
> 
> 
> Then at the top we could have a sticky of all the top titles.
> 
> 
> Simple.
> 
> 
> I don't see what the big deal is about what you say Patrick. It's not hard to create a subforum in vbulletin...and why wouldn't they like it?



The real question is how many of the regular contributors to the current tier list would want to participate in a system like that. I would have no problem if contentious titles had something like that, but many of us like the current process. Someone would have to talk a moderator into allowing what you are talking about to happen. The only thing I would ask is we keep this thread alive and well for those of us who prefer the current system. Competition is never a bad thing...survival of the fittest and all that.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15668579
> 
> 
> The real question is how many of the regular contributors to the current tier list would want to participate in a system like that. I would have no problem if contentious titles had something like that, but many of us like the current process. Someone would have to talk a moderator into allowing what you are talking about to happen. The only thing I would ask is we keep this thread alive and well for those of us who prefer the current system. Competition is never a bad thing...survival of the fittest and all that.



Honestly, most of the reviews get overlooked here as it is because of the nonstop bickering that surrounds it.


With a thread for each title, nothing will be lost. It will be much cleaner and organized and much more efficient I think.


I still don't get why adding a subforum is such a big deal, you act like it costs more $ to do,


----------



## RBFC

The discussions could take place exactly as before. They could merely be focused on each title in a central spot. I don't see how anything would change.


Lee


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Not only that, it will clear the main blu ray software forum which is about 50% "review and discussion" threads anyway on one particular title.


Throw all of that into 1 and you're golden.


----------



## Steeb

The funny thing is, this subject was just brought up by RBFC earlier this month. The following response seems to cut right to the heart of the matter, so I thought I would post it here for those who may have missed it a few weeks ago:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15453215
> 
> 
> Lee, this is a good idea, and.....get ready for it......it has been discussed before!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not only has it been discussed before...but it was also tried before. Unfortunately the moderators did not allow it. If I recall correctly they said something to the effect of requiring all of the Tier recommendation/polls/votes to take place only in this thread.



Bottom line: the mods have already said no, at least once. Even if every regular poster in the thread wanted the change (and that's certainly not the case, based on the posts I've seen,) it's not going to happen unless someone can convince the people in charge that this is in the best interest of the site. Considering that they already have an area of the site carved out for the official AVS reviews, I seriously doubt this will happen.


But by all means, keep bringing it up every few weeks...


----------



## RBFC

At the time the original suggestion was refused, there were relatively few BD titles available. With the much larger catalog of titles out now, a better system of organization is certainly necessary. With the support of the membership, and the fact that SuprSlow also thinks it a great idea, I believe that we could make a convincing case to allow the modification. The creation of the new subforum involves a short set-up process by an admin.


Blu-Ray has become the high-definition standard media. To maintain AVS's status as the elite internet resource, a well-organized presentation of the discussions surrounding BD quality should be provided. I am convinced that there would be significantly more participation in the PQ assessment process if these changes were to occur.


I ask interested members to PM Alan Gouger (AVS administrator) and ask that the change be reconsidered.


Lee


----------



## Hughmc

RBFC, I do respect your position and others who I certainly get along with like LB Film guy,







but I see this as a control issue. While I see your points as legit, I also see them as simply wanting things your way since the thread in its current state isn't acceptable to you. Now this is no different than how a lot of us feel on the opposing side of this in that we are letting go of control of how we like it, so I am more than aware it works both ways. The thing is the way it currently works is not "our" way, but the threads way it has taken through time.


Again, I respect your thinking about how the thread needs to change, but we recently had what is a significant change by Phantom and a few others who put a lot of time into changing the first page parameters we use for thread placement criteria. I bring that example up, because every so often we do have a bit of "infighting" and requests to change this or that. Sure the forum evolves by default, but I think if we keep doing this, and in a sense keep giving into changes, where does it end and what do we have then? Let's say several posters come in 6 months from now who are very vocal and don't like the format. What then? I just don't think pulling out of this thread and starting another or even changing this thread helps anyone or this thread as is. Most have admitted every two months or so of this type of debate clutters up the forum more than any debates about PQ.


I also think any chance of this change happening needs to start here in this thread with a vote. Then if the majority say yes we can then take it to the mods. If we say no, we move on and it wouldn't hurt to have a moratorium on no more changing the thread for six months listed on the first page.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15669069
> 
> 
> this type of debate clutters up the forum more than any debates about PQ.



Thank you.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steeb* /forum/post/15668696
> 
> 
> The funny thing is, this subject was just brought up by RBFC earlier this month. The following response seems to cut right to the heart of the matter, so I thought I would post it here for those who may have missed it a few weeks ago:
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom line: the mods have already said no, at least once. Even if every regular poster in the thread wanted the change (and that's certainly not the case, based on the posts I've seen,) it's not going to happen unless someone can convince the people in charge that this is in the best interest of the site. Considering that they already have an area of the site carved out for the official AVS reviews, I seriously doubt this will happen.
> 
> 
> But by all means, keep bringing it up every few weeks...



Thanks Steeb. You saved me some typing!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15669069
> 
> 
> RBFC, I do respect your position and others who I certainly get along with like LB Film guy,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but I see this as a control issue. While I see your points as legit, I also see them as simply wanting things your way since the thread in its current state isn't acceptable to you. Now this is no different than how a lot of us feel on the opposing side of this in that we are letting go of control of how we like it, so I am more than aware it works both ways. The thing is the way it currently works is not "our" way, but the threads way it has taken through time.
> 
> 
> Again, I respect your thinking about how the thread needs to change, but we recently had what is a significant change by Phantom and a few others who put a lot of time into changing the first page parameters we use for thread placement criteria. I bring that example up, because every so often we do have a bit of "infighting" and requests to change this or that. Sure the forum evolves by default, but I think if we keep doing this, and in a sense keep giving into changes, where does it end and what do we have then? Let's say several posters come in 6 months from now who are very vocal and don't like the format. What then? I just don't think pulling out of this thread and starting another or even changing this thread helps anyone or this thread as is. Most have admitted every two months or so of this type of debate clutters up the forum more than any debates about PQ.
> 
> 
> I also think any chance of this change happening needs to start here in this thread with a vote. Then if the majority say yes we can then take it to the mods. If we say no, we move on and it wouldn't hurt to have a moratorium on no more changing the thread for six months listed on the first page.



Very well said Hugh. I have been thinking along the same lines, but you said it better than I could have.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RBFC* /forum/post/15668901
> 
> 
> At the time the original suggestion was refused, there were relatively few BD titles available. With the much larger catalog of titles out now, a better system of organization is certainly necessary. With the support of the membership, and the fact that SuprSlow also thinks it a great idea, I believe that we could make a convincing case to allow the modification. The creation of the new subforum involves a short set-up process by an admin.
> 
> 
> Blu-Ray has become the high-definition standard media. To maintain AVS's status as the elite internet resource, a well-organized presentation of the discussions surrounding BD quality should be provided. I am convinced that there would be significantly more participation in the PQ assessment process if these changes were to occur.
> 
> 
> I ask interested members to PM Alan Gouger (AVS administrator) and ask that the change be reconsidered.
> 
> 
> Lee



Lee, I don't think that I am speaking out of turn by mentioning the fact that you already sent Alan a PM on this very issue. I'm assuming that you either never heard back or it was a no-go (as I expected)?


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15669379
> 
> 
> Very well said Hugh. I have been thinking along the same lines, but you said it better than I could have.




This isn't easy for any of us, you know what I mean, all of us. I don't want to offend anyone, so I try to keep myself in check. I want to be inclusive, not exclusive. For some reason I have a real issue with that and it is an issue right now in one of the gaming forums and it has destroyed the current state of that forum IMO. Cliques on forums are as bad as in day to day life IMO. LB and RBFC are important contributors to this thread and while I may disagree with their stance, I respect it and more importantly respect and want their participation in this thread.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I have mixed feelings on the issue myself. I definitely think there would be some advantages to being able to discuss individual titles and their PQ and Tier rankings in separate threads. For example, if you wanted to see all of the reviews and discussions/arguments about Wall-E or The Dark Knight in this thread, it would be extremely difficult to do so. Having titles like those discussed in their own thread, tied directly to this Tier thread, would be very helpful in that regard.


This was not allowed previously by the mods because there are already separate threads for individual titles....they just aren't tied directly to the Tier thread. So you wind up having multiple threads discussing the same title (Tier thread, sub-tier thread, and the thread not tied to the Tier thread....and possibly even another one for Xylon's Pix threads!).


I'm guessing we will be stuck with the current system, like it or not.


I will say this though: those that want to do the separate threads for each title, I believe, are just trying to offer opinions on improving how this thread works. I do not think of those opinions as "simply wanting things your way since the thread in its current state isn't acceptable to you".


EDIT: just for clarification, I am completely against the idea of a pure voting system. But I have made my feelings in that regard known several times previously.


----------



## RBFC

I read every one of the posts in this thread. The flow of the thread is not the factor that caused me to make this suggestion. I have zero vested interest in how this thread is structured, since there is no financial/personal gain involved. It just seemed to me that better organization would lead to more participation and easier access. If those who posted opinions on this feel that they don't want to restructure, that's absolutely fine. I'll continue to read and contribute as time and energy allow, no difference there.


Lee


----------



## djoberg

It's been awhile since I've seen a good Western, so I was delighted to see *Appaloosa* tonight. I see Hugh had recommended 2.75 and Rob Tomlin 3.25, but my vote puts it right in the middle of those two at *3.0*. It was, simply put, average-looking....definitely better than an upconverted DVD, but nothing to brag about. There were a few isolated scenes that could have passed for Tier 1 (mostly outdoor scenes and one very crisp scene inside the jail at about 51 minutes with excellent depth and good facial detail), but the majority of the movie was on par with most of the movies I've seen in Tier 3.


If you like a Western with realism (similar to Unforgiven in this regard), good acting, dialogue-driven, and just enough shooting action to satisfy the animal nature in you







, you'll like Appaloosa. Virgil Cole, played by Ed Harris, was a stellar character, as was his side-kick played by Viggo Mortensen. They grew on me with each passing scene and I was hoping for a happy, Hollywood ending (where they live happily ever after). You'll have to see the flick to see if I got my wish.


----------



## Hughmc

djoberg, it was really an enjoyable movie. The sets, clothing and look in general really set the mood. The story and acting was excellent as well. Could you imagine if this was a tier 1.0 or 0 BD and how good it would have looked? The desert vistas alone would have looked that much better and detailed.










I too am shocked that we have this poor quality of a BD on a new release. I have visited the Appaloosa thread and it does seem what we are getting on BD is the result of a poor transfer/print, since comments were made how poor the picture and audio when seeing it in a commercial theater. It is what it is.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15671420
> 
> 
> Could you imagine if this was a tier 1.0 or 0 BD and how good it would have looked? The desert vistas alone would have looked that much better and detailed.



If it was a Tier 0 or Tier 1 transfer, I would definitely buy it! I'm tempted to anyway just for the quality of the storyline and acting....it's a gem in my book!


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15632888
> 
> *Youth Without Youth*
> 
> 
> recommendation: middle of *Tier Zero*
> 
> 
> Perfection. Stunning. Revelation. I see those terms thrown around frequently when describing reference level Blu-rays, but Sony has delivered a transfer and image truly worthy of those designations on Youth Without Youth. When I bought into Blu-ray it was mainly for movies with spectacular imagery and startling clarity, and this BD delivers that quality in spades.
> 
> 
> Initially released to theaters in 2007, this Francis Ford Coppola film was released to Blu-ray on May 13, 2008. The 124-minute main feature is encoded in AVC on a BD-50. The average video bitrate is 27.89 Mbps per the BDInfo scan. The video encode ranges mostly between 25.5 Mbps to 33.1 Mbps and it peaks nearly at 40 Mbps. There is not one single problem whatsoever with the compression work here and it ranks among the best I have seen. If only all Blu-rays could look this free of artifacts.
> 
> 
> Shot using the same digital HD camera that Crank was made with, the picture is devoid of any grain or noise. The darker lit scenes are devoid of the noise that some HD video-shot productions are prone to. There is a remarkable clarity to the picture throughout the movie and reminds one of looking through a real window at times. I could not see one moment of anything that even hinted at digital noise reduction or any other process that would obscure fine detail.
> 
> 
> The master used for the transfer is in immaculate shape with zero defects. This is not a film-like image as the movie was simply not shot on film, but the cinematography is world-class. Every scene and shot looks carefully calculated and composed, with a wonderful and unique visual appearance highlighted by excellent framing and lighting for maximum visual effect. The interplay between light, shadow, and color in the image is spectacular.
> 
> 
> Most scenes demonstrate an excellent sense of depth and dimensionality. The outdoor scenes are just incredible in their ability to convey a deep perspective to the image. The entire movie is razor sharp and stays in focus throughout on par with other tier zero titles. There are no soft moments lasting even seconds in length. Shadow detail and information looks splendid. Rarely have I seen human faces demonstrate so much high-frequency information in low light scenes. Witness Tim Roth's face at timecode 36:33, lit by bluish tinted moonlight, which shows every inch of his facial features in excellent detail. Black levels are great for the most part outside of one or two scenes later in the movie. There is a wonderful inky quality to them, as seen in the shots when Tim Roth's face is completely silhouetted in reverse in a pitch-black cave.
> 
> 
> High-frequency information and micro-detail consistently exceeded my expectations. There are no filters used to obscure any detail or mark on any of the actors. For an example of top-notch and revealing skin texture typically seen here, check out timecode 35:14. Flesh tones look as accurate as they possibly can, with none of the over saturation or contrast seen sometimes in worse transfers. Contrast is very good with incredible color rendition. Some scenes are bathed in a slightly golden glow depending on the setting itself. Coppola really plays with light and color to convey the mood and tone of each scene. The color red purposely pops off the screen with excellent fidelity when the movie's action involves the Nazis for example.
> 
> 
> There are a couple of very minor things that one may notice that prevents this Blu-ray from ranking any higher than the middle of tier zero. A couple of scenes, most noticeably the ones set in India, exhibit a minor amount of ringing on high-contrast edges. It is ever so brief and makes up such a small portion of the overall running time that I did not consider it significant enough to mark the transfer down. It may very well be the result of the camera that was used to shoot the movie. Another quibble one might notice is the couple of short scenes that have very slightly blown-out whites at the upper-end of the contrast range.
> 
> 
> To say I was impressed by the picture quality presented is an understatement. This is one of the most faithful and best looking transfers I have ever seen on Blu-ray. I do not agree with its current ranking in tier 1.25 and recommend it be placed in the middle of tier zero somewhere. It is clearly superior to many titles currently ranked there, including titles like The Island, Speed Racer, Shoot' Em Up, and Rescue Dawn. I would like others to give this disc a viewing for proper placement.



This is CLEARLY a Tier 0 film.

It really reminds me of "The Fountain."

Tim Roth gives an amazing performance!

Right now, I'd put it right under "Man On Fire!" (it looks that good!)









I'll re-watch tomorrow, and recommend where on Tier 0.










Peace.


----------



## lgans316

Excellent review Phantom. If you are a father I am sure you can be a great storyteller to your kids.










It's frustrating to see unhealthy arguments despite posting such excellent reviews.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rob tomlin* /forum/post/15669659
> 
> 
> edit: Just for clarification, i am completely against the idea of a pure voting system.



+1.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15669069
> 
> 
> RBFC, I do respect your position and others who I certainly get along with like LB Film guy,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but I see this as a control issue. While I see your points as legit, I also see them as simply wanting things your way since the thread in its current state isn't acceptable to you. Now this is no different than how a lot of us feel on the opposing side of this in that we are letting go of control of how we like it, so I am more than aware it works both ways. The thing is the way it currently works is not "our" way, but the threads way it has taken through time.
> 
> 
> Again, I respect your thinking about how the thread needs to change, but we recently had what is a significant change by Phantom and a few others who put a lot of time into changing the first page parameters we use for thread placement criteria. I bring that example up, because every so often we do have a bit of "infighting" and requests to change this or that. Sure the forum evolves by default, but I think if we keep doing this, and in a sense keep giving into changes, where does it end and what do we have then? Let's say several posters come in 6 months from now who are very vocal and don't like the format. What then? I just don't think pulling out of this thread and starting another or even changing this thread helps anyone or this thread as is. Most have admitted every two months or so of this type of debate clutters up the forum more than any debates about PQ.
> 
> 
> I also think any chance of this change happening needs to start here in this thread with a vote. Then if the majority say yes we can then take it to the mods. If we say no, we move on and it wouldn't hurt to have a moratorium on no more changing the thread for six months listed on the first page.



Thanks for the nod brother, but this is not a control issue. I simply think it would be much better for everyone if we had a better organized, easy to read discussion on BD PQ without all of the nonsense we have in here, especially as of late. Films, their cinematography, and picture quality on blu ray is a passion of mine so I am quite invested in this stuff.










Like Rob said, with the subforum...learning, discussing, analyzing, whatever the hell you want to do with a specific title would be in one place and easy to find. And like most reviews in here, nothing would be lost or overlooked.


And like I said earlier, a HUGE plus to this for us and AVS as a whole would be that it would totally clean up the main blu ray software forum, as about 50% (if not more) of the threads in here are 'review/picture threads.'


I agree the work done in this thread should not be in vain. We could put a sticky at the top of the forum with the exact same Tier descriptions. The ratings would go according to exactly what we have here.


----------



## PooperScooper

I don't make the rules here on how the forums are setup, however, I'm a little confused why more places need to be created to discuss how a movie looks. 1) There's Ralph's review threads, 2) There's this thread (eye candy reference) 3) Foxy's thread (film based reference), 4) Individual threads for each movie, 5) Xylon's comparison threads for some movies. Yes, I do understand the intent is to replace this thread, but...


Also, the quote function works quite well for keeping "sub thread discussions" manageable as thousands of threads have already proven. And, if people would think before they post and only post when adding something constructive, then the S/N ratio would be much higher and help things - or put another way, don't sh__ where you eat.










larry


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *PooperScooper* /forum/post/15672687
> 
> 
> I don't make the rules here on how the forums are setup, however, I'm a little confused why more places need to be created to discuss how a movie looks. 1) There's Ralph's review threads, 2) There's this thread (eye candy reference) 3) Foxy's thread (film based reference), 4) Individual threads for each movie, 5) Xylon's comparison threads for some movies. Yes, I do understand the intent is to replace this thread, but...
> 
> 
> Also, the quote function works quite well for keeping "sub thread discussions" manageable as thousands of threads have already proven. And, if people would think before they post and only post when adding something constructive, then the S/N ratio would be much higher and help things - or put another way, don't sh__ where you eat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> larry



Told ya!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15671907
> 
> 
> This is CLEARLY a Tier 0 film.
> 
> It really reminds me of "The Fountain."
> 
> Tim Roth gives an amazing performance!
> 
> Right now, I'd put it right under "Man On Fire!" (it looks that good!)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll re-watch tomorrow, and recommend where on Tier 0.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peace.



This is regarding Youth Without Youth.


If it is like The Fountain, I am going to hate this movie. It has an average rating of 2.5 on Netflix, and a 2.1 for "raters like you", so it's not looking like I will enjoy it.


I'm still going to watch it though since it is being recommended for Tier 0!


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15674292
> 
> 
> This is regarding Youth Without Youth.
> 
> 
> If it is like The Fountain, I am going to hate this movie. It has an average rating of 2.5 on Netflix, and a 2.1 for "raters like you", so it's not looking like I will enjoy it.
> 
> 
> I'm still going to watch it though since it is being recommended for Tier 0!



I watched *part* of this when it was first released on BD. I was not enjoying it at all, and I recall thinking also that the PQ was not quite what was being claimed.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15674292
> 
> 
> This is regarding Youth Without Youth.
> 
> 
> If it is like The Fountain, I am going to hate this movie. It has an average rating of 2.5 on Netflix, and a 2.1 for "raters like you", so it's not looking like I will enjoy it.
> 
> 
> I'm still going to watch it though since it is being recommended for Tier 0!



Amazon had 17 reviews on YWY the last time I checked and the star rating was 4/5. I read most of them and like I intimated in a previous post, it sounds like an "intellectually stimulating" movie (i.e., _brain food_, as one reviewer put it). I like a movie that breaks out of the mold, as long as it isn't too far fetched or hard to follow.


I'd like to hear from Phantom and semilsivad on what they thought of the actual movie (besides the fact that Tim Roth gave an amazing performance).


----------



## PooperScooper




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15674232
> 
> 
> Told ya!



One thing that I didn't add is that if somebody has a better/new idea how to maintain or manage this thread, then by all means suggest it. This has been done in the past for various threads. Although, this thread has existed for quite some time and seems to have survived quite well.


My only suggestion that would fit with how things work wrt post ownership is this: Post #1 could remain mostly as is. Then there could be a post somewhere else in the thread that "summarizes" the various comments about the movie and its tier position. It doesn't matter where in the thread. This way all the work isn't on one person. Anybody can volunteer to be a "summary post owner" (they would create the post). They would be responsible for keeping the comments up to date in the post. The entry in post #1 for a movie could contain a link to the "summary post" for the movie. So anybody could look at the tiers and then go to the post that contains the summary of how it got there. I don't know if doing for existing movies makes any sense or not. It's just a matter of how much effort people are willing to give.


larry


----------



## rsbeck

When I want to see the reviews for any title, I use the thread search feature. I've never had a problem pulling up reviews. However, if there was some way that we could link it all up so you could click on a title and it would link you to all of the reviews, that would be extremely cool. Questions are -- is it possible? How much work?


The Summary review is an interesting idea, but on controversial titles, I could see more arguments over how the summary is worded. Personally, I would rather read the individual reviews than a summary, especially on controversial titles. I want to read the strongest opinions for and against.


When there are discussions in which I am uninterested, I scroll through them.


Bottom line for me: If nothing is done and this forum remains unchanged, I am very happy with it as is. If there is a way to click the title and see the reviews, that would be cool, but no changes are necessary for me to enjoy this forum.


----------



## Incindium




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15675831
> 
> 
> When I want to see the reviews for any title, I use the thread search feature. I've never had a problem pulling up reviews. However, if there was some way that we could link it all up so you could click on a title and it would link you to all of the reviews, that would be extremely cool. Questions are -- is it possible? How much work?



All you would have to do is come up with a special distinct keyword that is put in review posts only. Then if you want to do a search you search for that unique keyword and the blu-ray title name. You should be able to create a link for each title that loads the thread search automatically with the keywords for each title as well I think and put it in with the info on page 1.


----------



## PooperScooper




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15675831
> 
> 
> When I want to see the reviews for any title, I use the thread search feature. I've never had a problem pulling up reviews. However, if there was some way that we could link it all up so you could click on a title and it would link you to all of the reviews, that would be extremely cool. Questions are -- is it possible? How much work?
> 
> 
> The Summary review is an interesting idea, but on controversial titles, I could see more arguments over how the summary is worded. Personally, I would rather read the individual reviews than a summary, especially on controversial titles. I want to read the strongest opinions for and against.
> 
> 
> When there are discussions in which I am uninterested, I scroll through them. Personally, I think it is rude to pop into a discussion and call it nonsense and I also don't appreciate comments disparaging the thread. I think these kinds of comments are as rude as any personal attack and it would be nice if these, too, could be removed by the mods. In fact, I think they're more offensive because these comments disparage a whole group of people.
> 
> 
> Bottom line for me: If nothing is done and this forum remains unchanged, I am very happy with it as is. If there is a way to click the title and see the reviews, that would be cool, but no changes are necessary for me to enjoy this forum.



The "summary post" could be a post with links to the posts that discuss the movie. And, if somebody is ambitious, they could summarize the linked posts too. Putting links in post #1 to all the relevant posts puts too much burden on the post #1 owner. And linking all the posts could get overwhelming. I'm not expecting anything to change because it involves some work and commitment.










larry


----------



## Incindium

I figured out how to do the thread search via a url.


Here is an example searching this thread for the keywords sunshine and tier. Like I said though we would need a more unique keyword used in review posts only to limit the search to only the review posts.

Code:


Code:


http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/search.php?do=process&searchthreadid=858316&query=sunshine%20tier

 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/searc...unshine%20tier


----------



## TheTonik

Just watched Vexille. I would say it ranks somewhere in Tier 0. Good stuff. Audio quality is also reference material, imo.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Incredible Hulk*


recommendation: *Tier 1.25*


A return to form compared to the last Hulk movie from Marvel, Universal released this action flick to Blu-ray on October 21, 2008. The 112-minute main feature is encoded in AVC on a BD-50. The authoring and compression encode is credited to Deluxe Digital Studios, who seem to be handling many of Universal's recent BDs. Going off the BDInfo scan, the average video bitrate for the main feature is a somewhat paltry 18.60 Mbps. The video encode ranges from lows near 10.6 Mbps to momentary peaks of 33.1 Mbps. I would not call this presentation totally free of compression-related artifacts, as there are a few moments of spurious noise that creeps into the picture, particularly in soft-focus backgrounds. The scene that stuck out to me in this regard was the first appearance of the Hulk in the factory. If one watches very closely the combination of fast object motion, the swirling smoke and steam in the darkly lit environment, and the integrated CGI, one starts to see the image break down just the slightest bit. But I will admit this is an extremely rare occurrence over the course of the film and that most will probably gloss over this problem.


Thankfully the grain structure looks very natural and consistent throughout the film, with no indicators of bad digital processing interfering with the picture quality. The master used for the transfer looks in splendid and pristine shape. There is a rich and deep, inky nature to the black levels, on par with other titles in tier one. I might have noticed just the tiniest clipping of fine shadow detail in a couple of scenes but overall the picture demonstrates good, but not great, delineation of lower light object detail.


The best feature of the image is clearly its revealing and splendid high-frequency detail while maintaining a razor-sharp clarity. Basically the entire film shows this attribute at all depths from close-ups to long range shots. On this aspect alone the transfer ranks right up there with the best titles in tier zero. Each actor's flaws and imperfections are bared for all to see.


My reasons for placing this Blu-ray outside of tier zero revolve around the slightly softer CGI scenes and the look of the original photography. I never felt the picture consistently showed the depth and dimension that is one of the key hallmarks of tier zero. Some scenes did pop obviously with excellent dimensionality (the cave scene with the Hulk stands out in my mind), but it appeared flatter in other moments. I had no problems with the contrast or the colors, as both were very good, but flesh tones did look slightly overdriven into an orangish hue.


My final recommendation for placement is tier 1.25, though I vacillated with placing it in the top quarter of tier one for a moment. This is a great looking image that in my eyes falls just short of reference quality and tier zero. Maybe if Universal had not loaded so many HD extras onto one disc it might have looked a little better, but I guess we will never know. As an aside, the lossless audio track on this disc is one of the most spectacular sound mixes I have ever heard.


BDInfo Scan (courtesy of House):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...8#post14837738


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15678115
> 
> *The Incredible Hulk*
> 
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 1.25*
> 
> 
> A return to form compared to the last Hulk movie from Marvel, Universal released this action flick to Blu-ray on October 21, 2008. The 112-minute main feature is encoded in AVC on a BD-50. The authoring and compression encode is credited to Deluxe Digital Studios, who seem to be handling many of Universal's recent BDs. Going off the BDInfo scan, *the average video bitrate for the main feature is a somewhat paltry 18.60 Mbps. The video encode ranges from lows near 10.6 Mbps* to momentary peaks of 33.1 Mbps. I would not call this presentation totally free of compression-related artifacts, as there are a few moments of spurious noise that creeps into the picture, particularly in soft-focus backgrounds. The scene that stuck out to me in this regard was the first appearance of the Hulk in the factory. If one watches very closely the combination of fast object motion, the swirling smoke and steam in the darkly lit environment, and the integrated CGI, one starts to see the image break down just the slightest bit. But I will admit this is an extremely rare occurrence over the course of the film and that most will probably gloss over this problem.
> 
> 
> Thankfully the grain structure looks very natural and consistent throughout the film, with no indicators of bad digital processing interfering with the picture quality. The master used for the transfer looks in splendid and pristine shape. There is a rich and deep, inky nature to the black levels, on par with other titles in tier one. I might have noticed just the tiniest clipping of fine shadow detail in a couple of scenes but overall the picture demonstrates good, but not great, delineation of lower light object detail.
> 
> 
> The best feature of the image is clearly its revealing and splendid high-frequency detail while maintaining a razor-sharp clarity. Basically the entire film shows this attribute at all depths from close-ups to long range shots. On this aspect alone the transfer ranks right up there with the best titles in tier zero. Each actor's flaws and imperfections are bared for all to see.
> 
> 
> My reasons for placing this Blu-ray outside of tier zero revolve around the slightly softer CGI scenes and the look of the original photography. I never felt the picture consistently showed the depth and dimension that is one of the key hallmarks of tier zero. Some scenes did pop obviously with excellent dimensionality (the cave scene with the Hulk stands out in my mind), but it appeared flatter in other moments. I had no problems with the contrast or the colors, as both were very good, but flesh tones did look slightly overdriven into an orangish hue.
> 
> 
> My final recommendation for placement is tier 1.25, though I vacillated with placing it in the top quarter of tier one for a moment. This is a great looking image that in my eyes falls just short of reference quality and tier zero. *Maybe if Universal had not loaded so many HD extras onto one disc it might have looked a little better*, but I guess we will never know. As an aside, the lossless audio track on this disc is one of the most spectacular sound mixes I have ever heard.
> 
> 
> BDInfo Scan (courtesy of House):
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...8#post14837738



Another excellent review, Phantom. Your recommended placement sounds fine to me. I particularly agree that, good as this looks, I suspect that it could have looked even better with a more generous bitrate. Facial close-ups look particularly good, though, IMO. Of course you can get away with lower bitrates on such shots.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15674712
> 
> 
> Amazon had 17 reviews on YWY the last time I checked and the star rating was 4/5. I read most of them and like I intimated in a previous post, it sounds like an "intellectually stimulating" movie (i.e., _brain food_, as one reviewer put it). I like a movie that breaks out of the mold, as long as it isn't too far fetched or hard to follow.
> 
> 
> I'd like to hear from Phantom and semilsivad on what they thought of the actual movie (besides the fact that Tim Roth gave an amazing performance).



I think it was a deeply personal movie by Coppola that reflects on aging and lost youth, possibly his own. I have always been a fan of Coppola's filmmaking, even the less heralded releases, and this movie is no exception. I am not sure the story is for everyone's tastes. There is a deep element of philosophical undertones with a mix of science fiction and fantasy devices tossed in for good measure. That does not even factor in the romance that intertwines the whole plot.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15678191
> 
> 
> Another excellent review, Phantom. Your recommended placement sounds fine to me. I particularly agree that, good as this looks, I suspect that it could have looked even better with a more generous bitrate. Facial close-ups look particularly good, though, IMO. Of course you can get away with lower bitrates on such shots.



I think these newer encodings show some interesting trends. While the lower bitrates of these recent encodes show no gross compression artifacts, they tend to break down in darker scenes compared to the higher average encodes, obscuring ever so slightly the finest small details.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15678274
> 
> 
> I think these newer encodings show some interesting trends. While the lower bitrates of these recent encodes show no gross compression artifacts, they tend to break down in darker scenes compared to the higher average encodes, obscuring ever so slightly the finest small details.



I think another area where the low bitrates on TIH lead to PQ that is not what it might be is on medium length shots. For example, many of the early shots in the bottling plant (not the battle, but normal daytime shots) look somewhat bland in terms of PQ.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15678316
> 
> 
> I would support moving Incredible Hulk down to Tier 1.0, but it would need to be in tandem with a move of Iron Man to Tier 1.5. *IMO, Hulk is at least .5 tiers better than Iron Man.* I would also support moving Crank out of tier 0. Don't see how we can say it maintains excellent contrast and black levels. The type of detail we see in Crank has become a lot more commonplace among tier 1.0 through 1.75 titles and many of those do not exhibit Crank's contrast problems. I'd move Crank down to at least 1.25. Hulk, IMO, is quite a bit better than Crank.



To me, the difference is greater than that. I had real problems with the PQ in Iron Man. Totally lacking in facial close-up detail, for example.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15678373
> 
> 
> To me, the difference is greater than that. I had real problems with the PQ in Iron Man. Totally lacking in facial close-up detail, for example.



Agree and Iron Man also had some contrast problems, especially in the Cave sequences.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15678316
> 
> 
> I would support moving Incredible Hulk down to Tier 1.0, but it would need to be in tandem with a move of Iron Man to Tier 1.5. IMO, Hulk is at least .5 tiers better than Iron Man.



I had recommended placing *The Hulk* in *Tier 1.0* several months ago, so I would surely go along with this. And I agree with you that Iron Man should be moved down a half tier.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15678222
> 
> 
> I think it was a deeply personal movie by Coppola that reflects on aging and lost youth, possibly his own. I have always been a fan of Coppola's filmmaking, even the less heralded releases, and this movie is no exception. I am not sure the story is for everyone's tastes. There is a deep element of philosophical undertones with a mix of science fiction and fantasy devices tossed in for good measure. That does not even factor in the romance that intertwines the whole plot.



Thanks Phantom! I am looking forward to viewing this title and I suspect I will enjoy it.


Regarding The Incredible Hulk, as I just mentioned I had originally suggested Tier 1.0 but I would have no problem with it being in Tier 1.25.


----------



## rsbeck

To me, The Incredible Hulk is better than most of the titles I've seen in 1.25.


I would strongly support a move to 1.0 for Hulk and either 1.5 or 1.75 for Iron Man.


However, now that we are on the subject, I see some other moves that need to be made;


Lion Witch Wardobe -- Currently, it's at 1.25. I thought we had a consensus that this should be moved down .5 tier. I still believe it should be moved down .5 tier. 1.75 seems more than fair for this title.


Shine a Light -- I am the only one to have reviewed this. I originally recommended 1.25, but in fairness, this has many of the same problems I have been pointing out in other concert videos and I believe this should be moved to 2.0. Since I am the only one to have reviewed it, shouldn't my recommendation be enough to move it down?


Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds -- when you see the scrutiny we're giving these titles like Iron Man and Hulk, Dave and Tim should not be in 1.0. I have read comments from other posters supporting a move down. I think a move to 2.0 would be fair for this title, too. A lot of softness and general lack of fine detail.


Crank -- It's time to move this one out of tier 0. Contrast problems up the yin yang and impressive facial detail, but not much else.


----------



## rsbeck

Crank -- if you notice, almost every shot with excellent facial detail also comes with contrast problems. So, even when you are watching a strength, you are watching a weakness.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *PooperScooper* /forum/post/15672687
> 
> 
> I don't make the rules here on how the forums are setup, however, I'm a little confused why more places need to be created to discuss how a movie looks. 1) There's Ralph's review threads, 2) There's this thread (eye candy reference) 3) Foxy's thread (film based reference), 4) Individual threads for each movie, 5) Xylon's comparison threads for some movies. Yes, I do understand the intent is to replace this thread, but...
> 
> 
> Also, the quote function works quite well for keeping "sub thread discussions" manageable as thousands of threads have already proven. And, if people would think before they post and only post when adding something constructive, then the S/N ratio would be much higher and help things - or put another way, don't sh__ where you eat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> larry



That's why we're trying to cut down all of these "places" and put them into one place.


----------



## rsbeck

Police: Certifiable & Elton John, 60th


These titles sit right in the middle of tier 0. I believe they are ranked way too high. I really wish we could get more of our reviewers to view and weigh in on these.


----------



## Hughmc

I disagree on the Hulk and stand by my original recommendation from over a month ago:


The PQ was not what I was expecting and I was a bit disappointed. I didn't think it looked as good as Hellboy 2 which seems to be a top Tier 1 title. It seemed a *bit soft and out of focus throughout the film*. I would recommend Tier Gold either 1/2 or 3/4.


I think the Incredible Hulk PQ is closer to Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.



I disagree with moving Crank. The main reason I do is there are at least a few titles below it that pale in comparison in terms of eye candy and Crank being more demo/reference than those. Move Crank down, but not out and move Caspian up where Crank is. If Crank gets moved to tier 1 then Shoot Em Up and a couple of others need to be moved down to tier 1 to be consistent. I also believe there are other titles in tier 0 that have don't have the eye candy Crank has and a few that have issues we let go. I cannot think or name specifics now as it has been a while since I seen most of those tier 0 BD's, but I do believe there are some in tier 0 we had talked about that has issues.


I really don't know how Shoot Em Up is still in tier 0. I watched it at least 3 times when I had rented it. I don't own it and although I enjoyed it I think it is a tier 1.0 title and not worthy of tier 0. Putting it above Crank or for that matter Crank below it is not right IMO.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15678817
> 
> 
> I disagree with moving Crank. The main reason I do is there are at least a few titles below it that pale in comparison in terms of eye candy



Eye Candy is too vague, IMO. What Crank offers is excellent facial detail, but the contrast problems are downright nasty.



> Quote:
> If Crank gets moved to tier 1 then Shoot Em Up and a couple of others need to be moved down to tier 1 to be consistent.



Haven't see Shoot 'em up.



> Quote:
> I really don't know how Shoot Em Up is still in tier 0.



I have it so I can take a look, but I also want others to take a look at some of these other titles like Police and Elton.



> Quote:
> I watched it at least 3 times when I had rented it. I don't own it and although I enjoyed it I think it is a tier 1.0 title and not worthy of tier 0. Putting it above Crank or for that matter Crank below it is not right IMO.



As I suspected, actually. When there is a title like Crank in tier 0, it tends to skew other recommendations. Rather than keep others in tier 0 when there is feeling they don't belong based on a comparison to Crank, let's move Crank down. I think a fair comparison to Crank is Sin City, which has exact same strengths and way better PQ and it is in 1.25. So, 1.25 is plenty fair for Crank, IMO.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *PooperScooper* /forum/post/15675439
> 
> 
> One thing that I didn't add is that if somebody has a better/new idea how to maintain or manage this thread, then by all means suggest it. This has been done in the past for various threads. Although, this thread has existed for quite some time and seems to have survived quite well.
> 
> 
> My only suggestion that would fit with how things work wrt post ownership is this: Post #1 could remain mostly as is. Then there could be a post somewhere else in the thread that "summarizes" the various comments about the movie and its tier position. It doesn't matter where in the thread. This way all the work isn't on one person. Anybody can volunteer to be a "summary post owner" (they would create the post). They would be responsible for keeping the comments up to date in the post. The entry in post #1 for a movie could contain a link to the "summary post" for the movie. So anybody could look at the tiers and then go to the post that contains the summary of how it got there. I don't know if doing for existing movies makes any sense or not. It's just a matter of how much effort people are willing to give.
> 
> 
> larry



Thanks Larry. We have talked about doing something similar to this previously. In fact, I recall that lgans had actually taken the time to do this very thing awhile back, which was very helpful to SuprSlow. As you say in your subsequent post, though, it is a matter of how helpful others want to be and how much time and effort they can put in.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15678316
> 
> 
> I would support moving Incredible Hulk down to Tier 1.0, but it would need to be in tandem with a move of Iron Man to Tier 1.5. IMO, Hulk is at least .5 tiers better than Iron Man. I would also support moving Crank out of tier 0. Don't see how we can say it maintains excellent contrast and black levels. The type of detail we see in Crank has become a lot more commonplace among tier 1.0 through 1.75 titles and many of those do not exhibit Crank's contrast problems. I'd move Crank down to at least 1.25. Hulk, IMO, is quite a bit better than Crank.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15678373
> 
> 
> To me, the difference is greater than that. I had real problems with the PQ in Iron Man. Totally lacking in facial close-up detail, for example.



I'm with you on moving The Incredible Hulk to Tier 1.25, and Iron Man down to Tier 1.75 or possibly even 2.0.


Crank has been a difficult title to rate for me. The detail shown is amazing, but it does have issues. The less than perfect contrast is due to the fact that it was shot on HD Video, but that is not an excuse. I would still put it in Tier 1.0 though. It is the type of title that you can put on the screen to really impress your friends with how much detail Blu-ray can show.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15678610
> 
> 
> Crank -- if you notice, almost every shot with excellent facial detail also comes with contrast problems. So, even when you are watching a strength, you are watching a weakness.



I agree, but I would say that the strengths outweigh the weaknesses.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15678987
> 
> 
> Eye Candy is too vague, IMO. What Crank offers is excellent facial detail, but the contrast problems are downright nasty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haven't see Shoot 'em up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have it so I can take a look, but I also want others to take a look at some of these other titles like Police and Elton.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I suspected, actually. When there is a title like Crank in tier 0, it tends to skew other recommendations. Rather than keep others in tier 0 when there is feeling they don't belong based on a comparison to Crank, let's move Crank down. I think a fair comparison to Crank is Sin City, which has exact same strengths and way better PQ and it is in 1.25. So, 1.25 is plenty fair for Crank, IMO.



In perspective, we have a lot of moving to do then. Crank if I recall correctly was on the top of tier 0 in the past. Things have changed.










Like I have said in the past, the best solution would be to have a PQ convention held in a neutral or mid US location like Chicago, paid for by a govt. grant for the arts







, and we spend a weekend watching all tier 0 titles so we get accurate placement.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15679041
> 
> 
> The less than perfect contrast is due to the fact that it was shot on HD Video, but that is not an excuse.



I agree. Sin City, Legends of Jazz and Zodiac were also shot on HD video, so those titles show what can be achieved when light is controlled correctly.



> Quote:
> I would still put it in Tier 1.0 though. It is the type of title that you can put on the screen to really impress your friends with how much detail Blu-ray can show.



Sin City is in tier 1.25. I think a very good comparison can be made between Crank and Sin City. Both show incredible facial detail, but IMO, Sin City actually has better contrast, fewer distracting flaws. I would recommend Sin City over Crank, so I would put Crank no higher than Sin City on our list of recommendations.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Stuck*


This is one of the more disappointing titles I have seen in terms of PQ. There is very little detail to be found here, especially in the interior scenes. For example, in the hospital, you can see various things on the walls such as signs, but you can never clearly read the lettering on any of them.


Contrast and image depth can be very poor, although some of the outdoor scenes at night are not bad at all. Overall clarity, again other than some of the outdoor scenes, is very much lacking.


Colors couldn't be less impressive. Very subdued overall, with a few exceptions including some shots of blood.


Overall not much better than a DVD upconvert.


As for the movie itself: it was different, and that's about the only good thing I can say about it.
*Tier Recommendation: 4.0*


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15679122
> 
> 
> I agree. Sin City, Legends of Jazz and Zodiac were also shot on HD video, so those titles show what can be achieved when light is controlled correctly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sin City is in tier 1.25. I think a very good comparison can be made between Crank and Sin City. Both show incredible facial detail, but IMO, Sin City actually has better contrast, fewer distracting flaws. I would recommend Sin City over Crank, so I would put Crank no higher than Sin City on our list of recommendations.



I agree that Sin City has contrast that is better than Crank, but I definitely believe that Crank shows more fine details than Sin City.


Sin City has it's own problems that would keep it in Tier 1.25 and below Crank imo, including some pretty significant macroblocking in a couple of scenes.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15679200
> 
> 
> I agree that Sin City has contrast that is better than Crank, but I definitely believe that Crank shows more fine details than Sin City.
> 
> 
> Sin City has it's own problems that would keep it in Tier 1.25 imo, including some pretty significant macroblocking in a couple of scenes.



I hear you and agree with you in general. I would just say that significant macroblocking in a couple of scenes better fits the description of a title where you can enjoy the strengths in the majority of shots without being assaulted by the weakness in a few. But -- yeah -- I am not for moving Sin City up. I'm for moving Crank down. I agree with you that Sin City is fine where it is.


----------



## 42041

I would have no problem moving Crank down, I found it sort of an ugly movie, detail aside. I'll have to rent it again and give it a proper ranking once my new plasma arrives...


----------



## rsbeck

When I first started watching blu-ray, I found Crank impressive. Now that I have watched a lot more, seen what is possible, the type of quality that is becoming more common, when I tried to watch Crank a few nights ago, it was rough going. I bet a lot of you would be surprised by a revisit to this one. I seriously think 1.25 is fair.


----------



## Saturn94

I appologize if this post is in the wrong thread.


I just purchased "The Fugitive" on BD. Before opening it I checked page 1 of this thread and saw it received a "Coal" rating.


I have the original DVD release and am wonderng should I keep the BD release or return it and just keep the DVD? Even with it's rating, is the BD version an improvement over the DVD version? I'd like to know before I open it so I can return it if needed.


For reference, I have a Pioneer BDP 51FD BD player and a Pioneer Elite 60" plasma.


Thanks.


----------



## Hughmc

*Pride and Glory: Tier 2.5*


This title has the digital noise grain compression issue I saw and we discussed on another recent BD title the name of which escapes me. The noise while not extreme is apparent at times especially on faces and looks less like grain. I didn't notice any DNR or EE and the black levels were average to good. Color was good, but nothing stark or bold as it had a pallete leaning toward blue at times. It had the look and gritty feel of NY. There were no major problems with this disc, but it just wasn't that clear or detailed to place it anywhere higher than what I am recommending.


I really liked this film although many times I noticed it made me feel a bit anxious. I believe that is due to being able to relate to the NY feel and many childhood friends of mine who are and were NY police officers. Of course it helps to be Irish and from NY to relate. Some of the intensity is unnerving. The acting was very convincing as Voight reminded me of my father at times, Farrel was surprisingly good and Norton was excellent as well. The acting is what made this film. I no longer live in NY and thankfully, but visit twice a year and these films where the look and feel of NY is conveyed give me a melancholy feeling. I recommend a viewing.


I have RocknRolla, yes all one word, on tap for tonight.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15679332
> 
> 
> Support for these moves?
> 
> 
> Crank....1.0
> 
> 
> Incredible Hulk......1.25
> 
> 
> Iron Man.....1.75
> 
> 
> Lion Witch Wardobe....1.75 (2.0?)
> 
> 
> Shine a Light.....2.0
> 
> 
> Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds......2.0



Crank I don't agree with, but what ever happens...










Hulk is fine at 1.25


Iron Man 1.5 as I think 1.75 is just to close to 2.0 and doesn't accurately relate to other films in that 1.75 tier.


Unfortunately the others I cannot comment on as not having seen them.


----------



## Hughmc

I saw this review from DVD verdict for Appaloosa and sought of chuckled. He "sees" things a bit differently and the cinematography of the landscapes have influenced him:

_"Good movie; great Blu-ray. The high-definition transfer is glorious. Transmitted in beautiful 2.40:1 widescreen, the video treatment ranks high on my list of favorites. In fact, I'm going to go ahead and slap a perfect score on it. The clarity is breathtaking, with the rich color scheme of the period just popping out from the TV. The setting is worn and sand-blasted, but there are plenty of other visual treats to enjoy, from Virgil and Hitch's earthy outfits to Ali's bright ensembles. Pulling back, the picture continues to impress, as cinematographer Dean Semler's eye for expansive Western shots brim with detail. Simply fantastic HD work."_


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15679332
> 
> 
> Support for these moves?
> 
> 
> Crank....1.0
> 
> 
> Incredible Hulk......1.25
> 
> 
> Iron Man.....1.75
> 
> 
> Lion Witch Wardobe....1.75 (2.0?)
> 
> 
> Shine a Light.....2.0
> 
> 
> Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds......2.0



I support moving Crank to 1.0


Incredible Hulk to 1.25


Iron Man to 1.75


I can't comment on Lion as it has been too long since I saw it. Haven't seen Shine a Light.


I will try to look at Dave Matthews tonight.


----------



## rsbeck

Beauty.


----------



## Saturn94




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15679581
> 
> 
> I have this title, but have not viewed it, so can't comment. You might try using the thread search feature to see if you can find the reviews that resulted in a tier 5 placement. If you can wait awhile, I will take a look when I get a chance and see how the DVD and blu-ray compare.



Thanks for the response. I did a search and came up empty handed. I also clicked on the title on post 1 to access other reviews and they ranged from "no better than upconverted DVD" to "the picture will blow you away". Not very helpfull.


I'll wait a little while to see what my fellow AVSers have to say. It was only $13.99 so I may break down and open it (a tightwad like me hates to waste any money though!







).


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15679606
> 
> 
> He "sees" things a bit differently



Don't we all? While I haven't given this an official viewing yet, from what I've seen, it looks a lot like There Will Be Blood with less EE, and that's in Tier 2.0, so frankly I'm a bit puzzled by the negativity towards this title.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15679606
> 
> 
> I saw this review from DVD verdict for Appaloosa and sought of chuckled. He "sees" things a bit differently and the cinematography of the landscapes have influenced him:
> 
> _"Good movie; great Blu-ray. The high-definition transfer is glorious. Transmitted in beautiful 2.40:1 widescreen, the video treatment ranks high on my list of favorites. In fact, I'm going to go ahead and slap a perfect score on it. The clarity is breathtaking, with the rich color scheme of the period just popping out from the TV. The setting is worn and sand-blasted, but there are plenty of other visual treats to enjoy, from Virgil and Hitch's earthy outfits to Ali's bright ensembles. Pulling back, the picture continues to impress, as cinematographer Dean Semler's eye for expansive Western shots brim with detail. Simply fantastic HD work."_



I really WANTED to like this transfer, and I looked for all the virtues that I could, but for the most part I came up empty-handed. And then when you consider that I am known for being a "generous rater," you just know it's not that good!


----------



## Hughmc

rsbeck, when I get some available funds I will be getting several of those "controversial" concert titles as I am an avid music lover and concert goer. To be honest I look forward to hearing them as much if not more than seeing them.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15679332
> 
> 
> Support for these moves?
> 
> 
> Crank....1.0
> 
> 
> Incredible Hulk......1.25
> 
> 
> Iron Man.....1.75
> 
> 
> Lion Witch Wardobe....1.75 (2.0?)
> 
> 
> Shine a Light.....2.0
> 
> 
> Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds......2.0



I haven't seen Crank or the last two, but *I would agree with the other three* (*IH, IM, LWW*). I see that I had originally suggested 1.5 for TLWW, but I wouldn't have a problem with it being 1.75.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15679747
> 
> 
> Don't we all? While I haven't given this an official viewing yet, from what I've seen, it looks a lot like There Will Be Blood with less EE, and that's in Tier 2.0, so frankly I'm a bit puzzled by the negativity towards this title.



The landscape shots of the desert maybe the only redeeming close to eye candy shots there are in the BD, but they are stunning IMO and I guess that is what he is seeing and giving a lot of weight to.


It is like djoberg says, I wanted to see better PQ, but it just wasn't there. Great story, very good acting realistic sets and costumes and beautiful cinematography. Everything else was there, well the sound was a bit weak too.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15679891
> 
> 
> I really WANTED to like this transfer, and I looked for all the virtues that I could, but for the most part I came up empty-handed. And then when you consider that I am known for being a "generous rater," you just know it's not that good!













You know, since I (half jokingly) labeled you with that moniker, I have looked at several of your reviews and definitely concluded that is not the case.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15679747
> 
> 
> Don't we all? While I haven't given this an official viewing yet, from what I've seen, it looks a lot like There Will Be Blood with less EE, and that's in Tier 2.0, so frankly I'm a bit puzzled by the negativity towards this title.



I'm a big fan of the PQ on There Will Be Blood. Many sequences IMO, are as good as anything in tier 0, and I am not at all convinced that the examples of ringing on high contrast edges are due to EE. If you're talking about Appaloosa, I don't see any comparison.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15679932
> 
> 
> rsbeck, when I get some available funds I will be getting several of those "controversial" concert titles as I am an avid music lover and concert goer. To be honest I look forward to hearing them as much if not more than seeing them.



The sound quality of Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds is gorgeous.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15679944
> 
> 
> I haven't seen Crank or the last two, but *I would agree with the other three* (*IH, IM, LWW*). I see that I had originally suggested 1.5 for TLWW, but I wouldn't have a problem with it being 1.75.



Excellent --- thanks!


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15680127
> 
> 
> Excellent --- thanks!



Man, you are getting away easy. Ha!










WTF? !!







How did There Will Be Blood end up in tier 2.0? I must have been sleeping again. SO many titles, I am starting to lose it. Isn't that title realistically no worse than top tier 1?


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15680180
> 
> 
> Man, you are getting away easy. Ha!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF? !!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did There Will Be Blood end up in tier 2.0? I must have been sleeping again. SO many titles, I am starting to lose it. Isn't that title realistically no worse than top tier 1?



Personally, I am a big fan of TWBB. If it was consistently as good as its best sequences, I'd recommend moving it up that high.


I could support a move to 1.75.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15680087
> 
> 
> I'm a big fan of the PQ on There Will Be Blood. Many sequences IMO, are as good as anything in tier 0, and I am not at all convinced that the examples of ringing on high contrast edges are due to EE. If you're talking about Appaloosa, I don't see any comparison.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15680180
> 
> 
> Man, you are getting away easy. Ha!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF? !!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did There Will Be Blood end up in tier 2.0? I must have been sleeping again. SO many titles, I am starting to lose it. Isn't that title realistically no worse than top tier 1?



I would have to completely disagree with both of you. There is no way that TWBB is a Tier 1 title.


IMO of course.


----------



## rsbeck

See my post just above yours.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15680259
> 
> 
> See my post just above yours.



All I can say is that I remember being underwhelmed by this title (There Will Be Blood), so anywhere in Tier 1 (even 1.75) is too high for me. I found the dark scenes to be particularly bothersome.


I would think that if I revisited this title (which I won't) that, if anything, I would probably want it moved down further than it is since the quality of other, newer titles have got so much better.


Let me put it this way: I don't think I have ever RAISED my original recommendation after viewing a title for the second time.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15680371
> 
> 
> All I can say is that I remember being underwhelmed by this title (There Will Be Blood), so anywhere in Tier 1 (even 1.75) is too high for me. I found the dark scenes to be particularly bothersome.
> 
> 
> I would think that if I revisited this title (which I won't) that, if anything, I would probably want it moved down further than it is since the quality of other, newer titles have got so much better.
> 
> 
> Let me put it this way: I don't think I have ever RAISED my original recommendation after viewing a title for the second time.



You threatening me, punk?


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15680245
> 
> 
> I would have to completely disagree with both of you. There is no way that TWBB is a Tier 1 title.
> 
> 
> IMO of course.










me that is. I need to do a search on what I ranked it. I thought it was closer to top tier 1.


This is one we may need to rewatch and revisit seeing the disparity of recommendations being a full tier off. Usually we are close or maybe a half tier off.


I looked back at the reviews by yourself, lgans and bplewis and I could not find if I rated it. It does seem you were all consistent except for rsbeck.







I now believe I am thinking of No Country for Old Men and confusing the two, therefore due to the above I am bowing out of debating TWBB. I could have sworn I saw and ranked it.


----------



## rsbeck

I appreciate the visuals more every time I watch There Will Be Blood. I've found that with a few titles. For me, the first time I watched TWBB, that first scene in the mine really disturbed me and I couldn't shake it. It stuck in my memory. Second time I watched it, I was surprised how short it is and how quickly things improve. Lots of stunning imagery, beautiful detail.....plenty of scenes where you see every pore, single strands of hair in eyebrows, fine texture in clothing, grain in wood....


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15678115
> 
> *The Incredible Hulk*
> 
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 1.25*
> 
> 
> A return to form compared to the last Hulk movie from Marvel, Universal released this action flick to Blu-ray on October 21, 2008. The 112-minute main feature is encoded in AVC on a BD-50. The authoring and compression encode is credited to Deluxe Digital Studios, who seem to be handling many of Universal's recent BDs. Going off the BDInfo scan, the average video bitrate for the main feature is a somewhat paltry 18.60 Mbps. The video encode ranges from lows near 10.6 Mbps to momentary peaks of 33.1 Mbps. I would not call this presentation totally free of compression-related artifacts, as there are a few moments of spurious noise that creeps into the picture, particularly in soft-focus backgrounds. The scene that stuck out to me in this regard was the first appearance of the Hulk in the factory. If one watches very closely the combination of fast object motion, the swirling smoke and steam in the darkly lit environment, and the integrated CGI, one starts to see the image break down just the slightest bit. But I will admit this is an extremely rare occurrence over the course of the film and that most will probably gloss over this problem.
> 
> 
> Thankfully the grain structure looks very natural and consistent throughout the film, with no indicators of bad digital processing interfering with the picture quality. The master used for the transfer looks in splendid and pristine shape. There is a rich and deep, inky nature to the black levels, on par with other titles in tier one. I might have noticed just the tiniest clipping of fine shadow detail in a couple of scenes but overall the picture demonstrates good, but not great, delineation of lower light object detail.
> 
> 
> The best feature of the image is clearly its revealing and splendid high-frequency detail while maintaining a razor-sharp clarity. Basically the entire film shows this attribute at all depths from close-ups to long range shots. On this aspect alone the transfer ranks right up there with the best titles in tier zero. Each actor's flaws and imperfections are bared for all to see.
> 
> 
> My reasons for placing this Blu-ray outside of tier zero revolve around the slightly softer CGI scenes and the look of the original photography. I never felt the picture consistently showed the depth and dimension that is one of the key hallmarks of tier zero. Some scenes did pop obviously with excellent dimensionality (the cave scene with the Hulk stands out in my mind), but it appeared flatter in other moments. I had no problems with the contrast or the colors, as both were very good, but flesh tones did look slightly overdriven into an orangish hue.
> 
> 
> My final recommendation for placement is tier 1.25, though I vacillated with placing it in the top quarter of tier one for a moment. This is a great looking image that in my eyes falls just short of reference quality and tier zero. Maybe if Universal had not loaded so many HD extras onto one disc it might have looked a little better, but I guess we will never know. As an aside, the lossless audio track on this disc is one of the most spectacular sound mixes I have ever heard.



I recommended Tier 1.25 as well. It was lower Tier 0 until they hit "reached their destination." PQ fell apart afterwards.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15680392
> 
> 
> You threatening me, punk?



I drink your milkshake. _I drink it up!!_


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15678222
> 
> 
> I think it was a deeply personal movie by Coppola that reflects on aging and lost youth, possibly his own. I have always been a fan of Coppola's filmmaking, even the less heralded releases, and this movie is no exception. I am not sure the story is for everyone's tastes. There is a deep element of philosophical undertones with a mix of science fiction and fantasy devices tossed in for good measure. That does not even factor in the romance that intertwines the whole plot.



You took the words out of my mouth. Anyone who didn't care for The Fountain probably will not like it. Very "progressive and regressive."









This movie is "out there!"







The surreal, dreamlike visuals were spectacular!







The cinematography is some of the best I've ever seen!

As soon as the movie ended, I went straight to Amazon!


----------



## PooperScooper




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15679166
> 
> 
> The real problem with Crank, IMO, is that most shots with incredible facial detail also come with abrasive light and contrast problems, so while you're trying to enjoy the detail, you're assaulted with contrast problems.



Crank has been filtered to increase sharpness to give it an "edgy" look to go along with the movie itself, however the filtering also created EE. The detail is "enhanced", or "fake", depending on how you look at it.


larry


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *PooperScooper* /forum/post/15680544
> 
> 
> Crank has been filtered to increase sharpness to give it an "edgy" look to go along with the movie itself, however the filtering also created EE. The detail is "enhanced", or "fake", depending on how you look at it.
> 
> 
> larry



It certainly does have EE, but the detail is still definitely there.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *357* /forum/post/15680537
> 
> 
> I still see this thread is controlled by a select few. How unsurprising.



Would you please be more involved and contribute more. I mean this sincerely. There are a few of us who are verbose simply because we like to chat and like people. I can really only speak for myself, but that is my belief. We are not controlling anything anymore than we are simply fervent participators. That should not exclude you or anyone and if it is intimidating that certainly is not our intent. IF that is not your style I respect that, but please respect ours.


Please be more active?










Hugh


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *357* /forum/post/15680537
> 
> 
> I still see this thread is controlled by a select few. How unsurprising.



I hope you take to heart the post that Hugh just wrote, for he is expressing my sentiments EXACTLY. I want you and others to participate more!!


BTW, if I am one of the "select" few, how come I don't know who "selected" me? Just a joke....please don't take it seriously.


----------



## tfoltz

I'm guessing most readers and potential posters would rather drop a quick review and tier recommendation without fear of being questioned (attacked?) by the "regular" posters that enjoy contemplating the things that many of us don't feel the need to delve into, or take the time to defend our views. I know many of you say "go ahead and post more", but the reality is different.


However, I should note that the last two pages are a welcome change.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15680200
> 
> 
> personally, i am a big fan of twbb. If it was consistently as good as its best sequences, i'd recommend moving it up that high.
> 
> 
> I could support a move to 1.75.



+1


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15679332
> 
> 
> Support for these moves?
> 
> 
> Incredible Hulk......1.25
> 
> 
> Iron Man.....1.75



I can support those placements. I think my initial review of Iron Man when it first came out was the top quarter of tier one, but a recent viewing clearly showed me it was not that caliber. It probably deserves something like tier 1.65 but since we do not go that precise anymore, tier 1.75 sounds good.


Crank is really a different story. I have not watched it in quite awhile and wonder how the picture quality holds up today. It is definitely one of the harder BDs to assign one final score to because in some dimensions it is incredible and in other ways it is awful.


----------



## RBFC




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15679332
> 
> 
> Support for these moves?
> 
> 
> Crank....1.0
> 
> 
> Incredible Hulk......1.25
> 
> 
> Iron Man.....1.75
> 
> 
> Lion Witch Wardobe....1.75 (2.0?)
> 
> 
> Shine a Light.....2.0
> 
> 
> Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds......2.0



I think all of those ratings are reasonable. Of these, I don't own _Crank_ on BD (only SD-DVD), so I'll defer on recommending placement for it. But these are all very good, watchable titles.


Tier 2 is nothing to be "ashamed of" for BD titles. These can look very good and provide a great viewing experience. I think we sometimes tend to lose respect for "very good" titles as opposed to "incredible" titles, BTW.


Lee


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*The Bourne Identity*


Before I say anything else, I'm going to say I absolutely loved this Blu Ray. I thought it looked great for the type of movie.


That being said, I have no clue about how it looked on HDDVD, and I'm sitting here with my word processor and trying to go through a bit of a checklist in my head. There was plenty of facial detail, but on the flip side, there were points where I felt there should be more detail and it was missing. I think there was a general softness to this movie, but it was likely a director's intent/filming issue and not any sort of processing.


I studied scenes to see if I could notice any edge enhancement, and my eyes saw none that glared at me. If it was present, it was not a distraction to me. The hand-held camera action throughout the majority of this film was not conducive to producing a WOW picture quality to me, for the purpose of this thread, but I thought it was gorgeous nonetheless.


As you all know, I'm a bit of a water-freak in my Blu Rays, and the water throughout this movie - with the exception of the final scene, where it seemed soft - was fairly crystal clear and pristine. The rain looked great, the wet streets were nice and glossy; even broken glass throughout had a wonderful sparkle to it.


Textures seemed fairly true; I could identify patterns in tweeds, on the papers/passports, fuzzy bits on sweaters - definite clarity there as well. Colours seemed slightly muted to me, but I tend to like things a bit on the brighter side, despite my dark THX setting on my Panasonic, so that could be personal preference. Although I do recall that very thought passing through my mind, and then some gorgeous reds came across the screen in a hotel, so it's not always the case, I suppose.


I was not disappointed with what I watched, but I still think there was some softness/focus issues that don't allow me to consider this movie pristine, even if I loved what I saw. Many of the long shots were lacking in detail overall (shot of Paris etc), and a few times I felt the movie was flat. There was a decent grain throughout the movie, not distracting to me at all, and I felt this movie had a great film-like quality to my eyes.


After struggling with where I think this title should fall, and the thoughts of the new Tier placement descriptions on my mind, I think that the current description that Phantom Stranger has written for Tier Silver describes my feelings on this movie perfectly:

_The titles of this tier represent nice picture quality that is considered above-average and a significant upgrade over standard definition. The image will demonstrate a sharp nature that begins to approach a stronger quality of depth and dimensionality not present in the lower ranked tiers. Typically the image will lack any of the major deficiencies seen in the lower tiers such as visible compression artifacts, inappropriate application of post-processing tools, master defects, etc. While the Blu-rays ranked here are not truly worthy of being demo quality, they are visually pleasing to a casual watcher of HD material._

*Recommendation for The Bourne Identity: Tier 2.00 (respectfully placed! I swear!)


Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800U, THX setting, approximately 7.5' viewing distance.*


----------



## RBFC




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15680753
> 
> 
> BTW, if I am one of the "select" few, how come I don't know who "selected" me?



You have been selected. Now, if I buy a title you recommended and I think it sucks, I'll come looking for you!










Lee


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RBFC* /forum/post/15681053
> 
> 
> You have been selected. Now, if I buy a title you recommended and I think it sucks, I'll come looking for you!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lee


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15680753
> 
> 
> BTW, if I am one of the "select" few, how come I don't know who "selected" me?



You were selected with the 6th pick in the 2007 talent draft of course. Did you not get the memo?







I believe there was supposed to be a signing bonus of some kind...


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15681038
> 
> *The Bourne Identity*
> 
> 
> *Recommendation for The Bourne Identity: Tier 2.00 (respectfully placed! I swear!)
> *


*


Excellent review, geekyglassesgirl. I still have yet to see the sequels in any form.*


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15681205
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent review, geekyglassesgirl. I still have yet to see the sequels in any form.



I actually haven't seen the sequels yet either! The husband hates these as they are not "true to the books" but this geekygal likes a movie of this sort every once in a while! But the deal was, he didn't buy me an anniversary present yesterday







, so I got to pick some Blu Rays.... and this set won based on the selection there.


----------



## Incindium

Regarding Crank it was one of the first Tier 0 titles I've watched and it wasn't near as impressive as say Prince Caspian. It probably is ranked too high. Tier 1 may be a better placement.


I have similar opinion about Ironman. It is a great movie but actually looking at the PQ there was too much weirdness with the contrast levels in a lot of the scenes and it does not have the clarity of picture of other films at its current level. I would actually put it down to 1.75 or 2. I do think though that Narnia Lion Witch Wardrobe looked better than Ironman for what its worth.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15679332
> 
> 
> Support for these moves?
> 
> 
> Crank....1.0
> 
> 
> Incredible Hulk......1.25
> 
> 
> Iron Man.....1.75
> 
> 
> Lion Witch Wardobe....1.75 (2.0?)
> 
> 
> Shine a Light.....2.0
> 
> 
> Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds......2.0



Out of these I only have Iron Man, but I'll give it a watch again, I've never reviewed it for here, so I'll try and do that ASAP to help out, rsbeck! I also have a copy of Shoot 'em Up but i've never seen it, I saw it mentioned somewhere recently with the thought of moving things around. Hopefully within the next week or so I'll get reviews up for those two.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RBFC* /forum/post/15681036
> 
> 
> Tier 2 is nothing to be "ashamed of" for BD titles. These can look very good and provide a great viewing experience. I think we sometimes tend to lose respect for "very good" titles as opposed to "incredible" titles, BTW.
> 
> 
> Lee



+1! I agree with this!


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Phantom and GGG you guys haven't seen Bourne 2 and 3?


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15681553
> 
> 
> Phantom and GGG you guys haven't seen Bourne 2 and 3?



I haven't! But I have the trilogy now so I'm going to watch the 2nd one hopefully tomorrow while my hater-husband is at work.


----------



## Deviation




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15619011
> 
> 
> Same director as Man on Fire, and done in a VERY similar style.
> 
> 
> This is where the whole Tier 0'ness gets weird. Just like Man on Fire, there are those moments of huge amounts of grain which, if judged alone, would not get a tier 0 rating... and I ask myself -- but do I still think it looks great? The answers is -- yes I do. Does this fit the criteria though? MoF is really high up there which is why I ask? I'd still like to hears others' thoughts on this.
> 
> 
> Now, I don't have Man on Fire (rented it), but the similarity was obvious from the beginning. In Domino, the face details were just like MoF where it was obvious they had pores and wrinkles, etc... Keira had no (obvious) DNR or airbrushing done either. I'm not sure what they do to make the details so clear, is it the type of cameras, lenses, film? Just like MoF, there are those pushes towards yellow and green. In this movie, I noticed there were areas we werent meant to see (black crush?). I'm sure it was stylized, but it does remove a bit of fine detail that we could have otherwise seen. Grain levels fluctuate throughout, depending on the scene.
> 
> 
> Now this was put out by New Line (DNR kings), and to add to that, it was on a BD-25 (but with TrueHD). I was amazed at how well this held up and believe it almost looks as good as Man on Fire. There were a couple of soft shots here and there, but they looked defocused on purpose. With that said, going back to my question/info from earlier.. Is Man on Fire too stylized (bleeding colors, wacky contrast, etc) to fit the criteria of Tier 0? I think it belongs in Tier 0, but perhaps it's too high? Either way, I'd put Domino a few steps below it (wherever it ends up)... so for right now I'll say *Mid Tier 0*



For the most part, I just want to echo everything Stumlad said about Domino. This movie looks spectacular and it does not appear to have been touched with DNR or EE in any way. However, there are some artifacts in the encode where the grain in out of focus background portions of the frame can break up into blocking. These occurrences are rare and extremely hard to spot even if you're looking for them but they are there. Because of these imperfections, it's my understanding that Domino doesn't fit into tier 0. It does, however, fit into tier 1 and I would place it at the very top of tier 1.0.


Here are two screenshots which depict the artifacts I'm speaking of, with the artifacts circled in the first shot:
http://www.hdimage.org/images/v5hr4g...93051080ps.jpg 
http://www.hdimage.org/images/zj8p35...inobluray2.jpg 


Thanks to paku for the screen caps.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15681566
> 
> 
> I haven't! But I have the trilogy now so I'm going to watch the 2nd one hopefully tomorrow while my hater-husband is at work.













Husband hates Bourne or blu ray in general?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Incindium* /forum/post/15681328
> 
> 
> I have similar opinion about Ironman. It is a great movie but actually looking at the PQ *there was too much weirdness with the contrast levels in a lot of the scenes* and it does not have the clarity of picture of other films at its current level. I would actually put it down to 1.75 or 2. I do think though that Narnia Lion Witch Wardrobe looked better than Ironman for what its worth.



You are spot on about Ironman! And in addition to the bad contrast levels, there is one scene at the banquet, with Robert Downey, Jr. by the bar, where his face gets bright and there is obvious digital noise for possibly 10 seconds or more. These, and other anomalies, knock this title down to at least 1.75.


I also tend to agree with you on Lion, Witch, & the Wardrobe....in my review I had recommended a 1.5 placement for it and so I think wherever Ironman ends up LWW should be one notch above it.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15681603
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Husband hates Bourne or blu ray in general?




The Bourne series -- he's a fan of the books and whined the entire time we saw The Bourne Identity the first time and swore off the rest of them. He likes the quality of Blu Ray but he's nowhere near as picky as I am. The TV was my christmas present, and he made that fact very clear when we were at the store. It was pretty funny. Even last night when we were at the store and I picked the Bourne trilogy as my gift, a friend of his came up to us and invited himself over for the Superbowl to watch on "his new tv". I giggled, and then replied, "Well, it's actually MY tv, but he's welcome to use it for a Superbowl party, at a cost of a couple of Blu Ray's."


----------



## LBFilmGuy

LOL too funny G3.


----------



## H.Cornerstone

I am extremely against moving Crank to Tier 1. I could see it moved down in Tier 0, but that was my first demo movie and to me it still would be one of the first movies I would use to show off blu-ray. It has everything you want in a tier 0 IMO.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rbfc* /forum/post/15681036
> 
> 
> tier 2 is nothing to be "ashamed of" for bd titles. These can look very good and provide a great viewing experience. I think we sometimes tend to lose respect for "very good" titles as opposed to "incredible" titles, btw.
> 
> 
> Lee



+2. Right on. Cannot be said often enough, IMO.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Saturn94* /forum/post/15679494
> 
> 
> I appologize if this post is in the wrong thread.
> 
> 
> I just purchased "The Fugitive" on BD. Before opening it I checked page 1 of this thread and saw it received a "Coal" rating.
> 
> 
> I have the original DVD release and am wonderng should I keep the BD release or return it and just keep the DVD? Even with it's rating, is the BD version an improvement over the DVD version? I'd like to know before I open it so I can return it if needed.
> 
> 
> For reference, I have a Pioneer BDP 51FD BD player and a Pioneer Elite 60" plasma.
> 
> 
> Thanks.



PLEASE, keep your DVD. Return the Blu at once! This is by far the worst transfer I've ever seen!









I love the movie, but hate the transfer! Maybe we should create a "Mud Tier!"


----------



## tfoltz

I agree with this.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15681891
> 
> 
> So far....
> 
> *Iron Man.....1.75* (Incindium, RFBC, rsbeck, Rob Tomlin, Djoberg)


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15681553
> 
> 
> Phantom and GGG you guys haven't seen Bourne 2 and 3?




That is what I was thinking. They are in for a treat. I wish I hadn't seen them, because I would love to see them for the first time again. This is one set I think I am going to purchase. I look forward to more PQ reviews of the trilogy.


----------



## selimsivad

*Youth Without Youth*


Of the non-animated Blu Ray discs I own, Man On Fire has ALWAYS been my demo disc. From the moment Denzel is shown with a clean shave, I've seen lots of dropped jaws! Man On Fire looks amazing, mostly because of it's oversaturated colors. To some, that represents supreme eye candy.


I prefer the natural, 3D pop look myself. If edge enhancement was not present in Baraka, it would easily be my favorite non-animated feature. Ladies and gentlemen, there's a new king of non-animation titles!


Youth Without Youth is a love/sci-fi/fantasy story story. I compared it earlier with another favorite of mine, The Fountain. If you didn't care for The Fountain, chances are you will loathe Youth Without Youth.


This film was shot with HD film, so there is zero grain. Every scene has that "looking through glass" appearance! This film is immaculate! Blacks are inky, which leads to amazing shadow detail. Every tiny detail, whether on furniture, on clothing, on rocks, on skin, shows up perfectly! ALL colors are accurately portrayed! This is Baraka, without the negative artifacts!


Some use facial feature to determine Tier rankings. I've started to notice hand detail. Hands here show every wrinkle, every detail!










Paper, especially newspapers show deep black ink. Texture in the sheets are magnified to perfection.










The cinematography is astonishing! The surreal visuals were out of this world! Lots of depth in almost every shot!










I could go on and on, but I have to work very early tomorrow morning. To make a long story short, I felt like I watched the entire movie looking through an empty picture frame! Baraka is the only other time I've ever felt the same way!










DETAIL, DETAIL, DETAIL. I can't stress it enough!










Again, some feel the picture has to be oversaturated for a high Tier 0 ranking. I'm not one of them.










The movie itself can be best described as "metaphysical!" It's "out there!"


*Youth Without Youth

Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (above I, Robot)

PS3-Samsung 46" 1080p-seven*'


----------



## rsbeck

Excellent review -- My copy should be here tomorrow.


----------



## Hughmc

Yes nice review selimsivad. Phantom and you are in agreement and are both raving about it.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15681364
> 
> 
> Out of these I only have Iron Man, but I'll give it a watch again, I've never reviewed it for here, so I'll try and do that ASAP to help out, rsbeck! I also have a copy of Shoot 'em Up but i've never seen it, I saw it mentioned somewhere recently with the thought of moving things around. Hopefully within the next week or so I'll get reviews up for those two.



Excellent -- thanks -- and welcome back!


----------



## rsbeck

Pan's Labyrinth --


Been going back and forth all night between US Version and UK Version. Verrrrry interesting. A real education. US Version has very, very fine grain -- almost gone. Looks something like HD Video. UK version has fine grain, looks like film. I've read that US Version looks horrible, wax figures, the whole nine yards. I'd say most of that is hyperbole, but there is a difference between these two versions. On my 126" screen, I would describe the difference as very subtle, but still important. US Version looks very good, a lot of people would be happy with it, especially if they haven't seen the UK Version. So, US Version does not look bad -- to my eye, the UK version just looks a little better. Having said that, how much difference is a little bit better? It's that last little tincture of clarity, that last little patina of detail, that last quarter teaspoon of richness. With a film like Pan's Labyrinth, this does add up to a notable difference, but it's not the difference between bad and great, it's the difference between very, very good and great. The level of detail in the pic is outrageous. Having that last little bit of clarity is really worth it. Between these two versions, the US version obviously has had more grain removed and when you switch back and forth you see that even though the US version still has a lot of detail intact, the first things to go with the loss of a little more grain is very subtle facial and texture detail and the ability to make out single strands of hair, especially in eyebrows. This proves once again that grain does not make the picture soft, it actually makes the picture sharper, richer, and more detailed. We should be recommending the UK version. I want to watch the UK version all the way through sometime in the next few days and then I will post a review.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15682225
> 
> 
> So far....
> 
> *Crank...Lower, but still tier 0* (H.Cornerstone)
> 
> *Crank....1.0* (Incindium, Rob Tomlin)
> 
> *Crank.....1.25* (rsbeck)
> 
> *Crank......2.0* (Foxy Mulder)
> 
> *Incredible Hulk......1.25* (Phantom Stranger, selimsivad, RBFC, Patrick99, Hughmc, Djoberg, Rob Tomlin, rsbeck)
> 
> *Lion Witch Wardobe....1.50* (Incindium, RFBC, Djoberg)
> 
> *Lion, Witch Wardrobe....1.75* (rsbeck)
> 
> *Iron Man.....1.75* (tfoltz, Incindium, Phantom Stranger, RFBC, rsbeck, Rob Tomlin, Djoberg)
> 
> *Shine a Light.....2.0* (RFBC, rsbeck)
> 
> *Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds......2.0* (RFBC, rsbeck)
> 
> 
> 
> Pot right?



You can add me to the group on Iron Man at 1.75. I think LWW looks better than IM, so I will go for 1.5. I don't think SaL looks worse than IM, so I will say 1.75.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15682378
> 
> 
> Excellent review -- My copy should be here tomorrow.



My copy is also scheduled to arrive tomorrow. If it does, I'll watch it tomorrow night and chime in as the credits roll.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15685752
> 
> 
> So far....
> 
> *Crank...Lower, but still tier 0* (H.Cornerstone)
> 
> *Crank....1.0* (Incindium, Rob Tomlin)
> 
> *Crank.....1.25* (rsbeck)
> 
> *Crank......2.0* (Foxy Mulder)
> 
> *Incredible Hulk......1.25* (Phantom Stranger, selimsivad, RBFC, Patrick99, Hughmc, Djoberg, Rob Tomlin, rsbeck)
> 
> *Lion Witch Wardobe....1.50* (Incindium, RFBC, Djoberg, Patrick99)
> 
> *Lion, Witch Wardrobe....1.75* (rsbeck)
> 
> *Iron Man.....1.75* (tfoltz, Incindium, Phantom Stranger, RFBC, rsbeck, Rob Tomlin, Djoberg, Patrick99)
> 
> *Shine a Light.....1.75* (Patrick99)
> 
> *Shine a Light.....2.0* (RFBC, rsbeck)
> 
> *Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds......2.0* (RFBC, rsbeck)
> 
> *The Police: Certifiable.....2.5* (rsbeck)
> 
> 
> 
> Pot right?



I will join you on The Police at 2.5.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15688335
> 
> 
> So far....
> 
> *Crank...Lower, but still tier 0* (H.Cornerstone)
> 
> *Crank....1.0* (Incindium, Rob Tomlin)
> 
> *Crank.....1.25* (rsbeck)
> 
> *Crank......2.0* (Foxy Mulder)
> 
> *Incredible Hulk......1.25* (Phantom Stranger, selimsivad, RBFC, Patrick99, Hughmc, Djoberg, Rob Tomlin, rsbeck)
> 
> *Lion Witch Wardobe....1.50* (Incindium, RFBC, Djoberg, Patrick99)
> 
> *Lion, Witch Wardrobe....1.75* (rsbeck)
> 
> *Iron Man.....1.75* (tfoltz, Incindium, Phantom Stranger, RFBC, rsbeck, Rob Tomlin, Djoberg, Patrick99)
> 
> *Shine a Light.....1.75* (Patrick99)
> 
> *Shine a Light.....2.0* (RFBC, rsbeck)
> 
> *Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds......2.0* (RFBC, rsbeck)
> 
> *The Police: Certifiable.....2.5* (Patrick99, rsbeck)
> 
> 
> 
> Pot right?



Put me down for Iron Man. I didn't see that before.


----------



## Saturn94




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15682098
> 
> 
> PLEASE, keep your DVD. Return the Blu at once! This is by far the worst transfer I've ever seen!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love the movie, but hate the transfer! Maybe we should create a "Mud Tier!"



Thanks for the input.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15682378
> 
> 
> Excellent review -- My copy should be here tomorrow.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15685860
> 
> 
> My copy is also scheduled to arrive tomorrow. If it does, I'll watch it tomorrow night and chime in as the credits roll.



This is classic.


My copy arrives tomorrow as well. It's a Youth Without Youth frenzy!


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15685860
> 
> 
> My copy is also scheduled to arrive tomorrow. If it does, I'll watch it tomorrow night and chime in as the credits roll.


 for djoberg










Tomorrow, it will all make sense.









Looking forward to hearing everyone's review!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15689324
> 
> 
> This is classic.
> 
> 
> My copy arrives tomorrow as well. It's a Youth Without Youth frenzy!



I wish i could find it!! I've looked and nowhere has it here yet. Darn arctic!! So picky. Get Bourne on time but no Youth without Youth.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15689324
> 
> 
> This is classic.
> 
> 
> My copy arrives tomorrow as well. It's a Youth Without Youth frenzy!



I honestly can't understand why it's currently ranked Tier 1.25!











Speaking of incorrect rankings, has anyone seen the movie "ATL" on Blu yet?

It's currently ranked Tier 2.25. I just watched it, and it looks lower Tier 0 to me! At worst, it's a Tier 1.00 film.









3D pop exists about 95% of the movie! Lots of detailed facial close ups!









I'll watch it again tomorrow and leave my recommendation.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15689909
> 
> 
> I honestly can't understand why it's currently ranked Tier 1.25!



Not a big deal, since 1.25 isn't all that far from Tier 0. Now if it were in Tier 3.0, that may be something to be worried about.


I could only find one review before Phantom's:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maverick0716* /forum/post/13897939
> 
> 
> Youth Without Youth is definitly a surprising transfer to me. It's fantastic! Tons of detail throughout the whole movie. I'd recommend top 1/2 of Tier 1.
> 
> 
> 42" Panasonic Plasma (768p)
> 
> PS3 though HDMI
> 
> 6-7 ft.



Maverick definitely liked it, and used words like "fantastic" and "tons of detail throughout the whole movie", so it's still looking good!


----------



## babrown92

Anyone want to take the first shot at ranking the *Bourne Trilogy*? I havent watched the 3rd film yet, but so far I'd go *Identity 1.75 and Supremacy 1.25* if the 3rd shows the same level of improvement as Supremacy did over Identity it might get close to tier 0.


Great transfers so far. Anyone else got an opinion on these?


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *babrown92* /forum/post/15690368
> 
> 
> Anyone want to take the first shot at ranking the *Bourne Trilogy*? I havent watched the 3rd film yet, but so far I'd go *Identity 1.75 and Supremacy 1.25* if the 3rd shows the same level of improvement as Supremacy did over Identity it might get close to tier 0.
> 
> 
> Great transfers so far. Anyone else got an opinion on these?





I rated The Bourne Identity here yesterday. I put it at 2.00. I haven't watched the other two yet, but as soon as I do I will post reviews for those too!


Edited to add -- I did love it, just didn't feel I could rate it higher for various reasons outlined in my review.


----------



## 42041

Based on my viewing of the HDDVD version, Identity (that is, the Bourne Identity, not that other flick) bothered me enough that I couldn't see it being in Tier 1. It had that slightly soft look characteristic of older transfers, and bothersome contrast issues.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15690507
> 
> 
> Based on my viewing of the HDDVD version, Identity bothered me enough that I couldn't see it being in Tier 1. It had that slightly soft look characteristic of older transfers, and bothersome contrast issues.



It's been awhile since I've seen my HD DVD copy, but my recollection is the same as yours 42041. If the Blu-ray encode is the same G3's recommendation of 2.0 may very well be where it ends up.


I never did get the 2 sequels, but with babrown92 being impressed with the improved quality I may just buy them on Blu-ray.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15690507
> 
> 
> based on my viewing of the hddvd version, identity (that is, the bourne identity, not that other flick) bothered me enough that i couldn't see it being in tier 1. It had that slightly soft look characteristic of older transfers, and bothersome contrast issues.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15690548
> 
> 
> it's been awhile since i've seen my hd dvd copy, but my recollection is the same as yours 42041. If the blu-ray encode is the same g3's recommendation of 2.0 may very well be where it ends up.



+2


----------



## Deviation




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15690548
> 
> 
> It's been awhile since I've seen my HD DVD copy, but my recollection is the same as yours 42041. If the Blu-ray encode is the same G3's recommendation of 2.0 may very well be where it ends up.
> 
> 
> I never did get the 2 sequels, but with babrown92 being impressed with the improved quality I may just buy them on Blu-ray.



It's not the same - there's a substantial improvement between the HD-DVD and Blu-ray versions of The Bourne Identity - and this is one of the very few times I've seen an actual improvement.


----------



## babrown92

I wouldn't have a horrible problem if some wanted to put Identity in tier 2, there is a somewhat softness to the way it is shot, but I wouldnt call it soft, if that makes any sense.


I just finished Ultimatum, and it is very impressive, couldnt find a flaw with the transfer (neither could I with the 1st two films). My initial reaction is to put it in the top part of tier 1.


These films will probably cause a debate due to their being filmed in such a kinetic manner that may not immediately scream eye candy like some films. I'll readily admit that I will be totally bias in my ranking of these films because I love them so much. I have seen them numerous times and could not be happier with the way they look on Blu-Ray.


I'm sure others can view them from a 'eye candy' perspective much better than I can. I'll just say that this set moved past Band of Brothers as my most prized Blu.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *babrown92* /forum/post/15690368
> 
> 
> Anyone want to take the first shot at ranking the *Bourne Trilogy*? I havent watched the 3rd film yet, but so far I'd go *Identity 1.75 and Supremacy 1.25* if the 3rd shows the same level of improvement as Supremacy did over Identity it might get close to tier 0.
> 
> 
> Great transfers so far. Anyone else got an opinion on these?



I have watched part but not all of *Ultimatum*. It is looking quite good. Close-ups are nicely detailed.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *babrown92* /forum/post/15691256
> 
> *I wouldn't have a horrible problem if some wanted to put Identity in tier 2, there is a somewhat softness to the way it is shot, but I wouldnt call it soft, if that makes any sense.*
> 
> 
> I just finished Ultimatum, and it is very impressive, couldnt find a flaw with the transfer (neither could I with the 1st two films). My initial reaction is to put it in the top part of tier 1.
> 
> 
> These films will probably cause a debate due to their being filmed in such a kinetic manner that may not immediately scream eye candy like some films. I'll readily admit that I will be totally bias in my ranking of these films because I love them so much. I have seen them numerous times and could not be happier with the way they look on Blu-Ray.
> 
> 
> I'm sure others can view them from a 'eye candy' perspective much better than I can. I'll just say that this set moved past Band of Brothers as my most prized Blu.




I understand exactly what you mean regarding the bolded part. I'm hoping to get to the other 2 movies today -- I have never seen either of them before, so maybe "fresh eyes" can help out a tad!


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15689324
> 
> 
> This is classic.
> 
> 
> My copy arrives tomorrow as well. It's a Youth Without Youth frenzy!



The PQ reviews in the last few pages sound very positive but before placing it in my Netflix queue I decided to check Rotten Tomato, where it had a 30% favorable rating. I learned my lesson on Crank, I think I'll pass.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/15692904
> 
> 
> The PQ reviews in the last few pages sound very positive but before placing it in my Netflix queue I decided to check Rotten Tomato, where it had a 30% favorable rating. I learned my lesson on Crank, I think I'll pass.



People have compared it to "The Fountain". I absolutely hated The Fountain, so I don't expect to like Youth Without Youth. But when a title is being recommended for Tier 0, I will take the risk.


After all, I did suffer through Mamma Mia!


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Zodiac*


This was a difficult title for me to rate. The PQ can be extremely impressive at times, usually in the outdoor daylight scenes. Clarity is very, very good in those scenes. Detail is excellent. You can even read writing on the newspapers in some scenes. There are plenty of these types of shots throughout the movie. The print is absolutely spotless.


However, dark scenes are not so impressive. They have a somewhat flat look to them. Also, on several occasions I noticed what looked like some type of vertical lines in the darkest parts of the picture. Blacks are not very deep either.


Colors were pretty good. Certainly not over saturated. If anything they were just slightly on the muted side, but still natural looking overall.


It appears that this was shot on HD cams, which would explain both the incredible detail AND the less than impressive black levels.


As for the movie itself, I was very impressed. This is a very good film. The attention to detail is quite good. Part of this took place in my city (Riverside) and they actually shot those scenes here. Even the police had the Riverside logo on their sleeves.
*Tier Recommendation: 1.75* (I think it's current placement at 1.25 is too high given the issues with dark scenes).


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15693359
> 
> 
> The print is absolutely spotless.



It's everything-else-less, too.*



*it's a direct digital encode, not a transfer


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15693359
> 
> *Zodiac*
> 
> 
> As for the movie itself, I was very impressed. This is a very good film. The attention to detail is quite good. Part of this took place in my city (Riverside) and they actually shot those scenes here. Even the police had the Riverside logo on their sleeves.



I've been meaning to see this for some time and your review (and the fact that my copy of Youth Without Youth did NOT come today as expected







) is the incentive I needed to rent this today.


BTW, I lived in Anaheim, CA for about a year so at that time we were practically neighbors!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15693492
> 
> 
> It's everything-else-less, too.*
> 
> 
> 
> *it's a direct digital encode, not a transfer



Exactly correct, and I should not have used the word "print".


----------



## sleater

Hey G3...


If you want to check out Youth Without Youth in the arctic try this: http://www.amazon.ca/gp/offer-listin...3339462&sr=8-3 


I personally ordered the new copy for ~25 bucks and shipping was cheap & fast.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sleater* /forum/post/15694777
> 
> 
> Hey G3...
> 
> 
> If you want to check out Youth Without Youth in the arctic try this: http://www.amazon.ca/gp/offer-listin...3339462&sr=8-3
> 
> 
> I personally ordered the new copy for ~25 bucks and shipping was *cheap & fast*.



That's where I ordered it from and it turns out it's NOT FAST this time around! I did get it for under $20 though.










Another good site for buying Blu-rays is www.half.ebay.com


----------



## rsbeck

I just got the message from amazon that my Youth Without Youth was mis-sorted. Should have been here yesterday. grrrrrrr......


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15693359
> 
> *Zodiac*
> 
> 
> However, dark scenes are not so impressive. They have a somewhat flat look to them. Also, on several occasions I noticed what looked like some type of vertical lines in the darkest parts of the picture. Blacks are not very deep either.



This is weird. I thought blacks were one its greatest strengths and I am very picky about contrast. However, I reviewed the import version. Are you reviewing the US release? I wonder if these are different.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15696293
> 
> 
> This is weird. I thought blacks were one its greatest strengths and I am very picky about contrast. However, I reviewed the import version. Are you reviewing the US release? I wonder if these are different.



U.S. release.


When I rented this, I didn't even know that it was shot on HD cams. They have certainly got much better, but I really started to suspect it was HD when I saw the dark scenes. Film still rules here.


To me this titles biggest strength is the clarity and detail, which is very impressive indeed.


----------



## rsbeck

I agree with you on the clarity and detail, but I also thought the backs were inky and deep. It's one of the things I really enjoyed. Weird.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15696343
> 
> 
> U.S. release.
> 
> 
> When I rented this, I didn't even know that it was shot on HD cams. They have certainly got much better, but I really started to suspect it was HD when I saw the dark scenes. Film still rules here.
> 
> 
> To me this titles biggest strength is the clarity and detail, which is very impressive indeed.



I watched about thirty minutes last night.


The opening scene was horrible. Like you said, PQ during dark scenes were below average. Waxy faces and digital noise also existed then.







Lighted scenes were excellent!


I don't have a surround sound system, but for me speech was muffled. I could barely understand conversations at times!










I'll try to watch it again in the next few days.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15695994
> 
> 
> I just got the message from amazon that my Youth Without Youth was mis-sorted. Should have been here yesterday. grrrrrrr......



At least you got a message from Amazon explaining the delay!


To add to my misery (of not receiving YWY from Amazon), I went to rent Zodiac and the local stores aren't carrying this title on Blu-ray. I ended up renting Burn After Reading which I'll be watching tonight.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15696425
> 
> 
> I agree with you on the clarity and detail, but I also thought the backs were inky and deep. It's one of the things I really enjoyed. Weird.



Weird indeed. I doubt that there would be so much difference between the foreign and US release, but who knows.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15696466
> 
> 
> I watched about thirty minutes last night.
> 
> 
> The opening scene was horrible.



I meant to mention the opening scene in my review. Thanks for bringing it up!


I was REALLY worried when I saw the opening scene. I was thinking this was going to be a low Tier 3 title! In fact, the opening scene is a perfect example of where people can look to see the issues with the dark scenes.



> Quote:
> Like you said, PQ during dark scenes were below average. Waxy faces and digital noise also existed then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lighted scenes were excellent!



Definite digital noise. Faces didn't look good either. I don't know if I would describe them as waxy during those scenes, but they were definitely lacking in detail.



> Quote:
> I don't have a surround sound system, but for me speech was muffled. I could barely understand conversations at times!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll try to watch it again in the next few days.



The sound level was very low indeed. I had to listen to this a good 10db higher on the volume control than normal.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15696786
> 
> 
> The sound level was very low indeed. I had to listen to this a good 10db higher on the volume control than normal.



That's not necessarily a bad sign. Shows that it isn't dynamically compressed.


To me, it's more worrisome when you need to turn the volume down.


If they keep the dynamics, you might have to turn the volume up, but at least you get to control it -- if they shave the dynamics to give you a louder soundtrack, you're stuck with no dynamic range at any volume. Not talking about this particular soundtrack, but all sound tracks in general. It's generally a good sign when you need to turn the volume up and a bad sign when you have to turn it down.


----------



## rsbeck

Just watched the first 26 minutes of Zodiac.


The first sequences are definitely dark and shadowy, but IMO, contrast is well handled until the 26 minute mark after the cab driver murder when Mark Ruffalo is woken and contrast goes a little wonky.


I don't see any waxy faces, but in general faces aren't lit to exhibit pores. However, I consistently see single strands of hair in eyebrows, single pieces of stubble and I do see pores now and again and I see a very light mustache on an older woman. The couple at the lake, I see their pores and single pieces of stubble on the guy, single strands of hair where you can see subtle variations from one strand to the next. I see Robert Downy, Jr.'s pores from time to time. I see tiny lettering on photographic gear, detailed surfaces, the brush at the lake is very well delineated.....my recall was that as the movie unfolds, you see pores and imperfections when the light is right.


Having said all of that, I appreciate differing opinions, it's good to get different points of view.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15696995
> 
> 
> Just watched the first 26 minutes of Zodiac.
> 
> 
> The first sequences are definitely dark and shadowy, but IMO, contrast is well handled ...



You didn't find the very first scene to look bad? No noise at all?


If not, these versions must be very different indeed.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I am going to post a review at some point but I felt the opening scene was either the worst or second worst scene in terms of picture quality in _Zodiac_. My initial impression is a high tier one title that often dips into low tier zero.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15696786
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definite digital noise. Faces didn't look good either. I don't know if I would describe them as waxy during those scenes, but they were definitely lacking in detail.



Maybe waxy was too harsh, but I almost turned it off around
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) the police crime scene after the taxi homicide
All lighted scenes looked amazing!




Have you got your YWY copy yet?


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15697146
> 
> 
> You didn't find the very first scene to look bad?



Not to me. It was definitely shadowy.



> Quote:
> No noise at all?



No, I don't get any noise until the 26 minute mark after the taxi murder when Ruffalo is awoken. Do you get video noise in that scene?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15697676
> 
> 
> Not to me. It was definitely shadowy.



We are using this word a lot on this title, but again "strange". You have three of us now (Phantom, Selimsivad and myself) who think the opening scene is one of the worst of the movie.


Makes me really wonder if there is some difference in the versions we have.



> Quote:
> No, I don't get any noise until the 26 minute mark after the taxi murder when Ruffalo is awoken. Do you get video noise in that scene?



Yes, that and others.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15697433
> 
> 
> Maybe waxy was too harsh, but I almost turned it off around
> *Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler
> *Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) the police crime scene after the taxi homicide
> All lighted scenes looked amazing!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you got your YWY copy yet?



On the way to my mailbox now!


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15697676
> 
> 
> Not to me. It was definitely shadowy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't get any noise until the 26 minute mark after the taxi murder when Ruffalo is awoken. Do you get video noise in that scene?



I see noise!









It has to be a different copy!


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15697722
> 
> 
> We are using this word a lot on this title, but again "strange". You have three of us now (Phantom, Selimsivad and myself) who think the opening scene is one of the worst of the movie.



I agree that the opening scene is not as impressive as other scenes in the movie. It's quite shadowy, but for me, the shadows are well rendered and the blacks are satisfying.



> Quote:
> Yes, that and others.



The noise you see in the scene when Ruffalo is awoken, is that what you're seeing in the opening scene, too? I see nothing like that in the remainder of the film. I only had a problem in the one scene and only for a few moments. I was generally impressed with blacks. What's really weird is that I have read that the US release is even better than the import.


----------



## rsbeck

I just checked my mailbox, Youth Without Youth arrived!


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15697844
> 
> 
> I just checked my mailbox, Youth Without Youth arrived!



Enjoy!

It's "2001like!" on the "out there" scale!









But I think that the amazing visuals will keep you reeled in.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Zodiac*


recommendation: *Tier 1.0*


David Fincher's true crime thriller finally arrives in a domestic Blu-ray version by Paramount. Presented solely here is the director's cut of the movie, clocking in at a running time of 162-minutes. The video is encoded in AVC on a BD-50. Per the BDInfo scan, the average video bitrate is 31.30 Mbps. The video bitrates hover in a range from 26.9 Mbps to 38.3 Mbps for the length of the main feature. In terms of compression problems, there simply are none. This compression encoding is perceptually flawless and maximizes the limits of current encoding technology and the Blu-ray specifications. Any video noise would seem to originate from the original source master and transfer. It would not be a stretch to call this a state of the art encoding.


Zodiac was shot digitally using the Thomson VIPER FilmStream HD Camera and transferred directly from the digital domain for this transfer. The final image really looks nothing like film with absolutely zero grain. In its best moments, such as the well-lit offices in the San Francisco Chronicle, the picture quality is startling, with vivid clarity and every detail fully resolved. Even my jaded eyes were impressed by the superior depth of field to the image, with actors in the foreground visibly popping off the screen. I would have no hesitation to place these best moments, which make up a large percentage of the movie's running time, firmly in tier zero.


There are some weaker moments that do take place in several of the darker scenes which reveal the limitations of digital photography at the present moment. The two that stand out in my mind are the opening scene of the movie and when the cops first inspect the residence of the primary Zodiac suspect. Video noise typical of when HD digital photography gets starved of light appears, and it almost wrecks the image. That second scene is particularly troubling, as the video noise in the dark background does something quite unusual and freezes in place for several seconds. It is my understanding that Fincher had Lowry Digital temporally filter the entire movie to reduce the random video noise. Outside of a few sporadic moments it is virtually impossible to detect, but it appears to have done something visibly wrong in those scant seconds. I can say high-frequency information does not look affected at all, with excellent detail to all objects throughout the length of the movie. Watch closely the ultra-sharp and revealing shots of hair, with every actor's hair structure easily visible. Pores are viewable but they look more typical of the titles in tier one.


It is interesting to see the color timing used here. It appears Fincher was consciously going for colors in films from the time period of the story, which is the late 60's and early 70's. There is an earthy brown and somber yellow push to the color palette, with the image looking slightly vintage. That homage starts right off in the first moments, with the vintage Paramount showing obvious print damage at the beginning of the movie. The cinematography is wonderfully composed in the 2.35:1 frame and harkens back to an earlier era in Hollywood films. Flesh tones look very accurate, if just slightly muted, with a nice consistency. Black levels are not constantly great for the entire movie, where most scenes demonstrate very good shadow detail and a few moments exhibit black crushing.


The picture quality here is strange, but beautiful. Most of the film has that looking-through-a-window quality that the best HD video can produce, but there are some dark moments that do not work well at all. Because of those flaws it can not make tier zero in my opinion, but tier 1.0 or even tier 1.25 would appear justifiable given that much of the movie looks great.


Watching on a 60” Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 from a PS3 (firmware 2.60) at a viewing distance of six feet.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of eric.exe):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post15619125 


Can you solve one of the Zodiac's unsolved ciphers?
http://oranchak.com/zodiac/webtoy/


----------



## rsbeck

I may be one of the few people on the planet who enjoyed One From The Heart, so I have a pretty high tolerance for Coppola when he gets out there. I'm going to make sure I can watch Youth Without Youth all in one stretch without disturbance.


----------



## djoberg

^


Phantom,


Good review (as always!)....I will have to do what I can to procure a copy of Zodiac in the near future.


I have noticed in at least two of your recent reviews you have suggested _raising_ the current placement (YWY and now Zodiac). I hope you realize you may soon be nominated for the "most generous rater" Oscar (by Rob Tomlin who is President of the Academy)!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15698230
> 
> 
> I may be one of the few people on the planet who enjoyed One From The Heart, so I have a pretty high tolerance for Coppola when he gets out there. *I'm going to make sure I can watch Youth Without Youth all in one stretch without disturbance*.




Dude! Share the secret... you have kids, how is that even POSSIBLE?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15698247
> 
> 
> ^
> 
> 
> Phantom,
> 
> 
> Good review (as always!)....I will have to do what I can to procure a copy of Zodiac in the near future.
> 
> 
> I have noticed in at least two of your recent reviews you have suggested _raising_ the current placement (YWY and now Zodiac). I hope you realize you may soon be nominated for the "most generous rater" Oscar (by Rob Tomlin who is President of the Academy)!



I second that, another GREAT review Phantom!


As far as the final recommendation (and being a "generous" rater) it is merely a matter of priority with each reviewer.


There is very little in Phantom's review that I disagree with. But we do differ slightly on our final recommendation (he is at 1.0, I am at 1.75 for Zodiac).


He nails it when he says:


"There are some weaker moments that do take place in several of the darker scenes which reveal the limitations of digital photography at the present moment. The two that stand out in my mind are the opening scene of the movie and when the cops first inspect the residence of the primary Zodiac suspect. Video noise typical of when HD digital photography gets starved of light appears, and it almost wrecks the image. That second scene is particularly troubling, as the video noise in the dark background does something quite unusual and freezes in place for several seconds. It is my understanding that Fincher had Lowry Digital temporally filter the entire movie to reduce the random video noise."


This sums up my issues with Zodiac quite well. They were apparently more troublesome to me in terms of how it impacted my overall score than him, but these variances will always be there between raters.


I have just finished watching the first hour of Youth Without Youth. It too was shot with an HD camera, and let me tell you: the dark scenes in that movie were handled _much_ better than what we see with Zodiac!


I hope to finish the film later tonight and will give a full review tomorrow. So far, though, I can say that I am very impressed overall.


----------



## rsbeck

*Ipcress File*


2.35:1, 1965


Natural medium grain is very apparent and consistent throughout, some thin ringing on high contrast edges noted a few times. One's enjoyment of this title will be directly tied to one's enjoyment/tolerance for grain because this is not the fine grain we've been getting in recent titles, this is vintage 60's grain and it's part of every image. I have acquired a taste for blu-rays made from this older film stock. To my eye, the picture, while grainy, has a depth, solidity, and presence that you can't get with other kinds of film. This may sound weird, but things like wood grain, painted woodwork, and glossy automobiles have a sensuous quality which is hard to describe. Single strands of hair and clothing texture are also very well resolved. Director Len Deighton employs distinctive ahead of his time framing techniques which are eccentric, but add to the fun.

*Recommendation: Tier 2.75*


Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From Screen



.


----------



## sleater




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15695227
> 
> 
> That's where I ordered it from and it turns out it's NOT FAST this time around! I did get it for under $20 though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another good site for buying Blu-rays is www.half.ebay.com



Actually I got my copy in 2 days (ordered on Sunday evening received Wednesday morning) and it is NOT from Amazon if you actually clicked on the link. It is from an independent reseller that shipped from the same Province I live in which is probably why it was so fast. I was simply guessing that G3 might live in either BC or AB in which case she should be able to get a copy quickly. The link you provided seems to be geared towards US buyers and yes it does look inexpensive, but we have a not so good exchange rate at the moment and also border inspection fees, GST duties, and a long wait if ordering anything from down south.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15698405
> 
> 
> Dude! Share the secret... you have kids, how is that even POSSIBLE?



To get undisturbed solitude, sometimes I have to wait until they're in bed. Also, my kids are a little older than yours. I know it's hard to imagine when they're young, but I can promise you -- hang in there -- it gets easier eventually.


----------



## rsbeck

Zodiac -- Are you guys watching the one disc director's cut or the two disc release?


----------



## Johnpv

The credibility of this list is shot with me, with Dark Knight being a tier 1.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15698888
> 
> 
> Zodiac -- Are you guys watching the one disc director's cut or the two disc release?



Not sure, rented from Blockbuster via mail.


----------



## selimsivad

After almost two months of waiting, Amazon has finally shipped my German imported "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas!" This is easily in my top twenty favorite film of all time list!










I've never seen the HD-DVD version, but I've read many positive reviews about the PQ. The transfer is supposed to be identical.


I currently own the Criterion DVD version. I would put it on ebay, but I don't think the Blu has all the extras. Usually, I could care less about extras!










I trust the opinion of you guys over various web reviews. Where would you rate the PQ of the HD-DVD?


Thanks.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15698975
> 
> 
> After almost two months of waiting, Amazon has finally shipped my German imported "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas!" This is easily in my top twenty favorite film of all time list!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never seen the HD-DVD version, but I've read many positive reviews about the PQ. The transfer is supposed to be identical.
> 
> 
> I currently own the Criterion DVD version. I would put it on ebay, but I don't think the Blu has all the extras. Usually, I could care less about extras!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I trust the opinion of you guys over various web reviews. Where would you rate the PQ of the HD-DVD?
> 
> 
> Thanks.



I never saw this title, but here is where it was placed in the HD-DVD PQ thread:

*3.5-3.99 Stars Very Good - Above Average HD DVD Picture Quality


Battle of the Bulge 4 stars (10) User Poll Ratings (Vote!) AVS Review

Disturbia 4 stars (10) User Poll Ratings (Vote!) AVS Review

The Bourne Supremacy (IME) 3.980769 stars (50) 3.0 Stars User Poll Ratings (Vote!) AVS Review Screenshots

Blood Diamond 3.957447 stars (45) User Poll Ratings (Vote!) AVS Review Screenshots

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas TrueHD 3.947368 stars (17) User Poll Ratings (Vote!) AVS Review Screenshots*


Since it was placed 5 titles down from the top of about 40 titles, that would be equivalent to the top of Tier 2 on this thread, which isn't bad. I should add that I was quite impressed with the placements in that thread; in other words, I thought, for the most part, they were fairly accurate.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Johnpv* /forum/post/15698898
> 
> 
> The credibility of this list is shot with me, with Dark Knight being a tier 1.



agreed, so overrated


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15698975
> 
> 
> After almost two months of waiting, Amazon has finally shipped my German imported "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas!" This is easily in my top twenty favorite film of all time list!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never seen the HD-DVD version, but I've read many positive reviews about the PQ. The transfer is supposed to be identical.
> 
> 
> I currently own the Criterion DVD version. I would put it on ebay, but I don't think the Blu has all the extras. Usually, I could care less about extras!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I trust the opinion of you guys over various web reviews. Where would you rate the PQ of the HD-DVD?
> 
> 
> Thanks.



I watched it on HD-DVD via Netflix. That was quite awhile ago, but I think I had an overall favorable view of it.


Johnny Depp at his best.


----------



## Hughmc

*RocknRolla: tier 3.0*

This BD has a decidedly muted color pallete cast throughout almost void of color at times. Whites run hot and shine off faces quite often. Overall the PQ is


----------



## djoberg

Having just watched *Burn After Reading* I can say I was more impressed than I thought I would be. To my eyes it is clearly a tier 1 title and I would vote for *Tier 1.75*. The standout virtue of this movie was *DETAIL*, especially facial detail. Take, for example, every facial close-up of Harry, the manager of the Hard Bodies Gym...you could see every pore and pit in that poor man's face!! The same could be said of most every facial close-up, without exception. The only *anomaly* I observed in a few facial close-ups was some digital noise in those with very light complexions (when the lighting was on the bright side). But detail was not limited to faces; it was evident in every object from clothing to architecture.


There was a light grain throughout the movie that gave it a very film-like look and it never hindered detail. Colors were natural except in scenes with a somewhat blue or golden tint. Contrast was good as were the blacks and shadow detail. I was also very impressed with some shots with amazing depth (i.e., 3D pop).


The movie itself: I enjoyed it and found myself laughing sporadically, mostly in scenes with Brad Pitt and Frances McDormand...and the Coen brothers even gave good old George some lines and facial expressions that managed to tickle my funny bone. And as far as trying to figure out the point of the movie....well uh....what's the point? (Old Codger...if your theory is right about this being a reflection of the administration over the last 8 years, GOD HELP US!!)


----------



## Hughmc

djoberg, I got this to watch tonight as well. It sounds like it is a fun movie. I am glad you enjoyed it. As of late I have been seeing quite a few tier 2.0 and worse PQ BD's, so a little better PQ is always welcome.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15698230
> 
> 
> I may be one of the few people on the planet who enjoyed One From The Heart, so I have a pretty high tolerance for Coppola when he gets out there. I'm going to make sure I can watch Youth Without Youth all in one stretch without disturbance.



I saw OFTH when it came out and enjoyed it, but YWY was a very different story for me.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15696466
> 
> 
> I watched about thirty minutes last night.
> 
> 
> The opening scene was horrible. Like you said, PQ during dark scenes were below average. *Waxy faces* and digital noise also existed then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lighted scenes were excellent!
> 
> 
> I don't have a surround sound system, but for me speech was muffled. I could barely understand conversations at times!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll try to watch it again in the next few days.



I have only watched a bit of *Zodiac* so far, but the *waxiness* of the faces in that first scene was extremely striking.


In the newspaper office scenes, some of the shots of actors who were not close to the camera looked a bit off to me; somewhat fuzzy edges.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15700633
> 
> 
> I saw OFTH when it came out and enjoyed it, but YWY was a very different story for me.



Did you do a review on YWY Patrick?


Do you have a Tier recommendation?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15700644
> 
> 
> I have only watched a bit of *Zodiac* so far, but the *waxiness* of the faces in that first scene was extremely striking.
> 
> 
> In the newspaper office scenes, some of the shots of actors who were not close to the camera looked a bit off to me; somewhat fuzzy edges.



Be sure to post a full review and Tier recommendation when you finish this one too.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15702295
> 
> 
> Did you do a review on YWY Patrick?
> 
> 
> Do you have a Tier recommendation?



I disliked YWY so much that I shut it off rather quickly, and as a result did not post anything about it here. Since it now is getting some attention here, I located my copy and will try to force myself to watch some more of it so as to be able to post about it based on fresher viewing.


You may not recall, Rob, how much grief I have received for commenting on PQ on titles that I have not watched in their entirety. Now apparently I am getting grief for NOT commenting on the PQ of titles I have not watched all the way through.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15702332
> 
> 
> I disliked YWY so much that I shut it off rather quickly, and as a result did not post anything about it here. Since it now is getting some attention here, I located my copy and will try to force myself to watch some more of it so as to be able to post about it based on fresher viewing.
> 
> 
> You may not recall, Rob, how much grief I have received for commenting on PQ on titles that I have not watched in their entirety. Now apparently I am getting grief for NOT commenting on the PQ of titles I have not watched all the way through.



Well, I do think you should watch at least the vast majority of a title before making a final tier recommendation. From my post, I said "when you _finish_ this one too"!










I'm half way through YWY. I can understand why you don't like it. It isn't very well written imo. But the cinematography is excellent, so it is keeping my attention from that aspect.


----------



## OldCodger73

My Netflix queue seems pretty well jammed with Long and Very Long Waits, so I took a chance with Tropic Thunder which was listed as Now. Sometimes you win, sometimes you loose.

*PQ* I thought the movie looked very good, with nice colors and very good clarity and sharpness. I didn't notice any DNR or EE but honestly I'm pretty non-critical when it comes to them. Facial closeups were very good but didn't quite show the fine detail that I like to see, it was almost there but not quite. The movie definitely belongs somewhere in Tier 1 and in comparing it with other Gold titles I've seen, I'd place it in *1.5*.

*AQ*: I thought the surrounds and main channel were good but was disappointed in the LFE, with all the explosions I had expected better.

*The movie:* I thought the first 10 minutes or so was a very clever send-up of all the bad Rambo and other jungle war movies, but it didn't take long for the movie to become tedious and the handicap discussion was downright painful. I rated the movie a 2 on Netflix's 5 scale, it just wasn't my cup of tea.


If I can convince SWMBO to let me have the TV, I'll watch Transsiberian tonight.


Panasonic 50" 720p plasma, Panasonic 10a, 7 1/2'


----------



## Gaffer74




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ThomasW* /forum/post/14962871
> 
> 
> Just stumbled upon this thread, great one !
> 
> 
> The UK (regionfree) release of *Capricorn One* should be Tier 5. Unfortunately. I like the old movie, but this blu-ray release was a dissapointment. Very flat, soft picture throughout. Some scenes where the dialogue sounds distorted. Have not seen a DVD version of this movie, but the DVD just might be better.



Not sure how it can be tier 5 judging from the comparisons over at DVD Beaver where the screenshots clearly show MUCH better sharpness and clarity over the bog standard DVD (judging by the tier system I would say that looks like at least a bronze imo).

....and then there's the review from DVD Talk :


> Quote:
> The 1080p image is a knock-out. Though some individual shots inherently are a little soft around the edges of the frame, most of the film is razor sharp and the color excellent. On big 16:9 TVs the barnstorming climax, a battle between the two helicopters and Telly Savalas' crop-duster, is visually exciting in a way it never was on TV and in standard-def video. This reviewer remembers how badly the film's red-on-black title design fared on TV and previous home video releases; like everything else, it looks sharp as a tack.



I have the DVD (which is admittedly a poor transfer) and will hopefully buy the BluRay on Monday, so will report back then on a direct comparison







.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*Youth Without Youth*


As I know it was Youth Without Youth frenzy weekend for the PQ thread, I was very surprised to find a copy at one of my video stores here after I have been looking all week! YAY!


The movie itself was a strange one for me, I didn't hate it but I didn't love it. I haven't seen The Fountain which it was compared to by others here, so I was unsure what to expect, but I do like Tim Roth so that was a plus.


There was plenty of beauty all throughout this film. Perhaps it's my screen size, but I had difficulty identifying grain while watching it. At one point I swapped out my THX setting to Custom mode, which is brighter, to see if I could notice any with a little brighter of a picture, but it was still not present for me, and I swapped back to THX pretty quickly. [*Note:* After writing this, learning that it was filmed on HD cameras, this now makes a LOT more sense!







]


I have a bit of a dilemma with this movie. So much of this movie had perfect clarity, was crisp and had oodles of detail. But then other scenes felt flat and the detail would be missing. I can't really say it would be soft when that happened, but it was a phenomenon that I noticed throughout the entire picture. One moment I would see clearly the loops of terry cloth, fuzzies on the end and every last pore on Tim Roth's face. Other moments, the detail on fabric would be a little less 3-D, and details on the faces would disappear.


Does anyone know if this movie was similar to Mamma Mia in that the night-scenes were coloured in after they were filmed? The blue-toned night scenes reminded me a lot of how that was done in Mamma Mia, and I loved the way they looked.


Far-away shots and water (my favourite thing in Blu Ray - you all know I would be extremely critical of the water!) underwhelmed me. The long shots seemed less clear and detailed, and the water was just lacking in the majority of the scenes it showed up in. There was one night-scene where the water made me smile, but the rest... I was completely disappointed.


I loved the colours throughout the movie, they seemed lush and true, although the blue-night tone was oversaturated it was done in a way that makes me smile. I was in love with the way the black levels looked on my screen, only a few times it seemed washed out due to brightness in the scene (almost sepia type of filter/lighting I guess?) so there would be a yellowish hue on black suits at times, it did not bother me nor did I think of it in a bad way. Just acknowledging it more because I noticed it, others may have too.

*Recommendation for Youth Without Youth: Tier 0, lower half, below Prince Caspian.


Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800U, THX setting, approximately 7.5' viewing distance.*


Edited to add: Further clarification of my review here to help if someone's using the search function.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sleater* /forum/post/15698604
> 
> 
> Actually I got my copy in 2 days (ordered on Sunday evening received Wednesday morning) and it is NOT from Amazon if you actually clicked on the link. It is from an independent reseller that shipped from the same Province I live in which is probably why it was so fast. I was simply guessing that G3 might live in either BC or AB in which case she should be able to get a copy quickly. The link you provided seems to be geared towards US buyers and yes it does look inexpensive, but we have a not so good exchange rate at the moment and also border inspection fees, GST duties, and a long wait if ordering anything from down south.



Definitely glad I didn't blind buy this! I'm up in the arctic (think Diamond Mines & Ice Road Truckers season 1







), so unless I order the $39-or-more from Amazon.ca, shipping is insane. Even ordering in from Edmonton they consider where I'm at "remote", and some places will do a minimum of $31 shipping!! Ick!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15698622
> 
> 
> To get undisturbed solitude, sometimes I have to wait until they're in bed. Also, my kids are a little older than yours. I know it's hard to imagine when they're young, but I can promise you -- hang in there -- it gets easier eventually.




The husband works tonight & the daughter is out for a sleepover... Just my little guy & I, hopefully I'll get the end of The Bourne Supremacy watched tonight (fell asleep for the last 45min of it yesterday) and the 3rd one tonight. The Oilers don't play so the chances of that happening are high!



Oh hey, YWY watchers -- were my eyes decieving me or did I see MATT DAMON in YWY?? Have I just got too much Bourne on the brain???


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15704345
> 
> 
> 
> I have a bit of a dilemma with this movie. So much of this movie had perfect clarity, was crisp and had oodles of detail. But then other scenes felt flat and the detail would be missing. I can’t really say it would be soft when that happened, but it was a phenomenon that I noticed throughout the entire picture. One moment I would see clearly the loops of terry cloth, fuzzies on the end and every last pore on Tim Roth’s face. Other moments, the detail on fabric would be a little less 3-D, and details on the faces would disappear.
> 
> 
> Far-away shots and water (my favourite thing in Blu Ray – you all know I would be extremely critical of the water!) underwhelmed me. The long shots seemed less clear and detailed, and the water was just lacking in the majority of the scenes it showed up in. There was one night-scene where the water made me smile, but the rest... I was completely disappointed.
> 
> *Recommendation for Youth Without Youth: Tier 0, lower half, below Prince Caspian.
> 
> 
> Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800U, THX setting, approximately 7.5’ viewing distance.*



No offense here, but I don't see how you can stay these things about the title and still rank it in Tier 0.


I haven't seen the film and don't plan to so I can't comment, but based on your actual review it doesn't add up.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15704461
> 
> 
> No offense here, but I don't see how you can stay these things about the title and still rank it in Tier 0.
> 
> 
> I haven't seen the film and don't plan to so I can't comment, but based on your actual review it doesn't add up.




I know. I was thinking about just this after I posted. I know my reviews end up very long, and that one was one of my longer ones. I obviously had some difficulty with this one, and I'm sorry my review came across in a way where it didn't add up.



I kept weighing this in my head -- the scenes that had lack of detail vs the scenes that did. I should have elaborated more on this topic in my review. My choice of words here is likely on the poorer side of things, I should have stated more that it had several _shots_ (as opposed to scenes)where things seemed flat & missing of detail in a way that is likely a "directors intent" rather than a processing/mucking with the picture way. It was not distracting, but I was rather confused by it.


So I played things back in my head like Speed Racer, Prince Caspian, and KB1&2, and I don't think that every single shot in those showed 100% of detail either, and the amount of detail throughout the movie _massively outweighed_ the spots where it was lacking. However, it was not isolated to one scene during the film, I noticed it at different points throughout. For me not to mention it would be a failure of my review since I did see(or didn't see I suppose in this case!) this happen on my screen. (Edited to add -- but it was a failure of my review to not point this out in a more clear and concise manner.)



Regarding the water, I admit -- I _almost_ dropped my review of this movie to Tier 1.00 (or even 1.25







) on the water quality alone, because it really is one of my favourite things to see in Blu Rays. In the end, I decided that while there are scenes in this movie where the water is there, it's not as much of a "guest star" as it happens to be for me in other movies. It's an ocean in the background, and a couple of scenes happen to be on it, and it was underwhelming to me (but for 1 night scene where it did live up to my liking), but again, my expectations for water are extremely-bordering-on-insanely high, and it was not the focus of what I was being shown on the screen. That being said, in The Bourne Identity where the water is not there that often either, the water impressed me thoroughly with the exception of one scene. And, well, we all know how I feel about the water in Mamma Mia.










Bringing it back to my thoughts on where I decided to place it in the end, I felt it was better than KB1&2, much better than Speed Racer (which is Tier 1.00 to me even if it is Tier 0 on this list), but not better than Prince Caspian.


Does this help explain my thoughts a little more?


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15699053
> 
> 
> I never saw this title, but here is where it was placed in the HD-DVD PQ thread:
> 
> *3.5-3.99 Stars Very Good - Above Average HD DVD Picture Quality
> 
> 
> Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas TrueHD 3.947368 stars (17) User Poll Ratings (Vote!) AVS Review Screenshots*
> 
> 
> Since it was placed 5 titles down from the top of about 40 titles, that would be equivalent to the top of Tier 2 on this thread, which isn't bad. I should add that I was quite impressed with the placements in that thread; in other words, I thought, for the most part, they were fairly accurate.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15699393
> 
> 
> I watched it on HD-DVD via Netflix. That was quite awhile ago, but I think I had an overall favorable view of it.
> 
> 
> Johnny Depp at his best.



Thanks alot guys! Looking forward to this gem in HD.














> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15704748
> 
> 
> Regarding the water, I admit -- I _almost_ dropped my review of this movie to Tier 1.00 (or even 1.25
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) on the water quality alone, because it really is one of my favourite things to see in Blu Rays.



Wow!









Not a negative wow, just wow.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15704846
> 
> 
> Wow!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not a negative wow, just wow.




In my defense, I collected my rationality and _didn't do that_.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15704879
> 
> 
> In my defense, I collected my rationality and _didn't do that_.


----------



## rsbeck

*Youth Without Youth*


Shot on HD Video, Youth Without Youth has no grain, but I did note some thin ringing in several shots, mostly on high contrast edges. Anything shot on HD video is going to face challenges. Many people like HD video due to the lack of grain, but there are other things about HD Video that one needs to be aware of when watching. Blacks, contrast, gray-scale, light and shadow, and long shots are notoriously challenging. HD Video demands just the right light. Capture it and you've got magic; Too much and you get nasty digital blown whites, fall a little short and you get mud. You see this is in Youth Without Youth. There are several scenes where blacks and shadow detail are crushed, some where the picture goes soft, and a few where faint lines of video noise creep in ever so subtly due to lack of light. So, why are people recommending it for tier 0? Here is the perfect title to illustrate the concept of weighing the virtue to flaw ratio. After choosing romanian cinematographer Mihai Malaimare, Jr. to shoot movie, Coppola sent him to Sony's LA Studios for training in how to shoot in digital.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR111...ryid=2827&cs=1 


This obviously paid dividends because IMO, the secret of Youth Without Youth's success is that most of the time, Malaimare and Coppola keep the film focused within the parameters of what HD digital does best; filming in the kind of light that produces exquisite results, including plenty of well-lit jaw dropping close-ups. Another trick was to stylize some of the night scenes with a blue cast that helps turn a potential negative into an arresting visual.


It's also pretty obvious that in addition to incredibly strong facial and count the strands of hair detail, film makers chose costumes, set design and scenery with high definition in mind. Actors are consistently found wearing jackets with beautifully resolved nappy textures, sitting on textured bedspreads, standing in front of subtly textured walls, railings, columns, walking down textured streets, through outdoor scenery with outrageously detailed landscape captured in exquisitely calculated light. Virtually every other scene is a stunner.


Yes, Youth Without Youth is not perfect, it needs to be docked for the few flaws, but IMO, too much of it is reference quality demo material to place it in tier 1.

*Recommendation: Bottom Quarter of Tier 0*


Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From 126" Screen



.


----------



## djoberg

^


rsbeck & G3,


Kudos to both of you for your excellent reviews on Youth Without Youth! I believe that both of you came to the same conclusion that was pointed out by both of you: THE VIRTUES WERE SO GOOD THAT ANY FLAWS WERE MINOR BY COMPARISON. I agree wholeheartedly that when a transfer is so impeccable except for minuscule anomalies, it is worthy of Tier 0.


My wife and I just got back from a long day of snowshoeing on a hiking trail in Central Minnesota (to a very scenic overlook) and I was elated to find my copy of YWY in my mailbox!! The trouble is we are so tired I don't know if I could sit through the whole movie so I'm going to hold off until I can watch it straight through (and with all my wits about me). Tomorrow I'm attending a Superbowl party (where I'll be watching the Cardinals upset the Steelers







), so I may not get to it until early next week. Even so, we've had 4 very good reviews thus far and once Rob Tomlin chimes in with his review there will be enough to actually place this gem in Tier 0!


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15705260
> 
> 
> ^
> 
> 
> rsbeck & G3,
> 
> 
> Kudos to both of you for your excellent reviews on Youth Without Youth! I believe that both of you came to the same conclusion that was pointed out by both of you: THE VIRTUES WERE SO GOOD THAT ANY FLAWS WERE MINOR BY COMPARISON. I agree wholeheartedly that when a transfer is so impeccable except for minuscule anomalies, it is worthy of Tier 0.



Ditto!

Right now, it looks like a mid 0!









And that's cool with me!


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15685860
> 
> 
> My copy is also scheduled to arrive tomorrow. If it does, I'll watch it tomorrow night and chime in as the credits roll.



my response is below...



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15689596
> 
> for djoberg



Did anyone who watched YWY get this joke?

If so, PM me.


----------



## Hughmc

*Burn After Reading: Tier 1.5*


This BD has a excellent transfer and PQ. I have seen the recommendations several have made. I noticed most seem to compliment the facial details, but I think most don't mention if this sharp and yet filmlike BD has much if any of the tier 0 pop/eye candy/3d qualities. I think it is because it doesn't have anything that really stands out, but IMO the BD overall stands out. Although the PQ is excellent and consistent throughout it just has nothing really eye popping. Having said that I don't agree with its tier 2.0 placement. It is in the same tier as Baby Mama and Cloverfield? Being in the same tier as Cloverfield just doesn't seem right and it does have better PQ than Baby Mama. How is Cloverfield in tier 2 the top of when the PQ overall is horrible. Baby Mama seems like it only had a couple of reviews mine being one calling for mid tier 2 or better. Then again Ice Age: The Meltdown even with its flaws is not a tier 2 title either. It has way too much pop, eye candy and other amenities to keep it out of tier 2 even with its flaws.


While I think the descriptors for tier 2 mostly fit for Burn After Reading, I think this BD is a notch or two above that, hence my recommendation.







I wanted to clarify something from our first page regarding the descriptor for:


Tier 3 - Bronze (Average)

*Although a step up from large standard definition DVD*, the transfer has added only some detail and depth with little video artifacts; doesn't POP as much, but still film-like quality.


Isn't that actually supposed to be:


Although a *large step up from standard definition DVD*....










If that is correct and I am wrong, can someone tell me how I missed out on a whole new video format and lessening of my finances?











There is something else I have noticed since I started watching extras more as of late. The extras from Burn After Reading were shot with HD cameras. They showed some of the same shots of the movie using the HD cam for the extras while they were filming. The HD cam shots look "better" than the film shots. I know they are void of grain, probably 60fps, etc., but the clarity and smoothness of the extras made me want to see the whole BD captured with HD cameras. I know the merits and flaws of using HD cameras compared to film, but in the extras the HD cams make the scenes look so much more real, more immersive, like you are there watching from a distance or right in the scene with the cast. Isn't this what we really want for the ultimate in PQ? I understand wanting film like, artistic intent and love the look of film myself, but when the PQ is beyond a doubt, clearer, smoother, more 3D like and more realistic with HD cams than the same shots on film it makes me wonder. IMO the HD shots were more pleasing to the eye and if the whole movie was filmed that way and transferred to BD I bet we might have a title that is tier 1.0 or better.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Youth Without Youth*


I tried to post this review earlier today, but I was having problems logging on to the forum.


The PQ of this title was difficult for me to rate. Overall it looks really, really good. This was shot in HD, and it is very obvious that great care was taken to get the lighting as good as possible. The dynamic range of HD Cams are still not as good as film, but it was rarely obvious here due to the way the film was shot.


Also, when shooting with HD cams, you will usually get a rather sterile "digital" looking image. There are definitely a few scenes in this movie that have that digital look, but not many. They have done a good job in keeping this movie from looking too digital overall.


Black levels are good, as is shadow detail. Even more importantly perhaps is the fact that the darkest scenes do NOT exhibit the same digital noise that could be seen in Zodiac (also shot in HD). The dark scenes in this movie were very clean, with only a hint of noise a couple of times.


Another thing that was better in Youth Without Youth compared to Zodiac is the color. Very nice looking, with warm tones in many scenes. I would guess that they may very well have used filters in many shots.


Detail, clarity and sharpness in some (many) scenes are as good as ANY live action title currently in Tier 0! The thing about this, though, is when you see how incredibly detailed and clear the image can look, you want it to look that way through the entire movie. Well, it certainly doesn't. Although the darker scenes look good in terms of black levels and shadow detail, fine details are not nearly as impressive. The image looks much flatter in these scenes.


So the difficult part to me is how much to lower the rating given the less impressive scenes? There were more of them than I would have liked to have seen. But the best scenes are really fantastic looking.


Overall, I do NOT think this title is as good looking as Prince Caspian, the Pirate movies, but the question is: does it belong in the same Tier as those (which is Tier 0)?


I would say yes, but it is a very close call for me. One thing that is extremely impressive about Pirates of the Carribean is how incredibly detailed even the dark scenes are. That is a true rarity it seems, and by comparison, Youth Without Youth falls well short in that regard.


In the end, I can recommend Tier 0, but it would be near the very bottom.

*Tier Recommendation: 0 (near the very bottom)*


Edit: the movie itself was a rather large disappointment for me, considering this was Coppola's "comeback". The writing was terrible. It was very well shot though. The SQ was actually very good!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Latest draft of the tier descriptions with the suggested additions. Anyone that has any problem with anything here, please speak up about it. A couple of people privately wanted something along the lines seen in the addendum addressing the entire tier list. I struggled with it a little but it sounds decent to me. Comments, suggestions, and corrections welcomed...

*Tier Two - Silver (Good)
*

The titles in this tier are representative of good picture quality that is above-average and a significant upgrade over standard definition. The image will demonstrate a sharp nature that begins to approach a stronger quality of depth and dimensionality not present in the lower ranked tiers. Typically the image will lack any of the major deficiencies seen in the lower tiers such as visible compression artifacts, inappropriate application of post-processing tools, master defects, etc. While the Blu-rays ranked here are not truly worthy of being demo quality, they are visually pleasing to a casual watcher of HD material and are strong upgrades over the equivalent dvd version.

*Tier Three - Bronze (Average)
*

The titles in this tier are representative of average picture quality considering all Blu-rays. Image quality characteristic of this tier will be superior to upscaled dvd but will lack any demo potential. Minor flaws or slight limitations in the source material may be present but these transfers are usually worth the upgrade over the dvd version. The picture will typically lack the depth and dimensionality exhibited in the higher tiers. Detail and clarity will be solid and present a pleasing image at standard viewing distances. In many cases the difference between this tier and the surrounding tiers is an issue of consistency to the picture quality.

*Tier Four - Copper (Below Average)*


The titles in this tier typically represent below-average picture quality that is subpar for the Blu-ray format. While still visually better than upscaled standard definition material, the differences are less obvious upon casual inspection. The image may have deficiencies in one or more areas. The picture will look flat and lack the sharpness seen in higher tiers. Compression artifacts, softness, poor black levels, questionable source material, and poorly transferred masters are just some of the problems exhibited in tier four. Some Blu-rays in this tier are significant upgrades over the dvd but are constrained in image quality due to the limitations inherent in the source material or the director's intended look.

*Tier Five - Coal (Unacceptable)*


The titles in this tier have severe limitations in their picture quality that is strongly underwhelming compared to the average Blu-ray. The image has deficiencies in multiple areas that would be obvious upon a casual viewing. Without question the Blu-rays in tier five are among the worst looking on the market. At various times the picture quality is hard to distinguish from dvd material. Softness, artifacting, poor source material, limited resolution and clarity are general characteristics of titles in this tier.


*Addendum:*


Some, but not all, of the Blu-rays ranked in the various tiers look as good as they possibly can on Blu-ray given limitations in the original photography and the director's intended visuals. We recognize films and videos are not all created with the same intent and quality, and this is why certain titles can never achieve a tier zero or tier one ranking for example, even given a perfect transfer from the best possible source. Rankings as low as tier four can still constitute a worthy Blu-ray release, as long as the Blu-ray is visually transparent to the best available source for a particular title. This last point is beyond the scope of the tier system and should be investigated on a title-to-title basis on your own.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15705561
> 
> *Youth Without Youth*
> 
> 
> In the end, I can recommend Tier 0, but it would be near the very bottom.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 0 (near the very bottom, under Kill Bill Vol. 1)*



Tough but very fair review...or maybe I am being one of those generous raters this time.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15705893
> 
> 
> Tough but very fair review...or maybe I am being one of those generous raters this time.



You just read my mind!









It looks like I was WAAAAY TOO generous!









The only thing that matters is we all agree on Tier 0.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Phantom Stranger, thanks for all the work you're doing with the revamp of the Tier descriptions!


selimsivad -- I'm glad that we're all in agreement w/ at least the Tier 0 part too!


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15705561
> 
> 
> Overall, I do NOT think this title is as good looking as Prince Caspian, the Pirate movies, or Kill Bill, but the question is: does it belong in the same Tier as those (which is Tier 0)?
> 
> 
> I would say yes, but it is a very close call for me.



Ironically, I popped in KB1 after viewing YWY. To me, it wasn't close!










Then I tried KB2, Black Snake Moan, and finally Man On Fire. I think most in this forum expect oversaturation in higher Tier 0 titles. In no way is that a bad thing! Just different strokes for different folks.










The entire time watching YWY, I literally felt like I watched it through a window! I actually like the movie as well.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

I can't get over how most of you talk about a lot of scenes in YWY that are "flat and lacking detail" yet still rank it in Tier 0.


Shouldn't Tier 0 titles be free of things like that just like titles get docked for having EE or DNR?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15705893
> 
> 
> Tough but very fair review...or maybe I am being one of those generous raters this time.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15705955
> 
> 
> You just read my mind!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like I was WAAAAY TOO generous!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing that matters is we all agree on Tier 0.



What part of my review do you think I am being "tough" about? Some of my comments, or just the final ranking?


If it is the final ranking, I wonder what you would have said if I recommended it for Tier 1 (which I almost did)?!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15705998
> 
> 
> 
> selimsivad -- I'm glad that we're all in agreement w/ at least the Tier 0 part too!



I read your review too, G3, and it was very good. I agree with a lot of the things you said about where the PQ wasn't so good at times.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15706022
> 
> 
> Ironically, I popped in KB1 after viewing YWY. To me, it wasn't close!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then I tried KB2, Black Snake Moan, and finally Man On Fire. I think most in this forum expect oversaturation in higher Tier 0 titles. In no way is that a bad thing! Just different strokes for different folks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The *entire time* watching YWY, I literally felt like I watched it through a window! I actually like the movie as well.



As far as KB1 and YWY, you have to take them as a whole. Some shots in YWY are more impressive than KB, but KB is consistently more impressive.....to me.


I mentioned recently that I think Black Snake Moan is too high.


As for the bolded part, I don't see how you could have felt that way the entire time. There are definitely scenes that lack detail and look a little flat.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15706062
> 
> 
> I can't get over how most of you talk about a lot of scenes in YWY that are "flat and lacking detail" yet still rank it in Tier 0.
> 
> 
> Shouldn't Tier 0 titles be free of things like that just like titles get docked for having EE or DNR?



Name one movie that doesn't have at least some scenes that are flat and lack detail. It is a matter of degree, and in my opinion, YWY was a very close call in terms of whether the less impressive scenes constituted a high enough percentage to keep it from Tier 0.


Frankly, though, I am not 100% adamant about my rating, especially when I stop to consider how Mr. Brooks was removed from Tier 0 for similar issues.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15706062
> 
> 
> I can't get over how most of you talk about a lot of scenes in YWY that are "flat and lacking detail" yet still rank it in Tier 0.
> 
> 
> Shouldn't Tier 0 titles be free of things like that just like titles get docked for having EE or DNR?



Perhaps if you ever do decide to watch the movie you might understand, although personally it was a bit of a tough one to get through at just over 2hrs long and not the best of story for my taste. I hope you read my reply to you regarding my review where I did change my thought to "shots" rather than "scenes" because I didn't feel any of the parts that did have a lack of detail lasted as long as an entire scene, but they did exist and had to be mentioned.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15706022
> 
> 
> Ironically, I popped in KB1 after viewing YWY. To me, it wasn't close!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then I tried KB2, Black Snake Moan, and finally Man On Fire. I think most in this forum expect oversaturation in higher Tier 0 titles. In no way is that a bad thing! Just different strokes for different folks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The entire time watching YWY, I literally felt like I watched it through a window! I actually like the movie as well.




HD cams vs Film Cams.










I am going to post more about HD cams vs films, because not only does it make for some interesting discussion in this thread and what eye candy or the best possible PQ is, but for BD in general. It opens up many questions. These are a couple that make me wonder:


Do we want what looks like the most realistic PQ there is? IMO HD cams favor that with the looking through the window affect and lack of grain.


Do we want the BD to look like film and as close to the look of film and the theatre experience? Then film cameras afford us that look.


What if we want both?










I am thinking this is more along the lines of director's or artistic intent. While we may notice it we are looking at PQ overall and how it relates to this thread and not favoring or or dinging a title because it is HD cam or film. It is the end result PQ we are judging. Some don't like the digitally processed look and want a film like look, while others do enjoy the "video" look. It is subjective.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15706062
> 
> 
> I can't get over how most of you talk about a lot of scenes in YWY that are "flat and lacking detail" yet still rank it in Tier 0.
> 
> 
> Shouldn't Tier 0 titles be free of things like that just like titles get docked for having EE or DNR?



This is another topic I have been thinking about. Really, if we went by the strictest of definitions for tier 0, we would have about 5 titles in that tier and probably 4 would be animated.
























Really are any of the film based BD's in tier 0 100% flawless?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15706146
> 
> 
> HD cams vs Film Cams.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am going to post more about HD cams vs films, because not only does it make for some interesting discussion in this thread and what eye candy or the best possible PQ is, but for BD in general. It opens up many questions. These are a couple that make me wonder:
> 
> 
> Do we want what looks like the most realistic PQ there is? IMO HD cams favor that with the looking through the window affect and lack of grain.
> 
> 
> Do we want the BD to look like film and as close to the look of film and the theatre experience? Then film cameras afford us that look.
> 
> 
> What if we want both?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am thinking this is more along the lines of director's or artistic intent. While we may notice it we are looking at PQ overall and how it relates to this thread and not favoring or or dinging a title because it is HD cam or film. *It is the end result PQ we are judging.*



Exactly right, and I think many of the reviews done on Youth Without Youth (and Zodiac) have explained what the pros and cons of using HD Cams vs. film are and how they look different.


I do think that Coppola did a good job in trying to prevent YWY from looking overly digital or sterile, although there are some shots that do still have that look.


HD still has a hard time with dark scenes, but YWY was about the best I have seen yet in that regard. Certainly better than Zodiac.


So there are some things that film is still better at, and some things that HD is better at. I still think the very best film titles look better _overall_.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15706136
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I read your review too, G3, and it was very good. I agree with a lot of the things you said about where the PQ wasn't so good at times.
> *
> 
> 
> *There are definitely scenes that lack detail and look a little flat.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name one movie that doesn't have at least some scenes that are flat and lack detail. It is a matter of degree, and in my opinion, YWY was a very close call in terms of whether the less impressive scenes constituted a high enough percentage to keep it from Tier 0.
> 
> 
> Frankly, though, I am not 100% adamant about my rating, especially when I stop to consider how Mr. Brooks was removed from Tier 0 for similar issues.



Sure, there probably isn't any titles in Tier 0 that are completely flawless...but they should be close and there are a lot that are.


The stuff you said about YWY in bold does not add up to Tier 0. EE/DNR, flat/undetailed shots and scenes should all be penalized equally.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15706141
> 
> 
> Perhaps if you ever do decide to watch the movie you might understand, although personally it was a bit of a tough one to get through at just over 2hrs long and not the best of story for my taste. I hope you read my reply to you regarding my review where I did change my thought to "shots" rather than "scenes" because I didn't feel any of the parts that did have a lack of detail lasted as long as an entire scene, but they did exist and had to be mentioned.



I did read it, but you mentioned them enough to make an impact.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15706195
> 
> 
> This is another topic I have been thinking about. Really, if we went by the strictest of definitions for tier 0, we would have about 5 titles in that tier and probably 4 would be animated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really are any of the film based BD's in tier 0 100% flawless?



I agree, and maybe we should be more strict for titles to be considered Tier 0.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

If anything, I'm glad you read my review closely, then.







I do this for fun, and I do stand behind what I think about this film. I did want to ensure I covered as many bases as I could with what I wrote, and I think I wrote plenty about the positive aspects of this movie as I could, and perhaps could have extolled upon its virtues a bit more and maybe ended my review with the positives rather than the negatives so they had more of an impact rather than the opposite. Really, if this film was not as gorgeous as it was, I would never have made it through b/c the story alone would never have kept my interest. Seeing how pretty this(but for the WATER!!! GAH!) looked, though, did help me make it to the end.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15706146
> 
> 
> HD cams vs Film Cams.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am going to post more about HD cams vs films, because not only does it make for some interesting discussion in this thread and what eye candy or the best possible PQ is, but for BD in general. It opens up many questions. These are a couple that make me wonder:
> 
> 
> Do we want what looks like the most realistic PQ there is? IMO HD cams favor that with the looking through the window affect and lack of grain.
> 
> 
> Do we want the BD to look like film and as close to the look of film and the theatre experience? Then film cameras afford us that look.
> 
> 
> What if we want both?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am thinking this is more along the lines of director's or artistic intent. While we may notice it we are looking at PQ overall and how it relates to this thread and not favoring or or dinging a title because it is HD cam or film. It is the end result PQ we are judging. Some don't like the digitally processed look and want a film like look, while other do enjoy the "video" look. It is subjective.



Excellent points!


IMO, there is an obvious reason why animated films are the top five films in Tier 0.


Animated films are the ultimate eye candy!

They usually have zero negative video issues.

They usually are grain free.

They are usually colorful and vibrant.

ect, ect, ect...


IMO, a non animated film will never make it to the top because of the positives listed above! The next title, I Robot, uses CGI in the majority of it's scenes!



I can see films shot with HD cameras landing right under the animated titles in the near future. Shot correctly, they can share the same positive qualities as animation.



I LOVE GRAIN! Grain is beautiful. Film will not and should not ever disappear! But in the near future, with advances in HD cameras, the top half of Tier 0 will be grain free.



Just my prediction, not fact.


----------



## Hughmc

Question for those that know.










Are we getting more detail/info in film's compressed to fit on BD's than we are with HD cams? I know film is 4 times BD/HD cam rez, but does it really matter when we get it to BD besides the difference in look itself?


If my question is confusing or states the terms/tech incorrectly please correct it.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15706383
> 
> 
> Question for those that know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are we getting more detail/info in film's compressed to fit on BD's than we are with HD cams? I know film is 4 times BD/HD cam rez, but does it really matter when we get it to BD besides the difference in look itself?
> 
> 
> If my question is confusing or states the terms/tech incorrectly please correct it.



I don't know if it can be so easily quantified, since there's so many variables involved in motion picture film and transferring it to video. Where'd you get that figure?


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15706371
> 
> 
> Excellent points!
> 
> 
> IMO, there is an obvious reason why animated films are the top five films in Tier 0.
> 
> 
> Animated films are the ultimate eye candy!
> 
> They usually have zero negative video issues.
> 
> They usually are grain free.
> 
> They are usually colorful and vibrant.
> 
> ect, ect, ect...
> 
> 
> IMO, a non animated film will never make it to the top because of the positives listed above! The next title, I Robot, uses CGI in the majority of it's scenes!
> 
> 
> 
> I can see films shot with HD cameras landing right under the animated titles in the near future. Shot correctly, they can share the same positive qualities as animation.
> 
> 
> 
> I LOVE GRAIN! Grain is beautiful. Film will not and should not ever disappear! But in the near future, with advances in HD cameras, the top half of Tier 0 will be grain free.
> 
> 
> 
> Just my prediction, not fact.




I agree with everything you are saying and about grain. HD cam shots just look so incredible and that is why I brought up the extras on Burn After Reading. They showed the some of the same shots, from the same angles and all with the HD cam that they used the film cam for on the BD main presentation. The HD shots looked so much better like I was there. They are so clean and clear, yet I love film grain as well or should I say I love the look of film. Given a choice I would have rather seen that film shot on HD cam having seen the extras and it would have probably been a tier 1.0 or even lower tier 0 rated BD.










Your prediction is what I am thinking as well and for our thread purposes could be exactly what happens, since we are looking for flawless as possible for tier 0. Ummm, it should be interesting.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15706490
> 
> 
> I don't know if it can be so easily quantified, since there's so many variables involved in motion picture film and transferring it to video. Where'd you get that figure?



You are correct. It isn't easily quantifiable or simple to measure since one is analog and one is digital.


I had read it on AVS.

http://www.filmlook.com/news/08summer.pdf 


http://www.myvtp.com/htm/vidfilm.htm 

http://filmschoolonline.com/sample_l...HD_vs_35mm.htm 


This from the last link:

*Conclusion


As the study indicates, perceived differences between HD and 35mm film are quickly disappearing. Notice I use the word "perceived." This is important because we are not shooting a movie for laboratory study, but rather for audiences.


At this point, the typical audience cannot see the difference between HD and 35mm. Even professionals have a hard time telling them apart. We go through this all the time at NYU ("Was this shot on film or video?").


Again, the study was based on standard HD with 1080 lines of horizontal resolution. We now have ultra HD with 4,520 lines.


Based on this, the debate is moot. 16mm, 35mm, DV, and HD are all tools of the filmmaker. The question is not which format is best, but rather, which format is best for your project? The answer, of course, is based on a balance between aesthetic and budgetary considerations*


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15706383
> 
> 
> Question for those that know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are we getting more detail/info in film's compressed to fit on BD's than we are with HD cams? I know film is 4 times BD/HD cam rez, but does it really matter when we get it to BD besides the difference in look itself?
> 
> 
> If my question is confusing or states the terms/tech incorrectly please correct it.



Well like you said, 35mm film has 4x the information as 1080p HD, so yes film is still the superior format to shoot on and will be for a long time.


But your question asks about us being able to see the difference on blu ray, where the film is taken down into the 1080p world. Personally, I can tell whether or not a film was shot on film or in HD, and for me, if you have a better base to start with, the better the compressed file will look/sound/etc.


Think of your favorite TV show. Is it shot on film or HD? The best looking HD broadcasts are originally shot on film.


----------



## rsbeck

As HD digital cameras get better and more people learn to use them, things might improve. Personally, I think the whole lack of grain = clearer picture is an illusion. I still don't believe the best HD Digital is as good as the best film. To me, grain makes the picture richer. Until HD gets better, I suspect you will see more titles like YWY and Sin City. They set narrow parameters for themselves and when they venture out of those parameters, which is necessary unless you are making an incredibly stylized movie like Sin City, the picture suffers. And, when you go from super sharp to mud, the mud is really a buzz kill.


I'll also say one more thing that will probably cheese some people off. HD video works best with bright light, so, if you don't mind horrible contrast Crank you can get a really sharp and bright picture with a terrible nasty digital look. People who sell flat panel displays know that unsophisticated buyers will always gravitate to the brightest picture, that's why when they set up the displays in their showrooms, they set the displays on "torch" mode. The unsophisticated buyer will always pick the brightest picture as the best picture rather than judging on more important parameters like Gray-scale performance, black levels, and contrast.


IMO, Youth Without Youth needed to have a lot of stunning sequences to make up for the HD Digital problems in a percentage of scenes and, thankfully, it delivered.


IMO, it's getting closer, but film still beats HD Video when it comes to the more sophisticated aspects of picture quality. IMO, film can give you every strength HD Digital can give and it can also give a lot more that HD Digital still cannot.


Another point, it's one thing to have a reference HD Digital title like Youth Without Youth in tier 0, but if you are complaining about having Youth Without Youth in the reference tier with it's relatively few flaws, you'd be coughing up a lung if you could see the messes that are The Police and Elton John.


Also, I wonder why everyone is griping at Rob Tomlin when my review pointed out very similar problems and our recommendations were very similar, although I didn't specify where in the third quarter I would place it.


Finally, I'm also mystified when people jump in to question a review and recommendation without seeing the picture first. What's up wid dat?


----------



## Coxwell

*Youth without Youth*


I fully agree with the recommandation of putting it on *Tier Reference*. The transfert is stunning. The image is absolutely pristine and the definition is sharp like a razor. Colors are vibrant and there is absolutely no trace of digital noise or DNR. Some people may consider sometimes the image a bit "glossy", but the overall quality is far beyond the current blu ray discs.

Even if the sound quality is not the concern of this topic, I recommand owners of HD amplifiers to be prepared with deep bass and crystal clear dialogues.

*Recommandation : Tier 0 - Reference - A place behind I,Robot*


Pioneer 50" G9 - Panasonic BD35 - Distance of viewing : 7 feet


----------



## LBFilmGuy

I agree with what you posted above rsbeck, especially about the people who think the brightest image = best image.


You are mystified by me questioning the reviews of YWY without seeing it, but I think I explained myself pretty well.


Taking an outside look on a review without seeing the film gives me the ability to just focus on the actual review without a bias. A lot of them just haven't added up to me.


----------



## rsbeck

Fair enough -- thanks for explaining.


----------



## Hughmc

I do like both film and HD BD's. LB I agree with you about being able to tell the difference. IMO if one has watched enough BD's it is more than apparent. If any of you do have Burn After Reading or do get to see it, if you can check out the extras in HD and how they look compared to the film.


I appreciate the discussion and feedback. I have gained a lot more knowledge and perspective.


Thanks,


Hugh


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15706136
> 
> 
> I mentioned recently that I think Black Snake Moan is too high.



I'm going to go take another look at Black Snake.




> Quote:
> Frankly, though, I am not 100% adamant about my rating, especially when I stop to consider how Mr. Brooks was removed from Tier 0 for similar issues.



In fairness, Brooks has similar issues, but doesn't have all of the strengths of YWY.


----------



## 42041

*Lost Season 4* revisited

I may have been in an overly critical mood when I watched the earlier episodes, or maybe they were rougher, but I have to upgrade my recommendation from 1.75 to *tier 1.5* as I watch more. I would have gone with 1.25 so as to be in line with the third season, which I think it equals, but frankly that might be too high at this point, with the trend towards higher standards for top tier 1 placement. The facial detail is outstanding, and I'm not noticing as much EE and dark scene problems as I did at first.

Or maybe I'm just giddy about my new plasma, since it's the first thing I've properly watched on it, and being too generous










(PS3/Pioneer PRO-111FD plasma/1SW away)


----------



## rsbeck

*Black Snake Moan*


Disagree With Current Ranking


Filmed in Super 35, Moan exhibits very, very fine grain, no ringing or halos noted. Very strong facial (pores and imperfection), peach fuzz, and count the strands of hair (head, beard, and eyebrow) detail. Outdoor scenes look good in general, but not reference quality, some texture to be seen in clothes, wood grain on the truck rails and floor, but does not consistently exhibit reference quality ultra-fine texture or detail. Contrast very good, but not great. Good looking blu-ray; nice natural feel. Looks on my screen like a solid low tier one title.

*Recommendation: Tier 1.75*


Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From Screen


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15707193
> 
> *Black Snake Moan*
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 1.75*



I am surprised and confused by this recommendation. Need to dig this BD from my Blu-brary and watch it again to find out how it competes against the barrage of Tier-1/0 BDs that were released in the recent past.


Btw, *Serenity* looks like a solid *Tier 1.75* or *Top Tier 2* BD to my eyes.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/15707200
> 
> 
> I am surprised and confused by this recommendation. Need to dig this BD from my Blu-brary and watch it again to find out how it competes against the barrage of Tier-1/0 BDs that were released in the recent past.



Check it out. See if you are as underwhelmed by it now as I am. Still a good looking title, but can't hang in the reference pile.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15693359
> 
> *Zodiac*
> 
> 
> This was a difficult title for me to rate. The PQ can be extremely impressive at times, usually in the outdoor daylight scenes. Clarity is very, very good in those scenes. Detail is excellent. You can even read writing on the newspapers in some scenes. There are plenty of these types of shots throughout the movie. The print is absolutely spotless.
> 
> 
> However, dark scenes are not so impressive. They have a somewhat flat look to them. Also, on several occasions I noticed what looked like some type of vertical lines in the darkest parts of the picture. Blacks are not very deep either.
> 
> 
> Colors were pretty good. Certainly not over saturated. If anything they were just slightly on the muted side, but still natural looking overall.
> 
> 
> It appears that this was shot on HD cams, which would explain both the incredible detail AND the less than impressive black levels.
> 
> 
> As for the movie itself, I was very impressed. This is a very good film. The attention to detail is quite good. Part of this took place in my city (Riverside) and they actually shot those scenes here. Even the police had the Riverside logo on their sleeves.
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75* (I think it's current placement at 1.25 is too high given the issues with dark scenes).



I won't commit to a tier recommendation yet, since I have so far watched only about half of the movie.


Nevertheless, I would repeat my earlier comment (made when I had only watched about 20 minutes) relating to fuzziness in medium shots. This is most noticeable in scenes in the newspaper offices, but is really present throughout.


Can someone remind me what we know about what was done in the way of image processing after filiming on this? It definitely does have, to my eyes, a "filtered" look that is quite bothersome. Plus of course the extremely waxy faces in the first scene.


And some of the dark scenes do look pretty bad. The scene with the woman and baby in a car on a country road particularly sticks in my mind on that score.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15707193
> 
> *Black Snake Moan*
> 
> 
> Disagree With Current Ranking
> 
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 1.75*
> 
> 
> Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From Screen



I watched it again a few nights ago. IMO, it's still a zero title, but ranked too high.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15707342
> 
> 
> I won't commit to a tier recommendation yet, since I have so far watched only about half of the movie.
> 
> 
> Nevertheless, I would repeat my earlier comment (made when I had only watched about 20 minutes) relating to fuzziness in medium shots. This is most noticeable in scenes in the newspaper offices, but is really present throughout.
> 
> 
> Can someone remind me what we know about what was done in the way of image processing after filiming on this? It definitely does have, to my eyes, a "filtered" look that is quite bothersome. Plus of course the extremely waxy faces in the first scene.
> 
> 
> And some of the dark scenes do look pretty bad. The scene with the woman and baby in a car on a country road particularly sticks in my mind on that score.



I've given up on Zodiac. I've heard it's an excellent thriller, but the PQ is too inconsistent for me. I'll have to revisit in the future.


Plus, it's holding up Napoleon Dynamite, Little Miss Sunshine, Sideways, and Office Space in my Blockbuster queue!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15706770
> 
> 
> As HD digital cameras get better and more people learn to use them, things might improve. Personally, I think the whole lack of grain = clearer picture is an illusion. I still don't believe the best HD Digital is as good as the best film. To me, grain makes the picture richer. Until HD gets better, I suspect you will see more titles like YWY and Sin City. They set narrow parameters for themselves and when they venture out of those parameters, which is necessary unless you are making an incredibly stylized movie like Sin City, the picture suffers. And, when you go from super sharp to mud, the mud is really a buzz kill.
> 
> 
> I'll also say one more thing that will probably cheese some people off. HD video works best with bright light, so, if you don't mind horrible contrast Crank you can get a really sharp and bright picture with a terrible nasty digital look. People who sell flat panel displays know that unsophisticated buyers will always gravitate to the brightest picture, that's why when they set up the displays in their showrooms, they set the displays on "torch" mode. The unsophisticated buyer will always pick the brightest picture as the best picture rather than judging on more important parameters like Gray-scale performance, black levels, and contrast.
> 
> *IMO, Youth Without Youth needed to have a lot of stunning sequences to make up for the HD Digital problems in a percentage of scenes and, thankfully, it delivered.*
> 
> 
> IMO, it's getting closer, but film still beats HD Video when it comes to the more sophisticated aspects of picture quality. IMO, film can give you every strength HD Digital can give and it can also give a lot more that HD Digital still cannot.
> 
> 
> ...



Nice post, and I especially agree with the portion in bold.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15707193
> 
> *Black Snake Moan*
> 
> 
> Disagree With Current Ranking
> 
> 
> Filmed in Super 35, Moan exhibits very, very fine grain, no ringing or halos noted. Very strong facial (pores and imperfection), peach fuzz, and count the strands of hair (head, beard, and eyebrow) detail. Outdoor scenes look good in general, but not reference quality, some texture to be seen in clothes, wood grain on the truck rails and floor, but does not consistently exhibit reference quality ultra-fine texture or detail. Contrast very good, but not great. Good looking blu-ray; nice natural feel. Looks on my screen like a solid low tier title.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 1.75*



Sounds about right to me. Perhaps 1.5, but no higher than that imo.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15707440
> 
> 
> I watched it again a few nights ago. IMO, it's still a zero title, but ranked too high.



Outside of the facial and hair detail, what do you feel about BSM is reference?


----------



## rsbeck

If you all want to give tier recommendations, I will add Zodiac to the list.


So far, we have Rob Tomlin at 1.75 and Phantom Stranger at 1.0.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Actually, go ahead and put me at Tier 1.75 for Black Snake Moan. Tier 1.5 is something I could live with, but 1.75 would be my current vote.


Thanks for doing these summaries Rob.


----------



## 357

Crank should stay in Tier 0.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *357* /forum/post/15709232
> 
> 
> Crank should stay in Tier 0.



Can you expand on that? Criteria?


----------



## rsbeck

IMO, titles like Crank and Black Snake offer very strong facial a follicle detail and -- if there are no other outstanding strengths, this is nice to have, but frankly, I am seeing this kind of detail in many titles these days -- it is no longer that notable -- IMO, it's becoming expected of any high tier 2/low tier 1 title. Then, you add Crank's awful contrast problems, digital glare, underwhelming by current standards effects (the beating heart), artifacts (ringing) and I don't see anything that helps Crank compete with titles we have in tier 0 or tier 1.0.


----------



## babrown92

I think Black Snake needs to stay tier 0, the detail in great in that picture, and I can't think of anything wrong with the transfer.


Granted it's been a few months since I last watched it, but as of now I say it should stay.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15709105
> 
> 
> If you all want to give tier recommendations, I will add Zodiac to the list.
> 
> 
> So far, we have Rob Tomlin at 1.75 and Phantom Stranger at 1.0.



I think it makes sense to add Zodiac to the list. Hopefully I will have watched enough more today to be comfortable with recommending a placement. Based on what I have seen so far, I expect I will come out where Rob is, if not lower.


----------



## 357

Crank should stay in Tier 0 cause it's eye candy. Everytime I look at it I'm wowed. I'm not going to nit pick every detail like some of you guys as I don't have the time to look for imperfections and what not while I'm watching a movie.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *357* /forum/post/15709705
> 
> 
> Crank should stay in Tier 0 cause it's eye candy. Everytime I look at it I'm wowed. I'm not going to nit pick every detail like some of you guys as I don't have the time to look for imperfections and what not while I'm watching a movie.



When I see a response like this 357, I wonder what it is that attracts you to this thread. The very purpose of this thread is to try to place titles according to the criteria listed on page one, so it was quite reasonable for rsbeck to ask you to explain why you think Crank should remain in Tier 0.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15709830
> 
> 
> When I see a response like this 357, I wonder what it is that attracts you to this thread. The very purpose of this thread is to try to place titles according to the criteria listed on page one, so it was quite reasonable for rsbeck to ask you to explain why you think Crank should remain in Tier 0.



I completely agree. If there are imperfections there, it would be contrary to the whole point of this thread to ignore them. It may well be that in certain cases the imperfections are not enough to keep a title out of Tier 0, but they need to be considered.


----------



## 357

And you wonder why new people don't participate in this thread. Oh I don't write a freaking paragraph on the pros and cons of a title so my vote is not counted. And if a did other posters would jump in to discredit the vote. Seriously this is why it's only the same people posting here.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Various posters have raised several interesting points regarding digitally-shot movies. I think the potential is there for more consistent picture quality from digital, particularly in certain stylized environments, but most people working today in Hollywood obviously have a lot more experience handling and maximizing the quality of film-based photography. The big weakness to me for digital are the way the HD cameras handle lower light scenes. Film is simply superior in this regard and it is not close. Video noise looks hideous for the most part and unnatural. A smaller disadvantage is that many HD productions seem to introduce an inherent ringing at times that does not really look like classic edge enhancement. Some scenes show this and others do not, but something I have noticed from watching Blu-rays.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *357* /forum/post/15710097
> 
> 
> And you wonder why new people don't participate in this thread. Oh I don't write a freaking paragraph on the pros and cons of a title so my vote is not counted. And if a did other posters would jump in to discredit the vote. Seriously this is why it's only the same people posting here.



Your vote will be counted. The thread moves swiftly and rsbeck probably skipped over your vote accidentally. He initially skipped over my vote a few pages back and my recommendation was certainly longer than most.


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *357* /forum/post/15710097
> 
> 
> And you wonder why new people don't participate in this thread. Oh I don't write a freaking paragraph on the pros and cons of a title so my vote is not counted. And if a did other posters would jump in to discredit the vote. Seriously this is why it's only the same people posting here.



You'll also have noticed if you read the criteria on the first page it does ask for what you watch it on, the player and viewing distance, all lacking from your post.


BTW, welcome to the thread. Please keep posting your reviews.


----------



## OldCodger73

This is a movie that's been out for quite a while but it's been stuck in my Netflix queue for a very long time as "very long wait" and I finally received it.

*PQ:* This is not an eye-candy movie, with the predominate colors being black, white and grey. In fact, when there's a splash of colors, as for example with the nesting dolls, it's almost jarring. Clarity and sharpness are surprisingly good on medium and long shots; facial features, while good, are not up to what one would really like to see-- there are some shots of Ben Kingsley that are great, he has the type of face that's perfect for HD, but others of Woody Harrelson and Emily Mortimer don't quite meet expectations, close but not quite there. I got caught up in the movie and didn't really look for visual flaws. To me this was borderline between 1.75, where it's now ranked, and 2.0. I guess I'll be wishy-washy and say *leave where presently ranked*.

*AQ:* This is a movie that gives the center channel a work out with all the dialogue. I thought it was a little weak, but that could have been because of the mantle and cuckoo clocks chiming on the quarter hour, I have to remember to turn them off when watching a movie. When the surrounds kicked in in the train scenes it gave an added dimension, as did the very effective LFE.

*The movie*: The director, Brad Anderson, does a very effective job of playing cat and mouse with the viewer for the first 4/5 of the movie, building up an excellent feeling of suspense and foreboding. Unfortunately he then switches to a cops-and-robbers mode where the cops and robbers are the same, reducing somewhat the impact of the movie. All in all, I really enjoyed it, it had some of the best snow and train scenes since Dr, Zhivago. I'd rate is 4 out of 5 on the Netflix scale. What was really surprising was that SWMBO, who doesn't really care for this type of movie, set through it and thoroughly enjoyed it. Go figure.


On a side note, seeing Transsiberian, really made me hope that once Lawrence of Arabia is restored and released, that Dr. Zhivago will be the next Lean film to receive that treatment.


Panasonic 50" 720p plasma, Panasonic 10a player 7 1/2'


----------



## rsbeck

Personally, I do not wonder why more people avoid participating. It's hard work wrestling with the criteria, paying attention to technical aspects while watching, and writing a detailed review. Once that review is posted, it demands a thick skin.


We've consistently heard that this is too much work, demands too much attention while watching, and is too scary for some people.


I think you find a group of people working here on a daily basis because these are the people willing to do it.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *357* /forum/post/15710097
> 
> 
> And you wonder why new people don't participate in this thread. Oh I don't write a freaking paragraph on the pros and cons of a title so my vote is not counted. And if a did other posters would jump in to discredit the vote. Seriously this is why it's only the same people posting here.



In addition to your open hostility to the thread's assessment methodology, your refusal to cite specifics while voting a title reference, you also failed to cite where in Tier 0 you believe Crank should be placed; Higher, lower, or stay in the same place. Just a heads up; this thread works differently than some others. If you'd like to participate and would like some help getting familiar with this thread, feel free to PM me and I am sure anyone else here would also be happy to help you get settled in.


----------



## 357

Too much red tape for me to even try to weigh in here. Please carry on without me as the system for voting isn't too inviting for people who only want vote and not write a thesis on the matter. I feel as if I have a better chance of getting my vote counted in an Kenyan election than here. For the record Crank should stay where it is in Tier 0...


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *357* /forum/post/15711688
> 
> 
> Too much red tape for me to even try to weigh in here. Please carry on without me as the system for voting isn't too inviting for people who only want vote and not write a thesis on the matter.



Sorry to hear that. If you change your mind and decide you sincerely want to participate, I'm sure anyone here would be willing to help you get acclimated.


----------



## lgans316

Zodiac (UK Import) - *Will stand by my previous recommendation.*

*Tier-0 revisions - My list*


Pirates of the Caribbean - At World's End Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Buena Vista => *Bottom Tier-0*


Beowulf (UK) Video: VC-1 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner => *Top Tier-1*


TMNT Video: VC-1 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner => *Top Tier-1*


The Host Video: VC-1 | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.85:1 | Magnolia => *Top Tier-1* (entire climax has a hazy look. I think Rob may raise some objections.)


Black Snake Moan Video: AVC | Audio: DD | AR: 2.35:1 | Paramount => *Need to rewatch*


Rendition (UK) Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | EIV => *This one is said to suffer from DNR. So can't comment.*


Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Buena Vista => *Bottom of Tier-0 or Top of Tier-1*. Doesn't look better than Incredible Hulk and few other titles listed in Top Tier-1.


Hellboy II: The Golden Army Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Universal => *Tier 1.5 or 1.75* (Poor CGI)


The Island Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | (UK Import) | AR: 2.35:1 | Warner => *Top Tier-1*


Happy Feet Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD EX | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner => *Identical video encodes. So can be placed above or below the UK Import.*


Kill Bill: Vol. 2 Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Buena Vista => *Above or Below Speed Racer in Tier-0.*


I*ron Man.....1.75*: I happened to compare the BD Vs. a rental DVD and my god, what a difference. One poster here raised concern on Studios dumbing down DVD to showcase and market BD.


Friends,


My moniker is LGANS316 and NOT Igans316


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *357* /forum/post/15711688
> 
> 
> Too much red tape for me to even try to weigh in here. Please carry on without me as the system for voting isn't too inviting for people who only want vote and not write a thesis on the matter. I feel as if I have a better chance of getting my vote counted in an Kenyan election than here. For the record Crank should stay where it is in Tier 0...



There is no need to worry as I am in agreement with your Cranky recommendation.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I think I will suffer a coronary if either of the Pirate movies are moved down one inch.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15713379
> 
> 
> I think I will suffer a coronary if either of the Pirate movies are moved down one inch.



Make that a double coronary!










I think it's quite a stretch to want to move POTC:AWE down from being the #2 live action movie to the bottom of tier 0. And there is no way that POTC:COTBP is worse than The Incredible Hulk (as Igans316 noted).


My vote is to keep those titles just where they are.


----------



## Hughmc

I agree with both of you, so add my vote to keeping them where they are. I was sort of joking the other day about most titles have flaws and while I was being sarcastic about having only 5 titles left in tier 0 with one being non animation, that is exactly what would happen if we were extremely rigid on placements.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15713091
> 
> 
> Sorry to hear that. If you change your mind and decide you sincerely want to participate, I'm sure anyone here would be willing to help you get acclimated.



You are really taking the high road and I commend you for doing so and your efforts at reaching out. That is all we can do.


----------



## 42041

To add to the Tier 0 cleanup efforts, I'm not sure why *Prison Break Season 1* is so high in Tier 0. Guess not many people rated it? It's not a bad looking release or anything, but its not really a visually stimulating show, and the kind of detail it offers does not stand out enough from most other new releases for me to consider it one of my reference blu-rays. Nominating to move it down to *1.5*


----------



## rsbeck

It wouldn't bother me at all if we whittled our reference tier down to about 10 titles.


Personally, I think we have too many in the reference tier.


We need to be tougher.


Less sentimental.


Sacrifice our sacred cows.


Take no prisoners.


Give no quarter.


Koo Koo Kajoob.


----------



## deltasun

I agree with lgans316 regarding POTC:AWE. My biggest gripe is the dark scene between Miss Swann and Sao Feng in his ship. It is not visually stimulating at all and could not find the fast forward button quick enough while showing off blu-ray to my co-workers. I am very surprised by its placement above Man on Fire.


Btw, thanks all for taking the time to keep this thread going. I'm still 95% lurking, but will hopefully contribute a review soon.

_PS3 - Onkyo 806 - Samsung LN46A650 @ 1080p/24, 10'_


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15713875
> 
> 
> So far....
> *The Host.....1.0* (lgans316)



I believe The Host still deserves its Tier 0 ranking. Even during the dark scenes (e.g., when the family is gathered around inside the shack before confronting the creature), facial details (pores, strands) were intact.


Having just perused through Live Free and Die Hard, I can safely say that the two movies are on par with each other, giving The Host an ever so slight edge. They did a decent job incorporating that creature too, I might add.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15714134
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Hellboy II: The Golden Army.....1.75* (lgans316)



You can add me there on that.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15707342
> 
> 
> I won't commit to a tier recommendation yet, since I have so far watched only about half of the movie.
> 
> 
> Nevertheless, I would repeat my earlier comment (made when I had only watched about 20 minutes) relating to fuzziness in medium shots. This is most noticeable in scenes in the newspaper offices, but is really present throughout.
> 
> 
> Can someone remind me what we know about what was done in the way of image processing after filiming on this? It definitely does have, to my eyes, a "filtered" look that is quite bothersome. Plus of course the extremely waxy faces in the first scene.
> 
> 
> And some of the dark scenes do look pretty bad. The scene with the woman and baby in a car on a country road particularly sticks in my mind on that score.



I watched *Zodiac* nearly to the end last night. The problem I was having with the PQ continued throughout. A fuzzy, filtered look in medium shots. I will stick with 1.75.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/15713148
> 
> *Tier-0 revisions - My list*
> 
> 
> Pirates of the Caribbean - At World's End Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Buena Vista => *Bottom Tier-0*
> 
> 
> Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Buena Vista => *Bottom of Tier-0 or Top of Tier-1*. Doesn't look better than Incredible Hulk and few other titles listed in Top Tier-1.
> 
> 
> The Island Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | (UK Import) | AR: 2.35:1 | Warner => *Top Tier-1*
> 
> 
> Kill Bill: Vol. 2 Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Buena Vista => *Above or Below Speed Racer in Tier-0.*



I am comfortable with the current placement of POTC:AWE so we will have to disagree on that one. I could see POTC:COTBP a little lower in tier zero but putting it in tier one is pushing it. I totally agree on The Island and the KB 2 nominations. I do believe that whenever we get the domestic version of The Island it will be a tier zero caliber title. The import is a HD DVD-limited video encode from the early days of the format.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15693359
> 
> *Zodiac*
> 
> 
> This was a difficult title for me to rate. The PQ can be extremely impressive at times, usually in the outdoor daylight scenes. Clarity is very, very good in those scenes. Detail is excellent. You can even read writing on the newspapers in some scenes. There are plenty of these types of shots throughout the movie. The print is absolutely spotless.
> 
> 
> However, dark scenes are not so impressive. They have a somewhat flat look to them. *Also, on several occasions I noticed what looked like some type of vertical lines in the darkest parts of the picture.* Blacks are not very deep either.
> 
> 
> Colors were pretty good. Certainly not over saturated. If anything they were just slightly on the muted side, but still natural looking overall.
> 
> 
> It appears that this was shot on HD cams, which would explain both the incredible detail AND the less than impressive black levels.
> 
> 
> As for the movie itself, I was very impressed. This is a very good film. The attention to detail is quite good. Part of this took place in my city (Riverside) and they actually shot those scenes here. Even the police had the Riverside logo on their sleeves.
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75* (I think it's current placement at 1.25 is too high given the issues with dark scenes).




The vertical lines that I talked about in my review were confirmed in a post by eric.exe yesterday:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post15710275


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15715440
> 
> 
> I am comfortable with the current placement of POTC:AWE so we will have to disagree on that one. I could see POTC:COTBP a little lower in tier zero but putting it in tier one is pushing it.



I invite you guys to re-watch/re-assess the POTC titles in light of recent Tier-0 releases. In your copious free time, of course.


----------



## rsbeck

Agree -- hope we are all reassessing these titles and not just reasserting previous reviews.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15717669
> 
> 
> Agree -- hope we are all reassessing these titles and not just reasserting previous reviews.




This is why I _haven't_ chimed in *whispers* that Speed Racer should be tier 1.0.







*ducks the flying objects*


I have a busy week ahead of me but I can try to review KB1&2 (watched on Blu but never reviewed) after I get around to Iron Man like I promised I would. I have a review of Bourne 2 coming up shortly as well, likely this afternoon.


----------



## Obi-UWS




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15717669
> 
> 
> Agree -- hope we are all reassessing these titles and not just reasserting previous reviews.



Think you may have left *Eagle Eye off your list. I watched it last night after the game and found the overall picture quality to be very sharp. Faces with good detail and natural skin tones. Some blurring however during the almost non-stop action. I would recommend a low 1.5 placement. I think it was reviewed early in January by some other folks.


My set up:

Samsung 46" 550, Panny DMP-BD-35 thru an Onkyo 705 7.1 speaker set up.*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Obi-UWS* /forum/post/15718412
> 
> 
> Think you may have left *Eagle Eye off your list. I watched it last night after the game and found the overall picture quality to be very sharp. Faces with good detail and natural skin tones. Some blurring however during the almost non-stop action. I would recommend a low 1.5 placement. I think it was reviewed early in January by some other folks.
> 
> 
> My set up:
> 
> Samsung 46" 550, Panny DMP-BD-35 thru an Onkyo 705 7.1 speaker set up.
> *


*


Eagle Eye was NOT left off the list, because SuprSlow hasn't placed it yet. But since there were a few recommendations in early January it should be placed in the near future. So far here are the recommendations for Eagle Eye:


1.25...............patrick99

1.50...............obi-UWS

1.75...............djoberg

2.0.................Hughmc


BTW, your equipment list sounds good! I have the Onkyo 705 too with a 7.1 speaker system. I also have a Panny Blu-ray player (DMP-BD30) and a Samsung tv (50" DLP).*


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Well for some reason my Get Smart from Netflix had a hard time loading/reading.


It finally did, I got about halfway through the film and it kept freezing/skipping. So I didn't get to finish.


From what I saw I don't mind it being in Tier 2.5 but will wait to give my full review once I watch the whole thing.


----------



## Obi-UWS

Upper Midwest meets the Upper West Side. Ha.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Seal: Soundstage
*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5*


A somewhat obscure Blu-ray, this disc is based off a performance from the PBS program Soundstage and is only available from Sears. Released late in 2008, the 59-minute program is encoded in VC-1 on a BD-25. The video is only presented in 1080i, but that is what the program was originally broadcast at on PBS and I suspect what resolution the master is in. This is one of the higher bitrate VC-1 encodes I have witnessed. The encode goes from a low of 15.9 Mbps to many moments in the 40's as high as 46.6 Mbps. Most of the encode varies in a more stable range from 22.5 Mbps to 40.7 Mbps. I would estimate the average video bitrate to be 29 Mbps. I did not detect any problems with the compression work, as the image shows no signs of artifacting of any kind. I was worried about the appearance of banding given the nature of the material, but it never materialized.


Shot with HD cameras in an indoor venue, the image looks good overall with very nice resolution. I would not call the image perfect, considering some of the conditions the show was shot under. While there are no smoke machines present, Seal and parts of the audience are illuminated by colored spotlights. His stark white shirt blooms just the tiniest bit under the glare of multiple spotlights focused on him during the performance. Contrast and color saturation appear excellent with solid, if slightly washed out black levels. Close-ups, almost exclusively of Seal, reveal the highlights of the picture quality here. Every minute detail of Seal's face is shown while he sings, which may be too revealing for some viewers.


Flesh tones appear very natural and accurate except for the occasions when the lighting changes color scheme. Purple light seems to be the favored choice here and there is one brief segment with the audience bathed in a dark red light. The image does not have the superior depth and dimensionality seen in the best Blu-rays and occasionally flattens out to some extent. Video noise is kept to a bare minimum and is only faintly visible in a few sporadic shots that do not last very long.


The picture quality does drop a notch when the camera angle is switched to Seal's perspective watching the audience. The audience is not lit as well and shadow detail is not that well delineated in those shots. Thankfully the director chose not to use this angle frequently and instead focuses on Seal and his backing band. I will say I had a minor quibble with how some of the shots were framed. Composition of the image looked a little too haphazard for my tastes, with tight and awkward shots interspersed throughout the program.


My final recommendation for placement is tier 1.5. I split the difference between the better moments that approached the upper end of the tier and the worst moments near the bottom of the tier for a ranking somewhere in the middle. This BD will definitely satisfy any Seal fan and lovers of good music in general who want a visually pleasing image to go along with the music.

http://www.sears.com/shc/s/p_10153_1...stage&sLevel=0


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15719009
> 
> 
> 1.25...............patrick99
> 
> 1.50...............obi-UWS
> 
> 1.75...............djoberg
> 
> 2.0.................Hughmc



I'm mostly trying to keep a list of titles which have been placed and keeping track of the ones where there is some support for movement, mostly down. So, the list doesn't include all of the titles that have been reviewed during the current period. Happy to add these, though, or any others if there is interest.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15719607
> 
> 
> I'm mostly trying to keep a list of titles which have been placed and keeping track of the ones where there is some support for movement, mostly down. So, the list doesn't include all of the titles that have been reviewed during the current period. Happy to add these, though, or any others if there is interest.



I knew your list was comprised of titles already placed....I listed these for the sake of obi-UWS, and for SuprSlow too if he wanted to use it for placing that title. But thanks for including it in your list anyway.


----------



## rsbeck

El gusto es mio.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15709063
> 
> 
> Outside of the facial and hair detail, what do you feel about BSM is reference?



I've been occupied the past few days with the Super Bowl. I'll watch BSM in the next few days and get back to you. Off the top of my head, a radiator and a chained young lady comes to mind.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15717982
> 
> 
> This is why I _haven't_ chimed in *whispers* that Speed Racer should be tier 1.0.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *ducks the flying objects*



***flying shoe headed too damn close to the arctic circle***









Speed Racer is a flawless, live action cartoon that belongs near the top of Tier 0! It would break my heart to see it in Tier 1, as it is "true eye candy!" (other than invisible purple outlines every now and then)


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15719790
> 
> 
> El gusto es mio.



I had to Google that one!







Thanks for taking pleasure in serving us.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15719961
> 
> 
> speed racer is a flawless, live action cartoon that belongs near the top of tier 0! It would break my heart to see it in tier 1, as it is "true eye candy!" (*other than invisible purple outlines every now and then*)



lol!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15719961
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ***flying shoe headed too damn close to the arctic circle***
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speed Racer is a flawless, live action cartoon that belongs near the top of Tier 0! It would break my heart to see it in Tier 1, as it is "true eye candy!" (other than invisible purple outlines every now and then)










You could have at least thrown Season 4 of Lost on Blu if you HAD to throw something at me... What am I going to do with a shoe?


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*The Bourne Supremacy*


This movie was very similar to its predecessor picture quality wise, although I found it to be just slightly superior. The a lot of my review for The Bourne Identity could simply be copied and pasted over into this one, except this one has a slight edge for me over Identity that pushes it up higher on the list than Identity should be (in my humble opinion!).


I did have some issue with the shaky hand-held camera during the more adrenaline-filled scenes, but once the bounciness would stop the picture still looked ok, and seemed to resolve itself quite quickly. I also think part of my difficulty with this could be due to a slight bit of plasma-trailing (I've noticed this rarely but when something is super-fast like Hockey I have seen it happen, so I suspect it was the same sort of issue), so YMMV on this point.


I didn't notice any edge enhancement, and I did see a decent-but-not-obstructive grain throughout the picture. Colours seemed even nicer than its predecessor, and I found the blacks to be noise-free and quite inky on my screen. I look forward to watching the 3rd instalment of this trilogy.

*Recommendation for The Bourne Supremacy: Tier 1.75

Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800U, THX setting, approximately 7.5' viewing distance.*


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15720333
> 
> *The Bourne Supremacy*
> 
> 
> This movie was very similar to its predecessor picture quality wise, although I found it to be just slightly superior. The a lot of my review for The Bourne Identity could simply be copied and pasted over into this one, except this one has a slight edge for me over Identity that pushes it up higher on the list than Identity should be (in my humble opinion!).
> 
> [/b]



What items led you to conclude it was slightly superior? Btw, the third one's the only one I can stand to watch. I'm talking content, not PQ. I know I'm in the minority in that regard.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/15720402
> 
> 
> What items led you to conclude it was slightly superior? Btw, the third one's the only one I can stand to watch. I'm talking content, not PQ. I know I'm in the minority in that regard.





Quoting from my Identity review:



> Quote:
> I was not disappointed with what I watched, but I still think there was some softness/focus issues that don't allow me to consider this movie pristine, even if I loved what I saw. Many of the long shots were lacking in detail overall (shot of Paris etc), and a few times I felt the movie was flat.



This issue right here that I had with The Bourne Identity seemed better in Supremacy. I also liked the colours more in Supremacy than Identity, not as muted in the second movie as they are in the first. In my opinion, while the quoted issue is not perfect in Supremacy, it's better, and resulted in a 0.25 tier rating higher than Identity from me.



Hope that helps clarify! I should have been more clear to my reasoning.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

*The Incredible Hulk*


All I can here is WOW. What an incredible transfer. This is everything you'd expect a summer blockbuster to look like on BD. 3D pop everywhere.


The thing I was most impressed with was the night scenes and how incredible they looked. Not a hint of noise, incredible contrast, and detail everywhere. The super 35 grain was intact throughout and looked spectacular. The best night scenes I have ever seen on BD.


Colors were nice, skin tones a bit warm at times but nothing bothersome at all. Facial closeups were extremely detailed 95% of the time, with a only a few soft shots here and there but very few.


I would rank this higher in Tier 0, above Live Free or Die Hard, and that brings me to my next post.

*Tier Recommendation: Higher in the bottom 1/2 or Tier 0.*


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15720216
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You could have at least thrown Season 4 of Lost on Blu if you HAD to throw something at me... What am I going to do with a shoe?



Sorry about that! Season four it is!


----------



## LBFilmGuy

After watching The Incredible Hulk and seeing how much 3D pop it had on top of the best looking live action night scenes I have seen, Live Free or Die Hard needs to be moved to the bottom of Tier 0 if not Top of Tier 1.


The first 20-30 minutes of LFODH are very noisy and completely unimpressive compared to the Hulk.


After thinking about it more, I would place LFODH at the Top of Tier 1.


If we dock TDK for some EE and put it in Tier 1 LFODH should definitely be in Tier 1.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Can we get a formal format for submitting reviews?


I have followed Rob Tomlin's footsteps and I think it's the best way to notice the reviews and are eye catching.


The title at the top, Font size 4 and bold the title and your recommendation.


Motion to put this in the first post.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Seems I am in the minority for TIH, interesting.


----------



## Asb-123

hey there. I am looking for a movie as my first blu-ray. I want it to be reference visually. Aswell as a good FAMILY movie which is not animated.


I was thinking ironman as we loved that one in theaters?


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Asb-123* /forum/post/15720960
> 
> 
> hey there. I am looking for a movie as my first blu-ray. I want it to be reference visually. Aswell as a good FAMILY movie which is not animated.
> 
> 
> I was thinking ironman as we loved that one in theaters?



Pirates.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15720900
> 
> 
> If we dock TDK for some EE and put it in Tier 1 LFODH should definitely be in Tier 1.



TDK's placement was based on averaging a number of recommendations over a wide spectrum, so there was no consensus that led to it being placed in tier 1.0.


What flaws did you see in Live Free or Die Hard?


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15720974
> 
> 
> TDK's placement was based on averaging a number of recommendations over a wide spectrum, so there was no consensus that led to it being placed in tier 1.0.
> 
> 
> What flaws did you see in Live Free or Die Hard?



That was the main complaint of TDK.


I explained it in my original post, the first 20-30 minutes is very unimpressive (especially after seeing how flawless the night scenes looked in the Hulk). LFODH was full of noise and looked pretty flat in its night scenes in the beginning.


----------



## Asb-123




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15720970
> 
> 
> Pirates.



ive only seen (have on dvd) the first one. Which is more entertaining 2 or 3


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Asb-123* /forum/post/15721004
> 
> 
> ive only seen (have on dvd) the first one. Which is more entertaining 2 or 3



Might as well get them both on blu ray!


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Asb-123* /forum/post/15720960
> 
> 
> hey there. I am looking for a movie as my first blu-ray. I want it to be reference visually. Aswell as a good FAMILY movie which is not animated.
> 
> 
> I was thinking ironman as we loved that one in theaters?



There are titles with better PQ than Ironman, but Ironman is certainly fun.


How old are your kids? There are scenes in Ironman that some might not call family friendly. How's your tolerance for sex and violence?


----------



## Obi-UWS




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Asb-123* /forum/post/15721004
> 
> 
> ive only seen (have on dvd) the first one. Which is more entertaining 2 or 3



IMO any Trilogy should be viewed in order so it makes sense.


----------



## rsbeck

For my money, the title with the best combo of picture quality, plot, and sound effects is Live Free or Die Hard. You screen that for your family and/or guests and you will get open mouthed awe.


----------



## rsbeck

Do you have surround sound w/subwoofer?


----------



## LBFilmGuy

rsbeck you haven't responded to the first 20-30 mins of LFODH, it was largely mentioned here when it first came out.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Asb-123* /forum/post/15720960
> 
> 
> hey there. I am looking for a movie as my first blu-ray. I want it to be reference visually. Aswell as a good FAMILY movie which is not animated.
> 
> 
> I was thinking ironman as we loved that one in theaters?


Prince Caspian....you can't go wrong with this one; the PQ is exceptional and it is very family-friendly.


----------



## rsbeck

I use a sequence in the first twenty minutes of Live Free or Die Hard for my blow-em-away demo, so I have no idea what problems you have with it, you'll have to be more specific.




.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/15714055
> 
> 
> I believe The Host still deserves its Tier 0 ranking. Even during the dark scenes (e.g., when the family is gathered around inside the shack before confronting the creature), facial details (pores, strands) were intact.
> 
> 
> Having just perused through Live Free and Die Hard, I can safely say that the two movies are on par with each other, giving The Host an ever so slight edge. They did a decent job incorporating that creature too, I might add.



Personally, I could not agree with this any stronger.


The Host is a Tier 0 title imo. And a pretty decent movie too.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15714329
> 
> 
> I watched *Zodiac* nearly to the end last night. The problem I was having with the PQ continued throughout. A fuzzy, filtered look in medium shots. I will stick with 1.75.



Thanks Patrick!


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Babylon A.D.*


This is a good overall presentation. There is little to criticize here, other than perhaps just a tad of softness compared to the best titles. Detail was good, but was lacking slightly again, compared to the best titles.


Contrast was quite satisfactory, with pretty good depth but again, not quite reaching Tier 1 material.


Colors varied a lot depending on the location in the movie (it involves a 6000 miles "road trip"), but were most impressive once they got to New York. In fact, it seemed detail and contrast improved in New York too, but I am not sure that wasn't just an illusion since the overall surrounding were much more "eye candy" like than the previous parts of the movie.


The SQ is very impressive!


The movie wasn't quite as horrible as I was told it might be, but it is pretty forgettable.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


----------



## deltasun

Prince Caspian is a good recommendation, and for a limited time it's still Tier-0.










As for Live Free or Die Hard, I agree that it's good where it is currently. I just watched the first 45 min yesterday and was impressed with the quality in dark areas, which it had a lot of in this time span. rsbeck, I'd be curious to know which sequence in the first 20 minutes you use.


I watched The Island tonight. The blacks are very good (doc's suit, guards' jumpsuits, silhouettes, dark corners outside main chambers), facial details superb (specially at certain angles). The only other thing left is the 3D pop. I think this is where it's a bit deficient until the movie switches to the outside world. Time-wise, that's about 50 minutes into the movie.


But once they do get out, wow! Eye candy abound! Check out the pan around Ewan and Scarlett as they're escaping in the Arizona desert. I think The Island should at least keep its spot. Preferably, I'd place it above Black Pearl and even Elton 60 (whose ooh/ahh parts are limited to close-up's of Elton).


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15720907
> 
> 
> Can we get a formal format for submitting reviews?
> 
> 
> I have followed Rob Tomlin's footsteps and I think it's the best way to notice the reviews and are eye catching.
> 
> 
> The title at the top, Font size 4 and bold the title and your recommendation.
> 
> 
> Motion to put this in the first post.



Anyone?


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/15721564
> 
> 
> rsbeck, I'd be curious to know which sequence in the first 20 minutes you use.



It starts when McClane is in the kid's apartment. From the first shot to the last huge explosion.



> Quote:
> Elton 60 (whose ooh/ahh parts are limited to close-up's of Elton).



If that's the ooh ahh, part -- Houston, we have a problem. Elton's face often takes up a generous portion of the screen and has absolutely no detail. They have some sort of Doris Day filter on him. I agree with you that the rest of Elton John is unimpressive, but IMO the close-ups of Elton are even worse. I don't believe Elton belongs anywhere near the top tiers. I would suggest that you do not use Elton as a guidepost to tier 0.



.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

LBFilmGuy, I'll post my reviews however the thread wants me to. Right now I think I am following what is on the front page currently, and basically copy the way Phantom Stranger does his posts. I tried to play with the "sizes" thing, but earlier my internet was being wonky so it wouldn't work for some reason. Right now I'm happy if people bold the title & recommendation, and I like it when people post their equipment & viewing distance as well, as it may change from title to title, and especially if someone is new to the thread and posting a review. If it helps to have the title & rec in size 4, I'll gladly include that.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15721664
> 
> 
> If Super Slow feels the need for larger print, I'd be happy to go along, but otherwise, I think anything that goes beyond the standard buttons would make things more complicated. It's already complicated for new people. Who is going to police it? Do you want to be the one telling new people, "you need to make your bolded print bigger?"



Forget "policing" it. Just do it.


Give SuprSlow a break.


Hell, forget SuprSlow. We have a LOT of people who complain about how too many posts in this thread are not actual reviews, and we tell people to just scroll past them. Having the title in *BIG BOLD* letters at the very top sure makes that a hell of a lot easier.


I think it is a GREAT idea. And no, I am not taking all the credit for it, but if LBFilmGuy wants to give me all the credit, I have learned to NOT argue with him!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Asb-123* /forum/post/15720960
> 
> 
> hey there. I am looking for a movie as my first blu-ray. I want it to be reference visually. Aswell as a good FAMILY movie which is not animated.
> 
> 
> I was thinking ironman as we loved that one in theaters?





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15721089
> 
> Prince Caspian....you can't go wrong with this one; the PQ is exceptional and it is very family-friendly.



I agree with Prince Caspian, but I also think you might get more "wow" factor out of Speed Racer -- family friendly, kind of silly movie, (just ignore the imaginary purple lines, right selimsivad?







) but definitely a crayola-bright movie that might have your kids going, "Woahhh!"


I know you said you wanted non-animated but if you change your mind I'd go for Wall-E.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15721695
> 
> 
> Forget "policing" it. Just do it.
> 
> 
> Give SuprSlow a break.
> 
> 
> Hell, forget SuprSlow. We have a LOT of people who complain about how too many posts in this thread are not actual reviews, and we tell people to just scroll past them. Having the title in *BIG BOLD* letters at the very top sure makes that a hell of a lot easier.
> 
> 
> I think it is a GREAT idea. And no, I am not taking all the credit for it, but if LBFilmGuy wants to give me all the credit, I have learned to NOT argue with him!



I went back and did this to my last couple reviews, especially since we have a lot of convo going on. I'll play along with Rob & LBFilmGuy.


----------



## rsbeck

I see what you're going for, but my kids couldn't make it through Speed Racer, they peeled off one by one. I don't know if that's the crowd pleaser.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15721686
> 
> 
> LBFilmGuy, I'll post my reviews however the thread wants me to. Right now I think I am following what is on the front page currently, and basically copy the way Phantom Stranger does his posts. I tried to play with the "sizes" thing, but earlier my internet was being wonky so it wouldn't work for some reason. Right now I'm happy if people bold the title & recommendation, and I like it when people post their equipment & viewing distance as well, as it may change from title to title, and especially if someone is new to the thread and posting a review. If it helps to have the title & rec in size 4, I'll gladly include that.



Yeah I like the idea of adding your equipment and viewing distance in each review. In on that.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15721695
> 
> 
> Forget "policing" it. Just do it.
> 
> 
> Give SuprSlow a break.
> 
> 
> Hell, forget SuprSlow. We have a LOT of people who complain about how too many posts in this thread are not actual reviews, and we tell people to just scroll past them. Having the title in *BIG BOLD* letters at the very top sure makes that a hell of a lot easier.
> 
> 
> I think it is a GREAT idea. And no, I am not taking all the credit for it, but if LBFilmGuy wants to give me all the credit, I have learned to NOT argue with him!



Yeah definitely. I think it will help a lot.


Adding size type 4 and bolding the title and recommendation is not a big deal or too much to ask.


You do get the credit cause you startded it.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15721870
> 
> 
> Yeah I like the idea of adding your equipment and viewing distance in each review. In on that.



This is already a requirement.


From The First Page...

*We require certain information to be included in your posts. If you do not post this information in your post you can expect your opinion to be ignored as we feel asking for this information has been clearly stated multiple times. Below is the minimum information to include in your posts:


When posting your thoughts about Tier placement please be sure to include the following:


Screen Resolution (EX: 1920X1080X24p or 1920X1080X60p)


Screen Size (EX: 100" Projection, 50" Plasma)


Viewing Distance*



We haven't even been able to get people to follow _this_ requirement and it doesn't require any special font.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

That's because it gets lost in the wall of text that is the first post.


Maybe that along with the review requirement should be put in a different color like we do with the Tiers.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

I see your point, but it's much less work to actually do than it seems when are you reading it.


----------



## deltasun

Let's get a moderator to create a macro and change every review to be requirement-friendly.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15721998
> 
> 
> Let's also get some feedback about whether the larger type might cause him to miss reviews if someone were to use the regular bold. If so, we might want to think about that. A solution that causes other problems is not a solution.



Ahh...very good point!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15721831
> 
> 
> I see what you're going for, but my kids couldn't make it through Speed Racer, they peeled off one by one. I don't know if that's the crowd pleaser.



Yeah, I can see how that would happen. It also took 2 viewings for my daughter and I to get through Prince Caspian, but she is only 5 years old and it's a very long movie. Just tryin' to give the guy options! Non-animated-family-friendly-eyecandy-movie-with-great-story is a hard one to pick!



As for the review font-size-thing... how about we put it as a suggestion of how to do a review, and then we all just do as the suggestion er... suggests?


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15722044
> 
> 
> 
> As for the review font-size-thing... how about we put it as a suggestion of how to do a review, and then we all just do as the suggestion er... suggests?



Right. In the first post we could have an example (in a different color so it's easy to spot and won't be overlooked.)

*Title of Film*


Detailed, written review

*Tier Recommendation*


Equipment and viewing distance.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

When I just clicked back on the thread it had an even 776,000 views and 10,000 posts.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15722221
> 
> 
> Taking _this_ out?
> 
> 
> "If you do not post this information in your post you can expect your opinion to be ignored as we feel asking for this information has been clearly stated multiple times."
> 
> 
> 
> This would mean no longer requiring even regular bold.



I think that's more of a finger shaking in your face type thing that will deter new members from joining in on the discussion. Saying it's required is sufficient.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15722279
> 
> 
> I must be missing something. When I click the "B" I don't get an option for "4" bold.



Ah yes, you must hit "go advanced" first.


I'll add that.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Version 1.4

************

*PLEASE READ AND FOLLOW THE FOLLOWING BEFORE POSTING COMMENTS ABOUT A MOVIE'S TIER:*


Movies are placed based on user feedback. We always strive to honor user feedback and at least listen to people's viewpoints on Tier placement before settling differences in opinion. In order to do so we require certain information to be included in your posts.


When posting your thoughts about Tier placement _you must_ include the following _in this format_:

*Title of Film* (Click 'Go Advanced' and you will find a drop down menu labeled 'Sizes,' then select size 4. To make it bold simply click the 'B' box.)


Detailed, written review of the film's PQ.

*Tier Recommendation* (Click 'Go Advanced' and you will find a drop down menu labeled 'Sizes,' then select size 4. To make it bold simply click the 'B' box.)


Screen size, resolution, and viewing distance.


And that's it!


If you are citing a problem with a films' Tier placement, please provide timings when possible so they can be viewed and discussed by other members.


You are welcome to include your equipment and viewing distance info in your signature if you like. To my knowledge it doesn't violate the forum signature rules.

************


----------



## LBFilmGuy

I was thinking of doing the same thing.


Or even, how about...GASP.










Starting a whole NEW PQ thread with everything we've done in the first post and with the Tiers. Fresh, new, nice.


That will also help invite new members to join in on the fun.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

That's fine with me if Super feels it's necessary.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Let's see what others think, it's just been you and I discussing this


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15722044
> 
> 
> Just tryin' to give the guy options!



I hear ya.



> Quote:
> Non-animated-family-friendly-eyecandy-movie-with-great-story is a hard one to pick!



True. I need a sex and violence guage. I thought Ironman was going to be family friendly so when I first got it, I loaded it up with a couple moms and some kids of all ages and -- oops -- there's Robert Downey, Jr. taking the journalist babe to beddie bye for some nakie time. I got a few glares for that one. Moms didn't appreciate my suggestion to the kids, "cover your eyes for a minute!"


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15721676
> 
> 
> It starts when McClane is in the kid's apartment. From the first shot to the last huge explosion.



It's been a while since I watched DH4, but I watched it quite a bit when it first came out. There was a bit at the very beginning that was less impressive in terms of PQ than the rest of the movie, but my recollection is that it was really just the first few scenes. On rewatchings, I tended to start at the end of the scene you refer to, not really because I had a problem with the PQ in that scene, but in part because the PQ in earlier scenes than that one was somewhat lacking.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15721443
> 
> 
> Thanks Patrick!



Rob, on *Zodiac*, I don't recall your having commented on the aspect that bothers me the most, namely the filtered, fuzzy look in medium shots. Any thoughts on that aspect?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15722445
> 
> 
> Let's see what others think, it's just been you and I discussing this



I think you guys are getting a bit too hung up on process. It's hard enough to get people to participate here. Let's not make it even harder with such detailed rules about review format etc.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

For the size 4 lettering -- I do think it should be a suggestion rather than a requirement, while I still like the current info to be required. patrick99's right, it's hard to get people to participate as it is -- perhaps a link to a nicely-formatted review as an example of how a review should look might help?


For family friendly PQ type movie, if Iron Man is being considered, there's also Transformers. I don't remember any excessive sexual content in Transformers, was there? Also - to the poster who wanted the movie -- if you have daughters, Enchanted is fantastic on Blu!


----------



## babrown92

I can't believe anyone is calling for *Live Free or Die Hard* to be moved down. I have watched it about 6 times on Blu-ray and have never seen any evidence of EE or noise. The 1st 30 minutes, which are mostly dark, look fantastic. Great detail on closeups and shadow clarity is there.


This movie has to stay in tier 0 or I've lost faith in humanity.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15721695
> 
> 
> Forget "policing" it. Just do it.
> 
> 
> Give SuprSlow a break.
> 
> 
> Hell, forget SuprSlow. We have a LOT of people who complain about how too many posts in this thread are not actual reviews, and we tell people to just scroll past them. Having the title in *BIG BOLD* letters at the very top sure makes that a hell of a lot easier.



There may have been some misunderstanding about what I meant here. When I said "forget policing it, just do it" what I meant by that is that we don't need to make it an official requirement. Rather, I recommend that people do this on a voluntary basis.


I wouldn't want anyone to get the idea that their vote wouldn't be counted if they failed to put the title in the correct font.


But if most people would do this voluntarily, I do think it makes the thread easier to read overall.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15724276
> 
> *The Island*...1.0 (lgans316, Phantom Stranger)



Please mark me down for keeping The Island in Tier 0, above both Black Pearl and Elton 60. I watched it in full last night and, in addition to the details I posted last night, I believe it had better eye candy than either titles mentioned above.


And I'm not just talking about Scarlett.









*PS3-Onkyo806-Sammy ln42a650; 1080p/24; 10'*


----------



## Cristo

Just to be sure I understand the categorization...


Kung Fu Panda is supposed to represent the pinnacle of BD picture quality at the moment?


I just watched Baraka, and was pretty blown away. Trying to separate the issue of movie content, I should be more blown away by the visual qualities of Kung Fu Panda (which is animated.)


I'm not sure how animation and film can be directly comparable...


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cristo* /forum/post/15725144
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how animation and film can be directly comparable...



I've knocked this around my head as well, and was going to suggest separating the animated movies from film movies.


However, this *is* a thread on absolutes. And as such, we should be able to compare everything in terms of PQ merit. I think rsbeck's quote above regarding this is appropriate. One thing I thought about as well and have not suggested is maybe changing the font or italicizing animated titles just to differentiate them from film titles. When I try to induce wow factors from my friends, I still prefer to do it with non-animated titles. When I come here to find such titles, it's a bit more difficult sifting through the animated and non-animated titles to get a feel for which to choose for that occassion.


So, I guess I'd like to suggest that. I want to know what you all think.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Every couple of months the suggestion to split off animated titles happens. I honestly think this is not going to occur with this thread. Perhaps this is an issue that should be addressed with a decent paragraph on the front page as well?


----------



## deltasun

I hope that wasn't directed at me, because that's not what I'm suggesting. I do want them all in one pool for absolute comparison's sake. I'm simply suggesting that we somehow differentiate the animated titles in the list. My first thought was to change their font colors, but that would go against the different tier colors. So, I then thought of maybe italicizing them.


Again, this just makes it easier to identify the non-animated titles' rankings while still allowing us to make absolute comparisons - be it film, animation, and even concerts.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/15725679
> 
> 
> I'm simply suggesting that we somehow differentiate the animated titles in the list.



What's an animated title?


Seriously. Is Who Framed Roger Rabbit animated? Is Star Wars Episode 1 animated? Is Spider-man 3 animated?


I think separating "animated" movies is useless for many reasons, not least of which is the futility of even trying to define them so that you can do it in the first place.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15726531
> 
> 
> What's an animated title?
> 
> 
> Seriously. Is Who Framed Roger Rabbit animated? Is Star Wars Episode 1 animated? Is Spider-man 3 animated?
> 
> 
> I think separating "animated" movies is useless for many reasons, not least of which is the futility of even trying to define them so that you can do it in the first place.



Mainly animated, where you cannot truly reference "real-life" objects like details on the skin's pores or grain on wood.


So, for your examples, I would consider them non-animated. Wall*E which has real-life people would be animated since they were represented in a non-HD fashion and the movie is mostly (99%) animated.


I don't think it would be hard to distinguish. And again, keep in mind, I'm not suggesting a separate list. Same list, but italicized.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/15726646
> 
> 
> Mainly animated, where you cannot truly reference "real-life" objects like details on the skin's pores or grain on wood.



What difference does that make?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/15726646
> 
> 
> I don't think it would be hard to distinguish.



I'm speaking as much in hypothetical/philosophical terms as real-world practical ones. While I'd concede that there may not really be any movies yet which straddle the line so completely as to be indeterminable, the lines are blurrier today than they've ever been and they're only going to get blurrier. There are a lot of elements in Star Wars Episode 1, for example, which most people probably don't realize are animated (I'm not talking about Jar Jar, of course, but subtler things like digital stunt doubles, etc.).


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/15725679
> 
> 
> I hope that wasn't directed at me, because that's not what I'm suggesting. I do want them all in one pool for absolute comparison's sake. I'm simply suggesting that we somehow differentiate the animated titles in the list. My first thought was to change their font colors, but that would go against the different tier colors. So, I then thought of maybe italicizing them.
> 
> 
> Again, this just makes it easier to identify the non-animated titles' rankings while still allowing us to make absolute comparisons - be it film, animation, and even concerts.




No, not at you. Just moreso b/c it came up again, and they're doing some changes to the front page anyway, maybe something should be written for the main page regarding this issue. I am fairly mellow on this and go with the flow of the thread, but as much as I've read here the general concensus is to keep it as-is, so maybe it should be stated and that'd possibly help out. that's all.


----------



## Cristo

My point in bringing up the issue about animation was that in the case of non-animated titles, there were actual objects, people, scenery, light, etc. that was captured on film or video. The measure of picture quality should reflect how "real" the images of those things look.



No doubt that the line is blurred by CGI and special effects and titles that combine animation and "reality."


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cristo* /forum/post/15726858
> 
> 
> The measure of picture quality should reflect how "real" the images of those things look.



No, it shouldn't.


----------



## babrown92

_*Votes for seperate tier for animation*_


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15726847
> 
> 
> No, not at you. Just moreso b/c it came up again, and they're doing some changes to the front page anyway, maybe something should be written for the main page regarding this issue. I am fairly mellow on this and go with the flow of the thread, but as much as I've read here the general concensus is to keep it as-is, so maybe it should be stated and that'd possibly help out. that's all.



I personally don't find animated titles very interesting, but there are obviously a lot of people here who feel differently, and this idea of separating out animated titles is just a disruption and a distraction that, as Rob reminds us, has been considered and rejected many, many times.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *babrown92* /forum/post/15724182
> 
> 
> I can't believe anyone is calling for *Live Free or Die Hard* to be moved down. I have watched it about 6 times on Blu-ray and have never seen any evidence of EE or noise. The 1st 30 minutes, which are mostly dark, look fantastic. Great detail on closeups and shadow clarity is there.
> 
> 
> This movie has to stay in tier 0 or I've lost faith in humanity.



I have to agree with this sentiment. Live Free or Die Hard is the definition of reference video quality in my eyes outside of a couple of scenes in the beginning of the movie.


I don't mind LBFilmGuy's suggestion about the structure of the tier reviews and including it in the first post, though I am not so sure we have to be strict about it when determining placements. As long as a poster clearly indicates a tier placement and the title being placed, I have no qualms with it.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *babrown92* /forum/post/15726897
> 
> _*Votes for seperate tier for animation*_



I don't want it separate because I still believe in absolute comparisons, which is the point of this thread. My suggestion is for quick viewing of non-animated titles, and would look something like this (pardon not making the font smaller on the details):

_Kung Fu Panda Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.35:1 | DreamWorks

Ratatouille Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Disney

Cars Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Disney

Meet the Robinsons Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.78:1 | Disney

Happy Feet (Import) Video: VC-1 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner_ *

I, Robot* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Fox
*Pirates of the Caribbean - At World's End Video*: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Buena Vista
*Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest* Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Buena Vista
_Chicken Little Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.78:1 | Buena Vista

Open Season Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.85:1 | Sony_
*Man on Fire* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Fox
_Beowulf (UK) Video: VC-1 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner

Bee Movie Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 1.85:1 | Dreamworks_
*TMNT* Video: VC-1 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner
*Prison Break Season One* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Fox
*The Host* Video: VC-1 | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.85:1 | Magnolia
*Black Snake Moan* Video: AVC | Audio: DD | AR: 2.35:1 | Paramount
*Crank* Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: 6.1 PCM | AR: 1.78:1 | Lionsgate
*Rendition (UK)* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | EIV


I can go right to _I, Robot_ and know that's the highest non-animated title and still compare every other title (animated and non-animated).


----------



## Cristo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15726889
> 
> 
> No, it shouldn't.



A high quality image of actual people captured on film should not look more real than a low quality one?


Surely that is not what you mean.


----------



## sleater

^^ I didn't know TMNT was live action... that changes my perception of EVERYTHING jk! I actually didn't think much of deltasun's suggestion but seeing it here has made me a believer. Sign me up!

**votes to keep the thread as-is with animated titles in italics**


Good job deltasun.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/15727142
> 
> 
> I can go right to _I, Robot_ and know that's the highest non-animated title



Oh no! You're making the animated robots in the non-animated I, Robot cry!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15726939
> 
> 
> I personally don't find animated titles very interesting, but there are obviously a lot of people here who feel differently, and this idea of separating out animated titles is just a disruption and a distraction that, as Rob reminds us, has been considered and rejected many, many times.



I hope you're not mistaking my post as meaning I think we should separate anything. Because I'm willing to go with the flow if it's changed, or if it stays. I will participate regardless. However, admittedly it's a little tiresome for it to be suggested so often and then fought down, so i just thought a note regarding this issue could be placed on the front page so people know it's been suggested (and rejected, many, many times.







).


I don't mind the idea of the italics for animated titles, but I guess since I have kids I don't really need italics so I can read the list and be able to tell which are animated/cgi and which aren't without the added help.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cristo* /forum/post/15727164
> 
> 
> A high quality image of actual people captured on film should not look more real than a low quality one?
> 
> 
> Surely that is not what you mean.



No, that's not what I mean. I mean "realism" should not be a criterion by which images are judged for the purposes of this thread.


Therefor, a "high quality image of actual people captured on film" should not _necessarily_ look "more real than a low quality one".


Most movies I'm familiar with are not video medical journals designed to explicate the details of the human physiology; they're stories designed to evoke a mood.


----------



## Cristo

Another good reason for indicating what titles are animated is that for some people, there is a difference between a "really good looking" cartoon and a "really good looking" film.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15724575
> 
> 
> With regard to "4" size lettering, I agree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you seen the current wording, which includes the following...
> 
> 
> "If you do not post this information in your post you can expect your opinion to be ignored as we feel asking for this information has been clearly stated multiple times."



Which is obviously wrong.


I don't put my equipment or viewing distance in all my reviews. Does that mean that they are being completely ignored?


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cristo* /forum/post/15727336
> 
> 
> Another good reason for indicating what titles are animated is that for some people, there is a difference between a "really good looking" cartoon and a "really good looking" film.




Is it just because I have kids that I am familiar enough with the titles of animated films that I can tell that the first 5 titles are animated by reading them? Someone who'd actually come to use this list, to determine what blu ray movie to get based on a high picture quality, really would _not be able to read_ and ascertain by title alone without the assistance of italics, that the first five pictures listed are animated?


I'm not trying to be rude, nor am I fighting the use of italics, but I am slightly boggled by that thought. Sure, there's a difference to some people between animated vs live action, but by the time someone seeks this list out is it really out there to expect someone to read the titles or use the search function to seek out what they need from it?


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rob tomlin* /forum/post/15727362
> 
> 
> which is obviously wrong.
> 
> 
> I don't put my equipment or viewing distance in all my reviews. Does that mean that they are being completely ignored?



yes!!


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cristo* /forum/post/15727336
> 
> 
> Another good reason for indicating what titles are animated is that for some people, there is a difference between a "really good looking" cartoon and a "really good looking" film.



*Psst.* Many "cartoons" are, indeed, films. Pass it on.


And, anyway, for some people, there is a difference between A Clockwork Orange and The Devil Wears Prada. Why should we divide the list to accommodate them? This list isn't about denying any differences between titles; it's about evaluating picture quality.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15727414
> 
> 
> Is it just because I have kids that I am familiar enough with the titles of animated films that I can tell that the first 5 titles are animated by reading them? Someone who'd actually come to use this list, to determine what blu ray movie to get based on a high picture quality, really would _not be able to read_ and ascertain by title alone without the assistance of italics, that the first five pictures listed are animated?
> 
> 
> I'm not trying to be rude, nor am I fighting the use of italics, but I am slightly boggled by that thought. Sure, there's a difference to some people between animated vs live action, but by the time someone seeks this list out is it really out there to expect someone to read the titles or use the search function to seek out what they need from it?



Yes.


Did you notice I skipped _The Wild_ in my example? Why? Because I didn't know if it was animated or not.


----------



## spectator

Fun logic puzzle for all and sundry:


"How is Casablanca _not_ animated?"


Discuss.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15722667
> 
> 
> Rob, on *Zodiac*, I don't recall your having commented on the aspect that bothers me the most, namely the filtered, fuzzy look in medium shots. Any thoughts on that aspect?



I can't say that I specifically recall that happening in "medium shots" but some scenes were noticeably not as sharp and detailed as others.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15727256
> 
> 
> Oh no! You're making the animated robots in the non-animated I, Robot cry!



I laughed out loud on that one!!


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Where is SuperSlow? We need to hear from him about this.










Version 1.5...like I said last night I don't think it's necessary to beat people over the head and scare them off by saying their review will be ignored if they don't follow the format. Requiring it and stating it is enough.

************

*PLEASE READ AND FOLLOW THE FOLLOWING BEFORE POSTING COMMENTS ABOUT A MOVIE'S TIER:*


Movies are placed based on user feedback. We always strive to honor user feedback and at least listen to people's viewpoints on Tier placement before settling differences in opinion. In order to do so we require certain information to be included in your posts.


When posting your thoughts about Tier placement _you must_ include the following _in this format_:

*Title of Film* (Font size 4, Bold font type).


Detailed, written review of the film's PQ.

*Tier Recommendation* (Font size 4, Bold Font type).


Screen size, resolution, and viewing distance.


And that's it!


If you are citing a problem with a films' Tier placement, please provide timings when possible so they can be viewed and discussed by other members.


You are welcome to include your equipment and viewing distance info in your signature if you like. To my knowledge it doesn't violate the forum signature rules.

************


----------



## tfoltz

Please, let's not even get into separating animated from "live" action films. If you don't know whether a title is animated or live, then look it up. I think using italics uglies things up.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15727426
> 
> 
> yes!!


----------



## babrown92




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cristo* /forum/post/15727336
> 
> 
> Another good reason for indicating what titles are animated is that for some people, there is a difference between a "really good looking" cartoon and a "really good looking" film.




Don't waste your time trying to argue that an animated film and a live action film are different enough to warrent seperation. People like spectator will never be willing to compromise, to them comparing The Godfather's technical qualities to Dumbo's makes absolute sense.


I just wish someone would tell the Academy Awards that they shouldn't put animated titles in a seperate category.


*now here is where people step in and try to blur the lines between animation and reality, mainly by talking about star wars*


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15727297
> 
> *I hope you're not mistaking my post as meaning I think we should separate anything.* Because I'm willing to go with the flow if it's changed, or if it stays. I will participate regardless. However, admittedly it's a little tiresome for it to be suggested so often and then fought down, so i just thought a note regarding this issue could be placed on the front page so people know it's been suggested (and rejected, many, many times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ).
> 
> 
> I don't mind the idea of the italics for animated titles, but I guess since I have kids I don't really need italics so I can read the list and be able to tell which are animated/cgi and which aren't without the added help.



No, I didn't mean to suggest I thought you favored separation. I just picked your post as the point to jump into the discussion.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15727571
> 
> 
> I can't say that I specifically recall that happening in "medium shots" but some scenes were noticeably not as sharp and detailed as others.



And we ended up in the same place on *Zodiac*, so I think we were seeing pretty much the same thing.


----------



## rsbeck

I also don't think it is unreasonable to demand that reviews follow a simple format.


Yesterday, we wanted to make Super Slow's job easier.


Now, we don't want to make his job easier if it is going to make it the slightest bit more difficult for those who post reviews -- even if it will make Super Slow's job easier and we want to take away the warning he put into the first paragraph because someone might not like it?


Here's my suggestion: Let's stop trying to please everyone who stops by for a few minutes and posts a slam at the thread and a random complaint. Let's figure out who we want to be. IMO, you don't post a detailed list of criteria on the front page and ask people to post opinions nit-picking various subtle aspects of PQ for others to challenge and then try to soften the whole thing on the chance that this will encourage the timid to post more reviews.


If we want to be a simple polling thread, be a polling thread. Throw out all descriptions of criteria because the people who want to cast simple votes -- the ones whose complaints and pain some want to feel -- have already told us they don't want to be bothered with criteria anyway -- throw out all format requests for the same reason -- and just let people vote.


If we want to be a review thread, it is completely reasonable to ask reviewers to follow a simple format and to include certain info and to let prospective reviewers know that if you can't be bothered to honor this simple request, your review probably won't be noticed.


Otherwise, you post all of the criteria, request a certain format, declare yourself a review thread and then breed disrespect for the thread by going all soft and gushy every time someone says it's too hard and why can't we make it easy -- like a polling thread.


I believe that, at some point, we need to stop listening to these complaints, start standing behind what we are and when people come by who sincerely want to participate in a respectful way -- THEN -- we roll out the welcome mat and warm up a cup of hot coco.


IMO, that's the way it should be.


Just my two cents.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Agree completely rsbeck. Well said.


----------



## rsbeck

But wait, there's more...


You demand that reviews follow a certain format and you stand behind that -- you breed respect for the forum instead of disrespect -- and -- you make it easier for those who want to scroll through and find the reviews. Another problem solved. Then, we stop listening to complaints about non-review posts, lengthy discussions, etc. Anyone wants to skip them and go to the next review --- easy --- because reviews are easy to spot since they follow a recognizable format.


Okay, make that three cents.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15728830
> 
> 
> Agree completely rsbeck. Well said.



Thank you.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

And on the topic of LFODH, I will pop it in and watch the first 20 mins or so again on my set up.


I have only seen it on my brothers Sony 60" Sony A300 so maybe that was the problem


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15728615
> 
> 
> I also don't think it is unreasonable to demand that reviews follow a simple format.
> 
> 
> Yesterday, we wanted to make Super Slow's job easier.
> 
> 
> Now, we don't want to make his job easier if it is going to make it the slightest bit more difficult for those who post reviews -- even if it will make Super Slow's job easier and *we want to take away the warning he put into the first paragraph because someone might not like it?*



Just for clarification, SuprSlow did not put that language there. That was done by the OP, AustinSTi.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15728997
> 
> 
> Just for clarification, SuprSlow did not put that language there. That was done by the OP, AustinSTi.




Did we quit when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?!!


Hey -- Don't stop me when I'm on a roll.


----------



## rsbeck

Stumlad nominated Domino to tier 0, my copy should arrive before the weekend. Anyone else planning to review it?


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15729100
> 
> 
> Did we quit when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?!!
> 
> 
> Hey -- Don't stop me when I'm on a roll.



Don't know which Pearl Harbor you're watching...but even the one with Affleck had the Japanese in their Zeroes. LOL.


----------



## OldCodger73

Wow, three additional pages since I checked the board this morning and not one review. I think we need a separate thread for discussion on the criteria of how to evaluate and rate movie.


I'm supposed to receive The Bourne Identity tomorrow from Netflix. I have this on DVD and it'll be interesting comparing the PQ of the two discs.


Regarding moviing titles:
*Pirates of the Caribbean - AWE- Leave where it is.

Pirates of the Caribbean: CotBP- Leave where it is.

Live Free or Die Hard- Leave where it is.*


----------



## Obi-UWS




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/15729197
> 
> 
> Don't know which Pearl Harbor you're watching...but even the one with Affleck had the Japanese in their Zeroes. LOL.



Not keeping up with your Animal House quotes? Time for a refresher in Bluto.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds*


I watched this disc again last night (well, a big chunk of it anyway, it's a long disc). First, the good: colors looked good. The stage lights and lights that they used on the ceiling etc. were pretty cool looking. Contrast was adequate, but there is some occasional noise in the darkest scenes. Overall, color and contrast is pretty good.


When it comes to detail, clarity, and sharpness, there was a lot of variance. A big part of the time I felt like I wanted to yell "FOCUS" to the camera operator. Facial detail was often lacking, yet some shots showed beads of sweat on Dave's forehead. Unfortunately those highly detailed shots were more the exception rather than the rule.


It is a nice looking title overall, but I think it should be moved down to tier 1.75 or 2.0.


The SQ of this disc is very good for a live concert.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75 to 2.0*


Edit:


JVC RS1 1080p/24, 123" screen, 1.5 screen widths viewing distance.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

*Get Smart*


Quite a fun silly ride, and man Anne Hathaway was smokin' in this.










In terms of the PQ, I wasn't too impressed. Colors were nice, skin tones generally spot on, and the detail on exterior and wider shots were nice.


Once you got closer to the actors things seemed to fade. Not much detail in the faces, with quite a few soft shots.


Black levels and contrast suffered quite a bit, and most of the film had a thin haze over it.


I would drop it to 2.75.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 2.75*


Panasonic PZ80U 1080p via PS3 @ about 6 feet.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

rsbeck add me to the list of recommending The Godfather for Tier 3, and Blood Diamond for Tier 2.


----------



## iresq




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/15729197
> 
> 
> Don't know which Pearl Harbor you're watching...but even the one with Affleck had the Japanese in their Zeroes. LOL.



Mr. Deltasun, zero point zero.


----------



## HT.1

I had the opportunity to watch *Next* last evening.

Next is an average movie from a PQ standpoint. Seems to me, that there are an awful lot of Blu Rays that seem to fall right in the tier I, or even the bottom of tier I category.

For me, Next seemed to be no different, except for a few shots that seemed to set it apart from other movies in the bottom of tier I.

There were times the clarity was exceptional. Such as when Nicholas Cage would check his watch. The arm hairs and pours of his skin were clear and detailed. But then there were times in what I would consider a relatively close facial shot, the shot seemed slightly soft and the fine tier 0 detail I would expect from an eye candy title was just not there.

One thing that is important to me and I was impressed with, is, many of the long shots were crisp with plenty of detail in both the fore ground and background. There were many scenic outdoor shots where the background detail was very detailed and focused. So, as you can see, the movie was a bit too inconsistent for me to give it anything but a bottom of tier I ranking.

Colors like flesh tones and panoramic out door scenes were realistic and vivid. Contrast was extremely good as well.
*I would personally rate Next in the bottom of tier I.*


FYI: we really enjoyed the movie, if it goes on sale, I wouldn't hesitate on picking this one up.


----------



## Steeb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *iresq* /forum/post/15730047
> 
> 
> Mr. Deltasun, zero point zero.



Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

You overlooked my Get Smart review beck! How dare you!










And HT's Next review










And you can take me off the LFODH recommendation until I watch it again.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15730642
> 
> 
> You overlooked my Get Smart review beck! How dare you!



Sorry, LB, I'll fix that.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15730722
> 
> 
> Sorry, LB, I'll fix that.



Just giving you a hard time brotha.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15730791
> 
> 
> Just giving you a hard time brotha.


----------



## Hughmc

Facetiousness:
_

So with the new format, we have to use the proper font size in bold. It can only be done every other Tuesday in the months of May and Nov. at ten at night, with a Mongolian yak as witness. Violating these rules will result in mule kicking to the head. Did I miss anything?







_



Ok, I have been lurking for two days and support the changes. I also more than support the idea rsbeck is suggesting and that we take more control of the thread and be firm in its intentions. It leaves little or no doors open for future debate hassles and newbies and vets from coming in and questioning and pulling apart everything about the thread and how it is run. The Denon Firmware update thread run by capavs is a good example of how that works. The thread he started has one purpose only. Others have tried to come into that thread and complain, since they want to discuss other issues related to Denon. It keeps the thread on track and in focus and does not allow for anyone to come in and say hey I want it this way or that which leaves the thread open for anarchy and eventual doom. It also does not mean we can't have discussion in length about a BD itself or have some off topic posts as we occasionally do. It means we take control of the format and the content will then take care of itself.


Quoting rsbeck:

*I also don't think it is unreasonable to demand that reviews follow a simple format.


Yesterday, we wanted to make Super Slow's job easier.


Now, we don't want to make his job easier if it is going to make it the slightest bit more difficult for those who post reviews -- even if it will make Super Slow's job easier and we want to take away the warning he put into the first paragraph because someone might not like it?


Here's my suggestion: Let's stop trying to please everyone who stops by for a few minutes and posts a slam at the thread and a random complaint. Let's figure out who we want to be. IMO, you don't post a detailed list of criteria on the front page and ask people to post opinions nit-picking various subtle aspects of PQ for others to challenge and then try to soften the whole thing on the chance that this will encourage the timid to post more reviews.


If we want to be a simple polling thread, be a polling thread. Throw out all descriptions of criteria because the people who want to cast simple votes -- the ones whose complaints and pain some want to feel -- have already told us they don't want to be bothered with criteria anyway -- throw out all format requests for the same reason -- and just let people vote.


If we want to be a review thread, it is completely reasonable to ask reviewers to follow a simple format and to include certain info and to let prospective reviewers know that if you can't be bothered to honor this simple request, your review probably won't be noticed.


Otherwise, you post all of the criteria, request a certain format, declare yourself a review thread and then breed disrespect for the thread by going all soft and gushy every time someone says it's too hard and why can't we make it easy -- like a polling thread.


I believe that, at some point, we need to stop listening to these complaints, start standing behind what we are and when people come by who sincerely want to participate in a respectful way -- THEN -- we roll out the welcome mat and warm up a cup of hot coco.


IMO, that's the way it should be.


Just my two cents.*


He is right. We really need to make the thread more concrete so as to eliminate constant questioning. There is nothing wrong with questioning, but when it is too often based on people wants that conflict with the thread intent we get zero respect for the thread itself and always end up in some bickering defense. Just because we say the thread works this way or the highway doesn't mean we are disenfranchising anyone, rather it means a firm, this is how it works and it works well, Welcome! We cannot always please everyone and their is no written rule in life saying we must. In fact as many already know what trying to please everyone get us, our *OWN* misery.


The Grain thread is another thread that has some structure guidelines that I could be wrong, but it is followed and questioned very little.


I will be back with a review of Mirrors later tonight. What is really freaky is I watched Mirrors last night and then a buddy of mine and I started talking about the best possible PQ we can get from TV's. We got into discussing RPTV's and he said, no joke now, he said it is all about Mirrors. I stopped, freaked out a second and chuckled and told him about the movie.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15729133
> 
> 
> Stumlad nominated Domino to tier 0, my copy should arrive before the weekend. Anyone else planning to review it?



Deviation also reviewed and gave it a tier 1.0 rating. He posted after me.


I'd like to throw in some ratings to the big list:


Eagle Eye: Tier 1.5

Iron Man: Tier 1.75 - agree with the rest

Hulk: Tier 1.0 - my original review

Prison Break: Tier 1.25

Crank: Leave in tier 0, but maybe lower it.


As far as Pirates, leave them all the same. The only possible change to make is to swap the 2nd and 3rd (2nd just seems to have more eye candy shots IMO).


----------



## Hughmc

I am for moving Speed Racer down to the bottom of tier 0 or top of tier 1. I also vote for moving Doomday and Shoot Em Up below Caspian.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15731125
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I have been lurking for two days and support the changes.



Thank you.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15731125
> 
> 
> It means we take control of the format and the content will then take care of itself.



Nail on head has been hit.


Did you see this that beck and I came up with Hugh?


Version 1.5

************

*PLEASE READ AND FOLLOW THE FOLLOWING BEFORE POSTING COMMENTS ABOUT A MOVIE'S TIER:*


Movies are placed based on user feedback. We always strive to honor user feedback and at least listen to people's viewpoints on Tier placement before settling differences in opinion. In order to do so we require certain information to be included in your posts.


When posting your thoughts about Tier placement _you must_ include the following _in this format_:

*WARNING: If you fail to use this format, your recommendation will go unnoticed.*

*Title of Film* (Font size 4, Bold font type).


Detailed, written review of the film's PQ.

*Tier Recommendation* (Font size 4, Bold Font type).


Screen size, resolution, and viewing distance.


And that's it!


If you are citing a problem with a films' Tier placement, please provide timings when possible so they can be viewed and discussed by other members.


You are welcome to include your equipment and viewing distance info in your signature if you like. To my knowledge it doesn't violate the forum signature rules.

************


----------



## Hughmc

Yes, absolutely LB and I think you two did a great job. Don't mind me sitting back and "watching" while some of you make positive changes. I have my own business and it is nice sitting back and seeing others make changes and take the lead. You and rsbeck already hammered the nail in. I just am stating the obvious and saying well done.


There is one thing I will relate to this thread in terms of my business. When I have been too wishy washy with employees and too easy going, they start to tell me how I should run things. I am always open to positive suggestions, but there is a difference between suggesting and trying to take control of someone else's business which my apathy at times has allowed. It wasn't their fault. I set the precedence and standard so they challenged it. I LET them take control or gave them a false sense that running things differently than I do was open to debate and action.










rsbeck you have really been instrumental in taking the time and effort to make this thread better with positive changes and I commend you for it.










Thanks,


Hugh


----------



## Hughmc

I like either, but sometimes less is more and that is coming from a "book writer" blogging mentality.







Less confusing and intimidating.

1.6 looks very clean and to the point.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Thanks Hugh










Yeah I don't care which one goes as long as one does.


----------



## Hughmc

Just remember to cut us "regulars" as well as newbies some slack for a few if we f it up.







Constant positive reminders will help everyone adjust and if they don't tell em to..., nah just kidding.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15731306
> 
> 
> With 1.6, the idea is to get people using the format and then we politely suggest that they use "4" size lettering. Let 'em start simple, then we make the suggestion. So, bold is a requirement, "4" size would be a suggestion we would make and then if the person needs help like I did in "4" size, we can explain how to create "4" size.



Might as well do both now rather than having to make another change/requirement later on.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

1.7, I think we have a winner









************

*PLEASE READ AND FOLLOW THE FOLLOWING BEFORE POSTING COMMENTS ABOUT A MOVIE'S TIER:*


We always strive to honor user feedback and listen to people's viewpoints on Tier placement before settling differences in opinion. In order to make this process easier we require certain information to be included in your posts in the following format:

*WARNING: If you fail to use this format, your recommendation will go unnoticed.*

*Title of Film* (Font size 4, Bold font type).


Detailed, written review of the film's PQ.

*Tier Recommendation* (Font size 4, Bold Font type).


Screen size, resolution, and viewing distance.


If you are citing a problem with a films' Tier placement, please be as specific as possible so they can be viewed and discussed by other members.

************


----------



## Hughmc

Time to watch Lakeview Terrace. I will have that and Mirrors to recommend with the "new" format. LT maybe the first movie in over a week I have seen that is above 20% on RT. Lots of craptastic movies out there.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

how about instead of "your recommendation *will* go unnoticed" it be "your recommendation *may* go unnoticed"?



rsbeck -- in your roundup list, are you putting everything recently in there? just curious b/c the bourne identity & supremacy aren't on it, and 2 of us have offered recc's for those at this point I think (possibly one more).


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15731372
> 
> 
> 
> rsbeck -- in your roundup list, are you putting everything recently in there? just curious b/c the bourne identity & supremacy aren't on it, and 2 of us have offered recc's for those at this point I think (possibly one more).



Just requests for movement or responses that say don't move. Super Slow will be collecting reviews, so he'll get those.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15731372
> 
> 
> how about instead of "your recommendation *will* go unnoticed" it be "your recommendation *may* go unnoticed"?
> 
> 
> 
> rsbeck -- in your roundup list, are you putting everything recently in there? just curious b/c the bourne identity & supremacy aren't on it, and 2 of us have offered recc's for those at this point I think (possibly one more).



I think they discussed that already and figured if we say may then some may not care and just let however they post go. We do want them all counted and acknowledged and standardizing affords that method. Using will "forces" those who care to be more diligent and involved as well as puts us all on an even playing field. Well all except you GGG.







Kidding again of course.


We want contributors to do what the thread asks and wants not what individuals want. If I am off base or out of line please let me know.


----------



## rsbeck

You are not only on base, you are rounding third and heading for home, bay-bay!


----------



## rsbeck

Hughmc will touch 'em all.


----------



## deltasun

*Youth Without Youth*


Finally got around to watching this. Being a late reviewer, I have gone through the ups and downs of the excitement around this picture. Selimsivad really excited me and the rest brought me back to reality. So, I had high expectations but wanted to be grounded as I hit the Play button.


The picture, overall, definitely sets this title in Tier 0. The question is...where? I have to say, the blacks did not cut it for me on this one, save for the last 10 minutes when Dominic was reunited with his friends. Prior to that, I noticed contrast issues in the doctor's office at the 41min mark, for example. The blue hues and some of the sepia hues really made it difficult to judge the blacks. Director's intent? Sure, but less eye candy.


The scene prior Dominic getting struck by lightning - wow, 3D pop! Dominic standing over Veronica in bed (1:42 mark) - pristine. At other times, there would be an inconsistency within the same minute (1:32 mark) - scene with Dominic and Veronica by the window. These inconsistencies are few and far between (and really just a result of nitpicking).


I don't have to talk about pores or strands of hair or texture of cloth - those are all present and do not disappoint. This has become standard and expected.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0, above The Host*


ln46a650, 1080p/24, 8'


----------



## rsbeck

Delta -- Nice formatting!!!


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Look at that perfect format!


Nice review too, delta.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

LOL @ us getting all excited over delta's format.


Christ we're nerds beck


----------



## rsbeck

But, in a good way, right?


----------



## deltasun

Thanks! I think you guys have done a good job making this thread credible and, of course, useful.


----------



## rsbeck

Warm up the coco!


----------



## patrick99

You can add me to "don't move" on *LFODH*.


And also add me to the group on *Speed Racer* at 1.0.


----------



## stumlad

And while we're at it: Apocalypto: Mid Tier 0.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15731863
> 
> 
> You can add me to "don't move" on *LFODH*.
> 
> 
> And also add me to the group on *Speed Racer* at 1.0.



Add me to this list as well.


I know Speed Racer is one of those "controversial" titles, but I think Tier 1 is an accurate placement for this title. LOTS of eye candy in this one to be sure, but there are definitely issues with this title that keep it out of Tier 0 imo, largely due to lack of detail and clarity in the actors faces.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15733159
> 
> 
> Add me to this list as well.
> 
> 
> I know Speed Racer is one of those "controversial" titles, but I think Tier 1 is an accurate placement for this title. LOTS of eye candy in this one to be sure, but there are definitely issues with this title that keep it out of Tier 0 imo, largely due to lack of detail and clarity in the actors faces.



Kind of like Prince Caspian


----------



## stumlad

Have any of you checked out, or rated, the original Hulk movie with Eric Bana?


Someone posted screenshots in post 580: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post15724082 you probably have to wait for them to load. I saw it a long time ago on HD DVD and was very impressed with the PQ thought the Hulk Cgi was a bit "soft".


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15733645
> 
> 
> Have any of you checked out, or rated, the original Hulk movie with Eric Bana?
> 
> 
> Someone posted screenshots in post 580: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post15724082 you probably have to wait for them to load. I saw it a long time ago on HD DVD and was very impressed with the PQ thought the Hulk Cgi was a bit "soft".



I too was very impressed with the HD DVD version of the original Hulk. IMO it would be in Tier 0 (even with the soft CGI) if it were a Blu-ray transfer.


I've been "out of the loop" the last several days, but I wanted to say I like the new, required format for reviews. I'll be watching a few Blu-rays the next couple of days (starting with YWY) and I'll try to remember to adhere to this format when posting my reviews.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15732501
> 
> 
> And while we're at it: Apocalypto: Mid Tier 0.



I was just about to make a similar suggestion. Saw the BR a couple of weeks ago, and aside from the first 40 minutes (which could still be low Tier 0), the rest of the over 2-hour movie is visually superb. You can pause the scene where the "head of security" guy looks down over the waterfalls, walk up to the screen, and it's a photograph. Crystal clear.


I would vote for mid-Tier 0 as well.

_ln46a650, 1080p/24, 8' (sometimes 2"







)_


----------



## rsbeck

IMO, tier 0 titles should be cream of the crop demo titles.


I keep reading the term eye-candy and I think we all know what we mean when we use the term, but IMO, tier 0 isn't just for titles that are eye candy for whatever reason, IMO, these are the 10 or so titles where someone builds a new home theater and wants to know the ultimate demo discs.


Along those lines, this is especially why I am opposed to Crank in tier 0. Yes, Crank has its visual appeal, but as a demo, you put in Crank and someone is going to think your display has lousy contrast. So, IMO, it may be fun to watch, but in no way is it ultimate demo material.


IMO, we have way too many titles in tier 0 and I am glad we are bringing some of them down. IMO, we should really agonize over putting a title in 0. MIght even be a good idea to vote a title out of 0 before voting a new one in.


Regarding animated titles -- are all of those in tier 0 ultimate? If not, let's move a few of them down. This will leave the ultimate ones in 0. If we have a better title to offer for 0, then the lesser one should move down. Surf's up? Happy Feet? Sleeping Beauty? Do these hang with Cars, Panda? Ratatouille, Wall-E? If not, let's move 'em to the gold tier.


Gold is still a demo tier, still an eye-candy tier.


I also believe we have better titles to recommend than Apocalypto. So, I would be against moving it up. I think 1.0 is fine for this title. Still a very high ranking.


My two cents.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15734521
> 
> 
> IMO, tier 0 titles should be cream of the crop demo titles.
> 
> 
> I keep reading the term eye-candy and I think we all know what we mean when we use the term, but IMO, tier 0 isn't just for titles that are eye candy for whatever reason, IMO, these are the 10 or so titles where someone builds a new home theater and wants to know the ultimate demo discs.
> 
> 
> Along those lines, this is especially why I am opposed to Crank in tier 0. Yes, Crank has its visual appeal, but as a demo, you put in Crank and someone is going to think your display has lousy contrast. So, IMO, it may be fun to watch, but in no way is it ultimate demo material.
> 
> 
> IMO, we have way too many titles in tier 0 and I am glad we are bringing some of them down. IMO, we should really agonize over putting a title in 0. MIght even be a good idea to vote a title out of 0 before voting a new one in.
> 
> 
> Regarding animated titles -- are all of those in tier 0 ultimate? If not, let's move a few of them down. This will leave the ultimate ones in 0. If we have a better title to offer for 0, then the lesser one should move down. Surf's up? Happy Feet? Sleeping Beauty? Do these hang with Cars, Panda? Ratatouille, Wall-E? If not, let's move 'em to the gold tier.
> 
> 
> Gold is still a demo tier, still an eye-candy tier.
> 
> 
> I also believe we have better titles to recommend than Apocalypto. So, I would be against moving it up. I think 1.0 is fine for this title. Still a very high ranking.
> 
> 
> My two cents.



As a matter of thread history, there was at some point a move of the dividing line between Tier 0 and Tier 1 which had the effect of moving certain titles from Tier 1 to Tier 0. I am mentioning this only as a matter of information, not as support for any particular position. Perhaps others can provide more information on that particular piece of thread history.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15734855
> 
> 
> As a matter of thread history, there was at some point a move of the dividing line between Tier 0 and Tier 1 which had the effect of moving certain titles from Tier 1 to Tier 0. I am mentioning this only as a matter of information, not as support for any particular position. Perhaps others can provide more information on that particular piece of thread history.



Interesting point because my most recent thoughts were inspired by some messages I read in the archives. My reading of the discussion was that tier 0 was created in order to take the ten or so best titles from the gold tier to make a reference section. That's also where I got the idea that we might vote a title out of blu before voting a new one in. It was part of that discussion.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15734324
> 
> 
> I fear our tier 0 clean-up is going to hit a snag if we start replacing tier 0 titles with tier 1.0 titles. Can we please leave Apocalypto in tier 1.0?



I also vote for keeping Apocalypto in Tier 1.0. The first 30 minutes do NOT, IMO, have Tier 0 quality and that's too much time in one movie to call it Tier Blu.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15735113
> 
> 
> I also vote for keeping Apocalypto in Tier 1.0. The first 30 minutes do NOT, IMO, have Tier 0 quality and that's too much time in one movie to call it Tier Blu.



Exactly my problem with Apocalypto and my problem with Mongol as well. You shouldn't have to wait 30 or 40 minutes into the feature before your ultimate demo starts.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15735168
> 
> 
> Exactly my problem with Apocalypto and my problem with Mongol as well. You shouldn't have to wait 30 or 40 minutes into the feature before your ultimate demo starts.



I dont understand how some of you can support Die Hard 4 when it has the same problem. And to add to that, when Apocalypto is at its best, it is a STEP UP from Die Hard 4 at its peak. To me, this averages out to Tier 0.

http://www.cinemasquid.com/MovieImages.aspx?MovieId=2 Look at these images which are taken from the movie at all points. Are any of them lacking detail?


But I second you on Tier 1 for Sleeping Beauty. The animated characters (by themselves) are soft.



Oh -- and one more thing.. I would have no problem at all making Tier 0 a smaller list and moving more to Tier 1. Or even cutting Tier 0 in half and putting some of the ones that have "small" problems in lower tier 0.


----------



## rsbeck

Apocalypto -- if you have to average it out -- that sounds like the description of gold tier.


Disagree that Die Hard four has similar problem.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15735347
> 
> 
> But I second you on Tier 1 for Sleeping Beauty. The animated characters (by themselves) are soft.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh -- and one more thing.. I would have no problem at all making Tier 0 a smaller list and moving more to Tier 1. Or even cutting Tier 0 in half and putting some of the ones that have "small" problems in lower tier 0.



Put me down too for Sleeping Beauty in Tier 1....and I would also like to see Tier 0 smaller with only the "very best of the very best" in that tier.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15735397
> 
> 
> It's not like we're desperate for titles in tier 0 and gold tier is a very high ranking.



Which is why there should be no problem putting Caspian or Die Hard 4 there


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15735583
> 
> 
> Which is why there should be no problem putting Caspian or Die Hard 4 there



Die Hard 4 is already on the list, I'll add Caspian.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I would have a serious problem with moving Sleeping Beauty out of tier zero. That transfer and image is the pinnacle of traditional cel animation on Blu-ray. I think Apocalypto should be at the absolute bottom of tier zero. Parts of that movie look as good as anything released on the format so far. The weak moments are really no better than a low tier one caliber picture, but in this case I think a weighing of both positive and negative attributes leads to a final score either at the bottom of tier zero or the very top of tier one.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15735583
> 
> 
> Which is why there should be no problem putting Caspian or Die Hard 4 there



Whoa! You can't be serious about Caspian!







I still think it deserves at least a middle of Tier 0 placement.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15735697
> 
> 
> I would have a serious problem with moving Sleeping Beauty out of tier zero. That transfer and image is the pinnacle of traditional cel animation on Blu-ray. I think Apocalypto should be at the absolute bottom of tier zero. Parts of that movie look as good as anything released on the format so far. The weak moments are really no better than a low tier one caliber picture, but in this case I think a weighing of both positive and negative attributes leads to a final score either at the bottom of tier zero or the very top of tier one.



What happened to Tier 6.31749?? Are you changing your mind










As for Apoc ... That's my problem. When it is at its best, it makes me question how other titles can be in Tier 0 which never reach the level of it - even though they may be more consistent. Does that mean those other titles don't belong in Tier 0? I know it's an "average", but if Die Hard 4 or (some other title) never looks as good as Apocalypto for its last 1 hr 20 minutes, do they really belong in Tier 0 at all?


I'd be in support for moving Apoc in 1.0 IF we did what rsbeck suggested and shrink Tier 0 to only the absolute best.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15735697
> 
> 
> I would have a serious problem with moving Sleeping Beauty out of tier zero. That transfer and image is the pinnacle of traditional cel animation on Blu-ray.



That sounds like we're making a special category. It may be the pinnacle of cel animation, but is it an ultimate demo disc? I don't see how it fits into that category. Can you speak specifically to that?


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15735744
> 
> 
> Whoa! You can't be serious about Caspian!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I still think it deserves at least a middle of Tier 0 placement.



Please tell me why the kids' faces show very little texture? This is the same complaint people have about Speed Racer


(edit: I changed "no texture" to "very little"... Caspian does not have the Tier 0 face shots like every other Tier 0 .... except for Speed Racer which is being moved to tier 1)


----------



## Obi-UWS




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15735783
> 
> 
> That sounds like we're making a special category. It may be the pinnacle of cel animation, but is it an ultimate demo disc? I don't see how it fits into that category. Can you speak specifically to that?



Hey I think you found the Catch 22.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15735775
> 
> 
> Does that mean those other titles don't belong in Tier 0?



Quite possibly -- no title is sacred -- which ones do you think should be pulled down?



> Quote:
> I know it's an "average", but if Die Hard 4 or (some other title) never looks as good as Apocalypto for its last 1 hr 20 minutes, do they really belong in Tier 0 at all?



This doesn't address Apocalypto's problem. I only watched the first 20 minutes of Apocalypto. How do you tell someone, "this is an aultimate demo disc, but skip the first twenty minutes because those are noot very impressive?" Or, if you recommend Apocalypto and someone comes back and says, "I went to use Apocalypto, but my guests were not impressed with it so I took it out after twenty minutes." Are we going to answer, "well, you just didn't wait long enough?"


These should be our best recommendations.


And -- yes -- a title that is more consistent is way easier to watch than one that is inconsistent.



> Quote:
> I'd be in support for moving Apoc in 1.0 IF we did what rsbeck suggested and shrink Tier 0 to only the absolute best.



Let's put our effort into doing that! I've pulled some of my own pets down -- I hope others will follow suit.


Gold tier is not an insult.


I don't even think we should think of it as pulling a title down.


I believe we should think of them all as gold tier titles and then agonize over which ones should be moved up.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15735792
> 
> 
> Please tell me why the kids' faces show very little texture? This is the same complaint people have about Speed Racer



Both are on the list.



> Quote:
> (edit: I changed "no texture" to "very little"... Caspian does not have the Tier 0 face shots like every other Tier 0 .... except for Speed Racer which is being moved to tier 1)



You're presenting a legit argument for possibly bringing Caspian down -- I can support that more than trying to move a title with problems up.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15735879
> 
> 
> Quite possibly -- no title is sacred -- which ones do you think should be pulled down?



Depends on how picky we get







Everything but: I, Robot, Man on Fire, Pirates 2&3, and a couple of animations (KF Panda and Cars). Those are my real definition of Tier 0. When I see some of those other titles on there, I tend to think Tier 0 is *more lenient* which is why I suggest other titles for Tier 0.



> Quote:
> This doesn't address Apocalypto's problem. I only watched the first 20 minutes of Apocalypto. How do you tell someone, "this is an aultimate demo disc, but skip the first twenty minutes because those are noot very impressive?" Or, if you recommend Apocalypto and someone comes back and says, "I went to use Apocalypto, but my guests were not impressed with it so I took it out after twenty minutes." Are we going to answer, "well, you just didn't wait long enough?"
> 
> 
> These should be our best recommendations.
> 
> 
> And -- yes -- a title that is more consistent is way easier to watch than one that is inconsistent.




You have a point, and I agree that the entire movie doesnt look as good as the last 1 hr 20 minutes, but what I'm saying is this: I believe if we are going to be extremely picky about Tier 0 titles, then movies that are currently in Tier 0 should be consistent but must just as good as Apocalypto does at its best....besides the few titles that I named above, none of them do (IMO of course







)


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15735976
> 
> 
> Depends on how picky we get
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I see some of those other titles on there, I tend to think Tier 0 is *more lenient* which is why I suggest other titles for Tier 0.



I hear you and I agree that this is a problem. This is why I want to get real duds like The Police and Elton John out of tier 0. How many times in the past month have I heard someone promote a title for tier 0 and say it should be above those titles? Of course they should -- because those are tier 2 quality titles. You keep some titles like that in tier 0 and it skews everything out of whack.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15735976
> 
> 
> Everything but: I, Robot, Man on Fire, Pirates 2&3, and a couple of animations (KF Panda and Cars). Those are my real definition of Tier 0.



I would love to see more people chime in with a short list like this.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15735347
> 
> 
> I dont understand how some of you can support Die Hard 4 when it has the same problem. And to add to that, when Apocalypto is at its best, it is a STEP UP from Die Hard 4 at its peak. To me, this averages out to Tier 0.
> 
> http://www.cinemasquid.com/MovieImages.aspx?MovieId=2 Look at these images which are taken from the movie at all points. Are any of them lacking detail?



I was just perusing through those Apocalypto captures the other day. Actually, the first 30 minutes aren't in that collection. The first (earliest) screen capture is when they encounter the other tribe who got attacked/displaced. This is just after the portion with "problems."


Also, if you look at the little girl's face (a bit further down). It's a bit soft.


I am in agreement with creating a creme de la creme. I was going to suggest a top 10 only tier, but that defeats the purpose and had to discard my post. I think we do have to clear out tier 0 a bit more. Just the fact that we don't maintain an sub-tier (0.25, 0.5, etc.) in Tier 0 makes this even more imperative. Tier 0 should only have the absolute best!


Here are a few I suggest we move down to Tier 1: Sleeping Beauty (there is no way this can compete with current PIXAR type animation - just in shading alone, it is lacking); Black Pearl, World's End, Kill Bill 1 & 2, The Incredible Hulk, Black Snake Moan, Hell Boy II, The Island.


I know these will create controversy, but I'm throwing them out there anyway.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Lost Boys: The Tribe*


recommendation: *Tier 4.5*


A direct-to-video sequel of the 80's horror movie from Warner, the Blu-ray was released on July 29th of 2008. The 93-minute main feature is encoded in VC-1 on a BD-25. The average video bitrate is 26.31 Mbps per the BDInfo scan. The video ranges between 18.8 Mbps to 44.9 Mbps, with much of the film staying in the low 30's. Warner confounds once again as this obscure movie gets one of the better compression encodes I have witnessed among their numerous releases. There are no visible compression-related problems and no signs of macroblocking at all. Considering how grainy the film appears, this is a welcome sight from Warner.


This Blu-ray appears to be a very faithful transfer of difficult material that is probably transparent to the master. Filmed using Super 35, the image appears extremely grainy, particularly in the darker scenes that make up a substantial portion of the movie. I will assume the low-budget origins of the production impacted the visual quality of these scenes. The image definitely does not show any of the signs of filtering or noise reduction that Warner has been accused of in the past. The grain structure looks completely natural and untouched. There is some moderate edge enhancement applied to the transfer. It really becomes noticeable later in the movie near the climatic battle.


Colors bleed a bit and the reds look oversaturated at times. Black levels are problematic in many scenes, with some exhibiting crushing and others looking blown out. Contrast varies from scene to scene depending on the setting and is somewhat poor. Daylight scenes demonstrate better facial detail and high-frequency information than one would expect, closer to a tier three ranking than the rest of the transfer. But softness is a common problem to many shots and a few shots show wavering focus. There is no sense of depth perception to the picture and in this area looks just a tiny bit better than dvd quality. It is apparent that the filmmakers struggled with properly lighting the darker scenes.


Warner appears to have delivered a Blu-ray that is probably as good a transfer as one could expect from this film, but one wonders why they chose it for a Blu-ray release. Fully lit scenes appear a little better than my final ranking, but the poor low light photography here kills any chance of this movie being a decent looking Blu-ray. I will recommend a placement in tier 4.5. It is currently ranked in tier 5 but does not really belong aside those wretched titles, as it is a clear step-up from that quality.


Watching on a 60 Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 (firmware 2.60) from a viewing distance of six feet.


BDInfo Scan:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=760714


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/15736155
> 
> 
> I know these will create controversy, but I'm throwing them out there anyway.



Please don't worry about creating controversy. You mentioned earlier that you were not impressed with Elton John -- I agree -- I see it as a tier 2 title at best. How far down would you move that one?


----------



## deltasun

I just briskly scanned all Tier 1 titles...


Since we're moving a bunch down, I agree with your Tier 2 placement. Again, only Elton himself is really "clear" in this concert. And even that is smoothened by make up, possibly.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15735783
> 
> 
> That sounds like we're making a special category. It may be the pinnacle of cel animation, but is it an ultimate demo disc? I don't see how it fits into that category. Can you speak specifically to that?



Yes, I consider Sleeping Beauty a demo disc. I agree the bar needs to be set high for traditional cel animation for the purposes of this thread but this Blu-ray is the bar setter. A technically flawless transfer of one of the best looking animated titles of all-time. The colors and fluidity of the image is truly stunning in certain moments. I think it deserves to be placed in the lower half of tier zero and I have no problems with its current placement. I honestly do not expect most of the classic Disney titles to end up this high in the tier list as Sleeping Beauty was a more mature work than many of the others.


I do think there are tier zero placements that should be revisited (Shoot'Em Up comes to mind), but Sleeping Beauty is not one of them.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/15736155
> 
> 
> I was just perusing through those Apocalypto captures the other day. Actually, the first 30 minutes aren't in that collection. The first (earliest) screen capture is when they encounter the other tribe who got attacked/displaced. This is just after the portion with "problems."
> 
> 
> Also, if you look at the little girl's face (a bit further down). It's a bit soft.



We of course can find soft faces on any screen capture! However, I agree that Apocalypto wouldn't be Tier 0 if the list were really selective, but I think, as rsbeck has suggested, it's too big... and I feel it's filled with too many titles that break the rules. It's hard to put into words, but if 3/4ths (or even 2/3rds) of Apocalypto (Tier 1) looks better than 9/10ths of some of the lower Tier 0 titles, shouldn't that suggest that those titles shouldnt really be Tier 0?



> Quote:
> I am in agreement with creating a creme de la creme. I was going to suggest a top 10 only tier, but that defeats the purpose and had to discard my post. I think we do have to clear out tier 0 a bit more. Just the fact that we don't maintain an sub-tier (0.25, 0.5, etc.) in Tier 0 makes this even more imperative. Tier 0 should only have the absolute best!



TRIM THE FAT !!







I agree



> Quote:
> Here are a few I suggest we move down to Tier 1: Sleeping Beauty (there is no way this can compete with current PIXAR type animation - just in shading alone, it is lacking); Black Pearl, World's End, Kill Bill 1 & 2, The Incredible Hulk, Black Snake Moan, Hell Boy II, The Island.
> 
> 
> I know these will create controversy, but I'm throwing them out there anyway.



Yup.. and we can throw out any version of Happy Feet (UK or US) or Surf's up , or at least half of the animations that just dont have the level of detail as the best of the best.


And +1 to Phantom For Shoot 'Em Up to be revisited. Perhaps even Doomsday and a few others. Though I don't agree with Sleeping Beauty (even though i was stunned at how awesome an animation from the 60s could look)


----------



## Obi-UWS

At this point I would like to recommend that we all take a break and watch a movie.

I needed a refresher and just watched a top Tier 0 disc *I Robot* and I'm glad I did. It reminded me of what belongs in this tier. The 3D aspect and a picture with colors that pop on the screen. The sharp detail down to the red trim on Will Smith's jacket. the deep blacks, wonderful skin tones. Not everything in Tier 0 measures up to this one (IMO).

Sorry if that sounds like a rant.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Obi-UWS* /forum/post/15736374
> 
> 
> At this point I would like to recommend that we all take a break and watch a movie.
> 
> I needed a refresher and just watched a top Tier 0 disc *I Robot* and I'm glad I did. It reminded me of what belongs in this tier. The 3D aspect and a picture with colors that pop on the screen. The sharp detail down to the red trim on Will Smith's jacket. the deep blacks, wonderful skin tones. Not everything in Tier 0 measures up to this one (IMO).
> 
> Sorry if that sounds like a rant.



One thing I'd like to point out is that most of us are just debating.. it may seem like a heated argument, but it's not.... at least not on my end


----------



## Obi-UWS




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15736419
> 
> 
> One thing I'd like to point out is that most of us are just debating.. it may seem like a heated argument, but it's not.... at least not on my end



Did not mean anything other than saying a periodic reminder of Tier 0 to ourselves could be a help. Carry on.


----------



## deltasun

How about we start with this...


Let's all list our top 10 from Tier 0. The ones that appear in *every* list stays and is not messed with again. The others (appearing the most) we can further discuss and take votes.


This wouldn't be "polling" because those titles have already been voted to Tier 0 at some point prior.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Obi-UWS* /forum/post/15736470
> 
> 
> Did not mean anything other than saying a periodic reminder of Tier 0 to ourselves could be a help. Carry on.



Yes. Very good point. I, Robot is no doubt Tier 0


----------



## djoberg

^


I just noticed your new list...please put me down for middle of tier 0 for Prince Caspian.


----------



## 42041

I don't think I've officially ranked *Transformers* yet...


I watched this movie again a few days ago, and even having seen titles like I, Robot and POTC2 and 3, I still think a good portion of this movie is firmly in Tier 0. While I can see what some people say about problematic scenes, I think ultimately the test is, if you were going to reach for a disc to show off your home theater, which one would you pick? Transformers would absolutely be in my top 3 choices, so I have to disagree with its current placement.
*low Tier 0*


(PS3/Pioneer 9g Elite 50" plasma/1SW away)


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15736638
> 
> 
> I don't think I've officially ranked *Transformers* yet...
> 
> 
> I watched this movie again a few days ago, and even having seen titles like I, Robot and POTC2 and 3, I still think a good portion of this movie is firmly in Tier 0. While I can see what some people say about problematic scenes, I think ultimately the test is, if you were going to reach for a disc to show off your home theater, which one would you pick? Transformers would absolutely be in my top 3 choices, so I have to disagree with its current placement.
> *low Tier 0*
> 
> 
> (PS3/Pioneer 9g Elite 50" plasma/1SW away)



I agree with this recommendation. I watched *Transformers* a lot when I was considering what new LCD model to purchase, since this was the title that was playing at the Sony stores on the models I was considering, and then I watched it a number of additional times recently after getting my new LCD. So I have a lot of recent watching experience with this title, and I agree that it belongs in Tier 0.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15736614
> 
> 
> ^
> 
> 
> I just noticed your new list...please put me down for middle of tier 0 for Prince Caspian.



You don't agree that the children's faces show very little detail compared to what we've become accustomed to in Tier 0?


Edit: Figured I'd throw this in: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...hlight=caspian This is xylon's thread comparison between DVD and blu-ray. The blu-ray blows the dvd away, no questions.. but I don't see face details like I see in other Tier 0 titles. I'm making my case why I don't believe it's Tier 0, now I'd like to hear everyones arguments why I'm wrong.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15736934
> 
> 
> You don't agree that the children's faces show very little detail compared to what we've become accustomed to in Tier 0?



That's because they're action figures.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15736934
> 
> 
> You don't agree that the children's faces show very little detail compared to what we've become accustomed to in Tier 0?
> 
> 
> Edit: Figured I'd throw this in: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...hlight=caspian This is xylon's thread comparison between DVD and blu-ray. The blu-ray blows the dvd away, no questions.. but I don't see face details like I see in other Tier 0 titles. I'm making my case why I don't believe it's Tier 0, now I'd like to hear everyones arguments why I'm wrong.



The reason why Prince Caspian qualifies for Tier 0 is quite simple...aside from a few facials lacking detail the transfer is superb in every way!! Putting it another way....the virtues/flaws ratio demands Tier 0, for the title abounds in virtues of every king (natural & vivid colors, excellent contrast, inky blacks, bright whites, plenty of 3D pop, and consistent sharpness and detail) while the flaws are limited to the lack of detail in a few facial shots. I know there are MANY others who agree with this assessment and I trust they will chime in in support of keeping PC in Tier 0.


I am halfway through Youth Without Youth right now (I'm taking an needful break to sort through some of what I've watched thus far)....I am VERY impressed with this title and I'll give a short review as soon as the credits roll.


----------



## SuprSlow

Working on an update, peoples










I'll be out of the office all day tomorrow, so don't expect anything noteworthy. Friday is my goal.


----------



## rsbeck

*Support For Moviement* Last updated: Feb. 6, 1:07AM PST.



*Youth Without Youth*...Above I, Robot (selimsivad)...Below I, Robot (Coxwell)...Mid 0 (Phantom Stranger, deltasun, Djoberg)...Bottom tier 0 (rsbeck, Rob Tomlin, Geekyglassesgirl)

*The Visitor*...1.5 (zinfamous)...2.0 (rsbeck)

*Pirates of the Caribbean - AWE*...Bottom Tier 0 (lgans316)...Don't move (Rob Tomlin, Djoberg, Hughmc, Phantom Stranger, OldCodger73, Stumlad)...1.0 (deltasun)...1.25 (tfoltz)

*Pirates of the Caribbean: CotBP*...Bottom of Tier 0 (lgans316, Phantom Stranger)...Don't move (Rob Tomlin, Djoberg, Hughmc, OldCodger73, Stumlad)...1.0 (deltasun)

*Prison Break: Season One*...1.25 (Stumlad)...1.5 (42041)

*Beowulf*...1.0 (lgans316, suffolk112000)

*TMNT*...1.0 (lgans316)

*The Host*...0, Just above Live Free or Die Hard (deltasun, Rob Tomlin)...1.0 (lgans316)

*Hellboy II: The Golden Army*...1.0 (deltasun)...1.75 (lgans316, patrick99)

*The Island*...1.0 (lgans316, Phantom Stranger, deltasun)

*Happy Feet*...1.0 (rsbeck, stumlad)...Identical encodes. Place above or below the UK Import (lgans316)

*Surf's Up*...1.5 (rsbeck, Stumlad)

*Kill Bill: 1*...1.0 (deltasun, selimsivad)

*Kill Bill: 2*...Above or Below Speed Racer in Tier 0 (lgans316, Phantom Stranger)...1.0 (deltasun)

*Black Snake Moan*...1.0 (deltasun)...1.5 (obi-UWS)...1.75 (Rob Tomlin, rsbeck, selimsivad)

*Crank*...Upper half 0 (HT.1)...Bottom tier 0 (H.Cornerstone, Hughmc)...1.0 (Incindium, Rob Tomlin, Stumlad)...1.50 (rsbeck)...2.0 (Foxy Mulder)

*Incredible Hulk*...Higher tier 0 (LBFilmguy)...1.0 (rsbeck, Stumlad, deltasun)...1.25 (Phantom Stranger, selimsivad, RBFC, Patrick99, Hughmc, Djoberg, Rob Tomlin)

*Lion, Witch, Wardobe*...1.50 (Incindium, RFBC, Djoberg, Patrick99, rsbeck)

*Iron Man*...1.75 (tfoltz, Incindium, Phantom Stranger, RFBC, rsbeck, Rob Tomlin, Djoberg, Patrick99, selimsivad, lgans316, Stumlad)

*Shine a Light*...1.75 (Patrick99, RFBC, rsbeck)

*Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds*...2.0 (RFBC, rsbeck, Rob Tomlin)

*The Police: Certifiable*...2.5 (Patrick99, rsbeck)

*Zodiac*...1.0 (Phantom Stranger)...1.25 (Igans316)...1.75 (Patrick, selimsivad, rsbeck, Rob Tomlin)

*Mongol*...1.0 (djoberg)...1.5 (rsbeck)

*Eagle Eye*...1.25 (patrick99)...1.50 (obi-UWS, Stumlad)...1.75 (djoberg)...2.0 (Hughmc)

*Live Free or Die Hard*...1.0 (LBFilmguy)...don't move (rsbeck, deltasun, babrown92, Rob Tomlin, Phantom Stranger, OldCodger73, Ptrick99)

*Godfather*...3.0 (LBFilmguy)

*Blood Diamond*...2.0 (LBFilmguy)

*Get Smart*...2.75 (LBFilmguy)

*Elton John 60th*...2.0 (deltasun)...2.5 (rsbeck)

*Speed Racer*...Higher (Selimsivad)...1.0 (geekyglassesgirl, Hughmc, rsbeck, patrick99, Rob Tomlin)

*Sleeping Beauty*...Lower tier 0 (Phantom Stranger, Geekyglassesgirl, Rob Tomlin)...1.0 (Djoberg)...1.25 (stumlad)...1.5 (rsbeck, deltasun)

*Lost: Season 4*....1.5 (42041)


----------



## rsbeck

The current period has ended. I'll start a new list beginning with this post.

************************************************************* **************


----------



## rsbeck

If anyone wants to me to add something to that list, let me know. If there is something you'd like to see on a new list, likewise. When we find out what changes are made due to the current list, we can see if we need to carry some of these items forward.


----------



## rsbeck

I've always liked Transformers, but it has been awhile since I've seen it. I know that when I first joined to thread and didn't see it on the reference list, I was surprised. If I recall correctly, it was punished for what appeared to be noise in a couple of brief low-light scenes. I'd like to revisit that one before I weigh in.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15709063
> 
> 
> Outside of the facial and hair detail, what do you feel about BSM is reference?




*Black Snake Moan*


Just watched again. You were right! Facial features and pores presented here are above average, but backrounds and outdoor scenes are lacking Tier 0 standards. Lots of pop and color at times, but I noticed strands of hair were not as detailed as other Tier 0 titles.


This only demonstrates that PQ is getting better as the Blu Ray format ages, which is always a good thing!











*Black Snake Moan

Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.75

PS3-Samsung 46" 1080p-seven*'


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15733159
> 
> 
> 
> I know Speed Racer is one of those "controversial" titles, but I think Tier 1 is an accurate placement for this title. LOTS of eye candy in this one to be sure, but there are definitely issues with this title that keep it out of Tier 0 imo, largely due to lack of detail and clarity in the actors faces.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15737766
> 
> 
> If anyone wants to me to add something to that list, let me know. If there is something you'd like to see on a new list, likewise. When we find out what changes are made due to the current list, we can see if we need to carry some of these items forward.



Speed Racer is too low as it is.


Everyone always mentions the faces. We all know they were intentionally airbrushed for that un-aged, cartoon look. I could understand if faces were soft, but they're not. In fact, you can clearly see acne on Speed's face covered by his makeup!


Also, if Chim Chim's face was soft, I would agree. But his face is very detailed, down to the hair on his head!


Think of it as a live action cartoon. Cartoon faces lack pores and detail.


Speed Racer is the ultimate eye candy. The true star is the animation anyway! Tell me it isn't Tier 0 animation! My LCD has never demonstrated color so vividly!

*Speed Racer belongs in the top quarter of Tier 0!*


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

i recently loaned out transformers, but when i get it back i will review it. I love that movie, but haven't watched it on the plasma yet. About to fire up Iron Man in the next hour or so, once I calm the daughter down.


I'm with Phantom Stranger on Sleeping Beauty staying tier 0, for the same reasons he already stated. Also in the camp of wanting Caspian to stay in tier 0. Frankly I haven't seen Pirates movies in a long time, and i actually disliked them so unless I can find a friend who owns them already I can't justify spending $21 to rent them ($7 per title for rentals for me up here, for one day!!!).



i know this one is a bad one to talk about, but I want Wall E to remain in tier 0 as well.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15737833
> 
> *Black Snake Moan*
> 
> 
> Just watched again. You were right! Facial features and pores presented here are above average, but backrounds and outdoor scenes are lacking Tier 0 standards. Lots of pop and color at times, but I noticed strands of hair were not as detailed as other Tier 0 titles.
> 
> 
> This only demonstrates that PQ is getting better as the Blu Ray format ages, which is always a good thing!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Black Snake Moan
> 
> Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.75
> 
> PS3-Samsung 46" 1080p-seven*'



As you know, I agree completely. When I revisited it, I was as surprised as you are, but like you, I chalk it up to quality getting better and better.


----------



## selimsivad

Apocalypto- bottom of Tier 0

Kill Bill Vol. 1- Tier 1.00

King Kong- Tier 1.25 (I previously recommended Tier 0)

Transformers- bottom of Tier 0


Peace.


----------



## Obi-UWS




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15737833
> 
> *Black Snake Moan*
> 
> 
> Just watched again. You were right! Facial features and pores presented here are above average, but backrounds and outdoor scenes are lacking Tier 0 standards. Lots of pop and color at times, but I noticed strands of hair were not as detailed as other Tier 0 titles.
> 
> 
> This only demonstrates that PQ is getting better as the Blu Ray format ages, which is always a good thing!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Black Snake Moan
> 
> Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.75
> 
> PS3-Samsung 46" 1080p-seven*'



I agree but would vote it *Tier 1.5*


----------



## LBFilmGuy

*IS OBAMA HERE?*










This thread is all about change lately, and I like it!










I am definitely IN for strengthening Tier 0 if that means moving a few titles down or ones that should be moved in, moved up.


----------



## selimsivad

Besides VERY minor night scenes, I never understood why Transformers wasn't in 0.









This title screams "demo!"


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15736300
> 
> 
> Yes, I consider Sleeping Beauty a demo disc. I agree the bar needs to be set high for traditional cel animation for the purposes of this thread but this Blu-ray is the bar setter. A technically flawless transfer of one of the best looking animated titles of all-time. The colors and fluidity of the image is truly stunning in certain moments. I think it deserves to be placed in the lower half of tier zero and I have no problems with its current placement. I honestly do not expect most of the classic Disney titles to end up this high in the tier list as Sleeping Beauty was a more mature work than many of the others.
> 
> 
> I do think there are tier zero placements that should be revisited (Shoot'Em Up comes to mind), but Sleeping Beauty is not one of them.



I agree with all of this. I acknowledge some issues with Sleeping Beauty in terms of a few out of focus shots, but they weren't numerous enough to take it out of Tier 0 in my opinion.


Shoot 'Em Up is a title that could definitely be revisited re whether it deserves it's Tier 0 status. Ironically, I am shipping my copy off today as I have sold it (couldn't stand the movie).


Regarding Apocalypto, I was one of the early reviewers of this title, and I didn't think it belonged in Tier 0 when I first reviewed it, so I certainly don't think it should be there now. Tier 1.0 is about right.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

i'm actually starting to get worried about all of what's going on right now in here.


rsbeck -- i reviewed sleeping beauty here and i stand behind my review, and the quote that rob tomlin posted above of phantom strangers.



i'm all for perhaps rewatching a bunch of the discs in tier 0 but this revamp that is going on now is a little nutso, and is throwing away all the opinions and reviews that people have made for these titles already. yes i do agree with looking through titles and updating the list, but perhaps it should be done at a slower pace rather than this free for all mess that's getting difficult to follow.



maybe pick 5 titles in tier 0 that people can get a chance to review throughout February. re-watch, or watch for the first time, and post new reviews about them, instead of just tossing out comments like "Yeah ok tier 0 is too high for Live Free or Die Hard" etc. Get comprehensive reviews for these titles again, especially the older ones that have been on the list for a long time that should be double-checked. but right now what's going on in here is difficult to follow.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

I agree G3.


Beck you need to calm down a little bit







If the majority of people want Sleeping Beauty in 0 then that's where it will be. That's the nature of this thread.


I want TDK to be in Tier 0, but it isn't. It is what it is.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15738504
> 
> 
> Of course -- every vote is being lodged. I've added their votes even though I may disagree with them. Check the list.



Yes I know, but you are coming on pretty strong about it.


Just take a deep breath.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Carry on then dude.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

i'm not wanting to be timid. i think you should know that much about me by now. of course you can challenge whatever you want to challenge, rsbeck, but heck my review of sleeping beauty is from the end of december, shortly after phantom stranger watched it and reviewed it. it's not as if it's been a glaring thumb on the pq list for months and months. it's a fairly recent release that's had it's reviews done and put on the list. you want to go through and re-review things that have been on the list for a year, i fully support that, especially with the evolution of blu-ray in the last year. i'm a mellow sort, and this is feeling lightning quick to me.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

deleting this b/c i'm being a jerk.


----------



## djoberg

*Youth Without Youth*


I actually wished I had been one of the first members to review this title, because I would love to give you all a long and detailed review on this exceptional movie. But since there have been no less than 6 long and detailed reviews, I am simply going to refer to a few highlights.


Ninety five percent of this title is clearly Demo material, with detail that rivals the best scenes in Baraka and with depth (i.e., 3D pop) that is off the charts in a few select scenes. One of the best scenes for depth was at the 22:52 mark (lasting about 20 seconds) where Tim Roth is leaving the hospital...it is _stunning_!! One of the best scenes for detail was at the 40:14 mark with Tim Roth and the doctor on the terrace; every object was detailed but the doctor's face and forehead was simply astounding, with the natural sunlight revealing absolutely every detail along with his healthy-looking tan. I could list other virtues that excel in this movie, but previous reviewers succeeded quite well so I won't be redundant.


The AQ was also noteworthy in a few scenes, especially the very opening scene (the first 1 min. 30 seconds) showcasing timepieces. What an extravaganza for any decent surround sound system!! This was a dialogue-driven movie and I was impressed with the clarity in the center channel.


The movie itself: I descended from my philosophical perch convinced that Mr. Coppola himself will have to enlighten me as to the obscure meanings of this film, but there was enough "food for thought" on the surface to cause one to reflect on basic questions of life, aging, death, etc. I really try NOT to take films like this too seriously, realizing that this is only one man's view of life from his limited vantage point. It was, above all, a drama with interesting characters, and enough romance and mystery to justify at least a rental, if not a purchase (but as Phantom said "it will not be for everyone's taste").

*Tier Recommendation: Middle of Tier 0*


Viewed on Samsung 50" 1080p DLP with a Panasonic BD30 from 7'


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15738312
> 
> 
> What are the reasons for putting Sleeping Beauty _in_ tier 0.
> 
> 
> How is this a demonstration disc? What aspects of PQ according to our criteria are we demonstrating?



Feel free to take a look at my review.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15738923
> 
> 
> Feel free to take a look at my review.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15738815
> 
> *Youth Without Youth*
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> Ninety five percent of this title is clearly Demo material....



That would be the one area of your review that I would disagree with. I would put that figure closer to 75%. Still enough to put it in Tier 0 though, because the best scenes really are simply outstanding.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15738618
> 
> 
> i'm not wanting to be timid. i think you should know that much about me by now. of course you can challenge whatever you want to challenge, rsbeck, but heck my review of sleeping beauty is from the end of december, shortly after phantom stranger watched it and reviewed it. it's not as if it's been a glaring thumb on the pq list for months and months. it's a fairly recent release that's had it's reviews done and put on the list. you want to go through and re-review things that have been on the list for a year, i fully support that, especially with the evolution of blu-ray in the last year. i'm a mellow sort, and this is feeling lightning quick to me.



I do think we really need to be careful in doing this. I agree with the sentiment, and I am sure that others do as well, that this may be moving a bit quickly.


We need to make sure that any titles that are being re-assessed are given full discussion and allowed enough time for everyone to weigh in.


This can really be difficult. How many people who voted for a titles placement when it was originally placed still post in this thread, or will bother speaking up again? Also, (and I may be guilty of this myself) when titles come up for re-evaluation/movement, how many of us actually re-watch that title? I will do this on occasion, but not always. Are we being fair and accurate when we do this?


It is virtually impossible to re-evaluate every title that we have already voted on in the past by actually viewing it again. Memory sucks, especially when it comes to things like PQ. I think there is a lot to be said for first impressions.


I guess one point I am trying to make is this: we have rsbeck doing a great job of summarizing _recent_ discussion of titles and possible movement, but these don't take into account the original votes. So, for example, lets say that there were originally 13 votes for Shoot Em Up being in Tier 0. We have a discussion about re-evaluating this placement, where 3 or 4 people say it should be Tier 1.25. Is it really fair to move it to Tier 1.25 on this basis?


Just throwing this out there for consideration.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15738815
> 
> 
> 
> Ninety five percent of this title is clearly Demo material, with detail that rivals the best scenes in Baraka and with depth (i.e., 3D pop) that is off the charts in a few select scenes.



I'm gonna have to disagree as well. I saw about 95.1%.










> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15738815
> 
> 
> 
> I actually wished I had been one of the first members to review this title, because I would love to give you all a long and detailed review on this exceptional movie.



This statement I do agree with!


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rob tomlin* /forum/post/15739072
> 
> 
> 
> i guess one point i am trying to make is this: We have rsbeck doing a great job of summarizing _recent_ discussion of titles and possible movement, but these don't take into account the original votes. So, for example, lets say that there were originally 13 votes for shoot em up being in tier 0. We have a discussion about re-evaluating this placement, where 3 or 4 people say it should be tier 1.25. Is it really fair to move it to tier 1.25 on this basis?
> 
> 
> Just throwing this out there for consideration.



+1


----------



## James A. McGahee

Originally Posted by rob tomlin


i guess one point i am trying to make is this: We have rsbeck doing a great job of summarizing recent discussion of titles and possible movement, but these don't take into account the original votes. So, for example, lets say that there were originally 13 votes for shoot em up being in tier 0. We have a discussion about re-evaluating this placement, where 3 or 4 people say it should be tier 1.25. Is it really fair to move it to tier 1.25 on this basis?


Just throwing this out there for consideration.


+1 again


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15739123
> 
> 
> Would those 13 people still vote the same way if they were to watch all of the recent releases and reassess? We'll never know. So, we count on those who are here now to do their best assessing. That's the way I look at it. I have gone back and reassessed many of these titles we are discussing and some I didn't vote on because I haven't been able to get to them all. I believe we have all done our best and I also believe these placements can be a sort of Rubic's cube --- you just keep working on them and trying to get them to make more and more sense. It's never ending. That makes it an interesting problem to try and solve and at the end of the day all we can say is that we've done our best.




I don't think they would. that's why i'm wondering if we can go thru the list, together, and do reviews again (or for the first time if we haven't seen the title) for some of the older ones on the list. then it's not by memory, it's been watched again, with fresh 2009 eyes, and see if they are standing up to their esteemed place on tier 0. maybe have a criteria for this re-watch, any title placed on the list prior to July 1, 2008 is fair game or something like that. I would be willing to "play along" with a re-review type of weeding on the tier 0 list, so long as i can get my hands on the titles (rent, borrow, already own.... steal...







).


it might be a bit more cohesive, kind of like how a bunch of us just reviewed YWY together, we can pick titles to all watch at the same time in a certain amount of time (all watch Live Free or Die Hard, Crank, Shoot'em Up and Chicken Little, during February/March provided they're all from the first half of 2008 and earlier of course). ok i'm rambling now i don't think i'm making sense, i'll come back later when i am able to type & communicate a little better than i can right now.



rob tomlin -- i didn't quote your post but i agree with your thoughts there.


----------



## rsbeck

I carried a few titles forward that were added near the end and I carried Domino forward because it has been proposed for tier 0 and doesn't have enough votes for either 0 or 1.


----------



## rsbeck

I know that I have reassessed all of the titles I voted upon. For example, I originally recommended Black Snake Moan to tier 0. Rob Tomlin recently told me he thought it should be lower and I disagreed -- based on memory. He asserted again that he didn't believe it was a tier 0 title, so I went and watched it again. Well, my memory was wrong and it clearly hasn't held up. It's a low tier 1 title these days. Selimsivad saw my review and couldn't believe it -- he asserted that it was still a tier 0 title. Few days later, he watched it again and agreed that it is now a low tier 1 title.


So, I have seen some very good reassessing going on and I am trusting that others are doing likewise.



.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15739277
> 
> 
> then it's not by memory, it's been watched again, *with fresh 2009 eyes*, and see if they are standing up to their esteemed place on tier 0.



Hey, I don't know about you, but my eyes aren't as fresh as they were last year!!


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Who's with me in starting a fresh new thread?


Let's get REAL crazy!


----------



## RBFC

I watched Sleeping Beauty. It should be top of tier 0. The princess looked really hot.


















I figured everyone could use a laugh. I think that "review' broke just about every request made!










I believe that rsbeck is doing a great service to the forum, spending an enormous amount of time and energy to compile information. I also think we should further compile the previous votes to effect "fair" tier placement for those titles that are under scrutiny.


It might be interesting to have "shoot-out of the week" with two titles to make a current decision as to their relative PQ merits. Titles that have been on the list for a while vs. newcomers is one possible "duel" setting. This could validate their placement or cause reassignment in the tiers as new titles could be systematically compared to old "standards". This process could address the maturation of the BD format and consistently better PQ on newer releases, so our "judgement standards" could be periodically recalibrated AND reinforced by peer consensus.


I'm impressed with the level of dedication and passion shown by everyone in an effort to make something excellent out of all this!


Lee


----------



## rsbeck

I suggest everyone take a look at Super Slow's post at the end of the previous period.....

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1#post15510641 


Scroll all the way to the bottom to see how proposed movement is handled.


----------



## djoberg

*Death Race*


If memory serves me right there have only been two other reviews on this and both of them suggested Tier 1. I concur with that placement, for it compares well with many other Tier 1 titles.


This was a very stylized flick color-wise. Most of the prison scenes (which comprised all but about 10 minutes of the entire movie) were either dark or they had a blue hue (similar to The Matrix) and the scenes outside of the prison had a golden hue. This resulted in toned down colors, though skin tones were spot on with a lot of detail. Speaking of skin tones, Joan Allen looked like they had done some paste work on her face so facial close-ups of her lacked detail.


I didn't detect any EE, DNR (unless Ms. Allen's face was the result of DNR), motion artifacts, or other flaws; it was a nice-looking transfer overall. Most scenes were sharp and relatively detailed. One thing it definitely lacked, IMO, was depth, and I would penalize it for that; many dark scenes coupled with many fast action scenes accounts for this.


I enjoyed the movie....it was a FAST and THRILLING ride. And man was it different seeing Joan Allen in that type of role!

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.5*


Samsung 50" 1080p DLP....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 7'


----------



## selimsivad

*Rescue Dawn*


Rescue Dawn is currently ranked Tier 0. I'm not sure how long it's been ranked there, but Tier 0 it is not!










Fleshtones are pretty accurate. Black levels are good, not inky like the best of Tier 0. Small words, like the writing on the pork and beans label can are blurry. Wood grains are lackluster. Contrast could be jacked up a few notches.










Detail is not Tier 0 quality. Image lacks sharpness. Pores in closeups are average. Hair strands were not Tier 0. The jungles are lush and green, but but aren't what we're accustomed to seeing from titles like Apocalypto.










I'm surprised no one has reviewed this title recently!



*Rescue Dawn

Tier Recommendation: Tier 2.00

PS3-Samsung 46" 1080p-seven*'


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Look at all these perfectly formatted reviews!










Nice reviews guys, I saw Death Race on standard DVD and it seemed to be a promising HD title. I will be getting that from Netflix in a few weeks.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Event Horizon
*

recommendation: Tier *1.75*


A horror movie set in deep space, this 1997 film was released by Paramount to Blu-ray on December 30th of 2008. The 95-minute main feature is encoded in AVC on a BD-50. The average video bitrate is an astounding 36.31 Mbps per the BDInfo scan and one of the highest averages seen for a mainstream release. The main action hovers between 28.8 Mbps to peaks nearing 50 Mbps, though much of the time it stays in a narrower range in the upper 30's. Without hesitation this is a perceptually flawless compression encode. There simply is no visible posterization, artifacting, or noise that intrudes upon the picture at any time and I would expect this encoding to hold up even on a frame-by-frame basis. The encoding seems as visually transparent to the existing master as any we have seen on Blu-ray.


There are some question marks floating about associated with the master this Blu-ray transfer was derived from originally. Some have pointed out that the image is ever so slightly stretched in the vertical direction compared to previous issues on home video. I was aware of this issue before viewing and even with that knowledge it is virtually unnoticeable. I do not consider it an issue at all after viewing it. There is some notable lens distortion in the long hall of the main spaceship, but that was a conscious decision by the director intended for effect and was present when I viewed this movie at a theatrical screening over a decade ago.


The master looks in good shape overall but it is not pristine. There are some very tiny specks and dirt that mostly appear in the first 30 minutes of the film. It is apparent that digital tools were used for dirt removal to clean up the vast majority of these marks and scratches and on this matter it was handled better than what I have seen from other similar catalog titles. A very fine layer of grain is visible, particularly in darker scenes, but without insider confirmation I would have to speculate a light touch of digital noise reduction has been applied to the transfer. It does not appear though to have negatively impacted the image quality, as there are no moments of strange looking grain structure or smooth faces. If one wants to nitpick there is some very minor edge enhancement and ringing, but it is only visible on a few occasions and almost never distracting like some other transfers. Overall I would call this a film-like presentation with minor caveats.


Color fidelity is a little muted but every shade seems to be rendered strongly with no bleeding or contrast issues. Flesh tones look fine if a touch too light from my memories of the theatrical showing. Black levels are good for the most part but there are a few moments where exceptionally fine shadow detail gets lost in backgrounds. Picture quality seems to improve a notch as the movie goes along generally. The real strength of the picture quality is the exquisitely resolved micro-detail and level of clarity. Facial features and hair textures are laid out in all their glory throughout the film. The very gory segments are crystal-clear looking and not for the squeamish. The image stays consistently sharp outside of a few short special-effects sequences that involve optical composite work. I would not call the depth and dimensionality of the image a strength compared to higher ranked titles. It comes off looking slightly flat at times and really no better than some of the higher ranked titles in tier two in this aspect.


Paramount has done exceptional work bringing this catalog title to Blu-ray. The image quality is better than I expected before viewing. My placement falls squarely in the lower half of tier one as I wanted to place this in tier 1.5 but it probably deserves tier 1.75 for the minor and barely visible stretching. I see that it has been placed in the holding zone for a tier zero vote but I can not agree with that high of an assessment.


Watching on a 60 Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 (firmware 2.60) at a viewing distance of six feet.


BDInfo Scan (courtesy of House):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...7#post15330347


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15740075
> 
> *Death Race*
> 
> 
> If memory serves me right there have only been two other reviews on this and both of them suggested Tier 1. I concur with that placement, for it compares well with many other Tier 1 titles.
> 
> 
> This was a very stylized flick color-wise. Most of the prison scenes (which comprised all but about 10 minutes of the entire movie) were either dark or they had a blue hue (similar to The Matrix) and the scenes outside of the prison had a golden hue. This resulted in toned down colors, though skin tones were spot on with a lot of detail. Speaking of skin tones, Joan Allen looked like they had done some paste work on her face so facial close-ups of her lacked detail.
> 
> 
> I didn't detect any EE, DNR (unless Ms. Allen's face was the result of DNR), motion artifacts, or other flaws; it was a nice-looking transfer overall. Most scenes were sharp and relatively detailed. One thing it definitely lacked, IMO, was depth, and I would penalize it for that; many dark scenes coupled with many fast action scenes accounts for this.
> 
> 
> I enjoyed the movie....it was a FAST and THRILLING ride. And man was it different seeing Joan Allen in that type of role!
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.5*
> 
> 
> Samsung 50" 1080p DLP....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 7'














> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15740144
> 
> *Rescue Dawn*
> 
> 
> Rescue Dawn is currently ranked Tier 0. I'm not sure how long it's been ranked there, but Tier 0 it is not!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fleshtones are pretty accurate. Black levels are good, not inky like the best of Tier 0. Small words, like the writing on the pork and beans label can are blurry. Wood grains are lackluster. Contrast could be jacked up a few notches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Detail is not Tier 0 quality. Image lacks sharpness. Pores in closeups are average. Hair strands were not Tier 0. The jungles are lush and green, but but aren't what we're accustomed to seeing from titles like Apocalypto.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm surprised no one has reviewed this title recently!
> 
> 
> 
> *Rescue Dawn
> 
> Tier Recommendation: Tier 2.00
> 
> PS3-Samsung 46" 1080p-seven*'



I never thought this belonged in Tier 0 either.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15740144
> 
> *Rescue Dawn*
> 
> 
> Rescue Dawn is currently ranked Tier 0. I'm not sure how long it's been ranked there, but Tier 0 it is not!



I'm not 100% on the Rescue Dawn history, and I haven't seen the Blu, but since I do appreciate the eye-candy that is Mr. Bale (so long as he's not raging I suppose







), I know this film wasn't Tier 0 when I first joined up to here, but somehow evolved it's way up. So I know it wasn't always there. I've pondered renting it on Blu, but whispering, so other baleheads don't see me say this -- I didn't really like this movie.







Oh, who am I kidding, I'm the only girl here.










*rsbeck* -- i do appreciate the intent behind what you've been spearheading. you're doing a lot of hard work, and i'm sorry if it seems as though i'm against what's going on, as I'm not opposed to going through the list. I just think we need to do things carefully, is all. This list gets a lot of criticism, and I know we all want to help make it as perfect as we can get it, and kudos for spearheading this resurgance in trying to help us offer the best we can.


----------



## stumlad

*Saw V*


The first flaw that arrives is elevated black levels. I dont quite remember how it was for the first 4 movies, but this was pretty bad. I question if it really looked like that in the theater. Because of that there was no 3D pop to this movie at all.


As for the rest of the movie, there was nothing outstanding about the look of this title. It had a yellow-bluish cast to it, the scenes were usually in dark places, and the face closeups were about average (Tier 3-looking). The gritty style of this movie took away any "eye" candy, but hey, at least it was consistent. Small object detail was okay, but below average...

*Tier Recommendation 4.0
*


----------



## stumlad

I'm curious what other people think about turning Tier 0 into a more selective list.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Event Horizon
*


Wow!


What a great looking title, especially considering its age! Those of you who look for facial detail will be very happy with this one. Facial details/features/stubble/blood splatter all comes through with excellent clarity. The overall picture is very detailed and sharp, but in a mostly natural way. Very impressive.


Contrast was good overall, but there were a couple of dark scenes where there was noticeable noise. Some scenes looked just a bit flat, but it is hard to say whether it was from weak contrast in those shots, or whether it was slightly over-exposed.


Colors were good, except, again, in some shots that looked slightly flat. But these were the exceptions, rather than the rule. Overall colors were very natural looking.


Again, I was really surprised by how good this one looked. Any fan of this movie should be more than happy with it!


I enjoyed the movie enough, but I am glad that it was only about 95 minutes long.








*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*


JVC RS1 123" screen 13'


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Saw V*


Bad.


Not sure what happened here, but this is one ugly looking title. The most obvious flaw comes right at you from the very beginning of the movie: contrast and black levels are very poor. This improved little through the rest of the movie.


In addition to the above, colors did not seem natural at all and even seemed to bleed. Also, most scenes looked pretty soft. Finally, there appeared to be noise in several scenes, that did not look like normal film grain.










*Tier Recommendation: 4.25*


----------



## djoberg

*Black Book*


This is my THIRD Blu-ray viewing today (my wife is gone for a few days so I'm taking advantage!) and my eyes probably aren't too _fresh_ (that one's for you G3







), but I would say this title is a solid Tier 1. I just looked to see where it was placed (over a year ago) and it's at Tier 1.25. I think it should be a bit lower than that, but only a notch or two.


For being one of the earliest Blu-rays released, I am impressed! It was very consistent in sharpness and detail; blacks were good along with decent shadow detail; colors were very natural-looking and quite vivid in most scenes; skin tones were spot on; and there were plenty of scenes with 3D pop sprinkled throughout the movie. It had a very thin layer of film grain and it only served to enhance the detail. I did notice some softness sporadically, but it was so rare I wasn't bothered by it. Facial detail was okay, though I did notice some digital noise...again, in faces with light complexion.


I am somewhat of a history buff, and especially when it comes to World War 2 and Nazism, so it held my attention to the very end (and that's saying a lot with it being nearly 2 1/2 hours long). The acting was superb by all the leads and I wasn't even distracted by the English subtitles. IMO it's a very good rental.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.5*


Samsung 50" 1080p DLP....Panasonic BD30....Viewed at 7'


----------



## stumlad

This is going to be painful:


I zipped through 4 titles; *Pirates 2, Pirates 3, Caspian, and Apocalypto.* Going through all of these helped me see the differences better.


Now here's the hard part: *Caspian at its peak was probably the best looking of them all.*

The face details were better than I remembered, but still not to the level of Pirates or Apocalypto. However, I believe part of the reason may be because of all the makeup used in Pirates and Apoc which adds detail since there is now more to see on the face. The biggest weakness of Caspian, however, is the the darker scenes. Now they exhibit more detail than most blu-rays do, but it is NOT tier 0 quality stuff. There is a long 20 minute stretch starting around the 1 hr mark or maybe 1 hr 5 min where they are in the cave which is followed by the sequence when they are storming the castle. The detail level here does not match Pirates 2 or 3 in its dark sequences. There are a few other short sequences where it's dark, and you can tell the detail level isn't up to par with the rest of the movie. However, seeing how the faces were a bit better than I remembered them, and the outdoor scenes (which comprise of at least 2/3rds the movie) are "STUNNING", I have to kick myself, apologize, and *change my vote to Tier 0...somewhere in the middle ...*


Zipping through Pirates 2 and then Pirates 3... I think Pirates 2 looks better. Pirates 3 is just darker throughout and does not have the same pop that part 2 has. Neither of them quite reach the level of Narnia at its best, but these are more consistent throughout and not far off from Narnia at its best. Narnia has much much finer grain (to the point where it's almost non-existant)


Apocalypto - I believe the first 30 minutes of this movie suffer the same problem as the dark scenes in Caspian which result in a drop of detail when compared to the rest of the movie. The last 1 hour and 50 minutes however are right up there with Pirates 2. I will lower my vote to low Tier 0 (it's going to stay in Tier 1, so no real use







)


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Lots of nice reviews tonight! Nice work bros.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15740212
> 
> *Event Horizon
> *
> 
> recommendation: Tier *1.75*
> 
> 
> A horror movie set in deep space, this 1997 film was released by Paramount to Blu-ray on December 30th of 2008. The 95-minute main feature is encoded in AVC on a BD-50. The average video bitrate is an astounding 36.31 Mbps per the BDInfo scan and one of the highest averages seen for a mainstream release. The main action hovers between 28.8 Mbps to peaks nearing 50 Mbps, though much of the time it stays in a narrower range in the upper 30's. *Without hesitation this is a perceptually flawless compression encode.* There simply is no visible posterization, artifacting, or noise that intrudes upon the picture at any time and I would expect this encoding to hold up even on a frame-by-frame basis. The encoding seems as visually transparent to the existing master as any we have seen on Blu-ray.
> 
> 
> There are some question marks floating about associated with the master this Blu-ray transfer was derived from originally. *Some have pointed out that the image is ever so slightly stretched in the vertical direction compared to previous issues on home video. I was aware of this issue before viewing and even with that knowledge it is virtually unnoticeable. I do not consider it an issue at all after viewing it.* There is some notable lens distortion in the long hall of the main spaceship, but that was a conscious decision by the director intended for effect and was present when I viewed this movie at a theatrical screening over a decade ago.
> 
> 
> The master looks in good shape overall but it is not pristine. There are some very tiny specks and dirt that mostly appear in the first 30 minutes of the film. It is apparent that digital tools were used for dirt removal to clean up the vast majority of these marks and scratches and on this matter it was handled better than what I have seen from other similar catalog titles. A very fine layer of grain is visible, particularly in darker scenes, but without insider confirmation I would have to speculate a light touch of digital noise reduction has been applied to the transfer. It does not appear though to have negatively impacted the image quality, as there are no moments of strange looking grain structure or smooth faces. If one wants to nitpick there is some very minor edge enhancement and ringing, but it is only visible on a few occasions and almost never distracting like some other transfers. Overall I would call this a film-like presentation with minor caveats.
> 
> 
> Color fidelity is a little muted but every shade seems to be rendered strongly with no bleeding or contrast issues. Flesh tones look fine if a touch too light from my memories of the theatrical showing. Black levels are good for the most part but there are a few moments where exceptionally fine shadow detail gets lost in backgrounds. Picture quality seems to improve a notch as the movie goes along generally. The real strength of the picture quality is the exquisitely resolved micro-detail and level of clarity. Facial features and hair textures are laid out in all their glory throughout the film. The very gory segments are crystal-clear looking and not for the squeamish. The image stays consistently sharp outside of a few short special-effects sequences that involve optical composite work. I would not call the depth and dimensionality of the image a strength compared to higher ranked titles. It comes off looking slightly flat at times and really no better than some of the higher ranked titles in tier two in this aspect.
> 
> 
> Paramount has done exceptional work bringing this catalog title to Blu-ray. The image quality is better than I expected before viewing. My placement falls squarely in the lower half of tier one as I wanted to place this in tier 1.5 but it probably deserves tier 1.75 for the minor and barely visible stretching. I see that it has been placed in the holding zone for a tier zero vote but I can not agree with that high of an assessment.
> 
> 
> Watching on a 60 Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 (firmware 2.60) at a viewing distance of six feet.
> 
> 
> BDInfo Scan (courtesy of House):
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...7#post15330347



I expect I will get grief for commenting on this in light of the fact that I shut it off after about 20 minutes, but the reason I shut it off was dissatisfaction with the PQ. I shut it off after the "crew wakes up" scene, which I thought looked absolutely horrendous. I thought the vertical image stretching was most definitely noticeable and bothersome. But even beyond that, there was a very disturbing sharpened, processed look to the image that recalls the ugliness of TDK at its worst. It is very hard for me to imagine that this look disappears later on in the movie to the extent of justifying a 1.75 ranking.


----------



## patrick99

*Rescue Dawn*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rob tomlin* /forum/post/15740588
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never thought this belonged in tier 0 either.



+1


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15741389
> 
> 
> This is going to be painful:
> 
> 
> I zipped through 4 titles; *Pirates 2, Pirates 3, Caspian, and Apocalypto.* Going through all of these helped me see the differences better.
> 
> 
> Now here's the hard part: *Caspian at its peak was probably the best looking of them all.*
> 
> 
> However, seeing how the faces were a bit better than I remembered them, and the outdoor scenes (which comprise of at least 2/3rds the movie) are "STUNNING", I have to kick myself, apologize, and *change my vote to Tier 0...somewhere in the middle ...*



Thanks stumlad for your willingness to objectively revisit these titles. It is so good to see you change your view of Caspian...welcome aboard!


----------



## daMaster

You can add Hustle & Flow to Tier 5 or lower if any existed.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15741596
> 
> 
> I expect I will get grief for commenting on this in light of the fact that I shut it off after about 20 minutes, but the reason I shut it off was dissatisfaction with the PQ. I shut it off after the "crew wakes up" scene, which I thought looked absolutely horrendous. I thought the vertical image stretching was most definitely noticeable and bothersome. But even beyond that, there was a very disturbing sharpened, processed look to the image that recalls the ugliness of TDK at its worst. It is very hard for me to imagine that this look disappears later on in the movie to the extent of justifying a 1.75 ranking.



I will agree that it did have a very slight processed look to it, but overall I thought it looked great. I rated it even higher than Phantom at Tier 1.5.


The vertical image stretching was noticeable in a few scenes.


I admit I am surprised that you didn't like the PQ of this title. Facial features are as well defined as you will see.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15743137
> 
> 
> I will agree that it did have a very slight processed look to it, but overall I thought it looked great. I rated it even higher than Phantom at Tier 1.5.
> 
> 
> The vertical image stretching was noticeable in a few scenes.
> 
> 
> I admit I am surprised that you didn't like the PQ of this title. Facial features are as well defined as you will see.



I should probably give it another look to make sure that I wasn't just in a bad mood while watching it. But my reaction at the time was very negative.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15742114
> 
> 
> Thanks stumlad for your willingness to objectively revisit these titles. It is so good to see you change your view of Caspian...welcome aboard!



I may do the same with some of the other Tier 0 titles that I own (Crank, Pirates 1, Baraka, Prison Break, maybe one or two others) sometime soon. It really helps seeing them back to back.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15743439
> 
> 
> I should probably give it another look to make sure that I wasn't just in a bad mood while watching it. But my reaction at the time was *very negative.*



The funny thing is that my feelings were 100% the opposite. I had low expectations, and this was a very big surprise in terms of how good it looked. My reaction, pretty much from the start, was "very positive"!


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15741596
> 
> 
> I expect I will get grief for commenting on this in light of the fact that I shut it off after about 20 minutes, but the reason I shut it off was dissatisfaction with the PQ. I shut it off after the "crew wakes up" scene, which I thought looked absolutely horrendous. I thought the vertical image stretching was most definitely noticeable and bothersome. But even beyond that, there was a very disturbing sharpened, processed look to the image that recalls the ugliness of TDK at its worst. It is very hard for me to imagine that this look disappears later on in the movie to the extent of justifying a 1.75 ranking.



As I said in my review, "Picture quality seems to improve a notch as the movie goes along generally", and that is true for the most part. What people are missing is that the director included various moments of lens distortion to heighten the effect of a certain character's descent into madness ( I will refrain from naming the character for those of you yet to see the movie). That scene you cite is an example of that, though the effect does appear slightly wonky with the added vertical stretching. I would not call the transfer oversharpened. I do agree there are thin edge halos occasionally but it is not the abomination I have seen given to other bad transfers. The first 10 minutes or so are the worst the picture quality ever looks and it improves after that.


I would probably agree with Rob's ranking if not for one minor thing that I did not mention in my review. The color balance has been changed a little from the original theatrical prints I saw and the laserdisc. What stood out to me was the green lights of the corridor that Dr. Weir went in to fix something, which shone brilliantly previously and appears less brilliant in this transfer. Everything else looked much closer though in tonality. I have owned every home video version of this movie and know its look pretty well.


----------



## rsbeck

Proposed description ---

*Tier 1 (Gold)*


Blu-rays in this tier are also demo worthy and exhibit many of the same qualities as titles in tier zero (Blu), albeit with a few qualifications: May be reference quality in general, but with brief periods of inconsistency. Or, may exhibit reference quality transfer, but in general ever so slightly below tier 0 in terms of visual interest, detail, contrast, presence or clarity. Differences between titles in blu and gold tiers are very subtle.



Anybody have a problem with this?


----------



## deltasun

*Sleeping Beauty*


I figure I might as well do a formal review of this title. I did watch this last night just to try and understand where people are coming from.


The first impression I got out of the box is nostalgia. I grew up watching these Disney pictures, as most of you all. The transfer/restoration was superb and you can tell that care was taken in the making of this BR. Details were sharp. I thought at first that the wide screen may be superfluous, but it actually added dimensionality to the scenes.


Now to my gripes. And don't get me wrong, I still consider this BR an excellent example. However, I again have to compare this to the newer Pixar titles and there is just no competition. The simplistic faces, with barely any shading, let alone texture. The eyes are not very expressive and the general tint not very flattering. I say general because some brighter scenes work well with the simplistic colors.


Then, I start noticing the objects around the main characters. For the most part, you have inanimate objects and the main characters move around them. It reminds me of cardboard backgrounds found in cheap plays.


But all these objects are clear, clean, and crisp. The newer titles like Ratatouile, Wall*E all have depth, the 3D pop that we all talk about, and life. I just did not get much of those in Sleeping Beauty. Yes, the story and the nostalgia are timeless and definitely add to enjoyment, but that is not what we judge around here. I'm sure anyone who sees this BR from the old era, will be wowed by how clean and meticulous the restoration was. But, put a teen in front of it (who's used to the latest Pixar animation), ...you get what I mean.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## HT.1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15730849
> 
> 
> Hi HT -- Excellent review. I've taken the liberty of formatting your review to show you how we do it so the moderator will be sure to recognize your post as a review. He also asks that you add your Screen size, resolution and distance from screen at the bottom of each review. You'll want to use this format when you post your recommendations. Welcome to the thread!



OK, lets try this again











*NEXT*


I had the opportunity to watch Next last evening.

Next is an average movie from a PQ standpoint. Seems to me, that there are an awful lot of Blu Rays that seem to fall right in the tier I, or even the bottom of tier I category.

For me, Next seemed to be no different, except for a few shots that seemed to set it apart from other movies in the bottom of tier I.

There were times the clarity was exceptional. Such as when Nicholas Cage would check his watch. The arm hairs and pours of his skin were clear and detailed. But then there were times in what I would consider a relatively close facial shot, the shot seemed slightly soft and the fine tier 0 detail I would expect from an eye candy title was just not there.

One thing that is important to me and I was impressed with, is, many of the long shots were crisp with plenty of detail in both the fore ground and background. There were many scenic outdoor shots where the background detail was very detailed and focused. So, as you can see, the movie was a bit too inconsistent for me to give it anything but a bottom of tier I ranking.

Colors like flesh tones and panoramic out door scenes were realistic and vivid. Contrast was extremely good as well.
*Recommendation: Tier 1.75*

10 feet from a 126 inch screen - Panasonic 3000


_FYI: we really enjoyed the movie, if it goes on sale, I wouldn't hesitate on picking this one up._


----------



## HT.1

*CRANK*



I just had the chance to watch Crank last night.

This is definitely a leave your brain at the door popcorn flick.

I bought it as a blind buy for $12 at BB. I think I wasted my money.









While the story line was a horrendous bust, the video transfer was remarkable. Easily one of the more detailed Blu Rays I have seen.

Crank has all the tier0 requirements. Including some great skin detail, contrast, lifelike colors and an impressive 3-d pop to the movie.

Depending on the audience, I would have no trouble using Crank to demo my set-up who has never seen Blu Ray before.
*Recommendation: Upper half of Tier 0.*


10 feet from a 126 inch screen – Panasonic 3000


----------



## HT.1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15740144
> 
> *Rescue Dawn*
> 
> 
> Rescue Dawn is currently ranked Tier 0. I'm not sure how long it's been ranked there, but Tier 0 it is not!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fleshtones are pretty accurate. Black levels are good, not inky like the best of Tier 0. Small words, like the writing on the pork and beans label can are blurry. Wood grains are lackluster. Contrast could be jacked up a few notches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Detail is not Tier 0 quality. Image lacks sharpness. Pores in closeups are average. Hair strands were not Tier 0. The jungles are lush and green, but but aren't what we're accustomed to seeing from titles like Apocalypto.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm surprised no one has reviewed this title recently!
> 
> 
> 
> *Rescue Dawn
> 
> Tier Recommendation: Tier 2.00
> 
> PS3-Samsung 46" 1080p-seven*'



I agree with this.

I never thought this movie had the sharpness to be Tier 0 either though I think Tier 2 is a bit harsh.
*How about Tier 1.75 for Rescue Dawn.*


----------



## SuprSlow

Thanks for the work, everyone. I've added the new title placement requirements to the first post.


Also, would anyone have any major opposition to starting a new thread? 10,000 posts probably looks a little daunting to newcomers, plus it sucks having to log out, then log in as Austin to make changes







I think LBFilmGuy brought this up a few pages back.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/15747527
> 
> 
> Thanks for the work, everyone. I've added the new title placement requirements to the first post.
> 
> 
> Also, would anyone have any major opposition to starting a new thread? 10,000 posts probably looks a little daunting to newcomers, plus it sucks having to log out, then log in as Austin to make changes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think LBFilmGuy brought this up a few pages back.



Yep, I am definitely in for this.


I think starting a new thread with everything we've done in the first post will be more inviting to newcomers like you said and start new fresh discussions on the titles that are already placed and new titles.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15747576
> 
> 
> Yep, I am definitely in for this.
> 
> 
> I think starting a new thread with everything we've done in the first post will be more inviting to newcomers like you said and start new fresh discussions on the titles that are already placed and new titles.



Same here. It would be even better if there was a way to delete the posts, and perhaps every few months, do a cleanup (rather than creating a new thread). The bad thing, of course, is that there's no way to look at old reviews.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15747875
> 
> 
> Same here. It would be even better if there was a way to delete the posts, and perhaps every few months, do a cleanup (rather than creating a new thread). The bad thing, of course, is that there's no way to look at old reviews.



This thread can be archived so we can all go back and look at the reviews.


Then again, the search feature blows and whenever I search for a title it never comes up.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15744510
> 
> 
> Rob -- on Saw 5, I changed your recommendation to 4.5. This is because there is no 4.25, only 4.0 and 4.5. Let me know if you'd rather it be 4.0.



oops!


Looking back at the titles there, I would just go with 4.0. Sorry for the oversight!











As for this idea of starting a complete new thread, I definitely have some concerns. I hate the idea of not being able to see older reviews within the thread. I don't know how well the search feature will work on archived threads either.


What exactly are the advantages to starting a new thread (other than SuprSlow being too damn lazy to log out and in as AustinSTi







) ?


----------



## rsbeck

One potential advantage I could possibly see in a new thread would be that it might draw more attention to the changes on the first page and might help everyone start fresh with using the new format for reviews. I wonder if there is a way to link threads so a thread search for the new thread would pull up posts from this one, too. I share the concern about losing touch with archived reviews. Be nice if that issue could be solved.


----------



## rsbeck

HT.1 --

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...0#post15747100 


Excellent formatting -- thanks!


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15748116
> 
> 
> oops!
> 
> 
> Looking back at the titles there, I would just go with 4.0. Sorry for the oversight!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for this idea of starting a complete new thread, I definitely have some concerns. I hate the idea of not being able to see older reviews within the thread. I don't know how well the search feature will work on archived threads either.
> 
> 
> What exactly are the advantages to starting a new thread (other than SuprSlow being too damn lazy to log out and in as AustinSTi
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) ?



We already spoke to both of those concerns Robby!


----------



## lgans316

*Next*...1.75 (HT.1) - Will stand by my Tier-2 recommendation. Tier-1.75 would have been apt had there been no Aliasing.

*Transformers*...Bottom 0 (42041, Patrick99, selimsivad) - *Top Tier 1 as details take a hit during rapid action*


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15740795
> 
> *Saw V*
> 
> 
> The first flaw that arrives is elevated black levels. I dont quite remember how it was for the first 4 movies, but this was pretty bad. I question if it really looked like that in the theater. Because of that there was no 3D pop to this movie at all.
> 
> 
> As for the rest of the movie, there was nothing outstanding about the look of this title. It had a yellow-bluish cast to it, the scenes were usually in dark places, and the face closeups were about average (Tier 3-looking). The gritty style of this movie took away any "eye" candy, but hey, at least it was consistent. Small object detail was okay, but below average...
> 
> *Tier Recommendation 4.0
> *



Ok., this is sad. I watched this two weeks ago and could have sworn I did a recommend review on Saw V. I thought it was bad but not tier 4 bad. I was thinking high 2.75 or 3.0. I bring this up because I think we have an issue with searches people. Would some of you mind trying to do a search for just the word saw, Saw, Saw 5, Saw V, because even Stumlad's review is not coming up when doing a search. I would have thought doing a search for the word "saw" would have brought up something, but it didn't. Do we have a word filter? It wouldn't surprise me since most would use the word saw in their reviews or discussions.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15741389
> 
> 
> This is going to be painful:
> 
> 
> I zipped through 4 titles; *Pirates 2, Pirates 3, Caspian, and Apocalypto.* Going through all of these helped me see the differences better.
> 
> 
> Now here's the hard part: *Caspian at its peak was probably the best looking of them all.*
> 
> The face details were better than I remembered, but still not to the level of Pirates or Apocalypto. However, I believe part of the reason may be because of all the makeup used in Pirates and Apoc which adds detail since there is now more to see on the face. The biggest weakness of Caspian, however, is the the darker scenes. Now they exhibit more detail than most blu-rays do, but it is NOT tier 0 quality stuff. There is a long 20 minute stretch starting around the 1 hr mark or maybe 1 hr 5 min where they are in the cave which is followed by the sequence when they are storming the castle. The detail level here does not match Pirates 2 or 3 in its dark sequences. There are a few other short sequences where it's dark, and you can tell the detail level isn't up to par with the rest of the movie. However, seeing how the faces were a bit better than I remembered them, and the outdoor scenes (which comprise of at least 2/3rds the movie) are "STUNNING", I have to kick myself, apologize, and *change my vote to Tier 0...somewhere in the middle ...*
> 
> 
> Zipping through Pirates 2 and then Pirates 3... I think Pirates 2 looks better. Pirates 3 is just darker throughout and does not have the same pop that part 2 has. Neither of them quite reach the level of Narnia at its best, but these are more consistent throughout and not far off from Narnia at its best. Narnia has much much finer grain (to the point where it's almost non-existant)
> 
> 
> Apocalypto - I believe the first 30 minutes of this movie suffer the same problem as the dark scenes in Caspian which result in a drop of detail when compared to the rest of the movie. The last 1 hour and 50 minutes however are right up there with Pirates 2. I will lower my vote to low Tier 0 (it's going to stay in Tier 1, so no real use
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )



No pain for me. You are spot on in your rereviews.


I just watched Apocalypto again for the first hour. I went back over and over again in the first 30 minutes, since that is the most controversial. I stopped to make time stamps, lots of them.


Start at the 41 second mark and freeze. The PQ detail, sharpness, and clarity are the best of any forest scenes there are on BD period. It is crystal clear and the epitome of the "looking through the window affect". Look at the boars ass







as he is running away, it has serious 3D pop. All of the following time stamps are displayed in min and need to be viewed. I even freeze framed and the PQ is still pristine:


1:38, 2:02, 2:05, 2:08, 2:12, 2:19, 2:25(big tree), 2:36, 3:21, 3:24.


The boar eating scene has the digital noise issue mainly due to low light, but and a big but, it is not constant and all frames with digital noise are not the type that the screen looks like it is crawling, rather it is the type that looks more like grain. The frames with DN are the exception and not the rule in the first 30 minutes. The frames are seconds and not minutes. The frames are also surrounded by more of the best PQ there is on BD still to this day. Somehow the "issues" with the first 30 min. took precedence over the pristine PQ that is also exhibited in the first 30 minutes like it is the only PQ. Please with respect to everyone, I think the proverbial taking the ball and running with it applies here. How we got to the point of stating the first 30 min. doesn't look good is just not accurate and does an injustice to the majority of pristine PQ which is what dominates the first 30 min.


More...There is also a lot of bokeh used in first 30 minutes and throughout the movie where the background and surrounding objects are "blurred" to make the center image or the main focus of the shot stand out even more and they do.


More time stamps in the first 30 min.:

4:40 and 4:48 have that digital noise, but even with it the picture is detailed and sharp and is still tier 0 or top of tier 1.


8:36, 8:57, 9:13-15, 13:01, 13:10, 14:50, look at the plants and trees, come on this is again the best PQ of any BD of plants, trees and forest to date.


The dream sequence at 24:20 and the scene around 25:25 both have digital noise, but still are clear and detailed.


The times when Apocalypto does exhibit tier 1 PQ are so far and few in between and combined with the digital noise IMO they do not warrant placing the BD in tier 1.


I still believe Apocalypto is some of the finest example of eye candy to date and has some examples, like the forest scenes, that are the pinnacle of PQ for BD.


I am really adamant about this title being in tier 0. Anything less really does not do this title justice. I maintain the focus on the first 30 min has taken over the reality that even the first 30 min is off the charts PQ and worthy of tier 0.


And then many that said the first 30 min were "poor" said the rest of the film was pristine and that much better. IMO the first 30 minutes are blow you away eye candy. You want to shock someone who hasn't seen it or a BD before? Put Apocalypto in, crank it up and let them see that opening scene. They will be mesmerized and hooked.

*Apocalypto mid tier 0. Caspian Mid tier 0. Pirates leave where they are. Crank low tier 0.( I think Apocalypto looks quite a bit better than Crank overall and specifically Crank doesn't have the clear, sharp shots like Apocalypto does. I own them both! Shoot Em Up tier 1.0*


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

I don't have that movie, Hughmc, but great write up, well done on that. I almost wish I had it just to look at your timestamps.


----------



## tfoltz

Just watched *Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End* for my second viewing within a week. I know many have said that it is one of their favorite blu-rays, and that the dark scenes are very detailed; however, I don't feel the same way. I felt it looked soft, especially compared to Pirates 2, which I believe was far superior in both light and dark scenes. I would put it in *Tier 1.25* or lower.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15749926
> 
> 
> Ok., this is sad. I watched this two weeks ago and could have sworn I did a recommend review on Saw V. I thought it was bad but not tier 4 bad. I was thinking high 2.75 or 3.0. I bring this up because I think we have an issue with searches people. Would some of you mind trying to do a search for just the word saw, Saw, Saw 5, Saw V, because even Stumlad's review is not coming up when doing a search. I would have thought doing a search for the word "saw" would have brought up something, but it didn't. Do we have a word filter? It wouldn't surprise me since most would use the word saw in their reviews or discussions.



Weird!! I just tried the search for "Saw V" and "Saw" and also got nothing...


Btw, take a look... Rob did a review like 2-3 posts below my original review.


Neither of us thought it looked very good and it all goes back to when the movie first starts... The black level reminded me of a really old LCD tv. I remember liking the look of Saw IV much much better, but it's been about 9-10 months since I've seen that one. I liked the 5th as a movie better than the 4th though...


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/15750094
> 
> 
> Just watched *Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End* for my second viewing within a week. I know many have said that it is one of their favorite blu-rays, and that the dark scenes are very detailed; however, I don't feel the same way. I felt it looked soft, especially compared to Pirates 2, which I believe was far superior in both light and dark scenes. I would put it in *Tier 1.25* or lower.



I agree with Pirates 2 being better than 3. It would be cool if others who owned both could run through both of them and perhaps re-assess.


----------



## djoberg

*Lakeview Terrace*


This was, for the most part, an excellent transfer. As is the case with MANY titles, the sharpness and detail increased after the first few scenes. Until that point, there were some shots that definitely lacked depth and were a bit soft.


The color palette was one of the greatest qualities...they were rich and warm, in both indoor and outdoor scenes....EYE CANDY for sure! I was also impressed with the deep and inky blacks and the contrast was amazing. It had enough 3D pop to also qualify for demo material. Skin tones and facial close-ups were also topnotch. If it weren't for some shots in the first 30 minutes or so, I would probably be generous and recommend a low Tier 0 placement.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0*


Samsung 50" 1080p DLP....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 7'


----------



## djoberg

*Michael Clayton*


I was prepared to be underwhelmed based on _some_ previous reviews on this title, but I was pleasantly surprised by the detail and depth I experienced in every scene. If you love detailed facial close-ups (as I do), you will NOT be disappointed. Colors were natural, but a bit subdued. Blacks were generally good, though I did notice some crushed blacks on some suit coats and other objects. Shadow detail was decent as well. One word that came to mind throughout was CLARITY (thanks again for that word Rob!), and if it weren't for a less-than-desirable color palette, the crushed blacks, and a few instances of softness, I would recommend moving this title up to Tier 1.


BTW, it was a good rental. One of Clooney's best, IMHO. (Tom Wilkinson gave an Oscar-worthy performance.)

*Tier Recommendation: 2.5*


Samsung 50" 1080p DLP....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 7'


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15750181
> 
> 
> I agree with Pirates 2 being better than 3. It would be cool if others who owned both could run through both of them and perhaps re-assess.



No reason for me to re-assess, as I have always felt this way.


----------



## Human Bean

(size=4







) Zack and Miri Make a Porno (/size)


Bitrate: Don't know. Doesn't matter. If the movie looks good, it looks good.


Fine details and film grain present but minimal, probably some DNR, but not obtrusive. No EE noticed. Black level / contrast: good. 3-D pop - not so much.


Suggestion (not recommendation): Tier-2-ish??


Visio 37 LCD (720P) calibrated, viewing distance ~8 ft, 3 ft for more critical appraisal. [Should anything less than 1080P with a viewing distance where the full detail can be seen ( http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html ) really be considered seriously on this thread?]


[And could the discussion about the criteria for the thread possibly be put in another thread, leaving this one with actual PQ discussion? I'm sure this has been suggested, but there's too much noise for me to notice, not enough valid PQ content. This message included. Sorry.]


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15750326
> 
> *Michael Clayton*
> 
> 
> I was prepared to be underwhelmed based on _some_ previous reviews on this title, but I was pleasantly surprised by the detail and depth I experienced in every scene. If you love detailed facial close-ups (as I do), you will NOT be disappointed. Colors were natural, but a bit subdued. Blacks were generally good, though I did notice some crushed blacks on some suit coats and other objects. Shadow detail was decent as well. One word that came to mind throughout was CLARITY (thanks again for that word Rob!), and if it weren't for a less-than-desirable color palette, the crushed blacks, and a few instances of softness, I would recommend moving this title up to Tier 1.
> 
> 
> BTW, it was a good rental. One of Clooney's best, IMHO. (Tom Wilkinson gave an Oscar-worthy performance.)
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.5*
> 
> 
> Samsung 50" 1080p DLP....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 7'



I really enjoyed this as well...I would try and find my review as I can't remember where I placed it but that would be a waste of time as the search feature blows.


That is why having individual threads for each title would be phenomenal.


Oh well.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15750482
> 
> 
> I really enjoyed this as well...I would try and find my review as I can't remember where I placed it but that would be a waste of time as the search feature blows.
> 
> 
> That is why having individual threads for each title would be phenomenal.
> 
> 
> Oh well.



Here you go:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post14247885


----------



## LBFilmGuy

BTW djorberg your written review and your placement don't add up...seems you should have put it at the bottom of Tier 1/Top Tier 2 at worst.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15750518
> 
> 
> Here you go:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post14247885



How'd you do that?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15750523
> 
> 
> BTW djorberg your written review and your placement don't add up...seems you should have put it at the bottom of Tier 1/Top Tier 2 at worst.



As you know, I mentioned a few negatives (lack of pleasing colors, crushed blacks, some softness) and it did lack sharpness and detail until about 30 minutes into the movie. Plus, I thought it was comparable to other titles I've seen in Tier 2.5 (like The Golden Compass or The Mummy).


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15750533
> 
> 
> How'd you do that?



A Magician never reveals his secrets!







Actually, I simply did a search and one of the reviews that did come up was in response to your review so I concluded it must be close by so I looked back one page and PRESTO!...there it was!


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15750592
> 
> 
> As you know, I mentioned a few negatives (lack of pleasing colors, crushed blacks, some softness) and it did lack sharpness and detail until about 30 minutes into the movie. Plus, I thought it was comparable to other titles I've seen in Tier 2.5 (like The Golden Compass or The Mummy).



Yes I noticed those few things, but then there's this:


"...but I was pleasantly surprised by the detail and depth I experienced in every scene. If you love detailed facial close-ups (as I do), you will NOT be disappointed. Colors were natural, but a bit subdued."


"One word that came to mind throughout was CLARITY."


Nice work on finding my review, thanks.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15750626
> 
> 
> Yes I noticed those few things, but then there's this:
> 
> 
> "...but I was pleasantly surprised by the *detail and depth* I experienced *in every scene*. If you love detailed facial close-ups (as I do), you will NOT be disappointed. Colors were natural, but a bit subdued."



Even though there was detail and depth in every scene, it was really _inconsistent_ for the first 30 minutes or so. I finished watching it about 2 hours ago and I actually went back to several scenes just to make sure I wasn't imagining this. Sure enough, there were quite a few shots in those scenes that were Tier 3 quality ("average-looking"). So, all things considered, I recommended Tier 2.5 (which is higher than some reviews that were recommending 2.75 or Tier 3). And let's not forget that Tier 2 is still quite good!


----------



## Hughmc

I am going to take the cheesy way out since I watched this two nights ago and agree spot on with djoberg.

*Lakeview Terrace*



*Tier Recommendation: 1.0*

*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) SJ was a bastard in this and played it well, although not justified the film explains why he was. Kerry Washington looked yummy as usual.



*MIRЯORS*


This BD has a lot of dark scenes and low light situations. Overall the BD looks average at best. There is digital noise at times that crawls due to grain compression. Black levels were average, sometimes crushed and detail was lost at times in shadows. Colors looked natural. There isn't much pop, clarity or detail on the BD as they too are average or below average. THere were some good looking scenes and spots on this BD, but nothing overall to write home about except the eye candy that Paul Patton is.










I know there is a lot that goes into capturing a film to the final process what we see on BD, but new releases that have this PQ are unacceptable almost 3 years into the format. IMO there should be little or no new releases that are lower than tier 2.0.


*Tier 3.5*


Sony A3000 60in from PS3 thru HDMI @ 8ft


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15750682
> 
> 
> Even though there was detail and depth in every scene, it was really _inconsistent_ for the first 30 minutes or so. I finished watching it about 2 hours ago and I actually went back to several scenes just to make sure I wasn't imagining this. Sure enough, there were quite a few shots in those scenes that were Tier 3 quality ("average-looking"). So, all things considered, I recommended Tier 2.5 (which is higher than some reviews that were recommending 2.75 or Tier 3). And let's not forget that Tier 2 is still quite good!



I can dig it.


----------



## Hughmc

djoberg, if I remember correctly wasn't the only downer the DD 640 track on Michael Clayton as it has no lossless or even loss track? ANd even then it wasn't bad. He does a good job on Tilda...And in Burn after reading too...


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15749928
> 
> 
> No pain for me. You are spot on in your rereviews.
> 
> 
> I just watched Apocalypto again for the first hour. I went back over and over again in the first 30 minutes, since that is the most controversial. I stopped to make time stamps, lots of them.
> 
> 
> 1:38, 2:02, 2:05, 2:08, 2:12, 2:19, 2:25(big tree), 2:36, 3:21, 3:24.
> 
> 
> How we got to the point of stating the first 30 min. doesn't look good is just not accurate and does an injustice to the majority of pristine PQ which is what dominates the first 30 min.
> 
> 
> More...There is also a lot of bokeh used in first 30 minutes and throughout the movie where the background and surrounding objects are "blurred" to make the center image or the main focus of the shot stand out even more and they do.
> 
> 
> More time stamps in the first 30 min.:
> 
> 4:40 and 4:48 have that digital noise, but even with it the picture is detailed and sharp and is still tier 0 or top of tier 1.
> 
> 
> 8:36, 8:57, 9:13-15, 13:01, 13:10, 14:50, look at the plants and trees, come on this is again the best PQ of any BD of plants, trees and forest to date.
> 
> 
> The dream sequence at 24:20 and the scene around 25:25 both have digital noise, but still are clear and detailed.
> 
> 
> The times when Apocalypto does exhibit tier 1 PQ are so far and few in between and combined with the digital noise IMO they do not warrant placing the BD in tier 1.
> 
> 
> I still believe Apocalypto is some of the finest example of eye candy to date and has some examples, like the forest scenes, that are the pinnacle of PQ for BD.



Thanks for re-reviewing. I agree that the first 30 minutes are nowhere near as bad as anyone says.



I posted this earlier and mentioned that the frames were taken from all parts of the movie, but someone replied and said that I was wrong and the shots all appear after the first 30 minutes. I just went and looked back... the first 5 screenshots are all within the first 25 minutes of the movie.

http://www.cinemasquid.com/MovieImages.aspx?MovieId=2 


Now when you compare the first 30 minutes to the rest of the movie, the rest of the movie looks better... but you're right in that the first 30 minutes are anything but eye pleasing... not to mention that the movie is 2 hrs and 20 minutes.


----------



## Hughmc

Stumlad, yes, yes! And no BS here my BD, on my setup it looks better than those shots, especially of anything leafy. I know there is compression with caps and they are not 1080p on the fly, but to put it in perspective those shots which look incredible are like tier 1 compared to my BD/setup which looks tier 0. Yes, really!







And please anyone look at this shot which is at the end of the 30 min. You can and must zoom to really appreciate it:

http://media.cinemasquid.com/m00002/m00002_lrg_06.png 


Notice how detailed the face is and then scroll down if it doesn't fit on your screen. Look at his right hand and see the blur and how it contrasts with his face closeup? It looks like bokeh and used well.


And look at the fire scene cap. I looked at the BD and really paid attention to that scene since low light is an issue for digital cams and causes digital noise. Somehow in that entire scene using what appears to be only the fire for light, they capture detail, clarity and virtually avoid or minimize digital noise. That alone is impressive.



GGG, it has plenty of sparkly water. Really, this is a must see and on your plasma would look like looking through glass, hence the "window" characterization. It also helps the movie is a 4 star film.


I want to open a can of worms, but preface by saying this is not directed towards anyone in particular. For those that sit closer than even recommended and are totally immersed, do you think that some issues you are seeing on BD's may actually be limitations and problems inherent in most displays that are simply more apparent at really close positions and the problems some BD's have with PQ maybe a combo of both the BD and the display exacerbating the problem at those close distances?


----------



## LBFilmGuy

*Doomsday*

Overall, this is a GREAT looking title, but I am having a problem with where to place it based on other Tier 0 titles.


The first half hour to 45 minutes take place at night, and it truly shines here. No loss of detail, deep blacks, no noise...handles them very well just like The Incredible Hulk.


Skin tones were spot on, details of all the blood gore/corpses/burned bodies was phenomenal.


Facial closeups were generally extremely sharp, but NOT always. There were s few soft shots here and there and most if not all of the shots of the bad guy weren't as sharp as the rest.


Some low light scenes like when they were chasing the train and in the caves were very poor with lots of noise.


So where do we place this? Based on these flaws it shouldn't be in Tier 0, but we have other titles with the same flaws, some more, some less.


This is another reason why I feel we need to reevaluate most, if not all titles in Tier 0...we need to be much harsher on titles that we consider our demo material.


In the end, I am recommending top Tier 1 because of the inconsistencies.

*Recommendation: Top Tier 1*


Panasonic PZ80U 1080p via PS3 @ 6 feet.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/15745217
> 
> 
> But, put a teen in front of it (who's used to the latest Pixar animation), ...you get what I mean.



Yes, I do know what you mean. I agree with you that it is a lovely restoration and very deserving of a placement in the middle of the gold demo tier. Excellent review.


----------



## rsbeck

*Shoot 'em Up*


2.35:1


Fine grain intact and consistent throughout, not a hint of a halo, nor any ringing to be found -- even on high contrast edges -- excellent transfer. Shoot 'em up is visually driven human cartoon/action film consistently exhibiting strong ultra-fine detail; facial and follicle; pores and imperfections on men as well as women (!) single strands of head, eyebrow, mustache, stubble -- Clothing texture; nap on sweater, stitching on leather jacket, yarn in wool cap on baby, individual threads that weave together to make the camouflage patterned bullet-proof vest. Black levels are excellent, contrast and grayscale very impressive except for a short stretch in the middle when contrast gets a little hot and complexions wash out a bit. Big burst of vibrant colors in the brothel. Only nit-pick on this title might be that picture sometimes loses a tiny bit of sharpness during action scenes, but that could be said of most action titles. I did not see much about which to complain. Picture Quality was a pleasure to watch, although there are a few gross-out moments, which has nothing to do with our evaluation. Unlike some of the titles I have revisited lately, I did not feel like an emergency air-lift out of tier 0 was necessary ASAP. For me, if there was anything holding this title in tier 1.0 instead of tier 0, it might be that it lacked the majestic screen filling type of imagery that can put a title over the top. Since we're trying to get tough and since there is some support for moving this title to tier 1.0, I feel sort of split. If nobody brought it up, I probably wouldn't go to a lot of effort to yank this one out of tier 0, but I can also imagine that if it were lodged in tier 1.0, I probably wouldn't exert a lot of effort to get it moved into tier 0, either. For me, it's right on the edge. So, I will err on the side of conservatism and support the movement to slide this into tier 1.0 where it will sit at the top of the gold demo tier and where, I believe, anyone who takes our recommendation at that rank will be very happy.

*Recommendation: Tier 1.0*


Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From Screen


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Whoa beck, size 4, not 10!


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15751107
> 
> 
> Whoa beck, size 4, not 10!



LOL. That's actually size "5". The difference from 4 to 5 is pretty big!


Now that I've had 5, I don't know if I can go back to 4.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15751115
> 
> 
> LOL. That's actually size "5". The difference from 4 to 5 is pretty big!
> 
> 
> Now that I've had 5, I don't know if I can go back to 4.



Haha i know, I was exaggerating.


5 does look sexy.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15750943
> 
> 
> I posted this earlier and mentioned that the frames were taken from all parts of the movie, but someone replied and said that I was wrong and the shots all appear after the first 30 minutes. I just went and looked back... the first 5 screenshots are all within the first 25 minutes of the movie.
> 
> http://www.cinemasquid.com/MovieImages.aspx?MovieId=2
> 
> 
> Now when you compare the first 30 minutes to the rest of the movie, the rest of the movie looks better... but you're right in that the first 30 minutes are anything but eye pleasing... not to mention that the movie is 2 hrs and 20 minutes.



I made that claim, Stumlad. I was being pretty general and so I went ahead and watched those parts again. I guess to be precise, the not-so-perfect beginning is really only up until they get back to their village, which is at the 13-min mark (not 30).


The first scene in the your url is from about the 10-min mark, which I mentioned as just the very edge of when the picture improves to its Tier-0 state. I stand by that. If CinemaSquid would have taken a screen cap just a minute or so prior to that scene, even as late as when they're gathered around the tapir, digital noise would have been evident.


Still, keep in mind that I was one of the first proponents of moving Apocalypto to Tier 0. Because of the stringent demands of this thread, I agreed that it should be Tier 1 due to the beginning scenes. Remove those and this jumps up to just below _*I, Robot*_ for me. As such, the first 13 minutes keeps it in Tier 1, in my opinion.


One of my favorite scenes is at the 1:48:58 mark - lasts about 6 seconds. Simply jaw-dropping.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/15745217
> 
> *Sleeping Beauty*
> 
> 
> The newer titles like Ratatouile, Wall*E all have depth, the 3D pop that we all talk about, and life. I just did not get much of those in Sleeping Beauty.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.5*



This review gives an excellent example of how this thread gets really hairy for me. I completely understand deltasun's points and, in light of the thread's criteria, cannot disagree with them at all. However, this opinion is entirely a product of expectations and a lot of other people, such as myself, would never go into something like Sleeping Beauty expecting a Pixar-like look in the first place. Sure, a Pixar movie is going to have much more facial detail than a cel-animated movie, but by the same token, a live action movie is going to have much more facial detail than a Pixar movie. Are you going to drop the Pixar movie down the ranks, as well?


Meanwhile, this linear viewpoint seems to suggest that a theoretical "perfect" demo movie might be one consisting of nothing but highly-resolved facial extreme close-ups shot with a macro lens. And who can imagine wanting to watch that?


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15751699
> 
> 
> This review gives an excellent example of how this thread gets really hairy for me. I completely understand deltasun's points and, in light of the thread's criteria, cannot disagree with them at all. However, this opinion is entirely a product of expectations and a lot of other people, such as myself, would never go into something like Sleeping Beauty expecting a Pixar-like look in the first place. Sure, a Pixar movie is going to have much more facial detail than a cel-animated movie, but by the same token, a live action movie is going to have much more facial detail than a Pixar movie. Are you going to drop the Pixar movie down the ranks, as well?
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, this linear viewpoint seems to suggest that a theoretical "perfect" demo movie might be one consisting of nothing but highly-resolved facial extreme close-ups shot with a macro lens. And who can imagine wanting to watch that?



I agree with Spectator. I wish I knew how to word what I am thinking right now, but I seriously need coffee & the head is muddled right now.










Hughmc -- thanks for the mention of sparkly waters. I just may have to rent that one now!


----------



## Gaffer74

Monday has arrived and as promised, here's my brief review of Capricorn One, along with a few others







.


First, Equipment used = PS3 via HDMI-DVI connection to Panasonic PTAE700E projector (1080i compatible & 720p native LCD panel)......displaying onto 6ft wide image (DR Screen) sitting about 8ft away (plenty of room to notice imperfections







).

*Capricorn One (UK Import) Video: ? | Audio: Dolby 4.0 channel | AR: 2.35:1 | ITV DVD*

Firstly, the DVD is dire. Absolute rubbish. In fact, it's about on par with a well used VHS tape.

In comparison to that, the Bluray is a definite step up....quite a few steps up in fact.

However, there's no getting away from the fact that some scenes look very soft, and some scenes even have artifacts and grain (outside scene with OJ just before he gets caught). However, many shots (mainly ones in bright daylight) look absolutely great. Others still look very good with the plane of focus clearly visible giving a nice 3D effect (end scene where limo collects wife and children from their house.....foreground in sharp focus, background house in slight soft non-focus, giving a nice depth of field effect).

I wouldn't say this is a gold standard Bluray but it's definitely a Bronze at least (I think it looks better than Rocky in many scenes and that got a Copper). You'd have to be blind to score it as low as Coal anyhow







.
*Recommendation* = Overall a *Tier 3.5* from me.


*Wall-E*

Not much to say here other than I completely agree with the reference standard *Tier 0* score - breathtaking and not a pixel out of place







.

*Blade Runner*

I'm torn between top of tier 2 or just edging into the bottom of tier 1, but the occasional grain on some panoramic city shots pulls this down slightly into *Tier 2.0* range for me (otherwise a FANTASTIC transfer imo).

*The Shining*
*Tier 2.5-2.75* for me so I agree with the current rank.


I have a few more to get through but will hopefully score those in a few days too







.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15751699
> 
> 
> This review gives an excellent example of how this thread gets really hairy for me. I completely understand deltasun's points and, in light of the thread's criteria, cannot disagree with them at all. However, this opinion is entirely a product of expectations and a lot of other people, such as myself, would never go into something like Sleeping Beauty expecting a Pixar-like look in the first place. Sure, a Pixar movie is going to have much more facial detail than a cel-animated movie, but by the same token, a live action movie is going to have much more facial detail than a Pixar movie. Are you going to drop the Pixar movie down the ranks, as well?
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, this linear viewpoint seems to suggest that a theoretical "perfect" demo movie might be one consisting of nothing but highly-resolved facial extreme close-ups shot with a macro lens. And who can imagine wanting to watch that?



If we ignore the face detail arguments, and just focus on the movie itself, the one thing that sticks out to me is the animated characters. They appear a bit blurry in comparison to the backgrounds. They almost have a bleeding-color type of look to them, whereas the backgrounds are much sharper.


----------



## tfoltz

I only noticed a somewhat blurry scene when the prince is on the horse in the woods. I also notice some flashing where the scene seems to get brighter and darker very quickly for no reason in a few instances. However, the entire movie in my eyes is reference. I would show Sleeping Beauty to family and friends before most movies, including I, Robot. In fact, I show most movies before I, Robot (Casino Royale, Transformers, Pirates 2), but that's besides the point. The point is, Sleeping Beauty is amazing.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15752674
> 
> 
> If we ignore the face detail arguments, and just focus on the movie itself, the one thing that sticks out to me is the animated characters. They appear a bit blurry in comparison to the backgrounds. They almost have a bleeding-color type of look to them, whereas the backgrounds are much sharper.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15750774
> 
> 
> djoberg, if I remember correctly wasn't the only downer the DD 640 track on Michael Clayton as it has no lossless or even loss track? ANd even then it wasn't bad. He does a good job on Tilda...And in Burn after reading too...



Yes Hugh, it only had a DD 5.1 soundtrack, but this title was mostly dialogue and it sounded pretty good.


I have Mirrors out on rental (watching it tonight) but after reading your review I'm not looking forward to the PQ end of it.







I also rented The Invisible (it's horror/thriller night at our house







) and from what I've read that's also very deficient in the PQ department.


----------



## rsbeck

The expectation is created by the criteria. Pixar's animated reference titles, just like any title in the reference tier, sets a standard. Look at the arguments for Sleeping Beauty -- not one person has defended it based on PQ virtues according to our criteria, nor can anyone say that it meets the standards set by other reference titles. The argument for Sleeping Beauty is that it is an excellent demo of cel animation, not that it is the ultimate demo for blu-ray. Blu-ray may bring out the best in what Sleeping Beauty has to offer, but there is no way to construe that Sleeping is the ultimate in what blu-ray has to offer. The only way to argue for Sleeping Beauty is to break the first two rules of the thread; you have to create a category solely for Sleeping Beauty and avoid comparing it to other reference titles and you have to forgive it for its limitations based on artist's intent. So, you have to argue to lower standards to get Sleeping Beauty into tier 0 and this runs counter to what we are trying to do here. If we are going to practice what we preach; compare every title to every other title and ignore artist's intent, Sleeping Beauty has no business in our reference tier. We have a gold demo tier with many fine titles -- IMO, it is no slam against any title, much less Sleeping Beauty, to place it in our gold demo tier where it belongs.


----------



## tfoltz

With that said, why would Sleeping Beauty belong in Tier 1 or Tier 2? Wouldn't it be even lower? Both of those tiers require the film to look "real".



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15753550
> 
> 
> The expectation is created by the criteria. Pixar's animated reference titles, just like any title in the reference tier, sets a standard. Look at the arguments for Sleeping Beauty -- not one person has defended it based on PQ virtues according to our criteria, nor can anyone say that it meets the standards set by other reference titles. The argument for Sleeping Beauty is that it is an excellent demo of cel animation, not that it is the ultimate demo for blu-ray. Blu-ray may bring out the best in what Sleeping Beauty has to offer, but there is no way to construe that Sleeping is the ultimate in what blu-ray has to offer. The only way to argue for Sleeping Beauty is to break the first two rules of the thread; you have to create a category solely for Sleeping Beauty and avoid comparing it to other reference titles and you have to forgive it for its limitations based on artist's intent. So, you have to argue to lower standards to get Sleeping Beauty into tier 0 and this runs counter to what we are trying to do here. If we are going to practice what we preach; compare every title to every other title and ignore artist's intent, Sleeping Beauty has no business in our reference tier. We have a gold demo tier with many fine titles -- IMO, it is no slam against any title, much less Sleeping Beauty, to place it in our gold demo tier where it belongs.



In the "How It Works" section in the first post it states that "This list is also not intended as a means of comparing the superiority of one format over the other since the list is purely subjective, not conclusive." I believe that Sleeping Beauty is in a league of it's own and doesn't need to be compared to other Tier 0 titles since there are no other hand drawn animated titles of its complexity that it can be compared to. It is sharp, has great color, has depth, has great detail, and I believe it adds up to Tier 0. That's my view, though I do understand your view quite well.


----------



## rsbeck

_I believe that Sleeping Beauty is in a league of it's own and doesn't need to be compared to other Tier 0 titles._


I hear and appreciate what you're saying, but this does not square with what we say...

*This list represents an absolute ranking system, where every available Blu-ray's picture quality is directly compared against every other release.
*


So, if we want to grant titles a league of their own -- that's a different thread.


----------



## tfoltz

I believe this comparison has taken place. Isn't that what people are doing when they suggested Sleeping Beauty within a certain spot in the Tier 0 list? They compared it to the other movies and deemed it better/worse than others. You can't really requiring us to compare apples to apples (hand-drawn vs. hand-drawn) instead of apples to oranges (hand-drawn animation vs. live action/computer animation) since there are no similar movies to Sleeping Beauty (so we've only got one apple!). Maybe when Pinocchio comes out; but even then we'll only have two hand drawn animation titles.


Again, the thread says that the "list is also not intended as a means of comparing the superiority of one format over the other since the list is purely subjective, not conclusive." Making Sleeping Beauty move to Tier 1 or lower is deciding that hand-drawn animation is an inferior format when compared to live action/computer animation.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15753832
> 
> _I believe that Sleeping Beauty is in a league of it's own and doesn't need to be compared to other Tier 0 titles._
> 
> 
> I hear and appreciate what you're saying, but this does not square with what we say...
> 
> *This list represents an absolute ranking system, where every available Blu-ray's picture quality is directly compared against every other release.
> *
> 
> 
> So, if we want to grant titles a league of their own -- that's a different thread.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/15754005
> 
> 
> Now, if you are requiring me to compare apples to apples (hand-drawn vs. hand drawn) instead of apples to oranges (hand-drawn animation vs. live action/computer animation), it can't happen since there are no similar movies to Sleeping Beauty.



*every available Blu-ray's picture quality is directly compared against every other release.*



IMO, the argument you're making in favor of Sleeping Beauty perfectly illustrates my point -- the only way to argue for it is to create a category solely for this title. That's another thread.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15753550
> 
> 
> The expectation is created by the criteria. Pixar's animated reference titles, just like any title in the reference tier, sets a standard. Look at the arguments for Sleeping Beauty -- not one person has defended it based on PQ virtues according to our criteria, nor can anyone say that it meets the standards set by other reference titles. The argument for Sleeping Beauty is that it is an excellent demo of cel animation, not that it is the ultimate demo for blu-ray. Blu-ray may bring out the best in what Sleeping Beauty has to offer, but there is no way to construe that Sleeping is the ultimate in what blu-ray has to offer. The only way to argue for Sleeping Beauty is to break the first two rules of the thread; you have to create a category solely for Sleeping Beauty and avoid comparing it to other reference titles and you have to forgive it for its limitations based on artist's intent. So, you have to argue to lower standards to get Sleeping Beauty into tier 0 and this runs counter to what we are trying to do here. If we are going to practice what we preach; compare every title to every other title and ignore artist's intent, Sleeping Beauty has no business in our reference tier. We have a gold demo tier with many fine titles -- IMO, it is no slam against any title, much less Sleeping Beauty, to place it in our gold demo tier where it belongs.



+1


I agree with this 100% and quite frankly I am amazed at the fascination with Sleeping Beauty. In my review of this title I praised it for the wonderful restoration, but *it still falls short of present-day animated titles in terms of detail and depth*. I recommended Tier 1 which is still very commendable, but if we are really adhering to Tier 0 criteria I can't see how we would call it "the best of the best."


----------



## rsbeck

I agree 100% -- amazing restoration of a classic. Blu-ray brings out the best in what Sleeping Beauty has to offer, but Sleeping Beauty does not represent the standard of reference for what blu-ray has to offer. The proof is that no one can even begin to argue that it is.


----------



## tfoltz

How can it be Tier 1 then? Tier 1 says it must have a "realistic feel".


I'm fine with people recommending other Tiers for Sleeping Beauty. However, what I'm getting at is that if it is decided that definitely cannot be Tier 0 because of how Tier 0 is defined, then how could you recommend to put it in Tier 1 or Tier 2 since both of those tier definitions require a title to look "realistic?" Unless you agree that the definitions are not exact.


What present-day animated titles are you comparing it to?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15754114
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> 
> I agree with this 100% and quite frankly I am amazed at the fascination with Sleeping Beauty. In my review of this title I praised it for the wonderful restoration, but it still falls short of present-day animated titles in terms of detail and depth. I recommended Tier 1 which is still very commendable, but if we are really adhering to Tier 0 criteria I can't see how we would call it "the best of the best."


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/15754176
> 
> 
> How can it be Tier 1 then? Tier 1 says it must have a "realistic feel".



I understand the confusion -- that's why we have been rewriting the tier descriptions -- to make things more clear. We have new tier descriptions that will replace the current ones and IMO will make things a little more understandable. They should be on the front page soon. Here is the new tier one description...

*Tier One - Gold (Excellent)*


Blu-rays in this tier are demo-worthy and exhibit many of the same image qualities as titles in tier zero, albeit with a few qualifications: May demonstrate reference picture quality but have brief periods of inconsistency; Or may exhibit excellent quality in general but ever so slightly rank below tier zero quality in terms of visual interest, detail, contrast, depth or clarity. Differences between titles in the top two tiers can be very subtle.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/15754176
> 
> 
> How can it be Tier 1 then? Tier 1 says it must have a "realistic feel".
> 
> 
> I'm fine with people recommending other Tiers for Sleeping Beauty. However, what I'm getting at is that if it is decided that definitely cannot be Tier 0 because of how Tier 0 is defined, then how could you recommend to put it in Tier 1 or Tier 2 since both of those tier definitions require a title to look "realistic?" Unless you agree that the definitions are not exact.
> 
> 
> What present-day animated titles are you comparing it to?



I just checked in and saw your post and rsbeck's reply. The new Tier 1 description does allow for Sleeping Beauty to be in tier 1 for it states that it may "rank below tier zero quality *in terms of...detail....depth*," which are the two virtues missing in Sleeping Beauty.


As to your question, I am comparing it with every animated title in Tier 0, so take your pick. Every one of those titles has DETAIL and DEPTH.


----------



## tfoltz

What is the standard of reference?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15754162
> 
> 
> I agree 100% -- amazing restoration of a classic. Blu-ray brings out the best in what Sleeping Beauty has to offer, but Sleeping Beauty does not represent the standard of reference for what blu-ray has to offer. The proof is that no one can even begin to argue that it is.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/15754376
> 
> 
> What is the standard of reference?



IMO, for animation, it would be a title like Kung Fu Panda or parts of Wall-E.


They perfectly illustrate the PQ criteria for animation. They are the reference for photo-realistic qualities, detail, three dimensionality, and rendered environments.


Which animated titles do you believe set the standard of reference with regard to those criteria?


----------



## spectator

I think this "photo-realism" criterion for animated movies is just beyond silly and useless. I know we're not supposed to consider intent, but we _are_ aiming for a demo of what Blu-ray can do. Photo-realistically rendering the human figure or face is _not_ the only exciting/interesting thing that Blu-ray can do! And just because the figure or face of a "human" is present does not mean that it is best served by the appearance of copious fine detail.


----------



## tfoltz

I agree that Wall*E, KFP, Rats, etc. are reference titles. But I also believe Sleeping Beauty is a reference title and offers the best of what blu-ray offers. I don't believe there is a set standard that can be applied to each title equally, or that a movie should be required to have photo-realistic qualities or three dimensionality to be reference, or that hand-drawn animation should be compared to computer animation titles. I understand that I probably go against the definitions of the blue category, but that's because I disagree that a comparison must be made between a hand-drawn title with a computer animated or live action title when discussing picture quality. I also believe that Sleeping Beauty has a depth and detail superior to most Tier 0 titles, it's just a different.


Again, I definitely understand why some would want to place it lower. Titles like this are tough to reach a consensus on because there really isn't much you can equally compare it to, so it turns to a subjective ranking. Like many in this thread, I don't believe we should have separate categories for different formats (computer animation, live action, hand drawn, etc.), so that definitely is not an option.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15754656
> 
> 
> I think this "photo-realism" criterion for animated movies is just beyond silly and useless. I know we're not supposed to consider intent, but we _are_ aiming for a demo of what Blu-ray can do. Photo-realistically rendering the human figure or face is _not_ the only exciting/interesting thing that Blu-ray can do! And just because the figure or face of a "human" is present does not mean that it is best served by the appearance of copious fine detail.



Harsh words, my friend...yet I find myself agreeing with you here.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/15754796
> 
> 
> I agree that Wall*E, KFP, Rats, etc. are reference titles. But I also believe Sleeping Beauty is a reference title and offers the best of what blu-ray offers. I don't believe there is a set standard that can be applied to each title equally, or that a movie should be required to have photo-realistic qualities or three dimensionality to be reference, or that hand-drawn animation should be compared to computer animation titles. I understand that I probably go against the definitions of the blue category, but that's because I disagree that a comparison must be made between a hand-drawn title with a computer animated or live action title when discussing picture quality. I also believe that Sleeping Beauty has a depth and detail superior to most Tier 0 titles, it's just a different.
> 
> 
> Again, I definitely understand why some would want to place it lower. Titles like this are tough to reach a consensus on because there really isn't much you can equally compare it to, so it turns to a subjective ranking. Like many in this thread, I don't believe we should have separate categories for different formats (computer animation, live action, hand drawn, etc.), so that definitely is not an option.



Well said.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15755082
> 
> 
> If I were willing to get this philosophical with every title, I would vote everything into tier 0, so these arguments don't work...for _me_



I'd love to hear your philosophical defenses of EE and DNR!


----------



## stumlad

I would use Sleeping Beauty to demonstrate how something from the 60s can still look fantastic and take advantage of what blu-ray has to offer. I wouldn't use it to sell someone on blu-ray. If I were to use an animation, I'd use Kung Fu Panda ... or Speed Racer.


----------



## rsbeck

I agree. I use Godfather, Dog Day Afternoon, Casablanca, How The earth Stood Still and even Bullitt to show people how great old films can look on blu-ray. I also vote them into the reference tier on the Artistic Intent thread. But, I wouldn't recommend any of them for the reference tier here just because blu-ray shows the ultimate in how great they can look. That's a different set of criteria, a different thread.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15755272
> 
> 
> If you don't mind my borrowing, it would go like this...
> 
> 
> I think this EE and DNR criterion for blu-rays is just beyond silly and useless. I know we're not supposed to consider intent, but we are aiming for a demo of what Blu-ray can do. Reproducing the grain and detail of the original is not the only exciting/interesting thing that Blu-ray can do! And just because the grain and detail is present in the original does not mean that we are best served by the appearance of copious fine detail.



Okay, but I can put up a strong and honest argument for the benefits and advantages of the relative lack of detail in Sleeping Beauty. Can you give me an _honest_ defense of the virtues of EE and DNR? One that you can not only make, but believe in?


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15755499
> 
> 
> I would use Sleeping Beauty to demonstrate how something from the 60s can still look fantastic and take advantage of what blu-ray has to offer. I wouldn't use it to sell someone on blu-ray.



Now, see... with neither hesitation nor reservation, I _would_ use it to sell someone on Blu-ray (why on Earth not? It's gorgeous!). Of course, I would be demoing it to an adult who understands that Sleeping Beauty isn't going to (and shouldn't!) look like Kung Fu Panda.


And really, on a technical level, I don't think Sleeping Beauty's image accomplishes anything less than does Kung Fu Panda's. It's just a _different style_.


----------



## SuprSlow

Thread marker.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15751699
> 
> 
> This review gives an excellent example of how this thread gets really hairy for me. I completely understand deltasun's points and, in light of the thread's criteria, cannot disagree with them at all. However, this opinion is entirely a product of expectations and a lot of other people, such as myself, would never go into something like Sleeping Beauty expecting a Pixar-like look in the first place. Sure, a Pixar movie is going to have much more facial detail than a cel-animated movie, but by the same token, a live action movie is going to have much more facial detail than a Pixar movie. Are you going to drop the Pixar movie down the ranks, as well?
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, this linear viewpoint seems to suggest that a theoretical "perfect" demo movie might be one consisting of nothing but highly-resolved facial extreme close-ups shot with a macro lens. And who can imagine wanting to watch that?



I am working within the parameters of this thread. I.e., absolute comparisons from title to title regardless of their format. The items I highlighted as deficiencies for Sleeping Beauty are the ones that set it below the latest Pixar movies. But my comparisons weren't limited to that. I also cited the cardboard-like background in many scenes. So, it's not limited to facial features. A macro-infested film would not necessarily make it into tier 0.


The premise of these reviews is to rate one title against another, with no "handicapping" and no qualifications. If an animated title falls short because of facial details against a live action movie then it's ranked lower. Obviously, that's not the case here when you look at the current tier 0 list.


One might say that an animated face cannot compete against a live action face's texture (although some may argue Ratatouile has done this). That may be the reality now, but who knows x years from now. That is the evolution of this medium. And guess what? Cars and Kung Fu Panda get knocked down to the Gold tier, much like Sleeping Beauty now.


That's just one movie lover's humble viewpoint. It's all decided by reviews and votes, people.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15753550
> 
> 
> The expectation is created by the criteria. Pixar's animated reference titles, just like any title in the reference tier, sets a standard. Look at the arguments for Sleeping Beauty -- not one person has defended it based on PQ virtues according to our criteria, nor can anyone say that it meets the standards set by other reference titles. The argument for Sleeping Beauty is that it is an excellent demo of cel animation, not that it is the ultimate demo for blu-ray. Blu-ray may bring out the best in what Sleeping Beauty has to offer, but there is no way to construe that Sleeping is the ultimate in what blu-ray has to offer. The only way to argue for Sleeping Beauty is to break the first two rules of the thread; you have to create a category solely for Sleeping Beauty and avoid comparing it to other reference titles and you have to forgive it for its limitations based on artist's intent. So, you have to argue to lower standards to get Sleeping Beauty into tier 0 and this runs counter to what we are trying to do here. If we are going to practice what we preach; compare every title to every other title and ignore artist's intent, Sleeping Beauty has no business in our reference tier. We have a gold demo tier with many fine titles -- IMO, it is no slam against any title, much less Sleeping Beauty, to place it in our gold demo tier where it belongs.



I respect your position on this title but simply do not agree with this particular analysis.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15754448
> 
> 
> IMO, for animation, it would be a title like Kung Fu Panda or parts of Wall-E.
> 
> 
> They perfectly illustrate the PQ criteria for animation. They are the reference for photo-realistic qualities, detail, three dimensionality, and rendered environments.
> 
> 
> Which animated titles do you believe set the standard of reference with regard to those criteria?



I have no idea why computer animated titles are being used as a sole basis of comparison. The production techniques to produce hand-drawn cel animation are almost nothing like modern c.g.i. The similarities they share lay more in the way of story development than anything else. Virtually nothing on any format looks like Kung Fu Panda. For my money only two other titles are on Kung Fu Panda's level for picture quality and they are both Pixar titles.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15754656
> 
> 
> I think this "photo-realism" criterion for animated movies is just beyond silly and useless. I know we're not supposed to consider intent, but we _are_ aiming for a demo of what Blu-ray can do. Photo-realistically rendering the human figure or face is _not_ the only exciting/interesting thing that Blu-ray can do! And just because the figure or face of a "human" is present does not mean that it is best served by the appearance of copious fine detail.



The listed criteria were never meant to be requirements for tier zero, at least in my opinion, but useful gauges and guides to common attributes seen in tier zero caliber BDs.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/15754796
> 
> 
> I agree that Wall*E, KFP, Rats, etc. are reference titles. But I also believe Sleeping Beauty is a reference title and offers the best of what blu-ray offers. I don't believe there is a set standard that can be applied to each title equally, or that a movie should be required to have photo-realistic qualities or three dimensionality to be reference, or that hand-drawn animation should be compared to computer animation titles. I understand that I probably go against the definitions of the blue category, but that's because I disagree that a comparison must be made between a hand-drawn title with a computer animated or live action title when discussing picture quality. I also believe that Sleeping Beauty has a depth and detail superior to most Tier 0 titles, it's just a different.



+1

I just hope we do not eviscerate the existing tier zero in this current "reevaluation" process that has been sweeping the thread.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15756110
> 
> 
> I have no idea why computer animated titles are being used as a sole basis of comparison.



I'm confused, too. The first page is very explicit in saying every title is compared to every other title, so why should we _exclude_ any animated title when comparing another animated title?



> Quote:
> For my money only two other titles are on Kung Fu Panda's level for picture quality and they are both Pixar titles.



Agree. What's interesting here is that you say "for picture quality" -- what other criteria should we be applying?


----------



## rsbeck

*New Reviews*

*Domino*...0 (Stumlad)...1.0 (Deviation)

*Capricorn One*...3.5 (Gaffer74)

*Wall-E*...0 (Gaffer74)

*Blade Runner*...2.0 (Gaffer74)

*The Shining*...Agree With Current Rank (Gaffer74)

*Death Race*...1.5 (Djoberg)

*Lakeview Terrace*...1.0 (Djoberg, Hughmc)

*Michael Clayton*...2.5 (Djoberg)

*Mirrors*...3.5 (Hughmc)

*Event Horizon*...1.75 (Phantom Stranger)...1.5 (Rob Tomlin)

*Saw: 5*...4.0 (Stumlad, Rob Tomlin)

*Narnia: Caspian*...Mid 0 (Stumlad, Hughmc)

*Sleeping Beauty*...1.5 (deltasun)*

*Next*...1.75 (HT.1)

*Doomsday*...1.0 (LBFilmguy)


*Recommendations for Movement:*

*Shoot 'em Up*...1.0 (Stumlad, Rob Tomlin, Hughmc, Geekyglassesgirl, rsbeck)

*Transformers*...Bottom 0 (42041, Patrick99)...1.0 (rsbeck)

*Rescue Dawn*...2.0 (selimsivad)...1.75 (HT.1)

*Black Book*...1.5 (Djoberg)

*Apocalypto*...Mid 0 (Hughmc)...1.0 (Djoberg, deltasun, Stumlad)...somewhere in gold tier (Rob Tomlin)...2.0 (rsbeck)

*Next*...2.0 (lgans316 stands by review)

*Sleeping Beauty*...Bottom 0 (Rob Tomlin, Phantom Stranger, Geekyglassesgirl)...1.0 (Djoberg, ABBN)...1.25 (Stumlad)...1.5 (Deltasun, rsbeck)






** Please don't quote this entire post -- makes thread searches a pain.


----------



## rsbeck

Super Slow -- let me know if you combine these with the previous list. Thanks!


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15756300
> 
> 
> I'm confused, too. The first page is very explicit in saying every title is compared to every other title, so why should we _exclude_ any animated title when comparing another animated title?
> 
> *Agree. What's interesting here is that you say "for picture quality" -- what other criteria should we be applying?*



I just see Sleeping Beauty as demo-worthy material on par with many of the other titles currently listed in tier zero, animation or otherwise. For me to rank it in tier gold would force me to recommend dropping about 20 or 25 others currently in tier zero also.


In regard to the bolded section, I was just being explicit in what this thread should focus on only. Nothing else should be taken from it other than my reticence to endorse Kung Fu Panda as some incredibly entertaining movie on all levels, but I have been very strict to keep my personal opinions on the merits of a film not affect my rankings in this thread.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15756529
> 
> 
> For me to rank it in tier gold would force me to recommend dropping about 20 or 25 others currently in tier zero also.



Giddyup! Now, we're getting somewhere


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/15756077
> 
> 
> The premise of these reviews is to rate one title against another, with no "handicapping" and no qualifications. If an animated title falls short because of facial details against a live action movie then it's ranked lower. Obviously, that's not the case here when you look at the current tier 0 list.



I understand the criteria of the thread; I'm just arguing that, in this respect, it falls down for animated titles. By this standard, Ratatouille would not really be a "demo-worthy" title. We're left with a list which is terribly impractical for demo purposes, as I'm sure most here would consider Ratatouille very "demo-worthy", as evidenced by its present placement in Tier 0.


If the criteria can't accommodate the "demo-worthiness" of a title like Sleeping Beauty, I would contend that it has little practical usefulness. And isn't practical usefulness the greater purpose of the criteria in the first place?


----------



## Incindium

*Dark City*

Just got this in the mail yesterday and watched it last night. I know this is one of those titles that have be severely criticized for the excessive use of DNR. While the DNR/ waxy faces is really apparent especially with Jennifer Connolly's character the picture otherwise was pretty good. In short I think that while the DNR does knock this title down significantly that its current ranking in Tier 3 is too low. It compares in my mind better with the titles I've seen in Mid Tier 2 so I'm ranking it:

*Tier Recommendation: 2.5*


65" Mitsubishi DLP, 1080p24, ~10'


I've got to say that this was the first time seeing the Director's cut of this film and I enjoyed it even more than the original version. I'm very glad to have gotten this film on bluray even with the PQ flaws.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15756618
> 
> 
> I understand the criteria of the thread; I'm just arguing that, in this respect, it falls down for animated titles. By this standard, Ratatouille would not really be a "demo-worthy" title. We're left with a list which is terribly impractical for demo purposes, as I'm sure most here would consider Ratatouille very "demo-worthy", as evidenced by its present placement in Tier 0.



I think you're misunderstanding my post. If facial details alone were the criteria, there wouldn't be any animation in tier 0. However, we're reviewing/comparing the overall picture quality.


In the case of Sleeping Beauty, everything outside of my comparisons to other Pixar titles (facial details, shading, etc.) is relatively equal. Hence, I was focusing on the parts where Sleeping Beauty falls short.


Also, I *don't* only compare Sleeping Beauty to other animated titles. This was just the easiest to see. Plus, those Pixar titles just happen to be at the top of the tier 0 list.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Ahhhhh it sure would be nice to have these last 2 pages full of debate on Sleeping Beauty in their own thread specifically for Sleeping Beauty in our newly created subforum of Blu Ray PQ reviews and discussion forum.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Damnit I really wish we could have that. It would be SO much better.


----------



## RBFC




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15757524
> 
> 
> Damnit I really wish we could have that. It would be SO much better.



Let it go.


Lee


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15757524
> 
> 
> Damnit I really wish we could have that. It would be SO much better.



Is there any possibility that we could have a separate thread where we post a duplicate of our reviews, but only reviews? That way, one thread would only have reviews and this one would have the review plus the discussion. No discussion would be allowed in the review only thread and reviews only if they are formatted correctly. Whatta ya think?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Who At Kilburn: 1977*


recommendation: *Tier 4.5*


A concert from footage long thought to be lost, Image Entertainment released this Blu-ray on November 18th, 2008. There are actually two separate concerts on the disc that have nothing to do with one another, one being the titular main concert, and an earlier gig at the London Coliseum from 1969. Both of the concerts are presented in 1080i resolution and encoded in AVC on a single BD-50. The Kilburn concert runs 65-minutes while the Coliseum show runs 72-minutes.


According to the BDInfo scan of the disc, the Kilburn concert has an average video bitrate of 30.89 while the Coliseum concert averages an almost identical 30.82 Mbps. Both encodes follow the same general parameters, with the bulk of the running times in a range between 21.9 Mbps to 36.4 Mbps and momentary peaks that occasionally reach the upper 40's. The difficult and problematic source material for both concerts seem to be compressed here in excellent technical quality with few, if any, visible artifacts attributable to the encoder. In fact the encoding seems to reproduce the heavy grain quite well without devolving into any macroblocking.


The Kilburn concert was originally shot in 1977 as a first stab at _The Kids Are Alright_ project. The footage was taken at the Gaumont Theatre and was filmed in 35mm with six cameras. The booklet included with the Blu-ray lays out many of the limitations inherent in this material. The image here is very soft and is the exact opposite of a visual demo. Intricate details are spotted infrequently and colors tend to look awkward under the multi-colored stage lighting. Some of that can be blamed on the poor lighting choices and camera work. Black levels are okay once you get past the first fifteen minutes, but some shots do reveal slight mosquito noise in the nearly black scenes. There is an easily noticeable vertical line that runs down the middle of the screen at approximately the twenty-minute mark. Other than that, the master looks relatively clean of debris and dirt. Edge enhancement halos are completely absent throughout the concert. I would say this transfer is one of the most unprocessed looking transfers I have ever seen, and that includes any use at all of digital noise reduction. Considering the thick grain that permeates the image I almost expected it in some form, but if you want to see what unprocessed 35mm film from the 70's shot in trying circumstances looks like, this is it.


The other concert included here, a 1969 gig at the Coliseum, was shot on 16mm film. It is simply the worst looking high-definition material I have ever seen and the only reason I am not ranking the disc in tier five is that it is included more as a bonus feature than anything else. The great sounding lossless audio track here seems to be the only reason for its inclusion in high-definition. I think if you treat it as archival footage and as a historical document of a great performance then it merits a look but nothing more. The included booklet goes to some length explaining the overall darkness of this concert as a result of the stage not being lit for properly capturing film.


This release is all about the music of The Who. Honestly both performances look as good as they ever will on this very Blu-ray, but no one should buy this disc looking to demo picture quality because it simply will not work on that level. I still strongly recommend it to any Who fan, and would almost call it a necessity. The lossless audio tracks are stupendous and worth the price of this BD alone.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post15549885


----------



## Hughmc

Phantom, thanks for The Who review. I am a fan and caught it on PBS and I wasn't expecting much in terms of video or audio, but on PBS the audio was 2.0. How is the DTS MA on this disc? As you said a fan would by it for the sound alone knowing the video is mediocre at best.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15757959
> 
> 
> Phantom, thanks for The Who review. I am a fan and caught it on PBS and I wasn't expecting much in terms of video or audio, but on PBS the audio was 2.0. How is the DTS MA on this disc? As you said a fan would by it for the sound alone knowing the video is mediocre at best.



The 5.1 DTS-HD MA tracks on both concerts are great. The 1977 concert was professionally recorded on a 16 track recorder and sounds flawless.


----------



## SuprSlow

A little updating of the first post...


Added the latest tier description revisions, added Phantom's great list of glossary terms, and removed the "How to Assess" section.


Thanks to everyone for the great work and contributions in overhauling some of the first post. It was long overdue!


----------



## Hughmc

SuprSlow, thank you!!


----------



## djoberg

*The Invisible*


This is a very AVERAGE-looking title and therefore a Tier 3 placement would be fitting. The PQ was actually all over the place; one minute there were some really good shots with depth, detail, good colors, decent blacks and contrast, even 3D pop; the next minute it was flat, soft, and lacking detail. Most of the time is was just _okay_, definitely better than an upconverted DVD, but not very impressive. To repeat myself, it was average.


The movie was produced by those who brought us The Sixth Sense, so I was _hoping_ for at least a good rental, but it turned out to be like the PQ, which was AVERAGE. It did have a good soundtrack though, so there was one redeeming feature.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*


Samsung 50" 1080p DLP....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 7'


----------



## djoberg

*Mirrors*


Hugh was absolutely right on this one; it was totally unacceptable! The first 30-40 minutes were no better than a DVD, with heavy grain, softness, terrible blacks, digital noise, and no detail or depth whatsoever (especially in the Department Store scenes, which dominated the first 1/3 of the movie). Had this persisted to the end it would have to join the dunghill of 28 Days Later!










But after about the 40 minute mark the PQ definitely picked up, with quite a few scenes with better lighting and camera-work, resulting in some halfway decent colors, fair-looking blacks, good detail (especially in facial close-ups) and contrast. It was void though of any real 3D pop and it was never sharp.


Hugh gave it a 3.5, which is generous. I would have to say:

*Tier Recommendation: 4.0*


Samsung 50" 1080p DLP....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 7'


PS The movie was NOT one of Keifer Sutherland's better choices. But hey, we have to cut him some slack because _24_ didn't run last year due to the writer's strike in Hollywood, and a man's gotta work. I'm sure his time making Mirrors gave him a lot of time to _reflect_ on his life.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hurleyjj* /forum/post/15418395
> 
> 
> Into The Wild
> 
> 
> I think this title should be in the top tier. It's currently not even listed probably because it's such a recent release. It's PQ is absolutely amazing throughout most of it.


*Into the Wild Video: VC-1 | Audio: Dolby TrueHD | AR: 2.35:1 | Paramount*


The scope image boasts good resolution and clarity due to the beautiful cinematography. Black levels and shadow detail is excellent though brightness can look elevated in some scenes. Natural color reproduction is the presentation's strongest suit thus making fleshtones look photo realistic. Close-up detailing is very good but not consistent as seen with titles in Tier-0 and upper Tier-1. Noise became intrusive in some of the sky shots and with the dark scenes shot under natural lighting conditions. Film grain is well preserved in most shots though some scenes especially in the first 20 minutes seems to suffer from lackluster texture and high frequency details. Vista shots offers a nice dose of HD pop and three dimensionality. However, softness and diffused look peeps in quite often, lowering the bar set by top tier titles.

*Tier recommendation:* *Top Tier-2* / *Tier 1.75*


----------



## totalownership




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AustinSTI* /forum/post/10733385
> 
> *TIER 5 -COAL-* *(ABC)*
> 
> Only slightly better than DVD.Visible artifacting, softness, quality rivals upconverted DVD.
> 
> 
> 
> *28 Days Later* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Fox | *Note: Filmed in SD
> 
> 
> *TIER 6.31749 -GARBAGE-* *(ABC)* _(Click here for an explanation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )_
> 
> *Sleeping Beauty* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.55:1 | Disney





Please put 28 Days Later in the Garbage Tier. In NO WAY is this even worthy of bluray. NO WAY. I see absolutely NO benefit of having this material on bluray. I wish I had seen this list before I purchased this. I'm going to have a fight with BestBuy tomorrow as I return this garbage demanding my money back. There should be some kind of law that states you shouldn't get away with this. This is on Bluray for the simple fact to gouge. I watched the scene where they released the animals hoping that it would get better and it was just some artistic camera work. No such luck. I swear this looked better on cable when I saw it. I know it wasn't this bad. Horrible.


I've had friends come over with bootleg standard DVDs that look WAY better than this filth.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Grindhouse: Planet Terror*


Well, I just realized that I apparently made a big mistake and watched the "scratched version". I didn't even realize that another version was available.










The only other two reviews indicate high Tier 1 to Tier 0!










Having watched the scratched version, I really don't see how that is possible. Even looking beyond the "dirt and scratches" I didn't see much in the way of great detail. There was a lot of "grain" too.


In any event, I will just recommend the "scratched version" for Tier 4.0, but it is almost a meaningless recommendation given the intentional nature of what Rodriguez was doing.


I wish that I had known about the scratch free version. I found the added scratches and dirt to have gone overboard.


Recommendation: Tier 4.0


----------



## TayC

*Office Space*


I was very surprised with this release... Fox did a great job. Colors are much more vivid than the DVD and HD broadcast, yet remain natural. The previously drab look of Office Space has been given life. I didn't notice any DNR and very little EE. Details were good. Facial close-ups revealed pores, strands of hair, and blemishes. The movie maintains a consistently sharp look, which is unexpected for a 10 year old low budget comedy. Most scenes in the film are daytime. The black levels in darker scenes are a little weak. Contrast overall isn't great. Some scenes have more depth than others. This is clearly a new transfer and Fox did a good job not messing with it too much, however there aren't a lot of "wow" moments. It's just a very pure picture that hasn't been tampered with much. Overall, this BD looks really good.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75*


Panasonic 42PX80U, 720p, 7.5 feet


----------



## stumlad

*I Know What You Did Last Summer*


It's just an average horror flick, but anyway... Let's start with the good: Black levels are very good, as they should be since half the movie contains night scenes. Colors and detail in general are pretty strong during the daytime scenes. Some of the night scenes display good detail as well. I'd say the level of detail in general, rarely exceeded 720p. Face detail was okay-to-good, but nothing great. The movie looked better as it progressed. I don't recall grain very much. If it was there, it wasn't the distracting kind.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*


----------



## 42041

*Crank*


I'm really not sure how this made its way into Tier 0, to be honest. There's often a very good amount of detail, but just as often the frantic stylized camerawork employed in the movie doesn't allow for much detail to be captured. There's this cheap camcorder look to the whole affair, with somewhat flat color rendition and lots of digital noise in many scenes. I have to agree with rsbeck about contrast issues as well, blacks are gray more often than not. Many brief shots seemed to have been filmed in SD, and there's a heapin' helping of edge enhancement throughout the movie, which is likely an artistic choice in this case but not one conducive to a Tier 0 image IMO. Good looking disc, but not my idea of reference.

Tier recommendation: 1.5


(PS3/Pioneer 50" Kuro 9g Elite plasma/1sw distance)


----------



## Coxwell

*King of New York*


I am rather overwhelmed by this blu ray. I wasn't expected that kind of sharp image. The definition and contrast are both solid. Colors and darks are really well rendered. The superb work of the DP deserves such a job in blu ray edition. There are some lacks though. Artifacts appears sometimes and gray scales are not perfectly accurate. However, i do recommand this affordable disc.

*Tier Recommandation 2.5**


Pioneer 50" Kuro 9G - Panasonic BD35 - Distance of viewing 7 feet*


----------



## Coxwell

*Donnie Darko*


What a great disappointment ! I read some articles online that underline the fact that the image is haze and blurred all over the film. Despite of the fact it's a limitation of the DP and the film stock (very high sensibility), i thought the contrast and blacks will be a little more appropriate for an high definition disc. I can't compare with the dvd i don't own, but i think this blu ray disc is probably just a bit better than the SD previous edition.

*Recommandation : Tier 3.75**


Kuro 50" 9G - Panasonic BD35 - Distance of viewing 7 feet*


----------



## Hughmc

not wanting to clutter, but I have to compliment *LBFilmGuy* and *rsbeck* for the push to change the posting format. This page is a testament to how good it looks. Thanks. Bravo!! We have a winner!


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15757726
> 
> 
> Is there any possibility that we could have a separate thread where we post a duplicate of our reviews, but only reviews? That way, one thread would only have reviews and this one would have the review plus the discussion. No discussion would be allowed in the review only thread and reviews only if they are formatted correctly. Whatta ya think?



I think we should stop discussing changes that would involve new threads, subthreads, etc.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15760839
> 
> 
> not wanting to clutter, but I have to compliment *LBFilmGuy* and *rsbeck* for the push to change the posting format. This page is a testament to how good it looks. Thanks. Bravo!! We have a winner!



Thanks brobocop...I think it does look a lot better and will help Super when deciding on placements.


A page full of reviews sure is sexy!


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15759843
> 
> *The Invisible*
> 
> 
> This is a very AVERAGE-looking title and therefore a Tier 3 placement would be fitting. The PQ was actually all over the place; one minute there were some really good shots with depth, detail, good colors, decent blacks and contrast, even 3D pop; the next minute it was flat, soft, and lacking detail. Most of the time is was just _okay_, definitely better than an upconverted DVD, but not very impressive. To repeat myself, it was average.
> 
> 
> The movie was produced by those who brought us The Sixth Sense, so I was _hoping_ for at least a good rental, but it turned out to be like the PQ, which was AVERAGE. It did have a good soundtrack though, so there was one redeeming feature.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.0*
> 
> 
> Samsung 50" 1080p DLP....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 7'



I watched about half of this when it came out and I remember being unimpressed by the PQ and absolutely hating the movie.


----------



## lovingdvd

Vexille- Tier 0


Watched Vexille last night. Wow. Simply stunning. Flawless. Top quality demo material. Definitely Tier 0 IMO. Viewed on a JVC RS20 pj.


----------



## lovingdvd

I haven't seen Madagascar 2 on Blu-ray yet. Has anyone here seen it yet. Curious if this will be Tier 0 material - certainly seems to have the potential based on the preview clips I saw on the Kung Foo panda Blu-ray.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15760839
> 
> 
> not wanting to clutter, but I have to compliment *LBFilmGuy* and *rsbeck* for the push to change the posting format. This page is a testament to how good it looks. Thanks. Bravo!! We have a winner!



I agree!


The only suggestion I would make to improve the format even more would be to require that members put the name of the movie in the "Title" box before they do the actual review. This REALLY helps when you are doing a Search, for you can see instantly the posts that are actual reviews on that title versus posts that just refer to the title somewhere in their post.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15760405
> 
> 
> In any event, I will just recommend the "scratched version" for Tier 4.0, but it is almost a meaningless recommendation given the intentional nature of what Rodriguez was doing.



One man's gunk is another man's (filmmaker's) eye-candy.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lovingdvd* /forum/post/15761400
> 
> 
> I haven't seen Madagascar 2 on Blu-ray yet. Has anyone here seen it yet. Curious if this will be Tier 0 material - certainly seems to have the potential based on the preview clips I saw on the Kung Foo panda Blu-ray.



I think it's pretty safe to assume that any 3D animated movie will look as good as it can given the style of the animation, and Dreamworks has a pretty good track record for good blu-rays.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15761854
> 
> 
> One man's gunk is another man's (filmmaker's) eye-candy.



Agree completely.


----------



## OldCodger73

Nice transfer and a good looking BD. Details were good in some of the darker scenes, sharpness was generally good on most of the medium and longer shots. Facial close-ups started to show fine detail but not at the level one would expect in a Tier 0 or high Tier 1 BD. I'm not an expert on DNR or EE so it would take an extreme case for me to notice any. I thought some of the scenes showed a good 3-D pop. Overall, to me this is borderline between 1.75 but 2.0 but *Tier 2.0* seems a more appropriate placement.


I compared a few random scenes from the BD and the DVD I own. As one would expect, the BD wins hands down, especially in showing detail in some of the darker scenes. However, having said that, at least for me there no reason to double-dip on this title, the DVD is adequate.


Panasonic 50" 720p plasma. Panasonic 10a player, 7.5'.


----------



## rsbeck

*Serenity* --


Fine to extremely fine grain apparent, but slightly uneven throughout, no ringing noted. Serenity is a nice watchable blu-ray with an impressive shot here and there, but it lacks the notable aspects needed to recommend it as high resolution demo material. Picture is a tiny bit flat, occasionally a little soft, and lacking in ultra-fine detail. Part of this seems due to lighting and other artistic choices. Whether this is combined with a loss of high frequency detail (and grain) from DNR is up to speculation. Blacks, shadow detail and contrast range from mostly very good to occasionally excellent, with occasional blown whites and crushed blacks. Colors and shadow intensity are pushed and pulled for a stylized effect that can be visually striking in one way, but at the cost of other impressive PQ aspects.

*Recommendation: Tier 2.75*


Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From Screen


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15765805
> 
> *Serenity* --
> 
> 
> Picture is a tiny bit flat, occasionally a little soft, and lacking in ultra-fine detail. Part of this seems due to lighting and other artistic choices. Blacks, shadow detail and contrast range from mostly very good to occasionally excellent, with occasional blown whites and crushed blacks. Colors and shadow intensity are pushed and pulled for a stylized effect that can be visually striking in one way, but at the cost of other impressive PQ aspects.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 2.75*



I respectfully disagree. I thought Serenity aptly fits the rules of Top Tier 2. I agree that the blacks are crushed especially in the climax sequences but can't imagine the picture looking flat. Maybe you need to turn down the contrast by few notches to get rid off blown out whites.

My recommendation: *Top Tier 2* or *Tier 2.25 at worst*


----------



## rsbeck

I wrote, "a tiny bit flat" -- that's in comparison to better titles and I stand behind that. My contrast is part of a top notch ISF calibration, so that is not the culprit. 2.25 and 2.75 are not that far apart. I respect your opinion, but I will stand pat at 2.75.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15765805
> 
> *Serenity* --
> 
> 
> Fine to extremely fine grain apparent, but slightly uneven throughout, no ringing noted. Serenity is a nice watchable blu-ray with an impressive shot here and there, but it lacks the notable aspects needed to recommend it as high resolution demo material. Picture is a tiny bit flat, occasionally a little soft, and lacking in ultra-fine detail. Part of this seems due to lighting and other artistic choices. Whether this is combined with a loss of high frequency detail (and grain) from DNR is up to speculation. Blacks, shadow detail and contrast range from mostly very good to occasionally excellent, with occasional blown whites and crushed blacks. Colors and shadow intensity are pushed and pulled for a stylized effect that can be visually striking in one way, but at the cost of other impressive PQ aspects.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 2.75*
> 
> 
> Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From Screen



Disclaimer: I have NOT seen the Blu-ray release.


Rant: I HAVE seen (and own) the HD-DVD version. For some strange reason, this disc was praised like crazy when it was released on HD-DVD. I never understood why. Softness prevails throughout the movie, and it does look slightly flat too.


If I were to rate the HD-DVD version for this thread I would agree with about a 2.75 ranking (and no, I am NOT asking anyone to count this as a vote for the BD version).


----------



## stumlad

*From Russia With Love*


Just like the first movie, this has an aspect ratio of 1.66:1, so small black bars on the side. Overall, the black levels were good and consistent, but were not as dark as the side bars. Dark scenes exhibited the grainy look but still provided a good amount of detail. Overall color in the movie is very good too. Detail levels are very good...some face closeups look better than I would imagine, yet cant really compete with anything in Tier 0. Some of the action sequences used the rear-projection techniques to make it look like they're really there, but the problem is that the resolution of the video they are playing isnt as good as what we're seeing in the foreground. Overall, I'd say this movie looks about as good as the first one, but is a bit more inconsistent. For that, I give it:

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75*


----------



## 42041

*The Warriors*


The blu-ray of this 1979 film seems to have come from a new master, since it doesn't have that look typical of older transfers (ie, soft, EEd, and unnatural looking). The image is often surprisingly detailed for a low budget older movie. Contrast is on the mark, and facial details are often excellent (though there are some out-of-focus shots sprinkled here and there). It seems to have undergone a DNR job, as the grain presence is rather subdued for a 30 year old movie filmed mostly at night on 35mm, but fortunately this movie does not suffer from the waxy face syndrome. The unfortunate side effect of this algorithm is that you sometimes get these odd frozen, smeared grain patterns (a particularly distracting moment is during the closeup of the subway map around 5:25), but I think most won't notice the issue from "normal" viewing distances. Overall, a very good looking disc considering the movie's age.

Tier Recommendation: 2.25


(PS3/Pioneer 50" 9g Kuro Elite plasma/1sw distance)


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*Iron Man*


I've seen this movie a few times, and I really enjoy it. For a gal who only ever read Spiderman comics (college boyfriend influenced!), I seem to really like comic book based movies that aren't Spiderman ones (Hate. Absolute HATE for those).


That being said, this would not be a main pick for me for Picture Quality. Overall the movie looks nice, but it has nothing that has me really excited. Skin tones look good, but detail is lacking. It in no way ruins the movie experience for me, but it's lacking. Some colours look a little dim to me, and I'm unimpressed with the quality of about half of the black levels present. I noticed some jittering in a couple of places; sorry I didn't have a chance to note the timestamps for those.


Overall I expect a higher quality of clarity, detail and colours out of a Blu Ray experience. On a positive note, whenever things were supposed to be glossy, the glossy was good and was there (wet cars, wet streets... here she goes again with the quality of water in a Blu Ray...







) I do wonder if they Mamma Mia'd Gwyneth's face with whatever digital process they did to Meryl Streep, something was odd there.


Albeit for somewhat different reasons, Iron Man has the same feel to me as The Bourne Identity. I think it fits nicely with the new description for Tier Silver, as this Blu Ray is _good_ but it is not excellent nor is it reference in my view.

*Recommendation for Iron Man: Tier 2.00*

*Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800U, THX setting, approximately 7.5' viewing distance.*


----------



## rsbeck

"Huey Lewis has been compared to Elvis Costello, but I find him more bitter and cynical." -- Christian Bale as Patrick Bateman in American Psycho

*American Psycho*


The accepted wisdom seems to be that American Psycho, a darkly hilarious creep-fest, has suffered egregious DNR. I'd like to drop a little pebble into that legend; I am not so sure this is true. Yes, faces look very smooth in Psycho. They surely do. But, has anyone noticed that Bale, who has very smooth skin in real life, plays a character (Patrick Bateman) for whom a smooth clear complexion is an important motif? In the opening sequence, we see Bateman going through a lavishly narcissistic self pampering ritual, "...after I remove the icepack, I use a deep pore-cleanser lotion. In the shower, I use a water-activated gel cleanser, then a honey-almond body scrub, and on the face an exfoliating gel scrub. Then I apply an herb mint facial masque which I leave on for ten minutes while I prepare the rest of my routine. I always use an after-shave lotion with little or no alcohol because alcohol dries your face and makes you look older. Then moisturizer, then an anti-aging eye balm, followed by a final moisturizing protective lotion..." Later, we seem him at a spa where the attendant gives him a facial massage and coos, "your skin is so smooooooth." Psycho is a send-up of the 80's as embodied by Bateman and his little group of metro-sexual yuppie wanna be powerful investment bankers.


Generally, a tell-tale sign of DNR is smeared eyebrows. Here, I am consistently able to pick out well resolved individual eyebrow and sideburn follicles. Not only that, but many times, when the light is just right, I see well resolved ultra-fine peach fuzz on Bale's upper cheeks above the shave-line and on his forehead above his eyebrows. In addition, things like fine text on business cards, texture on a cashmere jacket, embossed leather on a satchel are also sharp and well resolved.


Having said all of that, Psycho, more of a dialogue driven film is still not a serious candidate for demo material. IMO, it was never intended to be.


However, aside from a few damage specks and an occasional halo on a high contrast edge, what is here is generally proficiently lit, shot, well resolved and transfered. If you're a fan considering a rental or purchase, IMO, you'll find Psycho plenty watchable.

*Recommendation: Tier 3.5*


Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From Screen


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

rsbeck -- i'm totally confused! i thought i read your american psycho review like an hour before i posted my iron man one...


----------



## LBFilmGuy

*Vicky Christina Barcelona*


I was really looking forward to this, both in terms of the film and the PQ given that HDD had given it a 4.5/5. All I can say is WOW, what the hell was he really watching?










This is one of the worst blu rays I have seen. For a new film shot on 35mm by an established DP, I could not believe how soft and terrible this film looked. I have never seen so many out of focus shots hold for such a long time. 2 entire scenes were soft. The one where Christina first went back to the room with Juan and got sick was soft the ENTIRE time, then after listening to the guitar with Vicky and they stopped walking again, SOFT. So soft I couldn't believe my eyes, Vicky looked like she was behind clouded glass. Then when he moved into a closeup of this same scene, the whole shot had a thick gray haze over it. Yikes. Literally every closeup of Vicky and Christina was soft. I never saw fine details/eyebrows/pores/anything. Washed out mess. It wasn't DNR, just a bad case of the assistant cameraman asleep at the wheel. I can't believe they didn't have better takes to use.


The entire film had a very warm look to it, so it wasn't exactly natural looking. Contrast was nothing great either. Noise was found in dark clothes and in shadows. Sure, the scenery and locations were gorgeous, but that wasn't enough to help. The only time fine details were shown were on long shots with the depth of field cranked to infinite. The only time some detail was found on a human was on Juan, Javier Bardem's character. That's about it, and even those shots were Mid Tier 2 at best.


Very disappointing. I haven't seen any titles in Tier 4 or 5 so I don't know how bad it can get, but this was pretty bad.

*Recommendation: Bottom Tier 4*


Pansaonic PZ80U via PS3 @ about 6 feet.


EDIT: Oh yeah, I have more to complain about. During that same night scene after the guitar playing with the terrible focus, Allen decided to take a scene shot in 24fps and slow it down in post! When they go to the ground to kiss it is a jagged mess, I couldn't believe it. I've seen better slow motion in student films. Mind you, it's the only time slow motion was used in this film and was totally out place and unnecessary. LOL jesus I need put The Dark Knight in to get my mind off of this.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15767469
> 
> 
> rsbeck -- i'm totally confused! i thought i read your american psycho review like an hour before i posted my iron man one...



You must be going nuts. Kidding! No, I just edited it a little, erased it and reposted. BTW, nice Iron Man review -- sums up my feelings about it exactly.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15767478
> 
> 
> You must be going nuts. Kidding! No, I just edited it a little, erased it and reposted. BTW, nice Iron Man review -- sums up my feelings about it exactly.



Thanks! I love the movie, I think it's great. Just not one I would loan out if someone asked for the best PQ of what I own, but if they wanted a good movie with decent PQ, I'd loan it in a heartbeat.


Good American Psycho review. I haven't seen it on Blu, I've been gunshy on that one. I actually have my folks looking for the Australian release for me, as they live down under now & are coming up in June. Not that I judge movies soley on screencaps, but it _seems_ as though it might be a better release than the one readily available in North America. I hope they can find it!


----------



## rsbeck

Me, too. If there is a better transfer out there, get the best one. Yeah, Iron Man is a fun one, but I agree with you about the PQ. Weird, isn't it?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15765805
> 
> *Serenity* --
> 
> 
> Fine to extremely fine grain apparent, but slightly uneven throughout, no ringing noted. Serenity is a nice watchable blu-ray with an impressive shot here and there, but it lacks the notable aspects needed to recommend it as high resolution demo material. Picture is a tiny bit flat, occasionally a little soft, and lacking in ultra-fine detail. Part of this seems due to lighting and other artistic choices. Whether this is combined with a loss of high frequency detail (and grain) from DNR is up to speculation. Blacks, shadow detail and contrast range from mostly very good to occasionally excellent, with occasional blown whites and crushed blacks. Colors and shadow intensity are pushed and pulled for a stylized effect that can be visually striking in one way, but at the cost of other impressive PQ aspects.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 2.75*
> 
> 
> Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From Screen



I agree with this recommendation.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15767478
> 
> 
> btw, nice iron man review -- sums up my feelings about it exactly.



+1


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15738815
> 
> *Youth Without Youth*
> 
> 
> I actually wished I had been one of the first members to review this title, because I would love to give you all a long and detailed review on this exceptional movie. But since there have been no less than 6 long and detailed reviews, I am simply going to refer to a few highlights.
> 
> 
> Ninety five percent of this title is clearly Demo material, with detail that rivals the best scenes in Baraka and with depth (i.e., 3D pop) that is off the charts in a few select scenes. One of the best scenes for depth was at the 22:52 mark (lasting about 20 seconds) where Tim Roth is leaving the hospital...it is _stunning_!! One of the best scenes for detail was at the 40:14 mark with Tim Roth and the doctor on the terrace; every object was detailed but the doctor's face and forehead was simply astounding, with the natural sunlight revealing absolutely every detail along with his healthy-looking tan. I could list other virtues that excel in this movie, but previous reviewers succeeded quite well so I won't be redundant.
> 
> 
> The AQ was also noteworthy in a few scenes, especially the very opening scene (the first 1 min. 30 seconds) showcasing timepieces. What an extravaganza for any decent surround sound system!! This was a dialogue-driven movie and I was impressed with the clarity in the center channel.
> 
> 
> The movie itself: I descended from my philosophical perch convinced that Mr. Coppola himself will have to enlighten me as to the obscure meanings of this film, but there was enough "food for thought" on the surface to cause one to reflect on basic questions of life, aging, death, etc. I really try NOT to take films like this too seriously, realizing that this is only one man's view of life from his limited vantage point. It was, above all, a drama with interesting characters, and enough romance and mystery to justify at least a rental, if not a purchase (but as Phantom said "it will not be for everyone's taste").
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Middle of Tier 0*
> 
> 
> Viewed on Samsung 50" 1080p DLP with a Panasonic BD30 from 7'



After all these recent recommendations of Tier 0 for this title, I rewatched parts of this last night. Am I the only one who is seeing sharpening here? It appears that sharpening that is less than egregious is getting a pass. I can't force myself to watch this anything like all the way through, but the sharpening that I am seeing would seem to me to be a Tier 0 disqualifier.


One of the many problems I have with the movie is accepting the "rejuvenated" Tim Roth as "young." Perhaps there is some plot point here that would explain this satisfactorily, but I am not willing to watch enough to find out.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15767469
> 
> 
> rsbeck -- i'm totally confused! i thought i read your american psycho review like an hour before i posted my iron man one...



Well sometimes I'll come on here and post a message and it will be placed towards the end of the page. I'll then come back and I'll find it, and it will be the first post on a page. I'm not sure if messages are being deleted, or if some posts are not showing up until later...resulting in mine being pushed forward.


Oh and yes.. your review must have showed up after rsbeck's American Psycho review (which I swear was towards the end of a page)


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15767685
> 
> 
> After all these recent recommendations of Tier 0 for this title, I rewatched parts of this last night. *Am I the only one who is seeing sharpening here? It appears that sharpening that is less than egregious is getting a pass.* I can't force myself to watch this anything like all the way through, but the sharpening that I am seeing would seem to me to be a Tier 0 disqualifier.



Here is an excerpt from the first review of Youth Without Youth by Phantom Stranger:

*Shot using the same digital HD camera that Crank was made with, the picture is devoid of any grain or noise*. The darker lit scenes are devoid of the noise that some HD video-shot productions are prone to. There is a remarkable clarity to the picture throughout the movie and reminds one of looking through a real window at times. I could not see one moment of anything that even hinted at digital noise reduction or any other process that would obscure fine detail.


The master used for the transfer is in immaculate shape with zero defects. This is not a film-like image as the movie was simply not shot on film, but the cinematography is world-class. Every scene and shot looks carefully calculated and composed, with a wonderful and unique visual appearance highlighted by excellent framing and lighting for maximum visual effect. The interplay between light, shadow, and color in the image is spectacular.


Most scenes demonstrate an excellent sense of depth and dimensionality. The outdoor scenes are just incredible in their ability to convey a deep perspective to the image. The entire movie is razor sharp and stays in focus throughout on par with other tier zero titles. There are no soft moments lasting even seconds in length. Shadow detail and information looks splendid. Rarely have I seen human faces demonstrate so much high-frequency information in low light scenes. Witness Tim Roth's face at timecode 36:33, lit by bluish tinted moonlight, which shows every inch of his facial features in excellent detail. Black levels are great for the most part outside of one or two scenes later in the movie. There is a wonderful inky quality to them, as seen in the shots when Tim Roth's face is completely silhouetted in reverse in a pitch-black cave. (End of Quote)


I propose to you patrick that there was NO sharpening process employed, and that the _sharp_ picture is due to the fact that a digital HD camera was used instead of being shot on film.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15767685
> 
> 
> Am I the only one who is seeing sharpening here?



I noted that there is ringing on high contrast edges in several scenes. One of them is near the beginning of the film so if you've watched the beginning, you've probably seen it.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15767685
> 
> 
> After all these recent recommendations of Tier 0 for this title, I rewatched parts of this last night. Am I the only one who is seeing sharpening here? It appears that sharpening that is less than egregious is getting a pass. I can't force myself to watch this anything like all the way through, but the sharpening that I am seeing would seem to me to be a Tier 0 disqualifier.
> 
> 
> One of the many problems I have with the movie is accepting the "rejuvenated" Tim Roth as "young." Perhaps there is some plot point here that would explain this satisfactorily, but I am not willing to watch enough to find out.



You need to remember it was shot on HD Video, not film, so it will have an inherently more digital (sharper) looking image.


How have you felt about other movies shot on HD Video? Some people just don't like the look, as it is quite different than film.


----------



## moematthews




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15767472
> 
> *Vicky Christina Barcelona*
> 
> 
> I was really looking forward to this, both in terms of the film and the PQ given that HDD had given it a 4.5/5. All I can say is WOW, what the hell was he really watching?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is one of the worst blu rays I have seen. For a new film shot on 35mm by an established DP, I could not believe how soft and terrible this film looked. I have never seen so many out of focus shots hold for such a long time. 2 entire scenes were soft. The one where Christina first went back to the room with Juan and got sick was soft the ENTIRE time, then after listening to the guitar with Vicky and they stopped walking again, SOFT. So soft I couldn't believe my eyes, Vicky looked like she was behind clouded glass. Then when he moved into a closeup of this same scene, the whole shot had a thick gray haze over it. Yikes. Literally every closeup of Vicky and Christina was soft. I never saw fine details/eyebrows/pores/anything. Washed out mess. It wasn't DNR, just a bad case of the assistant cameraman asleep at the wheel. I can't believe they didn't have better takes to use.
> 
> 
> The entire film had a very warm look to it, so it wasn't exactly natural looking. Contrast was nothing great either. Noise was found in dark clothes and in shadows. Sure, the scenery and locations were gorgeous, but that wasn't enough to help. The only time fine details were shown were on long shots with the depth of field cranked to infinite. The only time some detail was found on a human was on Juan, Javier Bardem's character. That's about it, and even those shots were Mid Tier 2 at best.
> 
> 
> Very disappointing. I haven't seen any titles in Tier 4 or 5 so I don't know how bad it can get, but this was pretty bad.
> 
> *Recommendation: Bottom Tier 4*
> 
> 
> Pansaonic PZ80U via PS3 @ about 6 feet.
> 
> 
> EDIT: Oh yeah, I have more to complain about. During that same night scene after the guitar playing with the terrible focus, Allen decided to take a scene shot in 24fps and slow it down in post! When they go to the ground to kiss it is a jagged mess, I couldn't believe it. I've seen better slow motion in student films. Mind you, it's the only time slow motion was used in this film and was totally out place and unnecessary. LOL jesus I need put The Dark Knight in to get my mind off of this.



Agree completely. I've tried to ask others to clear up this contradiction, but this is the first post that acknowledges the overall warm, soft quality of this Blu-ray. The colours and scenery COULD be spectacular, but they are not. It's as if there is a yellow filter covering the lens through which the movie is shot. I honestly don't understand how anyone could give this even a moderately positive rating for PQ - it's way off in every respect that you mentioned. This movie has all the characteristics of other "bad" Blu-rays I've seen - warm, soft and lacking contrast.


----------



## moematthews




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15767653
> 
> 
> +1



+2. Iron Man was disappointing. Agree with GeekyGlassesGirl that there is something unnatural about the faces - but I have seen that same look in other Blu-rays. Overall the movie is not as detailed, saturated or contrasty as it should be. As I've written before, I'm quite frustrated with Blu-ray. I had an HD DVD player for about a year before getting into Blu-ray, and there were nowhere near as many mediocre-looking titles in the HD DVD format. This is a movie that could have looked spectacular, but unfortunately, falls a bit short.


----------



## rsbeck

To my eyes, Iron Man looks a bit better on blu-ray than it did in the theater. I think the problems are inherent in the source.


----------



## moematthews

The thing for me is that I see essentially no movies in the theatre, so I cannot compare the Blu-ray version to the original. But then we get into questions of whether the "best" Blu-rays are ones that look exactly like the film, or whether they are the visual treats that this thread looks to identify. The best example I have of this is "Forgetting Sarah Marshall", which I thought looked absolutely atrocious on Blu-ray. Overblown, inaccurate colours and very soft and flat. Looked out of focus for most of it. A number of posters responded by saying that's how the movie looked in the theatre.


Interestingly, I did see "Casino Royale" in the theatre, but I found that a 1080i cable broadcast I saw later was better than the 1080i Blu-ray version. It IS a very good, if not top-tier, Blu-ray, but I'm not sure why a broadcast would look better. Near reference quality, in fact.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15768951
> 
> 
> You need to remember it was shot on HD Video, not film, so it will have an inherently more digital (sharper) looking image.
> 
> 
> How have you felt about other movies shot on HD Video? Some people just don't like the look, as it is quite different than film.



Rob, I think I can tell the difference between "sharp" and "sharpened." It's been quite a while since I watched Crank, but I thought there was general agreement the sharpening there is something that was added, and not something inherent in HD cameras.


I thought that Flyboys was shot on HD cameras, and I don't recall anything like this there. I also don't recall anything like this on Miami Vice, which I thought was shot on HD cameras.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15768855
> 
> 
> I noted that there is ringing on high contrast edges in several scenes. One of them is near the beginning of the film so if you've watched the beginning, you've probably seen it.



I thought it was quite noticeable in scenes in the hospital, for example.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moematthews* /forum/post/15769530
> 
> 
> But then we get into questions of whether the "best" Blu-rays are ones that look exactly like the film, or whether they are the visual treats that this thread looks to identify.




1) There's no reason a title cannot look exactly like the film and still be both a visual treat and ultimate demo material.


2) There is another thread where the sole metric is whether the transfer is true to the source. They do not recognize that between films that are true to the source, some will yield a more impressive demo than others.


3) IMO, that's the only difference between this thread and that one.




.


----------



## totalownership




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *totalownership* /forum/post/15760106
> 
> 
> Please put 28 Days Later in the Garbage Tier. In NO WAY is this even worthy of bluray. NO WAY. I see absolutely NO benefit of having this material on bluray. I wish I had seen this list before I purchased this. I'm going to have a fight with BestBuy tomorrow as I return this garbage demanding my money back. There should be some kind of law that states you shouldn't get away with this. This is on Bluray for the simple fact to gouge. I watched the scene where they released the animals hoping that it would get better and it was just some artistic camera work. No such luck. I swear this looked better on cable when I saw it. I know it wasn't this bad. Horrible.
> 
> 
> I've had friends come over with bootleg standard DVDs that look WAY better than this filth.



In case anyone is interested I did get BestBuy to take the DVD back. Wife threw out the receipt which made the job that much harder but that really didn't matter since their main complaint was that it was opened. In the end I walked out with Wanted. So I'm glad I got that sorry title off my hands.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15768334
> 
> 
> I propose to you patrick that there was NO sharpening process employed, and that the _sharp_ picture is due to the fact that a digital HD camera was used instead of being shot on film.



This is the most likely explanation. That specific camera model can introduce a little ringing during principal shooting that can not be removed in post production. It is one of the minor side effects but it can be minimized. I also noticed the sharpening on several high-contrast edges but it was not distracting to me.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Thanks and welcome to the thread moe!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*Shoot Em Up*


Wow. This is a _spectacularly bad_ movie. This is highly deserving of a ripping apart by the Mystery Science Theatre 3000 crew. Oh my. Cringeworthy!! But, because I know the thread is doing a bit of a clean-up of Tier 0, I suffered through the entirety of this horrible piece of cinema just for you guys. I hope you appreciate my sacrifice of 1.5hrs in watching this dreck.







Baby food to a child that's a few hours old? Please. Just... shoot ME if I ever watch this ever again.

*rsbeck* recently reviewed this, and I agree with his review through and through. This movie has great and sometimes fantastic clarity and detail, and the colours are fairly spot-on; however I think this falls just short of being reference quality. The first 30 minutes or so of this film, I thought it had a strong case to stick it out in Tier 0 land, but the longer I watched it, the more focus was lost and some details would vanish. It also had a bit of softness in the last half hour that was surprising in comparison to the beginning of this film.

*Recommendation for Shoot Em Up: Tier 1.00*

*Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800U, THX setting, approximately 7.5' viewing distance.*


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I completely agree with you on how bad Shoot Em Up was! I realize it was "tongue in cheek" and "cartoonish", but that fact did not help at all in my opinion. I sold my copy to a fellow AVS'er. Truly horrible movie.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15771834
> 
> 
> I completely agree with you on how bad Shoot Em Up was! I realize it was "tongue in cheek" and "cartoonish", but that fact did not help at all in my opinion. I sold my copy to a fellow AVS'er. Truly horrible movie.



I think a good drinking game could be made up for this movie, if I ever do watch it again. The one liners were just SO awful.
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) 
1 drink if he says, "You know what I hate?"
2 drinks if he bites into a carrot.
SHOOTERS if he kills someone with a carrot.


Those 3 rules alone and you'd have yourself a pretty blitzed party.










I'm glad that it wasn't an expensive one for me, the price tag on it was $8, which is rare for a Blu Ray find up here.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15771798
> 
> 
> I hope you appreciate my sacrifice of 1.5hrs in watching this dreck.



You really took one for the team! LOL. Well, at least there was no singing.


----------



## deltasun

*How the West was Won*


From the opening scene, panoramic eye candy is the name of the game. It's pretty ambitious to have every scene analogous to a 24mm lens on a 34mm full-frame camera. While this works well for taking in wide open scenery, it's not very flattering on human faces. By taking care of distances, it works well for this film even when people are the subject.


Contrast is generally good; blacks adequate but not exceptional. It is my observation that each scene is pretty calculated to maximize adequate contrast levels and evenness. As such, each scene, while breath-taking, seem homogeneous. This is homogeneous in a good way, which still had me begging to see the next scene, anticipating one breath-taking scene after another. That, it kept delivering.


Because of the wide lense(s) used, faces are not the subject of judgment in this film. Rather, wer are treated to exceptional scenic details. By maximizing depth of field in every shot, we are guaranteed detail up to infinity - no bokeh. And the details shine.


Since the main picture is made up of three distinct pieces "taped" together, this splicing is evident towards the latter part of the movie. You can literally see where the pieces were seamed. This, along with some unevenness with some blue sky scenes (almost the same effect when a polarizer is used ineffectively), drop this title into the Gold tier for me.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/15772116
> 
> *How the West was Won*
> 
> 
> From the opening scene, panoramic eye candy is the name of the game. It's pretty ambitious to have every scene analogous to a 24mm lens on a 34mm full-frame camera. While this works well for taking in wide open scenery, it's not very flattering on human faces. By taking care of distances, it works well for this film even when people are the subject.
> 
> 
> Contrast is generally good; blacks adequate but not exceptional. It is my observation that each scene is pretty calculated to maximize adequate contrast levels and evenness. As such, each scene, while breath-taking, seem homogeneous. This is homogeneous in a good way, which still had me begging to see the next scene, anticipating one breath-taking scene after another. That, it kept delivering.
> 
> 
> Because of the wide lense(s) used, faces are not the subject of judgment in this film. Rather, wer are treated to exceptional scenic details. By maximizing depth of field in every shot, we are guaranteed detail up to infinity - no bokeh. And the details shine.
> 
> 
> Since the main picture is made up of three distinct pieces "taped" together, this splicing is evident towards the latter part of the movie. You can literally see where the pieces were seamed. This, along with some unevenness with some blue sky scenes (almost the same effect when a polarizer is used ineffectively), drop this title into the Gold tier for me.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.25*
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_



Ouch! That hurts deltasun! I believe it still deserves a Tier 0 placement, but if it were lowered Tier 1.0 should be the lowest.


The "stitching" was somewhat distracting, but it was only really noticeable during bright scenes. Let's face it, 95% of the movie was flawless and that, in my book, is Tier Blu material.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15771798
> 
> *Shoot ‘Em Up*
> 
> 
> Wow. This is a _spectacularly bad_ movie. This is highly deserving of a ripping apart by the Mystery Science Theatre 3000 crew. Oh my. Cringeworthy!! But, because I know the thread is doing a bit of a clean-up of Tier 0, I suffered through the entirety of this horrible piece of cinema just for you guys. I hope you appreciate my sacrifice of 1.5hrs in watching this dreck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baby food to a child that’s a few hours old? Please. Just... shoot ME if I ever watch this ever again.



I found out the movie is supposed to be somewhat of a satire on action movies to show how ridiculous some of them are. For example, the logic used in the movie:
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Baby likes metal music...he must have been born next to a night cliub.. or the baby needs to eat... let's find a lactating hooker.


... definitely a spoof. When I watched it, I didnt know this, so I thought the movie was horrible. I'll still never watch it again, but finding out what I did after the fact was somewhat settling. If you've ever watched King Kong, you've got this giant gorilla running with a woman in his hands. Can you imagine the g-forces at work? Shoot 'em Up takes it a step further... but isnt meant to be taken seriously like they probably want us to take King Kong










Anyway, it's a great looking movie, but it's been too long for me to remember, but 1.0 sounds about right.


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15760839
> 
> 
> not wanting to clutter, but I have to compliment *LBFilmGuy* and *rsbeck* for the push to change the posting format. This page is a testament to how good it looks. Thanks. Bravo!! We have a winner!




Am I in the wrong thread? There are too many reviews being posted...


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15772418
> 
> 
> Ouch! That hurts deltasun! I believe it still deserves a Tier 0 placement, but if it were lowered Tier 1.0 should be the lowest.
> 
> 
> The "stitching" was somewhat distracting, but it was only really noticeable during bright scenes. Let's face it, 95% of the movie was flawless and that, in my book, is Tier Blu material.



I appreciate your opinion, but I saw it as a postcard of a movie. The scenes were breath-taking, but there was no 3D pop. The colors had a dated look and the blacks could not compete with other titles in Tier 0.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/15773420
> 
> 
> Am I in the wrong thread? There are too many reviews being posted...




We have to keep you on your toes! Especially since we're making sure you can see the reviews, there should be no opinion missed.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15771798
> 
> *Shoot ‘Em Up*
> 
> 
> Wow. This is a _spectacularly bad_ movie. This is highly deserving of a ripping apart by the Mystery Science Theatre 3000 crew. Oh my. Cringeworthy!! But, because I know the thread is doing a bit of a clean-up of Tier 0, I suffered through the entirety of this horrible piece of cinema just for you guys. I hope you appreciate my sacrifice of 1.5hrs in watching this dreck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baby food to a child that’s a few hours old? Please. Just... shoot ME if I ever watch this ever again.
> 
> *rsbeck* recently reviewed this, and I agree with his review through and through. This movie has great and sometimes fantastic clarity and detail, and the colours are fairly spot-on; however I think this falls just short of being reference quality. The first 30 minutes or so of this film, I thought it had a strong case to stick it out in Tier 0 land, but the longer I watched it, the more focus was lost and some details would vanish. It also had a bit of softness in the last half hour that was surprising in comparison to the beginning of this film.
> 
> *Recommendation for Shoot ‘Em Up: Tier 1.00*
> 
> *Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800U, THX setting, approximately 7.5’ viewing distance.*




As bad as this movie is (and I agree that it is bad), a good audio system (and video in this case) can make it much more tolerable.







There is no way I would make it through some of these films without my A/V setup. I think some of these "bad" movies try and overcompensate on the tech side due to the actual movie itself.


----------



## deltasun

*The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor*


This one was a mixed bag for me. The dark scenes indoors and during the Chinese New Year scenes were superb. Black levels were very pleasing to the overall mood of those scenes. In particular, the scene at the club at the end of the movie was excellent. Then, came the desert/cave scenes. Contrast was not well-controlled and not very eye-catching in comparison to the rest of the scenes.


A slight bit of softness was also present in multiple scenes, though I could not say they were due to any DNR. I'm not an expert here either. Still, it just seemed the camera focus was not keeping up with the subject.


I think the most lackluster item I noticed was the lack of any 3D pop. They just did not exist for me, which was troubling. The wide shot of the Shangri-La was not as impressive as it could be. The CGI movements were also very abrupt, though I did think the yeti's facial expressions where well-rendered.


Overall, the PQ is still notable but the abasence of the 3D pop definitely drops it to the Silver tier.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/15773863
> 
> *The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor*
> 
> 
> This one was a mixed bag for me. The dark scenes indoors and during the Chinese New Year scenes were superb. Black levels were very pleasing to the overall mood of those scenes. In particular, the scene at the club at the end of the movie was excellent. Then, came the desert/cave scenes. Contrast was not well-controlled and not very eye-catching in comparison to the rest of the scenes.
> 
> 
> A slight bit of softness was also present in multiple scenes, though I could not say they were due to any DNR. I'm not an expert here either. Still, it just seemed the camera focus was not keeping up with the subject.
> 
> 
> I think the most lackluster item I noticed was the lack of any 3D pop. They just did not exist for me, which was troubling. The wide shot of the Shangri-La was not as impressive as it could be. The CGI movements were also very abrupt, though I did think the yeti's facial expressions where well-rendered.
> 
> 
> Overall, the PQ is still notable but the abasence of the 3D pop definitely drops it to the Silver tier.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.0*
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_



Good review deltasun!


Just like your recommendation for HTWWW, you are still about 1/4 tier lower than I was on this title (and much lower than its current 1.25 placement), but we did see eye-to-eye on the virtues and flaws of this title.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15774020
> 
> 
> Good review deltasun!
> 
> 
> Just like your recommendation for HTWWW, you are still about 1/4 tier lower than I was on this title (and much lower than its current 1.25 placement), but we did see eye-to-eye on the virtues and flaws of this title.



My first gut instinct was 1.75, just looking at the titles in that area. However, reading the tier descriptions again helped decide it for me. It really comes down to the 3D-ness of it, or lack thereof. If I would be true to the descriptions, 2.0 is the only logical place for it in my opinion.


Still a great-looking title but with no real depth separation in the panoramic scenes.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15769388
> 
> 
> To my eyes, Iron Man looks a bit better on blu-ray than it did in the theater. I think the problems are inherent in the source.




This is becoming a consistent trend. I rarely go to the theatre anymore and today reminded me again why I don't go as much. I know theatre to theatre PQ can differ and if done right should look good, but I saw Underworld Rise... today and it looked like crap. I am now more convinced than ever my setup, which cost probably a tenth of the theatre room I was in today, is superior in both sound and PQ and I have a dedicated media room, not a dedicated theatre. We are very, very fortunate to be able to have this kind of quality at home. I would wager Underworld Rise... will look much better on BD. I grabbed Doomsday again, since we are reviewing tier 0 titles again and I was one that was adamant about tier 0 placement for it while several re-reviews have now placed it in tier 1.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/15774161
> 
> 
> My first gut instinct was 1.75, just looking at the titles in that area. However, reading the tier descriptions again helped decide it for me. It really comes down to the 3D-ness of it, or lack thereof. If I would be true to the descriptions, 2.0 is the only logical place for it in my opinion.
> 
> 
> Still a great-looking title but with no real depth separation in the panoramic scenes.




Most likely more recent new releases will have the 3D affect more and it will be more apparent while older movies like HTWWW may not. I think the reason is the directors, cinematographers, and others involved in making film including the studios now know what they and we are seeing on BD. They know if they use that bokeh affect more, blurring the background of the image to make it seem like the foreground has more depth, clarity and 3D like look, it fools the eye into thinking the image is almost 3D and better looking. My guess is there is more to it than just using bokeh, but I think that is at least part of it.


IMO a BD does not have to have any 3D look to it to be in tier 0. From page one of this thread:

*A Blu-ray in Tier Zero will generally exhibit the following characteristics:


A sharp image with a palpable sense of depth, clarity, and presence that will often appear nearly three-dimensional in nature.*


It doesn't seem to be a requirement based on my interpretation of the tier 0 descriptor.


Full disclosure. I have not seen HTWWW, but from what many in the BD software forum and the HTWWW picture cap comparison thread say the PQ is excellent and has depth. There are picture caps on the first page of the following link to Xylon's thread and they sure look 3D to me with lots of depth:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...highlight=west


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15774164
> 
> 
> This is becoming a consistent trend. I rarely go to the theatre anymore and today reminded me again why I don't go as much.



My theatre here is so terrible, I would look forward to watching the DVD on my Toshiba 46H83, let alone the blu ray on my Panasonic TH-58PZ800U. I still love going out to the theatre, don't get me wrong, but I certainly have never gone there for it's PQ, it's always been awful.


----------



## rsbeck

*Zack and Miri Make a Porno*


Zack and Miri is a shoe string budget comedy with little emphasis on visuals. Scenes are shot competently with decent lighting and focus. High resolution means that you can generally make out single strands of hair, some texture in clothing, once in awhile some pores, picture is sharp enough to get the job done with few overt flaws. Grain appeared intact and consistent throughout, no ringing or halos noted.

*Recommendation: Tier 3.75*


Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From Screen


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15774299
> 
> 
> My theatre here is so terrible, I would look forward to watching the DVD on my Toshiba 46H83, let alone the blu ray on my Panasonic TH-58PZ800U. I still love going out to the theatre, don't get me wrong, but I certainly have never gone there for it's PQ, it's always been awful.



Theatres that are really doubling as igloos probably don't lend much to PQ or the equipment running properly.







Seriously though between bathroom breaks, food and other activities that theatres won't allow







, home viewing is tough to beat. We aren't even getting into the rewind discussion, which that in itself is worth its weight in gold for home viewing, especially for those "pro" BD reviewers in the New PQ Tier Thread for Blu Ray.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15774214
> 
> 
> Most likely more recent new releases will have the 3D affect more and it will be more apparent while older movies like HTWWW may not. I think the reason is the directors, cinematographers, and others involved in making film including the studios now know what they and we are seeing on BD. They know if they use that bokeh affect more, blurring the background of the image to make it seem like the foreground has more depth, clarity and 3D like look, it fools the eye into thinking the image is almost 3D and better looking. My guess is there is more to it than just using bokeh, but I think that is at least part of it.
> 
> 
> IMO a BD does not have to have any 3D look to it to be in tier 0. From page one of this thread:
> 
> *A Blu-ray in Tier Zero will generally exhibit the following characteristics:
> 
> 
> A sharp image with a palpable sense of depth, clarity, and presence that will often appear nearly three-dimensional in nature.*
> 
> 
> It doesn't seem to be a requirement based on my interpretation of the tier 0 descriptor.
> 
> 
> Full disclosure. I have not seen HTWWW, but from what many in the BD software forum and the HTWWW picture cap comparison thread say the PQ is excellent and has depth. There are picture caps on the first page of the following link to Xylon's thread and they sure look 3D to me with lots of depth:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...highlight=west



Just to be clear, this discussion was for the third Mummy. HTWWW had plenty of depth.


Btw, I do interpret that statement for tier 0 to require depth, a palpable amount no less.







So much so that it exhibits an almost three dimensional feel.


Also, in my experience as a [amateur] photographer, I usually get more of a sense of depth at smaller apertures. I.e., small to almost no bokeh. Bokeh is good for separation, but is not good for depth. I used to struggle with this when I'm up on a mountain and want to convey altitude. I'm most successful when I have clarity to infinity and the right light. Otherwise, it always looks flat.


----------



## hobbes2702

Quick question, are yall updating the original post or is the only way to see about newer movies to look through all the pages?


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hobbes2702* /forum/post/15774593
> 
> 
> Quick question, are yall updating the original post or is the only way to see about newer movies to look through all the pages?



The original post gets updated, but there is no set or regular time when it does. It

doesn't happen daily or even weekly as reviews are allowed to build to get a worthwhile consensus on BD tier placements.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15774346
> 
> 
> Theatres that are really doubling as igloos probably don't lend much to PQ or the equipment running properly.



Well, I didn't really want to talk about it here, but we had to re-build our igloo once we got the plasma. The heat from the Panasonic melted my living room, and the roof! At least we got a good PQ viewing of the aurora borealis that night, though....


----------



## babrown92

*Clerks 2*


Overall, I say this is a very competent transfer. There is fine detail on close-ups, nice grain throughout, and no glaring evidence of EE that I could fine.


That being said, the style which this film is shot does not lend itself to 'eyecandy' White levels are purposely blown out and the whole film has a somewhat 'amateur, stylized' look that does not blow people away with it's visual fidelity.


As a big fan of this flick I am 100% satisfied with the transfer, totally represents what I saw in the theater and I feel it is a sizeable upgrade from the dvd.

*Recommendation: Tier 2.75*


Samsung 46a650-Sony Playstation 3-6" away


----------



## woodard1983

has anybody noticed that the "search" function doesn't appear to work...i just noticed this about a week ago, but if you type something in it says that it has reached the end of the document instead of finding the title


----------



## rsbeck

Just going through tier 0, trying to piece together some history on how titles were placed there....

*Red Cliff*


Red Cliff appears to have been placed in tier 0 based on only one review.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...7#post14741127 


This should go into the holding pen pending more reviews.

*Tekkon Kinkreet*


Could only find one Review w/this recommendation "Id put in upper Tier 1"

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post12566602 


This shouldn't be enough to place it in tier 0 and it doesn't have enough recommendations for tier 1.0, either. Should go into the holding pen for "upper tier 1." (This was from before we had quarter tiers.)

*TMNT*


I found three "reviews" for TMNT...


1) TMNT deserves Tier 0! (The entire review)

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...7#post14741127 


2) Recommendation: "I'd suggest top of tier 1"

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...8#post11270888 


3) Recommendation: "I request the mods to push TMNT below Beowulf in Tier-1."

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...3#post13810263 


What's frightening about TMNT is that it seems to have been placed based on a one line review and then, when you search the archives, what comes up is a lot of recommendations for other titles and which include the phrase, "this should be above TMNT." This leads me to suspect that TMNT is one of those sub-par titles which leads people to recommend a lot of other titles to tier 0 based TMNT's inclusion in the blu tier. This should be moved out of tier 0.

*Doomsday*


Reading through the archives, this seems to have been the topic of a hot debate between several reviewers, with a couple recommending bottom of tier 0 and a couple recommending tier 1.0. Most recent review by LFilmguy is for tier 1.0...

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...4#post15751054 


Can anyone else weigh in with an assessment or reassessment?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15778673
> 
> 
> J*Doomsday*
> 
> 
> Reading through the archives, this seems to have been the topic of a hot debate between several reviewers, with a couple recommending bottom of tier 0 and a couple recommending tier 1.0. Most recent review by LFilmguy is for tier 1.0...
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...4#post15751054
> 
> 
> Can anyone else weigh in with an assessment or reassessment?



I can't speak as to the first three titles you referred to, but I am one of the members who reviewed *Doomsday* and opted for a *bottom of Tier 0* placement. I stand by that recommendation, at least until I have time to revisit it (I saw it back in September so perhaps I would be willing to move after viewing it again).


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15778779
> 
> 
> I can't speak as to the first three titles you referred to, but I am one of the members who reviewed *Doomsday* and opted for a *bottom of Tier 0* placement. I stand by that recommendation, at least until I have time to revisit it (I saw it back in September so perhaps I would be willing to move after viewing it again).



My recollection is that I opposed Tier 0. I do not recall if I advocated a specific placement, but Tier 1.0 would certainly be a move in the right direction.


----------



## SuprSlow

*Placement Holdings Update:*


This is the list of holdings from the January update. Titles in bold have been added/moved in the Tier listings. The other titles I feel still need more input before placement or movement within the rankings.

*Matrix, The* - was Tier 1.75 - *remains Tier 1.75*

*Matrix Reloaded*- was Tier 1.5 - *moved to Tier 1.75*

*Matrix Revolutions* - was Tier 1.5 - *moved to Tier 1.75*


*Fearless (H.K. Import) - Tier 2.75 (I) / Tier 0 (I) - Currently Unranked


*Spiderman 3 - middle Tier 0 (I) - Currently Tier 1.0


*Fantastic Four 2 - lower Tier 0 (I) - Currently Tier 1.25


*Patriot - Tier 2.5 (I) - Currently Tier 1.25

*Austin Powers* - was Unranked - *placed in 1.75*

*Police* - was Tier 0 - *moved to 2.5*


*Devil Wears Prada, The - Tier 2.0 (I) - Currently Tier 4.0

*Planet Terror* - Tier 0 (I) / Tier 1.25 (I) - was Unranked - *placed in 1.0*

*Professionals, The* - Tier 1.25 (II) - was Unranked - *placed in 1.25*


*AVP: Requiem - Tier 2.75 (I) - Currently Tier 2.0 (Wide array of opinions)


*Man on Fire - above I, Robot; Tier 0 (I)

*Redbelt* - was Unranked - *placed in 1.5*

*Smart People* - was Unranked - *placed in 1.75*

*Dave Mathews* - was Tier 1.0 - *moved to 2.0*

*Shine a Light* - was Tier 1.25 - *moved to 1.75*

*Revolver* - was unranked - *moved to 1.25*

*Live Free or Die Hard* - was Tier 0 - *remains as-is*

*Mongol* - was Tier 0 - *moved to 1.5*


*Clear and Present Danger - Tier 0 (I) - Currently Tier 2.75


*Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban - Tier 1.5 (I) - Currently Tier 1.75


*Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix - Tier 1.75 (I) - Currently Tier 1.25

*The Kingdom* - Tier 1.75 (I) - was Unranked - *placed in 1.75*

*The House Bunny* - Tier 1.75 (I) - was Unranked - *placed in 1.75*


*Into the Wild - Tier 0 (I) - Currently Unranked


*Event Horizon - Tier 0 (I) - Currently Unranked

*Eagle Eye* - was Unranked - *placed in 1.50*

*Ghost Town* - was Unranked - *placed in 1.25*

*The Fall* - was Tier 1.0 - *moved to 1.25*

*Babylon AD* - was Unranked - *placed in 1.75*


------------


This list does not include rsbeck's recent post. Other titles will be added to the Holdings as I go through the update.


----------



## deltasun

No reviews for U-571?


----------



## Hughmc

*Doomsday*


I was the advocate for Doomsday in tier 0. I couldn't have been more incorrect, well, maybe I could have.

















I watched it again last night. First off the first scene opens with vcr/dvd like closed circuit tv shots. Right there it auto disqualifes it from tier 0. Let me get more extreme. Doomsday would not be what you would show someone to demo Blu Ray. It is NOT reference. You certainly wouldn't capture your audience with eye popping PQ at the start, just the opposite. As the BD progresses PQ is good, sometimes really good, but never really much tier 0 good. Mostly tier 1.0 or lower. There is quite a few out of focus shots, blurring and places where facial details on closeups are lacking. I could go on more about why Doomsday is not tier 0 worthy, but if any of you watch you will see what I have listed as issues alone makes the case for Doomsday not being in tier 0. If I hadn't watched Apocalypto the other day to recheck it, I would never have realized how wrong I was on Doomsday. Having watched Doomsday and others BD's over the weekend reaffirms how strongly I feel Apocalypto does belong in tier 0 and is reference/demo especially the captivating beginning. I had been wondering if the PQ of my display has deteriorated after seeing some BD's including Doomsday, but Apocalypto and others reaffimed it was ok. Look at the last couple of pages of reviews, there are a too many new BD's that have tier 3.0 or worse PQ. NOT GOOD!


I know I liked story and intensity of Doomsday quite a bit and also Rhona Mitra and the soundtrack is reference and has a huge impact on viewing this BD and making it more appealing. I think those things may have had some impact on me when I first viewed it. Anyway, so much for credibility.







. 1.5 and that maybe generous.

*Tier 1.5*


Sony A3000 60 in. from PS3 thru [email protected] 8 ft.


----------



## Hughmc

*The Patriot* leave as is in tier *1.25*.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15778932
> 
> 
> My recollection is that I opposed Tier 0. I do not recall if I advocated a specific placement, but Tier 1.0 would certainly be a move in the right direction.



you are correct, I couldn't agree more. LBFilmGuy said the first 45 min. shines and now that I have seen it again, I disagree. There are a lot of PQ inconsistencies and issues throughout the BD including the first 45 min.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Nice detective work beck, but I wonder if all reviews were actually pulled up considering how terrible the search feature is.


Hugh, I thought the night scenes in the beginning held very well. I did mention later on in the film (once they first left the wall and in the caves) that it did struggle. I recommended Top Tier 1 but your recommendation of 1.5 is fine with me.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15780465
> 
> 
> Nice detective work beck, but I wonder if all reviews were actually pulled up considering how terrible the search feature is.



Good question. I haven't had a lot of problems with the Thread Search feature. The only problem I've had is that I get way more hits than I'd like and I have to sift through a lot of posts that aren't related to find ones that are and sometimes you have to read the next page or so after you get a relevant hit to see if someone comments without mentioning the title. I'd love it if we could make it more efficient.

*Doomsday*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15780465
> 
> 
> I recommended Top Tier 1 but your recommendation of *1.5 is fine with me.*


----------



## SuprSlow

I'll have to sift through my notes tomorrow, but if I recall, some of the reviews of Tekkon had misspellings of the title. That will definitely affect searches


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/15780687
> 
> 
> I'll have to sift through my notes tomorrow, but if I recall, some of the reviews of Tekkon had misspellings of the title. That will definitely affect searches



Just a heads up I did a search for Saw V, Saw 5, Saw, saw and nothing comes up. I know the word saw is used a lot in this thread. Do we have a filter for the word saw?


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15780465
> 
> 
> Nice detective work beck, but I wonder if all reviews were actually pulled up considering how terrible the search feature is.
> 
> 
> Hugh, I thought the night scenes in the beginning held very well. I did mention later on in the film (once they first left the wall and in the caves) that it did struggle. I recommended Top Tier 1 but your recommendation of 1.5 is fine with me.



I think there is a considerable difference between tier 0 and tier 1 now with our newer constraints. Your review is fine, my original review of Doomsday was way off. I guess I feel the need to be more harsh on it, since I was so off, but really because what I seen last night was a disappointing and now embarrassing that I was so off. LB for me it was the very opening scene with the CC video/camera type shots that even though it is intent and part of the mood, it is not anything we would allow in tier 0.


----------



## RBFC

*Doomsday*

I agree with _Doomsday_ not being a tier 0 title. I wouldn't use it as a reference to wow visitors, and don't feel wowed by PQ when viewing it either. There are exceedingly noisy/grainy sections, and also parts where some softness exists.


I feel that there are two factors that have been affecting these "mis-placed" review titles:


1. Audio quality/movie immersion. As in this title, the AQ and/or the fun factor of watching the movie can color one's judgement a bit. It's easier to be forgiving when the audio is just blowing your socks off, or when you're so caught up in the movie that you forget any critiquing angles.


2. Progressive improvement in PQ on more titles. As I suggested in a previous post, it might be useful to have some semi-structured "shoot-outs" between older titles in a tier and new titles proposed for that tier. There is a continually raising standard that may have left some older (highly-rated at the time) titles in the dust.

*Recommendation: Tier 1.25*


Lee


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15780703
> 
> *I think there is a considerable difference between tier 0 and tier 1 now with our newer constraints.* Your review is fine, my original review of Doomsday was way off. I guess I feel the need to be more harsh on it, since I was so off, but really because what I seen last night was a disappointing and now embarrassing that I was so off. LB for me it was the very opening scene with the CC video/camera type shots that even though it is intent and part of the mood, it is not anything we would allow in tier 0.



Yeah I agree.


Those CC video shots didn't bother me much, but you are right.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15780140
> 
> *Doomsday*
> 
> 
> I was the advocate for Doomsday in tier 0. I couldn't have been more incorrect, well, maybe I could have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Tier 1.5*



Hugh, I'm going to take your word on this one because I really have no desire to watch Doomsday again at this time. Again, it was almost 7 months ago that I viewed it, so I can easily believe that it wouldn't look as good to me as it did then.


Regarding your view on the first 30 minutes of Apocalypto, we're still going to have to "agree to disagree" on that one. I say this because if I thought the first 30 minutes were soft and not worthy of Tier 0 back then (almost a year ago!!), I highly doubt that I would change my mind now (especially considering the fact that we are now changing our minds in the other direction on older titles).


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15780989
> 
> 
> Hugh, I'm going to take your word on this one because I really have no desire to watch Doomsday again at this time. Again, it was almost 7 months ago that I viewed it, so I can easily believe that it wouldn't look as good to me as it did then.
> 
> 
> Regarding your view on the first 30 minutes of Apocalypto, we're still going to have to "agree to disagree" on that one. I say this because if I thought the first 30 minutes were soft and not worthy of Tier 0 back then (almost a year ago!!), I highly doubt that I would change my mind now (especially considering the fact that we are now changing our minds in the other direction on older titles).



If you have it, why not play it for a few minutes and skim through it? Also go back to the Pirates movies. You might be surprised.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15781102
> 
> 
> If you have it, why not play it for a few minutes and skim through it? Also go back to the Pirates movies. You might be surprised.



I don't have Doomsday, but I do have the Pirates movies. I'll check them out in the very near future.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15780989
> 
> 
> Hugh, I'm going to take your word on this one because I really have no desire to watch Doomsday again at this time. Again, it was almost 7 months ago that I viewed it, so I can easily believe that it wouldn't look as good to me as it did then.
> 
> 
> Regarding your view on the first 30 minutes of Apocalypto, we're still going to have to "agree to disagree" on that one. I say this because if I thought the first 30 minutes were soft and not worthy of Tier 0 back then (almost a year ago!!), I highly doubt that I would change my mind now (especially considering the fact that we are now changing our minds in the other direction on older titles).



Having just re-reviewed both, I can say I was wrong on Doomsday, but Apocalypto still holds up. The issue some mention and I see in Apocalypto is the digital noise from low light, but again watch the opening scene @ 45 sec when we first see the forest. Most of the first 30 min. is like that and anything but soft since HD cameras were used the image is very sharp and window like.


djoberg, believe me I was SHOCKED and very disappointed when I watched Doomsday again, shocked I was so far off.










I hope you get you can review both again soon as all our reviews are important especially at a time where so much movement of established titles in taking place. This is all a good thing in the long run.


in my perspective Doomsday and Apocalypto are like two tiers away from each other and hold nothing in common.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15781300
> 
> 
> Having just re-reviewed both, I can say I was wrong on Doomsday, but Apocalypto still holds up. The issue some mention and I see in Apocalypto is the digital noise from low light, but again watch the opening scene @ 45 sec when we first see the forest. Most of the first 30 min. is like that and anything but soft since HD cameras were used the image is very sharp and window like.
> 
> 
> djoberg, believe me I was SHOCKED and very disappointed when I watched Doomsday again, shocked I was so far off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you get you can review both again soon as all our reviews are important especially at a time where so much movement of established titles in taking place. This is all a good thing in the long run.
> 
> 
> in my perspective Doomsday and Apocalypto are like two tiers away from each other and hold nothing in common.



Okay Hugh, I just watched the first 50 minutes of Apocalypto again and here is what I observed:


The first 4 minutes: Low to middle Tier 0


4-19 minutes: Some Tier 0 shots, some Tier 1 shots


20-23: The worst part of the whole movie (the campfire scene at night) with heavy grain, softness, and lacking detail...Tier 3, IMO


24-42: The attack on their camp scene...Low Tier 1/High Tier 2


43 onwards: Tier 0 to the end, with some shots as good or better than any I've seen


I admit that some of the first 40 minutes were much better than what I had remembered, but as you can see from my breakdown, there was that 4 minute segment which was quite bad and then were a lot of Tier 1 and Tier 2 shots for about 18 minutes.


The bottom line: Because of the inconsistency of the first 43 minutes (and with quite a few shots falling into Tier 2 or 3), I would still recommend Tier 1.0, though if it finds itself in the bottom of Tier 0 I won't lose any sleep over it.


Now I'm going to break out POTC 2 & 3.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/15780687
> 
> 
> I'll have to sift through my notes tomorrow, but if I recall, some of the reviews of Tekkon had misspellings of the title. That will definitely affect searches



I'll be curious to see what you find -- I tried every misspelling of which I could think; Tekon, Teckon Kinreet, Kinkrete Kinrete...


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RBFC* /forum/post/15780796
> 
> 
> the AQ and/or the fun factor of watching the movie can color one's judgement a bit.



Excellent point. I once read something where the researcher claimed that one's perception of the video is absolutely colored by audio quality -- because quality audio also convinces us that what we're seeing is real.


I know this was true for me the first time I listened to Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds. The sound is gorgeous! When I watched it the second time, I couldn't believe how soft the picture is a lot of the time!


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15781300
> 
> 
> djoberg, believe me I was SHOCKED and very disappointed when I watched Doomsday again, shocked I was so far off.



Kudos to you for reassessing it!


----------



## rsbeck

*Transporter 2* --


How about this title? I could only find two reviews, one recommending tier 3 and one recommending tier 0. I didn't attempt to be as thorough, though, as I was with the others. I did do some other research.


These should certainly be taken with a grain of salt, but if anything, I usually find the reviewers from these web-sites to be generous, so IMO, it is notable when they point out things like...



"Just about every aspect of this 1080p/MPEG-2 transfer is tweaked to high heaven. Contrast is pumped up, giving the presentation a very hard look with a loss of detail in the shadows. Colors, too, are intensely saturated, and noticeably artificial. That doesn't help fleshtones much, which are so shiny and orange that most of the actors look like Nintendo characters..."

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/476/transporter2.html 


"...there is something about this film that just doesn't look right. It doesn't have anything to do with this transfer in particular; instead with the saturation of the picture. The contrast has been kicked up a notch and the filter used during filming gives everything a washed out appearance. It makes some scenes absolutely pop but at other points gives skin tones an odd orange hue. The effect also lessens the density of shadows and goes out of its way to make particular scenes pop. It worked but ultimately left with mixed impressions."

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/26014/transporter-2/ 


"As is common with high definition (at least at this early stage) however, darker scenes yield a less dynamic presence. The sharpness falls and colors wash out a little, though the image still looks as good, if not better than a high end DVD transfer."

http://www.dvdauthority.com/reviews.asp?reviewID=4918


----------



## rsbeck

"the image still looks as good, if not better than a high end DVD transfer."


Faint praise?


----------



## RBFC




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15782225
> 
> 
> Excellent point. I once read something where the researcher claimed that one's perception of the video is absolutely colored by audio quality -- because quality audio also convinces us that what we're seeing is real.
> 
> 
> I know this was true for me the first time I listened to Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds. The sound is gorgeous! When I watched it the second time, I couldn't believe how soft the picture is a lot of the time!



Humans are used to gathering visual information in varying types of environments: low light, rain, fog, snow, etc. The brain fills in the visual detail of what things "look like" from memory, so we don't perceive the lack of visual detail as problematic in our surroundings under these conditions. Sound, however, carries only specific qualities in memory (familiar voices, sounds that we are familiar with) but the quality of the sound reaching our ears IMMEDIATELY identifies itself as "live" or "reproduction". We rely much more on the nearness-to-perfection of AQ to produce a convincing illusion of a live event. Our eyes are simply used to processing over 90% of our sensory input, and are more adept at filling in the "gaps".


I am more swept into a film on SD-DVD that has great AQ, then a BD with poor AQ. Just my opinion, of course.


I agree about the Dave Matthews disc. Your adamant comments regarding its AQ caused me to revisit it, and I believe the same thing happened to me while listening to it... I thought the PQ was better than it actually is, because the audiophile in me was drinking it all in! (Am relistening to the Police disc to consider your stance there re: comparison to Matthews AQ).


I've heard that 70% of the HT experience is in the sound, and I tend to believe that. Great PQ with poor sound is never "transporting", while great sound with poor PQ will fare much better in the "you are there" dimension.


Lee


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15781102
> 
> 
> If you have it, why not play it for a few minutes and skim through it? Also go back to the Pirates movies. You might be surprised.



Okay, I just spent an hour revisiting *POTC 2 & 3* and Pan's Labyrinth. Regarding POTC, I guess I have a piece of "humble pie" to eat.







It has been a very long time since I watched them and I was surprised to find that they are NOT as impressive as they once were. First of all, I do agree with your view that #2 (Dear Man's Chest) is better than #3 (At World's End), and for the same reason you gave (so many dark scenes in DMC). Both of them have outstanding facial close-ups with amazing detail (clearly Tier 0 quality!), but details in landscapes were not as good as I had remembered, and I thought that the shadow detail in darker scenes weren't always Tier 0 material and there were some definite soft shots. Well-lit scenes were still topnotch (Tier 0 in most cases) in every department (colors, blacks, contrast, details, depth, etc.) All things considered I would move them down to the *bottom of Tier 0*.
*

Pan's Labyrinth, which is currently in Tier 1.5, SHOULD STAY THERE!!!* The style of this title reminded me quite often of the POTC series, for it too had a lot of dark scenes with a stylized blue hue. I don't believe the dark scenes were as detailed as POTC, but most of them were low Tier 1/high Tier 2 quality. The well-lit scenes were VERY impressive though, even the ones with a golden hue. Facial detail could have been a wee bit better, but textures in clothing, blades of grass, rocks on hillsides, etc. were extraordinary the majority of the time.


Well, the last two hours have taught me an invaluable lesson; we REALLY do need to revisit titles from time to time in order to honestly assess their current PQ placement. I thought my memory was nearly photographic, but I have proven that theory wrong (at least in regards to the POTC movies).


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15782225
> 
> 
> Excellent point. I once read something where the researcher claimed that one's perception of the video is absolutely colored by audio quality -- because quality audio also convinces us that what we're seeing is real.



Then we need to take the thread to the next level. I am suggesting everyone watch their Blu-rays muted when evaluating the picture quality.










> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15782354
> 
> 
> These should certainly be taken with a grain of salt, but if anything, I usually find the reviewers from these web-sites to be generous, so IMO, it is notable when they point out things like...
> 
> http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/476/transporter2.html
> 
> http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/26014/transporter-2/
> 
> http://www.dvdauthority.com/reviews.asp?reviewID=4918



I remember giving this admonition some time ago in this very thread, but Blu-ray reviews from the sites you mention from the earlier days of the format are notoriously unreliable and biased. Many if not all the main review sites and discussion forums were dominated by HD DVD supporters at that point and many of those early reviews were biased at best and dishonest at worst. The general zeitgeist was not very favorable towards Blu-ray with many reviewers openly cheering for HD DVD to "win" in the marketplace. I would have to call into serious question any review cited by those two sites given the dates on those reviews.


----------



## rsbeck

Facial details are a bit better in the UK release *Pan's Labyrinth*. A week or so ago, I spent a whole evening going back and forth between the US and UK releases and I agree with Djoberg that the US release is still worthy of its 1.5 ranking, but the UK version should be ranked even higher. I would love to get the UK release in our rankings so we can bring it to the attention of more people. It's just that before I write a review recommending a high placement, I want to watch the UK version when I am fresh. It was a great education and I would recommend the experience to anyone, but I was pretty fried after that and I think you guys can understand why it's going to take me a little time to cleanse my palette and work up an appetite to see it again.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15782715
> 
> 
> I would have to call into serious question any review cited by those two sites given the dates on those reviews.



I certainly agree with you here. Outside reviews should always be taken with a Bonneville Salt Flat and you make an excellent point about reviews during that point in our sordid history. Still, I'd feel better if we could get some more current inside reviews of Transporter 2.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RBFC* /forum/post/15782409
> 
> 
> We rely much more on the nearness-to-perfection of AQ to produce a convincing illusion of a live event.



This certainly jives with what I read.



> Quote:
> (Am relistening to the Police disc to consider your stance there re: comparison to Matthews AQ).



Cool. Whether you end up agreeing with me or not, I appreciate that you're willing to take the time. Thanks!


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15782715
> 
> 
> Then we need to take the thread to the next level. I am suggesting everyone watch their Blu-rays muted when evaluating the picture quality.



Beat me to it.










But it may be a reasonable thing to do for concert blu rays, since most are obviously watching a band they love and are interested in.


----------



## deltasun

*Casino*


Wow! I gotta say, I purchased this title (1) because it's one of my favorite movies but (2) the bonus of a Tier 1 title. Boy, was it ever mis-tiered.







Good thing it was on sale!


Anyway, the first thing to notice is lack of really crisp black levels (I may have been spoiled with the recent watching of The Mummy 3). The contrast is also lacking. I understand that the setting for the main part of the movie is the 70's and hence, the "look" that was applied. As much as I love the scenes (specially between DeNiro and Pesci), the lack of PQ is just glaring. It's like a thin bit of haze was applied throughout the scenes. Colors are flat and uninteresting.


It did improve just a tad once we enter the 80's, but the PQ drops again soon after. I have to admit that I did notice a bit of 3D pop in some scenes, which I could not believe given the haze. They were there, but ever so slightly. Most of these were during scenes with DeNiro.


Overall, I cannot see this title anywhere in Tier 1. I remember seeing a similar haze in The Hunt for Red October, but not as bad or pervasive. The only saving grace is the movie itself.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.5*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## rsbeck

*Kill Bill: Volume 1*


Grain during film based sections appeared intact, persistent ringing and halos noted. KB1 is an homage to several film genres with arresting images and striking visuals. Colors are sometimes intentionally over saturated, there are black and white scenes which must have laid the foundation for the fascinating look of Sin City, whites are often allowed to blow, lights and lanterns are placed in almost every scene which produce a daydreamy glow around themselves and other things in the frame. I've read that there is a minor ringing issue in Kill Bill 1, but this is the most persistent ringing I've seen in any title and not just on high contrast edges. Not only thin ringing, but full-on halos, although I have a hard time believing the full-on halos are unintentional -- I'm convinced it must be part of an intentionally soft look. I am troubled by the persistent ringing because it seems to coincide with other issues; the image often loses solidity with the slightest move of the camera or with any movement within the frame. I half suspect that these are all simply intentional visual effects because so much care has obviously been taken with the visual look of the film that it is hard to believe that what we see is in any way accidental. I find myself admiring the choice on an artistic level, but these artistic choices often render a picture that is soft and blurry around the edges. On the positive side, at the center of the frame when at rest, we often see a very impressive picture with very strong facial and follicle detail. I would guestimate that about 20% of KB1 is high tier 0 quality. On the negative side, a lot of KB1 is mid tier 2 quality, with a fair portion even dipping into tier 3, with a lot of softness, little detail, glowing halos around people and objects and an image that breaks up and blurs far too often. Kudos to QT, though, for some brave artistic choices.

*Recommendation: Tier 1.5*


Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From Screen


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15781219
> 
> 
> I don't have Doomsday, but I do have the Pirates movies. I'll check them out in the very near future.



I meant Apocalypto... but I see you have re-reviewed it already in another post. I have Doomsday and always thought the 2nd half was better than the first. I think the end sequence is Tier 0, but Tier 1.25 or 1.5 is fine with me.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15783674
> 
> 
> I have *Doomsday* and always thought the 2nd half was better than the first.
> 
> 
> I think the end sequence is Tier 0, but *Tier 1.25 or 1.5 is fine with me.*



Cool.


----------



## deltasun

*The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian*


I feel like the bad guy, tearing down these titles. For the record though, I am slightly more than halfway in agreement on the Apocalypto movement to Tier 0. Regardless of the early scenes plagued with digital noise, I regularly use it as demo material. But I digress...


Prince Caspian was a wonderful adventure with plenty of opportunities to show off grandiose panoramas and fine macro detail in its characters, be they CGI or real. It had its moments in both, but also was mediocre in others. First off, the scenery was lively and presented a lot of depth and beauty. We are treated right away as the 4 kings and queens of old were called back to Narnia.


Skin tones, to me, were a bit on the light side and looked a bit washed out. I know there's talk that they are children and, as such, were entitled to a little smoothness in their faces. I don't buy this assertion - I think with their freckles a bit more texture should have been evident. Contrastingly, I *did* find good detail - follicle-wise and texture-wise - on the DLF. If you did not see the film or have forgotten, that would be the Dear Little Friend (elf). I also noticed that the Telmarine guards, even in poor light, exhibited good detail in their helmets and armor.


Speaking of poor light, scenes under these circumstances were probably the most disappointing in the movie, PQ-wise. I felt that during low-light situations, especially during the siege of the castle, faces were soft and the scenes a bit hazy. This also affected the black levels, which were blue in tint during this scene. I would have to side with Stumlad on this - starting around the 1 hour mark, softness abound.


Now, the presence of softness was not too detrimental. We are still talking Gold territory here. However, given a certain angle, close-up, and lighting combinations, I expected to see certain details, based on other titles (especially Tier 0 titles) I've seen recently. I did not see those here.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15782582
> 
> 
> Okay, I just spent an hour revisiting *POTC 2 & 3* and Pan's Labyrinth. Regarding POTC, I guess I have a piece of "humble pie" to eat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has been a very long time since I watched them and I was surprised to find that they are NOT as impressive as they once were. First of all, I do agree with your view that #2 (Dear Man's Chest) is better than #3 (At World's End), and for the same reason you gave (so many dark scenes in DMC). Both of them have outstanding facial close-ups with amazing detail (clearly Tier 0 quality!), but details in landscapes were not as good as I had remembered, and I thought that the shadow detail in darker scenes weren't always Tier 0 material and there were some definite soft shots. Well-lit scenes were still topnotch (Tier 0 in most cases) in every department (colors, blacks, contrast, details, depth, etc.) All things considered I would move them down to the *bottom of Tier 0*.



I would prob put Pirates 2 in middle, but agree Pirates 3 could be in lower 0. I suspect if we re-reviewed more tier 0 titles, more would drop out.



> Quote:
> *
> 
> Pan's Labyrinth, which is currently in Tier 1.5, SHOULD STAY THERE!!!* The style of this title reminded me quite often of the POTC series, for it too had a lot of dark scenes with a stylized blue hue. I don't believe the dark scenes were as detailed as POTC, but most of them were low Tier 1/high Tier 2 quality. The well-lit scenes were VERY impressive though, even the ones with a golden hue. Facial detail could have been a wee bit better, but textures in clothing, blades of grass, rocks on hillsides, etc. were extraordinary the majority of the time.



I have the US and UK release but havent watched either yet. While I know the DNR may be a negative to the US, I really doubt the added grain would shoot the movie to Tier 0 (just from running through them). I could be wrong though.



> Quote:
> Well, the last two hours have taught me an invaluable lesson; we REALLY do need to revisit titles from time to time in order to honestly assess their current PQ placement. I thought my memory was nearly photographic, but I have proven that theory wrong (at least in regards to the POTC movies).




Taught me a lot too. Any time i think a movie is Tier 0 from this point forward, I will throw in a few titles and compare to make sure. I just watch too many things and its so hard to accurately remember.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15780165
> 
> 
> you are correct, I couldn't agree more. LBFilmGuy said the first 45 min. shines and now that I have seen it again, I disagree. There are a lot of PQ inconsistencies and issues throughout the BD including the first 45 min.



As I said at the time, I thought the last half hour looked the best, but earlier in the movie there were many PQ issues. I would agree on Tier 1.5 for *Doomsday*.


----------



## Gaffer74

*BBC Planet Earth (UK Edition). Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD 5.1 | AR: 1.78:1 | BBC*


OK, firstly, just to clarify I'm talking about the 5 Disc UK BBC version shown here, not the 4 Disc US Discovery version:











*Picture:* I'm going to be a little controversial here and say that this should really be a reference disc, and I'll tell you why.

Discs can really be divided into 4 basic categories: Cell Animation (rel. easy to transfer to HD), Computer animation a la Pixar (v. easy to transfer to HD), Motion Picture (controlled environment so theoretically easy to film "right" and hence transfer a pristine picture), Documentary (real life, real life conditions, usually not optimum lighting etc, harder to transfer a good HD picture).

That sounds a bit nebulous but what I mean is that I would expect any animation to be a pristine transfer, and movies should be on the whole as they're shot in controlled sets where everything is monitored as much as possible to glean the highest possible picture.

Real life on the other hand, goes with what's given it. It's sometimes never possible to get real life to conform to "crystal clear studio standards", but you know what, Planet Earth does just that across the board







.

Yeah, sure, there are shots which look a tad soft, but MOST of this whole series is simply stunning to look at. I thought maybe the mountains episode with the snow leopard followed by the shots of the jungle in China (I swear those birds look 3D lifelike enough to reach out and touch) may have been a fluke. I therefore stuck in the Deep Oceans episode and it blew me away again.

Now I have the luxury of owning the 5 Disc DVD set as well, and the Bluray is just simply leaps and bounds ahead of it in terms of detail, contrasts and "lifelikeness" (if there is such a word







).

I think that based on the fact that it's a documentary, you won't get much better than this and it is the best it can be.

It is so good in fact, that it is used as a reference series in my house where I can wow my guests with how good it looks. I admit that I have the DVD's for direct comparison, but I would still definitely class this as one of the best disc sets I own.

Another thing to mention is that the boxset makes a mistake on it's packaging. It is not 1080i. There are 2 further documentaries on disc 5 and these are 1080i. The main feature however, is definitely 1080p/24.


Picture of the set is therefore 1080p/24 using the VC-1 codec.

*Differences:* Very briefly, the UK version has the brilliant Sir David Attenborough doing the narrating....leaps and bounds ahead of Sigourney Weaver for the US version that I've heard. This is the main reason I rate the UK version above the US one (makes a big difference to the overall viewing experience imo).

The extra disc is the 1080i feature with 2 documentaries "snow leopards" and "mountain lions" which is a very good extra made for this Bluray set.

The only plus the DVD set has over this is that at the end of each episode on the DVD, there is a 10min short on the difficulties of filming that episode (the mountains one is esp. good). The lack of these on the Bluray set is what has prompted me to keep hold of the DVD set for now.

*Sound:* This is the only place I think it falls down a tad. Whereas the PQ is consistently good on the whole, the SQ sometimes sounds....erm....not quite muffled but muted in places. It's like it partially "drops out" in places. Actually it sounds more like the treble gets a tiny cut every now and then. I can't find a pattern, so it may be my amp, but I've not heard this elsewhere so I'm assuming the discs are to blame.


The sound is Dolby Digital 5.1

*Overall:* That last reason means that whereas I use this as definite Tier 0 reference disc set at home, if you want to be "purist" about it







, I think the occasional sound issue followed by the lack of "making of..." shorts makes this a Gold instead.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0*


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gaffer74* /forum/post/15783837
> 
> *BBC Planet Earth (UK Edition). Video: AVC | Audio: DD 5.1 | AR: 1.78:1 | BBC*
> 
> 
> OK, firstly, just to clarify I'm talking about the 5 Disc UK BBC version shown here, not the 4 Disc US Discovery version:




There is also a US BBC version as well (with same narrator), not just the Discovery version. From my recollection (which could easily be wrong) it was VC-1 encoded. Can you double check this? It would be interesting if the US and UK releases weren't the same encode. It is a bit weird that it's 24fps... though I believe bplewis confirmed that his (US BBC) also ran at 24fps...


One thing that I didn't like about the US BBC version was there were quite a few segments that appear to be recorded with standard def cameras. Not sure if this was confirmed or not.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/15783697
> 
> *The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian*
> 
> 
> I feel like the bad guy, tearing down these titles. For the record though, I am slightly more than halfway in agreement on the Apocalypto movement to Tier 0. Regardless of the early scenes plagued with digital noise, I regularly use it as demo material. But I digress...
> 
> 
> Prince Caspian was a wonderful adventure with plenty of opportunities to show off grandiose panoramas and fine macro detail in its characters, be they CGI or real. It had its moments in both, but also was mediocre in others. First off, the scenery was lively and presented a lot of depth and beauty. We are treated right away as the 4 kings and queens of old were called back to Narnia.
> 
> 
> Skin tones, to me, were a bit on the light side and looked a bit washed out. I know there's talk that they are children and, as such, were entitled to a little smoothness in their faces. I don't buy this assertion - I think with their freckles a bit more texture should have been evident. Contrastingly, I *did* find good detail - follicle-wise and texture-wise - on the DLF. If you did not see the film or have forgotten, that would be the Dear Little Friend (elf). I also noticed that the Telmarine guards, even in poor light, exhibited good detail in their helmets and armor.
> 
> 
> Speaking of poor light, scenes under these circumstances were probably the most disappointing in the movie, PQ-wise. I felt that during low-light situations, especially during the siege of the castle, faces were soft and the scenes a bit hazy. This also affected the black levels, which were blue in tint during this scene. I would have to side with Stumlad on this - starting around the 1 hour mark, softness abound.
> 
> 
> Now, the presence of softness was not too detrimental. We are still talking Gold territory here. However, given a certain angle, close-up, and lighting combinations, I expected to see certain details, based on other titles (especially Tier 0 titles) I've seen recently. I did not see those here.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.5*
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_



Man deltasun, if you keep this up you are going to be nominated for the "Most UNgenerous Rater" award!










Seriously though, I believe you are way too low on this recommendation. Prince Caspian has been touted by many members as one of the best titles in Tier 0 and IMO it deserves the praise it's getting.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15784611
> 
> 
> Man deltasun, if you keep this up you are going to be nominated for the "Most UNgenerous Rater" award!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously though, I believe you are way too low on this recommendation. Prince Caspian has been touted by many members as one the best titles in Tier 0 and IMO it deserves the praise it's getting.



Agree w/ *Djoberg* (omg!! After Mamma Mia I never thought it'd happen!







)



I'm sure my friend bought this, so I'm going to have to borrow it and review it again I think.


Although kudos to you, *Deltasun*, even if I don't agree with some of your placements, you're doing a fantastic job with so many reviews in such a short period of time.



I did a search and can't find any results -- have any of you all watched *Heathers*? I've been pondering getting a copy of *Becoming Jane* because I loved that movie, and when I was browsing it over at Amazon.ca, a link for Heathers showed up in the "also viewed.." thing at the bottom. Heathers was one of my favourite teenage angst movies, but I have this fear in my head or excessive DNR & EE absolutely ruining this for me. Any of you PQ guys have an opinion? Doesn't have to be a full out review, even guidance would be good.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15784856
> 
> *Agree w/ Djoberg (omg!! After Mamma Mia I never thought it'd happen!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )*
> 
> 
> 
> I've been pondering getting a copy of *Becoming Jane* because I loved that movie



Let the healing begin!!!!










Regarding Becoming Jane, I would encourage you to get it for it is one sweet-looking transfer. That's one that patrick and I agreed on about a year ago and we both pushed for a Tier 0 placement. (Having said that, I really should check it out again to see if it looks as good to me as it did back then.)


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/15783505
> 
> *Casino*
> 
> 
> Wow! I gotta say, I purchased this title (1) because it's one of my favorite movies but (2) the bonus of a Tier 1 title. Boy, was it ever mis-tiered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing it was on sale!
> 
> 
> Anyway, the first thing to notice is lack of really crisp black levels (I may have been spoiled with the recent watching of The Mummy 3). The contrast is also lacking. I understand that the setting for the main part of the movie is the 70's and hence, the "look" that was applied. As much as I love the scenes (specially between DeNiro and Pesci), the lack of PQ is just glaring. It's like a thin bit of haze was applied throughout the scenes. Colors are flat and uninteresting.
> 
> 
> It did improve just a tad once we enter the 80's, but the PQ drops again soon after. I have to admit that I did notice a bit of 3D pop in some scenes, which I could not believe given the haze. They were there, but ever so slightly. Most of these were during scenes with DeNiro.
> 
> 
> Overall, I cannot see this title anywhere in Tier 1. I remember seeing a similar haze in The Hunt for Red October, but not as bad or pervasive. The only saving grace is the movie itself.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.5*
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_



I recommended a Tier 1.0 ranking a few months ago. Like everyone else, I guess I'll have to rewatch later today. Right now, I sticking to my 1.0. I thought the PQ was AMAZING! Vegas has never looked better!










This is one of my favs, and will truly determine if you are "UNgenerious" as everyone says!

















Speaking of Vegas, my German imported Fear and Loathing looked amazing! For those who own the HD-DVD version, the transfer is identical. I'll watch again tonight, and give a full report.


Peace.


----------



## Gaffer74




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15784256
> 
> 
> There is also a US BBC version as well (with same narrator), not just the Discovery version. From my recollection (which could easily be wrong) it was VC-1 encoded. Can you double check this? It would be interesting if the US and UK releases weren't the same encode. It is a bit weird that it's 24fps... though I believe bplewis confirmed that his (US BBC) also ran at 24fps...
> 
> 
> One thing that I didn't like about the US BBC version was there were quite a few segments that appear to be recorded with standard def cameras. Not sure if this was confirmed or not.



I know that the US discovery version is 1080p/24, and that when comparing the video file sizes directly, there is no difference between the UK and US sets.

I haven't got the US version myself (I have seen it once though), but the UK version shows up as 1080/24 on my display and the PS3 also indicates it's VC-1 so thanks for the correction







*(I have amended my review title accordingly)*......so yes, it looks like the US and UK versions are both identical in size and type as indicated here (with the only difference being the US 'made for TV' version).



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AVForums* /forum/post/0
> 
> Here are the FACTS:
> 
> 
> ALL versions of Planet Earth, on both HD DVD and Blu Ray, are 1080P. IT DOES NOT MATTER WHERE YOU BOUGHT IT OR WHAT IT SAYS ON THE BOX, THE MAIN PROGRAMMES ARE ALL IN 1080P, WITHOUT EXCEPTION.
> 
> 
> The video files (as in actual size in MB) are exactly the same size on both versions (US/UK); just try both versions in your player, you will not see a difference.
> 
> 
> The UK version mentions 1080i on the box because the 'extra' programmes are in 1080i, but this is at 30fps so the motion looks much better than the main programmes anyway. The 1080i on the box is merely the BBC trying to cover themselves against accusations of false advertising.
> 
> 
> ......So please lets stop this nonsense, any lack of image quality in Planet Earth is due to the original recording technology used (24p film / early HD cameras) and not the release format........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ....and......
> 
> 
> 
> Now I have a Pioneer 51FD player and it indicates the UK version programme source is 1080p/24. The Pioneer does not convert any 1080i/60 material on the disc to 1080p/24 for output (no player does as far as I know) so it is actually what is on the disc as indicated. It also plays on the US Panny BD30 and 60Hz only plasma so it is definitely NOT 1080p/25. _Compared to the runtime of the PAL DVD episodes (48 min.), the BD (50 min. each episode) is consistent with a 25p tp 24p slowdown._
> 
> Note that the BD-ROM spec doesn't allow 1080p/30 or 1080p/60 encoding on the disc, so even when some display info shows "1080p" without frame-rate info it can only mean 1080p/24.
> 
> 
> Here are the specs:
> *BD/HD HBO US Version* 1080i AVC MPEG4 New Encode - 480mins (material taken out to allow for advertisements!)
> *BD/HD BBC US* 1080P/24 VC-1 - 530 mins
> *BD/HD BBC UK* 1080p/24 VC-1 - 530 mins


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15785759
> 
> 
> Let the healing begin!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding Becoming Jane, I would encourage you to get it for it is one sweet-looking transfer. That's one that patrick and I agreed on about a year ago and we both pushed for a Tier 0 placement. (Having said that, I really should check it out again to see if it looks as good to me as it did back then.)



For someone who likes the movie itself, the BD should be a must have.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15786043
> 
> 
> For someone who likes the movie itself, the BD should be a must have.



Absolutely!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15786043
> 
> 
> For someone who likes the movie itself, the BD should be a must have.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15786174
> 
> 
> Absolutely!




Thanks guys! I have a bit of a soft spot for Anne Hathaway (not enough to see _Bride Wars_, even I have limits -- perhaps a sacrificial rental for the sake of PQ rating once it's on Blu, but that's it!), I've seen _Ella Enchanted_ at least eleventy-billion times - and would definitely purchase on Blu if it's ever released. I acutally almost bought _Get Smart_ today despite the less-than-stellar PQ, because I enjoyed that one in the theatre... then Walmart went and raised it from $22 to $33?!?! Their blu-ray section has price changes almost daily, it's rather irritating (when it's not in my favour of course).


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15785759
> 
> 
> Let the healing begin!!!!



That's what I do, bring people together through common loathing.







Seriously though, guys...we are all here to offer our opinions and I try to be objective and base my reviews on our tier descriptions and amongst established movies within each tier.


I'd be interested in your and G3's rewatch.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15785848
> 
> 
> I recommended a Tier 1.0 ranking a few months ago. Like everyone else, I guess I'll have to rewatch later today. Right now, I sticking to my 1.0. I thought the PQ was AMAZING! Vegas has never looked better!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is one of my favs, and will truly determine if you are "UNgenerious" as everyone says!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peace.



Casino is one of my faves as well and am not deterred by the PQ. Still a solid movie with the all the great dialogue. However, the PQ was just lacking. I actually tried to ignore it once I've come to a conclusion, but it's glaring.


Again, it suffered the same low-light issues as Hunt for Red October, which is at 2.75. And as for comparison of good dark/club/cabaret scenes, The third Mummy is a vast improvement at 2.0.


----------



## Hammie

I think I may be in the minority here because I enjoyed this movie although I figured it out relatively quickly.


I think this movie was a pretty good transfer. I though it was detailed when needed be (facial close-ups, action sequences, etc.). I did not notice any real issues other than the colors were really tweaked and brightness really high in many scenes. This pushed much of the blacks out of a nice deep, rich black. I'm excusing the colors because I felt the colors, although not accurate to the colors in real life, were nice and rich in the right scenes while crisp and cool in others.


At first I thought I would select this as a 1.0 or 1.25, but in the end I need to say this is closer to 1.75.

*Revolver

Tier 1.75*


Panasonic TH-50PZ850u

Panasonic BD35 Player

7.5 feet


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/15787550
> 
> 
> That's what I do, bring people together through common loathing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Seriously though, guys...we are all here to offer our opinions and I try to be objective and base my reviews on our tier descriptions and amongst established movies within each tier.*
> 
> 
> I'd be interested in your and G3's rewatch.



Let me echo the sentiments of G3 by saying I DO appreciate the time and effort you are putting into the reviews you have posted. And I DO respect your opinion, even though it has not coincided with mine on several titles. Keep up the good work deltasun!


I will watch Prince Caspian again (perhaps tonight), but it wasn't all that long ago that I watched this so I really doubt that my opinion will change much, if at all, on this one.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gaffer74* /forum/post/15783837
> 
> *BBC Planet Earth (UK Edition). Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD 5.1 | AR: 1.78:1 | BBC*
> 
> *Picture:* I'm going to be a little controversial here and say that this should really be a reference disc, and I'll tell you why.
> 
> Discs can really be divided into 4 basic categories: Cell Animation (rel. easy to transfer to HD), Computer animation a la Pixar (v. easy to transfer to HD), Motion Picture (controlled environment so theoretically easy to film "right" and hence transfer a pristine picture), Documentary (real life, real life conditions, usually not optimum lighting etc, harder to transfer a good HD picture).
> 
> That sounds a bit nebulous but what I mean is that I would expect any animation to be a pristine transfer, and movies should be on the whole as they're shot in controlled sets where everything is monitored as much as possible to glean the highest possible picture.
> 
> Real life on the other hand, goes with what's given it. It's sometimes never possible to get real life to conform to "crystal clear studio standards", but you know what, Planet Earth does just that across the board
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



Excellent review Gaff, and I agree with what you said here.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Man all of this talk of Caspain makes me want to watch the damn thing to see what the fuss is about. I have NO desire at all whatsoever to watch this film, but I may force myself to add it in my Netflix queue.


----------



## selimsivad

*Mr. and Mrs. Smith*


There is a small layer of grain throughout. The "counseling" scenes and the scenes in Botoga, especially the hotel room, showed amazing depth and detail. PQ went downhill afterwards.


Blacks were deep. I really didn't care for the pumped up contrast. Very Soderbergh-like. Pores and other HD detail was average. Due to director's intent, this is the best it probably will ever look!


I disagree with it's current placement of 1.5

*Mr. and Mrs. Smith

Tier Recommendation: Tier 2.5

PS3-Samsung 46" 1080p-seven*'


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15789150
> 
> 
> Let me echo the sentiments of G3 by saying I DO appreciate the time and effort you are putting into the reviews you have posted. *And I DO respect your opinion, even though it has not coincided with mine on several titles.* Keep up the good work deltasun!
> 
> 
> I will watch Prince Caspian again (perhaps tonight), but it wasn't all that long ago that I watched this so I really doubt that my opinion will change much, if at all, on this one.




Yes, I hope I haven't given you the impression that I don't respect your opinion b/c I totally do. It'll take me a while to watch Caspian again, I've got a few blu's of my friend's at the moment that I want to get through before he'll loan me any more!







but the next set I'm hoping to borrow Caspian and Live Free or Die Hard.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

What's with that format beck? Terrible! LOL.


----------



## rsbeck

Planet Earth -- BBC


I don't want to be too blunt, but I would not raise a placement based on another version's narrator or extras, so my question boils down to this: Is the PQ on these discs markedly better than the US Release? If so, then let's focus on this and I'd like to know how it is better. If not, then I don't think we should raise it.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15789539
> 
> *Caspian*
> 
> 
> Watched it twice and couldn't quite get my head around a placement, so I never wrote a review, but in my heart of hearts, I have to say I would feel more comfortable with Caspian in tier 1.0. I think 1.5 is a tad too low. Caspian has its strengths, but ultimately, I don't think it is consistent enough, nor its strengths knock-out enough to overcome its inconsistencies to warrant a 0 ranking. Lion, Witch & Wardrobe will be at 1.5 (I wouldn't mind seeing it even lower) and IMO, Caspian's PQ is quite a bit more impressive.
> 
> *1.0 feels about right to me.*



Oh well, we can't agree on everything!










All of the potential moving of titles from Tier 0 to Tier 1 (or to a lower position in Tier 0) leads me to suggest that we should also be revisiting other "pets," such as I, Robot and Man On Fire. I say this because in my mind Prince Caspian was very close in PQ to these titles and I would like to hear from others on all three of these.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15789832
> 
> 
> Oh well, we can't agree on everything!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of the potential moving of titles from Tier 0 to Tier 1 (or to a lower position in Tier 0) leads me to suggest that we should also be revisiting other "pets," such as I, Robot and Man On Fire. I say this because in my mind Prince Caspian was very close in PQ to these titles and I would like to hear from others on all three of these.



Interestingly enough I bought iRobot last nite.







IMO is should stay where it is. When I said Apocalypto and Doomsday are like two full tiers away in PQ, iRobot and Apocalypto again IMO are in the same league or class. iRobot does look phenomenal. I can see why it is placed where it is. As far as Caspian I am confident on my recommendation having seen it 4 times originally and renting it again to make sure I saw what I was saying I did see and that was only two months ago or less. I recommend Caspian be moved up more towards the middle of tier 0.

*Caspian: Middle of tier 0*

*iRobot: Leave where it is.*

*Master and Commander:* Leave where is although I wish the PQ could have been better and 2.75 might be generous.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15789993
> 
> *To me, the discussion really should be: which of our tier 1.0 titles should be considered reference titles?* *If we find a new title that raises the reference standard, then we need to clean house again.*
> 
> *I think we should consider tier 0 ultimate demo discs, so the standard should be which titles will yield the most impressive demo?*




I think there are no flawless live action BD titles. Right there we have an issue and conflict with out tier 0 descriptor for any and all titles placed there that knowingly have flaws. It is easier to say 3-4 animation titles don't have flaws then to list how many live action movies in tier 0 do.


This will open another can of worms.










Based on what I have stated above our tier 0 descriptors are too stringent and not realistic for live action titles as their are NO flawless BD's, but they certainly are demo/reference worthy. Even iRobot, which is impressive to say the least, has some blurring and out of focus shots. It isn't perfect, but it is demo/reference and so is Apocalypto, Caspian, Crank, Man on Fire and more. Since it is realistic to acknowledge even the best live action BD's have PQ flaws, then our tier 0 descriptor by its requirements has virtually eliminated any live action BD from being placed there. IMO based on what you are saying and how I am reading and interpreting tier 0, we either need to move every live action title out of there or change the tier 0 descriptor to something more realistic. If as you say we should move everything down to tier 1 then those titles should not have been in tier 0 to begin with which is in line with our current tier 0 qualifiers.


Believe it or not what I am saying in relation to what I have said above is that we then should make the top of tier 1, from 1.5 up to and including tier 0, all tier 0 and allow for flawed PQ which is realistic for live action BD's. Either that or leave things as they are, changed the stringent qualifiers in tier 0 to allow for minor flaws, some flaws or what have you and leave the titles we have there where they are while being open to reassessing.


I think the majority if not all tier 0 and top half of tier 1 are demo/reference titles flaws and all. We just have to decide if that is where we want them placed with the flaws they have.


I think sooner or later we have to draw a line with how far we are taking this thread and how much we are changing it and tearing it apart to rebuild it. Too much tearing down and reconfiguring IMO it loses credibility and sense. I am starting to feel that way now.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15790296
> 
> 
> I think there are no flawless live action BD titles. Right there we have an issue and conflict with out tier 0 descriptor for any and all titles placed there that knowingly have flaws. It is easier to say 3-4 animation titles don't have flaws then to list how many live action movies in tier 0 do.
> 
> 
> I think the majority if not all tier 0 and top half of tier 1 are demo/reference titles flaws and all. We just have to decide if that is where we want them placed with the flaws they have.
> 
> 
> I think sooner or later we have to draw a line with how far we are taking this thread and how much we are changing it and tearing it apart to rebuild it. Too much tearing down and reconfiguring IMO it loses credibility and sense. I am starting to feel that way now.



In general I have to agree on the pace of change that has occurred within the thread in the past month and the other points you raise. While I do not agree with every placement I am generally satisfied with the overall level of reliability we have achieved. While I agree that the titles in tier zero should be reference, they should mostly represent the best looking Blu-rays available today. Even reference titles can have flaws of one kind or another, if those flaws do not outweigh the positives of each transfer. I do not want tier zero becoming some impossible standard that only a handful of movies could ever meet. As Blu-ray matures and the number of releases increase, we should see an increase in the number of movies that are ranked in tier zero.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15757726
> 
> 
> Is there any possibility that we could have a separate thread where we post a duplicate of our reviews, but only reviews? That way, one thread would only have reviews and this one would have the review plus the discussion. No discussion would be allowed in the review only thread and reviews only if they are formatted correctly. Whatta ya think?



This was from a few days back but I really like this idea. It would solve the complaints of people wanting to look only at actual reviews and recommendations. My only concern would be logistics. I think most of the regular posters could adapt to a system like that but who knows about the more sporadic contributors?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15789993
> 
> 
> IMO, we shouldn't have pets and there's no reason we shouldn't put every title through the ringer and see which ones survive. I wouldn't mind starting by putting all tier 0 titles in tier 1.0 and then holding discussions on which ones should be moved up to tier 0 and which ones should be moved further down.



First of all, by "pets" I simply meant those two titles have been cherished by almost everyone as the best live action demo titles to date. I did NOT mean to imply that we recommended Tier 0 for them because we liked the movies.


As far as "putting all tier 0 titles in tier 1.0 and then holding discussions on which ones should be moved up to tier 0 and which ones should be moved further down," I believe that would be a VERY DRASTIC move. I agree with Hugh that there are no *perfect* live action movies, but the ones we have selected thus far for Tier 0 have met the *general* requirements as outlined in the Tier 0 description (i.e., criteria). I have no problem revisiting them as this member or that one suggests it, but I would protest having to move them to Tier 1 and revisiting all of them as a mandate.


Let me just add that we (if I may speak for others) have neither the time or the energy to be going through that process all over again. We have new titles coming out nearly every day and we still have MANY older titles that have never been viewed; I suggest we concentrate on them.


----------



## Hughmc

Phantom, I agree and I agree with rsbeck. I am just relating how I think tier 1 qualifiers/descriptors do more accurately describe virtually all live action BD titles in tier 0 which makes it seem like tier 0 by its qualifiers makes it virtually impossible for all live action titles in tier 0 to be there. Then we have tier 0 why? It just seems based on PQ limitations inherent with live action BD's, tier 1 more accurately describes many tier 0 live action BDs.



I feel bad that while several of you were working on changing the descriptors I wasn't more involved and adamant about what I am saying now. Tier 0 qualifiers are too stringent for tier 0 live action titles that are currently placed there. I think this is why I in my reviews I have allowed some room for flaws with some BD's that IMO are at the top of the reference/demo list and should be left in tier 0.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

In other news...

*Traitor*


I always watch a film first before looking to see where it was placed in our thread, and I just saw that is currently in Tier 1.75 and disagree completely.


I honestly thought it was shot digitally based on how poor the entire film handled whites and high contrasted bright images. Tons of overblown shots, and way too much lens flare in most outdoor scenes. Director's intent, sure. Eye candy? Not quite.


Many night and low light scenes suffered from noise, most drastic was the scene when they threw the young kid off the bridge and the shot looking up at Cheadle on the ship. These 2 were the worst of several throughout.


Fine and sharp detail was found some of the time on faces and clothing, but there were a lot of soft shots that looked washed out and flat.


Also I noticed a few shots where the light seemed to have hit the matte box, creating a sharp line on the right of the frame with lens flare and then not. Very strange, but does happen occassionaly.


Not even close to Tier 1, and would put it at 2.75 at best.

*Recommendation: Tier 2.75*


----------



## OldCodger73

All in all a very pleasing transfer. Excellent color, many of the scenes were shot in the harsh Southwest sunshine and the cinematographer did a good job of controlling the light. I did have a concern about one scene, sorry no time stamp, it was were the son discovers he's color blind and not eligible for the Air Force Academy, the van stops, he goes down the embankment and is joined by his sister. The shot is looking back up at the adults and there seems to be a black band around one side of each person. I can't tell if this is normal shadow or a digital flaw. Clarity is good as is sharpness. Facial close-ups show a great deal of detail but not that of reference level or even upper Tier 1. I would rate *Little Miss Sunshine* as a solid *Tier 2.0*.


The movie is comedic look at a zany extremely dysfunctional family and is one of those you either like or dislike. It's the ultimate skewering of all the sub-teen beauty pageants.


Somewhere in the bowels of the USPS I have coming Amedeus, The Pink Panther (1964), A Time to Kill and The Pelican Brief. Amedeus replaces a non-anamorphic DVD, the others LDs. I'll try and do reviews on these. I realize that my take on movies is more from a movie fan standpoint and less as that of an eye candy person and that my reviews lack the breath, depth, critical evaluation and maybe even correct placement of our thread mainstays, but I also seem to watch movies that aren't otherwise reviewed. Hopefully other people will be tempted to watch those movies so that we can arrive at a correct placement.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/15791236
> 
> 
> All in all a very pleasing transfer. Excellent color, many of the scenes were shot in the harsh Southwest sunshine and the cinematographer did a good job of controlling the light. I did have a concern about one scene, sorry no time stamp, it was were the son discovers he's color blind and not eligible for the Air Force Academy, the van stops, he goes down the embankment and is joined by his sister. The shot is looking back up at the adults and there seems to be a black band around one side of each person. I can't tell if this is normal shadow or a digital flaw. Clarity is good as is sharpness. Facial close-ups show a great deal of detail but not that of reference level or even upper Tier 1. I would rate *Little Miss Sunshine* as a solid *Tier 2.0*.
> 
> 
> The movie is comedic look at a zany extremely dysfunctional family and is one of those you either like or dislike. It's the ultimate skewering of all the sub-teen beauty pageants.
> 
> 
> Somewhere in the bowels of the USPS I have coming Amedeus, The Pink Panther (1964), A Time to Kill and The Pelican Brief. Amedeus replaces a non-anamorphic DVD, the others LDs. I'll try and do reviews on these. I realize that my take on movies is more from a movie fan standpoint and less as that of an eye candy person and that my reviews lack the breath, depth, critical evaluation and maybe even correct placement of our thread mainstays, but I also seem to watch movies that aren't otherwise reviewed. Hopefully other people will be tempted to watch those movies so that we can arrive at a correct placement.



Thanks for the review OldCodger! I'll look forward to hearing what you have to say on A Time to Kill and The Pelican Brief. I am an avid fan of John Grisham and the movies based on his books....if these have good PQ I will probably add them to my Blu-ray library.


----------



## deltasun

*U-571*


Fellas (and the sophisticated G3, of course







), feast your eyes on this gem of a BD. I say gem since I have not seen a review yet. First off, this is a fine example of a dated look that delivers on PQ. The faces are crisp with fine detail abound. I had a bit of worry when McConaughey's face exhibited smoothness in the early scenes, compared to his fellow shipmen. However, once they took over the German u-boat and things got a little hairy, even Mr. McConaughey started sweating. The sweat beads on his face, as well as stubble growth, exhibited fine texture and detail. Incidentally, grain is intact and would be a worthwhile candidate for the "other" thread as well.


For a movie whose majority of its scenes taking place in close quarters, there is an abundance of 3D pop. The faces in the semi-dark quarters seem to pop out of the bulkheads and into my living room. If I had to nitpick this film, the only thing I would note is its black levels. I feel a few of the darker scenes looked weak - the worst one coming at the 49:30 mark, when the second u-boat surprises them and all hell breaks loose. Let me emphasize that this complex scene lasted less than a minute. This is very minimal though, because certain other scenes look rich.


Someone else would have to check for any DNR or EE, for these untrained eyes did not spy any. Overall, this was very palatable movie with lots of delicious eye candy. Not the same breed as movies with panoramic scenes, but eye candy, nonetheless. I am *this* close (holds thumb and forefinger less than half an inch from each other) to voting this reference quality but I'd like to get a few more of my esteemed colleagues' opinions on this. For now, I'd be happy for a high...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0*


On a side note...yes, AQ is jaw-droppingly good.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## 42041

U-571 was DNR'd quite a bit vs the HDDVD release. And even without that, PC has much finer detail to my eyes, so I really don't know how you'd figure to rank it half a tier below


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15791883
> 
> 
> U-571 was DNR'd quite a bit vs the HDDVD release. And even without that, PC has much finer detail to my eyes, so I really don't know how you'd figure to rank it half a tier below



Again, I'm out of my element when it comes to DNR/EE. In terms of finer details, I respectfully disagree. Those children's (and PC himself) faces did not exhibit the same details to me in comparison to the seamen in U-571. Even in the submarine's dark scenes, details were not compromised. Whereas during the siege of the castle, most details were lost.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Oh man. U-571 is a notorious movie for my husband and myself. Now, I haven't seen this movie since... VHS tape on a small tv.

*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) We had to drink every time Jon Bon Jovi spoke, and then guzzle when he died. O.M.G. This was of course, years ago, before kids.











But now i just have to see this on Blu. Is this newly released? I'll have to check my video store to see if they have it. I've never seen it at the store, because I know I would have laughed pretty hard if I did.



Hugh -- I feel the same about how things are going fast, however, I have faith in SuprSlow(Brandon) that he is taking this all under advisement. A large portion of the titles in Tier 0 are ones that I personally have not reviewed before, or at least not seen on my Panasonic. So, I'm just trying to make an effort to watch a lot of the titles that I haven't seen, and review as best as I can -- and where I can, re-watch some when I have time. It's good for us to have checks and balances, but I also think removing everything from tier 0 is a little drastic.


----------



## Hughmc

*Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist:*


This BD could have easily been a tier 1.0 or bottom of tier 0 movies if the entire BD looked the same as the opening scene. Unfortunately most of the movie deteriorates to less than 1.0 PQ and mostly hovers around 2.0. I was shocked how good the opening looked, I thought I was going to have a tier 0 or 1.0 BD to recommend. When Nick is standing in front of his house in the opening, the colors, clarity and detail looked tier 0. There are a few other instances of clear and detailed PQ, but they are the exception. The very end shot we again see the clarity and detail. It is presented fullscreen in 1:85:1 aspect ratio. I think sometimes having a movie in that ratio lends itself to "looking" like the detail is there when often it is just a zoomed, closer to you look that is deceiving. This film had an overall or dominating yellow cast to it quite often from the opening scene in Nick's room to the Yugo he owns to the cast's faces and skintones. Grain was more than obvious and a few times had the digital noise crawl due to compression, but that was rare. Black levels and contrast were average as was the rest of the color pallete.



What an appealing movie. I find Michael Cera to be a very appealing actor. He is so likable and convincing.

*Tier 2.0*


Sony A3000 60 in. @ 8ft. from PS3 through HDMI.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15792342
> 
> 
> Oh man. U-571 is a notorious movie for my husband and myself. Now, I haven't seen this movie since... VHS tape on a small tv.
> 
> *Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler
> *Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) We had to drink every time Jon Bon Jovi spoke, and then guzzle when he died. O.M.G. This was of course, years ago, before kids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But now i just have to see this on Blu. Is this newly released? I'll have to check my video store to see if they have it. I've never seen it at the store, because I know I would have laughed pretty hard if I did.



Then, it's a must see for you and the hubby. Bon Jovi is even more in your face now.







And, so young, of course. Just looked it up and it was released last August. I'd really be interested to see your take on this.


----------



## rsbeck

*Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist*


Dialogue driven comedy where visuals are not the point. Moderate coarse grain apparent throughout, no ringing or halos noted. N & N is a proficiently lit, shot, and transfered sweet and scruffy romantic comedy with the always reliable Michael Cera and Kat Dennings. Picture is a tad soft and grain is so thick at times as to be intrusive. Though this is clearly not demo material, I don't think fans of the film will be disappointed.

*Recommendation: Tier 3.25*


Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From 126" Screen



.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15789274
> 
> *Mr. and Mrs. Smith*
> 
> 
> There is a small layer of grain throughout. The "counseling" scenes and the scenes in Botoga, especially the hotel room, showed amazing depth and detail. PQ went downhill afterwards.
> 
> 
> Blacks were deep. I really didn't care for the pumped up contrast. Very Soderbergh-like. Pores and other HD detail was average. Due to director's intent, this is the best it probably will ever look!
> 
> 
> I disagree with it's current placement of 1.5
> 
> *Mr. and Mrs. Smith
> 
> Tier Recommendation: Tier 2.5
> 
> PS3-Samsung 46" 1080p-seven*'



Based on my recollection of how this looked, I agree with this recommendation.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/15791236
> 
> 
> Somewhere in the bowels of the USPS I have coming Amedeus, The Pink Panther (1964), A Time to Kill and The Pelican Brief. Amedeus replaces a non-anamorphic DVD, the others LDs. I'll try and do reviews on these.



Thanks for the Sunshine review. Looking forward to your review of these other titles.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15792688
> 
> 
> IMO, the thing that will lose the thread the most credibility is having titles ranked too high.



How can a title be ranked too high?!










"You are not authorized to enjoy this movie as much as you appear to! Please proceed to the Quarantine Detention area."


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15795926
> 
> 
> How can a title be ranked too high?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "You are not authorized to enjoy this movie as much as you appear to! Please proceed to the Quarantine Detention area."



Is that really a serious question?


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15795976
> 
> 
> Is that really a serious question?



Not really. I just think it's a little silly to be more concerned about the appearance of overrating titles than about the appearance of underrating them. As if considering a release to be sufficient and satisfactory can only call a reviewer's critical faculties into question.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15796064
> 
> 
> Not really. I just think it's a little silly to be more concerned about the appearance of overrating titles than about the appearance of underrating them. As if considering a release to be sufficient and satisfactory can only call a reviewer's critical faculties into question.



I'd rather get the review right, of course. But, if I can't...I'd rather underrate than overrate. Leaves room for truly reference titles.


I think it's a bigger disappointment to come into a thread that has a substantial amount of titles that are overrated. The viewer, expecting a reference title, is left feeling mislead. On the other hand, I'd rather be surprised positively on the upside.


And again, we all strive to get it just right. And hence, the debates on reviews.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/15796159
> 
> 
> I think it's a bigger disappointment to come into a thread that has a substantial amount of titles that are overrated. The viewer, expecting a reference title, is left feeling mislead. On the other hand, I'd rather be surprised positively on the upside.



I understand where you're coming from.


I'm not sure, though, if this is really the quality which would leave this thread most open to losing its credibility. From my travels on other forums, I've gathered that much of the popular outside opinion of AVS is that we're a bunch of whining nitpickers who will never be satisfied unless Steven Spielberg personally cleans our transfers on a per-pixel level. I'm not suggesting we start overrating titles to combat this image, but I'm skeptical about the idea that 'not selective enough' is our biggest credibility gap around here.


----------



## lovingdvd

Any thoughts on the PQ of the movie "Igor"?


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15796229
> 
> 
> I understand where you're coming from.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure, though, if this is really the quality which would leave this thread most open to losing its credibility. From my travels on other forums, I've gathered that much of the popular outside opinion of AVS is that we're a bunch of whining nitpickers who will never be satisfied unless Steven Spielberg personally cleans our transfers on a per-pixel level. I'm not suggesting we start overrating titles to combat this image, but I'm skeptical about the idea that 'not selective enough' is our biggest credibility gap around here.



But at least they're talking about us!














Where was that quote from?


I guess, what I can say to that is they know we do nitpick and beat the he!! out of these titles. So much so that when we do vote them in, they've gone through the ringer.


I do see your point too though - nitpicking doesn't always get us to the "correct" conclusion. Whatever "correct" may be.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lovingdvd* /forum/post/15796236
> 
> 
> Any thoughts on the PQ of the movie "Igor"?



Haven't seen it, but it looks interesting. Have you seen it?


----------



## lovingdvd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15796342
> 
> 
> Haven't seen it, but it looks interesting. Have you seen it?



No but I did come across some screen shots that make it look like the PQ may be quite high on this title (well, at least as much as you can go on with screen shots), so I dropped in here looking for its rating but it is not ranked.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lovingdvd* /forum/post/15796380
> 
> 
> No but I did come across some screen shots that make it look like the PQ may be quite high on this title (well, at least as much as you can go on with screen shots), so I dropped in here looking for its rating but it is not ranked.



I hadn't heard of it. Just watched a trailer. Looks interesting. I may pick this up. Thanks for bringing it to our attention!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/15796159
> 
> 
> I'd rather get the review right, of course. But, if I can't...I'd rather underrate than overrate. Leaves room for truly reference titles.
> 
> 
> I think it's a bigger disappointment to come into a thread that has a substantial amount of titles that are overrated. The viewer, expecting a reference title, is left feeling mislead. On the other hand, I'd rather be surprised positively on the upside.
> 
> 
> And again, we all strive to get it just right. And hence, the debates on reviews.




The problem is, what I see as reference, you do not. And so on and so forth -- regardless of what the descriptions end up being, we all still have our own eyes and interpretations of what we see, on a vast array of equipment.



I think of this list as a *guideline*, especially with the way it can evolve. I don't think of the list as having a SUBSANTIAL amount that are overrated, that seems a bit harsh to state that, but, on the flip side of the token, I'm glad that you've joined in and are offering your opinion and attempting to help the thread get better, rather than the hit-and-run comments by people who just say things like, "OMG The Dark Knight is not listed as reference, you guys suck I'm never coming here again!" and the reverse, "WTH, The Dark Knight is up in Tier 1? How the heck can it be rated so high, everyone's walking around with a halo!!" Substitute any controversial title into that really... Wall-E for example, gah.



If someone's going to end up being upset because of the difference between a tier 1 and a tier 0 title, though, that's even more nitpicky than we can ever be in this thread. I could understand if there were complete travesties being listed in Tier 0, like ohhh... Gangs of New York (as an _extreme_ example) and then got the mess that is, I could understand being really mad. But if someone winds up getting a movie like Iron Man, which has bounced all throughout tier 1, and was super angry about being mislead, because of it possibly dropping from 1.25 to 1.75, that's extreme. Or in the event Sleeping Beauty gets dropped from Tier 0 (NO!!!) to Tier 1, they're still going to get something pretty darn phenominal. Heck, even my recent review of Shoot 'em Up -- that's rated Tier 0, but I personally think it tier 1. If someone used the list, decided to buy Shoot 'em Up because it's supposed to be reference, and then gets into a tizzy b/c of the slight issues that I noticed in it that would bump it down a bit.... gah, again.



Does anyone see some super glaring errors in Tier 0 that should be knocked down to say, tier 2.5 or worse? If so, those are the titles that need to be reviewed again and placed differently. But the major issues we're dealing with are between Tier 0 and generally Tier 1.0-1.5, and if that's going to lend people getting absolutely frustrated and angry with the thread, as far as I'm concerned, that's insane expectations of a visitor to this list who never lends any input at all.


----------



## rsbeck

I don't think it is all that complicated. We advertise ourselves as a place to get recommendations, we advertise that we split titles into tiers based on some guidelines and we have a loose description above each tier of what to expect.


It just makes sense to try to make sure that our rankings match our advertising, that when the pool of blu-rays increases as it has and the reference point changes, we ought to recognize that and instead of letting our reference list get bloated with titles that do not hold up to a reassessment because it might take some work to do a better job, we ought to do our best to stay current to make sure our recommendations are still sound.


----------



## rsbeck

*Apocalypto*


Disagree With Current Placement


1.85:1


Recorded on several media including a couple of different 35mm and 16mm film stocks plus HD Video. I watched Apocalypto again last night and really tried to figure out what all of the fuss is about. In the past, I have only watched the first 20 minutes or so. This time, I watched until the end and am glad I did. Now, I think I get why some are so excited about this title. However, for the first 45 minutes, it seemed to me the picture was just slightly soft quite a bit of the time, looked like the light wasn't right, contrast suffers and picture appears flat and many opportunities for detail are lost. Here and there, you see a shot where the light is right, detail is resolved and the picture pops, but this very sporadic. At around the 45 minute mark, when the prisoners slip on the mountain ledge, the picture begins to improve and continues to improve until the sequence at the top of the pyramid, where you get some true tier 0 quality shots. From the 45 minute mark until the end, there are several very nice looking sequences. Mother and child in well, crossing the river, and several others. These, IMO, would qualify as tier 0 demo sequences with some really stunning shots, which equal some of the best I've seen in any title. If the first 45 minutes were missing and all we had was from the 45 minute mark until the end, I would probably be thinking somewhere around 1.5. This is because even that segment is pretty uneven, with scattered sequences that bring the PQ down. The first 45 minutes were pretty lackluster. Not trying to be harsh, but for the first 45 minutes, I was thinking somewhere around 2.5. Personally, even for a tier 1.0 to 1.75 ranking, I think 45 minutes is too long to wait for a demo to start. It pains me to disagree with some other reviewers here whom I really respect, but this is just how I see it. Apocalypto has some really stunning shots and sequences in places, but is just too uneven, IMO, for the top two tiers.

*Recommendation: Tier 2.0*


Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From Screen


----------



## SuprSlow

*List Update*


We are updated through post #10273 . I realize that's a few pages behind, deal with it










1. *Wall E* - up 5 spots

2. *Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor* - remains 1.75

3. *Planet of the Apes (1968)* - was 4.5 - moved to 4.0

4. *Happening, The* - was 2.5 - moved to 2.25

5. *JFK* - remains 1.75

6. *LA Confidential* - was 1.5 - moved to 1.75

7. *Persepolis* - was 1.0 - moved to 1.75

8. *Beneath the Planet of the Apes* - was Unranked - placed in 3.25

9. *La Femme Nikita* - remains 2.75

10. *Death Race* - remains 1.75

11. *American Gangster* - was 3.25 - moved to 3.5

12. *Bonnie & Clyde* - remains 2.75

13. *Escape from Planet of the Apes* - was Unranked - placed in 2.75

14. *The Usual Suspects* - was 4.5 - moved to 3.75

15. *Appaloosa* - was Unranked - placed in 3.0

16. *John Mayer: Where the Light Is* - was Unranked - placed in 2.75

17. *The Visitor* - was 1.0 - moved to 1.5

18. *Under Siege 2: Dark Territory* - was Unranked - placed in 3.25

19. *Tropic Thunder* - remains 1.0

20. *Salvage* - was Unranked - placed in 5

21. *Burn After Reading* - remains 2.0

22. *Big Fish* - was 4.0 - moved to 2.75

23. *Hancock* - remains 1.0

24. *Bangkok Dangerous* - was Unranked - placed in 3.75

25. *Step Into Liquid* - was Unranked - placed in 2.5

26. *Man Who Fell to Earth* - was 3.0 - moved to 3.5

27. *Casablanca* - was Unranked - placed in 2.25

28. *Conquest of the Planet of the Apes* - was Unranked - placed in 3.25

29. *Jewel of the Nile* - was Unranked - placed in 2.75

30. *Patriot Games* - was 3.5 - moved to 3.25

31. *Wanted* - remains 1.25

32. *Kung Fu Panda* - remains top Tier 0

33. *Youth Without Youth* - was 1.25 - moved to mid-lower Tier 0

34. *Paul McCartney: The Space Within Us* - was Unranked - placed in 4.0

35. *Dark City* - was 3.0 - moved to 2.5

36. *The Last Emperor* - was Unranked - placed in 2.0

37. *Elton 60* - was mid Tier 0 - moved to 1.75

38. *Traitor* - remains 1.75

39. *The Strangers* - remains 2.5

40. *Election* - was Unranked - placed in 3.5

41. *Dark Knight* - was 1.0 - moved to 1.25

42. *Simpsons* - was 1.25 - moved to 1.5

43. *PotC: CotBP* - remains current position

44. *Total Recall* - was 4.0 - moved to 3.75

45. *Con Air* - was 2.5 - moved to 2.75

46. *The X Files - Fight The Future* - remains 3.0

47. *The Untouchables* - was 2.5 - moved to 2.75

48. *Face/Off* - was 3.0 - moved to 3.25

49. *Evil Dead 2* - was 3.25 - moved to 3.5

50. *First Blood* - was 3.75 - moved to 4.0

51. *Mamma Mia* - remains 2.25

52. *The Notebook* - was Unranked - placed in 5.0

53. *Baron* - was 1.25 - moved to 1.5

54. *Righteous Kill* - was Unranked - placed in 2.25

55. *Legends of Jazz* - remains 1.5

56. *Eastern Promises* - was 1.0 - moved to 1.25

57. *Ultimate Avengers* - remains 2.5

58. *Incredible Hulk* - was bot Tier 0 - moved to 1.25

59. *Iron Man* - was 1.25 - moved to 1.75

60. *Stuck* - was Unranked - placed in 4.0

61. *Pride and Glory* - was Unranked - placed in 2.5

62. *Bourne Identity* - was unranked - placed in 2.0

63. *Ipcress File* - was unranked - placed in 2.75

64. *RocknRolla* - was unranked - placed in 3.0

65. *My Best Friend’s Girl* - was unranked - placed 2.25

66. *Burn After Reading* - remains 2.0

67. *Next* - remains 2.0

68. *Lost Boys: The Tribe* - was 5.0 - moved to 4.5

69. *Pirates of the Caribbean* - AWE - remains current position

70. *Beowulf* - was Tier 0 - moved to 1.0

71. *The Host* - moved down in Tier 0

72. *Hellboy II: The Golden Army* - was Tier 0 - moved to 1.25

73. *The Island* - was Tier 0 - moved to 1.0

74. *Surf's Up* - was 1.0 - moved to 1.25

75. *Kill Bill: 2* - up one spot in Tier 0

76. *Black Snake Moan* - was Tier 0 - moved to 1.5

77. *Crank* - was Tier 0 - moved to 1.0

78. *Lion, Witch, Wardobe* - was 1.25 - moved to 1.5

79. *Zodiac* - was 1.25 - moved to 1.75

80. *Godfather* - remains 2.75

81. *Blood Diamond* - was 2.5 - moved to 2.25

82. *Get Smart* - remains 2.5

83. *Speed Racer* - was low Tier 0 - moved to 1.0

84. *Sleeping Beauty* - remains low Tier 0

85. *Lost: Season 4* - was 1.75 - moved to 1.5



*Placement Holdings:*
_(February 11, 2009)_


1. *Fearless (H.K. Import)* - Tier 2.75 (I) / Tier 0 (I) - Currently Unranked

2. *Spiderman 3* - middle Tier 0 (I) - Currently Tier 1.0

3. *Fantastic Four 2* - lower Tier 0 (I) - Currently Tier 1.25

4. *Patriot, The* - Tier 2.5 (I) - Currently Tier 1.25

5. *Devil Wears Prada, The* - Tier 2.0 (I) - Currently Tier 4.0

6. *AVP: Requiem* - Tier 2.75 (I) - Currently Tier 2.0 (Wide array of opinions)

7. *Man on Fire* - above I, Robot; Tier 0 (I)

8. *Clear and Present Danger* - Tier 0 (I) - Currently Tier 2.75

9. *Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban* - Tier 1.5 (I) - Currently Tier 1.75

10. *Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix* - Tier 1.75 (I) - Currently Tier 1.25

11. *Into the Wild* - Tier 0 (I) - Currently Unranked

12. *Event Horizon* - Tier 0 (I) - Currently Unranked

13. *Next Avengers: Heroes of Tomorrow* - Tier 1.75 (I) - Currently Unranked

14. *Friday Night Lights* - Tier 1.25 (II) - Currently Unranked

15. *King Kong* - Tier 1.0 (II) - Currently Unranked

16. *First Sunday* - Tier 1.0 (I) - Currently Unranked

17. *Max Payne* - Tier 1.75 (I) // Tier 2.0 (I) - Currently Unranked

18. *The Express* - Tier 1.75 (I) - Currently Unranked

19. *Domino* - mid Tier 0 (I) // Tier 1.0 (I) - Currently Unranked

20. *Scary Movie* - Tier 5 (I) - Currently 2.5

21. *Henry Poole is Here* - Tier 1.75 (I) - Currently Unranked

22. *3:10 to Yuma* - Tier 2.5 (I) - Currently 1.5

23. *Pan's Labyrinth* - Tier 3.5 (I) - Currently 1.5

24. *Silent Hill (German Import)* - Tier 1 (I) - Currently Unranked

25. *Romancing The Stone* - Tier 1.5 (I) - Currently 2.75

26. *Vexille* - Tier 0 (I) - Currently Unranked

27. *Seal: Soundstage* - Tier 1.5 (I) - Currently Unranked

28. *Bourne Supremacy* - Tier 1.75 (I) - Currently Unranked

29. *Prison Break: Season One* - Tier 1.25 (I) // Tier 1.5 (I) - currently upper Tier 0

30. *TMNT* - Tier 1.0 (I) - Currently Tier 0

31. *Happy Feet* - Tier 1.0 (II) // Tier 0 (I)

32. *Kill Bill: Vol. 1* - Tier 1.0 (II) - Currently Tier 0


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15796835
> 
> *Apocalypto*
> 
> 
> Disagree With Current Placement
> 
> 
> 1.85:1
> 
> 
> Recorded on several media including a couple of different 35mm and 16mm film stocks plus HD Video. I watched Apocalypto again last night and really tried to figure out what all of the fuss is about. In the past, I have only watched the first 20 minutes or so. This time, I watched until the end and am glad I did. Now, I think I get why some are so excited about this title. However, for the first 45 minutes, it seemed to me the picture was just slightly soft quite a bit of the time, looked like the light wasn't right, contrast suffers and picture appears flat and many opportunities for detail are lost. Here and there, you see a shot where the light is right, detail is resolved and the picture pops, but this very sporadic. At around the 45 minute mark, when the prisoners slip on the mountain ledge, the picture begins to improve and continues to improve until the sequence at the top of the pyramid, where you get some true tier 0 quality shots. From the 45 minute mark until the end, there are several very nice looking sequences. Mother and child in well, crossing the river, and several others. These, IMO, would qualify as tier 0 demo sequences with some really stunning shots, which equal some of the best I've seen in any title. If the first 45 minutes were missing and all we had was from the 45 minute mark until the end, I would probably be thinking somewhere around 1.5. This is because even that segment is pretty uneven, with scattered sequences that bring the PQ down. The first 45 minutes were pretty lackluster. Not trying to be harsh, but for the first 45 minutes, I was thinking somewhere around 2.5. Personally, even for a tier 1.0 to 1.75 ranking, I think 45 minutes is too long to wait for a demo to start. It pains me to disagree with some other reviewers here whom I really respect, but this is just how I see it. Apocalypto has some really stunning shots and sequences in places, but is just too uneven, IMO, for the top two tiers.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 2.0*
> 
> 
> Sim2 C3C1080, 13' From Screen



Get ready for the fury that will soon be unleashed your way!










I never thought Apocalypto was a Tier 0 title from the first time I saw it, but I do think it is worthy of being somewhere in Tier 1.


----------



## babrown92




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lovingdvd* /forum/post/15796236
> 
> 
> Any thoughts on the PQ of the movie "Igor"?



I havent seen it, but someone should just go ahead and pencil it in for tier 0 since it is a computer animated cartoon.


----------



## rsbeck

Super Slow -- Excellent work!


I think this must be an error, though.


78. Lion, Witch, Wardobe - was Tier 0 - moved to 1.0


I believe it was 1.25 and there were a number of votes to move it to 1.5


Thanks!


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15796457
> 
> 
> I think of this list as a *guideline*, especially with the way it can evolve. I don't think of the list as having a SUBSANTIAL amount that are overrated, that seems a bit harsh to state that, but, on the flip side of the token, I'm glad that you've joined in and are offering your opinion and attempting to help the thread get better, rather than the hit-and-run comments by people who just say things like, "OMG The Dark Knight is not listed as reference, you guys suck I'm never coming here again!" and the reverse, "WTH, The Dark Knight is up in Tier 1? How the heck can it be rated so high, everyone's walking around with a halo!!" Substitute any controversial title into that really... Wall-E for example, gah.



I totally agree this is a guideline. I suspect *most* people, when making this thread part of their decision, already likes the movie and just looking for that final confirmation to pull the trigger. Others may come in here with a new home theatre system ready to splurge on that spanking new blu-ray collection.


Whatever the motivations may be should not affect our overall goal for this thread. We are trying to rank every and all blu-ray to see what this format has to offer. I think it's a healthy forum for agreeing/disagreeing so that every title is put to the test.


Some reviews are drastically discounted (up or down) and can be considered outliers. But the majority rules, as the latin quote (hopefully, it's latin







) states. Obviously, my PC review was very unpopular.










Oh, and that quote regarding substantial overratedness is out of context. If I *only* had a choice between overratedness or underratedness, I'd rather err on the side of underratedness. I am *not at all* suggesting that this thread has a substantial amount of overrated titles.


Speaking of which, I do disagree with the Apocalypto review. Sorry bud, I really think that it still garners a 1.0 rating. The first 45 minutes fly pretty darn quickly and doesn't deteriorate too much into lesser territories. The build up to where it lands in even tier 0 territory is made even more dramatic due to the lesser/early scenes.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15797215
> 
> 
> Super Slow -- Excellent work!
> 
> 
> I think this must be an error, though.
> 
> 
> 78. Lion, Witch, Wardobe - was Tier 0 - moved to 1.0
> 
> 
> I believe it was 1.25 and there were a number of votes to move it to 1.5
> 
> 
> Thanks!



Do you mean Prince Caspian?


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/15797316
> 
> 
> Do you mean Prince Caspian?



Super Slow wrote...


"78. Lion, Witch, Wardobe - was Tier 0 - moved to 1.0"


I'm thinking this must be a mistake because Lion, Witch, Wardrobe was 1.25, but there was support for moving it down.


Lion, Witch, Wardobe...1.50 (Incindium, RFBC, Djoberg, Patrick99, rsbeck)


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/15797291
> 
> 
> Speaking of which, I do disagree with the Apocalypto review. Sorry bud, I really think that it still garners a 1.0 rating. The first 45 minutes fly pretty darn quickly and doesn't deteriorate too much into lesser territories. The build up to where it lands in even tier 0 territory is made even more dramatic due to the lesser/early scenes.



Tier 1.0 through 1.75 is still supposed to be for demo material. Personally, I don't think 45 minutes flies by when one wants to conduct a demo and I would put it differently, I don't think it rises to demo material often enough in that 45 minutes -- just some fleeting shots, so I cannot recommend it for the gold tier.


I also think it is much harder to watch uneven material than consistent.


I would appreciate a title much more if it were consistently, say 1.75 quality, than one where it veers from, say, 0 to 2.5 back and forth -- that just creates frustration, the high quality shots showing what was possible and constantly setting one up for disappointment. To me, that's no demo I would want any part of. Certainly, there's room for the odd soft shot in a reference title, clarity can suffer during action sequences, faces won't be resolved in every frame, etc. But, IMO, we're talking about a deeper level of inconsistency here and IMO, there's just no way Apocalypto ranks with other tier 1.0 titles. I realize it is frustrating because there are some truly incredible shots in the title, but not enough and IMO, we've got more consistent titles to recommend. IMO, it's too much to expect someone to have to sift through a title, skipping past stretches, looking for the great shots.


To me, Caspian is much more consistent and also has reference quality sequences that are much easier to find.


I would have a very hard time with Apocalypto in tier 1.0 and Caspian in 1.5.


Just my opinion.


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15797215
> 
> 
> Super Slow -- Excellent work!
> 
> 
> I think this must be an error, though.
> 
> 
> 78. Lion, Witch, Wardobe - was Tier 0 - moved to 1.0
> 
> 
> I believe it was 1.25 and there were a number of votes to move it to 1.5
> 
> 
> Thanks!



Yeah, I was getting that title confused with Caspian.










It's been corrected.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/15797566
> 
> 
> Yeah, I was getting that title confused with Caspian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's been corrected.



Thanks!


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15797015
> 
> 
> Get ready for the fury that will soon be unleashed your way!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I never thought Apocalypto was a Tier 0 title* from the first time I saw it, but I do think it is worthy of being somewhere in Tier 1.



Nor did I.


----------



## moematthews

*Across the Universe*


Disagree with current placement at Tier 2.25


This title is at least as good as many I've seen in Tier 1. There are a variety of visible textures in many of the buildings (old Victorian industrial buildings in UK look superb), and the colours are vivid and properly saturated. Click on the link and you'll see that at least two of the reviews give this movie a 4.5 out of 5 stars for HD PQ. I was very surprised to see it only in Tier 2.

*Recommendation: Tier 1.25*


Hitachi 55HDX99 plasma; Panasonic BD35 via HDMI pass-through to Marantz SR8001; 12 feet from screen


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moematthews* /forum/post/15798024
> 
> *Across the Universe*
> 
> 
> Disagree with current placement at Tier 2.25
> 
> 
> This title is at least as good as many I've seen in Tier 1. There are a variety of visible textures in many of the buildings (old Victorian industrial buildings in UK look superb), and the colours are vivid and properly saturated. Click on the link and you'll see that at least two of the reviews give this movie a 4.5 out of 5 stars for HD PQ. I was very surprised to see it only in Tier 2.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 1.25*
> 
> 
> Hitachi 55HDX99 plasma; Panasonic BD35 via HDMI pass-through to Marantz SR8001; 12 feet from screen



Faces are completely lacking in detail, as is everything else. Leave it where it is.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15796835
> 
> *Apocalypto*
> 
> 
> Disagree With Current Placement
> 
> 
> 1.85:1
> 
> 
> Recorded on several media including a couple of different 35mm and 16mm film stocks plus HD Video. I watched Apocalypto again last night and really tried to figure out what all of the fuss is about. In the past, I have only watched the first 20 minutes or so. This time, I watched until the end and am glad I did. Now, I think I get why some are so excited about this title. However, for the first 45 minutes, it seemed to me the picture was just slightly soft quite a bit of the time, looked like the light wasn't right, contrast suffers and picture appears flat and many opportunities for detail are lost. Here and there, you see a shot where the light is right, detail is resolved and the picture pops, but this very sporadic. At around the 45 minute mark, when the prisoners slip on the mountain ledge, the picture begins to improve and continues to improve until the sequence at the top of the pyramid, where you get some true tier 0 quality shots. From the 45 minute mark until the end, there are several very nice looking sequences. Mother and child in well, crossing the river, and several others. These, IMO, would qualify as tier 0 demo sequences with some really stunning shots, which equal some of the best I've seen in any title. If the first 45 minutes were missing and all we had was from the 45 minute mark until the end, I would probably be thinking somewhere around 1.5. This is because even that segment is pretty uneven, with scattered sequences that bring the PQ down. The first 45 minutes were pretty lackluster. Not trying to be harsh, but for the first 45 minutes, I was thinking somewhere around 2.5. Personally, even for a tier 1.0 to 1.75 ranking, I think 45 minutes is too long to wait for a demo to start. It pains me to disagree with some other reviewers here whom I really respect, but this is just how I see it. Apocalypto has some really stunning shots and sequences in places, but is just too uneven, IMO, for the top two tiers.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 2.0*
> 
> 
> Sim2 C3C1080, 13' From Screen



Wow beck. Your review of Apoc and DeltaSun's of Caspian have to be the harshest reviews I've ever seen










Just curious -- what films do you feel truly deserve tier 0?


----------



## Hughmc

We can debate Apocalpyto(pain in the ass to type on keyboard by the way, anyone else notice that?







) in more posts, but for now can you just answer a simple yes or no question.


rsbeck, do you believe you could be wrong on Apocalypto?


----------



## Hughmc

*W*


As painful as this was to watch it has really good PQ.


Why a movie like this has such good PQ and a 7.1 track is beyond me when comparing to other films that would be more deserving and necessitate better PQ and audio tracks.

*Tier 1.5*


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15798275
> 
> 
> We can debate Apocalpyto(pain in the ass to type on keyboard by the way, anyone else notice that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) in more posts, but for now can you just answer a simple yes or no question.
> 
> 
> rsbeck, do you believe you could be wrong on Apocalypto?



Wrong, moi?! Now, I _will_ get philosophical. I don't think any of us can ever be wrong as long as we understand that what we're giving is our opinion.


As with most titles, I think there is always the possibility that some might rank Apocalypto higher or lower than I.


Right now, with Apocalypto, I see that we have some recommending as high as the top quarter of tier 0, one as low as 2.0 and a bunch saying 1.0 sounds about right.


All I can say is that I have watched it twice up to about the 20 minute mark and now all the way through. I have taken my time, tried to give it every benefit of the doubt, and was cringing the whole way through knowing that people whom I highly respect such as yourself and Stumlad have recommended tier 0 and that if I didn't notice anything and everything that was good about this title, I could potentially disappoint you by failing to support your quest to get this title moved up. I know that I do not take these reviews lightly, try to do the best I can, and have done my best to support why I have recommended a 2.0 placement.


If I thought there might be a consensus at around 1.75, I might be tempted to move my recommendation up a quarter, but I wouldn't feel comfortable any higher than that and I do feel strongly that 1.0 is too high. I'm betting there are some others would feel the same if reassessing the title. I will also say in my defense that there have been several times in the past when I started out being the lone ranger wanting to lower a title only to have others eventually join me, so being the first isn't enough to convince me I'm wrong if that's what you mean.


----------



## Hughmc

rsbeck, with respect, yes wrong.







You have mentioned several times the issues with using HD cams and that you don't like the look because of those issues. DO you feel those issues do not allow a title to be demo/eye candy?


----------



## rsbeck

I can understand why you might say that, but I recently recommended Youth Without Youth to tier 0 and it was shot 100% on HD video. Recently recommended Legends of Jazz to tier 1.5 (which is where it had been placed for quite awhile before I reviewed it) and it was also shot on HD Video.


So, I don't believe HD video will stop me from recommending a title highly as long as I feel the PQ warrants it.


----------



## moematthews




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15798159
> 
> 
> Faces are completely lacking in detail, *as is everything else*. Leave it where it is.



Sorry, but I honestly thought that was the fine texture of brick I saw in the brick buildings. Or when they first enter the apartment in NYC, all the background detail in the ramshackle room (paint peeling off the walls, for instance) wasn't there, either? I didn't notice a particular lack of detail in faces, and neither did the professional reviewers who rated it so highly for PQ. Interesting to note that overall, I found HD DVD to be superior where the question of facial modelling and detail comes in.


I watched this back-to-back with Flyboys, which is somewhere in Tier 1. This is easily as good as that movie, and as good as many of the titles I've seen in Tier 1.


----------



## moematthews

Interesting to read all the comments about Apocalypto. I would have thought it to be an easy Tier 0 based on the near-HD quality of the SD DVD. I should pick up the Blu-ray to compare.


----------



## rsbeck

I thought the same thing about Serenity. The SD DVD holds up quite well when upscaled to 1080 on a 126" screen, but IMO, the blu-ray didn't compare all that well to other blu-rays.


----------



## rsbeck

*Sideways*

Moderate coarse grain apparent throughout and no halos or ringing noted. Sideways is dialogue and character driven adult themed film made on a shoestring budget that deftly walks a paper thin line between comedy and pathos. Film maker says he was going for a 70's look with soft photography and heavy grain, but aside from the grain, I didn't really see the connection. I've seen 70's films with coarse grain that were still very sharp, lush and detailed. Here, the picture is soft, muted, and has a sort of faded look to it. Still, for fans of the film, understand that the soft grainy muted look is intentional and this edition is plenty watchable and gets the job done.

*Recommendation: Tier 3.75*


Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From Screen


----------



## Hughmc

*I am curious as to some opinions. Can a BD be still be demo/eye candy if it has a lot of flaws?*


I think it can and that is why after more discussion I believe I view BD's and how I recommend them differently than a few others. It is ok and we have thread criteria, but I do believe sometimes we have different approaches even with parameters on page 1 qualifying what is and isn't acceptable PQ per tier.


I am also going to be gone for ten days to NY, so you all will be spared my reviews







, but I will be checking in to see what is up since the laptop will be with me.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15800218
> 
> *I am curious as to some opinions. Can a BD be still be demo/eye candy if it has a lot of flaws?*



The answer to that question is: YES and NO! The parts without flaws can serve as good demo material, but if it has too many flaws it can't be looked at, as a whole, as reference quality. And I really believe that Tier 0 is how the BD looks as a whole, so the answer to your question is actually NO.


My reviews have reflected that belief, for if I see a title like Apocalypto (sorry for using that title as an example Hugh, for I know you really favor it) that has such inconsistency for the first 45 minutes, I can't, with a good conscience, consider it demo material and recommend Tier 0. But with a title like Prince Caspian, which IMO has only a few flaws that only cover a small percentage of the movie, it can be deemed worthy of Tier 0 (i.e., reference quality).


EDIT: I should add that Tier 1 is still considered demo/eye candy, so I guess Apocalypto is a bad example (I recommended it for 1.0). So, any title that has enough flaws to land it in Tier 2 or lower would not be considered demo/eye candy material.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15800218
> 
> *I am curious as to some opinions. Can a BD be still be demo/eye candy if it has a lot of flaws?*
> 
> 
> I think it can and that is why after more discussion I believe I view BD's and how I recommend them differently than a few others. It is ok and we have thread criteria, but I do believe sometimes we have different approaches even with parameters on page 1 qualifying what is and isn't acceptable PQ per tier.
> 
> 
> I am also going to be gone for ten days to NY, so you all will be spared my reviews
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , but I will be checking in to see what is up since the laptop will be with me.




I think it can too, Youth Without Youth is a good example for me on that. It's not 100% perfect, but the PQ on it is damn good.


Have a safe trip Hugh!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*Curse of the Golden Flower*


This is an old one to be sure, when I search it I come up with posts from 2007.


I definitely think this movie has not stood the test of time for its *current Tier 1.25 ranking*. I'm sure it's been a long time since many of you have seen this, it's one I borrowed from my friend before my personal Blu Ray collection expanded, and I'm finally getting around to watching it (so I can give it back and get Caspian & LFODH).


Curse of the Golden Flower is a Blu Ray that at a glance looks very impressive, but upon further evaluation, it's really not. While I do like bright colours and things that sparkle, that's really all this movie has going for it, and once the issues it has peeks through the window dressing of the brightness, they're all I can see.


The lack of detail on faces is very noticeable; it even travels down to the cleavage on the women present, which is very hard not to notice. It's odd and weird. Details ARE there when you see close-ups of hands and arms, almost immaculately, but when a face is in view there's blatant softening the majority of the time (there's an odd close up here-or-there where you can see more detail than usual, but it's rare). I do wonder if it's a stylistic choice, to make everyone appear like porcelain china dolls, as that would be very apt for this movie.


The bright colours can be beautiful, and I don't feel as though they are oversaturated like Mamma Mia or Speed Racer but rather that's just the colour palate they've chosen to use to help tell this particular story and they're bright and extreme with their own merits.


But the outdoor scenes - ohhh the outdoor scenes. It looks as though the contrast has been tweaked up high and the colours are overexposed and washed out. Consistency of the colour levels when this happens then goes awry, for example when a shot goes from the ground up and you see an intricate blue floor tapestry, the blue level is messed up throughout; I've never seen anything quite like it. Black levels seem faded as well.


For high-contrast junkies on their sets, I decided to turn off my dark THX mode for a moment and checked it out on Panasonic's VIVID mode, and proceeded to scare the crap out of myself at how absolutely TERRIBLE this movie looked in that mode. Even more flaws were brought out in that mode, and I quickly changed it back. I was mainly curious at how bright the contrast-heavy scenes looked in that mode given how bright and overexposed they looked in the dark THX mode.


Needless to say, I was disappointed in this film after the candy-coating of the brightness faded for me, from a nitpicker's standpoint. For an average viewer like my husband, though, I'm sure he'd think it was fantastic - although I was a good wife and didn't make him watch this with me.









*Recommendation for Curse of the Golden Flower: Tier 2.50*

*Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800U, THX setting, approximately 7.5' viewing distance.*


----------



## spectator

*Raging Bull*


The opening titles are windowboxed. Most onscreen titles (here and throughout the film) display the appearance of compression artifacts- noticeable but not bothersome to me. The remainder of the film is properly letterboxed at 1.85:1. Blacks never reach bottom and the whole film features a dynamically-compressed midrange-dominated look. Within this limited range, however, greyscale is very evenly and naturally delineated. Grain also appears natural and unimpeded throughout the film. Very mild ringing can be seen in a handful of scenes, particularly the early scene of LaMotta rehearsing his monologue backstage. This ringing could be the product of edge enhancement, but may, like the title artifacts, be likely to be a product of encoding, instead. Meanwhile, the vast majority of scenes do not suffer any apparent ringing artifacts. Print dirt is also quite mild, but evident throughout. Large but low-impact source scratches can be seen from time to time. Luma detail is quite good, though not spectacular. If there's any DNR on this transfer, it's hiding from my eyes. While this release could clearly be improved and is not everything that it could be, it certainly meets the standard I had hoped for it. It's not at all a stunner, but it's a very pleasing and solid transfer.


Michael Chapman's cinematography in this film is some of my favorite ever and it is well respected by this transfer. Would I demo this disc, though? No. If I want to show a film-lover a gorgeous, grain-honoring black & white presentation on Blu-ray, The Third Man remains my "go to" disc.

*Recommendation: Tier 3*


----------



## moematthews




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15800444
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> My reviews have reflected that belief, for if I see a title like Apocalypto (sorry for using that title as an example Hugh, for I know you really favor it) that has such *inconsistency* for the first 45 minutes,



Sorry if this has been discussed before, but I find inconsistency to be a huge issue with Blu-ray - much more so than it was with HD DVD. Even the best Blu-ray titles are fraught with inconsistency. For example, since "Youth Without Youth" is a popular discussion item here, did anyone notice how the early scene with all of them walking on the university grounds was just totally flat? It was like watching a different movie for that two minutes or so.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moematthews* /forum/post/15801601
> 
> 
> Sorry if this has been discussed before, but I find inconsistency to be a huge issue with Blu-ray - much more so than it was with HD DVD. Even the best Blu-ray titles are fraught with inconsistency. For example, since "Youth Without Youth" is a popular discussion item here, did anyone notice how the early scene with all of them walking on the university grounds was just totally flat? It was like watching a different movie for that two minutes or so.



That was intentionally done to show the time period of his "youth." There's also a different colored tintage as well.


----------



## moematthews




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15801720
> 
> 
> That was intentionally done to show the time period of his "youth." There's also a different colored tintage as well.



OK - thanks - that makes sense. The tough thing about Blu-ray is that you don't know whether something like that is intentional. If you see that in a theatre, it's fine; but the issue of "inconsistency" is always there with Blu-rays. Because it exists in other movies where it should not, it is hard to tell what is intentional.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moematthews* /forum/post/15801601
> 
> 
> Sorry if this has been discussed before, but I find inconsistency to be a huge issue with Blu-ray - much more so than it was with HD DVD. .



what in the world are you talking about







can we please leave the format war silliness out of this thread?


----------



## stumlad

*Groundhog Day*


This is a decent transfer of an old movie. If you ignore the first 5-10 minutes where they show the credits, the movie, overall looks pretty decent. It's a romantic comedy similar to 50 first dates and in some ways Bruce Almighty (well, they are similar to it, rather than vice versa). The grain consistency throughout seem to fluctuate. At times it is thicker, and other times it is more fine. Black levels are good, and night time scenes show just about as much detail as daytime scenes. I don't think there's any DNR, but the "look" of Bill Murray's face is inconsistent from beginning to end. It may be makeup or something. I did see some areas that had an EE look to it, but it was light. Colors were pretty good, but small object detail was below average.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.5*


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15801921
> 
> 
> what in the world are you talking about
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> can we please leave the format war silliness out of this thread?



+1


One wonders why someone who is lamenting the demise of HD DVD is even posting in this thread to begin with.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15799981
> 
> 
> I thought the same thing about Serenity. The SD DVD holds up quite well when upscaled to 1080 on a 126" screen, *but IMO, the blu-ray didn't compare all that well to other blu-rays.*



Definitely agree that the PQ of Serenity on BD is unimpressive.


----------



## Kram Sacul

Compared to what?


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15802444
> 
> 
> One wonders why someone who is lamenting the demise of HD DVD is even posting in this thread to begin with.



I don't necessarily see any "lamenting the demise of HD DVD" in his post, just an anecdotal observation.


And, just a guess, but maybe he's posting in this thread because he's interested in Blu-ray picture quality?


----------



## moematthews




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15802444
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> 
> One wonders why someone who is lamenting the demise of HD DVD is even posting in this thread to begin with.



Wow - not sure how you came to that conclusion, but you can go on wondering, Aristotle. You have totally missed my point, but I'll play along. The only reason I'm "lamenting" the demise of HD DVD is that I purchased a Blu-ray player expecting to have the same fantastic experience. The majority of Blu-rays I've seen so far haven't been as good across the board. Pretty simple, really. This isn't format war silliness or anything else - it's my observation based on having owned both formats.


My original post was concerning the inconsistency in Blu-rays, for example, the first 45 minutes of Apocalypto as described by rsbeck. Some shots are spectacular and some fall well short of that standard. That is noticeable when it is in the same movie. I have noticed it on quite a few Blu-rays. I did not notice it to the same extent with HD DVD. If someone can provide an answer as to why this is the case, instead of claiming that I'm a bitter old HD DVD owner, I'll gladly listen. This will confound your highly-developed ability to draw inferences, but I post in this forum because I am actually interested in the quality of discs I put in my Blu-ray player.


----------



## patrick99

Posts like that are frankly simply OT in this thread.


----------



## lovingdvd

Madagascar 2 - Tier 0


Beautiful picture, sharp as a tack, flawless with incredible detail and texture. Viewed on 106" screen with JVC RS20 pj and PS3.


----------



## moematthews




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15803411
> 
> 
> Posts like that are frankly simply OT in this thread.



What does "OT" mean? Does your uncalled-for and inaccurate reply to my original post qualify as well?


That's all for me on this topic.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15803411
> 
> 
> Posts like that are frankly simply OT in this thread.



As was your accusation to which he is replying, I would suggest.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moematthews* /forum/post/15801601
> 
> 
> Sorry if this has been discussed before, but I find inconsistency to be a huge issue with Blu-ray - much more so than it was with HD DVD. Even the best Blu-ray titles are fraught with inconsistency. For example, since "Youth Without Youth" is a popular discussion item here, did anyone notice how the early scene with all of them walking on the university grounds was just totally flat? It was like watching a different movie for that two minutes or so.



I agree with you about the inconsistency in Blu-ray titles, but I don't agree that this was not an issue with HD DVDs. I just watched King Kong on HD DVD a couple of weeks ago and there was a lot of inconsistency in that as well, especially the scenes that took place at sea and on the island.


I am frustrated with this issue. I know some of this can be attributed to Director's intent (as the scene you cited in Youth Without Youth), but I'm convinced there are other variables involved. Oh well, we must deal with the hand we're dealt, but I do hope our concerns will be heard and addressed someday. Until then, I am trying to focus on the virtues of Blu-ray and _for the most part_ I'm satisfied with what I'm seeing.


----------



## sleater




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moematthews* /forum/post/15803340
> 
> 
> Wow - not sure how you came to that conclusion, but you can go on wondering, Aristotle. You have totally missed my point, but I'll play along. The only reason I'm "lamenting" the demise of HD DVD is that I purchased a Blu-ray player expecting to have the same fantastic experience. The majority of Blu-rays I've seen so far haven't been as good across the board. Pretty simple, really. This isn't format war silliness or anything else - it's my observation based on having owned both formats....



I recently picked up 28 HD DVDs at 3.99 per disc which is basically insane to me and so far I've run through about half the discs and can honestly say that I am blown away by the majority of them. I own far more blurays and am happy that at least one of the formats has won, but I hate to say it HD DVD even on a 15 GB combo disc are quite strong competetors to bluray 25s and do _appear_ to be quite consistent in their PQ. I am not, however, blown away by the comparable HD DVD PQ thread that is based on voting out of 5 - I find this thread much more accurate in its placement of titles even if they are reevaluated to no apparent end (this reevaluation is probably a necessary evil I do realize).


Edit: recalling inconsistency in YWY the scene in the middle where it cuts to a train at night to me was a glaring example of inconsistency - the train image looked totally washed out and soft and was about a Tier 4 or 5 shot, then went straight back to a Tier 0 sharp-as-a-tac shot that was more in tune with most of the film. I agree that YWY is Tier 0 material but there _were_ some glaring incosistencies.


I have not posted a review in a while here but I do keep up with the thread and am liking the recent changes i.e. the review format, title page revisions etc. I just find that whenever I _do_ start writing a review on a title, I get a little overwhelmed by where to start and how to properly justify my tier recommendation. I think about black levels, contrast, EE and DNR, macroblocking, saturated colours, 3D pop, and end up giving in to the fact that I don't care all that much about these issues - I just have a general feeling that it belongs in i.e. tier 2.25 because it looks worse than 2.0 movies and a little better than 2.50 movies. I'm rambling now...


Just adding my thoughts that moematthews is not totally off topic here, but at least BDs are getting better and better. BTW I would classify the majority of the HD DVDs I've seen thus far into the top 2 Tiers and these are titles that have obviously been out for at least a year. General blanket statement alert.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lovingdvd* /forum/post/15803482
> 
> Madagascar 2 - Tier 0
> 
> 
> Beautiful picture, sharp as a tack, flawless with incredible detail and texture.



Have you seen enough of the other CG feature direct-from-digital BDs to comment on how this compares to them? It's interesting to me to compare these, as they all have such potential for absolute beauty that preferences among them, when well-produced, may come down only to aesthetics and style. What's more "eye-candy", Ratatouille or Cars? They're both pretty peak presentations, so can the answer come from anything but simple aesthetic taste?


To that end, maybe with these CG features, we can/should consider aspects of picture we usually don't discuss around here (for reasons which will become obvious by the end of the sentence), such as quality of motion/animation.


For example, if you look at a _still_ of a Pixar BD and a _still_ of a Dreamworks Animation BD, they both look fantastic in this thread's PQ terms, I think most would generally agree. However, in my experience, I think the quality and sense of realism in the animation in Pixar's movies consistently blows away that of Dreamworks Animation movies. If we were to include *motion qualities* in our assessment of CG animated movies on BD, I would rank the Pixar movies above the Dreamworks Animation movies. Without _some_ method like this, I have a hard time imagining a way to rank these titles against each other.


Thoughts?


----------



## moematthews




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sleater* /forum/post/15803664
> 
> 
> I recently picked up 28 HD DVDs at 3.99 per disc which is basically insane to me and so far I've run through about half the discs and can honestly say that I am blown away by the majority of them. I own far more blurays and am happy that at least one of the formats has won, but I hate to say it HD DVD even on a 15 GB combo disc are quite strong competetors to bluray 25s and do _appear_ to be quite consistent in their PQ.
> 
> 
> Just adding my thoughts that moematthews is not totally off topic here, but at least BDs are getting better and better. BTW I would classify the majority of the HD DVDs I've seen thus far into the top 2 Tiers and these are titles that have obviously been out for at least a year. General blanket statement alert.



I think that also sums up my experience and feelings very nicely, and agree particularly that the majority of HD DVDs I have seen would fall in the top 2 Tiers here. In reference to djoberg's post above, I hope that the studios are taking these concerns seriously.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moematthews* /forum/post/15801601
> 
> 
> Sorry if this has been discussed before, but I find inconsistency to be a huge issue with Blu-ray - much more so than it was with HD DVD. Even the best Blu-ray titles are fraught with inconsistency. For example, since "Youth Without Youth" is a popular discussion item here, did anyone notice how the early scene with all of them walking on the university grounds was just totally flat? It was like watching a different movie for that two minutes or so.



LOL.


I love how you tie in what you perceive to be a PQ deficiency as somehow the fault of the _*format*_.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15801312
> 
> *Raging Bull*
> 
> 
> The opening titles are windowboxed. Most onscreen titles (here and throughout the film) display the appearance of compression artifacts- noticeable but not bothersome to me. The remainder of the film is properly letterboxed at 1.85:1. Blacks never reach bottom and the whole film features a dynamically-compressed midrange-dominated look. Within this limited range, however, greyscale is very evenly and naturally delineated. Grain also appears natural and unimpeded throughout the film. Very mild ringing can be seen in a handful of scenes, particularly the early scene of LaMotta rehearsing his monologue backstage. This ringing could be the product of edge enhancement, but may, like the title artifacts, be likely to be a product of encoding, instead. Meanwhile, the vast majority of scenes do not suffer any apparent ringing artifacts. Print dirt is also quite mild, but evident throughout. Large but low-impact source scratches can be seen from time to time. Luma detail is quite good, though not spectacular. If there's any DNR on this transfer, it's hiding from my eyes. While this release could clearly be improved and is not everything that it could be, it certainly meets the standard I had hoped for it. It's not at all a stunner, but it's a very pleasing and solid transfer.
> 
> 
> Michael Chapman's cinematography in this film is some of my favorite ever and it is well respected by this transfer. Would I demo this disc, though? No. If I want to show a film-lover a gorgeous, grain-honoring black & white presentation on Blu-ray, The Third Man remains my "go to" disc.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 3*



Thanks for the review of one of the best movies ever made. I was hoping this might make it into Tier 2, but given the nature of the source, I had my doubts.


This movie has one of the best acting performances ever put on film.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moematthews* /forum/post/15804128
> 
> 
> I think that also sums up my experience and feelings very nicely, and agree particularly that the majority of HD DVDs I have seen would fall in the top 2 Tiers here.



One aspect which may contribute to your anecdotal experience is that HD DVD never really made it beyond the more-or-less "introductory" phase, so the bulk of HD DVD discs which ever saw release were the studios' early targets for titles which might be able to look exceptional on the format without a huge investment- the "low-hanging fruit", so to speak. Now that Blu-ray is a year on from HD DVD's expiry, we've been seeing a lot more titles like the Raging Bull disc I reviewed above (plug! plug!







) which fit into that serviceable mid-pack quality level, but aren't the kind of releases which would typically be selected to showcase a brand new format nor to fight a market competitor. I suspect your experience is much more a product of the changing market than of any technical qualities or features of either format.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15804170
> 
> 
> I was hoping this might make it into Tier 2, but given the nature of the source, I had my doubts.



It may yet, but not on the basis of _my_ recommendation.


That said, please bear in mind that my recommendation here is entirely in the terms of the thread and if you asked me in different environs, I would recommend this disc with zero reservations. It looks great and I'm *so* happy to already have Raging Bull in my collection, so early in Blu-ray's life!


Plus, I'm happy to say (close your eyes, double-dipophobes!) that this disc left me quite confident that a new transfer could definitely have the potential to get Raging Bull _at least_ into Tier 2 territory.


----------



## moematthews




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15804152
> 
> 
> LOL.
> 
> 
> I love how you tie in what you perceive to be a PQ deficiency as somehow the fault of the _*format*_.



Please explain what you mean. Two HD formats; I have found that one appears to have more high-quality titles for PQ. That is my observation. Other posts on this page suggest that I am not the only one with these observations.


What are the alternate explanations? Spectator posted one above, and I accept it. In all my posts on this topic, I've asked for explanations of why this might be the case, but the majority of responses have ranged from mildly derisive to accusations of rekindling the format war. If you have not noticed it - great. But I certainly have and I'd like to know why.


----------



## patrick99

I would say again that the subject of HD DVD versus BD is wildly off-topic for this thread.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15804532
> 
> 
> I would say again that the subject of HD DVD versus BD is wildly off-topic for this thread.



patrick99, moematthews is trying to understand the reasons that the PQ on BDs tends to look the way it does, which is entirely *on*-topic. I'm not aware of any reason that the fact that the HD DVD format factors anecdotally into his research on that question should have any bearing on the suitability of his question to this thread.


No one is talking about "HD DVD versus BD", we're talking about BD picture quality and, to do so, we're using anecdotal reference points from our own experiences, one of which happens to be HD DVD.


----------



## sleater




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15804532
> 
> 
> I would say again that the subject of HD DVD versus BD is wildly off-topic for this thread.



I disagree. We're talking *PQ* of bluray in this thread and PQ of HD DVD is bound to come up so naturally someone is going to compare the two. I agree with what *spectator* said re: the titles released on HDDVD were probably more high profile titles and thus on the whole have pretty good PQ.


And to be more clear when I stated most of the titles on HD DVD I viewed were probably in the top 2 tiers I did mean Tier 1 and Tier 2 on this thread. Not to say none were deserving of Tier 0 (Transformers perhaps).


I'd have no problem having HD DVD titles mixed in with this thread seeing as they will no longer be produced. I know this is not going to happen, but seeing them and their bluray counterpart on the same Tier list would be sure to spark some lively debate. Maybe this is a terrible idea.


----------



## Hammie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lovingdvd* /forum/post/15803482
> 
> Madagascar 2 - Tier 0
> 
> 
> Beautiful picture, sharp as a tack, flawless with incredible detail and texture. Viewed on 106" screen with JVC RS20 pj and PS3.



I haven't viewed the entire movie just bits and pieces from when the kids had it on.


IMO, the scenes I saw almost looked too sharp.


I'll have a look at it again in the next couple days to be sure.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15804641
> 
> 
> patrick99, moematthews is trying to understand the reasons that the PQ on BDs tends to look the way it does, which is entirely *on*-topic. I'm not aware of any reason that the fact that the HD DVD format factors anecdotally into his research on that question should have any bearing on the suitability of his question to this thread.
> 
> *No one is talking about "HD DVD versus BD"*, we're talking about BD picture quality and, to do so, we're using anecdotal reference points from our own experiences, one of which happens to be HD DVD.



Really?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15804276
> 
> 
> It may yet, but not on the basis of _my_ recommendation.
> 
> 
> That said, please bear in mind that my recommendation here is entirely in the terms of the thread and if you asked me in different environs, I would recommend this disc with zero reservations. It looks great and I'm *so* happy to already have Raging Bull in my collection, so early in Blu-ray's life!
> 
> 
> Plus, I'm happy to say (close your eyes, double-dipophobes!) that this disc left me quite confident that a new transfer could definitely have the potential to get Raging Bull _at least_ into Tier 2 territory.



Well, saying that a new transfer would help tells me that it obviously could have been better.


I love this movie, so I want it to be the best that it can be....obviously.


Black and White and Grain haters need not apply.


----------



## rsbeck

Blu-rays are mainly inconsistent only when applying the criteria we do here. It's very difficult to make a film that makes sense within a certain budget and have perfect light for every scene. IMO, the quality of light is a huge determining factor in how a scene will look; how sharp, contrast, and black level, clarity, detail. There are limiting factors; the length of time and the cost involved to set up perfect light and camera angle for each individual shot, the need for different types of shot in order to tell a story -- can't have bright light at dusk or in the early morning, if part of the cinematographers art is working with natural light, you're going to have soft light sometimes and soft light generally means softer picture -- you need longer establishing shots for rhythm and sense and they are often harder to control, harder to light perfectly, etc. Big budget films are planned for play on huge screens and there are some in the industry who feel that sharpening and EE make a film look better on a big screen so, often, the big budget films with the money to spend on cinematography are also the ones that suffer from these processing decisions when the title is viewed in a home theater environment from 1.5 SW.


There are lots of reasons for a blu-ray to be inconsistent and very few of them have to do with format.


----------



## rsbeck

My copy of Raging Bull should be here before the weekend.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15805274
> 
> 
> Blu-rays are mainly inconsistent only when applying the criteria we do here. It's very difficult to make a film that makes sense within a certain budget and have perfect light for every scene. IMO, the quality of light is huge determining factor is how a scene will look; how sharp, contrast, and black level, clarity, detail. There are limiting factors; the length of time and the cost involved to set up perfect light and camera angle for each individual shot, the need for different types of shot in order to tell a story -- can't have bright light at dusk or in the early morning, if part of the cinematographers art is working with natural light, you're going to have soft light sometimes and soft light generally means softer picture -- you need longer establishing shots for rhythm and sense and they are often harder to control, harder to light perfectly, etc. Big budget films are planned for play on huge screens and there are some in the industry who feel that sharpening and EE make a film look better on a bog screen so, often, the big budget films with the money to spend on cinematography are also the ones that suffer from these processing decisions when the title is viewed in a home theater environment from 1.5 SW.
> 
> 
> There are lots of reasons for a blu-ray to be inconsistent and very few of them have to do with format.



Well said.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hammie* /forum/post/15805074
> 
> 
> IMO, the scenes I saw almost looked too sharp.



Don't cut yourself!


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15805078
> 
> 
> Really?



Indeed.


----------



## rsbeck

Now, why would Apocalypto be inconsistent? How about the fact that they were shooting in thick jungle where light is incredibly hard to control, shooting with HD Video cameras where light control is paramount, trying to stay under what was supposed to be a modest budget and the fact that a lot of the actors playing Mayans were wearing prosthetic ears -- did you notice that when the camera got close to one of those ears with any kind of sharpness at all, those things looked incredibly phony? -- so a little bit of soft light might not be a bad way to hide a few things. If you can't get close to those ears, you can't get too close to the hair and can't resolve those intricate costumes, either. Picture gets noticeably better when the prisoners are taken from the jungle and you get scenes in bright light where HD Video shines. Lots of reasons for the film to be inconsistent -- none of them have to do with blu-ray.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15805078
> 
> 
> Really?



I guess it's a matter of perspective, but even if we _are_ talking about HD DVD vs. BD, I think we're doing so in an entirely on-topic context. I fail to see how HD DVD is off-topic when it's discussed with regard to BD picture quality.


People in this thread are always contrasting the look of a movie on BD with its DVD counterpart or a theatrical presentation and no one calls those comments "off-topic". The only reason that I can see for this to be an "issue" is that some people are very sensitive about the ghost of the HD DVD format.


In my opinion, saying "You can't talk about _that_ format in here!" does more to stir the 'format war' pot than does casually comparing a BD's picture quality to that of a different medium.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15805406
> 
> 
> Now, why would Apocalypto be inconsistent? How about the fact that they were shooting in thick jungle where light is incredibly hard to control, shooting with HD Video cameras where light control is paramount, trying to stay under what was supposed to be a modest budget and the fact that a lot of the actors playing Mayans were wearing prosthetic ears -- did you notice that when the camera got close to one of those ears with any kind of sharpness at all, those things looked incredibly phony? -- so a little bit of soft light might not be a bad way to hide a few things. If you can't get close to those ears, you can't get too close to the hair and can't resolve those intricate costumes, either. Picture gets noticeably better when the prisoners are taken from the jungle and you get scenes in bright light where HD Video shines. Lots of reasons for the film to be inconsistent -- none of them have to do with blu-ray.



Nice explanatory post! Good readin'.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15803691
> 
> 
> Have you seen enough of the other CG feature direct-from-digital BDs to comment on how this compares to them? It's interesting to me to compare these, as they all have such potential for absolute beauty that preferences among them, when well-produced, may come down only to aesthetics and style. What's more "eye-candy", Ratatouille or Cars? They're both pretty peak presentations, so can the answer come from anything but simple aesthetic taste?
> 
> 
> To that end, maybe with these CG features, we can/should consider aspects of picture we usually don't discuss around here (for reasons which will become obvious by the end of the sentence), such as quality of motion/animation.
> 
> 
> For example, if you look at a _still_ of a Pixar BD and a _still_ of a Dreamworks Animation BD, they both look fantastic in this thread's PQ terms, I think most would generally agree. However, in my experience, I think the quality and sense of realism in the animation in Pixar's movies consistently blows away that of Dreamworks Animation movies. If we were to include *motion qualities* in our assessment of CG animated movies on BD, I would rank the Pixar movies above the Dreamworks Animation movies. Without _some_ method like this, I have a hard time imagining a way to rank these titles against each other.



That is perfectly valid criteria for distinguishing the differences between certain titles in tier zero or any other tier. Not every qualitative factor is explicitly listed in the tier descriptions. There are a multitude of other dimensions that can be used as a basis in determining picture quality which are implicit in the tier list. I would agree that overall, Pixar's CGI is more advanced in almost every way over the CGI seen in Dreamsworks' movies. Textures, fluidity, a realistic sense of motion and gravity, etc. I could go on and on, but Dreamworks has been playing catch-up strictly on a technical basis compared against Pixar.


I will attempt to end the discussion on HD DVD. The fact is that every single HD DVD video encode ever released and that ever could be released is just a mathematical subset of the Blu-ray specifications, and could be delivered on Blu-ray bit for bit. The HD DVD studios cherry picked the best looking masters they had early in the format's lifespan and many had video encodes that had an enormous amount of hand-tweaking by Microsoft and others. It was an attempt by an underdog format to gain a foothold in the marketplace. There is no doubt that Blu-ray, with its superior technical specifications, provides more transparency to the original source material than any other home video format ever put into the marketplace.


----------



## moematthews




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15805078
> 
> 
> Really?



In order to come up with an evaluation of the quality of anything, there has to be a reference standard. Blu-ray PQ does not exist in a vacuum - comparing it to other HD sources is inherent in evaluating its quality. So, strictly speaking, it's not about HD DVD vs. Blu-ray - it's how Blu-ray does in the realm of HD media overall.


----------



## rsbeck

The criteria here is to judge blu-rays against other blu-rays.


To take the blu-rays we are given and rank them.


I don't see what HD DVD has to do with that.


HD DVD versus Blu-ray should be handled in another thread.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15805463
> 
> 
> That is perfectly valid criteria for distinguishing the differences between certain titles in tier zero or any other tier.



It does, like most other criteria, seem to carry with it its own "director's intent" minefield, though. If we decide to consider qualities such as the simulation of weight or gravity, how do we approach a title like Kung Fu Panda, in which, for storytelling purposes, the characters' relationship to gravity is superhuman (or, more precisely, super-anthropomorphic-animal)?


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moematthews* /forum/post/15805481
> 
> 
> In order to come up with an evaluation of the quality of anything, there has to be a reference standard. Blu-ray PQ does not exist in a vacuum - comparing it to other HD sources is inherent in evaluating its quality. So, strictly speaking, it's not about HD DVD vs. Blu-ray - it's how Blu-ray does in the realm of HD media overall.



More than half of the HD DVD titles are available on blu-ray with the same PQ/inconsistencies and everythng else that come along with it. There are a couple of Universal titles which exhibit a bit more DNR on blu-ray, and there are a few that exhibit more DNR on HD DVD. There are also some Paramount titles that were MPEG-2 on Blu-ray and VC-1 on HD DVD. None of the differences between the same titles are enough to move a title more than a half tier IMO.


So now the discussion has to be the remaining titles that aren't on blu-ray yet... most of them are Universal. I believe Universal has ported over the best of the HD titles they've put out. You really dont want Meet the Parents, Mallrats, Liar Liar, etc to come out on blu unless they remaster them. I'm not saying there aren't any good ones left to port (there are: Fear and Loathing, Dragonheart, Pianist, etc), but I don't see why it would be worthwhile to add them to the tier thread.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15805274
> 
> 
> Blu-rays are mainly inconsistent only when applying the criteria we do here. I*t's very difficult to make a film that makes sense within a certain budget and have perfect light for every scene.* IMO, the quality of light is a huge determining factor in how a scene will look; how sharp, contrast, and black level, clarity, detail. There are limiting factors; the length of time and the cost involved to set up perfect light and camera angle for each individual shot, the need for different types of shot in order to tell a story -- can't have bright light at dusk or in the early morning, if part of the cinematographers art is working with natural light, you're going to have soft light sometimes and soft light generally means softer picture -- you need longer establishing shots for rhythm and sense and they are often harder to control, harder to light perfectly, etc. Big budget films are planned for play on huge screens and there are some in the industry who feel that sharpening and EE make a film look better on a big screen so, often, the big budget films with the money to spend on cinematography are also the ones that suffer from these processing decisions when the title is viewed in a home theater environment from 1.5 SW.
> 
> 
> There are lots of reasons for a blu-ray to be inconsistent and very few of them have to do with format.



Very good rsbeck! Light is one of the "variables" that I was referring to in an earlier post.


----------



## spectator

Possible lesson-learned opportunity:


Maybe, in the future, the people who don't like HD DVD being mentioned in here should bite their tongues and let it pass. We've now gone on for two pages about whether it's appropriate to the discussion, all because somebody mentioned the term once. Had the term, when first uttered, been allowed to slip silently into the ether, I really suspect we all would've moved on by now.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moematthews* /forum/post/15803340
> 
> 
> Wow - not sure how you came to that conclusion, but you can go on wondering, Aristotle. You have totally missed my point, but I'll play along. The only reason I'm "lamenting" the demise of HD DVD is that I purchased a Blu-ray player expecting to have the same fantastic experience. The majority of Blu-rays I've seen so far haven't been as good across the board. Pretty simple, really. This isn't format war silliness or anything else - it's my observation based on having owned both formats.
> 
> 
> My original post was concerning the inconsistency in Blu-rays, for example, the first 45 minutes of Apocalypto as described by rsbeck. Some shots are spectacular and some fall well short of that standard. That is noticeable when it is in the same movie. I have noticed it on quite a few Blu-rays. I did not notice it to the same extent with HD DVD. If someone can provide an answer as to why this is the case, instead of claiming that I'm a bitter old HD DVD owner, I'll gladly listen. This will confound your highly-developed ability to draw inferences, but I post in this forum because I am actually interested in the quality of discs I put in my Blu-ray player.



I suspect your standards simply went up, because I own a combo player, and I noticed no such issues. New movies are usually sourced directly from a master digital intermediate, so the format they're on has very little to do with how they look.


----------



## deltasun

Getting back on topic







, I just demoed some blu-ray to a co-worker. We were going more for AQ, but after putting on *I, Robot* followed by *Iron Man*, I could not believe the vast difference in PQ.


This just goes to show (for these eyes anyway), how wide the chasm can be between reference quality and Tier 1.75.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15805766
> 
> 
> Possible lesson-learned opportunity:
> 
> 
> Maybe, in the future, the people who don't like HD DVD being mentioned in here should bite their tongues and let it pass. We've now gone on for two pages about whether it's appropriate to the discussion, all because somebody mentioned the term once. Had the term, when first uttered, been allowed to slip silently into the ether, I really suspect we all would've moved on by now.



I think the issue really is whether everyone who posts in this thread is genuinely in the spirit of the thread or is here for some other purpose.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15806775
> 
> 
> I think the issue really is whether everyone who posts in this thread is genuinely in the spirit of the thread or is here for some other purpose.



If that's the issue, I'll propose a solution:


Let's assume the best of everyone unless and until anything gets derailed.


This means that if someone brings up HD DVD and you suspect it is with ulterior motives, the appropriate response is to ask them to explain the topical relevance of their comment, rather than to accuse them of trying to re-ignite a year-dead format war.


----------



## moematthews




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I think the issue really is whether everyone who posts in this thread is genuinely in the spirit of the thread or is here for some other purpose.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15806855
> 
> 
> If that's the issue, I'll propose a solution:
> 
> 
> Let's assume the best of everyone unless and until anything gets derailed.
> 
> 
> This means that if someone brings up HD DVD and you suspect it is with ulterior motives, the appropriate response is to ask them to explain the topical relevance of their comment, rather than to accuse them of trying to re-ignite a year-dead format war.



patrick99, it's never a good idea to tell someone what you believe his or her intention is. Especially when you have totally misinterpreted the argument. If you're going to be a small-minded boor about something, at least make sure you are right. At least I'm happy to see that there are more reasonable individuals here with the capacity to understand what I was talking about.


Sorry to everyone else. I said earlier that I was done with this, but somebody had to make another snide comment.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15805408
> 
> 
> I guess it's a matter of perspective, but even if we _are_ talking about HD DVD vs. BD, I think we're doing so in an entirely on-topic context. I fail to see how HD DVD is off-topic when it's discussed with regard to BD picture quality.
> 
> 
> People in this thread are always contrasting the look of a movie on BD with its DVD counterpart or a theatrical presentation and no one calls those comments "off-topic". The only reason that I can see for this to be an "issue" is that some people are very sensitive about the ghost of the HD DVD format.
> 
> 
> In my opinion, saying "You can't talk about _that_ format in here!" does more to stir the 'format war' pot than does casually comparing a BD's picture quality to that of a different medium.



I'm really surprised that you are falling for this nonsense. Seriously.


Please, go back and read the original post that started this "discussion" about HD-DVD. Here it is:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by moematthews-
> 
> Sorry if this has been discussed before, but I find inconsistency to be a huge issue with Blu-ray - much more so than it was with HD DVD. Even the best Blu-ray titles are fraught with inconsistency. For example, since "Youth Without Youth" is a popular discussion item here, did anyone notice how the early scene with all of them walking on the university grounds was just totally flat? It was like watching a different movie for that two minutes or so.



Are you kidding me? This is pure nonsense. "Even the best Blu-ray titles are fraught with inconsistency"!? "much more so than it was with HD DVD". Generalize much?










This is pure 100% format war BS, and no, it absolutely has *NOTHING* to do with comparing the picture quality of a Blu-ray title.


You might have an argument if he was comparing the same title on HD-DVD and Blu-ray, but that is simply not the case. Your reply seems to indicate that is what he was doing. Why?


You say "people in this thread are always contrasting the look of a movie on BD with its DVD counterpart or a theatrical presentation and no one calls those comments "off-topic". Do you not see the difference? *They are comparing the same title* when making reference to the DVD or theatrical presentation! They are not making some ridiculous generalization about an entire format.


It would be like saying "I saw Transformers on HD-DVD, and it looked WAY better than Raging Bull did on Blu-ray! What's wrong with Blu-ray, and why is it so inconsistent compared to HD-DVD"?


I am at a complete loss as to how mentioning what he perceives as inconsistent PQ during "Youth Without Youth" opens the door to discussion about HD-DVD.....a format that title was never released on.


It's absolutely absurd.


IMO of course.


----------



## moematthews

I'm glad you qualified that as your opinion, because you are wrong. "Format War" never crossed my mind You do make some good points, but we all know why we buy HD media. If 80% of the titles I've seen in one format meet or exceed my expectations for HD media, but only 20% of titles (so far) do in the other format, it's not so outrageous to question the reason why. Look through this thread. Others have noticed the same thing. Look through this forum - there are tons of people saying that Blu-ray hasn't provided the "wow" they thought it would. I happen to think that's because there are so many mediocre titles. Look at how many titles in the list are below Tier 0 and 1. That's what I'm talking about. I am simply relaying my observations. Nothing more, nothing less. It's really disturbing to see how downright apoplectic and rude people get about this.


----------



## tfoltz

moematthews, please go troll elsewhere.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moematthews* /forum/post/15808793
> 
> 
> I'm glad you qualified that as your opinion, because you are wrong. "Format War" never crossed my mind You do make some good points, but we all know why we buy HD media. If 80% of the titles I've seen in one format meet or exceed my expectations for HD media, but only 20% of titles (so far) do in the other format, it's not so outrageous to question the reason why. Look through this thread. Others have noticed the same thing. Look through this forum - there are tons of people saying that Blu-ray hasn't provided the "wow" they thought it would. I happen to think that's because there are so many mediocre titles. Look at how many titles in the list are below Tier 0 and 1. That's what I'm talking about. I am simply relaying my observations. Nothing more, nothing less. It's really disturbing to see how downright apoplectic and rude people get about this.



Ok: post some examples. What are these fabled HDDVD exclusives that are so much more consistent than blu-ray titles?


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15808453
> 
> 
> Are you kidding me? This is pure nonsense. "Even the best Blu-ray titles are fraught with inconsistency"!? "much more so than it was with HD DVD". Generalize much?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is pure 100% format war BS, and no, it absolutely has *NOTHING* to do with comparing the picture quality of a Blu-ray title.



I see your point, Rob, and the cynic in me wants to agree, but the difference is that where you see an undeniable ulterior agenda, I give the benefit of the doubt and also see the possibility that not everyone who enjoys this thread is necessarily as versed in the relevant technologies and processes of the video production process as you or I. Just because someone doesn't seem to understand the likely reasons that something may appear as it does, doesn't necessarily mean that he's trying to build a secret argument.


I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt in part because I can't imagine what anyone would have to gain by coming in here and saying, in effect, "Blu-ray sucks; HD DVD is better. Nya na na na!" The general coherence of the rest of his writing suggests to me that he has a little more maturity than a three-year-old, so until he proves me wrong, I will assume that he's older than that.


Perhaps I'm wrong to give him the benefit of the doubt, but what's the fallout of reserving judgement until we know for sure? If I attack him and he turns out to have honest intentions, I've been a jerk. If I wait until he does something that actually causes a problem? You might call me naive, but it's not like I don't know what I'm extending to him. I'm just trying to act like a decent and nice person who isn't convinced of always being right about everything- you know, courtesy and civility.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15808453
> 
> 
> You say "people in this thread are always contrasting the look of a movie on BD with its DVD counterpart or a theatrical presentation and no one calls those comments "off-topic". Do you not see the difference? *They are comparing the same title* when making reference to the DVD or theatrical presentation! They are not making some ridiculous generalization about an entire format.



Of course I see the difference. When I made that statement, I was responding to the general question of the relevance of making reference to HD DVD in this thread, not to moematthews' particular usage.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Now now children.


----------



## rsbeck

*Domino*


Stumlad recommended this title for tier 0.


Grain intact, thin ringing in a few high contrast shots. Domino is a high style action film in which high resolution visuals are definitely the point. Title contains some of the strongest facial detail I've seen in any blu-ray. It helps that most of the male actors have some sort of facial hair, stubble, and/or facial texture (Mickey Roarke!) and the women all have pores, texture, imperfections, and really fine peach fuzz because faces often take up generous portions of the screen and these details are incredibly well resolved. Much of the film is stylized, with an endless bag of visual tricks popping out of its sleeve and assaulting the eye with silhouettes, pumped up color timing, increased contrast, blown white, double, triple, quadruple, and more exposures, time lapse, jump cuts, de-focus, super focus, blurred action, you name it. There is even a sequence near the end where characters have generous cranberry tinted halos around them. What keeps coming back, though, is how high def everything is -- clothing and surface texure, fine object detail -- even blurred action is really well defined if that makes sense. This is not a particularly high average bit-rate blu-ray (20.8 according to DVD beaver), yet images have a real satisfying reach out and touch solidity and palpability, the picture just leaps off the screen!


*Recommendation: Bottom Quarter Tier 0*


Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From Screen


----------



## moematthews




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/15808808
> 
> 
> moematthews, please go troll elsewhere.



Where would you suggest?


What was I saying about people getting apoplectic and rude? So now I'm a troll. Unbelievable.


Thanks to some of the more reasonable posters on this thread.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moematthews* /forum/post/15809294
> 
> 
> What was I saying about people getting apoplectic and rude? So now I'm a troll. Unbelievable.



Not trying to be rude, just asking for you to back up your claims. Not an unreasonable request, I think.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15808854
> 
> 
> I see your point, Rob, and the cynic in me wants to agree, but the difference is that where you see an undeniable ulterior agenda, I give the benefit of the doubt and also see the possibility that not everyone who enjoys this thread is necessarily as versed in the relevant technologies and processes of the video production process as you or I. Just because someone doesn't seem to understand the likely reasons that something may appear as it does, doesn't necessarily mean that he's trying to build a secret argument.
> 
> 
> I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt in part because I can't imagine what anyone would have to gain by coming in here and saying, in effect, "Blu-ray sucks; HD DVD is better. Nya na na na!" The general coherence of the rest of his writing suggests to me that he has a little more maturity than a three-year-old, so until he proves me wrong, I will assume that he's older than that.
> 
> 
> Perhaps I'm wrong to give him the benefit of the doubt, but what's the fallout of reserving judgement until we know for sure? If I attack him and he turns out to have honest intentions, I've been a jerk. If I wait until he does something that actually causes a problem? You might call me naive, but it's not like I don't know what I'm extending to him. I'm just trying to act like a decent and nice person who isn't convinced of always being right about everything- you know, courtesy and civility.



I'm just glad you agree with some of my points.










What you are saying is certainly generous enough (I am not willing to give the same benefit of the doubt as you because anyone who has any experience at AVS at all during the format war knows exactly how his post would come across), but the bottom line is this: giving him every benefit of the doubt imaginable, his comments/questions or "anecdotal experience" as you called it, is not relevant to this thread.


This thread is not about which format was better. He implied that HD-DVD was better (it didn't have as many picture quality inconsistencies). How is this relevant to this thread?


I understand that you disagree about the relevance, but both you (in post #10512) and rsbeck have already addressed his naivety, so I think we can all move on.





> Quote:
> Of course I see the difference. When I made that statement, I was responding to the general question of the relevance of making reference to HD DVD in this thread, not to moematthews' particular usage.



Then what's the point if you aren't talking about his particular usage?


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Domino for Tier 0 eh? Bummer, that means I have to watch that crappy movie again (I saw it on DVD).


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15805406
> 
> 
> Now, why would Apocalypto be inconsistent? How about the fact that they were shooting in thick jungle where light is incredibly hard to control, shooting with HD Video cameras where light control is paramount, trying to stay under what was supposed to be a modest budget and the fact that a lot of the actors playing Mayans were wearing prosthetic ears -- did you notice that when the camera got close to one of those ears with any kind of sharpness at all, those things looked incredibly phony? -- so a little bit of soft light might not be a bad way to hide a few things. If you can't get close to those ears, you can't get too close to the hair and can't resolve those intricate costumes, either. Picture gets noticeably better when the prisoners are taken from the jungle and you get scenes in bright light where HD Video shines. Lots of reasons for the film to be inconsistent -- none of them have to do with blu-ray.




Hey buddy, are you looking for trouble?

















I can't help but wonder if there are a ton more BD's that have now been released compared to HD DVD's which might play into PQ consistency differences due to varying qualities of transfers. I also agree with 42041 when he says mowmatthews standards may have gone up. Disregarding my take on Apocalypto for a moment







, I know HD doesn't have the same impact as fours years ago for me, two years ago when I got Apocalypto, and even more so now. I used to think 2.0 BD's looked great, and you know what they did, but now they simply look good.


Phantom Stranger tried to bring a close or peace to this discussion and he said something which if it was ever said back in the day it fell on deaf ears or should have been touted more for the truth it was and is. I want to see an end and agreement to this as well, so here goes.


There is a difference of view one can have when being involved in the debate as it starts and continues as opposed to seeing it for the first time when pages have passed and being able to see all the posts. I feel like I am looking from the outside in and a little less biased.


What is interesting about this discussion is the players that I know for a while, some of whom were HD DVD supporters more than BD IIRC, are now calling BS on this idea about PQ inconsistency differences. Meaning if anyone would have a bias and be in agreement with moematthews it seems it would be those few. I also think moematthews isn't trolling and was expressing a thought that unfortunately runs into a debate on a topic that still has an emotional attachment connected to it and therefore rational discussion goes out the window. In my case 'I was outside, looking inside...'.

And how I feel about moematthews in believing he is legit is coming from someone such as myself who was an avid BD supporter who really had NO real ill will against HD DVD, I just wanted the format I invested a bit in to win.


The most important point that Rob Tomlin and others have made is this thread is not about HD DVD, comparisons to HD DVD or any other relevance to HD DVD in any shape or form. We do have other threads in the BD forum comparing DVD to BD and HD DVD to BD and those alone cause enough issues with obvious bias left over from the format war. Those of us who are involved in those threads doing PQ comparisons and remember all too well the format war, know our own and other's biased points of view when we are in those threads, since they are like a broken record.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15809673
> 
> 
> Domino for Tier 0 eh? Bummer, that means I have to watch that crappy movie again (I saw it on DVD).



Better than the next ten days of SD tv and dvd's which is all I can watch.










I love my family, but it was tough to leave my 'baby' at home alone especially watching IRobot again right before I left.


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15809673
> 
> 
> Domino for Tier 0 eh? Bummer, that means I have to watch that crappy movie again (I saw it on DVD).



You're braver than I am. Domino rates in at 18% on Rotten Tomato. Life's too short to watch something like that no matter how high the eye candy factor is. I learned my lesson with Crank.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15809794
> 
> 
> Better than the next ten days of SD tv and dvd's which is all I can watch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love my family, but it was tough to leave my 'baby' at home alone especially watching IRobot again right before I left.



I hear ya, but watching a quality movie on DVD might just be better than watching Domino on Blu-ray.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/15809970
> 
> 
> You're braver than I am. Domino rates in at 18% on Rotten Tomato. Life's too short to watch something like that no matter how high the eye candy factor is. I learned my lesson with Crank.



I hear ya! Let me put it to you this way: it will not be a priority to me. I put it last in my Netflix Queue, but I only have 7 titles in there right now, so I am pretty caught up on my Blu-ray viewing.


Unfortunately the 6 titles ahead of Domino all show waiting times of various lengths, so I may get it sooner rather than later.


----------



## rsbeck

Tell you the truth, I hardly noticed the plot. I was watching for the PQ only and that was enough to hold my attention. A lot of times, it seems like blu-rays are like restaurants, the better the decor, the worse the food.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hughmc* /forum/post/15809709
> 
> 
> hey buddy, are you looking for trouble?



lol.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Nights in Rodanthe*


Speaking of crappy movies....










Yes, another chick flick that I was forced to sit through with my wife. She loves Richard Gere. No. I mean she _*loves*_ Richard Gere!


Yet, despite this (unhealthy) lust, even she had to admit that this was a "pretty bad" movie (her words). My words? Predictable. Cookie cutter. Silly. Lacking chemistry. But that's enough about the movie.


The PQ itself was pretty good. Overall it was a very natural looking (Film like) experience. Facial details were quite good, though certainly not on par with the very best titles in this regard.


Colors are very natural looking and accurate. Contrast and black levels are quite acceptable, and many scenes have good depth to them. Clarity can be pretty good too.


The one thing that is missing from this title, though, is what I refer to as "eye candy". The subject matter just isn't that great (unless you love Richard Gere as much as my wife does). Diane Lane is starting to show her age.


Overall a good looking title, but certainly not something that you will want to use to demo your system. Or sit through for that matter.








*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


----------



## djoberg

*Get Smart*


This title was a mixed bag! At times there were razor-sharp shots with amazing detail, excellent contrast, very deep blacks, impressive shadow detail, vivid colors, and 3D pop; at other times it fell flat with a lack of the virtues just mentioned. When the former was true, it was easily demo material (Tier 0 and Tier 1), but the latter shots dropped it to average or below average (low Tier 3).


We have been speaking of inconsistencies and this film is a perfect example of this. There were some topnotch night scenes at times (especially the shots of Moscow) that rivaled night scenes in The Dark Knight, with crisp shadow detail and strong contrast. But the very next night scene would have what looked like medium to heavy grain and all shadow detail was lost. The MANY daytime scenes were, for the most part, very sharp and detailed, with inky blacks, a pleasing color palette, and remarkable contrast. Skin tones were spot on and the majority of facial close-ups did NOT disappoint.


All things considered........

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


Samsung 50" 1080p DLP....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 7'


----------



## fflaque

I'm in the market to get an LCD and want to compare them side by side, anyone have any recommendations on a Blu Ray title that would showcase the pros and cons of each(color, blur). I was thinking wall-e


----------



## LBFilmGuy

*Mr. Brooks*


What a wild ride this film was, had much more to it than I expected. Very entertaining and well done...and damn the ending was intense!


It is currently placed at the Top of Tier 1 and I pretty much agree but recommend it slightly lower.


Facial closeups were unreal in this film. Every shot of Costner and Cook showed every nook and cranny of their faces. Fantastic.


Overall, the blacks were top notch. Suits and jackets, interiors of cars, all inky with superb contrast. Most of this film takes place at night and it truly looks great. Skin tones were also spot on throughout, sometimes warmer depending on the lighting.


It does suffer a little though from mostly long overhead shots at night, lots of noise with a washed out look to them. Also, most of the daytime scenes at Costner's house were slightly washed out as well (most likely director's intent and all shot together.)


Overall, I was very pleased with it. Top Tier 1 is fine with me, but I would drop it just slightly to 1.5.

*Recommendation: Tier 1.5*


Panasonic PZ80U via PS3 @ about 6 feet.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Coxwell* /forum/post/15760653
> 
> *Donnie Darko*
> 
> 
> What a great disappointment ! I read some articles online that underline the fact that the image is haze and blurred all over the film. Despite of the fact it's a limitation of the DP and the film stock (very high sensibility), i thought the contrast and blacks will be a little more appropriate for an high definition disc. I can't compare with the dvd i don't own, but i think this blu ray disc is probably just a bit better than the SD previous edition.
> 
> *Recommandation : Tier 3.75**
> 
> 
> Kuro 50" 9G - Panasonic BD35 - Distance of viewing 7 feet*



Definitely director's intent, which I didn't have a problem with (even for HD).

With the movie set in the 80's, it always reminded me of VHS. It also gave the movie a "dreamy" look.










Since "The Doors" is currently ranked 3.25, and I see this being a notch lower, I'm gonna go for 3.5 ranking for Donnie Darko.


Even with a low ranking, I see a HUGE difference in PQ from the DVD!












Also, there is a preview for the 2008 version of TDTESS that has Tier 0 or 1.00 all over it!










Peace.









*Donnie Darko

Tier Recommendation: Tier 3.5

PS3-Samsung 46" 1080p-seven*'


----------



## rsbeck

_Even with a low ranking, I see a HUGE difference in PQ from the DVD!
_


That's great to know -- thanks!


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15809065
> 
> *Domino*
> 
> 
> Stumlad recommended this title for tier 0.
> 
> 
> *Recommendation: Bottom Quarter Tier 0*



Hmm, these tier 0 recommendations. I'll have to go check this out. I remember watching this on DVD and actually liking it as the movie went on. I think it took me a few tries to get through the first 10 minutes though, if I remember correctly.


Like rsbeck, sometimes PQ alone can get one through. Anybody else want to check out U-571? I'm feeling alone here.


----------



## rsbeck

*Kill Bill: Volume 2*


After watching Domino and recommending tier 0, I wanted to follow up by watching another title currently ranked 0 to see how it would stack up. To cut to the chase, this confirmed to me that Domino deserves the tier 0 ranking and Kill Bill 2, like Volume 1, needs to move down. Grain on film based material appeared intact, thin ringing noted a number of times on high contrast edges. Volume 2 is a different animal than Volume 1. Where Volume 1 was really uneven, spanning the gamut from sequences at high tier 0 balanced with stretches dipping into mid tier two and even three, Volume 2 clips along mostly at mid tier one, but also spends stretches at high tier 2 and only occasionally rises to tier 0 for a shot here and there. Facial detail is mostly mediocre, not what we've come to expect of higher tier titles and nowhere near the detail seen in Volume 1, although once in awhile we do get brief glimpses. Both Volumes have persistent ringing, halos, and a picture that sometimes loses solidity with movement, Volume 2 is mostly sharp, but does not have tier 0 dimension and palpability. I feel like Volume 1 averaged out to 1.5. Volume 2 looks on my screen like a pretty consistent tier 1.5 to 1.75 title. I'm right on the edge on this one. I'll give 2 the benefit of the doubt because of a few segments that push its grade up; specifically, the buried alive sequence. Honestly, I didn't see a lot about which to be impressed here. Clothing texture, like facial texture, only decent, nothing special. Some fine object detail -- about what you'd expect of any low tier 1 title. I feel like I am being very fair with....

*Recommendation: Tier 1.5*


Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From Screen


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15810895
> 
> 
> the 2008 version of TDTESS



The Dark Tales of Easter Sunday Sisters?


Tomorrow's Dreamers Tend To Escape Serious Scrutiny?


The Dragon's Toes Eviscerate Seven Samurai?


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*Office Space*


While I don't own the DVD, I wondered throughout the viewing if I put the wrong disc into my PS3. My husband had been complaining that we had a lack of comedies on Blu, so I picked this up and admittedly, I'm having a slight case of buyers' remorse on this one.


I don't know if it's DNR or Director's intent. Frankly, I don't care. This story was with real people, and in my book, real people should never have plastic faces. Ron Livingstone has that sort of permanent 5:00 shadow on his face, and it looked almost like someone rubbed some paint on his face to represent this instead of it actually being 5:00 shadow. I think the only time I noticed any facial detail at all was during the extreme close ups during the Doctor-hypnotherapist scene. Otherwise, zero detail; zilch.


I did notice what I think may possibly have been edge enhancement in certain scenes. It'd be in weird places though, like the outline of a black office chair, occasionally on a sleeve. It wasn't pronounced through the entire film, but in one spot when Ron Livingstone is wearing a full blown suit, he does have a pretty noticeable halo around him.


The skin tones all seemed pasty, although that could be how they were supposed to look in a drab office environment. Colours seem washed out and pale throughout - it never deviates from this pattern through the entire movie. Fine detail is not present at all in this movie.


It's only saving grace to me (besides being a good movie) is that I didn't double-dip to get this movie. If this is considered a huge upgrade for this film over the DVD, I cringe to think of how terrible the DVD looked.

*Recommendation for Office Space: Tier 4.00*

*Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800U, THX setting, approximately 7.5' viewing distance.*


----------



## RBFC




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15812134
> 
> 
> The Dark Tales of Easter Sunday Sisters?
> 
> 
> Tomorrow's Dreamers Tend To Escape Serious Scrutiny?
> 
> 
> The Dragon's Toes Eviscerate Seven Samurai?


_The Day the Earth Stood Still_.


Was this a contest? Did I win anything?


Lee


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RBFC* /forum/post/15812618
> 
> _The Day the Earth Stood Still_.
> 
> 
> Was this a contest? Did I win anything?
> 
> 
> Lee



Ah! Thank you! There are _so many_ acronyms floating around these days, my head is swimming with them. No way can I keep track of the entire film industry by initials! I like my titles more, anyway.










Unfortunately, there is no prize.


----------



## Hammie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15809065
> 
> *Domino*
> 
> 
> Stumlad recommended this title for tier 0.
> 
> 
> Grain intact, thin ringing in a few high contrast shots. Domino is a high style action film in which high resolution visuals are definitely the point. Title contains some of the strongest facial detail I've seen in any blu-ray. It helps that most of the male actors have some sort of facial hair, stubble, and/or facial texture (Mickey Roarke!) and the women all have pores, texture, imperfections, and really fine peach fuzz because faces often take up generous portions of the screen and these details are incredibly well resolved. Much of the film is stylized, with an endless bag of visual tricks popping out of its sleeve and assaulting the eye with silhouettes, pumped up color timing, increased contrast, blown white, double, triple, quadruple, and more exposures, time lapse, jump cuts, de-focus, super focus, blurred action, you name it. There is even a sequence near the end where characters have generous cranberry tinted halos around them. What keeps coming back, though, is how high def everything is -- clothing and surface texure, fine object detail -- even blurred action is really well defined if that makes sense. This is not a particularly high average bit-rate blu-ray (20.8 according to DVD beaver), yet images have a real satisfying reach out and touch solidity and palpability, the picture just leaps off the screen!
> 
> 
> *Recommendation: Bottom Quarter Tier 0*
> 
> 
> Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From Screen



I'm going to have to agree with this. I was getting ready to write up a review but rsbeck said it far better than I had planned. I was thinking it was better than Kill Bill Vol.2.
_

Panasonic TH-50PZ850u

Panasonic BD35 player

7.5 ft. viewing distance_


----------



## Hammie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15811346
> 
> *Kill Bill: Volume 2*
> 
> 
> After watching Domino and recommending tier 0, I wanted to follow up by watching another title currently ranked 0 to see how it would stack up. To cut to the chase, this confirmed to me that Domino deserves the tier 0 ranking and Kill Bill 2, like Volume 1, needs to move down. Grain on film based material appeared intact, thin ringing noted only a few times on high contrast edges. Volume 2 is a different animal than Volume 1. Where Volume 1 was really uneven, spanning the gamut from sequences at high tier 0 balanced with stretches dipping into mid tier two and even three, Volume 2 clips along mostly at mid tier one, but also spends stretches at high tier 2 and only occasionally rises to tier 0 for a shot here and there. Facial detail is mostly mediocre, not what we've come to expect of higher tier titles and nowhere near the detail seen in Volume 1, although once in awhile we do get brief glimpses. Volume 1 had issues like persistent ringing, halos, and a picture that lost solidity with movement, Volume 2 is mostly sharp, but does not have tier 0 dimension and palpability. I feel like Volume 1 averaged out to 1.5. Volume 2 looks on my screen like a pretty consistent tier 1.5 to 1.75 title. I'm right on the edge on this one. I'll give 2 the benefit of the doubt because it has fewer issues and because of a few segments that push its grade up; specifically, the buried alive sequence. Honestly, I didn't see a lot about which to be impressed here. Clothing texture, like facial texture, only decent, nothing special. Some fine object detail -- about what you'd expect of any low tier 1 title. I feel like I am being very fair with....
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 1.5*
> 
> 
> Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From Screen



I can understand how you feel there is a difference. I also compared Domino to KB2. However, I don't feel KB2 should be that low. Maybe at worst 1.0, but not 1.5. I understand where you are coming from. I would put KB1 as low as 1.5, but probably more in the 1.25 area.


I thought KB2 was better than a few 1.25 titles such as Transformers and Incredible Hulk.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Sure enough, netflix has shipped Domino.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15813270
> 
> 
> Sure enough, netflix has shipped Domino.



Enjoy...?


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15813270
> 
> 
> Sure enough, netflix has shipped Domino.



I just went to look it up over at IMDB to see what this is... a Kiera Knightly movie with 2 people from Beverly Hills 90210 starring as "themselves"? Oh my.


Maybe when I get Twilight on Blu Ray, I'll rent this so I can have a stink-fest double feature.



Oh, and Rob -- I'm so so so so sorry to you, that you were forced to watch Nights in Rodanthe or whatever that cheese is called. That looks so terrible.


----------



## Hammie

What can I say about this besides that 90% of it is Tier 0. What really irked me was Alex the Lion. He seemed to be the only character that looked over done. The fur on him, especially his mane, looked over tweaked. I'm not sure if it was really EE or DNR specifically, but he just looks fake. All the other characters looked good and matched the surrounding scene. I felt that Alex looked like an after thought in almost all the scenes that he was in. It was present but as much with the other lions in the movie.


Because of this issue that obviously bothered me quite a bit, I am going to recommend this as Tier 1.
*Madagascar 2 : Tier 1.0*


Panasonic TH-50PZ850u

Panasonic BD35 Player

7.5 ft. viewing distance


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hammie* /forum/post/15813232
> 
> 
> I can understand how you feel there is a difference. I also compared Domino to KB2. However, I don't feel KB2 should be that low. Maybe at worst 1.0, but not 1.5. I understand where you are coming from. I would put KB1 as low as 1.5, but probably more in the 1.25 area.
> 
> 
> I thought KB2 was better than a few 1.25 titles such as Transformers and Incredible Hulk.



I agree with you Hammie! I have seen KB1 & 2 several times over the last year and I believe they are better than both Transformers and The Incredible Hulk. And I also agree with you that they shouldn't be any lower than 1.0.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15814177
> 
> 
> I agree with you Hammie! I have seen KB1 & 2 several times over the last year and I believe they are better than both Transformers and The Incredible Hulk. And I also agree with you that they shouldn't be any lower than 1.0.



I haven't seen Transformers or The Incredible Hulk, so bear my ignorance in mind, but it _sounds_ to me like between these and the Kill Bills, we're into the 'aesthetic priorities' territory. In other words, these titles probably all look quite excellent (the Kill Bills certainly do, IMO!) and all have a similar amount of identified "issues"... but the nature of those issues differs by title and to one person, 'a little ringing' is a more egregious problem than 'a little black crush', while to another, the opposite is true.


Sorry if I'm just stating the obvious here.


----------



## rsbeck

*Transformers*


Edited: Full review posted later in the thread.

*Recommendation: Tier 1.0*


Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From Screen


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15814699
> 
> *Transformers*
> 
> 
> Just watched some of transformers. I've seen it enough times that all I needed was to refresh my memory. I find it is good to constantly refresh the memory because visual memory is tricky. Yes, the best scenes in KB2 equal the best scenes in Transformers, but Transformers is far more consistent. To my eye, Transformers is a consistent 1.25 title, never going much above or below that and I see no case for raising it any higher. KB2 has a few very impressive shots, but KB2 also has long stretches where it is not even as impressive as Transformers. KB2 has long stretches where facial, follicle, clothing, scenic and surface texture detail are unimpressive and long scenes that are dialogue driven with not much in the way of impressive PQ visuals at all. Long stretches that I wouldn't rank any higher than high tier two. I think you guys are remembering a few scenes in KB2 and forgetting a lot of mediocre segments.
> 
> 
> I stand firmly behind my recommendation of 1.5 for KB2 and believe it is, if anything, on the generous side.
> 
> 
> As for Transformers...
> 
> 
> Agree With Current Placement
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 1.25*
> 
> 
> Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From Screen



It seems like most of this review of Transformers is discussing KB2 instead. Would it be possible to say a bit more about Transformers in a review of Transformers?


----------



## rsbeck

If I get more time, I'll do more complete review of Transformers. Mostly, I wanted to agree with current placement. It's a good looking title and very consistent -- just about every scene has pretty impressive facial detail. Not up to YWY or Domino standards, but good -- better than that seen for long stretches of KB2.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15814800
> 
> 
> If I get more time, I'll do more complete review of Transformers. Mostly, I wanted to agree with current placement. It's a good looking title and very consistent -- just about every scene has pretty impressive facial detail. Not up to YWY or Domino standards, but good -- better than that seen for long stretches of KB2.



If Domino has the same kind of ringing and sharpening that YWY has, I don't think I'm interested. Based on recent viewings, I think Transformers looks pretty good, better than 1.25.


But I do think if you are going to put something up using the formal review format, you should be saying more about the title you are reviewing than I saw in your review of Transformers.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15813275
> 
> 
> Enjoy...?





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15813326
> 
> 
> I just went to look it up over at IMDB to see what this is... a Kiera Knightly movie with 2 people from Beverly Hills 90210 starring as "themselves"? Oh my.
> 
> 
> Maybe when I get Twilight on Blu Ray, I'll rent this so I can have a stink-fest double feature.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and Rob -- I'm so so so so sorry to you, that you were forced to watch Nights in Rodanthe or whatever that cheese is called. That looks so terrible.



Yeah, it looks like I am on a string of _real good_ movies here!


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15814886
> 
> 
> If Domino has the same kind of ringing and sharpening that YWY has, I don't think I'm interested.



It has not been established that YWY has any artifacts or degradation associated with inappropriate processing. It has only been noted that YWY has a few scenes with thin ringing on high contrast edges.



> Quote:
> But I do think if you are going to put something up using the formal review format, you should be saying more about the title you are reviewing than I saw in your review of Transformers.



Disagree. I think that anytime we are writing a recommendation we want Super Slow to notice, we should use the format.


----------



## rsbeck

I just received Raging Bull, Becoming Jane, and Little Miss Sunshine!


----------



## Hammie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15814216
> 
> 
> Watch 'em again.



I will this weekend. Especially since my wife is sick, I think all of our plans are down the drain.










I was working from memory, as well as, comparing memory from an LCD to my new plasma. That may make a difference in my final opinion.


----------



## AshleyAshna

Hello everyone!


Wow, great thread! You all are amazing, this is exactlly what I've been searching for.


I just had a couple of questions.


Currently Kung Fu Panda is ranked at the top in the Tier 0, Blu section. I am taking that to mean that it is the number one ranked Blu Ray for picture quality at this current time. Am I understanind this correct?


Second question.


Once you get down to the Gold, Silver, Bronze, ect. Tiers, they are broken into catagories of 1, 1.25, 1.50, 1.75, ect. Can someone tell me what those numbers mean? I read the beginning part of the thread, and either I missed it, or just didn't understand it.


Thanks everyone, and again, amazing job.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15815272
> 
> 
> Patrick -- did a search and this came up.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...4#post13271954



It is indeed the case that I did not think the HD DVD of Transformers looked outstanding. I am not sure whether my different feelings about the BD are attributable to differences in PQ between the BD and HD DVD or instead to a revision of my feelings.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15815227
> 
> *It has not been established that YWY has any artifacts or degradation associated with inappropriate processing.* It has only been noted that YWY has a few scenes with thin ringing on high contrast edges.
> 
> 
> So does Transformers.



When is it ever "established" that inappropriate processing has been used? When someone involved in producing the product comes on here and admits it? How often has that happened?


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15815343
> 
> 
> It is indeed the case that I did not think the HD DVD of Transformers looked outstanding. I am not sure whether my different feelings about the BD are attributable to differences in PQ between the BD and HD DVD or instead to a revision of my feelings.



You find yourself more impressed with Transformers these days?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15815397
> 
> *You find yourself more impressed with Transformers these days?*
> 
> 
> I'm in the opposite direction. My memory of it is superior to the reality. I'm less impressed. I still think it is a good looking title and deserving of its tier 1.25 placement, but I would not recommend raising it.



Yes, I thought I had made that clear. My main reservation about the PQ is with the CGI of the robots, but apart from that I think the PQ is very nice.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15815383
> 
> 
> When is it ever "established" that inappropriate processing has been used? When someone involved in producing the product comes on here and admits it? How often has that happened?



You can help establish it by describing what artifacts or degradation you are seeing that you associate with "sharpening." So far, all you've noted is some thin ringing on a few high contrast edges. If there has been inappropriate processing, there ought to be more than that. If not, then I don't think that is a very strong case. Just to say something looks sharpened is not a very complete review, IMO. What,, specifically, are you noting that supports your conclusion?



.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15815436
> 
> 
> You can help establish it by describing what artifacts or degradation you are seeing that you associate with "filtering." So far, all you've noted is some thin ringing on *a few high contrast edges*. If there has been inappropriate processing, there ought to be more than that. If not, then I don't think that is a very strong case. Just to say something looks filtered is not a very complete review, IMO. What,, specifically, are you noting that supports your conclusion?



Based on my viewing, which as I have noted before was limited because I found the movie itself totally unappealing, the ringing was present on more than just "a few" edges. It was far more common than that. Many people in addition to me, such as Rob Tomlin, have used the term "processed" or "digital" to describe a PQ flaw in titles such as TDK. The term seems to be understood. It is an "off" look that usually accompanies overt ringing but is not limited to edges.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15815476
> 
> 
> Have you noticed the thin ringing on high contrast edges? That's been your major reservation on YWY and based on that alone, you have concluded that YWY has been "filtered" and should be excluded from tier 0.



You keep attributing the term "filtered" to what I have said about YWY. I really do not believe I have used that term for this title.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15815552
> 
> 
> You keep attributing the term "filtered" to what I have said about YWY. I really do not believe I have used that term for this title.



Sorry about that. You actually used the word, "Sharpening."

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...6#post15814886 


I still make the same argument. If there has been inappropriate processing, there ought to be more than a few scenes with thin ringing on high contrast edges. There ought to be other signs of artifacting or degradation. I haven't seen anything else noted. Have you written a review of either YWY or Transformers?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15815657
> 
> 
> Sorry about that. You actually used the word, "Sharpening."
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...6#post15814886
> 
> 
> I still make the same argument. If there has been inappropriate processing, there ought to be more than *a few scenes* with thin ringing on high contrast edges. There ought to be other signs of artifacting or degradation. I haven't seen anything else noted. Have you written a review of either YWY or Transformers?



I have already made the point that it is in fact more than "a few scenes."


I also made the point that the "processed" or "sharpened" look goes beyond edges.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hammie* /forum/post/15815288
> 
> 
> I was working from memory, as well as, comparing memory from an LCD to my new plasma. That may make a difference in my final opinion.



Excellent point -- thanks. It'll be interesting to hear your reaction going from Domino to Transformers. Or Domino to Kill Bill 2.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15815729
> 
> 
> Do you have time stamps so I can verify that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People use a lot of different phrases. I'm interested to know if you found anything aside from thin ringing on a few high contrast edges to support your conclusion. If you haven't, that's cool. You, of course, are entitled to dislike the look of any film for any reason. *If thin ringing on high contrast edges bothers you, though, I wonder why you aren't bothered by it in Transformers.* *If you don't like to watch current titles like YWY* to know what's possible, how do you know if Transformers compares?



If the difference in severity between any ringing in Transformers and that in YWY is not apparent to you, then I really don't know what to say.


My problem with YWY is not that it's current (it was in fact released on May 13, 2008) but that I simply don't like the movie.


In any event, I think we have reached the point that the mods would call "bickering" and I would suggest we end this discussion.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15815827
> 
> 
> My problem with YWY is not that it's current (it was in fact released on May 13, 2008) but that I simply don't like the movie.



Fair enough, but since you didn't list anything, I am going to assume that aside from some thin ringing on a few high contrast edges, you found no other degradation or artifacting in YWY.


As for Transformers, I'll do a more complete review if I get more time. I've got a few other things on my to watch list.


Thanks for the chat.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15816084
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the chat.



My pleasure.


BTW, I note from IMDB that Tim Roth was born in 1961.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15783599
> 
> *Kill Bill: Volume 1*
> 
> 
> Grain during film based sections appeared intact, persistent ringing and halos noted. KB1 is an homage to several film genres with arresting images and striking visuals. Colors are sometimes intentionally over saturated, there are black and white scenes which must have laid the foundation for the fascinating look of Sin City, whites are often allowed to blow, lights and lanterns are placed in almost every scene which produce a daydreamy glow around themselves and other things in the frame. I've read that there is a minor ringing issue in Kill Bill 1, but this is the most persistent ringing I've seen in any title and not just on high contrast edges. Not only thin ringing, but full-on halos, although I have a hard time believing the full-on halos are unintentional -- I'm convinced it must be part of an intentionally soft look. I am troubled by the persistent ringing because it seems to coincide with other issues; the image often loses solidity with the slightest move of the camera or with any movement within the frame. I half suspect that these are all simply intentional visual effects because so much care has obviously been taken with the visual look of the film that it is hard to believe that what we see is in any way accidental. I find myself admiring the choice on an artistic level, but these artistic choices often render a picture that is soft and blurry around the edges. On the positive side, at the center of the frame when at rest, we often see a very impressive picture with very strong facial and follicle detail. I would guestimate that about 20% of KB1 is high tier 0 quality. On the negative side, a lot of KB1 is mid tier 2 quality, with a fair portion even dipping into tier 3, with a lot of softness, little detail, glowing halos around people and objects and an image that breaks up and blurs far too often. Kudos to QT, though, for some brave artistic choices.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 1.5*
> 
> 
> Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From Screen


*Kill Bill v1*



I wanted to disagree with the above review. I tried hard, but unfortunately, I do agree with it, even if I didn't want to.











I feel that the first hour of this movie is much stronger PQ wise than the 2nd hour, once The Bride travels to Japan, Tarantino decides to do some pretty cool things artistically but for the purposes of this thread, do not allow me to consider this to be Tier 0 material anymore. If the Bar-battle-scene with all the various things QT does there was not so LONG, perhaps it could still have a case for being up in Tier 0, but it's fairly drawn out and must be addressed.



That being said, I do agree with this movie remaining up in Tier 1 territory, and consider it a wonderful and treasured Blu Ray in my collection. I would be satisfied if it was as high as Tier 1.25, but I will agree with rsbeck on this score.


*Recommendation for Kill Bill v1: Tier 1.50*

*Equipment: ps3 to Panasonic TH-58PZ800U, THX mode, approx 7.5' viewing distance.*


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15812134
> 
> 
> The Dark Tales of Easter Sunday Sisters?
> 
> 
> Tomorrow's Dreamers Tend To Escape Serious Scrutiny?
> 
> 
> The Dragon's Toes Eviscerate Seven Samurai?



Sorry about that.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AshleyAshna* /forum/post/15815299
> 
> 
> Hello everyone!
> 
> I just had a couple of questions.
> 
> 
> Currently Kung Fu Panda is ranked at the top in the Tier 0, Blu section. I am taking that to mean that it is the number one ranked Blu Ray for picture quality at this current time. Am I understanind this correct?
> 
> 
> Second question.
> 
> 
> Once you get down to the Gold, Silver, Bronze, ect. Tiers, they are broken into catagories of 1, 1.25, 1.50, 1.75, ect. Can someone tell me what those numbers mean? I read the beginning part of the thread, and either I missed it, or just didn't understand it.



Yes, it means that the participants in this thread have come to the conclusion that Kung Fu Panda is the absolutely best looking Blu-ray yet.


Each tier is broken down further into quarters or halves. So all titles in tier 2.5 will not look as good as the titles in tier 2.25 for example. It is a way to classify titles in an orderly manner.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15814177
> 
> 
> I agree with you Hammie! I have seen KB1 & 2 several times over the last year and I believe they are better than both Transformers and The Incredible Hulk. And I also agree with you that they shouldn't be any lower than 1.0.



Whoa whoa whoa...TIH got moved down to 1.25?


No way.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15816985
> 
> 
> Whoa whoa whoa...TIH got moved down to 1.25?
> 
> 
> No way.



It was during the big whirlwind of activity that rsbeck was keeping track of in posts like this one. I'm surprised you missed it, there was a ton of support to move TIH down.



> Quote:
> *Incredible Hulk*...Higher tier 0 (LBFilmguy)...1.0 (rsbeck, Stumlad, deltasun)...1.25 (Phantom Stranger, selimsivad, RBFC, Patrick99, Hughmc, Djoberg, Rob Tomlin)


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Surprised I missed it too...brb gunna try and search for their reviews.


----------



## spectator

G3, can you elaborate on exactly what was going on in the battle scene (the Crazy 88's fight, I presume) that you felt gave it lower picture quality than the rest of Kill Bill V. 1?


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15817108
> 
> 
> G3, can you elaborate on exactly what was going on in the battle scene (the Crazy 88's fight, I presume) that you felt gave it lower picture quality than the rest of Kill Bill V. 1?




Sure, np. There was a lot of jiggling camera action, and then a large portion of the fight, once the rest of the 88's ran in, that was all in black and white. There was a ton of the ringing/blooming/halo/contrast issue(whatever term is appropriate really, I'm not a techie in that respect) around Uma's character throughout all of that, and while I think it was done on purpose by QT and looked really cool, I think it lowered the quality.


There was some slight softness in a lot of the japan-bar-fight scene and a little in the fight between uma/lucy outdoors as well. The facial closeups on Uma were still phenominal to me though, despite all of this stuff. OH, also that part where Lucy Liu and her posse are walking down the hall (I don't know what the song is called but it's that same riff that shows up in Transformers when BumbleBee morphs into the cool car from the crappy car) -- there's some issues with edges I noticed there too, this was with some green lighting. Looked cool but not in for the purpose of this thread.


Bear in mind, it pained me to look at it this way, because I love the movie and I personally have no issue with showing it off to friends. I think the Blu Ray definitely does this movie and hopefully, QT's vision for what this should look like, lots of justice.



The first half of the movie (hospital/uma in the truck/fight scene with Vivica) had a lot more detail to me than the second half.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Well the only ones I found were Phantom's where he said it was Tier 0 throughout except for the CGI. Then djoberg where he posted in the actual TIH thread and agreed with everyone there saying it's reference. And finally a post by Mel2 also recommending Tier 0.


Couldn't find anyone else's.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15817162
> 
> 
> Bear in mind, it pained me to look at it this way, because I love the movie and *I personally have no issue with showing it off to friends.* I think the Blu Ray definitely does this movie and hopefully, QT's vision for what this should look like, lots of justice.



Even if this title gets moved down to Tier 1, it's still demo material. Let's never forget that there is often a fine line between the two tiers and both of them are considered as _demo-worthy_!


BTW, I plan to skim through KB1 & 2 tonight (I owe it to rsbeck to do so







), and it will pain me as well if I have to agree to place it in Tier 1. I absolutely love the movies and up to this point in time I have always considered it Tier 0 quality. But I've changed my mind on other Tier 0 titles so I'm prepared (reluctantly) to have my mind change again.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15817199
> 
> 
> Well the only ones I found were Phantom's where he said it was Tier 0 throughout except for the CGI. Then djoberg where he posted in the actual TIH thread and agreed with everyone there saying it's reference. And finally a post by Mel2 also recommending Tier 0.
> 
> 
> Couldn't find anyone else's.




They don't call me the official hotlinker for the thread for nuthin':



Incredible Hulk...Higher tier 0 (LBFilmguy)...1.0 (rsbeck, Stumlad , deltasun )...1.25 ( Phantom Stranger , selimsivad , RBFC , Patrick99 , Hughmc , Djoberg , Rob Tomlin )


Let's hope that all works. I didn't find rsbeck's b/c if i did a search on hulk/rsbeck, i'd get 50,000 replies b/c of all the work he did on this, but I doubt he would have posted his own thought wrong.











edited to add - oh and i didn't bother to find your own, i figure you know that one well enough.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15817293
> 
> 
> Even if this title gets moved down to Tier 1, it's still demo material. Let's never forget that there is often a fine line between the two tiers and both of them are considered as _demo-worthy_!
> 
> 
> BTW, I plan to skim through KB1 & 2 tonight (I owe it to rsbeck to do so
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ), and it will pain me as well if I have to agree to place it in Tier 1. I absolutely love the movies and up to this point in time I have always considered it Tier 0 quality. But I've changed my mind on other Tier 0 titles so I'm prepared (reluctantly) to have my mind change again.



Oh, i know. I think it came out almost perfectly on Blu personally. I'm going to watch KB2 likely this weekend or early next week sometime, the husband hasn't seen it yet on Blu. I did, but it was on the old tv.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15817199
> 
> 
> Well the only ones I found were Phantom's where he said it was Tier 0 throughout except for the CGI. Then djoberg where he posted in the actual TIH thread and agreed with everyone there saying it's reference. And finally a post by Mel2 also recommending Tier 0.
> 
> 
> Couldn't find anyone else's.



Here is my original review:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1#post14988591 


So, even though I referred to it as "reference" in the actual TIH thread, I was NOT implying that it was Tier 0 quality. As I just stated in my last post (to G3), Tier 1 is still demo-worthy (i.e., reference quality).


----------



## AshleyAshna




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15816645
> 
> 
> Yes, it means that the participants in this thread have come to the conclusion that Kung Fu Panda is the absolutely best looking Blu-ray yet.
> 
> 
> Each tier is broken down further into quarters or halves. So all titles in tier 2.5 will not look as good as the titles in tier 2.25 for example. It is a way to classify titles in an orderly manner.



Hey thanks for the response! The certainly helps!


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15817312
> 
> 
> They don't call me the official hotlinker for the thread for nuthin':
> 
> 
> 
> Incredible Hulk...Higher tier 0 (LBFilmguy)...1.0 (rsbeck, Stumlad , deltasun )...1.25 ( Phantom Stranger , selimsivad , RBFC , Patrick99 , Hughmc , Djoberg , Rob Tomlin )
> 
> 
> Let's hope that all works. I didn't find rsbeck's b/c if i did a search on hulk/rsbeck, i'd get 50,000 replies b/c of all the work he did on this, but I doubt he would have posted his own thought wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edited to add - oh and i didn't bother to find your own, i figure you know that one well enough.



Very nice detective work...unfortunately none are really reviews.










Just a lot of agreeing, not much discussion.


Hugh did say most of the film was soft which I strongly disagree with.


----------



## rsbeck

If you click on Phantom Stranger's review and then scroll down the page, you'll find my comments on The Incredible Hulk.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15817542
> 
> 
> Very nice detective work.



np, LBFilmGuy! Hope it helped clear that all up for you.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15817562
> 
> 
> np, LBFilmGuy! Hope it helped clear that all up for you.



Ninja edit.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15817542
> 
> 
> Very nice detective work...unfortunately none are really reviews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just a lot of agreeing, not much discussion.
> 
> 
> Hugh did say most of the film was soft which I strongly disagree with.



This is why I was a little leery of doing the updates w/o some re-reviews, but I do understand what went on. I'm just gonna keep on truckin' same way I did before. There's a ton of older Blu's I haven't seen or reviewed yet (like Curse of the Golden Flower & Kill Bill 1 that I recently reviewed) so I'll keep doing that.


I never reviewed TIH, I rented it for my daughter when she had some time off of school. I don't know if I'll see the Blu again, but if I do I'll make sure to write a review of it.


----------



## Hammie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15811346
> 
> *Kill Bill: Volume 2*
> 
> 
> After watching Domino and recommending tier 0, I wanted to follow up by watching another title currently ranked 0 to see how it would stack up. To cut to the chase, this confirmed to me that Domino deserves the tier 0 ranking and Kill Bill 2, like Volume 1, needs to move down. Grain on film based material appeared intact, thin ringing noted only a few times on high contrast edges. Volume 2 is a different animal than Volume 1. Where Volume 1 was really uneven, spanning the gamut from sequences at high tier 0 balanced with stretches dipping into mid tier two and even three, Volume 2 clips along mostly at mid tier one, but also spends stretches at high tier 2 and only occasionally rises to tier 0 for a shot here and there. Facial detail is mostly mediocre, not what we've come to expect of higher tier titles and nowhere near the detail seen in Volume 1, although once in awhile we do get brief glimpses. Volume 1 had issues like persistent ringing, halos, and a picture that lost solidity with movement, Volume 2 is mostly sharp, but does not have tier 0 dimension and palpability. I feel like Volume 1 averaged out to 1.5. Volume 2 looks on my screen like a pretty consistent tier 1.5 to 1.75 title. I'm right on the edge on this one. I'll give 2 the benefit of the doubt because it has fewer issues and because of a few segments that push its grade up; specifically, the buried alive sequence. Honestly, I didn't see a lot about which to be impressed here. Clothing texture, like facial texture, only decent, nothing special. Some fine object detail -- about what you'd expect of any low tier 1 title. I feel like I am being very fair with....
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 1.5*
> 
> 
> Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From Screen



Well, I just finished skimming Transformers and Kill Bill Vol. 2 and must concede that RSbeck has these films pretty spot on. I would even go to say KB2 is more in the 1.75 tier. I thought the B&W scenes really brought this film down. I also thought the stylized portions brought it down, especially the scenes when Uma went to get taught by Pai Mei. They seemed very soft.


----------



## Hughmc

I own The Incredible Hulk and both Kill Bill's. I think the Kill Bill's look better than TIH and I think by a noticeable margin, not night and day, but noticeable. I believe I voted tier 1? and to keep the KB's where they are.


I understand the reassessing and agree to a point, but IMO tier 1.0, if all the recent re-reviews were moved there from tier 0, will be my new tier 0 and I am just shifting everything down or up. WTF did I just say?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hammie* /forum/post/15817790
> 
> 
> Well, I just finished skimming Transformers and Kill Bill Vol. 2 and must concede that RSbeck has these films pretty spot on. I would even go to say KB2 is more in the 1.75 tier. I thought the B&W scenes really brought this film down. I also thought the stylized portions brought it down, especially the scenes when Uma went to get taught by Pai Mei. They seemed very soft.



Okay, I did a bit of skimming as well of Kill Bill 2. I don't agree with you about the B&W scenes, for detail was still fairly good, especially facial close-ups. The worst scenes that I skimmed were those of Uma Thurman with Bill around the campfire and her being trained in martial arts. When I reviewed this last year I penalized the movie for those two scenes.


But I will admit that having watched quite a few titles since my last viewing of Kill Bill 2, I now am prepared to lower my recommendation, but NOT to the point that you are (Tier 1.75). I would think Tier 1.25 would be fair, and then Kill Bill 1 could go in Tier 1.5.


Like I said to G3, I love these two movies and their PQ so I hate to see them lowered, but it's amazing what a difference several months and a couple of dozen better titles (titles like Baraka, Prince Caspian, The Dark Knight, et al.) can make.


----------



## rsbeck

I really appreciate that you guys -- and gal -- are willing to reassess these titles!


----------



## spectator

G3, it's interesting that you describe the look of those scenes as "really cool" and yet still say that QT's efforts to achieve that look "lower the quality". It seems to me that the more a scene is "really cool", the more I'm going to want to demo it and, thus it would be, in the frame of this thread, inherently high quality.


Anyway, thanks for the follow-up!


----------



## Hughmc

After having re-read the last few pages I now believe I am looking at these BD titles for review differently than others. I used to think I was close to or on par with most, but I now I know I am not. As far as Kill Bill 1 and 2 I bought those within the last month, have watched them several times and still believe they are tier 0. I just bought IRobot this last week and while I do believe it is an impressive looking tier 0 title, I don't see it as far as demo to be any better than Crank, Kill Bill 1/2, Apocalypto, Pirates: Curse of..., Live Free or Die Hard. I think I actually have become more stringent on reviews over the last 6 months, but I still see my recommendations as a whole tier off compared to others. I respect others reviews and points of view, but again I believe we are looking at things differently. For me, Tier 1.0 is becoming my new tier 0 and tier 0 is becoming reference. It is what it is and I will keep plugging along recommending as I have. If it continues to be that I am consistently off from the the majority, I will most likely just state my tier recommendation and not get into debates as much for the above mentioned reasons. I hope others can respect my stance


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15818255
> 
> 
> I really appreciate that you guys -- and gal -- are willing to reassess these titles!



Wait, we have to watch beautifully shot and transferred movies in high definition in the comfort of our homes?! You'd better start payin' us, pal!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15814262
> 
> 
> I haven't seen Transformers or The Incredible Hulk, so bear my ignorance in mind, but it _sounds_ to me like between these and the Kill Bills, we're into the 'aesthetic priorities' territory. In other words, these titles probably all look quite excellent (the Kill Bills certainly do, IMO!) and all have a similar amount of identified "issues"... but the nature of those issues differs by title and to one person, 'a little ringing' is a more egregious problem than 'a little black crush', while to another, the opposite is true.
> 
> 
> Sorry if I'm just stating the obvious here.



Good post spectator!


Having just revisited Kill Bill 2 I can honestly say I had no problem with issues such as "ringing" and I didn't notice any other anomalies that may have been caused by making the film to digital transfer. Nor did I penalize it for the opening B&W scene which Hammie noted, for though it had a coat of grain it did not hinder detail, IMO. My main criticism had to do with the two scenes I mentioned, with the nighttime campfire scene being very soft and the martial arts scene being too gritty. Both of these were the intent of the director which is NOT factored in when assessing PQ, so they have to be penalized. Other scenes that I had remembered as being very detailed were a bit disappointing, and so I was forced to lower my estimate and give in to those who are suggesting a drop to Tier 1.


I will have to revisit Transformers and The Incredible Hulk someday too, but even my first viewing of these two left me thinking that they were NOT worthy of a Tier 0 status. That's not to say they are not demo material, for according to the Tier 1 description they are still "demo-worthy."


The conclusion I'm drawing from many posts over the last 24 hours is what I said to G3, "There is sometimes a fine line between Tier 0 and Tier 1," and thus we should not get so worked up over the possibility of moving titles down from Tier 0 to Tier 1. Having said that, if someone were to suggest moving Baraka, I, Robot, or Man of Fire down a whole tier I would put up a fight!!


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15818289
> 
> 
> For me, Tier 1.0 is becoming my new tier 0 and tier 0 is becoming reference.



I thought Tier 0 already is reference.










Anyway, you're not alone. I would put the Kill Bills firmly in Tier 0, too. I wouldn't worry too much about being one Tier off from the average. As long as you're paying attention to the Tier descriptions and giving your honest best PQ assessments, you're doing the job right. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone (or even everyone) else, as long as we're all thinking carefully about our rankings and being honest with ourselves and each other about them.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15818289
> 
> 
> I think I actually have become more stringent on reviews over the last 6 months, but I still see my recommendations as a whole tier off compared to others. I respect others reviews and points of view, but again I believe we are looking at things differently. For me, Tier 1.0 is becoming my new tier 0 and tier 0 is becoming reference.



At the risk of boring my fellow-members with my redundancy, let me say it again, "*There is a sometimes a fine line between Tier 0 and Tier 1.*" I say this Hugh because even though we may be "a whole tier off" at times, we really aren't off by that much. I only become REALLY concerned when I see members judging a very good-looking title and recommending a placement 2 tiers or more lower than my suggested placement.


To illustrate, remember the days of The Dark Knight and the battle we had to reach a consensus. I was quite appalled to see one or two members actually recommending tier 2 or 3 for this. If we were constantly differing by that much there would be cause for concern.


I guess I'm trying to console you Hugh, for I highly respect your opinions and we have actually seen eye-to-eye on MANY titles. And the ones where we have disagreed on have always been within one tier. Just keep remembering that "fine line" and realize that we are not really seeing things that much differently.


----------



## rsbeck

Djoberg -- Excellent point. Hugh, you've got to stick around for the debates -- and the snack recipes!


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Wasn't there a huge debate about Baraka and it's EE? If there's noticable EE how is it Tier 0?


----------



## Hughmc

The fine line for me between tiers is low tier 0 and tier 1.0, but low tier 0 to tier 1.75 is a huge difference to me. 1.0 to 1.75 is a big difference. Tier 2.75 and tier 3.75 are also a huge difference as 2.75 is good BD PQ, and 3.75 is close to tier 4 and upscaled DVD bordering on crappy PQ.


Thanks djoberg for the consoling, but as I said I am ok with others viewing and recommending differently, simply because I now know I am, based on the last few pages. I don't see anything wrong with the differences since it is opinions, but I wanted to state for the record I am. I might just garner the "generous rater" title yet.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15818510
> 
> 
> Wasn't there a huge debate about Baraka and it's EE? *If there's noticable EE* how is it Tier 0?



I'm glad you said "if" LB instead of "since," for there were many of us who had to have the EE pointed out to us and even then it wasn't "noticable" unless we paused our sets and put our noses up to the screen.







I, for one, did not notice the EE "in motion." Others did, but we must report "what we see," not "what we don't see," and thus the majority felt the EE was not enough of an issue to knock it down to Tier 1.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15818469
> 
> 
> Djoberg -- Excellent point. Hugh, you've got to stick around for the debates -- and the snack recipes!




rsbeck, you know, maybe you don't, but you know I am not going anywhere.










This is my fav thread on AVS and I really enjoy everyone who participates in it.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15818559
> 
> 
> I'm glad you said "if" LB instead of "since," for there were many of us who had to have the EE pointed out to us and even then it wasn't "noticable" unless we paused our sets and put our noses up to the screen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I, for one, did not notice the EE "in motion." Others did, but we must report "what we see," not "what we don't see," and thus the majority felt the EE was not enough of an issue to knock it down to Tier 1.



That's what I figured.


Kind of like how a lot felt the EE in TDK wasn't noticeable yet it resides in Tier 1.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15818540
> 
> 
> The fine line for me between tiers is low tier 0 and tier 1.0, but low tier 0 to tier 1.75 is a huge difference to me. 1.0 to 1.75 is a big difference. Tier 2.75 and tier 3.75 are also a huge difference as 2.75 is good BD PQ, and 3.75 is close to tier 4 and upscaled DVD bordering on crappy PQ.



I agree with you that there is more of a difference when you get to the lower tiers. My statement about the "fine line" had to do with tiers 1 and 2, for they are BOTH demo-worthy, and in my book any title in either of those two tiers deserve our praise.


----------



## Kram Sacul




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15818510
> 
> 
> Wasn't there a huge debate about Baraka and it's EE? If there's noticable EE how is it Tier 0?



Because Robert Harris said so.










This thread is entertaining. Keep up the good work.


----------



## moematthews




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15809424
> 
> 
> Not trying to be rude, just asking for you to back up your claims. Not an unreasonable request, I think.



And my comment was not directed at you. There was nothing wrong with your request. I am just shaking my head over being called a troll for posting my observations. I haven't gone out and compared the formats title by title. And I went for an entry-level player initially thinking that I would not miss the purchase price if the other format won, and that I would then pick up the winning format's player. And I have now done that. So I have willingly embraced both formats - that's why I don't get the accusations of starting the format war again. At least there are a few posters here who understand where I'm coming from.


But this is done. Time to move on.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15818289
> 
> 
> If it continues to be that I am consistently off from the the majority, I will most likely just state my tier recommendation and not get into debates as much for the above mentioned reasons



This thread is getting a bit weird for me too, I think. If you start moving everything down, that should mean a higher standard has consistently been set by more recent titles, and I haven't noticed that to be the case. Guess I don't watch enough movies to become jaded with HD yet, a lot of the newer recommendations seem way too critical for my tastes.

Though I suppose some people might say the same about my opinion on TDK, which I watched again recently, and the 70mm scenes are the only thing keeping it out of Tier 2 in my eyes...


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15818578
> 
> 
> That's what I figured.
> 
> 
> Kind of like how a lot felt the EE in TDK wasn't noticeable yet it resides in Tier 1.



There are other things going on in TDK than Baraka, which for me one was the changeover from Imax to 35mm that was noticeable and distracting a couple of times as it took me out of the moment. Also the ""EE" in Baraka was not substantiated as fact due to post processing, but I thought was related to high contrast and the film process and cameras used. Most when reviewing in this thread either did not see it, or felt it wasn't distracting enough to be considered a reason for lowering or dinging it.


With a few exceptions of some animated titles, all tier 1 titles have flaws to some extent no matter how minor, but were still considered reference. Now that we are acknowledging those flaws more those titles are getting moved down. Once they move out of tier 0 they are no longer reference for this thread's intent, but they still are demo worthy eye candy.


I think we are going to see some tier 1.0 and even tier 0 titles here being reviewed shortly with The Secret Life of Bees being one that could garner reference status.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15818578
> 
> 
> That's what I figured.
> 
> 
> Kind of like how a lot felt the EE in TDK wasn't noticeable yet it resides in Tier 1.



Look again -- it was moved down to 1.25.


----------



## rsbeck

IMO, there are good solid watchable titles all the way down to tier 4.5. Personally, I really enjoy watching a blu-ray like Bullitt, which is ranked 4.5. Also, tier 0 titles may be demos, but in my everyday film watching, I watch and enjoy a lot of titles ranked in silver tier. Sometimes you just want to watch a great film, you don't need to have your eyeballs massaged every time. I just recommended several titles to tier 3 that I enjoyed immensely and would gladly watch again. I think we get too hung up on thinking anything good has to go into the blu tier. I think we'd be better off taking the stigma off of the other tiers.


----------



## stumlad

*Gothika*


Like Saw V, the first and most obvious flaw with this movie was the black level. I also saw some compression artifacts (typically on fade-to-blacks) and very little grain. There were quite a few scenes that exhibited some great detail however. Some of the closeup's of Halle Barry's face were Tier 1 worthy (and Penelope Cruz as well). There were also quite a few other long distance shots where small object detail was better than average. Unfortunately the 3 main issues are enough to keep this title out of Tier 1 or 2. Overall:

*Tier Recommendation: 3.5*


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15818657
> 
> 
> This thread is getting a bit weird for me too, I think. If you start moving everything down, that should mean a higher standard has consistently been set by more recent titles, and I haven't noticed that to be the case. Guess I don't watch enough movies to become jaded with HD yet, a lot of the newer recommendations seem way too critical for my tastes.
> 
> Though I suppose some people might say the same about my opinion on TDK, which I watched again recently, and the 70mm scenes are the only thing keeping it out of Tier 2 in my eyes...



I don't feel the thread is getting weird, but it is changing and that is ok.


Another title that is at least close to tier 0 is The Fall. It was in tier 0 and got moved to tier 1.25. It is another title I own and I don't own many.









I still believe from my view it is tier 0 and on that one I have a little more resolve in that most pro reviewers see it as reference and a fantastic BD transfer, but that still doesn't mean for this threads purposes that it is reference.


While I do want to be closer to the majority in review recommendations, I cannot in clear conscience go against what I believe I am seeing as demo/reference.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15818763
> 
> 
> IMO, there are good solid watchable titles all the way down to tier 4.5. Personally, I really enjoy watching a blu-ray like Bullitt, which is ranked 4.5. Also, tier 0 titles may be demos, but in my everyday film watching, I watch and enjoy a lot of titles ranked in silver tier. Sometimes you just want to watch a great film, you don't need to have your eyeballs massaged every time. I just recommended several titles to tier 3 that I enjoyed immensely and would gladly watch again. I think we get too hung up on thinking anything good has to go into the blu tier. I think we'd be better off taking the stigma off of the other tiers.



You need to tell more more about this eyeball being massaged thing. I think I have been getting ripped off, since I haven't experience that yet. Are you sure your speakers aren't vibrating your eyeballs to dislodge them?

















It is funny. I was going to post how I really don't care to look at anything below tier 2.75, but by that I mean if I had my choice...then again who wouldn't. I do enjoy films in lower tiers like Master and Commander that I purchased this week knowing the PQ is mediocre. I bought it for the canons!! It is a great film. I could watch Schindler's List on VCR.







It sure would be nice to have that on BD even if it is mainly black and white. I bet that could be a reference BD regardless of being only black and white.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15818715
> 
> 
> There are other things going on in TDK than Baraka, which for me one was the changeover from Imax to 35mm that was noticeable and distracting a couple of times as it took me out of the moment. Also the ""EE" in Baraka was not substantiated as fact due to post processing, but I thought was related to high contrast and the film process and cameras used. Most when reviewing in this thread either did not see it, or felt it wasn't distracting enough to be considered a reason for lowering or dinging it.
> 
> 
> With a few exceptions of some animated titles, all tier 1 titles have flaws to some extent no matter how minor, but were still considered reference. Now that we are acknowledging those flaws more those titles are getting moved down. Once they move out of tier 0 they are no longer reference for this thread's intent, but they still are demo worthy eye candy.
> 
> 
> I think we are going to see some tier 1.0 and even tier 0 titles here being reviewed shortly with The Secret Life of Bees being one that could garner reference status.



The shifting AR should not be considered a PQ flaw by any stretch of the imagination.


Also, you say Baraka's EE wasn't substantiated because of its film process and cameras used. Funny, as the same was used for TDK master.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15818904
> 
> 
> I could watch Schindler's List on VCR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It sure would be nice to have that on BD even if it is mainly black and white. I bet that could be a reference BD regardless of being only black and white.



I haven't seen Schindler's List on DVD, so I don't know if, historically, it's been graded to unify its look on home video. However, if the eventual BD release matches what I saw in the theatre, I think it would have a tough time making the top Tiers because of scene-to-scene inconsistency. The film has several major "looks", with different sequences quite clearly shot on different stocks with corresponding different exposures. On the release prints, the greyscale dynamic could change pretty radically from shot to shot. This quality wouldn't be an issue for me, but a lot of folks around here seem to place a pretty high value on scene-to-scene consistency and heavily penalize its absence.


----------



## Gewow

Sorry for the noob question, but is there any difference between the blu-rays released in the states and those released in canada (video/audio quality)? Wouldn't they both have french audio anyways? How would you tell if there's a difference?


I wouldn't think so given that US/Canada are in the same region...


any info?


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15818290
> 
> 
> G3, it's interesting that you describe the look of those scenes as "really cool" and yet still say that QT's efforts to achieve that look "lower the quality". It seems to me that the more a scene is "really cool", the more I'm going to want to demo it and, thus it would be, in the frame of this thread, inherently high quality.
> 
> 
> Anyway, thanks for the follow-up!



Because it's with regards to the "artistic intent" which for the purposes of this thread are not always applicable. I think what Tarantino did looked really cool, but it was not a pristine picture quality, but I liked the style of it. "Really cool" doesn't equal "high quality" to me. Bearing in mind, I also love Mamma Mia and the water alone in that movie stands out to me as something to show off to anyone who comes over and watches Blu on my TV as well, and that movie's rated in tier 2 somewhere.










For what it's worth, my review of KB1 was my first review of it. I'm not changing an older viewpoint I had, that's the first time I've reviewed it for the purposes of this thread. I'm sorry if the thought of me thinking it's not Tier 0 bothers some people, but when I first came to this thread back in October, both KB1 and KB2 were not in tier 0 back then, and then they were raised up based on a couple of recommendations.


The thread has evolved and will continue to do so; I think that's a good thing.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gewow* /forum/post/15819414
> 
> 
> Sorry for the noob question, but is there any difference between the blu-rays released in the states and those released in canada (video/audio quality)? Wouldn't they both have french audio anyways? How would you tell if there's a difference?
> 
> 
> I wouldn't think so given that US/Canada are in the same region...
> 
> 
> any info?




If you mean the blu rays that are released at the same time in both Canada & USA, I'd venture to say they're the same with the exception being possibly a french track & french printing on the disc cover.


If you mean blu rays that are released only in Canada or USA first and not the other, especially when something's released in Canada first (like Sin City for example), the subsequent release in USA can easily end up being something different (I think the Sin City being released in USA this year will have the director's cut rather than the plain barebones edition that was released up here).


The folks in the International thread might have a bit more insight into this issue though, that's about all I know on it.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15819083
> 
> 
> The shifting AR should not be considered a PQ flaw by any stretch of the imagination.
> 
> 
> Also, you say Baraka's EE wasn't substantiated because of its film process and cameras used. Funny, as the same was used for TDK master.




I didn't see the EE in either unless I got two feet from my display. It makes me think blowing BD's up with a projector on a big screen where the EE is more apparent is the equivalent of being two feet from my display.










As far as the shifting aspect ratio in TDK, the look of each wasn't an issue, but the transition a couple of times was noticeable enough and distracting enough to take me out of the moment, so that is why I dinged it for that. It was minor, but noticeable.


----------



## av.pallino

Unbelievable that Becket is tier 4.5! Not only one of the biggest improvements over DVD but it looked excellent for a movie of its time and not only that, it felt and sounded exactly like what I would have expected had I gone to a theatre to see it.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15819817
> 
> 
> I didn't see the EE in either unless I got two feet from my display. It makes me think blowing BD's up with a projector on a big screen where the EE is more apparent is the equivalent of being two feet from my display.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as the shifting aspect ratio in TDK, the look of each wasn't an issue, but the transition a couple of times was noticeable enough and distracting enough to take me out of the moment, so that is why I dinged it for that. It was minor, but noticeable.



Do you think that EE that is apparent at a viewing distance of one screen width should not count as a PQ flaw? That is my viewing distance, and the EE in both was quite apparent to me. And I don't have a projector.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *av.pallino* /forum/post/15819844
> 
> 
> it looked excellent for a movie of its time



Which is fantastic, but not really relevant to what we're trying to do with the Tier system.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *av.pallino* /forum/post/15819844
> 
> 
> and not only that, it felt and sounded exactly like what I would have expected had I gone to a theatre to see it.



We're not going for "feel" or sound, either. These rankings are an attempt at an 'absolute' picture-quality scale, circumstances of the source material not considered. It's an unachievable pursuit, I think, but it is what it is and a film's age and sound quality don't really have anything to do with it.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15819911
> 
> 
> Do you think that EE that is apparent at a viewing distance of one screen width should not count as a PQ flaw? That is my viewing distance, and the EE in both was quite apparent to me. And I don't have a projector.



I can only speak for myself. I sit @ 7ft for my 60in display which is recommended. I have 20/15 vision and do not see the EE unless as I said I get two feet or less.


I also believe dependent on display to display and viewing distances, some displays will exacerbate the PQ issues more than others. Patrick, you have to make that decision for yourself. If you think it is a PQ flaw at that distance and since you have said it is and since this thread is opinion, then I think we already know the answer.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15819911
> 
> 
> Do you think that EE that is apparent at a viewing distance of one screen width should not count as a PQ flaw? That is my viewing distance, and the EE in both was quite apparent to me. And I don't have a projector.



To me, this is what matters. I think the main reason that more folks with projectors tend to identify these flaws is that, I believe, in practice, a larger proportion of the people with flat-panel displays sit substantially further from the picture, relative to image size.


I use a near-field monitoring set-up and have a much smaller image than many in this thread, but I'm constantly seeing the same stuff a lot of the projector folks notice. As much as I think I have both strong visual acuity and a good base of education about video from which to know what to look for, I'm seeing these issues because my set-up produces a very revealing image _when I'm at an appropriate distance from it, relative to image size_. With the viewing angle my set-up creates, the image is effectively similar in apparent size to that of a projector set-up because I'm watching from a similar _relative_ viewing distance.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15819966
> 
> 
> I sit @ 7ft for my 60in display which is recommended.



Recommended by whom? That's an NTSC spec-appropriate viewing distance, but the ATSC spec was designed with significantly closer viewing in mind. For your screen size, I would recommend something closer to 4 feet for critical viewing.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15820004
> 
> 
> Recommended by whom? That's an NTSC spec-appropriate viewing distance, but the ATSC spec was designed with significantly closer viewing in mind. For your screen size, I would recommend something closer to 4 feet for critical viewing.



I totally disagree with sitting that close for my display or most displays for several reasons, one of which is audio and my room size and setup, but not so much because of the BD's themselves to date (live action) which we all can acknowledge have PQ anomalies. First reason is current technologies in ALL our displays have limitations and inherent defects due to the displays themselves. I think at distances I sit and closer many are going to see problems with the BD transfers themselves and our displays. I also believe we all take for granted that new tv and display tech is accurate for HD viewing, but how do we really know the displays are always displaying accurately what they should be. I am not talking about color. I am talking about motion, pixel, refresh rates, etc.



The viewing distances that most sit in this thread in particular vary enough that we really aren't giving objective reviews, because we don't have a set required standard for distance or most other important factors. Our displays differ. Our lighting differs. Our distance differs. Our players differ. Our cables differ. Our rooms differ... and that is just the picture. Sound is another impact on viewing and even though we don't rate it, it has an impact as does story, acting and on and on....I am stating the obvious which is the way we view things from one to another is totally subjective regardless of a majority agreeing in PQ placement for a title. Others and myself have said many times we are seeing the same thing for a particular title, but are we really seeing exactly the same thing? In general yes, but specifically based on variables absolutely not. And how do I know? Your point about where you sit compared to me alone is one reason, then add in all the rest above I mentioned.


As far as sitting 4 ft away..My room is 18Lx 13W. I have a 7.1 setup. Where my display is and speakers, which are in as correct a position I can get based on room size, if I moved the display closer to my seating or my seating closer to the display sound would be difficult at best to rearrange to work properly. IMO the only logical and working option would be a larger display to give the viewing distance you recommend, which in the future will be a projector.


I am cluttering up this thread with too many posts that aren't reviews and should be discussed in another thread or PM's. Let's take it there if you want to continue discussing this as I am always open and willing to learn more and see wnhat my options are.


----------



## HT.1

*Madagascar 2 Escaper to Africa*


Madagascar is yet another flawless animation title that is worthy of being in tier 0.

Colors are vibrant, image is crisp, there is excellent detail in the backdrops.

I am not sure Madagascar is top tier0 material, but I would have no issues placing it about at the bottom of tier0.

*Recommended placement: Bottom of Tier0.*

Panasonic AE3000 10ft from a 126" screen.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15820004
> 
> 
> Recommended by whom? That's an NTSC spec-appropriate viewing distance, but the ATSC spec was designed with significantly closer viewing in mind. For your screen size, I would recommend something closer to 4 feet for critical viewing.



That would be one screen width (or less) for Hugh, and I don't believe that is what is recommended. Generally I have heard that you should sit back approximately 1.5 times your screen width. Now you and patrick may prefer that distance, but I highly doubt that the average member sits that close.


Like Hugh, I have a 7.1 speaker setup and my room dimensions are 12 x 20. If I were to sit as close as you are recommending I would be sitting about 3 feet from my 50" set. I truly believe this would result in a _less-than-satisfactory listening experience_. Add to that the fact that sitting that close would require moving my head from side to side during the whole movie in order to take in the whole scope of the picture. I sit back 7' right now and sometimes I sit in one of my wing chairs at 5 1/2 feet, and that is close enough for me!


----------



## HT.1

*Wall-E*


Well, I watched Wall-E for a second time.

I don't know what to think.

I have followed along with the controversial debate in this thread surrounding Wall-E.

I believe I have a pretty good idea where everyone is coming from, but I am a bit torn.

My first viewing of Wall-E a few weeks ago, I was in awe of just how detailed Wall-E was most of the time. But the second time I watched it, I paid more attention to the entire image.

When Wall-E is on the space ship the colors are rich and full of detail. The corridors of the ship have exquisite detail. There is an impressive 3D pop to the image. One thing I noticed in my second viewing was that not only was the foreground aboard the Axiom loaded with crisp detail, but there was excellent background detail on loosely framed shots as well. All of the robots on the ship have incredible detail in my opinion.

But I do agree that the detail on humans skin is absent as many have noted.


Now on to the earth scenes.

When I look at the tight detail of Wall-E, I just can not help but smile. I suppose some might look at Wall-E's dull, weathered steel as a negative. I find it as a positive.

But my complaint is there are some scenes when the camera pans away from Wall-E and gives us a long shot and the intended haze blurs the image. Also, if you look at the background in the images when Wall-E is in the harsh elements of Earth, many times the distant detail is just not there like it is on the space ship. Compared to the detail of the Axiom, many times I felt the picture is almost 2-D.

You will probably never see me write such a long review again, but given the past history of this movie, I felt I better make sure I give a good reason for what I am seeing.

So, for me, I see arguments from both sides.

Like some have said, I can not get past the bland detail of the humans. With such a flaw, I don't know how I can place Wall-E at the top of tier0.

When I look at the first portion of Wall-E on Earth, I have to say again that I can not give it the highest grade due to the intentional blurring of the background detail.

When putting both parts of the movie together, the best I could place Wall-E is somewhere in the last 4 or 5 spots in tier 0.

I must admit, I actually thought about giving Wall-E a top tier 1 ranking. But I can not in my right mind give Wall-E a tier1 ranking either because there are just to many positives with Wall-E.
*So my recommendation: bottom of tier0.*



10 feet from a 126 inch screen - Panasonic 3000


----------



## djoberg

^


Excellent review HT.1! And I agree with your recommendation!


----------



## OldCodger73

This is a very nice transfer, with pleasing colors, very good details and clarity. I also didn't notice any digital flaws and processing. Facial detail was again very sharp, beginning to show fine features but not quite at Tier 0 or Tier 1 level. Stone also makes use of some stock TV footage and pseudo TV scenes, both of which shows the noise one would expect from that source. This is necessary for the movie, but since this is an eye-candy thread it's also a negative. Over all I'd rank *W. Tier 2.25*.


Panasonic 50" 720p plasma, Panasonic 10a player, 7 1/2'.


I wasn't really looking forward to this movie but it was available now while everything else I wanted to watch was listed as "long wait" or "very long wait" in my Netflix queue and it had good reviews, especially for the acting. I actually enjoyed the movie and thought that Josh Brolin, last seen in _No Country for Old Men_, absolutely nailed the Bush part and that Richard Dreyfus was chilling as the VP, especially in the earlier scenes where he hovered in the shadowy background at meetings. I also thought Stone did a fairly evenhanded presentation, although his true feels came through in the ending scene and his choice of the devasting Bob Dylan song during the final credits.


----------



## moematthews

I just picked up "Raging Bull" on BD. Which will produce the most accurate picture - the "Black & White" colour temperature setting on my plasma, or my regular calibrated settings? Sounds like a silly question, but I'm not sure if "Black and White" colour temperature is specifically for watching black and white movies.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15819992
> 
> 
> To me, this is what matters. I think the main reason that more folks with projectors tend to identify these flaws is that, I believe, in practice, a larger proportion of the people with flat-panel displays sit substantially further from the picture, relative to image size.
> 
> 
> I use a near-field monitoring set-up and have a much smaller image than many in this thread, but I'm constantly seeing the same stuff a lot of the projector folks notice. As much as I think I have both strong visual acuity and a good base of education about video from which to know what to look for, I'm seeing these issues because my set-up produces a very revealing image _when I'm at an appropriate distance from it, relative to image size_. With the viewing angle my set-up creates, the image is effectively similar in apparent size to that of a projector set-up because I'm watching from a similar _relative_ viewing distance.



Exactly. This is why it was requested that people list their viewing distance when posting a review/recommendation.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moematthews* /forum/post/15820887
> 
> 
> I just picked up "Raging Bull" on BD. Which will produce the most accurate picture - the "Black & White" colour temperature setting on my plasma, or my regular calibrated settings? Sounds like a silly question, but I'm not sure if "Black and White" colour temperature is specifically for watching black and white movies.



Actually that is not a silly question at all. It's really hard to know without knowing more about your display, and what the "Black and White" color temp setting actually does.


I would try playing the movie and switching between the two settings to see which looks more natural to you.


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15818904
> 
> 
> You need to tell more more about this eyeball being massaged thing. I think I have been getting ripped off, since I haven't experience that yet. Are you sure your speakers aren't vibrating your eyeballs to dislodge them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is funny. I was going to post how I really don't care to look at anything below tier 2.75, but by that I mean if I had my choice...then again who wouldn't. I do enjoy films in lower tiers like Master and Commander that I purchased this week knowing the PQ is mediocre. I bought it for the canons!! It is a great film. I could watch Schindler's List on VCR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It sure would be nice to have that on BD even if it is mainly black and white. I bet that could be a reference BD regardless of being only black and white.



I guess it all depends on whether you're a movie person or an eye-candy one. Personally, I'm comfortable watching anything down through Tier 3 if it's a quality movie or, for that matter, a guilty pleasure. I'd even go down to Tier 4 for a very special movie. Heck, that's what Netflix is for. But then again, I still watch some of my favorite movies that for one reason or another I only have on LD.


The bottom line is a great movie is still a great movie no matter what media it's on, but better image and sound quality sure does improve the viewing enjoyment.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15820491
> 
> 
> That would be one screen width (or less) for Hugh, *and I don't believe that is what is recommended. Generally I have heard that you should sit back approximately 1.5 times your screen width.* Now you and patrick may prefer that distance, but I highly doubt that the average member sits that close.
> 
> 
> Like Hugh, I have a 7.1 speaker setup and my room dimensions are 12 x 20. If I were to sit as close as you are recommending I would be sitting about 3 feet from my 50" set. I truly believe this would result in a _less-than-satisfactory listening experience_. Add to that the fact that sitting that close would require moving my head from side to side during the whole movie in order to take in the whole scope of the picture. I sit back 7' right now and sometimes I sit in one of my wing chairs at 5 1/2 feet, and that is close enough for me!



My viewing distance of one screen width is not based on anybody's "recommendation" but based on my own viewing experience. When I first started watching high def discs in September of 2006, I sat further away than I currently do. Gradually I reduced the viewing distance in order to better be able to see the detail that was there to see. That is how I arrived at my current viewing distance. I have tried a little closer, and that does introduce the head-turning problem. In my experience, one screen width does not have that problem.


----------



## Elbie

All I have to say is WOW at the current placement of Wall-E. That is a shame indeed!


----------



## rsbeck

*Little Miss Sunshine*


Fine grain apparent throughout, thin ringing noted on a few high contrast edges. Sunshine is a low budget dialogue and character driven comedy where visuals are not necessarily the point. However, care was obviously taken with the visuals because everything here is proficiently lit, shot, transfered and satisfyingly sharp. Can't imagine how Sunshine can look any better on blu-ray and fans of the film should be very pleased.

*Recommendation: tier 2.25*


Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From Screen


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Elbie* /forum/post/15821121
> 
> 
> All I have to say is WOW at the current placement of Wall-E. That is a shame indeed!



Get 5+ people to review and recommend a tier placement and it will most likely be moved.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/15820923
> 
> 
> The bottom line is a great movie is still a great movie no matter what media it's on, but better image and sound quality sure does improve the viewing enjoyment.



Right on. Plus, there are titles all the way down to 4.5 that are still significant upgrades over their DVD counterparts. I am first and foremost a movie lover and collector. I'm most interested in having the best version of each movie available. I still have a sizable DVD collection and still watch many of my favorite films on DVD upscaled to 1080. If the blu-ray version is an improvement and if they don't muck it up with DNR and EE, I am very happy.


In the lower tiers, there are a lot of very pleasing, very watchable, very film like titles that look exactly as they are supposed to look.


They just are not demo discs.


Or, I should say they are discs to demo the best that the particular movie can look, but they are not discs to demo the ultimate in what's possible to achieve with blu-ray.


I don't have to put on a demo every time I watch a movie.


----------



## rsbeck

On the other hand, when I do want to put on a reference demo, I darn sure want it to be reference level demo.


----------



## nick2010




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gewow* /forum/post/15819414
> 
> 
> Sorry for the noob question, but is there any difference between the blu-rays released in the states and those released in canada (video/audio quality)? Wouldn't they both have french audio anyways? How would you tell if there's a difference?
> 
> 
> I wouldn't think so given that US/Canada are in the same region...
> 
> 
> any info?



Unless it is a release that is exclusive to Canada it is almost always the same disc but with different packaging.


----------



## Gewow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nick2010* /forum/post/15822759
> 
> 
> Unless it is a release that is exclusive to Canada it is almost always the same disc but with different packaging.



Alright thanks...this is what I'm thinking, and am glad 2 people agree!


Have a good one


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HT.1* /forum/post/15820530
> 
> *Wall-E*
> 
> 
> 
> Also, if you look at the background in the images when Wall-E is in the harsh elements of Earth, many times the distant detail is just not there like it is on the space ship. Compared to the detail of the Axiom, many times I felt the picture is almost 2-D.
> 
> You will probably never see me write such a long review again, but given the past history of this movie, I felt I better make sure I give a good reason for what I am seeing.
> 
> 
> When I look at the first portion of Wall-E on Earth, I have to say again that I can not give it the highest grade due to the intentional blurring of the background detail.



Oh my, here we go again. No offense HT but it gets me a bit heated when this argument is used against Wall E. What you are referring to is the use of depth of field, and is something we see in 100% of live action films, that's right, 100%.


How can you dock Wall E for this? Because the background is out of focus? Do we dock live action films when the background is out of focus on a closeup or a 2 shot of people? NO. It's ludicrous. The point of using depth of field is to FOCUS the viewers attention to one area in the frame, most often like I said, the actors faces/eyes.


Like I have said over and over, this is where Wall E truly shines and takes animation to a whole new level. Never before has depth of field been used to so accurately and made look so realistic.


There is a reason why Roger Deakins was a visual consultant on the film. He is a top Director of Photography in the film business and those scenes on earth look as though they were shot with film cameras and lenses.


No way in hell Wall E should be docked for using this technique.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15822880
> 
> 
> based on what I'm seeing so far, I can't see recommending any lower than 2.0.



Wow! I'm surprised you're anticipating a higher placement than mine.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15822880
> 
> 
> This looks better to me than Casablanca.



I would certainly say its more consistent. Casablanca has greater dynamic range, though.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15823031
> 
> 
> No way in hell Wall E should be docked for using this technique.



Tut, tut, LB- director's intent!


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15823093
> 
> 
> Tut, tut, LB- director's intent!



Not really, but I'll humor you.


Director's intent to make it look film like and photo realistic? Absolutely.


Director's intenet to add noise/grain/outrageous colors/cuts/flashes to give a certain feel that he wants but detracts from the PQ? Not quite.


----------



## spectator

The point, LB, is that we aren't supposed to consider the hows and whys of the way the image looks, only the final image, itself. Your post was all rationale for the image quality. Rationale doesn't matter.


----------



## spectator

Per Raging Bull:


Look at his right arm in this screen for an example of the ringing I described.

http://www.hundland.org/hd/r/ragingbull1.jpg


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15823149
> 
> 
> The point, LB, is that we aren't supposed to consider the hows and whys of the way the image looks, only the final image, itself. Your post was all rationale for the image quality. Rationale doesn't matter.



What? How about addressing my question of why we don't dock live action films for the same use of depth of field?










It's not rationale.


----------



## Hammie

I don't count bokeh (shallow depth of field) as a negative in any movie. Also, this is not always a director's intent. Sometimes it is just a limitation of a camera, lighting, and focus. You cannot hold this against a movie.


In photography, I have been able to get bokeh using an f/16-f/22 aperture.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15823158
> 
> 
> Per Raging Bull:
> 
> 
> Look at his right arm in this screen for an example of the ringing I described.
> 
> http://www.hundland.org/hd/r/ragingbull1.jpg



Yep, under his sleeve.


Overall, though, that capture doesn't look too bad.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15824178
> 
> 
> Yep, under his sleeve.



Top side, too.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15824178
> 
> 
> Overall, though, that capture doesn't look too bad.



Agreed.


----------



## TayC




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15822880
> 
> 
> Raging Bull --
> 
> 
> Only had time to watch 30 minutes, but wanted to report initial findings. Looks great, Grain intact and reproduced beautifully, no sign of ringing or halo so far, quality of light, shadow, grayscale is exquisite. Not the sharpest or most detailed picture, but plenty sharp and there is some nice detail in every scene; single strands of hair, texture on walls, etc. Shadow delineation is lush, picture is nicely saturated....based on what I'm seeing so far, I can't see recommending any lower than 2.0. This looks better to me than Casablanca. If you're looking for a demo disc, this may not be for you, but if you're a fan of the pic and on the fence -- you will not be disappointed. Looks exactly like it did in the theater.



I completely agree... I watched the whole thing it was fantastic


----------



## Gewow

Sorry, but been going through the list and noticed Bikini Destinations was in Tier 1. How is that possible if it's only in 1080i??


Was someone too...pre-occupied...to notice the image?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gewow* /forum/post/15825124
> 
> 
> Sorry, but been going through the list and noticed Bikini Destinations was in Tier 1. How is that possible if it's only in 1080i??
> 
> 
> Was someone too...pre-occupied...to notice the image?



Who cares if it was "only" 1080i?


All that matters is how it looks.


----------



## 1brokebrother




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gewow* /forum/post/15825124
> 
> 
> Sorry, but been going through the list and noticed Bikini Destinations was in Tier 1. How is that possible if it's only in 1080i??



Son...it's all about eye candy..


----------



## 42041

*Sweeney Todd*

A stylized, dark film that might not be everyone's idea of eye candy, but a very good looking blu-ray within the parameters of the film's visual style. The detail and sharpness pretty consistently hangs with the best of them, and the encoding keeps the grain looking tidy. The negatives: there are some black crush issues, some low-light scenes that come off a bit flat compared to the rest of the film, and Johnny Depp's face is often airbrushed, but I still found this to be a visually impressive disc. As a side note to the mods, the OP has incorrect AR for this disc, the frame's been opened up to 1.78:1.

*Tier 1.5*


(PS3/Pioneer 9g 50" Kuro Elite/1sw distance)


----------



## Gewow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15825407
> 
> 
> Who cares if it was "only" 1080i?
> 
> 
> All that matters is how it looks.



yes, true...but there's no way you can have as much clarity on the best 1080i as the best 1080p...so I still can't understand this rating. I think women need to rate it.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gewow* /forum/post/15825527
> 
> 
> yes, true...but there's no way you can have as much clarity on the best 1080i as the best 1080p...so I still can't understand this rating. *I think women need to rate it*.



No thanks!!


----------



## KaptN

For 24 FPS content, is there any difference between 1080i60 and 1080p24 ?

Once the signal is sent to the display device, the display device has to deinterlace the 1080i60 signal, but the entire frame information (even and odd fields) are theoretically present in the signal for each one of the 24 frames per second (since a telecine pulldown was processed at the end of the mastering). After the display device reassembles correctly the even and odd fields (this deinterlacing is not even about reconstructing frames, but just about putting one even field together with the odd field from the same frame), the display device is ready to display a signal identical to a 1080p60 signal sent from the source or a 1080p24 signal sent from the source and then pulldowned by the display device.


----------



## PooperScooper




> Quote:
> For 24 FPS content, is there any difference between 1080i60 and 1080p24 ?



From disc 1080p24 -> 1080i60 output; done correctly, no difference from a "video information" standpoint. i.e. you're not losing any video information/data that was in the source. 1080p24 makes things easier for progressive displays that can refresh at multiples of 24 Hz.


larry


----------



## Hammie

*Dirty Dancing*


This movie had a heavy grain through out. Although not necessarily distracting, I think it contributed to the loss of detail in many scenes. Facial detail on close-ups were defined but not crystal clear -- wrinkles could be made out but not pores. Detail was lost to non-existent in some scenes that were panned out. I also thought the shadow details was lost in some of the darker scenes.

*Recommended Tier: 4.0*

_Panasonic TH-50PZ850u

Panasonic BD35 Player

7.5 ft. viewing distance_


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gewow* /forum/post/15825527
> 
> 
> yes, true...but there's no way you can have as much clarity on the best 1080i as the best 1080p...so I still can't understand this rating. I think women need to rate it.



Absolutely positively not true.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Domino*


This was a tough one to rate in some ways.


First, it should be said right off the bat: there are plenty of scenes in this movie that look absolutely astonishing! Several scenes look as good as anything (yes, I do mean anything) I have seen yet on Blu-ray!


However, the movie is very stylized in many scenes. Those highly stylized scenes often have over-saturated colors, cranked up contrast with blown highlights, and increased grain. These highly stylized scenes do NOT constitue Tier 0 material in my opinion. In fact, every time they go back to the interview with Lucy Liu (which is throughout the movie) the clarity and detail is greatly reduced. All of this is completely intentional however.


When the movie isn't being overly stylized, like I said, it looks simply amazing. CLARITY is as good as I have seen on any title. Crisp, clean, clear and tons of minute details...without looking processed in any way. Contrast, black levels and depth of image is excellent. Colors are fantastic as well.


I came here thinking I might recommend this for Tier 1 because there were so many overly stylized shots that would keep it out of Tier 0, but I can't do that considering that a big percentage of the film is as good as ANY title (live action) that I have seen yet. The best scenes are probably even better than Caspian, and slightly better than the Pirate movies. It is certainly better than YWY because it doesn't have the sharpened HD Video look, but has all the detail and clarity of that title.


If Domino didn't have so many stylized scenes, I would nominate this for the best looking live action title that I have seen thus far.


Too bad the movie _still_ sucks.

*Tier Recommendation: Mid Tier 0*


JVC RS1 123" screen @ 13.5'


----------



## Gewow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15827408
> 
> 
> Absolutely positively not true.



yes i gathered that from the above posters...I didn't know about the 1080i60 and 1080p24...but to be honest, I still don't. Is it that 1080i can be output at 60 fps and 1080p at 24, and hence they both look approximately the same? Can you explain? (layman terms please!)


----------



## OldCodger73

*PQ:* Medium shots show good detail with a lot of clarity and depth. Detail loaded long shots look slightly soft, especially some of the stage scenes where the lighting is harsh. Facial close-ups lack fine detail but are still acceptable. There is some grain noticable in darker scenes but to me it wasn't intrusive and gives a very film look. Colors are gorgeous and gives the movie a very handsome look, in fact I think the word "handsome" best describes this movie. I would rate *Amadeus Tier 2.75*.

*AQ:* The Mozart music is lovely but from an audio standpoint I don't think it was as impressive as the music in _Immortal Beloved_. It's still very nice, though.

*The movie:* This is the director's cut and is 20 minutes longer than the theatre release, weighing in at 180 minutes. It comes in one of Warner Brothers book type case, a format some people don't like. Included is a booklet and a CD with selections from some of Mozart's works.


I have the flipper non-anamorphic DVD of Amadeus and the BD is a great improvement. For me it was definitely worth the purchase. On a side note, Best Buy's circular in the Sunday paper shows it on sale this week for $14.99.


Panasonic 50" 720p plasma, Panasonic 10a player 7.5'


----------



## KaptN




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gewow* /forum/post/15827578
> 
> 
> yes i gathered that from the above posters...I didn't know about the 1080i60 and 1080p24...but to be honest, I still don't. Is it that 1080i can be output at 60 fps and 1080p at 24, and hence they both look approximately the same? Can you explain? (layman terms please!)



Actually, when you have a 1080p24 signal on your disc and your player turns it into a 1080i60 (and this is the same with on-disc 1080i60 signals that have been correctly converted from 24 fps by the publisher), you have 60 fields per second in your signal (i.e. room for 30 progressive frames). Yet the film is 24 frames per second. So there is enough room for the 1080i60 signal to contain the 1080p24 signal entirely without losing ANY frame because the 1080i60 signal handles the 24 frames (24 even fields and 24 odd fields) from the source plus 12 other fields, also taken from the same 24 frames of the source and that are inserted in the signal every 2 frames. This is called 2:3 (or 2:2:3:3) pulldown telecine .

This way, you have a propper signal that the TV is ready to display (after having created a matching 1080p60 signal from the 1080i60, by completing each even and each odd field by its respective complement). By the way, many TVs able to receive 1080p24 often display it using pulldown if not displaying it in a frame rate multiple of 24.


1080i60 = 1080p30 > 1080p24 in terms of information carried along.


----------



## Gewow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *KaptN* /forum/post/15827805
> 
> 
> Actually, when you have a 1080p24 signal on your disc and your player turns it into a 1080i60 (and this is the same with on-disc 1080i60 signals that have been correctly converted from 24 fps by the publisher), you have 60 fields per second in your signal (i.e. room for 30 progressive frames). Yet the film is 24 frames per second. So there is enough room for the 1080i60 signal to contain the 1080p24 signal entirely without losing ANY frame because the 1080i60 signal handles the 24 frames (24 even fields and 24 odd fields) from the source plus 12 other fields, also taken from the same 24 frames of the source and that are inserted in the signal every 2 frames. This is called 2:3 (or 2:2:3:3) pulldown telecine .
> 
> This way, you have a propper signal that the TV is ready to display (after having created a matching 1080p60 signal from the 1080i60, by completing each even and each odd field by its respective complement). By the way, many TVs able to receive 1080p24 often display it using pulldown if not displaying it in a frame rate multiple of 24.
> 
> 
> 1080i60 = 1080p30 > 1080p24 in terms of information carried along.



Merci beacoup. Très apprécié et très bien expliqué.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15827524
> 
> *Domino*
> 
> 
> This was a tough one to rate in some ways.
> 
> 
> First, it should be said right off the bat: there are plenty of scenes in this movie that look absolutely astonishing! Several scenes look as good as anything (yes, I do mean anything) I have seen yet on Blu-ray!
> 
> 
> However, the movie is very stylized in many scenes. Those highly stylized scenes often have over-saturated colors, cranked up contrast with blown highlights, and increased grain. These highly stylized scenes do NOT constitue Tier 0 material in my opinion. In fact, every time they go back to the interview with Lucy Liu (which is throughout the movie) the clarity and detail is greatly reduced. All of this is completely intentional however.
> 
> 
> When the movie isn't being overly stylized, like I said, it looks simply amazing. CLARITY is as good as I have seen on any title. Crisp, clean, clear and tons of minute details...without looking processed in any way. Contrast, black levels and depth of image is excellent. Colors are fantastic as well.
> 
> 
> I came here thinking I might recommend this for Tier 1 because there were so many overly stylized shots that would keep it out of Tier 0, but I can't do that considering that a big percentage of the film is as good as ANY title (live action) that I have seen yet. The best scenes are probably even better than Caspian, and slightly better than the Pirate movies. It is certainly better than YWY because it doesn't have the sharpened HD Video look, but has all the detail and clarity of that title.
> 
> 
> If Domino didn't have so many stylized scenes, I would nominate this for the best looking live action title that I have seen thus far.
> 
> 
> Too bad the movie _still_ sucks.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Mid Tier 0*
> 
> 
> JVC RS1 123" screen @ 13.5'



Well, Rob, after that review, I guess I will have to watch this.


Am I correct in understanding that this is a *WARNER* release? And a single layer disc to boot?


----------



## deltasun

_And the Domino craze continues..._

*Domino*


Well, had to jump in as well. I concur with Tomlin on this one - the best scenes in this film definitely rival the best in blu-ray we have today. I feel like I'll simply be echoing the previous two reviewers and so will instead add to what they have eloquently described already.


I'm not much of a grain person (I don't glorify it in my sig, for example), but grain worked exceptionally well in this film. In fact, it almost deserved its own mention in the end credits. Facial detail was superb and I couldn't help but ogle at every detail presented, from Domino's fine facial hair to Lateesha's painted and textured nails.


While we have downgraded other movies due to director's intent and stylized editing, I don't think this particular title suffers because of it. Sure, some portions may dip below Tier 0, but only for fleeting moments and it's always back to demo material. I did notice that as the movie went on and the situation got worse, the stylized editing/cutting became more frequent and the 3D pop elements decreased. Artistic (red) ringing also started appearing towards the end, particulary in the dessert but did not hurt the quality, in m opinion.


I also wanted to comment on the Lucy Liu scenes. I don't think the quality in those scenes really hurt the film. They were short sequences and Lucy Liu exhibited fine detail, while Domino went in and out of focus.


Overally, the visual impact reminded me (suprise, surprise) of *Man on Fire*. I believe that film was more consistently better PQ-wise. I can, however, pinpoint specific scenes (w/ even the same actors) where _*Domino*_ was more detailed. At one point at the Stratosphere, I thought I saw macro blocking. Upon closer inspection, I was pleased to note that it was a speck of dust floating across Choco's face.










I agree with Tomlin on this one...

*Tier Recommendation: Mid Tier 0 (just below Man on Fire)*

_Note: I haven't seen Baraka to be able to compare. I can say, however, that this should be above The Host and Live Free and Die Hard_

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## rsbeck

*Raging Bull*


Grain intact and reproduced beautifully, thin ringing noted in a few scenes. Not the sharpest or most detailed picture, but very consistent, plenty sharp and generally there is some nice detail in every scene; single strands of hair, texture on walls, clothing, fabric, etc. Shadow delineation is lush, grayscale excellent, picture is nicely saturated. Bull presents imagery that is often painfully beautiful, but not in the conventional sense of pretty pictures, more along the lines of junkyard art where cheap, run down, scrubbed down, worn out, sweat and piss infested bronx apartments, community swimming pools, boxing rings, fighters and dressing rooms are captured in exquisite light and shadow. Having said that, there are some stunningly beautiful scenes here and there. Check out how the water erupts in a symphony of gray hues when Vicki splashes her legs in the swimming pool, how the light plays on DeNiro's sweat soaked hair. Scorcese is clearly aiming for an emotional experience here and if it weren't such a purple cliche', I'd say he scores a knock-out. Instead, I'll just say, although this may not be top tier demo material, Bull presents a consistent, natural looking, easy to watch picture that's a pleasure to watch and I would place it near the top of the non-demo tiers.

*Recommendation: Tier 2.25*


Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From Screen


.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15827919
> 
> 
> Well, Rob, after that review, I guess I will have to watch this.
> 
> 
> Am I correct in understanding that this is a *WARNER* release? And a single layer disc to boot?



Exactly right, Patrick, it's Warner (New Line). Note that the bitrates are not particularly high, but it still looks amazing overall.


Just remember going in that there are good stretches of this movie that are highly stylized and will not quite fit into the Tier 0 category. Do NOT jump to any conclusions when the movie first starts either.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/15829119
> 
> _And the Domino craze continues..._
> 
> *Domino*
> 
> 
> Well, had to jump in as well. I concur with Tomlin on this one - the best scenes in this film definitely rival the best in blu-ray we have today. I feel like I'll simply be echoing the previous two reviewers and so will instead add to what they have eloquently described already.
> 
> 
> I'm not much of a grain person (I don't glorify it in my sig, for example), but grain worked exceptionally well in this film. In fact, it almost deserved its own mention in the end credits. Facial detail was superb and I couldn't help but ogle at every detail presented, from Domino's fine facial hair to Lateesha's painted and textured nails.
> 
> *While we have downgraded other movies due to director's intent and stylized editing, I don't think this particular title suffers because of it. Sure, some portions may dip below Tier 0, but only for fleeting moments and it's always back to demo material.* I did notice that as the movie went on and the situation got worse, the stylized editing/cutting became more frequent and the 3D pop elements decreased. Artistic (red) ringing also started appearing towards the end, particulary in the dessert but did not hurt the quality, in m opinion.
> 
> 
> I also wanted to comment on the Lucy Liu scenes. I don't think the quality in those scenes really hurt the film. They were short sequences and Lucy Liu exhibited fine detail, while Domino went in and out of focus.
> 
> 
> Overally, the visual impact reminded me (suprise, surprise) of *Man on Fire*. I believe that film was more consistently better PQ-wise. I can, however, pinpoint specific scenes (w/ even the same actors) where _*Domino*_ was more detailed. At one point at the Stratosphere, I thought I saw macro blocking. Upon closer inspection, I was pleased to note that it was a speck of dust floating across Choco's face.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with Tomlin on this one...
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Mid Tier 0 (just below Man on Fire)*
> 
> _Note: I haven't seen Baraka to be able to compare. I can say, however, that this should be above The Host and Live Free and Die Hard_
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_



Thanks for the follow up review. The part that I highlighted above is exactly the same conclusion that I reached, and is why I still gave it an extremely high recommendation.


Stumlad and rsbeck were right on the money with this one.


If only the movie was better.










As I side note, this is probably Keira Knightley's worst movie. By contrast, last week I watched her best movie: *Atonement.* This was on DVD, but it is worth watching. Excellent movie making. I'd love to see it on Blu-ray.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *av.pallino* /forum/post/15819844
> 
> 
> Unbelievable that Becket is tier 4.5! Not only one of the biggest improvements over DVD but it looked excellent for a movie of its time and not only that, it felt and sounded exactly like what I would have expected had I gone to a theatre to see it.



Write a formatted review (see first page) and maybe you can get it placed higher.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Well **** looks like I have to add Domino to my Netflix queue.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Firefly: The Complete Series*

*recommendation: Tier 2.75
*

A popular cult show from Joss Whedon that originally aired in 2002, Fox released the Blu-ray version on November 11th, 2008. Presented here is the complete run of the television show on three BD-50's, clocking in at a total running time of 651-minutes. The video is encoded in AVC and is credited to Panasonic Blu-ray Disc Authoring and Compression.


The BDInfo scan reveals disc one has an average video bitrate of 20.24 Mbps while disc two averages 20.31 Mbps. Disc three's average video bitrate is slightly lower at 19.68 Mbps. The BD packaging actually underestimates these numbers, citing a bitrate of 19.35 Mbps. The average episode follows the same general pattern for the encode, from absolute lows hitting 10 Mbps to peaks reaching as high as 50 Mbps. Most action stays in a narrower range closer to the averages cited already, with frequent activity in the 30's and even 40's. I have to give credit here for the generally impressive compression encode over a wide range of material at these bitrate levels. Aside from a couple of spots where slight banding is visible, the image looks totally free of compression artifacting and errors. The fine grain structure does not devolve into a mess at any point and holds up even in low light photography.


I think some insight into the production process of this Blu-ray might help in understanding the picture quality. While the entire show was shot on 35mm film, the producers were not foresightful enough to render the special effects at anything more than standard definition. Mostly affecting establishing shots of certain scenes, including the many space ships seen throughout the series, any shot involving CGI is upconverted from standard definition on this Blu-ray. Many of these shots do not really stick out and integrate relatively well into the nice looking, truly 1080p material that makes up the vast majority of the series. I would say where the CGI sticks out the most are the scenes that involve both live action and CGI, which are fairly uncommon. Whenever a human aboard a spaceship looks out the window into space containing a CGI object, some minor pixelation and interlacing errors are visible as seen in the Bushwhacked episode. These composited scenes are the only time the picture quality truly drops to a significantly lower level.


The bulk of the picture quality looks good to great at times. While never quite reaching the level of being demo-worthy, the image has good resolution with facial characteristics plainly visible in close-ups and medium-range shots. Longer shots do tend to lose a bit of finer detail, which appears to be related to lighting and camera work. Cloth textures are resolved very nicely though. Most of the time the image is sharp, but a heavy softness does creep into the frame occasionally. Black levels are generally solid with some minor moments of slight clipping evident. Contrast does waver a bit as the setting changes from the interior of the spaceship to the brightly lit worlds the crew docks in but overall it is decent. Flesh tones are very accurate and regularly reveal the makeup the actors are wearing. The color palette changes from being slightly washed out in exterior scenes to a little darker for the interior scenes with lower light. In a few spots the reds look a tad oversaturated.


The master used for this transfer looks in pristine condition and is stunning considering the show was produced in 2002. I have seen newer movies that do not look this clean and unprocessed. The image exhibits a very naturalistic and fine layer of grain that looks untouched by any digital noise reduction. Most of the transfer also looks untouched by any edge enhancement. There are a couple of scenes that have edge halos, but they are the exception and not the rule for a set running over 600-minutes.


I will recommend a placement in the lowest quarter of tier two. While many moments looks a little better than that, the CGI rendered at standard definition precludes any higher placement in my opinion. This disc is a huge upgrade over the dvd set and well worth the purchase for fans of the show.


Watching on a 60 Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 (firmware 2.60) at an approximate viewing distance of six feet.


BDInfo Scan (courtesy of Patsfan123 and eric.exe):

Disc 1
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...6#post15406646 

Discs 2 & 3
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...3#post15409723


----------



## LBFilmGuy

*Kill Bill Vol. 1*


This is my first time ever seeing Kill Bill (crazy I know)








Entertaining stuff, not sure about some of Tarantino's decisions like usual, but it was well done nonetheless.


Overall, this is a spectacular looking transfer. Details in the facial closeups are among the best seen on BD, sweat glistens, pores, blood, hair, imperfections are all shown in all their glory. All other closeups of fingers, the doorbell, many shots of swords, all look as if you're there in real life.


The cinematography in this film is incredible, and the production design is top notch which makes virtually every scene visually interesting. Film grain intact throughout, very natural looking. Some scenes have over saturated colors, most notably the opening fight sequence with Vivica Fox, but nothing that detracts from the PQ.


No noise or haze throughout, black levels all hold very well. Whites were overblown and highlights were bright, but again nothing that detracted from the PQ for me.


The only thing that takes away from the PQ for me, and to my surprise no one else has mentioned (at least that I could find), was the animated sequences he decided to do for Lucy Lui's character. This is the only non Tier 0 stuff I could find.


Overall, I am fine with its current placement at the bottom of Tier 0.

*Recommendation: Stays where it is, bottom of Tier 0.*


----------



## kamspy

30 Days of Night need to go near the top of tier 1 at least.


Are there reported issues with this one that I just missed??


----------



## rover2002




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15831595
> 
> *Kill Bill Vol. 1*
> 
> 
> This is my first time ever seeing Kill Bill (crazy I know)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Entertaining stuff, not sure about some of Tarantino's decisions like usual, but it was well done nonetheless.
> 
> 
> Overall, this is a spectacular looking transfer. Details in the facial closeups are among the best seen on BD, sweat glistens, pores, blood, hair, imperfections are all shown in all their glory. All other closeups of fingers, the doorbell, many shots of swords, all look as if you're there in real life.
> 
> 
> The cinematography in this film is incredible, and the production design is top notch which makes virtually every scene visually interesting. Film grain intact throughout, very natural looking. Some scenes have over saturated colors, most notably the opening fight sequence with Vivica Fox, but nothing that detracts from the PQ.
> 
> 
> No noise or haze throughout, black levels all hold very well. Whites were overblown and highlights were bright, but again nothing that detracted from the PQ for me.
> 
> 
> The only thing that takes away from the PQ for me, and to my surprise no one else has mentioned (at least that I could find), was the animated sequences he decided to do for Lucy Lui's character. This is the only non Tier 0 stuff I could find.
> 
> 
> Overall, I am fine with its current placement at the bottom of Tier 0.
> 
> *Recommendation: Stays where it is, bottom of Tier 0.*



I vote "Yes" for this placement also.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15832667
> 
> 
> Kill Bill 1 -- Just watched it again. Wanted to make sure. I understand the attraction. Lots of good stuff going on. The opening black and white sequence is truly stunning. But, once you get into the movie, far too often, I feel like I want a focus knob on my remote control. Faces that seem like they should be in focus appear to be ever so slightly out of focus. Outside of extreme close-ups, which are nicely detailed, faces seem to have an extremely smooth, DNR type look and will maintain that look even as the camera moves pretty close. So, you go from these ultra smooth faces to a smash close up with natural detail, but even when faces are taking up a generous portion of the screen and are detailed, this is not reference level facial detail (check out Youth Without Youth or Domino). In some scenes you've got blown whites and the blooming light effect bleeding into and blurring the focused image, too. And bokeh is okeh, I understand bokeh, but I feel it can definitely be overused. When you have all of that other stuff softening the image ever so slightly and a lot of bokeh it can be a bit too much. Yes, you do get some very sharp shots, close ups of broken glass, samurai swords, hands and faces, bullets, but IMO, there's a bit of static on the line mucking up the clarity too often. To me, the fact that it is often very slight just makes it that much more unnerving. I give QT all the credit in the world for pushing the art and cinematography, but I still feel it is too uneven for tier blu, still feel it averages out to a mid tier one title. The way to enjoy KB1, in my opinion, is to forget about PQ assessment and enjoy the ride. But, for me, "this is interesting cinematography" doesn't always = "this makes reference demo."



Based on my recollection of how this looked, I would generally agree with these comments.


----------



## Hughmc

Yet another title that is controversial, but this time we have two we are debating which is interesting.


I already voted for both Kill Bills to stay where they are and I would like to see them side by side in tier 0. I also did a little searching last night for how and where and when both were filmed. The reason I did is I believe they were filmed and transferred to BD identically, because when I have watched them I see absolutely no differences in PQ between the two except for minor artist intent differences in a couple of scenes. It seems I was right that both were filmed all at once and then scenes were split between the two. What is interesting is Ralph Potts gave Kill Bill 1 a slightly higher score for PQ. Most other pro reviews also ding KB2 for artist't intent like the black and white scene.

http://www.moviesforguys.com/action/...billvol2.shtml


----------



## tjgar

Has any seen, Miracle at St. Anna on br yet?


Tony


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15831595
> 
> *Kill Bill Vol. 1*
> 
> 
> This is my first time ever seeing Kill Bill (crazy I know)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Entertaining stuff, not sure about some of Tarantino's decisions like usual, but it was well done nonetheless.
> 
> 
> Overall, this is a spectacular looking transfer. Details in the facial closeups are among the best seen on BD, sweat glistens, pores, blood, hair, imperfections are all shown in all their glory. All other closeups of fingers, the doorbell, many shots of swords, all look as if you're there in real life.
> 
> 
> The cinematography in this film is incredible, and the production design is top notch which makes virtually every scene visually interesting. Film grain intact throughout, very natural looking. Some scenes have over saturated colors, most notably the opening fight sequence with Vivica Fox, but nothing that detracts from the PQ.
> 
> 
> No noise or haze throughout, black levels all hold very well. Whites were overblown and highlights were bright, but again nothing that detracted from the PQ for me.
> 
> *The only thing that takes away from the PQ for me, and to my surprise no one else has mentioned (at least that I could find), was the animated sequences he decided to do for Lucy Lui's character. This is the only non Tier 0 stuff I could find.*
> 
> 
> Overall, I am fine with its current placement at the bottom of Tier 0.
> 
> *Recommendation: Stays where it is, bottom of Tier 0.*




I actually meant to include a bit about that portion of the movie in my review and forgot. The animated portion of KB1 looked _*nowhere near*_ as good as Sleeping Beauty does.



I agree with *rsbeck* on this issue where:



> Quote:
> But, for me, "this is interesting cinematography" doesn't always = "this makes reference demo."



when I stated earlier, just because I thought it looked really cool doesn't mean it is reference, when *spectator* asked me about that line of thought.



Although I would not object with this staying in Tier 0 if people really want it to, I think if it resides anywhere within Tier 1, it still does this movie justice.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15833275
> 
> 
> I actually meant to include a bit about that portion of the movie in my review and forgot. The animated portion of KB1 looked _*nowhere near*_ as good as Sleeping Beauty does.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with *rsbeck* on this issue where:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when I stated earlier, just because I thought it looked really cool doesn't mean it is reference, when *spectator* asked me about that line of thought.
> 
> 
> 
> Although I would not object with this staying in Tier 0 if people really want it to, I think if it resides anywhere within Tier 1, it still does this movie justice.



GGG, I still believe there is a sizable PQ difference between tier 1.75 and the very bottom of tier 0. I can't agree with saying you don't object to it staying in tier 0, but anywhere in tier 1 is justified. IMO Low tier 0 to tier 1.0 is close, but as we move away and get above 1.50, PQ issues and recommendations are noticeably different than tier 0.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15833507
> 
> 
> GGG, I still believe there is a sizable PQ difference between tier 1.75 and the very bottom of tier 0. I can't agree with saying you don't object to it staying in tier 0, but anywhere in tier 1 is justified. IMO Low tier 0 to tier 1.0 is close, but as we move away and get above 1.50, PQ issues and recommendations are noticeably different than tier 0.



Oh I agree with you re: the differences throughout the tier. In my review I recc'd 1.50, and said I'd be satisfied with 1.25. What I meant by what I posted above, however, basically is this: I've done my review, stated my piece, and if others want it to remain in Tier 0, there's not really much more I can do about it unless I want to expend a bunch of energy getting timestamps and/or screenshot links to point out the spots where I think the PQ suffers to bring it out of Tier 0. Which I just simply don't have the time or energy to do right now, my daughter has a break from school this week and I can't put that movie on while she's around if I did have the energy.


At this point it's everyone's opinions, and since I love the movie so much and it really is an interpretation of the artistically chosen elements that Tarantino has used vs the way they apply to the PQ thread, I can concede that there might be a possibility that I am being too harsh on it b/c of the whole "artistic intent thing".



eta -- hopefully i'm making a bit of sense. i've just started my coffee for the day.


----------



## moematthews




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15831595
> 
> *Kill Bill Vol. 1*
> 
> 
> Overall, this is a spectacular looking transfer. Details in the facial closeups are among the best seen on BD, sweat glistens, pores, blood, hair, imperfections are all shown in all their glory. All other closeups of fingers, the doorbell, many shots of swords, all look as if you're there in real life.
> 
> 
> The cinematography in this film is incredible, and the production design is top notch which makes virtually every scene visually interesting. Film grain intact throughout, very natural looking. Some scenes have over saturated colors, most notably the opening fight sequence with Vivica Fox, but nothing that detracts from the PQ.
> 
> 
> *Recommendation: Stays where it is, bottom of Tier 0.*



Agreed. This is one of the most highly detailed BDs I've seen, and the at times inaccurate colours do not overwhelm. Skin tones were perfect, and faces were beautifully modelled, often set off nicely against colours and visible textures in the characters' clothing.


----------



## Hughmc

Yes, GGG you make perfect sense.


GGG, I think you know I respect yours and other views, but in the same breath IMO this thread has gotten too harsh on reviews and due to that I have drawn a line in the sand, hence my opinions as of late which I am sure are more than obvious. I am definitely adamant about how I feel even if it means I go against the tide and everyone in the thread. I am open minded and more than willing to discuss and listen to others' opinions, but I will not hold back mine as you already know. Again my position is based on feeling the thread has not changed slightly, but significantly. IMO it has become too focused on PQ issues and what is wrong with BD's PQ, more so than what is good about them and it seems like it is getting closer and closer to the Film Intent Thread.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15834206
> 
> 
> Yes, GGG you make perfect sense.
> 
> 
> GGG, I think you know I respect yours and other views, but in the same breath IMO this thread has gotten too harsh on reviews and due to that I have drawn a line in the sand, hence my opinions as of late which I am sure are more than obvious. *I am definitely adamant about how I feel even if it means I go against the tide and everyone in the thread.* I am open minded and more than willing to discuss and listen to others' opinions, but I will not hold back mine as you already know. Again my position is based on feeling the thread has not changed slightly, but significantly. IMO it has become too focused on PQ issues and what is wrong with BD's PQ, more so than what is good about them and it seems like it is getting closer and closer to the Film Intent Thread.





You remember my stance on *Mamma Mia*, right?







Oh, and *Speed Racer*?














Oh and let's not forget *Wall-E!!*











I'm not trying to be harsh with my reviews, just honest and write what I see, right? Hopefully I'll get to watch KB2 soon, and review that as well.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15832802
> 
> 
> Based on my recollection of how this looked, I would generally agree with these comments.



Thank you.


----------



## deltasun

_...placing KB1, KB2 on my plate for this week..._


----------



## sleater




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15835024
> 
> 
> IMO, KB1 _and_ 2 are excellent titles and should be excellent to be included in the gold tier.
> 
> 
> But, IMO, they _are_ ever so slightly below tier zero quality in terms of detail, contrast, and clarity, definitely have more than brief periods of inconsistency and -- yes -- the difference can be very subtle.
> 
> 
> But, it is those subtle differences that we here ought to be able to discern with dispassion.



+1


Not that my opinion holds the same weight as the leaders in this thread, being that I have not even officially reviewed KB 1 or 2, I recently watched them expecting a Tier 0 feast and it was not delivered. I saw way too much inconsistency in the image quality (and yes, mainly due to director's intent) that I believe KB2 should be around 1.50 and KB1 1.75. At my MOST generous I would say 1.25 for the both of them. If you watch Kill Bill 1, have a break with Youth Without Youth, then finish with Kill Bill 2, the PQ will jump out at you that these films do not belong in the same tier. This is actually saying a lot because YWY is a drama without any flashy eye-candy type action sequences.


For the record, KB1 and 2 DO have a number of quality Tier 0 shots (the object/facial closeups for example) but the image is far from being consistent. Similar, for me, to TDK in the wow factor of the 70mm scenes going back to the ho-hum 35mm.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15834787
> 
> 
> All due respect, but I just pulled up a review of yours where you recommended Transformers, a title Patrick wants in tier 0, for bottom of tier One, a bunch of people voted to bring Incredible Hulk, a title LBFilmguy wanted near the top of tier 0, to tier 1.25. TDK, a title Djoberg wanted in tier 0, was moved to tier 1.25. Many people, including you, have voted to bring titles down with no qualms at all -- and IMO, no one _should_ have a qualm about it. What's the downside of moving a title down?
> 
> 
> To me, it's weird when I see members voting titles down left and right and then, when we get to that person's favorite title, suddenly, it's too harsh.
> 
> 
> Also, all the business about how it's too big of a difference between tier 0 and tier 1 -- if you feel that way, you need to change the tier descriptions. Because right now it says that differences between tier blu and tier gold can be very subtle. And, IMO, they _are_ very subtle.
> 
> 
> IMO, tier blu should not be for "I like this" -- it should be a learned judgment, based on watching all of the current top of the line titles, that those in tier blu are a collection of reference titles.
> 
> 
> Tier gold is still considered demo
> 
> *Tier 1 - Gold (Excellent)*
> 
> *Blu-rays in this tier are demo-worthy and exhibit many of the same image qualities as titles in tier zero, albeit with a few qualifications: May demonstrate reference picture quality but have brief periods of inconsistency; Or may exhibit excellent quality in general but ever so slightly rank below tier zero quality in terms of visual interest, detail, contrast, depth or clarity. Differences between titles in the top two tiers can be very subtle.*



It should also be noted that while some titles are being moved down, and some titles removed from Tier 0 (hey, I lost my battle with Mr. Brooks!), there are also titles being ADDED to Tier 0 very recently as well: *Youth Without Youth* and *Domino* (not officially placed yet, but it surely appears to be on its way).


As long as everyone gets to have their say, and titles are not being moved too quickly without adequate discussion (and I don't think that is the case thus far) I think we are good.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15835150
> 
> 
> As long as everyone gets to have their say, and titles are not being moved too quickly without adequate discussion (and I don't think that is the case thus far) I think we are good.



Right on the money.


----------



## rsbeck

Sleater ---

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...4#post15835104 


This describes my experience exactly.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15835150
> 
> *As long as everyone gets to have their say, and titles are not being moved too quickly without adequate discussion (and I don't think that is the case thus far) I think we are good.*



+2


These two points (everyone gets their say...titles aren't moved quickly) are KEY!


----------



## OldCodger73

*PQ:* Generally a satisfactory viewing. Colors are good, overall sharpness and clarity are acceptable. Except for two brief scenes, close up facial features lack much detail. Overall I'd rate *The Pelican Brief Tier 3.0*.

*AQ:* The center channel carries the load in this largely dialogue driven movie. There's one point when Roberts and Washington are talking quietly that I needed to turn up the sound.

*The movie:* I currently have the flipper DVD of _The Pelican Brie_f. It's a movie I like, so the upgrade to BD was worth it for me. For others, this might work best as a rental, then you can make a decision if it's worth a purchase.


Panasonic 50" 720p plasma. Panasonic 10a player, 7.5'


----------



## rsbeck

*Rendition (UK)*


Currently resides in upper tier 0.


I could only find one review for this title....



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dvdmike007* /forum/post/13542461
> 
> 
> _Rendition UK EIV
> 
> Watched at 5ft on a Sony 42 inch 3xLCD RP @1080i
> 
> Played thro HDMI from a Sony PS3 60gb
> 
> 
> Def tier 0 above Live free die hard
> 
> 
> Stunning stable picture with 3d pop and great detail peaking at 30mbs with an AVC encode and 7.1 DTS MA_


 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1#post13542461 


And this...



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/15293530
> 
> Rendition (UK) Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | EIV [/b]
> 
> 
> The above Tier-0 BDs are said to have moderate to major application of DNR.


 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...0#post15293530 



One review is not enough --

*Recommendation: Rendition should go into a holding pen pending more reviews.*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Blood & Chocolate*

*recommendation: Tier 2.0*


An older Blu-ray from Sony, this disc was released on June 12th, 2007. The 98-minute movie is encoded in MPEG-2 on a BD-25. The BDInfo scan reveals the average video bitrate to be 19.11 Mbps for the main feature. The encode varies over the course of the movie from a low of 15.6 Mbps to a peak of 33.2 Mbps. A majority of the running time the encode stays in the lower half of that range, with fast-paced action scenes in the upper parts of the range. Surprisingly the compression work compares quite well to more recent BD's, considering the use of MPEG-2 as a video codec. I did spot two scenes with noticeable banding in the background of the shot and one brief flash of scattered compression noise early in the movie. Aside from those insignificant errors there are no visible compression problems.


The quality of the master used for the transfer looks in flawless condition free of print damage or debris. The only exception was the appearance of a tiny digital scratch removal artifact about one hour into the movie. I doubt a casual viewer would catch it even if they were made aware of its presence. The transfer and image here is very film-like in nature with no use of digital noise reduction. Grain is very light and unobtrusive in the image. Most, but not all, of the movie is free of any edge enhancement or artificial sharpening. Late in the movie thin halos do become noticeable with approximately twenty minutes left in it.


The picture quality here is uniformly nice and unusual in its consistency. I was tempted to rank this in tier one somewhere and probably would have last year, but my standards have evolved after viewing recent releases. The image is sharp throughout except for the rare instances of special effects depicting the transformations into wolves. Contrast is excellent with flesh tones looking as good as they can. Color tonality is balanced and well-saturated overall. Black levels are deep and striking while not crushing any of the fine shadow detail. I considered this very important on this particular movie as much of the running time is devoted to the darker environs of Bucharest. High-frequency information is average for this tier. Facial details are revealing without quite obtaining the demo look of higher ranked titles. Some scenes demonstrate top-notch depth and dimensionality while some look flatter. The opening scene with the snow coming down looks very impressive with a convincing sense of space to it. There is a later scene in the movie featuring a raining downpour that also exhibits this quality.


The picture quality on this disc was a pleasant surprise. I could see legitimate arguments for this title in tier one somewhere but my personal recommendation for placement is in tier two.


Watching on a 60 Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 (firmware 2.60) from a viewing distance of six feet.


BDInfo scan (both links courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...8#post13862148 

Video bitrate graph:
http://www.cinemasquid.com/MovieDeta...px?MovieId=535


----------



## rsbeck

*Mad Men: Season One*


Currently Resides in Mid Tier 0


Could Only Find One Review....




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LunchboxGTI* /forum/post/15219736
> 
> 
> I picked up Mad Men Season one on Black Friday. I watched this show on AMC HD and the PQ was not very great. I popped in the Blu-Ray last night and was blown away at the level of detail! I own many of the Tier 0 titles and I feel that this belongs in the Tier 0 category.
> 
> 
> If you've never had the chance to check out the show, you won't be disappointed.



http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...6#post15219736 



Not enough reviews for placement in tier 0.

*Recommendation: Mad Men should go into a holding pen pending more reviews.*


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15837401
> 
> *Rendition (UK)*
> 
> 
> Currently resides in upper tier 0.
> 
> 
> I could only find one review for this title....
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1#post13542461
> 
> 
> And this...
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...0#post15293530
> 
> 
> 
> One review is not enough --
> 
> *Recommendation: Rendition should go into a holding pen pending more reviews.*



Good luck finding this UK title. I haven't found one from a reputable seller.


----------



## rsbeck

Question: just out of curiosity, if this were the reference list and you could vote only one of these titles off Reference Island and only one title on -- which would you vote off and which one -- that isn't listed here -- would you vote on?



Kung Fu Panda

Wall-E

Ratatouille

I, Robot

Pirates of the Caribbean - At World's End Video

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest

Man on Fire

Baraka

Domino

Live Free or Die Hard

Corpse Bride

Youth Without Youth

Narnia: Prince Caspian

Sleeping Beauty


----------



## deltasun

Sleeping Beauty off

Cars on


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15837654
> 
> 
> Question: just out of curiosity, if this were the reference list and you could vote only one of these titles off Reference Island and only one title on -- which would you vote off and which one -- that isn't listed here -- would you vote on?
> 
> 
> 
> Kung Fu Panda
> 
> Wall-E
> 
> Ratatouille
> 
> I, Robot
> 
> Pirates of the Caribbean - At World's End Video
> 
> Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
> 
> Man on Fire
> 
> Baraka
> 
> Domino
> 
> Live Free or Die Hard
> 
> Corpse Bride
> 
> Youth Without Youth
> 
> Narnia: Prince Caspian
> 
> Sleeping Beauty



OFF: Sleeping Beauty

ON: The Dark Knight (without a doubt)


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15837654
> 
> 
> Question: just out of curiosity, if this were the reference list and you could vote only one of these titles off Reference Island and only one title on -- which would you vote off and which one -- that isn't listed here -- would you vote on?
> 
> 
> 
> Kung Fu Panda
> 
> Wall-E
> 
> Ratatouille
> 
> I, Robot
> 
> Pirates of the Caribbean - At World's End Video
> 
> Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
> 
> Man on Fire
> 
> Baraka
> 
> Domino
> 
> Live Free or Die Hard
> 
> Corpse Bride
> 
> Youth Without Youth
> 
> Narnia: Prince Caspian
> 
> Sleeping Beauty



I can only choose one? This game sucks...










Ok... Sleeping Beauty OFF.


Cars ON... better than Rat IMO


----------



## Hughmc

As far as KB 1 & 2, having them even a half tier apart isn't very credible when ALL of it was filmed and transferred identically. 500 min of film was then split and somehow several are claiming PQ differences between the two.







I think some have even seen the PQ a whole tier apart comparing KB 1 to KB2. Meanwhile the only true differences were a few scenes where some question the PQ due to artist's intent. When I first got them a couple of months back and watched them a several of times over a week, the first thing I noticed and thought to myself was how identical those two look.



Here is what rsbeck said about KB 2 and made mention of it compared to tier 1:

_*Originally Posted by rsbeck

Kill Bill: Volume 2*


"After watching Domino and recommending tier 0, I wanted to follow up by watching another title currently ranked 0 to see how it would stack up. To cut to the chase, this confirmed to me that Domino deserves the tier 0 ranking and Kill Bill 2, like Volume 1, needs to move down. Grain on film based material appeared intact, thin ringing noted only a few times on high contrast edges. *Volume 2 is a different animal than Volume 1*. Where *Volume 1 was really uneven*, spanning the gamut from sequences at high tier 0 balanced with stretches dipping into mid tier two and even three, Volume 2 clips along mostly at mid tier one, but also spends stretches at high tier 2 and only occasionally rises to tier 0 for a shot here and there. Facial detail is mostly mediocre, not what we've come to expect of higher tier titles and nowhere near the detail seen in Volume 1, although once in awhile we do get brief glimpses. *Volume 1 had issues like persistent ringing, halos, and a picture that lost solidity with movement*, Volume 2 is mostly sharp, but does not have tier 0 dimension and palpability. I feel like Volume 1 averaged out to 1.5. Volume 2 looks on my screen like a pretty consistent tier 1.5 to 1.75 title. I'm right on the edge on this one. I'll give 2 the benefit of the doubt because it has fewer issues and because of a few segments that push its grade up; specifically, the buried alive sequence. Honestly, I didn't see a lot about which to be impressed here. Clothing texture, like facial texture, only decent, nothing special. Some fine object detail -- about what you'd expect of any low tier 1 title. I feel like I am being very fair with....

*Recommendation: Tier 1.5"*_


As I mentiond earlier, these were filmed identically with 500 min of total footage with the same cameras, footage was split and transferred identically. IMO, rsbeck you have little credibility with saying the KB's are that different, because they not only aren't that different, they *cannot* be that different except for artist's intent in a few scenes. This is also why in another recent discussion on a title I said or asked if you could be wrong. You came back with opinion as a reply. Now that I know both KBs are the same and you say they are a different animal, I am in total disagreement with you on them and anyone claiming they are different overall. Several of the pro reviews I have read regarding both KBs like from HD Digest, The Digital Bits and others make no mention of ANY PQ differences, but in fact say the same as I have except for the artist's intent on both.


I know some others have rated these differently as well, but rsbeck you have been the most outspoken about changing this thread, the most fervent about moving titles and have been successful, while I think most of us didn't do enough to be involved. While I think we have had some discussions and some agree, most of what has happened is most of us have just floated along questioned some things and allowed you to take over the thread in a domineering and controlling manner as you see fit.


As far as the point of reference, I do not believe the point of reference has changed that much if at all especially for some titles in particular and we don't have that drastic a PQ difference in BD's to make that claim. rsbeck you are really changing the point of reference. Titles that were reference are still considered reference by many including pro reviewers, yet they have been moved to below reference status. Simply put, that isn't right. The Kill Bills came out just 5 months ago.







Things have NOT changed that much since then.


At this point I am suggesting others be more actively and constantly involved, because I believe we are witnessing what seems like self will run a muck and most of us being passive about it. Maybe we are just as much to blame for allowing it. I am also suggesting that other posters look up the pro reviews all of which say there is no EE, ringing, DNR or other major PQ issues on both. I also suggest looking up info about KB 1 & 2 being filmed as one and split.


I am also asking at this point for everyone to stop, take a step back and think for a while about what I am mentioning. Ask yourselves if you are really ok with the way things are taking place and being done.


The latest post of rsbeck listing the titles that are or will be "left" in tier one is another example of what I see as pigeon holing to get his desired result which he has emphatically stated he wants to see happen.


In fact rsbeck, I am asking you to step back and let go a bit. I cannot tell you what to do obviously, but I am asking that you do as I asked. I like you, I like some of what you have done and suggested, I know you have worked hard and I have nothing personal against you, but it has gone too far!


Hugh

*Kill Bill Volume One/Kill Bill Volume Two: Reference Tier 0 and they need to be side by side and stay in Tier 0.*


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15838342
> 
> 
> they *cannot* be that different



Of course they can. Ever watch a film shoot? Shots taken with the same camera just minutes apart can look entirely different based on a change of light, camera angle, movement of an actor, camera person.....


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15838496
> 
> 
> Of course they can. Ever watch a film shoot? Shots taken with the same camera just minutes apart can look entirely different based on a change of light, camera angle, movement of an actor, camera person.....




They can but they aren't. This isn't just a few minutes apart. They were literally shot as one, 500 minutes worth and split. Shot all the same and split. Do the research about how and why they are the same, please. ALL pro reviews validate what I am saying as well. There are no differences between the two except as mentioned.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15838640
> 
> 
> Your argument makes no sense. There's no reason 500 minutes of film split into two has to result in two films of the same PQ according to our guidelines.



Saying my argument makes so sense has nothing to do with the facts and therefore has no validity. Both are identical PQ.


And while I agree it doesn't have to, in this case it absolutely does and either way that has zero to do with our guidelines.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15837543
> 
> *Mad Men: Season One*
> 
> 
> Currently Resides in Mid Tier 0
> 
> 
> Could Only Find One Review....
> 
> 
> Not enough reviews for placement in tier 0.
> 
> *Recommendation: Mad Men should go into a holding pen pending more reviews.*



I do not believe a retroactive pulling out of titles is justified at this point only because they have one or two reviews. Thousands of people have viewed the tier lists at this point with the titles you have cited and made no objections to their placement or proffered an alternative placement. Bad looking titles or inappropriately placed titles get savaged very quickly through feedback in the thread. A title like Mad Men will never get out of the holding pen. If people that have actually seen this show on Blu-ray argue with the placement, then fine.


I own Mad Men but have not yet had the time to view it. Unlike some other posters here, I watch every single second of the movie or set to determine placement. I will make an attempt to watch it in the next month.


----------



## djoberg

I'm going to jump in to say two things:


1) When I first got Kill Bill 1 & 2 I watched them all the way through and I thought the PQ was the same on both. The only reason I was willing, a few days ago, to separate them by 1/4 tier, is because one had more stylized scenes that, IMO, caused me to penalize it more in my PQ placement assessment. The scenes that were NOT stylized look the same to my eyes. So, I agree with Hugh on this one.


2) I like and respect both Hugh and rsbeck. From my vantage point rsbeck has been much more, shall I say..._aggressive_ lately in recommending changes on this thread (as Hugh has noted), but it hasn't really bothered me because I also realize that he (rsbeck) has much more free time than many of us and he is choosing to devote a lot of that time to this thread. You may not agree with his suggestions (and if you don't, say so), but I, for one, won't be guilty of charging him with trying to take over the thread.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15838779
> 
> 
> I own Mad Men but have not yet had the time to view it. Unlike some other posters here, I watch every single second of the movie or set to determine placement. I will make an attempt to watch it in the next month.



Thank you!


----------



## sleater




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15838342
> 
> *Kill Bill Volume One/Kill Bill Volume Two: Reference Tier 0 and they need to be side by side and stay in Tier 0.*



Hughmc


I will definitely not argue that both films were shot together and split into two volumes and have identical transfers etc. etc. but that should not automatically determine that they HAVE to be side-by-side anywhere on the Tier list. They are completely different films with different shots that have different Picture Qualities in terms of what is going on in the scene, how the action was shot etc. For example if the animated sequence in KB1 is not Tier0 stuff then couldn't this alone knock it down just a little overall as compared to KB2? What if the best shots are the closeups and say KB2 has 25 awesome closeup shots while KB1 has 5, wouldn't that give KB2 just a little more edge? Each movie has completely different scenes that are unique and to say just because they were filmed as a whole that they must be side-by-side does not make any sense to me whatsoever. And we're talking quarter or half tiers here...

But anyway you have a pretty cool perspective most of the time and I agree with a lot of what you have to say I just feel you are off on this point.


How about this: most folks agree that POTC 2 looks better and should be rated higher than POTC 3 and weren't these 2 sequels done in a similar manner as KB1 and 2 (at least being filmed together)? POTC 2 has way nicer outdoor CGI sequences (the squid thing) and POTC 3 has all those darker Singapore scenes that have quite a bit of noise... or grain if you like. Should these two movies also be place side-by-side no matter what?


----------



## 42041

*The Moody Blues - Live*


Looks like your typical live concert blu-ray filmed at 60i, not really much to complain about, nothing too exceptional either. The detail is there, the contrast is solid, everything is as it should be. Personally I find it hard to get excited over the PQ aspects of an HD concert disc, but what's there is reproduced nicely. I just wouldn't use it as demo material.

*Tier 2.0*


----------



## stigdu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/15837631
> 
> 
> Good luck finding this UK title. I haven't found one from a reputable seller.



I've got this, and funnily enough, I watched the film for the first time on Sunday evening and thought it was excellent. This is my first review for AVSF, so please bear with me.









*Rendition*


I remember thinking whilst watching that it's one of the best live action movies I've seen on my Blu-ray player, alongside POTC and I, Robot (I would probably put this movie a shade under these 2 titles).


There don't seem to be any details lost in deep shadow, whites are nice and bright, faces look detailed close up.


There was one scene near the end of the movie where I noticed a slight 'shimmering' effect, like you see on bad DVDs when someone's wearing a tweed jacket, or you're looking at a mesh fence from far away, but it wasn't HUGELY noticeable, it's just that it stuck out for me as the rest of the film had looked so pristine!


The film really does cope well with the bright sunny outdoor scenes, and the dark, prison cell oppressive scenes - no detail is lost, and clarity is great.

*Tier recommendation**

1.0*


Watching on Sony BDP-350 Blu-Ray player, Panasonic 42" PZ80 plasma.


----------



## patrick99

When I watched *KB1* and *KB2* at the time the BDs were released, I thought the PQ on *KB2* was unquestionably better than the PQ on *KB1*. Not by a huge amount, but to my eyes there was a clear difference in PQ level between the two.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15837654
> 
> 
> Question: just out of curiosity, if this were the reference list and you could vote only one of these titles off Reference Island and only one title on -- which would you vote off and which one -- that isn't listed here -- would you vote on?
> 
> 
> 
> Kung Fu Panda
> 
> Wall-E
> 
> Ratatouille
> 
> I, Robot
> 
> Pirates of the Caribbean - At World's End Video
> 
> Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
> 
> Man on Fire
> 
> Baraka
> 
> Domino
> 
> Live Free or Die Hard
> 
> Corpse Bride
> 
> Youth Without Youth
> 
> Narnia: Prince Caspian
> 
> Sleeping Beauty



I will use my two votes for OFF:


Baraka

YWY


----------



## hobbes2702




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15837654
> 
> 
> Question: just out of curiosity, if this were the reference list and you could vote only one of these titles off Reference Island and only one title on -- which would you vote off and which one -- that isn't listed here -- would you vote on?
> 
> 
> 
> Kung Fu Panda
> 
> Wall-E
> 
> Ratatouille
> 
> I, Robot
> 
> Pirates of the Caribbean - At World's End Video
> 
> Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
> 
> Man on Fire
> 
> Baraka
> 
> Domino
> 
> Live Free or Die Hard
> 
> Corpse Bride
> 
> Youth Without Youth
> 
> Narnia: Prince Caspian
> 
> Sleeping Beauty



Off: Sleeping Beauty

On: Tropic Thunder


I would say Dark Knight but while the IMAX scenes look amazing the regular shots do leave some to be desired. Very good but not as good a Tier 0. Tropic Thunder I believe should be in Tier 0 but it does have a slight haloing in one or two scenes but it is still outstanding


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stigdu* /forum/post/15840806
> 
> *Rendition*





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gene Shallit* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Rendition is extraordinary!




Sorry... couldn't resist.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stigdu* /forum/post/15840806
> 
> 
> This is my first review for AVSF, so please bear with me.



Nice review -- thanks!


----------



## lovingdvd

Is there a change log or another way to easily look at the master list and see which entries were recently added or changed? I do not follow this thread daily but it would be great to check the list once every few weeks and see what's new to the rankings.


----------



## rsbeck

Look on top of the first page of the thread under the latin quote -- you'll find links to the updates.


----------



## rsbeck

Kill Bill Vol. 2


I probably should not indulge this, but since my review has been challenged, today, I am going through KB2 again so I can be more specific in my criticism. Keep in mind that I have recommended this title to tier 1.5, which is a high ranking and I would not recommend it so highly if I didn't admire many qualities of the PQ.


I am not going to go through the entire movie. Here's an analysis of the opening wedding rehearsal sequence;


Presented in Black and White, the positive of this sequence is the dimension, which IMO, is not tier 0 quality, but is mid tier One quality, which is still excellent. Also, there are several close ups which present nicely detailed faces. Again, not reference level detail as one would expect of a tier 0 or high tier one title, more like a mid tier One, which is still very good.


In general, the grain, which I usually like because IMO, it usually increases detail here is behaving rather curiously and is actually causing some blur and fuzz on medium shots. However, in a few shots, one can see single strands of hair on the women in the aisles. The negative is that these are highlighted by the blown white light coming from the rear of the church. It's a striking look and a great example of how the cinematography can create an interesting look that has both positives and negatives when considering PQ.


There are many instances of ringing seen in this sequence -- more than I even remembered. Keep in mind that I watch on a 126" screen, so it may be easier for me to see. However, we do guarantee that these titles will continue to impress on screens 100"+, so keep that in mind as well.


In the shot from behind Samuel Jackson's head towards Uma Thurman, you can see thin ringing along the pant legs of the two people sitting on either side of her, around Uma's ankle, around most of the outline around the preacher, part of his chair and his wife's leg, which is visible under him. After that, there's a straight on shot of the preacher and his wife and there is thin ringing around his jacket and head and what appears more like a faint halo around his wife's jacket.


When Uma heads towards the exit, you can see ringing on three sides of the doorway, on the glazing bars of the windows, around parts of the pews and along several horizontal lines created by the walkway and the road as well as around the mountain top in the distance. When she gets outside, you get a couple of those close-ups mentioned earlier. However, in medium shots, you see ringing around Carradine's jacket as well as along the sides of the telephone poles. The background appears desaturated and along with the the hot contrast, causes a distinct lack of detail. Another striking look from an artistic perspective that causes problems from a PQ perspective. There is also thin ringing down Uma's arm and around the telephone poles behind her.


Next, there is a scene with a close up of both Thurman and Carradine where shadow detail can be excellent at times and though the facial detail can be mediocre because of the hot contrast, one can see excellent follicle detail in single strands of eyebrow. Next, they move into the church where Uma tells Carradine to refer to her as Arlene and here the contrast is so hot, Uma has a large halo around her, Carradine has one down his back and round his hand and the blown whites are causing the heads of the three actors in the shot to reflect light and glow, creating a blurred effect.


As the scene between the three actors progresses, you see extensive halos around Uma and from time to time around the other two actors as all three of them also continue to have the top of their heads glowing and reflecting light. Sequence finishes with the four figures entering the church. Contrast is pumped so that all four are blobs of crushed black with ringing around each one.


Hugh is right about one thing. When I said that KB1 has more ringing than KB2, I was wrong -- they both have lots of ringing.


Overall, if I were to give this sequence a score by itself, I would recommend no higher than 2.5. This is a great example of the whole Kill Bill thing, IMO. Some striking visuals, which I admire from an artistic perspective, but problematic from a PQ/demo perspective. Some decently impressive things here and there from a PQ perspective, but other times very problematic. I leave that sequence remembering a few close-ups and lot of softness around the edges, which is mainly how I think of both titles.


Based on this, I still think my recommendation of 1.5 for KB2, if anything, is generous.


I clearly forgot about some of these issues when I came to my recommendation of 1.5.


I am _not_ going to go through both films like this.


I think this is plenty.



.


----------



## rsbeck

If anything, I may do the opening sequence of KB1 just to compare/contrast and to deconstruct the idea that the two films -- because they were shot together -- must have identical PQ shot for shot.


But first -- lunch!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

omg rsbeck!! add paragraphs!!


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15845719
> 
> 
> omg rsbeck!! add paragraphs!!



I think this is great advice!


I suggest a new rule that paragraphs can't be more than two lines long.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15845719
> 
> 
> omg rsbeck!! add paragraphs!!



How many more paragraphs do you want me to add?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15846020
> 
> 
> How many more paragraphs do you want me to add?



I'd suggest breaking up the third one.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Can't read your post on KB II yet rsbeck, mine should be waiting for me in my mailbox. Will report back.


----------



## deltasun

Mine's coming...finished KB1 last night and will sink my teeth into KB2 tonight.


----------



## rsbeck

KB Vol. 1


In KB1, prior to the credits, there is an extended version of Uma's bloody face in black and white with Carradine asking her, "do you find me sadistic?" and wiping her face.


Uma's face, along with the blood, has been oiled to help reveal detail in her complexion. You can see several single strands of hair. Contrast is a little hot, creating a couple of hot spots on her face and in her veil.


There is also some interesting use of darkness as half of her face is in shadow, but with some detail still evident. This is a very impressive scene and if I were to rate it by itself, I would recommend tier 1.0.



Film opens with the sequence between Uma and Vivica A. Fox, presented in intentionally over saturated color.


As Uma approaches the house, you see a halo along the top roofline, the over-saturation is obscuring detail in red flowers and house and there appears to be some sort of noise between the horizontal lines of the siding.


Grass is extra bright, but not as detailed as one might expect, difficult to make out single blades of grass.


There's a decent close-up of her finger pressing the doorbell.


Next, there is the fight where picture gets a little soft and then downright blurry, especially when camera is in tight. Several sources of light are blown, creating hot spots.


Next, they brandish knives. Picture is still very slightly soft, even when they are relatively still, causing me to wish there was a focus knob on my remote. However, there is an insert from floor level, showing broken glass and this is pretty impressive.


Next, an insert of Fox's face, which is curiously smooth, but where you see distinct beads of sweat. An oasis of sharpness!


Next, the child arrives from school. Still wish I had that focus knob.


After the child is sent to her room, our slightly blurry ladies head towards the kitchen via a slightly soft overhead shot with blown lights pouring in through the kitchen window and blooming from the overhead light fixture.


In the kitchen, light through window is so hot it causes Fox's hand, wrist, towel and some pottery to get lost in the glow and there is ringing down the back of her pants.


The kitchen sink is also glowing like an arc light.


A very bright light has apparently been placed on the floor behind Uma, which is making the door and cabinets behind her to get lost in a hot spot and there is ringing all around Ms. Thurman as well as along the top edge of the countertop. To the right, the knife block is lost in a hot spot and there is a verticle line of ringing along the edge of the floor to ceiling support post. Still wish I had that focus knob.


Close-up of Uma kicking coffee cup is blurry.


Brief close-up of Fox's dying breath is impressive.


Brief close-up of knife going into Uma's sheath is very impressive -- you can see embossed texture on sheath and threads in denim are incredibly well resolved.


Uma tells little girl, "I'll be waitin'" and as she leaves, we hold on a midly impressive shot of girl's shoes and multi-colored cereal.


Hard to rank this sequence because outside of a few close-ups, I'd probably be thinking somewhere around 3.0 because of the softness, hot spots, general lack of and lost detail.


Softness, blown whites, and hot spotting contrasted with detailed inserts are consistent between KB1 and KB2's opening sequences. Between the two, IMO, KB2 is more consistent but without the high points of KB1, which were the extended opening sequence before the credits, the close-ups of broken glass, sheath, and Fox's dying breath.


If ranking, I might recommend both opening sequences -- wedding rehearsal and fight at Vivica's house -- at around 2.5, but IMO, they get there in different ways, similar to how I recommended both titles for 1.5, but I feel they get there in different ways.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

thx for breaking that one up, rsbeck! really do appreciate it, much easier to read. Also appreciate you going through the movies again, esp. since I don't have time atm! I'll try and pay closer attention to things when I do watch & review KB2 though!


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15846998
> 
> 
> thx for breaking that one up, rsbeck! really do appreciate it, much easier to read.



You're welcome. At first, I thought you were being a wise-guy, but I know big thick paragraphs can be daunting -- even to look at.



> Quote:
> Also appreciate you going through the movies again, esp. since I don't have time atm! I'll try and pay closer attention to things when I do watch & review KB2 though!



I just happened to have the time today and thought it might be an interesting exercise. I am glad it is appreciated -- thanks!


----------



## rsbeck

KB1 & 2 -- the final paragraphs!


The tricky thing is that they both offer very bright pictures and we know that there is a part of us that can be tricked into thinking a brighter picture is a better picture -- this is why A/V stores set all of their displays on torch mode. Both offer more than just a bright picture, they also offer an "artsy" picture along with very seductive music.


Further, we talk about "pop" and both offer pictures that pop. So, you've got an artsy, bright, picture that pops. This, IMO, is what raises their scores to 1.5. _I_ can't recommend higher because of the softness, lost detail, and ringing. I don't know if the ringing is due to EE. I only know that I am generally very tolerant of a little ringing, but in these titles, I feel like the persistent ringing along with use of blown whites and a slightly soft picture causes a general feeling of softness where I constantly want to fiddle with the focus.


I can also be tolerant of certain kinds of softness because I do not believe all softness is created equal. But, this kind of softness where the principle figures, which should be sharp, are soft, IMO, must be dinged.


So, in closing, I think these are tricky titles. They have much to recommend them and should to be ranked in the gold tier. I think it's easy to remember the sharp close-ups and the pop and to forget about the problems.


Once upon a time, these kinds of close-ups were probably relatively rare and maybe that's why these titles were once considered tier 0. These days, it is not rare and IMO, there are titles that are sharper with more consistently impressive detail -- and without these problems -- in upper tier 1. I stand behind my 1.5 recommendations for both and feel my recommendations are very fair.


----------



## TayC

Wonderful analysis, rsbeck. When I first viewed Kill Bill I went in with the expectation of a reference quality title. I can't say I was disappointed, but in comparison to some of the other movies in Tier 0, the Kill Bill series definitely has issues. They look great, but they aren't perfect.


----------



## rsbeck

Thanks! Believe me, I will still enjoy the heck out of them. The cinematography is still fun, the references are cool, performances wonderfully arch and I would still rank them comparable to other stuff in mid tier 1 where there are some excellent looking titles.


----------



## stumlad

*Quarantine*


Got this from netflix today and watched it. I've seen the lead (Jennifer Carpenter) in Dexter so I decided to give it a shot since I already saw Saw V with the another Dexter actress (Julie Benz). (btw, perhaps Saw is not searchable because it would be like searching for "the" or "it" or "for").


Anyway, from the very start it's apparent this was shot using a digital camera. On that same note, I didn't notice any sharp edges or anything like that (as discussed with YWY which I havent seen). Dark scenes had very little noise considering the light conditions. Although there were a few face closeups that were good and a few spots where the picture shined, there was a general lack of "eye massaging" going on here. Black levels were pretty good for an HDTV camera, but not quite up to the best. Overall the picture was very flat, but I'm sure it wasn't meant to be seen any other way. Where Saw V felt like something was screwy with the transfer, the Quarantine transfer didn't feel there were any problems that weren't inherent to the source.

*Tier Recommendation 3.75*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15848915
> 
> 
> (btw, perhaps Saw is not searchable because it would be like searching for "the" or "it" or "for").



That's why I recommended putting the name of the title in the "Title" box before giving a review. If you did that with a title like "Saw," when one did a Search for Saw the word "Saw" would be seen first (capitalized and alone) and thus you could pick out the reviews (from the million other posts that contain the word "saw") immediately.


----------



## H.Cornerstone

I am kind of surprised nobody has reviewed The Boondock Saints yet.. I have watched it, but kind of interested to get other peoples opinions on it...


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15849123
> 
> 
> That's why I recommended putting the name of the title in the "Title" box before giving a review. If you did that with a title like "Saw," when one did a Search for Saw the word "Saw" would be seen first (capitalized and alone) and thus you could pick out the reviews (from the million other posts that contain the word "saw") immediately.



True, but then we wouldn't be able to use Size=4


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15849352
> 
> 
> True, but then we wouldn't be able to use Size=4



You still can.


----------



## deltasun

*Body of Lies*


This was a bit of a guilty pleasure for me, having enjoyed it in the theatres last year. Naturally, I couldn't wait for this release. So much so, that it's delayed my viewing of Kill Bill 2.










I gotta say, I was a bit disappointed with the way this turned out simply because I expected a lot from this Ridley Scott picture. Right from the get-go, the light levels and subject positioning made it really difficult to obtain good delineation amongst the may elements of the scene - particulary the people from the backgrounds. Spring forward to a brighter, better lit scene of DiCapuccino and his partner on his balcony drinking beers and boom! Beautiful detail, 3D pop. Dimensionality is healthy. These scenes are few, but not too far between.


For the most part, close-up's and near close-up's are high Tier 1 quality, but medium to long shots are flat and sometimes soft. Also want to note that some shadowed/shaded close-up's offered excellent detail. Black levels aren't spectacular, but can be deep when the scene calls for it. Skin tones look natural and the desert scenes by rocks in the beginning are wonderful, very pleasing to the eyes.


I had to do a few comparisons to make an appropriate placement. In the end, I had to settle for...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


I thought it could have surpassed or tied Iron Man at 1.75, but not after my comparison viewing. They're not quite in the same league.


Incidentally, the AQ on this title was disappointing as well. I could not believe this was lossless sound - had to check my setting a couple of times. This TrueHD track just did not deliver.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/15849555
> 
> *Body of Lies*
> 
> 
> This was a bit of a guilty pleasure for me, having enjoyed it in the theatres last year. Naturally, I couldn't wait for this release. So much so, that it's delayed my viewing of Kill Bill 2.



Funny cause I just finished Kill Bill Vol. 2










Review incoming. Nice review of BoL, I will be getting that soon from Netflix as well.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

*Kill Bill Vol. 2*


Just like Vol. 1, this is an excellent looking Blu Ray. Everything found in Vol. 1 (excellent facial details, clothing, hair, blood, sweat, dirt, dust, whatever we see in real life, is seen here in all their glory). Extreme closeups are so detailed it's like looking at a photograph. I paused the shot of the nail going through the wood and stared at it for a good 20 seconds.










Skin tones are spot on, blacks are detailed and not washed out, and there is never a hint of noise or DNR.


NOW, there are a few sequences in the first 45 minutes or so that do lack in greatness.


In the opening B & W sequence of the wedding rehearsal I found more dancing film grain than in Vol. 1 and was distracting in the medium shots. In closeups, it looked as great as ever. The shots of her in the casket with just the flashlight can't exactly be considered Tier 0 material either.


The entire sequence of her training with Mr. white hair (hilarious BTW) also found itself with a lot of dancing film grain that detracted from the image for me in most medium shots. 3D pop was removed and the image looked a little flat because of this. Closeups were not as bad, but not as good as the B & W stuff I mentioned above. The entire sequence here was Mid Tier 2 to bottom Tier 2 for me. All of this of course, was by design, but that doesn't matter to us here.










Everything seen afterward though is Tier 0 no doubt. It resumed the amazing PQ I already mentioned.


Overall, I would place this at the top of Tier 1 because of those scenes that did detract from the PQ for me and went on too long to be overlooked.

*Recommendation: Top Tier 1*


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15846998
> 
> *thx for breaking that one up, rsbeck! really do appreciate it, much easier to read.* Also appreciate you going through the movies again, esp. since I don't have time atm! I'll try and pay closer attention to things when I do watch & review KB2 though!



Yes, that's much better. In addition, very nice nearly shot-by-shot detailed analysis. I remember being fairly unimpressed with the PQ of that opening scene in KB 1.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15849352
> 
> 
> True, but then we wouldn't be able to use Size=4



I'm suggesting that we put the name of the title in the "Title" box AND put the name of the title at the top of our review using Size 4. If one does those two things, the review will be spotted immediately by anyone doing a Search for that title.


----------



## SuprSlow

A couple minor updates...there were a few oversights or mistakes on my part in the last update.


We changed up a few things in the "READ BEFORE..." section, and the "HOW IT WORKS" section has been rewritten. Thanks to rsbeck and Phantom for their input.

*Event Horizon* has been moved off the Holding list and to Tier 1.5.

*Zodiac* - A second entry has been added for the US version (same Tier as the import).

*Ultimate Avengers* - lowered to Tier 2.75 (was 2.5)

*Hancock* - lowered to Tier 1.25 (was 1.0)



And in other news, I finally got to watch a BD last night!







It's been a while since I've been able to sit down and enjoy a movie.


----------



## deltasun

What's the lucky movie?


----------



## SuprSlow

Appaloosa. I watched Traitor last night, also.


Appaloosa wasn't quite what I expected, but decent nonetheless. I really enjoyed Traitor


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Amadeus*

*tier recommendation: 3.25*


Winner of eight Academy Awards in 1984, Warner released this classic movie to Blu-ray on February 10 of this year. The only option presented here is the director's cut at a running time of 180-minutes. The main feature is encoded in VC-1 on a BD-50. The average video bitrate is 16.68 Mbps per the BDInfo scan. The video ranges from a few peaks seen in the 30's to a nadir of 6.7 Mbps. It mainly hovers in the teens with many scenes never straying above 18.8 Mbps.


At first I had a hard time distinguishing this compression encode from one targeted for the vanquished HD DVD format and only the presence of some scant seconds of peaks in the high 30's convinced me otherwise. Unfortunately it impacts the picture quality as minor posterization can be seen several times throughout the movie. It is most noticeable during the various cuts to Salieri recounting his life during his confession to the priest. Much of the movie shows no artifacting though and I will call this a competent if somewhat bitstarved compression job. Why they did not allocate more bits to certain scenes with all the empty space available (close to 13 GB) on the disc is beyond me. Some information has come to my attention that this compression encode was done in August of 2007.


The first thing that will become apparent upon viewing this BD is the cleanliness of the image. Grain is negligible in all but the darkest lit scenes which strikes me as an indicator that the transfer has been filtered at some level. I will not compare it on any level to some of the worst transgressions we have seen like _Gangs Of New York_, but the image here probably does not look that faithful to the original, untampered film elements. Selective edge enhancement has also been applied at various points. Some parts of the movie look halo-free while other scenes look horribly processed where the amplitude of the ringing becomes distracting and harsh. I can at least report the master used for the transfer looks in very good condition in terms of damage or debris for a catalog title from the 80's. Many films of that decade have questionable looking flaws in the existing high definition masters and in that regard Amadeus is a notable exception.


Picture quality is generally consistent and the definition of average quality for the format. This is not the sharpest Blu-ray and some scenes exhibit a bit of softness. High-frequency information is very average with long shots suffering the most from a lack of detail. I was particularly disappointed in the lack of detail in the elaborate wigs seen in the movie and some of the skin on display. It was very hard at times to see the wigs fully resolved and the individual strands had a tendency to blur together. At least the beautiful cinematography of the film is on full display here,as each scene looks masterfully composed and shot.


Flesh tones look accurate to the time period portrayed in the movie, making allowances for the heavily stylized makeup favored in those days. Color rendition is generally solid and one of the better attributes of the transfer, with a well-balanced color palette that does not favor any one shade. Contrast is slightly above average with no apparent blooming of whites or clipping of blacks. Black levels are reasonably solid, though a couple of moments occur where black is not quite as deep as it is on higher ranked titles.


The effort here is really a mixed bag. If you are a purist that only wants to see Blu-ray reproduce the original film elements to their best, you might want to hold off on purchase or wait until a price drop. But this transfer still demonstrates enough merit in visual quality to warrant at least a serious look. I imagine many people will be satisfied with it as the best existing home version of this great film and not be concerned with some of the added processing to the transfer. My recommendation is placement in tier 3.25, as this disc's image represents the epitome of average visual quality at the moment.


Watching on a 60” Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 (firmware 2.60) at a viewing distance of six feet.


BDInfo scan:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...8#post15783938


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*High School Musical 3*


Oh. Oh my. I really hope none of you are forced to sit through this. My daughter wanted to rent some movies, and this was one of the movies we got.


As this is a Disney movie, I had been hoping that even if I had to watch this horrible movie, I'd be blessed with a decent picture quality. BOY was I mistaken. This entire movie felt as though someone needed to adjust the focus knob. There was no sharpness, no clarity, NO DETAIL. The entire movie was flat. I honestly think this movie would have benefitted by using oversaturated colours; it was so dull and soft, like someone put Vaseline over the lens, that the oversaturated colours would have at least _feigned_ some sort of brightness into it. I was so disappointed that I couldn't at least enjoy that aspect of this movie.


Skin tones were decent, and that's about the only plus I can give this movie. Every other aspect of it was a complete disappointment to me. I think given Disney's track record with a lot of films, my expectations were simply too high, but this was bad. Whites were completely overblown - what is a neat stylistic choice for Quentin Tarantino (given all the Kill Bill discussion as of late), is a nasty eyesore in this movie. UGH. I repeat, UGH. Faces... NO detail on faces. Vegetation looked like it was blobs. Just... it was just so bad.


Now I must find some brain bleach, so I can delete the image of Zac Efron dressed in a powder blue tuxedo with ruffles. You're welcome. (Hey, if I had to see it, I can place that visual for you guys too.)

*Recommendation for High School Musical 3: Tier 4.00**

*Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800U, THX setting, approximately 7.5' viewing distance.*


*The new definitions we have for our tier rating system helped me decide this should be Tier 4.00 vs Tier 3.75:


From the Tier 3 definition: _The picture will typically lack the depth and dimensionality exhibited in the higher tiers. Detail and clarity will be solid and present a pleasing image at standard viewing distances._


From the Tier 4 definition: _The titles in this tier typically represent below-average picture quality that is subpar for the Blu-ray format._


I truly felt this movie's PQ was sub-par, that's the perfect word to describe it; I don't feel it had detail and clarity that was solid, it was awful.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Super where are your reviews!?










Damnit GGG, I was SO looking forward to HM3. Guess I have to cancel my order.










LOL.


----------



## djoberg

*The Secret Life of Bees*


I was browsing the new Blu-ray titles in a local video store today and as soon as I noticed The Secret Life of Bees I recalled that Hugh had made a passing comment recently about this title possibly being reference quality, so I instinctively picked it up. Since I am the first one reviewing this I am going to go out on a limb and say that I believe we do indeed have another Tier 0 title to boast of!


As with MANY Blu-ray titles, I wasn't that impressed for the first 20 minutes or so. There were some Tier 0 moments, but overall the first few scenes left me thinking somewhere in Tier 1, perhaps even towards the low end. A couple of the night scenes were especially unimpressive, with a bit of softness and lacking in shadow detail.


But somewhere after the 20 minute mark the colors came alive (natural and vivid), along with strong contrast, deep blacks, spot on skin tones, excellent detail (close up and at a distance) and a depth that rivals anything I've seen before (not in EVERY scene, but in enough scenes to cause me to say WOW!) in Tier 0 titles.


This is NOT a glossy-looking movie like Youth Without Youth; I believe there was light grain throughout that gave it a nice film-look and the one word that came popping into my head was NATURAL-looking. It won't give you eyestrain from too much detail like Speedracer, but it will leave you with that "looking through a window" feeling.


I didn't notice any artifacts, DNR, EE, digital noise, or any other anomalies, with the exception of a couple of shots that were not in focus (most notably at about the 1 hr. 15 minute mark....at a funeral).


Because of some inconsistency in the first 20 minutes and the funeral scene just alluded to, here is my recommendation:

*Tier Recommendation: Bottom Third of Tier 0*


Samsung 50" 1080p DLP....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 6'


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15856089
> 
> 
> Super where are your reviews!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damnit GGG, I was SO looking forward to HM3. Guess I have to cancel my order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.



I'm soooo sorry to disappoint you, LBFG! I suppose if you lurve yourself some High School Musical, you might be willing to forgive it for it's awful PQ.


----------



## moematthews




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15829127
> 
> *Raging Bull*
> 
> 
> Grain intact and reproduced beautifully, thin ringing noted in a few scenes. Not the sharpest or most detailed picture, but very consistent, plenty sharp and generally there is some nice detail in every scene; single strands of hair, texture on walls, clothing, fabric, etc. Shadow delineation is lush, grayscale excellent, picture is nicely saturated. Bull presents imagery that is often painfully beautiful, but not in the conventional sense of pretty pictures, more along the lines of junkyard art where cheap, run down, scrubbed down, worn out, sweat and piss infested bronx apartments, community swimming pools, boxing rings, fighters and dressing rooms are captured in exquisite light and shadow. Having said that, there are some stunningly beautiful scenes here and there. Check out how the water erupts in a symphony of gray hues when Vicki splashes her legs in the swimming pool, how the light plays on DeNiro's sweat soaked hair. Scorcese is clearly aiming for an emotional experience here and if it weren't such a purple cliche', I'd say he scores a knock-out. Instead, I'll just say, although this may not be top tier demo material, Bull presents a
> 
> consistent, natural looking easy to watch picture that's a pleasure to watch and I would place it at the top of the non-demo tiers.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 2.0*
> 
> 
> Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From Screen
> 
> 
> .



Given the intent of this thread, I agree. But don't let that dissuade you. This is a gorgeous BD that captures all the gritty, hard-scrabble feel of the film. One of the best efforts I have seen in retaining the look of film on a transfer to HD media. A fabulous viewing experience.


----------



## djoberg

I forgot to mention in my review of The Secret Life of Bees that the movie itself was heartwarming, with an outstanding performance by Dakota Fanning. Queen Latifah and Jennifer Hudson should be mentioned as well for their supporting actress roles.


----------



## rsbeck

That's nice to hear -- it's on my to watch pile -- my daughter's favorite book.


I've got the High School Musical three pack coming, too.


Something about Zac Effron.


Oh, well....sounds at least Bees will look good.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moematthews* /forum/post/15856584
> 
> 
> Given the intent of this thread, I agree. But don't let that dissuade you. This is a gorgeous BD that captures all the gritty, hard-scrabble feel of the film. One of the best efforts I have seen in retaining the look of film on a transfer to HD media. A fabulous viewing experience.



100% agreement.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15857423
> 
> 
> That's nice to hear -- it's on my to watch pile -- my daughter's favorite book.
> 
> 
> I've got the High School Musical three pack coming, too.
> 
> 
> Something about Zac Effron.
> 
> 
> Oh, well....sounds at least Bees will look good.



I can't speak for 1 & 2, but regarding 3 -- when you're setting up your projector if it looks out of focus, it's not you, it's the film.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15855723
> 
> *Amadeus*
> 
> *tier recommendation: 3.25*
> 
> 
> Winner of eight Academy Awards in 1984, Warner released this classic movie to Blu-ray on February 10 of this year. The only option presented here is the director's cut at a running time of 180-minutes. The main feature is encoded in VC-1 on a BD-50. The average video bitrate is 16.68 Mbps per the BDInfo scan. The video ranges from a few peaks seen in the 30's to a nadir of 6.7 Mbps. It mainly hovers in the teens with many scenes never straying above 18.8 Mbps.
> 
> 
> At first I had a hard time distinguishing this compression encode from one targeted for the vanquished HD DVD format and only the presence of some scant seconds of peaks in the high 30's convinced me otherwise. Unfortunately it impacts the picture quality as minor posterization can be seen several times throughout the movie. It is most noticeable during the various cuts to Salieri recounting his life during his confession to the priest. Much of the movie shows no artifacting though and I will call this a competent if somewhat bitstarved compression job. Why they did not allocate more bits to certain scenes with all the empty space available (close to 13 GB) on the disc is beyond me. Some information has come to my attention that this compression encode was done in August of 2007.
> 
> 
> The first thing that will become apparent upon viewing this BD is the cleanliness of the image. Grain is negligible in all but the darkest lit scenes which strikes me as an indicator that the transfer has been filtered at some level. I will not compare it on any level to some of the worst transgressions we have seen like _Gangs Of New York_, but the image here probably does not look that faithful to the original, untampered film elements. Selective edge enhancement has also been applied at various points. Some parts of the movie look halo-free while other scenes look horribly processed where the amplitude of the ringing becomes distracting and harsh. I can at least report the master used for the transfer looks in very good condition in terms of damage or debris for a catalog title from the 80's. Many films of that decade have questionable looking flaws in the existing high definition masters and in that regard Amadeus is a notable exception.
> 
> 
> Picture quality is generally consistent and the definition of average quality for the format. This is not the sharpest Blu-ray and some scenes exhibit a bit of softness. High-frequency information is very average with long shots suffering the most from a lack of detail. I was particularly disappointed in the lack of detail in the elaborate wigs seen in the movie and some of the skin on display. It was very hard at times to see the wigs fully resolved and the individual strands had a tendency to blur together. At least the beautiful cinematography of the film is on full display here,as each scene looks masterfully composed and shot.
> 
> 
> Flesh tones look accurate to the time period portrayed in the movie, making allowances for the heavily stylized makeup favored in those days. Color rendition is generally solid and one of the better attributes of the transfer, with a well-balanced color palette that does not favor any one shade. Contrast is slightly above average with no apparent blooming of whites or clipping of blacks. Black levels are reasonably solid, though a couple of moments occur where black is not quite as deep as it is on higher ranked titles.
> 
> 
> The effort here is really a mixed bag. If you are a purist that only wants to see Blu-ray reproduce the original film elements to their best, you might want to hold off on purchase or wait until a price drop. But this transfer still demonstrates enough merit in visual quality to warrant at least a serious look. I imagine many people will be satisfied with it as the best existing home version of this great film and not be concerned with some of the added processing to the transfer. My recommendation is placement in tier 3.25, as this disc's image represents the epitome of average visual quality at the moment.
> 
> 
> Watching on a 60 Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 (firmware 2.60) at a viewing distance of six feet.
> 
> 
> BDInfo scan:
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...8#post15783938



Thanks for the usual excellent review.


This is very, very disappointing. You would think that Warner would do everything to make sure they got this one right. They didn't. Apparently Robert Harris doesn't like this any better than you do.


Real shame.


As a side note: this is, without question, my most watched movie _ever_. I have seen it in the theater several times, and virtually countless times on VHS and DVD thereafter.


At one point I could almost cite every line in the movie.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15857423
> 
> 
> I've got the High School Musical three pack coming, too.



I'm sure you won't come out of them as the same person.


----------



## deltasun

*Kill Bill Volume 1*


Didn't quite make it to KB2 yet, but I figure I may as well get my 2 cents on KB1 in the meantime.


KB1 was a very impressive, eye-massaging (to borrow a recent term) title. Close-ups are very well detailed and textured. The black and whites have really good contrast and pop. Medium shots, for the most part, preserved details very well.


Colors are very vivid and the palette selected (particularly at Vivica A. Fox's house) seem to take advantage of them to the fullest. Black levels are excellent and are very calculated in enhancing subjects during the darker scenes of the movie.


Now, on to the weaker scenes in the movie. I would pick two scenes that may fall below reference levels - the cartoon scene and the medium shots during the bride's tussle with the crazy 88's. The cartoon, I didn't mind too much. It was a stylistic, almost anime-type animation that to me did not degrade the PQ too much. I think the way the movie flowed, using the cartoon as a quick side story, kept the viewer in somewhat of a suspended animation that I feel did not detract from the visual experience. I still note that the PQ dropped a bit during.


During the crazy 88's rumble, there was definitely a sequence, during the medium black and white scene that was flat, almost lifeless. I do _disagree_ that facial details got soft. The depth of field used was very shallow, rendering the entire close-up mostly soft, BUT at the point of focus, it is sharp as a tack. Incidentally, I don't think I noticed it before on SD, but as Uma walks across the glass floor and the camera pans up at the soles of her shoes, one can clearly read "F*** U."


Despite these two scenes, I do not believe they have hurt this film's PQ too much and am comfortable in giving it...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15857423
> 
> 
> That's nice to hear -- it's on my to watch pile -- my daughter's favorite book.
> 
> 
> I've got the High School Musical three pack coming, too.
> 
> 
> Something about Zac *Effron*.
> 
> 
> Oh, well....sounds at least Bees will look good.



I wouldn't normally point out spelling errors, but on something this *important*, I couldn't let it pass. It's *Efron*. One "f."


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15859423
> 
> 
> i wouldn't normally point out spelling errors, but on something this *important*, i couldn't let it pass. It's *efron*. One "f."


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15857962
> 
> 
> As a side note: this is, without question, *my most watched movie* _ever_. I have seen it in the theater several times, and virtually countless times on VHS and DVD thereafter.



For some odd reason, I would have guessed that Lawrence of Arabia was "your most watched movie."


----------



## bluesubie

Hi! I started reading this forum late last year to help me form opinions as to which blu-rays I should purchase. I have a pretty esoteric movie collection (a lot of Asian crime and horror discs) that starts from my (big-ass) definitive *Star Wars* laserdisc set. (Yes, I still have two working laserdisc players, and will continue to do so until George L. re-issues the classics ABSOLUTELY unedited onto blu-ray.)


Many thanks to all of you for your valuable opinions, and the wonderful tiered lists. As much as people complain about how there is too much bickering and not enough watching/reviewing on the boards (thankfully not lately), from a beginners' perspective, I found that for the most part the posts were educational. Individual perspectives on blu-ray eye candy, coupled with a description of each reviewers' home setup, lead me to believe that the tiers are pretty much dead on, and better modulated than other online forums dedicated to this subject.


This forum has saved me from having to blow a LOT of money replacing DVDs - for example, I will not go any lower than whatever tier *Constantine* and *Master and Commander* have been placed at the time of this writing. In contrast, I enjoy showing off *Wall-E* and *Live Free or Die Hard* to my friends and family .


So, thank you and carry onward. And special thanks to Phantom Stranger for his wonderful review of the *Firefly* set - it's now on my wish list!


*Panasonic 50 TH-50PZ85OU, Panasonic DMP10-AK, Yamaha RX-V863 to 7 speakers, viewing distance of 8 feet.*


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15857962
> 
> 
> This is very, very disappointing. You would think that Warner would do everything to make sure they got this one right. They didn't. Apparently Robert Harris doesn't like this any better than you do.
> 
> 
> Real shame.



I know this will sound like I am equivocating on the Amadeus BD but the transfer is still very watchable. It looks to me like a better and modern transfer and encode might push this movie into the higher levels of tier two. The lossless soundtrack does add some enjoyment missing in the dvd version.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bluesubie* /forum/post/15862892
> 
> 
> Many thanks to all of you for your valuable opinions, and the wonderful tiered lists. As much as people complain about how there is too much bickering and not enough watching/reviewing on the boards (thankfully not lately), from a beginners' perspective, I found that for the most part the posts were educational. Individual perspectives on blu-ray eye candy, coupled with a description of each reviewers' home setup, lead me to believe that the tiers are pretty much dead on, and better modulated than other online forums dedicated to this subject.
> 
> [/b]



Welcome to the forum. I would hope in the future if you get the time to weigh in here on any of the Blu-rays you come across. Niche titles do not get as much attention in this thread and the list is stronger as a whole when a more diverse selection is covered.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bluesubie* /forum/post/15862892
> 
> 
> Hi! I started reading this forum late last year to help me form opinions as to which blu-rays I should purchase. I have a pretty esoteric movie collection (a lot of Asian crime and horror discs) that starts from my (big-ass) definitive *Star Wars* laserdisc set. (Yes, I still have two working laserdisc players, and will continue to do so until George L. re-issues the classics ABSOLUTELY unedited onto blu-ray.)
> 
> 
> Many thanks to all of you for your valuable opinions, and the wonderful tiered lists. As much as people complain about how there is too much bickering and not enough watching/reviewing on the boards (thankfully not lately), from a beginners' perspective, I found that for the most part the posts were educational. Individual perspectives on blu-ray eye candy, coupled with a description of each reviewers' home setup, lead me to believe that the tiers are pretty much dead on, and better modulated than other online forums dedicated to this subject.
> 
> 
> This forum has saved me from having to blow a LOT of money replacing DVDs - for example, I will not go any lower than whatever tier *Constantine* and *Master and Commander* have been placed at the time of this writing. In contrast, I enjoy showing off *Wall-E* and *Live Free or Die Hard* to my friends and family .
> 
> 
> So, thank you and carry onward. And special thanks to Phantom Stranger for his wonderful review of the *Firefly* set - it's now on my wish list!
> 
> 
> *Panasonic 50 TH-50PZ85OU, Panasonic DMP10-AK, Yamaha RX-V863 to 7 speakers, viewing distance of 8 feet.*



Thank you blue and welcome!


Please join us in recommending placements.


----------



## selimsivad

*Dog Day Afternoon*


This is one of my favorite movies, so I jumped on an awesome deal on eBay. Having owned the DVD in the past, this is definitely an upgrade. Unfortunately, the DVD was HORRIBLE!










There is a nice layer of grain throughout. The film has always had a dull look, so I didn't expect much of an upgrade. There is very little sharpness. Pores are nowhere to be found. Hair detail is below Blu quality. Faces are reddish from overall oversaturation. There is a slight upgrade in clothing texture. Night scenes lack the inky blacks we've become accustomed to from newer titles.


The average Blu owner watching this film for the first time would be terribly disappointed in the PQ. Anyone who has seen the DVD knows this is probably the best this classic will ever look. The current rating of 2.25 seems to be a tad bit outdated.












*Dog Day Afternoon

Tier Recommendation: Tier 2.75

PS3-Samsung 46" 1080p-seven*'


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

I meant to mention, I did put Madagascar 2 on yesterday, although I didn't watch much of it -- HSM3 killed me yesterday, I swear. I was going to try and pay attention and review it, but it looked so absolutely flawless given I'd just watched such a horrible PQ on the HSM3, I don't know if I would have noticed anything wrong with it. The water looked spectacular in it, though! I didn't buy this Blu, just rented it, but I was happy with what I saw when I did look at it!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15861504
> 
> 
> For some odd reason, I would have guessed that Lawrence of Arabia was "your most watched movie."



In all honesty, not even remotely close. But it is my most seen movie in 70mm!


Let's remember a few things: Lawrence is a nearly 4 hour long epic. Also, Lawrence really is a movie that is truly meant to be seen on the *BIG* screen in all its 70mm _*glory.*_


Simply put: it is not the same movie at home as it is at the theater in 70mm. This is especially true when talking about standard definition.


Finally: I consider Lawrence something to be savored, like a ultra fine cigar. Over indulge and it loses a bit of what makes it so special.


----------



## rover2002




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15867079
> 
> 
> In all honesty, not even remotely close. But it is my most seen movie in 70mm!
> 
> 
> Let's remember a few things: *Lawrence* is a nearly 4 hour long epic. Also, *Lawrence* really is a movie that is truly meant to be seen on the *BIG* screen in all its 70mm _*glory.*_
> 
> 
> Simply put: it is not the same movie at home as it is at the theater in 70mm. This is especially true when talking about standard definition.
> 
> 
> Finally: I consider *Lawrence* something to be savored, like a ultra fine cigar. Over indulge and it loses a bit of what makes it so special.



Any idea when we will see it on Blu?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rover2002* /forum/post/15868231
> 
> 
> Any idea when we will see it on Blu?



No idea.


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15869645
> 
> 
> No idea.



Have there been any paidgeek sightings/reports lately?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/15871980
> 
> 
> Have there been any paidgeek sightings/reports lately?



He stopped posting about a year ago. . .


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15866952
> 
> 
> I meant to mention, I did put Madagascar 2 on yesterday, although I didn't watch much of it -- HSM3 killed me yesterday, I swear. I was going to try and pay attention and review it, but it looked so absolutely flawless *given I'd just watched such a horrible PQ on the HSM3*, I don't know if I would have noticed anything wrong with it. The water looked spectacular in it, though! I didn't buy this Blu, just rented it, but I was happy with what I saw when I did look at it!



I haven't watched HSM3 yet, but based on this, no wonder it doesn't look very good:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...postcount=1446


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15872911
> 
> 
> I haven't watched HSM3 yet, but based on this, no wonder it doesn't look very good:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...postcount=1446





Admittedly, I don't really know what those numbers all mean, but I'll trust your interpretation of it for sure Patrick! As per my review it was terrible! Feels good that there's something else besides my viewing to back it up though! Others may think it looks better than tier 4, but... *shudder* it was so, so bad.


----------



## IanRW




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15872911
> 
> 
> I haven't watched HSM3 yet, but based on this, no wonder it doesn't look very good:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...postcount=1446



I see nothing particularly conspicuous about those numbers. 23.5 Gigs at AVC seems reasonable for a film just shy of two hours.


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15872233
> 
> 
> He stopped posting about a year ago. . .



Nothing on blu-ray.com either?


----------



## OldCodger73

_Changeling_ is dark, both in mood and look. Eastwood uses, what one person in the _Changelin_g thread refers to as a "rust/sepia" look, fine for giving a strong sense of time and place but not necessarily what one wants to see for rating PQ in an eye-candy thread. Detail and clarity were good although fine detail in close-ups was lacking. This is a hard picture to rate, a second viewing would have been beneficial, but this was a rental and needed to go back. I would rate *Changeling Tier 2.75*.


There's nothing subtle about Eastwood's directing, one knows from the get-go who the good guys are and who are the bad ones. The movie also would have benefited from tighter editing, especially in the hanging scene. Jolie gives a very controlled performance, sometime too much so. John Malkovich is cast against type as a good guy. The person who plays the serial killer, sorry can't remember his name, steals every scene he's in. This is a powerful, enjoyable movie, but also one with flaws and for me works best as a rental.


Panasonic 50" 720p plasma, Panasonic 10a player, 7.5'


----------



## OldCodger73

This is the original 1963 Peter Sellers _The Pink Panther_, not the miserable Steve Martin mess. There's quite a bit of grain present. Medium shots show a great deal of clarity and good sharpness, close-ups are what you'd expect from a 1963 movie, no fine detail. There also appears to be EE in some early scenes, at least it looks like what one see if too much sharpening was added in Photoshop. Colors are vivid. I would rate *The Pink Panther (1963) 3.5*.


This was a buy for me and a great step up from the LD I now own. Hopefully MGM will come out with _A Shot in the Dark_ soon.


Panasonic 50" 720p plasma, Panasonic 10a player, 7.5'


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Transsiberian
*
*tier recommendation: Tier 2.25
*

This movie was released by First Look Home Entertainment on November 4th of 2008. The 111-minute main feature is encoded in VC-1 on a BD-25, though there are few extras and no lossless audio to take bits away from the video encode. The encode mostly ranges from 16.6 Mbps to 21.8 Mbps, with some brief peak moments at 34.2 Mbps. I would estimate the average video bitrate to be approximately 21 Mbps. This is a very competent compression encode that does not call attention to itself. There are no real artifacts to speak of and it seems to handle the grain pattern well.


The master used for this transfer to Blu-ray looks in perfect shape with no stray marks or anomalies. One should honestly expect that for a new release at this stage of the format. The master also appears free of any filtering or digital noise reduction, with no smearing or frozen grain in view. The light and naturalistic grain structure of the film shines through with no loss of high-frequency information visible. Sadly several select scenes do exhibit heavy-handed halos. It is most apparent in the first act of the movie. The edge enhancement does seem to disappear for the rest of the movie after that point.


The color palette is slightly muted for much of the movie, which makes sense with the backdrop of isolated train stations in Russia playing a large role in the movie. Objects are drained a bit of the primary colors with an emphasis on the whites, blacks, and grays in the picture. It is possible they shot this with a color filter or changed the color timing in post-production. The depth and dimension of the image is very average for tier two. I would not call it flat looking, though there is little pop. There are a few outdoor scenes that look better than average but much of the running time is shot inside a cramped train which does not lend itself to virtuoso lensing. Contrast looks fine though black objects lose finer details and visible structure at certain times. Facial details are solid and match-up with higher ranked titles. While there are a few shots that go soft, most of the movie looks reasonably sharp.


A solid transfer that does not overly impress, but never the less appears to be transparent to the original film elements with above-average picture quality. My placement would be in tier 2.25 as it looks very similar to _The Lookout_ in quality.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15866750
> 
> *Dog Day Afternoon*
> 
> There is very little sharpness. Pores are nowhere to be found. Hair detail is below Blu quality. Faces are reddish from overall oversaturation. There is a slight upgrade in clothing texture.



This is not how Dog Day looks on my screen. I have no problem seeing facial texture, single strands of hair, clothing texture is very good and if anything, Pacino and Cazale look pale like they have not been out in the sun. I don't see reddish faces. Dog Day looks natural, satisfyingly and consistently sharp, nicely detailed, it's got those 70's colors, pleasure to watch.



> Quote:
> Night scenes lack the inky blacks we've become accustomed to from newer titles.



You can see grain in the night scenes, which is normal for a title with grain preserved. There is one scene as the getaway limo pulls away that does not look good -- black loses traction -- that's not too bad for a title in the silver tier.



> Quote:
> The average Blu owner watching this film for the first time would be terribly disappointed in the PQ.



Disagree -- I think it looks fabulous -- extremely happy with it. Grain is reproduced beautifully, detail is intact, not a hint of a halo, I do not believe Dog Day could look much better on blu-ray. I use Dog Day to demo how great old titles can look. People are consistently impressed.


It's certainly not a tier Zero or tier One title, but...


2.25 seems right to me.


.


----------



## stumlad

*Chocolate*


Decided to give this Thai movie a rental. If you're into watching martial arts films that show 1 vs many, you'll probably enjoy this. The plot is paper thin, so don't go in expecting much other than fighting...kind of like the first Kill Bill. The main character really impressed me with her skills and it seems she did all the stunts herself. Anyway... onto the PQ:


The picture quality wasn't bad, but there were some pretty bad moments of blocking... This seemed to occur in indoor scenes when looking at the walls and corners. It's not in every scene, but it was distracting. I checked the bit-rate on some them and they seemed adequate to handle (the movie ranged from low teens to high 30s, and in some of the blocking scenes, the bit-rate was in 20s). I guess they ran this thing on auto-pilot. Either way, the overall look of the movie is pretty good, and small object detail is decent, but nothing great.


Face closeups were extremely good at times, but mediocre at other. Black levels were good too, but not among the best. The overall picture did not pop too much, but it it's far from the worst. I'd give it a 3.0 if it didnt have the blocking problems.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.5*


----------



## rover2002

Last Samurai bronze only? Does it suffer from DNR or EE?


----------



## djoberg

*Changeling*


It's late, so I'm going to keep this review somewhat short. I had read OldCodger73's review shortly before slipping this movie into my Panny BD30 and I was prepared to watch, according to his recommendation, a Tier 2 title. But with all due respect to his suggestion, I am going to differ with him by at least a whole tier and recommend a Tier 1 placement.


It is true that this is a very stylized title with a definite blue cast throughout and muted colors as well. But that did not hinder demo-worthy virtues, for it consistently had remarkable sharpness and detail in 95% of the movie. As OldCodger73 said, it was a dark-looking movie, but the blacks were deep and inky, and shadow detail was excellent. Contrast was very strong and I was pleased at the quality of depth in several scenes. I was impressed with the relatively few facial close-ups, for pores, stubble, moles, etc. were easily seen. One might be critical of Angelina's rather pale face, but this was due to the heavy makeup she wore in most scenes (I'm speaking here of "female" makeup, including very heavy red lipstick, which was quite vibrant).


After comparing this title to other titles in Tier 1 that I am very familiar with, I have decided that it is a notch better than The Matrix series (comparing it to this series is fair, for they had the same stylized blue cast and dark look). So, since the Matrix is currently at 1.75, the logical placement for Changeling should be:

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*


Samsung 50" 1080p DLP....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 6'


PS I really enjoyed the movie (that's two good dramas in a row for me now after watching The Secret Life of Bees). It also confirmed what I already knew; Angelina Jolie CAN act! (She just needs the right roles to manifest her talent.)


----------



## deltasun

*The Passion of the Christ*


Not for the faint of heart. Grain was intact, specially in the first 20 minutes which was bathed in a bluish hue. That, coupled with a slight fog in the scene, would shimmer a bit (digital noise). Because of the dark bluish quality of the scenes, the elements within the scenes were not well-defined. It was difficult to discern details. The scenes at the temple, which were lit by lamps and dancing flames, were better but still did not exhibit tier 1 qualities.


The black levels, when not treated with the artificial coloring, looked rich and bold. I only remember a few scenes where they were inky.


I had high hopes, when daylight came at the 35-min mark, that the colors would get richer. However, it was not to be. The scene where the children are chasing Judas along the countryside looked soft. The majority of the scenes with the Sanhedrin looked washed out during medium shots. Even with close-up's, details that we're used to in tier 0 are absent. I believe, also, that contrast prevented any 3D pops from existing, as well as the uneven skin tones.


In the end, I would say director's intent is responsible for the look of this film. Scenes involving flashbacks seemed richer, perhaps symbolizing happier times. The rest are muted, especially evident when looking at the red clothing.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## rsbeck

*Secret Life of Bees*


Fine grain apparent at times, no sign of ringing or halo. Bees is a dialogue and character driven drama which IMO succeeds as a demo disc mostly because of the exquisite light in which just about everything is bathed and shot, providing the kind of fabulous contrast that makes single blades of grass, for example, easily identifiable. Nature shots, in particular, are really remarkable. Colors are vibrant, while remaining warm, natural and inviting -- quite a feat. My only qualms about this title are; while one can see a little texture in faces from time to time, for the most part, fine detail is missing. Faces, the focus of many scenes, tend towards the smooth. In some scenes, T-Ray has stubble on his face, but single pieces never seem to be resolved, but instead are smeared. Another character, whose name escapes me, also had facial hair that never seemed to come into focus. There was some fine object detail; fine mesh on beekeeping hats, decent, but unremarkable close-up of bees, but IMO, not enough to put this title over the top. While nature shots were remarkable and some of the finest I've seen, there also weren't enough of these, IMO, to put it over the top. Finally, Bees starts out with some very dark, murky sequences before we start to see that exquisite light. If these took place before or under titles, I might excuse them, but these take place during the feature. Once it gets going, though, a lovely blu-ray, a nice one to demo your blu-ray system. Secret Life appears on my screen like a very solid upper gold tier title. Watch it for the nature shots, the warm inviting colors and the beautiful use of light and shadow. Fans of the film should be very happy with Bees on Blu-ray.

*Recommendation: Tier 1.25*


Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From Screen


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/15874981
> 
> 
> Nothing on blu-ray.com either?



Only vague references.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15873688
> 
> 
> Admittedly, I don't really know what those numbers all mean, but I'll trust your interpretation of it for sure Patrick! As per my review it was terrible! Feels good that there's something else besides my viewing to back it up though! Others may think it looks better than tier 4, but... *shudder* it was so, so bad.



I watched most of HSM3 last night. I was actually bothered more by the fact that the movie itself was terrible than by the PQ, which was, as you indicate, quite poor. I really enjoyed HSM2, and watched it repeatedly, but the qualities that made that one enjoyable were totally lacking in HSM3. The quality of the music was totally lackluster compared to HSM2 and the whole approach to the musical numbers was totally different. HSM2 relied on realistic locations for the musical numbers, whereas HSM3 for some incomprehensible reason used elaborate stage-based sets. It was just a mind-numbing disaster.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/15875208
> 
> _Changeling_ is dark, both in mood and look. Eastwood uses, what one person in the _Changelin_g thread refers to as a "rust/sepia" look, fine for giving a strong sense of time and place but not necessarily what one wants to see for rating PQ in an eye-candy thread. Detail and clarity were good although fine detail in close-ups was lacking. This is a hard picture to rate, a second viewing would have been beneficial, but this was a rental and needed to go back. I would rate *Changeling Tier 2.75*.
> 
> 
> There's nothing subtle about Eastwood's directing, one knows from the get-go who the good guys are and who are the bad ones. The movie also would have benefited from tighter editing, especially in the hanging scene. Jolie gives a very controlled performance, sometime too much so. John Malkovich is cast against type as a good guy. The person who plays the serial killer, sorry can't remember his name, steals every scene he's in. This is a powerful, enjoyable movie, but also one with flaws and for me works best as a rental.



Whoa there, spoiler alert.


Let's try and stick to reviews of the PQ. A few thoughts on the film is fine, but this is a bit too much.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15876620
> 
> 
> I watched most of HSM3 last night. I was actually bothered more by the fact that the movie itself was terrible than by the PQ, which was, as you indicate, quite poor. I really enjoyed HSM2, and watched it repeatedly, but the qualities that made that one enjoyable were totally lacking in HSM3. The quality of the music was totally lackluster compared to HSM2 and the whole approach to the musical numbers was totally different. HSM2 relied on realistic locations for the musical numbers, whereas HSM3 for some incomprehensible reason used elaborate stage-based sets. It was just a mind-numbing disaster.



So, what is your _detailed_ *opinion of the PQ*?!?!


Patrick, I have always enjoyed your opinion but I would really like to see you actually give a whole review, including one that is formatted according to the guidelines (i.e., title listed in Size 4 followed by a review, tier recommendation and list of equipment & viewing distance). I don't believe this is asking too much considering it's what the rest of us have to do.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15876955
> 
> 
> So, what is your _detailed_ *opinion of the PQ*?!?!
> 
> 
> Patrick, I have always enjoyed your opinion but I would really like to see you actually give a whole review, including one that is formatted according to the guidelines (i.e., title listed in Size 4 followed by a review, tier recommendation and list of equipment & viewing distance). I don't believe this is asking too much considering it's what the rest of us have to do.



Most of the posts in this thread are not full reviews. I don't consider that I have watched HSM3 carefully enough to give it a formal PQ review, and I am not planning to watch it again.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15876498
> 
> *Secret Life of Bees*
> 
> 
> Fine grain apparent at times, no sign of ringing or halo. Bees is a dialogue and character driven drama which IMO succeeds as a demo disc mostly because of the exquisite light in which just about everything is bathed and shot, providing the kind of fabulous contrast that makes single blades of grass, for example, easily identifiable. Nature shots, in particular, are really remarkable. Colors are vibrant, while remaining warm, natural and inviting -- quite a feat. My only qualms about this title are; while one can see a little texture in faces from time to time, for the most part, fine detail is missing. Faces, the focus of many scenes, tend towards the smooth. In some scenes, T-Ray has stubble on his face, but single pieces never seem to be resolved, but instead are smeared. Another character, whose name escapes me, also had facial hair that never seemed to come into focus. There was some fine object detail; fine mesh on beekeeping hats, decent, but unremarkable close-up of bees, but IMO, not enough to put this title over the top. While nature shots were remarkable and some of the finest I've seen, there also weren't enough of these, IMO, to put it over the top. Finally, Bees starts out with some very dark, murky sequences before we start to see that exquisite light. If these took place before or under titles, I might excuse them, but these take place during the feature. Once it gets going, though, a lovely blu-ray, a nice one to demo your blu-ray system. Secret Life appears on my screen like a very solid upper gold tier title. Watch it for the nature shots, the warm inviting colors and the beautiful use of light and shadow. Fans of the film should be very happy with Bees on Blu-ray.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 1.25*
> 
> 
> Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From Screen



I had a sneaky suspicion there would be some recommending Tier 1 for this title. I guess I'd be willing to meet you halfway and give it a Tier 1.0 placement (especially considering, as I mentioned in my review, the first 20 minutes).


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15876955
> 
> 
> so, what is your _detailed_ *opinion of the pq*?!?!
> 
> 
> Patrick, i have always enjoyed your opinion but i would really like to see you actually give a whole review, including one that is formatted according to the guidelines (i.e., title listed in size 4 followed by a review, tier recommendation and list of equipment & viewing distance). I don't believe this is asking too much considering it's what the rest of us have to do.



+1.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15877091
> 
> 
> I had a sneaky suspicion there would be some recommending Tier 1 for this title. I guess I'd be willing to meet you halfway and give it a Tier 1.0 placement (especially considering, as I mentioned in my review, the first 20 minutes).



If I were on the edge between 1.0 and 1.25, I might do that, but I was actually on the edge between 1.25 and 1.5. If we had more decimals, I might rate this one 1.374.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15877645
> 
> 
> +1.



If you guys are not happy with my manner of participating here, I'll stop.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

HSM3 was an awful movie on top of the fact that the PQ is so terrible, I don't blame Patrick for not wanting to watch it again. I will never ever ever ever ever watch that dreck again, I'll get a DVD copy for my daughter to enjoy if she wants to see it again(and again, and again) in her own room, so I won't suffer through it again. It was a special sort of awful, that one. Because it was Disney I decided to rent it on Blu so I could review it for us here rather than rent the DVD for her, hoping I'd see a great PQ to have as a redeeming factor... but it was one of the worst Blu's I've ever seen (War, Inc included).



I didn't mind the other 2 HSM movies, but this one was just exceptionally bad on so many levels, I wonder if anyone else will sit through the whole thing to review it as well.



Patrick, I'd love to see you write reviews, but I also know people have ragged on you in the past for writing a review w/o watching the entire movie, as is the case with this one. I know not all of us have time to do that, and I still appreciate your input and opinions here!


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15878379
> 
> 
> HSM3 was an awful movie on top of the fact that the PQ is so terrible, I don't blame Patrick for not wanting to watch it again. I will never ever ever ever ever watch that dreck again, I'll get a DVD copy for my daughter to enjoy if she wants to see it again(and again, and again) in her own room, so I won't suffer through it again. *It was a special sort of awful, that one.* Because it was Disney I decided to rent it on Blu so I could review it for us here rather than rent the DVD for her, hoping I'd see a great PQ to have as a redeeming factor... but it was one of the worst Blu's I've ever seen (War, Inc included).
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't mind the other 2 HSM movies, *but this one was just exceptionally bad on so many levels*, I wonder if anyone else will sit through the whole thing to review it as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Patrick, I'd love to see you write reviews, but I also know people have ragged on you in the past for writing a review w/o watching the entire movie, as is the case with this one. I know not all of us have time to do that, and I still appreciate your input and opinions here!



Thanks for your support, G3.










I obviously agree that HSM3 was a very special sort of terrible. What in the world were they thinking?


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15875951
> 
> 
> This is not how Dog Day looks on my screen. I have no problem seeing facial texture, single strands of hair, clothing texture is very good and if anything, Pacino and Cazale look pale like they have not been out in the sun. I don't see reddish faces. Dog Day looks natural, satisfyingly and consistently sharp, nicely detailed, it's got those 70's colors, pleasure to watch.
> 
> 
> 
> 2.25 seems right to me.
> 
> 
> .



I realized I ranked it at 3.75 by mistake. I meant to type 2.75. I just changed it.

I'm not seeing detailed pores. Most of the people outside of the bank had red faces. 70's colors, IMO, are dull. Lots of earth colors here.


2.75 seems right to me.










An amazing movie. Probably Al's best role!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15877970
> 
> 
> If you guys are not happy with my manner of participating here, I'll stop.



Patrick,


It's not a matter of us not being happy with your "manner of participating"; it's a matter of not adhering to the following guidelines on page one:


******************
*Please Read Before Making a Recommendation:


We always strive to honor all user feedback when considering the placement of any title. In order to make this process easier, we require certain information:


WARNING: If you fail to use this format your recommendation may not be noticed:



Title of Film (Font size 4, Bold font type)


Detailed review (See guidelines for each tier).


Tier Recommendation (Font size 4, Bold Font type)


Screen size, resolution, and viewing distance.
*

-----------------------------------------------------------------------


I was NOT the one who came up with these guidelines, but the majority of those who participate have agreed that they are reasonable and thus they should be adhered to if your vote is going to count for title placement. You have been with this thread longer than most people so I'm surprised at your attitude (of noncompliance) towards these guidelines.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15877787
> 
> 
> If I were on the edge between 1.0 and 1.25, I might do that, but I was actually on the edge between 1.25 and 1.5. If we had more decimals, I might rate this one 1.374.



It will be interesting to see the reaction of others to this title. I will stick with my initial suggestion of lower Tier 0, but again if it ends up on the very top of tier 1 that will be okay with me.


I noticed you didn't comment on "depth" in your review. I thought there were a few scenes that had amazing 3D pop. Any thoughts on this?


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15880465
> 
> 
> I realized I ranked it at 3.75 by mistake. I meant to type 2.75. I just changed it.



Cool -- 3.75 was freaking me out.



> Quote:
> I'm not seeing detailed pores.



I hear you. I'd be bothered more if I felt detail was missing for any reason, but I do not feel that way here. I do not see any unnatural smoothness. I see natural texture and I can make out pores from time to time -- even on John Cazale, who has incredibly fine skin. Facial texture and variation looks very natural. I have docked the title down to 2.25 for a number of things, including the lack of reference type pores.



> Quote:
> Most of the people outside of the bank had red faces.



Most of his interaction outside the bank was with Charles Durning -- his face doesn't look red to me. He looks a little pale to me, too. I didn't have any problem with facial color, especially for a silver tier title.



> Quote:
> 70's colors, IMO, are dull. Lots of earth colors here.



Definitely 70's earth tones. Given that, I think it is notable that the colors still look deep and vibrant.



> Quote:
> 2.75 seems right to me.



I would have to see a little softness or some other kind of inconsistency to bring it down to 2.75. I give Dog Day some extra credit for being consistently sharp and natural looking. I believe that makes Dog Day very easy and pleasurable to watch. When I take that along with the very good clothing texture, single strands of hair beautifully reproduced grain with detail intact, natural looking faces, no ringing, etc. I think it compares very well with many titles at 2.25.


At least we're a lot closer now. 



> Quote:
> An amazing movie. Probably Al's best role!



100% agreement there.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15880878
> 
> 
> I noticed you didn't comment on "depth" in your review. I thought there were a few scenes that had amazing 3D pop. Any thoughts on this?



I didn't use the word, but it was definitely on my mind. Excellent depth and dimension.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15877970
> 
> 
> If you guys are not happy with my manner of participating here, I'll stop.



I think it is a reasonable request and it comes with a warning from the moderator.


Personally, I think you should take it as a compliment that people are asking you to write detailed formatted reviews -- but -- hey -- that's me.


Ultimately, how you choose to respond is your business.


----------



## TayC

*Gandhi*


The PQ on this was surprising, considering I wasn't blown away by the screen grabs I'd seen beforehand. A light presence of grain retains the movie's filmic look. DNR, if any, is not apparent... ESPECIALLY during close-ups. I was impressed with just how sharp the detail in close-ups was. Black levels, contrast, and colors are all *solid*.


There are some weaknesses, though: a couple scenes had large pieces of dirt visible on screen for several seconds. This was a little distracting. Also, at times I noticed a flicker-like effect. This is hard to describe and kind of unusual, but for some reason it almost reminded me of being in the theatre. It may have been my eyes playing tricks on me. A great looking disc overall, and to me an accurate representation of this classic.

*Tier 2.25*


----------



## rsbeck

TayC -- excellent review -- looking forward to this one.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15876955
> 
> 
> Patrick, I have always enjoyed your opinion but I would really like to see you actually give a whole review, including one that is formatted according to the guidelines (i.e., title listed in Size 4 followed by a review, tier recommendation and list of equipment & viewing distance). I don't believe this is asking too much considering it's what the rest of us have to do.



Patrick99 gets his review style grandfathered in







; he has been posting to this thread longer than almost anyone left here.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15877970
> 
> 
> If you guys are not happy with my manner of participating here, I'll stop.



Who said anything about not posting here? The thread needs you and your opinions. I am not bothered by your review style at all. Your independent thinking about picture quality has always been an asset to the tier list.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15881815
> 
> 
> Patrick99 gets his review style grandfathered in
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ; he has been posting to this thread longer than almost anyone left here.
> 
> 
> Who said anything about not posting here? The thread needs you and your opinions. I am not bothered by your review style at all. Your independent thinking about picture quality has always been an asset to the tier list.



+1


When I first came here, I did read through this entire thread (and as you can see by my membership status, I showed up in Oct 08!), so it was quite a lengthly process, and Patrick's definitely been here for a long time, and been a defender of this thread when naysayers come around. I'd hate for him to leave! I'd love for patrick to have _*more*_ opinions and viewpoints like he used to in the earlier days of the thread, but I'm happy to have him as a part of the constant crew here in any form!


----------



## rsbeck

IMO, any indication that we give certain members special treatment based on seniority sends the wrong message and only confirms the worst suspicions that have been leveled against this thread.


I believe we should avoid sending such a message.


I don't appreciate any member applying such brinksmanship and putting the thread in such an awkward position that people are now jumping through hoops to prove he is wanted.


Turning this into a referendum on who is wanted is pretty silly, IMO.


It is pretty simple;


We want everyone's opinion.


We ask that it be formatted to make the moderator's job easier.


If you fail to follow the format, your review may not be noticed.


I see no good reason for anyone to refuse this request.


----------



## djoberg

*Body of Lies*


Once again, it is late and the sandman is calling (







), so I'm going to make this VERY BRIEF. I was not too impressed with this title overall, but it had one redeeming feature that was seen over and over again....I'm speaking of EXCELLENT FACIAL CLOSE-UPS!! This was THE eye candy of this movie and this virtue alone elevates it to tier 2, whereas if it was void of this quality it would land itself squarely in tier 3.


With the majority of the scenes taking place in Middle Eastern deserts, cities, villages, or drab interiors, it would be an understatement to say the color palette was less-than-desirable. Blacks levels, on occasion, were deep, but the majority of the time they were lacking, as was the shadow detail. There were scenes that exhibited decent depth, but they were few and far between.


Again, skin tones and facial details saved the day for the title. I'm going to lower it one notch from deltasun's previous review.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*


Samsung 50" 1080p DLP....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 6'


----------



## rsbeck

*Madagascar 2*


Very impressive animation. Slightly above Madagascar One (ranked 1.25) in quality, but slightly below reference standards in photo realism, detail, and dimension. I would compare this to Horton Hears a Who, which is also in....

*Recommendation: Tier 1.0*


Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From Screen


----------



## tfoltz

Seems to me he usually adds his two cents onto a review and/or tier recommendation. I don't see him begging to have his posts noticed. Agree or not, I'm not sure why anyone cares. Do you always need something to complain/argue about?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15882184
> 
> 
> It is pretty simple;
> 
> 
> We want everyone's opinion.
> 
> 
> We ask that it be formatted to make the moderator's job easier.
> 
> 
> If you fail to follow the format, your review may not be noticed.
> 
> 
> I see no good reason for anyone to refuse this request.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15882184
> 
> 
> IMO, any indication that we give certain members special treatment based on seniority sends the wrong message and only confirms the worst suspicions that have been leveled against this thread.
> 
> 
> I believe we should avoid sending such a message.
> 
> 
> I don't appreciate any member applying such brinksmanship and putting the thread in such an awkward position that people are now jumping through hoops to prove he is wanted.
> 
> 
> Turning this into a referendum on who is wanted is pretty silly, IMO.
> 
> 
> It is pretty simple;
> 
> 
> We want everyone's opinion.
> 
> *We ask that it be formatted to make the moderator's job easier.
> 
> 
> If you fail to follow the format, your review may not be noticed.*
> 
> 
> I see no good reason for anyone to refuse this request.




An opinion does not equal a review though. Demanding reviews when someone's offering an opinion when they haven't watched all of the film... that's silly. I'm not trying to make it a referendum, I don't think it's awful to state that I appreciate someone's opinion, viewpoint within, or work they've done for this thread; I've said that regarding other people here too, including you.



Also, you can feel free to follow the advice bolded there -- if you don't want to read someone's opinion that's not formatted correctly, then choose the "may not be noticed" option.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I've been busy, and haven't had time to post three pending reviews, so these are going to be short and to the point....


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*The Changeling*


This was a pretty decent looking title overall, but not up to the standards of the best looking titles. Clarity and detail is lacking what the best titles in Tier 1 and above give us. I thought contrast was a bit lacking overall, so there was not a great sense of depth. Colors were good, although they were somewhat muted.


I liked the movie, but don't consider it one of Eastwood's best. Yes, Angelina really _can_ act.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.5*


JVC RS1 123" screen at 13.5'


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Raging Bull*


Oh man, what a great film this still is! I put this on thinking I would just skip through it a bit, but no way, no how could I do that with this incredible film! Scorsese at his best.


The ringing/EE was definitely noticeable in some scenes. But it was not distracting during most of the movie.


Grain is well preserved. Contrast and the gray scale were quite good. Detail and clarity were pretty much what I expected, which is to say that is was good considering how the film was intentionally shot.


Overall I was quite happy with how this came out, but for the EE in some scenes.


How this movie lost the Oscar for Best Picture I will never understand.








*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Eagle Eye*


This is a title that can really excel in PQ in parts, and look not so great in others. Detail and clarity can be excellent, with facial details in some scenes looking absolutely superb.


However, dark scenes did not look very good, and lacked detail and clarity. They looked quite a bit softer.


Colors seemed to be good and accurate.


As a side note, I have to say that this is one of the dumbest, most stupid, annoying, idiotic and unbelievable movies that I have _ever_ seen. As part of this side note, I should add a disclaimer to this review: I did not watch the whole thing. I could not suffer through it all. I am not that much of a glutton for punishment. I watched about 2/3 of the movie. Believe me, that was horrifying enough.










I mean seriously, I can't describe how absolutely awful this film was.









*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


----------



## 42041

really late to the party here, but what the hell...
*Baraka*

Finally had a chance to watch this on my new TV and write up a proper review. Some well-trodden technical issues aside, this is a very visually impressive movie, and as far as I'm concerned, the most eye-candiest live-action film of them all. This is a movie where visuals are the point, and moreso than a plot-driven movie there is a consistency between shots that just continues to impress throughout and is probably the strongest aspect of the PQ. Colors are rich but natural, contrast is perfectly delineated, there's plenty of fine detail to tickle your retinas. That some EE is present is unfortunate, but it's very rarely as distracting or noticeable as in the case of The Dark Knight, and while this might not be the elusive "perfect" 65mm transfer, for the purposes of the thread, this movie should be near the top.
*Tier 0, above I Robot*


(PS3/50" Pioneer 9g Kuro Elite plasma/1SW distance)


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Awesome string of reviews guys!










Haven't had much time lately to check out my 2 here at home from Netflix, but hopefully will soon.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/15882306
> 
> 
> Do you always need something to complain/argue about?



Apparently he sees no inconsistency between these comments suggesting that every PQ opinion needs to be in the form of a formal review and the "list" approach to rankings that he initiated.


----------



## moematthews




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15882481
> 
> *Raging Bull*
> 
> 
> Oh man, what a great film this still is! I put this on thinking I would just skip through it a bit, but no way, no how could I do that with this incredible film! Scorsese at his best.
> 
> 
> The ringing/EE was definitely noticeable in some scenes. But it was not distracting during most of the movie.
> 
> 
> Grain is well preserved. Contrast and the gray scale were quite good. Detail and clarity were pretty much what I expected, which is to say that is was good considering how the film was intentionally shot.
> 
> 
> Overall I was quite happy with how this came out, but for the EE in some scenes.
> 
> 
> How this movie lost the Oscar for Best Picture I will never understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.0*



I agreed with rsbeck for a slightly higher positioning of this one, but I could agree with your ranking. However, I also intentionally included the comment "Don't let this (the middling ranking) dissuade you", because I know some folks might be inclined not to bother with a title with that ranking.


This is simply a gorgeous BD, in that it is such a great representation of the look and feel of the original film. So I'm trying to separate the PQ intention of this thread from the actual experience of watching the movie itself. The latter is probably the best I've experienced with HD media - really draws the viewer in and captivates throughout.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moematthews* /forum/post/15883674
> 
> 
> I agreed with rsbeck for a slightly higher positioning of this one, but I could agree with your ranking. However, I also intentionally included the comment "Don't let this (the middling ranking) dissuade you", because I know some folks might be inclined not to bother with a title with that ranking.
> 
> 
> This is simply a gorgeous BD, in that it is such a great representation of the look and feel of the original film. So I'm trying to separate the PQ intention of this thread from the actual experience of watching the movie itself. The latter is probably the best I've experienced with HD media - really draws the viewer in and captivates throughout.



I agree 100% with this.


In fact, I should have stated this in my review. Raging Bull looks quite good, and any fan of the movie will greatly enjoy the huge improvement of the BD over the DVD.


The Tier 3.0 recommendation should not, in any way, dissuade people from watching/buying this great movie.


It just isn't "demo" type material.


----------



## rover2002




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15884101
> 
> 
> I agree 100% with this.
> 
> 
> In fact, I should have stated this in my review. Raging Bull looks quite good, and any fan of the movie will greatly enjoy the huge improvement of the BD over the DVD.
> 
> 
> The Tier 3.0 recommendation should not, in any way, dissuade people from watching/buying this great movie.
> 
> 
> It just isn't "demo" type material.



I thought the whole point of this thread was "PQ" and not movie content?

If someone wants to watch a movie i'm sure this thread won't stop them, its just nice to know what kind of "PQ" they might expect.

If this were a "Movie Content" thread RB would be up there in tier 0 (in my book anyway!)


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rover2002* /forum/post/15884324
> 
> 
> I thought the whole point of this thread was "PQ" and not movie content?
> 
> If someone wants to watch a movie i'm sure this thread won't stop them, its just nice to know what kind of "PQ" they might expect.
> 
> If this were a "Movie Content" thread RB would be up there in tier 0 (in my book anyway!)



Right. And my point was that despite the 3.0 rating I gave, the PQ is actually quite good considering how the film was made/shot.


----------



## Hammie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15882248
> 
> *Madagascar 2*
> 
> 
> Very impressive animation. Slightly above Madagascar One (ranked 1.25) in quality, but slightly below reference standards in photo realism, detail, and dimension. I would compare this to Horton Hears a Who, which is also in....
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 1.0*
> 
> 
> Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From Screen



Did you also find Alex the lion to be too sharp and almost fake as opposed to the other characters in the movie? This really bothered me.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hammie* /forum/post/15884726
> 
> 
> Did you also find Alex the lion to be too sharp and almost fake as opposed to the other characters in the movie? This really bothered me.



In general, I was impressed by the level of animation, but -- yes -- I found him and several others rather fake looking. I found a similar problem with Horton Hears a Who. With these new levels of animation, if the film maker skimps anywhere, it sticks out like a sore thumb.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15882917
> 
> 
> Apparently he sees no inconsistency between these comments suggesting that every PQ opinion needs to be in the form of a formal review and the "list" approach to rankings that he initiated.



Having kept that list, I know for certain that using the format will make Super Slow's job easier. I also know that readers appreciate it. Having used the format, I know it is not much trouble to employ.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15884949
> 
> 
> Having kept that list, I know for certain that using the format will make Super Slow's job easier. I also know that readers appreciate it. Having used the format, I know it is not much trouble to employ.



Apparently you didn't understand my point. In keeping those lists, you welcomed additions to the lists that took a form much less formal than a full review.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15885028
> 
> 
> Apparently you didn't understand my point. In keeping those lists, you welcomed additions to the lists that took a form much less formal than a full review.



Yep -- I sure did. And I may again in the future. I was reading through each page every day, collecting those votes, keeping it up to date -- took a heck of a lot of time. If I feel like doing that, that should be *my* perogative and should not in any way be seen as the way we should conduct ourselves on an every day basis for Super Slow. So, I know you think you have a good point here, but I do not -- I don't think it is asking much of you and I don't see any need to confuse the issue. I would hope you would just agree to use the format and take it as a compliment that people are interested enough in your opinion to express a desire for more complete reviews. If you want to talk any further about this, I would suggest PM.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15885079
> 
> 
> Yep -- I sure did. And I may again in the future. I was reading through each page every day, collecting those votes, keeping it up to date -- took a heck of a lot of time. If I feel like doing that, that should be *my* perogative and should not in any way be seen as the way we should conduct ourselves on an every day basis for Super Slow. So, I know you think you have a good point here, but I do not -- I don't think it is asking much of you and I don't see any need to confuse the issue. I would hope you would just agree to use the format and take it as a compliment that people are interested enough in your opinion to express a desire for more complete reviews. If you want to talk any further about this, I would suggest PM.



Just to be clear, I thought your idea of keeping those lists was a very welcome addition, and I commend you for taking the time and trouble for doing it. I very much hope that you will continue to do it in the future. Since I don't detect a consensus in support of your position regarding my manner of posting here, I will continue doing what I have been doing. I have no interest in discussing this via PM, so I assume we can just move on to other things.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15885156
> 
> 
> From the front page...
> 
> *How it works:*
> 
> *We welcome all opinions on all blu-rays...The single best way to make sure your point of view is represented is to write a review with a recommendation in the format just described. Every few weeks, the moderator scans the thread looking for reviews and recommendations. Using the format described above will ensure that your recommendation is noticed and counted....*
> 
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post10733385



I certainly don't read that as prohibiting PQ comments that are not in the form of a formal review.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15882184
> 
> 
> IMO, any indication that we give certain members special treatment based on seniority sends the wrong message and only confirms the worst suspicions that have been leveled against this thread.
> 
> 
> I believe we should avoid sending such a message.
> 
> 
> I don't appreciate any member applying such brinksmanship and putting the thread in such an awkward position that people are now jumping through hoops to prove he is wanted.
> 
> 
> Turning this into a referendum on who is wanted is pretty silly, IMO.
> 
> 
> It is pretty simple;
> 
> 
> We want everyone's opinion.
> 
> 
> We ask that it be formatted to make the moderator's job easier.
> 
> 
> If you fail to follow the format, your review may not be noticed.
> 
> 
> I see no good reason for anyone to refuse this request.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15877645
> 
> 
> +1.




-1


Did you not read his post?!?!



I see a VERY good reason to refuse this request which Patrick explained perfectly in his post if you read it. He did not feel he watched it carefully enough to give it a *formal review* so he just threw out his opinion. Even if this opinion gets passed up due to technicalities as far as "voting" purposes, I certainly still want his input and I welcome his (and anyone else for that matter) thoughts as they are just as valuable as any other opinion from a practical standpoint from my perspective being a regular reader of this thread. If he did post a formal review and it was not detailed enough, chances are you would jump on him for that as well! Cant have it both ways beck.










Patrick, for my 2.5 cents, your thoughts however you want to post them are just as valuable as anyone in this thread strictly from the readers point of view. If you dont feel you have watched the film in question closely enough to give a formal review, then just post your thoughts/opinion. Please keep posting!


----------



## moematthews




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rover2002* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I thought the whole point of this thread was "PQ" and not movie content?
> 
> If someone wants to watch a movie i'm sure this thread won't stop them, its just nice to know what kind of "PQ" they might expect.
> 
> If this were a "Movie Content" thread RB would be up there in tier 0 (in my book anyway!)





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moematthews* /forum/post/15883674
> 
> 
> I agreed with rsbeck for a slightly higher positioning of this one, but I could agree with your ranking. However, I also intentionally included the comment *"Don't let this (the middling ranking) dissuade you", because I know some folks might be inclined not to bother with a title with that ranking.*
> 
> 
> This is simply a gorgeous BD, in that it is such a great representation of the look and feel of the original film. *So I'm trying to separate the PQ intention of this thread from the actual experience of watching the movie itself.* The latter is probably the best I've experienced with HD media - really draws the viewer in and captivates throughout.



That is why I tried to qualify my comments. I did not want a less than "reference" rating to stop people from watching this movie. But I didn't mean to suggest that I was talking about "movie content". While this is obviously a superb movie (Tier 0 for content, as you mentioned), I was commenting on the fact that the PQ is great because it is so faithful to the character of the original, not because it is great in and of itself.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/15885270
> 
> 
> f he did post a formal review and it was not detailed enough, chances are you would jump on him for that as well



I never asked Patrick to write a complete formatted review of a film he did not watch, so I have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15885381
> 
> 
> I never asked Patrick to write a complete formatted review of a film he did not watch, so I have no idea what you're talking about.





Disagree. That is certainly *NOT* my perception of these comments below. He did watch most of it by the way, again, if you read his post.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15876955
> 
> 
> So, what is your _detailed_ *opinion of the PQ*?!?!
> 
> 
> Patrick, I have always enjoyed your opinion but I would really like to see you actually give a whole review, including one that is *formatted* according to the guidelines (i.e., title listed in Size 4 followed by a review, tier recommendation and list of equipment & viewing distance). I don't believe this is asking too much considering it's what the rest of us have to do.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15877645
> 
> 
> +1.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/15885412
> 
> 
> Disagree. That is certainly *NOT* my perception of these comments.



Obviously, thus your rather confused rant.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15885428
> 
> 
> Obviously, thus your rather confused rant.




I dont see how most would not perceive it this way beck.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/15885435
> 
> 
> I dont see how most would not perceive it this way beck.



I would guess most would have read the entirety of the discussion before going on such a confused rant, or perhaps would have asked for clarification before doing such a snake river jump to the conclusions you assumed before posting your response.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15885488
> 
> 
> I would guess most would have read the entirety of the discussion before going on such a confused rant .



You should realy follow your own advice as I have already pointed out







Again, seemed obvious to me what you were getting at.


----------



## rsbeck

Since I have full knowledge of my intentions while you are merely guessing, I can only tell you that you have guessed badly.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15885597
> 
> 
> Since I have full knowledge of my intentions while you are merely guessing, I can only tell you that you have guessed badly.



Intentions and perceptions dont always line up, but I honestly think in this case they do. I think you are fooling yourself as far as your intentions.


----------



## rsbeck

At this point, I think you have crossed the line and are just being argumentative, but just so others don't get confused by your assumptions...


I enjoy Patrick's opinions, but IMO, that is beside the point -- whether I agree or enjoy someone's opinion or not, the point is that when posting reviews, it is appreciated by the thread moderator if they are formatted as requested in the thread's Original Post. Like Djoberg and many others, when Patrick does post a review, I would like to see him use the format that has been requested of all of us. Like Djoberg, I am interested enough in Patrick's opinion, that I would also love to see him flesh out his reviews with more detail. Even if he has only watched a portion of a film and only comments on the PQ, I would love to see more detail.


Outside of formatted reviews, everyone is free to write whatever they want.


Of course, it goes without saying that people are free to behave as they choose, but if someone refuses to use the requested format, I believe the same warning should apply to everyone -- if you fail to use the format, your recommendation may not be noticed when the moderator collects the votes.


Since it takes so little trouble, I see no reason that anyone should be excused from this warning -- especially after they've been made aware of it.



.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15722677
> 
> 
> I think you guys are getting a bit too hung up on process. It's hard enough to get people to participate here. Let's not make it even harder with such detailed rules about review format etc.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15760867
> 
> 
> I think we should stop discussing changes that would involve new threads, subthreads, etc.



Based on the posts above Patrick (especially the first one), it is obvious that you really aren't keen on the changes that have been made. I guess I had forgotten these posts when I wrote yesterday to encourage you to write detailed reviews according to the new guidelines.


I never meant to try to coerce you into complying with these guidelines if your heart isn't in it. My problem is trying to understand _why_ you don't like the new format since it seems so many people like it. I applaud LBFilmGuy for the suggestions he made and I truly believe the thread is much more readable and profitable with the new format. And I do believe we have had MANY more new posters adding their reviews since LB's suggestions were implemented, so IMO it has been a very healthy change.


By all means continue to participate as you have (i.e,. giving "opinions" in lieu of "reviews"). I still value your opinion, even though I would really like to see you participate more fully in the process of making placements.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15885739
> 
> 
> At this point, I think you have crossed the line and are just being argumentative, but just so others don't get confused by your assumptions...
> 
> 
> I enjoy Patrick's opinions, but IMO, that is beside the point -- whether I agree or enjoy someone's opinion or not, the point is that when posting reviews, it is appreciated by the thread moderator if they are formatted as requested in the thread's Original Post. Like Djoberg and many others, when Patrick does post a review, I would like to see him use the format that has been requested of all of us. Like Djoberg, I am interested enough in Patrick's opinion, that I would also love to see him flesh out his reviews with more detail. Even if he has only watched a portion of a film and comments on the PQ, I would love to see more detail.
> 
> 
> Outside of formatted reviews, everyone is free to write whatever they want.
> 
> 
> Of course, it goes without saying that people are free to behave as they choose, but if someone refuses to use the requested format, I believe the same warning should apply to everyone -- if you fail to use the format, your review may not be noticed when the moderator collects the votes.
> 
> 
> Since it takes so little trouble, I see no reason that anyone should be excused from this warning -- especially after they've been made aware of it.



Understood, BUT in this particular case Patrick was not writing a review, formal or otherwise. In this case, he was *NOT* looking to get a vote counted. Patrick was simply posting some thoughts and opinions since he feels he *"did not watch it carefully enough"* to write a formal review (I feel this way with MOST of the titles I watch which is one reason I dont write formal reviews more either) and therefore could not throw out a review worthy of the thread criteria. My only point is in this type of situation, I would still encourage him (and others) to still post their thoughts/opinions even if it does not get counted as a "vote" because from a reader perspective, this information is still just as valuable (IMO) as any other review/impression/opinion in this thread. I would hope most people here would still welcome these impressions/opinions when the viewer feels he/she has not watched a film close enough for a formal review since (as a reader) I want as many opinions as possible.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15885745
> 
> 
> i applaud lbfilmguy for the suggestions he made and i truly believe the thread is much more readable and profitable with the new format. And i do believe we have had many more new posters adding their reviews since lb's suggestions were implemented, so imo it has been a very healthy change.



+1


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/15885889
> 
> 
> My only point is in this type of situation, I would still encourage him (and others) to still post their thoughts/opinions even if it does not get counted as a "vote" because from a reader perspective, this information is still just as valuable (IMO) as any other review/impression/opinion in this thread.



That's your only point? If so, then we agree and if any of my comments led anyone to assume otherwise, I hope that this has now been clarified.


----------



## stumlad

I don't believe this was ever meant to be a pick-on-patrick thing. If he didn't want his vote counted, what he did was fine... if he wanted his voted counted, however, then it would be nice for him to review in a similar format as others have been. Is that asking too much?


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

stumlad -- I giggle every time I see your signature.










And no, I don't think Patrick was wanting his "vote" counted on HSM3, he was just agreeing with me that it was horrible to watch (both movie-wise and pq-wise).



I do want someone else to have to suffer the same 2hrs that I did and watch that entire thing and post a review as well. I'm really curious of other opinions of the PQ of it.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15886051
> 
> 
> And no, I don't think Patrick was wanting his "vote" counted on HSM3, he was just agreeing with me that it was horrible to watch (both movie-wise and pq-wise).



For the record, when I responded to Patrick's post (in response to your review on HSM3), I was NOT of the mind that he was wanting his "vote to be counted." I was simply using that occasion to encourage him to write reviews (according to the guidelines on page one) so that it would qualify as a vote and then his input could be part of the placement process.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15886051
> 
> 
> stumlad -- I giggle every time I see your signature.



Hehe. Thanks. I debated about it for a while before I decided to use it but figured that those who understood it would like it! Guess I was right.




> Quote:
> I do want someone else to have to suffer the same 2hrs that I did and watch that entire thing and post a review as well. I'm really curious of other opinions of the PQ of it.



Good luck with that...


----------



## rsbeck

To me, it seems so obvious it hardly needs to be said that if one does not care if one's recommendation is counted, one is free to write in the format of one's choice.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15886051
> 
> 
> And no, I don't think Patrick was wanting his "vote" counted



The key point, IMO, is that no one should have to guess which comments are intended to count as a recommendation and which are not.

When posters use the format and write formal recommendations, it becomes very easy to tell which are which.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15886247
> 
> 
> To me, it seems so obvious it hardly needs to be said that if one does not care if one's recommendation is counted, one is free to write in the format of one's choice.



It needed to be said so those who dont feel they have watched a film close enough to write a review worthy of the thread criteria will still be welcomed and encouraged to post their thoughts/opinions on PQ. This thread does not always give off that "vibe" and I for one want more people to post opinions/impressions who otherwise would not if the thread cirteria and formal review process is what is holding them up.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/15886390
> 
> 
> It needed to be said so those who dont feel they have watched a film close enough to write a review worthy of the thread criteria will still be welcomed and encouraged to post their thoughts/opinions on PQ. This thread does not always give off that "vibe" and I for one want more people to post opinions/impressions who otherwise would not if the thread cirteria and formal review process is what is holding them up.



I agree. I think most people here know that my main desire/priority for this thread is to have as many people participate as possible. It only gives the thread more credibility when that happens. This is true even if those who post here have very differing opinions than the majority.


In fact, those minority opinions can be very helpful, as they generate a lot more discussion than when everyone simply agrees.


From my standpoint, I do wish that Patrick would post more "formal" reviews. He very rarely does this. Instead, he usually waits for others to give there opinions and then indicates whether or not he agrees with it. That, for whatever reason, has become his posting style.


Although I may not particularly care for it, the last thing I would want is for him to stop participating in the thread. His comments are usually accompanied by questions regarding the particular title, and it leads to additional discussion of the PQ attributes. This is a positive thing.


Looking back, I am not quite sure how this issue has got so out of hand. Someone simply asked Patrick for his detailed review of a title. He said he didn't feel he had watched enough to give a full review. That should have been the end of the discussion.


I don't think it helped when Patrick said something to the effect of "if you are not happy with my posting style here, I will stop participating", which led to many people feeling the need to support him, which further led to others defending their request to have him post detailed reviews.


Let's all agree that we wish Patrick would post more formal reviews, but that if he doesn't, we still value his contributions and discussions, and nobody had asked or implied that he stop posting in this thread.


Time to move on...


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/15886390
> 
> 
> those who dont feel they have watched a film close enough



I don't know of any thread anywhere on AVS that is especially welcoming to those who do not know the topic well, but still want to express opinions. Try doing that in the projector threads. I think that's a just an unfortunate byproduct of coming to an enthusiasts site.


I suspect most people who come here will eventually want their opinion to count for something and will want to know how to achieve that.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15886607
> 
> 
> Let's all agree that we wish Patrick would post more formal reviews, but that if he doesn't, we still value his contributions and discussions, and nobody had asked or implied that he stop posting in this thread.
> 
> 
> Time to move on...



Right on.


----------



## stumlad

So to summarize: Feel free to comment as you like about reviews, etc... If you want your vote to be counted, the best way to ensure that is to post a formal review. You can post a review in another way, but there's no guarantee it will be counted. Does that pretty much capture it?


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15886607
> 
> 
> I agree. I think most people here know that my main desire/priority for this thread is to have as many people participate as possible. It only gives the thread more credibility when that happens. This is true even if those who post here have very differing opinions than the majority.
> 
> 
> In fact, those minority opinions can be very helpful, as they generate a lot more discussion than when everyone simply agrees.
> 
> 
> From my standpoint, I do wish that Patrick would post more "formal" reviews. He very rarely does this. Instead, he usually waits for others to give there opinions and then indicates whether or not he agrees with it. That, for whatever reason, has become his posting style.
> 
> 
> Although I may not particularly care for it, the last thing I would want is for him to stop participating in the thread. His comments are usually accompanied by questions regarding the particular title, and it leads to additional discussion of the PQ attributes. This is a positive thing.
> 
> 
> Looking back, I am not quite sure how this issue has got so out of hand. Someone simply asked Patrick for his detailed review of a title. He said he didn't feel he had watched enough to give a full review. That should have been the end of the discussion.
> 
> 
> I don't think it helped when Patrick said something to the effect of "if you are not happy with my posting style here, I will stop participating", which led to many people feeling the need to support him, which further led to others defending their request to have him post detailed reviews.
> 
> 
> Let's all agree that we wish Patrick would post more formal reviews, but that if he doesn't, we still value his contributions and discussions, and nobody had asked or implied that he stop posting in this thread.
> 
> 
> Time to move on...



Well said Rob and agreed.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15886634
> 
> 
> I don't know of any thread anywhere on AVS that is especially welcoming to those who do not know the topic well, but still want to express opinions. Try doing that in the projector threads. I think that's a just an unfortunate byproduct of coming to an enthusiasts site.





The whole point is we are all at dif skill levels as far as our critical viewing or lack of as the case may be and all dif levels of viewers should be welcomed IMO as EVERY level has the potential to bring something to the table. When one views a title only one time (like I do most of the time) there is only so much they can gather in that viewing as far as critical PQ assessment is concerned especially considering they are also taking in AQ, story, acting, etc......because of this they may not feel they have enough info to place a proper and formatted review to do the criteria justice, but I for one still value these opinions and want to read them.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15886675
> 
> 
> So to summarize: Feel free to comment as you like about reviews, etc... If you want your vote to be counted, the best way to ensure that is to post a formal review. You can post a review in another way, but there's no guarantee it will be counted. Does that pretty much capture it?



That's how I see it stumlad.


----------



## selimsivad

*Children Of Men (Import)*


IMO, the best sci-fi of the 21st century so far. This Blu is a region free, Nordic import I found on Amazon.


Based in a dystopian Great Britain, the outdoor city scenes displayed greys and earthy colors with lots of depth. Scenes in the forest showed luscious greens. Whenever primary and secondary colors appeared, they really stood out from the rest of the dreary scenery. This film is razor sharp, with lots of 3D pop!










There is a light, consistent layer of grain throughout. Blacks are inky and deep. Fleshtones looked natural. Contrast was slightly above average. Pores and hair competed with the best of Tier 1. Fabrics, especially sweaters, showed lots of detail.


Architecture showed plenty of depth and detail, especially destroyed buildings and their remains (bricks and debris covering the ground).


Overall, a good looking title! Fans will not be disappointed!









*Children of Men (Import)

Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.25

PS3-Samsung 46" 1080p-seven*'


----------



## Hammie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/15886390
> 
> 
> It needed to be said so those who dont feel they have watched a film close enough to write a review worthy of the thread criteria will still be welcomed and encouraged to post their thoughts/opinions on PQ. This thread does not always give off that "vibe" and I for one want more people to post opinions/impressions who otherwise would not if the thread cirteria and formal review process is what is holding them up.



I am rather new to this forum and have never felt that my comments or opinions were not wanted or "worthy" of being written down in a post. I have made many comments about my opinions without writing a formal review.


Can we go back to talking about the PQ of movies? We've taken up almost an entire page of back and forth banter about what I feel is clearly explained on the first page.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Live And Let Die
*
*tier recommendation: Tier 2.75
*

A James Bond movie starring Roger Moore, MGM released this 1973 film to Blu-ray on October 21st of 2008. The 121-minute movie is encoded in AVC on a BD-50. The average video bitrate is 29.15 Mbps per the BDInfo scan of the disc. The video encode varies between 25.2 Mbps to 36.6 Mbps over the course of the film, never really leaving those bounds. The disc has been authored and encoded by Deluxe Digital Studios.


A casual viewer might possibly call this compression encode excellent. Ninety-eight percent of the time it is flawless with no artifacting. I did note some minor flaws. Three brief shots feature very light banding in the background, all occurring in the first forty minutes of the movie. There was also at least one moment where the hint of chroma noise appeared on the edge of visibility. Several shots of the sky show slight macroblocking that would go unnoticed by anyone not specifically looking for it. It looks fine in motion but I am not sure it would hold up to scrutiny in still images. That being said this is still a solid encode that most viewers will be pleased with in its entirety.


The master for _Live And Let Die_ and the basis of this transfer to Blu-ray has had a complete restoration by Lowry Digital Images. Eight separate people are credited for the work on the Blu-ray. The original camera negative was scanned at 4k resolution and then worked on using Lowry's proprietary digital tools. The image on this BD clearly reveals the immense amount of work that went into the restoration. A film of this vintage rarely looks in this good of shape, with no print damage visible throughout it. Even the typical signs that digital scratch removal has been applied to the transfer are virtually negligible, with only one or two microscopic spots seen. While digital noise reduction tools have been applied, the use of filtering is very judicious to my eyes. This is not the waxy sheen left behind of poorer implementations of DNR. A fine layer of grain is still present in the image. I would not call it an extremely natural look for a film of this vintage but it is generally pleasing. There are some scattered scenes that exhibit mild edge enhancement. Most of the movie is free of halos though and when they are visible they are not distracting.


The picture itself has reasonably nice clarity and resolution. Outdoor shots seem to have the best quality, with a surprising depth of field to them. Aside from a few soft moments, the image is relatively sharp for this tier. Colors generally look accurate with a pleasing and well-balanced contrast to the image. Black levels are superb with an inky quality to them. Fine shadow detail is resolved nicely throughout the film. The many Afro's on display are all rendered exceptionally well down to the smallest detail. I did notice that flesh tones are a little less stable than one would like. Roger Moore goes from overly tan to looking more fair-skinned at various points.


High-frequency information does seem to be slightly affected by the grain removal on this transfer. Close-ups are okay in terms of detail but skin textures look a little too smooth compared to the better transfers. This effect appears to be variable, as some shots look untouched while others look a little more processed.


Overall I thought this BD was a huge upgrade over the dvd. While some portions of the film probably achieve a look commensurate with a slightly higher ranking, I would recommend a placement in the bottom quarter of tier two for a couple of questionable moments.


Watching on a 60” Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 (firmware 2.60) from a viewing distance of six feet.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Patsfan123):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...6#post14922786


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hammie* /forum/post/15887189
> 
> 
> I am rather new to this forum and have never felt that my comments or opinions were not wanted or "worthy" of being written down in a post. I have made many comments about my opinions without writing a formal review.
> 
> 
> Can we go back to talking about the PQ of movies? We've taken up almost an entire page of back and forth banter about what I feel is clearly explained on the first page.



Thank you.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hammie* /forum/post/15887189
> 
> 
> 
> Can we go back to talking about the PQ of movies? We've taken up almost an entire page of back and forth banter about what I feel is clearly explained on the first page.



You bet Hammie. Back to your regularly scheduled program


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

I thought I was a strong enough girl to hang out with the boys here, but I do think I was sadly mistaken. After initially being very timid, I felt comfortable enough to be able to post my reviews, opinions and thoughts about something I really enjoy.


As much as I enjoy debates regarding actual PQ-issues, when the thread breaks down into the bickering and personality conflicts, I simply hate it and just want everyone to get along. I don't want people to leave, I want people to continue providing opinions and viewpoints, especially since I still have a lot to learn about all of this. I've been doing my best to keep up, and pretty much I end up damned-if-I-do, damned-if-I-don't.



I know I go OT, and for that, I apologize. From now on if I choose to continue participating in here, I'll do you all the favour and just shut up and do reviews only. I sincerely apologize to those I've offended with anything I may have said, or just irritated with my conduct in here, including this post.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Okay everyone, let's take a deep breath and enjoy a beer together.


Cheers!


----------



## rsbeck

Geeky -- I, for one, hope you continue to participate and not only with reviews. I was particularly charmed the time you posted links to tasty snack recipes. I also like having a female point of view around here. Hopefully, we can tone down the bickering and personality conflicts.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15890021
> 
> 
> Okay everyone, let's take a deep breath and enjoy a beer together.
> 
> 
> Cheers!



I'll have one of those -- looks like a Guinness!!!


----------



## rsbeck

Where do you get the kind that refills itself?


----------



## LBFilmGuy

LOL a special place.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15890023
> 
> 
> geeky -- i, for one, hope you continue to participate and not only with reviews. I was particularly charmed the time you posted links to tasty snack recipes. I also like having a female point of view around here. Hopefully, we can tone down the bickering and personality conflicts.



+1


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15889955
> 
> 
> I know I go OT, and for that, I apologize.



Yeah, but G3, when _you_ go OT, it's delicious!


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15890023
> 
> 
> Geeky -- I, for one, hope you continue to participate and not only with reviews. I was particularly charmed the time you posted links to tasty snack recipes. I also like having a female point of view around here. Hopefully, we can tone down the bickering and personality conflicts.



Not only that, but you can cover the PQ for all the chick flicks so that we can just tell our wives/girlfriends [Lumberg voice] "Yeah.... I'd get that, but G3 gave it a Tier 4.0 rating ...."


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15889955
> 
> 
> I thought I was a strong enough girl to hang out with the boys here, but I do think I was sadly mistaken. After initially being very timid, I felt comfortable enough to be able to post my reviews, opinions and thoughts about something I really enjoy.
> 
> 
> As much as I enjoy debates regarding actual PQ-issues, when the thread breaks down into the bickering and personality conflicts, I simply hate it and just want everyone to get along. I don't want people to leave, I want people to continue providing opinions and viewpoints, especially since I still have a lot to learn about all of this. I've been doing my best to keep up, and pretty much I end up damned-if-I-do, damned-if-I-don't.
> 
> 
> 
> I know I go OT, and for that, I apologize. From now on if I choose to continue participating in here, I'll do you all the favor and just shut up and do reviews only. I sincerely apologize to those I've offended with anything I may have said, or just irritated with my conduct in here, including this post.



You *ARE* strong enough to hang out here and you have proven that. I dont participate a whole lot here GGG, but I do read this thread regularly and I very much enjoy your reviews and this thread is just a better place in general with your participation, on topic and off IMO







I Hope you stay...


To stay on topic, thanks for all the Youth Without Youth praise as it prompted me to give it a rent this weekend and overall I thought it looked fantastic. It was a bit inconsistent at times, but not enough to be an issue. I wont even attempt a formal review from my one viewing since I was actually caught up in the film quite a bit (I liked it) and being more of an audio guy, this one had a surprisingly good soundtrack which kept my focus more than the PQ on a tech level, but the PQ was very impressive and I probably would have skipped this film if not for this thread. Thanks!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15891558
> 
> 
> Not only that, but you can cover the PQ for all the chick flicks so that we can just tell our wives/girlfriends [Lumberg voice] "Yeah.... I'd get that, but G3 gave it a Tier 4.0 rating ...."



That's all fine and good, but what happens when G3 gives a chick flick a Tier 0-2 rating!


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15892021
> 
> 
> That's all fine and good, but what happens when G3 gives a chick flick a Tier 0-2 rating!



We'll pay her off so that they never get a Tier 0-2 rating


----------



## TayC

*Ghost Town*


WOW. My jaw dropped and stayed that way during the opening title sequence of this movie. Close-ups filled with extraordinary detail. I couldn't believe it. The rest of the movie was about as good, and for a romantic comedy, the PQ was just outstanding. Inky, deep blacks, vibrant colors, and pop are the perfect words to describe Ghost Town.


The contrast runs a little hot though, but I think it's the DP's intent. I saw this movie in theaters and it looked similar to what you see on Blu-Ray. This is a very clean transfer, slightly grainy but with a perfect film look. The detail was good but a tiny bit washed out, which is what I think knocks the rating down a little. The contrast is so high that the whites tend to be a bit strong for my taste. Fine details were a bit lacking when it comes to faces. Everything else, like leaves, bricks, streets, and other aspects of NYC look stunning.

*Tier 1.0*


Panasonic 42PX80u, 8 feet


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15882229
> 
> *Body of Lies*
> 
> 
> Again, skin tones and facial details saved the day for the title. I'm going to lower it one notch from deltasun's previous review.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.25*



I agree with your review for the most part, but I thought this title was slightly better than both The Departed and MI:3 (both at 2.25). Thus, my 2.0 rating.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15892650
> 
> 
> We'll pay her off so that they never get a Tier 0-2 rating



Sounds good!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*For Your Eyes Only
*
*tier recommendation: Tier 2.0*


A James Bond movie from 1981, MGM released this Blu-ray on October 21st of 2008. Here is simply an outstanding visual presentation considering the original film elements. The movie runs for 127 minutes and is encoded in AVC on a BD-50. The average video bitrate is 26.22 Mbps per the BDInfo scan. The encoding range is a little lower than the encoding seen on Live And Let Die but actually produces fewer artifacts. The video ranges from a low of 22.2 Mbps to short peaks topping out at 35.6 Mbps, with action scenes resting in the upper half of that band. Technical quality is generally flawless but two spots of banding are notable. Early in the movie, in an office with lime-green walls, a touch of banding can clearly be seen in the upper right-most edge of the frame. Another instance occurs in the factory when the bad guys and good guys are having a skirmish. Deluxe Digital Studios is the compression house that encoded this disc.


Lowry Digital Images also restored the master for this transfer and this time eleven people are credited with the work. The level of work that went into the restoration is plainly evident. The master looks in immaculate shape and as transparent to the original film elements as one could hope for a movie of this vintage. If I did not know any better I would have believed this movie had been filmed this decade, it looks so clean and pristine. The use of digital noise reduction is slightly more noticeable on this transfer than _Live And Let Die_. Grain has been visibly reduced and textures are mildly robbed of the finest small details. There are no questionable appearances of unnatural grain structure though, as it appears the DNR was excellently applied to leave no strange grain anomalies visible. The transfer is completely free of any edge enhancement.


The picture quality is very good for most of the movie. It is not the sharpest looking image but there is a wonderful clarity throughout with excellent contrast. Primary colors appear lush for the most part and well-saturated. The color palette looks more accurate and natural in appearance than the colors in _Live And Let Die_. Flesh tones are much more stable and consistent on this transfer also. There are no wild variations in Roger Moore's skin tone this time. The transfer shows no signs of blooming whites, which is important considering the key scenes that take place on snow-capped ski slopes.


Black levels show no sign of crushing and in general are nicely rendered, with a deep quality to them while still showing solid low-light information. There are not a lot of facial close-ups in the movie and high-frequency details are relatively average for a movie of tier two and this might be the result of the digital processing applied to the transfer. I will point out that no butterfly lighting or other tricks are used to conceal or soften the actresses' natural features. There is a scene where overall resolution drops some and that is the underwater sequence in the latter stages of the film. While it still looks good, there is more softness and dullness to this section.


Considering the original photography of the movie, I can not believe a better Blu-ray version of this particular movie will ever be seen. The meticulous restoration seems to have been presented on this BD as accurately and faithful as possible. The visual quality of the image is incredible for its source material and I was very tempted to place it in the bottom of tier one. Just the smallest loss of the best fine detail prevented me from placing the title higher. Tier 2.0 sounds good for an image of this quality.


Watching on a 60” Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 (firmware 2.60) from a viewing distance of six feet.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of House):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...9#post14859729 

Video bitrate graph (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.cinemasquid.com/MovieDeta...px?MovieId=932


----------



## TayC

*Dr. No*


What a great restoration. Consistent colors that truly pop are what really make this movie look great. Detail is excellent... grain is mostly intact. Lowry really did as good of a job they could do with a nearly 50 year old film. There are some issues you would encounter with a film this old, such as some frames that weren't in as good a shape as others, and thus less repairable. A few scenes also have noticeable edge ringing. But the best scenes are so good you'll forget about some of the minor problems. From what I've seen, this is the best looking HD restoration of a color movie from this era.

*Tier recommendation: 2.25*


Panasonic 42PX80u, 8 feet


----------



## rsbeck

TayC -- nice work -- keep 'em coming!


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TayC* /forum/post/15893866
> 
> 
> From what I've seen, this is the best looking HD restoration of a color movie from this era.



Just curious -- have you seen The Professionals or Sand Pebbles?


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15894387
> 
> 
> Just curious -- have you seen The Professionals or Sand Pebbles?



Or _How the West was Won_.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/15894542
> 
> 
> Or _How the West was Won_.



Nice catch!


----------



## rsbeck

*Casino*


I'm going to give a general opinion here and then I am going to give a review. I do not believe HD demo discs happen by accident. It takes a lot of planning and care. Faces must be lit and shot correctly to reveal first texture, then pores and imperfections and then reference quality facial detail where you don't just see pores and imperfections, but they are resolved incredibly well. The picture must be sharp in order to see single strands of hair and then single strands of eyebrow and eyelashes and then single strands of peach fuzz that most people have somewhere on their face -- even after shaving. It helps if actors wear clothing with texture and then care must be taken to resolve it. Helps if advantage is taken of opportunities to reveal fine object and surface texture detail, if scenes are set in front of walls or in locations where there is other surface texture or variation that can be resolved, helps if scenes are lit employing excellent contrast, light and shadow to give the picture depth and clarity, etc. etc.


Casino is a film that employs few, if any, of these. Faces look smooth, eyebrows never resolved, seldom can you make out single strands of hair, opportunities for fine object detail -- money, chips, slot machines, etc. -- are missed, clothing either has little texture to resolve or is not lit in a way to resolve it, scenes are not set in locations that are visually interesting from a high-def point of view, contrast runs a little hot making the picture a tiny bit soft, etc.


Now, in no way should this be construed as a slam against Scorcese's film making. It's obvious to me here that Scorcese was more interested in telling his story than in creating a high-def demo disc and his film is lit and shot to achieve that -- and from a movie watching and film making stand-point, there is nothing wrong with employing cinematography simply to tell one's story. Aside from a few issues, Casino is plenty watchable. What are those issues? One -- I don't know if the smooth faces are intentional or the fault of the transfer. Two -- it seems to me like the picture is not quite saturated enough -- the imagery seems just a tad flat and doesn't have that satisfying high def palpability. Again -- I do not know if this is a limitation of the print, the intentionally hot contrast, or the transfer. Still, this is an improvement over the DVD.

*Recommendation: Tier 3.0*


Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From Screen



.


----------



## rsbeck

*Mr. Brooks*


Reassessment:


This is an interesting title. Going further along the line of argument set forth in the Casino review, Brooks offers one very impressive attribute; In a number of scenes, Kevin Costner's face exhibits near reference quality detail. Outside of those scenes, Brooks offers very little to recommend it as a demo disc. Very little fine object detail, very little of high def interest in settings, contrast is sometimes problematic and picture sometimes has a washed out quality. Question is; How much should Brooks be rewarded for the near reference quality face shots? IMO, a very good comparison could be made between Brooks and another former tier 0 title with strong facial detail -- Black Snake Moan. These two titles have almost the exact same strengths and weaknesses. IMO, Moan should be moved to 1.75 and IMO this would also be a very fitting place for Mr. Brooks.

*Recommendation: Tier 1.75*


Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From Screen


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Coxwell* /forum/post/15760653
> 
> *Donnie Darko*
> 
> 
> What a great disappointment ! I read some articles online that underline the fact that the image is haze and blurred all over the film. Despite of the fact it's a limitation of the DP and the film stock (very high sensibility), i thought the contrast and blacks will be a little more appropriate for an high definition disc. I can't compare with the dvd i don't own, but i think this blu ray disc is probably just a bit better than the SD previous edition.
> 
> *Recommandation : Tier 3.75**
> 
> 
> Kuro 50" 9G - Panasonic BD35 - Distance of viewing 7 feet*



agreed. On Kuro 5010, 9 feet back.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/15894542
> 
> 
> Or _How the West was Won_.



Considering how few films were shot in 3-strip cinerama, that's not really a fair measuring stick for most older movies though. I think The Godfather trilogy is quite an excellent restoration of older 35mm films too, I'm very happy Paramount didn't half-ass such a great movie.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15894820
> 
> *Mr. Brooks*
> 
> 
> Reassessment:
> 
> 
> This is an interesting title. Going further along the line of argument set forth in the Casino review, Brooks offers one very impressive attribute; In several scenes, Kevin Costner's face exhibits near reference quality detail. Outside of those scenes, curiously, Brooks offers very little to recommend it as a demo disc. None of the other actors faces are ever resolved as well, very little fine object detail, very little of high def interest in settings, contrast is sometimes problematic and picture sometimes has a washed out quality. Question is; How much should Brooks be rewarded for the near reference quality face shots? IMO, a very good comparison could be made between Brooks and another former tier 0 title -- Black Snake Moan. These two titles have almost the exact same strengths and weaknesses. Moan has been moved to 1.75 and IMO this would also be a very fitting place for Mr. Brooks.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 1.75*
> 
> 
> Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From Screen



While an excellent movie, I've never been that impressed with the PQ so this probably sounds about right. I'll have to watch my copy and see.


----------



## TayC




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/15894542
> 
> 
> Or _How the West was Won_.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15894387
> 
> 
> Just curious -- have you seen The Professionals or Sand Pebbles?



I have not seen these. I have seen the How the West Was Won screen grabs, and was very impressed. I think what amazes me most about Dr. No was the job done on the color. Now I'm eager to see the titles you guys listed so I can compare


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/15894954
> 
> 
> I think The Godfather trilogy is quite an excellent restoration of older 35mm films too, I'm very happy Paramount didn't half-ass such a great movie.



I refuse to acknowledge the existence of Godfather III, so I haven't watched the blu-ray, but I definitely agree with you on I and II.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TayC* /forum/post/15894991
> 
> 
> I have not seen these. I have seen the How the West Was Won screen grabs, and was very impressed. I think what amazes me most about Dr. No was the job done on the color. Now I'm eager to see the titles you guys listed so I can compare



I'll be curious to hear your feedback.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/15894960
> 
> 
> While an excellent movie, I've never been that impressed with the PQ so this probably sounds about right. I'll have to watch my copy and see.



Cool.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/15783505
> 
> *Casino*
> 
> 
> Wow! I gotta say, I purchased this title (1) because it's one of my favorite movies but (2) the bonus of a Tier 1 title. Boy, was it ever mis-tiered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing it was on sale!
> 
> 
> Anyway, the first thing to notice is lack of really crisp black levels (I may have been spoiled with the recent watching of The Mummy 3). The contrast is also lacking. I understand that the setting for the main part of the movie is the 70's and hence, the "look" that was applied. As much as I love the scenes (specially between DeNiro and Pesci), the lack of PQ is just glaring. It's like a thin bit of haze was applied throughout the scenes. Colors are flat and uninteresting.
> 
> 
> It did improve just a tad once we enter the 80's, but the PQ drops again soon after. I have to admit that I did notice a bit of 3D pop in some scenes, which I could not believe given the haze. They were there, but ever so slightly. Most of these were during scenes with DeNiro.
> 
> 
> Overall, I cannot see this title anywhere in Tier 1. I remember seeing a similar haze in The Hunt for Red October, but not as bad or pervasive. The only saving grace is the movie itself.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.5*
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15894731
> 
> *Casino*
> 
> 
> I'm going to give a general opinion here and then I am going to give a review. I do not believe HD demo discs happen by accident. It takes a lot of planning and care. Faces must be lit and shot correctly to reveal first texture, then pores and imperfections and then reference quality facial detail where you don't just see pores and imperfections, but they are resolved incredibly well. The picture must be sharp in order to see single strands of hair and then single strands of eyebrow and eyelashes and then single strands of peach fuzz that most people have somewhere on their face -- even after shaving. It helps if actors wear clothing with texture and then care must be taken to resolve it. Helps if advantage is taken of opportunities to reveal fine object and surface texture detail, if scenes are set in front of walls or in locations where there is other surface texture or variation that can be resolved, helps if scenes are lit employing excellent contrast, light and shadow to give the picture depth and clarity, etc. etc.
> 
> 
> Casino is a film that employs few, if any, of these. Faces look smooth, eyebrows never resolved, seldom can you make out single strands of hair, opportunities for fine object detail -- money, chips, slot machines, etc. -- are missed, clothing either has little texture to resolve or is not lit in a way to resolve it, scenes are not set in locations that are visually interesting from a high-def point of view, contrast runs a little hot making the picture a tiny bit soft, etc.
> 
> 
> Now, in no way should this be construed as a slam against Scorcese's film making. It's obvious to me here that Scorcese was more interested in telling his story than in creating a high-def demo disc and his film is lit and shot to achieve that -- and from a movie watching and film making stand-point, there is nothing wrong with employing cinematography simply to tell one's story. Aside from a few issues, Casino is plenty watchable. What are those issues? One -- I don't know if the smooth faces are intentional or the fault of the transfer. Two -- it seems to me like the picture is not quite saturated enough -- the imagery seems just a tad flat and doesn't have that satisfying high def palpability. Again -- I do not know if this is a limitation of the print, the intentionally hot contrast, or the transfer. Still, this is an improvement over the DVD.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 3.0*
> 
> 
> Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From Screen
> 
> 
> 
> .



I originally recommended a Tier 1 ranking. Man, how things have changed!










I read both reviews and strongly disagreed!


After watching for the first time in about three months, I couldn't agree more!










This just goes to show that PQ is truly improving!









*Casino

Tier Recommendation: Tier 2.75

PS3-Samsung 46" 1080p-seven*'


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15895539
> 
> 
> This just goes to show that PQ is truly improving!



This can only be good for us movie lovers! That's why it was such a step back when _Body of Lies_ did not deliver PQ-wise. Still shaking my head over that one.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15895539
> 
> 
> This just goes to show that PQ is truly improving!



Or........our eyes are getting worse!










Actually, I have discovered this on several titles that I revisited lately. This is DEFINITELY a good thing!


----------



## rsbeck

selimsivad --

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...9#post15895539 


Excellent -- thanks!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/15893113
> 
> 
> I agree with your review for the most part, but I thought this title was slightly better than both The Departed and MI:3 (both at 2.25). Thus, my 2.0 rating.



I've only seen about a half dozen titles in 2.25 on Blu-ray. The Happening and Harry Potter: The Chamber of Secrets were as good (or better) than Body of Lies, so I still think it's a fair call. But hey, we are as close as we can get in our judgment, right? (Without recommending the same placement, that is.)


----------



## deltasun

*Kill Bill Volume 2*


Quite a fun ride, these Kill Bills. I think it helped to have watched a couple other movies in between volumes, specially since those other movies were nowhere near the same ballpark.


The early scenes in the chapel were probably the least impressive of the film, mostly due to lighting. Most of the characters' faces are backlit, devoid of true details. This, of course, is director's intent, of which we don't speak of here.







However, once Uma walks outside the chapel to Bill, details crispen and voila! We hit some tier 0 material - Uma's and Bill's faces in black & white.


Let me pause here and talk a bit about the ringing that rsbeck spoke of. I have to admit, I really had to pause the scenes, set the Haagen Dazs down, and walk up to the screen and squint to really see the ringing under Uma's ankle, around the door/pew edges, etc. I think this is where we may have some inconsistencies when it comes to our individual perceptions. With a 100+" screen to work with, I can see how the ringing can be more persistent. However, I probably would not have noticed any of it had rsbeck not made mention in his detailed post. Additionally, there's the question of whether or not the ringing is natural or tampered with. I personally think they're the natural result of high-contrast edges.


The only other "problem" area was during the Pai Mei training scene. Something curious occurred when I got to that part. The scene just before it was Bill and Uma by the campfire. This particular scene was not very well shot. However, the contrast between this scene and the Pai Mei scene was stark enough that the Pai Mei scene was a welcome departure. The saturation and grain was very pleasing to the eyes...these eyes, at least. So, it wasn't much of a departure from the rest of the quality scenes.


All in all, this title had deep, beautiful blacks. The colors were vibrant when called for (the desert, the interior of Bill's villa). Details were exquisite and abundant. There are so many notable scenes - one of my favorites is the drive from Esteban to Bill's villa. During the black and white scene from the car's point of view, depth of field is maximized and details are present all the way to infinity. Then, we cut to the sword







(perfect lighting and fine texture) followed by the front of the light blue-colored convertible.


Sadly, I did not notice any 3D pop. There were several scenes that almost exhibited them, but not quite.


In comparison, I believe this still had slightly better overall PQ over volume 1, regardless of their coming from the same shoots. Not enough, however, to move it to another tier. I still contend that this title is a high...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0*


I can easily see how this was in Tier 0. But, I think with the current influx of titles such as Domino and Youth Without Youth, there is a clear leap in picture quality.


For rsbeck, I pose a question: *if* the ringing did not exist, would you agree with a Tier 1.0 placement?

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Delta your review of KB 2 is almost identical to mine.


----------



## deltasun

Now, I'm gonna have to look yours up.












Edit: Yep, yep...good eye, mate.


----------



## Coxwell

*Man on Fire*


A true reference far above a lot of new discs. Sharpness and definition are disturbing. I won't rewrite all of the qualities enumerated in the last posts, but i would like to underligne the slight problem with blacks. They are not as consistant as the demo material found in I,Robot or Dark Knight. Compared to the black bars, they are often grayed. Maybe it's due to the post-production treatment, an intentional choice of the director. Nevertheless, it's a bit disappointing.

*Recommendation: Tier Reference - Second part of the list - Below Youth without Youth*

*Kuro 50" G9 - Panasonic BD 35 - 7 feet*


----------



## rsbeck

*In Cold Blood*


2.35:1, Black and White, 1967


Grain appears intact and consistent throughout, thin ringing noted on some high contrast edges. In Cold Blood is a dialogue and character driven drama which is not demo material, but has been artfully lit and shot to create excellent contrast, black levels, grayscale, and depth. Blood is not lit and shot to reveal ultra fine detail, but you see natural texture and variation, especially in Robert Blake's face, some landscapes, and things like the walls around the gallows. Picture is consistently sharp, impressively dimensional and easy to watch.

*Recommendation: Tier 2.50*


Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From 126" Screen


----------



## rsbeck

*Kill Bill*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/15898034
> 
> 
> For rsbeck, I pose a question: *if* the ringing did not exist, would you agree with a Tier 1.0 placement?



In some ways, I guess I am more lenient towards ringing, but in others, I am more strict. My position on ringing is that most of the time we cannot know how it comes to be, so instead of guessing or posting undue conclusions, I believe we should just judge the quality of the picture we're given.


I am usually very tolerant of some incidental ringing, but for me, the ringing in the Kill Bills was persistent enough that it was an annoyance and a distraction. Whether ringing comes from EE or any other cause, the result is the same, it creates a phenomenon that to the casual observer might look like sharpness and pop, but actually results in edges that are soft.


To my eyes, the Kill Bills also achieve their "pop" with other effects that are equally problematic. For example; the blown whites. This results in a picture that is bright, but -- again -- soft. I believe this tricks us into thinking we're seeing a better picture than we actually are -- it's the reason people who sell displays turn them to "torch mode" -- because there is a part of us that can be tricked into thinking a brighter picture is a better picture.


Another trick is the close-up inserts, which IMO, cause us to accept and excuse a lot of softness in between. I mentioned in my review how I often felt like I wanted a focus knob on my remote control -- I don't think I should have that kind of nagging feeling while watching an upper tier one title.


I notice you called the close-ups on the front porch of the church tier 0 close-ups. I would disagree. I do not consider those to be reference quality close-ups. Those close ups are certainly not as impressive as the ones we see in Youth Without Youth or Domino and not as impressive to me as several titles I've seen recently in tier 1.0 and 1.25. I believe I can point you to several silver tier titles with more impressive close-ups.


In medium shots, faces are often curiously smooth and lacking in detail. DNR? Maybe. To me, DNR is just like EE. No matter the cause, missing detail is missing detail, a smooth face is a smooth face, whether it is caused by DNR in the transfer or filtering in post production.


So, I suppose I and a few others who agreed with my tier 1.5 ranking just see these titles a little differently. It could be because I watch on a 126" screen, but I don't believe the others are watching on 100+" screens, so I don't know that this provides a satisfactory explanation, either.


I just don't believe the Kill Bills compete with tier 1.0 titles like Tropic Thunder or another title we recently voted upon and which will end up in tier 1.0, Shoot 'em Up. I don't believe they compete with tier 1.25 titles like Incredible Hulk, TDK, Hancock, or Friday Night Lights. I believe a very good comparison can be made between the Kill Bills and a title like Pearl Harbor, which also has a lot of impressive things going for it and which resides in tier 1.75. Check it out.


To my eyes, the Kill Bills are tier 1.5 titles and KB2 is borderline 1.75.


To say I am unimpressed with them and then recommend them to tier 1.5 would be rather absurd. I have to be impressed with a title to recommend it anywhere in the gold tier. So, I _am_ impressed with the Kill Bills.


I'm impressed enough to recommend them to tier 1.5.


I doubt that the elimination of the ringing would be enough to cause me to recommend 1.0.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15894820
> 
> *Mr. Brooks*
> 
> 
> Reassessment:
> 
> 
> This is an interesting title. Going further along the line of argument set forth in the Casino review, Brooks offers one very impressive attribute; *In several scenes, Kevin Costner's face exhibits near reference quality detail.* Outside of those scenes, curiously, Brooks offers very little to recommend it as a demo disc. None of the other actors faces are ever resolved as well, very little fine object detail, very little of high def interest in settings, contrast is sometimes problematic and picture sometimes has a washed out quality. Question is; How much should Brooks be rewarded for the near reference quality face shots? IMO, a very good comparison could be made between Brooks and another former tier 0 title -- Black Snake Moan. These two titles have almost the exact same strengths and weaknesses. Moan has been moved to 1.75 and IMO this would also be a very fitting place for Mr. Brooks.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 1.75*
> 
> 
> Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From Screen



I haven't watched this all the way through lately, so I don't feel that I am in a position to comment on the placement. However, I do think the bolded statement is somewhat inaccurate and incomplete. Based on my recollection, it is more than just "several" scenes that display this high detail in close-ups, and this phenomenon is not limited to Costner but applies equally to Hurt.


I will be interested to see Rob Tomlin's reaction to your review.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15898598
> 
> 
> I will be interested to see Rob Tomlin's reaction to your review.



Hopefully, his -- and others -- reaction will be to re-watch all the way through and to work from a fresh memory.



.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15898622
> 
> 
> I am not working from a vague recollection. I have just watched it again -- all the way through. In my vague memory before re-watching, I remembered more of those close-ups, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully, his -- and others -- reaction will be to re-watch all the way through and to work from a fresh memory.



And is my vague recollection that there were similarly detailed close-ups of Hurt also faulty?


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15898625
> 
> 
> And is my vague recollection that there were similarly detailed close-ups of Hurt also faulty?



There may be a couple of decent close-ups of Hurt, but for the most part, if you recall, Hurt is recessed in the shadows -- because he is an invisible alter-ego whom others cannot see.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15898627
> 
> 
> There may be a couple of decent close-ups of Hurt, *but for the most part, if you recall, Hurt is recessed in the shadows* -- because he is an invisible alter-ego whom others cannot see.



That description does not correspond with my recollection. I recall him, for example, being in the back seat of the car when Costner is driving, but well lighted.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

I recently watched Mr. Brooks...brb looking up my review.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...ostcount=10560 


1.5 from me.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15898654
> 
> 
> I recently watched Mr. Brooks...brb looking up my review.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...ostcount=10560
> 
> 
> 1.5 from me.



Based on your review and your recent viewing, would you say that the number of highly detailed facial close-ups is accurately described as "several"?


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15898668
> 
> 
> Based on your review and your recent viewing, would you say that the number of highly detailed facial close-ups is accurately described as "several"?



Absolutely.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15810765
> 
> *Mr. Brooks*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Facial closeups were unreal in this film. *Every shot* of Costner and Cook showed every nook and cranny of their faces. Fantastic.



I guess that didn't sound like "several" to me.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15898685
> 
> 
> I guess that didn't sound like "several" to me.



LOL


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15898687
> 
> 
> LOL



Maybe we have different definitions of "several." I think of "several" as meaning "three or four."


----------



## patrick99

My dictionary tells me "several" means "more than two and fewer than many."


----------



## patrick99

Good morning.


----------



## Beery

How can the folks behind the AVS PQ thread rate 2001 so highly when it has awful problems throughout?


I don't see how anyone could possibly miss some significant flaws in the movie that this film's much-hyped restoration should have caught and fixed - such as:


5:10 - top right - hair on the still image.

6:08 - center - about 6 pieces of dirt.

6:14 to 6:30 - throughout sky - dust all over the still image, looks like someone tried to wipe it off the still image but just smeared it.

6:42 - top left - dust smears.

6:46 - center of frame - dust and dirt.

7:02 - top left and top right - really obvious smeared dust/dirt.

17:02 (beginning of DVD's chapter 5) - two nasty black spots in sky as the ape-man eats meat.

1:08:06 to 1:10:12 (from when Bowman is showing HAL his drawing until HAL first detects problem) dirt on negative shows as flashes first on Bowman's notebook, then at 1:08:41 on the ceiling, then from 1:09:08 to 1:10:12 on Bowman's face.


P. White (at Amazon.co.uk) writes about the backcloth problems:

"That brings me to my only real irritation with the film. If Stanley Kubrick was such a perfectionist (and he was) then why oh why did he allow the set designers to use a godawful backcloth screen to simulate the African terrain and sky? It's SO blaringly obvious that it's artificial because the viewer can see creases and imperfection in the fabric. It ruins the whole sequence. It was bad enough on DVD but with the extra resolution of Blu-ray it's just annoying. It's the one things that I wish someone would digitally correct."


William J. Oswald at writes in response:

"The dynamic range of the print and orginal negative far exceeds video transfer so it is possible to pull out "flaws" in projection screens and matts that are completely invisible on cinema projection. Basically they have amplified a section of the exposure range that should have been concealed by the normal grading and response curves of the film as it was meant to be seen."


This explains some of the 'dust wash' problems in the sky during the 'Dawn of Man' sequence.


As for other Amazon reviewers who are less than awed by this high definition transfer...


Deen Reviews writes:

"While many of the live-action scenes benefit from the higher resolution and scan rate, the special effects fall apart completely. Model shots look - well like plastic models. Worse, the traveling mattes are quite visible and there are an incredible number of artifacts in several of the space shots. What is also apparent is that this version was in fact not re-mastered for blu-ray. If it was, I seriously question the knowledge and skills of the engineers who did the work."


Wayne H. Gage writes:

"This movie should have been crystal clear video detail but the hd version was no better than the standard."


M. Wehrs writes:

"Resolution is great of course but image quality was not up to what a BlueRay image should be. Overall a great way to see 2001 but did not measure up to my expectations in visual quality. "


Joe Russo writes:

"Although very sharp and clear there is blurring on the edges."


I mean really, this is a horrible transfer. I just cannot believe the AVS PQ thread rates it so highly. Really, if you can't see the flaws you just aren't looking.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Beery* /forum/post/15899703
> 
> 
> How can the folks behind the AVS PQ thread rate 2001 so highly when it has awful problems throughout?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wayne H. Gage writes:
> 
> "This movie should have been crystal clear video detail but the hd version was no better than the standard."


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15898622
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully, his -- and others -- reaction will be to re-watch all the way through and to work from a fresh memory.



Not going to happen any time soon.


I am done debating Mr. Brooks.


This title was originally in Tier 0. Several people said it was not a Tier 0 title and voted it down. So, I re-watched it all the way through again. I admitted that the contrast was not as strong in some of the dark scenes as I would have liked, but I thought the detail and clarity was still good enough for it to remain in Tier 0.


I have no intention of going back and reviewing it a third time. Bottom line is that there are more people voting for various placement in Tier 1 than Tier 0, so that's fine with me. We will not always reach a consensus on these titles, obviously.


Similarly, we can't expect people to go back and completely re-watch a title every time a new discussion about that title comes up.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15900135
> 
> 
> Similarly, we can't expect people to go back and completely re-watch a title every time a new discussion about that title comes up.



Agreed! Life is way too short for that.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15900269
> 
> 
> Agreed! Life is way too short for that.



+1


Some of us have other things that occupy our time besides watching movies.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15898556
> 
> 
> I believe we should just judge the quality of the picture we're given.



Agreed.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15898556
> 
> 
> To my eyes, the Kill Bills also achieve their "pop" with other effects that are equally problematic. For example; the blown whites. This results in a picture that is bright, but -- again -- soft. I believe this tricks us into thinking we're seeing a better picture than we actually are -- it's the reason people who sell displays turn them to "torch mode" -- because there is a part of us that can be tricked into thinking a brighter picture is a better picture.



I definitely agree with the blown whites not fitting our criteria in this thread and I penalized the film for that. However, that was limited to only the early chapel scenes. There may have been a few more here and there, but not to the extent of the chapel scenes. Its level of distraction is definitely a subjective call and I agree it was plenty distracting in the chapel scene but not after.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15898556
> 
> 
> Another trick is the close-up inserts, which IMO, cause us to accept and excuse a lot of softness in between. I mentioned in my review how I often felt like I wanted a focus knob on my remote control -- I don't think I should have that kind of nagging feeling while watching an upper tier one title.



I've had this feeling for other films, but for this one I did not get the urge. I liken it to the constant movement/defocus/focus/stutter/etc. of Tony Scott in Domino. While he continued on his stylistic approach, they were quick enough (and obviously, quick enough is subjective, I understand) that I was still presented with the sharp close-ups to keep the medium softness at bay. It's a good trick and I think we have to view the scene as a whole and not the sum of its paused parts. Pausing is for confirming why something is a distraction, not to find un-noticed faults. I'm not saying that's what you're doing, but I think it's important to make that distinction. Otherwise, all our reviews will end up simply talking about flaws that may not have necessarily detracted from the quality of the scene.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15898556
> 
> 
> I notice you called the close-ups on the front porch of the church tier 0 close-ups. I would disagree. I do not consider those to be reference quality close-ups. Those close ups are certainly not as impressive as the ones we see in Youth Without Youth or Domino and not as impressive to me as several titles I've seen recently in tier 1.0 and 1.25. I believe I can point you to several silver tier titles with more impressive close-ups.



Sure, not as high in Tier 0 as Youth Without Youth or Domino, but low Tier 0. I'm talking about when Uma first tilts her head towards Bill and Bill turns his towards Uma (away from his flute). I saw crisp black & white detail.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15898556
> 
> 
> I just don't believe the Kill Bills compete with tier 1.0 titles like Tropic Thunder or another title we recently voted upon and which will end up in tier 1.0, Shoot 'em Up. I don't believe they compete with tier 1.25 titles like Incredible Hulk, TDK, Hancock, or Friday Night Lights. I believe a very good comparison can be made between the Kill Bills and a title like Pearl Harbor, which also has a lot of impressive things going for it and which resides in tier 1.75. Check it out.



I think KB2 holds up pretty well against Tropic Thunder and definitely, with The Incredible Hulk. TDK's strength lies in how it handles its black levels, fittingly so. KB2 has some great close-up's. The scene between Uma and Esteban is another good example. As far as Pearl Harbor, I will have to check that out.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15898556
> 
> 
> To my eyes, the Kill Bills are tier 1.5 titles and KB2 is borderline 1.75.



I guess I see it a bit differently. To me, there were more hurtful medium shots in KB1 than KB2. The fight scene with the Crazy 88's hurt, the animation hurt, and parts of the Vivica A. Fox scenes hurt. In KB2, once we got passed the chapel, it was on cruise control minus a few short scenes.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15898556
> 
> 
> To say I am unimpressed with them and then recommend them to tier 1.5 would be rather absurd. I have to be impressed with a title to recommend it anywhere in the gold tier. So, I _am_ impressed with the Kill Bills.



I hope I didn't give the impression of your unimpression. I definitely agree that for you (or anyone) to recommend to 1.5 is still a testament to the quality of the film. I, for one, am happy to see us getting into the nitty gritty of such films. In the long run, it will only serve to make our list more credible.


----------



## deltasun

I popped in _*Mr. Brooks*_ for about 10-20 minutes last night and was reminded why I thought this was a lower tier 1 title - CONTRAST issues. At least, that's what the yellowish cast looks like. The very first scene in the bathroom with Costner is a good example.


I will probably watch it tonight and give a detailed review.


P.S. I've always thought a _couple_ was two, _few_ was 3 or 4, and _several_ was 5 or 6.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/15900384
> 
> 
> I definitely agree with the blown whites not fitting our criteria in this thread and I penalized the film for that.



Actually, I wouldn't make a hard rule about that. I imagine there might be a way to employ blown whites that might not be bothersome.



> Quote:
> However, that was limited to only the early chapel scenes.



I believe there are blown whites as well as light sources that bloom intermittently (don't pin me to a number!) all through the movies.



> Quote:
> Its level of distraction is definitely a subjective call and I agree it was plenty distracting in the chapel scene but not after.



The Chapel Sequence had other issues, too. The grain, which I usually like, causes medium shots to be fuzzy -- and the chapel sequence is rather long.



> Quote:
> I've had this feeling for other films, but for this one I did not get the urge. I liken it to the constant movement/defocus/focus/stutter/etc. of Tony Scott in Domino.



I can only say that I did not leave Domino with the same feeling of persistent softness that I did with the Kill Bills.



> Quote:
> I think we have to view the scene as a whole and not the sum of its paused parts.



Definitely agree.



> Quote:
> Pausing is for confirming why something is a distraction, not to find un-noticed faults. I'm not saying that's what you're doing, but I think it's important to make that distinction.



Definitely agree.



> Quote:
> As far as Pearl Harbor, I will have to check that out.



Cool.



> Quote:
> I guess I see it a bit differently.



That's cool with me -- IMO, .5 tier apart in the same tier is not that far and can be the result of two people weighing strengths and weaknesses differently.



> Quote:
> To me, there were more hurtful medium shots in KB1 than KB2.



I agree that these two titles have different strength to flaw ratios and I did feel that KB2 was more consistent and in general I believe that it's easier to watch a title that is more consistent than one where the pendulum has more swing to it.



> Quote:
> The fight scene with the Crazy 88's hurt, the animation hurt, and parts of the Vivica A. Fox scenes hurt. In KB2, once we got passed the chapel, it was on cruise control minus a few short scenes.



What did you think of the Pai Mei sequence or the final lengthy sequence between Thurman and Carradine?



> Quote:
> I hope I didn't give the impression of your unimpression. I definitely agree that for you (or anyone) to recommend to 1.5 is still a testament to the quality of the film.



Thank you.



> Quote:
> I, for one, am happy to see us getting into the nitty gritty of such films. In the long run, it will only serve to make our list more credible.



Same here.


----------



## deltasun

Good points, rsbeck...you're right that .5 tier difference is not a bad thing. I am pretty satisfied with our points of view on this film.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15900938
> 
> 
> What did you think of the Pai Mei sequence or the final lengthy sequence between Thurman and Carradine?



I briefly described what I thought of the scene. Let me explain it this way. There is definitely digital noise in it and less detail. On its own, it would *not* warrant 1.0 placement. However, I believe the way the film transitioned from the campfire scene into the Pai Mei scene was pleasing to the eyes. It's almost like lime before tequila.










It did not bother me as much as the animation scene from KB1, for instance.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Beery* /forum/post/15899703
> 
> 
> I don't see how anyone could possibly miss some significant flaws in the movie that this film's much-hyped restoration should have caught and fixed - such as:
> 
> 
> 5:10 - top right - hair on the still image.
> 
> 6:08 - center - about 6 pieces of dirt.
> 
> 6:14 to 6:30 - throughout sky - dust all over the still image, looks like someone tried to wipe it off the still image but just smeared it.
> 
> 6:42 - top left - dust smears.
> 
> 6:46 - center of frame - dust and dirt.
> 
> 7:02 - top left and top right - really obvious smeared dust/dirt.
> 
> 17:02 (beginning of DVD's chapter 5) - two nasty black spots in sky as the ape-man eats meat.
> 
> 1:08:06 to 1:10:12 (from when Bowman is showing HAL his drawing until HAL first detects problem) dirt on negative shows as flashes first on Bowman's notebook, then at 1:08:41 on the ceiling, then from 1:09:08 to 1:10:12 on Bowman's face.
> 
> .



wow, a few specks of dirt, that ruins EVERYTHING


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/15902348
> 
> 
> I am pretty satisfied with our points of view on this film.



Same here -- thanks!


----------



## OldCodger73

The word inconsistent pretty much sums up the PQ in this Woody Allen film.


Color varies, the opening scene, the trip in from the airport, looks washed out, kind-of like some of my faded late 1950 and 60s Ektachome slides. Other outdoor scenes look normal. However, much of the movie has a slight golden cast, which didn't really bother me.


Sharpness was also all over the place. Most close-ups looked very good, with fine details like freckles, pores and minor skin blemishes just starting to show. On the other hand, some medium shots, the kind where one would expect good sharpness and clarity, look like they were shot with a soft-focus lens.


Overall, I'd rate *Vicky Cristina Barcelona Tier 3.25*.


The acting by the four main characters was very good. I'm not a great Woody Allen fan and this movie did nothing to change that.


Panasonic 50" 720p plasma, Panasonic 10a player, 7 1/2'


----------



## Murilo

Just want to chime in on some ratings.


Watching 1080p projector, 92 inch screen, from 9 feet.


Fearless I felt belongs bottem tier 1, or top teir 2, its to low right now, blacks and shadow detail are excellent. While some of the scenery is breathtaking.


I would vote bottem teir 1.


Boondock saints, probably as good as you can get from a low budget film i would say its pq was decent to good, belongs bottem teir 2.


Hellboy 2 I think is reference material I have no idea how it dropped so much. I think it belongs bottem tier 0 yet.



As for kill bill I only have number 1, one of the better transfers, the only area I felt it dipped down was crazy 88 scene, the final scene and early scenes were amazing. I like its spot right now.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Beery* /forum/post/15899703
> 
> 
> How can the folks behind the AVS PQ thread rate 2001 so highly when it has awful problems throughout?
> 
> 
> I don't see how anyone could possibly miss some significant flaws in the movie that this film's much-hyped restoration should have caught and fixed - such as:
> 
> 
> I mean really, this is a horrible transfer. I just cannot believe the AVS PQ thread rates it so highly. Really, if you can't see the flaws you just aren't looking.



I agree the transfer was not perfect, but even with the flaws you cited it looked very close in caliber to its current placement in the tier list. The source material is simply so good that it overcame many of the listed problems. I think the next edition of the movie on Blu-ray will look even better and might possibly challenge for the upper reaches of tier one, if Warner finally figures out how to maximize the full potential of Blu-ray as a visual format.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/15905265
> 
> 
> The word inconsistent pretty much sums up the PQ in this Woody Allen film.



Aside from the many fine actresses he employs in his movies, Woody Allen has been the antithesis of eye-candy visuals during his directing career.


----------



## Fanaticalism




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Beery*
> 
> I don't see how anyone could possibly miss some significant flaws in the movie that this film's much-hyped restoration should have caught and fixed - such as:
> 
> 
> 5:10 - top right - hair on the still image.
> 
> 6:08 - center - about 6 pieces of dirt.
> 
> 6:14 to 6:30 - throughout sky - dust all over the still image, looks like someone tried to wipe it off the still image but just smeared it.
> 
> 6:42 - top left - dust smears.
> 
> 6:46 - center of frame - dust and dirt.
> 
> 7:02 - top left and top right - really obvious smeared dust/dirt.
> 
> 17:02 (beginning of DVD's chapter 5) - two nasty black spots in sky as the ape-man eats meat.
> 
> 1:08:06 to 1:10:12 (from when Bowman is showing HAL his drawing until HAL first detects problem) dirt on negative shows as flashes first on Bowman's notebook, then at 1:08:41 on the ceiling, then from 1:09:08 to 1:10:12 on Bowman's face.





Sounds like you need some Windex. It'll clear all that dirt right up.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fanaticalism* /forum/post/15906862
> 
> 
> sounds like you need some windex. It'll clear all that dirt right up.



lol!!


----------



## deltasun

*Mr. Brooks*


Again, one of the better movies to come out in 2007 and one of my first BR's. As I stated in my pre-review, the biggest issue with this title is its contrast. Let me qualify that now by stating...only in the first 10 or so minutes. It does come back to haunt here and there throughout the course of the movie, but not as prevalent or degrading. On the other hand, Costner's close-up's were very detailed. The two (contrast and close-up) go head to head in one scene at the 6:12 - 6:24 mark, where the camera starts out looking down on Costner and starts a slow pan down. The contrast here is terrible. As the camera settles on his face, the details are resolved and the contrast issue is gone. Of course, the contrast issues return on the very next scene with his wife.


Regarding details on other close-up's, it is curiously few and fart between. I believe I only saw 1 or 2 instances where Hurt's face was finely detailed. Granted, he is always in the shadows and/or in secondary lighting, and never given a chance to portray details. I don't know if it's intentional due to the nature of his character.


I did notice some good facial details on Costner's wife in the right light, some of Demi Moore's boss. Demi and Costner's daughter were very smooth skinned. There was a suspicious looking scene where the daughter is being interrogated and we get a super close-up of her well-lit face - mysteriously smooth and soft. A case of DNR?


Moving on, this is a pretty muted (color-wise) movie, for the most part. As such, there are plenty of blacks. In fact, once I noticed it (starting with Costner's secretary's blouse when his daughter came to his office), I felt there was an unusual amount of black items in every scene thereafter. The blacks are treated very very well. They pop!


Speaking of which, 3D pop was also prevalent in the early scenes. Again, the scene in Costner's office with his daughter offered plenty. I felt it went away a bit in the 53-minute mark for about 10-15 minutes. In this timeframe, the scenes seemed very flat and uninteresting. It starts to get better again at the hour and 10-minute mark.


Incidentally, check out the 1:09 mark. Costner and Hurt are face to face - Hurt's face is a blown highlight in direct sunlight, while Costner's face is in shadows showing a fair amount of detail.


Overall, the best PQ scenes in this film, to me, wander into Tier 0 territory. However, it does have contrast issues that really hurt it, as well. I think it still beats out 1.75 titles like Iron Man and I am Legend and so I think it belongs a slight bit higher in...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.50*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## LBFilmGuy

*Harold and Kumar: Escape From Guantanamo Bay*


Overall, I was pretty surprised with this film as I wasn't expecting it to look very good at all going in.


The entire film has a nice film like look to it, not a cheap, low budget film that has a lot of issues. Facial closeups are generally sharp with some details revealed but nothing spectacular like we see in Tier 0 or even Tier 1. Skin tones were spot on, blacks and contrast were nice, and colors were natural and pleasing.


There were no points in this film that I was awed by the PQ, and no points where I was totally disappointed, it was pretty consistent throughout. Not much 3D pop is found, and some soft shots were also present.


It is currently ranked at the Top of Tier 2 but I would drop it to 2.5 as I don't think it looks better than the films in the Tiers above it.
*

Recommendation: Tier 2.5*


----------



## stumlad

*The Midnight Meat Train*


The first thing you'll notice right off with this movie is the grain structure. It's pretty uniform throughout the entire movie except for a few sequences. There is a blue push to the entire film with strong yellow/gold cast throughout the movie which means none of the face tones are going to look natural. Face closeups, however, were very revealing, almost with the best of Tier 0. A lot of the movie takes place at night (it is the *Midnight* meat train after all), and for the most part detail was very good. There were a few scenery shots that looked a bit too dark and not as sharp. The cgi was pretty bad in this movie which also deducts some points. Black levels were very good and way better than most Lionsgate titles i've seen recently.

*Tier Recommendation 2.25*


----------



## Blacklac

Wow. 30 Days of Night Tier 1.0. That movie looked damn near perfect to me. I'm shocked where it's at right now.


----------



## Hammie

Shoot 'Em Up


All I can say was WOW! I think I may be in the minority here but I really enjoyed watching this mindless movie. I haven't been entertained like that since Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back. Maybe its because work has been stressful and this was just the prescription (besides more cowbell







) to get me back on track. I just wish there were more scenes with gun fighting.







I enjoyed seeing Clive Owen back behind the seat of a BMW. (Anyone know if you can still get those short films anywhere?)


Anyway, I think the details everywhere were very well defined. Facial, clothing, carrots, etc. were crisp and clear. The details alone would put this in Tier 0. However, I thought the colors and lack of pop lowered the overall position of this movie. So, ideally, I think this should be Tier 1.

Recommendation: Tier 1.0


Panasonic TH-50PZ850u

Panasonic DMP-BD35

Viewing Distance 7.5 ft


----------



## rsbeck

Excellent review -- Shoot 'em Up is the only title we have questioned where I have been on the fence about taking it out of tier blu.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Blacklac* /forum/post/15908189
> 
> 
> Wow. 30 Days of Night Tier 1.0. That movie looked near perfect to me. I'm shocked where it's at right now.



I agree; this is one very good-looking title! I personally agreed with the placement it had when it was first placed, but if memory serves me well I did say it wouldn't hurt my feelings if it were moved up. I would like to see it moved up somewhere in Tier 1, perhaps 1.5.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15911162
> 
> 
> I agree; this is one very good-looking title! I personally agreed with the placement it had when it was first placed, but if memory serves me well I did say it wouldn't hurt my feelings if it were moved up. I would like to see it moved up somewhere in Tier 1, perhaps 1.5.



+1 on *30 Days of Night*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15911162
> 
> 
> I agree; this is one very good-looking title! *I personally agreed with the placement it had when it was first placed*, but if memory serves me well I did say it wouldn't hurt my feelings if it were moved up. I would like to see it moved up somewhere in Tier 1, perhaps 1.5.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15911652
> 
> 
> +1 on *30 Days of Night*



When this was first placed, I believe it was in Tier 1 (someone correct me if I'm wrong here). It still is "demo-worthy" IMO, and now that Blacklac has brought it up again, and patrick and I have echoed his sentiments, maybe it will get moved up.


----------



## haste




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15912540
> 
> 
> When this was first placed, I believe it was in Tier 1 (someone correct me if I'm wrong here). It still is "demo-worthy" IMO, and now that Blacklas has brought it up again, and patrick and I have echoed his sentiments, maybe it will get moved up.



I also agree on 30 days of night. definitely tier 1.5 material.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*Live Free or Die Hard*


There was very little wrong with this film to my eyes. Detail was very precise and clear. The colours were very natural, I didn’t find anything oversaturated. There were a few moments where I noticed the picture was out of focus, but those were so few they’re virtually forgettable moments for me. One or two of the overhead shots of Washington seemed a little lacklustre as well, but in the grand scheme of this movie, that’s really all I could find wrong with it.


The black levels presented wonderfully on my Panasonic plasma. Deep and rich. I also noticed no possible edge enhancement or ringing; I think this film is the most impressed I’ve been with a Blu since I watched Youth Without Youth, although for different reasons. Again, Detail was so clear; from the pores, scratches, sweat beads, stubble on Bruce Willis to the wrinkles on people’s hands when they typed on computers, to seeing texture of plastic ON the keyboards (those little plastic-bumps) as well as fabric throughout, to the goosebumps on Lucy’s arms when she’s being held captive, things that should be glossy were glossy... for me personally there’s not really anything notable I can mention that I would say is a definite flaw, aside from the minute things I mentioned in the previous paragraph – and during my viewing, they were minute.

*Recommendation for Live Free or Die Hard : Agree with current placement of Middle Tier 0*

*Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800U, THX setting, approximately 7.5’ viewing distance.*


----------



## rsbeck

*Becket*


First, a little story, then the review; awhile back, a poster dropped in and wrote, "Unbelievable that Becket is tier 4.5! Not only one of the biggest improvements over DVD but it looked excellent for a movie of its time and not only that, it felt and sounded exactly like what I would have expected had I gone to a theatre to see it!"


So, I checked blu-ray dot com to see their revue, "Colors jump off the screen, detail is rendered very well, and while the image sports the occasional speckle, it is surprisingly robust, with nice dark blacks and a quality film-like image. Four out of Five Stars."


Hmmmm....I decided to check the archives. I found one review by our esteemed colleague, OldCodger73, "Color was fair, a lot of scenes were in a castle so there was a lot of grey but that made O'Toole's costumes really stand out. In some of the outdoor scenes there seemed to be a slight color shift in the sky within the scene. Sharpness ran from acceptable on some closeups to DVD like on longer shots. All in all I think Paramount probably did the best they could with what they had barring a complete restoration of the film. Recommended placement *Tier 4.5*."


Hmmmm....what a mysery. Could OldCodger have gotten it wrong? A drive by poster called his placement, "Unbelievable!"


The envelope please...IMO, Old Codger nailed this one. Yes, there are detailed looking close-ups, but most of the time, the picture looks slightly out of focus like a 1080 upscale of a poor DVD. Yes, colors often do jump off the screen, but since the picture is slightly blurred, who cares? Nice blacks? How about crushed blacks and lost shadow detail? Want the icing? Grain missing, halos and smooth faces everywhere. Film-like? Uh uh. Sometimes the unbelievable is very believable. This one is a real turkey.

*Recommendation: Tier 5*


Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From 126" Screen


----------



## rsbeck

Geeky -- excellent review and welcome back!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15914263
> 
> 
> Geeky -- excellent review and welcome back!



+1


It's been awhile since I've watched LFODH, but after reading your review I'm determined to watch it again in the near future. Thanks for whetting my appetite!


----------



## rsbeck

*Capote*


Fine grain apparent throughout, persistent ringing noted. Capote is a dialogue and character driven drama which is artfully lit and shot for emotional effect rather than high definition demo theatrics. Picture is mostly satisfying with nice depth, dimension and clarity, but there is some slight inconsistency and unfortunately, for about 2/3's of the running time, there is persistent ringing and not just on high contrast edges. For the final 1/3 of the film, it seemed to stop and then there was only the occasional ringing on a high contrast edge here or there -- weird. We get some decent close-ups of Phillip Seymour Hoffman, who has rather fine skin on his face, but we can see the pores on the tip of his nose, single strands of eyebrow, and a couple of times we can make out some peach fuzz. Single strands of hair are visible quite a bit of the time, and we can see subtle variation between the strands. We also get quite a bit of well resolved texture in clothing, an occasional bedspread, a wall. Fine text is sharp. All in all, if not for the ringing and a little bit of inconsistency, a pretty good looking blu-ray.

*Recommendation: Tier 3.0*


Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From 126" Screen


----------



## stigdu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *haste* /forum/post/15912671
> 
> 
> I also agree on 30 days of night. definitely tier 1.5 material.



For what it's worth, I agree.


+1


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stigdu* /forum/post/15917003
> 
> *For what it's worth*, I agree.
> 
> 
> +1


*It's worth a lot*, for your vote brings the total to 5 for changing *30 Days of Night* to *Tier 1.5*.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15915257
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> 
> It's been awhile since I've watched LFODH, but after reading your review I'm determined to watch it again in the near future. Thanks for whetting my appetite!



+2


I watched DH 4 quite a lot when it came out, and I definitely agree with G3's comments.


----------



## moematthews

*Battle of Britain*


This is a 1964 epic recounting the seriously undermanned RAF's effort to stop the numerically superior Luftwaffe's assault on England in 1940.


This is a fantastic movie which looks great on Blu-ray. It retains a look that is faithful to the movies of that time, and features a variety of scenes, from the English countryside, to the shores of occupied France across the English Channel to the inside of the British Embassy in Switzerland. The variety of locations and sets used in this movie is a primary strength. It is visually stunning.


Colours are perfectly presented throughout. Scenes of airfields in the countryside show beautiful green grass contrasting with the colours on the planes themselves and in pilots' uniforms. Several interior scenes feature ornately appointed rooms filled with the luxurious objects and textures that you would expect to see during that time. Detail in military uniforms is top-notch, and you can clearly see texture in leather jackets and the aviators' headgear. The interior shots of the airplane environment reveal detailed gauges and metalwork. Skin tones are perfectly accurate, and the facial close-ups reveal strong detail. Very fine grain is noticeable in the numerous shots of the sky, but it does not detract from the overall presentation. Excellent (not over-the-top) sharpness and depth of field give the image a life-like feeling of depth.


There are a number of scenes that are reminiscent of "Flyboys", most notably the planes on rural airfields. Flyboys is currently ranked in Tier 1.5, and this movie is better. This movie shows what HD transfers can look like if done well. It retains its beautiful film-like look and colour quality that is consistent with movies of the 1960s.


Hitachi 55HDX99 Plasma (1080i); 11 ft. away; Panasonic BD35 HDMI pass-through Marantz SR8001 AVR to TV



*Recommendation: Tier 1.0 - 1.25*


----------



## djoberg

^


Great review moematthews! I have seen most of the "epics," but somehow I missed this one. This will definitely be on my "to watch" list.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

*Domino*


After all the rave in here about the PQ of this I had to add it to my Netflix. Checked it out yesterday and man, this disc really makes me wonder how much better a blu ray can possibly look. When not slammed with Scott's post production chaos, this is simply the best looking live action blu ray I have seen yet. Simply stunning.


The facial closeups are ridiculous, Micky Rourke's face looks like the Grand Canyon, you can see Kiera's peach fuzz beard, pores have their own depth, strands of hair, blood, sweat, tears, makeup, everything looks as though the actors are in your living room. What struck me most was when Rourke was in the hotel room watching the porno you could see his individual back hairs. Unreal.


Now comes the part that pains me to say that drops this title a bit for me. The entire scene of Kiera and Lucy that is scattered throughout the film is Tier 2 at best, maybe worse. Details are not nearly as good, everything is bathed in green and yellow. Blacks at times look purple, and the only time true detail is shown is the extreme closeups.


Then we have all of the other shots that Scott fudged. All of the other shots he tweaks with color, flashes, more grain, even pinkish halos, detracts from the films' PQ for me. The superb details are lost, blacks don't hold as well, and grain takes over. I noticed maybe 2 or 3 soft shots the entire film which doesn't take away any points for me.


If Scott would have left the footage alone without his visual style this would easily rank at top or Tier 0 for me, above everything else. The untouched footage is simply the best I have seen yet. However, there are too many shots and scenes that he did mess with, and I can't overlook that.

*Recommendation: Just above LFODH in Tier 0.*


----------



## TayC

^ Wow, gotta rent that just to see those fantastic PQ scenes. I hear it's a bad movie, though.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15923736
> 
> *Domino*
> 
> 
> After all the rave in here about the PQ of this I had to When not slammed with Scott's post production chaos, this is simply the best looking live action blu ray I have seen yet. Simply stunning.this disc really makes me wonder how much better a blu ray can possibly look. When not slammed with Scott's post production chaos, this is simply the best looking live action blu ray I have seen yet. Simply stunning.
> 
> 
> The facial closeups are ridiculous, Micky Rourke's face looks like the Grand Canyon, you can see Kiera's peach fuzz beard, pores have their own depth, strands of hair, blood, sweat, tears, makeup, everything looks as though the actors are in your living room. What struck me most was when Rourke was in the hotel room watching the porno you could see his individual back hairs. Unreal.
> 
> 
> Now comes the part that pains me to say that drops this title out of Tier 0 for me. The entire scene of Kiera and Lucy that is scattered throughout the film is Tier 2 at best, maybe worse. Details are not nearly as good, everything is bathed in green and yellow. Blacks at times look purple, and the only time true detail is shown is the extreme closeups.
> 
> 
> Then we have all of the other shots that Scott fudged. All of the other shots he tweaks with color, flashes, more grain, even pinkish halos, detracts from the films' PQ for me. The superb details are lost, blacks don't hold as well, and grain takes over. I noticed maybe 2 or 3 soft shots the entire film which doesn't take away any points for me.
> 
> 
> If Scott would have left the footage alone without his visual style this would easily rank at top or Tier 0 for me, above everything else. The untouched footage is simply the best I have seen yet. However, there are too many shots and scenes that he did mess with, and I can't overlook that.
> 
> *Recommendation: Top of Tier 1.*



Good review!


I specifically mentioned the scenes with Lucy Liu for the same reason that you did, as well as the highly "stylized" scenes that reduced the over PQ.


However, in the end, I could not keep this title out of Tier 0. Why? Because of what you say yourself:



> Quote:
> When not slammed with Scott's post production chaos, this is simply the best looking live action blu ray I have seen yet. Simply stunning.



If it is stunning, and is the "best looking live action blu ray" you have seen yet, I would think it would be deserving of Tier 0, despite the few less than stellar scenes.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15923893
> 
> 
> Good review!
> 
> 
> I specifically mentioned the scenes with Lucy Liu for the same reason that you did, as well as the highly "stylized" scenes that reduced the over PQ.
> 
> 
> However, in the end, I could not keep this title out of Tier 0. Why? Because of what you say yourself:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it is stunning, and is the "best looking live action blu ray" you have seen yet, I would think it would be deserving of Tier 0, despite the few less than stellar scenes.



True, it is. But there are more than a few less than stellar scenes for me unfortunately. If we punish other titles for stretches of bad PQ, then despite how incredible the rest of this looks, I can't not fault it either.


----------



## deltasun

I never felt the stretches of non-stellar PQ were long enough to warrant penalizing. It seemed just before it was gonna be long enough, we get right back to tier 0, incredible tier 0...again and again.


That's me, of course.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15923953
> 
> 
> True, it is. But there are more than a few less than stellar scenes for me unfortunately. If we punish other titles for stretches of bad PQ, then despite how incredible the rest of this looks, I can't not fault it either.



I'm not saying not to fault it, but that perhaps a recommendation for lower in Tier 0 might be appropriate.


This is all very subjective of course. Despite what the tier descriptions say, we all apply our own priorities to these titles.


Tier 0 is reserved for the very best looking titles available. You yourself said it is the best live action title you have seen. Tier 0 is where it should be.


Please note that one reason I am engaging in this discussion with you is because I went through this exact same analysis myself after reviewing this title. I don't disagree with any of the points that you made in your review. We just came to different conclusions on final placement, and this conversation is exploring the reason for it. I think this is a good thing, and hope others will chime in as well.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Good points guys.


Bottom half or so of Tier 0 is fine with me.










BTW, Doomsday needs to get lost from Tier 0 still.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15924141
> 
> 
> BTW, Doomsday needs to get lost from Tier 0 still.



Based on some reassessments, I would bet it will be out of tier 0 on the next round. Same with a few others.


----------



## selimsivad

I watched Domino a few weeks ago, but never got around to writing a review for it. I pretty much agree with everyone about placing it in Tier 0.


One viewing was enough for me (and I usually like Tony Scott's style)!










What's truly amazing is that Warner put this on a BD25, and still had room for a TrueHD track!


----------



## rsbeck

*Kramer Vs Kramer*


Grain intact, thin ringing noted on a few high contrast edges. Kramer is a dialogue, character and behavior driven drama made on a tight budget with some light moments amidst a lot of sadness. Picture is lit and shot with a lot of soft light to go with somber mood of the piece. Having said that, resolution here is very good with a lot of good close-ups, but several excellent ones (is that better?!) in which we see every pore and imperfection in Dustin Hoffman's face. Outside of a few moments of lost focus, picture is consistently sharp and easy to watch. Hair and clothing texture presents a number of very good opportunities and is very well resolved. If it wasn't for the somber mood and lighting of the piece, I think it would be bottom gold tier. Though it may not be demo material, Kramer is a well made title with an excellent transfer and I am going to...

*Recommendation: Tier 2.5*


Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From 126" Screen


----------



## rsbeck

*Rescue Dawn*


Reassessment:


Very fine grain apparent throughout, no ringing or halos noted. Dawn is a Vietnam POW drama exquisitely lit and shot to take advantage of lush jungle setting. There is a short sequence of old grainy 16mm stock footage that takes place before the titles. After the titles, there are a few more instances of this lower quality footage that lasts for a few seconds each. Aside from this, Dawn is consistently sharp, contrast and black levels excellent.


This makes all of the incredible scenery pop. Infinite variation in texture, detail, and coloration of the jungle, reddish dirt, rock formations and thatched village is incredibly well resolved and illustrated. Care has been taken to light and shoot actors so facial texture is intact and natural looking.


Even Christian Bale, who has very fine skin, has been shot so that sometimes you can even see _his_ tiny pores and few imperfections. Single strands of hair and eyebrow are consistently visible on all actors and IMO all of this is notable considering actors are mostly featured in medium shots. Rescue Dawn is one of the few blu-rays where I could find no ringing. This looks to be an excellent transfer. Picture appears very satisfying and nicely saturated, sharp yet natural looking.


Where to rank Rescue Dawn? The best comparison for Rescue Dawn, ironically, IMO, is a comedy and that would be Tropic Thunder.

The settings, imagery, and PQ of these two films in many ways is almost identical even though one is a comedy and one is very serious. If I use Tropic Thunder (ranked 1.0) as the benchmark, I would say that though both films exhibit detailed faces, Thunder provides more close-ups and features actors with more facial texture. All things equal, excluding artistic intent (which includes choice of actors) I give extra credit for faces with more detail to reveal. Other than that, if I look hard for a few more things to justify a .25 drop from Thunder, I suppose I could nit-pick a few things.


I am still very impressed with this title. Even if you forget the actors, the jungle and village footage is incredible. Considering that Caspian is in tier 0 based on scenery that, IMO, is beautiful, but not as varied and detailed as Thunder or Dawn, features actors with much smoother skin than either title, and has stretches with contrast issues, I am even more firm in my belief that Rescue Dawn has a lot to offer.


Although clothing texture is sharp in Rescue Dawn, Caspian does have an advantage in featuring costumes that are more detailed and textured. Long story a little shorter, I believe this one should go .25 tier below Tropic Thunder and compares well with titles in that tier. A POW drama may not make the most uplifting material, but that's not our concern. Currently, Rescue Dawn is ranked tier 0. Based on this reassessment and when compared with other recent titles, IMO, Rescue Dawn needs to come down, but strictly based on PQ, IMO, Rescue Dawn still ranks as upper gold tier demo material.

*Recommendation: Tier 1.25*


Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From 126" screen



.


----------



## rsbeck

Rescue Dawn versus Apocalypto --


IMO, it is useful to compare these two titles since they both feature jungle settings as the main attraction. Where Rescue Dawn features well resolved depth of field, detail of the jungle background in Apocalypto is often slightly blurred. Bokeh has been a pertinent topic here and IMO these two titles help illustrate the issue.


Sure, Bokeh is a legit photographic technique and should never be confused with an out of focus shot of something intended as the point of focus. It can also be pleasing and can help the film maker focus your eye -- BUT IMO -- all things hypothetically equal, I believe it is perfectly legit to give extra credit to a film with deeper focus, especially if the film with deeper focus fills the screen with incredible scenery.


For the first 40 minutes of Apocalypto, even when you _can_ see the jungle scenery, it is slightly soft and not lit or shot to provide the kind of contrast needed to make it pop, to reveal all of the subtle variation in texture and color. So, it's there, but the opportunity is lost.


Costumes. Actors in Apocalypto wear incredibly detailed costumes. However, watch it and notice that for the first 40 minutes, Apocalypto is not lit or shot to resolve the detail in the costumes, the jewelry, the huts, the woven curtains. Again, it's there, but not resolved, opportunity lost.


After the 40 minute mark, Apocalypto moves to brighter locations and only then do you begin to get the kind lighting and contrast needed to start to see some of that detail, but you still do not get close-ups of that jewelry. I believe this is because of the prosthetic ears the actors wear. If you notice, when the camera gets close, those ears look incredibly phony. I believe this is why you get few sharp close-ups.


However, when Apocalypto moves to the scene atop the pyramid, you get the shots that are always featured as Apocalypto's high point. You see the tribal chief in an incredible costume -- even though it is a medium shot, the the screen is filled with incredible detail.


How much do you reward Apocalypto for those shots?


IMO, it is asking a lot of a gold tier title, to have to wait 40+ minutes to get to a demo sequence of any reasonable length.


One last point, I often read where a poster will say, "I use this as demo material, so this belongs in the demo tier."


IMO, there are discs one can use for a blu-ray demo all the way down to tier 3.0.


IMO, Rescue Dawn is far more impressive than Apocalypto. While Apocalypto may feature a few brief shots that are superior to anything in Rescue Dawn -- and that is arguable, IMO, Rescue Dawn is sharper, far more impressive and better resolved over the length of its running time.



.


----------



## rsbeck

Bottom line: If Rescue Dawn is moved to 1.25, for the rankings to make sense, I believe Apocalypto needs to be at least .5 tier below Rescue Dawn's placement.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15930795
> 
> 
> Bottom line: If Rescue Dawn is moved to 1.25, for the rankings to make sense, I believe Apocalypto needs to be at least .5 tier below Rescue Dawn's placement.



The paragraph structure on your RD versus A post makes it a lot easier on the eyes than the single paragraph RD review.

















BTW, I never thought RD belonged in Tier 0.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15930527
> 
> 
> Sure, Bokeh is a legit photographic technique and should never be confused with an out of focus shot of something that is intended to be the focus. It can also be pleasing to the eye and can help the film maker focus your eye -- BUT IMO -- considering that we _are_ looking for high resolution demo material, I would rather see things resolved than lost in Bokeh, so all things hypothetically equal, I believe it is perfectly legit to give extra credit to a film with deeper focus, especially if the film with deeper focus fills the screen with more scenery with more fine detail and variation.



I don't necessarily agree with the above comments. I don't think we can make blanket statements on non-bokeh is always better than bokeh type shots. And, it's independent of director's intent. Just like everything else, we have to review each scene and grade them for their merits regardless of if bokeh was used or not. I've seen bad bokeh and good bokeh. In the end, it's what is presented in front of our eyes that we grade.


What are its strengths? Well, it helps direct our eyes to what the director wants to highlight. It helps remove distractions that may otherwise cloud the scene. I use all the time in photography, if it calls for it (see insert for my isolation of rodent). I probably employ an equal amount where I want everything in the scene sharp.











So, I don't think we can penalize a movie for its use of bokeh, just like we can't penalize movies for non-bokeh (like How the West was Won).


I do agree with your placement of Rescue Dawn, btw. I just don't want to make generalizations about bokeh.


----------



## TayC

I completely agree with your review of Rescue Dawn, rsbeck. I was just watching it the other day... a stunning BD. Speaking of Rescue Dawn, has anyone seen the blu-ray for Herzog's Encounters at the End of the World? I heard it was good and was wondering if anybody has assessed the picture quality.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

I agree.


Beck you knocking a title for the use of DoF is ludicrous.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15931212
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, I never thought RD belonged in Tier 0.



+2



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/15931252
> 
> 
> I don't necessarily agree with the above comments. I don't think we can make blanket statements on non-bokeh is always better than bokeh type shots. And, it's independent of director's intent. Just like everything else, we have to review each scene and grade them for their merits regardless of if bokeh was used or not. I've seen bad bokeh and good bokeh. In the end, it's what is presented in front of our eyes that we grade.
> 
> 
> What are its strengths? Well, it helps direct our eyes to what the director wants to highlight. It helps remove distractions that may otherwise cloud the scene. I use all the time in photography, if it calls for it (see insert for my isolation of rodent). I probably employ an equal amount where I want everything in the scene sharp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, I don't think we can penalize a movie for its use of bokeh, just like we can't penalize movies for non-bokeh (like How the West was Won).
> 
> 
> I do agree with your placement of Rescue Dawn, btw. I just don't want to make generalizations about bokeh.



Well said, and completely agree.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15931212
> 
> 
> The paragraph structure on your RD versus A post makes it a lot easier on the eyes than the single paragraph RD review.



+1


The secret in writing a well-thought-out review with the proper breakdown of paragraphs, is to stay within a particular context for each paragraph. For example, bringing out the virtues of a title is one context; bringing out the flaws is another. I'm not saying one can't make mention of a flaw while describing virtues, but if you do it should be incidental. The subject of flaws should be in a separate paragraph.


BTW, I'm in agreement with moving Rescue Dawn to Tier 1.25 for some of the very reasons brought out by rsbeck.


(Notice how I wrote 3 paragraphs above, and how they each carried their own particular thought [i.e., context]?)


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15931468
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> 
> The secret in writing a well-thought-out review with the proper breakdown of paragraphs, is to stay within a particular context for each paragraph. For example, bringing out the virtues of a title is one context; bringing out the flaws is another. I'm not saying one can't make mention of a flaw while describing virtues, but if you do it should be incidental. The subject of flaws should be in a separate paragraph.
> 
> 
> BTW, I'm in agreement with moving Rescue Dawn to Tier 1.25 for some of the very reasons brought out by rsbeck.
> 
> 
> (Notice how I wrote 3 paragraphs above, and how they each carried their own particular thought [i.e., context]?)



In the real world, I generally go with two-sentence paragraphs.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*American Psycho*


I love this movie. I'm sure it shows a lot towards my character and personal preferences in that I find it pretty frakkin' hilarious. The way Patrick Bateman offers his analysis on the music reminds me of the way Mr. Data analysed things back on ST:TNG, which is also likely part of the cause of my cackles throughout. I was able to pick this movie up on the cheap, as I'm still hoping my folks will be able to score me a copy of the Australian BRD. If it wasn't so cheap ($11) I would have just continued to wait, but I wanted to see the travesty of this transfer for myself.


And, Travesty it was. The real main character of this blu ray is one Mr. Edge Enhancement, Esq. I bet Mr. Edge Enhancement has quite the business card, and Mr. D.N. Reduction is quite jealous of it which is why he's not apparent (to me) in this film (he's probably off returning some videotapes).


In all seriousness though, the edge enhancement was just so bad in this - there was even a band of it on the top and bottom of the entire movie. I know that doesn't kill a picture for everyone, and it's a YMMV type thing, but it was just the worst I've seen yet.


The movie itself was pretty flat; colours were okay but nothing fantastic. The print was very dirty. Bits of debris were abundant, and to me that's simply unacceptable. This movie is not yet 10 years old; I refuse to believe they couldn't have done a better job with it (and hopefully, have with the Aussie copy that I'm currently coveting).


Overall detail was mediocre. It wasn't anywhere near awful; it was okay. I could see details but it didn't feel as though it was a lot more detail than I've experienced with DVD. Of course in the scenes regarding the business cards detail was spot-on, but I'm sure that was done with purposeful clarity given the storyline surrounding that portion.


While not my favourite scene in the world, the one with Bateman and the 2 hookers... when it would flip to the viewpoint of the video camera, which was just TERRIBLE; a big blurry mess. I don't know what went on with that scene. Whatever processing they did to it, it was AWFUL. Now, it's not crystal clear on the DVD either, but it's nowhere near as horrendous as it appears on the Blu Ray.


Faces are not waxy in this movie, although there's something up with Willem Dafoe's face. I think it may just be horrible makeup. Maybe it is to make him look pasty and imperfect on the outside of Bateman's world or something. In fact, a portion of the close-ups are quite good, _some_ even border on excellent.


I know I sound as though this is the worst PQ I've seen based on what I've written above, but it's actually still very watchable, especially if you don't notice or mind edge enhancement (unfortunately I'm very sensitive to it). The quality of this movie's content alone does help it, and I do feel it is overall a nice jump up from the DVD (at least, the copy I've seen anyway!). It lacks the depth of higher tiered Blu, but has a bit of glossiness where needed, it's appearance is focused and not blurred, the colours are okay and given you all know how much I love water in blu rays, although there's not a lot in this movie, there's a certain amount that I definitely um... _appreciated_ near the beginning of the movie. Yeah. I was watching the water, honest.










If you're a fan of the movie and don't want to wait for a new transfer, considering the cost of this Blu is hitting places like Walmart and Amazon for under $13, it can be worth it. An excellent film such as this definitely deserves better treatment, though, and I hope that one day it's done.

*Recommendation for American Psycho: Tier 3.5 (would not be upset with 3.75 either though)*

*Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800U, THX setting, approximately 7.5' viewing distance.*


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Are my paragraphs OK for you, djoberg?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15931521
> 
> 
> Are my paragraphs OK for you, djoberg?



They are EXCELLENT!


----------



## Murilo

If you like american psycho like me get the german or australian release.


Both are bottem Teir 1 quality.


I have the german even though they used open matte (so you see more things on screen, but theres nothing there not suppose to be in the film) it was bottem teir 1 quality. I cant imagine the transfer getting better.


----------



## Murilo

Also agree with rescue dawn new placement it should be 1.25


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Murilo* /forum/post/15932524
> 
> 
> If you like american psycho like me get the german or australian release.
> 
> 
> Both are bottem Teir 1 quality.
> 
> 
> I have the german even though they used open matte (so you see more things on screen, but theres nothing there not suppose to be in the film) it was bottem teir 1 quality. I cant imagine the transfer getting better.



My folks live in Australia and are coming up this summer so I've asked them to try and find me a copy. I'd love to compare the two. I hope they're able to score one for me, that'd rock!


----------



## djoberg

*Nights in Rodanthe*


Okay, it was "cuddle up with the wife and watch a chick flick" night and she chose Nights in Rodanthe. My wife doesn't love Richard Gere as much as Rob Tomlin's wife (thank goodness!), but she absolutely loves Romance/Drama and since she dripped (tears) on my shoulder at the end I assumed it passed the "worth a rental" test.










I did look at Rob's review and I am going to echo his sentiments regarding PQ quality. It definitely wasn't "demo-worthy," but it had its moments that bordered on it with very good blacks and excellent shadow detail, natural colors (that were rich and warm in the indoor scenes at the Bed & Breakfast), several Tier 1 facial close-ups, and a few scenes with amazing depth. All things considered it ranged between Tier 1 and 3 and thus Tier 2 would be appropriate. I kept thinking throughout the movie that if I had seen this a year ago I probably would have opted for high Tier 1...........we've come a long way, IMO.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 2.0*


Samsung 50" 1080p DLP....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 7'


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/15931252
> 
> 
> So, I don't think we can penalize a movie for its use of bokeh



That's not what I wrote.


----------



## OldCodger73

Color seemed natural and consistent. Close-up sharpness ranged from excellent to very good, one could see pores, individual highlighted hairs and cheek fuzz in many shots. Medium scenes normally had very good clarity and depth. I didn't see any digital flaws but to be honest I got caught up in the movie and would only have noticed the most bizarre of flaws. Overall a very pleasing transfer. I would rate *A Time to Kill Level 2.0.*


The movie was heavy on dialogue but in scenes that utilized the surround speakers the sound has a pleasing lively presence. There were a couple of effective use of the LFE channel.


Typical John Grisham work, no subtlety. Nevertheless, a very effective movie with some fine acting. This was a purchase, replacing an AC3 LD.


Panasonic 50" 720p plasma, Panasonic 10a player, 7 1/2'


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15933083
> 
> 
> That's not what I wrote.



No, you didn't specifically write that. But I think that is a fair implication when you said this:



> Quote:
> Sure, Bokeh is a legit photographic technique and should never be confused with an out of focus shot of something that is intended to be the focus. It can also be pleasing to the eye and can help the film maker focus your eye -- BUT IMO -- considering that we are looking for high resolution demo material, I would rather see things resolved than lost in Bokeh, so all things hypothetically equal, *I believe it is perfectly legit to give extra credit to a film with deeper focus*, especially if the film with deeper focus fills the screen with more scenery with more fine detail and variation.


----------



## Hammie

*Rocky (1976)*


For a 33 year old movie, I thought this was a pretty decent transfer. It was heavy in grain, but it fit the overall dark look and feel of the movie.I guess I would call it gritty. I thought blacks were well maintained. However, based on the way the movie was filmed I think it had an overall softness to it, especially during the most important scene -- the Apollo Creed fight.

*Recommendation: Tier 3.5*


Panasonic TH-50PZ850u

Panasonic DMP-BD35

Viewing distance: 7.5'


----------



## rsbeck

Take How The West Was Won. Now instead of the widescreen panaramas filled with wonderful scenery -- replace all of the backgrounds with Bokeh. For the sake of argument, make it really cool bokeh.


Still an upper tier title?


If you don't think so, is that because you are _punishing_ it for the bokeh?


I wouldn't consider it punishment.


I would say that its virtues have been reduced.




.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15933770
> 
> 
> Disagree. I think that's an over reaction to my saying that I would reward a film...
> 
> *especially if the film with deeper focus fills the screen with more scenery with more fine detail and variation.
> *
> 
> 
> Plus, that wasn't the only issue I raised, either. So, I don't appreciate having my point simplified and paraphrased until I sound like Jethro Bodeen.
> 
> 
> I mean, Jed, okay. Jethro? Please.



As long as it's not Zed...Zed's dead, baby.







I understand where you're coming from, beck, and I did not mean to simplify. I just believe that bokeh can be as effective as deep DoF. I can't say one is better than the other. We still have to watch _what_ is presented regardless of _how_ it's presented. They're all fair game.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15933812
> 
> 
> And, if you don't think so, would that be because you were _punishing_ it for the bokeh?
> 
> 
> I wouldn't consider it punishment. I would consider that some of its virtues would be reduced.



On your question about How the West was Won, it would still depend? I would have to see it and give a judgment then. If the director went for shallow depth of field, what is being focused on? Is it interesting enough, detailed enough, vivid enough to hold my attention? To garner an ooh, an aah?


That's precisely my point. We can't take hypotheticals because then we're not judging the PQ as it's presented. We have to watch the picture. We can all say Domino is phenomenal but until LBFilmGuy watched with his own eyes, our experiences weren't enough to explain to him how ridiculously unbelievable some of the shots were.


----------



## Hammie

I think bokeh has its time and place.


Yes, it can drastically change the way a scene is viewed, but sometimes it cannot be helped. Depending on the focus point, aperture of the lens, and shutter speed, a shot may have tons of bokeh or none at all.


The closer the focused object is to the lens, the more of the background will be out of focus. This is why landscape shots are almost completely in focus where as a macro (close-up) shot has a majority of the background out of focus.


When ai first read your post I interpreted it the same as others have. However, after re-reading it a couple times, I can see where you are coming from.


The issue with many of the jungle shots that have a lot of bokeh, it is probably because of limited lighting. When the light is dim, a wider aperture needs to be used. This will have a shorter depth of field, meaning that more of the background (or foreground) will be out of focus. To add lighting to a scene, will make the scene look unnatural, so they use what they have.


I have not seen HTWWW, but if scenes had bokeh that do not have them now, I think that a variance in Tier movement would determine whether im portant information was lost. That is how I would determine whether bokeh was important.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hammie* /forum/post/15933435
> 
> *Rocky (1976)*
> 
> 
> For a 33 year old movie, I thought this was a pretty decent transfer. It was heavy in grain, but it fit the overall dark look and feel of the movie.I guess I would call it gritty. I thought blacks were well maintained. However, based on the way the movie was filmed I think it had an overall softness to it, especially during the most important scene -- the Apollo Creed fight.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 3.5*
> 
> 
> Panasonic TH-50PZ850u
> 
> Panasonic DMP-BD35
> 
> Viewing distance: 7.5'



Thanks for the review. It has been out on blu for quite some time, but I never jumped on it because i'm waiting for a release of all the films at once.

I caught Rocky 2 on MGM HD today, and found it to be pretty good looking. It looked filtered a bit, but there was a lot of detail I could see on Mickey's face (scene where he slaps Rocky to prove he couldnt see very well). MGM needs to get moving on these for blu!


----------



## stumlad

*Monster's Ball*


When a title comes out that I want to buy, I typically look up reviews to make sure it's not a stinker. I usually start here, and the make my way to the professionals if I cant find anything. At the time, there weren't any on here, and only a couple of "pro" reviews which were generally favorable to the movie... I'm not saying the PQ is bad, but there is definitely some major DNR going on here. Then there's a bit of EE to add to it. Let's throw some print damage artifacts (scratches and such) to top it off. The pro reviews didnt seem to point these things out


The DNR was the first thing I noticed.. face closeups were generally good but had that photoshop smoothing effect look. It may not erase the detail, but it definitely changes it. Scenery shots appeared the same way...there was very little grain visible, and when it did appear, it looked blurred. The EE was noticeable as well, but didnt appear on all scenes.


Overall, the BD still seems like it would be a decent upgrade over the dvd, and has a pleasing look , but woud look better without the processing.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15931497
> 
> 
> Yeah. I was watching the water, honest.



Nice work -- enjoyed that!


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hammie* /forum/post/15933904
> 
> 
> After re-reading it a couple times, I can see where you are coming from.



Thank you.



> Quote:
> The issue with many of the jungle shots that have a lot of bokeh, it is probably because of limited lighting. When the light is dim, a wider aperture needs to be used. This will have a shorter depth of field, meaning that more of the background (or foreground) will be out of focus. To add lighting to a scene, will make the scene look unnatural, so they use what they have.



I think you are probably right on the money.



.


----------



## FlawIe55

where would you put "The Third Man" on this list...I've read that it is exceptional HD quality, I haven't personally seen it yet, I'm waiting for the netflix copy now.


----------



## rsbeck

*Ghost Town*


Very fine grain apparent, halos noted in a handful of scenes. Ghost town is a curious creature -- a high concept romantic comedy with a deadpan delivery. Not to give anything away, but another (intended) irony is that the rather grave underpinnings are contrasted with a very sunny looking picture. _Very_ sunny. You might even want to wear a pair of sunglasses. This lighting along with the cranked contrast means that facial detail is not on exhibit, blacks tend to crush, and things like hair and clothing detail are sometimes lost. Clothing texture, on the other hand, is sometimes quite good. Color timing is also pushed somewhat which tends to make complexions a little yellow. Still, there is something undeniably pleasing about a bright picture with very good depth and, aside from some halos, pretty consistent sharpness. This is what makes Ghost Town an above average blu-ray.

*Recommendation: Tier 2.50*


Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From 126" Screen


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15934691
> 
> 
> Of course that's why it's used, but I don't care about the director's intentions. i'm just looking for the most impressive demo material. If I am comparing two titles and bokeh makes one of them less impressive from a demo PQ stand-point, which is certainly possible, I am going to give it a lower score -- no different from any other decision made by a director that causes a title to be less impressive from a demo PQ standpoint. *So, while we're at it, let's not make any rules that say we cannot knock a title down for using bokeh, either. We most certainly can.*



I assume you agree, though, that this is part of each viewer's subjective evaluation, rather than a rule that PQ ranking *must* be lowered based on this factor?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15934340
> 
> 
> Bzzzt! Incorrect. You failed to follow the hypothetical correctly!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You get to see only what's in the foreground.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shallow depth of field for HTWWW? Leaving only what we see in the foreground?
> 
> 
> An ooh, an ahhh? IMO? Nope. Uh uh. Not even a little bit.
> 
> 
> It's a good thing you get what I mean without it, but still....
> 
> 
> I'm sending you back to remedial hypotheticals.



The problem with hypotheticals is that they often do not work. Such is the case here imo.



> Quote:
> Take How The West Was Won. Now instead of the widescreen panaramas filled with wonderful scenery and depth of field -- replace all of the backgrounds with Bokeh. For the sake of argument, make it really cool bokeh. Still an upper tier title?



It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to have bokeh in the scene that you describe above.


A "widescreen panaroma" shot will inherently have a deep depth of field, as all wide angle lenses do.


In any event, all of this talk of bokeh vs deep depth of field all goes to content and directors intent (and perhaps whether a title constitutes "eye candy"). It does not go to PQ itself.


----------



## jrcorwin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15934691
> 
> 
> Of course that's why it's used, but I don't care about the director's intentions. i'm just looking for the most impressive demo material. If I am comparing two titles and bokeh makes one of them less impressive from a demo PQ stand-point, which is certainly possible, I am going to give it a lower score -- no different from any other decision made by a director that causes a title to be less impressive from a demo PQ standpoint. So, while we're at it, let's not make any rules that say we cannot knock a title down for using bokeh, either. We most certainly can.



Sorry to jump into the middle of an ongoing conversation, but what is "bokeh"?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jrcorwin* /forum/post/15936067
> 
> 
> Sorry to jump into the middle of an ongoing conversation, but what is "bokeh"?



The out of focus portion of an image (usually done intentionally).


An example was posted on the last page.


----------



## OldCodger73

Netflix finally kicked _Baraka_ out of "very long wait" and sent it my way. The movie has been reviewed and debated enough that I don't feel I can add anything new. Some scenes totally blew me away, the detail and color of some of the costumes seemed to leap off the screen. Anyway, I'm very comfortable where the movie is now, *Baraka remains where it is in Tier 0*.


Besides the picture, I was really impressed with the DTS sound track, with its very live feel and great use of LFE.


Panasonic 50" 720p plasma, Panasonic 10a player, 7 1/2'


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *FlawIe55* /forum/post/15934436
> 
> 
> where would you put "The Third Man" on this list...I've read that it is exceptional HD quality, I haven't personally seen it yet, I'm waiting for the netflix copy now.



I have the movie and have watched it, in fact twice. I really think I need to watch it one more time before I do a review. Following are some thoughts.


The first time I went in with unreal expectations, after all this was Criterion and one of their first BDs. I was really disappointed, I thought sharpness was lacking-- I think I had just watched a Tier 0 movie and was comparing this 1949 film to it-- and I felt that there were too many hot spots on the actors faces in close-up and medium close-up shots. I would probably have given it a 4.5 but realized I needed to watch it again.


The second viewing was much better. There was pleasing grain, the lighting was fine, contrast was good, and there was a reasonable degree of sharpness. The picture was rock solid with the exception of the very end of some scenes where there a slight jump, maybe a missing frame or two. The picture was generally very clean, however in at least one scene near the end there was a thin vertical line about 1/3 of the way in from the left edge. Sound was rock solid, no warbling that you sometimes have in older films that have missing frames. I'd probably give it a tentative 3.0.


This is one of my favorite movies, arguably one of the greatest noir films of all times. I'm really happy with the purchase, it replaces a Criterion LD.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15934790
> 
> 
> I assume you agree, though, that this is part of each viewer's subjective evaluation, rather than a rule that PQ ranking *must* be lowered based on this factor?



Of course -- thank you.


----------



## moematthews




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15936176
> 
> 
> The out of focus portion of an image (usually done intentionally).
> 
> 
> An example was posted on the last page.



Done intentionally as in using a purposely too-large aperture setting? I really don't know anything about movie or video cameras, but where still cameras (35mm) are concerned, the picture on the last page is exactly what I would expect when using a telephoto or zoom lens without a tripod. If you're going to hand-hold it, you have to open the lens right up, which only compounds the naturally shallow depth of field in a telephoto or zoom. I don't think you could achieve any other result at that focal length. Even objects that are very close to the subject would be out of focus.


You are absolutely correct in saying that it would be essentially impossible to introduce bokeh into a widescreen panorama shot, as a wide angle lens of that focal length would have essentially infinite depth of field.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moematthews* /forum/post/15936725
> 
> 
> You are absolutely correct in saying that it would be essentially impossible to introduce bokeh into a widescreen panorama shot, as a wide angle lens of that focal length would have essentially infinite depth of field.



In such case, it would need to be shot with a different lense and would simply cease to be a widescreen panorama.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15936832
> 
> 
> 
> This is why I find the first 40 minutes of Apocalypto unimpressive and why, IMO, you never see screen grabs from this section of the blu-ray. The impressive screen grabs are from very deep into the film.



This is one of the few things we disagree on as far as PQ ratings... either way:



I believe the first 8 screen grabs occur before the first 40 minutes:
http://www.cinemasquid.com/MovieImages.aspx?MovieId=2 



If the bokeh is what bothers you, i can understand, but I personally don't find it to be a PQ flaw. Movies like HTWWW have great backgrounds, but the people have a soft look to them because of that... you cant have everything 100 percent in focus.




Edit:

Now, I'm not going to argue against Die Hard 4 tier rating anymore because it has been too long since I've seen it... but the same person took camera shots of both films:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...rd_blu-ray.htm 
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...apocalypto.htm 


And from the look if, at the VERY WORST CASE there is not a 2 tier difference between the two IMO (based on your recommendations). I can understand one being in tier 0, and the other in tier 1.0, but a 2 tier gap is just harsh IMO.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

 http://media.cinemasquid.com/m00002/m00002_lrg_03.png 


The above shot is an example of what happens when the background is neither in focus or completely out of focus. The result is that the viewer is either confused or thinks that it should be sharp and focused. Since it isn't, they think it looks soft (which it does).


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/15937458
> 
> 
> I believe the first 8 screen grabs occur before the first 40 minutes:
> http://www.cinemasquid.com/MovieImages.aspx?MovieId=2



Thank you. I would agree those are some of the best moments from the first 40 minutes -- I am not swayed by that for two reasons -- one, I would bet I could find some great _shots_ in even the lowest ranked titles. Two, I do not find even those to be _that_ impressive.



> Quote:
> If the bokeh is what bothers you



In those pics, the bokeh does not bother me at all.



> Quote:
> I personally don't find it to be a PQ flaw.



Agree -- I am absolutely *not* saying that bokeh should always be regarded as a PQ *flaw*.



> Quote:
> Movies like HTWWW have great backgrounds, but the people have a soft look to them because of that... you cant have everything 100 percent in focus.



Exactly my point. I can excuse some softness or lack of detail in the foreground if the principles are part of some incredible landscape panorama,

but that is usually not the case with Apocalypto.




> Quote:
> And from the look if, at the VERY WORST CASE there is not a 2 tier difference between the two IMO (based on your recommendations). I can understand one being in tier 0, and the other in tier 1.0, but a 2 tier gap is just harsh IMO.



Disagree. I didn't base my recommendations based on 8 shots from each film. I based it on watching the entire film in motion. If I have to go through a film searching for the good shots in the middle of a lot of less impressive stuff, I am always going to recommend that title lower than one which is more consistent. Especially if that means one has 8, let's say, tier 1.5 shots in 40 minutes while the other maintains a strong level throughout.


IMO, is is absolutely much more pleasurable and easier to watch a title that maintains a certain level of quality versus one where the pendulum is swinging from stretches of mediocrity to moments of impressiveness.


Also, I do not consider a recommendation of 2.0 to be "harsh."


If I were to start thinking that way, I would rank most every title in the gold tier and above. That's simply not the case. I have recommended many titles to 2.0 through 2.75 that have lots of impressive qualities.


Personally, I believe we do our readers a huge disservice when we write that a recommendation of 2.0 is harsh.


I believe that's why you see readers come here and question whether they should even bother watching lower tier titles.


If our own reviewers cry out against recommendations to tiers other than 0 or 1.0, it sends a message to readers that anything below that must be a real leper -- and IMO that is simply not the case.


For me, a recommendation to 2.0 still demands that the title have impressive qualities. There are many titles in the silver tier that I personally use as demo discs for one reason or another.


So, I reject the notion that a recommendation to tier 2.0 is harsh.


I certainly do not feel that way about titles I have placed there.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15937929
> 
> http://media.cinemasquid.com/m00002/m00002_lrg_03.png
> 
> 
> The above shot is an example of what happens when the background is neither in focus or completely out of focus. The result is that the viewer is either confused or thinks that it should be sharp and focused. Since it isn't, they think it looks soft (which it does).



Thank you for posting that. This is often the problem I find with both Apocalypto and the Kill Bills.


When I have complained about this, I have read the response as being, "that's because you don't understand "bokeh."


No, I do understand bokeh, but I think film makers need to be very careful in using bokeh because if you mix bokeh with shots like these, it just comes across as generally soft. If you have a bokeh background and the foreground is also soft, you don't know where the bokeh ends and again, it just comes across as soft. And, to me, when you scatter some sharp shots in here and there, it just makes going back to the softness that much more frustrating.


That is not my idea of demo material.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15938140
> 
> 
> Thank you. I would agree those are some of the best moments from the first 40 minutes -- I am not swayed by that for two reasons -- one, I would bet I could find some great _shots_ in even the lowest ranked titles. Two, I do not find even those to be _that_ impressive.
> 
> ...
> 
> In those pics, the bokeh does not bother me at all.
> 
> ...
> 
> Exactly my point. I can excuse some softness or lack of detail in the foreground if the principles are part of some incredible landscape panorama,
> 
> but that is usually not the case with Apocalypto.
> 
> 
> 
> Disagree. I didn't base my recommendations based on 8 shots from each film. I based it on watching the entire film in motion. If I have to go through a film searching for the good shots in the middle of a lot of less impressive stuff, I am always going to recommend that title lower than one which is more consistent. Especially if that means one has 8, let's say, tier 1.5 shots in 40 minutes while the other maintains a strong level throughout.



We'll have to agree to disagree. We can take screenshots all day, i can find DH4 shots that look bad, and you can find Apoc ones that look bad. We can argue that one has worser "bad" shots than the other. Then we can take the best of the best and argue that one has better "best" shots than the other. Then we can say that one maintains an overall better look, etc..


In the end it's about our personal preference. I even admitted that under a strict tier 0 guideline that Apoc wouldn't be in tier 0... but it looks way too good (to me) to be in 2.0 which is why I felt 2.0 was "harsh".


----------



## rsbeck

If I felt there was a consensus forming for Apocalypto at 1.75, I would support that, but if it is a review, I have to recommend where I see it. I hear what you're saying -- and -- though I appreciate Die Hard 4, I would be happy to hear your argument for why you think it should be lower. I don't think there's anything outrageous about suggesting it might be placed lower. I like to hear all opinions. IMO, there's no harm in putting any title considered for upper tiers through the ringer and just because you are in the minority now doesn't mean it will stay that way. Sometimes the minority position isn't wrong -- it's just early. I think LBFilmguy also suggested lower placement. Let 'er rip. I tend to use LFoDH for demos, so I will be watching it again -- tell me what you see and I'll look for it next time.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15938183
> 
> 
> Thank you for posting that. This is often the problem I find with both Apocalypto and the Kill Bills.
> 
> 
> When I have complained about this, I have read the response as being, "that's because you don't understand "bokeh."
> 
> 
> No, I do understand bokeh, but I think film makers need to be very careful in using bokeh because if you mix bokeh with shots like these, it just comes across as generally soft. If you have a bokeh background and the foreground is also soft, you don't know where the bokeh ends and again, it just comes across as soft. And, to me, when you scatter some sharp shots in here and there, it just makes going back to the softness that much more frustrating.
> 
> 
> That is not my idea of demo material.



Exactly.


However, and this is "semantics", I would not define the background in that shot as "bokeh". _My_ definition of bokeh requires that the background be much more out of focus than that.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15938533
> 
> 
> If I felt there was a consensus forming for Apocalypto at 1.75, I would support that, but if it is a review, I have to recommend where I see it. I hear what you're saying -- and -- though I appreciate Die Hard 4, I would be happy to hear your argument for why you think it should be lower. I don't think there's anything outrageous about suggesting it might be placed lower. I like to hear all opinions. IMO, there's no harm in putting any title considered for upper tiers through the ringer and just because you are in the minority now doesn't mean it will stay that way. Sometimes the minority position isn't wrong -- it's just early. I think LBFilmguy also suggested lower placement. Let 'er rip. I tend to use LFoDH for demos, so I will be watching it again -- tell me what you see and I'll look for it next time.



I'll have to rewatch DH4. I remember it being a great looking title, just not up there with the best.. but perhaps watching it again will change my opinion. Perhaps it won't.


I know you've used DH4 as demo, but I've had a friend watch many movies on my setup and he believes none have him impressed him like Apocalypto -- perhaps he only remembers the last 1 hr 30 minutes of it.. and we already know that memories can be tainted... I'm just saying... opinions...


----------



## rsbeck

Bokeh -- I was just reading a forum discussing Bokeh in films. Apparently, there is bad Bokeh, neutral Bokeh and excellent Bokeh. It was said by several that Lost in Translation has excellent Bokeh. I only have it on DVD, but I am going to check it out. Anyone else with Lost in Translation, take a look!


----------



## Hammie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15938781
> 
> 
> Bokeh -- I was just reading a forum discussing Bokeh in films. Apparently, there is bad Bokeh, neutral Bokeh and excellent Bokeh. It was said by several that Lost in Translation has excellent Bokeh. I only have it on DVD, but I am going to check it out. Anyone else with Lost in Translation, take a look!



I'd be interested in seeing that thread. Do you have a link by chance?


----------



## deltasun

I think the point is being missed here. All I am stating is that we cannot pre-judge a movie as being better than another because one has bokeh and the other has panoramic shots. That would be a generalization. We have to examine each movie and decide.


In the case of Rescue Dawn, I agree that it's probably a 1.25 Tier movie. However, I believe Apocalypto surpases it and is correctly rated at 1.0.


----------



## Hammie

*Rocky Balboa*


This was much better than the original Rocky movie (as far as PQ goes) but it still wasn't great. It did not have the same gritty look and feel to it, but it was still rather soft through most of the scenes. Most close-ups, on the other hand, really showed Sly's age and you could see many of his wrinkles. This was true for many of the other characters, also. Colors were good and there were moments of pop. I think one of the best scenes was the B&W segment during the last fight. Overall, this was slightly above average for a BD. Not sure if I totally agree with its current placement at 2.0 (_with Donnie Brasco and Cloverfield_). I'm thinking it is more on the edge of 2.25 or 2.5.


After looking through some of the other movies in those ranks, I think this should be a 2.5 since it was on par with _V for Vendetta_.

*Tier recommendation: 2.5*


Panasonic TH-50PZ850u

Panasonic DMP-BD35

Viewing distance: 7.5'


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15938781
> 
> 
> Bokeh -- I was just reading a forum discussing Bokeh in films. Apparently, there is bad Bokeh, neutral Bokeh and excellent Bokeh. It was said by several that Lost in Translation has excellent Bokeh. I only have it on DVD, but I am going to check it out. Anyone else with Lost in Translation, take a look!



I couldn't agree more about Lost in Translation being an incredible example of the gorgeous use of bokeh!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Other Boleyn Girl
*
*recommendation: Tier 1.5*


A period film from Sony, it was released to Blu-ray on June 10th of 2008. The 115-minute movie is encoded in AVC on a BD-50. The average video bitrate is 23.95 Mbps per the BDInfo scan. The compression parameters follow the typical Sony encoding pattern from the last eighteen months, with the AVC encode ranging from 16.1 to 33.7 Mbps for the bulk of the movie.


Generally the compression encoding is transparent to the source material with the image free of any artifacts at all. It is not perfectly free of missteps though, as one scene at approximately the 70-minute mark manifests some compression and light chroma noise in the background of the shot. There is also a quick glimpse of banding in another couple of shots. I think the average viewer would have no complaints in this regard. It would have been interesting to see the results of a video encode of this movie following more closely to an average in the thirties.


It quickly becomes apparent during viewing that the movie is shot entirely on HD-video cameras. After a bit of research I found out it was shot on the Panavision Genesis HD Camera. The result is an image devoid of grain and surprisingly little noise for a digitally-shot movie. The image is reminiscent of another digitally-shot movie, _Youth Without Youth_. This Blu-ray was transferred from a Digital Intermediate that is absolutely flawless in nature. From beginning to end the image is completely free of any dirt or specks down to the individual pixel level. There has been no digital noise reduction or scratch removal programs run on this transfer. In this regard there is no post-processing evident.


I would call attention to some edge enhancement halos visible at times. The ringing is low in amplitude and on the threshold of visibility but becomes apparent on certain high-contrast edges. What is baffling is that the picture is naturally sharp in nature so I am questioning its inclusion on the transfer.


While sharing some commonalities in their picture qualities, this movie is clearly a step down from the quality of _Youth Without Youth_ visually. Most aspects of the picture for _The Other Boleyn Girl_ reveal how well-shot that Coppola movie really is in all dimensions of quality. In comparison the cinematography here is a significant step down with some unusual color timing that varies over the course of the movie. It really reminded me of how important color rendition and fidelity are to the best looking BD's and the fine line between the upper tiers.


Depending on the scene, the color timing and palette has been altered to reflect the current mood of the Boleyn sisters and the events transpiring around them. As the movie clips along the image becomes increasingly monochromatic towards a drained, blue push with a subdued color scheme. Due to this flesh tones become very pale and somewhat unnatural in appearance. The final stretch of the movie looks very bleak and dark. But even in the beginning of the movie, the elaborate costumes seen in the King's Court do not exhibit the superior saturation that typify the highest caliber BD's.


While setting the mood with color is a legitimate artistic choice, I felt it impacted the overall picture quality and what separated this transfer from tier zero. It does not help that several scenes showed slight contrast problems. While black levels are solid, I never thought they reached the striking depths of blackness seen in the best ranked titles. Nothing is ever obscured in shadows, but the general visibility of the finest low light detail is not quite as good as it should be.


Outside of the problems cited above the picture quality is quite wonderful. There is incredible resolution throughout the film, with an inordinate amount of detail in almost every scene. Tight shots reveal excellent high-frequency information, from the individual hair strands of eye brows to tiny moles and acme marks. The image is as sharp as any I have seen with impressive dimensionality to the outdoor shots. The scenes inside appear slightly flatter.


My placement is for tier 1.5 from its current ranking in tier 2.25. This Blu-ray seems to be very faithful to the director's intended look which limits it from achieving a higher placement.


Watching on a 60 Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 (firmware 2.60) from a viewing distance of six feet.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.cinemasquid.com/MovieDeta...px?MovieId=752


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Christ I am gone for a day on set and come back and see everyone is still arguing over depth of field use. How ridiculous.


This was never an issue until beck took offense to what someone said. In all honestly beck you need to relax a little in this thread. A lot of stupid fights occur because you have to argue over every little thing.


Sorry dude, I am just telling it how I see it.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hammie* /forum/post/15939981
> 
> 
> I'd be interested in seeing that thread. Do you have a link by chance?



This is the discussion of bokeh in movies....

http://www.flickr.com/groups/okay-bo...7594127825418/ 


For a discussion of Bokeh...

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm 

http://photodoto.com/bokeh-what-the-hell-is-it/ 

http://www.brighthub.com/multimedia/...les/22440.aspx


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15943739
> 
> 
> I don't see any "stupid" fights -- point me to an example.



This is a stupid fight because depth of field has been used since the beginning of time in film. It has never been an issue in this thread until now.


----------



## rsbeck

I do not feel this is a fight. I'm sorry you feel that a discussion of depth of field is irrelevant to a picture quality thread. I don't know how to help you with that.



.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15943788
> 
> 
> I'm sorry you feel that a discussion of depth of field is irrelevant to a picture quality thread.



It's not that...it's you saying you reward a film for less use of it than films that use it more, then arguing with people when they question what you said.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15943698
> 
> 
> For a discussion of Bokeh...
> 
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm



I would recommend adding "Bokeh" and that particular link, unless someone has a better suggestion, to the first post with the other terms we frequently use in this thread. Several posters over the past few months have asked what it is and this might clarify matters a little.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Haha. How was that uncivil? By me saying 'ludicrous'...?


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15943952
> 
> 
> I would recommend adding "Bokeh" and that particular link, unless someone has a better suggestion, to the first post with the other terms we frequently use in this thread. Several posters over the past few months have asked what it is and this might clarify matters a little.



Agree -- Excellent suggestion.


----------



## rsbeck

*The French Connection*


1971, 1.85:1


Coarse grain intact, ringing and halos noted in a number of scenes. As many of you probably already know, this title has been the subject of some controversy. The Director of photography on the film has disowned the blu-ray because of the change in color timing employed by the director, William Friedkin.

http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2009/...ioushorrif.php 


So, how does the film look? Different. Contrast appears to have been bumped so the picture is brighter and blacks tend to crush. Colors timing and saturation has been tweaked. This is mostly slightly noticeable, but becomes clearly noticeable in a number of scenes where the color choices and over saturation really stand out -- hard to understand why Friedkin made these choices because it can be quite jarring, taking you out of the story and drawing attention to itself. Due to the persistent halos, I suspect some processing has been applied that interacts with the coarse grain at times to make medium shots a little fuzzy. My reference for films shot in this period on this type of film stock is Bullitt, which is ranked 4.5. Both films have strong facial, follicle and clothing texture detail in close-ups. Though this period grainy look is an acquired taste and not everyone will enjoy it, I think most would say this one is a little more consistent. Fans of the film will have a tough choice to make. The positives are; there is a clear improvement in clarity over the DVD and the 60's/70's grain has been left alone.

*Recommendation: Tier 3.75*


Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From 126" Screen


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/15940312
> 
> 
> we cannot pre-judge a movie as being better than another because one has bokeh and the other has panoramic shots. We have to examine each movie and decide.



Absolutely. And I think you would agree that neither should the use of Bokeh or depth of field render a title immune to criticism. It is helpful to have a working knowledge of these issues, but it is still quite possible to understand both bokeh and depth of field and still believe, for any number of reasons, that its employment detracts from PQ according to our guidelines. It is also possible to find fault with the picture due to the _quality_ of the bokeh.


With regard to the first 40 minutes of Apocalypto, I watched again last night. I believe I counted four very brief instances where "circle of light" type bokeh was employed. In two of them, I thought it looked very good. In two others, it was mixed with blown highlights, which might not have bothered me if not for another recurring issue. There were a number of scenes where the background was just slightly out of focus while the point of focus was also soft -- the type of picture Rob Tomlin pointed out yesterday.


IMO, this type of shot _is_ a flaw.


IMO, throughout a full 40+ minutes of its opening section, Apocalypto is locked in a tug of war with contrast and clarity issues.


This has nothing to do with Bokeh.


IMO, Rescue Dawn needs to come down to 1.25.


I think we have general agreement on that.


IMO, Apocalypto also needs to come down.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15944384
> 
> *The French Connection*
> 
> So, how does the film look? Different. Contrast appears to have been bumped so the picture is brighter and blacks tend to crush. Colors timing and saturation has been tweaked.
> 
> 
> Recommendation: Tier 3.75[/size][/b]



Do you think the changes made by Friedkin would be noticed by someone that has not seen the movie in awhile? Does it still look like a film from that era overall? I am talking more as a fan of the movie than any consideration for its ranking here.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15944972
> 
> 
> And I think you would agree that neither should the use of Bokeh or depth of field render a title immune to criticism.



I never claimed otherwise.




> Quote:
> IMO, Rescue Dawn needs to come down to 1.25.
> 
> 
> I think we have general agreement on that.
> 
> 
> IMO, Apocalypto also needs to come down.



In my opinion, the PQ of the movie Rescue Dawn is inferior to the movie Apocalypto. I am not comparing bokeh vs non-bokeh here. I am comparing one entire movie to another entire movie, and in my opinion, Apocalypto is superior as a whole by a quarter tier.

*Apocalypto - 1.0

Rescue Dawn - 1.25*


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15945020
> 
> 
> Does it still look like a film from that era overall? I am talking more as a fan of the movie than any consideration for its ranking here.



The grain definitely marks it as a film of that era. I hadn't seen the film in quite awhile and I could tell it had been changed. Much of the time, I don't think it is a big issue, but every once in awhile it is a little jarring. If you watch it, I'd be curious to hear your opinion.


----------



## TayC

*2001: A Space Odyssey*


The persistent edge ringing of this transfer distracts me from the otherwise awesome PQ. Sharp detail, fantastic colors, nice blacks, and practically grain-free. I don't know if the ringing is due to EE or the downscaling process; I've noticed that Baraka was shot in 65mm and suffers from ringing. 2001 was shot in 65mm and also suffers from ringing. I've read that problems can occur when scanning 70mm film and lowering the resolution. (anyone know exactly why??) The halos don't pop up as frequently in darker and low-contrast scenes, but anytime we see an actor in the white backgrounds of the space station, those halos appear. I don't know if there are any specific answers as to what happened... It'd be interesting to find out.


Fortunately, as mentioned, the rest of the picture qualities are pure eye candy. This is a movie driven by visuals, and it doesn't disappoint. I wish there were a lot more close-ups because that's where 2001 really shines and takes advantage of the wide film gauge. Many parts look like a brand new movie. If only the ringing didn't bother me so much.







I want to rate this upper 1.0 or even 0... if it didn't have those halos.

*Tier recommendation: 1.75 (current)*


42PX80u, 7 feet


----------



## LBFilmGuy

*Face/Off: Special DNR and EE Edition
*

I really don't understand these professional review sites...HDD gave this title a 4.5 out of 5, and Blu-Ray.com gave it a 4 out of 5.


Now, I am not sensitive to EE at all, and even I noticed it throughout this film. Ringing was apparent around the edges of the frame for about 90% of it, ringing around heads and jackets, etc.


DNR was also heavily applied it seems to some shots, seemingly where the incorrect depth of field was used on set so they tried to fudge it in post. Not good. Most of the time details were smoothed over, but there we some nice looking closeups with a fair amount of detail. Nothing breathtaking though.


Skin tones were also bad. The entire time they looked very pink and red, not natural at all.


Blacks found themselves crushed in clothing and suit jackets.


The only scene that looked quite good was the boat chase at the end.


Overall, I can deal with its 3.25 placement, wouldn't mind seeing it in 3.5 though.

*Recommendation: Tier 3.5
*

Panasonic PZ80U via PS3 @ about 6 feet.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

From your review LBFilmGuy it sounds much worse than 3.50!!! Eek! I almost want to see it for how bad it sounds... PQ torture!







Of course, I am overly sensitive to the EE, and the DNR would probably just anger me.


----------



## deltasun

*Firefly*


These series are difficult to rate because there is such a wide variance in picture quality from one episode to another, even from one scene to another. Grain is definitely present, especially in low-light situations. Skin tones look natural, colors a bit muted for the most part. There's usually rich, deep colors only in Inara's "love" den. Black levels are inconsistent, but are generally acceptable.


As far as issues, constrast is far from controlled. The outdoor scenes in the episode "Safe" are perfect examples of this. Pixelation creeps up every now and then. I think the worst part of the series is the CGI.


Close-up's, when done in the right light, can be very impressive.


I disagree slightly with the current vote of 2.5. I believe that with its flaws and inconsistencies, it belongs more in...

*Tier Recommendation: 3.25*


I believe, for example, that _Training Day_ (in 3.0) edges this title.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## rsbeck

*Changeling*


Very fine grain apparent, thin ringing noted on a number of edges. Changeling is a dialogue driven melodrama which has been carefully lit for a period look and emotional connection. Aside from a few scenes which were dark and flat, I was impressed with the use of light and shadow. In the better scenes, blacks, contrast and shadow detail is generally excellent. Most of the time Ms. Jolie's face is not lit or shot to exhibit ultrafine detail, but there are a few scenes where you can see pores and imperfections. Facial detail on other actors is generally very good, follicle detail on all actors consistently excellent with single strands of hair and eyebrow exhibited and well resolved, variation in hair color from strand to strand easy to discern. Fine clothing detail and texture is excellent with actors including Jolie generally wearing a hat, cap, sweater, jacket or shirt where individual threads, knap, tufts, fur, or intricate weave are incredibly well resolved. This, to me, might have been the single most impressive high resolution aspect of the Changeling.

*Recommendation: Tier 2.0*


Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From 126" Screen


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15954213
> 
> 
> From your review LBFilmGuy it sounds much worse than 3.50!!! Eek! I almost want to see it for how bad it sounds... PQ torture!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, I am overly sensitive to the EE, and the DNR would probably just anger me.



Haha yeah maybe I made it sound a little worse than it is...it does have some good moments.


Another funny note is being able to see the wires on the stuntmen and how obvious it was when stunt doubles were used.


Pretty funny, but cheapened the film badly for me.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15953852
> 
> *Face/Off: Special DNR and EE Edition
> *
> *Recommendation: Tier 3.5
> *



For those interested in the best version available so far on Blu-ray, the region-free UK release is slightly better in picture quality with less DNR.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15962129
> 
> 
> For those interested in the best version available so far on Blu-ray, the region-free UK release is slightly better in picture quality with less DNR.



Yeah I noticed the UK version is in Tier 2.5 here.


----------



## TayC

*L.A. Confidential*


L.A. Confidential is tricky for me to rate. I'm a huge fan of the movie, so it was a must-buy for me regardless of PQ. However, after the first few minutes of the movie all I could think of was how soft it looked. I've seen movies on BD that are much older and look much sharper and more detailed. The image also feels a bit flat because of somewhat weak contrast. That's not to say that the disc as a whole is a disappointment; it's just not consistent. As the movie goes along, you will start to appreciate how it looks, but it won't blow you away. There are moments, mostly during close-ups, that I noticed fine details in clothing and on faces. Textures are mostly nice. Colors look correct. Still, overall, it just looks _too_ soft, especially during medium and long shots.


I feel that the faults in this movie's presentation are because of the way it was shot, not necessarily with the transfer/encode: I didn't see any DNR and EE, which is great, but when those things are absent I expect impressive PQ. I will say that this presentation did look film-like, which I always appreciate. Overall, I think this one is just above average quality for Blu-Ray, not approaching excellence... thus, the recommendation below...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75*


42PX80u, 7 feet


----------



## avhed

Short Circuit belongs in Coal. Easily more so than The Punisher.

Short Circuit is the first Blu-ray title ( out of 145), my viewing did not remind me I was watching Blu-ray.


Samsung BD-P1200 FW2.4/ Sony KD-34XS955 @4.5ft


----------



## djoberg

*Beverly Hills Chihuahua*


Ladies and gentlemen....We have a WINNER!! Translation: This is a Tier Blu title if ever there was one!


I feel constrained to elaborate on the virtues of this worthy Tier 0 contender, but before I do allow me to expose the few MINOR flaws that I detected. In the first 10 minutes I saw, on two brief occasions, some digital noise on the skin of Jamie Curtis' niece. I also thought that the colors were a wee bit oversaturated at times. And finally, there was one short shot in a desert scene which lacked the detail that absolutely dominated the rest of the film. So there, these are my only criticisms, which one can EASILY overlook when compared with the other 98% of the movie.


Now for the VIRTUES:


1) Colors....Rich, warm and vibrant! The backyards of Beverly Hills (with exquisite flower gardens and lush lawns) are a feast for the eyes...true EYE CANDY, my fellow AVS members! When the scenes turn to Mexico, whether on the beaches or in Mexico City, we are treated to the beautiful color palette that Mexico is known for (and I speak with some authority having vacationed there several times).


2) Blacks & Shadow Detail....Strong and impressive! The daytimes scenes are literally filled with inky, inky, blacks....and the night scenes, which number a good half dozen, also reveal rich blacks and some of the most impressive shadow detail I have ever seen, bar none. (I am NOT exaggerating here one iota!)


3) Contrast....Equally strong! There is a nice balance of blacks and whites throughout and again it is pure EYE CANDY.


4) Depth....I won't say, as some professional reviewers have, that 3D pop carries every scene, but there were some shots that were jaw-dropping.


5) Detail....I purposely left this for last, because IMHO this is the greatest virtue of all. Except for the desert scene I alluded to in the 2nd paragraph, the detail was simply amazing in EVERY scene. I'm not resorting to hyperbole when I say that outdoor scenes (backyards of Beverly Hills, city streets of Mexico City, Aztec pyramid ruins of northern Mexico, etc.) rivaled those of Baraka. Facial close-ups ("canine," that is







) betray every whisker and color gradation. Indoor scenes in homes and hotels reward us with the same.


Well, I hope I'm not guilty of exaggeration or too much hype, but again, if this title isn't worthy of Tier Blu, nothing is. Now......where does it belong in that tier? Hmmmmm.....how about:

*Tier Recommendation: Middle of Tier 0*


Samsung 50" 1080p DLP....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 7'


PS There may be some who would fault this title for a lack of "human" facial close-ups, but as I noted in the review the focus of this movie is understandably "canine" close-ups. In the few facial close-ups the detail was quite good, especially those of the man who ran the dog fighting business.


----------



## TayC

I thought I would never watch that movie, but now you have tempted me...


----------



## stumlad

*The House Bunny*


The first thing I noticed was lack of grain... but it didn't look like DNR so I concluded that this was shot on video (checking IMDB afterward confirmed this). The one great thing I can say was that there weren't any obvious signs of digital noise. People who do not really like grain will enjoy the look of movie for those reasons.


Contrast however wasn't great.... There were quite a few areas of 3D pop, but for the most part it looked a bit flat. Colors were oversaturated a bit, and face closeups weren't common, and did not seem to resolve a lot. Small object detail was good, though nothing special.


Unfortunately I've only pointed out the negatives. The positives is that it's an artifact free, noise free, faithful reproduction of the source. Everything looks very good, it's just not one of those movies that you watch to see blades of grass or anything like that.


Depending on your sense of humor , you'll find this movie utterly annoying or surprisingly funny. My wife and I found the it to be funny. Just don't expect it to be smart humor...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75*


----------



## deltasun

Djoberg, you make me want to get in my car and track this movie down now! How's the movie itself? It may tilt it over the blind-buy side for me if it's halfway decent or funny.


Thanks for the articulate descriptions and am looking forward to this movie as well.


----------



## rsbeck

*Becoming Jane*


Extremely fine grain apparent, thin ringing noted on a couple of edges. Jane is a period costume romantic drama which is mostly lit and shot according to the customs of the genre. Aside from a few scenes, Jane is not lit or shot to exhibit ultra-fine detail in faces, hair, or clothing. The best shots in this blu-ray tend to be outdoor shots meant to establish location or tone -- beautiful scenery shot with perfect light and contrast. However, much of Jane also takes place indoors where the contrast is very often dodgy, brightness can be a little high, resulting in unsatisfying blacks and a picture that too often looks flat and washed out. Actors are shot with a touch of softness, which results in smooth faces and hair of mediocre resolution. In Maggie Smith, James Cromwell, and Ian Richardson we see facial texture, but seldom to the level of pores. Fine object detail is on display in a recurrent close-up motif showing Jane writing. The script and paper is very well resolved -- you can even see the texture of the paper. Actors seldom wear costumes with intricate detail to resolve. Skin tones appear very natural. Becoming Jane was placed in tier 0 a year ago and overall it is still a good looking title with a few undeniable strengths. It looks on my screen like a very solid silver tier title. See it for the beautiful outdoor shots.

*Recommendation: Tier 2.0*


Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From 126" Screen


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TayC* /forum/post/15964388
> 
> 
> I thought I would never watch that movie, but now you have tempted me...



Beverly Hills Chihuahua could be the first title in some magical 'Tier -1' and I still wouldn't even watch it out of curiosity.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TayC* /forum/post/15964388
> 
> 
> I thought I would never watch that movie, but now you have tempted me...



I watched it in memory of the white chihuahua we had when I was a kid; in fact, it looked identical to the lead chihuahua (Chloe) in BHC.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/15964645
> 
> 
> Djoberg, you make me want to get in my car and track this movie down now! How's the movie itself? It may tilt it over the blind-buy side for me if it's halfway decent or funny.



The movie wasn't as bad as I had anticipated. I found myself laughing at some fairly good one liners sprinkled throughout the movie.


Again, I hope I haven't built up too much hype on this title, but it was SO consistently sharp and detailed (except for a few isolated shots) and one is rarely treated to a visual feast like this.


I should have added that I would put in right under Baraka, for like I had said many scenes rivaled those of Baraka. It definitely lacked the superb "human" facial close-ups of Baraka, but other virtues made up for that (especially the amazing black levels and shadow detail that you don't get in Baraka).


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15964993
> 
> *Becoming Jane*
> 
> 
> Extremely fine grain apparent, thin ringing noted on a couple of edges. Jane is a period costume romantic drama which is mostly lit and shot according to the customs of the genre. Aside from a few scenes, Jane is not lit or shot to exhibit ultra-fine detail in faces, hair, or clothing. The best shots in this blu-ray tend to be outdoor shots meant to establish location or tone -- beautiful scenery shot with perfect light and contrast. However, much of Jane also takes place indoors where the contrast is very often dodgy, brightness can be a little high, resulting in unsatisfying blacks and a picture that too often looks flat and washed out. Actors are shot with a touch of softness, which results in smooth faces and hair of mediocre resolution. In Maggie Smith, James Cromwell, and Ian Richardson we see facial texture, but seldom to the level of pores. Fine object detail is on display in a recurrent close-up motif showing Jane writing. The script and paper is very well resolved -- you can even see the texture of the paper. Actors seldom wear costumes with intricate detail to resolve. Skin tones appear very natural. Becoming Jane was placed in tier 0 a year ago and overall it is still a good looking title with a few undeniable strengths. It looks on my screen like a very solid silver tier title. See it for the beautiful outdoor shots.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 2.0*
> 
> 
> Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From 126" Screen



It's been almost a year since I've seen Becoming Jane, so I may have to revisit it. I guess right now I'd be surprised if my view would change that much (from Tier 0 to Tier 2). But I've been surprised at other titles I've revisited so I'll keep an open mind.


----------



## Wryker




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15965934
> 
> 
> The movie wasn't as bad as I had anticipated. I found myself laughing at some fairly good one liners sprinkled throughout the movie.
> 
> 
> Again, I hope I haven't built up too much hype on this title, but it was SO consistently sharp and detailed (except for a few isolated shots) and one is rarely treated to a visual feast like this.
> 
> 
> I should have added that I would put in right under Baraka, for like I had said many scenes rivaled those of Baraka. It definitely lacked the superb "human" facial close-ups of Baraka, but other virtues made up for that (especially the amazing black levels and shadow detail that you don't get in Baraka).



Did anyone watch this on a PS3? I ask since we tried to watch it last night and I kept getting the disc unplayable error.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wryker* /forum/post/15965995
> 
> 
> Did anyone watch this on a PS3? I ask since we tried to watch it last night and I kept getting the disc unplayable error.



Looks like Netflix sent it last night so I should get it later on today. I'll be using a PS3 and will let you know.


----------



## wmwilker




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wryker* /forum/post/15965995
> 
> 
> Did anyone watch this on a PS3? I ask since we tried to watch it last night and I kept getting the disc unplayable error.



They are really picky about dirty discs


----------



## Wryker




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wmwilker* /forum/post/15967425
> 
> 
> They are really picky about dirty discs



I could tell it was a brand new disc (it just was released Monday) and I did take it out three times to 'clean' it 'just in case' and still got the error (even powered the PS3 down).


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wryker* /forum/post/15967434
> 
> 
> I could tell it was a brand new disc (it just was released Monday) and I did take it out three times to 'clean' it 'just in case' and still got the error (even powered the PS3 down).



Perhaps this title will need a firmware update on the PS3. As you know, I use a Panasonic BD30 and obviously I had no problem whatsoever.


----------



## Wryker




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15967748
> 
> 
> Perhaps this title will need a firmware update on the PS3. As you know, I use a Panasonic BD30 and obviously I had no problem whatsoever.



I have a BD35 and was going to try it in that tonight to see if it 'is' the PS3.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Robbie Williams: Live At The Albert (UK import)*

*recommendation: Tier 1.0
*

A concert that was originally performed in 2001, this region-free Blu-ray came out from EMI in the U.K. and will play on all U.S. BD players. Released back on December 3rd of 2007, the main feature runs for 71-minutes. Presented at a resolution of 1080i (most likely the native resolution of the cameras used for the shoot), the video is encoded in AVC on a BD-25.


The video encoding stays mostly within a range from 14.4 Mbps to 25 Mbps. While not an exact figure I would estimate the average video bitrate to be 18.5 Mbps for the main feature. The low parameters do not seem to affect the transparency of the encoding, with nary an artifact visible. I would attribute that to the incredibly clean looking source material and lack of motion inherent in the original photography.


Shot on HD-video cameras at the Royal Albert Hall, the image appears excellent throughout the concert. This is not a rock concert per se, with Robbie Williams singing a set of swing songs in front of a 58-piece orchestra in formal attire. Without the trappings of a modern rock concert in place, the visuals are simple yet very clean looking and revealing. Contrast is crisp without any blooming or crushing. Black levels are consistently great, with Mr. William's black suit resolved down to the the most minuscule level of detail. Colors are quite vibrant without reaching the point of over-saturation. Flesh tones have a very naturalistic look and appear better than many concerts I have seen on home video.


The master used for the transfer must be in spectacular condition. The image is absolutely flawless and looks like it was filmed yesterday. There has been no digital post-processing of any kind done to this Blu-ray. The image looks razor-sharp and perfectly in-focus with no hint of edge halos. Some brief footage inserted into the concert from the 1960's that runs four minutes long is the only exception to the quality of the image.


High-frequency information is very nice and ranks well alongside other tier one titles. Tight close-ups of Robbie singing reveal every pore of his face and skin. I would not rank it though in the lofty heights of tier zero, as shadow detail is just a touch below the best transfers. The depth and dimensionality of most shots are very good.


Having owned this on dvd I suspected this would be a good looking Blu-ray. My supposition was correct as this concert release has beautiful picture quality. For those interested, the included audio tracks are a stereo PCM track and a 5.1 DTS-HD MA track.


----------



## Wryker




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wryker* /forum/post/15967925
> 
> 
> I have a BD35 and was going to try it in that tonight to see if it 'is' the PS3.



Ok - didn't work on either of my 2 PS3's nor my BD35 (gave a copyright protection error)..so a replacement is on the way.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Blu Rays are VERY sensitive to fingerprints and scratches.


My Get Smart from Netflix had a hard time loading at first. It finally did, got about halfway through it would skip and freeze. It had a few very small scratches on it so I got a replacement.


Then just recently Face/Off starting doing the same thing, and I noticed fingerprints on the very edge of the disk. Wiped em off and it was fine.


99% of the time it's the disc.


----------



## deltasun

Yeah, it's gotta be the disc. My Chihuahua copy works well on my PS3. Will report back in a bit, but so far Djoberg's right on.


----------



## deltasun

*Beverly Hills Chihuahua*

_We are chihuahuas, hear us roar!_


I concur - this has some of the finest black levels and shadow details I've seen. The night scenes in Mexico City are quite impressive; same with El Diablo's and Delgado's coats. The colors are indeed vibrant and full of life. The pastel colors on the iguana are very pleasing to the eyes, for example.


Details on close-up's are exceptional. Check out the scene when Delgado...

*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) was getting his scent back.



(I know, I know, but you never know!).


Medium shots of the supporting cast of dogs are very detailed as well. As for the panoramic shots, when depth of field is at infinity, we see very good details all the way through. Maybe an exception was the one scene (western-looking scene) in the dessert when the fake background looked, well, fake. On the flip side, there were a number of fine bokeh moments starting with scenes in the Beverly Hills backyard and a notable few in the dessert scenes.


One thing lacking for me (or not as pronounced) is 3D pop. There's great depth on a number of scenes, but not the pop I've seen in other titles. I also found some minor pixelation in the introductory scene to Puerto Vallarta. Aside from that, a very clean picture. Very fine grain was present throughout.


Now, where to place...I would say slightly better than _Live Free or Die Hard_ and _The Host_...

*Tier Recommendation: Middle Tier 0*


Coincidentally, Baraka arrived with this Blu-Ray from Netflix so I'll be able to judge the two. Baraka is next...

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## jrcorwin

Oh lord...it's tempting, but I don't know if I can bring myself to watch the talking dog film.


----------



## djoberg

^


deltasun,


I see we are on the same page regarding Beverly Hills Chihuahua. Even the areas that _didn't_ impress you were the same as mine, for I believe the desert scene you referred to was the same one I alluded to in my review (where I said one desert scene lacked detail) and I too wasn't all that impressed with the 3D pop factor (though there were a few scenes that had fantastic dimension to them).


I'm glad to see you will finally be viewing Baraka. You are in for another visual treat my friend. Like BHC you will see GREAT DETAIL throughout, especially in the MANY sweeping landscapes and in facial close-ups, which, IMO, are as good as they come. What you won't see this time around are the amazing black levels and shadow detail. All things considered, I believe these two are on the same level.


----------



## deltasun

*Baraka*


Wow! Definitely a visual (and really, aural) feast. I think anybody viewing this collection of images will agree this is tier blu material. What really struck me the most is the dynamic range of colors, contrasts, and cinematography techniques.


Djoberg is right - the first thing I noticed (specially after just watching Beverly Hills Chihuahua) are the black levels. While we do get some fairly decent blacks here and there, they are not as impressive or consistent as BHC. But, what it lacks in black levels, it makes up for in everything else. There is fine and coarse detail. Same with depth - it is maximized when that makes sense. Super shallow when needed. Oh, and the lighting is superb. I wonder how much the cinematographer(s) staked out each location to get as much punch into each scene?


Shadow details, for the most part, were excellent. Contrast was properly controlled for the majority of the scenes. That one scene in the burning oil fields in Kuwait where the raging flames seem to be jumping off the screen was gorgeous. Rock and statue details were stunning. So were the details inside the basilica in low light.


Overall, it's difficult to find any faults in this film. Dark levels may be its only weakness. Some of the eclipse and backlit shots could have been better. But then again, the scene at the 1hr 27min mark showed decent levels. I also spied a few digital "dancing" noise during the Kuwaiti oil fields and the time-lapse sequences with the starry night sky scenes.

*Tier Recommendation: Agree with current placement in Tier 0*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## deltasun

To sum up the 3 current titles I've seen in Tier Blu. I still believe _Domino_ belongs just below _Man on Fire_. _Baraka_ should stay where it is and is still superior to _Beverly Hills Chihuahua_.


----------



## Hughmc

*King Kong: Recommendation: low Tier 0*


I think this title looks phenomenal on BD and should be used as demo material. *Stunning!*

*Passion of the Christ: Recommendation: tier 2.0*
*Dr No: Recommendation : tier 1.75*


I cannot believe how good this looks on BD. I think it looks better than many of the newest releases coming out. I could easily have gone tier 1.5 it is that good. No one will be disappointed with this transfer. *WOW!*

*Changeling: Recommendation tier 1.75*

*John Mayer: Where the Light Is: Recommendation tier 1.75*

*Police: Certifiable: Recommendation tier 2.0*


I don't know why, but the use of HD cameras falls short of their potential. This and Elton John both look like there are some soft filters used and mainly on the facial closeups. Not DNR, but something is not right. There is no reason HD capture shouldn't render a much more detailed and better PQ than we are seeing with this BD, Chris Botti and Elton 60. These could easily be low tier 0 or tier 1.0 BD's IMO.

*Elton 60: Live at Madison Square Garden Recommendation: Tier 1.75*

*What Just Happened: Recommendation: Tier 1.5


Miracle at St Anna: Recommendation: Tier 1.75


Madagascar 2: Recommendation: low Tier 0*
*Bourne Identity: Recommendation: Tier 1.75


Bourne Supremacy: Recommedation : Tier 1.5


Bourne Ultimatum: Recommendation: Tier 1.5*


Sony A3000 60 Inch @ 7.5 ft. from PS3 thru HDMI


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Damn Hugh you've been doing a lot of blu ray watching.


----------



## djoberg

^


Hugh,


Good to see you back in action again! Thanks for all the good recommendations.


I'm glad to see your praise of Dr. No, for I have been a fan of the James Bond series all my life, and especially those with Sean Connery as 007. I'll be checking that one out as soon as they stock it locally.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15973219
> 
> *Dr No: Recommendation : tier 1.75*
> 
> 
> I could easily have gone tier 1.5 it is that good.



But, you didn't because... ?


----------



## JohnES1




djoberg said:


> *Beverly Hills Chihuahua*
> 
> 
> Ladies and gentlemen....We have a WINNER!! Translation: This is a Tier Blu title if ever there was one!
> 
> 
> Just a noob, but I concur! Fine grain and excellent color rendition throughout, and the tight shots equal or excede Kung Fu Panda for detail.
> 
> 
> My Panasonic BD35 Blu-ray Disc player kept displaying a message that BD-Live needed to be active(the first time this has occurred.) Changed my player's BD-Live Internet Access setting to Allow(All) and the problem went away.


----------



## rsbeck

*Crank*


Shot on HD Video, persistent ringing and some instances of stair stepping noted. Crank is a concept driven action movie that has been lit and shot to reflect the emotional state of the main character who must keep his adrenaline pumping at all costs in order to stay alive.


This is revealed very early in the story so I don't believe I am giving anything away.


Since Crank is shot on HD video, there is no grain.


Style seems intended to approximate the effect of following the frantic main character with a hand held video camera, struggling to maintain correct light and focus.


This is interspersed with segments that are shot from main character's POV, which are intended to imitate his distorted vision or from the POV of a low quality surveillance camera and there is a segment where, along with the main character, we get our (degraded) picture from watching the plot unfold on a flat panel display.


Action sequences (most of the film) are stylized with missing frames to speed things up, lending a herky-jerky quality to the proceedings. When main character's vision distorts, sometimes the action from our POV resembles an image reflected in a fun house mirror. Other times, picture becomes over-saturated and posterized with various vibrant colors.


Due to the intended look; shot fast and cheap, contrast is often too hot or too dim and focus appears difficult to maintain. Title is not lit, shot or costumed to reveal intricate texture in clothing.


Title's main strength is the grain free razor sharp HD Video close-ups scattered throughout. Many are of Jason Stratham where every strand of close cropped hair and every individual strand of stubble is very well resolved (cranked up contrast helps make it pop), some are of Dwight Yoakam and there are a few others.


One's appraisal of Crank's PQ will likely depend heavily on the quantity of intentionally degraded picture one is willing to tolerate (or appreciate) in order to see these close-ups.


A sampling of previous reviews from this thread reveals that Crank has been a controversial title, with some seeming to regard it highly due at least in some measure to the HD Video look and lack of film grain while others seem far less impressed for various reasons mostly having to do with the HD video look and lack of film grain along with all of the other PQ issues.


Awhile back, we had a lengthy debate about facial close-ups. At the time, someone remarked that while these types of shots are very nice to have, they are not adequate compensation if the rest of the PQ is lacking. Personally, I have never felt this as strongly as I did while watching Crank. I simply am not bothered enough by film grain that the prospect of a title without it is enough to make these PQ issues palatable.


Experience has shown that it is not necessary to avoid film _or_ grain to get either a sharp picture or reference quality close-ups. IMO, the close-ups in Domino are superior to these and Domino is a film based title with grain left intact. IMO, the same is true of Youth Without Youth, which is an HD Video based title. Bottom line is that one can find reference quality close-ups with either medium.


At one time, viewers may have been limited by a small enough universe of blu-ray titles that it was necessary to tolerate all of these PQ issues in order to get sharp close-ups for a demo.


This is certainly no longer the case. One can now get count-the-pores-and-pieces-of-stubble close-ups in silver tier titles like Step Brothers, The Visitor, The Day The Earth Stood Still, The Sopranos, Elvis Costello Live and others. In tier 1.75 there are titles like Henry Poole is here, 2001, A Space Odyssey, or The Matrix, where you can see every pore and pock mark in Lawrence Fishburn's face, every strand of peach fuzz on Cary Anne Moss.


In closing, I believe we need to consider the universe of titles and weigh this title's virtues against its issues to see where it should currently rank. Based on the current marketplace, I believe it is fair to rank Crank....

*Recommendation: Tier 1.75*


Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From 126" Screen



.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> One's enjoyment of Crank's PQ will depend heavily on how much intentionally degraded picture one is willing to tolerate or appreciate in order to see these close-ups.



... that is, if one suffers some strange affliction whereby the only kind of PQ they can enjoy is the kind outlined by this thread's criteria.


Just because it does not correlate to the priorities of this thread does not mean it is necessarily "degraded". While I would call that an apt descriptor for _some_ of the qualities you describe, I would not say that all of these effects produce a _lesser_ picture- just a _different_ one.


----------



## patrick99

"David Straitham"?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15976191
> 
> 
> "David Straitham"?



Be nice patrick....you know he meant "Jason Statham."


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15976191
> 
> 
> "David Straitham"?



Illegitimate (and implausible!) spawn of Jason Statham and David Strathairn.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15976056
> 
> 
> ... that is, if one suffers some strange affliction whereby the only kind of PQ they can enjoy is the kind outlined by this thread's criteria.
> 
> 
> Just because it does not correlate to the priorities of this thread does not mean it is necessarily "degraded". While I would call that an apt descriptor for _some_ of the qualities you describe, I would not say that all of these effects produce a _lesser_ picture- just a _different_ one.



I think the thread criteria are a guide for the majority of what would make up good PQ. I do agree that good individual elements do not necessarily equate to a correspondingly good sum. We have to also judge based on how the sum looks to really discern a better or worse picture.


I have yet to see _Crank_ on blu-ray so cannot speak specifically to this title, just the overall concepts.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/15977376
> 
> 
> I think the thread criteria are a guide for the majority of what would make up good PQ.



I could not disagree more completely.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15977631
> 
> 
> I could not disagree more completely.



One possible question might be why someone who feels that way would be interested in participating in this thread?


----------



## OldCodger73

Excellent detail and sharpness in most scenes, especially facial close-ups. This another of those films like Changeling where the color balance has a slightly tinted look to give a greater sense of the mid-1920s time period. Overall a pleasing picture, not reference quality but a very solid Tier 1. Recommend *Leatherheads Tier 1.25*.


The movie itself doesn't have great reviews, with a Rotten Tomato rating of 51%. I wasn't expected much but _Leatherheads_ turned out to be better than anticipated from the reviews. The movie is a lightweight piece of fluff but OK if you don't take it seriously. A couple of adult beverages will help. I gave it 3 Netflix stars on their 5 star rating.


Panasonic 50" 720p plasma, Panasonic 10a player, 7 1/2'


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15977696
> 
> 
> One possible question might be why someone who feels that way would be interested in participating in this thread?



It's a possible question. Probably not a very interesting one.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15977963
> 
> 
> It's a possible question. Probably not a very interesting one.



Perhaps the answer might be more interesting than the question?


----------



## stumlad

*Death Race*


Can't do a long review, but basically there was nothing wrong with the transfer. Great black levels, grain apparent, etc.. The overall look was very good, face closeups very good, just not up there with the best. It wasn't as good looking as the new Hulk movie which is in Tier 1.25, and i felt it was a decent step down from Crank which is in 1.0.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15977631
> 
> 
> I could not disagree more completely.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15977963
> 
> 
> It's a possible question. Probably not a very interesting one.




Lots of passive aggressive behaviour here. Why don't you stop with your riddles and tell us what your opinion is. Be constructive.


Or not, I guess.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15976191
> 
> 
> "David Straitham"?



Djoberg is correct. Jason Stratham. There _is_ an actor named David Straitham. For some reason, I always mix the two names up.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Passion Of The Christ
*
*recommendation: Tier 1.75*


A blockbuster when it first launched to theaters in 2004, Twentieth Century Fox released the Blu-ray on February 17th of this year. Two versions are included on the disc by way of seamless branching. A re-cut version that is less graphic and the original theatrical version. For the purposes of this review I have only watched the theatrical cut, which runs 126-minutes in length. The re-cut version runs for 121-minutes.


The main features are encoded in AVC on a single BD-50. The average video bitrate for the theatrical version is 22.39 Mbps per the BDInfo scan. Fox themselves list the average video bitrate on the back of the case at 22.5 Mbps. The encoding and authoring of the disc is credited to Deluxe Digital Studios. While the encode peaks around 36.0 Mbps late in the movie, most of the time it stays within a much lower range from 18.2 Mbps to 26.4 Mbps.


This is a very good video encode in terms of compression with a couple of slight flaws the only visible problems. There is a short instance of banding at the end of the movie when the rock is rolled away at Jesus' tomb. Some false contouring appears in the opening scenes that is not easily noticeable but still present. There are no motion artifacts or macroblocking throughout the entirety of the movie. I do have to wonder whether the encode would have looked slightly more transparent to the master if it had a higher average bitrate.


The original source material simply looks in phenomenal shape. There are no print marks, anomalies, or debris that affect the integrity of the image. Without having seen the master myself, it looks like a light application of temporally-filtered grain reduction has been applied at selective points. This would definitely not be picked up by a casual viewer, as high-frequency information appears virtually untouched and a constant layer of grain remains in darker scenes. It does not alter the overall look of the film but may be noticeable to eagle-eyed viewers who have familiarity with a theatrical screening of this film.


While the use of digital noise reduction barely impacts the picture quality, the real negative seen in this transfer is the overzealous use of edge enhancement. Halos appear regularly and they vary in amplitude from unobjectionable to easily noticed. A notable example for an egregious instance of this problem is the scene where the crowd has to choose between Jesus and Barabbas to free. That is not the only scene with a thick presence of added sharpening apparent. It was objectionable enough at times to drop my final ranking over half a tier in consideration. Viewers on smaller displays will ignore this problem but projection owners might want to take note.


The opening scene, set at night in the Garden of Gethsemane, looks the lowest in terms of picture quality for the movie. There is a bluish tint to the proceedings and black levels appear average at best. Fine shadow detail is resolved nicely but it does not look worthy of tier one. But once the movie shifts to daylight and the aftermath of Jesus' arrest, the image picks up strongly in quality. Watch the interior scene where Caiaphas interrogates Jesus. The tremendous depth of field and clarity exhibited are stunning. Objects look like they are going to come off the screen with excellent dimensionality to the image. These scenes have more of an amber coloring to them. Flesh tones do not look problematic but this is a highly stylized image at various points.


As the movie progresses the superior detail and resolution in the image becomes apparent. The lavish production and costume design are shown down to the finest detail, with coarse and very fine textures revealing the quality of the fabrics worn. Every wound is explicitly laid out to bare during the scourging and the makeup used for that effect is visually effective and realistic, even in 1080p. But the image reaches new heights of visual quality during the crucifixion. That scene on its own would not be awkwardly placed in tier zero. The cinematography is simply incredible throughout the film and never looks better than at that moment.


Outside of the extra sharpening, I was pleased with this transfer. I was contemplating a higher placement even considering that problem, but concluded it occurred too frequently to merit a better ranking. My recommendation is for tier 1.75, though some moments look nearly in caliber to tier zero.


Watching on a 60 Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 (firmware 2.60) at a viewing distance of six feet.


BDInfo Scan:
http://www.avsforum.com

/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9044310#post9044310 


Video Bitrate Graph:
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...st_blu-ray.htm


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/15978508
> 
> 
> Lots of passive aggressive behaviour here. Why don't you stop with your riddles and tell us what your opinion is. Be constructive.



You can interpret it that way, but that's not where I'm coming from. I'm not trying to be obtuse; I honestly didn't think anyone- even the question asker- would find my answer about why I'm interested in this thread anything but a snooze. I also didn't feel like posting the answer because to do justice to it would take a paragraph or two.


Anyway, I'll get out of my own way and give you a short version:


While I radically disagree with the notion that this thread's criteria defines a "quality" picture, _exclusively_, it is _an_ agreed-upon rough standard, so if one knows it well, it can be useful for some aspects of understanding the PQ of particular discs, even if only in translation. The reviewers' thorough text explanations go a long way in helping out here.


Also, this thread is very active. I'd love it if as many opinions on as many discs were thrown around in the 'film grain allowed' thread but, to date, this one is much more hoppin'.


Additionally (as you've probably noticed), I often find the psychology that distinguishes peoples' notions of "quality" in a film image from the filmmakers' artistic priorities to be quite fascinating.


So, there's a short version- no aggression intended, passive or otherwise.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15978854
> 
> 
> Djoberg is correct. Jason Stratham. There _is_ an actor named David Straitham. For some reason, I always mix the two names up.



Jason Statham.


David Strathairn.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15979688
> 
> 
> Anyway, I'll get out of my own way and give you a short version:
> 
> 
> While I radically disagree with the notion that this thread's criteria defines a "quality" picture, _exclusively_, it is _an_ agreed-upon rough standard, so if one knows it well, it can be useful for some aspects of understanding the PQ of particular discs, even if only in translation. The reviewers' thorough text explanations go a long way in helping out here.
> 
> 
> Also, this thread is very active. I'd love it if as many opinions on as many discs were thrown around in the 'film grain allowed' thread but, to date, this one is much more hoppin'.
> 
> 
> Additionally (as you've probably noticed), I often find the psychology that distinguishes peoples' notions of "quality" in a film image from the filmmakers' artistic priorities to be quite fascinating.




See! Articulating your views wasn't so hard!







I appreciate your points since they describe exactly how this thread differs from the "Artistic Intent" thread.


Both threads serve a distinct purpose for me. I don't weigh one over the other and, in fact, like to use both (and the audio thread) for making decisions on blu-ray purchases. These threads aren't the biggest factors in my decision, but they definitely serve as warms and fuzzies.


So again, we are not espousing that our definition of PQ is better than next door's. But there is a group of us who have found a use for the definition(s) we have set out to follow. It's not a right or wrong thing, but a "useful for our purposes" thing.


Anyway, we still appreciate your comments - you have some valuable opinions to add. I just hope you see where we are coming from as well.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15979697
> 
> 
> Jason Statham.
> 
> 
> David Strathairn.



Q: Do you know what the difference between them is?


A: One of them is an actor.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15979368
> 
> *The Passion Of The Christ
> *
> *recommendation: Tier 1.75*
> 
> 
> A blockbuster when it first launched to theaters in 2004, Twentieth Century Fox released the Blu-ray on February 17th of this year. Two versions are included on the disc by way of seamless branching. A re-cut version that is less graphic and the original theatrical version. For the purposes of this review I have only watched the theatrical cut, which runs 126-minutes in length. The re-cut version runs for 121-minutes.
> 
> 
> The main features are encoded in AVC on a single BD-50. The average video bitrate for the theatrical version is 22.39 Mbps per the BDInfo scan. Fox themselves list the average video bitrate on the back of the case at 22.5 Mbps. The encoding and authoring of the disc is credited to Deluxe Digital Studios. While the encode peaks around 36.0 Mbps late in the movie, most of the time it stays within a much lower range from 18.2 Mbps to 26.4 Mbps.
> 
> 
> This is a very good video encode in terms of compression with a couple of slight flaws the only visible problems. There is a short instance of banding at the end of the movie when the rock is rolled away at Jesus' tomb. Some false contouring appears in the opening scenes that is not easily noticeable but still present. There are no motion artifacts or macroblocking throughout the entirety of the movie. I do have to wonder whether the encode would have looked slightly more transparent to the master if it had a higher average bitrate.
> 
> 
> The original source material simply looks in phenomenal shape. There are no print marks, anomalies, or debris that affect the integrity of the image. Without having seen the master myself, it looks like a light application of temporally-filtered grain reduction has been applied at selective points. This would definitely not be picked up by a casual viewer, as high-frequency information appears virtually untouched and a constant layer of grain remains in darker scenes. It does not alter the overall look of the film but may be noticeable to eagle-eyed viewers who have familiarity with a theatrical screening of this film.
> 
> 
> While the use of digital noise reduction barely impacts the picture quality, the real negative seen in this transfer is the overzealous use of edge enhancement. Halos appear regularly and they vary in amplitude from unobjectionable to easily noticed. A notable example for an egregious instance of this problem is the scene where the crowd has to choose between Jesus and Barabbas to free. That is not the only scene with a thick presence of added sharpening apparent. It was objectionable enough at times to drop my final ranking over half a tier in consideration. Viewers on smaller displays will ignore this problem but projection owners might want to take note.
> 
> 
> The opening scene, set at night in the Garden of Gethsemane, looks the lowest in terms of picture quality for the movie. There is a bluish tint to the proceedings and black levels appear average at best. Fine shadow detail is resolved nicely but it does not look worthy of tier one. But once the movie shifts to daylight and the aftermath of Jesus' arrest, the image picks up strongly in quality. Watch the interior scene where Caiaphas interrogates Jesus. The tremendous depth of field and clarity exhibited are stunning. Objects look like they are going to come off the screen with excellent dimensionality to the image. These scenes have more of an amber coloring to them. Flesh tones do not look problematic but this is a highly stylized image at various points.
> 
> 
> As the movie progresses the superior detail and resolution in the image becomes apparent. The lavish production and costume design are shown down to the finest detail, with coarse and very fine textures revealing the quality of the fabrics worn. Every wound is explicitly laid out to bare during the scourging and the makeup used for that effect is visually effective and realistic, even in 1080p. But the image reaches new heights of visual quality during the crucifixion. That scene on its own would not be awkwardly placed in tier zero. The cinematography is simply incredible throughout the film and never looks better than at that moment.
> 
> 
> Outside of the extra sharpening, I was pleased with this transfer. I was contemplating a higher placement even considering that problem, but concluded it occurred too frequently to merit a better ranking. My recommendation is for tier 1.75, though some moments look nearly in caliber to tier zero.
> 
> 
> Watching on a 60 Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 (firmware 2.60) at a viewing distance of six feet.
> 
> 
> BDInfo Scan:
> http://www.avsforum.com
> 
> /avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9044310#post9044310
> 
> 
> Video Bitrate Graph:
> http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...st_blu-ray.htm



Thanks Phantom.


Looks like I can finally replace my D-Theater version.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Cinema Squid has posted some grabs of Tropic Thunder:

http://www.cinemasquid.com/MovieImag...x?MovieId=2453 


Amazing PQ!


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/15979905
> 
> 
> See! Articulating your views wasn't so hard!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate your points since they describe exactly how this thread differs from the "Artistic Intent" thread.
> 
> 
> Both threads serve a distinct purpose for me. I don't weigh one over the other and, in fact, like to use both (and the audio thread) for making decisions on blu-ray purchases. These threads aren't the biggest factors in my decision, but they definitely serve as warms and fuzzies.
> 
> 
> So again, we are not espousing that our definition of PQ is better than next door's. But there is a group of us who have found a use for the definition(s) we have set out to follow. It's not a right or wrong thing, but a "useful for our purposes" thing.
> 
> 
> Anyway, we still appreciate your comments - you have some valuable opinions to add. I just hope you see where we are coming from as well.



Thanks for your comments, deltasun. I agree with you entirely. However, I hope you can also understand my initial reluctance to make much effort to respond to patrick99, who's question was worded like a rhetorical challenge to the validity of my presence here.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15980016
> 
> 
> Cinema Squid has posted some grabs of Tropic Thunder:
> 
> http://www.cinemasquid.com/MovieImag...x?MovieId=2453
> 
> 
> Amazing PQ!










Is this news? Grabs of Tropic Thunder have been on _this_ site for months.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15980134
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this news? Grabs of Tropic Thunder have been on _this_ site for months.



They aren't the same grabs! I like the ones CS did better.


And Cinema Squid did post those here at AVS as well, but the hi rez versions (the only ones that matter) take you to his site anyway, so I didn't bother linking to the AVS thread......which is here: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post15979492 


Any other questions/concerns Mr. Smartyass Pants?


----------



## jrcorwin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15980152
> 
> 
> They aren't the same grabs! I like the ones CS did better.
> 
> 
> And Cinema Squid did post those here at AVS as well, but the hi rez versions (the only ones that matter) take you to his site anyway, so I didn't bother linking to the AVS thread......which is here: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post15979492
> 
> 
> Any other questions/concerns Mr. Smartyass Pants?



I was going to say something, but I knew you would handle it.


----------



## Hughmc

*From Russia With Love: Recommendation tier 1.5.*



This looks as good as and even better than Dr No in some scenes and facial details. I am amazed at the transfers of these films so far. Tonight I will watch Thunderball and am hoping for more of the same.


LBFilmguy I had been out of town for two weeks but also decided to take some time off from our thread.










I decided to help the economy and broke down and bought about half the titles that I recommended in the previous post of mine. I bought the Bonds and Bourne trilogy, Passion, KK as well as the concert BD's. The new release BD rentals @ Hollywood have increased so BD seems to be getting into full swing. 5+ new titles are coming to HV next week to rent.










No one will go wrong with the Bond transfers for purchase, expecially if one is into that genre.


Sony A3000 60In. @ 7.5ft from PS3 through HDMI


rsbeck and djoberg, thanks!


----------



## djoberg

*Australia*


This is a hard one to call! The PQ was all over the place, ranging from Tier 0 to Tier 3. So, even though there were some VERY GOOD scenes with "demo-worthy" shots in them, it would be impossible, IMO, to place it in one of the first two tiers.


By far the greatest asset of this title was the facial close-ups; they were simply amazing at times, in fact, most of the time. The cameraman often closed in on one of the lead characters named Fletcher who had a rough, leathery face with a bronze tan...it was as natural-looking as if he was in my home theater room. Another striking figure that stood out was the Aborigine Medicine man; his black face with a white beard was as detailed as some of the facial close-ups in Baraka. There were many others as well, but these two were the best.


Next to facial close-ups, the night scenes were also impressive, with fairly deep blacks and excellent shadow detail (with the exception of a rather lengthy night scene at a Mission Ball which had crushed blacks and was soft).


There were sporadic scenes with decent detail, but overall I was let down in this department. Again, one minute it would be sharp and detailed, and the next minute it was quite soft and two-dimensional. It had many sweeping panoramic landscapes of Australia which were disappointing....some Tier 1 shots, but mostly Tier 3 material in my estimation.


The color palette was understandably bland, with mostly earthen tones, so this was another strike against the movie.


As far as artifacts, EE, DNR, etc., the only obvious flaw that cropped up several times was digital noise. I noted a scene at the 1 hr. 33 min. mark (which lasted several minutes) that betrayed noise on Nicole Kidman's face and forehead. This seems to be characteristic with one who has a very pale complexion. And yet, at other times Miss Kidman's face appeared quite natural and detailed, even revealing light peach fuzz on the side of her face.


As I stated at the outset, this is going to be hard to place. But right now, after one viewing, I would suggest:

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*


Samsung 50" 1080p DLP....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 6'


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15980239
> 
> *From Russia With Love: Recommendation tier 1.5.*
> 
> 
> LBFilmguy I had been out of town for two weeks but also decided to take some time off from our thread.



Awesome dude, welcome back!


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15980152
> 
> 
> Any other questions/concerns Mr. Smartyass Pants?



Man! Everyone's assuming the worst of me today.


I was genuinely confused because I know you're in that thread and I couldn't figure out why Tropic Thunder grabs would excite you when they've been available for so long.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15980114
> 
> 
> Thanks for your comments, deltasun. I agree with you entirely. However, I hope you can also understand my initial reluctance to make much effort to respond to patrick99, who's question was worded like a rhetorical challenge to the validity of my presence here.



Agreed.


Looks like today you're the firehydrant.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15980907
> 
> 
> Man! Everyone's assuming the worst of me today.



That's the risk you take when you participate on this thread instead of simply standing on the sidelines as a "*spectator*."










All kidding aside, I think we've all had one of those days at one time or another. The important thing is to learn any lessons we may need to learn and move on. You have had a lot of good input on this thread and I encourage you to keep posting with a view to making this thread profitable for all.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15981007
> 
> 
> All kidding aside, I think we've all had one of those days at one time or another. The important thing is to learn any lessons we may need to learn and move on. You have had a lot of good input on this thread and I encourage you to keep posting with a view to making this thread profitable for all.



+1












side note - i miss my tv, i miss my tv... i've been out of town all week suffering without high definition.







I go home tomorrow thank goodness, and hopefully will be able to get some reviews up shortly. I'm sure I'll give Beverly Hills Chihuahua (however the heck that's spelled) a rent to have quality time w/ the daughter when I get home; I remain hopeful it will help redeem Disney in my eyes after that disaster HSM3.


----------



## sleater

*Donnie Darko*


All I can say is wow. This is an absolutely horrible looking BD in my opinion. Being a huge fan of the film and owning the two previous SD versions I was hoping for at least a _modest_ step up from those. Not the case.


The best thing I can say is that there were some scenes with decent black levels and the outdoor daytime shots weren't excessively terrible looking. Some grain was visible and I had no issues with EE, halos or ringing. The image, intentionally done or not, was just so soft. No clarity whatsoever. It honestly looked like un upconverted DVD minus the occasional artifacts that sometimes come along with this. To sum up in one word: BLAND.


Also many of the scenes were out of focus, which, coupled with the overall softness, made things particularly offputting. I'm teetering between 3.75 and 4.0, because luckily it does not look nearly as bad as Wall Street (4.5), but really I can't say it is an average looking BD either.


The line on page 1 in the addendum sums up my thoughts on this transfer: _"Rankings as low as tier four can still constitute a worthy Blu-ray release, as long as the Blu-ray is visually transparent to the best available source for a particular title."_ I do believe the problem is in the source material and possibly director's intent and all that. It just does not make for pleasing eye candy in any sense of the term.

*Tier Recommendation: 4.0*


PS3 24FPS 1080P HC5500 PJ @11 ft 92" screen


*The film, however, is great. Sadly I bought the DVD 'Southland Tales' because of Richard Kelly. Huge mistake!


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Nice review sleater, good to see a new contributor!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/15981097
> 
> 
> side note - i miss my tv, i miss my tv... i've been out of town all week suffering without high definition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I go home tomorrow thank goodness, and hopefully will be able to get some reviews up shortly. I'm sure I'll give Beverly Hills Chihuahua (however the heck that's spelled) a rent to have quality time w/ the daughter when I get home; I remain hopeful it will help redeem Disney in my eyes after that disaster HSM3.



Whoa...one week without HD! That's cruel!







I'm going on a 10 day business trip out of the country a month from today and I'll be so busy I won't be accessing the Forum....so you can sympathize with me then.










I believe you will be impressed with Beverly Hills Chihuahua, especially the rich blacks on your nice Panny 58" plasma.


----------



## moematthews




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15980239
> 
> *From Russia With Love: Recommendation tier 1.5.*
> 
> 
> 
> This looks as good as and even better than Dr No in some scenes and facial details. I am amazed at the transfers of these films so far. Tonight I will watch Thunderball and am hoping for more of the same.
> 
> 
> LBFilmguy I had been out of town for two weeks but also decided to take some time off from our thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I decided to help the economy and broke down and bought about half the titles that I recommended in the previous post of mine. I bought the Bonds and Bourne trilogy, Passion, KK as well as the concert BD's. The new release BD rentals @ Hollywood have increased so BD seems to be getting into full swing. 5+ new titles are coming to HV next week to rent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one will go wrong with the Bond transfers for purchase, expecially if one is into that genre.
> 
> 
> Sony A3000 60In. @ 7.5ft from PS3 through HDMI
> 
> 
> rsbeck and djoberg, thanks!



+1. I'd even be willing to go to 1.25 on this one. Tremendous PQ overall while retaining a film-like look that is faithful to the original film.


----------



## deltasun

Gettin' nervous with these high Bond placements. I, too, picked these up (as well as pre-ordered the next 4 upcoming titles) a while back and perused through them. I thought the colors were a bit off, but I guess I should watch them with more discerning eyes.


----------



## Hughmc

*Thunderball: Recommendation Tier 2.5*


Well, I spoke too soon in anticipation of this seeing how good the PQ on Dr No and FRWL are. This was disappointing PQ.







While it had some good shots and the one scene on the beach with Domino was outstanding PQ virtually tier 0, most of the film was tier 2.0 and worse with some scenes and shots being no better than vcr/dvd quality. I would even be willing to go 2.75.


I am now wondering why Goldfinger wasn't released and if it was/is an issue with the print.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15984815
> 
> 
> some scenes and shots being no better than vcr/dvd quality.



What on Earth does _that_ mean?


----------



## jrcorwin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15984841
> 
> 
> What on Earth does _that_ mean?



...what was so confusing about the comment?


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jrcorwin* /forum/post/15984874
> 
> 
> ...what was so confusing about the comment?



Everything. In my experience "vcr" and "dvd" each suggest a very wide picture-quality spectrum with very little overlap (and very different typical picture-quality issues) between them. Further, I've never seen a Blu-ray picture that, to me, looks anything at all like either a "vcr" picture, a "dvd" picture or a "vcr/dvd" picture (whatever that is).


In other words, for me, this comment was so vague that it leaves me with no frame of reference at all and I simply can't take any useful information from it.


----------



## jrcorwin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/15985020
> 
> 
> Everything. In my experience "vcr" and "dvd" each suggest a very wide picture-quality spectrum with very little overlap (and very different typical picture-quality issues) between them. Further, I've never seen a Blu-ray picture that, to me, looks anything at all like either a "vcr" picture, a "dvd" picture or a "vcr/dvd" picture (whatever that is).
> 
> 
> In other words, for me, this comment was so vague that it leaves me with no frame of reference at all and I simply can't take any useful information from it.



Gangs of New York? Try that one out.


Some early DVD transfers were on the same level (PQ wise) as good VHS transfers. His comment made perfect sense.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jrcorwin* /forum/post/15985083
> 
> 
> Some early DVD transfers were on the same level (PQ wise) as good VHS transfers.



Not that I've ever seen! The issues I remember on early DVDs involved compression artifacts and timebase issues I've never seen on any consumer videotape format. Meanwhile, they exhibited much more spatial resolution and color fidelity than I've ever seen on a consumer tape format, as well.


By some arbitrary standard, one might call them roughly comparable in "quality level" terms, but it's such an apples and oranges situation and, again, which among these many potential issues am I to infer relate to the BD being reviewed?


To me, saying "vcr/dvd quality" about a video release is like saying "LP/CD quality" about an audio release or "newspaper/novel quality" about a piece of writing.


----------



## rsbeck

"We can just call it Sam's little happy time." -- Judy Witwicky

*Transformers*


Disagree with Current Placement


Fine grain apparent, halos noted in a number of scenes, video noise noted in a few scenes. Transformers is a title that can only be called a visual spectacle. Virtually every single shot, no matter how brief, has been planned, lit, shot, composed and executed to be part of a high definition demo disc.


Considering Transformers as a demo disc along with titles like Crank, Apocalypto or the Kill Bills is sort of like inserting a high school varsity player onto the little league baseball team.


It has none of the hip cache of Tarantino, none of Crank's edge. It is such a ringer that one almost wants to root against it.


In titles like Crank, Apocalypto and the Kill Bills, one might have to use both hands to count up the number of times they depart from a feeling of softness or problematic visual -- from a demo standpoint -- and sharpen up to give you an incredibly impressive shot or sequence. Transformers consistently maintains that high level, leaving one in the position of possibly having to use both hands to count the times it departs and exhibits the odd out of focus or problematic shot.


In Crank, Apoclypto, and the Kill Bills, one brings good will and is constantly sifting, looking for the impressive shot to raise the score.


With Transformers, I believe it is the opposite. Transformers is such an obvious choice, so unhip, the only fun to be had is in finding a reason to avoid crowning it.


However, let's look at the evidence;


In transformers, one can consistently see ultra-fine facial detail down to the pores, imperfections, single strands of eyebrows, single pieces of stubble, peach fuzz -- even in medium shots -- even on characters on screen for just a few moments, like the stewardess, or a short time, like the car dealer.


None of the female characters have been given a reprieve for vanity's sake -- whether that means showing every pore and imperfection or in the case of the blonde Australian computer expert who has ultra-fine skin, you might have to strain to see her pores, but you will see her ultra-fine peach fuzz.


Fine object detail; where these types of close-ups provide an occasional oasis of sharpness in the Kills Bills and are even more rare in Crank or Apocalypto, here they are a just a little icing on an already impressive high def cake. Microscopic coordinates embedded in the lens of the glasses, tiny writing on a memory chip, and too many more to remember.


The Transformers themselves are a visual spectacle, filling the screen with vibrant colors. They are geometrically detailed, every line crisp and defined, and in close-ups, you see their ultra fine texture.


Transformers offers such a smorgasbord of high def riches, it can afford to use incredible panoramic landscapes as passing shots, tiny transformers run across gravel that is lit and shot to render each piece well defined, characters run across the Witwicki lawn and you can easily make out each blade of grass.


Contrast, shadow detail, and black levels are generally excellent.


Okay, so let the nit-picking begin.


At the 55 minute mark, there is a problematic sequence that lasts approximately one minute and forty five seconds. It has been said that this sequence is grainy. I don't see grain -- I see video noise.


In a number of scenes, I can find halos on some edges. However, I feel I must put this in context. In titles like the Kill Bills or Crank, I find myself bothered by the look and asking myself, "is it just the blown white, softness or hot contrast -- why is this bothering me from a demo standpoint?" I look around to try to figure it out and I find that the ringing or halos are just part of a problematic picture.


With Transformers, I find myself impressed and asking myself, "is there something you can find to dock this title?" If I look around, I can find a halo here or there. World of difference.


There were just a few shots where a halo caught my attention and bothered me before I started looking around.


There were a few shots where contrast was not perfect.


There were several shots where focus was not perfect.


In general, actors are not costumed to exhibit intricate clothing texture.


Like I said, nit-picks.


I believe these nit-picks are valid enough to keep Transformers out of the blu tier, but I believe that Transformers, along with Shoot 'em Up and Tropic Thunder, are incredibly impressive demo discs, and are the very definition of tier 1.0. These are the types of titles that are just nit-picks away from tier blu.


I do not believe the same can be said of Crank, Apocalypto, or the Kill Bills.


I have written separate reviews of those titles, so I won't go into any more detail about them here.

*Recommendation: Tier 1.0*


Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From 126" Screen


----------



## patrick99

Very nice review of Transformers, rsbeck.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Sounds like you were looking for reasons to keep Transformers out of Tier 0 just for the sake of it beck.


No live action title in Tier 0 is perfect. You mention a few fleeting moments in Transformers that aren't "perfect" in an otherwise spectacular disc as you say.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/15986081
> 
> 
> Sounds like you were looking for reasons to keep Transformers out of Tier 0 just for the sake of it beck.
> 
> 
> No live action title in Tier 0 is perfect. You mention a few fleeting moments in Transformers that aren't "perfect" in an otherwise spectacular disc as you say.



I could see a reasonable case for it not being Tier 0, though I don't necessarily agree. Many of the night scenes don't really have the eye candy factor of the daytime shots (and there's quite a few of them). However, I've never really subscribed to the whole pick-a-movie-apart thing, since by the time you get to the "problem" scenes, you're still going to see plenty of fantastic PQ.


----------



## stumlad

*Zodiac*


Shot on HD video, this movie had its shares of ups and downs. I can almost describe the entire PQ by breaking it up into sections:


Outdoor:

1) Daytime shots with natural light: Top Tier 1 and Tier 0 material

2) Night scenery shots: Tier 1 to Tier 2. Some were sharper than others, some were a bit weaker,but overall very good looking

3) Night time, non-scenery: This is where it gets ugly. There were many occasions where I saw noise in the pattern of vertical lines. This is evident close to the beginning and shows up many more times throughout


Indoor

1) With a lot of lighting like the police station and the newspaper station - Tier 1

2) With bad lighting - like every indoor shot in someone's house, or the trailer, etc... this is where digital noise showed its ugliness. You could see static, almost beige-looking splotches in the corner of interior walls. on HDTV broadcast this would be really messy. It was well preserved, but it wasn't pretty.


Black levels were strong for HD camera, but not as dark as film. Face closeups in the indoor and outdoor highly lit shots were very good - Tier 0 and 1 worthy, but ultimately there's too many dark scenes that look bad.. If rated on the dark scenes alone, I would go Tier 4 or 5.

*Tier Recommendation 2.25*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Omen*

*recommendation: Tier 4.0*


On October 7th of 2008, Fox released this horror movie from 1976 to Blu-ray. The main feature runs 111-minutes on a BD-50. The video is encoded in AVC and the packaging indicates the average video bitrate is 21 Mbps. The BDInfo scan reveals it more accurately to be 21.38 Mbps.


The disc is credited to Deluxe Digital Studios. The original source material appears to be relatively difficult to compress, with a thick and constant grain pattern appropriate to a film of that era. Unfortunately the compression encoding here is not up to the task of faithfully reproducing the film elements without artifacting at various points. There is an extended sequence of posterization and compression noise late in the movie at the abandoned cemetery in Italy. But the most common problems are in the shots of the blue sky at the top of the frame in daylight scenes. The grain visibly starts artifacting and the sky starts blocking and looking noisy at various times. My final evaluation is that this is simply a sub-par encoding, especially considering the recency of its release.


I can not say the master looks in great shape compared to more modern transfers. While it generally looks okay, there is some visible damage that manifests in the form of print marks and other anomalies. One short section even looked like it had been improperly telecined at some stage. Digital noise reduction does not appear to have been used, but halos do show up in certain scenes early in the movie. Much of the movie is free of this added sharpening, but a few shots do look over-processed in that regard.


The image itself is below-average in quality for the format. Contrast wavers at times with colors looking slightly faded. A few segments exhibit good resolution but some of the darker scenes obscure finer details. Black levels occasionally crush. There is a relatively consistent softness to the image, much a result of the original photography of the film. It does not look that far removed from the look of another Donner helmed movie from the same period, _Superman: The Movie_. Soft-focus filming is a common feature of close-ups in the movie. Do not expect to see the better details of higher ranked Blu-rays anywhere on display.


I was disappointed by the transfer and presentation of this movie on Blu-ray. While the original film elements are not my idea of eye candy, this release appears to be a sup-par encoding of a questionable and possibly old master. The master looks to have been prepared with the visual limitations of dvd in mind more than the limits of high-definition. I have to believe we will see a better Blu-ray release down the road when a new iteration of it comes out. My recommendation is for this title to be placed in tier 4.0 in the next update.


Watching on a 60 Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 (firmware 2.60) from a viewing distance of six feet.


BDInfo scan:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...10#post9044310


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Beverly Hills Chihuahua*


This is a nice looking title overall. Detail is pretty good, and many of the close up shots of the dogs are very revealing of fine textures of the dogs noses, eyes and hair. You can even see very small items in the reflections of the dogs eyes in some scenes (often the lights used on the set).


Clarity is good, but it falls short of the best titles in this regard.


Colors are not right to my eyes. They are over-saturated and appear to bleed. Overall I did not find the colors to be natural or pleasing, and often found them to be distracting in many scenes.


Contrast varied. Many scenes were hot, with blown out highlights. The most impressive scenes were at night, where shadow detail was very good, as were the black levels. Frankly I think the (few) dark scenes in this movie were the most impressive parts in terms of PQ.


I didn't think this looked particularly natural or film like, due to over saturated colors as well as a slightly sharpened/digital appearance at times (in the brighter scenes). It would be unlike Disney to add EE, but who knows.


As far as an overall picture to impress in terms of "eye candy" or demo material, I surely don't think this is a good example. I would describe this as a rather non- descript movie in terms of appearance. There just isn't anything worth looking at that is of any interest from an aesthetic point of view (other than a few relatively good looking females)










Again, it is a good picture overall, but I have to say that I am rather surprised (would I go as far as saying "baffled"?) by the recommendations for Tier 0. I would have to disagree rather vehemently with those recommendations.


The movie itself was rather painful to watch, but my 7 and 9 year old enjoyed it (just) enough.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Boondock Saints*


This isn't a bad looking title, but I have to say that something didn't look quite right. It looked somewhat plugged up for lack of a better description. Clarity and detail was not as good as it could be, and I do suspect some DNR.


Colors appear somewhat smeared as well. Contrast was average at best.


Still a fairly pleasing image overall.


This was my first time viewing this movie. I liked it.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Burn After Reading*


The Brothers Coen do it again! I really enjoyed this movie a lot. The Coen's can be hit or miss with me (mostly hit though), and this one was very enjoyable. Brad Pitt was hysterical, and John Malkovich was at his best.


The PQ was rather enjoyable as well. Plenty of detail to be found, and fine grain appears to be well preserved. Clarity was pretty good, but not superb.


This is another movie that I thought had a slight digital/sharpened look to it, which kept it from looking as natural and film like as it could.


Overall I think it falls just slightly short of Tier 1.
*

Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


----------



## 42041

*Frozen River*

This is an independent movie that was obviously shot on a shoestring budget, and obviously on HD video. My wild guess is that it was shot with similar cameras to Planet Earth, as it has a similar look, and similar issues, but wheras the visual content of PE is consistently interesting enough to overcome those issues, this is a much more visually subdued film. The fine detail isn't great, but you won't confuse this with a DVD. Daylit scenes look solid, but dark scenes suffer from a lot of sensor noise. Colors are very naturalistic, without the color grading that gives most movies that heightened sense of reality, which contributes to the low budget appearance some might be put off by. As for the film itself, I liked it, but didn't love it. The blu-ray disc is not demo material by any stretch, but a perfectly competent effort given the quality of the source.
*Tier 3.25*

(PS3/50" Pioneer Kuro Elite plasma/~1sw away)


----------



## deltasun

*The Heartbreak Kid*


At first glance, this film looks really good. Grain is intact, but with a bit of ringing (not sure if EE or not). Lots of 3D effects from beginning to end. Colors are vibrant, specially once the story moves on to Cabo. The lit pool at night is a beautiful, vibrant blue. Speaking of night scenes, blacks are generally bold, but almost approaching crush. Images are sharp, but almost too sharp.


Now for the really bad part - skin tones. They exhibited a bit of a reddish hue, both on Ben and also on Malin (and I'm not talking about the sunburn). I would vote this into the Gold tier, but the reddish skintones really bothered me, so...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15987793
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Again, it is a good picture overall, but I have to say that I am rather surprised (would I go as far as saying "baffled"?) by the recommendations for Tier 0. I would have to disagree rather vehemently with those recommendations.
> *


*


Believe me when I say, "I am more baffled by your recommendation of Tier 1.75."


Since I gave my review, I have read quite a few reviews on this and you're the only one who has been rather harsh with your criticisms. Now granted, we may all be wrong, and you may be right, but then again, it may be the other way around.







*


----------



## moematthews




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/15984033
> 
> 
> Gettin' nervous with these high Bond placements. I, too, picked these up (as well as pre-ordered the next 4 upcoming titles) a while back and perused through them. I thought the colors were a bit off, but I guess I should watch them with more discerning eyes.



I've only seen two of them, and From Russia With Love was much better than Live and Let Die. Movies from different eras, yes, but From Russia With Love makes the grade with PQ that is utterly natural. I can see why you might think the colours were off a bit, but that is what films of the 60s looked like, and I don't think it detracts from overall PQ. You know you are in for a treat with this movie when, at the beginning, they show the room in which the chess match is being played.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15988962
> 
> 
> Believe me when I say, "I am more baffled by your recommendation of Tier 1.75."
> 
> 
> Since I gave my review, I have read quite a few reviews on this and you're the only one who has been rather harsh with your criticisms. Now granted, we may all be wrong, and you may be right, but then again, it may be the other way around.



No sir.


I am not wrong.


That doesn't mean that you are wrong either. What it does mean, though, it that there were things that I noticed that bothered me apparently much more than they bothered you or others who recommended that title for Tier 0.


Rather than pick out two sentences of my review where I state my personal strong disagreement with the recommendations for Tier 0, why don't you tell me what parts of the review that you disagree with?


For example, do you disagree that many scenes have blown out highlights?


Do you disagree that colors are over saturated and appear to bleed?


Do you disagree that the picture has a slightly sharpened/digital look to it?


Do you disagree that the picture does not have the same overall clarity as other titles in upper Tier 1, or especially Tier 0?


Do you disagree that in terms of demo material or "eye candy" there really isn't much to look at here?


Etc.


You may very well disagree with all of those statements, and that's fine. But that is what we should be discussing to have any type of meaningful discourse on this title.


The difference between what I wrote and how you responded was I gave the _reasons_ for being "baffled".


Anyway, I am leaving for the weekend, so I won't be back to respond any further until Sunday night.


In the meantime, everyone can feel free to flame away without fear of retort until Sunday.










Edit: And another thing, since when is a Tier 1.75 recommendation a "rather harsh criticism"?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15989285
> 
> 
> No sir.
> 
> 
> I am not wrong.
> 
> 
> That doesn't mean that you are wrong either. What it does mean, though, it that *there were things that I noticed that bothered me apparently much more than they bothered you* or others who recommended that title for Tier 0.
> 
> 
> Rather than pick out two sentences of my review where I state my personal strong disagreement with the recommendations for Tier 0, why don't you tell me what parts of the review that you disagree with?
> 
> 
> For example, do you disagree that many scenes have blown out highlights?
> 
> 
> Do you disagree that colors are over saturated and appear to bleed?
> 
> 
> Do you disagree that the picture has a slightly sharpened/digital look to it?
> 
> 
> Do you disagree that the picture does not have the same overall clarity as other titles in upper Tier 1, or especially Tier 0?
> 
> 
> Do you disagree that in terms of demo material or "eye candy" there really isn't much to look at here?
> 
> 
> Edit: And another thing, since when is a Tier 1.75 recommendation a "rather harsh criticism"?



The only point I would agree with (in measure) is that the colors are somewhat over saturated. The fact is I mentioned that in my review.


I will take issue with your statement highlighted above. By saying that "there were things that I noticed that bothered me apparently *much more than they bothered you*" you are implying that there were issues that could bother people (such as you), but for whatever reason they didn't bother me. This is WRONG, for it's not that they didn't bother me, it's that _I didn't even see them_.


Take, for example, your view that "the picture has a slightly sharpened/digital look to it." That is your opinion but it certainly isn't mine. So, it is incorrect to even imply that I just wasn't bothered by it. And this is true of every point you made (with the exception of _some_ over saturated colors).


As far as me referring to your criticisms as "rather harsh," the key word is "rather" (i.e., to a certain extent; somewhat). You have to admit that our placement recommendations are over a tier apart, and IMO that's quite a bit. So, I felt justified in saying what I did, just as I'm sure you felt justified in saying you were "baffled" (which is just as strong a word as I used) by my recommendation. (I should add that I was referring more to your actual criticisms of the title than to your actual tier recommendation. Tier 1 is still a respectable placement.)


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15980471
> 
> *Australia*
> 
> 
> This is a hard one to call! The PQ was all over the place, ranging from Tier 0 to Tier 3. So, even though there were some VERY GOOD scenes with "demo-worthy" shots in them, it would be impossible, IMO, to place it in one of the first two tiers.
> 
> 
> By far the greatest asset of this title was the facial close-ups; they were simply amazing at times, in fact, most of the time. The cameraman often closed in on one of the lead characters named Fletcher who had a rough, leathery face with a bronze tan...it was as natural-looking as if he was in my home theater room. Another striking figure that stood out was the Aborigine Medicine man; his black face with a white beard was as detailed as some of the facial close-ups in Baraka. There were many others as well, but these two were the best.
> 
> 
> Next to facial close-ups, the night scenes were also impressive, with fairly deep blacks and excellent shadow detail (with the exception of a rather lengthy night scene at a Mission Ball which had crushed blacks and was soft).
> 
> 
> There were sporadic scenes with decent detail, but overall I was let down in this department. Again, one minute it would be sharp and detailed, and the next minute it was quite soft and two-dimensional. It had many sweeping panoramic landscapes of Australia which were disappointing....some Tier 1 shots, but mostly Tier 3 material in my estimation.
> 
> 
> The color palette was understandably bland, with mostly earthen tones, so this was another strike against the movie.
> 
> 
> As far as artifacts, EE, DNR, etc., the only obvious flaw that cropped up several times was digital noise. I noted a scene at the 1 hr. 33 min. mark (which lasted several minutes) that betrayed noise on Nicole Kidman's face and forehead. This seems to be characteristic with one who has a very pale complexion. And yet, at other times Miss Kidman's face appeared quite natural and detailed, even revealing light peach fuzz on the side of her face.
> 
> 
> As I stated at the outset, this is going to be hard to place. But right now, after one viewing, I would suggest:
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.25*
> 
> 
> Samsung 50" 1080p DLP....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 6'



I watched about an hour of this last night and I doubt that I will be able to force myself to watch any more. I agree that some facial close-ups were fairly good. I also agree that apart from those, the PQ was fairly disappointing. The panoramic landscape shots were quite disappointing; generally fairly soft and often having a very washed out look.


I think 2.25 is being a bit generous. I'd be more inclined to say 2.75 or 2.5 at the most.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15989599
> 
> 
> I watched about an hour of this last night and I doubt that I will be able to force myself to watch any more. I agree that some facial close-ups were fairly good. I also agree that apart from those, the PQ was fairly disappointing. The panoramic landscape shots were quite disappointing; generally fairly soft and often having a very washed out look.
> 
> 
> I think 2.25 is being a bit generous. I'd be more inclined to say 2.75 or 2.5 at the most.



I almost gave it a 2.5 patrick, so I would surely go along with that.


----------



## haste

whoa, blu-ray.com gave it a perfect score, although they do mention some inconsistencies...

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movies...30&show=review


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *haste* /forum/post/15989762
> 
> 
> whoa, blu-ray.com gave it a perfect score, although they do mention some inconsistencies...
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movies...30&show=review



Who do you believe, us or them?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *haste* /forum/post/15989762
> 
> 
> whoa, blu-ray.com gave it a perfect score, although they do mention some inconsistencies...
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movies...30&show=review



Here is the last statement of their review:


"There seems no cause for knocking the transfer, and the _awe-inspiring imagery_ seen during the vast majority of the film is worthy of the perfect score the video receives."


I assume they're referring to the sweeping panoramic vistas that I referred to in my review. If so, how ironic that they would praise the very thing that, IMO, is the worst element of the transfer. Most of the daytime scenes in which they were found were quite bland and lacking detail.


----------



## haste




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/15989828
> 
> 
> Who do you believe, us or them?



always good to hear things from more than one perspective! i get "ideas" of how the pq of a movie is from this thread and also blu-ray.coms reviews, but i really never know until i see it myself. everyone sees and interprets video so differently, its amazing...




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15987814
> 
> *Boondock Saints*
> 
> 
> This isn't a bad looking title, but I have to say that something didn't look quite right. It looked somewhat plugged up for lack of a better description. Clarity and detail was not as good as it could be, and I do suspect some DNR.
> 
> 
> Colors appear somewhat smeared as well. Contrast was average at best.
> 
> 
> Still a fairly pleasing image overall.
> 
> 
> This was my first time viewing this movie. I liked it.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.0*




btw, i agree with the placement of this title. not a great disc, but not terrible either. considering its one of my favorite movies of all time , i was a little let down by the pq, but its still waaaay better than the dvd.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15989894
> 
> 
> Here is the last statement of their review:
> 
> 
> "There seems no cause for knocking the transfer, and the _awe-inspiring imagery_ seen during the vast majority of the film is worthy of the perfect score the video receives."
> 
> 
> I assume they're referring to *the sweeping panoramic vistas* that I referred to in my review. If so, how ironic that they would praise *the very thing that, IMO, is the worst element of the transfer. Most of the daytime scenes in which they were found were quite bland and lacking detail.*



As I indicated before, I am in complete agreement on this point.


----------



## djoberg

*In The Electric Mist*


I must confess I had never heard of this title until I visited a local video store this afternoon, but being an avid fan of Tommy Lee Jones I decided to rent it. I'm glad I did for it was a very good-looking title (but only an okay movie).


Again, I think I'll get the "bad" out of the way first. I'm not one to see EE unless it's pointed out to me, but I did notice some in one of the bayou scenes. It wasn't too distracting, but it was there. Another anomaly that I detected were a couple of out-of-focus shots, the most noticeable being at approximately the 10 minute mark with Tommy Lee Jones and his wife in their kitchen. The only other negative was some red push in skin tones in several scenes.


Now for the positives! I just mentioned skin tones...for the most part they were spot on, very natural and extremely detailed. Tommy Lee Jones has a face that was made for HD and the more he ages the more he becomes a poster boy for Blu-ray. Every pore and wrinkle is highlighted and he is sporting his usual healthy tan. Close-ups of John Goodman are also very good (though in a couple of them the red push is evident), in contrast to the pasty look he had in Speed Racer.


Black levels and shadow detail were decent and contrast was fairly strong. There were a couple of night scenes that were less-than-desirable, but all-in-all these virtues were "demo-worthy."


The color palette was very satisfying, especially if you love seeing lush greens. There were many scenes of the bayou, southern lawns, and the countryside that exhibited this virtue and they also had excellent detail.


The last thing I would mention is 3D pop. Though this was not prevalent throughout the movie there were a few scenes that were simply amazing. Check out, for example, a scene by a river at the 1:14 mark (which lasted about 2-3 minutes). It's scenes like this that puts a smile on the face and tells me "I'm not crazy for being crazy about HD!!"


Now for the placement. I know that EE automatically takes a title out of Tier 0 and then when you add the red push in fleshtones, a couple of out-of-focus shots, and a few scenes that were a bit soft, I would have to go with:

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


Samsung 50" 1080p DLP....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 6'


----------



## Hughmc

*Body of Lies: Recommendation Tier 1.75*


I like this movie quite a bit and was surprised since reviews weren't all that positive. I would put it on par with Traitor and The Kingdom in terms story, acting and intensity. I would put BoL on par with Traitor PQ.


*Beverly Hills Chihuahua: Tier Recommendation: low to mid tier 0*


This is a stunning looking transfer and like Secret of the Bees, I should have called it before I saw it based on a couple of reviews I had read about PQ which gave it high praise. Craptastic movie with fantastic PQ. It is a shame crap titles like this get excellent PQ and so many others while having good PQ seemingly could be even better.


Sony A3000 60 inch @ 7.5 ft from PS3 through HDMI


I think I might be in the minority on Australia. SO far it looks like low tier 0 or tier 1.0, but I will have to watch more and review again before recommending placement.


----------



## deltasun

*Layer Cake*


Never heard of this movie, but was recommended in my Netflix queue. It's a pretty decent plot, I thought, but I can see why it's not that popular.


Anyway, I'll be brief since I pretty much agree with its current placement. Fine grain is apparent throughout. The first 30 minutes were not as impressive as the scenes after - complete with soft picture and lackluster blacks. There is a yellowish/greenish hue that is prevalent throughout the movie. This didn't bother me too much because it conveyed a mood that was appropriate to the story. Details don't shine till later on in the story, after

*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Daniel Craig kills his boss (note I used Daniel Craig - that in itself is a spoiler







)


Before that, it was hit or miss when it came to details. Also, details never went higher than Tier 1 quality. Medium shots towards the end exhibited these Tier 1 quality details much more liberally. In terms of black levels, as mentioned, this quality improves quite a bit towards the latter part of the movie as well. No 3D pops were experienced and depth was fair for a few scenes.


While most of the movie was bathed in this yellowish/greenish tint, certain colors (specially when holding key significance to the scene, e.g., blue cooler at the hour 38 mark) would eke out some vibrance. Also, colors looked better indoors while outdoors would sometimes be washed out. Whites particularly appear well-balanced.


Having just voted _The Heartbreak Kid_ to Tier 2.0, this would be slightly worse. I would give it a quarter tier boost to 2.25, but I'm not that familiar with titles in that tier for comparison. I do know this belongs somewhere in mid-Tier 2...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.50*


Quite a bit of layers to the plot (hence, the title) and I thought the acting was solid with good solid actors. I may have to pick this up from Target if it's still $14.99.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## moematthews




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15991631
> 
> 
> I think I might be in the minority on Australia. SO far it looks like low tier 0 or tier 1.0, but I will have to watch more and review again before recommending placement.



Yeah, I'd say you're in the minority. There are a lot of great facial close-ups, but too many of the outdoor shots are washed out, and a lot of other outdoor scenes lack impact. Colours in some scenes appear to be a bit off, and many scenes themselves look a bit soft overall. Maybe it has something to do with the sun in that part of the world, because, in this BD's favour, I've never seen fine gradation in a blue sky on BD like there is in "Australia".


----------



## deltasun

*JCVD*


This is a stylized drama starring Jean-Claude Van Damme as himself. Grain is intact. The entire movie is shot in a sepia-like hue with contrast purposely pushed for effect. Scenes in the post office are probably the worst, with plenty of hot spots on the actors' heads and faces. Everything is shot soft and it's very difficult to discern facial details.


Black levels are not the best but somehow work well with the intended look. Colors are muted and are very nondescript.


Overall, the film looks flat and uninteresting. I was going to rank lower but I did not spot any compression issues or artifacts.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moematthews* /forum/post/15988988
> 
> 
> I've only seen two of them, and From Russia With Love was much better than Live and Let Die. Movies from different eras, yes, but From Russia With Love makes the grade with PQ that is utterly natural. I can see why you might think the colours were off a bit, but that is what films of the 60s looked like, and I don't think it detracts from overall PQ. You know you are in for a treat with this movie when, at the beginning, they show the room in which the chess match is being played.



I will have to agree with both you and Hugh (or Hugh and you) on _From Russia With Love_. Very impressive. Lots of 3D pop. I need to start watching my Bond BRs!


----------



## moematthews

^^^^


One of the best scenes I've seen on Blu-ray is the Russian spy sitting on the back of the boat in Venice. The 3D pop you mentioned is incredible. She's wearing a turquoise coat, if memory serves, and it looks incredibly life-like.


----------



## rsbeck

"I'm sorry Evan -- the Coen Brothers don't direct the porn I watch." -- Jonah Hill as Seth

*Superbad*


Shot on HD Video, so no grain. Superbad is a dialogue driven sweet and scruffy comedy starring the always reliable Michael Cera and Jonah Hill in which high def demo visuals are not the point. Fine detail of any kind is not on display here. Title has been proficiently lit and shot to serve the laughs and what is here, while perhaps not the sharpest picture in the bin, is plenty sharp enough and has a pleasant consistency that makes Superbad easy to watch.


Only issue I noticed was black crush in a number of scenes which causes detail to be lost, especially in hair. Shadows have a tendency towards a very slight dark blue tint. Other than that, contrast is generally very good. Superbad is never going to be a demo disc, but given what was shot, I don't see how it can look any better on blu-ray. The PQ gets the job done and there's never anything to get in the way of the laughter.


Currently, Superbad is ranked 2.0, which IMO, is a little too high, but if you're a fan of the film, as I am, I think you'll be pleased with it.

*Recommendation: tier 2.75*


Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From 126" screen


.


----------



## deltasun

*Eastern Promises*



> Quote:
> 56. *Eastern Promises* - was 1.0 - moved to 1.25



I believe this should have been left at 1.0. The reddish skin tones (which I believe was the only real problem) were not prevalent. Deep blacks, uber facial details, generous 3D pops, rich colors are the norm. There was one panoramic scene at the 56:57 mark, which exhibited good depth and clarity.


Very fine grain was a welcome look for this film. Lighting seemed well-controlled except for maybe a handful of quick scenes.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moematthews* /forum/post/15994514
> 
> 
> ^^^^
> 
> 
> One of the best scenes I've seen on Blu-ray is the Russian spy sitting on the back of the boat in Venice. The 3D pop you mentioned is incredible. She's wearing a turquoise coat, if memory serves, and it looks incredibly life-like.



I just ordered From Russia With Love and Dr. No from Amazon. Needless to say, I'm anxious to see them. I've heard the PQ goes downhill after these two, so I may just limit myself to those titles. Besides the PQ issue, I believe those two are the best of all the Bond films as far as acting and storytelling goes. After them, those two virtues were more or less replaced by gadgets and explosions.


----------



## selimsivad

*Almost Famous (UK Import)*


I've purchased lots of imports lately. My latest is another favorite of mine, Almost Famous. If you love classic rock, you MUST see this movie!










Lady and gents, it hurts me to inform you this transfer suffers from a moderate case of DNR!







The film was always somewhat "soft," but grain reduction has robbed the picture of "volume." The only reason it wasn't too bothersome was because the reduction matched the undersaturated 70's look. I also noticed artificial sharpening throughout the film. A very light level of grain showed up every now and then.


Blacks were average. Silhouettes and a few other scenes exhibited darker blacks. The scene introducing Jimmy Fallon's character is an excellent example. Contrast is kicked up a notch during darker scenes. Overall, depth and dimension was above average.


Texture in clothing, carpets, furniture, bedding, ect. showed average to above average detail.


Almost Famous is currently ranked at Tier 3.0, which I agree with. Without the digital discrepancies, this title could have easily been ranked somewhere between 1.75 and 2.25. Nevertheless, I kept reminding myself, "it's set in the seventies!" Plus, it's a damn good movie!










*Almost Famous (UK Import)

Tier Recommendation: Tier 3.00

PS3-Samsung 46" 1080p-seven*'


----------



## rsbeck

^ Excellent review Selimsivad. Agree 100%. What's weird is that there are a few sequences, like the one early in the film where the band goes into the radio station to be interviewed by the stoned DJ. Suddenly, the picture looks 300% better. Then it immediately returns to that flat washed out look. Makes me wonder if a few segments weren't shot with higher quality cameras.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15997558
> 
> 
> Makes me wonder if a few segments weren't shot with higher quality cameras.



I wondered the same thing.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15997078
> 
> *Almost Famous (UK Import)*
> 
> 
> Lady and gents, it hurts me to inform you this transfer suffers from a moderate case of DNR!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The film was always somewhat "soft," but grain reduction has robbed the picture of "volume." The only reason it wasn't too bothersome was because the reduction matched the undersaturated 70's look. I also noticed artificial sharpening throughout the film. A very light level of grain showed up every now and then.



I would call this transfer a severe case of DNR. No finesse or skill has been used in applying the DNR and a large amount of high-frequency information is stripped from the film.


I just wanted to remind participants that informal discussion of a Blu-ray's picture quality is strongly encouraged here. While adhering to the recommended template of the tier list is encouraged, it should not discourage new or regular posters from commenting on the quality of any title outside that template. We have a number of newer and popular releases that have not had any commentary yet in any form. Initial impressions of a release's quality can sometimes be valuable by themselves.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15998419
> 
> 
> I would call this transfer a severe case of DNR. No finesse or skill has been used in applying the DNR and a large amount of high-frequency information is stripped from the film.
> 
> 
> I just wanted to remind participants that informal discussion of a Blu-ray's picture quality is strongly encouraged here. While adhering to the recommended template of the tier list is encouraged, it should not discourage new or regular posters from commenting on the quality of any title outside that template. We have a number of newer and popular releases that have not had any commentary yet in any form. Initial impressions of a release's quality can sometimes be valuable by themselves.



I agree it's severe!










I stated moderate only because for me, along with the film undersaturation, it matched the intended 70's color scheme. Same with Donnie Darko and The Doors.


For Donnie Darko, the color and actual film choices produces an 80's VHS feel to me.










Over time, Shawshank's DNR has presented problems because it doesn't add anything to the era.


There is nothing about DNR that is positive to me. But for Almost Famous, Donnie Darko, and The Doors, that's how I stomach it.


----------



## 42041

*Before The Devil Knows You're Dead*


First off, I really liked this movie, Philip Seymour Hoffman is fantastic in it. This movie was shot digitally with the Panavision Genesis camera, so if you've seen other movies shot with it, like Apocalypto or Planet Terror, you have a pretty good idea of what to expect, though this is not a movie that lends itself to visual spectacle. For the most part what's there looks quite excellent, with oodles of detail in faces, hair, and clothes, and some finely resolved scenery. The big letdown here is that the transfer seems to have been somewhat bungled: quite often these jaggy edges pop up, which were occasionally very distracting. The other minor quibbles I have is that darker scenes rarely have the same sense of depth as the daylit ones, the black levels could have been tweaked a little lower (though I'll take that over crushed blacks any day), and skin tones tend to have an unnaturally pinkish hue. Overall, if you can overlook the jaggies, this is a nice looking movie.

*Tier 1.75*

(PS3/Pioneer 50" Kuro Elite plasma/1sw away)


----------



## moematthews

^^^


Great to hear on "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead". This is supposed to be a very good movie, and your 1.75 rating makes me all the more interested. I've walked past it many times at the movie store, knowing it got solid reviews from critics who know what they're talking about, but I didn't know how it looked on Blu-ray.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/15989481
> 
> 
> The only point I would agree with (in measure) is that the colors are somewhat over saturated. The fact is I mentioned that in my review.
> 
> 
> I will take issue with your statement highlighted above. By saying that "there were things that I noticed that bothered me apparently *much more than they bothered you*" you are implying that there were issues that could bother people (such as you), but for whatever reason they didn't bother me. This is WRONG, for it's not that they didn't bother me, it's that _I didn't even see them_.



Well, obviously if you didn't see them, I was bothered by them a lot more than you, eh?










Besides, I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.











> Quote:
> Take, for example, your view that "the picture has a slightly sharpened/digital look to it." That is your opinion but it certainly isn't mine. So, it is incorrect to even imply that I just wasn't bothered by it. And this is true of every point you made (with the exception of _some_ over saturated colors).



Well, the colors were bad. The slightly sharpened/digital look was my least definitive point of all the points that I made in my review.


As for the other items, if you really don't see them, there really isn't much point in discussing the issue further.



> Quote:
> As far as me referring to your criticisms as "rather harsh," the key word is "rather" (i.e., to a certain extent; somewhat). You have to admit that our placement recommendations are over a tier apart, and IMO that's quite a bit. So, I felt justified in saying what I did, just as I'm sure you felt justified in saying you were "baffled" (which is just as strong a word as I used) by my recommendation. (I should add that I was referring more to your actual criticisms of the title than to your actual tier recommendation. Tier 1 is still a respectable placement.)



Yep, we are definitely far apart in our recommendations on this one. Of course, thus far, I am completely outnumbered on this one, which simply makes me that much more "baffled"!


Comparing this title to others in Tier 0 is one of the biggest head scratchers I have seen in this thread in quite some time.


----------



## Elbie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/15821904
> 
> 
> Get 5+ people to review and recommend a tier placement and it will most likely be moved.



I think that I need to do that.


----------



## rsbeck

*Dark City: (Director's Cut)*


Extremely fine grain visible at times, ringing and halos noted in a number of scenes. Dark City is a science fiction nightmare which is lit and shot for artistic effect and has either suffered some questionable transfer decisions, has been intentionally processed in post production and the result resembles the effect of selective and excessive DNR or, as I suspect, some combination of the two.


Grain does seem to be MIA for long stretches.


There are several close-ups where you can see pores in Sewell's face and several where you can see peach fuzz and single strands of eyebrow on Jennifer Connelly. Other than those, though, it is pretty rough sailing for facial and follicle detail with close-ups of very smooth faces, smeared stubble and eyebrows, and poorly resolved hair. Picture also suffers from black crush and is murky much of the time.


In the extras, film maker talks about the use of sodium vapor and metal halide lighting. These were used in order to achieve a creepy shadowy effect. IMO, this lighting _is_ creepy and achieves the desired shadowy effect, but it does not always make for a sharp picture, great contrast, or satisfying blacks.


There are a few other impressive shots of clothing and surface texture, a great close-up of a pocket watch, and some visually arresting shots of the Dark City itself. All in all, considering that a lot of the problematic visuals are intentional, if you're not picky, there are probably not enough flaws to totally kill the experience when watching it for the story, but for our purposes, there is not enough in the way of impressive visuals to help this title rise above the average.


Too many smooth faces, smeared details, halos, and intentionally murky visuals.


IMO, current ranking of 2.5 is too high.

*Recommendation: Tier 3.25*


Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From 126" Screen


----------



## djoberg

^


Good review rsbeck! And a very nice paragraph layout too!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/15999358
> 
> 
> Comparing this title to others in Tier 0 is one of the biggest head scratchers I have seen in this thread in quite some time.



IMHO, Beverly Hills Chihuahua is noticeably better than Shoot Em Up and Doomsday....and it's better than Kill Bill 1 & 2 as well.


----------



## b_scott

watched the Criterion Blu-ray of "The Third Man" yesterday


It's really hard to review in this thread, because while it was probably the best transfer ever of that film, it still looks like old grainy, flawed black and white. From 1949, but still. Good film, looked good for its age. But it's probably Coal


----------



## rsbeck

What are the flaws?


----------



## b_scott

faded shots occasionally, lines through the picture for whole scenes. During the opening titles it's very grainy and the edges are soft.


----------



## rsbeck

How does the rest of it look?


----------



## b_scott

Well, that was referring to the whole movie too, but the intro is definitely the weakest part. The movie has pretty good blacks for a B&W, but I don't think it showed enough greyscale. I still believe it's the best the movie could've looked, but it's very very grainy. Here's a screen from blu-ray.com:


----------



## rsbeck

IMO, the texture detail on that jacket, the clarity of the stitching on the hat, the intricate weave on the tie, and the shadow delineation are pretty impressive. It can be difficult to judge grainy films from still shots. Have you seen other B & W blu-ray titles like The Day The Earth Stood Still, Raging Bull, Casablanca, or In Cold Blood? If so, how does Third Man compare with regard to detail and clarity?


----------



## moematthews

^^^^^^^


Sound and Vision (February\\March 2009) gave "The Third Man" a "Reference Blu-ray Disc" standing - 4.5 of a possible 5 stars for PQ. But they also gave "The Dark Knight" a "Reference" rating in the same issue, and it is only a Tier 1 in this forum.


An excerpt from Josef Krebs' review:


"The Third Man is filled with dark shadows, but you can still make out the lettering on background posters and appreciate the rococo touches of Vienna. Deep, deep blacks are everywhere, along with a bright highlights and a sea of grays [sic] - all helping to bring out the different surface textures of cobblestones, brickwork and clothing, while lending depth to compositions and a roundness to figures. Some scenes have excessive grain, *but mostly the picture looks stunning.* (Emphasis mine.)


I go back to a point I made earlier - the differences noticed by individual reviewers watching the same material is absolutely astonishing, and I am not aware of an explanation for it.


----------



## b_scott

in all honestly I haven't. And I'm not saying it doesn't look great "for a B&W movie" - I just assumed it wouldn't get a good score here due to the purposes of this thread.


----------



## rsbeck

I guarantee you, without the grain, you would not see the texture on that jacket, the weave of the tie, or the stitching on that hat as well as you can and the grain removal could introduce other problems.


----------



## b_scott

I also agree, I just know that people in this thread rate things for eye candy, and eye candy doesn't include grain. That's all I was saying, giving a review based on the criteria in this thread.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/16002339
> 
> 
> I also agree, I just know that people in this thread rate things for eye candy, and *eye candy doesn't include grain*.



Yes and No. If the grain hinders detail you are right, but if the grain is light and intact it can actually enhance the PQ. In _that case_ "eye candy DOES include grain."


----------



## rsbeck

I disagree that eye candy does not include grain. Grain is part of film and when grain is removed, precious detail usually goes with it. If grain is causing a problem with a title, usually it is due to some other problem which is interacting with the grain -- not the grain itself. There are many stunning films that have grain intact. If you look at the criteria on the first page, you'll see that natural looking grain is a requirement for film based titles. Grain certainly would not keep me from a positive recommendation.


----------



## sleater




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15999831
> 
> *Dark City*
> 
> 
> Too many smooth faces, smeared details, halos, and intentionally murky visuals.
> 
> 
> IMO, current ranking of 2.5 is too high.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 3.25*
> 
> 
> Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From 126" Screen



+1


I wholeheartedly agree with this review. I noticed a few halos particularly in brighter scenes and I found film grain VERY difficult to find most of the time. Also not particularly sharp, even for a film that's 10 years old. This one definitely got an excessive noise reduction treatment.


3.25 might even be slightly kind IMO. Still a satisfying movie though!


----------



## deltasun

I don't know if we can make another blanket statement on grain. My opinion will not be as strong here because, for the MOST part, stunning detail is accompanied by grain (for the reasons outlined above). However, the day may come where grain can be removed without losing detail. At that point in time, I would not necessarily agree that grain is a requirement for eye candy.


Again, we have to weigh the overall picture. Is grain a detraction? If yes, that title gets knocked down. It's hard to judge by the that still, but if that's all I have to go by, I would definitely knock this title down for excessive grain. Usually, pleasing grain is absent (or finer) from the point of focus. For me, anyway.


----------



## rsbeck

_Is grain a detraction? If yes, that title gets knocked down._


Grain can be a detraction if it is interacting with some other processing to cause problems.


Great example, IMO, is the chapel scene in Kill Bill Vol. 2. IMO, that grain is _not_ behaving naturally and it actually causes details in the picture to be fuzzy. Far, far worse than anything you see above.


Add the thin ringing, the ultra smooth faces in medium shots, plenty of things to lend weight to the idea that some other processing is interacting with the grain in KB.


Now, add the pumped up contrast, the blown highlights, the crushed blacks...


I might detract some points from the picture above, but not just because it has grain.


IMO, the problems in sections of KB are far worse.


But, again, not because of the grain -- IMO, because of some other processing interacting with the grain.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moematthews* /forum/post/15999135
> 
> 
> ^^^
> 
> 
> Great to hear on "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead". This is supposed to be a very good movie, and your 1.75 rating makes me all the more interested. I've walked past it many times at the movie store, knowing it got solid reviews from critics who know what they're talking about, but I didn't know how it looked on Blu-ray.



It's a great movie for sure, but I don't know about repeat watchability (if you're thinking of purchasing). If renting, definitely worth it.


----------



## rsbeck

Main point, IMO, is that just going by the picture above, I would not be thinking of putting Third Man in the Coal tier. I'd be thinking somewhere in the mid silver tier -- but, I'd have to see the whole thing in motion, so, understand....we're just talkin'....


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/16002992
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> Grain can be a detraction if it is interacting with some other processing to cause problems.
> _


_


Grain can also be a detraction if it is HEAVY. Light grain is what enhances PQ, but heavy grain hinders detail. A good example of heavy grain is in Lost Boys: The Tribe. The grain was ridiculously heavy in some scenes, so much so that that's all one could focus on._


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/16003069
> 
> 
> Main point, IMO, is that just going by the picture above, I would not be thinking of putting Third Man in the Coal tier. I'd be thinking somewhere in the mid silver tier -- but, I'd have to see the whole thing in motion, so, understand....we're just talkin'....



Agreed. I'd have to watch it too. There would have to be more than just grain to get a title in the Coal tier. I think Silver is still too high, but again, I'd have to watch it.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16003133
> 
> 
> Grain can also be a detraction if it is HEAVY. Light grain is what enhances PQ, but heavy grain hinders detail. A good example of heavy grain is in Lost Boys: The Tribe. The grain was ridiculously heavy in some scenes, so much so that that's all one could focus on.



I haven't see Lost Boys: The Tribe, so cannot comment. I have seen blu-rays with coarse grain, though, and some look great while others do not. Depends on the transfer. I've also seen films that should have had coarse grain where the grain was removed -- what an unwatchable mess!


I also believe sometimes people will confuse video noise with grain.


For example, there is a one minute and forty five second section at the 55 minute mark of Transformers. I have repeated seen this attributed to grain.

However, this is not grain, this is video noise. Still a buzz kill, but not because of grain -- something else obviously went wrong with the transfer in that section.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/16003205
> 
> 
> I haven't see Lost Boys: The Tribe, so cannot comment. I have seen blu-rays with coarse grain, though, and some look great while others do not. Depends on the transfer. I've also seen films that should have had coarse grain where the grain was removed -- what an unwatchable mess!



It is most definitely heavy grain in Lost Boys: The Tribe, and it is terrible. You may recall Phantom Stranger commenting on this grain in his review of this title. Here is the link if you want to see it:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...0#post15736170


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15737501
> 
> *Dave Matthews and Tim Reynolds*...2.0 (RFBC, rsbeck, Rob Tomlin)



this is blasphemy. This title is the one that made me decide to get a Pioneer and go blu-ray. It was originally Tier 0, and the highest for live action - and now it's 2.0? Come on.


----------



## rsbeck

Nowhere in that review does Phantom say that grain is the cause of any problem.


Notice these quotes:


I will assume the low-budget origins of the production impacted the visual quality of these scenes....there is some moderate edge enhancement applied to the transfer. It really becomes noticeable later in the movie near the climatic battle...Colors bleed a bit and the reds look oversaturated at times. Black levels are problematic in many scenes, with some exhibiting crushing and others looking blown out. Contrast varies from scene to scene depending on the setting and is somewhat poor....softness is a common problem to many shots and a few shots show wavering focus....it is apparent that the filmmakers struggled with properly lighting the darker scenes...the poor low light photography here kills any chance of this movie being a decent looking Blu-ray.


----------



## b_scott

after consideration, you're right The Third Man should probably be about low Bronze tier. only for this thread's purposes though. I only said Coal since I didn't think it was anywhere near eye-candy and I figured this thread would rate it as such.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/16003545
> 
> 
> this is blasphemy. This title is the one that made me decide to get a Pioneer and go blu-ray. It was originally Tier 0, and the highest for live action - and now it's 2.0? Come on.



LOL. Imagine what _I, Robot_ or _Man on Fire_ might make you buy.


----------



## rsbeck

Batman Begins was my first blu-ray. I thought it was awesome!


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16003574
> 
> 
> LOL. Imagine what _I, Robot_ or _Man on Fire_ might make you buy.



well those weren't out then, I don't think.










Still though, D&T is the best live thing I've ever seen. It at least deserves high Tier 1. IMO, of course. Plus, it was shot in HD, there was no transfer. It's pristine.


----------



## rsbeck

The sound on D & T is gorgeous. I use D & T to demo how great music can sound in my theater. Turn the sound down and watch the PQ only. I believe even 2.0 is generous for this title.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/16003600
> 
> 
> Still though, D&T is the best live thing I've ever seen. It at least deserves high Tier 1. IMO, of course. Plus, it was shot in HD, there was no transfer. It's pristine.



I'll tell you what - watch it again based on this thread's PQ criteria and share with us what you think.


----------



## b_scott

alright


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/16003548
> 
> 
> Nowhere in that review does Phantom say that grain is the cause of any problem.



He doesn't say anything about the grain making it look better either!







I read "between the lines" and concluded that his comments about grain were negative as well.


At any rate, I also linked you to Phantom's review to prove that it was indeed a case of heavy grain and not video noise (because you had said that some people confuse video noise for grain).


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15999831
> 
> *Dark City*
> 
> IMO, current ranking of 2.5 is too high.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 3.25*



Nice recommendation but you might want to list which version of the movie you watched. New Line encoded each version separately on the disc and if my memory serves me correctly, there are visual discrepancies between the two versions.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...0#post14317950 


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moematthews* /forum/post/16002257
> 
> 
> ^^^^^^^
> 
> Sound and Vision (February\\March 2009) gave "The Third Man" a "Reference Blu-ray Disc" standing - 4.5 of a possible 5 stars for PQ. But they also gave "The Dark Knight" a "Reference" rating in the same issue, and it is only a Tier 1 in this forum.
> 
> 
> I go back to a point I made earlier - the differences noticed by individual reviewers watching the same material is absolutely astonishing, and I am not aware of an explanation for it.



Many professional reviewers rate the picture quality on a curve considering the original source material. We do not in coming to our conclusions here. So when they rate The Third Man as reference quality, they are not directly comparing it to a movie like Transformers or Man On Fire, but to what previous home video versions have looked liked. Some reviewers also let their personal biases into the equation on classic titles like that. They know a poor review might sink sales.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/16002390
> 
> 
> I disagree that eye candy does not include grain. Grain is part of film and when grain is removed, precious detail usually goes with it. If grain is causing a problem with a title, usually it is due to some other problem which is interacting with the grain -- not the grain itself. There are many stunning films that have grain intact. If you look at the criteria on the first page, you'll see that natural looking grain is a requirement for film based titles. Grain certainly would not keep me from a positive recommendation.



To me it depends on how well the filmmaker shot the film. Grain can be a positive or negative attribute that can greatly affect the overall quality of the image. As long as the grain looks cinematic in nature and not distracting or intrusive to the image, I would never lower a placement because of the grain structure.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16003133
> 
> 
> Grain can also be a detraction if it is HEAVY. Light grain is what enhances PQ, but heavy grain hinders detail. A good example of heavy grain is in Lost Boys: The Tribe. The grain was ridiculously heavy in some scenes, so much so that that's all one could focus on.



I think the problems with Lost Boys: The Tribe can be linked to either budgetary concerns of the production or the technical skills of the crew who shot it. The low-light photography displayed was poor-looking with no obvious artistic intent.


----------



## moematthews

AVS reviewer Ralph Potts has given "Australia" an overall score of 94 and says the PQ is "Reference Quality" (He scored the video at 94.)


I know there are many here who do not agree (myself included). Have a look at his review.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moematthews* /forum/post/16004299
> 
> 
> AVS reviewer Ralph Potts has given "Australia" an overall score of 94 and says the PQ is "Reference Quality" (He scored the video at 96.)
> 
> 
> I know there are many here who do not agree (myself included). Have a look at his review.



I agree with Mr. Potts more often than not, but in this case I simply can't. I just read his review in disbelief, especially his analysis of the many panoramic vistas being three dimensional to the point where you can reach out and touch them. My experience was quite different, for again I was sorely disappointed by them. IMO they lacked detail and depth, and like many of the daytime scenes they were bland.


----------



## RBFC




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/16003545
> 
> 
> this is blasphemy. This title is the one that made me decide to get a Pioneer and go blu-ray. It was originally Tier 0, and the highest for live action - and now it's 2.0? Come on.



Since my vote was also mentioned, I'll respond. Tier 2, under the current ranking structure, is still a very high quality viewing experience. It's not that this title is thought less of, it's just that newer titles have provided even better overall PQ as described in the tier criteria.


I enjoy watching it, and also think it looks good. If you would blind buy every title ranked at Tier 2 and above, you would not be disappointed with the PQ of any of them.


Lee


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RBFC* /forum/post/16004703
> 
> 
> Since my vote was also mentioned, I'll respond. Tier 2, under the current ranking structure, is still a very high quality viewing experience. It's not that this title is thought less of, it's just that newer titles have provided even better overall PQ as described in the tier criteria.
> 
> 
> I enjoy watching it, and also think it looks good. If you would blind buy every title ranked at Tier 2 and above, you would not be disappointed with the PQ of any of them.
> 
> 
> Lee



Well said.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/16004824
> 
> 
> Well said.



+1


I agree. Though I would still reserve Tiers 0 and 1 for demo purposes, Tier 2 titles are ALL very watchable.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16004523
> 
> 
> I agree with Mr. Potts more often than not, but in this case I simply can't. I just read his review in disbelief, especially his analysis of the many panoramic vistas being three dimensional to the point where you can reach out and touch them. My experience was quite different, for again I was sorely disappointed by them. IMO they lacked detail and depth, and like many of the daytime scenes they were bland.



Which is yet another example of why we don't rely on outside reviews for this thread (even if posted at AVS). Yet, you did indicate that you had read a lot of reviews on Beverly Hills Chihuahua that all supported your recommendation of Tier 0....even though that isn't true (see the review posted at HiDef Digest which gives a 4.0 out of 5.0).


I'm only bringing this up because there have been a lot of posts lately (not just by you djoberg) discussing outside "pro" reviews.


Is this something we want to promote?


----------



## selimsivad

*Napoleon Dynamite*


Either you love Napoleon Dynamite or you loathe it. There is no middle ground!







I'm in the "love category." The scene with Kip grating the huge block of cheese says a mouthful. This film is 100% cheese!


The movie has a cheap, indie look. It looks damn good, considering it was made on a $400,000 budget.


The depth is what really surprised me. Bricks and furniture displayed a three dimensional look. As a matter of fact, the opening credits showed lots of dimension (both in food and their backround fabrics). Clothing hair, and skin showed lots of detail.


Colors are slightly muted. Blacks are average.


Aside from a few speckles in a few scenes, I didn't notice any defects in the transfer. Looking at the Tier descriptions, Napoleon Dynamite did not meet the criteria of Tier 3. The picture quality truly exceeded my expectations!











*Napoleon Dynamite

Tier Recommendation: Tier 2.75

PS3-Samsung 46" 1080p-seven*'


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16005178
> 
> 
> Which is yet another example of why we don't rely on outside reviews for this thread (even if posted at AVS). Yet, you did indicate that you had read a lot of reviews on Beverly Hills Chihuahua that all supported your recommendation of Tier 0....even though that isn't true (see the review posted at HiDef Digest which gives a 4.0 out of 5.0).
> 
> 
> I'm only bringing this up because there have been a lot of posts lately (not just by you djoberg) discussing outside "pro" reviews.
> 
> 
> Is this something we want to promote?



Two things Rob:


1) Even though HDD gave BHC a 4/5 rating, their "criticisms" of the title were not "harsh" (and that is what I had said when I referred to other reviews that I had read).


2) I agree with you that we do not want to promote professional reviews on this thread. So, in retrospect I shouldn't have used them as I did to defend my position.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/16005294
> 
> 
> Either you love Napoleon Dynamite or you loathe it. There is no middle ground!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm in the "love category."



I'm in the "love category" too!


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16005419
> 
> 
> I'm in the "love category" too!



I've watched it probably about 20 times, maybe three or four on Blu.


Until a few minutes ago, I never knew
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Kip and Lafawnda got married after the credits!



I can't stop laughing!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16005419
> 
> 
> i'm in the "love category" too! :d



+2


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/16005294
> 
> 
> Either you love Napoleon Dynamite or you loathe it. There is no middle ground!



Well, I guess I have to be the exception that proves the rule. I think Napoleon Dynamite is "okay". You heard it here, first!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/16005553
> 
> 
> I've watched it probably about 20 times, maybe three or four on Blu.
> 
> 
> Until a few minutes ago, I never knew
> *Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler
> *Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Kip and Lafawnda got married after the credits!
> 
> 
> 
> I can't stop laughing!



I caught that on the first viewing! Their relationship (all the way through) was, by far, the most hilarious part of the whole movie.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moematthews* /forum/post/16004299
> 
> 
> AVS reviewer Ralph Potts has given "Australia" an overall score of 94 and says the PQ is "Reference Quality" (He scored the video at 96.)
> 
> 
> I know there are many here who do not agree (myself included). Have a look at his review.




Reasons like this are why I take any review with a grain of salt. I went and read Mr. Pott's review for High School Musical 3, a title I placed in Tier 4 b/c it looks so terrible, and he rated it 98 for video. I haven't read many of his reviews, but I do know we have completely different equipment. I was surprised to see the video rated so high, because seriously... it looked horrid -- the absolute WORST PQ i've ever seen in a Blu Ray to date. I haven't surfed around anywhere else to see any other pro reviews of it though. For the most part you guys know me and know how I review things, and also (like me!) take my reviews with a grain of salt as well.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/16003560
> 
> 
> after consideration, you're right The Third Man should probably be about low Bronze tier. only for this thread's purposes though. I only said Coal since I didn't think it was anywhere near eye-candy and I figured this thread would rate it as such.



It's not about what "this thread would rate it..." it's about YOU and all of us rating and recommending placements.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16006003
> 
> 
> Reasons like this are why I take any review with a grain of salt. I went and read Mr. Pott's review for High School Musical 3, a title I placed in Tier 4 b/c it looks so terrible, and he rated it 98 for video. I haven't read many of his reviews, but I do know we have completely different equipment. I was surprised to see the video rated so high, because seriously... it looked horrid -- the absolute WORST PQ i've ever seen in a Blu Ray to date. I haven't surfed around anywhere else to see any other pro reviews of it though. For the most part you guys know me and know how I review things, and also (like me!) take my reviews with a grain of salt as well.



You are "right on the money" G3! I too have learned to take _any_ review with a grain of salt, but where I am most vulnerable is when there is a _consensus_ formed by reviewers (like the recent one on Beverly Hills Chihuahua). At those times I often feel, "They must be right with so many holding the same view."


This is why I agree with Rob Tomlin that we should not be promoting professional reviews on this thread. There are just too many variables (like the differences in equipment used, as you mentioned) in the equation to be relying on others to justify our position. We need to come to this thread with sheer honesty, giving our unbiased opinion based on what _we see in our own home with our own equipment_. If others agree with us, so be it. If they don't, so be it.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16006365
> 
> 
> You are "right on the money" G3! I too have learned to take _any_ review with a grain of salt, but where I am most vulnerable is when there is a _consensus_ formed by reviewers (like the recent one on Beverly Hills Chihuahua). At those times I often feel, "They must be right with so many holding the same view."
> 
> 
> This is why I agree with Rob Tomlin that we should not be promoting professional reviews on this thread. There are just too many variables (like the differences in equipment used, as you mentioned) in the equation to be relying on others to justify our position. We need to come to this thread with sheer honesty, giving our unbiased opinion based on what _we see in our own home with our own equipment_. If others agree with us, so be it. If they don't, so be it.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/16005674
> 
> 
> Well, I guess I have to be the exception that proves the rule. I think Napoleon Dynamite is "okay". You heard it here, first!



Count me in as "...thought it was pretty good". I didnt love it though. I certainly didnt hate it either.


----------



## rsbeck

Selimsivad -- great review! I've worn out my SD DVD copy.


I.....love technology, but not.....as much as you you see....always and forever...


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16006994
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wtf?



+1 while LMAO!









IMO, that post just dethroned the Sleeping Beauty post as the funniest post I've ever seen!


----------



## Decado2

Anyone know what the PQ of The Constant Gardener is like? I don't see it on the list.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

LOL at the last page in this thread.


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/16006213
> 
> 
> It's not about what "this thread would rate it..." it's about YOU and all of us rating and recommending placements.



while true, obviously my assessments are off, since I would rate D&T in low Tier 0


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Back to our regularly scheduled programming...

*I, Robot*


I have to admit I had super high expectations knowing this ranks as the top live action title in our list. It almost lived up to my heightened hype, but not quite.


This doesn't offer the best I've seen in live action. BUT it does offer and very consistent and sharp image throughout with nice 3D pop most of the time. Facial closeups of everyone except Calvin were extremely detailed but did not tops the likes of Domino and Man on Fire. Close ups of Bridget Moynahan's face were not razor sharp like the rest.


Blacks and contrast were excellent, colors spot on, skin tones very natural. Extremely clean transfer with grain intact and no visible artifacts.


What took away from the PQ for me was when everything on screen except Will Smith was CGI, most notably the chase scene in the tunnel with the 2 massive USR vehicles. It's just the nature of the beast.


A few soft shots were also found...and the shot in the tunnel when Will Smith first got on his bike was VERY noisy and grainy. That didn't last long though so it doesn't take away too much for me.


Overall, again, this is an excellent looking title but I don't think it ranks as the best live action title.


Mid Tier 0 for me.
*

Recommendation: Moved down a bit to Mid Tier 0.*


----------



## rsbeck

*Blow*

*Disagree With Current 1.0 Placement:*


Grain apparent throughout, halos noted in several scenes. Blow is a drug dealing saga with voice-over ala Goodfellas. Title has several nice landscapes, a handful of decent close-ups, some well-resolved wigs, and a few scenes with decent clothing texture. Most of this blu-ray is completely underwhelming with recurrent light problems, too bright with washed out picture some of the time, other times, too dim and soft. Too much of the time, picture is just dull with little dimension. A small portion of the time, contrast is good and picture has pop. Looks to me like the cinematography budget was about ten cents and they just happened to luck out with the light a handful of times. They certainly did not set out to make a high definition demo disc nor did they make one by accident.

*Recommendation: Tier 3.75*


Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From 126" Screen


----------



## djoberg

After reading LBFilmGuy's review of I, Robot it encourages me to say that I watched about a half hour of Man On Fire the other day and it did NOT impress me as much as it once did. It is still amazing (especially facial close-ups), but it wasn't as consistently sharp and detailed as I thought it was.


I would encourage others to take a look at it someday; you may be surprised at what you see. I'm not sure where I would recommend it, but it doesn't deserve a place at the top of Tier 0, IMO. Perhaps low to mid Tier 0 would be more accurate.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/16007648
> 
> *Blow*
> 
> *Disagree With Current 1.0 Placement:*
> 
> 
> Grain apparent throughout, halos noted in several scenes. Blow is a drug dealing saga with voice-over ala Goodfellas. Title has several nice landscapes, a handful of decent close-ups, some well-resolved wigs, and a few scenes with decent clothing texture. Most of this blu-ray is completely underwhelming with recurrent light problems, too bright with washed out picture some of the time, other times, too dim and soft. Too much of the time, picture is just dull with little dimension. A small portion of the time, contrast is good and picture has pop. Looks to me like the cinematography budget was about ten cents and they just happened to luck out with the light a handful of times. They certainly did not set out to make a high definition demo disc nor did they make one by accident.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 3.75*
> 
> 
> Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From 126" Screen



That was me with the recommendation of Tier 1
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post15137902 


As you can see, that was when I thought Casino was Tier 1 too.










I'm sticking with my Mirrormask recommendation, as I just watched it three days ago. All of the scenes in "the real world" are mid Tier 0 for sure! This one was shot with HD cameras. Looks amazing!


I'll have to watch Blow again, but I'm pretty sure my recommendation will change!


----------



## rboster

Reminder that politics, religion, sexual orientation etc etc are OT. this is a PQ discussion


Thanks

Ron


----------



## moematthews




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/16003627
> 
> 
> The sound on D & T is gorgeous. I use D & T to demo how great music can sound in my theater. Turn the sound down and watch the PQ only. I believe even 2.0 is generous for this title.



I also believe Tier 2.0 is generous. This was the first BD I purchased - a blind buy, and one of the very first that I watched on my new BD player. I went on AVS and asked if anyone else found it (relatively) soft, flat, often blurry and suffering from poor contrast. It did not look as good as other HD concerts I have seen. The general sentiment was that this was a great title, but it now seems that posters are having second thoughts. I popped it in again a week ago, and my assessment has not changed.


Utterly fabulous sound, however


----------



## rsbeck

*King Kong*


Extremely fine grain apparent at times, hard to see sometimes. Halos noted on a few high contrast edges.


King Kong, like Transformers, can only be called a motion picture spectacle.


Title fills the screen with eye-popping visuals.


Kong himself fills the screen and the CGI work here still holds up, the detail and clarity is extremely impressive.


Contrast is always pretty much right on the money giving picture excellent dimension.


Clothing is also generally impressive with actors wearing hats, caps, jackets with interesting texture detail to resolve.


To my eyes, there are only a couple of nit-picks one can make here.


Faces -- Faces look natural and often one can see some texture, but in general, faces do not exhibit ultra-fine detail. Faces tend towards the smooth with ultra-fine detail a tiny bit smeared.


I cannot tell whether this is the result of DNR or an effect achieved in post production, but I suspect post production. A comparison thread here on AVS reveals that this effect is exhibited on both HD DVD and Blu-ray versions.


I suspect post production because high definition close ups with pores is a very modern look, the makers of King Kong are clearly aiming for a period look, and the type of pores, razor sharp stubble, and peach fuzz we see in reference titles like Domino would not be in keeping with that look.


What we do see, however, was obviously achieved with an elegant hand because, as noted earlier, while a little smoothed, faces still look very natural.


In some of the CGI work on the island, the seams show a little and this will be obvious to those used to up to date special effects.


I am right on the fence here between top tier one and tier 0. I feel I must ignore artistic intent and lean conservative because of the faces and some of the CGI work. Nit-picks, to be sure, but faces are the focal point of many scenes. IMO, King Kong is a very impressive demo disc and just a few nit-picks from blu.

*Recommendation: Tier 1.0*


C3X1080, 13' From 126" Screen



.


----------



## jrcorwin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/16011183
> 
> 
> C3X1080, 13' From 126" Screen



off topic...do you have any pictures of your setup by the way?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/16011183
> 
> *King Kong*
> 
> 
> Extremely fine grain apparent at times, hard to see sometimes. Halos noted on a few high contrast edges. King Kong, like Transformers, can only be called a motion picture spectacle. Title fills the screen with eye-popping visuals whether it is a street scene in Manhattan, a boat leaving the harbor, or the landscape of Skull Island.
> 
> 
> Kong himself fills the screen and the CGI work here still holds up, the detail and clarity is extremely impressive. Contrast is always pretty much right on the money giving picture excellent dimension. This includes the landscape scenery on Skull Island, which is incredible.
> 
> 
> Clothing is also generally impressive with actors wearing hats, caps, jackets with interesting texture detail to resolve.
> 
> 
> To my eyes, there are only a couple of nit-picks one can make here.
> 
> 
> Faces -- Faces look natural and often one can see some texture, but in general, faces do not exhibit ultra-fine detail. Faces tend towards the smooth with ultra-fine detail a tiny bit smeared.
> 
> 
> I cannot tell whether this is the result of DNR or an effect achieved in post production,
> 
> but I suspect post production. A comparison thread here on AVS reveals that this effect is exhibited on both HD DVD and Blu-ray versions.
> 
> 
> I suspect post production because high definition close ups with pores is a very modern look, the makers of King Kong are clearly aiming for a period look, and the type of pores, razor sharp stubble, and peach fuzz we see in reference titles like Domino would not be in keeping with that look.
> 
> 
> What we do see, however, was obviously achieved with an elegant hand because, as noted earlier, while a little smoothed, faces still look very natural.
> 
> 
> In some of the CGI work on the island where humans run with dinosaurs, the seams show a little and this will be obvious to those used to up to date special effects.
> 
> 
> I am right on the fence here between top tier one and tier 0. I feel I must ignore artistic intent and lean conservative because of the faces. It's a nit-pick, to be sure, but faces are the focal point of many scenes. IMO, King Kong is a very impressive demo disc and just a nit-pick from blu.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 1.0*
> 
> 
> C3X1080, 13' From 126" Screen



I can't agree that KK should be ranked the same as Transformers (taking into account that you have suggested Transformers should be Tier 1.0). The CGI in KK is so pervasive, and so frequently less than impressive. So many of the New York shots in the opening section are CGI and far too obviously so. The backgrounds of sea and sky on the ship are often CGI, and obviously so. I listened to part of the director commentary and was appalled to hear PJ saying how much easier it was to use CGI backdrops on the ship scenes than actually shooting it for real. And this is not even getting to the wholly CGI jungle scenes on the island.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Highlander: The Source (German Import)*

*recommendation: Tier 3.5*


This Highlander sequel from 2006 was released in Germany on a region-free Blu-ray from an entity called E-M-S. The 98-minute movie is encoded in VC-1 on a BD-25. I believe this transfer to have been originally encoded for HD DVD, as the compression here fits within the bandwidth limits of that format and was released when that format was still popular in Europe. In my estimation the average video bitrate is 22.5 Mbps. The video encode stays within a band from lows of 17.7 Mbps to peaks of 30.2 Mbps.


While there are no compression artifacts related to motion or gross macroblocking, the image contains some of the worst instances of posterization and banding I have witnessed in a live-action film. It is not omnipresent but several scenes demonstrate severe problems in this regard. The problems are frequent enough to lower my placement over half a tier.


For a low-budget production, the source master for this transfer looks in perfect condition with no visible damage or age-related deterioration. Grain appears unprocessed and untouched by digital noise reduction. Edge enhancement does rear its ugly head on occasion. The halos start out relatively thick and then diminish as the movie progresses. I will note some problematic aliasing artifacts when CGI is extensively meshed with a regular shot. It is most apparent in the opening battle between the Guardian and one of the Immortals. Improperly aliased CGI distracts from the picture quality and slightly drops the resolution of the image when it is present. The good news is that the CGI does not constitute a large percentage of the running time.


The picture itself is relatively sharp and clean-looking in appearance. The resolution of the image is a substantial upgrade over the dvd version, with nice detail evident in the few close-ups strewn throughout the film. The color palette is always a little skewed from a neutral presentation, though the balance varies from scene to scene. In much of the movie there is a strong blue push, particularly during nighttime sequences, but at other moments there is a yellow push to the palette. Black levels are below-average at best, as black looks closer in tonality to a very dark gray than the absence of light it should appear. Without the major problems I have cited, the image is probably closer in quality to a tier two title. I will note that the image has a strong sense of dimensionality and pop that would not be out of place in some tier one titles.


This import looks a little underwhelming based on a couple of issues. The compression encode is simply inferior in quality with bad instances of posterization. On top of that, the native resolution of the CGI in certain scenes looks below the quality of 1080p. My placement is for tier 3.5 even though much of the transfer looks significantly better than that in quality.


Watching on a 60” Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 (firmware 2.60) at an approximate viewing distance of six feet.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/16011183
> 
> *King Kong*
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 1.0*



About a month ago I posted that I had watched my HD-DVD copy of King Kong and that it wasn't as impressive as it was a year ago. I believe I said then that if the Blu-ray encode was the same it would probably end up on the top of Tier 1, so your recommendation seems fitting. Again, this is predicated upon the Blu-ray encode being identical to the HD-DVD version.


Regarding patrick's remarks about the CGI, I did NOT think it was as bad as he makes it out to be, though I could see one penalizing it marginally for some of the CGI scenes.


----------



## RBFC

I also rated King Kong as Tier 1, I believe.


Lee


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16011723
> 
> 
> About a month ago I posted that I had watched my HD-DVD copy of King Kong and that it wasn't as impressive as it was a year ago. I believe I said then that if the Blu-ray encode was the same it would probably end up on the top of Tier 1, so your recommendation seems fitting. Again, this is predicated upon the Blu-ray encode being identical to the HD-DVD version.
> 
> 
> Regarding patrick's remarks about the CGI, I did NOT think it was as bad as he makes it out to be, though I could see one penalizing it marginally for some of the CGI scenes.



Keep in mind that I was disagreeing with a recommendation by rsbeck that KK should go in the same place that he had previously identified as the right placement for Transformers. I don't really think KK belongs in Tier 1.0, but I really, really don't think it belongs in the same place as Transformers.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/16011831
> 
> 
> I don't really think KK belongs in Tier 1.0, but I really, really don't think it belongs in the same place as Transformers.



Man, that's two _really's_. I was going to disagree and state that they are about par with each other. That's, of course, just based on recollection. With two _really's_, I better get my ducks in a row.










Question: do you think the CGI backdrop is not pleasing to the eyes? Or are you just bothered *knowing* they're CGI? I guess it could be both too.


From my recollection, Kong himself looked pretty detailed and sharp. However, the one thing I didn't get much of is 3D pop. But then again, I didn't get much of that from Transformers as well.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16011896
> 
> 
> Man, that's two _really's_. I was going to disagree and state that they are about par with each other. That's, of course, just based on recollection. With two _really's_, I better get my ducks in a row.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Question: do you think the CGI backdrop is not pleasing to the eyes? Or are you just bothered *knowing* they're CGI? I guess it could be both too.
> 
> 
> From my recollection, Kong himself looked pretty detailed and sharp. However, the one thing I didn't get much of is 3D pop. But then again, I didn't get much of that from Transformers as well.




I'm bothered by the CGI backdrop because it *LOOKS FAKE.*


I am not a big fan of the whole concept of "3D pop."


But the whole CGI jungle bit in KK definitely looks very flat.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/16011950
> 
> 
> I'm bothered by the CGI backdrop because it *LOOKS FAKE.*



From the Empire State Building on, the CGI seemed very soft. Almost "Sky Captain-like."

I believe I recommended 1, but after a few more viewings changed it to 1.25.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/16011950
> 
> 
> I am not a big fan of the whole concept of "3D pop."
> 
> 
> But the whole CGI jungle bit in KK definitely looks very flat.



I'm a big fan of pop. I like it when the characters on the screen seem to almost be floating from their surroundings. I was re-watching _Casino Royale_ last night, for example, and would experience this phenomenon on several scenes. Regardless, I agree with the flatness of the jungle scenes. Also, the abrupt movement of the CGI creatures. It's almost too over-the-top.


I do remember the backdrop on certain scenes looking like fake backdrops in a lavish opera. Hmm, I'll have to watch this all the way through.


Won't be in the next few days, however. I'll be down in SoCal watching some tennis. Hopefully, I'll be able to check in once in a while to see what's going on.


----------



## rsbeck

_I am not a big fan of the whole concept of "3D pop."_


Nor am I. IMO, it often causes viewers to look for the wrong things and to give higher recommendations for things like pumped up contrast, increased brightness, and EE -- things that will absolutely make a picture "pop," but are not necessarily desirable demo qualities.


Notice that in the guidelines for tier zero, there is no longer any mention of "3D pop."


Instead, we find references to excellent contrast, dimension, detail and palpability, which will often appear, "almost three dimensional."


To my eyes, Transformers and King Kong have different strengths.


Transformers has very impressive facial and follicle detail despite exhibiting actors mostly in medium shots -- that, to me, is incredibly impressive.


Transformers is not lit, costumed, or shot to exhibit intricate clothing texture.


King Kong, IMO, makes up for _some_ of the lack of facial detail with clothing detail.


As for CGI backgrounds, this has not been identified as a flaw.


I, Robot is loaded with CGI backdrops.


Wall-E and Kung Fu Panda contain CGI backdrops exclusively.


Transformers has a one minute and 45 second buzz kill from video noise.


Transformers has some ringing that intruded on my experience few times.


To my eyes, King Kong has no such glaring transfer issues.


King Kong has a few halos of the "have-to-scan-for-nit-pick" variety.


So, bottom line: when I weight strengths and weaknesses, these titles shake out to the same tier -- a nit-pick or two away from blu.


What baffles me is why some posters will take such a fine tooth comb to titles such as Transformers and King Kong, while ignoring gross problems in titles like the Kill Bills, Apocalypto, and Crank.


Take the same level of scrutiny to those titles.


Tranformers, King Kong, Shoot 'em Up, Speed Racer -- these titles have minor little nit-picky things keeping them from the blu tier.


Apocalypto, Kill Bills, and Crank have macro big issue problems of varying scale.


Let's have a little consistency to our scrutiny so our rankings make sense.



.


----------



## TayC

*Transformers*


I was very impressed with this BD. Unbelievable detail from start to finish, great contrast, plenty of "pop", lots of depth. Very vibrant colors. The only thing that holds it back from tier 0 are a few inconsistent scenes. A couple dark scenes in the neighborhood have too much noise. It's rather jarring because some cuts within the same scenes will look perfect, and then suddenly after a cut you'll get a different looking image. It's not that bad at all, but it's enough to hold it back from tier 0. I have to say that if you love sharpness and detail this is one of the best I've seen.
*
Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.0*


Panasonic 42PX80U, 6 feet


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/16012226
> 
> 
> Instead, we find references to excellent contrast, dimension, detail and palpability, which will often appear, "almost three dimensional."



This statement describes precisely what I mean when I use the term "3D pop." I just like the shortcut of using 5 letters, albeit still having to hit the shift key. It's still one of the qualities that impresses me in HD. I think one day 3D is how we will view movies (and I don't mean with goofy glasses or through R2-D2's scope).


At this time, I still feel the same way regarding titles such as _Kill Bill_s, _Apocalypto_, etc. As a full movie, they hold their own in Tier 1. In regards to _I, Robot_, the CGI backdrop does not look fake like King Kong's (e.g. futuristic Chicago, rows of robots). The Pixar titles are in context. That is, animated titles with animated backdrops.


----------



## Hughmc

*Australia: Recommendation tier 1.0*



Sony A3000 60 [email protected] 7.5 ft from PS3 thru HDMI


----------



## rsbeck

*Beverly Hills Chihauhua*


Very fine grain apparent, halos noted in a number of scenes.


Chihuahua is a talking dog movie lit and shot to look bright and pretty. Contrast is very often on the hot side which tends to bleach detail from lighter colored objects, landscapes, buildings, etc.


Film maker achieves an interesting look. Even though contrast is turned up on whites, color timing has been tweaked to retain saturation. The result is a pumped contrast look in which picture is very bright without looking washed out and mostly without crushing blacks.


Picture is also consistently sharp. However, some of that perceived sharpness may be due to some processing as I noted ringing on a number of edges starting with the very first shot of a man in tuxedo encircled with a halo.


Humans are in many scenes and in Chihuahuah, human faces are generally very smooth, single strands of eyebrow, head hair, or stubble are difficult to discern. In general, actors are not lit, shot, or clothed to exhibit intricate fiber detail.


I also did not note much in the way of fine object detail.


Since we are on the subject of believable CGI, I think reviewers might be divided as to whether the talking dogs look, move, and sound believable.


There are also a number of sequences in which a CGI mouse and iguana are probably too cute and bouncy to blend seamlessly in a live action title.


There are also some scenes around Mexico in which the pyramids, mountains and stairs are clearly made of poured concrete and fiberglass and where some blue-screen effects look pretty unnatural.


There are lots of medium close-ups on the dogs. I found them sharp and pleasing, but not really noteworthy.


So, what's the draw here?


For good stretches, Chihuahua fills the screen with vibrant colors, impressive city, town and landscapes and a lot of very cute puppies. When all is said and done, it is a very solid, hard working blu-ray chock full of bright, sharp, colorful pictures.


I believe it would make a very pleasant demo disc, but I did not find it to possess reference qualities.

*Recommendation: Tier 1.75*


Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From 126" Screen


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16014033
> 
> *Australia: Recommendation tier 1.0*
> 
> 
> 
> Sony A3000 60 [email protected] 7.5 ft from PS3 thru HDMI



Would it be possible for you to provide some commentary to go along with the Tier recommendation, particularly since some of us think it belongs in the middle of Tier 2?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/16015595
> 
> *Beverly Hills Chihauhua*
> 
> 
> Very fine grain apparent, halos noted in a number of scenes.
> 
> 
> Chihuahua is a talking dog movie lit and shot to look bright and pretty. Contrast is very often on the hot side which tends to bleach detail from lighter colored objects, landscapes, buildings, etc.
> 
> 
> Film maker achieves an interesting look. Even though contrast is turned up on whites, color timing has been tweaked to retain saturation. The result is a pumped contrast look in which picture is very bright without looking washed out and mostly without crushing blacks.
> 
> 
> Picture is also consistently sharp. However, some of that perceived sharpness may be due to some processing as I noted ringing on a number of edges starting with the very first shot of a man in tuxedo encircled with a halo.
> 
> 
> Humans are in many scenes and in Chihuahuah, human faces are generally very smooth, single strands of eyebrow, head hair, or stubble are difficult to discern. In general, actors are not lit, shot, or clothed to exhibit intricate fiber detail.
> 
> 
> I also did not note much in the way of fine object detail.
> 
> 
> Since we are on the subject of believable CGI, I think reviewers might be divided as to whether the talking dogs look, move, and sound believable.
> 
> 
> There are also a number of sequences in which a CGI mouse and iguana are probably too cute and bouncy to blend seamlessly in a live action title.
> 
> 
> There are also some scenes around Mexico in which the pyramids, mountains and stairs are clearly made of poured concrete and fiberglass and where some blue-screen effects look pretty unnatural.
> 
> 
> There are lots of medium close-ups on the dogs. I found them sharp and pleasing, but not really noteworthy.
> 
> 
> So, what's the draw here?
> 
> 
> For good stretches, Chihuahua fills the screen with vibrant colors, impressive city, town and landscapes and a lot of very cute puppies. When all is said and done, it is a very solid, hard working blu-ray chock full of bright, sharp, colorful pictures.
> 
> 
> I believe it would make a very pleasant demo disc, but I did not find it to possess reference qualities.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 1.75*
> 
> 
> Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From 126" Screen














Prepare for the wrath to come.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16016771
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Prepare for the wrath to come.*



No wrath coming from me, but I am BAFFLED!










Okay, so now there's 3 for Tier 0 and 2 for Tier 1. Right now it looks like SuprSlow would be placing it at about the Tier 1.0 mark. Another one or two members weighing in would be nice, for if they see it for what it is (Tier 0 quality...







), that could place it in the bottom of Tier 0, which would be okay with me.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

I'll be renting it soon, Denny, I have a free rental at one place so I'll pick it up with that.


Am I going to be the sacrificial lamb on The Princess Bride? Is this new today? I picked it up this morning and I'm scared to tear into the plastic... impulse buying and all (despite the fact that they had it tucked in a corner of their Blu Ray rack... it's an impulse if I'm SEARCHING for it, right?







)



off to check the thread for the title. I already own this on at least 2 dvd copies (plus the DVD the Blu comes with) and i absolutely LURVE this movie but I'm scared to crack it open and see a DNR/EE mess!


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16017150
> 
> 
> No wrath coming from me, but I am BAFFLED!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so now there's 3 for Tier 0 and 2 for Tier 1. Right now it looks like SuprSlow would be placing it at about the Tier 1.0 mark. Another one or two members weighing in would be nice, for if they see it for what it is (Tier 0 quality...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ), that could place it in the bottom of Tier 0, which would be okay with me.



I've got it Netflixed.... but it's not at the top of my queue







Tonight I plan on watching Let the Right One In...


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16017231
> 
> 
> I'll be renting it soon, Denny, I have a free rental at one place so I'll pick it up with that.
> 
> 
> Am I going to be the sacrificial lamb on *The Princess Bride*? Is this new today? I picked it up this morning and I'm scared to tear into the plastic... impulse buying and all (despite the fact that they had it tucked in a corner of their Blu Ray rack... it's an impulse if I'm SEARCHING for it, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )
> 
> 
> 
> off to check the thread for the title. I already own this on at least 2 dvd copies (plus the DVD the Blu comes with) and i absolutely LURVE this movie but I'm scared to crack it open and see a DNR/EE mess!



I ordered this title based entirely on the very healthy bitrate shown on the stats thread, plus posts there indicating it looks good. I've never seen this movie.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Patrick -- it's one of my favourite movies of all time, I'm sure it would make my top 10 if I ever made one. Although I do have a healthy feministic reaction towards Buttercup... But when I do my review of it, I will spoiler it if you'd like, as I'm sure it might wreck it for you.



eta -- and for those of you who do like this movie, if you've never read the book, you should. It's fantastic.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16017231
> 
> 
> I'll be renting it soon, Denny, I have a free rental at one place so I'll pick it up with that.
> 
> 
> Am I going to be the sacrificial lamb on The Princess Bride? Is this new today? I picked it up this morning and I'm scared to tear into the plastic... impulse buying and all (despite the fact that they had it tucked in a corner of their Blu Ray rack... it's an impulse if I'm SEARCHING for it, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )
> 
> 
> 
> off to check the thread for the title. I already own this on at least 2 dvd copies (plus the DVD the Blu comes with) and i absolutely LURVE this movie but I'm scared to crack it open and see a DNR/EE mess!



I'll be very interested in seeing your review on both Beverly Hills Chihuahua and Princess Bride. Our family has watched Princess Bride at least 10 times over the years...I know what you're thinking...that that's INCONCEIVABLE!










I'm glad to hear what patrick said about the high bitrate. I will more than likely end up getting this title.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16018031
> 
> 
> I'll be very interested in seeing your review on both Beverly Hills Chihuahua and Princess Bride. Our family has watched Princess Bride at least 10 times over the years...I know what you're thinking...that that's INCONCEIVABLE!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad to hear what patrick said about the high bitrate. I will more than likely end up getting this title.



I had a look at the screencaps in the thread, but reserving judgement until I watch this. Waiting for my daughter to get home from school, as she loves this movie as well. I had picked up this Inconceivable t-shirt for the hubs about a month ago, but although the description says the colouring is red, it's actually metallic pink, so it has become mine. (He can be happy with his Inigo Montoya & Andre the Giant t-shirts instead.







).



The back of the box says AVC @38MBPS, 50gig dual layer, English 5.1 DTS-HD Master Audio, 1.85:1 aspect ratio if that helps you out at all!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16017150
> 
> 
> No wrath coming from me, but I am BAFFLED!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so now there's 3 for Tier 0 and 2 for Tier 1. Right now it looks like SuprSlow would be placing it at about the Tier 1.0 mark. Another one or two members weighing in would be nice, for if they see it for what it is (Tier 0 quality...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ), that could place it in the bottom of Tier 0, which would be okay with me.



...and as a simple counter to this: Tier 1.0 would still definitely be too high for this title _in my opinion._


----------



## LBFilmGuy

*The Shawshank Redemption*


I gotta disagree with the current 2.75 placement. This is a very good looking title, at least toward the Top of Tier 2 rather than the bottom.


Sure, this film may not have gorgeous settings, or tons of action to show off your system, but it is lit and shot beautifully and is consistently sharp and detailed throughout. Roger Deakins is an incredible DP and knows how to get the most out of each shot. Despite it's drab setting that the majority of the film takes place in, he finds a way to make some truly beautiful shots.


Film grain is fine and intact throughout with no hint of DNR, EE, or any other crap we don't want to see. It is very natural looking while maintaining that film like look most of us know and love. Skin tones are generally spot on but there a few instances where they are drawn out a bit much.


Blacks and contrast are great and strong throughout but there is a bit of detail lost sometimes in the shadows. (Could also be from the setup I was watching on though, not my normal plasma.) Night scenes held up great. Colors were desaturated but still maintained a nice look that was pleasing.


Facial closeups were generally great, especially of Morgan Freeman, revealing all of his moles and marks on his face. Tim Robbins face is much smoother, but he was never soft. I did notice a few soft shots of the captain guard, but nothing too distracting. Fine details were also found on the prison uniforms, suit jackets, and in closeup shots.


Overall I can't place this any lower than Tier 2.25.
*

Recommendation: Tier 2.25.
*

Sony 60A2000 via PS3 @ about 8 feet.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/16021523
> 
> *The Shawshank Redemption*
> 
> 
> I gotta disagree with the current 2.75 placement. This is a very good looking title.
> 
> 
> Sure, this film may not have gorgeous settings, or tons of action to show off your system, but it is lit and shot beautifully and is consistently sharp and detailed throughout. Roger Deakins is an incredible DP and knows how to get the most out of each shot. Despite it's drab setting that the majority of the film takes place in, he finds a way to make some truly beautiful shots.
> 
> 
> Film grain is fine and intact throughout with no hint of DNR, EE, or any other crap we don't want to see. It is very natural looking while maintaining that film like look most of us know and love. Skin tones are generally spot on but there a few instances where they are drawn out a bit much.
> 
> 
> Blacks and contrast are great and strong throughout but there is a bit of detail lost sometimes in the shadows. (Could also be from the setup I was watching on though, not my normal plasma.) Night scenes held up great. Colors were desaturated but still maintained a nice look that was pleasing.
> 
> 
> Facial closeups were generally great, especially of Morgan Freeman, revealing all of his moles and marks on his face. Tim Robbins face is much smoother, but he was never soft. I did notice a few soft shots of the captain guard, but nothing too distracting. Fine details were also found on the prison uniforms, suit jackets, and in closeup shots.
> 
> 
> Overall I can't place this any lower than the top of Tier 2. No way is it a bottom Tier 2 title. I could even go as high as 1.75.
> *
> 
> Recommendation: Top of Tier 2.
> *
> 
> Sony 60A2000 via PS3 @ about 8 feet.



I was one of those who gave it a 2.75 -- I just didnt see a lot of fine detail in the entire movie (at least not to the level of most tier 2.0 titles). It looked better than the DVD, but it wasn't a huge difference. The movie looks like it was from the same master as the old DVD from like 2000. The one thing it had going for it is that it was pretty consistent..otherwise it would have been a Tier 3.X vote from me).


When warner decides to step it up and give it a new transfer and create a 4K master, I bet it will look much better...


Side Note: I love the movie and thought it looked good...but it didnt appear to have a lot of effort put into it.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/16015716
> 
> 
> Would it be possible for you to provide some commentary to go along with the Tier recommendation, particularly since some of us think it belongs in the middle of Tier 2?




I think the overall appearance of Australia is a 1.0 tier movie. There are some tier 0 shots and facial detail is excellent as is detail in general. There were only a couple of scenes that had less detail and were more tier 2 and they were only a couple of seconds when the helicopter was doing flyovers of the outback/bush. At the end of the movie there was some halo/ringing/EE around Kidman and Jackman in the closing scene, but that was very brief and only at the end that I could notice and I virtually never notice halos/ringing.










The outback landscapes and cinematography were extremely sharp and detailed and while I agree some may see the desert vistas as bleak, I saw them as Ralph described. They have incredible depth and detail. I have lived in Oregon almost 20 years and I have had the opportunity to see more desert and drive through them more than I did when I lived back east.







While I always thought deserts are boring and stark compared to a nice green forest, I have really learned to appreciate just how beautiful desert landscapes are. I wouldn't want to live in a desert, but some are truly stunning to look at especially when you have canyons and rock formations with color striations . This is exactly what I see in vivid detail when watching Australia as it captures the landscape perfectly. I do occasionally get emails from my cousins down under who show me pics of Australia and of kangaroos and wallabies in their back yards just hanging out like squirrels.










I liked the movie overall and was expecting worse, since I had read about Kidman's comments.


I also want to comment on two things.


I have been and will continue to stay out of debates about how one another views films and what they see no matter how many tiers off. The reason is simple. Opinion. This isn't just directed at you Patrick, but to all. There is very little if any chance of me changing anyone's recommendation for tier placement and very little chance anyone will change mine. It isn't about being stubborn, pride or wanting things a certain way. We see things differently regardless of equipment differences, rooms, lighting, seating distance, etc., but now add in those things and we can see films from a significantly different viewpoint, not all the time, but certainly many times. Then add in the bias of liking certain genres, colors, landscapes, architecture, actors and actresses, and other variables film to film and regardless of what anyone says claiming they are objective, they really cannot be because in some ways they are influenced by the above variables. This is why I believe I and others see movies differently, namely titles that some are claiming are not demo/reference when I see them as demo/reference.


The second point I want to make is about "pro reviewers" like Ralph Potts. I reference them to see what they have to say. Many times I agree with their assessments and sometimes I do not agree. While I don't believe the pro reviews should be given added or more weight than anyone here, I don't believe they should be given any less weight and are a good reference to list and discuss if one so chooses. I don't see mentioning pro reviewers any differently than mentioning Xylon's threads or other individual movie threads starting by members who are commenting on PQ. Mentioning or referencing pro reviewers is not promoting them or should I say it doesn't have to be a promotion, but rather is simply a reference.

ALL are valid opinions.



I see it as all opinions based on beliefs even though there are standards and guidelines. IF someone does or doesn't see something a certain way, then why we would argue, debate or even try to tell them they are wrong and should see it a certain way. We are then forcing our opinions and beliefs on others which is why some get defensive. We either respect each others opinions or we don't.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/16021523
> 
> *The Shawshank Redemption*no hint of DNR...Facial closeups were generally great, especially of Morgan Freeman, revealing all of his moles and marks on his face.



Huh?


Here's a still shot of Mr. Freeman from Shawshank....

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screen...574&position=5 


Granted, he is sweaty in this shot, but detail-wise -- this is representative of how his and other faces look in the film -- and IMO faces

do have a shiny/waxy look even when they are not sweaty.


Usual facial detail is completely MIA.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

And? Did I say the facial closeups were Tier 0 status?


That screen you posted doesn't even look that bad.


Here's this one that looks good to me.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...rge%20rock.jpg


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/16022185
> 
> 
> And? Did I say the facial closeups were Tier 0 status?
> 
> 
> That screen you posted doesn't even look that bad.
> 
> 
> Here's this one that looks good to me.
> 
> http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...rge%20rock.jpg



LB, that link didn't work. Maybe this:
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...on_blu-ray.htm


----------



## rsbeck

Here's what was written....

_Facial closeups were generally great, especially of Morgan Freeman, revealing all of his moles and marks on his face._


I completely disagree with this. I do not consider these "great" close-ups. And these, including the ones on DVD Beaver, are reprentative of what you'll see in Shawshank. Watch Wanted and you'll see all of Morgan Freeman's moles and facial character. It is MIA in these shots. These shots of Freeman look almost as bad as the faces in Zulu.


When you watch titles where facial detail is removed, this is how it looks. The ultra fine detail is smeared.


----------



## Hughmc

*Midnight Meat Train*


I read Stumlad's review of this and I agree with details he listed. There isn't a lot going on in this film PQ wise as most of it is dark, but what is there is consistent. Facial details and details in general were very good exhibiting a lot of the tier 0 standard. My main issue with this film was not the cgi, but MMT had a lot of that digital noise type of grain compression that makes the screen seem like it is crawling. I don't care for it and it is most apparent in black and white or muted color scenes.


I am not a huge fan of gory horror unless it has some story and some good acting to it. THis type of movie falls into that realm. At times it is difficult to watch the horror and gore and makes the Saw movies almost seem tame in comparison.

*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) when he smashes the head off of the women and she briefly awakens, we get to see the camera through her own eyes as she sees her own headless body and the scene where the person is upside down hanging on a meat hook and gets his throat cut open only to see his own face reflecting in his own pool of blood.







Whoa!! CLive has one sick thinking mind. "Please stay clear of the meat"




*Recommendation: Tier 2.0*


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/16022881
> 
> 
> Here's what was written....
> 
> _Facial closeups were generally great, especially of Morgan Freeman, revealing all of his moles and marks on his face._
> 
> 
> I completely disagree with this. I do not consider these "great" close-ups. And these, including the ones on DVD Beaver, are reprentative of what you'll see in Shawshank. Watch Wanted and you'll see all of Morgan Freeman's moles and facial character. It is MIA in these shots. These shots of Freeman look almost as bad as the faces in Zulu.
> 
> 
> When you watch titles where facial detail is removed, this is how it looks. The ultra fine detail is smeared.



I said "generally great," Meaning for the most part.


I never said there was any ultra fine detail resolved in any of the faces either.


Most were top Tier 2 for me and some Mid Tier 2 or a bit lower.


Definitely better than The Godfather, that's for sure.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16021142
> 
> 
> ...and as a simple counter to this: Tier 1.0 would still definitely be too high for this title _in my opinion._



With all due respect Rob, your opinion has already been given (as has mine), so it will be the opinions of _others_ who decide the fate of this title.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16023024
> 
> 
> With all due respect Rob, your opinion has already been given (as has mine), so it will be the opinions of _others_ who decide the fate of this title.



Duh.


But you were going on about how you would be satisfied with a bottom Tier 0 placement. Am I not allowed to counter that by saying even a Tier 1.0 placement is too high?


I think not.


----------



## rsbeck

_Definitely better than The Godfather, that's for sure._



I don't want to get into a pissing match. IMO, it is just a matter of deciding what makes an impressive close-up and what what makes an unimpressive close-up.


DNR and other processing removes the fine detail leaving faces sort of smeary looking, like you see in Shawshank. This to me, is a negative.


Further, when a title is processed in these ways, usually other detail goes with it.


Commonly, you will also find it difficult to make out things like single strands of eyebrow hair or head hair. If can make them out, it won't be sharp.


This is what you see in Shawshank; in close-ups, eyebrows are not sharp and well resolved, it is difficult to make out single strands.


Same with head hair.


You can see hair, but if you look close, you realize you cannot make out single strands, cannot see individual color variation from strand to strand.


When I can see well resolved pores, single strands of eyebrow, eyelash, head hair, can make out color variation from strand to strand of head hair -- that's a great close-up.


You can't fake that.


So, to my eyes, the close-ups in Shawshank are a negative.


It'd be better not to have them than to move close and show missing and smeared detail.


Godfather, on the other hand, has some amazing close-ups where you can see pores, single strands of eyebrow, variation between single strands of head hair.


That's what you can get when you leave the grain alone.


.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16022922
> 
> *Midnight Meat Train*
> 
> 
> I am not a huge fan of gory horror unless it has some story and some good acting to it. THis type of movie falls into that realm. At times it is difficult to watch the horror and gore and makes the Saw movies almost seem tame in comparison.



Hehhe... great movie... for what it is! I liked the first Saw, but it seems like the creators went away thinking it was the gore that made it good, when in fact, it was the way the story was told that made it unique and scary. I guess you can say the same for most movies with a sequel


----------



## LBFilmGuy

LOL Beck you crack me up. I feel like I am chasing my tail.


I never said the facial closeups were reference, and I repeat, not even near Tier 0 status. What you describe that we SHOULD see are TIER ZERO closeups.


Let's move on.


----------



## Hughmc

Naugahyde!


----------



## stumlad

*Let the Right One In*


The transfer looked pretty good, but grain didnt seem very apparent. I don't know if it was the film stock, or what the deal was, but this movie didnt have much grain to it. Other than that, there was some good examples of fine detail, but other areas didnt.


This look of the film was definitely not meant to be a "wow". Some face closeups were pretty good and you could see texture on the faces of the young actors as well as the older people. These weren't Tier 0 worthy, but they were very good. Sweaters and hair seemed to definitely show the blu advantage, as did some long distant scenes. There was a lot of snow, and I believe scenes with it weren't quite as strong as I would have thought they should be. Fine detail wasn't apparent in all scenes either.


Colors were strong, but the overall image was a bit flat. Sometimes the colors by themselves popped, but the overall image didn't. This was definitely intent, but the overall contrast wasn't strong. Black levels were near black, but not quite completely black.

*Tier Recommendation 2.5*


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16023220
> 
> 
> Naugahyde!



LOL seriously.


----------



## rsbeck

LB -- you crack me up, too.


Yes, let's finish the discussion, but for our readers, I feel it is important to finish with the following points:


It is incorrect to say that only tier 0 titles will have close-ups like I have described.


It is also possible to find great close-ups in gold and silver tier titles.


Close-ups like those in Shawshank are not a positive no matter the tier.


The definition of a great close-up does not change as one goes to lower tiers.


----------



## selimsivad

Just popped in my reason for investing in Blu, the one and only Speed Racer.


I've come to the conclusion that SR is where it belongs, at the top of Tier 1 (maybe 1.25)! Facial closeups cannot compete with the best Tier 0 has to offer! Don't get me wrong. There are excellent scenes where pores and five o' clock shadows are visible. Just not enough to qualify as the best Blu has to offer.


MAN, IT HURTS WRITING THIS!










I believe we are currently in the early stages of using digital cameras. Speed Racer is an excellent example. I believe most of the "softness" is due to lighting issues. Some is intentional, but of course that means nothing here. As directors learn to decipher the strengths and weakness of digita camerasl, the end product will be amazing!










I haven't watched HTWWW yet, but IMO Kill Bill 2 on down should be seriously revisited. In my eyes, they are Tier 1.0 at best!


----------



## Hughmc

*Transporter 3*


I don't know if it is because Lionsgate took over from Fox on distribution in the US of these series, but this is an excellent Blu Ray in terms of both PQ and AQ. I looked at some reviews and placements for the other Transporter movies and it seems the first Transporter had mediocre PQ and the second had a tier 0 placement on the Japanese import.



I would use Transporter 3 as a demo disc. 7.1 DTS-MA and a stunning picture is what you get. BLack levels are superb, detail in general is some of the best on BD and facial detail is excellent throughout the film. Film grain is fine and intact not obtrusive or distracting at all leaving all the detail.


If you like this kind of film and Jason Statham and aren't sick of him yet in Adrenalin filled roles 







, then this is another fun ride worth the watch.



*Tier recommendation Low tier 0*


----------



## patrick99

"The outback landscapes and cinematography were extremely sharp and detailed"


I guess this is the point where disagreement really exists. Those of us who thought Australia was unimpressive simply didn't see this. And we are not talking about the nature of the landscape but the quality of the image.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/16023639
> 
> 
> I believe we are currently in the early stages of using digital cameras.



There it is, ladies and gentlemen... understatement of the year!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/16023639
> 
> 
> Just popped in my reason for investing in Blu, the one and only Speed Racer.
> 
> 
> I've come to the conclusion that SR is where it belongs, at the top of Tier 1 (maybe 1.25)! Facial closeups cannot compete with the best Tier 0 has to offer! Don't get me wrong. There are excellent scenes where pores and five o' clock shadows are visible. Just not enough to qualify as the best Blu has to offer.
> 
> 
> MAN, IT HURTS WRITING THIS!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe we are currently in the early stages of using digital cameras. Speed Racer is an excellent example. I believe most of the "softness" is due to lighting issues. Some is intentional, but of course that means nothing here. As directors learn to decipher the strengths and weakness of digita camerasl, the end product will be amazing!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't watched HTWWW yet, but IMO Kill Bill 2 on down should be seriously revisited. In my eyes, they are Tier 1.0 at best!



awww. I know that hurt you to write it. I'm sorry.











I've watched The Princess Bride, but I won't be able to get a review up until later on today. If it's any consolation though, I'm leaning towards low Tier Silver for this title, but we'll see what my final analysis is once I babble endlessly about it.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/16023639
> 
> 
> Just popped in my reason for investing in Blu, the one and only Speed Racer. I've come to the conclusion that SR is where it belongs, at the top of Tier 1 (maybe 1.25)!



IMO, tier 1.0 is a good place for Speed Racer.



> Quote:
> IMO Kill Bill 2 on down should be seriously revisited.



Absolutely!


----------



## moematthews




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16021705
> 
> 
> The second point I want to make is about "pro reviewers" like Ralph Potts. I reference them to see what they have to say. Many times I agree with their assessments and sometimes I do not agree. While I don't believe the pro reviews should be given added or more weight than anyone here, I don't believe they should be given any less weight and are a good reference to list and discuss if one so chooses. I don't see mentioning pro reviewers any differently than mentioning Xylon's threads or other individual movie threads starting by members who are commenting on PQ. Mentioning or referencing pro reviewers is not promoting them or should I say it doesn't have to be a promotion, but rather is simply a reference.
> 
> ALL are valid opinions.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> "The outback landscapes and cinematography were extremely sharp and detailed"
> 
> 
> I guess this is the point where disagreement really exists. Those of us who thought Australia was unimpressive simply didn't see this. And we are not talking about the nature of the landscape but the quality of the image.



And this illustrates why I brought up Mr. Potts' review of Australia in the first place, and why I agree with Hughmc that I do not see anything inherently wrong in doing so. I would like to think that Mr. Potts is far more skilled than I at evaluating PQ, which includes all of the various elements that we discuss on this thread. Why would we not want to see that opinion? I'd venture that some on this thread have watched more movies than Mr. Potts, and consider themselves to be just as good or better than he at evaluating PQ on BD. And those folks post their opinions all the time.


However, I also agree with Patrick99, in that I am one of the people who did NOT see anything close to a reference level of sharpness and detail in Australia's landscape images. So how is it that Mr. Potts saw this and I (and many others, but not Hughmc) did not? As the above quote from Patrick99 suggests, that's the real source of disagreement.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Mad Men: Season One


recommendation: Tier 1.5*


Presented in its entirety, season one of this AMC television show was released on June 1st of 2008 by Lionsgate. The thirteen episodes are split among three discs, all of which are BD-50's. The average video bitrate for disc one is 22.99 Mbps. Disc two has a slightly lower average bitrate at 22.62 Mbps while the third disc has an average bitrate of 21.49 Mbps. The video is encoded using the AVC codec.


The encode ranges from 9.8 Mbps to peaks in the low 30's, with some scenes staying in the upper end of that range and others hovering in the lower end. For very packed discs, the compression work acquits itself well over the course of the set. There is a touch of light banding but nothing that really stands out as distracting. While no obvious artifacting is present, it would have behooved Lionsgate to allocate another disc to this set. A few scenes look a little less detailed because of the low bitrates.


The master used for this transfer looks in great shape. I did note the use of some automated digital-scratch removal software that created spots measuring a couple of pixels across that popped up occasionally. The image retains a very fine grain structure with no hint of digital noise reduction to filter grain. Many of the professional reviews for this title either missed it or glossed over it, but there is a moderate amount of visible edge enhancement. It does vary somewhat but it occurs too frequently to not include it in my final evaluation of the picture quality.


The image itself looks spectacular at times and would easily rank as a tier zero caliber BD if not for one problem. While resolution and clarity are as good as any title I have witnessed, there are contrast issues at times that prove to be slightly distracting. It is most noticeable when following the black hair of Donald Draper, the leading character of the show. At times his hair turns too black and inky, drowning out much of the finer details and patterns in his slicked back hair style. At other moments slightly blown highlights appear, turning the white office shirts a little too hot-looking. The problem manifests in the slight loss of the best shadow details and separation.


This is still a title with immense picture quality. Micro-details down to the pores are easily seen on most actors and actresses. The weave and subtle gradations of the textures of the suits and dresses on display are immaculately rendered with nice color saturation. High-frequency information is simply top-notch throughout the show. As I said black levels are a little too strong but this problem corrects itself as the show progresses. The dimensionality of the image is palpable and consistently superior to other titles ranked in tier one. Even interior scenes demonstrate an impressive depth of field. This is a well-shot show that really reminds me of the quality one associates with films rather than television.


Overall _Mad Men_ is a visually stunning BD that looks close to reference quality for stretches. I would not place it in tier zero for the contrast issues and the visible halos, but a higher tier one ranking is not out of the question. While I was tempted to place it in tier 1.25, my final judgment is for tier 1.5. Lionsgate has done a very commendable job in giving this show a proper treatment on Blu-ray.


BDInfo Scan for all three discs (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.cinemasquid.com/MovieDeta...px?MovieId=723


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*The Princess Bride*


















Obsessed much, G3?












First off, I need to state that this film is one of my absolute favourites. Thanks to this Blu-Ray purchase, I now own 6; yes that was SIX, copies of this movie: VHS, the original DVD (fullscreen and widescreen flipper, I'm counting it as 2







), the Special Edition DVD, and now the 20th Anniversary DVD edition which came along with the Blu Ray copy. I have seen this movie so many times I could recite the entire thing.


After I watched the Blu this morning, I did a comparison with the 20th anniversary edition which was easy to find as it was right in the same case. Now, I didn't re-watch the entire movie but I flipped through a couple of minutes of each chapter to give myself a sense of how the DVD compared to the Blu Ray. Quite frankly, to an average-joe user, I think the 20th anniversary edition would be perfectly acceptable. I think this Blu Ray is well done, however in motion it's not a significantly large difference than the DVD. That being said, it's a PHENOMENAL DVD. There had to have been a TON of love and care put into that 20th anniversary edition. Reading through the Princess Bride thread in the main board, someone mentioned they fooled their wife with the 20th anniversary DVD into thinking it was the Blu Ray. Aside from some fine clarity and compression levels, I could see that being the case, I'm almost ashamed to admit.


After that realization, I panicked. I thought that this Blu looked pretty good - it wasn't better than Tier Silver, but I've seen far worse on Blu Ray format. So, the search began in my daughter's playroom, to rediscover my other DVD copies. After popping those into my ps3 one at a time, my judgement on the 20th anniversary DVD was solidified. I don't know that a lot of people would have double dipped on The Princess bride as many times as I have (although I'm sure there might be as many who have, and maybe have a laserdisc of it as well if that exists). If the DVD copy you bought was purchased more than 2 years ago, the DVD/BluRay combo will be a fantastic upgrade for your collection. My other 2 DVD copies look HORRIFYINGLY TERRIBLY INSERT-MORE-WORDS-TO-DESCRIBE-COMPLETE-AND-UTTER-AWFULNESS-HERE in comparison to the Blu Ray.


All that blather said, the Blu Ray does have some significant-to-nitpickers-like-us advantages over the 20th anniversary edition. It's got a level of sharpness and clarity that is just THAT MUCH MORE than the DVD. They must have created the 20th anniversary edition (hereby called 20AE because I'm sick of typing all of that) with anticipation for the transfer to Blu Ray. I am thinking the difference between the two copies might be more discernable on a larger screen than my 58 plasma, but I can't speak to that sort of difference as I can only go by the equipment I have. I do not think in my entire DVD collection that I have a DVD that looks any better than the 20ED.


You can notice upgrades on the Blu from the 20ED in close-ups, texture detail, and just overall sharpness. In comparison to the other DVD copies, they just... they're just incomparable to what you get in this Blu Ray case, they are utter crappy blurred messes that have absolutely no detail and messed up colour, as well as chunks of dirt and/or crap all over the place.


I do not know if there is DNR on this disc. Faces do not look plastic, but they lack extreme detail that we are used to seeing in the upper tiers. Detail is present and you can see individual hairs, but the depth is just not there. Unsure if that's DNR or if it's just the way it was filmed to be slightly on the softer side of things (which wouldn't surprise me as it's a fairy tale).


There IS what I suspect to be Edge Enhancement. It's not always present, but it is there and at times it can stick out. This is something that is improved upon on the Blu vs the 20ED, the EE is even more blatant in the 20ED, especially since it's compressed more than the Blu and the compression type of artefacts enhance the edge enhancement so it's even more noticeable. (I do know that sentence reads funny, but I am hoping you guys know what I mean by that!!)


The colour palate is nice and natural; it is not oversaturated at all on THX mode on my Panny. Skin tones look very good to me as well. I think the black levels look decent, and at the same time funny. Dread Pirate Roberts seems to be a victim of the way black clothes fade. At the beginning of the movie his clothes are nicely black, but you can see as the film goes on, they probably did not have Woolite for Dark Clothes because his shirt begins to fade. Perhaps this is only the sort of detail the household laundry-doer would notice, though!










While I feel this is a fantastic version, especially since I'm upgrading from the original DVD & special edition DVD (which pretty much look equally as crappy as the other, but of course better than the VHS copy), the reason I'm aiming where I am with its inevitable recommendation from me is because it is missing the depth, clarity and detail that would be reserved for Tier 0, 1 and even the first half of tier 2 in my opinion. It is also more on the soft side, which as I stated above could be due to how it was filmed or possibly DNR - I do not claim to be an expert on that aspect of things at all.


Our new descriptions in for the Tiers have me struggling a little with where to place this title. In particular the following two quotes pulled out of the descriptions:

*Tier 2 (silver)*


> Quote:
> While the Blu-rays ranked here are not truly worthy of being demo quality, they are visually pleasing to a casual watcher of HD material and are strong upgrades over the equivalent dvd version.


*Tier 3 (Bronze)*


> Quote:
> Minor flaws or slight limitations in the source material may be present but these transfers are usually worth the upgrade over the dvd version.



I am trying to be objective here, and I can't wait until more people view this film so I can take my head out of the clouds of squeeing at having this fantastic of a copy of this film. However, in comparison to the best version you can get of the DVD which would be the 20AE... once again I'm struggling (big surprise). I don't think a better version of this could be made, not after you see the difference of the older DVD copies to the Blu.


*Recommendation for The Princess Bride: Tier 2.75*

*Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800U, THX setting, approximately 7.5' viewing distance.*


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

The Princess Bride Review by G3 Cliff Notes Version:


Old DVD copies look like crap.


20th Anniversary Edition DVD looks phenomenal.


Blu Ray edition edges out the 20th Anniversary Edition.



Details and blathering abound.


Final Recommendation after arguing with herself a bit: Tier 2.75.



Sorry that was so long, guys. Brevity is obviously not my strong suit.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16029126
> 
> 
> The Princess Bride Review by G3 Cliff Notes Version:
> 
> 
> Old DVD copies look like crap.
> 
> 
> 20th Anniversary Edition DVD looks phenomenal.
> 
> 
> Blu Ray edition edges out the 20th Anniversary Edition.
> 
> 
> 
> Details and blathering abound.
> 
> 
> Final Recommendation after arguing with herself a bit: Tier 2.75.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry that was so long, guys. Brevity is obviously not my strong suit.



G3,


Thanks for your DETAILED review and for the time you took in comparing it to former releases. I just happen to have one of the "older DVD copies that look like crap," so I will definitely be purchasing the Blu-ray.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16029126
> 
> 
> Sorry that was so long, guys. Brevity is obviously not my strong suit.



You kidding?! No apology necessary -- excellent review. I'll be adding this one to my cart to replace my old DVD that replaced my VHS copy. Thanks!


----------



## TayC

Good review, geekyglassesgirl! I'm also a big fan of this movie but I think I'll wait for this one to go on sale.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moematthews* /forum/post/16026865
> 
> 
> And this illustrates why I brought up Mr. Potts' review of Australia in the first place, and why I agree with Hughmc that I do not see anything inherently wrong in doing so. I would like to think that Mr. Potts is far more skilled than I at evaluating PQ, which includes all of the various elements that we discuss on this thread. Why would we not want to see that opinion? I'd venture that some on this thread have watched more movies than Mr. Potts, and consider themselves to be just as good or better than he at evaluating PQ on BD. And those folks post their opinions all the time.
> 
> 
> However, I also agree with Patrick99, in that I am one of the people who did NOT see anything close to a reference level of sharpness and detail in Australia's landscape images. So how is it that Mr. Potts saw this and I (and many others, but not Hughmc) did not? As the above quote from Patrick99 suggests, that's the real source of disagreement.



I found this at BluRay.com when looking for reviews of Transporter 3:




"Transporter 3 ranks near the level of excellence as seen in *Australia*, both in terms of its color as well as the clarity and depth of the image, not to mention the fantastic spectrum of detail that is to be seen in every shot. Rock formations, crowded city streets, human faces, and more offer jaw-dropping resolution that rivals the very best seen so far on Blu-ray. Even long-distance shots reveal clarity and detail that is above and beyond, with every square inch of most every frame revealing seemingly each nuance there is to be seen."


It will be interesting what some think of Transporter 3.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16029610
> 
> 
> I found this at BluRay.com when looking for reviews of Transporter 3:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Transporter 3 ranks near the level of excellence as seen in *Australia*, both in terms of its color as well as the clarity and depth of the image, not to mention the fantastic spectrum of detail that is to be seen in every shot. Rock formations, crowded city streets, human faces, and more offer jaw-dropping resolution that rivals the very best seen so far on Blu-ray. Even long-distance shots reveal clarity and detail that is above and beyond, with every square inch of most every frame revealing seemingly each nuance there is to be seen."
> 
> 
> It will be interesting what some think of Transporter 3.



You may not want to hear this, but: posting outside reviews from sources that many here find less than credible will do little to convince us of anything.



Seriously, that site actually gave a very positive (4.5 out of 5.0) review for Salo. If you know anything about that title, you will understand how utterly embarrassing that review is.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/16028654
> 
> *Mad Men: Season Onerecommendation: Tier 1.5*



Excellent -- thanks!


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16029666
> 
> 
> You may not want to hear this, but: posting outside reviews from sources that many here find less than credible will do little to convince us of anything.
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, that site actually gave a very positive (4.5 out of 5.0) review for Salo. If you know anything about that title, you will understand how utterly embarrassing that review is.



I am not trying to convince anyone of anything especially after having given my opinion about opinions yesterday a couple of pages back which I am posting a paragraph down in this post. I am using a part of a review as a reference point and curious what some will think of Transporter 3. I must say Rob, this time the reviews for a BD like Transporter 3 are very consistent across the board with 4.5 and 5.0 out of 5 on at least 4 reviews I have seen so far including Kris Deering claiming it is one of the best looking BD's to come out this year. I could have referenced his review,and this is NOT directed towards you Rob or anyone in particular, but I also know some supernatural being could come along and strike some dead over and over to get them to change their minds and revive them over and over and they still will maintain there viewpoint and beliefs however incorrect and off base and that is just the way it is.










I said this yesterday:


I have been and will continue to stay out of debates about how one another views films and what they see no matter how many tiers off. The reason is simple. Opinion. This isn't just directed at you Patrick, but to all. There is very little if any chance of me changing anyone's recommendation for tier placement and very little chance anyone will change mine. It isn't about being stubborn, pride or wanting things a certain way. We see things differently regardless of equipment differences, rooms, lighting, seating distance, etc., but now add in those things and we can see films from a significantly different viewpoint, not all the time, but certainly many times. Then add in the bias of liking certain genres, colors, landscapes, architecture, actors and actresses, and other variables film to film and regardless of what anyone says claiming they are objective, they really cannot be because in some ways they are influenced by the above variables. This is why I believe I and others see movies differently, namely titles that some are claiming are not demo/reference when I see them as demo/reference.


As far as those finding outside reviews that are less than credible, we find inside reviews less than credible as well







and since it is ALL opinion and viewpoint it really doesn't matter unless it is something like someone is making an outrageous claim that an obvious tier 5 movie is tier 0.











I have heard of Salo, but never seen it. Although the "site" is hosting or displaying reviewers takes on BD's, it really isn't the site that is the issue as much as it is reviewer to reviewer, not too different than here.







I wouldn't say AVS is not credible with BD reviews as that would be a an incorrect generalization and a slam on all of us.


----------



## rsbeck

Hugh -- all due respect, but I have seen many posters on this board revisit and reassess titles and make new recommendations, so IMO, you are painting with too broad a brush.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Hugh, perhaps I misunderstood your post then, because it seemed to me that you were posting a link to that review not to show interest in how good Transporter 3 may look, but how good Australia looks (based partly on the fact that you put "Australia" in bold) by comparison.


It's not a huge deal to me either way in terms of mentioning other reviews in order to facilitate discussion here, as long as we keep in mind the fact that those reviews do not have the same set of standards that are applied in this thread, and therefore are of questionable value here.


----------



## rsbeck

*Layer Cake*


Grain apparent, very thin ringing noted in a number of scenes. Cake is an action film with a plot that has more turns than a pretzel. Frankly, I am not sure what the idea behind the visual scheme was. I'll have to watch it again to get the nuances of the story. I'd say about 20% of Layer Cake is very good looking. Sharp, detailed, excellent contrast, very good facial and follicle detail down to the pores and single strands of eyebrow -- even in medium shots. However, 80% of the time, the picture has a soft, washed out look like watching HD Cable On Demand. Currently, Layer Cake is ranked 2.5 and I think that's a pretty good place for it.


Agree With Current Ranking

*Recommendation: Tier 2.5*


Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From 126" Screen


----------



## rsbeck

To me, it is more notable when one of those sites makes a criticism of a blu-ray. Seems to me they give just about every title 4.5 or 5 stars and every other title is the most astounding blu-ray they've ever seen. I don't think this should serve as our inspiration. If anyone is following those sites, they're bound to be disappointed here.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/16030330
> 
> 
> To me, it is more notable when one of those sites makes a criticism of a blu-ray. Seems to me they give just about every title 4.5 or 5 stars and every other title is the most astounding blu-ray they've ever seen. I don't think this should serve as our inspiration. If anyone is following those sites, they're bound to be disappointed here.



Couldn't agree more.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16030243
> 
> 
> It's not a huge deal to me either way in terms of mentioning other reviews in order to facilitate discussion here, as long as we keep in mind the fact that *those reviews do not have the same set of standards that are applied in this thread*, and therefore are of questionable value here.



Rob you know that I agreed with you the other day regarding professional reviews and how we shouldn't introduce them here to justify our view of a particular title and the Tier placement we are recommending.


Having said that, I have to disagree with you, _in measure_, on the highlighted sentence above. When I read a review by reviewers such as Ralph Potts or Kris Deering and they are giving us their opinion on the "video" aspect of a movie, they are indeed referring to some of the same criteria that we use in their judgment of PQ. They mention things like contrast, black levels, shadow detail, colors, fleshtones, 3D pop, etc. They also refer to the negative aspects of PQ by using terms such as banding, digital noise, crushed blacks, macro blocking, EE, DNR, etc. So, IMO, they are, _in measure_, adhering to standards that are equivalent to the ones we use. If I am wrong in this conclusion, I would welcome your correction.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/16030330
> 
> 
> To me, it is more notable when one of those sites makes a criticism of a blu-ray. Seems to me they give *just about every title 4.5 or 5 stars and every other title is the most astounding blu-ray they've ever seen*. I don't think this should serve as our inspiration. If anyone is following those sites, they're bound to be disappointed here.



In your own words, now you are painting with too broad a brush. Unless you can link and or show proof that which I bolded from your post is the case, I definitely disagree. beck, what annoys me probably more than anything is the implication that we are somehow the more authoritative source for correct BD reviews and the final word and that we know better than other sites or reviewers. You or others may believe it, but not only does it come across as arrogant, but IMO it is just pure BS. Now I can understand making the claim based on what our thread dictates as PQ parameters for placement, but that still doesn't make us right and them wrong or us better and them worse at reviewing. It just makes it the way it is.


It sure would be nice getting paid to do what we love though wouldn't it, even if we were criticized for reviews.











I have a question for you rsbeck. If say at least 4 well respected and well known BD reviewers and a majority of posters in this thread said a BD is the best of the best and 5 stars, but you said no way it is more like 3 stars and you were alone or had one other person agree with you, what would your opinion be of those reviews that claim it is the best and more importantly of your review claiming it is a mediocre BD?


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16030562
> 
> 
> Rob you know that I agreed with you the other day regarding professional reviews and how we shouldn't introduce them here to justify our view of a particular title and the Tier placement we are recommending.
> 
> 
> Having said that, I have to disagree with you, _in measure_, on the highlighted sentence above. When I read a review by reviewers such as Ralph Potts or Kris Deering and they are giving us their opinion on the "video" aspect of a movie, they are indeed referring to some of the same criteria that we use in their judgment of PQ. They mention things like contrast, black levels, shadow detail, colors, fleshtones, 3D pop, etc. They also refer to the negative aspects of PQ by using terms such as banding, digital noise, crushed blacks, macro blocking, EE, DNR, etc. So, IMO, they are, _in measure_, adhering to standards that are equivalent to the ones we use. If I am wrong in this conclusion, I would welcome your correction.





For the record, I agree with you except that I have no problem referencing a "pro" review.


I think there is a big difference between simply using a review as a reference and using it to make claims and support for one's opinion about PQ.



Example:


1. Ralph Potts gave Salo an 80 out of 100 score for PQ, and it goes on to describe why...then finishes with... what do you think?


As compared to:


2. Ralph Potts gave Salo an 80 out of 100 score for PQ and seeing that he has a reference system and is an established and respected reviewer what he claims must be right.




Number one seems fine to me, but number two is making bogus claims based on opinions and therefore I wouldn't like or respect it either. There is a difference between referencing a reviewer and claiming that the review should be a standard we follow or dictates how we see the film.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16030669
> 
> 
> For the record, I agree with you except that I have no problem referencing a "pro" review.
> 
> 
> I think there is a big difference between simply using a review as a reference and using it to make claims and support for one's opinion about PQ.
> 
> 
> 
> Example:
> 
> 
> 1. Ralph Potts gave Salo an 80 out of 100 score for PQ, and it goes on to describe why...then finishes with... what do you think?
> 
> 
> As compared to:
> 
> 
> 2. Ralph Potts gave Salo an 80 out of 100 score for PQ and seeing that he has a reference system and is an established and respected reviewer what he claims must be right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Number one seems fine to me, but number two is making bogus claims based on opinions and therefore I wouldn't like or respect it either. There is a difference between referencing a reviewer and claiming that the review should be a standard we follow or dictates how we see the film.



I agree with you Hugh!


What I was referring to in my response to Rob Tomlin was that it would be wrong to cite pro reviewers in order to add weight to one's own opinion and to basically say what you outlined in #2 above. I did that very thing recently and I had to admit to Rob that I was wrong in doing so.


But I do agree with you that their opinion is just as valid as anyone else's and there nothing wrong with citing them for the purpose you alluded to in #1 above. On occasion I see members here referring to other members' views and I see no difference between that and referring to opinions by Ralph Potts, Kris Deering, et al., especially when they (professional reviewers) are referring to the same criteria as we are to assess the PQ of a given title.


----------



## OldCodger73

*PQ:* PQ varied quite a bit. Facial close-ups were good but not great. Some scenes looked washed out and lack details due to the lighting, while others looked fine. Color was generally good with the exception of those scenes that were washed out. Faces, though, seemed to have a red cast. Overall, a pleasing but average BD. I felt this could go anywhere from 2.75 to 3.25 but being very conservative I'll rank *Appaloosa Tier 3.25*.

*The movie:* It's nice to see that the western genre isn't dead. There was some fine acting by Harris, who also directed, and Mortesson (sp?). Zellweger didn't fare as well and seemed to have only three facial expressions: an insincere smile, a squint or a puckered face that looked like she'd been sucking on a lemon. The movie with credits ran 116 minutes but seemed about 30 minutes longer. Still it was an OK average movie, 3 stars on the Netflix 5 star scale.


Panasonic 50" 720p plasma, Panasonic 10a player, 7 1/2'


BTW, received _Milk_ from Netflix but won't be able to watch it until Saturday.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16030562
> 
> 
> Rob you know that I agreed with you the other day regarding professional reviews and how we shouldn't introduce them here to justify our view of a particular title and the Tier placement we are recommending.
> 
> 
> Having said that, I have to disagree with you, _in measure_, on the highlighted sentence above. When I read a review by reviewers such as Ralph Potts or Kris Deering and they are giving us their opinion on the "video" aspect of a movie, they are indeed referring to some of the same criteria that we use in their judgment of PQ. They mention things like contrast, black levels, shadow detail, colors, fleshtones, 3D pop, etc. They also refer to the negative aspects of PQ by using terms such as banding, digital noise, crushed blacks, macro blocking, EE, DNR, etc. So, IMO, they are, _in measure_, adhering to standards that are equivalent to the ones we use. If I am wrong in this conclusion, I would welcome your correction.



Yes, of course this is correct. I didn't mean to imply that they don't discuss many of the same attributes that we use here, they certainly do. If that wasn't the case, I would not have said what I said about quoting portions of a review for purposes of furthering a discussion here.


What I meant was that their final score (4.5 out of 5 etc.) can't be correlated to the Tier system in a reliable manner.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/16023079
> 
> 
> DNR and other processing removes the fine detail leaving faces sort of smeary looking, like you see in Shawshank. This to me, is a negative.
> 
> 
> Further, when a title is processed in these ways, usually other detail goes with it.
> 
> 
> Commonly, you will also find it difficult to make out things like single strands of eyebrow hair or head hair. If can make them out, it won't be sharp.
> 
> 
> This is what you see in Shawshank; in close-ups, eyebrows are not sharp and well resolved, it is difficult to make out single strands.
> 
> 
> Same with head hair.
> 
> 
> You can see hair, but if you look close, you realize you cannot make out single strands, cannot see individual color variation from strand to strand.
> 
> 
> When I can see well resolved pores, single strands of eyebrow, eyelash, head hair, can make out color variation from strand to strand of head hair -- that's a great close-up.
> 
> 
> You can't fake that. Processing to give the perception of sharpness will not give you that -- it gives you the opposite, it give the perception of sharpness while actually smearing the ultra-fine detail.
> 
> 
> So, to my eyes, the close-ups in Shawshank are a negative.
> 
> 
> It'd be better not to have them than to move close and show missing and smeared detail.
> 
> 
> Godfather, on the other hand, has some amazing close-ups where you can see pores, single strands of eyebrow, variation between single strands of head hair.
> 
> 
> That's what you can get when you leave the grain alone.



Excellent analysis of what the best transfers should look like and which should merit a high ranking. This is very close to my standard for what constitutes one of the key factors in determining picture quality.


I do not mind posters mentioning outside reviewers as a reference point, as sometimes they do point out things one might miss, but I would hope the outside reviews do not weigh heavily in anyone's consideration for their own personal recommendation unless supported by evidence. I have noticed a slight change in tone in the last six months from many different reviewers. Some of the ideas promulgated in this thread over the last year appear to have influenced BD reviews across the Internet to some extent. The state of Blu-ray reviewing for picture quality has increased in leaps and bounds in quality over the past year, though too many high scores are still handed out.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/16030960
> 
> 
> Zellweger didn't fare as well and seemed to have only *three facial expressions: an insincere smile, a squint or a puckered face that looked like she'd been sucking on a lemon*.













That's funny OldCodger! Your remarks reminded me of the words of another member who posted on the Appaloosa thread...he said Zellweger's facial expressions reminded him of the Lion in The Wizard of Oz.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16030607
> 
> 
> In your own words, now you are painting with too broad a brush. Unless you can link and or show proof that which I bolded from your post is the case, I definitely disagree. beck, what annoys me probably more than anything is the implication that we are somehow the more authoritative source for correct BD reviews and the final word and that we know better than other sites or reviewers. You or others may believe it, but not only does it come across as arrogant, but IMO it is just pure BS. Now I can understand making the claim based on what our thread dictates as PQ parameters for placement, but that still doesn't make us right and them wrong or us better and them worse at reviewing. It just makes it the way it is.
> 
> 
> It sure would be nice getting paid to do what we love though wouldn't it, even if we were criticized for reviews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question for you rsbeck. If say at least 4 well respected and well known BD reviewers and a majority of posters in this thread said a BD is the best of the best and 5 stars, but you said no way it is more like 3 stars and you were alone or had one other person agree with you, what would your opinion be of those reviews that claim it is the best and more importantly of your review claiming it is a mediocre BD?



I don't think you are being fair in this post at all. You are reading FAR too much into rsbeck's post. He certainly didn't say or imply all that you say that he did here.


In any event, I do think that there is a tendency to give very high scores.


I just happen to have my latest issue of Widescreen Review laying right next to the computer.










Out of 31 reviews (I grouped together the Planet of the Apes discs) here is the rating breakdown:


Discs that scored a perfect "5.0" or higher (yes, they are now giving scores of "5.0+" because "5.0" just isn't high enough for some titles!): *13*


Discs that scored a 4.5 = *7*


So, about 2/3 of the discs reviewed in this issue scored a 4.5 or above. Perhaps even more notable is the fact that 42% of them were given perfect scores (there were almost twice as many titles that were given 5.0 scores than 4.5 scores).


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16031065
> 
> 
> Discs that scored a perfect "5.0" or higher (yes, they are now giving scores of "5.0+" because "5.0" just isn't high enough for some titles!): *13*



That is it. We need a tier -1 to compete. Once we have filled up that tier we can then add tier -2.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16030607
> 
> 
> [SNIP for Space]those reviews that claim it is the best and more importantly of your review claiming it is a mediocre BD?



Hugh, I think you're making this way too complicated.


To me, it is very simple.


Skip all of that stuff about web-site reviewers.


This has nothing to do with arrogance, it has everything to do with relevance.


They are not bound to wrestle with our criteria so their reviews are irrelevant here.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16029088
> 
> *The Princess Bride*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obsessed much, G3?



You did a great job on this review G3!


I love this movie as well. Perhaps not quite as much as you, since I only owned the first two versions on DVD.










Some of my friends and I used to love quoting lines from this movie back and forth. I still think my favorite part is the rhyming:

*Inigo Montoya: That Vizzini, he can *fuss*.

Fezzik: Fuss, fuss... I think he like to scream at *us*.


Inigo Montoya: Probably he means no *harm*.

Fezzik: He's really very short on *charm*.


Inigo Montoya: You have a great gift for rhyme.

Fezzik: Yes, yes, some of the time.


Vizzini: Enough of that.

Inigo Montoya: Fezzik, are there rocks ahead?

Fezzik: If there are, we all be dead.


Vizzini: No more rhyming now, I mean it.

Fezzik: Anybody want a peanut?
*

God I love that part!


By the way, thanks to the generosity of Film Mixer here at AVS, I was able to bug him at work, and I met and spoke with Rob Reiner (they were mixing the sound for The Bucket List). He was great. Very humble, unassuming and down to earth. A real nice guy.


Of course the first thing that I told him was that I thought The Princess Bride was a masterpiece. He was very thankful and immediately started asking me whether I had kids. When I told him that I had two daughters, he asked how old they were. When I told him they were 5 and 8(at the time) he said it wouldn't be much longer before they could enjoy The Princess Bride as well.


It was awesome watching him work with Marc (Film Mixer). He was very good in communicating exactly what he was looking for in the sound, even making sounds himself and the generous use of hand gestures. It was great!


----------



## Hughmc

djoberg, I think I have been guilty of doing as you say you did in the past as well. I also think in hindsight that I shouldn't have bolded Australia as Rob pointed out, because I wanted the words for the review to be a reference for Transporter 3 and was curious as to what some thought of it. In any case how I view the two above mentioned BD's differently which is why I rated them differently tier 1 and tier 0 which is a full tier apart. IMO PQ on Trans 3 is similar to Shoot Em Up or Doomsday for our thread purposes, but a bit better and has more going for it than the latter two mentioned.


----------



## rsbeck

Rob -- Great story about Rob Reiner -- thanks for sharing that!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/16031192
> 
> 
> That is it. We need a tier -1 to compete. Once we have filled up that tier we can then add tier -2.














> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/16031266
> 
> 
> Rob -- Great story about Rob Reiner -- thanks for sharing that!



Glad you enjoyed the OT story. It really was very cool being there behind the scenes, and meeting a top director like Reiner and finding out that he is actually a nice guy. Not to say that he didn't want things done his way. He did. But he was always polite and easy going about it.


I wish he would make another great movie though. The Bucket List wasn't bad by any means, but none of his recent work has been up to the very high standards that he had set previously. He was on a real roll there for awhile.


----------



## rsbeck

I agree -- he was in a real groove for awhile. Love to see him recapture it.


----------



## rsbeck

Phantom,

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...4#post16030974 


Thanks -- and excellent points.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/16031266
> 
> 
> Rob -- Great story about Rob Reiner -- thanks for sharing that!



+1 thanks for sharing, Rob! In my defense I only got the 3rd version on DVD b/c it came with the Blu Ray. But I still do have the VHS somewhere out in the shed in a box of tapes... I wasn't willing to risk the 4' of snow to dig it out for the sake of the picture. Maybe I'll update it in the summer.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/16031515
> 
> 
> Phantom,
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...4#post16030974
> 
> 
> Thanks -- and excellent points.



You thank him, yet argued with me when I said basically the same thing he did about that post.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16031295
> 
> 
> It really was very cool being there behind the scenes, and meeting a top director like Reiner and finding out that he is actually a nice guy. Not to say that he didn't want things done his way. He did. But he was always polite and easy going about it.



BAH... we know better... he's a meathead


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/16031838
> 
> 
> You thank him, yet argued with me when I said basically the same thing he did about that post.



Context.


----------



## Hughmc

According to Dictionary.com:

*Context*: [naw-guh-hahyd]

a brand of strong vinyl-coated fabric made to look like leather and used for upholstery, luggage, etc.



Forgive me rsbeck, I couldn't resist.


----------



## rsbeck

You going squirrelly on me?


----------



## b_scott

wait Princess Bride is out already? It doesn't even show a date in my blockbuster queue.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/16032067
> 
> 
> BAH... we know better... he's a meathead



That he is!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/16033620
> 
> 
> wait Princess Bride is out already? It doesn't even show a date in my blockbuster queue.



I think my walmart messed up. From what I can gather, it's supposed to be released on March 17(according to what I can see at Amazon.com), but when I went there the other day it was on the shelf so I bought it.


----------



## rsbeck

*The Host*


Disagree with Current Tier 0 Placement


Fine grain apparent throughout, persistent thin ringing and an instance of video noise noted. Host is an interesting hybrid from a world pop culture standpoint; it's a cross between a 50's monster movie, a viral outbreak and missing child drama, and is punctuated from time to time with pratfalls and lowbrow humor.


Title has a lot going for it; Generally lit and shot to exhibit reference and near reference facial and follicle detail down to the pores and imperfections, single strands of eyebrow and stubble, and -- usually -- variation from strand to strand of head hair.


Instances of well resolved surface and clothing texture and fine object detail.


Contrast, blacks, and shadow detail are consistently excellent with just a handful of shots with black crush, mostly affecting hair.


Colors are pleasing, image has nice density.


Okay, what are the negatives?


Title suffers from persistent thin ringing. This causes figures and objects to stand out a little too much from backgrounds.


Honestly, I have to say that some of the time I found this sort of interesting, but there's a problem -- you can't turn it off and on.


So, while some of the time I didn't mind this effect, there were times when it looked unnatural and makes actors and objects look sort of flat and 3D at the same time, sort of like a diorama. Not good.


This along with the persistent thin ringing makes me suspect some unfortunate processing. IMO, this is really a shame because from the looks of the excellent photography, it seems like it should have been unnecessary.


To put in context, on my screen this is not "have-to-hunt-for-it" ringing, this is ringing that intruded on my experience too often to overlook.


The CGI work on the monster will look a little silly to audiences used to up-to-date special effects.


Monster does not blend well with super sharp live action and almost looks comical, which may be intended -- hard to tell given the mix of tones employed.


If you can overlook the ringing and CGI work on the monster, this title has some incredible high def visuals!

*Recommendation: Tier 1.5*


Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From 126" screen


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Good review rsbeck.


If I remember correctly, I was one who originally recommended Tier 0 for The Host. I have little doubt that I would not recommend that it stay in Tier 0 at this point in the game.


BTW, I really liked the movie a lot.


----------



## rsbeck

Thanks! Definitely an interesting blend of styles -- I'm glad I watched it.


----------



## Hughmc

*Forgetting Sarah Marshall*


Not much to say here or add that hasn't already been said in this thread and the thread for the movie itself. Blurry or not real sharp and detailed is the best way to describe it. The extras are in HD, but I believe shot on film and there were a couple of shots from the video diary that looked stunning much better than the film itself. AVS forum member Scowl in the FSM thread explains why the movie looks as it does and it seems it has to do with filters used while filming. Either way I agree with the consensus on this for our thread purposes.

*Recommendation: Tier 3.*



rsbeck , I own Layer Cake and I looked and I didn't review or recommend placement, but since I seen yours I will have to watch it again and do so.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16036852
> 
> 
> Good review rsbeck.
> 
> 
> If I remember correctly, I was one who originally recommended Tier 0 for The Host. I have little doubt that I would not recommend that it stay in Tier 0 at this point in the game.
> 
> 
> BTW, I really liked the movie a lot.



If memory serves right Rob, I quickly followed your nomination for Tier 0. But I also believe, after a year of MANY outstanding releases, I would lower it into Tier 1 somewhere.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16037275
> 
> 
> If memory serves right Rob, I quickly followed your nomination for Tier 0. But I also believe, after a year of MANY outstanding releases, I would lower it into Tier 1 somewhere.



Yep, "somewhere" being the key word. I would be hesitant to say exactly where in Tier 1 without watching it again though.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Rush: Snakes and Arrows*


I've been to _a lot_ of concerts over the years, and have seen some truly great bands/performers (including The Who, Pink Floyd, Paul McCartney, The Eagles, Dire Straits, Rod Stewart, Steely Dan, Steve Miller, Mellencamp, Jethro Tull, R.E.M., and more). One of the bands that I have never had the chance to see in concert that I would love to see is Rush. I'm a huge fan, so it doesn't make sense that I have not seen them in concert.


So, needless to say I was really looking forward to enjoying this concert disc of this great band on Blu-ray.


Unfortunately, I was very disappointed in the sound quality. Apparently, instead of recording the sound of Geddy Lee's voice through the board, it was recording coming out of the speakers. As a result, there is a lot of echo, and his voice is very "distant" and does not come across clearly at all. This makes you feel more like you are actually at the concert, but I didn't like it. I found it to be distracting to see close ups of Geddy singing, only to hear his voice with echo in the background.










As for PQ, it was better than the sound, but it wasn't great. Lots of black crush, video noise in several scenes, and a lack of clarity that you should see in an HD video presentation. Then again, some shots did have a lot of detail in them and looked pretty good.


It's a close call between 2.75 and 3.0, but I will go with:

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75*


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16038022
> 
> *Rush: Snakes and Arrows*
> 
> 
> I've been to _a lot_ of concerts over the years, and have seen some truly great bands/performers (including The Who, Pink Floyd, Paul McCartney, The Eagles, Dire Straits, Rod Stewart, Steely Dan, Steve Miller, Mellencamp, Jethro Tull, R.E.M., and more). One of the bands that I have never had the chance to see in concert that I would love to see is Rush. I'm a huge fan, so it doesn't make sense that I have not seen them in concert.
> 
> 
> So, needless to say I was really looking forward to enjoying this concert disc of this great band on Blu-ray.
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, I was very disappointed in the sound quality. Apparently, instead of recording the sound of Geddy Lee's voice through the board, it was recording coming out of the speakers. As a result, there is a lot of echo, and his voice is very "distant" and does not come across clearly at all. This makes you feel more like you are actually at the concert, but I didn't like it. I found it to be distracting to see close ups of Geddy singing, only to hear his voice with echo in the background.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for PQ, it was better than the sound, but it wasn't great. Lots of black crush, video noise in several scenes, and a lack of clarity that you should see in an HD video presentation. Then again, some shots did have a lot of detail in them and looked pretty good.
> 
> 
> It's a close call between 2.75 and 3.0, but I will go with:
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.75*



Rob, I will get on and off this as it is off topic, but I could not agree more about the sound. I love this band and was very disappointed in this recording/mix when I listened to it a few months back and made a few posts about it. It is WAY to ambient for one. Me and FilmMixer had a little discussion about this one in the audio thread as he was also very disappointed with this track. I was really hoping this would FINALY be the Rush show that had a good recording/mix since NONE of their dvd's have been that hot either IMO, but unfortunately, no










Anyway, sorry to get off topic, but had to comment as this is one of the most disappointing audio recording/mixes on BR IMHO.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/16038159
> 
> 
> Rob, I will get on and off this as it is off topic, but I could not agree more about the sound. I love this band and was very disappointed in this recording/mix when I listened to it a few months back and made a few posts about it. It is WAY to ambient for one. Me and FilmMixer had a little discussion about this one in the audio thread as he was also very disappointed with this track. I was really hoping this would FINALY be the Rush show that had a good recording/mix since NONE of their dvd's have been that hot either IMO, but unfortunately, no
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, sorry to get off topic, but had to comment as this is one of the most disappointing audio recording/mixes on BR IMHO.



I think one of the things that makes it particularly disappointing is the fact that the band can really kick butt, so it's a huge letdown to get a mix like this.


Your use of the words "too ambient" is right on the mark.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16038184
> 
> 
> I think one of the things that makes it particularly disappointing is the fact that the band can really kick butt, so it's a huge letdown to get a mix like this.
> 
> 
> Your use of the words "too ambient" is right on the mark.



Agreed. I love this band and had high hopes for this track which is why it was especially disappointing.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

It looks like Transporter 3 has the potential to be a great looking title!

http://g.imagehost.org/view/0873/PDVD_002 


Edit: then again, perhaps not:

http://g.imagehost.org/view/0292/PDVD_007


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16038435
> 
> 
> It looks like Transporter 3 has the potential to be a great looking title!
> 
> http://g.imagehost.org/view/0873/PDVD_002
> 
> 
> Edit: then again, perhaps not:
> 
> http://g.imagehost.org/view/0292/PDVD_007



potential, slumential...it looks great.










Hey Rob, I wouldn't put a lot of reliance on those screen caps and on how they look, especially the second one. At the same time here is a couple of more.







There is also bokeh or what ever it maybe called used many times.


This is a shot from the opening. See how the inspector is slightly blurry, but look at Jason Stratham in focus:

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screen...22&position=16 


Here is another. Notice the girl close is blurred, but the guy through the window further away is detailed and sharp:

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screen...22&position=12 


If you are a member of BluRay.com you can also see them in 1080p, but again they don't do true justice.


For the record I am looking at screen caps and do my web surfing like at AVS on the same 60 inch I watch BD's on through my other source which is my HTPC. I get a really good idea what screen caps look like blown up that large, but even though I reference and use caps at times, they don't really do any BD true justice whether it be positive or negative.


There are many other pics there as well some might look better yet.


Then again looking at the second shot you provided, the girl and JS are more out of focus than the inspector. See that? I still have a copy in my possession and will watch again tonight and probably once more over the weekend. I will look for that shot in particular as it is at the very end and easy to find.


By the way, wait till you see the trailer for Crank 2 if you haven't already. It looks a lot like Crank and IMO still tier 0 demo worthy.


On my system Transporter 3 is a reference demo disc for both P and A. Some may not see it that way, like other titles we disagree on, which I maintain on my setup are demo material, but that is how it is.


I will be curious to see what people with big screens think of the PQ.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16038022
> 
> *Rush: Snakes and Arrows*
> 
> 
> I've been to _a lot_ of concerts over the years, and have seen some truly great bands/performers (including The Who, Pink Floyd, Paul McCartney, The Eagles, Dire Straits, Rod Stewart, Steely Dan, Steve Miller, Mellencamp, Jethro Tull, R.E.M., and more). One of the bands that I have never had the chance to see in concert that I would love to see is Rush. I'm a huge fan, so it doesn't make sense that I have not seen them in concert.
> 
> 
> So, needless to say I was really looking forward to enjoying this concert disc of this great band on Blu-ray.
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, I was very disappointed in the sound quality. Apparently, instead of recording the sound of Geddy Lee's voice through the board, it was recording coming out of the speakers. As a result, there is a lot of echo, and his voice is very "distant" and does not come across clearly at all. This makes you feel more like you are actually at the concert, but I didn't like it. I found it to be distracting to see close ups of Geddy singing, only to hear his voice with echo in the background.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for PQ, it was better than the sound, but it wasn't great. Lots of black crush, video noise in several scenes, and a lack of clarity that you should see in an HD video presentation. Then again, some shots did have a lot of detail in them and looked pretty good.
> 
> 
> It's a close call between 2.75 and 3.0, but I will go with:
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.75*



I have seen a lot of the bands you have live and probably have been to 50+ concerts since my teens, so I love live shows.


I have loved the BD concert discs I have gotten and listened to so far, namely EJ 60th @ MSG and Chriss Botti, John Mayer and the Police, but for me the sound quality is the primary focus on these BD's and with PQ I almost take a who cares approach as the sound is so good.


Is the Rush BD something you would recommend not buying due to the sound quality?


----------



## rsbeck

Transporter 3...

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screen...22&position=12 


This pic is a little disturbing -- notice the thin ringing around the guy and window frame?




A couple more stills from Transporter 3 with ringing everywhere....

http://www.hollywoodchicago.com/news...nition-nowhere


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/16039376
> 
> 
> Transporter 3...
> 
> http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screen...22&position=12
> 
> 
> This pic is a little disturbing -- notice the thin ringing around the guy and window frame?



I'm on my small CRT which isn't the most revealing of display devices, but if that is EE, it's a very innocuous application of it. I'd say its more likely to be an artifact of whatever downsampling algorithm they used to get the DI (which I'm guessing is 4K?) on the disc.


----------



## djoberg

I was just browsing through some trailers of upcoming movies on Rotten Tomatoes (on a new 24" HD computer monitor I just got) and I was VERY IMPRESSED with the trailer of "Public Enemies" (starring Johnny Depp and Christian Bale). It looks quite promising with amazing skin tones and facial close-ups, natural and vivid colors, deep blacks, strong contrast, etc., etc.


It comes to the big screen in July so I'm guessing we won't see it on Blu until fall, but it really had me wanting to see more! The movie itself looks like a winner too.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Let's try hard not to get judgemental of PQ's over screenshots. Wait til you see the movie!


djoberg - I'm looking forward to that film for sure!


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16039551
> 
> 
> Let's try hard not to get judgemental of PQ's over screenshots. Wait til you see the movie!
> 
> 
> djoberg - I'm looking forward to that film for sure!



bingo! because of the screen caps the BD itself has to look bad or even worse.










Although I referenced Bluray.com for a discussion in my post for recommendation for Transporter 3, I didn't link or suggest to anyone to look at screen caps, so talk to Rob about opening that can of worms.







I am a confused, because I thought it was agreed screen caps, while they give a general idea of how a BD looks, don't really give a true indication of the PQ and shouldn't be used to make claims for or against PQ.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16039609
> 
> 
> I didn't link or suggest to anyone to look at screen caps



Hmmmm... I could have sworn you posted a link to a screen cap and wrote...

_"the guy through the window further away is detailed and sharp."_


In this picture, the perception of sharpness is being created with thin ringing.


The picture in the screen shot is actually not detailed and sharp.


Let's hope this is NOT indicative of the way the blu-ray looks!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

but did you read any of the other content of his post?


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/16039628
> 
> 
> Hmmmm... I could have sworn you posted a link to a screen cap and wrote...
> 
> _"the guy through the window further away is detailed and sharp."_
> 
> 
> In this picture, the perception of sharpness is being created with thin ringing.
> 
> 
> The picture in the screen shot is actually not detailed and sharp.
> 
> 
> Let's hope this is NOT indicative of the way the blu-ray looks!



Wow you really keep yourself in check with posts by deleting them so as not to open yourself up to what ever. I suggest you slow down. I already have 2 other versions of this post I was quoting and then you changed them twice. For the record, which you have taken that quote of mine out of context and out of place, that post of mine with caps and what I said came AFTER Rob listed the screen caps he did. Look back. I am talking initially, in my initial post reviewing and recommending Transporter 3 was what I was referring to when I said I made no mention of nor did I link screen caps.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16039650
> 
> 
> but did you read any of the other content of his post?



Thank you! my post prior to this makes that point. I hate to accuse, but beck it is like you are playing dirty pool, but I am just chalking it up to misunderstanding my post.


----------



## rsbeck

I am only pointing out that the screen shot that was posted and called sharp and detailed does not look sharp and detailed to me.


If I missed your context, feel free to clarify.


I have no interest in playing gotcha.


I do have an interest in seeing that we all agree that a picture with ringing like the one posted does not look good.


Do you agree with that?


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16039657
> 
> 
> Wow you really keep yourself in check with posts by deleting them so as not to open yourself up to what ever.



I didn't think three versions of the same post to two different people was necessary -- feel free to post all three if you feel it will serve some point.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/16039683
> 
> 
> I am only pointing out that the screen shot that was posted and called sharp and detailed does not look sharp and detailed to me.
> 
> 
> If I missed your context, feel free to clarify.
> 
> 
> I have no interest in playing gotcha.
> 
> 
> I do have an interest in seeing that we all agree that a picture with ringing like the one posted does not look good.
> 
> 
> Do you agree with that?



You did miss my context and I already explained it please read back. That is what GGG was trying to point out.


I have no interest in agreeing with things that I don't see as in the screen caps, especially since I have watched the BD. I don't see the ringing. I am one of the fortunate few that does not and I only see it if I am two feet from my 60 in screen. That is what it took to see the ringing in TDK which means for me if it is blown up to an exaggerated point of view then I may see it, but since I never watch anything like that close it is a pointless venture. The only time I really noticed it really being obvious on a BD was Australia at the end scene. I am also fortunate at 47 years old to still have excellent eye sight, in fact better than 20/20 in one eye and I still don't see things some do.


As much as I would like at times to see everyone on board, I don't have an interest in seeing that everyone agrees or should agree on something like ringing when some don't see it.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16039102
> 
> 
> I have seen a lot of the bands you have live and probably have been to 50+ concerts since my teens, so I love live shows.
> 
> 
> I have loved the BD concert discs I have gotten and listened to so far, namely EJ 60th @ MSG and Chriss Botti, John Mayer and the Police, but for me the sound quality is the primary focus on these BD's and with PQ I almost take a who cares approach as the sound is so good.
> 
> 
> Is the Rush BD something you would recommend not buying due to the sound quality?



Personally, I would have to very much recommend _against_ buying the Rush Blu-ray because of the sound quality. I found it to be extremely annoying.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/16039589
> 
> 
> Always good advice -- but -- the screen shot was put forward as evidence of how good the blu-ray would look. Only fair to point out that this is not particularly strong evidence in favor of the blu-ray.



I didn't put the screen cap up as evidence of how good the BD looks and if that is what is seems I was doing I will correct that misinterpretation now by stating that was not my intent. I did make the claim that the girl was blurred and the other actor was sharp and detailed and I referenced Rob and bokeh so as to see what he thought of it. I know I am not going to change opinions so that was and is not my intent. I thought I said from the beginning that screen caps should not be used as an indicator of BD PQ, yet we seem to be debating like they are. I think I already know the answer is no and I could be wrong, but do you feel screen caps are a good indicator of BD PQ, especially from a site like that HollywoodChicago...?


----------



## rsbeck

Hugh --


Thanks for explaining, but I am not debating the blu-ray because I haven't seen it.


I am talking about the picture you posted.


In that picture, the ringing was very easy for me to spot.


It was the first thing I noticed and to me it is off-putting.


If the blu-ray looks like that, it will also be very easy for me to spot and if it is persistent, it will not be a good experience.


So, I will cross my fingers and hope the blu-ray does not look like those pictures.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16039771
> 
> 
> Personally, I would have to very much recommend _against_ buying the Rush Blu-ray because of the sound quality. I found it to be extremely annoying.




Thanks Rob, I will put my money into the Who or Dave and Tim or a ton of other concert titles that are bound to come out and drain my resources. I really am buying these mainly for sound being as good as it is and the PQ is just a bonus.


----------



## rsbeck

If you buy them for the sound -- you will love Dave and Tim!


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/16039817
> 
> 
> Hugh --
> 
> 
> Thanks for explaining, but I am not debating the blu-ray because I haven't seen it.
> 
> 
> I am talking about the picture you posted.
> 
> 
> In that picture, the ringing was very easy for me to spot.
> 
> 
> It was the first thing I noticed and to me it is off-putting.
> 
> 
> If the blu-ray looks like that, it will also be very easy for me to spot and if it is persistent, it will not be a good experience.
> 
> 
> So, I will cross my fingers and hope the blu-ray does not look like those pictures.



I hope for your viewing it isn't. Even though the acting is blah and the girl is a bit annoying (something isn't right when an attractive young lady is that annoying and it isn't her voice) it is a fun adrenalin ride if you are into it. That with great picture, I hope for you, and sound will have you engaged.


Now if we could have done this discussion on phone or in person, I will bet that we would not have gotten to the point we did and would have the discussion resolved in minutes. Oh well, the blessing and curse of internet blogs/threads/chat.











As far as Dave and Tim it is the one I have tried to get for weeks, but retail stores locally were and continue to be out. I might just have to break down and get it off Amazon and that will lead to getting more BD's to take advantage of free shipping.











That solo by Tim I think near the end is awesome. I have at least seen and heard it on HDnet, hence my wanting to buy it. Now if we can get these BD concert discs up to tier 1 PQ or tier 0 it will be nirvana. It must be the poor lighting causing the poor HD captures that seem to be out of focus or blurry at times? It seemed the EJ 60 @ MSG had some filter on because when it would get close facial shots or even shots of his hands detail was average to mediocre.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16039879
> 
> 
> Now if we could have done this discussion on phone or in person, I will bet that we would not have gotten to the point we did and would have the discussion resolved in minutes.



I'm glad you wrote that because I agree 100%.



> Quote:
> It must be the poor lighting causing the poor HD captures that seem to be out of focus or blurry at times?



I don't think it was lit well for long or medium shots, but they included a bunch of them anyway and I agree with you -- soft.



> Quote:
> It seemed the EJ 60 @ MSG had some filter on because when it would get close facial shots or even shots of his hands detail was average to mediocre.



Probably did that in post production. Some sort of Doris Day filter. Clearly, Elton did not want us to see his pores, wrinkles and imperfections because -- I agree -- the detail is gone.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/16039900
> 
> 
> I'm glad you wrote that because I agree 100%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it was lit well for long or medium shots, but they included a bunch of them anyway and I agree with you -- soft.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably did that in post production. Some sort of Doris Day filter. Clearly, Elton did not want us to see his pores, wrinkles and imperfections because -- I agree -- the detail is gone.



EJ does seem that vain, oh the vanity.










I love his music, but there is something about him, like a chip...like he could be a real ass if he wanted. It had to be that video I saw a few years back. I think it was him at an airport and getting pissy. It maybe nothing more than a normal person would do. You should see me at times with bureaucracy like at airports and the TSA especially in NY they are jerks.


I was wondering how an HD camera that focuses at what seems like inches from someone's hand could have that poor detail. Truly I am a naturalist/realist. What ever it is it is. I would rather see brown spots, worts, yuck and worse if it means we have detail like we are there feet or inches away. I want the "like being there feeling" as much as possible especially for something like a live performance. Screw the filters especially when trying to capture live realistic events. Even though the PQ is average, *I would guess on your screen size and with your setup you could get really close to live concert immersion.*


We need or rather I would like to talk to you more. I looked at your setup again and noticed you are definitely an audiophile with that listening room. I will PM you over the weekend about some audio questions, SACD, PS3, etc.


----------



## rsbeck

With Dave and Tim, the sound is so good, it actually took me a few viewings before I noticed, "you know, the picture isn't really that good."


I will look forward to your PM.


----------



## A/Vspec

I can not find 1408 in the list?


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Let The Right One In*


When I do these reviews, I almost always start off by reviewing the picture quality, which makes sense since this is a picture quality thread, right?







Then I will often add a couple of sentences regarding the quality of the movie itself.


Well, I am going to have to make an exception here, because the quality of this movie is exceptional! Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this is a SWEDISH VAMPIRE MOVIE that should be watched with subtitles. When someone recommended this to me, I thought it sounded a bit silly. I mean, how could a Swedish vampire movie be any good?


I am here to tell you that in my opinion this is one of the best vampire movies I have ever seen! The script is excellent, with performances to match. Very, very well done. This movie gets my highest recommendation, even if you are not a particular fan of the vampire genre. A must see movie!


With that out of the way, on to the PQ. This is a very difficult title to rate on the Tier scale. The PQ varies quite a bit. It should be noted that selective focus/shallow depth of field is used judiciously throughout this movie. I loved the cinematography, but obviously it will result in a lot of the frame being out of focus. The contrast varied a lot throughout, and some scenes would look quite soft. Yet, in other portions, the contrast was good, and detail and clarity were very good as well.


Colors were perfectly complimentary to the subject matter. Very cold overall, and usually somewhat monochromatic.


I did notice some artifacts in a few scenes, but they did not occur throughout the film.


A pretty good looking title overall, resulting in an overall enjoyable experience.


A quick note about the sound quality: it's actually very good with regard to the use of bass! Deep, strong and hard hitting bass is used to perfection in several scenes. The bass was strong enough to rattle my entire room.


GET THIS MOVIE!!!

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16041328
> 
> *Let The Right One In*
> 
> 
> When I do these reviews, I almost always start off by reviewing the picture quality, which makes sense since this is a picture quality thread, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then I will often add a couple of sentences regarding the quality of the movie itself.
> 
> 
> Well, I am going to have to make an exception here, because the quality of this movie is exceptional! Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this is a SWEDISH VAMPIRE MOVIE that should be watched with subtitles. When someone recommended this to me, I thought it sounded a bit silly. I mean, how could a Swedish vampire movie be any good?
> 
> 
> I am here to tell you that in my opinion this is one of the best vampire movies I have ever seen! The script is excellent, with performances to match. Very, very well done. This movie gets my highest recommendation, even if you are not a particular fan of the vampire genre. A must see movie!
> 
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.25*



Rob - I remember a while back you mentioned you did not like Vampire movies... After I saw it, I was going to recommend this to you as "something to change your mind", but looks like you did that on your own. Very good movie.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/16041356
> 
> 
> Rob - I remember a while back you mentioned you did not like Vampire movies... After I saw it, I was going to recommend this to you as "something to change your mind", but looks like you did that on your own. Very good movie.



You obviously were spot on correct!


This is why I specifically say in my review that I can recommend this even if you are not a fan of the vampire genre. Unless you actually _despise_ the genre, I think the chances of enjoying this film are extremely high for any film lover.


Stumlad, did you do a review of this film? I couldn't find it.


----------



## OldCodger73

Even though I don't care for vampire movies or books, with the exception of the Thurlo's Lee Nez series, _Let the Right One In_ sounds interesting and I've added it to my Netflix queue. That movie is going to totally freak SWMBO out.


----------



## rsbeck

My copy is on the way, but it will take a week or so. Looking forward to it.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/16041356
> 
> 
> Rob - I remember a while back you mentioned you did not like Vampire movies... After I saw it, I was going to recommend this to you as "something to change your mind", but looks like you did that on your own. Very good movie.



One doesn't need to "change my mind," for I've always been a fan of the vampire genre. But I'm always looking for a new *twist* and Let The Right One In sounds like it will do just that. 30 Days of Night was also quite different; I really enjoyed that and the PQ was exceptional as well.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

^ I did enjoy 30 Days of Night as well, but not nearly as much as Let The Right One In.


I should probably stop talking about it now. High expectations can only lead to disappointment. I didn't have high expectations going in. How could I? A SWEDISH VAMPIRE MOVIE!? Are you serious?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Pinocchio*

*recommendation: Tier 1.5
*

Another classic Disney animated movie came to Blu-ray this week on March 10th. Originally premiering in 1940, the 87-minute main feature is encoded in AVC on a BD-50. The BDInfo scan reveals the average video bitrate to be 28.42 Mbps. The video encode ranges from 18.2 Mbps to frequent peaks topping 43 Mbps.


The compression work on this disc looks immaculate. I was so astonished at its transparency that I watched a few scenes from a viewing distance of two feet to try and catch any hint of artifacting. There simply were no visible artifacts, even at that close of a range. A marvelous encode that is one of the best I have ever watched. Banding sometimes becomes a problem in animation but it is completely absent here. If only every movie could be handled so effectively on Blu-ray.


Once again Disney has done wonders with the restoration of the original film. The master used in transferring this film to Blu-ray is in incredible shape for a film of this vintage. The original art cels look vibrant without the color instability of previous home video issues. Edge enhancement is not used to any degree. It goes without saying there is no visible damage to the master, with no curious anomalies or debris to mar the image. The image is free of grain, which leads to the conclusion some filtering has occurred at some level. Traditional cel animation might be the exception where the original art cels are available as reference, where extensive use of digital noise reduction is acceptable. We are seeing what the original animators and artists saw as they drew the artwork.


The animation style used is cruder and less detailed than what was seen in _Sleeping Beauty_. While the animation was state of the art in 1940, it is not comparable to later Disney efforts. Backgrounds in particular are less opulent with a lack of the intricate design seen in the best traditionally animated material. The clarity of the BD does allow one to see the individual brush strokes of the animators in certain scenes. Color rendition is great compared to prior editions of this movie, but comes off a little poorer in comparison to the best animated work. Colors are stable with primary colors looking nicely saturated.


The hand-drawn line art comes off as crisp and bold. The fluidity of motion in the characters is nice but not spectacular. The image has some depth at times but definitely does not jump off the screen. Main-character design is a little more simplistic than later Disney movies. The complexity of some of the background art does lack the immense amount of detail seen in _Sleeping Beauty_ for example. There is some momentary softness when the camera zooms in for establishing shots.


Technically, this transfer and restoration might be even better than the excellent job Disney performed on _Sleeping Beauty_. But the limitations of the source material and the quality of the animation limit its potential placement. My recommendation is for placement in tier 1.5, though tier 1.75 is not out of the question. The transfer is still a great visual experience and it really can not be understated that this is a must-purchase title in my opinion. Disney is setting new standards of excellence with this release in terms of faithfulness to the original source material. No one has to worry about a better looking version of Pinocchio ever coming to Blu-ray, as this disc is it.


Watching on a 60” Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 (firmware 2.60) from a viewing distance of six feet and closer.


BDInfo Scan (courtesy of eric.exe):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post15955435


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Very nice Rob, I have had that in my Netflix queue for a while now and will bump it up closer to the top.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

I've officially hung out with you guys too long. I'm watching a hockey game on my TV, and they've added horrifying EDGE ENHANCEMENT to the game. Whaaaat??? yeah. Their hockey sticks are glowing, and the ringing around them is terrible.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16041654
> 
> 
> You obviously were spot on correct!
> 
> 
> This is why I specifically say in my review that I can recommend this even if you are not a fan of the vampire genre. Unless you actually _despise_ the genre, I think the chances of enjoying this film are extremely high for any film lover.
> 
> 
> Stumlad, did you do a review of this film? I couldn't find it.


 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1#post16023231 


I'm sure this is a hard movie to search for reviews since every word in the title is a common one syllable word.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16029088
> 
> *The Princess Bride*
> 
> 
> First off, I need to state that this film is one of my absolute favourites.



I haven't seen this movie yet (saw pieces when I was a kid), but some people have compared it to Stardust... have you seen that?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/16043434
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1#post16023231
> 
> 
> I'm sure this is a hard movie to search for reviews since every word in the title is a common one syllable word.



Thanks. I searched two times and came up with "no results found" both times. That sucks.


We are very close on our recommended placement. If anything, Tier 2.5 might be more appropriate than my 2.25, but let's see what others think.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/16043671
> 
> 
> I haven't seen this movie yet (saw pieces when I was a kid), but some people have compared it to Stardust... have you seen that?



I've seen Stardust once, I haven't read the book. I don't know that I'd really be able compare the two, but I did enjoy Stardust. The Princess Bride is a witty tale about True Love. It's based on the book, and the screenplay is written by the same author of the book, so the essence (while the book is superior) is still captured. I wouldn't call it perfect, but it definitely would be considered amongst my favourite films of all time. Then again, so is Pulp Fiction.


----------



## rsbeck

*Lakeview Terrace*


Very fine grain apparent throughout, thin ringing noted on a few edges. Lakeview is a proficiently lit and shot dialogue driven escalating next door neighbor/stalker drama. Focus is mostly sharp, contrast and black levels are mostly excellent, colors are pleasing. IMO, there is one aspect of this title that rises above the average; title has been lit and shot to show very nice facial detail. Though the actors tend to have smooth faces (Samual Jackson seems to have an improved complexion since making Black Snake Moan), in a number of shots, texture is well resolved, some imperfections evident, whiskers and stubble are sharp -- very natural looking.

*Recommendation: Tier 2.25*


Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From 126" Screen



.


----------



## Hughmc

rob, I just picked up Let the Right One In and looking forward to it not just based on your review, as it is encouraging especially since you aren't a fan of the genre, but the fact you also mentioned in the other thread 97% at RT. WOW!



When I mentioned LTROI to the teenage clerk at Hollywood, his first comment was, "but it only has subtitles"...I laughed to myself. He is a good guy and we BS about games, but being a bit under the weather I just didn't have it in me to get into a lecture about the beauty of learning a bit of another language and more importantly, how much better and accurate it is to watch a film in its native language. Oh well. Maybe in 20 years.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16045114
> 
> 
> rob, I just picked up Let the Right One In and looking forward to it not just based on your review, as it is encouraging especially since you aren't a fan of the genre, but the fact you also mentioned in the other thread 97% at RT. WOW!
> 
> 
> 
> When I mentioned LTROI to the teenage clerk at Hollywood, his first comment was, "but it only has subtitles"...I laughed to myself. He is a good guy and we BS about games, but being a bit under the weather I just didn't have it in me to get into a lecture about the beauty of learning a bit of another language and more importantly, how much better and accurate it is to watch a film in its native language. Oh well. Maybe in 20 years.



I wasn't going to mention the 97% rating at Rotten Tomatoes here because I've already built it up too much. Like I said, high expectations can be a real curse. I was very lucky: I did not have high expectations at all. I did not know about all of these amazing reviews, and super high rating at Rotten Tomatoes, and I am glad that I didn't.


After watching the movie on my own terms, and thinking it was amazing, I have to admit that I am very happy to see that so many people and film critics agree!










Just be warned: it is very deliberately paced.


By the way, as far as subtitles, you do have the option of English dubs, but I would personally never watch it that way.


----------



## 42041

*Zack And Miri Make A Porno*

This is a dialogue driven comedy with subdued visuals, that looks as good as it should. I'd put this about on par with Ghost Town, it has many of the same qualities, like a nice clean transfer without any major issues (except the occasionally crushed blacks), and a good level of fine detail, but not really much to get excited over visually. Frankly I was barely paying attention to the PQ. Some of the scenes are filmed in SD video. This review is very short because there really isn't much to say except that it looks good for what it is.
*Tier 2.0*

(PS3/Pioneer 50" Kuro Elite plasma/1.5sw away)


----------



## rsbeck

"Those who live in glass houses....sink ships."

*Boondock Saints*


Grain apparent, persistent ringing and some print damage noted. Saints is a competently lit and shot off-beat action film made on a shoe-string budget. Given the quirky nature, intention, and budget, IMO, what we have here looks fine.


Though certainly not a high def showcase, Saints is generally sharp and there _are_ some scenes with very good facial detail, some with well resolved surface texture, some with very good light and contrast. Follicle detail, color saturation and skin tones are generally pleasing. Given the limitations inherent in the source material, PQ gets the job done. Aside from some ringing and print damage, fans should be relatively satisfied with Boondock on blu-ray.

*Recommendation: Tier 3.0*


Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From 126" Screen


----------



## djoberg

*Dr. No*


I finally got my copies of Dr. No and From Russia With Love! I have to agree with others who praised the restoration of Dr. No. For a title from the early 60s it looks VERY GOOD!


I won't go into a lot of detail on this one, but I was most impressed with the natural colors, the skin tones, and the facial close-ups. You will surely enjoy the close-up of Sean Connery when he's being attacked by the black widow spider....you'll see every sweat bead and pore, and as it moves up his arm every hair and texture of skin is seen. Other scenes are equally impressive, but this is the first one that really grabbed me.


There was a thin layer of grain throughout the movie and it never hindered detail, but rather gave it that nice film quality from that era.


The only real negatives were some slight ringing around clothing in a few scenes, some crushed blacks, and several shots that were on the soft side.


All things considered, this is NOT what I would call "demo-worthy" (though there were a few scenes that easily fit into Tier 1, and one or two Tier 0 shots), but it's above average so I nominate it for:

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*


Samsung 50" 1080p DLP....Panasonic BD30....viewed from 6'


----------



## rsbeck

*Tekkonkinkreet*


Surfing around the thread, ran into a mention of this title...



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bokchoy* /forum/post/14821609
> 
> *I still think TekkonKinkreet does not deserve Tier 0. Low T1 or High T2 at most.*


 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...9#post14821609


----------



## rsbeck

"Five hundred twenty-five thousand six hundred minutes...."

*Rent: Filmed Live on Broadway*


Shot on HD video, recurrent faint video noise noted. Live has been artfully shot to put you up close in the Nederlander Theater to watch the Broadway cast perform the final NY performance of Rent. PQ is only average from a high def demo standpoint, but this is an effective recording of the stage production. Lighting favors theater performance so contrast and blacks are not the most satisfying you'll find and there is not much in the way of fine detail, but this makes for a more faithful reproduction of the theatrical experience. Picture is reasonably sharp, colors pleasing, and you get the best seat in the house, meaning right up on stage. Side note: Audio track is also very satisfying, lyrics are very easy to distinguish and music is reproduced beautifully. Aside from some faint video noise, I think fans of the production will be very happy to have Rent: Filmed Live on Blu-ray.

*Recommendation: Tier 3.25*


Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From 126" Screen


----------



## shponglefan

Any chance the OP can use some darker fonts. A couple of those (particularly the gray) barely show up on my monitors.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16049386
> 
> *Dr. No*
> 
> 
> I finally got my copies of Dr. No and From Russia With Love! I have to agree with others who praised the restoration of Dr. No. For a title from the early 60s it looks VERY GOOD!
> 
> 
> I won't go into a lot of detail on this one, but I was most impressed with the natural colors, the skin tones, and the facial close-ups. You will surely enjoy the close-up of Sean Connery when he's being attacked by the black widow spider....you'll see every sweat bead and pore, and as it moves up his arm every hair and texture of skin is seen. Other scenes are equally impressive, but this is the first one that really grabbed me.
> 
> 
> There was a thin layer of grain throughout the movie and it never hindered detail, but rather gave it that nice film quality from that era.
> 
> 
> The only real negatives were some slight ringing around clothing in a few scenes, some crushed blacks, and several shots that were on the soft side.
> 
> 
> All things considered, this is NOT what I would call "demo-worthy" (though there were a few scenes that easily fit into Tier 1, and one or two Tier 0 shots), but it's above average so I nominate it for:
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.25*
> 
> 
> Samsung 50" 1080p DLP....Panasonic BD30....viewed from 6'



Good review... I think I voted 2.5, but overall agree with your review. I thought From Russia was a small step down, but I'd like to read your take on that. I think Hugh thought it was a step up... I'm waiting for Goldfinger so I can continue watching the series.


----------



## TayC

*Pinocchio*


This is one of the finest presentations of animation that I have seen on Blu-Ray. It's absolutely pristine. Not an ounce of dirt and grain is very minimal, yet the picture retains a very sharp and detailed look throughout. Colors and contrast didn't waver throughout the presentation and were appropriate for every scene. Blacks weren't _quite_ as deep as I like to see, but still good. Still, I think the picture has a lot more depth than Sleeping Beauty, which looked rather flat to me. This is mostly due to the techniques they used during filming that created a realistic depth of field, and it looks pleasing to the eye on BD.


In my opinion, there's only one thing that keeps Pinocchio from Tier 0 and it's the scene where the Coachman is transporting the children to Pleasure Island. The image suddenly appears flatter and the colors looked 'smudged.' I don't know how else to describe it. It's as if the characters suddenly lost their edges and started to look more like South Park cut-out characters, but more blurry. The issue is not as extreme as I've described it, but it was enough of a problem for it to jump out at me and keep the title from Blu ranking.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0
*

Panasonic 42PX80u, 5 feet


----------



## TayC

*Grand Canyon Adventure - River at Risk*

This was a 3D IMAX feature and was given an 8k scan for this BD release. All I can say is... WOW. The depth is absolutely phenomenal. The helicopter shots are superb; as the camera is guiding through the canyon, you _really_ do feel like you are there. Oh, and while you're flying through the air, feel free to count the pebbles on the ground and ripples on the water. The image is _that_ detailed. No exaggeration.


You won't be stunned with literally every shot, but there are a ton of scenes that will make you wonder if what you're looking at is really there in front of you. Despite being presented in 2D, some of the shots that were originally designed to pop out in 3D still retain that effect. Maybe the only negative with this transfer is that there aren't a ton of fine details in faces, but the photography doesn't really set out to achieve that. Other positives? No EE, no DNR, no jaggies. You might argue about the eye candy, but in terms of a transfer and encode, this appears to be absolutely perfect.


BTW, I think this release proves that there may be a great benefit to scanning 70mm at 8k. I know people were concerned after viewing Baraka.

*Tier Recommendation: 0 (top, below Kung Fu Panda)*


Panasonic 42PX80u, 5 feet


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TayC* /forum/post/16055404
> 
> 
> The depth is absolutely phenomenal.



And you were watching in 2D!


----------



## mpgxsvcd

Based solely on this review my guess is that Bolt will be the new number 1 for PQ and AQ. I still think Baraka should take the number 1 PQ spot and Divertimenti clearly deserves the number 1 AQ spot.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...3#post16036293


----------



## TayC

*Baraka
*

A little disappointing. For a 70mm release scanned at 8k, I figured this would be among the best PQ I've seen. Don't get me wrong, it's highly detailed, has a lot of depth, beautiful colors... but the ringing was noticeable for me.


To a degree, I could actually ignore the ringing on this one because it's thin. For some reason, there were _persistent_ jagged edges that especially popped up in wide angle shots. Everything looked way too sharp, giving an artificial effect at times. I have never experienced this problem on any other disc, so I don't think it was my display. In fact, in my review of Grand Canyon I didn't see this problem _at all_. The problem enough to knock it down a lot for me, despite its strengths, and after seeing Grand Canyon, it deserves a lower spot.

*Tier Recommendation: Bottom of 0, possibly 1*


Panasonic 42PX80u, 5 feet


----------



## mpgxsvcd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TayC* /forum/post/16055488
> 
> *Baraka
> *
> 
> A little disappointing. For a 70mm release scanned at 8k, I figured this would be among the best PQ I've seen. Don't get me wrong, it's highly detailed, has a lot of depth, beautiful colors... but the ringing was noticeable for me.
> 
> 
> To a degree, I could actually ignore the ringing on this one because it's thin. For some reason, there were _persistent_ jagged edges that especially popped up in wide angle shots. Everything looked way too sharp, giving an artificial effect at times. I have never experienced this problem on any other disc, so I don't think it was my display. In fact, in my review of Grand Canyon I didn't see this problem _at all_. The problem enough to knock it down a lot for me, despite its strengths, and after seeing Grand Canyon, it deserves a lower spot.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Bottom of 0, possibly 1*
> 
> 
> Panasonic 42PX80u, 5 feet



Dude back away from the TV! At 5 feet are you sure that wasn't your brain that was ringing from all of the microwaves?


----------



## TayC




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mpgxsvcd* /forum/post/16055501
> 
> 
> Dude back away from the TV! At 5 feet are you sure that wasn't your brain that was ringing from all of the microwaves?



I actually switched between 5 to 9 feet during watching this to see if it would go away. It really didn't.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mpgxsvcd* /forum/post/16055501
> 
> 
> Dude back away from the TV! At 5 feet are you sure that wasn't your brain that was ringing from all of the microwaves?



That's a 42" set. He's actually right in the pocket for it or, if anything, just a little too far away.


----------



## jrcorwin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mpgxsvcd* /forum/post/16055484
> 
> 
> Based solely on this review my guess is that Bolt will be the new number 1 for PQ and AQ. I still think Baraka should take the number 1 PQ spot and Divertimenti clearly deserves the number 1 AQ spot.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...3#post16036293



I don't have the time right now to go into great detail, but I wasn't that impressed with Bolt. It was good, but I would still rank Ratatouille, Cars, Kung Fu Panda, and Meet The Robinsons above it.


I wasn't disappointed. I don't mean to imply that. I just wasn't blown away.


----------



## TayC




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/16055544
> 
> 
> That's a 42" set. He's actually right in the pocket for it or, if anything, just a little too far away.



Yeah, I was going to mention that too. I've found that if I sit that close it feels just about right.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TayC* /forum/post/16055824
> 
> 
> Yeah, I was going to mention that too. I've found that if I sit that close it feels just about right.



I agree with the comment that five feet is a bit too far away for that screen size.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/16055867
> 
> 
> I agree with the comment that five feet is a bit too far away for that screen size.



Wait... you agree with _me_?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/16055880
> 
> 
> Wait... you agree with _me_?



Hard to believe, I know.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TayC* /forum/post/16055824
> 
> 
> Yeah, I was going to mention that too. I've found that if I sit that close it feels just about right.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/16055867
> 
> 
> I agree with the comment that five feet is a bit too far away for that screen size.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/16055880
> 
> 
> Wait... you agree with _me_?





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/16055958
> 
> 
> Hard to believe, I know.



























*faints*


----------



## stigdu

You Americans sit far too close to your TVs if you think 5 feet is too far away for watching a movie on a 42" screen.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stigdu* /forum/post/16056351
> 
> 
> You Americans sit far too close to your TVs if you think 5 feet is too far away for watching a movie on a 42" screen.



It is all about immersion, but I agree with you they do!














I am not sold on the idea that some claim BD was made for projectors with really big screens. A while back I remember reading a comment by one AVS forum member who said compared to his Front projector his 46 in LCD made every Blu Ray look good. While I think that maybe a bit of an exaggeration it could be that in comparison to his 46 in LCD his Front projector makes every BD look worse.







It depends on perspective.


At too close a distance, people are seeing things that have more to do with inherent faults of new tv technologies combined with some issues on BD's that are then exacerbated by sitting too close. If I have to get within two feet of my 60 in display to see ringing like some describe in TDK and that is with still shots, not in motion, that is in itself wrong.


And that leads me to a warning or heads up for those seeing potential or actual ringing in Transporter 3. I watched it again last night for the third time. Those captures from the Hollywood Chicago were of scenes that were in movement, very fast movement, especially where Stratham is surrounded, so I don't see how a screen cap can do it justice. Also I was noticing what I think some might call ringing in one scene. It was a garage and all the actors are wearing black jackets and the walls and backgrounds behind them are brightly lit and or white. I think it is done intentionally to make the actors stand out more as in artistic choice, but I don't believe it is actually ringing. The other cap I linked looking through the car window lasts about two seconds or less and I believe the same issue occurs with his black jacket against the bright white background makes it really stand out and "edgy". This is done many times in the movie and it seems to be high contrast used to delineate objects in greater detail or pop. I could be wrong though and some with projectors or others who sit close might say it is ringing.










Disclosure: As most in this thread already know, I don't see ringing as apparent as others unless it is a worse case scenario, so that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it just means I don't see it.


----------



## rsbeck

THX recommends 4 -6 feet away from a 40" display.

http://www.thx.com/home/setup/display.html 


SMPTE does not have a non-paid site, but between THX and SMPTE, it is very common to see recommendations of 1.5 X Screen Width for 1080 displays.


In our guidelines for tier 0, it says...

*Blu-ray titles in this tier consistently offer reference level high-definition picture quality that continues to impress both at viewing distances approximately 1.5 screen widths from the display and on larger projection screens over 100”.*


I sit approximately 1.5 X Screen Width.


Ringing may be easier to see from closer viewing distances and on larger displays and screens, but if there is ringing, it is often a sign that the title has been processed to give the perception of sharpness.


This can fool an inexperienced viewer.


An experienced viewer will usually pick up on the processed look and will actually experience the picture as soft -- because the edges are soft.


Some people with sharp eyes may not even spot the ringing or halos, but will still perceive that something is wrong.


In those cases, it may be necessary to get closer to one's set or to pause the image in order to gather evidence to see what might be causing the image to appear bothersome.


Ringing is not necessarily less obtrusive when it is thin rather than thick.


The size, thickness, and persistence of ringing or halos is determined by the type of processing employed. Those who do the processing have many parameters from which to choose. Some produce thin ringing, others produce thicker halos.


IMO, ringing is also getting harder to detect as the processing gets more sophisticated, but the effect can still be annoying.


IMO, since we usually will have no idea what is causing the ringing, all we can do is judge the picture quality.


If the ringing is causing the image to appear unnaturally sharp at first glance, but soft around the edges upon closer inspection, that is bothersome.


Sometimes, you might even notice sort of a "diorama" effect as objects and people can look both flat and 3D at the same time.


Finally, sometimes you will see ringing on a high contrast edge, sometimes it is due to edge enhancement, other times not.


I like to make distinctions between ringing that is;


Incidental -- you might see it a few times if you look hard, but nothing else is bothersome.


Persistent -- you keep seeing it and you don't have to look very hard.


Intrusive -- you can't help seeing it even if you aren't looking.


I'm tolerant of incidental ringing. Watching at 126" it is very rare that a title does not contain ringing on at least a few high contrast edges.


The other two are judgment calls and need to be assessed on a title by title basis.


I find it easier to relax into a film if grain and detail appear intact and I do not see halos or ringing.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16056675
> 
> 
> This is done many times in the movie and it seems to be high contrast used to delineate objects in greater detail or pop. I could be wrong though and some with projectors or others who sit close might say it is ringing.



If it is used intentionally to increase the perception of sharpness and make things pop, then that describes Edge Enhancement.


My understanding is that what I call "incidental ringing" is unintentional and that's why you might see it a few times in a film that has not been subjected to Edge Enhancement.


----------



## Hughmc

Good stuff rsbeck thanks for the info. The only point I would like to make is when you said:


"Some people with sharp eyes may not even spot the ringing or halos, but will still perceive that something is wrong. In those cases, it may be necessary to get closer to one's set or to pause the image in order to gather evidence to see what might be causing the image to appear bothersome."


While I agree they notice something is wrong, like I did with the end of Australia, getting close to the screen or stopping the picture may let them better see what they weren't seeing in motion, but IMO the picture should NOT be judged on the *still screen or unrealistic exaggerated closeness* of the viewer. It is more than understandable if they are seeing something wrong in motion, but cannot readily identify it, but if they have to stop and it they realize what it is, IMO again they should judge on the movement of the BD, not the stills or getting closer to the screen. Does that makes sense?


----------



## panzeroceania

*INTO THE WILD*


I Recently watched this film on my new home theater setup and was impressed. The film was shot on location around the western United States, Mexico, and Alaska across each location that the protagonist traversed and the large vistas are absolutely stunning. The soundtrack is also well done and the whole film is very well done.

*RECOMMENDATION: TIER 0*


----------



## rsbeck

Another point I should add -- just because one may have to pause the picture or get closer to the screen to verify the ringing, doesn't mean that the ringing is not bothersome from further away or in motion. If it is edge enhancement, it can still cause visual problems even though you cannot identify the specific halo or ringing. Viewers can be bothered by visuals that are too sharp or have too much pop.


Not all perceived sharpness and pop is created equal.


There can be good pop and bad pop.


Pleasingly sharp and unnaturally sharp.


There are also other ways to increase the perception of sharpness.


Like, bumping up the contrast and then tweaking the color timing to keep the colors saturated.


Lately, I have been seeing a tricked up look with hot contrast accompanied by what I am guessing is edge enhancement due to the ringing -- and this, IMO, can produce a bright "torch mode" picture with lots of perceived sharpness and pop, but to my eyes can be a pretty nasty digital look.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16057052
> 
> 
> IMO again they should judge on the movement of the BD, not the stills or getting closer to the screen. Does that makes sense?



Makes sense to me, but this can be a chicken and egg thing and only our hairdressers know for sure.


Did you go looking for the problem or did the problem find you?


Know what I mean?


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Hugh, I'm jealous that you don't see the ringing/ee. I've simply got to have extremely sensitive eyes, because I do not seek to find it when I watch tv. It's showing up EVERYWHERE for me lately and I hate it. I've never pointed it out to my husband b/c I know he'd finally notice it and want to kill me for ruining the experience, or just think I'm crazy b/c he can't see what I'm talking about. I'm having issue with phosphor trail during hockey games now on top of it. Damn my sensitive eyes! Even if I take off my geeky glasses I can see both the EE & hockey-related phosphor trail!!


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/16057004
> 
> 
> If it is used intentionally to increase the perception of sharpness and make things pop, then that describes Edge Enhancement.
> 
> 
> My understanding is that what I call "incidental ringing" is unintentional and that's why you might see it a few times in a film that has not been subjected to Edge Enhancement.



I was referring to black jackets against white or bright backgrounds in an of themselves giving that appearance, and without knowing of course, but I am saying that is the potential cause not post processing or EE. Director's intent of dark objects against a white background.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TayC* /forum/post/16055404
> 
> *Grand Canyon Adventure - River at Risk*
> 
> This was a 3D IMAX feature and was given an 8k scan for this BD release. All I can say is... WOW. The depth is absolutely phenomenal. The helicopter shots are superb; as the camera is guiding through the canyon, you _really_ do feel like you are there. Oh, and while you're flying through the air, feel free to count the pebbles on the ground and ripples on the water. The image is _that_ detailed. No exaggeration.
> 
> 
> You won't be stunned with literally every shot, but there are a ton of scenes that will make you wonder if what you're looking at is really there in front of you. Despite being presented in 2D, some of the shots that were originally designed to pop out in 3D still retain that effect. Maybe the only negative with this transfer is that there aren't a ton of fine details in faces, but the photography doesn't really set out to achieve that. Other positives? No EE, no DNR, no jaggies. You might argue about the eye candy, but in terms of a transfer and encode, this appears to be absolutely perfect.
> 
> 
> BTW, I think this release proves that there may be a great benefit to scanning 70mm at 8k. I know people were concerned after viewing Baraka.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 0 (top, below Kung Fu Panda)*
> 
> 
> Panasonic 42PX80u, 5 feet



I watched this a couple of days ago, and I am having a real hard time trying to decide where to place it.


There is no question that some scenes were worthy of Tier 0, but as you say, you will not be impressed from beginning to end, and this is where the difficulty in placing the title comes in to play.


Many shots were with a very wide angle lens, resulting in distortion. Other shots involve rapid action, such as on the River, resulting in a very immersive experience, but not tons of detail.


The movie is only about 40 minutes long. Although there are some very cool looking shots in this movie, I personally didn't care for the political nature of the message. Being in love with Lake Powell, listening to them discuss the possibility of tearing down the dam, resulting in the disappearance of Lake Powell, didn't exactly have the effect of getting me to support their message.


Anyway, still trying to decide whether this is a Tier 0 or 1.0.


----------



## TayC




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16057207
> 
> 
> I watched this a couple of days ago, and I am having a real hard time trying to decide where to place it.
> 
> 
> There is no question that some scenes were worthy of Tier 0, but as you say, you will not be impressed from beginning to end, and this is where the difficulty in placing the title comes in to play.
> 
> 
> Many shots were with a very wide angle lens, resulting in distortion. Other shots involve rapid action, such as on the River, resulting in a very immersive experience, but not tons of detail.
> 
> 
> The movie is only about 40 minutes long. Although there are some very cool looking shots in this movie, I personally didn't care for the political nature of the message. Being in love with Lake Powell, listening to them discuss the possibility of tearing down the dam, resulting in the disappearance of Lake Powell, didn't exactly have the effect of getting me to support their message.
> 
> 
> Anyway, still trying to decide whether this is a Tier 0 or 1.0.



You have a very good argument. There is some inconsistency, but to me it's not nearly as bad as the inconsistency in Crank, which was once Tier 0 I believe. This release completely blows away Crank in my opinion, even considering its short length.


I didn't enjoy the movie, though... In fact I hated it. It doesn't pull you in like a good documentary should.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TayC* /forum/post/16057258
> 
> 
> to me it's not nearly as bad as the inconsistency in Crank



IMO, this is not high praise.


I'd rather we lower Crank than use it as a benchmark.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TayC* /forum/post/16057258
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> I didn't enjoy the movie, though... In fact I hated it. It doesn't pull you in like a good documentary should.



We are certainly in agreement there!


I'm looking forward to others opinions on this title.


----------



## rsbeck

*Monsters Ball*


Grain apparent at times, persistent ringing and some print damage speckles noted. Ball is a somber meditation on loss lit and shot to make an emotional connection. Title favors natural lighting, but is usually sharp. Folicle detail is generally very good as it is easy to discern single strands of head hair, eyebrow and stubble and in a handful of shots, faces down to the pores and imperfections. Colors are muted in keeping with mood, but are generally pleasing and nicely saturated. There are a few shots here and there employing artful light and shadow where surface detail is well exhibited. Aside from the ringing, which is hard to miss, most of the limitations and in the source material. There are some very nice shots scattered here and there, but this is one where the PQ is geared to and works to support the story.

*Recommendation: Tier 3.25*


Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From 126" Screen


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16057182
> 
> 
> Hugh, I'm jealous that you don't see the ringing/ee. I've simply got to have extremely sensitive eyes, because I do not seek to find it when I watch tv. It's showing up EVERYWHERE for me lately and I hate it. I've never pointed it out to my husband b/c I know he'd finally notice it and want to kill me for ruining the experience, or just think I'm crazy b/c he can't see what I'm talking about. I'm having issue with phosphor trail during hockey games now on top of it. Damn my sensitive eyes! Even if I take off my geeky glasses I can see both the EE & hockey-related phosphor trail!!



I am a hockey nut I play both ice and roller in fact I have an ice game later tonight.







I have the Center Ice HD package. It is a good way to spend time in the winter since I do landscaping.







The EE you are seeing in hockey I believe is not the same EE as you would in a movie in fact I think you are talking about something different. What I believe you are describing is artifacting/mosquito noise/ringing around images due to poor resolving of the HD signal whether by your display which is the least likely cause or the most likely cause which is compression of the signal and not enough bandwidth from the service provider and or other issues in the chain from start to finish. In this case EE is not used and shouldn't be, but then we see those nasty unresolved halos around players, sticks, etc. It will be even more glaring on an HDTV with SD programming. If you have HD hockey which I would be almost certain you do up there, I am sure SD looks like crap almost unwatcheable especially from an avid PQ viewer like yourself who notices these things. And believe me I do see mosquito noise/aliasing/artifacting.


From what I have understood and explained to me and from what I have read, mosquito noise is due to the scalers in our displays not having enough info to resolve, as in not a full HD image and therefore the computer/scaler algorithm fills in the missing info with bogus info.



Check out:

http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_te...i=55914,00.asp 

http://www.highdefinitionblog.com/?page_id=101 

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volum...er-3-2005.html 

http://www.glennchan.info/broadcast-...-artifacts.htm


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

the one day for EE in the hockey was weird. Seriously, it was edged around the sticks, the players, the nets... it was strange. I think it was whatever feed that particular game was on, later games that night (hockey night in canada) didn't have it. It's the stupid phosphor trail that's driving me nuts! greeny/yellowy blurs following the players? Gah. I've already asked for help in my TV's thread in the plasma area. I only notice it during movies RARELY (and when I have, I've made note in my reviews).



I'll definitely check out your links though, thanks!!


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/16057178
> 
> 
> Makes sense to me, but this can be a chicken and egg thing and only our hairdressers know for sure.
> 
> 
> Did you go looking for the problem or did the problem find you?
> 
> 
> Know what I mean?




Yes, I do. My hope is that those who notice something maybe "wrong" with the PQ aren't stopping a BD and rating the PQ on the stopped image even if the moving image caused them to stop, look and question the issue. Rating PQ on a stopped image, by getting closer and picking apart the image may make for an interesting discussion and be scientific, but IMO is disingenuous to rate, review and recommend BD's in that way.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16058442
> 
> 
> Yes, I do. My hope is that those who notice something maybe "wrong" with the PQ aren't stopping a BD and rating the PQ on the stopped image even if the moving image caused them to stop, look and question the issue. Rating PQ on a stopped image, by getting closer and picking apart the image may make for an interesting discussion and be scientific, but IMO is disingenuous to rate, review and recommend BD's in that way.



Exactly! We are rating the PQ of "*motion* pictures," not "*still* pictures."


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16058442
> 
> 
> Yes, I do. My hope is that those who notice something maybe "wrong" with the PQ aren't stopping a BD and rating the PQ on the stopped image even if the moving image caused them to stop, look and question the issue. Rating PQ on a stopped image, by getting closer and picking apart the image may make for an interesting discussion and be scientific, but IMO is disingenuous to rate, review and recommend BD's in that way.



oh god no -- I rate things based on what I'm seeing while *watching* the movie. While I do like seeing screenies and look at the screenshot threads etc, when I watch a movie, the only time I pause it is if I need to leave the room/deal with a kid/etc. When I mention something has an issue, it's an issue I see while it's in motion. Perhaps I'm naive, but I figured thats what everyone who does PQ ratings in here does!


----------



## mpgxsvcd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/16056905
> 
> 
> THX recommends 4 -6 feet away from a 40" display.
> 
> http://www.thx.com/home/setup/display.html



That is just stupid! No way I am sitting 4 feet from a 40 " TV. That is waaaay too close. I always thought Lucas was crazy.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Been gone for a few days, good to see some new contributors here!


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mpgxsvcd* /forum/post/16059196
> 
> 
> That is just stupid! No way I am sitting 4 feet from a 40 " TV. That is waaaay too close. I always thought Lucas was crazy.



Yeah, Lucas and the rest of Hollywood and the designers of the ATSC system.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mpgxsvcd* /forum/post/16059196
> 
> 
> That is just stupid! No way I am sitting 4 feet from a 40 " TV. That is waaaay too close. I always thought Lucas was crazy.



Stupid?


Crazy?


Uh, ok.










Ever calibrate your TV? Ever calibrate your sound system?


----------



## DevilDog151




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mpgxsvcd* /forum/post/16059196
> 
> 
> That is just stupid! No way I am sitting 4 feet from a 40 " TV. That is waaaay too close. I always thought Lucas was crazy.



Crazy no, imaginative yes. Four feet is pretty ridiculous you'll be sitting right up on the TV and no one will be able to see, too funny.


----------



## mpgxsvcd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16060976
> 
> 
> Stupid?
> 
> 
> Crazy?
> 
> 
> Uh, ok.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ever calibrate your TV? Ever calibrate your sound system?



Yea I calibrated the audio system yesterday just to try out a new speaker location and my TV was calibrated about 1 month ago. What does that have to do with sitting too close to the TV?


Do people seriously sit within 5 feet of any TV? Think about what a room would look like with the back of the sofa less than 5 feet from the screen. You have to figure about 2 feet for the cushions and another two feet between the front of the couch and the screen.


That would look stupid. Surely you cannot disagree with that!


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DevilDog151* /forum/post/16061228
> 
> 
> Crazy no, imaginative yes. Four feet is pretty ridiculous you'll be sitting right up on the TV and no one will be able to see, too funny.



Laugh if you must, but that's exactly how the ATSC spec. was designed to be viewed.


"_Stereo_ sound?! Lunacy!"


----------



## ILJG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16058983
> 
> 
> Exactly! We are rating the PQ of "*motion* pictures," not "*still* pictures."




Well, some of us are.







However the number of people who rate PQ on selected "still pictures," bit rate meters, file-sizes on disc and codecs used has gone up alarmingly in the last year.


I keep seeing the Wizard of Oz and Gone With the Wind in certain pre-order arenas...I have to admit I'm chomping at the bit to see what they'll look like, especially after how beautifully How the West Was Won was treated.


----------



## A/Vspec

130" 2.35:1 curved screen, 1080P 24FPS. Screen to eye on front row seat 9.5' (10.5' when reclined). Screen to eye back row seat 13.5'.


I get asked the question a lot being in the A/V industry. "How far away should we sit?"


Are there general rules? Sure. Do you have to follow them? Heck no. Sit were you feel comfortable. When you go to the theater... do you sit in the front, the middle or the back?


Back on topic.... Kung Fu Panda and Ratatouille looked fantastic on my setup to the point it is like watching a 130" plasma display. So I would have to agree with those being my top picks for the Blue tier.


Viewing gear used: 130" 2.35:1 Stewart StudioTeK 130 screen, Sony Black Pearl 1080P Projector, Panamorph Anamorphic Lense, Pioneer BDP-95FD BR player.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *A/Vspec* /forum/post/16061418
> 
> 
> Are there general rules? Sure. Do you have to follow them? Heck no. Sit were you feel comfortable. When you go to the theater... do you sit in the front, the middle or the back?



I absolutely agree with this, however I feel it should be said that *when your purpose is a picture-quality evaluation*, your ignorance of these general rules limits your ability to accurately judge the material.


To be comfortable in your home theatre? Sit anywhere you wanna.


To judge PQ? You need to be close enough to resolve all the detail.


----------



## A/Vspec




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/16061516
> 
> 
> I absolutely agree with this, however I feel it should be said that *when your purpose is a picture-quality evaluation*, your ignorance of these general rules limits your ability to accurately judge the material.
> 
> 
> To be comfortable in your home theatre? Sit anywhere you wanna.
> 
> 
> To judge PQ? You need to be close enough to resolve all the detail.



And I would add: "Not so close as to pickup defects in the display itself. eg: "Pixel Structure".


----------



## spectator

Pixel structure is a defect?!


Do we all need to take our sets back?


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *A/Vspec* /forum/post/16061418
> 
> 
> 130" 2.35:1 curved screen, 1080P 24FPS. Screen to eye on front row seat 9.5' (10.5' when reclined). Screen to eye back row seat 13.5'.
> 
> 
> I get asked the question a lot being in the A/V industry. "How far away should we sit?"
> 
> 
> Are there general rules? Sure. Do you have to follow them? Heck no. Sit were you feel comfortable. When you go to the theater... do you sit in the front, the middle or the back?
> 
> 
> Back on topic.... Kung Fu Panda and Ratatouille looked fantastic on my setup to the point it is like watching a 130" plasma display. So I would have to agree with those being my top picks for the Blue tier.
> 
> 
> Viewing gear used: 130" 2.35:1 Stewart StudioTeK 130 screen, Sony Black Pearl 1080P Projector, Panamorph Anamorphic Lense, Pioneer BDP-95FD BR player.










Nice set up. Imagining a 130" plasma-like quality, well... that is just amazing to even ponder that the PQ looks that good on your setup! I hope you choose to join us in the mayhem of the PQ thread and offer your opinion with some reviews!











As for where I sit, I think it's actually within the guideline but in all honesty, it's due to the stupid set up of my living room. I'm about 7.5' from my 58" panny plasma. Admittedly it was a bit to get used to, we had the living room configured differently for my 46" toshiba rear projector and my "sitting for comfort" seat was about 12ish feet away. But even when I did PQ reviews when I used that set I swapped out to a different spot in the living room so I was much closer; more around 4-5" away.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *A/Vspec* /forum/post/16061418
> 
> 
> Back on topic.... Kung Fu Panda and Ratatouille looked fantastic on my setup to the point it is like watching a 130" plasma display. So I would have to agree with those being my top picks for the Blue tier.



It looks like the new animated movie "Bolt" may be in the running for a top spot in Tier Blu.


----------



## mpgxsvcd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/16060575
> 
> 
> Yeah, Lucas and the rest of Hollywood and the designers of the ATSC system.



Well I guess Lucas should talk to my mom then because even she knows not to sit that close to a TV. Really, you all think sitting 4 feet from a 40 inch TV is OK?


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mpgxsvcd* /forum/post/16061902
> 
> 
> Well I guess Lucas should talk to my mom then because even she knows not to sit that close to a TV. Really, you all think “sitting” 4 feet from a 40 inch TV is OK?



Read up on the ATSC standard. This ain't your mom's tv, so to speak. There are two issues at play here:


1) The ATSC standard was designed around a much closer viewing distance than was the NTSC standard (SDTV).


2) The reason your mom knows not to sit that close to a TV is because of the unshielded radiation TVs used to emit. With modern sets, this problem is reduced almost always to the point of insignificance.


Welcome to the 21st century- the old rules don't apply. You're in HDTV land, now.


----------



## mpgxsvcd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/16061988
> 
> 
> Read up on the ATSC standard. This ain't your mom's tv, so to speak. There are two issues at play here:
> 
> 
> 1) The ATSC standard was designed around a much closer viewing distance than was the NTSC standard (SDTV).
> 
> 
> 2) The reason your mom knows not to sit that close to a TV is because of the unshielded radiation TVs used to emit. With modern sets, this problem is reduced almost always to the point of insignificance.
> 
> 
> Welcome to the 21st century- the old rules don't apply. You're in HDTV land, now.



No it is not just radiation. It is trying to focus on fast moving things when you are way too close to the set. You can't keep everything in focus when you sit so close.


Sure you might see a little more detail but sitting so close will cause you to miss everything else.


Also do those recommendations take into account the native resolution of the set? Sitting too close to a 720p set is much worse than sitting too close to a 1080p set. If they don't take screen resolution into account then their recommendations are flawed.


----------



## A/Vspec




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/16061572
> 
> 
> Pixel structure is a defect?!
> 
> 
> Do we all need to take our sets back?



If you sit that close to the diplay that you can pick out the individual pixels then yes you should take it back and get a higher resolution display!


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mpgxsvcd* /forum/post/16062092
> 
> 
> No it is not just radiation. It is trying to focus on fast moving things when you are way too close to the set. You can’t keep everything in focus when you sit so close.



1) Please stop saying "too close". It's the proper distance.


2) That issue is also greatly reduced by the progressive-scan nature of the ATSC standard.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mpgxsvcd* /forum/post/16062092
> 
> 
> Sure you might see a little more detail but sitting so close will cause you to miss everything else.



The range THX quite reasonably recommends is fairly similar to the range of viewing distances found in a typical commerial cinema. Do you have the difficulty you describe when you go to a movie theatre? If so, you are in the minority and perhaps have atypical eyesight.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mpgxsvcd* /forum/post/16062092
> 
> 
> Also do those recommendations take into account the native resolution of the set?



Yes, they do, and that is one of the reasons a range is given, rather than a specific number.


----------



## rsbeck

*Milk*


Grain apparent throughout, ringing noted on a few edges. Milk is a film about the legendary San Francisco Supervisor and gay rights leader Harvey Milk. Lit, shot, costumed, color schemed and set in keeping with period 70's film look. Nice and sharp most of the time, but Milk also has old 16mm stock footage scattered throughout. Cinematography is organic to and works for the story and period look rather than demo concerns. Still, there are a number of scenes exhibiting fine detail down to pores and imperfections, single strands of head hair, eyebrow, and stubble. Colors are generally pleasing and nicely saturated. In keeping with period look, low light scenes exhibit generous grain and natural light effects are allowed to degrade the image at times. Appears to be a faithful transfer. Fans of the film should be pleased.

*Recommendation: Tier 2.75*


C3X1080, 13' From 126" Screen


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *A/Vspec* /forum/post/16062112
> 
> 
> If you sit that close to the diplay that you can pick out the individual pixels then yes you should take it back and get a higher resolution display!



Or... how 'bout just not sit that close? It doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the display.


----------



## A/Vspec




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/16062352
> 
> 
> Or... how 'bout just not sit that close? It doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the display.



There are some that just refuse to move back away from the display... just ask my 13 year daughter!


----------



## A/Vspec




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mpgxsvcd* /forum/post/16062092
> 
> 
> Sitting too close to a 720p set is much worse than sitting too close to a 1080p set. If they don’t take screen resolution into account then their recommendations are flawed.



This is the main reason I upgraded to a 1080P display. 100% correct. It was like looking through a screen door on the 720P display.


Bring on the 4K displays!!!









http://blog.ultimateavmag.com/ces2007/010807sharp4k/


----------



## rsbeck

My kids sit about 8 feet away from my 126" Screen -- they love it.


I station them there so they can spot artifacts for me, which should be easy since we watch all films frame by frame.


Only takes about 75 hours to watch a movie.


If we don't break for meals.


Motion is for sissies.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/16062520
> 
> 
> my kids sit about 8 feet away from my 126" screen -- they love it.
> 
> 
> I station them there so they can spot artifacts for me, which should be easy since we watch all films frame by frame.
> 
> 
> Only takes about 75 hours to watch a movie.
> 
> 
> If we don't break for meals.
> 
> 
> Motion is for sissies.


----------



## mpgxsvcd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/16062283
> 
> 
> 1) Please stop saying "too close". It's the proper distance.
> 
> 
> 2) That issue is also greatly reduced by the progressive-scan nature of the ATSC standard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The range THX quite reasonably recommends is fairly similar to the range of viewing distances found in a typical commerial cinema. Do you have the difficulty you describe when you go to a movie theatre? If so, you are in the minority and perhaps have atypical eyesight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they do, and that is one of the reasons a range is given, rather than a specific number.



Sorry but 4 feet from a 40 inch screen is “too close” no matter how good your screen resolution, purpose, or eye sight are. The fact remains that it would be difficult to sit 4 feet from a screen.


I think that the problem is that the ratio breaks down and is impractical not because of perception of the video quality but because it becomes impossible for physical space limitations. Placing a sitting position that close to a TV is simply just not practical if not impossible.


Isn’t 1080i part of the ATSC standard? Is that progressive scan?


----------



## Hughmc

Some even sit a single screen width away and have suggested for more immersiveness we do the same. For most of us with displays 50-70 inches, not projectors, we couldn't sit that close without having issues of the 5.1 or 7.1 sound being hard if not impossible to dial in for a sweet spot or proper listening. The solution to being closer would then to be to move to a projector with a bigger screen.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/16061516
> 
> 
> I absolutely agree with this, however I feel it should be said that *when your purpose is a picture-quality evaluation*, your ignorance of these general rules limits your ability to accurately judge the material.
> 
> 
> To be comfortable in your home theatre? Sit anywhere you wanna.
> 
> 
> To judge PQ? You need to be close enough to resolve all the detail.



Werd.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/16061516
> 
> 
> 
> To judge PQ? You need to be close enough to resolve all the detail.



It's great that we have found a subject on which we seem to be in complete agreement.


----------



## patrick99

I might not have written that if I had seen the commotion elsewhere.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mpgxsvcd* /forum/post/16062842
> 
> 
> The fact remains that it would be difficult to sit 4 feet from a screen.



Nah. I do it all the time. It's easy!











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mpgxsvcd* /forum/post/16062842
> 
> 
> Isn't 1080i part of the ATSC standard?



True. Season to taste.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/16063349
> 
> 
> I might not have written that if I had seen the commotion elsewhere.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Kill Bill Volume 1*


This is a title that I have never officially given a review on, but I had always believed that it probably belonged in Tier 0, if barely.


Well, I watched it again last night, and compared to the best titles (Tier 0) I can no longer support a Tier 0 placement.


The PQ in this title actually varies quite a bit. Some scenes are extremely good, with great clarity and detail, but some scenes are also very soft and lack detail. So, yes, there are decent stretches where this title is impressive enough to rise to a Tier 0 placement, but there are also scenes that are bad enough to belong in low Tier 2, if not Tier 3 (although those are brief).


There are blown highlights in many scenes in this movie. I am surprised that this didn't bother me more previously. Then again, I love this film so much, I may not have paid as much attention on my first viewing. I do tend to get annoyed with blown highlights. It's probably the photographer in me.


Many scenes have colors that are over saturated. I am sure this is intentional, but it is still a bit distracting at times.


Contrast and shadow detail are mostly very good, although, once again, there are some exceptions.


I should not let this become an overly critical review, because Kill Bill Vol 1 is still an excellent looking title overall. It just isn't Tier 0 worthy imo.


"_I am finished doing what I swore an oath to God 28 years ago to never do again. I've created, "something that kills people." And in that purpose, I was a success. I've done this because, philosophically, I am sympathetic to your aim. I can tell you with no ego, this is my finest sword. If on your journey, you should encounter God, God will be cut."_











*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Frozen River*


Not a lot of good things to say about the PQ with this one. It is rare that we see any real detail, and overall clarity is really lacking. Contrast is weak, and the dark scenes, of which there are many, suffer.


Still better than DVD quality, but this title lacked a solidity to it that did remind me of DVD.


I enjoyed the movie itself, as it was a unique subject matter that I was not aware of, and the main character turned in a good performance.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.5*


----------



## RBFC




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16066711
> 
> 
> Then again, I love this film so much, I may not have paid as much attention on my first viewing.



Ultimately, this is the dilemma. I personally have great difficulty scanning the picture with an analytical mind, because I watch films to get lost in the story/action. Even on a moderate system, the detachment necessary to be an objective critic is quite demanding. My current schedule doesn't allow me time for multiple replays of many scenes, etc. I typically have only one shot at watching any film (except the kids' stuff).


Therefore, the work and ethic put forth by the "regular reviewers" here is much appreciated! I've both saved money and spent money, wisely, thanks to your contributions.


Lee


----------



## Hughmc

Nice reviews Rob and I am going to take a look at Frozen River in the next few days.


----------



## Hughmc

*Layer Cake:*


I have to agree with several of the reviews including rsbeck. What stood out to me most about LC is the yellow/gold push in several scenes especially in skin tones. There were also some scenes with a cool blue push. I did notice some blurring upon movement of the camera or image, but I notice this on almost all BD's and think it might be the way my eyes perceive 24p. It is not constant or really distracting, just noticeable a few times on LC. I think the PQ overall is average to good with some great tier 0 material, but that is the exception and like rsbeck says about 20% of the BD. The only area I would disagree on is placement, but we are close. Some reviews said it is like Casino Royale and I totally disagree. Maybe they were thinking of the actor.
















*Recommendation Tier 2.0*


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/16050707
> 
> *Tekkonkinkreet*
> 
> 
> Surfing around the thread, ran into a mention of this title...
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...9#post14821609



I was searching back through posts since the search tool failed again in respect to *Let the Right One In*. What is the title a reflection in the mirror, hence invisible?

















I wanted to let you know rsbeck, that IIRC there was only one recommendation for Tekkonkinkreet about a year ago. Some reviews on the web we cannot rely on especially since none of us active contributors have seen it. I think it is an anime title. I suggest we move it to the placement holdings bin till either we get further review and if we don't in a month or so, then we can decide from there what to do. Comments, suggestions?


By the way this will come across as a defense for discussion, but when the search tool fails, IMO it is almost easier to spot tier recommendation reviews since they stand out amongst all the chatter and discussion and don't all look the same.


----------



## Hughmc

*Let The Right One In:*


Rob Tomlin is the only review I believe so far on this title. I really enjoyed his review and concur and will invoke his take a bit since it is spot on.


The picture quality overall was good with some good facial detail shots and a few shots of good detail in general. Black levels and contrast were average as well, yet as Rob mentioned varied and weren't consistent. I think the cinematography conveyed the mood well, and like Rob mentioned with the cooler monochrome color pallete to lend itself to that mood. When there is a bright color it really stands out and lends to the shock or contrast a bit.


This is a good film to watch and I agree with those who said it has a slower pace, but it is a nice change of pace on the genre.

*Recommendation:Tier 2.0*


----------



## ILJG




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/16062520
> 
> 
> My kids sit about 8 feet away from my 126" Screen -- they love it.
> 
> 
> I station them there so they can spot artifacts for me, which should be easy since we watch all films frame by frame.
> 
> 
> Only takes about 75 hours to watch a movie.
> 
> 
> If we don't break for meals.
> 
> 
> Motion is for sissies.





_
















_


----------



## deltasun

*Let the Right One In*


Back from vacation and I see my Netflix copy of _Let the Right One In_ waiting for me. First impressions are the very muted color pallette and off-white snow. As the mood of the story progresses, these colors perfectly complemented the tale.


I really dug the shallow depth of field which, in my opinion, aided in the storytelling. While bokeh was everywhere, the points of focus were sharp and pleasing to the eyes. Shadow details were very good, especially since most scenes occur at night. Black levels were decent but not exceptional. I detected very fine grain throughout.


Now, onto some negatives...I detected some noise in some of the darker, out-of-focus scenes. Artifacts were also present - check out the 1hr33min mark.


I think this belongs to the top of the Silver tier...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## rsbeck

"I'm the hoochie coochie man. Everybody knows I'm him." -- Muddy Waters

*Cadillac Records*


Extremely fine grain apparent, no ringing or halos noted. Cadillac Records is actually the story of Chicago's Leonard Chess, Chess Records, and artists like Muddy Waters, Howlin' Wolf, Etta James, and Chuck Berry, who put the label on the map for recording what was once called "race music." Cadillac is mostly lit, shot, and color schemed for a subdued visual palette to go with bluesy subject matter. Contrast range is often limited. This changes for a spell when colors become more vibrant during the Chuck Berry segment. In the extras, the film maker described it perfectly, saying of the visuals, "our mission was to tell the story rather than to get too precious." Still, Records opens with a very nice segment featuring impressive color, contrast and fine object detail before settling into the more subdued look and scattered through the film are a number of nice close-ups with detail down to the pores and imperfections, single strands of head hair, eyebrow, and stubble. Due to limited contrast, picture is often just a tiny bit soft and lacking dimension. I suspect some of the flatness, especially late in the film, may be due to some grain reduction. All in all, not a demo disc, but a very watchable blu-ray.

*Recommendation: Tier 3.0*


Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From 126" Screen


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16067358
> 
> *Let the Right One In*
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> I really dug the shallow depth of field which, in my opinion, aided in the storytelling. While bokeh was everywhere, the points of focus were sharp and pleasing to the eyes.
> 
> 
> ...



Agree completely. It was a beautifully shot film, and the cinematography plays a large role in making this movie as good as it is.


----------



## kcushing




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16029088
> 
> *The Princess Bride*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obsessed much, G3?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First off, I need to state that this film is one of my absolute favourites. Thanks to this Blu-Ray purchase, I now own 6; yes that was SIX, copies of this movie: ...... I don't think a better version of this could be made, not after you see the difference of the older DVD copies to the Blu.
> 
> 
> *Recommendation for The Princess Bride: Tier 2.75*
> 
> *Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800U, THX setting, approximately 7.5' viewing distance.*



Thanks for that detailed review. As I have one of the original crappy DVD's, I pre-ordered my BD as soon as it was available for pre-order. It should arrive on the 25th.


Let me add a couple more quotes. :


"I am not left handed either!"


"Mawage. Mawage is wot bwings us togeder tooday. Mawage, that bwessed awangment, that dweam wifin a dweam... "


"Well, I'm not saying I'd like to build a summer home here, but the trees are actually quite lovely"


"Is this a kissing book?"


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16067157
> 
> *Let The Right One In:*
> 
> 
> Rob Tomlin is the only review I believe so far on this title.
> 
> [/size][/b]



Wow... funny you should say that. Not only did I post a review, I even responded to Rob (who also didnt see my review) and sent him the link. This just goes to show how bad the search feature is.


----------



## stumlad

*Chuck: Season 1*


Shot on 16mm, this show doesnt look as good as shows like Lost, Prison Break, Heroes, Dexter etc. It's not that it's a bad looking show by any means, but the grain structure on the film is pretty thick in the background which makes anything not purely focused a bit hard to look at.


It's by no means a bad looking show, and it still takes advantage of blu-ray.. face closeups sometimes go up to Tier 1. Scenery shots look pleasant, colors are strong, but ultimately it's just not as visually appealing as other current shows.

*Tier 3.0*


----------



## FoxyMulder




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16058255
> 
> 
> I think you are talking about something different. What I believe you are describing is artifacting/mosquito noise/ringing around images due to poor resolving of the HD signal whether by your display which is the least likely cause or the most likely cause which is compression of the signal and not enough bandwidth from the service provider and or other issues in the chain from start to finish.



I have the exact same issue with practically everything i watch on digital television and it's just as well i use a small 29inch set to view it on. I couldn't bear to watch our digital tv using a large set and the football ( soccer ) match final between Rangers and Celtic at the weekend had the ringing/artifacting around everyone on both sides of their body and the match wasn't very good either apart from the final fifteen minutes of normal time.


I believe it's bandwidth and low MPEG2 encoding that causes the issue for us over here as they try and cram quantity of channels over quality of programmes into the digital path. Unfortunately we are now all digital here and our analogue signals got switched off last november










The Nicam digital sound was vastly superior to the digital sound they now give us and i think the picture quality was better when it was analogue.


----------



## selimsivad

*I've Loved You So Long*


*1.85: 1*



This was a pretty interesting French psychological drama. I heard about it at work, and decided to place it in my "BBQ" (Blockbuster queue).







I woke up with nothing to do, so I popped it in. Slow, but good movie!


Watching the first ten minutes, I thought this could easily be a Tier 0 disc!


It starts off at an airport. The drive back was amazing! It exibited fine detail in pores, clothing, and hair. Even the raindrops and the Volvo stickers on the car's windows looked spectacular!










Entering "the palace" showed depth and detail in the chandelier, the floor tiles, the stairs, and Luc's desk area.


This film was shot digitally, and it showed. In fact, half of the movie was easily Tier 0 material. Images had that "through the looking glass" feel to them. Again, faces showed the depth and detail of a Tier 0 title. Especially men's faces!


Natural light is put to good use. Shadow detail was excellent! Colors appeared realistic. Trees, bushes, and grass looked life-like. Blacks were solid, except during a few dark scenes (sounds strange, but I'll explain later).


Those who like water scenes will love the pool scenes!

















The scenes in the art museum were beautiful!










I mentioned all the positives, but here comes the negatives. There were issues with digital noise during the darker scenes. The first bedroom scene and the scene outside after "the guessing game" are great examples.


Scenes with dimmed lighting displayed a sepia tint, which IMO appeared unintentional. Looking back at Youth Without Youth, I can understand why Francis Ford Coppola used colored tint for some of the darker scenes. I can't wait for this problem to be figured out!











Realizing this, I'm now convinced that YWY is now a lower Tier 0 title!










Back to the review.










Overall, an emotional movie with a rewarding ending. The lead actress, Kristin Scott Thomas, gave an Oscar winning performance as Juliette. Why she wasn't even nominated shows my disdain for The Academy.


Half of the film is easily Tier 0 material! Darker scenes made me lower the final score to lower Tier 1.




*I've Loved You So Long

Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.75

PS3-Samsung 46" 1080p-seven'*


----------



## OldCodger73

*PQ*: Medium and medium close-ups show excellent detail and a strong sense of depth. Facial close-ups show very good detail but the sharpness isn't quite there in resolving fine facial details. Color is generally good. A few interior night scenes, shot to give an available light look, show very noticeable grain. I don't normally notice digital flaws unless they're severetired old eyes-- and didn't see any. The movie uses some television clips or simulated ones plus at least one clip, with permission of course, from an earlier documentary on Harvey Milk. These are integral to the movie but really impact PQ. I think how one rates _Milk_ depends on how much one feels about the aforementioned clips detracting from the PQ. Much of the movie is about 1.75 in my opinion, but taken overall I'd rate *Milk Tier 2.25*.

*The movie*: For me, the film started slowly but once Milk moved to San Francisco and became political involved, it became totally engrossing. Sean Penn probably has the role of his life. I'd rate _Milk_ 4 out of 5 on the Netflix scale.


One side note, remember the guy who had the bizarre post about the Chihuahua that talked funny. Well, this movie should totally put him in orbit.


Panasonic 50 720p plasma, Panasonic 10a player, 7 1/2'


----------



## jrcorwin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/16071325
> 
> *
> 
> One side note, remember the guy who had the bizarre post about the Chihuahua that talked funny. Well, this movie should totally put him in orbit.*



Haha...thanks for that. Funny.










Thanks for the review. I haven't seen this one yet.


----------



## spectator

Codger, about those potentially-opinion-defining clips, do you have a particular opinion about the horizontal-stretch aspect of their presentation? I haven't seen this yet, but I really anticipate that I will have no problem with any other aspects of this footage (grainy, black & white, low res., timebase issues, print damage, etc.) but the stretching decision may really get to me.


----------



## rsbeck

"I finally landed a job with Dr. Glickenschtein. Not the smartest scientist. His last invention was an evil lasagna. It didn't kill anyone. It tasted pretty good." -- John Cusack as Igor

*Igor*


Animated


Igor is a CGI animated feature staring the voice of John Cusack, "Of course my name is Igor. Look at the hunch on my back. What were they going to call me -- Kevin?" Animation is sharp and I didn't note any transfer issues, but this is several steps down from Panda and Ratatouille in terms of depth, detail, and palpability.

*Recommendation: Tier 1.75*


Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From 126" Screen


----------



## deltasun

Hey Beck, you know you can hit _Preview Post_ first, right?







How was the movie itself? Sounds like with all those quotes, you enjoyed it.


----------



## rsbeck

Fun little concept and had a lot of funny lines.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Rise: Blood Hunter (U.K. import)
**

tier recommendation: Tier 2.25*


A vampire movie originally from 2007, Universal distributed this movie in the U.K. as a region-free Blu-ray on December 1st, 2008. The 121-minute main feature is encoded in VC-1 on a BD-25. I would estimate the average video bitrate to be 19.5 Mbps. The parameters of the video encode range from an absolute low of 14.3 Mbps to peaks at 27.5 Mbps, but most of the time the encode stays firmly in the middle of that band.


The compression work here is solid looking with little artifacting. There are two notable instances of light posterization but overall it looks very good. The grain structure appears natural and never breaks into macroblocking or noise, even in the lower lit scenes.


The image itself is very strong consistently throughout the film. Contrast looks natural in appearance with no blown highlights or obscured shadows. Color rendition is decent, with a well-balanced palette that slightly favors saturated red's. Close-ups demonstrate excellent micro-details, down to the smallest imperfections and skin textures. Check out time code 28:00 into the movie to see an example of Lucy Liu's face on display, with her very fine and light freckles noticeable onscreen. Flesh tones are expertly rendered in this transfer, with a variety of them delineated properly from the tanned Robert Forster to the paler Carla Gugino. The entire film is quite sharp until the final scene, which does show some momentary softness. Black levels are superb with strong shadow resolution. The textures of darker-colored objects and fabrics look great with excellent delineation of their surfaces.


Whatever source they used for the transfer looks a little disappointing for a newer film. It appears to be taken from an actual film print with some minor debris. Unfortunately little marks and white spots flash occasionally and intrude on the reality of the picture. An average viewer would probably ignore them but I found them a touch distracting from my viewing. There were no detectable moments of edge enhancement or artificial sharpening. The picture looks very film-like with an untampered grain structure. High-frequency information looks too good for digital noise reduction or filters to have been used on this transfer.


I really wanted to place this Blu-ray at the bottom of tier one, but the picture looks a little too flat for that ranking. It lacks the dimensionality and depth seen in most tier one titles. In other qualities this is a strong looking BD, with many factors that might place it over other tier two caliber titles. My recommendation is for tier 2.25.


Watching on a 60" Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 (firmware 2.60) from a viewing distance of six feet.


----------



## Spoonsey




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/16050707
> 
> *Tekkonkinkreet*
> 
> 
> Surfing around the thread, ran into a mention of this title...
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...9#post14821609



I purchased this title last week on the basis of it's current Tier 0 placement. I haven't finished viewing yet but will post a recommendation once I have.


I haven't posted any recommendations in this thread as yet so I guess Tekkon Kinkreet will be my first...I'm certainly no anime expert but I have quite a few of the other Tier 0 titles to "compare" it against (viewing Panasonic 42" plasma (720p) from 8 feet).


Cheers!


----------



## rsbeck

Beauty.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16066711
> 
> *Kill Bill Volume 1*
> 
> 
> This is a title that I have never officially given a review on, but I had always believed that it probably belonged in Tier 0, if barely.
> 
> 
> Well, I watched it again last night, and compared to the best titles (Tier 0) I can no longer support a Tier 0 placement.



I thought the same thing, until I rewatched it.

I agree with your 1.25.

If you ever get around to Vol. 2, I have a feeling you will rank it 1.0

(even though they were filmed simultaneously).


----------



## rsbeck

I found KB2 less impressive than KB1.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/16073659
> 
> 
> I found KB2 less impressive than KB1.



That's probably the first time I've ever heard that.

Both are still good looking titles, just not Tier 0.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/16073958
> 
> 
> That's probably the first time I've ever heard that.
> 
> Both are still good looking titles, just not Tier 0.



I think I remembered being slightly more impressed with Part 2 as well, but a re-watch is definitely in the cards.


----------



## selimsivad

*Any Given Sunday*



*2.35: 1*




Any Sunday is 100% testosterone! This is one of my favorite Oliver Stone films, and my second favorite football movie (Remember The Titans is my favorite)! Anyone who loves football, both on and off the field, has to watch this film!










This style has Oliver Stone all over it. Blacks are deep, but mostly crushed. Colors switch to being oversaturated to overcontrasted, sometimes both. Lots of orange faces!

















Depth is below average. There is an average layer of grain throughout.


PQ-wise, the best scenes are the ones on the field, especially in the huddle. Grass looks OK, but not the best I've seen for a football movie. Nowhere near the detail of the grass in Friday Night Lights.










Still, the best you'll ever see this movie look. It's definitely what the Director ordered, but not demo material.


*Any Given Sunday

Tier Recommendation: Tier 3.0

PS3-Samsung 46" 1080p-seven'*


----------



## rsbeck

IMO, the Hospital and Snow Segments in KB1 are the two most impressive in either volume of Kill Bill while the Chapel, Pai Mei, and the final marathon talk sequence in KB2 are some of the least impressive. Still, I believe both are gold tier titles.


----------



## deltasun

I think the cartoon sequence in KB1 is worse. I would also like to add that the sequence in KB2 where Uma is talking to Esteban is another impressive sequence.


----------



## deltasun

*Primal Fear*


While driving through Vegas, I discovered Fry's Electronics. I always see its mention in the Deals thread but unfortunately, we don't have them here in Denver. So, I popped in and popped out with a few new BRs on sale - one of them being _Primal Fear_.


Very disappointed with the PQ on this title. Several times, I felt like I was watching a TV movie. First off, the transfer was not very clean. Specks were prevalent throughout the film, which I eventually found distracting. Grain was present and some shimmering has been noted. On a few high-contrast scenes, thin ringing was noted - check out Richard Gere's tuxedo (shoulder area) as he prepares to go to his dinner.


I found the faces a bit soft, which was not helped with their choices of indoor lighting. Skin tones were generally good, but some scenes did lean towards a reddish hue. While some facial details existed, they're not consistent enough to be palpable.


Black levels were fair, but do suffer from contrast issues in a number of scenes. I will note one outdoor scene that was beautifully lit - at the 48min50sec mark. Facial details improved and contrast was well-balanced. That scene almost invoked 3D pop! Another notable scene, PQ-wise, was the confrontation between Norton and Gere.


In the end, this BR is barely better than some of the better upconverted DVDs out there and garners a rating of...

*Tier Recommendation: 3.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## selimsivad

The meeting of Bill and The Bride outside of the church is my favorite scene of KB2.


Simply breathtaking!


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16074841
> 
> *Primal Fear*
> 
> 
> While driving through Vegas, I discovered Fry's Electronics. I always see its mention in the Deals thread but unfortunately, we don't have them here in Denver. So, I popped in and popped out with a few new BRs on sale - one of them being _Primal Fear_.
> 
> 
> Very disappointed with the PQ on this title. Several times, I felt like I was watching a TV movie. First off, the transfer was not very clean. Specks were prevalent throughout the film, which I eventually found distracting. Grain was present and some shimmering has been noted. On a few high-contrast scenes, thin ringing was noted - check out Richard Gere's tuxedo (shoulder area) as he prepares to go to his dinner.
> 
> 
> I found the faces a bit soft, which was not helped with their choices of indoor lighting. Skin tones were generally good, but some scenes did lean towards a reddish hue. While some facial details existed, they're not consistent enough to be palpable.
> 
> 
> Black levels were fair, but do suffer from contrast issues in a number of scenes. I will note one outdoor scene that was beautifully lit - at the 48min50sec mark. Facial details improved and contrast was well-balanced. That scene almost invoked 3D pop! Another notable scene, PQ-wise, was the confrontation between Norton and Gere.
> 
> 
> In the end, this BR is barely better than some of the better upconverted DVDs out there and garners a rating of...
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.75*
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_



Nice review. Looking to eventually get this title. I paid more than $20 for it on DVD when it first came out, and it's not even anamorphic. As bad as it is, I'm sure it will be better than having to use the zoom feature to get it to somewhat fill the screen.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/16074869
> 
> 
> Nice review. Looking to eventually get this title. I paid more than $20 for it on DVD when it first came out, and it's not even anamorphic. As bad as it is, I'm sure it will be better than having to use the zoom feature to get it to somewhat fill the screen.



It didn't negatively affect the story any. I think I just had high expectations because I really liked the movie itself. There are some decent looking scenes as the movie progresses.


So, still worth upgrading your DVD, in my opinion.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/16074861
> 
> 
> The meeting of Bill and The Bride outside of the church is my favorite scene of KB2.
> 
> 
> Simply breathtaking!



Good call! I think I made mention of that exact scene in my KB2 review.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/16074861
> 
> 
> The meeting of Bill and The Bride outside of the church is my favorite scene of KB2.



For me, that part of the chapel scene is up and down. There are some good things happening there, but IMO, it is marred by the ringing and the hot contrast. I find myself admiring it from an artistic point of view, but not from a demo point of view. Hot contrast with ringing, IMO, is problematic -- IMO, it is a tricked up way to get "pop." Ultimately, I do not find it impressive from a PQ perspective.


----------



## rsbeck

*Rachel Getting Married*


Shot on HD Video, several instances of video noise noted. Rachel is a dialogue intensive substance abuse/recovery family drama lit and shot with hand held HD Video cameras to look and feel like a documentary. Mostly sharp -- you are always aware that you are watching 1080 but, true to cinema verite' docu-style, cameras are shaky, sometimes struggle with focus, and the picture is sometimes degraded by lack of available light. In several low light scenes, we see faint lines of video noise, which just adds to the docu-feel. It is blatantly obvious that this was not intended for demo, but rather to give the effect of watching "real life" so don't look for a lot of depth, artful use of light and shadow, or vibrant colors. Having said all of that, there are some impressive shots and close-ups, especially faces detailed down to the pores and imperfections, single strands of head hair, eyebrow, and stubble. Rachel getting married appears to be a faithful transfer -- anyone looking to see the film the way was intended will be wise to check it out on blu-ray.

*Recommendation: Tier 3.5*


Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From 126" Screen


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/16071417
> 
> 
> Codger, about those potentially-opinion-defining clips, do you have a particular opinion about the horizontal-stretch aspect of their presentation? I haven't seen this yet, but I really anticipate that I will have no problem with any other aspects of this footage (grainy, black & white, low res., timebase issues, print damage, etc.) but the stretching decision may really get to me.



If we're talking about _Milk_, I didn't even realize that the clip from the earlier documentary about Milk was in there until I saw the credits, so it must have been shot in widescreen. The actual TV footage was in color and for the life of me I can't remember if they were stretched or not. They didn't last that long, and as I said in my review, are an integral part of the movie. They didn't bother me, but YMMV.


----------



## djoberg

*From Russia With Love*


Having watched both Dr. No and From Russia With Love I can only sound the praises of those who have given us these amazing restorations. One can hardly believe they date back to the early 60s!


After close scrutiny, I must say that I am even more impressed with this title and would give it at least a 1/4 tier bump over Dr. No. It had the same natural colors, spot on skin tones, and detailed facial close-ups, and it upped the ante with better blacks and shadow detail. There were also better-lit scenes with very impressive details (of streets, textures in clothing, grass, trees, etc.).


Having given Dr. No a Tier 2.25 recommendation, I felt tempted to give From Russia With Love a spot in Tier 1, but because of a few soft scenes and _some_ crushed blacks, I will settle for:

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


Samsung 50" 1080p DLP....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 6'


----------



## rsbeck

Having seen the TV clips in the documentary about Harvey Milk, I have to believe those clips were stretched horizontally to fit the screen in Milk, but like Codger, I really didn't make note of it, so either the film was involving enough to overlook it or it was done with enough subtlety to avoid drawing a lot of attention to itself. I doubt it will be either a deal maker or breaker for anyone who watches Milk.


----------



## rsbeck

"I wish I knew how to quit you." -- Jake Gyllenhaal as Jack

*Brokeback Mountain*


Fine grain apparent throughout, ringing noted on a few edges. Brokeback is a romantic drama set in the American west lit and shot for emotional impact. Overall, Brokeback looks pretty good with pleasing colors and very good contrast and reasonably sharp. Features lots of outdoor panoramas. IMO these shots are fine, but seldom represent upper tier clarity, detail, contrast, depth or dimension. Many medium and long shots seem to be a tiny bit out of focus, possibly intended to be in keeping with romantic drama conventions. Some softness may be due to use of natural seasonal light or it may result from budget constraints and lack of time to wait for perfect light. According to DVD Beaver, Brokeback features a healthy average bitrate of 27.45 Mbps, but IMO, it doesn't really show on-screen. However, though main actors, Heath Ledger, Jake Gyllenhaal, and Anne Hathaway possess fine skin, close-ups often feature very good facial detail along with single strands of head hair, eyebrow, stubble, and peach fuzz. All in all, perhaps not a demo disc, but a very watchable blu-ray. The visuals serve to effectively communicate the emotional impact of the story. Fans of the film should be reasonably satisfied with Brokeback on blu-ray.

*Recommendation: Tier 2.50*


C3X1080, 13' From 126" Screen


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/16083634
> 
> 
> "I wish I knew how to quit you." -- Jake Gyllenhaal as Jack
> 
> *Brokeback Mountain*
> 
> 
> Fine grain apparent throughout, ringing noted on some edges. Brokeback is a romantic drama set in the American west featuring lots of outdoor panoramas, but these shots seldom represent upper tier clarity, detail, contrast, depth or dimension. Many medium and long shots seem to be a touch out of focus, possibly intended to be in keeping with romantic drama conventions. Brokeback seems to be set in perpetual Fall/Winter, so some softness may be due to seasonal light or it may simply result from lack of time to wait for light conditions necessary to make landscape pop. According to DVD Beaver, Brokeback features a healthy average bitrate of 27.45 Mbps, but IMO, it doesn't really show on-screen. However, though main actors, Heath Ledger, Jake Gyllenhaal, and Anne Hathaway possess fine skin, close-ups often feature very good facial detail along with single strands of head hair, eyebrow, stubble, and peach fuzz. All in all, not a demo disc, but a very watchable blu-ray. The visuals serve to communicate the emotional impact of the story. Fans of the film should be reasonably satisfied with Brokeback on blu-ray.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 2.50*
> 
> 
> C3X1080, 13' From 126" Screen



It's hard for me to believe that this is as good as this movie can look. It seems clear that the BD encode (and underlying master) is identical to the HD DVD, since it displays the same softness and the bitrate never exceeds the HD DVD specs. I agree that medium and long range shots are consistently quite soft. I just cannot believe that a movie this recent does not, in its original film elements, have more visual detail than shows up here.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/16083550
> 
> 
> Having seen the TV clips in the documentary about Harvey Milk, I have to believe those clips were stretched horizontally to fit the screen in Milk, but like Codger, I really didn't make note of it, so either the film was involving enough to overlook it or it was done with enough subtlety to avoid drawing a lot of attention to itself. I doubt it will be either a deal maker or breaker for anyone who watches Milk.



Yes, it's a fact that this (horizontal stretch) was done. I just wanted some opinions on how noticeable and distracting it might be from some viewers who watch with a technical awareness. Thank you, guys. Good to hear that it wasn't too problematic for you. I'll have to check this one out soon. Gus Van Sant runs very hot and cold for me.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16082103
> 
> *From Russia With Love*



I just watched this last night, as well, and I very much agree with your description.


For me, this kind of title requires some mental fortitude and vigilance to rate by the criteria of this thread because the "soft shots" are, for the most part, process shots and other elements which, for reasons of the original production were necessarily second-generation or further removed from the OCN. I'm so used to seeing this kind of shot from the pre-DI/digital comp days and so aware (as the shot is happening) of exactly why it is the way it is, that I tend to forget that there's anything less than stellar about those shots which look about as good relative to their source as the rest of the movie relative to its source.


That said, I still think that the number of these shots is few enough so as not to account for a very significant impact on the overall PQ, and I would put this disc in *Tier 1*.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/16084142
> 
> 
> I just watched this last night, as well, and I very much agree with your description.
> 
> 
> For me, this kind of title requires some mental fortitude and vigilance to rate by the criteria of this thread because the "soft shots" are, for the most part, process shots and other elements which, for reasons of the original production were necessarily second-generation or further removed from the OCN. I'm so used to seeing this kind of shot from the pre-DI/digital comp days and so aware (as the shot is happening) of exactly why it is the way it is, that I tend to forget that there's anything less than stellar about those shots which look about as good relative to their source as the rest of the movie relative to its source.
> 
> 
> That said, I still think that the number of these shots is few enough so as not to account for a very significant impact on the overall PQ, and I would put this disc in *Tier 1*.



Besides a few soft scenes and crushed blacks, there were also several scenes that looked _flat_ to me and lacked detail, and there were a couple of scenes with fake backgrounds that took away from the PQ. This is why I didn't believe it deserved a place in Tier 1, which should be "demo-worthy" throughout most of the movie.


Having said that, with you and Hugh feeling it's worth a Tier 1 placement, it wouldn't break my heart if it ended up in *Tier 1.75*.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16084276
> 
> 
> This is why I didn't believe it deserved a place in Tier 1, which should be "demo-worthy" throughout most of the movie.



I think it _is_ "demo-worthy" throughout _most_ of the movie. Where do you draw the line? In running-time terms, I can't imagine we're talking about more than 3% of the film.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/16084919
> 
> 
> I think it _is_ "demo-worthy" throughout _most_ of the movie. Where do you draw the line? In running-time terms, I can't imagine we're talking about more than 3% of the film.



The film was almost 2 hours long and I would say about 10% of it had scenes that were either soft, flat, or lacked detail. And I would have to say that some of those scenes were average-looking (Tier 3) and a couple of the night scenes, with the crushed blacks, bordered on Tier 4, as did the scenes with fake backgrounds.


All things considered, about 90% of the movie is Tier 1 quality (with a few Tier 0 shots sprinkled in), but the scenes described above push it down a notch into Tier 2, IMHO.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

I have the Bond boxed sets; I'll commit to watching FRWL at some point this weekend and try to help out with that by tossing my 2 cents into the pile'o'change.


----------



## djoberg

spectator,


I just did a Search on FRWL and found that there are three of you recommending Tier 1....you, Hugh, and moematthews. And then there is stumlad, who is recommending 2.75. So, in all likelihood, with the 5 votes that have been cast there is a very good chance it will land in Tier 1, perhaps on the bottom of that tier, but that's still a very respectable placement.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16085006
> 
> 
> I'll commit to watching FRWL at some point this weekend and try to help out with that by tossing my 2 cents into the pile'o'change.



Cool! I'm not concerned about where it ends up, but I'd love to hear your opinion.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16085054
> 
> 
> So, in all likelihood, with the 5 votes that have been cast there is a very good chance it will land in Tier 1, perhaps on the bottom of that tier, but that's still a very respectable placement.



Okay. I have no emotional investment in its placement; I just call 'em as I see 'em.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/16085057
> 
> 
> Cool! I'm not concerned about where it ends up, but I'd love to hear your opinion.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/16085091
> 
> 
> Okay. I have no emotional investment in its placement; I just call 'em as I see 'em.




Is really no problem. I have a friend on the hook to go try and buy Twilight tonight; I'm selling her on the fact that we can watch Bond first whilst filling her up with Gin & Tonic to prepare for the horrible-ness of Twilight.


I have no investment either; I just think the more reviews the merrier for helping place a title. Since I do own it and have been a slacker & barely watched any Blu's lately, the least I can do is watch a movie I already own, right?


----------



## Wryker

Hmm - didn't spy any posts so Madagascar 2: vote Tier 1.25. No worse than the first one for PQ for sure.

ps - Igor is fantastic and I second the tier suggested on page 383.

73" Mitsy


----------



## jrcorwin

So, I watched Grand Canyon Adventure: River at Risk last night. It was great throughout and incredible at times. My question however is about a trailer that was featured for Super Speedway. I've seen this on TV before, but haven't viewed the BD yet. I could not find a mention of it in this thread. Have any of you sampled this one yet?


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16085117
> 
> 
> we can watch Bond first whilst filling her up with Gin & Tonic



Wot- no vodka martinis?!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/16085091
> 
> 
> I just call 'em as I see 'em.



I _hope_ this can be said of all of us!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/16085313
> 
> 
> Wot- no vodka martinis?!



I would except I don't want to have to take a taxi to pick up Twilight afterward, haha. She requested the G&T though. If that'll make her watch Twilight... I won't complain.


----------



## spectator

Gin & Tonics for Bond, Shirley Temples for Twilight!


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/16084028
> 
> 
> I just cannot believe that a movie this recent does not, in its original film elements, have more visual detail than shows up here.



I agree -- it is a little puzzling.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/16085590
> 
> 
> Gin & Tonics for Bond, Shirley Temples for Twilight!



*snicker* No, no. Nobody should watch Twilight sober.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16085770
> 
> 
> Nobody should watch Twilight sober.



I'm not sure I'm ready to ask why you're watching it in the first place.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/16084028
> 
> 
> It's hard for me to believe that this is as good as this movie can look. It seems clear that the BD encode (and underlying master) is identical to the HD DVD, since it displays the same softness and the bitrate never exceeds the HD DVD specs. I agree that medium and long range shots are consistently quite soft. I just cannot believe that a movie this recent does not, in its original film elements, have more visual detail than shows up here.



IMO:


Most of the blame has to go to the master. 27 mbps avg bit-rate is more than suitable for showing fine detail... there are plenty of lower bit-rate movies that look better than this.


The problem is that this movie, and probably most of the lower tiered movies are made from old 2K masters that were originally intended for DVD, but were more than suitable to provide enough resolution for the DVD. The studios are re-using them for the blu-ray encodes because it's cheaper. If they were to do a new film transfer and re-master it in 4K (with care), I'm sure the results would be much better.


It's like the original DVDs from 97-2000. Most of the newer titles looked good, but the catalog titles came from masters meant for VHS.


In summary -- they just dont care enough about blu-ray to spend the time and money to remaster something which is still relatively new .... yet.


Once again, IMO.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/16085800
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I'm ready to ask why you're watching it in the first place.



Someone has to take the stake through the heart (HA! I slay me!) on behalf of the thread and rate the PQ of this, right? I actually saw it in the theatre, so I do know what I'm getting myself into. Worry not. I won't recommend to anyone that they watch it as well, unlike Mamma Mia. I loved Mamma Mia. Twilight, on the other hand, *is such a special sort of horrible*, the _Mystery Science Theater 3000_ fan in me must pay homage to the tragic mess that is this film.



I'm also curious as to how Edward's Sparkle will look on Blu Ray on my Panny Plasma.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/16085851
> 
> 
> Once again, IMO.



Certainly plausible.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16085054
> 
> 
> spectator,
> 
> 
> I just did a Search on FRWL and found that there are three of you recommending Tier 1....you, Hugh, and moematthews. And then there is stumlad, who is recommending 2.75. So, in all likelihood, with the 5 votes that have been cast there is a very good chance it will land in Tier 1, perhaps on the bottom of that tier, but that's still a very respectable placement.



I really felt that From Russia was a step down from Dr. No. Perhaps it's because I didnt watch them back to back.


----------



## moematthews




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16085054
> 
> 
> spectator,
> 
> 
> I just did a Search on FRWL and found that there are three of you recommending Tier 1....you, Hugh, and moematthews. And then there is stumlad, who is recommending 2.75. So, in all likelihood, with the 5 votes that have been cast there is a very good chance it will land in Tier 1, perhaps on the bottom of that tier, but that's still a very respectable placement.



And I stand by my recommendation, for sure. From Russia With Love looks better than other movies in Tier 1 - even near the top of that tier.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/16085851
> 
> 
> IMO:
> 
> *Most of the blame has to go to the master.* 27 mbps avg bit-rate is more than suitable for showing fine detail... there are plenty of lower bit-rate movies that look better than this.
> 
> *The problem is that this movie, and probably most of the lower tiered movies are made from old 2K masters that were originally intended for DVD, but were more than suitable to provide enough resolution for the DVD.* The studios are re-using them for the blu-ray encodes because it's cheaper. If they were to do a new film transfer and re-master it in 4K (with care), I'm sure the results would be much better.
> 
> 
> It's like the original DVDs from 97-2000. Most of the newer titles looked good, but the catalog titles came from masters meant for VHS.
> 
> 
> In summary -- they just dont care enough about blu-ray to spend the time and money to remaster something which is still relatively new .... yet.
> 
> 
> Once again, IMO.



I'm sure you are right about this, unfortunately.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16084276
> 
> 
> Besides a few soft scenes and crushed blacks, there were also several scenes that looked _flat_ to me and lacked detail, and there were a couple of scenes with fake backgrounds that took away from the PQ. This is why I didn't believe it deserved a place in Tier 1, which should be "demo-worthy" throughout most of the movie.
> 
> 
> Having said that, with you and Hugh feeling it's worth a Tier 1 placement, it wouldn't break my heart if it ended up in *Tier 1.75*.



I second this - I think _From Russia with Love_ is a good half a tier away from _Dr. No_. And I agree with your 2.25 placement for _Dr. No_.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16085875
> 
> 
> Someone has to take the stake through the heart (HA! I slay me!) on behalf of the thread and rate the PQ of this, right? I actually saw it in the theatre, so I do know what I'm getting myself into. Worry not. I won't recommend to anyone that they watch it as well, unlike Mamma Mia. I loved Mamma Mia. Twilight, on the other hand, *is such a special sort of horrible*, the _Mystery Science Theater 3000_ fan in me must pay homage to the tragic mess that is this film.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm also curious as to how Edward's Sparkle will look on Blu Ray on my Panny Plasma.



Is it horrible on the same scale as HSM3?


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/16086094
> 
> 
> Is it horrible on the same scale as HSM3?



No. Twilight is the fun sort of "special sort of horrible" as there's so much to laugh at because it's so ridiculous(even in comparison to the books, which yes, I've read). HSM3 was *just bad, full stop*.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16086131
> 
> 
> No. Twilight is the fun sort of "special sort of horrible" as there's so much to laugh at because it's so ridiculous(even in comparison to the books, which yes, I've read). HSM3 was *just bad, full stop*.



Thanks. That's good to hear. But so far I am not willing to indulge the nasty marketing tactic of selling it only through a limited number of outlets. Presumably something else we can thank Mr. Nickerson for.


----------



## tfoltz

Anyone recently watch Memoirs of a Geisha recently? Doesn't look Tier 1 to me. Maybe 2.5.


----------



## djoberg

*Transporter 3*


I just found myself repeating the words "Don't build up too much hype on this one Denny," but quite frankly, I may not succeed in this. Let me begin by echoing the words of Hugh, "This IS reference quality PQ!"


I really don't know where to begin, so perhaps I should start with FACIAL CLOSE-UPS. In Transporter 3 we are treated to a plethora of them, and I would challenge anyone to find a title that is any better in this category. They easily match the facial close-ups in Man On Fire....and there are more of them! Every stubble, pore, wrinkle, freckle, mole, age spot, etc. can be seen in all their glory!


Colors were vibrant, contrast was strong, black levels were deep, shadow detail was impressive, details were amazing, and there was plenty of depth.


The only flaws that I noticed (on this first viewing) were a couple of isolated shots with minor digital noise and one or two instances of crushed blacks. But these were so insignificant in the whole scheme of things that I don't know that it can even be penalized for them.


Before I give my view for placement, I want to add that the AQ is also reference quality. It will give your sound system a real workout, especially in the car chase scenes. I was absolutely floored by the following two scenes:

*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Two car crashes with explosions at the 1 hr. 15 sec. mark and at the 1 hr. 33 min. 47 sec. mark.



I truly believe this title is equal to Man on Fire, so I'm going to recommend:

*Tier Recommendation: Top of Tier 0 next to Man On Fire*


Samsung 50" 1080p DLP....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 6'


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Denny, are those good movies? I've never seen any of them (Transporter series).


----------



## Hughmc

Did I tell ya Denny?







Seriously though I recommended tier 0 after 1 viewing and I knew it would be questioned since tier 0 has become elusive for most titles. I watched it 2 more times since and reviewed PQ compared to another rental I will be recommending later The Punisher. I thought since it was a Lionsgate release it might be really good PQ as well, but it isn't and more on that later.


Glad you liked it Denny, and IMO it is reference for picture and sound. I recommended low tier 0, but I think the PQ is very close to if not equal to the Pirates movies in tier 0.


Now lets see what happens when the projector crowd gets a viewing. It should be interesting.











GGG I thought the first was the best.


----------



## OldCodger73

*PQ:* Detail and sharpness was mostly very good, with some scenes dropping to good. Facial close-ups started to hint at fine facial details but didn't have the excellent sharpness needed to really define them. To me, the movie's strength was in its rich vibrant colors, for example in the costumes, eyes and most especially the rich green Irish and English landscape. I had not seen the movie before so I can't compare it to the DVD, but to me it was a pleasing transfer and solidly in the silver tier. I'd rate *The Princess Bride Tier 2.25.*

*The Movie:* As I said earlier I hadn't seen the movie before nor haven't read the book on which it's based. I thought the movie was cute and OK, a pleasant evening's diversion. I'd rate it 3.5 on Netflix's 5 scale. I guess I looked at the movie from too much of a contemporary standpoint and felt Buttercup was way too passive.


Panasonic 50" 720p plasma, Panasonic 10a player 7 1/2'


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16086830
> 
> 
> Denny, are those good movies? I've never seen any of them (Transporter series).



I've only seen 1 & 3....#1 was better but #3 isn't too bad as long as you don't take the action scenes seriously (wait until you see Jason Statham on a bicycle chasing down a car







).


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16086896
> 
> 
> Glad you liked it Denny, and IMO it is reference for picture and sound. I recommended low tier 0, but *I think the PQ is very close to if not equal to the Pirates movies in tier 0*.



As you know, I compared it twice in my review to Man On Fire, and having recently seen MOF I truly believe they are in the same ballpark PQ-wise. When I revisited MOF I made a post saying it was still deserving of a Tier 0 placement, but that it should be moved down to around the middle of the tier. That's where I think Transporter 3 should be too, but with it being as good as MOF I suggested the top of Tier 0 for it. Bottom line: Both of these titles should be in the middle of Tier 0.


----------



## rsbeck

*Transporter 3*


Fine grain intact and apparent throughout, what appears to be persistent ringing and halos noted. Transporter 3 is another in the genre of human cartoon/action flicks, lit, shot, and processed with high def in mind. Contrast is bumped and color timing tweaked to maintain saturation.


T3 is consistently sharp and in focus throughout. The draw here is the close-ups, with faces resolved down to the pores, single strands of head hair, eyebrow, stubble and peach fuzz, variation from strand to strand. It helps that all actors have good sized pores and most have stubble -- or -- on the woman -- incredible freckles -- impressive!


I only have a few negatives on Transporter 3.


Because of the increased contrast, blacks are sometimes crushed, whites a little hot and this can be fatiguing.


The real negative, though, is what appears on my screen to be ringing and halos, which are persistent and distracting.


Now, where to rank Transporter 3? Without the ringing, I would probably recommend Transporter 3 similarly to Shoot 'Em Up, which also has great close-ups and will be ranked 1.0. Some may feel that Transporter 3 has more "wow" factor, but I don't. I admire the close-ups immensely, I feel it comes to this extra "wow" factor dishonestly with the use of increased contrast and what appears to me like edge enhancement and whether or not this is edge enhancement this bright edged look is not as enjoyable to me.


I found no ringing or halos in Shoot 'Em Up.


Honestly, without the ringing, I'd probably be recommending somewhere around 1.0 -- equal to Shoot 'Em Up, but the ringing was too persistent to overlook.


My first instinct was to recommend 1.5, but I recommended the Kill Bills at 1.5 and feel that Transporter 3 has more consistent strengths. It's consistently in focus where the Kill Bills have quite a bit of softness. Facial detail is consistently excellent where the Kill Bills tend to be excellent only in close-ups, which are far less frequent, and you see some smooth DNR looking faces in the Kill Bills, none in T3. Even with the ringing (the Kill Bills have some ringing, too), I feel that Transporter 3's flaws are not as egregious as the Kill Bills (or Crank).


So, the most logical place, IMO, would be somewhere between 1.0 and 1.25.


Because of the ringing, I feel I can't recommend as high as I recommended Shoot 'em Up, but I must recommend higher than the Kill Bills.

*Recommendation: Tier 1.25*


Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From 126" Screen


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/16088922
> 
> *Transporter 3*
> 
> 
> 
> Now, where to rank Transporter 3? I am not as impressed with Transporter 3 as I was with Shoot 'Em Up, which also has great close-ups. Transporter 3 may have more "wow" factor, but I feel it comes to this wow factor dishonestly with the use of increased contrast and edge enhancement.



Just my two cents on this "wow" factor. And no, I haven't seen the movie yet but should get to it this weekend...


This may be controversial, but if there is a "wow" factor then, for the purposes of this thread, it shouldn't be penalized what method it got there. I am not saying EE/DNR are positives, but if it's producing a "wow" factor then it was done right. Perhaps, in this case, it's not really a "wow" factor but distracting ringing and halo's.


For the most part, EE/DNR have hurt pictures. But, if it somehow induces a "wow" (dishonestly or honestly) then it should NOT be penalized.


----------



## Thunderbolt8

bolt made a really good impression, so...within top3?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16088993
> 
> 
> Just my two cents on this "wow" factor. And no, I haven't seen the movie yet but should get to it this weekend...
> 
> 
> This may be controversial, but if there is a "wow" factor then, for the purposes of this thread, it shouldn't be penalized what method it got there. I am not saying EE/DNR are positives, but if it's producing a "wow" factor then it was done right. Perhaps, in this case, it's not really a "wow" factor but distracting ringing and halo's.
> 
> 
> For the most part, EE/DNR have hurt pictures. But, if it somehow induces a "wow" (dishonestly or honestly) then it should NOT be penalized.



Good points. I would guess this is a semantics thing. Perhaps "impact" would be a better word for rsbeck to use than "wow factor"?


I have Transporter 3 here at home and will watch it tonight.


Rsbeck, I have noticed that many of the movies that you have reviewed lately have noticeable ringing. In fact, you seem to notice this issue more than I or others here. You are obviously very sensitive to this issue, whereas I am rarely bothered by it much, even when I do notice it (such as on Raging Bull). I am sitting only 6 inches further back than you on my 123" screen.


Just an observation.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/16088922
> 
> *Transporter 3*
> 
> 
> I only have a few negatives on Transporter 3, but IMO, they are serious.
> 
> *The real negative, though, is the ringing and halos, which are persistent and distracting.* I feel this look; increased contrast, tweaked color timing for compensation plus Edge Enhancement is becoming the new way to appeal in the age of high def.
> 
> 
> It definitely produces a picture that pops, but IMO not necessarily in a good way.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 1.5*



I must agree with Rob Tomlin rsbeck in his comments about you seeing ringing on just about every movie you watch. If one were to check out your last 20 reviews they would see that you mention seeing ringing or halos in the greater percentage of them. Even if you don't see them, you still mention the fact that you DIDN'T see them. So it's clear you are very focused on this anomaly.


I did NOT see any instances of it on Transporter 3 and thus I stand firmly by my recommendation of Tier 0 (somewhere in the middle, if Man On Fire is moved down).


When I first read your review, and especially your comments on the "persistent ringing," I thought it must be because of your front projector and huge screen, but then I read Rob Tomlin's post, and he too has a setup similar to yours (of course he hasn't viewed Transporter 3 yet, but he still speaks of not seeing a lot of the ringing that you are seeing in titles). So, I am confused. All I can say is I am VERY GLAD I am not seeing what you are apparently seeing.


----------



## djoberg

*Quarantine*


Let me say from the outset that this title has little, if any, redeeming "eye candy" qualities. This is a hard one to judge because at least 2/3 of the movie is so shaky (much like the camera work in The Blair Witch Project) that there are very few still shots for you to assess PQ quality.


The opening scenes at the Fire Department were okay, with halfway decent black levels, fairly good-looking skin tones, and some mediocre detail, but once it shifted to the apartment building the ability to critique the PQ ceased. The few scenes that didn't jerk you all over the place were average, at best. They had very little detail, no depth, poor contrast, and crushed blacks with zero shadow detail.


I believe stumlad gave this a Tier 3.75 placement and IMO he was being generous. I would be inclined to give it a:

*Tier Recommendation: 4.0*


Samsung 50" 1080p DLP....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 6'


----------



## moematthews




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16086896
> 
> 
> GGG I thought the first was the best.



I've only seen the first one, and it is an outrageous, over-the-top action flick. Highly recommended.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16088993
> 
> 
> Just my two cents on this "wow" factor. And no, I haven't seen the movie yet but should get to it this weekend...
> 
> 
> This may be controversial, but if there is a "wow" factor then, for the purposes of this thread, it shouldn't be penalized what method it got there. I am not saying EE/DNR are positives, but if it's producing a "wow" factor then it was done right.
> 
> 
> For the most part, EE/DNR have hurt pictures. But, if it somehow induces a "wow" (dishonestly or honestly) then it should NOT be penalized.



+1


Right on deltasun!


----------



## rsbeck

It's rare to see a title that has no ringing at all.


I note the ringing I see when watching.


I don't know how sensitive I am to it.


I know that I have seen ringing in lots of titles, yet I have recommended a spectrum from tier 0 to tier 5 based on a myriad of factors, not just ringing. As I have written before, I see different levels of ringing in different titles and if you were to peruse my reviews, I think you'll see that.


Re: Rob Tomlin --


I noticed that Rob Tomlin said of Beverly Hills Chihuahua that it had a "sharpened look."


I'm not sure what a sharpened look is, but I saw halos and increased contrast.


I'm sure some people would say Chihuahua has a "wow" factor.


Though Rob saw no halos, his recommendation matched mine at 1.75.


Neither the "wow" factor nor his inability to spot the halos caused Rob to recommend that title higher than I.


So, sensitivity to halos certainly does not explain that one.


I think you've got a red herring there.


To my eyes, the ringing in Transporter 3 compared to other titles is pretty bad.


That's what I have to go by.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/16089762
> 
> 
> To my eyes, the ringing in Transporter 3 compared to other titles is pretty bad.



Well, I guess we'll have to wait to see what others have to say about T3.


I must get back to watching "Quantum Of Solace." I'm 30 minutes into it and it's looking VERY GOOD....and no ringing, so far.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16089918
> 
> 
> Well, I guess we'll have to wait to see what others have to say about T3.



I just got done watching this (Transporter 3) and did not see any ringing, but honestly ringing is not something I am usualy sensitive to so I could have missed it. This was one GREAT looking title to my eyes and off what I saw from my one viewing, I would side with the tier 0 crowd.


On a side note, the audio was OFF THE CHARTS!







Talk about a bass junky fix!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/16089762
> 
> *It's rare to see a title that has no ringing at all.*
> 
> 
> I note the ringing I see when watching.
> 
> 
> I don't know how sensitive I am to it.
> 
> 
> I know that I have seen ringing in lots of titles, yet I have recommended a spectrum from tier 0 to tier 5 based on a myriad of factors, not just ringing. As I have written before, I see different levels of ringing in different titles and if you were to peruse my reviews, I think you'll see that.
> 
> 
> Re: Rob Tomlin --
> 
> 
> I noticed that Rob Tomlin said of Beverly Hills Chihuahua that it had a "sharpened look."
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what a sharpened look is, but I saw halos and increased contrast.
> 
> 
> I'm sure some people would say Chihuahua has a "wow" factor.
> 
> 
> Though Rob saw no halos, his recommendation matched mine at 1.75.
> 
> 
> Neither the "wow" factor nor his inability to spot the halos caused Rob to recommend that title higher than I.
> 
> 
> So, sensitivity to halos certainly does not explain that one.
> 
> 
> I think you've got a red herring there.
> 
> 
> To my eyes, the ringing in Transporter 3 compared to other titles is pretty bad.
> 
> 
> That's what I have to go by.



Interesting.


I find it more rare to see a title that has ringing, yet you say it is rare to see a title with no ringing. I've just got to shrug that one off, and say that it is just further proof of how we all see things differently.


Anyway, I am going to be watching Transporter 3 in the next 30 minutes.


I also have reviews for "Mirrors" and "Midnight Meat Train" that I still need to post. I'm having a hard time getting the motivation to do them. That should probably give you an idea of where they are going to be ranked!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/16089980
> 
> 
> I just got done watching this and did not see any ringing, but honestly ringing is not something I am usualy sensitive to so I could have missed it. This was one GREAT looking title to my eyes and off what I saw from my one viewing, I would side with the tier 0 crowd.
> 
> 
> On a side note, the audio was OFF THE CHARTS!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Talk about a bass junky fix!



Cool! I hope I am lucky enough to have Netflix send this out on release day.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16090010
> 
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> 
> I find it more rare to see a title that has ringing, yet you say it is rare to see a title with no ringing. I've just got to shrug that one off, and say that it is just further proof of how we all see things differently.
> 
> 
> Anyway, I am going to be watching Transporter 3 in the next 30 minutes.
> 
> 
> I also have reviews for "Mirrors" and "Midnight Meat Train" that I still need to post. I'm having a hard time getting the motivation to do them. That should probably give you an idea of where they are going to be ranked!



I do the same with procrastinating on recommending placement on some titles I have seen. I have four I will list later tonight if I get motivated and in the right frame of mind. It is easier to just BS than to do a more formal tier placement recommendation.


Did you watch Mirrors and Midnight MT back to back? One alone is a mind F... never mind them both.


----------



## deltasun

What am I missing, how come you've all got Quantum of Solace already??? Am I the only one here with no connections?










I'd like to get a crack at that while it's still fresh in my mind how it looked in the theatres.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16090022
> 
> 
> Cool! I hope I am lucky enough to have Netflix send this out on release day.



Sorry for the confusion Rob which was my fault, but I was referring to Transporter 3, not QOS. I edited my post.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/16090168
> 
> 
> Sorry for the confusion Rob which was my fault, but I was referring to Trasporter 3, not QOS.



Toe please do a more formal recommendation as in the bold print, as per page one of this thread so your vote gets counted.










Also as far as early releases, Hollywood Video in my town had Bolt for sale on DVD and BD. The manager told me Tuesday Bolt wasn't coming out till Sunday on BD and the DVD wasn't supposed to be released till Tuesday. Meanwhile they have it for sale, but not rent.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16090147
> 
> 
> I'd like to get a crack at that while it's still fresh in my mind how it looked in the theatres.



Well, worst-case scenario, you've only got three days left, so if your memory's made it this far, you'll probably do alright.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16090197
> 
> 
> Toe please do a more formal recommendation as in the bold print, as per page one of this thread so your vote gets counted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also as far as early releases, Hollywood Video in my town had Bolt for sale on DVD and BD. The manager told me Tuesday Bolt wasn't coming out till Sunday on BD and the DVD wasn't supposed to be released till Tuesday. Meanwhile they have it for sale, but not rent.



Honestly Hugh I dont feel I watched this title close enough to place a formal review to satisfy the criteria considering I was more wrapped up in the audio, but if I get time I might go back through a few parts to confirm/deny my initial findings as far as feeling tier 0 from this and if so I will do a formal writeup. I was not trying to vote, just comment on the supposed ringing which I did not see from my one viewing just now.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16090083
> 
> 
> 
> Did you watch Mirrors and Midnight MT back to back? One alone is a mind F... never mind them both.



I watched them 2 nights in a row, not on the same night. I actually thought one of them was pretty decent for the genre, the other one, not so much.


I'll let you guess which is which.










Transporter 3 starting in 3, 2, ...........


----------



## lgans316

*Last List Update: February 11, 2009 by SuprSlow*


SuprSlow,


Are you there?


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/16090318
> 
> *Last List Update: February 11, 2009 by SuprSlow*
> 
> 
> SuprSlow,
> 
> 
> Are you there?




Hey, I know we haven't crossed paths much lately, but thank you, lgans316, for the nod you gave me in a recent thread somewhere in this forum. You are a gentlemen.


----------



## stumlad

*The Godfather*


Obviously a classic, and I've read about the big restoration effort that was put into this. I saw the comparison threads a while back. With all that considered, it looks great for what it is. Unfortunately according to the way we judge things around here, this movie is far from good looking.


I know that this was all "intent", but black levels are raised, and there are blooming effects that seem to be a result. Looking at ceiling lights, and other bright areas seemed a bit too bright at times where you cannot make out too much detail.


As far as resolution, this is the movie's weakest point. If it weren't for the fact that all of the grain was pretty much intact, it would be hard to tell this was a blu-ray as it didnt look much better than some of the best DVDs. There were few shots that looked average, but for the most part the resolution isnt there; there are very few moments of fine detail. My guess is that if we were to re-encode this at 720x480 using a high bit-rate AVC encode, besides some changes in grain, it would be hard to distinguish this 1080p encode from that.


I look at the titles in Tier 3, and they are basically BDs that display pretty good overall resolution, but with issues (contrast problems, artifacts, softness, or other inconsistencies). I then look at Tier 4, and see Goodfellas which I feel shows more fine detail, but probably has other issues which probably makes it even out.

*Tier 4.0*


----------



## lgans316

Thanks Hughmc.









*Last edited by AustinSTI; 02-19-09 at 05:34 AM.*


Sorry folks for not being able to participate in one of my favorite threads. Work has been quite hectic and it's been a long time since buying and properly viewing BLUs. To quench this BLU thirst, God has ordered me to be in London, starting from tomorrow, for another 3 months. Have prepared a huge list of BLUs to be purchased provided things go as planned.


I hope AustinSTI or SuprSlow would be able to find some precious time to keep the OP updated.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16090147
> 
> 
> What am I missing, how come you've all got Quantum of Solace already??? Am I the only one here with no connections?



I got mine today at a local video store. I know the manager quite well and she gets her new releases in on Friday or Saturday and usually puts them out for rental the following Tuesday. She knew I was anxious to see it so she let me have it early. Now deltasun, you need to find yourself a good connection.


----------



## djoberg

*Quantum Of Solace*


I'm tired, so this will be short! This was another eye sweetener, but not quite as good as Transporter 3. I will probably need another viewing of it to be firm in where it should go, but right now I'm leaning towards bottom of Tier 0 or top of Tier 1.


One of the best virtues of QOS was the EXCELLENT contrast, with deep, inky blacks, and super, bright whites balanced to near perfection. (At times the contrast was too strong resulting in some washed out landscapes and white interior walls, but this was the exception and not the rule.) Shadow detail in night scenes were also above average.


Skin tones were spot on, and facial close-ups pleasing, though they weren't on the same level as in Transporter 3. It had a broad color palette that was both natural and vibrant.


All-in-all a very sharp and detailed transfer that left me wanting more (even though this was my 3rd Blu-ray viewing today). The only flaw I observed, besides the overblown contrast alluded to above, would be digital noise in several scenes, and this too could be attributed to the high contrast, I believe.


Right now I'm going to play it safe and recommend the same placement as its predecessor:

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0*


Samsung 50" 1080p DLP....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 6'


----------



## deltasun

I guess I'm not so good at connecting - just got Changeling tonight finally.










About to start Transporter 3 myself. Btw, did you guys catch the Crank 2 preview at the beginning of the disc? Looking like a potential Tier 0 in the same vain as Domino. I think it was rsbeck who mentioned that this may be the future of hi-def movies (at least in the short term). It's looking like it, at least when it comes to action and/or Jason Statham.


QoS *pop*...memory should be good for another 3 or 4 days.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16090603
> 
> 
> I guess I'm not so good at connecting - just got Changeling tonight finally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About to start Transporter 3 myself. Btw, did you guys catch the Crank 2 preview at the beginning of the disc? Looking like a potential Tier 0 in the same vain as Domino. I think it was rsbeck who mentioned that this may be the future of hi-def movies (at least in the short term). It's looking like it, at least when it comes to action and/or Jason Statham.
> 
> 
> QoS *pop*...memory should be good for another 3 or 4 days.



Crank 2 looks incredible a lot like the first, but I love the look.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16090603
> 
> 
> in the same vain as Domino. I think it was rsbeck who mentioned that this may be the future of hi-def movies (at least in the short term).



I saw very little ringing in Domino -- only a few edges.


The promo for Crank2 does look a little like Transporter3.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Transporter 3*


"You're the gay!"


Wow! The picture quality on this release is very, very impressive! It excels on all of the most important aspects of PQ to me for eye candy: clarity, solidity, and depth.


The overall clarity and detail rivals some of the very best titles out there. The image has a real solidity to it a majority of the time. Contrast and black levels are excellent, often adding a real sense of depth and dimensionality to the image.


There is a high percentage of shots with facial close ups, and there are no disappointments in this area! Every whisker on Franks face can be counted, as can every freckle on Valentina's.


Colors are quite vibrant, without being over the top saturated. Light film grain is preserved.


I only noticed some ringing in two scenes, and even in those two scenes, it was very minor. The only other criticism I would have is that contrast was a bit hot on a couple of scenes, including the scenes on the boat at the beginning and end of the movie, but those scenes only made up about 2 minutes of the movie.


The bottom line is that I am having a hard time finding much at all to criticize in this release (there are other titles that I voted for in Tier 0 that I can criticize more than this title, such as Youth Without Youth). The excellent clarity, detail, depth of image, and colors make this a great looking disc overall.


As for the movie: MUCH better than Transporter 2. Obviously it is still an over the top action movie, but the premise in this one was better than part 2. You will still be required to turn off your brain to enjoy it much. If you do, you will!

*Tier Recommendation: 0* (somewhere above Youth Without Youth.....but below Prince Caspian....which means Prince Caspian needs to be moved up quite a bit....yes this gets difficult and confusing)


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Sleuth


recommendation: Tier 1.75*


I just wanted to give my opinion of this title, which is currently ranked in tier 2.25. There did not appear to be much discussion of this placement except early on by Mr. Tomlin and one other poster. The image is a little too good to wallow in the second tier. The cinematography on display is stunning at times with very interesting composition within the frame. The color palette does tend to lean towards cooler blue tones.


It is good to see lgans316 checking in on this thread. I thought he had gone AWOL from here...nice to see you back.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/16090848
> 
> *Sleuth
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 1.75*
> 
> 
> I just wanted to give my opinion of this title, which is currently ranked in tier 2.25. There did not appear to be much discussion of this placement except early on by Mr. Tomlin and one other poster. The image is a little too good to wallow in the second tier. The cinematography on display is stunning at times with very interesting composition within the frame. The color palette does tend to lean towards cooler blue tones.
> 
> 
> It is good to see lgans316 checking in on this thread. I thought he had gone AWOL from here...nice to see you back.



Did I do a review on Sleuth? I couldn't find it.







I do remember being mostly impressed by this title, and its cinematography, but I don't remember if I gave a review. I did see a comment that I made to Patrick about thinking he would have liked it because of the facial details.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Mirrors*


This was a pretty big disappointment in the PQ department. Well, actually, it was just a big disappointment period, as the movie sucked too!


There is heavy grain here, but then again, I am not even sure that it should be called grain, but noise instead. I found it to be rather distracting most of the time, and downright annoying other times, mostly in the darkest scenes.


There is a sheen over the image, and an overall lack of clarity. Details can be seen in some scenes, and in fact is very good at times, with a lot of sharpness to it (I actually thought this may have been shot with an HD cam), but it is not enough to overcome the negatives.


Contrast is weak, and black levels are not good.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.75*


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16090865
> 
> 
> Did I do a review on Sleuth? I couldn't find it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do remember being mostly impressed by this title, and its cinematography, but I don't remember if I gave a review. I did see a comment that I made to Patrick about thinking he would have liked it because of the facial details.



You should have done a little more sleuthing in the thread.










Sleuth:


Wow, this was a really great looking title! Superb looking set, with great colors and reflective/glass type objects that are a feast for the eyes. Excellent clarity, detail and contrast. No EE or other artifacts noticed.


Sony has come up with a great looking release here. I enjoyed the movie, but wouldn't want to watch it again.


This is a Top Tier 1 title.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post13384935


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*The Midnight Meat Train*


This is another title with fairly heavy grain, and noise in some of the darker scenes that could be distracting at times.


Details are decent, but not particularly impressive. Colors are largely non existent in this mostly dark, cold movie.


Not horrible, but not real very impressive either. I couldn't help but notice that the bitrate meter seemed to be very low on this title.


As for the movie itself: it was actually fairly decent for this type of movie (horror). It was written by Clive Barker, which should tell you most of what you need to know.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.25*


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/16090904
> 
> 
> You should have done a little more sleuthing in the thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sleuth:
> 
> 
> Wow, this was a really great looking title! Superb looking set, with great colors and reflective/glass type objects that are a feast for the eyes. Excellent clarity, detail and contrast. No EE or other artifacts noticed.
> 
> 
> Sony has come up with a great looking release here. I enjoyed the movie, but wouldn't want to watch it again.
> 
> 
> This is a Top Tier 1 title.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post13384935



I knew I liked it! I'm an idiot. I did the search, and found the reference to Hitman and I passed over it because I never combine reviews in one post like that anymore! Thanks, and obviously I agree that Sleuth needs to be moved up (even though my review was a year ago).


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16090916
> 
> *The Midnight Meat Train*
> 
> 
> This is another title with fairly heavy grain, and noise in some of the darker scenes that could be distracting at times.
> 
> 
> Details are decent, but not particularly impressive. Colors are largely non existent in this mostly dark, cold movie.
> 
> 
> Not horrible, but not real very impressive either. I couldn't help but notice that the bitrate meter seemed to be very low on this title.
> 
> 
> As for the movie itself: it was actually fairly decent for this type of movie (horror). It was written by Clive Barker, which should tell you most of what you need to know.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.25*



Rob what did you think of:

*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) when he smashes the head off of the women and she briefly awakens, we get to see the camera through her own eyes as she sees her own headless body? And the scene where the person is upside down hanging on a meat hook and gets his throat cut open only to see his own face reflecting in his own pool of blood. Whoa!! CLive has one sick thinking mind. "Please stay clear of the meat"



By the way I think I was generous with 2.0 on MMT.


----------



## 42041

*RocknRolla*


This movie was shot on one of them newfangled digital cameras, and it looks the part. There are some very crisp details when the focus is where it needs to be, which for some reason is not the case on a much more regular basis than most movies. My other issue is that the contrast tends to be a bit weak on the low end as well. The film has a stylized, sepia-toned look which won't send it to the top of people's demo material shelf, but barring the issues above, personally I think this is an excellent looking disc. Quite surprised at its current ranking, really. Same tier as Sarah Marshall and Twister? I very much disagree...

*Tier 1.5*

(PS3/Pioneer 50" Kuro 9g Elite/1sw away)


----------



## deltasun

*Transporter 3*


Fine grain present throughout and complementary to the look and feel. Although it wasn't present throughout the movie, there is a subtle greenish tinge look-wise. I didn't find this distracting, but just the opposite. It made it more inviting.


The biggest strength would have to be the facial details. I just cannot help but gloss over how finely rendered and textured faces are. I thought Valentina's face, with all her freckles, looked a bit soft in the beginning. However, it may have just been the initial lighting. She quickly followed suit.


Blacks were excellent; though, I saw scenes where they were a bit crushed (as reviewers have mentioned). The colors were vivid and lively. Skin tones spot on. I did not experience much 3D pop, but depth and dimension were exceptional. One of my favorite scenes would have to be the sunset scene at the 1hr 11min mark. The depth and detail presented there in low light I have not seen matched...yet.


I tried to pay close attention to ringing and only detected a small, eyelash thin example. Ironically, it was close to the above time reference, at the 1hr and 10min mark, on Frank's coat against the sky. I thought I saw one on the minister's arm against a light background but noticed it was due to his fine hairs refracting the light. So, in my viewing, I don't think the ringing/halos were a big factor. Incidentally, my close viewing revealed some artifacts as well - but very, very minor that they're negligible.


Overall, I was very impressed with this title. Placement will be tough, but I would rate this just below _Domino_ in Tier 0. Oh, but wait...where is _Domino_ in Tier 0? Accoring to my _Domino_ review, just below _Man on Fire_ and above both _The Host_ and _Live Free or Die Hard_.

*Tier Recommendation: Mid Tier 0*

_...just below Domino and above The Host and Live Free or Die Hard._

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8' & 6'_


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16090865
> 
> 
> Did I do a review on Sleuth? I couldn't find it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do remember being mostly impressed by this title, and its cinematography, but I don't remember if I gave a review. I did see a comment that I made to Patrick about thinking he would have liked it because of the facial details.



My recollection is that I watched part of this and was not impressed with the PQ. I think 2.25 sounds more accurate to me than 1.75.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16089451
> 
> 
> I must agree with Rob Tomlin rsbeck in his comments about you seeing ringing on just about every movie you watch. If one were to check out your last 20 reviews they would see that you mention seeing ringing or halos in the greater percentage of them. Even if you don't see them, you still mention the fact that you DIDN'T see them. So it's clear you are very focused on this anomaly.
> 
> 
> I did NOT see any instances of it on Transporter 3 and thus I stand firmly by my recommendation of Tier 0 (somewhere in the middle, if Man On Fire is moved down).
> 
> 
> When I first read your review, and especially your comments on the "persistent ringing," I thought it must be because of your front projector and huge screen, but then I read Rob Tomlin's post, and he too has a setup similar to yours (of course he hasn't viewed Transporter 3 yet, but he still speaks of not seeing a lot of the ringing that you are seeing in titles). So, I am confused. All I can say is I am VERY GLAD I am not seeing what you are apparently seeing.



That's an interesting comment. My impression is almost the opposite, namely that rsbeck sometimes seems more forgiving of ringing than I tend to be, such as in the case of YWY. He tends to say "thin ringing on high contrast edges in a few scenes" in cases where I would say the ringing is much more frequent than that.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Street Kings


recommendation: Tier 1.0*


A sparkling transfer to Blu-ray by Twentieth Century Fox, it was released on August 19th of last year. The 108-minute film is encoded in AVC on a BD-50. The packaging lists the average video bitrate of the main feature to be 34 Mbps, which appears accurate from my observations. Encoded by Deluxe Digital Studios, the compression here looks great and simply transparent to the original source material without the presence of artifacts at all. Nothing more can really be said as there simply are no problems anywhere to be spotted, even in the backgrounds of complex and fast-moving scenes.


The transfer for this BD was derived from a pristine Digital Intermediate. There simply are no visible flaws or damage with the original source material. Flawless is a word thrown around here but in this regard it is flawless in nature. A couple of short scenes do exhibit minor halos, but the bulk of the movie is free of added sharpening. I do have my suspicions that some grain management has been performed on the transfer at some stage. For a movie shot on film there is a serious lack of visible grain throughout it. The process does not leave any of the tell-tale signs like waxy faces or smeared grain, but film in my experience does not look this uniformly clean.


The image quality is consistently stellar with razor-sharp and highly revealing clarity for the length of the movie. I was struck how the quality never really veered from the first moments of the film. Softness is never an issue as every scene looks crisp with regular moments of tier zero-level of depth and dimensionality. The color timing does push red slightly, making flesh tones a little sickly at times. Black levels are very nice with no clipping or crushing. Shadow detail and delineation is tremendous even when lesser ranked Blu-rays would typically falter in the lower light photography of certain scenes. Microscopic detail is very good but not as good as the best available on Blu-ray. While facial features and skin textures are very detailed, the best ultra-small details appear lacking. This is just a general impression and not a condemnation of the picture quality.


This is an outstanding presentation on Blu-ray that is perceptually flawless. Only the lack of the finest high-frequency information prevents me from ranking it worthy of tier zero. My recommendation is for placement in tier 1.0.


Watching on a 60 Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 (firmware 2.60) at a viewing distance of six feet.


----------



## stumlad

How to Search...


I think I found a better way to search this thread. Most of the time I'll use the thread search, but as we all know, it's not very good. There is Google Search AVS search box, or you can go to the menu at the top and click search and find it there.


I noticed that if I put:

PQ Tier Title of Movie


I would get back really good results. I tried Let the Right One In:


PQ Tier Let the Right One In


or saw:


PQ Tier Saw


In some ways it's better than the built in one, but in other ways it's not. I think it's better for finding a title, but results can occur outside of a specific thread (which is the only real benefit of the thread search).


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/16091375
> 
> 
> That's an interesting comment. My impression is almost the opposite, namely that *rsbeck sometimes seems more forgiving of ringing* than I tend to be, such as in the case of YWY. He tends to say "thin ringing on high contrast edges in a few scenes" in cases where I would say the ringing is much more frequent than that.



Thank you for your comments.


This has been my experience in the Grain Allowed thread as well. There have been many titles where I noted some thin ringing on a few high contrast edges, not enough to bother me, but over there, it is considered an issue.


Speaking of Youth Without Youth -- I don't believe Rob Tomlin noted any ringing in that title, either and IMO, the ringing in YWY was pretty easy to see. But, I didn't see enough of it to dock Youth Without Youth for it and that is often the case. I still recommended YWY to tier 0.


I only become bothered by ringing and halos when it is persistent and in my experience, though I see at least a few instances of ringing in almost every title, it is less common to find what I consider to be persistent ringing.


However, when I have watched a title where the ringing is persistent, it is very distracting.


IMO, people have varying abilities to see ringing and halos. They do not tend to be around faces which is where most people focus. Edge enhancement is used specifically because a lot of people not only cannot spot the ringing, but it tricks the eye of one who cannot spot it into believing he/she is actually seeing a sharper picture.


Of those who can spot halos and ringing, some are bothered by it more than others. My experience has been that I can spot it, but I can ignore a fair amount of it and even when I can't, I don't believe my reaction is at all at the extreme end of the bell-shaped curve.


I appreciate Patrick pointing that out.


I found the ringing in Transporter 3 both persistent and distracting, yet I still recommended it to tier 1.25.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Mornin' boys! My plan was to watch _From Russia With Love_ last night, with a quick trip up to Wallyworld to pick up _Twilight_, and then watch that. However, FRWL got sidelined so we could make ourselves some Shadenfreude Pie to go along with the teenage angst of _Twilight_.












I was able to get my copy last night at the local Walmart; a bare-bones single disc Blu Ray which was PERFECT for my needs as I don't require anything extra to go along with this film. I know this title has release issues in the States for the Blu Ray copy, which is unfortunate because it was actually a breath of fresh air to spend less than $20 Canadian on a brand-new release that's not filled with a bunch of junk (special features disc, digital copy) that I don't want and am glad I didn't have to pay an inflated price just to buy this.



I'm not reviewing this yet as I do think I should watch it with eyes that are free of Cosmopolitans, which I am hoping to do very soon. I'm pleased to report that I personally did not notice any EE in last night's viewing; if it's there, it's minimal as I'm very sensitive to it.



I don't think that many of you will be watching this movie, so I do hope that the few who do watch it will provide a review if they can stomach watching the entire thing. I'll do the best I can with this one as I'm anticipating reviews to be lacking (like HSM3) -- although you boys may surprise me yet! My gut feeling is this film will wind up being recommended by me to be somewhere in the Tier 1 range, as a lot of this film is shot with a beautiful amount of detail and clarity; even touching the Tier 0 range for me at times.


However, fresh & sober eyes will be my true critic, but I thought a few words on it after my initial viewing might give some of you _some_ peace of mind if you're forced to watch it. If you are, throw some podcasts onto your Ipod and listen to something interesting while you watch this to help me rate it.


----------



## TayC

I'm going to watch Transporter 3 today and see if I can spot the ringing. I'm pretty sensitive to it.


----------



## rsbeck

My daughter is a Twilight fan, so I will be getting this title. She is also a High School Musical fan, so I have all three of those. I will confess that both of my daughters have been watching the High School Musicals, but I have not watched with them.


I will check out Twilight.


And the Shadenfreude Pie!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TayC* /forum/post/16092660
> 
> 
> I'm going to watch Transporter 3 today and see if I can spot the ringing. I'm pretty sensitive to it.



I almost want to as well since I am also very sensitive to it. I'm kind of hoping my friend will buy it, but he doesn't have the first 2, so I'm not that hopeful. This summer I'm going to try out the canadian version of netflix (zip.ca) and see if it's worthwhile given how far away I live from civilization; I'm sick of rentals costing me $7/shot, which is why I end up buying so many Blu's!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/16092686
> 
> 
> My daughter is a Twilight fan, so I will be getting this title. She is also a High School Musical fan, so I have all three of those. I will confess that both of my daughters have been watching the High School Musicals, but I have not watched with them.
> 
> 
> I will check out Twilight.
> 
> 
> And the Shadenfreude Pie!




I hope you eventually will sit through HSM3, especially since I gave it a tier 4 rating!



You will cringe during Twilight. Try and tune out the bad dialogue.










The pie wound up being quite good. We added pecans to the top.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16092653
> 
> 
> Mornin' boys! My plan was to watch _From Russia With Love_ last night, with a quick trip up to Wallyworld to pick up _Twilight_, and then watch that. However, FRWL got sidelined so we could make ourselves some Shadenfreude Pie to go along with the teenage angst of _Twilight_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was able to get my copy last night at the local Walmart; a bare-bones single disc Blu Ray which was PERFECT for my needs as I don't require anything extra to go along with this film. I know this title has release issues in the States for the Blu Ray copy, which is unfortunate because it was actually a breath of fresh air to spend less than $20 Canadian on a brand-new release that's not filled with a bunch of junk (special features disc, digital copy) that I don't want and am glad I didn't have to pay an inflated price just to buy this.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not reviewing this yet as I do think I should watch it with eyes that are free of Cosmopolitans, which I am hoping to do very soon. I'm pleased to report that I personally did not notice any EE in last night's viewing; if it's there, it's minimal as I'm very sensitive to it.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that many of you will be watching this movie, so I do hope that the few who do watch it will provide a review if they can stomach watching the entire thing. I'll do the best I can with this one as I'm anticipating reviews to be lacking (like HSM3) -- although you boys may surprise me yet! My gut feeling is this film will wind up being recommended by me to be somewhere in the Tier 1 range, as a lot of this film is shot with a beautiful amount of detail and clarity; even touching the Tier 0 range for me at times.
> 
> 
> However, fresh & sober eyes will be my true critic, but I thought a few words on it after my initial viewing might give some of you _some_ peace of mind if you're forced to watch it. If you are, throw some podcasts onto your Ipod and listen to something interesting while you watch this to help me rate it.



I decided I didn't want to wait for Amazon to get Twilight so I broke down and ordered it from BB. I also ordered Transporter 3 (but from Amazon).


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16092712
> 
> 
> I hope you eventually will sit through HSM3, especially since I gave it a tier 4 rating!



I trust your 4 rating, but I will try to check it out.


How can I resist?!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16091018
> 
> *Transporter 3*



First off, thanks for an excellent review!



> Quote:
> Fine grain present throughout and complementary to the look and feel. Although it wasn't present throughout the movie, there is a subtle greenish tinge look-wise. I didn't find this distracting, but just the opposite. It made it more inviting.



I don't know if it was a greenish tinge, but I definitely agree that the colors were slightly pushed in some manner. I have knocked some titles down for over-saturated colors, but I agree with you completely here: if anything, the colors on this title improved the overall look instead of hurting it.



> Quote:
> The biggest strength would have to be the facial details. I just cannot help but gloss over how finely rendered and textured faces are. I thought Valentina's face, with all her freckles, looked a bit soft in the beginning. However, it may have just been the initial lighting. She quickly followed suit.



Agreed again.



> Quote:
> Blacks were excellent; though, I saw scenes where they were a bit crushed (as reviewers have mentioned). The colors were vivid and lively. Skin tones spot on. *I did not experience much 3D pop, but depth and dimension were exceptional.* One of my favorite scenes would have to be the sunset scene at the 1hr 11min mark. The depth and detail presented there in low light I have not seen matched...yet.



I agree with most of this, but the part in bold is somewhat confusing to me. To me "3D pop" is the equal of "depth and dimension" which you say is exceptional (which I certainly agree with). How do you define "3D pop"?



> Quote:
> I tried to pay close attention to ringing and only detected a small, eyelash thin example. Ironically, it was close to the above time reference, at the 1hr and 10min mark, *on Frank's coat against the sky.* I thought I saw one on the minister's arm against a light background but noticed it was due to his fine hairs refracting the light. So, in my viewing, I don't think the ringing/halos were a big factor. Incidentally, my close viewing revealed some artifacts as well - but very, very minor that they're negligible.



Again, we are very much on the same page here. The part in bold is exactly where I noticed some slight ringing as well! There was another scene, but I don't remember where/what is was, but it was even less noticeable than the above scene.




> Quote:
> Overall, I was very impressed with this title. Placement will be tough, but I would rate this just below _Domino_ in Tier 0. Oh, but wait...where is _Domino_ in Tier 0? Accoring to my _Domino_ review, just below _Man on Fire_ and above both _The Host_ and _Live Free or Die Hard_.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Mid Tier 0*
> 
> _...just below Domino and above The Host and Live Free or Die Hard._



Yes, I too noticed the difficulty in placing this title in Tier 0 when looking at the other titles listed there. It clearly belongs in Tier 0 imo, but where? I also recommended similar placement, but there needs to be some movement of titles in Tier 0.


SuprSlow, where are you?!?!?!?


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

there's a small part of me that wishes Tier 0 was split up like the other tiers, but only into 3rds. "Top Tier 0", "Middle Tier 0" and "Bottom Tier 0".


I hope everything with SuprSlow is OK, I know he said he was expecting his first child & was very busy from that. Drop us a line, Brandon!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16090999
> 
> 
> Rob what did you think of:
> 
> *Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler
> *Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) when he smashes the head off of the women and she briefly awakens, we get to see the camera through her own eyes as she sees her own headless body? And the scene where the person is upside down hanging on a meat hook and gets his throat cut open only to see his own face reflecting in his own pool of blood. Whoa!! CLive has one sick thinking mind. "Please stay clear of the meat"
> 
> 
> 
> By the way I think I was generous with 2.0 on MMT.



Hugh, I am glad that you mentioned this! Pure genius! Especially
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) the way the camera comes "out of her eye" to show the reflection in her eye of her looking at her own beheaded body!



There were similar creative shots, and the cinematography was quite good. I definitely enjoyed this movie for what it was.


I didn't like Mirrors at all. The story didn't work for me, and the acting was pretty bad, even by Kiefer Sutherland, who I usually like.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/16091375
> 
> 
> That's an interesting comment. My impression is almost the opposite, namely that rsbeck sometimes seems more forgiving of ringing than I tend to be, such as in the case of YWY. He tends to say "thin ringing on high contrast edges in a few scenes" in cases where I would say the ringing is much more frequent than that.



Dude, you sit 4 inches from your screen! You can probably count all 2,073,600 pixels on your set, so who knows what you are seeing!
























Seriously though, I think if you want the "crown" of the person who mentions EE and/or ringing more than anyone in this thread, I don't think that anyone here would try to deny you of that title.


----------



## Toe

*Transporter 3*


Alright, I ended up going back this morning and skimming through this title before I put it in the mailbox and I confirmed my initial findings of tier 0 for this disc. This one looks fantastic IMO.


The first thing that jumped out at me with this title was detail, especially in the facial area which is some of the best I have seen. You could count freckles, strands of hair, pores, etc....


Black level and color were very solid and the picture in general showed great contrast with quite a few 3-d type scenes that really pulled you into the picture. The color was vibrant, but in a pleasing eye candy sort of way.


The only thing I found negative wise was a very brief driving scene at night in the last 1/3 of the film where the image fell apart slightly with crushed blacks, very little shadow detail and clarity suffered, BUT this scene was all of about 1-2 minutes and certainly not enough to pull it out of tier 0 IMO.


On a side note, I also found the audio to be of reference quality, in particular crashes and explosions which are right up there with the best I have heard/felt yet. Very involving and convincing! This is a track for bass junkys









*Tier Recommendation Tier 0 Bottom half*


JVC-RS1, 94" Stewart screen at ~12' view distance.


----------



## rsbeck

I sit 13' from my screen. I did not have to move any closer nor pause the picture to see the ringing and halos in Transporter 3.


I'm going to watch again today and make a few notes as to where they are so people can check 'em out.


Give Patrick a little competition for that crown.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/16092933
> 
> *Transporter 3*
> 
> 
> Alright, I ended up going back this morning and skimming through this title before I put it in the mailbox and I confirmed my initial findings of tier 0 for this disc. This one looks fantastic IMO.
> 
> 
> The first thing that jumped out at me with this title was detail, especially in the facial area which is some of the best I have seen. You could count freckles, strands of hair, pores, etc....
> 
> 
> Black level and color were very solid and the picture in general showed great contrast with quite a few 3-d type scenes that really pulled you into the picture. The color was vibrant, but in a pleasing eye candy sort of way.
> 
> 
> The only thing I found negative wise was a very brief driving scene at night in the last 1/3 of the film where the image fell apart slightly with crushed blacks, very little shadow detail and clarity suffered, BUT this scene was all of about 1-2 minutes and certainly not enough to pull it out of tier 0 IMO.
> 
> 
> On a side note, I also found the audio to be of reference quality, in particular crashes and explosions which are right up there with the best I have heard/felt yet. Very involving and convincing!
> 
> *Tier Recommendation Tier 0 Bottom half*
> 
> 
> JVC-RS1, 94" Stewart screen at ~12'



Good review Toe! It's good to see you contributing in this way and I would encourage you to contribute more.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/16092945
> 
> 
> I sit 13' from my screen. I did not have to move any closer nor pause the picture to see the ringing and halos in Transporter 3.
> 
> 
> I'm going to watch again today and make a few notes as to where they are so people can check 'em out.
> 
> 
> Give Patrick a little competition for that crown.



After all, we need to live up to the title "halo-hunting idiots" that we have been given at another forum.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16092961
> 
> 
> good review toe! It's good to see you contributing in this way and i would encourage you to contribute more.



+1!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16092961
> 
> 
> Good review Toe! It's good to see you contributing in this way and I would encourage you to contribute more.


+1 +2



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/16092969
> 
> 
> After all, we need to live up to the title "halo-hunting idiots" that we have been given at another forum.




But but but... I don't hunt the halos! THEY STALK ME!!!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/16092969
> 
> 
> After all, we need to live up to the title "halo-hunting idiots" that we have been given at another forum.



What do you mean by _*another*_ forum?!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/16092945
> 
> 
> I sit 13' from my screen. I did not have to move any closer nor pause the picture to see the ringing and halos in Transporter 3.
> 
> *I'm going to watch again today and make a few notes as to where they are so people can check 'em out.*



I question the wisdom in this. Do we really want to be encouraging people to be looking for ringing and halos? I recall having this same discussion when we were discussing The Dark Knight and I concluded then that it's a blessing not only to rarely see ringing and halos, but also to not be overly occupied with looking for them.


Let me say rsbeck I consider you a friend and I respect your views and opinions, but I think this path will lead to no good.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16092997
> 
> 
> I question the wisdom in this. Do we really want to be encouraging people to be looking for ringing and halos? I recall having this same discussion when we were discussing The Dark Knight and *I concluded then that it's a blessing not only to rarely see ringing and halos, but also to not be overly occupied with looking for them.*
> 
> 
> Let me say rsbeck I consider you a friend and I respect your views and opinions, *but I think this path will lead to no good.*


----------



## djoberg

^


Let me clarify patrick.....Do we really want to be *training* people to be *distracted*?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/16092945
> 
> 
> I sit 13' from my screen. I did not have to move any closer nor pause the picture to see the ringing and halos in Transporter 3.
> 
> 
> I'm going to watch again today and make a few notes as to where they are so people can check 'em out.



I don't know why you feel the need to do this? You said that the ringing and halos are _persistent and distracting_. If they are that persistent and distracting, I would (should?) have been able to see them on almost any scene, right? But I only saw it on a couple of scenes, and even then, it was very minor.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/16092945
> 
> 
> I sit 13' from my screen. I did not have to move any closer nor pause the picture to see the ringing and halos in Transporter 3.
> 
> 
> I'm going to watch again today and make a few notes as to where they are *so people can check 'em out*.
> 
> 
> Give Patrick a little competition for that crown.



No thanks. I watched this title 1 time fully and a partial this morning and I am done (plus it is allready on the way back to Netflix). If I did not catch it between those 2 viewings (which I did not), it cant be anything but very minor IMO, atleast to my eyes. As I have said before though, I am not all that sensitive to ringing and I could have just missed it, but if it is not something that jumps out at me after ~2 viewings I dont see any need to "go looking for it"







. Just my opinion and I respect your need to do this even if I do find it not very practical.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16093024
> 
> 
> ^
> 
> 
> Let me clarify patrick.....Do we really want to be *training* people to be *distracted*?



The more people who are able to readily see the undesirable effects of artificial sharpening, the more likely it is that the people responsible for this will stop doing it.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16093024
> 
> 
> ^
> 
> 
> Let me clarify patrick.....Do we really want to be *training* people to be *distracted*?



Well, that is pretty much impossible in this thread. If we are going to be accurate in giving reviews, there certainly is a certain amount of distraction that will take place when viewing the movie.


I tend to be MORE distracted when watching a movie that I already know has been recommended for Tier 0, because I become more critical of my viewing to look for problems. Such was the case with Transporter 3.


----------



## rsbeck

This is what we advertise in our guidelines...

*Halos and ringing artifacts are either absent or not visible enough to be distracting from standard viewing distances.*


IMO, if we see ringing and halos, we certainly ought to note it in our reviews and if we want to tell our audience that ringing and halos are either absent or not visible enough -- we ought to be able to spot them or else we should change our advertising to...


"We don't know if there are ringing or halos in these titles because we couldn't spot them even if they were present and even though this is a PQ thread, we have no interest in learning."


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/16093049
> 
> 
> The more people who are able to readily see the undesirable effects of artificial sharpening, the more likely it is that the people responsible for this will stop doing it.



Excellent point.


----------



## Toe

Thanks for the support All


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16093028
> 
> 
> If they are that persistent and distracting, I would (should?) have been able to see them on almost any scene, right?



No. Even in the most persistent cases, you will not find it in every scene or on every edge. But, even if they were in every scene, someone who cannot spot them won't see them.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/16093156
> 
> 
> No. Even in the most persistent cases, you will not find it in every scene or on every edge. *But, even if they were in every scene, someone who cannot spot them won't see them.*



So why bother posting time codes?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/16093049
> 
> 
> The more people who are able to readily see the undesirable effects of artificial sharpening, the more likely it is that the people responsible for this will stop doing it.



I'll only comment once more on this subject (I promise







).


First of all, do you know for a fact that artificial sharpening was employed in the making of Transporter 3?


Secondly, and even more importantly, my point was why should we who have already seen T3 and did not notice ringing or halos (or, as in the case with Rob Tomlin, saw a couple instances of it but was not bothered by them) want to take the time and effort to watch the title again? This is what I meant, in part, by "distracting."


And finally, I have never been convinced that Hollywood producers are poring over these threads in order to receive constructive criticism. You may be right patrick, but my thinking is they are catering to the masses (i.e., Joe Six Pack) and not to the few of us who are more critical of PQ anomalies.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

rsbeck, I don't think you need to go through all that trouble. You've posted your review noting it, and if someone comes here and searches for Transporter 3, they will find your review and can read it, right? I appreciate the heads up that you see a ton of it, especially since I do know I am sensitive to it. However, the other reviewers are also experienced and have posted their reviews as well. There's no need to go back and post timecodes, nobody's asking you to do this exercise, and even if you go through it and do it, I don't know if anyone's going to re-check them.


I believe you when you say you see them; I don't think you're making it up or anything, and of course you're entitled to your own review of it, but I don't know if this issue is worth the amount of work that it'd take for you to go back and do that. If I ever see this movie, I think chances are high that I'll see them too, and I'll rate it accordingly; and if the issue is that bad, others will notice it as well -- if it's not that bad, then I think you're "blessed" like I am with a super-sensitivity to the issue, I'm afraid.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16093199
> 
> 
> So why bother posting time codes?



So people will know where to look.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16093213
> 
> 
> I'll only comment once more on this subject (I promise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ).
> 
> 
> First of all, do you know for a fact that artificial sharpening was employed in the making of Transporter 3?
> 
> 
> Secondly, and even more importantly, my point was why should we who have already seen T3 and did not notice ringing or halos (or, as in the case with Rob Tomlin, saw a couple instances of it but was not bothered by them) want to take the time and effort to watch the title again? This is what I meant, in part, by "distracting."
> 
> 
> And finally, I have never been convinced that Hollywood producers are poring over these threads in order to receive constructive criticism. You may be right patrick, but my thinking is they are catering to the masses (i.e., Joe Six Pack) and not to the few of us who are more critical of PQ anamolies.




I wasn't focusing on Transporters 3 specifically. I haven't watched it yet.


I think that PQ issues that are identified in forums like this one can indeed enter the awareness of the decision-makers. Not necessarily directly, but when the bad buzz about particular titles gets loud enough, it becomes hard for those who are responsible to ignore.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/16092632
> 
> 
> Speaking of Youth Without Youth -- I don't believe Rob Tomlin noted any ringing in that title, either and IMO, the ringing in YWY was pretty easy to see. But, I didn't see enough of it to dock Youth Without Youth for it and that is often the case. I still recommended YWY to tier 0.
> 
> 
> I only become bothered by ringing and halos when it is persistent and in my experience, *though I see at least a few instances of ringing in almost every title, it is less common to find what I consider to be persistent ringing*.
> 
> 
> However, when I have watched a title where the ringing is persistent, it is very distracting.
> 
> 
> IMO, people have varying abilities to see ringing and halos. They do not tend to be around faces which is where most people focus. Edge enhancement is used specifically because a lot of people not only cannot spot the ringing, but it tricks the eye of one who cannot spot it into believing he/she is actually seeing a sharper picture.



I totally agree with your sentiments expressed here, especially the bolded parts. I think there are just too many steps in the production chain where edge enhancement can be introduced. Blu-ray is such a high resolution format that halos that would have gone unnoticed on dvd show up at 1080p. It is rare to see transfers totally free of any ringing in every single scene. I tend to give a little bonus in my evaluations of picture quality when I see an image totally unmolested by halos. Many titles, even in the higher tiers, show some sporadic sharpening or at least the aftereffects of it. My standard is always how intrusive is it and does it visibly degrade the image.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16093237
> 
> 
> rsbeck, I don't think you need to go through all that trouble. You've posted your review noting it, and if someone comes here and searches for Transporter 3, they will find your review and can read it, right? I appreciate the heads up that you see a ton of it, especially since I do know I am sensitive to it. However, the other reviewers are also experienced and have posted their reviews as well. There's no need to go back and post timecodes, nobody's asking you to do this exercise, and even if you go through it and do it, I don't know if anyone's going to re-check them.
> 
> 
> I believe you when you say you see them; I don't think you're making it up or anything, and of course you're entitled to your own review of it, but I don't know if this issue is worth the amount of work that it'd take for you to go back and do that. If I ever see this movie, I think chances are high that I'll see them too, and I'll rate it accordingly; and if the issue is that bad, others will notice it as well -- if it's not that bad, then I think you're "blessed" like I am with a super-sensitivity to the issue, I'm afraid.



If he feels like taking the time and trouble to do this, I for one am happy to see him do it.










I would suggest that to make it most useful it would not just be timecodes but also a brief description of the scene and shot as well.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/16093281
> 
> 
> If he feels like taking the time and trouble to do this, I for one am happy to see him do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would suggest that to make it most useful it would not just be timecodes but also a brief description of the scene and shot as well.










I can appreciate that sentiment as well.


----------



## hobbs47




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/16093257
> 
> 
> I wasn't focusing on Transporters 3 specifically. I haven't watched it yet.
> 
> .



Well watch it for about 10 minutes and let us know what you think.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16093237
> 
> 
> rsbeck, I don't think you need to go through all that trouble. You've posted your review noting it, and if someone comes here and searches for Transporter 3, they will find your review and can read it, right? I appreciate the heads up that you see a ton of it, especially since I do know I am sensitive to it. However, the other reviewers are also experienced and have posted their reviews as well. There's no need to go back and post timecodes, nobody's asking you to do this exercise, and even if you go through it and do it, I don't know if anyone's going to re-check them.
> 
> 
> I believe you when you say you see them; I don't think you're making it up or anything, and of course you're entitled to your own review of it, but I don't know if this issue is worth the amount of work that it'd take for you to go back and do that. If I ever see this movie, I think chances are high that I'll see them too, and I'll rate it accordingly; and if the issue is that bad, others will notice it as well -- if it's not that bad, then I think you're "blessed" like I am with a super-sensitivity to the issue, I'm afraid.



Very well said.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16093237
> 
> 
> rsbeck, I don't think you need to go through all that trouble. You've posted your review noting it, and if someone comes here and searches for Transporter 3, they will find your review and can read it, right? I appreciate the heads up that you see a ton of it, especially since I do know I am sensitive to it. However, the other reviewers are also experienced and have posted their reviews as well. There's no need to go back and post timecodes, nobody's asking you to do this exercise, and even if you go through it and do it, I don't know if anyone's going to re-check them.
> 
> 
> I believe you when you say you see them; I don't think you're making it up or anything, and of course you're entitled to your own review of it, but I don't know if this issue is worth the amount of work that it'd take for you to go back and do that. If I ever see this movie, I think chances are high that I'll see them too, and I'll rate it accordingly; and if the issue is that bad, others will notice it as well -- if it's not that bad, then I think you're "blessed" like I am with a super-sensitivity to the issue, I'm afraid.



Thank you. It is a lot of work to do that. When I did those analyses of the opening sequences of the Kill Bills, that took the better part of a whole day.


So, I am definitely not going to do it again unless there is some interest or if there is doubt as to their existence and I am not sensing an avalanche of interest, so I will spend the day with my kids instead.


I have no trouble spotting ringing and halos.


I don't know how sensitive I am to it.


Among those who spot them, I think I am right in the middle with regard to how much they bother me.


You don't hear me screaming that Transporter 3 is an abomination, that the studio heads who put it out ought to be hung from their toenails, or that people should avoid buying or watching it. The types of things you will see quite regularly in other threads.


I see it. It takes quite a bit to bother me. I saw enough of it in Transporter 3 that it bothered me. Among the titles in which I have spotted it, Transporter 3 is not the worst but is among the more bothersome and it was enough that I felt I needed to dock the title or it.


That's about all I can say.


Except....thanks for the pie recipe!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/16093255
> 
> 
> So people will know where to look.



Speaking for myself, I already looked at every shot. But you stated that "..even if they were in every scene, someone who cannot spot them won't see them", so it would seem that telling them where to look wouldn't be particularly helpful to someone who cannot spot them since they won't see them.


I agree with G3, nobody is saying that you are not seeing what you describe. But at the same time, I don't think those of us who do not see the ringing need to be convinced that we are people who just "cannot spot them and won't see them" or that we need to go back and look again, especially when most viewers were more than likely closely looking for artifacts and issues given the fact that it is being recommended for Tier 0. At least that was the case with me.


I am someone who agrees with you that Tier 0 should be reserved for the very best of the best, and that these titles should be scrutinized very carefully. I did that with Transporter 3, and I am most comfortable with a Tier 0 placement.


Also, as I have said, I think Tier 0 needs to be cleaned up quite a bit. Hopefully SuprSlow will be able to do that fairly soon.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/16093258
> 
> 
> I totally agree with your sentiments expressed here, especially the bolded parts.



Thank you.



> Quote:
> I think there are just too many steps in the production chain where edge enhancement can be introduced. Blu-ray is such a high resolution format that halos that would have gone unnoticed on dvd show up at 1080p. It is rare to see transfers totally free of any ringing in every single scene.



Excellent points -- Agree completely.



> Quote:
> My standard is always how intrusive is it and does it visibly degrade the image.



Mine, too.


----------



## rsbeck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16093330
> 
> 
> ...so it would seem that telling them where to look wouldn't be particularly helpful to someone who cannot spot them since they won't see them.



I don't know about that. I'd like to think that if my esteemed colleagues on this thread were guided to a particular image and told there was something to see in it, that you would be able to spot it, but I haven't had a lot of experience doing that, so I do not know for sure. I also think it takes some interest on the part of the person who missed it the first time because of the whole "can't-get-a-person-to-see-something-he/she-doesn't-want-to-see" phenomenon.


In a sense, edge enhancement is an optical illusion.


I suspect some people would rather not have the illusion broken.


Which, IMO, is understandable.



> Quote:
> I am someone who agrees with you that Tier 0 should be reserved for the very best of the best, and that these titles should be scrutinized very carefully. I did that with Transporter 3, and I am most comfortable with a Tier 0 placement.



I trust that those who do not see the ringing are scrutinizing to the best of their ability. I am certainly not accusing anyone of shirking their duty or anything like that. I also do not mean anything pejorative when I refer to those who cannot see the ringing. Perhaps Geekyglassesgirl's terms are more polite and we should refer to those who are more and less sensitive to it. Except, I don't like being called more sensitive. To me, sensitive implies susceptibility to pain, so IMO, there are two issues; one, are they perceptible to you and two, if they are, how much pain do they cause you?

They are easily perceptible to me and among those who see them, I believe I am pretty tolerant.



> Quote:
> Also, as I have said, I think Tier 0 needs to be cleaned up quite a bit.



I agree with you on that 100%.



> Quote:
> Hopefully SuprSlow will be able to do that fairly soon.



If he has a new baby, we may have to wait until he catches up on his sleep.


----------



## TayC

Watched Transporter 3... I didn't find the ringing to be distracting. I only caught it in a couple scenes and it was minor. Everything else about the PQ was highly enjoyable. I agree with Rob Tomlin's review.


----------



## nohjy

*The Rundown*


The PQ varies from scene to scene, but overall color fidelity seems to be excellent, blacks are deep and convincing, fleshtones are excellent and the print seems to be in great shape (as it should be for a recent movie). There are some scenes with excessive noise and some where the presentation is soft, but overall I was pretty impressed.


I would put it somewhere in the *Bottom-half of Tier 1*


Pioneer Kuro Elite FPJ1 (AKA JVC RS2) LCoS 1080p projector ----> 92" Da lite High Contrast Matte White from 8 ft.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/16094552
> 
> *Grand Canyon Adventure: River at Risk*
> 
> 
> Shot on 65 mm and sourced from an 8k DI master. Extremely fine grain apparent, thin ringing noted on a few edges. The first thing viewers should know is that this is not really a pure adventure film. This is a film based on an environmentally conscious message narrated by Robert Redford. Personally, I am okay with that, so it didn't bother me and for PQ, it matters not at all.
> 
> 
> I was a little worried at the beginning when a corny CGI bubble effect complete with gurgling sounds appeared. Luckily, this didn't last past the titles, but there is another similarly corny effect used intermittently. While showing nature shots, a rustic wooden frame will emerge in the center of the screen with people in them addressing one issue or another.
> 
> 
> As you would expect, most of Grand Canyon is centered on landscape panoramas. IMO, these can be very tricky on film. If the cinematography isn't right on, nature shots can become a ho hum experience very quickly and if that's your main draw, that's a big negative.
> 
> 
> It costs a lot of time and money to shoot in the best possible light. The best possible light for nature photography, "the magic hour," can last as little as 30 minutes in a day. Get the wrong light and the picture will be less impressive.
> 
> 
> There are some stunning shots in Grand Canyon Adventure to be sure, but there is also a fair amount of footage that I would call excellent rather than outstanding and another portion that I consider very good..
> 
> 
> Some of it, to my eyes, seemed filmed in less flattering light, from less flattering angles.
> 
> 
> Ironically, some of the most impressive shots were of Las Vegas at night. Blacks, color and detail are incredible.
> 
> 
> Bottom line here is that Grand Canyon Adventure has a number of incredible panoramic land and cityscapes. It's more consistent and impressive than Planet Earth, which is ranked 2.25, keeps the ho hums to a minimum, is an impressive demo title, but IMO, a few steps down from reference.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 1.25*
> 
> 
> Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From 126" Screen



Thanks for this review. I had yet to give my placement on this title, and after more consideration I think that your recommendation and review is very much in line with mine, and I will also recommend a Tier 1.25 placement.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Grand Canyon Adventure: River At Risk*

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*



(so my vote will not go unnoticed)


JVC RS1 123" screen at 13.5'


----------



## rsbeck

*Grand Canyon Adventure: River at Risk*


Shot on 65 mm and sourced from an 8k DI master. Extremely fine grain apparent, thin ringing noted on a few edges. The first thing viewers should know is that this is not really a pure adventure film. This is a film based on an environmentally conscious message narrated by Robert Redford. Personally, I am okay with that, so it didn't bother me and for PQ, it matters not at all.


I was a little worried at the beginning when a corny CGI bubble effect complete with gurgling sounds appeared. Luckily, this didn't last past the titles, but there is another similarly corny effect used intermittently. While showing nature shots, a rustic wooden frame will emerge in the center of the screen with people in them addressing one issue or another.


As you would expect, most of Grand Canyon is centered on landscape panoramas. IMO, these can be very tricky on film. If the cinematography isn't right on, nature shots can become a ho hum experience very quickly and if that's your main draw, that's a big negative.


It costs a lot of time and money to shoot in the best possible light. The best possible light for nature photography, "the magic hour," can last as little as 30 minutes in a day. Get the wrong light and the picture will be less impressive.


There are some stunning shots in Grand Canyon Adventure to be sure, but there is also a fair amount of footage that I would call excellent rather than outstanding and another portion that I consider very good..


Some of it, to my eyes, seemed filmed in less flattering light, from less flattering angles.


Ironically, some of the most impressive shots were of Las Vegas at night. Blacks, color and detail are incredible.


Bottom line here is that Grand Canyon Adventure has a number of incredible panoramic land and cityscapes. It's more consistent and impressive than Planet Earth, which is ranked 2.25, keeps the ho hums to a minimum, is an impressive demo title, but IMO, just a little inconsistent.

*Recommendation: Tier 1.25*


Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From 126" Screen


----------



## Rob Tomlin

What the heck? How is my quote of your review ahead of your review?


----------



## rsbeck

Not sure what happened there. On my screen, my review appeared twice. I erased one of them and now we are out of order. :-(


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TayC* /forum/post/16094217
> 
> 
> Watched Transporter 3... I didn't find the ringing to be distracting. I only caught it in a couple scenes and it was minor. Everything else about the PQ was highly enjoyable. I agree with Rob Tomlin's review.



Thanks. I would like to recommend that you put the title "Transporter 3" and "Tier Recommendation: 0" in a separate post so your vote will be sure to be counted.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rob tomlin* /forum/post/16094680
> 
> 
> thanks. I would like to recommend that you put the title "transporter 3" and "tier recommendation: 0" in a separate post so your vote will be sure to be counted.



+1


----------



## Hughmc

*Grand Canyon Adventure:River At Risk*:


While we are on a roll on this title I may as well jump in.


I bought this based on Xylon's comment saying it was reference for PQ and AQ and I couldn't agree more.


I thought everything looked excellent about this title. Detail was phenomenal, especially the aerial shots. Blacks were good, contrast excellent, colors spot on. The only issue I had with it was the facial detail. There really wasn't a lot of really up close to the face shots as most seemed to be mid range. The ones that were closer or an issue were when the used the frame graphic and those seemed to have average to mediocre PQ, but again they were only for a few seconds and only occurred a few times. I would rate this right up there with Baraka and in some ways it has even better clarity and detail. Some from this forum who are ringing/halo enthusiasts say it doesn't exist on this title like it does on Baraka. No worries for me or how I rate it since I don't see halos on Baraka or ringing at all in general.










Simply stunning cinematography and although only 45 minutes I would highly recommend this as a buy.


The music and sound track in general are excellent as well.

*Recommendation: Mid to low tier 0 below Baraka.*


----------



## Toe

^^^^^Thanks Hughmc (Rob and beck as well), just threw this in the que. Somehow I was not aware of this title....


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/16094929
> 
> 
> ^^^^^Thanks Hughmc (Rob and beck as well), just threw this in the que. Somehow I was not aware of this title....



I saw it at an IMAX theatre and it was awesome! I'm looking forward to seeing it on Blu....in fact, I'm going to one of the local video stores now to see if they have it.


----------



## Hughmc

*Punisher: War Zone*


I was hoping this title being a Lions Gate and recent release would look as good as or close to Transporter 3, but it isn't close at all. In defense of this Transporter 3 looks so good, it is tough for a film like this to really stand up against it.


Film grain is light and not distracting. Blacks are excellent and deep. Detail is average to good, but the color scheme is definitely lacking. This is a dark film. There is very limited use of color at any one given time it seems. Some facial closeups are really good and very well resolved.
*Recommendation: Tier 1.50*


----------



## Hughmc

rsbeck, I felt the same as you did with the opening. I was worried that the cheezy opening was going to be a dominant theme and thankfully it wasn't because if it was prevalent throughout I would have dinged the title much harder. It is also a similar reason for me mentioning the framing affect. I didn't care for it and how it seemed to dumb down excellent PQ.


----------



## Hughmc

*Synecdoche New York*


from Dictionary.com
*Synecdoche*:–noun Rhetoric.

a figure of speech in which a part is used for the whole or the whole for a part, the special for the general or the general for the special...


A interesting title for a complicated film that really needs to be viewed more than once to understand just how deep and convoluted it is. It is really hard to follow at times, but also very intriguing to watch. It is mostly a downer, but has some laughs in it as well. It can really pull on your emotions.


Overall this film has excellent PQ, but to me it wasn't consistent and seemed to roam a bit, but not as much as the story.







There were excellent tier 0 facial detail closeups many times and then other times they were soft or blurred as were some shots in general. I thought the colors were accurate if not slightly muted at times. Blacks levels were solid and the use of cgi was acceptable for its purpose and not too distracting.


Not that I am recommending it or condemning it, but being under the influence while watching this title might actually help.










It is just a bizarre bit of film making and story telling.


I am torn on where to place this title, so I am thinking somewhere in tier 1 perhaps the middle. This isn't an eye candy disc, nor is it demo or reference, but it still looks good overall. I am going to watch it again and may change my placement.

*Recommendation: Tier 1.5*


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16095248
> 
> 
> 
> Not that I am recommending it or condemning it, but being under the influence while watching this title might actually help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is just a bizarre bit of film making and story telling.










For sure! I can't put my finger on it, but it's somewhat "2001ish."











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16095248
> 
> 
> I am torn on where to place this title, so I am thinking somewhere in tier 1 perhaps the middle. This isn't an eye candy disc, nor is it demo or reference, but it still looks good overall. I am going to watch it again and may change my placement.



I have it for a few more days, but I'm leaning more towards 1.75 or 2.0. Only because of the darker color scheme, which fits the tone of the film.


For those looking for a review of the film, Roger Ebert wrote an excellent review HERE.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/16095349
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For sure! I can't put my finger on it, but it's somewhat "2001ish."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have it for a few more days, but I'm leaning more towards 1.75 or 2.0. Only because of the darker color scheme, which fits the tone of the film.
> 
> 
> For those looking for a review of the film, Roger Ebert wrote an excellent review HERE.



selimsivad, I really am looking forward to watching this again. A lot of films I do stop, take a break and this was one I took several. Next time I watch this I want to watch it all the way through non stop as I think it might lend itself better to the flow and mood. I agree about the darkness of it especially the giant open hanger look that was done with cgi. It looked hellish from the distance shot.


I seen Ebert's name on the cover and I must admit I side with him or defer to his taste as often mine follows his based on past when doing the same.


In the beginning of his review he says:

_"I watched it the first time and knew it was a great film and that I had not mastered it. The second time because I needed to. The third time because I will want to."_


This is exactly how I feel. One viewing is like a quick run through. I need to see it more.


Ebert's review is really an excellent in depth and vivid retrospect of the film and how it relates to life.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16095476
> 
> 
> 
> I seen Ebert's name on the cover and I must admit I side with him or defer to his taste as often mine follows his based on past when doing the same.
> 
> 
> In the beginning of his review he says:
> 
> _"I watched it the first time and knew it was a great film and that I had not mastered it. The second time because I needed to. The third time because I will want to."_
> 
> 
> This is exactly how I feel. One viewing is like a quick run through. I need to see it more.



Ditto.









I'm not usually big on famous critics, but his review was so spot on!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*From Russia with Love*


I went to re-watch Twilight this morning, but about 5 minutes in my husband woke up so I switched gears and popped in From Russia with Love.


While I can't recall the last time I saw this or the condition it looked when I did see it, I have to say that I was fairly impressed with how this movie turned out on Blu Ray.


Detail and clarity were great! Colours seemed mostly natural and textures were present. My biggest issue with this movie would be any stock footage they used, it looked like crap. As well as some of the faster-moving scenes, details would be lost at times and picture would be lacklustre. I was unimpressed with the water throughout the movie, as you know that's something I always look at. There were times when it was close-up that it looked fine, but other times it was terrible.










I think anyone who watches this movie will be pleased with the way it turned out on Blu, I do not think that it could have been transferred any better than what we got. It is for the most part, an excellent representation of this movie. I did not notice any edge enhancement that was blatant; there might have been some tiny bits here and there but nothing that my aversion to it was annoyed by.


My issue with it, however, is the parts that were sub-par are scattered through this film, and given the length of just over 2hrs, it was a little more than I can forgive for a Tier 1 position.


I have not seen all of Dr No yet; I watched the first half weeks ago and haven't gone back to it yet, so I'm not comparing it to any of the other Bonds in the 2 boxed sets (volume 1 & 2 - figured I'd better specify since I think volume 3 is coming out very soon), as this is the first one I've watched in its entirety so far of the 6 movies.

*Recommendation for From Russia with Love: Tier 2.00*
*Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800U, THX setting, approximately 7.5' viewing distance.*


----------



## djoberg

*Punisher: War Zone*


Okay, I'm still very spoiled by Transporter 3, but P:WZ managed to impress these tired eyes of mine (tired due to excessive Blu-ray viewing







). It was not on the same level as T3 but it may still squeak by and get a "demo-worthy" placement.


This title was ALL ABOUT BLACKS AND SHADOW DETAIL! Most every scene was taken at night, with a lot of stylized colors mixed in for good measure. If I were to rate the black levels on a scale from 1-10 I'd give it a 7, but I'd even go higher with the shadow detail. One scene that simply excels in this area was at the 48 min. 34 sec. mark.....for 6 seconds you are treated to exquisite detail as a mother and daughter walk up their sidewalk to an outdoor porch. The bushes, street, sidewalk, and walls of their home are a sight to behold!


Facial details were also a plus, though compared to T3 it fell short. Some were Tier 0 quality, and others wavered between Tiers 1 & 2.


I didn't catch any anomalies other than a few scenes that were relatively soft and flat. And as is the case with MANY Blu-ray titles, the first 15-20 minutes weren't as sharp and detailed as the rest of the movie.


Now, where does this deserve to go? I see Hugh gave it a 1.5, but I'm going to compare it to one of my favorite titles that also majored in black levels and shadow detail (yes....I am indeed speaking of The Dark Knight







), and seeing that TDK in currently in 1.25 I will have to place P:WZ a half tier below it.....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


Samsung 50" 1080p....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 6'


PS The DTS:HD Master Audio soundtrack is a KILLER!!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16095715
> 
> *From Russia with Love*
> 
> *Recommendation for From Russia with Love: Tier 2.00*
> 
> *
> *


*


We're on the same page with this one G3!







*


----------



## TayC

*Transporter 3*


My observations were exactly the same as Rob Tomlin's on this one, so...

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (right below Live Free or Die Hard)*


----------



## Hughmc

*Bolt*


WOW!! The PQ thread tier 0 was made for this type of BD and this type of BD was made for our PQ thread tier 0.


There is nothing short of amazing animation bordering on the real many times in the film with images that are life like in detail, accuracy, color and everything one could imagine to make them seem real.


Look at Bolt's head and face in the rear angle shot @ 1:03:08-14. Look at the eye movements and facial movements and expressions.


Some animator(s) were paying attention to extreme detail as things like plants are shown that are native to each area, lawns that aren't consistently perfect due to brown spots, detail in the carrot with teeth marks and on and on.










Bolt is better than Ratatouille in terms of PQ and even beats Kung Fu Panda due to its realism that better displays detail and depth with an incredible color palate to boot.


I found one and only one flaw that is minor and barely lasts a second or two near the end at the 1:25:34 mark. I won't say what it is so as not to bias some into seeing it or seeing it more, but am curious to see if anyone else notices it.



Watch it is the only other thing I will say.

*Recommendation: Top of Tier 0 above Kung Fu Panda.*


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16097045
> 
> *Bolt*
> 
> 
> WOW!! The PQ thread tier 0 was made for this type of BD and this type of BD was made for our PQ thread tier 0.
> 
> 
> There is nothing short of amazing animation bordering on the real many times in the film with images that are life like in detail, accuracy, color and everything one could imagine to make them seem real.
> 
> 
> Look at Bolt's head and face in the rear angle shot @ 1:03:08-14. Look at the eye movements and facial movements and expressions.
> 
> 
> Some animator(s) were paying attention to extreme detail as things like plants are shown that are native to each area, lawns that aren't consistently perfect due to brown spots, detail in the carrot with teeth marks and on and on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bolt is better than Ratatouille in terms of PQ and even beats Kung Fu Panda due to its realism that better displays detail and depth with an incredible color palate to boot.
> 
> 
> I found one and only one flaw that is minor and barely lasts a second or two near the end at the 1:25:34 mark. I won't say what it is so as not to bias some into seeing it or seeing it more, but am curious to see if anyone else notices it.
> 
> 
> 
> Watch it is the only other thing I will say.
> 
> *Recommendation: Top of Tier 0 above Kung Fu Panda.*



Sweeeet!







Off topic question, but how does the sound compare to KFP in your opinion? I am going to grab this tom.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/16097103
> 
> 
> Sweeeet!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Off topic question, but how does the sound compare to KFP in your opinion? I am going to grab this tom.



I would say it is its equivalent and merits a reference recommendation which I will do in the audio tier thread.


Yes it has house shaking LFE.










Several review sites like DVDtown, High Def Disc News, and Hi Def Digest have the audio listed as DTS MA 5.1, but other reviewers including Ralph Potts and myself are stating it is 6.1.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16097045
> 
> *Bolt*
> 
> 
> WOW!! The PQ thread tier 0 was made for this type of BD and this type of BD was made for our PQ thread tier 0.
> 
> 
> There is nothing short of amazing animation bordering on the real many times in the film with images that are life like in detail, accuracy, color and everything one could imagine to make them seem real.
> 
> 
> Look at Bolt's head and face in the rear angle shot @ 1:03:08-14. Look at the eye movements and facial movements and expressions.
> 
> 
> Some animator(s) were paying attention to extreme detail as things like plants are shown that are native to each area, lawns that aren't consistently perfect due to brown spots, detail in the carrot with teeth marks and on and on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bolt is better than Ratatouille in terms of PQ and even beats Kung Fu Panda due to its realism that better displays detail and depth with an incredible color palate to boot.
> 
> 
> I found one and only one flaw that is minor and barely lasts a second or two near the end at the 1:25:34 mark. I won't say what it is so as not to bias some into seeing it or seeing it more, but am curious to see if anyone else notices it.
> 
> 
> 
> Watch it is the only other thing I will say.
> 
> *Recommendation: Top of Tier 0 above Kung Fu Panda.*



My copy of Bolt is in the mail (from Amazon)!


----------



## jrcorwin

IMHO, Bolt should not be ranked higher than two other animated titles at the top of Tier 0. It's very close, but no.


I would place Bolt below Kung Fu Panda and Ratatouille.


----------



## spongebob

Guys


Is there another site that actually rates audio/video by numbers, 1-100?


I had it for HDDVD and can't find it.


thx


bob


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Regarding "Synecdoche New York", all you guys had to do to convince me to rent this was tell me that it was written by Charlie Kaufman!


As soon as I saw that, I knew this was a film that I have to see. There is no better writer working today than Kaufman. He directed this one as well. Chances are very high that I will enjoy this!


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16097116
> 
> 
> I would say it is its equivalent and merits a reference recommendation which I will do in the audio tier thread.
> 
> 
> Yes it has house shaking LFE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Several review sites like DVDtown, High Def Disc News, and Hi Def Digest have the audio listed as DTS MA 5.1, but other reviewers including Ralph Potts and myself are stating it is 6.1.



Nice










We had a discussion about the 5.1/6.1 thing in Ralphs review thread which from the sounds of it is similar to the Wall*E disc. It Has something to do with the early decoder chips not recognizing the ES flag since this is not a discrete, but matrixed 6.1 from what I understand (similar to Wall*E). So those getting the 5.1 signal just need to apply PLIIx, Ultra2, etc....if you want the matrixed 6th channel. That is the way I understand it. Wall*E shows up as 5.1 on my 885 and I assume Bolt will be the same.


Sorry to get off topic.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Twilight*


This is a very nice looking title, but I would imagine that it will be somewhat controversial when it comes to placing it in a tier. This is due to the fact that the look that it achieves required some tweaking of the image, so it does not look perfectly natural.


For example, the contrast is definitely cranked in most scenes. The skin tones of many of the actors are very white, and there is a lack of skin texture. However, this does not mean that details are lacking in other areas. In fact, they are quite good.


The image is very solid, and I did not notice any artifacts. Overall clarity was excellent.


The picture is very clean (pristine) looking. Colors are very cool, which is a perfect compliment to the story.


I personally thought the image was rather striking, despite the fact that it is obvious that some image tweaking was required to get there.


As for the movie: this is the second Vampire movie I have watched in the last week or so, which is ironic since I don't really like the genre that much, but I liked this one. It's not nearly as good as Let The Right One In, but it is a good movie on its own merit.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.50*


----------



## mkoby




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16094995
> 
> *Punisher: War Zone*
> 
> There is very limited use of color at any one given time it seems.



This was actually director's intent to try and use no more than 3 colors in a scene in an attempt to limit the color palette to something closely resembling the comic book.


----------



## OldCodger73

The PQ and AQ sound great but is the movie itself any good?


----------



## Skid71




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16098330
> 
> *Twilight*
> 
> 
> This is a very nice looking title, but I would imagine that it will be somewhat controversial when it comes to placing it in a tier. This is due to the fact that the look that it achieves required some tweaking of the image, so it does not look perfectly natural.
> 
> 
> For example, the contrast is definitely cranked in most scenes. The skin tones of many of the actors are very white, and there is a lack of skin texture. However, this does not mean that details are lacking in other areas. In fact, they are quite good.
> 
> 
> The image is very solid, and I did not notice any artifacts. Overall clarity was excellent.
> 
> 
> The picture is very clean (pristine) looking. Colors are very cool, which is a perfect compliment to the story.
> 
> 
> I personally thought the image was rather striking, despite the fact that it is obvious that some image tweaking was required to get there.
> 
> 
> As for the movie: this is the second Vampire movie I have watched in the last week or so, which is ironic since I don't really like the genre that much, but I liked this one. It's not nearly as good as Let The Right One In, but it is a good movie on its own merit.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.50*



Nice review Rob. I'm looking forward to watching this a *little* more now that the PQ seems to impress. The fiancee demanded that we watch it.


/Off topic - How was the AQ?


Thanks,

Skid


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Skid71* /forum/post/16098970
> 
> 
> Nice review Rob. I'm looking forward to watching this a *little* more now that the PQ seems to impress. The fiancee demanded that we watch it.
> 
> 
> /Off topic - How was the AQ?
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Skid



AQ is quite good. I mean it isn't something that I was blown away with, but it is more than acceptable.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16092780
> 
> 
> I agree with most of this, but the part in bold is somewhat confusing to me. To me "3D pop" is the equal of "depth and dimension" which you say is exceptional (which I certainly agree with). How do you define "3D pop"?



Sorry for the delayed response - combination of internet issues and March Madness.










Depth and dimension for me is when depth of field is maximized (aperture is set very small in photography) and I am able to see details up to infinity. So, the quality of the details is what I'm "grading" here.


3D Pop for me is when objects (_usually_ in the foreground and _usually_ people) exhibit 3D-like qualities, as if they are floating outside of my TV screen.


Make sense?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16099084
> 
> 
> Sorry for the delayed response - combination of internet issues and March Madness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depth and dimension for me is when depth of field is maximized (aperture is set very small in photography) and I am able to see details up to infinity. So, the quality of the details is what I'm "grading" here.
> 
> 
> 3D Pop for me is when objects (_usually_ in the foreground and _usually_ people) exhibit 3D-like qualities, as if they are floating outside of my TV screen.
> 
> 
> Make sense?



Sure, I guess it's just a matter of semantics, because like I said, to me, to get 3D pop and an image where it appears to float outside the screen, it requires "depth and dimensionality".


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/16098548
> 
> 
> The PQ and AQ sound great but is the movie itself any good?



Yes. For what it is worth, 87% on Rotten Tomatoes.


I didn't want to say anymore about details on PQ due to give any of the story away, but:


*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Pay attention to the smoke and fire, the detail in the commando's outfits, detail in sidewalk cement, buildings and *eyes, eyes, eyes*, characters eyes that are anime like size, but the iris colors and detail are amazing and KFP does NOT hold up to Bolt in this regard.



Lighting for example in Ratatouille has that mainly simple cast, white glow to it, well at times so does Bolt, but Bolt has way more dimension and depth to the lighting and that alone is where Bolt excels, then throw in some of the other amazing detail I mentioned in the spoiler and Bolt is on top actually much better than Ratatouille overall IMO.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Hey guys, great work on all the reviews this weekend!


I was out of town so unfortunately I have not been able to watch any at all.


Will try and finally get to In Cold Blood tonight.


----------



## stumlad

*Bolt*


The entire movie had a soft look to it. I thought my lens may have been out of focus or something, so I adjusted it. It wasn't out of focus, it's just that the movie is not nearly as sharp as I've come to expect.


To add to that, the animation looks a bit dated. There are backgrounds which are clearly less detailed than other CGIs from the past 3-4 years. When Bolt and co are on the "road" they show some scenery shots where it's clear they skimped on some of the details. Trees and bushes have no real detail. Even the Hollywood sign and surrounding area looked soft and not very detailed.


I had to throw in my copy of Meet the Robinsons to use as a comparison afterwards. It was a clear step up and had better looking backgrounds, more fine detail, and sharper.


Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that Bolt looks exactly like it was meant to. I saw no signs of artifacts or anything. I even threw in the DVD and it was easily a step down.


Aside from that, colors are rich, but they are not over-saturated. You can see details in the pigeons, dogs, cats. Even some of the "human's" outfits, but there weren't many "WOW" sequences.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


----------



## musick




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/16101650
> 
> *Bolt*
> 
> 
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.0*













I think not


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *musick* /forum/post/16101769
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think not



Put in Meet the Robinsons back to back, and you'll see the difference. That combined with the backgrounds and soft scenery shots, I think so.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*IMAX: Cosmic Voyage & IMAX: Destiny in Space*


I picked this Blu Ray up when I purchased The Universe season 1 for my husband. My daughter was in a bit of a stir about Planets today so we put this on.


I enjoyed how these short films presented in my home. I've only been to an actual IMAX theatre a couple of times in my life, and one documentary at the Canadian Pavilion at Expo '92 that was an IMAX 360 presentation. I was not sure how one of these would look at home, but aside from some curvature of the picture on occasion near the edges, it looked fine.


There was a decent grain throughout both films, as well as some slightly noticeable artefacts here and there from possible dirty print. There also was some slightly noticeable edge enhancement in a couple of shots within both movies, but nothing that was distracting; I think most people would not see it at all. Detail, clarity and colour were all fantastic for the most part; except that some of the CGI was definitely dated, which makes sense considering Cosmic Voyage is from 1996 and Destiny in Space is from 1994.


All in all I thought the films were really good and if you like IMAX documentary films, you probably won't be disappointed by this one. Cosmic Voyage is narrated by Morgan Freeman, and Destiny in Space is narrated by Leonard Nemoy.

*Recommendation for IMAX: Cosmic Voyage (with bonus film IMAX: Destiny in Space): Tier 1.75*

*Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800U, THX setting, approximately 7.5' viewing distance.*


----------



## musick




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/16101784
> 
> 
> Put in Meet the Robinsons back to back, and you'll see the difference. That combined with the backgrounds and soft scenery shots, I think so.



watch the "Creating The World Of Bolt" bonus feature on the disc and you will see why they were going for the softer/painting background shots



the look was intentional and works well IMO


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *musick* /forum/post/16102133
> 
> 
> watch the "Creating The World Of Bolt" bonus feature on the disc and you will see why they were going for the softer/painting background shots
> 
> 
> 
> the look was intentional and works well IMO



I was going to mention how the backgrounds are painted, but that doesn't really take away from PQ even though I admit I noticed, it wasn't distracting.


Stumlad, we are way off on this one. Ok, I know the top of tier 0 is a ways off from most of the tiers, but really we are virtually 3 full tiers off.










The lighting at times has that soft Ratatouille look, but it is used less than more.


The first wow moment for me was:

*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) when they show Penny and Bolt on the park bench when the scene starts with 5 years later.



Most of the rest of the movie was an entire wow moment. I almost never watch a movie again right after watching it the first time, but I did with Bolt because the PQ was so good it is like an HD drug. I couldn't get enough.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16102158
> 
> 
> 
> I almost never watch a movie again right after watching it the first time, but I did with Bolt because the PQ was so good it is like an HD drug. I couldn't get enough.




So Bolt gave you the "fix" you were looking for, but only after a second viewing? Hmm. If it were a stronger/better drug, you would have been satisfied with just one viewing, right?


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16102193
> 
> 
> So Bolt gave you the "fix" you were looking for, but only after a second viewing? Hmm. If it were a stronger/better drug, you would have been satisfied with just one viewing, right?




I refuse to answer on the grounds that I am confused and may contradict myself.










It is awesome though. We have come quite far with many good looking titles especially within the last few months.


----------



## stumlad

Regarding Bolt...


I didn't watch the documentary, and I'm glad to hear that those were painted backgrounds because it explains why they look the way they do. If that was pure CGI, then I would remain more disappointed.


It's obvious they are going for the whole "In focus" look. That's fine, but that means the main characters have to impress me more. If they are going to make backgrounds more intentionally blurry in order to try to give it a realistic feel, well everything in focus should be insanely detailed... Unfortunately while there are Tier 0 moments in this movie, a lot of them look like the images I'm about to show...

   


Blades of grass, and overall background on the first image... The hamster....?

  


Hollywood sign doesn't look great (I understand now that it's drawn), but does Bolt or the rest of the image show exceptional detail? How about Bolt on the couch? Were they trying to emulate low light scenes by making it soft?

  


Look at these two images. Are either of these sharp? Are either of them knock even remotely sharp?


Are these bad? No, but other CGI have more overall pleasing images. If this was all intent, that's fine, but in my book it's not the same sort of viewing experience as Cars or Kung Fu Panda. I know anyone can pick and choose images to make a movie look better or worse, but I assure you that these represent the movie pretty well. And for the record, I enjoyed the movie, and it was worth the purchase. The sound was really good too. I'm sure this matches the source, but for the purposes of this thread, I feel that in the "extra fine detail" department, it falls short.


----------



## musick




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/16102267
> 
> 
> 
> Look at these two images. Are either of these sharp? Are either of them knock even remotely sharp?





> Quote:
> Los Angeles
> 
> Being in a low basin surrounded by mountains, Los Angeles is notorious for its smog. The millions of vehicles in the city due to lack of sufficient public transportation and/or to the city's residents' preference for private transportation, plus the added effects of the Los Angeles/Long Beach port complex contribute to further air pollution in the city. While strict regulations by the Californian government have reduced the number of Stage 1 smog alerts from several hundred annually to just a few annually, Los Angeles' pollution level still exceeds health standards and is a pressing issue for the more than 15 million people who live there.



I'm not a huge fan of using screen caps to represent the overall picture .... the movies I watch are in motion


I'd ask that you spend the few minutes with the bonus feature mentioned

they discuss how they traveled to all the different locals to get different lighting effects unique to each area


it was the intent and I have no issue with it and place this movie near the peek of tier 0 if not the top

KFP looked cartoony ... this did not, looked more photo realistic


----------



## sleater

*Twilight*


I was a little apprehensive going in that this would be a cheesy, over the top cliche vampire film (thanks GGG btw!







) but was most pleasantly surprised by both the quality of directing/acting/pacing as well as the PQ. The film is definitely lacking in extreme facial close-ups but being that most of the actors are young and probably heavily made-up, I wasn't expecting lots of skin texture to pop off the screen to begin with.


The scenery is lit nicely to convey the grey overcast that is supposed to be the main locale, objects are sharp and grain is very minimal. I don't know what type of cameras were used but I noticed a bluish tint and contrast was a little off, but it enhanced rather than detracted from the image quality.


Blacks were deep and I didn't notice any crushing in darker scenes - the indoor scenes struck me with their depth and clarity in particular. I was impressed with the different lighting techniques used to give different scenes a particular ambiance.


The overall image did appear film-like but the fine grain threw me off a little in that there was possibly some DNR done, although I did not see any artifacting but it's hard to say if detail was lost. I am not sensitive to EE so I saw no halos and I actually looked pretty hard. I am not saying the image was processed, I simply did not view the film in theatres so I don't know how heavy the grain was/should be. It just appeared very fine.



Overall a very pleasant experience and highly recommended to Tier Gold in the ranks of Aeon Flux, the Matrix films and I Am Legend!

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


PS3 HC5500 1080p LCD PJ 92" screen 10' distance


----------



## sleater

On a side note while picking out Twilight today I looked feverishly for Bolt but couldn't find it and was quite relieved to see stumlad's review that it could be in tier 2.0. I was thinking this would be the new one to beat... now I'm not convinced.


If it does make it to Tier0 then I'll definitely pick it up. I'll wait for more folks to chime in...


See, this thread does in fact serve a purpose and guides us in our bluray quests. I ordered Transporter 3 already solely on the strong reviews. And you can bet I'll be happily halo hunting when it arrives : )


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *musick* /forum/post/16102312
> 
> 
> I'm not a huge fan of using screen caps to represent the overall picture .... the movies I watch are in motion



That's fine when we're talking about contrast, color saturation, 3D pop, etc, but on the basis of pure resolution, the screen shot is a great way to see that.




> Quote:
> I'd ask that you spend the few minutes with the bonus feature mentioned
> 
> they discuss how they traveled to all the different locals to get different lighting effects unique to each area



I'll check it out, but it won't affect my PQ recommendation. See below...



> Quote:
> it was the intent and I have no issue with it and place this movie near the peek of tier 0 if not the top
> 
> KFP looked cartoony ... this did not, looked more photo realistic



Intent is not something we base our PQ recommendations on in this thread. If so, I could place 28 days later in Tier 0 because the blu-ray matches the source perfectly, and follows the director's intent.


----------



## Hughmc

Stumlad, seriously those images are not what I see when I am watching Bolt. I am looking at them on the same display I watch BD's on and the BD I have does not look like that.


Here is closer to what I am seeing, but even these don't do it justice:

http://www.thehdcrowd.com/screenshots/bolt_3.png 


Look at this one and Bolt's leash. Much sharper, less white cast to the whole image, colors are better.

http://www.thehdcrowd.com/screenshots/bolt_8.png 

http://www.thehdcrowd.com/screenshots/bolt_9.png 


Where did you get those caps?


The one with the pigeons is not anything close to what I see. In fact the pigeon's plumage color and detail is one of the things that really struck me as being incredibly real and life like as their are several scenes that exhibit the fine detail and sharp PQ of the pigeons.


I would like to see more sites get some caps up or Xylon so you could see the difference.


As I said over the last few weeks I am not going to debate PQ especially when there is so many variables and this thread is very subjective, but when caps are shown and they aren't what I am seeing, then I will try to show what I am seeing or try to ascertain what the differences are so we are on or close to the same playing field of accuracy as possible.


Sleater, just so you know, all reviewers that I have seen to date including Ralph Potts are stating Bolt is reference and giving it 5/5, 10/10 and so on. While I respect Stumlad, those caps are not an accurate representation of the BD and in fact are quite different to what I have seen on the BD and what I am seeing in caps from other sites.


Also, I wouldn't be hunting for any PQ anomalies.







If you see them great, but I would suggest to anyone not to go out of your way to see something you may not normally see or be biased into seeing. That is where this thread due to its influence from each other can be a blessing and or a curse.


----------



## tfoltz

*Bolt*


Like stumlad, I had some problems with my viewing of Bolt. So much so that I did some searches into how lighting was incorporated in the movie. Here is an interview I found with the CGI supervisor on Bolt: http://hollywood-animated-films.suit..._empey_on_bolt 


The most interesting is the following Q & A.


"*I noticed that there was a deliberate attempt to soften the backgrounds in this film, to take away that CGI rigidity and glossiness. Where did that come from, and how was it accomplished?*


"It was inspired by the painterly style of American Realism, with artists such as George Bellows and Edward Hopper, The idea was go with a more impressionistic approach for the backgrounds. We came up with the term 'Blast Zone,' to define the areas that required more or less details.


"Characters which have more detail stay within the blast zone, which leads away into less detail. A painterly technique called Ray Painting (which is patent pending) was developed to execute this look."


I'm no lighting expert, but almost every scene in the movie appeared like it had an early morning sunlight haze to it (perhaps this "blast zone" and "Ray Painting" technique?), and ultimately felt unfocused and/or soft. It was kind of like they got a new toy and, to the detriment of my eyes and brain, couldn't stop playing with it. Unlike Wall-E (which I feel is top Tier 0), there wasn't always something sharp to focus on since everything had this blast zone affect. I felt that this affect was totally appropriate and amazing for the stylized "tv" scenes (which I feel pushes it up to Tier 1, no lower). However, there was one scene at the end with posterization when going from dark to light; I assume it was intentional since it was pretty blatant, but that doesn't really matter since it was still distracting.


Ultimately, even though I had issues with the lighting bothering me, the movie was still very detailed (especially the city streets, tree bark, Las Vegas, and every "tv" scene). I did enjoy the movie, and would even put it above a handful of Pixar films, though I felt the voices of Miley Cyrus and John Travolta were poor to mediocre at best (the rest of the cast was great).

*Tier 1.0*; and I can be swayed in either direction here.


Panasonic 50px80u & PS3 - 9 feet


----------



## DevilDog151




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sleater* /forum/post/16102323
> 
> 
> On a side note while picking out Twilight today I looked feverishly for Bolt but couldn't find it and was quite relieved to see stumlad's review that it could be in tier 2.0. I was thinking this would be the new one to beat... now I'm not convinced.
> 
> 
> If it does make it to Tier0 then I'll definitely pick it up. I'll wait for more folks to chime in...
> 
> 
> See, this thread does in fact serve a purpose and guides us in our bluray quests. I ordered Transporter 3 already solely on the strong reviews. And you can bet I'll be happily halo hunting when it arrives : )




So basically what your saying is your basing your movie purchases off of other peoples reviews on a forum. What if the movie is really great but has lousy PQ?


And by the way those screen shots of Bolt do not do the movie any justice. It looks way better than that to me. They look out of focus because I went to that same scene with the tree and the bark was much more detailed than that photo.


----------



## Spoonsey

*Tekkon Kinkreet*


OK - so here's the deal. I'm certainly no anime expert and I have never experienced this film in SD DVD format so I have no direct comparison for the BR release vs SD DVD.


I recently purchased Tekkon Kinkreet on the basis of it's current Tier 0 placing. The only background information I had was that TK was not in the "usual" Japanese anime "style", but more a European style animation. Take from that what you will...it didn't really mean much to me!


Without giving anything away plotwise, TK turns around two hero street urchins, "Black" and "White", who watch over their city, Treasure Town, and do battle with "an array of old-world Yakuza and alien assassins vying to rule the decaying metropolis". I found the vast array of cityscapes to be beautifully rendered with vivid colours and fine detail. That's really where the appeal of this film lies, in my opinion. There is certainly not the 3D "pop" that you might find in other Tier 0 titles such as Kung Fu Panda, Ratatouille and Wall*E but much of this moot given that TK is a 2D style animation.


Whilst I admire and appreciate the artistry that has gone into the making of this film, I simply cannot justify recommending Tier 0 on the strength of some of the other Tier 0 titles (such as those mentioned above that I also own and am familiar with). Yes, I am viewing a 720p display rather than 1080p, so I would be interested to read the opinions of those with full HD setups, however I do not think TK is a Tier 0 title.


This is an extremely solid BR release that, aside from the excellent PQ, is also strong in storytelling and artistry.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0*


Panasonic TH-42PV700AZ (720p), Panasonic BMP-BD35 blu ray, viewing distance 8'.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

*In Cold Blood*


What an incredible looking title for being over 40 years old.


Going in I wasn't expecting too much based on how it looked on DVD, but I knew it was lit and shot by one of the best (Conrad Hall), so I was looking forward to it and was pleasantly surprised. Now, that's not to say it is without its flaws.


Contrast and blacks were MUCH better than I thought they would be. They held up very well with lots of nice shadow detail for most of the film. Sure, there were some crushed blacks and some instances of hazy blacks, but not too often. The depth and dimensionality was very nice.


The film was consistently sharp with only a only a few soft shots here and there. Facials closeups revealed a nice amount of detail but nothing breathtaking, but definitely acceptable. Robert Blakes' face had the most detail to be revealed and the print held them nicely. Textures on clothing, jackets, and other clothing objects were also resolved well.


In just about every exterior scene with the hot sky there was dancing film grain with a mix of noise. But anything else that wasn't hot looked great. Cars, dirt roads, buildings, walls, etc.


There were a few shots that were hazy like I mentioned and also ones where light seems to have hit the film print. Nothing to do with the transfer, just comes with the territory with a film this old.


Overall, I was pleased and any fan of the film will be very happy with the transfer. I'll say bottom of Tier 2 but I wouldn't mind Top of Tier 3.
*

Recommendation: Tier 2.75.*


Panasonic PZ80U via PS3 @ about 6 feet.


----------



## DevilDog151

*BOLT*


It was a good movie, my family really enjoyed it. The hamster was the funniest part. Also, there's a ten dollar off coupon floating around the internet. Can't beat a three disc set for 19 bucks. Blu-ray, DVD and digital copy.


Oh and my vote goes for Tier 0. Plenty of wow moments throughout. Colors were very vibrant and bold. The close ups of Bolt looked flawless and the movie has lot's of detail from the corrosion on the wrought iron bars to the scratches on the hamster's ball. This movie screams out reference quality and definitely raised the bar for animated movies.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0*


Equipment: PS3 to Pioneer PDP-5020FD, Optimum mode, approximately 7.5' viewing distance


----------



## deltasun

I've only watched the first 10-15 minutes of _Bolt_ and am leaning more towards stumlad's review at this point. I do find this title to be a bit soft, and I'm not talking about the blurred backgrounds. The lighting definitely does not flatter.


I'll be watching the whole thing tonight and hopefully, find some scenes that are more "well-lighted."


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sleater* /forum/post/16102317
> 
> *Twilight*
> 
> *I was a little apprehensive going in that this would be a cheesy, over the top cliche vampire film (thanks GGG btw!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )* but was most pleasantly surprised by both the quality of directing/acting/pacing as well as the PQ. The film is definitely lacking in extreme facial close-ups but being that most of the actors are young and probably heavily made-up, I wasn't expecting lots of skin texture to pop off the screen to begin with.




























Edited to add: I should be able to re-watch this today and do my recommendation as well. Yay!


----------



## babrown92

*The French Connection*


Finally got around to watching this last night. I had read all the reviews and hoped that my expectations would be knocked down enough to be somewhat impressed.


Man it really hurts to see such a classic film in this shape. Where to begin? The changed color timing, the crank in contrast, the film grain seemed excessive, the bleeding colors...etc.


There is an increase in resolution and detail over DVD, but you wouldnt know it unless you did a side by side comparison. Watching it, there were times where I thought I was watching a movie on Turner Classic. I love the gritty, dirty nature of this film, but it's not supposed to look this bad.


Hopefully we'll see a new transfer in a few years....it pains me to do this, but after reading the tier descriptions

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 5*


----------



## tfoltz

I felt the best scenes were those at night, which is when they used the "Ray Painting" technique less.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16103917
> 
> 
> I'll be watching the whole thing tonight and hopefully, find some scenes that are more "well-lighted."


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16102351
> 
> 
> Stumlad, seriously those images are not what I see when I am watching Bolt. I am looking at them on the same display I watch BD's on and the BD I have does not look like that.
> 
> 
> Here is closer to what I am seeing, but even these don't do it justice:
> 
> http://www.thehdcrowd.com/screenshots/bolt_3.png
> 
> 
> Look at this one and Bolt's leash. Much sharper, less white cast to the whole image, colors are better.
> 
> http://www.thehdcrowd.com/screenshots/bolt_8.png
> 
> http://www.thehdcrowd.com/screenshots/bolt_9.png
> 
> 
> Where did you get those caps?



I made those caps myself. It is possible that I have a setting wrong as I've upgraded the machine to windows 7, so I will try to match one of the three images above. However, I must say that looking at those 3 images, I am seeing more of the same. While the first pic is probably the better of the bunch, the pic of the hamster does not reveal incredible Tier 0 detail IMO. Look at the ground in that pic... look at its fur... I'm not impressed (resolution wise).


And that last pic... Look at the shrubbery. The backgrounds have no detail --- We've established WHY it is the way it is, and I understand that it's not supposed to, but it remains that the overall image isn't as detailed IMO.... A better way to describe it.. if I were to display the same movie at 720p, and then play it back at native 1080p, would I see a difference? For more than 50 percent of the movie, I'd say no.



> Quote:
> As I said over the last few weeks I am not going to debate PQ especially when there is so many variables and this thread is very subjective, but when caps are shown and they aren't what I am seeing, then I will try to show what I am seeing or try to ascertain what the differences are so we are on or close to the same playing field of accuracy as possible.



Like I said, I'll double check and see if some of my settings are off. To verify I'll match up with one of those 3 pictures.



> Quote:
> Sleater, just so you know, all reviewers that I have seen to date including Ralph Potts are stating Bolt is reference and giving it 5/5, 10/10 and so on. While I respect Stumlad, those caps are not an accurate representation of the BD and in fact are quite different to what I have seen on the BD and what I am seeing in caps from other sites.



It's been mentioned several times on this thread that outside reviewers do not judge PQ the same way that we do in here. I would give Bolt a 10/10 as far as how well it matched the source, as well as the aesthetics (lighting, focus, art, etc).


----------



## sleater




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16102351
> 
> 
> Also, I wouldn't be hunting for any PQ anomalies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you see them great, but I would suggest to anyone not to go out of your way to see something you may not normally see or be biased into seeing. That is where this thread due to its influence from each other can be a blessing and or a curse.



I actually was making my 'halo hunting' comment in jest. I don't pop in a BD and feverishly TRY to see things that people in this forum point out. Like I said, I am not sensitive to halos and ringing so in a way I _want_ to see what posters like rsbeck and patrick insist is there, but I cannot. So my halo hunting parties are usually sad and disappointing.







If you cannot see something to begin with, even going 'out of your way' to see them doesn't usually help. If rsbeck says that EE is an optical illusion that fools the untrained eye, perhaps it's better than to leave well enough alone and remain untrained if training leads to being 'bothered' by something employed in many BD releases. OK.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DevilDog151* /forum/post/16102411
> 
> 
> So basically what your saying is your basing your movie purchases off of other peoples reviews on a forum. What if the movie is really great but has lousy PQ?
> 
> 
> And by the way those screen shots of Bolt do not do the movie any justice. It looks way better than that to me. They look out of focus because I went to that same scene with the tree and the bark was much more detailed than that photo.



Basically I am saying that I will buy any BD release that is ratified into Tier 0 no matter what the film. I say this broadly and without hesitation. I buy MANY BDs and have well over 100, which I buy on my own accord mostly before ANY reviews are posted here. I would not ordinarily buy a title like Bolt, but when it was suggested to Tier 0 I went out to buy it since I, like most on this thread, am 'into' this whole picture quality thing. I have TONS of BDs that are 'really great but have lousy PQ'. I'll hold off on Bolt until the jury is in, which it clearly is not at this point.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sleater* /forum/post/16104567
> 
> 
> I have TONS of BDs that are 'really great but have lousy PQ'.



Me, too. However, I don't have a single disc with great PQ, but a lousy movie. And I don't ever intend to.


----------



## sleater

^^^ I have no idea how you have achieved this, unless of course you do not buy any BD unless you have previously viewed the film in another forum i.e. in the cinema or renting it first.


I have no problem purchasing movies I have not yet seen. BTW, I regret none of my Tier 0 purchases - they have all delivered in one way or another. Even those which have been pushed out of the Tier.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sleater* /forum/post/16104820
> 
> 
> ^^^ I have no idea how you have achieved this, unless of course you do not buy any BD unless you have previously viewed the film in another forum i.e. in the cinema or renting it first.



You have no idea and yet you figured it out on your first guess.










Life's too short for bad movies. And if the movie's bad, so's the PQ, IMO.


----------



## deltasun

*Bolt*


I was really looking forward to viewing this movie based on all the hype. From my earlier comment, I did find the picture a bit soft. When I say soft, I don't mean the blurred backgrounds. Bolt himself exhibited softness during close-up's. Some are better than others.


I agree that details are abundant - scratches on Rhino's ball, reflections on shiny helmets, gouges on bars. However, these details are not as sharp or impressive as other Tier 0 titles...and especially _Kung Fu Panda_ and Pixar titles. Because of the realistic used of shadows and shading, a majority of the scenes did not exhibit much "wow" factor for me.


Still, some details are notable - pores on Bolt's nose at extreme close-up's, shimmer on pigeons' plumes, pigeon head movements. Some of these are pretty impressive, but once the scene switches to medium shots, it's quite a step down.


Generally, black levels are decent. Because of the realistic adaptation, a fair amount of scenes are in shaded/dark areas. While details were artistically preserved, they are not particularly demo-worthy scenes. The painted on shrubs, etc. were also not impressive.


Overall, the PQ didn't really deliver for me. On the flip side, the "realism" did. When I say realism, I am referring to all the other details usually excluded from an animated title - the excellent use of depth of field, the usage of light and dark, even the way the one pigeon, in conversation, would glance at the other pigeon's beak and back to his eye again...just as people do (1:14:30 mark). These details were not lost on me. Unfortunately, they do not add to the PQ.


It was hard to decide on placement. In the end, I had to pop in several BRs including _Iron Man_ and _Transformers_. I found that this belonged in...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


I do have to say that this was an enjoyable movie for me. It's definitely a must-have, in my opinion. PQ is still excellent at 1.75.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## SuprSlow

Hey guys, I'm still here. Sorry again for my lack of updates. It's no one's fault but my own







I don't log in most of the time, but I still read the thread day to day to stay somewhat current.


I'm working on an update now, if anyone would like to help me round up recommendations, please send me a PM.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/16106821
> 
> 
> Hey guys, I'm still here. Sorry again for my lack of updates. It's no one's fault but my own
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't log in most of the time, but I still read the thread day to day to stay somewhat current.
> 
> 
> I'm working on an update now, if anyone would like to help me round up recommendations, please send me a PM.




Welcome back!!

You definitely aren't a regular if you have to log in and out.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/16102267
> 
> 
> Regarding Bolt...
> 
> 
> I didn't watch the documentary, and I'm glad to hear that those were painted backgrounds because it explains why they look the way they do. If that was pure CGI, then I would remain more disappointed.
> 
> 
> It's obvious they are going for the whole "In focus" look. That's fine, but that means the main characters have to impress me more. If they are going to make backgrounds more intentionally blurry in order to try to give it a realistic feel, well everything in focus should be insanely detailed... Unfortunately while there are Tier 0 moments in this movie, a lot of them look like the images I'm about to show...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blades of grass, and overall background on the first image... The hamster....?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollywood sign doesn't look great (I understand now that it's drawn), but does Bolt or the rest of the image show exceptional detail? How about Bolt on the couch? Were they trying to emulate low light scenes by making it soft?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at these two images. Are either of these sharp? Are either of them knock even remotely sharp?
> 
> 
> Are these bad? No, but other CGI have more overall pleasing images. If this was all intent, that's fine, but in my book it's not the same sort of viewing experience as Cars or Kung Fu Panda. I know anyone can pick and choose images to make a movie look better or worse, but I assure you that these represent the movie pretty well. And for the record, I enjoyed the movie, and it was worth the purchase. The sound was really good too. I'm sure this matches the source, but for the purposes of this thread, I feel that in the "extra fine detail" department, it falls short.



Very interesting. IF those screen grabs are accurate, it would appear that this is not a Tier 0 title based on the softness (intentional or not). I hope to have my copy later this week.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Wow, I really lucked out! Netflix has shipped both Bolt and Quantum of Solace!


----------



## DevilDog151




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16107581
> 
> 
> Wow, I really lucked out! Netflix has shipped both Bolt and Quantum of Solace!



That is pretty lucky. If I don't turn in a movie on Sat. I can forget about getting a Tues. new release for a few months. I called Netflix and complained and was told studios only allow them so many copies to urge people to buy movies. It worked since tomorrow I'll be picking up Quatum of Solace.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16107581
> 
> 
> Wow, I really lucked out! Netflix has shipped both Bolt and Quantum of Solace!



There is no method to their madness I guess...Changeling is still 'very long wait' for me.


----------



## jrcorwin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/16107747
> 
> 
> There is no method to their madness I guess...Changeling is still 'very long wait' for me.



They sent me that one right away, but Austrailia is on a very long wait.


----------



## selimsivad

*Transporter 3*


*2.35: 1*




What everyone else said!











*Transporter 3

Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (above Man On Fire)

PS3-Samsung 46" 1080p-seven'*


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16107419
> 
> 
> Very interesting. IF those screen grabs are accurate, it would appear that this is not a Tier 0 title based on the softness (intentional or not). I hope to have my copy later this week.



I looked the screen caps that Hugh directed me to and took my own at the same frame. My screen cap is actually a bit off as far as color (mine is a bit darker with a very slight yellow cast). The one thing remains true however -- the resolution/sharpness/etc is exactly the same... my screen caps didnt make things softer or sharper or anything.


I was flipping through the cable channels and saw Ice Age 2 the meltdown on FX HD. I only had to watch for a few seconds to see the squirrel and Willy Mammoth had way more detail on their fur coats than anything or anyone on Bolt.


----------



## selimsivad

Just to revisit, I decided to rent "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest."

The film still looks amazing, but facial detail doesn't compare with newer titles IMO.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/16109297
> 
> 
> Just to revisit, I decided to rent "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest."
> 
> The film still looks amazing, but facial detail doesn't compare with newer titles IMO.



I watched all 3 at the end of last December and felt they were all high to mid Tier 1.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/16109145
> 
> *Transporter 3*
> 
> 
> *2.35: 1*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What everyone else said!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Transporter 3
> 
> Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (above Man On Fire)
> 
> PS3-Samsung 46" 1080p-seven'*



+1


I agree 100%! I also agree with you and deltasun's assessment of the POTC series.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/16109145
> 
> *Transporter 3*
> 
> 
> *2.35: 1*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What everyone else said!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Transporter 3
> 
> Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (above Man On Fire)
> 
> PS3-Samsung 46" 1080p-seven'*



Wow, if I counted correctly, that's 7 votes for Tier 0 for Transporter 3 now.


----------



## hobbes2702

Anyone have a rating for U-571? I have a best buy gift card and was gonna get it because it will be free but I would like to know how good the picture quality is.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hobbes2702* /forum/post/16111461
> 
> 
> Anyone have a rating for U-571? I have a best buy gift card and was gonna get it because it will be free but I would like to know how good the picture quality is.



I voted it into Tier 1, but be warned that there are credible claims it's been DNR'd. Basically, in comparison to its HD DVD counterpart, it had finer grain structure. Personally, this didn't bother me and if you like the movie it's a worthwhile "free" purchase. If it helps, the AQ on it has been voted into the Reference tier in the AQ thread.


Here's my review:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1#post15791656


----------



## hobbes2702

Thanks for the quick reply. The only movie I have that I have noticed excessive EE or DR is 40 year old virgin. I saw some on Shawshank and on The Dark Knight and some other but not much and not enough that it took away from watching the movie. 40 year old virgin is the only one that bothered me.


----------



## lovingdvd




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hobbes2702* /forum/post/16111461
> 
> 
> Anyone have a rating for U-571? I have a best buy gift card and was gonna get it because it will be free but I would like to know how good the picture quality is.



I thought the quality was incredible (near or at Tier 0 level) and very sharp/detailed on the HD DVD version. I haven't seen the Blu Ray version but if it is the same transfer I would except the same PQ.


----------



## hobbes2702

*U-571*


So I just asked but I bought it and have looked through it. Colors look good and the water especially appears to be very well done. I know the HD-DVD was supposed to be great but it looks like for the BluRay they added are lot of EE and DNR. Still contains good facial detail but has some haloing. Not nearly as bad as some movies I have but not great either. I would say this belongs in either Tier 1.5 or 1.75. That may be being a little lienient though as it isn't quite as good as some of my Tier 1 movies. Some scenes look much better than others and can get as low as 2.25 IMO. Just inconsistent in terms of EE and DNR but overall good quality

*Rating: Tier 1.5 though could go as low as 2.25 or as high as 1.25 in my opnion.*

Samsung LN40A550 connected via HDMI v1.3 to PS3

6ft viewing distance


----------



## Thunderbolt8




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/16102267
> 
> 
> Regarding Bolt...
> 
> 
> I didn't watch the documentary, and I'm glad to hear that those were painted backgrounds because it explains why they look the way they do. If that was pure CGI, then I would remain more disappointed.
> 
> 
> It's obvious they are going for the whole "In focus" look. That's fine, but that means the main characters have to impress me more. If they are going to make backgrounds more intentionally blurry in order to try to give it a realistic feel, well everything in focus should be insanely detailed... Unfortunately while there are Tier 0 moments in this movie, a lot of them look like the images I'm about to show...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blades of grass, and overall background on the first image... The hamster....?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollywood sign doesn't look great (I understand now that it's drawn), but does Bolt or the rest of the image show exceptional detail? How about Bolt on the couch? Were they trying to emulate low light scenes by making it soft?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at these two images. Are either of these sharp? Are either of them knock even remotely sharp?
> 
> 
> Are these bad? No, but other CGI have more overall pleasing images. If this was all intent, that's fine, but in my book it's not the same sort of viewing experience as Cars or Kung Fu Panda. I know anyone can pick and choose images to make a movie look better or worse, but I assure you that these represent the movie pretty well. And for the record, I enjoyed the movie, and it was worth the purchase. The sound was really good too. I'm sure this matches the source, but for the purposes of this thread, I feel that in the "extra fine detail" department, it falls short.



theres clearly something wrong with the images here, the actual movie doesnt look that bad.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Thunderbolt8* /forum/post/16114751
> 
> 
> theres clearly something wrong with the images here, the actual movie doesnt look that bad.



As I mentioned in an earlier post, the images are tad bit darker than they should be and have a slight yellow cast to them. The sharpness/detail level is the same.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/16114855
> 
> 
> As I mentioned in an earlier post, the images are tad bit darker than they should be and have a slight yellow cast to them. The sharpness/detail level is the same.




Stumlad, when I mentioned the images you provided didn't look right, it wasn't just the color. I can tell you the caps you provided look like upscaled DVD compared to what I am seeing on my display with the BD through my PS3. The sharpness and detail in your caps are not the same sharpness and detail I am seeing.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16115027
> 
> 
> Stumlad, when I mentioned the images you provided didn't look right, it wasn't just the color. I can tell you the caps you provided look like upscaled DVD compared to what I am seeing on my display with the BD through my PS3. The sharpness and detail in your caps are not the same sharpness and detail I am seeing.



If I have time tonight, I will duplicate one of the frames that you posted. I will do it with my old decoder (the one that you say looks like upscaled DVD) and my new decoder (which is even brighter than the one you found). Assuming I'm not seeing things, the detail level will be the same.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16109404
> 
> 
> I watched all 3 at the end of last December and felt they were all high to mid Tier 1.



I could definitely see that!

I'll be away on a mini vacation for about five days.

When I return, I plan on rewatching all three "Pirates" films.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Thunderbolt8* /forum/post/16114751
> 
> 
> theres clearly something wrong with the images here, the actual movie doesnt look that bad.



And it isn't just the color right? Can you describe what those pics lack compared to what you see on the BD?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Thunderbolt8* /forum/post/16114751
> 
> 
> theres clearly something wrong with the images here, the actual movie doesnt look that bad.



I just scanned through about 20 minutes worth of Bolt just to get a quick idea of how this one looks. Based on the 20 minutes that I saw, I would tend to agree with the sentiment above.


Clearly they are going for a more "filmed" type of look with Bolt, and they use some shallow depth of field, so there are some soft backgrounds. But most of the time there is very good detail and sharpness.


Stumlad, are you sure there isn't something going on with the way you are capturing those images? Those all look noticeably softer than what I was seeing.


Hopefully I will be able to watch Bolt tomorrow night and give a full review and placement.


The sound quality appears to be phenomenal!


----------



## jrcorwin

I tried to watch Australia tonight. I told my wife, "I'm giving this five more minutes." I only made it about three more. Too campy for me and the PQ wasn't enough to make up for it. I was hoping it would at least be beautiful and it just wasn't.


----------



## stumlad

The picture that hughmc posted:
http://www.thehdcrowd.com/screenshots/bolt_8.png 


The picture that matches the above, with my old decoder (the one everyone is claiming is soft):
 


Note that, besides the coloring the detail has not been changed.


Then there's this which I believe represents what we see when we're watching the movie -- this has better contrast and overall coloring:

 


As you can see, the only differences are the coloring/contrast. The last image has the most "pop", but that doesnt matter because it's soft no matter what way you slice it. Yes there are better moments in the movie than this pic or some that I posted, but there's a lot of this softness througout the movie.


If i were to take a pic from Ice Age 2, you'd see the difference... I will try to do that tomorrow. We can compare the hamster versus the squirrel-looking-thing.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/16117202
> 
> 
> The picture that hughmc posted:
> http://www.thehdcrowd.com/screenshots/bolt_8.png
> 
> 
> The picture that matches the above, with my old decoder (the one everyone is claiming is soft):
> 
> 
> 
> Note that, besides the coloring the detail has not been changed.
> 
> 
> Then there's this which I believe represents what we see when we're watching the movie -- this has better contrast and overall coloring:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see, the only differences are the coloring/contrast. The last image has the most "pop", but that doesnt matter because it's soft no matter what way you slice it. Yes there are better moments in the movie than this pic or some that I posted, but there's a lot of this softness througout the movie.
> 
> 
> If i were to take a pic from Ice Age 2, you'd see the difference... I will try to do that tomorrow. We can compare the hamster versus the squirrel-looking-thing.



That just goes to show how much difference color and contrast can make in terms of the overall appearance of sharpness and detail, because I think the second picture looks noticeably better than the first.


----------



## DevilDog151




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/16117202
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see, the only differences are the coloring/contrast. The last image has the most "pop", but that doesnt matter because it's soft no matter what way you slice it. Yes there are better moments in the movie than this pic or some that I posted, but there's a lot of this softness througout the movie.
> 
> 
> If i were to take a pic from Ice Age 2, you'd see the difference... I will try to do that tomorrow. We can compare the hamster versus the squirrel-looking-thing.




Yeah, this picture looks terrible. Disney/Pixar needs to get their act together.


Seriously, There is no way that Ice Age looks better than bolt. Maybe the fur might look a little sharper. But, the lighting and shading in Bolt is way ahead of what they did three years ago.


----------



## moematthews




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jrcorwin* /forum/post/16117036
> 
> 
> I tried to watch Australia tonight. I told my wife, "I'm giving this five more minutes." I only made it about three more. Too campy for me and the PQ wasn't enough to make up for it. I was hoping it would at least be beautiful and it just wasn't.



Very good observation. I really hate the way that movies seem to get a free pass based on the "big name" actors who star in them. As a movie, Australia was perhaps OK at best; not "Titanic" bad, but still so formulaic and unrealistic. It had the requisite bad dialogue. However, Nicole Kidman gets huge ratings for starring in movies like this all the time. And the quality of the BD was good, but certainly not great overall.


Another fabulous example of hype and fluff winning out over quality.


----------



## deltasun

Definitely agreed that Bolt is a step in the right direction in how animated features should be done. However, I believe it can and will be done better PQ-wise. The shadows and shading, I believe, really was not done optimally to produce the best looking scenes possible. It often looked flat when the shading should have aided in giving a more 3-dimensional looking picture. Even at the points of focus, the picture still looked soft. While you can see strands of fur from Bolt, they're not as well-defined as in other furry creatures in Kung Fu Panda and/or Ratatouille.


The scene above is one of the better scenes in _Bolt_. No need for sarcasm - no one said _Bolt_ was terrible. I, for example, still believe it's in Tier Gold.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DevilDog151* /forum/post/16117471
> 
> 
> Yeah, this picture looks terrible. Disney/Pixar needs to get their act together.
> 
> 
> Seriously, There is no way that Ice Age looks better than bolt. Maybe the fur might look a little sharper. But, the lighting and shading in Bolt is way ahead of what they did three years ago.



This will be my last post on this, otherwise I will be beating a dead horse.


I am in no way saying that the CGI in Bolt is worse or subpar or anything. I think it's great. It's a great movie too. However, the animals are not as sharp/detailed as what we are typically used to seeing in other CGI movies. I bring up Ice Age 2 for that very reason. It's far behind as far as the capabilities Pixar/Disney/etc have, but the characters in it are sharp and filled with fine detail.. The backgrounds (in Ice Age 2), however are soft and have very little detail. I do not, in any way believe Ice Age 2 is a Tier 0 title...

 


Compared to the hamster, this squirrel exhibits more fine details (and i still feel blu-ray can offer more). Ice Age 2 attempts to do things with focus and blurring things that are out of focus, etc, but it's obvious their tech isn't up to par with Disney/Pixar.


It's not that there's anything "wrong" with the details of the hamster.. I'm sure it was artistic intent...


The other thing I was pointing out was backgrounds. Compared to something like Kung Fu Panda, the painted-look backgrounds of Bolt dont exhibit as much detail... once again...intent.


If you and everyone believe it belongs in Tier 0, that's your choice. I feel I've defended my Tier 2.0 recommendation.


----------



## deltasun

*Twilight*


Surprised to get this from Netflix so soon, but good timing as I was in the mood to watch it after everybody at work was talking about it.


Obviously, the color palette was sylized to look cold (at least, most of the outdoor scenes). It was very difficult to the kind of facial detail we've been accustomed to in tier 1 and above.


Let me talk about skin tones outdoors first. Edward and Bella exhibited the kind of sallow, anemic (even waxy) skin tone that had a DNR'd look. I was trying to figure out how they came up with this look because I'm 99% positive no DNR was applied to these faces. I finally noticed a pimple covered with make-up on Bella's face, just below her nose. I noticed this type of make-up as well on Edward. I believe the cakey make-up is responsible for this DNR'd look. Regardless, I believe this hurt the facial PQ a bit on outdoor scenes.


Skin tones indoors was a totally different animal, specially at night in warm light. Regardless of which creature - vampire or human - skin tones were warm and very pleasant to the eyes. This had a lot to do with lighting and shadows. One exception that stood on its own was the facial close-up of the black vampire. Black levels were decent, but not exceptional.


I agree with one of the earlier reviews that despite the lack of facial details, details on other objects were very well rendered. Textures in sweaters, grass, walls were very detailed.


Panoramic views were few and far between. However, when they did appear, they showed good depth, dimension, and details as well. Check out tje 1:31:51 mark showing one of the mesas in Arizona, with vivid green trees/shrubs in the foreground.


Overall, I believe enough eye candy was thrown in to warrant Gold placement. My favorite scenes were definitely indoors or nighttime outdoors. Even with the muted presentation, colors were still vivid. It's an old photographer's trick to photograph flowers/details when presented with an overcast sky. It gives their colors a more balanced and vivid look. I found this to be the case in the mostly overcast scenes of the movie.


Still pretty impressive and, for me, earned...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.50*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16117639
> 
> 
> Definitely agreed that Bolt is a step in the right direction in how animated features should be done. However, I believe it can and will be done better PQ-wise. The shadows and shading, I believe, really was not done optimally to produce the best looking scenes possible. It often looked flat when the shading should have aided in giving a more 3-dimensional looking picture. Even at the points of focus, the picture still looked soft. While you can see strands of fur from Bolt, they're not as well-defined as in other furry creatures in Kung Fu Panda and/or Ratatouille.
> 
> 
> The scene above is one of the better scenes in _Bolt_. No need for sarcasm - no one said _Bolt_ was terrible. I, for example, still believe it's in Tier Gold.



Very well said! I particularly agree with what you say about the "lighting" in Bolt (I use quotes around the word lighting since obviously no lighting is actually used) based on the 20 minutes I have seen thus far. It does not lend itself to an ultra clear, ultra crisp and detailed picture like we get with Kung Fu Panda.


But it IS more photo realistic, and overall, I like the path/progress that Pixar is making in this regard, though I know others will disagree.


----------



## Legairre




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/16117644
> 
> 
> This will be my last post on this, otherwise I will be beating a dead horse.
> 
> 
> I am in no way saying that the CGI in Bolt is worse or subpar or anything. I think it's great. It's a great movie too. However, the animals are not as sharp/detailed as what we are typically used to seeing in other CGI movies. I bring up Ice Age 2 for that very reason. It's far behind as far as the capabilities Pixar/Disney/etc have, but the characters in it are sharp and filled with fine detail.. The backgrounds (in Ice Age 2), however are soft and have very little detail. I do not, in any way believe Ice Age 2 is a Tier 0 title...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Compared to the hamster, this squirrel exhibits more fine details (and i still feel blu-ray can offer more). Ice Age 2 attempts to do things with focus and blurring things that are out of focus, etc, but it's obvious their tech isn't up to par with Disney/Pixar.
> 
> 
> It's not that there's anything "wrong" with the details of the hamster.. I'm sure it was artistic intent...
> 
> 
> The other thing I was pointing out was backgrounds. Compared to something like Kung Fu Panda, the painted-look backgrounds of Bolt dont exhibit as much detail... once again...intent.
> 
> 
> If you and everyone believe it belongs in Tier 0, that's your choice. I feel I've defended my Tier 2.0 recommendation.



Hummmmm, that's funny because after reading all the reviews on HDDigest, HTF and Blu-ray.com that gave Bolt a 5/5 rating I was surprised that when I watched it I kept thinking it looked soft in some places. I also kept thinking why is everyone raving about it because it seems to lack detail compared to Panda, Cars and others. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it, it just didn't have the detail like meet the Robinson or Panda for instance. I found the lighting and shading and other aspect spot on, but the detail and being a little soft in some scenes surprised me. Maybe all the reviews set my expectation too high.


Just to be sure I took the PS3 out of the rack and tried it on my 1080p Toshiba 40rv525 in the family room and had the same results. Both the projector in the theater and the TV in the family room have been calibrated with DVE Basics(Blu-ray).


I need to watch it again before saying where I'd place it.


108" screen

Mitsubishi HC1500 projector(720p)

Sony PS3 Blu-ray player

Seating distance 12' 6"


----------



## jrcorwin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moematthews* /forum/post/16117620
> 
> 
> Very good observation. I really hate the way that movies seem to get a free pass based on the "big name" actors who star in them. As a movie, Australia was perhaps OK at best; not "Titanic" bad, but still so formulaic and unrealistic. It had the requisite bad dialogue. However, Nicole Kidman gets huge ratings for starring in movies like this all the time. And the quality of the BD was good, but certainly not great overall.
> 
> 
> Another fabulous example of hype and fluff winning out over quality.



I was with you until the Titanic comment.


----------



## moematthews

Really? Hard for me to fathom (pardon the pun) that you could feel that way about Australia and yet still like Titanic. The latter has some of the worst dialogue I've heard in a Hollywood movie.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jrcorwin* /forum/post/16119440
> 
> 
> i was with you until the titanic comment.



+1


----------



## jrcorwin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moematthews* /forum/post/16119552
> 
> 
> Really? Hard for me to fathom (pardon the pun) that you could feel that way about Australia and yet still like Titanic. The latter has some of the worst dialogue I've heard in a Hollywood movie.



Well, this is one way to express my opinion on that issue:



> Quote:
> Won 11 Oscars. Another 76 wins & 48 nominations
> 
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120338/awards





> Quote:
> Budget: $200 million
> 
> 
> Gross revenue: $1,848,813,795
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanic_(1997_film )


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16117757
> 
> *Twilight*
> 
> 
> Surprised to get this from Netflix so soon, but good timing as I was in the mood to watch it after everybody at work was talking about it.
> 
> 
> Obviously, the color palette was sylized to look cold (at least, most of the outdoor scenes). It was very difficult to the kind of facial detail we've been accustomed to in tier 1 and above.
> 
> 
> Let me talk about skin tones outdoors first. Edward and Bella exhibited the kind of sallow, anemic (even waxy) skin tone that had a DNR'd look. I was trying to figure out how they came up with this look because I'm 99% positive no DNR was applied to these faces. I finally noticed a pimple covered with make-up on Bella's face, just below her nose. I noticed this type of make-up as well on Edward. I believe the cakey make-up is responsible for this DNR'd look. Regardless, I believe this hurt the facial PQ a bit on outdoor scenes.
> 
> 
> Skin tones indoors was a totally different animal, specially at night in warm light. Regardless of which creature - vampire or human - skin tones were warm and very pleasant to the eyes. This had a lot to do with lighting and shadows. One exception that stood on its own was the facial close-up of the black vampire. Black levels were decent, but not exceptional.
> 
> 
> I agree with one of the earlier reviews that despite the lack of facial details, details on other objects were very well rendered. Textures in sweaters, grass, walls were very detailed.
> 
> 
> Panoramic views were few and far between. However, when they did appear, they showed good depth, dimension, and details as well. Check out tje 1:31:51 mark showing one of the mesas in Arizona, with vivid green trees/shrubs in the foreground.
> 
> 
> Overall, I believe enough eye candy was thrown in to warrant Gold placement. My favorite scenes were definitely indoors or nighttime outdoors. Even with the muted presentation, colors were still vivid. It's an old photographer's trick to photograph flowers/details when presented with an overcast sky. It gives their colors a more balanced and vivid look. I found this to be the case in the mostly overcast scenes of the movie.
> 
> 
> Still pretty impressive and, for me, earned...
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.50*
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_



I wasn't very impressed with Twilight. Pioneer 5010-FD 1080p 8' back, pitch black.


I'd say 1.75 is probably a better placement. Colors were not good, everything had that grey look to it. Intentional or not, it's not impressive. No texture to faces, etc, as noted.


----------



## moematthews




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jrcorwin* /forum/post/16119646
> 
> 
> Well, this is one way to express my opinion on that issue:



Last comment on this because it's off-topic. Jackie Collins sells a lot of books, Reality TV is extremely popular and the best-selling wine in the US comes in a 4-litre bag.


----------



## b_scott

the general public has a low IQ and bad taste. no surprises there.


----------



## Legairre

Quantity sold is no indication of quality.


----------



## DaveBowman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moematthews* /forum/post/16120304
> 
> 
> Last comment on this because it's off-topic. Jackie Collins sells a lot of books, Reality TV is extremely popular and the best-selling wine in the US comes in a 4-litre bag.



Yes, but have you ever read a Jackie Collins novel while drinking a 4 litre bag of wine with Survivor playing in the background? Loads of fun. Don't knock it til you've tried it.


----------



## TayC




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/16120400
> 
> 
> the general public has a low IQ and bad taste. no surprises there.



That's why Titanic did well.


----------



## jrcorwin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TayC* /forum/post/16120950
> 
> 
> That's why Titanic did well.














> Quote:
> Won 11 Oscars. Another 76 wins & 48 nominations
> 
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120338/awards


----------



## TayC

In my honest *opinion* it is the most overrated movie of all time, and the worst movie to win an Oscar. It's also James Cameron's worst film.


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jrcorwin* /forum/post/16121096



you don't think award voters are people?


----------



## jrcorwin









Yikes...some odd opinions, but welcome opinions nonetheless. Thanks for sharing. I just happen to disagree.


----------



## b_scott

I don't agree with TayC. It's not horrible. But I don't think it deserved all it got.


----------



## sleater

*Re: Twilight*


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16117757
> 
> 
> Let me talk about skin tones outdoors first. Edward and Bella exhibited the kind of sallow, anemic (even waxy) skin tone that had a DNR'd look. I was trying to figure out how they came up with this look because I'm 99% positive no DNR was applied to these faces. I finally noticed a pimple covered with make-up on Bella's face, just below her nose. I noticed this type of make-up as well on Edward. *I believe the cakey make-up is responsible for this DNR'd look.* Regardless, I believe this hurt the facial PQ a bit on outdoor scenes.



+1


I had a second viewing on a different screen (16" laptop at 1.5 foot distance) to determine once and for all if this title had been through the post processing machine, and I can say that the film grain is definitely intact although it is fine. I agree that the caked-on makeup is responsible for the relatively detail-lacking faces, although the fact that most of the actors were quite young contributes to this. Still, on non-vampire older faces (i.e. Bella's father and his friend) there is decent facial detail to be seen. Perhaps not Tier 0 detail.


Good review deltasun!


btw I too noticed that pimple covered up during the schoolroom scene. Poor actors being forced to undergo the 1080p treatment!


----------



## KeithTalent




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TheTonik* /forum/post/15676718
> 
> 
> Just watched Vexille. I would say it ranks somewhere in Tier 0. Good stuff. Audio quality is also reference material, imo.



I watched this last night and completely agree. It was visually and auditorily stunning!


Hopefully one of the more seasoned reviewers will watch this soon; I would love to read a more detailed opinion from someone here.


KT


----------



## djoberg

I have been preoccupied lately with bad flood conditions here in the Red River Valley of North Dakota (you've no doubt heard of how ominous it is looking for Fargo, ND), so have been unable to contribute much. I've read with interest the varying opinions on "Bolt" and since my copy arrived the other day I'm hoping to get at it soon. Obviously I'm hoping the "Tier 0 camp" is right, but if the look is anything like the first 30 minutes of Wall-E I may fall more in line with those who are recommending a placement outside of Tier Blu.


----------



## audiomagnate

I got my Netflix copy of Bolt yesterday (Yes!) and watched it last night. I thought it looked much sharper than the screen caps above. The texture and little scratches on his dog tags looked perfect, as did the closeup of the penny. Some of the outdoor scenes, notably the shot of the railroad tracks with the weeds growing around the signal, looked incredibly real. I'm not ready to rate yet but I'm leaning toward low tier 0.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16117868
> 
> 
> Very well said! I particularly agree with what you say about the "lighting" in Bolt (I use quotes around the word lighting since obviously no lighting is actually used) based on the 20 minutes I have seen thus far. It does not lend itself to an ultra clear, ultra crisp and detailed picture like we get with Kung Fu Panda.
> 
> 
> But it IS more photo realistic, and overall, I like the path/progress that Pixar is making in this regard, though I know others will disagree.



I think that is what I like about Bolt is the more realistic look, so I agree with you. Bolt is an interesting title. It seems to have almost the same controversy Wall E had. I really went out on a limb with my belief that it is the best looking animation and tier 0 BD to date and I maintain that belief. While I am not too surprised some don't see it as tier 0, I am very surprised some see it as low tier 1 or tier 2, but that is the way it is.


----------



## jrcorwin

I see it as tier 0...just not at the top of tier 0.


----------



## Hughmc

*Quantum of Solace*


I think QOS rates similarly to Casino Royale and looks maybe a slight bit better.


Contrast is pumped up a bit and Olga's tan skin looks to be on the orange side. Blacks are good and grain is present, but not too distracting and not even noticeable at all at times. I didn't notice any digital compression noise that I did in CR that made the grain look like it was crawling so that is a good thing. Facial detail was good, but as consistent as this transfer is with mostly tier 1 quality overall, I didn't see a lot of tier 0 shots. This is an excellent looking title. I was expecting the movie to be worse in terms of story, etc due to the negative hype, but as much as I enjoyed CR in fairness it was/is a tough act to follow for QOS. Some fight scenes made me feel like I was watching one of the Bourne or Transporter movies as QOS had that similar look and feel to it.

*Recommendation: Tier 1.0*


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*Twilight*


Twilight is definitely artistic and is not shot in a way to make the movie look like real life. Lately the films I've seen tend to go in a different direction than Twilight does with the artistic direction going for oversaturation of colours on a very bright scale. Twilight seems to do the opposite, there is a bit of a washed out or drab appearance rather than brightness, although it still manages to keep a lush feel for me.


The makeup used on several characters gives the average shots of faces a more porcelain and pasty look, as they are supposed to be Vampires after all; however in extreme close-ups despite the makeup I still am able to discern a fantastic level of detail. I see wrinkles, other imperfections and blemishes that are trying to be hidden by the makeup unsuccessfully when the picture is on a crystal clear medium like Blu Ray can offer. I see the makeup caked on, rather than giving a plastic look like it looks to me in Speed Racer. Perhaps it's a budgetary issue and they had to ransack the bargain bins for makeup in an after Halloween sale or something!


There is a fantastic amount of clarity outside of the characters as well, especially in the outdoor sequences involving the meadow/forest/rocky terrain and also when they're in the greenhouse. Textures are in abundance on almost all fabrics as well.


On my second viewing for review purposes (while listening to the commentary track), I did pick up on a few spots where some ringing/EE shows up. Now, I'm admittedly very sensitive to noticing it, and given my sensitivity to the issue I can say that it was in no way bothersome where I did notice it. It would be remiss of me to not mention that it's there, though. If I have seen it I'm sure someone else will notice it as well, but again it's in so few scenes and for most viewers it won't be noticed at all.


While I do not think this movie is Tier 0, I do think it's worthy of being in Tier 1. The stylistic choices by the director may not be perfect reference for everyone, but the PQ is pretty damn good for such a cheesy movie.

*Recommendation for Twilight: Tier 1.50*

*Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800U, THX setting, approximately 7.5' viewing distance.*


----------



## moematthews




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16123197
> 
> *Quantum of Solace*
> 
> 
> I think QOS rates similarly to Casino Royale and looks maybe a slight bit better.
> 
> 
> Contrast is pumped up a bit and Olga's tan skin looks to be on the orange side. Blacks are good and grain is present, but not too distracting and not even noticeable at all at times. I didn't notice any digital compression noise that I did in CR that made the grain look like it was crawling so that is a good thing. Facial detail was good, but as consistent as this transfer is with mostly tier 1 quality overall, I didn't see a lot of tier 0 shots. This is an excellent looking title. I was expecting the movie to be worse in terms of story, etc due to the negative hype, but as much as I enjoyed CR in fairness it was/is a tough act to follow for QOS. Some fight scenes made me feel like I was watching one of the Bourne or Transporter movies as QOS had that similar look and feel to it.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 1.0*



Agreed. Ralph Potts gave it a huge score in the BD Review thread, so I was expecting big things. I was slightly disappointed, but only because my expectations were so high. Still, great-looking title, but hard to recommend for Tier 0. I would also agree it looks just a shade better than Casino Royale overall.


I had also read a review saying it was nothing more than a revenge-crazed Bond gone insane. It really wasn't that at all, and while not on the same level as Casino Royale, I found it quite enjoyable.


----------



## moematthews




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaveBowman* /forum/post/16120424
> 
> 
> Yes, but have you ever read a Jackie Collins novel while drinking a 4 litre bag of wine with Survivor playing in the background? Loads of fun. Don't knock it til you've tried it.



Well, guess I know what I'll be doing this weekend!!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16123587
> 
> *Twilight*
> 
> 
> Twilight is definitely artistic and is not shot in a way to make the movie look like real life. Lately the films I've seen tend to go in a different direction than Twilight does with the artistic direction going for oversaturation of colours on a very bright scale. Twilight seems to do the opposite, there is a bit of a washed out or drab appearance rather than brightness, although it still manages to keep a lush feel for me.
> 
> 
> The makeup used on several characters gives the average shots of faces a more porcelain and pasty look, as they are supposed to be Vampires after all; however in extreme close-ups despite the makeup I still am able to discern a fantastic level of detail. I see wrinkles, other imperfections and blemishes that are trying to be hidden by the makeup unsuccessfully when the picture is on a crystal clear medium like Blu Ray can offer. I see the makeup caked on, rather than giving a plastic look like it looks to me in Speed Racer. Perhaps it's a budgetary issue and they had to ransack the bargain bins for makeup in an after Halloween sale or something!
> 
> 
> There is a fantastic amount of clarity outside of the characters as well, especially in the outdoor sequences involving the meadow/forest/rocky terrain and also when they're in the greenhouse. Textures are in abundance on almost all fabrics as well.
> 
> 
> On my second viewing for review purposes (while listening to the commentary track), I did pick up on a few spots where some ringing/EE shows up. Now, I'm admittedly very sensitive to noticing it, and given my sensitivity to the issue I can say that it was in no way bothersome where I did notice it. It would be remiss of me to not mention that it's there, though. If I have seen it I'm sure someone else will notice it as well, but again it's in so few scenes and for most viewers it won't be noticed at all.
> 
> 
> While I do not think this movie is Tier 0, I do think it's worthy of being in Tier 1. The stylistic choices by the director may not be perfect reference for everyone, but the PQ is pretty damn good for such a cheesy movie.
> 
> *Recommendation for Twilight: Tier 1.50*
> 
> *Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800U, THX setting, approximately 7.5' viewing distance.*



Very nice review.


I have to admit that I was curious to see where people would be placing this title given the intentional tweaking done to the picture, including very pale skin tones etc.


Most people appear to agree with the mid to low Tier 1 range (I was also at 1.5).


My wife made me order the first two books in this series from Amazon today based on how much she liked the movie.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16124017
> 
> 
> Very nice review.
> 
> 
> I have to admit that I was curious to see where people would be placing this title given the intentional tweaking done to the picture, including very pale skin tones etc.
> 
> 
> Most people appear to agree with the mid to low Tier 1 range (I was also at 1.5).



I think most of the scenes that would lower PQ are the outdoor, cakey, "DNR'd" close-up's. These were not that distracting given that the details around them were quite good. Still, I thought _Let the Right One In_ achieved the same look in a superior way.


So in summary...
facial close-up's: go to _Let the Right One In_
everything else: equal or goes to _Twilight_


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16124017
> 
> 
> Very nice review.
> 
> 
> I have to admit that I was curious to see where people would be placing this title given the intentional tweaking done to the picture, including very pale skin tones etc.
> 
> 
> Most people appear to agree with the mid to low Tier 1 range (I was also at 1.5).
> 
> *My wife made me order the first two books in this series from Amazon today based on how much she liked the movie*.




May as well just get the other 2. If she liked the movie, I'm going to venture a guess that she'll love the books, and they are very fast reads. I know of people who have driven out late at night to seek out bookstores because they NEEDED the next one NOW NOW NOW!!



That's not me, btw, I was only that way about wanting the Blu Ray. Luckily enough, too, since I haven't seen any other copies in town except for when I went to walmart at around 12:15am when it was released! I actually disliked the books, and outright HATED book 4, yet I forced myself to finish it because I hate spoilers.



As for the rec, I teetered for a minute with a thought of 1.75, but I think it had enough merit for 1.50.


----------



## keithhr

I purchased a Sony LCOS based bravia rear projection 1080P set last year that has an amazingly natural color pallet. I compared it to the top of the line panasonic and pioneer of the day and chose the sony.I have set it up by personal preference with an edge to cinema appearance. I believe this set capable of wonderful HD color and image quality. The point I want to make is many of the BD I rent are either not much better than upscaled dvd or amazingly film llike in their lack of sharp detail that one might find in good live network televisiion . I think this is a really good thread indicating that all Blu Ray are not created equal. Much of the good network stuff is three dimensional and wonderful to behold. It's a shame that LCOS which is the engine for many high end projectors was rejected by the we must have flat panel televisions at all cost crowd, or the wife acceptance factor as it is commonly known. I purchased this set as an interim set till the next great technology emerged but it may wind up being more than that. Black levels and naturalness of color is amazing. I can say that they all look better than my few hundred laser disc collection which is now pretty obsolete. A lot of things have changed in the last 17 years.


----------



## Legairre

*Bolt*

I just watched Bolt again tonight with my 4 yr old. The sharpness had been bothering me so I wanted to watch it again before I voted. I originally felt the lighting was perfect. Now that I've watched it again I think what causes the lack of sharpness is they way Disney chose to use the lighting. The chase scene in the beginning is stunning and so are all the other scenes when they are filming episodes of the Bolt TV series.


Some of the daytime real life scenes are a problem though. Many of the daytime real life scenes have crushed whites because they are trying to simulate how objects look in sunlight. Bolt, walls, sidewalks, pavement and even the dog catcher's truck all have a lack of detail due to crushed whites because of the way lighting was used on daylight scenes.


The opening chase scene and other movie studio scenes as well as indoor scenes have great detail but the daylight outside scenes have crushed whites.


Can some of you guys take a look at this and see if you notice this as well. Take a look at Bolt and other object on outside scenes and see if you notice the crushed whites causing a lack of detail. then take a look at inside scenes and see if the detail returns.


BTW my projector is calibrated with DVE blu-ray and I put in Tinkerbell right after Bolt for comparison and Tinkerbell is stunning, with lots of detail and no crushed whites.

*Recommendation For Bolt: Tier 1.25*


Thanks

Legairre

_108", Mitsubishi HC1500 720p projector, 12'6"_


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Leg, welcome to the thread!


Did you see the format required for reviews in the OP? Please check it out and format yours correctly so it won't be overlooked.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Legairre* /forum/post/16124674
> 
> 
> I just watched Bolt again tonight with my 4 yr old. The sharpness had been bothering me so I wanted to watch it again before I voted. I originally felt the lighting was perfect. Now that I've watched it again I think what causes the lack of sharpness is they way Disney chose to use the lighting. The chase scene in the beginning is stunning and so are all the other scenes when they are filming episodes of the Bolt TV series.
> 
> 
> Some of the daytime real life scenes are a problem though. Many of the daytime real life scenes have crushed whites because they are trying to simulate how objects look in sunlight. Bolt, walls, sidewalks, pavement and even the dog catcher's truck all have a lack of detail due to crushed whites because of the way lighting was used on daylight scenes.
> 
> 
> The opening chase scene and other movie studio scenes as well as indoor scenes have great detail but the daylight outside scenes have crushed whites.
> 
> 
> Can some of you guys take a look at this and see if you notice this as well. Take a look at Bolt and other object on outside scenes and see if you notice the crushed whites causing a lack of detail. then take a look at inside scenes and see if the detail returns.
> 
> 
> BTW my projector is calibrated with DVE blu-ray and I put in Tinkerbell right after Bolt for comparison and Tinkerbell is stunning, with lots of detail and no crushed whites.
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Legairre
> 
> 
> 108" screen
> 
> Mitsubishi HC1500 projector(720p)
> 
> Sony PS3 Blu-ray player
> 
> Seating distance 12' 6"



I have to be honest, that is the first time I have heard the term crushed whites. Is that the same thing as blown out or hot whites and contrast? To me the lighting used at times is identical to Ratatouille and doesn't take away from detail. I watched portions of it the other nite to compare, because it was the first thing I noticed about Bolt in the opening scene and wondered if Bolt was another Pixar production.


Bolt being an all digital production is going to be hard to find any actual PQ anomalies like live action films. The other reason I believe it is tier 0 is that it meets all the tier 0 requirements with some opinions stating the one exception and that is sharpness, but that alone is enough reason for some to knock it down if they see it accordingly.


The only anomaly I noticed and was curious if anyone else did was the one I mentioned in my review at the time stamp of 1:25:34 which I saw banding for all of two seconds, but that maybe a limitation in my display LCD display that may exacerbate banding. Can anyone who has it confirm the above mentioned time stamp to see if they see the banding?


----------



## OldCodger73

I'm on the Netflix one-at-a-time plan and tend to get movies much later than those who buy everything or who are on a two or three at a time plan so my reviews, such as they are, tend to be much later than others.


I thought _Let the Right One In_ was beautifully photographed. The night scenes in front of the apartment complex and the outside snow scenes perfectly complement the story line. Detail and sharpness was generally good, but at times focus seemed to be slow resulting in out-of-focus scenes for a few seconds. Close-up details ranged from very good to a noticeable lack of fine detail. Color seemed to be OK on the outdoor scenes. Overall, while not reference or even tier 1 category, the movie had a very pleasant picture and made for an enjoyable viewing experience. Overall I'd rate *Let the Right One In Tier 2.75*.


Surprisingly, the movie made good use of the LFE channel in certain scenes.


This wasn't the typical vampire movie, which has degenerated over time in to being another slasher type genre, it's more a thinking persons film and, as such, was quite multi-layered. There are two interesting threads on the movie going on now, one in the BD software board which mostly deals with the subtitles, apparently they were dumbed-down from the theatrical release, and the other in the DVD board. The latter is particularly interesting as there are posts from at least one person who has read the book on which the movie was based and in several spoilers gives some much needed backstory. Ideally one would watch the movie, read the spoilers, than watch the movie again for new revelations.


Panasonic 50" 720p plasma, Panasonic 10a player, 7 1/2'.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/16124866
> 
> 
> I'm on the Netflix one-at-a-time plan and tend to get movies much later than those who buy everything or who are on a two or three at a time plan so my reviews, such as they are, tend to be much later than others.
> 
> 
> I thought _Let the Right One In_ was beautifully photographed. The night scenes in front of the apartment complex and the outside snow scenes perfectly complement the story line. Detail and sharpness was generally good, but at times focus seemed to be slow resulting in out-of-focus scenes for a few seconds. Close-up details ranged from very good to a noticeable lack of fine detail. Color seemed to be OK on the outdoor scenes. Overall, while not reference or even tier 1 category, the movie had a very pleasant picture and made for an enjoyable viewing experience. Overall I'd rate *Let the Right One In Tier 2.75*.
> 
> 
> Surprisingly, the movie made good use of the LFE channel in certain scenes.
> 
> 
> This wasn't the typical vampire movie, which has degenerated over time in to being another slasher type genre, it's more a thinking persons film and, as such, was quite multi-layered. There are two interesting threads on the movie going on now, one in the BD software board which mostly deals with the subtitles, apparently they were dumbed-down from the theatrical release, and the other in the DVD board. The latter is particularly interesting as there are posts from at least one person who has read the book on which the movie was based and in several spoilers gives some much needed backstory. Ideally one would watch the movie, read the spoilers, than watch the movie again for new revelations.
> 
> 
> Panasonic 50" 720p plasma, Panasonic 10a player, 7 1/2'.



Thanks for the review. I agree with so much of what you say about the movie and the way it was shot. Beautiful. Excellent use of shallow focus, and focusing back and forth between close and far objects. The focus puller was very busy on this film!


----------



## Legairre




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16124856
> 
> 
> I have to be honest, that is the first time I have heard the term crushed whites. Is that the same thing as blown out or hot whites and contrast? To me the lighting used at times is identical to Ratatouille and doesn't take away from detail. I watched portions of it the other nite to compare, because it was the first thing I noticed about Bolt in the opening scene and wondered if Bolt was another Pixar production.
> 
> 
> Bolt being an all digital production is going to be hard to find any actual PQ anomalies like live action films. The other reason I believe it is tier 0 is that it meets all the tier 0 requirements with some opinions stating the one exception and that is sharpness, but that alone is enough reason for some to knock it down if they see it accordingly.
> 
> 
> The only anomaly I noticed and was curious if anyone else did was the one I mentioned in my review at the time stamp of 1:25:34 which I saw banding for all of two seconds, but that maybe a limitation in my display LCD display that may exacerbate banding. Can anyone who has it confirm the above mentioned time stamp to see if they see the banding?



Where crushed blacks is a lack of detail in blacks like not being able to make out a lapel on a suit because it becomes one black mass, crushed whites is similar but on white level while crushed blacks is black level. Usually too much contrast causes crushed whites so yes it's the same as hot whites or blown out whites.


It seems like Disney is trying to make Bolt appear like a live film so they tried to simulate daylight a little too well and used too much contrast on daylight scenes that are outside.


I took a look at 1:25:34 for the banding. That's the scene where they fade from black to light and the firemen come and rescue Penny and Bolt. 1:25:34 is exactly as a totally black screen fades to light, but I didn't see any banding.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16124892
> 
> 
> Thanks for the review. I agree with so much of what you say about the movie and the way it was shot. Beautiful. Excellent use of shallow focus, and focusing back and forth between close and far objects. The focus puller was very busy on this film!



Is focus puller an actual term? I had to chuckle a bit when I read that.


----------



## Legairre




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/16124834
> 
> 
> Leg, welcome to the thread!
> 
> 
> Did you see the format required for reviews in the OP? Please check it out and format yours correctly so it won't be overlooked.



Thanks for the welcome LB. I missed that I'll go back, check it out, and reformat my post accordingly.


Legairre


----------



## Hughmc

Thanks, Legairre for confirming. I bet is a limitation or problem where my display exacerbates banding.


I too would like to extend a welcome.







I always enjoyed our convos about the PS3 in general and audio with respect to the PS3.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Legairre* /forum/post/16125180
> 
> 
> Thanks for the welcome LB. I missed that I'll go back, check it out, and reformat my post accordingly.
> 
> 
> Legairre



Looks great.


----------



## Legairre

Thanks for the welcome Hugh. I edited my post ( I think I got it right). I've always enjoyed our conversation in the BIG PS3 post as well.


Legairre


----------



## Legairre




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/16125270
> 
> 
> Looks great.



Thanks LB. That's a mistake I'll only make once. If you ask my wife she'll say I'll make it again though


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Echoing the welcome, Legairre!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16125126
> 
> 
> Is focus puller an actual term? I had to chuckle a bit when I read that.



Heh. It does sound a bit funny, but I assure you it is a technical description:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_puller


----------



## sleater

While listening to the *Twilight* commentary track I was a little surprised when the actors were so taken aback by the colour of the
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) prom
dress that Bella wears at the end of the movie. Kristen and Robert asked the director if she had digitally changed the colour of the dress to which she denied doing so, leading one to conclude that they totally processed the colours to lean toward the blue side of the spectrum bigtime. The actors said that in person the dress was a very pale blue and in the film it is very dark blue almost purple in appearance. Just thought it was an interesting anecdote.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16125831
> 
> 
> Heh. It does sound a bit funny, but I assure you it is a technical description:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_puller



That is really interesting. THanks for the link Rob. I am sure one would have to be well versed in cameras, lenses, etc., but where can I get that job?










And now we know who to blame if their is a fly or dirt on the lens, besides Robert Harris.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*BOLT*


Another great Disney release in terms of PQ and AQ. I didn't care for the movie as much as some Pixar releases, but it was still more than enjoyable.


I think that Pixar is continuing to fine tune/improve their technique. There are scenes in this movie that look very realistic. The use of lighting is very impressive, and many shots use backlighting, which, as in actual photography, usually results in a softer, washed out looking image. There are plenty of these shots in Bolt.


However, this should not lead one to believe that there are not also fantastic looking shots in Bolt with as much image depth, detail, and clarity as can be seen in the very best animated titles such as Kung Fu Panda.


In fact, there are a few shots in Bolt that give a sense of depth that may be the best I have ever seen.


Contrast, blacks, and colors are all excellent.


Bottom line for me is that this really looks fantastic, and I actually prefer the overall look compared to other "sharper" titles. The artistic talent that went into creating the look of this title, including the "painterly" backgrounds is very impressive.


That said, the intentional softness does exist in many scenes, which may not be as impressive to some people, especially if they are going to expect razor sharp details throughout.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (bottom) to Tier 1.0*


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16124856
> 
> 
> 
> The only anomaly I noticed and was curious if anyone else did was the one I mentioned in my review at the time stamp of 1:25:34 which I saw banding for all of two seconds, but that maybe a limitation in my display LCD display that may exacerbate banding. Can anyone who has it confirm the above mentioned time stamp to see if they see the banding?



I most definitely noticed this. Personally I do not think it was banding, but was intentional and part of the source.


This is the scene where they come out of the blackness from the building, right?


----------



## tfoltz

I felt the same way. I posted a link in my review that explains the technique they used to get this affect. http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...ostcount=11663 for reference.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Legairre* /forum/post/16124674
> 
> 
> Some of the daytime real life scenes are a problem though. Many of the daytime real life scenes have crushed whites because they are trying to simulate how objects look in sunlight. Bolt, walls, sidewalks, pavement and even the dog catcher's truck all have a lack of detail due to crushed whites because of the way lighting was used on daylight scenes.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sleater* /forum/post/16125840
> 
> 
> While listening to the *Twilight* commentary track I was a little surprised when the actors were so taken aback by the colour of the
> *Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler
> *Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) prom
> dress that Bella wears at the end of the movie. Kristen and Robert asked the director if she had digitally changed the colour of the dress to which she denied doing so, leading one to conclude that they totally processed the colours to lean toward the blue side of the spectrum bigtime. The actors said that in person the dress was a very pale blue and in the film it is very dark blue almost purple in appearance. Just thought it was an interesting anecdote.




I watched with commentary today. When
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Bella walks out of the house with Edward and it seems to be a more natural light from outside, the dress actually dramatically changes from the purplish inside the house to a lighter blue colour.



The director did also mention that a lot of the sky was manipulated in order to keep it more even, as well as rain, and even mentioned they added a tree into one scene near the beginning of the movie IIRC.


Unsure if that should be spoilered but erring on the side of caution.



There was a lot of funny stuff in the commentary, the three of them together (girl who played Bella, guy who played Edward & the director) had a lot of airheadness to them! I giggled a lot while listening to them though, and it actually helped me focus more on the PQ than the horrid dialogue did, haha! Perhaps I was just rolling my eyes too much during the "real" movie.


----------



## tfoltz

It's a Disney film, like Meet the Robinsons.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16125893
> 
> 
> Another great Pixar release in terms of PQ and AQ. I didn't care for the movie as much as some other Pixar releases, but it was still more than enjoyable.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/16125991
> 
> 
> It's a Disney film, like Meet the Robinsons.



Ah, I missed that.


I assumed it was Pixar because it was produced by John Lasseter.


----------



## sleater




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16125983
> 
> 
> 
> There was a lot of funny stuff in the commentary, the three of them together (girl who played Bella, guy who played Edward & the director) had a lot of airheadness to them! I giggled a lot while listening to them though, and it actually helped me focus more on the PQ than the horrid dialogue did, haha! Perhaps I was just rolling my eyes too much during the "real" movie.



I liked how they introduced themselves... and Robert P's comments about
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) the CGI six-pack he was supposed to get



sorry for the spoiler thing - I have no idea who else is actually interested in watching with the commentary track but you should be!


To add something about picture quality so this doesn't get too OT, I watched The Princess Bride yesterday and my preliminary thoughts are in the third Tier somewhere. I will re-watch but I was not as impressed as I hoped to be. When I look at a title like How The West Was Won and the serious care and attention put into a classic like this and compare it to another classic film like the Princess Bride, there really is no PQ comparison. Did they really do the absolute best they could, or did they rush and cut corners? HTWWW to my eyes can easily be at the top of Tier Gold, while placing TPB in Tier 3 would be generous IMO, sad to say. It acutally reminded me quite a bit with how Donnie Darko looked, a title I rated to Tier 4.0. I suppose the quality of the source is really important, not to mention any filtering jobs done to *improve* the image.


Hope others have a chance to view The Princess Bride and chime in!


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/16119661
> 
> 
> I wasn't very impressed with Twilight. Pioneer 5010-FD 1080p 8' back, pitch black.
> 
> *I'd say 1.75 is probably a better placement.* Colors were not good, everything had that grey look to it. Intentional or not, it's not impressive. No texture to faces, etc, as noted.







> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16124164
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for the rec, *I teetered for a minute with a thought of 1.75*, but I think it had enough merit for 1.50.




I will go with 1.75 for *Twilight*.


It was not just the faces that lacked detail. I didn't see any impressive detail anywhere. I think this is attributable to the heavy concentration of effects and the need to cover up the difference between effects and real shots.


As to the movie itself, I enjoyed it quite a bit. G3, I think you are being too hard on this movie. I completely agree with you about HSM3, but I thought this movie worked quite well, for what it was of course.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Sounds like you guys and gals are being very generous with Twilight.


No impressive detail anywhere? No texture to faces? Yet you place it in Tier 1?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/16126797
> 
> 
> Sounds like you guys and gals are being very generous with Twilight.
> 
> 
> No impressive detail anywhere? No texture to faces? Yet you place it in Tier 1?



Well, Batman Begins is currently in Tier 1.75.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sleater* /forum/post/16126336
> 
> 
> To add something about picture quality so this doesn't get too OT, I watched The Princess Bride yesterday and my preliminary thoughts are in the third Tier somewhere. I will re-watch but I was not as impressed as I hoped to be. When I look at a title like How The West Was Won and the serious care and attention put into a classic like this and compare it to another classic film like the Princess Bride, there really is no PQ comparison. Did they really do the absolute best they could, or did they rush and cut corners? HTWWW to my eyes can easily be at the top of Tier Gold, while placing TPB in Tier 3 would be generous IMO, sad to say. It acutally reminded me quite a bit with how Donnie Darko looked, a title I rated to Tier 4.0. I suppose the quality of the source is really important, not to mention any filtering jobs done to *improve* the image.
> 
> 
> Hope others have a chance to view The Princess Bride and chime in!



Watched it a day or two ago...Yes, I felt Tier 3'ish as well... like 3.25. In some ways it reminded me of Goonies. However, it's a clear step down from Lost Boys which was another 80s movie made around the same time.


As far as HTWWW - i think it has an advantage in that it was shot with 3 separate cameras which means the 35mm on each one isn't blown up as much since it only has to show 1/3rd of the screen.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sleater* /forum/post/16126336
> 
> 
> I liked how they introduced themselves... and Robert P's comments about
> *Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler
> *Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) the CGI six-pack he was supposed to get
> 
> 
> 
> sorry for the spoiler thing - I have no idea who else is actually interested in watching with the commentary track but you should be!
> 
> 
> To add something about picture quality so this doesn't get too OT, I watched The Princess Bride yesterday and my preliminary thoughts are in the third Tier somewhere. I will re-watch but I was not as impressed as I hoped to be. When I look at a title like How The West Was Won and the serious care and attention put into a classic like this and compare it to another classic film like the Princess Bride, there really is no PQ comparison. Did they really do the absolute best they could, or did they rush and cut corners? HTWWW to my eyes can easily be at the top of Tier Gold, while placing TPB in Tier 3 would be generous IMO, sad to say. It acutally reminded me quite a bit with how Donnie Darko looked, a title I rated to Tier 4.0. I suppose the quality of the source is really important, not to mention any filtering jobs done to *improve* the image.
> 
> 
> Hope others have a chance to view The Princess Bride and chime in!



I know I reviewed this one and I really liked it. I think it might end up being one of those YMMV things. Also perhaps I'm swayed by both my love for the movie plus the looking back on the other copies I do have of it, which are positively trash. But, this is why it's fantastic to have a thread like this where we can get a variety of opinions! I'd hate for it to be placed based on my thoughts alone, that's for sure!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/16126546
> 
> 
> I will go with 1.75 for *Twilight*.
> 
> 
> It was not just the faces that lacked detail. I didn't see any impressive detail anywhere. I think this is attributable to the heavy concentration of effects and the need to cover up the difference between effects and real shots.
> 
> 
> As to the movie itself, I enjoyed it quite a bit. G3, I think you are being too hard on this movie. I completely agree with you about HSM3, but I thought this movie worked quite well, for what it was of course.



hehe. I don't think that I'm being hard on it, but I have read the books and soooo many of my "mommy" friends are positively obsessed. I also think that the only, and I mean *ONLY* character I believe that was cast correctly was Alice. And maybe Bella's dad. Edward was miscast worst of them all.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/16126797
> 
> 
> Sounds like you guys and gals are being very generous with Twilight.
> 
> 
> No impressive detail anywhere? No texture to faces? Yet you place it in Tier 1?



I don't think I'm being too generous with Twilight. I never said there's no impressive detail anywhere. In fact, I said:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *myself* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The makeup used on several characters gives the average shots of faces a more porcelain and pasty look, as they are supposed to be Vampires after all; however in extreme close-ups despite the makeup I still am able to discern a fantastic level of detail. I see wrinkles, other imperfections and blemishes that are trying to be hidden by the makeup unsuccessfully when the picture is on a crystal clear medium like Blu Ray can offer. I see the makeup caked on, rather than giving a plastic look like it looks to me in Speed Racer. Perhaps it's a budgetary issue and they had to ransack the bargain bins for makeup in an after Halloween sale or something!
> 
> 
> There is a fantastic amount of clarity outside of the characters as well, especially in the outdoor sequences involving the meadow/forest/rocky terrain and also when they're in the greenhouse. Textures are in abundance on almost all fabrics as well.



I think that the detail is pretty damn good if I can spot that the makeup is caked on. Usually you shouldn't notice the physicality of makeup of all things, but it was SOOOO noticeable! Heck, I think it almost helped to enhance wrinkles on Pattinson/Edward's face because it caked up into the lines around his eyes, lips, face etc. And the part where it was noticeable about Bella having that pimple there on her face, the makeup made it look sooo noticeable because while OK it changed the colour of it, it almost enhanced the fact that it was there for me, because it caked into the crevices of the pimple. now, that's detail IMO.



If you've seen the movie and think I'm being generous, that's all well and good... but I don't remember seeing your review of it here, so please don't blanket-state that I've said it's missing detail when I most certainly have not!


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/16126797
> 
> 
> Sounds like you guys and gals are being very generous with Twilight.
> 
> 
> No impressive detail anywhere? No texture to faces? Yet you place it in Tier 1?



I felt it had Tier 1 details outside "outdoor" faces.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16127296
> 
> 
> 
> hehe. I don't think that I'm being hard on it, but I have read the books and soooo many of my "mommy" friends are positively obsessed. I also think that the only, and I mean *ONLY* character I believe that was cast correctly was Alice. And maybe Bella's dad. Edward was miscast worst of them all.



I haven't read the books and I think it is pretty unlikely that I will.










So I'm not in a position to evaluate whether there was miscasting.


I was actually somewhat surprised that I thought Pattinson was pretty convincing. I was not surprised that Stewart was effective in the Bella role, based on her prior work in other things.


Obviously those two working or not is crucial to whether the movie works, and I thought they worked quite well.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/16127447
> 
> 
> I haven't read the books and I think it is pretty unlikely that I will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I'm not in a position to evaluate whether there was miscasting.
> 
> 
> I was actually somewhat surprised that I thought Pattinson was pretty convincing. I was not surprised that Stewart was effective in the Bella role, based on her prior work in other things.
> 
> 
> Obviously those two working or not is crucial to whether the movie works, and I thought they worked quite well.










I won't drive everyone nuts by going further into this, hahaha. My poor husband was subjected to this the other night when he wound up out with myself and 2 other girls (the guys didn't show up that night). It got to the point where he threatened us that he'd leave if we didn't shut up about Twilight, hee! I'm really glad the movie ended up being better for you than HSM3 though, because that was just awful. I'd rather tell you the movie was cheese but worth watching than tell you it was good and have you end up hate it (like a lot of the poor guys who were forced to watch Mamma Mia!).


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16127507
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I won't drive everyone nuts by going further into this, hahaha. My poor husband was subjected to this the other night when he wound up out with myself and 2 other girls (the guys didn't show up that night). It got to the point where he threatened us that he'd leave if we didn't shut up about Twilight, hee! I'm really glad the movie ended up being better for you than HSM3 though, because that was just awful. I'd rather tell you the movie was cheese but worth watching than tell you it was good and have you end up hate it (like a lot of the poor guys who were forced to watch Mamma Mia!).



I liked Twilight a lot more than Mamma Mia, as a matter of fact (in which I really only liked Lay All and Meryl on the cliff walk).


----------



## jrcorwin

My wife just started reading the Twilight books and loves them. I just figure it's another excuse for me to buy a BD I don't really need, but want to get nonetheless.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/16127598
> 
> 
> I liked Twilight a lot more than Mamma Mia, as a matter of fact (in which I really only liked Lay All and Meryl on the cliff walk).



hehe. I've got a feeling that most of the guys here who'll see both will probably feel that Twilight > Mamma Mia.


----------



## jrcorwin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16127634
> 
> 
> hehe. I've got a feeling that most of the guys here who'll see both will probably feel that Twilight > Mamma Mia.



Off-topic, but a Mamma Mia story.


My mother's assistant was raving about the movie, having just watched it the night before. My mother mentioned that she saw it in play form on stage while in *London*. She said it was incredible and recommended to her assistant that she see the stage production in *London* if she ever has a chance.


Notice the location once more: *London*


The assistant then said, "That sounds great, but do they speak English there?"


----------



## Legairre




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Legairre*
> _Some of the daytime real life scenes are a problem though. Many of the daytime real life scenes have crushed whites because they are trying to simulate how objects look in sunlight. Bolt, walls, sidewalks, pavement and even the dog catcher's truck all have a lack of detail due to crushed whites because of the way lighting was used on daylight scenes._





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/16125950
> 
> 
> I felt the same way. I posted a link in my review that explains the technique they used to get this affect. http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...ostcount=11663 for reference.



When I made my comments I hadn't read you review. Now that I have I thinking WOW that's exactly what I was seeing. Everything outside had that early morning sunlight look that caused the crushed whites. going by your link it seems that Disney did this intentionally.


Great review and link. Thanks


----------



## Legairre




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16125314
> 
> 
> Echoing the welcome, Legairre!



geekyglassesgirl, thanks for the welcome.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jrcorwin* /forum/post/16127680
> 
> 
> Off-topic, but a Mamma Mia story.
> 
> 
> My mother's assistant was raving about the movie, having just watched it the night before. My mother mentioned that she saw it in play form on stage while in *London*. She said it was incredible and recommended to her assistant that she see the stage production in *London* if she ever has a chance.
> 
> 
> Notice the location once more: *London*
> 
> 
> The assistant then said, "That sounds great, but do they speak English there?"



OMG hahaha! That's hilarious.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/16126797
> 
> 
> Sounds like you guys and gals are being very generous with Twilight.
> 
> 
> No impressive detail anywhere? No texture to faces? Yet you place it in Tier 1?



I disagree with the statement that there are no impressive details anywhere, but I can assure you that if that was my opinion, I would not have recommended it for Tier 1.75.


----------



## moematthews




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *keithhr* /forum/post/16124673
> 
> 
> The point I want to make is many of the BD I rent are either not much better than upscaled dvd or amazingly film llike in their lack of sharp detail that one might find in good live network televisiion . I think this is a really good thread indicating that all Blu Ray are not created equal. Much of the good network stuff is three dimensional and wonderful to behold.



I completely agree on this point. When I first got my player last December, I was definitely underwhelmed by the quality of BD, but my comments were not well-received by some. I even mentioned that I was generally more impressed with the quality of HD movies broadcast on TV and a certain deceased HD format, and I was accused of being a troll trying to restart the format war.


I have definitely seen some great BDs since then, so the format is NOT the issue. But here's the thing: I think that we have a right to expect that a BD will be of a certain quality - that's what we bought it for, right? To me, that level of quality appears to be anything in Tier 0 or 1, but it might reasonably extend to the middle of Tier 2, given that some nice looking titles reside there. However, once you start going below that, the raison d'etre of BD is increasingly called into question. And look at how many titles are below mid-Tier 2. Someone who is just starting out with BD might rent a few of those titles and wonder what the fuss is all about - just as you did. Surely, the studios SHOULD be trying to ensure that there is at least a certain basic level of quality that is attained with every BD? Film is an excellent source for HD transfers. There is no point in having an HD medium that doesn't look like HD.


I'm just concerned that many people are experiencing what you are and will give up on BD. There obviously has to be a certain level of consumer acceptance for any technology to remain viable.


----------



## tfoltz

Almost every blu-ray I've seen is superior to DVDs. That is the big disconnect in your claims.


----------



## jrcorwin

I wonder how many of those claims are due to a display or player setup issue rather than the BD itself.


----------



## moematthews




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/16128528
> 
> 
> Almost every blu-ray I've seen is superior to DVDs. That is the big disconnect in your claims.



I agree. However, the question is whether it is superior _enough_ to generate the "wow" factor that people expect from an HD source.


----------



## moematthews




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jrcorwin* /forum/post/16128551
> 
> 
> I wonder how many of those claims are due to a display or player setup issue rather than the BD itself.



None of my claims are. The differences between the upper tier BDs on this forum and the lower ones are clearly noticeable on my system, and they are often PQ elements that calibration cannot address. Poor contrast and flat image quality are two such elements.


But isn't that a bit of an odd question? Look for yourself at the number of titles below Tier 2. There are a lot of poor quality titles out there. I would even go so far as to say that there shouldn't be a Tier 3 or below, because HD content should always look better than that. No exceptions.


----------



## jrcorwin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moematthews* /forum/post/16128637
> 
> 
> None of my claims are. The differences between the upper tier BDs on this forum and the lower ones are clearly noticeable on my system, and they are often PQ elements that calibration cannot address. Poor contrast and flat image quality are two such elements.
> 
> 
> But isn't that a bit of an odd question? Look for yourself at the number of titles below Tier 2. There are a lot of poor quality titles out there. I would even go so far as to say that there shouldn't be a Tier 3 or below, because HD content should always look better than that. No exceptions.



I have several Tier 3 titles on both BD and DVD. The BD is still a significant upgrade.


----------



## sleater

Luckily, there are many more 'good' BDs out now, especially for new releases, than 'poor' ones. If one owned only Tier 4 or 5 bluray discs then they could make the case that bluray is NOT a significant upgrade to DVD. But keep in mind that there are also really good DVDs and really bad ones (especially older ones).


Take G3's review of the Princess Bride as a prime example. The older dvds of the film she owned were MUCH worse quality than the DVD that came with the bluray for the 20th Anniversary Addition. If one were to compare the older Princess Bride DVD with the bluray, they would conclude that bluray is a far superior medium. If, however, they popped in the DVD that came with the bluray package by mistake and thought it looked pretty good, realised their mistake and popped in the bluray, especially if they had a 50" or less LCD/Plasma display, then they might conclude that bluray is really nothing special. That DVD just looks quite comparable to its bluray counterpart (which is partly why I feel TPB lies in the Tier 3 range).


Just as DVD quality steadily became better over the years, we are seeing a similar pattern with bluray that it is only getting better! Our Tier 0 will likely look quite different in a year or two than it looks today, which is really great.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Anyone watched _A Passage to India_ lately? The current bottom of tier one placement looks to be a slight reach. I think a placement in tier 2.0 or 2.25 would be more accurate. I was stunned at the marvelous quality of the transfer in my recent viewing of it on a technical level. A more formal recommendation from me might be posted in the coming days.


----------



## moematthews




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sleater* /forum/post/16128981
> 
> 
> Luckily, there are many more 'good' BDs out now, especially for new releases, than 'poor' ones. If one owned only Tier 4 or 5 bluray discs then they could make the case that bluray is NOT a significant upgrade to DVD. But keep in mind that there are also really good DVDs and really bad ones (especially older ones).
> 
> 
> Take G3's review of the Princess Bride as a prime example. The older dvds of the film she owned were MUCH worse quality than the DVD that came with the bluray for the 20th Anniversary Addition. If one were to compare the older Princess Bride DVD with the bluray, they would conclude that bluray is a far superior medium. If, however, they popped in the DVD that came with the bluray package by mistake and thought it looked pretty good, realised their mistake and popped in the bluray, especially if they had a 50" or less LCD/Plasma display, then they might conclude that bluray is really nothing special. That DVD just looks quite comparable to its bluray counterpart (which is partly why I feel TPB lies in the Tier 3 range).
> 
> 
> Just as DVD quality steadily became better over the years, we are seeing a similar pattern with bluray that it is only getting better! Our Tier 0 will likely look quite different in a year or two than it looks today, which is really great.



Very well stated. I have also noticed that a lot of the recent releases are much improved, and that's an encouraging sign. I have such a hard time with studios who have released Tier 4 and 5 BDs in the past. They obviously know that it looks terrible, and I think it is despicable that they try to get away with it.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moematthews* /forum/post/16129111
> 
> 
> Very well stated. I have also noticed that a lot of the recent releases are much improved, and that's an encouraging sign. I have such a hard time with studios who have released Tier 4 and 5 BDs in the past. They obviously know that it looks terrible, and I think it is despicable that they try to get away with it.



Agreed, and I get angry when they try to get away with it as well. I thnk this is also why so many of us were disappointed with/let down by TDK's non-IMAX scenes. I know not everyone was disappointed, but I for one really hoped that considering the magnitude of that film, being the huge hit it was, it was SUCH a chance for Blu Ray to shine to the masses. And, maybe, to some of the masses, it passed "the test" but to those of us who have: seen, discussed, debated, argued, agreed, agreed to disagree, etc etc etc on what we feel are the best-of-the-best picture quality that Blu Ray has to offer, we know that it really could have been so much better.


----------



## moematthews




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/16129015
> 
> 
> Anyone watched _A Passage to India_ lately? The current bottom of tier one placement looks to be a slight reach. I think a placement in tier 2.0 or 2.25 would be more accurate. I was stunned at the marvelous quality of the transfer in my recent viewing of it on a technical level. A more formal recommendation from me might be posted in the coming days.



This is definitely on my list, as I've never seen the movie, and Sound & Vision's review of PQ is certainly in agreement with your assessment.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16129241
> 
> 
> Agreed, and I get angry when they try to get away with it as well. I thnk this is also why so many of us were disappointed with/let down by TDK's non-IMAX scenes. I know not everyone was disappointed, but I for one really hoped that considering the magnitude of that film, being the huge hit it was, it was SUCH a chance for Blu Ray to shine to the masses. And, maybe, to some of the masses, it passed "the test" but to those of us who have: seen, discussed, debated, argued, agreed, agreed to disagree, etc etc etc on what we feel are the best-of-the-best picture quality that Blu Ray has to offer, we know that it really could have been so much better.



And yet, based on longstanding painful past experience with Warner, we were not really at all surprised that Warner managed to find a way to mess it up.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/16129015
> 
> 
> Anyone watched _A Passage to India_ lately? The current bottom of tier one placement looks to be a slight reach. I think a placement in tier 2.0 or 2.25 would be more accurate. I was stunned at the marvelous quality of the transfer in my recent viewing of it on a technical level. A more formal recommendation from me might be posted in the coming days.



Yes, I agree with moving it down. I am very happy with the quality of it, but for purposes of this thread, Tier 1 is too high in hindsight.


----------



## deltasun

*Quantum of Solace*


Grain definitely present and in some of the low-light scenes, I was slightly bothered. They seemed uneven in those scenes. Facial details were decent but certainly a step down in comparison to the recent influx of Tier 0 facial close-up's. Contrast was definitely a bit heightened, but not enough to bother me.


Colors were vivid as in the early scene in of reds and yellows in the stadium in Italy. Interestingly enough, I really enjoyed the monochromatic scenes. I don't know if these were lit that way on purpose but I will note a couple of them. The cave/underground scene at the 1hr 13min mark is monochromatic with only their skin tones and a smudge of dried blood on James' shirt offering color, specially as theye find their way out. Secondly, the room that James and Fields rent in La Paz is a black & white pad, accented only with gold. That, and again their skin tones and Fields' red hair. Beatiful scenes.


Panoramic scenes showed good depth and dimension. I do agree with previous reviews that _QoS_ is slightly better than its predecessor overall. I believe _Casino Royale's_ facial close-up's were a slight bit superior, but _QoS_ offered better medium and panoramic shots.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0*

_Incidentally, did you all notice the motion speed up while M is talking to her superior at the 1:12:02 mark? His motion looks to be in about 1.5 speed._

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## deltasun

*Kite Runner*


Back to back Marc Forster films. Two very different stories, styles, and PQs (and AQs). This film's PQ was a mixed bag. It opens up with a weak looking scene with troublesome contrast and details. Once the story switches to Afghanistan, a yellowish/brownish tinge takes over. At first, it was a bit bothersome but I quickly adjusted and appreciated the clarity and spectrum of colors presented. Black levels were good, but not very impressive. The funeral scene offered good black levels.


Detail waxed and waned throughout, but at its best it dipped in upper Gold territory. Some of the better details came when they moved to America, as evidenced by the facial details found on Soraya's father and to a lesser extent, Amir's father. It has to be mentioned that there were some soft scenes, but very few.


Some notable panoramas with very good depth can be found in scenes while still in Afghanistan. In particular, the picturesque scene at the 36min 22sec mark rivals some of the best panoramas I've seen. The backdrop of the Afghan mountains during the kite festival were also spectacular.


Overall, PQ was above average and seemed to get better as the film moved along. The color scheme accurately portrayed it's period of the late 70's and early 80's, but the print didn't look dated. Grain was very fine, very subtle but definitely present. It's hard to pick an average tier level for this film, but in the end, it easily holds its own in...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## sianofabio

*Chrysalis.*
This movie is from france but region free. The PQ is similar to IROBOT and story in the same style but with a twist of The Island and Ghost in the shell. Sound may be better than Irobot. Just amazing! for both PQ and AQ.

The story takes place in the future where they have the ability to take your memory and put it in a different body. and so on...

Easy *Tier : 1*
I would have say tier 0 but i ll leave that for the experts from this site to judge.


----------



## keithhr

I purchased a Sony LCOS based rear projection 1080P set last year that has an amazingly natural color pallet. I have set it up by personal preference with an edge to cinema appearance. I believe this set capable of wonderful HD color and image quality. The point I want to make is many of the BD I rent are either not much better than upscaled dvd or amazingly film llike in their lack of sharp detail that one might find in good live network televisiion . I think this is a really good thread indicating that all Blu Ray are not created equal. Much of the good network stuff is three dimensional and wonderful to behold. It's a shame that LCOS which is the engine for many high end projectors was rejected by the we must have flat panel televisions at all cost crowd, or the wife acceptance factor as it is commonly known. I purchased this set as an interim set till the next great technology emerged but it may wind up being more than that. Black levels and naturalness of color is amazing. I can say that they all look better than my few hundred laser disc collection which is now pretty obsolete. A lot of things have changed in the last 17 years.


----------



## jrcorwin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *keithhr* /forum/post/16140415
> 
> 
> I purchased a Sony LCOS based rear projection 1080P set last year that has an amazingly natural color pallet. I have set it up by personal preference with an edge to cinema appearance. I believe this set capable of wonderful HD color and image quality. The point I want to make is many of the BD I rent are either not much better than upscaled dvd or amazingly film llike in their lack of sharp detail that one might find in good live network televisiion . I think this is a really good thread indicating that all Blu Ray are not created equal. Much of the good network stuff is three dimensional and wonderful to behold. It's a shame that LCOS which is the engine for many high end projectors was rejected by the we must have flat panel televisions at all cost crowd, or the wife acceptance factor as it is commonly known. I purchased this set as an interim set till the next great technology emerged but it may wind up being more than that. Black levels and naturalness of color is amazing. I can say that they all look better than my few hundred laser disc collection which is now pretty obsolete. A lot of things have changed in the last 17 years.



Umm...you made almost the exact same post two days ago:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *keithhr* /forum/post/16124673
> 
> 
> I purchased a Sony LCOS based bravia rear projection 1080P set last year that has an amazingly natural color pallet. I compared it to the top of the line panasonic and pioneer of the day and chose the sony.I have set it up by personal preference with an edge to cinema appearance. I believe this set capable of wonderful HD color and image quality. The point I want to make is many of the BD I rent are either not much better than upscaled dvd or amazingly film llike in their lack of sharp detail that one might find in good live network televisiion . I think this is a really good thread indicating that all Blu Ray are not created equal. Much of the good network stuff is three dimensional and wonderful to behold. It's a shame that LCOS which is the engine for many high end projectors was rejected by the we must have flat panel televisions at all cost crowd, or the wife acceptance factor as it is commonly known. I purchased this set as an interim set till the next great technology emerged but it may wind up being more than that. Black levels and naturalness of color is amazing. I can say that they all look better than my few hundred laser disc collection which is now pretty obsolete. A lot of things have changed in the last 17 years.


----------



## djoberg

*Bolt*


I must confess that having read so many divergent opinions before viewing Bolt, I found myself somewhat distracted while I looked for various anomalies that some members had pointed out. In particular I was expecting to see many *soft* scenes due to the lighting employed in this movie, with a lack of *detail* accompanying this. Yes, there was _some_ softness and lack of detail, but in my experience they were rare.


What impressed me most in this title was the incredible *DEPTH*! I don't recall any animated title that highlighted this virtue so consistently throughout the movie. The realism resulting from such depth was enough for me to forget the rare moments of softness and thus IMO it actually canceled out any penalization on that ground.


I don't believe one can criticize the colors (they were VIBRANT), the contrast (it was BOLD), the black levels (they were quite DEEP), or even the detail (it was SHARP and IMPRESSIVE in most scenes, except for some background scenes which were intentionally NOT the focus for the viewer). I know some commented on whites that seemed "washed out," but I didn't notice this at all.


I have to say that having just viewed Meet the Robinsons recently, I thought that Bolt was superior in PQ. So, I would place Bolt here:

*Tier Recommendation: Top of Tier 0 above Meet the Robinsons*


Samsung 50" 1080p DLP....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 6'


----------



## deltasun

Wow, I thought depth was one of its weaker characteristics - specially with the painted on backgrounds. Definitely interesting to see such divergent view points on this title.


----------



## Toe

*BOLT*


I went into this one not sure what to expect given the wide range of opinions here, but I was VERY impressed with this title. I can understand the wide range of opinion though after viewing it since it is not like any animated film I have seen.


At times, BOLT was quite simply the most spectacular animation I have layed eyes on as it was almost photo realistic and it seemed to break new ground with this type of style, but on occasion it did appear a bit soft and less detailed compared to KFP, Cars, Rat, etc...BUT, there was still loads of detailed shots. Check out BOLTS nose for example and quite a few of the closeups you could see individual strands of hair.


Colors, contrast, black levels all seemed fantastic to me. I really did not notice the blooming whites, but I could have missed it.


All in all I thought this one looked amazing and while not quite as good as some animation in areas, it surpassed those in others and my vote is....

*Tier 0 top 1/4 somewhere*


JVC-RS1 Stewart Studiotek 130 @ 94" ~12' view distance


Oh, great audio track as well, but not quite up to KFP IMHO. Not quite as layered/detailed, but still a awesome track and some GREAT LFE










I also thought this was a great movie and any dog lover cant go wrong with this one


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16141390
> 
> 
> Wow, *I thought depth was one of its weaker characteristics - specially with the painted on backgrounds*. Definitely interesting to see such divergent view points on this title.



In scenes like that there were often at least two or three characters (such as Bolt, Mittens, and Rhino) in the forefront (where the main focus of that shot was) and I thought it was amazing to see one character right out in front of you and another character looking much further back. So, you don't necessarily need a detailed background for depth perception, IMO.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16141460
> 
> 
> In scenes like that there were often at least two or three characters (such as Bolt, Mittens, and Rhino) in the forefront (where the main focus of that shot was) and I thought it was amazing to see one character right out in front of you and another character looking much further back. So, you don't necessarily need a detailed background for depth perception, IMO.




Agreed. I noticed this quite a few times in the film.


----------



## deltasun

So, you guys are claiming that the medium depth scenes (for lack of a better term) in _Bolt_ surpasses those presented in other "photo-realistic" titles such as _I, Robot_ and _Man on Fire_? And those scenes aren't even the best characteristics of those two other films! I'm comparing those type of scenes since it's what impressed you the most.


For Toe, I agree with the detail in the Bolt's nose at extreme close-up's (which I've also made mention in my review). I think the biggest softness issue came from Bolt's fur. For the most part, it did not exhibit the kind of texture I've come to expect in this high part of the tier.


I think, being a photo-realistic title ups the ante a bit for _Bolt_ and will have to contend more with "photo-realistic" characteristics of non-animated titles.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16141542
> 
> 
> 
> For Toe, I agree with the detail in the Bolt's nose at extreme close-up's (which I've also made mention in my review). I think the biggest softness issue came from Bolt's fur. For the most part, it did not exhibit the kind of texture I've come to expect in this high part of the tier.



I can see your point, but for me I almost found it more impressive that you could not always see the detail in his fur because it only seemed to be on extreme type closeups that you could see the detail in his fur (and on these shots it was very detailed....check out the detail on the cat fur as well in these extreme closeups). What I mean by this is that they did not just detail it for every shot, but the closer you got to Bolt, the more detailed it got to my eyes which made it more impressive in a sense to me than something like KFP which is detailed in every shot. From my perspective, it seemed like a lot of thought went into that and I found it very impressive from a visual standpoint. In real life the closer I get to something the more detailed it gets and this is how I saw Bolts fur and the way it was done. Just my opinion though and I can see your point.


----------



## deltasun

*The Man with the Golden Gun*


Gotta get crackin' on my two new sets of 007.







Another very impressive restoration of a James Bond film. The only other 007 movies I've on Blu are _Dr. No_ and _From Russia with Love_. Compared to those two, I felt this had a more natural look. By "unnaturalness" of the previous two, I mean a somewhat sharpened look.


Fine grain was found throughout the movie. I also spotted a few print dirt, but not enough to really to take any points off. Facial details were very good, specially when lighting was right, which was most of the time. Black levels were impressive - I don't think I spotted any crushed blacks. Details, creases were well-defined as noted on the black karate uniforms, for example.


Contrast was very well controlled. Skintones were mostly natural. One thing that may not be as impressive were the colors. I felt that the shrubbery could have been more lush, the sky more saturated. The red gate did stand out quite well.


Overall, a very good presentation. I still believe _From Russia with Love_ is an eyelash bit better. I would place this anywhere between 1.75 and 2.0.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8' and 6'_


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16125904
> 
> 
> I most definitely noticed this. Personally I do not think it was banding, but was intentional and part of the source.
> 
> 
> This is the scene where they come out of the blackness from the building, right?




Rob, my apologies for not getting back to you sooner on this. I have been busy as of late.


Yes that is the scene I was seeing what looked like banding on my display. You are the second to confirm it isn't so that is good news.


----------



## JohnES1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16090847
> 
> *Transporter 3*
> 
> 
> "You're the gay!"
> 
> 
> Wow! The picture quality on this release is very, very impressive! It excels on all of the most important aspects of PQ to me for eye candy: clarity, solidity, and depth.
> 
> 
> The overall clarity and detail rivals some of the very best titles out there. The image has a real solidity to it a majority of the time. Contrast and black levels are excellent, often adding a real sense of depth and dimensionality to the image.
> 
> 
> There is a high percentage of shots with facial close ups, and there are no disappointments in this area! Every whisker on Franks face can be counted, as can every freckle on Valentina's.
> 
> 
> Colors are quite vibrant, without being over the top saturated. Light film grain is preserved.
> 
> 
> I only noticed some ringing in two scenes, and even in those two scenes, it was very minor. The only other criticism I would have is that contrast was a bit hot on a couple of scenes, including the scenes on the boat at the beginning and end of the movie, but those scenes only made up about 2 minutes of the movie.
> 
> 
> The bottom line is that I am having a hard time finding much at all to criticize in this release (there are other titles that I voted for in Tier 0 that I can criticize more than this title, such as Youth Without Youth). The excellent clarity, detail, depth of image, and colors make this a great looking disc overall.
> 
> 
> As for the movie: MUCH better than Transporter 2. Obviously it is still an over the top action movie, but the premise in this one was better than part 2. You will still be required to turn off your brain to enjoy it much. If you do, you will!
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 0* (somewhere above Youth Without Youth.....but below Prince Caspian....which means Prince Caspian needs to be moved up quite a bit....yes this gets difficult and confusing)



Sorry guys, but T3 didn't come out reference quality on my setup (Panasonic TH-46PZ800U ISF calibrated Custom-normal mode with a Panasonic BD35 player at about seven feet.) The slight oversaturation and judder in pans(both with 2:3 pulldown and 24p mode) are my complaints, otherwise complete agreement with Rob. I assume comments about phony stunt scenes aren't part of this discussion so I won't go there. Keep up the good work, my Netflix queue now fills a page due to your recent recommendations...


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16141390
> 
> 
> Wow, I thought depth was one of its weaker characteristics - specially with the painted on backgrounds. Definitely interesting to see such divergent view points on this title.



Yes, the opinions are about as diverse as the PQ of Bolt itself. To me, that's what made it a hard title to rate.


As to the image depth, as I stated in my review, there were a few instances where depth was as good as I have ever seen in any title. However, those scenes were few and far between, and many other scenes had a much flatter look.


Similarly there is a lot of softness in Bolt. But again, there are also a lot of scenes that have tons of eye popping details and colors.


I do think there are enough drawbacks to Bolt to prevent it from being in the top half of Tier 0. I love the overall look of Bolt and the creative decisions employed, but I stand by my recommendation of bottom of Tier 0 to Tier 1.0.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

okay, I'm going to need a bit of a hand here for a moment. I'm wanting to see what others thought of W. I know some people reviewed this. But of course "W" is not searchable. If you have a moment and you know you reviewed W, can you please link to me your review or even just state that you watched it so I can search your past posts? Or if someone knows how to search a title like W, link me to the search results?














perdy please??


----------



## OldCodger73

I reviewed _W_ in post #10633 on 2/14/09. Unfortunately I forgot to title the post. I had the same problem trying to search for _W_.


----------



## OldCodger73

As usual I'm late to the dance on _Mama Mia_ thanks in large part to a long to very long wait in my Netflix queue, a one-at-a-time subscription and continually moving other films in front of it.


I thought sharpness and detail varied quite a bit, some scenes looked good while others seemed soft. Close-up detail was lacking most of the time, in fact this reminded me of movies of the 40s and 50s where the stars were often shot in soft focus to make them appear more glamorous. There also seemed to be what looked like excess sharpening around some faces in a couple of shots.


The harsh Mediterranean sunlight caused the color in some outdoor scenes to be partially washed out. Where the lighting was more controllable colors looked OK.

_Mama Mi_a has been thoroughly reviewed already and is placed in Tier 2.25, which to me seems a little too high. Tier 2.75 or even 3.0 seems more appropriate. *Mama Mia Tier 2.75*.


Panasonic 50" 720p plasma, Panasonic 10a player, 7 1/2'


This is the second time I tried to watch _Mama Mia_ and I finally made it through. The first time I bailed out at about the 26 minute mark, but there was some extenuating circumstances. I was watching it on a maybe 8" LCD on a delayed long flight from London coming after an even longer overnighter from Cape Town. I went on to _The Dark Knight_, which I didn't care that much for. Earlier though, I had watched the Robert Redfield-Faye Dunaway movie _Three Days of the Condor_, which was great. I guess it just proves that some movies need all the bells and whistles of a large screen and 5.1 or 7.1 sound to be enjoyable, while others get by with a great script, excellent acting and great direction.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16144297
> 
> 
> okay, I'm going to need a bit of a hand here for a moment. I'm wanting to see what others thought of W. I know some people reviewed this. But of course "W" is not searchable. If you have a moment and you know you reviewed W, can you please link to me your review or even just state that you watched it so I can search your past posts? Or if someone knows how to search a title like W, link me to the search results?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> perdy please??





This isn't going to help much since I said little in my review, but I felt W. could even be a low tier 0 or tier 1.0 title. I remember it having excellent PQ, but their was use of video cam or closed circuit tv type shots IIRC, so I dropped it down a bit for that.

*W


As painful as this was to watch it has really good PQ.


Why a movie like this has such good PQ and a 7.1 track is beyond me when comparing to other films that would be more deserving and necessitate better PQ and audio tracks.


Tier 1.5*


Sorry, GGG best I could do. For some reason our search tool doesn't like some search words or letters like W or Saw.


----------



## deltasun

*Goldfinger*

_Goldfinger_ started pretty strong with very good details in the aerial pass over Miami. Contrast was generally well-balanced and black levels gererally impressive. Facial details excelled as well on most scenes, specially close-up's. One scene in particular is where Bond sees a reflection of his attacker in the eyes of the woman he's kissing. The details betrayed individual strands of eyebrows that needed plucking.


Now for some negatives. There was a segment around the 1hr mark that exhibited less than impressive scenes. Details were lost and contrast broke down a bit. Also, I noticed several instances of crushed blacks (in Geneva) as well as frozen grain (usually during sky shots - blue or overcast). It's as if there were in-focus scratches on the lens or filter. Not to nitpick too much, but the fake background scenes poolside in Miami were also a bit distracting. In fact, ringing usually occurred when characters were superimposed against these fake backgrounds. Perfect example for this is the side of Bond's face while in his Aston Martin in Geneva (35:40, 35:55 marks). I don't believe this is EE, but it may as well be.


All in all, another impressive presentation, where scenes looked bold and detailed for the most part. Still, as impressive as _Goldfinger_ looked, I believe it had more problematic scenes than other Bond titles I've voted to 1.75.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8' & 6'_


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

thanks for the help guys!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*A Passage to India


recommendation: Tier 2.25
*

The last film in David Lean's storied directing career, Sony released this Blu-ray on April 15th, 2008. The 163-minute movie, originally released in 1984, is encoded in AVC on a BD-50. The average video bitrate according to BDInfo is 22.96 Mbps. The compression work is superlative and flawless in nature, with the picture never showing a hint of artifacting or noise from beginning to end. While typically hovering in the twenties, the video encode occasionally peaks in the forties. This is one of the best efforts I have seen on an older film released to Blu-ray.


Sony has done a marvelous job in restoring and transferring the master. It looks positively luminous and fully retains the cinematic quality of the original film source. There are no signs of digital noise reduction or other filters as the grain structure looks completely untouched and film-like. The master appears to be in pristine shape and as clean of anomalies and aberrations as a modern film. Edge enhancement halos are nearly absent for the entire length of the movie, with just a quick flash in two short spots meeting the threshold of noticeability. David Lean's original vision and intended look appears to have been dutifully followed and preserved. The cinematography is stunning, as is typical of his work, with wide panoramic shots of landscapes and gardens on full display.


The image itself is relatively consistent and mostly sharp, though a touch of softness seems to pervade the first 30-minutes or thereabouts. Flesh tones do waver a bit as the British go from a paler shade to slightly more pink as the movie progresses. Colors look great and nicely saturated, with top-notch renditions of various greens and reds. Black levels are suitably strong, with no signs of black crush and a deep, dark and inky appearance to them. There is a nice sense of a deep depth of field to the picture, with many scenes having an exaggerated dimensionality to them that stand out. While the transfer generally has good resolution, high-frequency information is only average at best, with a lack of the finest clarity and detail seen in the best-ranked titles. This was the main factor for me in placing it in tier two. Hair structure is well resolved and generally revealing of individual strands, but facial features are only above-average in quality.


It can not be stated enough that I consider this Blu-ray a perfect transfer from a perfect source. My reasoning for dropping its current rank only stems from placing it in a more appropriate placement alongside other comparable titles. Sony should really take a bow as they have done a phenomenal job on this film's transfer to Blu-ray. I am not sure I have seen a better visual treatment of a catalog title yet. Tier 2.25 would be a better placement in my final consideration.


Watching on a 60” Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 (firmware 2.60) at a viewing distance of six feet.


BDInfo Scan (courtesy of Xylon):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post14122322


----------



## DevilDog151




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16145188
> 
> *Goldfinger*
> 
> _Goldfinger_ started pretty strong with very good details in the aerial pass over Miami. Contrast was generally well-balanced and black levels gererally impressive. Facial details excelled as well on most scenes, specially close-up's. One scene in particular is where Bond sees a reflection of his attacker in the eyes of the woman he's kissing. The details betrayed individual strands of eyebrows that needed plucking.
> 
> 
> Now for some negatives. There was a segment around the 1hr mark that exhibited less than impressive scenes. Details were lost and contrast broke down a bit. Also, I noticed several instances of crushed blacks (in Geneva) as well as frozen grain (usually during sky shots - blue or overcast). It's as if there were in-focus scratches on the lens or filter. Not to nitpick too much, but the fake background scenes poolside in Miami were also a bit distracting. In fact, ringing usually occurred when characters were superimposed against these fake backgrounds. Perfect example for this is the side of Bond's face while in his Aston Martin in Geneva (35:40, 35:55 marks). I don't believe this is EE, but it may as well be.
> 
> 
> All in all, another impressive presentation, where scenes looked bold and detailed for the most part. Still, as impressive as _Goldfinger_ looked, I believe it had more problematic scenes than other Bond titles I've voted to 1.75.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.0*
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8' & 6'_



I can agree with that rating. I watched it today and was pretty amazed with what they are able to do with a movie from the 60's. The outdoor scenes were simply amazing and matched that of new movies. However like you said later in the film the picture quality drops. What I don't understand was that the older Bond films had a more consistent picture quality than this one. Dr No and From Russia looked outstanding.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/16145435
> 
> *A Passage to India
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 2.25
> *
> 
> The last film in David Lean's storied directing career, Sony released this Blu-ray on April 15th, 2008. The 163-minute movie, originally released in 1984, is encoded in AVC on a BD-50. The average video bitrate according to BDInfo is 22.96 Mbps. The compression work is superlative and flawless in nature, with the picture never showing a hint of artifacting or noise from beginning to end. While typically hovering in the twenties, the video encode occasionally peaks in the forties. This is one of the best efforts I have seen on an older film released to Blu-ray.
> 
> 
> Sony has done a marvelous job in restoring and transferring the master. It looks positively luminous and fully retains the cinematic quality of the original film source. There are no signs of digital noise reduction or other filters as the grain structure looks completely untouched and film-like. The master appears to be in pristine shape and as clean of anomalies and aberrations as a modern film. Edge enhancement halos are nearly absent for the entire length of the movie, with just a quick flash in two short spots meeting the threshold of noticeability. David Lean's original vision and intended look appears to have been dutifully followed and preserved. The cinematography is stunning, as is typical of his work, with wide panoramic shots of landscapes and gardens on full display.
> 
> 
> The image itself is relatively consistent and mostly sharp, though a touch of softness seems to pervade the first 30-minutes or thereabouts. Flesh tones do waver a bit as the British go from a paler shade to slightly more pink as the movie progresses. Colors look great and nicely saturated, with top-notch renditions of various greens and reds. Black levels are suitably strong, with no signs of black crush and a deep, dark and inky appearance to them. There is a nice sense of a deep depth of field to the picture, with many scenes having an exaggerated dimensionality to them that stand out. While the transfer generally has good resolution, high-frequency information is only average at best, with a lack of the finest clarity and detail seen in the best-ranked titles. This was the main factor for me in placing it in tier two. Hair structure is well resolved and generally revealing of individual strands, but facial features are only above-average in quality.
> 
> 
> It can not be stated enough that I consider this Blu-ray a perfect transfer from a perfect source. My reasoning for dropping its current rank only stems from placing it in a more appropriate placement alongside other comparable titles. Sony should really take a bow as they have done a phenomenal job on this film's transfer to Blu-ray. I am not sure I have seen a better visual treatment of a catalog title yet. Tier 2.25 would be a better placement in my final consideration.
> 
> 
> Watching on a 60” Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 (firmware 2.60) at a viewing distance of six feet.
> 
> 
> BDInfo Scan (courtesy of Xylon):
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post14122322



Excellent review Phantom!


This is one of my top 5 favorite Blu-ray discs that I own. An excellent, albeit underrated, movie by a great director.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DevilDog151* /forum/post/16145737
> 
> 
> I can agree with that rating. I watched it today and was pretty amazed with what they are able to do with a movie from the 60's. The outdoor scenes were simply amazing and matched that of new movies. However like you said later in the film the picture quality drops. What I don't understand was that the older Bond films had a more consistent picture quality than this one. Dr No and From Russia looked outstanding.



Yeah, I was ready to rate this as the top Bond so far until I got past the first 30-45 minutes. Then, the PQ was up and down.


----------



## H.Cornerstone

I just want to say I just bought From Russia With Love and Dr. No and first off

A. I am seeing these old bond films for the first time and man are they good.

B. Man, I am seriously impressed with the restoration of these movies. They look phenomenon considering how they are almost as old as my dad.










Either way, they look good and Lowry and MGM should be commended for such an awesome restoration job.


----------



## deltasun

I think the fact that they're hitting the Gold and Silver Tiers is testament to the wonderful restoration jobs. Looking forward to popping in a few more of these babies.


----------



## 42041

*Grand Canyon Adventure : River at Risk
*


This is an excellent looking blu-ray, and while I think it's impeccable from a technical standpoint, I must admit that I wasn't quite as impressed as I expected to be for being sourced from an 8K scan on a new 70mm IMAX feature. Many shots are stunning, with an outstanding amount of detail, which I feel put this near the top of the heap even with the issues that are there. I did not see any distracting digital manipulation of the source, it looks like film. My main problem is consistency: quite often the sharpness falls short of the best looking scenes. The other problem is that the subject matter isn't photographed in a manner that keeps up consistent visual interest for the length of the feature. Contrast is nicely delineated, with deep blacks in the few night shots that are there.

On another negative note, I thought the movie itself was overbearing and tedious. If you're going to get only one movie shot on large format film scanned at 8k, get Baraka.

*Low Tier 0*


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/16147234
> 
> *Grand Canyon Adventure : River at Risk
> *
> 
> 
> This is an excellent looking blu-ray, and while I think it's impeccable from a technical standpoint, I must admit that I wasn't quite as impressed as I expected to be for being sourced from an 8K scan on a new 70mm IMAX feature. Many shots are stunning, with an outstanding amount of detail, which I feel put this near the top of the heap even with the issues that are there. I did not see any distracting digital manipulation of the source, it looks like film. My main problem is consistency: quite often the sharpness falls short of the best looking scenes. The other problem is that the subject matter isn't photographed in a manner that keeps up consistent visual interest for the length of the feature. Contrast is nicely delineated, with deep blacks in the few night shots that are there.
> 
> On another negative note, I thought the movie itself was overbearing and tedious. If you're going to get only one movie shot on large format film scanned at 8k, get Baraka.
> 
> *Low Tier 0*



Excellent review, and I agree with every word of it. The only difference is our conclusions, as I was left with wanting a little more from this title in terms of PQ for the reasons you mention, so I could not vote for Tier 0.


----------



## stumlad

I took another look at *Dr. No*, and then looked at the titles in Tier 1.75 - 2.5. I originally gave it a Tier 2.5 rating, and in hindsight that may have been lower than I should have given it. However, Tier 1.75 is just too high for this IMO. National Treasure 2 is in Tier 1.75 and it just has more resolution, better color, and more sense of depth than Dr. No (or FRWL).


I know that Dr No and FRWL look great considering their age, and exhibit some good face closeups and some pretty good detail, but compare that to other Tier 1.75 titles like Tears from The Sun, Aeon Flux, etc, and it just seems off... If you don't agree, I'd be interested to read what you have to say. Not trying to do another Bolt debate btw...


Looking at the titles in Tier 2.0 and 2.25, I could see placing the 2 movies there and note that my original placements were too tough.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/16148655
> 
> 
> I took another look at *Dr. No*, and then looked at the titles in Tier 1.75 - 2.5. I originally gave it a Tier 2.5 rating, and in hindsight that may have been lower than I should have given it. However, Tier 1.75 is just too high for this IMO. National Treasure 2 is in Tier 1.75 and it just has more resolution, better color, and more sense of depth than Dr. No (or FRWL).
> 
> 
> I know that Dr No and FRWL look great considering their age, and exhibit some good face closeups and some pretty good detail, but compare that to other Tier 1.75 titles like Tears from The Sun, Aeon Flux, etc, and it just seems off... If you don't agree, I'd be interested to read what you have to say. Not trying to do another Bolt debate btw...
> 
> 
> Looking at the titles in Tier 2.0 and 2.25, I could see placing the 2 movies there and note that my original placements were too tough.



I haven't seen all of Dr No, so I haven't reviewed it yet but I did review From Russia With Love, and while I think it was a gorgeous restoration I wasn't comfortable with it in Tier 1, as even if it's fantastic I consider things in Tier 0 and Tier 1 to be reference... and I'd never use FRWL as reference. Also with the thought that I put KB1 in 1.50, I think that FRWL is at least half a tier away from the PQ of that, no question, so I recommended 2.00.



The consensus seems to be that FRWL is a bit better PQ overall than Dr No, as well, so I would be really surprised if when I do watch it to review it that I will feel it's better (although of course won't claim anything until I actually do a review).


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/16148655
> 
> 
> I took another look at *Dr. No*, and then looked at the titles in Tier 1.75 - 2.5. I originally gave it a Tier 2.5 rating, and in hindsight that may have been lower than I should have given it. However, Tier 1.75 is just too high for this IMO. National Treasure 2 is in Tier 1.75 and it just has more resolution, better color, and more sense of depth than Dr. No (or FRWL).
> 
> *Looking at the titles in Tier 2.0 and 2.25, I could see placing the 2 movies there and note that my original placements were too tough.*



+1


I naturally agree with this for those are the exact Tier recommendations that I had given.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16148697
> 
> 
> I haven't seen all of Dr No, so I haven't reviewed it yet but *I did review From Russia With Love, and while I think it was a gorgeous restoration I wasn't comfortable with it in Tier 1, as even if it's fantastic I consider things in Tier 0 and Tier 1 to be reference*... and I'd never use FRWL as reference. Also with the thought that I put KB1 in 1.50, I think that FRWL is at least half a tier away from the PQ of that, no question, so I recommended 2.00.



I couldn't agree more G3!


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/16148655
> 
> 
> I took another look at *Dr. No*, and then looked at the titles in Tier 1.75 - 2.5. I originally gave it a Tier 2.5 rating, and in hindsight that may have been lower than I should have given it. However, Tier 1.75 is just too high for this IMO. National Treasure 2 is in Tier 1.75 and it just has more resolution, better color, and more sense of depth than Dr. No (or FRWL).
> 
> 
> I know that Dr No and FRWL look great considering their age, and exhibit some good face closeups and some pretty good detail, but compare that to other Tier 1.75 titles like Tears from The Sun, Aeon Flux, etc, and it just seems off... If you don't agree, I'd be interested to read what you have to say. Not trying to do another Bolt debate btw...
> 
> 
> Looking at the titles in Tier 2.0 and 2.25, I could see placing the 2 movies there and note that my original placements were too tough.



I'm comfortable with the 2.0 - 2.25 range for the Bonds (I actually agreed with djoberg that Dr. No is 2.25) that I've seen so far. I re-watched _FRWL_ last night and noticed a few more inconsistencies, but nothing major. In my case, I was comparing them to _Iron Man_ (which was a bit softer) at 1.75. I found a lot of superior scenes in some of those Bonds compared to _Iron Man_ which led me to my conclusion. The problematic Bond scenes, however, were also much worse than the _Iron Man_ scenes. So, I see the average potentially slipping into the Silver Tier.


I still believe _KB1_/_KB2_ belong in 1.0 so I don't have a problem with their relation to the Bonds. However, I can also see facial details on the Bonds that were better than _Aeon Flux_, for example. Not saying they're better than _Aeon Flux_ as a whole, but just validating your range.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16145920
> 
> 
> This is one of my top 5 favorite Blu-ray discs that I own. An excellent, albeit underrated, movie by a great director.



You are a fan of David Lean and his body of work? I would never have guessed that.


----------



## stumlad

Thanks for the input guys...



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *G3* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The consensus seems to be that FRWL is a bit better PQ overall than Dr No, as well, so I would be really surprised if when I do watch it to review it that I will feel it's better (although of course won't claim anything until I actually do a review).



I personally feel that Dr. No was better. I think a couple of people in the Bond threads felt the same, but I did notice a majority of people in here tended to favor FRWL. I guess it's a tossup











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> ...I was comparing them to Iron Man (which was a bit softer) at 1.75...




Yes, I agree, Iron Man is a bit softer than most in Tier 1.75. I think the same is true of the first National Treasure..it's not as good as the 2nd (PQ wise). I guess it's easier to rate something higher when we compare it to titles that we dont believe are deserving of their tier....



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I can also see facial details on the Bonds that were better than Aeon Flux, for example.



It could be..it has been a while since I've seen it, but i found the overall look of Aeon Flux to be pleasing and filled with detail... though it was the VC-1 HD DVD, so I guess it's not a fair comparison. Perhaps it's time for me to rewatch .. though it would be on the wrong format.


Overall it looks like we're all pretty much in agreement with the first 2 titles, I just wanted to see what others' thoughts were.


I want to get Goldfinger, but I'm going to wait for a good Amazon sale...


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/16149738
> 
> 
> You are a fan of David Lean and his body of work? I would never have guessed that.



David who?


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16145920
> 
> 
> This is one of my top 5 favorite Blu-ray discs that I own.



Okay, out with it, Rob- the other four, stat!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/16152434
> 
> 
> Okay, out with it, Rob- the other four, stat!



Hey! Someone actually fell for it and asked!?!










They are obviously based on a lot more than just PQ (i.e., CONTENT matters!) :


Blade Runner


The Godfather 1 & 2


Kill Bill 1 & 2


Ratatouille


A Passage to India



I left out concert discs, which I consider a different category, but they do get a lot of use...more so than movies. It's just easy to put on a concert disc without feeling like you have to watch the whole thing in one sitting. I don't like to watch movies in more than one sitting, so if I don't have the time but want to relax in the HT, a concert disc fits the bill nicely.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16152531
> 
> 
> Hey! Someone actually fell for it and asked!?!



I bite at a lot of stuff I probably shouldn't.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16152531
> 
> 
> Blade Runner



Good man!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16152531
> 
> 
> The Godfather 1 & 2



Ah ha! I _knew_ it- the man has a developed sniffer. Tell me- what did you do with your The Godfather, Part 3 disc? Coaster? Frisbee? Gutter scraper?


I'd probably own that set by now, as well, if I could will myself to let Part 3 through the front door. Someone might _see_ my collection, though. And I might not be there to say "You see, it was the only way to get 1 and 2..." And we can't have that, no sir.



Thanks for sharing.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JohnES1* /forum/post/16142726
> 
> 
> Sorry guys, but T3 didn't come out reference quality on my setup (Panasonic TH-46PZ800U ISF calibrated Custom-normal mode with a Panasonic BD35 player at about seven feet.) The slight oversaturation and *judder in pans(both with 2:3 pulldown and 24p mode) are my complaints*, otherwise complete agreement with Rob. I assume comments about phony stunt scenes aren't part of this discussion so I won't go there. Keep up the good work, my Netflix queue now fills a page due to your recent recommendations...



Come on JohnES1, you can't use limitation in your equipment as a basis for your PQ complaint.


----------



## JohnES1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16153286
> 
> 
> Come on JohnES1, you can't use limitation in your equipment as a basis for your PQ complaint.



I'm not so sure it's my setup, the other top Tier's selections are coming out as reviewed. Ignore me, I won't be making any formal reviews. Btw, my elderly mom(I'm her full time caregiver) was losing interest in T3 so at twenty-six minutes into the movie I switched to 24p mode and we were immediately drawn into the action and rocking with the punches. I turned to her about a minute after making the change and asked if that was better and she nodded with a smile.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/16153040
> 
> 
> 
> Ah ha! I _knew_ it- the man has a developed sniffer. Tell me- what did you do with your The Godfather, Part 3 disc? Coaster? Frisbee? Gutter scraper?
> 
> 
> I'd probably own that set by now, as well, if I could will myself to let Part 3 through the front door. Someone might _see_ my collection, though. And I might not be there to say "You see, it was the only way to get 1 and 2..." And we can't have that, no sir.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for sharing.



What's really funny is that I originally had listed "The Godfather Trilogy", since that is technically what I own, but I quickly realized that Part 3 is something that I haven't even watched on BD, and is far from one of my favorites, so I quickly edited my post.


In the 20 seconds or so that my list publicly said "The Godfather Trilogy", panic quickly set in that someone might have seen it before I edited it, and my reputation would have been destroyed forever.










Sophia Coppola: a decent director, not a decent actor.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Quantum of Solace*


This is a fantastic looking title! There is very little to complain about here. What I really like about the PQ quality of this title is that it is _consistently_ great. So many titles vary so much from scene to scene. I did not find that to be the case here.


The one place where I really thought Quantum stood out above many others is regarding minute details on scenes that were shot from a long distance. For example, one scene looking down at people walking in the street/mall was very impressive in terms of detail, even though the people were extremely small on the screen.


Overall a fantastic looking title that falls just short of the best of the best in Tier 0.


As for the movie itself: definitely a bit of a letdown. Casino Royale was much better.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0*


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16154658
> 
> 
> In the 20 seconds or so that my list publicly said "The Godfather Trilogy", panic quickly set in that someone might have seen it before I edited it, and my reputation would have been destroyed forever.



Aw, man! Your secret was probably safe!


If you take your top 5 and replace the Godfather set with The Third Man and A Passage To India with 2001: A Space Odyssey, you'll have my top 5.


So, if anyone could convince me to pull the trigger on A Passage To India, you're probably the man!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16153286
> 
> 
> Come on JohnES1, you can't use limitation in your equipment as a basis for your PQ complaint.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JohnES1* /forum/post/16154209
> 
> 
> I'm not so sure it's my setup, the other top Tier's selections are coming out as reviewed. Ignore me, I won't be making any formal reviews. Btw, my elderly mom(I'm her full time caregiver) was losing interest in T3 so at twenty-six minutes into the movie I switched to 24p mode and we were immediately drawn into the action and rocking with the punches. I turned to her about a minute after making the change and asked if that was better and she nodded with a smile.



+1 Deltasun! It's definitely a known issue regarding the 24p problem with the Panny Plasmas. Honestly I've not bothered to try it. Given how sensitive my eyes have proven to be regarding phosphor trail and edge enhancement, I think I might go into sensory overload in a BAD way if I injected the "Panny Judder Flicker" into my viewing as well on my 58" PZ800U.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16154658
> 
> 
> What's really funny is that I originally had listed "The Godfather Trilogy", since that is technically what I own, but I quickly realized that Part 3 is something that I haven't even watched on BD, and is far from one of my favorites, so I quickly edited my post.
> 
> 
> In the 20 seconds or so that my list publicly said "The Godfather Trilogy", panic quickly set in that someone might have seen it before I edited it, and my reputation would have been destroyed forever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sophia Coppola: a decent director, not a decent actor.



*snicker* hahaha. I love the Godfather 1&2 but BOY OH BOY 3, for me anyway, ranks in the "special sort of bad" category that just makes me CRINGE. A combination of the facts that I own the trilogy on DVD (the old set from a few years ago, not the new set that came out when the Blu's did), the cost of the trilogy on Blu still being so expensive, plus, well, it's the trilogy which means it includes the horror that is #3.... it'll be a while before I get those on Blu.







Checking out her IMDB profile, as well... I'm "meh" on her as a director as well. I haven't seen Lost in Translation, but I did see Virgin Suicides & Marie Antoinette -- not a fan of either of those.


----------



## JohnES1




geekyglassesgirl said:


> +1 Deltasun! It's definitely a known issue regarding the 24p problem with the Panny Plasmas. Honestly I've not bothered to try it. Given how sensitive my eyes have proven to be regarding phosphor trail and edge enhancement, I think I might go into sensory overload in a BAD way if I injected the "Panny Judder" into my viewing as well on my 58" PZ800U.
> 
> 
> I know of no "Panny Judder" issue, there are some that see a 'flicker' in bright scenes using the 24p mode(though I use it most of the time and see very little to no flicker with my matching Panasonic BD35 player.) From the CNET Panasonic TH-50PZ800U review:
> 
> 
> "We tested the Panasonic's "24p direct in" mode by setting it to 48Hz and switching our PS3 to 1080p/24 mode. After doing so, the first thing we noticed was significant flicker, which was most obvious in brighter areas of the picture, such as the overcast sky or sun-scorched desert hardpan, but was present throughout. The flicker made the image basically unwatchable, and we much preferred the look of standard 60Hz mode. If it weren't for the flicker, however, the 24p mode would be great, because it did make movement appear more natural, removing the hitching in motion associated with 60Hz's necessary 2:3 pull-down process. We feel most viewers will notice and object to the flicker enough to abandon the 48Hz setting, however."
> 
> 
> I saw judder in long pans in both 2:3 pulldown and 24p mode. Just wondered if anyone else noticed it and felt it was objectionable. Sorry to go OT.
> 
> 
> Netflix informs me I'll have A Passage to India for tomorrow night's viewing!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Edited my post above to cross out "Judder" and swap to "Flicker". Either way I know I've got sensitive eyes, so it'd likely be noticeable to me and drive me nuts.


----------



## lgans316

Has rsbeck stopped posting here?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16155186
> 
> 
> 
> *snicker* hahaha. I love the Godfather 1&2 but BOY OH BOY 3, for me anyway, ranks in the "special sort of bad" category that just makes me CRINGE. A combination of the facts that I own the trilogy on DVD (the old set from a few years ago, not the new set that came out when the Blu's did), the cost of the trilogy on Blu still being so expensive, plus, well, it's the trilogy which means it includes the horror that is #3.... it'll be a while before I get those on Blu.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Checking out her IMDB profile, as well... I'm "meh" on her as a director as well. I haven't seen Lost in Translation, but I did see Virgin Suicides & Marie Antoinette -- not a fan of either of those.



Lost in Translation is by far her best work. It's not a film that everyone will enjoy, but I think it is a very good film, and she did do a good job directing.


The other two you mention, well...I have to agree with you on those.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16158392
> 
> 
> Lost in Translation is by far her best work. It's not a film that everyone will enjoy, but I think it is a very good film, and she did do a good job directing.
> 
> 
> The other two you mention, well...I have to agree with you on those.



Definitely agree...still waiting for this in blu.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JohnES1* /forum/post/16154209
> 
> 
> I'm not so sure it's my setup, the other top Tier's selections are coming out as reviewed. Ignore me, I won't be making any formal reviews.



Oh, please don't take my post as a deterrence to your participation. I was just making sure it was clear that judder, specially the 2:3 variety, was probably due to your equipment. I've rarely heard any film having judder issues on their own.


Doesn't mean you can't judge on PQ outside of the judder.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16158882
> 
> 
> Oh, please don't take my post as a deterrence to your participation. I was just making sure it was clear that judder, specially the 2:3 variety, was probably due to your equipment. I've rarely heard any film having judder issues on their own.



Some films have pans that are shot in such a way that the natural judder due to the 24fps frame rate of film is bothersome even if your TV handles 24p properly... the intro to Layer Cake, for instance. (though I personally don't constitute this as a PQ issue)


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Bolt


Tier recommendation: bottom of Tier 0*


I was a little disappointed with the picture quality of this title for a modern CGI feature from a studio like Disney. Backgrounds and character models lack the incredible details seen in features like Ratatouille. The human models look particularly substandard for an animated feature that attempts to duplicate a real-world environment in many ways. The only excellent CGI objects seen are Bolt and Mittens. While the vast majority of the transfer looks flawless, I spotted a touch of banding.


Overall the image quality looks very good of course, given my ranking of tier zero, but in comparison to other comparable movies like Wall*E it comes up a bit short.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16158825
> 
> 
> Definitely agree...still waiting for this in blu.



Definitely. It's a beautifully shot film, and it should shine in HD.


----------



## daveshouse

I don't post much, but I do read this thread quite often. I was noticing that the OP hasn't updated the list since 2/18/09. Is he/she still keeping track, or is someone keeping track of all the recommendations? Just wondering! Thanks.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

*Body of Lies*


I watched this on SD DVD not too long ago and the BD is an obvious upgrade in all departments. I really like this film after a 2nd viewing as well.


Anyway, on to what we're here for. Overall, this was a pretty good looking blu ray. What I can say is something I can't say about most titles...and that is that the medium to wide shots looked better than the closeups of actor's faces, especially DiCaprio and Crowe. Not sure if DNR was applied or the makeup crew went a little too crazy, but very few closeups exhibited great detail. A few shots here and there were Tier 1 worthy, but nothing extraordinary.


Almost all of the outdoor exterior scenes in the streets, in the desert, etc all looked great. Lots of detail and clarity.


Skintones were a bit warm at times, but generally nice and natural. Colors were great even when tweaked in post.


Some night scenes suffered from excessive noise/grain but that didn't happen often.


Overall, this is a solid mid Tier 2 title for me. I could go as low as 2.75.
*

Recommendation: Tier 2.5*


Panasonic PZ80U via PS3 @ about 6 feet.


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *daveshouse* /forum/post/16161339
> 
> 
> I don't post much, but I do read this thread quite often. I was noticing that the OP hasn't updated the list since 2/18/09. Is he/she still keeping track, or is someone keeping track of all the recommendations? Just wondering! Thanks.



I'm still here. I've just been pretty busy the past month or so and haven't had much free time.


I've been working on the next update over the past few days. Still a little bit to go.


----------



## Human Bean




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16159868
> 
> 
> [RE: Lost in Translation] Definitely. It's a beautifully shot film, and it should shine in HD.



The release on the defunct HD optical format was mediocre.


Not to say that miracles don't happen, but don't get your hopes up; the other format did a good job with what they had, but I think the source just wasn't that good.


----------



## dla26




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Human Bean* /forum/post/16162764
> 
> 
> The release on the defunct HD optical format was mediocre.
> 
> 
> Not to say that miracles don't happen, but don't get your hopes up; the other format did a good job with what they had, but I think the source just wasn't that good.



Agreed. I picked it up on HD-DVD recently for $5, but was very disappointed in the PQ. Blacks were very grainy, and there was little detail, even during closeups. I was happy when I could tell that as scene was actually in HD!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Human Bean* /forum/post/16162764
> 
> 
> The release on the defunct HD optical format was mediocre.
> 
> 
> Not to say that miracles don't happen, but don't get your hopes up; the other format did a good job with what they had, but I think the source just wasn't that good.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dla26* /forum/post/16163826
> 
> 
> Agreed. I picked it up on HD-DVD recently for $5, but was very disappointed in the PQ. Blacks were very grainy, and there was little detail, even during closeups. I was happy when I could tell that as scene was actually in HD!



That's very disappointing to hear.


----------



## selimsivad

*Slumdog Millionaire*



*2.35: 1*




Slumdog Millionaire is amazing! It's a excellent "rags to riches" story, at a time when we definitely needed one!










PQ is above average as far as Blu Ray is concerned. Pores, hair, hands, clothing, ect. display what is typical of a newer title in HD. Blacks are above average, but crushed at times. Due to the stylistic, artistic choices by Danny Boyle and Anthony Dod Mantle, this was clearly intentional. Contrast is raised, and saturation is lowered. It looks damn good, but not demo material after a second viewing.


Grain structure varies from scene to scene. At times it was heavy, but not at all distracting.


The film has a brown-golden tint, again intentional to display the destitute mood of the movie. Whenever colors show up, they really stand out. Good examples are the water bucket at the beginning, and the attire and laundry of the citizens of the slums.


Latika's color seems to be a symbolic yellow, which leaps off the screen!































Anthony Dod Mantle's award winning cinematography really stands out in Blu!

I saw this film twice in theaters, so I had high expectations for it's HD transfer. There is a "zoom out" scene during the chase at the beginning that is mindblowing! Lots of beautiful angled shots, typical of a Boyle flick.










I noticed no DNR, EE, or compression issues. I mentioned the intentional black crush earlier, which was due to high contrast.


You can't go wrong with this one! Stop reading and pick it up!










Edit. 

*Slumdog Millionaire

Tier Recommendation: Tier 2.5

PS3-Samsung 46" 1080p-seven'*


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/16165730
> 
> *Slumdog Millionaire*



Thanks! I'm grabbing this tonight.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/16165730
> 
> *Slumdog Millionaire*




Ooo. I forgot this came out today. Thanks for the great review!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/16165765
> 
> 
> Thanks! I'm grabbing this tonight.



Me too!


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/16157700
> 
> 
> Has rsbeck stopped posting here?



I'm curious also.


Haven't seen him in about a week.


----------



## jrcorwin

Watching South Pacific now...nothing to report yet other than "Holy cow this looks impressive."


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jrcorwin* /forum/post/16166357
> 
> 
> Watching South Pacific now...nothing to report yet other than "Holy cow this looks impressive."



Wow. How in the world did I miss the fact this was on Blu?!










Looking forward to your full review.


----------



## jrcorwin

*South Pacific*


I was very much looking forward to this one and it did not disappoint. I was sold from the first shot from outside the cockpit. Incredible detail without any EE that I could see whatsoever. I'm not yet ready to judge the application of any DNR. Facial detail seemed to be excellent, but I was honestly distracted by the spot on color reproduction and georgous detail at every single turn. The visuals were astounding...the uniforms, the sand, and the vegitation included. Fine detail was present in the wood grain for structures and paint scrapes on metal surfaces. The inside of the cockpit at the beginning of the film is a perfect example. Skin tones did appear to be accurate as well. It had a much greater sense of depth than I had expected. I have no problem at all placing this above How The West Was Won. It was just that impressive. I'm sorry if I have left anything out that you would like to know. I've never reviewed one before...


It sounded incredible as well by the way.


*Tier Recommendation: Low-Mid Tier 0*...above How The West Was Won


Viewed on a 61" Samsung 1080p LED DLP at 8 ft.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

^ sweet!!!


Gotta get this right away.


----------



## jrcorwin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16167047
> 
> 
> ^ sweet!!!
> 
> 
> Gotta get this right away.



Please do. You (as well as others) are much better at reviewing these than I.


----------



## djoberg

*Slumdog Millionaire*


Once again we have one that, IMO, is very hard to rate. I say this because the PQ is so inconsistent, ranging from a few Tier 0 shots to a few Tier 4 shots, and everything in between.


This was a very stylized title with a golden tint to it in many scenes (as selimsivad indicated), but this did NOT hinder PQ. There were also some very good scenes with natural colors that were quite impressive (I was especially delighted with several daytime city scenes which highlighted the rich and warm colors of Indian clothing).


I was, for the most part, disappointed with the black levels and shadow detail. There were a few scenes that were decent, but for the most part they bordered on a dark gray along with crushed blacks, which in turn resulted in poor shadow detail.


Grain was present in many scenes and again we were served a mixed bag. Some grain was intact and enhanced detail; other scenes yielded heavy grain that looked more like video noise.


The best redeeming feature was facial close-ups. I would rate most of them Tier 1 quality (not quite as revealing as those in films like Man on Fire, Youth Without Youth, or the POTC series). This alone bumped up my final estimate by one whole tier.


All things considered, I simply can't go along with the first recommendation of Tier 1.5, for this was just too inconsistent to be "demo-worthy." This isn't to say it is "average" or worse; it is a strong Tier 2 contender. So, I would place it here:

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*


Samsung 50" 1080p DLP....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 6'


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Man Denny, you are always way out in front on rating the new releases. How do you get them so fast?


----------



## jrcorwin

BTW...does anyone else have South Pacific ready to review in the next day or so?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/16152434
> 
> 
> Okay, out with it, Rob- the other four, stat!



I was thinking about this a bit more, and I realized that only one of my Top 5 Favorite movies are even on Blu-ray yet:


Lawrence of Arabia


Pulp Fiction


The Godfather (1 and 2...I can't separate them)


Taxi Driver


Once Upon A Time In The West


I hope we get more of these titles soon. I know Pulp Fiction and Taxi Driver should be coming.


Blade Runner is definitely in my top 10 though.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/16154735
> 
> 
> Aw, man! Your secret was probably safe!
> 
> 
> If you take your top 5 and replace the Godfather set with The Third Man and A Passage To India with 2001: A Space Odyssey, you'll have my top 5.
> 
> 
> So, if anyone could convince me to pull the trigger on A Passage To India, you're probably the man!



I love Kubrick, and I certainly consider 2001 ASO to be a great film. I prefer A Clockwork Orange though.


As for The Third Man, great film, but I actually much prefer Odd Man Out, which was also directed by Carol Reed.


Methinks you have good taste in movies.


Whatcha think of Kurosawa?


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16167701
> 
> *Slumdog Millionaire*
> 
> 
> Once again we have one that, IMO, is very hard to rate. I say this because the PQ is so inconsistent, ranging from a few Tier 0 shots to a few Tier 4 shots, and everything in between.



Definitely.



> Quote:
> I was, for the most part, disappointed with the black levels and shadow detail. There were a few scenes that were decent, but for the most part they bordered on a dark gray along with crushed blacks, which in turn resulted in poor shadow detail.



Agree... Black levels were pretty bad. Some fade-to-blacks were barely dark gray.



> Quote:
> Grain was present in many scenes and again we were served a mixed bag. Some grain was intact and enhanced detail; other scenes yielded heavy grain that looked more like video noise.



Wow you saw it too... In the beginning there were many scenes where I said "is that digital noise?? Was this shot on film?" I dont know, but you're spot on.. I even saw scenes where i watched the grain and saw it literally fall apart... checked the bit rate and they were solidly high so it wasnt that.



> Quote:
> The best redeeming feature was facial close-ups. I would rate most of them Tier 1 quality (not quite as revealing as those in films like Man on Fire, Youth Without Youth, or the POTC series). This alone bumped up my final estimate by one whole tier.



Agree. When you see the children, you see texture on their faces.. even in scenes where it's not a full closeup. This was my original complaint with Prince Caspian.



> Quote:
> All things considered, I simply can't go along with the first recommendation of Tier 1.5, for this was just too inconsistent to be "demo-worthy." This isn't to say it is "average" or worse; it is a strong Tier 2 contender. So, I would place it here:
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.25*



I'd go with *Tier 2.75*.. Maybe even 3.0 There was just too much inconsistency.


However, the movie is definitely a top tier watch!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16167748
> 
> 
> Man Denny, you are always way out in front on rating the new releases. How do you get them so fast?



I am *lucky* enough to know the manager of the one of the local video stores quite well and when I request a new release (several days before they put it on the shelf for rent) she puts one aside for me. Sometimes she'll even give it to me a couple of days before the official release day (which is always on a Tuesday).


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/16168099
> 
> 
> I'd go with *Tier 2.75*.. Maybe even 3.0 There was just too much inconsistency.



I was considering 2.5 or 2.75, so it won't break my heart if it ends up in either of those slots.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16167701
> 
> *Slumdog Millionaire*
> 
> 
> Once again we have one that, IMO, is very hard to rate. I say this because the PQ is so inconsistent, ranging from a few Tier 0 shots to a few Tier 4 shots, and everything in between.
> 
> 
> 
> All things considered, I simply can't go along with the first recommendation of Tier 1.5, for this was just too inconsistent to be "demo-worthy." This isn't to say it is "average" or worse; it is a strong Tier 2 contender. So, I would place it here:
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.25*
> 
> 
> '



I just watched a second time with a few friends. The pumped up contrast and undersaturation really stood out this time. Also, the crushed blacks stood out more this time around!


Artistically, it looked good. But not demo material, according to the Tier guidelines.



*Slumdog Millionaire

Tier Recommendation: Tier 2.5

PS3-Samsung 46" 1080p-seven'*


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16167879
> 
> 
> Methinks you have good taste in movies.



Thanks!







Likewise, naturally.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16167879
> 
> 
> Whatcha think of Kurosawa?



Ha ha ha ha! As I read through your post, he's the one who was on my mind- missing! I've always liked to say "I can name you 10 Kurosawa movies I could make a solid argument are the 10 best movies ever made... if it weren't for 10 of his other movies."


Since you can't stop me indulging myself, here's my top 20:


Atame!

Blade Runner

Blue Velvet

Chinatown

Citizen Kane

Das Boot

8 ½

La Grande Illusion

Hua Yeung Nin Wa

Lawrence of Arabia

Pasqualino Settebellezze

Raging Bull

Rashomon

Rear Window

Singin' In the Rain

The Third Man

2001: A Space Odyssey

Vertigo

Walkabout

The Wild Bunch


And pretty much everything you've mentioned which isn't in my top 20 is in my top 50.


----------



## TayC

*Slumdog Millionaire*


Very disappointing PQ... Tons of black crush, which could work stylistically if the black level was actually _black_, but it's not. All I saw throughout the entire movie was a bunch of gray. This flattened the image considerably, ruining potential depth. I mean this not out of anger or to exaggerate the problem: These are the *worst black levels* I have seen on a Blu-Ray. (btw, I haven't seen anything in Tier 4 or 5, so I'm working with a limited range)


Other aspects manage to save the PQ. The colors look very vivid, perfectly representing the director's intention. There are also plenty of scenes filled with fine details. Close-ups look fantastic, and as mentioned by another reviewer, they can reach Tier 1 quality. Outdoor scenes are much better than indoor and dark scenes, but occasionally even outdoor scenes are hurt by the consistently poor black level. A lot of noise in certain scenes.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 3*


Panasonic 42PX80U, 8 feet


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TayC* /forum/post/16171040
> 
> *Slumdog Millionaire*
> 
> 
> Very disappointing PQ... Tons of black crush, which could work stylistically if the black level was actually _black_, but it's not. All I saw throughout the entire movie was a bunch of gray. This flattened the image considerably, ruining potential depth. I mean this not out of anger or to exaggerate the problem: These are the *worst black levels* I have seen on a Blu-Ray. (btw, I haven't seen anything in Tier 4 or 5, so I'm working with a limited range)
> 
> 
> Other aspects manage to save the PQ. The colors look very vivid, perfectly representing the director's intention. There are also plenty of scenes filled with fine details. Close-ups look fantastic, and as mentioned by another reviewer, they can reach Tier 1 quality. Outdoor scenes are much better than indoor and dark scenes, but occasionally even outdoor scenes are hurt by the consistently poor black level. A lot of noise in certain scenes.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 3*
> 
> 
> Panasonic 42PX80U, 8 feet



The more I think about this title, the more I believe it doesn't deserve a placement above 2.5. With the 4 reviews given so far, it looks like it will land somewhere between 2.5 and 3.0 and I would go along with any of these. I know I had said in my review that it was a "strong Tier 2 contender," but upon further reflection a 3.0 placement seems fitting given the terribly inconsistent PQ and, as you, I and others noted, the disappointing *black* levels. So to reiterate, I would be happy with it ending up anywhere from 2.5-3.0.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Good to see you posting Denny! I hope things are calmer for you in the ND area.


----------



## moematthews




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jrcorwin* /forum/post/16166850
> 
> *South Pacific*



Reading this made me remember that "Mutiny on the Bounty" (late 60s version with Trevor Howard and Marlon Brando) looked absolutely incredible on HD DVD. The colour was unlike anything I've seen since. It's what "Speed Racer" would look like if it were more realistic.


Is there a Blu-ray version, and has anyone seen it?


----------



## jrcorwin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moematthews* /forum/post/16172633
> 
> 
> Reading this made me remember that "Mutiny on the Bounty" (late 60s version with Trevor Howard and Marlon Brando) looked absolutely incredible on HD DVD. The colour was unlike anything I've seen since. It's what "Speed Racer" would look like if it were more realistic.
> 
> 
> Is there a Blu-ray version, and has anyone seen it?



I just hope someone else reviews it soon. I'm curious to see their impressions.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16171714
> 
> 
> Good to see you posting Denny! I hope things are calmer for you in the ND area.



Thanks G3! The river crested in Fargo and is declining at a nice rate. But we did get a huge winter storm Monday and Tuesday that dumped over 2 feet on some us so they are predicting another crest in mid April. So, the flood fight will resume then, but until that time it's nice being able to watch Blu-rays again.


Now if only I could get my hands on South Pacific!


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moematthews* /forum/post/16172633
> 
> 
> Reading this made me remember that "Mutiny on the Bounty" (late 60s version with Trevor Howard and Marlon Brando) looked absolutely incredible on HD DVD. The colour was unlike anything I've seen since. It's what "Speed Racer" would look like if it were more realistic.
> 
> 
> Is there a Blu-ray version, and has anyone seen it?



not that I know of. I rented Mutiny and didn't know it was letterbox 4:3. I couldn't even bear to watch it in that state.


South Pacific came out yesterday. I just added it, BB online has it.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16171556
> 
> 
> The more I think about this title, the more I believe it doesn't deserve a placement above 2.5. With the 4 reviews given so far, it looks like it will land somewhere between 2.5 and 3.0 and I would go along with any of these. I know I had said in my review that it was a "strong Tier 2 contender," but upon further reflection a 3.0 placement seems fitting given the terribly inconsistent PQ and, as you, I and others noted, the disappointing *black* levels. So to reiterate, I would be happy with it ending up anywhere from 2.5-3.0.



I agree with this (preemptively, since haven't seen it in BR). I was a bit shocked when I first saw the 1.5 recommendation yesterday since I wouldn't have even gone that far based on what I saw in the theatre. I was thinking..."it improved that much on BR?!?"


Again, I haven't seen the BR, but from my recollection of the theatre version, I was not impressed with the PQ. Director's Intent, of course.


----------



## Hughmc

Hey gang, I have been busy here lately with work and a lot of hockey. I have been checking in and enjoying the reviews.










I picked up Goldfinger yesterday and watched it last night, and will offer a review later. As of now I am putting on par with Dr. No and FRWL.


I also have rented SLumdog and Seven Pounds which will get viewings tonight and tomorrow with reviews to follow.


Rob Tomlin, I am fortunate to get the BD's from my local Hollywood Video on release day, usually Tuesday. I go to the store when it opens at 10 and there are little or no others there. I grab the couple of new BD release I want. What is really nice is I am the first to put them in a player and they are pristine with no rental dirt or scratches. I would have watched Slumdog and did a review, but hockey last nite had me busy.


I also cannot fathom the disconnect with the PQ on a new release, major academy award winner like Slumdog. Here we have posters rating South Pacific Tier 0, older James Bonds at 1.5-2.5 and so on. IMO we have had some great tier 0 and tier 1 releases for new titles, but some new releases that are tier 2 or tier 3 even are unacceptable IMO. Now I know they may still look good in tier 2, but I cannot help think we could see better. I think overall we are seeing better and better PQ on BD's so that is a plus. Reviews to come later.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/16148655
> 
> 
> I took another look at *Dr. No*, and then looked at the titles in Tier 1.75 - 2.5. I originally gave it a Tier 2.5 rating, and in hindsight that may have been lower than I should have given it. However, Tier 1.75 is just too high for this IMO. National Treasure 2 is in Tier 1.75 and it just has more resolution, better color, and more sense of depth than Dr. No (or FRWL).
> 
> 
> I know that Dr No and FRWL look great considering their age, and exhibit some good face closeups and some pretty good detail, but compare that to other Tier 1.75 titles like Tears from The Sun, Aeon Flux, etc, and it just seems off... If you don't agree, I'd be interested to read what you have to say. Not trying to do another Bolt debate btw...
> 
> 
> Looking at the titles in Tier 2.0 and 2.25, I could see placing the 2 movies there and note that my original placements were too tough.



I have been thinking about a lot of titles that got moved and or placed and maybe need a revisit.







Without pointing fingers, remember WE did have a bit of a mission to knock titles down some more than they needed to be IMO.


I stand by my recommendation of tier 1.75 for Dr No, but maybe NT 2 was just placed too low. I looked through several reviews of NT2 and I could not find mine. I could have sworn I recommended placement on it. I see a lot of the reviews as in the majority rating it top of half of tier 1 which was going by the older thread PQ standards at that time. Rob Tomlin was one who recommended top of tier one for NT2, if you don't mind me referencing you ROb.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16174788
> 
> 
> I also cannot fathom the disconnect with the PQ on a new release, major academy award winner like Slumdog. Here we have posters rating South Pacific Tier 0, older James Bonds at 1.5-2.5 and so on. IMO we have had some great tier 0 and tier 1 releases for new titles, but some new releases that are tier 2 or tier 3 even are unacceptable IMO. Now I know they may still look good in tier 2, but I cannot help think we could see better. I think overall we are seeing better and better PQ on BD's so that is a plus. Reviews to come later.



This is a potentially very dangerous comment, IMO, especially in light of your statement of not having watched Slumdog yet. If the posters who've rated Slumdog so far are interpreting the thread criteria reasonably, the Tier 2-3 ratings could be a product of _many_ kinds of things not necessarily having _anything_ to do with any failure of the video transfer or Blu-ray encoding processes. With the emphasis on one definition of "demo" material, there is ample room in the thread for titles which are highly transparent to their sources and still would most appropriately occupy a lower Tier. Please be careful before you go implying that the producers of certain discs (especially ones you haven't even seen yet!) may be falling down on the job. _Myriad_ factors create a disc's ultimate picture quality, to say nothing of the even smaller spectrum that is the "demo" quality loosely defined in this thread.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/16175263
> 
> 
> This is a potentially very dangerous comment, IMO, especially in light of your statement of not having watched Slumdog yet. If the posters who've rated Slumdog so far are interpreting the thread criteria reasonably, the Tier 2-3 ratings could be a product of _many_ kinds of things not necessarily having _anything_ to do with any failure of the video transfer or Blu-ray encoding processes. With the emphasis on one definition of "demo" material, there is ample room in the thread for titles which are highly transparent to their sources and still would most appropriately occupy a lower Tier. Please be careful before you go implying that the producers of certain discs (especially ones you haven't even seen yet!) may be falling down on the job. _Myriad_ factors create a disc's ultimate picture quality, to say nothing of the even smaller spectrum that is the "demo" quality loosely defined in this thread.



I agree completely.


I think Hugh understands this as well, but I do see why you think his statement is somewhat troublesome.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16174788
> 
> 
> I also cannot fathom the disconnect with the PQ on a new release, major academy award winner like Slumdog. Here we have posters rating South Pacific Tier 0, older James Bonds at 1.5-2.5 and so on. IMO we have had some great tier 0 and tier 1 releases for new titles, but some new releases that are tier 2 or tier 3 even are unacceptable IMO. Now I know they may still look good in tier 2, but I cannot help think we could see better. I think overall we are seeing better and better PQ on BD's so that is a plus. Reviews to come later.



There's really nothing surprising about a new transfer of an old movie looking great, particularly one shot on 70mm like South Pacific. I think most issues you see with older flicks are because the digital transfers were made ages ago.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16175422
> 
> 
> I agree completely.
> 
> 
> I think Hugh understands this as well, but I do see why you think his statement is somewhat troublesome.




Yes, I do.







I know there are many variables from the way the film is shot to the way it is transferred to BD that places limitations on making it to certain tiers based on the PQ thread qualifiers. Think of me as simply wanting better PQ on new releases, although I know they all can't have that tier 1 or 0 wow to them and I understand why.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16175889
> 
> 
> Yes, I do.



Okay. I was pretty sure you knew what you were saying and just felt a need to vent about the inconsistency of even brand new releases. I've been watching that inconsistency continue from the LD days (that inconsistency is about the only constant in the video market!) and done my share of banging my head against the wall about releases that had no business being as mediocre as they were.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/16175977
> 
> 
> Okay. I was pretty sure you knew what you were saying and just felt a need to vent about the inconsistency of even brand new releases. I've been watching that inconsistency continue from the LD days (that inconsistency is about the only constant in the video market!) and done my share of banging my head against the wall about releases that had no business being as mediocre as they were.



We are on the same page.







, but I am glad you were pretty sure what I was saying, because sometimes I may not be communicating correctly what I am trying to say.

















I am torn tonight between watching Seven Pounds and Slumdog. Remember just a few months back there wasn't as many new BD releases on Tuesdays as there are now, so now we actually can have choices.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/16168479
> 
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Likewise, naturally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha ha ha! As I read through your post, he's the one who was on my mind- missing! I've always liked to say "I can name you 10 Kurosawa movies I could make a solid argument are the 10 best movies ever made... if it weren't for 10 of his other movies."
> 
> 
> Since you can't stop me indulging myself, here's my top 20:
> 
> 
> Atame!
> 
> Blade Runner
> 
> Blue Velvet
> 
> Chinatown
> 
> Citizen Kane
> 
> Das Boot
> 
> 8 ½
> 
> La Grande Illusion
> 
> Hua Yeung Nin Wa
> 
> Lawrence of Arabia
> 
> Pasqualino Settebellezze
> 
> Raging Bull
> 
> Rashomon
> 
> Rear Window
> 
> Singin' In the Rain
> 
> The Third Man
> 
> 2001: A Space Odyssey
> 
> Vertigo
> 
> Walkabout
> 
> The Wild Bunch
> 
> 
> And pretty much everything you've mentioned which isn't in my top 20 is in my top 50.



Nice!


We have similar taste. The only one that would seem a bit out of place to me is Blue Velvet.


Kurosawa is amazing. So many great movies. I would have a hard time picking a movie of his that I didn't like (there is probably only one or two). My favorite Kurosawa films are Ran and Throne of Blood. But obviously Rashomon is fantastic, as is Seven Samarai, etc etc etc!


Good to see a good representation of Hitchcock on your list as well. I've got a Vertigo poster in my HT.











Walkabout is an interesting film, beautifully shot by Nick Roeg....who also happened to be pretty good friends with David Lean (Roeg worked on Lawrence of Arabia).


I have not seen Hua Yeung Nin Wa or Pasqualino Settebellezze, so I will add those to my Netflix queue.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Moonraker*


recommendation: *Tier 2.25*

One of the less heralded entries in the James Bond franchise, MGM in conjunction with Twentieth Century Fox released this 1979 movie onto Blu-ray last week. The 126-minute film is encoded in AVC on a BD-50. BDInfo scan reveals the average video bitrate to be 22.01 Mbps, which dovetails nicely with the listed bitrate on the packaging at 22 Mbps.


Having seen most of the older Bond titles now on Blu-ray, this disc has the best picture quality of the lot in my estimation, not counting one significant problem that might bother more discerning videophiles. In general I have been a big fan of the restorations Lowry Digital Images has performed on the Bond titles. But not in this case, as _Moonraker_ simply does not look like film at all. The transfer has been heavily processed with digital noise reduction to remove any trace of grain. The grain is not smeared or shifting in appearance, it simply has disappeared completely without a trace. For those who prefer a grain-free Blu-ray experience, this is your transfer. The 4K master looks in perfect shape otherwise with zero defects or flaws. There are no speckles, marks, or artifacts that are ever visible. A hint of edge enhancement does manifest occasionally but it is neither bothersome or intrusive for the most part.


The image is very impressive in most aspects. Contrast is perfect with nicely rendered flesh tones. The varied international locales are surprising colorful. Nice splashes of reds and greens show up and look great with excellent tonality. Lowry did a phenomenal job on the color timing of this transfer. Darker scenes demonstrate impressive shadow delineation and superb black levels. Softness is never an issue except for some quick visual effects at the end of the movie. The sharpness of the picture translates to an image with wonderful dimensionality for an older film. In terms of pop it probably deserves a ranking somewhere in tier one. This is a beautifully lensed film with many spectacular shots, such as the shots of Rio de Janeiro.


It appears the digital noise reduction has had an impact on the amount of visible high-frequency information. Facial detail is relatively poor and a comparison to Patton's transfer could be made in this regard. Skin textures look dull at times with little of the finest details evident in the better-ranked titles. The compression encode is credited to Deluxe Digital Studios. The video bitrate rarely leaves a narrow band from 18.7 to 24.5 Mbps, though a couple of scenes peak at 34.1 Mbps. For an encode with relatively low parameters, no compression problems arise throughout the movie. If anything I would say the clean-looking encode's low average is a reflection of the grain being stripped from the picture.


Many others will probably view this title and see a beautifully clean image that deserves a higher ranking. Without the serious amount of grain removal, I would have no problem recommending this Blu-ray for tier 1.5. But the concurrent loss of detail forces me to recommend a placement in tier 2.25. In many ways this is the best Bond title I have seen yet on Blu-ray, but one should go into viewing it knowing what to expect.


BDInfo Scan (courtesy of eric.exe):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...0#post16082330


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16176525
> 
> 
> The only one that would seem a bit out of place to me is Blue Velvet.



Not a fan, eh? Blue Velvet gets bonus points from me for pushing some of my particular buttons.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16176525
> 
> 
> My favorite Kurosawa films are Ran and Throne of Blood. But obviously Rashomon is fantastic, as is Seven Samarai, etc etc etc!



Top-shelf for me are Yojimbo and Ikiru, but man, it's tough to go wrong.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16176525
> 
> 
> Good to see a good representation of Hitchcock on your list as well.



Thanks. I have to keep myself in check with guys like Kurosawa, Hitchcock and Scorsese, as my list isn't quite a _pure_ one- it's a little bit tempered to try to give a broad reflection of my interests. Basically, I don't want to have, say, five movies by a single filmmaker on there because that would get a little myopic.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16176525
> 
> 
> I've got a Vertigo poster in my HT.



This love-fest is getting a little sickening, but that's the stuff! Saul Bass is untouchable.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16176525
> 
> 
> Walkabout is an interesting film, beautifully shot by Nick Roeg...



Can you imagine how incredible the Criterion BD will look? I've never been a big fan of the rest of Roeg's product, but Walkabout has that visceral-poetry quality that comes from both amazing cinema vocabulary _and_ grammar. I'm sure I'm sounding like a real pretentious twit right now, but do you know what I mean? It's very Kubrickian, really.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16176525
> 
> 
> I have not seen Hua Yeung Nin Wa or Pasqualino Settebellezze, so I will add those to my Netflix queue.



Excellent! I'm always happiest when I can help connect a cool person and some cool art. Enjoy. Have you ever seen any other Wong Kar-Wai or Lina Wertmuller? I think you'll like and grok them both.




/cinemasturbation


We now return you to your regularly-scheduled eye-candy debates.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/16126546
> 
> 
> I will go with 1.75 for *Twilight*.
> 
> 
> It was not just the faces that lacked detail. I didn't see any impressive detail anywhere. I think this is attributable to the heavy concentration of effects and the need to cover up the difference between effects and real shots.
> 
> 
> As to the movie itself, I enjoyed it quite a bit. G3, I think you are being too hard on this movie. I completely agree with you about HSM3, but I thought this movie worked quite well, for what it was of course.


*Twilight*


Yes... *1.75* seems about right. Though I disagree with not seeing "impressive detail". I think it's just our difference in the use of the word. The detail was impressive, but relative to Tier 1 and Tier 0 titles, it didnt have that extra fine detail... in other words, we've been spoiled with titles that are just more impressive










This was a pretty decent movie, it just didnt live up to the 5-million-copies-sold hype ... but I didnt expect it to, so I came out of it thinking it was good instead of OMG I gotta like totally go back in time and wait in line at Best Buy for midnight sale.... it was definitely no Interview With the Vampire or Let the Right one In.... or Night Watch... or...etc







I may buy it when it goes on sale though....


----------



## happy hopping




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16154722
> 
> *Quantum of Solace*
> 
> 
> This is a fantastic looking title! There is very little to complain about here. What I really like about the PQ quality of this title is that it is _consistently_ great. So many titles vary so much from scene to scene. I did not find that to be the case here.
> 
> 
> The one place where I really thought Quantum stood out above many others is regarding minute details on scenes that were shot from a long distance. For example, one scene looking down at people walking in the street/mall was very impressive in terms of detail, even though the people were extremely small on the screen.
> 
> 
> Overall a fantastic looking title that falls just short of the best of the best in Tier 0.
> 
> 
> As for the movie itself: definitely a bit of a letdown. Casino Royale was much better.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.0*



in terms of resolution, do you think the res. is 19x10?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jrcorwin* /forum/post/16166850
> 
> *South Pacific*
> 
> 
> I was very much looking forward to this one and it did not disappoint. I was sold from the first shot from outside the cockpit. Incredible detail without any EE that I could see whatsoever. I'm not yet ready to judge the application of any DNR. Facial detail seemed to be excellent, but I was honestly distracted by the spot on color reproduction and georgous detail at every single turn. The visuals were astounding...the uniforms, the sand, and the vegitation included. Fine detail was present in the wood grain for structures and paint scrapes on metal surfaces. The inside of the cockpit at the beginning of the film is a perfect example. Skin tones did appear to be accurate as well. It had a much greater sense of depth than I had expected. I have no problem at all placing this above How The West Was Won. It was just that impressive. I'm sorry if I have left anything out that you would like to know. I've never reviewed one before...
> 
> 
> It sounded incredible as well by the way.
> 
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Low-Mid Tier 0*...above How The West Was Won
> 
> 
> Viewed on a 61" Samsung 1080p LED DLP at 8 ft.



Based on watching about two thirds of this last night, I am not seeing it as being Tier 0. Tier 1.0 or 1.25, perhaps, but not Tier 0. The sharpness in multi-character scenes like the opening musical number just didn't look like Tier 0 quality to me.


----------



## PooperScooper




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/16177050
> 
> *Moonraker*
> 
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 2.25*
> 
> One of the less heralded entries in the James Bond franchise, MGM in conjunction with Twentieth Century Fox released this 1979 movie onto Blu-ray last week. The 126-minute film is encoded in AVC on a BD-50. BDInfo scan reveals the average video bitrate to be 22.01 Mbps, which dovetails nicely with the listed bitrate on the packaging at 22 Mbps.
> 
> 
> Having seen most of the older Bond titles now on Blu-ray, this disc has the best picture quality of the lot in my estimation, not counting one significant problem that might bother more discerning videophiles. In general I have been a big fan of the restorations Lowry Digital Images has performed on the Bond titles. But not in this case, as _Moonraker_ simply does not look like film at all. The transfer has been heavily processed with digital noise reduction to remove any trace of grain. The grain is not smeared or shifting in appearance, it simply has disappeared completely without a trace. For those who prefer a grain-free Blu-ray experience, this is your transfer. The 4K master looks in perfect shape otherwise with zero defects or flaws. There are no speckles, marks, or artifacts that are ever visible. A hint of edge enhancement does manifest occasionally but it is neither bothersome or intrusive for the most part.
> 
> 
> The image is very impressive in most aspects. Contrast is perfect with nicely rendered flesh tones. The varied international locales are surprising colorful. Nice splashes of reds and greens show up and look great with excellent tonality. Lowry did a phenomenal job on the color timing of this transfer. Darker scenes demonstrate impressive shadow delineation and superb black levels. Softness is never an issue except for some quick visual effects at the end of the movie. The sharpness of the picture translates to an image with wonderful dimensionality for an older film. In terms of pop it probably deserves a ranking somewhere in tier one. This is a beautifully lensed film with many spectacular shots, such as the shots of Rio de Janeiro.
> 
> 
> It appears the digital noise reduction has had an impact on the amount of visible high-frequency information. Facial detail is relatively poor and a comparison to Patton's transfer could be made in this regard. Skin textures look dull at times with little of the finest details evident in the better-ranked titles. The compression encode is credited to Deluxe Digital Studios. The video bitrate rarely leaves a narrow band from 18.7 to 24.5 Mbps, though a couple of scenes peak at 34.1 Mbps. For an encode with relatively low parameters, no compression problems arise throughout the movie. If anything I would say the clean-looking encode's low average is a reflection of the grain being stripped from the picture.
> 
> 
> Many others will probably view this title and see a beautifully clean image that deserves a higher ranking. Without the serious amount of grain removal, I would have no problem recommending this Blu-ray for tier 1.5. But the concurrent loss of detail forces me to recommend a placement in tier 2.25. In many ways this is the best Bond title I have seen yet on Blu-ray, but one should go into viewing it knowing what to expect.
> 
> 
> BDInfo Scan (courtesy of eric.exe):
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...0#post16082330



Interesting observations. I disagree, but it's subjective. I've seen Dr. No recently which is the better than Moonraker, Thunderball, and another I can't remember.







The last 2 were too long ago for me to remember details. But, Moonraker was inconsistent. Flesh tones look horrible some times. Colors were way to "vibrant" and unrealistic at times and DNR was too heavy. I guess it all depends on what one's criteria is for a good transfer. (Dr. No was an incredible transfer for a movie from 1962).


larry


----------



## mpgxsvcd

*Chris Botti Live in Boston* – 1920x1080(1080p @ 24 FPS) – 7.1 24 Bit DD-THD and PCM


recommendation: Bottom of *Tier 0*

The sound quality of this disc really is as good as it gets. However, the picture quality is almost as impressive. This disc is true 1080p at 24 FPS. Botti’s first disc was 1080i and had some pretty bad artifacts.


The Botti live in Boston Blu-ray has very clean well lit shots of the singers, musicians, and even some neat shots of the audience. In one of the shots of sting from behind you can actually see the teleprompter he is using just in case he forgets the lyrics. You can almost read the words on the teleprompter even though it is the back of the theatre!


It also helps that they have some very attractive artists in full 1080p. Katherine Mcphee has lost a lot of weight and looked tremendous in that black dress. My wife also thought Sting and John Mayor were great eye candy.


Overall the audio and picture quality are so outstanding that I consider this the absolute best reference Blu-ray in existence. Better than Bolt, Kung Fu Panda, Baraka, and Divertimenti for the overall experience! The content is outstanding, the audio quality is second to none, and the video quality is on par with the other reference titles. What more could you want?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/16177148
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to keep myself in check with guys like Kurosawa, Hitchcock and Scorsese, as my list isn't quite a _pure_ one- it's a little bit tempered to try to give a broad reflection of my interests. Basically, I don't want to have, say, five movies by a single filmmaker on there because that would get a little myopic.



Exactly. My list is takes this into consideration as well.


This really is getting scary though. Hitchcock, Kurosawa, Scorsese (and thank you for spelling his name right







) and David Lean are my favorite directors.





> Quote:
> This love-fest is getting a little sickening, but that's the stuff! Saul Bass is untouchable.



I'm waiting for someone to tell us to get a room!


Saul Bass: what an artist this man was! Still nobody better. He did title sequences on several of Scorsese's movies as well, including Cape Fear and Casino (both are extremely impressive imo).


I can't help but wonder how many people reading our posts think we are crazy for actually discussing who the best title sequence designer is!













> Quote:
> /cinemasturbation


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16179529
> 
> 
> I can't help but wonder how many people reading our posts think we are crazy for actually discussing who the best title sequence designer is!



We've known you were crazy for a while now. This is nothing new


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16179529
> 
> 
> I can't help but wonder how many people reading our posts think we are crazy for actually discussing who the best title sequence designer is!



Sure beats debating the show-off-ability of _Transformers_, though, don't it?


Any time you wanna do a round on cinematographers, editors or production designers, just say the word.


----------



## audiomagnate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moematthews* /forum/post/16172633
> 
> 
> Reading this made me remember that "Mutiny on the Bounty" (late 60s version with Trevor Howard and Marlon Brando) looked absolutely incredible on HD DVD. The colour was unlike anything I've seen since. It's what "Speed Racer" would look like if it were more realistic.
> 
> 
> Is there a Blu-ray version, and has anyone seen it?



FWIW, I have it on Laser Disc and it looks fantastic.


----------



## SuprSlow

Partial Update:


# Dark City - was Tier 2.5 - moved to 2.75

# The Who at Kilborne - placed 4.5

# The Invisible - placed 3.0

# Mirrors - placed 3.75

# Into the Wild - placed 1.25

# Grindhouse: Planet Terror (scratched) - placed 4.0

# Office Space - placed 3.25

# I Know What You Did Last Summer - placed 3.0

# Crank - was 1.0 - moved to 1.25

# King of New York - placed 2.5

# Donnie Darko - placed 3.75

# Vexille - placed bot Tier 0

# Bourne Identity - remains 2.0

# Serenity - placed 2.5

# From Russia With Love - placed 1.75

# The Warriors - was 1.5 - down to 1.75

# Ironman - remains 1.75

# American Psycho - remains 3.25

# Vicky Christina Barcelona - placed 4.5

# Shoot 'em Up - was Tier 0 - down to 1.0

# How the West Was Won - was Tier 0 - down to 1.0

# The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor - was 1.25 - down to 1.75

# Zach and Miri Make a Porno - placed 2.5

# Clerks 2 - placed 2.75

# Doomsday - was Tier 0 - down to 1.25

# The Patriot - remains 1.25

# POTC 2 - moved to mid Tier 0

# POTC 3 - moved to mid Tier 0

# Pan's - currently Tier 1.5 - remains

# Casino - was 1.0 - down to 2.25

# KB 1 - was bot Tier 0 - down to 1.25

# Caspian - remains lower Tier 0

# Planet Earth (UK) - Tier 1.0 (gaffer74) - holdings

# Revolver - remains 1.25 (see previous placements)

# Mr. and Mrs. Smith - was 1.5 - down to 2.0

# Traitor - was 1.75 - down to 2.0

# Little Miss Sunshine - placed 2.0

# U-571 - placed 1.25

# Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist - placed 2.5

# Apocalypto - remains 1.0

# Across the Universe - was 2.25 - up to 2.0

# W. - placed 1.75

# Sideways - placed 3.75

# Curse of the Golden Flower - was 1.25 - down to 1.75

# Raging Bull - placed 3.0

# Groundhog Day - placed 3.5

# Madagascar 2 - placed 1.0

# Domino - placed mid Tier 0

# Nights in Rodanthe - placed 2.0

# Get Smart - was 2.5 - up to 2.25

# Mr. Brooks - was 1.0 - down to 1.25

# KB 2 - was bot Tier 0 - down to 1.


More to come...


----------



## mpgxsvcd

I am surprised Bolt is not listed yet. Wasn't it pretty much universally listed as reference for video? I personally liked Panda better for video quality but I still think it is top 3 for video.


----------



## OldCodger73

The PQ in this film varies widely. The sharpness and detail in some scenes are at low Tier 0, in other Tier 4. Color is again a mixed bag, ranging from outstanding to whoops. Some of the wide vista outdoor scenes look like they might have been shot when Bombay was experiencing extreme smog/haze.


Overall, in my mind, the good scenes outweigh the less than stellar ones and raises this above the average Tier 3 BD. In particular, near the end where the girl is waiting by herself at the train station, the detail, depth and vivid color almost makes the picture jump off the screen. I think the movie is a solid Tier 2 and while I may be a little too generous, I would rate *Slumdog Millionaire Tier 2.25*.


In my setup, the surround sound was very aggressive, at time almost overpowering the center channel. Some of the music had strong LFE.


Initially I found the movie confusing and hard to get into. However, once the two plot lines started to become clear it became pretty engrossing. I would probably rate it at a 3.75 on a 5 scale.

_Slumdog Millionaire_ is the only one of the Academy Award nominees that I've watched, so I can't compare it to the others. It does seem to me, though, that the other nominees were of a more serious nature. Given the mess we're now in, perhaps what audiences and Award voters were looking for was feel-good experiece, thus explaining _Slumdog Millionaire's_ popularity.


We're all aware that as time has passed, some Academy Award winners have languished in popularity while some of the movies that were beaten out by the winners are now considered masterpieces. Only time will tell in which category _Slumdog Millionaire_ will fall.


Panasonic 50" 720p plasma, Panasonic 10a player, 7 1/2'


----------



## lgans316

Thanks SuprSlow for coming up with the partial update. Take care buddy.


----------



## Hughmc

*Slumdog Millionaire:*


I have to agree with the other reviews of Slumdog. I think the other review recommendations, like Old COdgers, covered the bases on how this title looks, so I don't have anything to add. I also agree with his placement.



I enjoyed this movie, but I was expecting way more with the awards it won and the hype. IMO there were a lot of movies I had seen in the last year that were far better.


What really stood out to me was the soundtrack. There would be reasonably quiet, low volume scenes that would be interrupted by booming and extremely intense LFE that would shake the house.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Awesome work like always Super!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/16181673
> 
> 
> Sure beats debating the show-off-ability of _Transformers_, though, don't it?



Indeed. But again, if I am going to watch something like Transformers, it damn well better look and sound fantastic in order to make up for other (not so minor) shortcomings!



> Quote:
> Any time you wanna do a round on cinematographers, editors or production designers, just say the word.



Freddie Young, Gordon Willis, Conrad Hall, Gregg Toland, Roger Deakins, Michael Chapman, Janusz Kaminski, Thomas Mauch and Robbie Muller are a few of my favorite DP's.


As for editors, I'll just mention my favorite to keep it short: Thelma Schoonmaker!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/16181635
> 
> 
> We've known you were crazy for a while now. This is nothing new



....and I just proved it again!


----------



## SuprSlow

I misplaced Office Space in Tier 2.75, it will be shown in Tier 3.25 when I update the OP.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/16184822
> 
> 
> I misplaced Office Space in Tier 2.75, it will be shown in Tier 3.25 when I update the OP.




hehe good. It's nowhere near 2.75!!










(my rec was for 4.00







)


----------



## tfoltz

The reviews have been pretty far apart with placement recommendations, and anything but a "reference" slam dunk.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mpgxsvcd* /forum/post/16182748
> 
> 
> I am surprised Bolt is not listed yet. Wasn't it pretty much universally listed as reference for video? I personally liked Panda better for video quality but I still think it is top 3 for video.


----------



## SuprSlow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16185629
> 
> 
> hehe good. It's nowhere near 2.75!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (my rec was for 4.00
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )



Yeah, for some reason I had it listed twice in my "update list". The first rec. was for 2.75. Yours was next @ 4.0, which I didn't see until I started working on the list last night.


I guess that's what I get for hurrying


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/16187174
> 
> 
> I guess that's what I get for hurrying



Not sure if you noticed it already, but you missed a closing bracket for the size tag on the specs for Vicky Cristina Barcelona.
Code:


Code:


Vicky Cristina Barcelona[size=1] Video: VC-1 | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.85:1 | Weinstein [/size

EDIT: And Revolver is in the list twice - at 1.25 and 2.25.


Thanks again for all the hard work!


----------



## SuprSlow

Another partial update:


# Transformers - was 1.25 - up to 1.0

# Gothika - placed 3.5

# WallE - stays current Tier 0

# Sweeney Todd - currently Tier 1.5

# Dirty Dancing - was 4.5 - up to 4.0

# Amadeus - placed 3.0

# Raging Bull - remains 3.0

# Firefly: The Complete Series - placed 2.75

# KB 1 - down to 1.25

# 30 Days of Night - was 2.0 - up to 1.5

# The Pelican Brief - placed 3.0

# Rendition (UK) - was upper Tier 0 - moved to 1.0

# Blood and Chocolate - placed 2.0

# Mad Men: Season 1 - was Tier 0 - moved to 1.5

# The Moody Blues Live - was 1.0 - moved to 1.25

# Quarantine - placed 3.75

# Body of Lies - placed 2.0

# HSM3 - placed 4.0

# The Secret Life of Bees - placed 1.0

# Dog Day Afternoon - was 2.25 - moved to 2.5

# Changeling - placed 2.0

# The Pink Panther (1964) - placed 3.5

# Transsiberian - was 1.75 - moved to 2.0

# Chocolate - placed 3.5

# Passion of the Christ - placed 2.0

# Ghandi - placed 2.25

# Eagle Eye - remains 1.5 (past placements)

# Baraka - remains current Tier 0

# Man on Fire - remains current Tier 0

# In Cold Blood - placed 2.5

# Fearless - was 2.75 - up to 2.25

# Boondock Saints - placed 3.0


Also, I revised the placement for KB1, moved POTC back to their original positions, and bumped Vicky Cristina up a few tiers. I missed a few comments/placements for these titles, they have been changed accordingly.


Thanks for pointing that out Cinema


----------



## LBFilmGuy

What's the reason for VCB moved up to 3.75?


I recommended 4.5 and moe agreed with that. I remember maybe one other person recommending 3.5 but I can't find it.


----------



## SuprSlow

OldCodger placed it at 3.25.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post15905265 


I missed moe's comment. I'll move it down to 4.0


----------



## LBFilmGuy









There it is.


Thanks again Supr.


----------



## Hughmc

*Seven Pounds:*


Another Will Smith film and another tier 0 BD, well almost...


Seven Pounds looks excellent with a lot of really good tier 0 facial closeups that are some of the best I have seen. Detail and sharpness are excellent and blacks levels are really good as is contrast. Colors overall are natural and well saturated with some push at times to yellow. Skin tones did have a bit of a grey or dull look at times. Film grain is slight and barely noticeable, but there is enough to make it a natural film like presentation.


I really liked the look of this movie overall and when it started I was immediately thinking tier 0, but as it progressed there were some issues like some scenes/shots had some loss of detail.


I am going to watch this again, but as of now I am thinking this could go in tier 1.0 and at worst tier 1.5. I will split the difference.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Speaking of Will Smith, I would like see more people re-visit I, Robot...my recommendation doesn't seem to be enough to move it down a bit.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Punisher: War Zone*


Here is another title that varies greatly in its PQ. Detail and clarity is very good overall. There is little use of color. Shadow detail, black levels and contrast are generally good, but there are exceptions.


The most bothersome thing about this title is several scenes where the contrast is really cranked, and the picture takes on a very digital look. This certainly does not happen through the entire movie, but there are several scenes that exhibit this. Without these issues I might reco Tier 1.75, but with them, I have to go with 2.0.


As for the movie itself, I haven't seen this much over the top violence since Kill Bill! Pretty forgettable movie, with more cliches than I could keep track of.
*

Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Quarantine*


Yet another film with one of the actors holding the camera that gives us our view of what happens. This immediately reminded my of Cloverfield.


I really hate these films. Why? It isn't that it causes the PQ to be "bad". It's the fact that the directors apparently believe that anyone hand-holding a camera will never hold it still! As a result, we get constant blurred, dizzying camera shots.


What's worse with Quarantine is the fact that the guy holding the camera is supposedly from a News crew. I.e., he is a professional, yet he can't hold the camera still to save his life (and I am talking about scenes before any of the "action" starts).


Anyway, with that off my chest, the PQ, as expected, isn't very good as it is intentionally given a look of being shot for television. As a result, clarity, detail, sharpness, contrast and color all suffer. It isn't a bad looking BD though....and the sound quality is actually fantastic!
*

Tier Recommendation: 3.75*


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/16193003
> 
> 
> Speaking of Will Smith, I would like see more people re-visit I, Robot...my recommendation doesn't seem to be enough to move it down a bit.



I bought this a couple of months ago. I thought its placement was ok. I see your recommendation LB for middle of tier 0 and I don't have a problem with it as the move is slight and still gives i robot an excellent placement which IMO it deserves. I would really have to rewatch it and the two top rated POTC BD's as they are positioned next to each other and I thought had a similar look, but the line is so fine at those levels.

















I don't believe I reviewed and or recommended it for placement.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Pineapple Express


recommendation: Tier 2.50
*

A comedy from Sony released early in the year, the picture quality is slightly above-average with no major deficiencies. Two versions of the movie are provided via seamless branching on one BD-50. For the purposes of this recommendation I watched the extended cut, which runs 117-minutes. The average video bitrate is 20.47 Mbps. While the compression encode looks solid, close scrutiny revealed just a bit of minor noise in a few scenes. To a casual viewer it should not appear noticeable in this regard.


The digital intermediate used as the basis of this transfer to Blu-ray looks in flawless shape. Digital noise reduction does not appear to have been used as the transfer looks film-like and true to its source material. Edge enhancement is a problem though, as halos are notable in several different scenes.


Picture quality is relatively consistent with nice contrast and detail. Black levels were decent aside from two instances of brief clipping that crushed shadow detail. This is not demo material but perfectly serviceable for the genre.


Watching on a 60" Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 (firmware 2.70) at a viewing distance of six feet.


BDInfo Scan (courtesy of eric.exe):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...6#post15435956


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16193132
> 
> *Punisher: War Zone*
> 
> 
> Here is another title that varies greatly in its PQ. Detail and clarity is very good overall. There is little use of color. Shadow detail, black levels and contrast are generally good, but there are exceptions.
> 
> 
> The most bothersome thing about this title is several scenes where the contrast is really cranked, and the picture takes on a very digital look. This certainly does not happen through the entire movie, but there are several scenes that exhibit this. Without these issues I might reco Tier 1.75, but with them, I have to go with 2.0.
> 
> 
> As for the movie itself, I haven't seen this much over the top violence since Kill Bill! Pretty forgettable movie, with more cliches than I could keep track of.
> *
> 
> Tier Recommendation: 2.0*



Nice review Rob. I know I was a bit generous on this title. Considering I didn't care for it and disliked the actor especially in comparison to Jane, I am a bit surprised I was that generous, but I am not too far off yours Rob.







As far as the violence you mentioned have you already forgotten Midnight Meat Train







or did you just mean the over the top violence due to a different genre?


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/16193260
> 
> *Pineapple Express
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 2.50
> *
> 
> A comedy from Sony released early in the year, the picture quality is slightly above-average with no major deficiencies. Two versions of the movie are provided via seamless branching on one BD-50. For the purposes of this recommendation I watched the extended cut, which runs 117-minutes. The average video bitrate is 20.47 Mbps. While the compression encode looks solid, close scrutiny revealed just a bit of minor noise in a few scenes. To a casual viewer it should not appear noticeable in this regard.
> 
> 
> The digital intermediate used as the basis of this transfer to Blu-ray looks in flawless shape. Digital noise reduction does not appear to have been used as the transfer looks film-like and true to its source material. Edge enhancement is a problem though, as halos are notable in several different scenes.
> 
> 
> Picture quality is relatively consistent with nice contrast and detail. Black levels were decent aside from two instances of brief clipping that crushed shadow detail. This is not demo material but perfectly serviceable for the genre.
> 
> 
> Watching on a 60" Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 (firmware 2.70) at a viewing distance of six feet.
> 
> 
> BDInfo Scan (courtesy of eric.exe):
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...6#post15435956



Another good review Phantom. I always like to look back to see what I recommended and see how close or far off I am from others.


Well, I made mention of going to watch it in a post back in Jan., but, um, uh, I forgot to recommend placement on the stoner film.














That in itself is comical.


There are two I have watched and haven't recommended placement on, PE and i robot. I think there were several others from last year as well. Too many movies....which is a good thing.







I now have a rewatch list.


----------



## moematthews




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/16193003
> 
> 
> Speaking of Will Smith, I would like see more people re-visit I, Robot...my recommendation doesn't seem to be enough to move it down a bit.



I would support moving it down a bit. It was one of the free BDs that came with my player, but I didn't watch it right away - because I really can't stand the few Will Smith movies that I've seen. It was only after I had rented a few disappointing titles and saw its Tier 0 placement here that I thought I should give it a look to see if there was something wrong with my player.


Make no mistake - it's a great looking title, but it's not quite as good as the best I've seen. I've only watched it once, but my recollection would support moving it down to some degree within Tier 0.


----------



## moematthews




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/16192574
> 
> 
> What's the reason for VCB moved up to 3.75?
> 
> 
> I recommended 4.5 and moe agreed with that. I remember maybe one other person recommending 3.5 but I can't find it.



I know the feeling about professional reviews here, but I had to pick my jaw up off the floor when I read that Sound & Vision just gave Vicky Cristina Barcelona a "Reference" rating with a 4.5 stars out of 5 for PQ.


I will never understand this stuff. The yellowish tint that I feel washed out contrast and colour accuracy was said to be "the glow of warm sunlight" and the colours were described as beautiful and vibrant. The scene where they are watching the guitarist in the garden was described as being "full of detail". The whole movie looked soft and flat to me, and the placement we've given it here is correct.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moematthews* /forum/post/16193486
> 
> 
> 
> Make no mistake - it's a great looking title, but it's not quite as good as the best I've seen. I've only watched it once, but my recollection would support moving it down to some degree within Tier 0.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moematthews* /forum/post/16193510
> 
> 
> I know the feeling about professional reviews here, but I had to pick my jaw up off the floor when I read that Sound & Vision just gave Vicky Cristina Barcelona a "Reference" rating with a 4.5 stars out of 5 for PQ.
> 
> 
> I will never understand this stuff. The yellowish tint that I feel washed out contrast and colour accuracy was said to be "the glow of warm sunlight" and the colours were described as beautiful and vibrant. The scene where they are watching the guitarist in the garden was described as being "full of detail". The whole movie looked soft and flat to me, and the placement we've given it here is correct.



Completely agree with both of these posts.


Like I said in my review of VCB, I referred to HDD's review of it (4.5 out of 5 as well IIRC) and I simply couldn't believe it.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Swing Vote*


Another very good looking title with some exceptions. Detail and clarity are usually very good. The most bothersome thing about this title to me was the fact that there are many scenes that have blown out highlights. Other than that, contrast was usually good.


The movie was an overall disappointment, though there are some funny scenes. I liked how the parties were doing whatever it took to get the "swing vote", such as Democrats becoming the "pro life party" and the Republicans becoming the "environmental party".

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


----------



## 42041

*Let the Right One In*

I really enjoyed this movie, but it's not really the kind of film that lends itself to eye candy. There's nothing wrong with this transfer except that it's not as sharp or detailed as the best looking blu-rays. Contrast is where it should be, no bothersome halos noted, grain is preserved and rendered without compression issues. Nothing wowed me, but nothing was problematic enough to take me out of the movie, which is certainly a good thing in itself.
*Tier 2.5*

(PS3/Pioneer 50" 9g Kuro Elite/1sw distance)


----------



## JohnES1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TayC* /forum/post/16055272
> 
> *Pinocchio*
> 
> 
> This is one of the finest presentations of animation that I have seen on Blu-Ray. It's absolutely pristine. Not an ounce of dirt and grain is very minimal, yet the picture retains a very sharp and detailed look throughout. Colors and contrast didn't waver throughout the presentation and were appropriate for every scene. Blacks weren't _quite_ as deep as I like to see, but still good. Still, I think the picture has a lot more depth than Sleeping Beauty, which looked rather flat to me. This is mostly due to the techniques they used during filming that created a realistic depth of field, and it looks pleasing to the eye on BD.
> 
> 
> In my opinion, there's only one thing that keeps Pinocchio from Tier 0 and it's the scene where the Coachman is transporting the children to Pleasure Island. The image suddenly appears flatter and the colors looked 'smudged.' I don't know how else to describe it. It's as if the characters suddenly lost their edges and started to look more like South Park cut-out characters, but more blurry. The issue is not as extreme as I've described it, but it was enough of a problem for it to jump out at me and keep the title from Blu ranking.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.0
> *
> 
> Panasonic 42PX80u, 5 feet



Get this honey listed asap, 1.0 or so will do for now. Blue fairy wells up the eyes everytime she appears, and the final work shop scene is full tilt ablaze. Gave me hope for what can be done with old stock.


----------



## moematthews

^^^^^^


Absolutely agreed. It looks astonishingly good, and it is just such a different movie than any of the "modern" ones for kids. A stunning achievement in every respect.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moematthews* /forum/post/16193486
> 
> 
> I would support moving it down a bit. It was one of the free BDs that came with my player, but I didn't watch it right away - because I really can't stand the few Will Smith movies that I've seen. It was only after I had rented a few disappointing titles and saw its Tier 0 placement here that I thought I should give it a look to see if there was something wrong with my player.
> 
> 
> Make no mistake - it's a great looking title, but it's not quite as good as the best I've seen. I've only watched it once, but my recollection would support moving it down to some degree within Tier 0.



I disagree. I have recently watched _I, Robot_ and still believe it holds its own where it's currently placed. The only problem areas are the ones found in the "junk yard" where the older robots were housed. Outside of those minute scenes, it's a natural looking film with lots of sharpness, excellent black levels, and bold contrast.


I can't think of a more consistently top-tier, "non-animated" title out there.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16200985
> 
> 
> I disagree. I have recently watched _I, Robot_ and still believe it holds its own where it's currently placed. The only problem areas are the ones found in the "junk yard" where the older robots were housed. Outside of those minute scenes, it's a natural looking film with lots of sharpness, excellent black levels, and bold contrast.
> 
> 
> I can't think of a more consistently top-tier, "non-animated" title out there.



The CGI is one of the main things that detracted from the PQ for me.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/16204148
> 
> 
> The CGI is one of the main things that detracted from the PQ for me.



I don't remember it bothering me, aside perhaps from their movements. I'll have to revisit.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*Bolt*


I don't really have time to do a proper review and I'm sorry for that guys. But when I watched it I could understand the difficulty some people have had with the thought of it being tier 0. It was kind of wishy-washy for me; there would be detail, then there'd be a lack.



For me it ended up looking like a really nice cartoon. It didn't wow me at all, like other movies have. Sorry for not elaborating further, I just didn't want to say NOTHING about it!

*Recommendation for Bolt: Tier 1.75*
*equipment: ps3 to panny 58pz800u, approx 7.5'.*


----------



## deltasun

*Marley & Me*


Fine looking title from Fox. Colors throughout were vibrant. Contrast was pushed a bit, but not enough to detract. I felt the skin tones were a bit on the hot side for most of the movie, but it may have been due to the contrast push. I also experienced a fair amount of 3D pop.


Facial details were above average, but not exceptional. Some close-up's gave the look of mild DNR, though fine grain was present. Some minor print dirt were also noticeable, but not enough to be bothersome.


Black levels were excellent and shadow details were very discernible. I also found the use of bokeh very very pleasing. One good example is when Ms. Aniston raises her necklace. It's in full focus, but the softness of the background helped emote the tenderness of the occassion. On the flip side, when depth of field was maximized, background details were crisp. Check out the fall foliage towards the end of the movie.


Overall, a very good looking title PQ-wise. I can see this being as high as 1.5. However, for conservatism sake, I'll vote it into...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## deltasun

*Thunderball*


After being wow'd by the other Bonds (_Dr. No, From Russia with Love, Goldfinger_), this was a bit of a disappointment. The first 30 minutes looked very poor in almost every category - contrast was horrible, details lacking, black levels washed out.


The PQ did improve as the movie went on (sometimes rather dramatically). While I've read that the underwater scenes hurt the story itself, I felt some of the underwater PQ was decent for an older title. Facial details improved as well.


Frozen grain was again evident on blue skies; so were a fair amount of print damage.


Unfortunately, the deficiencies I found are enough to drop this title...

*Tier Recommendation: 3.25*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16145188
> 
> *Goldfinger*
> 
> _Goldfinger_ started pretty strong with very good details in the aerial pass over Miami. Contrast was generally well-balanced and black levels gererally impressive. Facial details excelled as well on most scenes, specially close-up's. One scene in particular is where Bond sees a reflection of his attacker in the eyes of the woman he's kissing. The details betrayed individual strands of eyebrows that needed plucking.
> 
> 
> Now for some negatives. There was a segment around the 1hr mark that exhibited less than impressive scenes. Details were lost and contrast broke down a bit. Also, I noticed several instances of crushed blacks (in Geneva) as well as frozen grain (usually during sky shots - blue or overcast). It's as if there were in-focus scratches on the lens or filter. Not to nitpick too much, but the fake background scenes poolside in Miami were also a bit distracting. In fact, ringing usually occurred when characters were superimposed against these fake backgrounds. Perfect example for this is the side of Bond's face while in his Aston Martin in Geneva (35:40, 35:55 marks). I don't believe this is EE, but it may as well be.
> 
> 
> All in all, another impressive presentation, where scenes looked bold and detailed for the most part. Still, as impressive as _Goldfinger_ looked, I believe it had more problematic scenes than other Bond titles I've voted to 1.75.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.0*
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8' & 6'_



Just watched this... I would say the PQ varies a lot. I agree that the opening few minutes look really good. The fake backgrounds, however occur a lot and always look subpar


I don't know where the 1 hour mark was, but the most memorable bad scene to me was where they introduce the "laser".... the PQ, I would say dropped to Tier 5 at times. In general a lot of scenes where they were indoors looked only average, but outdoor daytime scenes shined.


I agree with the ringing... I saw it often throughout, but not only in scenes with fake backgrounds... I've seen it in a lot of recent Fox catalog titles lately... It's always on shoulders/arms in areas of high contrast. I see it when there's a blue sky background. I will say that I did not see it in every scene. I remember looking at the trees and looking between leaves/branches to see the sky -- you can usually see ringing in these type of scenes, but it wasnt there. I don't know.


I pretty much agree with your review, except for the final recommendation. I think there were too many moments of average PQ, with some really bad, though with a decent amount of very good.

*Tier Recommendation 2.75*


----------



## b_scott

has anyone gotten Old School? does it look good? It's onsale at Amazon.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/16207766
> 
> 
> has anyone gotten Old School? does it look good? It's onsale at Amazon.



I've not watched enough for a full review, but if I had to rate what I've seen so far, I'd rate it at the top of Tier 2. It looks pretty good and if you like the movie, worth the sale price.


----------



## b_scott

great, thanks!


----------



## babrown92




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16200985
> 
> 
> I disagree. I have recently watched _I, Robot_ and still believe it holds its own where it's currently placed. The only problem areas are the ones found in the "junk yard" where the older robots were housed. Outside of those minute scenes, it's a natural looking film with lots of sharpness, excellent black levels, and bold contrast.
> 
> 
> I can't think of a more consistently top-tier, "non-animated" title out there.




I agree. I Robot is still my favorite eye candy blu-ray. Everything about it just pops. If anything I would like to see it moved up, not down.


----------



## SuprSlow

Posted another partial update. I've added/moved another ~75 titles today, and I'm about cross-eyed, so the titles aren't formatted with links and info yet. I'll be away from the computer for most of tomorrow, but I should have some time in the afternoon. I'll get the rest of the titles (approx. 30) added and all the links formatted. I'll also post the complete title movements list, like usual.


Thanks for your patience


----------



## lgans316

Thanks SuprSlow for your efforts.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/16210242
> 
> 
> Thanks SuprSlow for your efforts.



+1


I've been gone for over 6 days so it's good to come home and to see all the work you've done SuprSlow.


----------



## deltasun

Yep, really really appreciate all the hard work, SuprSlow! Very excited to see the new placements!


----------



## Hughmc

thanks speedy gonzales, er I mean suprslow.







Really though thanks for taking the time and keeping up and putting up with us.


----------



## deltasun

*Seven Pounds*


Medium to fine grain present. Slight ringing appeared in a few edges - mostly around the shoulder areas of dark coats against a lighter (even out of focus) background. Colors were not only vibrant but the palette selection really set the tone for the movie. Black levels were very good - it had a wonderful enveloping effect, for example, during the dinner scene at the 1hr 27min mark. That and the excellent bokeh work really helped make that scene very intimate.


Superb facial close-up's was how we were introduced to the film. Will Smith's face was as detailed and textured as some of the best close-up's found in _I Am Legend_. However, I noticed that the other characters did not exhibit the same detail as Will Smith's (save for maybe one scene with Barry Pepper 36min mark). Also, even Will Smith's detailed facial close-up's waned a bit towards the end.


This is the second movie in a row (for me) to make extensive use of shallow depth of field techniques. The bokeh use was some of the best I've seen, but they also softened other scenes where the actors moved back & forth through the plane of focus. These were a bit distracting but occurred infrequently enough. I do stress _infrequently_.


Overall, a very good looking title worthy of a middle Gold Tier placement...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## SuprSlow

WE'RE CURRENT!


*Latest Placements:*


1. Dark City - was Tier 2.5 - moved to 2.75

2. The Who at Kilborne - placed 4.5

3. The Invisible - placed 3.0

4. Mirrors - placed 3.75

5. Into the Wild - placed 1.25

6. Grindhouse: Planet Terror (scratched) - placed 4.0

7. Office Space - placed 2.75

8. I Know What You Did Last Summer - placed 3.0

9. Crank - was 1.0 - moved to 1.25

10. King of New York - placed 2.5

11. Donnie Darko - placed 3.75

12. Vexille - placed bot Tier 0

13. Bourne Identity - remains 2.0

14. Serenity - placed 2.5

15. From Russia With Love - placed 1.75

16. The Warriors - down to 1.75

17. Ironman - remains 1.75

18. American Psycho - remains 3.25

19. Vicky Christina Barcelona - placed 3.75

20. Shoot 'em Up - was Tier 0 - down to 1.0

21. How the West Was Won - was Tier 0 - down to 1.0

22. The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor - was 1.25 - down to 1.75

23. Zach and Miri Make a Porno - placed 2.5

24. Clerks 2 - placed 2.75

25. Doomsday - was Tier 0 - down to 1.25

26. The Patriot - remains 1.25

27. POTC 2 - remains current position

28. POTC 3 - remains current position

29. Pan's - remains 1.5

30. Casino - was 1.0 - down to 2.25

31. Caspian - remains lower Tier 0

32. Planet Earth (UK) - Tier 1.0 (gaffer74) - holdings

33. Revolver - remains 1.25 (see previous placements)

34. Mr. and Mrs. Smith - was 1.5 - down to 2.0

35. Traitor - was 1.75 - down to 2.0

36. Little Miss Sunshine - placed 2.0

37. U-571 - placed 1.25

38. Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist - placed 2.5

39. Apocalypto - remains 1.0

40. Across the Universe - was 2.25 - up to 2.0

41. W - placed 1.75

42. Sideways - placed 3.75

43. Curse of the Golden Flower - was 1.25 - down to 1.75

44. Raging Bull - placed 3.0

45. Groundhog Day - placed 3.5

46. Madagascar 2 - placed 1.0

47. Domino - placed mid Tier 0

48. Nights in Rodanthe - placed 2.0

49. Get Smart - was 2.5 - up to 2.25

50. Mr. Brooks - was 1.0 - down to 1.25

51. KB 2 - was bot Tier 0 - down to 1.0

52. Transformers - was 1.25 - up to 1.0

53. Gothika - placed 3.5

54. WallE - currently bot Tier 0

55. Sweeney Todd - currently Tier 1.5

56. Dirty Dancing - was 4.5 - up to 4.0

57. Amadeus - placed 3.0

58. Raging Bull - remains 3.0

59. Firefly: The Complete Series - placed 3.0

60. KB 1 - was Tier 0 - down to 1.25

61. 30 Days of Night - was 2.0 - up to 1.5

62. The Pelican Brief - placed 3.0

63. Rendition (UK) - was upper Tier 0 - moved to 1.0

64. Blood and Chocolate - placed 2.0

65. Mad Men: Season 1 - was Tier 0 - moved to 1.5

66. The Moody Blues Live - was 1.0 - moved to 1.25

67. Quarantine - placed 3.75

68. Body of Lies - placed 2.0

69. HSM3 - placed 4.0

70. The Secret Life of Bees - placed 1.0

71. Dog Day Afternoon - was 2.25 - moved to 2.5

72. Changeling - placed 2.0

73. The Pink Panther (1963) - placed 3.5

74. Transsiberian - was 1.75 - moved to 2.0

75. Chocolate - placed 3.5

76. Passion of the Christ - placed 2.0

77. Ghandi - placed 2.25

78. Eagle Eye - remains 1.5 (past placements)

79. Baraka - remains current Tier 0

80. Man on Fire - remains current Tier 0

81. In Cold Blood - placed 2.5

82. Fearless - was 2.75 - up to 2.25

83. Boondock Saints - placed 3.0

84. Hellboy 2 - remains 1.25 (past placements)

85. H&K: Guantanamo - remains 2.0 (past placements)

86. Midnight Meat Train - placed 2.5

87. 30 Days of Night - remains 1.5

88. LFODH - remains current Tier 0

89. Becket - remains 4.5

90. Capote - placed 3.0

91. Battle of Britain - holdings

92. Kramer vs. Kramer - placed 2.5

93. Rescue Dawn - was Tier 0 - down to 1.25

94. A Time to Kill - placed 2.0

95. Rocky (1976) - was 4.0 - up to 3.75

96. Monster's Ball - placed 3.0

97. Ghost Town - was 1.25 - down to 1.5

98. Rocky Balboa - was 2.0 - down to 2.25

99. The Other Boleyn Girl - was 2.25 - up to 2.0

100. The French Connection - placed 4.0

101. 2001 - remains 1.75

103. Face/Off - remains 3.25

104. L.A. Confidential - was 2.0 - down to 2.25

105. Short Circuit - was 4.0 - down to 4.5

106. Beverly Hills Chihuahua - placed 1.0

107. The House Bunny - was 1.75 - down to 2.25

108. Becoming Jane - holdings

109. Robbie Williams: Live at the Albert (UK Import) - holdings

110. King Kong - placed 1.0

111. Dr. No - was 2.5 - up to 2.25

112. John Mayer - was 2.75 - up to 2.5

113. Police - was 2.5 - up to 2.25

114. Elton 60 - remains 1.75

115. What Just Happened - holdings

116. Miracle at St Anna - holdings

117. Bourne Supremacy - placed 1.5

118. Bourne Ultimatum - holdings

119. Leatherheads - was 1.0 - down to 1.25

120. Death Race - remains 1.5

121. Austrailia - holdings

122. Thunderball - placed 2.75

123. Zodiac - was 1.75 - down to 2.0

124. The Omen - placed 4.0

125. Burn After Reading - remains 2.0

126. Frozen River - placed 3.25

127. The Heartbreak Kid - placed 2.0

128. In the Electric Mist - holdings

129. Layer Cake - remains 2.5

130. JCVD - placed 3.75

131. Superbad - was 2.0 - down to 2.25

132. Eastern Promises - remains 1.25

133. Almost Famous (UK) - remains 3.0

134. Before the Devil Knows You're Dead - remains 2.0

135. Napoleon Dynamite -placed 2.75

136. I, Robot - remains current Tier 0

137. Blow - holdings

138. Highlander: The Source (German) - placed 3.5

139. Shawshank Redemption - was 2.75 - up to 2.5

140. Let the Right One In - placed 2.25

141. Transporter 3 - placed bot 1/3 Tier 0

142. The Princess Bride - placed 2.5

143. Appaloosa - remains 3.0

144. The Host - holdings

145. Forgetting Sarah Marshall - remains 3.0

146. Rush: Snakes and Arrows - placed 2.75

147. Pinocchio - placed 1.0

148. Lakeview Terrace - placed 2.25

149. Rent: Live on Broadway - placed 3.25

150. Grand Canyon Adventure: River at Risk - placed bot Tier 0

151. Milk - placed 2.5

152. Cadillac Records - placed 3.0

153. Chuck: Season 1 - placed 3.0

154. I've Loved You So Long - holdings

155. Igor - Tier 1.75 (rsbeck) - holdings

156. Rise: Blood Hunter (UK) - placed 2.25

157. Any Given Sunday - placed 3.0

158. Primal Fear - placed 3.75

159. Rachel Getting Married - placed 3.5

160. Brokeback Mountain - placed 2.5

161. Godfather - remains 2.75 (past placements)

162. Quantum of Solace - placed 1.0

163. Sleuth - was 2.25 - up to 2.0

164. RocknRolla - was 3.0 - up to 2.25

165. Street Kings - was 1.5 - up to 1.25

166. The Rundown - holdings

167. Punisher: War Zone - placed 1.75

168. Synecdoche New York - holdings

169. Bolt - placed bot 1/3 Tier 0

170. Twilight - placed 1.75

171. IMAX: Cosmic Voyage - holdings

172. Tekkon Kinkreet - was bot Tier 0 - down to 1.0

173. Kite Runner - placed 2.0

174. Chrysalis - holdings

175. The Man With the Golden Gun - holdings

176. Mamma Mia - remains 2.25 (past placements)

177. W - was 1.75 - up to 1.5

178. Goldfinger - placed 2.25

179. A Passage to India - holdings

180. Slumdog Millionaire - placed 2.25

181. South Pacific - holdings

182. Moonraker - placed 2.25

183. Chris Botti - currently 3.0 - holdings

184. Seven Pounds - placed 1.25

185. Pineapple Express - placed 2.5

186. Swing Vote - holdings

187. Marley & Me - holdings


____________________________________________________________ ______


*Holdings Update:*

New Holdings List:

*Spiderman 3* - middle Tier 0 (I) - Currently Tier 1.0
*Fantastic Four 2* - lower Tier 0 (I) - Currently Tier 1.25
*I've Loved You So Long* - Tier 1.75 (I) - Currently Unranked
*Robbie Williams: Live at the Albert (UK Import)* - Tier 1.0 - Currently Unranked
*Battle of Britain* - Tier 1.0 (I) - Currently Unranked
*Becoming Jane* - Tier 2.0 (I) - Currenlty mid Tier 0
*What Just Happened* - Tier 1.5 (I) - Currently Unranked
*Miracle at St. Anna* - Tier 1.75 (I) - Currently Unranked
*Bourne Ultimatum* - Tier 1.5 (I) - Currently Unranked
*Austrailia* - Tier 1.0 (I) // Tier 2.25 (I) - Currently Unranked
*In the Electric Mist* - Tier 1.75 (I) - Currently Unranked
*Blow* - Tier 3.75 (I) - Currently Tier 1.0
*The Host* - Tier 1.5 (I) - Currently Tier 0
*Igor* - Tier 1.75 (I) - Currently Unranked
*The Rundown* - Tier 1.5 (I) - Currently Unranked
*Synecdoche New York* - Tier 1.5 (I) - Currently Unranked
*IMAX: Cosmic Voyage* - Tier 1.75 (I) - Currently Unranked
*Chrysalis* - Tier 1.0 (I) - Currently Unranked
*The Man With the Golden Gun* - Tier 1.75 - Currently Unranked
*A Passage to India* - Tier 2.25 - Currently Tier 1.75
*South Pacific* - mid Tier 0 (I) // Tier 1.0 (I) - Currently Unranked
*Chris Botti* - bot Tier 0 (I) - Currently Tier 3.0
*Swing Vote* - Tier 1.75 (I) - Currently Unranked
*Marley & Me* - Tier 1.75 (I) - Currently Unranked


Removed from Holdings:

*Fearless* - moved from Holdings to 2.25
*The Patriot* - moved to 1.25
*Devil Wears Prada* - was 4.0 - up to 3.75
*AVP: Requiem* - was 2.0 - down to 2.25
*Man on Fire* - remains current Tier 0
*Clear and Present Danger* - remains current 2.75
*HP: Azkaban* - remains 1.75
*HP: Phoenix* - was 1.25 - down to 1.5
*Next Avengers: Heroes of Tomorrow* - moved from Holdings to Tier 1.75
*Friday Night Lights* - moved from Holdings to Tier 1.25
*King Kong* - moved from Holdings to 1.0
*First Sunday* - moved from Holdings to 1.0
*Max Payne* - moved from Holdings to 1.75
*The Express* - moved from Holdings to 1.75
*Scary Movie* - was 2.5 - down to 2.75
*Henry Poole is Here* - moved from Holdings to Tier 1.75
*3:10 to Yuma* - was 1.5 - moved to 1.75
*Pan's Labyrinth* - remains 1.5
*Silent Hill (German Import)* - moved from Holdings to 1.5
*Romancing The Stone* - moved from 2.75 to 2.5
*Seal: Soundstage* - moved from Holdings to Tier 1.5
*Bourne Supremacy* - moved from Holdings to Tier 1.5
*Prison Break: Season One* - was Tier 0 - moved to 1.25
*TMNT* - moved down in Tier 0
*Happy Feet* - moved to bottom of Tier 0 along with Import version for time being


----------



## lgans316

Suprslow,


Thank you yet again for completing this daunting







task.









Could you also please update the below?


Last List Update: February 11, 2009 by SuprSlow

January Update: January 9, 2009 by SuprSlow


----------



## tfoltz

I'm sad to see Bolt above Wall-E. Hurts my heart.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/16218279
> 
> 
> WE'RE CURRENT!
> 
> 
> All placements are done through deltasun's post ^ #11949. Links are not formatted, I'll get to that tomorrow, along with the update post. Also, I'll address the holdings list and updates tomorrow. If you don't see your placement in the first post now, it's in the holdings for a few weeks. I'll post my list tomorrow and you guys can have some more stuff to fight about



Fantastic job my good friend! Thank you for all your hard work.


----------



## IanRW




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/16218396
> 
> 
> I'm sad to see Bolt above Wall-E. Hurts my heart.



It's just a matter of semantics really. While the use of anamorphic-style softness in _Wall·E_ is perhaps more complex than anything in _Bolt_, the latter does boast more of an "eye-candy" feel.


However, after seeing the HD trailer for _Up!_ on a 50'' LCD display...well, I'm sure we'll have a new contender for top tier 0 material in a few months time!


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/16218279
> 
> 
> WE'RE CURRENT!



You're the man!


----------



## tfoltz

I feel that these two movies are not in the same league. I can say that I understand how others could think that they are interchangeable, but I would be lying.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *IanRW* /forum/post/16218817
> 
> 
> It's just a matter of semantics really. While the use of anamorphic-style softness in _Wall·E_ is perhaps more complex than anything in _Bolt_, the latter does boast more of an "eye-candy" feel.


----------



## stumlad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/16218396
> 
> 
> I'm sad to see Bolt above Wall-E. Hurts my heart.



Bolt in Tier 0 baffles me. It really does. There were a few of us who voted Tier 1.5 or lower. Almost everyone admits that it's softer than other CGI. If any live action movie were considered soft, it wouldn't even be in Tier 1. This really makes no sense to me.


----------



## djoberg

*The Day The Earth Stood Still (2008)*


It is a bit daunting being the first one to review a title, especially one that will certainly be viewed by MANY (in spite of countless negative reviews from those who saw it in the movie theaters







), but here goes nothing!


Let me say right off that this movie has a LOT of indoor scenes (with a blue hue) and night scenes, and for the most part I was really impressed. I thought the black levels were excellent and the shadow detail (on city streets, sidewalks, bushes, automobiles, buildings, etc.) were equally impressive. I noticed a few instances of crushed blacks, but most were spot on and definitely qualified as EYE CANDY.


The relatively few daytime scenes with the sun shining were exceptional with plenty of detail, even in sweeping views of New York City. The only downside was they left me wanting more.










Skin tones were generally very good, with a few isolated shots coming across as somewhat pale. Facial details were usually low Tier 0 or Tier 1 quality, so they were not on the same plane as facial close-ups in titles such as Man On Fire, Baraka, or Transporter 3.


The color scheme was purposely limited (like I stated earlier there were many scenes with a blue cast or shot at night), but scenes which highlighted a more broad color palette revealed colors that were both natural and warm.


Let me add that there was a light coating of grain throughout most of the movie and it gave it a VERY NICE film look and there was absolutely no hindering of detail.


All in all this is a very good-looking title, but one that might be hard to rate because of a number of scenes that were quite dismal-looking (due to the catastrophic, doomsday theme of the movie). But these were the exception and not the rule, so I believe this title could be awarded a place in one of the "demo-worthy" tiers. IMO, it didn't quite qualify as reference, but I would have no problem placing it here:

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*


Samsung 50" 1080p DLP....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 6'


----------



## LBFilmGuy

What should I watch tonight folks?


Capote or Changeling?


----------



## deltasun

Watching Capote guy right now (PS Hoffman) in _Synecdoche, New York_. Go for Capote. Not too many reviews for that one yet.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/16220451
> 
> 
> Bolt in Tier 0 baffles me. It really does. There were a few of us who voted Tier 1.5 or lower. Almost everyone admits that it's softer than other CGI. If any live action movie were considered soft, it wouldn't even be in Tier 1. This really makes no sense to me.



Bolt certainly is generally softer than most CGI titles, but that softness is not pervasive throughout the movie, in every scene, as some would seem to suggest.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/16220451
> 
> 
> Bolt in Tier 0 baffles me. It really does. There were a few of us who voted Tier 1.5 or lower. Almost everyone admits that it's softer than other CGI. If any live action movie were considered soft, it wouldn't even be in Tier 1. This really makes no sense to me.



I agree with you (I voted 1.75), but the math is correct. Even being conservative, the votes put it at the bottom of Tier 0.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16220675
> 
> 
> Watching Capote guy right now (PS Hoffman) in _Synecdoche, New York_. Go for Capote. Not too many reviews for that one yet.



That's what I was leaning towards...have had it from Netflix too long and have recently watched In Cold Blood again.


----------



## K-Spaz

I guess I must go re-watch "The Notebook". I didn't notice it to be worthy of a tier 5 rank. But then again, I guess I didn't take note to how it looked since it was such a great movie.


I hope seeing it's ranking doesn't make me nitpick it next time. That'd be a shame.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16220675
> 
> 
> Watching Capote guy right now (PS Hoffman) in _Synecdoche, New York_. Go for Capote. Not too many reviews for that one yet.



I haven't reviewed Synecdoche, New York yet, but it looks like a 1.75 title to me.


----------



## deltasun

*Synecdoche, New York*


Type that five times fast! Fine grain present throughout the movie, becoming a bit coarser on darker scenes. The movie very much had a film-like presentation. Even though the setting is in the present (and based on the in-story passing of time, the future), the film's color scheme gave it an older look. I would even say a dated look.


The movie looked very soft to me for the most part. Faces never exhibited fine details we've seen in Tier 0 or even Tier 1. Clothing texture was very disappointing, specially when they were presented in such a way (lighting, zoom, etc.) that they should have exhibited much more detail. Black levels varied pretty widely from scene to scene. For the most part, they were above average. Shadow details were well maintained.


Contrast seemed troublesome in a number of scenes, but I believe they were shot that way for effect. For purposes of this thread, however, they brought the PQ down a notch. Some of the better scenes PQ-wise occurred were in the 1hr 35min mark, along with the Emily Watson scenes.


On a positive note, I did not detect any DNR or EE.


Overall, PQ suited the story very well. This obviously was not meant to be a demo disc and I feel the PQ succeeded in keeping it out of the demo tiers...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/16221056
> 
> 
> I haven't reviewed Synecdoche, New York yet, but it looks like a 1.75 title to me.



That's pretty damned good timing!







We are pretty off here, I guess...I was just not impressed. Some of the better scenes definitely occurred towards the end - easily top Tier 1 quality. These are usually outdoor scenes mixed with shade.


However, to me, the first 3 quarters of the movie was very drab, flat, and lifeless. I had to look at titles at each sub-tier I can compare this to before finally landing it at 2.75.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stumlad* /forum/post/16220451
> 
> 
> Bolt in Tier 0 baffles me. It really does. There were a few of us who voted Tier 1.5 or lower. Almost everyone admits that it's softer than other CGI. If any live action movie were considered soft, it wouldn't even be in Tier 1. This really makes no sense to me.




It might be my top of tier 0 vote and a couple of others who rated it near the top of tier 0.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/16221056
> 
> 
> I haven't reviewed Synecdoche, New York yet, but it looks like a 1.75 title to me.




I thought it was about 1.5 mas or menos.


----------



## Hughmc

I watched Bedtime Stories last Fri, but I want to see it again before I recommend placement. It seems to be a tier 2.0 title.


----------



## Bamyouhaveaids

I watched both the Batman movies and disagree with their placement. The movies surrounding both look noticably better to me. They seem 2 tiers too high.


----------



## JohnES1

U-571 last night, got to agree it's not top tier reference, 1.25 where it's at is fine with me. Great movie though, especially for those who remember with fondness the old black and white high drama submarine flicks.


Quick, dumb OT question, I've searched and can't find the answer, are my Verizon FiOS movie feeds(Starz, Cinemax, HBO, etc.) coming from commercial DVD/BD sources?(Or do they have access to a better source?)


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16221131
> 
> 
> That's pretty damned good timing!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are pretty off here, I guess...I was just not impressed. Some of the better scenes definitely occurred towards the end - easily top Tier 1 quality. These are usually outdoor scenes mixed with shade.
> 
> 
> However, to me, the first 3 quarters of the movie was very drab, flat, and lifeless. I had to look at titles at each sub-tier I can compare this to before finally landing it at 2.75.



I agree with you about some of the better scence appeared at the end. What I liked about the movie was the lighting choices.


For the most part, the movie was dark (which fit the film's tone). But individuals always appeared to be under a spotlight, which tied in with the whole "stage show!" AK really impressed me with his level of detail! Faces looked good under the spotlight, especially PSH.


Colors popped when they needed to, like Olive's jacket in the beginning. I figured either 1.75 or 2, but leaned more toward reference.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16221314
> 
> 
> I thought it was about 1.5 mas or menos.



Me too, but I guess I'll have to rewatch. Great movie! Great "brain food!"


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/16222606
> 
> 
> I agree with you about some of the better scence appeared at the end. What I liked about the movie was the lighting choices.
> 
> 
> For the most part, the movie was dark (which fit the film's tone). But individuals always appeared to be under a spotlight, which tied in with the whole "stage show!" AK really impressed me with his level of detail! Faces looked good under the spotlight, especially PSH.
> 
> 
> Colors popped when they needed to, like Olive's jacket in the beginning. I figured either 1.75 or 2, but leaned more toward reference.



I did pick up on the spotlight technique was felt it was a great idea for the movie. However, one of the questions I asked myself while watching this was: Would I ever use this as PQ demo material? Unfortunately, it was a resounding "no." A good recent example to compare this to is _Changeling_, which I believe will get the Tier 2.0 nod. I felt _Changeling_ was superior in virtually every way, save for facial details (which was probably on par).


Hopefully, we'll get a few more folks to chime in. I wasn't in the right mood the first time I tried to watch this (probably 20 minuntes worth). The second time around, which I ended up just starting over, I was ready for its deliberate pace.


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/16218279
> 
> 
> WE'RE CURRENT!



Awesome!


I have a small request if possible: could the UK Import tag for this entry be placed after the title like other imports?

Code:


Code:


Exorcism of Emily Rose, The Video: ? | Audio: PCM | (UK Import) | AR: ?:1 | ?

Also, there are some country-unspecified imports in the list which would be nice to have a country tag applied to remove ambiguity:


ERIN BROCKOVICH (IMPORT)

AIR FORCE ONE (IMPORT)

SWEENEY TODD (IMPORT)

ZODIAC (IMPORT)

NEXT (IMPORT)

CINDERELLA MAN (IMPORT)

HAPPY FEET (IMPORT)

PETER PAN (IMPORT)


Except for Peter Pan which I believe is the Dutch edition (?), I think all of those are meant to refer to the UK edition. I'm not 100% sure on this, but lgans316 may have suggested most or even all of these placements, so perhaps he can clarify.


----------



## b_scott

speaking of Zodiac, now that the US version is out we should switch to that. I have it and it's at least 1.50 if not higher. Just amazing.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/16223722
> 
> 
> Awesome!
> 
> 
> I have a small request if possible: could the UK Import tag for this entry be placed after the title like other imports?
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> Exorcism of Emily Rose, The Video: ? | Audio: PCM | (UK Import) | AR: ?:1 | ?
> 
> Also, there are some country-unspecified imports in the list which would be nice to have a country tag applied to remove ambiguity:
> 
> 
> ERIN BROCKOVICH (IMPORT)
> 
> AIR FORCE ONE (IMPORT)
> 
> SWEENEY TODD (IMPORT)
> 
> ZODIAC (IMPORT)
> 
> NEXT (IMPORT)
> 
> CINDERELLA MAN (IMPORT)
> 
> HAPPY FEET (IMPORT)
> 
> PETER PAN (IMPORT)
> 
> 
> Except for Peter Pan which I believe is the Dutch edition (?), I think all of those are meant to refer to the UK edition. I'm not 100% sure on this, but lgans316 may have suggested most or even all of these placements, so perhaps he can clarify.




This is a really good suggestion. I found a couple more - _The Island, Hellboy, Ghost in the Shell_


----------



## moematthews




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JohnES1* /forum/post/16222315
> 
> 
> U-571 last night, got to agree it's not top tier reference, 1.25 where it's at is fine with me. Great movie though, especially for those who remember with fondness the old black and white high drama submarine flicks.



I remember "Das Boot" with much greater fondness. U-571 is little more than an attempt to copy of the Wolfgang Petersen classic, and not a very good copy at that. It's historically inaccurate and stars Matthew McConaughey - what more do you need to know?


----------



## JohnES1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moematthews* /forum/post/16224323
> 
> 
> I remember "Das Boot" with much greater fondness. U-571 is little more than an attempt to copy of the Wolfgang Petersen classic, and not a very good copy at that. It's historically inaccurate and stars Matthew McConaughey - what more do you need to know?










Touche! It was like they went through all the old sub classics and cop'd all the most dramatic sequences. Still good action, my 92YO mom stayed with it. Madagascar tonight...


----------



## Legairre

To me U-571 is a good sub movie with decent PQ and great AQ. I don't think it was meant to be historically accurate.


----------



## moematthews




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Legairre* /forum/post/16224579
> 
> 
> To me U-571 is a good sub movie with decent PQ and great AQ. I don't think it was meant to be historically accurate.



Anytime you base a movie on an event that actually happened, especially in wartime, it's my opinion that it should be historically accurate. (The makers of "Pearl Harbour" appear not to have agreed with this sentiment.) I'm sure all the Royal Navy personnel who may have been actually involved in the capture of Enigma or knew sailors who were, were not terribly happy at seeing this historic moment in British naval history being portrayed as a typical Hollywood story.


Good for JohnES1's mother, though. I could barely make it through that movie at 30 years old, much less 92.


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moematthews* /forum/post/16224662
> 
> 
> "Pearl Harb*ou*r"


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/16224695


----------



## JohnES1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moematthews* /forum/post/16224662
> 
> 
> Good for JohnES1's mother, though. I could barely make it through that movie at 30 years old, much less 92.



Mom's getting RocknRolla next week, and if she doesn't roll over and die during it, we've got Grindhouse: Death Proof coming. Thanks guys, especially SS.


----------



## moematthews




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moematthews* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> "Pearl Harb*ou*r"





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/16224695



I'ze Canadian, eh? We maintain British spelling conventions.


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moematthews* /forum/post/16224907
> 
> 
> I'ze Canadian, eh? We maintain British spelling conventions.



ha, just messing with ya


----------



## moematthews




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JohnES1* /forum/post/16224813
> 
> 
> Mom's getting RocknRolla next week, and if she doesn't roll over and die during it, we've got Grindhouse: Death Proof coming. Thanks guys, especially SS.



Good gravy, that is amazing. Talk about being a witness to some incredible change in the world. I mean, she would have been "advanced in years" long before the advent of flat panels, HD, Blu-ray etc.


Good for her. Hope she enjoys the movies.


----------



## sheldonison




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JohnES1* /forum/post/16222315
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Quick, dumb OT question, I've searched and can't find the answer, are my Verizon FiOS movie feeds(Starz, Cinemax, HBO, etc.) coming from commercial DVD/BD sources?(Or do they have access to a better source?)



This is also a question I've been interested in. We have TWC cable -- and had HBO until a few months ago. In addition, I have watched a few movies from TWC high definition on demand, and dozens of blu-rays that we either own or rented. Our most recent "HD on demand" was Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian. It was good, but not as good as "Australia", which we rented on BD at the same time.


TWC and HBO definitely have access to the original 35mm telecine/scan, because they usually open the matte so that a Super-35 2.35 movie becomes 1.78:1, with extra material added to the vertical of the image, along with slight crop in the horizontal. The HD cable movies are also more detailed than DVD source. One of my favorites was the HD HBO showing of "Revenge of the Sith", which actually was shown in its original 2.35:1 aspect ratio, and was just stunning -- especially seeing as "Revenge of the Sith" isn't even available on blu-ray. I also compared the "Back to the Future" trilogy on HBO with the DVDs we own, and there was clearly more detail on HBO. But action scenes show compression artifacts that you don't see on blu-ray. Also, Xnappo has posted some comparisons between blu-ray and cable, and sometimes they're pretty close.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/16223722
> 
> 
> Awesome!
> 
> 
> I have a small request if possible: could the UK Import tag for this entry be placed after the title like other imports?
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> Exorcism of Emily Rose, The Video: ? | Audio: PCM | (UK Import) | AR: ?:1 | ?
> 
> Also, there are some country-unspecified imports in the list which would be nice to have a country tag applied to remove ambiguity:
> 
> 
> ERIN BROCKOVICH (IMPORT)
> 
> AIR FORCE ONE (IMPORT)
> 
> SWEENEY TODD (IMPORT)
> 
> ZODIAC (IMPORT)
> 
> NEXT (IMPORT)
> 
> CINDERELLA MAN (IMPORT)
> 
> HAPPY FEET (IMPORT)
> 
> PETER PAN (IMPORT)
> 
> 
> Except for Peter Pan which I believe is the Dutch edition (?), I think all of those are meant to refer to the UK edition. I'm not 100% sure on this, but lgans316 may have suggested most or even all of these placements, so perhaps he can clarify.



I have never failed to apply country tag to the reviews of import BDs. Could have been missed out while tier placement.











ERIN BROCKOVICH (IMPORT) - Korean

AIR FORCE ONE (IMPORT) - U.K

SWEENEY TODD (IMPORT) - U.K

ZODIAC (IMPORT) - Japan

NEXT (IMPORT) - U.K

CINDERELLA MAN (IMPORT) - U.K

HAPPY FEET (IMPORT) - U.K

PETER PAN (IMPORT) - Korean


Hope this helps.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JohnES1* /forum/post/16222315
> 
> 
> U-571 last night, got to agree it's not top tier reference, 1.25 where it's at is fine with me. Great movie though, especially for those who remember with fondness the old black and white high drama submarine flicks.
> 
> 
> Quick, dumb OT question, I've searched and can't find the answer, are my Verizon FiOS movie feeds(Starz, Cinemax, HBO, etc.) coming from commercial DVD/BD sources?(Or do they have access to a better source?)



Wasn't this one butchered with heavy NR?


----------



## jrcorwin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16167047
> 
> 
> ^ sweet!!!
> 
> 
> Gotta get this right away.



Did you get South Pacific yet?


----------



## JohnES1




sheldonison said:


> This is also a question I've been interested in. We have TWC cable -- and had HBO until a few months ago. In addition, I have watched a few movies from TWC high definition on demand, and dozens of blu-rays that we either own or rented. Our most recent "HD on demand" was Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian. It was good, but not as good as "Australia", which we rented on BD at the same time.
> 
> 
> Uh, oh, opened a can of worms...was hoping for a slam dunk 'of course they use commercial discs...' I asked because I surf the cable movies for odd ball offerings that place low in the BD tiers but looked good enough to get the actual disc from Netflix. U-571 seemed more promising on cable from the few scenes I'd watched. We watched Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day on HD cable and I was kicking myself the whole time for not stopping it at the beginning and getting the BD, but then it turns out it's only available on DVD, hence my question as to source.(THAT is one beautiful movie!) Thanks, I'll try again some time on a more appropriate thread.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jrcorwin* /forum/post/16225535
> 
> 
> Did you get South Pacific yet?



Yep, it's here at home and I hope to watch it tonight.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moematthews* /forum/post/16224323
> 
> 
> I remember "Das Boot" with much greater fondness. U-571 is little more than an attempt to copy of the Wolfgang Petersen classic, and not a very good copy at that. It's historically inaccurate and stars Matthew McConaughey - what more do you need to know?



Of course Das Boot is a much better movie. That said, just because U-571 is another movie about a submarine during WWII does not mean that it was a "little more than an attempt to copy the Wolfgang Petersen classic".


No more than Pearl Harbor was an attempt to copy the classic "Tora! Tora! Tora!".


----------



## Legairre




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moematthews* /forum/post/16224662
> 
> 
> Anytime you base a movie on an event that actually happened, especially in wartime, it's my opinion that it should be historically accurate. (The makers of "Pearl Harbour" appear not to have agreed with this sentiment.) I'm sure all the Royal Navy personnel who may have been actually involved in the capture of Enigma or knew sailors who were, were not terribly happy at seeing this historic moment in British naval history being portrayed as a typical Hollywood story.
> 
> 
> Good for JohnES1's mother, though. I could barely make it through that movie at 30 years old, much less 92.



I can live without it being accurate, because I take it for what it is, Hollywood movie making.


----------



## SuprSlow

I've posted the updated holdings list and the titles that have been moved from the list.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...9#post16218279 


I'll be updating that ^ post with the complete update list soon.


----------



## SuprSlow

The complete update list is posted.









http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...9#post16218279 



I'll get to work on the Import list ASAP. Thanks for bringing that up


----------



## moematthews




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Legairre* /forum/post/16226023
> 
> 
> I can live without it being accurate, because I take it for what it is, Hollywood movie making.



Fair enough if the movie is entirely fictional. But I cannot agree that an actual event of historical significance should be misrepresented to that degree. A great example for me as a Canadian was the recent movie "Passchendaele" about a famous WWI battle in Belgium in which Canadians took part. A defining moment for a young nation. The movie was nothing more than a sappy Hollywood love story - and a poorly done one at that. Nothing about the battle itself or its significance. I am still furious.


Back on topic . . . . . . . .


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/16226284
> 
> 
> The complete update list is posted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...9#post16218279
> 
> 
> 
> I'll get to work on the Import list ASAP. Thanks for bringing that up



Great work. The tiers are getting big as silver is huge!







Good thing they were split a while back.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

*Capote*


I wasn't expecting much going in given the nature of this film, and I wasn't let down by my low expectations.


Nothing really exciting was found here. Sharp details on clothing and textures on walls can be found, and some facial closeups are decent, but none ever came close even to Tier 1 status. Skin tones were very accurate though, in some scenes we see Hoffman's face very red cause of the cold weather, and in others just very pale.


It was lit and shot by a rather unknown DP and there is little to brag about. Most of the film had a cold look to it, with washed out with blues and grays. Blacks and contrast also suffered greatly, a lot of the blacks were a light gray in shadow areas where details are lost.


The biggest problem I had with this was the focus. I am guessing they shot all of Capote's and Smith's interior jail cell scenes together as both of their closeups are completely soft the whole time. Very disappointing.


Some EE was also found along the edges of the frame at times, but I didn't see any real haloing like beck did throughout.


It is placed at the top of Tier 3 but I would drop it down to 3.25.

*Recommendation: Tier 3.25*


Panasonic 50PZ80U via PS3 @ about 6 feet.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

*Quantum of Solace*


I was extremely excited for this to hit BD and was not disappointed.


This is a pristine transfer and is consistently good throughout. Literally every scene was as good as the next, it never faltered, but never really jumped into Tier 0 either. Contrast superb albeit a bit hot at times in outdoor scenes, shadow detail was excellent, allowing for lots of nice depth and pop.


Facial closeups were great but not the best available today. Lots of fine details were resolved though, especially on M's face. Establishing shots of the exotic locations were a treat to see and looked fantastic. Skin tones were spot on although Olga's character was way too orange at times, especially at the beginning (This was also the case on the SD DVD version).


Never a hint of excessive grain, EE, DNR, or any other crap we don't want to see.


Overall I can agree with its current placement at the Top of Tier 1 but am recommending Tier 1.25 when comparing it to other Titles in Tier 1 like Black Hawk Down, Spidey 3, Apocolypto, and Tropic Thunder. I don't think QoS is _as_ good as these titles.
*

Recommendation: Tier 1.25*


Panasonic 58PZ800U via PS3 @ about 9 feet.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

And again, great work Supr!


Like I said a long time ago, you deserve a free membership to the AVS club for your hard work here.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*South Pacific*


Fox has done an excellent job with this one. Shot in "Todd-AO", this one really looks great. Colors do have a unique look to them, somewhat over-saturated. There is judicious use of color filters throughout this film for creative effect. In my opinion these filters reduce the overall PQ.


Detail and clarity is quite good overall, but there are exception where there is some softness to the image. Film grain is well preserved and natural looking.


There are several instances where dirt/hair can be seen on the bottom of the print, which can be a bit distracting.


I did not notice any artifacts. Again, Fox is to be commended for the work they did here, though I would have preferred some slight digital work to get rid of some of the dirt/hair at the bottom of the screen.


Compared to other titles like How The West Was One, it is not quite up to par in terms of overall detail and clarity, and I am having a hard time trying to decide if it belongs near the bottom of tier 1 or top of tier 2, so:
*

Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.75 to 2.0*


----------



## K-Spaz

Am I alone on this or do other folks here also find the occasional facial closeup to be meaningless to the ranking of pq in movies? I see this type of shot referenced continually throughout this thread, and while I think they're cool n all, it's just not something I factor in when judging pq on a title. Take Transformers for example. The team in the Heli flying in, all talking about their homelives and such, that's nice, but I don't use it to weigh my decision on the films image quality. I wait till the movie is complete and look back upon all the parts that did _not_ impress me. If there were a lot, then I tend to grade it down. I figure if the camera folks can't get a portrait right when absolutely nothing in the frame is moving, then they ought to give it up.


That said, I think the determinations made by the folks here are pretty much spot on. This is a great list. If I had more time, I'd love to be able to contribute something.


What I should probably do is pick up more of the titles at the copper through coal sections and see what folks here really consider bad. I'd say the worst looking brs I've seen yet were the first and fourth Harry Potter films. Philosophers/Sorcerers Stone and Goblet of Fire. Then, Order of the Phoenix looked really good, and deserves its 1.x rank (imo). I see that one just moved up a bit.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/16227928
> 
> 
> Am I alone on this or do other folks here also find the occasional facial closeup to be meaningless to the ranking of pq in movies? I see this type of shot referenced continually throughout this thread, and while I think they're cool n all, it's just not something I factor in when judging pq on a title. Take Transformers for example. The team in the Heli flying in, all talking about their homelives and such, that's nice, but I don't use it to weigh my decision on the films image quality. I wait till the movie is complete and look back upon all the parts that did _not_ impress me. If there were a lot, then I tend to grade it down. I figure if the camera folks can't get a portrait right when absolutely nothing in the frame is moving, then they ought to give it up.
> 
> 
> That said, I think the determinations made by the folks here are pretty much spot on. This is a great list. If I had more time, I'd love to be able to contribute something.
> 
> 
> What I should probably do is pick up more of the titles at the copper through coal sections and see what folks here really consider bad. I'd say the worst looking brs I've seen yet were the first and fourth Harry Potter films. Philosophers/Sorcerers Stone and Goblet of Fire. Then, Order of the Phoenix looked really good, and deserves its 1.x rank (imo). I see that one just moved up a bit.



There was a discussion on this very issue not too long ago. I agree that "facial details" tend to be discussed and concentrated on a bit too much in this thread. If you do a search, you will see the prior discussion on this. Facial details can be a good indicator of PQ, but they are most certainly not the only indicator or even the most important....imo.


----------



## K-Spaz

I'll go back and look for that Rob. Thanks for the headsup. This thread moves a couple pages a day sometimes so keeping caught up on all the rest of the forum can be a chore. I hadn't seen this discussed before, other than repeated reference in tier recommendations.


I'll contradict myself immediately here and attempt to contribute. I did see a "Holding" that I disagree with.

*Becoming Jane*

Sorry, but I strongly disagree with this title moving down, much less all the way to t2.0


If I only used the nighttime or indoor scenes for reference, I couldn't move this title. These most difficult scenes look spectacular on my system. Blacks are incredible yet detail within them is great. For example, the scene where Jane walks out of the ball into the garden where it's just rained and the scene is backlit, I can watch this repeatedly while trying to find fault and it's just not there. If this title is being ranked down, it's got to be because of the period drama theme more so than the pq. Yes, these titles have a lot of dark woodgrains and sepia indoor scenes but they look great. It's not a sci-fi.


Outdoor daylight shots in BJ are simply the best images I've seen on laser media. Both depth of field, and depth of focus are in a league of their own. This title has the trueist colors I've seen. During no scene have I noticed any EE or posterization. For that matter, virtually no undesireable digital effect whatsoever. Occasional lens flare is obviously there for effect and was intended. Woodland scenes look as true to life as I've seen on film. Greens in this film are remarkable and very natural. Clothing, woodwork, stone and mortar detail, all the little things that are judged important in this thread are remarkable throughout the film. If this title has a spot where the images are weak, it's the menu. Even the foggy scenes in the intro are beautiful. You have to search to find any film grain in this title.


Ink, penmanship, paper detail, all these things are so crisp, it's obvious there's been very little or no digital manipulation of the images to "enhance". Fleshtones continually impress. For those who've done photography with poor focus and attempted to duplicate soft focus, you can probably tell that anything in this film with soft focus was intentional for effect, and done with a filter, not a focus ring. Soft focus in BJ is beautifully done.


This is a title you should view immediately after doing a calibration on your display to see if it's been done correctly. Let's be honest... This is a title that a lot of _Guys_ here probably would never have watched, yet made it through exclusively because of how terrific the film looks.


Naysayers, please direct me to the numerous weak scenes so I can check them for myself. Of my >100 BR's viewed, I personally would call this the creme de la creme. I searched for opinions on this title a few weeks ago but something must have changed recently. I'll search again.


Viewed on new 60 and 73" Mits DLP's/52" Sam 120Hz LCD. 1080 from 9.5'/9'/11'

*Tier Recommendation: Stays 0 where it's at or moves up.*


----------



## djoberg

^


K-Spaz,


I am definitely going to get my copy of Becoming Jane out one of these fine days to "revisit" it, for when I saw that it was moved to Tier 2 I immediately thought, "No way does this deserve such a drastic demotion!"


I was one who debated this title to get it voted into Tier 0 and I will be very surprised if I change my mind on this one. Having said that I have changed my mind before on titles, but NEVER to the point of dropping it a whole tier or more. So, as soon as I see it again I will chime in with my 2 cents worth.


Denny


----------



## jrcorwin

I have to admit something...and it goes against the ranking criteria for this thread I believe. I consider BD PQ on a sliding scale. I can't compare a film from 1958 to a film from 2008. My expectation for each will be different. My judgment will be based on my expectation for that film and not on a comparision to a much older or a much more recent film.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jrcorwin* /forum/post/16228366
> 
> 
> I have to admit something...and it goes against the ranking criteria for this thread I believe. I consider BD PQ on a sliding scale. I can't compare a film from 1958 to a film from 2008. My expectation for each will be different. My judgment will be based on my expectation for that film and not on a comparision to a much older or a much more recent film.



Thanks for posting this, because it makes 100% perfect sense considering your review of South Pacific, and I could not agree with you more!


Again, South Pacific looks GREAT considering it was shot in 1958, and it would indeed rank near the top of other comparable films on BD.


----------



## kucharsk

South Pacific is truly amazing on BD - of course it should be as even BD leaves some of the resolution available from the Todd-AO format frame on the floor.


If only a time traveler could deposit a pristine 1958 print on Fox's doorstep…


Let's hope Fox does as good of a job with _Sound of Music_ and _Carousel_, and can actually do *something* with the horrible release of the 30 fps Todd-AO version of _Oklahoma!_ they foisted upon DVD buyers…


----------



## jrcorwin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16228490
> 
> 
> Thanks for posting this, because it makes 100% perfect sense considering your review of South Pacific, and I could not agree with you more!
> 
> 
> Again, South Pacific looks GREAT considering it was shot in 1958, and it would indeed rank near the top of other comparable films on BD.



I guess in my imagination I separate films by the decade they were made in and then rank them within those different timeframes.


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jrcorwin* /forum/post/16228366
> 
> 
> I have to admit something...and it goes against the ranking criteria for this thread I believe. I consider BD PQ on a sliding scale. I can't compare a film from 1958 to a film from 2008. My expectation for each will be different. My judgment will be based on my expectation for that film and not on a comparision to a much older or a much more recent film.



Some time ago, I rented Battle of the Bulge specifically to see how good an old movie would do when transferred. I'm not sure BotB looked that good in theaters upon release. While newer films have the advantage of more technologically advanced emulsions and, then (1950's) unheard of lens coatings which drastically improve image quality. I would not say there's a full tier worth of pq between 1950's camera work and 2009. If there's a big difference, I'd say it's in the fact that newer film masters are viewed less times and thus, show less wear and dirt, and in the auto focus capability of newer cameras. That wear and dirt is about the only thing that cues me as to when the movie was made. That along with slower focus changes.


I've been watching the entire Bond series lately and I'm up to the late 70's now. Several of these films are good examples of how br transfer of an old film demonstrates how relatively little improvement has been made over the decades in getting images on film.


The hard part here is, if I intentionally overlook the film issues on older films, such as wear and dirt on the film. Then I would also have to offer the same 'blind-eye' to problems with newer films, and we don't do that. Soooo, as a rule, they get ranked down.



^

DjoBerg.


I've seen BJ probably 3 times start to finish, and used it for demo probably a half dozen or more times. I've let people grab the slider on my htpc and put it anywhere they want, to demonstrate that there is no area in that film that looks weak.


Imho, I have seen probably 15-18 of the Tier 0 films that were Tier 0 before this last changeup last week. I solidly agreed with BJ's placement in 0 and if anything, thought it should have been higher. I realize that I've not seen all the films that are now in Tier 0 and believe that Tier 0 should be a top 30 or so list where films get bumped when all others look better. However, for a film to move down from 0 to 2, any film. Should I not be able to go down through Tier 1, watch 100 of those films and say to myself, yea, BJ certainly looks no better than, or is worse than, every film on this tier? If a concensus can't say that, then it's movement should be reconsidered.


I bet I've seen 40 films in Tier 1 on br, and there's not a single one I would say, "This clearly beats Becoming Jane". For it to move to Tier 2, I should at least be able to say that once...


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jrcorwin* /forum/post/16228366
> 
> 
> I have to admit something...and it goes against the ranking criteria for this thread I believe. I consider BD PQ on a sliding scale. I can't compare a film from 1958 to a film from 2008. My expectation for each will be different. My judgment will be based on my expectation for that film and not on a comparision to a much older or a much more recent film.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16228490
> 
> 
> Thanks for posting this, because it makes 100% perfect sense considering your review of South Pacific, and I could not agree with you more!
> 
> 
> Again, South Pacific looks GREAT considering it was shot in 1958, and it would indeed rank near the top of other comparable films on BD.



I hate to be the anti grain-direction here, but I must say I totally disagree with these statements. For purposes of this thread, we are comparing every BR against every other BR in an absolute sense.


I have said numerous times, I applaud the efforts on these older films...the meticulous care taken to bring them to the very best they will ever be at this point in time. It is incredible how these films look for their age and the limitations they were under. I understand all that. And maybe, a thread can be created where movies are ranked categorically. However, that is NOT this thread. We are dealing with absolutes here.


I will absolutely compare _Transformers_ with _South Pacific_ and let each rely on their merits based on the definition of this thread. Once we start _qualifying_ our assessments (i.e., _for an older title_... or _for a Cel animation..._), we lower the *absolute* standards that we have defined.


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15964993
> 
> *Becoming Jane*
> 
> 
> Extremely fine grain apparent, thin ringing noted on a couple of edges. Jane is a period costume romantic drama which is mostly lit and shot according to the customs of the genre. Aside from a few scenes, Jane is not lit or shot to exhibit ultra-fine detail in faces, hair, or clothing. The best shots in this blu-ray tend to be outdoor shots meant to establish location or tone -- beautiful scenery shot with perfect light and contrast. However, much of Jane also takes place indoors where the contrast is very often dodgy, brightness can be a little high, resulting in unsatisfying blacks and a picture that too often looks flat and washed out. Actors are shot with a touch of softness, which results in smooth faces and hair of mediocre resolution. In Maggie Smith, James Cromwell, and Ian Richardson we see facial texture, but seldom to the level of pores. Fine object detail is on display in a recurrent close-up motif showing Jane writing. The script and paper is very well resolved -- you can even see the texture of the paper. Actors seldom wear costumes with intricate detail to resolve. Skin tones appear very natural. Becoming Jane was placed in tier 0 a year ago and overall it is still a good looking title with a few undeniable strengths. It looks on my screen like a very solid silver tier title. See it for the beautiful outdoor shots.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 2.0*
> 
> 
> Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From 126" Screen



I realize we're here to nit-pick details... I just did my search and found this is the reason for the proposed movement.


> Quote:
> Extremely fine grain apparent, thin ringing noted on a couple of edges.



If you remember an offensive scene in particular, please direct me to it.


> Quote:
> Jane is a period costume romantic drama which is mostly lit and shot according to the customs of the genre. Aside from a few scenes, Jane is not lit or shot to exhibit ultra-fine detail in faces, hair, or clothing. The best shots in this blu-ray tend to be outdoor shots meant to establish location or tone -- beautiful scenery shot with perfect light and contrast. However, much of Jane also takes place indoors where the contrast is very often dodgy, brightness can be a little high, resulting in unsatisfying blacks and a picture that too often looks flat and washed out.



I think your perception of detail has more to do with the distance to subject, than it does the quality of the image. Most of the ultra detailed shots we see in any film are due to the super closeup camera position or lens length. However, if we consider depth along with detail, now a facial shot that's slightly more distant, can be and is equally detailed, even tho it's not quite so in-your-face. If the only thing on our display is someones face, then I would expect to see pore level detail. BJ just doesn't go overboard with that sort of scene, and thank heaven it doesn't. If you like those facial closeups, some of the ones of Julie Walters and James Cromwell are razor sharp. Example being the scene where Jane says she's going to feed the pigs when they're arguing her refusal to Mr. Wisley's marriage offer.


> Quote:
> Fine object detail is on display in a recurrent close-up motif showing Jane writing. The script and paper is very well resolved -- you can even see the texture of the paper. Actors seldom wear costumes with intricate detail to resolve. Skin tones appear very natural. Becoming Jane was placed in tier 0 a year ago and overall it is still a good looking title with a few undeniable strengths. It looks on my screen like a very solid silver tier title. See it for the beautiful outdoor shots.



I've never seen this on a front projection system so I can't comment on that. I'm working on that tho! I didn't notice the color issues you did with blacks being weak, nor with anything seeming washed out. I may be forced to watch this again. I did not ever see even one time, an edge that was halo'ed, noise or noise reduction issues. To find the slightest film grain, I would have to watch the darkest of the dark scenes. I'd refer you to my opinion for a rebuttal there. Most of all, I'd say pay special attention to the part about it looking worse than all tier ones before making it a tier 2.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16229062
> 
> 
> I hate to be the anti grain-direction here, but I must say I totally disagree with these statements. For purposes of this thread, we are comparing every BR against every other BR in an absolute sense.
> 
> 
> I have said numerous times, I applaud the efforts on these older films...the meticulous care taken to bring them to the very best they will ever be at this point in time. It is incredible how these films look for their age and the limitations they were under. I understand all that. And maybe, a thread can be created where movies are ranked categorically. However, that is NOT this thread. We are dealing with absolutes here.
> 
> 
> I will absolutely compare _Transformers_ with _South Pacific_ and let each rely on their merits based on the definition of this thread. Once we start _qualifying_ our assessments (i.e., _for an older title_... or _for a Cel animation..._), we lower the *absolute* standards that we have defined.



I have no idea why you disagree with my statement?


All I did was agree with what jrcorwin's explanation was regarding his review and placement of South Pacific.


I never meant to imply that we don't compare older movies on the same basis as new ones. As stated, if I were to rate it based on older movies, it would rank near the top. I didn't do that.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16229149
> 
> 
> I have no idea why you disagree with my statement?
> 
> 
> All I did was agree with what jrcorwin's explanation was regarding his review and placement of South Pacific.
> 
> 
> I never meant to imply that we don't compare older movies on the same basis as new ones. As stated, if I were to rate it based on older movies, it would rank near the top. I didn't do that.



Ahh...you're right, Rob. I did jump the gun there a bit, didn't I?







I apologize. I guess it would have been different if your statement was just...



> Quote:
> Thanks for posting this, because it makes 100% perfect sense



but it's not. Thanks for setting me straight on this one.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/16228233
> 
> 
> I'll go back and look for that Rob. Thanks for the headsup. This thread moves a couple pages a day sometimes so keeping caught up on all the rest of the forum can be a chore. I hadn't seen this discussed before, other than repeated reference in tier recommendations.
> 
> 
> I'll contradict myself immediately here and attempt to contribute. I did see a "Holding" that I disagree with.
> 
> *Becoming Jane*
> 
> Sorry, but I strongly disagree with this title moving down, much less all the way to t2.0
> 
> 
> If I only used the nighttime or indoor scenes for reference, I couldn't move this title. These most difficult scenes look spectacular on my system. Blacks are incredible yet detail within them is great. For example, the scene where Jane walks out of the ball into the garden where it's just rained and the scene is backlit, I can watch this repeatedly while trying to find fault and it's just not there. If this title is being ranked down, it's got to be because of the period drama theme more so than the pq. Yes, these titles have a lot of dark woodgrains and sepia indoor scenes but they look great. It's not a sci-fi.
> 
> 
> Outdoor daylight shots in BJ are simply the best images I've seen on laser media. Both depth of field, and depth of focus are in a league of their own. This title has the trueist colors I've seen. During no scene have I noticed any EE or posterization. For that matter, virtually no undesireable digital effect whatsoever. Occasional lens flare is obviously there for effect and was intended. Woodland scenes look as true to life as I've seen on film. Greens in this film are remarkable and very natural. Clothing, woodwork, stone and mortar detail, all the little things that are judged important in this thread are remarkable throughout the film. If this title has a spot where the images are weak, it's the menu. Even the foggy scenes in the intro are beautiful. You have to search to find any film grain in this title.
> 
> 
> Ink, penmanship, paper detail, all these things are so crisp, it's obvious there's been very little or no digital manipulation of the images to "enhance". Fleshtones continually impress. For those who've done photography with poor focus and attempted to duplicate soft focus, you can probably tell that anything in this film with soft focus was intentional for effect, and done with a filter, not a focus ring. Soft focus in BJ is beautifully done.
> 
> 
> This is a title you should view immediately after doing a calibration on your display to see if it's been done correctly. Let's be honest... This is a title that a lot of _Guys_ here probably would never have watched, yet made it through exclusively because of how terrific the film looks.
> 
> 
> Naysayers, please direct me to the numerous weak scenes so I can check them for myself. Of my >100 BR's viewed, I personally would call this the creme de la creme. I searched for opinions on this title a few weeks ago but something must have changed recently. I'll search again.
> 
> 
> Viewed on new 60 and 73" Mits DLP's/52" Sam 120Hz LCD. 1080 from 9.5'/9'/11'
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Stays 0 where it's at or moves up.*



I believe that I was the first person to comment on this title in this thread and I gave it a strong Tier 0 recommendation.


It's good to see a new participant in this thread taking such a strong stand on a title that many people probably have not seen.


----------



## jrcorwin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16229062
> 
> 
> I hate to be the anti grain-direction here, but I must say I totally disagree with these statements. For purposes of this thread, we are comparing every BR against every other BR in an absolute sense.
> 
> 
> I have said numerous times, I applaud the efforts on these older films...the meticulous care taken to bring them to the very best they will ever be at this point in time. It is incredible how these films look for their age and the limitations they were under. I understand all that. And maybe, a thread can be created where movies are ranked categorically. However, that is NOT this thread. We are dealing with absolutes here.
> 
> 
> I will absolutely compare _Transformers_ with _South Pacific_ and let each rely on their merits based on the definition of this thread. Once we start _qualifying_ our assessments (i.e., _for an older title_... or _for a Cel animation..._), we lower the *absolute* standards that we have defined.



I wasn't suggesting we change the format or manner in which things are judged. I understand how things are done in this thread and how you grade PQ personally. There is just no way that I could ever do that. I have my own way of thinking on this and try as I might...I can't compare every BR to every other BR. I didn't ask for anyone to agree or disagree with my way of thinking. It gave Rob an explanation for why my one and only review (South Pacific) was ranked so much higher than his own.


I won't be reviewing any other releases for this thread. I enjoy this thread, but I don't have the required mentality to judge films based on the criteria listed. There is just no way in hell I can compare something like *Bolt* or *Man on Fire* to *South Pacific* or *How The West Was Won*. That's something I can't even begin to wrap my brain around.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

A key for when I do my reviews is this: I rate the film vs the criteria set out in the 1st post. Sometimes when I'm iffy on where a film should go, I will scroll down the list and see what else is in the tier I want to place it in, to help me specifically figure out where within that tier it should go, but the criteria we have in the 1st post is very useful. I don't go into watching a film and think "Hey this is like Kill Bill v1". With Bolt, I did have it in my head vs Wall-E somewhat, just in the characteristics I held with Wall-E that caused me to fight for it to be in Tier 0; but on the same score when I rated Wall-E, it was vs. the thread criteria.



Unless we've seen every single movie on the thread, which I know I haven't, there's no way to outright compare them movie-to-movie. This is also why you can wind up with films that don't seem to totally mesh in the same category. 2 movies that PQ-wise are completely different from one another can wind up in the same tier, because of different reasons that are set out for that tier.



Just my 2cents on the issue! It shouldn't deter you from posting here, I know I love reading everyone's reviews, whether I agree with them or not!


----------



## jrcorwin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16230328
> 
> 
> Just my 2cents on the issue! It shouldn't deter you from posting here, I know I love reading everyone's reviews, whether I agree with them or not!



As do I. I will continue to post here. I just won't offer reviews. Only because I respect the purpose of the thread and my reviews don't fall in line with the criteria.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/16229618
> 
> 
> I believe that I was the first person to comment on this title in this thread and I gave it a strong Tier 0 recommendation.
> 
> 
> It's good to see a new participant in this thread taking such a strong stand on a title that many people probably have not seen.



+1


Yes, it is good to see a new participant, and I sincerely hope K-Spaz will become a "regular contributor."


I spent about a half hour skimming through various scenes of Becoming Jane last night. My overall impression is that it is still a "demo-worthy" title, but I'm not sure it is still on the same plane as other titles in Tier Blu. Compare it, for example, to another "period piece" like Youth Without Youth. I don't believe BJ has the same level of detail (in faces, buildings, trees, etc.) and it most certainly lacks the vibrancy of colors seen in YWY.


I would recommend a high Tier 1 placement for it, for it exhibits amazing depth (especially in the numerous outdoor scenes) and clarity, and its black levels are quite satisfying as is the shadow detail. The colors, though not as vivid as in some movies, are very natural-looking and warm. One simply can't deny the EYE CANDY quality of Becoming Jane and it would be, IMO, a travesty to keep it in Tier 2.0. (I should also mention that in the search I did on BJ I can't see how it even ended up in its current spot. The math doesn't add up!)


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16231262
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> 
> Yes, it is good to see a new participant, and I sincerely hope K-Spaz will become a "regular contributor."
> 
> 
> I spent about a half hour skimming through various scenes of Becoming Jane last night. My overall impression is that it is still a "demo-worthy" title, but I'm not sure it is still on the same plane as other titles in Tier Blu. Compare it, for example, to another "period piece" like Youth Without Youth. I don't believe BJ has the same level of detail (in faces, buildings, trees, etc.) and it most certainly lacks the vibrancy of colors seen in YWY.
> 
> 
> I would recommend a high Tier 1 placement for it, for it exhibits amazing depth (especially in the numerous outdoor scenes) and clarity, and its black levels are quite satisfying as is the shadow detail. The colors, though not as vivid as in some movies, are very natural-looking and warm. One simply can't deny the EYE CANDY quality of Becoming Jane and it would be, IMO, a travesty, to keep it in Tier 2.0. (I should also mention that in the search I did on BJ I can't see how it even ended up in its current spot. The math doesn't add up!)



I agree that Tier 2 for this is insupportable. I also agree that if it is not in Tier 0, it should be no lower than high Tier 1.


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16230328
> 
> 
> A key for when I do my reviews is this: I rate the film vs the criteria set out in the 1st post. Sometimes when I'm iffy on where a film should go, I will scroll down the list and see what else is in the tier I want to place it in, to help me specifically figure out where within that tier it should go, but the criteria we have in the 1st post is very useful. I don't go into watching a film and think "Hey this is like Kill Bill v1". With Bolt, I did have it in my head vs Wall-E somewhat, just in the characteristics I held with Wall-E that caused me to fight for it to be in Tier 0; but on the same score when I rated Wall-E, it was vs. the thread criteria.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless we've seen every single movie on the thread, which I know I haven't, there's no way to outright compare them movie-to-movie. This is also why you can wind up with films that don't seem to totally mesh in the same category. 2 movies that PQ-wise are completely different from one another can wind up in the same tier, because of different reasons that are set out for that tier.
> 
> 
> 
> Just my 2cents on the issue! It shouldn't deter you from posting here, I know I love reading everyone's reviews, whether I agree with them or not!



I followed every link in the thread concerning the deficiencies to look for before reviewing. I've watched a lot of titles now, certainly not all these, but I think I can make a worthy assesment with enough comparison info to back one up.

Objectivity is difficult to keep when doing this sort of thing. I'm not the biggest fan of anime films, but it's hard to deny that some of these in 0 are awesome. If the movie doens't have some crossover interest for adults, I simply have no interest in seeing it, regardless of how good it may or may not look. Now, I thouroughly enjoyed The Incredibles, but it's not even available on BR. Even if it was, I probably would not rent it again just to see that. Meet the Robinsons is the highest rated one I've seen and I truly believe it belongs where it's at. Though I would not review it since I've not seen enough animated films to offer what I would consider an informed opinion.


Just like the thread says in the first few sentences, many eyes are better than few, or words to that effect. I think all opinions are important to the thread and the more opinions, the more valid the conclusion. With the list growing so fast, there's no way anyone here can keep up with all the titles and I would not expect anyone to. Unfortunately, I'm going to have to rent a few more of these new titles in Tier 0, despite the fact that there looks to be none I would have the slightest interest in. This just to make sure I have adequate comparison material to offer an opinion.


If we accept a little inherent subjectivity in all this, using the list becomes much easier to accept. I also think it's important to not compare the occasional stillshot from one film to the entire feature length of another, and then make a comparison. I feel from what I've read here, that may happen quite often. I tend to agree with the last few posters about film grain and it's perceived importance being set too high. If a movie is on film, it WILL have film grain somewhere. Now, if it's excessive, then I could be critical of it. But to see an occasional passage where some grain becomes visible and point that out as a weakness, it's just unfair. All films have grain...


If there's something I have serious difficulty with, it's making comparisons from animated titles to those shot with cameras. I mean, let's compare a DaVinci with an Ansel Adams...


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jrcorwin* /forum/post/16230364
> 
> 
> As do I. I will continue to post here. I just won't offer reviews. Only because I respect the purpose of the thread and my reviews don't fall in line with the criteria.



I would hope you would, jcorwin. Perhaps my tone was a bit harsh. I just wanted to set the expectation of how this particular thread is/was defined. Obviously, everybody's opinions are welcome and volume of opinions is what gives this thread credibility, if I may be so bold. I have read plenty of your posts in other threads as well and more or less agree with you. I definitely respect your opinions.


So, please don't take my misdirected tone as a deterrence. I appears that you haven't so that's a good thing.


----------



## jrcorwin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16231823
> 
> 
> I would hope you would, jcorwin. Perhaps my tone was a bit harsh. I just wanted to set the expectation of how this particular thread is/was defined. Obviously, everybody's opinions are welcome and volume of opinions is what gives this thread credibility, if I may be so bold. I have read plenty of your posts in other threads as well and more or less agree with you. I definitely respect your opinions.
> 
> 
> So, please don't take my misdirected tone as a deterrence. I appears that you haven't so that's a good thing.



No problem at all. I just wanted to make sure neither of us misunderstood the reason for each other's posts. That doesn't seem to be an issue...so we're good to go.










I respect your opinions as well. Thank you.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/16227928
> 
> 
> Am I alone on this or do other folks here also find the occasional facial closeup to be meaningless to the ranking of pq in movies? I see this type of shot referenced continually throughout this thread, and while I think they're cool n all, it's just not something I factor in when judging pq on a title.



Unprocessed and superior-looking transfers should show a high-level of detail in tight shots focusing on the face and skin. It is one of the key determinants in my evaluations when separating good picture quality from the absolute best. Pores, freckles, moles, hair follicles, and other minor details can easily be seen in the best ranked titles. The lower-ranked tiers are full of titles where facial detail is questionable at best.


Unless something went wrong in principal photography, the lack of the aforementioned indicators can reveal the use of digital noise reduction or other processing techniques that strip away high-frequency information from the original film. That loss inherently means the transfer has less resolution than a film naturally should have on Blu-ray.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/16232588
> 
> 
> Unprocessed and superior-looking transfers should show a high-level of detail in tight shots focusing on the face and skin*, if the source material was lit and color-timed to produce them*.



Fixed.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/16232651
> 
> 
> Fixed.



It seems a bit odd to think that someone would make the creative choice to use a tight close-up and then also make the creative choice to light the shot in a way that no detail in the face would be apparent. But I suppose anything is possible.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/16232809
> 
> 
> It seems a bit odd to think that someone would make the creative choice to use a tight close-up and then also make the creative choice to light the shot in a way that no detail in the face would be apparent.



Cinematographers pursue all sorts of different looks, with varying levels of intended apparent picture detail. The cinematographer of, say, _Pret a Porter_ may want a close-up of a runway model to make her appear glamourously smooth and blemish-free. Meanwhile, the cinematographer of _Barfly_ may be looking for a grittier, more revealing close-up.


Just because the shot is a close-up, it doesn't mean the cinematographer's interest in using the flexibility of photography to enhance storytelling is put on hold.


----------



## K-Spaz

When I see a movie that has too many of these facial closeup demo shots, I start to think they're showing them to take your attention away from a general lack of detail elsewhere.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/16233116
> 
> 
> Cinematographers pursue all sorts of different looks, with varying levels of intended apparent picture detail. The cinematographer of, say, _Pret a Porter_ may want a close-up of a runway model to make her appear glamourously smooth and blemish-free. Meanwhile, the cinematographer of _Barfly_ may be looking for a grittier, more revealing close-up.
> 
> 
> Just because the shot is a close-up, it doesn't mean the cinematographer's interest in using the flexibility of photography to enhance storytelling is put on hold.



I think most of us who like to see detail in close-ups understand that the amount of expected detail can vary based on relevant circumstances. What we complain about is when there is a consistent pattern in a particular title of non-detailed close-ups, when detail might be expected, based on relevant considerations.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/16233261
> 
> 
> I think most of us who like to see detail in close-ups understand that the amount of expected detail can vary based on relevant circumstances.



That's a reasonable expectation, but your caveat was not reflected in the post I responded to.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/16233306
> 
> 
> That's a reasonable expectation, but your caveat was not reflected in the post I responded to.



The post of yours that I responded to was, I would say, even more lacking in qualification and nuance than mine.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/16233358
> 
> 
> The post of yours that I responded to was, I would say, even more lacking in qualification and nuance than mine.



I'm at a loss for how you would like it to have been qualified or how it could have benefited from any further nuance.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/16233415
> 
> 
> I'm at a loss for how you would like it to have been qualified or how it could have benefited from any further nuance.



Perhaps if some form of communication other than "fixing" someone else's post had been used, it might have been more likely to lead to an accurate understanding of your point of view. As it was, it suggested that "lighting" choices might be to blame for many of the less than satisfactory close-ups that we see.


----------



## K-Spaz

It's easy to see how subjective the topic of facial closeups can get. A person could possibly argue that the bokeh produced when shooting these super sharp closups at f1.4 or f1.8, actually detracts from the overall detail, and could be a detriment to the ranking criteria used here. (a sick person







) Fact is, they make up only a small percentage of a movie runtime. Should they still be given a prominent role in the judging process ov overall picture quality? Just because a scene is shot with 150mm lens, does that automatically mean it's more detailed than another which is shot at 18mm? Thus, a photo of a flea is automatically more detailed than a photo of the grand canyon?


Is a closeup that shows facial hair more detailed than a slightly more distant framing where all surroundings in the shot are clearly visible, as if I was looking at a true to life scene? Again, subjectivity... To me, if the facial closeups are too sharp, and stand out dramatically from the rest of the film, they feel out of place to me. In my real life experiences meeting people, the detail levels I see when speaking to them does not change dramatically from one second to the next. Thus, to me, this sort of shot can sometimes feel unnatural or out of place in a film. If it's too "over the top".


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/16233615
> 
> 
> It's easy to see how subjective the topic of facial closeups can get. A person could possibly argue that the bokeh produced when shooting these super sharp closups at f1.4 or f1.8, actually detracts from the overall detail, and could be a detriment to the ranking criteria used here. (a sick person
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) Fact is, they make up only a small percentage of a movie runtime. Should they still be given a prominent role in the judging process ov overall picture quality? Just because a scene is shot with 150mm lens, does that automatically mean it's more detailed than another which is shot at 18mm? *Thus, a photo of a flea is automatically more detailed than a photo of the grand canyon?*
> 
> 
> Is a closeup that shows facial hair more detailed than a slightly more distant framing where all surroundings in the shot are clearly visible, as if I was looking at a true to life scene? Again, subjectivity... To me, if the facial closeups are too sharp, and stand out dramatically from the rest of the film, they feel out of place to me. In my real life experiences meeting people, the detail levels I see when speaking to them does not change dramatically from one second to the next. Thus, to me, this sort of shot can sometimes feel unnatural or out of place in a film. If it's too "over the top".



In my experience watching BDs (and I have watched quite a few at this point) wide landscape shots are *never* as breathtakingly detailed as the most detailed facial close-ups. I have concluded that this is just the limitation of the resolution possible in BDs. A broad landscape shot with, for example, many, many, many leaves on many, many trees simply *cannot* look as detailed on BD as I would like it to look, whereas a tight close-up of a face on BD *can* look as detailed as I would like it to look. That is why tight facial close-ups for me are the real test of PQ on a BD.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/16233511
> 
> 
> Perhaps if some form of communication other than "fixing" someone else's post had been used, it might have been more likely to lead to an accurate understanding of your point of view.



Well, I thought the words involved in my "fix" were pretty self-explanatory.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/16233511
> 
> 
> As it was, it suggested that "lighting" choices might be to blame for many of the less than satisfactory close-ups that we see.



If your definition of "satisfactory" incorporates a very high level of facial-feature detail in close-ups, that would actually be an accurate reading of my post.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/16233728
> 
> 
> A broad landscape shot with, for example, many, many, many leaves on many, many trees simply *cannot* look as detailed on BD as I would like it to look, whereas a tight close-up of a face on BD *can* look as detailed as I would like it to look. That is why tight facial close-ups for me are the real test of PQ on a BD.



Wow. I don't know where to begin with _that_ one!


----------



## K-Spaz

Fair enough.


Now, let me ask this.


I'll just assume you've seen The Dark Knight. What is your opinion of the detail level in the opening scenes? Talking about the mirrored glass on the building? I think they specifically do a very slow pan to retain as much detail in that landscape as they could. Is that not as detailed as any of the facials? And furthermore, did you notice that all the way through that movie, they keep changing the aspect from 16:9 to 2.35 (or 2.4...) when doing those very landscapes. Is that because they wanted the wide open view effect of that aspect? Does that somehow detract from the perceived detail.


Just for the record, that constant aspect change in TDK really irritated me for some reason or other.

/EDIT

Sorry, just for the record, I don't consider TDK to be a 1.25 or higher class of film for PQ.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/16233760
> 
> 
> Well, I thought the words involved in my "fix" were pretty self-explanatory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your definition of "satisfactory" incorporates a very high level of facial-feature detail in close-ups, that would actually be an accurate reading of my post.



We seem to be going in circles here. My original point was that it seemed implausible that so many unsatisfactory (lacking detail) close-ups would be explainable by lighting choices. Why, I said, would the choice be made (in circumstances not involving your runway model example) to use a close-up, for the effect that can be gained by using a close-up, and then the choice be made to use lighting that would in effect negate the effect that presumably was the reason for using a close-up in the first place?


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/16233821
> 
> 
> My original point was that it seemed implausible that so many unsatisfactory (lacking detail) close-ups would be explainable by lighting choices.



And I would absolutely agree with that point- it's not at all contradictory to what I was trying to say. By no means would I contend that necessarily very many (subjectively) detail-lacking close-ups on Blu-ray are a product (to any major degree) of cinematographic choice. My point was only to make sure the possibility is given due consideration, as it _can_ be a factor in _some_ detail-lacking close-ups.


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/16233805
> 
> 
> Fair enough.
> 
> 
> Now, let me ask this.
> 
> 
> I'll just assume you've seen The Dark Knight. What is your opinion of the detail level in the opening scenes? Talking about the mirrored glass on the building? I think they specifically do a very slow pan to retain as much detail in that landscape as they could. Is that not as detailed as any of the facials? And furthermore, did you notice that all the way through that movie, they keep changing the aspect from 16:9 to 2.35 (or 2.4...) when doing those very landscapes. Is that because they wanted the wide open view effect of that aspect? Does that somehow detract from the perceived detail.
> 
> 
> Just for the record, that constant aspect change in TDK really irritated me for some reason or other.
> 
> /EDIT
> 
> Sorry, just for the record, I don't consider TDK to be a 1.25 or higher class of film for PQ.



the 16:9 was shot in IMAX film format, which is why. That's just how IMAX is, and it's a lot higher rez film.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/16233805
> 
> 
> Fair enough.
> 
> 
> Now, let me ask this.
> 
> 
> I'll just assume you've seen The Dark Knight. What is your opinion of the detail level in the opening scenes? Talking about the mirrored glass on the building? I think they specifically do a very slow pan to retain as much detail in that landscape as they could. Is that not as detailed as any of the facials? And furthermore, did you notice that all the way through that movie, they keep changing the aspect from 16:9 to 2.35 (or 2.4...) when doing those very landscapes. Is that because they wanted the wide open view effect of that aspect? Does that somehow detract from the perceived detail.
> 
> 
> Just for the record, that constant aspect change in TDK really irritated me for some reason or other.
> 
> /EDIT
> 
> Sorry, just for the record, I don't consider TDK to be a 1.25 or higher class of film for PQ.



Perhaps you don't realize how controversial TDK is on PQ? I would agree though that the opening sequence in TDK is among the best in the movie in PQ. But I wouldn't exactly call it a "landscape" shot. I don't recall if I have given a specific Tier recommendation, but I certainly agree with you that it's not 1.25 or higher.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/16233875
> 
> 
> I would agree though that the opening sequence in TDK is among the best in the movie in PQ. But I wouldn't exactly call it a "landscape" shot.



I certainly hope you wouldn't call it a "facial close-up"!


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/16233862
> 
> 
> And I would absolutely agree with that point- it's not at all contradictory to what I was trying to say. By no means would I contend that necessarily very many (subjectively) detail-lacking close-ups on Blu-ray are a product (to any major degree) of cinematographic choice. My point was only to make sure the possibility is given due consideration, as it _can_ be a factor in _some_ detail-lacking close-ups.



Well, it's good to see that we can in fact agree on many things once we have thrashed around a bit on how to express our views.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/16233882
> 
> 
> I certainly hope you wouldn't call it a "facial close-up"!



Well, perhaps the shot at the very end of the opening sequence when he takes off the mask.


----------



## lgans316

My British manager has very sharp facial features in comparison to many Brit colleagues whose face looks waxy and smooth. So, even if I look at these faces from within 1-2 feet they still look DNR-ed.














No digital / film based medium would ever be able to disclose Tier-0 facial details of these people.


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/16233875
> 
> 
> Perhaps you don't realize how controversial TDK is on PQ? I would agree though that the opening sequence in TDK is among the best in the movie in PQ. But I wouldn't exactly call it a "landscape" shot. I don't recall if I have given a specific Tier recommendation, but I certainly agree with you that it's not 1.25 or higher.



Well, TDK should bring lots of controversy. It does a lot of what I've said I don't care for which is real high detail in one spot, then kinda not so impressive in others. My stance would be that good resolution of detail in one area does not negate poor quality elsewhere. I feel as if sometimes the closeups are used to excuse-away other poor areas in a film. I prefer something with more balance. Especially in the darker passages of a movie, I like to see where a director chose to spend a little time and effort to make those passages look as good as they can. Sometimes I think they shoot dark passages to throw in stuff that they can get lazy with.


Having entered this discussion due to my opinion on Becoming Jane, I'll just say that when watching the dark passages of that movie, they demonstrate that nobody was lazy when they shot them. Thus, it's balance is why I feel it is a great looking title worthy of a high rank. It also has some remarkable facial closeups and detailed prop closeups if that's what folks want. It's just that the rest of the movie looks so good, they don't stand out like a sore thumb as they do in some movies.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/16233250
> 
> 
> When I see a movie that has too many of these facial closeup demo shots, I start to think they're showing them to take your attention away from a general lack of detail elsewhere.



Do you honestly believe that the director is that concerned about the PQ? That he/she is showing close-up's to navigate attention away from possible lack of detail elsewhere?










I don't think our discussion on these threads (or other such threads) really influence how directors/cinematographers make use of close-up's. Just my opinion.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/16234195
> 
> 
> I feel as if *sometimes* the closeups are used to excuse-away other poor areas in a film.



I'm glad you qualified this statement with the word "sometimes," because I have rarely found this to be the case.


If you haven't viewed Youth Without Youth and Transporter 3, I would suggest you do. These are two outstanding examples of titles with exemplary facial close-ups....and yet the overall detail is just as good. I find this to be the case with the greater percentage of Tier 0 titles that have received praise for facial close-ups.


And for the record, even though I am an ardent lover of facial close-ups, I try to cover ALL the criteria listed on page one when assessing a title for recommending placement.


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16234754
> 
> 
> If you haven't viewed Youth Without Youth and Transporter 3, I would suggest you do. These are two outstanding examples of titles with exemplary facial close-ups....and yet the overall detail is just as good. I find this to be the case with the greater percentage of Tier 0 titles that have received praise for facial close-ups.



I've seen neither yet. Both are queued. Youth without Youth isn't rated very high on NF. Fact is, it's rather a bit below average. Were it not on the reference list, I would not consider renting it since I use a rule of thumb where any title that the member average rating is 3.0 or below, I don't watch unless there are mitigating circumstances (like being Tier 0).


Youth Without Youth shows a member average rating of 2.6. Not exactly what folks consider a great movie. I'll watch it anyhow...


I just moved T3 tothe top of my queue so I'll have it this weekend. Though with all my current construction projects, it may be a while before I watch it. My mouldings and blinds are not up yet in the new viewing room, that just got moved into this week.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/16233728
> 
> 
> In my experience watching BDs (and I have watched quite a few at this point) wide landscape shots are *never* as breathtakingly detailed as the most detailed facial close-ups. *I have concluded that this is just the limitation of the resolution possible in BDs.* A broad landscape shot with, for example, many, many, many leaves on many, many trees simply *cannot* look as detailed on BD as I would like it to look, whereas a tight close-up of a face on BD *can* look as detailed as I would like it to look. That is why tight facial close-ups for me are the real test of PQ on a BD.



I really don't know where to begin here.


Have you thought this through? What exactly would be the inherent limitation in resolution in BD's that would prevent "many, many, many leaves on many, many, many trees" from looking as detailed as you would like them to be.......yet BD does have sufficient resolution to give facial details the details as you would like them to have?


Really, this makes no sense to me, so if you could explain...


Like I have said before, facial details in close ups are much easier to obtain than a far away/wide shot. So when you see a great looking far/wide shot with lots of detail, and can be even more impressive than seeing a lot of facial details.


Anyway, glad to see you posting more in this thread Patrick.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jrcorwin* /forum/post/16230090
> 
> 
> I wasn't suggesting we change the format or manner in which things are judged. I understand how things are done in this thread and how you grade PQ personally. There is just no way that I could ever do that. I have my own way of thinking on this and try as I might...I can't compare every BR to every other BR. I didn't ask for anyone to agree or disagree with my way of thinking. It gave Rob an explanation for why my one and only review (South Pacific) was ranked so much higher than his own.
> 
> 
> I won't be reviewing any other releases for this thread. I enjoy this thread, but I don't have the required mentality to judge films based on the criteria listed. There is just no way in hell I can compare something like *Bolt* or *Man on Fire* to *South Pacific* or *How The West Was Won*. That's something I can't even begin to wrap my brain around.



The very fact that you acknowledge this tells me that you do have a complete understanding of how the thread works, and you have identified what is probably one of the biggest criticisms of the thread itself.


Believe me, I still have a hard time with this aspect of the thread myself. In fact, I have previously stated that I would not give a review of the Godfather movies because I think that they look fantastic, but according to the criteria of this thread, they would be rated fairly low. I just can't bring myself to doing that.


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16234330
> 
> 
> Do you honestly believe that the director is that concerned about the PQ? That he/she is showing close-up's to navigate attention away from possible lack of detail elsewhere?



Yes, I absolutely think that directors add in stills of high detail to make you say wow, and in case you didn't notice, it works. Folks say wow and then somehow make the determination that a movie looks great due to the few great shots.


I have watched enough "extra" disks with interviews with directors to know that they think of a lot of different stuff. There is rarely anything in a movie that is done by accident. Did you ever hear of a director shooting a scene 20 times cause it wasn't just exactly the way they wanted it? When you and I watch a movie, it's pretty much just what they wanted it to look like. I've even heard of crews going out and re-shooting entire scenes just cause a producer or director watched a viewing didn't like what they saw.


Directors often intentionally shoot scenes with a lot of film grain to allow the integration of CG. Thus, lots of Film/CG movies are real grainy at times.


Yes, they do all sorts of stuff to draw your attention away from other things. Like, do a facial closeup and set the aperture wide open so as to hide all the surroundings in an indistinguishable blur.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/16235454
> 
> 
> Yes, I absolutely think that directors add in stills of high detail to make you say wow, and in case you didn't notice, it works. Folks say wow and then somehow make the determination that a movie looks great due to the few great shots.
> 
> 
> I have watched enough "extra" disks with interviews with directors to know that they think of a lot of different stuff. There is rarely anything in a movie that is done by accident. Did you ever hear of a director shooting a scene 20 times cause it wasn't just exactly the way they wanted it? When you and I watch a movie, it's pretty much just what they wanted it to look like. I've even heard of crews going out and re-shooting entire scenes just cause a producer or director watched a viewing didn't like what they saw.
> 
> 
> Directors often intentionally shoot scenes with a lot of film grain to allow the integration of CG. Thus, lots of Film/CG movies are real grainy at times.



So, directors create high-impact close-up's to impress threads such as these? Am I reading that correctly? I agree that what's on screen is rarely an accident - they do have a purpose. However, I believe it's to do with the story. If CGI is made to look realistic, it's not for PQ-sake but I would surmise that it's more for seamless integration for the story.



> Quote:
> Yes, they do all sorts of stuff to draw your attention away from other things. Like, do a facial closeup and set the aperture wide open so as to hide all the surroundings in an indistinguishable blur.



Sure, but these are usually done in context to the story. It is a creative tool to draw the viewer's attention to what's in sharp focus.


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16235667
> 
> 
> directors create high-impact close-up's to impress



Just stop right there and then you'll get it.


Then the camera pans or the subject moves, and all your wonderous detail is gone. Why? Cause we don't get to watch an uncompressed master, we only see the compressed version from a disk which doesn't do movement worth a damn. Once again, I say, balance in the movie means more to ME than the occasional face hair. Good consistent detail througout means more to ME than 30 aggregate seconds of high detail faces per hour.


I don't expect anyone to agree with me, I simply voiced my opinion. This is a forum, and I understand that not all folks on a forum agree all the time. Hell, there's not even a concensus opinion of what a landscape is, much less agreement on the inner thoughts of all movie directors.


I am finished on the subject.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/16235848
> 
> 
> hen the camera pans or the subject moves, and all your wonderous detail is gone. Why? Cause we don't get to watch an uncompressed master, we only see the compressed version from a disk which doesn't do movement worth a damn.



I think a far more significant factor in what you're seeing is the product of the cinema's 24fps frame-rate.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/16236091
> 
> 
> I think a far more significant factor in what you're seeing is the product of the cinema's 24fps frame-rate.



Aww.....I hate it when you beat me to the punch!


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*The Day The Earth Stood Still (2008)*



This is a perfectly acceptable release from Fox in terms of PQ. Everything is adequate: contrast, black levels, detail and clarity and the subdued colors.


However, this title did not excel in any particular area either. In djoberg's words, it left me wanting more.


The SQ is very impressive on the other hand. The movie itself was pretty bad, and doesn't hold a candle to the excellent original.
*Recommendation: Tier 1.75*


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16236231
> 
> 
> Aww.....I hate it when you beat me to the punch!



I beat you the last time, too, but I stepped back and let you take it.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Deception


recommendation: Tier 1.0*


Released on September 23 of 2008 by Twentieth Century Fox, the image quality of this Blu-ray is stellar. The 107-minute movie is encoded in AVC on a BD-50. The compression authoring is credited to Deluxe Digital Studios, who have handled many of Fox's Blu-rays. The average video bitrate is 32.18 Mbps as revealed by BDInfo, though the packaging claims an average of 34 Mbps. The transfer is simply free of any compression artifacts at all, even at closer than recommended viewing distances. An encode of this quality will hold up even under the highest level of scrutiny.


The master used has no visual flaws or defects and shows no signs of digital noise reduction. There are some minor halos that appear in a few early scenes, but they disappear completely as the movie trudges along. The cinematography is quite impressive for a film that largely takes place inside various offices and hotels. Some scenes show a tremendous sense of depth. The scene in the rain outside the Chinese restaurant is spectacular with a palpable sense of dimensionality to the image. In sum this is a very pleasant film-like image that shows little sign of digital tampering.


Picture quality is great throughout the movie. More than fifty percent of the movie a designation worthy of tier zero would not be out of the question. The image is razor-sharp with perfect contrast. Softness is never a problem. Colors are vividly rendered, though the color palette does tend to be a little cooler in tone than other top-ranked titles. Skin tones look accurate, even in the scenes brightly lit by atypical colors. Black levels are very good with no macroblocking or black crush apparent. Shadow detail is above-average and typical of many of the titles in tier one. Facial close-ups are consistently impressive, displaying an inordinate amount of fine detail that is not obscured by filters or shoddy camera work. Every line in Hugh Jackman's face is visible.


An argument for placement in tier zero exists for this title. In the older system I would have placed this title very near the top of tier one over most of the other movies in that tier. It is hard to describe but a placement just a sliver below tier zero felt right to me.


Watching on a 60 Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 (firmware 2.70) at a viewing distance of six feet.


BDInfo Scan (courtesy of a3willia):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...6#post16015646


----------



## deltasun

^^ Nice review, Phantom! I was curious how this title would look in BR since it was one of the last few I saw on standard DVD. Upscaled by the PS3, it looked really good and your review just confirms it. Now, I'm torn in wanting to watch it again in hi-def.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/16232588
> 
> 
> Unprocessed and superior-looking transfers should show a high-level of detail in tight shots focusing on the face and skin. It is one of the key determinants in my evaluations when separating good picture quality from the absolute best. Pores, freckles, moles, hair follicles, and other minor details can easily be seen in the best ranked titles. The lower-ranked tiers are full of titles where facial detail is questionable at best.
> 
> 
> Unless something went wrong in principal photography, the lack of the aforementioned indicators can reveal the use of digital noise reduction or other processing techniques that strip away high-frequency information from the original film. That loss inherently means the transfer has less resolution than a film naturally should have on Blu-ray.



Not only that, but it is the one thing we all do each and every day as human beings...look each other in the eyes and face. It is the one aspect of any film we can objectively judge when it comes to PQ.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/16235454
> 
> 
> Yes, I absolutely think that directors add in stills of high detail to make you say wow, and in case you didn't notice, it works. Folks say wow and then somehow make the determination that a movie looks great due to the few great shots.
> 
> 
> Yes, they do all sorts of stuff to draw your attention away from other things. Like, do a facial closeup and set the aperture wide open so as to hide all the surroundings in an indistinguishable blur.



What? I can't tell if you're serious here but I think you are.


What could a director and DP possibly want to draw your attention away from in a closeup shot during dialogue? The whole point of a facial closeup (usually on a long lens with everything in the background out of focus) is for the audience to focus their attention on the actor and his/her eyes and their reactions, to bring forth emotion and involvement from the audience.


Not sure what you're trying to get at here.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16235060
> 
> 
> I really don't know where to begin here.
> 
> 
> Have you thought this through? What exactly would be the inherent limitation in resolution in BD's that would prevent "many, many, many leaves on many, many, many trees" from looking as detailed as you would like them to be.......yet BD does have sufficient resolution to give facial details the details as you would like them to have?
> 
> 
> Really, this makes no sense to me, so if you could explain...
> 
> 
> Like I have said before, facial details in close ups are much easier to obtain than a far away/wide shot. So when you see a great looking far/wide shot with lots of detail, and can be even more impressive than seeing a lot of facial details.
> 
> 
> Anyway, glad to see you posting more in this thread Patrick.



Rob, I'm puzzled that what I am saying about the inherent limitations of BD resolution in reference to leaf-filled wide landscape shots should be so hard to understand. It has to do with the size of a pixel in relation to the size of a single leaf in such a shot. If a single leaf is about the size of a single pixel, how much detail are you going to get for each leaf? Not much. Even if it's four pixels per leaf, that still does not leave room for much detail on each leaf.


Since we seem to be in agreement on the point you make about facial details in close-ups being much easier to obtain than detail in wide shots, I don't understand why my point should be so obscure.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/16236806
> 
> *Deception
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 1.0*



+1


For whatever reason, I did NOT write a formal review on this title, but I see I did offer a few comments back on 10/08 that coincided with your assessment, along with a placement recommendation of Tier 1.0.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/16237285
> 
> 
> Rob, I'm puzzled that what I am saying about the inherent limitations of BD resolution in reference to leaf-filled wide landscape shots should be so hard to understand. It has to do with the size of a pixel in relation to the size of a single leaf in such a shot. If a single leaf is about the size of a single pixel, how much detail are you going to get for each leaf? Not much. Even if it's four pixels per leaf, that still does not leave room for much detail on each leaf.
> 
> 
> Since we seem to be in agreement on the point you make about facial details in close-ups being much easier to obtain than detail in wide shots, I don't understand why my point should be so obscure.



I strongly disagree with this.


How many pixels do you think make up a single skin pore?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16238696
> 
> 
> I strongly disagree with this.
> 
> 
> How many pixels do you think make up a single skin pore?



Well, maybe you can point me to some examples of shots of lots of leaves on lots of trees that will persuade me that I'm mistaken.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16238002
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> 
> For whatever reason, I did NOT write a formal review on this title, but I see I did offer a few comments back on 10/08 that coincided with your assessment, along with a placement recommendation of Tier 1.0.



I came across your comments when checking the thread for this movie and thought they were very accurate. A low tier zero ranking would not be out of the realm of credibility for this film.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/16239865
> 
> 
> I came across your comments when checking the thread for this movie and thought they were very accurate. A low tier zero ranking would not be out of the realm of credibility for this film.



I agree with both of you on *Deception*. PQ was outstanding. Unfortunately the movie itself was not so good. It didn't help that I don't care for the three main actors.


----------



## b_scott





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/16239916
> 
> 
> I agree with both of you on *Deception*. PQ was outstanding. Unfortunately the movie itself was not so good. It didn't help that I don't care for the three main actors.



I brought this home once but never watched it. I guess I should at least to see the PQ


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/16238891
> 
> 
> Well, maybe you can point me to some examples of shots of lots of leaves on lots of trees that will persuade me that I'm mistaken.



...or we could just talk about it from a logical point of view.


----------



## SuprSlow

Just some minor notes...


I cleaned up the first post a little, added links/tech info. I missed Phantom's recommendations of Tier 2.75 for "Live and Let Die", and Tier 2.0 - "For Your Eyes Only", so they've been added accordingly.


We should be good to go, now. If anyone sees any corrections needed, let me know











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/16223722
> 
> 
> I have a small request if possible: could the UK Import tag for this entry be placed after the title like other imports?
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> Exorcism of Emily Rose, The Video: ? | Audio: PCM | (UK Import) | AR: ?:1 | ?
> 
> Also, there are some country-unspecified imports in the list which would be nice to have a country tag applied to remove ambiguity:



Added. Thank you, sir











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16224016
> 
> 
> This is a really good suggestion. I found a couple more - _The Island, Hellboy, Ghost in the Shell_



Are each of these UK Imports as well? I found the info for The Island, but nothing for the other two.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/16225489
> 
> 
> ERIN BROCKOVICH (IMPORT) - Korean
> 
> AIR FORCE ONE (IMPORT) - U.K
> 
> SWEENEY TODD (IMPORT) - U.K
> 
> ZODIAC (IMPORT) - Japan
> 
> NEXT (IMPORT) - U.K
> 
> CINDERELLA MAN (IMPORT) - U.K
> 
> HAPPY FEET (IMPORT) - U.K
> 
> PETER PAN (IMPORT) - Korean
> 
> 
> Hope this helps.



Thanks


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/16240791
> 
> 
> Just some minor notes...
> 
> 
> 
> Are each of these UK Imports as well? I found the info for The Island, but nothing for the other two.



The info is just off to the right of each title. _Ghost in the Shell_ looks like a Japan import, while _Hellboy_ just states European release.


Thanks, SuprSlow!


----------



## deltasun

*The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008)*


I really don't have much more to add to my predecessors' reviews on this title. I thought the black levels held up really well for having so many of them. I found the forest scenes pretty strong in demonstrating black levels. The silhouettes through the evening mist and moonlight were very impressive.


Grain was apparent throughout; heavier during darker scenes. I didn't find them distracting at all. I did not spot any significant ringing - the ones I did spot were the result of backlight getting caught on the edge (threading) of Klaatu's coat. I.e., not EE, imo.


I think Rob Tomlin hit the nail on the head when he mentioned there were no scenes that really induced ooh's and ahh's. Still a pretty solid overall Tier 1 title. The panoramic snapshots of cities/landmarks around the world offered decent details. On the other hand, facial close-up detail, or any other kind of close-up detail really, could have catapulted this title higher in Tier 1. But, as such, I agree with a lower Gold placement.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8' & 6'_


----------



## djoberg

*Twilight*


My oldest daughter called me today and convinced me to rent Twilight. I must say I went into it with rather low expectations (as others have mentioned), but was pleasantly surprised by both the PQ and the storyline.


I won't repeat all that has been said about this title, but I will say that I thought the DETAIL and DEPTH were superb in MANY SCENES. I started recording some (the "greenhouse" scene at around the 28 min. mark...the "beach" scene from 33 min. to 35 min.....the "forest" scene starting at approximately 56 min.) where one is definitely treated to both of these virtures (Tier 0 all the way!), but decided there were too many so I quit.


Black levels and shadow detail was also quite impressive and thankfully we had plenty of night scenes in which to highlight them. The night sky blended in perfectly with my black bars....and the details were exquisite (from cobble streets to raindrops).


I enjoyed the muted look with a blue cast and as another member said (I believe it was deltasun), the colors were done in such a way that they were still vivid; a "trick of the trade" that pays great dividends!


I see that all the previous recommendations were either 1.5 or 1.75...I'm feeling a bit generous tonight (and perhaps secretly wanting to regain my "generous rater" status







) so I'll go with the former:

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*


Samsung 50" 1080p DLP....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 6'


----------



## 42041

*Raging Bull*

This one's already been pretty well covered... a worthy Blu presentation of a great movie. Sharpness is pretty typical for an older film, nothing extraordinary but you can tell it's HD. I'm not sure what the story behind the transfer is or when it was made, but mercifully it looks film-like, with only the occasional EE halo. Grain is present throughout and is pretty cleanly compressed. I think in a black and white movie, well-managed contrast is particularly important, and this disc generally is satisfactory in that regard, though some scenes were weak and noisy on the low end of things. My initial thought was that it was pretty comparable to The Godfather pts 1 and 2, but I'm also fine with its current ranking.
*stays in Tier 3.0*


----------



## deltasun

*Pitch Black*


Fine to moderate grain present throughout. This is a difficult title to rate because of the different lighting styles employed throughout the story. The planet is lit by three suns and as such they cast a harsh yellowish-white light on the land and the people. The scenes under this condition were washed out with blown whites and not much detail. When the two suns were setting and the third rising, the scenes resulted in a bluish/ultraviolet-type lighting. This gave an unnatural cast on the land and the people's skin tones. However, detail was much better preserved under these conditions. Contrast was obviously pushed to attain these effects.


Personally, I love these scenes - especially the bluish tinge. I loved them in the theatre, I loved them on SD DVD, I love them on BR. However, for the purposes of this thread, the title takes a hit.


On the flip side, the darker scenes, which make up the last 45 or so minutes of the movie, were excellent. Blacks were well-controlled for the most part and details in these darker scenes were some of the most impressive I've seen. Some of the best scenes to behold, in terms of richness (without the aid of color, mind you), were when the eclipse had just darkened the landscape. Riddick's skin tone, as well as the other, were spot on. Details were very very well rendered.


Facial details varied from scene to scene, depending on the lighting. On some of the more naturally lit scenes, details were above average. While the lighting made it hard to discern, I don't think any DNR was applied on some of the smoother looking facial scenes. The CGI creatures were relegated to the darkness and neither detracted nor added to the PQ.


Overall, this is a worthy upgrade from the SD DVD version. I did spot some digital artifacts starting at the 1hr 1min mark, which were a bit bothersome in darker scenes. Without the harsh lighting, this would easily be a Tier 1 title. However...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8' & 6'_


----------



## deltasun

*Chronicles of Riddick*


Without the harsh lighting of _Pitch Black_, I thought this would be a slam dunk for high Tier 1. Unfortunately, I found most of the scenes to be soft. Facial close-up's were varied, but the best were still not up to high Gold Tier standards. Pores and follicle details were not as well resolved.


The CGI (and there's a lot of it) suffered the same softness as the facial close-up's. Cityscapes did not offer dimensionality and most outdoor medium shots looked flat. And don't get me started on the CGI dog-like creatures...


On the positive side, black levels were excellent and offered generous detail in low-light scenes. Contrast, again, was pushed a bit but gave the movie a certain edge and grit complementary to the look and feel. Skin tones were spot on. Medium shots indoors were notably crisp and detailed.


Going through a few comparisons, I found this to be on par with _Iron Man_ in the lower Gold Tier. Some scenes were better, but they average out to be similar.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## lgans316

Based upon the comparison pix, Riddick is definitely grain scrubbed alongside encoding at 14Mbps in comparison to the HD DVD.


----------



## OldCodger73

As others have pointed out the print and transfer look pristine, accurately portrayed the director intent and, given present technology, it's probably the best it'll ever look. However, this thread really is about PQ, so here's my minority review.


Sharpness and detail ranges from very good to good in most scenes. I found one long shot that looked soft and in one medium close-up focus seemed to be lost for a few seconds. Facial close-ups on men were at the high end of very good, probably mid Tier 1, while women's faces showed less detail.


In normal scenes the color was rich and vibrant and seemed right on. But what killed the movie for me was the use of colored filters to sugest moods. This was further compounded by the gauze type filtering, with the center sharp but the sides and top and bottom of the frame looking like it was shot through a muslin curtain.


If faithfully reproducing director intent was part of the rating criteria for this thread, then I could see this movie being in Tier 1; however, it isn't and given what I wrote in the third paragraph I would rate *South Pacific Tier 2.5*.


Some stage presentation benifit by being opened up into a movie format, others suffer in comparison to the original. In _South Pacific's_ case, I think it's the latter. While Mitzi Gaynor is a talented singer and dancer and Rossano Brazzi is adequate, neither have the star power and presence to compete with the lush Hawaiian landscape and their love story almost seems to get lost. Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.


Panasonic 720p 50" plasma, Panasonic 10a player, 7 1/2'


----------



## Rob Tomlin

^ nice review Codger.


----------



## OldCodger73

Sharpness, detail and clarity are very good. Facial close-ups are borderline Tier 0-Tier 1. Facial features are clearly shown, blemishes and particularly wrinkles on Maryl Streep's face-- she sure looks different that she did in _Mama Mia_. There seems to be fine grain present at times.


This isn't a movie with a lot of bright colors, black and white predominate. I found the blacks to be deep showing good detail, while the whites were nice and clean.


Overall I'd rank the movie solidly in Tier 1, *Doubt Tier 1.5*.


I had seen the stage play so was familar with the plot. This clearly is an example of where opening up into movie format really made a good play even better. The movie is also perfectly cast, with Streep, Hoffman and Adams all turning in stellar performances. To me, Doubt is a much better movie than the Academy Award winner _Slumdog Millionaire_.


Panasonic 720p 50" plasma, Panasonic 10a player, 7 1/2'


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/16244454
> 
> 
> Based upon the comparison pix, Riddick is definitely grain scrubbed alongside encoding at 14Mbps in comparison to the HD DVD.



There was definitely something amiss when scenes look good until the camera is filled with Riddick's mug (same with Kyra's and others). The change in quality just didn't add up until DNR was added into the equation. The minimal appearance of grain was the first hint.


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/16246029
> 
> 
> Sharpness, detail and clarity are very good. Facial close-ups are borderline Tier 0-Tier 1. Facial features are clearly shown, blemishes and particularly wrinkles on Maryl Streep's face-- she sure looks different that she did in _Mama Mia_. There seems to be fine grain present at times.
> 
> 
> This isn't a movie with a lot of bright colors, black and white predominate. I found the blacks to be deep showing good detail, while the whites were nice and clean.
> 
> 
> Overall I'd rank the movie solidly in Tier 1, *Doubt Tier 1.5*.
> 
> 
> I had seen the stage play so was familar with the plot. This clearly is an example of where opening up into movie format really made a good play even better. The movie is also perfectly cast, with Streep, Hoffman and Adams all turning in stellar performances. To me, Doubt is a much better movie than the Academy Award winner _Slumdog Millionaire_.



really? I thought Doubt was a boring movie where nothing happened and had no resolution in the end. It also made too much use of "play" devices like the rain. It was very well acted, but as a film I thought it fell short. I also paid to go see it, so I guess I had higher expectations.


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/16247279
> 
> 
> really? I thought Doubt was a boring movie where nothing happened and had no resolution in the end. It also made too much use of "play" devices like the rain. It was very well acted, but as a film I thought it fell short. I also paid to go see it, so I guess I had higher expectations.



This isn't really a thread to discuss a movie's merit but I thought I'd respond to your comments. "Nothing happened"? That's the crux of the movie, did something actually happen? "No resolution in the end"? Did you ever wonder what the title refers to?


I have no desire to see _Slumdog Millionaire_ again. I'm strongly considering buying _Doubt_ for its repeat viewing potential.


Of course, YMMV.


Moderator, sorry, kind-off, for going off topic.


----------



## djoberg

*The Princess Bride*


I had procrastinated too long with regard to this title, so having a "free" 2 hours tonight I finally took the plunge. Was it worth my time? You bet! The restoration of this classic was infinitely better than the old DVD copy. Was it "demo-worthy"? Not by a long shot.


This was really a mixed bag all the way around. There were some excellent shots with depth and clarity; there were also some shots that were flat and soft. At times the black levels and shadow detail were most pleasing; at other times the black levels were crushed and detail was lacking. The grain throughout the movie was usually intact and enhanced the detail, but there were instances where it was too heavy and downright gritty. The colors, for the most part, were natural and vivid, but then again there were times that they came across as muted and soft. Skin tones were spot on for the majority of the movie, but every once in awhile they had a redness to them. I think you get the picture (pun intended







)....this is one _inconsistent_ title that is destined to be _average_.


I have always loved this movie and I have no regret with my purchase (for there is no contest between the PQ of the Blu-ray version and its DVD counterpart), but I still feel constrained to consign this title to the tier of mediocrity; in other words, to Tier 3, albeit to the highest quarter.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*


Samsung 50" 1080p DLP....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 6'


----------



## jrcorwin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/16245922
> 
> 
> As others have pointed out the print and transfer look pristine, accurately portrayed the director intent and, given present technology, it's probably the best it'll ever look. However, this thread really is about PQ, so here's my minority review.
> 
> 
> Sharpness and detail ranges from very good to good in most scenes. I found one long shot that looked soft and in one medium close-up focus seemed to be lost for a few seconds. Facial close-ups on men were at the high end of very good, probably mid Tier 1, while women's faces showed less detail.
> 
> *In normal scenes the color was rich and vibrant and seemed right on. But what killed the movie for me was the use of colored filters to sugest moods. This was further compounded by the gauze type filtering, with the center sharp but the sides and top and bottom of the frame looking like it was shot through a muslin curtain.
> 
> 
> If faithfully reproducing director intent was part of the rating criteria for this thread, then I could see this movie being in Tier 1; however, it isn't and given what I wrote in the third paragraph I would rate South Pacific Tier 2.5.*
> 
> 
> Some stage presentation benifit by being opened up into a movie format, others suffer in comparison to the original. In _South Pacific's_ case, I think it's the latter. While Mitzi Gaynor is a talented singer and dancer and Rossano Brazzi is adequate, neither have the star power and presence to compete with the lush Hawaiian landscape and their love story almost seems to get lost. Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.
> 
> 
> Panasonic 720p 50" plasma, Panasonic 10a player, 7 1/2'



I don't believe you can count what you mentioned in the third paragraph against the ranking for this one IMO. The filters have been there all along. They are as much a part of the film as anything else at this point. We should be judging the PQ based on what it actually is and not based on what we wish would have been done differently during filing 50+ years ago. We don't get to re-imagine it now.


----------



## Hughmc

*Bedtime Stories:*


I have put off recommending placement in this title, because of my procrastination, but I had to see it a bit more to be sure. It was captured with a Genesis HD cam. Overall the PQ was good to excellent with good to excellent detail. The colors were very intense and punchy and looked beautiful, but sometimes the oranges were a bit too much(see the end scene for what I mean). Black levels and contrast are excellent. Facial detail, as in the really extreme detail we are looking for in tier 0 titles just isn't there, but then the camera rarely if ever gets up close or zooms close enough to reveal facial details qualifying for tier 0. I didn't notice much if any digital noise due to low light capture with the HD cam, so that is good, but the little bit I saw almost looked like light grain and that is what caused me to do a double take and look into how Bedtime Stories was captured.


Good story and some good laughs. I would have like to seen this captured with film. Teresa Palmer is stunning eye candy.
















*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*


----------



## Hughmc

*Role Models:*


There is some very light grain apparent on occasion, but this titles seems to have some DNR used on it and an overall soft picture with a white cast at times. The facial closeups should be better than they are as the focus is very close to the actors faces many times, but the majority of the time faces lack detail. It looks like there was some grain scrubbing/DNR that takes the facial detail away. Black levels are average to good with a few exceptions, color is good, but contrast seems a bit pumped up which may account for that bright, white glow at times. There is nothing to write home about in terms of PQ on this BD. I agree with one review that says the softness of the picture almost makes it look like it was captured with HD cameras. The issue I have is that it looks worse in terms of our PQ qualifiers than a movie that was captured on HD cameras, Bedtime Stories.










I like Role Models, but was expecting more in terms of laughs and story.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.5*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I had a chance to watch _The Condemned_ this weekend and agree with its current placement in tier 2.25. Good but not great visual quality here.


----------



## djoberg

*Doubt*


In my last review I had to censure "The Princess Bride" for its inconsistency and give it a recommendation of Tier 3. In contrast, *Doubt* was perfectly consistent from beginning to end (consistently SHARP and DETAILED) and will easily be awarded a Tier 1 placement (I am confident of that).


I would encourage you to read the only other review (thus far) of this title by OldCodger73, for his sentiments echo mine to a tee. Here is the link for his review:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...ostcount=12083 


This film is to be praised, as OldCodger73 stated, for its amazing sharpness, detail, and clarity. Add to that solid black levels with crisp shadow detail and strong contrast and you have a recipe for a "demo-worthy" title. I was mesmerized by the detail in every scene, and especially the detail in clothing and facial close-ups. It was pure EYE CANDY (even though the color palette was limited).


I must also agree wholeheartedly with OldCodger73 regarding the merit of the movie itself; this is one of the most powerful character-driven movies I have seen in some time! It was MUCH better, IMHO, than Slumdog Millionaire, with Oscar-worthy performances by Meryl Streep, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams, and Viola Davis (though Ms. Davis' performance was rather short, it was simply stunning).


I am going to up the ante by a quarter of a tier and recommend:

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*


Samsung 50" 1080p DLP....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 6'


PS I was so impressed with the PQ that I was actually considering 1.0, so if it ends up there I will easily acquiesce.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16257090
> 
> *Doubt*
> 
> 
> In my last review I had to censure "The Princess Bride" for its inconsistency and give it a recommendation of Tier 3. In contrast, *Doubt* was perfectly consistent from beginning to end (consistently SHARP and DETAILED) and will easily be awarded a Tier 1 placement (I am confident of that).
> 
> 
> I would encourage you to read the only other review (thus far) of this title by OldCodger73, for his sentiments echo mine to a tee. Here is the link for his review:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...ostcount=12083
> 
> 
> This film is to be praised, as OldCodger73 stated, for its amazing sharpness, detail, and clarity. Add to that solid black levels with crisp shadow detail and strong contrast and you have a recipe for a "demo-worthy" title. I was mesmerized by the detail in every scene, and especially the detail in clothing and facial close-ups. It was pure EYE CANDY (even though the color palette was limited).
> 
> 
> I must also agree wholeheartedly with OldCodger73 regarding the merit of the movie itself; this is one of the most powerful character-driven movies I have seen in some time! It was MUCH better, IMHO, than Slumdog Millionaire, with Oscar-worthy performances by Meryl Streep, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams, and Viola Davis (though Ms. Davis' performance was rather short, it was simply stunning).
> 
> 
> I am going to up the ante by a quarter of a tier and recommend:
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.25*
> 
> 
> Samsung 50" 1080p DLP....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 6'
> 
> 
> PS I was so impressed with the PQ that I was actually considering 1.0, so if it ends up there I will easily acquiesce.




I confess that I was so focused on the movie itself that I did not give the PQ my normal attention. Nevertheless, I think I can easily agree that it is at least 1.5, and quite possibly higher. Further viewing might give me a basis for more precision.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/16257499
> 
> 
> I confess that I was so focused on the movie itself that I did not give the PQ my normal attention.



How dare you! I'll bet you were entertained, too. Take that disc right back to the store- you clearly don't know how to use it right.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/16257740
> 
> 
> How dare you! I'll bet you were entertained, too. Take that disc right back to the store- you clearly don't know how to use it right.



Remind me why you post in this thread that focuses on PQ. . .


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/16258061
> 
> 
> Remind me why you post in this thread that focuses on PQ. . .



I guess I just like to torment myself.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/16258245
> 
> 
> I guess I just like to torment myself.



I'm not so sure that your description of who it is you're interested in tormenting is entirely accurate.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/16258299
> 
> 
> I'm not so sure that your description of who it is you're interested in tormenting is entirely accurate.



Touche! When I go down in flames, I'm taking you with me.


----------



## babrown92

*The Princess Bride*


Wow! I can't remember the last time I was this surprised with the quality of a transfer. Perhaps I've seen too many MGM efforts and films from the same era, but my expectations for this were small.


I really couldn't be happier with this treatment. A consistent film-like transfer throughout. No evidence of DNR and a fine layer of good grain. There may have been one or two instances of some very minor EE, but it looks like this film was saved from the evil digital clean-up. No artifacts that could be found, very clean print.


The colors really popped, and the depth in some cases, was fantastic with some nice 3d pop in some scenes.


On the negative side, the facial details weren't the best I've ever seen. Some scenes were softer than others, but this is due to the movie being shot a little soft and not the fault of the transfer. The film doesn't have the wow! factor of many modern digital movies, but I dont really consider that a negative, though some might.


I can't imagine this film looking any better than this. After having so many of my favorite films not get the HD treatment they deserve, it feels good to have one slip through unscathed every now and then.



I could definitely rate this much higher, but in keeping with the parameters of this thread I feel comfortable with it being:

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


Samsung 46" A650 - 7 feet away, viewed with Playstation 3


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *babrown92* /forum/post/16258553
> 
> *The Princess Bride*
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.0*



I am finding the varying opinions of this title fascinating! So far the tally goes like this:


Your view.............2.0

OldCodger73.........2.25

G3......................2.75

My view...............3.0

stumlad................3.25

sleater.................somewhere in Tier 3


It will be interesting to see where this finally ends up, but right now it is looking like either 2.75 or 3.0, which, IMO, is where it deserves to be because of the MANY inconsistencies throughout the movie. As I watched it I kept forgetting I was watching a 1080p Blu-ray; it seemed more like a mediocre 1080i movie that you would see on a channel like TNT or USA. Don't take this the wrong way, for as I stated in my review it is infinitely better than the first DVD version that came out, but it doesn't even compare to most or all of the titles in Tiers 0-2 of this thread.


----------



## Hughmc

Denny, I could have sworn you reviewed Yes Man or that someone had, but I did the search and nothing.

I am going to run through it again, but it looks like a good title, 1.5ish.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16259483
> 
> 
> Denny, I could have sworn you reviewed Yes Man or that someone had, but I did the search and nothing.
> 
> I am going to run through it again, but it looks like a good title, 1.5ish.



Hugh,


I almost picked that up yesterday, but I decided on Doubt instead. I do plan to get it soon, along with Seven Pounds. That will be nice to watch 2 possible Tier 1 titles back-to-back.


----------



## moematthews




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/16239916
> 
> 
> I agree with both of you on *Deception*. PQ was outstanding. Unfortunately the movie itself was not so good. It didn't help that I don't care for the three main actors.



+1. I was quite surprised at how bad this movie was, but I'm sure that the general reviews did not reflect this, simply because of the presence of those same three main actors. It's my belief that the mere presence of "big name" actors precludes a bad review of any movie, or that the presence of those same actors will entice lots of people to see it, regardless of quality. The plot was so thin and implausible, but I'm sure the mainstream reviews called it a "riveting thriller" or some such nonsense. For his part, Ewan MacGregor hasn't been involved in a good movie since Trainspotting. Which is one more good movie than Hugh Jackman has ever been involved in.


----------



## Hughmc

I see we have Sin City about to be released domestically. The one we have listed in tier 1.25 is the Canadian import. It will be interesting to see if there is much of a difference. Ralph Potts and other reviewers are saying it is 100%, 5/5, etc. so let's see how it holds up for our thread.


And I have The Spirit on tap for tonight, but not expecting much from what I read and hear.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16264661
> 
> 
> I see we have Sin City about to be released domestically. The one we have listed in tier 1.25 is the Canadian import. It will be interesting to see if there is much of a difference. Ralph Potts and other reviewers are saying it is 100%, 5/5, etc. so let's see how it holds up for our thread.



I should watch my Canadian version to get a baseline for next week's US release. Should be interesting.


I think I get _The Spirit_ tonight as well, but from what I hear about the actual story, I'm not looking forward to it that much.


----------



## b_scott

watched Bolt last night. Agreed on the placement


Pioneer 5010-FD 1080p, 8' back, pitch black.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/16265287
> 
> 
> watched Bolt last night. Agreed on the placement
> 
> 
> Pioneer 5010-FD 1080p, 8' back, pitch black.



+1


I'm glad to see another member favoring Tier 0. I know this has been a controversial title (like Wall-E), but IMO the virtues (which are clearly Tier Blu quality) far outweigh any flaws and thus it deserves the place it now occupies.


----------



## b_scott

i think the only softness I see is on far away shots. Otherwise it's sharp as a tack. I think they made the animation a bit smoother edged to make it look more real as opposed to looking like CGI.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16266262
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> I'm glad to see another member favoring Tier 0. I know this has been a controversial title (like Wall-E), but IMO the virtues (which are clearly Tier Blu quality) far outweigh any flaws and thus it deserves the place it now occupies.



Bolt was a little too diffuse for me to recommend anything but the bottom of tier zero for its placement. I also thought the level of detail evident in the CGI outside of Bolt himself was lacking. Watch the movie focusing on objects other than him. A point in Bolt's favor is that the filmmakers did try a more realistic environment with more objects on the screen, but those objects lacked the intricate animation seen in the best CGI on Blu-ray.


I got around to watching The Chronicles Of Narnia: Prince Caspian finally and remember the heated discussion it generated here. Its current placement looks okay though I think it should be placed next to Pirates of the Caribbean:COTBP in tier zero. I really wanted to place Prince Caspian higher as it looks stupendous, but the observations made here regarding slightly lacking facial detail were very accurate. I think it is undeniable that DNR has been used throughout the transfer. Grain is hardly evident and a bit of high-frequency information seems to be missing. The compression encode was also a bit skimpy on this Blu-ray at an average of 19.02 Mbps for the main feature. It would not surprise me to see a remastered edition score even higher for the purposes of this list.


----------



## tfoltz

With regard to Bolt, I am surprised few people (only Legairre and me) were bothered by the early-morning haze on nearly every scene. I know I've said this before, but it is still weird.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/16266694
> 
> 
> Bolt was a little too diffuse for me to recommend anything but the bottom of tier zero for its placement.
> 
> 
> I got around to watching The Chronicles Of Narnia: Prince Caspian finally and remember the heated discussion it generated here. Its current placement looks okay though I think it should be placed next to Pirates of the Caribbean:COTBP in tier zero.



I see your point of view regarding Bolt and as long as it stays in Tier 0 I would have no problem with its exact position (though I still prefer a placement near Meet the Robinsons, which I thought was inferior to Bolt).


I am in full agreement with you on Prince Caspian. I think I had recommended mid Tier 0 for the very reason you mentioned (i.e., lacking facial detail).


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/16266731
> 
> 
> With regard to Bolt, I am surprised few people (only Legairre and me) were bothered by the early-morning haze on nearly every scene. I know I've said this before, but it is still weird.



Have you seen Ratatouille? Same "haze" there. IMO they are trying to make the lighting look natural. It seems making that choice with animation gives that "haze" look result.


----------



## tfoltz

Actually, Ratatouille does not use this type of haze, and especially not in every scene; they use appropriate lighting, and Bolt does not. Ratatouille is one of my most watched blu-rays, along with Wall-E, and neither movie had elements that distracted me from enjoying the movie in any way. Bolt, however, was terribly distracting for me because they over-used this technique.


*Edit: I should also add that I did vote for Tier 1 and felt that it could go either way, even into low Tier 0 (or 1.25 of course). I just find it odd that others aren't distracted by something I view as pretty distracting. I thought everyone would be just like me for some reason.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16266849
> 
> 
> Have you seen Ratatouille? Same "haze" there. IMO they are trying to make the lighting look natural. It seems making that choice with animation gives that "haze" look result.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/16266694
> 
> 
> Bolt was a little too diffuse for me to recommend anything but the bottom of tier zero for its placement. I also thought the level of detail evident in the CGI outside of Bolt himself was lacking. Watch the movie focusing on objects other than him. A point in Bolt's favor is that the filmmakers did try a more realistic environment with more objects on the screen, but those objects lacked the intricate animation seen in the best CGI on Blu-ray.



I agree completely.


----------



## barry v s




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/16265287
> 
> 
> watched Bolt last night. Agreed on the placement
> 
> 
> Pioneer 5010-FD 1080p, 8' back, pitch black.




I watched Bolt last night and thought it was probably the best looking disc I have seen. Very sharp throughout, with great sound. Very High tier 0 for me. Pioneer 6010-FD 1080p from PS3 HDMI.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Seven Pounds*


A very nice looking title from Sony. Overall impressive title in terms of contrast, depth and details.


The only thing that keeps this one from being higher in Tier 1 is the lack of "eye candy" in my opinion.


As for the movie itself: I thought it was well done in terms of acting and how the story was told, but the story itself was not at all to my liking.

*Recommendation: Tier 1.75*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *barry v s* /forum/post/16267368
> 
> 
> I watched Bolt last night and thought it was probably the best looking disc I have seen. Very sharp throughout, with great sound. Very High tier 0 for me. Pioneer 6010-FD 1080p from PS3 HDMI.



Thanks for chiming in barry v s! I can't say Bolt is the best I've seen, but it's definitely one of the best animated titles, IMO.


I would love to see Bolt (or any other title, for that matter







) on your Pioneer 6010-FD. I'm seriously considering getting a 60" Kuro and as you no doubt know time is of the essence for purchasing one (with Pioneer's sad announcement that they will quit manufacturing plasmas by year's end).


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/15661565
> 
> *Eastern Promises*
> 
> 
> There was a beautiful, light layer of grain throughout the film. "3D pop" lovers, you will be pleased! Viggo leaps off the screen in every scene he's in! Great cinematography for a 1.78:1 flick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Be warned, this movie is not for anyone sensitive to violence and/or gore! EP has many realistic scenes demonstrating cutting and slicing of body parts. Blood is essential to any Cronenberg story!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skin tones were slightly reddish, but not in a distracting way. Blacks were magestic, which gave way to excellent shadowing. Pores, wrinkles, hair and clothing textures looked good. Details in backround shots were above average. This movie is currently ranked at the top of Tier 1. IMO, I see Tier 1.25. It looks excellent, but slightly falls short of 1.00. What a great film!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Eastern Promises
> 
> Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.25
> 
> PS3-Samsung 46" 1080p-seven'*



This was my review a few months ago.

I'd like to revisit this title. A few of the faces were a little too red, due to oversaturation.

Somehow, it looks better than before! Lots of depth and dimension throughout!


















*Eastern Promises

Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.0

PS3-Samsung 46" 1080p-seven'*


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16267483
> 
> *Seven Pounds*
> 
> 
> A very nice looking title from Sony. Overall impressive title in terms of contrast, depth and details.
> 
> 
> The only thing that keeps this one from being higher in Tier 1 is the lack of "eye candy" in my opinion.
> 
> 
> As for the movie itself: I thought it was well done in terms of acting and how the story was told, but the story itself was not at all to my liking.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 1.75*



I agree with your placement of 1.75.

Wasn't my cup of tea, but Rosario Dawson was excellent!
















Her best role to date IMO.


----------



## jrcorwin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/16266731
> 
> 
> With regard to Bolt, I am surprised few people (only Legairre and me) were bothered by the early-morning haze on nearly every scene. I know I've said this before, but it is still weird.



I'm glad you said this. I was bothered by it as well, but couldn't find a way to phrase it. "Haze" works perfectly.


----------



## Hughmc

Bolt is a really similar to Wall E in how posters feel about it. Interesting to watch the discussions.










One of the things that most impressed me about Bolt was the commando suits which I mentioned before. The detail, texture, contrast, black level of those suits is awesome and probably the best of any one graphic item I have seen in animation on BD to date. Those suits really impressed me that much and was one of the reasons I voted so high for Bolt.


The "haze" seems to be more of an issue for projectors than those of us with HDTV displays. I say this because I went through all who reviewed it and with one or two exceptions, the higher votes were from those who watched on HDTV's and the lower votes and complaints about haze were mainly projector watchers. After seeing and demoing many projectors in showrooms over the last few years, I think poorer contrast would lend itself to a whiter, more hazy look than on HDTV's that have better contrast.


I am not trying to take away any legitimate gripes about the haze, nor am I picking a projector vs HDTV display fight, but I am making a simple observation and curious to see what others think. The consistent split is interesting.


----------



## tfoltz

Well I have a plasma, according to Legairre's review he has a projector, and jcorwin has a DLP according to his signature. To my knowledge, we three are the only ones that have posted about being bothered about the "haze" (my thoughts: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...ostcount=11661 ). Most others have mentioned softness in various ways, but not specific to the haze (which is what I found/find surprising).


----------



## LBFilmGuy

*Changeling*


(Revised review after a 2nd viewing.)


Lit and shot by Clint's great DP Tom Stern with the intentional dated 1920's look; the sepia tones, desaturated colors (except Jolie's lipstick haha), and hard light and shadow, this looked phenomenal for what it is. Coupled with the outstanding production design, this film really puts you back in the late 1920s and looks fantastic.


Fine details on clothing (jackets, hats, suits, etc) were all very sharp and pleasing. Establishing and long shots were all nice as well...lots of nice details in the buildings, on the streets, the cars, etc.


Facial closeups were good but nothing too remarkable. Jolie, I believe, was intentionally lit soft to give her that infamous glow (Her lips were usually sharp and detailed though.)







John Malkovich's face along with the lawyer and "good" detective were nicely resolved. Despite the intentional look, skin tones and colors never seem unnatural or odd.


Where it struggled the most for me was shadow detail, especially during the 2nd half of the film. There were scenes in the police cheif's office where just about everything behind him just went to black. Suit jackets and other things we like to see detail in were also not found in the court room scenes of the judges. Given how this was shot though it didn't bother me too much. Contrast was also a bit intentionally hot.


I also noticed a very strange thing in the beginning when Jolie tells her son she will take him to the movies the next day and brings him to bed. The right side of the frame is bright where they walk through the door, and to the left is the rest of the room that is dark. I noticed a very obvious cranking of contrast in the shadow areas, as if someone was adjusting it mid scene during the transfer. Did anyone else notice this? I will go back and get the timecode on my 2nd viewing (It is from 6:15-6:30, I am curious if anyone else notices this, just find it interesting.)


Overall, after my 2nd viewing I found myself paying more attention to the PQ and will raise it to the top of Tier 2, agreeing with where it is now.


Phenomenal work all around once again by Eastwood.

*Recommendation: Top of Tier 2*


Panasonic PZ80U via PS3 @ about 6 feet.


----------



## Legairre




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16268662
> 
> 
> Bolt is a really similar to Wall E in how posters feel about it. Interesting to watch the discussions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the things that most impressed me about Bolt was the commando suits which I mentioned before. The detail, texture, contrast, black level of those suits is awesome and probably the best of any one graphic item I have seen in animation on BD to date. Those suits really impressed me that much and was one of the reasons I voted so high for Bolt.
> 
> 
> The "haze" seems to be more of an issue for projectors than those of us with HDTV displays. I say this because I went through all who reviewed it and with one or two exceptions, the higher votes were from those who watched on HDTV's and the lower votes and complaints about haze were mainly projector watchers. After seeing and demoing many projectors in showrooms over the last few years, I think poorer contrast would lend itself to a whiter, more hazy look than on HDTV's that have better contrast.
> 
> 
> I am not trying to take away any legitimate gripes about the haze, nor am I picking a projector vs HDTV display fight, but I am making a simple observation and curious to see what others think. The consistent split is interesting.



I was one of the people who commented on the haze and softness. In my review I commented that I have seen the same haze and softness on my Mitsubishi HC1500 projector projected on a 110" white screen as well as on my 40" Toshiba LCD TV. I don't think it's a projector issue because it appears the same on both my projector and my LCD TV with both running through a Sony PS3( Both my projector and LCD TV are calibrated with DVE Blu-ray).


I voted for Bolt to be listed a tier 1.25 due to the softness and haze during outside scenes where they appear to have ginen everything a bright morning look that crushes whites and causes the haze and lack of detail.


Bolt looks good, but it is not in the same league as Panda or others in tier 0. If someone was to come over and ask to see what BD looks like I wouldn't even think about pulling out Bolt. It's a good BD but IMO not reference.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16268662
> 
> 
> Bolt is a really similar to Wall E in how posters feel about it. Interesting to watch the discussions.



One of the most interesting observations I have made is that some who really loved and praised Wall-E are the most vocal in their criticism of Bolt's "softness." And then you have those, like me, who criticized Wall-E for its softness (during the first 30 minutes) who are not being critical of Bolt in that area. This is just an observation; I'm not trying to start a big debate along these lines, I just find it somewhat paradoxical (if I can use that term in this instance).


----------



## tfoltz

Put me in that camp. Wall-E is top of the line to my eyes, and every aspect of the dust on earth made sense to my eyes. Bolt, however, uses this "haze" technique in most scenes (morning, day, night; outside, inside) for no reason and it bugged my eyes because it didn't feel right. I am not severely critical of it though, since I did think many aspects of the movie looked amazing.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16270734
> 
> 
> One of the most interesting observations I have made is that some who really loved and praised Wall-E are the most vocal in their criticism of Bolt's "softness." And then you have those, like me, who criticized Wall-E for its softness (during the first 30 minutes) who are not being critical of Bolt in that area. This is just an observation; I'm not trying to start a big debate along these lines, I just find it somewhat paradoxical (if I can use that term in this instance).


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/16271301
> 
> 
> Bolt, however, uses this "haze" technique in most scenes (morning, day, night; outside, inside) for no reason and it bugged my eyes because it didn't feel right.



There are a number of things going on, but I believe there are two notable things happening that might lead to this perception of haze.


First is around areas of diffuse lighting where objects in the light path are softened up a bit for a naturalistic effect, with softness increasing in the background as you approach the light source:

 
 


Also, a number of complete backgrounds (especially in the outdoors scenes like the RV park) are given a heavily-stylized impressionistic "painterly" look:

 
 


Still, there's an incredible amount of fine detail in nearly every shot and I wouldn't hesitate to call Bolt one of the best-looking eye candy titles released to date.


----------



## tfoltz

I agree with your findings Cinema Squid, as they are unison with what Disney CGI supervisor Mark Empey said here: http://hollywood-animated-films.suit..._empey_on_bolt 


More specifically this Q&A:
*I noticed that there was a deliberate attempt to soften the backgrounds in this film, to take away that CGI rigidity and glossiness. Where did that come from, and how was it accomplished?*


"It was inspired by the painterly style of American Realism, with artists such as George Bellows and Edward Hopper, The idea was go with a more impressionistic approach for the backgrounds. We came up with the term 'Blast Zone,' to define the areas that required more or less details.


"Characters which have more detail stay within the blast zone, which leads away into less detail. A painterly technique called Ray Painting (which is patent pending) was developed to execute this look."

_ _


I can't disagree that a lot of this movie looks great and heavily detailed (I think what they did for the TV scenes were amazing; and look at the couch in the picture you have of Rhino, wow); I am just saying that, for my eyes, they over-did it with their newfound techniques to the point of distraction.


----------



## jrcorwin

I have to say that I was most distracted by Bolt's fur. The detail is great, but I see a bit of glow at times. I see this both in screenshots and on my own screen. Maybe that is what a dog with a white coat would look like in direct sunlight, but I haven't noticed it.


----------



## deepstang




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/16269499
> 
> *Changeling*
> 
> 
> (Revised review after a 2nd viewing.)
> 
> 
> Lit and shot by Clint's great DP Tom Stern with the intentional dated 1920's look; the sepia tones, desaturated colors (except Jolie's lipstick haha), and hard light and shadow, this looked phenomenal for what it is. Coupled with the outstanding production design, this film really puts you back in the late 1920s and looks fantastic.
> 
> 
> Fine details on clothing (jackets, hats, suits, etc) were all very sharp and pleasing. Establishing and long shots were all nice as well...lots of nice details in the buildings, on the streets, the cars, etc.
> 
> 
> Facial closeups were good but nothing too remarkable. Jolie, I believe, was intentionally lit soft to give her that infamous glow (Her lips were usually sharp and detailed though.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Malkovich's face along with the lawyer and "good" detective were nicely resolved. Despite the intentional look, skin tones and colors never seem unnatural or odd.
> 
> 
> Where it struggled the most for me was shadow detail, especially during the 2nd half of the film. There were scenes in the police cheif's office where just about everything behind him just went to black. Suit jackets and other things we like to see detail in were also not found in the court room scenes of the judges. Given how this was shot though it didn't bother me too much. Contrast was also a bit intentionally hot.
> 
> 
> I also noticed a very strange thing in the beginning when Jolie tells her son she will take him to the movies the next day and brings him to bed. The right side of the frame is bright where they walk through the door, and to the left is the rest of the room that is dark. I noticed a very obvious cranking of contrast in the shadow areas, as if someone was adjusting it mid scene during the transfer. Did anyone else notice this? I will go back and get the timecode on my 2nd viewing (It is from 6:15-6:30, I am curious if anyone else notices this, just find it interesting.)
> 
> 
> Overall, after my 2nd viewing I found myself paying more attention to the PQ and will raise it to the top of Tier 2, agreeing with where it is now.
> 
> 
> Phenomenal work all around once again by Eastwood.
> 
> *Recommendation: Top of Tier 2*
> 
> 
> Panasonic PZ80U via PS3 @ about 6 feet.



I haven't been on this thread in over a year, but I am her because I wanted to say that Changeling was one of the best Blu Ray discs made to date. Very full featured, very clear and crisp, fantastic sound imaging...not diffuse like some other lossless 7.1 movies. I love action and animation; however, if you can get beyond the slow pace of the movie....this movie is at the top as far as audio and video quality is concerned.


----------



## Legairre




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jrcorwin* /forum/post/16272053
> 
> 
> I have to say that I was most distracted by Bolt's fur. The detail is great, but I see a bit of glow at times. I see this both in screenshots and on my own screen. Maybe that is what a dog with a white coat would look like in direct sunlight, but I haven't noticed it.



This photo of the top of Bolt's head is a good example of the crushed whites I'm referring to that causes a lack of detail.

 


Also look at Bolt's head and tail in these shots. The lack of detail from the whites being crushed is caused by the way they made outside daylight scenes overly hot. You can see detail in the side of his tail but the top of his tail is nothing but crushed whites with no detail. The top of his head in the first pic and the top of his tail this pic both look like the flash from a camera went off. For some reason they chose to do this all throughout the movie when scenes are outside. This is what I find odd and why I don't consider Bolt tier 0.


----------



## b_scott

but that's the sun shining on his head. it's just bright.


----------



## jrcorwin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/16272982
> 
> 
> but that's the sun shining on his head. it's just bright.



Even on a clear and sunny summer day in Florida...it wouldn't cause that.


----------



## b_scott

bright sun on white? I beg to differ. I bring many a picture of me and my white blonde hair at 3 years old to the table.


----------



## jrcorwin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/16273014
> 
> 
> bright sun on white? I beg to differ. I bring many a picture of me and my white blonde hair at 3 years old to the table.



Bright sun on some white surfaces or materials...yet. Bright sun on white dog fur...no. IMO


----------



## Legairre




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/16272982
> 
> 
> but that's the sun shining on his head. it's just bright.



His fur would have to be reflective like snow to glow like that(and we all know a dogs fur isn't). The kind of effect they used would cause what's known as snow blindness. Only a solid white surface like snow or some other material has that kind of hot spotting on a really bright sunny day. I've seen pure white cars that don't hotspot like that.


Also Bolt isn't the only thing to have this effect.


Look at the dirt. Crushed whites.










For some reason they felt that objects in daylight all had the same visual effect as arctic snow.


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Legairre* /forum/post/16273274
> 
> 
> His fur would have to be reflective like snow to glow like that(and we all know a dogs fur isn't). The kind of effect they used would cause what's known as snow blindness. Only a solid white surface like snow or some other material has that kind of hot spotting on a really bright sunny day. I've seen pure white cars that don't hotspot like that.
> 
> 
> Also Bolt isn't the only thing to have this effect.
> 
> 
> Look at the dirt. Crushed whites.



as previously posted:


"It was inspired by the painterly style of American Realism, with artists such as George Bellows and Edward Hopper, The idea was go with a more impressionistic approach for the backgrounds. We came up with the term 'Blast Zone,' to define the areas that required more or less details.


"Characters which have more detail stay within the blast zone, which leads away into less detail. A painterly technique called Ray Painting (which is patent pending) was developed to execute this look."


the super sunshine is an effect.


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Legairre* /forum/post/16272945
> 
> 
> Also look at Bolt's head and tail in these shots. The lack of detail from the whites being crushed is caused by the way they made outside daylight scenes overly hot. You can see detail in the side of his tail but the top of his tail is nothing but crushed whites with no detail. The top of his head in the first pic and the top of his tail this pic both look like the flash from a camera went off. For some reason they chose to do this all throughout the movie when scenes are outside. This is what I find odd and why I don't consider Bolt tier 0.



It's worth pointing out that some care should be taken in interpreting those screenshots since they have been expanded into full RGB range, so depending on the fidelity of your computer display you may not be seeing all of the detail at the top of the range. However, your general point is valid - the whites are plenty hot in places which could lead to a loss of detail in general viewing that could also be exacerbated by less than ideal white delineation on a given viewing device.


Personally, I like the effect although I suppose that strays into the territory of artistic intent. Still, independent of intent, I don't see how Bolt could be anything other than solidly in Tier 0 IMHO. It's arguably superior to Kung Fu Panda and WALL-E since it appears to me to have a flawless encode and lacks the (admittedly very minor) ringing and block artifacts that those other two titles have respectively.


----------



## b_scott

my dog Molly in bright sunshine - Canon XSi w/Sigma 70-300mm:











Even the black on her is shining. And it's not even as sunny as it is in the movie.


----------



## jrcorwin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/16273379
> 
> 
> as previously posted:
> 
> 
> "It was inspired by the painterly style of American Realism, with artists such as George Bellows and Edward Hopper, The idea was go with a more impressionistic approach for the backgrounds. We came up with the term 'Blast Zone,' to define the areas that required more or less details.
> 
> 
> "Characters which have more detail stay within the blast zone, which leads away into less detail. A painterly technique called Ray Painting (which is patent pending) was developed to execute this look."
> 
> 
> the super sunshine is an effect.



I'm not sure that those quotes are related to the "sunshine" issue.


----------



## jrcorwin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/16273428
> 
> 
> my dog Molly in bright sunshine - Canon XSi w/Sigma 70-300mm:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even the black on her is shining. And it's not even as sunny as it is in the movie.



I don't see the same effect this this photo.


----------



## b_scott

that's because, like I said, it's not as sunny. But you can see how the whites crush in regular photography. Around the neckline and hind quarters.


----------



## jrcorwin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/16273467
> 
> 
> that's because, like I said, it's not as sunny. But you can see how the whites crush in regular photography. Around the neckline and hind quarters.



I don't see the same effect and if that is what they were going for they went a few ticks too far.


----------



## tfoltz

I think Molly can be solid Tier 0; I think Bolt is debatable.


I agree with jrcorwin on his last post to a certain extent. I think the technique they used was fine in certain areas, but became distracting once they used it too often, and in unnecessary situations (thus, a click too far). I do believe the "ray painting" effect to be the culprit, but I can't be sure.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/16273391
> 
> 
> It's worth pointing out that some care should be taken in interpreting those screenshots since they have been expanded into full RGB range, so depending on the fidelity of your computer display you may not be seeing all of the detail at the top of the range. However, your general point is valid - the whites are plenty hot in places which could lead to a loss of detail in general viewing that could also be exacerbated by less than ideal white delineation on a given viewing device.
> 
> 
> Personally, I like the effect although I suppose that strays into the territory of artistic intent. Still, independent of intent, I don't see how Bolt could be anything other than solidly in Tier 0 IMHO. It's arguably superior to Kung Fu Panda and WALL-E since it appears to me to have a flawless encode and lacks the (admittedly very minor) ringing and block artifacts that those other two titles have respectively.



This is part of my reason for recommending top of tier 0 and happy to see you agree.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jrcorwin* /forum/post/16273448
> 
> 
> I don't see the same effect this this photo.



Because that is a real photo and only one example while Bolt is animation, so to achieve that look, which I respect some don't like, I give them praise, not scorn, but it is subjective.


I also agree that the Ray Painting technique and the bright sun, haze issue are two separate effects.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/16273559
> 
> 
> I think Molly can be solid Tier 0; I think Bolt is debatable.
> 
> 
> I agree with jrcorwin on his last post to a certain extent. I think the technique they used was fine in certain areas, but became distracting once they used it too often, and in unnecessary situations (thus, a click too far). I do believe the "ray painting" effect to be the culprit, but I can't be sure.



Didn't some claim the "haze" was used throughout the entire movie and now some are claiming only when outside?


----------



## spectator

I think it's hilarious that you guys will go back and forth about degrees of sunlight specularity and "haze" and yet say not a peep about bulging, oversized eyeballs. Photorealism is clearly not the aim with Bolt, folks. Please hold it to a quality standard, but if your comparison is with the view out your window, overlooking the park, I'm afraid you're missing the point.


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/16273559
> 
> 
> I think Molly can be solid Tier 0; I think Bolt is debatable.



LOL thanks


----------



## Legairre




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/16273467
> 
> 
> that's because, like I said, it's not as sunny. But you can see how the whites crush in regular photography. Around the neckline and hind quarters.



Yes I can see how whites crush, in as you stated "photography". The dog won't appear like that in real life to the naked eye though. The movie is supposed mimic real life not a photograph. Then again maybe they based their artwork off photographs and that's why they made the decision to use this technique. IMO they where trying to simulate real life, but ended up simulating photography on the daylight scenes.


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/16273637
> 
> 
> i think it's hilarious that you guys will go back and forth about degrees of sunlight specularity and "haze" and yet say not a peep about bulging, oversized eyeballs. Photorealism is clearly not the aim with bolt, folks. Please hold it to a quality standard, but if your comparison is with the view out your window, overlooking the park, i'm afraid you're missing the point.



:d


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/16273637
> 
> 
> I think it's hilarious that you guys will go back and forth about degrees of sunlight specularity and "haze" and yet say not a peep about bulging, oversized eyeballs. Photorealism is clearly not the aim with Bolt, folks. Please hold it to a quality standard, but if your comparison is with the view out your window, overlooking the park, I'm afraid you're missing the point.



You probably don't really mean this seriously, but on the off chance that you do, we have found another thing to agree on.


----------



## Legairre

I also don't expect to see aliens running down my street, but when I see them in a movie I don't expect crushed blacks or whites either. If a movie had this effect we'd be all over it like when Alien vs. Predator Requiem had crushed black and everyone complained about it for having a lack of detail in dark areas. To me the same standard should apply. Otherwise we should have one rating for animation and another for movies.


I'm not saying Bolt is a bad looking BD. It looks great and tier 0 in many scenes, but tier 0 is supposed to be the absolute best BD has to offer. I just don't see this as the absolute best BD has to offer.


----------



## tfoltz

I am not sure, but *I* claim that it was used almost throughout the entire movie.


Here is what I originally wrote, and still feel this way:

"I'm no lighting expert, but almost every scene in the movie appeared like it had an early morning sunlight haze to it (perhaps this "blast zone" and "Ray Painting" technique?), and ultimately felt unfocused and/or soft. It was kind of like they got a new toy and, to the detriment of my eyes and brain, couldn't stop playing with it. Unlike Wall-E (which I feel is top Tier 0), there wasn't always something sharp to focus on since everything had this blast zone affect. I felt that this affect was totally appropriate and amazing for the stylized "tv" scenes (which I feel pushes it up to Tier 1, no lower)."




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16273591
> 
> 
> Didn't some claim the "haze" was used throughout the entire movie and now some are claiming only when outside?


----------



## Legairre




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16273591
> 
> 
> Didn't some claim the "haze" was used throughout the entire movie and now some are claiming only when outside?



I'm claiming the hotspottng/blast zone is used mostly outside. I'd have to go back and take a look at the haze before I make a statement on that.


----------



## tfoltz

Here's the thing for me: it was an effect/technique that distracted me from the movie, not because it was different, but because it seemed wrong to my eyes and brain.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/16273637
> 
> 
> I think it's hilarious that you guys will go back and forth about degrees of sunlight specularity and "haze" and yet say not a peep about bulging, oversized eyeballs. Photorealism is clearly not the aim with Bolt, folks. Please hold it to a quality standard, but if your comparison is with the view out your window, overlooking the park, I'm afraid you're missing the point.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/16273774
> 
> 
> You probably don't really mean this seriously, but on the off chance that you do, we have found another thing to agree on.




I think most of use agree with spectator on that point, but we can all be thankful we weren't comparing photo realistic piles of poop.







By the way the eyes were another selling point for me, the color and detail in them.


----------



## HDphile22

Southland Tales is pretty Great PQ!


----------



## djoberg

It's quite obvious from the last two pages of posts that we are never going to agree on the exact placement of *Bolt* (though it appears there is a measure of agreement on *Molly*







), just as we couldn't agree on where Wall-E should be placed. So, if we can agree on the fact that we have reached an impasse, I suggest we move on.


BTW, I was thankful for the input by Cinema Squid (his still shots and corresponding remarks) and tfoltz (the article he submitted by Mark Empey); they were both helpful.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Legairre* /forum/post/16273688
> 
> 
> The movie is supposed mimic real life not a photograph.



Says who?!


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Christ people, can we move on from Bolt or at least take all this back and forth to the official thread?


Stuff like this happening in here makes other reviews that we spend time on get overlooked.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Legairre* /forum/post/16273796
> 
> 
> I also don't expect to see aliens running down my street, but when I see them in a movie I don't expect crushed blacks or whites either.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Legairre* /forum/post/16273796
> 
> 
> I just don't see this as the absolute best BD has to offer.



The problem here is that you're defining a completely linear, fully delineated greyscale as the _only_ kind of picture which can represent the best of BD, and where's the art in that? If I want to see reality, I'll look _away_ from my display. A photo-real image is certainly _an example_ of a spectacular, demo-worthy BD picture, but if it were the _only_ example, I'd have zero interest in BD. And you know this is true- it's why no one commented on the "unrealistic" anthropomorphic talking animals. The crushed blacks and blown whites are a simulation of photography. If you don't like the look, that's fine, but to say that it's necessarily a failing of picture-quality, even in the terms of this thread, is wrong, IMO.


In reality, I can look out the window.


In reality, I can also look at a photograph.


I want my video medium (Blu-ray) to be able to represent _both experiences_ as accurately as possible.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/16274528
> 
> 
> Christ people, can we move on from Bolt or at least take all this back and forth to the official thread?
> 
> 
> Stuff like this happening in here makes other reviews that we spend time on get overlooked.










If we're not going to talk about the titles which land on lines of controversy, what's the point of having a discussion forum?


----------



## JohnES1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/16274565
> 
> 
> The problem here is that you're defining a completely linear, fully delineated greyscale as the _only_ kind of picture which can represent the best of BD, and where's the art in that? If I want to see reality, I'll look _away_ from my display. A photo-real image is certainly _an example_ of a spectacular, demo-worthy BD picture, but if it were the _only_ example, I'd have zero interest in BD. And you know this is true- it's why no one commented on the "unrealistic" anthropomorphic talking animals. The crushed blacks and blown whites are a simulation of photography. If you don't like the look, that's fine, but to say that it's necessarily a failing of picture-quality, even in the terms of this thread, is wrong, IMO.
> 
> 
> In reality, I can look out the window.
> 
> 
> In reality, I can also look at a photograph.
> 
> 
> I want my video medium (Blu-ray) to be able to represent _both experiences_ as accurately as possible.



Yes, it is the art of ENTERAINMENT, and if my mom drifts off and falls asleep during Bolt next week due to the PQ I'll let you know...







Good discussion!


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/16274573
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we're not going to talk about the titles which land on lines of controversy, what's the point of having a discussion forum?



When it goes on for pages and pages, it gets to be too much for this thread when there are hundreds of other titles to be reviewed.


That's why there are threads for titles like these, and also why I tried to suggest an entire forum for just BD PQ, where each title has their own thread.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/16271712
> 
> 
> There are a number of things going on, but I believe there are two notable things happening that might lead to this perception of haze.
> 
> 
> First is around areas of diffuse lighting where objects in the light path are softened up a bit for a naturalistic effect, with softness increasing in the background as you approach the light source:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, a number of complete backgrounds (especially in the outdoors scenes like the RV park) are given a heavily-stylized impressionistic "painterly" look:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still, there's an incredible amount of fine detail in nearly every shot and I wouldn't hesitate to call Bolt one of the best-looking eye candy titles released to date.



Thanks for posting this!


I completely agree with you. This is a very natural and realistic representation (in terms of looking like film), and YES there IS still an incredible amount of fine detail present. Without question.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/16274625
> 
> 
> When it goes on for pages and pages, it gets to be too much for this thread when there are hundreds of other titles to be reviewed.



True. There needs to be a line, though, as discussion _is_ the whole reason we're here.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/16274625
> 
> 
> why I tried to suggest an entire forum for just BD PQ



I'm with you, completely, but speaking of going on for pages and pages, let's not raise _that_ spectre again, eh?


----------



## Legairre




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/16274565
> 
> 
> The problem here is that you're defining a completely linear, fully delineated greyscale as the _only_ kind of picture which can represent the best of BD, and where's the art in that? If I want to see reality, I'll look _away_ from my display. A photo-real image is certainly _an example_ of a spectacular, demo-worthy BD picture, but if it were the _only_ example, I'd have zero interest in BD. And you know this is true- it's why no one commented on the "unrealistic" anthropomorphic talking animals. The crushed blacks and blown whites are a simulation of photography. If you don't like the look, that's fine, but to say that it's necessarily a failing of picture-quality, even in the terms of this thread, is wrong, IMO.
> 
> 
> In reality, I can look out the window.
> 
> 
> In reality, I can also look at a photograph.
> 
> 
> I want my video medium (Blu-ray) to be able to represent _both experiences_ as accurately as possible.



I never said it was a failing of picture quality. What I'm saying is that it's an artistic choice just like how a director adds grain to movies like 300 for a more stylized look. Both affect PQ and effect the viewing experience in a positive or negative way.


Maybe we can just agree to disagree and move on like someone else suggested. This debate is going nowhere


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/16274690
> 
> 
> True. There needs to be a line, though, as discussion _is_ the whole reason we're here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm with you, completely, but speaking of going on for pages and pages, let's not raise _that_ spectre again, eh?



Sounds good to me.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Legairre* /forum/post/16274823
> 
> 
> Both affect PQ and effect the viewing experience in a positive or negative way.



They don't affect PQ, _necessarily_. They affect picture _content_. If that causes an impact on PQ _for you_, that's fine. It don't think it can necessarily be said to for _everyone_.


----------



## Legairre

I'm speaking for myself just as you are. Time to move on.


----------



## Smoke_019

maybe i need to get my eyes checked, but is bourne ultimatum on this list yet? i bought the trilogy a few weeks ago and thought it was the best looking of the three titles...it was a slight upgrade over bourne supremacy (tier 1.5 here) and definitely better than bourne identity (tier 2.0)...the audio was outstanding as well...this might be my new go-to demo disc for now...


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Smoke_019* /forum/post/16276409
> 
> 
> maybe i need to get my eyes checked, but is bourne ultimatum on this list yet?



It's on the "Placement Holdings" list on page one. It's currently unranked.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Smoke_019* /forum/post/16276409
> 
> 
> maybe i need to get my eyes checked, but is bourne ultimatum on this list yet? i bought the trilogy a few weeks ago and thought it was the best looking of the three titles...it was a slight upgrade over bourne supremacy (tier 1.5 here) and definitely better than bourne identity (tier 2.0)...the audio was outstanding as well...this might be my new go-to demo disc for now...



I have it here, and hope to watch it in the next day or two.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Smoke_019* /forum/post/16276409
> 
> 
> maybe i need to get my eyes checked, but is bourne ultimatum on this list yet? i bought the trilogy a few weeks ago and thought it was the best looking of the three titles...it was a slight upgrade over bourne supremacy (tier 1.5 here) and definitely better than bourne identity (tier 2.0)...the audio was outstanding as well...this might be my new go-to demo disc for now...



I bought the trilogy on release, but I haven't watched the 3rd movie yet. I believe I did do reviews of the first two, though!



I haven't watched a blu since Bolt, just been busy, hence my lack of reviews. *waves* at the thread!



As for all the Bolt discussion here, I'm in the "tier 1" camp, but I was also one who fought for Wall-E to stay in Tier 0. hehe!


I actually enjoy seeing this kind of discussion here, LBFilmGuy. I don't think it's at the point of bickering the way some discussions tend to get, and I do acknowledge there's other movies to discuss -- there always is. But instead of pointing out "There's other movies to discuss than BOLT!!" when it's up for Tier 0, just start discussing something else, then, if there's a different movie you'd like to talk about right now.


IMO, if something's up for Tier 0 and other people disagree, *that's exactly when* this sort of discussion is necessary and important. If it were pages and pages of deciding whether or not something should be in Tier 2.5 or Tier 2.75, however...


----------



## Wryker

Having watched Ratatouille, Cars, Pirates Trilogy, Bolt, and a few others in the Tier 0 at least 10 times each I can say that Bolt is one of the best looking BD's I've seen. It's better than Pirates and (I hate to say it) better than Kung Fu Panda and Ratatouille - the PQ is incredible. I recommend Tier 0 (like others) but almost, if not, the top.

73" Mitsy TV 1080p

Seated 10' away

PS3


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16278162
> 
> 
> IMO, *if something's up for Tier 0* and other people disagree, *that's exactly when* this sort of discussion is necessary and important.



Hi G3....I've been wondering where you've been! Good to see you're still alive up there "where it's too close to the Arctic Circle."










The only problem with the statement highlighted above is that Bolt is NOT up for Tier 0, it's already in Tier 0. In other words, we've already had our *debate* and votes have been cast, which in turn led to SuprSlow placing it in Tier 0.


Having said that, I have no problem with there being a challenge after a title is placed in Tier 0, but I think there's a limit to how long that should go on, especially when it's obvious that an impasse has been reached.


----------



## JohnES1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wryker* /forum/post/16278240
> 
> 
> Having watched Ratatouille, Cars, Pirates Trilogy, Bolt, and a few others in the Tier 0 at least 10 times each I can say that Bolt is one of the best looking BD's I've seen. It's better than Pirates and (I hate to say it) better than Kung Fu Panda and Ratatouille - the PQ is incredible. I recommend Tier 0 (like others) but almost, if not, the top.
> 
> 73" Mitsy TV 1080p
> 
> Seated 10' away
> 
> PS3



Mom and I watched Ratatoullie last night(I'd put it off because my mom HATES mice/rats.) She enjoyed it, and I thought it was perfection! Saturation, tint, contrast, black levels, just everything was spot on...and a better(more heart, imo) plot than Kung Fu Panda. From what I'm reading here I need to move Bolt up in my Netflix queue, thanks again guys!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16278241
> 
> 
> 
> Having said that, I have no problem with there being a challenge after a title is placed in Tier 0, but I think there's a limit to how long that should go on, especially when it's obvious that an impasse has been reached.



Agreed, but you know I'm fickle.







I didn't realize it had been placed already, sorry 'bout that. I know SuprSlow did an update, but I didn't actually go and re-check the main page.











JohnES1 - I think you and your mom will enjoy Bolt. It really does look nice on the Panny, I know we have the same TV (only different size I think). It's a cute movie. Admittedly I'm a big suck and I sniffled at the end. hehe.


----------



## JohnES1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16278748
> 
> 
> JohnES1 - I think you and your mom will enjoy Bolt. It really does look nice on the Panny, I know we have the same TV (only different size I think). It's a cute movie. Admittedly I'm a big suck and I sniffled at the end. hehe.



Thanks, how about a Tier 0/PG-13/Romance Comedy pleeease...


----------



## DaveBowman

I've been gone from the forum for a while but I see that Bolt is the new WallE (which of course was the new Baraka). Wow, beat that dead horse.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaveBowman* /forum/post/16279347
> 
> 
> I've been gone from the forum for a while but I see that Bolt is the new WallE (which of course was the new Baraka). Wow, beat that dead horse.



You forgot The Dark Knight!


----------



## K-Spaz

*The Notebook*


Ok, I watched this again last night with two other viewers. I'd never taken note to the PQ before, and didn't want to comment on it without a re-view.


IMHO, Tier 5 is ludicrous.


I'll admit, it's got flaws, and the filming was done with a lot of bokeh and soft focus. However, to berate this so badly with only one vote seems too biased.


I request that some others watch this film and make some recommendatations. While it's got some pretty bad areas in it, I would not say it's worse than many others in the lower 2 tier.


There are some washed out scenes that couldn't possibly benefit from transfer to br and that shows. Some times you do view this as if the people are being filmed on a bright sunny, foggy day. Just picture very mild lens flare, (that covers the entire lens). I'd say probably a total of 5 minutes of the film made me aware of this. There's also some very good looking scenes. They did shoot a lot of wide aperture shots though so if you're looking for a great deal of depth, it's not there, especially early in the film. Later scenes are far better that way. I think especially in the first 10 minutes, flaws of all kinds are easy to spot, and numerous. Just keep looking at the film a while though and take it in from start to finish. Then make your determination.


Taking special note for PQ last night, I will say there were way more scenes that I said wow that looks good, than there were wow that looks terrible. I still thought there were enough "that looks terribles" to rate it down a couple tiers.


Moving on to digital issues, I could see MB in some scenes, and I think that EE on those scenes really actually added to that. Unfortunately this was very early in the film and kinda sets the mood for the movie. It wasn't bad or even visible much later, but this first impression does bad things for the grade the film gets. I got the feeling as if the people editing / remastering were dealing with some really bad source material, and did so much to try to fix it that it just didn't work. Sorta like all of us have done to photographs that were all we had to work with and HAD to turn into a final product somehow. The ole, you can only shine a tird so much comes to to mind.


When you do see these scenes, they really stand out and that's probably what the previous reviewer couldn't look past. Some contrasting areas did show compression issues but again, this happened only in certain areas of the film. Some were really quite nice.


A lot of panning in this film didn't help either.


I suppose this is one of those titles that you could look for whatever you wanted to see. If you wanted to see bad, then there's enough of that to berate the movie. If you wanted to see good, you could clearly see plenty of that. Trying to be objective, it certainly wasn't the best looking film I've seen, but not the worst by a longshot either.


There's plenty of daylight and natural light shots in this film that it could have been a reference film. A thourough mix of good and bad camera work removed all possibility of that though.


The film has no blacks to compare to anything so to opine the black levels is presumptious at best. Its rare nighttime scenes are not completely dark at any point. Sky isn't black unless they modify it unnaturally. What there is was dark enough for me I suppose. Dark scenes didn't have anything in them really to contrast, so I'd opt out of reviewing them. I didn't notice good or bad in them. Scenes of characters sitting on a porch at night or ouside an unlit house were still lit up. I didn't take note to contrast of the black bars on my screen but didn't really scrutinize those scenes. I should probably look at them again before commenting about that. From memory, they were unmemorable which I say is good.


Detail levels in this film are in line with anything else I've seen. Lots of the scenes are busy with backdrop / props. Especially scenes showing the cars and paint jobs. The finishes and colors, chrome and tires looked great. Most of these shots were panning as well and they did seem like those scenes got a lot of effort. There's tons of closeups of the main characters. Please view all of them, and objectively. They are not generally macro shots. So if portraits not being 1:1 macros, really means points against for lack of "detail", then this is another film that looses on "detail".










I'm surprised there's not more votes on this film. It's from 2004, 3.35 MILLION people rated this film on Netflix, certainly someone else here has got to have seen it and can do a review. It's not a tough watch either like some of the high end pq movies that are simply not entertaining. Rent or buy and please someone review this some more.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.5*

/EDIT. Whoops Viewed on 60" Mits DLP / HTPC with HD4870, LG BR drive, 6' HDMI cable @ 9'.


Comparing directly to other T2.5s, I say this film easily beats The Guardian, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone and V for Vendetta.


----------



## bakerwi

+1


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Rachel Getting Married*


I'm going to make this short and to the point, because this title isn't worth the time or effort: I hated this. I am simply not a fan of the hand-held camera effect, and that is what we get here. Also, this is pretty obviously video, and it does not look impressive too often. There is often a lack of depth to the image, and it does not look natural.


Even detail isn't great in most scenes, which you might think would be impressive since it was apparently shot on HD Video.


As for the movie itself, I guess I am in the minority, but I thought this was just horrible. Combine hand-held cameras with boring "realistic" conversations and toasts at a wedding rehearsal, Wedding, and dinner that seem to drag on and on, interspersed with some discussion about the sister who is an addict, and it results in nearly two hours of my life that I will never get back. This is probably the most over-rated movie I have seen in years.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.25*


----------



## JeffY

It might be just the UK release of Kungfu Panda, but it has a surpriseing amount of EE, easily visible by the DVD like ringing next to the (2.35:1) black bars. Can someone double check the US release?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16281690
> 
> *Rachel Getting Married*
> 
> 
> I'm going to make this short and to the point, because this title isn't worth the time or effort: I hated this. I am simply not a fan of the hand-held camera effect, and that is what we get here. Also, this is pretty obviously video, and it does not look impressive too often. There is often a lack of depth to the image, and it does not look natural.
> 
> 
> Even detail isn't great in most scenes, which you might think would be impressive since it was apparently shot on HD Video.
> 
> 
> As for the movie itself, I guess I am in the minority, but I thought this was just horrible. Combine hand-held cameras with boring "realistic" conversations and toasts at a wedding rehearsal, Wedding, and dinner that seem to drag on and on, interspersed with some discussion about the sister who is an addict, and *it results in nearly two hours of my life that I will never get back.* This is probably the most over-rated movie I have seen in years.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.25*



This is why I turn movies off without watching all the way to the end when it becomes clear early on that they are not worth the time to watch.


----------



## JohnES1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JeffY* /forum/post/16281739
> 
> 
> It might be just the UK release of Kungfu Panda, but it has a surpriseing amount of EE, easily visible by the DVD like ringing next to the (2.35:1) black bars. Can someone double check the US release?



I've got some screenshots of KFP up:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...3#post15964983 


Sorry about the quality, I never could get this down pat and gave up.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/16281777
> 
> 
> This is why I turn movies off without watching all the way to the end when it becomes clear early on that they are not worth the time to watch.



Funny you mention that. I came very close to walking out at about the 45 minute mark. I told my wife that I felt like an idiot for "staying with it until the end" when it was over.










For some reason I kept thinking it would get better. Probably because the critics loved it. I was (painfully) wrong.


----------



## deltasun

*The Last Kiss*


Another title that varied greatly in PQ. This is a romantic, dialog-driven, slight comedic movie. PQ was just not gonna be its strength.


For the most part, I felt the presentation was on the soft side. When there was conversation between two people (or more), the obvious points of focus were never as sharp as then can/should be. As such, facial features weren't as discernible as in higher-tiered close-up's.


Black levels were surprisingly decent for this film. Details in black clothing were always discernible. Shadow details were slightly above average but not very impressive. Incidentally, indoor scenes had worse PQ than outdoor scenes. The soft scenes mentioned above were predominantly found in indoor scenes. In fact, the two best scenes PQ-wise were easily the wedding scene in the beginning and the talk between Zach Braff and his girlfriend's dad towards the end - both outdoor scenes. The wedding scene can easily be Tier 1 - gorgeous blacks, bold but natural contrast, fine facial details, good depth, perfect lighting, 3D pop. Unfortunately, this was only about 10 minutes of the movie.


Technically, I also caught some macro-blocking. Overall, PQ was not the star of this film, but was enough to garner low Silver Tier status...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## LBFilmGuy

*Elegy*


This title really surprised me given the small budget and little attention it received.


Given the melancholy, adult nature of this film there is nothing fancy here, no huge explosions, no constant moving cameras nor epic multi million dollar scenes. What we have here is a solid, excellent looking title that is handsomely lit and shot.


Where this title truly shined were the facial closeups (as one would hope given this is basically a film of talking heads). Ben Kingsley and Dennis Hopper's imperfections have never looked so good. Penelope Cruz looked beautiful as always and her fine skin was still very detailed most of the time. The closeups were all razor sharp and detailed throughout. Colors and skin tones were all spot on as well.


Contrast and black levels suffered at times, but not too often. Sometimes I found the shadow areas to be grey rather than black, and some blacks were crushed at times. Nothing too distracting though. Only a few soft shots were found.


The only part of this film that looks bad was the opening interview with Kingsley's character which was obviously intentional and lasts no longer than a minute or so. (Looks like SD DVD.)


Medium and long shots were not as impressive as the closeups, but still looked great. No hint of DNR, EE, or any other crap we don't want.


For the film itself, I found it to be quite good. Superb performances from every one on screen, especially Kingsley and Cruz. Their chemistry was great. I am shocked that Cruz got the nod for VCB rather than this.


This is a tough title to place after just watching an epic period piece like Changeling. The facial closeups were far superior here in Elegy but it didn't have the epic production design and huge budget. Despite that, given the type of film this is with the majority of the film being just facial closeups, I am placing it a quarter tier higher. This reminds me of Mr. Brooks just not as strong. Therefore, 1.75 for me.

*Recommendation: Tier 1.75*


Panasonic 50PZ80U via PS3 @ about 6 feet.


----------



## Smoke_019

G3/Rob Tomlin - i can't wait to read your reviews of bourne ultimatum then when you get the time...i admit that i'm not very familiar with the various PQ terms and what to look for, but i personally thought it was easily on par with bourne supremacy, if not better...therefore i'd put it in the tier 1.25/1.5 range...


not to mention i'd put the bourne movies among the best trilogies of all-time (not one dud among the three) but that's for another thread altogether...


----------



## OldCodger73

This is a low budget film and it looks it. PQ varies, a few of the close-ups show very good detail, some of the medium ones are acceptable. Then there's some panning shots at the beginning that have nothing in focus. On other shots the cameraman struggles mightily to find focus, looses it and then sometimes finds it again. Much of the movie looks little better than a mediocre upscaled DVD. Most of the night shots lack sufficient detail. I don't know whether this was shot on film or HD video, if the former there's a lot of grain, if the latter there's a lot of noise.


Some of the interior shots, for example the Christmas tree lights are acceptable, while blacks are usually washed out.

_Frozen River_ is currently rated as 3.25, which signifies a high average BD. IMO, the movie is below average in BD picture quality and belongs in the middle of Tier 4.0. Accordingly, I would rate *Frozen River Tier 4.0*.


The movie itself is one of these small movies that turn out ito be nteresting. After a slow start, one gets caught up in seeing what else can happen to the two women. I would rate it 3 on Netflix's 5 star scale.


The movie was filmed in upstate New York on and near the Mohawk reservation. That area almost makes Appalachia look like a middle class neighborhood.


Panasonic 50" 720p plasma, Panasonic 10a player, 7 1/2'


----------



## djoberg

*Seven Pounds*


I don't have much to add to the previous reviews of this title. I agree with everyone that it is a very good looking film and one that clearly deserves a "demo-worthy" placement. But it fell short of reference quality so Tier 1 is where it will no doubt end up.


As others noted, facial close-ups were superb, especially those of Will Smith. If the detail had been this good universally, we would have another Tier 0 title to boast of. Don't get me wrong, there were plenty of scenes with excellent detail, in particular outdoor daytime shots. But there were some indoor shots (in the motel room where Will Smith stayed, in the hospital, etc.) and a couple of isolated night scenes as well that were lacking and were more consistent with Tier 1 or Tier 2 movies.


Black levels, shadow detail, and contrast were all top-notch in my book, and there were a few rare shots that had the 3D pop that we all crave.


I'm finding it hard to nail down a precise placement, but 1.5 or 1.75 seems fair. For whatever reason, I don't feel as "generous" as I did with the last two titles (maybe I don't want to become as generous as Will Smith did in this movie







), so I'm going to choose the latter.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


Samsung 50" 1080p DLP....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 6'


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/16283326
> 
> 
> This is a low budget film and it looks it. PQ varies, a few of the close-ups show very good detail, some of the medium ones are acceptable. Then there's some panning shots at the beginning that have nothing in focus. On other shots the cameraman struggles mightily to find focus, looses it and then sometimes finds it again. Much of the movie looks little better than a mediocre upscaled DVD. Most of the night shots lack sufficient detail. I don't know whether this was shot on film or HD video, if the former there's a lot of grain, if the latter there's a lot of noise.
> 
> 
> Some of the interior shots, for example the Christmas tree lights are acceptable, while blacks are usually washed out.
> 
> _Frozen River_ is currently rated as 3.25, which signifies a high average BD. IMO, the movie is below average in BD picture quality and belongs in the middle of Tier 4.0. Accordingly, I would rate *Frozen River Tier 4.0*.
> 
> 
> The movie itself is one of these small movies that turn out ito be nteresting. After a slow start, one gets caught up in seeing what else can happen to the two women. I would rate it 3 on Netflix's 5 star scale.
> 
> 
> The movie was filmed in upstate New York on and near the Mohawk reservation. That area almost makes Appalachia look like a middle class neighborhood.
> 
> 
> Panasonic 50" 720p plasma, Panasonic 10a player, 7 1/2'



I gave it a 3.5, and in hindsight even that may have been a bit on the high side.


I enjoyed the movie, but didn't think it was great. This is a situation where I wish that Netflix had 1/2 stars , as I would give it a 3 1/2 star rating.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Just to stir the pot some more







for those who don't think there is any detail in Bolt's fir, I submit this (thanks CinemaSquid!):

http://media.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray...hot-lrg-08.png


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16283845
> 
> 
> I gave it a 3.5, and in hindsight even that may have been a bit on the high side.
> 
> 
> I enjoyed the movie, but didn't think it was great. *This is a situation where I wish that Netflix had 1/2 stars , as I would give it a 3 1/2 star rating.*



This bugs me SO much. I don't get why they don't let us use half stars.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16283881
> 
> 
> Just to stir the pot some more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> for those who don't think there is any detail in Bolt's fir, I submit this (thanks CinemaSquid!):
> 
> http://media.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray...hot-lrg-08.png



AHHHHH you just had to bring this up again!


FWIW, NOTHING in that screen shot looks sharp.


----------



## mhafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rsbeck* /forum/post/15642828
> 
> *Election*
> 
> 
> 2.35:1, 1999
> 
> 
> Fine to medium grain apparent throughout, no ringing or halos noted. Election is a quirky off-beat dialogue driven comedy with very little emphasis on the visuals. Everything here is sharp and well saturated, but there is very little opportunity for impressive detail. Faces are generally not lit or shot in order to exhibit fine detail, but it does become apparent in a few scenes. Having said all of that, Election is proficiently shot and transfered and this very watchable edition is a significant improvement over the DVD.
> 
> *Recommendation: tier 3.50*
> 
> 
> Sim2 C3X1080, 13' From 126" Screen



3.5 is too low. This is a transfer that looks like the film element it came from. Nothing done wrong. They just did not spend the money to clean it up digitally so there are speckles etc and some gate weave. And, thank God, no stupid DNR as well. Pre DI age and not restored.


----------



## dumbjaw




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mhafner* /forum/post/16284615
> 
> 
> 3.5 is too low. This is a transfer that looks like the film element it came from. Nothing done wrong. They just did not spend the money to clean it up digitally so there are speckles etc and some gate weave. And, thank God, no stupid DNR as well. Pre DI age and not restored.




I concur, 2.5 seems to me a good placing. Election is somewhat akin to Memento, both in how it was originally shot (limited budget, real locations/non cgi material) and how it's transferred to BD (no uneccesary digital manipulations, slightly dirty print).




Panasonic Vierra 46" 1080p/24p....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 6'


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16283845
> 
> 
> I gave it a 3.5, and in hindsight even that may have been a bit on the high side.
> 
> 
> I enjoyed the movie, but didn't think it was great. This is a situation where I wish that Netflix had 1/2 stars , as I would give it a 3 1/2 star rating.



I definitely agree about the need for Netflix to allow half-star ratings. But then, I suppose, we'd be asking for quarter-stars next, grin.


----------



## DaveBowman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16282403
> 
> 
> Funny you mention that. I came very close to walking out at about the 45 minute mark. I told my wife that I felt like an idiot for "staying with it until the end" when it was over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For some reason I kept thinking it would get better. Probably because the critics loved it. I was (painfully) wrong.



Amen, brother, that was one sucky movie. At least it wasn't Tier 0 so that everyone would have to endure it just to see great PQ. No redeeming value whatsoever in my opinion. Newbies to this film....you have been duly warned.


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DaveBowman* /forum/post/16288512
> 
> 
> Rachel needs professional help, not a new husband



you mean Kym? She was the drug addict. Anne Hathaway.


It wasn't the best movie, but I didn't think it was awful. The other three with me hated it though. I knew what I was getting into from the start. A drug addict going to her sister's wedding. Family problems ensue. It wasn't a secret, I don't know why people watched it if they didn't want to see that.


----------



## jrcorwin

It was painful and awkward to watch...but I felt that it needed to be.


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jrcorwin* /forum/post/16288637
> 
> 
> It was painful and awkward to watch...but I felt that it needed to be.



yes. because most family interactions can be painful and awkward. I know a lot of mine are.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jrcorwin* /forum/post/16288637
> 
> 
> It was painful and awkward to watch...but I felt that it needed to be.



Why?


Seriously, what on earth do we learn here? Is there anything at all enlightening about this movie in any way, shape or form? I sure didn't think so.


This film wanders aimlessly and has no point. I understand (and agree) that films do not always have to have a point to be enjoyed, but when you say that this is a film that "needs to be watched" despite being "painful and awkward to watch" it tells me that there must be a point to it. What is it? Because I certainly missed it.


All we get are never ending song and dance routines at a rehearsal dinner, wedding and reception, and nauseating hand-held camera work, with occasional dialog about
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) rehab following a horrible accident in which the brother/son was killed.



Virtually every scene is elongated without purpose, as to reinforce the "documentary/amateur style" of the film, but it doesn't work, other than to be infuriatingly annoying.


The real problem here is that we get too much detail of very mundane things. We get to hear every single toast, see every person dance, and hear boring small talk. Music plays endlessly in the background. The problem with this is that it is not only boring, but it is *distracting* and it does nothing to further the story/subject about Kim's problems/struggle and unresolved issues with her family members. This, I assume, is the subject of the movie....but I am not sure.


Or is it really just a home video of the events surrounding and including a wedding?


This could have been so much more interesting. Why not develop the scene at her mothers house, for example? Without question the most powerful and important scene in the movie, but it only lasts a few minutes, and we are quickly back to more of the meaningless distractions.


The performances are good, but again, they are minimized by the numerous distractions mentioned above.


Truly one of the most annoying films I have seen in quite some time. A huge disappointment coming from Demme.


Of course this is all just my opinion. I could be wrong.


----------



## jrcorwin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16289151
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> Seriously, what on earth do we learn here? Is there anything at all enlightening about this movie in any way, shape or form? I sure didn't think so.
> 
> 
> This film wanders aimlessly and has no point. I understand (and agree) that films do not always have to have a point to be enjoyed, but when you say that this is a film that "needs to be watched" despite being "painful and awkward to watch" it tells me that there must be a point to it. What is it? Because I certainly missed it.
> 
> 
> All we get are never ending song and dance routines at a rehearsal dinner, wedding and reception, and nauseating hand-held camera work, with occasional dialog about rehab following a horrible accident in which the brother/son was killed.
> 
> 
> Virtually every scene is elongated without purpose, as to reinforce the "documentary/amateur style" of the film, but it doesn't work, other than to be infuriatingly annoying.
> 
> 
> The real problem here is that we get too much detail of very mundane things. We get to hear every single toast, see every person dance, and hear boring small talk. Music plays endlessly in the background. The problem with this is that it is not only boring, but it is *distracting* and it does nothing to further the story/subject about Kim's problems/struggle and unresolved issues with her family members. This, I assume, is the subject of the movie....but I am not sure.
> 
> 
> Or is it really just a home video of the events surrounding and including a wedding?
> 
> 
> This could have been so much more interesting. Why not develop the scene at her mothers house, for example? Without question the most powerful and important scene in the movie, but it only lasts a few minutes, and we are quickly back to more of the meaningless distractions.
> 
> 
> The performances are good, but again, they are minimized by the numerous distractions mentioned above.
> 
> 
> Truly one of the most annoying films I have seen in quite some time. A huge disappointment coming from Demme.
> 
> 
> Of course this is all just my opinion. I could be wrong.



Wait...I think you've misunderstood my comment. I don't think it needs to be watched. I wasn't all that crazy about it either. I'm just saying that if I were her...an addict with past family issues and the death of the brother that died as a result of my actions...family events would be painful and akward. I didn't like the handy cam look or the many overly wordy scenes, but I did get the family interactions and the whole dynamic.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jrcorwin* /forum/post/16289352
> 
> 
> Wait...I think you've misunderstood my comment. I don't think it needs to be watched. I wasn't all that crazy about it either. I'm just saying that if I were her...an addict with past family issues and the death of the brother that died as a result of my actions...family events would be painful and akward. I didn't like the handy cam look or the many overly wordy scenes, but I did get the family interactions and the whole dynamic.



Oh, got ya.


So you were saying that the family scenes needed to be awkward, not that the movie needed to be seen....


Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## jrcorwin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16289395
> 
> 
> Oh, got ya.
> 
> 
> So you were saying that the family scenes needed to be awkward, not that the movie needed to be seen....
> 
> 
> Sorry for the confusion.



Correct. I felt like, based on the circumstances, things would be awkward and emotionally painful. So, I thought that part of the film worked...the performances. I just didn't like the rest.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16289151
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> 
> Seriously, what on earth do we learn here? Is there anything at all enlightening about this movie in any way, shape or form? I sure didn't think so.
> 
> 
> This film wanders aimlessly and has no point. I understand (and agree) that films do not always have to have a point to be enjoyed, but when you say that this is a film that "needs to be watched" despite being "painful and awkward to watch" it tells me that there must be a point to it. What is it? Because I certainly missed it.
> 
> 
> All we get are never ending song and dance routines at a rehearsal dinner, wedding and reception, and nauseating hand-held camera work, with occasional dialog about rehab following a horrible accident in which the brother/son was killed.
> 
> 
> Virtually every scene is elongated without purpose, as to reinforce the "documentary/amateur style" of the film, but it doesn't work, other than to be infuriatingly annoying.
> 
> 
> The real problem here is that we get too much detail of very mundane things. We get to hear every single toast, see every person dance, and hear boring small talk. Music plays endlessly in the background. The problem with this is that it is not only boring, but it is *distracting* and it does nothing to further the story/subject about Kim's problems/struggle and unresolved issues with her family members. This, I assume, is the subject of the movie....but I am not sure.
> 
> 
> Or is it really just a home video of the events surrounding and including a wedding?
> 
> 
> This could have been so much more interesting. Why not develop the scene at her mothers house, for example? Without question the most powerful and important scene in the movie, but it only lasts a few minutes, and we are quickly back to more of the meaningless distractions.
> 
> 
> The performances are good, but again, they are minimized by the numerous distractions mentioned above.
> 
> 
> Truly one of the most annoying films I have seen in quite some time. A huge disappointment coming from Demme.
> 
> 
> Of course this is all just my opinion. I could be wrong.



Man Rob, your post is filled with so many *spoilers* that you've gone and ruined it for me! I was going to have my whole family over to watch it so we could make comparisons with our family to see just how dysfunctional we are.


----------



## djoberg

*Yes Man*


I must say if I was accustomed to judging a title by the first 10 minutes Yes Man would land itself squarely in Tier 3, perhaps at the bottom of the tier. I was SO unimpressed with the first 2 or 3 scenes; they lacked sharpness, detail, depth, color, etc. and were the epitome of "average."


But then out of nowhere Dr. Jekyll turned into Mr. Hyde and I was treated to impressive colors (very PUNCHY), incredible detail (in both daytime and nighttime scenes), bold contrast, striking blacks and shadow detail (several night scenes were as good as I've seen), and several scenes with amazing depth.


I'm not ready to declare it a Tier Blu contender, but it is clearly Tier Gold. When I reviewed Seven Pounds last night I said it was easily 1.5 or 1.75, and the same can be said of Yes Man. Tonight I do feel generous, so I'm going with the former on this one.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*


Samsung 50" 1080p DLP....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 6'


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16289439
> 
> 
> Man Rob, your post is filled with so many *spoilers* that you've gone and ruined it for me! I was going to have my whole family over to watch it so we could make comparisons with our family to see just how dysfunctional we are.



Denny, you made me laugh but also made me feel guilty at the same time!


I do apologize because you are 100% correct about the spoilers. I will go back and edit with spoiler tags. Sorry.


----------



## jrcorwin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16290611
> 
> 
> Denny, you made me laugh but also made me feel guilty at the same time!
> 
> 
> I do apologize because you are 100% correct about the spoilers. I will go back and edit with spoiler tags. Sorry.



For this offense you receive the following spoiler...Lawrence dies at the end.










...but something tells me you already knew that.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*The Bourne Ultimatum*


Don't let the first 20-25 minutes sway you too much regarding the PQ of this title. I thought this was going to be a tier 2.5 range image during that time frame, but for some reason the PQ seemed to improve as time went on.


The clarity and detail is good, but not quite on par with the best titles. Contrast and depth are certainly acceptable, and colors look great.


By the time it was over, I was still struggling slightly for an overall rating, but I think it is just good enough overall to make it into Tier 1, but not by much.


As for the movie: I've seen it before (on HD DVD) and I still think this is one of the best in the series. One thing I hated about the prior ones was the excessive use of the hand held hyper active camera motion. We still get some of that here, but it is very mild by comparison.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jrcorwin* /forum/post/16290633
> 
> 
> For this offense you receive the following spoiler...Lawrence dies at the end.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...but something tells me you already knew that.



But you are wrong!




*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) He dies at the beginning!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16290611
> 
> 
> Denny, you made me laugh but also made me feel guilty at the same time!
> 
> 
> I do apologize because you are 100% correct about the spoilers. I will go back and edit with spoiler tags. Sorry.



I was MOSTLY kidding Rob, so I'm glad you got a laugh out of it. I had thought about renting it, but with your review and others I had decided (BEFORE my post) against watching it. So, your spoilers didn't bother me and what I said was in jest (and thus the "Sarcastic" and "Big Grin" faces at the end of the post). It's me who needs to apologize for making you feel guilty. Sorry!


----------



## K-Spaz

Well Rob,


I feel for ya cause I was talked into watching Transporter here a bit ago. Actually, I was told to get T3, but figured I'd rent all 3 and just watch them. Well, I did make it all the way through T1, but to me, that thing was painful. I can accept a bit of "James Bond'izm" here and there. But, my Niece taught me a new phrase latey and it's, "Willing Suspension Of Disbelief". Well, I'm sorry but I simply can't suspend that much to make Transporter watchable. 2 and 3 have been here for days and I can't make myself watch em. They may well go back unwatched. I'll probably skip through 3 to see why people call it a Tier 0 and get it out of here.


My Niece's husband pretty much mirrored my thoughts on it. He called it a "Steaming pile of ____. / Waste of my life.". I concur...


Have not seen RGMarried so can't comment on that.


Our OP should go change the requirements on a Tier 0 film so that it must be a 3.8 or higher member average on Netflix or it's not eligible. This way, folks would not have to suffer through films that have only one saving grace. The PQ...


BTW, if you would like to watch something that will make you really appreciate Rachel Getting Married, go watch The Grapes of Wrath. Absolutely the WORST movie I have seen in my life. Bar none. You'll find that RGM is FAR from the bottom of the barrel and I say that having not seen it. TGOW followed closely by Gigi..., then perhaps Transporter and it's sister movie (unbelieveable), The Replacement Killers.


----------



## HDphile22

Battle In Seattle PQ - BAD!!! Tons of grains!


How's the PQ for Doubt?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/16290736
> 
> 
> Our OP should go change the requirements on a Tier 0 film so that it must be a 3.8 or higher member average on Netflix or it's not eligible. This way, *folks would not have to suffer through films that have only one saving grace. The PQ...*



With all due respect K-Paz, there are some of us who will sacrifice a few bucks and even 1-2 hours of our life just to watch amazing PQ (even if the movie sucks). Transporter 3 is a case in point; it won't win any Oscars, but the PQ is absolutely amazing! So, for the purpose of this thread it would be wrong to require a high member average on Netflix; this thread is ALL ABOUT PQ, and has nothing to do with how good the movie is.


Having said that, it is definitely a BONUS if the movie is good on top of having good PQ. Those are the titles that I end up adding to my personal library.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDphile22* /forum/post/16290794
> 
> 
> How's the PQ for Doubt?


 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...ostcount=12092


----------



## jrcorwin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16290659
> 
> *The Bourne Ultimatum*
> 
> 
> Don't let the first 20-25 minutes sway you too much regarding the PQ of this title. I thought this was going to be a tier 2.5 range image during that time frame, but for some reason the PQ seemed to improve as time went on.
> 
> 
> The clarity and detail is good, but not quite on par with the best titles. Contrast and depth are certainly acceptable, and colors look great.
> 
> 
> By the time it was over, I was still struggling slightly for an overall rating, but I think it is just good enough overall to make it into Tier 1, but not by much.
> 
> 
> As for the movie: I've seen it before (on HD DVD) and I still think this is one of the best in the series. One thing I hated about the prior ones was the excessive use of the hand held hyper active camera motion. We still get some of that here, but it is very mild by comparison.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75*



Have you reviewed the other Bournes yet?


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16290826
> 
> 
> With all due respect K-Paz, there are some of us who will sacrifice a few bucks and even 1-2 hours of our life just to watch amazing PQ (even if the movie sucks).



While I like great looking movies I just can't do it. There's movies out there that I bet I've rented and rated a full point higher on NF just because the BR looked that great it added to the movie. But for me to watch one that's just drivel, I can't turn a blind eye to the story that long. Now, if the sound was good I could easily close my eyes, but my ears don't have lids on em.



> Quote:
> ... has nothing to do with how good the movie is.



It's a good thing... at least for T1.


> Quote:
> Having said that, it is definitely a BONUS if the movie is good on top of having good PQ.



There are so many others that are good and good looking. There's just no reason for me to watch these. Actually, I thought I'd really like Transporter. I just could not deal with the idiotic plot, the super modified 735i + pro driver that can't outrun a hoarde of Rover Princess's!







The mafia folks with 5000 rds of ammo and laser guided missiles who can't take out an unarmed guy and a handcuffed girl. And the ex specop guy who will fight back in self defense, but never kills anyone, yet the humanistic girlfriend comes through... omylord.. Were the writers on strike again? If it's gonna be this unbelieveable, please give the guy a light saber or a phaser...


I guess I'm getting old. A person could go on forever with those unlikely script failures. Ok, let's have Sly Stallone do Transporter 4 and quit messing around.


The pq throughout the movie was... sunny... It's a bright sunny movie. I'm ashamed to say I'd have to watch again to even give an opinion on this. Perhaps I was stunned and just didn't watch closely. I really never saw anything noteworty, great or bad. (didn't see t3 tho)


Give some thought to this phrase. We all have movies this applys to:


"Willing Suspension of Disbelief"


It does wonders for a plot if you can do it. Some plots just don't warrant it.


----------



## JohnES1

Just suffered through The Prince and Me 3: A Royal Honeymoon, digital noise+++! PQ otherwise OK, the screenplay should please twelve year old girls(my mom almost fell asleep twice...)


Bolt tomorrow night!


----------



## deltasun

*Doubt*


I don't know if I've seen another title with as deep and strikingly detailed blacks as this one. Following that, details in low-light (even backlight) situations were also very good. These are easily the best features, PQ-wise, of this film.


Colors were purposely subdued throughout the film, but this did not detract from the wonderful details found scene after scene. Bokeh was kept to a minimum, which allowed these details to shine. Depth and dimension seemed boundless. Where all the above characteristics come together is the shot of Father Flynn's congregation. Details from the adequately-lit front row to the last low-lit pew were very good.


Facial details would have to be the weakest for me - they weren't as consistently detailed. And don't misunderstand, they weren't weak. The other characteristics were just so much stronger. I did note a few scenes where facial details were superb, such as the dinner with the three priests joking around, Streep walking Davis. I believe the lighting aided in its presentation. I also witnessed a few scenes with 3D pop, mostly of Streep and Hoffman.


Again, color was subdued; however, I wanted to mention that when pastel colors were introduced, they were very pleasant to the eyes. The scene between Streep and Adams comes to mind (a sea blue painted room). The principal's office was another with its rich green-painted walls.


Grain was apparent and offered a very natural film-like quality (I know, because it is film). I did notice ringing a few times, especially when the main characters were in front of strong backlight. At times, they seemed just light getting caught in their clothing's fibers, but I thought I'd mention it. The final scene between Streep and Adams, after coming back from her brother's, had some macro-blocking. This was starting at the 1:34:24 mark. At this point, it was really too late to affect my enjoyment of the PQ.










Overall, a beautiful presentation worthy of Tier Gold. I still wouldn't place too high in that tier, but would give it a solid...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8' & 6'_


----------



## Anthony1

Is there any way we could get another PQ Tier thread for Blu Ray that focuses specifically on Blu Ray releases over the most recent 90 days? I think this would be tremendously helpful in determining Netflix and BB Online queue placement, movies to rent locally, or buy locally, etc, etc.


Don't get it twisted. I love the full PQ Tier thread, but there are just so many freaking movies listed. It's hard to find where any of the New Releases or "relatively" recent releases stack up. If there is someway we could have like a 90 day Tier Thread, I think it would really help alot of people out.


----------



## PooperScooper




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Anthony1* /forum/post/16291555
> 
> 
> Is there any way we could get another PQ Tier thread for Blu Ray that focuses specifically on Blu Ray releases over the most recent 90 days? I think this would be tremendously helpful in determining Netflix and BB Online queue placement, movies to rent locally, or buy locally, etc, etc.
> 
> 
> Don't get it twisted. I love the full PQ Tier thread, but there are just so many freaking movies listed. It's hard to find where any of the New Releases or "relatively" recent releases stack up. If there is someway we could have like a 90 day Tier Thread, I think it would really help alot of people out.



There's a new releases sticky here for current and future releases. Save the lists every now and then.


larry


----------



## OldCodger73

I pretty much agree with K-Spaz in post 12221 about not watching a bad movie even if it has good PQ. I learned my lesson in the first 22 minutes of _Crank_ and in suffering through _Shoot 'em Up_. That's why I like people, when they review a movie, to comment on the quality of the movie even though that's not part of the criteria.


Another plus of people commenting on the quality of a movie is that it has led me to some enjoyable films I never would have watched. An example is _Let the Right One In_.


I'm on Netflix's one-at-a-time plan and find that that makes me much more selective in what I watch.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/16292981
> 
> 
> 
> Another plus of people commenting on the quality of a movie is that it has led me to some enjoyable films I never would have watched. An example is _Let the Right One In_.



Glad you enjoyed it!


----------



## JohnES1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *PooperScooper* /forum/post/16292018
> 
> 
> There's a new releases sticky here for current and future releases. Save the lists every now and then.
> 
> 
> larry


 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1021639 


Thanks, with that new release sticky, this thread, and Ralph Potts' reviews I'm looking at upping my Netflix account to three at a time...


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/16292981
> 
> *I pretty much agree with K-Spaz in post 12221 about not watching a bad movie even if it has good PQ*. I learned my lesson in the first 22 minutes of _Crank_ and in suffering through _Shoot 'em Up_. That's why I like people, when they review a movie, to comment on the quality of the movie even though that's not part of the criteria.
> 
> 
> Another plus of people commenting on the quality of a movie is that it has led me to some enjoyable films I never would have watched. An example is _Let the Right One In_.



I WILL watch a Tier 0 title, on occasion, even though members are warning me that the movie itself isn't that good. An excellent example of this is Speed Racer; it is true EYE CANDY that gave my eyes a real rush, yet the movie itself was a bomb.


Having said that, I too am glad when members give their view of the movie, for I've also rented titles that I had never heard of that were recommended by my peers on this thread. I assume that if a movie is really good, the member who reviews it WILL comment on the movie. Conversely, if nothing is said about it I assume it's not that good. That has been my practice when giving reviews.


----------



## Anthony1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *PooperScooper* /forum/post/16292018
> 
> 
> There's a new releases sticky here for current and future releases. Save the lists every now and then.
> 
> 
> larry



The new releases sticky tells where the movies are ranked according to PQ? I had no idea.


----------



## JohnES1




djoberg said:


> I WILL watch a Tier 0 title, on occasion, even though members are warning me that the movie itself isn't that good. An excellent example of this is Speed Racer; it is true EYE CANDY that gave my eyes a real rush, yet the movie itself was a bomb.QUOTE]
> 
> 
> I loved Speed Racer AND thought it was true EYE CANDY!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Panasonic TH-46PZ800U ISF calibrated Custom-normal mode


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JohnES1* /forum/post/16295103
> 
> 
> 
> I loved Speed Racer AND thought it was true EYE CANDY!



True indeed!


----------



## jrcorwin

Speed Racer: eye candy...verbal vomit. In my opinion of course.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JohnES1* /forum/post/16295103
> 
> 
> I loved Speed Racer AND thought it was true EYE CANDY!



I thought I might get a reaction from someone who actually liked Speed Racer.










I guess I should have qualified my comment (that Speed Racer was a bomb) by saying "IMO." Sorry about that!


BTW, I DID think it was "true EYE CANDY" too.


----------



## JohnES1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16295487
> 
> 
> I thought I might get a reaction from someone who actually liked Speed Racer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I should have qualified my opinion (that Speed Racer was a bomb) by saying "IMO." Sorry about that!



No problem, I also love The Golden Compass for it's unique presentation of an alternate reality even though some of you guys wailed on it's PQ. I recall the biggest complaint was 'softness' in facials which didn't bother me at all as when sharp definition was called for it was there. I still think it's Tier 1.


----------



## saprano




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jrcorwin* /forum/post/16290633
> 
> 
> For this offense you receive the following spoiler...Lawrence dies at the end.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...but something tells me you already knew that.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16290670
> 
> 
> But you are wrong!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler
> *Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) He dies at the beginning!



I didn't see the movie yet!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Universal Soldier

recommendation: Tier 3.25
*

A 1992 action-movie starring Jean-Claude Van Damme, it came to Blu-ray on November 4, 2008. Lionsgate has placed the 103-minute movie on a BD-25 and encoded the main feature in VC-1. The average video bitrate is 19.00 Mbps according to the BDInfo scan. While the compression work has no major issues, a bit of sporadic noise and dot crawl do appear at times. The low bitrate encoding, which rarely leaves a zone between 14.2 Mbps to 24.1 Mbps, is somewhat substandard for a fairly recent release. I did note one isolated instance of chroma noise in the runaway bus scene.


The master used to derive this transfer is in perfect shape aside from a little dirt in the opticals of the introductory credit sequence. The image is completely free of imperfections and blemishes, and really looks like a recent theatrical release in its cleanliness. The transfer is surprisingly devoid of edge halos of any kind. Unfortunately it is obvious that high-frequency filtering has been uniformly applied to the transfer throughout the movie. Grain is entirely absent from a movie shot on film and gives the overall image a somewhat glossy, video-like nature. The most telling sign that digital noise reduction has been used is the remarkable lack of detail in skin textures.


The picture quality is decent aside from the missing high-frequency information. While there is a persistent but slight softness to the image, contrast is excellent. Black levels are superb with shadow detail on good display. Colors are nicely rendered with a natural color palette. Flesh tones do show a tendency toward too much magenta in their shading. Much of the first and second acts appear relatively flat in character, though the climatic battle gives a nice sense of dimension. There is no point in looking for the finest detail, as it has been stripped away. Close-ups exhibit none of the superior micro-details we have come to expect in good high-definition material.


I am a little conflicted on this Blu-ray's visual quality. In certain moments it looks like a tier two title, but the unmistakable filtering is too obvious to miss. A placement in tier 3.25 sounds right.


Watching on a Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 (firmware 2.70) at a viewing distance of six feet.


BDInfo Scan (courtesy of House):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...8#post14959048


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jrcorwin* /forum/post/16295381
> 
> 
> Speed Racer: eye candy...verbal vomit. In my opinion of course.



intentional "verbal vomit."


----------



## JohnES1

I didn't find lack of detail/sharpness or overbright whites with Bolt.


----------



## Smoke_019

not sure where i stand on the whole "buy a bad movie with great PQ" issue because i'm playing both sides...there's a store near me that sells new/sealed blu-rays for a great price, and they've had speed racer for a few weeks now but i still can't convince myself to buy this in spite of the great PQ reviews i've read about it...however i also own movies like shoot em up and matrix revolutions which were destroyed by the critics yet apparently have excellent PQ and AQ (i can't comment since i haven't watched both titles yet)...



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jrcorwin* /forum/post/16290910
> 
> 
> Have you reviewed the other Bournes yet?



i was going to ask the same...what tiers would you put the other bourne movies in?


----------



## PooperScooper




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Anthony1* /forum/post/16293182
> 
> 
> The new releases sticky tells where the movies are ranked according to PQ? I had no idea.



No.... I meant with a small effort on your part you can accomplish what you want.

larry


----------



## JohnES1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Smoke_019* /forum/post/16296442
> 
> 
> not sure where i stand on the whole "buy a bad movie with great PQ" issue because i'm playing both sides...there's a store near me that sells new/sealed blu-rays for a great price, and they've had speed racer for a few weeks now but i still can't convince myself to buy this in spite of the great PQ reviews i've read about it...however i also own movies like shoot em up and matrix revolutions which were destroyed by the critics yet apparently have excellent PQ and AQ (i can't comment since i haven't watched both titles yet)...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i was going to ask the same...what tiers would you put the other bourne movies in?



Speed Racer is definitely a rent first before you buy it title, that said it's technique is unique and needs to be seen. Some more of my Speed Racer screenshots:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...8#post15882468 

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...6#post15879106 


PS Given your taste, have you viewed Eagle Eye?(Currently Tier 1.5)


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Smoke_019* /forum/post/16296442
> 
> 
> 
> i was going to ask the same...what tiers would you put the other bourne movies in?



Sorry guys, I haven't watched the other Bourne movies in HD yet.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/16028654
> 
> *Mad Men: Season One
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 1.5*
> 
> The image itself looks spectacular at times and would easily rank as a tier zero caliber BD if not for one problem. While resolution and clarity are as good as any title I have witnessed, there are contrast issues at times that prove to be slightly distracting. It is most noticeable when following the black hair of Donald Draper, the leading character of the show. At times his hair turns too black and inky, drowning out much of the finer details and patterns in his slicked back hair style. At other moments slightly blown highlights appear, turning the white office shirts a little too hot-looking. The problem manifests in the slight loss of the best shadow details and separation.
> 
> 
> This is still a title with immense picture quality. Micro-details down to the pores are easily seen on most actors and actresses. The weave and subtle gradations of the textures of the suits and dresses on display are immaculately rendered with nice color saturation. High-frequency information is simply top-notch throughout the show. As I said black levels are a little too strong but this problem corrects itself as the show progresses. The dimensionality of the image is palpable and consistently superior to other titles ranked in tier one. Even interior scenes demonstrate an impressive depth of field. This is a well-shot show that really reminds me of the quality one associates with films rather than television.
> 
> 
> Overall _Mad Men_ is a visually stunning BD that looks close to reference quality for stretches. I would not place it in tier zero for the contrast issues and the visible halos, but a higher tier one ranking is not out of the question. While I was tempted to place it in tier 1.25, my final judgment is for tier 1.5. Lionsgate has done a very commendable job in giving this show a proper treatment on Blu-ray.



Good review. I've just started watching Disc 1.


You are correct in noting that blacks and contrast can be overwhelming at times! Facial details, as well as clothing and fabrics look amazing.


I'm glad you stated that PQ gets better as the show progresses, because Episode 1 looks 1.75ish to me. The contrast and crushed blacks really got to me!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Damien: Omen II

recommendation: Tier 3.50
*

This 1978 movie was released exclusively as part of _The Omen Collection_ on October 7, 2008. The 106-minute main feature is encoded in AVC on a BD-50. The packaging indicates an average video bitrate of 36 Mbps, and my own observations seem to confirm that. The encode rarely strays from the upper thirties throughout the movie. Overall the encoding appears completely transparent to the original film elements, with zero artifacting visible. I would not hesitate to call this a reference encoding by Deluxe Digital Studios.


The master looks in great shape. While colors appear just the tiniest bit faded, the only visible blemishes are a couple of pixel-wide marks. Obnoxious digital processing that could produce deleterious effects are not used at all. No halos are present and the image retains the fine grain structure of the original film source.


Any problems with the quality of the image seem the result of the original photography. There are some optical aberrations at the edge of the frame on certain panoramic shots. Close-ups reveal some use of soft-focus filming which translates into a soft look at times. Contrast is solid though not outstanding. Black levels are good with fine shadow delineation. The film tends to have a relatively flat appearance with little depth or dimension. Colors are pretty standard for an older movie, with some indications that saturation is just below the levels of modern films.


Fox has made this movie look as good as it can on Blu-ray given its nature, and has done a great job with it here. It looks better than the original one does on Blu-ray, though it will probably not win any awards for picture quality.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*The Thirteenth Floor*


There is definitely some softness in this title, but I do believe that most of it is intentional with regard to the scenes that take place in the 1930's.


Other scenes to have better detail, and contrast is adequate though not particularly impressive. Colors are good, while again, scenes from the 30's have a intentional artistic look "that need some work" to quote a line from the movie.


Overall nice presentation, but definitely not as impressive as upper tier titles.


As for the movie: I've always liked this one. It's kind of a "sleeper". Think Matrix without the special effects/spaceship.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*


----------



## K-Spaz

*Youth Without Youth*

I watched this last evening and I have to say I agree fully with its placement in Tier 0. I can now say that I have a new film made with real people and cameras that is at the top of my heap.


This film is the first br that I consider to beat some of the animated films for quality. The director specifically knew that the images are not crystal clear when there's a lot of panning and you'll find that this movie goes for very long periods of time with no camera movement. This adds an almost unprecidented image quality to the movie.


If there is EE, I'm not sure a person could pick that out from the backlit subjects in the film. Lots of times you'll notice a halo on people in the scene, but that's from lighting, not digital enhancement. I saw one very short segment with that being noticeable to a point where I stopped and backed up. It was very early on in the film when the guy walks out into the street for the first time. I would be very surprised if someone pointed out any adverse digital issue, anywhere.


I fully expected this film to be a tough watch, given its low score on Netflix. However, this was a lot better than the score indicated. I'd call this a 4. Draw your own conclusions. Dont' stop the movie in the first 5 minutes. It gets better.

*Tier Recommendation: Very high in Tier 0.* Above I-Robot.


Viewed on 60" Mits DLP from 9'


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/16308766
> 
> *Youth Without Youth*
> 
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Very high in Tier 0.* Above I-Robot.
> 
> 
> Viewed on 60" Mits DLP from 9'



Good review! I thought the same thing! Although now I see it more of a mid to lower Tier 0. Great brain food!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*JCVD (U.K. import)


recommendation: Tier 3.25
*

Revolver Entertainment released this 2008 movie in the U.K. as a region-free Blu-ray on February 2, 2009. A domestic version is coming but it lacks the lossless audio track present on this edition. The 96-minute film is encoded in AVC on a BD-50. I would estimate the average video bitrate to be approximately 32 Mbps. The encode ranges mostly from 26 Mbps to 42.4 Mbps, with it staying much of the time in the thirties. The high-bitrate AVC compression handles the difficult material with ease, producing no visible artifacting or banding.


The film uses a gritty, grainy presentation to suit the director's aim. The director clearly plays with the cinematography, using unusual angles and lighting for a grim setting. It is no one's idea of eye candy as the color has been largely drained from the image. The palette strongly favors dim earth tones like dark green and brown. These techniques lead to weaker than expected black levels and a certain amount of video noise in low-light scenes. A liberal use of diffuse lighting does not help either, though certain scenes outside the bank look razor-sharp. High-frequency information varies depending on what the scene calls for and looks average at best. Print damage is negligible and looks like other newly released films in that regard.


An interesting comeback for Jean-Claude Van Damme, the technical quality of this transfer to Blu-ray looks as good as the source material will allow it to look. My recommendation is to place this movie in tier 3.25, but I could see valid arguments to lower it even further.


Watching on a 60" Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 (firmware 2.70) at a viewing distance of six feet.


----------



## Smoke_019




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JohnES1* /forum/post/16297100
> 
> 
> Speed Racer is definitely a rent first before you buy it title, that said it's technique is unique and needs to be seen. Some more of my Speed Racer screenshots:
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...8#post15882468
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...6#post15879106
> 
> 
> PS Given your taste, have you viewed Eagle Eye?(Currently Tier 1.5)



no, i haven't seen eagle eye, but will definitely check it out next time i rent a movie...thanks for the recommendation...


speed racer will be on my list as well...thanks for the screenshots...


----------



## Smoke_019

to revisit my "bad movie with good PQ/AQ" stance, i just viewed shoot em up...WOW...i'm speechless...


there were some redeeming qualities about the movie, especially:

- the audio

- the impressive detail, especially facial closeups

- seeing monica belucci's sweet rack (part of it, anyway)

- the fact i bought this in the bargain bin for under $10, i thought why not even though it was a blind buy


but wow...the action scenes were just straight up laughable...are you kidding me with the stuff they pulled here? i alternated between raising my eyebrows, laughing hysterically and saying "WTF?" during most of this fiasco...i'm sure the producers intended to make it over the top, but wow, just wow...shoot em up was being compared to john woo flicks on the back of the case, but at least i thought the woo stuff was a lot cooler looking than this embarassment of a movie...


i probably will never watch this again but figure i'll keep it anyway just because of how cheap it was...easily the worst movie in my collection, and makes me think twice about blind buys, as well as buying a blu-ray just because of good PQ/AQ...


----------



## JohnES1

Ha, ha, my elderly mom stayed with RockNRolla(I had to crank the sound level way up to get the dialog to be intelligible,) and now wants the next instalment in the trilogy! PQ was blase, but consistent-well placed in Tiers at this time imo.


----------



## deltasun

*In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale*


I was surprised not to find a review yet for this title, but after watching the story...well, I'll talk a bit about that at the end. PQ-wise, I was pleasantly surprised. The film had a brownish, sepia-ish tinge to it, which was a bit bothersome for the first 5 or so minutes. I got used to it soon thereafter and felt it was a good artistic choice. Even with this "coating," colors were vivid and pleasant to the eyes. Most facial close-up's easily fall in Tier 0 territory. The only problematic facial details came from Leelee Sobieski, which always seemed too smooth. Still, I don't think it's due to any foul play.


Black levels were wonderfully deep but detailed, never crushed. Contrast complemented the look of the film and seemed always balanced - very dynamic. Low-light details were superb. But, if I were to name the film's best feature, it would have to be the skin tones. They were rendered to perfection. Actually, it's a tie between skin tones and the best of the black levels.


The only problematic scenes came from the first half hour of the movie. Whenever there was a smoky/dusty scene, it looked like digital noise and was bothersome. Grain in these scenes exhibited digital noise-like behavior. They intruded in the plane of focus and made for poorly shot scenes. I also found some of the earlier medium shots to be less detailed than expected. There was one scene where we see the main characters traversing an open plain. In this scene, it was evident that it was shot from a helicopter since we can see the rotors pulsating through the segment.


Overall, a very impressive PQ extravaganza. There are just so many scenes where I had to stop and say "wow!" In my opinion, the PQ ranges from bottom third Tier 0 to 1.5 (for some of the more problematic scenes). Feeling a bit generous and so I'd be comfortable in placing this...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0*


Now, for the story.







First off, I've never seen such bad miscasting. Matthew Lillard, Ray Liotta, and even Burt Reynolds should not be in this film. They make Jason Statham look academy worthy.







I think the film gets a bit too ambitious as well. But hey, the PQ is outstanding...almost 3 hours' worth of it too.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8' & 6'_


----------



## tcramer

If there was one single Blu-ray title you could select (not a Pixar) to show just what your TV can do, what would it be?


I have several titles but I am yet to view one that has that wow factor.


----------



## PooperScooper




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tcramer* /forum/post/16318991
> 
> 
> If there was one single Blu-ray title you could select (not a Pixar) to show just what your TV can do, what would it be?
> 
> 
> I have several titles but I am yet to view one that has that wow factor.



That would be Tier 0. The whole point of this thread is to rank PQ on a "WOW factor" scale.


larry


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tcramer* /forum/post/16318991
> 
> 
> If there was one single Blu-ray title you could select (not a Pixar) to show just what your TV can do, what would it be?
> 
> 
> I have several titles but I am yet to view one that has that wow factor.



Blade Runner.


"Holy crap, look at the storytelling this TV is capable of!"


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tcramer* /forum/post/16318991
> 
> 
> If there was one single Blu-ray title you could select (not a Pixar) to show just what your TV can do, what would it be?
> 
> 
> I have several titles but I am yet to view one that has that wow factor.



Just about any title in Tier 0 should give you the WOW factor and be able to "show what your TV can do." Personally, I like using Baraka, Youth Without Youth, Prince Caspian, I, Robot, and Transporter 3.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/16319075
> 
> 
> Blade Runner.
> 
> 
> "Holy crap, look at the storytelling this TV is capable of!"


----------



## spectator

Call me churlish, but he didn't specify, so I ran with it.


----------



## JohnES1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tcramer* /forum/post/16318991
> 
> 
> If there was one single Blu-ray title you could select (not a Pixar) to show just what your TV can do, what would it be?
> 
> 
> I have several titles but I am yet to view one that has that wow factor.



Baraka, isn't absolutely perfect, but everyone should see it(for it's PQ AND cultural value!) If the crystal 'room' doesn't blow you away, nothing will.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JohnES1* /forum/post/16319244
> 
> 
> Baraka, isn't absolutely perfect, but everyone should see it(for it's PQ AND cultural value!) *If the crystal 'room' doesn't blow you away, nothing will.*



I agree 100%! And with it being at the end of the film, it was a perfect climax.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

If all goes as planned (meaning, Amazon delivers the goods on time), I should be watching the Pride & Prejudice(1995 bbc mini series version) on Friday & Saturday night. Will definitely review for the thread.


I know, you all are waiting with baited breath on that one.


----------



## tfoltz

Though not in Tier 0 in this forum, I believe Speed Racer is great for the "pretty" factor. I do think it belongs Tier 0, like many here; though many others don't like it in Tier 0 because of soft faces (even though it was based on a cartoon - director intent is not used here). Although some can argue it's more of a cartoon than live-action







.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tcramer* /forum/post/16318991
> 
> 
> If there was one single Blu-ray title you could select (not a Pixar) to show just what your TV can do, what would it be?
> 
> 
> I have several titles but I am yet to view one that has that wow factor.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16322316
> 
> 
> I know, you all are waiting with baited breath on that one.



Don't be so quick to presume; I, for one, actually am!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16322316
> 
> 
> If all goes as planned (meaning, Amazon delivers the goods on time), I should be watching the Pride & Prejudice(1995 bbc mini series version) on Friday & Saturday night. Will definitely review for the thread.
> 
> 
> I know, you all are waiting with baited breath on that one.



As you may or may not know, Pride & Prejudice was near the top tier in the HD-DVD PQ thread. It would be equivalent to a top Tier 1 title in this thread. I saw it when it first came out and it looked amazing, so I would think the Blu-ray version should be just as good or better.


Having said that, it was well over a year ago when I saw it and I have experienced, as many of you have, quite a bit of improvement in transfers since then. So, it will be interesting to see your review and how it compares to its HD-DVD counterpart.


PS I just realized I may be thinking of a different version than the BBC version.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Yeah Denny I think you're referring to the Kiera Knightly version of Pride & Prejudice. I'm talking about the Colin Firth miniseries one.


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16322316
> 
> 
> If all goes as planned (meaning, Amazon delivers the goods on time), I should be watching the Pride & Prejudice(1995 bbc mini series version) on Friday & Saturday night. Will definitely review for the thread.
> 
> 
> I know, you all are waiting with baited breath on that one.



I love these BBC costume dramas. Our local PBS station is showing Dicken's _Little Dorrit_, a 5-parter in HDTV. It features some great acting.


----------



## deltasun

*The Wrestler*


Very inconsistent grain throughout. Spotted some ringing on high contrast edges - very glaring, for example, on Evan Rachel Wood's black-crushed peacoat against a drab, dreary, clouded sky.


This film was a character-driven drama that was stylistic towards the reality of a man past his prime, trying to find/recapture meaning in his life. The film style was hand-held in nature, which gave it a documentary-like feel. This style definitely fit the storyline, but did not help PQ.


Dark scenes were usually plagued with crushed blacks. Dimensionality and depth were absent for the most part. These and poor contrast resulted in a very flat looking film. Facial details were generally average and a bit on the soft side. Skin tones were a smidge on the reddish end (except for Evan Rachel Wood, of course).


Overall, the look that was achieved for the film greatly complemented the storyline. Unfortunately, this runs counter to our thread definitions and safely lands this title in...

*Tier Recommendation: 3.50*


The film itself, while slow-paced, went by fairly fast. Mickey Rourke was captivating in this drama and I comfortably went along for the ride. Then, there's Marisa Tomei...I definitely recommend this.









_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8' & 6'_


----------



## LBFilmGuy

*Yes Man*


Given the recent slue of mediocre looking comedies on BD this is a nice treat.


Like most comedies it was brightly lit and shot to match the mood and feel of the film, but not overly so to detract from the contrast and overall PQ. It held nice contrast most of the time and blacks looked great. Daytime and exterior scenes were very nice, everything in focus sharp and detailed.


Night scenes were pretty rare but when they show up they held well with sharp details and deep blacks most of the time. Some detail is lost in shadows at times, and a few scenes look a bit flat and washed out (mainly when Carrey and Cloe take their first ride up through the hills), but that's the only complaint I really have here.


Facial closeups were very nice, especially of Terrence, Carrey's boss, Higgins (guy who got him into the program), and Carrey himself. Pores, imperfections, hair, all very sharp. Occasionally Carrey seemed to have had a bit of DNR applied, but it may have just been more makeup than usual or soft focus. Carrey's friend, Peter, and Cloe's fared the worse with not much resolved.


Nothing to complain about in terms of colors and skin tones, all very natural and pleasing. Sometimes skin tones did get a bit warm depending on the lighting though.


Overall, this is a very consistent title that was solid throughout. With a few minor drawbacks, it slips just out of Tier 1 for me, but not by much.
*Recommendation: Top of Tier 2.*


Panasonic 50PZ80U via PS3 @ about 6 feet.


----------



## b_scott

unfortunate about The Wrestler


----------



## jrcorwin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/16325461
> 
> 
> unfortunate about The Wrestler



Well, I wouldn't say it's unfortunate. That was the intended look. You're getting a proper reproduction of the film.


----------



## PooperScooper

Yes, The Wrestler transfer is excellent, I saw no issues at all. Although being shot on 16mm is probably why it won't thrill the eye candy folks.


larry


----------



## b_scott

gotcha


----------



## JohnES1

My mom really enjoyed Then She Found Me last night. Some consistent fuzzy video noise(wasn't enough to be a major distraction,) and otherwise the PQ was good accross the board. Glad I dug into the lower Tiers for this one(3.75,) as I always need fresh dramatic romance comedy to balance out the animation and shoot 'em ups. Is "dramatic romance comedy" a contradiction or reality? ;-)


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16324759
> 
> *The Wrestler*
> 
> 
> Very inconsistent grain throughout. Spotted some ringing on high contrast edges - very glaring, for example, on Evan Rachel Wood's black-crushed peacoat against a drab, dreary, clouded sky.
> 
> 
> This film was a character-driven drama that was stylistic towards the reality of a man past his prime, trying to find/recapture meaning in his life. The film style was hand-held in nature, which gave it a documentary-like feel. This style definitely fit the storyline, but did not help PQ.
> 
> 
> Dark scenes were usually plagued with crushed blacks. Dimensionality and depth were absent for the most part. These and poor contrast resulted in a very flat looking film. Facial details were generally average and a bit on the soft side. Skin tones were a smidge on the reddish end (except for Evan Rachel Wood, of course).
> 
> 
> Overall, the look that was achieved for the film greatly complemented the storyline. Unfortunately, this runs counter to our thread definitions and safely lands this title in...
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.50*
> 
> 
> The film itself, while slow-paced, went by fairly fast. Mickey Rourke was captivating in this drama and I comfortably went along for the ride. Then, there's Marisa Tomei...I definitely recommend this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8' & 6'_



These issues were present on the film print when I saw this movie a few months ago, so at least it's not a video mastering screwup. I really enjoyed the movie, hope the folks here check it out despite the drab visuals if they missed its theatrical run.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/16329321
> 
> 
> These issues were present on the film print when I saw this movie a few months ago, so at least it's not a video mastering screwup. I really enjoyed the movie, hope the folks here check it out despite the drab visuals if they missed its theatrical run.



Absolutely! Don't let the PQ rating deter anyone from enjoying this rare treat.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16324759
> 
> *The Wrestler*
> 
> 
> Very inconsistent grain throughout. Spotted some ringing on high contrast edges - very glaring, for example, on Evan Rachel Wood's black-crushed peacoat against a drab, dreary, clouded sky.
> 
> 
> This film was a character-driven drama that was stylistic towards the reality of a man past his prime, trying to find/recapture meaning in his life. The film style was hand-held in nature, which gave it a documentary-like feel. This style definitely fit the storyline, but did not help PQ.
> 
> 
> Dark scenes were usually plagued with crushed blacks. Dimensionality and depth were absent for the most part. These and poor contrast resulted in a very flat looking film. Facial details were generally average and a bit on the soft side. Skin tones were a smidge on the reddish end (except for Evan Rachel Wood, of course).
> 
> 
> Overall, the look that was achieved for the film greatly complemented the storyline. Unfortunately, this runs counter to our thread definitions and safely lands this title in...
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.50*
> 
> 
> The film itself, while slow-paced, went by fairly fast. Mickey Rourke was captivating in this drama and I comfortably went along for the ride. Then, there's Marisa Tomei...I definitely recommend this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8' & 6'_


*The Wrestler*


I came here to review The Wrestler as well, as I watched it last night, and I agree with much of your review, so you have saved me some typing!


I definitely agree that the hand-held documentary type feel goes along with the idea that the less than stellar PQ is intentional. It is gritty looking, and depth, contrast and detail are all lacking. Yet, it is all perfectly complimentary to the movie's story.


Regarding the movie: simply superb! I had heard good things about it, and I knew Rourke was nominated for his role, so I had fairly high expectations, which is usually a bad thing as it leads to disappointment. Not here! Highly recommended.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.5*


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16329980
> 
> 
> Absolutely! Don't let the PQ rating deter anyone from enjoying this rare treat.



Couldn't agree more!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Opium And The Kung-Fu Master

recommendation: Tier 3.75*


Released in early January of this year by the now defunct BCI, the 1984 Shaw Brothers Studios production looks better on Blu-ray than my low expectations had coming in. The 90-minute film is encoded in AVC on a BD-25. The average video bitrate in my estimation is 18 Mbps. Over the course of the movie the video encode stays between 11.6 Mbps to 28.9 Mbps. For a paltry bitrate the encoding appears free of most artifacts and seems to reproduce the grain pattern fine without macroblocking.


The image quality here appears to be a decent upgrade over dvd resolution. One only has to look at the theatrical trailer included in standard-definition to watch what older releases of this title looked like with massive contrast problems and print damage. Celestial Pictures restored this title from the original elements a couple of years ago to produce a new master and the quality is apparent here. No one will confuse it with a Lowry restoration of a major Hollywood picture, but it should meet the standards of most fans. Print damage is negligible and looks better than many catalog titles I have viewed from the large studios. There is a tiny amount of edge enhancement used that results in just the the quickest glimpse of halos, but overall it looks clean of bad digital processing. The grain structure appears natural, though it seems to vary in magnitude depending on the scene. Certain scenes, particularly a couple near the beginning of the film, suffer from what appears to be mosquito noise in the darkest scenes.


At times the picture quality excels, most notably in the fight scenes. The fight scenes on their own would rank closer to tier 2.75 in merit. Colors, while not vibrant, are nicely rendered with solid tonality and crispness. The way the movie was shot appears to have given a surprising dimensionality to objects in the foreground, which helps make the fighters stand out. Unfortunately background depth and focus appears to have been sacrificed partially as a result, with it constantly looking as if poorly implemented bokeh was the goal. Do not expect Hollywood-quality filming from this movie, as budget and technical limitations were vastly different in Shaw Brothers productions.


Black levels are adequate given the limitations in the original photography. They are not the deep and inky look we have come to expect from reference titles. A few scenes do have relatively poor contrast in the darker lit scenes. Grain becomes very prominent in these moments. The transfer does not show very good high-frequency information in the facial details but it maintains sharpness and clarity for most of the film. Flesh tones look solid and naturalistic.


On an absolute basis this transfer looks pedestrian and probably below-average considering all the Blu-rays I have watched, but given its origin and source material, looks clearly better than any dvd of it could look. I think most fans would find it a stellar release. As a disappointing side note, the fabulous liner notes included in the package indicated that BCI was planning 15 Shaw Brothers movies for Blu-ray. These obviously will not come out now.


----------



## deltasun

Just perused through the Recut version of _Sin City_. It appears the macro blocking issue is still there during the opening scene (which isn't the opening scene in the recut sequence).


----------



## JohnES1

I think SuprSlow found the right compromise given the varying opinions of Mr. Brooks(currently Tier 1.25.) I could go a quarter Tier either way if I had seen the original film version for comparison. Excellent screenplay though, left me feeling the way I do after viewing a Hitchcock masterpiece.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Body of Lies*


This title was actually very impressive with regard to resolving minute details. Facial details are excellent, but so are many other objects, including long shots of the desert, where even the smallest rocks were very clear and detailed.


Colors were very pleasing and neutral.


Contrast and blacks were not as impressive, and depth suffers as a result.


The big problem here, though, and I am shocked that nobody else who reviewed this title mentioned it, is the unbelievable amount of macro blocking that is seen in some scenes. By far the worst scene is near the end of the movie, when Leonardo's character is in the hospital. The wall behind the Jordanian Intel officer is just crawling, and huge macro blocks appear on the far left side of the screen. This is not something that just lasts for a second or two either.


This is some of the worst macro blocking I have seen on a Blu-ray disc.


I may have put this as high as Tier 1.75, but with the macro blocking, I can't go higher than 2.5.


As for the movie: wow, what a disappointment. Two great actors and a (formerly?) great director combine for a very mediocre film. Nothing special going on here, that's for sure.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.5*


----------



## OldCodger73

The first several minutes of the movie aren't encouraging, average detail with what looks like a lot of grain in the darker scenes. But when the film moves to the countryside PQ picks up. Detail, clarity and depth on most shots range from good to very good. Close-up shots lack the fine facial details of a tier 0 or 1 movie, but are solid tier 2. After the first few minutes color is very pleasing. The flying photography and close-ups of the baby geese show a great deal of depth and detail and are very appealing.


There's one picture anomaly I've never seen before. Early in the movie the Jeff Daniels character, wearing only a pair of red under-shorts, vaults a fence and when that happens there's a squashed red oval bloom that totally washes out the character and lasts for several seconds. Weird!


I feel the movie is better than an average Tier 3 one and would rate *Fly Away Home Tier 2.5*.


This 1996 family, feel good movie is directed by Carroll Ballard, perhaps best known for _The Black Stallion_. The movie was mostly shot in Ontario and besides Jeff Daniels and Anna Paquin, features a cast of unknowns. The acting is generally OK, with Paquin quite good. Ballard shamelessly manipulates viewers' emotion and does a nice build up to the uplifting ending. Since Netflix doesn't have a 3.75, I'd rate it a 4 on their 5 scale.


Panasonic 50" 720p plasma, Panasonic 10a player, 7 1/2'


----------



## JohnES1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/16341031
> 
> 
> The first several minutes of the movie aren't encouraging, average detail with what looks like a lot of grain in the darker scenes. But when the film moves to the countryside PQ picks up. Detail, clarity and depth on most shots range from good to very good. Close-up shots lack the fine facial details of a tier 0 or 1 movie, but are solid tier 2. After the first few minutes color is very pleasing. The flying photography and close-ups of the baby geese show a great deal of depth and detail and are very appealing.
> 
> 
> There's one picture anomaly I've never seen before. Early in the movie the Jeff Daniels character, wearing only a pair of red under-shorts, vaults a fence and when that happens there's a squashed red oval bloom that totally washes out the character and lasts for several seconds. Weird!
> 
> 
> I feel the movie is better than an average Tier 3 one and would rate *Fly Away Home Tier 2.5*.
> 
> 
> This 1996 family, feel good movie is directed by Carroll Ballard, perhaps best known for _The Black Stallion_. The movie was mostly shot in Ontario and besides Jeff Daniels and Anna Paquin, features a cast of unknowns. The acting is generally OK, with Paquin quite good. Ballard shamelessly manipulates viewers' emotion and does a nice build up to the uplifting ending. Since Netflix doesn't have a 3.75, I'd rate it a 4 on their 5 scale.
> 
> 
> Panasonic 50" 720p plasma, Panasonic 10a player, 7 1/2'



You guys keep saying Netflix doesn't have quarter point differentials, yet I see it rated at 3.75 at Netflix??? Anyway, since I have 27 movies ahead of this in my queue you've convinced this young curmudgeon to upgrade his Netflix account to three discs at a time.










Ok, I get it-you're saying you can't make exacting VOTES at Netflix, sorry...


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JohnES1* /forum/post/16341336
> 
> 
> You guys keep saying Netflix doesn't have quarter point differentials, yet I see it rated at 3.75 at Netflix??? Anyway, since I have 27 movies ahead of this in my queue you've convinced this young curmudgeon to upgrade his Netflix account to three discs at a time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I get it-you're saying you can't make exacting VOTES at Netflix, sorry...



Yes, you can only make whole number votes at Netflix. It could still average out to quater star votes, like 1+1+1+2=5/4=1.25, for example.


----------



## deltasun

*X-Men*


"This certainly is a big, round room"


Logan really cracked me up in this movie. A bit disappointed with the PQ on this title. The darker scenes were mediocre at best and looked very flat. Medium shots were on the soft side and did not exhibit delineating details. Close-up's were better, but definitely not as impressive as Tier 0 or even high Tier 1 close-up's. Skin tones bordered on the reddish side (except for Toad and Mystique, of course







) for the most part.


Very fine grain was present throughout - didn't spot any obvious DNR. Ringing was minimal also, except for the opening stylized scene. Colors in the brighter scenes were vivid and palatable. Contrast levels were fair for the most part, but were not particularly noteworthy.


Overall, I would still award this mid-Silver placement. I believe it's on par with, or slightly better than _Fantastic Four_, for example.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.5*


AQ-wise, this title was very good. I felt dialogue was clear and the surround field active for the most part. LFE was used to great effect during action sequences (except, oddly enough, for the when Magneto dropped the police cars on each other).

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/16341031
> 
> 
> The first several minutes of the movie aren't encouraging, average detail with what looks like a lot of grain in the darker scenes. But when the film moves to the countryside PQ picks up. Detail, clarity and depth on most shots range from good to very good. Close-up shots lack the fine facial details of a tier 0 or 1 movie, but are solid tier 2. After the first few minutes color is very pleasing. The flying photography and close-ups of the baby geese show a great deal of depth and detail and are very appealing.
> 
> 
> There's one picture anomaly I've never seen before. Early in the movie the Jeff Daniels character, wearing only a pair of red under-shorts, vaults a fence and when that happens there's a squashed red oval bloom that totally washes out the character and lasts for several seconds. Weird!
> 
> 
> I feel the movie is better than an average Tier 3 one and would rate *Fly Away Home Tier 2.5*.
> 
> 
> This 1996 family, feel good movie is directed by Carroll Ballard, perhaps best known for _The Black Stallion_. The movie was mostly shot in Ontario and besides Jeff Daniels and Anna Paquin, features a cast of unknowns. The acting is generally OK, with Paquin quite good. Ballard shamelessly manipulates viewers' emotion and does a nice build up to the uplifting ending. Since Netflix doesn't have a 3.75, I'd rate it a 4 on their 5 scale.
> 
> 
> Panasonic 50" 720p plasma, Panasonic 10a player, 7 1/2'



thanks for the review, i had this in my queue







I saw it back when it came out, thought I'd reminisce


----------



## Hughmc

Hi. Checking in. It is my busy time of year, landscaping, so I am out more than in, or at least busier and then the NHL playoffs are on as well. I haven't watched any BD's as of late, although I have had Frost Nixon for the last few days sitting here. I do check in to see the reviews.










Anyone see Jeff Beck Performing This Week at Ronnie Scott's BD?


----------



## rusky_g

I'm looking forward to Mall Cop


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Immortal


recommendation: Tier 4.0
*

A bizarre film based on a mix of live-action and CGI, this 2004 European production was released to Blu-ray on December 2, 2008 by First Look Studios. The 103-minute movie is encoded in AVC on a BD-25. The average video bitrate per the BDInfo scan is 17.99 Mbps. No real problems show in the compression, with the image entirely free of traditional artifacts.


It appears the scope of the director exceeded his budget and it impacts the visuals greatly. Much of the film tries to integrate vast CGI environments and characters with live actors, and largely fails in the process. The CGI was clearly never meant to be seen at the maximum resolution of Blu-ray and has severe issues. CGI backgrounds appear soft with little detail compared to a Hollywood blockbuster. The most visible negative is the constant aliasing problems seen in the backdrop of the CGI city. Moiré patterns and flickering are also occasional nuisances with the background CGI. For an idea of the CGI's level of quality, it is not far removed from what is typical in the cut scenes of modern video games.


The transfer appears to be sourced from an older master with substandard resolution. The live-action scenes look better than upconverted dvd, but not as much as one would like to see on Blu-ray. There are notable halos throughout the film. Colors are bleached somewhat, rendering the overall appearance washed out and dull. Black levels are below average much of the time. The live-action parts look okay at times and might deserve a ranking in tier three though. But the CGI is nothing more than dvd-quality much of the time.


I could see arguments for this title in tier 4.5 but I will go with my first impression of tier 4.0 as my recommendation. The picture is still watchable but go in with low expectations.


BDInfo Scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...4#post15265864


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16342008
> 
> 
> Hi. Checking in. It is my busy time of year, landscaping, so I am out more than in, or at least busier and then the NHL playoffs are on as well. I haven't watched any BD's as of late, although I have had Frost Nixon for the last few days sitting here. I do check in to see the reviews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone see Jeff Beck Performing This Week at Ronnie Scott's BD?




A fellow "scaper" I see







Funny how my BR watching decreases significantly this time of year, along with my other passions......oh well, cut hay while the sun shines I suppose










Hughmc, I have Jeff Beck sitting here and was planning on getting to it tom....if so I will report back. Hoping for some great audio, nice video would be a bonus.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/16343312
> 
> 
> A fellow "scaper" I see
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how my BR watching decreases significantly this time of year, along with my other passions......oh well, cut hay while the sun shines I suppose
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hughmc, I have Jeff Beck sitting here and was planning on getting to it tom....if so I will report back. Hoping for some great audio, nice video would be a bonus.



Ah you do it in the dirt too on your hand and knees...pick weeds that is... and do some bush trimming!










Don't look up any reviews on PQ as it seems it is the same or worse than some of these other concert BD's,







but for Jeff Beck alone in lossless is a huge plus, with his approval for the SQ from what I read. If it doesn't meet his standards it is a no go as he is a fussy musician. It should be good and I can't wait to hear your review. I just watched a video clip they have on Amazon and it alone is impressive. Many great tracks, but bummer as there is no Freeway Jam.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16343499
> 
> 
> Ah you do it in the dirt too on your hand and knees...pick weeds that is... and do some bush trimming!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



Yes Sir!







Bush trimming and laying pipe is my specialty!







The funny thing is the closest name for "Todd" in Spanish is "Sapo" which means little hopper or Toad.....I am known as Sapo at work.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16343499
> 
> 
> 
> Don't look up any reviews on PQ as it seems it is the same or worse than some of these other concert BD's,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but for Jeff Beck alone in lossless is a huge plus, with his approval for the SQ from what I read. If it doesn't meet his standards it is a no go as he is a fussy musician. It should be good and I can't wait to hear your review. I just watched a video clip they have on Amazon and it alone is impressive. Many great tracks, but bummer as there is no Freeway Jam.



Thanks for the info. I try not to set my PQ expectations to high for these concerts since you never know (just recently watched David Gilmour on BR which had pretty weak video quality).....but I do have high hopes for audio and his approval is a great sign!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Venture Bros.: 3rd Season


recommendation: Tier 2.25*


This Warner release from March 24, 2009 looks relatively good for the simplistic animation-style of the show. All thirteen episodes of season three, totaling 286-minutes combined, are included here on a single BD-50 encoded with VC-1. The compression parameters are a little unusual, as the VC-1 encodes jumps from a nadir as low as 3.6 Mbps to brief peaks at 50 Mbps. Much of the encode though stays in the lower teens, and I would estimate the average video bitrate at 12 Mbps. Technically the compression work appears very competent, with little to no artifacting, and a touch of banding in the background that looks attributable to the source material.


The picture boasts bright and vivid colors that fill the screen. Black levels are phenomenal with the purest black reproduction I have seen in a while. The master is in immaculate shape with nary an unintended flaw or anomaly present. My only complaint, as small as it may be, is the presence of barely visible aliasing problems on some of the line art. The image is not far removed from the look seen in some of the animated DC Universe Blu-rays. I do think a placement as low as tier 2.25 is justified because of the simplicity of the traditionally-animated aesthetic of the show. For those not familiar with the show, it is a parody of cartoons from the 60's and 70's, and employs a very simple animated style that recalls a retro Johnny Quest cartoon-look. Fans of the show will be very pleased with how it looks at 1080p resolution. Season three was also natively animated and planned for a widescreen release, so concerns about cropping the picture should not exist for this title.


Watching on a 60 Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 (firmware 2.70) at a viewing distance of six feet.


----------



## djoberg

^


Thanks Phantom for all the good reviews in the last few days (you've been on quite a roll). I, like Hugh, have not been able to view Blu-rays lately but I do appreciate seeing all the reviews that have been posted.


----------



## Kevin12586




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16341642
> 
> *X-Men*
> 
> 
> "This certainly is a big, round room"
> 
> 
> Logan really cracked me up in this movie. A bit disappointed with the PQ on this title. The darker scenes were mediocre at best and looked very flat. Medium shots were on the soft side and did not exhibit delineating details. Close-up's were better, but definitely not as impressive as Tier 0 or even high Tier 1 close-up's. Skin tones bordered on the reddish side (except for Toad and Mystique, of course
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) for the most part.
> 
> 
> Very fine grain was present throughout - didn't spot any obvious DNR. Ringing was minimal also, except for the opening stylized scene. Colors in the brighter scenes were vivid and palatable. Contrast levels were fair for the most part, but were not particularly noteworthy.
> 
> 
> Overall, I would still award this mid-Silver placement. I believe it's on par with, or slightly better than _Fantastic Four_, for example.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.5*
> 
> 
> AQ-wise, this title was very good. I felt dialogue was clear and the surround field active for the most part. LFE was used to great effect during action sequences (except, oddly enough, for the when Magneto dropped the police cars on each other).
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_



You should rate the audio in the Audio tier thread


----------



## H.Cornerstone




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16341642
> 
> *X-Men*
> 
> 
> "This certainly is a big, round room"
> 
> 
> Logan really cracked me up in this movie. A bit disappointed with the PQ on this title. The darker scenes were mediocre at best and looked very flat. Medium shots were on the soft side and did not exhibit delineating details. Close-up's were better, but definitely not as impressive as Tier 0 or even high Tier 1 close-up's. Skin tones bordered on the reddish side (except for Toad and Mystique, of course
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) for the most part.
> 
> 
> Very fine grain was present throughout - didn't spot any obvious DNR. Ringing was minimal also, except for the opening stylized scene. Colors in the brighter scenes were vivid and palatable. Contrast levels were fair for the most part, but were not particularly noteworthy.
> 
> 
> Overall, I would still award this mid-Silver placement. I believe it's on par with, or slightly better than _Fantastic Four_, for example.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.5*
> 
> 
> AQ-wise, this title was very good. I felt dialogue was clear and the surround field active for the most part. LFE was used to great effect during action sequences (except, oddly enough, for the when Magneto dropped the police cars on each other).
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_



Have to agree with you.


The x-men movies are the few ones I own in which the dialogue isn't half the volume of the rest of the movie....


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/16282727
> 
> *Elegy*
> 
> 
> This title really surprised me given the small budget and little attention it received.
> 
> 
> Given the melancholy, adult nature of this film there is nothing fancy here, no huge explosions, no constant moving cameras nor epic multi million dollar scenes. What we have here is a solid, excellent looking title that is handsomely lit and shot.
> 
> 
> Where this title truly shined were the facial closeups (as one would hope given this is basically a film of talking heads). Ben Kingsley and Dennis Hopper's imperfections have never looked so good. Penelope Cruz looked beautiful as always and her fine skin was still very detailed most of the time. The closeups were all razor sharp and detailed throughout. Colors and skin tones were all spot on as well.
> 
> 
> Contrast and black levels suffered at times, but not too often. Sometimes I found the shadow areas to be grey rather than black, and some blacks were crushed at times. Nothing too distracting though. Only a few soft shots were found.
> 
> 
> The only part of this film that looks bad was the opening interview with Kingsley's character which was obviously intentional and lasts no longer than a minute or so. (Looks like SD DVD.)
> 
> 
> Medium and long shots were not as impressive as the closeups, but still looked great. No hint of DNR, EE, or any other crap we don't want.
> 
> 
> For the film itself, I found it to be quite good. Superb performances from every one on screen, especially Kingsley and Cruz. Their chemistry was great. I am shocked that Cruz got the nod for VCB rather than this.
> 
> 
> This is a tough title to place after just watching an epic period piece like Changeling. The facial closeups were far superior here in Elegy but it didn't have the epic production design and huge budget. Despite that, given the type of film this is with the majority of the film being just facial closeups, I am placing it a quarter tier higher. This reminds me of Mr. Brooks just not as strong. Therefore, 1.75 for me.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 1.75*
> 
> 
> Panasonic 50PZ80U via PS3 @ about 6 feet.




I was about to write up a review on _Elegy_ but decided to do a quick search and out came LBFilmGuy's review. Don't mean to quote his review, but he sums up the film's PQ perfectly.


I just want to emphasize how superb the close-up's were. Some even dipped into Tier Blu category, in my opinion. An example would be Cruz and Kingsley's conversation where she makes a "revelation."


I thought the crushed blacks were prevalent as well. They usually manifested themselves in coats and sweaters.


Still, I was so impressed with the PQ that I'm willing to up the ante and go with...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16348243
> 
> 
> I was about to write up a review on _Elegy_ but decided to do a quick search and out came LBFilmGuy's review. Don't mean to quote his review, but he sums up the film's PQ perfectly.
> 
> 
> I just want to emphasize how superb the close-up's were. Some even dipped into Tier Blu category, in my opinion. An example would be Cruz and Kingsley's conversation where she makes a "revelation."
> 
> 
> I thought the crushed blacks were prevalent as well. They usually manifested themselves in coats and sweaters.
> 
> 
> Still, I was so impressed with the PQ that I'm willing to up the ante and go with...
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.5*
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_



Glad to see someone else check this out!


Also glad you agree with my review, I was struggling with exactly where to place it and could easily go up to 1.5 as well.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/16348282
> 
> 
> Glad to see someone else check this out!
> 
> 
> Also glad you agree with my review, I was struggling with exactly where to place it and could easily go up to 1.5 as well.



I started comparing with titles in 1.75 and 1.5 and figured it was definitely better than 1.75 titles like _Iron Man_ and _Aeon Flux_. And you're right with _Mr. Brooks_ still being superior.


Yeah, I'm suprised it hasn't garnered as much attention as other recent releases. I thought it well-acted and the pacing was such that it really drew you into Kingsley's depressed view of getting old.


Oh, and the discussions between him and Hopper were definitely some of the best and most hilarious. I hope folks get a chance to see this film.

_"When you make love to a woman you get revenge for all the things that defeated you in life"_


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16348336
> 
> 
> I started comparing with titles in 1.75 and 1.5 and figured it was definitely better than 1.75 titles like _Iron Man_ and _Aeon Flux_. And you're right with _Mr. Brooks_ still being superior.
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'm suprised it hasn't garnered as much attention as other recent releases. I thought it well-acted and the pacing was such that it really drew you into Kingsley's depressed view of getting old.
> 
> 
> Oh, and the discussions between him and Hopper were definitely some of the best and most hilarious. I hope folks get a chance to see this film.
> 
> _"When you make love to a woman you get revenge for all the things that defeated you in life"_



Totally agree, it was completely overlooked. It's a shame, and makes me upset when films like this go rather unnoticed.


----------



## deltasun

*Cadillac Records*


This picture varied quite a bit from where it started and how it ended. Grain was very fine throughout. First off, the muted color palette was such that it represented the dated look of the 40's and 50's. I believe it succeeded without harming PQ too much. While another period piece like _Changeling_ had a bolder look, _Cadillac Records_ looked flatter. Facial close-up's were not as detailed as anything found in Tier Gold or higher (due to lighting and focus, in my opinion). Still, texture and imperfections were in plain sight.


Black levels were decent and were not crushed in most scenes. Shadow details were very good as well. Contrast was generally fair, but was evidently used as a tool for the intended look of the film. Medium shots suffered from how bokeh was used. I felt the camera didn't adjust fast enough in moving the point of focus to relevant areas within the scene. Of course, this falls under Director's Intent. Outdoor scenes of street blocks and buildings exhibited good depth and dimension.


Overall, the biggest PQ downer here was softness. It seemed to have gotten worse as the film went on. I don't think it was due to any foul play. Again, most of this could be attributed to the seeming director's intent to delay the point of focus to where it is expected. Still, I disagree with it's current placement. This is not a Bronze title, in my opinion. I believe it is just behind another similar period movie, _Changeling_...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.5*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## babrown92

No Quantam of Solace reviews yet?


I watched this yesterday, and it looked very good. Don't really like to review movies after only 1 viewing, but my first instinct would be pushing tier 0.


Anyone else have opinions on this one?


----------



## deltasun

Yes, _Quantum of Solace_ has been placed in Tier 1. You can do a search and find individual reviews.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

I haven't watched the entire thing, just the majority of the first disc of the 1995 Pride & Prejudice, so I'm not going to do a formal review yet. However I know some of you might be interested in some thoughts. The blu ray of P&P is, IMO, a really well done restoration. It's miles above the DVD. Unfortunately, maybe directors intent or whatnot, it is VERY soft. I noticed a lot of grain in tact, which is what makes me think it's a Director's Intent issue. Plus it varies from scene to scene. Some scenes you can see facial detail, others not one bit. My friend mentioned she wondered if it was filmed with vaseline on the lens. She's not a PQ junkie like I am but it was enough to bother her at times as well.


The colour restoration is fantastic. One scene showed up, when Lizzie has gone to be by Jane's side while she's sick -- there's a dinner-table scene with the 'evil sisters'. My friend I was watching it with shrieked "PURPLE! THOSE STRIPES ARE PURPLE!" at the outfit that Carolyn was wearing. We did a comparison with DVD after we watched the first two episodes and the change in colours is AMAZING. Absolutely stunning difference. (edited to add -- on the DVD, the stripes look black.)


I'm not going to go on anymore b/c now I'm more into "review mode" when I haven't finished watching it yet, but I feel PQ wise once I finish, unless it gets better with clarity/depth/etc, I'll probably place it somewhere around tier 2.5-3.5. This is not to detract against the fantastic restoration they've truly done, though. I don't think they could do anything to this film/miniseries to make it Tier 0, but it does look great for what it is. I think any fan of it will be happy with what they've done, especially in comparison to the DVDs.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16351442
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, maybe directors intent or whatnot, it is VERY soft. I noticed a lot of grain in tact, which is what makes me think it's a Director's Intent issue.



It was shot on 16mm.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/16351651
> 
> 
> It was shot on 16mm.



Yes, I realize this, but there are moments where you can see facial detail, so I don't think the film itself is the issue. Hopefully you will understand what I mean when you see it!


----------



## b_scott

Just saw the Usual Suspects. I'd place it about 3.25. It's as good if not better than Elf, and some facial shots are stellar.


Pioneer 5010-FD

Pioneer BDP-51FD Professional

8' back


----------



## wmcclain




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16351855
> 
> 
> Yes, I realize this, but there are moments where you can see facial detail, so I don't think the film itself is the issue. Hopefully you will understand what I mean when you see it!



It's beyond the scope of this thread, but there are so many ways to evaluate image quality. There is this thread, then the Film Grain thread where fidelity to the original source is valued.


I can imagine another thread: degree of improvement over best previously available source. This P&P would get a high score there, but other fine discs not so much.


This is actually important to me because the degree of improvement is a big factor in my renting and buying decisions.


-Bill


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wmcclain* /forum/post/16351972
> 
> 
> It's beyond the scope of this thread, but there are so many ways to evaluate image quality. There is this thread, then the Film Grain thread where fidelity to the original source is valued.
> 
> 
> I can imagine another thread: degree of improvement over best previously available source. This P&P would get a high score there, but other fine discs not so much.
> 
> 
> This is actually important to me because the degree of improvement is a big factor in my renting and buying decisions.
> 
> 
> -Bill



Agreed. I feel the same sort of improvement happened with The Princess Bride, while the actual PQ score for the purposes of this thread is low, it's a MASSIVE improvement. The same can be said for what I've seen so far of P&P1995.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

*Slumdog Millionaire*


Reading the previous reviews before watching it on BD (having seen it on SD DVD), I wasn't expecting too much going in. But even then, it failed to live up to those expectations.


A lot the problems with this title have to do with how the film was shot, a lot of hand held, low light situations, and is much more apparent here than it was when I watched it on SD DVD. This furthers my disappointment that Dodd won the Oscar for best Cinematography for this. It should have went to either Tom Stern for Changeling or Wally Pfister for The Dark Knight, no question. Anyway, enough with the ranting. (Cinematography is my passion!)










There are fleeting moments when it jumps into Tier 1, but not very many. Most of the exterior daytime scenes look good, with a lot of sharp details and pop, especially the scenes in the beginning when they were kids. The contrast was pushed very hot though and whites did get blown out. I disagree with some who have said the facial closeups are outstanding...there are a few that are, but again, not very many. The only times I saw fantastic facial closeups was when Jamal was in the hot seat and all of the house lights were off except the spotlights (white light). A few shots of the host were VERY detailed and were high Tier 1 maybe even bottom Tier 0. Some others were found of Latika when they were older with nice details in her lips, and of the police officer questioning Jamal.


Sadly, there were far too many problems that outweigh all of this. There was WAY too much noise throughout most of the film...not to be mistaken with film grain. I was shocked to see noise during some daytime scenes, and just about every night scene was riddled with it. This on top of weak contrast and grey blacks led to a very washed out and flat image. Just about every medium to long shot of Jamal on the show was flat and soft as well, except when the focus was on the camera on the crane in the studio. Most of the medium shots of Jamal and the host were flat and soft, Tier 3 at best. One shot that really bugged me was when Jamal finds Latika in the kitchen of the drug lord's house...one shot is pretty sharp and detailed, they cut away and then back to them from a different angle when they almost kiss, and it was completely soft.


Given the limited budget, it is still a very good looking film overall. The look they gave it matches it the story and is very well done. But given that this got the Oscar for best cinematography, I can't help but be very critical of how it was shot. None of the problems have to do with the transfer I don't think, which is what bothers me most. Top of Tier 3 for me, could even go down to 3.25.

*Recommendation: Top of Tier 3.*


Panasonic 50PZ80U via PS3 @ about 6 feet.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/16353846
> 
> 
> Given the limited budget, it is still a very good looking film overall. The look they gave it matches it the story and is very well done. But given that this got the Oscar for best cinematography, I can't help but be very critical of how it was shot. None of the problems have to do with the transfer I don't think, which is what bothers me most. Top of Tier 3 for me, could even go down to 3.25.



I thought it looked great when I saw it theatrically, which masked some issues that are much more obvious now that it's on BD. Not sure what the Oscar judges use to view the movie, but the cinematography certainly left an impression on me.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

I watched The Spirit at my friends' last night on SD DVD (Redbox ftw) and was awed by how GOOD it looked on just standard def. Some of the facial closeups were as good as I have seen on some BD titles!







It was on a 40" TV and I was sitting about 15 feet back







but I was really impressed.


I can only imagine how amazing this looks on BD, I will add it to my Netflix queue just to see how good it looks despite how bad the film is. Besides, seeing all the hot chicks a 2nd time around on Blu Ray won't be toooo bad










Looking forward to others seeing it as well.


----------



## djoberg

*The Wrestler*


After a week-long sabbatical from Blu-ray viewing I decided it was time to visit my local video store and indulge in a couple of movies. So I picked up The Wrestler (the credits just got done rolling) and Frost Nixon and I'm determined to watch both of them back to back.


I don't have anything to add to the two previous reviews (by deltasun and Rob Tomlin). I agree with deltasun regarding the inconsistent grain, the terrible black levels, and the poor contrast. The colors were nothing to write home about either. It was, for the most part, a very gritty-looking film that reminded me of movies I used to watch on the Monster channel (in the good old days when one could still get Voom







).


Perhaps the sole redeeming feature was some fairly good facial close-ups of Mickey Rourke. His aging, leathery face was quite detailed in most shots (though not as good as those in his role in Man On Fire).


My esteemed colleagues both gave it a 3.5 rating, but I'm inclined to drop it a notch.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.75*


Samsung 50" 1080p DLP....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'


PS I just got off the phone with BuyBestPlasma (see list of Forum sponsors above) and they offered me a deal on a 60" KURO Elite (the PRO-151FD) that I couldn't refuse (I set up delivery for approximately two weeks from today). Needless to say, I can hardly believe I'm finally getting the flat panel I've been eyeing in show rooms for two years.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Damn dj, I am jealous! Nothing tops the 151 in terms of PDPs. Congrats!


I think you meant Domino when you were referring to the superb facial closeups of Rourke too.







Much better than what we saw of him in Man on Fire.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kevin12586* /forum/post/16345724
> 
> 
> You should rate the audio in the Audio tier thread



Oh sorry, Kevin...didn't see your comment. I think they have this title covered. It's easily Tier 0 there, I would say. Of course, I don't know how respected my opinion would be having Bose 301's for speakers.


----------



## djoberg

*Frost/Nixon*


What a delight to actually see two Oscar-worthy films back-to-back! I neglected to mention how much I enjoyed the stellar performance by Mickey Rourke, and I was equally pleased by the casting in Frost/Nixon, especially by the two male leads. Frost/Nixon is a compelling film that kept my interest from first to last.


PQ-wise, these two films could not have been more different. The less-than-average looking The Wrestler was flat, gritty, and soft; in contrast Frost/Nixon had depth, detail, and sharpness. There was a light veil of grain throughout that enhanced detail and gave it that ideal film-look.


Black levels were superb, as was shadow detail, and contrast was strong. Colors were in keeping with the 70s (especially in clothing); they were punchy at times, and muted on occasion. Facial details were exceptional, with the severely pitted face of Frost's producer providing us with EYE CANDY in many shots (for example, check out these two time marks: 29:39 and 34:29), along with Nixon's well-defined and tan face. There were a few exemplary scenes of depth on top of these...the first one I really noticed started at the 14 minute mark and lasted over a minute (with Nixon eating out on a terrace).


Having gone on and on with virtue after virtue, one would think I was leading up to a Tier 0 recommendation, but there were sporadic shots that were out-of-focus or soft, and there was plenty of footage of actual Watergate coverage that was either snowy or flat, so a compromise has to be struck. All things considered I deem this title worthy of the following:

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*


Samsung 50" 1080p DLP....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'


----------



## deltasun

*X2: X-Men United*


Definitely a much better presentation than the first _X-Men_. First off, the contrast left a much more balanced yet bold appearance to medium scenes. Black levels were much better controlled, offering intricate details in low-lit scenes. I know Nightcrawler isn't quite black (very dark indigo), but the details and texture on his skin simply jumped out.


Speaking of which...while the original _X-men's_ limited strengths were its close-up's, _X2_ seemed a tad more detailed and more consistent over the course of the film. Skin tones were also more faithful. Colors were vivid and vibrant, particularly green foliage.


Very fine grain was present throughout. I did not spot any obvious DNR or EE - I had to pause a few times for potential ringing, but I could not classify them as such.


Placement is a bit tricky. Comparing to other placements, I would classify this between 1.75 and 1.5...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16360611
> 
> *The Wrestler*
> 
> 
> After a week-long sabbatical from Blu-ray viewing I decided it was time to visit my local video store and indulge in a couple of movies. So I picked up The Wrestler (the credits just got done rolling) and Frost Nixon and I'm determined to watch both of them back to back.
> 
> 
> I don't have anything to add to the two previous reviews (by deltasun and Rob Tomlin). I agree with deltasun regarding the inconsistent grain, the terrible black levels, and the poor contrast. The colors were nothing to write home about either. It was, for the most part, a very gritty-looking film that reminded me of movies I used to watch on the Monster channel (in the good old days when one could still get Voom
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ).
> 
> 
> Perhaps the sole redeeming feature was some fairly good facial close-ups of Mickey Rourke. His aging, leathery face was quite detailed in most shots (though not as good as those in his role in Man On Fire).
> 
> 
> My esteemed colleagues both gave it a 3.5 rating, but I'm inclined to drop it a notch.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.75*
> 
> 
> Samsung 50" 1080p DLP....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'
> 
> 
> PS I just got off the phone with BuyBestPlasma (see list of Forum sponsors above) and they offered me a deal on a 60" KURO Elite (the PRO-151FD) that I couldn't refuse (I set up delivery for approximately two weeks from today). Needless to say, I can hardly believe I'm finally getting the flat panel I've been eyeing in show rooms for two years.



Congrats. That is the set I was going for when I settled on the one I have now.


I had Frost/Nixon sitting here all week and never watched it. Between hockey and playing Mirror's Edge, I put it off, but will have to rent it again as I returned it for a couple of others. I will get back into the review cue in the next few days as well and will be looking forward to renting the two you just reviewed.


It will be curious to see if and how your reviews might differ with the new display. Good luck!!


----------



## deltasun

^^^ Yeah, give _Bolt_ another peek.







Congrats on the new set, Denny!


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16362238
> 
> *Frost/Nixon*
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.25*



I was thinking more 2.25. Great movie, but IMO the PQ varied from scene to scene. I never noticed any Tier 0 moments either. The scenes that looked the best were top of Tier 1 at best.


By no means am I saying you're wrong. The grading scale varies from person to person. As a whole, Frost/Nixon wasn't reference to me.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/16362459
> 
> 
> I was thinking more 2.25. Great movie, but IMO the PQ varied from scene to scene. I never noticed any Tier 0 moments either. The scenes that looked the best were top of Tier 1 at best.
> 
> 
> By no means am I saying you're wrong. The grading scale varies from person to person. As a whole, Frost/Nixon wasn't reference to me.



You are right about the PQ varying from scene to scene, but as a whole I thought it was "demo-worthy" (not "reference" quality, as you say, which would be Tier 0) because the majority of scenes had undeniable virtues.


But it was a tough one to call, and I could surely be persuaded to go down a notch (1.5), or maybe even two (1.75), but Tier 2 would be going too far, IMO. It will be interesting to see what others have to say.


BTW, I'm assuming you've watched the whole movie; I'd encourage you to give us a review.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16363001
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, I'm assuming you've watched the whole movie; I'd encourage you to give us a review.



Yes I did, and would have no problem rewatching! The casting and wardrobe were both amazing!










I'm off today, so I'll rent it today and have a review tonight.


----------



## deltasun

*X-Men: The Last Stand*


Thought the pattern will continue and this would be a slam dunk into upper Tier 1 at least. Not quite.


The opening scenes, which were flashbacks were soft and off-balance. At first, it didn't seem to have been done on purpose, but later sequences showed otherwise.


Fine grain was present throughout - a bit more grain than the previous two. In fact, I spied a handful of scenes where grain was a bit distracting. They looked more like digital noise or dancing grain or potentially lousy compression. Outside of those, grain was inviting.


Colors were oversaturated a bit, which took some getting used to having just seen the previous two _X-Men_ movies. Contrast was pushed just a tad too, which had the effect of livening up the scenes. 3D pop was apparent in a number of medium shots where several characters were present.


Black levels presented a problem for _X3_, as more than a few crushed blacks were evident. The oversaturation may have played a role in this as well. Low-light details were a bit better, but not outstanding.


Facial details were a notch better than _X2_ and hovered around upper Tier 1. This was true of extreme close-up's but was especially noteworthy of medium close-up's as well.


Overall, the PQ was as described above up until the final siege. At that point, it seemed everything degraded a notch. Details were lost - low-light and normal light, scenes looked flatter, and contrast was just fair. In the end, the positive and negative virtues average out to about the same as _X2_...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16362386
> 
> 
> Congrats. That is the set I was going for when I settled on the one I have now.
> 
> 
> It will be curious to see if and how *your reviews might differ with the new display*. Good luck!!



I have no doubt that I will be seeing things a bit *differently*, for hopefully I am going to see blacks levels and color accuracy like never before.







But I'm not sure that this will affect my reviews all that much, for even my Samsung is quite good at displaying virtues, as well as anomalies, which is what I base reviews on.


My greatest fear is that I will enjoy the overall experience (larger screen, deeper blacks, better colors, bolder contrast, etc.) so much that I'll want to revisit many of my Blu-rays and HD DVDs in my library, and I simply don't have the time to do that.


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16368075
> 
> 
> I have no doubt that I will be seeing things a bit *differently*, for hopefully I am going to see blacks levels and color accuracy like never before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I'm not sure that this will affect my reviews all that much, for even my Samsung is quite good at displaying virtues, as well as anomalies, which is what I base reviews on.
> 
> 
> My greatest fear is that I will enjoy the overall experience (larger screen, deeper blacks, better colors, bolder contrast, etc.) so much that I'll want to revisit many of my Blu-rays and HD DVDs in my library, and I simply don't have the time to do that.



haha. well, if you don't have the time to do that, why own them? Rent!


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16368075
> 
> 
> I have no doubt that I will be seeing things a bit *differently*, for hopefully I am going to see blacks levels and color accuracy like never before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I'm not sure that this will affect my reviews all that much, for even my Samsung is quite good at displaying virtues, as well as anomalies, which is what I base reviews on.
> 
> 
> My greatest fear is that I will enjoy the overall experience (larger screen, deeper blacks, better colors, bolder contrast, etc.) so much that I'll want to revisit many of my Blu-rays and HD DVDs in my library, and I simply don't have the time to do that.



After a few months with my PRO-111FD, this is the first time I've been able to say that I'm actually completely happy with a TV I bought. You will not be disappointed, especially with the 60"









It's a real shame that plasma seems to be on the way out


----------



## Hughmc

*What Doesn't Kill You:*


Ok, so I had Frost/Nixon a week and just couldn't get motivated to watch it, so I returned it to rent WDKY and Uninvited. I will see F/N sometime soon as I am sure it is good.


What Doesn't Kill You is another excellent transfer to BD. It is very clear and detailed. Grain intact and not intrusive. The picture quality has a very realistic look and feel to it, although most of it has a muted color palette that reflects the look and feel of Boston in the winter. Black levels are good, but there seems to be a bit of black crush in a dark scene or two. Overall I didn't notice any PQ anomalies. Facial detail is among the best I have seen on BD. There isn't any over the top tier 0 pop or 3D look to this BD, but that doesn't stop me from recommending this BD for low Tier 0.


I did what I typically do after watching a BD which is I went and look at the reviews. Most including Ralph Potts gave it an average score anywhere from a 3-4 out of 5. Nothing concrete about it but that usually translates into 1.5 to 2.5 give or take in our PQ tier thread. Then there was one exception that pleased me, because I know I haven't watch a BD in a while and after seeing the other reviews I thought maybe I am being generous and just not used to BD since it has been a week or more since I last watched a BD. Well I am seeing the same as Kris Deering on this title. I think it looks awesome. I think the director's choice on the look and the content itself being bleak lends itself to some reviews not giving much credit to the excellent PQ this BD has. Having said all that, I will be curious as always as to what others think of it.


As far as the movie itself, I highly recommend it. It is a very intense and at times difficult film to watch. The acting is really good, especially Ruffalo and Hawke, but everyone really does a good job including the director/writer who the film is actually about. Also be sure to check out the making of this film as it is well worth it. 67% on RT.









*Recommendation low Tier 0*


Sony [email protected] from PS3 through HDMI.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16368075
> 
> 
> I have no doubt that I will be seeing things a bit *differently*, for hopefully I am going to see blacks levels and color accuracy like never before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I'm not sure that this will affect my reviews all that much, for even my Samsung is quite good at displaying virtues, as well as anomalies, which is what I base reviews on.
> 
> 
> My greatest fear is that I will enjoy the overall experience (larger screen, deeper blacks, better colors, bolder contrast, etc.) so much that I'll want to revisit many of my Blu-rays and HD DVDs in my library, and I simply don't have the time to do that.



Um...actually you won't want to get up, ever!







The size and PQ of that set is sure to blow you away especially BD's and HD sports. Plan on a being glued to the set curve. What a travesty, eh?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/16368272
> 
> 
> haha. well, if you don't have the time to do that, why own them? Rent!



Good point!










Actually, the *wink* at the end of my post was meant to convey the idea that I was being less than honest. The truth is, I won't mind at all if I'm so impressed with the new set that I feel compelled to revisit many of my favorite discs.......but I'm not sure my wife will share in my enthusiasm.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/16368384
> 
> 
> After a few months with my PRO-111FD, this is the first time I've been able to say that I'm actually completely happy with a TV I bought. You will not be disappointed, especially with the 60"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a real shame that plasma seems to be on the way out



You are making me even more impatient with those words (and yet they are encouraging at the same time). I have a tight schedule the next couple of weeks so I had to tell the shipping company not to deliver it until sometime after May 11th.


BTW, it really is a shame that plasma is losing ground.


----------



## deltasun

*What Doesn't Kill You*


Fine grain present throughout. Facial details seem to be subdued, but no obvious signs of DNR noted. Still, for the type of close-up's in the film, it was a bit disappointing not to get details we're used to in Tier 0 or even Tier 1. They just weren't there for the most part (save for a few segments towards the end).


The color palette reflected the harsh, cold climate of a Boston winter. This pairing with the movie's theme enhanced the viewing experience, in my opinion. Because of the muted look, the presence of brighter colors (specially under an overcast winter sky) showed good saturation and made for pleasing scenes.


Black levels were bold and is easily the strongest single characteristic of the movie, particularly in the first half. Still, some black crush were present in a couple of scenes. Low-lit scenes were also decent outdoors. Indoors, I noticed a number of issues including poor contrast, loss of details in medium shots, focus issues, and a generally flat appearance. Bokeh was also done poorly. It was either keep the background in focus or pick a shallower depth of field. The way they were presented, one can see just enough of the background to interfere with what's happening in the foreground. Purely my opinion, of course.


The next best PQ characteristic would be the presentation of natural skin tones. This was a constant treat throughout the film. The few panoramic shots of Boston's neighborhoods and skyline were palatable and well-delineated, even under a wintery sky.


Overall, I just did not feel this was demo material. The bold look was a promising start, but the PQ falls apart as the movie progressed. I believe there's enough great scenes in this film to keep it at the top of Tier 2, but I cannot ignore the problematic ones. Did I already mention the numerous soft scenes?

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*


As far as the acting, really good performances by the main characters. I felt Amanda Peet was probably the weakest character. Story-wise, nothing really original, but engaging nonetheless. And what's up with seemingly every movie these days where it starts out with the action sequence from the middle of the story, only to go back X years prior and lead up to that climactic scene?

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8' & 6'_


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Interesting how both you and Hugh watched What Doesn't Kill You tonight...I did as well, just on SD DVD at a friends.







I enjoyed it...the acting was superb. These films and stories from the streets of Boston lately have all been great (Departed, Gone Baby Gone, and now this).


It is in my Netflix queue on BD and will give my review once I watch it again.


----------



## djoberg

^


deltasun,


Your recommendation for What Doesn't Kill You is over a tier apart from Hugh's recommendation of low Tier 0. Again, it will be interesting to see what others have to say on this one; perhaps we have another good debate in the making.


----------



## selimsivad

*Frost/Nixon*




*2.35 : 1*




Due to "budget restraints," I missed this one in theaters. I ignored it on a flight a few weeks ago, knowing it wouldn't do Opie's intention justice. This was my second time watching in in Blu, and it won't be my last!










Kudos to Ron Howard and the cast! Frank Langella's praise was deserved, but Michael Sheen's performance of David Frost was underrated in my opinion. Man, his wardrobe was pretty sharp!










The film starts off with about four minutes of actual archive Watergate footage. As mentioned earlier by djoberg, these scenes were flat and just plain ordinary. They were so short, I didn't even factor them into my final recommendation!


Throughout the film, we see interviews from various actors involved in the F/N interviews. These scenes have a grainy, under-saturated appearance. They were made to look aged, which I bought.


The film itself has a slightly brown tint. Colors were vibrant. Contrast was pumped up most of the time. Occasionally, colors were less saturated. They really nailed the look and feel of the 70's! Blacks were strong, too strong at times. Depth and dimension were on point!










Facial details were what we expect for for a newer Blu title. Clothing and furniture textures looked great! A special "shout out" to Michael Sheen's tie collection!










The outdoor scenes from the 13 minute mark through the 15:25 mark are easily top of Tier 1 material! In fact, pretty much all the outdoor scenes are demo worthy!










If the film would have ended at the thirty minute mark, my recommendation would have easily been Tier 1.5. After that exact time, it all fell apart!










Because of even higher contrast, scenes started losing the dimension that triumphed earlier in the movie. Darker scenes especially appeared flat. Faces became bronzed. This portion of the film displayed more black crush that I'd like to see to call it "demo material." The "cheeseburger scene," IMO is an excellent example!







The final scenes were once again demo material!









*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) IMO, the first thirty minutes showed us the flamboyant David Frost. Once "playtime was over" and work began, the PQ reflected the tension of both sides (especially Frost's side). After the final interview and Frost's "victory," the demo worthy PQ reappeared! Just my two pennies.











I knew very little about the Frost/Nixon interview before this film. For me, the movie was an actual history lesson! This underrated gem is definitely worth two hours of your time!

















*Frost/Nixon

Tier Recommendation: Tier 2.25

PS3-Samsung 46" 1080p-seven'*


----------



## ballen420




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16370475
> 
> 
> ^
> 
> 
> deltasun,
> 
> 
> Your recommendation for What Doesn't Kill You is over a tier apart from Hugh's recommendation of low Tier 0. Again, it will be interesting to see what others have to say on this one; perhaps we have another good debate in the making.



I watched this as well last night and definitely agree with Deltasun's assessment. PQ fluctuated throughout the movie, and at it's best, I don't think it was any higher then tier 1. I would maybe even say that as a whole, it could be knocked down to 2.75/2.5.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16370475
> 
> 
> ^
> 
> 
> deltasun,
> 
> 
> Your recommendation for What Doesn't Kill You is over a tier apart from Hugh's recommendation of low Tier 0. Again, it will be interesting to see what others have to say on this one; perhaps we have another good debate in the making.



It is indeed interesting. For a while there, I was leaning downwards to 2.75. Towards the end, however, there were some decent outdoor close-up's, medium shots.


Also, when the opening scene came around again towards the end (don't think that's a spoiler), it was heavily pushed in contrast for a stylized (maybe even emotional) look.


----------



## audiomagnate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16348243
> 
> 
> I was about to write up a review on _Elegy_ but decided to do a quick search and out came LBFilmGuy's review. Don't mean to quote his review, but he sums up the film's PQ perfectly.
> 
> 
> I just want to emphasize how superb the close-up's were. Some even dipped into Tier Blu category, in my opinion. An example would be Cruz and Kingsley's conversation where she makes a "revelation."
> 
> 
> I thought the crushed blacks were prevalent as well. They usually manifested themselves in coats and sweaters.
> 
> 
> Still, I was so impressed with the PQ that I'm willing to up the ante and go with...
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.5*
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_



After these reviews I realized this title was in my Netflix Streaming HD queue so I watched it last night. It even looks very good there. Seth Rogan's character from "Knocked Up" would have plenty of incredibly lovely clips of Penelope Cruz to add to his website. Wow.


----------



## JohnES1

Glad to see Sleuth was raised to Tier 2.0, looked great last night. The endless up close facial shots were whammy in this two character play. Even with the crude language my mom dug every minute of it.


----------



## Murilo

The rock


I watched this last night and its way to high.


Close ups looked great, but any other shots showed the movies age and edge enhancement. It was still a good transfer for an older movie, but it does not belong in the same tier as kill bill.


I also feel kill bill should still be in the demo material.


Anyway as mentioned edge enhancement, and some shots did not look great. Closeups looked fantastic though.


I say it should be 2.25.


96 inch screen, Benq W5000 1080p/24. 12 feet back.


----------



## deltasun

Murilo, thanks for the review. Do you mind taking a look at page 1 of the thread and formatting your review accordingly. I'd hate for your review to get overlooked. Thanks.


----------



## MrWaverly

I just saw the Searchers the other night and it made all my research and all my expeditures and all my lifting, hole drilling, wire routing, and break in period worth it. I haven't found a movie in Tier Zero yet that can touch it. And why Tier Zero is full of animated flicks is beyond me. Maybe because most people own LCD's and the animated videos look better than 'people' films.


----------



## OldCodger73

Where to start? Basically the movie is all over the place. The first two-thirds are filmed at night or in dark interiors. Surprisingly some of the facial close-ups are definitely Tier 0, for example in some scenes you can see every wrinkle, pore and stubble on Tom Hanks face. But, most other scenes are of average picture quality and show a great deal of grain. The last one-third of the film has some outdoor shots that make good use of the light and color and border on Tier 2. To me, all the plusses and minuses add up to an average BD so I would rate The *Da Vinci Code Tier 3.25,* which might be a bit generous.


As to the movie itself, the original 2:29 minute run time was already turgid enough so I can't understand why they brought this out as an extended cut. The extra


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MrWaverly* /forum/post/16375624
> 
> 
> And why Tier Zero is full of animated flicks is beyond me. Maybe because most people own LCD's and the animated videos look better than 'people' films.



the obvious answer is that because they are painstakingly assembled and rendered on computers rather than transferred from film, they can typically satisfy the criteria of this thread to a greater extent and with a greater consistency than live action movies can. Not to mention that some of them are damn good movies even from an adult perspective.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Hidden (Caché) - U.K. Import


recommendation: Tier 2.25*


A 2008 British release on Blu-ray of a 2005 French film, Artificial Eye has made this disc region-free and playable on a Region A player. The 117-minute drama is encoded in AVC on a BD-25. I would estimate the average video bitrate to be 18.5 Mbps. The lower bound for the encode is 10.5 Mbps with an upper bound seen at 32.7 Mbps.


The compression encode appears okay with some minor problems. Several scenes sport brief flashes of chroma noise and one scene near the ending of the film exhibits slight banding. I will speculate a higher-bitrate transfer on a BD-50 would have alleviated these problems, as small as they may be in duration. The image does remain free of gross artifacting or macroblocking though, except in one particular scene in very limited light.


I believe this movie was shot on HD cameras. Some parts of it look spectacular and nearly in caliber with some high tier one titles. Unfortunately it varies too much in quality and the lower-light photography looks noticeably worse in the dimmest scenes. A bit of video-noise creeps into the frame on these occasions. The depth of the image vanishes and details become partially obscured.


The master used for this Blu-ray's transfer is in immaculate shape with no signs of age-related deterioration. The image is completely free of any visual imperfections like dirt or debris. There is no use of digital noise reduction seen here, as high-frequency information remains fairly good throughout the movie. Close-ups of Juliette Binoche revealed very tiny lines around her eyes for example.


The real negative seen here is the worst ringing I have seen in months. Halos are rampant and distracting for almost the entire running time. The first hour is awash in obtrusive ringing that could only be missed by the most oblivious viewer. Having never seen this film before in any way, I can not say for certain whether the ringing is a result of the HD camera used to film or an addition later in the transfer process. It is bad enough for me to drop my final evaluation almost a full tier.


I would be interested to see how others here rate this disc's picture quality. Opinions would very likely be all over the place, as some would see the shiny video look and ignore the ringing. My recommendation is for a placement in tier 2.25 however.


----------



## selimsivad

*The Reader*



*1.85 : 1*




I've read amazing reviews on this movie, so I figured I'd give it a rental. Kate Winslet in the lead role didn't hurt either!










The PQ is outstanding! The first thing I noticed was the depth and dimension was spectacular! Blacks are inky, which really stand out! There is one scene with younger Michael, played by David Kross, is standing in front of a building holding flowers. The carvings on the building, cracking paint, as well as the men washing windows really stand out! There is what appears to be an early model of a cement mixer, in front of a pile of dirt. I felt like I could easily grab a handful of it!







In fact, walls and sides of buildings showed lots of texture!


Dimly lit scenes were not as detailed, but still looked good.


Skintones were natural looking, with excellent detail. Freckles, wrinkles, and veins (during love scenes) were above average.


Clothing and furniture showed lots of detail. Michael's college classroom is a great example.


All of the swimming scenes demonstrated great nature views!


I didn't care for the movie during my first viewing. During the second viewing (only watched for this review), I totally understood Hanna. She did a horrible thing, but this time I actually felt sorry for her! I now understand why Kate was awarded "Best Actress!"


She deserved it!










I was torn between 1.25 and 1.5. It wouldn't surprise me to see a future recommendation for either!











*The Reader

Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.5

PS3-Samsung 46" 1080p-seven'*


----------



## djoberg

*Marley and Me*


One word that came to mind after viewing this title: CRISP! This is a VERY pleasing transfer, with plenty of detail and 3D pop. Skin tones were very natural-looking, and most facial close-ups were on par with low Tier 0 titles, or at the worst, high Tier 1. Black levels didn't disappoint either, with equally impressive shadow detail (check out the night scene in the Pennsylvania countryside during a rainstorm for amazing deep blacks and detail).


Let me add a word about the many lush outdoor scenes! Whether it's the beaches and lawns of southern Florida, or the picturesque country home and panoramic views of Pennsylvania, one is treated to pure EYE CANDY in every shot.


I didn't notice any anomalies such as DNR, EE, or artifacts of any kind, so we have a spotless transfer here that deserves a ranking in a "demo-worthy" tier.


I know the first review came in at 1.75, but I would suggest at least a half tier higher. So....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*


Samsung 50" 1080p DLP....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/16375851
> 
> *The Reader*
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.5*



I am very close to a blind buy on this one just because some trusted friends have all said this was an excellent film. Now a Tier 1.5 (potential Tier 1.25) rating has brought me even closer.


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16376427
> 
> 
> I am very close to a blind buy on this one just because some trusted friends have all said this was an excellent film. Now a Tier 1.5 (potential Tier 1.25) rating has brought me even closer.



I had _The Reader_ at number 1 on my Netflix queue but they sent me my number 2, _The Da Vinci Code_ instead, sigh.


I agree, maybe a blind buy is in order.


----------



## JohnES1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/16377635
> 
> 
> I had _The Reader_ at number 1 on my Netflix queue but they sent me my number 2, _The Da Vinci Code_ instead, sigh.
> 
> 
> I agree, maybe a blind buy is in order.



I show Long Wait for The Reader and just parked it at #68 in my Netflix queue. Btw, I had three Blu-ray discs in a row with cracked edges, I called Netflix and they said the BDs are more "fragile" than DVDs and to keep reporting them as damaged. Hope they can work something out with the USPS to provide better mailers if that's what's causing the damage.


Edit: Just got another BD with a cracked edge, four out of my last five. Two discs of Cars, Sleuth, and now I've Loved You So Long...

Second Edit: I made formal complaints to Netflix and the USPS.

Third Edit: Five out of the last six discs with cracked edges! This time I examined the mailer closely before opening and found an imprint from the USPS running it through a processing machine(these are NOT supposed to go through the machines,) it was so bad a small hole was torn near the edge of the mailer. I opened it carefully keeping everything in line and the disc crack was exactly under the small hole. Called Netflix again...Btw, this is from the San Bernardino, CA hub.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16376427
> 
> 
> I am very close to a blind buy on this one just because some trusted friends have all said this was an excellent film. Now a Tier 1.5 (potential Tier 1.25) rating has brought me even closer.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/16377635
> 
> 
> I agree, maybe a blind buy is in order.




If you've heard good things from trusted friends, by all means, buy it!









It took me two times to finally understand the main character's psyche.

It was a good movie, but not good enough for me to buy and rewatch.

Twice was enough for me (maybe again for a date night).


----------



## nick2010

*The Bourne Ultimatum*


I thought that _Ultimatum_ looked better than _Supremacy_, but the improvement was not enough to be in Tier 1.25.

*Tier 1.5*


________________________

*X-Men*


The image quality in the first X-Men movie was not particularly impressive. I would rate it as being somewhere between Tier 2.75 and Tier 3.0. (I am unsure because I haven't seen any of the movies in Tier 3.0 and 3.25 that I could compare it to.)

*Either Tier 2.75 or Tier 3.0*


________________________

*X2: X-Men United*


I noticed edge enhancement during a few shots but it was not noticeable for most of the movie. Overall, the image quality was not as good as _X-Men: The Last Stand_ and was below average out of the BDs that I have seen.

*Tier 2.5*


(Viewed on a 46" 1080p60 display (Sharp LC-46D62U with a PS3) from about 7 feet away from the screen.)


----------



## MrWaverly




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/16375736
> 
> 
> the obvious answer is that because they are painstakingly assembled and rendered on computers rather than transferred from film, they can typically satisfy the criteria of this thread to a greater extent and with a greater consistency than live action movies can. Not to mention that some of them are damn good movies even from an adult perspective.



Oh, I am amazed at the animation, but I feel that since an animation like 'Bolt' can look good at Wal Mart and a film like 'The Searchers' will not look good at Wal Mart, then the animation is a less impressive example of blu ray technology, at least to me. As for 'damn good movie' I guess I'll keep trying.


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/16375851
> 
> *The Reader*
> 
> 
> 
> *1.85 : 1*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've read amazing reviews on this movie, so I figured I'd give it a rental. Kate Winslet in the lead role didn't hurt either!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The PQ is outstanding! The first thing I noticed was the depth and dimension was spectacular! Blacks are inky, which really stand out! There is one scene with younger Michael, played by David Kross, is standing in front of a building holding flowers. The carvings on the building, cracking paint, as well as the men washing windows really stand out! There is what appears to be an early model of a cement mixer, in front of a pile of dirt. I felt like I could easily grab a handful of it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, walls and sides of buildings showed lots of texture!
> 
> 
> Dimly lit scenes were not as detailed, but still looked good.
> 
> 
> Skintones were natural looking, with excellent detail. Freckles, wrinkles, and veins (during love scenes) were above average.
> 
> 
> Clothing and furniture showed lots of detail. Michael's college classroom is a great example.
> 
> 
> All of the swimming scenes demonstrated great nature views!
> 
> 
> I didn't care for the movie during my first viewing. During the second viewing (only watched for this review), I totally understood Hanna. She did a horrible thing, but this time I actually felt sorry for her! I now understand why Kate was awarded "Best Actress!"
> 
> 
> She deserved it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was torn between 1.25 and 1.5. It wouldn't surprise me to see a future recommendation for either!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Reader
> 
> Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.5
> 
> PS3-Samsung 46" 1080p-seven'*



In the middle of this right now.


My vote is PURE BLU


This might best Pirates IMO for live action footage crispness. Simply amazing. Clarity and sharpness are an all-time high for me, color is correct, blacks are inky and detailed. I can't praise it enough. Motion is outstanding, almost no blur and it's 24fps. Some shots that weren't even that close up, you can see fine hairs all along Kate's face. I'll say it'll be hard pressed to find a scene without nudity in the first hour, especially Winslet. Not complaining, but not for the kiddies at ALL. Clothing texture was probably the most detailed I've ever seen. I can't see how it could've been better, A+ transfer in my book.


Pioneer 51FD Auto > Pioneer 5010FD 1080p 50"


8' back, pitch black.


And I still have to finish it!


I'll play it safe now and say:
Blu


Above "Live Free or Die Hard"


----------



## moematthews




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MrWaverly* /forum/post/16375624
> 
> 
> I just saw the Searchers the other night and it made all my research and all my expeditures and all my lifting, hole drilling, wire routing, and break in period worth it. I haven't found a movie in Tier Zero yet that can touch it. And why Tier Zero is full of animated flicks is beyond me. Maybe because most people own LCD's and the animated videos look better than 'people' films.



Do you know if this is the same encode used on the HD DVD? Because it is definitely a top Tier Zero flick in that medium as well. It's the answer for people who question whether old movies can look good in HD.


Compare the panorama shots in this to something like the BD version of "Australia", and it's no contest. Just a gorgeous movie.


----------



## 42041

*Iron Man*


I know this disc has been covered very well already, so I'll keep it brief: the subject matter lends itself to interesting visuals and the detail is excellent enough to put this at the edge of tier 0 for my tastes, but frequently elevated black levels sometimes spoil the fun. Very little to complain about otherwise. This sort of movie isn't really my thing but it's far from the worst of its kind.

*tier 1.25*

(PS3/Pioneer 50" 9g Kuro Elite/1s.w. distance)


----------



## deltasun

*The Reader*


I succumbed to a Blockbuster rental tonight instead of a blind buy (in hindsight, a blind buy would have been good).


From the outset, this film had plenty of 3D pop. Colors were vibrant and resplendent, particularly in outdoor daytime scenes. Even some of the trickier backlit swimming scenes seemed to come alive on the screen. Depth and dimension were in full display in a number of panoramic scenes - the bike ride along the countryside was a great example.


Black levels were excellent, with just a couple of quick instances of crushed blacks. A few problematic backlit scenes were also evident in the opening scenes but did not return as the movie progressed. Some low-light segments were less than detailed, but others shined. In particular, Kross walking up to the trolley (to surprise Hanna) at dusk exhibited excellent detail and an almost magical glow. Contrast was well balanced throughout.


The only negatives I can find were some instances of softness. These usually occurred during the former half of the movie indoors. I spied a few scenes where the camera seemed to be focused between characters, leaving both characters a bit soft. But, just as soft scenes emerged, sharpness would ensue in the very next scene. Also, I noticed in a few soft scenes towards the end of the movie, the characters' clothing would exhibit very fine detail and texture. This led me to believe that the softness had to be intentional - which complemented the temperature and emotion of each scene. Still, for the purposes of this thread, I felt they were pervasive enough to affect the PQ.


On the flip side, when the director intended facial focus, it was easily achieved. During these instances, I felt that even medium scenes

displayed extraordinarily fine details. Cobble stones, ornate walls, fabric, wooden textures...all showed tremendous detail and inviting texture.

It was also hard to find grain, but it was present. I did not notice any obvious DNR and the few instances of EE seemed to be natural backlighting effects and did not prove bothersome. Skin tones were also very natural throughout.


Overall, it was really hard to find much fault in this film's presentation. I believe the softness were prevalent enough to keep it out of Tier Blu, and the film's inconsistency (from scene to scene) to keep it out of the top of Tier Gold. I do, however, feel it resides comfortably in...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*


Content-wise, excellent excellent film. It will, no doubt, be part of my collection.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8' & 6'_


----------



## b_scott

Funny, I didn't notice almost any softness, and I was sure looking for it. Even long distance shots were sharp and in focus - Ex. the court room scene, the whole thing was sharp as a tack on the far away shots.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/16387705
> 
> *Iron Man*
> 
> 
> I know this disc has been covered very well already, so I'll keep it brief: the subject matter lends itself to interesting visuals and the detail is excellent enough to put this at the edge of tier 0 for my tastes, but frequently elevated black levels sometimes spoil the fun. Very little to complain about otherwise. This sort of movie isn't really my thing but it's far from the worst of its kind.
> 
> *tier 1.25*
> 
> (PS3/Pioneer 50" 9g Kuro Elite/1s.w. distance)



I think IM is correctly placed where it currently is, at Tier 1.75. I think that placement reflects the general view, which I share, that detail was somewhat lacking throughout.


----------



## JohnES1

This young curmudgeon doesn't buy discs(I have National Treasure, it was a gift,) but I just bought Tinker Bell after viewing last night(and added Baraka to get free shipping from Amazon.) 'Nuff said!


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/16387948
> 
> 
> Funny, I didn't notice almost any softness, and I was sure looking for it. Even long distance shots were sharp and in focus - Ex. the court room scene, the whole thing was sharp as a tack on the far away shots.



I agree with far away shots. I guess I was not as clear on my review - the issue with softness mostly came from indoor medium and closer shots found in the former half of the film. For example, the dinner scenes with Michael's family (would be focused for a few instances, only to slip out of focus). Another would be most of the intimate conversations between Hanna and Michael...the plane of focus would be between them and not on either one. I'm not talking about love scenes - the focus on those were perfectly done, IMO. The focus there had a tracing effect that aided in those moments.


Don't get me wrong, the PQ was still impressive. 1.25 is no slouch.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/16388200
> 
> 
> I think IM is correctly placed where it currently is, at Tier 1.75. I think that placement reflects the general view, which I share, that detail was somewhat lacking throughout.



Agree with Patrick on this one. I remember demo-ing _I, Robot_, _Transformers_, and finally _Iron Man_ to a friend of mine in that order. It was amazing how clearly the PQ dropped from one to the other. Detail loss and softness (seems to be my theme for the last three or so reviews) were apparent.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16389428
> 
> 
> I agree with far away shots. I guess I was not as clear on my review - the issue with softness mostly came from indoor medium and closer shots found in the former half of the film. For example, the dinner scenes with Michael's family (would be focused for a few instances, only to slip out of focus). Another would be most of the intimate conversations between Hanna and Michael...the plane of focus would be between them and not on either one. I'm not talking about love scenes - the focus on those were perfectly done, IMO. The focus there had a tracing effect that aided in those moments.



Agreed.


----------



## selimsivad

*Trading Places*



*1.85 : 1*




Two words:

*WAX MUSEUM!*






































(which resulted in lack of detail and color saturation)



*Trading Places

Tier Recommendation: Tier 3.0

PS3-Samsung 46" 1080p-seven'*


----------



## deltasun

*The Uninvited*


Pretty solid presentation. Lots of facial close-up's and each was consistently detailed from beginning to end. In fact, PQ didn't waver much but stayed consistent throughout. Black levels were very bold, which enhanced the suspense factor. Low-light scenes were excellent. Details during outdoor, moonlit scenes were almost as good as daylight. One of my favorite scenes involved the two sisters under moonlight, climbing a hill strewn with rocks to meet Matt.


The film also took advantage of Maine's scenic landscapes. During these panoramic intro scenes, depth and dimension were maximized. The introduction of the boat house as Anna walks towards it in daylight made for a gorgeous vista. Most colors were on the pastel or earthy side, which helped the mood of the story.


Fine grain was apparent throughout and I did not notice any foul play. It's really hard to find any faults in this movie. A few panoramic shots in the beginning were a bit washed out, but even those were not bothersome. Medium shots were only slightly above average. Still, there is a definite gap between this title and most current Tier 0 titles.


Still, its strong details (Anna's shoe as she first stepped into the boat house, moistness of raw roast, oil dripping into a pan, grain on the leather bag/purse) make it a solid Gold candidate...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25 - 1.50*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Has anyone done a formal review of Dexter Season 1? I did a search and came up with nothing, but I know the search function does not always work. I watched the first 5 eppies on Saturday, hoping to get another large chunk watched today while the daughter is off at school. The PQ on it thus far has been amazing, with some spots of inconsistency.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*The Uninvited*


This is a very impressive looking title! Many people here place a very high premium on facial closeups, and those people will not be disappointed here. The close ups look great. You can see every pore, wrinkle, and even make up in many of the facial closeups. Detail is excellent.


Contrast is also very good and natural. Very light grain is well preserved, and I did not notice any signs of digital manipulation. Colors also look accurate and natural.


Other than a few outdoor scenes, I would have to say that this title doesn't have a whole lot in the way of "eye candy", so it may not be a great "demo" title. Nevertheless, for what it is, it definitely looks excellent.


As for the movie itself, I can't say too much without using spoilers, so I will just say that it was "ok" at best.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*


----------



## b_scott

nice, I just rented The Uninvited. Seems to be 1.25 unanimous.


----------



## deltasun

This was a bit tough for me because I could not find any real discernible flaws - so Tier 0? That didn't feel right either. There is something intangible that keeps it out of Tier 0 for me. It lacked a certain pizazz or oomph. But, very solid indeed.


Enjoy!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*Dexter, Season 1*


Okay I finished my binge on Dexter Season 1 this afternoon. All I can say is WOW. What a great show and fantastic picture quality! I was extremely impressed.


There are some inconsistencies, but I would say on the high average the show is a great mix of Tier 0 and Tier 1. There are a couple of moments where the show dips below, but considering it's 12 episodes, I can forgive it. Occasionally for some reason there are washed out moments, I am unsure why.


The show's opener got me every time I watched it, the PQ on it is STELLAR. It's unfortunate the show itself does not capture that high of quality all the way throughout each episode, but the intro itself is phenomenal.



All in all, I think because of the inconsistent moments I have to knock it down a little bit, despite the amount of Tier 0 that was involved.


*Recommendation for Dexter, Season 1: Tier 1.50*

*Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800u THX setting, approx 7.5'.*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Wonder Woman


recommendation: Tier 1.25
*

Another direct-to-video animated feature based off the familiar characters from the DC Universe, _Wonder Woman_ is a superlative release on Blu-ray that is visually pleasing. Released by Warner Bros. on March 3, 2009 directly to Blu-ray, the 73-minute main feature is encoded in VC-1 on a BD-25. The average video bitrate is 16.82 Mbps per the latest BDInfo scan. While the encode's parameters occasionally reach an upper bound of 41 Mbps, the majority of it stays in the teens and twenties.


Having seen all the animated movies released so far on Blu-ray from both Marvel and DC, _Wonder Woman_ sets a new standard in quality seen in the level of animation and the picture quality. While not quite on par with some of the most intricate theatrical animation, it is apparent that a bigger budget has been used to produce higher-quality animation than the previous direct-to-video features that had a Blu-ray release. Backgrounds have more detail and the character models look more sophisticated with specific features unique to each character, even the minor ones that do not have much screen-time. Objects in motion, particularly the battles, look very fluid with high frame-rates and a nice sense of speed and movement.


More advanced lighting techniques in the digital realm are used to some effect, though the director's ambition here seems to have overstepped the limits of the source material. While it is not common, some banding in the source animation does appear with some of the lighting choices. It is most obvious in select scenes late in the movie, especially on maroon-colored textures. The compression encode is very good overall, with just a touch of noise in a couple of shots to mark an almost perfectly clean image. The transfer is free from edge enhancement and the use of digital noise reduction.


Color rendition is vibrant and fully-saturated, with very strong black levels that reached the deepest black my display could handle. The movie is presented in a 1.78:1 aspect ratio which the animation takes full advantage of, producing two-dimensional line art that uses the entire frame for composition. There are some simulated camera-tricks taken from live-action film, like a focus-change for example rarely seen in animation of this type. I will note the use of a blurring effect, sparingly used here, that slightly hurt the picture quality when used. Contrast is perfect, which is vividly demonstrated throughout the movie but never more so than when Wonder Woman arrives in New York City in her jet.


A surprisingly mature story that could easily serve as the template for a live-action Wonder Woman movie, this Blu-ray looks very good in my final consideration. The animated title fits nicely in tier 1.25 with an eye on tier one.


Watching on a 60 Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 (firmware 2.70) at a viewing distance of six feet.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...7#post16367517


----------



## tfoltz

Did Wonder Woman look better than Hulk vs.?


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16394652
> 
> 
> This was a bit tough for me because I could not find any real discernible flaws - so Tier 0? That didn't feel right either. There is something intangible that keeps it out of Tier 0 for me. It lacked a certain pizazz or oomph. But, very solid indeed.
> 
> 
> Enjoy!



just watched it, it was not a horrible movie.


agree on PQ - it was a muted palette, but the outdoor scenes were nice.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/16399838
> 
> 
> Did Wonder Woman look better than Hulk vs.?



While I have not specifically reviewed Hulk Vs. for the purposes of this thread, I have seen it and in my quick estimation Wonder Woman looks better. That title does look good though and if I have time I will try to make a placement for that release eventually.


----------



## SuprSlow

No updates to the first post yet...


But would anyone object to posting my update list like the following? By that I mean leaving the names beside the ranking. I usually strip that info out before I post, but I think for the sake of transparency and accuracy, it could be beneficial. Remember, it's not to call anyone out, just a double-check for myself, and maybe a reference for anyone who would like to use it as such







I think it could also aide in searches for recommendations/placements.


Let me know.










This is current through post #12350, btw. I'll grab the remainder when I update the OP.


*The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008)* - Tier 1.25 (djoberg) // Tier 1.75 (Rob Tomlin, deltasun) - was 2.0 - up to 1.75
*Synedoche, New York* - Tier 2.75 (deltasun) // Tier 1.5 (Hughmc) - Holdings - placed 2.0
*U-571* - current (JohnES1) - remains 1.25
*Capote* - Tier 3.25 (LBFilmGuy) - was 3.0 - down to 3.25
*Quantum of Solace* - Tier 1.25 (LBFilmGuy) - remains 1.0
*South Pacific* - Tier 1.75 (Rob Tomlin) // Tier 2.5 (OldCodger73) // Tier 1.0 (patrick99) // mid 0 (jrcorwin) - Holdings - placed 1.5
*Becoming Jane* - stays in 0 (KSpaz) - holdings - remains Tier 0
*Deception* - Tier 1.0 (Phantom Stranger, djoberg) - was 1.25 - up to 1.0
*Twilight* - Tier 1.5 (djoberg) - was 1.75 - up to 1.5
*Raging Bull* - current 3 (42041) - remains
*Pitch Blac*k - Tier 2.0 (deltasun) - was unranked - placed 2.0
*Chronicles of Riddick* - Tier 1.75 (deltasun) - placed in holdings
*Doubt* - Tier 1.5 (OldCodger73, patrick99, deltasun) // Tier 1.25 (djoberg) - was unranked - placed 1.5
*Princess Bride, The* - Tier 3.0 (djoberg) // Tier 2.0 (babrown92) - remains 2.5
*Bedtime Stories* - Tier 1.5 (Hughmc) - placed in holdings
*Role Models* - Tier 2.5 (Hughmc) - was Unranked - placed 2.5
*Condemned, The* - Tier 2.25 (Phantom Stranger) - remains 2.25
*Bolt* - current (b_scott) / high Tier 0 (barry v s) - remains current 0
*Seven Pounds* - Tier 1.75 (Rob Tomlin, selimsivad, djoberg) - was 1.25 - down to 1.5
*Eastern Promises* - Tier 1.0 (selimsivad-revised 1.25) - was 1.25 - up to 1.0
*Changeling* - Tier 2.0 (LBFilmGuy) - remains 2.0
*Notebook, The* - Tier 2.5 (K Link, bakerwi) - was 5 - up to 2.5
*Rachel Getting Married* - Tier 3.25 (Rob Tomlin) - was 3.5 - up to 3.25
*The Last Kiss* - Tier 2.75 (deltasun) - was unranked - placed 2.75
*Elegy* - Tier 1.75 (LBFilmGuy) // Tier 1.5 (deltasun) - was unranked - placed 1.5
*Frozen River* - Tier 4.0 (OldCodger73) - was 3.25 - down to 3.5
*Yes Man* - Tier 1.5 (djoberg) // Tier 2.0 (LBFilmGuy) - was unranked - placed 1.75
*The Bourne Ultimatum* - Tier 1.75 (Rob Tomlin) - was holdings - placed 1.5
*Universal Soldier* - Tier 3.25 (Phantom Stranger) - was unranked - placed 3.25
*Damien: Omen II* - Tier 3.50 (Phantom Stranger) - was unranked - placed 3.5
*The Thirteenth Floor* - Tier 3.0 (Rob Tomlin) - was unranked - placed 3.0
*Youth Without Youth* - Tier 0 above IRobot (K-Spaz) - remains current 0
*JCVD (UK)* - Tier 3.25 (Phantom Stranger) - was unranked - placed 3.25
*In The Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale* - Tier 1.0 (deltasun) - Currently Unranked - Holdings
*The Wrestler* - Tier 3.5 (deltasun, Rob Tomlin) // Tier 3.75 (djoberg) - was unranked - placed 3.5
*Opium and the Kung Fu Master* - Tier 3.75 (Phantom Stranger) - was unranked - placed 3.75
*Body of Lies* - Tier 2.5 (Rob Tomlin) - was 2.0 - down to 2.25
*Fly Away Home* - Tier 2.5 (OldCodger73) - was unranked - placed 2.5
*X-Men* - Tier 2.5 (deltasun) - was unranked - placed 2.5
*Immortal* - Tier 4.0 (Phantom Stranger) - was unranked - placed 4.0
*The Venture Bros.: 3rd Season* - Tier 2.25 (Phantom Stranger) - was unranked - placed 2.25
*Cadillac Records* - Tier 2.5 (deltasun) - was 3.0 - up to 2.75
*Slumdog Millionaire* - Tier 3.0 (LBFilmGuy) - was 2.25 - down to 2.5
*Frost/Nixon* - Tier 1.25 (djoberg) // Tier 2.25 (selimsivad) - was unranked - placed 1.75
*X2: X-Men United* - Tier 1.75 (deltasun) - Currently Unranked - Holdings
*X-Men: The Last Stand* - Tier 1.75 (deltasun) - Currently Unranked - Holdings
*What Doesn't Kill You* - low Tier 0 (Hughmc) // Tier 2.25 (deltasun) - Currently Unranked - Holdings
*The Rock* - Tier 2.25 (Murilo) - was 1.25 - down to 1.75
*Da Vinci Code* - Tier 3.25 (OldCodger73) - was unranked - Tier 3.25
*Hidden (Cache) (UK)* - Tier 2.25 (Phantom Stranger) - was unranked - placed 2.25
*The Reader* - Tier 1.5 (selimsivad) - Currently Unranked - Holdings
*Marley and Me* - Tier 1.25 (djoberg) - was holdings - placed 1.5


----------



## b_scott

works for me, searches the same.


btw, I still stand by an AT LEAST 1.0 rating for The Reader.


----------



## patrick99

I think 2.0 is probably a bit high for *Pitch Black*. More like 2.5 I'd say.


----------



## b_scott

I'm also surprised at Slumdog being 3.0. I'd say 2.5 at worst, 2.25 at best.

*Pioneer 50" PDP-5010FD 1080p

pitch black, 8'*


----------



## JohnES1

Yep, Search This Thread sucks. Went looking for exactly what you guys had said about specific scenes of "Let The Right One In" after viewing last night and was comepetely flummoxed. Mom and I loved it(as a love story.) The beautiful storytelling matched with exceptional color rendering make this a must see.


Edit: I just tried doing a Search This Thread for "Let The Right One In" with quotation marks and my post(or any others) didn't come up. There must be some trick that can be used...


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JohnES1* /forum/post/16411107
> 
> 
> Yep, Search This Thread sucks. Went looking for exactly what you guys had said about specific scenes of "Let The Right One In" after viewing last night and was comepetely flummoxed. Mom and I loved it(as a love story.) The beautiful storytelling matched with exceptional color rendering make this a must see.


 http://consumerist.com/5183800/us-di...t-no-exchanges 


For others, might want to wait for the fixed release before renting/buying.


----------



## JohnES1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/16411136
> 
> http://consumerist.com/5183800/us-di...t-no-exchanges
> 
> 
> For others, might want to wait for the fixed release before renting/buying.



I ran into page after page on the subtitle issue while searching around at AVS last night. We watched the Netflix rental version with the default English dub(not bad) and the subtitles turned off(they're not really necessary with the dub except to translate the newspaper headlines and even then you can get the drift from the newspaper pictures.) I'd like to see this one again, and that's a real rarity for me.


----------



## audiomagnate

*Bedtime Stories*


Is there a reason that nobody has rated this? It looks pretty good to me, good contrast, and color saturation that might be a little over the top, but I like that for movies like this. Quality seemed very consistent. It was not jaw droppingly sharp, just a bit on the soft side. I'll give it a conservative 2.0 for my first rating.


As for the movie, it's Adam Sandler crank 'em out formula stuff all the way, and I can't figure out why they put that wierd CGI rodent in there. I guess because they could.

*Rating 2.0*


Panny 50inch 720p plasma at about 9 feet, Samsung BD-P2500 via hdmi


----------



## fsz2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jrcorwin* /forum/post/16085191
> 
> 
> So, I watched Grand Canyon Adventure: River at Risk last night. It was great throughout and incredible at times. My question however is about a trailer that was featured for Super Speedway. I've seen this on TV before, but haven't viewed the BD yet. I could not find a mention of it in this thread. Have any of you sampled this one yet?



I picked up super speedway on blu ray a while back, very surprised that it hasnt made it on to the list, but it was reviewed by blu-ray.com . This thread is more focused on pq so i dont think super speedway would get a fair shake, in light of the nice aspect ratio and imo reference level sound track. If your a car guy or audiophile, or both, i highly recommend people to check it out, nothing sends chills down your spine like screeching revs from open wheel racing.


If i had to rate super speedway, based on blu-ray.com's score for the video aspect of grand canyon adventure and what it ranks on this list, i would probably put it in the silver to bronze tier, solely based on pq, and ignoring the audio in order to avoid bias. There are a few instances of artifacts like scratches and sparkling.


Hopefully someone else will review this, but do it muted lol...


equipment

-5020 kuro and PS3 @ 8ft


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *audiomagnate* /forum/post/16412248
> 
> *Bedtime Stories*
> 
> 
> Is there a reason that nobody has rated this? It looks pretty good to me, good contrast, and color saturation that might be a little over the top, but I like that for movies like this. Quality seemed very consistent. It was not jaw droppingly sharp, just a bit on the soft side. I'll give it a conservative 2.0 for my first rating.
> 
> 
> As for the movie, it's Adam Sandler crank 'em out formula stuff all the way, and I can't figure out why they put that wierd CGI rodent in there. I guess because they could.
> 
> *Rating 2.0*
> 
> 
> Panny 50inch 720p plasma at about 9 feet, Samsung BD-P2500 via hdmi



I did. If you look at 7 posts above yours, you will see it listed in the holdings bin as I am the only one to rate it so far. And the search does not seem to be working or working properly.


----------



## Hughmc

Benjamin Button seems to be a tier 0 title. Picture and AUdio are demo/reference material. Full review to follow.


----------



## jrcorwin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JohnES1* /forum/post/16411323
> 
> 
> I ran into page after page on the subtitle issue while searching around at AVS last night. We watched the Netflix rental version with the default English dub(not bad) and the subtitles turned off(they're not really necessary with the dub except to translate the newspaper headlines and even then you can get the drift from the newspaper pictures.) I'd like to see this one again, and that's a real rarity for me.



You watched it with the English dubbed soundtrack? I couldn't stand it and preferred the Swedish track w/ English subtitles...although incorrect.


----------



## JohnES1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jrcorwin* /forum/post/16413503
> 
> 
> You watched it with the English dubbed soundtrack? I couldn't stand it and preferred the Swedish track w/ English subtitles...although incorrect.



I had no choice, I knew my mom needed the English dub to stay with it. Except for a couple of hokey translations it seemed to work ok. I've Loved You So Long's English dub was so out of sync it practically ruined the movie for us.


----------



## OldCodger73

SWMBO isn't much into movies, if what I've received appeals to her, she'll watch, otherwise she finds something else to do. However, she REQUESTED that I get _Last Chance Harvey_ and I was lucky enough to score it from Netflix on release.


Overall it was a pleasing transfer. Most of the time clarity, details and depth was good. In fact, in the reception scene I thought detail and depth was very good. Blacks also looked solid. There were a few problematic scenes, for example along the South Bank. Hoffman and Thompson were in the shade while in the background the Thames was quite a bit brighter. To avoid washing out the background the foreground was darker with less than ideal contrast. One thing we all look for is facial detail in close-ups; here it was merely good without, for some reason, fine detail. DNR?


All in all, I thought the movie was better than average and would rate *Last Chance Harvey Tier 2.5.
*

The movie itself was better than I expected. Dustin Hoffman was more restrained than normal and Emma Thompson gave her normal stellar performance. The plot was very predictable but it was fun watching the interaction between Hoffman and Thompson. The director, Joel Hopkins, was adept at manipulating the heartstrings at the appropriate moments. Overall I thought the movie was 3.75 on the Netflix scale.


SWMBO enjoyed the movie thoroughly.


Panasonic 50" 720p plasma, Panasonic 10a player, 7 1/2'


BTW, where have all the reviewers gone? This thread hasn't been all that active lately.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16413058
> 
> 
> Benjamin Button seems to be a tier 0 title. Picture and AUdio are demo/reference material. Full review to follow.



Sorry Hugh, not seeing that so far...about 20 minutes in. It's very stylized and a bit on the soft side on purpose.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16413058
> 
> 
> Benjamin Button seems to be a tier 0 title. Picture and AUdio are demo/reference material. Full review to follow.



I'll rewatch.

But right now, because of the intentional softness and low black levels during night scenes, I'd probably go with 2.0.

I'll watch again tonight, and leave a review.










It does look good though!


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/16416115
> 
> 
> I'll rewatch.
> 
> But right now, because of the *intentional softness* and low black levels during night scenes, I'd probably go with 2.0.
> 
> I'll watch again tonight, and leave a review.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does look good though!



I don't fully understand the thought process here. Does this mean Fellowship of the Ring automatically can't be Tier 0 no matter what, since Cate Blanchett always has a softened glow around her?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/16416214
> 
> 
> I don't fully understand the thought process here. Does this mean Fellowship of the Ring automatically can't be Tier 0 no matter what, since Cate Blanchett always has a softened glow around her?



Keep in mind that director's intent is irrelevant in this thread.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/16416214
> 
> 
> I don't fully understand the thought process here. Does this mean Fellowship of the Ring automatically can't be Tier 0 no matter what, since Cate Blanchett always has a softened glow around her?



Here's something I just posted on another thread:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...0#post16416200 

Hope that helped!


----------



## JohnES1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/16416361
> 
> 
> Here's something I just posted on another thread:
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...0#post16416200
> 
> Hope that helped!



Had to go back and make sure the following was still on the first post of this thread:


"How each Tier is categorized and other signifiers


Notice: For the purposes of this tier system we do not take director's intent into consideration when evaluating the visual quality of each Blu-ray. This list represents an absolute ranking system, where every available Blu-ray's picture quality is directly compared against every other release."


If you're going to take director's intent into consideration, The Golden Compass is near Tier 0 imho.
























My understanding is this thread is to judge the quality of the transfer to BD. Period!


Btw, we watched the first thirty minutes of Seven Pounds last night(damn Netflix disc had a twenty minute scratch and we finally gave up for now,) sharp as a razor-agree with current Tier 1.25 placement.


----------



## b_scott

I didn't notice soft in the entire movie though. How many seconds of softness on purpose negates Tier 0?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/16416454
> 
> 
> I didn't notice soft in the entire movie though. How many seconds of softness on purpose negates Tier 0?



We have discussed this quite a few times in the history of this thread and I believe there was a general consensus that if there were only a few seconds (or a few minutes for that matter) of softness, it would NOT be penalized enough to keep it out of Tier Blu. If one would consider every title in Tier 0 there would be some flaws or anomalies present in each one (softness, crushed blacks, lack of detail in some facial close-ups, etc.), but they are the exception and not the rule (i.e. only brief occurrences) .


BTW, if everything goes according to schedule, my KURO should arrive here next Tuesday. I plan to avoid movies with black bars for the first 150 hours, so unless a title is in the 1:85:1 aspect ratio, I won't be watching it, which in turn means I won't be writing very many reviews. But I am really encouraged by the reviews that are coming in and I hope more members will step up to the plate and give us their valuable opinion on the movies they watch.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/16416454
> 
> 
> I didn't notice soft in the entire movie though. How many seconds of softness on purpose negates Tier 0?



If I remember correctly, most of the softness occurred in darker scenes.

Bright, outdoor scenes looked amazing!


----------



## tfoltz

I think the "we don't judge on directors intent" argument doesn't make sense. Any media you see is the intent of a director; so we always judge on intent. We are just judging on what we believe looks good/pretty individually, which is intended by the director.


So I can vote for something that looks soft if I believe it looks pretty. I've not seen Benjamin Button, this is just my thought in general.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/16416115
> 
> 
> I'll rewatch.
> 
> But right now, because of the intentional softness and low black levels during night scenes, I'd probably go with 2.0.
> 
> I'll watch again tonight, and leave a review.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does look good though!



I have another 30 minutes to go, but yes...I am leaning Silver tier for this title. And yes again, it looks very good and sounds even better.


I am now looking for that $3 coupon from People magazine to add this to my collection.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/16417564
> 
> 
> I think the "we don't judge on directors intent" argument doesn't make sense. Any media you see is the intent of a director; so we always judge on intent. We are just judging on what we believe looks good/pretty individually, which is intended by the director.
> 
> 
> So I can vote for something that looks soft if I believe it looks pretty. I've not seen Benjamin Button, this is just my thought in general.



You're right, every media we see is the intent of the director (for the most part). But we don't judge on said intent. We compare to other blu-ray's and judge them absolutely based on categories set forth on page 1.


That is the purpose of this thread.


For b_scott, it was mostly soft. It's almost easier to answer when it wasn't soft. The best scenes that I can recall would be when Benjamin met the captain for the first time. The places he and Daisy visited during their "vacation" together. These are just quick scenes off the top of my head. I have my notes at home for when I write up my formal review tonight or tomorrow.


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JohnES1* /forum/post/16416442
> 
> 
> My understanding is this thread is to judge the quality of the transfer to BD. Period!



I respectfully disagree with that statement.


Transfer means a lot to me when I judge a title. However...


The subject matter of a film means more to my interpretation of image quality than any amount of transfer accuracy.


IMHO, A perfect transfer can make a film on BR all that it can be. But the source material is what determines how high it will go on the tier list.


I guess I think of it like a Cars Blue-Book value. They start with what the car is, then they apply deducts for all it's flaws. Example, A showroom pristine, 100 point restored AMC Pacer will never be valued at what an Aston Martin is. Even totaled.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/16417999
> 
> 
> I respectfully disagree with that statement.
> 
> 
> Transfer means a lot to me when I judge a title. However...
> 
> 
> The subject matter of a film means more to my interpretation of image quality than any amount of transfer accuracy.
> 
> 
> IMHO, A perfect transfer can make a film on BR all that it can be. But the source material is what determines how high it will go on the tier list.
> 
> 
> I guess I think of it like a Cars Blue-Book value. They start with what the car is, then they apply deducts for all it's flaws. Example, A showroom pristine, 100 point restored AMC Pacer will never be valued at what an Aston Martin is. Even totaled.



"Transfer" is not the clearest term, but the OP's point was relatively clear in the context of his entire post. I would say what we evaluate in this thread is the end result that we see on our displays.


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/16418042
> 
> 
> "Transfer" is not the clearest term, but the OP's point was relatively clear in the context of his entire post. I would say what we evaluate in this thread is the end result that we see on our displays.



I agree to some extent. But I also think the OP's intent was that people focus on an objective point of view, which certainly isn't the case many times. Without regurgitating my differences of opinion vs those of some others, I'll just say that I think it's fair to assume some things about what the OP meant. Trouble is, different people assume differently.


You've read around here so I'm sure you have seen the people with opinion that no mater how bad the original was, as long as it wasn't noise reduced, it's great, yada yada yada. Well, I'm sorry but if the master is a 30yr old VHS tape that was dropped in the dishwater, I don't care how well they preserved its flaws. That's the extreme stance that some take which I disagree with. You have to have good camera work, lighting and subject matter to get to Tier 1 *in my opinion*. I think you share that opinion as well.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/16418249
> 
> 
> 
> You've read around here so I'm sure you have seen the people with opinion that no mater how bad the original was, as long as it wasn't noise reduced, it's great, yada yada yada. Well, I'm sorry but if the master is a 30yr old VHS tape that was dropped in the dishwater, I don't care how well they preserved its flaws. That's the extreme stance that some take which I disagree with. You have to have good camera work, lighting and *subject matter* to get to Tier 1 in my opinion. I think you share that opinion as well.



I agree with everything stated, except for subject matter.

Subject matter?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/16418249
> 
> 
> I agree to some extent. But I also think the OP's intent was that people focus on an objective point of view, which certainly isn't the case many times. Without regurgitating my differences of opinion vs those of some others, I'll just say that I think it's fair to assume some things about what the OP meant. Trouble is, different people assume differently.
> 
> 
> You've read around here so I'm sure you have seen the people with opinion that no mater how bad the original was, as long as it wasn't noise reduced, it's great, yada yada yada. Well, I'm sorry but if the master is a 30yr old VHS tape that was dropped in the dishwater, I don't care how well they preserved its flaws. That's the extreme stance that some take which I disagree with. You have to have good camera work, lighting and subject matter to get to Tier 1 *in my opinion*. I think you share that opinion as well.



I was the one that maintained that a film should not get into Tier 0 without facial close-ups, but I was pretty much alone on that one.


----------



## tfoltz

Media = intent. We compare one intent to other intent (on common blu-ray format). In the end, whatever intent appeals to us gets a higher rating, even while following the guidelines on page 1. How many more times can I write intent? Intent.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16417751
> 
> 
> You're right, every media we see is the intent of the director (for the most part). But we don't judge on said intent. We compare to other blu-ray's and judge them absolutely based on categories set forth on page 1.
> 
> 
> That is the purpose of this thread.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/16418713
> 
> 
> Media = intent. We compare one intent to other intent (on common blu-ray format). In the end, whatever intent appeals to us gets a higher rating, even while following the guidelines on page 1. How many more times can I write intent? Intent.



I have the word "intent" in my response. No one is questioning intent. But we don't make special considerations due to intent.


----------



## tfoltz

Agreed. No special considerations; no special detractions.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16419272
> 
> 
> I have the word "intent" in my response. No one is questioning intent. But we don't make special considerations due to intent.


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/16418391
> 
> 
> I agree with everything stated, except for subject matter.
> 
> Subject matter?



What I mean is, a film about vampires that only a vampire can see cause it's so dark, ain't gonna score real high on my list. There has to be something to film. If you've ever done any still photography, you probably know that without light, all else becomes pretty tough. Then too, images are about *what is in them*. That's a pretty basic part of a picture. This is the PQ thread, not the TQ thread.







So as the one poster above noted, Jessica Biel does something for the tier ranking, regardless of how objective we think we might be







jk...


Patrick,

Hey, that's why they ask folks opinions is cause they're not all the same. Your reviews seem objective enough to me, regardless of what it is you look for. We didn't differ on that they were important, only how important. To each their own.










I may just refrain from the thread until I get my projector this fall. I've seen enough difference in opinion with folks who use 130" screens, that I may just wait till I start watching on my own before reviewing more. These people evidently see things I cannot. I'm willing to believe I'm just that ignorant, so I'll just keep my opinion to myself for a while.


Black Friday, pj here we come!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16419272
> 
> 
> But we don't make special considerations due to intent.



Some do, some don't. Some do without even realizing it. We just need to account for that when looking at the rankings, and accept that it's a democracy.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/16418702
> 
> 
> I was the one that maintained that a film should not get into Tier 0 without facial close-ups, but I was pretty much alone on that one.



.....and for good reason I might add.


----------



## 42041

*The Princess Bride*


This one isn't demo material, but it's not a bad transfer of an older movie and I suspect its fans will be pleased. The grain seems to have been left alone, it's cleanly compressed, and there's a pretty good bit of it, so grain haters beware. While there are EE halos present, I've seen worse, and the picture typically looks quite film-like. Simply put, the biggest problem here is that the amount of detail just doesn't hold up to newer releases, though I found it satisfactory for a 22-year old 35mm movie. One of the nice aspects of this transfer is that black levels are well-managed for most of the movie, without crushing or elevated black levels that rob the picture of depth. There's a few bum shots that are either out of focus, or very grainy and flat, but they are infrequent.

Also, this is one of those blu-rays where the screen grabs don't really tell the whole story. It looks a lot better than what stills may lead you to believe.

*Tier 2.75*


----------



## deltasun

*The Curious Case of Benjamin Button*


When this film shines, it shines! There were a handful of scenes where the planets simply lined up for this title. Unfortunately, these handful or so were the minority.


When the film starts, the stylized, sepia-ish tinge really made for a flat picture. As Benjamin grew up, the scenes got brighter and clearer. Still, crushed blacks were found throughout.


Close-up's were soft in a number of scenes, and it did not favor anyone in particular. At the same time, there were bouts of facial detail that would rival anything we have in upper Gold tier. The same can be said with medium shots - they would offer detail and dimension in one scene and shallow darkness the next. Most of the hospital scenes with Daisy and her daughter were flat.


When scenes were filled with color, they had an almost magical quality. They were vivid and inviting. Contrast was also pushed at times, but for the most part complemented the storyline. Panoramic shots were a treat and usually offered decent depth and dimensionality.


Overall, I didn't feel this belongs in Tier 1. However, its average PQ also beats most Tier 2 titles. I feel it resides right smack in...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


no more, no less.


Excellent film, but don't know about its rewatchability factor.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## goneten

Hi there,


I'm like REALLY late to the party...., but I just got the Matrix (blu-ray) and Transporter 1, and I don't know, Transporter looked, to me at least, crisper than the Matrix.


What is the bitrate for the Matrix HD ? Because some sequences in the film looked very, very soft to me. Others looked sharp but it didn't wow me. I'm using the Panasonic AE2000 with the Sony 550 blu-ray player.


Is the Matrix HD not supposed to be very crisp looking ? Like I said, I'm very late, hehe, but yeah, I'm just not that blown away by the Matrix transfer.


Regards,


----------



## Phantom Stranger

The Matrix might be ranked a little too high at this point. The existing Blu-ray was just a straight duplicate of the HD DVD encoding, which originally came out around two years ago. I have not seen the Transporter recently enough to compare it fairly.


----------



## b_scott

random comment, but I'm watching Casablanca right now and it's sharp as F**K.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16421435
> 
> *The Curious Case of Benjamin Button*
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.0*



Good review!

I think our reviews will be about the same. I returned BB to BB, and found a good price elsewhere. I'll post a review after I rewatch.


----------



## deltasun

*Big*


Very disappointed in the PQ of this title. Grain was present throughout - some scenes heavier than others. Faces were devoid of detail and often exhibited a soft and sometimes smooth look. I also caught lots of ringing throughout, even on lighter-colored objects, e.g., Billy's light leather jacket against a wall.


Medium shot scenes varied from being unnaturally sharp to soft. A number of scenes had the property whereby the tint would shift from one shade to another. It was most notable when Tom Hanks was sitting on some brick steps. Colors looked dated and flat. Black levels were average and contrast was fair to average.


Overall, I would have to place this in the Copper tier somewhere...

*Tier Recommendation: 4.5*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8' & 6'_


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/16432437
> 
> 
> Good review!
> 
> I think our reviews will be about the same. I returned BB to BB, and found a good price elsewhere. I'll post a review after I rewatch.



Thanks! I picked BB up today from BB since I had $10 in Reward points. Where's the good price?


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16432448
> 
> *Big*
> 
> 
> Very disappointed in the PQ of this title. Grain was present throughout - some scenes heavier than others. Faces were devoid of detail and often exhibited a soft and sometimes smooth look. I also caught lots of ringing throughout, even on lighter-colored objects, e.g., Billy's light leather jacket against a wall.
> 
> 
> Medium shot scenes varied from being unnaturally sharp to soft. A number of scenes had the property whereby the tint would shift from one shade to another. It was most notable when Tom Hanks was sitting on some brick steps. Colors looked dated and flat. Black levels were average and contrast was fair to average.
> 
> 
> Overall, I would have to place this in the Copper tier somewhere...
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 4.5*
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8' & 6'_



that's too bad, it looked pretty good on AMC HD


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Illusionist (Canadian Import)


recommendation: Tier 2.0
*

I have been eagerly anticipating this title on Blu-ray. An Italian Blu-ray does exist already of this movie, but I had refrained from purchasing it since it had no lossless audio soundtrack. This Canadian version was just released on May 5, 2009 by Alliance Films with a DTS-HD MA soundtrack. The 108-minute film is encoded in AVC on a BD-25 with absolutely no extras of any kind. I will estimate the average video bitrate to be 21.9 Mbps. The authoring and compression encode was performed by Juice Productions, which can be found on the web at http://www.juiceproductionsinc.com/ .


Most of the feature shows no major compression-related problems. But in a few moments the encode does falter. While the video encode reaches momentary peaks over 40 Mbps, most of the time it remains in the twenties. A couple of the darker scenes with point-sources of light exhibit some obvious banding and false contouring. The darkest moments also show a minor amount of macroblocking and even chroma noise. Thankfully the encode handles the grain structure of the film with ease, reproducing it without any artifacting. I will proffer a guess that using a BD-50 would have eliminated the infrequent but obvious banding on this disc. These are relatively small problems that I still felt needed to be pointed out.


The transfer of the master looks wonderful and very faithful to the original cinematic presentation of the movie. Grain looks very pleasing and natural, with absolutely zero signs that digital noise reduction or other digital tools have been used to process the master. There are no halos and the image is completely free of ringing. Even though the film is from 2006, the master appears flawless with no print damage or apparent degradation. It looks like it could have come from a new theatrical release, considering the stark cleanliness of the image. All together this is a very film-like and accurate transfer that looks even better than what I originally saw in the theater.


In my consideration the only thing keeping this Blu-ray out of tier one is the original photography and look that the director used. Certain scenes go for a stylized aesthetic that recall a period movie. Flesh tones are frequently bathed in a golden hue that reflect the lamp and candle lights of the particular setting. Flashback scenes employ a somewhat diffuse photography, with the edges of the frame appearing very soft.


Contrast is reasonably strong and the well-lit scenes are sharp. There is a remarkable sense of depth that conveys a solid sense of space, which my domestic dvd completely misses. Objects in the foreground have excellent pop and dimensionality. Watch Eisenheim as he performs his illusions to get an idea of this phenomenon. Black levels are just a bit too strong, obscuring just a small amount of the finest shadow detail and resolution. Resolution is great and excellent high-frequency information is on regular display in the various close-ups.


My placement for this title is in tier two. Some moments probably are closer in caliber and merit to tier one, but the intended look of a few scenes should drop its ranking. But this is good picture quality considering a domestic U.S. release does not appear to be coming anytime soon. Fans of the movie should be pleased with it.


Watching on a 60 Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 (firmware 2.70) at a viewing distance of six feet.


----------



## djoberg

^


Good review Phantom!


I just watched this a couple of weeks ago on Starz and it looked quite good. I was hoping the Blu-ray release would be as good or better and it sounds like a winner. 2.0 is NOT bad, especially considering the majority of the film could, as you say, merit a tier one ranking.


----------



## JohnES1

Thanks Phantom Stranger. Am I right in assuming that more time/money would have resolved all of the issues addressed in this statement, "Most of the feature shows no major compression-related problems. But in a few moments the encode does falter. While the video encode reaches momentary peaks over 40 Mbps, most of the time it remains in the twenties. A couple of the darker scenes with point-sources of light exhibit some obvious banding and false contouring. The darkest moments also show a minor amount of macroblocking and even chroma noise. Thankfully the encode handles the grain structure of the film with ease, reproducing it without any artifacting. I will proffer a guess that using a BD-50 would have eliminated the infrequent but obvious banding on this disc. These are relatively small problems that I still felt needed to be pointed out."


----------



## Phantom Stranger

A higher video bitrate or re-encoding the problematic sections probably would have eliminated the banding problems I noted. The authoring company for The Illusionist is the same company that handled the Canadian Sin City release. I suspect the same level of improvement we saw when Disney authored their own version of Sin City over the Canadian release would be similar to the improvement one will see when Fox finally decides to release this movie in the U.S. on Blu-ray.


I do not want anyone confused though, I am completely recommending this Canadian version to fans and interested consumers right now. As long as special features are not a criterion, this is an excellent purchase. The transfer looks well-done with no digital manipulation that has become very common on catalog titles.


----------



## JohnES1

We saw The Illusionist at the theater, watched it a couple ot times on Fios VOD HD, and it was the first movie I chose to check out the performance of Netflix streaming via our Roku player. Any macroblocking will keep me from purchase of this gem, as will other blatant processing artifacts. If a near flawless transfer is eventually made available I'd like to see this in Tier 1.0 if not Tier 0.


----------



## tcramer

Has anyone seen either the Marine Aquarium (supposedly 4x the resolution of usual BR) or the Living Landscapes series?


I see the LL Hawaii is a 4.5 but I was wondering about the others. I see they all have an AR of 1.33:1 which makes me believe the footage is quite old. What about the Marine Aquarium? It has very mixed reviews so I am not sure how much I can trust any of them. I would love to purchase some nature Blu's to really show what Blu+Kuro can do, but I am yet to come across one of these that stuns me with an amazing picture.


If no experience with any of these, are there any nature type Blu's anyone can recommend that provide that stunning PQ?


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tcramer* /forum/post/16452141
> 
> 
> If no experience with any of these, are there any nature type Blu's anyone can recommend that provide that stunning PQ?



Many people recommend Planet Earth, though the quality of the footage varies a bit over the entire set from excellent to very average. While not quite a nature documentary, I think you might be interested in a tier zero title like Baraka.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *phantom stranger* /forum/post/16455293
> 
> 
> many people recommend planet earth, though the quality of the footage varies a bit over the entire set from excellent to very average. While not quite a nature documentary, i think you might be interested in a tier zero title like baraka.



+1


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tcramer* /forum/post/16452141
> 
> 
> Has anyone seen either the Marine Aquarium (supposedly 4x the resolution of usual BR) or the Living Landscapes series?
> 
> 
> I see the LL Hawaii is a 4.5 but I was wondering about the others. I see they all have an AR of 1.33:1 which makes me believe the footage is quite old. What about the Marine Aquarium? It has very mixed reviews so I am not sure how much I can trust any of them. I would love to purchase some nature Blu's to really show what Blu+Kuro can do, but I am yet to come across one of these that stuns me with an amazing picture.
> 
> 
> If no experience with any of these, are there any nature type Blu's anyone can recommend that provide that stunning PQ?



Planet Earth is great in terms of the visual subject matter, but it's not the most detailed title out there. I'll third Baraka as a good choice. Grand Canyon Adventure (IMAX) is a movie I struggled through, but the PQ is often amazing.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/16456928
> 
> 
> Planet Earth is great in terms of the visual subject matter, but it's not the most detailed title out there. *I'll third Baraka* as a good choice.



Make that four!!


----------



## b_scott

watching Hellraiser right now. will report....


----------



## tfoltz

You can also try Galapagos. The first act is great...although it gets a bit silly as it goes on. Looks spectacular.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tcramer* /forum/post/16452141
> 
> 
> If no experience with any of these, are there any nature type Blu's anyone can recommend that provide that stunning PQ?


----------



## babrown92

I just watched No Country For Old Men yet again, and I still think this is a tier 0 title. It's one of the very few movies that I've seen that can maintain the natural grain and film presentation, yet deliver the same depth and pop as titles like I Robot. Facial details are right up there as well.


I think it ranks up there with I Robot, Live Free or Die Hard and the Pirate movies in tier 0.


What is keeping this movie out of the top tier for the rest of you? Something I havent noticed?


----------



## deltasun

*Underworld: Rise of the Lycans*


Medium to fine grain present throughout, but not enough to be bothersome. As the previous two _Underworld's_, this film had a stylized look consisting of muted colors, dominated by indigos, grays, and of course, blacks. For the most part, the darker scenes exhibited decent levels of detail. The ornate walls that lined the interior of the castle, always hidden in shadows, displayed varying textures. Contrast was bold and really enhanced the visual design.


Skin tones were on the pale side as expected, this being a vampire flick. However, for the non-fanged inhabitants, skin tones were spot on, including the Lycans.


With such a limited palette, it was difficult to really assess the PQ so I cheated a bit and popped in the original _Underworld_, rated 1.25 in our thread, for comparison. Facial details were definitely lacking in the newer incantation compared to the original. Medium shots were also weaker and flatter. No experience of 3D pop.


Overall, this is a fine looking blu-ray and would rate in somewhere between...


Edit: Almost forgot to mention probably the most egregious downside of all - the CGI! This was truly bothersome and expected better.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75 - 2.0*


I've always enjoyed the Underworld series and storyline. I felt this was a worthy prequel and gave us a bit more insight into Lucian side of the story.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## jrcorwin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/16457168
> 
> 
> watching Hellraiser right now. will report....



Are your reviews of physical BD's themselves or mkv files? You mentioned the use of them in another thread and for the purposes of this thread...what you are viewing should be clear.


----------



## deltasun

*Passengers*


Medium grain present throughout. No obvious signs of EE even in scenes with high-contrast edges. This is a nice looking title that offered bold and detailed blacks and spot-on contrast. Low-light situations looked decent as well but not superb. There were never any instances of crushed blacks.


Skin tones again were spot on and were usually a pleasing element of each scene. Facial details looked good but did not exhibit the same pizazz as high Tier 1 titles. Also, medium shots made facial details a bit less detailed, almost DNR-like (though I don't think this was the case). It was probably its weakest characteristic.


Depth and dimension was average; granted, the film was not presented too many opportunities to carry such scenes. All in all, a solid transfer and a good looking title.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*


The movie has a decent ending/revelation, but I felt it did not have enough of the necessary elements to help drive it there. Also, it would have made for a better ending if they did not show the

*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) events immediately before the crash. Seeing the pilot flirting with the stewardess as flames came out of the right engine just did not have the same tragic-ness as it did if we skipped that scene and simply knew she was a passenger


Still worth a rental, in my opinion.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

*Taken*


Fine grain present throughout. Early dark scenes suffered a bit, appearing flat and devoid of details. These were confined to Liam Neeson's apartment and did not leak into future dark scenes. Still, other dark scenes, while showing better details, were only slightly above average. Crushed blacks erupted here and there but not enough to really hurt the scenes. Contrast was pushed just a tad to obtain the desired look and feel of the movie.


Colors were saturated a bit in most scenes. These weren't particularly distracting, except that I just saw _Passengers_ which had a tamer color palette complementary to its storyline. Skin tones were a bit on the warm side also on all, but several scenes. Facial details were easily top Tier 1 and 3D pop was abound. Medium shots were well handled as well, showing great detail and clarity. The few panoramas of Paris showed appreciable depth and dimension.


Overall, a very impressive looking title. Saw it in the theatres and feel that the BR presentation looks better. I believe it's on par with the just-recently-watched _Passengers_ but in a totally different set of strengths.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*


For action fans, this is a no brainer. Liam Neeson does a good job in the role. I also feel the extended version rounded out the movie better. I can't help but point out the believability of

*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) an *English-speaking* French inspector showing up at the Albanian headquarters to demand more kickback money.


Still, a fun ride!









_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jrcorwin* /forum/post/16462072
> 
> 
> Are your reviews of physical BD's themselves or mkv files? You mentioned the use of them in another thread and for the purposes of this thread...what you are viewing should be clear.



can someone get this guy a clue? back off.


i watch BD's on my BDP-51FD and I post that info. go away.


BTW, Hellraiser looked average. Best transfer ever, I'm sure. But still probably only a 3.5 - 3.75 tier. Lots of grain, but acceptable. Dark scenes were very grainy, hence the low score.


----------



## jrcorwin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/16463800
> 
> 
> can someone get this guy a clue? back off.
> 
> 
> i watch BD's on my BDP-51FD and I post that info. go away.
> 
> 
> BTW, Hellraiser looked average. Best transfer ever, I'm sure. But still probably only a 3.5 - 3.75 tier. Lots of grain, but acceptable. Dark scenes were very grainy, hence the low score.



I asked you a simple and relevant question. No need for the tantrum.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/16456928
> 
> 
> Planet Earth is great in terms of the visual subject matter, but it's not the most detailed title out there.



I have been using the Planet Earth Blu-rays to break in my KURO Elite and as has been noted many times, this series is a real "mixed bag." But I must say that when there is a scene that is sharp and detailed, it is most definitely top Tier 0 material!


I can't express how amazed I am at the black levels of the KURO. One of the most amazing titles for blacks is "CAVES" and at one point it is showing a jet black stingray swimming towards the cameraman and eventually it takes up the whole screen. When it did, I literally could not see my black bezel. All I could say was WOW!!


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jrcorwin* /forum/post/16463938
> 
> 
> I asked you a simple and relevant question. No need for the tantrum.



it's not relevant, because the answer is in my posts already. and I've still never watched an MKV movie rip. I was asking because I had a foreign unreleased movie that I couldn't buy and was going to try to watch. But I haven't. There was no reason at all to assume all the movies I watched were that format, you were just trying to start ****. You said yourself in the other thread you "already knew the answer" - that screams it.


----------



## jrcorwin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/16464904
> 
> 
> it's not relevant, because the answer is in my posts already. and I've still never watched an MKV movie rip. I was asking because I had a foreign unreleased movie that I couldn't buy and was going to try to watch. But I haven't. There was no reason at all to assume all the movies I watched were that format, you were just trying to start ****. You said yourself in the other thread you "already knew the answer" - that screams it.



Two separate issues:


1. I simply asked if you were reviewing movies from BD's or MKV's. No big deal. Just a simple and honest question.


2. Yes, I did say that I "already knew the answer" in another thread. That was an entirely different topic however. What I "already knew" was how you came to possess the MKV file in question. I was making a point. I did so and I moved on. I didn't harass you about it. Separate issue from this one.


Still, no reason to get upset. My question in this thread was in no way meant to start an argument. I just wasn't sure if your reviews were being done with an actual BD or not. Not a big deal. Just a simple question.


Let's move on and not get off track.


----------



## b_scott

it's not a simple question when the reason is to say "i'm better than you for not doing that." that was the whole point of your statements.


anyway, fine let's move on.


----------



## jrcorwin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/16465458
> 
> 
> it's not a simple question when the reason is to say "i'm better than you for not doing that." that was the whole point of your statements.
> 
> 
> anyway, fine let's move on.



Moving on after one last comment...because I don't want there to be any animosity between us. Okay?


My comment was never meant to imply that I feel I am better than you for that reason or any other. My point was simply that due to its legality...it isn't something we discuss here. Regardless, that's an issue I should and will leave up to others to address if ever it were necessary.


No insults(s) intended. Truce?


----------



## b_scott

alright, truce


----------



## tfoltz

Stop rubbing it in!! You are making us non-kuro owners suicidal.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16464719
> 
> 
> I can't express how amazed I am at the black levels of the KURO. One of the most amazing titles for blacks is "CAVES" and at one point it is showing a jet black stingray swimming towards the cameraman and eventually it takes up the whole screen. When it did, I literally could not see my black bezel. All I could say was WOW!!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/16465967
> 
> 
> Stop rubbing it in!! You are making us non-kuro owners suicidal.













I really didn't mean to "rub it in." I lived without a KURO for a long time and I never once contemplated ending it all (







), but now that I have one it would be hard to go back. It's like my first car; I loved it even though it didn't have air conditioning (this was MANY years ago







), but once I bought a car with air conditioning, I was spoiled for life.


----------



## JohnES1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16464719
> 
> 
> I have been using the Planet Earth Blu-rays to break in my KURO Elite and as has been noted many times, this series is a real "mixed bag." But I must say that when there is a scene that is sharp and detailed, it is most definitely top Tier 0 material!
> 
> 
> I can't express how amazed I am at the black levels of the KURO. One of the most amazing titles for blacks is "CAVES" and at one point it is showing a jet black stingray swimming towards the cameraman and eventually it takes up the whole screen. When it did, I literally could not see my black bezel. All I could say was WOW!!



Drool, hope the wife doesn't give you much flak about your new baby deserving a pro calibration. Enjoy!


----------



## tcramer

Is anyone planning on doing a review of Valkyrie the day it's released? I would love to but I won't have time.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tcramer* /forum/post/16466742
> 
> 
> Is anyone planning on doing a review of Valkyrie the day it's released? I would love to but I won't have time.



I just found out the other day that the Aspect Ratio is 1.85:1 and thus it won't conflict with the break-in of my plasma....so, I DO plan to rent it on Tuesday and I'll be giving a review no later than Wednesday on it.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JohnES1* /forum/post/16466368
> 
> 
> Drool, hope the wife doesn't give you much flak about your new baby deserving a pro calibration. Enjoy!



We have an agreement where if I buy a big ticket item that she could care less about she gets to buy one too. So, she won't give me any flak, but I think I'd rather suffer a bit of tongue-lashing instead of suffering monetarily.


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16467031
> 
> 
> We have an agreement where if I buy a big ticket item that she could care less about she gets to buy one too. So, she won't give me any flak, but I think I'd rather suffer a bit of tongue-lashing instead of suffering monetarily.



Well, you need to renegotiate that deal then!


I'd try for something like I do at work. See, if I come in an hour late, I have to leave an hour early to make up for it!


----------



## b_scott

lol


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Damn guys, I have 3 reviews to write but have been lazy


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/16469574
> 
> 
> Damn guys, I have 3 reviews to write but have been lazy



I have one to do, but I've been lazy too. Well, that and the NBA playoffs...


Tell No One is the title that I watched. Great movie, good PQ too.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16469724
> 
> 
> I have one to do, but I've been lazy too. Well, that and the NBA playoffs...
> 
> 
> Tell No One is the title that I watched. Great movie, good PQ too.



Yeah, don't get me started on the Lakers.










I'll have to check that out. I watched Doubt, The Wrestler, and Milk last week.


----------



## g-man5.1

Being my first post in this thread (been quietly learning) this is not really a formal review. I just wanted to state that come this Tuesday 5/19/09 that there will be a new reference title IMHO; A Bug's Life. I just viewed this on a 110" screen on my Marquee 8500/[email protected] and it is something to behold!! Sharp, clean and very detailed. Disney/Pixar really nailed this transfer. I will write up a more formal review when I have time.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *g-man5.1* /forum/post/16469804
> 
> 
> Being my first post in this thread (been quietly learning) this is not really a formal review. I just wanted to state that come this Tuesday 5/19/09 that there will be a new reference title IMHO; A Bug's Life. I just viewed this on a 110" screen on my Marquee 8500/[email protected] and it is something to behold!! Sharp, clean and very detailed. Disney/Pixar really nailed this transfer. I will write up a more formal review when I have time.



Welcome to the thread! We will look forward to reading your review.


I have Bug's Life on DVD but I will be more than willing to "double dip" and get the Blu-ray version. My grandchildren love it (and so do I)!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/16469574
> 
> 
> I have 3 reviews to write but have been lazy





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16469724
> 
> 
> I have one to do, but I've been lazy too. Well, that and the NBA playoffs...



Tis the season...not just for NBA playoffs, but Spring has finally arrived (at least here in the Midwest....we had the longest winter EVER) and this will cut into one's Blu-ray/tv viewing and writing of reviews, for sure.


I did reserve a copy of Valkyrie this afternoon, so I'm determined to watch that next Tuesday night.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/16469574
> 
> 
> Damn guys, I have 3 reviews to write but have been lazy



I swear, I swear.


I have 3 as well. It must be the time of year of the I am burnt from doing BD PQ reviews flu! I was even going to PM several of you and ask what the deal is.


I still haven't posted for Benjamin Button and now this week I watched Taken and the 3rd Underworld. And you know what it is a lazy, procrastination thing. Too funny several of you are feeling the same at the same time. It is like this place went dead and I have more motivation to make this post then post a review. Ha ha.!!

















Thankfully it isn't just me. Strange though huh several of us at once?


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *g-man5.1* /forum/post/16469804
> 
> 
> Being my first post in this thread (been quietly learning) this is not really a formal review. I just wanted to state that come this Tuesday 5/19/09 that there will be a new reference title IMHO; A Bug's Life. I just viewed this on a 110" screen on my Marquee 8500/[email protected] and it is something to behold!! Sharp, clean and very detailed. Disney/Pixar really nailed this transfer. I will write up a more formal review when I have time.



Ralph Potts already gave it a perfect score on video and the way the animated movies have mainly been tier 0 it wouldn't surprise me if A Bug's Life is at the top or near it.


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16470477
> 
> 
> I swear, I swear.
> 
> 
> I have 3 as well. It must be the time of year of the I am burnt from doing BD PQ reviews flu! I was even going to PM several of you and ask what the deal is.
> 
> 
> I still haven't posted for Benjamin Button and now this week I watched Taken and the 3rd Underworld. And you know what it is a lazy, procrastination thing. Too funny several of you are feeling the same at the same time. It is like this place went dead and I have more motivation to make this post then post a review. Ha ha.!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thankfully it isn't just me. Strange though huh several of us at once?



Haha yeah, very interesting.


I think it is the time of year, summer around the corner, sun is out, girlies running around, etc.


----------



## 42041

*The French Connection*


Much vitriol has been spilled over the director's choice to give this film a stylized re-coloring, and while I see their point, I never saw the movie in its original appearance, so the only frame of reference I have is Xylon's DVD screencaps. I'm not going to comment much on the color revision, I thought it gave a unique quality to the gritty imagery of this film, and if the director thinks this is how his film should be, who am I to say otherwise? Blooming colors aside, I think it's a pretty good transfer, save for a couple of issues. Let's get this out of the way immediately: if you hate grain, this one is brutal. It is omnipresent, sometimes downright distracting in some scenes. I'd suspect digital tinkering might have exaggerated it, but I rarely saw tell-tale signs of sharpening, so I don't know. The image quality varies wildly. As is often the case with older films, daylit long shots tend to look the best. At that best, the detail is very impressive for a movie of this vintage. Many of the shots of the New York streets have a palpable sense of gritty realism to them. On the other side, many of the more dimly lit scenes look very rough, with the image almost dissolving into grain, and a flat, lifeless appearance that looks like they were trying to pull all the dynamic range they could out of really underexposed film. My biggest gripe with this transfer is the almost constant black crush. Actually seeing detail in the darker areas of the image is a very rare occurrence. If someone's wearing a black coat, chances are, you won't see a bit of it. But frankly, I'd take that over a DNR'd mess any day.

*Tier 3.75*

(ps3/pioneer 50" kuro elite plasma/~1sw distance)


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/16470601
> 
> 
> Haha yeah, very interesting.
> 
> 
> I think it is the time of year, summer around the corner, sun is out, girlies running around, etc.



I'm with you all! I got tennis tournaments, league, driving around in my new ride, not to mention work! It was a bear to write those three reviews yesterday but had to do it before it got too stale. It felt really disjointed putting words to monitor. Anyway, looking forward to y'all's reviews as always.


I've gone back to continuing my Bonds again, starting with _Live and Let Die_ tonight. PQ's nothing to write home about, but will write here. Netflix should have _Valkyrie_, _Mall Cop_, and perhaps _True Blood_ for me Tuesday. In addition, I should be picking up _A Bug's Life_, _The Machinist_, and _Enemy at the Gates_. It'll be a busy week for me, but looking forward to it!


----------



## selimsivad

Add me to the "lazy bunch!" I'm in Seattle, and the weather is finally hitting the 60s! We have 70 degrees scheduled for the weekend!









I just received my ordered copy of BB. Sometime this month, I'll post a review!

















P.S.

I just watched Dark City for the first time. Interesting movie, horrible transfer! I now understand why the DNR hounds were so critical of this one!


----------



## Staple




> Quote:
> *Underworld: Rise of the Lycans*
> 
> 
> Medium to fine grain present throughout, but not enough to be bothersome.



Just watched this last night on my PS3 and old Sammy HLS5087. Any tech over 3 years is "old" isn't it?

I have the hardest time figuring out what is film grain and what may be my TV's inability to show serious darks and that problem manifests as shimmering white pinholes. To me, film grain would be present in almost every frame. Certainly in every frame from the same scene.


My wife and I, not experts by any stretch of the imagination, thought the shimmering was very distracting and we didn't see any of it when we saw this same movie in the theaters. This makes me think perhaps it is my setup.

One extreme case was...
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) when Lucian was scaling the mountain to see Sonya.



Can anyone tell me what I am experiencing? Film grain or TV issues?


Thanks!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Staple* /forum/post/16472456
> 
> 
> Just watched this last night on my PS3 and old Sammy HLS5087. Any tech over 3 years is "old" isn't it?
> 
> I have the hardest time figuring out what is film grain and what may be *my TV's inability to show serious darks* and that problem manifests as shimmering white pinholes. To me, film grain would be present in almost every frame. Certainly in every frame from the same scene.
> 
> 
> Can anyone tell me what I am experiencing? Film grain or TV issues?
> 
> 
> Thanks!



I haven't seen Underworld: Rise of the Lycans yet, so I can't really answer your question specifically. But I just sold my Sammy HL-S5087 and I thought it did a decent job of displaying blacks. In fact, when I was showing it to the guy who ended up buying it we were watching excerpts from The Dark Knight and he commented on the excellent black levels and shadow detail. Granted, it's not as good as some current displays, but it's not bad for being 3 years old.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16462058
> 
> *Underworld: Rise of the Lycans*
> 
> 
> Medium to fine grain present throughout, but not enough to be bothersome. As the previous two _Underworld's_, this film had a stylized look consisting of muted colors, dominated by indigos, grays, and of course, blacks. For the most part, the darker scenes exhibited decent levels of detail. The ornate walls that lined the interior of the castle, always hidden in shadows, displayed varying textures. Contrast was bold and really enhanced the visual design.
> 
> 
> Skin tones were on the pale side as expected, this being a vampire flick. However, for the non-fanged inhabitants, skin tones were spot on, including the Lycans.
> 
> 
> With such a limited palette, it was difficult to really assess the PQ so I cheated a bit and popped in the original _Underworld_, rated 1.25 in our thread, for comparison. Facial details were definitely lacking in the newer incantation compared to the original. Medium shots were also weaker and flatter. No experience of 3D pop.
> 
> 
> Overall, this is a fine looking blu-ray and would rate in somewhere between...
> 
> 
> Edit: Almost forgot to mention probably the most egregious downside of all - the CGI! This was truly bothersome and expected better.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75 - 2.0*
> 
> 
> I've always enjoyed the Underworld series and storyline. I felt this was a worthy prequel and gave us a bit more insight into Lucian side of the story.
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_



I thought it looked more like 2.75 to 3.0. A very large drop in PQ compared to the other two. Soft, soft, soft.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/16472737
> 
> 
> I thought it looked more like 2.75 to 3.0. A very large drop in PQ compared to the other two. Soft, soft, soft.



When you said "soft, soft, soft," it reminded me of another BD that I watched lately that I didn't review: The Da Vinci Code.


Those three words perfectly describe that disc.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16472829
> 
> 
> When you said "soft, soft, soft," it reminded me of another BD that I watched lately that I didn't review: The Da Vinci Code.
> 
> 
> Those three words perfectly describe that disc.



Indeed they do.


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16472829
> 
> 
> When you said "soft, soft, soft," it reminded me of another BD that I watched lately that I didn't review: The Da Vinci Code.
> 
> 
> Those three words perfectly describe that disc.



Agreed, plus this is one movie that would have benefited if the director's cut would have lopped off some time rather than add additional footage.


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/16471257
> 
> 
> Add me to the "lazy bunch!" I'm in Seattle, and the weather is finally hitting the 60s! We have 70 degrees scheduled for the weekend!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just received my ordered copy of BB. Sometime this month, I'll post a review!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree about the weather. This might be our summer so we need to enjoy it now.


Somebody mentioned basketball as an excuse not to watch BD movies. Is that the thingie where people run around in their underwear? Any true sports fan knows that now is the time to watch a true sport, the Stanley Cup in hockey.


I'm guilty too of watching movies and not reviewing them. Recently I saw _Quantum of Solace_ and was going to watch it critically but kept falling into plot holes and by the time I was able to extradite myself, the next one came along. Anyway, the movie has been thoroughly reviewed but I thought it was more like 1.75 or even 2.0 rather than where it is now.


I also watched _Ferris Bueller's Day Off_. I may do a capsule review on it later but thought it looked good for its age, maybe a solid 3.5. One thing about the movie, though, it didn't seem as good as I remembered, maybe either the movie of myself haven't aged well.


BTW, what's happened to GG3? Has the ice melted and she's drifted out to sea?


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/16472737
> 
> 
> I thought it looked more like 2.75 to 3.0. A very large drop in PQ compared to the other two. Soft, soft, soft.



It was indeed much softer than the original (don't have _Evolution_ for comparison. However, I didn't think it was that much softer than _Iron Man_, which is 1.75. I also had to give _Rise of the Lycans_ some points for darkness detail, which bested _Iron Man's_ as well.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16467031
> 
> 
> We have an agreement where if I buy a big ticket item that she could care less about she gets to buy one too. So, she won't give me any flak, but I think I'd rather suffer a bit of tongue-lashing instead of suffering monetarily.



Gratz on the Kuro!!! *snicker* I got the TV for christmas, husband got the car (dodge charger) so that was our "we're even now" for the big ticket items. hehe.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/16473708
> 
> 
> BTW, what's happened to GG3? Has the ice melted and she's drifted out to sea?



thanks for thinking of me! My son had surgery this week, we are out of town for a month. No high def for me for a while. Little guy's doing OK, not great but hopefully things will work out how we want them to. I'm posting from the hospital family room; he's asleep for the moment so I escaped.


I miss my plasma & blu rays but of course I am dealing with it! My last blu ray watching was on Dexter S. 1, so I did review that. Never got to finish Pride & Prejudice 1995 though so I only posted my initial reactions. I'll be exhausted when I get back home though so I will get a lot of time to catch up with my pile of blu ray's that I have bought but not reviewed yet!


Edited to add:


My folks were able to track down a copy of the aussie version of American Psycho as well so this summer when they get to Canada I'll be able to do a PQ comparison. I'm antsy on that one for sure.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16473968
> 
> 
> Gratz on the Kuro!!! *snicker* I got the TV for christmas, husband got the car (dodge charger) so that was our "we're even now" for the big ticket items. hehe.
> 
> 
> thanks for thinking of me! My son had surgery this week, we are out of town for a month. No high def for me for a while. Little guy's doing OK, not great but hopefully things will work out how we want them to. I'm posting from the hospital family room; he's asleep for the moment so I escaped.



First of all, how much did your husband pay for the Dodge Charger? I have a sneaky suspicion he paid more for that than the price of the Panny. If he did, please let me know so I can relate this to my wife.










Secondly, I was thinking of you last night and was wondering the same thing as OldCodger. I was actually going to PM you tonight to see if everything was okay. I hope all goes well with your son and that you'll be able to start viewing your Panny again soon.


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/16472737
> 
> 
> I thought it looked more like 2.75 to 3.0. A very large drop in PQ compared to the other two. Soft, soft, soft.



Patrick, Thank you. We agree again! (though I think we're gonna be alone on this one! Much disagreement out there with 2.75-3)


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16473911
> 
> 
> ...However, I didn't think it was that much softer than _Iron Man_...



Hmmm, on that I am surprised.


Ok, then how bout depth? I didn't think it had much at all (like 0)


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Thanks, Denny. It was more the permissions involved... the car's on payments so the TV was the bigger crunch at the time.







I should be back to my blu ray watchin' at the beginning of June if all goes well down here.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/16475196
> 
> 
> Hmmm, on that I am surprised.
> 
> 
> Ok, then how bout depth? I didn't think it had much at all (like 0)



I felt the forest scenes at night offered good depth. Obviously, you can't compare daylight panoramic shots since it didn't really exist in _Underworld_. Again though, if you look at medium facial softness - they're on par with each other. Much like _Twilight_, you can make out the cakey make-up used on the vampires.


----------



## selimsivad

*Burn After Reading*



*1.85 : 1*




Color for this title is undersaturated. Contrast is raised a notch. Skin tones are reddish. There is a beautiful layer of grain, which gives BAR a film-like appearance.


I was disappointed with the black levels. Blacks were gray at times, which didn't help with depth and dimension. Backround images were intentionally unfocused at times.


There were very few scenes that displayed Tier Gold material. This is by no means demo material. Pretty funny though!










This title is currently ranked at 2.0.



*Burn After Reading

Tier Recommendation: Tier 2.5

PS3-Samsung 46" 1080p-seven'*


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16475510
> 
> 
> I felt the forest scenes at night offered good depth. Obviously, you can't compare daylight panoramic shots since it didn't really exist in _Underworld_. Again though, if you look at medium facial softness - they're on par with each other. Much like _Twilight_, you can make out the cakey make-up used on the vampires.



I put the movie back in my queue because of all the different opinions on the forum. There's the Tier 1 camp, and the Tier 3 camp it seems. My brother rented the disk but I didn't ask in time to see it on his equip so I'm getting it again. I'd buy the trilogy but not until the price drops. I like the series enough, just not opening-week-price, enough.


When I watched, I really only watched the movie itself and tried to ignore how it looked. About the only parts that I remember taking note to the images, they were not so good. (fact is, they were pretty bad but all films have bad spots) I remember thinking, wow, those are some of the worst closeups I've seen.


It's funny really cause lots of people liked the way it looked when I did not. And almost universally, others dislike the CG where I did not.
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) I suppose they coulda added another 15 sec or so to Sonja's unforutnate exit, but other than that I was happy with the effects.
I'm going to be very surprised if I change my opinion. I'll see by next week I guess.


I saw Twilight a couple weeks ago. Also a rental, so I'm again going from memory. But, I'd probably rate that half a tier higher than Urotl. I would not lobby for that to move up, that's for sure. It also suffered from lack of light, but not near as bad as this film. During the baseball game for example, you could make out very distant trees and such where in UW, everything just faded to a sea of mist all the time.


I just watched Body of Lies. Now that's in Tier 2.25, and I find it hard to believe it might end up below Urotl.


----------



## 42041

*The 400 Blows*


This 1959 black and white film is not likely to be viewed by anyone for its PQ qualities, but it's fine for what it is. Detail tends to be below average, very briefly hitting what I'd consider average level of detail, but mostly hovering only a bit above SD quality. No DNR that I can see has been applied, and contrast delineation is satisfactory. Some EE is present here and there but the film is so soft it barely does anything but add a few halos. I suspect not all the detail on the film has been captured during scanning, since hairs, scratches and film damage tend to be just as blurry as the image, and intuition suggests that such things would be independent of the resolution limitations of the film stock. But considering the limited commercial appeal of 50s French films, I suspect this is the best version we'll see, and it's a satisfactory one.

*Tier 4.0*


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/16475967
> 
> 
> I put the movie back in my queue because of all the different opinions on the forum. There's the Tier 1 camp, and the Tier 3 camp it seems. My brother rented the disk but I didn't ask in time to see it on his equip so I'm getting it again. I'd buy the trilogy but not until the price drops. I like the series enough, just not opening-week-price, enough.
> 
> 
> When I watched, I really only watched the movie itself and tried to ignore how it looked. About the only parts that I remember taking note to the images, they were not so good. (fact is, they were pretty bad but all films have bad spots) I remember thinking, wow, those are some of the worst closeups I've seen.
> 
> 
> It's funny really cause lots of people liked the way it looked when I did not. And almost universally, others dislike the CG where I did not.
> *Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler
> *Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) I suppose they coulda added another 15 sec or so to Sonja's unforutnate exit, but other than that I was happy with the effects.
> I'm going to be very surprised if I change my opinion. I'll see by next week I guess.
> 
> 
> I saw Twilight a couple weeks ago. Also a rental, so I'm again going from memory. But, I'd probably rate that half a tier higher than Urotl. I would not lobby for that to move up, that's for sure. It also suffered from lack of light, but not near as bad as this film. During the baseball game for example, you could make out very distant trees and such where in UW, everything just faded to a sea of mist all the time.
> 
> 
> I just watched Body of Lies. Now that's in Tier 2.25, and I find it hard to believe it might end up below Urotl.



Well, I voted 2.0 for _Body of Lies_ and 1.5 for _Twilight_. The CGI I disliked were for the movements of the Lycans, not necessarily Sonja's
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) demise. But yeah, I felt it should have taken more than 2 seconds for her to disintegrate also.



Well, I'm glad you feel strongly about this to re-watch it. I'm certainly open to any other points regarding the PQ. Like you, I will eventually get the trilogy once the prices come down a bit. And, like many, I still prefer the first one the best.


Incidentally, just came back from _Star Trek_. Wow, not a slow scene in that one. It definitely kept my attention from beginning to end. The PQ is going to be a treat when it hits BR (hopefully, with no foul play). I can already say that [new] Spock's face, specially in the Enterprise, was very soft, almost waxy save for one scene. I'll make a mental note for when it's reviewed here in a few months. Excellent job by JJ Abrams.


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16463646
> 
> *Taken*
> 
> 
> Fine grain present throughout. Early dark scenes suffered a bit, appearing flat and devoid of details. These were confined to Liam Neeson's apartment and did not leak into future dark scenes. Still, other dark scenes, while showing better details, were only slightly above average. Crushed blacks erupted here and there but not enough to really hurt the scenes. Contrast was pushed just a tad to obtain the desired look and feel of the movie.
> 
> 
> Colors were saturated a bit in most scenes. These weren't particularly distracting, except that I just saw _Passengers_ which had a tamer color palette complementary to its storyline. Skin tones were a bit on the warm side also on all, but several scenes. Facial details were easily top Tier 1 and 3D pop was abound. Medium shots were well handled as well, showing great detail and clarity. The few panoramas of Paris showed appreciable depth and dimension.
> 
> 
> Overall, a very impressive looking title. Saw it in the theatres and feel that the BR presentation looks better. I believe it's on par with the just-recently-watched _Passengers_ but in a totally different set of strengths.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.5*
> 
> 
> For action fans, this is a no brainer. Liam Neeson does a good job in the role. I also feel the extended version rounded out the movie better. I can't help but point out the believability of
> 
> *Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler
> *Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) an *English-speaking* French inspector showing up at the Albanian headquarters to demand more kickback money.
> 
> 
> Still, a fun ride!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_



After watching this, I have to place it lower IMO. 1.75 or 2 - the dark scenes, IMO, suffered badly from black crush. And most of the movie was dark, so that really hurt it for me. I was watching with company and even though I liked the movie, I had to cringe whenever a really dark scene came on because I had a hard time seeing what was going on.


Pio 5010FD

Pio 51FD

8' back


----------



## sleater

Nice to see this thread thriving again! I have not posted in eons but have kept up fairly regularly, although I've seen a mountain of blurays and cannot summon the energy to write-up full official reviews in the correct format for them all. I like patrick's method of contributing to this thread so I'll try a bit of that with my informal tier placements for a few of the more recent BDs I've seen:

*BIG - Tier 3.25* - _decent transfer of an 80s classic. Softness abounds, reminds me of The Princess Bride. Quite a lot of post-processing done here... people don't like grainy looking blu-rays I suspect_

*Underworld 3: Rise of the Lycans - Tier 2.5* - _Step down from Underworld 2, film grain heavy at times verging on low-light digital noise, facial closeups lacking especially for the vampires. Blacks pretty decent, few daylight outdoor scenes quite alright. Good flick!_

*Curious Case of Benjamin Button - Tier 1.75* - _Pretty nice detail with some overall softness. The sepia toned colours made me sleepy. Almost a 2.0 for me, I'm feeling generous. I really need to re-watch it but I don't know if I can force myself. Did get better as he got younger..._

*Star Trek: The Motion Picture - Tier 3.0* - _This is a great transfer if you don't mind a heavy application of DNR. Details are lacking but colours are nice, good contrast, fairly sharp picture. Effects don't look drastically dated, but storyline is quite slow. I personally didn't mind the grain scrubbing that was done to this one._

*Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn - Tier 2.5* - _This was the only truly remastered of the first six films from the original print. DNR is not present or minimal, I don't believe this one can look too much better than this. Awesome film especially compared to the first!_

*Seven Pounds - Tier 1.5* - _Awesome transfer of a good title, contrast good, clarity nice, facial closeups really good. Grain intact, no EE that I noticed. Thumbs way up._

*Doubt - Tier 1.5 -* _If it werent for the muted colours and the majority of scenes taking place indoors I would be tempted to push this to 1.25. These factors are no fault of the good transfer done here. Good film to boot!_

*The Wrestler - Tier 3.0* - _Very 80s looking soft style of film but it has its sharper moments. This is all stylistically speaking directors intent of course. The grainy look and feel didn't detract from the movie, but rather added to its 'feel' and it was very gritty and washed-up feeling. Another good title!_


Ok ok I could go on and on but really I know these mini reviews do not truly 'count' as per instructions on page one etc, but like I stated I could not for the life of me find the motivation to do proper write-ups. So take 'em with a grain of salt as they are mostly done from memory after only a single viewing. They are at least within a half-tier accurate to my memory ;D


Props to deltasun for keeping the movie reviews alive!


Sony s350

Mitsubishi HC5500 1080p LCD

92" 1.8 gain screen

8' v.d.


----------



## djoberg

^


Thanks sleater for all the "mini" reviews! At least you gave some very pointed comments on each one; SuprSlow may indeed count them even though they aren't in the exact format listed on page one.


I will be watching Valkyrie tomorrow night. It's been a good while since I've seen a Blu-ray, but I have been watching quite a few movies on the Starz channels (during the break-in of my new plasma). I'll post a review right after I watch it, if I'm up to it.


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sleater* /forum/post/16480950
> 
> *Underworld 3: Rise of the Lycans - Tier 2.5* - _Step down from Underworld 2, film grain heavy at times verging on low-light digital noise, facial closeups lacking especially for the vampires. Blacks pretty decent, few daylight outdoor scenes quite alright. Good flick!_
> 
> 
> Sony s350
> 
> Mitsubishi HC5500 1080p LCD
> 
> 92" 1.8 gain screen
> 
> 8' v.d.



Have to diagree on the 2.5. Watched this last night and it had GREAT blacks. Detail on faces was very impressive. Some grain, but not enough to negate the great details especially in dark scenes. I'd give it a 2.0.


Pioneer 5010

Pioneer 51

8' back


----------



## b_scott

*3:10 to Yuma*


Amazing PQ here. Sharpness abounds, colors are mostly natural. Blacks are black. Grain against the sky, so no DNR or EE here. I'd give it a 1.25 or 1.5.


Pioneer 5010

Pioneer 51

8' back


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sleater* /forum/post/16480950
> 
> 
> Ok ok I could go on and on but really I know these mini reviews do not truly 'count' as per instructions on page one etc, but like I stated I could not for the life of me find the motivation to do proper write-ups. So take 'em with a grain of salt as they are mostly done from memory after only a single viewing. They are at least within a half-tier accurate to my memory ;D



At this point participation is more important if we are to keep this thread active and vital. I would encourage anyone intimidated by the process or simply who does not have the time, to post mini-reviews and recommendations. If I was the person doing the counting, they would be good enough for me.


I have been going through season one of Star Trek and so far it looks great for its age. It looks better than many movies of similar vintage. When I have watched the entire season I will give my placement for it.


----------



## deltasun

*Moonraker*


Extremely fine grain throughout, this picture had a sharpened look. Facial close-up's had an unnatural look, specially Drax - his face didn't move naturally when he spoke. Outside of the somewhat DNR'd look, the picture looked quite quite good. Skin tones were natural looking. Black levels were excellent, save for a few black-crushed scenes in Rio de Janeiro. Details were not lost during low-light scenes, e.g., when 007 was sneaking around Drax's estate in the middle of the night. Contrast was well balanced, offering very clean-looking scenes.


Colors were vibrant (almost overly so) even with the dated color scheme. Lighting for the brighter scenes seem to always be balanced (unnaturally), which made said scenes studio-like in appearance. Outdoor scenes of Rio offered depth and dimension, particularly from the top of the tram.


I did not detect any softness, except for when 0-gravity was activated towards the end. Material details were also not lost in medium shots. Overall, I thought the picture looked good and would graciously give this a...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.5*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8' & 6'_


----------



## sleater

I picked up a copy of *15 Minutes* with Robert De Niro and Ed Burns in the 'bargain bin' and let me warn all out there to steer clear of this piece of garbage. I assumed that it was a 1080p bluray as I have not come across anything less than this, but after watching it I knew something wasn't right and so I flipped over the packaging and did a double-take - this is a 1080i encoded main feature. Needless to say jaggies abounded. I don't even know what to say about its Tier placement. May give Gangs of New York a run for its money. Movie itself was mediocre at best.


Anyone aware of other main features released in 1080i? This one isn't even that old of a title.


----------



## b_scott

Planet Earth (US Version)


----------



## sleater

Thanks *Phantom Stranger* for the encouragement with the mini-reviews. I have a bunch more...

*JCVD - Tier 3.0* - _Dark, muted colours, indoor scenes, gritty and grainy. This one looked low budget and not a flashy action movie in any sense of the term. Very unconventional but interesting nonetheless. This is not meant to be eye candy IMO._

*Yes Man - Tier 1.5 -* _Very good looking title with great facial details, colours, and a couple scenes had the much coveted (to me) 3D pop that seems to happen on so few titles. The darker scenes bumped the movie down a few notches with the crushed blacks. Skin tones were excellent and no noticeable DNR._

*Slumdog Millionaire - Tier 2.5 -* _A small number of Tier 1 scenes weren't enough to save this one. Lots of excessive grain on many indoor or night scenes that had a detrimental effect on the eye candy appeal. Colours a little washed out at times. Details not so great. Had a low budget sort of feel, which is probably because it was. A little disappointing but not a total loss. Again there were some really good scenes that somewhat made up for the poor ones._

*Premonition - Tier 2.0 -* _Hmmm this one I'm not 100% on in terms of Tier 1 low end or high Tier 2. First there were good details visible in most shots, facial details were sorely lackluster, skin tones were good, outdoor scenes were bright and poppy. Did not notice EE or DNR. Blacks were quite good. Movie itself left something to be desired._

*Quantum of Solace - Tier 1.25 -* _I would rate this a slight step down in PQ from Casino Royale which I feel is a solid Tier 1.0 title. This one is very sharp looking but the colours did not seem to pop quite as much as CR. Still a very good looking title that has not been altered by studio post-processing to my eyes. Good contrast, blacks, detail. Facial detail looks good. Sort of hoping for some Tier 0 potential here or 3D pop but nothing stood out in this regard._


1080p LCD projector

1.8 gain 92" screen

8' distance

Sony s350 BD player


----------



## b_scott

I'm sorry you had to sit through JCVD to give us the review.....


----------



## babrown92

JCVD is great!


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sleater* /forum/post/16490679
> 
> 
> I picked up a copy of *15 Minutes* with Robert De Niro and Ed Burns in the 'bargain bin' and let me warn all out there to steer clear of this piece of garbage. I assumed that it was a 1080p bluray as I have not come across anything less than this, but after watching it I knew something wasn't right and so I flipped over the packaging and did a double-take - this is a 1080i encoded main feature. Needless to say jaggies abounded. I don't even know what to say about its Tier placement. May give Gangs of New York a run for its money. Movie itself was mediocre at best.
> 
> 
> Anyone aware of other main features released in 1080i? This one isn't even that old of a title.



That is currently a Canadian exclusive on Blu-ray by Alliance. Many of their BD releases are questionable at best. Unsuspecting consumers should really investigate reviews of each individual disc from them before purchasing. Most likely what they are doing when releasing a 1080i transfer is a direct port of the HD broadcast master encoded for Blu-ray. Some of their exclusive releases do merit a look though, like The Illusionist I recently watched.


----------



## djoberg

*Valkyrie*


It's been so long since I wrote a review, I had to think twice about how to format it!










Let me say right out front that I was impressed with this title. This definitely won't win any accolades for its color palette (it was quite dull with mostly a blue tint, much like most or all movies depicting World War 2 Nazi Germany), but what it lacked in color was more than made up for in sharpness and detail. We are treated throughout to detailed fibers in clothing, worn leather satchels, tree bark in forests, and especially facial close-ups (which ranged from low Tier 0 to high Tier 1).


Black levels were very good (though not excellent), as was shadow detail. Contrast was generally strong. Skin tones were spot on.


The few colors that popped up were vivid and very natural-looking (the occasional Nazi flag and women's dresses come to mind), especially against the blue cast that dominated the film.


There was also a fine grain present throughout that was very pleasing to the eye and gave it that true film-look that we come to expect from good transfers.


The only anomaly that I witnessed on this first viewing was at the very beginning during a desert scene. The contrast appeared too high which resulted in a washed out look.


The movie itself was excellent! I am an avid fan of the World War 2/Nazi Germany genre, and this was a well-paced and well-acted movie. Some have commented on Cruise's character being too "wooden," but if one considers how solemn the theme of the movie is, his serious and subdued attitude was in keeping with that theme.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0 or 1.25*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'


----------



## sleater

^^^ Thanks *Phantom Stranger* for the explanation/info - I'll be more vigilant in my future purchases. Good news is it was only $10 but still, I should have done some homework. At least they DID state it on the back of the packaging...


As far as JCVD goes, it reminded me a lot of Dog Day Afternoon.
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) The troubled bank robber with the longer hair played basically the same character as Al Pacino's psycho friend.
The best part was JCVD's unscripted soliloquy. Sorry for the off-topic.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16494263
> 
> *Valkyrie*
> 
> 
> The only anomaly that I witnessed on this first viewing was at the very beginning during a desert scene. The contrast appeared too high which resulted in a washed out look.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.0 or 1.25*
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" KURO Elite....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'



I definitely remember this washed out look in the theatre. It was out of place. Unfortunately, Netflix didn't deliver my copy...was hoping I can review as well.


I did get _Paul Blart Mall Cop_ and watched the first 20 minutes or so. Having just seen _Moonraker_, whoa! Same disappearance of grain and DNR'd faces. Skin tones don't look natural either.


I hope to have a full review tomorrow...


----------



## deltasun

^^ Just looked it up and it appears _Paul Blart Mall Cop_ was shot on video. I was puzzled because, there was super close up on Kevin James and I could make out skin pores and even bits of his 'stache that he missed. But grain was completely eliminated.


That explains it!


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16494263
> 
> *Valkyrie*but what it lacked in color was more than made up for in sharpness and detail. We are treated throughout to detailed fibers in clothing, worn leather satchels, tree bark in forests, and especially facial close-ups (which ranged from low Tier 0 to high Tier 1).
> 
> 
> The few colors that popped up were vivid and very natural-looking (the occasional Nazi flag and women's dresses come to mind), especially against the blue cast that dominated the film.
> 
> 
> There was also a fine grain present throughout that was very pleasing to the eye and gave it that true film-look that we come to expect from good transfers.
> 
> 
> The only anomaly that I witnessed on this first viewing was at the very beginning during a desert scene. The contrast appeared too high which resulted in a washed out look.
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.0 or 1.25*
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" KURO Elite....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'



More or less agreeing with djoberg on Valkyrie, I watched this last night and found myself saying wow quite a bit. This film made very good use of natural lighting and even many of the indoor scenes were done with it to some extent. The color pallete basically fit the genre with the typical colors of war I'll call them. Within that, as mentioned, the scene outside SS HQ was stunning with all the flags, it really makes you take notice to all the rest of the detail in the film. I'd be surprised if someone here enjoys PQ and doesn't rewind to see that again. That scene truly belongs on a demo disk.


For those who like to see actors close up, this film will not disappoint. Especially when you consider that the rest of the facial scenes aren't all diffused because of highlighting the faces with F1.4. THIS is a good example of how camera work should be done. Early on in the movie, there is at least one scene where Tom C is shot with what I must guess was a 16mm handicam or something. It is so out of place I wondered how it stayed in the film. Other than the very few mediocre looking scenes, this film is just loaded with demo quality material.
Id offer it a grade a bit lower at 1.25-1.5.


Excellent film of the genre without so much of the graphic violence that seem to have become almost a director fettish. Probably one of the best performances I've seen by a supporting cast. Well worth watching. (Finally another good looking film that's a good film!)

Viewd from 8' on 60" Mits DLP.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/16496777
> 
> 
> More or less agreeing with djoberg on Valkyrie, I watched this last night and found myself saying wow quite a bit.
> 
> 
> Other than the very few mediocre looking scenes, this film is just loaded with demo quality material.
> Id offer it a grade a bit lower at 1.25-1.5.



We both listed 1.25, so that's a good compromise, IMO.


I forgot to comment on the fact that with this being a dialogue-driven movie there isn't much to say about the audio end. However, in the opening scene in the desert there is an air raid with plenty of explosions and gunfire and I was VERY impressed with the action in both my surrounds and my sub. In fact, it gave my Velodyne a real workout and left me saying WOW! I was hoping there would be at least one or two more scenes with reference audio, but as I got into the drama of the movie I literally forgot about the audio.


----------



## tcramer

Based on what both you and K-Spaz have said, it sounds like you would recommend this being a good movie to own. Would you both agree with that?





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16498023
> 
> 
> We both listed 1.25, so that's a good compromise, IMO.
> 
> 
> I forgot to comment on the fact that with this being a dialogue-driven movie there isn't much to say about the audio end. However, in the opening scene in the desert there is an air raid with plenty of explosions and gunfire and I was VERY impressed with the action in both my surrounds and my sub. In fact, it gave my Velodyne a real workout and left me saying WOW! I was hoping there would be at least one or two more scenes with reference audio, but as I got into the drama of the movie I literally forgot about the audio.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tcramer* /forum/post/16498165
> 
> 
> Based on what both you and K-Spaz have said, it sounds like you would recommend this being a good movie to own. Would you both agree with that?



I DO plan to order a copy....so, YES, it's definitely a KEEPER!


----------



## tcramer

Thanks! I have a $10 rewards zone thing expiring tomorrow and I see they have the best price. I think I will order it right now and pick it up.












> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16498300
> 
> 
> I DO plan to order a copy....so, YES, it's definitely a KEEPER!


----------



## deltasun

I saw this in the theatre as well (as mentioned above) and the only concern I'd have about purchasing is the rewatchability factor. I really enjoyed the movie and actually want to see it one more time, just to really nail down all the conversations/scheming. But, after that...I don't know.


So, just fair warning. I gotta say though, the talk about the excellent PQ and that one scene of AQ (I remember that one fondly as well) is making me rethink what I just said.


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tcramer* /forum/post/16498165
> 
> 
> Based on what both you and K-Spaz have said, it sounds like you would recommend this being a good movie to own. Would you both agree with that?



Absolutely.


djoberg,


I rated down *not* cause the video wasn't absolutly Tier 0 much of the time, but for the scenes that I felt deducted from it's score. As you mentioned too, they sorta dropped the ball at some places.


On the sound, I had to back up a few times to hear what they said. I even turned on cc for some parts. Sound effects were great for the most part, but there weren't many really. Then too, typewriters should not sound like the war imo.







It seems all movies have parts where they go overboard with something and that was the part for this film.


I'll be surprised, if not almost disapointed if someone doesn't vote this to be a lower T0, desplite me not agreeing with that after one view.


Fortunately for me, I may just get to view this again tonight cause I could not send it back till the envelope dried out. A funny story, I came home and dropped the disk on the coffee table. Went up to my office for a few minutes, and when I came back down, my cats were up on the coffee table (they NEVER get up on stuff), both rolling around rubbing thier faces on the two nf envelopes, slobering all over the things. They were saturated with cat slobber! I yelled to them to stop and they just looked at me like I had two heads or something. I don't know what feline controlled substance was in them but I hope that's not some new glue in the envelopes or something. If it is, they better be ready for a lot of cat-slobbered disks!


It's a good thing the inner sleeve is tyvek...


----------



## djoberg

^


Now THAT is funny, K-Spaz!!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16498563
> 
> 
> I saw this in the theatre as well (as mentioned above) and the only concern I'd have about purchasing is the rewatchability factor. I really enjoyed the movie and actually want to see it one more time, just to really nail down all the conversations/scheming. But, after that...I don't know.
> 
> 
> So, just fair warning. I gotta say though, the talk about the excellent PQ and *that one scene of AQ (I remember that one fondly as well)* is making me rethink what I just said.



I agree with your sentiments 100%. After I see it again (to figure every thing out







), it'll probably sit in my library for quite awhile. But I can see me dragging it out just to demo the air raid scene to friends who enjoy good AQ.


----------



## Hughmc

*Valkyrie*


I am going along with djoberg 100% on this title. Not really anything to add or subtract.










I still haven't gotten the other 3-4 reviews posted yet, but I will.










*Tier Recommendation: 1.0 or 1.25*


Sony [email protected] 7-8ft from PS3 thru HDMI.


----------



## Hughmc

*A Bug's Life*















































Ok, I said it before about Bolt, but...IMO this truly is the best looking BD to date.

From what I posted in the thread for the BD itself:


The colors have a lot to do with it, but A Bug's Life is breathtaking and the best looking BD to date. Depth, contrast, detail and on and on..... for a 10 year old movie, IMO it not only rivals any of the newer more recent animated releases on BD it surpasses them. Stunning is what it is. Audio is reference as well and really delivers some serious LFE, bass and incredible surround sounds.


Any every BD owner should own this one. For those who haven't seen it the color pallete is off the charts.


I had rented Valkyrie and bought A Bug's LIfe(*ABL*) last night. I was going to watch Valkyrie, but wanted to glance at *ABL*. There is no glancing at this title. 45 min later and another late night I had to turn it off, but really didn't want to.


Eye candy, 3D pop, or what ever hyperbole one wants to use to describe ABL would be appropriate.

*Recommendation: Top of Tier 0.*


Sony [email protected] 7-8ft from PS3 thru HDMI.


djoberg, this is going to look AMAZING on your new Kuro!! Congrats again and what a time to get it.


----------



## djoberg

^


I JUST bought A Bug's Life at Best Buy....after your encouraging review Hugh I can hardly wait to see it, but wait I must, for I'm calling it a day. I'll chime in tomorrow night as the credits roll.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *babrown92* /forum/post/16459603
> 
> 
> I just watched No Country For Old Men yet again, and I still think this is a tier 0 title. It's one of the very few movies that I've seen that can maintain the natural grain and film presentation, yet deliver the same depth and pop as titles like I Robot. Facial details are right up there as well.
> 
> 
> I think it ranks up there with I Robot, Live Free or Die Hard and the Pirate movies in tier 0.
> 
> 
> What is keeping this movie out of the top tier for the rest of you? Something I havent noticed?



About a year ago, I thought the same thing! But, after a revisit of one of my favorite movies, my opinion has changed!

*No Country For Old Men*



*2.35 : 1*



NCFOM is indeed a beautiful title!









After reading this post, I decided to pop it in for old times sake.

There is lots of depth and dimension, especially during the aftermath at the beginning!

















But, contrast is pumped up a bit and saturation is lowered slightly. Darker scenes suffer from severe black crush and minor compression issues at times. !


Artistically, it looks amazing! But nowhere near Tier 0 material in my opinion.


*No Country For Old Men

Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.75

PS3-Samsung 46" 1080p-seven'*


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16500763
> 
> *A Bug's Life*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I said it before about Bolt, but...IMO this truly is the best looking BD to date.
> 
> From what I posted in the thread for the BD itself:
> 
> 
> The colors have a lot to do with it, but A Bug's Life is breathtaking and the best looking BD to date. Depth, contrast, detail and on and on..... for a 10 year old movie, IMO it not only rivals any of the newer more recent animated releases on BD it surpasses them. Stunning is what it is. Audio is reference as well and really delivers some serious LFE, bass and incredible surround sounds.
> 
> 
> Any every BD owner should own this one. For those who haven't seen it the color pallete is off the charts.
> 
> 
> I had rented Valkyrie and bought A Bug's LIfe(*ABL*) last night. I was going to watch Valkyrie, but wanted to glance at *ABL*. There is no glancing at this title. 45 min later and another late night I had to turn it off, but really didn't want to.
> 
> 
> Eye candy, 3D pop, or what ever hyperbole one wants to use to describe ABL would be appropriate.
> 
> *Recommendation: Top of Tier 0.*
> 
> 
> Sony [email protected] 7-8ft from PS3 thru HDMI.
> 
> 
> djoberg, this is going to look AMAZING on your new Kuro!! Congrats again and what a time to get it.




I bought this today too (along with _The Machinist_ and _Enemy at the Gates_) and couldn't help but glance at it at lunch time. I'm like you, I couldn't stop watching. Only for fear of getting fired did I hit the stop button. It was funny too 'cause I mishit the stop button and so it continued. It took me another 5 or so minutes before actually stopping it.


I thought a saw slight banding in the very very first scene of daybreak. But yes, once the all the bugs, nature, etc come out...HOLY CANOLI!! Those colors did pop - so vibrant and alive! And the low-light details in the ants' den!


I will watch this in its entirety and then pop in _Kung Fu Panda_ and _Ratatouille_ just to compare. Either way, from what I've seen, I suspect this isn't going much lower than those.


----------



## deltasun

*Paul Blart: Mall Cop*


This one took some getting used to, being shot on video. First thing that jumps out is Blart's facial skin tone. It was on the orange-ish side and had the appearance of DNR application. After seeing a few extreme close-up's, I could see pores and single strands of misshaven facial hair.


Blacks were either on the weak side or crushed. There were only a few examples where it was decent. Similarly, the whites were not white...they looked pale, almost dirty white. Blart's white uniform was a perfect example. On the other hand, colors looked a bit more energetic.


Outside of the extreme facial close-up's mentioned above, faces weren't particularly impressive. However, clothing details and texture were superb. Focus was such that even the softer surroundings of medium indoor shots offered lots of details even out of focus. These were always pleasing elements of those scenes.


Overall, a clean looking movie with lots of 3D pop. But, almost unnatural 3D pop. Blart's skin tone really bothered me and was obviously in the vast majority of the scenes. I could see this title in lower Gold tier, but due to the aforementioned skin tone issue, I would vote...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8' & 6'_


----------



## goneten

Well I had more time to watch a couple of blu-ray titles and is it just me, or is the Matrix blu-ray very inconsistent in terms of sharpness/focus/detail ? The Matrix is probably my favorite title so I'm just a little disappointed with the inconsistency.


There were many scenes that were filled with detail, very sharp but then there were also many very soft scenes, even some closeup shots that were very soft, lacking detail.


Don't get me wrong, many closeup shots were very sharp showing all kinds of things, but many weren't. I watched the film on a Optoma HD65 on a 2m screen with my Panasonic BD35. I've also tried it on a Panasonic AE2000. There is one sequence that showed a closeup of Morpheus' face that looked incredibly soft and then a second later it showed a far more focused, detailed shot.


There are scenes littered throughout the film that just seems like slightly better than dvd quality to proper 'wow' HD quality. Has anyone else experienced this ?


Regards,


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *goneten* /forum/post/16501790
> 
> 
> Well I had more time to watch a couple of blu-ray titles and is it just me, or is the Matrix blu-ray very inconsistent in terms of sharpness/focus/detail ? The Matrix is probably my favorite title so I'm just a little disappointed with the inconsistency.
> 
> 
> There were many scenes that were filled with detail, very sharp but then there were also many very soft scenes, even some closeup shots that were very soft, lacking detail.
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong, many closeup shots were very sharp showing all kinds of things, but many weren't. I watched the film on a Optoma HD65 on a 2m screen with my Panasonic BD35. I've also tried it on a Panasonic AE2000. There is one sequence that showed a closeup of Morpheus' face that looked incredibly soft and then a second later it showed a far more focused, detailed shot.
> 
> 
> There are scenes littered throughout the film that just seems like slightly better than dvd quality to proper 'wow' HD quality. Has anyone else experienced this ?
> 
> 
> Regards,



I popped in the DVD after I watched the blu ray to do some comparisons on a few scenes. I did do a review of it in this thread somewhere, just of the first one, but i remember being unimpressed with the level of detail as yes that is similar to what is shown on the dvd. However there were other factors involved that makes the blu ray a ton better than the DVD; although I think they could have done a better job with it. I forget what I said in my review exactly but if you put the DVD in and watch it(or some scenes) on your current set up (whatever that may be, i havent had coffee yet today) right after watching the blu ray you would probably understand what I mean.


----------



## OldCodger73

The three words that best describe the PQ of _Big_ are soft, soft, soft. There was one close-up facial scene with very good sharpness, some scenes showed an average amount of detail, others looked like an upscaled DVD while some even looked like you were watching a LD. At first glance depth looked good on medium scenes, but on a closer look the image almost seemed to have been manipulated to make the actors stand out.


Color was good, appealing and pretty consistent.


I'd rate *Big Tier 4.0*.


Dialogue was easy to understand. There was a roller coaster scene that made excellent use of the LFE channel.

_Big_ is one of my favorite "thin" Tom Hanks movies. I presently don't own it and while the PQ leaves a lot to desire, I'll probably end up buying it if it ever hits the $9.99 price point.


The disc included the theatrical version plus an extend cut, which was what I watched. Maltin lists _Big_ as being 102 minutes, the Netflix envelope showed 109 and the extended cut ran 130 with credits. I'm not sure what was added, although the credits list some additional characters in the tuxedo shop scene and in Perkin's secretary's bridal shower. The extra length didn't distract from the movie.


----------



## goneten




> Quote:
> However there were other factors involved that makes the blu ray a ton better than the DVD; although I think they could have done a better job with it. I forget what I said in my review exactly but if you put the DVD in and watch it(or some scenes) on your current set up (whatever that may be, i havent had coffee yet today) right after watching the blu ray you would probably understand what I mean.



Yeah, I just wasn't sure if it was me or if the disk I bought was perhaps not a legitimate copy. Because certain scenes look wayyy to soft and then in the next few seconds look extremely sharp and detailed.


I wish I could tell you which scenes in particular and give you a time stamp but my memory is extremely bad.


Regards,


----------



## OldCodger73

Both deltasun in post #12357 and selimsivad in #12346 have given excellent in depth reviews of the movie so basically this is just some quick capsule thoughts.

_The Reader_ has some of the most detailed facial close-up shots that I've seen, definitely Tier 0. Details in the rest of the movie are solid Tier 1. Depth was also a solid Tier 1. To me much of the movie had a stylized colorization, with only the contemporary scenes at the end showing a full color palate. This fit the mood of the movie perfectly although affects the tier rating to a certain extent.


I'd rate *The Reader Tier 1.25*.


This was a blind buy for me. The movie had excellent word of mouth recommendations and our local Fred Meyers had a B2G1 so it was a no-brainer. I was totally mesmerized by the film and can't wait to watch it again.


As an aside, I'm surprised Kate Winslet and Davis Kross didn't catch pneumonia during filming.


----------



## HDphile22

What Tier is Underworld Rise Of The Lycans?


Valkerie?


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/16505029
> 
> 
> This was a blind buy for me. The movie had excellent word of mouth recommendations and our local Fred Meyers had a B2G1 so it was a no-brainer. I was totally mesmerized by the film and can't wait to watch it again.
> 
> 
> As an aside, I'm surprised Kate Winslet and Davis Kross didn't catch pneumonia during filming.



Ah, miss having a Fred Meyers around. Used to live in Anchorage and this was the go-to store. Still looking for a good price locally, but the cheapest I've seen it is J&R at $15.99 + shipping. I'm patient.


I'm sure it was hot enough on the set to catch pneumonia


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDphile22* /forum/post/16505973
> 
> 
> What Tier is Underworld Rise Of The Lycans?
> 
> 
> Valkerie?



No consensus yet, but it's looking like low tier 1 for _Valkyrie_ and low tier-2 for the new _Underworld_.


----------



## djoberg

*A Bug's Life*

*WOW!!!*


The credits are rolling and that's all I can say after watching, BY FAR, the most colorful and detailed animated Blu-ray title of all! I won't add to the list of superlatives our friend Hugh gave to us yesterday, but let me just say I wholeheartedly agree with every word he said.


You will simply be amazed by the brilliant colors....GREENS never looked so good......REDS never looked so vivid.....BLUES never looked so gorgeous, etc., etc.


The blacks, though limited for the most part to a few night scenes, are deep and inky, with incredible shadow detail to boot.


Sharpness and detail are OFF THE CHARTS! Add to this a sense of depth and you have a title that demands a place at the top of Tier 0.


I suspect others will be chiming in with words of similar praise and that a consensus will soon be formed awarding A Bug's Life the #1 spot in Tier Blu.


Needless to say....

*Tier Recommendation: Top of Tier 0*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'


PS Hugh mentioned how good this might look on a KURO. Besides the vivid colors that characterize a KURO, the blacks are so black that I did NOT notice the black bars whatsoever. This adds to the PQ because there is nothing to distract from the picture (it truly looked like I had a 2.35:1 screen before me). I know it's not just plasma makers that are excelling in this area, for LCDs have come a long way in producing true blacks as well and this one feature alone is resulting in a very rewarding viewing experience.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16501495
> 
> 
> I bought this today too (along with _The Machinist_ and _Enemy at the Gates_) and couldn't help but glance at it at lunch time. I'm like you, I couldn't stop watching. Only for fear of getting fired did I hit the stop button. It was funny too 'cause I mishit the stop button and so it continued. It took me another 5 or so minutes before actually stopping it.
> 
> 
> I thought a saw slight banding in the very very first scene of daybreak. But yes, once the all the bugs, nature, etc come out...HOLY CANOLI!! Those colors did pop - so vibrant and alive! And the low-light details in the ants' den!
> 
> 
> I will watch this in its entirety and then pop in _Kung Fu Panda_ and _Ratatouille_ just to compare. Either way, from what I've seen, I suspect this isn't going much lower than those.




I look forward to your take.







I have a feeling you might be on board with top of tier 0 after your comments, but also due to djoberg's review....


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16507504
> 
> *A Bug's Life*
> 
> *WOW!!!*
> 
> 
> The credits are rolling and that's all I can say after watching, BY FAR, the most colorful and detailed animated Blu-ray title of all! I won't add to the list of superlatives our friend Hugh gave to us yesterday, but let me just say I wholeheartedly agree with every word he said.
> 
> 
> You will simply be amazed by the brilliant colors....GREENS never looked so good......REDS never looked so vivid.....BLUES never looked so gorgeous, etc., etc.
> 
> 
> The blacks, though limited for the most part to a few night scenes, are deep and inky, with incredible shadow detail to boot.
> 
> 
> Sharpness and detail are OFF THE CHARTS! Add to this a sense of depth and you have a title that demands a place at the top of Tier 0.
> 
> 
> I suspect others will be chiming in with words of similar praise and that a consensus will soon be formed awarding A Bug's Life the #1 spot in Tier Blu.
> 
> 
> Needless to say....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Top of Tier 0*
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" KURO Elite....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'
> 
> 
> PS Hugh mentioned how good this might look on a KURO. Besides the vivid colors that characterize a KURO, the blacks are so black that I did NOT notice the black bars whatsoever. This adds to the PQ because there is nothing to distract from the picture (it truly looked like I had a 2.35:1 screen before me). I know it's not just plasma makers that are excelling in this area, for LCDs have come a long way in producing true blacks as well and this one feature alone is resulting in a very rewarding viewing experience.



How is that Kuro looking now?







Bet it never looked so good as with this title. Aren't the colors and the variation of colors amazing? Seriously I seen colors I never have on my set. The primaries like you said are incredible...purples, greens....and the pastels and on and on... And the depth







I watched the rest last night and thoroughly enjoyed it even more so that I haven't seen it since my kids were little like 10 years ago. Tomorrow is my twin girls last day of high school...


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Star Trek: The Motion Picture


recommendation: Tier 3.5
*

I suspect opinions of this Blu-ray will be all over the map in regard to its picture quality. Released as part of a collection of the first six Star Trek films by Paramount on May 12, the 132-minute theatrical cut of this movie is presented here in AVC on a BD-50. The encoding parameters are very robust and the average video bitrate is around 33 Mbps.


The compression work is nearly impeccable, even when the more difficult scenes appear. There are no significant compression artifacts such as banding or macroblocking, though a second or two of faint chroma noise pops up. The tiniest glimmer of edge enhancement appears on occasion, but it is never notable or really distracting to anyone but the most dedicated of observers.


Sadly the transfer has been processed with a large amount of digital noise reduction tools. Whatever grain was once visible on the original film has been systematically removed, unfortunately stripping away most of the high-frequency information. Faces have an unnatural plastic appearance as a result. There are also a few quick glimpses of frozen grain-fields in several background shots leftover as another consequence. Paramount has clearly not handled the use of digital noise reduction in this transfer nearly as well as Lowry used it on the Bond masters. It appears no delicacy was used in its application.


For a film from 1979, print damage is relatively minor. The interior shots on the U.S.S. Enterprise bridge look immaculate with no age-related deterioration. The optical mattes used for the special effects show much more extensive flaws and anomalies though, which one would expect given the size of the budget and limits of the original production. Most of the special effect scenes can be characterized as extremely soft and lacking detail. In my opinion, many of the effects are quite dated and look antiquated, even compared to other films from the same era. A scene which typifies this is where V'Ger probes the bridge for the first time and the picture quality barely qualifies for tier four. Most of these sequences are firmly rooted in tier four in my consideration and stick out in my mind.


The rest of the film that does not involve special effects looks significantly better. The picture gets sharper and has decent clarity. Without the fine-detail removed, these portions could easily rank a score in tier two somewhere. Contrast and flesh tones do seem to waver a bit over the course of the movie. At times skin-color looks a little too pink and at other times too pale. Black levels are okay but not impressive. Shadow detail and consistency appeared below average most of the time. Some have questioned the levels of color saturation, but I really have no frame of reference on this matter as my only other viewing of this movie was a cable broadcast from years ago.


Overall this is an inconsistent picture with a questionable transfer. It is watchable, but I think personal opinion will greatly vary over this particular Blu-ray's quality. While the original film elements probably have limitations preventing this movie from ever being ranked anywhere in tier one, the overuse of digital noise reduction has further handicapped what this movie should look like on Blu-ray. My recommendation is for placement in tier 3.5, though a notch lower would not be a stretch for me.


Watching on a 60 Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 (firmware 2.76) at a viewing distance of six feet.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16507770
> 
> 
> How is that Kuro looking now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bet it never looked so good as with this title. Aren't the colors and the variation of colors amazing? Seriously I seen colors I never have on my set. The primaries like you said are incredible...purples, greens....and the pastels and on and on... And the depth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I watched the rest last night and thoroughly enjoyed it even more so that I haven't seen it since my kids were little like 10 years ago. Tomorrow is my twin girls last day of high school...



First of all Hugh, A Bug's Life is only the 2nd Blu-ray I've seen on my KURO, so I only have Valkyrie to compare it to. Valkyrie was practically void of colors, so ABL was quite the visual treat color-wise! I will have to slip in Kung Fu Panda or Cars for comparison, but I don't recall being as amazed with the colors on those two titles (though they both qualify easily as EYE CANDY).


Yes, there were colors I had never seen before too and I thought, as the movie progressed, I would get somewhat tired of so much color (like I did in Speed Racer). But instead I continued to be WOWED by them. It helped immensely that Pixar was able to really "mix them up" so you weren't always looking at the same colors.


BTW, congrats on your twin girls making it through high school! The last of our five daughters graduated several years ago and it was quite the milestone for each one of them.


----------



## b_scott

*Last Chance Harvey*


Decent movie, Dustin Hoffman and Emma Thompson are charming. I'd say a rental rather than a purchase. Detail was pretty good, not a lot of dark scenes. Colors were muted for the most part, not much eye candy to speak of. Still a solid transfer though, not much noise but grain in tact. Sharp faces on close-ups but not razor-sharp.

*Tier Recommendation 2.25*


Pioneer 5010FD (50"), 1080p, 8'


----------



## quikgamer

Beowulf should definitely be Tier 0, the video transfer is pristine, sharp and flawless throughout the whole movie.


----------



## JayPSU

Well, A Bug's Life arrived today from Netflix and my flu-ridden wife and I just watched it. I can honestly say that this was the best looking blu-ray I have EVER seen. It was complete and total eye candy from the beginning to the end. I honestly saw NO flaws at any point in this movie. Even Miss Sickie (the wife) noticed how great it looked! Honestly guys, this was the best looking disc I've ever seen. I am therefore recommending that this movie be placed at the very top of tier 0.


Samsung LN-T4065f 1080p

Samsung BD-1400

Viewing distance: 6 feet


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JayPSU* /forum/post/16513269
> 
> 
> Well, A Bug's Life arrived today from Netflix and my flu-ridden wife and I just watched it. I can honestly say that this was the best looking blu-ray I have EVER seen. It was complete and total eye candy from the beginning to the end. I honestly saw NO flaws at any point in this movie. Even Miss Sickie (the wife) noticed how great it looked! Honestly guys, this was the best looking disc I've ever seen. I am therefore recommending that this movie be placed at the very top of tier 0.
> 
> 
> Samsung LN-T4065f 1080p
> 
> Samsung BD-1400
> 
> Viewing distance: 6 feet



Welcome







and glad to hear you enjoyed it and felt the same about PQ. It really is beautiful.


----------



## deltasun

*My Bloody Valentine (2D)*


Delaying watching my copy of _A Bug's Life_ just so I can return this and get my next Netflix movie.


Another video presentation which showed signs of digital noise in a number of scenes. The subdued color presentation represented the subject matter, but definitely hurt the PQ. Panoramic scenes did not show the expected depth. Green foliage was dull.


Black levels were very disappointing. Besides a select few decent blacks, the majority looked more like charcoal grey. Low-light levels, on the other hand, fared better. There were actually abundant examples illustrating great detail and depth within the confines of low-lit situations - the grocery scene with the two leading girls is a good example. Contrast levels, I felt, were on the murky side. It did not help delineate objects within the already drab color palette.


Skin tones were spot on for the most part. Facial details can be low tier 0 at times and inexplicably soft the next. Medium scenes varied as well, but I would say it was mostly well above average. 3D pop was abundantl, but I'm sure this has to do with how it was filmed for its 3D presentation.


Overall, the abundance of sub-par black levels, hazy contrast, and drab color elements keep this out of the Gold tier for me. In 2D, some of the 3D effects seemed very unnatural.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


This has the same recipe as your typical slasher flick. If it's your cup of tea, I think it's a worthy addition. I gotta comment about the extremely aggressive 7.1 DTS-HD MA soundtrack. There is one scene accompanied by this enveloping, whooshing, LFE-rich sound that immersed my living room and shook the floor. This has got to be damn near reference in the Audio Thread.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8' & 6'_


----------



## deltasun

*A Bug's Life*


"So, being a ladybug automatically makes me a girl?"


The first thing to notice is the opening scene of the tree and the surrounding lush, green grass and shrubbery. This scene alone invoked 3D depth without the aid of those silly plastic glasses. Colors popped everywhere at once and you can't help but try to take it all in, up and down, corner to corner.


One of the more impressive "camera" techniques, I believe, was the use of focus. There were a handful of scenes where the interplay of focus/defocus from near to far of medium-shot elements in a scene made for a pleasing experience. The opening scene of the ants climing the wheat stalks, was a fine example.


Low-light scenes were also some of the most impressive. Depth and dimension were maintained, specially in the ants' colony, as well as other interior locales. Details were sharp and provided plenty of texture.


I did some due diligence and popped in _Kung Fu Panda_ and _Ratatoille_ for comparison. KFP offered some stiff competition in terms of detail. I believe ABL was much better in medium-shot details and about on par with all other characteristics. _Ratatouille_...forget about it!










Overall, I agree that we have a new PQ champion. I'll join the growing bandwagon and vote...

*Tier Recommendation: Top of Tier 0*


AQ was off the charts! I can't get enough of the ground shaking effect of the early warning horns.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## deltasun

*Eden Log*


Not much to talk about here. The film presented in a monochromatic fashion, devoid of all colors but a gritty bluish hue. We do come across a red or two towards the end of the movie.


Moderate grain present, specially in dark scenes (which is the majority of the film). Lighting is such that darker scenes do not exhibit any depth or good details. Black levels are usually crushed or grayish in nature. Most scenes are just a heaping mess of shoddy dark scenes with hints of lab equipment and/or cavernous elements. Contrast did not help either.


About the only positive characteristic was the facial details of the main character. Close-up's of him were usually decent, when there was favorable lighting. The other inhabitants did not exhibit such fine rendering. Skin tones suffered from the monochromatic look as well.


Overall, it would be redundant to even mention it once that this film is not eye candy.

*Tier Recommendation: 4.5*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

All these incredibly high placements for A Bug's Life has me wanting to purchase it now. I was not intending to get it but the disc sounds like a real winner. Amazing that an older Pixar movie might vault to the top of the tier list.


----------



## deltasun

^^ I don't think you'll be disappointed, Phantom.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Yeah you guys have me wanting to see if i can find a copy whilst I am out of town. I have it on dvd from waaaay back when, which suffices for the daughter but dayum, guys, the reviews are really making me want to double dip on that title.


----------



## sleater

Just watched my purchased copy of *A Bug's Life*. Another title I would never have considered purchasing if it weren't for this thread. I agree with the comments and reviews thus far that this one belongs at the *top of Tier 0*. The entire movie for me was inside Tier 0 with next to no Tier 1 shots/sequences to be seen... Many of the shots were just stunning in terms of colour and crispness. A couple of the voice actors' work didn't leave me completely impressed, but that's what happens IMO when you seek out hollywood actors to do animation work... but it wasn't horrible.


Did anyone catch the preview stating that _Monsters, Inc._ was out on bluray? If this is true then I wouldn't be surprised if it gives A Bug's Life a run for its money. I guess we'll see soon enough.


As an aside, I was happy that no humans were rendered in this film. They took down WALL-E for me.


This is just another opinion post not a true review, I was going to write one this time (really) but I didn't feel I had anything new to add.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sleater* /forum/post/16517706
> 
> 
> Did anyone catch the preview stating that _Monsters, Inc._ was out on bluray? If this is true then I wouldn't be surprised if it gives A Bug's Life a run for its money. I guess we'll see soon enough.



I did catch the preview and thought _gulp!_ it looked a bit off. It did not have the same level of detail as ABL, from what I saw.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/16517280
> 
> 
> All these incredibly high placements for A Bug's Life has me wanting to purchase it now. I was not intending to get it but the disc sounds like a real winner. Amazing that an older Pixar movie might vault to the top of the tier list.



Be prepared to be amazed!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16517695
> 
> 
> Yeah you guys have me wanting to see if i can find a copy whilst I am out of town. I have it on dvd from waaaay back when, which suffices for the daughter but dayum, guys, *the reviews are really making me want to double dip on that title.*



I double dipped and obviously I have no regrets. I'll pass on my DVD copy to someone who could care less about HD bliss....poor soul!


----------



## 42041

Sounds like I need to check it out. I don't have kids, so is it still worth watching? I really enjoyed Wall-E, but this looks more like a straightforward kid's movie...


----------



## phisch




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/16517887
> 
> 
> Sounds like I need to check it out. I don't have kids, so is it still worth watching? I really enjoyed Wall-E, but this looks more like a straightforward kid's movie...



It would say it is at about the same age level as Wall-E, i.e. there is some enjoyment value for adults as well.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Glad to hear all the great reviews for A Bug's Life, as it is a quality movie to boot.


----------



## giantchicken

I would place Bug's Life at the more kid-oriented end of the Pixar spectrum. I liked Wall-E, Ratatouille and The Incredibles more than my kids, and they had more adult themes and subtext. Bug's Life and Cars are two that my kids love, but I won't rewatch all that often. I think that Toy Story 2 and Finding Nemo are two of the most balanced when it comes to kid/adult appeal. Anyone coming in blindly to Bug's Life and expecting Wall-E levels of sophistication will likely be disappointed.


That being said, I agree with the positive comments here about the picture quality--it looks great. So many of the 3-D "pop" moments that we hope for on Blu-ray but don't always get.


If my least favorite Pixar film looks this good, then I can't wait for the rest...


----------



## deltasun

Just finished the first disc (2 episodes) of HBO's _True Blood_ Season 1. I'm at the mercy of Netflix for the rest, but just in case someone's interested in the PQ, I would give it between 1.5 and 1.75 so far. Strengths are some superb low Tier 0 close-up's. At the same time, its downfall comprise of really soft close-up's as well. It's really puzzling how it can swing from one extreme to the other, sometimes in the same scene. Still, much more of the former than the latter.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

my dvd copy of a bugs life is from before I had children, but then again I've always enjoyed disney-esque cartoons so your mileage may vary.


----------



## Toeside




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16518690
> 
> 
> my dvd copy of a bugs life is from before I had children, but then again I've always enjoyed disney-esque cartoons so your mileage may vary.



+1


Toy Story and A Bug's Life were pre-kids for us, too. I've always liked Disney animation as well--Lion King, Aladdin, etc.


I've already double-dipped on A Bug's Life--first DVD release, then an anamorphic re-release. I think I'll get this one on Netflix for now, I'd hate to buy it a 3rd time (out of principle).




True Blood:

We have finished disc 2 (episodes 1-4) and I think it looks great. I'm watching it for the content, not critiquing it--but I do wonder why they only put 2 episodes per disc. DVD Beaver shoes Disc 1 is only 28GB. I've I'm reading that page right, they should have easily been able to fit 3 episodes per disc.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/16517887
> 
> 
> Sounds like I need to check it out. I don't have kids, so *is it still worth watching*? I really enjoyed Wall-E, but this looks more like a straightforward kid's movie...



From a PQ perspective, this is a MUST SEE, whether you enjoy the movie or not. I didn't particularly enjoy Speed Racer, but it sure gave my eyes a sugar rush! A Bug's Life is MUCH BETTER, PQ-wise, than Speed Racer.


Having said that, I also enjoyed the movie, and I suspect most people will. Most people still have a "little kid" inside of them, no matter how old they are.


----------



## Beta Tester

As much as I tried to appreciate animation movies, I cannot. I have seen Wall-E, Bug's Life, Cars, Incredibles amongst others, and they are boring! Even Shrek, which is suppose to have entertainment value for adults, was boring. Are there really adults past their early-thirties that actually enjoy these, or are they just saying it so they don't appear as bad parents?


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Beta Tester* /forum/post/16520640
> 
> 
> As much as I tried to appreciate animation movies, I cannot. I have seen Wall-E, Bug's Life, Cars, Incredibles amongst others, and they are boring! Even Shrek, which is suppose to have entertainment value for adults, was boring. Are there really adults past their early-thirties that actually enjoy these, or are they just saying it so they don't appear as bad parents?




"Projection" is not only done by a device for movies....

















I kid, but seriously...I have three children. Twins 18 and a son 14 who still love these movies. I am divorced and live alone. My kids have yet to see Bolt on BD. I bought it for myself knowing by default they would see it. I bought A Bug's Life for myself as well and in fact buy no BD's for my kids as they really don't care, but they get to enjoy the rewards of me buying and or renting. I love ALL movies if they are good and while some may say ABL is more of a kids movie, I think it is like most other Pixar films which have a lot of adult content and themes most young kinds wouldn't even know about or understand. Not watching a kids movie or movie with your kids certainly doesn't make one a bad parent and watching them with your kids doesn't make one a better parent. It could simply mean one likes movies as I do. I also have Ratatouille and Ice Age 2 which I bought for my own AV pleasure.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Beta Tester* /forum/post/16520640
> 
> 
> As much as I tried to appreciate animation movies, I cannot. I have seen Wall-E, Bug's Life, Cars, Incredibles amongst others, and they are boring! Even Shrek, which is suppose to have entertainment value for adults, was boring. Are there really adults past their early-thirties that actually enjoy these, or are they just saying it so they don't appear as bad parents?



You must be one of the few adults who doesn't have a "little kid" inside!










Seriously though, do you not see ANY entertainment value in animated films? I happened to watch A Bug's Life by myself (without any "kids" in close proximity) and I caught myself laughing quite a few times. And I can say this of most animated movies, including the ones you mentioned. And some of them actually have a moral to teach as well.


----------



## K-Spaz

Beta


I put A Bug's Life in my nf queue due to the reviews here. Unless it's something less than I expect, I'll most likely enjoy it.


I didn't like Wall-E. It was too boring to me. There were parts of it that were ok and it's not one of those where I regret those 2 hours of my life, but it wasn't my cup of tea.


The Incredibles, I throuroughly enjoyed. Same with Surfs Up, and Ratattouille, Shrek... And I'm not in the 30 or less crowd... (not even close I'm sorry to say!).


I took Bolt, and Quantum Of Solace (nf rentals) to a friends house last night. Due to a women only, out of town shopping trip, we had enough parole time for two movies. He had some other crappy rental called Step Brothers which he was wrongly told was funny... omg it's terrible. Honestly, I was sorta disappointed that he only has one BR player and made the kids watch movies upstairs on the plazma cause I wanted to see Bolt (besides that the kids also wanted to see it).


I could have easily watched Bolt and QoS back to back. I think some of the animated titles have great stories along with being great to look at. I'm looking forward to seeing it tonight.


If you don't like the animated films, hey, to each their own. That's why they make all sorts of movies. Over time you may even change your mind. Years ago, I never watched any animated films either but it's hard for me to deny that some of them are really well made.


At least you've tried them and then say you'd prefer not to see em. Not like when people who don't watch em say they don't like em.


----------



## Spoonsey

*In Bruges*

*"Holed up in Bruges, Belgium after a difficult job, two hit men begin to differ on their views of life and death as they become used to local customs."*


Overall a fairly solid release however was quite soft and lacking in fine detail, particularly some of the facial close-ups. Skin-tones appeared accurate. Black levels seemed OK - about 50% of scenes in this movie are during night. Moderate grain present throughout.


Thoroughly enjoyed the movie itself. Thought Brendan Gleeson and Colin Farrell did an excellent job. It's a slightly quirky film and a little on the dark side, but ultimately entertaining.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75*


Panasonic TH-42PV700AZ (720p), Panasonic BMP-BD35 blu-ray, viewing distance 8'.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Spoonsey* /forum/post/16521539
> 
> *In Bruges*
> 
> *"Holed up in Bruges, Belgium after a difficult job, two hit men begin to differ on their views of life and death as they become used to local customs."*
> 
> 
> Overall a fairly solid release however was quite soft and lacking in fine detail, particularly some of the facial close-ups. Skin-tones appeared accurate. Black levels seemed OK - about 50% of scenes in this movie are during night. Moderate grain present throughout.
> 
> 
> Thoroughly enjoyed the movie itself. Thought Brendan Gleeson and Colin Farrell did an excellent job. It's a slightly quirky film and a little on the dark side, but ultimately entertaining.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.75*
> 
> 
> Panasonic TH-42PV700AZ (720p), Panasonic BMP-BD35 blu-ray, viewing distance 8'.



Thanks for the good review! Keep them coming.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Beta Tester* /forum/post/16520640
> 
> 
> As much as I tried to appreciate animation movies, I cannot. I have seen Wall-E, Bug's Life, Cars, Incredibles amongst others, and they are boring! Even Shrek, which is suppose to have entertainment value for adults, was boring. Are there really adults past their early-thirties that actually enjoy these, or are they just saying it so they don't appear as bad parents?



I'm still in my early 30's so I can't answer that.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/16521040
> 
> 
> If you don't like the animated films, hey, to each their own. That's why they make all sorts of movies. Over time you may even change your mind. Years ago, I never watched any animated films either but it's hard for me to deny that some of them are really well made.
> 
> 
> At least you've tried them and then say you'd prefer not to see em. Not like when people who don't watch em say they don't like em.




+1


----------



## Spoonsey




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16520809
> 
> 
> You must be one of the few adults who doesn't have a "little kid" inside!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously though, do you not see ANY entertainment value in animated films? I happened to watch A Bug's Life by myself (without any "kids" in close proximity) and I caught myself laughing quite a few times. And I can say this of most animated movies, including the ones you mentioned. And some of them actually have a moral to teach as well.



Unfortunately my other half just can't stand anything animated and will refuse to view any of the Pixar/Dreamworks films despite my constant whining that there's some good "adult" laughs to be had (or the old chestnut: "it's on Blu Ray though honey, check out how GREAT the picture quality is!"). Thank goodness for my 6 year old...he's my excuse for enjoying KFP, Wall-E, Ratatouille, Cars, Madagascar, Clone Wars, et al on a regular basis.


I'm 36.


----------



## deltasun

*For Your Eyes Only*


One word for this one: SOFT. As with previous Bonds, grain has been significantly reduced but not in the usual way that infects facial features. As mentioned above, softness did abound. It was especially bothersome in most medium shots. There was probably only a handful of facial close-up's that looked very good.


Skin tones were true for the most part, save for Kristatos. He seemed to always be on the hot side. Black levels were fairly decent, but contrast varied enough to hurt some of the darker scenes. Sometimes, a thin haze would permeate through scenes and really hurt PQ.


Incredible panoramic shots present in previous Bond movies did not materialize in _For Your Eyes Only_. For me, it was just the opposite - most wide shots, save for shots of the cliff-side rock bunker, appeared flat. Colors did not pop or show much life.


Overall, _For Your Eyes Only_ did not quite deliver. It was still a decent restoration, just not on par with the other Bonds so far.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8' & 6'_


----------



## patrick99

Watched *Paycheck* yesterday. Many of the closeups, especially of Affleck and Thurman, were among the very best I have seen. Unfortunately, other shots generally were not nearly as good. Not really soft, necessarily, but somewhat "processed" looking. Despite the truly outstanding closeups, the movie is a whole is probably about Tier 2.5.


----------



## deltasun

*The Machinist*


"If you were any thinner you wouldn't exist"


Fine grain present throughout, with some heavier instances in the green-tinged scenes. _The Machinist_ was intentionally shot with a monochromatic palette to reflect Trevor Reznik's world. Despite the muted colors, green foliage looked vivid, as well as the red Pontiac Firebird. Shadow details were typically good, with just a few instances of crushed blacks. In a few scenes, shadowing on the characters' faces were also uneven (intentional, in my opinion). Contrast had a slight edginess to it but not enough to harm PQ.


Speaking of edginess, I noticed a few instances of mild EE on high contrast edges. Certain scenes also exhibited a bit of a sharpened look, which induced some unnatural 3D pop. Facial details were mostly excellent (pores, hair, imperfections) with just a few soft shots. Soft shots usually resulted from abrupt/aggressive movements of the main characters moving in and out of the plain of focus. Medium shots were excellent as well. The few outdoor scenes offered excellent depth and dimensionality, particulary Miller's block. Skin tones started out on the pale side and gradually moved closer towards normal as the film progressed, complementary to the storyline.


Personally, I thought the picture looked clean and showed great detail and dimension. The limited color palette did not hurt the PQ, IMO, but rather pushed this bleak, desolate world into a worthy Tier 1 contender. I should also mention quite a bit of print dirt made it to the transfer, but did not detract too much from the viewing experience. I will be generous and propose...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Beta Tester* /forum/post/16520640
> 
> 
> As much as I tried to appreciate animation movies, I cannot. I have seen Wall-E, Bug's Life, Cars, Incredibles amongst others, and they are boring! Even Shrek, which is suppose to have entertainment value for adults, was boring. Are there really adults past their early-thirties that actually enjoy these, or are they just saying it so they don't appear as bad parents?



Something is terribly wrong if you find all those movies "boring".


----------



## Legairre




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Beta Tester* /forum/post/16520640
> 
> 
> As much as I tried to appreciate animation movies, I cannot. I have seen Wall-E, Bug's Life, Cars, Incredibles amongst others, and they are boring! Even Shrek, which is suppose to have entertainment value for adults, was boring. Are there really adults past their early-thirties that actually enjoy these, or are they just saying it so they don't appear as bad parents?



I'm past my early thirties and enjoy them. OK Wall-E was boring as all heck even my 4 yr old couldn't take it, but the rest of them are very enjoyable films.


Sounds to me like animation isn't your thing, kind of like sci-fi isn't for everyone.


----------



## b_scott

i liked Wall-E. I thought it was a touching story.


----------



## Columbo345

A Bug's Life is based on Seven Samurai in a way (as are a ton of other movies) I would say Cars and Bug's Life might be Pixar's weaker entries, but they are still much better than attempts from other studios.


----------



## b_scott

I vote to move *Chuck: Season One* to 3.50

Presentation is awful. Grainy, mosquito noise, not really sharp at all. One of the worst BD's I've seen, and I wouldn't know it was a BD if I didn't rent it myself. There are a few redeeming spots here and there, but they only highlight the problems. Bad, bad recording (apparently it broadcast awful as well, must be a source issue).


Kuro 50", 1080p, 8' back. PS3


----------



## docmal




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *KeithTalent* /forum/post/16121753
> 
> 
> I watched this last night and completely agree. It was visually and auditorily stunning!
> 
> 
> Hopefully one of the more seasoned reviewers will watch this soon; I would love to read a more detailed opinion from someone here.
> 
> 
> KT



I have watched this several times now and I have to disagree, although I think it is good it is absolutely not reference quality. There is significant color banding in certain dark scenes. Specifically, the scene where they place the young Japanese boy out in the wasteland to be taken by the Jags. I found this odd because there are many dark scenes that do not suffer from the banding. I am watching on a 9g Kuro Reference Panel so I doubt it is my display







.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/16533309
> 
> I vote to move *Chuck: Season One* to 3.50
> 
> Presentation is awful. Grainy, mosquito noise, not really sharp at all. One of the worst BD's I've seen, and I wouldn't know it was a BD if I didn't rent it myself. There are a few redeeming spots here and there, but they only highlight the problems. Bad, bad recording (apparently it broadcast awful as well, must be a source issue).



Your description sounds much closer in tone to a placement somewhere in tier four. I have not seen Chuck on Blu-ray yet, but I know the first season was shot on 16mm film, and I have yet to see a Blu-ray sourced from 16mm that deserves anything more than a high tier four placement.


----------



## b_scott

yeah, I didn't want to be too harsh, but I wouldn't argue with 4.0


----------



## OldCodger73

Basically an average BD. Most close ups showed tier 2 detail, the rest of the movie was tier 3. Contrast was so-so. Colors were often muted and lacked crispness.


All in all, I felt *Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves* was *Tier 3.25*.


This movie was made in 1991 when Kevin Costner was still a hot property. While the movie is portentous and Costner has some of the clunkiest lines imaginable, it's still fun, redeemed by a solid performance by Morgan Freeman and a totally over the top one by Alan Rickman. My LD copy of this runs 144 minutes, the BD is 155 minutes.


It was a enjoyable rental.


----------



## deltasun

*Powder Blue*


PQ was all over the place. Scenes were bathed in green tint, blue tint, sepia tint, red tint, you name it. Some scenes were oversaturated, others had contrast pushed. Fine grain was present throughout, a bit more moderate on stylized scenes. In particular, there was a washed-out scene of Liotta towards the end which featured extreme grain to emphasize "where" he was. I also found some thin ringing on high contrast edges - again, this looked director intended for those scene.


Facial close-up's were generally detailed. Liotta, Kristofferson, and Whitaker showed really well-rendered details and texture. Black levels were good in certain scenes, but filled with crushed blacks in others. It was the same with low-light situations - good depth one scene, flat the next.


Colors were mostly subdued, depending on the scene or which tint was used. In the few scenes with "natural" coloring, however, the primaries were vibrant - Diana's red raincoat, for example. Skin tones were scene dependent as well, but were faithful for the most part.


Overall, the PQ varied from solid tier 1 all the way through high tier 3. The scene of Rose and Qwerty at the 1hr 37min mark was some of the best this title had to offer. I guess, by the law of averages...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.5*


The interwoven storyline was just as disjointed as the PQ. I think the audience was supposed to relate to and/or feel for the characters. That just didn't happen for me. Jessica Biel did look good in her "debut."









_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## djoberg

^


Thanks for ALL the reviews you have given us lately deltasun. You have been very instrumental in keeping this thread alive.


I've had a very busy schedule with no relief in sight until late next week. Then I plan to rent several Blu-rays and I'll be chiming in with reviews at that time.


----------



## JohnES1

I finally got a movie from Netflix without a cracked edge(I'm at 21 out of the last 28 BDs with cracked edges-if anyone else gets their BDs from the San Bernardino, CA shipping facility please private message me.) Not Easily Broken isn't listed here yet, but AVS's Ralph Potts gave it a 90 for video so I gave it a try. It's watchable without total disgust, but it's not 2nd Tier, probably not even 3rd Tier. Actually a decent drama(religious faith based aside,) someone care to give it a go and provide a formal review?


----------



## spectator

The first not-cracked disc you've received in a long time is "Not Easily Broken"?


----------



## JohnES1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/16541450
> 
> 
> The first not-cracked disc you've received in a long time is "Not Easily Broken"?



Thanks for the sympathy, those titles I really want to see aren't getting through the USPS processing machines without edge cracks(and I've given up trying to play them.) 42 perfect BD ships before the problem started 4/24/'09.


Here's my Netflix history(with the damaged discs identified) in case anyone's interested...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3392/...6c3c3873_b.jpg 
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3377/...ce1956f5_b.jpg 
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3595/...29110fd5_b.jpg 


Sorry for the O.T.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JohnES1* /forum/post/16541600
> 
> 
> Thanks for the sympathy, those titles I really want to see aren't getting through the USPS processing machines without edge cracks(and I've given up trying to play them.)



It wasn't a judgmental comment about the movie; I just found the title humorously anti-ironic.


----------



## JohnES1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/16541670
> 
> 
> It wasn't a judgmental comment about the movie; I just found the title humorously anti-ironic.



Shows how sick I am of the whole thing, I didn't get it 'till you pointed it out. Good one!







I'm doing my official ***** and moan at the Netflix BD thread http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...969946&page=93 


Btw, Not Easily Broken has one of the best mother-in-law from hell portrayals of all time.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16540434
> 
> 
> ^
> 
> 
> Thanks for ALL the reviews you have given us lately deltasun. You have been very instrumental in keeping this thread alive.
> 
> 
> I've had a very busy schedule with no relief in sight until late next week. Then I plan to rent several Blu-rays and I'll be chiming in with reviews at that time.



Np, I'm sure you slackers will catch up soon enough and set my reviews straight.







Otherwise, we can always get Spec or Pat to do that.










I'll actually be out of town starting tomorrow through the weekend, but I'll check in here once in a while to see what's going on. Still have Valkyrie, True Romance, and Children of Men to sift through.


----------



## tcramer

If I had more time I would love to post reviews, but alas I do not.


I did get a chance to watch Valkyrie the other night and I would agree with the reviews a couple pages back. A rating of 1.25 sounds just right.


PS3 and Kuro 5020fd - 7.5'


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tcramer* /forum/post/16543404
> 
> 
> If I had more time I would love to post reviews, but alas I do not.
> 
> 
> I did get a chance to watch *Valkyrie* the other night and I would agree with the reviews a couple pages back. *A rating of 1.25 sounds just right.*
> 
> 
> PS3 and Kuro 5020fd - 7.5'



That seems a bit too high to me.


----------



## tcramer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/16543496
> 
> 
> That seems a bit too high to me.




I suppose I may have been swayed in that I actually enjoyed the movie. What specifically would you say brings it down? Would you say more like 1.5-1.75?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tcramer* /forum/post/16543750
> 
> 
> I suppose I may have been swayed in that I actually enjoyed the movie. What specifically would you say brings it down? *Would you say more like 1.5-1.75?*



I would agree with that range. It was more that there was a lack of anything to bring it up rather than anything very specific to bring it down. It looked OK, but just OK.


It didn't help that I didn't like the movie, and thought Cruise was even worse than he normally is.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/16543887
> 
> 
> I would agree with that range. It was more that *there was a lack of anything to bring it up* rather than anything very specific to bring it down.



I thought it was really sharp and detailed patrick (fibers in clothing, tree bark, and especially facial details were superb). Those two virtues DO bring it up, IMO. I mentioned in my review that the only real anomaly was a washed out look in the first scene (i.e., African desert scene). Let me add that in comparing it with other 1.25 titles it rivals the ones that I've seen.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16546242
> 
> *I thought it was really sharp and detailed patrick (fibers in clothing, tree bark, and especially facial details were superb).* Those two virtues DO bring it up, IMO. I mentioned in my review that the only real anomaly was a washed out look in the first scene (i.e., African desert scene). Let me add that in comparing it with other 1.25 titles it rivals the ones that I've seen.



I thought the detail was less than outstanding. Not at the 1.25 level to my eyes.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

i should be backatter in about 2 weeks for reviews. if all continues to go well i should be home in about a week or so! I have a stack of blu's that i haven't watched sitting there, requesting to be viewed with picky eyes.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16552249
> 
> 
> i should be backatter in about 2 weeks for reviews. if all continues to go well i should be home in about a week or so! I have a stack of blu's that i haven't watched sitting there, requesting to be viewed with picky eyes.



Well somebody better...







We all are slacking a bit, but it is that time of year.


Deltasun thanks for keeping it alive.


----------



## davidcw8

Grand Canyon Adventure: River at Risk (IMAX) - is incorrectly labeled as AVC, when it's actually encoded with VC-1.


----------



## jkozlow3

Why is Donnie Darko in Tier 3? On my 1080p/106" screen, it is without a doubt the WORST quality BD I've seen to date. It is DEFINITELY a below average BD and belongs in Tier 4 or 5. I'll have to recheck Crash (4.5) and House of Flying Daggers (5), but I don't remember either of them looking THIS bad.


Are people ranking these movies on 42-50" displays or what? On my 58" display quality differences are certainly much less apparent, but on my projection setup Donnie Darko is certainly no better than an average upconverted SD DVD (with the Oppo BDP-83). Someone please reevaluate this title!



UPDATE: I just checked several scenes in Crash and it is WITHOUT A DOUBT a better PQ than Donnie Darko. There is no comparison. I also compared it to House of Flying Daggers and I would say the PQ of Donnie Darko is very comparable to it. Please someone move Donnie Darko to Tier 5. Absolutely terrible PQ. I'm seriously starting to question the accuracy of the ratings in this thread right now as there is NO WAY it should have ever been given a Tier 3 ranking. People clearly need larger displays if they're going to be voting. Now for my official recommendation so that this will hopefully be noticed:


*Donnie Darko*


All I can say is that I have not seen another BD that was this poor on my 106" 1080p setup. The PQ is VERY soft and is comparable to the average upconverted SD DVD using my Oppo BDP-83 (probably the best upconverting player available). No one who has seen Blu-Ray on my setup would have ever thought that this was a BD film. In fact, I even ejected the Netflix disc and looked at it again 5 minutes into the movie just to be sure. Absolutely TERRIBLE PQ for a BD.

*Tier Recommendation: 5*


My rationale: I put Crash (4.5) and House of Flying Daggers (5) in my player after I finished watching Donnie Darko for comparison. Crash is most certainly better than Donnie Darko as far as PQ after checking multiple scenes. House of Flying Daggers was comparable to Donnie Darko however.


My setup:

106" 1080p Sony VW40 from 12 ft.

Oppo BDP-83


----------



## b_scott

yeah.......... not that many people have 100+ inch screens. Donnie Darko was nowhere near 4.0. Chuck Season One is 4.0


----------



## sleater

FWIW regarding *Donnie Darko* here was my review way back when...
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...3#post15981413 


The only way movies get moved up or down is if members post reviews with their own recommendation and then Superslow does his magic in his superslow sort of way and poof! the film gets placed. He has to take into account ALL reviews not just the generous or harsh ones. So... if you really disliked DD's PQ THAT much (and I will agree with you) then more folks need to chime in who have viewed the film on BD and it *might* get lowered.


I watched on 92" screen and yes it did look exactly as you described. I remember some saying that it was intentionally done this way to be reminiscent of the 80s and VHS quality film. Something like that...


----------



## Legairre




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jkozlow3* /forum/post/16557298
> 
> *Donnie Darko*
> 
> 
> All I can say is that I have not seen another BD that was this poor on my 106" 1080p setup. The PQ is VERY soft and is comparable to the average upconverted SD DVD using my Oppo BDP-83 (probably the best upconverting player available). No one who has seen Blu-Ray on my setup would have ever thought that this was a BD film. In fact, I even ejected the Netflix disc and looked at it again 5 minutes into the movie just to be sure. Absolutely TERRIBLE PQ for a BD.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 5*



Looked pretty piss poor on my 108" screen with a Mitsubishi HC1500 and PS3. Looked bad on my 40" too, but the large screen really shows how bad it is. By comparison Bug's Life and Live Free or Die Hard are pure reference on my 108" setup.


----------



## jkozlow3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sleater* /forum/post/16559205
> 
> 
> FWIW regarding *Donnie Darko* here was my review way back when...
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...3#post15981413
> 
> 
> The only way movies get moved up or down is if members post reviews with their own recommendation and then Superslow does his magic in his superslow sort of way and poof! the film gets placed. He has to take into account ALL reviews not just the generous or harsh ones. So... if you really disliked DD's PQ THAT much (and I will agree with you) then more folks need to chime in who have viewed the film on BD and it *might* get lowered.
> 
> 
> I watched on 92" screen and yes it did look exactly as you described. I remember some saying that it was intentionally done this way to be reminiscent of the 80s and VHS quality film. Something like that...



Thanks...and here are 3 posts in a row from people with projection setups saying that it needs moved to a lower tier. I should hope that more weight would be given to people with larger displays and that these 3 posts would be sufficient cause.


And I don't care if making it look like VHS _was_ intentional (and VHS is a pretty accurate description BTW). That's irrelevant. Anyone expecting a decent looking pic with this title will be SORELY disappointed on a large enough display.


----------



## Legairre

Just realized I never posted a ranking for this. As I said earlier it looked terrible. This doesn't even deserve a Blu-ray transfer.

*Tier Recommendation: 5.0*
_

Mitsubishi HC1500 projector(720p) 108" screen, Sony PS3, viewing distance 12' 6"._


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

I totally miss posting with you guys. I can't wait til I get back home again. but on the plus side, while I have been down here I've seen a handful of movies in the actual theatre (the theatre at home is soooo bad).


- Star Trek

- Wolverine

- Night at the Museum 2

- Terminator Salvation


I am curious to compare since I don't usually see so many movies actually at the theatre to once these are on Blu Ray. Although I think someone will have to GIVE me a copy of Terminator Salvation before I watch it on Blu Ray, as I can't justify any more money towards that McG-arbage *snicker*. And I love Christian Bale so that sucks to admit.



Out of them all so far I wish Star Trek was on Blu Ray *NOW* I could watch that one again and again.


----------



## Beta Tester




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16561416
> 
> 
> Although I think someone will have to GIVE me a copy of Terminator Salvation before I watch it on Blu Ray, as I can't justify any more money towards that McG-arbage *snicker*. And I love Christian Bale so that sucks to admit.
> 
> 
> Out of them all so far I wish Star Trek was on Blu Ray *NOW* I could watch that one again and again.



The last few minutes of Star Trek brought a big smile to my face, and I am not even a Trekkie.


Terminator Salvation ranks very close to Transformers in terms of blockbusters that I hate. I would not buy it even if it was at the very top of the PQ and AQ ratings.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Legairre* /forum/post/16559888
> 
> 
> Just realized I never posted a ranking for this. As I said earlier it looked terrible. This doesn't even deserve a Blu-ray transfer.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 5.0*
> _
> 
> Mitsubishi HC1500 projector(720p) 108" screen, Sony PS3, viewing distance 12' 6"._




I recorded it in HD from HDNet on my DVR and it looked upscaled and not true HD. If it looks bad there it might be the same transfer.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Beta Tester* /forum/post/16561497
> 
> 
> The last few minutes of Star Trek brought a big smile to my face, and I am not even a Trekkie.
> 
> 
> Terminator Salvation ranks very close to Transformers in terms of blockbusters that I hate. I would not buy it even if it was at the very top of the PQ and AQ ratings.



It didn't help when it began and I saw the Warner logo and thought "omg what are THEY going to do to this when it hit Blu Ray?" At least if I ever do watch it on Blu I'll have a point of reference before they DNR/EE the crap out of it


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16561416
> 
> 
> - Star Trek
> 
> - Wolverine
> 
> - Night at the Museum 2
> 
> - Terminator Salvation



Saw three of these and agree that Star Trek, far and away, was the best of the batch. I didn't mind Salvation too much. I just sat back and did not try to think too deeply about it. Just wanted to enjoy the effects and coolness.







Wolverine - I was surprised how good the PQ was in the theatre. Have yet to see Night at the Museum 2 with my free movie ticket. Based on the previews I've seen, not holding my breath.


Like you, can't wait to compare with their upcoming blu-rays. Got another day in TX, then I'm back to viewing and reviewing, even in my sub-100", non-projected panel.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Yeah i took the 5 year old to see the Museum movie, she liked it. I was bored so I was irritated when I noticed some EE and that I felt it was soft. I *really* miss my blu ray's, haha!


----------



## djoberg

Yikes! Over 24 hours and no posts! We can't have that!










I have reserved "Taken," "Uninvited," and "Defiance" at a local video store for Thursday and Friday, so I WILL be getting off of my "slacker chair" at that time.


----------



## K-Spaz

djoberg, On that note, I watched A Bugs Life over the weekend and agree with all the above opinions. Wow...


Defiance shows up for me today from nf. This is 7 new releases in a row arriving on or shipping on release day). It seems it pays to have them in Q for a long time before release.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/16569883
> 
> 
> djoberg, On that note, I watched A Bugs Life over the weekend and agree with all the above opinions. Wow...



Needless to say, A Bug's Life has had enough UNANIMOUS votes for #1 spot in Tier Blu to justify SuprSlow placing it there in his next update. I had my brother and sister over the other night and when I showed them ABL they were absolutely mesmerized by the colors, sharpness, and detail. They said it was easily the best PQ they had ever seen in an animated title.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/16569883
> 
> 
> Defiance shows up for me today from nf. This is 7 new releases in a row arriving on or shipping on release day). It seems it pays to have them in Q for a long time before release.



Typically, I start moving upcoming Tuesday releases at the top of my queue the weekend before and make sure I return my 3 either Friday or Saturday before. 99% of the time, I will get the new Tuesday releases on Tuesday.


I should be getting _Defiance_ and _Revolutionary Road_ tonight.


----------



## deltasun

Watched the first disc on this series last night and wanted to give a pre-review (since again, who knows when I'll complete the series from NF). I'd say 90% of the close-up's are very very soft. The 10% (actually less) were tack sharp. Very odd to have such dynamics even in the same scene sometimes. They would show Bauer talking to the head of the Senate committee. Bauer's sharp with great lighting, while the other guy was super soft.


Black levels weren't great either. In fact, I have yet to see a decent black after 4 episodes. Contrast was equally bad - there seemed to always be a haze in a number of daylight scenes. Low-light levels were usually a mess as well - made the props look really cheap specially in the _bad guys'_ command center.


Grain was present for most of the scenes but would suddenly disappear. I didn't see any of the usual smeary faces, however, when they did disappear. So, I can't conclude firmly there's DNR. I also detected some mild ringing, but again those scenes did not have a sharpened look. Could just be natural ringing of dark objects against super bright backgrounds.


Anyway, right now I'm leaning towards low Tier 2, maybe the beginnings of Tier 3. Hard to ignore some of the tack sharp close-up's though.


----------



## Lestat Phoenix

Hello, New here to this thread but would like to start contributing a little. On A Bugs Life I would go with number 1 on teir 0. Nothing out there has it beat right now.


Panasonic 50' G10


----------



## tcramer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lestat Phoenix* /forum/post/16574622
> 
> 
> Hello, New here to this thread but would like to start contributing a little. On A Bugs Life I would go with number 1 on teir 0. Nothing out there has it beat right now.
> 
> 
> Panasonic 50' G10




A 50 foot plasma! Must be awesome!










No, just kidding. I know you meant 50".


----------



## jkozlow3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lestat Phoenix* /forum/post/16574622
> 
> 
> Hello, New here to this thread but would like to start contributing a little. On A Bugs Life I would go with number 1 on teir 0. Nothing out there has it beat right now.
> 
> 
> Panasonic 50' G10



Make sure you put your review in the format listed in post #1 or it may get overlooked.


BTW, I've also heard great things about the quality of A Bug's Life.


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16513806
> 
> *My Bloody Valentine (2D)*
> 
> 
> Delaying watching my copy of _A Bug's Life_ just so I can return this and get my next Netflix movie.
> 
> 
> Another video presentation which showed signs of digital noise in a number of scenes. The subdued color presentation represented the subject matter, but definitely hurt the PQ. Panoramic scenes did not show the expected depth. Green foliage was dull.
> 
> 
> Black levels were very disappointing. Besides a select few decent blacks, the majority looked more like charcoal grey. Low-light levels, on the other hand, fared better. There were actually abundant examples illustrating great detail and depth within the confines of low-lit situations - the grocery scene with the two leading girls is a good example. Contrast levels, I felt, were on the murky side. It did not help delineate objects within the already drab color palette.
> 
> 
> Skin tones were spot on for the most part. Facial details can be low tier 0 at times and inexplicably soft the next. Medium scenes varied as well, but I would say it was mostly well above average. 3D pop was abundantl, but I'm sure this has to do with how it was filmed for its 3D presentation.
> 
> 
> Overall, the abundance of sub-par black levels, hazy contrast, and drab color elements keep this out of the Gold tier for me. In 2D, some of the 3D effects seemed very unnatural.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.0*
> 
> 
> This has the same recipe as your typical slasher flick. If it's your cup of tea, I think it's a worthy addition. I gotta comment about the extremely aggressive 7.1 DTS-HD MA soundtrack. There is one scene accompanied by this enveloping, whooshing, LFE-rich sound that immersed my living room and shook the floor. This has got to be damn near reference in the Audio Thread.
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8' & 6'_



I feel that 2.0 is generous. I was thinking 2.75-3.0 all the way through. Not that much pop, and dark scenes suffered from black crush - almost a "grey crush" since black levels just weren't good for a horror movie, or any movie. Also had motion problems, odd motion blur for no reason. Could've had something to do with being shot for 3D, not sure. I watched in 2D.


Pio 51 > 5010, 1080p, 8' back


----------



## deltasun

*Defiance*


Fine to medium grain apparent throughout. The film had a filtered look throughout intended to achieve a dated look. Colors were also a bit saturated and contrast a bit pushed. As a result, medium shots usually had a smeary look that almost bordered on a DNR look. Close-up's were generally detailed - presence of pores, fine hair, imperfections (most notably the brothers at the 2hr 5min mark). However, this wasn't the norm. Medium details were a tad soft.


Blacks were usually crushed (an exception was the skirmish at the 47min mark) and low-light details and depth suffered from poor contrast. Greens were vivid, but colors, in general, were limited to earth tones and had a subdued quality. Skin tones were average. A mild bit of ringing on high-contrast edges was apparent, I suspect, due to the filtering.


Overall, I did not care too much for the look of the film. However, some of the close-up details can't be denied. Still, these were few and far between. PQ does improve a bit once the snow flies a little over halfway through the film, but degrades again once it melts.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75*


The spirit of the movie was definitely in the right place. However, I don't know if Craig and Schreiber together fit their roles. Even their faux accent for the same words did not sound similar. Also, I didn't know women's rights have progressed so far in 1941.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## deltasun

I was perusing through my just added copy of _V for Vendetta_ and think it belongs lower than its current rank of 2.5. I found it soft and blacks to be weak. I'm about to finish up my review of _He's Just Not That Into You_ (I actually did enjoy this _gulp_ chick flick) and would say they're comparable from a softness perspective. I don't remember the latter being that soft in the theatre.


----------



## OhioMike

Hey guys, I haven't posted for quite some time. I wanted to chime in and agree with the placement of *Transporter 3*. This is definitely one of the best looking live action films out. Nearly flawless execution and not a bad popcorn flick either. I would recommend it highly for anyone who hasn't seen it yet, pure eye candy.


Pioneer Kuro 5020

PS3

Pitch Black @ 6 ft


----------



## dla26

Really stupid question that I'm 99% sure I know the answer to: You don't need to have seen Transporters 1 & 2 to enjoy 3, correct?


I'm embarrassed in advance for the question. I'm sure the storyline must be really deep.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dla26* /forum/post/16580847
> 
> 
> Really stupid question that I'm 99% sure I know the answer to: You don't need to have seen Transporters 1 & 2 to enjoy 3, correct?
> 
> 
> I'm embarrassed in advance for the question. I'm sure the storyline must be really deep.



That is correct. You can almost skip every other chapter and still know where the "plot" is going.










But the PQ will astound you!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Hulk Vs.


recommendation: Tier 1.5*


A disc consisting of two separate animated features, _Hulk Vs. Wolverine_ and _Hulk Vs. Thor_, Lionsgate released this combination directly to Blu-ray on January 27, 2009. The two main features are encoded in AVC, with respective running times of 37-minutes and 45-minutes on a single BD-25. The average video bitrate for both features is 15.98 Mbps per the BDInfo scan. Technically, this is a flawless compression encoding that sparkles with clarity. There are no compression artifacts, and in a rarity for a Marvel animated feature, no glimpses of banding anywhere to be seen.


The two main features really stand on their own visually, as the Wolverine feature has a cooler and darker color palette. The Thor feature appears brighter with primary colors looking bolder in nature. Both also have slightly different character designs. Jeff Matsuda, the comic book artist, is credited as the character-model designer for the Wolverine feature. Personally I am not a huge fan of his art style and thought some of the characters had slightly strange proportions, particularly Sabretooth and Omega Red. While background art was nicely detailed, character design was surprisingly lacking the intricate detail I expected. Overall I thought the animation looked good but not quite as polished as the animated Wonder Woman feature on Blu-ray.


The picture quality itself of both features looks fabulous, with deep black levels and wonderful shadow delineation. The image is always razor-sharp with striking contrast and clarity. There were no traces of halos or other side effects of digital processing. The master looks in perfect shape with no blemishes or marks. Colors are wonderfully rendered in a crisp manner typical of animated fare. I will note a lack of extra-dimensional depth sometimes seen in the best traditional animation. The animation is very flat-looking in most moments here.


Lionsgate has delivered a fine transfer of impeccable quality that looks faithful to the original source animation. My only minor quibble is the slight lack of polish seen in the animation compared to the best theatrical animation and the recent quality of Wonder Woman on Blu-ray. Fans of the Hulk should get this disc. My final recommendation is a placement in tier 1.5.


Watching on a 60” Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 (firmware 2.76) at a viewing distance of six feet.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1#post15827201


----------



## tfoltz

While I enjoyed this blu-ray (it's one of those movies you can throw in whenever you are bored and need some quick entertainment), I wasn't a fan of the character design either. Almost seemed like a rough draft.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/16581737
> 
> 
> Jeff Matsuda, the comic book artist, is credited as the character-model designer for the Wolverine feature. Personally I am not a huge fan of his art style and thought some of the characters had slightly strange proportions, particularly Sabretooth and Omega Red. While background art was nicely detailed, character design was surprisingly lacking the intricate detail I expected.


----------



## djoberg

*Underworld: Rise of the Lycans*


First of all, after being on a "Blu-ray FAST," it's nice to break the fast and indulge in a "Blu-ray FEAST"....I have 4 titles to watch this afternoon and tonight and I'm going to enjoy every moment!


I thought I'd start the feast with Underworld: Rise of the Lycans because of all the reviews boasting of excellent blacks and shadow detail (my KURO was screaming for this







). I was NOT disappointed; in fact, they were, by far, the most redeeming features of this title. As deltasun noted in his review, the walls of the castle and dungeons had superb shadow detail, revealing cracks, texture, and even drops of moisture. Forest scenes were equally impressive.


Skin tones and facial details were also spot on in most scenes, though at times the faces of vampires were a bit too soft and lacked detail.


I believe patrick expressed the thought that it was softer than the first two installments. I agree with him to a point, for there were definitely scenes of softness, but IMO it became sharper as the movie progressed and during the last half it was sharp as a tack.


I chose not to pop in my copy of Underworld for comparison, but if memory serves me correctly I would have to agree with some of my colleagues in saying U:ROTL is definitely inferior. I would drop it nearly a whole tier.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0 or 2.25*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'


PS The audio rocked!


----------



## deltasun

^^ Sounds like a nice afternoon! I'm about 30 minutes into _Revolutionary Road_ and am happy to report high Tier 1 so far. Really nice to see such high-calibre PQ after the last few I've sat through.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Zulu (UK import)


recommendation: Tier 2.25*


A 1964 classic of British cinema, Paramount released this region-free disc exclusively in the United Kingdom on November 3, 2008. The 138-minute film is encoded in AVC on a BD-50. The average video bitrate is 31.72 Mbps from the BDInfo scan.


While some have questioned this transfer's level of detail, no one can question the quality of the compression work. The very high video bitrate, which regularly stays in the thirties and occasionally peaks into the forties, produces a reference-quality encoding that is among the best examples of live-action film without visible artifacts on any high-definition format. Even the most difficult sequences, such as a building burning to the ground with smoke rising and flames shooting out, produce absolutely no compression problems under the closest scrutiny.


It is my understanding that Sky television performed a complete restoration for this film, which serves as the basis of the master used in making this Blu-ray. In some respects the restoration appears stunning and fully captures the glory of a film shot in Super Technirama 70, a Technicolor process. Print damage is remarkably absent and no age-related problems such as fading are apparent. In fact the colors are as vibrant as they probably were in original prints, from the brilliant reds on display in the British uniforms to the strong greens of the countryside. Many viewers will be shocked to find out this movie was originally made in 1964, if they are just going off the clarity of the picture with no other information.


Sadly I have to confirm that digital noise reduction has been used throughout the transfer. The image has an appearance more akin to modern video than it does to film, even considering the fine-grain look of the original source material. Other than the complete lack of grain, the most telling sign of this processing is the slight loss in high-frequency detail. Facial detail looks okay, but some instances of a waxy sheen hang on various faces. Some fine detail has definitely been stripped away along with the grain. Is it on par with Patton's transfer, a well-known and egregious example of overzealous DNR use? I would unequivocally say no to that proposition. At least whatever type of processing they performed on the transfer did not leave any smeared grain-fields or oddly moving clumps of noise behind. I would characterize its use here as a mid-level example of the process.


The picture quality in most respects is fabulous. The entire film is sharp as a tack, with almost zero soft moments. Depth and dimensionality to the picture are consistently excellent, with some objects in the foreground figuratively popping off the screen. Contrast is great with superior color fidelity and tonality. White levels are not blown out and black levels are very solid. Low-light photography shows nice shadow detail with wonderful delineation. Flesh tones look very good and accurate to the intent of the story. While the picture does not have the finest visible details of an unprocessed transfer, resolution is still inherently strong with sparkling clarity. The image is a revelation compared to any prior version I have seen, and a quantum leap above dvd-quality. I could easily see how a casual viewer might rank this title in tier zero, with the strong cinematography frequently showcasing panoramic vistas and breathtaking imagery.


The last flaw I will note is the use of edge enhancement visible at various points. The ringing becomes very heavy at some point midway through the movie and appears occasionally from then on. It is hard to miss if one watches the edges around the British soldiers, for instance the black binocular straps of Chard. By the end of the movie I was more distracted by the visible ringing than the lack of grain, which I had partially accepted by that point.


My conclusions are nearly the same of Rsbeck, who carefully reviewed this Blu-ray months ago in this very thread. While I would have liked to see less grain reduction and sharpening applied to this Blu-ray, I would still recommend it to fans of classic cinema and anyone interested in visually pleasing material. Purists might quibble with its quality but _Zulu_ still looks very good to my eyes. My final recommendation for placement is in tier 2.25, but a slightly higher ranking in tier two would not bother me.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of House):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1#post14994911 


Rsbeck's placement:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1#post15345971


----------



## djoberg

*The Uninvited*


Whoa....this is one good-looking title! Eye candy for sure!


The colors popped right off the screen...natural, but vivid! Blacks were very deep and inky, with amazing shadow detail (especially the night scenes by the water)! Contrast was superb! Flesh tones were right on the mark! Facial close-ups were at least low Tier 0 quality!


Let's see, did I miss anything? Oh, yeah, images were razor-sharp with excellent depth (i.e., 3D pop). And would you believe there were no signs of EE, DNR, or any other processing?


I am tempted to recommend a low Tier 0, but I'm going to be conservative and go with....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'


----------



## djoberg

*Taken*


After just watching The Uninvited, I was surprised to be treated to another Tier 1 contender. Though not quite as sharp or detailed as The Uninvited, Taken was very pleasing to the eyes in every category with the exception of a few dark scenes that were hindered by too much grain (grain was present throughout the film, but for the most part it enhanced the look).


Colors were punchy; contrast was very strong; blacks and shadow detail were excellent (except for the few scenes alluded to above); skin tones were first-rate; and depth was quite acceptable.


All things considered, this should land itself somewhere in the middle of Tier Gold. My thinking is....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.50*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'


----------



## deltasun

*Revolutionary Road*


As mentioned in my preview, this is a beautiful transfer of a Sam Mendes film. Can't wait for _American Beauty_ in blu. I'm no grain freak, but I really liked its presence in this film. Colors were representative of the period, which were mostly pastels and earth tones. This limited color palette, to me, was almost vibrant, inviting, and really pleasing to the eyes.


Contrast was spot on and really kept most scenes in balance. There were a few that were washed out - the Givings visiting the Wheelers the first time, the beach scene. Skin tones varied from a bit on the reddish side (opening scene) to natural (most of the time) to pale. Black levels, when present, were bold. Low-light scenes offered measurable details.


Facial close-up's were well rendered, offering the customary details found in high Tier 1 titles. 3D pop was present in almost every scene. Medium facials were not as detailed, but the surroundings offered plenty, almost limitless detail and depth (even when not in complete focus). The forest scene in the first act was especially notable in this regard.


There were no DNR or EE that I could detect. There was one scene, just after the 1hr mark, of Winslet where her face was soft and dancing grain (almost digital noise) to her left was distracting. Also, at the 1hr 33min mark, there was a bit of artifacting.


Overall, an excellent presentation. Not to the calibre of the _Kill Bills_, for example, but I've always believed them to be low Tier 0. I'd be comfortable in placing this in Tier 1.0 (1.25 at the lowest).

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0*


Very deliberate pacing, but really kept my attention. It's a "realistic" and straight forward look at a young idealistic couple who feel they have grown into the just-like-every-other-family mold of the 1950's. Really fine acting all around, most notably DiCappuccino, Michael Shannon (had to look him up), and of course, Winslet.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## djoberg

*Defiance*


There is only one other review of this title thus far (by deltasun who gave it a 2.75) and I am going to have to disagree with my good *comrade* on this one. This is, IMO, "demo-worthy," and I believe it easily deserves a place in Tier 1.


Where I would especially take issue with deltasun is with the facial close-ups, for there are MANY (and I mean MANY) close-ups and they are some of the best I have ever seen, bar none. The main leads (Craig and Schreiber) are seen dozens of times and every pore, pit, freckle, and hair are there in all their glory. But facial close-ups are not limited to them, and for those who revel in this virtue you will be more than satisfied.


Detail in general is phenomenal! I never tired of seeing Daniel Craig's leather jacket, for you could see every nuance. Bark on trees was impressive, as was fibers in most of the clothing (especially in close shots). One of the last scenes, where the Jewish company is making their way through a stretch of forest and then a large marsh, is clearly Tier 0 material, with every tree branch and blade of grass visible, even in medium-range shots.


I must also take issue with his comment on black levels, for there were many night scenes with deep blacks and extraordinary shadow detail. Some scenes were lacking, but in the main I was quite pleased.


I do agree with his comments about the colors being a bit saturated at times and the contrast being pushed, but most of the film had the typical "blue cast" depicting that era (World War 2), much like the appearance in Valkyrie. I got used to that look though and the sharpness and detail more than compensated for the lackluster color.


I will add that there were also some soft scenes that lowered my final conclusion, but these were the exception and not the rule.


As I said at the outset of the review, this is demo-worthy IMO, not reference quality overall, but still deserving of a place in Tier Gold. I heartily recommend the following:

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5 or 1.75*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16591398
> 
> *Defiance*
> 
> 
> There is only one other review of this title thus far (by deltasun who gave it a 2.75) and I am going to have to disagree with my good *comrade* on this one. This is, IMO, "demo-worthy," and I believe it easily deserves a place in Tier 1.
> 
> 
> Detail in general is phenomenal! I never tired of seeing Daniel Craig's leather jacket, for you could see every nuance. Bark on trees was impressive, as was fibers in most of the clothing (especially in close shots). One of the last scenes, where the Jewish company is making their way through a stretch of forest and then a large marsh, is clearly Tier 0 material, with every tree branch and blade of grass visible, even in medium-range shots.
> 
> 
> I will add that there were also some soft scenes that lowered my final conclusion, but these were the exception and not the rule.
> 
> 
> As I said at the outset of the review, this is demo-worthy IMO, not reference quality overall, but still deserving of a place in Tier Gold. I heartily recommend the following:
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.5 or 1.75*
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" Elite KURO....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'



+1 on 1.5. Got an unbroken disk last night and view it on Mits 60-735 from 8'. Very impressed given the genre and color palette. Also liked the movie.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16591398
> 
> 
> One of the last scenes, where the Jewish company is making their way through a stretch of forest and then a large marsh, is clearly Tier 0 material, with every tree branch and blade of grass visible, even in medium-range shots.



The above is definitely my favorite scene from the movie - that panorama with ominous looking clouds and a long disheartening stretch of swamp was well shot.


Interesting take, comrade.







I think the opening scenes helped dissuade my impressions right from the outset. Again, the most pleasing scenes for me were when the snow flew. It gave the picture an added depth that, in my opinion, was lacking throughout.


I was hoping to like this so I can take advantage of the $10 off when purchasing _Defiance_ and _Revolutionary Road_.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/16591492
> 
> 
> +1 on 1.5. Got an unbroken disk last night and view it on Mits 60-735 from 8'. *Very impressed given the genre and color palette.* Also liked the movie.



So are you qualifying your 1.5 vote due to the genre?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16591558
> 
> 
> The above is definitely my favorite scene from the movie - that panorama with ominous looking clouds and a long disheartening stretch of swamp was well shot.
> 
> 
> Interesting take, comrade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the opening scenes helped dissuade my impressions right from the outset. Again, the most pleasing scenes for me were when the snow flew. It gave the picture an added depth that, in my opinion, was lacking throughout.
> 
> 
> I was hoping to like this so I can take advantage of the $10 off when purchasing _Defiance_ and _Revolutionary Road_.



You and I are _usually_ fairly close in our recommendations, so I was surprised by this one.


I was going to get Revolutionary Road yesterday along with the other 4 I watched, but one more title in my "Blu-ray FEAST" would probably have made me guilty of gluttony.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16591637
> 
> 
> I was going to get Revolutionary Road yesterday along with the other 4 I watched, but one more title in my "Blu-ray FEAST" would probably have made me guilty of gluttony.



Hey, that type of gluttony is okay. And, you would not have been disappointed.





> Quote:
> You and I are _usually_ fairly close in our recommendations, so I was surprised by this one.



Yeah, I agree. But it's good to have parity once in a while. We each bring our own nuances, perceptions, observations, and even pleasures from these films and how we process them for this thread. Good stuff!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16591572
> 
> 
> So are you qualifying your 1.5 vote due to the genre?



I won't speak for K-Spaz, but one of my comments in my review was quite similar to his. I said, "I got used to that look though and the sharpness and detail more than compensated for the lackluster color." In other words, even though the color palette was limited and quite boring, I was still impressed. So I guess I could say, "In _spite_ of the color palette, I was impressed.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16591698
> 
> 
> Yeah, I agree. But it's good to have parity once in a while. We each bring our own nuances, perceptions, observations, and even pleasures from these films and how we process them for this thread. Good stuff!



Agreed!


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16591746
> 
> 
> So I guess I could say, "In _spite_ of the color palette, I was impressed.



Yep, this is what I was looking for, that despite the perceived "shortcomings," the title's PQ can hold its own with other Gold Tier titles. I know you believe this, but I was just clarifying K-Spaz's statement.


----------



## oleus

i have a question for you guys about A BUG'S LIFE. After hearing all of the praise here i popped it in expecting the best PQ i've ever seen on BD, and while it definitely looks very nice I would still put Ratatouille and even Cars ahead of it. Granted, I only watched the first five minutes and don't know if there's more "pop" in later scenes, I just wonder if i'm alone in the assessment of the PQ.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oleus* /forum/post/16591856
> 
> 
> i have a question for you guys about A BUG'S LIFE. After hearing all of the praise here i popped it in expecting the best PQ i've ever seen on BD, and while it definitely looks very nice I would still put Ratatouille and even Cars ahead of it. Granted, I only watched the first five minutes and don't know if there's more "pop" in later scenes, I just wonder if i'm alone in the assessment of the PQ.



I feel like I'm hijacking this thread with all my posts today! Sorry guys, slow work day.










In my opinion, ABL had the same glossiness as Cars but much better depth (3D-ness). The opening scene demonstrated that really well (or you can go look at Xylon's new ABL thread). _Ratatouille_ had a more realistic color palette, but did not "shine" as much as ABL. The vibrance coming off of ABL was just undeniable.


Finally, keep in mind that we are comparing the top 4 titles in Tier Blu here. There is not going to be too many obvious characteristics to tell these titles apart. A shade of personal bias may creep in. Then again, this thread has the advantage of multiple reviewers weighing in, all of whom (so far) have agreed with top placement for ABL.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16591398
> 
> *Defiance*
> 
> 
> There is only one other review of this title thus far (by deltasun who gave it a 2.75) and I am going to have to disagree with my good *comrade* on this one. This is, IMO, "demo-worthy," and I believe it easily deserves a place in Tier 1.
> 
> 
> Where I would especially take issue with deltasun is with the facial close-ups, for there are MANY (and I mean MANY) close-ups and they are some of the best I have ever seen, bar none. The main leads (Craig and Schreiber) are seen dozens of times and every pore, pit, freckle, and hair are there in all their glory. But facial close-ups are not limited to them, and for those who revel in this virtue you will be more than satisfied.
> 
> 
> Detail in general is phenomenal! I never tired of seeing Daniel Craig's leather jacket, for you could see every nuance. Bark on trees was impressive, as was fibers in most of the clothing (especially in close shots). One of the last scenes, where the Jewish company is making their way through a stretch of forest and then a large marsh, is clearly Tier 0 material, with every tree branch and blade of grass visible, even in medium-range shots.
> 
> 
> I must also take issue with his comment on black levels, for there were many night scenes with deep blacks and extraordinary shadow detail. Some scenes were lacking, but in the main I was quite pleased.
> 
> 
> I do agree with his comments about the colors being a bit saturated at times and the contrast being pushed, but most of the film had the typical "blue cast" depicting that era (World War 2), much like the appearance in Valkyrie. I got used to that look though and the sharpness and detail more than compensated for the lackluster color.
> 
> 
> I will add that there were also some soft scenes that lowered my final conclusion, but these were the exception and not the rule.
> 
> 
> As I said at the outset of the review, this is demo-worthy IMO, not reference quality overall, but still deserving of a place in Tier Gold. I heartily recommend the following:
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.5 or 1.75*
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" Elite KURO....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'



I agree with this as well. When I watched it the same night Deltasun posted his review I was surprised. I thought it was 1.5-1.75 as well. I will do a formal review later with my assessment.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oleus* /forum/post/16591856
> 
> 
> i have a question for you guys about A BUG'S LIFE. After hearing all of the praise here i popped it in expecting the best PQ i've ever seen on BD, and while it definitely looks very nice I would still put Ratatouille and even Cars ahead of it. Granted, I only watched the first five minutes and don't know if there's more "pop" in later scenes, I just wonder if i'm alone in the assessment of the PQ.



IMO, there were three categories where A Bug's Life excelled over the two titles you mentioned....COLORS, DEPTH, and DETAIL. I'm not saying Ratatouille and Cars didn't have great colors, depth, and detail, but they were a notch or two above in A Bug's Life. If I were to isolate the biggest difference of those three it would easily be the COLORS. They were simply amazing!


I would definitely watch it beyond the first five minutes if I were you. The colors I just spoke of don't really come into play at the very beginning of the movie. Watch all of it and be prepared to be WOWED!


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16591572
> 
> 
> So are you qualifying your 1.5 vote due to the genre?



No, not really. I am simply admiting that I am less likely to be wowed by pq when the movie is generally dark as this one is. The brightest of parts are overcast and it's shot in the woods so that has to be taken into consideration.


Lets face it, detail is more difficult to resove in darkness.


We can all claim to be objective, but the fact is, we all have a different take on what impresses us. Most newer movies are devoid of digital manipulation or artifacting issues that deduct from its ranking. That basically leaves us with camera work and content. I thought this was some pretty darn nice camera work throughout.


Since I don't really feel it has any deducts, I have to compare it to other movies in the various tiers and 1.5 seems about where it would fall from my eyes perspective.


All, imho...


----------



## deltasun

I guess my biggest issue with _Defiance_ was the overall smeariness of medium shots. I just did not care for them and thought it permeated through at least the first half of the film.


In terms of problematic low-light scenes, I felt the montage of evening attacks by the brothers & gang in the city exhibited poor visibility.


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16592917
> 
> 
> I guess my biggest issue with _Defiance_ was the overall smeariness of medium shots. I just did not care for them and thought it permeated through at least the first half of the film.



Well, I still have it sitting here so I can check that out again. I think if you look again you may see that a lot of that smeariness is really slow shutter effect from being stopped down cause a lot of those scenes had terrific depth of focus.


> Quote:
> In terms of problematic low-light scenes, I felt the montage of evening attacks by the brothers & gang in the city exhibited poor visibility.



Well, those scenes for example were both at night and in heavy fog (common to the region). If you remember when they got in the truck, they could almost outrun the headlights for all the fog they were in.


That's what I mean about the overcast conditions throughout the movie entering into the pq perceptions.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/16593083
> 
> 
> Well, I still have it sitting here so I can check that out again. I think if you look again you may see that a lot of that smeariness is really slow shutter effect from being stopped down cause a lot of those scenes had terrific depth of focus.
> 
> 
> Well, those scenes for example were both at night and in heavy fog (common to the region). If you remember when they got in the truck, they could almost outrun the headlights for all the fog they were in.
> 
> 
> That's what I mean about the overcast conditions throughout the movie entering into the pq perceptions.



I think you're making my arguments for me here, K-Spaz. We are judging end results, regardless of the reasons (excuses







) for why they ended up that way - good or bad. If smeariness is the result because the camera had to be stopped down then it hurts PQ. Again, the skirmish in the forest occurred in similar stopped down conditions (check out the depth of field there) but exhibited an exceptional visual stage.


Same with the fog causing a less than stellar low light conditions. This film's PQ rating needs to be dinged for those sub par scenes.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Valkyrie*


This will be a short and to the point review.


This looked very good overall. Clarity, detail and sharpness were all very impressive. Colors looked good and natural. The only thing that brings this title down a bit is contrast, which is slightly lacking and prevents the picture from having a lot of depth.


The movie itself was good enough to enjoy, though nothing particularly special either.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*The Curious Case of Benjamin Button*


This one is a bit of a mixed bag. It rarely looks incredible, and often looks soft. Other times it looks pretty good though. It is a somewhat stylized film.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75*


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I have Defiance here from Netflix, so I hope to weigh in on it in the next couple of days.


----------



## K-Spaz

"Making your point for you.."


Yes and no.


Yes, I agree those scenes with the fog were less than stellar, but they were suppposed to be less than stellar.


The stopped down raid situation is really a trade off. You have to make a comprimise on something when detail is needed in a dark scene. If you open the aperture enough to get a fast shutter, there is little depth of focus. If you stop it down and get that depth of focus, you now have a shutter speed issue that (sometimes) translates into lesser sharpness. This is especially true when there's camera movement. However, more of the scene has detail, just less of it than there would be if you had an open aperture and only the subject was in focus.


I think of it as, higher detail, but less of it, Orrrr lower detail, but more of it.


I think we agree that it's this sort of scene that has detracted from our scores. In the past I've said that dark films have a tough row to hoe when working up the pq ladder. This is just another example of why. Yes, you could say I have stereotyped darker films, bu they deserve it. Darker = more difficult shooting conditions = comprimise in camera work = many times need for dnr to reduce excessive grain = doesn't look so good to me = lower score on pq thread! Hehe.







Thus, dark blu-grey-war-genre = no matter how good they do it, automatic deducts for inevitible, unavoidable issues.


So much of this title deserves to be in tier blu that I could easily recommend this as a disk for people to check setup (calibration).


This film might have gotten a 1.25 vote if the actors ever washed their faces!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/16593384
> 
> 
> This film might have gotten a 1.25 vote if the actors ever washed their faces!



The blood, dirt and grime on their faces ADDED to my final score for the movie! It was very impressive being able to see every pore, pit, and stubble beneath all of that.


----------



## K-Spaz

I have one for ya to check out. If you're getting bored with nf rentals, throw Southland Tales on your Q. This movie is definitely not for everyone. It's got it's funny moments. I gave it a 2 on nf cause it's sorta 'out there' and not really my cup of tea. It's got some of the best looking shots I've seen on br. Might even say worth it for that alone. You'll notice some dnr at times and there's lots of cg. Boy does it have color and pop. Wheather or not you like the movie will depend on your viewing taste. It's a bit profane at times, so if that bothers you, pass on this one. I have an sdvd for tonight, and may not even get any disks tomorrow so there's even a chance some work might get done on the house this weekend! Woohoo.


----------



## deltasun

I have a copy of this on SD DVD, but have not had a chance to watch yet. I may add the BR in NF. Next week's a bit slow, with only _The International_ coming out.


And guys, you're funny with the smeary/dirty faces.







I think you know what I meant when I said the medium-shot scenes had a smeary quality to them.


----------



## K-Spaz

I knew exactly what you meant. My dirty face comment was unrelated to that.


Just kicking back to my first beer of the week. (probably the last too). I'm not responsible for what I type now.


Don't ever take me too seriously! It's all in fun.


----------



## OhioMike

*The Spirit*


I ran a search and did not see much conversation on this disc. I have watched it twice now and feel that it is an outstanding looking disc. It has great fine detail throughout, 3D pop is definitely there with the high contrast and deep blacks. Unlike many I actually really enjoyed the film as well...very funny.

I would place this in *Tier 1.25* for now, with a shot at *Tier 0*

*Pioneer Kuro 5020, PS3 @ 6.5ft in Pitch Black*


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

woohoo! I'm home!!!


An even bigger "woohoo" -- yesterday the husband surprised me by coming home with the Star Trek movies boxed set AND TOS season 1.


Last night we vegged out and watched the "trilogy" of Wrath of Khan/Search for Spock/Voyage Home. As it is my first forray back into watching anything high definition for a month, I'm going to have to watch them again with a more critical eye as I know they are not the best of transfers by a long shot and yet I was completely enthralled with how good they looked (some serious laughter at the special effects though, Blu Ray is not kind with those).



So I have to watch them again once my eyes readjust to my TV where even standard definition is looking fabulous in comparison to what I've been subjected to for a month in order to provide proper reviews for them... but I am curious, after a search I can only find Phantom Stranger's review for the first ST movie (The Motion Picture) which I didn't watch yet. Anyone else provide reviews for any of these and I just am being stumped by the search feature? Or any opinions from anyone who just watched-but-didnt-review?


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Slumdog Millionaire*


Not the best looking title by a long shot. Several instances of noise in some of the darker scenes. Clarity and detail was a bit below average, as was contrast.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.25*


As for the movie itself: after the first 45 minutes to an hour, I thought this film was simply fantastic. Superb film making. Then something happened in the last half of the film, and it started to fall apart for me.

*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) At the start of the film, we have the contestant literally being tortured with electricity. By the end of the film, they are almost talking as though they are friends.


I also felt that the tone of the movie was ruined at the end, when everyone went into a song and dance routine, which only served to remind us that this was not real, but just a movie where everyone was having fun. Well, the horrible poverty shown in the movie is very real, so I thought it was an odd juxtaposition.


I found it to be depressing too, but I don't think that I was supposed to. I think we were supposed to be happy and think that these people have "hope". But no. We aren't shown that in any way. By going on a game show? Please.



In the end, I give this movie a 3.5 out of 5 stars. The first half would be 4.5 stars.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Revolutionary Road*


This is a decent looking title overall, but it clearly does not belong with the best titles in Tier 1.


Clarity and detail are decent, but are not in the same league as the higher tier titles. The main issue I have with this title is contrast (or lack thereof). The image often looks pretty flat.


Colors are definitely stylized in an attempt to comport with the look of the 50's.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75*


As for the movie: simply superb. Kate Winslet has been one of my favorite actresses over the last few years. She has, with this performance, proven to me yet again what a great actress she is. In fact, I would now say that she is the best actress working today (with Kate Blanchett up there as well).


This movie is a perfect example of how a tight script with excellent acting can make for a great movie, even if the subject matter itself is not particularly interesting. The direction by Mendes is top notch.


Very highly recommended.


----------



## sleater




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16600274
> 
> 
> woohoo! I'm home!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone else provide reviews for any of these and I just am being stumped by the search feature? Or any opinions from anyone who just watched-but-didnt-review?



I watched the first and second star treks and thought the second was much less processed and more natural looking... I have a teeny tiny mini review on this post http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...0#post16480950 


Just finished watching *Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves.* This is yet another horrible looking BD release from Warner that seems to be the spawn of a DVD transfer instead of an original print. When will studios realise that by putting out garbage like this it puts newcomers to bluray off and gives them a valid argument that it isn't much better than DVD? It's a washed-out dull looking soft mess with macroblocking, digital noise and nonexistant wow factor in any scenes. I'd be curious to see what the upconverted DVD looks like compared to this.


On a plus, the blacks are passable, contrast is ok and skin tones look natural enough. DNR seems to be applied lightly at times then heavily whenever there are close to medium range shots of people, robbing them of any fine detail. I don't know, maybe it's a bit harsh but I'll say *Tier 4.5* on this one because I'm mad I spent $20 for it. On a side note, the film didn't age well but that's likely due to the fact that I was 10 when I found it thoroughly entertaining at a drive-in theatre back in '91.


92" screen HC5500 1080p PS3 7' v.d.


Sorry about the incorrect format.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16601035
> 
> *Slumdog Millionaire*
> 
> 
> Not the best looking title by a long shot. Several instances of noise in some of the darker scenes. Clarity and detail was a bit below average, as was contrast.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.25*
> 
> 
> As for the movie itself: after the first 45 minutes to an hour, I thought this film was simply fantastic. Superb film making. Then something happened in the last half of the film, and it started to fall apart for me.
> 
> *Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler
> *Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) At the start of the film, we have the contestant literally being tortured with electricity. By the end of the film, they are almost talking as though they are friends.
> 
> 
> I also felt that the tone of the movie was ruined at the end, when everyone went into a song and dance routine, which only served to remind us that this was not real, but just a movie where everyone was having fun. Well, the horrible poverty shown in the movie is very real, so I thought it was an odd juxtaposition.
> 
> 
> I found it to be depressing too, but I don't think that I was supposed to. I think we were supposed to be happy and think that these people have "hope". But no. We aren't shown that in any way. By going on a game show? Please.
> 
> 
> 
> In the end, I give this movie a 3.5 out of 5 stars. The first half would be 4.5 stars.



In my last post regarding Slumdog Millionaire I said I would surely go along with a 3.0 rating. Now I'm willing to go along with a 3.25!










I'll be interesting in hearing your take on Defiance Rob after you view it.


----------



## 42041

*David Gilmour: Remember That Night*


It's been a couple of weeks since I've had the time to fire up the plasma and watch something, and this wasn't exactly the PQ extravaganza I hoped to enjoy. Seems like it was shot on pretty low-end cameras, the picture quality is ALL over the place, occasionally hitting what I'd consider to be tier 2, but mostly staying well below, frequently dipping to upconvert-ish quality. Black levels are inconsistent, digital noise is overbearing and some rather poor temporal noise reduction algorithm leaves it frozen in place most of the time. The concert is pretty good, though I've never been a fan of post-Wall Pink Floyd and Gilmour's solo material, which comprises a good bit of this show. I'd rather hear more classic Floyd, but what you do get is quite excellent. Sometimes watching musicians on whom age has taken its toll can be a depressing experience but Gilmour hasn't lost a thing, playing and singing like he recorded those albums yesterday. The sound quality, unlike the video, is good.

*Tier 4.5*


(PS3/Pioneer 50" Kuro Elite/1sw distance)


----------



## b_scott

*A History of Violence*


Great PQ, very sharp with lots of pop. Dark scenes had a bit of black crush, but nothing to cry about. Definitely recommend the movie, really interesting. Blood looks awesome









*Tier 2.0*


(PS3/Pioneer 50" Kuro 8' distance)


----------



## BrownTown




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OhioMike* /forum/post/16598756
> 
> *The Spirit*
> 
> 
> I ran a search and did not see much conversation on this disc. I have watched it twice now and feel that it is an outstanding looking disc. It has great fine detail throughout, 3D pop is definitely there with the high contrast and deep blacks. Unlike many I actually really enjoyed the film as well...very funny.
> 
> I would place this in *Tier 1.25* for now, with a shot at *Tier 0*
> 
> *Pioneer Kuro 5020, PS3 @ 6.5ft in Pitch Black*



I got the same set-up as you. I think what is so great about this movie in a pitch black room with a Pioneer plasma is the black and white levels this movie has. I don't think I would rate it that high if I watched it on a TV with not that great black levels, but this movie is almost one of the best Demo disc I have found for my Kuro.


----------



## OhioMike

*QUANTUM OF SOLACE*


Finally got to watch this tonight and I was very impressed overall. Exellent coloring, deep blacks and a consistently high level picture. The only thing that I did feel was lacking was the fine detail on faces...but maybe their skin is just that good









The audio track was outstanding and I really enjoyed the movie. I have been very pleased with Daniel Craig as Bond. He has really lived up to this tough role and become one of the best to play the part.

*TIER 1*

*Pioneer Kuro 5020, PS3 in Pitch Black @6.5ft*


----------



## neumei626

I guess this is another fine example of where personal opinions differ. I thought *Zodiac* and *I am Legend* were the best looking titles I had seen outside of animation. Better than *Man on Fire* which sits on the vaunted "reference" level.


----------



## b_scott

I thought Zodiac looked amazing. I too am puzzled by its placement.


----------



## K-Spaz

Guys,


Don't be too puzzled.


Different systems are going to show different strengths and weaknesses in the films. Everyone is not going to agree all the time. In fact, in some cases there's actually multiple versions of movies out there, and if you look at the list, you'll see some titles twice depending on what release they are.


I had a good example recently on a title that others said was a high tier one, and I called a low 2 to 3. I viewed a second time and now I might go to a 4. I have no doubt that the film I saw is not what they watched. These folks are not blind, if they called it a high one after seeing hundreds of disks, then that's good enough for me. They certainly were not looking at the images I saw, and lots of others agreed with one camp or the other. These were the most dramatic differences I've seen in this thread.


I also recently had a difference of opinion on some artifacting with a regular poster here and after some reconsideration and re-viewing very closely, I could clearly see the issues they had picked out. Was it horrible on my system, not really, no. But I could see where if their system had better contrast than mine it could be a significant isuse.


We are all looking at different displays using different eyes. Votes do count, write one up.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/16605589
> 
> 
> Guys,
> 
> 
> Don't be too puzzled.
> 
> 
> Different systems are going to show different strengths and weaknesses in the films. Everyone is not going to agree all the time. In fact, in some cases there's actually multiple versions of movies out there, and if you look at the list, you'll see some titles twice depending on what release they are.
> 
> 
> I had a good example recently on a title that others said was a high tier one, and I called a low 2 to 3. I viewed a second time and now I might go to a 4. I have no doubt that the film I saw is not what they watched. These folks are not blind, if they called it a high one after seeing hundreds of disks, then that's good enough for me. They certainly were not looking at the images I saw, and lots of others agreed with one camp or the other. These were the most dramatic differences I've seen in this thread.
> 
> 
> I also recently had a difference of opinion on some artifacting with a regular poster here and after some reconsideration and re-viewing very closely, I could clearly see the issues they had picked out. Was it horrible on my system, not really, no. But I could see where if their system had better contrast than mine it could be a significant isuse.
> 
> 
> We are all looking at different displays using different eyes. Votes do count, write one up.




+1


Well said, K-Spaz.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *neumei626* /forum/post/16604907
> 
> 
> I guess this is another fine example of where personal opinions differ. I thought *Zodiac* and *I am Legend* were the best looking titles I had seen outside of animation. Better than *Man on Fire* which sits on the vaunted "reference" level.



I haven't seen _Zodiac_ on BR yet, but I know _I am Legend_ (while a great looking title & the first BR I ever purchased) does suffer from poor black levels. I have not done a formal review on the title since I thought the placement here was fair.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/16605589
> 
> 
> We are all looking at different displays using different eyes. Votes do count, write one up.



Very good points, K-Spaz!


Yes, votes do count but I'd like to think this thread is a little more than that. It's not just a polling thread; otherwise, let's dispense with the reviews and simply have voting buttons for each title.


In my opinion, the strength of this thread lies in being able to articulate why a reviewer believes a title should be placed in _x_ tier and another can refute with his/her reasons. I believe *SuprSlow* then uses the strengths of each argument in his determination of where a title is eventually placed. So, it's not strictly a vote, per se. A vote for one tier can be refuted by a compelling argument from a majority of reviewers, despite differences in people's equipment.


So, to neumei626, I encourage you to write one up and tell us why you would consider _Zodiac_ and _I am Legend_ reference material.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16606323
> 
> 
> Yes, votes do count but I'd like to think this thread is a little more than that. *It's not just a polling thread*; otherwise, let's dispense with the reviews and simply have voting buttons for each title.
> 
> *In my opinion, the strength of this thread lies in being able to articulate why a reviewer believes a title should be placed in x tier and another can refute with his/her reasons.* I believe *SuprSlow* then uses the strengths of each argument in his determination of where a title is eventually placed. So, it's not strictly a vote, per se. A vote for one tier can be refuted by a compelling argument from a majority of reviewers, despite differences in people's equipment.
> 
> 
> So, to neumei626, I encourage you to write one up and tell us why you would consider _Zodiac_ and _I am Legend_ reference material.



+1


Well said, deltasun!


----------



## OldCodger73

IMO, _Seabiscuit_ is a very solid Tier 1 title. Depth and detail were very good. Facial sharpness was not quite Tier 0. In the outdoor scenes colors were gorgeous. Focus in some of the racing scenes was jittery, maybe a director decision to further the impression of the speed of the horses.


All in all I'd rate *Seabiscuit Tier 1.5*.


The movie itself was very enjoyable in a feel good way and along with _The Black Stallion_ and _National Velvet_ one of the best racing movies made.


I have a question. _Seabiscuit_ is a Universal flick that first came out in HD-DVD. When a studio reissues a HD film in the BD format, is there usually a new master made or do they use the same one? The reason I asking-- and I'm not trying to provoke a controversy-- is that in the HD Software thread _Seabiscuit_ is rated in the top category and I don't see the BD release being that.


----------



## b_scott

I just blind bought A Bug's Life. I don't think I'll be disappointed


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16606323
> 
> 
> Yes, votes do count but I'd like to think this thread is a little more than that. It's not just a polling thread; otherwise, let's dispense with the reviews and simply have voting buttons for each title.



Agreed. I was trying not to be too wordy and perhaps "votes" wasn't the best choice. You all know the gist of what I was trying to say. Basically, any opinion with a shred of valid supporting arguments will be taken into consideration.


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/16606491
> 
> 
> I just blind bought A Bug's Life. I don't think I'll be disappointed



Given the opinions here I think that's a safe bet.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/16606475
> 
> 
> I have a question. _Seabiscuit_ is a Universal flick that first came out in HD-DVD. When a studio reissues a HD film in the BD format, is there usually a new master made or do they use the same one? The reason I asking-- and I'm not trying to provoke a controversy-- is that in the HD Software thread _Seabiscuit_ is rated in the top category and I don't see the BD release being that.



My understanding is that a studio _may use the same encode_ when reissuing it in the Blu-ray format. If they do, the title _should look identical to its HD DVD counterpart_.


I have Seabiscuit on HD DVD and back in "its day" I voted for the top tier. But I'll have to re-watch it and see if it still looks like "reference material" to me. As we've noted many times titles have been getting better and better and what looked top notch a year or so ago isn't as good by today's standards. Such may be the case with Seabiscuit, though I have no doubt it will still be good enough to justify a Tier 1 placement.


----------



## JazzGuyy

I haven't seen any mention of two classics from Warner: _The Adventures of Robin Hood_ and _An American In Paris._ I have viewed both on a calibrated Pioneer 151FD from 10' and for a 70+ year old and a nearly 60 year old, these two look magnificent and get my nomination for at least Tier 1_._ For the first time with Blu-Ray you can really see how rich and wonderful Technicolor really was. If these films have a fault it is with their mono sound which, while clean, hardly meets modern standards and both are only Dolby Digital mono.


----------



## dla26

Glad to hear that you liked the PQ of Seabiscuit. I never saw the movie before, but I picked up HD DVD version for 

...And we now return you to our regularly scheduled Blu-Ray PQ discussion.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/16605589
> 
> 
> 
> I had a good example recently on a title that others said was a high tier one, and I called a low 2 to 3. I viewed a second time and now I might go to a 4. I have no doubt that the film I saw is not what they watched. These folks are not blind, if they called it a high one after seeing hundreds of disks, then that's good enough for me. They certainly were not looking at the images I saw, and lots of others agreed with one camp or the other. These were the most dramatic differences I've seen in this thread.



Just out of curiosity, what title was this? That is a huge gap!


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *neumei626* /forum/post/16604907
> 
> 
> I guess this is another fine example of where personal opinions differ. I thought *Zodiac* and *I am Legend* were the best looking titles I had seen outside of animation. Better than *Man on Fire* which sits on the vaunted "reference" level.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/16605273
> 
> 
> I thought Zodiac looked amazing. I too am puzzled by its placement.



The darker scenes, especially night scenes are the reason it's placed at 2.0.

Take out those scenes, and it's easily 1.0 material.

Darker scenes seem to be the "Achilles' heel" of shooting with digital cameras.


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/16607788
> 
> 
> Just out of curiosity, what title was this?


 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1145228


----------



## subavision212




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JazzGuyy* /forum/post/16607094
> 
> 
> I haven't seen any mention of two classics from Warner: _The Adventures of Robin Hood_ and _An American In Paris._ I have viewed both on a calibrated Pioneer 151FD from 10' and for a 70+ year old and a nearly 60 year old, these two look magnificent and get my nomination for at least Tier 1_._ For the first time with Blu-Ray you can really see how rich and wonderful Technicolor really was. If these films have a fault it is with their mono sound which, while clean, hardly meets modern standards and both are only Dolby Digital mono.



funny you should mention Robin Hood. I watched it this afternoon after watching POTC II and you are totally correct on the Technicolor presentation. I've seen this film at least 20 times, this being the first on blu-ray and I just kept staring at the incredibly lush color on this disc. some of the close-ups were so vibrant and deep it made you blink (or in my case,clean my glasses). maybe it was going from the Pirates to this film that made a difference a bit because Pirates' picture was sharp as crystal and the color was so...solid,for lack of a better word. Robin Hood just looked so velvety and exactly what your slides would look like if you were shooting kodachrome 25.


----------



## deltasun

*Children of Men*


I'm having a hard time rating this title. Individual elements of its PQ looked impressive, except for facial close-up's. So, that lands it in the Gold tier. However, when I step back and just think of Gold tier titles, this did not resonate all that well with those. But I can't put a finger on what arrives me at that conclusion.


Is it the dark and bleak, post-apocalyptic look? Is it the lack of any real facial close-up's? The filthy, drab, dilapidated city streets? I can usually find some other characteristic that make up for the lack of another. Dark levels are excellent on this film. Low-light levels are top notch, with plenty of depth and astounding details. I thought medium shots, plenty of them, held well. Contrast was a bit pushed for the intended look, but did not hurt PQ. Or did it?


Fine grain present throughout, with definite ringing in a number of scenes. I really think the look complemented the subject matter perfectly, but I'm inclined to give this film...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I rated Zodiac at the top of tier one (a search of this thread should turn up my review) but there were several dissenting opinions on it. Anyone that feels a current placement is in error should do a formal write-up and recommendation on it. Specific placements can only change when posters give their opinions. It then comes down to SuprSlow's judgment.


----------



## deltasun

*True Romance*


One word: SOFT. With a dollop of DNR.


The only real saving grace here is the movie itself. PQ-wise, it's still an upgrade from its SD DVD presentation, but average for BR. The second biggest issue is contrast. It gives the film a dated look and renders scenes flat and messy. Black levels were average as well and not exactly notable.


For what it's worth, the PQ does improve a bit in California. Scenes are a bit more picturesque with decent vibrancy of colors and somewhat sharper delineation of scene elements. Unfortunately, I also saw more obvious signs of DNR.


Overall, I believe the presentation can still be considered low Bronze...

*Tier Recommendation: 3.75*


If you're a fan of the film, it's a worthy upgrade. But yes, hope this Warner catalog title treatment gets turned around soon.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## JohnES1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/16606491
> 
> 
> I just blind bought A Bug's Life. I don't think I'll be disappointed



We just watched it, it's reference grade alright-the spectacle doesn't start 'till about twenty minutes in. Story line didn't engage my mom, she nodded off a few times.


----------



## 42041

*Bottle Rocket*


This 1996 film comes to Blu-ray courtesy of Criterion, featuring a pretty decent transfer. I'd put this on par with the Princess Bride: generally quite pleasant looking, pretty soft, a good amount of grain that's compressed well, some EE around edges that can be pretty bothersome but isn't the worst I've seen. Attentive pixel peepers may note the presence of subtle jaggies, but I didn't find them too noticeable from 1 screen width distance. As for the movie itself, I liked it, but if you are not the type to enjoy "quirky" movies, you may have a more negative opinion.

*Tier 3.0*


(PS3/Pioneer 50" Kuro Elite/1SW distance)


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/16607901
> 
> 
> The darker scenes, especially night scenes are the reason it's placed at 2.0.
> 
> Take out those scenes, and it's easily 1.0 material.
> 
> Darker scenes seem to be the "Achilles' heel" of shooting with digital cameras.



It wasn't just the dark scenes in *Zodiac* that were less than impressive. I thought the medium shots were consistently lacking, most memorably in interior shots such as the many shots in the newspaper offices. There was a processed look in those shots that just did not look right. I can't recall at the moment whether they went so far as EE, but I think they may well have.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16606232
> 
> 
> I haven't seen _Zodiac_ on BR yet, but I know *I am Legend* (while a great looking title & the first BR I ever purchased) does suffer from poor black levels. I have not done a formal review on the title since I thought the placement here was fair.



IAL suffers from a lot more than poor black levels. It is yet another Warner soft smear job.


----------



## neumei626

About all the comments on Zodiac and I am Legend, I appreciate it.


I think this thread is awesome, and it obviously has taken alot of hard work to make such a detailed ranking system, and intergrate it with so many titles.


To be honest, I have not seen a whole slew of HDDVD and blu-ray, probably around 80-90 titles, maybe 100, so I do not have the ultimate basis of comparison. However, of what I watched, I think Zodiac is the best looking disc I have seen yet, and I just disagreed with a couple titles from tier 0. Those being PotC, and Man on Fire. I just thought Zodiac and IaL had such a better level of detail than those two discs. Well, PotC had good detail, but its extreme film grain turned me off.


I guess I am a guy who values ultimate detail, although deep blacks is something I can appreciate as well. I just got a new Pioneer KRP-500M, and it's blacks are just out of this world. Black bars are practically indestinguishable from the bezel.


Now that I think of it, IaL did indeed have some messed up blacks, so I retract that statement that it should be in tier 0. However, I am sticking to my guns that Zodiac is incredible, and belongs there. I am not a classic film buff, and do not look down on edge enhancement however. If I did, I could see the gripe.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *neumei626* /forum/post/16615734
> 
> 
> Well, PotC had good detail, but its extreme film grain turned me off.



I'm definitely in the minority in my agreement with you about the PotC's extreme grain being a distraction. I don't believe it belongs in Tier Blu either, but I work within the confines of this thread.





> Quote:
> I am not a classic film buff, and do not look down on edge enhancement however. If I did, I could see the gripe.



I don't believe EE or even DNR necessarily drop PQ automatically. We are in the business of absolute picture quality regardless of presentation techniques. I've said in the past that if one day they are able to do EE or DNR to a point that it actually enhances pictures, I am obviously open to it. Currently, I've not seen a good example.


----------



## neumei626

Thanks deltasun. I have about 60 HDDVD titles and about 15 blu-rays, as well as renting quite a few from blockbuster online and in-store, and I have not yet seen a film with grain worse than PotC. Man was that awful!


On another note, I have a question regarding the filming process used by todays hollywood studios.


I read somewhere that Zodiac was the first film to shoot in full 1080p. Since the year 2005 or so, about what percentage of films would you say have been shot in this resolution?


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *neumei626* /forum/post/16615993
> 
> 
> I read somewhere that Zodiac was the first film to shoot in full 1080p. Since the year 2005 or so, about what percentage of films would you say have been shot in this resolution?



I guess I defer to the experts here. I thought film is film. It's when they're mastered and finally encoded that determines at what resolution. Now, if you're asking about video, that could be. I still couldn't guess as to what percentage.


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16615924
> 
> 
> I'm definitely in the minority in my agreement with you about the PotC's extreme grain being a distraction. I don't believe it belongs in Tier Blu either, but I work within the confines of this thread.



Ya see, here's sorta what I've been saying for a long time (in not so many words). For me, film grain, in and of itself doesn't detract from the image quality as long as it's subtle and occasional. Grain that's intentional, can actually add to an images warmth, but one has to keep in mind the audience, viewing distance, and not go overboard with it.


At what point grain becomes "excessive" is something we all decide individually. For me, it must be at a lot lower level than it is for some here. At some point the grain becomes more obvious than the subject. For me, that's the point. When it is so prominent that it distracts me, say goodnight... That's it.


I also think that excessive grain represents either poor choice of medium, poor lens choice, poor lighting control, or some other premeditated decision that was obviously wrong. A lot like Deltasun, I don't care where the image went wrong, if I think it's bad I call it like I see it.



> Quote:
> I don't believe EE or even DNR necessarily drop PQ automatically. We are in the business of absolute picture quality regardless of presentation techniques. I've said in the past that if one day they are able to do EE or DNR to a point that it actually enhances pictures, I am obviously open to it. Currently, I've not seen a good example.



While we're in agreement here on the premise, I think I differ in perception.


I am willing to believe that there's not many movies out there without some dnr or ee. Or any number of other filtering techniques used. I think the problem comes in when we see it.


Think of it like this. If I shoot a nice image with my EOS and shoot it raw. Let's say its 30MB. That's as good as it gets. It's in TIFF format. Now, I take the same image but save the JPG format. That's about 4MB. If I show these two to you side by side, I defy you to look at the screens and tell me which is the compressed version. However, if I go to Paint Shop Pro and save this image again but alter the JPG compression settings, I end up with an image that's say 200K. Look at that image at 1:1 and I would be disappointed if you could not immediately tell me "that's a JPG there." That's because the compression has been done to such a degree that it has become obvious to anyone.


I don't doubt that there's some EE and DNR being done to all the movies we watch. But I think what happens is, some of the people doing the filtering have a good grasp on how much is enough, and others don't. Some do a fantastic job and none of us even notice that the image has been "enhanced". That's a really good thing. Then, some other yaahoo applies EE like it's their first day in the booth and we've got halos and bright edges so bad we think they backlighted the entire movie.


I think there's many good examples of these filters in many of the movies we have seen. It's just that we have not noticed, and *that* is the feather in the operators cap.


----------



## deltasun

^^ I definitely try to shoot at the lowest ISO possible given lighting conditions.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *neumei626* /forum/post/16615993
> 
> 
> I read somewhere that Zodiac was the first film to shoot in full 1080p. Since the year 2005 or so, about what percentage of films would you say have been shot in this resolution?



That's not true. If we're just talking digital cameras, I know Sin City was released in 2005 and was shot on 1080p cameras, there might be earlier examples too, I'm not sure. Film is harder to quantify in terms of digital resolution but it's safe to say that 70mm film stock and Vistavision can capture 1080p of detail given a high quality digital transfer, and those formats were used back in the 50s. Modern 35mm film stocks will easily give you 1080p's worth of detail as well.


Digital intermediates for modern films are generally either 2K or 4K resolution.


----------



## neumei626

This was taken from highdefdigest.com's review of Zodiac:


The Video: Sizing Up the Picture



'Zodiac' holds the honor of being the first film shot entirely in 1080p high definition with digital Thompson Viper Filmstream cameras -- the same groundbreaking cameras director Michael Mann used to film portions of 'Miami Vice' and 'Collateral.' As such, the 1080p/AVC MPEG-4 transfer included on the HD DVD edition of 'Zodiac: Director's Cut' has been taken straight from its pristine digital source, and the results are nothing less than spectacular.


This paragraph made me curoius as to how many films are shot in full 1080p. Maybe this spec could be something that steared me towards certain movies with this distinction as I LOVED the PQ of Zodiac.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *neumei626* /forum/post/16616491
> 
> 
> This was taken from highdefdigest.com's review of Zodiac:
> 
> 
> The Video: Sizing Up the Picture
> 
> 
> 
> 'Zodiac' holds the honor of being the first film shot entirely in 1080p high definition with digital Thompson Viper Filmstream cameras -- the same groundbreaking cameras director Michael Mann used to film portions of 'Miami Vice' and 'Collateral.' As such, the 1080p/AVC MPEG-4 transfer included on the HD DVD edition of 'Zodiac: Director's Cut' has been taken straight from its pristine digital source, and the results are nothing less than spectacular.
> 
> 
> This paragraph made me curoius as to how many films are shot in full 1080p. Maybe this spec could be something that steared me towards certain movies with this distinction as I LOVED the PQ of Zodiac.



Then you're probably wanting other movies shot with high-end digital cameras, like Apocalypto, RockNRolla, Sin City, The Spirit, Planet Terror (not the theatrical version) etc. I agree that they often look great. It's probably true that Zodiac is the first film shot with the Viper camera, but it's one of many digital cameras with similar performance that have been used for quite a few years now.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/16616242
> 
> 
> Film is harder to quantify in terms of digital resolution but it's safe to say that 70mm film stock and Vistavision can capture 1080p of detail given a high quality digital transfer, and those formats were used back in the 50s. Modern 35mm film stocks will easily give you 1080p's worth of detail as well.



1080p can be easily captured from 35mm of that vintage, as well.


----------



## oleus

i officially take back any reservation i had about A BUGS'S LIFE being in tier 0 - i watched deeper into the movie last night and it's definitely sharp as a tack with great depth. that first scene during and right after the credits didn't have the pop of the rest of the film, but i remember it being that way on SD as well (i used to use this as a reference disc wayyyy back in the day) and i seem to remember that first few minutes being less impressive than what followed....


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oleus* /forum/post/16616680
> 
> 
> i officially take back any reservation i had about A BUGS'S LIFE being in tier 0 - i watched deeper into the movie last night and it's definitely sharp as a tack with great depth.


----------



## djoberg

*The International*


It's been awhile since I reviewed a new release before deltasun, but here goes nothing.










I am happy to say this was a razor-sharp transfer with a lot of 3D pop. And when I say "3D" I'm not just referring to _Depth_; I'm referring to _*d*epth_, _*d*etail_, and _*d*imension_. I haven't seen this much clarity in a film since Transporter 3, though I'm not going to rate it quite as high as T3. A great example of these three are the amazing cityscape scenes from major cities around the world, most notably the last scene filmed in Istanbul, Turkey. I was mesmerized by it and it rivaled similar scenes from Baraka.


Do you, like me, love fine detail in facial close-ups? If so, you're in for a treat. Every type of complexion is highlighted revealing pores, wrinkles, creases, stubble, moles, etc. Several scenes show Clive Owen and Naomi Watts together and his tan and her pale skin are contrasted beautifully.


The color palette is intentionally subdued, but where there is color it is warm and vibrant. Blacks are very deep with exquisite shadow detail. Contrast is as strong as I've seen in recent films. Skin tones are spot on.


Again, this title is consistently sharp and detailed and you will appreciate the finely rendered detail in buildings, streets, trees, clothing, furniture, etc. I highly recommend this movie for its exceptional PQ, and the storyline itself was quite satisfying as well (though the pace was a tad slow at times).


I am struggling as I reach the most important part of the review...the Tier Recommendation. There is no doubt in my mind this will be placed in either Blu or Gold and right now my gut reaction is to place it here:

*Tier Recommendation: Low Tier 0*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'


----------



## Hughmc

djoberg, got this one tonight as well as Gran Torino. I also still have yet to put up at least a half dozen reviews including He's Just Not That Into You, 100 Feet (an obsure exclusive to Hollywood Video BD with Famke Janssen), Valkyrie, Defiance, Taken, Underworld 3, Last Chance Harvey and a few more I can't think of.










Off topic, but I seen UP in 3D this weekend!!

















Holy eye candy bat brain.










I think companies like Disney know that home theatre viewing is getting so good and regardless if the box office is doing good they want it to do better and I think it will. I only go to the movies about once a year now, but when I seen the half dozen or so previews and UP in 3D it really makes me want to go back. If we could get that kind of 3D at home on BD we would have to create a whole new tier, because even the best of the best animation titles won't hold a candle to that kind of eye popping display. I was more than impressed, like going from DVD to BD, that good. It borders on virtual reality immersiveness at times with things seeming to come right at or around you. Highly recommended for anyone who hasn't seen a film in Stereoscopic 3D.


----------



## Swiggs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16617364
> 
> *The International*
> 
> 
> It's been awhile since I reviewed a new release before deltasun, but here goes nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am happy to say this was a razor-sharp transfer with a lot of 3D pop. And when I say "3D" I'm not just referring to _Depth_; I'm referring to _*d*epth_, _*d*etail_, and _*d*imension_. I haven't seen this much clarity in a film since Transporter 3, though I'm not going to rate it quite as high as T3. A great example of these three are the amazing cityscape scenes from major cities around the world, most notably the last scene filmed in Istanbul, Turkey. I was mesmerized by it and it rivaled similar scenes from Baraka.
> 
> 
> Do you, like me, love fine detail in facial close-ups? If so, you're in for a treat. Every type of complexion is highlighted revealing pores, wrinkles, creases, stubble, moles, etc. Several scenes show Clive Owen and Naomi Watts together and his tan and her pale skin are contrasted beautifully.
> 
> 
> The color palette is intentionally subdued, but where there is color it is warm and vibrant. Blacks are very deep with exquisite shadow detail. Contrast is as strong as I've seen in recent films. Skin tones are spot on.
> 
> 
> Again, this title is consistently sharp and detailed and you will appreciate the finely rendered detail in buildings, streets, trees, clothing, furniture, etc. I highly recommend this movie for its exceptional PQ, and the storyline itself was quite satisfying as well (though the pace was a tad slow at times).
> 
> 
> I am struggling as I reach the most important part of the review...the Tier Recommendation. There is no doubt in my mind this will be placed in either Blu or Gold and right now my gut reaction is to place it here:
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Low Tier 0*
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" Elite KURO....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'



That recommendation is enough for me to buy the movie. I've wanted to see this one for awhile. And since I just picked up my first Blu-ray player a couple of weeks ago, I'm starting up a new collection. I'll probably pick this one up tomorrow and throw a review on here.


Anyone have a review for Gran Torino yet? That's another I plan on adding to my stockpile.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16617364
> 
> *The International*
> 
> 
> It's been awhile since I reviewed a new release before deltasun, but here goes nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Low Tier 0*



Dammit, djoberg, you beat me to it!







If my wife wouldn't have asked me to help look at cruiser bicycles tonight, I would have finished a couple of hours ago.










I literally just finished this and was so shocked and excited that we came to the exact same conclusion of Low Tier 0. I was thinking Tier 1, but when I popped in _Casino Royale_ for comparison, there was no doubt this was a higher PQ'd title.


I'll write my review now...


----------



## deltasun

*The International*


"Sometimes a man can meet his destiny on the road he took to avoid it"


Fine layer of grain throughout gave this title a very natural film-like look. To me, this film started out NOT as strong on facial details as I was expecting from the previews I'd seen. I was really wanting to see more details in Naomi Watts' face. This just didn't happen with her medium shots inside the NY office building, cab ride with Clive Owen. Don't get me wrong, the details were there, just not to what I was hoping. Owen, on the other hand, probably due to his darker skin, showed decent details from the beginning.


I think it was around the 30min mark that close-up's got a little closer. And out came details that we've come to expect from a Blu title (not to the detail of Transporter 3, which was aided by its pushed contrast). Watts finally joined the cast in sharing some facial irregularities/anomalies in the form of closer close-up's. But, enough about close-up's...there are other attributes to point out.


Let's talk about the intro scenes for each of the cities - Italy, New York, Luxembourg, Istanbul. Each panoramic shot was perfectly lit and the small aperture revealed depth and detail worthy of the very best postcards. As djoberg mentioned, Istanbul was probably the most impressive, particularly the overhead shot of the funeral place. Depth and detail were not limited to cityscapes. A number of outside scenes were treated with generous depth of field and well-calculated cinematography.


Blacks were striking, with no evidence of crushing (okay, it got close in one scene of Owen's). Contrast was bold and helped sell the strong look of the film. Skin tones were spot on natural, each character comfortably holding on to his/her shade. The overall palette was a bit subdued, dominated by steely blues and grays.


I believe the best sequence for overall clarity, depth, details, levels has to be in Milan, leading up to Calvini's speech. Again, this film was a delight for details - facial, fabric (the close-up of Skarssen's lapel), pavement, city walls, on and on.


I did not really spot too many negatives - a couple of very slight ringing (natural, perhaps) and a washed out scene of one of the characters during interrogation. Loading in my copy of _Casino Royale_ for comparison cemented the placement of this film in...

*Tier Recommendation: Low Tier 0*


Pacing was definitely on the slow end, but the PQ made for a satisfying companion. I rather enjoyed the unfolding storyline and would probably take advantage of the current $3 off coupon from Sony to secure my own copy.


I was a tad disappointed in the AQ. Surrounds were okay, but were limited to ambient sounds for the most part. They bombastically came alive during the shootout, however.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8' & 6'_


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16617364
> 
> *The International*
> 
> 
> ...
> *Tier Recommendation: Low Tier 0*
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" Elite KURO....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16617970
> 
> *The International*
> 
> 
> "Sometimes a man can meet his destiny on the road he took to avoid it"
> 
> ...
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Low Tier 0*



Great reviews, guys! I should be getting this in from zip.ca soon, perhaps in the next couple of weeks.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16617665
> 
> 
> djoberg, got this one tonight as well as Gran Torino. I also still have yet to put up at least a half dozen reviews including He's Just Not That Into You, 100 Feet (an obsure exclusive to Hollywood Video BD with Famke Janssen), Valkyrie, Defiance, Taken, Underworld 3, Last Chance Harvey and a few more I can't think of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Off topic, but I seen UP in 3D this weekend!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Holy eye candy bat brain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I think companies like Disney know that home theatre viewing is getting so good and regardless if the box office is doing good they want it to do better and I think it will.* I only go to the movies about once a year now, but when I seen the half dozen or so previews and UP in 3D it really makes me want to go back. If we could get that kind of 3D at home on BD we would have to create a whole new tier, because even the best of the best animation titles won't hold a candle to that kind of eye popping display. I was more than impressed, like going from DVD to BD, that good. It borders on virtual reality immersiveness at times with things seeming to come right at or around you. Highly recommended for anyone who hasn't seen a film in Stereoscopic 3D.




Re: the bolded part -- then WTF were they thinking with High School Musical 3! That PQ was horrific!










As for UP, we saw it in 3D as well; what a fantastic movie. Can't wait for the BD on that one. My only complaint about it was
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) it was difficult to cry through TWO sets of glasses!!


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16618798
> 
> 
> My only complaint about it was it was difficult to cry through TWO sets of glasses!!



Hey, spoiler tags! LOL. Welcome back, G3! Hope things are going well and can't wait for you to jump back in the fray.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16619306
> 
> 
> Hey, spoiler tags! LOL. Welcome back, G3! Hope things are going well and can't wait for you to jump back in the fray.



Done!







Now spoiler your quote of my "spoiler".


----------



## 357

New Lame Friday 13th is soft. Saw this at the Theather and hated it. Gave it a second chance today and I still hated it. Jason is not Leatherface Michael Bay!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country*


Despite being a huge Trek fan, I actually didn't own any of the various versions of Trek until the other night when my husband came home with the Blu Ray box set of the Star Trek original series cast movies and season 1 of TOS. So I can fully admit, I do not have any comparison to the DVD releases.



All week long we've been working through the Star Trek movies, and tonight is the first time I feel comfortable actually writing a quick review.



I was fairly impressed with ST6. Some of the clarity and detail is downright phenomenal in this Blu. It's almost to the movie's detriment to be honest; the make-up on everyone was extremely noticeable almost to the point of ruining suspension of disbelief. Very pan-cakey; similar to how it bugged me a bit in the Twilight Blu.



I watch on the THX mode on my Panasonic Plasma, and the colours were okay but somewhat inconsistent. I found myself wishing they were a little more vibrant, but I do tend to like a more vibrant presentation of colours to a subdued one. At times they would impress, and then other scenes things seemed to fall flat.



I did notice some minor edge enhancement in a few places, but as most of you who've read my posts know, I am extremely sensitive to EE. In this particular movie, I had to actually LOOK for the EE, so I suspect it's not very bothersome to those of you who don't notice it usually.



All in all, I think this movie presented fairly well on Blu. Not reference, but not horrid.

*Recommendation for Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country: Tier 2.50*

*Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800u THX setting, approx 7.5'*


----------



## deltasun

*Air Force One*


Fine to moderate grain present throughout. This film-like presentation has somewhat of a dated look. The biggest issue with this film is the appearance of a thin haze throughout, causing details to be compromised in most scenes. I say "most scenes," because details do maximize in a few scenes.


Black levels were weak and contrast just average. I was hard pressed to find a black object that did not look dark gray. Facial details, when not under haze, were Tier 1 decent. They do deteriorate as distance increased. Skin tones looked natural throughout.


Overall, the haze really hurt the PQ, taking it out of even the Silver Tier. It does get better towards the end of the movie. Still, my vote...

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## Mel2

*The International*

the international is jaw dropping. i was very impressed. middle to lower tier 0. in that ballpark because i think it looks better than some of the middle tier 0 titles. there are no excuses for any of these studios for not achieving these types of razor sharp transfers from movies made in the last few years. I thought taken looked good but it's not in the same ballpark. bottom line, all these new movies should look as good as the international.

*Middle to Lower Tier 0*


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mel2* /forum/post/16624852
> 
> *The International*there are no excuses for any of these studios for not achieving these types of razor sharp transfers from movies made in the last few years.



the fact that most movies aren't partially filmed in 70mm and vistavision like this one are pretty solid excuses


----------



## 42041

*Wages of Fear*


Rating a black and white film from 1953 in this thread is tough proposition. On one hand, this is a very good transfer, but I really doubt anyone would ever use it as demo material. Personally I'm not bothered by the lack of color, but if you are, you'll probably disagree with my ranking. The detail here is excellent, comfortably hanging with movies of more recent vintage in many scenes (though inconsistency abounds), and the grain is finer and less intrusive than most films I've seen from this era; seems like whatever source materials Criterion got their hands on were not far removed from the camera negatives. Digital manipulation is kept to a minimum, the result is pleasantly natural looking. Contrast is generally well controlled, though black levels in a few night scenes didn't quite blend in to the black pillarboxes. Such quibbles are minor in the face of what this transfer gets right. One of my HD naysayer friends said that the only reason to invest in an HD setup is to watch dumb blockbuster flicks, but releases like this are a pleasant reminder that classic films more than a half-a-century old can be given new life on Blu-Ray.

*Tier 2.75*


(PS3/Pioneer Kuro Elite)


----------



## tmavs

After searching this thread, I found a review and recommendation for Tier 1. Please explain why it is in Tier 2. DVDTalk rates the video as 5 star.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tmavs* /forum/post/16624979
> 
> 
> After searching this thread, I found a review and recommendation for Tier 1. Please explain why it is in Tier 2. DVDTalk rates the video as 5 star.



Bottom line: The PQ is too inconsistent to be in the two top tiers. Some of the footage is horrible (probably filmed with SD camera) and would fall somewhere in tier 3 or 4. And yes, some footage is breathtaking and is no doubt reference quality. All things considered the average rating lands Planet Earth in tier 2.


----------



## tmavs

Ok, it's surprising that DVDTalk didn't notice that. Can you recommend a better BD review site?


----------



## tfoltz

If I were rating the Planet Earth blu-ray, I would give it a 5/5 as well. However, this thread goes into a lot more detail, and because of the extensive length of the series a person will find many flaws and it does deserve Tier 2. Still my favorite blu-ray I own. You can try www.blu-ray.com , they gave it a 4.5/5 for video.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tmavs* /forum/post/16626084
> 
> 
> Ok, it's surprising that DVDTalk didn't notice that. Can you recommend a better BD review site?


----------



## JohnES1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/16626277
> 
> 
> If I were rating the Planet Earth blu-ray, I would give it a 5/5 as well. However, this thread goes into a lot more detail, and because of the extensive length of the series a person will find many flaws and it does deserve Tier 2. Still my favorite blu-ray I own. You can try www.blu-ray.com , they gave it a 4.5/5 for video.



Try Into the Wild for some near reference PQ nature scenes. My mom stayed with it from beginning to end last night. Wish they would have used a little more depth of field on the facial close ups, but otherwise I can find little to complain about. It's currently at Tier 1.25 which I'm fine with.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tmavs* /forum/post/16626084
> 
> 
> Ok, it's surprising that DVDTalk didn't notice that. Can you recommend a better BD review site?



I have my preferences, such as http://www.hometheatermag.com/moviereviews/ or http://www.cinemasquid.com/home or reviews by AVS Forum member Ralph Potts. But for reviews on PQ only, you can't beat the site you're on now.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I watched _A Bug's Life_ yesterday. While I am not ready for a formal recommendation and may not even write one, it does not appear to me to be the best tier zero title ever. Remember the movie originally came out in 1998, which is ancient in CGI animation-terms. The computer tools used to create the CGI were comparatively crude at that point.


Do not get me wrong, this Blu-ray looks incredible and easily qualifies in the upper half of tier zero. But textures and light-shading are relatively simple and lack the intricate detail later seen in more recent Pixar work.


----------



## b_scott

Phantom, I was about to post that A Bug's Life is the sharpest thing I've ever witnessed - it feels like my blu-ray player is rendering the whole thing on the fly from a supercompuer. It's amazing.


And of course I was also going to mention it isn't the most complex of titles in terms of computer graphics, but what is there is 100% sharp as a tack. Just because something doesn't have the latest CGI effects shouldn't have any bearing on its placement. If it does, that's a whole can of worms I don't think you want to open. It would mean any older Pixar would never be placed higher than a new one, which just isn't the case and can't be. That would mean when Toy Story comes out it will have zero shot at #1, no matter what.


This is IT for CGI BD's as of 6/11/09 IMO. This is the reference BD. It's the most 3-D pop (not most realistic) you will find, and that's what this thread is about.


----------



## djoberg

*Gran Torino*


Before I comment on the PQ, I want to say that I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. If you are a Clint Eastwood fan (as I am), you will NOT be disappointed. This is, IMHO, his best performance. I found myself laughing sporadically at his crude one-liners and grunts (you will LOVE his grunts!!), and I was touched by the change in his character as the movie progressed. A class act, to be sure!


I have been spoiled as of late by several "demo-worthy" titles, and if it were not for that I may have been tempted to nominate Gran Torino for a spot in Tier 1. This was a decent transfer with much to commend it, but it falls a notch short of Gold in my book.


It reminded me quite a bit of the PQ in Defiance....with a subdued color palette yet very sharp with strong contrast, better-than-average blacks, good shadow detail, spot on flesh tones, and impressive detail in facial close-ups (though not nearly as good in this department as in Defiance). I would say the most striking virtue of GT was its depth and dimensionality. There were some scenes where I thought I was wearing those weird 3D glasses that G3 was talking about recently!







Seriously though, you will be amazed at the incredible depth sprinkled throughout the film.


I didn't notice any anomalies, but there were a few isolated shots that were somewhat soft, and as I intimated earlier the color palette left much to be desired.


It's late, so I must finish up with the last note. As I stated at the outset, this falls a notch below Tier Gold, so the obvious rating is:

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/16631551
> 
> 
> Phantom, I was about to post that A Bug's Life is the sharpest thing I've ever witnessed - it feels like my blu-ray player is rendering the whole thing on the fly from a supercompuer. It's amazing.
> 
> 
> And of course I was also going to mention it isn't the most complex of titles in terms of computer graphics, but what is there is 100% sharp as a tack. Just because something doesn't have the latest CGI effects shouldn't have any bearing on its placement. If it does, that's a whole can of worms I don't think you want to open. It would mean any older Pixar would never be placed higher than a new one, which just isn't the case and can't be. That would mean when Toy Story comes out it will have zero shot at #1, no matter what.
> 
> 
> This is IT for CGI BD's as of 6/11/09 IMO. This is the reference BD. It's the most 3-D pop (not most realistic) you will find, and that's what this thread is about.



+1


My sentiments exactly!


----------



## b_scott

I'm completely spoiled now.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16631633
> 
> *Gran Torino*
> 
> 
> Before I comment on the PQ, I want to say that I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. If you are a Clint Eastwood fan (as I am), you will NOT be disappointed. This is, IMHO, his best performance. I found myself laughing sporadically at his crude one-liners and grunts (you will LOVE his grunts!!), and I was touched by the change in his character as the movie progressed. A class act, to be sure!
> 
> 
> I have been spoiled as of late by several "demo-worthy" titles, and if it were not for that I may have been tempted to nominate Gran Torino for a spot in Tier 1. This was a decent transfer with much to commend it, but it falls a notch short of Gold in my book.
> 
> 
> It reminded me quite a bit of the PQ in Defiance....with a subdued color palette yet very sharp with strong contrast, better-than-average blacks, good shadow detail, spot on flesh tones, and impressive detail in facial close-ups (though not nearly as good in this department as in Defiance). I would say the most striking virtue of GT was its depth and dimensionality. There were some scenes where I thought I was wearing those weird 3D glasses that G3 was talking about recently!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously though, you will be amazed at the incredible depth sprinkled throughout the film.
> 
> 
> I didn't notice any anomalies, but there were a few isolated shots that were somewhat soft, and as I intimated earlier the color palette left much to be desired.
> 
> 
> It's late, so I must finish up with the last note. As I stated at the outset, this falls a notch below Tier Gold, so the obvious rating is:
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.0*
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" Elite KURO....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'



I watched this last night as well. I was more than pleasantly surprised, but I think it has to do with a bit older generation mindset as things were said like that more in our time. Most younger people like my children might find it offensive and derogatory and not politically correct. Enough said, I thought it was a great film and very funny and emotional at the same time.


I thought the PQ wasn't going to be all that from some reviews I had read, but I was very impressed. While I thought The International was a tier 1.0 or low tier 0(but not really) film, I thought Gran TOrino was really not that far worse in terms of PQ. I am going to recommend 1.5 or even slightly higher, but want to watch it again.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/16630831
> 
> 
> I watched _A Bug's Life_ yesterday. While I am not ready for a formal recommendation and may not even write one, it does not appear to me to be the best tier zero title ever. Remember the movie originally came out in 1998, which is ancient in CGI animation-terms. The computer tools used to create the CGI were comparatively crude at that point.
> 
> 
> Do not get me wrong, this Blu-ray looks incredible and easily qualifies in the upper half of tier zero. But textures and light-shading are relatively simple and lack the intricate detail later seen in more recent Pixar work.



I think the contrast and colors are the most powerful and incredible I have seen on ANY BD and that is what lends itself to being at the top of tier 0. Even KFP as good as it is doesn't have the contrast and colors. THe contrast renders a virtual 3-D image that really exceeds other top tier 0 movies. The colors alone are the most I have seen so beautifully rendered on ANY media format.


I also have to agree with b_scott and his comments.


----------



## ooms




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16624160
> 
> *Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country*
> 
> 
> Despite being a huge Trek fan, I actually didn't own any of the various versions of Trek until the other night when my husband came home with the Blu Ray box set of the Star Trek original series cast movies and season 1 of TOS. So I can fully admit, I do not have any comparison to the DVD releases.
> 
> 
> 
> All week long we've been working through the Star Trek movies, and tonight is the first time I feel comfortable actually writing a quick review.
> 
> 
> 
> I was fairly impressed with ST6. Some of the clarity and detail is downright phenomenal in this Blu. It's almost to the movie's detriment to be honest; the make-up on everyone was extremely noticeable almost to the point of ruining suspension of disbelief. Very pan-cakey; similar to how it bugged me a bit in the Twilight Blu.
> 
> 
> 
> I watch on the THX mode on my Panasonic Plasma, and the colours were okay but somewhat inconsistent. I found myself wishing they were a little more vibrant, but I do tend to like a more vibrant presentation of colours to a subdued one. At times they would impress, and then other scenes things seemed to fall flat.
> 
> 
> 
> I did notice some minor edge enhancement in a few places, but as most of you who've read my posts know, I am extremely sensitive to EE. In this particular movie, I had to actually LOOK for the EE, so I suspect it's not very bothersome to those of you who don't notice it usually.
> 
> 
> 
> All in all, I think this movie presented fairly well on Blu. Not reference, but not horrid.
> 
> *Recommendation for Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country: Tier 2.50*
> 
> *Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800u THX setting, approx 7.5'*




LOL thats not make up thats DNR!!!


----------



## deltasun

*Gran Torino*


It appears we are all in the same rental pattern. Just got done watching this as well. This time, I DID have to buy the wife her bike.










Anyway, I enjoyed this film in the theatre and enjoyed it even more the second time around on my home theatre. Hey, did you guys have to really crank up the volume on this one? It easily had to be the highest dB's I've had to pump out to get adequate sound.


On the to the PQ. While the film was still on the soft side, it was softer in the theatre - so that was an improvement (though it's probably the theatre equipment). Still, a lot of the medium shots were on the soft side. Close-up's, however, were decent, though most of the cast did not have too many facial imperfections, texture for scrutiny.


The stylized look definitely set the tone for the movie and did not prove bothersome to me. In fact, it enhanced it somewhat. Black levels were above average, but not that impressive. Contrast helped achieve the subdued look.


Depth and dimensionality were decent and were used to great results. It gave a feeling of being in the film, in the period. I say "in the period" even though the period was the present. However, the tone of the film created an atmosphere that felt like a period unlike the present. Hard to explain, but the d&d seemed to teleport me to said period.


Overall, I liken the PQ to Mr. Eastwood's last movie, _Changeling_ at 2.0. I would vote this one a tad bit below...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ooms* /forum/post/16631779
> 
> 
> LOL thats not make up thats DNR!!!



How could it be DNR when I could see the make up caked into creases & wrinkles in old Shatner's face as well as the pores, and the individual facial hair? Such detail would be lost in a smear if it was all DNR's job. They looked like the texture of old leather; and there was plenty of detail in fabrics and materials all around.


To each their own. Write a review and tell me your ranking for it & your equipment.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ooms* /forum/post/16631779
> 
> 
> LOL thats not make up thats DNR!!!




No denying the DNR and it has been discussed sufficiently in this forum, but GGG is correct. The makeup on some of the actors, particularly in the later films as they aged, was horrendous. Add in the DNR and you got the mess that everyone is seeing as it exacerbates the clown makeup, pancakey as GGG put it.







That is something in the DNR discussions of the Trek films that hasn't been given enough attention to with discussion of that look due to makeup is more than bad DNR.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Yes Hugh... I didn't review the other 4 movies that I've watched in the boxed set (Haven't watched the first one yet), they all (II-V) had much worse PQ than Star Trek VI with visible & annoying EE and more obvious DNR. In rereading my above reply I should have said "How could it *ALL* be DNR when..." etc, as I can't claim they haven't put DNR, but moreso am commenting on the quality and detail that I did see when watching it.



Do I think that the PQ on them could be better? For sure, but I am comfortable with ST VI ending up in mid to low tier 2, which is why I voted for 2.5. I don't think it needs to be in tier 3 or lower as it's nowhere near as bad as the others in the set; other opinions will vary of course as they tend to do.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16631722
> 
> 
> I thought the PQ wasn't going to be all that from some reviews I had read, but I was very impressed. While I thought The International was a tier 1.0 or low tier 0(but not really) film, I thought Gran TOrino was really not that far worse in terms of PQ. I am going to recommend 1.5 or even slightly higher, but want to watch it again.



It was definitely a SHARP transfer, but to _me_ it was a notch or two below the quality of Defiance, which I rated at 1.75. That was the measuring stick I ultimately used. But I am open to being persuaded if a strong enough case can be made.










I'm sure you noticed that deltasun gave it a 2.25, so making the case for 1.5 or higher is going to be a challenge.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/16631551
> 
> 
> And of course I was also going to mention it isn't the most complex of titles in terms of computer graphics, but what is there is 100% sharp as a tack. Just because something doesn't have the latest CGI effects shouldn't have any bearing on its placement. If it does, that's a whole can of worms I don't think you want to open. It would mean any older Pixar would never be placed higher than a new one, which just isn't the case and can't be. That would mean when Toy Story comes out it will have zero shot at #1, no matter what.
> 
> 
> This is IT for CGI BD's as of 6/11/09 IMO. This is the reference BD. It's the most 3-D pop (not most realistic) you will find, and that's what this thread is about.



I would not expect the original Toy Story to be the top-ranked Pixar Blu-ray for picture quality due to the factors I listed previously. Categorizing reference-quality Blu-rays in an ordinal ranking system like we attempt here is sometimes like debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. They have to be differentiated in some magnitude and this criteria is how I make that determination, particularly on the titles of pure CGI. I suspect the people at Pixar would most likely agree that their newer movies are more advanced than their older work in terms of animation modeling and microscopic detail.


A Bug's Life looks awesome, I just do not agree it deserves the highest ranking over every other tier zero title.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/16633804
> 
> 
> I would not expect the original Toy Story to be the top-ranked Pixar Blu-ray for picture quality due to the factors I listed previously. Categorizing reference-quality Blu-rays in an ordinal ranking system like we attempt here is sometimes like debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. They have to be differentiated in some magnitude and this criteria is how I make that determination, particularly on the titles of pure CGI. I suspect the people at Pixar would most likely agree that their newer movies are more advanced than their older work in terms of animation modeling and microscopic detail.
> 
> 
> A Bug's Life looks awesome, I just do not agree it deserves the highest ranking over every other tier zero title.



Phantom, I agree with you in theory and I agree that Pixar would probably say their newer movies are more advanced. However, more advanced doesn't necessarily equate to better PQ. In fact, the more realistic they get, the more they tend to be controversial in this thread. I think, it's because it doesn't necessarily translate to better PQ.

_Bolt_ is a good example. I definitely prefer its style and "realism" to, say, _A Bug's Life_. But, I voted it closer to 2.0 than Tier Blu. I have no doubt that the technology advancement and level of PQ will eventually intersect, but I don't believe it's there yet. We'll see how _Up_ looks in a few months.


----------



## JohnES1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/16633804
> 
> 
> I would not expect the original Toy Story to be the top-ranked Pixar Blu-ray for picture quality due to the factors I listed previously. Categorizing reference-quality Blu-rays in an ordinal ranking system like we attempt here is sometimes like debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. They have to be differentiated in some magnitude and this criteria is how I make that determination, particularly on the titles of pure CGI. I suspect the people at Pixar would most likely agree that their newer movies are more advanced than their older work in terms of animation modeling and microscopic detail.
> 
> 
> A Bug's Life looks awesome, I just do not agree it deserves the highest ranking over every other tier zero title.



I'm with you on this PS, and hope SS won't put it on top(mid Tier 0 is fine with me.)


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/16633804
> 
> 
> I would not expect the original Toy Story to be the top-ranked Pixar Blu-ray for picture quality due to the factors I listed previously. Categorizing reference-quality Blu-rays in an ordinal ranking system like we attempt here is sometimes like debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. They have to be differentiated in some magnitude and this criteria is how I make that determination, particularly on the titles of pure CGI. I suspect the people at Pixar would most likely agree that their newer movies are more advanced than their older work in terms of animation modeling and microscopic detail.
> 
> 
> A Bug's Life looks awesome, I just do not agree it deserves the highest ranking over every other tier zero title.



I will keep it simple. I know we have our first page criteria and standards we use and apply and expect for PQ for a title to be placed. Throw them all out the window...










For *me* simply looking at ABL, forgetting all the parameters etc. it looks better than any other title.


----------



## b_scott

agreed. it truly looked 3D, more than any other title. It did not look the most REALISTIC - but that's not a criteria or we'd have no CGI movies on the list.


----------



## OldCodger73

The opening outdoor scenes had a flat, grainy, very DVD look but once the movie switched to the soundstage PQ improved markedly, with good detail, depth and contrast. Facial close-ups bordered on Tier 1.75 to 2.0. I got caught up in the movie and didn't observe black level closely but given how much black was in the movie I didn't notice anything off-putting.


IMO, the movie is anywhere from 2.75 to 3.25 so I'll suggest *2010: the Year We Made Contact Tier 3.0.*


For a 1984 movie the special effects held up well and it was fun seeing Helen Mirren as a Russian spaceship captain and John Lithgow with hair, although every time Roy Scheider appeared I kept expecting to hear the Jaws theme.


The movie lacked the sense of awe of 2001 but is still enjoyable.


Panasonic 50" 720p plasma, Panasonic 10a player, 7 1/2', 2 tired old eyes.


----------



## Jonny5nz

Hey guys, I'm from New Zealand and we have PAL region. My question is will the PAL version of the Blue and Gold tiers be just as good?


----------



## elocs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/16633804
> 
> 
> ...debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.



I find this thread interesting, but "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" is exactly what I think when I read the reviews as well as a dvd's exact ranking. To be honest, I can't really tell the minute variations that so many claim to see in each dvd. To me a dvd either looks great, very good, good, ok, or crappy. That's it, and I guess that is what your average person would think unless they are part of the videophile elite. It would be a grand joke if you were just having us ordinaries on, but most of you seem so deadly serious so I would guess not.


I guess I am just not that discerning and very easily pleased and satisfied, but then I started out this life by watching the radio and then a very small b&w tv (with tinfoil on the rabbitears) so I've learned to be easily amazed and unpretentious in my views. PQ is great to consider, but ultimately content is why I watch or buy dvds.


I look forward to more discussion of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, how they are dressed, and if they are flatulent.


----------



## lgans316

*Knock. Knock. SuprSlow / AustinSTI. Are you guys there ?








*


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *elocs* /forum/post/16638335
> 
> 
> To me a dvd either looks great, very good, good, ok, or crappy.



Yes, that would be Tier 0, Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, Tier 4 or Tier 5. You will find though that as you start to insert a BR in each of those categories, you're suddenly presented with the dilemma of, "well, this Tier 1 movie is certainly much better than this other Tier 1 movie." Hence, the minute gradations.


I don't think the OP set out to create such gradations, but over time it evolved naturally.


----------



## elocs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16638377
> 
> 
> Yes, that would be Tier 0, Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, Tier 4 or Tier 5. You will find though that as you start to insert a BR in each of those categories, you're suddenly presented with the dilemma of, "well, this Tier 1 movie is certainly much better than this other Tier 1 movie." Hence, the minute gradations.
> 
> 
> I don't think the OP set out to create such gradations, but over time it evolved naturally.



To me most of those top 3 tiers look good to me. I can't really tell much of a difference. There are some that are just amazingly good and other BRs that are really no better than the standard dvd and so if buying it would be good to save the money. The tiers are only meaningful to me if they are something that I would actually want to watch because as I said I watch for content. PQ is only important to me if it is noticeably bad.


So I do look at the tiers and glean out the ones I would really like to watch or buy. Baracka is a good one that I did not know about and I was able to get it on Netflix in a couple of days (I use Netflix to preview if I really want to buy a BR). I've been lucky on Netflix so far because I can get nearly anything in a couple of days. I've been averaging 1 new BR dvd at a time and getting one on Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday.


----------



## wmcclain




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jonny5nz* /forum/post/16637063
> 
> 
> Hey guys, I'm from New Zealand and we have PAL region. My question is will the PAL version of the Blue and Gold tiers be just as good?



Blu-ray is neither NTSC or PAL, it is a new system. There are different editions of the same titles made in different parts of the world, so you'll have to check that.


-Bill


----------



## Jonny5nz

Wiki says I'm Region B like Europe. The US is Region A. It also says that as of late 2008 70% of Blu-rays are region-free.


Does anyone know if the different regions are the same quality?


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jonny5nz* /forum/post/16639832
> 
> 
> Wiki says I'm Region B like Europe. The US is Region A. It also says that as of late 2008 70% of Blu-rays are region-free.
> 
> 
> Does anyone know if the different regions are the same quality?



This thread might help:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1069912


----------



## Jonny5nz

thanks delta. that link led me to this website: http://www.dvdcompare.net/ it looks like they're mostly the same...


----------



## lgans316

It's going to be 3 months since watching a BLU. Watched the first 30 minutes of Slumdog in my new Panasonic DMP-BD80 modded Multiregion Blu-ray / DVD player. Thought I had set video output resolution to 480p though it was correctly set to 1080p.


Best Achievement in Cinematography and Best Achievement in Editing when nothing on-screen lasts more than 2-3 seconds.










Looks like a Solid Tier 2.75 or Tier-3 title, IMO.


----------



## nut bunnies

Probably your player, your TV, or your desire to give a negative review because everyone else has given it glowing reviews.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/16633804
> 
> 
> I would not expect the original Toy Story to be the top-ranked Pixar Blu-ray for picture quality due to the factors I listed previously. Categorizing reference-quality Blu-rays in an ordinal ranking system like we attempt here is sometimes like debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. They have to be differentiated in some magnitude and this criteria is how I make that determination, particularly on the titles of pure CGI. I suspect the people at Pixar would most likely agree that their newer movies are more advanced than their older work in terms of animation modeling and microscopic detail.
> 
> 
> A Bug's Life looks awesome, I just do not agree it deserves the highest ranking over every other tier zero title.



You know I respect your opinion, but I too have to disagree with you on this one. The reason I voted for the top spot for A Bug's Life was because of the unparalleled colors, detail, and depth. It has no rival, IMHO.


Your argument concerning more advanced CGI in newer Pixar titles may have a measure of truth, but then I could counter by saying that the fields, trees, plants, etc. in A Bug's Life seemed much more _realistic_ to me than the whole space sequence in WALL-E (with its very unrealistic humans).


I guess what I'm saying Phantom is that I did NOT ignore the criteria set forth at all on Page one when I made my determination to vote for the top of Tier Blu for A Bug's Life. It meets ALL the criteria for Tier Blu....and it looks better than any other animated title listed in that tier. It all adds up to being "King of the Tier Blu hill."










I'll take this opportunity to say I'll be gone for over a week starting Monday, so I will miss watching Blu-rays and checking the Forum to see what everyone else is watching.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jonny5nz* /forum/post/16639832
> 
> 
> Wiki says I'm Region B like Europe. The US is Region A. It also says that as of late 2008 70% of Blu-rays are region-free.
> 
> 
> Does anyone know if the different regions are the same quality?



Some Blu-rays are the same globally (most Warner discs for example) but often different studios or entities control a title in a specific region or country. That often leads to one edition being superior to another edition. There are a plethora of options for Terminator 2, not all of them being equal in picture quality. We do have a few Region B titles listed in the tier thread and those are marked as such.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/16640800
> 
> 
> It's going to be 3 months since watching a BLU. Watched the first 30 minutes of Slumdog in my new Panasonic DMP-BD80 modded Multiregion Blu-ray / DVD player. Though I had set video output resolution to 480p though it was correctly set to 1080p.
> 
> 
> Looks like a Solid Tier 2.75 or Tier-3 title, IMO.



Welcome back, we always need more placements and opinions here from well-informed viewers like yourself.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16641841
> 
> 
> You know I respect your opinion, but I too have to disagree with you on this one. The reason I voted for the top spot for A Bug's Life was because of the unparalleled colors, detail, and depth. It has no rival, IMHO.
> 
> 
> I guess what I'm saying Phantom is that I did NOT ignore the criteria set forth at all on Page one when I made my determination to vote for the top of Tier Blu for A Bug's Life. It meets ALL the criteria for Tier Blu....and it looks better than any other animated title listed in that tier. It all adds up to being "King of the Tier Blu hill."



Your analysis is solid and with good reasoning, I just disagreed with your conclusions.







My personal placement for it would probably be somewhere around Meet The Robinsons or Chicken Little, so our views only differ by a few measly spots. I was one of those who did not feel Wall*E deserved a top ten spot.


----------



## b_scott

I think Wall-E looked really great, but it was soft in parts. A Bug's Life was not once soft.


----------



## deltasun

*Fired Up!*


How'd this end up in my queue? Might as well review it.







Pretty decent PQ on this title.


Extremely fine grain present throughout. Contrast was slightly pushed but still maintained a natural balance for the most part. There was a scene in the 37min mark where the brightness level darkened about 1/3 stop. Blacks were decent and low-light scenes presented good details. Skin tones were natural most of the time, but sometimes got a bit reddish. Facial close-up's were decent, but not impressive. Medium shots had 3D pop, but were found to be soft at times.


Overall, a worthy low-end Tier 1 title...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


Depending on how bothersome the brightness fluctuation was to others, this title could be pushed into the Silver Tier.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## Jonny5nz

Hey guys, does anyone have Brotherhood of the Wolf and able to place it in the tiers? Apparently it's only in Region B though...


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/16645592
> 
> 
> Welcome back, we always need more placements and opinions here from well-informed viewers like yourself.



Thanks Phantom. Here's hoping to return back in another few weeks time as I have bought around 42 Blu-rays at terrific price here in the UK in the past 3 months. Btw, I ain't well-informed. Still learning and trying to be well-informed.
*I hope SuprSlow / AustinSTI are still around to update the original post.*


----------



## K-Spaz

Take a chill pill man, it'll get done. There's a lot of changes taking place. Then too, he might be one of those folks with a life away from AVS.


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jonny5nz* /forum/post/16646815
> 
> 
> Hey guys, does anyone have Brotherhood of the Wolf and able to place it in the tiers? Apparently it's only in Region B though...



Great movie, but here in the US as far as I knew, it was only on DVD. I think this might be a good purchase cause the DVD looks great.


----------



## 357

Not giving formal reviews but I most say that...


The Code= Sharp

Friday the 13th= Soft

Confessions of a Shopaholic= Softest


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Defiance*


I have to go against the "grain" here a little. I didn't think that this one looked as great as many others here did.


Don't get me wrong, there most certainly are plenty of scenes that did look fantastic, with great detail, clarity and depth. But I would say that those type of scenes only made up about 25% of the movie at most.


The majority of scenes looked to be mid to high Tier 2.


There were scenes near the end that showed superb facial details/dirt on Daniel Craig's face. If most of the movie looked like that, high Tier 1 or even Tier 0 would be within the realm of discussion. As it is, I am waivering betweeen 1.75 and 2.0.


End the end I have to go with my overall impression.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


Oh, and the movie was average at best.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Gran Torino*


Though not as bad as many Warner transfers, I still thought this one was a tad on the soft side. Detail and clarity was decent, but certainly not close to anything near Tier 1. Colors were somewhat muted, probably intentionally.


I decent overall transfer, but nothing to write home about.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75 to 3.0*


As for the movie: there were a lot of good one liners by Clint that made me laugh. Clint did a fine job of acting. Unfortunately, he was the only one who did. I found the acting by the teens to be well below par, and it largely ruined the movie for me. Not a movie I will ever feel the need to watch again.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*The International*


It appears that Sony is still putting out fantastic looking titles. I was very impressed with this! It excelled on all levels: details, sharpness, clarity, color, depth, contrast and lack of any artifacts. And it did all of this with a very natural look (not digital).

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*


As for the movie: I just didn't find the story all that interesting. There was enough action and suspense to make it somewhat entertaining though.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16650707
> 
> *Deception*
> 
> 
> I have to go against the "grain" here a little. I didn't think that this one looked as great as many others here did.
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong, there most certainly are plenty of scenes that did look fantastic, with great detail, clarity and depth. But I would say that those type of scenes only made up about 25% of the movie at most.
> 
> 
> The majority of scenes looked to be mid to high Tier 2.
> 
> 
> There were scenes near the end that showed superb facial details/dirt on Daniel Craig's face. If most of the movie looked like that, high Tier 1 or even Tier 0 would be within the realm of discussion. As it is, I am waivering betweeen 1.75 and 2.0.
> 
> 
> End the end I have to go with my overall impression.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.0*
> 
> 
> Oh, and the movie was average at best.



Hey Rob, I think you mean _Defiance_. Mods can delete this post once corrected.


----------



## djoberg

^^^


Okay Rob, your recommendations were all _lower_ than mine, but only by a notch or two on _Defiance_ and _The International._ You're making me feel like the "most _generous_ rater" once again.







(Except for the fact that quite a few others shared my views, or voted higher than I did.)


I agree wholeheartedly with your remarks about the acting in _Gran Torino_...Clint was definitely a one-man show in this one. And how about those grunts?!


----------



## selimsivad

*Gran Torino*



*2.40 : 1*




Great HD transfer. There was a light layer of grain. I wasn't bothered by the green tint presented. Blacks were above average. Depth and dimension was as well. A more diverse color palette would have upped the ranking to 2.0.


The car itself always looked amazing!












*Gran Torino

Tier Recommendation: Tier 2.25

PS3-Samsung 46" 1080p-seven'*


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16650751
> 
> *The International*
> 
> 
> It appears that Sony is still putting out fantastic looking titles. I was very impressed with this! It excelled on all levels: details, sharpness, clarity, color, depth, contrast and lack of any artifacts. And it did all of this with a very natural look (not digital).
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.25*




*The International*



*2.35 : 1*




Great film-like transfer. My review would be the same as everyone else. The beautiful weather has sapped away my originality!











*The International

Tier Recommendation: Lower Tier 0

PS3-Samsung 46" 1080p-seven'*


----------



## deltasun

*Valkyrie*


"Any problem on Earth can be solved with the careful application of high explosives"


Finally got around to watching this on BR. Gotta say, it's better the second time around (once in the theatre). Fine, even grain present throughout, giving this title a very pleasing film-like look. First thing to notice was the incredible detail in facial close-up's. They were easily in the Mid to Low Tier 0 range. However, this was not consistent throughout. Medium shots, while excellent for the most part, did suffer from some softness at times. It almost appeared like the camera had problems catching up on focus when more than one person was present.


Some of the indoor shots had some contrast issues as well. These were just a handful and, for the most part, contrast was bold and helped define incredible detail on uniforms, trees, etc. I should mention the washed out opening scene in North Africa. It wasn't too bothersome for me just because it helped accentuate the heat (great to see those P-40's in action!) Blacks were bold and low-light scenes were very well detailed. The black boots of the officers in the beginning were a good example. I had issues with the green foliage. I felt they were not the usual lush green that I've seen in high-tiered movies. I don't know if these were German leaves or time/season, but they appeared too light, almost washed out. I also felt the red flags, while the scene was still eye catching, were not the deep red I remembered from the theatre.


Outside of those complaints, the HD experience was definitely there. The strengths are definitely the clear definition and texture of objects - from facial features to the detail on the Junkers.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.50*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16650986
> 
> 
> Hey Rob, I think you mean _Defiance_. Mods can delete this post once corrected.



My bad, thanks for pointing this out.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16651129
> 
> 
> ^^^
> 
> 
> Okay Rob, your recommendations were all _lower_ than mine, but only by a notch or two on _Defiance_ and _The International._ You're making me feel like the "most _generous_ rater" once again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Except for the fact that quite a few others shared my views, or voted higher than I did.)
> 
> 
> I agree wholeheartedly with your remarks about the acting in _Gran Torino_...Clint was definitely a one-man show in this one. And how about those grunts?!



I just calls 'em as I sees 'em.


Yes, almost all of the acting in Gran Torino, except Clint's, was noticeably sub par. I don't think I can remember the last major movie that I saw where I was so painfully aware of bad acting.


----------



## selimsivad

I've noticed great prices for Unforgiven, one of my favorites. Has anyone seen the PQ? I've seen screenshots from several sites, and they all look grain free.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/16652008
> 
> 
> I've noticed great prices for Unforgiven, one of my favorites. Has anyone seen the PQ? I've seen screenshots from several sites, and they all look grain free.



I have it on HD-DVD. Not great PQ, but regardless, I would definitely recommend it. It's simply one of the best westerns ever made.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16652013
> 
> 
> I have it on HD-DVD. Not great PQ, but regardless, I would definitely recommend it. It's simply one of the best westerns ever made.



The transfer, IMO, is most important. I need to know that the grain is still intact. Amazing western, no doubt!


----------



## 42041

*Sleeping Beauty*

A beautiful restoration. This one is currently at Tier 0, and while it certainly possesses many Tier 0 virtues, such as tack sharp backgrounds, rich colors, near-perfect contrast delineation, and flawless compression, the relatively simplistic hand-animation of 1959 (to my eyes at least) just doesn't hold the same amount of PQ demo value as the tier 0 live action movies and the modern computer-rendered stuff. The backgrounds are static, the cels are flat and soft. I don't want to slight the artistry of the animation, but this wouldn't be one of the first titles I'd reach for to demo my home theater, so for the purposes of the thread I'd want to move this one down a bit, though by no means is this anything but an excellent looking title.

*Tier 1.0*


----------



## Blacklac

Wallace and Gromit - A Matter of Loaf and Death


This is an excellent disc. You can see the impressions on the clay from how it was formed, finger prints and stuff. I was really curious how well this would look, but I was totally blown away. The 3D depth is unreal. Color is fantastic. This disc is reference all the way! Bring on Curse of the Were-Rabbit! Oh, and the TrueHD 5.1 track is very nice also!

One major downside to some, it is 1080i50.

This should be Tier 0


----------



## tfoltz

I'm not going to argue with your recommendation at all; I just wanted to point out that it's one of the first blu-rays I reach for to demo!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/16652235
> 
> *Sleeping Beauty*
> 
> I don't want to slight the artistry of the animation, but this wouldn't be one of the first titles I'd reach for to demo my home theater, so for the purposes of the thread I'd want to move this one down a bit, though by no means is this anything but an excellent looking title.
> 
> *Tier 1.0*


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/16652059
> 
> 
> The transfer, IMO, is most important. I need to know that the grain is still intact. Amazing western, no doubt!



I don't remember if the HD-DVD had grain. I do remember that it is soft.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Funny Games (U.K. import)


recommendation: Tier 2.0
*

A region-free import from the U.K., this twisted tale looks good in 1080p but not stellar. The 2007 film was released by Tartan Video on July 28, 2008. The 111-minute movie is encoded in AVC on a BD-50. The average video bitrate is 26.87 Mbps and the encode produces absolutely no compression artifacts.


The Blu-ray appears to be derived from a beautiful film transfer with a minimal amount of post-processing. The only deleterious effect appears to be a negligible level of sharpening, resulting in just the thinnest of halos present on a few hard edges. Otherwise the Digital Intermediate this disc was created from appears in pristine shape, with no visible degradation or notable flaw.


Overall the picture is remarkably consistent in its quality and resolution. Contrast is solid with naturalistic lighting highlighting excellent detail in close-ups. The image has a light grain pattern that never intrudes or distracts from the picture. Color reproduction is probably one of the weaker aspects of the disc, with saturation looking somewhat average for high-definition. The entire film is wonderfully sharp though the image lacks the depth and dimensionality of most titles in the upper two tiers. High-frequency information has been retained throughout the movie and features every inch of the cast's facial features.


This psychologically intense movie looks good and above-average in quality here, but does not touch the best rated movies of the tiers. The disc does appear to be faithful to the original source material and reproduces it to a level commensurate with a tier two ranking.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Hey everyone! I've missed it here and you guys.










I have been doing way too much partying lately, took two Vegas trips last month, and enjoying summer way too much.


Just want to stop in and say hi.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/16659453
> 
> 
> Hey everyone! I've missed it here and you guys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have been doing way too much partying lately, took two Vegas trips last month, and enjoying summer way too much.
> 
> 
> Just want to stop in and say hi.



It's alive...







Glad to hear from you.


Most of us are just checking in from time to time. I keep saying I am going to get about 12 reviews up for BD's I have seen, but I keep procrastinating. Last night I watched Last CHance Harvey, review pending.











Keep partying!!


----------



## Legairre

*Horton Here's a Who*


I just watched Horton and it's reference IMO. The color pallet is intentionally muted with no artifacts, great detail and animation. Defintely something I'd pull out for a demo.


BTW, what's up with the placement with this title. It's placed at tier 1, but when I did a search there are only 2 post for a tier 1 placement(one says tier 0 or 1 would be fine) and 3 for a tier 0 placement. This should already be tier 0.

*Tier Recommendation: 0*

_Mitsubishi HC1500 projector - 720p, 108" screen - 12'6 viewing_


----------



## b_scott

it's Funny Game, and Horton Hears a Who


----------



## Legairre

How are titles ranked? I'm asking because of the Horton issue I posted, and I just searched for Flight of the Phoenix and it's ranked at Tier 2 silver. Funny thing it's ranked at Tier 2, but there isn't a single post for Flight of the Phoenix in this thread or the original PQ thread. How can it be ranked if no one posted or voted for it?


What's up?


----------



## b_scott












w00t! reviews to follow shortly


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Legairre* /forum/post/16661368
> 
> *Horton Here's a Who*
> 
> 
> BTW, what's up with the placement with this title. It's placed at tier 1, but when I did a search there are only 2 post for a tier 1 placement(one says tier 0 or 1 would be fine) and 3 for a tier 0 placement. This should already be tier 0.



From what I'm seeing, the votes for Tier 1 were *actual* reviews, while the others were just mentions of how great the PQ looked (no real supporting arguments). Remember, this is not a polling thread. We are here to discuss the merits of why a BR belongs to a specific tier, based on descriptions from page 1.


For example, if someone's saying it's soft and there's no counter, heavier weight may be placed on the soft claim. I say "may be" because, in the end, it's up to the OP to decide.


Again, the best way to be heard is to have a compelling argument as to why you feel a title was misplaced. Articulate your points clearly and your vote will be considered.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/16661673
> 
> 
> 
> w00t! reviews to follow shortly



It's going to take forever for my Lost 1 & 2 to arrive


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Legairre* /forum/post/16661589
> 
> 
> How are titles ranked? I'm asking because of the Horton issue I posted, and I just searched for Flight of the Phoenix and it's ranked at Tier 2 silver. Funny thing it's ranked at Tier 2, but there isn't a single post for Flight of the Phoenix in this thread or the original PQ thread. How can it be ranked if no one posted or voted for it?
> 
> 
> What's up?



Sounds like it was on the original thread. See page 2, post #54 of this thread.


Again, if you disagree, write up a formal review and get it moved to where you feel it belongs.


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16662301
> 
> 
> It's going to take forever for my Lost 1 & 2 to arrive



where did you buy them from? I did two-day Prime shipping from Amazon and they got it here on release. I wasn't expecting that.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16221097
> 
> *Synecdoche, New York*
> 
> 
> Type that five times fast! Fine grain present throughout the movie, becoming a bit coarser on darker scenes. The movie very much had a film-like presentation. Even though the setting is in the present (and based on the in-story passing of time, the future), the film's color scheme gave it an older look. I would even say a dated look.
> 
> 
> The movie looked very soft to me for the most part. Faces never exhibited fine details we've seen in Tier 0 or even Tier 1. Clothing texture was very disappointing, specially when they were presented in such a way (lighting, zoom, etc.) that they should have exhibited much more detail. Black levels varied pretty widely from scene to scene. For the most part, they were above average. Shadow details were well maintained.
> 
> 
> Contrast seemed troublesome in a number of scenes, but I believe they were shot that way for effect. For purposes of this thread, however, they brought the PQ down a notch. Some of the better scenes PQ-wise occurred were in the 1hr 35min mark, along with the Emily Watson scenes.
> 
> 
> On a positive note, I did not detect any DNR or EE.
> 
> 
> Overall, PQ suited the story very well. This obviously was not meant to be a demo disc and I feel the PQ succeeded in keeping it out of the demo tiers...
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.75*
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_



Good review. I watched again last night. 2.75 sounds good to me!


----------



## Legairre




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16662290
> 
> 
> From what I'm seeing, the votes for Tier 1 were *actual* reviews, while the others were just mentions of how great the PQ looked (no real supporting arguments). Remember, this is not a polling thread. We are here to discuss the merits of why a BR belongs to a specific tier, based on descriptions from page 1.
> 
> 
> For example, if someone's saying it's soft and there's no counter, heavier weight may be placed on the soft claim. I say "may be" because, in the end, it's up to the OP to decide.
> 
> 
> Again, the best way to be heard is to have a compelling argument as to why you feel a title was misplaced. Articulate your points clearly and your vote will be considered.



I'm referring to the 2 for tier 1 and 3 for tier 0 where people actually used bold letters and made an official recommendation. I'm not counting any of the conversations about placement just the official recommendations.


What get's counted conversations where someone says "looks like tier blank to me" or the ones with bold letters? If the thread is based on the post with bold letters and a recommendation in bold (per the rules on page #1) then Horton should already be Tier 0 not tier 1.


Do the plain old conversations with no bold letters count?


----------



## Legairre




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16662355
> 
> 
> Sounds like it was on the original thread. See page 2, post #54 of this thread.
> 
> 
> Again, if you disagree, write up a formal review and get it moved to where you feel it belongs.



Does the original thread exist somewhere with who posted & recommendations etc..?


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/16661525
> 
> 
> it's Funny Game



??? The movie I reviewed is called _Funny Games_, or alternatively _Funny Games U.S._ It is the 2007 remake of a 1997 Australian movie.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Funny-Games-...5195680&sr=1-1 


And if anyone ever questions SuprSlow's final placement of a title and can justify a change from past opinions, he has been very amenable to readjusting positions.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/16662377
> 
> 
> where did you buy them from? I did two-day Prime shipping from Amazon and they got it here on release. I wasn't expecting that.



Amazon as well, but I guess one's not treated as well without Prime.










Welcome back, LBFilmGuy! Put the pipe down and slip a few BRs in!










Legairre: as stated before, if you disagree, go ahead and submit your own review of the disputed title. Just my opinion, but I didn't see any compelling arguments from the Tier 0 recommendations (for _Horton_).


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/16664848
> 
> 
> ??? The movie I reviewed is called _Funny Games_, or alternatively _Funny Games U.S._ It is the 2007 remake of a 1997 Australian movie.
> 
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Funny-Games-...5195680&sr=1-1
> 
> 
> And if anyone ever questions SuprSlow's final placement of a title and can justify a change from past opinions, he has been very amenable to readjusting positions.



crap you're right, i'm sorry. i was remembering it wrong.


----------



## Legairre




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16664966
> 
> 
> Legairre: as stated before, if you disagree, go ahead and submit your own review of the disputed title. Just my opinion, but I didn't see any compelling arguments from the Tier 0 recommendations (for _Horton_).



I did when I made my post with the original question.


Forget any particular title. I'm trying to understand the system used to rank titles. Are the conversations used or the official bolded recommendations that follow the rules on page #1? Or is it both?


I'm not directing my question to any particular person, anyone who knows the answer is free to respond.


----------



## Legairre




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/16664848
> 
> 
> And if anyone ever questions SuprSlow's final placement of a title and can justify a change from past opinions, he has been very amenable to readjusting positions.



Phantom I just read your post. Thank you, It appears that a member named SuprSlow is responsible for the rankings, so I should probably send my question directly to him instead of asking the indivuduals who post here. When all else fails go right to the top.


I'll pm him, Thanks.


----------



## Asb-123

is irobot really still the best looking non animated movie


----------



## OldCodger73

There's good depth with decent sharpness and detail in most scenes. Colors are mostly subdued. Some grain. Overall it has a very film-like look.


On my disc there was a picture drop out somewhere between 10:29 and 11:39 that lasted a second or two.


I thought it was a nice transfer and would place *3 Days of the Condor Tier 3.0.*


This is one of my favorite films. Even though _3 Days of the Condor_ is a 1985 film and the computer and communication technology it shows are dated, it's still relevant today. The late Syndey Pollack does a masterful job of directing and Robert Redford, Faye Dunaway and Max Von Sydow give outstanding performances.


This was a purchase for me, replacing an LD.


Panasonic 50" 720p plasma, Panasonic 10a player, 7 1/2'


----------



## OldCodger73

Another decent transfer of a catalog title. Detail and depth were good, facial close-ups were almost showing fine detail. Color seemed OK.


I thought the movie was borderline 2.75 to 3.0 but will rate *Air Force One Tier 3.0*.


As to the movie itself, it's good story telling and entertaining as long as one can suspend disbelief about the use of firearms in an aircraft and overlook a possible case of presidential treason. Harrison Ford probably has the best one-liner of his career-- "Get off my plane."


This was another purchase for me replacing an LD.


Panasonic 50" 720p plasma, Panasonic 10a player, 7 1/2'


----------



## OldCodger73

Netflix finally sent this movie my way. After watching it I can understand the different opinions as to where _Australia_ should be placed.


To me there seemed to be inconsistencies in PQ. Some of the scenes were drop dead gorgeous, with excellent detail and color. Others, particularly in the last half-hour or so, were less so. Much of the movie was definitely Tier 1 but there was enough that wasn't so I'd rate *Australia Tier 2.0*.


I was also pleasantly surprised by the movie as I was expecting a yawner. In fact, I found that the first 1:50 or so held my interest quite well. However, the Darwin ending was pretty much overly melodramatic. I also found that at times, the boy was too overly "precious" and the aborigine child relocation issue resolved too easily. _Rabbit-Proof Fence_ gives a more compelling take on that situation.


Panasonic 50" 720p plasma, Panasonic 10a player, 7 1/2'


----------



## kagolu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/16670347
> 
> 
> Another decent transfer of a catalog title. Detail and depth were good, facial close-ups were almost showing fine detail. Color seemed OK.
> 
> 
> I thought the movie was borderline 2.75 to 3.0 but will rate *Air Force One Tier 3.0*.
> 
> 
> As to the movie itself, it's good story telling and entertaining as long as one can suspend disbelief about the use of firearms in an aircraft and overlook a possible case of presidential treason. Harrison Ford probably has the best one-liner of his career-- "Get off my plane."
> 
> 
> Panasonic 50" 720p plasma, Panasonic 10a player, 7 1/2'



Wasn't the whole thing about guns not being able to be shot on an aircraft debunked? At least for the most part







: http://science.howstuffworks.com/gun....htm/printable


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*Bride Wars*


Well, as I mentioned in a previous post , I have a bit of a soft spot for Anne Hathaway movies (Bring Ella Enchanted to Blu Ray already!), and this movie came in from zip.ca.



I'm going to keep this brief (no really; I promise!) since I really don't think many of you will see this.



The PQ of this was inconsistent. Facial detail on the women is definitely lacking, and for the most part on the men as well, however a few scenes had decent detail on some of the guys. It was strange. Textures were not great either, and the colour felt dull.



I mean, it wasn't horrible PQ; but it was fairly average-or-just-below. I wish I had looked at the special features and added in a pop up thing about wedding costs & how much money they actually would have wasted with all the stuff that went on. I would have been more entertained! I hope none of your wives/girlfriends/whomever make you watch this. My husband came home for lunch & it was still on; he ate quickly and returned to work. I could hardly blame him!










*Recommendation for Bride Wars: Tier 3.25*

*Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800u THX setting, approx 7.5'*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Ghostbusters


recommendation: Tier 2.75
*

A comedy from 1984, this movie saw its premiere on Blu-ray just yesterday. The 105-minute film is encoded in AVC on a BD-50. The BDInfo scan reveals an average video bitrate of 23.51 Mbps for the main feature. Sony Pictures handles their own encoding in-house and the compression here is exemplary work, appearing transparent to the original source. Atypically, the resulting video bitrates vary little from the average video bitrate-figure, mostly hovering in the 24 Mbps range for the entire main feature. The heavy grain structure is easily reproduced without any macroblocking or questionable moments. Even the special effect shots produce no artifacting on close inspection.


While many catalog titles are thrown out on Blu-ray without much thought and care given to the master itself, I can report this is not the case on _Ghostbusters_. There is virtually no print damage to the image itself. I could count on one hand the rare appearances of stray specks and dirt. It really is a glorious film transfer that appears in all respects faithful to the original film source. Grain is definitely present and moves like it should in the picture. To my eyes there looks to be no use of digital noise reduction to remove grain and other high-frequency information. If it was used in moderation, I wish other studios would emulate what Sony has done on this transfer. It looks entirely faithful to a movie shot on film from the 1980's. That might displease some but it was the correct decision to leave the grain in the picture.


I do not believe any sharpening in post-production has been applied to this transfer. What some may characterize as small halos in amplitude might be in a few of the optical composite shots, but that looks to be a fundamental part of the picture that was a remnant of the techniques used to make those shots. Close inspection of the final scenes on top of the building possibly exhibits this tiny but hardly noticeable effect at standard viewing distances. Otherwise halos are not a visible problem.


The picture is hard to pin down with the standard bromides for picture quality. Some scenes are soft in appearance due to the original photography. Black levels are average at best with a few scenes exhibiting wavy grain in the darkest moments that might be considered sub-par in quality. Viewers who prefer a hot, video look to their high-definition without visible grain should be warned. Grain is omnipresent, particularly early in the movie, which might distract some viewers. Resolution is strong though and superior to other films of similar vintage on Blu-ray such as _Amadeus_. It is easy to clearly see the somewhat rough skin of Bill Murray's face. The contrast looks improved over the prior dvd editions and is decent throughout the movie. Flesh tones look very good and appropriate. Colors in general are nicely balanced with even saturation. They do not pop off the screen like a Pixar movie, but look reasonably strong given the restrained color-scheme of the movie.

_Ghostbusters_ is my second favorite comedy of all-time (coincidentally my favorite comedy of all-time also happened to be released yesterday) and I always have a little trepidation when a beloved catalog title is released on Blu-ray due to how other favorites have been handled in the past. After seeing this stunning transfer that appears completely faithful to the original film, my worries have been laid to rest for this movie. Sony has done a remarkable job on this BD and one that other studios should emulate on catalog titles. This disc is no eye candy but a solid looking release that merits an immediate purchase for fans. I have full confidence in stating we will never see a better looking Ghostbusters ever...on this format anyway. My final recommendation is for placement in tier 2.75.


Watching on a 60” Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 (firmware 2.76) at a viewing distance of six feet.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Xylon):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...8#post16674628


----------



## b_scott

that's about what I expected. i heard it's very true to the original print, even overlooked by the creator before he passed. true to form is fine by me


----------



## sleater

I cannot find any information in this thread regarding the Rainn Wilson film *'The Rocker'*. I just viewed it and was absolutely astounded by how terrific the picture quality was. I have to re-watch it on my projection setup before posting an official review / placement recommendation but from what I just saw, the colours, contrast, crispness, and 3-D pop were all present in Tier 0 quality. I have not seen a better looking live action bluray disc... but I did watch it on a small screen so this might be clouding my judgement.


Anyway the movie itself is definitely not high brow stuff but it's enjoyable enough.


This one was overlooked in theatres and I guess on its dvd/bd release as well... poor Dwight.


----------



## Blacklac




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Blacklac* /forum/post/16652763
> 
> Wallace and Gromit - A Matter of Loaf and Death
> 
> 
> This is an excellent disc. You can see the impressions on the clay from how it was formed, finger prints and stuff. I was really curious how well this would look, but I was totally blown away. The 3D depth is unreal. Color is fantastic. This disc is reference all the way! Bring on Curse of the Were-Rabbit! Oh, and the TrueHD 5.1 track is very nice also!
> 
> One major downside to some, it is 1080i50.
> 
> This should be Tier 0



BTW, this is AVC with TrueHD 5.1 (16-bit). Studio's are Aardman and 2 Entertain. Disc is a BD25.


I watched on my 50" Samsung plasma, Pioneer 51 BD player, DVDO Edge video processor, Denon 1909 AVR and Elemental Designs 7.1.


----------



## sleater

*The Rocker* 16:9 (1:85:1) AR 2008 AC-3


Ok I realise that this might not be an obvious choice to nominate to Tier 0, but I was so impressed by it even after scrutinizing this film from a 4 foot viewing distance on an 92" screen from my 1080p projector. All I can say is that at its best, it surpasses _Transporter 3, I, Robot and Man on Fire_ for its vividness and that 'looking through a window' type achievement. It isn't all perfect, however, and thus it probably shouldn't be placed above these mentioned titles, but a bit below. I _could_ live with Tier 1.0 but why not go out on a limb.


A very very fine film grain can be discerned in certain underlit scenes, but for the most part it is difficult to make-out any grain. I don't attribute this to NR but more likely that it was captured using digital camera equipment. It looked similar to "Youth Without Youth" in this regard so for those who prefer a film-like 35mm presentation it isn't found here.


The more impressive scenes had some bokeh with closeups of the actor and a more blurred background, making the actor pop-off the screen. There were many wide and medium shots that had an incredible depth of field where all objects were in perfect focus as well. The best of the best facial closeups here cannot compete, however, with something like 'Transporter 3' but they are not lacking either. Fine details can be seen such as pores and individual hairs. Skin tones look natural, blacks are pretty good and the darker indoor concert scenes while not invoking the 'wow' factor that the more well-lit or outdoor scenes have, are noise-free and still sharp and detailed. Indoor scenes, for instance the dinner table scene near the beginning, show-off how incredible looking this movie is with great detail in small objects and all actors popping right off the screen.


I personally think that part of what makes animated movies have an easier time being nominated for Tier 0 is their artifact-free digital to digital conversion that translates to a 'perfect' transfer from original source to the bluray medium. The fact that I think this movie is shot with digital cameras makes this film similar in this regard. I could literally stand right up to my screen on some of the scenes and see extreme fine detail without the usual haze of film stock grain. This just gave it a clean, wow-factor pop that I have to say deserves a Tier 0 spot probably somewhere in the middle right below 'Youth Without Youth'. I doubt there will be the requisite 5 or 6 Tier 0 nominations to achieve this but that is where I think this film belongs.


Anyone on netflix or zip will probably have no problem whatsoever renting this as its far from a popular release, for whatever reason. If you do decide to give it a rent, don't be too concerned in the first 10 - 15 minutes of ridiculous 'comedy' that feels a bit out of place. The movie does improve later on. It's not a great film by any stretch of the imagination, however.


I nominate to the middle of *Tier 0*. I have no problem demoing this one to show what is possible with bluray.


PS3 to HC5500 1080p PJ

92" screen 4-7' distance (I sat up really really close for this one for some parts)


Sidenote: I am more partial to the look of HD digital camera vs film


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Nice review, Sleater. I'll plunk that title into my zip list!


----------



## deltasun

*The Berlin Concert: Live from the Waldbuhne*


Switched gears here a bit and thought I might as well put up a review. Like most concerts, the audience portion is usually in unflattering light. Such was the case here. Whenever the camera pans over to the audience, clarity, color, and details go south.


Back to the performers - facial details were uncharacteristically soft. I don't know if I saw a single instance where they were detailed. It was very disappointing in this regard. Without a doubt, the best PQ attribute were medium shots. They were 3D-like, detailed, and contrast was often spot on, helping give those shots great depth dimension.


Blacks were pretty decent - tuxedo's, for example, retained details. Skin tones, when not in direct light, were spot on.


Overall, a very viable video presentation...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75*


If a little opera is your cup of tea, this had really good audio to complement the video. Because of the format, however, the performances did not really flow well. Still, very enjoyable performances from Netrebko, Domingo, and Villazon.

_ln46a650 - 1080i/60 - 8'_


----------



## chumpy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/16672097
> 
> _Ghostbusters_ is my second favorite comedy of all-time (coincidentally my favorite comedy of all-time also happened to be released yesterday)



Oh I know, I know...*Spaceballs*!!! Now what do I win?


----------



## b_scott

LOST: Season One is looking to be about a 2.0 Tier to me. Maybe 1.75.


Some shots look like they were shot on 16mm, and some shots up close show great detail in facial shots. It's very inconsistent.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chumpy* /forum/post/16677199
> 
> 
> Oh I know, I know...*Spaceballs*!!! Now what do I win?



While the power of the Schwartz is very funny, I was referring to another comedy that was released this week on Blu-ray. Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face?










> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/16677779
> 
> 
> LOST: Season One is looking to be about a 2.0 Tier to me. Maybe 1.75.
> 
> 
> Some shots look like they were shot on 16mm, and some shots up close show great detail in facial shots. It's very inconsistent.



I have not watched it yet but that jives with what I have been hearing about it. On another matter, I was planning to write up an Oldboy recommendation until I checked and found it was already placed exactly where I think it should be in tier 3.5. So for future reference if more discussion of it comes up...

*Oldboy


recommendation: Tier 3.5*


A surprisingly decent transfer for a disc that came out back in 2007. It looked better than I expected given the nature and origin of the production.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/16678577
> 
> 
> Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face?



I got my copy of Strangelove yesterday. I'm so looking forward to seeing it in Blu!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/16678577
> 
> 
> Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face?



Damn that's a great movie. Will definitely eventually have to add that to my collection.


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/16677779
> 
> 
> LOST: Season One is looking to be about a 2.0 Tier to me. Maybe 1.75.
> 
> 
> Some shots look like they were shot on 16mm, and some shots up close show great detail in facial shots. It's very inconsistent.



after further viewing (I'm in Episode 14 now) I find that it gets a lot sharper about midway through. I'd give the season a running average of 1.5 as of now. More later


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/16672097
> 
> *Ghostbusters
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 2.75
> *



I watched this tonight, and while I agree with your assessment and loved that it was very true to the original print - the original print is very grainy and old looking. I would lean more towards 3.0 tops for the purposes of this thread. That being said, it was very enjoyable


----------



## deltasun

*He's Just Not That Into You*


Fine grain present throughout, but not distracting. At least 3/4's of the scenes suffered from intentional softness. I say intentional because of the romantic aspects of this chick flick. I was surprised to see a handful of scenes which were sharper, but still not the best sharpness and detail inherent of high-tiered titles. Speaking of sharpness, I did notice some ringing on a few scenes, but nothing to really ruin them.


Blacks were mostly decent, but were crushed in a number of scenes (horrible on Connor's sweater while showing a house to Scarlett). Low-light scenes were just on or slightly above average. Contrast was a bit on the weak side, skin tones ever so slightly on the reddish side.


Overall, still a decent looking title at ...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.50*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## 42041

so i just had to sit through *Twilight*










i absolutely HATED the movie, but the video presentation makes this a bit less difficult to endure. The transfer is only a few hairs away from what I'd consider reference quality. Detail is consistently excellent, though not quite best in class, I'd put it about on par with Tropic Thunder. Like every movie I've seen, there's screwy shots here and there, but they are few and far between. In some movies, the dark scenes sometimes bring down otherwise excellent looking PQ, but here they look very good. Grain is present and not distracting, the picture retains its film-like qualities. Contrast is very well delineated, blacks are inky without distracting instances of crushing. Despite the dizzying bonanza of film-making incompetence that is Twilight, it's shot quite well, and there's some attractive scenery to distract one from the dull, threadbare plot and hammy acting. My only reservation about the PQ is the overpowering blue tint through almost the entire movie, while it fits what the filmmakers were trying to accomplish, it makes the movie look quite drab and thus not my first choice of demo material.

*Tier 1.25*


(Pioneer 50" Kuro Elite/1sw. distance)


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16679575
> 
> 
> Damn that's a great movie. Will definitely eventually have to add that to my collection.



Eventually?! You're slipping, Rob!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/16681637
> 
> 
> Eventually?! You're slipping, Rob!



Just being honest. I have another hobby that is sucking up all my expendable income right now.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16682463
> 
> 
> Just being honest. I have another hobby that is sucking up all my expendable income right now.



Let's hear about this off-topic hobby already!


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/16681082
> 
> 
> so i just had to sit through *Twilight*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i absolutely HATED the movie, but the video presentation makes this a bit less difficult to endure. The transfer is only a few hairs away from what I'd consider reference quality. Detail is consistently excellent, though not quite best in class, I'd put it about on par with Tropic Thunder. Like every movie I've seen, there's screwy shots here and there, but they are few and far between. In some movies, the dark scenes sometimes bring down otherwise excellent looking PQ, but here they look very good. Grain is present and not distracting, the picture retains its film-like qualities. Contrast is very well delineated, blacks are inky without distracting instances of crushing. Despite the dizzying bonanza of film-making incompetence that is Twilight, it's shot quite well, and there's some attractive scenery to distract one from the dull, threadbare plot and hammy acting. My only reservation about the PQ is the overpowering blue tint through almost the entire movie, while it fits what the filmmakers were trying to accomplish, it makes the movie look quite drab and thus not my first choice of demo material.
> 
> *Tier 1.25*
> 
> 
> (Pioneer 50" Kuro Elite/1sw. distance)



hated it too - i think I agree with your placement though.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/16681082
> 
> 
> so i just had to sit through *Twilight*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i absolutely HATED the movie, but the video presentation makes this a bit less difficult to endure. ...
> 
> *Tier 1.25*
> 
> 
> (Pioneer 50" Kuro Elite/1sw. distance)




Aww. I'm so sorry you had to sit through Twilight. I'm pondering downloading the Twilight Rifftrax for the next time I watch this. I synched up the one for The Dark Knight the other day and OMG was it hilarious. At the very least, it gave you a decent PQ; your review is not far off of my own review where I placed it at 1.50.



*Has anyone here watched The Tudors Season 2 on Blu?* I have it borrowed from a friend, and we watched the first 3 episodes last night. When I did a forum search I only came up with Phantom Stranger's review for the 1st season. I know this show was filmed using the HD cameras (or whatever it's called, forgive my lack of technical knowledge here!), but something seems... off. It's hazy and drab and soft in a lot of places. It's as though it could be a decent mid-to-low Tier 1 set, which is pretty good for a TV show on Blu IMO, except for this issue. I haven't changed any settings on my set, and I've been bingeing on Blu Ray/High Def channels since I got back and nothing has looked this... wonky.


I mean I suppose it could be a stylistic choice but if that's the case, I'd love to SMACK the person who made that choice; some scenes that should be lush and gorgeous feel like they've put vaseline --- no, GAUZE -- over the lens or something. Because I'm in Canada we don't have Showtime (I think that's where it airs) so I have no basis for comparison to what it may have looked like when it aired on TV. Just curious if anyone else has these issues with it.


----------



## xraffle

Funny how "The Incredible Hulk" is Tier 1.25 and "Iron Man" is Tier 1.75. I think they should switch places because I saw both BDs and Iron Man looks much better. Incredible Hulk looks good, but I spot some DNR in the picture, so that kills some of the detail.


----------



## spectator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xraffle* /forum/post/16686008
> 
> 
> Incredible Hulk looks good, but I spot some DNR in the picture, so that kills some of the detail.



Unless, of course, it doesn't, but let's leap to conclusions!


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xraffle* /forum/post/16686008
> 
> 
> Funny how "The Incredible Hulk" is Tier 1.25 and "Iron Man" is Tier 1.75. I think they should switch places because I saw both BDs and Iron Man looks much better. Incredible Hulk looks good, but I spot some DNR in the picture, so that kills some of the detail.



To me, _Iron Man_ is much softer.


----------



## b_scott

sharp/soft can be very subjective since you could be comparing on an uncalibrated set.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/16680766
> 
> 
> I watched this tonight, and while I agree with your assessment and loved that it was very true to the original print - the original print is very grainy and old looking. I would lean more towards 3.0 tops for the purposes of this thread. That being said, it was very enjoyable



I would have no problem if Ghostbusters ends up in tier 3.0. In my mind I was comparing it directly to Amadeus in tier 3.0, a movie of similar vintage. Ghostbusters looks slightly better to my eyes and is definitely the better of the two transfers. Looking at some of the titles in tier 3.0, it looks like some of those need to be moved down a little.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16683427
> 
> *Has anyone here watched The Tudors Season 2 on Blu?* I have it borrowed from a friend, and we watched the first 3 episodes last night. When I did a forum search I only came up with Phantom Stranger's review for the 1st season. I know this show was filmed using the HD cameras (or whatever it's called, forgive my lack of technical knowledge here!), but something seems... off. It's hazy and drab and soft in a lot of places. It's as though it could be a decent mid-to-low Tier 1 set, which is pretty good for a TV show on Blu IMO, except for this issue. I haven't changed any settings on my set, and I've been bingeing on Blu Ray/High Def channels since I got back and nothing has looked this... wonky.



Be aware that the Canadian version of The Tudors is a completely separate release from the UK one I reviewed for this thread. I do own the UK import of season two but have not gotten around to watching it yet. Give me some time and I will see if your impressions are true for the UK set.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/16686106
> 
> 
> sharp/soft can be very subjective since you could be comparing on an uncalibrated set.



True, you could be. I'll say it again - Iron Man is much softer.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spectator* /forum/post/16686055
> 
> 
> Unless, of course, it doesn't, but let's leap to conclusions!




















> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16686060
> 
> 
> To me, _Iron Man_ is much softer.



Me too.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/16686106
> 
> 
> sharp/soft can be very subjective since you could be comparing on an uncalibrated set.



Doesn't matter. As long as they are viewed on the same set, softness should be relative to each title.


----------



## xraffle




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16686060
> 
> 
> To me, _Iron Man_ is much softer.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16686599
> 
> 
> Me too.



Really? I was truly wowed by "Iron Man." I can see every grain of sand in the beginning of the movie and I can see the pores on the actors' faces. I didn't get that much detail when watching "The Incredible Hulk." The DNR seemed to have blurred those extra details away.


----------



## deltasun

*Enemy at the Gates*


Medium to fine grain present, but not overly distracting. Facial close-up's ranged from mid Tier 1, with excellent details on Ed Harris' face to almost _U-571_-like, smooth-looking shots of Jude Law and Joseph Fiennes. I don't know if there was foul play, but some of those scenes definitely reminded me of the aforementioned submarine movie. Minute details were still abundant on other scenes - paint texture on train doors, stitching on uniforms, creases on leather boots, and texture of rocks/steel in the factory. As usual, lighting played a significant role in how much detail was portrayed.


For the most part, scenes looked flat, thanks to a weak contrast and drab palette. Blacks, when present, were okay but looked dark gray. Skin tones were representative of a cold, bleak Stalingrad in 1943. Still, a few scenes generated 3D pop despite the muted color scheme.


As evidenced above, PQ was all over the place. Facial details from time to time were definitely the best features of the film. I would liken them to _Kingdom of Heaven_. An occasional halo here and there (see tank scene) brought it back down. It's really hard to find an average here - somewhere between 1.75 and 2.25...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8' & 6'_


----------



## NMJack

*Batman (Burton)*


I didn't see this one in the current rankings, so wanted to share my experience. This was one of the most pleasant surprises I've had with an older movie coming to Blu. Being a dark film that's 20 years old, I wasn't expecting miracles, but was blown away by the transfer. This is one of my favorites, so I've watched it countless times on SD. The city scenes have a new depth and clarity that just wasn't there before. The Joker's green hair is an example of considerable improvement to color and detail. Hopefully Batman returns will be just as good (I only have the WB Batman book, as I couldn't bring myself to add that awful Clooney version to my bookshelf).

*Tier Recommendation = 2.0 (Silver)*


Screen size, resolution, and viewing distance:


142" FP, 1080P, 13' viewing distance (Pany AE2000 w/Carada Criterion BW)


----------



## deltasun

*Spider-Man 3*


Saw this title in Holdings and thought I'd pop my copy in and give it a review. Fine grain present throughout, with a few light scenes getting a bit more. The opening scene of Parker looked really odd - it was soft and his skin tone was super pale. It was an aberration and quickly switched to better PQ.


Details were abundant in this title, from Sandman's face, texture on costumes, lines on a hand, etc. I did spot a few soft shots towards the end such as Harry's face as he lay dying. The detailed close-up's definitely far outnumbered the soft ones. Skin tones were faithful to the characters.


Black levels were decent, with minimal instances of crushed blacks. Contrast seemed pushed a bit and definitely washed out the scene on the bridge between Parker and MJ. Colors were a bit saturated as well, but complemented the comic book look of the film.


The CGI was a bit bothersome in how they portrayed fast motion. It also introduced even more softness in some scenes. Panoramic cityscapes offered decent depth and demanded attention even with the fast moving webslinger flailing about. Medium shots were also 3D-like and showed good details even in semi-bokeh.


Overall, this was on par with _The Incredible Hulk_. I believe current Tier 1.0 titles are still more consistent in most positive attributes than this title. I did not detect any smudging or ringing.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/16686405
> 
> 
> 
> Be aware that the Canadian version of The Tudors is a completely separate release from the UK one I reviewed for this thread. I do own the UK import of season two but have not gotten around to watching it yet. Give me some time and I will see if your impressions are true for the UK set.



Thanks, Phantom Stranger!


----------



## deltasun

*Australia*


Took me three tries to finish this movie. Medium to fine grain present. For the most part, they were not bothersome, save for a few inconsistencies during low light. The film starts out with very detailed facial close-up's from most of its characters. These were easily Tier 0 quality. The oddity came when you would have great detail for Wolverine's face in one scene and soft on Ms. Kidman during the same scene. This would continue throughout the film. In fact, most of Ms. Kidman's facial close-up's were not detailed, almost glossed over. Medium shots were the most inconsistent.


Black levels were very good for the most part, but did exhibit some crush (see The Ball scenes). Low-light scenes were mostly decent and offered good depth. Skin tones varied as well, depending on the character. My biggest problem was contrast. For a film that should have boasted beautiful panoramas and sweeping vistas, I found those to be its weakest attributes. Most of the outdoor desert scenes were washed out, devoid of expected details. I even recall during the landscape collage of the love scene, a shot of a canyon that looked like it was spliced in from a Discovery show. This appeared like upscaled DVD quality, very soft and blurry. Don't get me wrong, there were quite a few landscape shots that were breath taking - these were more prominent when the scene took place under the softer light of sunrise or sunset.


I can't say for sure if EE was used, but some scenes had that exaggerated 3D effect against a panoramic background. Speaking of which, I also didn't care for the fake backgrounds in several scenes. The CGI Zeros were poorly done. The wide shot of the burning city at night looked good.


Without the washed out scenes, I could easily see this title in the Gold Tier. However, these scenes were very troubling for me. Despite the excellent examples of facial details, I have to retire this title in mid-Tier 2 territory.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.50*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16601065
> 
> *Revolutionary Road*
> 
> 
> This is a decent looking title overall, but it clearly does not belong with the best titles in Tier 1.
> 
> 
> Clarity and detail are decent, but are not in the same league as the higher tier titles. The main issue I have with this title is contrast (or lack thereof). The image often looks pretty flat.
> 
> 
> Colors are definitely stylized in an attempt to comport with the look of the 50's.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.75*
> 
> 
> As for the movie: simply superb. Kate Winslet has been one of my favorite actresses over the last few years. She has, with this performance, proven to me yet again what a great actress she is. In fact, I would now say that she is the best actress working today (with Kate Blanchett up there as well).
> 
> 
> This movie is a perfect example of how a tight script with excellent acting can make for a great movie, even if the subject matter itself is not particularly interesting. The direction by Mendes is top notch.
> 
> 
> Very highly recommended.



I disagree with 2.75 completely. Watching it, I was thinking 1.5 - 1.75. I thought detail was great with no DNR. Not enough for high Tier 1, but definitely mid to low. Facial detail was good, and wide shot were sharp and detailed. I was very impressed.


Pioneer 5010

PS3

1080p

8' back


Good movie, though depressing.


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16650751
> 
> *The International*
> 
> 
> It appears that Sony is still putting out fantastic looking titles. I was very impressed with this! It excelled on all levels: details, sharpness, clarity, color, depth, contrast and lack of any artifacts. And it did all of this with a very natural look (not digital).
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.25*
> 
> 
> As for the movie: I just didn't find the story all that interesting. There was enough action and suspense to make it somewhat entertaining though.



I thought 1.25 all the way through. The only thing deterring me was that it almost seemed that DNR was applied, even though I saw grain. Everyone's faces were a little waxy. Could've just been the makeup/lighting though. So, one more vote for 1.25.


Ending was meh.


----------



## deltasun

hey b_scott, care to elaborate on how you've arrived at your tier recommendations? Just curious as to what you're seeing.


----------



## b_scott

*The International* had very sharp edges on everything, most character shots were a great focal length and always had them in focus - on the wide shots the whole scene was in focus, and the intricate detailing of complex patterns (the exact shots escape me) were always popping off the screen even from afar. I guess I just felt the movie was made more engaging by the wonderful PQ - even though a lot of the the movie was more blacks and whites than color from what I remember, I still felt like it was almost a demo disc just for its clarity. Again, the only thing that bothered me was the possible DNR - I'm no expert, but some of the close up shots were shiny and waxy on the faces - however there didn't seem to be detail lost so it could've just been the lighting. There was definitely grain, so any DNR wasn't apparent.


----------



## sleater




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/16696132
> 
> 
> I disagree with 2.75 completely. Watching it, I was thinking 1.5 - 1.75. I thought detail was great with no DNR. Not enough for high Tier 1, but definitely mid to low. Facial detail was good, and wide shot were sharp and detailed. I was very impressed.



+1 re: *Revolutionary Road*


----------



## nick2010

I have watched most of _Lost: The Complete First Season_ and found the PQ to be very inconsistent. What I noticed in season 1 that I didn't see in seasons 3 or 4 on BD were pieces of dirt and white spots (usually about 9 to 12 pixels large) that appeared in the frame occasionally. The spots would only appear in individual frames (which made it too difficult to make a screenshot of one in VLC), but a few larger artifacts would sometimes stay in frame for entire shots, such as the one in the bottom right of the first screenshot.

 

The average PQ was similar to the other seasons, but (like the reviews said) some scenes were over-saturated, particularly in the 2nd screenshot below. In the darker scenes there is not as much low-level noise as in season 4, but I did see noise in the background of several of the less bright daytime scenes that took place at the beach. Based on the first 18 episodes I would place _Lost - The Complete First Season_ in Tier 1.5.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Detritus happens.


----------



## K-Spaz

I just got a new projector this past weekend, and viewed a few movies with it though it's not really set up properly yet.


Since I've been watching blu-rays (a couple hundred now), I've only seen a rare few that had major banding issues. Now I realize that my DLP pj is going to make this worse than some other technologies, but holy smokes, I watched 10000 BC and TCC of Benjamin Button this weekend and both had scenes with unaceptable banding. Wow. Superman returns I remember having the worst I had seen to date when I watched that but it was only in the one scene where they are in the heli looking for SM who's in the water drowning. 10K BC is full of desert scenes with horrible banded sky, and BB is pretty bad when he's at sea.


Am I just seeing this now that I have a pj, or were these movies ones that were bad enough I would have noticed anyhow? Pre-pj, I had a DLP RP with which I only ever saw banding in 2 movies. SM returns and one other I can't even remember.


Does anyone suppose this will be the norm for me now?


----------



## bori

I don't know if the international has been rated but it's definitly tier reference IMO.


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bori* /forum/post/16703359
> 
> 
> I don't know if the international has been rated but it's definitly tier reference IMO.



yup. I might even go as high as 1.0. I don't think it's Blu though.


About LOST S1 above, my sentiments are echoed up above


----------



## b_scott

LOST S2 is 1.25 at least, maybe 1.0. GREAT PQ


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bori* /forum/post/16703359
> 
> 
> I don't know if the international has been rated but it's definitly tier reference IMO.



+1


This is turning out to be a controversial title, but so far the votes for Tier Blu are outweighing the votes for Tier Gold.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I don't think The International is a controversial title. Pretty much everyone thinks it looks great.


----------



## tcramer

I got notifications from Amazon today saying that Gladiator, Braveheart and Forrest Gump are available for pre-order. Looks like they will be coming out around September.


----------



## nick_rh

I don't understand why Mad Men: Season One is a full half-tier below titles like Sunshine and Casino Royale. Certainly the latter two look great, but Mad Men is so crisp and detailed that it's hard to imagine anything looking better.


I'd vote to at least move Mad Men up to 1.25, if not 1.0.


My setup: Panasonic TC-P50X1, PS3, 720p, 8 feet


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16704919
> 
> 
> I don't think The International is a controversial title. Pretty much everyone thinks it looks great.



But how great? Blu or Gold? Herein lies the controversy!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16709342
> 
> 
> But how great? Blu or Gold? Herein lies the controversy!



Gold!


Controversy resolved!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16709605
> 
> 
> Gold!
> 
> 
> Controversy resolved!



Wow! That was easy, thanks Rob! End of controversy.


----------



## H.Cornerstone

So I watched Sin City last night, and while I didn't exactly like the movie. I thought the Play quality was amazing. Some of the best facial textures I have ever seen in a movie before, and made me go wow many of times. It's one of the best live action movies I have seen in a long time play quality wise. It deserves a spot in Tier 0 in my mind, black and white and all. Probably somewhere in the middle.


----------



## G.M.

"*Encounters At The End Of The World"*


I did not see it listed in the _PQ Tier_; did I miss it? If anyone has seen it would you be kind enough to comment on its visual/audio quality.


-George


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nick_rh* /forum/post/16707445
> 
> 
> I don't understand why Mad Men: Season One is a full half-tier below titles like Sunshine and Casino Royale. Certainly the latter two look great, but Mad Men is so crisp and detailed that it's hard to imagine anything looking better.
> 
> 
> I'd vote to at least move Mad Men up to 1.25, if not 1.0.
> 
> 
> My setup: Panasonic TC-P50X1, PS3, 720p, 8 feet



My own placement for the first season of Mad Men was tier 1.5 which can be read here:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...n#post16301235 

Forum member selimsivad thought it should be even lower at tier 1.75 in this post:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post16301235 

This particular set had been in tier zero for some length of time until its placement was questioned by a couple of frequent contributors. A thread search of "Mad Men" will return most of the relevant discussion on the title if you would like to see the evolution of the process. In my review I said tier 1.25 was a fair and possible placement for it.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *G.M.* /forum/post/16711481
> 
> 
> "*Encounters At The End Of The World"*
> 
> 
> I did not see it listed in the _PQ Tier_; did I miss it? If anyone has seen it would you be kind enough to comment on its visual/audio quality.
> 
> 
> -George



It is not currently listed, as are many other releases. If you get a chance to see it and have time, give us your placement for it. Everyone is welcome to contribute new titles here.


----------



## 42041

*The Orphanage*

This movie has serious PQ potential, but it isn't entirely delivered upon. There's some beautiful photography here and good detail. The first 3/4ths of the movie looks mostly excellent, with nice contrast delineation, unobtrusive grain, and a nice sense of depth to the image. Unfortunately jaggies are present for some reason, and while they're subtle enough that many might not notice from typical TV viewing distances, those who prefer a larger image may find them bothersome, and regardless of how noticeable they may or may not be, i can't call this a "great" transfer just on principle. The other problem is that dark scenes get pretty bad towards the end of the movie, with a complete lack of shadow detail and a strange red tint to the darkest areas of the image (including one shot that's so red it's downright bizarre and jarring, no idea how it made the final cut), and there's enough of them to take this movie down a notch on the scale.
*Tier 1.5*

(Pioneer 50" Kuro Elite/PS3/1sw distance)


----------



## nick2010

*Lost - The Complete First Season*


After watching all of the episodes I have decided to rate _Lost - The Complete First Season_ as Tier 1.25. Facial details were usually excellent and the image was "deep" and clear. Colours were good but occasionally the image was noticeably over-saturated. For the most part the transfer was acceptable. However, I could often see dirt or specks in the frame that were sometimes distracting. The only compression problem I noticed was in one frame in _The Greater Good._ (details in spoiler box)
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) The first frame of the jungle scene that is transitioned to after Essam shoots himself


*Tier 1.25*


46" diagonal screen size, 1080p, 7' viewing distance


----------



## lgans316

Here are some quick recommendations of some of Blu I watched since the reunion with my HT.

Taken - Tier 1.5 or Tier 1.75
Quantum of Solace - Tier 1.25 or Tier 1.5
X-Men 1 - Tier 2.5 or Tier 2.75
Slumdog Millionaire - Tier 2.75
Seabiscuit - Tier 1.5 or Tier 1.75
Children of Men - Tier 2


SuprSlow / AustinSTI, Are you guys there ?


----------



## G.M.

"It is not currently listed, as are many other releases. If you get a chance to see it and have time, give us your placement for it. Everyone is welcome to contribute new titles here.[/quote]


Thanks for your response.


-G


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*The Tudors, Season 2*



I find it difficult to rate an entire season of a TV show, but I'll do my best. As I reported in an earlier post, I had some difficulty with this show. The clarity was very good for about 95% of the time; there was the occasional blurry moment that was probably a camera error or something. I think that can be forgiven when you are dealing with 10 episodes of a show rather than a movie.


The show is beautiful. The people are beautiful, as are the costumes and the scenery. My problem is there seems to be an issue with the contrast perhaps? It felt as though there was a washed-out haze. The gorgeous scenery could have looked just THAT much better if it wasn't for this gauze-feeling all over everything.



The detail was there, and I never noticed any edge enhancement or signs of DNR. If they're there I couldn't see them.



I went back and had a look at where I placed Dexter , which is Tier 1.50. Overall, Dexter had a better PQ than The Tudors Season 2. I feel that it is JUST on the edge for being considered for reference material for the purposes of this thread (tier 0 & 1).


*Recommendation for The Tudors, Season 2: Tier 1.75*
*Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800u THX setting, approx 7.5'.*


*Phantom Stranger-* the info on the back of the box says that it is by Peace Arch entertainment and CBC.ca with a couple of government of Canada logos. It's also the Uncut Version. 16x9 HD 1:78:1 Widescreen, but it doesn't say the encoding. Popping it back in the ps3 shows it's AVC.


----------



## lgans316

*Transporter 3 (U.K. Import) Video: AVC | Audio: Dolby TrueHD (16bit/48kHz) | AR: 2.40:1 | Icon*


The video is encoded at a higher bit rate than the US version.


The image looked stunning to my eyes except for the sequences that happen in the dark during start of the movie. However, I noticed ringing / halos in couple of shots but this is not a major distraction as it vanishes within couple of seconds.

*Agree with current placement.*


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*Passchendaele*




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moematthews* /forum/post/16226319
> 
> 
> Fair enough if the movie is entirely fictional. But I cannot agree that an actual event of historical significance should be misrepresented to that degree. A great example for me as a Canadian was the recent movie "Passchendaele" about a famous WWI battle in Belgium in which Canadians took part. A defining moment for a young nation. The movie was nothing more than a sappy Hollywood love story - and a poorly done one at that. Nothing about the battle itself or its significance. I am still furious.
> 
> 
> Back on topic . . . . . . . .




OMG so true. It was AWFUL. Watched it last night, and I was sorely disappointed.



That said, I did not notice any glaring EE/DNR, but there might have been something going on as the details did not seem on par with what we're used to in the upper tiers. Colours were good, not great but good.


I really feel it is on par with Batman Begins, and I also feel that Batman Begins should be revisited by those of us interested in re-watching it.



I'm not going to go on about this film; I doubt many of you will see it. I don't recommend it to anyone. Such a shame; Paul Gross does not usually disappoint, not to this degree.

*Recommendation for Passchendaele: Tier 2.00*
*Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800u THX setting, approx 7.5'.*


----------



## b_scott

watching Star Trek: TMP.....


Looks really really good. probably 1.25 - 1.5, even with DNR.


But man is it boring and pointless. The flight through the pretty scenery for 30 minutes........ looked cool but wow.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/16722964
> 
> 
> watching Star Trek: TMP.....
> 
> 
> Looks really really good. probably 1.25 - 1.5, even with DNR.
> 
> 
> But man is it boring and pointless. The flight through the pretty scenery for 30 minutes........ looked cool but wow.



Hrm. If it looks that good I might have to watch it. It's the only one in the boxed set that we ignored.


----------



## deltasun

*Dr. Strangelove*


"In fact, they might even try an immediate sneak attack so they could take over our mineshaft space"


Moderate grain present throughout. While it won't give most current BD's a run for their PQ monies, this was a magnificent transfer of a classic Kubrick film. Facial details were pretty decent, with the possible exception of Mandrake. Clothing textures weren't so prominent, nor other details. Black levels, contrast were average. As such depth and dimensionality were not that notable.


Overall, still an improvement over its DVD incantation with no major artifacts or dirt. Really hard to compare with other Bronze films, but from my recollection, this looked better than _JCVD_ at 3.75.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.50*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16723059
> 
> 
> Hrm. If it looks that good I might have to watch it. It's the only one in the boxed set that we ignored.



I thought it looked REALLY good. There were only a couple scenes that were around 3.0 - and those were only because of the special effects giving a weird glow in dark scenes around the people. Otherwise it's sharp as a tack.


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *357* /forum/post/16650142
> 
> 
> Not giving formal reviews but I most say that...
> 
> 
> The Code= Sharp
> 
> Friday the 13th= Soft
> *Confessions of a Shopaholic= Softest*



agreed. very soft, almost no pop, muted colors for such a bouncy movie. not impressed. only positive thing I had to say about it is there seemed to be grain and no DNR at all. I'd probably place it 2.50 - 2.75


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Saw V


recommendation: Tier 2.0
*

This 2008 movie premiered on home video on January 20, 2009 from Lionsgate. The 95-minute movie is encoded in AVC on a BD-25. BDInfo reveals the average video bitrate to be 21.00 Mbps in a revealing and transparent encoding. Even the dark, shadowy scenes show no trace of compression-related problems like banding or noise. It is a professional and highly competent video encode that is perceptually flawless.


While some have questioned Lionsgate's treatment of catalog titles on Blu-ray, their day-and-date releases have typically been very good, and this particular disc is no exception. The master used as the basis of the transfer looks in flawless and immaculate shape. I suspect it is minted from a digital intermediate. Halos are absent with no sharpening of any kind seen in the image. The use of digital noise reduction is also absent, as the image retains the light grain structure of the original film with a high level of micro-detail present.


The image looks a little glossier here than in previous entries in the Saw franchise. There are still heavily-stylized scenes that bathe the picture in an intended grim and gritty aesthetic, but clarity and definition are definitely improved. A significant portion of the movie looks decidedly like a tier one-caliber title with nice sharpness and surprisingly naturalistic colors. The flashback scenes involving Jigsaw have had their color-timing tweaked in post-production to a sickly yellow glow. A couple of scenes also appear to have been shot slightly diffuse with filters. Nothing could be characterized as soft but there are some limited moments that look intentionally fuzzy.


Black levels are strong for the most part with excellent shadow depth and detail. I will note the sporadic and rare appearance of elevated black levels that probably revealed too much shadow detail at times. Flesh-tones vary depending on the lighting of each scene. The color that stands out the most is a deep crimson red which appears over-saturated. Cinematography is surprisingly strong for a film of this genre, and the image conveys a marvelous sense of dimensionality. The opening set piece jumps off the screen with its visual depth.


My final recommendation is for a placement in tier 2.0, though I had considered a ranking in the lowest quarter of tier one. This pleasing transfer reveals high-frequency information in close-ups that rival many of the titles in tier one, but the chosen color palette limits the visual splendor.


Watching on a 60 Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 (firmware 2.80) at a viewing distance of six feet.


----------



## eastbaygreen

I don't think this film should sniff the top of Tier 1 because of the weird red tinted blacks. Some really good stuff outside of that though.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/16716614
> 
> *The Orphanage*
> 
> This movie has serious PQ potential, but it isn't entirely delivered upon. There's some beautiful photography here and good detail. The first 3/4ths of the movie looks mostly excellent, with nice contrast delineation, unobtrusive grain, and a nice sense of depth to the image. Unfortunately jaggies are present for some reason, and while they're subtle enough that many might not notice from typical TV viewing distances, those who prefer a larger image may find them bothersome, and regardless of how noticeable they may or may not be, i can't call this a "great" transfer just on principle. The other problem is that dark scenes get pretty bad towards the end of the movie, with a complete lack of shadow detail and a strange red tint to the darkest areas of the image (including one shot that's so red it's downright bizarre and jarring, no idea how it made the final cut), and there's enough of them to take this movie down a notch on the scale.
> *Tier 1.5*
> 
> (Pioneer 50" Kuro Elite/PS3/1sw distance)


----------



## lgans316

*Terminator 3:Rise Of The Machines (U.K. Import) Video: AVC | Audio: Dolby TrueHD (16bit/48kHz) | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony*


The image on this BD offers above average sharpness, deep blacks, and decent shadow detail. The colors are vibrant and bright especially the primaries. There is a blue / orange / yellow tint on quite a number of scenes probably due to use of colored lighting. The level of depth looks to be adequate in all range of shots. A thin layer of grain is visible for most parts of the presentation. The entire movie looks to be shot in natural light with some sort of a filter due to which contrast, gamma and sharpness appears weaker by at least 10-15% off the optimal settings. EE has been applied in few indoor shots. Though the potential was there to be a solid Top Tier-2 title, the weak contrast keeps it out of contention.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75*


----------



## deltasun

*Bride Wars*


Don't ask!










Fine grain present throughout with no obvious signs of DNR. I highlight this because I was hard pressed to find any decent facial details. For the most part, they were smooth, lifeless, and uninteresting. Skin tones were on the warm side as well.


I did not find much depth in the film (nor the acting for that matter), save for one shot of the NY cityscape. Another blemish of the film is a somewhat reddish/orange-ish cast on most scenes. The contrast did not help in these scenes either and gave the overall appearance a somewhat murky/dirty look. One positive attribute was black levels. I thought blacks looked bold and deep throughout. Colors were warm and represented the feel of the film.


G3 was a slight bit generous.







I would push it down to the very middle of Tier 3...

*Tier Recommendation: 3.50*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## deltasun

*24 Season 7*


It's always difficult to rate an entire series and this was no exception. PQ definitely varied, but not too wildly. Moderate film grain was present throughout and was bothersome in several of the darker scenes. Facial details were impressive one scene and terribly soft the next (except for Olivia - I don't know if detail ever manifested itself on her face). The variance was easily 1.0 thru 3.0 throughout the series, and most of time in the same episode.


Black levels and low-light details were excellent throughout the series, but contrast was inconsistent. This usually led to plenty of flat scenes. Skin tones were mostly faithful, but would dip into reddish tones during indoor scenes. Colors were somewhat muted, pastel-like.


Overall, the series, to me, had a bit of an upconverted look. I don't know if it's because it's a TV series (the way it was shot) or the subtle softness throughout. I guess the fairest way to evaluate is to take a weighted average of the entire series...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.50*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/16686405
> 
> 
> I would have no problem if Ghostbusters ends up in tier 3.0. Ghostbusters looks slightly better to my eyes and is definitely the better of the two transfers. Looking at some of the titles in tier 3.0, it looks like some of those need to be moved down a little.



I agree with Phantom on Ghostbusters.

*Ghostbusters - Tier-3.0*


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16728909
> 
> *Bride Wars*
> 
> 
> Don't ask!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..
> 
> 
> G3 was a slight bit generous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would push it down to the very middle of Tier 3...
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.50*
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_




Hee!! You had to watch this?!? Poor, poor you!










I went and looked my review up, since you called me generous... OK I was 3.25. I have no objection to 3.5 for this film either. You won't see me fighting tooth-and-nail for the 3.25 for it!


----------



## mrTAPOUT

I would like to hear which movie(s) are the hands down, the cleanest, noise or grain free, sharpest, most accurate, and most impressive movie on bluray. not including animation movies


----------



## tfoltz

Speed Racer. Difficult to think of great looking movies that are grain-free.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mrTAPOUT* /forum/post/16731435
> 
> 
> I would like to hear which movie(s) are the hands down, the cleanest, noise or grain free, sharpest, most accurate, and most impressive movie on bluray. not including animation movies


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mrTAPOUT* /forum/post/16731435
> 
> 
> I would like to hear which movie(s) are the hands down, the cleanest, noise or grain free, sharpest, most accurate, and most impressive movie on bluray. not including animation movies



Youth Without Youth comes to my mind.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mrTAPOUT* /forum/post/16731435
> 
> 
> I would like to hear which movie(s) are the hands down, the cleanest, noise or grain free, sharpest, most accurate, and most impressive movie on bluray. not including animation movies



My vote goes to Speed Racer as well!









Youth Without Youth has noise in darker scenes.


----------



## nut bunnies




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mrTAPOUT* /forum/post/16731435
> 
> 
> I would like to hear which movie(s) are the hands down, the cleanest, noise or grain free, sharpest, most accurate, and most impressive movie on bluray. not including animation movies



Crank and presumably Crank 2

Sin City

The Spirit

Benjamin Button

Zodiac


----------



## Jonny5nz

Sin City is in 1.25 tier how can you say it's the best?


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jonny5nz* /forum/post/16732877
> 
> 
> Sin City is in 1.25 tier how can you say it's the best?



He named the best non-animated, grain-free movies.


----------



## Jonny5nz

So according to the tier system, the best non-animated movies will be the non-animated ones found in the blu-tier... no?


----------



## deltasun

You're missing it, Jonny...*grain free*


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16733161
> 
> 
> You're missing it, Jonny...*grain free*




Yep, that makes it a contradiction in terms of what he is looking for, but I couldn't resist getting in on this convo. The best live action on BD *are* some of the ones with grain. Prince Caspian is a good example.


Baraka and Grand Canyon Adventure if I remember are two that come close to grain free and still look good due to how they were filmed with higher rez.


----------



## Jonny5nz

Oh... I think I understand, the whole grain thing is wanted by the movie buffs for a more film like experience... is that it?


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jonny5nz* /forum/post/16733324
> 
> 
> Oh... I think I understand, the whole grain thing is wanted by the movie buffs for a more film like experience... is that it?



Yes it is what actually lends to sharpness and detail dependent on many factors before and after.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jonny5nz* /forum/post/16733324
> 
> 
> Oh... I think I understand, the whole grain thing is wanted by the movie buffs for a more film like experience... is that it?



It's not that I particularly want grain, it's that I dislike heavy-handed digital manipulation which removes it, because those algorithms aren't perfect and do more harm than good IMO. If digital cameras become ubiquitous or large format film makes a comeback, I doubt i'll miss it (though based on my experiences with digital photography, sensor noise is a much nastier beast).


----------



## nut bunnies




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jonny5nz* /forum/post/16732877
> 
> 
> Sin City is in 1.25 tier how can you say it's the best?



He asked for the best no grain (so really the best movies shot digitally) movies. And really, please. Come on man. "IT'S ONLY 1.25!!!" Really? You're going to split hairs about that? It's not like I said Patton.


----------



## Jonny5nz

LOL. Yeah tier 1 is still reference quality, but tier 0 is the elite...


I suppose it makes sense that movies shot digitally will have no grain, although I think they added grain to 300 didn't they?


----------



## JohnES1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jonny5nz* /forum/post/16733324
> 
> 
> Oh... I think I understand, the whole grain thing is wanted by the movie buffs for a more film like experience... is that it?



Seems to be, but I don't like the way Blu-ray renders film grain, instead of fine specks flashing on and off it looks to me like a mass of nearly translucent bugs swarming around. Nights in Rodanthe last night had it and it bugged me!


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JohnES1* /forum/post/16734090
> 
> 
> Seems to be, but I don't like the way Blu-ray renders film grain, instead of fine specks flashing on and off it looks to me like a mass of nearly translucent bugs swarming around. Nights in Rodanthe last night had it and it bugged me!



A lot of that type of "film grain" is actually Digital Noise due to compression to Blu Ray and not grain. I know it looks like bugs crawling on the screen and it bothers me, and should bother others as much as poorly and overly used DNR. DNR is supposed to be used to minimize that bug crawling look. You will also see it with digital still and video cameras and BD's filmed in HD where nite and dark scene captures has the digital noise issue at times.


----------



## JohnES1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16735957
> 
> 
> A lot of that type of "film grain" is actually Digital Noise due to compression to Blu Ray and not grain. I know it looks like bugs crawling on the screen and it bothers me, and should bother others as much as poorly and overly used DNR. DNR is supposed to be used to minimize that bug crawling look. You will also see it with digital still and video cameras and BD's filmed in HD where nite and dark scene captures has the digital noise issue at times.



Thanks for the elucidation, I'll be keeping an eye out for clearly reproduced film grain in the future now that I know there is a difference.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/16696142
> 
> 
> I thought 1.25 all the way through. The only thing deterring me was that it almost seemed that DNR was applied, even though I saw grain. Everyone's faces were a little waxy. Could've just been the makeup/lighting though. So, one more vote for 1.25.
> 
> 
> Ending was meh.


*The International* looked more like 1.5 to me. I don't know if it was DNR, but whatever it was, it kept this from looking truly outstanding. Maybe it's just a function of Sony's usual misguided refusal to to let the bitrate go over 30.


----------



## selimsivad

I'm in the middle of "The Prestige." Good movie, but the transfer seems stripped of detail. Has anyone else noticed any noise reduction? Thanks!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/16738246
> 
> *The International* looked more like 1.5 to me. I don't know if it was DNR, but whatever it was, it kept this from looking truly outstanding. Maybe it's just a function of Sony's usual misguided refusal to to let the bitrate go over 30.



I agree with Tier 1.5 or so for The International. As for Sony and their bitrates, I can't get to upset considering that they are consistently putting out some of the best looking titles of all the studios.


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/16742925
> 
> 
> I'm in the middle of "The Prestige." Good movie, but the transfer seems stripped of detail. Has anyone else noticed any noise reduction? Thanks!



If there is noise reduction applied, it seems to me that it is very subtle and tactical in nature. While I am not quite as impressed with The Prestige as I used to be (just watched it again a few weeks ago), I still think it's easily the best looking of Nolan's current Blu-ray releases (Memento, Batman Begins and The Dark Knight minus IMAX footage) and is comfortably placed where it is now at Tier 1.5.


----------



## 42041

*A Clockwork Orange*


This older blu-ray release of one of my favorite films features a serviceable, though not particularly impressive, video transfer. Part of the issue seems inherent in the source material, since many scenes were shot with very wide-angle lenses, apparently of questionable quality, since they contribute optical distortion and softness to much of the movie. Colors and contrast look pretty good to me. The transfer seems to be either partially grain filtered or simply overcompressed (the bitrate usually hovers in the teens, a legacy of Warner's HD-DVD days i suppose) and the texture you'd expect to see is often lacking, but it's not unpleasant, and looks film-like enough. This isn't one of those great restorations of an older film, but it's not a hideous hackjob either.

*Tier 3.25*


----------



## djoberg

*Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li*


It's been over two weeks since I watched a Blu-ray and I was hoping to see a good movie with decent PQ.....I was disappointed on both counts with this title. The acting was cheesy; the storyline was weak; the special effects were subpar....and the PQ wasn't much better.


This is not to say there weren't any redeeming qualities (PQ-wise), for some of the night scenes were quite good with excellent blacks and exquisite shadow detail. Facial close-ups were also demo-worthy in _some_ shots; in fact, I was very impressed with the detail seen in even younger actors. In a few day time scenes there was decent clarity and vivid colors, but I found this to be the exception and not the rule.


The bad consisted mainly in MANY soft scenes that lacked detail and punch. I also detected some digital noise in a few scenes and some crushed blacks. The scenes displaying special effects were horrendous.


The "good" and the "bad" were interwoven, which means this was one _inconsistent_ title. Needless to say, I would NOT ever use this for a demo, so that instantly rules out Tiers Blu and Gold. But does it merit a slot in Tier Silver? Perhaps, but if so it would fall into the very bottom of the barrel (i.e., 2.75). I don't even feel that generous tonight so my vote goes for....

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'


----------



## 42041

*Waltz With Bashir*

I'm not really sure how to rate this animated title, since it's very stylized, sometimes rough, and uses a muted color palette that does not make for a visual feast by the usual definition, but makes good use of HD resolution and doesn't have any overt transfer flaws. There's also a layer of synthetic film grain over the proceedings which some might find undesirable in their demo material. Overall a good looking disc I think. I liked the movie a lot also.
*Tier 1.5*

(PS3/50" Pioneer Kuro Elite/1sw distance)


----------



## JohnES1

Made of Honor, neither reviewed or placed? Mom enjoyed it, and the PQ didn't turn me off, surely it deserves at least tentative placement.


----------



## OldCodger73

*Defiance*

Very good detail and depth. Facial closeups, even with the amount of grain present, were among the best I've seen. Color is definitely on the cool side of the temperature range, giving a cold, foreboding sense to the Lithuanian country side.


The grain and color setting didn't bother me, although YMMV. *Defiance Tier 1.5*.


I really enjoyed _Defiance_. Daniel Craig does a much better job of acting here than in the two Bond movies.

*The Curious Case of Benjamin Button*

An above average transfer that doesn't quite have the detail and depth for Tier 1. Overall, I'd rate *The Curious Case of Benjamin Button 2.5*


A really engrossing movie. Now that I've seen all the nominees for the Oscar, I'm still puzzled how _Slumdog Millionaire_ won.

*Star Trek IV, The Voyage Home*

Another above average transfer with nice detail, depth and color. Facial closeups lacked fine detail.


I'd rate *Star Trek IV, The Voyage Home Tier 2.75*.


I'm not a great Star Trek fan, the movies were pretentious, with so-so scripts and really highlighted the limited acting ability of the cast, which was fine on the small screen but glaring deficient on the large screen. _ST IV_ is probably my favorite because it doesn't take itself seriously and does a good job of poking fun at itself.

*A Bug's Life*

What can I say that hasn't already been said. Definitely eye-candy with an enjoyable story line.

*A Bug's Life Tier 0, number 3 behind Ratatouille*.


Panasonic 50" 720p plasma, Panasonic 10a player, 7 1/2'


----------



## kagolu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/16760812
> 
> *Defiance*
> 
> 2.5[/size][/b]
> 
> 
> A really engrossing movie. Now that I've seen all the nominees for the Oscar, I'm still puzzled how _Slumdog Millionaire_ won.



The others were not pc enough, seriously. Besides who else was going to do that big song and dance number they had set up.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Watchmen: tales of the Black Freighter*

*recommendation: Tier 1.0*


Warner Bros. released this animated companion piece to the Watchmen movie on March 24, 2009 with a secondary live-action feature, Under The Hood, also included. The titular feature runs 25-minutes while Under The Hood runs 37-minutes. Both are encoded in VC-1 and contained on one BD-25.


Averaging a 26.07 Mbps video bitrate for the main feature, this is outstanding compression work by Warner and the best I have seen on their various animated features. Peaks occasionally peak over 50 Mbps on both features. There are no visible compression problems and banding, a bugaboo of these direct-to-video animated movies, is notably absent. The transfer appears well-handled with best practices, including no use of edge enhancement or digital noise reduction. As a new day-and-date release, the master has no deterioration whatsoever and is flawless.


Tales of the Black Freighter looks great for traditional hand-drawn animation. The quality of the animation and the increased budget for a theatrical project is clearly evident in the picture. The palette is striking in its saturation, with deep and penetrating black levels that are reference-quality. The detail of the animation and its fluidity really help the image jump off the screen with the bold colors we have come to expect from the best animated material in high-definition. The picture quality is a clear grade above prior animation that Warner Bros. has released on Blu-ray like Wonder Woman. This material was originally intended to fit seamlessly in with the Watchmen movie, and still might be included whenever the promised ultimate cut is released. The clarity and sharpness of the line-art is top notch. Character design is very innovative with a nice attention to detail.


The other feature is a faux news program set in the year 1975, elucidating the fictional history of the Watchmen universe. The picture quality is not quite as good and appears to have been purposely degraded to give it a vintage look. The underlying image looks perfect, as if shot on video, but a cheap-looking digital noise tool has been used to add a layer of fake grain to it. The effect really does not work and no one will be fooled that this is an authentic program from 1975. This secondary feature also shows some color balance issues and blown highlights. On its own it would rank no higher than a mid-tier two ranking.


My recommendation for placement is tier 1.0 for some of the best looking traditional animation I have witnessed on Blu-ray. I might have been tempted to place it in tier zero if not for the inclusion of the weaker picture of Under The Hood.


Watching on a 60 Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 (firmware 2.80) at a viewing distance of six feet.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post16115645


----------



## deltasun

*Two Lovers*


Fine to moderate grain present throughout. A number of darker scenes had a considerable amount of digital noise. This film had really good low-light details, with discernible texture on materials. Blacks were bold, with no signs of crushing. Due to the muted palette, colors weren't vibrant but held their own within the confines of the intended color scheme.


Facial details were tricky. Extreme close-up's showed decent detail (still only about mid-Tier 1), but normal to medium close-up's were somewhat soft and at times, smeary. Don't know if there was foul play or just the sepia-toned treatment, but more likely the latter due to the healthy presence of grain. Skin tones varied as well, depending on the color treatment of the scene. For the most part, they were on the warm side indoors and closer to faithful outdoors.


Overall, a pleasant looking blu-ray. However, I wouldn't use this as demo material.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8' & 6'_


----------



## Sujay

*The International*


Wow I was extremely impressed by this one. Definitely the most crisp, detailed picture I have yet to experience on Blu-ray. It may lie on the edge of being perceived as edge enhanced but I really thought the majority of the film just looked superb in all ways (also thanks in part to the great cinematography). Black levels, contrast and shadow detail were exceptional despite maybe one short scene or two. Clarity, color and depth were all superb to my eyes. I can see what some may mean about the DNR'd-ish look of some close-ups but it was never distracting or apparent until I had read about it. Some of the most astoundingly beautiful images (especially scenic views) I've yet to see. I even feel like the PQ made the movie infinitely more interesting to watch.

*Tier Recommendation: Lower Tier 0*


100" screen, 1080p from a bit less than 18 or so feet away.


----------



## deltasun

*12 Rounds*


Another beautiful title from Fox. Fine grain present throughout, yielding a pleasing film-like appearance. The transfer looked pristine. Facial close-up's reminded me of _Transporter 3_, but not as impressive. Still, they were superb, especially on the smooth face of John Cena.


Contrast was a bit on the hot side, but still maintained natural colors for the most part. Some minor ringing may be due to the heightened contrast. Blacks were above average, and low-light levels offered excellent details and depth. Colors were vibrant, specially primaries. Panoramic scenes of New Orleans showed off great depth and dimensionality.


Not too many negatives to speak of. I guess contrast was an issue at times, specially when lighting wasn't optimal. I also recall some softness in the bad guy's face. These were limited to just several scenes. Some of the flashbacks were also not the same calibre, by design. Some scenes were treated with a bit of oversaturation.


Overall, a really good looking PQ presentation. I will start the bidding at...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.50*


It's your typical action flick with a WWE wrestler as the hero. Plot is similar to _Die Hard 3_ where Bruce Willis was sent on a wild goose chase for the entire film. I'll stop there.









_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## 42041

*Zodiac*


This movie was shot digitally on fancy pro cameras, so you know what to expect. Well-lit scenes look excellent, often scraping tier 0, with an outstanding amount of detail. Otherwise things get shaky. Many of the darker scenes are very flat and lifeless looking, with sometimes bothersome temporal noise reduction artifacts or just plain noise, and have weird patterns in the shadow areas which I guess are some kind of sensor defect. One of the things I really want from my demo material is a great first impression, and the first 7 minutes of this movie take place at night and are questionable at best PQ-wise. The eye candy factor of the movie isn't high, since after viewing it my impression was that most of the movie is sepia toned scenes of guys talking in offices and over plates of food. The blu-ray mastering is exemplary though: the movie takes up the entire dual layer disc for a very high-bitrate encoding despite the considerable length of the movie. Not that this makes up for the flaws inherent in the source.


I thought the movie itself was overlong and a waste of my time, not recommended.
*Tier 1.5*

(ps3/pioneer 50" kuro elite/1s.w. distance)


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moematthews* /forum/post/16193510
> 
> 
> I know the feeling about professional reviews here, but I had to pick my jaw up off the floor when I read that Sound & Vision just gave Vicky Cristina Barcelona a "Reference" rating with a 4.5 stars out of 5 for PQ.
> 
> 
> I will never understand this stuff. The yellowish tint that I feel washed out contrast and colour accuracy was said to be "the glow of warm sunlight" and the colours were described as beautiful and vibrant. The scene where they are watching the guitarist in the garden was described as being "full of detail". The whole movie looked soft and flat to me, and the placement we've given it here is correct.



You guys have to be kidding me. I felt the movie at least deserved a 1.5. It was sharp throughout, tons of pop, vibrant colors, and almost all shots were very in focus. Very little grain. Take a shot with the red car in it for example - those were just amazing shots. My only beef is that I felt the blacks weren't quite black enough, but there were very few night scenes to show off this problem. The movie was SHARP. Just watched tonight.


Pioneer 5010 1080p

Pioneer 51-FD Blu-ray

8' back


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*Inkheart*



Watched Inkheart last night with the family. Decent enough movie, although I have not read the books to compare content or anything. It was sent to me as a complimentary disc from Zip.ca after I complained about how long the discs were taking to get to me; I live in the western arctic of canada & they are shipping me discs from Ottawa?!?



The PQ of this disc seems to get stronger the longer you watch the film. At first I was unimpressed and the clarity seemed as though it could be sharper. About 20-30 minutes in, though, the clarity sharpened up nicely.



The black levels showed well on my Panasonic plasma, and the colours were wonderfully lush in the THX mode. There are a few scenes where the contrast is dialed up for effect, but nothing that affects it negatively in a PQ-way; just part of the movie.



I didn't notice any DNR or EE, although I also did not notice any film grain - perhaps this was filmed with HD cameras; I am unsure, I have no desire to look into that aspect of the film. I am fairly certain it is VC-1 encoded although I paid no true attention to that except for somewhat noticing it when I was checking the film's duration.


*Recommendation for Inkheart: Tier 1.25*
*Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800u THX setting, approx 7.5'.*


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Taken*


Decent looking title, but nothing special. There is some softness to the image, as well as some smeared colors. Detail is good, but not on par with the top tier titles.


As for the movie, I liked it for what it was. One of the better Luc Besson (written) movies I have seen in a while.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I really wanted to place the Bank Job in tier 1.0 or even higher, but the noticeable edge enhancement on display makes the current placement in tier 1.25 the correct call. A very good looking transfer in all other aspects.


----------



## BRAISKI

I just saw 28 Days Later and wow its really bad!


----------



## b_scott

i think it was shot that way though. you can only polish a turd so much.


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16723103
> 
> *Dr. Strangelove*
> 
> 
> "In fact, they might even try an immediate sneak attack so they could take over our mineshaft space"
> 
> 
> Moderate grain present throughout. While it won't give most current BD's a run for their PQ monies, this was a magnificent transfer of a classic Kubrick film. Facial details were pretty decent, with the possible exception of Mandrake. Clothing textures weren't so prominent, nor other details. Black levels, contrast were average. As such depth and dimensionality were not that notable.
> 
> 
> Overall, still an improvement over its DVD incantation with no major artifacts or dirt. Really hard to compare with other Bronze films, but from my recollection, this looked better than _JCVD_ at 3.75.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.50*
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_



Good review deltasun.


I watched this the other night and pretty much agree with what deltasun said. However, I thought some of the facial close-ups were solid low Tier 2 and accordingly would rate *Dr. Strangelove Tier 3.25*.


This is a really nice transfer of a must-have classic film and was a big step up from the LD I have. It was a very worthwhile purchase.


On a side note, is SuprSlow still with us?


Panasonic 50" 720p plasma, Panasonic 10a player, 7 1/2'


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BRAISKI* /forum/post/16777569
> 
> 
> I just saw 28 Days Later and wow its really bad!



It was shot on standard definition videotape. It has always, and always will, look like crap.


----------



## steel_breeze




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16779427
> 
> 
> It was shot on standard definition videotape. I has always, and always will, look like crap.



That's a pretty harsh statement. Just because it doesn't look like film or HD video doesn't mean it "looks like crap". Do Monet's "Waterlilies" paintings look like crap because they're not in perfect focus??? There's a kind of painterly brilliance to 28 DAYS LATER that I really appreciate. I think it's quite mesmerizing and beautiful in its own way.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *steel_breeze* /forum/post/16780407
> 
> 
> That's a pretty harsh statement. Just because it doesn't look like film or HD video doesn't mean it "looks like crap". Do Monet's "Waterlilies" paintings look like crap because they're not in perfect focus??? There's a kind of painterly brilliance to 28 DAYS LATER that I really appreciate. I think it's quite mesmerizing and beautiful in its own way.



Artistically, sure. Within the confines of this thread, Rob is being nice.


----------



## steel_breeze




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16780429
> 
> 
> Artistically, sure. Within the confines of this thread, Rob is being nice.



Ah... point taken. I guess this isn't the thread for "artistic intent".


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *steel_breeze* /forum/post/16780407
> 
> 
> That's a pretty harsh statement. Just because it doesn't look like film or HD video doesn't mean it "looks like crap". Do Monet's "Waterlilies" paintings look like crap because they're not in perfect focus??? There's a kind of painterly brilliance to 28 DAYS LATER that I really appreciate. I think it's quite mesmerizing and beautiful in its own way.



You can think whatever you want, as can I.


I strongly stand by my statement: it looks like *crap!*


----------



## steel_breeze




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16780984
> 
> 
> You can think whatever you want, as can I.
> 
> 
> I strongly stand by my statement: it looks like *crap!*



Wow. Time and time again I state things very politely and diplomatically on these threads, fully allowing room for differing opinions and points of view, and time after time I'm surprised by the abrupt rudeness of people on here. No wonder these threads have the bad reputation that they do. Too bad you're so insecure that you have to be that way.


----------



## rover2002




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *steel_breeze* /forum/post/16781181
> 
> 
> Wow. Time and time again I state things very politely and diplomatically on these threads, fully allowing room for differing opinions and points of view, and time after time I'm surprised by the abrupt rudeness of people on here. No wonder these threads have the bad reputation that they do. Too bad you're so insecure that you have to be that way.



This thread only really caters for the PS3 crowd so you should expect childish responses, as for the "28 Days Later" comment i totally agree with you breeze.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *steel_breeze* /forum/post/16781181
> 
> 
> Wow. Time and time again I state things very politely and diplomatically on these threads, fully allowing room for differing opinions and points of view, and time after time I'm surprised by the abrupt rudeness of people on here. No wonder these threads have the bad reputation that they do. Too bad you're so insecure that you have to be that way.



Thank you for your psycho-analysis.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rover2002* /forum/post/16781263
> 
> 
> This thread only really caters for the PS3 crowd so you should expect childish responses, as for the "28 Days Later" comment i totally agree with you breeze.



LOL. "PS3 crowd".


I thought the format war was over, but phrases like this remain in use with people like you. Ironic that you would talk about "childish responses".


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16781293
> 
> 
> LOL. "PS3 crowd".
> 
> 
> I thought the format war was over, but phrases like this remain in use with people like you. Ironic that you would talk about "childish responses".




You should check out the PS forum on AVS where friends of one system are touting how the first PS was better than the PS3 or have a venture in the HD software forum where a few zealots from the other format still are counting on the death of BD. WTF planet and forum are we on?

















In the meanwhile, we are enjoying BD and as far as the PS3 crowd goes, I think that is a only a couple of others and me in this thread who have PS3's, but it still is rated as one of the best BD players.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*gasp* I'm a ps3 owner/BD PQ reviewer *AND* I'm a girl!







The thread truly has gone to hell!



Back on topic... Have any of you guys watched *"John Adams"* mini series on Blu yet? I've only seen the first two discs, waiting for the 3rd to arrive from zip.ca (hopefully by Monday I should have it). The quality on it is really nice, save for a couple of shots here and there!


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16781714
> 
> 
> *gasp* I'm a ps3 owner/BD PQ reviewer *AND* I'm a girl!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thread truly has gone to hell!
> 
> 
> 
> Back on topic... Have any of you guys watched *"John Adams"* mini series on Blu yet? I've only seen the first two discs, waiting for the 3rd to arrive from zip.ca (hopefully by Monday I should have it). The quality on it is really nice, save for a couple of shots here and there!




No, but I really got into and enjoyed the series. Giamatti was stellar and I have a bit of a thing for Laura Linney.







Word has it the BD's are slightly better than the HBO presentation.










I know I still haven't done any reviews in a long while







but I am still watching them...


The Code looks like low tier 0 or tier 1.0.







Suprised no one reviewed it yet. And I almost forgot about why new releases in June pale, till I thought about the nice weather and being out and theatres pushing summer blockbusters. I am looking forward to fall releases, but I don't want summer to go anywhere yet.


----------



## JohnES1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *audiomagnate* /forum/post/16412248
> 
> *Bedtime Stories*
> 
> 
> Is there a reason that nobody has rated this? It looks pretty good to me, good contrast, and color saturation that might be a little over the top, but I like that for movies like this. Quality seemed very consistent. It was not jaw droppingly sharp, just a bit on the soft side. I'll give it a conservative 2.0 for my first rating.
> 
> 
> As for the movie, it's Adam Sandler crank 'em out formula stuff all the way, and I can't figure out why they put that wierd CGI rodent in there. I guess because they could.
> 
> *Rating 2.0*
> 
> 
> Panny 50inch 720p plasma at about 9 feet, Samsung BD-P2500 via hdmi



We had a good time with Bedtime Stories last night, audiomagnate's review seems to cover it nicely. Anyone else, so it can be placed?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16781647
> 
> 
> You should check out the PS forum on AVS where friends of one system are touting how the first PS was better than the PS3 or have a venture in the HD software forum where a few zealots from the other format still are counting on the death of BD. WTF planet and forum are we on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the meanwhile, we are enjoying BD and as far as the PS3 crowd goes, I think that is a only a couple of others and me in this thread who have PS3's, but it still is rated as one of the best BD players.



Sad isn't it?


I remember rover2002 well from the format war. Here is an example of one of his posts from the past, that took about 5 seconds to find:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rover2002* /forum/post/12828697
> 
> 
> When you have been paid to support a format thats what happens.
> 
> W Bros are now just $ony puppets sadley.













And yes, the PS3 remains a superb option for Blu-ray playback.


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16781714
> 
> 
> *gasp* I'm a ps3 owner/BD PQ reviewer *AND* I'm a girl!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The thread truly has gone to hell!
> 
> 
> 
> Back on topic... Have any of you guys watched *"John Adams"* mini series on Blu yet? I've only seen the first two discs, waiting for the 3rd to arrive from zip.ca (hopefully by Monday I should have it). The quality on it is really nice, save for a couple of shots here and there!



haven't watched it yet, waiting for it to be "Available" on Blockbuster online


----------



## 42041

So i managed to stop drooling on myself long enough to pop *Pinocchio* into my :gasp: _PS3_... very nice restoration. Not quite on the level of Sleeping Beauty as far as fine detail goes, but then again this movie is 20 years older and was shot on plain ol' 35mm and still looks remarkable for what it is. Colors are rich, contrast is flawless, every detail in the background paintings can be resolved, nothing to complain about really. well, except that there are no furry 3d dogs resolved in single-pixel resolution, nothing explodes and makes my subwoofer rattle my ps3-rotted brain against my mostly hollow cranium, and those pesky letterboxes aren't letting me enjoy every single pixel of my television























*Tier 1.5*


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/16787646
> 
> 
> So i managed to stop drooling on myself long enough to pop *Pinocchio* into my :gasp: _PS3_... very nice restoration. Not quite on the level of Sleeping Beauty as far as fine detail goes, but then again this movie is 20 years older and was shot on plain ol' 35mm and still looks remarkable for what it is. Colors are rich, contrast is flawless, every detail in the background paintings can be resolved, nothing to complain about really. well, except that there are no furry 3d dogs resolved in single-pixel resolution, nothing explodes and makes my subwoofer rattle my ps3-rotted brain against my mostly hollow cranium, and those pesky letterboxes aren't letting me enjoy every single pixel of my television
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Tier 1.5*




*snicker*


Gosh darn ps3 users.










Your review gave me a much needed giggle tonight, 42041.


----------



## TitusTroy

is the first post no longer being updated to reflect the new reviews/tier level?


----------



## nick2010

*Lost - The Complete Second Season*


Season 2 of Lost looks better than Season 1 on average and has fewer pieces of dirt/specks in the frame. The video compression was acceptable, but I noticed a problem in episode 17:
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) There is a shot of the countdown timer flipping from 108 to 107 that appears to be digitally zoomed in and reused footage from _Orientation_. The effective resolution of this shot is less than 720p and has small letterbox bars. I noticed a similar "technique" was used for a shot of Claire sitting on the beach for the "Previously on Lost" intros of a few season 1 episodes.


I would rate most of the earlier episodes as Tier 1.25, but some of the later ones were more in the Tier 1.0 range. (Episode 21 had particularly good PQ, almost Tier 0)

*Tier 1.0/1.25*


1080p, 46", 7'


----------



## SuprSlow

Sorry to interrupt










My apologies for slacking on updates. Things are getting busy with work and at home with a kid on the way. I still want to be involved with the thread, but I need some help. If anyone would like to volunteer, please PM me and I can give you some more info.


I should've done this earlier, but I think we all owe a huge debt of gratitude to K-Spaz. He's entered all of the tier listings into a database, and written an application that will allow for much easier and faster, editing and entry of titles. Among the laundry list of improvements he's added, Netflix and BB rental queue links will make their way unobtrusively to the title listings. Most of the features the majority will never see, but trust me, after having seen what he's built versus the way we've been doing it for however many years, it's a gigantic step forward and will make things much smoother for those working on thread updates.


Again, I apologize for my absence, I'm working on an update as we speak.


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nick2010* /forum/post/16792734
> 
> *Lost - The Complete Second Season*
> 
> 
> Season 2 of Lost looks better than Season 1 on average and has fewer pieces of dirt/specks in the frame. The video compression was acceptable, but I noticed a problem in episode 17:
> *Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler
> *Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) There is a shot of the countdown timer flipping from 108 to 107 that appears to be digitally zoomed in and reused footage from _Orientation_. The effective resolution of this shot is less than 720p and has small letterbox bars. I noticed a similar "technique" was used for a shot of Claire sitting on the beach for the "Previously on Lost" intros of a few season 1 episodes.
> 
> 
> I would rate most of the earlier episodes as Tier 1.25, but some of the later ones were more in the Tier 1.0 range. (Episode 21 had particularly good PQ, almost Tier 0)
> 
> *Tier 1.0/1.25*
> 
> 
> 1080p, 46", 7'



Seconded. Especially any scene that has a closeup of Locke


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/16793433
> 
> 
> Sorry to interrupt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My apologies for slacking on updates. Things are getting busy with work and at home with a kid on the way. I still want to be involved with the thread, but I need some help. If anyone would like to volunteer, please PM me and I can give you some more info.
> 
> 
> I should've done this earlier, but I think we all owe a huge debt of gratitude to K-Spaz. He's entered all of the tier listings into a database, and written an application that will allow for much easier and faster, editing and entry of titles. Among the laundry list of improvements he's added, Netflix and BB rental queue links will make their way unobtrusively to the title listings.



No apologies necessary, SuprSlow. The work by K-Spaz sounds great.


----------



## Decado2

No ranking for Chronicles of Riddick?


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Decado2* /forum/post/16794116
> 
> 
> No ranking for Chronicles of Riddick?



Just one review so far:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...k#post16244440


----------



## J0HNNY H0PK1NS

Tier system ranking is flawed, at least in here


----------



## St LEGEND




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BRAISKI* /forum/post/16777569
> 
> 
> I just saw 28 Days Later and wow its really bad!



I haven't seen it but i'll be suprised if anything can look worse than House of flying daggers!!!


----------



## deltasun

*Knowing*


Great details in this film. In almost every scene, you can scan the background top to bottom, side to side and see great details. Unfortunately, facial close-up's didn't reveal as much detail. It seemed everybody had smooth faces. Also, skin tones tended to be on the orange side on a number of scenes.


As this was digital, I was interested to see how blacks were rendered. They weren't bad, but definitely did not carry their weight. They seemed plasticky looking in some scenes, almost shiny in appearance. Contrast complemented the look of the film and helped boost fall colors of New England.


Overall, a very pleasant looking title. Lacking facial details were bothersome enough to keep this in low Tier 1 (maybe even Silver). I believe the surrounding details do make up, in terms of eye candy factor. Some ringing was evident, particularly in the first part of the film.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16794227
> 
> 
> Just one review so far:
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...k#post16244440



I agree with this placement, I watched it a month ago.


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *J0HNNY H0PK1NS* /forum/post/16794883
> 
> 
> Tier system ranking is flawed, at least in here



I agree with your signature, but huh?


----------



## b_scott

*12 Rounds*


This movie was........awful. So I actually just got through about 20 minutes before I turned it off. In that 20 minutes I noticed average pop, but nothing too special especially for a brand new film. Lots of dark scenes in the first part, and pretty decent shadow detail. But again, nothing too stellar. Just a good transfer and HD-looking. My feelings for the movie notwithstanding, I give it a 1.75

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


Pioneer 5010 1080p 50"

PS3

8' back


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/16795698
> 
> *12 Rounds*
> 
> 
> This movie was........awful. So I actually just got through about 20 minutes before I turned it off. In that 20 minutes I noticed average pop, but nothing too special especially for a brand new film. Lots of dark scenes in the first part, and pretty decent shadow detail. But again, nothing too stellar. Just a good transfer and HD-looking. My feelings for the movie notwithstanding, I give it a 1.75
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75*
> 
> 
> Pioneer 5010 1080p 50"
> 
> PS3
> 
> 8' back



Your description would not seem to support a ranking anywhere in Tier 1. You seem to indicate that it is a good looking, but average, title. That would be more like mid to low Tier 2 at best.


----------



## nick2010




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *J0HNNY H0PK1NS* /forum/post/16794883
> 
> 
> Tier system ranking is flawed, at least in here



Could you explain specifically why? While I don't agree with all of the title placements, I think that the system for ranking titles is effective.


Speaking of placements, I would like to revisit _Pixar Short Films Collection, Vol. 1_. It is currently in Tier 3.75, but the average PQ is higher than that IMHO.


*Tier 4/Tier 5:*

The Adventures of André and Wally B. (1984)

Luxo Jr. (1986)

Red's Dream (1987)

Tin Toy (1988)

*Lower Tier 3:*

Knick Knack (1989)

Geri's Game (1997)

*Tier 0/Upper Tier 1:*

For the Birds (2000)

Mike's New Car (2002)

Boundin' (2003)

Jack-Jack Attack (2005)

One Man Band (2005)

Mater and the Ghostlight (2006)

Lifted (2006)

*Pixar Short Films Collection, Vol. 1*

*Tier 2.5*


1080p, 46", 7'


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nick2010* /forum/post/16798924
> 
> 
> Speaking of placements, I would like to revisit _Pixar Short Films Collection, Vol. 1_. It is currently in Tier 3.75, but the average PQ is higher than that IMHO.
> 
> *Pixar Short Films Collection, Vol. 1*
> 
> *Tier 2.5*



Nice review, as I liked how you broke down each short separately as to how you reached your conclusion. Titles with such disparate material divided up into separate programs are always tricky to place.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16798459
> 
> 
> Your description would not seem to support a ranking anywhere in Tier 1. You seem to indicate that it is a good looking, but average, title. That would be more like mid to low Tier 2 at best.



I believe Deltasun was the only other person who reviewed it and he gave it a 1.5. I watched it last night and would agree it is somewhere in mid tier 1. It does seem b_scott's wording makes it to be less than tier 1, and I can't speak for him, but it probably ties into his mood of how the movie itself was/is which he said it was awful.


Soundtrack (virtually reference) almost made up for crap acting/story, key word almost. Some stunts were good as well, but that is about it.


Anyone else get a chance to check out THe Code? and see if you think it is low tier 0 as I did.


----------



## deltasun

Notice he only saw 20 minutes. Lots of good facials after that, specially a year later.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16800435
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone else get a chance to check out THe Code? and see if you think it is low tier 0 as I did.



I saw The Code and would place it at Tier 1.75.


Horrible movie.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Hey everyone, just checking in again. I am still enjoying summer way too much and haven't watched many BDs lately.










Will try and change it up a bit soon!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/16805532
> 
> 
> Hey everyone, just checking in again. I am still enjoying summer way too much and haven't watched many BDs lately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will try and change it up a bit soon!



I just got back from an awesome vacation up the North Shore of Lake Superior (8 days of canoeing in the Boundary Waters and hiking the incredible trails of the Lake Superior National Forest) and I realize I've only watched one Blu-ray in 3 weeks!!










I have a lot of "catching up" to do with my job, yard work, etc., but I do hope to start watching Blu-rays again starting early next week. My thanks to those who have contributed in the last few weeks.


SuprSlow, thanks for chiming in with your explanation for why you haven't been working on an update. And thanks to K-Spaz too for the database he compiled.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16802128
> 
> 
> I saw The Code and would place it at Tier 1.75.
> 
> 
> Horrible movie.



Thanks for the heads up on this movie Rob. I _almost_ rented it this morning and now I'm glad I didn't.


----------



## deltasun

*Friday the 13th (2009)*


Extremely fine grain throughout. Faces were very inconsistent, but were mostly soft. There were a few scenes with good details and texture, but always surrounded by softness. As expected, scenes were always bathed in darkness. Unfortunately, most of these night scenes or scenes with mixed lighting appeared flat. Details in low-light were not very well-rendered. There are few exceptions, but not enough to really change the perception.


Some of the daytime scenes, with contrast pushed slightly, looked lively while still exhibiting a foreboding atmosphere - consistent with the film's tone. Colors in daylight looked off, but pleasant. Again, they were consistent with the look and feel. Depth was never the strong point of this film - panorama-wise (lake scene could have been much better) or during medium shots.


Overall, there were a few scenes with pop and HD feel. For the most part, it was a muddied mess during the darker action scenes. I would place this at the edge of Silver/Bronze...

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*


ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'


----------



## LBFilmGuy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16805697
> 
> 
> I just got back from an awesome vacation up the North Shore of Lake Superior (8 days of canoeing in the Boundary Waters and hiking the incredible trails of the Lake Superior National Forest) and I realize I've only watched one Blu-ray in 3 weeks!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a lot of "catching up" to do with my job, yard work, etc., but I do hope to start watching Blu-rays again starting early next week. My thanks to those who have contributed in the last few weeks.
> 
> 
> SuprSlow, thanks for chiming in with your explanation for why you haven't been working on an update. And thanks to K-Spaz too for the database he compiled.



Sounds like a great trip! I've only watched one the past few weeks as well haha.


And +1 to your last paragraph.


----------



## 42041

*Antartica: IMAX*


I couldn't care less about these mediocre zero-effort IMAX releases that seem to be ported directly from some HDnet broadcast from a decade ago, but this one floated to the top of my netflix queue somehow. While the transfer is utter crapola as far as conveying the resolution capabilities of IMAX film goes, the source material is good enough to still look pretty good. Sharpness fluctuates but is often pretty good. Dark scenes are questionable. Despite the bitrate being pegged at 40mbps MPEG2, fine texture is mushy and overcompressed in many places, and noise seems to have been temporally reduced or just compressed away, maybe a problem with the digital master rather than the Blu encoding. Not the worst IMAX source release, but nothing to get excited about. I'd say this is about on par with some of the better looking segments in Planet Earth.


I think when some company decides to actually re-scan those enormous IMAX negatives on modern equipment and put them out in HD, we'll have many new additions to Tier 0, but these current releases are not worthy of your demo material dollars.

*Tier 1.75*


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Diana Krall: Live in Rio*


The dark areas of this title show horrible video noise. And I mean ALL dark areas. Some of the brighter lit scenes, including many of Diana's face, look pretty good, with lots of detail. This helped to make the title viewable overall, but the artifacts in the darker scenes are very distracting indeed.


As for the concert itself: I was a bit disappointed early on. Diana didn't seem to have much emotion, and was not connecting with the crowd at all. Things started to improve with "Frim Fram Sauce" and got much better from there.


Audio quality is top notch (I prefered the LPCM Stereo track over the DTS HD Master Audio)

*Tier Recommendation: 3.5*


----------



## Blacklac




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Blacklac* /forum/post/16652763
> 
> Wallace and Gromit - A Matter of Loaf and Death
> 
> 
> This is an excellent disc. You can see the impressions on the clay from how it was formed, finger prints and stuff. I was really curious how well this would look, but I was totally blown away. The 3D depth is unreal. Color is fantastic. This disc is reference all the way! Bring on Curse of the Were-Rabbit! Oh, and the TrueHD 5.1 track is very nice also!
> 
> One major downside to some, it is 1080i50.
> 
> This should be Tier 0



Here's a review at HDD giving it 5 stars for PQ and AQ.









http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/2549...fdeath_uk.html 

_Regardless of its interlaced encoding and frame rate, the AVC MPEG-4 transfer looks completely flawless to the eye. The picture is astoundingly sharp and detailed. Fingerprints in the clay are perfectly resolved. The tiniest text (such as newspaper print and the like) is fully legible in every shot. Colors are bold and vibrant. The picture is bright and vivid, and has a terrific sense of three-dimensional depth. No artifacts of any kind make themselves known. There's absolutely nothing to nitpick here. Despite its technical specs, *this Blu-ray image looks as perfect as they come*._


Tier 0 maybe...


----------



## bmcent1

Question about Sin City -


It on the PQ list in the first post of the thread, it says (CA Import.) Is there a difference in video quality between the Canadian Import version and the regular US version? I checked Amazon and there were 408 reviews on the US version and 3 on the "Import" version, there is also a Japanese Import version. I couldn't tell if their Import was the Canadian version, though I did notice it had French subtitles and the US version has Spanish subtitles.


How do you know which one to buy?


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bmcent1* /forum/post/16812034
> 
> 
> Question about Sin City -
> 
> 
> It on the PQ list in the first post of the thread, it says (CA Import.) Is there a difference in video quality between the Canadian Import version and the regular US version?
> 
> How do you know which one to buy?



Yes, there is a difference in video quality between the U.S. and Canadian versions, with almost universal agreement that the Disney (U.S.) transfer and encoding are superior. This older thread might help you:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...adian+sin+city


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/16814234
> 
> 
> Yes, there is a difference in video quality between the U.S. and Canadian versions, with almost universal agreement that the Disney (U.S.) transfer and encoding are superior. This older thread might help you:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...adian+sin+city



+1


I have the Canadian version, and it has quite a bit of macroblocking.


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16798459
> 
> 
> Your description would not seem to support a ranking anywhere in Tier 1. You seem to indicate that it is a good looking, but average, title. That would be more like mid to low Tier 2 at best.



Sorry, I had a hard time writing anyone good about a movie I quit watching. But you're probably right, though I wouldn't put it lower than 2.0. Someone else should review it fully, it's hard for me to do it.


----------



## St. Bernardus

*Knowing*


Recomendation: Tier 1.25


Samsung 52" 71F 1080/24P LCD @ 6 feet

Panasonic BD30 (1080/24P)

Onkyo 605 (DTS-HD MA)


----------



## djoberg

*The Curious Case of Benjamin Button*


I finally got around to renting this title and it was definitely worth a rental (though I would question, as deltasun said, its "re-watchability [is that even a word?!] factor").


I read the previous reviews by my esteemed colleagues who deemed it worthy of a Tier Silver placement, but IMHO it merits a solid Tier Gold status. I agree with them that there are quite a few _soft_ scenes, but this was eclipsed by MANY razor-sharp and highly-detailed scenes with a dimensionality that rivals those of the best Tier Blu titles.


Colors were very stylized throughout and ranged from very subdued grays, blues, and yellows, to vivid and bright reds, greens and blues. Blacks were superb, as was shadow detail.


Facial details were fantastic, though not on par with many Tier 0 films. Detail in general was topnotch, especially in daytime scenes filmed outdoors (though not limited to those).


Let me mention the "dimensionality" factor again. One of the virtues I love about my Elite KURO is its ability to display depth and this title served to highlight this as well as any other title I've watched. There were several scenes where once again I thought I was wearing those funny glasses distributed at IMAX theatres!


All things considered, I feel constrained to place this movie here....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'


----------



## H.Cornerstone




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bmcent1* /forum/post/16812034
> 
> 
> Question about Sin City -
> 
> 
> It on the PQ list in the first post of the thread, it says (CA Import.) Is there a difference in video quality between the Canadian Import version and the regular US version? I checked Amazon and there were 408 reviews on the US version and 3 on the "Import" version, there is also a Japanese Import version. I couldn't tell if their Import was the Canadian version, though I did notice it had French subtitles and the US version has Spanish subtitles.
> 
> 
> How do you know which one to buy?



I watched it and thought it was the best live action movie PQ wise besides I Robot. It's absolutely amazing. the Facial detail is insane.


----------



## shenelle




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16814335
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> 
> I have the Canadian version, and it has quite a bit of macroblocking.



Is it better than the US version?


----------



## djoberg

I had made the comment above that all those who reviewed *The Curious Case of Benjamin Button* had given it a Tier Silver rating, but I looked again this morning and discovered that *sleater* had recommended a 1.75 placement, which is very close to my recommendation.


I can see why the others were inclined to drop it down a tier due to the limited color palette and the soft scenes, but I found that even during the soft scenes there was incredible detail. For example, deltasun noted the many hospital scenes being "flat," but yet there was very good detail at the same time. So, I'm going to stick by my 1.5 rating.


BTW, did any of you see the professional ratings on this title? Reviewers like Kris Deering and Ralph Potts are calling it reference, and they are not the exception but the rule among those listed on Cinema Squid's site. I can't go along with that high of a rating, but I do believe it still merits a "demo-worthy" status of Tier 1.


----------



## babrown92

Over two months since the rankings were last updated? That's lame.


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *babrown92* /forum/post/16822791
> 
> 
> Over two months since the rankings were last updated? That's lame.



Please read post #12925.


----------



## bmcent1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/16814234
> 
> 
> Yes, there is a difference in video quality between the U.S. and Canadian versions, with almost universal agreement that the Disney (U.S.) transfer and encoding are superior. This older thread might help you:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...adian+sin+city



Thanks for the link, read through it and glad I did...


Also saw the post that the front page isn't getting updated frequently. But would this type of change normally be reflected in the first post?


I almost bought the CA Import version because it's the only one listed here. After inquiring, I'll pick up the US version instead. For most BDs though, I make a quick check on the first post and head over to Amazon


----------



## TitusTroy

I just bought Planet Earth and I know it's got some issues overall in terms of consistant image quality but can anyone tell me which parts are truly the best of the best reference quality on this disc?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TitusTroy* /forum/post/16824926
> 
> 
> I just bought Planet Earth and I know it's got some issues overall in terms of consistant image quality but can anyone tell me which parts are truly the best of the best reference quality on this disc?



It's pretty inconsistent throughout the series, but my favorite is "Fresh Water." It has a lot of underwater scenes with awesome colors (of coral, fish, etc.) and I find it is one of the more consistent discs for good PQ.


----------



## K-Spaz

I saw Harry Potter last night, 35mm version. While they could still butcher it when they do the transfer, (this is WB we're talking about...) it has all the ingredients for a fantastic Bluray.


The movie wasn't all that great, but the images sure were. Great test for guys with systems that do well on blacks. Wow did it have some cool lighting and camera work, and subtle shadow detail. This will most certainly surpass all the other HP movies for image quality when we get to see a BR version.


While it was great to see the 35mm version, It was sad that I saw probably 40% of the film with a hair in the pj which spanned vertically all the way from top to bottom waving around in the picture. Was about 20% from right edge. Nearly enough to ask for my money back on the ticket.


----------



## 42041

*A History of Violence*


DNR and EE all over the place. Looks nothing like film: wax faces, smearing, halos everywhere. Disappointing considering this is a relatively recent movie. On the positive side detail is occasional pretty good and contrast is consistently right on the money, but this doesn't quite make up for the excessive filtering. A thoroughly underwhelming blu-ray.
*Tier 3.25*

I also saw Doubt, agree with its current 1.5 ranking so didn't bother reviewing it, looks excellent.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*Hellboy*


Finally have gotten around to seeing this title (about time!). I've never seen it in town on Blu, just got it in from zip.ca.



Although there were a few moments of blur here and there, and I felt some of the special effects were a little on the cheesy side near the ending, this movie does seem to hold up to it's Tier 1 placement.


The colours were gorgeous, and I felt the disc had a lot of depth and clarity. Facial details were fantastic, and the black levels showed wonderfully on my Panny.


I did notice a slight bit of grain, but it was not distracting in any way. I didn't notice any discernible (to me) DNR or EE, although I did notice a high contrast edge here and there. Nothing that upset me in the least, though.


I was particularly impressed with the rain/water/glossiness in this film; as many of you guys know, one of my biggest pet peeves (aside from EE) is when water of any form is dull and looks like crap. I'm happy to give this film my G3-water-stamp of approval.










*Recommendation for Hellboy: Agree with current Tier 1.0 placement.*
*Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800u THX setting, approx 7.5'*


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*John Adams (HBO Mini Series)*


Over the last 2 weeks, I've been sent the John Adams mini series. I have to say, although it's a subject matter that I don't particularly have a lot of interest in, this mini series was FANTASTIC and I would recommend it to anyone.


As we don't plan on purchasing this series, we watched it with the "Facts are Stubborn Things" turned on. Basically pop ups occasionally but not enough to be annoying with facts about the goings-on.



The PQ for this is a bit hard to judge. I would say a good percentage of it is high tier 1; however when you're dealing with 500+ minutes of footage (7 episodes of varying lengths) it makes it a bit more difficult.


There is a chunk of this series that is inconsistent. It is very strange. One second will be a close up that is worthy of Tier 0; then the next cutaway would be a blurry mess.



For the most part, I was impressed with how this presented on my set. Unfortunately, when it does get bad, it's BAD. The fortunate part of that is that when it does occur, it's not for very long.



I never saw this series on television, so I don't have that comparison. From what I gather from folks in the John Adams thread, the Blu seems to be better although they could have done a better job with it's transfer onto Blu.



The actors are aged throughout the series, along with many of them having makeup on them to change their faces (George Washington for example). The way this can show on the screen may look DNR'd to some. Personally, I didn't feel I noticed DNR so much as the makeup; where you'd see a bit of inconsistency and think that the faces might be DNR'd, the details of the surroundings and to me, the makeup itself, was highly noticeable. I think this might be a "your mileage may vary" sort of thing.



We watched "the making of.." on the 3rd disc after we completed the series before I sent the disc back. It's truly amazing to me just how much of this show was done CGI that was completely seamless to me. It really is gorgeous.



If not for the inconsistency of this mini series, I'd have no qualms with it landing in Tier 1.0. Given the duration of the content, however, I am also hesitant with knocking it down as low as Tier 2.0; I really was impressed with the series on average, despite the brief moments where it was found lacking and odd (PQ wise). I just don't think there was enough to penalize it that much.



That said:

*Recommendation for John Adams (HBO Mini Series): Tier 1.75*
*Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800u THX setting, approx 7.5'.*


----------



## HDphile22

Push?


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16834754
> 
> *John Adams (HBO Mini Series)*
> 
> 
> The PQ for this is a bit hard to judge. I would say a good percentage of it is high tier 1; however when you're dealing with 500+ minutes of footage (7 episodes of varying lengths) it makes it a bit more difficult.
> 
> 
> There is a chunk of this series that is inconsistent. It is very strange. One second will be a close up that is worthy of Tier 0; then the next cutaway would be a blurry mess.
> 
> *Recommendation for John Adams (HBO Mini Series): Tier 1.75*
> *Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800u THX setting, approx 7.5'.*



I was waiting for someone to place this mini-series as I was considering purchasing it sight unseen. Thanks...I tried going through Band of Brothers and giving it a placement as another long HBO mini-series, but like John Adams the picture quality really varies over the course of episodes and locations. Maybe soon I will finally finish it.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/16838606
> 
> 
> I was waiting for someone to place this mini-series as I was considering purchasing it sight unseen. Thanks...I tried going through Band of Brothers and giving it a placement as another long HBO mini-series, but like John Adams the picture quality really varies over the course of episodes and locations. Maybe soon I will finally finish it.



If you haven't seen it already and are interested in the topic, I think you will like it, Phantom Stranger. I did giggle that we(the husband and I) were two Canucks watching the signing of the Declaration of Independence on July 4th (that's when we had that particular disc).


I haven't seen Band of Brothers myself, although I know the husband watched it on TV. The blu ray is too much for me to splurge on when I know I'm not going to watch it.


----------



## djoberg

*12 Rounds*


I'm going to keep this _short_ and _sweet_ (I'm tired!). The _short_ of it is I wasn't all that impressed with this title, except for some fantastic facial details and accurate fleshtones (those two virtues constitute the _sweet_ of it).


What bothered me most was the high contrast which resulted in too much brightness in some scenes, which in turn led to some digital noise. I also was somewhat disappointed with the black levels. There were a couple of night scenes that had a WOW factor, but the majority of them bordered on dark gray, with poor shadow detail.


In fairness I will say that there were some shots that were razor-sharp, with plenty of detail and natural & vivid colors. But these were usually _still shots_ and most of the movie consisted of car chases or people running and this yielded little if any "eye candy."


The two previous reviews came in at 1.5 and 1.75, but I'm inclined to bring it down another notch, thus my vote is for....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'


PS I'm pretty psyched cuz I just pre-ordered *Gladiator* and *Braveheart* from Amazon today. They should be released on September 1st and they're coming out on the Sapphire Series (see http://www.homemediamagazine.com/blu...e-series-16141 ). Yes!!


----------



## eastbaygreen

I've been. From Detroit, and Lk Michigan and Huron are great, but Superior is amazing. Never been to the north shore, but Pictured Rocks, the Porcupine Mts (yes, mountains in Michigan...small, but beautiful) are as good as it gets.


I've been all over the world, and Lake Superior is amongst the most beautiful places on earth. As a matter of fact, I just spent a week on the Oregon coast with some buddies from Michigan and we were commenting how it reminded us of Pictured Rocks.....all the way down to the water temp.


Anyway...down to business. A few that I've seen recently:


A Bugs Life - Tier 0

Baraka - can't remember if I've rated this, but Tier 0

Crash - Coal....not good

Tropic Thunder - Tier 1.5

Departed - Tier 2

Kung Fu Panda - Tier 0

The Dark City - Tier 1.25

Vexille - Tier 0

Sunshine - Tier 1.0

Meet the Robinsons - Tier 0

Tinker Bell - Tier 0

Horton Hears A Who - Tier 0

Wall-E - Tier 0

Dark Knight - Tier 1.0






> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16805697
> 
> 
> I just got back from an awesome vacation up the North Shore of Lake Superior (8 days of canoeing in the Boundary Waters and hiking the incredible trails of the Lake Superior National Forest) and I realize I've only watched one Blu-ray in 3 weeks!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a lot of "catching up" to do with my job, yard work, etc., but I do hope to start watching Blu-rays again starting early next week. My thanks to those who have contributed in the last few weeks.
> 
> 
> SuprSlow, thanks for chiming in with your explanation for why you haven't been working on an update. And thanks to K-Spaz too for the database he compiled.


----------



## eastbaygreen

I think you mean "Shallow Seas"? Pretty sure coral doesn't grow in fresh water.


Fresh Water is great too....just some amazing shots. Watching it now....



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16825073
> 
> 
> It's pretty inconsistent throughout the series, but my favorite is "Fresh Water." It has a lot of underwater scenes with awesome colors (of coral, fish, etc.) and I find it is one of the more consistent discs for good PQ.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *eastbaygreen* /forum/post/16839259
> 
> 
> Crash - Coal....not good



I'm curious why you think it's a bottom tier title... I watched it a very long time ago but I don't remember it being among the worst blu-rays I've seen


----------



## tcramer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16838869
> 
> 
> If you haven't seen it already and are interested in the topic, I think you will like it, Phantom Stranger. I did giggle that we(the husband and I) were two Canucks watching the signing of the Declaration of Independence on July 4th (that's when we had that particular disc).
> 
> 
> I haven't seen Band of Brothers myself, although I know the husband watched it on TV. The blu ray is too much for me to splurge on when I know I'm not going to watch it.





I would recommend splurging for it! It is an awesome series and if you have any interest at all in history it has great rewatchability - I've watched it probably a dozen times already (5 on blu, where the sound is the best part!).


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *eastbaygreen* /forum/post/16839259
> 
> 
> I've been. From Detroit, and Lk Michigan and Huron are great, but Superior is amazing. Never been to the north shore, but Pictured Rocks, the Porcupine Mts (yes, mountains in Michigan...small, but beautiful) are as good as it gets.
> 
> 
> I've been all over the world, and Lake Superior is amongst the most beautiful places on earth. As a matter of fact, I just spent a week on the Oregon coast with some buddies from Michigan and we were commenting how it reminded us of Pictured Rocks.....all the way down to the water temp.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *eastbaygreen* /forum/post/16839302
> 
> 
> I think you mean "Shallow Seas"? Pretty sure coral doesn't grow in fresh water.
> 
> 
> Fresh Water is great too....just some amazing shots. Watching it now....



First of all, I haven't been all over the world, but I have been all over the United Stated, Mexico, Canada, and the Bahamas, and Lake Superior (the North and South shores) is still, as you say, among the most beautiful.


I noticed you have a Pioneer Elite KURO and an Onkyo receiver, which I also have. I'm sure you are pleased with both.


And you are right, coral DOESN'T grow in fresh water...my bad! I must have been mistaking it for "Shallow Seas." But I remember being VERY impressed with "Fresh Water," so perhaps it's both of those titles that give us pretty consistent, good PQ throughout.


----------



## JohnES1

Did you guys ever post reviews of Things We Lost In The Fire? It's neither placed or in the holding area. Full of extreme facial close ups, medium level of backround "buzz." Can't believe you skipped it, give me some post #s.


----------



## K-Spaz

There's a search this thread button at the top of the page.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tcramer* /forum/post/16840158
> 
> 
> I would recommend splurging for it! It is an awesome series and if you have any interest at all in history it has great rewatchability - I've watched it probably a dozen times already (5 on blu, where the sound is the best part!).



Thanks for the rec. I haven't seen it, I tend to get extra "girly" when it comes to war-related themes. Maybe one day I'll brave-up for it.












> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JohnES1* /forum/post/16840346
> 
> 
> Did you guys ever post reviews of Things We Lost In The Fire? It's neither placed or in the holding area. Full of extreme facial close ups, medium level of backround "buzz." Can't believe you skipped it, give me some post #s.



Haven't seen that one, John, sorry! You should start writing some reviews as well, especially if you're watching things that aren't placed yet!


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15943367
> 
> *The Other Boleyn Girl
> *
> *recommendation: Tier 1.5*
> 
> 
> A period film from Sony, it was released to Blu-ray on June 10th of 2008. The 115-minute movie is encoded in AVC on a BD-50. The average video bitrate is 23.95 Mbps per the BDInfo scan. The compression parameters follow the typical Sony encoding pattern from the last eighteen months, with the AVC encode ranging from 16.1 to 33.7 Mbps for the bulk of the movie.
> 
> 
> Generally the compression encoding is transparent to the source material with the image free of any artifacts at all. It is not perfectly free of missteps though, as one scene at approximately the 70-minute mark manifests some compression and light chroma noise in the background of the shot. There is also a quick glimpse of banding in another couple of shots. I think the average viewer would have no complaints in this regard. It would have been interesting to see the results of a video encode of this movie following more closely to an average in the thirties.
> 
> 
> It quickly becomes apparent during viewing that the movie is shot entirely on HD-video cameras. After a bit of research I found out it was shot on the Panavision Genesis HD Camera. The result is an image devoid of grain and surprisingly little noise for a digitally-shot movie. The image is reminiscent of another digitally-shot movie, _Youth Without Youth_. This Blu-ray was transferred from a Digital Intermediate that is absolutely flawless in nature. From beginning to end the image is completely free of any dirt or specks down to the individual pixel level. There has been no digital noise reduction or scratch removal programs run on this transfer. In this regard there is no post-processing evident.
> 
> 
> I would call attention to some edge enhancement halos visible at times. The ringing is low in amplitude and on the threshold of visibility but becomes apparent on certain high-contrast edges. What is baffling is that the picture is naturally sharp in nature so I am questioning its inclusion on the transfer.
> 
> 
> While sharing some commonalities in their picture qualities, this movie is clearly a step down from the quality of _Youth Without Youth_ visually. Most aspects of the picture for _The Other Boleyn Girl_ reveal how well-shot that Coppola movie really is in all dimensions of quality. In comparison the cinematography here is a significant step down with some unusual color timing that varies over the course of the movie. It really reminded me of how important color rendition and fidelity are to the best looking BD's and the fine line between the upper tiers.
> 
> 
> Depending on the scene, the color timing and palette has been altered to reflect the current mood of the Boleyn sisters and the events transpiring around them. As the movie clips along the image becomes increasingly monochromatic towards a drained, blue push with a subdued color scheme. Due to this flesh tones become very pale and somewhat unnatural in appearance. The final stretch of the movie looks very bleak and dark. But even in the beginning of the movie, the elaborate costumes seen in the King's Court do not exhibit the superior saturation that typify the highest caliber BD's.
> 
> 
> While setting the mood with color is a legitimate artistic choice, I felt it impacted the overall picture quality and what separated this transfer from tier zero. It does not help that several scenes showed slight contrast problems. While black levels are solid, I never thought they reached the striking depths of blackness seen in the best ranked titles. Nothing is ever obscured in shadows, but the general visibility of the finest low light detail is not quite as good as it should be.
> 
> 
> Outside of the problems cited above the picture quality is quite wonderful. There is incredible resolution throughout the film, with an inordinate amount of detail in almost every scene. Tight shots reveal excellent high-frequency information, from the individual hair strands of eye brows to tiny moles and acme marks. The image is as sharp as any I have seen with impressive dimensionality to the outdoor shots. The scenes inside appear slightly flatter.
> 
> 
> My placement is for tier 1.5 from its current ranking in tier 2.25. This Blu-ray seems to be very faithful to the director's intended look which limits it from achieving a higher placement.
> 
> 
> Watching on a 60” Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 (firmware 2.60) from a viewing distance of six feet.
> 
> 
> BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
> http://www.cinemasquid.com/MovieDeta...px?MovieId=752



My first foray back into offering opinions since changing displays. I've now seen about 20 BR's on the new pj and by a long shot this one stood out to me.


Imo, this film had the best pq in a live action film I've seen yet. Throughout this film, indoors and out, I saw a level of detail way surpassing POTC, of which I've seen the last two films in the past week. I had wanted some comparison info before offering opinions.


The movie isn't really dark anywhere which tends to help with detail. I did not notice any digital manipulation whatsoever. Not to say there isn't some, but I didn't see it.


There were some motion issues with this film and they did crop up often enough that I wouldn't try to call it a blu. I can live with about any tier really, but I'd go even higher than Phantom here and say Tier 1.25-1.0. Perhaps it's my system, but I thought this looked better than Youth without Youth, and that is saying something.


Other than perhaps feeling this should be just a tick higher, I agree with about all quoted above.


This also was a very watchable film. I'll most likely have friends over to see this one.


Viewed on Infocus X10, 104" DIY Screen, from 12'.


----------



## JohnES1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16840887
> 
> 
> Haven't seen that one, John, sorry! You should start writing some reviews as well, especially if you're watching things that aren't placed yet!



Darn Search This Thread couldn't deal with the small words in the title(or nobody's reviewed Things We Lost In The Fire.) I'm just a noob and couldn't find EE if it sliced up my eyeballs, lol. Looked excellent to me, great color rendition, extremely sharp in focused areas(but the backrounds had the Blu-ray "buzz.") Black levels good to excellent, faces didn't seem "waxy" to me_good transfer, just guessing, but probably Tier 2.0 or better. G3, if your twelve year old can handle the content(no nudity or strong language) this movie will do for the anti-drug sermon. Strong performances by the whole cast, especially the two kids.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JohnES1* /forum/post/16841490
> 
> 
> Darn Search This Thread couldn't deal with the small words in the title(or nobody's reviewed Things We Lost In The Fire.) I'm just a noob and couldn't find EE if it sliced up my eyeballs, lol. Looked excellent to me, great color rendition, extremely sharp in focused areas(but the backrounds had the Blu-ray "buzz.") Black levels good to excellent, faces didn't seem "waxy" to me_good transfer, just guessing, but probably Tier 2.0 or better. G3, if your twelve year old can handle the content(no nudity or strong language) this movie will do for the anti-drug sermon. Strong performances by the whole cast, especially the two kids.



Thanks, John. My oldest is only 5 (but with her diva-attitude, she seems 13!), but I'll keep it in mind.


As for "finding EE", be lucky if you can't see it. I'm "cursed" with a severe sensitivity to it. It has to be pretty minimal for it to not irritate the heck out of me. Between this thread and the Panny 58" 800U thread, though, I've been told my eyes are a bit more sensitive, especially since the phosphor trail on the set (during HOCKEY of all things!! GAH!!







) drives me absolutely NUTS but nobody else around me can see it in my household.



Being summertime, it's tough to find time to watch some of the Blu's I'd like to. My folks did indeed, bring me over a copy of American Psycho from Australia, which I can't wait to compare to the North American release with its terrible EE'd glory. But the husband can't stand the movie & while my daughter *loves* both Batman Begins & The Dark Knight... I don't think she needs to see "Her Bruce Wayne" going psychotic with a chainsaw!!


----------



## JohnES1

I just found the Ralph Potts AVS review of Things We Lost In The Fire, seems I'm right_not a bad movie at all: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post16062612 


G3, The Ant Bully for us next week_I have no idea what to expect besides great PQ.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/16841333
> 
> 
> Imo, this film had the best pq in a live action film I've seen yet. Throughout this film, indoors and out, I saw a level of detail way surpassing POTC, of which I've seen the last two films in the past week. I had wanted some comparison info before offering opinions.
> 
> 
> The movie isn't really dark anywhere which tends to help with detail. I did not notice any digital manipulation whatsoever. Not to say there isn't some, but I didn't see it.
> 
> 
> There were some motion issues with this film and they did crop up often enough that I wouldn't try to call it a blu. I can live with about any tier really, but I'd go even higher than Phantom here and say Tier 1.25-1.0. Perhaps it's my system, but I thought this looked better than Youth without Youth, and that is saying something.
> 
> 
> Other than perhaps feeling this should be just a tick higher, I agree with about all quoted above.
> 
> 
> This also was a very watchable film. I'll most likely have friends over to see this one.
> 
> 
> Viewed on Infocus X10, 104" DIY Screen, from 12'.



My wife and I just watched this last night on Starz and I was VERY impressed with the PQ. I'll have to rent the Blu-ray sometime and chime in with a recommendation. I agree with you too that the movie was very good.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16843396
> 
> 
> My wife and I just watched this last night on Starz and I was VERY impressed with the PQ. I'll have to rent the Blu-ray sometime and chime in with a recommendation. I agree with you too that the movie was very good.




Another one I thought I reviewed and gave a recommendation for and I thought it was tier 1.0 or slightly lower, Phantom gave it a 1.5, but I looked at other reviews and the few gave it 2.0 or lower. Maybe I was a bit distracted....







Really though it looks excellent and does hold up well on the HD channels I saw it on.


I watched My Bloody Valentine in 3D and overall the effect worked and was good, but there were times you could see the color edging used to make it work even with the glasses. There were a couple of shocking moments where it really worked well and you wanted to reach out and touch objects. As far as PQ it is really hard to judge this in anyway by our standards or IMO by any PQ standards due to the 3D affects, so as a legitimate cop out I won't rate it and have no interest in watching it in 2D. It was cool the BD rental at Hollywood had 4 sets of glasses in there barely or not even used. The 7.1 made it ok, but I think Haunting in COnneticut had better use of the rears for a scary affect.


----------



## djoberg

*Knowing*


Let me say from the outset that the only thing keeping this from Tier 0 is a lack of facial details...PERIOD!


I saw zero ANOMALIES...no DNR (though the lack of detail in _some_ faces may lead one to suspect DNR)...no EE...no ARTIFACTS...no BLACK CRUSH, etc., etc.


What I did see was amazing DETAIL, DEPTH, and DIMENSIONALITY, along with accurate FLESHTONES, vivid COLORS (though they were subdued at times due to the director's choice of stylization), deep BLACKS and perfect SHADOW DETAIL. Contrast _may_ have been a tad too high at times, but I really didn't see any imperfections as a result, so even there it scores an A+ with me.


If _only_ the facial details would have been better, this would have ranked right up there with Transporter 3 (don't get me wrong, some of the facial close-ups were amazing, as was the case with the aged teacher who Nicholas Cage goes to see after the time capsule is dug up).


But as it is, I feel constrained to bypass the reference tier and put it here....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'


Edit: I forgot to comment on the awesome audio track. Several scenes will blow you away (and give your speaker system, especially your sub, the workout of a lifetime).


----------



## eastbaygreen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16840192
> 
> 
> First of all, I haven't been all over the world, but I have been all over the United Stated, Mexico, Canada, and the Bahamas, and Lake Superior (the North and South shores) is still, as you say, among the most beautiful.
> 
> 
> I noticed you have a Pioneer Elite KURO and an Onkyo receiver, which I also have. I'm sure you are pleased with both.
> 
> 
> And you are right, coral DOESN'T grow in fresh water...my bad! I must have been mistaking it for "Shallow Seas." But I remember being VERY impressed with "Fresh Water," so perhaps it's both of those titles that give us pretty consistent, good PQ throughout.



funny....after I posted that, scenes came up of a lake in Africa w/ a huge variety of cichlids (sp)....then there were shots from lake Bakal, I believe, that showed some very coral-like stuff. Both scenese rivaled anything you see in the ocean. So, your memory isn't that off....and, yes, Fresh Water is a very good episode.


oh...and I'm very pleased w/ my set up right now. But, I have to say I've got my eye on some projectors....


----------



## djoberg

I don't know if everyone caught my postscript above (in my review of 12 Rounds), but on September 1st *Gladiator* and *Braveheart* are coming out on Blu-ray and Paramount is starting a new high-end series called the Sapphire Series for some of their best titles. See the following website to read up on this:

http://www.homemediamagazine.com/blu...e-series-16141 


As you will read, *Forrest Gump* will also be released in that series, so if you're as interested in those three titles as I am, you have something special to look forward to.


----------



## deltasun

^^ Amen, brother!


----------



## John Mason




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16845486
> 
> *Knowing*
> 
> Let me say from the outset that the only thing keeping this from Tier 0 is a lack of facial details...PERIOD!



Thanks for the review. Shopping for titles after finally ordering a Blu-ray machine (PS3).


Recalled from other writeups that Knowing is one of the few major features shot with the Red One digital-cinema camera, with a 4k digital intermediate downconversion/transfer. Note from skimming reviews here that other digital-camera features on discs seem to fare well PQ-wise. Puzzling about facial details if other elements are sharp, although actors often get special filtering/lighting (or makeup) AIUI. -- John


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Mason* /forum/post/16847442
> 
> 
> Thanks for the review. Shopping for titles after finally ordering a Blu-ray machine (PS3).
> 
> 
> Recalled from other writeups that Knowing is one of the few major features shot with the Red One digital-cinema camera, with a 4k digital intermediate downconversion/transfer. Note from skimming reviews here that other digital-camera features on discs seem to fare well PQ-wise. Puzzling about facial details if other elements are sharp, although actors often get special filtering/lighting (or makeup) AIUI. -- John



Thanks for your input John! Congrats on your new PS3!


Regarding facial details on _Knowing_, I should have mentioned that there are very few real close-ups, such as we see in titles such as _Transporter 3_ or _Youth Without Youth_. Where the cameraman did zoom in, there was detail to be sure, but it didn't reveal every pore, wrinkle, stubble, etc. I believe you are right in saying that "actors often get special filtering/lighting (or makeup)" and this was no doubt the case in this film. I can well imagine that _some_ actors despise High Definition and they will avail themselves of any means whereby they can avoid being seen as they really are.


----------



## 42041

I don't know how evident it is in motion but blu-ray.com's captures from Knowing (like this one: http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screen...350&position=1 ) look pretty DNRd to my humble eyeballs. I don't really want to see the movie though so I doubt I'll rent it and see for myself.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/16848977
> 
> 
> I don't know how evident it is in motion but blu-ray.com's captures from Knowing (like this one: http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screen...350&position=1 ) look pretty DNRd to my humble eyeballs. I don't really want to see the movie though so I doubt I'll rent it and see for myself.



Every "professional" review I read stated that they saw no evidence of DNR. I would read the following article by Joshua Zyber where he believes it's simply the look of the photography and NOT a DNR artifact:

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/2333/knowing.html 


In one scene that I alluded to in my review Nicholas Cage's face looks similar to the one on the link you gave us and yet the aged teacher in that scene has remarkable detail in her old and wrinkled face. To my mind if they had employed DNR it would have affected both of the characters in that scene, not just that of Nicholas Cage. So, I believe it is either the photography as Mr. Zyber espouses, or special filtering/lighting or makeup for Mr. Cage as John Mason concluded.


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/16848977
> 
> 
> I don't know how evident it is in motion but blu-ray.com's captures from Knowing (like this one: http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/screen...350&position=1 ) look pretty DNRd to my humble eyeballs. I don't really want to see the movie though so I doubt I'll rent it and see for myself.



It says right below your image you referenced that it was captured at 720p and jpeg'd for greater compression.


I'd hardly say then that a person could identify DNR in the picture.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Mason* /forum/post/16847442
> 
> 
> Recalled from other writeups that Knowing is one of the few major features shot with the Red One digital-cinema camera, with a 4k digital intermediate downconversion/transfer.



For what it's worth, that's not really a good thing compared to some other video cameras as far as Blu-Ray goes. The Panavision Genesis actually uses a higher resolution 5760x2160 RGB sensor, and as I understand it, each 3x2 pixel block is downsampled in-camera into one pixel to yield native 1080p output, which gives you razor sharp pixel-level detail comparable with 3d rendered movies, which you can see in movies like The Spirit, without any detail loss resulting from scaling down the 4K intermediate to 1080p. The Red uses a 4096x2304 pixel Bayer sensor, which after demosaicing and downscaling from 4K would yield a slightly softer image than the Genesis.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/16849105
> 
> 
> It says right below your image you referenced that it was captured at 720p and jpeg'd for greater compression.
> 
> 
> I'd hardly say then that a person could identify DNR in the picture.



If you're registered there the captures are 1080p (i didnt realize i didnt link directly to the image). http://images.blu-ray.com/reviews/1543_1_1080p.jpg JPEG compression would not cause that degree of detail loss at those file sizes.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*DOA: Dead Or Alive (Canadian import)


recommendation: Tier 1.75*


Released in February of this year by Alliance, this 2006 film looked better than my low expectations going into viewing. The 86-minute movie is encoded in AVC on a BD-25 at comparatively mediocre bitrates for those interested. Unlike many of the other Alliance discs, the film is presented in its correct aspect ratio and at 1080p resolution. The master looks in great condition for a catalog title with no marks or flaws to degrade the image.


After viewing the entire BD, I have to believe the only thing holding this title back from a much higher placement is the paltry video encode here. The compression work is credited to La Boîte numérique, a Canadian firm. Since a BDInfo scan is not available at the moment, my estimation of the average video bitrate is approximately 14 Mbps. The video encode ranges from frequent lows in the single digits to peaks barely touching 20 Mbps. The low-bitrate encode unfortunately produces some minor macroblocking seen in certain shadows. The more damaging side effect is the slight loss of the finest micro-details throughout the feature, which is definitely not on par with the best Blu-ray transfers. I have not seen it but a French Blu-ray exists of this movie with bitrates averaging 28 Mbps. It would be interesting to see a visual comparison of how much detail might have been lost.


Outside of the compression problems and the occasional soft shot most likely the result of the extensive CGI blending with live-action, this is a nice looking image that occasionally appears great. Contrast and clarity are very good with fabulous bursts of color, though fleshtones come off a bit hot at times. Black levels are deep with solidly rendered shadow detail. The transfer looks free of digital noise reduction usage but I did detect a trace of edge enhancement in a couple of scenes. While the picture is sharp in most shots with a tight focus, it does not have the great sense of depth that the best ranked Blu-rays demonstrate. Detail is okay but definitely the weakest aspect of this particular transfer. It does not appear to be a problem with the original photography or film but a result of the meager video encode. It is reminiscent of a typical Warner transfer that has been stripped of the best resolution. Close-ups show a decent amount of fine skin-detail.


Alliance has done a solid job here that really only fails at the compression level. My hunch tells me a Blu-ray of this film from a major studio might challenge for tier zero with its bright color palette and visual look. As is, it still looks good enough for tier 1.75.


Watching on a 60 Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 (firmware 2.80) at a viewing distance of six feet.


----------



## eastbaygreen

Braveheast is great....but Gladiator is the best film I've seen. Can't wait. I think the wife will approve to double up on that one.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16846611
> 
> 
> I don't know if everyone caught my postscript above (in my review of 12 Rounds), but on September 1st *Gladiator* and *Braveheart* are coming out on Blu-ray and Paramount is starting a new high-end series called the Sapphire Series for some of their best titles. See the following website to read up on this:
> 
> http://www.homemediamagazine.com/blu...e-series-16141
> 
> 
> As you will read, *Forrest Gump* will also be released in that series, so if you're as interested in those three titles as I am, you have something special to look forward to.


----------



## deltasun

*The Edge of Love*


Fine grain / digital noise present throughout. This title was all over the place in terms of details and overall look, albeit as chosen by the director. This was a stylized presentation of a period piece that incorporated sepia-toned scenes. This was not true of the entire movie, however. Some scenes (a few) showed more natural tones, while others were closer to monochromatic. Again, these inconsistencies were director intended, complementary to the storytelling.


Facial details varied from smooth, bokeh'd look to high Tier-1 detail on Dylan's and Caitlin's faces. At times, even Keira Knightley's face would exhibit rare texture. Other times, facial close-up's were soft. Medium scenes were mostly softer and offered less details, particularly when heavy sepia coloring was used. There were few excellent panoramas, but the ones in Wales of their houses were excellent. Depth and dimension gave a profound 3D rendering of the scene.


Black levels, when truly black (non-sepia), were deep and bold. Contrast was almost irrelevant because it varied from scene to scene, depending on what the director intended. Low-light details and depth were generally mediocre, with maybe a few exceptions.


Taking the average PQ, I would land this somewhere in mid-Silver...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.50*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## deltasun

*Into the Wild*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/15760082
> 
> *Into the Wild Video: VC-1 | Audio: Dolby TrueHD | AR: 2.35:1 | Paramount*
> 
> 
> The scope image boasts good resolution and clarity due to the beautiful cinematography. Black levels and shadow detail is excellent though brightness can look elevated in some scenes. Natural color reproduction is the presentation's strongest suit thus making fleshtones look photo realistic. Close-up detailing is very good but not consistent as seen with titles in Tier-0 and upper Tier-1. Noise became intrusive in some of the sky shots and with the dark scenes shot under natural lighting conditions. Film grain is well preserved in most shots though some scenes especially in the first 20 minutes seems to suffer from lackluster texture and high frequency details. Vista shots offers a nice dose of HD pop and three dimensionality. However, softness and diffused look peeps in quite often, lowering the bar set by top tier titles.
> 
> *Tier recommendation:* *Top Tier-2* / *Tier 1.75*



Just saw this tonight and lgans review perfectly sums up what I experienced. Though an exceptional film that had some excellent panoramic shots, some of the weaker contrasted medium shots were flat. There were instances of softness and overexposed scenes.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


Wow! This was like a book I couldn't put down. I'm surprised I did not hear of this film till last weekend when friend mentioned it in passing, having both lived in Alaska.


----------



## 42041

*Big Fish*


With movies from the early 00s I never know what to expect, but this happens to be a very nice transfer. A lot of this movie has an intentionally soft, hazy look to the photography but the detail is generally quite good where it needs to be, and colors are nicely rendered with consistently well-managed black levels. Noise reduction and any other kind of distracting filtering are completely absent to my eyes, the picture is consistently film-like. The video is MPEG-2, but that creaky old codec seems to be up to the task since I did not note compression issues.

*Tier 2.0*


(ps3/pioneer 50" kuro elite/1 screen width distance)


----------



## John Mason




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/16849154
> 
> 
> For what it's worth, that's not really a good thing compared to some other video cameras as far as Blu-Ray goes. The Panavision Genesis actually uses a higher resolution 5760x2160 RGB sensor, and as I understand it, each 3x2 pixel block is downsampled in-camera into one pixel to yield native 1080p output, which gives you razor sharp pixel-level detail comparable with 3d rendered movies, which you can see in movies like The Spirit, without any detail loss resulting from scaling down the 4K intermediate to 1080p. The Red uses a 4096x2304 pixel Bayer sensor, which after demosaicing and downscaling from 4K would yield a slightly softer image than the Genesis.



Appreciate the tip. Googled this article on Genesis vs other sensors. For Blu-ray production, might be interesting to use a "tech specs" search at imdb.com to sort movies made with Genesis, Red Ones, etc., then determine how many of those are on Blu-rays. (Works by going to imbd.com, clicking the search tips, then scrolling down to the search tech spec link. Some long lists for Red, Viper, Genesis, although the lists are extended from multiple TV-production entries.)


Awaiting reports one of these days indicating whether any of those all-solid-state movie productions is actually delivering ~1920X1080 maximum effective resolution (resolvable details) on Blu-rays, compared to only ~800--1100 (horizontal 16:9 effective) maximums from films telecined to HD-D5 tape (~270 Mbps) years back, outlined here . Perhaps someone can apply a spectrum analyzer, similar to the sspears and dr1394 sublinks in that outline link. -- John


----------



## djoberg

*The Patriot*


Believe it or not, I had never seen The Patriot on Blu-ray until tonight. I was amazed at the high quality of this title and I believe the present rating of 1.25 may be a tad too low.


I'm not going to give a long review on such an old title, but I will say that the facial details were as good as I've seen, bar none. And they were consistent from beginning to end.


The colors were natural and vivid...the blacks were very deep and the shadow detail was second to none...the contrast was simply superb...fleshtones were spot on...and the detail and depth in almost every scene were impeccable. I could go on and on, but I think you get the picture.


The _only_ criticism I have would be a few scenes that were a bit soft, but in the whole scheme of things this amounts to "straining at a gnat" (considering the movie is almost 3 hours long).


I sincerely believe this title should be in Tier 0, for in my estimation it is just as good or better than the POTC titles that are now in Tier 0. I believe it deserves, at the very least, the following spot....

*Tier Recommendation: Low Tier 0*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'


PS I would love for some of you to revisit this title or see it for the first time. I think you may be quite surprised.


----------



## RDaneel

Just want to throw out a "thank you" for all the work that went into this thread. Just watched Kung Fu Panda over the weekend - only because it was given such glowing praise for the PQ - and it turned out to be not only an amazing visual experience, but also a great movie. Thanks for that!


I have done everything but a little more CMS tweaking on my Epson 6500 PJ, and I have to say that I never though that home video could look as good as this system, and Kung Fu Panda really shows that off well...


----------



## daPriceIs

*Home

* Home is a 118 minute documentary from French photographer and director Yann Arthus-Bertrand. It was released simultaneously in theaters, on television, BD, DVD, and the web on June 5th this year with considerable fanfare. If you want to sample the film but aren't willing to buy blind or rent, it's available for free download. This Fox blu-ray is an AVC encoded 1.78:1 AR BD-25 with English 5.1 DTS-HD MA. The movie consists exclusively of aerial footage shot on HD video cams. (Note that there are a few time-lapse satellite shots.)

I decided to purchase this as a blind buy based on glowing reviews from Ralph Potts and High-Def Digest where it got perfect and near perfect video scores respectively. Obviously I had very high expectations. Those reviews warned of the political agenda of the movie so basically I expected an environmentalist version of Baraka with narration of the ilk of Grand Canyon Adventure. My PQ expectations were not met.

Let's start with the good stuff:
Contrast, color, saturation, black levels, and shadow detail are damned near perfect. No EE, DNR, nothing.
Digital noise is very well controlled, but I did notice some in areas where I wasn't expecting it. Perhaps some of this unexpected stuff is very minor quantization noise. I can't really pin it down. Nonetheless, it's safe to say that a casual viewer won't notice 99% of what I'm referring to.
The style, composition, framing, and the visual interest and flair in virtually every frame of the movie are superb. There are some images that look like abstract paintings, and others like Impressionist watercolors or highly stylized pen and ink drawings. The movie is gorgeous.
For you water geeks out there, there are some great water shots, especially the one where a whale is doing a backstroke along the surface of the ocean.

Beyond the narration, the only thing wrong with the movie is its terribly inconsistent sharpness and lack of resolution of ultra-fine detail. The movie is all over the place. Take for example the closing credits. Over the last four minutes as the credits roll on the right side of the screen we see short scenes from each of the countries or major regions where the film was shot, along with captions indicating location. Only a geek would count the number of these scenes and rate each one for PQ. So naturally I did just that and the results: 56 scenes, 10 Tier 0, 14 Tier 1, 19 Tier 2, 10 Tier 3, and 3 Tier 4. And while Tier 4 is over-represented in this sample it is otherwise a pretty fair representation of the movie's sharpness as a whole. This makes an overall rating quite difficult.

The question is why this inconsistency? First, according to the film's web site, there were four separate film crews shooting simultaneously in different locations. Which suggests that not all crews were equally competent. Secondly, there are technical difficulties inherent in aerial photography that obviously were not adequately compensated for during shooting (google tilt-shift lens and Scheimpflug) or corrected in post. There are also things like uncorrected chromatic aberration that somehow slipped through. Lastly, there is directorial intent or perhaps indifference. What I mean is that the movie is two hours long but 488 hours were shot. And no one is going to convince me that two hours of very sharp images couldn't have been winnowed out of that mountain of footage. Thus I can only conclude that the soft scenes that made the final cut did so because they possessed qualities more important to the director than sharpness.

No review, even in this thread, would be complete without mentioning the infamous narration. The soundtrack is effective, but hardly memorable. But the narration, well Many will find Glenn Closes' narration as annoying as fingernails on a chalkboard. Her voice is mellow enough; it's what she says that grates. She gives a sermon from on High (literally), decrying our economic and ecological sins. She reads her script passionately and competently, though there are a few gaffes perhaps attributable to the text being originally written in French, including a couple of glaring typos that the editors didn't catch and that Close reads without a second thought. Ah well, if you're a true believer it's the call to action that matters: pesky misstatements and flawed logic be damned. Home is a polemic chiding and railing against modern society and its ills. Closes' strident message is, however, blunted by the images, because, you know, they're just so darn pretty, even images of toxic waste in Canada.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


Panasonic TH-42PZ77U 1080p/60 at 4ft


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RDaneel* /forum/post/16863054
> 
> 
> Just want to throw out a "thank you" for all the work that went into this thread. Just watched Kung Fu Panda over the weekend - only because it was given such glowing praise for the PQ - and it turned out to be not only an amazing visual experience, but also a great movie. Thanks for that!
> 
> 
> I have done everything but a little more CMS tweaking on my Epson 6500 PJ, and I have to say that I never though that home video could look as good as this system, and Kung Fu Panda really shows that off well...



Glad to hear you enjoyed Kung Fu Panda on your Epson PJ. Have you watched *A Bug's Life* on Blu-ray yet? If not, I would encourage you to do so.....prepare to be WOWED! The colors are even more vibrant than in KFP and the detail and depth are amazing as well.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Austin Powers: International Man Of Mystery


recommendation: Tier 2.50
*

I have to disagree with the current placement of this title in tier 1.75. Warner Bros. released this 1997 movie as part of the Shagadelic collection on December 2, 2008. The 89-minute film is encoded in VC-1 on a BD-25 and is finally presented in its original aspect ratio of 2.35:1 on home video. It is a decent looking catalog title but persistent, though minor in magnitude, problems do not allow me to consider the picture quality deserving of a ranking in tier one.


Typically a problem on lesser Warner transfers, the compression encode here is excellent and one of the best jobs WB has released on Blu-ray. BDInfo reveals the average video bitrate to be a robust 26.94 Mbps, one of the larger encodes afforded to a Warner title. There are no compression artifacts to be spotted, with banding and macroblocking being totally absent. It appears to be a fully transparent encode of whatever master it was derived from.


I do not think it raises to the level of visual objectionableness, but it is obvious some minor digital noise reduction and sharpening has been applied to this transfer. The high-frequency filtering looks to have been handled very delicately, with just a touch of high-frequency information and detail being rolled off. The grain structure is affected to some degree. Casual viewers who are not watching the picture like a hawk will most likely be oblivious to this digital manipulation. Certain scenes show a consistent level of thin halos. It is most obvious on Basil's suit jacket and the large black eye-glasses of certain characters.


The picture quality in general is pleasing for a catalog title from over ten years ago. Print damage is kept to a minimum and looks confined to a few specks of dirt associated with optical effects such as the credits. Black levels are very deep and uniform without a hint of clipping. Flesh tones are nicely rendered to give a naturalistic appearance without running hot. Colors are a tad duller than I expected given the psychedelic palette of certain sets in the movie. Whites definitely do not bloom here, with solid contrast and excellent resolution in all scenes. A few scenes come off as slightly soft, though much of the movie is relatively sharp and always in-focus. This is not a title that has much three-dimensional depth to the image and looks flat for the most part. The image is not the most detailed and skin textures look slightly waxy and smooth. Close-ups look less detailed than the better film transfers on Blu-ray. My guess is the combination of the movie's original photography and the D.N.R. has produced this result.


My personal recommendation for this title is a placement somewhere in tier two, and specifically in tier 2.5 as a more accurate accounting. The flaws I pointed out and the general lack of great detail preclude me from considering a tier one placement.


Watching on a 60” Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 (firmware 2.80) at a viewing distance of six feet.


BDInfo Scan (courtesy of eric.exe):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...7#post15151497


----------



## deltasun

*Watchmen*


Moderate grain present throughout, sometimes mimicking digital noise in structure. _Watchmen's_ biggest strength was in the details...low-light details, that is. Black levels were gorgeous and there were plenty to show off. Contrast was excellent and allowed the few primary colors to shine as well as create awesome depth.


Facial details ranged from Tier 0 quality to somewhat smooth but clear (evident on the TV personality guy and a few Nixon scenes). I detected but a handful of softness, particularly during the initial "love" scene between Daniel and Laurie. All in all, facial details were very good. Skin tones were spot on.


Some minor issues of banding can be seen around sun during the Martian scenes, as well as scenes of Dr. Manhattan himself. I also saw what I believe to be "natural" ringing.


Overall, an excellent presentation with lots HD moments. There were some less than stellar scenes in the last 45 min to an hour inside the Antarctic lair.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.50*


As for the Director's Cut, I prefer it over the Theatrical version. The extra 24 minutes actually flowed better, in my opinion.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## HDphile22

I am very DISAPPOINTED with this thread. Whole bunch movies/Blu-ray discs that has came out for weeks (Months, Years even) still does NOT get a rating. *SIGH*


----------



## b_scott

um, why don't you review them? some people have lives other than BDs.


----------



## djoberg

*Push*


A "mixed bag" is how I would describe the PQ of this title. When the director wasn't throwing in a lot of heavy grain (supposedly shot on 16mm), we are treated to a stellar transfer filled with vibrant colors and some of the deepest and inkiest blacks I've seen since The Dark Knight. The night scenes of Hong Kong are nothing short of amazing, with blacks to die for and exquisite shadow detail to boot!


Flesh tones are also accurate and on facial close-ups we see every pimple, wrinkle, scar, bead of sweat, etc. Reference quality all the way in this department.


As intimate above, there was heavy grain in _some_ scenes, but most scenes deliver fine to medium grain that added to the detail and gave it a nice "film-like" look. The scenes with heavy grain (mostly flashbacks or the opening scenes of Hong Kong streets and markets) yielded a very gritty look that definitely forced me to penalize the final PQ score.


There is a general consensus among "professional" reviewers that this title is clearly "reference quality," but due to the director's decision to shoot some scenes with heavy grain that detracted from what we on this thread call "eye candy," I would have to drop it down a tier to Tier Gold. But since _most_ scenes are very pleasing to the eyes I'm going to cast my vote for....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDphile22* /forum/post/16869828
> 
> 
> I am very DISAPPOINTED with this thread. Whole bunch movies/Blu-ray discs that has came out for weeks (Months, Years even) still does NOT get a rating. *SIGH*




Then you don't understand the way this thread works.









This is NOT the definitive source for BD PQ/reviews. There are many reviews and reviewers. We are NOT paid or professional reviewers. There is a handful or two of us who do this for fun and to be social with our love for movies and BD. I can't speak for all, but we are not able to nor do most of us want to watch EVERY BD ever released and then come here and review it. I doubt any of us have the time, money or desire to review all BD's released as cool as that would be. I would love a site that does what you are implying, then I could stop coming and posting here looking for PQ reviews. I kid.







On the other hand, I bet we review and rate PQ on more BD's than most other sites, but without looking I could be wrong.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16870495
> 
> 
> Then you don't understand the way this thread works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is NOT the definitive source for BD PQ/reviews. There are many reviews and reviewers. We are NOT paid or professional reviewers. There is a handful or two of us who do this for fun and to be social with our love for movies and BD. I can't speak for all, but we are not able to nor do most of us want to watch EVERY BD ever released and then come here and review it. I doubt any of us have the time, money or desire to review all BD's released as cool as that would be. I would love a site that does what you are implying, then I could stop coming and posting here looking for PQ reviews. I kid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, I bet we review and rate PQ on more BD's than most other sites, but without looking I could be wrong.



You neglected to mention that the accuracy of the evaluations in this thread is vastly higher than elsewhere.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16870495
> 
> 
> Then you don't understand the way this thread works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is NOT the definitive source for BD PQ/reviews. There are many reviews and reviewers. We are NOT paid or professional reviewers. There is a handful or two of us who do this for fun and to be social with our love for movies and BD. I can't speak for all, but we are not able to nor do most of us want to watch EVERY BD ever released and then come here and review it. I doubt any of us have the time, money or desire to review all BD's released as cool as that would be. I would love a site that does what you are implying, then I could stop coming and posting here looking for PQ reviews. I kid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, I bet we review and rate PQ on more BD's than most other sites, but without looking I could be wrong.



+1


You took the words right out of my mouth Hugh!


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/16870517
> 
> 
> You neglected to mention that the accuracy of the evaluations in this thread is vastly higher than elsewhere.



We are at the top of tier 0 compared to the rest of the net in terms of accuracy.







HA HA.


Pro reviewers give their reviews and then that is it. Some discussions on blogs or forums may result, but the pro review is "gospel" at that point. We, on the other hand, have many people rating a title, but then many times we are picking the title and reviews apart to get to the most accurate placement for this thread and the way we review them. In this thread we have room for change of placement. Having said that it doesn't mean our placements are accurate especially across a broad spectrum of BD watchers considering what some are looking for in a BD whether it be eye candy, film like, or both.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDphile22* /forum/post/16869828
> 
> 
> I am very DISAPPOINTED with this thread. Whole bunch movies/Blu-ray discs that has came out for weeks (Months, Years even) still does NOT get a rating. *SIGH*



then why not ask? chances are someone here has seen the movie you have in mind...


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *daPriceIs* /forum/post/16864484
> 
> *Home
> 
> * Home is a 118 minute documentary from French photographer and director Yann Arthus-Bertrand. It was released simultaneously in theaters, on television, BD, DVD, and the web on June 5th this year with considerable fanfare. If you want to sample the film but aren't willing to buy blind or rent, it's available for free download. This Fox blu-ray is an AVC encoded 1.78:1 AR BD-25 with English 5.1 DTS-HD MA. The movie consists exclusively of aerial footage shot on HD video cams. (Note that there are a few time-lapse satellite shots.)
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.0*



Excellent and thorough first review. Welcome to the thread and please continue to post your thoughts on the titles you watch.







This thread's value can only be as good as the members who contribute to it and it needs as many independent voices as possible.


----------



## deltasun

*The Haunting in Connecticut*


Fine grain present throughout; digital noise in some scenes (particularly when a smooth background shot is defocused). Facial details, when at extreme close-up (a few scenes), showed great texture. Medium shots were above average, usually exhibiting 3D pop and showing good depth and dimensionality. Strands of Virginia's hair were clearly delineated during these scenes.


Black levels showed a slight bit of crushing, but were bold and even vibrant for the most part. Shadow details, when meant to, showed good depth as well. Contrast was usually well-balanced, but there were a few scenes around the kitchen table with bad lighting that gave faces a muddled look. Colors were strong and had good tone. Obviously, there were scenes bathed in a period look which did not compare to the modern ones.


Overall, a very well-rendered HD presentation. To be fair, I would subtract points for the period look. They were purposely made soft and smooth. Still, this film exhibited some of the best medium shots I've seen in a while. Without the period scenes, I can see the PQ belonging to the 1.25 - 1.50 range. As such, I'll drop it a tad...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## BrownTown



*Coraline (2009)*


This is a excellent example of what stop animation should look like. The PQ is absolutely amazing.

This title excelled in the fabric and surface texture department. The camera showed every little detail in the fabric from stitching to cross-hatching patterns, even the peach fuzz would give me goose bumps at times.


The colors were very will matched from very vibrant scenes to very dark scenes. Clothing looked as you were at a fabric store.


The music sent you into this dreamy world and played alone with the story line very nicely.

I would recommend watching the extras before watching the film. I usually would not recommend this, but I think it adds a great appreciation for the hand made puppets and sets and and gives you this knowledge of the process that went into making it. It might take a tad away from the story, but I think it adds a lot more appreciation to the film itself.

*Tier Recommendation: 0*


Pioneer Kuro (5020) 9ft veiwing distance

PS3

Monoprice Premium 24AWG HDMI 1.3a Category 2

Audioengine A5 (for right now)


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BrownTown* /forum/post/16878364
> 
> 
> *Coraline (2009)*
> 
> 
> This is a excellent example of what stop animation should look like. The PQ is absolutely amazing.
> 
> This title excelled in the fabric and surface texture department. The camera showed every little detail in the fabric from stitching to cross-hatching patterns, even the peach fuzz would give me goose bumps at times.
> 
> 
> The colors were very will matched from very vibrant scenes to very dark scenes. Clothing looked as you were at a fabric store.
> 
> 
> The music sent you into this dreamy world and played alone with the story line very nicely.
> 
> I would recommend watching the extras before watching the film. I usually would not recommend this, but I think it adds a great appreciation for the hand made puppets and sets and and gives you this knowledge of the process that went into making it. It might take a tad away from the story, but I think it adds a lot more appreciation to the film itself.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 0*
> 
> 
> Pioneer Kuro (5020) 9ft veiwing distance
> 
> PS3
> 
> Monoprice Premium 24AWG HDMI 1.3a Category 2
> 
> Audioengine A5 (for right now)




Thanks for the great review! I'm waiting on this one to come in from zip.ca so I can watch it (who knows how long they will take!!). I missed this one in the theatre though, so I'm looking forward to it.


----------



## 42041

*Dexter Season 2*


This is only my impression upon viewing the first disc, not the entire series. Seems to look very good for the most part. Most of it seems to be shot digitally on cameras that clearly utilize the available 1080p resolution, fine detail is excellently resolved, every facial closeup is hair follicle city. Almost makes me uncomfortable. Consistency is a bit of an issue: black levels jump around a bit, some scenes are pretty noisy, some shots I suspect are film-sourced, with intrusively heavy grain, the occasional helicopter shots of Miami have combing artifacts for some reason. This show has a somewhat plain naturalistic visual style and won't appeal as demo material but is nonetheless a very solid visual presentation for this excellent TV show.

*Tier 1.5*

(ps3/pioneer kuro 50" elite plasma/1sw distance)


----------



## John Mason




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BrownTown* /forum/post/16878364
> 
> 
> *Coraline (2009)*
> 
> 
> This is a excellent example of what stop animation should look like. The PQ is absolutely amazing.
> 
> This title excelled in the fabric and surface texture department. The camera showed every little detail in the fabric from stitching to cross-hatching patterns, even the peach fuzz would give me goose bumps at times.



Yet another all-digital-origination production, other than transfer to film for most theaters, that seems to spark favorable PQ/BR comments here. Seems this one benefits from computer-graphics, too, which apparently offers the potential of higher effective resolutions (~1100 lines up to 1920 if oversampling/downconversion, or straight computer graphics, is involved) versus ~800--1100 lines for typical film telecines to HD-D5 1080/24p master tapes (~270 Mbps) a while back. Might have only ~1300-line maximum effective horizontal resolution within the 1920X1080 format, but it seems confirming the full effective resolution would require someone with a spectrum analyzer, similar to the sublinked references in that link. [Edit: If shot true stop-animation stye, actual clothing may have been used.] -- John


----------



## OldCodger73

The PQ sounds great but is the movie any good?


----------



## robsis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/16880438
> 
> 
> The PQ sounds great but is the movie any good?



I thoroughly enjoyed it....Neil Gaiman is an amazing storyteller for both young and old alike (Check out The Graveyard Book for more great storytelling.)


And, I agree, the picture quality is superb.


----------



## Ozymandis

Coraline- wow, so much detail. It was amazing. I was watching this on my old Panny 768p panel, which downconverts 1080p, but it was still extremely detailed. The colors were impressive too, a wide range, everything from muted (fog, the old house) to vibrant (the garden at night).


High tier 0. Definitely one of the standout Blu-rays I've seen.


----------



## SuprSlow

Whew...I'm caught up on the placements, working on the OP now. I've got a weekend's worth of parenting/birthing classes or whatever they are called, so I probably won't have much time on it this weekend. I've heard they have wireless internet, though


----------



## kagolu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/16882843
> 
> 
> Whew...I'm caught up on the placements, working on the OP now. I've got a weekend's worth of parenting/birthing classes or whatever they are called, so I probably won't have much time on it this weekend. I've heard they have wireless internet, though



Parenting/birthing? Get your priorities straight.


----------



## BrownTown




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/16880438
> 
> 
> The PQ sounds great but is the movie any good?



Only you can decide that. I walked out on transformers II since I thought it was so bad, but had friends that thought it was the greatest movie of the summer. What one person likes, another person dislikes. You will have to decide that for yourself.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/16882843
> 
> 
> Whew...I'm caught up on the placements, working on the OP now. I've got a weekend's worth of parenting/birthing classes or whatever they are called, so I probably won't have much time on it this weekend. I've heard they have wireless internet, though



*cheer*


----------



## musick




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/16880438
> 
> 
> The PQ sounds great but is the movie any good?



average at best

take away the stop motion and this film has very little to stand on


----------



## BrownTown




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *musick* /forum/post/16883833
> 
> 
> average at best
> 
> take away the stop motion and this film has very little to stand on



Like I said, it depends on the person. I really enjoyed it. I saw it 3 times at the theater. I have seen it twice since Tuesday. But I love animation.


Now I personally thought the the new Star Trek was a waste of film, but that's my own option. My co worker as seen it 4 times and thinks it's the best movie he has seen in the last 5 years.


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BrownTown* /forum/post/16883609
> 
> 
> Only you can decide that. I walked out on transformers II since I thought it was so bad, but had friends that thought it was the greatest movie of the summer. What one person likes, another person dislikes. You will have to decide that for yourself.



Agreed.


Anyway, I'm going to give it a try. It's in my Netflix queue listed as a "very long wait" so, based on past experience it'll probably be September or October when it shows up.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/16880438
> 
> 
> The PQ sounds great but is the movie any good?




Always good to rent first if you can......glad I did this with Coraline since this was a one and done for me.


Edit: just saw it is on very long wait for you......do you have a BB nearby? $2.50 for a new release BR and you can find it there if you just call once a day until it is in. I rented 4 "very long wait" Netflix movies from BB last week doing this.


----------



## QueueCumber

I see that the Last Emperor is rated Silver.


I really don't think it deserves that good of a rating. There is so much grain in most scene backgrounds that I think it is a much lower rating. I wouldn't have wasted my money on it if I knew it would be as bad as it is; I bought this Blu-Ray on the assumption that Criterion was releasing above average material. Criterion has inspired me not to buy anything they release on Blu-Ray before being 100% certain it is of worthy quality.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Lonely Hearts (Japanese import)


recommendation: lower third of Tier Zero
*

Sony Pictures released this region-free Blu-ray in Japan on November 4th, 2008. The 107-minute film, originally released in 2006 theatrically to little fanfare despite an all-star cast, is encoded in AVC on a BD-50. The picture quality is simply fabulous for the entire feature and an easy call for me to nominate for tier zero.


The AVC video encode is nearly flawless. It ranges from around 24 Mbps to peaks nearing 40 Mbps. The average video bitrate is approximately 28 or 29 Mbps. A slight problem is the quick glimpse of banding and light noise in a few frames, which seems endemic to the Sony encoder even at high bitrates. Other than that minor hiccup the compression looks fully transparent to the source material with no artifacts and is nearly reference-quality.


Transferred from a digital intermediate, the image looks as brand-new and pristine as any recent blockbuster. There is no print damage or age-related deterioration in any way. I will note the presence of some occasional and minor edge enhancement in several scenes. The visible halos in these scenes are not distracting for the most part and really only comprise five percent or less of the overall running time. Fine detail is gloriously preserved in every frame and the use of digital noise reduction looks to have been avoided on this transfer.


Visually this is a well-shot movie with a crisp and stunning image at times. Certain scenes recall the excellent quality of another tier zero title, Youth Without Youth. The depth and dimensionality of most scenes is as good as live-action film can achieve, with a palpable sense of space within the frame. For a drama set in the late forties, the film has great pop and is incredibly sharp. This disc is my new reference for fine shadow detail. Low-light information is so clearly delineated that every detail, even in darkened rooms, has tremendous resolution and clarity. It does appear that the contrast has been slightly elevated in certain scenes to achieve this new standard. A couple of scenes turn the deepest blacks into slightly lighter grays because of this choice, though the picture never becomes washed out at any point.


The director eschews the standard sepia-toned period look and sticks with a modern lighting and color scheme. Colors are fully saturated from the bright red of Salma Hayek's lipstick to the luscious green fields of the countryside. Resolution is top-notch with a sharp focus to each setting that draws attention to the high-frequency information on display. Close-ups are few and far between in this movie, but the medium-distance shots provide some of the most revealing hair structure seen at this resolution. Flesh tones are the one weak point on occasion considering the standards of picture quality in tier zero. Most of the time they look naturally rendered and healthy, but several times vary a little too much, turning certain actors too pale or too orange. It is really a minor quibble that most will not be bothered by.


My final recommendation is for placement in the lower third of tier zero. It would behoove Sony to release this title in the U.S. to let more people see this great transfer. A nearly flawless transfer from the best elements possible make this disc a tier zero contender. Most will consider this excellent eye candy.


Watching on a 60 Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 (firmware 2.80) at a viewing distance of six feet.


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/16882843
> 
> 
> I've got a weekend's worth of parenting/birthing classes or whatever they are called...



Throw em under a crate, kick em once a day, feed em nails, yer gonna be fine as a parent!







Just send me a check for the advice and we'll call it square


----------



## 42041

*Coraline (2d version)*


Like most animated movies, this one looks pretty great. Colors are vibrant, detail is outstanding. If you're viewing from a "normal" distance from your TV, stop reading here, but for weirdos like myself who like to sit close to our screens and pixel-peep, something's a bit amiss. The degree of clarity one would expect from a production shot painstakingly on (i assume) very high resolution professional digital cameras isn't quite there. I suspect the very meager video bitrates on this disc don't help matters, which often hover perilously close to single digits. The relatively noise-free nature of the production doesn't exacerbate this potential PQ hazard too much, and the dithering on my plasma screen gives a texture that seems to mask compression issues somewhat, but viewing on my old Samsung LN40A650 LCD which is now my computer monitor, the picture isn't quite as clean as one would expect. Also baffling is the presence of mild but persistent edge enhancement







Tier 0 is the blu-ray elite, and frankly I don't think this quite measures up to that lofty standard, but don't get me wrong, these issues are relatively minor and this is a very good looking disc.


On a side note, anyone else hate the Universal screen saver? During my button-mashing attempts to try to resume the movie, I accidentally quit playback and had to sit through all the title cards again
















*Tier 1.0*

(ps3/kuro 50" elite/1sw distance)


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/16888825
> 
> *Lonely Hearts (Japanese import)
> 
> 
> recommendation: lower third of Tier Zero
> *



How is the actual movie?


I know it's been some time since I've posted a review, but Seattle summers are too amazing!


----------



## QueueCumber




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/16889036
> 
> 
> Throw em under a crate, kick em once a day, feed em nails, yer gonna be fine as a parent!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just send me a check for the advice and we'll call it square



Dad?!


----------



## reisb

Where is Taken in PQ Tier? Saw it was on sale this week at BB and was curious.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *reisb* /forum/post/16890731
> 
> 
> Where is Taken in PQ Tier? Saw it was on sale this week at BB and was curious.


*Taken* has NOT been placed yet, but I can assure you it is a very nice-looking transfer. Here's my review of it, FWIW:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...ostcount=12618


----------



## elocs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/16880438
> 
> 
> The PQ sounds great but is the movie any good?



From what I understand about this thread, the movie being any good has nothing to do with anything. However, it does have everything to do with whether or not I would buy the movie. It is nice to know as a bonus if a movie is a good Blue Ray. On the other hand, I don't care if a movie is the best Blue Ray pq and sound that has ever been made, if I don't like the movie I won't buy it. I wouldn't even watch the entire thing.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *elocs* /forum/post/16891205
> 
> *From what I understand about this thread, the movie being any good has nothing to do with anything.* However, it does have everything to do with whether or not I would buy the movie. It is nice to know as a bonus if a movie is a good Blue Ray. On the other hand, I don't care if a movie is the best Blue Ray pq and sound that has ever been made, if I don't like the movie I won't buy it. I wouldn't even watch the entire thing.



It doesn't, but I think those of us who participate a lot in the thread also help one another in that regard on occasion!


----------



## daPriceIs

*The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly*


The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is an incredible and very influential movie classic released originally in 1966 with a restored extended version released in 2003. The master for this BD was created from that restoration, and the disc arrives with several issues and to some controversy, as evinced by the vociferous debate in other threads.

The rundown:
Grain is variable but usually light, perhaps unnaturally so. Sometimes the grain presents itself strongly but briefly, even in well lit scenes.
Contrast is good without being pushed. There is nice shadow delineation. Color is accurate, and rich but not over-saturated.
There's crud of all kinds on the film but it's density is usually low and is easily ignorable: speckles, scratches, dirt, and hairs. In chapter 19 Prisoners of War from 1:29:29 to 1:29:34 there is what at first appears to be a brief color cast, a flash of yellow tainting the entire screen. Watching frame by frame reveals something really weird. There are multiple stains that look like someone marked on the film with a yellow highlighter. I'm sure that's not what happened, but still .
There are occasional slight frame misregistrations.
There is a perfectly vertical defect a single pixel wide that manifests itself up and down the screen from time to time. I don't know when it starts but I first noticed it in chapter 25 Ghost Town Shootout @ 2:08:55. And no, just in case you wondered, this is not a display issue since this column defect shifts and scales appropriately as I toggle through the different display aspect ratios. It could conceivably be a player issue but this has never shown up on any other title so I doubt it.
Chromatic aberration, a lens defect consisting of color fringes at high contrast boundaries, is omnipresent but never blatant.
Unlike the hideous DVD minted from the same master, there is no hint of EE or compression artifacts.
There is little evidence of _heavy handed_ DNR, but there are things that make you wonder. Note, however, there are a few shots of Angel Eyes where his face has the classic waxen look but it only seems to happen to him, not to Tuco or Blondie; maybe it's just an oily or sweaty sheen to his skin. _[Just listened to the Frayling commentary for the first time. And in it he says that van Cleef is made up to look ten years younger than he actually is, so maybe it's just makeup.]_
Overall the film is soft. Not as soft as, say, Mission: Impossible I, but that's not saying much.
There are many examples of softness in the movie that are clearly the result of choices made by the director of photography. For example, he uses a technique for close-ups and extreme close-ups where he frames the shot and focuses the camera and thereafter leaves the camera static. But in a shot with a very narrow depth of field even a slight movement of the actor can result in important parts of the actor's face going in and out of focus. This movie is full of extreme facial close-ups; it is also full of faces out of proper focus. By the way when those faces _are_ in focus they show good detail.
Ultrafine detail is not resolved. Has it been filtered away or was it never there? In other words, the real question is where does the softness reside? Is it in the restored film or is it in the 2K digital master? And if the latter, is some misguided effort to degrain (or at least tame the grain) the culprit? There doesn't seem to be much chance that MGM will redo the film restoration within the foreseeable future, but if the digital master is at fault then maybe one day it will be remastered.
At the end of the film credits roll for the 2003 photochemical restoration. These modern credits are as soft as the rest of the film! The only reasonable thing to think is that either the restorers chose to match the softness of the earlier parts of the film or these credits were degraded as a result of some process involving the digital master that affected it as a whole.
Off topic, the restorers had to re-dub some shots. With Eastwood and whoever they got to redo van Cleef's lines it's usually not noticeable until you start listening for it. But with Wallach it smacks you right in the ears. The 2002 version of his voice is quite aged and harsh.

The BD is a quantum leap above the DVD in watchability. The ringing and haloes in the DVD are like sand grains under your eyelids, they make watching the upscaled DVD a painful, brutal experience. The problems with this BD are greatly outweighed by its virtues. Its issues represent a low grade background that rarely intrudes on viewing pleasure unless you specifically concentrate on them.


In terms of overall PQ there is no wow, but there's no cringe either. There is nothing demo worthy in this presentation and there are plenty of mediocre BDs with better PQ. But its PQ is not bad and this is the best version that has ever been available on home video. There were no eyegasms but I found this movie a joy to watch.


So what's the bottom line? If you're a fan of this movie, should you upgrade or not? I say yes, but you don't have to take my word for it. See for yourself. Currently, as of 2009-07-26, HDNET is periodically showing a version of the movie that is identical in PQ to the BD, with the only caveats being that it's in 1080i vs. 1080p and there could be compression artifacts introduced by your service provider. In another thread there is some talk that HDNET showed a version of the movie two years ago and that that version had unacceptable PQ. I can't comment on what was shown in the past since I didn't see it, but I did just see a broadcast last Friday night.


I'm going to recommend Tier 3.5, but it's easy to understand a rating anywhere in Tier 3 or even top of Tier 4 if you're an especially tough grader.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 3.5

*Panasonic TH-42PZ77U 1080p/60 4'


----------



## xraffle

"Mission: Impossible III" should easily be placed on Tier 1. I just got that BD and the picture quality is outstanding. I exaggerate you not when I say that you can clearly see the pores on the actor's face. It's THAT sharp. The only reason I wouldn't place this on Tier 0 is because the picture is a bit on the grainy side. Overall, it's a great transfer and it has to be the sharpest HD picture I've ever seen. However, the audio seems to be a tad out of sync.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xraffle*  /forum/post/16892001
> 
> 
> "Mission: Impossible III" should easily be placed on Tier 1. I just got that BD and the picture quality is outstanding. I exaggerate you not when I say that you can clearly see the pores on the actor's face. It's THAT sharp. The only reason I wouldn't place this on Tier 0 is because the picture is a bit on the grainy side. Overall, it's a great transfer and it has to be the sharpest HD picture I've ever seen. However, the audio seems to be a tad out of sync.



You've just whetted my appetite for watching my BD version of this title. I've had it for quite awhile and I keep forgetting to slip it into my Panny BD30. Perhaps it's time for me to quit procrastinating. I'll chime in after viewing it.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/16889462
> 
> 
> How is the actual movie?
> 
> 
> I know it's been some time since I've posted a review, but Seattle summers are too amazing!



For a relatively unknown movie, Lonely Hearts has a stellar cast including Salma Hayek, John Travolta, James Gandolfini and Jared Leto as the main players. Hayek and Leto shine the most as the "Lonely Hearts" killers. It is a decent fictionalized version of the lurid and true story from the 1940's. Definitely worth a rental on dvd, though I would not blindly import it on Blu-ray unless you like taking chances.


----------



## BrownTown




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/16889387
> 
> *Coraline (2d version)*
> 
> The degree of clarity one would expect from a production shot painstakingly on (i assume) very high resolution professional digital cameras isn't quite there.



It was shot with a Nikon D80 that has a 3872x2592 resolution and a Red one that has up to 4K resolution.


IMHO, I though it was more detailed and clearer than Kung-Fu Panda, Cars, and Baraka. It will be my new Demo disc, I just gave my father all my Kuro demo discs today












> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/16889387
> 
> 
> On a side note, anyone else hate the Universal screen saver? During my button-mashing attempts to try to resume the movie, I accidentally quit playback and had to sit through all the title cards again



Doesn't bother me at all. To resume the film, just hit the Enter button on the PS3 remote and it starts to play. You hit the stop button and it did what it was suppose to do, it stopped the movie. All that you have to do is hit the next button when the previews are playing and it goes directly to the next one.


Put disc in, when it loads keep hitting next and in about 10 sec you are at the main movie screen. Hit play (enter) and then next a few more times to skip to the beginning of the movie. [you cannot hit scan, you must hit next]


Once you learn how to master the PS3 remote, you will be watching the movie 15 secs after the movie is loaded.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xraffle* /forum/post/16892001
> 
> 
> "Mission: Impossible III" should easily be placed on Tier 1. I just got that BD and the picture quality is outstanding. I exaggerate you not when I say that you can clearly see the pores on the actor's face. It's THAT sharp. The only reason I wouldn't place this on Tier 0 is because the picture is a bit on the grainy side. Overall, it's a great transfer and it has to be the sharpest HD picture I've ever seen. However, the audio seems to be a tad out of sync.



Okay, I just finished watching MI3, but I was mistaken about having a BD version; I have the HD-DVD version!! So, I can't _legally_ give a review on this Blu-ray thread......


But.....if the encode is the same on the Blu-ray copy (and it _usually_ is the same, or better), then I would agree with you that this title "should easily be placed in Tier 1."


The facial close-ups were clearly Tier 0 quality in 90% of the scenes, with accurate flesh tones as well.


The blacks were some of the best I've seen recently, except for a few instances of crushed blacks. Shadow detail was impressive too.


Colors were vivid and natural-looking, but there were some stylized scenes with a golden hue.


And let me add that in addition to the reference quality facial details, detail in general was well above average.


I'll quit now, for as I stated in the beginning this review can't really count with it being an HD-DVD, but if it were a Blu-ray it would be worthy of....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16890770
> 
> *Taken* has NOT been placed yet, but I can assure you it is a very nice-looking transfer. Here's my review of it, FWIW:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...ostcount=12618




Nice looking transfer and the audio is off the charts as well!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*Two Lovers*


I'm cheating. I found this review by Deltasun, so I'm quoting it & putting my thoughts below:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16763401
> 
> *Two Lovers*
> 
> 
> Fine to moderate grain present throughout. A number of darker scenes had a considerable amount of digital noise. This film had really good low-light details, with discernible texture on materials. Blacks were bold, with no signs of crushing. Due to the muted palette, colors weren't vibrant but held their own within the confines of the intended color scheme.
> 
> 
> Facial details were tricky. Extreme close-up's showed decent detail (still only about mid-Tier 1), but normal to medium close-up's were somewhat soft and at times, smeary. Don't know if there was foul play or just the sepia-toned treatment, but more likely the latter due to the healthy presence of grain. Skin tones varied as well, depending on the color treatment of the scene. For the most part, they were on the warm side indoors and closer to faithful outdoors.
> 
> 
> Overall, a pleasant looking blu-ray. However, I wouldn't use this as demo material.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.75*
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8' & 6'_




I agree with what Deltasun has posted in his review, and I would like to add a few more things that I felt about this movie.


I'm extremely sensitive to edge enhancement, and I did notice either some glaring EE or some hardcore high contrast edges going on in some places, most notably to me in the beginning scenes of this movie.


Although this refers to the first 5 minutes of the movie, I'll spoiler tag it just to be safe.

*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) During the opening when he's trying to kill himself by walking in the bay,
we find ourselves with a huge body of water. Now, water is a HUGE nitpick for me when watching movies on Blu Ray -- and I was utterly disappointed with the water that I saw in this movie. It was dull and had zero gloss to it at all.


While extreme close ups had great detail, the majority of this movie felt flat and devoid of texture to me.


Overall I was unimpressed with this movie, and personally I feel 2.75 is too high! I also didn't like the actual movie itself and wouldn't recommend it to anyone. I felt that it was too slow for me, and that the main actors (Paltrow & Phoenix) were miscast in these roles.


*Recommendation for Two Lovers: Tier 3.25*

*Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800u THX setting, approx 7.5'.*


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*Becoming Jane*


At the recommendation of fellow PQ reviewers from a few months ago, I finally have watched Becoming Jane on Blu. I love Anne Hathaway, and this movie is fantastic.



As it stands currently, Becoming Jane is in the middle of Tier 0. After watching "Two Lovers" (my previous review, posted above this one), the difference between the PQ of the two films was dramatic. The scenery in Ireland where this movie was filmed is fantastic. As the "Two Lovers" opened up with water, there was also water within the first few moments of Becoming Jane; and oh the drastic difference! HERE was my glossiness, the crystal clear beautiful water that I love seeing in Blu Ray! Like glass, and then a gorgeous ripple throughout! Yes, I can just about swoon for the look of beautiful water on a Blu Ray!











The textures during this film are also great. Whenever Jane is writing, you can almost feel the scratch of her writing utensil across the thick, bumpy parchment as she scribbles away. The costumes are fantastic and again, you can see the texture of all the fabrics.



Anne Hathaway's skin seems rather smooth, with the exception of her extremely chapped-looking lips. If not for that detail, I'd wonder if something was done aside from make-up; it was also very easy to see detail on any other actor/actress's face for the most part of the movie.



At times, although rare, I did feel the picture was slightly soft, but it felt as though it was a stylistic choice for the moment being captured. As I stated earlier, the scenery was absolutely gorgeous, although in my opinion the long shots of them could have been slightly sharper to capture a bit more detail.



I know this is an older film on Blu, and it's likely been quite some time since you guys have viewed it. While I feel this movie is very strong, I am wondering if it is still deserving of it's placement in Tier 0. Currently it is sitting in the middle of the list. Personally I think that *Youth Without Youth* has a stronger PQ than Becoming Jane. I think some major nitpicking could be done to lower it to Tier 1.0, however:


*Recommendation for Becoming Jane: should be lowered to Bottom Tier 0, or at least, below "Youth Without Youth".*

*Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800u THX setting, approx 7.5'.*


----------



## K-Spaz

^^


GGG,

I could agree with either of the 0 or 1 tiers you recommend, but I had difficulty with one of the earlier reviews recommending 2.5 or 3 or something like that. I do think that person must have had equipment issues to have thought that. Or, they just hate that type of movie and that killed it for em.


I'd also agree that it could be below YWY.


So many good looking titles have been released lately, and imo, it seems the studios are generally doing a better job of transfer (on those done on film) than of even a year ago. I've tried to avoid chiming in too much cause I'm still messing around with my display and pq seems to vary daily. All told tho, I've seen an aweful lot of good looking br movies lately. Then too, I've seen some other new ones that the images just plain sucked. It's getting harder and harder to place a movie in this list without some serious time invested watching.


As an aside, one I watched recently that you will probably like equally well, is The Other Boleyn Girl. Please stick that near the top of your Q and let me know what you thing of it.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/16897292
> 
> 
> As an aside, one I watched recently that you will probably like equally well, is The Other Boleyn Girl. Please stick that near the top of your Q and let me know what you thing of it.




I've actually seen it before, on Blu... unfortunately it was on my older TV & before I started reviewing for the thread. I'll put it into my top 20 of my zip.ca queue (that's where they pick from) though and re-watch just for you.


----------



## K-Spaz

GGG, I'd hate to have you suffer through it again if you didn't want to! I did really like the film too. If you're now watching on a real set vs the hospital 13" crt's, I'd say TOBG is a good choice to revisit. I watched it several times before sending it back too. Had 2 nights of inviting guests in and it kept looking better to me. I think you'll be impressed, almost like a pixar at times.


----------



## 42041

*The Aviator*

This disc from HD home video's earlier days is currently ranked Tier 1.75, and I'm not sure I'd agree. As very nice looking releases become more commonplace, the level of detail here just doesn't impress to the degree most low tier 1 movies do. For much of the movie there isn't anything particularly wrong with the picture, it's relatively detailed and film-like, just on the softer side of things. But minor and major issues pop up over the length of the movie. The video seems seems mushy and over-compressed in places, seemingly a legacy of the HDDVD days. Twenty perfectly good gigabytes are left empty on the disc and this 3-hour movie is left to share space with a considerable number of extras, and you can forget lossless audio. Yet you still hear the occasional bitter grumbling about that format's demise







Color banding is visible in a few shots. EE pops up here and there. The most distracting issue is the over-the-top noise filtering in several scenes, completely stripping them of any texture. Not even the most DNR-oblivious viewer could miss it. More subtle temporal smearing is often evident as well.

*Tier 2.25.*


(PS3/Kuro 50" Elite/1sw distance)


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Tell No One


recommendation: upper third of Tier Zero, above Domino*


After hearing so much about this suspenseful mystery from France, picture quality was the last thing I expected to focus on while watching it. I would recommend that other viewers here get a chance to witness this outstanding and magnificent image quality, which at times looks as good as any live-action film on Blu-ray. The 131-minute film is originally from 2006, but was released to Blu-ray on March 31st of this year by Music Box Films.


The disc is encoded in VC-1 on a BD-50 and the packaging states an average bitrate of 36 Mbps. I would surmise that figure refers to the total bitrate, including the audio track. My own observations correspond to a lower average video bitrate around 29 Mbps, still a very healthy figure itself. In fact the video bitrate alone rarely exceeds 35 Mbps, though it hovers frequently in the lower thirties. This is one of the finest examples of compression and the use of VC-1 in particular on Blu-ray. It looks fully transparent to the source material and exquisitely detailed without revealing it is a lossy encoding, even at less than one screen-width viewing distance. A tiny imperfection in it is the quick appearance of very fine macroblocking in a couple of fade-to-black moments, but other than that no compression artifacts of any kind mar the picture. It is far removed from the slightly filtered appearance that VC-1 encodes from Warner tend to display.


Every frame is packed with an immense amount of real resolution that shows off excellent quantities of high-frequency information and detail. Faces are exactly rendered as if the actors are standing right next to you, with every misplaced hair or stubble plainly visible. The imperfections of human skin are clearly shown in every close-up and consistently demonstrated some of the best clarity seen yet in the format. Contrast is perfect with excellent black levels. Colors are vivid and crisp without being over-saturated or garish in appearance. The cinematography is uniformly superior in every way, with a slightly warm palette lighting the picture. Depth and dimensionality are stunning, with certain scenes as good as any I have seen. Sharpness is an attribute the disc has in spades. At times I was tricked into believing the movie had been shot on video and not film, because there are no soft shots in the entire movie. The level of consistency from start to finish is marvelous and never really dips in quality.


The transfer comes from a master in clean condition that looks new aside from the appearance of pixel-wide spots in one or two places. No digital noise reduction has been used on it but the movie has a very negligible grain structure that many will be pleased by its unobtrusiveness. Sadly the picture does have its flaw and we have come to it. A fair bit of edge enhancement intrudes occasionally to spoil the pristine quality. It was not a serious enough offense for me to drop it out of tier zero, but certain scenes do show the unmistakable addition of ringing with fairly large amplitude. It really is the only flaw that detracts from the picture but I believe most viewers will ignore it. Without its occasional presence, this disc could easily be considered for a higher placement alongside titles at the upper reaches of tier zero.


My final recommendation for this title is placement at least above Domino, and maybe even Baraka, in tier zero. The movie itself is also very entertaining aside from picture quality concerns, and makes an excellent thriller targeted at adult audiences.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/16898795
> 
> 
> GGG, I'd hate to have you suffer through it again if you didn't want to! I did really like the film too. If you're now watching on a real set vs the hospital 13" crt's, I'd say TOBG is a good choice to revisit. I watched it several times before sending it back too. Had 2 nights of inviting guests in and it kept looking better to me. I think you'll be impressed, almost like a pixar at times.



No worries! I didn't dislike the film (although I don't care much for Natalie Portman, likely an unpopular opinion 'round these parts). I watched it on my old 46" Toshiba, so it wasn't as bad as the hospital screens I've been forced to watch!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/16899655
> 
> *Tell No One
> 
> 
> recommendation: upper third of Tier Zero, above Domino*
> 
> ...



I love your reviews, Phantom Stranger! I looked this up over at zip.ca but they only have it on DVD. However, your review did remind me that I promised to watch "Domino" (despite how bad everyone said it was!!) and also somehow reminded me to get "Let The Right One In" on my list, which happily they DO have on Blu!


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16899690
> 
> 
> I love your reviews, Phantom Stranger! I looked this up over at zip.ca but they only have it on DVD. However, your review did remind me that I promised to watch "Domino" (despite how bad everyone said it was!!) and also somehow reminded me to get "Let The Right One In" on my list, which happily they DO have on Blu!



Thank you for the kind words. The movie deserves to be seen on Blu-ray. Some films really need to be seen on Blu-ray to get the full impact of the experience, and Tell No One might qualify for that distinction. Your experience may vary of course.


----------



## deltasun

^^ Seconded


Added to my Netflix queue and moved to top of the list.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/16904125
> 
> 
> Thank you for the kind words. The movie deserves to be seen on Blu-ray. Some films really need to be seen on Blu-ray to get the full impact of the experience, and Tell No One might qualify for that distinction. Your experience may vary of course.



Yeah, I am going to wait and see if they get it on Blu. I'm a Blu Ray snob now and only watch DVD's if I *have* to.







Hopefully they'll get it in on Blu eventually!


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16899690
> 
> 
> (although I don't care much for Natalie Portman, likely an unpopular opinion 'round these parts).



Ehhh, don't bother me none! I like Natalie, all the way back to The Professional. Especially in V for Vendetta.


> Quote:
> "Let The Right One In" on my list, which happily they DO have on Blu!



I liked Let The Right One In also, but, it'd be a stretch for me to say it looked good on BR. It's been a while since I saw that but I'd call the PQ unremarkable. It's dark and dingy and that just doesn't lend itself to good camera work but I liked the movie all the same. Given a choice, I'll take a good movie with ugly pq over a bad movie that looks good, any day.


I also have Tell No One at the top of my BB queue. Since they just received today, I won't have it till the weekend for sure. I'll probably get to see it using my 4th screen attempt in as many weeks. Shoulda kept my RPTV! lol.


----------



## Wryker

I'm surprised there are so many BDs missing from page 1. Older movies like Spider Man 3, Fantastic Four (the first one), the Star Trek movies, Spaceballs, etc. Is it due to no one watching these BDs and posting reviews?


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wryker* /forum/post/16908430
> 
> 
> I'm surprised there are so many BDs missing from page 1. Older movies like Spider Man 3, Fantastic Four (the first one), the Star Trek movies, Spaceballs, etc. Is it due to no one watching these BDs and posting reviews?



That is partially the reason, also SuprSlow is updating the list himself and he's had a busy summer. If there's movies that you're curious about that aren't on the first page you can try a search, or simply ask if some of us have reviewed it!



SpiderMan 3 is rated Tier 1.0 & Fantastic 4 (the first one) is Tier 2.50 on the first page, though. I just did ctrl-F (well, apple key as I'm on a mac) and typed in "spider" and spiderman 3 showed up right away, same as Fantastic 4 (although the Rise of the Silver Surfer was found first as it's rated higher, the 2nd result was for the first movie down in tier 2.5).



While I have watched all of the movies in the Star Trek boxed set except for "The Motion Picture", I only provided a review for Star Trek 6: The Undiscovered Country . I believe there are also a couple of reviews for The Motion Picture, if you do a search on the thread for Star Trek you will come up with them!


Hope this helps!


----------



## Wryker




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16908714
> 
> 
> That is partially the reason, also SuprSlow is updating the list himself and he's had a busy summer. If there's movies that you're curious about that aren't on the first page you can try a search, or simply ask if some of us have reviewed it!
> 
> 
> 
> SpiderMan 3 is rated Tier 1.0 & Fantastic 4 (the first one) is Tier 2.50 on the first page, though. I just did ctrl-F (well, apple key as I'm on a mac) and typed in "spider" and spiderman 3 showed up right away, same as Fantastic 4 (although the Rise of the Silver Surfer was found first as it's rated higher, the 2nd result was for the first movie down in tier 2.5).
> 
> 
> 
> While I have watched all of the movies in the Star Trek boxed set except for "The Motion Picture", I only provided a review for Star Trek 6: The Undiscovered Country . I believe there are also a couple of reviews for The Motion Picture, if you do a search on the thread for Star Trek you will come up with them!
> 
> 
> Hope this helps!



That's what I get when I Ctrl+F and searched for "Fantastic Four" and Spiderman 3 is listed twice - once in the location you found - but also in the Pending review section (where my first 'hit' came from). I'll search this thread (Spaceballs didn't turn up) for the Star Trek info and any others. PS - Coraline (2D, not 3D) is very impressive and detailed and might creep into Tier 0 or be just outside.

73" WD-73835 - 1080p - 10feet away.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wryker* /forum/post/16908829
> 
> 
> That's what I get when I Ctrl+F and searched for "Fantastic Four" and *Spiderman 3 is listed twice - once in the location you found - but also in the Pending review section (*where my first 'hit' came from). I'll search this thread (Spaceballs didn't turn up) for the Star Trek info and any others. PS - Coraline (2D, not 3D) is very impressive and detailed and might creep into Tier 0 or be just outside.
> 
> 73" WD-73835 - 1080p - 10feet away.



OK, that's because someone has now nominated Spider Man 3 to be in Tier 0. So it's down there in the pending placement holdings:



> Quote:
> This section is to be used a temporary holding zone for titles that are proposed to have any movement into or out of Tiers 0 or 1. Please feel free to comment on these titles, further discussion and tier recommendations will result in the placement of these titles. If after approximately one month, there is no further discussion, I will research the thread and make the placement using my best judgement. Updates of this nature will be posted in the thread to allow for discussion.



But for now, it's staying where it's at in Tier 1.0 until more people chime in and state they also think it should be in tier 0 or should stay in Tier 1.0.



I haven't noticed anyone review Spaceballs either. I have not purchased it yet, I keep hoping I'll find it in town so I don't have to order it from Amazon.ca.


----------



## Wryker

I have Spaceballs in my Netflix que (though in position 22 so I have a few to watch before I get there). I might become more involved in posting reviews since I have over 80 HD movies (and growing).

I vote Tier 1.0 for Spider-man 3.


----------



## deltasun

Officially, it's Spider-Man 3. If you do that search, you'll see my review for it as well at 1.25: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...n#post16690727 


G cubed had a good recommendation of asking. There's a good chance some of us have viewed but have not had a chance to write up formal reviews. I have FF as well, but have not watched my copy yet. I'm about to give a review of _12 Monkeys_, but don't hold your breath on the quality.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wryker* /forum/post/16908430
> 
> 
> I'm surprised there are so many BDs missing from page 1. Older movies like Spider Man 3, Fantastic Four (the first one), the Star Trek movies, Spaceballs, etc. Is it due to no one watching these BDs and posting reviews?



You might know this already, but if you're registered at blu-ray.com, they have 1080p screencaps for most movies that have come out in the last few years. Should give you some idea of what a movie looks like before you buy.


----------



## Sujay




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/16909558
> 
> 
> You might know this already, but if you're registered at blu-ray.com, they have 1080p screencaps for most movies that have come out in the last few years. Should give you some idea of what a movie looks like before you buy.



their jpg compression is horrific at times (see: coraline)


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sujay* /forum/post/16910696
> 
> 
> their jpg compression is horrific at times (see: coraline)



I learned a long time ago not to judge PQ by screen caps. There were those posting in this thread at one time who were insisting that certain titles had EE or DNR and they were constantly posting screen caps to *prove* their point. Needless to say, it was proven time and time again that screen caps were not to be trusted due to compression and other factors.


----------



## 42041

*In Cold Blood*


This 1967 film, shot in black and white, comes to Blu-Ray with an excellent transfer. From what I hear, it looks better than the 2005 movie bundled with it. Many scenes look great, featuring a degree of detail on par with new releases. Some scenes look soft, either due to focus issues or poor quality source materials for HD mastering. A good bit of film grain is present, but it's rarely distractingly heavy. Compression work is solid, and black levels are well-managed throughout. The one sometimes bothersome issue I noted were glowing halos suggestive of sharpening, but I didn't think the image was manipulated to the point where it didn't look film-like... your mileage may vary.

*Tier 2.0*


(PS3/Pioneer Kuro 50" Elite/1sw distance)


----------



## deltasun

*12 Monkeys*


Still one of my all-time favorites. Moderate grain present that becomes a bit more prominent during darker scenes. Facial details were...wait, what facial details?!?







I did count maybe a handful of facial close-up's that exhibited some fine details - starting with Dr. Railly's boss, for example. For the most part, things were very soft. It appeared most softness was done for effect. Still, the overall softness coupled with weak contrast made for a shallow, flat mess.


Black levels were probably the only decent PQ aspect, only with a few instances of crushing. Colors were dull; again, consistent with the movie's drab outlook. The HD-ness on this title was underwhelming.


Technically, the print was dirty and the encode was ripe with compression issues - ringing, artifacts, banding. Also, up until the 8-minute mark, the aspect ratio was NOT 1.85:1, complete with horizontal and VERTICAL bars.


Overall, a very disappointing presentation. Hate to do it, but I will have to generously throw this in the...

*Tier Recommendation: 4.0*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8' & 6'_


----------



## 42041

*Watchmen*


A very good looking transfer. I really don't have much to complain about. Detail is great, but not top shelf. There are some Tier-0 quality shots here and there, but not quite enough to put it in that class. Excellent management of contrast throughout, blacks are always inky where they need to be. Perfectly film-like appearance, extensive VFX aside. Compression is slightly questionable in a few shots but nothing major. Considering the similarities in the visual tone, this is what the Dark Knight should have looked like, really.

Having read the graphic novel after hearing all the hype about it when the movie first came out, I thought the film itself was surprisingly good considering all the negative reviews. Not sure if it'd make any sense if you didn't read it.

*Tier 1.0*


(PS3/Kuro 50" Elite/1sw distance)


----------



## djoberg

*The Haunting in Connecticut*


I would have agree 100% with deltasun's review and placement recommendation on this one.


As he stated, the blacks were a bit crushed at times, but overall they were deep and inky with complementary shadow detail. I was really impressed with the outdoor nighttime scenes of the house and yard; they were nice and crisp!


I wish there had been more facial close-ups, for the few they had were a low Tier 0 quality. Flesh tones were, for the most part, accurate, but I did notice a slight red push a couple of times.


Daytime scenes were really detailed, with vibrant colors and excellent contrast. Definitely reference quality in that category.


Before I end this review I should state that I watched this on my sister's new Samsung 46" LNB650 LCD (the same set that deltasun has except it's this year's model) instead of on my Pioneer Elite. I am VERY impressed with this set, though I don't believe the blacks compare with the KURO.


As I said at the beginning, I concur wholeheartedly with deltasun on this one and thus I cast my vote for....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


Samsung LN46B650 (1080p/24)...Panasonic BD55...Viewed from 8'


----------



## Hughmc

*Pale Rider*


I got Pale Rider @ Wal Mart yesterday for 10.00







...., for you Eastwood fans it is a steal on BD. In perspective I bought two beers for 10.00 at a restaurant yesterday as well, but can't seem to find them.










You get the idea.


I would rate it @ 2.0-2.5. It looks good, but there is some digital noise due to compression/low light in some dark scenes. Overall black levels are average with indoor scenes being the exception due to what seems like poor lighting, , but colors are very realistic and accurate. There is no EE, and no really obvious DNR, hence why there is some digital noise due to compression as mentioned and not having removed it with DNR, which means the grain is intact as well, but the grain isn't obtrusive or overly distracting. It is a good looking title for a great movie. COnsidering how many of the movies from the 80's and 90's look iffy on BD at times this holds up well in comparison. Thinking how I rated some of the bonds, like Dr No for example I might be willing to go a bit higher like 1.75.


A search brought up nothing.







It has been out for two years, so I am surprised unless the search diddy is crapping out again.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


SOny A3000 from PS3 through HDMI @ 7ft.


----------



## Hughmc

I agree with recommendations for Watchmen from most of the reviews. In fact I have seen most of the releases a few of you who have been good enough to do reviews/recommendations for and I am in agreement with those as well.










I watched Fast and Furious last night as well, but will watch again and recommend placement.


I am trying to get motivated to get back into reviews, so bare with me.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

I am feeling ultra lazy right now, and since it's been out for a bit & it's already placed, I'll just say that I watched *Hellboy 2* last night & I agree with it's current *tier 1.25* placement. Normally I'd write out a review but it's already there so I'll leave it as is.







Watched on my normal equipment setup, nothing different than my normal reviews there.


----------



## SuprSlow

Well...I was going to post the update, or at least the ~75% of it that's done, but the board keeps timing out on me. Guess I'll try it from my faster connection at home.


As a kind of funny aside...I was in Best Buy checking out some movies, and I overhead a group of guys a few feet away comparing the BDs they had picked up. One guy goes, "No way man, that one is ranked much higher on AVS...haven't you seen that thread?"


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/16921301
> 
> 
> Well...I was going to post the update, or at least the ~75% of it that's done, but the board keeps timing out on me. Guess I'll try it from my faster connection at home.
> 
> 
> As a kind of funny aside...I was in Best Buy checking out some movies, and I overhead a group of guys a few feet away comparing the BDs they had picked up. One guy goes, "No way man, that one is ranked much higher on AVS...haven't you seen that thread?"



Hee! That rocks!


----------



## K-Spaz

Suprslow,

I got more links in but only down through about Tier 2.0. It takes a long time to get them in initially. I may just sit here and do some more now.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/16921301
> 
> 
> Well...I was going to post the update, or at least the ~75% of it that's done, but the board keeps timing out on me. Guess I'll try it from my faster connection at home.
> 
> 
> As a kind of funny aside...I was in Best Buy checking out some movies, and I overhead a group of guys a few feet away comparing the BDs they had picked up. One guy goes, "No way man, that one is ranked much higher on AVS...haven't you seen that thread?"



I experienced the same about a year and a half ago at Best Buy. I was in the BD aisle and a guy had a paper with the first page of the tier section printed on it. If I recall correctly it didn't have any higher than the top two tiers. The tier list was different then too and wasn't broken into the separate sub tiers. I asked him about it and although he is or was not a regular frequenter of AVS he was certainly aware of it and this thread. At that time there were about a 1/4 of the titles we have now. Choosing was easier with less selection, but thankfully we have come a long way with so many times the titles on Blu, it is awesome.


Great to hear it though when out and about as it makes it feel as we are appreciated a bit even if we are doing this for entertainment.


SuprSlow and K-Spaz you are loved







, even when we get some bitching here at times.










THanks guys!


----------



## lgans316

Here are few recommendations after a long time:

*Hancock - Tier 2.5* - Another over-processed screw-up by Sony. I am fine with over-saturated colors but why crush details by crushing blacks levels and toning down contrast. Another example where Blu-ray looks underwhelming than its HD trailer.

*Red Cliff II (Taiwan - Open Matte) - Tier 1* - Looks impressive and stellar at many times but there are quite a number of average looking CGI imagery and half a dozen of fog filled and night shots during the first hour of the movie that looks visually less impressive.

*Falling Down - Tier 4* - Excellent movie that visually suffers due to the typical early 90s old budget filming style.

*Bourne Identity - Tier 2.75*

*Bourne Supremacy - Tier 2.25*

*Bourne Ultimatum - Tier 1.75*

*Fast and Furious : Tokyo Drift - Tier 2*


----------



## deltasun

*Tell No One*


Good recommendation, Phantom! This truly was a first-rate HD presentation. First on the list was the vibrancy of the colors and the extreme facial details without having to get extremely close. Even Kristin Scott Thomas' face showed texture despite the suppleness of her skin. Texture on walls, leather, sundry items were always center stage.


Lighting seemed to always be well controlled, producing scenes that really showed off PQ. Outside scenes, be it the panoramic lake scenes or long-shadowed cityscapes, had top-notch cinematography. They offered great depth details. Numerous medium shots exhibited 3D pop and excellent dimensionality. Details weren't limited to lit scenes - low-light details were also excellent.


The presentation was on the warm side. Skin tones was one of my beefs, particularly early on. They seemed a bit hot at times. I agree with Phantom on the blocking that was surprisingly abundant; the most glaring for me occurring in Bruno's Tahoe's backseat as Alex takes off to talk to Gonzales. Print dirt was also pervasive throughout, but I don't think they were bothersome. The ringing that I spied seemed a product of the scenes they were in. That is, the extreme contrast (in the final scene, for example) induced the subsequent ringing. Softness was confined to less than a handful of scenes.


While I believe _Domino_ still had superior facial close-up's, _Tell No One_ was more consistent throughout. In fact, _Tell No One_ was consistently Tier Blu for almost all relevant attributes. Looks very good overall, but I can't ignore the technical issues.

*Tier Recommendation: Mid Tier 0*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 -8' & 6'_


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Green Lantern: First Flight


recommendation: bottom of Tier Zero below Happy Feet
*

Here is a thoroughly entertaining direct-to-video feature that sets a new visual standard in the genre of animated superhero fare on Blu-ray. Released in the past week on July 28th, the 77-minute movie is encoded in VC-1 on a BD-25. One might expect Warner Bros. Animation to rest on its laurels after the growing popularity of these titles, but each one continues to raise the bar in terms of sophistication, story, and technical proficiency from the previous release. _Green Lantern: First Flight_ is no exception and surpasses in quality all the prior titles in this line, including _Wonder Woman_, which I have previously recommended for tier 1.25.


Warner appears to have come to grips with compressing these animated features. The video encode is perceptually flawless in appearance and without fault. Banding and posterization, common problems seen when compressing traditional cel animation, simply never show up to distract from the viewing experience. The VC-1 codec is not utilized at the highest bitrates here, as momentary peaks rarely exceed 27 Mbps, but the clean line art must reduce the compression parameters needed for an artifact-free image.


More praise must go to the good practices used in creating this transfer. Most likely the master was transferred digitally directly from the animators, creating a pristine image without specks, dirt or debris. It looks flawless and clean at all times. The transfer features no halos or edge enhancement of any kind, with obviously no necessity to filter high-frequency information out of the image. Most important is the complete disappearance of any hint of aliasing problems, which plagued certain early animated titles of this type on Blu-ray.


The image quality really straddles the line between tier zero and tier one. While never dipping in quality, it does look very nice in many moments that one would characterize as tier zero in caliber. Primary colors look nice and fully saturated without going overboard into garishness. Black levels are rich with excellent shadow delineation. The quality of the animation is better than ever and is really starting to approach the quality of theatrical features. The increased production budget seems to be put to excellent use as the animation is extremely fluid and graceful. Line art is clean and concise with perfect color rendering. There are no coloring errors or chroma fringing that might distract from the visual quality. Character designs are nicely detailed with a nod to comic book tradition. It goes without saying that virtually the entire movie is sharp and detailed, including the backgrounds of each scene. A number of winks to long-time Green Lantern fans can be briefly spotted to the eagle-eyed viewer who pays attention to the backgrounds.


I am a little less certain of this title's placement than usual. A placement at the bottom of tier zero is appropriate, though the occasional simplicity and sparseness of the animation might create some objections to lower it some. Warner Bros. has done a fabulous job here in making this disc a truly worthy purchase. I think the movie itself would even be entertaining to adults who have no knowledge of the character or his history. It works as a science fiction yarn if you ignore the costumes. On a side note, I noticed that Warner has finally defaulted to the Dolby TrueHD soundtrack on this release from the start! There is also a hilarious bonus episode of _Duck Dodgers_ featuring Daffy Duck becoming a Green Lantern that is a great extra. This is entirely outside the bounds of picture quality and this recommendation, but I beseech Warner to finally release Duck Dodgers on home video, even on the lesser format of dvd if anything.


Watching on a 60 Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 (firmware 2.80) at a viewing distance of six feet.


----------



## deltasun

*Awake*


Fine grain present throughout. Facial details varied from medium-shot softness to really detailed close-up's. Individual pores were clearly visible on Hayden's face and lines were well-defined on Lena Olin's.


Blacks were crushed quite a bit - even one of Hayden's dark brown sweater was crushed. Contrast was decent and helped punch up the colors. Speaking of colors, they were a bit on the warm side until we get to the hospital scenes. In it, the clinical blues really stood out and were very pleasing to the eyes, particularly the scrubs.


There was a tiny bit of ringing in a few scenes as well as a number of artifacting. Overall, a mostly Tier 1 title...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


Regarding the movie, a very intriguing storyline that could have been better executed or better acted. Still, I think it's worth a rent just toy around with the ideas presented.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Watchmen: Director's Cut


recommendation: Tier 1.0
*

Having come out to Blu-ray on July 21, 2009, this dystopic and complex movie looks quite good in the domestic edition released by Warner Bros. Presented on a BD-50, Warner has chosen to release the 186-minute director's cut utilizing the VC-1 codec for the video encode. Forum members deltasun and 42041 made observations in the thread about this disc that correspond fairly well with my own impressions after viewing.


The video is encoded at an average bitrate of 18.48 Mbps per the BDInfo scan. I also spotted the minor and brief banding during the Martian scene that deltasun wrote about in his review. This VC-1 encode is not typical of Warner's usual authoring practices on Blu-ray though. It was clear to me that extra care and attention was given to this compression work. I would not be surprised to find out that multiple passes were used in encoding this movie to eliminate artifacting. Over the course of more than three hours, there are hardly any notable compression problems. Virtually none of the compression noise that is common at these bitrates is evident.


More importantly, the image does not give the appearance of slight filtering that certain low-bitrate titles from Warner tend to manifest. While I have it on order and not yet seen it, this movie does have an alternate compression encode that might bear watching. In international markets, Paramount has done a separate AVC encoding of the theatrical cut. That disc is encoded at an average video bitrate of 27.02 Mbps. I suspect the visual differences will be very little between the two editions in the majority of scenes that are well-lit and lacking motion, but ultra-fine detail in low-light scenes might come out a bit ahead with the Paramount disc. That is speculation of course, but I believe that all but the most picky of analysts will be very happy with the job Warner's compression house, GDMX, has done here.


The picture quality is consistently very good aside from a few moments involving heavy elements of special or visual effects. In my estimation, high-frequency information was superb with most close-ups showing a tremendous amount of texture and detail. The makeup used to age Carla Gugino in certain scenes was very effective and highlighted in spots by the stark clarity of the transfer. Pores, blemishes, wrinkles, and stray strands of hair are all clearly delineated and easily spotted. While not the best in this regard, it easily ranks as tier zero in that aspect. Another excellent quality is the depth of field in most shots, creating enormous pop and three-dimensional perspective typical of the best films at this resolution. Streaks of deep crimson blood look to almost bleed off the screen at various times with the depth. The sets look fabulous as the characters make their way through this fictional world as every intricate detail is clearly visible.


Contrast is perfect with solid black levels and good shadow detail. Darker scenes reveal a nuanced and top-notch rendering of objects, even the heavily obscured ones in darkness. The picture is extraordinarily sharp except for some moments involving the various special effects. Scenes involving Dr. Manhattan, who constantly gives off an eerie blue glow, are probably the softest in nature that looks to be a result of the process used to create that effect. The transfer looks in perfect shape and unprocessed except for a few scenes that demonstrate some minor ringing early in the movie. I would not characterize the added sharpening as distracting because of its rarity and hardly noticeable level of amplitude. Mostly it shows up sporadically and may be the result of the original photography. It is apparent that Warner has tightened up its practices in transferring films since the criticism it received on the Dark Knight's release, and I hope _Watchmen_ is the start of a new wave of excellent Blu-rays from them.


I really wanted to place this movie in tier zero, but some minor nagging inconsistencies most likely the result of the source material and highly digital nature of the movie probably prevent it from that lofty status. The encode looks very good and Zack Snyder has created a visual marvel on Blu-ray. My final recommendation is for placement in tier 1.0, though 1.25 is another good possibility.


Watching on a 60” Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 (firmware 2.80) at a viewing distance of six feet.


BDInfo Scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post16878245 

BDInfo Scan for international Paramount version (courtesy of Stephen Dawson): only provided for comparison's sake
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...6#post16841286


----------



## b_scott

agreed. Pioneer 50" on a Pioneer 51-FD here. 8 feet.


----------



## deltasun

*Fantastic 4 Rise of the Silver Surfer*


Saw this in the HOLD list and figured I'll pop my copy in for a review. Fine grain present throughout. This is a gorgeous HD presentation of an action-packed movie. Facial close-up's were always detailed - pores, individual strands of hair, textured steel, and Ben's rock edges to name a few. Details weren't confined to facial close-up's - there was fine delineating texture on their uniforms, for example, as well.


Blacks were very solid, with just a few instances of crushing (Reed's jacket). Perfect contrast gave way to bold and rich colors. Panoramic scenes had generous depth and dimensionality. Medium shots held their own in this department as well, complete with 3D pop.


My only complaint would be some softness on the Human Torch CGI and some of the Surfer's scenes. Also, the entire sequence of the gang battling it out with a surfing Dr. Doom diminished almost all qualities mentioned above. Facial details were inconsistent and tended to be less defined during these scenes. I also noticed this during the final wedding, particularly on the ladies' faces (Sue's and Johnny's date's).


I think these last 20 minutes or so took this title out of contention for Tier 0 unfortunately...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## 42041

*The Dirty Dozen
*

Come on, tier 5, really? The same ranking as a movie shot in SD? It's very inconsistent and never all that great to look at, but this is hardly the bottom of the barrel. The condition of the source materials is quite variable. Some scenes are very blurry and DVDish. Some scenes have a good amount of detail considering the movie's age. Colors are faded and dull. You can see halos in much of the movie which is distracting in itself, but most of the shots don't look sharpened to my eyes, so I suspect it's the result of time taking its toll on the film. Grain is present, and is left unmolested for the most part. Black levels are not handled very well, but it's less bothersome considering the movie takes up the whole 16:9 frame. This isn't a great looking blu-ray by any means but I've seen much worse...

*Tier 3.75*


(PS3/Kuro 50" Elite/1sw distance)


----------



## lgans316

Phantom,


As always, thumbs up for terrific review of Watchmen BD. Glad to see deltasun and others for frequenting this misunderstood thread.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16933033
> 
> *Fantastic 4: Rise of the Silver Surfer*
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.0*



I agree with your assessment. A very good title that just seems to lack that extra magic for tier zero.


----------



## SuprSlow

I'm still trying to figure out a way to get this update posted







The board still doesn't like me, or my connection is too slow.


I may have to start that new thread we talked about a few months ago and reserve the first few posts for the rankings. We'll see...


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/16936141
> 
> 
> I'm still trying to figure out a way to get this update posted
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The board still doesn't like me, or my connection is too slow.
> 
> 
> I may have to start that new thread we talked about a few months ago and reserve the first few posts for the rankings. We'll see...



It's not the connection. The list is getting too large and has too much UBB code in it. See if my temporary fix works, and if so, we'll work on the rest later...


This is disappointing.


----------



## SuprSlow

K-Spaz to the rescue










Keep in mind this is a partial update. If your placement involves the movement of a title already on the list, it hasn't been done yet (for no other reason that it takes much more time to search for old placements/reviews and see where it should fit). If its a new placement, it should be on the list. If "Proposed Move" is beside a new placement, its because its in Tier 1 or 0 with only one placement. It should also be listed in the Holdings pen.


We have a little cleanup left to do, so bear with us, this is still new










Back with more later...


----------



## selimsivad

Thanks for all you do, SuprSlow and K-Spaz! Underrated!


----------



## K-Spaz

Thanks guys, but Suprslow does all the work, really.


Suprslow, I have an idea... don't get scared just yet










I'll make a separate set of buttons for printout of the various tiers. This way, you'd click the button for Tier 0/1 let's say, and then just hit CTRL-A, CTRL-C and it would be copied. Then go paste that into the thread. Then do the same for the other tiers. It'd be simple. I can do that tonight yet.


Now for the fix to this:


Why not let the current thread alone and continue, and sticky another new thread that ONLY holds the rankings. Then lock it so only the author/admin can add posts. This way, it could kinda be flexible regardless of what was done, and the search for movie reviews would not require a person to search two threads. (royal pita)


Add a link with great big bold text in the OP of this thread to hold the link to the other sticky that has the rankings, and life is good. (without a major reinvention of the wheel)


What'da'ya think?


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/16936591
> 
> 
> It's not the connection. The list is getting too large and has too much UBB code in it. See if my temporary fix works, and if so, we'll work on the rest later...
> 
> 
> This is disappointing.


































Yes, because in the scheme of things Blu Ray is just getting started and we have potentially 1000's of titles to go.










Thanks to both of you for doing this. I am sure your knowledge of how it all works (the logistics of setting up and being able to maintain the list) is appreciated by all of us.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16937276
> 
> 
> I am sure your knowledge of how it all works (the logistics of setting up and being able to maintain the list) is appreciated by all of us.



I'm sure too!










I rented *Inkheart* for tonight after a computer-geek friend of mine (who bought my old Sammy DLP) recommended it to me. He said the PQ was very good, especially the outdoor scenes. I see G3 is the only one who has reviewed it and it's now on the "proposed move" list, so I'll chime in with a review later tonight.


----------



## djoberg

*Inkheart*


Here is another title where I find myself in total agreement with the previous reviewer; namely, G3. As she stated, the first 20-30 minutes weren't as impressive as the rest of the film, but once it turned sharp and detailed the WOW factor really kicked in!


I especially want to echo the sentiments of G3 in saying that the black levels were superb. My KURO lived up to its name in this department and of course when the blacks are deep and inky, it only serves to enhance the rest of the color palette (and the depth and dimensionality as well). Shadow detail was also very good.


The last 45 minutes or so took place in the castle and in the countryside around the castle and the details of the walls, trees, and other objects were simply phenomenal. It was sharp and crisp during this whole sequence and very deserving of the words EYE CANDY!


My chief complaints would be, as indicated above, in the first 20 or so minutes where some of the shots were quite soft (perhaps intentionally, but soft none-the-less), and the facial features were lacking as well (throughout the whole movie). There were some isolated close-ups of faces that brought a smile to my face and would warrant a Tier Blu placement, but the majority of facial shots were only average (i.e., Tier 1 at best, with some on par with Tier 2 or lower).


All things considered, G3's recommendation seems fair, so here's another.....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'


PS I want to add that I was flabbergasted by the range of opinions from "professional" reviewers on this title. There were a few who praised it, others called it average, and one reviewer was downright nasty in his condemnation of it (See http://www.doblu.com/2009/06/27/inkheart-review/ ) This only goes to show that our opinions are going to be different based on many variables, including equipment used, viewing distance, etc. But I would NOT think any title would cause such a divergence of opinion as seen in this film.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16938274
> 
> *Inkheart*
> 
> 
> All things considered, G3's recommendation seems fair, so here's another.....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.25*




Thanks Denny. I know my review for this movie was a little on the dull side! I'm glad you enjoyed it. RE: that review you linked, I have to wonder aloud, WHAT THE FRAK kind of equipment is that guy watching on if he thought the black levels were "weak, muddy and grey"!?!?!!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16938575
> 
> 
> RE: that review you linked, I have to wonder aloud, WHAT THE FRAK kind of equipment is that guy watching on if he thought the black levels were "weak, muddy and grey"!?!?!!



Perhaps he bought one of the first LCD sets that came out and he doesn't have the heart to replace it.


----------



## K-Spaz

djoberg,


I went to look at the referenced review you had there and this guy ain't exactly the sharpest knife is he.


He says


> Quote:
> Why does thunder always clap the second lightning strikes in movies? It doesn’t work that way in real life, yet films consistently add a thunderous boom with every studio light flicker. Is there some unwritten film industry rule that states thunderstorms cannot be realistic?



Now, get serious. Does this guy live in the city or what? Out here in the country, yea, there's times the lightning strikes and you see the flash, then wait even 15 seconds till the boom. However, those are real far away. Now, when the light coincides with the boom, that's when things are getting knocked off the shelves in the house. Like, when the tree outside is de-barked in a 100' radius and pieces hit the house in a cloud of vapor, there ain't much delay. My JVC Sub is a pretty nice setup, and with 3 other 12" drivers here, i've got some LFE, but it doesn't quite match the 10 quadzillion watts of nature!


If the guy starts off showing the readers that he doesn't understand the nature of nature, just ignore his opinion about movies. This guy should spend a night in a tornado, that's where you get to really understand lightning.


I just watched "Tell No One" and agree with the previous opinions. This was a very good looking movie. I did notice one scene where a face seemed a bit unnatural but it lasted about 10 seconds so hardly worth bringing up. Overall, one of the better looking movies I've seen in a while. I especially liked it early on with the downlooking scene following the Volvo on the highway through the trees. That looks like a partiularly hard scene to make look good, and it looked great. Best pan I think I've seen on BR, though it wasn't a slow pan.


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/16937276
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because in the scheme of things Blu Ray is just getting started and we have potentially 1000's of titles to go.



I just updated the AVS specs thread today as well and there are about 1,350 international title listings in the main section with another 400 or so pending, so I feel the pain. I don't know the exact number, but I would imagine that it's rapidly approaching 10,000 Blu-ray releases available or scheduled at this moment in the G5 countries alone.


Anyway, many thanks to Suprslow and K-Spaz for the latest update and of course to all the contributors to this thread that make it all possible - one of my favorites and something I am in 100% philosophical agreement with regardless of the occasional misguided naysayers.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/16939157
> 
> 
> Anyway, many thanks to Suprslow and K-Spaz for the latest update and of course to all the contributors to this thread that make it all possible - one of my favorites and something I am in 100% philosophical agreement with regardless of the occasional misguided naysayers.




Awww!







That was very nice of you to post, Cinema Squid.


----------



## derturm

Good work on the ratings....I'm in the middle of the first season of Lost right now and I think it needs a little more love than 1.25. I've got it at the bottom of tier 0.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/16938874
> 
> 
> djoberg,
> 
> 
> I went to look at the referenced review you had there and this guy ain't exactly the sharpest knife is he.
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> 
> Now, get serious. Does this guy live in the city or what? Out here in the country, yea, there's times the lightning strikes and you see the flash, then wait even 15 seconds till the boom. However, those are real far away. Now, when the light coincides with the boom, that's when things are getting knocked off the shelves in the house.
> 
> 
> If the guy starts off showing the readers that he doesn't understand the nature of nature, just ignore his opinion about movies. This guy should spend a night in a tornado, that's where you get to really understand lightning.



The lightning/thunder determines how far the strike was from the home. The storm would have to be directly on top of them to make the sound. Plus, since light moves faster than sound, it cannot thunder at the exact same time as the beginning of the lightning strike. In so many movies, the moment the light kicks in, so does the sound. Unless you're literally next to the lightning, it's nearly impossible. In nearly all movies, lightning seems to be right next to the character. It's a cliche, and a poor one. And yes, been in the city my whole life, but have certainly experience storms in the country.


As for my review, we welcome differing opinions. It's why we're there. If I get proven wrong on a disc (i.e., if I miss EE, DNR, etc.), I'll gladly take a second look at the disc. Everyone makes mistakes. I hate some Blu-ray review sites that continually defend a review that is obviously proven to be incorrect. In this case, some people don't like the black levels on this disc. I was one of them. Another reviewer found black crush, although I don't remember any instances (it has been a while). However, he also states the disc looks hazy, which is probably a better way to describe it than muddy:

http://www.avrev.com/blu-ray-movie-d...eart-2009.html 


This isn't a great transfer by any stretch, especially in terms of detail, which has already been stated. I doubt I would go much higher on the score considering how new the film is, but again, I'm open to suggestions.


----------



## K-Spaz

^^

Your first paragraph pretty much told us that you were going to nitpick the movie. That's fine, obviously you didn't like it. To each their own. I simply found it humorous that you made reference to the unrealistic nature of the lightning when clearly you've never been near any. Even last week while mowing my grass (got caught in the rain and didn't want to stop), lightning hit close enough to about make me -___ my ____. Now, I'm here to tell ya there was no delay. Now, I've done a little shooting in my day and I'm pretty well versed in the speed of sound. Shooting competitively and shooting at steel targets pretty much gives you visual and audio feedback. I've shot competitively out to a mile. I can pretty much guess distance just by the echos. Up to 200 yards, the timing is so close it's near impossible to distinguish and certainly with a BIG kaboom, you'd almost need instruments to see the difference. Considering this a round trip for both the bullet travel and the sound return, still the sound is so fast it's virtually a continuation of the gun going bang. Now at 400 yards it's more pronounced. At 1000 it's like forever. Lightning strikes at 400-500 yards, unless extremely powerful (seen that too), do not make the kind of ground shaking kaboom that a close one does. The close ones are what they're trying to portray in the movies or they'd just have a faint rumbling in the background.


Trust me, I've lived in an area with plenty of lightning most of my life. I've even been in a house where when you came upstairs from hiding, the whole house wans't there. I've been as close to lightning as a person want's to get and I'm tellin ya lightning w/thunder like that isn't uncommon.


Regardless, I disagree with some of your review, and I have no trouble agreeing to disagree.


Inkheart, viewed on InFocus X10 104" from 11', ('teens or 30's iris) about 2 weeks ago. I don't own it to go review again, and most likely won't re-rent for quite some time. If I do see it again, it will be at some family members house when they get it, so it won't be on my system anyhow. I found the blacks on my system to be exactly what was intended. As I look around me in real life, I don't see a whole lot of inky black, truth be known.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/16940532
> 
> 
> 
> Inkheart, viewed on InFocus X10 104" from 11', ('teens or 30's iris) about 2 weeks ago. I don't own it to go review again, and most likely won't re-rent for quite some time. If I do see it again, it will be at some family members house when they get it, so it won't be on my system anyhow. I found the blacks on my system to be exactly what was intended. As I look around me in real life, I don't see a whole lot of inky black, truth be known.



Not a problem on the review. It wasn't a nitpick with Inkheart specifically, just one of those movie cliches that tends to drive me nuts. The movie was dull enough to me that it made for a fun intro. When you've been doing this for so long, you need to find some means of letting off steam, and that's one way of doing it. I also believe it was in Roger Ebert's Little Movie Book, in which he picked out cliches. Been a while since I read that though.


And no, you don't see a lot of inky blacks in the world, but certainly none as light as in Inkheart. It has no depth. I'm watching Race to With Mountain now which suffers from the opposite problem. Lots of crush. There's a middle ground that the top tier discs in this thread reach.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/16940157
> 
> 
> As for my review, we welcome differing opinions. It's why we're there. If I get proven wrong on a disc (i.e., if I miss EE, DNR, etc.), I'll gladly take a second look at the disc. Everyone makes mistakes. I hate some Blu-ray review sites that continually defend a review that is obviously proven to be incorrect. In this case, some people don't like the black levels on this disc. I was one of them. Another reviewer found black crush, although I don't remember any instances (it has been a while). However, he also states the disc looks hazy, which is probably a better way to describe it than muddy:
> 
> http://www.avrev.com/blu-ray-movie-d...eart-2009.html
> 
> 
> This isn't a great transfer by any stretch, especially in terms of detail, which has already been stated. I doubt I would go much higher on the score considering how new the film is, but again, I'm open to suggestions.



I too welcome "differing opinions," but I don't expect those opinions to be diametrically opposed. Your review was at the opposite pole from the following review:

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/foru...rt#post3576609 


Kris Deering from HomeTheaterMagazine also gave a glowing review of this title.


So I was indeed *flabbergasted* to see your condemning review of this title. And the real irony in all of this is that I am usually much more critical than those who review titles professionally, and yet my assessment of *Inkheart* made it look like the "Blu-ray of the Year" compared to yours.


I'm curious as to what equipment (especially on the video end) you used for viewing this title. I say this especially because the blacks on my Elite KURO were excellent (for the most part) and yet you were most critical of this.


----------



## K-Spaz

Yea, you probably also suffer from the same "Brendan Frazier Syndrome" that I do. I like his movies, for what they are, but somehow he seems to be case in roles that woulda fit a Tony Danza or something. He needs to break that mold a bit and then probably his movies could be taken more seriously. I know that when I don't like a movie, I find myself unwilling to be wowed by the PQ. Not that they have to be great but they've got to be tolerable.


Brendan needs to go do a Terminator movie or something. Look at what those roles did for John Travolta. Now who'da thought early on that he'd make a good actor for a badass?


I tend to avoid reviewing a lot cause I have found over time that I either totally agree with the majority of reviewers, or I completely disagree. I don't really understand why, and I'd love to someday go watch these films on one of those folks systems and just see what it is that they are seeing. I've had stuff pointed out to me after displute, and I really don't have a conclusion to come to other than "Different strokes for different folks". This is sorta like judging Syncronized Swimming in the Olympics. That was great! No it wasn't! Yes it was!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16940959
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious as to what equipment (especially on the video end) you used for viewing this title. I say this especially because the blacks on my Elite KURO were excellent (for the most part) and yet you were most critical of this.



I concur with Denny on this score! My equipment is not the best out there, but my plasma usually shows when the black levels are terrible and it annoys the heck out of me. I think with the exception of my unnatural love for "Mamma Mia", I wouldn't classify myself as overly easy on titles.


I do appreciate you coming over here to our thread to explain your side of things though, that was very tolerant of you especially considering how harsh we were being. And for my part in that, I do apologize, put my hackles down and BSG-inspired swearing aside and ask, "What equipment do you use when you review your Blu Rays?" My equipment is: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800u THX setting, approx 7.5' viewing distance.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16941162
> 
> 
> I do appreciate you coming over here to our thread to explain your side of things though, that was very tolerant of you especially considering how harsh we were being. And for my part in that, I do apologize, put my hackles down and BSG-inspired swearing aside and ask, "What equipment do you use when you review your Blu Rays?" My equipment is: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800u THX setting, approx 7.5' viewing distance.



Not a problem. I just want to be accurate. I've ripped plenty of people before for their reviews, such as those scoring Gangs of New York highly. I completely understand I'd be on the other end at some point. If someone thinks I'm not accurate, then great. I'll do what I can to be on the mark. I will probably pop Inkheart into the Netflix que and give it another go to double check it after seeing this thread.


I use a 60GB PS3 hooked up HDMI to a Toshiba 46' LCD RV530, calibrated with DVE. I view from about 6 to 7 feet. My receiver is a Yamaha RX-V863, speakers are Klipsch, along with a 10' sub.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/16941458
> 
> 
> Not a problem. I just want to be accurate. I've ripped plenty of people before for their reviews, such as those scoring Gangs of New York highly. I completely understand I'd be on the other end at some point. If someone thinks I'm not accurate, then great. I'll do what I can to be on the mark. I will probably pop Inkheart into the Netflix que and give it another go to double check it after seeing this thread.
> 
> 
> I use a 60GB PS3 hooked up HDMI to a Toshiba 46' LCD RV530, calibrated with DVE. I view from about 6 to 7 feet. My receiver is a Yamaha RX-V863, speakers are Klipsch, along with a 10' sub.



Thanks for the response. I wonder if it's a difference between how LCD vs Plasma (as both djoberg and I are using plasmas, although different ones) handle black levels? I don't have an extensive Blu Ray collection (around 40-odd discs or so if I include boxed sets like Bourne/Star Trek/Bond series) but I'll have to take a venture and explore other reviews of yours and see if I can find another title you didn't like the black levels on that I have readily available to compare as now I'm curious.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16941687
> 
> 
> Thanks for the response. I wonder if it's a difference between how LCD vs Plasma (as both djoberg and I are using plasmas, although different ones) handle black levels? I don't have an extensive Blu Ray collection (around 40-odd discs or so if I include boxed sets like Bourne/Star Trek/Bond series) but I'll have to take a venture and explore other reviews of yours and see if I can find another title you didn't like the black levels on that I have readily available to compare as now I'm curious.



No problem, just let me know. However, I don't want to keep derailing this thread anymore than I have either. I know that's a no-no 'round these parts. Shoot me a PM anytime and I'll be glad to discuss any specifics.


----------



## J0HNNY H0PK1NS

Updated:d


----------



## SuprSlow

Alright, here we go...


The board software is getting bogged down with the size of the first post. As we add more titles, the software has to work that much harder to parse UBB code, and as a result, we're beginning to hit a wall...the software will time out after 30 seconds and the post edit will not go though. K-Spaz explained this in better terms a few posts up from here.


When we brought the idea of creating a new thread a few months ago, the primary objection was the hassle it would create trying to search for past placements. Nobody wants to search two threads, right? Especially if one has 13,000 posts. So what we've decided to do is create another thread strictly for the tier rankings. I've already created this thread, and as soon as a mod comes along, it will be stickied just like this original thread. I've reserved the first few posts, and in those, we'll break up the OP of this thread into more manageable single posts. This will make for much faster edits, lessening the likelihood of me losing data...plus, I don't have to log in as Austin every time I want to do something










All discussion will take place in here, so searches will work the same as they have in the past. Sound good?










We'll be working on it over the next couple of days, and I'll update as we move along.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

If all discussion will take place here, the new thread should be locked and somehow allow only you to edit it. If possible.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16943543
> 
> 
> If all discussion will take place here, the new thread should be locked and somehow allow only you to edit it. If possible.



Good idea


----------



## SuprSlow

Yeah, I asked Larry (PooperScooper) about that.


He said the software doesn't have any kind of access control where only I could edit it if the post was locked. I think the only way to do that would be for me to have moderator access. I'm not sure, though.


He said if any posts were made in that thread, they would delete them as necessary.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/16943574
> 
> 
> Yeah, I asked Larry (PooperScooper) about that.
> 
> 
> He said the software doesn't have any kind of access control where only I could edit it if the post was locked. I think the only way to do that would be for me to have moderator access. I'm not sure, though.
> 
> 
> He said if any posts were made in that thread, they would delete them as necessary.



That's not as tidy, and more work for the moderators, but it would probably still work.


----------



## Hughmc

SuprSlow, if I am understanding correctly, does that mean the new thread has to have the tiers broken down on a tier to post basis otherwise the same issue of being bogged down will happen?


So the OP will be post #1 and then:


Tier Blu = post #2


Tier Gold = post #3


......and will Gold or any tier remain all in one post or each sub tier have its own post?


A year or two from now if we add say 2k more titles, will there be an issue again? Is there a certain amount of data/ubb code each post can handle or is it on a thread basis?


I am very curious how it works and will work.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/16943574
> 
> 
> Yeah, I asked Larry (PooperScooper) about that.
> 
> 
> He said the software doesn't have any kind of access control where only I could edit it if the post was locked. I think the only way to do that would be for me to have moderator access. I'm not sure, though.
> 
> 
> He said if any posts were made in that thread, they would delete them as necessary.



I wonder...since the OP tiers is not updated all that often, say once or month or less, ( ANd that is not a comdemnation of the fine work you do







) could the new thread be locked and then the mods allow you access somehow for just the update so as not to put them out much, or would they have to upload the info themselves?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

We could always use Google Documents (free and publicly available) and have the tier list in a spreadsheet there. Anyone could then look at it. It also might be more reliable, as Google is not in danger of going off-line for any significant period of time or limitations in size. A backup version there at least might be a good idea. Here is an example of the BD Player Audio Support Google Document, which is maintained by someone from AVS.

http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?k...MYlBPTVE&hl=en


----------



## K-Spaz

Guys, there's lots of options but understand too, we're trying to work within the limits of V-Bulletin.


I'll explain some of the decision making.


I did some time ago offer to make an application to deal with the rankings but unfortunately, that would mean that I would have access to the avsforum domain via FTP, and scripting access, which is a serioius security risk, and I fully understand why someone with a forum of this magnitude would not want unrestricted access handed out to folks off the street.


So you would say, well then, host it on another domain. Well, that's not a great solution cause now there's hits taken away from AVS and again, this isn't a win win situation. If AVS forum hosts an application written for this and by some chance (damn unlikely, but possible) that I might write some code that could be exploited, there's security risk. Sooo, that's no deal. If my code allowed SQL injection attacks, or gawd only knows what, that would be not so nice for the AVS forum. So you can see we've got some alterior motives for the decisions being made.


The idea situaion within what we have to work with is to let things as they are in this thread. Move the rankings to a separate thread where only the author will have access to post (or someone can delete the posts that are unwanted) and just have that ranking data there.


As it stands, I have set up our new database app to generate text to make 4 separate posts. These will be copy / pasted by SuprSlow when he's made changes and those 4 posts will make up the entire Tier List. Only he's got access to the new thread (I'm not anybody on avs). Should we need more posts, he can just add them as needed. It'll take quite a while before there's tens of thousands of movies listed, so it's not a big deal. Just cause they're released does not put them on this list. Only a review here does that, so we're pretty safe at the rate you guys are reviewing! hehe.


The app i wrote for this also allows SuprSlow to allow others to help with the data entry. This in itself is a huge improvement cause now we can get folks who volunteer to help out and take the workload off, and it's distributed. I host the database app, so that's not on AVS and creates no security risk here anyhow. I'm willing to accept the possibility of that issue on my server since all my other code is just as exploitable as this new app (which isn't very). I wrote it in it's entirity, and I'd pretty much bet my life and all of yours, (or at least all of yours







) that it's unhackable. I back the data up periodically (and have used it already) so we've got that covered. And SuprSlow was given direct access to the database server so he also can do backups at will. Worst case, this thread is the backup.


AFAIC, this ain't a national security issue anyhow.


So, as you can see, the truly ideal isn't really an option for us, and we've just got to work within what we've got. I'm not too worried about posts in the ranking thread. Fact is, it might be nice for folks to post corrections or mistakes they've found there, and when SuprSlow's corrected them, give a mod the signal to go delete all correction posts. It's just a click here and there so it would be no huge amount of work.


As the tiers no longer fit in 4 posts, we'll use 5, or 10, or whatever it takes. If someone has a better idea, trust me, we're all ears.










Actually, this is great cause my part is all but done. I can go back to heckling SuprSlow!


Anyone interested in helping with Netflix / Blockbuster links, let me know (via pm), I'll set it up. We've got about 4 tiers to go I think. It just takes time...


If this whole excersize saves Brandon some work, it's worth it cause I hate to tell ya'll, he does a lot of clerical work on this.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Thanks to both of you guys - SuprSlow & K-Spaz - for setting this up! =) It's very appreciated, don't you guys ever forget it!


----------



## Hughmc

Wow K Spaz, hats off to you. I think it will work great as you suggested and it answers my questions. Your post if very informative as it shows you are leaps and bounds ahead of what I ever thought it takes, but your post is also humorous. Thanks again.


----------



## deltasun

You guys should be commended for all your efforts. Your work ensures the sustainability and growth of this thread. Thanks for all the hard work.


Regarding the nf/bb links, I don't want to discount all the work, but is that something we need moving forward? I'm just looking at how many more there are to go and would settle for getting the list updated without the links.


I'm pretty excited about the changes and am looking forward to the future!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16945070
> 
> 
> Thanks to both of you guys - SuprSlow & K-Spaz - for setting this up! =) It's very appreciated, don't you guys ever forget it!



+1


Kudos to both of you!


----------



## djoberg

*Race to Witch Mountain*


Let me be blunt right upfront...I was underwhelmed by this title. With this being a Disney production I was expecting much more, but this was clearly sub par if you compare it with all of Disney's other releases.


My main gripe was the low-lit scenes and night scenes (and a good percentage of the movie consisted of these), which, for the most part, were quite soft and flat, with murky blacks and little or no shadow detail. That's not to say there weren't any good night scenes, for early in the movie there were some impressive night scenes of Las Vegas with excellent black levels and amazing shadow detail. But these were definitely the exception and not the rule. After watching superb blacks last night in *Inkheart*, I was sorely disappointed tonight.


Another disturbing element in this film were the fast action scenes and jerky camera-work. These certainly didn't help in creating "eye candy," and I found them to be rather blurry and thus lacking detail.


The redeeming qualities were found in the daytime scenes which were sharp and crisp, yielding fine detail everywhere, including low Tier 0 or high Tier 1 quality facial close-ups (except in the faces of the brother and sister, which were quite bland). Colors were very natural and vibrant, with decent contrast levels. Flesh tones were also spot on.


With Inkheart so fresh in my mind, it's natural for me to make a judgment call for placement by comparing the two. As you know, I gave Inkheart a 1.25, so I feel constrained to drop RTWM a whole tier (and I believe I'm actually being generous).

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'


----------



## deltasun

*Race to Witch Mountain*


Fine grain present throughout. This was a tale of two halves. Facial details can be low Tier 0 at times and upper Tier 2 in others. For the most part, facial texture and details were impressive on The Rock...excuse me, Dwayne...along with most of the male adult actors.


Contrast to me was problematic during the early outdoor daytime scenes, rendering less details than should have been there. Blacks were good at times, but lots of scenes exhibited some crush. Low-light scenes were the most problematic. The scene inside the "refrigerator" was one of the worst shadowed sequences in recent memory. It was flat, messy, and imbalanced. The scene right after that, with the pink "fireworks" was not much better. Aside from the aforementioned problematic scenes, depth and dimensionality were above average.


There's a definite dilemma in regards to some excellent facial close-up's but terrible, almost cheap-looking low-light scenes. I also spied a bit of ringing on a number of scenes. I will have to average it out and start conservatively at...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


I wanted to place it at 1.75, but cannot give it a similar rating as _Iron Man_.


Regarding the flick, it's obviously a kid's movie despite the swearing. For such powerful beings, it's amazing how they needed a couple of lowly, helpless humans to help them complete their mission.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## deltasun

Wow, Denny...it's uncanny how closely we rated that. I did not see your review prior to hitting submit. I almost felt too harsh with my 2.0 for such a new Disney title, but it looks like we're spot on.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16945667
> 
> 
> Wow, Denny...it's uncanny how closely we rated that. I did not see your review prior to hitting submit. I almost felt too harsh with my 2.0 for such a new Disney title, but it looks like we're spot on.



Don't feel harsh if it doesn't deserve the good ratings, even if it's Disney. See my High School Musical 3 review (I gave it 4.0) for reference.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16945694
> 
> 
> Don't feel harsh if it doesn't deserve the good ratings, even if it's Disney. See my High School Musical 3 review (I gave it 4.0) for reference.



Agreed! Oh no worries, I wasn't going to hold back, but just replaying the movie while I was writing my review, I can't help but be impressed with some of the close-up's. I keep second-guessing my rating until I remind myself of those really messed up low-light scenes.


Still, that whole scene on Witch Mountain was quite gorgeous.










By the way, I remember your HSM 3 review. I wouldn't touch that with a 10-foot pole!


----------



## babrown92

*MONSTER'S INC.*


Not much to say, except another stellar effort from Pixar. Colors are extremely vibrant, with not a hint of softness. The amount of detail is fantastic. I'd put this right up there with at the very top, above Ratatouille, Bug's Life, and Wall-E.


Definite *Tier 0* material.


Great looking title.


----------



## 42041

*Tell No One*


Oddly enough, this one happened to float to the top of my Netflix queue just as people here were giving it high praise. I can't agree with the Tier 0 recommendations but it is a very good looking blu-ray, with nice cinematography and richly rendered colors (that are sometimes overcooked), and a good bit of detail to its film-like imagery. I didn't think the detail was top-shelf, however. There's a slight but persistent softness throughout almost the whole thing , and I didn't feel it measured up to some of the other great-looking titles I've seen recently. Other minor issues include questionable black levels at some points, and some questionable facial closeups suggestive of either subtle filtering or inadequate compression.

*Tier 1.25*


(PS3/Kuro 50" Elite/1sw distance)


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16945667
> 
> 
> Wow, Denny...it's uncanny how closely we rated that. I did not see your review prior to hitting submit. I almost felt too harsh with my 2.0 for such a new Disney title, but it looks like we're spot on.



Uncanny indeed! I do believe we nailed it! And I, like you, thought I was being way too harsh (with it being a Disney release) until I saw your review this morning.


What finally made me decide to recommend Tier Silver was the fact that I would never use this title for a demo, period. There are definitely some VERY GOOD shots with amazing detail and depth, but it is so inconsistent that one would have to be jumping all over the place if they were going to use it for a demo. And then there's those annoying low-lit scenes!










Edit: I forgot to mention in my review above that the audio was reference quality all the way; it ROCKED!! (Toe should be glad to hear that!







)


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16945451
> 
> 
> Regarding the nf/bb links, I don't want to discount all the work, but is that something we need moving forward? I'm just looking at how many more there are to go and would settle for getting the list updated without the links.



Well, I'm taking a break down off the roof for lunch... What a hoot.


The links don't hold things up actually. Yes, since these are what Suprslow can get help with from anyone, I say they stay. I sorta like em too.


If you take a look at the list, T1.75 has no NF links, T2.75-4.5 have none at all, so they're not a requirement for an update. They're just nice to have. I figure, when they get there, they get there.


Most of the holdup on this last update was a combination of the work on the application, entering ALL this data you see now, and then doing the rankings. I think it'll go a lot smoother from now on and probably will be updated a lot more regular once SS has more spare time.


What would be nice would be to integrate the audio thread with this in the same DB. But, I'm gonna be out of circulation for a few months with work so unless someone else wants to do some programming, what we have now is gonna be it.


----------



## SuprSlow

To echo what K-Spaz said, the nf/bb links are at the very bottom of our to-do list. It's not a priority by any means; they are there purely as a convenience feature...much like the hddb links.



Re: the new/old thread...in case anyone hasn't checked it out yet, I got everything switched over to the new thread earlier this morning. I think it flows very well even though it spans multiple posts. If you see any missing specs, incomplete or incorrect data, and anything else that may be in error, send me a PM and I'll revise accordingly. Phantom has been a big help filling in some of the missing pieces










I'm getting the last few titles moved/placed in this latest round of updates, so we'll have something posted shortly.


----------



## tfoltz

I wish it weren't called the "New" PQ Tier Thread. I know there was an older thread, but "new" and "old" doesn't really apply anymore.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/16950574
> 
> 
> I wish it weren't called the "New" PQ Tier Thread. I know there was an older thread, but "new" and "old" doesn't really apply anymore.



I would strongly support dropping the "new" designation at this point. Newer readers to the thread have no point of reference for that addition.


----------



## SuprSlow

But guys, isn't that the flashy marketing speak that has to be included on any and everything?







Kinda like the local radio station that's been around for the better part of 10 years (maybe 15?) that still runs "the NEW 106.9" commercials.


We'll ask one of the mods to change it for us. We commoners are unable to change subject lines


----------



## K-Spaz

^^ I think you do have access to change that. You've got edit rights on that first post, so I should think the subject line is in there.


Also, as a suggestion, it might be nice to have a redundant copy of the review guidelines put back in this thread. That way, when someone want's to refer back to it they can just open "First Page" in a new window and refer to the 'rules'. It might be easier than chasing another thread for that.


Other than that, great job. I did also notice an error on one of the titles in Tier 2.5. It looks like there's links stuffed into the title or something cause there's all sorts of URL information showing in the list. That might have been me too, either the original data transfer or errors in code while working on it early.

http://hddb.net/reviews/john-mayer-w...281042-blu-ray Video: VC-1 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 1.78:1 | Son


That line.


I'll have to look at the review links too. Somethings up there cause they're not linking properly. I'll deal with it when I get a chance to see what's going on. It might be VBulliten doing this too cause it shows in my status bar that the link is absolute but when I click I get a 404 message refering to a relative address on avs, (begining with a / instead of http:// )


Odd.


----------



## Hughmc

Speaking of the review links...No Hollywood Video Links? Bummer...


Just busting butt.










I am a Hollywood Video member, but really no need or even want for me. I can reference myself and most likely HV has a very limited selection of BD's and reviews.


Thanks again guys and it does look great.


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16522625
> 
> *The Machinist*
> 
> 
> "If you were any thinner you wouldn't exist"
> 
> 
> Fine grain present throughout, with some heavier instances in the green-tinged scenes. _The Machinist_ was intentionally shot with a monochromatic palette to reflect Trevor Reznik's world. Despite the muted colors, green foliage looked vivid, as well as the red Pontiac Firebird. Shadow details were typically good, with just a few instances of crushed blacks. In a few scenes, shadowing on the characters' faces were also uneven (intentional, in my opinion). Contrast had a slight edginess to it but not enough to harm PQ.
> 
> 
> Speaking of edginess, I noticed a few instances of mild EE on high contrast edges. Certain scenes also exhibited a bit of a sharpened look, which induced some unnatural 3D pop. Facial details were mostly excellent (pores, hair, imperfections) with just a few soft shots. Soft shots usually resulted from abrupt/aggressive movements of the main characters moving in and out of the plain of focus. Medium shots were excellent as well. The few outdoor scenes offered excellent depth and dimensionality, particulary Miller's block. Skin tones started out on the pale side and gradually moved closer towards normal as the film progressed, complementary to the storyline.
> 
> 
> Personally, I thought the picture looked clean and showed great detail and dimension. The limited color palette did not hurt the PQ, IMO, but rather pushed this bleak, desolate world into a worthy Tier 1 contender. I should also mention quite a bit of print dirt made it to the transfer, but did not detract too much from the viewing experience. I will be generous and propose...
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.5*
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_



I felt this was pretty close to your review, but I felt it was very sharp, especially in up close shots - and the grey scale and black level was dead on. IMO. I feel it deserves at least a 1.25 if not 1.0. The whole scene in the bar was just mind-blowingly good.


Pioneer 5010

Pioneer 51-FD

1080p/24

8' back


----------



## 42041

*King Kong*


Agree with current tier 1.0 placement. Very good looking movie overall. Any flaws here are very minor and I won't cover them since this release has been discussed to death elsewhere. Not enough tier-0 money shots or overall consistency to put it among the elite but certainly a top-notch blu-ray by any other measure. Audio sounds great too.

*Tier 1.0*

(ps3/pioneer kuro 50" elite/1sw distance)


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Max Payne


recommendation: Tier 2.50*


Colors in this transfer have obviously been tweaked in post-production to give the image a heavily desaturated palette with a cold, blue tint. The current ranking in tier 1.75 would have been acceptable to me if it was not for the noticeable filtering and one of the more mediocre compression encodes seen on a new release. There is no doubt that a liberal application of digital noise reduction has been used to strip the grain away from the film-shot segments to blend with the high-definition video. Unfortunately little of the high-frequency information in the film remains. This transfer does not belong anywhere in tier one and so my recommendation is to move this title to the middle of tier two.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/16952625
> 
> *King Kong*
> 
> 
> Agree with current tier 1.0 placement. Very good looking movie overall. Any flaws here are very minor and I won't cover them since this release has been discussed to death elsewhere. Not enough tier-0 money shots or overall consistency to put it among the elite but certainly a top-notch blu-ray by any other measure. Audio sounds great too.
> 
> *Tier 1.0*
> 
> (ps3/pioneer kuro 50" elite/1sw distance)



Agreed.


This BLU is near reference grade but let down by unnecessary application of DNR in select shots which has already been captured and discussed to death. I had planned to avoid this but pulled the trigger as I got it for a good price. The bit rate could have been a bit higher as there is a DVD space left and with UNI opting to not feature film extras. Overall this is an excellent looking BLU.K


Correction:

*Bourne Identity: Tier 3.5 or Tier 3.75*


----------



## BW274

*Coraline*

*Recommendation : Tier 0* to the top!


While not getting into the story and sound, the PQ was by far the best I have seen. I own all the Disney & Pixar animation films like A Bug's Life, Kung Fu Panda, Ratatouille, Meet the Robinsons. While the CG films have a great amount of detail, it still has that "I was made on a CPU" feel to me. Coraline was like the puppets were real (which they were) and you could reach through the screen and touch them.


I would be very, very suprised if it does not take the top 0 spot.


[Pioneer 151 (upgraded from 5020) BDP-83]


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BW274* /forum/post/16960260
> 
> *Coraline*
> 
> *Recommendation : Tier 0* to the top!
> 
> 
> While not getting into the story and sound, the PQ was by far the best I have seen. I own all the Disney & Pixar animation films like A Bug's Life, Kung Fu Panda, Ratatouille, Meet the Robinsons. While the CG films have a great amount of detail, it still has that "I was made on a CPU" feel to me. Coraline was like the puppets were real (which they were) and you could reach through the screen and touch them.
> 
> 
> I would be very, very suprised if it does not take the top 0 spot.
> 
> 
> [Pioneer 151 (upgraded from 5020) BDP-83]



I checked out the other reviews on this and all but one are recommending Tier 0 (42041 recommended Tier 1.0). I'm going in to my local video shop shortly to pick up Watchmen and if they have Coraline I'll get that too.


----------



## djoberg

*Watchmen*


I'm going to cut to the chase on this one and say that this title compares quite well to *The Dark Knight*, and thus I believe I will recommend the exact same placement for it. Both titles majored in superb blacks levels (with plenty of them!) and finely-rendered shadow detail. Both had excellent flesh tones and detailed facial close-ups. And both showcased vivid colors against their dark background.


The only complaint would be with some of the CGI scenes (as mentioned by others) looking a bit soft and lacking some detail, but they were few and far between so one can't penalize it too much for that.


I'm anxious to get to Coraline next so I'm going to throw in my vote with my colleagues who recommended Tier 1, only I'm going to split the difference and put it here (along with The Dark Knight)....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'


----------



## BrownTown

Just watched one of my all time favorite films, The Waterboy.


I was not that happy with the quality. While some shots looked really good, other parts looked like an unconverted dvd. The PQ was all over the place. No special features either


----------



## djoberg

*Coraline*


Move over A Bug's life....we have a new "King of the Blu-ray hill"!!! I say this somewhat guardedly, for I'm basing this solely on 3 virtues: *DETAIL, DEPTH,* and *DIMENSIONALITY*. You will have to see it for yourself to appreciate the intricate details in every stone, fabrics, wooden floors, blades of grass, etc., but I believe members will be so WOWED that a consensus will soon be formed awarding *Coraline* the top spot in Tier Blu (as BW274 recommended).


Coraline also sports a wide range of colors, from muted to quite vibrant. It won't compare in this department to A Bug's Life or Kung Fu Panda, but it doesn't have to since it easily excels in the 3 categories mentioned above. Don't take this wrong, the colors are still amazing EYE CANDY.


The blacks are as good as I've ever seen in an animated title, and shadow detail is beyond compare (wait until you see the night time garden scenes; they will blow you away!!)....and the sense of depth in those same scenes is breathtaking.


In all fairness I should mention that there are a few scenes with fog/haze and one might be inclined to penalize the placement for that (because of a lack of detail), but the running time is so short that I am willing to ignore them.


I believe 5 of us have weighed in thus far (4 recommending Tier 0 and 1 Tier 1), so I would encourage others to give it a rent (I personally won't be buying this as I just didn't enjoy the story that much) and see for yourself what all the hoopla is about.

*Tier Recommendation: Top of Tier 0*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'


----------



## SuprSlow

We should be current through this post. The rankings thread has been updated as of tonight. If you've reviewed a new (unranked) title between post # 13015 and this one, it will not be shown on the current list update, but I have made a record of it, and as soon as we get a minor issue resolved with the database, I will add it.










On to the fun...like I posted some time ago, in the interest of full disclosure, I'm posting my notes exactly as I've recorded them, names and all. I think it will be a nice summary post also, given the fact the search function is somewhat cumbersome. So...in the future you can search for my posts and find who placed what movie. You can also use my post number references to narrow down your search if you'd like to read a user's actual review. The post numbers are randomly scattered throughout this list, and the page numbers references may not match yours--mine is set to 60 posts/page.


Also, if you will notice, near the end of the list, there is a bolded "split". This was the cutoff point for when I began work on the update. I finished the first part of the update, then added these titles in order to make the ranking current through this post. If a title is listed below that split, and also above it, I have taken both sets of reviews into account and placed it accordingly. I think I've removed any discrepancies, but if I missed one, the placement listed under the split overrides anything previous. Hope that makes sense.












Bourne Ultimatum - Tier 1.5 (nick2010) - remains Tier 1.5 - was Holdings


X-Men - Tier 2.75 (nick2010, lgans316) - currently 2.5 - down to 2.75


X-Men United - Tier 2.5 (nick2010) - was unranked - placed 2.5


The Reader - mid Tier 0 - (b_scott) // Tier 1.25 (deltasun, OldCodger73) - was unranked - placed 1.0


Iron Man - Tier 1.25 (42041) // current 1.75 (patrick99, deltasun) - remains 1.75


Trading Places - Tier 3.0 (selimsivad) - was 2.5 - down to 2.75


The Uninvited - Tier 1.25 (deltasun, Rob Tomlin) // Tier 1.0 (djoberg) - was unranked - placed 1.25


Dexter, Season 1 - Tier 1.5 (ggg) - was unranked - placed 1.25 holdings


Wonder Woman - Tier 1.25 (Phantom) -was unranked - placed 1.25 holdings


Pitch Black - Tier 2.5 (patrick99) - currently 2.0 - down to 2.25


Bedtime Stories - Tier 2.0 (audiomagnate) - was unranked - placed 2.0


Last Chance Harvey - Tier 2.5 (OldCodger73) // Tier 2.25 (b_scott) - was unranked - placed 2.25


The Princess Bride - Tier 2.75 (42041) - currently 2.5 - down to 2.75


Ben Button - Tier 2.0 (deltasun) // Tier 1.75 (sleater) // Tier 2.75 (Rob Tomlin) // Tier 2.5 (OldCodger73) // Tier 1.5 (djoberg) - was unranked - placed 2.25


Big - Tier 4.5 (deltasun) // Tier 3.25 (sleater) // Tier 4.0 (OldCodger73) - was unranked - placed 4.0


The Illusionist (CA Import) - Tier 2.0 (Phantom Stranger) - was unranked - placed 2.0


Underworld: Rise of the Lycans - Tier 1.75 (deltasun) // Tier 2.75 (patrick99) // Tier 2.5 (sleater) // Tier 2.0 (b_scott, djoberg) - was unranked - placed 2.25


Passengers - Tier 1.5 (deltasun) - was unranked - placed 1.5 holdings


Taken - Tier 1.5 (deltasun, djoberg, lgans316) // Tier 1.75 (b_scott) // Tier 2.25 (Rob Tomlin) - was unranked - placed 1.75


The French Connection - Tier 3.75 (42041) - currently 4.0 - up to 3.75


Burn After Reading - Tier 2.5 (selimsivad) - currently 2.0 - remains 2.0


The 400 Blows - Tier 4.0 (42041) - was unranked - placed 4.0


Star Trek: The Motion Picture - Tier 3.0 (sleater) // Tier 3.5 (Phantom Stranger) - was unranked - placed 3.25


Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn - Tier 2.5 (sleater) - was unranked - placed 2.5


Seven Pounds - Tier 1.5 (sleater) - currently 1.0 - down to 1.75


Doubt - Tier 1.5 (sleater) - remains 1.5


The Wrestler - Tier 3.0 (sleater) - currently 3.5 - remains 3.5


3:10 to Yuma - Tier 1.25 (b_scott) - currently 1.75 - remains 1.75


Moonraker - Tier 2.5 (deltasun) - currently 2.25 - remains 2.25


JCVD - Tier 3.0 (sleater) - currently 3.75 - up to 3.5


Yes Man - Tier 1.5 (sleater) - currently 1.75 - up to 1.5


Slumdog - Tier 2.5 (sleater) // Tier 3.25 (Rob Tomlin) // Tier 2.75 (lgans316) - currently 2.5 - down to 2.75


Premonition - Tier 2.0 (sleater) - currently 2.25 - up to 2.0


Quantum of Solace - Tier 1.25 (sleater, lgans) // Tier 1.0 (OhioMike) - currently 1.0 - remains 1.0


Valkyrie - Tier 1.0 (djoberg, Hughmc) // Tier 1.25 (K-Spaz, tcramer) // Tier 1.75 (Rob Tomlin) // Tier 1.5 (deltasun) - was unranked - placed 1.25


A Bug's Life - top Tier 0 (Hughmc, djoberg, JayPSU, deltasun, sleater, K-Spaz, Lestat Phoenix) - was unranked - top Tier 0


12511 - 209


No Country - Tier 1.75 (selimsivad) - currently 1.25 - down to 1.5


Paul Blart Mall Cop - Tier 1.75 (deltasun) - was unranked - placed 1.75 holdings


Beowulf - Tier 0 (quikgamer) - currently 1.0 - holdings


My Bloody Valentine - Tier 2.0 (deltasun) // Tier 2.75 (b_scott) - was unranked - placed 2.25


Eden Log - Tier 4.5 (deltasun) - was unranked - placed 4.5


In Bruges - Tier 2.75 (Spoonsey) - was unranked - placed 2.75


For Your Eyes Only - Tier 3.0 (deltasun) - currently 2.0 - down to 2.5


Paycheck - Tier 2.5 (patrick99) - was unranked - placed 2.5


The Machinist - Tier 1.5 (deltasun) - was unranked - holdings


Chuck: Season 1 - Tier 3.75 (b_scott) - currently 3.0 - down to 3.25


Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves - Tier 3.25 (OldCodger73) // Tier 4.5 (sleater) - was unranked - placed 3.75


Powder Blue - Tier 2.5 (deltasun) - was unranked - placed 2.5


Grand Canyon River @ Risk - VC-1


Donnie Darko - Tier 5 (jkozlow3, Legairre) - currently 3.75 - down to 4.0


Defiance - Tier 2.75 (deltasun) // Tier 1.5 (djoberg, K-Spaz, OldCodger73) // Tier 2.0 (Rob Tomlin) - was unranked - placed 1.75


Hulk Vs. - Tier 1.5 (Phantom Stranger) - was unranked - holdings


p.211 - #12612


Zulu (UK Import) - Tier 2.25 (Phantom Stranger) - was 2.5 - up to 2.25


Revolutionary Road - Tier 1.0 (deltasun) // Tier 2.75 (Rob Tomlin) // Tier 1.5 (b_scott, sleater) - was unranked - placed 1.75


The Spirit - Tier 1.25 (OhioMike) - was unranked - holdings


David Gilmour - Tier 4.5 (42041) - was unranked - placed 4.5


History of Violence - Tier 2.0 (b_scott) // Tier 3.25 (42041) - was unranked - placed 2.75


Seabiscuit - Tier 1.5 (OldCodger73, lgans316) - was unranked - placed 1.5


Children of Men - Tier 2.0 (deltasun, lgans316) - was unranked - placed 2.0


True Romance - Tier 3.75 (deltasun) - was unranked - placed 3.75


Bottle Rocket - Tier 3.0 (42041) - was unranked - placed 3.0


International - low Tier 0 (djoberg, deltasun, selimsivad, Sujay) // mid to low Tier 0 (Mel2) // Tier 1.25 (Rob Tomlin, b_scott) // Tier 1.5 (patrick99) - was unranked - placed lower Tier 0


Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country - Tier 2.50 (ggg) - was unranked - placed 2.5


Air Force One - Tier 3.0 (deltasun, OldCodger73) - was unranked - placed 3.0


Wages of Fear - Tier 2.75 (42041) - was unranked - placed 2.75


Gran Torino - Tier 2.0 (djoberg) // Tier 2.25 (deltasun, selimsivad) // Tier 2.75 (Rob Tomlin) - was unranked - placed 2.25


2010: The Year... - Tier 3.0 (OldCodger73) - was unranked - placed 3.0


p.213 - #12730


Fired Up - Tier 1.75 (deltasun) - was unranked - holdings


Sleeping Beauty - Tier 1.0 (42041) - currently bot tier 0 - down to bot 0


Wallace & Grommit: A Matter of Loaf and Death - Tier 0 (Blacklac) - was unranked - holdings


Funny Games (U.K. Import) - Tier 2.0 (Phantom) - was unranked - placed 2.0


Horton Hears a Who - Tier 0 (Legairre) - currently 1.0 - bot Tier 0


3 Days of the Condor - Tier 3.0 (OldCodger73) - was unranked - placed 3.0


Austrailia - Tier 2.0 (OldCodger73) // Tier 2.5 (deltasun) - was holdings - placed 2.25


Bride Wars - Tier 3.25 (ggg) // Tier 3.5 (deltasun) - was unranked - placed 3.25


Ghostbusters - Tier 2.75 (Phantom) // Tier 3.0 (b_scott, lgans316) - was unranked - placed 3.0


The Rocker - mid Tier 0 (sleater) - was unranked - holdings


The Berlin Concert - Tier 2.75 (deltasun) - was unranked - placed 2.75


He's Just Not That Into You - Tier 2.50 (deltasun) - was unranked - placed 2.5


Twilight - Tier 1.25 (42041) - currently 1.5 - remains 1.5


Enemy at the Gates - Tier 2.0 (deltasun) - was unranked - placed 2.0


Batman - Tier 2.0 (NMJack) - was unranked - placed 2.0


Spiderman 3 - Tier 1.25 (deltasun) - was holdings (1.0) - remains 1.0


Mad Men: Season One - Tier 1.25 (nick_rh) - currently 1.5 - remains 1.5


Sin City - mid Tier 0 (H.Cornerstone) - was unranked - holdings


The Orphanage - Tier 1.5 (42041, eastbaygreen) - currently 1.0 - down to 1.25


Lost: S1 - Tier 1.25 (nick2010) - was unranked - holdings


Tudors: S2 - Tier 1.75 (ggg) - was unranked - holdings


Transporter 3 (UK Import) - current (lgans316) - remains current


Passchendaele - Tier 2.0 (ggg) - was unranked - placed 2.0


Dr. Strangelove - Tier 3.5 (deltasun) // Tier 3.25 (Phantom) - was unranked - placed 3.25


Saw V - Tier 2.0 (Phantom) - was unranked - placed 2.0


T3:Rise of the Machines - Tier 2.75 (lgans316) - currently 2.25 - down to 2.5


24: S7 - Tier 2.5 (deltasun) - was unranked - placed 2.5


A Clockwork Orange - Tier 3.25 (42041) - currently 3.5 - up to 3.25


Street Fighter: Legend of Chun-Li - Tier 3.0 (djoberg) - was unranked - placed 3.0


Waltz with Bashir - Tier 1.5 (42041) - was unranked - holdings


Star Trek: The Voyage Home - Tier 2.75 (OldCodger73) - was unranked - placed 2.75


Watchmen: Tales of the Black Freighter - Tier 1.0 (Phantom) - was unranked - holdings


Two Lovers - Tier 2.75 (deltasun) - was unranked - placed 2.75


12 Rounds - Tier 1.5 (deltasun) // Tier 2.0 (djoberg) - was unranked - placed 1.75


Zodiac - Tier 1.5 (42041) - currently 2.0 - up to 1.75


Vicky Barcelona - Tier 1.5 (b_scott) - currently 3.75 - up to 3.5


Inkheart - Tier 1.25 (ggg) - was unranked - holdings


The Bank Job - Tier 1.25 current (Phantom) - currently 1.25


Pinocchio - Tier 1.5 (42041) - currently 1.0 - down to 1.25


Lost: S2 - Tier 1.0 (nick2010) - was unranked - holdings


Knowing - Tier 1.75 (deltasun) // Tier 1.25 (St. Bernardus) // Tier 1.0 (djoberg) - was unranked - placed 1.25


Pixar Short Films - Tier 2.5 (nick2010) - currently 3.75 - up to 3.0


The Code - Tier 1.75 (Rob Tomlin) - was unranked - holdings


Friday the 13th (2009) - Tier 3.0 (deltasun) - was unranked - placed 3.0


Antartica (IMAX) - Tier 1.75 (42041) - was unranked - holdings


Diana Krall - Tier 3.5 (Rob Tomlin) - was unranked - placed 3.5


Hellboy - Tier 1.0 (ggg) - remains 1.0


John Adams (HBO) - Tier 1.75 (ggg) - was uranked - holdings


The Other Boleyn Girl - Tier 1.25 (K-Spaz) - currently 2.0 - up to 1.5


DOA: Dead or Alive (CA Import) - Tier 1.75 (Phantom) - was unranked - holdings


The Edge of Love - Tier 2.50 (deltasun) - was unranked - placed 2.5


Into the Wild - Tier 2.0 (deltasun) - currently 1.25 - down to 1.75


Big Fish - Tier 2.0 (42041) - currently 2.75 - up to 2.5


The Patriot - low Tier 0 (djoberg) - currently 1.25 - up to 1.0


Home - Tier 2.0 (daPriceIs) - was unranked - placed 2.0


Austin Powers: IMOM - Tier 2.5 (Phantom) - currently 1.75 - down to 2.5


Watchmen - Tier 1.5 (deltasun) - was unranked - holdings


Push - Tier 1.0 (djoberg) - was unranked - holdings


p.217 - #13015

*split*


The Haunting in Connecticut - Tier 1.75 (deltasun, djoberg) - was unranked - placed 1.75


Coraline (2009) - Tier 0 (BrownTown) // high Tier 0 (Ozymandis, BW274) // Tier 1.0 (42041) - was unranked - placed mid Tier 0


Dexter: Season 2 - Tier 1.5 (42041) - was unranked - placed 1.5 holdings


Lonely Hearts (JP Import) - bot 1/3 Tier 0 (Phantom Stranger) - was unranked - placed bot 1/3 Tier 0 holdings


The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly - Tier 3.5 (daPriceIs) - was unranked - placed 3.5


MI: III - Tier 1 (xraffle) // Tier 1.25 (deltasun) - currently 2.25 - up to 1.25


Two Lovers - Tier 3.25 (ggg) - placed 3.0


Becoming Jane - Tier 0 below YWY (ggg, K-Spaz) - down 4 spots


The Aviator - Tier 2.25 (42041) - was 1.75 - down to 2.0


Tell No One - upper Tier 0 above Domino (Phantom) // mid Tier 0 (deltasun) // Tier 1.25 (42041) - was unranked - placed bot Tier 0


In Cold Blood - Tier 2.0 (42041) - was 2.5 - remains 2.5


12 Monkeys - Tier 4.0 (deltasun) - was unranked - placed 4.0


Watchmen - Tier 1.0 (42041, Phantom, b_scott) // Tier 1.25 (djoberg) - placed 1.0


Pale Rider - Tier 2.0 (Hughmc) - was unranked - placed 2.0


Hancock - Tier 2.5 (lgans) - was 1.25 - remains 1.25 (past placements)


Red Cliff II (Taiwan) - Tier 1.0 (lgans) - was mid Tier 0 - down to 1.0


Falling Down - Tier 4 (lgans) - was unranked - placed 4.0


Bourne Identity - Tier 3.5 (lgans) - was 2.0 - down to 2.25


Bourne Supremacy - Tier 2.25 (lgans) - was 1.5 - down to 1.75


Bourne Ultimatum - Tier 1.75 (lgans) - remains 1.5


Fast & Furious: Tokyo Drift - Tier 2.0 (lgans) - was unranked - placed 2.0


Green Latern: First Flight - Tier 0 below Happy Feet (Phantom) - was unranked - placed Tier 0 holdings


Awake - Tier 1.75 (deltasun) - was unranked - placed 1.75 holdings


Fantastic Four 2: Rise of the Silver Surfer - Tier 1.0 (deltasun, Phantom) - was 1.25 - up to 1.0


Dirty Dozen - Tier 3.75 (42041) - was 5.0 - up to 3.75


Inkheart - Tier 1.25 (djoberg) - remains 1.25


Race to Witch Mtn. - Tier 2.25 (djoberg) // Tier 2.0 (deltasun) - was unranked - placed 2.0


Monsters, Inc. - Tier 0 (babrown92) - was unranked - mid Tier 0 holdings


The Machinist - Tier 1.25 (b_scott) - remains 1.5 -


King Kong - Tier 1.0 (42041, lgans) - remains 1.0


Max Payne - Tier 2.5 (Phantom Stranger) - was 1.75 - down to 2.25


p.220 - #13152



Any corrections or changes, let me know.


----------



## lgans316

Thanks for your great work SuprSlow. I hope you are now having time to move things.


----------



## 42041

*Two Lovers*


A well-photographed movie and a technically excellent transfer that nonetheless will not be considered eye candy by the standard employed here. The detail is typically upper tier 1 caliber, but the major issue is that the vast majority of the movie takes place in artificial tungsten lighting, washing everything in a dull yellow glow. What isn't artificially lit is overcast, gray, and dreary. So, a very visually subdued movie with not much in the way of color or HD "pop", to use a term I'm not particularly fond of. The low-light shooting on super-35 film comes with a considerable amount of grain, which is compressed without fault to my eyes. Black levels are a bit shaky, often either slightly elevated or crushed (brutally so in the first few minutes of the film, which doesn't make a great first impression). Mild EE is present in some shots but nothing I'd get bothered over.


I thought the movie itself was excellent, but it seems to get very mixed reviews, so your mileage may vary. I suspect it'll put certain viewers to sleep but I guess it struck the right note with me.

*Tier 2.25*


(PS3/Kuro 50" Elite/1sw distance)


p.s... thanks for your efforts mr. suprslow


----------



## deltasun

*Obsessed*


Super fine grain present throughout. The title definitely looks film like. Facial details varied, but never really looked higher than Mid Tier 1. There were far too many soft sequences, albeit done deliberately. Color tones were also done with purpose - warmer during home scenes and colder in the office. While this was a clever ploy, the office scenes looked hazy to me. Contrast was not balanced and made for a "smudgy" look in the office during medium scenes. Skin tones followed the same formula - warmer at home, colder in the office.


The majority of black levels were bold, with only a limited instance of crushing. Low-level scenes did not fare so well. The sequence with Beyonce in the car after leaving the hospital was completely flat and devoid of any dimensionality. The scene in Kyle's room with "Kate" - even worse. There were a handful of panoramic cityscapes which looked incredible. Some of the green foliage looked lush. But, none of these were enough to really push the quality.


Overall, a very underwhelming title in terms of picture quality. I guess the only thing going for it was the seeming absence of any EE or DNR.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75*


Can't really think of any redeeming values with this picture.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8' & 6'_


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/16963955
> 
> 
> Thanks for your great work SuprSlow. I hope you are now having time to move things.



+1


Great job SuprSlow!


----------



## lgans316

*The Hulk - Tier 2.25 - Silver*


Looks pretty good especially on tight close up shots. The usage of strong and bold primary colors and contrast lends to a glossy image that offers a nice HD feeling. Film grain is present with no bothersome DVNR. Some of the high contrast scenes in the daylight seems to exhibit halos. Let downs come in the form of constantly popping black speckles and print nicks, soft and flat imagery due to weak CGI, and toning down of contrast and blacks to AVP-2 levels on few night shots, possibly to hide the poor CGI. On a personal front, I am beginning to hate this glossy look, particularly on 1.78:1 or 1.85:1 aspect ratio.


----------



## BrownTown

Just a heads up, The Corpse Bride is $9.99 today at Best Buy on blu-ray


----------



## QueueCumber




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/16963864
> 
> 
> Any corrections or changes, let me know.



Yes... Move the Last Emperor Criterion down to lowest Silver or even Bronze. I can't believe it is rated as high as it is...


----------



## tfoltz

You can post this in the deals/special offers thread. Discussion here should only be related the picture quality/eye candy.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BrownTown* /forum/post/16969307
> 
> Just a heads up, The Corpse Bride is $9.99 today at Best Buy on blu-ray


----------



## 42041

speaking of *The Corpse Bride*...


Watched this yesterday. It's a great looking movie, with a nice clean hi-def look and plenty of detail, consistency, and all the other tier 0 goodness, but Warner upholds their ill-reputation by giving this movie a lame audio/video encoding that doesn't even take up a quarter of a blu-ray disc, with several scenes exhibiting distracting color banding. The overall consistency of the picture keeps this from falling into the lower tiers for me. I suspect this might not be as demo-worthy as Coraline, the obvious stop-motion comparison, which shows off a lot more texture in clothing and such, and which I rated Tier 1.0, but since everyone else voted it into 0 it'll probably end up somewhere above it anyway.

*Bottom of Tier 0*


(PS3/Kuro 50" Elite/1sw distance)


----------



## El Bandito

*Coraline*


I agree with the consensus so far on here, that Coarline should be near the top of Tier 0 (I'd put it in the top 5, but probably not #1). The intricate detail on the puppets is amazing, and they really come to life. The black levels are jaw dropping, and the colors are vibrant when intended to be. A reference quality disc for sure.

*Tier 0*


Pioneer 111-FD / PS3 / 1.5 sw distance


----------



## Beta Tester




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *El Bandito* /forum/post/16977087
> 
> 
> Coarline should be near the top of Tier 0



I am looking forward to the day when we can say the same thing about the 3D version







. I would hop on the bandwagon if the cost is reasonable, even if I have to repurchase all the components (which is something I do every 2/3 years anyways).


----------



## Beta Tester




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/16963955
> 
> 
> Thanks for your great work SuprSlow.



Thank you SuprSlow for all your effort. For me, this thread is one of the most valuable resource on the forum.


----------



## OldCodger73

*Valkyrie Tier 1.75*

Very effective use of LFE in opening desert scene.

Even though it had Tom Cruise playing Tom Cruise, I found the movie much more enjoyable than I thought it would be.

*Field of Dreams Tier 2.75*.

*The Silence of the Lambs Tier 3.0*

*Ghostbusters Tier 3.0*

Borderline 2.75/3.0. The opening library scene looked like a DVD played on a non upconverting DVD, which weighed heavily on my rating. The rest of the movie looked slightly above average though.

*A River Runs Through Tier 2.25*

A very pretty movie, that perhaps held the book on which it was based too much in awe. Borderline 2.25/2.5 but the great Montana scenery tipped it to 2.25.

*My Cousin Vinny Tier 3.5*

Noticeable grain and what looks to be EE, average detail. Still a pleasurable non-demanding way to spend two hours.

*Tell No One Mid Tier 0 right below Live Free or Die*

Easily one of the best movies I've watched this year both in terms of PQ and the movie itself.


Panasonic 50" 720p plasma, Panasonic 10a player, 7 1/2'


----------



## b_scott

for what it's worth, *A Haunting in Connecticut* looked great, if grainy, on my 50" Pioneer. But we weren't paying much attention to it so we stopped it midway.


It'll probably get a 1.75 or 2.0 here.


----------



## nick2010

*I, Robot*


I mostly agree with the current placement of this title, but I would move it below POTC: Dead Man's Chest (and maybe below POTC: At World's End as well). This is mostly due to the noticeable chroma keying towards the end of the film.

*Tier 0, Below POTC: DMC*


___________________________________________________________

*Transformers*

*Tier 1.0 (Current)*


___________________________________________________________

*Wallace & Grommit: A Matter of Loaf and Death*

*Lower Tier 0*


46", 1080p, 7'


----------



## TrevorS

Just went by my local Best Buy stores and they have a bunch of 12.99 titles, including Road House, Navy Seals, and The Graduate (titles I like), but I see they're mpeg-2!


Are they worth picking up at $13, or just a waste of money? I understand the MPEG-2 encoding of Silence Of The Lambs is pretty reasonable (High-Def Digest), so I really don't know if these others are a mistake or not!


----------



## Filmmaker




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TrevorS* /forum/post/16984922
> 
> 
> Just went by my local Best Buy stores and they have a bunch of 12.99 titles, including Road House, Navy Seals, and The Graduate (titles I like), but I see they're mpeg-2!
> 
> 
> Are they worth picking up at $13, or just a waste of money? I understand the MPEG-2 encoding of Silence Of The Lambs is pretty reasonable (High-Def Digest), so I really don't know if these others are a mistake or not!



THE GRADUATE is a safe bet. There are deeper issues, though, with paying actual money for ROADHOUSE and/or NAVY SEALS than whether their transfers are up to snuff...


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TrevorS* /forum/post/16985253
> 
> 
> OK, so as I said, I *like* both Road House and Navy Seals, so what are the issues you have in mind given the films themselves are not an issue?
> 
> 
> Also, my post just got shoved into this thread, I'm not concerned with how these two films rate relative to all other films, I'm concerned with how well they stack up relative to their sources. So, my specific issue is whether the MPEG-2 transfers do justice to the original films.
> 
> 
> PS. Guess I'm not too pleased with whoever the mod is that shoved my question over here -- does the word arrogant fit? Or is it just ignorant?



Don't take it personal. They are just trying to do their best to find the right place for posts. We'll take it as a compliment that they deferred your post to this thread.







We have a good group here who are fairly good at calling titles as is. We don't hear or see a lot from Filmmaker over here, but glad to know he is watching.







He is a good resource.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TrevorS* /forum/post/16985253
> 
> 
> Also, my post just got shoved into this thread, I'm not concerned with how these films "PQ" rate relative to all other films, I'm concerned with how well they stack up relative to their sources. So, my specific concern is whether the MPEG-2 transfers do justice to the original films.



You should be less worried about the codec and more about the quality of the digital master they used for the movie. A good MPEG2 encoding of I, Robot will still be a Tier 0 movie, a really amazing AVC encoding of Gangs of New York will still be utter trash. The Graduate looks pretty good from what I've read. Not familiar with the other two films.


Judging from BR.com's screencaps, Road House looks quite good, can't find a damn thing about Navy Seals.


Ok, found some more screencaps, Navy Seals looks below average but not offensively bad.


----------



## TrevorS




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/16985300
> 
> 
> You should be less worried about the codec and more about the quality of the digital master they used for the movie. A good MPEG2 encoding of I, Robot will still be a Tier 0 movie, a really amazing AVC encoding of Gangs of New York will still be utter trash. The Graduate looks pretty good from what I've read. Not familiar with the other two films.



Given I've no control over either and all I get to see is the decoded result of whatever they put together, there really isn't a whole lot of point in my trying to differentiate. I know enough about the technology to realize that MPEG-2 is very limited (though cheap and easy) relative to the more advanced CODECs. It would be an easy decision to say let's use MPEG-2 for all catalog releases at MGM. However, that would be unlikely to do justice to many of the catalog films. If in fact the quality of the master allows the MPEG-2 coding to be optimal, then yes, there could certainly be a problem with the quality of the master.


As the end purchaser/viewer -- it's much the same problem either way.


----------



## TrevorS




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/16985300
> 
> 
> The Graduate looks pretty good from what I've read. Not familiar with the other two films.
> 
> 
> Judging from BR.com's screencaps, Road House looks quite good, can't find a damn thing about Navy Seals.
> 
> 
> Ok, found some more screencaps, Navy Seals looks below average but not offensively bad.



Thanks for taking the time







!


I picked up Roadhouse but was considering returning it due to reports of poor color quality outside the club. Trouble is, I really don't recall the title having flashy colors anyway. That's what's so difficult about evaluating these transfers. Many of the "reviews" are comparisons against expectations, not against the original thing.


----------



## b_scott

Coroline is the best BD I've ever seen.


#1, top tier 0


----------



## deltasun

*I Love You, Man*

_Just slappin' da bass_


Extremely fine grain present throughout. Facial details were very good, but not Tier 0 good. I literally spotted a solitary scene of softness, towards the end between Pete and his fiancee. Most medium scenes exhibited excellent 3D pop and sweeping dimensionality. Panoramic shots offered very good details as well.


Black levels were solid with no signs of crush. Contrast was bold and really helped the colors pop. Speaking of which, colors were vibrant in a not so vibrant world. Skin tones were a bit on the warm side. Also, there were a few outdoor scenes where contrast was not balanced - they were a bit hot.


Overall, a very fine looking title. I spotted a few instances of ringing, but not in a way that is bothersome. I did not detect any instances of foul play.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


I rather enjoyed this comedy. It wasn't as funny as _The Hangover_, but was consistently funny throughout. Highly recommended.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8' & 6'_


----------



## selimsivad

It looks like I'm going to re-rent Coraline. It wasn't a movie I enjoyed, but there seems to be too many reviewers recommending it be placed at the top of Tier 0!

There was lots of detail at times, but overall it seemed more "Horton Hears A Who" vs. "Kung Fu Panda."


----------



## lgans316

*Doomsday - Tier-1.25*


The PQ on scenes shot in daylight is reference quality but 2/3rd of the movie is set in the dark which looks great but definitely not demoworthy.


The movie btw was UTTERLY UNBELIEVABLE.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/16986139
> 
> 
> It looks like I'm going to re-rent Coraline. It wasn't a movie I enjoyed, but there seems to be too many reviewers recommending it be placed at the top of Tier 0!
> 
> There was lots of detail at times, but overall it seemed more "Horton Hears A Who" vs. "Kung Fu Panda."



I would encourage you to watch it again, though I must confess I'm surprised you weren't WOWED the first time around.


I would also encourage other regular posters (and non-regular posters as well) to give it a rent...unless of course you're diabetic, for this much EYE CANDY (i.e. sugar rush) could be detrimental to your health.


----------



## b_scott

at first I couldn't tell if it was stop motion or just CGI pretending to be stop motion. crazy stuff.


I'm surprised you didn't like it, I thought it was pretty engaging. Very creepy, and the visuals were amazing - especially after learning it was stop motion.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/16987412
> 
> 
> I would encourage you to watch it again, though I must confess I'm surprised you weren't WOWED the first time around.
> 
> 
> I would also encourage other regular posters (and non-regular posters as well) to give it a rent...unless of course you're diabetic, for this much EYE CANDY (i.e. sugar rush) could be detrimental to your health.



Don't worry, Denny! As soon as Zip deems me worthy, I'll see this, even if it gives me a toothache.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16987778
> 
> 
> Don't worry, Denny! As soon as Zip deems me worthy, I'll see this, even if it gives me a toothache.



You're going to LOVE the blacks levels and shadow detail on your Panny plasma (especially the nighttime garden scenes!), I guarantee it.


----------



## 42041

*Primal Fear*


This film is from 1996, an era I rather dread renting discs from, since it tends to be a a quality crapshoot. Luckily, Paramount have done a great job here. The transfer is a very nice one, featuring the fairly solid detail I'd expect from a super35 film from the 90s, a very film-like appearance, and healthy video bitrates that are more than a match for the somewhat grainy film source. You don't get much in the way of eye candy, since the subject matter is drab and the photography is very utilitarian, but frankly this is where the point of this thread and I part ways, because I find eye candy a fairly useless metric of blu-ray disc quality.

*Tier 2.75*


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/16986148
> 
> *Doomsday - Tier-1.25*
> 
> 
> The PQ on scenes shot in daylight is reference quality but 2/3rd of the movie is set in the dark which looks great but definitely not demoworthy.
> 
> *The movie btw was UTTERLY UNBELIEVABLE.*



I assume you don't mean that as praise.


----------



## TrevorS




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/16992255
> 
> 
> I assume you don't mean that as praise.



I picked that up because the basic storyline looked interesting. Unfortunately, everything from the start of the middle-ages sequence through the end of the vehicle chase should have been left on the cutting room floor -- either utterly unbelievable or utterly ripped off (or both). Thought the rest was good though







!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*U-571*



AH-HA!! It was YOU, deltasun. YOU who "made" me watch this fricken movie again!











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/15791656
> 
> *U-571*
> 
> 
> Fellas (and the sophisticated G3, of course
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ), feast your eyes on this gem of a BD. I say gem since I have not seen a review yet. First off, this is a fine example of a dated look that delivers on PQ. The faces are crisp with fine detail abound.....



The rest of Deltasun's review can be found here .


Okay, so I did watch this late last night. I had it from zip for almost a week and kept avoiding it.



The first 45 minutes or so of this 2hr movie were not impressive to me. It had this weird excessively sharp feeling, but not sharp in a good way. I'm not an expert on DNR but the faces, at the initial dance they were at and then up until they were actually sweating with the fight with the Germans on U-571 (Do I need to spoiler this stuff for a 10 year old movie? I hope not!) were all smooth and smeary, it was strange. I could not see any pores or facial hair or anything on Paxton or um... Maconnahey... McConaughey... GAH, forget it... _Matthew's_ face, or heck, even Keitel's. I did notice some minor EE or high contrast edging but it was really minor and I don't think anyone who is not already really sensitive to it would notice.



HOWEVER, the final 1hr15min looks as though whomever was messing with the first 45min suffered the same fate as Jon Bon Jovi, as the PQ turns absolutely amazing. All of a sudden the pasty smeary smooth, lack of detail yet weirdly sharp edges vanish and it's like you are down there on the sub with them. There's this powerful closeup of Harvey Keitel's face that had my jaw drop to the floor with how intense it was. Sweat & water pouring down from his face, each and every single pore and hair visible, his eyes were completely glassy and the pain & fear he was showing was positively riveting (considering I don't like this movie).



From that point on, the movie is damn near pristine. I would have to say about 80% of the water in this was beautiful, whenever I saw it like that I lamented about how the water in Master and Commander should have looked so good. But when it looked bad, it was ugly.



It's a strange movie, that is for sure. The first 45min or so, I was wondering why the heck this was recommended to me, as I thought it was Tier 3 at best. Afterwards, it is at least high tier 1 or even possibly low tier 0. I'm not sure how much it should be penalized given how long the crappy PQ goes on; it's as though you started watching the movie on a SD channel then half way through you realized you had it in HD instead and flipped the channel.



I'm going to split the difference here.


*Recommendation for U-571 - Tier 2.0*

*Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800u THX setting, approx 7.5'.*


----------



## tcramer

Has anyone seen any episodes of the Mother Earth Blu-ray set of 5? It was originally an IMAX film and looks interesting. If I knew it had good PQ, I would order.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*Confessions of a Shopaholic*



Wow. This movie had horrid PQ, I suppose it should be expected of this sort of movie, but at the same time, there's no excuse for horrid PQ!



The black levels were the worst. If something on the screen was black, it was BLACK. No detail; nothing. Her best friend had black hair, and it pretty much looked like a helmet. At some point Hugh Dancy was wearing a tuxedo and I couldn't even see the lapels.


There was definitely grain. I didn't notice any EE, and the lack of detail didn't feel as though it was DNR but I don't know. It was bland. Some colours were good, the green scarf had nice tone, as well as a lot of the wardrobe. But I never noticed any textures on anything and it was just SOFT as a fluffy pillow.



I don't know how many of you will be forced to sit through this movie, but I don't recommend it; I haven't read the book or anything but the movie wasn't very good even on a "chick flick" scale. Bleh. Move along, nothing to see here!


*Recommendation for Confessions of a Shopaholic: Tier 3.25*

*Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800u THX setting, approx 7.5'.*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Mirrors


recommendation: Tier 3.75
*

I do not know who originally placed this title but I am in complete agreement with its current ranking in tier 3.75. One of the poorer new releases for picture quality that I have seen in the past year. The only positive attribute of the transfer is the complete absence of edge enhancement. Other than that, the image is distinctly below average in several categories, including awful flesh tones and a heavy grain structure that is not fully resolved by the low-bitrate video encode. Inherently soft photography and some questionable lighting choices do not make for good-looking high definition. After being disappointed by it, I played Baraka for a stretch just to see if something had gone wrong with my display. My plasma is operating correctly and of course that disc still looks as a hallmark of true reference quality.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/16996924
> 
> *Mirrors
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 3.75
> *
> 
> I do not know who originally placed this title but I am in complete agreement with its current ranking in tier 3.75. One of the poorer new releases for picture quality that I have seen in the past year. The only positive attribute of the transfer is the complete absence of edge enhancement. Other than that, the image is distinctly below average in several categories, including awful flesh tones and a heavy grain structure that is not fully resolved by the low-bitrate video encode. Inherently soft photography and some questionable lighting choices do not make for good-looking high definition. After being disappointed by it, I played Baraka for a stretch just to see if something had gone wrong with my display. My plasma is operating correctly and of course that disc still looks as a hallmark of true reference quality.












http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...ostcount=11553


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/16992255
> 
> 
> I assume you don't mean that as praise.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TrevorS* /forum/post/16993824
> 
> 
> I picked that up because the basic storyline looked interesting. Unfortunately, everything from the start of the middle-ages sequence through the end of the vehicle chase should have been left on the cutting room floor -- either utterly unbelievable or utterly ripped off (or both). Thought the rest was good though
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> !



TrevorS post pretty much sums it up.










The only feel good factor in the movie is the underutilized, underexposed Rhona Mitra, and of course the overexposed picture towards the end


----------



## 42041

*I Love You, Man*

Another fine effort from Paramount. This isn't a particularly visually driven film but the California location makes for some occasional colorful scenery. The high bitrate AVC encoding handles the grain flawlessly, the detail is not mind-blowing but good. There's really not much to complain about. The one issue I have is that the colors don't look natural in some scenes. I have seen this look in a few recent movies, where the image is a bit too dark, skin tones take on this dull orange hue, and everything has this ugly brown tint to it. Not sure what the color grading techs think they're accomplishing (upon doing some imdb research, apparently the same guy has been the colorist for most of those movies I had in mind... dude needs a new gig, or maybe a monitor calibration). Either way, a pretty good looking disc.

*Tier 1.75*


(ps3/pioneer kuro 50" elite/1sw distance)


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/16996977
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...ostcount=11553



I have been trying to avoid knowing the specific rank of a movie before watching to make my own recommendations here as unbiased and independent as possible, but your review was completely accurate. But I can see why so many use the list as a consideration for purchases. I probably would have skipped the Blu-ray entirely if I knew its ranking ahead of time.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/16999919
> 
> 
> I have been trying to avoid knowing the specific rank of a movie before watching to make my own recommendations here as unbiased and independent as possible, but your review was completely accurate. But I can see why so many use the list as a consideration for purchases. I probably would have skipped the Blu-ray entirely if I knew its ranking ahead of time.



I am in complete agreement regarding the desire to review movies without knowing the ranking here first. It greatly reduces the chances of bias (which isn't necessarily intentional by any means).


----------



## Smoke_019




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/16994277
> 
> *Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800u THX setting, approx 7.5'.*



hey if you don't mind me asking, what do you have the black level setting at on your tv? we have the same tv and i've had it to "light" for a few months now, mostly playing videogames, but i'm not sure if i'm missing out on a better experience having it the "dark" setting when it comes to movies....


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Smoke_019* /forum/post/17008767
> 
> 
> hey if you don't mind me asking, what do you have the black level setting at on your tv? we have the same tv and i've had it to "light" for a few months now, mostly playing videogames, but i'm not sure if i'm missing out on a better experience having it the "dark" setting when it comes to movies....



I have it set to "Light". There's a thread for our specific TV located here and between that and using DVE HD Basics is how my TV was set up. When I watch films I use THX mode, and (much to my husband's annoyance) I have the room as dark as I can get it.



The horrible black levels in "Confessions of a Shopaholic" where I saw absolutely zero detail whenever black was present (such as Hugh Dancy in the tuxedo & the inability to see his lapels properly, or the helmet-hair best friend) gave me pause to think that perhaps there was something wrong w/ my TV, but given I've not had any issue with that in any of my recent viewing (as well as a recent re-check using test patterns a couple of weeks ago) I'm confident enough to think it was the movie's crappy PQ rather than an issue with my equipment.


I'm far from a guru regarding this set, but the gentlemen over in the Panny TH-58PZ800U thread are a fountain of knowledge. Hope this helps!


----------



## Smoke_019

thanks for the reply...i've posted in that thread a few times but it was a few months ago (that's where i got the recommendation for the "light" black level)...i thought that maybe there were some advantages to switching to "dark" as well...


anyway, thanks again...back to the blu-ray discussion...


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Smoke_019* /forum/post/17008767
> 
> 
> hey if you don't mind me asking, what do you have the black level setting at on your tv? we have the same tv and i've had it to "light" for a few months now, mostly playing videogames, but i'm not sure if i'm missing out on a better experience having it the "dark" setting when it comes to movies....



It's not really a matter of preference, it's about matching the levels to what your player is putting out, too bad Panasonic hasn't done a very good job labeling it as such, since the issue seems to confuse many people. For some reason there's two standards for RGB range used in the labyrinthine technological clusterf**k that is HDTV. You're using a PS3? Check the video settings. If its output is YCbCr or RGB limited, use "light" on your TV to match levels. Blu-rays are encoded as 16-235 range YCbCr so you'll get no real benefit by viewing them in full-range RGB. I forget how the PS3 handles RGB full range: it probably renders games as 0-255 RGB (set your TV to "dark"), but I don't remember if it corrects blu-ray and DVD video ranges to match, so if you're in RGB full and movies look washed out, set it to "light", or just forget full-range altogether.


----------



## Smoke_019

thanks to you as well ^^


i'll check my PS3 settings a little later and see what's up!


----------



## deltasun

*Blue Thunder*


Very nice transfer of an older flick. However, I have to judge it based on our thread rules. Grain was present throughout the presentation - some darker scenes had coarser grain than the average scene. I also found some frozen-type grain towards the end, but just an instance or two. Facial close-up's showed decent details at times, particularly on Roy Schneider's face. Still, they are no more than mid Tier 1 at best.


The title suffered during low-light scenes. It did not exhibit depth during those scenes and was usually a jumbled mess. Blacks were average and even showed some crushing in a number of scenes. Contrast was not the star either and did not help the dated, faded look of the film. 3D pop was absent.


Overall, a wonderful transfer but no demo material.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.25*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## deltasun

*Chaos*


This title showed promise early with its introductory scene of decadent black levels. From there, we see fine grain present throughout. Facial details were really mixed - I could see fine pores on actors' faces. And, I believe, that's make-up on Phillipe. Other times, their faces seemed waxy without any evidence of grain disappearing. One thing was consistent - skin tones were on the sallow side. Maybe this is what's making them look waxy. In a few medium scenes, softness did creep up - the sequence between Phillipe and Statham in the diner comes to mind.


Black levels were decent for the most part. A few instances of crushing did come up. Low-light scenes showed good depth for the most part as well. The color palette was dominated by blues and grays in certain scenes, appearing almost monotonic. Some of the intra-city scenes exhibited good depth and dimensionality.


Overall, I had high hopes, but it ended up just an average blu-ray presentation.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8' & 6'_


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Tin Man (UK import)


recommendation: Tier 2.25
*

Originally a Sci-Fi mini-series, this imaginative and modern take on The Wizard Of Oz has only seen a Blu-ray release in the U.K. Fortunately the disc is region-free and plays fine on American BD players, including the PS3 with the most recent firmware. Released on September 8th of 2008 by Brightspark Productions and RHI Entertainment, the 2007 mini-series has a running-time of 267-minutes fitted onto one BD-50. The picture quality is generally in that zone where high definition starts to really distinguish itself from standard definition without ever really approaching the better titles of tier one in comparison. AVC is the codec employed here to compress the video.


Production values are surprisingly high for this feature. Sets and backgrounds look authentic and the CGI looks better than standard television-level quality. The Blu-ray appears sourced from an immaculate master with nary a flaw or mark. There are no telling indicators any digital noise reduction has been applied, though the complete lack of grain in the frame reveals the digital nature of the camera used in production. Edge enhancement is apparent in certain scattered scenes, though usually it is low in amplitude and only visible on the most difficult high-contrast edges.


The clean and bright image must have compressed well, as compression issues are never really a problem. This is a better video encode than many efforts I have seen from major studios. The AVC encode ranges from a low of 7.3 Mbps to brief peaks near 38 Mbps. My estimation of the average video bitrate is near 20 Mbps, as the video parameters are most often in a band centered around that figure. A small nitpick that more discerning viewers might notice is the appearance of slight macroblocking in a couple of the darker lit scenes, as in Azkadellia's prison.


Colors are bright and vibrant much of the time in the world of the OZ. The picture is razor-sharp except when the lead actresses are in close-ups, where they are shot with a soft-focus that softens their faces and masks ultra-fine detail. It is annoying at times as the resolution will go from crystal-clear to hazy in the same scene because of this directorial decision. Contrast and clarity are excellent and uniformly good. Black levels are typically strong but I would not characterize this transfer as having the best shadow delineation. It very well may be a limitation of the camera used in shooting. The depth and dimensionality of the image is very nice, with more perspective than most other tier two titles.


Overall there are many positive attributes to the picture quality of this disc. Some scenes are nearly the caliber of tier one while the average quality never really drops all that far. Questionable visual choices by the director distract slightly like the incessant flashback cues, but nothing that could drag the score any lower than tier 2.25, so that is my conclusion for final placement.


Watching on a 60 Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 (firmware 2.80) at a viewing distance of six feet.


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17017309
> 
> 
> The picture is razor-sharp except when the lead actresses are in close-ups, where they are shot with a soft-focus that softens their faces and masks ultra-fine detail. It is annoying at times as the resolution will go from crystal-clear to hazy in the same scene because of this directorial decision.



Would you guess that this is another of those cases where an actor or actress won't allow HD closeups of thier faces due to skin imperfections / vanity in general? This does happen you know. Some are contracted that way.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/17018879
> 
> 
> Would you guess that this is another of those cases where an actor or actress won't allow HD closeups of thier faces due to skin imperfections / vanity in general? This does happen you know. Some are contracted that way.



It might be possible, I am not privy to the contracts various actresses sign. The director shows an annoying tendency though to purposely soften the picture for the artistic effect of depicting flashbacks regularly. It is jarring when a scene switches directly from a razor-sharp image with immense detail to a shot of the lead actress, Zooey Deschanel, highlighted by butterfly lighting. Now thinking about it, she is the daughter of famous cinematographer Caleb Deschanel, so that might lead one to speculate she is aware of such techniques and might have demanded their use.


----------



## boxterduke

Hey guys, I'm interested in buying 12 Monkeys on BD but I can't find a score for it

Anyone that has it can share what tier it would possibly be under?

Thanks.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *boxterduke* /forum/post/17019542
> 
> 
> Hey guys, I'm interested in buying 12 Monkeys on BD but I can't find a score for it
> 
> Anyone that has it can share what tier it would possibly be under?
> 
> Thanks.



Just one review so far - mine:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...s#post16911747 


If you're a huge fan and can find it cheap, it's still a great buy.


----------



## boxterduke




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17019787
> 
> 
> Just one review so far - mine:
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...s#post16911747
> 
> If you're a huge fan and can find it cheap, it's still a great buy.



Thanks for the reply, I found it for $22.99 at Futureshop, I'll hit ebay and see what deals are there but I can wait until I see it for less since I promised myself recently not to get anything outside of the blu or gold tiers


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Bloodrayne 2: Deliverance (UK import)


recommendation: Tier 4.0*


From noted auteur Uwe Boll, this 2007 film was released to Blu-ray on September 22nd of last year in the U.K. by the distributor Metrodome. The transfer is soft with contrast issues and from questionable elements. The 99-minute sequel is encoded in AVC on a BD-25 and happens to be region-free and playable on the PS3.


At first it looked as if this disc would have a very high video bitrate, as the opening credits rarely stray from 32.5 Mbps. But as the movie gets going, the bulk of encode hovers in a band from 15 to 18 Mbps, with the occasional outdoor scene peaking in the low thirties. The average video bitrate is approximately 17 Mbps for the entire main feature. The heavy grain structure of the film looks poorly resolved at times. In fact heavy compression noise can be seen in the exterior shots of the blue sky that I have not really seen on Blu-ray since the halcyon days of MPEG-2 encodes. Overall it is a poor job that does not help a murky transfer to begin with.


The transfer looks like it was sourced from a theatrical print and not the original film negatives. The regular occurrence of print damage and scratches is unusual for a movie of such recent vintage. Grain looks heavily exaggerated and more typical of a second or third generation print. At least no digital noise reduction has been applied and there is a total lack of ringing or halos. The low production budget might have been a factor in some of these issues.


The main problem with the picture quality are the massive contrast issues and poor shadow detail. Lighting in many scenes is a real issue. Certain extended nighttime scenes look absolutely wretched, with little discernible detail and poor visibility. Black levels show irregular clipping with the occasional appearance of mosquito noise and chroma artifacts. Colors are below average and look very ordinary, not the brilliant hues regularly seen in most Blu-rays. The frequent close-ups look okay and better in quality than most other tier four titles. The image is consistently soft and the camerawork is not that great.


A mildly amusing mixture of vampires and the Old West, the picture quality is not much to write about on this disc. My recommendation for placement is in tier four. At least a DTS-HD MA soundtrack is included, though the extra features are all presented in PAL.


----------



## djoberg

*The Unborn*


It looks like I'm the first to review this title and I have to say the PQ was very good, though the movie itself was dreadful. Universal did another good job creating a clean and crisp transfer.


Let me start with the black levels (my "first love"). They are in almost every scene and they truly shine; they are deep and inky with exquisite shadow detail and depth. What a contrast to bygone days when DVD releases of movies in this genre gave us nothing but a murky blob in dark scenes. Blu-ray really earns its accolades in this department when the source is pristine as it is in this case.


Colors are also to be praised; they are vibrant and natural. Contrast is top-notch as well. Skin tones are spot on and facial close-ups do not disappoint (they don't rank up there with Tier 0 titles, but they easily match those in Tier 1).


Details are another sight to behold, whether it be in the cobble streets (where our female lead loves to jog), bark and leaves on trees, fabric in clothing, etc.


The only downside were numerous flashbacks where grain can be heavy and there is an intentional softness. The movie must be penalized for this, and for a few isolated shots (indoor nighttime scenes) where it was a bit flat and lacking detail.


I feel quite generous tonight (perhaps because I haven't seen a Blur-ray in awhile







), so I'm going to recommend the following....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'


----------



## djoberg

*Pride and Glory*


It's late and the sandman is calling....so I'm going to make this very short! The bottom line is this is one inconsistent film. At times it is impressive, with good color, decent blacks, acceptable contrast, spot on flesh tones, and very good-looking facial close-ups. At other times (and they make up the majority) the colors are lackluster, the blacks are either crushed or murky, the contrast is overblown (resulting in blinding whites in a few daytime scenes), flesh tones have a red push, and facial details are bland.


There was a fair amount of grain present throughout. This was not a bad thing in a some scenes, but in others it gave it the characteristic gritty-look that comes across as digital noise. This was especially true in night scenes.


I felt generous in the last review I gave (2 hours and 20 minutes ago), but I can't bring myself to follow suit for this title. Sooooo.....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Guard Post (UK import)


recommendation: 3.0
*

Originally a Korean movie, this region-free BD was released on December 29, 2008 in the U.K. by Showbox. Running 121-minutes in length, the main feature is encoded in AVC on a BD-25. Overall, picture quality is excellent at times with some troubling negatives that lower my overall placement.


The AVC encode is a low-bitrate affair that rarely jumps over 23 Mbps. Most of the movie ranges in the teens and low twenties. The average video bitrate is approximately 17 Mbps. Daylight and well-lit scenes have no artifacting problems and in fact are quite sharp. The darker scenes with little light available look awful, with a heavy-grain structure that breaks into frequent compression noise and macroblocking. The compression work here is a sub par effort that distracts from the picture quality in darker passages.


The master shows a high degree of speckling for a recent movie. A fair number of tiny, white specks pop up randomly throughout the film. A persistent amount of ringing is also visible most of the time. These are relatively thick halos that appear on most high-contrast edges. It does not appear any amount of digital noise reduction has been used, as high-frequency information is preserved in every scene, including many tight shots of the actors. The grain fields in darker scenes, while thick, also looks completely natural.


Much of the disc could easily be placed in the lower confines of tier one. What drops the final score for me nearly a whole tier are the awful crushed blacks. Black levels are all over the place in the first hour of the movie. A couple of scenes are so crushed that it is hard to make out what is happening on screen. The daylight scenes show nothing but fine-grain structure and plenty of razor-sharp depth. Inside the military bunker is another story, with contrast issues and crushed blacks awash in very noisy-looking grain.


I wanted to place this title higher but the ringing and poor black levels force me to lower it into tier three.


----------



## deltasun

*The Soloist*


Gorgeous presentation from Paramount. Very fine grain present throughout, giving a very film-like presentation. Colors were vibrant but natural. The pastels, however, were what did it for me - they were especially cool and soothing and just very pleasing to the eyes. Facial close-up's showed very good details for the majority of the scenes, particularly Ayers and Lopez. There were some scenes of softness, albeit seeming deliberate. The director favored a technique of having his actors cross the plane of focus - i.e., softness before sharpness. It's generally a good technique, but in some scenes, it seemed bothersome.


Indoor lit scenes showed an inviting and warm vibrancy which, coupled with the excellent depth in medium scenes, always looked well presented. Depth and dimension for this film were fully taken advantage of. Black levels were deep and bold. Contrast was perfect for the most part. The only instances of bad contrast came in mixed sequences. Usually, these occurred when scattered light came in through a window, partially washing out the subjects in the foreground.


I did not see any DNR and just minor, almost unmentionable (shh!) ringing. Aside from the softness, I would easily rate this a solid 1.0...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*


I quite enjoyed the movie and obviously the PQ didn't hurt either. Most of all, some really good Beethoven in surround.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8' & 6'_


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*The Watchmen (Director's Cut)*


I finally was able to see The Watchmen last night, and the DC was the copy that Zip decided to send me.


This movie was gorgeous to me. Absolutely gorgeous. I loved the black levels on my Panny, with such a dark movie with the blue-hues that it used it presented spectacularly. I thought the textures, details and colours were wonderful, and it had a fantastic glossy look that I just adore watching.



I agree with my fellow reviewers that there is some slight digital noise and there are times where the detail falls below the tier 0 range, especially with the CGI. I was fairly immersed in the story as I was completely unfamiliar with it so there's likely times I missed some things that other reviewers saw. As it's a rental I won't be able to watch it again until I actually buy it.



I didn't notice any signs of edge enhancement; given my sensitivity issues with it if it's there it has to be minute because it would have driven me batty.



All in all I don't think there's much that would disappoint anyone looking for eye candy with this film.


*Recommendation for The Watchmen (Director's Cut): Tier 1.0*
*Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800u THX setting, approx 7.5'.*


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

OK i have to say that I watched "*He's Just Not That Into You*" yesterday, and I can't search the thread for this movie, nothing shows up. I kind of half-watched it while I did some other stuff as it wasn't the best movie (I didn't really like it much), so I don't feel comfortable doing a formal review. I'll just say that from what i did pay attention to, it was nothing to write home about but it wasn't horrible. *Maybe low Tier 2/high tier 3?* I hope nobody forces you guys to watch this movie, while there's a rather attractive cast it's kind of female-bashing (i was thinking it was a guy's movie disguised as a chick flick) but then at the end turns to male-bashing (reversing it back to chick-flick territory).


----------



## deltasun

Umm, I rather enjoyed the flick
















http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...w#post16680814


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17037099
> 
> 
> Umm, I rather enjoyed the flick
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...w#post16680814



hee! Well I suppose that's okay. Glad to see you gave it tier 2.50, at least I don't feel out of line with my guess given the fact that I wasn't totally paying attention to the screen the way I normally would for a review. I thought I'd read a review for it on here, I went back a chunk and scanned after I couldn't find anything with the search mode (too many small words in that title!).


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Ninth Gate


recommendation: Tier 3.0
*

A 1999 film from Roman Polanski, Lionsgate released this satanic thriller to Blu-ray very recently on August 11, 2009. The 133-minute film is presented here in an AVC encode on a BD-50. BDInfo scan gives the average video bitrate as 34.82 Mbps. As a neglected catalog transfer, this disc is no visual marvel, but it is serviceable considering it is unlikely we will see a better iteration anytime soon.


The main problems with the transfer start with the amount of effort and money put into its restoration, which apparently were minimal by Lionsgate. A fair amount of dirt on the master appears in the first twenty-minutes of the film, particularly on the left side of the screen. It is correct to say that Lionsgate did not use any manual scratch and dirt removal here, which slightly takes away from the overall visual quality in the beginning. It is jarring to see that level of damage on a relatively modern film. Strangely after that point, the print damage and dirt totally disappears for the rest of the film. A possible cause is that the master used for this transfer is older work done on inferior equipment, and that a new master was not struck from the original film elements. There is only so much that can be done with an older high-definition master.


Another problem is the obvious use of filtering at some stage that is quite noticeable at times. I would not characterize it as an abomination that strips away all fine detail, but flesh appears slightly dull and lifeless. Even close-ups lose a touch of high-frequency information that should be there in abundance. The movie itself was never the sharpest to begin with due to the nature of the original photography, but it is obvious that some noise reduction has been applied. There is a touch of edge enhancement in a few scenes. The halos are fairly small in amplitude and only negate from the picture quality in a couple of scenes, though one of those scenes is a beautiful tracking shot at a pivotal point in the movie.


Before I lay out the rest of the visuals, the beautiful cinematography has to be pointed out. This is easily one of the best shot horror films of all-time, with a keen sense of framing and space within the picture. In this regard it truly is stunning and adds to the overall picture quality that no dingy transfer could take away. I did watch this movie during its initial theatrical run, and I believe the technicians at Lionsgate have tweaked both the colors and the contrast for this BD that is probably not faithful to the original intended look. There is a slight, but consistent, red push to the entire film that I do not remember the movie having before. It makes the skintones a little warmer than they should be and intensifies the colors of certain scenes. The red curtains that ring a room during a key scene appear a bright shade of crimson that was much more restrained in the theaters.


In general the colors on this disc appear to have been tweaked to be more garish and bright. A casual viewer without any frame of reference would not notice this problem. The intended color palette was most likely darker and more reserved. This change also applies to the contrast levels, which look elevated here to show everything in the shadows at all times. The increase in clarity hurts the atmosphere of the world in the film in my opinion. Not everything in a shadow is meant to be seen by the audience.


The compression work is marvelous at these high-bitrates and probably completely transparent to the source material. One thing this transfer does not have are artifacts or compression noise to mar the picture. The quality of the transfer gets better as the movie plays, and finally seems to achieve slightly better than average quality later in the movie. The opening credits firmly begin in the lower reaches of tier three, and by the end of the film the quality could be assigned somewhere in tier two.


BDInfo Scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post17006602


----------



## deltasun

^^ Great review as usual, Phantom! I only watched about an hour of my copy and didn't get to finish. So it wasn't just me who noticed the difference in look from the original theatrical presentation. I could not place what was amiss, but I think you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned some tweaking with the colors. I convinced myself that I'm seeing more shadow details because it's HD, but you may be right again that that was tweaked as well.


I also agree that the quality easily got better and better. Even at the point where Lena Olin visits Johnny Depp in his apartment, the quality was already a few notches above the prelude.


Still, I was disappointed with how the look has changed. This was always one of my favorites look-wise even on SD DVD.


----------



## deltasun

*Push*


Fine grain present throughout the film. _Push_ was a stylized action flick that made use of several video techniques ranging from added grain to saturated colors. Facial details were excellent - some instances straddling Tier 0. They were impressive even with some of the smooth-faced cast, which still exhibited texture and suppleness.


Colors were a bit unnatural due to the techniques employed. They were a bit more saturated and at times, almost glowing. These did not prove too bothersome since they played along with the tone of the film. Depth and dimension were a delight to experience. Hong Kong cityscapes looked 3-dimensional during the day and at night.


Black levels were bold, but usually clipped - again, probably more for effect. Contrast was a bit elevated at times, but did not detract too much. Skin tones really followed the settings closely. They took on the same shade as their environment and were consistent with the other attributes.


Overall, a very good looking title. I did not detect any DNR but did spot lots of ringing. I think the ringing was again intentional. I have to administer some mandatory deductions for when the director pushed (no pun intended) the look of the film to make it look like home video during a few sequences. Add to this the scenes within the cabaret where facial details turned waxy, we get more deductions.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


Despite all the bad press regarding the plot, I actually stayed with it and was mildly entertained. I do agree though that it's probably a forgetful movie once the credits roll.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## Ratnose86

Any opinion on open season 2?


----------



## daPriceIs

*Tell No One*


I was first clued in to this movie by Phantom’s July 28th review (post 13057). Based on the strength of that review and several others around the net and favorable Amazon pricing, I acquired this title soon thereafter, but have been laggardly and rather lazy in getting to this review. Overall I found the movie itself to have been generally over-hyped. No, this is not the greatest thriller since … . No, the plot is not so twisty and convoluted that you have to be an Einstein to follow it on the first viewing. And lastly no, the director, Canet, is not the new Hitchcock, not yet, though I guess he did deserve the César he won for this movie. But _Tell No One_ is entertaining and the cinematography is excellent and well deserving of its César nomination.


I won’t go over the stats since Phantom does that so well. However, I have two nits to pick about this BD’s presentation: What’s up with the sound? North America only gets DD 5.1 and LPCM 2.0 while the French import has LPCM 5.1 and the British has TrueHD 5.1. The other issue is that only the first line of the subtitles falls within the frame of the movie; this could be problematic for some viewers.


Contrast and saturation are spot on as are shadows and black level.


The color palette is naturalistic but slightly warm, warm in the way that late afternoon sunlight is warm. (Get that horrible picture of Ocean’s 13 out of your mind.







It’s nothing like that!) Its only slightly negative impact is on skin tones; it appears that there is no pasty white skin in France anymore. The worst example of this is in the confrontation between the protagonist’s lawyer and the DA [chapter 15 from 1:35:38 to 1:37:41].


There are some trivial compression artifacts but they are virtually unnoticeable. There are also a very few random tiny white specks, but I did not find the print nearly as dirty as deltasun (post 13084) seems to. There is ringing at extreme contrast boundaries, but there does not appear to be any EE of consequence. These issues, such as they are, are never unobjectionable and in almost every case will not be noticed unless you have a huge projection screen or sit uncomfortably close to your TV, as I force myself to do for these reviews.


While there are a few soft shots (actually I should say “not as sharp”), the movie as a whole is sharp and extremely rich and detailed. There is one perfect example of this: the facial close-ups of the photographer, Charlotte Bertaud, talking with Beck on the balcony of her studio. This short scene [chapter 5 from 0:39:13 to 0:41:30] is exquisite! It is the perfect exemplar of live action Tier 0 clarity and detail. It is demo-worthy, even definition-worthy, all by itself.


As mentioned, the cinematography and camera work are top notch. The landscapes are strikingly beautiful at times, especially the countryside. The aerial shots of Beck’s Volvo driving down a country road are notable, as are those of the tree where Beck and Margot carved their initials. There are caveats. I found the unsteadiness of some of the shots annoying. I’m not talking about handheld shots, either. Worst example: Senator Neuville and his chief henchman are sitting on a patio talking [chapter 14 from 1:24:27 to 1:26:03]. This is a static scene which shifts between shots of one talking head to shots of the other. But there’s slight vertical bobbing and weaving in each shot; it’s like the camera’s not mounted securely or its support is bouncing. What’s up with that?


As part of the process of deciding on a placement, my PQ memory not being what it should, I made direct AB comparisons to all of the live action Tier 0 and some of the Tier 1.0 titles in my library. _Tell No One_ holds its own in these comparisons.
Tier 0 comparisons:
Inferior to iR, POTC: AWE, POTC: DMC, and Baraka
Clearly superior to POTC: COTBP, GCA, MOF, LFODH (obviously, as you can see, I think MOF is misplaced)

Tier 1.0 comparisons:
Sunshine, CR, QOS, TT, Hellboy, IJ, Watchmen, PT(S-FV), and Patriot

Besides giving me an idea of where TNO should be placed, these comparisons have led me to question a few of the current rankings:
If you’re going to put POTC:COTBP in Tier 0, how can you keep CR out? Easy answer: POTC:COTBP doesn’t belong.
I find the placement of MOF baffling. Yes, in every other way MOF is superior, but saturation and contrast are just too hot and detract from overall PQ. (Disclaimer: while not a member of the official Tony Scott hate club, I’ve thought about joining.)
What can I say? PT(S-FV) is simply overrated.
No doubt these topics have already been beaten to death, so as a Johnny-come-lately to this forum I’ll not belabor them further.


*Recommendation: mid Tier 0 just above Live Free or Die Hard

*Panasonic TH-42PZ77U 1080p/60 from 4'


----------



## daPriceIs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17042651
> 
> *The Ninth Gate
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 3.0
> *
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> The main problems with the transfer start with the amount of effort and money put into its restoration, which apparently were minimal by Lionsgate. A fair amount of dirt on the master appears in the first twenty-minutes of the film, particularly on the left side of the screen. It is correct to say that Lionsgate did not use any manual scratch and dirt removal here, which slightly takes away from the overall visual quality in the beginning. It is jarring to see that level of damage on a relatively modern film. ...
> 
> 
> Another problem is the obvious use of filtering at some stage that is quite noticeable at times. I would not characterize it as an abomination that strips away all fine detail, but flesh appears slightly dull and lifeless.
> 
> 
> ...



This is quite sad to hear since this is one of my favorites and I've been dithering about upgrading from the DVD. I guess I'll wait until this hits the bargain bin.


----------



## deltasun

*Miss March*


Super fine grain present throughout - I've had to look for it at times. This is due to the fact that facial details ranged from a tad soft to very soft. Even at extreme close-up's, they were just unnaturally devoid of fine details. It's almost like faces don't ever get to the expected plane of focus. Medium shots were flat and lifeless. There were a few panoramic scenes of Chicago and overhead freeway shots that exhibited good depth, but these were limited to just a handful of scenes.


Can't complain too much about the black levels, but did not stand out. Contrast was level. Skin tones were sometimes warm, but again, fair for the most part. Still, there was something off about the look of the film. It was dull and uninteresting. Low-light sequences were even worse.


Overall, it looked like it was going to be a decent PQ'd movie. In the end, it was very underwhelming. Technically, however, it was a sound presentation with no signs of artifacting that I could detect.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75*


Probably the worst movie I've seen yet this year. Steer clear...I think I count two funny parts.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Mariah Carey: The Adventures Of Mimi
recommendation: Tier 1.50
*

Currently placed in tier 2.0, this disc should probably be ranked in tier one somewhere. The 79-minute main feature is included on a BD-50 and was released by Image Entertainment. A technically proficient VC-1 encode that is relatively high at an average of 24.90 Mbps shows off moments of great sharpness and depth to the image. Shot on high-definition cameras, the disc is presented in the native resolution the concert was shot in at 1080i.


Colors are quite good and black levels are superb. The shadow delineation and fine detail is maybe the best I have seen from a concert. Thin pinstriping can easily be made out on the black vests the dancers wear at one point. The faults in the image are due to the demands of a modern pop concert, with smoke machines and a couple of odd lighting choices in certain moments.


The picture quality is variable though and does change from high tier one-caliber to a standard tier two title. While a placement in tier 1.75 or even tier 2.0 might make sense, I am thinking a placement in tier 1.50 is more representative of the quality seen here on this disc.


BDInfo Scan (courtesy of Mikl1984):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...8#post15035298


----------



## 42041

*Jet Li's Fearless*


A good looking movie. There's a pleasing amount of detail, colors are usually rich and natural, the image has an unmolested film-like quality and there's some beautiful scenery during the middle portion of the film. There's a consistency issue though: the modern-day scene at the very beginning looks awful, grain looks rough in places, and there's a few instances of anemic compression and color banding.

*Tier 1.75*

(PS3/Pioneer 50" Kuro Elite/1s.w. distance)


----------



## OldCodger73

An above average transfer. Good detail and depth with nice color. The whites at the beginning of some outdoor snowy long shots were blown out, which seemed the director's intent, all was fine when the camera zoomed in. *Fargo Tier 2.25.*


----------



## Blacklac




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Blacklac* /forum/post/16674373
> 
> 
> BTW, this is AVC with TrueHD 5.1 (16-bit). Studio's are Aardman and 2 Entertain. Disc is a BD25.


Wallace and Gromit


The posted info is incorrect. It is not from Lionsgate and it doesn't have DD audio.


----------



## Filmaholic

Hi, I'm new here, just registered so I could ask you guys something. Generally speaking, I think the tiers are fair to the PQ's in question. Except for *Zodiac* and *The Curious Case of Benjamin Button*. From what I understand, these suckers were digitally shot, hence there is no "transfer", you could say "conversion", maybe. The thing is, I think both films are demoworthy material and belong in Tier 0 Blu. Could anyone clarify why are they not there?


PS: forgive any eventually bad grammar, I'm brazilian.

Thanx.


----------



## John Mason




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Filmaholic* /forum/post/17065183
> 
> 
> Hi, I'm new here, just registered so I could ask you guys something. Generally speaking, I think the tiers are fair to the PQ's in question. Except for *Zodiac* and *The Curious Case of Benjamin Button*. From what I understand, these suckers were digitally shot, hence there is no "transfer", you could say "conversion", maybe. The thing is, I think both films are demoworthy material and belong in Tier 0 Blu. Could anyone clarify why are they not there?
> 
> 
> PS: forgive any eventually bad grammar, I'm brazilian.
> 
> Thanx.



Welcome to the forums. Posted a few comments earlier that movies shot with digital-cinema cameras, reviewed here, often seem to get favorable PQ ratings. While no telecine transfer is involved, camera filtering and other parameters can greatly influence technical PQ. For example, a ~4k digital intermediate (somewhat rare) versus a 2K DI (most common) might affect final PQ. Zodiac, I believe, was shot with the earlier Viper camera, and recall posting a link a while back where someone on the production detailed this first all-digital/tapeless work (they claimed). Newer cameras like the RED ONE are touted as closely emulating film, although DPs still sometimes mention inadequate dynamic range for digital cameras. Supposedly eliminating one stage (telecine) in the production/distribution chain should theoretically give an edge to all-digital movies; this Arri tutorial download has a section detailing how eliminating one MTF-transfer stage, such as a telecine, greatly influences the final MTF (modulation transfer function, or overall resolution versus contrast). -- John


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Filmaholic* /forum/post/17065183
> 
> 
> Hi, I'm new here, just registered so I could ask you guys something. Generally speaking, I think the tiers are fair to the PQ's in question. Except for *Zodiac* and *The Curious Case of Benjamin Button*. From what I understand, these suckers were digitally shot, hence there is no "transfer", you could say "conversion", maybe. The thing is, I think both films are demoworthy material and belong in Tier 0 Blu. Could anyone clarify why are they not there?
> 
> 
> PS: forgive any eventually bad grammar, I'm brazilian.
> 
> Thanx.



I haven't seen Benjamin Button. In Zodiac, the resolution is impressive, but to me, the subject matter/lighting/etc doesn't lend itself as well for demo material as, say, Apocalypto with its lush jungles and ornate costumes and sets (which coincidentally is also shot digitally). Digital cameras are not perfect, and seem to not deal with dark scenes very well. If you've ever shot on a digital SLR camera at high sensitivities and worked with raw sensor output, you know that sensor noise is pretty nasty looking. I think they must use chroma noise reduction to make it more pleasant to look at, which in turn washed out the colors.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Filmaholic* /forum/post/17065183
> 
> 
> Hi, I'm new here, just registered so I could ask you guys something. Generally speaking, I think the tiers are fair to the PQ's in question. Except for *Zodiac* and *The Curious Case of Benjamin Button*. From what I understand, these suckers were digitally shot, hence there is no "transfer", you could say "conversion", maybe. The thing is, I think both films are demoworthy material and belong in Tier 0 Blu. Could anyone clarify why are they not there?



My original review and recommendation for the Paramount version of Zodiac was for tier 1.0, which can be read at the link.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...3#post15698103 


There was a diverse body of opinions on its placement if I recall correctly. A few of the darkest scenes really did not look that good, which would automatically disqualify it for consideration from tier zero in my estimation. I think a fair assessment might place it a little higher than its current ranking of tier 1.75. The tier list is built upon the input of contributors like you, so if you feel the placement is not justified, write a brief summary in the format from the first post and it will be incorporated into the next update by SuprSlow, the moderator of this thread.


I have yet to watch my copy of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, so I will demur on the discussion of that particular title.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Filmaholic* /forum/post/17065183
> 
> 
> Hi, I'm new here, just registered so I could ask you guys something. Generally speaking, I think the tiers are fair to the PQ's in question. Except for *Zodiac* and *The Curious Case of Benjamin Button*. From what I understand, these suckers were digitally shot, hence there is no "transfer", you could say "conversion", maybe. The thing is, I think both films are demoworthy material and belong in Tier 0 Blu. Could anyone clarify why are they not there?
> 
> 
> PS: forgive any eventually bad grammar, I'm brazilian.
> 
> Thanx.



I haven't seen Zodiac, but I was very impressed with the PQ of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. I recommended a 1.5 placement, whereas the previous reviewers opted for 2.0. I believe it is a demo-worthy title, but IMO it fell short of Tier 0 on two counts:


1) It had quite a few SOFT scenes.


2) Facial details, though good, lacked the clarity and precision of Tier 0.


Where it really excelled was in the DEPTH and DIMENSIONALITY department. And there were MANY scenes that were razor-sharp with finely-rendered details.


Let me close by echoing the sentiments of Phantom Stranger...please give us your thoughts in a review so your *vote* can be counted!


----------



## Filmaholic

First I must thank everyone who replied my post, I apreciate it.

Maybe I was too simplistic in my statement. I am not saying that everything digitally shot should be Tier 0 by default, that's not it.


Regarding *Zodiac*, I think black levels are excellent, with very good shadow delineation (even in dark shots, as can be seen in the parking lot murder scene), fine texture detail, no artifacting, solid colors and skin tones, etc. Should be, at least, Tier 1.25, I think. Of course, I agree with 42041, this is no Apocalypto, which is impressive and lush, too bad it is an horrible film. The thing is, "demoworthy" is a subjective concept and yes, you can mesmerize people even with a scene that contains nothing but a desk full of documents or some reflection on a car at night, as in Zodiac. I've done it. Ok, maybe I'm biased, since I love this film so much, sorry about that.


Well, as for *The Curious Case of Benjamin Button*, I do agree there are spots of "softness', but I'm pretty sure it was David Fincher's intent and it doesn't detract from the overall quality picture at all. Almost everything else is pretty perfect, from awesome fine detail and shadow delineation to the everpresent "window" effect. I did experience, however, some realy minor instances of color banding in skintones, but *Kung Fu Panda* also has it and it is Tier 0. I'm sorry I don't have the time right now to advocate this fiercelly, but that's my two cents anyway...


One last thing: I agree with everyone proposing *Coraline* at the top of Tier 0, it is unbelievable, gorgeous and made me cry with it's beauty (well, not really).


Again, thanks to everyone who replied my post and for the patience with a noob, which I clearly am.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Filmaholic* /forum/post/17071722
> 
> 
> First I must thank everyone who replied my post, I apreciate it.
> 
> Maybe I was too simplistic in my statement. I am not saying that everything digitally shot should be Tier 0 by default, that's not it.
> 
> 
> Regarding *Zodiac*, I think black levels are excellent, with very good shadow delineation (even in dark shots, as can be seen in the parking lot murder scene), fine texture detail, no artifacting, solid colors and skin tones, etc. Should be, at least, Tier 1.25, I think. Of course, I agree with 42041, this is no Apocalypto, which is impressive and lush, too bad it is an horrible film. The thing is, "demoworthy" is a subjective concept and yes, you can mesmerize people even with a scene that contains nothing but a desk full of documents or some reflection on a car at night, as in Zodiac. I've done it. Ok, maybe I'm biased, since I love this film so much, sorry about that.
> 
> 
> *****
> 
> 
> Again, thanks to everyone who replied my post and for the patience with a noob, which I clearly am.



Zodiac surely does not belong in 1.25. Even its current placement in 1.75 is generous. Frequent EE/processed look in medium shots.


----------



## deltasun

*Coraline*


The first thing that struck me, specially in the opening sequence, was the three-dimensionality of the scene. Then, the intricate detail and texture of the thread. Even the buttons showed texture. I gotta say though, that opening sequence may have been the most impressive in the entire film, save a few other scenes that may strike a cord with certain viewers. The grass path near the opening scene, with the changing light, has got to be one of the best in animation (or otherwise) so far.


So, yes - black levels were excellent on this title. Fine details, markings were always evident on even the darkest black items. Low-light dimensionality was top notch. Depending on the setting, colors can be incredibly vibrant and coolly monotonic, both exhibiting pleasing tones.


Now, for some inconsistencies. My biggest complaint were the facial details. For as detailed as _Coraline's_ hair and clothing, for example, her face was never at the same level of detail. In fact, it never got sharp and usually looked soft, almost creamy. My eyes, being able to lock on to the other surrounding details, can never find that plane of focus for her face. This was true of other faces. Unfortunately, facial scenes were abundant and am puzzled (almost disappointed) at their soft nature. This was potentially a director's intent, but I found it bothersome. Another complaint were at the softness of the CGI creatures, namely the first time we encounter the hummingbirds.


Overall, it's still a demo disc; although I don't know if I would use the entire disc. I did not quite detect any EE. There's a scene in the garden that may have looked like ringing, but it was clearly the back-lighting.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## Filmaholic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17077581
> 
> *Coraline*
> 
> 
> The first thing that struck me, specially in the opening sequence, was the three-dimensionality of the scene. Then, the intricate detail and texture of the thread. Even the buttons showed texture. I gotta say though, that opening sequence may have been the most impressive in the entire film, save a few other scenes that may strike a cord with certain viewers. The grass path near the opening scene, with the changing light, has got to be one of the best in animation (or otherwise) so far.
> 
> 
> So, yes - black levels were excellent on this title. Fine details, markings were always evident on even the darkest black items. Low-light dimensionality was top notch. Depending on the setting, colors can be incredibly vibrant and coolly monotonic, both exhibiting pleasing tones.
> 
> 
> Now, for some inconsistencies. My biggest complaint were the facial details. For as detailed as _Coraline's_ hair and clothing, for example, her face was never at the same level of detail. In fact, it never got sharp and usually looked soft, almost creamy. My eyes, being able to lock on to the other surrounding details, can never find that plane of focus for her face. This was true of other faces. Unfortunately, facial scenes were abundant and am puzzled (almost disappointed) at their soft nature. This was potentially a director's intent, but I found it bothersome. Another complaint were at the softness of the CGI creatures, namely the first time we encounter the hummingbirds.
> 
> 
> Overall, it's still a demo disc; although I don't know if I would use the entire disc. I did not quite detect any EE. There's a scene in the garden that may have looked like ringing, but it was clearly the back-lighting.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.0*
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_



With all due respect, there's no way in hell I'm going to agree with this.


You say there is softness on the face of he characters. Ok, first, may I remind you this film was produced using puppets, it is a stop-motion animated feature. If the faces seem flat, well, it's because they are. The puppets were made of some sort of molded silicon.


You say CGI creatures, like the hummimgbirds. Again, what are you talking about? This is pure stop-motion, stereoscopic and digitally shot, there's no "CGI" whatsoever in this movie. Even the fog is real.


In my opinion, it would be very wrong to blame the PQ based on this factors. Absolutely.


PS: I might be wrong, but I don't see any sort of DNR or EE apllied here. Sorry. Those puppet faces just don't have much texture in the concrete, real world, that's how it is.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Filmaholic* /forum/post/17078574
> 
> 
> With all due respect, there's no way in hell I' going to agree with this.
> 
> 
> You say there is softness on the face of he characters. Ok, first, may I remind you this film was produced using puppets, it is a stop-motion animated feature. If the faces seem flat, well, it's because tey are. The puppets were made of some sort of molded silicon.
> 
> 
> You say CGI creatures, like the hummimgbirds. Again, what are you talking about? This is pure stop-motion, stereoscopic and digitally shot, there's no "CGI" whatsoever in this movie. Even the fog is real.
> 
> 
> In my opinion, it would be very wrong to blame the PQ based on this factors. Absolutely.
> 
> 
> PS: I might be wrong, but I don't see any sort of DNR or EE apllied here. Sorry. Those puppet faces just don't have much texture in the concrete, real world, that's how it is.



You're right about the hummingbirds. I was under the impression they had some CGI elements (specially elements in flight). Regardless, if you go back and look, those hummingbirds from the first sequence were soft (second sequence was better). Just as the faces are soft. I don't care what they're made of or that they're puppet faces - they were shot soft. That can be a product of a number of things - defocusing, lighting, etc. If a "smooth" button can look sharp and in focus, so can a puppet's face.


Again, the facial shots looked off to me. That is my experience when viewing Coraline. It's perfectly fine to disagree, but that was my impression.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17079454
> 
> 
> You're right about the hummingbirds. I was under the impression they had some CGI elements (specially elements in flight). Regardless, if you go back and look, those hummingbirds from the first sequence were soft (second sequence was better). Just as the faces are soft. I don't care what they're made of or that they're puppet faces - they were shot soft. That can be a product of a number of things - defocusing, lighting, etc. If a "smooth" button can look sharp and in focus, so can a puppet's face.
> 
> 
> Again, the facial shots looked off to me. That is my experience when viewing Coraline. It's perfectly fine to disagree, but that was my impression.



I'll have to give this a rent again deltasun to check out what you are saying about the puppet faces being soft. I do NOT recall that being the case. The facial shots did NOT look off to me at all.


All things considered, I too have to disagree strongly with your recommendation (though I respect your opinion in most cases and you are surely entitled to it). I still believe it is the best-looking Blu-ray title thus far.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

I have Coraline arriving next week so I can weigh in on that topic then. But I've finally watched a couple of Blu's so I should get crackin' and review them!










Also arriving next week is much anticipated "The Notebook". I have no clue why I put that in my zip queue, I must have been tired or drunk or something.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*My Name Is Bruce*



Okay, Bruce Campbell is definitely a B-movie fave of mine, but DAAAAAMN this movie was bad. I actually shut it off about 30 minutes into it, watched something else (my next review) and then put this back on so I could finish it and write about it for you guys.



The PQ of this terrible movie was suspect. It would occasionally have shots where you could see good tier 1-ish detail, but it was pretty soft for the most part. Colours were decent enough. The worst part about this disc was the amount of pixelization that would show up. It felt like when watching an HD signal on TV but then it got choked up. It happened WAY too much during this film to be forgiven at all. Because of this, I don't think the moments of detail can help save this Blu as it was way too distracting and ugly.



Maybe I'm being too harsh on this title, but if someone else wants to review this dreck and help raise it's tier level, feel free. Maybe it can be somewhere in Tier 3, if someone's being nicer than I am, but the pixelization in combination with the softness completely ruined this already terrible film to me.


*Recommendation for My Name Is Bruce: Tier 4.00*
*Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800u THX setting, approx 7.5'.*


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*Valkyrie*


Valkyrie was a bit of a hard title for me. I didn't quite care for it (I'm not really a fan of war movies), but I rented it because *sometimes* I have to cave and get movies the husband is interested in.











I agree with my fellow posters that there was a lot of detail in this film, and I did like the fine grain that was present throughout. At one point I was about 2 feet away from the TV (helping the baby with something) and I even saw a little bit of dirt on the screen. Of course, that was WAY too close to be seeing Tom Cruise's face and I was only that close for about 5 minutes.



My problem with this film are twofold but I think they go hand-in-hand at the same time. I was underwhelmed with the black levels of this picture, but I feel as though it was due to the HAZE. I felt flashbacks to Wall-E conversations, because I think that would be a direct comparison to me with regards to this sort of haze. The difference to my geeky bespectacled eyes is that while I watched Wall-E, during the haze I still felt that there was a magnitude of details awash across the screen. During Valkyrie, though, the haze was a detriment to the picture quality as details suffered when it was present. It caused a soft and demure picture.



The colour scheme was underwhelming, also due to the haziness that was throughout. I found myself wishing that Bryan Singer had used a more lush scale, although I do understand why it was so hazy and high on contrast. I was wishing for inky blacks and depth with the picture nonetheless.



Detail and textures were phenomenal when things were close-up, as during close up scenes the haze/contrast issue was not bothersome to me. I do think the PQ of this film has enough to keep it within the top two tiers, although I did debate slightly whether or not it should be knocked down to 2.0, but I do think the merits of this film are high enough to keep it from Tier 2, although I think it should be knocked down a bit from it's current placement at Tier 1.25.


*Recommendation for Valkyrie: Tier 1.75*
*Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800u THX setting, approx 7.5'.*


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17079719
> 
> 
> 
> Also arriving next week is much anticipated "The Notebook". I have no clue why I put that in my zip queue, I must have been tired or drunk or something.



Yes, you really *should* be embarrassed about watching Warner releases.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/17080117
> 
> 
> Yes, you really *should* be embarrassed about watching Warner releases.

















but but but I really liked Watchmen! The Notebook should be similar... right? There's a superhero in that one, isn't there?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17080142
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but but but I really liked Watchmen! The Notebook should be similar... right? There's a superhero in that one, isn't there?



Unfortunately, The Notebook may be my least favorite Ryan Gosling movie, if you don't count Stay.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/17080178
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, The Notebook may be my least favorite Ryan Gosling movie, if you don't count Stay.



I *really* don't know what I was thinking when this made it into my queue. Ahh well. At least it's arriving with Coraline!


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17080283
> 
> 
> I *really* don't know what I was thinking when this made it into my queue. Ahh well. At least it's arriving with Coraline!



The framing story is worse than the framed one, if that helps.


----------



## 357

Crank 2 is definitely Tier 0.


----------



## Filmaholic

Yeah, so is "2001", hehehe . Chaos AD!


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17079845
> 
> *My Name Is Bruce*
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, Bruce Campbell is definitely a B-movie fave of mine, but DAAAAAMN this movie was bad. I actually shut it off about 30 minutes into it, watched something else (my next review) and then put this back on so I could finish it and write about it for you guys.
> 
> 
> 
> The PQ of this terrible movie was suspect. It would occasionally have shots where you could see good tier 1-ish detail, but it was pretty soft for the most part. Colours were decent enough. The worst part about this disc was the amount of pixelization that would show up. It felt like when watching an HD signal on TV but then it got choked up. It happened WAY too much during this film to be forgiven at all. Because of this, I don't think the moments of detail can help save this Blu as it was way too distracting and ugly.



That is too bad about My Name Is Bruce. I had contemplated picking it up as a blind buy. The independent distributors seem to be more adventurous in what they pick to release onto Blu-ray, but often picture quality seems a minor afterthought for them.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *357* /forum/post/17080631
> 
> 
> Crank 2 is definitely Tier 0.



I suspect it would be too, just based on the BR previews. Can't wait to see it myself next week.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17079845
> 
> *My Name Is Bruce*
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, Bruce Campbell is definitely a B-movie fave of mine, but DAAAAAMN this movie was bad. I actually shut it off about 30 minutes into it, watched something else (my next review) and then put this back on so I could finish it and write about it for you guys.



well, i think you made it longer than I did. My friend, who's a big evil dead/bruce campbell fan, rented the disc and we were watching it, and i was getting very uncomfortable because everything about the movie was just incomprehensibly bad I wasn't sure where my friend was at with it. thankfully after about 20 minutes, he went "this is GODAWFUL" and let me off the hook


----------



## Filmaholic

Has anyone seen *The Sky Crawlers* or *Ghost in the Shell2: Innocence*?


In case afirmative, how would you rate them?


I saw some aliasing on Innocence and some color banding on Sky Crawlers. That's sure to knock them both south of Tier 1.50, right?


Besides that, they're both somewhat soft, although it surely is a question of choice by the respective directors and a necessity due the subject matter of the scripts (much like 12 Monkeys and its dream like haziness).


I'm asking because I could review and submit to classification, but I'm not very comfortable, yet, with the parameters that you've been using to classify and rate things...


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17080669
> 
> 
> That is too bad about My Name Is Bruce. I had contemplated picking it up as a blind buy. The independent distributors seem to be more adventurous in what they pick to release onto Blu-ray, but often picture quality seems a minor afterthought for them.



If curiosity was to really strike you regarding this give it a rent.. or it was like... less than $10 to buy, it *might* be worth it to pick it up, but I don't think I'd recommend it even at that price. I don't think you'd watch it again.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/17080740
> 
> 
> well, i think you made it longer than I did. My friend, who's a big evil dead/bruce campbell fan, rented the disc and we were watching it, and i was getting very uncomfortable because everything about the movie was just incomprehensibly bad I wasn't sure where my friend was at with it. thankfully after about 20 minutes, he went "this is GODAWFUL" and let me off the hook




Yeah that was pretty much our experience. It just got worse and worse.


----------



## H.Cornerstone




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *357* /forum/post/17080631
> 
> 
> Crank 2 is definitely Tier 0.



I feel the same way about the first one....


----------



## deltasun

*Surveillance*


Moderate grain throughout - at times, it was just at the brink of bothersome for me. Still, I must say that it fit the look, feel, and style of the storyline. The cinematography was really well done on this feature. Facial details were abundant at the extreme close up range. Medium shots were softer and offered less details.


Black levels can be bold at times, but some items were closer to charcoal gray. Low-light details were also just above average. Contrast was purposely mixed, depending on whose story we were following. One constant was that the sequences involving the flashbacks/stories were pushed. And, as such, there were several scenes that were washed out, specially when exposed under strong rays. Skin tones varied with each stylistic look - from warmer during flashbacks to cooler during the interrogation process. Colors were treated the same - depending on which flashback we were following, it can be bright and dynamic or dull and gray.


Overall, I would rate this just at the edge of Tier Gold. There were definitely some demo-worthy sequences. I also spotted a few instances of ringing, during the high-contrast sequences.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


This was a pretty good thriller for me from Jennifer Lynch. Really enjoyed the build up and was not too disappointed with the ending. I would recommend a rental.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Quo Vadis


recommendation: Tier 2.75*


While my score for this disc is not overly generous, make no mistake, this is a wonderful looking Blu-ray from Warner. The picture quality is consistently faithful to the original Technicolor film this movie was made with, and Warner has treated its transfer to high-definition with delicacy and care. Originally premiering in 1951 from MGM, Warner Bros. unleashed this epic on Blu-ray March 17, 2009. The 174-minute is encoded in VC-1 on a BD-50. Thankfully the movie is presented in its proper Academy ratio of 1.37:1, as the movie was filmed before the prevalence of wider ratios. The average video bitrate as revealed by the BDInfo scan is 22.68 Mbps.


Many Warner Blu-rays are rightfully condemned for compression issues, but their compression company has almost made up for those issues with this title. _Quo Vadis_ is simply the most transparent, artifact-free presentation Warner has ever delivered on Blu-ray. A relatively high bitrate encoding with sustained peaks over 35 Mbps, it is apparent the encoding was carefully monitored and possibly fine-tuned to avoid even the momentary appearance of noise during its lengthy run-time. The most difficult scenes to compress, when sections of Rome are consumed with fire and burn with abandon, present absolutely no problems at all from noise to banding.


The film elements mostly appear in good quality, though there are some minor blips in the first forty or so minutes of the movie. Flashes of print damage and very minor nicks are evident at first, but dissipate entirely later in the movie. No one will confuse this master with a new and pristine transfer of a 2009 film, but it is eminently serviceable for a movie of this vintage. The grain structure, while not prominent in appearance, looks very film-like and untouched by digital processing tools. Just barely on the threshold of visibility are thin halos in a few scenes, most notably during a climatic scene at the end of the movie. One would need a very large screen to notice ringing of this kind and most likely will be skipped over by the average viewer.


A problem, albeit minor, that shows up on occasion are color registration errors that are the result of the Technicolor process this film was made with. The only one that truly stood out was a flash of inappropriate color that showed up briefly during Nero's private celebration. These registration errors create some color fringing and minor bleeding, particularly around the edges of objects that are strongly lit. A casual viewer will notice these blips, but they are very short in duration lasting less than scant seconds, and really only pop up on a handful of occasions. Only the most critical of viewers would consider the registration errors serious problems.


The picture varies in sharpness and quality, mostly at the demands of the original photography and cinematography of the film. Most of the tight head-shots are shot de-focused and filtered, as was the custom of the time. This creates some softness in these shots. Medium-depth shots look incredible, with excellent detail and clarity. Fleshtones are nicely rendered and natural in appearance, with a variety of subtle skintones clearly differentiated. Contrast is very strong throughout the movie. The increased resolution of the transfer does make the matte paintings used in certain scenes as backgrounds more easily spotted. Bokeh is used to good effect in many scenes, and the image has a better sense of dimensionality and projection than one would expect. Only a few select scenes look flat and lacking in depth. The colors do have a certain Technicolor look to them that many will be familiar with from other movies. It comes down to personal taste whether one prefers the strong primary colors seen here. Shadow detail is very good and one of the better aspects of the picture quality. Black levels are deep and inky, with a fine delineation of texture and light in darker scenes.


My final recommendation is for tier 2.75, but that should not dissuade anyone from picking up this disc. It looks phenomenal at times and Warner has really delivered the goods on a classic movie from an earlier era. Whatever flaws in the image are most likely the result of the original film elements and not something that can be readily improved. Some films are just not meant for the higher tiers, but they still can represent great transfers. This is one such disc.


BDInfo Scan (courtesy of Phloyd):
http://www.avsforum.com

/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=16049123#post16049123 


Example of color registration error in Quo Vadis (courtesy of Xylon):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...0#post16109960


----------



## deltasun

*Incendiary*


Fine grain present throughout. Facial details were so-so, nothing spectacular and no obvious pores or discernible textures. Medium shots were average for a high-definition presentation. Black levels were pretty decent and so were low-level details. Contrast, for the most part, was troublesome. A number of scenes looked hazy and lacked any depth. In fact, aside from a few cityscape scenes, most appeared flat. Even when given a panorama of the city with the blimps, the CGI looked lifeless and dull.


Skin tones were on the pale side, specially outdoors. They were more faithful indoors. Overall, still a fine HD presentation with a wow scene here and there. The daytime hazy look didn't help its cause, but does complement the dreary storyline. I would place this someone in mid Tier Silver...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.50*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8' & 6'_


----------



## deltasun

*The Unborn*


Fine grain evident throughout. The opening scene had some digital noise, but did not see it return for the rest of the feature. This has got to be one of the top, most gorgeous black levels I've witnessed in a while. It was bold to the point just before crush. It did come pretty close at the climax with Gary Oldman's coat, but did not cross over. Shadows details were equally exquisite. It's usually advantageous for a film of this genre to hide as much as possible in the dark by keeping it shallow and flat. Having watched _The Unborn_, I disagree with that technique. It seems that when we see more low-light details, the more _things_ can be hidden there, ready to jump out (which they seem to like to do as opposed to sneaking in slowly and quietly).


Contrast levels were spot on, I felt. The coolish look of the entire film was a welcome feel as well. I felt the medium shots were well rendered and kept a good bit of dimensionality to those scenes. Panoramic shots were equally impressive, with a slight bit of slow, forward motion to really illustrate depth.


The only complaints, while minor, were some softness in the first scene of Casey meeting Sofi, as well as Gary Oldman's face the first time Casey met him. All in all, the facial details were never Tier 0 strong, but showed ample textures throughout (minus the scenes I described above).


Overall, I agree with Denny's placement...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.50*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## sleater




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17077581
> 
> *Coraline*
> 
> My biggest complaint were the facial details. For as detailed as _Coraline's_ hair and clothing, for example, her face was never at the same level of detail. In fact, it never got sharp and usually looked soft, almost creamy.



Perhaps the softness is due to the CGI involved in 'erasing' the crease in the puppet heads being that they had two halves and had to be digitally erased/blended together. Henry Selick mentions this in the film commentary track. This is a valid and astute observation on *deltasun's* part and clearly this statement is simply incorrect:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Filmaholic* /forum/post/17078574
> 
> 
> This is pure stop-motion, stereoscopic and digitally shot, there's no "CGI" whatsoever in this movie. Even the fog is real.



The use of CGI is minimized but is still employed in this feature. And a 1.0 rating is not actually THAT far off from Tier 0 so I don't see the huge issue anyone would have to *deltasun's* glowing review.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sleater* /forum/post/17088407
> 
> 
> The use of CGI is minimized but is still employed in this feature. And a 1.0 rating is not actually THAT far off from Tier 0 so I don't see the huge issue anyone would have to *deltasun's* glowing review.



First of all, let me say that I consider deltasun a friend and one whose opinion I respect. He and I are *usually* very close in our recommendations. But with Coraline we are one whole tier apart, and IMO that is somewhat *huge* given the fact that several of us are nominating it for the Best Blu-ray ever.


I looked to see if you've reviewed this sleater and I see you haven't. It sounds like you've possibly seen the movie so if I were you I'd write a formal review so you can bring out exactly the reasons you have for the recommendation you arrive at.


----------



## sleater

^^^ I did not formally recommend a Tier rating for Coraline and I was simply stating that a Tier 1.0 rating, in my opinion, is *not that far off* from Tier 0 even if the film has been lauded by several members to be the best bluray eye candy picture ever. I may be WRONG in this line of thinking but nonetheless that is my opinion. Deltasun pointed out what he perceived as a flaw in its presentation and I suggested a possible reason for the flaw.


I have no issues whatsoever with anyone saying this is the best bluray in terms of picture quality. I appreciate that this forum allows members to have their own distinct opinions when it comes to rating films based on picture quality and for us to disagree is not inherently bad. I dislike it when we unnecessarily question someone's opinion because it does not aline with our own. I was basically responding to Filmaholic's reaction to deltasun's original review and took issue with the _no CGI in this movie_ blanket statement. My own take on the film is irrelevant. I don't understand the if I were you I'd write a review sentiment.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Filmaholic* /forum/post/17078574
> 
> 
> With all due respect, there's no way in hell I'm going to agree with this...



Edit: I respect you djoberg and hope you don't take my response as hostile or whatever, or Filmaholic for that matter. I don't want to drag down this thread with this tangent since there have been so many reviews of late by a diverse number of posters. On with the reviews!


----------



## Hughmc

I didn't do a formal review of Coraline either due to me slacking, but I thought it is tier 0 as well, not top tier 0, but near the top.


I also watched Duplicity and I believe that is tier 1.0.


I am not home now and won't be for another week, so I am not able to watch them again and do a formal review.


Come Sept. into Oct I will be getting more into doing formal reviews.


The last couple of months have been poor at best in terms of BD offerings.


----------



## deltasun

djoberg, likewise...respect all around. The lack of "facial" details (sleater, thanks for coming in for the possible explanation) really bothered me, particularly in the early going. It seemed every little piece of the scene was so incredibly sharp and well rendered and beautifully textured. Then, we pan to the little puppet face of Coraline and nothing. It was such a stark contrast to me, specially the first time.


Like Hugh, I have 20/15 vision and started thinking my eyes were failing me. However, it was consistent throughout all the puppet faces. And, as these faces were a major component of almost every scene, I just could not, in good conscience, vote this into Tier Blu. It was really that simple for me.


Now, for what it's worth, I felt the faces did get better towards the end. This could be due to the lighting, better "blending," etc. But, the proverbial damage is done and out of Tier 0 it went for me.


----------



## K-Spaz

It's been said here many times in the thread, and I've said it myself not long ago that many of these opinions are just that. Opinions. They are based upon the viewers eyes, likes/dislikes, viewing room, equipment, mood of the viewer when watching. That's just a start, the reasons for our opinions can go on and on. We are all affected by this no matter how objective we think we are. Our very opinions of what is a detriment to a movie differ.


That doesn't make one or the other wrong. It just means we differ in our perception. Attempting to get someone else to agree with your view is not only useless, it's also quite possibly counterproductive. There's several titles on the tiers 0 and 1 that don't look all that stunning on my setup. But you don't see me here saying that the others are wrong in their assesment. I already know some movies look better on my system than they do on others and the reverse is true as well.


While I seldom offer a formal opinion on a movie, it's not to say I don't agree with the folks here who regularly do. If you look at my posts, you'd probably say, Ole KSpaz just likes to disagree cause he seems to chime in when something doesn't go his way. You could not be farther from the truth. What should be taken from that is that I agree almost universally with the opinions here. I rarely disagree and see no reason to continually say "I agree". Even though I don't type up reviews on every movie I watch, you could say that my silence is a vote of confidence. Sorta like no news is good news.


On a side note, I think the tier list is a wonderful resource for people to find good looking films. It also now has enough titles in it to really help people find films in general. Its progressed a lot in the last year. There's a lot of good watchable movies on the list here, even in Tier 5. I've seen a LOT of films that I took either from this list or from screenshot threads on the forum. Some crazy unheard of ones that were peoples favorites I got from here after hearing them say "not so great looking but still one of my favorites, ...".


A little 'Agree to disagree" should be mandatory here. I know most of the regular reviewers here take absolutely no offense in someone disagreeing with them. We've all been there and rarely do I see people swayed from their opinion very far either. So I guess, state your views and don't expect the world to turn backward cause you differ in opinion from someone else here.


On topic, I watched Push and Troy last night and agree 100% with their placements too! Even if Push is moving a little bit. I liked both movies and wow did they look great.


Viewed on InFocus X10/106" DaLite HC White from 4870 based HTPC/LG BR Drive @10'.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

^ Well said.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

BTW, I will be watching Coraline later today, and hope to give my 2 cents by this evening.


----------



## deltasun

*Fast & Furious*


Fine grain present throughout; bit more noticeable in darker areas, but never really bothersome. Facial details were excellent, showing the requisite pores, stubble, and imperfections worthy of a Tier 1 title. Outdoor daytime scenes showed great panoramic color and details. Colors during these scenes offered superb vibrancy - the red coat of paint on the Ford SS, the lush leaves on sidewalk trees, the foreground tree laying on the side of the road towards the end, the entire scene of Dom and Brian at the US-Mexico border.


Black levels were a bit inconsistent. They're bold, but some of the shadow details were a bit muddled. They're still passable, but having just seen _The Unborn_, these scenes were easily inferior. They had less depth and did not offer as much discernible detail. I believe the lighting employed were a bit too dominant on foreground elements, rendering an ill-defined presentation of the background.


Contrast was pushed a bit outdoors, where everything was cast in a yellowish hue. The indoor scenes, on the other hand, were bathed coolly - first with a greenish tinge, then blue. Skin tones followed this convention of indoor/outdoor tinting. Some other bothersome sequences involved the tunnel scenes, where depth was compromised a bit by the special effects and method of shooting (green screen use). Still, most medium scenes were generally composed well and showed appreciable 3D qualities.


Overall, daytime, well-lit scenes would hover around the 1.25 - 1.50 range. However, factoring in some of the more problematic scenes mentioned above (as well as a slight bit of banding with a few of the headlight shots) slides the score closer to the Gold-Silver border...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8' & 6'_


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sleater* /forum/post/17089248
> 
> 
> Edit: I respect you djoberg and hope you don't take my response as hostile or whatever, or Filmaholic for that matter. I don't want to drag down this thread with this tangent since there have been so many reviews of late by a diverse number of posters. On with the reviews!



Absolutely no offense taken sleater! I believe you made some good and valid points.


FWIW, I hope no one thinks I was trying to sway deltasun's opinion by saying I disagreed with his view. I was just simply stating the fact that I disagreed with him, and my actual review gives the reasons for my view that Coraline is the best out there (so far). This form of discussion is productive I believe, for it causes others to weigh more critically the points different ones are making and if they then state their opinions in a review it will help SuprSlow in his determining of the final placement. It is these very discussions that differentiate this thread from a thread that would merely have the members "cast their vote" without stating why they voted as they did (like the former HD DVD thread).


I should mention that I do want to give it another rent so I can see if deltasun's statements about the puppets' faces are justified, for he may be right on this, which would mean I just didn't focus on that during my first viewing.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Couldn't CGI or cartoon animation titles be in a separate tier list from live action titles?


eg. for the description of Tier 0 it says:

"Tier Zero - Blu (Reference)

...

Exquisite resolution of ultra-fine detail, fabric and surface textures, individual strands of hair, and human faces down to the imperfections and pores. Animated material will often exhibit photo-realistic qualities and will feature beautifully rendered environments."


The 1st 3 things in Tier 0 are:

A Bugs Life

Kung Fu Panda

Ratatouille


But the humans in Ratatouille are less detailed than the live action ones in the tier 5.0 Coal thread.


Shouldn't there be 2 separate lists - one for cgi/cartoon titles and one for live action? Also, if titles with the highest resolution are going to be higher up in the list, shouldn't 1.78:1 or 1.85:1 titles be generally higher up in the list as they should have the highest total pixel count resolution? Shouldn't motion resolution be taken into account too?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joe Bloggs* /forum/post/17091491
> 
> 
> Couldn't CGI or cartoon animation titles be in a separate tier list from live action titles?



Interesting question.


I'm surprised that it has never been mentioned before!


[/sarcasm]


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joe Bloggs* /forum/post/17091491
> 
> 
> Couldn't CGI or cartoon animation titles be in a separate tier list from live action titles?
> 
> 
> Shouldn't there be 2 separate lists - one for cgi/cartoon titles and one for live action? Also, if titles with the highest resolution are going to be higher up in the list, shouldn't 1.78:1 or 1.85:1 titles be generally higher up in the list as they should have the highest total pixel count resolution? Shouldn't motion resolution be taken into account too?



I believe a search of this thread with the terms "animation" and "tier" will bring up some of the relevant discussion on your point. Needless to say, there has been a vigorous debate on that specific topic within this very thread in the past.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Chuck: The Complete First Season*

*recommendation: Tier 4.0*


The current ranking of this disc is placed too high in my opinion. Having enjoyed the show during its first run on television, this Blu-ray set from Warner Bros. is a visual travesty. Very little effort appears to have been exerted in transferring and encoding this show. The extremely low-bitrate VC-1 encode shows multiple compression problems, including frequent macroblocking and a grain structure that dissolves into mosquito noise at times. Disc one of the set crams 299-minutes of high-definition material on a BD-50. Video bitrates are frequently in the single-digits. Disc two and three are both BD-25's, but they use similarly low parameters as the first disc.


These problems might have been tolerable if not for the contrast issues and the overly warm fleshtones that are red-pushed much of the time. The image manages a rare double feat of having overblown highlights while still displaying clipped black levels. Picture quality is highly variable, and in certain moments I was wondering if the image was comparable to an upconverted dvd.


While I like the show itself, the Blu-ray set is the ugliest presentation I have seen yet for a network television show in HD and looks indistinguishable from the broadcast version. The people responsible for this Blu-ray release should be ashamed of it.


----------



## K-Spaz

Truth is, now the tier data is stored in a database, so while no it was not realistically possible to move animated titles in to thier own list in the past, now yes it is.


It would require some minor coding and add a couple fields to the data. But yes it could be done. Then of course the fields would need filled in. It won't happen for quite a while since I just got another job to do which will probably last a few months. Then also, we've not had any herd of volunteers stepping forward offering to do any of the data entry for things they've suggested. All these ideas take time. They're easy to think up, and just as easy to get done as long as someone else does em!


Someone suggest/discuss a way to list the titles and I'll consider the suggestions and do the programming when I get a chance. It won't take all that long but isn't something I can do till this other job is finished (This one pays a little better). As long as it doesn't add work for SuprSlow it'll fly. If it makes more work for him, then it probably won't happen.


Then:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I should mention that I do want to give it another rent so I can see if deltasun's statements about the puppets' faces are justified, for he may be right on this, which would mean I just didn't focus on that during my first viewing.



I do the exact same thing. Someone says they saw something, I think back and say, "well I didn't see that" It's happened so many times that I go back to review and low and behold, yup, they were right, so now, I no longer even question the folks here. If they say they saw something, it was there. I just accept it and save the re-rental!


I find it happens most on good movies. The ones that keep me captivated enough that I'm not looking for problems. Those are tough for me to critique.


----------



## daPriceIs

*The Third Man*Last December (2008-12-16) Criterion released this disc as part of its initial foray into High Def. It's a 105 minute BD-50 with a 4:3 aspect ratio, a 1080p/24 AVC encode, and a single mono English/German LPCM soundtrack without subtitles, though in truth all plot-relevant dialog is in English. Although nominally a joint British/American production featuring three American stars (Orson Welles, Joseph Cotton, and Alida Valli), this black and white 1949 film set in post war Vienna was written and directed by Brits and is considered _the_ classic noir of British cinema. It's clear that Criterion has expended considerable effort in this transfer and encode. As far as I can see there are no compression artifacts whatsoever. Comparing the HD video to the SD video (also from Criterion) you can clearly see that considerable dirt, scratches, etc. has been cleaned up, but the grain structure remains intact. Speaking of which there is medium/fine grain that appears natural throughout and is in no way bothersome. [I haven't made a detailed study to back me up so I may be totally off the wall, but I'm convinced that many of the worst, most exaggerated, and bothersome examples of grain in BDs is not actually natural film grain itself but the product of three factors: the grain in the film; scan aliasing of that grain in the transfer; and compression induced artifacts in the encode seeded by the previous two factors. Factors that a proper scan and/or a high enough bit-rate encode would alleviate. Of course some crap, grainy or otherwise, will still look like crap no matter how well you treat it.]


This BD features excellent contrast and gray scale. Blacks are deep without crushing, and there's nary a blown highlight to be seen. The film is rather dark overall. Most scenes are at night and the climactic scene occurs underground in the Viennese sewers.


The cinematography is excellent but oddly skewed. This is but one among many darkly amusing oddities in the film: the use of the miniature pinscher, the cockatoo, the little boy, the cat, the balloon seller, and the annoying (I mean wonderfully charming







) zither score.


The video is not especially sharp but not terribly soft either (except for a few mushy long shots). Close-ups can often show good but not excellent facial detail. We nonetheless usually see every crag and crater in Major Calloway's face (Trevor Howard). Clothing texture is captured but once again detail at its best is only mediocre by BD standards.


As noted earlier, Criterion has made a noble attack on the damaged and dirty elements of this film. They were not wholly successful. Flaws persist in _every_ frame. Hair at the bottoms of frames, dirt on the sides, vertical streaks and scratches in the middle and wandering from side to side, various types of flicker both peripheral (vignetting) and global across the frame, You get the idea. The source is seriously flawed. For example, at one point in chapter 6, from 18:53 to 19:00, there is a river of filth flowing down the left side of the frame obscuring the picture. Granted the filth isn't heavy, but it's there --ironic considering the later scenes in the sewer. These flaws are always present but they have been tamed considerably. The highest praise that one can give to a video _with respect to its transfer_ is to say that it is true to its source, but in this case I have no doubt that the video is considerably better than its damaged source. Scratch removal tools have been used as extensively as they can without going so far as to fundamentally alter the look of the film hidden under all that gunk.


There is a strong, often unconscious temptation to grade venerable films of this vintage on a curve. I've tried strongly to resist this temptation. *Even so I must emphasize that you shouldn't let this PQ ranking dissuade you from renting or purchasing this BD.* The cinematography is lush and beautiful; the shots of the wet cobblestones and even the of the glistening bricks of the sewers are incredible. This film contains some great and iconic images and the chase scene in the sewers has rarely been excelled. I believe that this BD shows the film as best as is currently possible.

*Recommendation: Tier 4.0
*

Panasonic TH-42PZ77U 1080p/60 4'


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Coraline*


Needless to say, this is a very, very impressive looking title. Talk about eye candy, this title has it in spades!


Many scenes were simply jaw dropping in their clarity, depth and three dimensionality (and no, I did not view the 3D version for more than a few minutes, anyway).


Details are superb, blacks are excellent when present, and light and shadow are utilized exceptionally well. Colors are also excellent and very pleasing to the eyes.


That said, does this title really deserve to be discussed as "one of the best looking BD's released to date"? In my opinion, yes, it certainly does.


As for the discussion that took place regarding "facial details" somewhat lacking, I really think that is a completely inappropriate barometer for a title that doesn't contain human faces. There is absolutely no lack of fine details being shown in this title. Quite the contrary, it has some of the best textures/details I've seen yet. Like you could reach out and touch it.


If a title like A Bugs Life can be near or at the top of the list, so can this one, since the same lack of "facial details" can be seen in that title due to the nature of its creation/source. I.e, it is intentional. And though we don't consider "intent" here, but rather how it looks, I don't think I was expecting any more detail in the faces of the characters than I was seeing, and in fact, some characters had plenty of fine details in their faces indeed.


I don't think that there is any question at all that this title belongs in Tier 0, it is only a question of where.


I'm certainly going to recommend it for somewhere in the top 5 at least.


I really wish that I enjoyed the movie more than I did. I wasn't particularly impressed with the story/writing.
*Tier Recommendation: 0 (top 5)*


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/17092228
> 
> 
> Truth is, now the tier data is stored in a database, so while no it was not realistically possible to move animated titles in to thier own list in the past, now yes it is.



You've completely lost me here.


What are you suggesting?


Separating animated titles into their own tier thread has nothing to do with a "database". It is a matter of whether animated/cgi titles should be compared directly to live action counterparts.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17092451
> 
> *Coraline*
> 
> 
> Needless to say, this is a very, very impressive looking title. Talk about eye candy, this title has it in spades!
> 
> 
> Many scenes were simply jaw dropping in their clarity, depth and three dimensionality (and no, I did not view the 3D version for more than a few minutes, anyway).
> 
> 
> Details are superb, blacks are excellent when present, and light and shadow are utilized exceptionally well. Colors are also excellent and very pleasing to the eyes.
> 
> 
> That said, does this title really deserve to be discussed as "one of the best looking BD's released to date"? In my opinion, yes, it certainly does.
> 
> 
> As for the discussion that took place regarding "facial details" somewhat lacking, I really think that is a completely inappropriate barometer for a title that doesn't contain human faces. There is absolutely no lack of fine details being shown in this title. Quite the contrary, it has some of the best textures/details I've seen yet. Like you could reach out and touch it.
> 
> 
> If a title like A Bugs Life can be near or at the top of the list, so can this one, since the same lack of "facial details" can be seen in that title due to the nature of its creation/source. I.e, it is intentional. And though we don't consider "intent" here, but rather how it looks, I don't think I was expecting any more detail in the faces of the characters than I was seeing, and in fact, some characters had plenty of fine details in their faces indeed.
> 
> 
> I don't think that there is any question at all that this title belongs in Tier 0, it is only a question of where.
> 
> 
> I'm certainly going to recommend it for somewhere in the top 5 at least.
> 
> 
> I really wish that I enjoyed the movie more than I did. I wasn't particularly impressed with the story/writing.
> *Tier Recommendation: 0 (top 5)*



+1


A VERY GOOD review Rob! And I'm not just saying this because you agree with me on almost every point.







I'm especially thankful for your comments about facial details; I think you hit the proverbial "nail on the head" in your analysis regarding that point.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17092469
> 
> 
> You've completely lost me here.
> 
> 
> What are you suggesting?
> 
> 
> Separating animated titles into their own tier thread has nothing to do with a "database". It is a matter of whether animated/cgi titles should be compared directly to live action counterparts.



I am in agreement with Mr. Tomlin on this matter. K-Spaz, you have performed highly valued work behind the scenes on the tier list, but the arguments for or against separating the list into categories like animation had little to do with the actual work involved. Some of us feel the list is more worthwhile if there is one unified list of titles. Breaking down the list into distinct categories will inevitably lead to unintended and negative consequences for the long-term health of the tier list, at least in my humble opinion.


I have been itching to get The Third Man, but the awful cardboard packaging has me delaying my purchase until Criterion switches it to the traditional BD case.


----------



## nick2010




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17089931
> 
> 
> Like Hugh, I have 20/15 vision and started thinking my eyes were failing me. However, it was consistent throughout all the puppet faces. And, as these faces were a major component of almost every scene, I just could not, in good conscience, vote this into Tier Blu. It was really that simple for me.



This got me thinking, perhaps we should also require reviewers to post their visual acuity in addition to screen resolution, screen size, and viewing distance.


For example: 1080p60, 46", 7', 20/14


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17092547
> 
> 
> I am in agreement with Mr. Tomlin on this matter. K-Spaz, you have performed highly valued work behind the scenes on the tier list, but the arguments for or against separating the list into categories like animation had little to do with the actual work involved. Some of us feel the list is more worthwhile if there is one unified list of titles. Breaking down the list into distinct categories will inevitably lead to unintended and negative consequences for the long-term health of the tier list, at least in my humble opinion.



I agree wholeheartedly Phantom! As you stated earlier, we had this discussion long ago and a consensus was formed concluding that there should only be one list. I don't believe it would be constructive to resurrect that subject.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

Can we have a vote on it? because to me it's like comparing apples to oranges, or a photograph to a cartoon. I don't think it's really meaningful to compare things like resolution between live action real photographed things and flat/cgi drawn/animated things. Having a tier thread where animated characters with no detail are at the top of tier 0 (which is supposed is supposed to be the highest resolution tier) while the lowest resolution thread have actual detail makes the tier thread not seem compatible with it's aim if it's about 'high resolution/detail'. Animation and live action are two different things.


----------



## deltasun

^^ I agree as well. I think the closest I ever got to "separating" CGI or cartoons was to make them italicized. But, in no way do I believe they should be separated. This is an absolutes thread and each title should be compared to every other title, regardless of format or genre. That is one of the strengths of this thread, in my opinion.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joe Bloggs* /forum/post/17092685
> 
> 
> Can we have a vote on it? because to me it's like comparing apples to oranges, or a photograph to a cartoon. I don't think it's really meaningful to compare things like resolution between live action real photographed things and flat/cgi drawn/animated things. Having a tier thread where people (animated characters) with no detail are at the top of tier 0 (which is supposed is supposed to be the highest resolution tier) while the lowest resolution thread have actual detail makes the tier thread not seem compatible with it's aim if it's about 'high resolution/detail'. Animation and live action are two different things.



Who said this was a "resolution/detail" thread?


That is simply one aspect of many.


This issue as been discussed numerous times (ad nauseam). Feel free to do a search on the issue and you can read about the debate. The bottom line though is that it has been debated, and a decision was made that animated/cgi titles would not be separated from the main thread.


I see no reason to change now....after years of doing the rankings of all titles in one thread.


As I have mentioned before, if we do that, then we should also separate out Black and White movies etc, etc.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17092451
> 
> *Coraline*
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> As for the discussion that took place regarding "facial details" somewhat lacking, I really think that is a completely inappropriate barometer for a title that doesn't contain human faces. *There is absolutely no lack of fine details being shown in this title. Quite the contrary, it has some of the best textures/details I've seen yet.* Like you could reach out and touch it.
> 
> 
> If a title like A Bugs Life can be near or at the top of the list, so can this one, since the same lack of "facial details" can be seen in that title due to the nature of its creation/source. I.e, it is intentional. And though we don't consider "intent" here, but rather how it looks, I don't think I was expecting any more detail in the faces of the characters than I was seeing, and in fact, some characters had plenty of fine details in their faces indeed.
> 
> ...





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17092539
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> 
> A VERY GOOD review Rob! And I'm not just saying this because you agree with me on almost every point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm especially thankful for your comments about facial details; I think you hit the proverbial "nail on the head" in your analysis regarding that point.



Nice review, Rob. I don't know necessarily if lack of facial details is intentional. And, if we compare _A Bug's Life_ vs. _Coraline_, there is definite detail in the insect faces in _A Bug's Life_.


Btw, the part I bolded above regarding details - are you stating that in general or are you particularly referring to puppet faces? Just didn't follow if you ended the previous statement about the faces (inappropriate barometer) and started a new one on general details.


Either way, let me clarify what I'm saying about facial puppet details. I'm not implying that they should exhibit human facial details like pores, fine hair, etc. I'm just looking for a bit more tangibility, like I've found in everything else. I believe I compared it to the buttons, which to me exhibited more texture even though they were smooth.


Again, I like these discussions. I think they're what keep us all in check and gives credibility to our thread. We're not just going through the motions.


----------



## Joe Bloggs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17092746
> 
> 
> Who said this was a "resolution/detail" thread?
> 
> 
> That is simply one aspect of many.
> 
> 
> This issue as been discussed numerous times (ad nauseam). Feel free to do a search on the issue and you can read about the debate. The bottom line though is that it has been debated, and a decision was made that animated/cgi titles would not be separated from the main thread.
> 
> 
> I see no reason to change now....after years of doing the rankings of all titles in one thread.
> 
> 
> As I have mentioned before, if we do that, then we should also separate out Black and White movies etc, etc.



I did a search on it and saw where it was talked about but I didn't see where everyone decided that it wouldn't be a good idea to separate them. Can you show me that bit please? Also I don't see why you'd need to seperate out black and movies - their relative resolution compared to other live action movies could still be judged. Though if you wanted to add colour resolution etc. as part of the sorting parameters I can see how that could have an affect on their placement but it wouldn't force you to make another list for them.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joe Bloggs* /forum/post/17092786
> 
> 
> I did a search on it and saw where it was talked about but I didn't see where everyone decided that it wouldn't be a good idea to separate them. Can you show me that bit please? Also I don't see why you'd need to seperate out black and movies - their relative resolution compared to other live action movies could still be judged. Though if you wanted to add colour resolution etc. as part of the sorting parameters I can see how that could have an affect on their placement but it wouldn't force you to make another list for them.



I too am against separating animated titles.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17092893
> 
> 
> I too am against separating animated titles.



As am I!



I'm also glad I'll be getting Coraline this week from Zip so I'll know what you guys are talking about.


----------



## Filmaholic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17089931
> 
> 
> djoberg, likewise...respect all around. The lack of "facial" details (sleater, thanks for coming in for the possible explanation) really bothered me, particularly in the early going.



Deltasun, I am really sorry I if I sounded agressive, it was not my intention.


Maybe it is because we brazilians are a tad more passionate than we should.


I really meant no disrespect, peace.


Also, I'm a newbie trying to understand the parameters of the tier.


Also, when I said "no CGI whatsoever", I meant no CGI "rendering", of course computers were extensively used in Coraline, the touch-ups on the heads, composition of blue-screen shots, oclusion, removal of the puppet holding frames, editing, etc...


On another note, we also have hummimgbirds everywhere in Brazil and I tell you, these are some blurry, soft looking creatures in nature...


I really do respect your opinion Deltasun. So much so that I plann on watching Coraline (in 2D) again tonight (third time), giving extra special atention to the faces.


Don't be mad at me man, I believe we, as humans, tend to grow a lot more when disagreeing, if done respectfully.


----------



## daPriceIs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17092547
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> I have been itching to get The Third Man, but the awful cardboard packaging has me delaying my purchase until Criterion switches it to the traditional BD case.



You may have to wait a while. The disc is attached to a plastic tray and the booklet and cardboard outer sleeve seems to offer adequate protection if that's what you're worried about. Of course if your objections are aesthetic, then I can't argue with you. Personally I discard all of the packaging anyway and store my discs in a CD/DVD notebook. Now if only someone made a good quality, high capacity BD/DVD/CD jukebox at a reasonable price, I'd use that.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Filmaholic* /forum/post/17093252
> 
> 
> Deltasun, I am really sorry I if I sounded agressive, it was not my intention.
> 
> 
> Maybe it is because we brazilians are a tad more passionate than we should.
> 
> 
> I really meant no disrespect, peace.
> 
> 
> Also, I'm a newbie trying to understand the parameters of the tier.
> 
> 
> Also, when I said "no CGI whatsoever", I meant no CGI "rendering", of course computers were extensively used in Coraline, the touch-ups on the heads, composition of blue-screen shots, oclusion, removal of the puppet holding frames, editing, etc...
> 
> 
> On another note, we also have hummimgbirds everywhere in Brazil and I tell you, these are some blurry, soft looking creatures in nature...
> 
> 
> I really do respect your opinion Deltasun. So much so that I plann on watching Coraline (in 2D) again tonight (third time), giving extra special atention to the faces.
> 
> 
> Don't be mad at me man, I believe we, as humans, tend to grow a lot more when disagreeing, if done respectfully.



No worries, Filmaholic...not mad at all. Passion is good for this thread. Btw, I'm not talking about the hummingbird's 50 times/sec wing flap. I'm referring to the non-moving part of the little puppet hummingbird.


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17092469
> 
> 
> You've completely lost me here.
> 
> 
> What are you suggesting?
> 
> 
> Separating animated titles into their own tier thread has nothing to do with a "database". It is a matter of whether animated/cgi titles should be compared directly to live action counterparts.



Rob, I don't mean suggest anything. I'm just saying that I think there would be a minimal amount of work to segregate the two types of titles *if it was decided that was a good thing.* Personaly, I like the way it is and when time comes for me to demo my system, I use A Bugs Life or Ratatouille. If I owned any others I'd probably use them. So, I guess that's saying something about what I think of the PQ of those titles.


I've not read this thread from start to finish, and have no desire to do so. I don't know what the concensus opinion is on animated vs live.


Pixar movies do look good tho!


Bottom line is, in the past, the amount of work to do upkeep on two threads would have answered this question before it was asked. Now, it IS possible to implement if people wanted to do it. That's all I'm saying.


----------



## daPriceIs

*Super Speedway

*This 1997 IMAX film was released on BD in February this year by Image Entertainment. The disc is a BD-25 with a 16:9 AR, 1080p/24 AVC encode. The film tells two parallel stories: the 1996 Indy Car season of the Newman/Haas Racing team from car design through a few races; and the discovery and restoration of a 1964 roadster formerly raced by Mario Andretti whose son, Michael, was a driver for Newman/Haas. Paul Newman is the principal narrator, but there is also voice-over by Mario and the restorer. The video features a DTS-HD MA 5.1 soundtrack and a very engaging sound design.


The unique feature of the film is the footage from car-mounted IMAX cameras. These sequences are incredibly involving and immersive. Fans of racing sims will love them. There is nothing quite like tooling around a course at 200+ mph backed by a Mark Knopfler track (Once Upon a Time In the West). This film provides much more of a rush than Speed Racer ever does. The sad thing for sim fans is that this footage comprises only nine minutes of the film's 50 minute length. But what's sad for some is good for others; i.e., camera vibration, limited depth of field, and road dirt and debris on lenses naturally make for lower PQ; the better images come from stationary cameras.


Image sharpness is inconsistent. The movie opens with a recreation of finding the junked roadster in a farmer's chicken coop. The shots of the roosting chickens, especially a golden feathered rooster staring at the camera are sharp and have 3D pop. Unfortunately we have to wait almost another 15 minutes before the images sharpen up again. The video only occasionally reaches reference level sharpness. There does not appear to be any sharpening but there is some ringing. There are other factors which lessen PQ somewhat, though I don't down rate the film's PQ much for them. There are about three minutes of archival footage and photos: about two minutes of classic crash footage, some of it SD video; and a minute of black and white photos and scratched footage of Mario in the 60s.


It's a fairly good quality print but there is some damage. I noticed salt and pepper specks and flecks of dirt. Most are small but not all. Their level is low but continually present. I also noticed some minor compression artifacts. And as you would expect grain is negligible.


The colors of the race cars are bold and dramatic, naturally. Contrast and saturation are not exaggerated.

*Recommendation: Tier 2.0


*

Panasonic TH-42PZ77U 1080p/60 4'


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joe Bloggs* /forum/post/17092685
> 
> 
> Can we have a vote on it? because to me it's like comparing apples to oranges, or a photograph to a cartoon. I don't think it's really meaningful to compare things like resolution between live action real photographed things and flat/cgi drawn/animated things.



The criteria used to judge and compare animated material of both the traditional cel type and cgi variety obviously differs somewhat from our evaluation of live-action film. Regular films are not getting short shrift in my estimation. But I am not, in principle, against a fair poll on the matter to assess the mood of users. It would at least be interesting to see how the idea would be received. Many of the regular posters to this thread, including myself, are not supportive of the idea however for a multitude of reasons.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joe Bloggs* /forum/post/17092786
> 
> 
> I did a search on it and saw where it was talked about but I didn't see where everyone decided that it wouldn't be a good idea to separate them. Can you show me that bit please? Also I don't see why you'd need to seperate out black and movies - their relative resolution compared to other live action movies could still be judged. Though if you wanted to add colour resolution etc. as part of the sorting parameters I can see how that could have an affect on their placement but it wouldn't force you to make another list for them.



Many are concerned that it would introduce other thorny issues and distract from the overall purpose of the thread. Hollywood has increasingly resorted to a blend of live-action and cgi, which blurs the boundaries between the categories you first suggested.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *daPriceIs* /forum/post/17093348
> 
> 
> You may have to wait a while. The disc is attached to a plastic tray and the booklet and cardboard outer sleeve seems to offer adequate protection if that's what you're worried about. Of course if your objections are aesthetic, then I can't argue with you.



As the overall availability of movies increases on Blu-ray, I am always looking for reasons not to purchase titles and prune my purchasing-focus. If Criterion wants my money for this movie, they can release it in a regular case. I also waited for Baraka to be released in a normal case before spending money on it. Studios regularly lose sales from me for making short-sighted decisions, and I suspect I am not alone.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/17093799
> 
> 
> Rob, I don't mean suggest anything. I'm just saying that I think there would be a minimal amount of work to segregate the two types of titles *if it was decided that was a good thing.* Personaly, I like the way it is and when time comes for me to demo my system, I use A Bugs Life or Ratatouille.
> 
> 
> Bottom line is, in the past, the amount of work to do upkeep on two threads would have answered this question before it was asked. Now, it IS possible to implement if people wanted to do it. That's all I'm saying.



That is great to hear about the flexibility of the new system. It would be great to hear suggestions from posters on how to take full advantage of these new capabilities.


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17092161
> 
> *Chuck: The Complete First Season*
> 
> *recommendation: Tier 4.0*
> 
> 
> The current ranking of this disc is placed too high in my opinion. Having enjoyed the show during its first run on television, this Blu-ray set from Warner Bros. is a visual travesty.



The show was shot in 16mm. It's never going to look great for Season 1, no matter the transfer. Same as Scrubs' last season. It looked just as bad on TV, though it might've been compressed and DNR'd a bit.


That being said, I agree with 4.0 I think I might have said the same thing.


----------



## tfoltz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17092746
> 
> 
> As I have mentioned before, if we do that, then we should also separate out Black and White movies etc, etc.



And we could separate live action movies that have CGI, and then movies with a built set. What a great list!


I agree with Rob, Phantom, and djoberg...the separating animated movies argument was taken to task, and there's no real reason to go at it again. If it does, cast my vote on denial.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17093936
> 
> 
> The criteria used to judge and compare animated material of both the traditional cel type and cgi variety obviously differs somewhat from our evaluation of live-action film. Regular films are not getting short shrift in my estimation. *But I am not, in principle, against a fair poll on the matter to assess the mood of users.* It would at least be interesting to see how the idea would be received. Many of the regular posters to this thread, including myself, are not supportive of the idea however for a multitude of reasons.




About the only reason I don't know that it's totally "fair" would be that there's only a handful who are willing to participate with reviews in here as it is. I know in the almost-year I've been around (reviewing since December), this has always been a hot-button issue but mainly it winds up being people who don't provide reviews who end up having the most criticism of the way the thread is run.



I remember all of the work that was just put in to revamp the system as it is now, and I know that a handful of the folks who put in the work to assist Phantom Stranger with the rewrites of the tiers are not even around anymore, even after all of that work to help get things up and going again, from the new definitions to the new formatting etc.



It's easy enough to say "Separate out the animated films!!" but a true implementation of that is really not necessary with the system... and if those of us who are actually providing reviews for the thread don't want to change the essence of the list, I don't think we should.



To me, "A Blu-Ray is a Blu-Ray is a Blu-Ray." As soon as we start taking out things, like animated films, we come up with dilemmas... Movies that have both animated and live action together (ie: Mary Poppins/Phantom Menace when they come out); CGI-animated movies(A Bug's Life) vs regular animation(Sleeping Beauty); movies like 300/Beowulf; heck, if we start singling things out to remove, couldn't anything using IMAX content or HD cameras be separate from film? How about 16mm vs 35mm... The list is endless and in the past others have used better examples than I am right now(I'm still on my first coffee of the day; head's not screwed on straight just yet!)



The list is subjective enough, but keeping it together as one entity helps it have a manner of check-and-balance for the format (at least, in my opinion it does).



So while I'm not completely against the thought of a fair poll to see where folks as a whole are at, the list is difficult to maintain without adding another element of both how to review/what to compare to for the reviewer's end of things, and another list to maintain for "animated" titles.



K-Spaz, it's great to hear that all the work you've done would allow the database itself to create a separate list relatively easy; that's fantastic and thank you again for all of your hard work. At least if it's decided to split up the list, one part of it would not be quite so painful!


----------



## K-Spaz

It appears to me that there's a concensus among the biggest contributers in the thread. While either way is ok with me, I agree with Rob, Phantom, Delta and others, I think the one list is the way to go.


Afaic, this tier thread is supposed to rank how movies look on *Blu-Ray Disks*. BR Disk is the determining factor as to whether or not a title is listed here. As an example, you don't see Star Wars on this list cause it doesn't qualify. It's on the wrong media. So, from my perspective, what image is on the *BR Disk* is what we're ranking, regardless if its live / all cg / animated / whatever. And regardless of Animated vs Live action, I really do think A Bugs Life looks better than The Lake House but also that many live actions movies look better than Wall-E.


As long as i'm posting, I watched Doomsday and I agree with it's placment in Tier 1.25. As for how many stars I gave the movie... It was a similar number


----------



## b_scott

being nit-picky here, but just FYI - it's disc, not disk. Disk refers to a hard drive. Disc refers to circular media.


----------



## OldCodger73

daPriceIs, thanks for your review of The Third Man in post #13275. I agree with most of what you say, however I think Tier 4.0 is a little harsh. I've watched the movie twice and need to watch it a third time before doing a formal review, but here are my impressions of the movie. From memory I think the PQ probably falls somewhere in Tier 3.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/15936515
> 
> 
> I have the movie and have watched it, in fact twice. I really think I need to watch it one more time before I do a review. Following are some thoughts.
> 
> 
> The first time I went in with unreal expectations, after all this was Criterion and one of their first BDs. I was really disappointed, I thought sharpness was lacking-- I think I had just watched a Tier 0 movie and was comparing this 1949 film to it-- and I felt that there were too many hot spots on the actors faces in close-up and medium close-up shots. I would probably have given it a 4.5 but realized I needed to watch it again.
> 
> 
> The second viewing was much better. There was pleasing grain, the lighting was fine, contrast was good, and there was a reasonable degree of sharpness. The picture was rock solid with the exception of the very end of some scenes where there a slight jump, maybe a missing frame or two. The picture was generally very clean, however in at least one scene near the end there was a thin vertical line about 1/3 of the way in from the left edge. Sound was rock solid, no warbling that you sometimes have in older films that have missing frames. I'd probably give it a tentative 3.0.
> 
> 
> This is one of my favorite movies, arguably one of the greatest noir films of all times. I'm really happy with the purchase, it replaces a Criterion LD.


----------



## 42041

I don't remember if I reviewed The Third Man when I viewed it, but I think I'd go with 4.0 from memory, not because there's anything tragic about the transfer, but mainly because the image is very soft and lacking fine texture. I've seen much better from this period in film, but who knows if better quality sources are even out there, maybe a blurry scratchy print is the best you could do now.


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/17095536
> 
> 
> being nit-picky here, but just FYI - it's disc, not disk. Disk refers to a hard drive. Disc refers to circular media.



A hard disk is circular media. See, back in the old days on IBM Mainframes you used removable platters in a hard disk drive (Great big box about 3' square and 3.5' tall). Those platters were "disks" and when the "Diskette" was invented, it began also as a "disk". The first ones were 8" floppies (in a flexible case) thus the name floppy. Then the 5.25", then the 3.5" floppy in a semi-rigid case, etc.


About the time of the CD, they re-spelled it as Compact Disc, gawd only knows why. I suppose to differentiate it from other "Disks" but it's still a "Disk".



> Quote:
> Disk \\Disk\\ (d[i^]sk), noun [L. discus, Gr. di'skos. See {Dish}.] [Written also {disc}.]
> 
> 
> disk
> 
> 
> noun
> 
> 
> 1: something with a round shape like a flat circular plate [syn: {disc}, {saucer}]
> 
> 
> 2: a flat circular plate [syn: {disc}]
> 
> 
> 3: sound recording consisting of a disc with continuous grooves; formerly used to reproduce music by rotating while a phonograph needle tracked in the grooves [syn: {phonograph record}, {phonograph recording}, {record}, {disc}, {platter}]
> 
> 
> 4: (computer science) a memory device consisting of a flat disk covered with a magnetic coating on which information is stored [syn: {magnetic disk}, {magnetic disc}, {disc}]
> 
> 
> verb: draw a harrow over (land) [syn: {harrow}]



Take particular note to the part *[syn: ...*


















Is this still considered on topic?


If you would presume to correct me on that, just imagine how busy you could be if you spent a little more time around this forum.


----------



## b_scott

yes, I understand hard disks are circular media. But you understand what I mean. I couldn't find the right words, but it's correct. 


IMO, i think that "disc" comes from "discus." Either way, CD/DVD/Blu-ray Disc are all spelled that way.


wow OT. lol.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

I agree with the points made that it would be difficult to make animated vs live action lists because of films that were a mixture of both. Especially films like Avatar. Though there are a lot of Blu-ray titles that are either totally (or 99%) live action or totally CGI. Though I suppose since it's all in a database, it might even be possible for the user to select how the list is shown. But maybe that's not a good idea. I just thought that the current list might be favouring CGI films at the expense of live action, but maybe that's not really the case and it might start complicating the list etc. if things were seperated. So maybe it's not a good idea.


But here's another idea just while I'm posting







:

Since the list is _partially_ about how 'high resolution' a particular title is, couldn't that aspect be partially automated/calculated? I remember seeing somewhere on the boards - I think it might have been in this PQ tier thread, where 1080p screen captures were shown, then I think downscaled to 720p, then upscaled back to 1080p. If there was no noticeable difference between the two in details, the transfer was said to be


----------



## tfoltz

Sounds too complex, and I don't see the gain. We are trying to judge "eye" candy, so all titles should be judged by eyesight (even if ones eyesight is worse than another). Everyone's opinion will be different and I don't think numbers will overcome personal preference, nor should they.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17092758
> 
> 
> Nice review, Rob. I don't know necessarily if lack of facial details is intentional. And, if we compare _A Bug's Life_ vs. _Coraline_, there is definite detail in the insect faces in _A Bug's Life_.



Thanks for the follow up Delta. I should make clear that I have not seen the BD of Bug's Life, and looking back, that certainly wasn't clear from my post.


In any event, all I can say is that I did not feel that there was an overall lack of sharpness or detail in the puppets faces in Coraline for the majority of scenes.



> Quote:
> Btw, the part I bolded above regarding details - are you stating that in general or are you particularly referring to puppet faces? Just didn't follow if you ended the previous statement about the faces (inappropriate barometer) and started a new one on general details.



What I was saying is that I didn't think that looking for, or requiring, lots of fine details in faces on puppets was a good barometer if there are no details to be seen! I.e., their faces are smooth.


Yes, I was referring to the fact that the title has a whole has TONS of detail in it. And certain characters certainly had plenty of detail in their faces too. Coraline didn't have much detail in her face, other than a few small freckles.



> Quote:
> Either way, let me clarify what I'm saying about facial puppet details. I'm not implying that they should exhibit human facial details like pores, fine hair, etc. I'm just looking for a bit more tangibility, like I've found in everything else. I believe I compared it to the buttons, which to me exhibited more texture even though they were smooth.



I understand. I just didn't see it as an issue.



> Quote:
> Again, I like these discussions. I think they're what keep us all in check and gives credibility to our thread. We're not just going through the motions.



Couldn't agree more!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joe Bloggs* /forum/post/17097523
> 
> 
> 
> But here's another idea just while I'm posting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :
> 
> Since the list is _partially_ about how 'high resolution' a particular title is, couldn't that aspect be partially automated/calculated? I remember seeing somewhere on the boards - I think it might have been in this PQ tier thread, where 1080p screen captures were shown, then I think downscaled to 720p, then upscaled back to 1080p. If there was no noticeable difference between the two in details, the transfer was said to be


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17094644
> 
> 
> About the only reason I don't know that it's totally "fair" would be that there's only a handful who are willing to participate with reviews in here as it is. I know in the almost-year I've been around (reviewing since December), this has always been a hot-button issue but mainly it winds up being people who don't provide reviews who end up having the most criticism of the way the thread is run.
> 
> 
> 
> I remember all of the work that was just put in to revamp the system as it is now, and I know that a handful of the folks who put in the work to assist Phantom Stranger with the rewrites of the tiers are not even around anymore, even after all of that work to help get things up and going again, from the new definitions to the new formatting etc.
> 
> 
> 
> It's easy enough to say "Separate out the animated films!!" but a true implementation of that is really not necessary with the system... and if those of us who are actually providing reviews for the thread don't want to change the essence of the list, I don't think we should.
> 
> 
> 
> To me, "A Blu-Ray is a Blu-Ray is a Blu-Ray." As soon as we start taking out things, like animated films, we come up with dilemmas... Movies that have both animated and live action together (ie: Mary Poppins/Phantom Menace when they come out); CGI-animated movies(A Bug's Life) vs regular animation(Sleeping Beauty); movies like 300/Beowulf; heck, if we start singling things out to remove, couldn't anything using IMAX content or HD cameras be separate from film? How about 16mm vs 35mm... The list is endless and in the past others have used better examples than I am right now(I'm still on my first coffee of the day; head's not screwed on straight just yet!)
> 
> 
> 
> The list is subjective enough, but keeping it together as one entity helps it have a manner of check-and-balance for the format (at least, in my opinion it does).
> 
> 
> 
> So while I'm not completely against the thought of a fair poll to see where folks as a whole are at, the list is difficult to maintain without adding another element of both how to review/what to compare to for the reviewer's end of things, and another list to maintain for "animated" titles.



I couldn't let this post go by without me quoting it for it's excellence!


----------



## deltasun

*Splinter*

_"It's okay, it's okay. We're cutting your arm off"_


It started out so well! The PQ, that is. Shot on HD Video, the opening scene between the two campers showed incredible promise. The colors were vivid and natural. Facial details were excellent and medium shots showed exceptional depth. Whenever a glint of sunshine touched a part of Polly's face, it showed discernible texture. Skin tones were a bit hot, but was still within the acceptable range.


Then, we moved past the 15-min mark. Once we entered the Stop 'n Go, PQ went and stopped. Under the fluorescent lights, everything got muddied. Even the camera technique changed. The shakiness did not help matters any. As expected, video did not do well during the darker scenes. Blacks were a bit suspect and low-lit sequences were flat and dimensionless. Softness also seeped in (to be fair, the antagonist couple never showed good facial details to begin with) in the gas station.


All in all, a very inconsistent film. In the end, the bad outweighed the good and, for me, found its way to...

*Tier Recommendation: 3.25*


A very forgettable movie.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## daPriceIs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/17095845
> 
> 
> daPriceIs, thanks for your review of The Third Man in post #13275. I agree with most of what you say, however I think Tier 4.0 is a little harsh. I've watched the movie twice and need to watch it a third time before doing a formal review, but here are my impressions of the movie. From memory I think the PQ probably falls somewhere in Tier 3.



Yes, it is a little harsh. But it's fair. Since I bought this disc(k) a month ago, as a conservative estimate I've watched it at least a dozen times, the latest just a few minutes ago. This number of viewings is simply reflective of the, perhaps obsessive, way that I go about thinking of and looking at a movie that has caught my interest for whatever reason, whether that's for a PQ review or not. (Of course it indicates that I probably like it, too







) Having watched it that many times, I've talked myself into and out several tier placements, but they have never strayed far. Like you, my initial disappointment made me think 4.5. Ignoring completely all of the issues related to print damage, I could give it 3.25 or 3.5. If I were to ignore everything except the best images, I could give it as high as 2.75. But I can't cherry-pick the shots or ignore the print damage.


I don't want to be misunderstood when I refer to print damage. In my review I listed several _types_ of damage that I perceived, but that is not to imply that they all happen simultaneously and continuously! Granted I did also say that every frame is damaged to some extent. This is not the type of thing that reaches out of the screen and pokes you in the eye with its offensiveness like the simulated damage in _Planet Terror_; Criterion has really done a great job in taming this stuff. And the damage has been ameliorated to such an extent that I'm sure that some viewers can easily ignore it. Perhaps I've sensitized myself to this stuff so that I can't ignore it anymore. [If you too want to sensitize yourself, it's easy and fun! Go to the 37:59 minute mark in chapter 10. Look at the back of the jacket of the man sitting across the table from the fat lady. Watch his jacket pulse, pulse, PULSE. Rewind and repeat three times. Now you're officially sensitized. You'll never be able to watch this movie again without seeing the PULSE everywhere. Of course you may now see it in every other movie as well.







]


Despite all that, the movie looks pretty good. But given the tier definitions, I felt the placement was justified.


----------



## John Mason




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Joe Bloggs* /forum/post/17097523
> 
> 
> But here's another idea just while I'm posting
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :
> 
> Since the list is _partially_ about how 'high resolution' a particular title is, couldn't that aspect be partially automated/calculated? I remember seeing somewhere on the boards - I think it might have been in this PQ tier thread, where 1080p screen captures were shown, then I think downscaled to 720p, then upscaled back to 1080p. If there was no noticeable difference between the two in details, the transfer was said to be


----------



## Filmaholic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17089931
> 
> 
> djoberg, likewise...respect all around. The lack of "facial" details (sleater, thanks for coming in for the possible explanation) really bothered me, particularly in the early going. It seemed every little piece of the scene was so incredibly sharp and well rendered and beautifully textured. Then, we pan to the little puppet face of Coraline and nothing. It was such a stark contrast to me, specially the first time.
> 
> 
> Like Hugh, I have 20/15 vision and started thinking my eyes were failing me. However, it was consistent throughout all the puppet faces. And, as these faces were a major component of almost every scene, I just could not, in good conscience, vote this into Tier Blu. It was really that simple for me.
> 
> 
> Now, for what it's worth, I felt the faces did get better towards the end. This could be due to the lighting, better "blending," etc. But, the proverbial damage is done and out of Tier 0 it went for me.



Ok, Deltasun you magnificent bastard, you ruined *Coraline* for me, it's official.


I watched it again and I have to tell you, there's something off with those puppet faces. Not always, since close-ups reveal a lot of texture. But on some medium focused shots, under certain lighting conditions, it is really apparent. I wouldn't call it "soft" though. It looks dithered, with a sometimes nasty color banding. It's not on the whole face though, it happens on the lower part of their mugs (lower cheeks, chin and bone structure of the jaw). It really seams to be due to digital processing and "melding" of the two pieced puppet heads.


Man, I hate you for that! LOL. You ruined it, can't take my eyes of the damn faces...


Everything else looks dazzling though. Still Tier Blu for me, even if not really near the top, maybe somewhere close to the bottom of the Tier... Sniff...


Amazingly creepy and a work of love and art, nonetheless.


----------



## Filmaholic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17094644
> 
> 
> About the only reason I don't know that it's totally "fair" would be that there's only a handful who are willing to participate with reviews in here as it is. I know in the almost-year I've been around (reviewing since December), this has always been a hot-button issue but mainly it winds up being people who don't provide reviews who end up having the most criticism of the way the thread is run.
> 
> 
> 
> I remember all of the work that was just put in to revamp the system as it is now, and I know that a handful of the folks who put in the work to assist Phantom Stranger with the rewrites of the tiers are not even around anymore, even after all of that work to help get things up and going again, from the new definitions to the new formatting etc.
> 
> 
> 
> It's easy enough to say "Separate out the animated films!!" but a true implementation of that is really not necessary with the system... and if those of us who are actually providing reviews for the thread don't want to change the essence of the list, I don't think we should.
> 
> 
> 
> To me, "A Blu-Ray is a Blu-Ray is a Blu-Ray." As soon as we start taking out things, like animated films, we come up with dilemmas... Movies that have both animated and live action together (ie: Mary Poppins/Phantom Menace when they come out); CGI-animated movies(A Bug's Life) vs regular animation(Sleeping Beauty); movies like 300/Beowulf; heck, if we start singling things out to remove, couldn't anything using IMAX content or HD cameras be separate from film? How about 16mm vs 35mm... The list is endless and in the past others have used better examples than I am right now(I'm still on my first coffee of the day; head's not screwed on straight just yet!)
> 
> 
> 
> The list is subjective enough, but keeping it together as one entity helps it have a manner of check-and-balance for the format (at least, in my opinion it does).
> 
> 
> 
> So while I'm not completely against the thought of a fair poll to see where folks as a whole are at, the list is difficult to maintain without adding another element of both how to review/what to compare to for the reviewer's end of things, and another list to maintain for "animated" titles.
> 
> 
> 
> K-Spaz, it's great to hear that all the work you've done would allow the database itself to create a separate list relatively easy; that's fantastic and thank you again for all of your hard work. At least if it's decided to split up the list, one part of it would not be quite so painful!



I'm very new here. But have been using the list for quite some time now...


Well, with all due respect, I agree that there should be only one list, regardless of the producing process of the film. Be it cell animation, live action, CGI, stop-motion, whatever. If the real intent is to be absolute.


As G3 very well said, there are films (Beowulf, Mirrormask, 300, Sin City, etc) made with a blend of tecqniques, what would you do then? Kill Bill and Natural Born Killers have segments of cell animation... What do you do?


Then what would you do with films that blend CGI and cell animation (Sky Crawlers, Ghost in the Shell 1&2, etc...).


B&W, IMAX, 70mm films (Playtime, Jacques Tati), 35mm, Digital, and on and on...


We would end with tens of lists and with some films listed multiple times... Madness.


Just a noob's opinion though....


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Filmaholic* /forum/post/17100131
> 
> *Everything else looks dazzling though.* Still Tier Blu for me, even if not really near the top, maybe somewhere close to the bottom of the Tier... Sniff...



If "everything else looks dazzling," even in the scenes where they're showing the puppet faces, then we MUST conclude the faces look the way they are meant to look (i.e. it's NOT an anomaly), and therefore the PQ should NOT be penalized for that.


But even IF there was something going on in a few "medium-focused shots, under certain lighting conditions," that is NOT enough to drop an absolutely amazing and gorgeous title down from the top to the bottom of the tier.


PS Just think, if my few words of wisdom result in bringing you back to reality, then deltasun will not have ruined Coraline for you and you can get on with your life.


----------



## Filmaholic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17100583
> 
> 
> If "everything else looks dazzling," even in the scenes where they're showing the puppet faces, then we MUST conclude the faces look the way they are meant to look, and therefore the PQ should NOT be penalized for that.
> 
> 
> But even IF there was something going on in a few "medium-focused shots, under certain lighting conditions," that is NOT enough to drop an absolutely amazing and gorgeous title down from the top to the bottom of the tier.
> 
> 
> PS Just think, if my few words of wisdom result in bringing you back to reality, then deltasun will not have ruined Coraline for you and you can get on with your life.



That's the beauty of subjective things!

You are more than entitled to disagree.


But I tell you: there is something wrong with Coraline's jaw and it could be distracting if you let it be.

As I said, I think it is not enough to drop it from Tier0. But it is flawed enough to prevent it from reaching Pixar's level of excellence, for instance.


If it is Tier 1 or 0, I'm still not sure. I love it enough to say it is Tier Blu material.

Deltasun didn't think so, and I respect that. It was not unfounded, though it was not my perception the first couple of times I watched it.


----------



## deltasun

Filmaholic, I think dithered is a great description instead of soft. If you notice in my succeeding post, I mentioned intangibility. I think we are arriving at the same description for the presentation. I do apologize for making you see something unpleasant.







For me, that was my first reaction because, as I said, everything else looked so pristine until we got to the faces. I'm not as staunch as patrick99 about facial requirements, but if it's there, it's a substantial barometer for me, specially for Tier Blu - best of the absolute best.


djoberg, I hope you're not saying we shouldn't penalize something because it was intended.


----------



## tfoltz

If this were the case Wall-E and Speed Racer should be moved up significantly. Unfortunately, director's intent is forbidden here (yet Bolt is above Wall-E for some reason...which I will never understand).



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17100583
> 
> 
> If "everything else looks dazzling," even in the scenes where they're showing the puppet faces, then we MUST conclude the faces look the way they are meant to look (i.e. it's NOT an anomaly), and therefore the PQ should NOT be penalized for that.


----------



## Joe Bloggs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Mason* /forum/post/17100047
> 
> 
> There is high-end hardware (e.g., Tektronix PQA500 ) that provides PQ rankings based on resolution and other factors, and at least one free/low-cost shareware program capable of spectrum analysis on a frame-by-frame basis. This earlier post has sublinks to sspears' measurements with a Hewlett-Packard instrument on earlier 1080/24p master tapes (~270 Mbps), and an extract from Joe Kane's website concluding such readings showed resolutions similar to 720p HD. Notice the higher frequencies/resolutions in the shareware graph dr1394 provided in the sublink for a stadium crowd scene.
> 
> 
> Using low-cost spectrum analysis software only capable of single-frame analysis seems inadequate for an entire movie. Pinning down several higher-resolution frames might be useful for numerical resolution comparisons with subjective findings. Or adapting/finding software that can average a section of frames would be better--assuming few have access to $ix-figure spectrum analyzers with averaging functions. Agree it would be interesting to compare spectrum-analyzed readings from Blu-rays, perhaps in another thread, looking for correlations to subjective summaries. Needs a computer whiz to devise a technique with the right software. -- John



Thanks for the links and info. I'll read about the programs/hardware you've mentioned.


> Quote:
> EDIT: IMO, conversion from 1080 on Blu-rays to 720p, etc., needlessly complicates analysis.



I thought the downscale-upscale bit might be the easy bit. I thought the hard bit might be making the program determine if differences between the D.U. was because of detail or noise/random grain (though the fact the later should be random should probably make it not that hard) - though it might still be hard for a program to determine what was actual detail in a particular scene - something a human should easily be able to do. I also thought about splitting each frame into multiple sections and calculating the resolution for each section - using the downscale-upscale method (eg. the whole frame might not be low res/blurry).


----------



## Filmaholic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/17102025
> 
> 
> If this were the case Wall-E and Speed Racer should be moved up significantly. Unfortunately, director's intent is forbidden here (yet Bolt is above Wall-E for some reason...which I will never understand).



Speed Racer should be moved down for sure, due to the waxy faces and over intrusive DNR. I am not talking about the digital rejuvenation of faces, it is sloppy DNR, period. This thing is Tier 1.75 tops.


Wall-e...well, now you got me...It has that drab/desaturetaded look... some people dread that. I love it. I think it should be up there with Ratatouille. But that's my noob opinion.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Filmaholic* /forum/post/17102606
> 
> *Speed Racer should be moved down for sure, due to the waxy faces and over intrusive DNR. I am not talking about the digital rejuvenation of faces, it is sloppy DNR, period. This thing is Tier 1.75 tops.*
> 
> 
> Wall-e...well, now you got me...It has that drab/desaturetaded look... some people dread that. I love it. I think it should be up there with Ratatouille. But that's my noob opinion.



Glad to see someone else *finally* agree with me on Speed Racer.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Filmaholic* /forum/post/17102606
> 
> 
> Speed Racer should be moved down for sure, due to the waxy faces and over intrusive DNR. I am not talking about the digital rejuvenation of faces, it is sloppy DNR, period. This thing is Tier 1.75 tops.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/17102682
> 
> 
> Glad to see someone else *finally* agree with me on Speed Racer.



I'm glad Speed Racer was mentioned. Watching SR in theaters convinced me to invest in HD!







I knew my old television and DVD player could not do this title justice!


The day I purchased it, I was blown away! It looked much better than I remembered! This is coming from someone who saw it five times in the theater! IMO, the combo of CGI, sharpness, and color saturation made SR a sure candidate for top ten Tier 0 status! But after hearing other opinions and reviewing the rules of this thread, my Tier 0 masterpiece dropped to Tier 1 (which, by the way, isn't a bad thing at all).


I love this thread. In the near future, I will begin to review titles like I used to. But my personal feelings for artistic intent and the rules of the thread began to merge. I stopped viewing and purchasing certain titles because they were not "reference material."


Slowly but surely, I've learned to split the two factors apart again. Even though I'll continue to leave feedback in this wonderful thread, artistic intent is much more important to me. High definition is currently the best medium to view titles the way they were intended to look. As a fan of film, this is the reason I went Blu!










Back to Speed Racer. Even with the "shiny faces," Speed Racer is still top ten Tier Blu material! It's my demo disc of choice! It was shot digitally, which means DNR probably wasn't applied. If Zodiac, which is also digital, didn't have issues with its darker scenes, it would be Tier Blu as well! Tier 1.75 for Speed Racer is madness!

















And now, back to your regularly scheduled thread...


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17101604
> 
> 
> djoberg, I hope you're not saying we shouldn't penalize something because it was intended.



Nope, I wasn't saying that (i.e. referring to "director's intents"). What I WAS saying is that perhaps this is the way puppet faces should look.


----------



## tfoltz

Agreed.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/17103418
> 
> 
> Back to Speed Racer. Even with the "shiny faces," Speed Racer is still top ten Tier Blu material! It's my demo disc of choice!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/17102025
> 
> 
> If this were the case Wall-E and Speed Racer should be moved up significantly. Unfortunately, director's intent is forbidden here (yet Bolt is above Wall-E for some reason...which I will never understand).



I was one who opted for Tier 0 with Speed Racer. When some were arguing that DNR must have been applied (resulting in the waxy-looking faces), my counter argument was that if DNR was applied there would have been EE or other anomalies present in other objects, not just on human faces.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/17102682
> 
> 
> Glad to see someone else *finally* agree with me on Speed Racer.



HEY! Lest you forget, when I first showed up here at the thread my issues with Speed Racer?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/17102682
> 
> 
> Glad to see someone else *finally* agree with me on Speed Racer.



Surely you are not saying this is the first time someone has agreed with you on Speed Racer and the "waxy faces"?!


----------



## mcjasonb

just watched "The International" the PQ was amazing. very nice looking movie.


----------



## djoberg

*Earth (Disneynature)*


I rented this after finding out it wasn't simply a compiling of shots from the Planet Earth series; it includes sequences from The Blue Planet as well, along with possibly some original footage. I was curious to see if Disney would leave out the shots filmed in SD and for the most it was shot exclusively in HD (I would guess 95% was full-blown HD).


I'm going to cut to the chase on this one. Aside from a somewhat lengthy night scene (of lions attacking and killing an elephant) that was extremely grainy , blurry, and lacking detail, this outing excels in exquisite details, vibrant colors, deep blacks, and strong contrast. There were a few isolated shots that are a bit soft (mostly in underwater scenes), but this was the exception and not the rule.


Planet Earth is presently at 2.25, so I believe this 90 minute gem deserves to be almost a whole tier higher. So I'll place it here....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17103638
> 
> 
> Nope, I wasn't saying that (i.e. referring to "director's intents"). What I WAS saying is that perhaps this is the way puppet faces should look.



This is stop motion, correct? So, the puppet faces still have to be made out of some tangible material, e.g., wood, plastic, molding. Whatever it is, I would expect it to show its tangibility in high definition. Otherwise, it's a PQ flaw.


----------



## deltasun

*Green Lantern: First Flight*

_In brightest day, in blackest night

No evil shall escape my sight

Let those who worship evil's might

Beware my power, Green Lantern's light_


Used to love that when I was a kid. This was a solid release from Warner that showcased eye-popping colors, absolutely bold but stable blacks, and well-rendered animation in general. Again, the colors were vibrant and really leaped off the screen. Shadow delineation was very well controlled.


As Phantom mentioned in his review, the image looked clean and pristine. There was definitely a crispness with each scene, specially daylight scenes. The animation made good use of blurring to aid in focusing between characters and other scene elements.


As with other cel-animated features, my biggest beef lies in their ability to show more complex properties like texture or dimensionality. I really feel those are required elements for Tier Blu. Still, the presentation warrants a solid Tier Gold rating for me. I would easily place it ahead of _Sleeping Beauty_, which placed at 1.5 so many moons ago.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0*


I've always been a fan of the Green Lantern character. This was a good feature to show his origins and Sinestro's turning, which I had not seen/read in its entirety previously.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## deltasun

With all the controversy around the forums, it'll be interesting to see how our thread treats _Gladiator_. I have my copy of it (as well as _Braveheart_) and have perused through it. While the scrubbing/halos are there, overall PQ based on our criteria is not too bad. It's not as good as _The Dark Knight_ in 1.25, however. I should have this reviewed/rated by the weekend.


Hate to say it and I'll have to do a FULL review first, obviously...but, upon initial inspection of random scenes, _Braveheart_ was surprisingly a tad softer and looked more dated (contrast-wise). We'll see if that holds up for me once I put in my 3 hours.


Should be a fun few days/weeks in here.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Filmaholic* /forum/post/17102606
> 
> 
> Speed Racer should be moved down for sure, due to the waxy faces and over intrusive DNR. I am not talking about the digital rejuvenation of faces, it is sloppy DNR, period. This thing is Tier 1.75 tops.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17103855
> 
> 
> HEY! Lest you forget, when I first showed up here at the thread my issues with Speed Racer?



I don't recall that you were quite as negative about SR as Filmaholic, G3.










What I mainly recall is your calling attention to "lines" around characters' images. If I am misremembering, I would welcome having my memory refreshed.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Filmaholic* /forum/post/17102606
> 
> 
> Speed Racer should be moved down for sure, due to the waxy faces and over intrusive DNR. *I am not talking about the digital rejuvenation of faces, it is sloppy DNR, period.* This thing is Tier 1.75 tops.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17104240
> 
> 
> Surely you are not saying this is the first time someone has agreed with you on Speed Racer and the "waxy faces"?!



No, Rob, I recognize that a lot of people have commented on the faces. What I was pointing out was that Filmaholic's criticism is clearly *NOT* limited to the faces.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17105993
> 
> 
> This is stop motion, correct? So, the puppet faces still have to be made out of some tangible material, e.g., wood, plastic, molding. Whatever it is, I would expect it to show its tangibility in high definition. Otherwise, it's a PQ flaw.



Again, I will have to rent this and observe the faces more critically. I'll seal my lips until then.










My copies of Gladiator and Braveheart should be here this week from Amazon. I hope your initial observation of Braveheart isn't indicative of the whole transfer, though I was halfway expecting it to be soft in some scenes (especially night scenes and when there is fog).


Gladiator, on the other hand, _should_ be a stellar transfer. I saw it on TNT (or TBS, I can't remember for sure) several months ago and it looked gorgeous for 1080i.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17106100
> 
> 
> With all the controversy around the forums, it'll be interesting to see how our thread treats _Gladiator_. I have my copy of it (as well as _Braveheart_) and have perused through it. While the scrubbing/halos are there, overall PQ based on our criteria is not too bad. It's not as good as _The Dark Knight_ in 1.25, however. I should have this reviewed/rated by the weekend.
> 
> 
> Hate to say it and I'll have to do a FULL review first, obviously...but, upon initial inspection of random scenes, _Braveheart_ was surprisingly a tad softer and looked more dated (contrast-wise). We'll see if that holds up for me once I put in my 3 hours.
> 
> 
> Should be a fun few days/weeks in here.




Yes, it might be, since that is sought of the reverse people are claiming in the threads for each film themselves.


Some say Braveheart is one of the best they have seen on BD, so I was thinking maybe it would be similar to Prince Caspian.


Screen caps...I know, I don't really use them as a reference UNLESS I see the BD, but Braveheart looks incredible from the screen caps.


Somehow, my kids have never seen two of my favorite movies, but they will now. I guess I kept them away due to the violence when they were younger, but I watch them all the time when they are on the HD channels and even recorded them on DVR.


It must be fall, as it seems posters are coming out of the woodwork in this thread.










I am in NY for 10 days visiting family and I can' t wait to get home. Major PS3 update, huge BD title releases, etc. Well I sought of can't wait as it is nice visiting and the weather here is unusually low humidity.


I look forward to the reviews for Glad and Brave.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/17106348
> 
> 
> I don't recall that you were quite as negative about SR as Filmaholic, G3.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I mainly recall is your calling attention to "lines" around characters' images. If I am misremembering, I would welcome having my memory refreshed.



My main issue was the purple lines caused by the CGI, but I did also have issue with the faces, but didn't push anything as I was timid at the time since I was new, and it seemed to be a sore spot for many of you guys.







I haven't watched all of Speed Racer on my Panny plasma (this was on my old Toshiba when I first saw it) but when I did get the Panny, my friend did bring Speed Racer over and I did still see the lines. I believe Stumlad also did some screenshots of times where I saw it, and I saw the purple lines on those as well. I have a busy morning today but maybe later I'll go for a trip down nostalgia lane and find the posts and see how well I'm remembering.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/17106352
> 
> 
> No, Rob, I recognize that a lot of people have commented on the faces. What I was pointing out was that Filmaholic's criticism is clearly *NOT* limited to the faces.



Ah, got ya, thanks Patrick.


----------



## Hughmc

I was looking back at a lot of Speed Racer discussions, comments and placement. I thought it was tier 1.0 back then, and it made it top tier 0 from the overwhelming votes to place it there. It is in 1.0 now...as djoberg said back then, I think we beat that dead horse enough.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17107615
> 
> 
> Yes, it might be, since that is sought of the reverse people are claiming in the threads for each film themselves.
> 
> 
> Some say Braveheart is one of the best they have seen on BD, so I was thinking maybe it would be similar to Prince Caspian.
> 
> 
> Screen caps...I know, I don't really use them as a reference UNLESS I see the BD, but Braveheart looks incredible from the screen caps.



Exactly! It was the opposite of what I've been reading. Of course, maybe my vision got messed up by the "unnatural" sharpness of _Gladiator_ since I previewed it first. We shall see...



> Quote:
> Somehow, my kids have never seen two of my favorite movies, but they will now. I guess I kept them away due to the violence when they were younger, but I watch them all the time when they are on the HD channels and even recorded them on DVR.



They'll be in for a treat.



> Quote:
> It must be fall, as it seems posters are coming out of the woodwork in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am in NY for 10 days visiting family and I can' t wait to get home. Major PS3 update, huge BD title releases, etc. Well I sought of can't wait as it is nice visiting and the weather here is unusually low humidity.
> 
> 
> I look forward to the reviews for Glad and Brave.



Yep, the thread is jumping again. Looking forward to all the new and regular posters chiming in again. I wanted to visit NY and catch some of the action at the Open - maybe next year. I'll be on vaca too in a couple of weeks, heading up to Alaska. Hopefully, I can find time to review a movie or two. Time to convince my brother to get a BR player.


----------



## Filmaholic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/17103418
> 
> 
> ******
> 
> I love this thread. In the near future, I will begin to review titles like I used to. But my personal feelings for artistic intent and the rules of the thread began to merge. I stopped viewing and purchasing certain titles because they were not "reference material."
> 
> 
> Slowly but surely, I've learned to split the two factors apart again. Even though I'll continue to leave feedback in this wonderful thread, artistic intent is much more important to me. High definition is currently the best medium to view titles the way they were intended to look. As a fan of film, this is the reason I went Blu!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Back to Speed Racer. Even with the "shiny faces," Speed Racer is still top ten Tier Blu material! It's my demo disc of choice! It was shot digitally, which means DNR probably wasn't applied. If Zodiac, which is also digital, didn't have issues with its darker scenes, it would be Tier Blu as well! Tier 1.75 for Speed Racer is madness!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And now, back to your regularly scheduled thread...



I understand you perfectly. I own about a hundred BD's and I must say almost none of them were bought exclusively with PQ in mind. Artistic and aesthetic qualities are much, much more important to me. I do admit buying a Pirates here, a Kung Fu Panda there more for the eye candy than anything else, though.


Anyway, I must say my very first post on this forum was regarding Zodiac's place. I was told (sorry, don't recall by who) it has EE on medium shots... Oh well... I didn't want to go into further, nastier debate. It's digital, theoratically it doesn't have any DNR, EE or other agressive post production. In theory. I didn't watch it again to verify those claims either.


But, someone correct me if I'm wrong, Speed Racer was shot in 35mm, not digitally. And it has nasty post-production, be it the directors intent or not, it doesn't matter. Those faces are horrible. By the way, I do own it, do love it.


In closing, I suppose Speed Racer is a very, very dead horse indeed.

But what about that *Curious Case o f Benjamin Button*. Is it really that soft? It looks awesome to me, a definite top ten (Live Action) in my noob book. I also don't think this particular horse is dead. Let's cut it some slack please? Pretty please?


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Filmaholic* /forum/post/17109142
> 
> 
> It's digital, theoratically it doesn't have any DNR, EE or other agressive post production. In theory. I didn't watch it again to verify those claims either.



Not true. Digital cameras are pretty noisy when you're not shooting in daylight. I don't remember if I noted any EE, but the temporal noise reduction was quite distracting if you know what to look for.


here's even a brief blurb about it: "This digital sharpening and noise-reduction work “was done with John Lowry at DTS Digital Images,” says Fincher. “It consisted of some up-rezzing of the 1920x1080 anamorphic images from the Viper, which we’d squeezed slightly to a 2.35:1 frame. By interpolating sub-pixel image information from multiple frames before and after each individual frame, DTS was able to able to up-rez and slightly sharpen the footage. "
http://www.theasc.com/magazine_dynam...diac/page1.php 


(speed racer was shot digitally)


----------



## Filmaholic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17101604
> 
> 
> Filmaholic, I think dithered is a great description instead of soft. If you notice in my succeeding post, I mentioned intangibility. I think we are arriving at the same description for the presentation. I do apologize for making you see something unpleasant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For me, that was my first reaction because, as I said, everything else looked so pristine until we got to the faces. I'm not as staunch as patrick99 about facial requirements, but if it's there, it's a substantial barometer for me, specially for Tier Blu - best of the absolute best.
> 
> 
> djoberg, I hope you're not saying we shouldn't penalize something because it was intended.



Yes, we are reaching a common ground.


Now, if only we could agree on that Tier Blu Placement!


----------



## Filmaholic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/17109199
> 
> 
> Not true. Digital cameras are pretty noisy when you're not shooting in daylight. I don't remember if I noted any EE, but the temporal noise reduction was quite distracting if you know what to look for.
> 
> 
> here's even a brief blurb about it: "This digital sharpening and noise-reduction work “was done with John Lowry at DTS Digital Images,” says Fincher. “It consisted of some up-rezzing of the 1920x1080 anamorphic images from the Viper, which we’d squeezed slightly to a 2.35:1 frame. By interpolating sub-pixel image information from multiple frames before and after each individual frame, DTS was able to able to up-rez and slightly sharpen the footage. "
> http://www.theasc.com/magazine_dynam...diac/page1.php
> 
> 
> (speed racer was shot digitally)



Thanks very much for the info. Awesome article. Bookmarked. Explains a lot.


Even though I remember a clean picture the first time I saw it. I'll watch it again sometime.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Anyone think _Rescue Dawn_ needs a re-evaluation of its placement? It was in tier zero for a time and is currently ranked in tier 1.25. After a recent viewing the lowest I feel it should be placed is in tier 1.0, though a low ranking in tier zero would not be out of the question. Amazing how an early BD release can still compare very nicely with more recent titles.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Filmaholic* /forum/post/17109398
> 
> 
> Yes, we are reaching a common ground.
> 
> 
> Now, if only we could agree on that Tier Blu Placement!



Agree with first statement, but not second.












> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17111447
> 
> 
> Anyone think _Rescue Dawn_ needs a re-evaluation of its placement? It was in tier zero for a time and is currently ranked in tier 1.25. After a recent viewing the lowest I feel it should be placed is in tier 1.0, though a low ranking in tier zero would not be out of the question. Amazing how an early BD release can still compare very nicely with more recent titles.



Phantom, I'd give it another viewing but I recently just agreed with its current placement of 1.25. I felt the contrast was a bit weak and made for an almost dated look (sure, can be DI based on the period). It did make it a bit flat. So, I'm a bit leery I would vote for something higher.


I do agree that it's a very good looking transfer and a proud member of my collection.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17111447
> 
> 
> Anyone think _Rescue Dawn_ needs a re-evaluation of its placement? It was in tier zero for a time and is currently ranked in tier 1.25. After a recent viewing the lowest I feel it should be placed is in tier 1.0, though a low ranking in tier zero would not be out of the question. Amazing how an early BD release can still compare very nicely with more recent titles.



Personally I think 1.25 is just about right.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17111938
> 
> 
> Personally I think 1.25 is just about right.



Back on 2/27 I agreed with its 1.25 placement, so I too believe it is where it should be. I haven't seen it for a very long time, but I do remember some of the jungle scenes rivaling those in Apocalypto. Those scenes may be Tier 0 quality, but other scenes knocked it down to Tier 1.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17107972
> 
> 
> Exactly! It was the opposite of what I've been reading. Of course, maybe my vision got messed up by the "unnatural" sharpness of _Gladiator_ since I previewed it first. We shall see...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They'll be in for a treat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, the thread is jumping again. Looking forward to all the new and regular posters chiming in again. I wanted to visit NY and catch some of the action at the Open - maybe next year. I'll be on vaca too in a couple of weeks, heading up to Alaska. Hopefully, I can find time to review a movie or two. Time to convince my brother to get a BR player.



I saw a loop from the Gladiator BD in Best Buy today. It looked fairly good and yes I could see the DNR etc., but I would say it rates about a 1.75 give or take. It is not near as bad as I thought from some hyperbolic posts.


I bought both today from Best Buy, Glad and Brave. They were 22.99 each. After 10.00 off both, 17.99 each and a ten off each if you own the DVD's of each, 7.99 and reward zone, they will cost about 5.00 each.














5.00 each people, the DVD of either is 15.00. You can't go wrong and if they come out with another better transfer of Glad you will be out 5.00 and maybe they will even credit you back if they do. 5.00 for a DTS MA isn't bad.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17112078
> 
> 
> I saw a loop from the Gladiator BD in Best Buy today. It looked fairly good and yes I could see the DNR etc., but I would say it rates about a 1.75 give or take. It is not near as bad as I thought from some hyperbolic posts.



As you know Hugh, one can hardly make a judgment call based on what they see in a B&M showroom. The set you were watching was no doubt in "torch mode" which can make any title look a lot worse than it will look on your (calibrated) set at home. So, let's hope Gladiator fares much better on your Sony and that you'll be able to rate it much higher than 1.75.


----------



## 42041

1.75? based on everything i've seen so far, that's a very generous assessment... i suspect i'm going to reach a much different conclusion when i watch it tomorrow...


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/17112559
> 
> 
> 1.75? based on everything i've seen so far, that's a very generous assessment... i suspect i'm going to reach a much different conclusion when i watch it tomorrow...



Your comment prompted me to visit Cinema Squid's site to see if any reviews have come in yet. It turns out there are only two, but both of them are quite negative. One review said that in the extended cut the added scenes look great and if the whole transfer looked like that it would be reference quality. That same reviewer did say that it isn't quite as bad as some are saying, especially those who are posting screen caps and condemning the whole film based on those still shots.


----------



## deltasun

Ahh, you haven't been involved with all the commotion regarding all the "foul play" that had befallen _Gladiator_. Hehe...lots of reading to catch up to. Or, better yet...just watch and chime in with your review.


Again, I've only perused but it doesn't look as bad in motion so far, aside from maybe the ringing. The comparison still shots on the other thread are really bad.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17112665
> 
> 
> Ahh, you haven't been involved with all the commotion regarding all the "foul play" that had befallen _Gladiator_. Hehe...lots of reading to catch up to. Or, better yet...just watch and chime in with your review.
> 
> 
> Again, I've only perused but it doesn't look as bad in motion so far, aside from maybe the ringing. The comparison still shots on the other thread are really bad.



I avoid the threads that are consumed with screen caps like I would AIDS! Back in the day when The Dark Knight was being crucified on those threads I learned a simple, but invaluable lesson...NEVER TRUST STILL SHOTS!! I only trust what I see during the movie...while IT IS IN MOTION!


BTW, I guess my copies of Gladiator and Braveheart may not arrive until after Labor Day, so I'll be watching them next week sometime.


----------



## deltasun

Understood and agreed! Am looking forward to an evening of Gladiator, hopefully by this weekend.


----------



## H.Cornerstone




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17112743
> 
> 
> I avoid the threads that are consumed with screen caps like I would AIDS! Back in the day when The Dark Knight was being crucified on those threads I learned a simple, but invaluable lesson...NEVER TRUST STILL SHOTS!! I only trust what I see during the movie...while IT IS IN MOTION!
> 
> 
> BTW, I guess my copies of Gladiator and Braveheart may not arrive until after Labor Day, so I'll be watching them next week sometime.



While this is true, What cinema squid and Xylon produce is very close to the final movie and pretty indicative of the product. when I watched The Dark Knight I thought the same thing I did when I saw Xylon's screenshots. The Imax scenes were amazing, the normal scenes were average.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *H.Cornerstone* /forum/post/17112998
> 
> 
> While this is true, What cinema squid and Xylon produce is very close to the final movie and pretty indicative of the product. when I watched The Dark Knight I thought the same thing I did when I saw Xylon's screenshots. The Imax scenes were amazing, the normal scenes were average.



While it's true there was a difference between the Imax scenes and those shot in 35mm, it wasn't THAT drastic, IMHO.


Another example is the movie Baraka. In the screen caps thread they condemned it for the "haloing" in many scenes (and their still shots did make it looking like there was "ringing" or "haloing"), but IN MOTION I could NOT detect any ringing or haloing. Many others could not see them either so I concluded that I'm not even going to visit those threads and possibly become biased against a movie before even seeing it in motion.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17113997
> 
> 
> While it's true there was a difference between the Imax scenes and those shot in 35mm, it wasn't THAT drastic, IMHO.
> 
> 
> Another example is the movie Baraka. In the screen caps thread they condemned it for the "haloing" in many scenes (and their still shots did make it looking like there was "ringing" or "haloing"), *but IN MOTION I could NOT detect any ringing or haloing*. Many others could not see them either so I concluded that I'm not even going to visit those threads and possibly become biased against a movie before even seeing it in motion.



Well, I for one, found the ringing/haloing impossible to miss or ignore while watching the Baraka BD.


Lots of dead horses lately, eh?


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Yeah, it definitely comes down to sensitivity to that sort of thing. Since I know I'm sensitive I've got no qualms looking at those threads. If there's EE or any sort of halos chances are very high I'll see it anyway. The disappointing factor regarding Gladiator are OTHER issues that have occurred to it during it's transfer. Now, I don't know if I will notice those issues during a viewing, but I think I'll probably at least notice the extended scenes with the superior detail vs the regular movie.



I just posted in the Gladiator thread, but both Gladiator and Braveheart were given to me as gifts last night, so I'm hoping to give them at least an initial viewing before the weekend is out. Today's task: after my daughter gets home from school I'm hoping to watch Coraline with her.


----------



## b_scott

*John Adams* looks gorgeous. Someone else should formally review it, but to me it was at least a 1.5, and some scenes were bordering on low zero.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/17114027
> 
> 
> Well, I for one, found the ringing/haloing impossible to miss or ignore while watching the Baraka BD.
> 
> 
> Lots of dead horses lately, eh?



Hey patrick, I have and do acknowledge that there are those, like you and G3, who are sensitive to ringing/halos, but it seems like the majority of us who post on this thread are not. And even with some who do see ringing/halos, it doesn't bother them to the point of penalizing the rating of the PQ.


Yes, lots of dead horses lately!!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/17114300
> 
> *John Adams* looks gorgeous. Someone else should formally review it, but to me it was at least a 1.5, and some scenes were bordering on low zero.



I did review it here . I loved it, such a fantastic series. I did find it had some Tier 0 spots, but it suffered from some inconsistencies and in the end rated it Tier 1.75.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17114073
> 
> 
> I just posted in the Gladiator thread, but both Gladiator and Braveheart were given to me as gifts last night, so I'm hoping to give them at least an initial viewing before the weekend is out. Today's task: after my daughter gets home from school I'm hoping to watch Coraline with her.



Lucky you for getting those two as gifts!


I will look forward to seeing a review from you on Coraline. You may not like the movie, but I trust you'll be very impressed with the PQ.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17114367
> 
> 
> Hey patrick, I have and do acknowledge that there are those, like you and G3, who are sensitive to ringing/halos, but it seems like the majority of us who post on this thread are not. And even with some who do see ringing/halos, it doesn't bother them to the point of penalizing the rating of the PQ.
> 
> 
> Yes, lots of dead horses lately!!



Those poor horses!! Now they're not just mostly dead; they're ALL dead!










I wouldn't say it's a majority who are not sensitive to ringing/halos, but I would think it's kind of even. Depends on who's posting consistently. I do know that I would never vote something to be in Tier 0 that has EE that would be bothersome to me. Also, just because I'm sensitive to it doesn't mean it always bothers me; I can just see it in spots where others can't and I do think I normally acknowledge that when I do my reviews.



That said I have no qualms with something possibly ending up in Tier 1 (which I do still consider reference, as I think many of us do) that has EE in it; pretty much so long as it doesn't anger me. If the processing a disc has gone through is enough to irritate me that it pulls me out of enjoying a movie, I will most definitely count it as a negative when I review. I'm a firm believer that EE isn't necessary on Blu Ray and it looks bad (and can look horrifying). Since it's not necessary, I'd rather it wasn't there at all since I can see it, and in many cases, it does affect the enjoyment of picture quality to me.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17114492
> 
> 
> I wouldn't say it's a majority who are not sensitive to ringing/halos, but I would think it's kind of even. Depends on who's posting consistently.



When we were discussing Baraka, it was most definitely a majority of those posting who either did not see ringing/halos, or were not bothered by them. This resulted in its current placement in Tier 0. And yet if the regular posters of the Baraka screen cap thread had been posting here, Baraka would probably be in Tier 3 or 4.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17114591
> 
> 
> When we were discussing Baraka, it was most definitely a majority of those posting who either did not see ringing/halos, or were not bothered by them. This resulted in its current placement in Tier 0. And yet if the regular posters of the Baraka screen cap thread had been posting here, Baraka would probably be in Tier 3 or 4.



Ahh ok. I was just talking about us posters here in the thread for sure. I have not seen Baraka so I can't comment on it, but while everyone has an opinion when we get to other threads around here, not everyone will help us review!



At any rate, at this point I would think you guys are used to my opinions and how I'd sway and you guys are pretty consistent with what you guys like too.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17114739
> 
> 
> Ahh ok. I was just talking about us posters here in the thread for sure. I have not seen Baraka so I can't comment on it, but while everyone has an opinion when we get to other threads around here, not everyone will help us review!
> 
> 
> 
> At any rate, at this point I would think you guys are used to my opinions and how I'd sway and you guys are pretty consistent with what you guys like too.



Considering your attitude toward EE/ringing/haloing, G3, I wish you had been here to give me some support during the Baraka battle.


----------



## tcramer

Any preliminary thoughts on Braveheart BR that anyone would like to share?


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tcramer* /forum/post/17115409
> 
> 
> Any preliminary thoughts on Braveheart BR that anyone would like to share?



I saw about 10 minutes of the disc yesterday, and while it probably won't end up there honestly I think it's a solid tier 0 contender.


----------



## deltasun

So many discussions already of movies that have not been fully viewed yet. I like it!







I'll chime in too. The EE in Gladiator is definitely bothersome this time and will take their due penalty points. But then, just the opening scene with the smoky/foggy background, we get a thick amount of banding. Add to that some waxy faces....










Braveheart definitely gets an A+ for its stellar transfer and should be rated highly (main list) in Foxy's thread. However, my initial (albeit it limited) viewing showed softness and a bit of a weak contrast.


Ah, but these are early pre-review observations. Could change once the entire movie is taken into consideration.


----------



## Filmaholic

So there were horses? For sure?










I didn't see any, since I'm supah noob.


Good to know though.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Filmaholic* /forum/post/17116372
> 
> 
> So there were horses? For sure?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't see any, since I'm supah noob.
> 
> 
> Good to know though.



It's not so much a question of seeing.








It's more the smell.


----------



## Mr.G

I couldn't find this title in this thread (or in the rankings) so if it hasn't been nominated yet I cast a vote for *Tier Zero - Blu Reference* for _Dragon Hunters_.


Whether one cares for the story or not, the PQ is quite impressive.


A review with screen shots can be found here:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...rs_blu-ray.htm


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mr.G* /forum/post/17121729
> 
> 
> I couldn't find this title in this thread (or in the rankings) so if it hasn't been nominated yet I cast a vote for *Tier Zero - Blu Reference* for _Dragon Hunters_.
> 
> 
> Whether one cares for the story or not, the PQ is quite impressive.
> 
> 
> A review with screen shots can be found here:
> 
> http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...rs_blu-ray.htm



Those screen shots look VERY GOOD!! I'll have to check this movie out when I have time. I don't remember seeing it in my local video stores, so I may have to rent it elsewhere.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^


It's obvious that Dragon Hunters was neglected by a majority of "professional" reviewers, but Cinema Squid does list a few on his site and the consensus is that this is a reference quality Blu-ray.


----------



## 42041

*Gladiator*


I've heard many times over the last couple days reading these and other forums that screenshots are not reliable for making judgments on releases and that one can only make the call on the quality of a blu-ray having seen it. While sometimes there's a grain of truth to that, sadly, this release did not make a strong case for that argument to my eyes. I'll give it this: much of the movie is an upgrade over the DVD in terms of detail. Most of it doesn't look completely awful, just decidedly mediocre. If that's all you ask for, you will likely be satisfied. If you expected this to be a "sapphire" quality transfer, or if you, like me, prefer an organic, natural quality to the picture and want to be seamlessly immersed in the movie without technical distractions, this will disappoint gravely.


Things get right off to a questionable start, as the intro titles exhibit obvious color banding. It doesn't get much better from there. The effects of EE are omnipresent, and what might have been inoffensive optical softness in the unmolested master takes on an unpleasant digital harshness. While edges are often well-defined (hence, edge enhancement, i guess) there's almost no fine texture to be found anywhere. Temporal NR is often in evidence, leaving unnatural temporally smeared grain. Other times, it's simply wiped clean. For some reason, almost all the various long shots and establishing shots look godawful, with an upscale-ish degree of detail, big nasty halos, like some cheap DV cam. I'm talking near tier-5 quality. Things tend to fare best with medium shots on characters, where various props and the details of their costumes are rendered with a good degree of clarity, like the chainmail on the soldiers and the designs on Joaquin Phoenix's armor. Also, the problems become more difficult to notice in the many fast-moving scenes. Facial closeups are sometimes decent, when the skin texture becomes large enough for the filtering to spare it, but more often they are smeared and waxy. I hope this doesn't get taken the wrong way (i can't be the only one who's noticed!), but for some reason facial closeups of black people tend to look especially great in HD. Not here, poor Djimon Hounsou tends to look especially awful when the camera is on him.


Much has been made of the disappearing arrows and such, but I didn't find that aspect very noticeable if you weren't specifically trying to catch it. The only time it jumped out at me is when during the first fight in the coliseum, someone throws a javelin that's visibly cut in half for a frame or two. Their dust-busting efforts have been in vain as there's still a considerable amount of dirt visible.


The extended scenes offer brief glimpses of a much more handsome modern transfer, with the texture, clarity, and resolution you would expect form a modern 35mm transfer, though even they are occasionally marred by overenthusiastic sharpening. Sadly, they comprise a very small percentage of the movie.

*Tier 3.25*


(PS3/Samsung 40" LCD/1 screen width distance) (not deemed kuro-worthy)


----------



## deltasun

*Gladiator (Extended Cut)*


Ultra fine grain present throughout. A note about the grain - it's obvious the structure is nothing like ones I'm used to seeing. It does look more natural as we get into the "traitors" scene. More on that later. As mentioned on my pre-review comments, heavy banding is our introduction during the splash screen, around the fog/smoke. I did not detect it again, not even when Commodus was staring out into the sunrise.


Facial details. I was actually surprised that what bothered me most about this title was not the explicit EE or even the "stealth" weaponry.







What really got me obsessing for the first hour or so was the smooth, waxy faces. I am not the most sensitive to DNR, but it really occupied my viewing. So much so that I eventually stopped the BR and continued another evening. It did not help. Luckily, the next act provided some better visuals once we got to Rome.


Blacks were very good for the most part, but not always. Shadow details, I felt, were weak in a disproportionate number of areas. There were numerous scenes where depth just did not materialize due to poor low-light rendering. After Maximus strikes the Praetorian guard while escaping, was a good example. I couldn't make out the guard's face and wound that well. Contrast was usually strong and right on. There were a few scenes - Commodus getting ready to give a thumbs down - where contrast changed from 1 second to the next. Still, can't complain there.


Early panoramic shots were not impressive to me. As the story moved on to Proximo's domain and finally Rome, it improved and showed excellent near-infinite details. Medium shots were also inconsistent in terms of depth and dimensionality, but there were a number of 3D moments in those sequences. One of the more striking features was the presentation of their chainmails, garments, and robes. My eyes couldn't help but get drawn to them when within close-up / medium viewing. I do have to mention noticing jaggies on the metal part Commodus' leather armor while he was talking to the Senate, twirling his sword.


As mentioned above, EE was very strong in numerous scenes. To me, the most flagrant was a wounded Maximus on a horse, hunched over (famous one). Another was of Commodus with the floor of the Coliseum as the backdrop. But really, they were everywhere - probably the worst EE-plagued movie. What's really bad is how it makes the foreground elements look overlaid or superimposed over the background elements.


Switching gears a bit, I'd like to single out the
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) execution of the guards who "knew" Maximus escaped.


First of, as the Praetorian guards were escorting the condemned, we see ample but non-distracting grain. The black garments on the condemned were bold and well-defined. Then, check out the facial details on the archers! Tier 1/0 quality, easy. Then, memory kicks in and I realize this was not in the theatrical release. Alas, an unmolested extended scene. If only...


Overall, I feel this title still straddles the fence between demo quality and everything else. I do see how one could end up focusing on the EE and DNR and even the missing arrows / flaming cannonball (which, btw, is almost non-intrusive at normal speed - I had to really watch it several times to find it. And I knew which scene to look for!), but not me. After repeat viewings, I started settling more into the positives, for which there were still plentiful.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.50*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/17124734
> 
> *Gladiator*
> 
> 
> I've heard many times over the last couple days reading these and other forums that screenshots are not reliable for making judgments on releases and that one can only make the call on the quality of a blu-ray having seen it. While sometimes there's a grain of truth to that, sadly, this release did not make a strong case for that argument to my eyes.



Screen captures definitely have their place and use. But they cannot and should not be used alone. A still frame, captured at 1/24th of a second, simply will not look the same as when viewing it at 24 frames per second.


Movies were designed to be watched while (*gasp*) in _motion_.


Now, having said that, there are obviously things that can be gleaned from screen grabs that will be indicative of what we can expect to see while watching the actual Blu-ray.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Deltasun, you talk about waxy faces, DNR, and lots of EE.


Does Tier 2.5 seem a tad high considering those comments?


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17124926
> 
> 
> Deltasun, you talk about waxy faces, DNR, and lots of EE.
> 
> 
> Does Tier 2.5 seem a tad high considering those comments?



I will let Deltasun speak for himself, but _Patton_, a similarly maligned BD with heavy use of digital noise reduction, is in tier 2.75. That placement was from an earlier era of Blu-ray releases, when the standards may not have been so tough. I have not seen _Gladiator_ though and do not personally plan on seeing it anytime soon.


After watching _Punisher: War Zone_, I can not argue that much with the current ranking in tier 1.75. Parts of the image look spectacular with some of the best resolution and high-frequency content possible, but the horrible color palettes that change from scene to scene ruin any chance of a higher placement in my mind.


----------



## IanRW




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17124881
> 
> *Gladiator (Extended Cut)*
> 
> 
> Ultra fine grain present throughout. A note about the grain - it's obvious the structure is nothing like ones I'm used to seeing. It does look more natural as we get into the "traitors" scene.



The noisy grain as found on discs such as _Gangs of New York_ and _Gladiator_ is a result of the edge enhancement.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17124926
> 
> 
> Deltasun, you talk about waxy faces, DNR, and lots of EE.
> 
> 
> Does Tier 2.5 seem a tad high considering those comments?



Rob, I had to balance the positives with those negatives. I felt that as a whole, the EE, for example, was tolerable and did not completely ruin PQ. Those two examples I cited are the most egregious, but were of a lesser degree in other scenes. _The Dark Knight_ suffers from less EE and is still in high Tier 1.


The DNR clears up a bit during the last 2/3's of the movie. They're still there, but to a lesser extent.


What I try to do after viewing and commenting on the parts is to look at the sum. That's how I came up with 2.50. It really has to be seen to get a feel for the sum. So in the end, it's more a matter of degrees. Yes, foul play is present but to what degree do they harm the picture. For me, not as much as 42041's perception. To me, some of shadow details, particularly in the Germania scenes, almost had as much to do to bring the score down to the Silver tier as well.


----------



## dla26




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/16966468
> 
> *The Hulk - Tier 2.25 - Silver*
> 
> 
> Looks pretty good especially on tight close up shots. The usage of strong and bold primary colors and contrast lends to a glossy image that offers a nice HD feeling. Film grain is present with no bothersome DVNR. Some of the high contrast scenes in the daylight seems to exhibit halos. Let downs come in the form of constantly popping black speckles and print nicks, soft and flat imagery due to weak CGI, and toning down of contrast and blacks to AVP-2 levels on few night shots, possibly to hide the poor CGI. On a personal front, I am beginning to hate this glossy look, particularly on 1.78:1 or 1.85:1 aspect ratio.



Could you clarify if you are referring to The Hulk (2003 - with Eric Bana) or The Incredible Hulk (2008 - with Ed Norton)? I actually just watched the former tonight, and I was surprised how good it looked -- lots of facial detail in particular. The biggest drawback was the cheesy-looking CGI Hulk, who was actually not as detailed as the actual actors.

*The Hulk (2003)*

*Tier 1.0*


(PS3/JVC RS-1 projector/120" Stewart Greyhawk screen/12' distance)


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

okay guys... i've still not watched coraline, but I have watched most of Gladiator. I'm not prepared to write a review yet; I'm hoping at some point this weekend I will be able to. But omg guys... this looks horrible. Like, it's so bad I'm going to re-check my TV with discs I know look good & DVE again, just to make sure there's nothing up with my TV. So far it's showing up to me as being mid tier 3; I want to make sure I write a fair review of this disc. I mean, it's likely a good upgrade from my DVD; I have the original release of the DVD and it wouldn't take much to look better than that on my plasma.



My TV is "only" a 58" plasma. I can't imagine how horrid this will look for all of you that have more real estate to see this on.


*Hugh*, I know you've been posting over in the Gladiator thread, but I know you read over here too. Honestly I can't wait to hear your opinion on this (even if you just PM it to me if you don't want to review it for this thread) because while I know you are not sensitive to EE, there's _just so much else_ going on that's wrong with this -- that I'm noticing while watching it, not just the screenies -- I wonder what your thoughts will be. You too, *Denny*; I know you're avoiding that thread entirely so I'm genuinely curious of your thoughts.


*Patrick* -- just don't look. I don't know if you had any desire to watch this Blu, but I think you will hate this.










*Deltasun & 42041* thanks for your reviews!


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17125496
> 
> 
> 
> *Patrick* -- just don't look. I don't know if you had any desire to watch this Blu, but I think you will hate this.




Thanks for the warning, G3. Based on all the negative buzz, I had already decided to pass on this one.


----------



## Hughmc

GGG,Wow mid tier 3. I mentioned I thought Gladiator might come in at 1.75 based only on the loop I seen at Best Buy. I do tend to be a bit more generous than a few and when some come in at 2-2.5 I am usually a half tier lower. I can't really say much till I see it, but I do own another major title, Master and Commander which I enjoy and while this isn't about Russell Crowe, from the loop I saw it was not in any way worse than Master and Commander which I own and which is ranked 2.75 I believe. Again only based on the loop.



If any of you own M&C I am curious how they compare, because even though M&C is not all that great IMO and not much better than upscaled DVD, I didn't see anything indicating the same in the loop I saw.


Pro reviews or outside reviews have NO actual impact on this thread, but at times can be relevant to the discussion in the thread.


Screen caps as well have ZERO impact on this thread.


As most of us know each of our recommendations are just that OUR recommendations which stand on their own irregardless of the above mentioned.


Having said that here is a wrench to think about to throw into the discussion with some math I used and you math geniuses can correct me.







Again this has no real bearing but it is making me think about what the equivalent to the following would be:


While we don't use pro reviews in any way as a bearing in this thread most are coming in at 3.5 out of 5, 7.5 out of ten, or 75 out of 100 which is fairly consistent. That ends up being about 75% or .75. Times that by our tier thread numbers which is really based on 6 as zero is the first tier, one is the second tier etc. Multiplying .75 by 6 = 4.5. 4.5-0 = tier 1.5.


While I could see Glad being ranked somewhere in tier 2, I will be surprised if it gets put in tier 3 or if I see it as tier 3.


As Deltasun mentioned a few days back, it might get interesting, but also as I said often, each recommendation stands on its own and I certainly am not going to argue others recommendations or defend mine where ever it ends up.


Can you tell I am bored while waiting to head to the city to see a play this afternoon? I have some time to kill...










Knowing Glad is not what it should be, I am looking forward to Braveheart.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Well that's also not my full review. I haven't seen the whole thing yet, when I posted though I had watched the first 1hr45min. I went to bed shortly after, and I truly am going to check my TV with other sources today to ensure what I was seeing was right, and I plan on rewatching it before I do a full review. There seriously were parts that didn't look better than a dvd on my screen -- perhaps still better than my _Gladiator_ DVD but no better than how most DVDs represent on my tv.


----------



## daPriceIs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17126185
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> Having said that here is a wrench to think about to throw into the discussion with some math I used and you math geniuses can correct me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again this has no real bearing but it is making me think about what the equivalent to the following would be:
> 
> 
> While we don't use pro reviews in any way as a bearing in this thread most are coming in at 3.5 out of 5, 7.5 out of ten, or 75 out of 100 which is fairly consistent. That ends up being about 75% or .75. Times that by our tier thread numbers which is really based on 6 as zero is the first tier, one is the second tier etc. Multiplying .75 by 6 = 4.5. 4.5-0 = tier 1.5.
> 
> 
> While I could see Glad being ranked somewhere in tier 2, I will be surprised if it gets put in tier 3 or if I see it as tier 3.
> 
> ...



I'm no math genius, but simple linear algebra I have down pat. Hugh, you are slightly in error.


If T represents our tier placement and R represents their review score, then the equation _a*T + b = R_ translates ours into theirs and vice versa. Knowing what T=0 and T=5 are on their scale allows you to solve for a and b and thus to find all of the intermediate value translations. So on a 0 to 10 scale, R=7.5 gives T=1.25; and on a 1 to 10 scale it gives T=1.39.


On 0 to 100 scales, things are more complicated. I think most people use a scale like that in the same way that grades are given in school. 90 to 100 is an "A" or excellent, 80 through 89 is a "B", etc., with anything less than 60 being an "F" or unacceptable. The table below is one scheme to translate things:


TierGradeScore0A+1001.0A+97 - 991.25A94 - 961.5A-92, 931.75A-90, 912.0B+87 - 892.25B84 - 862.5B-82, 832.75B-80, 813.0C+77 - 793.25C74 - 763.5C-72, 733.75C-70, 714.0D65 - 694.5D60 -645F
So by my table and your observations, most reviewers agree with *42041*: Gladiator deserves a grade of 75 or Tier 3.25!










Of course things aren't really that simple. You have to take into consideration two factors:

Their "grade" inflation and the fact that, I hope, we don't indulge in such things here. Funny how no movie ever gets a really stinky grade, even if the actual review pans the movie. Reviewers just can't seem to get out their red pencils and give poor movies the bad scores that they actually deserve. Note that I haven't seen this current release of Gladiator and I am not specifically referring to reviews of it. Just speaking broadly.
The tiers of our system aren't linear. The numerical difference between T=0 and T=1.0 and between T=3.0 and T=4.0 are of course both the same, but the PQ difference between T=0 and T=1.0 is much smaller than the difference between T=3.0 and T=4.0. The numbers in the tier system are just convenient labels attached to the bins into which our system sorts the movies that we review. Other than their use as ordinals these labels have no numerical significance.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

^ All good points.


----------



## 42041

*Braveheart*


Holy moly. I can't believe I just watched a 15 year old movie. This is an absolutely gorgeous transfer. Colors are rich and natural, the greens of the landscape pop right off the screen. The details of the soldiers' chainmail are resolved to single pixels. Facial details, stubble and pores and such are resolved with clarity. This is the kind of blu-ray that invites and rewards getting up close and personal with your TV and enjoying the fine texture. A very fine layer of grain is present throughout, compression is solid, bitrates are as healthy as they could be, the look of film is consistently maintained, and I detected no distracting instances of foul play (aside from an issue i'll come to in a second). Someone mentioned weak contrast, I didn't find that to be the case. It wasn't hyped like Transformers or something but I found it to be natural and well-managed, with only a rare bit of black crush. Frankly, I think all 90s movies have just run out of excuses for not looking great. Baraka with its 65mm negatives and waxy textures should hide in shame.


Ok, now with the gushing out of the way, there are a few problems. The one most disturbing to me is that the first 20 or so minutes of the film exhibit jaggies, that are particularly distracting on text and where the landscape meets the sky in many shots. This is a relatively minor issue and would be difficult to spot from typical viewing distances, but personally I think if you're not resolving enough detail to see them, you're not getting nearly what you could be getting out of this disc. Then they disappear, not to be seen again, and all is well with the world. Hope Paramount goes back and fixes this, then this blu-ray would be all but technically perfect.


The other problems come down mostly to the photography. They must've been shooting a lot with very shallow depth of field because the focus pullers had a hell of a time keeping up, many of the dark interior scenes have blurry moments. You have the typical anamorphic lens distortion at the top and bottom edges of the screen. A few shots seemed to have been filmed with softening filters. While most of the transfer seems to have been pulled straight off those precious camera negatives, which must account for the very high quality found here, some isolated shots seem to have been sourced from lower quality film elements and don't look nearly as good, with the telltale black spots of a positive print.


Kudos to whoever at Paramount is responsible for this fantastic presentation. No kudos to the guys who screwed up the first 20 minutes and the guys who couldn't keep up with the focus. There are definitely a couple of problems here, but other movies have been voted higher for worse, so...

*Bottom of Tier 0*


(PS3/Pioneer Kuro 50" Elite/1 screen width distance)


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*Coraline*












All I can say is WOW. HOLY FRAK, BATMAN. I may just have to buy this movie so I can show people what TEXTURES are supposed to look like on Blu. Some people don't totally understand what I mean; that difference that those of us here understand -- it's not just a picture of a texture, it's the feeling that you could reach out and TOUCH that texture. That is the feeling that I get when I watch Coraline, through and through.



I have to say, with regards to the faces, I had pretty much no issue with them. On occasion, and only on occasion to my eyes -- like the acrobat scene (you guys all know the one, the one that has a gal like me wondering WTF are there huge boobs in a movie for kids??) when the spotlight was on the faces yes, they were glowing and devoid of detail.



However for the majority of the movie, especially since someone mentioned it here, I watched those faces. Now, yes, they were smooth but I could still see the texture of the... clay? porcelain? whatever the puppets were made of, little streaks and bumps all over it, especially Coraline and her parents' faces. Like noticing the faint texture of paint on a wall.



Everything about this movie was drop-dead gorgeous to me. It used a beautifully lush colour palate, the detail was amazing and pure, and most importantly to me it proved to me that despite my issue last night with Gladiator, there's not a damn thing wrong with my Panny. Inky blacks that are just phenomenal on Plasma, and again, the TEXTURES oh my god the textures. The attention to detail in this movie was absolutely superb to my eyes, and although the story was a little on the twisted side, it was a positive treat to watch.



I have not seen Kung Fu Panda or A Bugs Life on Blu, but I have seen Ratatoullie; Coraline can chase that rat back into his hole as far as I'm concerned!


*Recommendation for Coraline: Tier 0, at the very least, above Ratatoullie.*

*Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800u THX setting, approx 7.5'.*



As a side note, have any of you gents watched this with the 3D option? As this is a rental I can't watch it in this manner, but I am considering buying it as I think that would be a fun feature for my daughter to enjoy (not to mention the reference quality I found with this film).


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*The Notebook*



I'm tired so I'm just going to cut to it. The problem with this film PQ wise is that it's simply inconsistent as hell. There are a few shots in it that are beautiful, and others that are complete crap. My obsession with water did some flip flops during this picture; at times it was absolutely gorgeous, and other times it was terrible.



Essentially this film was all over the place. As it's a sappy romance it has that softness all over it that irritates me as a PQ junkie. As for the story... I was a little bored for the first 30-45 minutes, and then I did get pulled in to it, despite it's predictability. Top it all off it was SAD AS HELL and I'm glad my husband is working tonight so he wouldn't have to laugh at me and my mother (who's visiting from Australia currently) for blubbering like babies (babies don't blubber; they scream!) the saps that we are at the end and costing me about half a box of tissues. Currently this movie sits at Tier 2.50, but to me the inconsistent nature of it is way too far on the side of being annoying & crappily inconsistent, so I think it should be knocked down to the next tier.


*Recommendation for The Notebook: Tier 3.0*

*Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800u THX setting, approx 7.5'.*


----------



## Filmaholic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17129550
> 
> *Coraline*
> 
> 
> As a side note, have any of you gents watched this with the 3D option? As this is a rental I can't watch it in this manner, but I am considering buying it as I think that would be a fun feature for my daughter to enjoy (not to mention the reference quality I found with this film).



Well G3, the 3D here is a gimmick, not a real practical solution. I think your daughter might enjoy it, since it is a somewhat neat effect. Problem is the glasses are of that green/red variety and they pretty much destroy the PQ. Colors become almost monochromatic and texture detail is gone.


I'm glad you rated it so nicely, since I agree it is a Tier 0 title, though quite not that highly placed (I think it shoul be placed between the bottom and the midle of the tier, due to that dithering/banding on the puppets jaws I was discussing with Deltasun.


But wow, isn't it just drop dead gorgeous? I must also say I love the story and characters, but they are not for everyone, since it's very weird, creepy and very british (beeing a Neil Gaiman thing and all).


Really, buy it for your daughter, she will like it. How old is she again? Was she frightened?


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Filmaholic* /forum/post/17129701
> 
> 
> Well G3, the 3D here is a gimmick, not a real practical solution. I think your daughter might enjoy it, since it is a somewhat neat effect. Problem is the glasses are of that green/red variety and they pretty much destroy the PQ. Colors become almost monochromatic and texture detail is gone.
> 
> 
> I'm glad you rated it so nicely, since I agree it is a Tier 0 title, though quite not that highly placed (I think it shoul be placed between the bottom and the midle of the tier, due to that dithering/banding on the puppets jaws I was discussing with Deltasun.
> 
> 
> But wow, isn't it just drop dead gorgeous? I must also say I love the story and characters, but they are not for everyone, since it's very weird, creepy and very british (beeing a Neil Gaiman thing and all).
> 
> 
> Really, buy it for your daughter, she will like it. How old is she again? Was she frightened?



Oh yeah if I bought it it'd be for the gimmick not for PQ for the 3D. My daughter turns 6 this month. She was not scared during Coraline, she's already used to a bit of scariness in movies as she loves all the Harry Potter films and comic-book type movies (Batman, Iron Man etc -- although I did not let her watch the Watchmen & still won't let her watch BSG to her dismay).


I didn't notice the banding/dithering on the jaws at all, but I will pop the disc back in before I mail it back to zip.ca and see if I can understand what you guys are talking about.


----------



## lgans316

Has anyone seen Pink Panther II ? I am hearing very good news about the PQ.


----------



## Filmaholic

Wow G3, you must be really proud of her.

Well, I think she will love Coraline in 3D too. And it is an awesome package, you get a BD with both (2& 3D) versions and a DVD wich also includes a digital copy (if you care for those). Well worth the money, I think.

About the flaws: they are there, I didn't notice the first two times I watched it, probably due to my amazement at the general look of the thing. I also have a Plasma Pana Viera, mine is 50'', also calibrated with DVE basics, so I guess it's just a matter of time before you notice it.


Ah, another two cool things by Neil Gaiman are *Mirrormask* and*Stardust*, your daughter might also like them, if you still have not watched them with her yet...


----------



## daPriceIs

*Herbert von Karajan Memorial Concert*

This disc from Medici Arts was released in February of this year. The stats: BD-25, 113 minutes, 16:9 AR, AVC, LPCM 5.1 and 2.0, all regions, 1080i/60 transcode of the original 1080i/50. The video was captured from a live broadcast feed and there appear to be minimal edits in post. How refreshing! a disc that loads instantly: no BD-Live, no BD-Java, no BD-BS of any kind.


The disc is a recording of a January 28, 2008 concert in the Vienna Musikverein by the Berlin Philharmonic under Seiji Ozawa with Ann-Sophie Mutter as violin soloist. The program consists of Beethoven’s Violin Concerto, an encore by Mutter of the Sarabande from Bach’s Violin Partita #2, and Tchaikovsky’s Symphony #6. The event commemorated the 100th anniversary of the birth of the Austrian conductor Herbert von Karajan, who died in July 1989. The orchestra is in fine form, Ozawa is competent, and Mutter is marvelous. The audio is excellent on both the 5.1 and 2.0 tracks.


Contrast is excellent, as is color. Are those red faces the result a red push or is it merely the result of the effort expended in playing their instruments? Very likely the latter, especially for the winds. Even if it is the former, it is very slight. This video is a study in black, white, and muted wood browns, with occasional accents of gold, green, and red. There is a lot of black in this video, even though the stage is well lit: white tie and tails for the men and black evening gowns for the women. The blacks are rich and deep; for example, @ 0:42:29 the deep black in the cellist's highly polished right shoe, accentuated by the extreme contrast with the reflections of the stage lights. There are occasional blown highlights, but these come directly from the stage lighting and chandeliers, or indirectly from reflections of these lights off the highly polished or varnished instruments. They never reach an unexpected or unpleasant level.


Detail and shading are both well rendered. Excellent facial detail: These aren’t cinema stars with professional makeup and lighting to showcase their beauty, just 100 or so ordinary looking Joes and Janes who happen to be extraordinarily talented musicians. The video shows this clearly. We see every stray hair and incipient bit of stubble, every wrinkle and zit, every glistening forehead and tiny bead of sweat. There is also good detail visible in the jackets, pants, and dresses, and in the shading and texture of the shirts and ties. The texture of the wood in the strings is very detailed in close-ups; for example, @ 1:27:39 the grain in the belly and the bridge of the cello.


Every close-up is quite good. That is, with the exception of the extreme close-ups of Mutter’s left hand on the strings. Of course she’s swaying and her hands are rarely still –making for some difficult and frustrating shots. Speaking of her hands, there is some slight ghosting/smearing of her hands and of other rapidly moving objects which I assume is the result of the conversion of the native 1080i/50 into the 1080i/60 on the disc. Something similar, as well as judder, also happens in pans. I didn’t find it particularly bothersome once I realized what was causing it. I got used to it after a while. But I am down-rating the disc half a tier for it.


I never noticed noise in the blacks in pertinent material, but I did notice it occasionally in the out of focus backgrounds of some shots.

*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Speaking of noisy backgrounds, there is a woman in the audience, who, once you notice her, can be quite distracting. Whenever the camera that’s behind the trumpets takes a shot of Ozawa we see her. She appears on the left of the screen behind Ozawa’s right shoulder. Fortunately she’s never in focus.
Her mouth appears always in motion, and I don’t think she’s chewing gum. It looks like she’s talking, but to whom? Nobody’s listening. Maybe she’s singing along.








What’s she doing with her hands? My god, she can’t really be *texting*!
What now? Is she reading? Let’s hope it’s a compact score and not a novel.
Uh oh, out comes the handbag

Sorry I've ruined the video for you now. You just couldn't resist clicking that "Show" button!











*Recommendation: Tier 1.5*


Panasonic TH-42PZ77U from a BD-35, 1080p/60 deinterlaced in the player, 4’


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Filmaholic* /forum/post/17130833
> 
> 
> Wow G3, you must be really proud of her.
> 
> Well, I think she will love Coraline in 3D too. And it is an awesome package, you get a BD with both (2& 3D) versions and a DVD wich also includes a digital copy (if you care for those). Well worth the money, I think.
> 
> About the flaws: they are there, I didn't notice the first two times I watched it, probably due to my amazement at the general look of the thing. I also have a Plasma Pana Viera, mine is 50'', also calibrated with DVE basics, so I guess it's just a matter of time before you notice it.
> 
> 
> Ah, another two cool things by Neil Gaiman are *Mirrormask* and*Stardust*, your daughter might also like them, if you still have not watched them with her yet...



While I'm not terribly familiar with Neil Gaiman, one of my favourite books is co-authored by him: Good Omens by Neil Gaiman & Terry Pratchett. I've seen Stardust in HD on the movie channel, and once they put it out onto Blu I'll pick that one up for sure.


----------



## daPriceIs

Back in July Amazon had several Image Entertainment IMAX and concert BDs on sale for about $8. Sales whore/junkie that I am, I took a chance on a couple of them and liked the results so much that I tried four more. I guess the first sample was unrepresentative because the latter batch turned out to be very much of a mixed bag. The six discs were, in order of purchase: _Moody Blues: Lovely to See You, Super Speedway, Roy Orbison: Black and White Night, The Alps, Mystery of the Nile_, and _Coral Reef Adventure_. Full reviews may follow shortly of the films that I haven't already reviewed and that don't already have placements or that have placements that I disagree with. I say may follow shortly because I've got quite a backlog of discs awaiting review that are more worthy of attention than some of these IMAX films. And last week that backlog got a lot larger with the delivery (finally) of 27 Warner titles that I picked up in the wbshop.com feeding frenzy of three weeks ago (where they had 5 stackable discount codes). Here's the brief low down on these six I.E. discs.


All films share identical technical specs: BD-25, 16:9 AR, AVC, 1080p/24 (except the concert videos, which are 1080i/60), DTS-HD MA 5.1.


The *Super Speedway* review has already been posted so it'll be skipped except to note that Tier 2.0 is the suggested placement.


The two concert BDs *Moody Blues: Lovely to See You* and *Roy Orbison: Black and White Night* already have placements, both of which I differ with. _Black and White Night_ is placed at Tier 4.0. Tier 3.5 seems a more likely spot to me. My thread search turned up only one review by Phantom Stranger. He actually seems to agree with me, but docks the disc half a tier (or there abouts) because the video isn't in the original aspect ratio. That's understandable. My suggestion is based only on what my eyes tell me. I have no intention of formally reviewing this or disputing the placement. The most important thing (not around here maybe) is that the disc sounds great. _Lovely to See You_ is placed in Tier 1.25. In my opinion that is too high. I'm currently thinking Tier 1.75 or 2.0. Got to give this one a few more looks before posting a review. And once again, the most important thing is that it sounds great, too.


That brings me to the final three BDs. All three are IMAX films produced by MacGillivray Freeman Films. Here's my advice to you: check the packaging of any disc you're tempted to pick up. *Does the title end in Adventure or do you see the MacGillivray Freeman logo? If so, be afraid, very afraid.* Don't fall into temptation, you'll regret it. MF Films seems to have a standard formula: Find a subject and a title that will draw an IMAX/nature documentary loving crowd and that will maximize funding from the usual gullible suspects foundations and corporations. Next assemble a cast of random nitwits interesting and loveable characters and place them in the dramatic and beautiful location that the title suggests the movie is about. But make sure the director knows that the movie is really about our camera-loving fools handsome cast and their antics. Lastly, lug hundreds of pounds of huge cameras into place and fire away. Oh, and don't forget to add some narration that mentions something about GLOBAL WARMING (because, you know, GLOBAL WARMING sells). Of the four MFF films that I've seen (_Grand Canyon Adventure_ is also a MFF product), only one actually works as a coherent movie, regardless of PQ.
*The Alps* is a fine film that works, probably by accident, because the standard formula fits the subject matter. Mountain climbing documentaries are always about the climbers, never really about the mountain, though of course the mountain plays a major role. The hero, John Harlin, is a likeable sort and his story is real enough, not created ad hoc for the purposes of the film. And the PQ is top notch. I'm currently thinking Tier 1.0 or 1.25, even though there are some compression issues.
*Mystery of the Nile*. Thoroughly forgettable. Currently placed in Tier 1.75. Too high. Tier 2.5 or a little lower seems appropriate due to banding, ringing, and pervasive softness. The thing is, that's what I see from my reviewing distance (4'), but go back just two feet more and this dog starts to look good. To give the devil his due, there are a couple of staged shots of crocodiles and hippos that reach reference level detail and sharpness.
*Coral Reef Adventure*. A movie compounded of so many inanities that it's hard to think clearly about it. There are some great shots and some lousy ones, too. I think somewhere in Tier 1, but the excessive cuteness and New Age/World Music sound track are rotting my brain, so I can't place it exactly yet, if ever. By the way this disc touts its Crosby, Stills and Nash sound track, and indeed the movie features snippets of them performing nine of their tunes, but don't be fooled, the vast majority of the music consists of a New Age choral interpretation of CSN.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17125496
> 
> *Denny*; I know you're avoiding that thread entirely so I'm genuinely curious of your thoughts.



I just got home from 3 glorious days at a lake cabin and found Gladiator and Braveheart in my mail. Needless to say, I'm not that excited about seeing Gladiator after all the negative reviews thus far, but I will chime in as soon as I do.


I am VERY ANXIOUS to see Braveheart after the glowing review by 42041. I'll have to flip a coin to see which one I watch first (I hope Braveheart wins the coin toss







).


I enjoyed your excellent review on Coraline G3 and of course I agree 110% with your analysis and placement recommendation. I have seen both A Bug's Life and Kung Fu Panda and Coraline has them beat due to the phenomenal detail, depth, and dimensionality.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *daPriceIs* /forum/post/17132508
> 
> 
> The two concert BDs *Moody Blues: Lovely to See You* and *Roy Orbison: Black and White Night* already have placements, both of which I differ with. _Black and White Night_ is placed at Tier 4.0. Tier 3.5 seems a more likely spot to me. My thread search turned up only one review by Phantom Stranger. He actually seems to agree with me, but docks the disc half a tier (or there abouts) because the video isn't in the original aspect ratio. That's understandable. My suggestion is based only on what my eyes tell me. I have no intention of formally reviewing this or disputing the placement. The most important thing (not around here maybe) is that the disc sounds great. _Lovely to See You_ is placed in Tier 1.25. In my opinion that is too high. I'm currently thinking Tier 1.75 or 2.0. Got to give this one a few more looks before posting a review. And once again, the most important thing is that it sounds great, too.



I did have a problem with Image altering the original aspect ratio on the Orbison disc. Even disregarding that problem and how it affects the composition of the framing, the middle of tier three sounds very generous for it. It was a concert shot in a smoky nightclub on mostly 16mm film. But you are entitled to your opinion and placement. It is a great disc with an awesome concert, but I would not call it an average-looking Blu-ray, which tier three is supposed to represent.


The Moody Blues' BD was also my placement, but I am inclined to agree with your assessment at this stage. The standards and level of quality has changed to a degree since I made the original placement, and it probably deserves to be lowered further down in tier one.


----------



## deltasun

*Braveheart*


Fine grain present throughout. As expected, this was a pristine presentation technically. Facial details were very detailed and textured, some comparable to solid Tier 0 titles. On the flip side, there were numerous scenes where softness crept in. The introduction of young William Wallace's uncle was a perfect example. Upon closer inspection, one can see that the focus was incorrectly on the sliver of horse's head, barely visible on the bottom left corner of the screen; thereby rendering the rider's face (who was speaking) defocused. There were several more examples of softness, mostly occurring indoors.


Blacks were mostly solid and bold, but we do get some crushing in a number of scenes. Low-light details were decent, but I felt some were shallower than they should be, specially when compared to some newer titles (I would call on _The Unborn_ again for reference). I noted contrast was weak in my pre-review, but having seen the entire film, I would retract that statement. It seemed weak in relation to _Gladiator's_, which had a different look and feel altogether. _Braveheart's_ was not pushed and went for a more natural, maybe even dated look.

_Braveheart_ showcased some beautiful panoramic scenes. Depth and dimension were very good, but nothing that really stood out. The spectrum of colors also appeared natural - greens were abundant, regal blues were valiant. Another thing I must mention was the unnatural amount of white specks throughout the film, eventually getting a tad distracting.


Overall, a definite winner in terms of its blu-ray presentation. However, I cannot agree with its reference placement; at least not based on our PQ thread rules. Don't get me wrong, there were sequences so good that they've made me forget/overlook some of the negatives. But, we must uphold the quality of what we induct into Tier Blu. I feel _Braveheart_ does not belong. In fact, I don't even believe it belongs high on Tier 1...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17133669
> 
> *Braveheart*
> 
> 
> Fine grain present throughout. As expected, this was a pristine presentation technically. Facial details were very detailed and textured, some comparable to solid Tier 0 titles. On the flip side, there were numerous scenes where softness crept in. The introduction of young William Wallace's uncle was a perfect example. Upon closer inspection, one can see that the focus was incorrectly on the sliver of horse's head, barely visible on the bottom left corner of the screen; thereby rendering the rider's face (who was speaking) defocused. There were several more examples of softness, mostly occurring indoors.
> 
> 
> Blacks were mostly solid and bold, but we do get some crushing in a number of scenes. Low-light details were decent, but I felt some were shallower than they should be, specially when compared to some newer titles (I would call on _The Unborn_ again for reference). I noted contrast was weak in my pre-review, but having seen the entire film, I would retract that statement. It seemed weak in relation to _Gladiator's_, which had a different look and feel altogether. _Braveheart's_ was not pushed and went for a more natural, maybe even dated look.
> 
> _Braveheart_ showcased some beautiful panoramic scenes. Depth and dimension were very good, but nothing that really stood out. The spectrum of colors also appeared natural - greens were abundant, regal blues were valiant. Another thing I must mention was the unnatural amount of white specks throughout the film, eventually getting a tad distracting.
> 
> 
> Overall, a definite winner in terms of its blu-ray presentation. However, I cannot agree with its reference placement; at least not based on our PQ thread rules. Don't get me wrong, there were sequences so good that they've made me forget/overlook some of the negatives. But, we must uphold the quality of what we induct into Tier Blu. I feel _Braveheart_ does not belong. In fact, I don't even believe it belongs high on Tier 1...
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75*
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_



I agree with this recommendation.


----------



## K-Spaz

Gods and Generals


This is a 2003 film and I'm very surprised to see that it's not on this list or the audio tier list.


I see no intrusive DNR or EE. Actually, there's some "CG" if you want to call it that. Northern lights and some distant battle geography. Those parts are a little cheesy but in the context of the film I'll give them a break there. A lot of this film looks so clean it's hard to imagine it's not shot digitally.


Given that it's so long (219 minutes) I'd figure it to be loaded with banding and macroblocking. I didn't notice any. The film is loaded with fog and dingy skies and all of them are smooth and natural. They missed some great opportunities As the film goes on it gets more and more detailed and has deeper focus in scenes. It makes you wonder when it'll start loosing detail. Like, 'this can't go on'


This thing is littered with Top Tier Blu shots. G3's gonna love some of the water scenes. Delta's gonna like the incredible faces, even the ones where there's a group shot that's not so close, they're still amazing. You'll have to wait out the first 30 or 45 minutes though cause those are a mess. Even indoor scenes at West Point are shrouded in deep fog. I'll say that's my biggest complaint pq wise. Other than that, the outdoor scenes are remarkable, many indoor scenes are equally remarkable. It's well acted, and well filmed.


For me the pq points this film looses are due to directorial decisions that are obviously intentional. (I'm still deducting points). Lots of shots are done in gobs of smoke, and much of the film early on is done with soft focus. Sometimes, if feels as if there's a half dozen soft focus filters stacked on. That goes away as the film gets into it's second hour.


Colors early on seem subdued. Almost washed out, and I also assume this is intentional cause the colors are remarkable and lifelike elsewhere. Flags and uniforms, especially officer uniforms gave me an almost uneasy feeling of distraction. At times, they were so amazing they actually took my attention away from what was going on.


Maybe it's because I just changed the colorspace on my projector, maybe it's my tweaking the calibration. perhaps it's my DIY Screen that I just realized I watched the film on vs my pulldown, but to me this film looks remarkable.


I should also mention, this is the best sounding film I've heard on my system. The surround effects of shells and bullets will make the hair stand up on your neck. Having had literally thousands of bullets pass over my head, I can say they did a great job on the bullet sounds. LFE is very powerful without any of the annoying background rumble that shakes the house like some movies have. This film isn't in the audio tier thread either and that really surprises me. It deserves a high spot there too.


I'll welcome any opinions contrary to mine. I've been continually making changes and tweaking my setup here so I'm not convinced it's idea, but WOW, is it close for my eyes. I won't excuse the faults I think it has, but I do think this is very close to a blu tier movie.

Tier Recommendation: 1.0


Viewed on InFocus X10, 99" 2.35 screen from 11'.


I hope some others take the time to view this and give some opinions. I'd like to hear what some of you have to say.


----------



## djoberg

*Braveheart*


I decided to forget the coin toss and watch Braveheart, especially after reading two previous reviews which were a whole tier apart. After reading so many glowing reviews from "professional" reviewers (along with that of 42041) and then a somewhat dissenting opinion by our esteemed colleague deltasun, I was compelled to see what it looked like on my KURO.


In short, it was an absolutely gorgeous transfer with unbelievable CLARITY and DETAIL and thus I echo all the sentiments of 42041. Believe me when I say you are in for a treat, for this clearly blows away the last DVD edition of this remarkable film. Scotland never looked so good with lush greens and impeccable details of the picturesque highlands.


Blacks were incredible, as was the shadow detail. I had thought it might suffer in this department because of the age of the movie, but they did an amazing job in remastering this film. The only gripe I have with the blacks is that this is where the white speckles showed up the most (though in honesty it is relatively rare when you consider the running time is almost 3 hours).


Skin tones were spot on and the facial close-ups were, for the most part, Tier 0 quality. There were some that came up short, but again, this was definitely the exception and not the rule.


The color palette was quite limited (aside from the lush greens mentioned above), but when there were bright colors they were amazingly vivid and natural-looking.


One of the greatest virtues that set this worlds apart from its DVD counterpart was the depth and dimensionality. Be prepared to be WOWED by this in many scenes!


Now for the placement recommendation. It must be penalized for the white speckles, to be sure, and there were some sporadic soft shots here and there that also enter into the mix. But these were not enough to drop this wonderful transfer from reference quality, IMHO. In my mind I kept comparing it to another transfer in Tier 0, namely, Prince Caspian, and to me it should be only a notch or two below that title. If it does find its way into Tier 1, I am of the mind that it will deserve a top ranking of 1.0. But I'm hoping enough members weigh in to give it a place among the best, so my vote is for.....

*Tier Recommendation: Bottom third of Tier 0*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'


----------



## deltasun

hey denny, nice review. out of curiosity, how would you rate the black levels / shadow details compared to _the unborn_?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17138869
> 
> 
> hey denny, nice review. out of curiosity, how would you rate the black levels / shadow details compared to _the unborn_?



I don't think they were quite as good as in The Unborn, for that title offers some of the best blacks I've ever seen, bar none. But the blacks and shadow detail were still VERY IMPRESSIVE on my KURO, and as you know there were many night scenes in which to show them off. It's just a shame that some of those annoying "white speckles" reared their ugly head during some of those same scenes.


----------



## Thunderbolt8




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17133669
> 
> *Braveheart*
> 
> But, we must uphold the quality of what we induct into Tier Blu. I feel _Braveheart_ does not belong. In fact, I don't even believe it belongs high on Tier 1...
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75*
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_



in that case baraka doesn't belong in tier 0 as well. I rather prefer the look of a natural picture despite some remainings of dirt over image manipulation via DNR and/or EE. such titles should never go tier 0.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Thunderbolt8* /forum/post/17141149
> 
> 
> in that case baraka doesn't belong in tier 0 as well.




In your opinion and you are entitled to it, but why did you single out Baraka?


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Thunderbolt8* /forum/post/17141149
> 
> 
> in that case baraka doesn't belong in tier 0 as well. I rather prefer the look of a natural picture despite some remainings of dirt over image manipulation via DNR and/or EE. such titles should never go tier 0.



Technically, just by the very definition of this thread, we don't automatically deduct points for DNR/EE. We usually do if it's bothersome and/or detracts from the quality of the picture. However, the day may come when these techniques don't harm picture quality per se. So, it's not enough to make a blanket statement that any DNR/EE automatically precludes titles from the Reference tier.


I'll tell you what - how about posting a review of this title and articulate for us exactly why _Baraka_ doesn't meet the definition of Tier Blu for this thread.


----------



## kcushing

While I stopped buying DVD's when I bought a Blu-Ray player, I own a lot of DVD's and with very few exceptions I don't replace them with their Blu-Ray counterpart. The exception to this is when 1) they are one of my favorite Movies, and 2)Their is a huge gap in the difference in quality. #2 usually isn't hard to qualify or quantify.


All that said, I will be watching this thread very closely for reviews of Silverado. It is one of my old favs.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Thunderbolt8* /forum/post/17141149
> 
> 
> in that case baraka doesn't belong in tier 0 as well. I rather prefer the look of a natural picture despite some remainings of dirt over image manipulation via DNR and/or EE. such titles should never go tier 0.



Have you seen it? I think if we rated on purely on technical merits it wouldn't be a tier 0 transfer, because I've seen 35mm movies that have finer detail, but the imagery is compelling enough and the photography is so consistently beautiful that it's hard not to rank it among the best looking movies on Blu.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/17142107
> 
> 
> Have you seen it? I think if we rated on purely on technical merits it wouldn't be a tier 0 transfer, because I've seen 35mm movies that have finer detail, but the imagery is compelling enough and the photography is so consistently beautiful that it's hard not to rank it among the best looking movies on Blu.



Right, and I have a feeling he is referring to more of a film like presentation or "as close to film as possible" on video which this thread isn't about, but the Film Reference and Analysis thread is. I always reference Prince Caspian for that reason IMO it is a tier 0 BD, has all the grain etc. intact and is very film like There are many BD's that are both reference and tier 0, eye candy, film like with grain intact.


In fact 42041 and djoberg gave Braveheart that nod.


Please remember though where BD's end up in this thread does not mean it is definitive how it actually looks and where it is placed one way or another within reason, since half that reviewed a BD could vote a BD tier 2 and the other half of reviewers could vote tier 0. That doesn't mean it is or isn't tier 0 or tier 2, and although it may end up in tier 1, it may not be that either to some. It is the best we can come up with in order to find a placement for BD's and respect each others views. Opinions, Opinions...


I am home now, but darn I am so busy today I will have to look at Brave and Glad tonight.


By the way I seen no DNR or EE at the Broadway play The 39 Steps. Lots of eye candy and 3d pop though.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*Gladiator (extended edition)*


This is a toughie; I know it's one that has caused a lot of emotions within many of us. I'm going to do my best to be as fair as I can.



The main issue with Gladiator is that it is completely inconsistent. There are a handful of shots that are positively gorgeous; with immaculate detail and texture; colour and depth, filled with pop. The problem is with only a handful of these scenes while watching a 2hr50min movie it is blatantly obvious that they are too few and far between. When I would encounter such PQ during my viewing, I was delighted, and then with a slap in the face of a... what was that, a LIGHT SABRE in GLADIATOR?? to snap me back into the over-processed mess that this has become.



In my personal opinion, the extended scenes of Gladiator would reach up to Tier 0 material. I don't know if that would have held true if the entire movie had been treated with the same manner of (or lack of) processing, that's just too hard for me to attempt to guesstimate at. But, the ones that are present in Gladiator are up there to me. This is also only around 20-odd minutes of this affair, and that leaves the remaining 2hrs 30ish minutes to think about.



I'm not an expert on DNR. I've never claimed to be overly sensitive regarding it, and I can't point out and say, "This is definitive DNR." I can't do it, and I'm not going to try here. What I can comment on is what I saw during this film and I felt that I could tell that something with regards to the faces was strange. The inconsistent nature of this Blu does not help me on this score either; at times I felt the detail on faces and textures were completely flat and lacking, and other times I felt they were okay. And THEN there were the times I felt as though someone took a piece of waxed paper, spread it across my Plasma and scraped at it with a knife to make it opaque enough for me to see through it. I also think an inherent swing towards softness in a lot of this movie on top of the processing that has occurred truly didn't help matters.



Colour-wise this is a flat movie but there are times where colour is used as a nice pop on the screen. The problem I found in this regard was it didn't really work as effectively as it should have, because there was this other thing hovering over the majority of this film that overshadowed the attempts at colour pop, and that my friends was the absolutely horrific Edge Enhancement that was applied. One theme ran rampant throughout my head while watching this entire movie: Highlight The Leader! It's probably easier to count the moments where Russell Crowe was NOT surrounded by a glowing halo than it would be to count moments where he was.



I know I am terribly sensitive to EE. I can't stand it and aside from when water looks terrible, it's my biggest pet peeve picture quality wise. Edge enhancement is RAMPANT throughout this film, and although at times it is the minimal type that won't bother most people, there is also a TON where it's SO terrible if you shut your eyes quickly you'll see it's glow on the inside of your eyelids for a moment. IT'S FRAKKING EVERYWHERE. The most comical to me is when it's on the weapons; rows upon rows of glowing spears or arrows, or surrounding a sword during a fight; it's absolutely horrendous what they've done with EE here.



During the scenes in the Colosseum or the Desert, especially in the far away shots EVERYTHING is drawn in with a white, glowing highlighter. During the scenes in the forest, almost all of the TREES are glowing.



Portions of this movie, whether it's due to the EE & DNR, either or both in conjunction with one another, there are times where it does not feel any better than watching a newer DVD. Is it better than my old Gladiator DVD? I sure fricken hope so; that's a 9 year old DVD I have. However, I could compare it to say, the remastered Princess Bride DVD that came with my Princess Bride Blu Ray, which is a pretty damn good DVD. Not Blu quality, but damn good for DVD. Frankly to me, "Damn Good for a DVD" is not a quality I want to see in a brand new, toted as top-of-the-line Blu Ray release, especially of one of this calibre. Gladiator is watchable; but _watchable_ is simply not enough to satiate my high definition needs for this film.



The last movie I can remember that had processing that interrupted the viewing process to me in this manner would have had to be American Psycho. While it resides in Tier 3.25 here in our list, my personal recommendation for it was 3.50 or possibly 3.75. American Psycho, however, did not have the additional boost in the way the extended scenes do for Gladiator. Therefore....

*Recommendation for Gladiator (Extended Edition): Tier 3.25 (no arguments from me for Tier 3.50 either).*

*Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800u THX setting, approx 7.5'.*


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Something I forgot to mention in my Gladiator review, but it also was involved in my decision for where I placed it, was that I found in many of the far-shots the picture was rather jumpy. Jaggies? I think that's what it's called. Anyway, I found it irritating; I don't know if it's something that happened during filming or if that's normal or not... I'm not much of a techie on that score. A few times I saw it blatantly during a few normal scenes as well, but mostly I noticed it during the far-shots of the Colosseum. I know my Gladiator review was rather long, so I'm sorry for this addendum on top of it all, I just didn't think it would be fair to not mention it since I did factor this in as well.


----------



## Hughmc

^^ I am doing a preview of Gladiator now. This does look to be a mess. I have the DVD. Anyway, I have only watched ten min. and will watch the rest later, but you know what maybe worse than the missing arrows, DNR etc. I have feeling they didn't expect us to see this level of detail at home, but starting at the 9:44 mark, till 9:45 why the hell did they leave that scene in. Look at the German horde guy facing back to his men and all the men on both the horde and Roman side close to him. They are all laughing and having a gay old time. WTF. Look, if anyone wants to say Ridley did or didn't approve this transfer, he had to approve that shot or am I wrong. That kind of unauthentic, totally distracting crap bothers me. It totally make the scene a joke. Pause it at 9:44 and go frame by frame till 9:45 or so and join the Gladiator party for a good laugh. It is reprehensible leaving that scene in.


More later.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Wanted*

*recommendation: Tier 1.75*


I did not plan to write up a recommendation for this movie until I checked its current placement in tier 1.25 after recently watching it. The Universal Studios BD simply does not deserve being that high in the list, and going back through the thread, some others seem to agree with that sentiment. Having been released to Blu-ray on December 2, 2008, the 110-minute film is encoded in AVC on a BD-50. BDInfo gives us the average video bitrate as being 19.96 Mbps.


The strength of this transfer and the image itself is its unfiltered appearance. The BD retains a pleasing film-like integrity, with a minimal amount of added post-processing. High-frequency information is untouched in close-ups and consistently looks very good, from Morgan Freeman's chiseled face to the more pleasing visage of Angelina Jolie. Aside from some minor and incidental edge enhancement in a couple of shots, the transfer is free of distracting halos. As a new film of 2008 that was transferred from a Digital Intermediate, the master used for this transfer is in flawless shape and looks very clean.


The disc does not deserve a higher rating than a low tier one ranking at best, and at times looks firmly rooted in the upper reaches of tier two. It looks to me like colors have been tweaked at times in post production. Certain scenes had a significant red-push that visibly affected fleshtones and other primary shades. Also, while the transfer was very film-like, it was not as sharp-looking as one has come to expect from the better Blu-ray images. Some scenes are downright soft, including the many extended sequences blending CGI and live-action. The important scene involving the train wreck illustrates the rampant softness and lowered resolution well of these scenes. The picture is surprisingly flat and drab on occasion. A few scenes do sparkle, but nothing that screams superior depth or dimensionality.


Another factor in my overall judgment was the below-average compression encode. While Universal put this out on a BD-50, most of the extra space was used for extra features. The paltry AVC encode below 20 Mbps is credited to Deluxe Digital Studios. The encode rarely peaks over 30 Mbps and makes me question if this was originally intended for HD DVD. While they have done excellent work in the past, their lower-bitrate encodes have been decidedly unimpressive. Automated compression encodes with low target parameters, but without human tweaking for problem areas, looks to be the culprit here. Multiple scenes show minor, but persistent, artifacting. The grain structure has a hint of macroblocking, and a few shots even demonstrate chroma errors.


Watching on a 60” Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 (firmware 3.0) at a viewing distance of six feet.


BDInfo Scan (courtesy of House):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post15111555


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^


I just checked Phantom and I had given it a 1.5 but I also stated that I wouldn't argue with a 1.75 placement.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

This appears to be one of those situations where I actually rated a title higher than Denny!










I recommended Wanted for Tier 1.25. That was quite some time ago, so I can't really say that I would still feel the same now. Given the high placement I gave it, though, I am quite confident that I would still have it somewhere in Tier 1.


I didn't note any artifacts in my review.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17142501
> 
> 
> I have feeling they didn't expect us to see this level of detail at home, but starting at the 9:44 mark, till 9:45 why the hell did they leave that scene in. Look at the German horde guy facing back to his men and all the men on both the horde and Roman side close to him. They are all laughing and having a gay old time. WTF. Look, if anyone wants to say Ridley did or didn't approve this transfer, he had to approve that shot or am I wrong. That kind of unauthentic, totally distracting crap bothers me. It totally make the scene a joke. Pause it at 9:44 and go frame by frame till 9:45 or so and join the Gladiator party for a good laugh. It is reprehensible leaving that scene in.



Speaking of which, I saw a similar type of situation in _Braveheart_. I'll have to look for the time stamp, but in it, you see the Scots and English soldiers in the background doing mock sword fights and talking casually. It was a bit hilarious.


----------



## Filmaholic

G3, I haven't watched Gladiator yet, since I think it is a terrible film, highly overrated, derivative (Spartacus) and with the stupidest, silliest, leading character name ever.


Ok, now, "jaggies" is the term normally associated with aliasing, or that "stairstep" deffect you see on some "lines". Normally, it's due to adjacent, different colored pixels that don't "blend" well (interpolation, I think). It's a digital artifact, a horrible one.


As to what you actually saw , I can think of two things: contrast wavering (transfer flaw) or picture instability (this would be a master flaw, sometimes due to the deterioration of the celluloid).


PS: I'm no Gaiman expert also, but I am a fan of Sandman. Thanks for the book hint, even though it's quite hard to get imported books here in Brasil for a reasonable price, I'll try.


Ah... About Watchmen: my favorite comic book ever, very nice pic, but it really, really should not be viewed by a six year old girl, no matter how mature and how badly she harasses you to let her. But she must be one of the coolest kids I've heard of. A friend of mine has a six years old who plays Gears of Wars like an adult. Curses like a kid though. Cool, but disturbing.


----------



## Filmaholic

Awesome review Phantom Stranger.


Alas, I think Wanted is not flawed enough to drop off it's current place.

I think it is adequate.


But, then again, WTF do I know? I'm just a brazilian noob.


----------



## K-Spaz

G3/Hugh,


Are you trying to convince me to spend money on Gladiator! Hehe.


I have a fear that one of my favorite sets will suffer this same fate. When Star Wars eventually gets released on some HD format, something tells me that they're going to have many of the same problems/difficulties as folks are complaining about with Gladiator. However, Gladiator, for the most part seems to be intentionally that way, and the SW's I think are going to be plagued with technical hurdles. (Various formats, low res digital masters, very low budget early films, etc). I can just see it coming, more great movies with great re-watchability, having the experience stolen away by a distracting amount of technical or processing issues / bad decisions. And to make it worse, we now have seen it so many times that we looking for it, and you all know what happens if you look hard enough for something...


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Filmaholic* /forum/post/17145646
> 
> 
> G3, I haven't watched Gladiator yet, since I think it is a terrible film, highly overrated, derivative (Spartacus) and with the stupidest, silliest, leading character name ever.
> 
> 
> Ok, now, "jaggies" is the term normally associated with aliasing, or that "stairstep" deffect you see on some "lines". Normally, it's due to adjacent, different colored pixels that don't "blend" well (interpolation, I think). It's a digital artifact, a horrible one.
> 
> 
> As to what you actually saw , I can think of two things: contrast wavering (transfer flaw) or picture instability (this would be a master flaw, sometimes due to the deterioration of the celluloid).
> 
> 
> PS: I'm no Gaiman expert also, but I am a fan of Sandman. Thanks for the book hint, even though it's quite hard to get imported books here in Brasil for a reasonable price, I'll try.
> 
> 
> Ah... About Watchmen: my favorite comic book ever, very nice pic, but it really, really should not be viewed by a six year old girl, no matter how mature and how badly she harasses you to let her. But she must be one of the coolest kids I've heard of. A friend of mine has a six years old who plays Gears of Wars like an adult. Curses like a kid though. Cool, but disturbing.



Okay, I don't think it was "jaggies" then. It was just really jumpy and weird. When I watch it again I'll try and make note of when I saw it. It was distracting when I saw it, but I likely used the wrong terminology there.










OH and NO, I didn't let my daughter watch the Watchmen! God no! Definitely too violent. I took the 18A rating on the disc to heart and figured it was one I'd better watch first. She does love comic book movies though, her favourite being a toss up between Iron Man & Batman Begins. Although she does request at times, "Momma, can I watch the Batman movie with the scary guy with green hair?" She had a good bit of offense when we watched The Incredible Hulk. "Momma, THAT guy can't be Bruce; BATMAN is Bruce. THAT'S NOT BATMAN!!"










Good Omens is an older book, so you should be able to find it at your local library! I don't know if you'd prefer a translated version if you are in Brazil, but according to the Wiki on the book the title would be: Belas Maldições: As Belas e Precisas Profecias de Agnes Nutter, Bruxa (Brazilian Portuguese).




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/17146423
> 
> 
> G3/Hugh,
> 
> 
> Are you trying to convince me to spend money on Gladiator! Hehe.
> 
> 
> I have a fear that one of my favorite sets will suffer this same fate. When Star Wars eventually gets released on some HD format, something tells me that they're going to have many of the same problems/difficulties as folks are complaining about with Gladiator. However, Gladiator, for the most part seems to be intentionally that way, and the SW's I think are going to be plagued with technical hurdles. (Various formats, low res digital masters, very low budget early films, etc). I can just see it coming, more great movies with great re-watchability, having the experience stolen away by a distracting amount of technical or processing issues / bad decisions. And to make it worse, we now have seen it so many times that we looking for it, and you all know what happens if you look hard enough for something...



I'm not trying to make you spend money! I am worried for future films as you are, though. While I do take screenies with a grain of salt, but considering the uproar, I knew I was not going to buy this film. I was going to rent it, but then it was given to me as a gift. That's the only reason I have it now, that's for sure.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

I did a search, and came up empty handed. Has no one here reviewed *The Tale of Desperaux*? I got this in today from Zip, planning on watching it when my daughter gets home from school hopefully. I haven't seen it, but I am pretty sure the husband took her to see it in the theatre.


----------



## Filmaholic

Found a review G3, here:

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/2092...espereaux.html 


Thanks for the Wiki, I'll try to find the book later. Though I would prefer an english version for sure.










Your daughter is the sweetest... Not Bruce? Laughed my @_s off to the Moon here.

That's the kind of thing that makes me want to review my "no kids" option...


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Filmaholic* /forum/post/17147803
> 
> 
> Found a review G3, here:
> 
> http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/2092...espereaux.html
> 
> 
> Thanks for the Wiki, I'll try to find the book later. Though I would prefer an english version for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your daughter is the sweetest... Not Bruce? Laughed my @_s off to the Moon here.
> 
> That's the kind of thing that makes me want to review my "no kids" option...



Eeeesh that review doesn't bode well for the story of this movie...







Ahh well! At least it's only a rental.



I did wind up buying a copy of Coraline as well, after i sent back the zip disc. My daughter loved it so much she made my husband watch it with her (calling it, "The Button Movie!" until corrected about it's title) before I returned it so I grabbed it; I think she'll like the 3D glasses schtick. Her birthday's this month so she'll get it in a couple of weeks.


----------



## Filmaholic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17147841
> 
> 
> Eeeesh that review doesn't bode well for the story of this movie...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh well! At least it's only a rental.
> 
> 
> 
> I did wind up buying a copy of Coraline as well, after i sent back the zip disc. My daughter loved it so much she made my husband watch it with her (calling it, "The Button Movie!" until corrected about it's title) before I returned it so I grabbed it; I think she'll like the 3D glasses schtick. Her birthday's this month so she'll get it in a couple of weeks.



God! Kids are very funny, without any intent of being... It's so awesome... "The Button Movie".










I also think *Coraline*, besides that fantabulous PQ, is important for many other reasons. As any cautionary tale worth it's salt, it will mean different things at different times of her life, you will see. She will treasure this forever, I think. It might even help you and your husband once she reaches her teens, cutting you off some trouble with hormones and such.










Yeah... Despereaux does not look too hot...


----------



## Wryker




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17147841
> 
> 
> Eeeesh that review doesn't bode well for the story of this movie...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh well! At least it's only a rental.



This movie is definitely worth the one watch (not so much owning it) unless you appreciate spectacular CG! I was blown away (and literally paused it several times) to see how spectacular they did w/the realism with the fur and level of detail (like the mouse that 'helps' him leave town).


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wryker* /forum/post/17147925
> 
> 
> This movie is definitely worth the one watch (not so much owning it) unless you appreciate spectacular CG! I was blown away (and literally paused it several times) to see how spectacular they did w/the realism with the fur and level of detail (like the mouse that 'helps' him leave town).



Thanks Wryker!


----------



## Thunderbolt8




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/17142107
> 
> 
> Have you seen it? I think if we rated on purely on technical merits it wouldn't be a tier 0 transfer, because I've seen 35mm movies that have finer detail, but the imagery is compelling enough and the photography is so consistently beautiful that it's hard not to rank it among the best looking movies on Blu.



yes I have seen it and it looked a little too DNR like smooth for my taste. could have been more natural.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/17146423
> 
> 
> Are you trying to convince me to spend money on Gladiator! Hehe.
> 
> 
> I have a fear that one of my favorite sets will suffer this same fate. When Star Wars eventually gets released on some HD format, something tells me that they're going to have many of the same problems/difficulties as folks are complaining about with Gladiator.



I doubt Star Wars will be anything but a stellar release when it hits Blu-ray. Lucas has spent a considerable amount of money restoring the original trilogy. He has deeper pockets than most of the Hollywood studios at this point and cares about putting out a quality product in most instances. The only problem is that we will likely never see the original, unaltered films in 1080p. We will get the special editions with his modern tinkering in 1080p.


----------



## K-Spaz

Well, the original trilogy has the best chance in my mind, just cause they're on 35mm. The Prequels are in 35mm for Episode I, and 1280x1024 for Ep's II and III. Those I have my doubts about the quality that can be achieved.


Nov 3'rd will probably tell the tale of what _can_ be done with an early digital film. The LOTR series was filmed in the same format as the last two SW movies so if that looks good, then SW can also. I seriously doubt we're gonna be really wowed by what we see. (I'll have em anyhow of course)


The big advantage of LOTR is, Lucas won't be experimenting with all the new gadgets of the day on em like he will with SW, and thank God. That DVD release of SW with the rework of the sound and scene changes, it's hard for me to watch. Ok, I don't. But, of course he's got my money for em only because I didn't know they were reworked before I bought them. That won't happen again.


I do think though that if LOTR has a successful release (lots of sales) that by December, Lucas films might well start the ball rolling on some blu release of SW. IF, big if, LOTR does not get widespread acceptance and have good strong sales, I think any idea of a blu SW will be on the shelf for a long, long time.


----------



## H.Cornerstone




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17151128
> 
> 
> I doubt Star Wars will be anything but a stellar release when it hits Blu-ray. Lucas has spent a considerable amount of money restoring the original trilogy. He has deeper pockets than most of the Hollywood studios at this point and cares about putting out a quality product in most instances. The only problem is that we will likely never see the original, unaltered films in 1080p. We will get the special editions with his modern tinkering in 1080p.



Which I despise. I cringe every time I see Hayden Christianson at the end of Return of the Jedi instead of the original actor.


----------



## Hughmc

*Fighting*


This one has it all. Very film like with grain intact and no detectable digital tampering and all the detail is there. It has a similar PQ to Prince Caspian. This type of PQ is my fav on BD.


AS I mentioned in the Film reference thread, after doing a search in the BD forum and all the individual threads, I came up with nothing to my surprise as this must have flew under the radar.


The PQ here has everything, excellent facial closeups and detail, grain intact, but not distracting. Excellent colors and black levels. Highly recommended for excellent PQ.


The film wasn't bad either IMO I saw much worse the last two months. 41% on Rotten tomatoes.


I am going to scan through it again as I thought there was one brief shot that I thought might have been an issue.
*Recommendation: Low tier 0*


----------



## Filmaholic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/17151355
> 
> 
> Well, the original trilogy has the best chance in my mind, just cause they're on 35mm. The Prequels are in 35mm for Episode I, and 1280x1024 for Ep's II and III. Those I have my doubts about the quality that can be achieved.
> 
> 
> *******
> 
> 
> The big advantage of LOTR is, Lucas won't be experimenting with all the new gadgets of the day on em like he will with SW, and thank God.



1280x1024, are you sure? This resolution has a 4:3 aspect ratio, right?

So, are Episodes II & III not 2.40:1 or 1.85:1? (don't have them on SD, never will on HD, hate'em).


Lucas won't be experimenting with LOTR... What do you mean? Idon't even think he ever could...


----------



## Filmaholic

Ok, so IGN never really understood what an acceptable transfer is, but those morons just gave *Gladiator* a 10/10 for "video and presentation".










I'll never, ever watch this thing on BD, since I totally despise this God awfull movie. However, that doesn't stop me from reading about it and look at those nasty processed frames on the nets.










Well, I just wanted to let you guys know, in case someone wants to flame IGN back to hell.


----------



## Filmaholic

I'm sorry, but I can't get past this, it's just soooooo surreal.

_Ipsis literis_ Transcripts from IGN's "glowing" *Gladiator* review:


"The Bottom Line


Love the film or hate it, there is no question that Paramount has held true to its promises with the Sapphire Series, and the Gladiator Blu-ray represents that absolute pinnacle of Blu-ray's potential as a format".


And:


The Video: 10

"A new benchmark for Blu-ray video quality".


Classic!


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Filmaholic* /forum/post/17152331
> 
> 
> 1280x1024, are you sure? This resolution has a 4:3 aspect ratio, right?
> 
> So, are Episodes II & III not 2.40:1 or 1.85:1? (don't have them on SD, never will on HD, hate'em).



I was going from memory and actually now I see I was mistaken. It's Episode I that was 1280x1024 1:9 anamorphic. II and III were 1080p. IV, V and VI were 35mm.



> Quote:
> Lucas won't be experimenting with LOTR... What do you mean? Idon't even think he ever could...



That's what *I* mean. There's only one George Lucas, and thank God he can't get his hands on LOTR too!


Re-Masterings one thing. Rewriting is another.


----------



## djoberg

I have NOT seen *Gladiator* yet, but I just got done reading a review of it from a highly respected AVS member who posted his review on the Gladiator screen cap thread. He gave it a 7.5/10 and actually praised the PQ overall. He was watching it on a 14' screen using a high end Sim2 projector and he said that though there were instances of EE and DNR, they were not enough of a distraction (for him) to make the film unwatchable. In fact, he has much more praise for the film (by far) than he does condemnation.


One of the most interesting comments he made was that screen caps tend to overemphasize anomalies, which is what I have been saying on this thread forever. Again, this is coming from a guy who has top-notch equipment and who is obviously highly respected by his peers on the screen cap thread. I should mention that I tried to copy his post and paste it here, but for some reason I was unable to. So, if any are interested in seeing his post, just type in *Gladiator Master Blu-ray* (post #2059...username "thebland") in the Google Search AVS window above and you'll be directed to it.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17153346
> 
> 
> I have NOT seen *Gladiator* yet, but I just got done reading a review of it from a highly respected AVS member who posted his review on the Gladiator screen cap thread. He gave it a 7.5/10 and actually praised the PQ overall. He was watching it on a 14' screen using a high end Sim2 projector and he said that though there were instances of EE and DNR, they were not enough of a distraction (for him) to make the film unwatchable. In fact, he has much more praise for the film (by far) than he does condemnation.
> 
> 
> One of the most interesting comments he made was that screen caps tend to overemphasize anomalies, which is what I have been saying on this thread forever. Again, this is coming from a guy who has top-notch equipment and who is obviously highly respected by his peers on the screen cap thread. I should mention that I tried to copy his post and paste it here, but for some reason I was unable to. So, if any are interested in seeing his post, just type in *Gladiator Master Blu-ray* (post #2059...username "thebland") in the Google Search AVS window above and you'll be directed to it.



Denny, I've read that review over in that thread. But we all know that what we see is individual to ourselves. What he may see as EE that is not distracting to him, pissed me off to no extreme. I did notice it, BLATANTLY, in several parts where he said he didn't see it. Which is why I respect and accept other people's reviews as what they see, but try not to judge until I watch it myself.



In other words... *watch the movie & tell me YOUR thoughts!!!* I want to hear how it looks to you. -- This goes for EVERYONE who has their two cents to say about it, yet haven't watched it yet.


What matters most to me above all is the opinions of my peers here in this thread who are willing to participate and help us place titles on the list.



A bigger issue with other reviews that are not from "our" thread is that they are not adhering to the same criteria that we are. I think that the majority of us here are striving to stick to the criteria, especially since the revamp that rewrote & redefined it.



I do respect the other reviews* I read, but I'm most interested in reading the ones that wind up here.







He's right, Gladiator is watchable. I just don't think that "watchable" is enough.










*Edited to add -- I respect other reviews that at least seem as though they have WATCHED THE MOVIE on DECENT equipment. Some of the reviews for Gladiator that are out there (not naming names or anything) are absolutely out to lunch. Those ones, no, I don't respect.


----------



## JDHuskey

Reviews that aren't from "our" thread? Get over yourself.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JDHuskey* /forum/post/17153587
> 
> 
> Reviews that aren't from "our" thread? Get over yourself.










This is meant to insinuate following the criteria set forth on page 1 of the thread. Not all reviews do that, so that's what I was meaning with that. No need to be a jerk.


----------



## Filmaholic

Errr...


I'm not sure what to say next, but I'll try my best.


I'm not giving a cent to *Gladiator*, let alone two...










Won't watch it again, hence won't ever review it anywhere.


But I do respect some reviewers in this world, professional or not.


Now, something stinks when there is only one person who thinks a film transfer is "perfect" and a "benchmark", while everybody else thinks the oposite way (Ok, sometimes in the middle...). But a flawless score? This from a HUGE site, with major bandwidth usage.


What I really would like to point is that some web sites that claim to be unbiased and "independent" sometimes sound like a marketing department from a major studio. Journalistic integrity anyone?


What I really would like is that I could bare to watch that Maximus thingie and give my opinion. Sorry, can't. Like Titanic, it makes my stomach try to run away from me, through my teeth...










But it is a fact: I can't judge until I watch it myself. I won't.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17153567
> 
> 
> Denny, I've read that review over in that thread. But we all know that what we see is individual to ourselves. What he may see as EE that is not distracting to him, pissed me off to no extreme. I did notice it, BLATANTLY, in several parts where he said he didn't see it. Which is why I respect and accept other people's reviews as what they see, but try not to judge until I watch it myself.
> 
> 
> 
> In other words... *watch the movie & tell me YOUR thoughts!!!* I want to hear how it looks to you. -- This goes for EVERYONE who has their two cents to say about it, yet haven't watched it yet.
> 
> 
> What matters most to me above all is the opinions of my peers here in this thread who are willing to participate and help us place titles on the list.



I hear you G3, and, for the most part, I agree. But I thought it would be good to refer to the review by "thebland" because I have been reading so much about EE and DNR by members on this thread and that the movie stinks because of it. I just found it interesting to read a review by one who is so highly respected by those who are ardent critics of EE and DNR (like yourself







). I believe he really went on a limb by stating his honest opinion in a thread that has clearly condemned, for the most part, the whole film based on the EE and DNR. I am still waiting to see what his peers have to say about his review.


I may not get to Gladiator until this weekend, but I will give MY honest opinion as soon as I do see it.


----------



## daPriceIs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/17151355
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> *Nov 3'rd will probably tell the tale* of what _can_ be done with an early digital film. The LOTR series was filmed in the same format as the last two SW movies so if that looks good, then SW can also. I seriously doubt we're gonna be really wowed by what we see. (I'll have em anyhow of course)
> 
> 
> ...



You may have to wait a little longer. According to Blu-ray.com:

_"Two days ago we broke the news, and now it is confirmed: *the Blu-ray release of 'The Lord of the Rings: The Motion Picture Trilogy' is delayed to 2010*. Studio and industry sources have informed our friends at The Digital Bits that the BD trilogy is no longer on the 2009 schedule, and is now tentatively slated for early 2010 (probably March).


No official confirmation of the delay is to be expected, as the title was never officially announced in the first place. "_


----------



## Hughmc

The biggest problem with Gladiator is the poor use of cgi and green screen which gets exacerbated when EE and dnr are used , particularly EE. The fake backgrounds are what really makes the charachters stand out like they are in their own dimension and have that force field look about them. I really didn't realize how much cgi and green screen was used till I watched it on bd. There is a scene with Commodus sitting on his throne and you can tell the backdrop from immediately behind him including the red/ gold emblem isn't even real but is green screen. Again I think the use of cgi and green screen is so overly rampant in Gladiator that it is in and of itself the most offensive aspect of the bd and then the use of EE really makes it appalling. I definitely do not remember it looking this bad when watching through my fiber cable co in HD.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17153868
> 
> 
> I hear you G3, and, for the most part, I agree. But I thought it would be good to refer to the review by "thebland" because I have been reading so much about EE and DNR by members on this thread and that the movie stinks because of it. I just found it interesting to read a review by one who is so highly respected by those who are ardent critics of EE and DNR (like yourself
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ). I believe he really went on a limb by stating his honest opinion in a thread that has clearly condemned, for the most part, the whole film based on the EE and DNR. I am still waiting to see what his peers have to say about his review.
> 
> 
> I may not get to Gladiator until this weekend, but I will give MY honest opinion as soon as I do see it.



Thanks for the reply, Denny. I do appreciate it.







I can't wait until you watch it; I think your review for it will be much more grounded than mine is, considering my hardcore reaction to the EE. I really did feel as though it was a co-star; and I'm slightly envious of those who can't see it at times because it can ruin the picture, but on the same score, if it wasn't there at all, we'd all be getting a better picture. Even if you can't notice or point it out, when you see the direct comparison to how pretty this film CAN look w/o the processing, it leaves the rest of it underwhelming IMO.


----------



## Hughmc

Ggg as you will see in my post it isn't just simply the use of EE and as you know I don't readily notice EE, but wow too much digitizing was used when it was made and then EE... I really now believe Gladiator can never look all that great on BD and especially not like Braveheart which is very film like.


----------



## djoberg

Here is the link I referred to:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...3#post17152363 


I'm not trying to start a controversy by posting this, but IMO it is a valid opinion which was written as if he were posting it on this thread (with this thread's criteria in view).


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17154119
> 
> 
> Ggg as you will see in my post it isn't just simply the use of EE and as you know I don't readily notice EE, but wow too much digitizing was used when it was made and then EE... I really now believe Gladiator can never look all that great on BD and especially not like Braveheart which is very film like.



Just curious, have you watched the whole thing yet? I do know there's more going on than the EE, for sure. I think, despite the CGI stuff you talked about in your previous post, the film would have been much more enjoyable if it was sans EE & DNR. I don't know that it would all have held up to being tier 0 quality, as the extended scenes that are present do, but I think it would have been able to _at least_ have felt somewhere higher on the list than tier 3.25 to me, and possibly have been more enjoyable for me.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17154177
> 
> 
> Here is the link I referred to:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...3#post17152363
> 
> 
> I'm not trying to start a controversy by posting this, but IMO it is a valid opinion which was written as if he were posting it on this thread (with this thread's criteria in view).



Thanks Denny.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17154177
> 
> 
> Here is the link I referred to:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...3#post17152363
> 
> 
> I'm not trying to start a controversy by posting this, but IMO it is a valid opinion which was written as if he were posting it on this thread (with this thread's criteria in view).



Denny, when I was doing my bogus math







trying to equate 7.5 or 75% to our tier thread, dapriceis corrected it and pointed out it is the equivalent of about 3.25 in our thread. I rarely get to rate BD's that poorly as I seem to avoid them, and get mostly new releases, but I have to say I think Gladiator is somewhere in between GGG, 40241 and Deltasun's recommendations for me. I would say about 3.0. While I was away I also mentioned Master and Commander several times and asked if anyone owned it and how it and Gladiator compared. I think M&C, while not being as "sharp" as Gladiator does indeed have overall better PQ than Gladiator as I rated M&C at 2.5 I believe. Gladiator and Braveheart are two of my fav all time movies, so I take no joy in stating how poorly done Gladiator is on BD. The CGI and green screen kills it for me. I have the DVD and am going to break it out today. I have the Signature Selection, whatever bogus marketing that is, but I will report back on the differences. The loop I saw in Best BUy from the BD while I was in NY was one of the better if not best looking scenes in the BD, so I was basing my opinion on it.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17154209
> 
> 
> Just curious, have you watched the whole thing yet? I do know there's more going on than the EE, for sure. I think, despite the CGI stuff you talked about in your previous post, the film would have been much more enjoyable if it was sans EE & DNR. I don't know that it would all have held up to being tier 0 quality, as the extended scenes that are present do, but I think it would have been able to _at least_ have felt somewhere higher on the list than tier 3.25 to me, and possibly have been more enjoyable for me.




I am glad I only paid 5.00 dollars for it.





Yes GGG I have watched it all and although a few scenes are good, very few, and EE is apparent,this is beyond EE, way beyond what I have had pointed out to me in threads like Baraka, and Dark Knight which I couldn't notice the EE with those unless 2 ft or less from the screen.


----------



## Hughmc

Well that didn't take long looking at the DVD of Gladiator. Maybe it is because BD is much more revealing in detail, but the cgi is not near as obvious on the DVD. Yes, the BD is a noticeable improvement in color, clarity and detail, just about every area compared to the DVD, but what I said above in my previous posts regarding the cgi holds true for me. I now believe the way the BD is processed really reveals the shortcomings of the computer technology used at the time. Therefore take away the EE/DNR and I would personally still be bothered by the look of Gladiator. What a disappointment.










I know that many of you that struggle with readily noticing EE have tried to get me to see it more readily







, well now I am going to ask those that own the disc to do the same for me with regards to the cgi/green screen. Really look at the backgrounds of the distance shots, of the coliseum, ROme, etc. and even the close up shots...Look closely when the characters really seem to stand out and have that force field around them, and I can almost guarantee you will see poor cgi/green screen galore used.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17154486
> 
> 
> Well that didn't take long looking at the DVD of Gladiator. Maybe it is because BD is much more revealing in detail, but the cgi is not near as obvious on the DVD. Yes, the BD is a noticeable improvement in color, clarity and detail, just about every area compared to the DVD, but what I said above in my previous posts regarding the cgi holds true for me. I now believe the way the BD is processed really reveals the shortcomings of the computer technology used at the time. Therefore take away the EE/DNR and I would personally still be bothered by the look of Gladiator. What a disappointment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know that many of you that struggle with readily noticing EE have tried to get me to see it more readily
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , well now I am going to ask those that own the disc to do the same for me with regards to the cgi/green screen. Really look at the backgrounds of the distance shots, of the coliseum, ROme, etc. and even the close up shots...Look closely when the characters really seem to stand out and have that force field around them, and I can almost guarantee you will see poor cgi/green screen galore used.



I will try to have a look at this next week sometime, Hugh! Maybe that was the weird stuff I saw in the far away shots that I mentioned in an earlier post.


Possibly tomorrow, provided it's not an early dismissal day.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17153567
> 
> 
> Denny, I've read that review over in that thread. But we all know that what we see is individual to ourselves. What he may see as EE that is not distracting to him, pissed me off to no extreme. I did notice it, BLATANTLY, in several parts where he said he didn't see it. Which is why I respect and accept other people's reviews as what they see, but try not to judge until I watch it myself.
> 
> 
> 
> In other words... *watch the movie & tell me YOUR thoughts!!!* I want to hear how it looks to you. -- This goes for EVERYONE who has their two cents to say about it, yet haven't watched it yet.
> 
> 
> What matters most to me above all is the opinions of my peers here in this thread who are willing to participate and help us place titles on the list.
> 
> 
> 
> A bigger issue with other reviews that are not from "our" thread is that they are not adhering to the same criteria that we are. I think that the majority of us here are striving to stick to the criteria, especially since the revamp that rewrote & redefined it.
> 
> 
> 
> I do respect the other reviews* I read, but I'm most interested in reading the ones that wind up here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's right, Gladiator is watchable. I just don't think that "watchable" is enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Edited to add -- I respect other reviews that at least seem as though they have WATCHED THE MOVIE on DECENT equipment. Some of the reviews for Gladiator that are out there (not naming names or anything) are absolutely out to lunch. Those ones, no, I don't respect.



Well said!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17154177
> 
> 
> Here is the link I referred to:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...3#post17152363
> 
> 
> I'm not trying to start a controversy by posting this, but IMO it is a valid opinion which was written as if he were posting it on this thread (with this thread's criteria in view).



I'm not sure what the point is with regard to The Bland's comments on this title and how it relates to this thread?










Written as though he were posting in this thread? I don't think so. Did he make a Tier recommendation?


I personally would correlate a "7.5" rating to a Tier 3 or Tier 3.25.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17156651
> 
> 
> Well said!



Thanks Rob. Do you have any plans of watching it, or are you also passing?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17156701
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what the point is with regard to The Bland's comments on this title and how it relates to this thread?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Written as though he were posting in this thread? I don't think so. Did he make a Tier recommendation?
> 
> 
> I personally would correlate a "7.5" rating to a Tier 3 or Tier 3.25.



With all due respect Rob, he did call his post a *review* (with an "audio" section and a "video" section), and to me it read like most good reviews on this thread (short of making an actual tier recommendation). He used terminology that we use and he made it a point to comment on its virtues versus its anomalies (just like we do).


The only point I would agree with you on is that he didn't submit his post to this thread; I took the liberty to post it because I do see his *opinion* as relevant because of all the negative comments that we have seen regarding this title due to EE and DNR. I, for one, value his opinion because I too am one that is not plagued by a sensitivity to EE and DNR, and it's helpful to see what is said about this movie aside from the EE and DNR issues.


As far as his 7.5 rating, if you consider all his comments it may be closer to a Tier Silver rating.


Having said all that, I obviously will form my own opinion after watching it with my own eyes.


----------



## deltasun

Hugh, I think you make a good point about the green screen. When not done correctly, it definitely forms an outline around the foreground - kinda like when you superimpose a person in front of a movie screen to fake the background (in the old days). So, it may not be all EE. I do acknowledge though that EE or not, a halo is a halo and can be distracting.


I guess I watched _Gladiator_ 3 times and in the end made my recommendation in mid Tier Silver. While I did see all the haloing/EE and DNR, I just did not feel it hurt the picture to the point of a Bronze presentation. I looked at what in Bronze and I cannot, in good conscience, compare them to what I saw in _Gladiator_. It still had its magnificence and grandness.


Ahh, that's just me. Still one of the best visuals in film for me - Maximus' hand over those golden fields.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17157323
> 
> 
> Hugh, I think you make a good point about the green screen. When not done correctly, it definitely forms an outline around the foreground - kinda like when you superimpose a person in front of a movie screen to fake the background (in the old days). So, it may not be all EE. I do acknowledge though that EE or not, a halo is a halo and can be distracting.
> 
> 
> I guess I watched _Gladiator_ 3 times and in the end made my recommendation in mid Tier Silver. While I did see all the haloing/EE and DNR, I just did not feel it hurt the picture to the point of a Bronze presentation. I looked at what in Bronze and I cannot, in good conscience, compare them to what I saw in _Gladiator_. It still had its magnificence and grandness.
> 
> 
> Ahh, that's just me. Still one of the best visuals in film for me - Maximus' hand over those golden fields.




Yes Deltasun, you nailed it. I mentioned this to my son yesterday and told him the look reminded me of movies from the 50's and 60's. Anyone who owns the James Bonds on BD or for that matter any movies from the 50's and 60's can attest to this, but one could even watch regular 480 rez tv and see it with those older films and shows. The images of people in Gladiator are like an entity unto themselves on their own plane if you will.










^^That and the laughing during a blood thirsty, limb removing battle do tend to take away a bit from one a my fav films. DARN!!


I will be sure to look out for the scene you mentioned in Braveheart.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17156722
> 
> 
> Thanks Rob. Do you have any plans of watching it, or are you also passing?



I will watch it eventually, but it is very low on my priority list.


I prefer Braveheart as a movie anyway, so that will be coming relatively quickly.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17160381
> 
> 
> I will watch it eventually, but it is very low on my priority list.
> 
> 
> I prefer Braveheart as a movie anyway, so that will be coming relatively quickly.



I'm hoping to get Braveheart watched this weekend. I like the movie, but not as much as I like Gladiator. Rumor has it the PQ is pretty good on it though, so hopefully it's a treat.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17156792
> 
> 
> With all due respect Rob, he did call his post a *review* (with an "audio" section and a "video" section), and to me it read like most good reviews on this thread (short of making an actual tier recommendation). He used terminology that we use and he made it a point to comment on its virtues versus its anomalies (just like we do).



Well, Denny, there are TONS of *reviews* on the internet, aren't there? And most of those also use terminology that we use in this thread.


Yet, it is generally recognized that they don't have a whole lot of meaning here. That is not to say that it is never appropriate to post a link to an external review here for a specific issue that is being debated (such as the presence of EE or DNR or lack thereof) and perhaps that is what you were doing here.


I guess my confusion, though, would be that there really doesn't seem to be much of a debate as to whether Gladiator has EE and DNR. It does. I don't see how posting a review that says "yes, these do exist, but I still liked it overall" is particularly helpful here.



> Quote:
> The only point I would agree with you on is that he didn't submit his post to this thread; I took the liberty to post it because I do see his *opinion* as relevant because of all the negative comments that we have seen regarding this title due to EE and DNR. I, for one, value his opinion because I too am one that is not plagued by a sensitivity to EE and DNR, and it's helpful to see what is said about this movie aside from the EE and DNR issues.



How about other reviews on the internet?



> Quote:
> As far as his 7.5 rating, if you consider all his comments it may be closer to a Tier Silver rating.



Thank you for helping prove, again, why you can't try to correlate an external review to this Tier thread.


It can't be done. Like I said, personally, there is no way a "7.5" is a Silver Tier title. You want to say that it is, based on "his comments". Crazy. Slippery slope. Etc.


I don't want to see everyone start posting links to external reviews and try and correlate them to a Tier ranking here, in support of their opinion. It does not work.



> Quote:
> Having said all that, I obviously will form my own opinion after watching it with my own eyes.



I would hope so.










I find it even more confusing that you posted this review here not even having seen it yourself yet. You are supporting his opinion without having seen the movie itself!


I know you will say that was not what you were doing, but that is exactly how it comes across: you supporting The Bland's review without having seen the title in question.


Slippery slope indeed.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^


Just a quick response Rob....I simply posted the review by thebland to show members that there are those who are enjoying and actually praising some aspects of the Blu-ray version of Gladiator.


Whether you want to admit this or not, I believe people are affected when they read negative reviews (like all the negative reviews on the Gladiator thread), and all this negativism can actually cause people to focus too much on the EE, DNR, or other anomalies when they view it for the first time. My purpose in posting that link was to give people a more positive perspective to help offset all the negativism, and perhaps this would result in achieving a more *balanced* outlook once the movie is viewed by those who have been exposed to outside reviews.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17160607
> 
> 
> ^^^^
> 
> 
> Just a quick response Rob....I simply posted the review by thebland to show members that there are those who are enjoying and actually praising some aspects of the Blu-ray version of Gladiator.
> 
> 
> Whether you want to admit this or not, I believe people are affected when they read negative reviews (like all the negative reviews on the Gladiator thread), and all this negativism can actually cause people to focus too much on the EE, DNR, or other anomalies when they view it for the first time. My purpose in posting that link was to give people a more positive perspective to help offset all the negativism, and perhaps this would result in achieving a more *balanced* outlook once the movie is viewed by those who have been exposed to outside reviews.



Either way, for the purpose of the PQ thread, if something looks like crap or has an abundance of EE I'm not going to hold back when I review for the sake of sparing someone some negativity. The whole point of posting in here is to help get things onto the list, which has helped many people with their purchases. Whether or not I read that thread, I would still have seen the EE and been underwhelmed with the title.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17160707
> 
> 
> Either way, for the purpose of the PQ thread, if something looks like crap or has an abundance of EE I'm not going to hold back when I review for the sake of sparing someone some negativity. The whole point of posting in here is to help get things onto the list, which has helped many people with their purchases. Whether or not I read that thread, I would still have seen the EE and been underwhelmed with the title.



You're making my point G3, for you are sensitive to EE and it is VERY distracting to you and thus your review is obviously going to come across as negative (which it should, for that's how YOU see it). But with others, like thebland, EE is not that bothersome and so it is another point of view (that happens to be more _positive_) for readers to consider so they can have a more *balanced* perspective to help them in determining whether or not they want to purchase it or not.


----------



## deltasun

There are some good points here, folks. I think reviewers ARE influenced by other reviews, etc. Just look at how many of us either preview other reviews (external or internal to AVS) or ask if someone else reviewed a title prior to doing a formal review.


I, myself, try to avoid other reviews prior to getting my impressions of a title for my own review, just so I don't focus on whatever angle another reviewer may have taken. However, I am guilty of sometimes getting into the individual movie threads as well. That's true of the recent _Gladiator_ and _Braveheart_ threads. That's part of the reason I had to really bear down and watch them multiple times, step back and really ask myself...yes, those negative elements are there, but how adversely are they affecting PQ? Obviously, this is the subjective part and what's potentially affected the most by other reviews/comments.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17160892
> 
> 
> There are some good points here, folks. I think reviewers ARE influenced by other reviews, etc. Just look at how many of us either preview other reviews (external or internal to AVS) or ask if someone else reviewed a title prior to doing a formal review.
> 
> 
> I, myself, try to avoid other reviews prior to getting my impressions of a title for my own review, just so I don't focus on whatever angle another reviewer may have taken. However, I am guilty of sometimes getting into the individual movie threads as well. That's true of the recent _Gladiator_ and _Braveheart_ threads. That's part of the reason I had to really bear down and watch them multiple times, step back and really ask myself...yes, those negative elements are there, but how adversely are they affecting PQ? Obviously, this is the subjective part and what's potentially affected the most by other reviews/comments.



+1


I obviously agree with every word deltasun. And personally I was very thankful for the review you gave on _Gladiator_ because you were able to strike a balance in the end (after weighing all the negatives and positives) and give it the placement you believed it deserved.


I WILL be watching _Gladiator_ today and I'll weigh in as soon as the credits roll.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17160860
> 
> 
> You're making my point G3, for you are sensitive to EE and it is VERY distracting to you and thus your review is obviously going to come across as negative (which it should, for that's how YOU see it). But with others, like thebland, EE is not that bothersome and so it is another point of view (that happens to be more _positive_) for readers to consider so they can have a more *balanced* perspective to help them in determining whether or not they want to purchase it or not.




I still don't totally get your point, if I'm being honest. My point of view here is with regards to the PQ Tier Thread for Blu-Ray. While I respect Thebland's review over in the Gladiator thread, and think it's a good & well written review, it's still not a review that is geared for the PQ Tier Thread for Blu Ray.


If someone wants to find positive reviews for Gladiator, they can easily go to a TON of review sites out there -- many of which are ones that caused some rage in people in the Gladiator thread, as many people (myself included) felt they were being too nice regarding Gladiator's PQ, considering the flaws that it does have, glossing over them with things like "I didn't notice any excessive EE" or "It's better than the DVD, hooray!".



When you watch Gladiator and post your review & rate it, that helps SuprSlow determine where it lands on this list. So far that I can remember off the top of my head without looking back, deltasun, 42021 & myself have provided reviews, ranging from mid Tier 2 to mid Tier 3. The *balanced* perspective that people get from the PQ Tier Thread for Blu Ray comes from the range of reviews that we do here, and where it ends up being placed. People can search the thread for specific reviews (er... most of the time, when it is working!) or post questions to see how titles were placed where they wound up on the list. In the end, the only true judge for people will be what they see when they watch it on their own, and that will be the crux of their satisfaction level. It's not up to us to police whether or not people are going to get a bias going into the viewing of a Blu; if they didn't want our opinions they wouldn't have sought out this list to begin with.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17160937
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> 
> I obviously agree with every word deltasun. And personally I was very thankful for the review you gave on _Gladiator_ *because you were able to strike a balance in the end (after weighing all the negatives and positives) and give it the placement you believed it deserved.*
> 
> 
> I WILL be watching _Gladiator_ today and I'll weigh in as soon as the credits roll.





So I was unable to do this, because my review of it was not as POSITIVE as Deltasun's review, it means I was unable to strike a balance to weigh the positives vs the negatives? I gave it the placement I believed it deserved, Denny, and frankly I'm insulted at that insinuation.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17161035
> 
> 
> So I was unable to do this, because my review of it was not as POSITIVE as Deltasun's review, it means *I was unable to strike a balance to weigh the positives vs the negatives?* I gave it the placement I believed it deserved, Denny, and frankly I'm insulted at that insinuation.










Maybe I shouldn't get involved in this, but I don't know if that's what Denny is insinuating, G3. He was specifically talking about my review on its own. He can make the same statement about your review - you weighed the positives and negatives and struck a balance at 3.25. Obviously, I'm not going to speak for Denny either.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17160995
> 
> 
> I still don't totally get your point, if I'm being honest.
> 
> 
> ....



I'm not going to get involved any further than I have, other than to say that I too still don't completely understand the point.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17161093
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe I shouldn't get involved in this, but I don't know if that's what Denny is insinuating, G3. He was specifically talking about my review on its own. He can make the same statement about your review - you weighed the positives and negatives and struck a balance at 3.25. Obviously, I'm not going to speak for Denny either.



I think that is exactly what he was insinuating.


Intentional or not.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17161035
> 
> 
> So I was unable to do this, because my review of it was not as POSITIVE as Deltasun's review, it means I was unable to strike a balance to weigh the positives vs the negatives? I gave it the placement I believed it deserved, Denny, and frankly I'm insulted at that insinuation.



I just re-read your review and you did give all the pros and cons that you saw, so I would call that "balanced." But I still believe when one is as sensitive as you are to EE that this *may* cause them to focus too much on that flaw. Quite frankly, your review has a lot to say about EE and how basically you saw it throughout the whole movie. I have also read your posts in the Gladiator thread and you come across the same way there; in fact, even stronger than in your review on this thread. Let me be clear...I am NOT faulting you for this, for you are simply calling it the way you see it.


Conversely, if one is NOT as sensitive to EE, they *may* be more free to focus on more positive elements in a movie. Too repeat myself, I simply posted thebland's post to show people who are not that sensitive to EE (like myself), that the movie may have more redeeming qualities if you are not distracted by EE.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17161035
> 
> 
> So I was unable to do this, because my review of it was not as POSITIVE as Deltasun's review, it means I was unable to strike a balance to weigh the positives vs the negatives? I gave it the placement I believed it deserved, Denny, and frankly I'm insulted at that insinuation.



The thing that I find amusing is that Denny found Deltasun's review to be "balanced" seemingly because he still recommended it for Tier 2 despite the EE and DNR that he mentioned in his review.


I, on the other hand, specifically questioned his review because in his comments he discussed what seemed to be rather extensive EE and/or DNR, and a Tier 2 recommendation seemed rather high to me considering those comments.


And neither Denny nor I have even seen the movie.


----------



## deltasun

He he, I was just about to mention that


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17161231
> 
> 
> The thing that I find amusing is that Denny found Deltasun's review to be "balanced" seemingly because he still recommended it for Tier 2 despite the EE and DNR that he mentioned in his review.
> 
> 
> I, on the other hand, specifically questioned his review because in his comments he discussed what seemed to be rather extensive EE and/or DNR, and a Tier 2 recommendation seemed rather high to me considering those comments.
> 
> *And neither Denny nor I have even seen the movie.*



























Believe it or not Rob, I too was thinking the same thing. I guess we had better get with the program and see it for ourselves!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17161289
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Believe it or not Rob, I too was thinking the same thing. I guess we had better get with the program and see it for ourselves!



Exactly!


I am going to have to put this higher on my Netflix Queue. My wife loves this movie anyway, so I might as well.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17161188
> 
> 
> Conversely, if one is NOT as sensitive to EE, they *may* be more free to focus on more positive elements in a movie. Too repeat myself, I simply posted thebland's post to show people who are not that sensitive to EE (like myself), that the movie may have more redeeming qualities if you are not distracted by EE.



I would think that the fact that you know you are not sensitive to EE can help negate that part of my review on your own.










And you both have it right (Denny & Rob)... to quote myself:



> Quote:
> In other words... watch the movie & tell me YOUR thoughts!!! I want to hear how it looks to you. -- This goes for EVERYONE who has their two cents to say about it, yet haven't watched it yet.


----------



## djoberg

*Revolutionary Road*


What a refreshing transfer....CLEAN and SHARP throughout, with a fine film of grain that only served to enhance detail and give it that true, film-like look that we covet. This is easily a Tier 1 contender.


This is a period-piece (from the middle 50s to middle 60s) and thus the color palette reflected those times, with a golden hue dominating many scenes. This did NOT detract in any way, but rather gave it a nice, warm look. Some colors were quite vivid and natural, and the blending of the two (the "golden hue" and the "vivid" colors) worked perfectly.


Skin tones were spot on and I agree with deltasun that most facial close-ups matched those in Tier 1 films.


Blacks levels were delightful and in some night scenes, particularly of the house on Revolutionary Road with its yard and street, the shadow detail was second to none.


Contrast was excellent except for a couple of scenes, most notably at the 60 minute mark (a scene at a beach) where for two minutes it seemed a tad too high resulting in a washed out look.


I wasn't that impressed with the depth of images, but what was lacking there was made up for in finely-rendered details in close and medium shots.


I had said at the outset that this is easily a Tier 1 contender and as I perused the titles in that tier I thought it was most similar to titles such as Hancock, Orphanage, and Valkyrie, and thus I cast my vote for....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'


PS The acting was superb in this splendid character-driven film. I believe someone had said earlier that Kate Winslet is one of the best actresses of our day and I concur wholeheartedly with that assessment. Leonardo DiCaprio was at his best in this film as well.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17162960
> 
> *Revolutionary Road*
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> PS The acting was superb in this splendid character-driven film. I believe someone had said earlier that Kate Winslet is one of the best actresses of our day and I concur wholeheartedly with that assessment. Leonardo DiCaprio was at his best in this film as well.



Hmmm..... who could have said that?











Excellent review too Denny. Well written.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17162998
> 
> 
> Hmmm..... who could have said that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent review too Denny. Well written.



I thought it was you Rob, but I wasn't sure til now.










Thanks for the kudos on the review.


----------



## nick2010

*Futurama: Into the Wild Green Yonder*
*Tier 1.0*


______________________________


*Mission: Impossible III*

*Tier 1.25*


46", 7', 1080p


----------



## djoberg

*Gladiator*


I approach this review with some trepidation (







), considering all that has been said about this title. I don't plan to say much (which will probably please some of you







); I will confine my remarks solely to what MY EYES SAW.


The BAD:


1) I did see instances of EE and DNR (which I don't usually see), but in all honesty they were minimal.


2) The two opening scenes (especially the battle scene) were horrendous. They were riddled with EE, soft, and almost void of detail. Blacks were crushed and murky-looking.


3) There was definitely _inconsistency_ due to the additional footage (I watched the EXTENDED version) being added, for one could easily distinguish between the theatrical footage and the extended footage (which was appreciably better).


The GOOD:


1) After the first two or three scenes (about 35 minutes or so into the movie) the PQ became much sharper and detailed and this, for the most part, continued to the end.


2) The majority of facial close-ups (which were not plagued by DNR) were simply superb, revealing every wrinkle, pore, stubble, scar, bead of sweat, etc. They were, in my book, Tier 0 quality.


3) The detail in a majority of scenes was also Tier 0 quality.


4) Depth and dimensionality were very good in several scenes, especially those filmed in parts of Rome, including the Colosseum.


I found the majority of the film to be demo-worthy (a solid Tier 1, perhaps even 1.0), but due to the first 35 minutes I simply can't, with a good conscience, recommend that placement. All things considered, MY EYES dictate the following....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0 or 2.25*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'


----------



## Hughmc

*Disneynature Earth:*


Well Denny the focus is a bit on you today as you were the only other review I could find for this title.










I rented this and watched it last night. It looks like they simply took the best of the best of the scenes from Planet Earth and as Denny mentioned, Blue Planet. It is 1:30 of nothing but pristine HD shots. It is full screen with a new and much better soundtrack in DTS MA compared to the Planet Earth Dolby Digital and James Earl Jones narrates.


While there is an occasional few scenes that aren't perfectly sharp, the rest of this BD is and has the wow factor through and through. That is why I am recommending low tier 0 or top of tier 1 at worst. There isn't much wrong with this BD.


I liked the way it was presented and while Jones' narration was sometimes corny it was ok.

*Tier Recommendation: Low Tier 0*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^


Hugh,


I gave it a 1.5 but I wouldn't argue with 1.25 or at the most 1.0. The lengthy night scene (where the lions chased down and killed an elephant) made me penalize it as much as I did. What did you think of that scene?


Denny


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17164385
> 
> 
> ^^^^
> 
> 
> Hugh,
> 
> 
> I gave it a 1.5 but I wouldn't argue with 1.25 or at the most 1.0. The lengthy night scene (where the lions chased down and killed an elephant) made me penalize it as much as I did. What did you think of that scene?
> 
> 
> Denny



Yes, for our thread purposes I could have dinged it more, but I guess I got so caught up in the rest of the shots that looked so good I gave it a pass. I kept rewinding some scenes they were that good to look at.














The night scene was poor, so I think taking that into account would allow for 1.0 and give me an out.







Other than that it really looked nothing short of excellent huh?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17164491
> 
> 
> Yes, for our thread purposes I could have dinged it more, but I guess I got so caught up in the rest of the shots that looked so good I gave it a pass. I kept rewinding some scenes they were that good to look at.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The night scene was poor, so I think taking that into account would allow for 1.0 and give me an out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Other than that it really looked nothing short of excellent huh?



Indeed, it was excellent!


We had an elderly couple over that night to see the film and they were so WOWED that the wife jabbed her husband in the side and said, "I want a HDTV so we can watch Blu-rays"!


----------



## Hughmc

I got a good laugh Denny, picturing the woman doing that










My mom was here in June, she is 78 and she was wowed by the tv, and wants HDTV, but then in the 70's she was the start of my getting into tv's, etc when she got one of those 27 inch Sony Trinitrons with more cabinet made of real wood bigger than the screen size itself. It was huge.


----------



## 42041

*In the Valley of Elah*


This 2007 film is rather visually subdued but excellently shot and sports a very good transfer. Consistency is a virtue here: there are almost no bum shots (well, unless you count the cell phone video bits), everything looks textured, detailed, and film-like, black levels are consistently on the mark. Everything looks more or less as it should look. There are quite a few solid Tier 0 shots sprinkled here and there. The only problem is, the visual subject matter is mostly rather bleak and pedestrian, despite the cinematographer's best efforts. For most of us, at least, the bars, diners and offices of suburban America are not going to be prime demo material. The VC1 encode is adequate, I did not detect bothersome artifacting despite meager Warner video bitrates.

*Tier 1.75*


(PS3/Pioneer Kuro 50" Elite/1 screen width distance)


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hughmc* /forum/post/17164747
> 
> 
> my mom was here in june, she is 78 and she was wowed by the tv, and wants hdtv, but then in the 70's she was the start of my getting into tv's, etc when *she got one of those 27 inch sony trinitrons with more cabinet made of real wood bigger than the screen size itself. It was huge*.



lol!!


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/17164783
> 
> *In the Valley of Elah*
> 
> 
> This 2007 film is rather visually subdued but excellently shot and sports a very good transfer. Consistency is a virtue here: there are almost no bum shots (well, unless you count the cell phone video bits), everything looks textured, detailed, and film-like, black levels are consistently on the mark. Everything looks more or less as it should look. There are quite a few solid Tier 0 shots sprinkled here and there. The only problem is, the visual subject matter is mostly rather bleak and pedestrian, despite the cinematographer's best efforts. For most of us, at least, the bars, diners and offices of suburban America are not going to be prime demo material. The VC1 encode is adequate, I did not detect bothersome artifacting despite meager Warner video bitrates.
> 
> *Tier 1.75*
> 
> 
> (PS3/Pioneer Kuro 50" Elite/1 screen width distance)



How is the movie? I don't think I have seen it, but I may have seen glimpses of it on tv.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17164895
> 
> 
> How is the movie? I don't think I have seen it, but I may have seen glimpses of it on tv.



I thought it was pretty good. Did you ever see Crash (the 2004 movie, not the 1996 one)? It's by the same writer/director and shares certain similarities in its filmmaking approach. I know a lot of people who can't stand the guy, so I'm not going to make a definite recommendation, but I thought it was fairly compelling and well-acted myself, if you can handle a movie that practically bludgeons viewers with its message.


----------



## deltasun

*Crank: High Voltage*


Wow, what a ride! Fine grain present throughout. What can I say - facial details are stunning on this title. I'm to the point now that I'm trying to figure out how they get this look, this detail. I think I got a hint from how the water is springing from the upturned fire hydrant - looks like high-speed cameras. Either way, every pore, follicle, abrasion, imperfection is uber rendered to the max. Check out Amy Smart's face under the leaping horse in the racetrack.


Obviously, contrast is pushed and is part of the stylized look of the film. Colors are very pleasantly vibrant, but does not look natural. It is overhyped. Still, the look that is achieved is unique and complements the frenetic nature of the characters and the storyline. Dimensionality is always maximized and deep. Even when a character's face is millimeters from the wide-angle lens and takes up 90% of the frame, the faraway details on either side of his face are crisp and well...detailed.


About the only weakness I noticed is shadow details of a few scenes. Dwight Yoakam's apartment, for example, on certain scenes seemed flat. Again, maybe a handful of scenes. Black levels were bold and were not crushed. Skin tones were spot on. Another thing to mention is the seemingly rampant ringing. I had to pause it a few times to really study them. In the end, I don't believe they're EE. I think it's a product of the camera style used. I didn't find this distracting at all simply because of the way it was filmed - again, frenetic.


I was looking to place this at the bottom of Tier Blu, but the more I watched, the more impressed I became. One of the better visuals I experienced were how the sparks were so realistic on the screen. I think this film trumps out some of the better discs in Blu. I believe it's overly more detailed than Transporter 3. I think I'm ready to place this just below _gulp!_ I, Robot. I still prefer I, Robot because of its strong black levels and less artificial look. At the lowest, I would say just below Man on Fire.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0, just below I, Robot*


Story-wise, pretty silly but it did have its moments. I actually caught myself chuckling a few times. Still wouldn't be added to my collection despite the incredible PQ. Well, if the price ever becomes right, I may indulge.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8' & 6'_


----------



## deltasun

Interesting watching the _Making of_ of Crank 2. I guess those were digital cameras (Canon XF-A1 & HF-10) and the fine grain I mentioned must be digital noise. I think the rating for this title will come down to the viewer's preference. Can't wait to see what you all think.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17165343
> 
> 
> Interesting watching the _Making of_ of Crank 2. I guess those were digital cameras (Canon XF-A1 & HF-10) and the fine grain I mentioned must be digital noise. I think the rating for this title will come down to the viewer's preference. Can't wait to see what you all think.



I plan to watch it next Tuesday or Wednesday. If it's better than _Transporter 3_ it will definitely MAKE MY DAY!


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I tried to watch Crank Friday night. It would not play in either one of my Blu-ray players. It was a brand new disc from Netflix too, without a mark on it.


I must have got a bad copy. Replacement copy should be here today.


----------



## daPriceIs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17166772
> 
> 
> I tried to watch Crank Friday night. It would not play in either one of my Blu-ray players. It was a brand new disc from Netflix too, without a mark on it.
> 
> 
> I must have got a bad copy. Replacement copy should be here today.



A few people seem to be having problems with this disc. Don't know what your players are, but check out this thread: * Open letter to Lionsgate's Crank 2 *


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *daPriceIs* /forum/post/17166935
> 
> 
> A few people seem to be having problems with this disc. Don't know what your players are, but check out this thread: * Open letter to Lionsgate's Crank 2 *



Thanks.


What is interesting is that supposedly if you have the Oppo 83 you shouldn't have this problem, but I do!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17167483
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> What is interesting is that supposedly if you have the Oppo 83 you shouldn't have this problem, but I do!



I just read that I *should* be able to view it on my Panasonic BD30. I'll be crossing my fingers!


----------



## Xavier1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17165317
> 
> *Crank: High Voltage*
> 
> 
> Wow, what a ride! Fine grain present throughout. What can I say - facial details are stunning on this title. I'm to the point now that I'm trying to figure out how they get this look, this detail. I think I got a hint from how the water is springing from the upturned fire hydrant - looks like high-speed cameras. Either way, every pore, follicle, abrasion, imperfection is uber rendered to the max. Check out Amy Smart's face under the leaping horse in the racetrack.
> 
> 
> Obviously, contrast is pushed and is part of the stylized look of the film. Colors are very pleasantly vibrant, but does not look natural. It is overhyped. Still, the look that is achieved is unique and complements the frenetic nature of the characters and the storyline. Dimensionality is always maximized and deep. Even when a character's face is millimeters from the wide-angle lens and takes up 90% of the frame, the faraway details on either side of his face are crisp and well...detailed.
> 
> 
> About the only weakness I noticed is shadow details of a few scenes. Dwight Yoakam's apartment, for example, on certain scenes seemed flat. Again, maybe a handful of scenes. Black levels were bold and were not crushed. Skin tones were spot on. Another thing to mention is the seemingly rampant ringing. I had to pause it a few times to really study them. In the end, I don't believe they're EE. I think it's a product of the camera style used. I didn't find this distracting at all simply because of the way it was filmed - again, frenetic.
> 
> 
> I was looking to place this at the bottom of Tier Blu, but the more I watched, the more impressed I became. One of the better visuals I experienced were how the sparks were so realistic on the screen. I think this film trumps out some of the better discs in Blu. I believe it's overly more detailed than Transporter 3. I think I'm ready to place this just below _gulp!_ I, Robot. I still prefer I, Robot because of its strong black levels and less artificial look. At the lowest, I would say just below Man on Fire.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0, just below I, Robot*
> 
> 
> Story-wise, pretty silly but it did have its moments. I actually caught myself chuckling a few times. Still wouldn't be added to my collection despite the incredible PQ. Well, if the price ever becomes right, I may indulge.
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8' & 6'_



I concur. Amazing picture quality. Usually I can tell if digital cameras are used, there is a bland quality to them, and blacks are washed out. Not this, amazing detail, reference quality!


Sony 50a3000 @ 7'


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Crank: High Voltage*


This title has very, very impressive amounts of detail. If you love seeing every strand of hair, stubble, and pores in faces, you will be impressed with this title.


Also, considering it was shot on HD video, the contrast and black levels are quite good.


The picture still has an overall "tweaked" look to it, but many will like that "in your face" aspect.


One thing that really bothered me was how motion comes across as being very "jerky", not smooth at all. It really takes away from the overall PQ in my opinion, and prevents you from enjoying all the detail that is actually present.


As a result, it falls just short of Tier 0 for me.


The movie itself was an embarrassing abomination of the original. At least the original had a lot of funny moments. This one was nearly a carbon copy of the first in many respects, but with all the good stuff taken out (and the original was never a great movie to begin with). This was truly awful.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0*


----------



## H.Cornerstone




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17169967
> 
> *Crank: High Voltage*
> 
> 
> This title has very, very impressive amounts of detail. If you love seeing every strand of hair, stubble, and pores in faces, you will be impressed with this title.
> 
> 
> Also, considering it was shot on HD video, the contrast and black levels are quite good.
> 
> 
> The picture still has an overall "tweaked" look to it, but many will like that "in your face" aspect.
> 
> 
> One thing that really bothered me was how motion comes across as being very "jerky", not smooth at all. It really takes away from the overall PQ in my opinion, and prevents you from enjoying all the detail that is actually present.
> 
> 
> As a result, it falls just short of Tier 0 for me.
> 
> 
> The movie itself was an embarrassing abomination of the original. At least the original had a lot of funny moments. This one was nearly a carbon copy of the first in many respects, but with all the good stuff taken out (and the original was never a great movie to begin with). This was truly awful.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.0*



Rob, as one of Crank 1's toughest critics PQ wise, how does it compare to that one? Better, worse or same?


----------



## John Mason

Intriguing comments on a production that appears, AIUI, to have been made with low-cost consumer camcorders (see imdb.com tech spec section). Looked up a camcorder site review of the Canon HF50 and it points out this model has a very small sensor(s). Also mentions such sensors, with a higher pixel density (smaller CCDs or CMOS), can lead to more image noise. But they also can deliver very crisp images because of the lens/sensor-size relationship.


By contrast, many of the much more expensive digital-cinema cameras, with one 35mm-size sensor, permit using standard 35mm movie-camera lenses suitable for selective focusing (blurring parts of scenes). The review also points out the HF50 provides about 1200-line (16X9 PW) measured maximum effective resolution, somewhat greater than typical prosumer or consumer camcorders.


Also interesting that ~1200 lines is near the upper limit (800--1300) for a spectrum analysis study with telecined 1080/24p HD-D5 master tapes (~270 Mbps), detailed through extracts/sublinks in this earlier post . AIUI, from the context of that master-tape analysis, the higher resolutions, say 1100--1300 lines, referred to computer-graphics-based movie segments, compared to more typical horizontal maximums of 800 lines per picture width from telecined prints. -- John


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *H.Cornerstone* /forum/post/17170068
> 
> 
> Rob, as one of Crank 1's toughest critics PQ wise, how does it compare to that one? Better, worse or same?



Very similar. Possibly better black levels, but not by much.


If you were bothered by the "harshness" of the first one, you will similarly be bothered by it here.


I also forgot to mention one thing in my review: just like the first one, there are plenty examples of blown highlights. I should probably lower my recommendation to 1.25 or 1.5.


----------



## K-Spaz

Coraline

I watched Coraline the night before last and last night again. It just happens that I had a friend and his family over for a day of movies and good eats! Wonderful chicken fruit salad! Since his youngest son and daughter are below what I'd call a target audience for this film, I opted to wait till they were gone to re-watch it. Sound advice for someone considering letting little kids watch this.


I'm beating around the bush a bit as I think of how to discuss this. This movie brings up a lot of questions, but most of the questions I have really don't relate to Coraline. Most of them beg us to reconsider some other films.


If you've read other reviews, it goes without saying this film looks great. I also have an appreciation for the way it's made, though I really try to ignore such things when I critique a movie. That's not the point, not here anyhow. The film in general is rather dark, and has a color palette that's far less vibrant than many of the animated features we've all viewed. Looking at the cover art, you'd think this was a black and white film, and at some scenes within, you begin to wonder the same. Despite the lack of in your face brightness/saturation in typical animations, this one seems to really retain image detail in those scenes I'm going to call "muted" for lack of a better term.


The first time through on this, I watched 1/2 of the movie in 3D. I gotta say, not only is this a stellar 3D movie, easily the best example of 3D I've seen with the filter glasses, it's so far better than any other 3D movie I've seen, it's in another league. Most 3D movies I've seen tend to have a bunch of flicker/ soft edges, etc. This in 3D is none of that. If it has a downside, it's that the color palette is already a bit dark and in need of saturation. Adding the glasses, while probably not as bad as some 3d movies, detracts from the colors enough that I prefer to watch the 2d version. Bottom line, if you want to know how good 3D is at it's present state, watch this.


Differences to other films being compared:

A Bugs Life: I have to say that I still think this is the best looking blu-ray movie I've seen to date. I know, it's an older animated film, but in some ways I think this is an asset, not a liability. If I were to simply turn the audio off and watch these two movies, I would put ABL above Coraline with no question. I am waiting to see a Br version of Monsters Inc, cause I think that one will also be a great looking film.


Ratatouille/Meet The Robinsons/Wall-E:

In my mind, here's where ABL and Coraline differ from other animated titles. All these titles, while they look ok and all, have one common flaw. Someone who was doing the animation work came up with the idea that they could simulate the depth of focus issues of a camera and make that happen in animation. Some will say, wow, look at that, it looks like they're shooting at f1.2, isn't that kewl. Well, I think it sucks. I get tired of having all of the screen out of focus. It's bad enough that any of a film is out of focus, much less to do it on purpose. Furthermore, out of focus is actually harder to compress than in focus. So for more detail, its actually possible to get a lower bitrate.


Afaic, animated titles do not benefit from bokeh. In fact, I really dislike it. When watching parts of Coraline yesterday, I did some work in the kitchen so I was 30' from the screen, and the detail actually became more apparent to me then than it was when I was sitting at 11'. It was almost like when I was close it was impossible to take it all in. I get that feeling when watching ABL too, but if I were to watch WallE for instance, only the foreground would be noticeable, and all other detail is simply gone.


For this reason, I think movies like Coraline deserves a Tier 0 placement. Regardless of the seating position, (for me, even from the neighbors house!) this film looks good. This happens with live action films too, but rarely.


Comparing 2D "3D illusion", I think that Coraline looks more 3D viewing the 2D version, than any other animated film I've seen. More than any film period. Taking the glasses off and watching in 2D really doesn't take much away from the illusion. It beats ABL significantly in this dept.


Finding fault:

... this is gonna be really short. Ok! I think I'm done.


Due to the brightness and punch of the colors, I'll recommend this fall below ABL somewhere. From there, it's always hard to nail down a placement.


Having recently viewed Ratatouille, and having seen Wall E before and not being impressed at all, having seen MTR's some time ago... Well, then seeing Coraline and ABL, tends to make me think these three films could be dropped out of tier blu... The animation bars been raised that far.


Must leave. I'll edit for the inevitable grammar/spelling/typing errors later.
Coraline


Tier Recommendation: Zero somewhere.

Viewed on InFocus X10, 106" Dalite HC-Wh, from 11'


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Thanks for the review, K-Spaz!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17172228
> 
> 
> Thanks for the review, K-Spaz!



+1


I absolutely agree with all the praise you gave to Coraline and I thank you for the excellent review.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button


recommendation: Tier 1.75
*

There was much discussion of this particular title in the thread, so I will contribute my own impressions of the disc. Opinions expressed here were all over the place, from djoberg's placement in tier 1.5 to scores near the bottom of tier two. I was not planning to write a review, but the current placement in tier 2.25 appeared a little low to my eyes after my initial viewing. While the image has no stunning visual content, it is consistent and of a quality that is superior to the other titles in tier two.


This David Fincher movie debuted on Blu-ray in May of this year courtesy of Criterion, who licensed it from Paramount. The 166-minute film is encoded in AVC on a BD-50. BDInfo gives the average video bitrate as 30.96 Mbps. Fincher primarily used the Thomson VIPER camera to shoot this movie, so the final look is more typical of high-definition video than pure film.


Compression is never a major problem, even on a movie of this length, as the healthy encoding parameters allow the image to appear fully transparent to the Digital Intermediate this transfer was most likely sourced from. There are some minor instances of light banding, particularly noticeable around point-sources of light, but nothing else to report that could be attributed to the compression encoding. I applaud Criterion for letting the movie itself use an entire BD-50 and allowing the extras on a second BD. It is the model for how a studio should treat longer movies on Blu-ray. This could have turned out much worse if the decision had been made to include everything on one BD.


The image is devoid of grain and noise for the most part. Fincher's skill in shooting with HD-cameras has advanced since _Zodiac_, as the picture does not manifest some of the problems that movie displayed on Blu-ray. While black levels are not perfect, they are consistent with a more pleasing uniformity than what was seen in _Zodiac_. Contrast is perfect, with fine color rendition when called for by the setting. There were no obvious signs of ringing or added edge enhancement, and complaints will probably shift from some viewers about certain shots that are softer than one would expect. Most of the movie is relatively sharp and well-defined, though the extensive use and blending of CGI looks to have softened certain scenes. Clarity and overall resolution look very good to great in places.


What keeps the placement near the bottom of tier one is the conscious aesthetic choices the movie's cinematography displays. Altered color palettes and lighting choices are used to set the mood of most scenes. It is clear that color was tweaked on a scene-to-scene basis in post-production on the Digital Intermediate. The scenes in the hospital are appropriately muted and restrained, while early scenes from Benjamin's life are lit in a sepia and amber glow that one associates with the era. The rare bursts of bright color, as when Benjamin sails on the open water, look spectacular. The picture does not quite have the depth and focus of higher-ranked titles, but has a nice sense of three-dimensionality that does not call attention to itself. High-frequency content looks detailed but the majority of close shots involve actors that have heavy amounts of makeup to simulate aging. The image has no real signs of digital noise reduction. The lack of the finest detail in human faces looks to me more the result of heavy makeup and prosthetics than digital processing.


Image quality is very nice overall and pleasing for the most part. It is not a superior example of high-definition compared to tier zero, but good enough to rank over all the other tier two movies I have watched. I could not justify a higher placement than tier 1.75, as the picture has only decent demonstration value.


Watching on a 60” Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 (firmware 3.00) at a viewing distance of six feet.


BDInfo Scan (courtesy of Rieper):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post16402592


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17172395
> 
> *The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 1.75
> *
> 
> There was much discussion of this particular title in the thread, so I will contribute my own impressions of the disc. Opinions expressed here were all over the place, from djoberg's placement in tier 1.5 to scores near the bottom of tier two. I was not planning to write a review, but the current placement in tier 2.25 appeared a little low to my eyes after my initial viewing.



Interesting. I think the current placement at Tier 2.25 is too high.


You and I are one full Tier apart on this title.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17172427
> 
> 
> Interesting. I think the current placement at Tier 2.25 is too high.
> 
> 
> You and I are one full Tier apart on this title.



This is one of those cases where I wish the tiers were still ranked on a title-by-title basis. TCCOBB would be at or near the bottom of tier one in my judgment. There are stretches where the picture quality dips into the second tier. I use the titles currently ranked in each quarter and try to directly compare them in my mind as for placement. In scanning tier two, including the lower half particularly, I just do not see any discs that could consistently be called the equal of TCCOBB. I will admit selected discs in tier 2.0 are pretty close in quality, but my preference would be to move them up to tier one instead of demoting TCCOBB.


I did come across your ranking when perusing the thread. Some were calling for TCCOBB to be placed in tier zero as well. Opinion really was divided on this particular disc. For the most part, it looks to me like tier two has become a dumping ground for inoffensive transfers that are not noteworthy for a thread solely concerned with pure picture quality and demonstration-value. Some participants appear unwilling to condemn a BD to tiers three and four, not even mentioning the depths of tier five.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17173827
> 
> 
> This is one of those cases where I wish the tiers were still ranked on a title-by-title basis. TCCOBB would be at or near the bottom of tier one in my judgment. There are stretches where the picture quality dips into the second tier. I use the titles currently ranked in each quarter and try to directly compare them in my mind as for placement. In scanning tier two, including the lower half particularly, I just do not see any discs that could consistently be called the equal of TCCOBB. I will admit selected discs in tier 2.0 are pretty close in quality, but my preference would be to move them up to tier one instead of demoting TCCOBB.
> 
> 
> I did come across your ranking when perusing the thread. Some were calling for TCCOBB to be placed in tier zero as well. Opinion really was divided on this particular disc. For the most part, it looks to me like tier two has become a dumping ground for inoffensive transfers that are not noteworthy for a thread solely concerned with pure picture quality and demonstration-value. Some participants appear unwilling to condemn a BD to tiers three and four, not even mentioning the depths of tier five.



All good points!


I admit, I do get frustrated a bit with this thread at times, due to the fact that it has become increasingly difficult for the titles placements to have as much meaning as before. There are just too many titles.


The task of trying to figure if a certain title compares favorably with other titles in a certain tier can be frustrating, especially if you do not agree with some of the placements in that tier!


I've got to the place where I rarely look at the placement of other titles when deciding where to place a title that I just reviewed. I didn't used to do that.


I agree with Tier 2 as looking like a "dumping ground", but I think that is inevitable to a degree.


I also agree that Tier 3 has too much of a negative connotation, which is probably why more titles are not placed there (or lower).


----------



## eastbaygreen

I haven't watched it all yet....but I have to say I agree with this review. From the hour or so (scattered scenese throughout) that I've watched, this is definitely a Tier 2, in my eyes.


On my display, teh EE and DNR did not detract from the watchability at all. I wonder if the wide range of reviews has anythign to do with the display it was watched on. I've heard EE is much more visible on LCD's....


The close up facial details are amazing, imo. I was watching this and wondering how everyone could rank this so low.


I'll try to have a more complete review done when I've watched it all....but, as of now, I'm thinking tier 2.0.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17164084
> 
> *Gladiator*
> 
> 
> I approach this review with some trepidation (
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ), considering all that has been said about this title. I don't plan to say much (which will probably please some of you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ); I will confine my remarks solely to what MY EYES SAW.
> 
> 
> The BAD:
> 
> 
> 1) I did see instances of EE and DNR (which I don't usually see), but in all honesty they were minimal.
> 
> 
> 2) The two opening scenes (especially the battle scene) were horrendous. They were riddled with EE, soft, and almost void of detail. Blacks were crushed and murky-looking.
> 
> 
> 3) There was definitely _inconsistency_ due to the additional footage (I watched the EXTENDED version) being added, for one could easily distinguish between the theatrical footage and the extended footage (which was appreciably better).
> 
> 
> The GOOD:
> 
> 
> 1) After the first two or three scenes (about 35 minutes or so into the movie) the PQ became much sharper and detailed and this, for the most part, continued to the end.
> 
> 
> 2) The majority of facial close-ups (which were not plagued by DNR) were simply superb, revealing every wrinkle, pore, stubble, scar, bead of sweat, etc. They were, in my book, Tier 0 quality.
> 
> 
> 3) The detail in a majority of scenes was also Tier 0 quality.
> 
> 
> 4) Depth and dimensionality were very good in several scenes, especially those filmed in parts of Rome, including the Colosseum.
> 
> 
> I found the majority of the film to be demo-worthy (a solid Tier 1, perhaps even 1.0), but due to the first 35 minutes I simply can't, with a good conscience, recommend that placement. All things considered, MY EYES dictate the following....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.0 or 2.25*
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *eastbaygreen* /forum/post/17174977
> 
> 
> I wonder if the wide range of reviews has anythign to do with the display it was watched on. I've heard EE is much more visible on LCD's....



i suspect it comes down mostly to viewing distance (i know that if i get 8 feet or so back from my TV, I can't even distinguish between a tier 3 transfer and a tier 0 transfer by my standards... which is also the main reason EE/sharpening is used, really. if you sit close, you can see the high frequency detail just fine and sharpening just looks nasty, like a really trebly stereo. if you're far away, the LF detail overwhelms the HF to your eyeball and EE makes the image look sharper, in audio terms it's like EQing the high frequencies on your stereo to compensate for a treble-deficient speaker) and to one's personal idea of what a good picture looks like. I find this transfer just as unpleasant on my LCD as I do on my Pioneer. everyone seems to see things completely differently. i'm amazed anyone would say Braveheart is anything but an absolutely gorgeous looking movie with mostly razor sharp detail , but hey, that's only what my own eyeballs are telling me and I've long since realized that my metric of image detail is not the only one and this picture quality thing is very subjective, hence the quote at the beginning of the OP












here's something to read if you're interested in why people may draw radically different conclusions regarding detail levels in blu-rays:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acutance 
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tut.../sharpness.htm


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *eastbaygreen* /forum/post/17174977
> 
> 
> I haven't watched it all yet....but I have to say I agree with this review. From the hour or so (scattered scenese throughout) that I've watched, this is definitely a Tier 2, in my eyes.
> 
> 
> On my display, teh EE and DNR did not detract from the watchability at all. I wonder if the wide range of reviews has anythign to do with the display it was watched on. I've heard EE is much more visible on LCD's....
> 
> 
> The close up facial details are amazing, imo. I was watching this and wondering how everyone could rank this so low.
> 
> 
> I'll try to have a more complete review done when I've watched it all....but, as of now, I'm thinking tier 2.0.




All of our eyes see different things. What you may discern as amazing detail, I might look at as plasticky in comparison to the extended edition footage.


My TV is plasma, and EE looks horrid on it, but I am one of those who are hyper sensitive to it.


I look forward to reading your full review!


----------



## Hughmc

eastbaygreen,


I have an LCD, but it is rear projection LCOS and not a flat panel. It has a very film like image to it. I am convinced my display actually minimizes EE compared to some displays particularly Front Projection on big screens. I also don't think I readily see EE either when most others do. Owners of those displays report EE being quite obtrusive at times, but then again so do owners of smaller displays in the 42-70 inch range. I have the sharpness fairly low where it causes no noticeable anomalies to the PQ unless I go above that level.


I also think you mentioned an important point. Display differences and then take into account variables in lighting, players, etc. and you can have quite a variation of how displays look.


I am fairly certain the problems plaguing the look of Gladiator on BD is over processing beginning with the original print. IMO, using and over using the CGI and green screen of the time makes the fake look at times very obvious. Combine that with the post digital processing on this BD of DNR, and more obviously *EE like I have never seen*, and you get a look where you know something isn't right. It was tampered with too much. Having said that where people recommend placement is their opinion and we all try to respect each others, but sometimes when we are a tier or more apart from another poster we tend to question ourselves and each other more to be as accurate as possible within reason knowing they are opinions. It's a good thing and the flow of this thread.


I rarely get to rate BD's in the lower tiers as I somehow avoid them and usually only buy BD's out for a while that have some positive PQ review history. There are some exceptions to that for me, like some music/concert BD's where I am more focused on audio. I haven't given a formal recommendation for Gladiator, but I am still leaning tier 3.0. The too fake look of the CGI/Green screen and then extreme use of EE to make the CGI/Green screen more obvious killed it for me. In perspective Gladiator and Braveheart are possibly in my top 10 or even top 5 movies of all time, I like them that much so it really is disappointing for me to think of Gladiator this low in the tier thread. Even at 2.0 that some are rating at, think about how a film like that could end up in 2.0 and not even 1.0 or tier 0 when a peer of it, Braveheart showed exactly why it could have. It says a lot that GLadiator by all accounts was not handled well to say the least for such an epic film. I am also certain everyone involved in this thread would rather have seen GLadiator as a tier 0 Blu Ray.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17169967
> 
> *Crank: High Voltage*
> 
> 
> This title has very, very impressive amounts of detail. If you love seeing every strand of hair, stubble, and pores in faces, you will be impressed with this title.
> 
> 
> Also, considering it was shot on HD video, the contrast and black levels are quite good.
> 
> 
> The picture still has an overall "tweaked" look to it, but many will like that "in your face" aspect.
> 
> 
> One thing that really bothered me was how motion comes across as being very "jerky", not smooth at all. It really takes away from the overall PQ in my opinion, and prevents you from enjoying all the detail that is actually present.
> 
> 
> As a result, it falls just short of Tier 0 for me.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.0*



There is some extensive aliasing throughout that drove me nuts. Look at any straight line and you can see it break up. When he is run off the road by the other car, look at their car. The flame-like designs on the car are blocky and undefined. Drove me nuts for most of the film.


Everything else is spectacular though.


----------



## eastbaygreen

yeah, I tend to focus mostly on picture detail, I guess.


I was trying to check out EE a little, but still wasn't bothered by it. But will look closer when I watch it in full.


And, to Hugh...I typically sit about 12-15 feet away from my 50" plasma display but did get closer for a number of scenes. I did notice some EE, but still not enough to really bother me. Again, maybe I'm focusing on detail, which seemed very good to me.







> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17175043
> 
> 
> All of our eyes see different things. What you may discern as amazing detail, I might look at as plasticky in comparison to the extended edition footage.
> 
> 
> My TV is plasma, and EE looks horrid on it, but I am one of those who are hyper sensitive to it.
> 
> 
> I look forward to reading your full review!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

At 12-15 feet I can understand why you might not see some of the things I see. I sit approx 7.5' from my 58" plasma when I'm reviewing.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *eastbaygreen* /forum/post/17178243
> 
> 
> yeah, I tend to focus mostly on picture detail, I guess.
> 
> 
> I was trying to check out EE a little, but still wasn't bothered by it. But will look closer when I watch it in full.
> 
> 
> And, to Hugh...I typically sit about 12-15 feet away from my 50" plasma display but did get closer for a number of scenes. I did notice some EE, but still not enough to really bother me. Again, maybe I'm focusing on detail, which seemed very good to me.



First of all, I sit 8' away (and sometimes 6') from my 60" plasma and I'm still not bothered by EE (unless it's glaring like in the first scene of Gladiator with the fiery arrows). 12-15' away from a 50" plasma is quite a bit, so I was glad to see you did get closer for more critical viewing.


I have said this before, I am truly thankful I'm not sensitive to EE (or DNR for that matter, unless it's an extreme case like George C. Scott in _Patton_). I still believe if one is sensitive to EE, a film like Gladiator is going to really be penalized. Conversely, if one isn't sensitive to EE, it will receive a fairly good rating (Tier 2, IMO). That's why we're seeing such a divergence of opinion on this title.


And then there's those like Hugh who are also bothered by the CGI and "green screen" effect.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17178472
> 
> 
> At 12-15 feet I can understand why you might not see some of the things I see. I sit approx 7.5' from my 58" plasma when I'm reviewing.



Hey G3, I just hit "Submit Reply" for my last post and then I saw your response. It looks like we're on the same page here....it's about time, eh?


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17178503
> 
> 
> Hey G3, I just hit "Submit Reply" for my last post and then I saw your response. It looks like we're on the same page here....it's about time, eh?



*snicker* Indeed! We don't always disagree, though! Same thing happened for me, I hit reply and your note was there.


----------



## djoberg

*Crank: High Voltage*


Okay, I can't give you a full-fledged review because I was so appalled by the content of this movie and the jerky camera-work that I fast-forwarded through some of it. I can only take so much of this kind of mindless absurdity so I probably only viewed about 30-40 minutes in total. I tried to pause and watch scenes that would give me good enough material to judge the PQ.


If I were judging it based on skin tones and facial details alone, I would say it would be on the top of the Blu-ray heap. They were absolutely, positively amazing!! One simply couldn't see any more detail than that with the naked eye, period!


I was NOT as impressed as others with the colors, though the blacks were deep. This was definitely a highly-stylized film which, IMO, left the colors looking very unnatural in some of the scenes that I watched.


I thought the contrast was way too high in a few scenes resulting in blown-up whites and digital noise. To be fair, in other scenes the contrast was strong.


Believe it or not, I was NOT that impressed with detail in general, for I purposely studied a few scenes with grass and trees in the background (medium shots) and it didn't compare to the detail seen in titles such as Earth: Disneynature.


From the footage I saw and studied, I am NOT prepared to throw my lot in with the Tier 0 crowd; in fact, all things considered, I'm going to deviate from my normal _generous_ position and recommend this....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.50*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8' & 6'


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17179574
> 
> *Crank: High Voltage*
> 
> 
> Okay, I can't give you a full-fledged review because I was so appalled by the content of this movie and the jerky camera-work that I fast-forwarded through some of it. I can only take so much of this kind of mindless absurdity so I probably only viewed about 30-40 minutes in total. I tried to pause and watch scenes that would give me good enough material to judge the PQ.
> 
> 
> If I were judging it based on skin tones and facial details alone, I would say it would be on the top of the Blu-ray heap. They were absolutely, positively amazing!! One simply couldn't see any more detail than that with the naked eye, period!
> 
> 
> I was NOT as impressed as others with the colors, though the blacks were deep. This was definitely a highly-stylized film which, IMO, left the colors looking very unnatural in some of the scenes that I watched.
> 
> 
> I thought the contrast was way too high in a few scenes resulting in blown-up whites and digital noise. To be fair, in other scenes the contrast was strong.
> 
> 
> Believe it or not, I was NOT that impressed with detail in general, for I purposely studied a few scenes with grass and trees in the background (medium shots) and it didn't compare to the detail seen in titles such as Earth: Disneynature.
> 
> 
> From the footage I saw and studied, I am NOT prepared to throw my lot in with the Tier 0 crowd; in fact, all things considered, I'm going to deviate from my normal _generous_ position and recommend this....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.50*
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8' & 6'



Good review Denny.


I did find the detail to be very good, but as you correctly point out, there is so much "jerky" motion going on that it makes it hard to notice the detail. I paused several scenes and believe me, the detail is impressive in many scenes....they just don't last very long.


This is one of those titles where I could take some screen grabs that would blow the socks off of people looking at it, and I could also post screen grabs that would make this movie look terrible.


----------



## djoberg

*State of Play*


My understanding of this title is that it was shot using both 35mm and a digital cam and I believe that accounts for the _differences_ between scenes inside the news building (which had more of a film-look and thus shot with 35mm) and those shot in the capitol building (which were sharp as a tack and thus shot with a digital cam). I had not learned this until AFTER I viewed the film, so during the film I thought to myself, "This is pretty _inconsistent_."


I couldn't help but be underwhelmed by the facial close-ups after seeing Crank 2. That's not to say they were bad, but by comparison I would say they averaged low Tier 1 or high Tier 2. In all fairness, there were only a handful of really close shots, but even those paled in comparison to Tier 0 films such as Crank 2 or Transporter 3.


The color palette was subdued. This was no doubt intentional with so many low-lit scenes and perhaps to better fit the genre (of a political thriller in Washington, D.C.). Still, when there were bright scenes the colors really popped and were very natural.


I read quite a few reviews where it was praised for its black levels, but that was NOT what I experienced. There were many night scenes and on my KURO the night sky was more of a dark gray with less-than-stellar shadow detail on buildings, city streets, etc.. During some day time scenes where dark limousines would drive by the blacks were impressive, and some black clothing was also praiseworthy.


Detail was okay, but again I generally thought that this was not a disc that I would pull out to impress my friends and relatives with. I found that in the scenes shot with the digital cam there was better detail, though there were few instances of very good detail in 35mm sequences as well.


This is a tough one for me to call. I think it's better than average (i.e. Tier 3), but not by much. My gut tells me (along with my eyes







) that the following would be fitting....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.5*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'


PS The movie itself was a good rental. There are a LOT of twists and turns, maybe TOO MANY, but I found it entertaining with a top-notch cast. But take into consideration that I watched this about an hour after Crank 2, so perhaps ANYTHING would have seemed good after watching that mindless drivel.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17180400
> 
> 
> Good review Denny.
> 
> 
> I did find the detail to be very good, but as you correctly point out, there is so much "jerky" motion going on that it makes it hard to notice the detail. I paused several scenes and believe me, the detail is impressive in many scenes....they just don't last very long.
> 
> 
> This is one of those titles where I could take some screen grabs that would blow the socks off of people looking at it, and I could also post screen grabs that would make this movie look terrible.



Thanks Rob.


You are no doubt right about the detail being good (as I stated, I really didn't give it my full, undivided attention)...and not lasting long (because of how we were jerked around from beginning to end). That would be cool to see some screen grabs from you showing both ends of the spectrum.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Thanks for the review, Denny. I saw State of Play in the theatre and I'm not sure if I will rent it or not. Sounds a bit on the "meh" side PQ wise.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17180802
> 
> *State of Play*
> 
> 
> My understanding of this title is that it was shot using both 35mm and a digital cam and I believe that accounts for the _differences_ between scenes inside the news building (which had more of a film-look and thus shot with 35mm) and those shot in the capitol building (which were sharp as a tack and thus shot with a digital cam). I had not learned this until AFTER I viewed the film, so during the film I thought to myself, "This is pretty _inconsistent_."
> 
> 
> I couldn't help but be underwhelmed by the facial close-ups after seeing Crank 2. That's not to say they were bad, but by comparison I would say they averaged low Tier 1 or high Tier 2. In all fairness, there were only a handful of really close shots, but even those paled in comparison to Tier 0 films such as Crank 2 or Transporter 3.
> 
> 
> The color palette was subdued. This was no doubt intentional with so many low-lit scenes and perhaps to better fit the genre (of a political thriller in Washington, D.C.). Still, when there were bright scenes the colors really popped and were very natural.
> 
> 
> I read quite a few reviews where it was praised for its black levels, but that was NOT what I experienced. There were many night scenes and on my KURO the night sky was more of a dark gray with less-than-stellar shadow detail on buildings, city streets, etc.. During some day time scenes where dark limousines would drive by the blacks were impressive, and some black clothing was also praiseworthy.
> 
> 
> Detail was okay, but again I generally thought that this was not a disc that I would pull out to impress my friends and relatives with. I found that in the scenes shot with the digital cam there was better detail, though there were few instances of very good detail in 35mm sequences as well.
> 
> 
> This is a tough one for me to call. I think it's better than average (i.e. Tier 3), but not by much. My gut tells me (along with my eyes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) that the following would be fitting....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.5*
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'
> 
> 
> PS The movie itself was a good rental. There are a LOT of twists and turns, maybe TOO MANY, but I found it entertaining with a top-notch cast. But take into consideration that I watched this about an hour after Crank 2, so perhaps ANYTHING would have seemed good after watching that mindless drivel.




WOw Denny, we are way off here I will have to watch it again. I thought it was tier 1.0. -1.5 at worst.










Good flick though. One of the better ones in a while.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17178472
> 
> *At 12-15 feet I can understand why you might not see some of the things I see.* I sit approx 7.5' from my 58" plasma when I'm reviewing.



Indeed.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17181792
> 
> 
> WOw Denny, we are way off here I will have to watch it again. I thought it was tier 1.0. -1.5 at worst.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good flick though. One of the better ones in a while.



Maybe I'll have to time to slip it in before I return it today and see if I was way off. I do know the facial shots were not that impressive (Tier 1 at best, but most of them Tier 2) and the black levels looked either mediocre or dark gray in quite a few shots. I also remember NOT being impressed in the DETAIL and DEPTH department.


It was a clean (i.e., free of artifacts or other anomalies) and relatively sharp transfer (especially the footage shot with the digital cam), but it was just too close to average for me to consider it demo-worthy. But again, if I have time I'll check out a few scenes before my trip to the video store. I do remember thinking I could bump it up to 2.0, but I would never go as far as Tier 1.


----------



## K-Spaz

^^

Denny,

The "weak blacks" might be that it's a live action film and there really isn't much in real life that's "black". Ya know, 0,0,0 RBG. So, if the black cars looked good and other black items looked black, then it's a good bet the grays you saw were supposed to be gray.


I don't disagree with your placement though. That's a hard movie to nail down. In what I saw, rarely was there anything remarkable, and several times there was stuff that looked pretty bad. This movie is going to make it's mark with the content of the movie, not the pq. I thought it was a great movie.


On another note,

Vexille

i saw this last night and have no idea what it's doing in Tier 0. It's got some Tier 0 parts, but it's got some Tier 3.5 parts too. Some scenes are washed out badly, if that's possible in an animated title. It's inconsistent. And while there's some good animation work, there's some stuff that reminds me of Sat AM cartoons. When there are parts of a film that are so bad they make me say to myself, "what is this doing in here", I can't agree with T0.


Some of the real sky shots looked "real" lol. The monsters were too high tech CG to blend in with the rest of the animation. On top of which, our SpecOp's Girl is a wimp. Good thing there's a cold hearted co-star...

*Recommendation: Tier 1.75*

Viewed on InFocus X10, DaLite HCW 106" 16:9, from HTPC ATI 4870, 11 feet, in dedicated room.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/17183020
> 
> 
> ^^
> 
> Denny,
> 
> The "weak blacks" might be that it's a live action film and there really isn't much in real life that's "black". Ya know, 0,0,0 RBG. So, if the black cars looked good and other black items looked black, then it's a good bet the grays you saw were supposed to be gray.
> 
> 
> I don't disagree with your placement though. That's a hard movie to nail down. In what I saw, rarely was there anything remarkable, and several times there was stuff that looked pretty bad. This movie is going to make it's mark with the content of the movie, not the pq. I thought it was a great movie.



You might be right about the blacks in general, but I just perused quite a few scenes again and in at least two of them the night sky in the city just isn't as black as I've seen in other films (like The Dark Knight) and in one it's downright flat. The shadow detail is better than I thought though, so that alone would bump it up, IMO.


I spent about a half hour going through the movie (I felt I owed this to Hugh, for I have always valued his opinion and we are usually fairly close in our assessment) and it did look better to me this morning. I don't know if it's because my eyes are more fresh in the morning (







), or if it just didn't look that good last night after seeing the amazing details in Crank 2. Whatever the case may be, it looked sharper and more detailed this morning, though I would still be reluctant to put this title in to WOW my friends with (in other words, it still isn't "demo-worthy" in my book). I had said in my last post that the highest I would be willing to go would be 2.0, and I think that's the best I could do. So I will officially change my recommendation....

*State of Play*

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


PS If one had never seen Blu-ray before they might very well be WOWED by this title, but for those of us who have seen many new titles come out that have amazing detail, depth, and dimensionality, along with superb colors, black levels, shadow detail, and contrast, this film just doesn't rise to the level of Tiers 0 or 1. Or have I become somewhat jaded?!


----------



## K-Spaz

Well, figure too that TDK is heavily CG so everything in it will be unnatural, perhaps oversaturated, maybe even downright wrong. I doubt there's much CG in SoP, and I'd be real surprised if they'd go to the extent of changing a sky to a CG one just to make a scene look great, where in TDK, I'd expect it.


I still wouldn't have disagreed with your first recommendation, (nor will i this one).


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

I don't think you're being jaded, Denny. Some movies just aren't in the top two tiers!


K-Spaz, while I haven't searched it, maybe there's not many other reviews for Vexille? I've never seen it, but I know that it was when the revamp happened that the consensus was met to have a few votes for tier 0 before something could be placed there, but would be put in the holdings area. However Vexille may have got up there before that happened. Just a thought anyway.



I've got my copy of X-men Origins: Wolverine now, so I am a happy camper. Hopefully I'll get a review of that up in the next day or two!


----------



## K-Spaz

GGG,


I'll search later to see how many there are and what they said. I've been making it a point not to read others reviews first because I don't want to be influenced one way or the other. If that helps or not, who knows! If other reviewers saw this a long time ago and didn't have something better to compare to it would make sense it might slip into T0, but it doesn't look that good to me now.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17183353
> 
> 
> I don't think you're being jaded, Denny. Some movies just aren't in the top two tiers!
> 
> 
> I've got my copy of X-men Origins: Wolverine now, so I am a happy camper. Hopefully I'll get a review of that up in the next day or two!



I agree G3!


I have _X-Men Origins: Wolverine_ reserved at the video store where I'll be dropping off _State of Play_. I plan to watch it tonight. I'll look forward to your review.


----------



## IanRW




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17164084
> 
> *Gladiator*
> 
> 
> The BAD:
> 
> 
> 1) I did see instances of EE and DNR (which I don't usually see), but in all honesty they were minimal.
> 
> 
> 2) The two opening scenes (especially the battle scene) were horrendous. They were riddled with EE, soft, and almost void of detail. Blacks were crushed and murky-looking.
> 
> 
> 3) There was definitely _inconsistency_ due to the additional footage (I watched the EXTENDED version) being added, for one could easily distinguish between the theatrical footage and the extended footage (which was appreciably better).
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.0 or 2.25*
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'



I don't know...what you describe seems like Tier 3 to me. Keep in mind that tier two is supposed to be titles that are very good with almost no artifacts, albeit not quite demo worthy.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

K-Spaz -- You'll be happy to know that Zip.ca has just informed me that *The Other Boleyn Girl* has shipped and should arrive for me on Monday or Tuesday.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Oh. I Just remembered that I never did a review for *The Tale of Despereaux*. Main reason being I was distracted a few times through the movie and so I didn't feel I watched enough of it to do a review & I've already sent it back. But just in case someone comes surfing around and does a search wondering where it would be, I'm comfortable enough saying that _unofficially_ it would be in around *Tier 1.5 or possibly higher* with a better eye on it than mine was when it was on.


----------



## eastbaygreen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/17182056
> 
> 
> Indeed.



I know, I know...I'm in a condo in the SF bay area now...and trying to get into a new house w/ an inlaw unit that will be used as a dedicated theater w/ front projector (when the inlaws aren't around anyway). I've got a pretty good set up, but the viewing distance is just dictated by our room layout. We have a large main room and I can't convince the wife to re-arrange just for movie viewing. I still feel at 12' I can be a good judge of PQ.....


Anyway.....hoping to get this all fixed in the upcoming move...next year.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *IanRW* /forum/post/17184149
> 
> 
> I don't know...what you describe seems like Tier 3 to me. Keep in mind that tier two is supposed to be titles that are very good with almost no artifacts, albeit not quite demo worthy.



Normally I would agree with you, but as I pointed out the EE and DNR was, to MY EYES, very minimal (i.e., they only lasted a few seconds each occurrence). I referred to the first two scenes where these occurred, along with some softness, lack of detail, and crushed blacks. The actual running time where these anomalies occurred was perhaps 10 minutes. With the extended version of the movie lasting just shy of 3 hours, I don't believe 10 minutes of poor quality shots should disqualify the film from being in Tier 2. Again, to MY EYES the vast majority of the movie was easily Tier 1 or Tier 2 quality, and some shots were Tier 0 material. All things considered, it deserves a Tier 2 placement, IMO.


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17184825
> 
> 
> K-Spaz -- You'll be happy to know that Zip.ca has just informed me that *The Other Boleyn Girl* has shipped and should arrive for me on Monday or Tuesday.



Yer in for quite a treat on the ole' panny there!


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17183161
> 
> 
> You might be right about the blacks in general, but I just perused quite a few scenes again and in at least two of them the night sky in the city just isn't as black as I've seen in other films (like The Dark Knight) and in one it's downright flat. The shadow detail is better than I thought though, so that alone would bump it up, IMO.
> 
> 
> I spent about a half hour going through the movie (I felt I owed this to Hugh, for I have always valued his opinion and we are usually fairly close in our assessment) and it did look better to me this morning. I don't know if it's because my eyes are more fresh in the morning (
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ), or if it just didn't look that good last night after seeing the amazing details in Crank 2. Whatever the case may be, it looked sharper and more detailed this morning, though I would still be reluctant to put this title in to WOW my friends with (in other words, it still isn't "demo-worthy" in my book). I had said in my last post that the highest I would be willing to go would be 2.0, and I think that's the best I could do. So I will officially change my recommendation....
> 
> *State of Play*
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.0*
> 
> 
> PS If one had never seen Blu-ray before they might very well be WOWED by this title, but for those of us who have seen many new titles come out that have amazing detail, depth, and dimensionality, along with superb colors, black levels, shadow detail, and contrast, this film just doesn't rise to the level of Tiers 0 or 1. Or have I become somewhat jaded?!



Hey Denny, I was thinking Crank 2 might have jaded you a bit as I have had that happen before with titles that are tier 0 and then you see something even tier 1 and think it pales in comparison.


I am going to go through STate of Play again today. As you say we are usually fairly close in recommendations, but I guess I was surprised to see you rate it the same as Gladiator, since my spread from Gladiator to State of Play is 2 full tiers apart.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17186067
> 
> 
> Normally I would agree with you, but as I pointed out the EE and DNR was, to MY EYES, very minimal (i.e., they only lasted a few seconds each occurrence). I referred to the first two scenes where these occurred, along with some softness, lack of detail, and crushed blacks. The actual running time where these anomalies occurred was perhaps 10 minutes. With the extended version of the movie lasting just shy of 3 hours, I don't believe 10 minutes of poor quality shots should disqualify the film from being in Tier 2. Again, to MY EYES the vast majority of the movie was easily Tier 1 or Tier 2 quality, and some shots were Tier 0 material. All things considered, it deserves a Tier 2 placement, IMO.



Denny, what I am curious about is the disconnect we are having on Gladiator and State of Play. You are seeing them as more or less the same in terms of PQ or at least the tiers and I am seeing them almost two tiers apart.


When I did my math and was corrected by dapriceis, he used a chart to correlate what the equivalent of pro or review sites would be. Now it isn't anything more than just a reference point for discussion as are pro reviews, and for our purposes they mean nothing concrete, but... Most reviews came in at 7.5 out of 10 or 75% including our own Ralph Potts and The bland who you referenced. 7.5 or 75% equates to about 3.0. Most reviews for State of Play are coming in at 4.0-4.5 out of 10 which equates to about 1.75. As usual in the greater scheme this really doesn't matter, but it is interesting for discussion and how differently we see things.


I am having a bit of debate with some in the GLadiator thread about the "mistakes" left in considering the stink many made about the DNR and EE being so atrocious for a major film. You can read my take on leaving those mistakes in that thread, but I find it nothing short of appalling that they are left in considering they are academy award nominated or winners for editing and best picture.


This is where I wish we lived closer and get to watch and critique these Blu Rays together. I think it would be really interesting to share our views on the fly while watching.


----------



## msgohan

What about those BD-Live concurrent viewing sessions?











> Quote:
> The Blu-ray "BD Live" bonus feature allows viewers with Blu-ray or Playstation 3 players connected to the Internet to go online with friends or family anywhere in the country who also have Blu-ray and Internet capability to set up specific movie chat times. Both parties must own the Blu-ray version of the same movie in order to sync the movie for simultaneous viewing and the person who initiates the chat session controls movie functions like pause, fast forward etc. Chat session participants can instant message one another right on screen as the movie plays for an interactive experience that's just a step away from viewing the movie together in the same room. The only real delay is the time it takes to maneuver your remote through the onscreen keyboard, though the capability to link with your computer keyboard or handheld device makes messaging back and forth less cumbersome.



Dunno how many movies have them.


----------



## djoberg

*X-Men Origins: Wolverine*


Notice to GRAIN LOVERS: You will more than likely love the PQ, though it has a few problems. I thought this would be an appropriate preface to my review, for this title had a coating of grain from start to finish; most of it was a fine layer and yielded excellent results, and some of it was a tad too much and was a bit too gritty for my liking.


If you know me at all, you know I LOVE FACIAL CLOSE-UPS, and this film did NOT disappoint, especially the really close shots (medium shots didn't fare as well). The texture of each actor's skin was finely rendered and in one shot of Wolverine's girlfriend (of her laying on the ground near the end of the movie) you could see very tiny peach fuzz on her chin, and this was actually a medium to close shot. These did not compare with _Crank 2_ or _Transporter 3_, but they were still low Tier 0 quality.


Blacks were, for the most part, very deep, and this gave many shots appreciable depth. Shadow detail was also quite good (in those scenes with fine grain).


The color palette was somewhat limited, but they were still natural-looking, and in daytime scenes they were quite rich and warm.


Detail overall was impressive, especially daytime scenes of the Canadian Rockies and their valleys. Again, I just loved the fine layer of grain and the texture it yielded.


In addition to some *gritty* scenes, there were also a number of *soft* scenes. I also detected some digital noise in a few scenes. _Some_ of the CGI made it look like a cheap set, which served to distract me. All of these combined caused me to penalize the title by at least half a tier.


Because of the inconsistency of this film this is another hard one to call. When I think of the last two titles I watched (_Crank 2_ and _State of Play_), I believe this one falls right in the middle of them PQ-wise, and thus it lands right here....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 6'


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17186540
> 
> 
> Denny, what I am curious about is the disconnect we are having on Gladiator and State of Play. You are seeing them as more or less the same in terms of PQ or at least the tiers and I am seeing them almost two tiers apart.
> 
> 
> When I did my math and was corrected by dapriceis, he used a chart to correlate what the equivalent of pro or review sites would be. Now it isn't anything more than just a reference point for discussion as are pro reviews, and for our purposes they mean nothing concrete, but... Most reviews came in at 7.5 out of 10 or 75% including our own Ralph Potts and The bland who you referenced. 7.5 or 75% equates to about 3.0. Most reviews for State of Play are coming in at 4.0-4.5 out of 10 which equates to about 1.75. As usual in the greater scheme this really doesn't matter, but it is interesting for discussion and how differently we see things.
> 
> 
> This is where I wish we lived closer and get to watch and critique these Blu Rays together. I think it would be really interesting to share our views on the fly while watching.



I have to leave the house for about an hour Hugh, but I wanted to shoot you a quick reply. First of all, I see _Gladiator_ and _State of Play_ at the same tier level, but for very different reasons. Each had their pros and cons and they were NOT the same pros and cons in most instances.


Regarding the "math equation," I go more by what a person says then by the number they assign to their review (I'm speaking of reviews outside this thread, like the one I posted by thebland). I really don't see how one can figure what tier it should be in based on that type of equation.


Yeah, I hear ya Hugh about how nice it would be if we could actually get together to watch Blu-rays and "share our views on the fly while watching." If we could do that "all things would be equal"....we would be watching it on the same equipment, at the same distance, with the same lighting, etc. All of these variables surely enter into the equation when we watch titles and seeing as how we don't share these same variables we are bound to see things a little differently at times.


Gotta run.....oh, BTW, I did read your posts on the other thread and I will have to look more closely for those glaring mistakes you've seen. It is definitely a travesty, to be sure!!


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/17183311
> 
> *Well, figure too that TDK is heavily CG so everything in it will be unnatural, perhaps oversaturated, maybe even downright wrong.* I doubt there's much CG in SoP, and I'd be real surprised if they'd go to the extent of changing a sky to a CG one just to make a scene look great, where in TDK, I'd expect it.
> 
> 
> I still wouldn't have disagreed with your first recommendation, (nor will i this one).



That doesn't correspond with my recollection of TDK. The PQ was problematic because of the use of the over-processed IMAX version for the BD.


----------



## K-Spaz

Patrick,


I think we're getting way off the context on which my statement was made. I don't want to begin some PQ of tdk discussion/war/whatever. Denny referred to tdk for comparison on black sky. I gave my opinion as to why I don't think that comparison is a good one. Pretty much that's it. I didn't make any reference whatsoever to the pq of tdk, nor did he.


To paraphrase what I said, one is a CG movie, one is not.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17184825
> 
> 
> K-Spaz -- You'll be happy to know that Zip.ca has just informed me that *The Other Boleyn Girl* has shipped and should arrive for me on Monday or Tuesday.



I'll be looking for your review on this title with great anticipation G3. I've seen this on Starz and it was amazing. It had the depth and dimensionality of Prince Caspian, and good detail to boot!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/17189932
> 
> 
> Denny referred to tdk for comparison on black sky.



Hey K-Spaz....I watched a few moments of the IMAX film on The Grand Canyon (narrated by Robert Redford) last night on HDNet. They had some aerial night shots of Las Vegas and they were simply phenomenal. The sky was jet-black (the way it is here in the Upper Midwest at times







) and I don't believe they used any CG for that film. Of course, I've seen this in MANY other films as well, so perhaps using The Dark Knight was a poor example. My point is: A deep black night sky is not unnatural, IMHO! And when it is deep black, it really enhances the cityscape with all its lights and colors...true EYE CANDY!!


----------



## jason456

We all know what tier Gladiator should be in

Tier 5

*horrible*, completely unwatchable due to the loads of EE and DNR they used


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jason456* /forum/post/17190190
> 
> 
> We all know what tier Gladiator should be in
> 
> Tier 5
> 
> *horrible*, completely unwatchable due to the loads of EE and DNR they used



You're surely entitled to your opinion, but I must say even the greatest critics of _Gladiator_ are still taking its merits into consideration and before your post the lowest recommendation was in Tier 3. I have to believe you're resorting to hyperbole.


----------



## IanRW




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17190240
> 
> 
> You're surely entitled to your opinion, but I must say even the greatest critics of _Gladiator_ are still taking its merits into consideration and before your post the lowest recommendation was in Tier 3.



Well, technically the "greatest critics" are the ones who are clamoring that its a defective product and needs to be recalled.


----------



## 42041

I definitely think its a pretty bad release myself, but more in the sense that it's a best picture winner and a major blockbuster that's not even a decade old rather than on the absolute spectrum of blu-ray quality, which is how this thread is arranged. I mean, you can tell it's HD at least. There's some real garbage out on blu-ray, various b-movies and whatnot that would be all but indistinguishable from a DVD. And some stuff that probably looks as good as it could but was filmed on 16mm or something.


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17190089
> 
> 
> Hey K-Spaz....I watched a few moments of the IMAX film on The Grand Canyon (narrated by Robert Redford) last night on HDNet. They had some aerial night shots of Las Vegas and they were simply phenomenal. The sky was jet-black (the way it is here in the Upper Midwest at times
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) and I don't believe they used any CG for that film. Of course, I've seen this in MANY other films as well, so perhaps using The Dark Knight was a poor example. My point is: A deep black night sky is not unnatural, IMHO! And when it is deep black, it really enhances the cityscape with all its lights and colors...true EYE CANDY!!



Interesting... Well then I don't know how they're making that sky so dark. Unless it's a choice of film speed that's causing the film to pick up no light whatsoever. Maybe its in the mastering of the film and they're allowing just a tick of black crush (like 3 or 4 values) to help blacks be blacker.


I live in a rural area in PA. I don't have neighbors (for all intents and purposes). My nearest in one direction is 300 yards, and in any other direction, 1200yds to a mile +. So not much light to disturb the peace. If I shoot a 35 mm shot of a sky here on a new moon, I don't think that'll be that dark.


Maybe that's it too. New moon vs 3/4 or full?


And then too, maybe it's just more bad camera work! Hehe


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *IanRW* /forum/post/17191128
> 
> 
> Well, technically the "greatest critics" are the ones who are clamoring that its a defective product and needs to be recalled.



I was referring to critics on _this thread_, not the thread where some members have "made a mountain out of a mole hill" by calling for a recall. Now before you react to that statement let me make myself clear and say emphatically that I believe Paramount definitely dropped the ball with _Gladiator_ and that we do NOT have the boasted transfer they were promising us in their new Sapphire Series (we do have that with _Braveheart_ though). I just don't believe it is bad enough to demand a recall and there are a good number of members who have posted in both threads that enjoy the transfer in spite of its flaws. Personally, I think it's time to lay this bad boy to rest....we have reached the point where we are simply "beating a dead horse."


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/17189932
> 
> 
> Patrick,
> 
> 
> I think we're getting way off the context on which my statement was made. I don't want to begin some PQ of tdk discussion/war/whatever. Denny referred to tdk for comparison on black sky. I gave my opinion as to why I don't think that comparison is a good one. Pretty much that's it. I didn't make any reference whatsoever to the pq of tdk, nor did he.
> 
> 
> To paraphrase what I said, one is a CG movie, one is not.



I could have been clearer, but my main point was that I don't recall TDK being a CG movie.


----------



## Filmaholic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/17183020
> 
> 
> ^^
> 
> 
> On another note,
> 
> Vexille
> 
> i saw this last night and have no idea what it's doing in Tier 0. It's got some Tier 0 parts, but it's got some Tier 3.5 parts too. Some scenes are washed out badly, if that's possible in an animated title. It's inconsistent. And while there's some good animation work, there's some stuff that reminds me of Sat AM cartoons. When there are parts of a film that are so bad they make me say to myself, "what is this doing in here", I can't agree with T0.
> 
> 
> Some of the real sky shots looked "real" lol. The monsters were too high tech CG to blend in with the rest of the animation. On top of which, our SpecOp's Girl is a wimp. Good thing there's a cold hearted co-star...
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 1.75*
> 
> Viewed on InFocus X10, DaLite HCW 106" 16:9, from HTPC ATI 4870, 11 feet, in dedicated room.



You are absolutely right, Vexille has no business being at Tier Blu.

Besides the flaws you did catch, there's lots of dithering. And the anime sucks.


By the way, Appleseed Ex-Machina is also overrated at Tier 1.5. It looks awfull to me, the colour banding is borderline atrocious, and it has lots of "mosquito noise", that's digital noise, not grain


----------



## Filmaholic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17172427
> 
> 
> Interesting. I think the current placement at Tier 2.25 is too high.
> 
> 
> You and I are one full Tier apart on this title.



Ok, awesome.


I think TCCOBB is Tier0 material. I don't think it's softness detracts from the overall PQ, detail is amazing and contrast is spot on. Blacks are just that, not some digital gray scale fake. No DNR or EE. Minor banding on skin tones.


Again, it should be, at the very least, Tier 1.25. But I stand by my noob opinion, it is Tier Blu in my personal book.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/17192396
> 
> 
> Interesting... Well then I don't know how they're making that sky so dark. Unless it's a choice of film speed that's causing the film to pick up no light whatsoever. Maybe its in the mastering of the film and they're allowing just a tick of black crush (like 3 or 4 values) to help blacks be blacker.
> 
> 
> I live in a rural area in PA. I don't have neighbors (for all intents and purposes). My nearest in one direction is 300 yards, and in any other direction, 1200yds to a mile +. So not much light to disturb the peace. If I shoot a 35 mm shot of a sky here on a new moon, I don't think that'll be that dark.
> 
> 
> Maybe that's it too. New moon vs 3/4 or full?
> 
> 
> And then too, maybe it's just more bad camera work! Hehe



I've taken lightning pics at night here in mile-high country and the sky can definitely hit pitch black, sometimes almost velvetty. You can also shorten your duration for the the same aperture and it'll surely be dark.


Either way, keep it coming guys (and gal, of course







). Still on vacation here in the _upper_ upper northwest enjoying all the reading in this thread. I've purchased _Wolverine_ as well, but the home theatre setup here isn't conducive to a fair review. So, I'll wait till I get back. However, from what I remember at the theatres, I think Denny's review is fairly accurate.


No tax here either so I may pick up a few more BRs to take home.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*X-Men Origins: Wolverine*


Meant to post this review yesterday but I didn't have time to get it written up.


I am in the camp of folks who really liked this movie. Decent comic-book movie for my ever-growing comic-book movie collection (which I find amusing, since the only comic books I read much of were Spider Man ones, and I *refuse* to buy those movies).

Note: I am not referring to Wolverine's claws when I am talking about the PQ at the moment, I'll get to that later on, okay? Okay!


After the opening sequence of this movie, during the title credits (to avoid having to use spoilers here) there is a thick amount of grain/noise overtop, and it's very soft. It's obviously done on purpose, and to me this sequence here shows how good the quality of the picture gets.


Details are abundant (outside of the title credit sequence) throughout this movie. Far away shots are really clear; facial details are superb, textures are fantastic.


The colours used in this movie are not the vibrant lush type that I generally prefer, but they feel true. The fact that this movie is so dark a lot of the times and lit by sources like.. campfires (one that I can remember off the top of my head!) I find that some of the skin tones are a bit off; however I think it's as a result of weird lighting in some of the scenes. When the lighting is normal, the skin tones were normal.



This film had some strange moments for me with the fact that there were parts I felt were soft-ISH, but yet still felt the scene had a tremendous amount of detail. I think instead of "soft" a more correct word that I can think of is subdued. At any rate, it was very rare that I felt that the details were absent because of this... subdued softness? I dunno, perhaps someone else will understand what I mean by this!









The Claws.


Okay. Now, when I saw this in the theatre, I didn't notice how absolutely atrocious Logan's claws look. At home on my Panny, though, it was not very forgiving at all. THEY'RE TERRIBLE. Actually no; they're not terrible. They're LAUGHABLE. I recently watched the X-men trilogy, and I don't remember Logan's claws making me giggle as much as they did when I was watching X-Men Origins:Wolverine on my Panny. I might have to pop one in and have a look again; at any rate they were really really bad. I'm not the sort who has big opinions on CGI in this sort of movie, but DAYUM.



Overall, despite Wolverine's crappy claws, I rather enjoyed this film, and found the PQ to be very acceptable. I did not notice ANY edge enhancement at all. Once or twice there was a high-contrast type of edge, but if it didn't annoy me and my psychotically insane intolerance for edge enhancement, then I really think that it would not even come onto your radar.







Mr. Jackman, I'm willing to forgive any sort of crappy quality on Wolverine's claws in future movies, so long as you distract me away from them by keeping your shirt off.







Bringing along that guy who played Gambit would not hurt your chances in distracting me as well.










*Recommendation for X:Men Origins: Wolverine - Tier 1.75*
*Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800u THX setting, approx 7.5'.*


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17187064
> 
> *X-Men Origins: Wolverine*
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75*
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 6'



*gasp* I totally didn't see your review until I read Deltasun's post above my review I had no clue you posted that. Wonder how I missed it.... and hilarious how we're on the same page tier-wise!




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17198485
> 
> 
> I've taken lightning pics at night here in mile-high country and the sky can definitely hit pitch black, sometimes almost velvetty. You can also shorten your duration for the the same aperture and it'll surely be dark.
> 
> 
> Either way, keep it coming guys (and gal, of course
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ). Still on vacation here in the _upper_ upper northwest enjoying all the reading in this thread. I've purchased _Wolverine_ as well, but the home theatre setup here isn't conducive to a fair review. So, I'll wait till I get back. However, from what I remember at the theatres, I think Denny's review is fairly accurate.
> 
> 
> No tax here either so I may pick up a few more BRs to take home.



"upper" upper northwest? Didja come back up to the arctic for a visit?











Oh on the note of taking a pic of a black sky, I'm willing to bet I could do that up here. Once December hits and we're only getting daylight from about 10am-3pm, it's pretty darn dark out there, unless those pesky northern lights are dancing about the sky! I think my camera's too crappy to try this out, though!


----------



## djoberg

*Duplicity*


This is one NICE-LOOKING transfer!! I don't believe I have anything negative to report, other than the first one or two scenes didn't seem quite as sharp as the remainder of the film.


I LOVED the blacks; they were as inky as I've seen lately with ultra-fine shadow details on top of that. When I say "inky" black, I'm not just referring to night time skies, but to clothes, cars, and other objects as well. If your HDTV does blacks well, you will be pleased!


Colors were vibrant, natural-looking, and really popped at times. This movie took place in MANY places all over the world (Rome, London, Bahamas, New York, etc.) and the director made sure they were all picturesque and colorful scenes. What a treat!


Flesh tones were excellent, and facial close-ups were usually around the high Tier 1 mark. In some close-ups they crossed over to Tier Blu territory.










Detail and depth were very good as well with a lot of 3D pop to satisfy those of us who are not easily satisfied. Let me just say there were a few scenes where I was completely satiated!!


Contrast was strong (i.e., well-balanced). I didn't notice any crushed blacks or over-blown whites.


This is one CLEAN and SHARP transfer that I would be proud to use as a demo for my family and friends. I can't really say it's reference quality though, for it was still lacking a bit in facial details, but all-in-all it's still worthy of a high Tier 1 placement. So, I would naturally put it right here....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17199018
> 
> 
> *gasp* I totally didn't see your review until I read Deltasun's post above my review I had no clue you posted that. Wonder how I missed it.... and hilarious how we're on the same page tier-wise!



I just got home about 20 minutes ago and I was delighted by your review AND by the fact we were on the same page.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17199110
> 
> *Duplicity*
> 
> 
> 
> I LOVED the blacks; they were as inky as I've seen lately with ultra-fine shadow details on top of that. When I say "inky" black, I'm not just referring to night time skies, but to clothes, cars, and other objects as well. If your HDTV does blacks well, you will be pleased!
> 
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.0*



Good to hear about the blacks, as it was shot in digital. How was the actual movie?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/17199281
> 
> 
> Good to hear about the blacks, as it was shot in digital. How was the actual movie?



It was a good rental (it was well-paced and kept my attention throughout), though I wouldn't buy it unless it goes into the bargain barrel. It had a few twists and turns and the ending really surprised me (and I'm usually quite good at guessing the outcome).


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17198962
> 
> *X-Men Origins: Wolverine*
> 
> 
> Meant to post this review yesterday but I didn't have time to get it written up.
> 
> 
> I am in the camp of folks who really liked this movie. Decent comic-book movie for my ever-growing comic-book movie collection (which I find amusing, since the only comic books I read much of were Spider Man ones, and I *refuse* to buy those movies).
> 
> Note: I am not referring to Wolverine's claws when I am talking about the PQ at the moment, I'll get to that later on, okay? Okay!
> 
> 
> After the opening sequence of this movie, during the title credits (to avoid having to use spoilers here) there is a thick amount of grain/noise overtop, and it's very soft. It's obviously done on purpose, and to me this sequence here shows how good the quality of the picture gets.
> 
> 
> Details are abundant (outside of the title credit sequence) throughout this movie. Far away shots are really clear; facial details are superb, textures are fantastic.
> 
> 
> The colours used in this movie are not the vibrant lush type that I generally prefer, but they feel true. The fact that this movie is so dark a lot of the times and lit by sources like.. campfires (one that I can remember off the top of my head!) I find that some of the skin tones are a bit off; however I think it's as a result of weird lighting in some of the scenes. When the lighting is normal, the skin tones were normal.
> 
> 
> 
> This film had some strange moments for me with the fact that there were parts I felt were soft-ISH, but yet still felt the scene had a tremendous amount of detail. I think instead of "soft" a more correct word that I can think of is subdued. At any rate, it was very rare that I felt that the details were absent because of this... subdued softness? I dunno, perhaps someone else will understand what I mean by this!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Claws.
> 
> 
> Okay. Now, when I saw this in the theatre, I didn't notice how absolutely atrocious Logan's claws look. At home on my Panny, though, it was not very forgiving at all. THEY'RE TERRIBLE. Actually no; they're not terrible. They're LAUGHABLE. I recently watched the X-men trilogy, and I don't remember Logan's claws making me giggle as much as they did when I was watching X-Men Origins:Wolverine on my Panny. I might have to pop one in and have a look again; at any rate they were really really bad. I'm not the sort who has big opinions on CGI in this sort of movie, but DAYUM.
> 
> 
> 
> Overall, despite Wolverine's crappy claws, I rather enjoyed this film, and found the PQ to be very acceptable. I did not notice ANY edge enhancement at all. Once or twice there was a high-contrast type of edge, but if it didn't annoy me and my psychotically insane intolerance for edge enhancement, then I really think that it would not even come onto your radar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Jackman, I'm willing to forgive any sort of crappy quality on Wolverine's claws in future movies, so long as you distract me away from them by keeping your shirt off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bringing along that guy who played Gambit would not hurt your chances in distracting me as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Recommendation for X:Men Origins: Wolverine - Tier 1.75*
> *Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800u THX setting, approx 7.5'.*


*X Men Origins: Wolverine*


I watched it last night too.


I'm quoting your review because I agree with most of the comments that you make about the PQ. However, I was more distracted by the many soft scenes that you make reference to.


Overall it is a good looking title, and "film like", but I will have to disagree with it being a Tier 1 title.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*


As for the movie itself: I am a big fan of the original X Men movies. This one was pretty much panned by the critics. I didn't think it was as bad as many of the reviews, but it most certainly fell flat compared to the other movies (at least the first two). The story was not very good in my opinion.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17199110
> 
> *Duplicity*
> 
> 
> This is one NICE-LOOKING transfer!! I don't believe I have anything negative to report, other than the first one or two scenes didn't seem quite as sharp as the remainder of the film.
> 
> 
> I LOVED the blacks; they were as inky as I've seen lately with ultra-fine shadow details on top of that. When I say "inky" black, I'm not just referring to night time skies, but to clothes, cars, and other objects as well. If your HDTV does blacks well, you will be pleased!
> 
> 
> Colors were vibrant, natural-looking, and really popped at times. This movie took place in MANY places all over the world (Rome, London, Bahamas, New York, etc.) and the director made sure they were all picturesque and colorful scenes. What a treat!
> 
> 
> Flesh tones were excellent, and facial close-ups were usually around the high Tier 1 mark. In some close-ups they crossed over to Tier Blu territory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Detail and depth were very good as well with a lot of 3D pop to satisfy those of us who are not easily satisfied. Let me just say there were a few scenes where I was completely satiated!!
> 
> 
> Contrast was strong (i.e., well-balanced). I didn't notice any crushed blacks or over-blown whites.
> 
> 
> This is one CLEAN and SHARP transfer that I would be proud to use as a demo for my family and friends. I can't really say it's reference quality though, for it was still lacking a bit in facial details, but all-in-all it's still worthy of a high Tier 1 placement. So, I would naturally put it right here....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.0*
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'




This movie was so horrifyingly bad (my wife even hated it!) that I would never consider putting it on for demo material....not to mention the fact that I didn't think it looked nearly as good as you did.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17199417
> 
> 
> This movie was so horrifyingly bad (my wife even hated it!) that I would never consider putting it on for demo material....*not to mention the fact that I didn't think it looked nearly as good as you did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *



Rob, you really should consider having those cataracts removed....then you'll see things the way I do!







All kidding aside, it looked fantastic my on KURO; the deep blacks resulted in everything else (other colors, depth, etc.) looking great.


Regarding the movie, I didn't think it was bad, but then again, that's just me.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/17199281
> 
> 
> Good to hear about the blacks, as it was shot in digital. How was the actual movie?



really? IMDB says it was shot on anamorphic 35mm.

my friend had some very nasty things to say about that movie so i think i'll be skipping it.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17199501
> 
> 
> Rob, you really should consider having those cataracts removed....then you'll see things the way I do!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All kidding aside, it looked fantastic my on KURO; the deep blacks resulted in everything else (other colors, depth, etc.) looking great.
> 
> 
> Regarding the movie, I didn't think it was bad, but then again, that's just me.



Well, I was very much with you on Coraline, so those cataracts must have come on in the last week!










Really, this was a mid Tier 2 movie at best, imo.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/17199570
> 
> 
> really? IMDB says it was shot on anamorphic 35mm.
> 
> my friend had some very nasty things to say about that movie so i think i'll be skipping it.



Your friend is 100% correct in my opinion.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17199386
> 
> *X Men Origins: Wolverine*
> 
> 
> I watched it last night too.
> 
> 
> I'm quoting your review because I agree with most of the comments that you make about the PQ. However, I was more distracted by the many soft scenes that you make reference to.
> 
> 
> Overall it is a good looking title, and "film like", but I will have to disagree with it being a Tier 1 title.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.25*
> 
> 
> As for the movie itself: I am a big fan of the original X Men movies. This one was pretty much panned by the critics. I didn't think it was as bad as many of the reviews, but it most certainly fell flat compared to the other movies (at least the first two). The story was not very good in my opinion.




I hadn't seen the 3rd movie until my husband picked me up the trilogy on Blu a couple of weeks ago. Now THAT was terrible, omg. I can understand why people didn't like that one.



Origins:Wolverine I think was pretty good, but you're right that it's not as good as the first two. Especially if in the first two, Logan's claws looked as horrid as they do in Origin, I was much too immersed in the story (or perhaps a cosmo or two too deep?







) to notice, but it was just too obvious in this one for sure.



To me, there's enough great PQ in Origins:Wolverine to keep it in Tier 1 (albeit at the low end of it), but I definitely appreciate your viewpoint on the softer scenes, as well as your thoughts on the movie as a whole.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17199858
> 
> 
> I hadn't seen the 3rd movie until my husband picked me up the trilogy on Blu a couple of weeks ago. Now THAT was terrible, omg. I can understand why people didn't like that one.
> 
> 
> 
> Origins:Wolverine I think was pretty good, but you're right that it's not as good as the first two. Especially if in the first two, Logan's claws looked as horrid as they do in Origin, I was much too immersed in the story (or perhaps a cosmo or two too deep?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) to notice, but it was just too obvious in this one for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> To me, there's enough great PQ in Origins:Wolverine to keep it in Tier 1 (albeit at the low end of it), but I definitely appreciate your viewpoint on the softer scenes, as well as your thoughts on the movie as a whole.



Geeky, the bottom line here is that you and I agree on this more than we disagree!










Wolverine was definitely better than the 3rd installment of X Men.


----------



## djoberg

*The Code*


I would guess you can tell I'm running out of Blu-rays to rent since I broke down and rented _The Code_. Rob is right about this being a lousy movie, but the PQ is anything but lousy; in fact, it's another "demo-worthy" title.


I'm tired so I will keep this review short. Suffice it to say it had just about everything right....good black levels and shadow detail (though the last couple of scenes deteriorated a bit in this area)....vibrant colors....excellent contrast....accurate fleshtones and very detailed facial shots....and last, but not least, impressive details, depth, and dimensionality.


Let's see now, Rob opted for a 1.75 and I believe his cataracts had started rearing their ugly heads by then







, so I had better go with....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25 or 1.5*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Mr. Softie Denny, you're really not one to toss around the cataracts comments, are ya?







j/k j/k.



Rob, yeah that 3rd installment was horrible. Mr.Geeky & I watched it and were floored by the poor job. I think that all fans of the series would seriously accept a, "Mulligan, guys, we screwed up, just forget that one exists and we're moving on, okay?" by the powers that be, and have us all eat the red pill that lets us forget that travesty.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17199018
> 
> 
> "upper" upper northwest? Didja come back up to the arctic for a visit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh on the note of taking a pic of a black sky, I'm willing to bet I could do that up here. Once December hits and we're only getting daylight from about 10am-3pm, it's pretty darn dark out there, unless those pesky northern lights are dancing about the sky! I think my camera's too crappy to try this out, though!



Sure did, I'm sure I'm west of ya. Yeah, the daylight's starting to get shorter, but I definitely remember winters with those daylight hours. You do get used to it after a while and I'm sure it would induce more BR watching.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17200866
> 
> 
> Sure did, I'm sure I'm west of ya. Yeah, the daylight's starting to get shorter, but I definitely remember winters with those daylight hours. You do get used to it after a while and I'm sure it would induce more BR watching.




It's definitely better when I'm not relying on room darkening blinds and curtains at midnight to watch a movie w/o glare, that's for sure.







If you're around the 60th parallel chances are you're to my west.


----------



## K-Spaz

Wow, I hit the jackpot on tonights movie.

*Flyboys*

A WW1 Drama based upon the story of American Volunteers who joined the French AF prior to the US involvement in the war.


This is a spectacular looking 2.35 movie. I watched this on my .8 gain screen and closed my pj iris to 0. The colors were jaw dropping. Regardless of what length shots you like, this film has good ones for everyone. There's not a great deal of in your face closeups, but those it's got are impressive. Most impressive are the medium shots of buildings, medium shots in air, and outdoor scenes in general.


I think a circular polarizer would have been nice for the skies in this film which were almost too natural for my taste. There's not much blue here, more cloudy / hazy white skies. I'll call the skies a detriment cause they actually drew my attention at times, being so boring. I don't know if they warrant deduction of points, but they were unremarkable. Not that you go outside and marvel at the sky every day, but it would be nice once in a while.


There's a lot of panning in this movie, especially early on. So, the typical motion problems of digital media all are shown in full grandeur. In scenes that pan back and forth, the motion blur can be a bit much at times. That seems to wear off in the first 30 minutes and then they seem to let the cameras alone a little more.


When that stops, crispness and detail are phenomenal. This film has a bunch of places that need photos for the screenshot war thread. Some places look almost like my digital photographs, it's impressive.


There's some bar scenes that weren't quite right. One in particular has a large amount of dark background that's not lighted. One would expect with a low gain screen and iris closed that there would be impressive blacks there but it's really a washed out gray. Enough so to make me stop the film and see if it was supposed to be light back there. It's going to loose a tier just because of the poor blacks indoors. Anyone who watches the film will certainly notice this, especially if they know about it ahead of time.


Save but a little motion trouble, indoor blacks, and a bit too much panning for my taste, this is a beautiful film by anyones standards. This is also a great, great movie. I was not expecting anything quite like this. The amount of airtime in this film is pretty amazing too. The film is well cast, well directed, well paced, and has super camera work. CG special effects are blended in as well as I've seen in any movie. They're very seamless.


If someone can find dnr or ee, congratulations. With the color palette of this film, I think ee would be very easy to see. I didn't notice any, and i spent some time looking for it when the cameras sat still. There's so little grain, I don't think theres anything to dnr.


For this being a super low budget film, it sure didn't look or feel it. Two thumbs up for this one! I'll be watching this again before sending it back.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*


Viewed on InFocus X10, 99" 2.35 DIY screen from 11'. (I think it's 99" at 2.35. Thereabouts anyhow)

(Edit)

I see it's now in Tier 1.5, and I can live with that too. Not much lower tho...


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17200732
> 
> 
> Mr. Softie Denny, you're really not one to toss around the cataracts comments, are ya?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> j/k j/k.



I prefer "Mr. Generous" over "Mr. Softie"!










The truth is I'm usually at least half tier higher than Rob in my recommendations for whatever reason. I'm in good company though, right Hugh?!


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/17199570
> 
> 
> really? IMDB says it was shot on anamorphic 35mm.



Oops! Wrong movie!


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/17200999
> 
> 
> Wow, I hit the jackpot on tonights movie.
> 
> *Flyboys*
> 
> A WW1 Drama based upon the story of American Volunteers who joined the French AF prior to the US involvement in the war.
> 
> 
> This is a spectacular looking 2.35 movie. I watched this on my .8 gain screen and closed my pj iris to 0. The colors were jaw dropping. Regardless of what length shots you like, this film has good ones for everyone. There's not a great deal of in your face closeups, but those it's got are impressive. Most impressive are the medium shots of buildings, medium shots in air, and outdoor scenes in general.
> 
> 
> I think a circular polarizer would have been nice for the skies in this film which were almost too natural for my taste. There's not much blue here, more cloudy / hazy white skies. I'll call the skies a detriment cause they actually drew my attention at times, being so boring. I don't know if they warrant deduction of points, but they were unremarkable. Not that you go outside and marvel at the sky every day, but it would be nice once in a while.
> 
> 
> There's a lot of panning in this movie, especially early on. So, the typical motion problems of digital media all are shown in full grandeur. In scenes that pan back and forth, the motion blur can be a bit much at times. That seems to wear off in the first 30 minutes and then they seem to let the cameras alone a little more.
> 
> 
> When that stops, crispness and detail are phenomenal. This film has a bunch of places that need photos for the screenshot war thread. Some places look almost like my digital photographs, it's impressive.
> 
> 
> There's some bar scenes that weren't quite right. One in particular has a large amount of dark background that's not lighted. One would expect with a low gain screen and iris closed that there would be impressive blacks there but it's really a washed out gray. Enough so to make me stop the film and see if it was supposed to be light back there. It's going to loose a tier just because of the poor blacks indoors. Anyone who watches the film will certainly notice this, especially if they know about it ahead of time.
> 
> 
> Save but a little motion trouble, indoor blacks, and a bit too much panning for my taste, this is a beautiful film by anyones standards. This is also a great, great movie. I was not expecting anything quite like this. The amount of airtime in this film is pretty amazing too. The film is well cast, well directed, well paced, and has super camera work. CG special effects are blended in as well as I've seen in any movie. They're very seamless.
> 
> 
> If someone can find dnr or ee, congratulations. With the color palette of this film, I think ee would be very easy to see. I didn't notice any, and i spent some time looking for it when the cameras sat still. There's so little grain, I don't think theres anything to dnr.
> 
> 
> For this being a super low budget film, it sure didn't look or feel it. Two thumbs up for this one! I'll be watching this again before sending it back.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.25*
> 
> 
> Viewed on InFocus X10, 99" 2.35 DIY screen from 11'. (I think it's 99" at 2.35. Thereabouts anyhow)
> 
> (Edit)
> 
> I see it's now in Tier 1.5, and I can live with that too. Not much lower tho...



I haven't watched this one in a while, but in general I agree that for the most part the PQ is outstanding. The one area that I found less than outstanding was the close-up shots of the flyers during flight scenes. These were consistently softer than the ground shots, presumably because of the need to blend with lower-resolution CGI in the flight scenes. But other than those shots, I agree that the PQ is very impressive.


----------



## lgans316

*Monsters, Inc (UK Import) Tier 0 above or below Meet the Robinsons*


Besides a couple of dogdy looking dark scenes and for the scenes that happen underground of the building, this one looks razor sharp including facial close-ups. Hats-off to Pixar for putting another quality release.


----------



## John Mason

Flyboys


Interesting tech for this movie, from the imdb tech spec page . Looks like a Panavision Genesis digital-camera was used, feeding a HDCAM-SR tape machine, which isn't limited to


----------



## K-Spaz

Patrick,


after looking last night it seems there was a lot of actual in flight footage in the film. At least one actor learned to fly just for the movie. If that's the case, I'll give them a break on those shots, which I thought were still very good. They have the typical problems of compression blur from camera movement or subject movement, but I didn't notice them as soft anywhere. Perhaps I was looking past it thinking it was camera movement causing it.


Whether or not those actor closups in the cockpit are real footage or faked from the ground, they are few, so I didn't give those shots much credit. I see other reviewers placed this film down in the Tier 2 somewhere early on. I find that hard to believe. I'm not sure what they were comparing to. It could not have been many other films.


I gotta say, I'm really starting to like the look of these films which are done with HD cameras. I read that this film was shot digitally (didn't go confirm that). It sure looks like it was. Wow.


Edit

John Mason, thanks for the research work, I was just getting ready to go look for that when you posted!


If you've not seen the movie, go check that out.


----------



## John Mason




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/17202383
> 
> 
> Edit
> 
> John Mason, thanks for the research work, I was just getting ready to go look for that when you posted!
> 
> 
> If you've not seen the movie, go check that out.



And thank you for the summary. Probably will buy a copy, making it my 2nd Blu-ray drama acquisition since getting a player recently (late). First was the A&E/BBC "Pride and Prejudice" series, telecined from a 16mm negative (see BR software thread), not a print, with superb PQ for 16mm. -- John


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Mason* /forum/post/17203068
> 
> 
> And thank you for the summary. Probably will buy a copy, making it my 2nd Blu-ray drama acquisition since getting a player recently (late). First was the A&E/BBC *"Pride and Prejudice" series,* telecined from a 16mm negative (see BR software thread), not a print, with superb PQ for 16mm. -- John



P&P 1995 does indeed look really good. I haven't watched all of it yet, so that's why my lack of review for it, but I have a DVD of it and the details that have been added with this remaster are truly phenomenal indeed. While in the terms of this thread's PQ criteria I don't think it will get very high once I do rate it, but in the terms of a collector or fan of the series, it's a very worthwhile and important upgrade in my opinion, for sure. My best friend, who thinks I am a bit of a nutter regarding my PQ issues (she can't see EE







) was completely amazed by the differences, especially when we popped in the DVD to compare.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/17202383
> 
> 
> Patrick,
> 
> 
> after looking last night it seems there was a lot of actual in flight footage in the film. At least one actor learned to fly just for the movie. If that's the case, I'll give them a break on those shots, which I thought were still very good. They have the typical problems of compression blur from camera movement or subject movement, but I didn't notice them as soft anywhere. Perhaps I was looking past it thinking it was camera movement causing it.
> 
> 
> Whether or not those actor closups in the cockpit are real footage or faked from the ground, they are few, so I didn't give those shots much credit. I see other reviewers placed this film down in the Tier 2 somewhere early on. I find that hard to believe. I'm not sure what they were comparing to. It could not have been many other films.
> 
> 
> I gotta say, I'm really starting to like the look of these films which are done with HD cameras. I read that this film was shot digitally (didn't go confirm that). It sure looks like it was. Wow.
> 
> 
> Edit
> 
> John Mason, thanks for the research work, I was just getting ready to go look for that when you posted!
> 
> 
> If you've not seen the movie, go check that out.



The shots I was recalling tended to be close-up shots directly facing the actor in the cockpit. It's hard for me to imagine those shots were filmed during actual flight. I guess the reason they stick in my memory is that there was such a striking contrast (to my eyes at least) with the excellent PQ in the ground shots.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17201007
> 
> 
> I prefer "Mr. Generous" over "Mr. Softie"!



You know we are all going to start calling you Mr. Softy from now on, don't you.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17205985
> 
> 
> You know we are all going to start calling you Mr. Softy from now on, don't you.



Hee!!!


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/17203433
> 
> 
> The shots I was recalling tended to be close-up shots directly facing the actor in the cockpit. It's hard for me to imagine those shots were filmed during actual flight. I guess the reason they stick in my memory is that there was such a striking contrast (to my eyes at least) with the excellent PQ in the ground shots.



I'm getting ready to watch this again and I'll take note to those shots. Yes, I think I know now what you mean, and iirc, those were a lot of shakycam shots. (gawd I hate shakycam). They had to be done on the ground with the camera bouncing all over the place. I'll give em another look and report back.


----------



## 42041

*The Office Season 5*


Why am I even reviewing this? If you want to see an office set rendered in HD, you'll be happy. Looks very good for what it is, nothing to complain about on the technical side of things. Resolution is often outstanding on a pixel level when the focus is where it needs to be (which it's often not), typical of digitally shot stuff, but they seem to use some pretty crappy lenses, since there's a certain softness to the image that would probably make it much less impressive from "typical" distances, and an almost distracting amount of purple/green chromatic aberration.

*Tier 2.25*


(PS3/Pioneer Kuro 50" Elite/1 screen width distance)


----------



## Filmaholic

*Playtime*


First things first, this is one of the best films ever made, shot in 65mm, highly revolutionary for it's time and it bombed with critics and audience when released in 1967. More than forty years later and it is considered a piece of choreographed genius, some sort of Chaplin on steroids.


The Criterion Collection Blu-ray was minted from a 35mm reduction internegative made from a lovely restaured 65mm interpositive, it looks gorgeous for a film this age. It is presented in it's OAR of 1.85:1.


The opening of the movie, where the credits roll against a static shot of a cloudy sky, is highly dammaged, with lots of vertical scratches, debris and a strain of hair at the bottom of the screen. It's also "letterboxed". Now, I'm not sure of this, but it looks this introducton has not been restaured (very much like Tim Burton's Batman on BD). I get the feeling this was done to show how extensive the restoration proccess actually was. The rest of the movie is almost perfect though.


So, PQ is really, really marvelous. There are no close-up shots in this picture, everything is medium or wide focused and very highly detailed. The thing is that framing composition is just perfect, even with all the chaos going on. There is just so much going on, so much information on each shot, that you can watch it multiple times and always find something new.


The technical side of the transfer itself is impressive, colors are marvelous (albeit looking metalical gray), detail is almost unparalleled for a 60's film, grain structure is steady and well defined, blacks don't crush, whites don't bloom and contrast is perfect for most of the time. Shadow delineation is also very strong.There are no glaring compression artifacts.


Now, for the not-so-great things: I did catch contrast wavering on a handfull of extremely dark, night shots, it is not so bad as in say, Close Encounters, but it is present. It's a clear case of celulloid deterioration, too bad the restauration couldn't fix this problem. And, of course, some ammount of DNR and EE were applied, but it is in no way intrusive enough. There are very few instances of halloing due to that EE, amost imperceptible to my eyes, all in all, this is digital tempering done right.


So, I'm very proud to own a copy of this film, and everybody who thinks cinema is an art-form (and not "just entertainment") will too.

*Recommendation: Tier 1.75*


Hard: PS3 at 24p; Pana Viera 50'' (50PY85LB); 1080p; at 2,5mt from teli.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Braveheart*


Overall, this is simply an excellent looking transfer! The outdoor scenes are very impressive indeed, showing excellent clarity, depth and detail. There are many scenes that really pop off the screen.


Colors are saturated. The overall picture is very "solid" for lack of a better word.


The question on this title in terms of Tier placement will be due to the fact that there are, without question, several scenes where they are downright soft. These are usually darker scenes. Their presence is unmistakable. I have little to no doubt that these scenes are simply due to the way they were shot, and not the fault of the transfer.


Also, again in darker/indoor scenes, the contrast could appear slightly on the weak side.


Again, overall, an excellent looking title. Certainly one that has been "done right"!


In the end, I will recommend:

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.5*


I had not seen this movie in quite some time. I thoroughly enjoyed it. In fact, I had planned on only watching an hour or so last night and finishing it today because I didn't start watching it until pretty late. Well, I couldn't turn it off and wound up watching all three hours.


----------



## hobbs47

Agree with Rob on Braveheart. I think a lot of the early tier 0 reviews were more of an emotional F U to the Gladiator release.


----------



## K-Spaz

Patrick99,


I watched Flyboys again last night with company here, and I took note to watch those cockpit scenes closely. Yea, I guess they're soft but it's a strange sort of soft. It's hard to explain. Pretty much all of them have at least a little shaky-cam going on, so I never expected them to be real sharp, but they don't look like typical motion blur, and to me it really doesn't look like the stereotypical 'soft'. They sorta look like they were processed in some way, but I have no idea how.


Maybe 'soft' when using HD cams results in the way those pics were. I don't know. Still, I didn't notice that till you pointed it out and I looked for it.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hobbs47* /forum/post/17209221
> 
> 
> Agree with Rob on Braveheart. I think a lot of the early tier 0 reviews were more of an emotional F U to the Gladiator release.



Think what you will, but I stand by my placement







Granted, I don't watch many "eye-candy" movies, but I can't remember the last time I was so impressed by a movie's visuals. I voted King Kong, Tropic Thunder, and Watchmen in Tier 1.0, and just on its own merits I think Braveheart looks better than those films. I also voted Transformers for tier 0 and it has many focus issues. Sometimes I'm more impressed by a disc's strengths than I am offended by its weaknesses (particularly when those weaknesses are spread over a long 3 hours that mostly look excellent)


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/17209306
> 
> 
> Patrick99,
> 
> 
> I watched Flyboys again last night with company here, and I took note to watch those cockpit scenes closely. Yea, I guess they're soft but it's a strange sort of soft. It's hard to explain. Pretty much all of them have at least a little shaky-cam going on, so I never expected them to be real sharp, but they don't look like typical motion blur, and to me it really doesn't look like the stereotypical 'soft'. They sorta look like they were processed in some way, but I have no idea how.
> 
> 
> Maybe 'soft' when using HD cams results in the way those pics were. I don't know. Still, I didn't notice that till you pointed it out and I looked for it.



K-Spaz, thanks for taking the trouble to look out for this and report back. My speculation was that the soft look was attributable to the need to combine lower resolution CGI sky elements with actual film of the actors in cockpits. Based on my recollection, almost all the flight shots have this softer look.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/17209320
> 
> 
> Sometimes I'm more impressed by a disc's strengths than I am offended by its weaknesses (particularly when those weaknesses are spread over a long 3 hours that mostly look excellent)



This is exactly what I was getting at in my review when I said "The question on this title in terms of Tier placement will be due to the fact that there are, without question, several scenes where they are downright soft" as these must be balanced against the majority of the film, which looks fantastic.


----------



## OldCodger73

For some reason this was stuck in my queue for a long time and I only recently received it. The film has been extensively reviewed and has been placed at Tier 2.25, which I'm comfortable with although I would have placed *Gran Torino Tier 2.5*.


Panasonic 50" 720p plasma, Panasonic 10a player, 7 1/2'


----------



## OldCodger73

I'm a sucker for well historical dramas, especially when they're done well as _John Adams, Disc 1_ is.


It's a solid transfer with good detail and depth. Overall I'd rank *John Adams, Disc 1 Tier 1.75*.


Panasonic 50" 720p plasma, Panasonic 10a player, 7 1/2


----------



## patrick99

Re *Braveheart*, am I alone in thinking the BD leaves one thinking that Mel Gibson was just too old for this role? The courting scenes struck me as just too jarring. He was about 38 when this was made, and those scenes suggested a character aged about 18.


----------



## OldCodger73

A slightly above average transfer of a John Carpenter 1984 movie. Nothing really wrong with it but on the other hand nothing great. Overall I'd rank *Starman Tier 2.75*.


The sound is listed as Dolby TrueHD 5.1 but for most of the movie it's more like 5.0. Only in the Starman pickup scene at the end is there noticeable but moderate LFE.


There are no extras, for those who are into that kind of thing.


Panasonic 50" 720p plasma, Panasonic 10a player, 7 1/2


----------



## OldCodger73

I must say I was really impressed with the very good PQ of _Braveheart_. The outdoor colors were gorgeous. I thought most scenes showed very good detail and depth. There were a few scenes that weren't at the same quality level but insignificant considering the almost three hour length of the movie. Facial close ups were excellent in a few scenes but overall mostly very good. I'd rate *Braveheart Tier 1.0*.


I was also impressed with the sound, the surrounds were active and there was some effective use of LFE.


Overall _Braveheart_ is good storytelling, only faltering in the overly long torture scene near the end when when Gibson's masochist tendencies come through.


Panasonic 50" 720p plasma, Panasonic 10a player, 7 1/2


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hobbs47* /forum/post/17209221
> 
> 
> Agree with Rob on Braveheart. I think a lot of the early tier 0 reviews were more of an emotional F U to the Gladiator release.





I do tend to agree there is some psychological momentum when the tide starts flowing in one direction or another particularly with such a huge title that people have strong feelings about. I tend to agree with this not so much in this thread, but across the net and particularly with regards to Gladiator. I think the review Whiggles gave for Gladiator was a bit extreme and seemed like an over zealous reaction going with the flow of the tide at the time even as bad as Gladiator is.



I also agree with OldCodger73 on recommending Braveheart for tier 1.0.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/17209756
> 
> 
> Re *Braveheart*, am I alone in thinking the BD leaves one thinking that Mel Gibson was just too old for this role? The courting scenes struck me as just too jarring. He was about 38 when this was made, and those scenes suggested a character aged about 18.



No you aren't alone if one knows the supposed actual time frames and ages the characters are supposed to be. Wallace lived to 35 and he was about 25 at the time of the courting scenes. Braveheart has taken a lot of liberty with the actual events and times, so one can't really go by the movie outside of some historical generalizations. A good point in reference (maybe Mel and Randall Wallace are making the point that is isn't historically accurate) is when they have the few scenes where people are exaggerating the stories about how many men Wallace killed making it into legend.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17200938
> 
> 
> It's definitely better when I'm not relying on room darkening blinds and curtains at midnight to watch a movie w/o glare, that's for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're around the 60th parallel chances are you're to my west.



Had to look that up - I guess I'm more on 62nd parallel.







Only for a couple more days and I'm back to HD bliss.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/17209756
> 
> 
> Re *Braveheart*, am I alone in thinking the BD leaves one thinking that Mel Gibson was just too old for this role? The courting scenes struck me as just too jarring. He was about 38 when this was made, and those scenes suggested a character aged about 18.



Definitely with you on this one. There were several scenes where it looked awkward; sometimes almost pedophilic


----------



## Hughmc

*State of Play:*


I reviewed State of Play again a couple of times. I had initially suggested somewhere between 1.0-1.5, but upon watching it again and reviewing it a third time jumping from scene to scene leads me to recommend 1.5. It is a solid looking BD with a realistic color pallete, good contrast and black levels and while it doesn't have much if any tier 0 material even with the different cameras used it has a fairly consistent look to it. There isn't any horrible or distracting shots or scenes PQ wise.

*Recommendation Tier 1.5*




I have watched these several times and gave my opinion but didn't do formal recommendations:

*Gladiator:


Tier Recommendation: 3.0


Braveheart:


Tier Recommendation: 1.0


Crank 2: High Voltage:


Tier Recommendation: Bottom of tier 0*


I had forgotten Crank got moved out of tier 0, but 1.25







which I feel is wrong and tried to fight it back in the day, but Crank 2 isn't even as good and I see that at low tier 0. Oh well. Crank triggered the following:

*Last House on the Left:*


I thought this looked fairly good overall and while it had some issues like dark scenes, the facial closeups in many scenes were as good as it gets on BD.


The movie itself is one that really can wreak havoc on one's mind.














I should have known it was Wes Craven, but didn't realize till the credits rolled. Watcher beware!!

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*




I have also noticed that movies captured with 1:85 aspect ratio tend to have amazing tier 0 facial shots, because of taking up screen real estate and pardon the expression, the "in your face" look. Last House tends to exhibit these qualities as does Crank 1 and 2. I have to be careful though judging some 1:85 material because whether it be BD's or HD programming that in your face look can make it seem like facial detail is better when it isn't necessarily the case, it is just that it has that zoomed in look.



*Easy Virtue:*


This is another Sony release that continues the trend of BD's that Sony releases that have consistently good to excellent PQ. The detail is very well rendered and there is a lot of it to behold. Facial closeups to medium range to distant shots and everything in between are rendered in perfect detail. Colors, black levels, contrast are all good to excellent. Film grain is light, unobtrusive and very much lending itself to a film like appearance. I did think this wasn't a tier 0 BD on first viewing, but after reviewing it again, I would place it on the level of Prince Caspian and Fighting for having a very film like appearance, yet also meeting the tier 0 criteria. I recommend placing it somewhere around THe International and Prince Caspian.

*Recommendation: Low Tier 0*


Almost forgot to add...

*Sleep Dealers:*


A strange future based foreign film taking place in Mexico, in spanish. An interesting watch for what it is and what it is trying to say.


Forget about good PQ on this one as it doesn't exist. OVerall it looks not much better than upscaled DVD and sometimes worse. As bad as it is I would say it isn't tier 5.

*Recommendation: Tier 4*


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17210673
> 
> 
> Had to look that up - I guess I'm more on 62nd parallel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only for a couple more days and I'm back to HD bliss.



Yeah, 62nd is approx where I'm at as well. Figured North of 60 was a good guesstimate.











Okay, can anyone tell me why I have RocknRolla in? I can't for the life of me remember why I put this in my zip.ca queue but it's what i have to watch. I feel like one of you guys musta told me to put it in there for some reason, but I tried searching and came up empty.







Ahh well. I'll give it a try and see how it is, so I can shuffle it back outta here!


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17210904
> 
> 
> Yeah, 62nd is approx where I'm at as well. Figured North of 60 was a good guesstimate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, can anyone tell me why I have RocknRolla in? I can't for the life of me remember why I put this in my zip.ca queue but it's what i have to watch. I feel like one of you guys musta told me to put it in there for some reason, but I tried searching and came up empty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh well. I'll give it a try and see how it is, so I can shuffle it back outta here!




I don't know GGG it couldn't be my glowing review.









As I reiterate often I don't normally view or rather rate many BD's below tier 2 mostly by default, but I more or less raked RocknRolla over the coals. The look really didn't sit well with me. I cannot even remember much about it now, other than looking back at my review with surprise that I even rated it that low. It will be interesting to see your take on it. DVDbeaver gave it an 8/9.














Oh well. enjoy.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Maybe that's why I rented it!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17210696
> 
> *State of Play:*
> 
> *Recommendation Tier 1.5*
> 
> *Gladiator:
> 
> 
> Tier Recommendation: 3.0
> 
> 
> Braveheart:
> 
> 
> Tier Recommendation: 1.0
> 
> 
> Crank 2: High Voltage:
> 
> 
> Tier Recommendation: Bottom of tier 0*



Hugh,


I still think you're too high on State of Play and too low on Gladiator. We're pretty close on Braveheart, though I, like 42041, will stick to my Tier 0 recommendation. I will also stick to 1.5 for Crank 2, so I think you're too high on that one. Man, methinks you may be earning the title "Mr. Softy" with some of these recommendations!


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17210696
> 
> *Easy Virtue:*
> 
> 
> This is another Sony release that continues the trend of BD's that Sony releases that have consistently good to excellent PQ. The detail is very well rendered and there is a lot of it to behold. Facial closeups to medium range to distant shots and everything in between are rendered in perfect detail. Colors, black levels, contrast are all good to excellent. Film grain is light, unobtrusive and very much lending itself to a film like appearance. I did think this wasn't a tier 0 BD on first viewing, but after reviewing it again, I would place it on the level of Prince Caspian and Fighting for having a very film like appearance, yet also meeting the tier 0 criteria. I recommend placing it somewhere around THe International and Prince Caspian.
> 
> *Recommendation: Low Tier 0*



That seems a bit high for Easy Virtue also. There's a lot of great medium shots and also lots of great indoor detailed shots, but when I finished watching this last night, T0 never came to mind. Just from an overall lack of 'wow', I'd probably stick this film at 1.75.


It's another film I think that's worth watching again. I got a lot of laughs from the banter between the women. I especially like Katherine Parkinson from The IT Crowd (older sister in EV). If I re-watch it before it goes back, or if any friends get it on my recommendation, I may get to see it again, though if it's on dvd that won't help much. I rarely re-rent, and this would have to be a good deal for me to buy, but I'd buy it if it was.


For some reason, this film never lit my fire pq wise, and I'd seen Hugh's recommendation first, so I was looking for a great pq. While not disappointed with it, I wasn't knocked out either.


Edit --------------------------------------------

I got to watch this again (more company showed up today... I can hardly afford to feed all these people !).


I was probably a bit harsh in my first estimate. I can still see a lot of softer scenes, but there are a also a lot of good ones. I could probably move my own opinion up to a 1.25 or perhaps even a 1.0. I think this is one of those that my mood when watching might affect my perception. I still don't think I'd go to tier 0, but it is a good looking film.


With so many good looking films, I think this needs more opinions.


----------



## OldCodger73

_Silverado: Collector's Edition (Original Version_) is the 1985 movie generally accepted as having resurrected the western genre.


This Sony release is kind of a mishmash from the PQ standpoint. Medium shots usually have good detail, while many of the long shots appear soft and grainy. Facial close ups show little fine detail. In some outside scenes color and depth are good, in others both look flat. The movie was shot under demanding conditions, the bright New Mexico sunlight for example, and many of the scenes are at night or in dark interiors.


While the above might sound quite negative there's enough positives to make this an above average transfer. Accordingly, I'd rate *Silverado Tier 2.5*.


Panasonic 50" 720p plasma, Panasonic 10a player, 7 1/2


----------



## daPriceIs

*Mystery of the Nile*

This 48 minute IMAX film was released on BD by Image Entertainment in March of this year. It tells the tale of a six person expedition (not counting guides, body guards, film crews and other production and support staff







) that rafts down the Blue Nile from its head in Ethiopia to its delta in Alexandria, Egypt.


Despite good contrast, blacks, and excellent saturation, I just did not find the film to be very interesting visually. This movie is basically a soft blah.


The first impression created by this BD is one of softness. There is plenty of the minimal level of detail that is expected in any competent BD. (I.e., Tiers 0, 1, or 2. *Remember that Tier 3 is defined as average, but we are not yet at the point in the development of blu-ray where average = competent.* ) With two exceptions, there is never anything that excites or impresses. The two exceptions come from close-ups which for a few brief seconds reveal very nice detail of some crocodiles and of a hippo. After those two shots, which happen about 20 minutes into the film, the PQ sinks back into a morass of mediocrity.


Compression artifacts are limited to some mild banding visible in the sky on limited occasions, and to some not very significant noise that looks like grain. Grain itself is virtually imperceptible.


One of the things that I most dislike about this film is its use of windowboxed cut-ins that are made to look like the images you'd see in the viewfinder of a consumer-grade camcorder. These snippets of the crew talking about the main action that has just happened in the film usually last no more than 5 to 15 seconds, but there are *17* of them. These sequences are deliberately of much lesser quality, complete with visible scan lines.







It's totally pointless nonsense that achieves nothing that could not have been done better with conventional shots. It lends the whole effort the sense of a badly shot home movie; something the film makers really should have tried to avoid since the movie already has an amateurish feel even without the use of this technique.


The movie itself? Stupid, boring, self-indulgent. Pointless. Anything you learn about the mysteries of the Nile is purely accidental.

*Recommendation: Tier 2.75*


Panasonic TH-42PZ77U, 1080p, 4'


----------



## daPriceIs

*Ganges*


This BBC documentary was released by Warner Home Video in July 2008. It's a 147 minute region free BD-25 with a 1080i/60 VC-1 encode and lossy DTS-HD 5.1 sound. In three 50 minute episodes it chronicles the river Ganges and the wildlife and people along its banks from its sources in the Himalayas to its delta at the Indian Ocean. Ahhh! At last, after the amateurish affair that was _Mysteries of the Nile_, I find myself a continent away and in professional hands once again. Or so I thought.


In photography there's this thing called the golden hour. It's the time roughly an hour after sunrise and an hour before sunset when sunlight is softer and warmer in color, and when the shadows are longer and more revealing of landscape relief and architectural detail; it's the time when good shots are more readily found. Well, even if you've never heard of it, it's certain that those responsible for Ganges have. And they've also heard of these things called backlighting and silhouetting too. Unfortunately they seem to have not understood the need to avoid things like cliché and too much of a good thing and overuse to the point of self-parody.







I may be exaggerating somewhat but I'd swear that at least 80% of the shots in this video are taken in the golden hour and a fair percentage of those feature some form of strong backlighting, often shooting some figure silhouetted against the rising or setting sun. It gets to the point where you start yearning for the clear hard light of noon!


Another problem is that they are filming along the banks of a sub-tropical river, which means lots humidity and in the early morning that means mist and in the late afternoon that means haze; and all of that means reduced PQ. Going by this movie, you'd think that India was perpetually shrouded in mist. The movie is hazy, soft, and riddled with visual clichés. Mind you, there are some great shots.


Speaking of great shots, there is an incredible shot of black kites filling the sky, hunting for scraps over a huge garbage dump in Calcutta. The very same garbage dump that is shown in _Baraka_. The difference in approach between the two films is striking.


Plenty of fine detail, but for the most part ultra-fine detail is lacking or obscured. About one hour into the video the mountains look pretty sharp. And again about half an hour later there's a shot of some domesticated elephants bathing at dawn in the river with tens of thousands of people which is briefly very sharp. That's about it.

*Banding!!!* Early and often. And not of the mild variety, either. Banding of the blue sky. Red/orange/golden banding near the horizon. Rainbow banding around the sun. Without the rampant banding, I would place this in a tier 0.5 to 0.75 higher.

*Recommendation: Tier 3.0 (Banding)*


Panasonic TH-42PZ77U, 1080p, 4'


----------



## daPriceIs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/17175026
> 
> 
> i suspect it comes down mostly to viewing distance (i know that if i get 8 feet or so back from my TV, I can't even distinguish between a tier 3 transfer and a tier 0 transfer by my standards... which is also the main reason EE/sharpening is used, really. if you sit close, you can see the high frequency detail just fine and sharpening just looks nasty, like a really trebly stereo. if you're far away, the LF detail overwhelms the HF to your eyeball and EE makes the image look sharper, in audio terms it's like EQing the high frequencies on your stereo to compensate for a treble-deficient speaker) and to one's personal idea of what a good picture looks like. ... i'm amazed anyone would say Braveheart is anything but an absolutely gorgeous looking movie with mostly razor sharp detail , but hey, that's only what my own eyeballs are telling me and I've long since realized that my metric of image detail is not the only one and this picture quality thing is very subjective, hence the quote at the beginning of the OP
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> here's something to read if you're interested in why people may draw radically different conclusions regarding detail levels in blu-rays:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acutance
> http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tut.../sharpness.htm



Re-reading the reviews I just wrote and in light of 42041's post, I feel the need to clarify what I mean by soft and by "sharp" since I use those terms so freely in all of my reviews. (Of course, everyone uses them pretty freely.







) I consider an image that readily reveals details as small as a handful (


----------



## daPriceIs

*Moody Blues: Lovely to See You*


This is an excellent concert BD shot on HD video cams in 1080i/60. The DTS-HD MA 5.1 soundtrack is excellent and Hayward and Lodge are in fine form. *A must own for any fan of the band.*


Black level and contrast are very good; and except for a few long shots, fine detail is also good. Digital noise is never intrusive in the many dark areas on screen. Saturation is not exaggerated.


Its PQ is marred only by stage lighting and effects:
The direct light from the head on spots tends to flatten facial detail even in close-ups. However, the indirect lighting scheme in Isn't Life Strange accentuates those details (of John Lodge in particular)
Hard to judge the accuracy of flesh tones since they are constantly bathed in variously colored and changing stage lights
Lens flare, especially in I'm Just a Singer and in Nights in White Satin. There are points in these songs where the entire screen momentarily looses detail in a blue or yellow green glare. Also the shots from low on the stage up at the face of the flutist, Norda Mullen, often look directly at two spot lights behind her. When those spots are focused on her the flare is severe.
The spots cause occasional blown highlights. Once again Mullen is the most frequent victim with highlights variously on arms, back, and forehead. The most disruptive instances of blown highlights occur in Ride My See-Saw.
The smoke machines start working in overdrive in the I'm Just a Singer.

When the lighting permits, the images can be extraordinary; but that does not happen often enough. These issues are not quite enough to drop this video into Tier 2.

*Recommendation: Tier 1.75*

Panasonic TH-42PZ77U, 1080p (deinterlaced in the player), 4'


----------



## Filmaholic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17210978
> 
> 
> I don't know GGG it couldn't be my glowing review.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I reiterate often I don't normally view or rather rate many BD's below tier 2 mostly by default, but I more or less raked RocknRolla over the coals. The look really didn't sit well with me. I cannot even remember much about it now, other than looking back at my review with surprise that I even rated it that low. It will be interesting to see your take on it. DVDbeaver gave it an 8/9.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh well. enjoy.



Well, I have *Rockn'Rolla* on BD, it's a Guy Ritchie film (for those of us who actually care about cinema, and not just have an unhealthy image fetish). This dude directed the very awesome "Snatch" and "Lock, Stock & Two Smocking Barrels". It is nowhere near as good though. But it isn't bad, not at all. It's a funny, well directed, very english crime pic. Of course, it looks "bad" by these thread standards, as it is very soft (it's also a digital movie), somewhat sepia toned, the lighting is oddly difused, etc.


Now, Hughmc, when you say "As I reiterate often I don't normally view or rather rate many BD's below tier 2 mostly by default (...)", you should realize you are incurring at least in two errors. First, and worst, you are missing the point entirely, besides showing grave ignorance. The PQ is just a component of a Blu-ray disc, it is not the content itself. The film, documentary, show, opera, whatever, are what trully matters. Even if the purpose of the thread has limited scope. I mean, we can analyse only the PQ, but we can't forget it is attached to something "bigger".


Your second glaring error is assuming this list is absolute and that your opinions are better than everybody elses. Like this list is "THE TRUTH", or something. So, if this list has something placed below what some dude thinks is "Tier 3", you won't "rate" or even view it? Preposterous. Get real. Get over yourself.


This list IS very, very flawed sir, it is in no way the absolute truth. I do admit it can be useful, and on it's extremes (Tier blu & Tier coal) mostly adequate. Everything in between these two has, arguably, questionable placement.


Lastly, I must say, I'm a noob here, not in life.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Filmaholic, it's very possible that Hugh's comments are with regard to the PQ-only, as this is a PQ thread. I know a lot of the time we bleed into whether or not we liked the film, and chatter about other elements, but the main course of discussion does revolve around the PQ. If someone wants to keep their Blu-Ray rating/watching within the first few tiers of the list, that's not necessarily to say that they don't view movies below it, but likely either don't provide reviews or are happy to stick with other means (DVD, laserdisc etc) because Blu to them may have nothing more to offer to the experience if it's below a certain level to their eyes.



My personal opinion is also that sometimes it's harder to rate the movies that are tier 2.5 and lower, and that's why the 2.5-ish area seems to be a bit of a dumping ground. Tier 3.0 (and below) seems to be a bit of a cliffs of insanity-type area, because once you hit that level there are some serious flaws with the disc; I believe that films can still be within Tier 3 and be watchable and still worthy of an upgrade from DVD but to me it has to be a decent upgrade still.



You're right, you are new to the thread, and because of that I'm not going to get too upset with you for your post, but I don't think that Hugh deserved the treatment you've given him in his post. *I appreciate each and every one of you who participate in this thread*, and posts such as yours above can make people leave the thread entirely. We don't have a lot of participation, and this thread receives a ton of flak, even if the list in the end is very useful to most who use it. IMO, an attack of that nature is uncalled for in this thread.



Back on topic, I haven't watched RnR yet, as I plan to do so today while my daughter's off at school.


----------



## Filmaholic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17217265
> 
> 
> Filmaholic, it's very possible that Hugh's comments are with regard to the PQ-only, as this is a PQ thread. I know a lot of the time we bleed into whether or not we liked the film, and chatter about other elements, but the main course of discussion does revolve around the PQ. If someone wants to keep their Blu-Ray rating/watching within the first few tiers of the list, that's not necessarily to say that they don't view movies below it, but likely either don't provide reviews or are happy to stick with other means (DVD, laserdisc etc) because Blu to them may have nothing more to offer to the experience if it's below a certain level to their eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> My personal opinion is also that sometimes it's harder to rate the movies that are tier 2.5 and lower, and that's why the 2.5-ish area seems to be a bit of a dumping ground. Tier 3.0 (and below) seems to be a bit of a cliffs of insanity-type area, because once you hit that level there are some serious flaws with the disc; I believe that films can still be within Tier 3 and be watchable and still worthy of an upgrade from DVD but to me it has to be a decent upgrade still.
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, you are new to the thread, and because of that I'm not going to get too upset with you for your post, but I don't think that Hugh deserved the treatment you've given him in his post. *I appreciate each and every one of you who participate in this thread*, and posts such as yours above can make people leave the thread entirely. We don't have a lot of participation, and this thread receives a ton of flak, even if the list in the end is very useful to most who use it. IMO, an attack of that nature is uncalled for in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Back on topic, I haven't watched RnR yet, as I plan to do so today while my daughter's off at school.



Ok, that was articulate and I take your words seriously. I am sorry if anyone else took offense. I still think some of you, sometimes, sound arrogant. I do that very well too. Shame.

The thing is, from what I've been reading, some don't even have the right to be arrogant, since technichal knowledge is sometimes absent. I also think you tend to forget that the presentation (Pq, AQ, etc) is a formal aspect. Meaning the essential aspect resides somewhere else. This sort of deviant perspective annoys me.


Look, as I said, I know perfectly well the thread is about PQ, restricted to the parameters established on the first page, etc. But I do expect to hear *from the guy who said that thing*. See, I still can't agree with that line of thinking.


I do apologise for being rude though. It's my PMT. And I'm a straight male.


----------



## tfoltz

This is a PQ thread, if you want a thread with a more complete analysis of an overall movie then you can find it elsewhere. You seem to understand this, so I'm not sure why you expect more. Also, no one has the right to be arrogant, and a person does not need technical knowledge to judge what they see.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/17217770
> 
> 
> This is a PQ thread, if you want a thread with a more complete analysis of an overall movie then you can find it elsewhere. You seem to understand this, so I'm not sure why you expect more. Also, no one has the right to be arrogant, and a person does not need technical knowledge to judge what they see.



+1


Well said!


----------



## Filmaholic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17217791
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> 
> Well said!



Yes. You are right. No one has the right to be arrogant, myself included.


I did apologise. I am having a bad day, Hugh has nothing to do with it. My bad, it was misdirected anger. I could erase the post, probably should, but i won't. Flame me all you want.


But, as I said, I perfectly understand the intent of the thread and it's limited scope.

And yes, you only need good eyes, passable equipment and good sense to judge PQ. Too bad that's not always the case.


Again, to be clear: Hugh, I am sorry, I'm an idiot. Blame me.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Filmaholic, I appreciate your apology. Thanks for posting it.







We all have bad days.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Filmaholic* /forum/post/17218138
> 
> 
> Yes. You are right. No one has the right to be arrogant, myself included.
> 
> 
> I did apologise. I am having a bad day, Hugh has nothing to do with it. My bad, it was misdirected anger. I could erase the post, probably should, but i won't. Flame me all you want.
> 
> 
> But, as I said, I perfectly understand the intent of the thread and it's limited scope.
> 
> And yes, you only need good eyes, passable equipment and good sense to judge PQ. Too bad that's not always the case.
> 
> 
> Again, to be clear: Hugh, I am sorry, I'm an idiot. Blame me.



No problem Filmaholic...and I want to echo the words of G3, "I appreciate your apology...and we all have bad days!"


BTW, I really enjoyed your excellent review on _Playtime_. Keep them coming!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Okay, I'm a good chunk into RocknRolla and I don't think I'll be able to review this movie. One of the downsides of having sensitive eyes and a Plasma is.... phosphor trailing. The blown contrast in this movie is causing me to see a TON of phosphor trailing. Generally the only time I see it is in certain conditions with fight sequences (or something really super fast) in movies, or when I watch my beloved hockey.











The movie's okay though, so I'm going to try to keep watching it so long as I don't get a headache from it. It's weird b/c when I watch hockey it's annoying but doesn't bother me as much as this is, I think because the way it's happening to me in this movie is just all over the place, where during hockey it's only a player or two, not everything on the screen getting it. I've never encountered a show besides hockey where it's been so abundant until now.



PQ-wise from what I can see, faces are oddly missing detail but a lot of textures on fabric and whatnot seem to be in tact. It's odd.


----------



## Filmaholic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17218465
> 
> 
> No problem Filmaholic...and I want to echo the words of G3, "I appreciate your apology...and we all have bad days!"
> 
> 
> BTW, I really enjoyed your excellent review on _Playtime_. Keep them coming!



I know it's no excuse for my behavior, but what happened is this: I have an associate/boss who is really getting on my nerves, but it is hard to argue with him, since he is 82 years old and is my grandfather. So, out of pure frustration, this morning, I totally crossed some boundaries (sanity, common sense, politeness, etc) and started lashing at something that only mildly bothers me... Nothing personal against Hugh, or anyone. Just pure dumb, immature behavior on my part.


Thanks for the feedback on my review of *Playtime*, I appreciate that. I hope it sparks some interest for the film, since it rightfully deserves.


----------



## Filmaholic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17218632
> 
> 
> Okay, I'm a good chunk into RocknRolla and I don't think I'll be able to review this movie. One of the downsides of having sensitive eyes and a Plasma is.... phosphor trailing. The blown contrast in this movie is causing me to see a TON of phosphor trailing. Generally the only time I see it is in certain conditions with fight sequences (or something really super fast) in movies, or when I watch my beloved hockey.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The movie's okay though, so I'm going to try to keep watching it so long as I don't get a headache from it. It's weird b/c when I watch hockey it's annoying but doesn't bother me as much as this is, I think because the way it's happening to me in this movie is just all over the place, where during hockey it's only a player or two, not everything on the screen getting it. I've never encountered a show besides hockey where it's been so abundant until now.
> 
> 
> 
> PQ-wise from what I can see, faces are oddly missing detail but a lot of textures on fabric and whatnot seem to be in tact. It's odd.



Yeah G3, I feel your pain. I'm a gamer (hardcore one at that) and also have lots of issues with phosphor trailing, or "green ghosting", as some like to call it. It bothers me so much, in fact, that I keep a 32'' HD (720p; 1080i) CRT for those headaching moments. *Rockn'Rolla* is nasty on that department. And you nailed it, it has an odd level of detail. I think its also overly soft, and that normally is not so annoying to my eyes, but in this case it bothered me.


On another topic, thanks for the comprehension, accepting my appologies, I appreciate it.


----------



## jedimasterchad

Has anybody checked out the release of Fringe yet? I'm anxious to hear how it stacks up against some other recent releases. Season 2 of Terminator comes out tomorrow also...in general, are the fox shows usually of a decent quality?


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/17221089
> 
> 
> Has anybody checked out the release of Fringe yet? I'm anxious to hear how it stacks up against some other recent releases. Season 2 of Terminator comes out tomorrow also...in general, are the fox shows usually of a decent quality?



First Terminator season looked pretty good. Solid color/detail. Would assume the second season would be similar if not exact to the first.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/17221089
> 
> 
> Has anybody checked out the release of Fringe yet? I'm anxious to hear how it stacks up against some other recent releases. Season 2 of Terminator comes out tomorrow also...in general, are the fox shows usually of a decent quality?



IMHO, FOX isn't nearly as good as ABC, NBC, or CBS. Don't take this wrong, for I watch both Fringe and The Sarah Connor Chronicles and they do have _some_ decent PQ, but on my set it's VERY inconsistent. When it's bad, there's quite a bit of softness, a lack of detail, and too many crushed blacks.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/17221089
> 
> 
> Has anybody checked out the release of Fringe yet? I'm anxious to hear how it stacks up against some other recent releases. Season 2 of Terminator comes out tomorrow also...in general, are the fox shows usually of a decent quality?



I have not picked up Fringe yet. While both of those shows were on the Fox broadcast network, Warner is the studio that releases them on home video. I have not been that happy with Warner television shows on Blu-ray for the most part. Questionable transfers and poor video compression encodes in general, while almost always offering up lossy audio.


----------



## jedimasterchad

I have the first season of Terminator in a DVD Steelbook package. Kind of lost interest in the second season, but I never did finish it, so I'm thinking about the set.


From what I hear, Lost is one of the better shows on BD, but I haven't been able to see any of it yet. It's my favorite show so I already had it all on DVD, so I guess I'll have to wait until December to check out season 5.




> Quote:
> I have not picked up Fringe yet. While both of those shows were on the Fox broadcast network, Warner is the studio that releases them on home video. I have not been that happy with Warner television shows on Blu-ray for the most part. Questionable transfers and poor video compression encodes in general, while almost always offering up lossy audio.



Were they also responsible for 24? That's the only Fox show I've had the chance to see so far, as DJ said, it looked a bit soft, not much different from the DVD or network HD presentation.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Filmaholic* /forum/post/17220636
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the feedback on my review of *Playtime*, I appreciate that. I hope it sparks some interest for the film, since it rightfully deserves.



I'm a huge fan of avant garde film. Strangely, I've never heard of Playtime. Your review, followed by extensive research, persuaded me to make a rarer than rare "blind buy!" It should arrive in the next few days!


I've decided that Playtime will be my first review since probably the early summer! Thanks!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17221192
> 
> 
> IMHO, FOX isn't nearly as good as ABC, NBC, or CBS. Don't take this wrong, for I watch both Fringe and The Sarah Connor Chronicles and they do have _some_ decent PQ, but on my set it's VERY inconsistent. When it's bad, there's quite a bit of softness, a lack of detail, and too many crushed blacks.



Fox has the worst PQ of any network imo. This is also true regarding football games. Absolutely horrible. ABC is not much better.


CBS is best, followed by NBC.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17221834
> 
> 
> Fox has the worst PQ of any network imo. This is also true regarding football games. Absolutely horrible. ABC is not much better.
> 
> *CBS is best, followed by NBC*.



I agree!


Edit: I just watched the season premiere of Heroes on NBC and the PQ was much better than I had remembered from last year. Colors were vibrant and natural, and the skin tones and facial details were awesome. I would love to see this when it comes out on Blu!


----------



## K-Spaz

*American Gangster*


I just watched this and without looking where it was, I figured I was going to say Tier 2.75. After looking I see that it's currently in 3.5, so I thought, "well, I'm not going to be that harsh..."


After looking at surrounding films:

40 Year Old Virgin

Bride Wars

Enemy of the State

Face Off

The Great Raid

The Last Samauri

Resident Evil Apocalypse


All of those are in 3.25, and I'd clearly say they all looked better than this. I guess it's been awhile since I attempted to review anything in this area.


Its hard to believe that Ridley Scott directed this. Usually he's a little fussier about how the films look.


I'll say that what this film lacks in pq it makes up for in story and acting. This is a very long film at 2:38 or thereabouts. There's also 2 cuts on the disk though I don't know if it seamless branches or if there's 2 movies on the disk. It looks compressed enough for me to believe there's 2. If you can think of a compression artifact, you'll find it in here somewhere. My very first thoughts in the opening scenes were, 'this looks really soft'. That didn't change right to the end.


Even so, the pq wasn't distracting and I don't know why. Maybe I just felt I was in DVD mode and ignored it. I'd still recommend the movie as a good watch, just not as demo material. Ya know actually, for as bad as the pq was, the colors were very nice. Nothing was washed out, it just wasn't sharp (anywhere).


I suppose 3.5 sounds close enough for me. It's not worth moving this one.


Viewed on Infocus x10 106" 16:9 Dalite hcw.


----------



## Filmaholic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/17221326
> 
> 
> I'm a huge fan of avant garde film. Strangely, I've never heard of Playtime. Your review, followed by extensive research, persuaded me to make a rarer than rare "blind buy!" It should arrive in the next few days!
> 
> 
> I've decided that Playtime will be my first review since probably the early summer! Thanks!



Selimsivad, thanks for the feedback on the *Playtime* review.


Let me tell you, if you are a fan of avant garde/nouvelle vague, you will absolutely love this film. You might want to build a shrine for it.










I, like yourself, blind bought it (it's very hard to rent this sort of film here in Brasil, especially in Blu-ray). Even though I love Jacques Tati, I had never watched *Playtime* before.


I'm glad I could be of some help and would really like to see your review of it.


----------



## Filmaholic

*Akira*


This is, arguably, the best Anime ever made. It was a technical marvel when released in 1988. Some say it surpasses Disney’s “Fantasia” on that aspect. It ran at 32fps, not the usual 24. There are 160.000 animation cells. There was no CGI at the time. Hence, it looks absurdly wonderful, though somewhat gritty (and “neon-like” at the same time). It is also ultra violent. It is presented in a slightly boxed 1.85:1 framing.


So, this BD was taken from a nicely restored print and it is quite stable and damage free. Interestingly enough, at first I thought there was some print degradation. But that was not the case. I was not seeing “scratches and specks”, but in reality, when there are helicopters near the ground, there is debris and dust flying, and the level of detail is so high and the animation so good, it briefly fooled me. Those of you with 100’’+ screens can properly verify that.


I personally find Akira to be a gorgeous experience, and the PQ here is very nice, albeit not perfect. Some might find that 80’s styled color palette weird (“washed”) by today’s standards, somewhat like “Watchmen” (the graphic novel, not the film). Strangely, as I said, it is simultaneously gritty. But, for a picture this age, it was well preserved, meaning almost no color degradation, contrast fluctuation, etc. It looks a bit flat though, as most 80’s anime do. Some might find one or two scenes “soft”, but it is a rare occurrence, as everything has a nice black outline to it. The animation, framing and overall execution are nearly flawless.


The transfer itself is also very good. There is no color banding whatsoever, and this is a huge compliment, since it is a very normal occurrence in animated BD’s. There are no other compression artifacts here. Detail is consistent, as are, for most of the time, contrast and shadowing.


As an off-topic, little side-note, consider this. Need demo material for your awesome audio set-up? Blind buy this. Today. You are going to need both receiver and speakers that can handle 192kHz/24 bit sound, with reliable playback of frequencies up to 100 kHz, but you will be floored. You will also cry a little. And your neighbors will hate you forever. You might get arrested, but it will be worth it.










*Recommendation: Tier 1.75*


Gear: PS3; Plasma, Pana Viera 50’’; 1080p; @ 2 meters from screen.


----------



## Filmaholic

*Final Fantasy VII Advent Children Complete*


I’ll be brief on this one. First: I’m a big Final Fantasy fan. Second: the movie is bad, and might be unwatchable if you don’t dig the FFVII game. Maybe it’s just me, but I think this looks awful, borderline unacceptable. Lots of color banding, it looks soft all the time, there’s an atrocious level of aliasing. Want more? Some models look really, really amateurish. There’s something present throughout the movie, which looks like EE haloing, but it might be a rendering flaw, I’m not sure.


Besides that, skin textures look waxed (with that nasty color banding on top), colors are muted and drab, black is not black at all, contrast is really bad, whites bloom, you get the where this is going...Detail is only passable, camera pans produce a distracting shimmering.


Finally, I'm having a hard time trying to see any improvement at all from my upscalled DVD copy of it.


Strange thing is, most reviewers give this a high PQ rating. I really don’t understand that. I’ll be harsh, hoping someone contradicts this view and prove me wrong.









*Recommendation: Tier 4*

OAR: 1.78:1

Gear: PS3; Plasma, Pana Viera 50’’; 1080p; @ 2 meters from screen.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Filmaholic* /forum/post/17224075
> 
> *Final Fantasy VII Advent Children Complete*
> 
> 
> I’ll be brief on this one. First: I’m a big Final Fantasy fan. Second: the movie is bad, and might be unwatchable if you don’t dig the FFVII game. Maybe it’s just me, but I think this looks awful, borderline unacceptable. Lots of color banding, it looks soft all the time, there’s an atrocious level of aliasing. Want more? Some models look really, really amateurish. There’s something present throughout the movie, which looks like EE haloing, but it might be a rendering flaw, I’m not sure.
> 
> 
> Besides that, skin textures look waxed (with that nasty color banding on top), colors are muted and drab, black is not black at all, contrast is really bad, whites bloom, you get the where this is going...Detail is only passable, camera pans produce a distracting shimmering.
> 
> 
> Finally, I'm having a hard time trying to see any improvement at all from my upscalled DVD copy of it.
> 
> 
> Strange thing is, most reviewers give this a high PQ rating. I really don’t understand that. I’ll be harsh, hoping someone contradicts this view and prove me wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 4*
> 
> OAR: 1.78:1
> 
> Gear: PS3; Plasma, Pana Viera 50’’; 1080p; @ 2 meters from screen.



I just checked and _The Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within_ is in Tier 1.5. Based on that, something drastic must have happened to result in the PQ you described above to another in the same series. And I did read the reviews on Cinema Squid's site and like you say, there are some glowing reviews on this title. You've sparked my curiosity on this though so I'll have to give it a rent and see what it looks like to MY EYES on my plasma.


----------



## Filmaholic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17224577
> 
> 
> I just checked and _The Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within_ is in Tier 1.5. Based on that, something drastic must have happened to result in the PQ you described above to another in the same series. And I did read the reviews on Cinema Squid's site and like you say, there are some glowing reviews on this title. You've sparked my curiosity on this though so I'll have to give it a rent and see what it looks like to MY EYES on my plasma.



Man, I gotta tell you, this is nowhere near the quality of "Spirits Within". There is not a Final Fantasy series in the strictest sense. They are two very different beasts.


Yeah, I also checked Squid's rankings, that's what got me baffled...










I do apreciate your interest and look forward to hearing your opinion.

It's also nice that we have comparable equipment, so there's no aditional "noise" to be worried.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Being There


recommendation: Tier 3.0*


A satire originally released in 1979, Warner Bros. brought this movie to Blu-ray in early February of this year. The 129-minute main feature is encoded in VC-1 and on a BD-50. The average video bitrate per the BDInfo scan is 23.08 Mbps. My final score should not be considered a low mark for this particular movie and an indicator it should be skipped over because of the transfer. In fact, Warner has done a superb job in transferring this film to Blu-ray. If only most of their catalog selections on BD turned out this well and as faithful to the original look of the film, but I digress.


As much as I have castigated Warner's encoding practices in the past, this title shows no problems from a compression perspective. The relatively healthy bitrate allows the picture to be completely free from artifacts. Granted, there is not a large degree of motion in the film, but the underlying picture is reproduced nicely with a generous amount of detail. Grain, when visible, is rendered accurately and without fault. Bitrate peaks in the forties are seen here and quite unusual for a catalog title from Warner, though the encode ranges mainly in the twenties.


Whatever master was used as the source of this Blu-ray transfer, it looks in nearly perfect condition given its age. Print deterioration is not a concern at all, and the image never shows scratches or dirt like many other films of the era. The original film elements must be in spectacular condition given the clarity of the presentation on this disc. Halos and other consequences of ringing do not appear at all throughout the film. So-called “professional” reviewers made commentary accusing this transfer of digital noise reduction that diminished its appearance. I can not agree in that assessment at all.


The movie looks very close to film and naturalistic in most instances. Certain soft segments that are not highly detailed look attributable to the original photography and not overzealous digital processing. Not every movie is going to have the look of a Michael Bay film. Natural lighting, like the kind employed on this film, has a tendency to lower high-frequency content. If digital grain-filtering has been applied to the image, there really is no visible effect. The grain structure in the darker shadows looks solid with the right consistency. There is no comparison here to the over-processed titles seen like Patton, or even less egregious offenders like Amadeus.


Contrast is excellent and the flesh tones look natural given the lighting of each scene. While the picture is not a hallmark of sharpness, it is firmly in the middle of the spectrum for Blu-ray. The color palette is slightly muted and murky. Some may characterize the image as flat, but that appears faithful to the intent of the movie. Resolution is quite strong in certain dimensions. The fine textures of Peter Sellers' myriad suits are highly detailed, with visible thread structure and pin-striping frequently seen in close-ups that are as detailed as I have witnessed on Blu-ray. Facial close-ups are a little soft at times, but nothing that looks out of the ordinary for an average-quality disc. Black levels are one of the better aspects on display, with an inky quality to dark objects that shows off the excellent shadow delineation. The image overall is stronger than my description implies, and in moments approaches the middle of tier two. My final recommendation is lowered mostly for the intended look of the film and fleeting moments of softness. This is a stellar transfer of a movie that will never look better at this resolution, and which puts the dvd to shame.


Any fan of Peter Sellers and his subtle brand of comedy should watch this Blu-ray and expect a good transfer that serves the film admirably.


Watching on a 60” Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 (firmware 3.01) at a viewing distance of six feet.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post15729445


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Thanks for the review on Being There, Phantom. I love that movie. Adding to Netflix queue now.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Filmaholic* /forum/post/17224737
> 
> 
> Man, I gotta tell you, this is nowhere near the quality of "Spirits Within". There is not a Final Fantasy series in the strictest sense. They are two very different beasts.
> 
> 
> Yeah, I also checked Squid's rankings, that's what got me baffled...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do apreciate your interest and look forward to hearing your opinion.
> 
> It's also nice that we have comparable equipment, so there's no aditional "noise" to be worried.



Hope your setup wasn't disturbed prior to watching this BLU. It has happened many times to me due to HDMI handshake problems that switched video resolution from 1080p to 480p. Consequently I ended up in giving incorrect PQ reviews.


----------



## deltasun

*The Last House on the Left*


A healthy layer of grain was present throughout. This film had potential from its beautiful cinematography early on, complete with wonderful details during close-up's of both faces and objects. Medium shots were filled with shallow depth of field photography, casually switching points of focus among the characters. While producing Tier 0 details of faces, it also yielded soft shots.


This truly was a tale of two PQs. The early daytime scenes had ample depth and dimensionality, when shallow shots were not utilized. Contrast was a bit shoddy at times, but was adequate for the most part. Then came the nighttime scenes in the house (the last one on the left). Low-light contrast was very poor and made for a very messy presentation. Certain candlelit scenes were warm and inviting, but they were seldom. Most of the action was bathed in almost nil depth and a brownish haze.


Overall, what I was finding placement somewhere in the Gold Tier very quickly found its way in the Bronze Tier. I do want to find a happy medium in Silver just for the reasonable number of excellent close-up's and one excellent panoramic shot of sand, stones, shore, lake, and mountains at the end. But, nah! By the way, there was minimal print dirt. I did not spy any compression issues. There was a slight bit of incidental ringing but it was brief and not bothersome.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## Filmaholic




> Quote:
> Hope your setup wasn't disturbed prior to watching this BLU. It has happened many times to me due to HDMI handshake problems that switched video resolution from 1080p to 480p. Consequently I ended up in giving incorrect PQ reviews.



You know, the gear was allright, but I might want to NOT ingest some fiery brazilian beverage prior to the movie...


----------



## Filmaholic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17227738
> 
> *Being There
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 3.0*
> 
> 
> (...)
> 
> My final score should not be considered a low mark for this particular movie and an indicator it should be skipped over because of the transfer.
> 
> (...)
> 
> The original film elements must be in spectacular condition given the clarity of the presentation on this disc. Halos and other consequences of ringing do not appear at all throughout the film. So-called “professional” reviewers made commentary accusing this transfer of digital noise reduction that diminished its appearance. I can not agree in that assessment at all.
> 
> (...)
> 
> This is a stellar transfer of a movie that will never look better at this resolution, and which puts the dvd to shame.
> 
> (...)
> 
> Any fan of Peter Sellers and his subtle brand of comedy should watch this Blu-ray and expect a good transfer that serves the film admirably.



Thanks for the excellent review of *Being There*, Phantom. I like this film very much, I own the DVD and the BD version is on my "to buy list" since it's release. This is the perfect example of a Tier 3 movie that has to be on my collection, once it has no major compression issues and no sloppy "digital wizardry". It will never, ever look better than this, and that is fine. It's also the case of something like, say, *Donnie Darko*, which was filmed in cheap stock, with a somewhat amateurish lighting and with diffusion filters that give it that "dreamy" look. They won't ever look better than this, if you, like me, love this movies, well, you've got to live with it. Tier3 will do.


----------



## abintra




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17227738
> 
> *Being There*
> 
> 
> So-called “professional” reviewers made commentary accusing this transfer of digital noise reduction that diminished its appearance. I can not agree in that assessment at all.



Surprised to read your review mentioning that as, like you, I've read nearly every other review explicitly referring to the heavy use of DVNR which caused noticeable smearing, waxiness and affecting detail in some scenes.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *abintra* /forum/post/17232592
> 
> 
> Surprised to read your review mentioning that as, like you, I've read nearly every other review explicitly referring to the heavy use of DVNR which caused noticeable smearing, waxiness and affecting detail in some scenes.



After watching the Blu-ray, I checked out the various reviews you mention. I think what happens is an early review will mention its use in a transfer and later reviewers feel obligated to pile on. I agree that some degree of DNR has been used on _Being There_, but it is judiciously applied at worst and never hurts the integrity of the film for me. There is no waxiness or moments of smeared grain. To give a comparison, _Almost Famous_ has much worse DNR applied that visibly affects the picture more than the delicate hand used for DNR on _Being There_. The one thing I did notice which I did not note in my placement was an ultra-quick blip lasting a couple of seconds that looked a little like telecine wobble or gate weave. A handful of close-ups did lack the finest facial-detail evident in better-ranked titles, but that looked as much the result of butterfly lighting and other Hollywood techniques of the period to soften faces in the camera than anything else.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Midnight Movie


recommendation: Tier 2.25
*

Independent distributor Phase 4 Films is planning to release this film next month on October 13th. A slasher from 2008, the 79-minute movie is encoded in AVC on a BD-25. For an independent film with a relatively low budget, the production values rarely affect the picture quality and in points looks quite good. On an absolute basis, a better than average-looking BD that appears superior to most efforts from other independent studios.


While no BDInfo scan is available, the estimated average video bitrate is 20.5 Mbps. The entire encode rarely strays from a narrow band around that figure. The compression encode is tolerable with slight problems. A fair bit of posterization appears at times, particularly during the sequence featuring the kid crawling through the heating ducts. Small amounts of compression noise also briefly appear. This is a competent effort that handles brightly lit scenes with ease, but do not expect reference compression work from this disc.


Apparently made from a digital intermediate, the image looks nearly pristine and on par with most new releases from the large studios when appropriate to the scene. Part of the experience in viewing is the older movie-within-a-movie footage. The simulated print damage in these scenes does not work very well as a visual effect, and looks quite fake. These scenes really impacted my final score and was a primary reason that dropped the disc out of tier one consideration. At least the transfer is free of edge enhancement, with no appearance of halos. Digital noise reduction has definitely not been applied to this transfer, as the grain structure looks completely untouched during darker scenes and close-ups demonstrate excellent facial detail.


For a horror movie, the image is surprisingly bright with an almost cheery color scheme. The picture is startlingly clean and vibrant, at least until the dimmer final act. Colors are crisp, though highlights look slightly blown-out in spots, notably in a few tight-shots of the actors. Contrast is very solid, though slight black crush does manifest during the scenes inside the theater as the moviegoers are watching the film. Well-lit scenes pose no problems and look as decent as some titles in the lower quarters of tier one. There is a solid sense of depth and perspective to the image. It does not pop per se, but it looks fairly three-dimensional in its best moments. It is more a matter of consistency for this movie that prevents its placement firmly in tier one.


The final act is more problematic from a visual standpoint, as the movie finally veers into the standard cinematography of the modern slasher-film. A grim and grainy image where the film-stock has been heavily pushed to enhance contrast and drained of most color is used. The picture is still revealing, but does not really fit the ideals of the tier system. While I am sure the director's intent was followed, during these scenes the picture is really no better than lower tier two titles.


It adds up for me a placement in tier 2.25, but a wide range as high as tier 1.75 could be a viable placement.


----------



## deltasun

*The Informers*


Fine to moderate grain present throughout. This film had almost the same issues as the last movie I watched - _The Last House on the Left_ - when it came to the lower-lit scenes. Though not as bad, this film, however, suffered from contrast issues throughout. Most of these issues came from backlit scenes that rendered the subject lifeless. I guess this was the point - the story itself was lifeless.


Faithful to the storyline, the look of the film itself was drab. Colors were dominated by grays and blues, overcast skies. The few times we were treated to decent detail and dimensionality, it occurred in natural, daytime sequences. Facial details weren't as good as what was found in _The Last House on the Left_ either. The best of these were probably mid-Tier 1 calibre. Skin tones were decent and black levels adequate. There were several instances of softness, but not prevalent.


The print was clean and I only spotted a few instances of ringing, occurring in backlit scenes. Some of the overhead night shots of LA were awesome. Needless to say, Amber Heard looked great in HD.









*Tier Recommendation: 3.25*


----------



## deltasun

*Observe and Report*


Another presentation with a healthy layer of grain present. Colors were over saturated, which made for an unnatural look. Facial details were okay, but not the detail we've come to expect of these newer titles. There were also a few instances of softness.


Blacks were bold and solid, but had some instances of crushing. Contrast was well balanced and helped punch up the saturated colors. Skin tones, on the other hand, were a bit on the orange side. Wide shots offered good depth and dimensionality. Medium shots were mixed but were mostly detailed as well.


Overall, PQ was above average that offered enough pop to remind the viewer that this is HD. For me, some of the weaker scenes bring this title down to the Silver tier. There was no consistency on where PQ looked good or bad. I spotted some ringing on Seth's helmet towards the end - this looked to be EE. I did not notice any print dirt or any other anomalies. One last thing...some "things" aren't meant for HD.









*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## Filmaholic

Slightly off-topic: I watched, at the theater, Lars Von Triers’s *Antichrist* yesterday. It looks digital, soft and gross. It is also gorgeous, in a freaky way.


Awesome film though. Sort of a bizarre mix of “In the realm of the senses”+“Friday the 13th”+"Eraserhead"+“Bambi”.










I reckon most north-Americans will hate, despise and might be really offended by its “graphicness”. Some will call it pure snuff, porn or exploitation. They will be wrong. This is brilliant filmmaking.


It will be really interesting to watch it multiple times at home, if it ever gets there in HD. Loved it.


Chaos reigns! Use titanium underwear!


----------



## sleater




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17235594
> 
> *Observe and Report*
> 
> 
> One last thing...some "things" aren't meant for HD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.25*
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_



+1 Saw this last night and agree with your review and placement - I had to sheild my eyes during that lengthy scene however! If anyone is curious about what "things" aren't meant for HD, click the spoiler...

*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) A middleaged, heavyset pervert/flasher runs amok in the mall with all his manhood glory fully resolved in 1080p. This lengthy chase scene involving Seth Rogen's character (the mall cop) did not amount to pleasant viewing!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

aaaack! why did i click that, why did i click that why did i click that.... Damn curiosity!!!


----------



## deltasun

^^ the only thing lengthy about it was the scene


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

I'm not going to write a formal review of it, but I watched *The Other Boleyn Girl* today. I was not as impressed as everyone who told me to rent it, though. I wasn't paying _full_ attention to it as I was doing a couple other things while it was on, but if something is supposed to be Tier 0 or Tier 1, I shouldn't have to look really hard to find depth and detail.



I was paying enough attention to notice that the main issue for me with it is I found it a bit on the soft side. It was a pretty movie, but the way it was filmed, everything wasn't always in focus. Whenever the camera did pull in to have full focus instead of a soft look, the facial detail was amazing, but it was inconsistent as to when it'd do it. Where it's sitting now in Tier 1.5 is not totally objectionable, but I don't think it was any better than that, and I wouldn't be too upset if it sat in 1.75 either.


----------



## daPriceIs

*The Ninth Gate*


An entertaining film with a sly and subtle humor. It has the trappings of psychological horror and is classified as such, but it’s hardly that. At least not the film, but this BD? There is something horrible there.


I had a very rocky start with this one. This is the first and only disc to cause my Panasonic BD-35 to freeze (haven’t tried Crank 2 and likely never will). The player became unresponsive when the disc was loaded. No control on the remote or the player evoked any response or change. I had to unplug the player!





















After plugging the player back in, I was able to eject the disc. I tried again to load the disc and everything was fine and has been ever since, except that a “Checking for updates” notice pops up every time. Mind you, *this disc has no BD-Live features whatsoever*! Yet another player-friendly disc brought to you by Lionsgate. [Note that the player has been connected to the Net and has had a 2GB SD card since day one. Firmware was up to date and is kept that way.]


But the shocks weren’t over. The title sequence was mind numbing. The opening shot of Telfer behind his desk writing his suicide note *looks exactly like upscaled standard def*. While a little better than that shot, up until the 0:05:12 minute mark, this BD looks little better that upscaled SD. It made me think I was in for a disaster of epic proportions. To that point the movie was totally Tier 5. After the opening credits end and the movie cuts to the Manhattan skyline, the PQ becomes better.


I have only ever seen this film on video: SD and HD cable, DVD, and now BD. Thus I don’t have any theatrical reference upon which to ground my observations. That said, this BD is strikingly different from any other version of this film that I have seen. I’m talking color, clarity, brightness, contrast, black levels, and shadow delineation. I don’t have recordings of the cable broadcasts but I do still have the DVD. And I have compared the two extensively and repeatedly, both in motion and via side by side screen caps. Frankly, the results are ghastly. Watching either disc results in disappointment: by the time I have finished watching one disc I have sufficiently accommodated myself to its look that then immediately watching the other brings out the weaknesses of the latter to a disappointing degree; hard to believe (and absurd, really) but each looks bad in comparison to the other!


Side by side comparisons of screens from the BD and from the DVD:
Lionsgate’s web site claims that the video has been “newly remastered.” Whatever that means in this context. Careful examination of corresponding frames from the BD and the DVD _do_ show _very_ slight differences in framing so maybe Lionsgate isn’t engaging in marketing speech (i.e., lying). If remastered, it doesn’t appear to be an improvement.
The DVD is dark and muddy. There is a great deal of EE in the DVD, but I did not notice anything significant in the BD
The BD is soft, bright, and cloudy
Contrast is flattened, especially in the mid tones, and shadows have been opened up considerably in the BD
In this regard (contrast, clarity, blacks), the DVD is clearly better than the BD. I can honestly say that, among the 30 or so DVDs that I’ve upgraded to Blu-ray, this is the only movie where the contrast is unquestionably better on the DVD.
BD is drastically brighter than the DVD
Exterior night and twilight scenes show glaring differences:
The scene where Corso is in the taxi on his way to Kennedy and he tells the Sikh driver to pull over at a phone booth: On the DVD, clearly they are driving at night. On the BD it looks like twilight. And on the BD the phone booth has got to be one of the best lit booths ever built. On the DVD the booth is darker and looks much more natural.
The scene where Corso and the girl are walking the streets of the village St. Martin.

The BD has more resolution that the DVD (duh), but some details are less evident in the BD (Or simply harder to discern due to the lower contrast? See the page on sharpness that *42041* mentioned last week)
Ultrafine detail is simply absent (or smoothed) in the BD
You want to see some grain? The DVD has it. But this BD? To misquote an anonymous Lionsgate executive:*“Grain? We ain't got no grain. We don't need no grain! Lionsgate don't have to show you any stinkin' grain!!”*







And, except for the opening shot, they don’t.
To put it mildly the color has been tweaked in the BD vis-Ã*-vis the DVD. Mostly I prefer the DVD in this regard. The glaring exception is the shot of the courtyard outside the Ceniza brothers’ bookshop which is rather ugly on the DVD.


Diffusion!!! It’s like a thin gauzy film covers the entire screen.







It happened somewhere in the chain of image capture and processing, but I have no idea where
Did Polanski shoot with diffusion filters on the cameras?
Did something happen in the process of printing the film or was the print damaged subsequently?
Were there optical diffusion issues in the telecine/scan?
Or were there digital manipulations that resulted in this ghastly fog?
The “problem” occurs in both the BD and DVD, but the flat contrast and boosted brightness makes it an eye sore in the BD. Whereas in the DVD it's mostly a non issue.


Soft, wan, and washed out. That’s the initial and enduring impression left by this BD.

*Recommendation: A very generous Tier 3.75*


Panasonic TH-42PZ77U, 1080p, 4’


----------



## djoberg

And I'm NOT going to write a formal review of the "chick flick" I rented for my wife's sake tonight; namely, _Ghosts of Girlfriends Past_. This was such a terrible movie my wife and I quit watching it after about 35 minutes.


What I did see was average PQ, at best. All the indoor shots were sub par, with horrible skin tones (i.e., bronze-looking), crushed blacks, and less-than-stellar details. A couple of the outdoor shots were quite good, with accurate skin tones, vibrant and natural colors, and very good details and depth. Most of what we saw took place indoors (and so did many of the scenes that I fast forwarded through), so the majority of the PQ is Tier 3 quality or lower.


It wouldn't be fair to give an actual placement recommendation, but from what I saw the best I would opt for would be 3.25. The movie itself easily falls into a bottom tier (not COAL, but the ABYSS







)....it is absolutely horrible! I have never been a real fan of the "Romantic Comedy" genre, but this one makes others look like Oscar contenders; it is THAT BAD!


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *daPriceIs* /forum/post/17241658
> 
> *The Ninth Gate*
> 
> Diffusion!!! It's like a thin gauzy film covers the entire screen.



I saw this movie opening night and it was soft and hazy then. The added brightness and gamma-adjustments made for this Blu-ray transfer were not evident. That was clearly a decision made by someone at Lionsgate to tinker with the look.


----------



## K-Spaz

daPriceIs,


I'm not sure why, but Polanski films are generally lacking in pq, and the transfers are mostly horrible. Several I've seen on dvd looked really bad. Fact is, I'm not sure I remember seeing a Polanski film on br. Easily the best looking one I can remember from him is The Pianist (terrific film btw), but that also was on dvd. I think that regardless of what mastering is done, the source material they have to work with doesn't look good enough in the raw, for it to make a decent looking optical disk. The Pianist does.


G3,

Well, I'm surprised. I thought you'd enjoy the movie and the pq. Of the people who've seen it on my system, they found it one of the better looking disks I've had.


Hey, chalk it up to a dud recommendation then!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

kspaz -- sorry i'm holding my son, so hard to reach the keyboard! i like the movie fine, I just wasn't wowed by the PQ. I don't think it was worthy of being out of tier 1, just wouldn't argue if it was in 1.75. I personally consider anything in the top two tiers can still be reference material. I mean it didn't have any EE or DNR (that I could detect), it was a directors intent type of issue with the focus & not always presenting the type of detail that it could have because of it. hope that makes sense!


----------



## deltasun

I am racking my brains here. I thought for sure I reviewed _The Ninth Gate_, but cannot find it. I did purchase it a while back as it's one of my favorite movies so will have to review soon.


I remember there were some scenes in Depp's apartment where details became better. But yes, the general look of the film was off.


----------



## HighAltHD




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17164319
> 
> *Disneynature Earth:*
> 
> 
> Well Denny the focus is a bit on you today as you were the only other review I could find for this title.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I rented this and watched it last night. It looks like they simply took the best of the best of the scenes from Planet Earth and as Denny mentioned, Blue Planet. It is 1:30 of nothing but pristine HD shots. It is full screen with a new and much better soundtrack in DTS MA compared to the Planet Earth Dolby Digital and James Earl Jones narrates.
> 
> 
> While there is an occasional few scenes that aren't perfectly sharp, the rest of this BD is and has the wow factor through and through. That is why I am recommending low tier 0 or top of tier 1 at worst. There isn't much wrong with this BD.
> 
> 
> I liked the way it was presented and while Jones' narration was sometimes corny it was ok.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Low Tier 0*





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17164385
> 
> 
> ^^^^
> 
> 
> Hugh,
> 
> 
> I gave it a 1.5 but I wouldn't argue with 1.25 or at the most 1.0. The lengthy night scene (where the lions chased down and killed an elephant) made me penalize it as much as I did. What did you think of that scene?
> 
> 
> Denny





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17164491
> 
> 
> Yes, for our thread purposes I could have dinged it more, but I guess I got so caught up in the rest of the shots that looked so good I gave it a pass. I kept rewinding some scenes they were that good to look at.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The night scene was poor, so I think taking that into account would allow for 1.0 and give me an out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Other than that it really looked nothing short of excellent huh?



I never post in this thread, but I noticed that Earth Disneynature was not listed in the tier rankings yet (unless I'm an idiot and didn't see it). I agree that it's a Tier 1.0. It's pretty damn good.


Geoff


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HighAltHD* /forum/post/17243752
> 
> 
> I never post in this thread, but I noticed that Earth Disneynature was not listed in the tier rankings yet (unless I'm an idiot and didn't see it). I agree that it's a Tier 1.0. It's pretty damn good.
> 
> 
> Geoff



Geoff,


You are right...._Earth_ is not listed yet. There probably won't be an update on titles for awhile, so we'll have to be patient. I'm sure this title will easily win a Tier 1 placement, and I'm all for 1.0 (but no higher).


I would encourage you to post in this thread!


----------



## K-Spaz

G3, I figured that you'd like it just on the merit of its lack of molestation alone! I didn't dispute it's placement either but I try not to be too vocal unless I feel pretty strongly about a title. Usually it takes a big margin to get my panties in a wad.







It's fine with me where it's at now too.


----------



## K-Spaz

I should also mention, I watched Interview With the Vampire last night and fully agree with it's placement of 4.0 (or lower). HOLY BLACK CRUSH Batman! Good movie but wow did that pq/transfer suck.


----------



## SuprSlow

Just an FYI, I'm starting on another update.


And...I'm a dad







Our first, Nathan Daniel, born last Friday. 6lbs 11 oz, 21".

http://mrpburke.com/fileupload/uploads/0.jpg 


He and mom are both doing well. We came home Sunday, and haven't slept since







He's worth it though.











Must be nice, huh?


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^

CONGRATULATIONS SUPRSLOW!!!!


Would you believe I tried five times for one of those (i.e., a BOY), but I guess I was made to father GIRLS. I'm not complaining, for it's been a blessing beyond words having 5 daughters.


BTW, thanks for the work you're doing on another update.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Gladiator*


First, I should mention that I have not so much as "glanced" at the Gladiator thread that has been mentioned here many times (other than a post from The Bland linked here by Denny), so as to avoid any influence from that thread as others have apparently attempted to do.


In the first 20 minutes or so, with some definite exceptions, I didn't think this was going to be all that bad. Some scenes had pretty good detail, color and to a lesser extent depth.


But man, did things ever get worse. Much worse! Yes, there would still be the occasional good looking scene, but overall this is an over-processed MESS!


DNR? Yes, I think there is some here, but not as bad as some other titles. Yet, that having been said, there are some scenes where the DNR hits you upside the head it looks so bad! A waxy, smeary mess.


But the worst part about this title? Edge Enhancement/sharpening. Boy, did they ever go overboard here! The EE is quite obtrusive in this title, and overall bothered me much more than the DNR. Not only are there edge halos, but the sharpening in many scenes gives the picture a very digital "processed" look, that can be described as anything _*but*_ film like.


I imagine there might be people who will misinterpret this digital sharpening as creating more detail and sharpness, but that would be a huge mistake.


I actually don't consider myself all that sensitive to EE, but believe me, there is no mistaking its glaring presence on this title.


They really "screwed the pooch" on this one.


Still, overall there are enough decent looking scenes to keep it above Tier 4, and it is better looking than titles in that Tier. The bottom line, though, is that this could definitely have been substantially better than it is.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 3.75*


As for the movie: well, I was right in not feeling any motivation to have to watch this. It isn't a horrible film, but it isn't particularly good either, though I do appreciate the acting of Juaqin Phoenix. Braveheart is definitely the better film (and if you are confused by the comparison to Braveheart, consider the parallels in the stories).



JVC RS1 1080p on 123" screen at 13 feet


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/17246108
> 
> 
> Just an FYI, I'm starting on another update.
> 
> 
> And...I'm a dad
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our first, Nathan Daniel, born last Friday. 6lbs 11 oz, 21".
> 
> http://mrpburke.com/fileupload/uploads/0.jpg
> 
> 
> He and mom are both doing well. We came home Sunday, and haven't slept since
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's worth it though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Must be nice, huh?



That's fantastic. Congrats!!!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Awwwwww!! *girly squee* Congrats on the baby!! He's so cute! *sniff* I remember when my kiddies were that tiny! My daughter was 7lbs 4oz & my son was a preemie so he was just over 5lbs! Awwwwwwww!!! He'll never be this tiny again so enjoy it as much as you can. If you feel comfortable with it, PM me your snail mail addy & I can send you a fuzzy baby hat -- I'm a crafter and make tons of these for people!


Okay, girlie baby freaking out over.



Rob -- thanks for the review of Gladiator. I know I saw this movie much on the same grid as you did.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17246504
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rob -- thanks for the review of Gladiator. I know I saw this movie much on the same grid as you did.



Wow, I just read your review. Yes, very much on the same page on this one!


----------



## K-Spaz

Congrats SuprSlow!


You can see he's already used to southern climate. September and already wear'n a hat!










Now that you've got extra waking hours from Midnight to 6am, updates ought'a come about daily!


Jk...


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/17246108
> 
> 
> And...I'm a dad
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our first, Nathan Daniel, born last Friday. 6lbs 11 oz, 21".
> 
> 
> He and mom are both doing well. We came home Sunday, and haven't slept since
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's worth it though.



Congratulations on the baby.







I would not plan on a great deal of sleep over the coming months...


----------



## 42041

*The Alps (IMAX)*


Most IMAX transfers suck for some reason (how hard could it possibly be to squeeze out 1080p's worth of detail out an IMAX frame 10 times the size of super35?) , but the number of good ones I'm aware of just went up to 2. When the PQ is at its best, which is during the first half or so of the movie, it's reference quality, with resolution that's among the very best discs, rich colors and good contrast. During the flyovers of some Alpine villages, you can make out every little building and tree, the textures on mountain faces seem palpable, foliage is distinctly leafy. Grain is, as one might expect, almost nonexistent. The photography is lovely as well. This was heading right near the top of my personal PQ list, but unfortunately consistency, as well as visual interest, wanes in the second half of the feature. Some shots seemed to not have been sourced from top quality elements and look more like 35mm, and a couple of scenes exhibit color banding. Still, a very impressive looking disc.


The movie itself is your average ho-hum IMAX documentary, not quite as intolerable as Grand Canyon Adventure but still fairly dull.

*Tier 0 (just above Grand Canyon Adventure)*


(PS3/Pioneer Kuro 50" Elite/1 screen width distance)


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/17246108
> 
> 
> And...I'm a dad
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our first, Nathan Daniel, born last Friday. 6lbs 11 oz, 21".



Congrats, SuprSlow....exciting times!


----------



## deltasun

Just watched _Surrogates_ tonight. I was cracking up a bit because the surrogates were supposed to be (don't worry, not a spoiler) robotic versions of their human owners. For their look, they have smooth, waxy faces achieved by make-up and probably CGI / processing / filtering. In other words, they look like DNR faces. I was picturing how we would all rate the movie here.










Incidentally, has anybody caught that preview for Disney's _A Christmas Carol_ in animation a la _Polar Express_? The detail looked incredible. I can see that taking over the top spot when it comes out.


----------



## deltasun

*Midnight Express*


Moderate grain present throughout, with some scenes showing coarser grain as well as digital noise. As with a lot of older transfers, softness abounds. In addition, a high number of scenes had a hazy appearance, which was not helped by weak contrast. Facial details were also unimpressive for the most part, but with good lighting, there were a few stand-out scenes.


Black levels were never inky, but looked average. Low-light scenes suffered greatly for the most part, often looking flat. Depth and dimension were hard to come by, specially in the prison setting. Colors were on the drab side, again consistent with the tone of the story.


Overall, a fine looking presentation of an older film from Sony. There was no DNR that I could detect, but did spy some ringing (I believe the EE variety). It was most glaring while Billy was addressing the court towards the middle of the film.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Filmaholic* /forum/post/17207902
> 
> *Playtime*
> 
> 
> First things first, this is one of the best films ever made, shot in 65mm, highly revolutionary for it's time and it bombed with critics and audience when released in 1967. More than forty years later and it is considered a piece of choreographed genius, some sort of Chaplin on steroids.
> 
> 
> The Criterion Collection Blu-ray was minted from a 35mm reduction internegative made from a lovely restaured 65mm interpositive, it looks gorgeous for a film this age. It is presented in it's OAR of 1.85:1.
> 
> 
> The opening of the movie, where the credits roll against a static shot of a cloudy sky, is highly dammaged, with lots of vertical scratches, debris and a strain of hair at the bottom of the screen. It's also "letterboxed". Now, I'm not sure of this, but it looks this introducton has not been restaured (very much like Tim Burton's Batman on BD). I get the feeling this was done to show how extensive the restoration proccess actually was. The rest of the movie is almost perfect though.
> 
> 
> So, PQ is really, really marvelous. There are no close-up shots in this picture, everything is medium or wide focused and very highly detailed. The thing is that framing composition is just perfect, even with all the chaos going on. There is just so much going on, so much information on each shot, that you can watch it multiple times and always find something new.
> 
> 
> The technical side of the transfer itself is impressive, colors are marvelous (albeit looking metalical gray), detail is almost unparalleled for a 60's film, grain structure is steady and well defined, blacks don't crush, whites don't bloom and contrast is perfect for most of the time. Shadow delineation is also very strong.There are no glaring compression artifacts.
> 
> 
> Now, for the not-so-great things: I did catch contrast wavering on a handfull of extremely dark, night shots, it is not so bad as in say, Close Encounters, but it is present. It's a clear case of celulloid deterioration, too bad the restauration couldn't fix this problem. And, of course, some ammount of DNR and EE were applied, but it is in no way intrusive enough. There are very few instances of halloing due to that EE, amost imperceptible to my eyes, all in all, this is digital tempering done right.
> 
> 
> So, I'm very proud to own a copy of this film, and everybody who thinks cinema is an art-form (and not "just entertainment") will too.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 1.75*
> 
> 
> Hard: PS3 at 24p; Pana Viera 50'' (50PY85LB); 1080p; at 2,5mt from teli.



I watched a little over an hour last night. The daytime scenes look awesome! I would totally go with 1.75 for them!


I've watched up to the restaurant scenes. You were correct about the night scenes! Right now, I'd go with a Tier 2.0 rating (which could change of course, since there's still more to watch).


This movie is truly "life imitating art," or vice versa! I'll try to finish this weekend, and submit a recommendation soon after!


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SuprSlow* /forum/post/17246108
> 
> 
> Just an FYI, I'm starting on another update.
> 
> 
> And...I'm a dad
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our first, Nathan Daniel, born last Friday. 6lbs 11 oz, 21".
> 
> http://mrpburke.com/fileupload/uploads/0.jpg
> 
> 
> He and mom are both doing well. We came home Sunday, and haven't slept since
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's worth it though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Must be nice, huh?



Congratulations to Mr and Mrs. SuprSlow.









*Nathan Daniles - Tier-3*


Closeup shot of Nathan doesn't reveal pores. Looks soft, filtered and waxy. Shame on SuprSlow Brothers for botching such a brand new release.










Nathan looks too cute. Want to chew those cheeks.


----------



## daPriceIs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/17248855
> 
> *The Alps (IMAX)*
> 
> 
> Most IMAX transfers suck for some reason (how hard could it possibly be to squeeze out 1080p's worth of detail out an IMAX frame 10 times the size of super35?) , but the number of good ones I'm aware of just went up to 2. When the PQ is at its best, which is during the first half or so of the movie, it's reference quality, with resolution that's among the very best discs, rich colors and good contrast. During the flyovers of some Alpine villages, you can make out every little building and tree, the textures on mountain faces seem palpable, foliage is distinctly leafy. Grain is, as one might expect, almost nonexistent. The photography is lovely as well. This was heading right near the top of my personal PQ list, but unfortunately consistency, as well as visual interest, wanes in the second half of the feature. Some shots seemed to not have been sourced from top quality elements and look more like 35mm, and a couple of scenes exhibit color banding. Still, a very impressive looking disc.
> 
> 
> ...



I agree with you mostly, but this disc has some compression and source issues that prevent me from making a Tier 0 recommendation. I watched this several weeks ago but delayed reviewing it because I was waffling too much on a placement and because I couldn't quite get my head around what exactly the compression problems were and their extent. Even with the dirty source (OK, I exaggerate a bit), I could see a bottom Blu placement. But as it is, I think mid Gold at best.


Looks like I'll have to get off my ass and write that review.










Let me join the chorus welcoming Nathan Daniel to the PQ thread. We'll be looking forward to his reviews in a few years time of whatever the 2160p successors of Blu-ray are.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17249156
> 
> *Midnight Express*
> 
> 
> Moderate grain present throughout, with some scenes showing coarser grain as well as digital noise. As with a lot of older transfers, softness abounds. In addition, a high number of scenes had a hazy appearance, which was not helped by weak contrast. Facial details were also unimpressive for the most part, but with good lighting, there were a few stand-out scenes.
> 
> 
> Black levels were never inky, but looked average. Low-light scenes suffered greatly for the most part, often looking flat. Depth and dimension were hard to come by, specially in the prison setting. Colors were on the drab side, again consistent with the tone of the story.
> 
> 
> Overall, a fine looking presentation of an older film from Sony. There was no DNR that I could detect, but did spy some ringing (I believe the EE variety). It was most glaring while Billy was addressing the court towards the middle of the film.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.75*
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_



Thanks for the review. I didn't even know that this was released on Blu-ray yet. Good movie directed by Alan Parker.


I'm not surprised by a Tier 3 ranking.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17250129
> 
> 
> Thanks for the review. I didn't even know that this was released on Blu-ray yet. Good movie directed by Alan Parker.
> 
> 
> I'm not surprised by a Tier 3 ranking.



My co-worker is a big fan of this movie and his wife bought it for him on blu recently. He's talked about it for some time and wanted me to check it out. Not disappointed at all, neither with the story or the PQ. Worth a look!


----------



## deltasun

*X-Men Origins: Wolverine*

_A gift. You can return a gift._


Being an avid fan of the X-Men and especially the Wolverine character, the release of this film was a dream I've had since I was a young avid collector of any comic book dealing with Wolverine. I still have his introduction in Hulk 180 and of course, X-Men 205, which touches upon his origin. Or, at least how he got his adamantium claws and skeleton. On to the review...


Beautiful fine grain present, producing a very film-like presentation. Facial details were a bit inconsistent - Logan usually had really good details, but the other characters usually didn't compare. Kayla rarely had the detail Logan had, but Blob surpassed him a bit with good textures. Details in general were also hit or miss - Weapon XI's wrapped hand was detailed, but his face was smooth. I believe the softness being scrutinized in previous reviews were due to the shallow depth of field utilized in a few scenes. For example, when Logan wakes up from a dream screaming, his face was in sharp focus but his bulging shoulder and chest were slightly out of focus. This technique was employed throughout.


Black levels were decent, but low-light levels were also inconsistent. They're not terrible, but seeing the better examples makes one wonder why the not-so-great ones existed. Contrast was generally balanced and helped with the excellent depth in medium shots. Panoramic shots, particularly in the former half of the story, showed great dimensionality, details, and color. In fact, the colors were a bit muted but shined in those panoramic shots. Skin tones looked natural. Some of the CGI was bothersome - it was odd that the fake crane carrying logs bothered me quite a bit.










Overall, I was hoping for a higher tier placement. But in the end, the Wolverine style, I believe, keeps this title tightroping between Gold and Silver...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


Again, being such a fan of this character, I really wanted the story to work out. I believe it could have been better, but it was good enough. I felt the introduction of the other mutants was a bit over the top in their powers. Oh, one other thing that has always bothered me about Wolverine's claws from the beginning is how it can cut through steel/bricks/etc. like butter, but he can somehow use it to hold/prop himself up. For example, he was able to hold himself up on the helicopter without cutting right through. I can see how he can apply the pressure sideways, away from the sharp edges, but that's not what is shown. It's true in X-Men 1 as well when he holds himself up as he was sliding down the Statue of Liberty.


Another thing I wish they'd kept from the comic books was how Logan's fists would bleed *every time* his claws come out. In fact, I don't believe we ever see any blood on any claw or blade, Logan's or otherwise. Must be the rating.


I'm ready for the next Wolverine installment in Japan!









_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## stwrt

Are TV shows permitted in this thread ? In terms of meeting the aims of what the show creators were aiming for as regards picture quality fidelity, it seems to me that both Battlestar Galactica season 4.5 (haven't seen the complete series) and Supernatural season 4 were exceptionally faithful transfers to Blu-Ray - they would appear to be very near the top of the tier rating. I would appreciate comments on this.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Surveillance*


Something went wrong with this one. The main issue is that most of the scenes have a very washed out appearance. Contrast is usually very weak. Colors do not look good either, and detail and sharpness are below average.


Again, the washed out appearance is really bothersome.
*Tier Recommendation: Tier 3.75*


As for the movie, I was actually enjoying this one quite a bit, until a completely absurd "twist" was added towards the latter part of the movie that completely destroyed the entire thing.


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stwrt* /forum/post/17256984
> 
> 
> Are TV shows permitted in this thread ? In terms of meeting the aims of what the show creators were aiming for as regards picture quality fidelity, it seems to me that both Battlestar Galactica season 4.5 (haven't seen the complete series) and Supernatural season 4 were exceptionally faithful transfers to Blu-Ray - they would appear to be very near the top of the tier rating. I would appreciate comments on this.



If it's available on Blu and you have an opinion on it, feel free to post your comments.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stwrt* /forum/post/17256984
> 
> 
> Are TV shows permitted in this thread ? In terms of meeting the aims of what the show creators were aiming for as regards picture quality fidelity, it seems to me that both Battlestar Galactica season 4.5 (haven't seen the complete series) and Supernatural season 4 were exceptionally faithful transfers to Blu-Ray - they would appear to be very near the top of the tier rating. I would appreciate comments on this.



Anything that has been released on Blu-ray is appropriate for inclusion in the tier rankings, including television shows. The suggested criteria for placement is elaborated here:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1168342 


While faithfulness to the original source material is always a consideration, the tier ranking-system mainly focuses on the visual impact of the Blu-ray compared against all other releases. I have not seen the sets you mention, but new contributors are always welcome to add their thoughts and hopefully placements.


----------



## Pheran

Total nitpick, but the "Tier 4.5" title in the main thread has a random capitalization in it, is written "TIer 4.5".


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pheran* /forum/post/17264048
> 
> 
> Total nitpick, but the "Tier 4.5" title in the main thread has a random capitalization in it, is written "TIer 4.5".



Resolved. It'll be fixed the next time the list is updated. Till then, you'll have to live with it.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17257316
> 
> *Surveillance*
> 
> 
> Something went wrong with this one. The main issue is that most of the scenes have a very washed out appearance. Contrast is usually very weak. Colors do not look good either, and detail and sharpness are below average.
> 
> 
> Again, the washed out appearance is really bothersome.
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 3.75*
> 
> 
> As for the movie, I was actually enjoying this one quite a bit, until a completely absurd "twist" was added towards the latter part of the movie that completely destroyed the entire thing.



Something must have gone wrong with the Blu-ray. I saw it on HDNet a few months back and it did not look that bad upon cursory reflection. The plot twist was a little abrupt, though not entirely unpredictable.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17265821
> 
> 
> Something must have gone wrong with the Blu-ray. I saw it on HDNet a few months back and it did not look that bad upon cursory reflection. The plot twist was a little abrupt, though not entirely unpredictable.



Not much went wrong for me on Blu-Ray, having given it a seemingly lofty 2.0:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...e#post17082606


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17265821
> 
> 
> Something must have gone wrong with the Blu-ray. I saw it on HDNet a few months back and it did not look that bad upon cursory reflection. The plot twist was a little abrupt, though not entirely unpredictable.



All I can tell you is that it was one of the worst looking new titles I have seen on Blu-ray.


The "twist" completely and utterly destroyed the movie for me. Beyond ridiculous.


----------



## deltasun

*Monsters vs. Aliens*

_There probably isn't a jar in this world I can't open_


To me, the best PQ feature was texture. The texture on almost every element in every scene was well-rendered - faces, clothing, fur, asphalt, etc. Details were simply AMAZING! Blacks were bold, though not many scenes contained them. Shadow details, on the other hand, were plentiful and were excellent. Depth and dimensionality were maximized with all panoramic scenes. Medium shots also consisted of "small aperture" filming, which showed great detail even on faraway, minimally blurred objects. The scene by the gazebo was a perfect example.


Colors were bright when needed to be and warm for the scenes that called for them. It's really hard to find anything wrong with this title. The only thing that may bother other viewers was the persistent ringing throughout. The worst of these, in my opinion, was the ringing on the black bars (letterbox) themselves. Once I noticed them, I couldn't not see them anymore.


As such, I have to knock its rating down a smidge. I believe even with this knock, it still looks better (though not as bright) than _A Bug's Life_...

*Tier Recommendation: Top of Tier 0*


This was quite an enjoyable animated feature. I have to admit though that a lot of it has to do with getting wowed by the PQ scene after scene after scene.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## Filmaholic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/17249254
> 
> 
> I watched a little over an hour last night. The daytime scenes look awesome! I would totally go with 1.75 for them!
> 
> 
> I've watched up to the restaurant scenes. You were correct about the night scenes! Right now, I'd go with a Tier 2.0 rating (which could change of course, since there's still more to watch).
> 
> 
> This movie is truly "life imitating art," or vice versa! I'll try to finish this weekend, and submit a recommendation soon after!



Hey, I'm glad you are liking *Playtime* Selimsivad. I also am very interested to see how will you place it. I was also somewhat torn on this one (between Tiers 1.75 and 2.0). I finally set *Playtime* for lower gold tier, as an analogy to *2001*, which has similar PQ quality and it is the same age.


You are right, life imitates art (or is it the other way around?).


----------



## Filmaholic

Yeah, mad congrats on the sucessor *SuprSlow*!


So, will *Nathan Daniel* be called "SuprSlow Jr.", "InfraSlow" or "NotsoSlow"?


Very cute baby. I think the "softness" is due to the digital camera used, and not some post-production DNR. It is the directors intent, but should be penalized anyway. About that "waxy" face. Humm, not sure about this one, the toddler looks really textured to me.


----------



## mike171979

What exactly is going on with this thread???


I see the List is for some reason in a DIFFERENT Thread, that NO ONE ever comments on.


Not only that, the list over in that other thread is nearly 2 months old!!!!


Do we need someone else to take over the job, because Super Slow seems to be a dad now and incapable of updating the list for months at a time.


EDIT: Congrats by the way Super, and by incapable, all I meant was I can imagine how busy your going to be with a new born, and someone else could probably update the list once a week to help you out.


----------



## Wryker




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mike171979* /forum/post/17273419
> 
> 
> What exactly is going on with this thread???
> 
> 
> I see the List is for some reason in a DIFFERENT Thread, that NO ONE ever comments on.
> 
> 
> Not only that, the list over in that other thread is nearly 2 months old!!!!
> 
> 
> Do we need someone else to take over the job, because Super Slow seems to be a dad now and incapable of updating the list for months at a time.



It was moved to keep it 'clean'.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Filmaholic* /forum/post/17271632
> 
> 
> it looks amazing, wonderful, especially for a film this age.



But probably not nearly as good as it could look, since that transfer was from a 35mm print. Which is odd because I've read the 65mm negatives are fine for the most part and I heard they even restored it recently


----------



## Filmaholic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/17274114
> 
> 
> But probably not nearly as good as it could look, since that transfer was from a 35mm print. Which is odd because I've read the 65mm negatives are fine for the most part and I heard they even restored it recently



As I said in my review earlier, “The Criterion Collection Blu-ray was minted from a 35mm reduction internegative made from a lovely restaured 65mm interpositive”. Why there was a need for such "reduction internegative" is anyone's guess though. And no, the source is somewhat degraded, as I mentioned in my review (contrast "wavering" in very dark shots). But I kinda agree with you, kinda. There is still some room for improvement, restoration wise.


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mike171979* /forum/post/17273419
> 
> 
> What exactly is going on with this thread???
> 
> 
> I see the List is for some reason in a DIFFERENT Thread, that NO ONE ever comments on.



That is because the original thread had the list in the very first post, and that post wasn't able to take the amount of data that we need for the list. Soooo, it needed moved to a new thread so we could have enough posts to hold the data. Then, in case it gets bigger, it was asked that nobody post there. It looks to be working just fine



> Quote:
> Not only that, the list over in that other thread is nearly 2 months old!!!!



This isn't anyones full time job. It's a "Pasttime" both for the admin and for the readers/reviewers.



> Quote:
> Do we need someone else to take over the job, because Super Slow seems to be a dad now and incapable of updating the list for months at a time.



I"ve got a great idea. Why don't you offer to do it and it'll be solved.


----------



## deltasun

Guys, we really gotta get away from personal attacks in this thread. We will have varying and sometimes completely opposing opinions. There is no excuse to getting personal. Let's get back to more reviews - lots of good movies out there!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mike171979* /forum/post/17273419
> 
> 
> What exactly is going on with this thread???
> 
> 
> I see the List is for some reason in a DIFFERENT Thread, that NO ONE ever comments on.
> 
> 
> Not only that, the list over in that other thread is nearly 2 months old!!!!
> 
> 
> Do we need someone else to take over the job, because Super Slow seems to be a dad now and incapable of updating the list for months at a time.
> 
> 
> EDIT: Congrats by the way Super, and by incapable, all I meant was I can imagine how busy your going to be with a new born, and someone else could probably update the list once a week to help you out.



Are you volunteering?


----------



## mike171979

If I was allowed access to edit the list, I wouldn't mind spending a few minutes a week adding titles to the list.


As long as you don't mind me just taking forum member's views as fact. I mean I'm not going to check anything.


If someone posts, "I think so and so move is a 2.50". THATS IT, I would post it under that tier and be done with it.


----------



## K-Spaz

You may have spoken too soon, cause I'm sure Suprslow isn't going to mind getting some help. If he says it's ok, you've got the job.


PM him and mention that you'd be willing to help, and as long as he's got no objections, I'll get it set up asap. PM me with what you want to use for a login.


It will require some cooperation with Suprslow for things like to what point it's up to date, etc. He can elaborate.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mike171979* /forum/post/17277910
> 
> 
> If someone posts, "I think so and so move is a 2.50". THATS IT, I would post it under that tier and be done with it.


----------



## tfoltz

I believe the hard part is weighing the opinions of many on any one title, and adjusting old rankings that people wish to be amended.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mike171979* /forum/post/17277910
> 
> 
> If someone posts, "I think so and so move is a 2.50". THATS IT, I would post it under that tier and be done with it.


----------



## G.B.

Anyone got the Wizard of Oz ? Been waiting for a report... Got mine at WM in Bluray section but have not watched it Yet.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *G.B.* /forum/post/17279525
> 
> 
> Anyone got the Wizard of Oz ? Been waiting for a report... Got mine at WM in Bluray section but have not watched it Yet.



I should have this from Netflix today.


----------



## Wryker




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17280063
> 
> 
> I should have this from Netflix today.



If you have HDTivo or STB that streams Netflix: beginning tomorrow you can stream WoO from Netflix for the weekend only! So be sure to take advantage of this deal (if you can).


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *G.B.* /forum/post/17279525
> 
> 
> Anyone got the Wizard of Oz ? Been waiting for a report... Got mine at WM in Bluray section but have not watched it Yet.



I have it here from Netflix. Will watch this weekend.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wryker* /forum/post/17280134
> 
> 
> If you have HDTivo or STB that streams Netflix: beginning tomorrow you can stream WoO from Netflix for the weekend only! So be sure to take advantage of this deal (if you can).



In HD?


----------



## djoberg

*Monsters vs. Aliens*


I am finding, with each new animated release from companies such as Dreamworks or Pixar, that it's getting quite difficult to rate them (by this I mean it's difficult to compare them against each other), for once again we are treated to a near flawless production that easily earns a spot in the top of Tier 0.


The only *negative* I noticed (and this was limited to a few rare shots) was some softness in early scenes. This was no doubt intentional, and yet it must be mentioned. I did NOT see the ringing that deltasun observed (thankfully), or any banding that was pointed out by a reviewer on another site, so this is my only area of censure.


The *positives* include EVERYTHING one would desire....breathtaking DETAILS & DEPTH....vibrant COLORS....strong CONTRAST....deep BLACKS (though they were "few and far between")....exquisite SHADOW DETAILS...and aside from the isolated soft shots, amazing SHARPNESS. The close-up facial shots of Susan and other humans revealed pores, stubble, wrinkles, etc. and I would say there is no rival in other animated titles in this department.


Again, it is getting extremely difficult, if not impossible, to rate most of these new animated releases, though I'm still not ready to put this on the level of _Coraline_. Yet I would have no problem seeing this in the top 5.

*Tier Recommendation: Top of Tier 0 below A Bug's Life*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30...Viewed from 8'


PS I just have to add that the audio on this was ABSOLUTELY AWESOME!!!!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Hellraiser
recommendation: Tier 3.75*


A company can create a solid film transfer with no egregious mistakes, and the BD may still not end up visually impressive under the criteria laid out here. _Hellraiser_ is one such disc, as Starz brings to high-definition the 1987 Clive Barker horror movie. The 93-minute film made its Blu-ray debut on April 21st of this year. The video is encoded in AVC and on a BD-50, with an average video bitrate of 27.96 Mbps.


The AVC compression is nearly flawless. One flaw that does appear is a brief sliver of compression noise that pops up in the scene involving the character Kirsty at the hospital. Aside from that moment, this is a reference-quality video encode that easily handles the deep grain-structure of the movie. Even the darkest scenes, thick with a visible grain-texture, display no trace of macroblocking. The encode is likely transparent with the utmost fidelity to the master Starz used for this disc's transfer. A sterling example of how higher bitrates preserve thicker grain and the available resolution of the master in translation to 1080p.


Another solid practice manifested in the picture is the clear lack of ringing and sharpening filters evident. The film lacks the over-processed look of so many other catalog films available on Blu-ray, with nary a halo spotted during close inspection. Some might criticize the picture as too soft, but it appears the cinematography employed for some of the film was not exactly going for a sharp, multi-dimensional image.


While only someone with access to the original film elements would know exactly, it does not appear as if any noise reduction tools have been employed to reduce possible grain for this transfer. It is true that many close-ups are soft and somewhat limited in ultra-fine detail, but visible grain has clearly been untouched by digital manipulation. Darker scenes, particularly those involving the character Frank, really push the film into a thick and almost messy grain structure that dominates the image. It is a open question if this was the movie's intent, or whether budgetary limitations might have played a role. Whatever the cause, shadow detail gets greatly obscured in these passages. These scenes only comprise a minority of the movie's running-time but are not great looking. They are effectively creepy though and that serves the movie.


Parts of the movie look better than tier three in quality, and might even qualify for tier two status. A few scenes do clearly drop into consideration for tier four, notably a couple of the scenes involving Julia luring her paramours in her house. At one specific moment, both characters are wearing dark suit jackets which completely blend into the background of a darkened room, turning the screen nearly black and crushing almost all contrast and detail. Much of the movie shows a tendency for inconsistent flesh-tones, with overly warm coloring to lighted faces exaggerating the reddish hues. Well-lit scenes demonstrate solid black levels and reasonably good contrast.


While some shots are okay in terms of sharpness, notably the introduction of Frank to Julia, the picture is not terribly deep and usually below-average in this aspect. Resolution is barely on par with many of the other titles in tier three. It is a clear upgrade from standard resolution, but do not expect excellent high-frequency content like facial details and hair structure on regular display. While the master looks decent, showing only a hint of dirt in the form of black specks and little deterioration, the transfer probably shows its age of origin in little ways. Overall I was pleased with the transfer, as Starz seems to have done the best they could have given the limitations in the original film. This is a fine and acceptable upgrade for fans of the film, noting an improved version probably could not happen.


Watching on a 60” Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a 60 GB PS3 (firmware 3.01) at a viewing distance of six feet.


BDInfo Scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post16387125


----------



## daPriceIs

*The Alps*


This 45 minute IMAX film is a 2007 MacGillivray Freeman Films production and follows the standard MFF formula. It was released on BD a year ago by Image Entertainment: BD-25, AVC 1080p/24, DTS-HD MA 5.1, with some Queen tunes and guitar solos by Brian May; it also has some voice-over by Michael Gambon (Harry Potter's Dumbledore). It tells the story of American journalist and mountaineer John Harlin III and his 2006 attempt to retrace and complete his father's fatal 1966 ascent of the north face of the Eiger. Only the last 16 minutes of the film deals with the actual ascent, the rest of the film is preparation for the climb and a bit of Swiss travelogue and mountaineering history including a partial recreation of JH II's last moments.


Beyond the spectacular scenery the first thing you notice about this video is its incredible resolution. At its best this video has reference level sharpness. It's about as good as it gets. Two cases in point:

From 06:06 to 06:12 in chapter 1 there is a shot of a couple dozen houses and sheds/barns strewn up and down the side of a valley with a sawtooth ridge of mountains in the background. It's a static shot where the only movement is a fellow walking down a trail beneath some barns. The figure is in the middle distance and is maybe five pixels wide by 11 or 12 tall and you can distinguish head, trunk, and limbs and clearly see arm and leg movements. [To put that in perspective: on my 1920x1200 pixel monitor at native resolution, in Firefox and with my current font settings, in Windows Vista, that is about the same pixel dimensions as the letter B on this page.] In the foreground is a line of trees each of which is wonderfully resolved. I could tell you the species of each individual tree if I knew anything about trees. The trees in the far distance above and behind the fellow are nicely resolved even though they have to be at least a few miles beyond him. It's just an incredible shot and the camera obviously has got some very good glass.
Also in chapter 1 from 04:01 to 04:24 is a helicopter shot of three cross country skiers in a snow field or perhaps on top of a glacier. This long shot shows the faces of the skiers with pixel level detail -faces that can't be more than 12 to 15 pixels wide.


In general the travelogue part of the film equals or is no more than a little bit below this in sharpness. The shots of the actual climb are more problematic but still mostly excellent; however, there are several (no more than a dozen) short sequences totaling about three minutes that are significantly softer, probably due to the difficult shooting conditions. Additionally, there is some archival black and white newsreel type footage from 1966 of the father's funeral. None of this alone is enough to knock this BD out of a place at the bottom of Tier 0.


The film has two other problems beyond this bit of softness. The print has a surprising amount of speckles, scratches, and streaks given that the film was only a few months old at the time of the transfer. Their frequency and density is low enough that they are not very noticeable but this is another knock against the overall PQ.


The major problem is the encoding. There are rampant compression artifacts. There is a little bit of banding in a handful of scenes but it never reaches a very consequential level. There is some minor ringing of mountain ridges when viewed against the sky. And then only on edges that run up the screen from left to right. There is no evidence of edge enhancement. But these are minor symptoms. Quantization noise is the real culprit. It is present to one degree or another in virtually every frame. In motion it could easily be mistaken for grain, but I assure you it is not. (As for natural grain, who can tell? It's hidden under all this other junk.) How do I know? When is the last time that grain spontaneously organized itself fractal-like into a chessboard pattern of good and bad 2x2 blocks within 16x16 macroblocks which are in turn scattered across the screen in a chessboard pattern of good and bad macroblocks? Hmmm Never? Exactly. You can pause the disc at virtually any frame and see some variation of what I've just described. The distinction between good and bad blocks is subtle (i.e., the error is small). But under the right conditions the subtle becomes blatant: just pop in this disc and put your display in torch mode and you'll see the blocks in all their ugly glory.


I had an indirect route to this revelation. On early viewing of this disc a few scenes struck me as suspicious or odd. One I suspected of being over-sharpened or digitally processed in some insidious way. The others featured bright (near clipping) expanses of snow that looked either jumpy or slightly off for lack of better terms. Before castigating the video in a review, it occurred to me that the off snow might have been a side effect of some of the compromises I had made when calibrating my display. I confirmed this by toggling through the TV's various other picture modes. Once I landed on the Vivid or torch mode, all was revealed. Then knowing what to look for, the noise and blocking could be (barely) seen in the other modes; they were least visible in the HCFR calibrated Cinema mode that I almost always use.


The question now becomes how much should I punish a video for problems that under typical viewing conditions just aren't that visible? I know the problems are there. I can't un-know what I've learned. And knowing what I know, this video is automatically barred from Tier 0. I've been scratching my head over this one for quite a while, and have come to a reluctant conclusion:

*Despite what you know or think you know, in the end PQ is a function of what your eyes tell you.* So 

*Recommendation: Tier 1.25 (with reservations)
*

Panasonic TH-42PZ77U, 1080p, 4'


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *daPriceIs* /forum/post/17284070
> 
> *Despite what you know or think you know, in the end PQ is a function of what your eyes tell you. So …*



:K-Spaz chuckles:

Yes that is the truth.


Great writeup. I'm with ya on going with your gut instead of trying to nail down all the video problems instead.


----------



## 42041

*Priceless*


This 2006 French film comes to HD with an unimpressive transfer. While it does look like a recent film and has enough HD-ness to keep it out of the lower tiers, there are several major issues. The most significant one is the AWFUL compression work combined with excessive temporal noise reduction. The grain takes on a completely unnatural look more akin to digital noise, and the NR leaves unsightly smearing and frozen grain patterns, as well as being utterly ineffective in its goal of reducing noise. The moped ride scene around the 1hr:14min mark exhibits the worst compression I've ever seen on any disc. The contrast is too hot at the upper end of things, daylight shots are full of blown highlights, and the frequent sharpening/edge enhancement makes for a harsh image. Focus issues in the photography are frequent.


a somewhat generous *Tier 3.0*


(PS3/Pioneer 50" Kuro Elite/1 screen width distance)


----------



## subavision212




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17283329
> 
> *Monsters vs. Aliens*
> 
> 
> I am finding, with each new animated release from companies such as Dreamworks or Pixar, that it's getting quite difficult to rate them (by this I mean it's difficult to compare them against each other), for once again we are treated to a near flawless production that easily earns a spot in the top of Tier 0.
> 
> 
> The only *negative* I noticed (and this was limited to a few rare shots) was some softness in early scenes. This was no doubt intentional, and yet it must be mentioned. I did NOT see the ringing that deltasun observed (thankfully), or any banding that was pointed out by a reviewer on another site, so this is my only area of censure.
> 
> 
> The *positives* include EVERYTHING one would desire....breathtaking DETAILS & DEPTH....vibrant COLORS....strong CONTRAST....deep BLACKS (though they were "few and far between")....exquisite SHADOW DETAILS...and aside from the isolated soft shots, amazing SHARPNESS. The close-up facial shots of Susan and other humans revealed pores, stubble, wrinkles, etc. and I would say there is no rival in other animated titles in this department.
> 
> 
> Again, it is getting extremely difficult, if not impossible, to rate most of these new animated releases, though I'm still not ready to put this on the level of _Coraline_. Yet I would have no problem seeing this in the top 5.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Top of Tier 0 below A Bug's Life*
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30...Viewed from 8'
> 
> 
> PS I just have to add that the audio on this was ABSOLUTELY AWESOME!!!!



boy, do I have to agree with this review. Didn't enjoy it too much in the theater but, man, this is one hellacious blu-ray!!!!


----------



## deltasun

*The Brothers Bloom*


Fine grain present throughout. This film had lots of issues but still looked decent in places. Contrast was weak. The director seemed to favor backlit shots, where the presence of a strong light source accompanied subjects in an unusually high number of medium scenes. These always resulted in a hazy picture. Black levels were also problematic - 90% of them crushed. Shadow details were better.


Colors appeared to be muted at first, but those scenes would be accompanied by brighter colors which would stand out. In fact, the whole film habitually shifted back and forth between problematic scenes and extremely crisp and sharp renderings, complete with strong contrast and a slight touch of saturation. There were also some excellent panoramic shots interspersed throughout.


The film was clean. I did spot a few instances of ringing and a bit of banding as well. Overall, the haze and crushing cannot be ignored and would stick this somewhere in...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75*


If I wasn't rating the PQ, I probably would have hit stop within the first 10 or so minutes. Took one for the team.









_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## deltasun

Hey Denny, I agree with your review, aside from the softness. Can you elaborate on those scenes further? I usually don't miss those, but could not recall having witnessed any. Maybe I was so focused on another aspect and missed some.


----------



## deltasun

*Next Day Air*


Wow, two bad movies in a row! Needless to say, this will be brief. Another presentation with fine grain present throughout. A number of scenes had quite a bit of digital noise. Indoor scenes yielded better PQ for the most part - facials details were excellent, with lots of pores, lines, imperfections. Blacks and shadow details were slightly above average. Contrast was balanced and colors were warm and natural. Skin tones were also spot on.


Outdoor scenes were generally flat and uninteresting. Then, there were the numerous flashback scenes where contrast was pushed and scenes were painted with a greenish tinge. Facial details were still decent, but everything else suffers, including the aforementioned elevated grain/noise.


Overall, this is another title where the good and bad cancel each other out and average in the average tier...

*Tier Recommendation: 3.25*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## Filmaholic

*The Good, the Bad and the Ugly*


Ok, this (as much as *Akira* or *Playtime*) is another glaring omission of this thread. It is considered by many the best Western movie ever made. It was directed by Sergio Leone and shot in Spain. So here lies its most aggravating “flaw”, it was performed by actors with different nationalities and later dubbed in a studio. So, lips don’t synch to the dialogue.


I have to say, I absolutely adore this film, but it is extremely gritty, with a dulled and “washed” color palette. It was also made with a medium-sized budget, and sometimes it shows. But Leone’s cinematographer was a genius and his work is highly influential up to this day, more than forty years after the film was shot. His style was clearly a major source of inspiration for guys like Quentin Tarantino (especially “Kill Bill”) and Robert Rodriguez. The “extreme close-up, give me your eyes only” technique was born with this guy. There are some awesome extra-wide shots also.


First, let’s consider the master source. It received a good enough restoration, but many speckles, debris and scratches still persist. The colors (albeit brown-toned and muted, most of the time) have not degraded over the years and there is no print fluctuation here. Contrast is also solid, albeit not perfect. Blacks are good most of the time, though I did catch some crushing. Overall, it was well preserved and nicely restored, but, in a very few scenes, peripheral focus is somewhat lost, blurred.


So, about the transfer itself. Ok, here is where it gets somewhat nasty. Considering the film age and the stock in which it was shot, there is no way this grain structure is “what it once was”. I mean, the film grain is almost gone, digitally removed I suppose, and that's a shame. So, obviously, a large amount of DNR was applied. But it is not of the worst kind. As I noticed before, the final PQ is fairly clean, with most of the print blemishes digitally removed. Also of important notice is that this DNR applied has not caused any “waxiness” to facial features and finer detail is pretty impressive, especially in those “eyes only” close-ups. It falters a bit in some medium shots though. Some might dread the EE applied. I am not that sensitive to this, unless it’s “Halo Land” out there. The one used here can be distracting at times, but it’s not over intrusive to my eyes.


Bottom line is if you love it own it. It won’t get much better than this. It is far from perfect, for sure. But it is such an awesome film I can’t recommend it enough.


Spaghetti forever! Oh yeah: and that awesome score by Ennio Morricone won't ever get out of your head again. Ever.


AR is 2:35:1.

*Recommendation: Tier 2.75 Silver*


GearS3, 24p, PlasmaPana Viera 50'' at 2m; 1080p.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17290458
> 
> 
> Hey Denny, I agree with your review, aside from the softness. Can you elaborate on those scenes further? I usually don't miss those, but could not recall having witnessed any. Maybe I was so focused on another aspect and missed some.



I just recall a few shots in earlier scenes where it just wasn't as sharp and thus everything looked a bit soft....not bad, but enough to take away the WOW factor for a few moments at a time. I can't recall the exact time points, but I will more-than-likely end up buying this title and when I do I'll watch it and record actual times.


Let me say though that even with a few moments of softness, it didn't affect the amazing detail and depth that was present throughout the movie. This one ranks second (next to _Coraline_) in that department, IMO.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *subavision212* /forum/post/17290415
> 
> 
> boy, do I have to agree with this review. Didn't enjoy it too much in the theater but, man, this is one hellacious blu-ray!!!!



I didn't see it in the theater, but I REALLY enjoyed it in my modest theater room. Absolutely phenomenal PQ and AQ! And I was laughing from beginning to end....BOB had the best one-liners ever.


----------



## Mark Booth

*Wizard of Oz - 70th Anniversary Restoration*


Despite my EXTREME happiness with the restoration that Warner has done on this wonderful classic movie (and its presentation on Blu), I honestly don't believe Wizard of Oz qualifies as a Tier 0 presentation. Certainly, the movie is giving us pretty much everything it can, given its age. But, compared to the titles that already hold the coveted Tier 0 Reference crown, I think the Wizard of Oz falls just a bit short. If we were only comparing movies from the same period of time to each other, then Wizard of Oz would certainly rank right at the top. But there's only so much resolution, detail and image quality you can wring from a 70-year old movie, which makes it difficult for it to compete with more modern, truly reference quality presentations.


So, basically, I think Wizard of Oz justifiably gets a little "punished" for being so old when compared within an extremely broad range of (mostly) much more modern movies.

*Tier Recommendation: Gold 1.25*


Mark


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Filmaholic* /forum/post/17290701
> 
> *The Good, the Bad and the Ugly*
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom line is if you love it own it. It won't get much better than this. It is far from perfect, for sure. But it is such an awesome film I can't recommend it enough.
> 
> 
> Spaghetti forever! Oh yeah: and that awesome score by Ennio Morricone won't ever get out of your head again. Ever.



Thanks for the review. I love this movie too. As great as it is, though, I much prefer Once Upon A Time in the West. I'm really looking forward to that one on Blu. The film has been restored.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17291121
> 
> 
> I just recall a few shots in earlier scenes where it just wasn't as sharp and thus everything looked a bit soft....not bad, but enough to take away the WOW factor for a few moments at a time. I can't recall the exact time points, but I will more-than-likely end up buying this title and when I do I'll watch it and record actual times.
> 
> 
> Let me say though that even with a few moments of softness, it didn't affect the amazing detail and depth that was present throughout the movie. This one ranks second (next to _Coraline_) in that department, IMO.



No need for time codes, just curious what the subject was that exhibited softness.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Thanks for all the recent reviews, guys! Life's got a teensy bit hectic for me this past week, but hopefully it'll be calmer now. I did watch a couple of blu's, but I was not watching them close enough to warrant a review. Heck, one I shut off and mailed back to Zip without even finishing it -- "Australia" with Nicole Kidman & Hugh Jackman. Now, I loves me some Hugh, but after the first 30 minutes of that I couldn't take it. Maybe if I was in a different frame of mind; perhaps I'll ziplist it again one day but not for now!



What I do have, and will try to review by next week some time, is the Canuck release of Equilibrium from Zip. I haven't watched it yet, but I've heard that it's been released in the wrong aspect ratio by the folks in the Equilibrium thread. Now, I've only seen this movie once before about a year ago on DVD, so I'm not sure how it'll affect my viewing of the movie, if at all.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17292094
> 
> 
> No need for time codes, just curious what the subject was that exhibited softness.



Sorry deltasun, but I can't really remember. All I remember is it was early on in the movie, and I believe it was before Susan became one of the "monster gang."







The whole picture at times just didn't have the punch that the vast majority of the title had.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17292883
> 
> 
> Thanks for all the recent reviews, guys! Life's got a teensy bit hectic for me this past week, but hopefully it'll be calmer now.



My life will be all of that starting next week at this time. We're attending a friend's wedding near Minneapolis and then heading east for a conference in Philadelphia, followed by a New England Fall Foliage tour in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New York. I will really miss watching Blu-rays and HD via satellite, but perhaps I'll be able to visit the thread courtesy of a WI-FI in motels and coffee shops. I'll be back at the end of October.


----------



## G.B.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mark Booth* /forum/post/17291247
> 
> *Wizard of Oz - 70th Anniversary Restoration*
> 
> 
> Despite my EXTREME happiness with the restoration that Warner has done on this wonderful classic movie (and its presentation on Blu), I honestly don't believe Wizard of Oz qualifies as a Tier 0 presentation. Certainly, the movie is giving us pretty much everything it can, given its age. But, compared to the titles that already hold the coveted Tier 0 Reference crown, I think the Wizard of Oz falls just a bit short. If we were only comparing movies from the same period of time to each other, then Wizard of Oz would certainly rank right at the top. But there's only so much resolution, detail and image quality you can wring from a 70-year old movie, which makes it difficult for it to compete with more modern, truly reference quality presentations.
> 
> 
> So, basically, I think Wizard of Oz justifiably gets a little "punished" for being so old when compared within an extremely broad range of (mostly) much more modern movies.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Gold 1.25*
> 
> 
> Mark



Mark, I agree... I think they did the best they could,Picture & Audio. I think it would be a Gold Star for doing the best with what they had to work with. Could be should do a scale for vintage to Bluray...


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Sounds as though they did a phenomenal job if it's a recommendation for Tier 1.25, for Wizard of Oz! Looking forward to seeing it.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Monsters Vs. Aliens*


Another fantastic looking CGI title. Simply superb, and deserving of being compared with the best of the best. I really don't have anything negative to say. Detail, clarity, color, contrast, it has it all.


Great sound quality too.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (in the top 8 at least).


----------



## deltasun

*Star Trek: First Contact*


Extremely fine grain present throughout; almost invisible from 8'. Hence, I change my viewing distance to 6'. I will preface this review by saying I was underwhelmed by this title and I'm not sure why. I cannot pinpoint the exact reason, but it may be a combination of everything. On the surface, scenes look very good. The initial scene with Locutus looked very promising, as his facial close-up showed excellent details. Facial close-ups were very inconsistent throughout. Instances of softness would creep in here and there. It's almost like the camera work was a bit too casual or careless. Mr. Data seems to always have a waxy look.







Actually, his make-up exhibited quite the texture.


Blacks were solid and contrast strikingly bold (particularly in the early Enterprise scenes). Contrast does wane a bit once we get to outdoor scenes. Shadow details also varied, but were usually flat. Medium shots didn't show good depth either. Skin tones were just a slight bit warm.


Overall, the HD-ness just didn't quite come through for me. The first 20 minutes showed promise, but once the crew came down to Earth in 2063, PQ came down with them. There were also signs of mild DNR applied in a number of scenes, but not very bothersome.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.50*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## b_scott

has anyone seen Army of Darkness? I'm watching it now, and any shot that isn't composite (or the intro with the Evil Dead 1 & 2 shots) is sharp as a tack. It's pretty amazing for such a low budget older film. Loving it. Hard to rank because of the occasional bad shot and some artifacts of the film (not the conversion), but in general I'd probably go 1.50 - 2.00


----------



## deltasun

*Requiem for a Dream*


Really good transfer and presentation, albeit stylized and runs counter to the definitions of this thread. The entire film looks to have a filter resulting in a hazy (almost Vaseline-like coating) appearance, which gives brighter objects a sort of smeary luminescence. There were a handful of scenes which appeared more "normal." These looked crisp and very well detailed.


The rest of the film was affected by this stylized look. Blacks were not bold, contrast a bit weak, and depth compromised. Low-light details were a bit mixed. And if you haven't gotten enough of the stylized look, it gets even more pushed during the hallucination scenes.


Overall, this title treads the Bronze/Copper tier. I have to give credit for a beautiful transfer and a generally clean print...

*Tier Recommendation: 3.75*


If you're a big fan of the film, don't let the tier recommendation dissuade you. This is how the director intended the look.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## djoberg

^^^^


I'll definitely have to check this out deltasun, for I am indeed a fan of this movie. I remember how solemnized I was the first time I saw it, for it definitely looks into man's "darker side" and how self-destructive we can be. But I still enjoyed the superb acting (by EVERY lead actor) and the lessons that *can* be learned if we take heed to the "moral of the story." I had no idea it was out on Blu, so thanks for the heads up!


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17297358
> 
> *Requiem for a Dream*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overall, this title treads the Bronze/Copper tier. I have to give credit for a beautiful transfer and a generally clean print...
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.75*
> 
> 
> If you're a big fan of the film, don't let the tier recommendation dissuade you. This is how the director intended the look.



I totally agree with your recommendation! Beautiful transfer! Aronofsky's films tend to have lackluster blacks, to fit in with his stylized look.


Nothing can dissuade me from anything Aronofsky!


----------



## selimsivad

*Playtime*



*1.85:1*


I'M BAAACK!










I had never heard of this film prior to Filmaholic's review! I am a fan of avant-garde, and Playtime did not disappoint. This film is an audio and visual delight!










What amazed me the most was the lack of closeups! You could still make out facial detail, detail from Tati's checkered coat, ect. The color palette was muted, with lots of greys and blues. Any other color stuck out like a sore thumb!


The scenes consisted of lots of straight lines, angles, reflections, moving people, moving cars, Eiffel Towers, neon lights, ect.







I could go on and on, but my fingers would hate me!










There was a layer of grain present, but I still suspect minor DNR. It wasn't bothersome, but it was noticeable. Filmaholic mentioned the high contrast in the night sky in his review of the film. It gave an unnatural look to night scenes, in my opinion.


When factoring my recommendation, Playtime seemed more "Blade Runner" than "2001." In addition, I penalized it for the negatives mentioned earlier.


If you're a fan of silent film, I think you'll enjoy Playtime. I smiled and laughed nearly the entire time I watched! I think you will too!















*Playtime

Tier Recommendation: Tier 2.25

PS3-Samsung 46" 1080p-seven'*


----------



## deltasun

Hey, welcome back, selimsivad!


Yes, guys, it was good to finally have _Requiem for a Dream_ in blu. After seeing the comparisons to the Canadian version, it was a no brainer. The improvement was simply amazing. Plus, it came out with a $10 price tag and so it was an easy pick up. It just took me a while to finally view it.


I just checked - still under $10 at Wally World. Now, just waiting for _Pi_.


----------



## daPriceIs

*Coraline*


There have been plenty of reviews singing Coraline’s praises and I agree with them mostly. So in this review all I’m going to do is nitpick.


I had an uninspired start with this one. The movie was looking pretty good but I got really bored with the story. Lasted maybe 15 minutes before I quit to watch something else --unfortunately for Coraline it was facing competition from other recent purchases that were intrinsically more interesting to me: _Chronicles of Riddick_, _Van Helsing_, _The International_, and _X-Men Origins: Wolverine_. Once I finally got back to the movie I still had trouble getting into it so, aware of earlier posts about faces and CGI or lack thereof, I watched “The Making of Coraline” and some of the extras instead. Doing that gave me a better appreciation of the effort and artistry involved and motivated me to finish watching the film. I’ve watched the thing a few times now, with and without the director’s commentary, and while I marvel at its PQ and it does have some entertaining moments, it’s far from a favorite.

*CGI:* The movie is 95% stop-action animation and old-school models and props. But there’s plenty of green screen digital compositing and 2D modeling as well. As the director says in “The Making of Coraline,” the film is truly a hybrid, but every effort was made to give the film a “hand-made,” non-digital look. I urge everyone who has the disc to take a look at the “Making of” featurette and the next time you watch the movie stick around for a few extra minutes to watch the credits roll at the end to see the diversity of technical talent used on the film. Doing that as well as listening to the director’s commentary should put this issue to rest.

*Faces:* I’m both against and with *deltasun* on this one.
The surface features of the faces are split into an upper and a lower section that can be interchanged with other specially molded pieces for a variety of expressions. Unfortunately the subtle surface texture sometimes varies among the pieces and this can show up as odd fluctuations in a character’s face during the course of a scene.
The faces aren’t optically soft and they haven’t been tampered with digitally other than having the facial seams photoshopped out. But I don’t like the look of the faces, either. They’re too bland and plastic-looking. Of course, that’s because they _are_ plastic –silicone rubber actually. The faces are so blah and lacking in interesting texture that they look drawn or computer generated instead of photographed. I think that that is the true source of *deltasun*'s dissatisfaction.
While compression artifacts are practically nonexistent, on my plasma I noted some very slight posterization in the facial flesh tones. The problem could just as well be the display as the encoding. Given the many variables involved, I can’t make a judgment. It did, however add to my dislike of the faces.


I noted minor halos when Coraline and the cat were walking through the fantasy orchard as it was disintegrating into white space. There may have been a little CA as well.


Another problem was the inherent lack of motion blur which led to choppiness of quick movements; add on top of that the usual 2:3 pull down judder of a display incapable of 24p. This choppiness is a constant low grade irritant if you choose to concentrate on it. Some of the hardest to ignore examples of this problem: hummingbirds/wasps in the fantasy garden; the mantis tractor cutting down the snapdragons in that same garden; the performance of the other Mr. B’s mouse circus.


These issues aren't enough for me to put the BD in Tier 1.0, but they do knock it out of the lofty heights that it would have otherwise reached.

*Recommendation: Tier 0 just above TMNT*


Panasonic TH-42PZ77U, 1080p, 4’


----------



## daPriceIs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Filmaholic* /forum/post/17290701
> 
> *The Good, the Bad and the Ugly*
> 
> 
> Ok, this (as much as *Akira* or *Playtime*) is *another glaring omission* of this thread. ...










??? I seem to recall reviewing this disc in July.

*Filmaholic*, I was going to chide you (gently, of course







) for seemingly being incapable of going to the rankings page and hitting ctrl+f and searching for this title's placement. But I decided to go there myself just to make sure. Lo and behold, it's not listed. I was under the impression that the listing had been made a couple of months ago based on SuprSlow's post at that time. Looks like the safest way to tell if a movie's been reviewed is to search this thread instead.


Of course the best way to correct any perceived glaring omissions in the discussion thread is to do what you have just done; i.e., post your own review.


----------



## jedimasterchad

Hey guys.


Been reading through this thread for a long time, and watching the PQ tier for just as long, but as I am just now entering the world of HD for myself by getting a new G10 television, and of course being a movie lover (with a set of opinions I love sharing) I want to get in on the discussion. So to start, I've done a bit of research by watching a few movies out of the list and seeing which tier they are placed in, and then trying to compare what I've seen with what the consensus is to try and get an idea before I start making my own recommendations. Because of this though, I have a few questions.


So far, my Blu-Ray library is rather limited, under 10 titles. The highest ranked movies I own are Quantum of Solace and U-571. QoS is rated in tier 1.0, while U-571 is rated 1.25. Between the two, I felt that U-571 had a cleaner picture with more shadow detail (mostly in the subs). It was clear to me at least that QoS was actually shot with better quality equipment, but the thing that bugged me was the film grain. Being new to the standard, I understand people applaud a faithful transfer of the film to the disc, but let me ask: When is the film grain considered artistic vs. a flaw on the print? In the case of QoS, most of the grain I noticed were in dark spots, the green mountains in the very beginning of the car chase as the movie opens, and the stark white walls in the opera building. Sometimes it was more evident than others, but it was noticeable nonetheless.


Would this be attributed to my equipment setup? I thought perhaps I was experiencing video noise, but supposedly it's *supposed* to be there...yet it gets ranked higher than a film that doesn't contain nearly as much? Maybe I'm a bit sensitive to it, which would affect my rating of PQ, wouldn't it? I'm using a PS3 with an HDMI cable to a new 54G10, seating distance about 8 feet or so. I'm about 3/4's of the way through the break-in period, but the tv can still produce an amazing image when given the right material, so I don't think this is a factor when watching a movie at full settings for a couple hours and then going back to my lower break in settings. I've been able to notice a huge difference in quality from different dvd's...for instance my wife's Roswell set is pretty soft and has noticeable artifacts from the inferior source material, but a movie like revenge of the sith and finding nemo actually look near HD quality.


Which brings me to my next question...when distinguishing between two blu-rays, which points of interest should I be noticing to determine which is better? For instance, I own The Condemned on Blu (it was cheap), and I think some of the facial close-ups look really nice, but some of the landscape loses a lot of detail...whereas in "Top Gun" the whole film looks like a mess. These are pretty obvious...but when it gets up to stuff like QoS and U-571, what are the difference makers?


Again, if someone could help steer me on the right track so I know *exactly* what I'm looking for, that would be great. I look forward to contributing my film reviews later on, but I need to brush up a little more on the technical side before I feel confident suggesting tier rankings. Thanks guys.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/17303823
> 
> 
> Hey guys.
> 
> 
> Been reading through this thread for a long time, and watching the PQ tier for just as long, but as I am just now entering the world of HD for myself by getting a new G10 television, and of course being a movie lover (with a set of opinions I love sharing) I want to get in on the discussion. So to start, I've done a bit of research by watching a few movies out of the list and seeing which tier they are placed in, and then trying to compare what I've seen with what the consensus is to try and get an idea before I start making my own recommendations. Because of this though, I have a few questions.
> 
> 
> So far, my Blu-Ray library is rather limited, under 10 titles. The highest ranked movies I own are Quantum of Solace and U-571. QoS is rated in tier 1.0, while U-571 is rated 1.25. Between the two, I felt that U-571 had a cleaner picture with more shadow detail (mostly in the subs). It was clear to me at least that QoS was actually shot with better quality equipment, but the thing that bugged me was the film grain. Being new to the standard, I understand people applaud a faithful transfer of the film to the disc, but let me ask: When is the film grain considered artistic vs. a flaw on the print? In the case of QoS, most of the grain I noticed were in dark spots, the green mountains in the very beginning of the car chase as the movie opens, and the stark white walls in the opera building. Sometimes it was more evident than others, but it was noticeable nonetheless.
> 
> 
> Would this be attributed to my equipment setup? I thought perhaps I was experiencing video noise, but supposedly it's *supposed* to be there...yet it gets ranked higher than a film that doesn't contain nearly as much? Maybe I'm a bit sensitive to it, which would affect my rating of PQ, wouldn't it? I'm using a PS3 with an HDMI cable to a new 54G10, seating distance about 8 feet or so. I'm about 3/4's of the way through the break-in period, but the tv can still produce an amazing image when given the right material, so I don't think this is a factor when watching a movie at full settings for a couple hours and then going back to my lower break in settings. I've been able to notice a huge difference in quality from different dvd's...for instance my wife's Roswell set is pretty soft and has noticeable artifacts from the inferior source material, but a movie like revenge of the sith and finding nemo actually look near HD quality.
> 
> 
> Which brings me to my next question...when distinguishing between two blu-rays, which points of interest should I be noticing to determine which is better? For instance, I own The Condemned on Blu (it was cheap), and I think some of the facial close-ups look really nice, but some of the landscape loses a lot of detail...whereas in "Top Gun" the whole film looks like a mess. These are pretty obvious...but when it gets up to stuff like QoS and U-571, what are the difference makers?
> 
> 
> Again, if someone could help steer me on the right track so I know *exactly* what I'm looking for, that would be great. I look forward to contributing my film reviews later on, but I need to brush up a little more on the technical side before I feel confident suggesting tier rankings. Thanks guys.



If you haven't already, I suggest turning off sharpening on your TV. It will bring out grain and compression artifacts.

Film grain is a property of film speed. In daylight, there's enough light to use a slower, fine-grained film. If you're shooting indoors or at night, you'd use a faster film with coarser grain. So you'll see the grain change from scene to scene on most movies.


----------



## BuckoNZ

Does anyone know why updates on the actual PQ List thread are so light? I mean we are now in October and according to the date listed, the last update was back in May.


I am really greatful to all those people - who know considerably more than I do - in respect to their thoughts and input on this PQ thread and making it what it is. However it would be of considerable more value to AVS Forum members if the PQ List was updated more frequently.


Just my 2 cents...


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BuckoNZ* /forum/post/17304055
> 
> 
> Does anyone know why updates on the actual PQ List thread are so light? I mean we are now in October and according to the date listed, the last update was back in May.
> 
> 
> I am really greatful to all those people - who know considerably more than I do - in respect to their thoughts and input on this PQ thread and making it what it is. However it would be of considerable more value to AVS Forum members if the PQ List was updated more frequently.
> 
> 
> Just my 2 cents...



You could try going to the correct thread, which is here:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1168342 


The rankings are all now done in that separate thread. We discuss them in this one.


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/17303823
> 
> 
> Again, if someone could help steer me on the right track so I know *exactly* what I'm looking for, that would be great. I look forward to contributing my film reviews later on, but I need to brush up a little more on the technical side before I feel confident suggesting tier rankings. Thanks guys.



jedimasterchad,

It's probably best if you take a look at the post at the top of the tier rankings. In that post there are links to pages which describe the various terms being used to describe the artifacts or problems generally associated with putting film on media. Most have pictures to show what they look like and might also say when you are most likely to see these things. In some cases, there may even be suggestions to change your calibration or system settings to lessen or eliminate them. It's all good reading.


Once you've got a grasp on what to look for, you'll find these things will stand out when you see them. (not saying this is a good thing). Watch a few movies from each tier and get an idea why people have placed them where they did. Perhaps read the reviews of them. Even if you didn't notice something wrong, if someone else did, you'll probably see it when you view the movie after reading their review.


I'm almost embarrassed to say how many br movies I've watched in the last year. Its been enough that I have a pretty good feel for where a title belongs, but that still doesn't mean others agree with me. Just keep an open mind and remember that we're not all going to agree all the time. You'll probably find though that most here are pretty darn close in their opinions.


fwiw, I think your example of Revenge of the Sith is probably the best looking dvd movie I've seen, so that's not a great example of a typical dvd. Still though, it's no where near the quality of HD. I think you're confusing color with resolution. RotS was a great looking film before it was transferred. But all the color in the world does not make up for the lack of resolution on dvd vs br.


I'd recommend you rent a few of the films in the Tier 0 and watch them from a closer seating distance. Honestly, try them at 4' even if only for a few minutes. Really great looking br movies will look spectacular with your nose touching the screen. Then, not so great ones will be obviously not so great, from 15'.


I recommend A Bugs Life for a purchase.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *daPriceIs* /forum/post/17301316
> 
> *Coraline*
> 
> 
> These issues aren't enough for me to put the BD in Tier 1.0, but they do knock it out of the lofty heights that it would have otherwise reached.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 0 just above TMNT*



Another excellent review, full of insightful analysis and careful thinking. Placing the tier zero titles along a continuum is always tough and not an exact science, but the obvious merit in your argument is very convincing to me without even having watched Coraline.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *daPriceIs* /forum/post/17301669
> 
> *Filmaholic*, I was going to chide you (gently, of course
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) for seemingly being incapable of going to the rankings page and hitting ctrl+f and searching for this title's placement. But I decided to go there myself just to make sure. Lo and behold, it's not listed. I was under the impression that the listing had been made a couple of months ago based on SuprSlow's post at that time. Looks like the safest way to tell if a movie's been reviewed is to search this thread instead.



Some placements from the last update did not get entered by my reckoning, probably an oversight in the data entry. If you go through the entire history of the thread, there are a few odd placements here and there that got skipped or looked over entirely. Incidents like this have been reduced since the thread moved to a recommended format for actual placements. But it is always good to check after an update has been made if your placements made it.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/17303823
> 
> 
> So far, my Blu-Ray library is rather limited, under 10 titles. The highest ranked movies I own are Quantum of Solace and U-571. QoS is rated in tier 1.0, while U-571 is rated 1.25. Between the two, I felt that U-571 had a cleaner picture with more shadow detail (mostly in the subs). It was clear to me at least that QoS was actually shot with better quality equipment, but the thing that bugged me was the film grain. Being new to the standard, I understand people applaud a faithful transfer of the film to the disc, but let me ask: When is the film grain considered artistic vs. a flaw on the print? In the case of QoS, most of the grain I noticed were in dark spots, the green mountains in the very beginning of the car chase as the movie opens, and the stark white walls in the opera building. Sometimes it was more evident than others, but it was noticeable nonetheless.
> 
> 
> Which brings me to my next question...when distinguishing between two blu-rays, which points of interest should I be noticing to determine which is better? For instance, I own The Condemned on Blu (it was cheap), and I think some of the facial close-ups look really nice, but some of the landscape loses a lot of detail...whereas in "Top Gun" the whole film looks like a mess. These are pretty obvious...but when it gets up to stuff like QoS and U-571, what are the difference makers?



The best place to start for the criteria used in the Tier system is laid out in the tier descriptions:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1168342 

Reading the thread and getting a feel of how others rate titles is always a good idea. Most explicitly list in their reviews the reasons for why a particular BD deserves its placement. When we came up with the tier descriptions, they were purposely written to be grain-agnostic. Meaning that grain is a natural part of the look of most films, and only if it has a severe, deleterious impact on the overall visual quality should a disc be penalized. It really comes down to a case-by-case basis on each title. Do be aware that the use of digital tools and filters to reduce visible grain often robs fine detail from the picture and can leave nasty artifacts, thus impacting picture quality negatively. But improperly transferred grain can look exaggerated also, with problematic results.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BuckoNZ* /forum/post/17304055
> 
> 
> Does anyone know why updates on the actual PQ List thread are so light? I mean we are now in October and according to the date listed, the last update was back in May.
> 
> 
> I am really greatful to all those people - who know considerably more than I do - in respect to their thoughts and input on this PQ thread and making it what it is. However it would be of considerable more value to AVS Forum members if the PQ List was updated more frequently.



I believe the last update was in June or July. Our moderator, SuprSlow, just became a father and has been busy. He is working on a new update. In light of his new baby, I have offered my services to help out with moderation duties temporarily.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/17304513
> 
> 
> jedimasterchad,
> 
> It's probably best if you take a look at the post at the top of the tier rankings. In that post there are links to pages which describe the various terms being used to describe the artifacts or problems generally associated with putting film on media. Most have pictures to show what they look like and might also say when you are most likely to see these things. In some cases, there may even be suggestions to change your calibration or system settings to lessen or eliminate them. It's all good reading.
> 
> 
> Once you've got a grasp on what to look for, you'll find these things will stand out when you see them. (not saying this is a good thing). Watch a few movies from each tier and get an idea why people have placed them where they did. Perhaps read the reviews of them. Even if you didn't notice something wrong, if someone else did, you'll probably see it when you view the movie after reading their review.
> 
> 
> I'd recommend you rent a few of the films in the Tier 0 and watch them from a closer seating distance. Honestly, try them at 4' even if only for a few minutes. Really great looking br movies will look spectacular with your nose touching the screen. Then, not so great ones will be obviously not so great, from 15'.



+1


This is excellent advice jedimasterchad! I was going to respond to your post and then I scrolled down further and saw this. Take this advice and you will definitely be on your way to critiquing Blu-rays.


BTW, that was a very nice choice you made in getting the Panny 54G10 plasma. Enjoy!! And welcome to the thread! I will look forward to reading reviews from you.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17199110
> 
> *Duplicity*
> 
> 
> This is one NICE-LOOKING transfer!! I don't believe I have anything negative to report, other than the first one or two scenes didn't seem quite as sharp as the remainder of the film.
> 
> 
> I LOVED the blacks; they were as inky as I've seen lately with ultra-fine shadow details on top of that. When I say "inky" black, I'm not just referring to night time skies, but to clothes, cars, and other objects as well. If your HDTV does blacks well, you will be pleased!
> 
> 
> Colors were vibrant, natural-looking, and really popped at times. This movie took place in MANY places all over the world (Rome, London, Bahamas, New York, etc.) and the director made sure they were all picturesque and colorful scenes. What a treat!
> 
> 
> Flesh tones were excellent, and facial close-ups were usually around the high Tier 1 mark. In some close-ups they crossed over to Tier Blu territory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Detail and depth were very good as well with a lot of 3D pop to satisfy those of us who are not easily satisfied. Let me just say there were a few scenes where I was completely satiated!!
> 
> 
> Contrast was strong (i.e., well-balanced). I didn't notice any crushed blacks or over-blown whites.
> 
> 
> This is one CLEAN and SHARP transfer that I would be proud to use as a demo for my family and friends. I can't really say it's reference quality though, for it was still lacking a bit in facial details, but all-in-all it's still worthy of a high Tier 1 placement. So, I would naturally put it right here....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.0*



I couldn't have said that better! I read this, and felt I no longer had to write a review! I didn't care for the movie, but it's beautifully shot! Sign me up for a 1.0 as well!









*Duplicity*
*Tier Recommendation: 1.0*


----------



## jedimasterchad

Thanks for the advice, guys. I have already read through most of the glossary articles in the past and have a pretty good grip on what they all mean, just haven't really had the chance to see them all in person yet. And thanks for the tip on film grain...now that I think about it, the example of QoS is a product of the film, whereas Top Gun is just a mishandled print that is dirty/damaged. See, I'm learning already! lol.


Also, does that mean that a film shot on digital (such as Revenge of the Sith) should have absolutely no film grain, unless it is intended to be there anyway (death proof is a good example here)? RotS really looks pristine on a standard def calibrated CRT, and it looks the best so far on the new television. It is still pretty soft and undetailed, but the colors are still fantastic in most parts. Things like lightsabers and blaster fire gets really fuzzy though. I'm also using the upscaling function of the PS3, if that makes much difference.


Anyways, I guess the next thing is to start watching more BD's so I can start to get a better handle on what I'm watching.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/17309230
> 
> 
> Also, does that mean that a film shot on digital (such as Revenge of the Sith) should have absolutely no film grain,



No film grain, but it's very possible that there will be sensor noise. Digital cameras are near-noiseless in good light but in dim lighting things will turn unpleasant. You can sometimes see sensor banding defects when they really had to crank up the sensitivity (RocknRolla comes to mind).


----------



## K-Spaz

Again, Revenge of the Sith really isn't a great example to use. While it's a "Live Action" film, that's a stretch to say live action when there's virtually nothing in it shot on location. The whole thing was shot over a blue-screen (for all intents and purposes). So, a movie like that is going to be in a league of say, animation movies. Those movies (on dvd of course) are virtually devoid of artifacts, and would probably rate a high Tier 0 imo. If they ever make a HD version, those "should" look even better. But that's no guarantee. We've seen lots of movies that "should" look great, but then turned out to be real dogs when they hit br. That's part of why this thread exists!


Throw in Episode 4/5 or 6 and now we'll talk "transfer to br". These are the ones I'd like to see someday on a hi def format. Those 3 shot on 35mm will be the ones that I think will stand to benefit the most from HD. Unfortunately, I fear I'll die of old age before they're released.


Oh, and, thanks Denny!


----------



## djoberg

^^^^


You're welcome K-Spaz! Your advice was spot on, so you deserved my word of praise.


BTW, I see you're from central PA....my wife and I will be passing through there are on way to Philly next week. It's been a few years since we visited PA and we're hoping the Fall colors are starting to peak.


----------



## K-Spaz

Well Denny,


I think you're a bit early. I live in a rural area, Williamsport address, and it's been rather warm here. No frost yet so things are mostly green. My Weeping Willow tree has lost some leaves, and the Walnut trees are losing some, but those are the very first to lose them. The maples and oaks are all green as grass (which unfortunately is still growing...) I just got a new lawn tractor on Saturday and mowed again. what fun.










I work in Jersey Shore, and just a few hundred yards from my shop is the "Rails to Trails" bike path that's new about 3 years ago. It goes north up through some beautiful country, nearly to the PA/NY Border. If you wanted to get a good view of nature, Eagles and all, that would be the place to go for a morning. It's flat as a pancake and you can ride forever through the mountains. Maybe north of here it's a little further along, but here we don't have a lot of color yet. Low tonight is calling for high 40s, so that's not gonna help much.


I was in Philly about a month ago, just at the airport for a 3 hour layover. If you're going there for any length of time and will have some to spare, definitely check out Morimoto's for brunch. Don't bother trying to go in the evening, but you can walk in during the day and get served. It's surprisingly affordable for what it is. This is a "somewhere beyond Tier 0" restaurant. Don't even order, just say, "I wanna spend $50 or $75/person, and just tell the chef to keep sendn' stuff till I run out of money."


----------



## tmavs

Aah Chef Morimoto - I've seen him on "Iron Chef". He's an awesome chef.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/17311243
> 
> 
> Well Denny,
> 
> 
> I think you're a bit early. I live in a rural area, Williamsport address, and it's been rather warm here. No frost yet so things are mostly green. My Weeping Willow tree has lost some leaves, and the Walnut trees are losing some, but those are the very first to lose them. The maples and oaks are all green as grass (which unfortunately is still growing...) I just got a new lawn tractor on Saturday and mowed again. what fun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I work in Jersey Shore, and just a few hundred yards from my shop is the "Rails to Trails" bike path that's new about 3 years ago. It goes north up through some beautiful country, nearly to the PA/NY Border. If you wanted to get a good view of nature, Eagles and all, that would be the place to go for a morning. It's flat as a pancake and you can ride forever through the mountains. Maybe north of here it's a little further along, but here we don't have a lot of color yet. Low tonight is calling for high 40s, so that's not gonna help much.
> 
> 
> I was in Philly about a month ago, just at the airport for a 3 hour layover. If you're going there for any length of time and will have some to spare, definitely check out Morimoto's for brunch. Don't bother trying to go in the evening, but you can walk in during the day and get served. It's surprisingly affordable for what it is. This is a "somewhere beyond Tier 0" restaurant. Don't even order, just say, "I wanna spend $50 or $75/person, and just tell the chef to keep sendn' stuff till I run out of money."



Thanks for the heads up K-Spaz. We'll be in Philly the last 5 days of next week then on to other New England states. But we plan to drive thru PA again on our way home (Oct. 26th) so maybe the leaves will have changed by then.


I had a good LOL when I read your restaurant review!







I'll DEFINITELY have to check it out if we have the opportunity to do so.


OK, time to get back on topic....sorry fellow-members for the detour. I picked up _The Wizard of Oz_ at a Super Wal-Mart yesterday so I hope to watch it before we leave on our trip.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Ooo definitely curious about your views on Wizard of Oz, Denny!



Let me be the first to grumble about the weather... I had to walk somewhere last night and it was SNOWING!!! GAH!



Still haven't had a chance to watch Equilibrium, hopefully today. Darn life getting in the way of watching Blu's!!



Welcome to the thread, jedimasterchad! You've been given a ton of great advice from the guys! Looking forward to your reviews.


----------



## jedimasterchad

I didn't really consider it but I suppose you're right about ROTC being almost all digital anyway. I have about 400 movies on DVD, so I'll make it a point to try to at least put in some of them to find something that is comparable. I want to watch Alien really bad to see how the black levels turn out, but on some dvd's so far the black gets crushed or the shadow detail is gone due to low res/compression issues. It's the director's cut from the Quadrilogy though, so we'll see how it turns out.


I live in Hershey PA, about 2 hours south of Williamsport (so I'm told). I'd love to make it up there one summer for the LLWS, just haven't had the chance yet. It's extraordinarily windy today, so maybe a little wind-chill and breeze will help get the leaves going, as they are all still mostly green around here too. As for restaurants in philly, get a cheesesteak at Jims on south street...the original is always the best. Also, not sure of your route, but steer clear of my town this weekend, as the worlds largest swap meet and antique automobile show is in town for a few days, and traffic can get God-awful around here.


----------



## BuckoNZ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17304217
> 
> 
> You could try going to the correct thread, which is here:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1168342
> 
> 
> The rankings are all now done in that separate thread. We discuss them in this one.



Umm... I'm aware of that, hence the reason I posted my comments here. I just thought someone could shed some light on these limited releases/updates. Fortunately, someone "in the know" has - thanks 'Phantom Stranger'.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BuckoNZ* /forum/post/17317055
> 
> 
> Umm... I'm aware of that, hence the reason I posted my comments here. I just thought someone could shed some light on these limited releases/updates. Fortunately, someone "in the know" has - thanks 'Phantom Stranger'.



You were aware of that thread, but you thought the last update was in May?


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

In his defense, it does state that it was last updated in May.



> Quote:
> "Oculi plus vident quam oculus." - "Several eyes see more than only one."
> 
> 
> Last List Update: May 8, 2009 by SuprSlow
> 
> ( Click for Update Log )



And the "click for update log" doesn't do anything.


----------



## K-Spaz

jedimasterchad,


Alien isn't a good choice either if you're trying to see things on bluray cause it's not a bluray. Unless that one on the quadrilogy is but I doubt it.


A favorite of mine that's real dark is Underworld. I prefer the first on actually, even though some consider the other two to look better. I think the scenery in the first is better. Dark wet streets, cobblestones, masonry, etc. And Kate of course.


If you were looking for something to show off the black levels though, I'd recommend Underworld. I think it's one of the best examples I've seen for dark detail. Not only are the black levels very good, they're also accurate.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17317217
> 
> 
> In his defense, it does state that it was last updated in May.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the "click for update log" doesn't do anything.



Ah, got ya!











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/17317401
> 
> 
> jedimasterchad,
> 
> 
> Alien isn't a good choice either if you're trying to see things on bluray cause it's not a bluray. Unless that one on the quadrilogy is but I doubt it.
> 
> 
> A favorite of mine that's real dark is Underworld. I prefer the first on actually, even though some consider the other two to look better. I think the scenery in the first is better. Dark wet streets, cobblestones, masonry, etc. And Kate of course.
> 
> 
> If you were looking for something to show off the black levels though, I'd recommend Underworld. I think it's one of the best examples I've seen for dark detail. Not only are the black levels very good, they're also accurate.



Another recommendation for "dark detail" would be any of the Pirates of the Caribbean movies.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/17317401
> 
> 
> If you were looking for something to show off the black levels though, I'd recommend Underworld. I think it's one of the best examples I've seen for dark detail. Not only are the black levels very good, they're also accurate.



And then there's the incomparable _The Dark Knight_; especially the nighttime IMAX scenes.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17312524
> 
> 
> Ooo definitely curious about your views on Wizard of Oz, Denny!



I just spent about 20 minutes going through various scenes in _The Wizard of Oz_. After all the hype about how great the restoration of this classic film is, I was disappointed in what I've seen so far. Don't take this wrong, it was really well done, but as Mark Booth said in his review, you can only get so much out of a film that dates back 70 years.


Obviously I will wait until I've seen the movie all the way through, but after looking at nearly every chapter I think I'm going to end up putting this in Tier Silver, or, if I'm generous, which I usually am







, I may opt for the lower end of Tier Gold. Honestly, it just isn't that impressive to THESE EYES.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17317599
> 
> 
> I just spent about 20 minutes going through various scenes in _The Wizard of Oz_. After all the hype about how great the restoration of this classic film is, I was disappointed in what I've seen so far. Don't take this wrong, it was really well done, but as Mark Booth said in his review, you can only get so much out of a film that dates back 70 years.
> 
> 
> Obviously I will wait until I've seen the movie all the way through, but after looking at nearly every chapter I think I'm going to end up putting this in Tier Silver, or, if I'm generous, which I usually am
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , I may opt for the lower end of Tier Gold. Honestly, it just isn't that impressive to THESE EYES.



Personally, I can still enjoy the PQ in movies that have been restored but aren't perfect. For me a good example is The Princess Bride. It's far from perfect, but it's a fantastic restoration that they'd done for it, and although it's not Tier 0 or 1, I can appreciate what's been done to it (especially after I compared it to 3 versions of it on DVD!!).



Given the cost of The Wizard of Oz it may be a while before I see it again, but I still am anxious to read your full review!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17317643
> 
> 
> Personally, I can still enjoy the PQ in movies that have been restored but aren't perfect. For me a good example is The Princess Bride. It's far from perfect, but it's a fantastic restoration that they'd done for it, and although it's not Tier 0 or 1, I can appreciate what's been done to it (especially after I compared it to 3 versions of it on DVD!!).
> 
> 
> 
> Given the cost of The Wizard of Oz it may be a while before I see it again, but I still am anxious to read your full review!



I'm with you G3....I can still thoroughly enjoy movies even though they aren't "reference" or "demo" quality. And _The Wizard of Oz_ is one of those. I grew up watching this classic and I'm hoping to watch it at times with my grandchildren.


BTW, I only paid $19.96 for it at Wally World (the 1-disc version).


----------



## Filmaholic

This might be my very last post.

Here is my Blu-ray Disc collection catalogued by my personal (yet according to this threads parameters) eye-candy rankings:


Tier 0 – Eye Obesity Warning:

300

2001 - A Space Odyssey

A Bug's Life

Batman - The Dark Knight

Blade Runner - Final Cut

Cars

Coraline

Hellboy

Hellboy2 - The Golden Army

I, Robot

Kill Bill - Vols. 1 & 2

Kung Fu Panda

No Country for Old Men

Pan's Labyrinth

Pirates of the Caribbean - The Curse of the Black Pearl

Ratatouille

Sin City - Recut, Extended, Unrated

Sleeping Beauty

Tekkonkinkreet

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

The Host

The Nightmare Before Christmas

Tim Burton's Corpse Bride

Wall-e

Watchmen - Director's Cut, Nite Owl Ship Edition

Watchmen International Theatrical Version

Zodiac - Director's Cut


Tier 1 – Gold:

007 - Casino Royale

Akira

Batman Begins

Brokeback Mountain

Children of Men

Do the Right Thing

Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within

Ghost in the Shell 2 - Innoccence

Grindhouse - Planet Terror (not OAR though)

Iron Man

Last Year at Marienbad

Layer Cake

MirrorMask

Nine Inch Nails - Beside You in Time

Paprika

Pinocchio

Playtime

Spider Man - High Definition Trilogy

Sweeney Todd - The Demon Barber of Fleet Street

The Devil's Rejects

The Godfather - The Coppola Restoration

The Machinist

The Matrix - Ultimate Experience

The Proposition

The Shining

The Sky Crawlers

The Spirit

Wanted


Tier 2 – Silver:

Big Fish

Fargo

For All Mankind

Ghostbusters

Grindhouse - Death Proof

Little Miss Sunshine

Michael Clayton

Million Dollar Baby

Speed Racer

Synechdoche: New York

The Adventures of Baron Munchausen

The Cure - Trilogy

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

The Wrestler

Vanishing Point

X-Men Trilogy

Young Frankenstein


Tier 3 – Bronze:

A Clockwork Orange

Almost Famous

Amadeus

Close Encounters of the Third Kind

Dark City

Donnie Darko

From Dusk Till Dawn (Canadian)

Frozen River

Korn - Live at Montreaux

Paris, Je T'aime

Patton

Rock'nRolla

T2 - Judgement Day - Skynet Edition

The Brothers Grimm

Tim Burton's Batman

The Truman Show (slightly cropped AR)


Tier 4 – Eyeball scorching chilli:


Afro Samurai - Season 1 Director's Cut

Crash

Dr. Strangelove (butchered AR)

Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children Complete

House of the Flying Daggers

O Pacto dos Lobos (Brazilian Edition)

Reservoir Dogs


Have fun!









Flame on!










PS: this was writen in MS Excell, not stone!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Filmaholic, we all have differing opinions in our personal eyecandy thoughts! No need to think posting a list like that would be your last post, though, unless you simply do not want to participate here anymore.



Denny - Ahh okay I thought I could only get that uber-expensive version; if I see a cheaper version of it around town I may pick it up sooner!


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Filmaholic* /forum/post/17318630
> 
> 
> This might be my very last post.
> 
> Here is my Blu-ray Disc collection and my personal eye-candy rankings:
> 
> 
> Have fun!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flame on!



Your reviews have always been very interesting reading. It would be a shame to lose you.


On another note, K-Spaz and SuprSlow have given me the keys to the kingdom temporarily, and the next full update is very close (if you want to sneak in any reviews in the next couple of days to be listed). It would be greatly appreciated if any typos or errors (specifications mostly) in the current Tier list could be pointed out to me for correction. Yes, I know Push is listed twice.


----------



## Filmaholic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17318997
> 
> 
> Your reviews have always been very interesting reading. It would be a shame to lose you.
> 
> 
> On another note, K-Spaz and SuprSlow have given me the keys to the kingdom temporarily, and the next full update is very close (if you want to sneak in any reviews in the next couple of days to be listed). It would be greatly appreciated if any typos or errors (specifications mostly) in the current Tier list could be pointed out to me for correction. Yes, I know Push is listed twice.



Thanks *Phantom Stranger*, I apreciate that.

*G3*: No, it does not have anything to do with the posting of my personal collection.


Guys like you *Phantom Stranger*, *G3*, *Selimsivad*, *Rob Tomlin*, *Deltasun* and others... I respect you, a lot. And I think you're very cool.










But something ugly happened, it made me really angry. A moderator could explain better. It is not for me to do it, I think.


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17317481
> 
> 
> Another recommendation for "dark detail" would be any of the Pirates of the Caribbean movies.



Ah, yes. There's certainly no reviewers complaining of crushed blacks in the PotC series. And these as a rule look better than Underworld, tho given a choice between Kate and Keira for helping the pq, I'll take Kate any day.


----------



## Ozymandis

I thought Underworld 3 was a little bit better than the first movie as far as blacks, although the overall transfer is not as nice as the PotC movies.


----------



## jedimasterchad

I was referring to dvd's when I mentioned Alien, because I was trying to find some better material on the old format. I know it's not on Blu, I checked







I also have the first 2 underworld's on dvd, more for the wife as that really isn't my thing (the whole, vampires/werewolves fantasy realm), but I'll have to put them in and compare.


I also have Curse of the Black Pearl on the way, so I can't wait to check that out. As a general rule though, I've only been buying newer movies on Blu ray, because of the WAF of replacing all said 400 dvd's with a new copy (And, I already have all three on DVD). So, the next couple of months look really interesting.


Did anybody see Drag Me to Hell? I'm considering that as my next purchase, followed by both of the Transformers in the week after.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/17320616
> 
> 
> Ah, yes. There's certainly no reviewers complaining of crushed blacks in the PotC series. And these as a rule look better than Underworld, tho given a choice between Kate and Keira for helping the pq, I'll take Kate any day.




I agree on all counts!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17317599
> 
> 
> I just spent about 20 minutes going through various scenes in _The Wizard of Oz_. After all the hype about how great the restoration of this classic film is, I was disappointed in what I've seen so far. Don't take this wrong, it was really well done, but as Mark Booth said in his review, you can only get so much out of a film that dates back 70 years.
> 
> 
> Obviously I will wait until I've seen the movie all the way through, but after looking at nearly every chapter *I think I'm going to end up putting this in Tier Silver, or, if I'm generous, which I usually am
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , I may opt for the lower end of Tier Gold*. Honestly, it just isn't that impressive to THESE EYES.



As we say in the legal field: non sequitur.










This happens on occasion, and this is another example of reading comments about the PQ of a certain title that seem to completely contradict the conclusion, such as talking about how "disappointed" one is, how it "just isn't that impressive" etc., then conclude that you still might put it in Tier 1!

















Has Tier 1 been demoted to include titles that we are "disappointed in" and just "aren't that impressive"?


Based on those comments, I would think that Tier 2 would be too high.


I'm not picking on you Denny, just saying that this seems to be happening a lot more recently. And I realize too that you have not posted a complete review yet, so you haven't given the positive aspects of the film. Still...I do think there is some discrepancy between the comments and potential final Tier rating.


One reason I bring this up is due to the fact that we have had many complain that Tier 2 has become a common "dumping ground" for many titles. If a title isn't very impressive and is a disappointment, despite its age, it should be ranked accordingly (such as Tier 3).


I haven't see Oz yet, but it is here from Netflix, so I should get to look at it this weekend.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^


What can I say Rob? I suppose I should have been more specific when using words such as "disappointed" and "isn't that impressive." When I said I was disappointed I meant that I was expecting, from all the hype (which I did mention) on how gorgeous this film looks (according to "professional" reviewers and many who have posted on the "Wizard of Oz comparison pix thread"), to see reference quality PQ. I was referring to the same thing when I said, "it just isn't _that_ impressive to THESE EYES"; in other words, it wasn't impressive enough to call it reference quality (which MANY are doing). I did NOT mean to imply that it was average or worse, so perhaps it may still be worthy of a Tier 1 or 2 placement. Sorry for the ambiguity!










Now, perhaps *we* should both view this (i.e., the whole film) before we say another word....so we don't fall into the same trap we did sometime back when we were making all kinds of comments regarding a title we hadn't even seen.


----------



## djoberg

*The Wizard of Oz*


I decided not to procrastinate, so after making my last post (over 2 hours ago, though I edited it about 45 minutes ago) I slipped _The Wizard of Oz_ into my Panny BD30 and immersed myself into the world of Oz.


This was another hard title to judge for a few reasons. For starters, there are so many stage sets with fake backgrounds and other objects, it became somewhat distracting. Secondly, the first 19 minutes (and the last 2 minutes) are in black and white, and these were, IMHO, average at best. And thirdly, close-ups of persons and things were relatively rare, so it was difficult to judge texture and detail.


Once Dorothy entered the world of Oz (at the 19 minute mark) colors emerged (they were, for the most part, very pleasing to look at) and with them much better detail and depth, though they still weren't near reference quality. I would say they fluctuated between tiers 1 and 2 in that department. The few facial close-ups rarely proved demo-worthy; and in several close-ups of Dorothy I noticed some flickering (i.e., digital noise).


The age of the film was noticeable in other areas as well, for I spotted print damage several times and there were numerous spots in different scenes, especially in the fake skies.


Contrast was generally good, as were the blacks and shadow detail. But these were quite limited (to a few scenes) so they don't help much in determining the placement.


I have never seen any of the DVD releases of this title (though I saw it MANY times on tv through the years), so I don't have that as a reference point for comparisons. What I do have are the criteria set forth on page one and other titles that I have seen. Based on these, I would have to place it somewhere in Tier 2. After taking all things into consideration and trying to average everything out, I'm opting for the following....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.5*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'


PS In placing this in Tier 2 I'm not consigning it to the "dumping ground" (







); I really believe there were enough virtues in this wonderfully restored classic film to offset the anomalies and flaws inherent in a title 70 years old to warrant a Tier Silver placement.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Thanks Denny, very good review!


Honestly, I'm getting to the point where I am putting more emphasis on the written commentary from people posting here than I am the final Tier recommendation. I guess that isn't surprising.


----------



## lgans316

*Fast and Furious (2009) - Tier 1.75*

*The Bank Job - Tier 2*

*Knowing - Tier 1*

*A Bug's Life - Agree with current placement*


My apologies for being lazy and not posting a proper review.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17323968
> 
> 
> Thanks Denny, very good review!
> 
> 
> Honestly, I'm getting to the point where I am putting more emphasis on the written commentary from people posting here than I am the final Tier recommendation. I guess that isn't surprising.



Agreed. I like reading what people think, that way it helps me understand why they came up with what tier they wound up putting the title in. I know not everyone can do that but I love it when it's there.


----------



## daPriceIs

*Chronicles of Riddick*


This movie and _Van Helsing_ both came out in the summer of 2004 from Universal. Both were former HD-DVD exclusives and both were just released on BD in July and September respectively. This BD-50 contains both the unrated director's cut (DC, 134 minutes) and the PG-13 theatrical release (TR, 119 minutes) but they aren't seamlessly branched as you annoyingly have to reload each from the beginning when switching between the two. The VC-1 encoding of the DC appears to have been repurposed from the HD-DVD. The DC contains a few scenes and some dialog that would have pushed the movie's rating from PG-13 to R: an FU in the DC is changed to Never! in the TR, etc.; and a scene between Vaako and Lady Macbeth Dame Vaako that has him smacking her around and that concludes with some sexually suggestive content. The DC also has some deleted scenes about and references to Furian energy that add nothing interesting; and a deleted scene of Imam walking through a nervous marketplace on Helion Prime. To my mind these alterations don't amount to a cup full of significant difference. Nonetheless, the DC seems to be a slightly better edit. *The PQ is the same for both the DC and the TR.*
There is a fine patina of grain in the well lit scenes, but the film is fairly dark, with a lot of night scenes where the grain is significantly heavier. It's never unpleasant.
The video is overall rather sharp but there are some issues. Some of the smaller CGI characters and vehicles are a little fuzzy in long shots. Close-ups of Judi Dench are shot slightly soft (except when briefly a bit sharper than probably intended). There are many shots with limited depth of field. Unfortunately too many of those are close-ups where not enough of a character's face is in focus.
This a dark movie and blacks are strong without crushing. Contrast is good.
Color is somewhat desaturated but this varies by scene. The palette is subdued and varies by locale. For example: Helion Prime is primarily sepia toned with flame colored accents; the interiors of Necromonger ships are steely grays and blues with a little black and rust brown.
Supposedly the transfer comes directly from the DI. I noted some odd blemishes, but they are very rare. They consist mostly of tiny white specks, with two larger white flecks about an hour into the DC. At the end of chapter 11 in the scene between the Lord Marshall and the Elemental there is some curious contrast flickering and a brief increase in print debris.
Beyond some very mild banding in a handful of shots there don't appear to be any compression issues. Nor any digital enhancement of note.

Speaking of digital trickery, the SFX are adequate but the CGI is definitely showing its age. The smoke effects are unconvincing.

*Recommendation: Tier 1.0*

Panasonic TH-42PZ77U, 1080p/60, 4 feet


This movie and _Van Helsing_ were box office bombs slammed by the critics, but are two of my guilty pleasures. I mean you gotta love a movie where Karl Urban literally chews through lines like: He's not a man. He's a holy half-dead who's seen the Underverse and returned with _powers you can't imagine_. [His emphasis, not mine.] Or where a strutting Vin Diesel says: It's been a long time since I smelled beautiful.







(Vin, my man, you've never smelled beautiful!







)


----------



## lgans316

*Chronicles of Riddick*


I disagree with Tier 1.0 rating. DNR is blatatly visible in the first half of the movie. Though its applied in parts it robs away facial details and textures. There is qute a difference between the facial close-up of Vin Diesel in Riddick Vs. Fast and Furious which exhibits his skin tone at best.


I vote *Tier 1.75 for Riddick* and *Tier 2.75 for Pitch Black*.


----------



## daPriceIs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/17325138
> 
> *Chronicles of Riddick*
> 
> 
> ... *DNR is blatatly visible* in the first half of the movie. Though its *applied in parts* it robs away facial details and textures. ...



Couldn't disagree more. There is no technical distinction in PQ from one half of the movie to another. There is no evidence of DNR that I see. Please give specifics. Sure there are some soft facial shots in the scenes on the ice planet where Riddick is chased and ends up capturing Tooms. But, if you recall, all that was shot in shakycam (or whatever you call it) as were all of the battle scenes and any softness is due to improper focus.


By the way, my only argument is about the use of DNR; I'm not arguing your placement recommendation except that I will say that the PQ of Riddick is better than Wolverine (which I'm about to review today) which I would place either in Tier 1.5 or 1.75. As specifically mentioned in my review, there are facial close-ups that are softer than ideal due to camera technique, specifically very shallow DOF. If you could give some specific instances of shots that have the signal characteristics of DNR and not _inexact focus_, I would appreciate hearing about them. Maybe you'll get me to change my recommendation.


You are right. Neither Vin nor anyone else has reference level close-ups. Nor does the video as a whole possess reference level sharpness. That's why it's not in Tier 0. As for Vin's face, I can only take that in limited doses.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

The backend database for the tier list is now completely updated for all placements through post #13791, on page 460. It will go "live" as soon as SuprSlow handles a couple of the more contentious placements in tier zero. After the update, if any specifications or typos remain in the list, pm me with the details and they will go in the next update.


This post serves as a marker for accounting purposes. I think the long time between updates should be shortened for the sanity of SuprSlow and his helpers. The amount of work involved is truly greater than I ever imagined. As long as I am helping out, updates will be coming out every couple of weeks to prevent a huge backlog of placements.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17326126
> 
> 
> The backend database for the tier list is now completely updated for all placements through post #13791, on page 460. It will go "live" as soon as SuprSlow handles a couple of the more contentious placements in tier zero. After the update, if any specifications or typos remain in the list, pm me with the details and they will go in the next update.
> 
> 
> This post serves as a marker for accounting purposes. I think the long time between updates should be shortened for the sanity of SuprSlow and his helpers. The amount of work involved is truly greater than I ever imagined. As long as I am helping out, updates will be coming out every couple of weeks to prevent a huge backlog of placements.



Thanks a million Phantom for all the work you did updating the list!! It is truly appreciated!










Well, tomorrow morning I'm off to see the Wizard...uh, I mean, I'm off to the land of Oz....no, what I really mean is, I'm off to Pennsylvania and then New England.







Again, I hope to check in from time to time to see what's new...I hope to return by around the 28th.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17326126
> 
> 
> The backend database for the tier list is now completely updated for all placements through post #13791, on page 460. It will go "live" as soon as SuprSlow handles a couple of the more contentious placements in tier zero. After the update, if any specifications or typos remain in the list, pm me with the details and they will go in the next update.
> 
> 
> This post serves as a marker for accounting purposes. I think the long time between updates should be shortened for the sanity of SuprSlow and his helpers. The amount of work involved is truly greater than I ever imagined. As long as I am helping out, updates will be coming out every couple of weeks to prevent a huge backlog of placements.




Thank you, Phantom Stranger! I appreciate the helping hand you're giving to SuprSlow & to the rest of us!











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17326252
> 
> 
> Thanks a million Phantom for all the work you did updating the list!! It is truly appreciated!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, tomorrow morning I'm off to see the Wizard...uh, I mean, I'm off to the land of Oz....no, what I really mean is, I'm off to Pennsylvania and then New England.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I hope to check in from time to time to see what's new...I hope to return by around the 28th.




Have a safe trip, Denny!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xboxFreak* /forum/post/17325534
> 
> 
> YES!!! It was!!! Amazing...



Indeed! I was so impressed with both the PQ and AQ I just ordered it (_Monsters vs. Aliens_) from Amazon (along with the upcoming release of _Star Trek_).


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17326422
> 
> 
> Have a safe trip, Denny!



Thanks G3! They're forecasting snow for here tomorrow (







) so I can' wait to get to a little warmer climate.


----------



## Hughmc

Have a great trip Denny. Peak foilage is starting about now, or at least it used to when I would go to Vermont, give or take a week. Snow already where you are at? As much as I love snow, I am already thinking of spring.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17324981
> 
> 
> Agreed. I like reading what people think, that way it helps me understand why they came up with what tier they wound up putting the title in. I know not everyone can do that but I love it when it's there.



I like reading others detailed reviews and some are really good at doing them to the level of professionalism, which admitedly makes me feel my reviews are inadequte and better left to those that are better at describing in detail what they are seeing.










I think it is a combination of being burned out from the years of doing reviews, if you can call mine that







, to feeling like I am stating the same thing over and over like I am being redundant even if it is different titles and different wording used to describe them. Black levels are good, black levels are bad, contrast is good, etc. I have that going through the motions feeling most times.


Anyone else feel that way?


I mention the above, because I have about 8 to 10 BD's I have watched in the last two weeks and wanted to post recommendations, but don't be too surprised if they are not very detailed.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17326126
> 
> 
> The backend database for the tier list is now completely updated for all placements through post #13791, on page 460. It will go "live" as soon as SuprSlow handles a couple of the more contentious placements in tier zero. After the update, if any specifications or typos remain in the list, pm me with the details and they will go in the next update.
> 
> 
> This post serves as a marker for accounting purposes. I think the long time between updates should be shortened for the sanity of SuprSlow and his helpers. The amount of work involved is truly greater than I ever imagined. As long as I am helping out, updates will be coming out every couple of weeks to prevent a huge backlog of placements.



Fantastic job, and thanks for the hard work!


----------



## daPriceIs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17327754
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> I think it is a combination of being burned out from the years of doing reviews, if you can call mine that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , to feeling like I am stating the same thing over and over like I am being redundant even if it is different titles and different wording used to describe them. Black levels are good, black levels are bad, contrast is good, etc. I have that going through the motions feeling most times.
> 
> 
> Anyone else feel that way?
> 
> 
> ...



Dude, I've only written 13 reviews and I already feel that way. Probably been feeling that way since the 2nd review.










Gonna have to get out my thesaurus.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *daPriceIs* /forum/post/17328216
> 
> 
> Dude, I've only written 13 reviews and I already feel that way. Probably been feeling that way since the 2nd review.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gonna have to get out my thesaurus.



+1


Hugh, as you can see you're not alone! I feel the same way many times, but hey, it is what it is, but we still need to get the word out on what each title looks like PQ-wise. Soooooo....keep your reviews coming Bro!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17327688
> 
> 
> Have a great trip Denny. Peak foilage is starting about now, or at least it used to when I would go to Vermont, give or take a week. Snow already where you are at? As much as I love snow, I am already thinking of spring.



Thanks Hugh!


I am looking out my basement window as I type and the "white stuff" is falling like leaves (or I should say "falling along with the leaves"). We're only supposed to get an inch but it's still way too early for winter!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

I know I'm completely repetitive when I do my reviews, but I have to describe 'em somehow!







Don't worry about it too much! I mean, we could come up with a form letter....

*Did this film contain:*

*Edge Enhancement?* YES!!! FUGLY EE!!

*DNR?* Don't know, but faces did look a little pasty...



etc etc.... just kidding!!


----------



## daPriceIs

*Van Helsing*

Inspired by *Hughmc* I'm going to make this short. So Cliff Notes version.

BD-50, 1.85:1 AR, AVC 1080p/24, 132 minutes, Universal 2009-09-15
Didn't notice anything seriously wrong other than it simply being just a little too soft for the Gold and the Blu. Does occasionally have some good close-ups but not enough. The exterior shots of Castle Frankenstein look to have been sharpened.
Lots of dark scenes in this one. Black level is subterranean. (See, I got out my thesaurus!







) No crushing, at least not by the video; there's some serious underexposure going on.
Color: good, but low key.
Contrast: good.
CGI: ridiculous most of the time.
Overacting: guilty!
Other observations: some weird chroma noise visible for 51 frames on the chest of Velkan in his death scene.
Question: Has Kevin J O'Connor ever been in a movie where he didn't play a nut, a creep, or a weasel?

*Recommendation: Tier 2.0*

Panasonic TH-42PZ77U, 1080p/60, 4 feet more or less.


----------------------------------------------------

As indicated in my review of _Chronicles of Riddick_, this movie is a guilty pleasure for me. Sure it's loud and stupid. Sure the yelling and overacting by the vamps and monsters can get on your nerves. But I like it anyway. Not a strong like. More of a once or twice a year like. Which is about how often I watch it. Of course there are those times when I feel the need for a nice mindless two hour dose of Kate.


Speaking of which: Beckinsale in skin-tight velvet pants, thigh high boots, and a corset! Beckinsale speaking in a Béla Lugosi accent and kicking vampire ass! Does it get any better? No, it doesn't and Esquire agrees with me . [In reference to the link: *Kate, you don't have to cook.*]


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17328299
> 
> 
> Thanks Hugh!
> 
> 
> I am looking out my basement window as I type and the "white stuff" is falling like leaves (or I should say "falling along with the leaves"). We're only supposed to get an inch but it's still way too early for winter!



I have a very good friend who lives in the midwest. He was at the Mizzou football game last night......in pouring rain!


You guys in the midwest have sure seemed to have been getting a lot of rain lately. The Ohio statement game a couple of weeks ago was also played in a downpour.


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *daPriceIs* /forum/post/17328907
> 
> 
> *In reference to the link: Kate, you don’t have to cook.]
> *


*


Yea, I'm thinkin takeout food would be just fine










Hugh, I feel the same way and I've not reviewed many either. Trouble is, we've got to mention all the common problems and to what degree they show up. I've tried several methods too but in the end always seem to concentrate on the issues that either bother me most, or impress me most. I see others who do the same, even if they don't notice it, and that's fine with me cause once I've seen a few reviews from someone, I can get a good idea what to look for by what they say about their pet peeves. I sometimes know more by what they don't say. Cause I usually consider no news to be good news.


I should also publicly thank Phantom for his work. He's got a lot of time in this update for not very much pay!*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17329142
> 
> 
> I have a very good friend who lives in the midwest. He was at the Mizzou football game last night......in pouring rain!
> 
> 
> You guys in the midwest have sure seemed to have been getting a lot of rain lately. The Ohio statement game a couple of weeks ago was also played in a downpour.



I was just checking my email and a few threads on the Forum for the last time tonight and I saw your post Rob. Yes, we have had way too much rain this month, which is now turning to snow. This is what happened last fall which was a big factor in our record-breaking flood this last spring. Too much rain saturates the soil which in turn causes a deeper freeze which then causes too fast of a run off when the snow melts in the spring. Not good!!


BTW, I was hoping you would have watched _The Wizard of Oz_ before I leave on the trip early tomorrow. I am looking forward to your take on it.


----------



## Hughmc

I did suspect I wasn't alone in feeling the monotony, but I do appreciate knowing others feel the same about reviewing. Thanks for the support *everyone* and making it seem as we are feeling the same.










I too want to thank Phantom not only for his work on the updating the tier thread, but his reviews which are so thorough and articulate. Please keep it up as you are a driving force of excellence in this thread.










daPriceIs, I actually like that format. Formatting it like that would be good to change it up now and then and make me feel like I am doing less, blah, blah blah...


OMG, too funny about Kate Beckinsale. I read the article you linked and this is a great laugh:


The 36-year-old actress – who is married to director Len Wiseman – has previously admitted she isn’t the perfect wife, but makes up for her lack of skills in the kitchen by being a fantastic lover.


She said: "I'm the worst wife in the cooking department. I always thought you can't be good at food and sex, but you can always order the food in. *I'd rather my husband didn’t order in the sex!”*


Kate, I can cook!!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Final Countdown

recommendation: Tier 3.25*


Blue Underground has brought another cult classic faithfully to Blu-ray. The 1980 movie debuted as a BD on November 4, 2008. The 102-minute main feature is encoded in VC-1 on a BD-50 at an average video bitrate of 27.94 Mbps. A placement in tier 3.25 is reflective of the original film elements and budget of the movie, and not any fault of the transfer itself. The picture quality is a substantial grade above the dvd in all aspects and very film-like in nature.


Trough to peak, the compression encoding mainly ranges from 25 to 35 Mbps. It is nearly perfect, replicating the sometimes inconsistent grain fields inherent in the film with nary an artifact. I still think VC-1 overly smooths the picture, even at these average bitrates. That is more an observation than a particular comment on this transfer, which displays detail and clarity when the film allows and is faithful to the original film's look. Sharpness varies greatly over the course of the movie, from razor-sharp images of Kirk Douglas to very soft shots, like when they interrogate the Japanese prisoner on the ship.


The master is of decent quality, though some minor amount of detritus shows up at various points. The most dated looking scenes are of course the ones involving special effects. Optical matte lines are briefly visible during the first appearance of the electromagnetic storm. Noise also becomes more prominent during these passages. The transfer is nearly free of edge enhancement. The only suspicious moment was the quick glimpse of a moire pattern on Martin Sheen's shirt. The transfer also does not look digitally processed to have removed grain. Many of the larger studios would have likely filtered a few of the more inconsistent grain-laden scenes, particularly the establishing shots outside the U.S.S. Nimitz.


Picture resolution and clarity are generally solid, especially the interior shots within the U.S.S. Nimitz. It would not be a stretch to firmly place most of that material in the upper confines of tier two. Action sequences fare less well, with less detail visible and some softness. Colors are a tad less rich than is the standard for Blu-ray, though flesh tones appear solid. Certain shots do display a tendency for distortion, possibly chromatic aberration, at the bottom edge of the frame, most likely the result of the original photography's use of anamorphic lens. It leads to noticeable optical distortion at the edge that close observers will likely see.


While not a showcase for visual splendor, _The Final Countdown_ is well-represented on Blu-ray here as an excellent transfer of an older film. Fans of the film should have no worry about the picture quality, as it is of enough merit to warrant a purchase.


Watching on a 60” Pioneer KURO plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a 60 GB PS3 (firmware 3.01) at a viewing distance of six feet.


BDInfo Scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...6#post15236266


----------



## lgans316

Phantom,


Thanks very much for updating the master list. Going forward, its better to update it once a week or fortnight.

*Knowing* - This may be a forgotten movie but the PQ on the daylight scenes is the best I have ever seen on Blu-ray. Period.


----------



## deltasun

*Wizard of Oz*


Grain was moderate but only bothersome in a number of scenes, where digital noise can be seen in clouds as well as darker areas. The opening black & white scenes (more like sepia & white) initially looked decent (not _Sin City_ decent), showing good depth and clarity during medium and long scenes (yes, even with the fake background. Contrast was a bit hot on these scenes, however.


On to the color - the introduction to color was a bit mixed. Contrast was slightly better. It seemed the details, while discernible through different colors, seemed washed out, dated. A bit more facial details were evident, but it still looked smooth on Dorothy's face (or even the good witch's). The fake backgrounds and props were definitely a distraction and took away from the overall PQ. Dark scenes, while very few, were very flat also. Blacks were crushed in a number of scenes.


I was also hoping to see more texture on the Scarecrow's face/straw/sack or Tin Man's leading edges. On the flip side, it was fairly common to see how thick the Wicked Witch's make up was. Medium shots were probably where the PQ excelled most for me, particularly of Dorothy and her friends.


Print dirt was commonplace and presented a bit of a distraction. As the movie went along, I noticed them less and proved a distraction only when I looked for them again. This was a very good transfer and I only spied a few instances of ringing. Still, I believe this belongs just at the top of the Bronze tier. On a side note, I also have _Master and Commander_ (at 2.75) from Netflix for comparison. It is safe to say that first, _M&C_ is heavily mis-tiered and secondly, _Wizard of Oz_ looked much better. I will do a review of _M&C_ next, but for this particular title...

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8' & 6'_


----------



## deltasun

Still catching up fellow PQ'ers...


Phantom - muchas gracias for the assistance! Definitely appreciate getting the thread updated!


Denny - hope you're enjoying your trip, able take in all the fall colors outside of your Kuro










jedimasterchad - _The Unborn_ is my new favorite for gorgeous black levels. Also, _U-571_ has been noise reduced (i.e., smooth and grain-free) and edge enhanced. However, like I mentioned my review, it was not bothersome to me. For G3, on the other hand, I believe the EE started floating and pecking at her during viewing.










Rob - I know what you mean about placement recommendations. I've gone back to comparing what I'm currently reviewing with movies within the tier I'm leaning towards. Hopefully, we are all using this exercise in our recommendations.


Hugh - I do feel redundant at times, but I also enjoy being able to get as complete a list out there of tier placements. I also noticed I've gone through each characteristic in the same order for each review - grain, facial details, blacks/contrast, etc.


----------



## deltasun

*Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World*


I've been on an audio kick lately and decided to re-rent this title as well as _Cloverfield_. Needless to say, I may have to reapply some new paint in the living room.










First off, grain was bothersome in a number of scenes. Black levels were a mess and shadow details were generally non-existent. Most low-light scenes were flat and simply unyielding. Facial details were also varied and never more than low Gold quality.


Compression issues were also noticeable. A bad case of banding was present midway through the movie. In the end, I disagree with its current placement of 2.75...

*Tier Recommendation: 3.50*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## deltasun

*Duplicity*


This title reminded me a lot of _The International_, albeit with richer colors. Grain was very fine throughout the film. While _The International_ was clearly superior, this film had some incredible panoramas and cityscapes. Facial details were well resolved, but they weren't consistent due to the type of shots and lighting. Also, they seemed to be more pronounced on Clive Owen than Julia Roberts. In fact, she almost always had softer-looking shots.


Contrast was bold and blacks were rich, with but a few instances of crushing. Most of the crushed blacks came from medium shots. During mixed lighting, the cinematographer seemed to favor a washed out look - check out the beach house scene in Miami. I need to acknowledge great bokeh use as well, particularly when green foliage was the background. These were very pleasing to the eyes.


Again, depth and dimension were solid treats throughout. Also, when any of the negatives above were encountered, the next excellent HD delight was just around the corner. Some of these made one forget about any inadequacies. But, I was taking notes.










Overall, a very satisfying feast for the eyes. However, looking at my notes, I do have to settle for a lower score...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*


I didn't mind the movie so much, it kept my attention throughout. However, it can be predictable.

_ln46a560 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*The Wizard of Oz*


Right off the bat I have to say that given the age of this movie and the original elements, I think the studio did an excellent job with this release! Overall it is a very nice, impressive presentation of a great classic.


That being said, for purposes of _this_ thread, I wouldn't consider it top notch "eye candy" or a good example of how good Blu-ray can look. (It is, however, a very good example of how much better an old classic can look on Blu-ray vs DVD)


There is grain (thank goodness) and the grain is particularly noticeable in the sepia scenes at the beginning.


When the color scenes start, it is a mixed bag. The colors are not well defined, and it almost appears as though they bleed into each other.


Detail and clarity: I would say that overall it was better than I expected, yet it is clear that there are numerous scenes that have a very soft look to them. Some scenes do exhibit decent clarity though. Overall, there is not a tremendous amount of detail to be seen.


Contrast is pretty good overall, but it isn't something that stands out as being particularly impressive.


The bottom line for me is that I am very impressed with this release for what it is, but for purposes of this thread, it obviously doesn't measure up to the better titles. This is a perfect fit for Tier 3, and I would argue against a placement any higher than that.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Woodstock: 3 Days Of Peace and Music


recommendation: Tier 4.5*


Warner Bros. released this document of the music festival in June of this year in a director's cut that runs 224-minutes on a single BD-50. The average video bitrate for the VC-1 encode is 17.24 Mbps. A Blu-ray of visually-limited material like this is bought for one reason, the lossless Dolby TrueHD track. The music sounds quite good, but beyond the scope of this recommendation.


Shot on 16mm film, the picture looks as well as one can expect given the nature and limitations of the original filming. Warner did perform a 2K scan of the original film elements to squeeze as much resolution out of them as possible. Parts of the documentary are shown in split-screen, which can take an adjustment to get acclimated to viewing regularly. The on-stage portions focusing on the performers look relatively decent, if softer than average with reduced color fidelity. Contrast is okay but mainly on par with other titles in tier four.


Warner has done a good job in transferring this difficult source material to Blu-ray. The picture quality is not stunning, and not even average, but suitable enough to enjoy the soundtrack and see many famous musicians in their prime.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of eric.exe):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post16662115


----------



## daPriceIs

*X-Men Origins: Wolverine*


Other than one tiny little issue (some minor banding around the full moon), the transfer is completely true to its source. It contains a fine and pleasant patina of natural grain. It may be a little heavier than some prefer, but *grainiacs, rejoice*.








Black level and shadow delineation are good
Contrast is excellent
Color is nicely saturated. I thought flesh tones were pleasant and exactly as intended but not quite true to life. Not a problem really.
Camera work is quite inconsistent.
Don't know what happened at the beginning of chapter 6 but it's soft as mush, like upscaled DVD. It's the worst shot in the movie. It only lasts a few seconds and then cuts to a close-up of Logan which is much sharper.
There are some scenes that are fairly consistently excellent throughout, most notably the barn explosion/helicopter chase scene which had only a few seconds (out of 5 minutes) of lower quality shots
Sharpness varies from shot to shot even within the same scene. Obviously some shots within a particular scene may be shot weeks or even months apart, but the same inconsistency occurs in some scenes where the shots were probably taken only several minutes apart; e.g., the scene in the cell in Vietnam where the brothers first meet Striker: they are sharp but Striker is a lot softer. Whatever the reason, there's really no excuse for these inconsistencies. Overall, the resolution of the shots teeters between the lower reaches of Tier 1 and the top of Tier 2, with several excellent shots that skirt the bottom of Tier 0.

Based solely on picture sharpness and fine detail, I would have to average out the film's PQ to about a Tier 1.75 ranking. That's based on my reviewing distance of from three to four feet (from a 42 plasma) for this film. At more typical viewing distances of five to six feet, the movie looks excellent throughout, except for the one bad scene.(It's kinda amazing what difference a couple of feet make.) Given the video's other excellent qualities I'm inclined to raise the ranking slightly.
I sampled a few of the Tier 1.5 and Tier 1.75 titles I have on hand and this disc compares well with all of them (Harry Potter 3 and 5, _The Fifth Element_, _Batman Begins, Iron Man, Pan's Labyrinth_, and _The Matrix_). My conclusion is this disc belongs in that company but that _The Fifth Element_ (remastered) does not.
The Claws:
To judge by the disc extras and the director's commentary, the claws are prosthetic and gripped in the actors' fists which are then shined up digitally, except of course when they are shown sliding in and out of the hand in which case they were all CGI. Pretty clearly they need to be shinier and to have more environmental reflections to sell the gag.
They look fake? Duh, they're foot long butcher knives growing out of a guy's knuckles.







They gotta look fake. They look faker in this movie because they are displayed more prominently and more often. In the earlier movies Logan never holds them up to the camera/mirror so that he can admire them and we can laugh. And in those movies he's wearing his natty little uniform with his spiffy black gloves so we don't see how the claws are joined to his hand; and they're always in use, slashing, scratching, or poking.
The bone claws look worse than the adamantium claws. Granted, they both look bad. Speaking of which, the bone claws are all gnarly and the adamantium was just infused into his bones, right? So how come the adamantium claws aren't gnarly as well?
Victor/Sabertooth's are almost as bad. They look OK when viewed from above, but when viewed in profile they look clunky and glued on, which they are.

Speaking of fake, what's up with the shot where the kids are running toward Xavier's helicopter? It looks like their feet aren't even touching the ground. And then there's the diamond girl. Now that's a real fake.


*Recommendation: Tier 1.5*


Panasonic TH-42PZ77U, 1080p/60, 3 to 4 feet


----------



## jedimasterchad

*The Wizard of Oz*


It's been a long time since I've watched this movie the whole way through, as the truth is I really just don't like it that much. That has nothing to do with respecting it as a classic, it's just not my thing (nor are most other musicals). I was interested to see what could be done with a 70 year old movie though. As the movie progressed, I found myself having a hard time not laughing simply at the bad editing or SFX. The background matte paintings looked so cheesy, and combined with a high overall cheese-ball factor, didn't really help my enjoyment of the film. As I watched it with my wife, we noticed things in the movie we hadn't before, which may in some cases be attributed to the higher detail offered on BD rather than the usual TV broadcasts.


We did a little research while watching the film and found out the following: There was no munchkin hanging during the film, but rather it was a poorly detailed bird in the extreme background fanning its wings. This scene on the BD was extremely evident that it was a bird, but in old footage that was less detailed (perhaps the dvd transfer) this was a very hard detail to distinguish. Unfortunately for the film, this format also reveals some limitations of photography in the era, such as the bad Special FX (you could clearly see the cables making the monkeys fly), matte backgrounds, etc. which kind of ruins the experience of the fantasy realm.


Overall, PQ looked OK. In the land of Oz, I think the color was pretty poor. This looked more like a limitation in equipment in 1938 rather than a bad transfer, though. Skin tones never quite seemed right, and the vibrant green in Oz looked a little weird to us. The sepia tone during the Kansas scenes was fine, but there was a sort of light flicker happening throughout the sequence. Almost like a fluorescent light bulb flickering on and off above the camera. It seemed like a random sequence, so I'm not sure if this was a problem with the film cells or an artifact of restoration, but it was there and could be distracting at times.


I think the best detail in the film was during the Kansas scenes. Hay, grass, and other features looked pretty sharp compared to earlier releases, along with details in the wood fence and so on. Most of the Oz shots appeared pretty soft, especially with a lack of texture on the characters faces. I thought Judy Garland was made of wax or caked in makeup throughout most of the film. In contrast though, the scarecrow's face and the Lions face looked pretty good.


Grain was evident in most scenes, and it was sometimes mixed with dirt or smudges on the print. For the most part it wasn't too terrible, but in the land of Oz the bad color mixed with the grain could sometimes render faces and textures pretty ugly.


Ultimately, the film probably has never looked better on any home format, or since the original film print itself. Unfortunately, viewing this film with such clarity on a big screen really reveals some limitations of the technology, and the somewhat perceived poor quality film print they used (If I remember correctly, the original was lost in a fire). The transfer is faithful to the print itself though, FWIW, and I know that counts more to some people than others. This isn't eye candy by any means though, and since this particular thread is more concerned with the visuals then with the content, I can't really recommend it for any awards (nor would I for content, to be honest.).

*Tier Recommendation: 3.25*


BD played via PS3 over HDMI to TC-P54G10 7.5'


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *daPriceIs* /forum/post/17336267
> 
> *X-Men Origins: Wolverine*
> 
> 
> Other than one tiny little issue (some minor banding around the full moon), the transfer is completely true to its source. It contains a fine and pleasant patina of natural grain. It may be a little heavier than some prefer, but *grainiacs, rejoice*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Black level and shadow delineation are good
> Contrast is excellent
> Color is nicely saturated. I thought flesh tones were pleasant and exactly as intended but not quite true to life. Not a problem really.
> Camera work is quite inconsistent.
> Don't know what happened at the beginning of chapter 6 but it's soft as mush, like upscaled DVD. It's the worst shot in the movie. It only lasts a few seconds and then cuts to a close-up of Logan which is much sharper.
> There are some scenes that are fairly consistently excellent throughout, most notably the barn explosion/helicopter chase scene which had only a few seconds (out of 5 minutes) of lower quality shots
> Sharpness varies from shot to shot even within the same scene. Obviously some shots within a particular scene may be shot weeks or even months apart, but the same inconsistency occurs in some scenes where the shots were probably taken only several minutes apart; e.g., the scene in the cell in Vietnam where the brothers first meet Striker: they are sharp but Striker is a lot softer. Whatever the reason, there's really no excuse for these inconsistencies. Overall, the resolution of the shots teeters between the lower reaches of Tier 1 and the top of Tier 2, with several excellent shots that skirt the bottom of Tier 0.
> 
> Based solely on picture sharpness and fine detail, I would have to average out the film's PQ to about a Tier 1.75 ranking. That's based on my reviewing distance of from three to four feet (from a 42 plasma) for this film. At more typical viewing distances of five to six feet, the movie looks excellent throughout, except for the one bad scene.(It's kinda amazing what difference a couple of feet make.) Given the video's other excellent qualities I'm inclined to raise the ranking slightly.
> I sampled a few of the Tier 1.5 and Tier 1.75 titles I have on hand and this disc compares well with all of them (Harry Potter 3 and 5, _The Fifth Element_, _Batman Begins, Iron Man, Pan's Labyrinth_, and _The Matrix_). My conclusion is this disc belongs in that company but that _The Fifth Element_ (remastered) does not.
> The Claws:
> To judge by the disc extras and the director's commentary, the claws are prosthetic and gripped in the actors' fists which are then shined up digitally, except of course when they are shown sliding in and out of the hand in which case they were all CGI. Pretty clearly they need to be shinier and to have more environmental reflections to sell the gag.
> They look fake? Duh, they're foot long butcher knives growing out of a guy's knuckles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They gotta look fake. They look faker in this movie because they are displayed more prominently and more often. In the earlier movies Logan never holds them up to the camera/mirror so that he can admire them and we can laugh. And in those movies he's wearing his natty little uniform with his spiffy black gloves so we don't see how the claws are joined to his hand; and they're always in use, slashing, scratching, or poking.
> The bone claws look worse than the adamantium claws. Granted, they both look bad. Speaking of which, the bone claws are all gnarly and the adamantium was just infused into his bones, right? So how come the adamantium claws aren't gnarly as well?
> Victor/Sabertooth's are almost as bad. They look OK when viewed from above, but when viewed in profile they look clunky and glued on, which they are.
> 
> *Speaking of fake, what's up with the shot where the kids are running toward Xavier's helicopter? It looks like their feet aren't even touching the ground. And then there's the diamond girl. Now that's a real fake.*
> 
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 1.5*
> 
> 
> Panasonic TH-42PZ77U, 1080p/60, 3 to 4 feet




Isn't Xavier fake in this scene also?


----------



## daPriceIs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/17321057
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> I also have Curse of the Black Pearl on the way, so I can't wait to check that out. As a general rule though, I've only been buying newer movies on Blu ray, because of the WAF of replacing all said 400 dvd's with a new copy (*And, I already have all three on DVD*). So, the next couple of months look really interesting.
> 
> *Did anybody see Drag Me to Hell*? I'm considering that as my next purchase, followed by both of the Transformers in the week after.



I feel for you when it comes to upgrading currently owned DVDs to BD. Hold out as long as you can, but very soon a day is going to come when you're so accustomed to the generally high PQ of BD that upscaled DVD just isn't palatable anymore. Soon after that you're going to find yourself upgrading despite your best intentions.







Just keep checking the PQ rankings so you avoid buyer's remorse as much as possible.










Speaking of upgrades, all three of the POTC series are well worth it! The PQ of the last two is significantly better than that of _POTC: Curse of the Black Pearl._


I've pre-ordered _Drag Me to Hell_. Amazon should get it into my hands Tuesday afternoon but it will be a while before I review it. After I watch it that night I'll post a head's up for you and anybody else who's interested. The movie is fun and from what I hear the PQ of the BD is spectacular. We'll see.


----------



## daPriceIs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/17336404
> 
> 
> Isn't Xavier fake in this scene also?



I assume so, but I don't know. I checked the credits and Patrick Stewart is not listed. I watched to the very end of the credits and no mention is made of which of the movies his image may have been lifted from.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/17336404
> 
> 
> Isn't Xavier fake in this scene also?





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *daPriceIs* /forum/post/17336617
> 
> 
> I assume so, but I don't know. I checked the credits and Patrick Stewart is not listed. I watched to the very end of the credits and no mention is made of which of the movies his image may have been lifted from.



Yeah, Patrick Stewart has an uncredited role in this movie, and they've digitally de-aged his face. It looks so weird if you look at it for too long.


----------



## deltasun

*Year One*


Extremely fine grain present throughout. Facial details were decent, readily showing facial hair on Jack Black. However, actual skin texture was a bit lacking on his and other characters. Close-up's were shot in such a way where we should have seen more detail, but they just weren't there to the level we've come to expect from high-calibre titles.


I think the biggest issue with this title was its contrast. It was weak and made for a flat presentation most of the time. There were some exceptions - the scene where they found the "end of the world" was a good example. On the flip side, some of the outdoor shots suffered from too hot a contrast. Rock walls under the sun were too baked. Shadow details - while few as well - were not the best I've witnessed. They were mostly shallow and provided less than the expected amount of details. Skin tones were natural for the most part, but had a reddish tinge indoors (specially with mixed lighting). Colors were a bit drab even with the picture perfect blue sky on most scenes.


Overall, I was very unimpressed with the title. It seemed it had all the key elements for good PQ, but did not quite deliver. I did not notice any video anomalies and the transfer looked pretty clean.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


Wasn't very funny.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## deltasun

*Trick 'r Treat*


Very fine grain present throughout - almost had a digital look. As the film's primary weapon, black levels were pretty decent for the most part. There were some crushing, but very acceptable for the amount shown. Low-light details really varied from very good to just above average. Facial details were Gold calibre for the most part. However, a number of scenes had a smeary, almost waxy look to them. Upon closer inspection, however, I could not deduce that it was due to DNR. Again, it was the same look inherent of digital facial details. I also have to mention a few instances of softness.


As is customary with the horror genre, colors were on the darker side with generous splotches of crimson and, in this case, orange. The one sequence during the flashback of the school bus had a wonderful dreamy orange effect. It was mostly soft as intended, but the subdued orange palette was very pleasing.


In the end, nothing really stood out in this title, but still a solid presentation throughout. A few specks crept up here and there, but nothing too distracting.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.50*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8' & 6'_


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/17336371
> 
> *The Wizard of Oz*
> 
> 
> It's been a long time since I've watched this movie the whole way through, as the truth is I really just don't like it that much. That has nothing to do with respecting it as a classic, it's just not my thing (nor are most other musicals). I was interested to see what could be done with a 70 year old movie though. As the movie progressed, I found myself having a hard time not laughing simply at the bad editing or SFX. The background matte paintings looked so cheesy, and combined with a high overall cheese-ball factor, didn't really help my enjoyment of the film. As I watched it with my wife, we noticed things in the movie we hadn't before, which may in some cases be attributed to the higher detail offered on BD rather than the usual TV broadcasts.
> 
> 
> We did a little research while watching the film and found out the following: There was no munchkin hanging during the film, but rather it was a poorly detailed bird in the extreme background fanning its wings. This scene on the BD was extremely evident that it was a bird, but in old footage that was less detailed (perhaps the dvd transfer) this was a very hard detail to distinguish. Unfortunately for the film, this format also reveals some limitations of photography in the era, such as the bad Special FX (you could clearly see the cables making the monkeys fly), matte backgrounds, etc. which kind of ruins the experience of the fantasy realm.
> 
> 
> Overall, PQ looked OK. In the land of Oz, I think the color was pretty poor. This looked more like a limitation in equipment in 1938 rather than a bad transfer, though. Skin tones never quite seemed right, and the vibrant green in Oz looked a little weird to us. The sepia tone during the Kansas scenes was fine, but there was a sort of light flicker happening throughout the sequence. Almost like a fluorescent light bulb flickering on and off above the camera. It seemed like a random sequence, so I'm not sure if this was a problem with the film cells or an artifact of restoration, but it was there and could be distracting at times.
> 
> 
> I think the best detail in the film was during the Kansas scenes. Hay, grass, and other features looked pretty sharp compared to earlier releases, along with details in the wood fence and so on. Most of the Oz shots appeared pretty soft, especially with a lack of texture on the characters faces. I thought Judy Garland was made of wax or caked in makeup throughout most of the film. In contrast though, the scarecrow's face and the Lions face looked pretty good.
> 
> 
> Grain was evident in most scenes, and it was sometimes mixed with dirt or smudges on the print. For the most part it wasn't too terrible, but in the land of Oz the bad color mixed with the grain could sometimes render faces and textures pretty ugly.
> 
> 
> Ultimately, the film probably has never looked better on any home format, or since the original film print itself. Unfortunately, viewing this film with such clarity on a big screen really reveals some limitations of the technology, and the somewhat perceived poor quality film print they used (If I remember correctly, the original was lost in a fire). The transfer is faithful to the print itself though, FWIW, and I know that counts more to some people than others. This isn't eye candy by any means though, and since this particular thread is more concerned with the visuals then with the content, I can't really recommend it for any awards (nor would I for content, to be honest.).
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.25*
> 
> 
> BD played via PS3 over HDMI to TC-P54G10 7.5'



Excellent review in every respect. Keep it up!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Underworld: Rise Of The Lycans


recommendation: Tier 2.25*


I just wanted to affirm the current placement of this disc in tier 2.25. Nothing grossly wrong with it but a touch of edge enhancement and a stylized color palette. It did look as if some digital noise reduction had been applied. Grain levels were a little too consistent, if you know what I mean. Sony seems to handle catalog transfers better on Blu-ray than they do new movies.


----------



## deltasun

*Night Train*


Folks, this one's ugly. It's late and this is going to be short. There is a haze throughout the entire film, giving lighter skinned characters a bit of a smeary glow about their faces. Contrast was horrible, blacks crushed, and the fake setting really cheapened the look of cabin of the pseudo-train. The CGI was also poorly done. Despite the haze, some of Danny Glover's close-up's had good details. Still, I don't think it's enough to save this title from...

*Tier Recommendation: 4.0*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## SuprSlow

First of all, a huge thanks to Phantom and K-Spaz for taking up my slack. They've done a tremendous job.










The tiers are updated, below is the update log.




-----------------------
Coraline - top Tier 0 (djoberg, b_scott) // top 5 Tier 0 (El Bandito), 1.0 (deltasun), low 0 (filmaholic), 0 top five(Tomlin), 0 top 5(djoberg), 0 above Rat (GGG), 0 (K-Spaz), 0 above TMNT (daPriceis)


Two Lovers - Tier 2.25 (42041) -


Obsessed - Tier 2.75 (deltasun) -


Hulk, The - Tier 2.25 (lgans316) -


Corpse Bride - bot Tier 0 (42041) -


Valkyrie - Tier 1.75 (OldCodger73) -


Field of Dreams - Tier 2.75 (OldCodger73) -


The Silence of the Lambs - Tier 3.0 - (OldCodger73) -


Ghostbusters - Tier 3.0 - (OldCodger73) -


A River Runs Through - Tier 2.25 - (OldCodger73) -


My Cousin Vinny - Tier 3.5 - (OldCodger73) -


Tell No One Mid - Tier 0 right below Live Free or Die - (OldCodger73), 0 above Live Free or Die Hard (daPriceis)


I, Robot - Tier 0 below DMC (nick2010) -


I Love You, Man - Tier 1.75 (deltasun, 42041) -


Doomsday - Tier 1.25 (lgans316) -


Primal Fear - Tier 2.75 (42041) -


U-571 - Tier 2.0 (ggg) -


Confessions of a Shopaholic - Tier 3.25 (ggg) -


Mirrors - Tier 3.75 (Phantom, [Rob Tomlin]) -


Blue Thunder - 3.25 (deltasun)


Chaos - 2.75 (deltasun)


Tin Man (UK Import) - 2.25 (Phantomstranger)


12 Monkeys - 4.0 (deltasun)


The Unborn - 1.5 (djoberg), 1.5(deltasun)


Pride & Glory - 2.75 (djoberg)


The Guard Post (UK import) - 2.75 (Phantomstranger)


The Soloist - 1.25 (deltasun)


The Watchmen (director's cut) - 1.0 (GGG)


He's Just Not That Into You - 3 (GGG)


The Ninth Gate - 3.0 (Phantom)


Push - 1.75 (deltasun)


Miss March - 2.75 (deltasun)


Mariah Carey: The adventures of Mimi - 1.50 (phantom)


Fearless - 1.75 (42401)


Fargo - 2.25 (Oldcodger)


Zodiac - 1.25 (filmaholic


TCCOBB - 0 (filmaholic), 1.75 (Phantomstranger)


My Name Is Bruce - 4 (GGG)


Valkyrie - 1.75 (GGG)


Surveillance - 2.0 (deltasun)


Quo Vadis - 2.75 (Phantom)


Incendiary - 2.50 (deltasun)


DUplicity - 1.0 (HUghmc)


Fast & Furious - 1.75 (deltasun), 1.75 (lgans316)


Chuck: The Complete first season - 4.0 (phantom)


The Third Man - 4.0 (daPriceIs), 3.5 (oldcodger)


Super Speedway - 2.0(daPriceIs)


Splinter - 3.25(deltasun)


Earth (Disney) - 1.5 (djoberg), low 0 (hughmc)


Green Lantern - 1.0 (deltasun)


John Adams - 1.5 (b_scott), 1.75 (ggg)


Dragon Hunters - 0 (Mr. G)


Gladiator - 3.25 (42041), 2.5 (deltasun), 3.25 (GGG), 2.15 (djoberg), 2.0(eastbaygreen), 3.0 (hughmc), 3.75 (Tomlin)


Hulk (2003) - 1.0 (dla26)


Braveheart - bottom of 0 (42041), 1.75 (deltasun), 1.75 (Patrick99), bottom third of 0(djoberg)


The Notebook - 3.0 (GGG)


Herbert von Karajan Memorial Concert - 1.5 (daPriceIs)


Moody Blues: Lovely to See You - 1.75 (daPrice)


Roy Orbison: Black and White Night - 3.5 (daPrice)


The Alps - 1.25 (daPrice)


Mystery Of The Nile - 2.5 (daPrice)


Coral Reef Adventure - 1.75 (daPrice)


Gods and Generals - 1.0 (K-Spaz)


Wanted - 1.75 (Phantom)


Fighting - low 0 (Hughmc)


Revolutionary Road - 1.25 (djoberg)


Futurama: Into the Wild Green Yonder - Tier 1.0 (nick)


MI:3 - 1.25 (nick)


In the Valley of Elah - 1.75 (42041)


Crank 2: High Voltage - low 0 below I, Robot (deltasun, xavier1), 1.0 (Tomlin), 1.50 (djoberg), low 0 (hughmc) , 0 (357)


State Of Play - 2.0 (djoberg), 1.5 (hughmc)


Vexille - 1.75 (K-Spaz)


Tale Of Despereaux - 1.5 (GGG)


Wolverine - 1.75 (djoberg), 1.75 (GGG), 2.25 (Tomlin), 1.75 (deltasun)


Appleseed Ex-Machina - lower than current placement (filmaholic)


TCCOBB - 0-1.25 (Filmaholic)


Duplicity - 1.0 (djoberg), 1.0 (selimsivad)


THe Code - 1.4 (djoberg)


Flyboys - 1.25 (K-Spaz)


Monsters, Inc. (UK) - 0 around Meet The Robinsons (lgans316)


The Office: Season 5 - 2.25 (42041)


Playtime - 1.75 (filmaholic), 2.25 (selimsivad)


Braveheart - 1.5 (Tomlin), 1.0 (oldcodger73), 1.0 (hughmc)


Gran Torino - 2.5 (oldCodger73)


John Adams - 1.75 (oldCodger73)


Starman - 2.75 (oldCodger73)


Last House On The Left - 2.0 (hughmc), 3.0 (deltasun)


Easy Virtue - low 0 (hughmc) around Caspian, 1.75 (K-Spaz)


Sleep Dealer - 4.0 (hughmc)


Silverado - 2.5 (oldcodger)


Mystery Of The Nile - 2.75 (daPrice)


Ganges - 3.0 (daPrice)


American Gangster - 3.5 (K-Spaz)


Akira - 1.75 (filmaholic)


Final Fantasy 7:Advent Children - 4.0 (filmaholic)


Being There - 3.0 (Phantom)


Midnight Movie - 2.25 (Phantomstranger)


The Informers - 3.25 (deltasun)


Observe And Report - 2.25 (deltasun), 2.25 (sleater)


Ninth Gate - 3.75 (daPriceis)


Ghosts of Girlfriends Past - 3.25 (GGG)


Earth (Disneynature) - 1.0 (highaltHD)


The Alps - 0 above Grand Canyon (42041), 1.25 (dapriceis)


Midnight Express - 3.75 (deltasun)


Surveillance - 3.75 (Tomlin)


Monsters vs. Aliens - top of 0 (deltasun), 0 below A Bug's Life (djoberg), top 8 in 0(Tomlin)


Hellraiser - 3.75 (Phantomstranger)


Priceless - 3.0 (42041)


The Brothers Bloom - 2.75 (deltasun)


Next Day Air - 3.25 (deltasun)


The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly - 2.75 (daPriceis), 3.5 (filmaholic)


Wizard Of Oz - 1.25 (Mark Booth)


Star Trek: First Contact - 2.5 (deltasun)


Army Of Darkness - 2.0 (b_scott)


requiem for a dream - 3.75 (deltasun), 3.75 (selim)


Watchmen: theatrical cut (UK import) - low 0 (filmaholic)


Wizard of Oz - 2.5 (djoberg)


Knowing - 1.0 (lgans316)


Bank Job - 2.0 (lgans316)


A Bug's Life - top of 0 (lgans316)


Chronicles of riddick - 1.0 (daPriceis), 1.75 (lgans316)


Pitch Black - 2.75 (lgans316)


post #13791


----------



## daPriceIs

Many thanks SuprSlow, K-Spaz, and Phantom. Great job guys. That is a hell of a lot of movies to keep track of and reviews to reconcile.


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> First of all, a huge thanks to Phantom and K-Spaz for taking up my slack. They've done a tremendous job.



Well, uhhh, Phantom did. I had about 5 minutes in it, if that. Should be more like, Thanks to Phantom and SuprSlow.


Looking at the list, there is a few things I'd like to change before next time. The holdings should have where the proposed move is going to be. And the ones that say proposed move should also say to where. Don't ask me why I didn't do that before. I'll try to do a bunch of NF/BB links before too long here as well. Next update, more of them will be in.


My last 3 disks from nf came in broken, so not only can't I review, I can't watch. Maybe I'll get some more work done around the house instead.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Thanks for the update to all involved!


EXCEPT!


I haven't seen Ghosts of Girlfriends Past. Maybe that was meant for my review of Confessions of a Shopaholic ?


Referring to this snippet here:



> Quote:
> Observe And Report - 2.25 (deltasun), 2.25 (sleater)
> 
> 
> Ninth Gate - 3.75 (daPriceis)
> 
> *Ghosts of Girlfriends Past - 3.25 (GGG)*
> 
> 
> Earth (Disneynature) - 1.0 (highaltHD)
> 
> 
> The Alps - 0 above Grand Canyon (42041), 1.25 (dapriceis)
> 
> 
> Midnight Express - 3.75 (deltasun)



I remember Denny(Djoberg) said he watched about the first 35 minutes of it... but I'm not even sure if I have that one on my zip.ca queue.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Yeah, I have notice a few discrepancies too.


My review of Braveheart was not accounted for, for example.
















http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...ostcount=13596 


Edit: strike that, it is there. I see what is happening. Titles are mentioned more than once.


----------



## daPriceIs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/17321057
> 
> 
> ...Did anybody see Drag Me to Hell? I'm considering that as my next purchase, followed by both of the Transformers in the week after.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *daPriceIs* /forum/post/17336592
> 
> 
> I've pre-ordered _Drag Me to Hell_. Amazon should get it into my hands Tuesday afternoon but it will be a while before I review it. After I watch it that night I'll post a head's up for you and anybody else who's interested. The movie is fun and from what I hear the *PQ of the BD is spectacular*. We'll see.



If you're on the fence, you shouldn't have any qualms because of PQ. Spectacular? Maybe not. But certainly very good. Fans of Raimi's work, especially pre-Spiderman, shouldn't hesitate.


"Did I get any in my mouth?"


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*JCVD*


For those who don't know, "JCVD" stands for "Jean Claude Van Damme".










This title is nothing to get excited about in terms of PQ. Colors are mostly muted and some scenes have an almost sepia look to them. There is grain noticeable, which gives a somewhat gritty appearance.


Contrast is never impressive, so there is no real sense of depth. Detail/clarity is not up to par either. On the good side, I didn't notice any DNR.


As for the movie itself, I really liked it quite a bit, if for no other reason than it was different/unique. Van Damme did a good job of acting as well. I found it to be a very refreshing change from so much of the crappy films I have been watching lately. Don't let the low Tier ranking deprive you of watching this unique film.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 3.25*


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Not to go too far off topic, but after posting the above review on JCVD I went to Rotten Tomatoes out of curiosity to see what the critics thought. Well, I am definitely not alone in really liking this film, as it has an 85% rating!

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/jcvd/


----------



## selimsivad

*Sleep Dealer*



*1.85 : 1*




I stumbled upon Sleep Dealer today in Blockbuster. As an employee walked by, I asked him about the film. His reply was, "If you liked Blade Runner or The Matrix, check it out!" That was pretty much all I needed to hear!










It's pretty much an above average dystopian tale that deals with outsourcing via "cyber labor." Most of the film takes place in Tijuana, Mexico. Good movie, POOR PICTURE QUALITY!


Grain haters beware!







There's lots of it! SD was shot with Super 16 film, giving it a low budget feel. Day scenes have a golden hue, while night scenes take on a blue tint. Contrast is maxed out most of the time, giving the flim a very DVD, two-dimensional feel.


There are lots of dark scenes, both indoor and outdoor. Black levels are underwhelming, and crushed most of the time.


The CGI used is HORRIBLE by today's standards!







Even though it's used mostly as an accessory to the story, I found it very unbelievable!










PQ-wise, this has to be the worst Blu Ray title I've ever seen! Amazon even has the DVD's priced three dollars higher than its Blu counterpart! I seriously wonder if the DVD actually looks better!










Pick it up if you're a fan of Science Fiction. Avoid it like the plague if you're looking the best Blu Ray has to offer!

*Sleep Dealer

Tier Recommendation: Tier 5

PS3-Samsung 46" 1080p-seven'*


----------



## deltasun

*Drag Me To Hell*

_Here kitty kitty..._


Beautiful grain present throughout. I gotta say, I couldn't find much wrong with this title. However, it did not pop either. The color palette was a bit muted. Blacks were never crushed, but were not as bold as some of the best black presentations out there. Contrast was well-balanced, maybe a just slight bit on the weak side. Still, medium to long shots exhibited really good depth and dimensionality.


Shadow details were excellent. Facial details were abundant and provided adequate texture for the most part. Smooth-faced Christine showcased flaky make-up on a few shots. Stu and Ms. Ganush showcased more. Details in general were abundant as well - gypsy fingernails, wood grain, cobble stones.


The transfer looked clean and I did not notice any print dirt or compression issues. My impression at first was to see where in the Blu Tier this belonged. However, as mentioned above, I don't think this really showed much oomph! In the end, I think titles like _Casino Royale_ and _Quantum of Solace_ still looked better.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


I enjoyed watching the movie, but don't know about rewatchability. A tad predictable and I felt the story needed something a bit more. SQ-wise, I didn't get much LFE, but did enjoy the few directional surround sound moments.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


EDIT: After reading about the softness from my fellow reviewers, I went ahead and re-rented and re-watched. I did a few more comparisons and the softness indeed was more than I remembered from just a few days ago. I did some comparisons and could safely say that the average facial detail look is probably closer to _Iron Man_. In that case, I believe my earlier score of 1.25 was generous and would adjust it to 1.75, maybe bordering on 2.0. _Iron Man's_ shadow details were a tad better. My initial viewing of this title reminded me of _Revolutionary Road_ (hey Rob another huge-discrepancy-title for us) in terms of look and feel. That may need revisiting as well.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17350349
> 
> 
> Thanks for the update to all involved!
> 
> 
> EXCEPT!
> 
> 
> I haven't seen Ghosts of Girlfriends Past.



That is my mistake in attributing the placement to you. Sorry.







My mind saw that title and just naturally attributed the review to you. After several hours, the data entry becomes a little tedious.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17350478
> 
> 
> Yeah, I have notice a few discrepancies too.
> 
> 
> My review of Braveheart was not accounted for, for example.



There were seven different recommendations for Braveheart, and I just did a simple mean of that set, which ended up being around 1.20. That is how it ended up in Tier 1.0. Your reviews are hard to miss as you follow the recommended review format.


If anyone thinks a placement is missing or unaccounted for, just pm me with details. I slipped in a few earlier reviews that had been glossed over in prior updates or were lost that are not listed in SuprSlow's list, so check the tiers list to see if something is there.


Any formatting, typographical, or wrongly-listed specifications will be changed if pointed out to me.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17352428
> 
> 
> That is my mistake in attributing the placement to you. Sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My mind saw that title and just naturally attributed the review to you. After several hours, the data entry becomes a little tedious.



I get it, I get it... G3 watches the chick flicks...










*Equilibrium (Canadian Release)*



More on topic, I'm sorry I haven't reviewed Equilibrium. I did watch that one and sent it back already. It was underwhelming but not terrible, and I've been really busy setting up an online storefront for some handmade items that I've made, by the time I get online... blah! Anyway I don't think any of you should go out of your way to purchase the Canadian edition of Equilibrium if you are a fan of this flick; a US edition would probably (hopefully???) be in the correct aspect ratio, and maybe it would be a bit better PQ wise. It's a rather drab film colour-wise. The print seemed dirty and speckled with crap here and there. I didn't notice any horrendous EE although it peeked out at me occasionally.



I think it's a stylistic thing, trying to make it more artsy, as it's pretty soft a lot of the time but then some of the close-ups have great detail.


This isn't a true spoiler, but it's an OT rant by me, GeekyGlassesGirl, that's indeed very GIRLY/sexist so I figured I'd cover it up as it's not really necessary but I haven't had my coffee yet today and felt the need to type a bit too much.









*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) If anything, I still can't forgive this movie's director for allowing a cool fight-scene between Christian Bale & Taye Diggs, yet NEITHER of them are shirtless. WTF, listen up directors! While I'm a sci-fi fan, many many women are NOT, and if you want them to tolerate their husbands/boyfriends/whatEVER! watching this sort of crappy film(OKAY don't kill me, Gun Kata or whatever the fake matrix stuff in this movie is, is kinda cool but....







), it's a good start to have great looking men in them, but THROW US A FREAKIN' BONE HERE and make'em shirtless. Jeez. We tolerate topless women in chick flicks all over the place to help pacify the guys we force to watch that dreck... Do us the same solid!











I suppose that's kind of turned into as much of a review as I'll likely make of this film that most of you probably won't see as there'll eventually be a US version instead of the craptastic Alliance release.



So.......


*Recommendation for Equilibrium (Canadian Release): Tier 3.0*


equipment: Panny Plasma TH-58PZ800u THX setting, ps3, and I was sitting on the floor surrounded by gemstones & tackle boxes filled with beads... so about 4'. Yes, I was too close, but it wouldn't have changed anything if I was back any farther.


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *daPriceIs* /forum/post/17350556
> 
> 
> If you're on the fence, you shouldn't have any qualms because of PQ. Spectacular? Maybe not. But certainly very good. Fans of Raimi's work, especially pre-Spiderman, shouldn't hesitate.
> 
> 
> "Did I get any in my mouth?"



No, I wouldn't base my purchasing on PQ (unless it was *really* bad) but I was inquiring about the movie itself. I've heard lots of positives on it, and it's coming tomorrow from NF, so hopefully I will be able to review it by tomorrow night (although I see deltasun beat me to the first one).


Also getting the Proposal from NF as well, so expect a review on that also.


----------



## hbomber202020




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/17355216
> 
> 
> No, I wouldn't base my purchasing on PQ (unless it was *really* bad) but I was inquiring about the movie itself. I've heard lots of positives on it, and it's coming tomorrow from NF, so hopefully I will be able to review it by tomorrow night (although I see deltasun beat me to the first one).
> 
> 
> Also getting the Proposal from NF as well, so expect a review on that also.



I got it(Drag me to Hell) from Netflix yesterday, watched it last night. Let me preface this by saying. I generally like every movie I watch, the last movie I disliked was Two Lovers. I really tried liking that being a Joaquin fan. Other than that I can't tell you the last movie in the past few years I don't like.


I'm not a big "horror" film guy myself. I couldn't even finish watching this movie. For me it was to predictable, the story had many holes in it and just seemed like another poor attempt at a horror movie. With it's attempts to produce things that are suppose to be scary, camera work and panning. Just seemed like a typical attempt at a scary movie with a weak story line. Seems to be for a younger crowd in my opinion.


I watched half the movie and then flipped to the end.


As far as PQ, I'll leave that to the board, I'm not one who can critique and distinguish my thoughts in a proper manner in that aspect. I would say it's just above average; nothing spectacular.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17352428
> 
> 
> 
> There were seven different recommendations for Braveheart, and I just did a simple mean of that set, which ended up being around 1.20. That is how it ended up in Tier 1.0. Your reviews are hard to miss as you follow the recommended review format.
> 
> 
> If anyone thinks a placement is missing or unaccounted for, just pm me with details. I slipped in a few earlier reviews that had been glossed over in prior updates or were lost that are not listed in SuprSlow's list, so check the tiers list to see if something is there.
> 
> 
> Any formatting, typographical, or wrongly-listed specifications will be changed if pointed out to me.



You are doing a great job! As I edited my post to say: my vote WAS taken into account.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17350349
> 
> 
> Thanks for the update to all involved!



+1

Most appreciated!


----------



## deltasun

*Land of the Lost*


Fine grain present throughout - similar to _Drag Me to Hell_. Facial details were decent, especially on the one extreme close-up of Will Ferrell (almost too close). There were a few careless scenes of softness scattered throughout - more than a handful. Black levels were scarce but did show up bold. Shadow details weren't as good - they were a bit shallow and muddied, particularly in the indoor rafting scene. Medium shots were well-rendered for the most part.


Contrast was better balanced and produced good three-dimensionality in open spaces as well as close-in jungle scenes. Some of the CGI scenes, particularly of the T-Rex, were well-done. They showed touchable texture and precision. Still, there were a couple scenes at the end where they were soft. It seemed the T-Rex was part of the bokeh background, but it was hard to tell. Still, this was limited to a scant minute or so.


Colors had pop, but also lost some of their natural characteristics. For this type of movie, it seemed acceptable. Skin tones dipped into the golden side a bit, but not too bothersome.


Overall, another very nice presentation from Universal (back to back with _Drag Me to Hell_). There were some director-intended sloppy scenes, specially the camcorder scenes. The Slee Stacks were also obviously rubber and hurt the picture a bit, in my opinion. I would rate this between....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75 - 2.0*


I thought the movie was better than I expected. The scenes between Will Ferrell and Matt Lauer were hysterical.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17352731
> 
> *Equilibrium (Canadian Release)*
> 
> *Recommendation for Equilibrium (Canadian Release): Tier 3.0*



I had been waiting on your review before going ahead with buying Equilibrium. From what I have read, the Japanese import has the best picture quality of the available releases, but it is also very expensive compared to the other versions. Tier three sounds passable, given what I was expecting from this transfer.


The Canadian release does have a modified aspect ratio from the intended framing. Apparently it is an open-matted transfer of a film shot in Super35. Effect shots have possibly been cropped because they only exist at 2.35:1.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17332011
> 
> *The Final Countdown
> 
> recommendation: Tier 3.25*
> 
> 
> Blue Underground has brought another cult classic faithfully to Blu-ray. The 1980 movie debuted as a BD on November 4, 2008. The 102-minute main feature is encoded in VC-1 on a BD-50 at an average video bitrate of 27.94 Mbps. A placement in tier 3.25 is reflective of the original film elements and budget of the movie, and not any fault of the transfer itself. The picture quality is a substantial grade above the dvd in all aspects and very film-like in nature.
> 
> 
> Trough to peak, the compression encoding mainly ranges from 25 to 35 Mbps. It is nearly perfect, replicating the sometimes inconsistent grain fields inherent in the film with nary an artifact. I still think VC-1 overly smooths the picture, even at these average bitrates. That is more an observation than a particular comment on this transfer, which displays detail and clarity when the film allows and is faithful to the original film's look. Sharpness varies greatly over the course of the movie, from razor-sharp images of Kirk Douglas to very soft shots, like when they interrogate the Japanese prisoner on the ship.
> 
> 
> The master is of decent quality, though some minor amount of detritus shows up at various points. The most dated looking scenes are of course the ones involving special effects. Optical matte lines are briefly visible during the first appearance of the electromagnetic storm. Noise also becomes more prominent during these passages. The transfer is nearly free of edge enhancement. The only suspicious moment was the quick glimpse of a moire pattern on Martin Sheen's shirt. The transfer also does not look digitally processed to have removed grain. Many of the larger studios would have likely filtered a few of the more inconsistent grain-laden scenes, particularly the establishing shots outside the U.S.S. Nimitz.
> 
> 
> Picture resolution and clarity are generally solid, especially the interior shots within the U.S.S. Nimitz. It would not be a stretch to firmly place most of that material in the upper confines of tier two. Action sequences fare less well, with less detail visible and some softness. Colors are a tad less rich than is the standard for Blu-ray, though flesh tones appear solid. Certain shots do display a tendency for distortion, possibly chromatic aberration, at the bottom edge of the frame, most likely the result of the original photography's use of anamorphic lens. It leads to noticeable optical distortion at the edge that close observers will likely see.
> 
> 
> While not a showcase for visual splendor, _The Final Countdown_ is well-represented on Blu-ray here as an excellent transfer of an older film. Fans of the film should have no worry about the picture quality, as it is of enough merit to warrant a purchase.
> 
> 
> Watching on a 60 Pioneer KURO plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a 60 GB PS3 (firmware 3.01) at a viewing distance of six feet.
> 
> 
> BDInfo Scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...6#post15236266



Thanks for this review. I have been in somewhat of a rut lately with my Blu-ray rentals (with the notable exception of JCVD) in terms of the quality of the movie, and I am down to only 4 titles in my queue so I have been looking for more movies to check out. I think this one will fit the bill nicely as a bit of a "sleeper".


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17356719
> 
> 
> I had been waiting on your review before going ahead with buying Equilibrium. From what I have read, the Japanese import has the best picture quality of the available releases, but it is also very expensive compared to the other versions. Tier three sounds passable, given what I was expecting from this transfer.
> 
> 
> The Canadian release does have a modified aspect ratio from the intended framing. Apparently it is an open-matted transfer of a film shot in Super35. Effect shots have possibly been cropped because they only exist at 2.35:1.



If you can get it for cheap enough, Phantom Stranger, it's definitely passable. In the Equilibrium thread I think people were saying they were getting it for $50ish USD for the Japanese version. If this version was at my local walmart for like... $15 or less, I'd probably buy it.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hbomber202020* /forum/post/17355345
> 
> 
> I got it(Drag me to Hell) from Netflix yesterday, watched it last night. Let me preface this by saying. I generally like every movie I watch, *the last movie I disliked was Two Lovers*. I really tried liking that being a Joaquin fan. Other than that I can't tell you the last movie in the past few years I don't like.



Oh man, I'm so there with you on that (bolded part). Two Lovers was terrible. I reviewed it for the thread; the fact that I was reviewing it for here was the ONLY reason I watched the whole thing, ugh. UGH! I still want that 2+ hours back.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)


recommendation: Tier 2.0*


Warner Bros. unleashed this remake to Blu-ray in the last month. The 2003 movie runs for 98-minutes on a BD-50. The VC-1 video encode averages a decent 23.14 Mbps, with momentary peak figures in the lower forties. While not a perfect transfer, the image is suitably strong enough to rank near the top of tier two. Certain parts easily qualify for tier one, but that level of quality is not consistently achieved.


The transfer has its strengths and weaknesses. Aside from the simulated print damage seen in the opening and closing shots, the image shows absolutely no signs of degradation or anomalies. It looks as clean and fresh as a movie that premiered last month. Edge enhancement is inconsistently on display. The halos are hardly noticeable early in the movie, but do become intrusive near the end of the movie in the meat-packing plant. That scene is horribly over-sharpened to the point of distraction. Thankfully the whole movie does not show anything else approaching that magnitude of edge enhancement.


The picture partially retains a certain level of film grain, but the transfer does have the look of a slightly processed master. Spatio-temporal filtering is evident in the slightly reduced grain fields. High-frequency details are not substantially affected, but spectral analysis would probably reveal a slight roll-off of the finest detail. The majority of viewers will likely gloss over this level of processing and its slight impact on the final image, but film purists might want to take note. It would be preferable to leave the film untouched of course.


Much of the movie looks quite good. About an hour into the viewing, a ranking in the middle of tier one was precipitating in my mind. Contrast is pitch perfect, with a solid sense of depth and perspective to the picture. Close-ups commonly demonstrated detailed skin textures and the delineated hair structure of most actors. The color palette is a bit dark and oppressive in its tonality, emphasizing shades of brown and gray over the brighter colors. In a bit of a surprise, hues of red are never exaggerated, as is common in horror movies. Black levels are solid but not reference level. The shadows ripple with nuance and depth most of the time, rendering darker objects with good highlights. Crushing in low-lit scenes is never a problem. Flesh tones are nice and well-presented in a naturalistic lighting sense.


The overall picture quality drops in merit during the final acts. The setting changes at that point, and the transfer becomes even darker and murkier than before. The compression encode, having been good until this point aside from a touch of banding, starts to falter handling the darkest shots. Brief flashes of chroma noise and posterization intrude on the picture. The cinematography looks to be partly at fault in these scenes. The drop in technical quality from a filming standpoint is palpable. Leatherface gets obscured on occasion because of these problems. These scenes, which comprise the last thirty minutes of the movie, are what drove this title out of tier one in my consideration.


A solid effort overall with some minor quibbles, the disc deserves a placement near the bottom of tier one or the top of tier two. An argument could be made for inclusion into tier one, but the standards should be kept high. The use of digital noise reduction is unfortunate, but appears to have had less serious side effects on the image than most other examples of its use.


Watching on a 60 Pioneer KURO plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a 60 GB PS3 (firmware 3.01) at a viewing distance of 5.5 feet.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of stumlad):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...6#post17278666


----------



## jedimasterchad

Drag Me to Hell


Where do I begin? I guess the first thing to say about this movie is that I was pretty disappointed. I may have had a bit of false hope that this would be a good horror flick, going by a number of peer recommendations, but alas, it was not. I should preface that by saying I have a hard time getting into the "supernatural" type horror flicks, where a character becomes possessed and is haunted by some demon, because frankly its so unreal that its not even scary. I suppose there are some people who might believe in that sort of thing, but I don't, and therefore this type of movie does little to excite me.


Poor plotline aside, I do have to mention that it had a few gross parts that made me squirm, which is very unusual for me. Without ruining anything, those who have seen the film know what I mean (That old lady spewing the maggots, for one). In any event, the story's best part is the great twist ending, but even that was somewhat predictable. Alison Lohman did a pretty good job in the movie, and I'm pretty sure it's the first time I've seen her in anything, and Justin Long did fine as well. Someone mentioned the Apple references, and they gave me a bit of a chuckle as well. Speaking of laughing, the scene at the bank where the main character had to leave because of what started happening was hilarious! I'm sure it wasn't meant to be, but I had to laugh at it. The sound was probably the best part, as the enveloping surround mix could really drag you into a scene, even when the action on the screen wasn't that captivating. Good bass and surround mix package, and pretty fast and tight response on the jumpy parts. Overall though, not a very good attempt at a horror movie, IMO. I had a hard time telling if it was supposed to be funny or serious at certain times, and at others it was just outright ridiculous and not scary in any sense of the word. Final Score: 6/10


On to the gory details, though. The film had a pretty dark tone overall, with the exception of a few bright outdoor shots. The colors in these scenes were pretty vibrant and popped nice off the screen, but for the most part the movie was quite drab, and a decent test of black level. Some shots were exceptionally dark overall, but the transfer didn't lose much shadow detail, if any. I could clearly make out details in the back of the fortune teller's office, for instance. There was a very fine layer of grain throughout, and it was at most times not too noticeable, but it was there. Close-up detail was kind of hit or miss. Sometimes the detail would be nice enough to display a single strand of hair, and other times it almost looked out of focus. I think this was a cinematographers decision, and not a result of the transfer. I paused it a few times when the faces got soft and noticed that a piece of scenery or object in the room was in perfect focus, which made the faces just that slightest bit blurry/soft. For what I could tell, this was a pretty clean transfer overall, as I didn't notice any EE, and very slight if any DNR. I also noticed no artifacting, and overall everything looked generally great, but not excellent. Not quite to the top of Gold, but it's a close one to call.

Tier Recommendation: 1.5


Played via PS3 over HDMI to Panasonic TC-P54G10,7.5'


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Drag Me To Hell*


I normally start with a review of the PQ, but since Jedi just issued his review above this post and started with his feelings on the movie itself, I will as well since I am in agreement with most of his feelings. The movie was a disappointment in light of plenty of reviews saying that this was a well done horror movie. Well, it really wasn't. Nothing new, nothing different. Cookie cutter plot. The ending could be seen a MILE away because of the way it was set up. Not subtle at all. Yes, Lohman did do a fine job of acting, but I felt that she was the only one who did.


Regarding the PQ, it was fine, but certainly not noteworthy. Some scenes were soft while others looked sharp and detailed. On the very few occasions when they are outdoors in sunlight, it looked VERY good, but the majority of the movie is indoors and/or at night. Contrast is adequate, but there are very few scenes that give a real sense of depth and dimension.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 2.25*


----------



## Rob Tomlin

As an aside, Criterion Collection has announced that Fellini's 8 1/2 is coming to Blu-ray in January 2010!


This is a great B&W movie that I would expect to look fantastic on Blu-ray. I can't wait!!


----------



## subavision212

"I guess the first thing to say about this movie is that I was pretty disappointed. I may have had a bit of false hope that this would be a good horror flick, going by a number of peer recommendations, but alas, it was not."

I have to whole-heartedly agree with you on this. Saw it in the theater and thought it was pretty predictable but did appreciate Allison Lohman. I think she is a fine actress. If you're interested, check her out in Matchstick Men. She's really great in that. Needless to say, I won't be buying this blu-ray.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17357256
> 
> 
> Thanks for this review. I have been in somewhat of a rut lately with my Blu-ray rentals (with the notable exception of JCVD) in terms of the quality of the movie, and I am down to only 4 titles in my queue so I have been looking for more movies to check out. I think this one will fit the bill nicely as a bit of a "sleeper".



The Final Countdown is an interesting and overlooked movie. With Hollywood's current predilection to remake movies, it is surprising it has not been adapted from a modern perspective for other historical events.


----------



## haste




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/17363461
> 
> 
> 
> Where do I begin? I guess the first thing to say about this movie is that I was pretty disappointed. I may have had a bit of false hope that this would be a good horror flick, going by a number of peer recommendations, but alas, it was not. I should preface that by saying I have a hard time getting into the "supernatural" type horror flicks, where a character becomes possessed and is haunted by some demon, because frankly its so unreal that its not even scary. I suppose there are some people who might believe in that sort of thing, but I don't, and therefore this type of movie does little to excite me.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17363768
> 
> 
> 
> I normally start with a review of the PQ, but since Jedi just issued his review above this post and started with his feelings on the movie itself, I will as well since I am in agreement with most of his feelings. The movie was a disappointment in light of plenty of reviews saying that this was a well done horror movie. Well, it really wasn't. Nothing new, nothing different. Cookie cutter plot. The ending could be seen a MILE away because of the way it was set up. Not subtle at all. Yes, Lohman did do a fine job of acting, but I felt that she was the only one who did.



not trying to derail the thread but just wanted to mention that i hope you guys didnt take this movie seriously while watching. its in the same likes as evil dead 2 and army of darkness....comedy/horror.


my girlfriend was disappointed also until i pointed out the fact its a sam raimi horror and its not to be taken very seriously. just for entertainment...



i agree with jedimasterchad's PQ review more so than robs.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *haste* /forum/post/17367637
> 
> 
> not trying to derail the thread but just wanted to mention that i hope you guys didnt take this movie seriously while watching. its in the same likes as evil dead 2 and army of darkness....comedy/horror.
> 
> 
> my girlfriend was disappointed also until i pointed out the fact its a sam raimi horror and its not to be taken very seriously. just for entertainment...
> 
> 
> 
> i agree with jedimasterchad's PQ review more so than robs.



Of course, there were some very obvious "tongue in cheek" moments. It didn't come close to saving the movie. Again, it wasn't horrible. It just wasn't very good.


As far as agreeing with Jedi's PQ review more than mine, I assume that you mean the final rating, because if you read his comments and mine, there is very little difference.


In fact, I think Jedi's written comments do not seem to support a Tier 1 placement.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17367258
> 
> 
> The Final Countdown is an interesting and overlooked movie. With Hollywood's current predilection to remake movies, it is surprising it has not been adapted from a modern perspective for other historical events.



Just received it in today's mail!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

OH my. I just started up "Let The Right One In". Um. I don't know if I'm gonna be able to finish this one, guys!!


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17367920
> 
> 
> OH my. I just started up "Let The Right One In". Um. I don't know if I'm gonna be able to finish this one, guys!!



Please do! I'm not a vampire movie kinda guy, but LTROI is amazing! Lots of ambiguous points of view! Excellent cinematography! Much better than that "other one."










Or, are you talking PQwise?


----------



## audiomagnate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17367920
> 
> 
> OH my. I just started up "Let The Right One In". Um. I don't know if I'm gonna be able to finish this one, guys!!



Why not, it's a fantastic movie. I even paid $15.00 for a 720p version from the Zune marketplace.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17367920
> 
> 
> OH my. I just started up "Let The Right One In". Um. I don't know if I'm gonna be able to finish this one, guys!!



Why not?


It is, without question, one of the best movies that I have seen in the last year.....or more.










If you are the kind of person that can't handle gore or violence of any type, then this might not be for you.


----------



## jedimasterchad

The Proposal


Yeah, yeah I know. And no, G3, you aren't the only one who watches (or has to take in the occasional) chick flick. I really don't mind them too much, but I got this one so the wife wouldn't start complaining about a lack of variety







. Anyway, Sandra Bullock plays a publishing editor who is working in the U.S.A. when her visa expires. In a desperate attempt to stay in the country, she blackmails her assistant (Ryan Reynolds) into marrying her. That weekend, however, he was on his way to Alaska to spend time with his family, and thus she has to go with him to prove to the citizenship officer that their marriage is for real. Soon after, the adventure begins...


Really though, it's a romantic comedy. You know what is going to happen. They're going to bicker and pretend to squabble while on the trip, only to fall in love for real later on. While the plot is quite cookie cutter, the journey there has its humorous and touching moments that make it unique. Sandra Bullocks character goes through quite the culture shock when she visits Alaska after living in New York City her entire life. Betty White and Mary Steenburgen play as supporting characters in the Alaska family, and contrast nicely with Sandra's character to give a good sense of just how out of place she really is. Craig T. Nelson rounds out the cast as the dad who butts heads with his son, but ultimately does what he must to save the family.


The weird part of this movie is, it was funnier than some of the "comedies" I've watched lately. Perhaps it has more to do with relating to the material, but the real life situations really were quite entertaining to watch these characters deal with, and the best parts were when the people could put aside their differences to show that they still care for each other, no matter what. I'd recommend this as a good date night movie, or just something to curl up and watch with some hot chocolate (as it is freezing out here in the northeast!). Final Score: 7.5/10


The Proposal comes to us via Touchstone Home Video, and really presents an interesting challenge to critique. Overall this presentation of the film had a pretty high level of quality. So high, in fact, that things not meant to be seen are staring at you right in the face. At first glance, contrast throughout the whole picture is generally excellent. Indoor scenes have a sharp edge around the character's hair or clothes, and objects in the shot have a good sense of depth and realism. There is, however, one caveat: A lot of scenery in the film was on green screen, and it is blatantly obvious in some scenes. For the most part, any outdoor shot with a "scenic" background is CGI, and while it looks pretty believable due to it being out of focus, the edge around the character looks just a bit too fake to make it not stand out. Perhaps this is a mild case of EE, but it almost has that same look as a weatherman standing in front of the blue screen giving his nightly report. Sharp edge, but just not quite right.


In spite of that, and probably because of that, the camera was able to better focus on the characters themselves, and it really shows in the level of detail. Hair, fabric, skin, and any other close-up texture in the film showed excellent detail. You could clearly see Ryan's stubble from not shaving in a while and see the texture of Craig's wool sweater. A couple of times in the movie had the characters climbing down a ladder that was attached to a rock face, and even the rocks themselves had a rough texture that was clearly visible throughout the scene.


Black level and shadow detail weren't real strong points of this film, but that was just because a majority of the film took place during the day or with the lights on inside. There were a couple of moments where the lights were off (before they went to bed) and the result was sort of a mixed bag. Shadow detail was evident on one side of the screen, but on the other side of the bed there was a fair amount of black crush. Could have been a lighting issue, but it was noticeable. To be fair, its only for a few seconds and is easily overlooked when considering the film as a whole.


There was an extremely fine layer of grain present throughout most scenes, and was most evident in dark wall colors or bright skies. The overall clean appearance leads me to suspect a mild case of DNR, but it was done with no perceivable loss of detail throughout. The more movies I watch on Blu-Ray, the more I can't decide if I like the grain or not. I don't miss it when it's not there, but I can say with some certainty that it should not be there in one scene, and then be gone in the next. "In or out, and shut the door!" as my parents used to say.


Overall, an excellent presentation and very high PQ throughout. The extreme contrast led to some funny looking edges, making the green-screen backgrounds quite apparent, but not so much that it detracted from the experience. Detail was excellent throughout, although black level and shadow detail were far below reference. Grain was extremely fine and barely noticeable, but it was there during most of the film. Really great looking throughout, but not quite up there with the best of the best.

Tier Recommendation: 1.25

Blu-Ray played on PS3 via HDMI to TC-P54G10 at 7.5'


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/17368234
> 
> 
> Please do! I'm not a vampire movie kinda guy, but LTROI is amazing! Lots of ambiguous points of view! Excellent cinematography! Much better than that "other one."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or, are you talking PQwise?





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *audiomagnate* /forum/post/17368424
> 
> 
> Why not, it's a fantastic movie. I even paid $15.00 for a 720p version from the Zune marketplace.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17368625
> 
> 
> Why not?
> 
> 
> It is, without question, one of the best movies that I have seen in the last year.....or more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are the kind of person that can't handle gore or violence of any type, then this might not be for you.




I was scared it was going to be extremely gory. I did watch it all the way through. It was definitely... different, that's for sure. It wasn't as gory as I was expecting, after the way it opened! I'm not too sure what I thought of the PQ though, it seemed really inconsistent.


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17367258
> 
> 
> The Final Countdown is an interesting and overlooked movie. With Hollywood's current predilection to remake movies, it is surprising it has not been adapted from a modern perspective for other historical events.



Agreed, although there really doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to remake it when there is a wealth of better alternative history / parallel universe / time travel stories out there to mine for scripts - especially centered around WWII (The Man in the High Castle, Fatherland, etc.). I suppose all those Tom Clancy WWIII books could more or less be straightly adapted as alt. history now too.


It's kind of surprising to me that this hasn't made it yet as a major sub-genre in film (outside anime), since it's kind of a big deal right now in science fiction print. There have been some brief forays in TV recently like Life on Mars or Journeyman but not too much on the film front other than the The Time Traveler's Wife - all of these obviously lacking an epic and grand scope. I suppose all it takes is one breakout hit to spawn the clones - not sure if District 9 or Watchmen really count since they add other genre elements beyond pure alternative history into the mix.


----------



## 42041

I was going to review Quantum of Solace but it's already where I would place it (tier 1.0, looks excellent, nothing major to complain about), so i'll use this post to comment on how much it sucked ass







Casino Royale was great, and this incoherent mess of a movie is all they could follow it up with? I was falling asleep during the action sequences and was completely bewildered everywhere else... if you liked Casino Royale and haven't seen the follow-up, spare yourself the disappointment.


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17369531
> 
> 
> I was scared it was going to be extremely gory. I did watch it all the way through. It was definitely... different, that's for sure. It wasn't as gory as I was expecting, after the way it opened! I'm not too sure what I thought of the PQ though, it seemed really inconsistent.



Search out the _Let the Right One In_ thread as there's a lot of information about the movie that's not readily apparent from a first viewing. There's also some supplementary information from the book that provides some needed backstory. The thread is interesting reading.


----------



## Beta Tester




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17363768
> 
> *Drag Me To Hell*
> 
> 
> The movie was a disappointment in light of plenty of reviews saying that this was a well done horror movie. Well, it really wasn't. Nothing new, nothing different. Cookie cutter plot. The ending could be seen a MILE away because of the way it was set up. Not subtle at all. Yes, Lohman did do a fine job of acting, but I felt that she was the only one who did.



I agree. I saw this in the theatre because my friends wanted to see it, and I was really disappointed. I feel that the glowing reviews were more for the director than the movie.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Batman: The Movie (1966)


recommendation: Tier 2.0*


A stunning transfer that continually surprised me with its rich colors and strong level of resolution, this film has never looked better and represents a quantum leap in quality from the drab dvd. Twentieth-Century Fox has done a remarkable job on this film in every way possible. It reminds me again how Blu-ray can deliver a movie-viewing experience that allows one to travel back through time in a manner of speaking and watch a film as it was first seen over forty years ago. My highest and unqualified recommendation to even marginal fans of the show to go out and add this to their collection without hesitation. In many ways this transfer is superior to the vaunted James Bond Blu-rays of similar vintage.


Released in July of 2008, the 104-minute main feature is encoded in AVC on a BD-50. The average video bitrate is 27.53 Mbps. The compression was done by Panasonic Blu-ray Disc Authoring Services and is uniformly excellent. Artifacting is never seen except in a few, but incredibly brief, shots of blue skies. There, upon close inspection, you would see the tiniest appearance of macroblocking in the grain, but with bitrates regularly over 35 Mbps during these scenes, you really can not fault the compressionist. In every other way it is a flawless job that transparently replicates the master.


The original film elements must be in a remarkable state of preservation, showing no degradation from age-related wear. Other than some scant white flecks that pop up and disappear in a few shots, the image is virtually free of print damage or debris. What is even more amazing are the wonderfully saturated colors that dominate the picture in most instances. From the canary-yellow of Batman's utility-belt to the bright purple of the Joker's suit to all the other colorful superhero-costumes, the palette bursts with deeply saturated primary colors and bold black levels. Fading is no problem and the color-scheme positively shines with radiance. For viewers most accustomed to the faded look of the television show from syndication, have no fear. The movie looks like a four-color comic book come to life. It was a revelatory experience in comparison to watching the dull and washed-out look seen on television in syndication the last thirty years.


Another strong positive of this disc is the clear lack of post-processing applied to the transfer. The image mostly stays sharp throughout without any edge enhancement to denigrate it. Literally, halos appear for ten seconds in total and will likely be missed by almost all viewers. The fine grain is fully preserved and is unmolested by digital noise reduction of any kind. This is one of the best treatments I have witnessed on an older film in preserving its original look for Blu-ray. More movies should be treated in this precise manner. Clarity is truly good and shows off the consistently excellent cinematography. This is one well-filmed movie.


Contrast is exceptional and never deviates from an exceptionally stable level that allows flesh tones to look perfect given the makeup. Black levels are strong with a tremendously inky quality to black-colored fabrics. The depth of field in most shots is deep, with an appreciable dimensionality to certain scenes. Actual resolution and high-frequency content is very nice. The fine details of human faces are clearly visible in close-ups. Every little nuance and smudge on the Batmobile can be plainly seen. Much of the time it would easily rank in tier 1.75 at a minimum. Many movies from the last year do not look this good on Blu-ray. My placement is for tier 2.0, but a push for a slightly higher ranking would be fine.


BDInfo Scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post14416355


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17374378
> 
> *Batman: The Movie (1966)
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 2.0*



It might be worth noting that this title is a mere $10 on Amazon right now and can likely also be had cheaply elsewhere since I think the MSRP was shrunk down to an unheard of (for Fox) $16.99 USD. I totally love this flick and it's an excellent presentation on disc - better than I ever expected. Thanks for the review!


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*The Final Countdown*


For a film from the 80's, this looked mostly quite good overall. In fact, some scenes were very good looking, certainly top tier 2 quality. But, the consistency was not good.


Detail and clarity could be very good in some scenes, but very soft and poor in others. Also, and by far the most annoying/disturbing, were many of the indoor shots where all 4 corners were downright blurry. It was literally as though someone had smeared vaseline around the edge of the lens. I am guessing that this had something to do with the lens that was being used, perhaps some type of close up lens or filter? In any event, this occurs more than just a couple of times, and is not something that you will miss.


In one scene, there is a Pepsi can at the bottom of the frame. While the center of the image is sharp and clear, the Pepsi lettering is a complete mess and can't be delineated at all.


If it wasn't for the corner issues in so many shots, this title might have qualified for a low tier 2 ranking, but with this issue (and we are talking about something that is inherent in the source), I will recommend a Tier 3.25 ranking.


As for the movie itself: I would say that I got what I was expecting and hoping for. A pretty good film with an interesting premise, but nothing great either. I am glad that I watched it.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.25*


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*The Day The Earth Stood Still* (1951)


I love this movie, so I have to be careful about being biased. That said, this film looked GREAT overall, especially considering it's age.


The B&W cinematography is beautifully preserved here, with nice grain structure and excellent contrast (though not quite up to today's standards).


Clarity and sharpness is surprisingly good overall, though some scenes do exhibit some noticeable softness. Also, some scenes are more grainy and noisy than others.


Still, I have to say that Fox did a superb job on this title. No DNR and no EE that I noticed. Well done Fox!

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 2.75*


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17377728
> 
> *The Day The Earth Stood Still* (1951)
> 
> 
> Still, I have to say that Fox did a superb job on this title. No DNR and no EE that I noticed. Well done Fox!
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 2.75*



That is good to hear about this BD. Anyone see the recent remake? I am surprised it has never been reviewed for the tier list.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17380010
> 
> 
> That is good to hear about this BD. Anyone see the recent remake? I am surprised it has never been reviewed for the tier list.



My husband watched it this past weekend actually but I was in the kitchen visiting with friends (hence he went out and rented some movies he thought I wouldn't care about). When he told me it was not very good, I decided to pass on it. Sorry, Phantom Stranger! I wish I could help you out on that score!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17380010
> 
> 
> That is good to hear about this BD. Anyone see the recent remake? I am surprised it has never been reviewed for the tier list.



Yes, I did watch it when first released, but never did a review. A real crappy movie, especially compared to the original.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17380010
> 
> 
> That is good to hear about this BD. Anyone see the recent remake? I am surprised it has never been reviewed for the tier list.



Three reviews for _The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008)_, including Rob's.









http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...d#post16241816 
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...d#post16236282 
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...d#post16220517


----------



## OldCodger73

20th Century Fox recently released Robert Altman's groundbreaking 1970 movie _M*A*S*H_.


It's nice to see a studio releasing catalog titles; however, unfortunately that's about the only good thing I can say about the transfer. The movie is soft with little detail and depth and no close-up sharpness. In a few scenes it looks more like a DVD than a BD. Overall, PQ IMO is *M*A*S*H Tier 4.5*, almost bordering on 5.


It's a shame that an excellent movie received such a poor transfer, but who knows what 20th Century Fox had to work with.


This was a blind buy, but even with the poor PQ it was an upgrade from the P&S LD I have. Oh, well-- it's still a great movie.


Panasonic 50" 720p plasma, Panasonic 10a player, 7 1/2'


----------



## selimsivad

*Bram Stoker's Dracula*


*1.85 : 1*


I'm going to keep this short and sweet. Very soft. Desaturated colors, noise reduction, very little detail in clothing (other than Lucy's wedding dress). Faces are reddish. Blacks are lackluster. Being a movie that's dark the majority of the time, I was dissappointed. All of this is supposed to be intended by FFC. I'm not here to debate his approval. I'm here to recommend a tier placement.


I disagree with its current placement of 3.75. The only title I own in that section is One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest. Now that's a great disc to demonstrate how the Blu treatment affects an older film. There's no comparison between the two!


The movie was excellent! Gary Oldman stole the show!










*Bram Stoker's Dracula

Tier Recommendation: Tier 4.5

PS3-Samsung 46" 1080p-seven'*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs


recommendation: 2.5*


The movie that really started the Disney empire in 1937, it has lovingly been brought to Blu-ray in a transfer that serves the original animation well. Running 83-minutes in length, the main feature is encoded in AVC on a BD-50. The average video bitrate is 24.07 Mbps, an extremely healthy number for simplistic animation featured as such in this timeless tale. The compression work is perfection itself, displaying the source material cleanly without aberration or error.


My placement reflects acknowledging the reality of an animated feature from the infancy of the technology, in comparison to more modern techniques. Disney would go on of course to redefine the standards of traditional cel animation with each passing release in terms of technical refinement and sheer art. The relatively low tier score should not be taken as displeasure with the transfer in any way. It is marvelous and on a technical basis possibly better than Disney's work on prior titles like _Sleeping Beauty_ and _Pinocchio_.


Reference quality does not begin to describe the condition of the master presented on this disc. It appears as if every single frame of the film has been carefully checked for anything untoward and out of place from the original intent of the creators. Pixar transfers from the digital files have little, if anything, on the sheer consistency and presentation of _Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs_. The image is entirely free of any dirt or stray anomalies. A more thorny issue is the complete removal of grain from the image. Yes, digital noise reduction has been precisely and delicately used, to remove the appearance of grain from the image to show the pure animation as it looked in the original cels. For animation of this type, I am comfortable with the use of digital processing and its attendant effect on the picture. Film is an imperfect medium for most animation, that obscures rather than enhances the original art, and grain adds little in these cases. There are no negative consequences to the image except for a slight loss in faithfulness to the original film look.


The vast majority of the transfer has solid color rendition. It does not compare well to later Disney films or other animated fare, but nevertheless has nice saturation. A couple instances of ringing was briefly visible on the line art, but halos are not a problem at all. The animation itself is not the sophisticated and detailed style that later Disney classics would display. It is more reminiscent of the early shorts from the 1930's. Occasionally the picture is a little softer than one would expect, but remember that the animation had to be filmed using the multi-plane camera, an invention which Disney was still working on at the time of production and had yet to perfect.


This transfer is likely as close to the original cels as we are likely to get. Every bit of extra resolution seems to have been squeezed out of the extant master in this transfer. It is not though the spectacular upgrade that most other films are on Blu-ray in comparison to the dvd. Limitations in the original film itself prevent me from placing this BD any higher than tier two.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of House):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...0#post17241720


----------



## jedimasterchad

Just to add to the Snow White review, there is a neat feature on the disc that allows the sidebars to be themed, such as castle walls during the evil queen scenes, or a wood carved post during scenes at the dwarves' house. The transfer, as phantom mentioned, is near perfect, and really is a great presentation of this 70+ year old film. Couldn't agree more, and the tier placement seems just about right.


----------



## deltasun

*Contact*


A healthy layer of grain present throughout, this was a pretty decent transfer with only a few discernible print dirt present. Facial details was probably one of the most inconsistent characteristics of the film. In one scene, DNR seems present. In another, it's sharp as a tack. While still in another, softness abounds. All in all, the details were satisfying for a film this age.


Blacks were crushed in quite a bit of scenes. Contrast was even keel for the most part, but there were a few scenes that could have could have benefited from a stronger contrast. Shadow details were fair, but nothing special. Colors were a bit drab and dated. 3D pop was absent but did find some reasonable depth in medium scenes.


The overly saturated and super soft "beach" scene will knock a few more PQ points - HD shows no mercy! Overall, I felt this was still a worthwhile improvement over its standard def counterpart. Looking for similar comparisons, this title is slightly better than _Air Force One_ at 3.0. I will rate this just at the cusp...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8' & 6'_


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17381148
> 
> 
> Three reviews for _The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008)_, including Rob's.



Classic! I didn't think I submitted a review. Of course, looking at my review, it wasn't much of a review!


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Playtime*


Ok, guys and gals, time to get a little culture and experience an "art" film for a change!


Directed by Jacques Tati, "Playtime" is a "one of a kind, complete in itself, a species already extinct at the moment of its birth" according to Roger Ebert, who understandably lists this film on his "great movies" list.


Playtime does not have a plot. It does not have any meaningful dialog. Instead, the viewer is simply engaged in the act of observation. But so much interesting stuff there is to observe!


With so many interesting things to observe, done with beautiful cinematography, it is obvious that it was for these reasons that Tati took a huge risk and pretty much mortgaged his future on the costs of this film, which included filming it in 70mm. At the time the film was made, it was the most expensive French film ever made. Sadly, the film did not do well at the box office, and Tati actually wound up losing his home and rights to his prior films because of it.


The PQ is quite good. The colors are intentionally mostly cool, with lots of silver and bluish tint. This is due to the subject matter, which includes a LOT of glass and steel. It makes for a pleasing but somewhat monochromatic experience.


Detail and clarity are quite good, but not quite as good as one my hope or expect considering it was shot in 70mm. The entire film is with medium to long shots, and there are few, if any, facial close ups. That said, I can't determine with confidence whether any DNR was used, but I doubt it as very fine grain is present.


Contrast is good, but blacks are never as deep as the best titles are. Some scenes do exhibit a good sense of depth though.


The print is not perfect, but still quite clean overall considering its age (1967).


Overall a very pleasing picture, one in which the great cinematography comes across incredibly well.


If ever there was a title designed to benefit from release on Blu-ray, this is that type of title since the entire movie is nothing more than a series of incidents that occur, again, with minimal dialog. That isn't to say that sound doesn't play an important role in this movie, as it most certainly does. One needs to see the film in order to see (hear) why.


I highly recommend this film, but be warned: it is different and unique. As mentioned above, it is what some would consider an "art film". This is one art film that I am very happy to have seen, and one that I will be adding to my permanent collection of great films on Blu-ray.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 2.25*


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17384916
> 
> *Playtime*
> 
> 
> Ok, guys and gals, time to get a little culture and experience an "art" film for a change!
> 
> 
> Directed by Jacques Tati, "Playtime" is a "one of a kind, complete in itself, a species already extinct at the moment of its birth" according to Roger Ebert, who understandably lists this film on his "great movies" list.
> 
> 
> Playtime does not have a plot. It does not have any meaningful dialog. Instead, the viewer is simply engaged in the act of observation. But so much interesting stuff there is to observe!
> 
> 
> With so many interesting things to observe, done with beautiful cinematography, it is obvious that it was for these reasons that Tati took a huge risk and pretty much mortgaged his future on the costs of this film, which included filming it in 70mm. At the time the film was made, it was the most expensive French film ever made. Sadly, the film did not do well at the box office, and Tati actually wound up losing his home and rights to his prior films because of it.
> 
> 
> The PQ is quite good. The colors are intentionally mostly cool, with lots of silver and bluish tint. This is due to the subject matter, which includes a LOT of glass and steel. It makes for a pleasing but somewhat monochromatic experience.
> 
> 
> Detail and clarity are quite good, but not quite as good as one my hope or expect considering it was shot in 70mm. The entire film is with medium to long shots, and there are few, if any, facial close ups. That said, I can't determine with confidence whether any DNR was used, but I doubt it as very fine grain is present.
> 
> 
> Contrast is good, but blacks are never as deep as the best titles are. Some scenes do exhibit a good sense of depth though.
> 
> 
> The print is not perfect, but still quite clean overall considering its age (1967).
> 
> 
> Overall a very pleasing picture, one in which the great cinematography comes across incredibly well.
> 
> 
> If ever there was a title designed to benefit from release on Blu-ray, this is that type of title since the entire movie is nothing more than a series of incidents that occur, again, with minimal dialog. That isn't to say that sound doesn't play an important role in this movie, as it most certainly does. One needs to see the film in order to see (hear) why.
> 
> 
> I highly recommend this film, but be warned: it is different and unique. As mentioned above, it is what some would consider an "art film". This is one art film that I am very happy to have seen, and one that I will be adding to my permanent collection of great films on Blu-ray.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 2.25*



Nice review! Playtime was first reviewed by Filmaholic. I'd never heard of the film prior to his recommendation. After Requiem For A Dream, Playtime is the best "blind buy" I've ever made!










I read about Tati's unfortunately backstory prior to watching Playtime. It made me appreciate his accomplishment even more! From Wiki:

*The film is famous for its enormous, specially constructed set and background stage, known as 'Tativille', which cost enormous sums to build and maintain. The set required a hundred construction workers to construct along with its own power plant. Storms, budget crises, and other disasters stretched the shooting schedule to three years. Budget overruns forced Tati to take out large loans and personal overdrafts to cover ever-increasing production costs.


As Play Time depended greatly on visual comedy and sound effects, Tati chose to shoot the film on the high-resolution 70 mm film format, together with a complicated (for its day) stereophonic soundtrack.


To save money, some of the building facades and the interior of the Orly set were actually giant photographs. (The photographs also had the advantage of not reflecting the camera or lights.) The Paris landmarks Barbara sees reflected in the glass door are also photographs.


Tati also used life-sized cutout photographs of people to save money on extras. These cutouts are noticeable in some of the cubicles when Hulot overlooks the maze of offices, and in the deep background in some of the shots at ground level from one office building to another.*


If you can appreciate Kubrick's visual style of 2001, please give Playtime, at the very least, a rental. Your brain will thank you for it!


----------



## reisb

OK, I know someone has done the comparison on PQ of these 2. Anyone know if PQ is effected on the Walmart release due to IMAX scenes or are we "cleared for takeoff"?


thanks


----------



## deltasun

I will probably watch both and compare, but won't be for a few days.


----------



## Sujay




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *reisb* /forum/post/17388502
> 
> 
> OK, I know someone has done the comparison on PQ of these 2. Anyone know if PQ is effected on the Walmart release due to IMAX scenes or are we "cleared for takeoff"?
> 
> 
> thanks



seems to be identical and not another dark knight debacle.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/17385289
> 
> 
> Nice review! Playtime was first reviewed by Filmaholic. I'd never heard of the film prior to his recommendation. After Requiem For A Dream, Playtime is the best "blind buy" I've ever made!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read about Tati's unfortunately backstory prior to watching Playtime. It made me appreciate his accomplishment even more! From Wiki:
> 
> *The film is famous for its enormous, specially constructed set and background stage, known as 'Tativille', which cost enormous sums to build and maintain. The set required a hundred construction workers to construct along with its own power plant. Storms, budget crises, and other disasters stretched the shooting schedule to three years. Budget overruns forced Tati to take out large loans and personal overdrafts to cover ever-increasing production costs.
> 
> 
> As Play Time depended greatly on visual comedy and sound effects, Tati chose to shoot the film on the high-resolution 70 mm film format, together with a complicated (for its day) stereophonic soundtrack.
> 
> 
> To save money, some of the building facades and the interior of the Orly set were actually giant photographs. (The photographs also had the advantage of not reflecting the camera or lights.) The Paris landmarks Barbara sees reflected in the glass door are also photographs.
> 
> 
> Tati also used life-sized cutout photographs of people to save money on extras. These cutouts are noticeable in some of the cubicles when Hulot overlooks the maze of offices, and in the deep background in some of the shots at ground level from one office building to another.*
> 
> 
> If you can appreciate Kubrick's visual style of 2001, please give Playtime, at the very least, a rental. Your brain will thank you for it!



Thanks! I hadn't read your review or Filmaholics previously. I enjoyed reading your review (and Filmaholics) and seeing how similar our reviews are! We use a lot of the same or similar wording, including the description of the colors.


You and I are at Tier 2.25, and Filmaholic is at Tier 1.75. Anywhere in there is good with me.


Bottom line: this film looks very, very nice overall, and it is truly *a REMARKABLE film* that everyone here should at least give a look via rental if at all possible.


I'm glad to see that you and Filmaholic love this film as much as I do.










Thank you, Criterion Collection, for giving us this masterpiece on Blu, and doing an excellent job.


----------



## K-Spaz

*Transformers 2, Revenge of The Fallen*(Netflix Non-Imax Ver)


I'm really tired so I'll keep this short for now and add later if something needs said.


Possibly the best all around BR I have seen to date. CG blended seamlessly enough to be done without removing grain/sensor noise. Color, contrast, sharpness, all excellent. It's a Michael Bay film so what more needs said about the effects budget. I think I saw a scene that wasn't demo worthy but I forget where that was










Much of this had to have been shot digitally (no transfer), if not all of it. The encode is phenomenal. There is superb motion in the action scenes. With so much action though, 3:2 pulldown is really hard on this film. Having forgotten to set my refresh for part of it and then rewatching, even a 75 yr old family member noticed the difference when switching to 24hz. 60 didn't do the action scenes justice, though it still looked great.


I thoroughly enjoyed the rental disk with no Imax rubbish (changes in aspect).


A new standard for reference films.

*Tier Recommendation: 0 (very high)*

Viewed with, Infocus X10, DaLite 106" HCW from 11'


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/17391269
> 
> *Transformers 2, Revenge of The Fallen*
> 
> 
> I'm really tired so I'll keep this short for now and add later if something needs said.
> 
> 
> Possibly the best all around BR I have seen to date. CG blended seamlessly enough to be done without removing grain/sensor noise. Color, contrast, sharpness, all excellent. It's a Michael Bay film so what more needs said about the effects budget. I think I saw a scene that wasn't demo worthy but I forget where that was
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Much of this had to have been shot digitally (no transfer), if not all of it. The encode is phenomenal. There is superb motion in the action scenes. With so much action though, 3:2 pulldown is really hard on this film. Having forgotten to set my refresh for part of it and then rewatching, even a 75 yr old family member noticed the difference when switching to 24hz. 60 didn't do the action scenes justice, though it still looked great.
> 
> 
> I thoroughly enjoyed the rental disk with no Imax rubbish (changes in aspect).
> 
> 
> A new standard for reference films.
> 
> Tier Recommendation: 0 (very high)
> 
> Viewed with, Infocus X10, DaLite 106" HCW from 11'



Sorry, but I have to disagree. The PQ is distinctly inferior to that in the first movie, perhaps because the CGI is so pervasive in this movie. The PQ in this movie almost never shows the crystalline clarity that was generally present in the first movie. There is instead a general "muddiness" that is particularly disappointing in the desert scenes. To my eyes, Tier 2.0 at best.


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/17391801
> 
> 
> Sorry, but I have to disagree. The PQ is distinctly inferior to that in the first movie, perhaps because the CGI is so pervasive in this movie. The PQ in this movie almost never shows the crystalline clarity that was generally present in the first movie. There is instead a general "muddiness" that is particularly disappointing in the desert scenes. To my eyes, Tier 2.0 at best.



Hmmm, ok. Well, with a discrepancy so large, I don't know what to say. It sure looked spectacular on my system. Though, I'll admit when I was set to 60hz refresh, it was weak at times. On 24hz, I didn't see any of the muddyness you describe. I've already seen it 1-1/2 times, skipping around a while to specifically see the pq, and I was still really impressed. Even in the desert. More opinions will come soon, and it's not gonna bother me where it goes.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/17392549
> 
> 
> Hmmm, ok. Well, with a discrepancy so large, I don't know what to say. It sure looked spectacular on my system. Though, I'll admit when I was set to 60hz refresh, it was weak at times. On 24hz, I didn't see any of the muddyness you describe. I've already seen it 1-1/2 times, skipping around a while to specifically see the pq, and I was still really impressed. Even in the desert. More opinions will come soon, and it's not gonna bother me where it goes.



How would you compare the PQ with that of the first movie? I wasn't watching at 24hz, but I typically haven't watched the first movie that way either. Also, I was watching the regular BD rather than the IMAX version, but after seeing the screencaps I have now ordered that version as well.


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/17392585
> 
> 
> How would you compare the PQ with that of the first movie? I wasn't watching at 24hz, but I typically haven't watched the first movie that way either. Also, I was watching the regular BD rather than the IMAX version, but after seeing the screencaps I have now ordered that version as well.



Patrick, I thought it not only better looking than the first movie, but also more consistent. In the first, I think they shy'd away from detailed shots of the bots, but in this one, they sorta showcased them.


I saw the same version you did, the non-imax version I'll call it. I thought it was surprisingly sharp with so much depth. Usually it seems you can have one or the other but not both.


I won't get to watch this again before it goes back. I have other stuff I'm looking forward to and saw it in the theater as well. It's my next purchase, after which I'll be able to get multiple viewings. I was surprised at our difference of opinions, but it's not gonna bother me one way or the other. I already have a theory on this cause I've seen this sort of difference before, but I won't speculate here.


All in fun!


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/17393153
> 
> 
> Patrick, I thought it not only better looking than the first movie, but also more consistent. In the first, I think they shy'd away from detailed shots of the bots, but in this one, they sorta showcased them.
> 
> 
> I saw the same version you did, the non-imax version I'll call it. I thought it was surprisingly sharp with so much depth. Usually it seems you can have one or the other but not both.
> 
> 
> I won't get to watch this again before it goes back. I have other stuff I'm looking forward to and saw it in the theater as well. It's my next purchase, after which I'll be able to get multiple viewings. I was surprised at our difference of opinions, but it's not gonna bother me one way or the other. I already have a theory on this cause I've seen this sort of difference before, but I won't speculate here.
> 
> 
> All in fun!



Well, I'm planning on multiple viewings, so I will undoubtedly have updates on whether I like the PQ better as I watch it more.


----------



## 357




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/17391801
> 
> 
> Sorry, but I have to disagree. The PQ is distinctly inferior to that in the first movie, perhaps because the CGI is so pervasive in this movie. The PQ in this movie almost never shows the crystalline clarity that was generally present in the first movie. There is instead a general "muddiness" that is particularly disappointing in the desert scenes. To my eyes, Tier 2.0 at best.



I'd have to agree that it isn't a high Tier 0. I'd say 1.5 to 2.0 range. Viewed on a Panasonic G10 50in via PS3.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I have Transformers 2 here, hope to watch tonight.


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17394452
> 
> 
> I have Transformers 2 here, hope to watch tonight.



As do I, bought it yesterday and will be popping it in shortly after I get a couple more things done around the house. Should have a review up tonight.


So far though, a 0 and a 2, and a somewhere in between. I'm sure this will get reviewed a little more than some others so we should have a pretty good idea shortly of where it fits in.


----------



## Hughmc

It seems most who have seen Transformers 2 are posting in the xylon thread or the other thread that it is reference and stunning PQ and not just the IMax version. I know we rate things "differently" for this thread, but I was surprised when I saw the disparity between K spaz's review and Patrick's.







After reading the posts in the other thread I thought it was going to be a tier 0 BD and even though the movie itself is supposed to be iffy, I thought I might buy it, but now I think I just rent as I wouldn't watch it more than once or twice anyway.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17395456
> 
> 
> It seems most who have seen Transformers 2 are posting in the xylon thread or the other thread that it is reference and stunning PQ and not just the IMax version. I know we rate things "differently" for this thread, but I was surprised when I saw the disparity between K spaz's review and Patrick's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After reading the posts in the other thread I thought it was going to be a tier 0 BD and even though the movie itself is supposed to be iffy, I thought I might buy it, but now I think I just rent as I wouldn't watch it more than once or twice anyway.



Don't forget that I think the first one is Tier 0, so it's not as though I'm prejudiced against the material.


----------



## deltasun

From perusing a bit the other night (IMAX version), the CGI does make the metallic robots a bit less metallic. In that sense, it's got a bit of a softer look (but not focus soft, just not a robot hardness). The tint has been pushed a bit, human faces seem on par with the first. I will watch both and try to do a write up on both.


I broke down and bought both since I was able to find them acceptably "cheap" even though I was a bit disappointed in the theatres. The first was definitely vastly superior story-wise.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/17395519
> 
> 
> Don't forget that I think the first one is Tier 0, so it's not as though I'm prejudiced against the material.




No I didn't think that







and I thought the first was tier 1.0, which isn't a big difference from 0. You mentioned the CGI....that is what KILLED Gladiator PQ for me, probably worse for me than even the EE and DNR.


It seems CGI on BD at home in HD is too revealing on how cheesy or fake it looks at times.


I find I am becoming less and less tolerant of CGI that is too obvious while watching at home.


I watched Blood: The Last Vampire last night. I watched having read some comments about the CGI and how it looked, but in that kind of movie it didn't bother me as much, like in 300 it worked for me. Artistic CGI works for me like in 300 or Blood, while the fake looking stuff in a "realistic" movies doesn't have a place.


Maybe a lot of green screen in Trans 2 as well? Too much of it not used properly also ties in with the CGI I disliked in Gladiator.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17395733
> 
> 
> I watched Blood: The Last Vampire last night. I watched having read some comments about the CGI and how it looked, but in that kind of movie it didn't bother me as much, like in 300 it worked for me. Artistic CGI works for me like in 300 or Blood, while the fake looking stuff in a "realistic" movies doesn't have a place.



Just about to do a review on _Blood_ and the CGI definitely affected the PQ for me. I'm talking about that gargoyle/demon thing that is just horrible and really ruined the experience for me. _Blood_ could have easily been a solid Gold title, but I'll have to evaluate my notes and come up with a final grade.


----------



## K-Spaz

I hadn't seen Xylon's thread or the opinions in the other before I wrote what I did. When I read Xylon's first line in that thread I thought, "ok, I guess I wasn't overestimating". Now, who knows. I'm interested to see some other views, and this seems to be another of the films that has a big range of opinion. I can remember some time ago when there were people who thought Rise of the Lycans was reference material, and I personally called it a T3 (being very generous.) after a second watching, I could have gone for T4. I thought it was horrible.


As I said in my first post about it, I had forgotten to set the refresh back to 24 when I began watching last night. Then it hit me and I checked, and low and behold it was set to 60. Ok, fixed that and holy smokes did it wake this film up. So, it'll be interesting to see the opinions of folks watching this in 5:5 vs 3:2. I've seen br films that I watched start to finish without noticing 3:2, imo, this isn't one you can do that.


----------



## 42041

I tried watching TF2 (constant AR version) but I had to punch out pretty quickly. It looked like a low Tier 0 movie to my eyes however. You could probably point out lots of minor flaws in the photography and VFX but ultimately if I was to show off my TV this would be one of the first discs I'd reach for. It looked very comparable to the first one.


----------



## deltasun

*Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen* (IMAX version)


This will undoubtedly be reviewed by a good number of us in this forum and should help plot its final resting place. I'd like to break convention a bit and not base my rating on purely nitpicks. Nitpicks I can find - crushed blacks, some softness, blown out whites, overly saturated sequences, contrast pushing, etc. Heck, there's even a badly done CGI / green screen sequence where a slow-motion running Megan Fox merges with the explosions taking place behind her (2:08:30).


Facial details...well, details in general were exceptionally rendered - the loose rocks on the pyramid had touchable texture. The scale and magnitude of the robots were brilliantly portrayed through 3D depth and dimension found in almost every shot. And, watching the IMAX version, I cannot even offer a comparison to the reference forest fight sequence. Panoramic shots were just incredibly deep and detailed.


Again, breaking convention and not looking for excuses to take this out of Tier Blu, I will simply ask the question...as a whole, is this a reference disc for picture quality? I would find it very difficult to disagree.

*Tier Recommendation: Bottom Third of Tier 0*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## subavision212

I think it's THE reference blu-ray. Was completely floored by both PQ and AQ to the point where you just don't care about any nitpicks or tiny imperfections, if they're there at all. I just want my eyes and ears to enjoy themselves and not worry if the focus puller was off by a few millimeters. The movie is totally juvenile but, boy, what a presentation.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/17396464
> 
> 
> I hadn't seen Xylon's thread or the opinions in the other before I wrote what I did. When I read Xylon's first line in that thread I thought, "ok, I guess I wasn't overestimating". Now, who knows. I'm interested to see some other views, and this seems to be another of the films that has a big range of opinion. *I can remember some time ago when there were people who thought Rise of the Lycans was reference material, and I personally called it a T3 (being very generous.) after a second watching, I could have gone for T4. I thought it was horrible.*
> 
> 
> As I said in my first post about it, I had forgotten to set the refresh back to 24 when I began watching last night. Then it hit me and I checked, and low and behold it was set to 60. Ok, fixed that and holy smokes did it wake this film up. So, it'll be interesting to see the opinions of folks watching this in 5:5 vs 3:2. I've seen br films that I watched start to finish without noticing 3:2, imo, this isn't one you can do that.



Totally agree on Lycans.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

When making comments and possible placements for Transformers 2, I would ask all posters to explicitly name if they are watching the Wal-Mart Imax version or the regular version. Those two versions will likely have separate entries in the tier system.


----------



## subavision212




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17399574
> 
> 
> When making comments and possible placements for Transformers 2, I would ask all posters to explicitly name if they are watching the Wal-Mart Imax version or the regular version. Those two versions will likely have separate entries in the tier system.



good point and sorry I forgot to mention that. Too much blood to my brain during the gushing about the blu-ray. I have the IMAX version.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*A Charlie Brown Christmas


recommendation: Tier 4.0
*

The beloved television program, which originally aired in 1965, premiered to Blu-ray on October 6, 2009. Warner Bros. has seen fit to include another Peanuts special in high-definition on this disc. The bonus show is the 23-minute _It's Christmastime Again, Charlie Brown_, from 1992. The crude animated style and limited budgets of the Peanuts' specials are quite apparent at the resolution of 1080p. Both shows look as very marginal upgrades over the respective dvd versions. The BD is a single-layer BD-25.


The VC-1 video encode is proficient and lacks any sign of digital artifacting or banding. The original special that runs for 25-minutes appears to have a slightly higher average video-bitrate around 24 or 25 Mbps. It appears transparent to the source master and replicates without failing the fine grain-structure that is nearly invisible except upon close inspection. The second feature receives lower bitrates, ranging nearer to 20 Mbps. Animation of this quality does not usually require the highest bitrates.


The newer special does not differ substantially in picture quality from the 1965 classic. Both appear somewhat limited by the original production values. The dvd is included in the Blu-ray packaging, and direct comparisons were made between the two formats. There is just the tiniest increase in resolution from the dvd to the BD. What surprised me was the lack of increased color fidelity on display by the BD from the standard-definition dvd, which has become a hallmark of animation on Blu-ray. Colors look just a tad more saturated, but no one will confuse them with the lush, vibrant colors of even an average animated movie at 1080p.


At least the black levels are deep and consistently solid, with no sign of macroblocking or elevated brightness. The master looks in relatively good condition. A bit of dirt, endemic to the original animation process, is barely visible in the form of moving black spots when the characters display significant movement. The newer special shows some minor aliasing artifacts on occasion. _A Charlie Brown Christmas_ does not have this problem.


While nothing appears to have gone wrong in transferring these specials to Blu-ray, neither are what one thinks of excellent picture quality. A placement in tier four somewhere is probably deserved of an image that offers little upgrade over the dvd version. It is a positive that Warner has decided to preserve the original broadcast ratio and not alter the framing for widescreen displays. The source material just appears to have some limitations that Blu-ray fully reveals.


----------



## jedimasterchad

Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen (IMAX)


Wow. This is what every Blu-Ray should be like. From the scene of The Fallen at the beginning of the film to the final confrontation and Devastator scenes near the end, my jaw was on the floor. I hadn't seen this movie in theaters, so I didn't know what to expect visually (except for what I knew from having seen the first one so many times). This one just blows it away though, hands down. I think a big part of the credit should go to ILM, but the visuals were top notch the whole way.


Starting with the Imax scenes, I don't think I have ever seen anything so completely detailed, whether it be from D-Cinema, Blu-Ray, whatever. EVERY tree leaf, branch, speck of dirt, blade of grass, hair, etc is perfectly rendered and crisp. While the camera is moving pretty quick, there is NO blur for the most part, even on the Transformers themselves, which is pretty impressive considering some of the shortcuts they took in the first film. The devastator scenes were just the same, exquisite detail throughout, and across the entire screen. Regarding the aspect ratio, the sides didn't squeeze in at all, but the picture grew larger from top to bottom, which makes me wonder why they don't film every movie with that funny IMAX AR. I think it's being speculated in the xylon thread about the higher resolution of the IMAX cameras contributes to the amazing detail when it's shown the same size as a regular film. Whatever the case, it works, and it's reference quality video throughout both of these scenes.


Continuing on with the CGI, I felt it was a huge step from the first movie. ILM never fails to amaze me when they really pour a lot of time and effort into a project, and this movie just helps to solidify their outstanding reputation as the best of the best. My beef with the first movie was that during a transformation, it happened so fast and in so many parts of the shot that it just couldn't be followed with your eyes, and upon closer inspection it seemed to actually blur a bit. Not this time. Take a look at the gears inside/outside of devastator. No blur, and each is animated to a different speed. There are a ton of examples of just how close to perfect the CGI is, but the best part is when a real object (say, a car) is suddenly picked up by a transformer and thrown, or whatever. As in the first TF, the transition is so seamless that it's impossible to tell when the car switched from prop to computer, and if it even did at all. It's that good. I do have to mention that in a few scenes, especially Optimus fighting in the forest, the robots had more of a "jerky" motion. This was the only evidence I wasn't watching something really happening in front of the camera, but rather, an artist inserting it into the movie.


The detail on these autobots/decepticons is gorgeous. As I mentioned before, just watch them transform. Then rewind, and do it again, watching a different body part. Then take notice to the focus of the camera shot. Is it on the people in front, behind, or on the robot itself? Half of the movie, I couldn't tell. I only mention this because a number of people in the other thread complained about the CGI being so evident on this blu ray, but lets be honest. Find something better, if it exists. The detail, contrast, and lack of blur really bring such a sense of believability to these robots, and I have nothing bad to say about it.


The contrast these robots bring against the humans is something else to note. In a shot of Tyrese standing near Optimus Prime's leg, again the transition is so seamless, its near impossible to tell when the actors are standing in front of a green screen or on an actual set. The last movie I reviewed had a huge problem with this, but TF2 is nothing short of magic in this regard. Overall, contrast is great in this film, giving the "through a window" effect in nearly every scene. My favorite quick spot is when Megan Fox is standing in front of the railing, and Megatron pops his head up from behind her. It just gives you that feel that you are *in* the same room seeing it for yourself.


Detail in that particular scene is excellent, as you really get a great closeup of Megatron's face. Facial animation has improved significantly since the first movie, and detail is rendered very nicely every time there is a closeup (that goes for humans, too). As I said, the IMAX scenes are some of the most detailed I've personally ever seen, and the rest of the film carries a very high level of detail, although not quite reaching that peak again. During my second viewing, I was watching very critically for ANY artifacting or trouble spots in high detail shots, and I could not find anything. Really one of the best discs I've viewed in this regard.


A large bit of the movie takes place in the dark, or at night, and shadow detail is superb throughout each of these scenes. The nighttime shots of Shanghai are spectacular, and are also a great black level test. This is the best I've seen my set looking since I've had it, and I watched this part of the movie with a huge smile on my face. Explosions light up brilliantly against a dark background, and really make the dark parts quite a sight to behold. I felt the confrontation between Optimus and... (what's his name? Way too many Decepticons in this movie) near the freeway overpass was excellent in this regard, and one of the best dark scenes I've had the opportunity to see, and IMO, better than a lot of the stuff in Dark Knight.


My only complaint with the PQ was color. Sometimes it just looked a bit too oversaturated, and skin tones weren't quite normal, but I think a lot of this has to be attributed to director's intent. Colors on the bots all appeared as I remember from the first, and any nature colors were excellent (grass, trees, sand, etc.). This movie runs the gamut from nothing but darks to extremely bright and vibrant outdoor scenes with a huge amount of color going on, and I'd say that it was pretty solid throughout, with the one exception being the flesh tones for accuracy, unless all the actors spent some time at the tanning salon before filming.


Through and through, this is *overall* the best blu-ray I have seen to date. I think the animated stuff like A Bug's Life and such still have it beat, but this is right up there with the top stuff. I think it looks better than my POTC: Curse of the Black Pearl disc, but I'm not sure if it compares to I, Robot, because I don't have it here to compare, I only saw it from Netflix. From what I remember, this is better in some parts (namely, the Imax) but not quite as good in others, but really the movies have a pretty different look to them, so it's sort of hard to place. I can say that it looks significantly better than the few tier 1.0 stuff I have to warrant it a place in the top tier, but not quite sure where it falls.

Tier Recommendation: High Middle of Tier 0


On a side note, from what I experienced there was no problem with the audio on this disc. The LFE was pounding through most of the movie, almost to the point of being unbearable, and the surrounds were highly loud/active during most of the movie. Just wanted to mention that in case anybody was concerned about it from the talk in TF2 thread.


Viewed on a TC-P54G10 at 7.5', played via PS3/HDMI at 24p (some people mentioned a bit of excessive judder in this movie, but I didn't notice any issues with the motion at 48hz)


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/17407862
> 
> Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen (IMAX)
> 
> 
> Viewed on a TC-P54G10 at 7.5', played via PS3/HDMI at 24p (some people mentioned a bit of excessive judder in this movie, *but I didn't notice any issues with the motion at 48hz*)



Good review, jedimasterchad...the IMAX scenes were indeed exceptional! You shouldn't notice the judder mentioned previously if you're watching at 48Hz since that's evenly divisible by 24. I.e., 2:2. K-Spaz was talking more about 2:3 pulldown. I viewed at the 5:5 scheme with 120Hz and didn't experience any judder either, even with the fast action.


----------



## jedimasterchad

Yeah, I usually watch most movies that way. For whatever reason, the flicker really doesn't bother me at all in 99% of the movies I watch, but every once in a while there is one that I flip it back to 60hz for the big time herky-jerky stuff










My statement about Optimus being jerky in the forest still stands though, but it really looks more like they tried to make it look like stop-motion. Only thing is, why do it for just one scene and not all of them?


And thanks for the comment!


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17408105
> 
> 
> I viewed at the 5:5 scheme with 120Hz and didn't experience any judder either, even with the fast action.



Exactly what impressed me so much. In the first movie, Ihad a hard time keeping track of who was who, and especially Optimus' hot flaming knife hands. In this film, I could watch them make every movement.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/17407862
> 
> 
> Wow. This is what every Blu-Ray should be like. From the scene of The Fallen at the beginning of the film to the final confrontation and Devastator scenes near the end, my jaw was on the floor.



That was how I felt.


> Quote:
> My only complaint with the PQ was color. Sometimes it just looked a bit too oversaturated, and skin tones weren't quite normal, but I think a lot of this has to be attributed to director's intent. Colors on the bots all appeared as I remember from the first, and any nature colors were excellent (grass, trees, sand, etc.). This movie runs the gamut from nothing but darks to extremely bright and vibrant outdoor scenes with a huge amount of color going on, and I'd say that it was pretty solid throughout, with the one exception being the flesh tones for accuracy, unless all the actors spent some time at the tanning salon before filming.



Not only did they tint everyone, I think they all DID stick some time in at the salon, especially Megan.










Being serious though, some have complained about black crush, I don't know where... The oversaturation is clearly obvious and intentional. It's a SciFi, what are we to expect? Give em some latitude I say. If this was TDK or PotC,nobody would be complaining about the extended palette. In the first film, I distinctly remember the scene where the guy is web-camming with his wife and kid and holy cow, he needs checked for jaundice. It's not like the first was any different. I just take it for what it is.


> Quote:
> Through and through, this is *overall* the best blu-ray I have seen to date. I think the animated stuff like A Bug's Life and such still have it beat, but this is right up there with the top stuff.



That was my thoughts. I feel it would belong above I-Robot, but that's just me. As stated above, any of us could sit and nitpick any bluray movie out there (with live actors). Even some of the animated titles have complaints registered from time to time. When we get to a the upper level of disk quality, there almost has to be another way to differentiate a titles placement relative to other great titles. For me, I go by how many times do I think "wow" to myself as I'm watching, and in this one, I was thinking it a lot of times. Mostly in the action scenes. If for no other reason than the smoothness of the action, this movie gets extra points from me.


It helps that I enjoyed the movie. I looked past a few things and forced myself to just take it for what it is. Even at the theater when I thought, Huh? There wasn't a field outside the Air and Space museum when I was there! That must be the rear entrance or something!


Great review, as always Chad.


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> That was my thoughts. I feel it would belong above I-Robot, but that's just me. As stated above, any of us could sit and nitpick any bluray movie out there (with live actors). Even some of the animated titles have complaints registered from time to time. When we get to a the upper level of disk quality, there almost has to be another way to differentiate a titles placement relative to other great titles. For me, I go by how many times do I think "wow" to myself as I'm watching, and in this one, I was thinking it a lot of times. Mostly in the action scenes. If for no other reason than the smoothness of the action, this movie gets extra points from me.
> 
> 
> It helps that I enjoyed the movie. I looked past a few things and forced myself to just take it for what it is. Even at the theater when I thought, Huh? There wasn't a field outside the Air and Space museum when I was there! That must be the rear entrance or something!



Going purely by the "wow factor", I'd say this is probably a good deal better than I, Robot. I was never really that impressed with that movie anyway, because all of the CGI robots are basically human shaped blobs. The detail and level of visual effects in Transformers 2 is far superior. I didn't even mention the part about the Decepticons crushing that aircraft carrier, and all of that mayhem that ensues, especially the amazing looking water. It was just another one of those scenes were you can only imagine when (or if) better effects will ever be possible. I'd say most people are at a consensus when it comes to this disc being Ref. quality video, but I think it's the two extended IMAX scenes that really push it over the top of everything else. We could sit here and argue about it untill we are blue in the face, but really, they are nothing short of spectacular, and deserve to be recognized as such. I would agree that it could go right on top of I, Robot, as the best live action Blu there is, but I don't think it quite matches the animated features on top. (Off topic, but there is a full HD trailer for Up on the Snow White Blu, and it will probably be the next film to claim the top spot overall, judging just by that 2 minute snippet. It's *that* good.)


I'm pretty sure that the Smithsonian has a second wing of the Air and Space museum located near Dulles airport in Virginia. Basically, it's just a giant hangar, and having just been at the one in DC a little over a month ago, the footage in TF was definitely not from that location. There were quite a few clues that pointed to it being the other location, like the Enola Gay (the B29 bomber that dropped the first atomic bomb on japan) and the space shuttle Enterprise, the original shuttle prototype. I haven't actually been there though, so I'm not sure at all about that mothballed fleet of planes outside. Anybody know for sure?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/17409291
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> (Off topic, but there is a full HD trailer for Up on the Snow White Blu, and it will probably be the next film to claim the top spot overall, judging just by that 2 minute snippet. It's *that* good.)



Are you saying that you think Snow White will take the very top spot in Tier 0 over titles like A Bug's Life, Kung Fu Panda, Ratatouille, etc?


I have a hard time believing a film that old would give those other titles a run for their money.


I own Snow White as it is one of my favorite Disney movies of all time, but I have not watched it yet.


----------



## Ozymandis

Revisiting the thread because I just watched Coraline with my kids on my new plasma and I was definitely right about the high tier 0 (where it now sits). Reference-quality transfer.


I did dig out King of New York and watched it, paid 10 bucks for it at Walmart. Very average transfer, low tier 3/high tier 4 IMO. About what you'd expect from a rather old and obscure title.


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17409392
> 
> 
> Are you saying that you think Snow White will take the very top spot in Tier 0 over titles like A Bug's Life, Kung Fu Panda, Ratatouille, etc?
> 
> 
> I have a hard time believing a film that old would give those other titles a run for their money.
> 
> 
> I own Snow White as it is one of my favorite Disney movies of all time, but I have not watched it yet.



No no, the movie Up. It was a Pixar film released back in May or so. There is a trailer for it on the Snow White blu-ray, and it looks amazing. Snow White looked like a really nice looking 72 year old movie. Tier 3.5 at best.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/17409414
> 
> 
> No no, the movie Up. It was a Pixar film released back in May or so. There is a trailer for it on the Snow White blu-ray, and it looks amazing. Snow White looked like a really nice looking 72 year old movie. Tier 3.5 at best.



Hahahaha! That's hilarious! I went back and read your post, and it makes perfect sense. I should have noticed the word "Up" was with a capital "U".


----------



## daPriceIs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/17409291
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> (Off topic, but there is a full HD trailer for *Up* on the Snow White Blu, and it will probably be the next film to claim the top spot overall, judging just by that 2 minute snippet. It's *that* good.)
> 
> 
> ...





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17409392
> 
> 
> Are you saying that you think Snow White will take the very top spot in Tier 0 over titles like A Bug's Life, Kung Fu Panda, Ratatouille, etc?
> 
> 
> ...










Uh, no I don't think he is.










jedimasterchad already beat me to it and Rob too. Oh well.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Superman / Batman: Public Enemies


recommendation: Tier 1.5*


Available since September 29th, this new direct-to-video animated feature from Warner Bros. mostly continues the tradition of DC projects that look excellent on Blu-ray. The 67-minute main feature is encoded in VC-1 at an average video bitrate of 20.30 Mbps on a BD-25. With one glaring exception, the image is superlative quality that impresses throughout the entire feature.


The compression encode is basically flawless with no instances of banding or posterization. It holds up under close scrutiny, even at very short viewing distances. The action-heavy story never threatens to produce artifacting during the frequent, frenetic motion on screen. Large swaths of the bright, uniform colors that fill the image never produces banding, which is remarkable in a title of this nature.


Viewers familiar with the other animated DC movies' picture quality will see a great degree of similarities in this movie's picture. The image is bright and punchy while manifesting perfect black levels. There are no signs of deterioration or damage of any form, as the BD is likely sourced directly from the digital files used to create the animation. Sharpness is exuded in every frame while the contrast remains remarkably stable. Many scenes demonstrate bold colors that almost pop off the screen, as in the purely digitally-animated titles of tier zero.


The one error in this transfer looks as a result of the animation process. The black line-art of the various characters displays some of the worst ringing I have seen. It is an error that never truly goes away. I do not believe it is the result of edge enhancement, but an inherent fault in the way the characters were animated. There must be a scaling error introduced at some point, leading me to believe that the moving characters are animated at a lower resolution than 1080p. What is strange is that the stationary backgrounds look better than ever, with an inordinate amount of detail and clarity. The problem was serious enough to drop the tier placement from 1.0 to the final placement of 1.5. Luckily the beautiful backgrounds are free of ringing.


Without the heavy ringing, this disc might have been the best-looking animated comic book movie yet. In all other ways the transfer is nearly perfect and shows off the nicely conceived character-designs of the many well-known superheroes.


Watching on a 60” Pioneer KURO plasma at 1080p/24, fed by a 60 GB PS3 (firmware 3.01) at a viewing distance of five feet.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...6#post17270456


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/17409414
> 
> 
> No no, the movie Up. It was a Pixar film released back in May or so. There is a trailer for it on the Snow White blu-ray, and it looks amazing. Snow White looked like a really nice looking 72 year old movie. Tier 3.5 at best.



"Up" looks damn good!
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...up_blu-ray.htm


----------



## deltasun

*Tyson*


This may be an HD presentation, but it's filled with SD footage of past interviews, fights, etc. These probably comprise about 40% of the film and will weigh the rating down quite a bit.


As for the actual interview, the Champ showed excellent facial details - pores, tattoo, and his lip imperfection. However, skin tone was on the reddish side. Contrast was also problematic, with the white background walls/sills blown out most of the time. The director's use of natural light coming in through the windows definitely yielded this result.


There's really not much left to talk about - this being a documentary. There were a few shots of the Champ outside on the beach, during sunset. Lighting wasn't the best and did not lift up the rating. Taking the average, I would venture to place this...

*Tier Recommendation: 4.0*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## deltasun

*Blood: The Last Vampire*


Fine grain present throughout, just enough for a pleasant film-like look. _Blood_ had a stylized look where certain scenes were bathed in a yellowish hue, while others were bathed in red. Facial details were very good even on the smooth-faced lead character. Facial texture and fine hair were always on display.


Blacks were crushed in a few scenes, probably a result of the stylized look. Contrast was pushed a bit and edgy. Medium shots offered fine dimensionality, while panoramic daytime scenes showed decent depth. Some of the night time scenes were above average, but certain others (specially indoor) were very shallow.


Then, there's the CGI. This was such a disappointment (specially after _Transformers 2_ - I know, not a fair comparison) that it just completely took me out of the movie. Okay, I was already out before this transpired. Still, it was horrendous.


In the end, I have to mention some stunning scenes as well as a result of the cinematography. Also, some incidental ringing was evident in a few scenes.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.25*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## Cinema Squid

Hopefully all of you have seen the "Call for AVSForum Blu-ray Reviewer" thread posted by Ralph Potts today:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1190702 


Some of you should seriously consider applying if you have the inclination, since there are some startlingly good writers with keen eyes and excellent analysis skills in here.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Leonard Cohen: Live At The Isle of Wight 1970


recommendation: Tier 4.5*


I wrote a more complete analysis of this title at the link:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post17390252 


Here are the relevant excerpts from my commentary regarding the picture quality:


The Blu-ray, on a single BD-25, is transferred from the original 16mm camera negative to 1080i. This is not footage that is going to blow viewers away by its visual quality. In fact on an absolute basis, the BD is well below the norm expected for high-definition titles. Prepare for an experience of limited visual quality. It is true that this Blu-ray replicates as closely as possible the 16mm film source the concert was shot in. The modern interviews, with such luminaries as Judy Collins and Joan Baez, are all featured in excellent picture quality, but do remind the viewer of the inherent limitations in the concert footage by contrast. Still, it looks like much of the other concert footage I have seen from the era on the Blu-ray format.


The only notable defect is the persistent appearance of an ultra-thin vertical black line that runs down the middle of the camera image on tight close-ups of Leonard Cohen. It looks to be the result of a continuous gate scratch on the original 16mm film. A small emulsion error in the original master also appears in the corner of the frame, later in the concert.


On a technical basis the transfer looks perfect without a hint of artifacting, revealing every limitation and nuance in the source material. The AVC compression encode consistently runs at very high bitrates, most of the time in the thirties. I would estimate an average video bitrate of 31 Mbps, which allows the fuzzy film shot in questionable lighting conditions to reveal its full resolution on Blu-ray. The image has a low-contrast appearance that is soft and has moments of poor focus.


The black levels have some minor exposure problems, revealing a bit of noise. This is not a transfer with remarkable shadow detail, or even average detail, but looks on par with other concert footage I have viewed from the period. The Woodstock documentary on Blu-ray has similar picture quality. Tiny white specks that look like flash bulbs do pepper the image from time to time. It rarely becomes a distraction, but personal experience may vary.


The picture quality is tolerable enough to enjoy the real benefit of this BD release, the sweet uncompressed high-resolution stereo PCM track at 24-bit/96 kHz and the lossless 5.1 Dolby TrueHD soundtrack. With both SACD and DVD-Audio being commercially irrelevant for the major music labels, the BD has the best fidelity we will ever see this music presented in a commercial medium.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/17413404
> 
> 
> Hopefully all of you have seen the "Call for AVSForum Blu-ray Reviewer" thread posted by Ralph Potts today:
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1190702
> 
> 
> Some of you should seriously consider applying if you have the inclination, since there are some startlingly good writers with keen eyes and excellent analysis skills in here.



Phantom should be a shoe-in.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen* (non-IMAX version)


Well, this was a great looking title overall. Very early in the movie I was a bit worried, as there was some noticeable heavy grain/noise in the sky, but this didn't last long, and I didn't really notice it again.


It has been a while since I have seen the original, but the way that I remember things, I thought that the CGI transformers looked much BETTER in this version than the original. I have read other comments here indicating the opposite to be true, but I have to disagree with that assessment, at least for now.


The colors on this title are a bit oversaturated, and as a result, flesh tones do not always look natural as they have a red tint to them. Still, overall, colors looked good, even with the extra "pop".


Contrast was very good, with a few minor exceptions in some dark scenes.


Detail and clarity: overall excellent. However, I would say that this title does vary in detail and clarity a fair amount.


The bottom line for me is that this is indeed an excellent looking title overall, but there are exceptions. Are those exceptions enough to keep it out of Tier 0? To me it is a close call. I think in terms of consistency, if Transformers 1 is going to remain in Tier 0, then this title should as well.


Personally I think it should be somewhere between the bottom of Tier 0 and Tier 1.0.


As for the movie itself, I thought it was as good as the first. That isn't saying a whole lot in itself, but given all the reviews/comments that I heard about how bad this one was, I really don't understand those comments. It was pretty much what I would expect for a follow up. If anything, the humor was actually a bit better than the first one.

*Tier Recommendation: Bottom of Tier 0 to Tier 1.0*


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17413684
> 
> 
> phantom should be a shoe-in.



+1!!


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17413738
> 
> 
> if Transformers 1 is going to remain in Tier 0, then this title should as well.



The first Transformers is in Tier 1 at the moment. That may be what you meant.


----------



## deltasun

*The Visitor*


Fine to moderate grain present, with some scenes exhibiting digital noise. These got a bit bothersome, specially on light backgrounds. Facial details can be excellent at times, but the majority of the time, they're not as good. Each scene's lighting has a lot to do with it, but overall they're still decent.


Black levels are decent as well, but there were 1 or 2 scenes where they were crushed. Contrast was just a tad weak, but still generated some good scenes. Colors were also on the drab side for the most part, which aided in the mood of the story. Every now and then, a splash of bright color would show up - these were vibrant but natural. Medium shots generally showed good depth.


Overall, this was a pleasant presentation. Nothing really ooh'd or ahh'd, but had decent HD moments. I did not spy any EE or DNR. Middle of Tier Silver for me...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.50*


Picked this up from the "Lesser Known Films on BR" thread. The pacing is slow, but resonated well. Really enjoyed the flick, albeit a not-so-satisfying ending. Characters are very likable, specially Tarek.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/17413893
> 
> 
> The first Transformers is in Tier 1 at the moment. That may be what you meant.



Thanks, I thought someone else said it was in Tier 0. In that case, I am more likely to vote for Tier 1.0 for Transformers 2.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17414010
> 
> *The Visitor*
> 
> Picked this up from the "Lesser Known Films on BR" thread. The pacing is slow, but resonated well. Really enjoyed the flick, albeit a not-so-satisfying ending. Characters are very likable, specially Tarek.
> 
> [/i]



There were things to like about this movie, but there were even more things not to like in my opinion. You are right about the ending, and I really felt like I was being hit over the head with a political message which didn't work at all since they never even _touched_ on the other side of the issue, which made the entire movie lose credibility with me.


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/17413404
> 
> 
> Hopefully all of you have seen the "Call for AVSForum Blu-ray Reviewer" thread posted by Ralph Potts today:
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1190702
> 
> 
> Some of you should seriously consider applying if you have the inclination, since there are some startlingly good writers with keen eyes and excellent analysis skills in here.



This would be an awesome opportunity, but unfortunately I don't yet have a reference level sound system, and can only listen to DTS and DD core tracks on my BD's. :-( One thing at a time, I guess.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17414255
> 
> 
> There were things to like about this movie, but there were even more things not to like in my opinion. You are right about the ending, and I really felt like I was being hit over the head with a political message which didn't work at all since they never even _touched_ on the other side of the issue, which made the entire movie lose credibility with me.



Agreed - definitely didn't touch the other side. I guess I didn't notice as much because I really got into the drumming theme and what it represented. The human factor was obviously front and center here and I could _look the other way_ for this one story.


Watching _Play Time_ now and really enjoying it. The man with the lamp post in the bus has got to be the funniest moment thus far. I had to watch it again just to see his reaction as more and more passengers grab on to his lamp post...even after he gets off of the bus. LMAO.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Great! I'm still thinking about Playtime since I saw it several days ago. Reading your comment about the lamp post on the bus makes me want to watch this again soon!


I'm going to place an order with Amazon!


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17413684
> 
> 
> Phantom should be a shoe-in.



+1 for Phantom to shoe-in.


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17413738
> 
> *Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen* (non-IMAX version)
> 
> 
> 
> As for the movie itself, I thought it was as good as the first. That isn't saying a whole lot in itself, but given all the reviews/comments that I heard about how bad this one was, I really don't understand those comments. It was pretty much what I would expect for a follow up. If anything, the humor was actually a bit better than the first one.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Bottom of Tier 0 to Tier 1.0*



Really, I didn't think the movie itself was that terrible, considering it is supposed to just be a fun, entertaining summer blockbuster type of movie. It won't win any awards (maybe for Visual Effects), but it was still very entertaining throughout. About the humor though, I just don't think Shia is that funny. John Turturro had most of the funny lines in this movie, and Shia's parents had the rest. The stuff that's meant to be funny comes off as kid jokes to me, especially the cheeseball stuff the Transformers throw out there.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/17415379
> 
> 
> Really, I didn't think the movie itself was that terrible, considering it is supposed to just be a fun, entertaining summer blockbuster type of movie. It won't win any awards (maybe for Visual Effects), but it was still very entertaining throughout. About the humor though, I just don't think Shia is that funny. John Turturro had most of the funny lines in this movie, and Shia's parents had the rest. The stuff that's meant to be funny comes off as kid jokes to me, especially the cheeseball stuff the Transformers throw out there.



Yep, we are on the same page, as I agree with all of that. Some of the "jokes" definitely fell flat, but that was even more the case in the first one.


Also, I thought there was more action in this one, and some of the action scenes were slightly better than the first.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17413738
> 
> *Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen* (non-IMAX version)
> 
> 
> Well, this was a great looking title overall. Very early in the movie I was a bit worried, as there was some noticeable heavy grain/noise in the sky, but this didn't last long, and I didn't really notice it again.
> 
> *It has been a while since I have seen the original, but the way that I remember things, I thought that the CGI transformers looked much BETTER in this version than the original. I have read other comments here indicating the opposite to be true, but I have to disagree with that assessment, at least for now.*
> 
> 
> The colors on this title are a bit oversaturated, and as a result, flesh tones do not always look natural as they have a red tint to them. Still, overall, colors looked good, even with the extra "pop".
> 
> 
> Contrast was very good, with a few minor exceptions in some dark scenes.
> 
> 
> Detail and clarity: overall excellent. However, I would say that this title does vary in detail and clarity a fair amount.
> 
> 
> The bottom line for me is that this is indeed an excellent looking title overall, but there are exceptions. Are those exceptions enough to keep it out of Tier 0? To me it is a close call. I think in terms of consistency, if Transformers 1 is going to remain in Tier 0, then this title should as well.
> 
> 
> Personally I think it should be somewhere between the bottom of Tier 0 and Tier 1.0.
> 
> 
> As for the movie itself, I thought it was as good as the first. That isn't saying a whole lot in itself, but given all the reviews/comments that I heard about how bad this one was, I really don't understand those comments. It was pretty much what I would expect for a follow up. If anything, the humor was actually a bit better than the first one.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Bottom of Tier 0 to Tier 1.0*



I'm not sure, Rob, whether you may be including my comments among those that said the CGI was better in the first movie but, in case you were, that is not the comparison I am making. To be clear, I think the PQ on *non*-CGI shots was better in the first movie, but I would agree that the PQ on CGI shots is better in the second movie. Even though CGI shots make up a much higher percentage of the shots in the second movie, that still does not mean, to me at least, that that's enough. I thought the PQ of non-CGI shots was much more consistent in the first movie than in the second, and that there were a lot more non-CGI shots with excellent PQ in the first movie than in the second.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/17409291
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure that the Smithsonian has a second wing of the Air and Space museum located near Dulles airport in Virginia. Basically, it's just a giant hangar, and having just been at the one in DC a little over a month ago, the footage in TF was definitely not from that location. There were quite a few clues that pointed to it being the other location, like the Enola Gay (the B29 bomber that dropped the first atomic bomb on japan) and the space shuttle Enterprise, the original shuttle prototype. I haven't actually been there though, so I'm not sure at all about that mothballed fleet of planes outside. Anybody know for sure?



The transition to the field of planes outside, with what are clearly mountains from desert in the Western US in the background, was extremely jarring. Bay acknowledges the "problem" in the audio commentary.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/17416138
> 
> 
> I'm not sure, Rob, whether you may be including my comments among those that said the CGI was better in the first movie but, in case you were, that is not the comparison I am making. To be clear, I think the PQ on *non*-CGI shots was better in the first movie, but I would agree that the PQ on CGI shots is better in the second movie. Even though CGI shots make up a much higher percentage of the shots in the second movie, that still does not mean, to me at least, that that's enough. I thought the PQ of non-CGI shots was much more consistent in the first movie than in the second, and that there were a lot more non-CGI shots with excellent PQ in the first movie than in the second.



Thanks for the clarification, because I did read your comments as saying that you thought the CGI in the first film was better than the CGI in the second.


I agree that the first film was more consistent throughout than the second film. I guess I would say that the better CGI in the second film offsets the less than consistent PQ on the non CGI parts.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17362396
> 
> *The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 2.0*



I would rate *Tier 2.75* after comparing the BD PQ Vs. the 480i/60Hz Deleted Scenes. You should definitely have a close look at the PQ of the Deleted Scenes (480i downscaled from 1080i/p







) before jumping the gun on the BD PQ.







The close-ups shots exhibit nice details though some of it looks Band of Brothers Waxy. The color scheme used is bland and dull which further takes out eye candy factors. Some night shots towards the middle and end seem to exhibit blockiness. Overall, the PQ is above average though can't complain much for the price I paid.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/17418871
> 
> 
> I would rate *Tier 2.75* after comparing the BD PQ Vs. the 480i/60Hz Deleted Scenes. You should definitely have a close look at the PQ of the Deleted Scenes (480i downscaled from 1080i/p
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) before jumping the gun on the BD PQ.



Why would anyone have to do that?


What difference would it make in the Tier recommendation?


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17418939
> 
> 
> Why would anyone have to do that?
> 
> 
> What difference would it make in the Tier recommendation?



'Coz the differences in PQ between the Deleted Scenes (SD) Vs. the actual BD PQ (HD) are minuscule. This one is similar to Harry Potter 1 and 2 where the PQ differences between SD and HD were very minimal.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I would just like to thank everyone for the kind words of support. They truly mean a great deal to me. There are many excellent and notable reviewers that could be culled from the ranks of the regular posters to this thread. At the present moment, I am content with helping out here. Maybe in the future...



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/17418871
> 
> 
> I would rate *Tier 2.75* after comparing the BD PQ Vs. the 480i/60Hz Deleted Scenes. You should definitely have a close look at the PQ of the Deleted Scenes (480i downscaled from 1080i/p
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) before jumping the gun on the BD PQ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The close-ups shots exhibit nice details though some of it looks Band of Brothers Waxy. The color scheme used is bland and dull which further takes out eye candy factors. Some night shots towards the middle and end seem to exhibit blockiness. Overall, the PQ is above average though can't complain much for the price I paid.



I will give the deleted scenes a look when I get the chance. My placement does mention that the master looked processed on some level. On top of that, the image declined in quality as the movie progressed, but that was mostly accounted for in my score. Much of the first half of the movie displayed some suitable eye candy, at least in my eyes. The first half really looked to me what my idea of a Michael Bay-helmed horror movie would look like.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...6#post17362396 

The picture partially retains a certain level of film grain, but the transfer does have the look of a slightly processed master. Spatio-temporal filtering is evident in the slightly reduced grain fields. *High-frequency details are not substantially affected, but spectral analysis would probably reveal a slight roll-off of the finest detail.* The majority of viewers will likely gloss over this level of processing and its slight impact on the final image, but film purists might want to take note. It would be preferable to leave the film untouched of course.


Much of the movie looks quite good. About an hour into the viewing, a ranking in the middle of tier one was precipitating in my mind. Contrast is pitch perfect, with a solid sense of depth and perspective to the picture. Close-ups commonly demonstrated detailed skin textures and the delineated hair structure of most actors. The color palette is a bit dark and oppressive in its tonality, emphasizing shades of brown and gray over the brighter colors. In a bit of a surprise, hues of red are never exaggerated, as is common in horror movies. Black levels are solid but not reference level. The shadows ripple with nuance and depth most of the time, rendering darker objects with good highlights. Crushing in low-lit scenes is never a problem. Flesh tones are nice and well-presented in a naturalistic lighting sense.

*The overall picture quality drops in merit during the final acts. The setting changes at that point, and the transfer becomes even darker and murkier than before.* The compression encode, having been good until this point aside from a touch of banding, starts to falter handling the darkest shots. Brief flashes of chroma noise and posterization intrude on the picture. The cinematography looks to be partly at fault in these scenes. The drop in technical quality from a filming standpoint is palpable. Leatherface gets obscured on occasion because of these problems. *These scenes, which comprise the last thirty minutes of the movie, are what drove this title out of tier one in my consideration.*


----------



## lgans316

Phantom / Rob,


What I meant was we hardly check Deleted Scenes / DVD to see how the PQ looks in Standard Definition. We have been so used to Blu-ray PQ (good and bad ones) that we are sometimes forced to accept that the PQ is already maxed out.


I too thought the PQ was quite good during the first half but for fun switched to the deleted scenes to see what was CUT. To my surprise, I found the PQ to be pretty darn good for a material presented in 480i/60Hz and I didn't even know that it was SD at the first glance. Hence, the Tier 2.75 rating.


----------



## K-Spaz

*The Godfather Part I*


I admit it, I'm the last person on the earth to see this. So that's outa the way.


I broke from my normal process here a bit in looking before writing to see where my original guestimate would put this title. In addition to not really having a great feel for low tier movies, I usually like to see some comparison films to help solidify my thoughts. This one without looking I was going to say 3.75. I see it's a full tier higher than that, at 2.75. I also however see at least one TIer 4 title that I felt looks considerably better, and honestly, I don't remember watching a whole lot that I thought looked worse.


Some may excuse away the PQ due to the transfer. Maybe because of the age of the film. I cannot. Were there not films like The Battle Of The Bulge from the 60's that look like solid contemporary work, I could maybe give this a pass for what I call excessive softness and just say that's age. Any time I use the word "Soft" in a review, I feel it should detract from the PQ some, but there's times when it's not really the case. I like to make a distinction between "Softened" and "Soft". Softened being when a scene is made to look a certain way due to the mood of the moment, and soft referring to the times when someone fell asleep at the wheel. The later looking out of place and wrong. This one, looks the latter to me, pretty much from the opening scene to the end.


This title doesn't even have what I would call a Tier 1 level shot in the entire 3 hours. Pick an artifact you have become accustomed to seeing and it's in here. Grain is present in a great deal of this film but a lot of it looks as if it's there because it was so obvious in the original print. It's not there because they didn't try to get rid of it.


I think most of the shooting in this film really lends itself to an easy encode. Little panning or action. It's a drama that doesn't move around a lot so maintaining a high bitrate isn't really a requirement at any point in the film. Shown in 16:9, there is significantly more data to present, but I've seen that to not be a problem in other films so I won't offer any excuses there either. With so little change in the frame to frame data, I don't see it being a limitation.


I do remember two particular scenes that were extremely short lived, like 1 second or less each, where I thought, wow, hold it, theres a shot that looks like this _is_ a bluray. But that faded quickly and we went back to normal again.


I would never present this to a first time Blu-Ray viewer and expect them to purchase a player.


I stand by my original thoughts, and might be willing to go lower after seeing some other films in T3/4, but I think a fair assessment would be:

*Tier Recommendation: 3.75*


Viewed on InFocus X10, 106" Dalite HCW from 11 or 12'


----------



## djoberg

Hey Guys & Gal (G3),


We got back from our trip out east a couple of days early (late last night) and I was able to check this thread before retiring last night. You have been busy watching Blu-rays and I appreciate all the reviews that have been posted. You've whetted my appetite for several titles.


Regarding _The Wizard of Oz_, I go along with all those who recommended a Tier 3 placement. I did get a chance to view some of it again just prior to our trip and as Rob Tomlin intimated...it's just not that good according to the standards of this thread.


One day I was in the Time/Warner building on the southwestern tip of Central Park in NYC and I had the opportunity to check out Samsung's new 58" plasma (850 series) and they were using _Transformers 2_ as a demo. I was so impressed with the PQ that I sat down to watch it for 20 minutes. I kept thinking to myself, "This may very well merit a solid Tier 0 placement," and according to most that have reviewed it my thoughts may prove to be true. I hope to give it a rent some time this week. I will say that I was not too generous with the first installment, for I thought that was a middle Tier 1 title.


FWIW, we had a great trip! The fall colors were at their best in the Berkshire Hills of western Massachusetts and all along I-80 through Pennsylvania. Our three days in NYC are still a blur, for we must have walked every street in Manhattan besides riding the subway rails. It's a crazy city....nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/17421018
> 
> 
> Phantom / Rob,
> 
> 
> What I meant was we hardly check Deleted Scenes / DVD to see how the PQ looks in Standard Definition. We have been so used to Blu-ray PQ (good and bad ones) that we are sometimes forced to accept that the PQ is already maxed out.
> 
> 
> I too thought the PQ was quite good during the first half but for fun switched to the deleted scenes to see what was CUT. To my surprise, I found the PQ to be pretty darn good for a material presented in 480i/60Hz and I didn't even know that it was SD at the first glance. Hence, the Tier 2.75 rating.



I'm sorry, I still don't understand.










Again, what does looking at 480i material have to do with a Tier recommendation regarding a Blu-ray movie? The Blu-ray either looks good or it doesn't, regardless of what the corresponding DVD/480i picture looks like.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17423862
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, I still don't understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, what does looking at 480i material have to do with a Tier recommendation regarding a Blu-ray movie? The Blu-ray either looks good or it doesn't, regardless of what the corresponding DVD/480i picture looks like.



Blu-ray looks good but not a big leap over the DVD/480i picture.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/17425831
> 
> 
> Blu-ray looks good but not a big leap over the DVD/480i picture.



......and again, how does that impact a Tier ranking?


This thread is not about how much better a Blu-ray looks over its SD counterpart. It's about how the Blu-ray looks _period_.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17427093
> 
> 
> ......and again, how does that impact a Tier ranking?
> 
> 
> This thread is not about how much better a Blu-ray looks over its SD counterparts. It's about how the Blu-ray looks _period_.



Exactly!


This exchange between you and Igans316 has me wondering if there is a thread on the Forum which actually deals with comparisons between Blu-ray titles and their DVD counterparts. If there isn't, perhaps Igans316 should start one.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17427093
> 
> 
> ......and again, how does that impact a Tier ranking?
> 
> 
> This thread is not about how much better a Blu-ray looks over its SD counterpart. It's about how the Blu-ray looks _period_.



Rob, is it so unheard of for someone to comment, as a criticism of a particular BD's PQ, that it doesn't look much better than a DVD?


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17427350
> 
> 
> Exactly!
> 
> 
> This exchange between you and Igans316 has me wondering if there is a thread on the Forum which actually deals with comparisons between Blu-ray titles and their DVD counterparts. If there isn't, perhaps Igans316 should start one.



There's lots of em. Look at Xylon's posts in this forum.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/17427382
> 
> 
> Rob, is it so unheard of for someone to comment, as a criticism of a particular BD's PQ, that it doesn't look much better than a DVD?



Exactly what I wanted to convey.







Not a big leap over the deleted scenes which are presented in SD. Thought there was a Tier for Blu-rays that only looks slightly better than DVD.










Edit: *Tier 3* it is after re-reading the Tier placement rules.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Best Of Soundstage


recommendation: Tier 1.5*


A compilation of music performances from the series broadcast on PBS, the BD is an exclusive release only available at Sears. It was produced and brought to the Blu-ray format courtesy of WTTTW National Productions on November 11, 2008. The 82-minute program is encoded in VC-1 at an average video bitrate of 27.90 Mbps on a single-layer BD-25. The native video resolution is 1080i, not an unusual choice for live music shot in high-definition video.


Even given the disparate nature of each performance, as there are over sixteen artists featured, each segment is generally of the same picture quality. It helps that presumably the same camera operators and stage were used for each show. The quality does not greatly stray from the typical look of material shot on high-definition cameras. Grain and noise are entirely absent while the clarity remains relatively high. There are small variances in absolute resolution between the different performances. The George Jones' segment stands out as one of the best for the closest visible details.


Contrast is nearly perfect and the ample stage lighting hides any real problem the cameras might show with poor black levels. The camera stays in-focus with laser-like precision on the main singers. Information in the shadows are finely delineated, revealing subtle texture details in the fabrics of the musicians. A few shots get slightly washed out when the complex overhead lighting scheme hits the stage at the wrong angle. The alternate angled-shots from the Sheryl Crow performance strangely display significantly brightened contrast.


Overall high-frequency content is barely average, if that, for the ranks of tier one. There are not a plethora of close-ups by the director. Perhaps the older performers did not want their facial features unnecessarily highlighted in the revealing glare of high-definition. The compression encode represents very good work that lacks any intrusive artifacting or diminishment in resolution from the original source material. At various points it displays sustained peaks in the forties, a very healthy figure. There are no real weaknesses in that regard.


Much of the program shows no halos, but a couple of performances did display troubling signs of edge enhancement. The Trace Adkins' portion had visible ringing for one example. It varies from segment to segment though and is not substantially affecting of the general image. Flesh tones are naturalistic in appearance with the color palette maintaining a good balance between saturation and accuracy. The baby blue in Chris Isaak's suit is a good example of superior fidelity and color depth.


Consistently excellent picture quality for a compilation disc allows me to recommend a placement in the middle of tier one, tier 1.5 specifically. It is not a disc someone should go out of their way to obtain for pure demonstration value unless a fan of the featured artists.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Patsfan 123):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...0#post15316440


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/17427382
> 
> 
> Rob, is it so unheard of for someone to comment, as a criticism of a particular BD's PQ, that it doesn't look much better than a DVD?



No, it isn't unheard of at all.


But that completely misses my point.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/17427492
> 
> 
> There's lots of em. Look at Xylon's posts in this forum.



I had completely forgotten about Xylon's "comparison pix" threads when I made that comment. Thanks for reminding me.


Personally, I hardly ever visit those threads because I don't put a whole lot of trust in screen caps. I've seen too many instances where one can see anomalies (such as halos) on a still shot but when viewing that scene in motion it can't be detected. So, to me those *comparisons* aren't trustworthy, nor are the conclusions that are reached based on those comparisons, for many very good looking titles are crucified in those threads based on the *perceived* anomalies.


----------



## K-Spaz

Denny,


I am a little more inclined to believe what I see there, but I'm not looking at the artifacts if anyone is trying to point them out. I am just looking at the image A vs image B and usually, it's a no brainer to see which is the blu.


I can fully understand why you'd not put much faith in those threads though. As an example, if you want a good laugh, go to the thread for Labrynth, and take a look at those images. Then read. I made a comment after reading all the glowing reviews of the bluray and you'll chuckle I"m sure. Be sure to look at the vidcaps and compare the Blu to the DVD first so my statement is qualified. I didn't bother to respond. If that was the general opinion, it wasn't worth my time to type any more.


Are we gonna get a tier 6?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/17433517
> 
> 
> Denny,
> 
> 
> I am a little more inclined to believe what I see there, but I'm not looking at the artifacts if anyone is trying to point them out. I am just looking at the image A vs image B and usually, it's a no brainer to see which is the blu.
> 
> 
> I can fully understand why you'd not put much faith in those threads though. As an example, if you want a good laugh, go to the thread for Labrynth, and take a look at those images. Then read. I made a comment after reading all the glowing reviews of the bluray and you'll chuckle I"m sure. Be sure to look at the vidcaps and compare the Blu to the DVD first so my statement is qualified. I didn't bother to respond. If that was the general opinion, it wasn't worth my time to type any more.



I do agree with you that in most cases it's easy to see the difference between Blu-ray and DVD. That is the main reason I do visit those comparison threads.


Can you give me a link to the thread you alluded to? I'm not sure if you're referring to Pan's Labyrinth or not, but I checked that out and didn't see the posts you referred to.


----------



## K-Spaz

I misspelled it, sorry. Here's the link.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Vertical Limit (UK import)


recommendation: 1.25*


If ever a movie was made for pure eye candy potential and demonstration-value, it is this movie from the year 2000. Sony released Vertical Limit in multiple territories on home video, but saw fit to stick a MPEG-2 compression encoding on the domestic disc. The region-free BD from the UK discussed here reputedly contains a superior looking transfer encoded in AVC and was released later than the U.S. disc on May 14, 2007. Personally I have no experience with the U.S. Blu-ray aside from a few screen captures linked below. Going off those images alone, there does appear to be a substantial difference in quality. The current ranking for the U.S. disc in tier 3.0 may very well reflect the inherent problems with that early transfer and encoding. That should not affect the placement of this newly encoded transfer, one which should not be placed lower than tier one by any reasonable measure.


Taken on its own merits, the AVC video-compression is solid with just a few minor problems. The 124-minute film has an average video bitrate of 29.11 Mbps on a BD-50. Peak parameters rarely top 35 Mbps and the encode displays many of the same attributes of other early AVC efforts by Sony. Most of the film shows absolutely no sign of compression errors or visual flaws. The scenes blanketed by walls of snow hold up well without a hint of macroblocking. The very thin and natural-looking grain-structure is replicated nicely for the most part. One or two scenes do have a touch of banding and posterization, especially when the camera is trained on the clear blue skies of the Himalayas. The real problematic parts are the scenes inside the cave that certain climbers get trapped in. A small amount of chroma and compression noise briefly manifest in the backgrounds of those scenes sporadically. It is a bit distracting, considering the generally top-notch black levels and shadow detail on display. In all other ways the AVC-encode seems to reproduce high-frequency details exceptionally well.


An underrated aspect is the beautiful cinematography that fills the screen. The picture bursts with incredible resolution, revealing eye-pleasing visuals and arresting imagery. The mountain climbers are always highlighted against a backdrop of sweeping snow-capped mountains and panoramic vistas. The nicely composed framing has a fine sense of balance and focus. The slight use of CGI is blended in superbly, and only the sheer physical impossibility of certain scenes clued me I was viewing computer-assisted action. Print damage is negligible nearly the entire running time. A few flecks of white micro-dots are visible for micro-second flashes but generally the print is free of damage or debris.


The picture quality shows most of the characteristics of the best films in the tier system. The image displays a wonderful magnitude of dimensionality and sharpness. Very few soft moments litter this disc. The party scene before the initial climb literally jumps off the screen with its depth and pop. Colors are saturated excellently and flesh tones shine with a healthy, natural appearance. The finest details are evident in the frequent close-ups employed. Robin Tunney has what appears to be a slight scar between her eye-brows that was invisible on other Blu-rays that had featured her. The principal characters' facial features are shown in stunning resolution. Expect to see every wrinkle and out of place hair.


In many ways this disc is a contender for a placement in tier 1.0. What drops it out of that ranking is the horrendous use of edge enhancement in multiple spots. For a disc that easily holds up in resolution at all viewing distances, even on the largest projection screens, the frequent sight of halos will likely be a negative to viewers on the largest displays. It can be noted that the master is unscathed by any grain-reduction tools, as the film looks shot on stock with little grain to begin with.


I provide the link comparing the screen captures only as a reference point. On my display the UK disc looks superior to what I see on my computer from these one-frame pictures.


Watching on a 60" Pioneer KURO plasma at six feet fed by a 60 GB PS3 (firmware 3.01).


BDInfo scan and comparative screen captures (courtesy of msgohan):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1#post16838091 

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...8#post16838088


----------



## djoberg

^^^^


Thanks for the good review Phantom. I am a BIG fan of this movie, especially the cinematography, so I'll definitely look forward to purchasing this release. I'll weigh in when I do. BTW, I saw this title on one of the HD Movie channels last year and it looked very good, though it was a bit soft at times.


----------



## djoberg





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/17433931
> 
> 
> I misspelled it, sorry. Here's the link.



Thanks K-Spaz! I complete agree with your view on those two comparison pics. Though there was more detail in some areas on the Blu-ray (such as her blouse), the flesh tones are terrible, especially her neck.


----------



## deltasun

*Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs*


What can I say - another fine animated presentation overall. However, I didn't see it as up to par with the latest Pixar or even Dreamworks titles. First, there was a general softness throughout. I found most of these on the two mammoths' fur. Similarly, texture wasn't always rendered well. Some of the scales and skin on dinosaurs looked more like clay.


Contrast (or perceived contrast) was also weak at times. I believe these were intentional since they usually appeared in mixed lighting situations. That's all I have for negatives, save for some slight ringing in certain scenes as well. Keep in mind, these negatives were not horrendous. They're comparative observations to the best of the best animated titles.


Blacks were bold and contrast, when outside of the weak ones described, produced excellent balance. Details were intricate, particularly the once the story took us underground. Depth and dimensionality were also well-rendered throughout. Colors were vibrant and pleasing.


Overall, I still felt this lacked the pop found in some of the higher-tiered animated titles. I believe it's a solid Gold Tier contender...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.50*


Sub lovers - the LFE on this title was satisfying.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## deltasun

*The Counterfeiters*


PQ is nothing to write home about. Grain was moderate to heavy throughout - intentionally produced to complement the setting and tone of the film. This was distracting in a number of scenes. It also had a sepia tone throughout to represent a WWII set genre.


Facial details were very limited. At the very best, they were in low Gold territory during Sally's visit of Herzog's home. Blacks were mostly crushed and contrast was below average. Shadow details were unrevealing and shallow. Colors were muted; skin tones on the pale side. There were a few scenes, post-WWII in Monte Carlo, where colors looked more natural. A few outdoor, daytime shots exhibited decent depth. However, these were but a handful of scenes.


And if those weren't bad enough, pervasive ringing (in the form of EE) can be found throughout. Finding comparisons, this is slightly better than _Eden Log_, and about on par with _12 Monkeys_ (not for the same reasons).

Tier Recommendation: 4.50

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## kinglerxt

I know it may be hard to find but if possible, Id like to see a review of the BD disc PQ rating for:


"Liquid Tension Experiment - LTE Live 2008"


For those of you who dont know , L.T.E. is a super group side project with 3 of the 5 members of prog-rock/metal band Dream Theater (John Petrucci, Mike Portnoy, Jordan Rudess) and bassist Tony Levin.



This is a limited edition set and includes 9 discs, CDs, DVDs and 1 Bluray

They were celebrating their 10 yr anniversary of their 1st CD release


The Bluray dsc is for the Los Angeles show that I atteneded ("Live in LA")


If you like concert discs or hard rock, Dream Theater or good music then this is one to add to your collection


See details here

http://www.ytsejamrecords.com/Produc...&idcategory=11 


If any of the reviewers has this or can get it, can you post a review of the BD disc PQ here and SQ (in the other thread)


I own this but am not a reviewer


Thanks


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/17418871
> 
> 
> I would rate *Tier 2.75* after comparing the BD PQ Vs. the 480i/60Hz Deleted Scenes. You should definitely have a close look at the PQ of the Deleted Scenes (480i downscaled from 1080i/p
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) before jumping the gun on the BD PQ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The close-ups shots exhibit nice details though some of it looks Band of Brothers Waxy. The color scheme used is bland and dull which further takes out eye candy factors. Some night shots towards the middle and end seem to exhibit blockiness. Overall, the PQ is above average though can't complain much for the price I paid.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/17419013
> 
> 
> 'Coz the differences in PQ between the Deleted Scenes (SD) Vs. the actual BD PQ (HD) are minuscule. This one is similar to Harry Potter 1 and 2 where the PQ differences between SD and HD were very minimal.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/17421018
> 
> 
> Phantom / Rob,
> 
> 
> What I meant was we hardly check Deleted Scenes / DVD to see how the PQ looks in Standard Definition. We have been so used to Blu-ray PQ (good and bad ones) that we are sometimes forced to accept that the PQ is already maxed out.
> 
> 
> I too thought the PQ was quite good during the first half but for fun switched to the deleted scenes to see what was CUT. To my surprise, I found the PQ to be pretty darn good for a material presented in 480i/60Hz and I didn't even know that it was SD at the first glance. Hence, the Tier 2.75 rating.



I watched the deleted scenes on the Texas Chainsaw Massacre BD. I also have the dvd set somewhere but my dvd collection gets very little playtime these days and remains unwatched. The standard definition content does look good, at least in terms of actual detail for that resolution. It appears completely unfiltered. My guess is that the deleted scenes were never tweaked in post-production. Not all creative decisions by filmmakers are necessarily the best for producing the best-looking film. The limited resolution though appears to obscure any grain structure and some video noise from the original photography of the film.


The Blu-ray still decimates it in multiple categories, above and beyond the average upgrade of film from SD to HD. My ranking tries to incorporate a weighted average of the entire disc's picture quality. The first half is safely in the confines of tier one, whereas the last thirty minutes probably rank somewhere at the bottom of tier two or near the top of tier three. Hence a placement from my standpoint in tier two. I do see some merit in your arguments, so a placement of tier 2.25 would not be a stretch when considering the entirety of the BD's quality. In my estimation it is still a significant advantage for the Blu-ray. But your ranking seems reasonable based on your own criteria. Honest men can have reasonable differences of opinion when applying subjective factors such as we use in determining the placements.


I had never watched the deleted scenes before and actually thought they should have included the storyline of Jessica Biel's character being pregnant. It would have added an extra edge to the plot and am surprised they did not include it.


----------



## K-Spaz

Phantom,

Good review on Vertical Limit. It's about 10 down in my Q so I look forward to seeing that after your thumbs up for the imagery.


[edit]

So much for the Q'd version. Guess I gotta buy this thing...


Phantom,

Is the movie good enough to blind buy?


----------



## jedimasterchad

I have Vertical Limit in my DVD collection, and it's pretty enjoyable. Chris O'Donnell is decent, and Bill Paxton is ok. Robin Tunney probably does the best job of acting. It's a pretty basic story, some climbers get trapped and the rest go on a rescue mission. It is what it is, but the action is pretty cool and the story is captivating enough to last a 2 hour movie. Some of the cinematography is really neat, and the scenery is beautiful, although I can't remember if it was filmed on location or not. If you are concerned about accuracy of this type of movie (as far as climbing), it falls well short of the mark, but it's just a fun summer movie so it can be overlooked for the most part. There is some pretty good comic relief too, which helps it move along towards the end.


A really good rental, not sure if it's worth a buy, but I found it pretty cheap a while back so I picked it up. I watch it every now and then. It will really test your white levels too, as most of the backdrop in this movie is snow.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

The DVD of Vertical Limit looked pretty good, with the very notable exception of Edge Enhancement!


----------



## deltasun

*Star Trek: Generations*


This one looked pretty good! There was some mild application of DNR, particularly notable in the beginning of the film. This wasn't too bothersome once the film started moving. Some ringing was also noted, specially in the mountain scene with Soran and Picard. Extremely fine grain was present throughout and maybe 3 scenes had frozen grain.


Facial details outside of Kirk were very good - Riker, the cakey make-up on Data, and even smooth-faced Picard had some to show, specially when the lighting was just right. Colors were vibrant without getting too saturated. Contrast was spot on and black levels were bold with no evidence of crushing. Shadow details varied, but looked decent for the most part - problems arose when medium/normal lenses were used. Some of the panoramic scenes exhibited good depth, but not to the levels found higher than high Tier 1. In fact, I was expecting some of those mountainous shots to show more depth. Medium shots were the same way - almost unnaturally flat.


Still, this was a much better presentation than the other Trek I reviewed, _First Contact_. I would give this a half tier bump from the former...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## djoberg

*Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen (IMAZ Version)*


I'm going to start out by commenting on the audio: IT WAS *LOUD* and my ears are still bleeding!







What a workout for my Cambridge Soundworks speakers and Velodyne Servo sub...I hope they survive.










PQ-wise: I will state right out front that I was NOT as impressed as some of my esteemed colleagues were and IMO it is only slightly better than the first installment; in other words, to me it's a high Tier 1 contender.


This is not to say I wasn't impressed, for there was plenty of eye candy in most every department: Good contrast (most of the time)....decent blacks (overall)....adequate shadow detail....vibrant colors....excellent facial details in most close-ups....and finely-rendered details in many scenes (especially the IMAX forest scene, which was simply amazing....and the desert scenes with the pyramids).


But there were also a few negatives: a lack of depth in many scenes....crushed blacks in a few instances....pumped up contrast at times....over-saturated colors (resulting in unnatural-looking fleshtones)....and some scenes were a bit flat with very little detail.


You'll notice the virtues trumped the anomalies by a long shot, so this is still a BD one would be proud to use as demo material (not _reference_, but _demo-worthy_). After careful consideration, my vote would be for....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17448105
> 
> *Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen (IMAX Version)*
> 
> 
> I'm going to start out by commenting on the audio: IT WAS *LOUD*


_Quite._


I don't know, I can overlook the sun baked look of some of the stuff, and I don't think the filming really lent itself to the depth and contrast you missed. There just was a shortage of shots that could really pull it off, and they are just markedly absent from the film for the most part (as you point out). As someone else mentioned after my review though, this movie had more "wow moments" to it then most other stuff you have grouped it with. I suppose I based my ranking a little on that fact, because, again as you mentioned, the positives far outweigh the negatives in this presentation, and for the most part we are just being very nitpicky trying to find fault with it, IMO. As far as transfer from the source goes, everyone seems in agreement that Michael Bay needs his eyes checked, because that's how it was before. However, I don't feel that the director's intent had that much of a harmful effect on this particular film, especially considering a pretty marginal portion of it was outdoor scenes.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Day The Earth Stood Still (2008)


recommendation: Tier 2.5*


Everyone responsible for this awful transfer should be ashamed. On a technical level, the worst transfer of a new movie by a major film studio, Fox in this case, I have seen in the past year. Thick halos permeate the movie on high-contrast edges. The AVC compression encode is relatively poor for a recent release, with clear examples of posterization and minor banding. What stood out over those other problems was the heaviest use of digital noise reduction I have viewed in quite a while. The entire movie has been stripped of almost all high-frequency information. Facial features frequently took on a smooth, plastic appearance that resembled dolls more than living humans on film. It is clearly one of the most unnatural transfers yet on the Blu-ray format.


The reviews I came across around the Internet overly praised the picture quality and make me question whether some reviewers can even recognize halos or obvious filtering when presented with it.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post16237632


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^


Phantom,


From the wording of your review (with nothing but negative comments), I would think you'd be giving it a much worse placement than 2.5. You must have noticed enough redeeming qualities to have recommended Tier Silver....so, what are they?


I looked back at my review of this title and I had quite a bit of praise for it and a 1.25 recommendation. But then again I am one who has a very hard time seeing halos, which was your worst condemnation of the film.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Horrendous processing can only lower the innate quality of a recent movie so much. If the studio went back to the original film negative and re-did the digital intermediate without applying edge enhancement or using grain-reduction techniques, I imagine my placement for this disc could easily be in the top half of tier one without these significant problems. But my placement reflects the overall assessment of the image, taking into account the relative clarity and sharp black levels.


The image might look good to a casual observer if one is not watching closely for the problems I mentioned. Once they are pointed out though, their mere appearance is easily distracting at close viewing distances and on the largest displays.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17449726
> 
> *The Day The Earth Stood Still (2008)
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 2.5*
> 
> *Everyone responsible for this awful transfer should be ashamed*. On a technical level, the worst transfer of a new movie by a major film studio, Fox in this case, I have seen in the past year. *Thick halos permeate the movie on high-contrast edges.* The AVC compression encode is relatively poor for a recent release, with clear examples of posterization and minor banding. What stood out over those other problems was the heaviest use of digital noise reduction I have viewed in quite a while. The entire movie has been stripped of almost all high-frequency information. Facial features frequently took on a smooth, plastic appearance that resembled dolls more than living humans on film. It is clearly one of the most unnatural transfers yet on the Blu-ray format.
> 
> 
> The reviews I came across around the Internet overly praised the picture quality and make me question whether some reviewers can even recognize halos or obvious filtering when presented with it.
> 
> 
> BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post16237632




Wow!


I didn't notice anywhere near the problems that you mention. I put this at Tier 1.75.


This is one of those rare cases where we will have to agree to disagree. Not that I care: the movie sucked.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17450051
> 
> *The image might look good to a casual observer if one is not watching closely for the problems I mentioned.* Once they are pointed out though, their mere appearance is easily distracting at close viewing distances and on the largest displays.



I, like Rob, did NOT see anywhere near the problems you mentioned. I surely hope I don't fall into the category of a "casual observer."







As I said earlier, I'm not one to see halos easily, but I can usually spot DNR if it is excessive to the point of producing the *waxy* look on faces. I know this, we have the exact same HDTV so that can't account for any differences we're seeing.










Again, to quote Rob, "This is one of those rare cases where we will have to agree to disagree."


----------



## 42041

*Transformers 2 (IMAX version)*


I wasn't going to watch this but fortunately (or unfortunately?) I was able to borrow the big screen version. The movie doesn't do anything for me, but it speaks volumes of the PQ/AQ that I was able to somehow not fall asleep through that impossibly long Egypt sequence. Most of the pluses and minuses have been covered and I won't regurgitate too much. It just seems tailor-made for a PQ thread like this: hyped up car commercial visuals, explosions and big expensive CGI, hot girls, those IMAX shots... yeah, it's not a natural looking movie by ANY means (is Domino or Sin City?) but I think the stylistic choices employed here serve to push it up the list rather than down. If I was going to sell someone on HD media, this is one of the very first discs I'd use.
*

Tier 0 (about 1/3rd down from the top)*


(Pioneer Kuro 50" Elite/1 screen width distance)


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Phantom, regarding The Day the Earth Stood Still, it seems that the vast majority of reviews are very positive for PQ, and there doesn't seem to be a mention of lots of artifacts as you describe.


Here is a composite list of reviews for this title by CinemaSquid:

http://www.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray/m...l?movieid=3062 


The average of those reviews is 90/100.


I didn't read all the reviews, but the ones that I did read didn't say anything about artifacts. Kris Deering (who I tend to respect more than other reviewers) said this:
*

While I wasn’t a big fan of the film there is no denying how great the image looks on this Blu-ray. Fox has delivered a spectacular transfer with rich contrast and deep, deep blacks. The imagery has plenty of depth and razor sharp detail. Colors are a tad muted but only add to the stark image. Compression is outstanding and I didn’t notice any banding or artifacts in the difficult fog sequences that I thought would show obvious artifacts.*


Anyway, I'm just throwing this out there because your observation of "thick halos" and "The AVC compression encode is relatively poor for a recent release, with clear examples of posterization and minor banding" seems to contrast greatly compared to what many others have seen (or, more accurately, what they did NOT see







).


----------



## lgans316

Phantom,


Appreciate you for reverting to my comments on Texas Chainsaw. I am having a hard time with this one as I don't see any appreciable differences. Anyways, its still worth the money paid and I think its time to forget and move on.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17450327
> 
> 
> I, like Rob, did NOT see anywhere near the problems you mentioned. I surely hope I don't fall into the category of a "casual observer."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said earlier, I'm not one to see halos easily, but I can usually spot DNR if it is excessive to the point of producing the *waxy* look on faces. I know this, we have the exact same HDTV so that can't account for any differences we're seeing.



You certainly are no casual observer.







The recognition of edge enhancement and ringing diminishes the further one is sitting from a display. It is most troublesome for viewers on the largest projection screens over 100" that have good equipment. It is why older HD transfers and the resulting dvds made from them have ample amounts of halos, because the transfers were originally checked on monitors under 30" most of the time.


Compare the amount of facial detail (pores, wrinkles, crow lines, marks, etc.) visible on Keanu Reeves and Jennifer Connelly with some of their other movies available on Blu-ray, if you want some indication of the grain-reduction. The image is superficially pleasing because it lacks any kind of extraneous noise like grain while still displaying sharp black levels and fine color rendition. I suspect the prevalence of CGI in this movie might have motivated the director to use DNR here.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17452058
> 
> 
> Phantom, regarding The Day the Earth Stood Still, it seems that the vast majority of reviews are very positive for PQ, and there doesn't seem to be a mention of lots of artifacts as you describe.
> 
> 
> I didn't read all the reviews, but the ones that I did read didn't say anything about artifacts. Kris Deering (who I tend to respect more than other reviewers) said this:
> 
> 
> While I wasn't a big fan of the film there is no denying how great the image looks on this Blu-ray. Fox has delivered a spectacular transfer with rich contrast and deep, deep blacks. The imagery has plenty of depth and razor sharp detail. Colors are a tad muted but only add to the stark image. Compression is outstanding and I didn't notice any banding or artifacts in the difficult fog sequences that I thought would show obvious artifacts.



Deering is one of the few reviewers I respect among the many sites that review Blu-rays. He definitely knows what he is talking about when reviewing picture quality, but in this case he missed the boat, like all the other reviews I checked out. He is correct that the compression encode does not break down where one would expect. The fog scenes do not show the problems at all. The noise I saw might very well be a remnant of the softer and lower-resolution CGI heavily integrated into the film. Only the people directly responsible for the movie with access to the studio master could answer that question. The compression jobs by Deluxe Digital Studios (who handle a majority of Fox's BDs) are usually very good, but I have seen their AVC-encodes demonstrate a few problems when the average video bitrates are under 30 Mbps. Many reviewers tend to gloss over compression problems if they do not display the obvious macroblocking artifacts common on Warner's BDs.


At this stage in the format's lifespan, many reviewers it appears automatically assume major day-and-date movies all demonstrate superior a/v quality. It is why so many read as "cut and paste" jobs from review to review for those sections. I really have no more to say about this particular movie, which is mostly forgettable cinema.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *garyc8710* /forum/post/17453292
> 
> 
> I know this is off subject , but this seems to be the most logical thread for this question, so here goes.
> 
> This is simply posted as a question.I post it here because I know I will get a logical, well thought out answer. My question is why do people buy movies? This is not a judgement on how people spend their money, it's just a curiosity . I have the PS3,cable, Netflix,soon to be streaming,HBO, etc. When I bought my PS3 last summer , I couldn't wait to see a Blu-Ray movie so I went to the local Wal Mart and bought one. I haven't watched it since, because in those 15 months hundred of new releases on Blu-Ray have been made available along with countless HD movies on cable. Like I said already,this is not a meant as a judgement or criticism, just a matter of human behavior curiosity.



This is actually a very good question (though I agree it is somewhat off topic).


I learned my lesson from owning nearly 500 DVD's. You are right: you don't tend to re-watch them!


As a result, my Blu-ray collection is pretty modest. I use Netflix, which is great. It avoids paying good money for a movie that turns out to be crappy.


I only buy Blu-rays of movies that I really love and know I will watch again, as well as a few "guilty pleasures" that have superb PQ and AQ to show off my system.


I am finding that I get much more for my money with concerts on Blu-ray than most movies due to the fact that concerts/music tend to have a much higher re-watchability factor than movies.


----------



## K-Spaz

Phantom,


I wished I knew more about the data path from the br media to the framebuffer. Even past there for that matter. Each stage in the transformation of data from 1s and 0s to a color image on our display, has software, firmware and hardware involved obviously.


When I see reviewers have big differences in opinion on a title, ones whom I usually agree with, I have to wonder if there is not some anomaly that is causing thier setup to render a different image than what would be considered correct. Elsewhere in this forum, there's a guy hearing popping sounds on the transformers disk, crazy deal, but, I don't hear the masses complaining.


I've also opposed people who's opinion I respect to a point where I would not dispute with them what they saw. As you say, it's not worth a lot of discussion, but it would be nice to know why this happens from time to time. It's understandable if we know there's differing versions of a movie out there, but when we think we're all looking at the same thing and disagree by a large amount, it's sorta bothersome. And, it probably wouldn't make us give another thought, if we hadn't all seen 100's upon 100's of blu-rays, and agree within .25 or .5 on 95% of them.


To add my opinion on TDtESS, I watched it quite a while back. I don't remember if I saw it on my rear projection tv or on my front projector. Either way, I hadn't reviewed at the time, but I would probably put my placement somewhere between the opinions here. I do not remember it lighting my fire PQ wise, and iirc, I might go so far as to agree with your assessment. As most movies I watch are, it was a rental, so I can't go back and look without re-Q'ing. If I could borrow somewhere, I'd be inclined to do so just cause I'm curious.


----------



## K-Spaz

garyc8710,


I agree with Rob, btdt with media. During a recent renovation work here at my house, I was throwing things out and threw out hundreds of VHS tapes I'd purchased. I bet my HT projector and sound system didn't cost what those tapes did. So for me, is it worth it? Maybe not.


I tend to loan mine out. I can honestly say I have things I own which I own specifically for the purpose of loading out. Call me an idiot if you like, I do too! Movies are something that my family tends to share, and I'll be completely honest, I don't even care really if they come back. I am certainly more responsible about returning than others are, but I understand that up front so I don't let it bother me.


BR, I have not purchased many at all. Mostly because the only other family member who has a HT does not purchase either. So we rent. Since I cannot loan them out to anyone, I find it hard to justify, and since I've done so much work on the house this year, I just haven't spent money on them like I probably would otherwise.


I am more likely to buy 4-8 at a time, than to nickel and dime myself all the time. I would be inclined to buy 200 at a time if there was an acceptable deal out there. If I could get them at $8 ea, I'd buy 200 at a time. Why not. But as it is, I've bought an average of 1 a month, and usually decent priced ones, meaning, ~$20. I'd feel better getting a whole pile at once and just get it over with, don't ask me why.


I have family members who stop in almost weekly to watch movies at my house. (I built a ht this summer). And it's nice to have a few movies here, but we either watch a rental, or a DVD. My one brother bought Shooter BR and brought it here, and he doesn't even have a HDTV, much less a br player. So I kept it! Lol.


I go to the movies from time to time, and that costs me usually $12/head + fuel (which is not insignificant in my vehicle either). Well, it does not take long to add up to the same $ as just buying the movie. With my broken disk problem with Netflix back again, (5 of my last 6 broken), I can't plan anything for a NF disk to be here and be playable, so to have a social event/dinner/movie night, I almost have to buy it.


In the end, it depends on how much money you can justify spending on such things as entertainment. If it were a choice between feeding empty mouths here or owning movies, I'd own 0 movies. I think the $ spent per man-hour of entertainment is easy to justify, and while I'm certainly not rich, I can afford a few home theater gizmos from time to time if I want.


Last thought. My Recreation Costs... Years back, I had a boat and a jet-ski and rented a lot on boat-able river. We waterskied, jet-skied, boated all summer long. I tracked fuel one year and spent well over $2000 just in the watercraft in one year. (it was rated at 14 gal/hour and I never ran anything but full throttle, literally). Add $600/year lot rental, cost of the boat, jet-ski and trailer, conversion van to pull them, food, etc... wow. Makes a movie sound cheap eh! I bought right and sold the jetski for 500 less than I paid new, sold the boat for near what I paid, and the van I lost about $5000 but drove it for 7 years. It's all in what you want I guess.


----------



## rboster




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *garyc8710* /forum/post/17453292
> 
> 
> I know this is off subject , but this seems to be the most logical thread for this question, so here goes.
> 
> This is simply posted as a question.I post it here because I know I will get a logical, well thought out answer. My question is why do people buy movies? This is not a judgement on how people spend their money, it’s just a curiosity . I have the PS3,cable, Netflix,soon to be streaming,HBO, etc. When I bought my PS3 last summer , I couldn’t wait to see a Blu-Ray movie so I went to the local Wal Mart and bought one. I haven’t watched it since, because in those 15 months hundred of new releases on Blu-Ray have been made available along with countless HD movies on cable. Like I said already,this is not a meant as a judgement or criticism, just a matter of human behavior curiosity.



The search engine will bring up the other threads that have covered this topic. This thread is not the appropriate place for this discussion.


Let's stay on topic and take this discussion to an existing thread like this one (there are a number of them)

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...highlight=rent


----------



## deltasun

*Orphan*


Fine to moderate grain present throughout. The opening dream sequence showed heavy grain for effect. Facial details were not satisfyingly detailed. There were a few extreme close-up's of Vera that showed palatable detail. However, these were not the norm. For the most part, focus seemed out of place on plenty of early scenes.


Indoor lighting really ruined it for me. Contrast on these shots made skin tones a bit messy. There were some decent shots with natural light, showing some balanced contrast. Blacks were also good, with no signs of crushing. Shadow details varied - was bad when indoor lighting was present. Some of the other low-light shots did not involved much depth and so was hard to judge. Regardless, it did not impress.


Outdoor scenes showed okay depth, specially snowy scenes in the family's yard. Speaking of which, I didn't feel white came across as white - seemed more like dirty white. I also spotted some ringing in high-contrast scenes and no signs of DNR.


Despite all the negatives above, this title still had enough merits to go somewhere between...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75 - 3.0*


I quite enjoyed the movie and would recommend at least a rental. Max and Esther, particularly, did a great job.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Battlestar Galactica: The Plan*


I don't know where to start on this one. It's bad. LOTS of noise, especially in darker scenes. I don't know if this was shot on video (the technical details are not listed at IMDB), but it sure looks like video noise to me. Very distracting.


The rest of the PQ does not much better. There are some scenes that look decent, but there is really little to impress in terms of detail, clarity, colors or contrast/depth.


I didn't care for the movie either.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 4.0*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I have been working my way through the new Prisoner set and I am stunned at how good these episodes look. They are clearly better than the video quality of the only other material of similar vintage from television on Blu-ray, the original Star Trek series. Do not expect a formal recommendation anytime soon, but my initial guess at a minimum placement is somewhere in the silver tier.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17452952
> 
> 
> Deering is one of the few reviewers I respect among the many sites that review Blu-rays. He definitely knows what he is talking about when reviewing picture quality, but in this case he missed the boat, like all the other reviews I checked out. He is correct that the compression encode does not break down where one would expect. The fog scenes do not show the problems at all. The noise I saw might very well be a remnant of the softer and lower-resolution CGI heavily integrated into the film. Only the people directly responsible for the movie with access to the studio master could answer that question. The compression jobs by Deluxe Digital Studios (who handle a majority of Fox's BDs) are usually very good, but I have seen their AVC-encodes demonstrate a few problems when the average video bitrates are under 30 Mbps. Many reviewers tend to gloss over compression problems if they do not display the obvious macroblocking artifacts common on Warner's BDs.



I agree with your assessment of the DtESS. I noticed it too, but it was difficult to pin down. It doesn't look like DNR, as flesh tones are great and detail can be solid, not to mention grain seems to be intact. It's been a while since I watched the disc (and would rather not have to sit through this disaster of a remake ever again) but remember writing the review and being stunned when I saw others stating how great it was.


I'm curious to give it a second go, but saw the exact same drops in detail and general blocking you did. Does anyone have a bitrate rundown to see if his theory about the encode is the cause?


----------



## deltasun

*About Last Night...*


One of the few Sony catalog releases of late that did not deliver on PQ. It was soft, had sub-par shadow details, and almost no sense of depth to its scenes. It was seriously hard to differentiate from upconverted DVD. There were also instances of banding and a minor bit of print dirt.


Grain was present, but sometimes in the form of digital noise in darker areas. I will not belabor the review and simply throw this in low Copper. I would say Coal, but did not see other technical issues. I suspect most of the issues are from the source.

*Tier Recommendation: 4.5*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## deltasun

*Star Trek: Nemesis*


Another good presentation. Fine grain present throughout, giving this title a film-like quality. Facial details were probably the best in the series that I've seen thus far (saw _First Contact_ and _Generations_ previously). Details, in general, were well-refined.


Black levels were bold and contrast was spot on. An exception would be the director-intended, high-contrast scene when Picard, Data, and Worf took the Argo on the planet's surface. Shadow details was probably the weakest characteristic, but still was not bad. I suppose depth/dimensionality would be the second worse, as there were not many scenes to maximize them. Medium shots did exhibit satisfactory depth.


Colors were rich and deep - the crimson portion of their uniforms readily penetrated each scene. I still saw what appeared to me as a mild bit of DNR towards the end, but it was mostly absent. A tiny bit of ringing was also present on high-contrast edges.


Overall, this was slightly better than _Generations_. However, with the stylistic, high-contrast scenes I would still place this...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75 - 2.0*


I felt the audio on this was well-done as well and has been rated Tier 0 in the audio thread. It would be reference, except the sound would disappear during non-action scenes.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*Fringe Season 1*



Over the last 3 weeks I've been watching Fringe Season 1 on Blu. I had watched a couple of episodes on TV when this show began, but initially felt it was a little too violent/gory for me so I broke up with it. A friend of mine told me to try it again, so I put it into my zip.ca queue when it was being released, and they finally sent me the discs....slooooooowly.



I think I'm a little bit kinder on TV show PQ, because there is simply so much content. I'm more willing to forgive some PQ anomalies when I'm watching 20+ 43minute episodes rather than a 2hour movie.



This show was, to me, represented really well on Blu. There are slight issues here and there, but they didn't bother me. There's no EE in sight, and if there's DNR, they had me fooled. Close ups were really fantastic, and the quality of this show on Blu immersed me into their world really well.



I felt as though some of the way Fringe was shot was a prelude to JJ Abrahms Star Trek 2009. LENS FLARE. There is a ton of lens flare throughout this series, and while this much lens flare does kind of annoy me, it also made me laugh & recall Star Trek 2009 (which I eagerly await November 17th arrival, I loved that film, even with the obnoxious lens flare).



This show was extremely lush colour-wise. I didn't notice any excessive annoyances with colours aside from a few high-contrast edges occasionally, and there is definitely a heavy hand of artistic intent going on when you watch this show as it's stylized.



I rather enjoyed the show and cannot wait to catch up on the episodes I have waiting on my PVR that have been aired of Season 2. I'm glad I gave this show a second shot; I'm not really extremely squeamish but some of the initial episodes have some nastiness to them. It's very reminiscent of The X-Files; and I do like the chemistry between the 3 main cast members. It took me a few episodes to get over the fact that it's Pacey from Dawson's Creek, though!











All-in-all I think this show translated to Blu very well. I can't find the thread about Fringe in the Blu Ray section, I know I saw some people at some point had issues with a couple of discs and some purple lines or something? I did searches but came up empty. The discs I had from zip.ca did not have any issues like that, unless they were referring to some occasional lens flare bugging them.


If i owned the discs I would look them over again, as I think this show may deserve a bit higher of a ranking than I am giving it, but since I can't go back and double check things, I'm going to be _extremely conservative_ with my recommendation. *I hope others do watch this show, as it really did exceed my expectations.* I did not see any reason in my viewing for this show to be less than reference, especially for a TV show, (and I consider both Tier 0 & 1 to be reference), so I'm going with:

*Recommendation for Fringe, Season 1 : Tier 1.75*
*Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800u THX setting, approx 7.5'.*



If others watch this show and think it deserves a higher spot, I'll be glad. If they think it deserves lower, I'll be really surprised.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17456799
> 
> *Battlestar Galactica: The Plan*
> 
> 
> I don't know where to start on this one. It's bad. LOTS of noise, especially in darker scenes. I don't know if this was shot on video (the technical details are not listed at IMDB), but it sure looks like video noise to me. Very distracting.
> 
> 
> The rest of the PQ does not much better. There are some scenes that look decent, but there is really little to impress in terms of detail, clarity, colors or contrast/depth.
> 
> 
> I didn't care for the movie either.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 4.0*



I'm saddened by this. I couldn't find this movie in town so I had to order it in from Amazon.ca . I'm expecting it to arrive today or tomorrow hopefully. If the Blu looks this bad, I wonder how horrible the DVD is?? I've avoided things about the movie since I haven't seen it yet, so I'm not going to search out any screencaps just yet to see comparisons... but... i'm sad!! I love BSG! I ordered the Blu to finish off my set the husband got me this summer (the "I'm-playing-a-lot-of-golf-this-summer-so-here-have-expensive-blu-ray-bribery" gift), b/c we could only find the DVD in town.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

And... totally off topic.. but YAY! I've been here for over a year now, I just noticed! Thanks for tolerating me this long so far!


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17468560
> 
> *Fringe Season 1*
> 
> 
> 
> Over the last 3 weeks I've been watching Fringe Season 1 on Blu. I had watched a couple of episodes on TV when this show began, but initially felt it was a little too violent/gory for me so I broke up with it. A friend of mine told me to try it again, so I put it into my zip.ca queue when it was being released, and they finally sent me the discs....slooooooowly.
> 
> 
> 
> I think I'm a little bit kinder on TV show PQ, because there is simply so much content. I'm more willing to forgive some PQ anomalies when I'm watching 20+ 43minute episodes rather than a 2hour movie.
> 
> 
> 
> This show was, to me, represented really well on Blu. There are slight issues here and there, but they didn't bother me. There's no EE in sight, and if there's DNR, they had me fooled. Close ups were really fantastic, and the quality of this show on Blu immersed me into their world really well.
> 
> 
> 
> I felt as though some of the way Fringe was shot was a prelude to JJ Abrahms Star Trek 2009. LENS FLARE. There is a ton of lens flare throughout this series, and while this much lens flare does kind of annoy me, it also made me laugh & recall Star Trek 2009 (which I eagerly await November 17th arrival, I loved that film, even with the obnoxious lens flare).
> 
> 
> 
> This show was extremely lush colour-wise. I didn't notice any excessive annoyances with colours aside from a few high-contrast edges occasionally, and there is definitely a heavy hand of artistic intent going on when you watch this show as it's stylized.
> 
> 
> 
> I rather enjoyed the show and cannot wait to catch up on the episodes I have waiting on my PVR that have been aired of Season 2. I'm glad I gave this show a second shot; I'm not really extremely squeamish but some of the initial episodes have some nastiness to them. It's very reminiscent of The X-Files; and I do like the chemistry between the 3 main cast members. It took me a few episodes to get over the fact that it's Pacey from Dawson's Creek, though!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All-in-all I think this show translated to Blu very well. I can't find the thread about Fringe in the Blu Ray section, I know I saw some people at some point had issues with a couple of discs and some purple lines or something? I did searches but came up empty. The discs I had from zip.ca did not have any issues like that, unless they were referring to some occasional lens flare bugging them.
> 
> 
> If i owned the discs I would look them over again, as I think this show may deserve a bit higher of a ranking than I am giving it, but since I can't go back and double check things, I'm going to be _extremely conservative_ with my recommendation. *I hope others do watch this show, as it really did exceed my expectations.* I did not see any reason in my viewing for this show to be less than reference, especially for a TV show, (and I consider both Tier 0 & 1 to be reference), so I'm going with:
> 
> *Recommendation for Fringe, Season 1 : Tier 1.75*
> *Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800u THX setting, approx 7.5'.*
> 
> 
> 
> If others watch this show and think it deserves a higher spot, I'll be glad. If they think it deserves lower, I'll be really surprised.



I actually have this, and I have just been too busy since I bought it back in September to put it in and give it a look. I saw the first 5 episodes or so on TV and loved the series, but then I got too far behind and the DVR filled up quick and started deleting the old ones and I couldn't finish as it was going along. But anyway, with all the new stuff this month I doubt I will get to it anytime too soon, as we are still working our way through Prison Break and 24, and I'll be getting Up and Star Trek over the next couple weeks...sheesh. I'll have to just pop in a couple episodes when I can.


Got G.I. Joe today...I'll let you guys know how it is when I watch it tonight.


----------



## deltasun

Yep, the next few weeks will be crazy - I just picked up _GI Joe_, _Taking of Pelham 123_, _Forrest Gump_, and gulp, _Love Actually_ today. Next week's _Heat_ and the two Disney movies. The following week is _Star Trek_, _Leon_, _Rome_ series, _Fight Club_...and on and on...


It'll be fun though!


P.S. A friend just recommended _Fringe_. That and G3's review may add that to my queue as well.


P.P.S. Congrats G3! I'm sure I speak for all when I say you're a delight to have in this thread.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17469514
> 
> 
> Yep, the next few weeks will be crazy - I just picked up _GI Joe_, _Taking of Pelham 123_, _Forrest Gump_, and gulp, _Love Actually_ today. Next week's _Heat_ and the two Disney movies. The following week is _Star Trek_, _Leon_, _Rome_ series, _Fight Club_...and on and on...
> 
> 
> It'll be fun though!
> 
> 
> P.S. A friend just recommended _Fringe_. That and G3's review may add that to my queue as well.
> 
> 
> P.P.S. Congrats G3! I'm sure I speak for all when I say you're a delight to have in this thread.



I just picked up _The Taking of Pelham 123_ and I hope to watch it right after supper. Besides having seen the original years ago, I thought it would be good to see this after having visited NYC and riding the subways there for several days...and even more so, I love most movies that Denzel Washington is in.


Ditto on the comment regarding G3...she has been a real asset to the thread......and she has kept us boys in line MANY times.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Near Dark


recommendation: Tier 4.5
*

Coming out next week to Blu-ray courtesy of Lionsgate, this 1987 vampire movie has become somewhat of a cult movie over the years. An odd release date for a horror movie, considering it will be in most stores after Halloween, but the vagaries of Hollywood studio schedules have always been perplexing. The 94-minute main feature is encoded in AVC on a single-layer BD-25. Without the benefit of a BDInfo scan, the estimate for the average video bitrate based off my own observations is approximately 23.5 Mbps.


The placement in the lower half of tier four mostly reflects the limitations in the film's original photography and budget. A dark and atmospheric style the movie was shot in serves the story but does little for the picture quality unfortunately. Much of the film displays limited contrast and black levels that are occasionally crushed. The image is not overly sharp and at times can only be characterized as soft. Colors are flat and muted compared to the better looking films on the Blu-ray format. Night scenes lose a fair bit of detail in the depths of the shadows.


Compression problems are kept to a minimum with few signs of problematic artifacting. Faint vestiges of macroblocking are hinted at in the corners of the darkest passages. The transfer does not look overly processed compared to some other catalog titles from Lionsgate. There is a distinct lack of any edge enhancement, which is a positive. High-frequency detail is lacking in certain scenes, but that looks attributable to the cinematography of the film and not the result of obvious digital noise reduction. The grain-structure appears typical and unmanipulated for film of this nature. If the master has been processed with digital tools for grain-reduction, it is very minor in magnitude and beyond my powers of detection. For an older movie with a limited budget, print damage is entirely absent. The only thing that betrays the film's age are the slightly dull colors.


Interestingly enough, the master Lionsgate used in the transfer appears borrowed from StudioCanal, the European distributor. Their logo precedes the film and the two studios have utilized each other's assets before for transfers. If that supposition is correct, the source for this Blu-ray looks like an older telecine master. It does not appear to be a brand-new transfer from the original film elements, given the marginal upgrade in resolution over the dvd. Could a completely new 2K scan made with the newest technology produce a better result for this film? Maybe a little, but minor catalog titles usually do not get that treatment.


While nothing looks to have been done poorly on this transfer, _Near Dark_ just does not produce the visual spectacle many expect from a Blu-ray title. Over the course of the movie, it does seem to improve slightly in quality. The opening scenes between Caleb and Mae barely look better than dvd, but that does change for the better as the scenes shift to interior scenes with good lighting. A placement firmly in tier four is what this disc deserves for a moodily-shot film that is transferred reasonably well to high-definition.


Watching on a 60 Pioneer KURO plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a 60 GB PS3 (firmware 3.01) at a viewing distance of six feet.


----------



## selimsivad

I'm watching Forrest Gump. There's grain, but not as much as it should be!


----------



## jedimasterchad

G.I. Joe


I really enjoy being able to get the first review up of new titles, because it gives me a chance to better myself by trying to be as accurate as possible without reading any other viewpoints. Luckily, when I started the movie a couple hours ago, nobody had made any comments yet, so here goes:


Paramount delivers another crisp presentation of a new film on our favorite format, supplying this transfer as MPEG-4 AVC with an Aspect Ratio of 2.39:1, and a DTS-HD MA lossless soundtrack. This transfer seemed very clean of any dirt, specks or artifacting, and showed very little to no grain through most of the film. The first half or so of the movie was predominately darker scenes, and the shadow detail and black level were for the most part quite good, but short of excellent. The latter parts of the movie were overall quite a bit more bright, and in these scenes (such as the street chase through Paris) the transfer really looked quite a bit better.


Detail was pretty sharp throughout, but I was never overly impressed during the film. It seemed as though every time an opportunity presented itself for a highly detailed close-up, the director instead felt necessary to have a little more depth to the scene, thus making both the foreground and background have a little more overall detail, but nothing stunning on its own. I would say this choice improved the overall average PQ, but lacked the in your face detail we saw a couple weeks ago with Transformers. The most detail, and ironically, the least amount of detail, usually was seen during a total CGI shot (and there were many). For example, during the Paris chase, there are multiple instances of shattered glass and shards/fragments of all other types of objects that happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, but on the other hand, some CGI scenes of helicopters and such were blurry and looked very much like computer (which detracted a bit from the believability of the film, but there wasn't much anyway).


As I said, the depth in some scenes was pretty decent, and the contrast was good to go along with it. Generally the indoor scenes were pretty nice looking, except when the characters were against a blue screen. It was usually quite evident when the movie was effects and a set, but the edges do not suffer much at all. I think I was more bothered by the lack of good special effects than the fact that you could easily tell when the special effects were in place.


Color was pretty exceptional throughout the latter brighter half of the movie, but pretty drab throughout the dark first half. Flesh tones were pretty accurate and good looking through the duration, and Rachel Nichols' hair stood out as a nice rich color of red against the black and grey accelerator suit. The green of the nanomite warhead popped nicely from the backgrounds it was on, as did the multiple orange/yellow explosions.


Overall, this film looked generally solid, but I was never overly impressed with any one aspect. The lack of total sharpness in close-up detail and somewhat drab first half of the movie had me thinking almost a tier 2, but the exceptional color and variety of the second really bumped it up a notch or two. Really good PQ during the whole movie, just not excellent, and not (IMO) reference quality. Therefore, bad storyline not withstanding...

Tier Recommendation: 1.5


Viewed on a Panasonic TC-P54G10 at 7.5', played via [email protected]/24


I wouldn't be surprised to see a couple people pop in at a bit lower of a score, but then again it could go either way. I'd look for this one to be hitting the reference tier in the AQ thread also, the surround mix was pretty awesome and I felt more enveloping than TF2 was a couple weeks back. Sub gets a huge workout here and the surrounds were lit up through 85% of the movie. I kept thinking to myself that if this were a Ralph Potts review, it would get a higher score for audio than video.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/17453377
> 
> 
> Phantom,
> 
> 
> When I see reviewers have big differences in opinion on a title, ones whom I usually agree with, I have to wonder if there is not some anomaly that is causing thier setup to render a different image than what would be considered correct. Elsewhere in this forum, there's a guy hearing popping sounds on the transformers disk, crazy deal, but, I don't hear the masses complaining.



My assessment going off the score is really not that drastically removed from Rob's ranking of 1.75 for The Day The Earth Stood Still remake. I assigned it to tier 2.50, but internally I debated a placement in the upper half of tier two. My general impressions of it are probably not that far removed from most here except for the notable DNR I perceived and the tone of my review, which was entirely negative.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/17458891
> 
> 
> I'm curious to give it a second go, but saw the exact same drops in detail and general blocking you did. Does anyone have a bitrate rundown to see if his theory about the encode is the cause?



My recommendation included a link to the BDInfo scan with full bitrate parameters. The compression issues are really minor in comparison to the general lack of high-frequency content.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17468560
> 
> *Fringe Season 1*
> 
> 
> All-in-all I think this show translated to Blu very well. I can't find the thread about Fringe in the Blu Ray section, I know I saw some people at some point had issues with a couple of discs and some purple lines or something? I did searches but came up empty. The discs I had from zip.ca did not have any issues like that, unless they were referring to some occasional lens flare bugging them.
> 
> *Recommendation for Fringe, Season 1 : Tier 1.75*



Thanks for the placement as I had been contemplating purchasing it. The first season was good fun but I am always leery of buying Warner's television releases without strong reviews. Lasting one year in this thread is like seven years in any other thread, so congratulations.










> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17469514
> 
> 
> Yep, the next few weeks will be crazy - I just picked up _GI Joe_, _Taking of Pelham 123_, _Forrest Gump_, and gulp, _Love Actually_ today. Next week's _Heat_ and the two Disney movies. The following week is _Star Trek_, _Leon_, _Rome_ series, _Fight Club_...and on and on...



We all expect page-length reviews of each and every Blu-ray you watch.


----------



## djoberg

*The Taking of Pelham 123*


Like jedimasterchad, it looks like I'm the first one to review this new release, and I share his enthusiasm for being able to weigh in without any influence from other reviewers.










The last release I reviewed was _Tranformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen_, which I gave a 1.0 placement recommendation. I will say right off the bat that TTOP123 looked just as good, if not better, to _my eyes_, though its strengths and weaknesses differed somewhat from T2:ROTF.


The greatest strengths, by far, were the razor-sharp aerial shots of New York City (and there were MANY to behold!!) and inside the subway control room. Detail was phenomenal with the exception of some of the fast-moving scenes (with police cars and motorcycles racing through the streets) where it was virtually impossible to discern details. Facial close-ups were superb (we are treated to numerous shots of Travolta and Washington, revealing every pore, wrinkle, stubble, etc.), though not quite as good as in titles such as Transporters 2 & 3. Still, they easily fall into the middle or bottom of Tier 0. Fleshtones did not disappoint either, for they were spot on from beginning to end. Blacks were also deep with shadow detail to match (except in some of the subway scenes, which I'll address next), and contrast was strong. Colors were very pleasing as well.


The only real weaknesses were to be found in the underground subway scenes, with occasional black crush and loss of shadow detail, and a general lack of detail due to the nature of the beast (i.e., the drab environment of a low-lit subway system). I did NOT witness any effects of DNR, EE, or other anomolies.


I should mention before I close that the grain was kept intact and thus we are blessed with a beautiful film-like quality. Kudos to Sony for preserving this look!


This is actually a hard one to call because even though there were so many excellent scenes displaying the virtues enumerated above, there were also several subway scenes that fell a bit flat and must be penalized. My gut tells me to stick to the conclusion I mentioned initially (in comparing its PQ to T2:ROTF), so my vote is for.....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/17471330
> 
> 
> I'm watching Forrest Gump. There's grain, but not as much as it should be!



It was hard to pick which of my new BRs to watch, but I ended up watching this one. I don't know, I thought the grain was ample. Unfortunately, there was plenty of digital noise as well.


Still, I may prefer this PQ over _Braveheart_'s. I'll have to think about it further before I do a formal review.


Denny: I just realized that they gave me the SD version of _Pelham_, so a bit irritated about that 'cause I wanted to take a peek. Your review sounds promising though and is what I was expecting from what I saw in the theatres.


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/17471389
> 
> 
> Paramount delivers another crisp presentation of a new film on our favorite format, supplying this transfer as MPEG-4 AVC with an Aspect Ratio of 2.39:1 [...]



Sorry in advance for being incredibly pedantic, but I've become a bit pet-peeved about this sudden fascination of claiming 2.39:1 as an aspect ratio for BD. I have never seen it on Blu-ray, although I certainly welcome examples to set me straight. G.I. Joe is very precisely framed at 1920x800 on BD which is exactly 2.40:1 on the nose (width divided by height). 2.39:1 on BD as far as I know is a mythological beast that would likely register as 804 pixels in height if it existed.


Apologies once again for picking out this once half-sentence to criticize in a ridiculously anal way. I do appreciate the review!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*Phantom Stranger,* even though I've now already watched it, I am considering purchasing Fringe on Blu. It looks like there is a decent amount of supplemental footage that I didn't have time to look at or listen to any commentaries b/c I was watching in such a marathon so I could get the discs back in the mail for them to send me more! I'll wait until it's at a crazy low price now that I've seen it but I am interested to see what others have to say about it!


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/17472330
> 
> 
> Sorry in advance for being incredibly pedantic, but I've become a bit pet-peeved about this sudden fascination of claiming 2.39:1 as an aspect ratio for BD. I have never seen it on Blu-ray, although I certainly welcome examples to set me straight. G.I. Joe is very precisely framed at 1920x800 on BD which is exactly 2.40:1 on the nose (width divided by height). 2.39:1 on BD as far as I know is a mythological beast that would likely register as 804 pixels in height if it existed.
> 
> 
> Apologies once again for picking out this once half-sentence to criticize in a ridiculously anal way. I do appreciate the review!



Not a problem, I just grabbed some info off of blu-ray.com right quick for that line. I think it might actually mention that the BD is in fact 2.4:1 but lists the original theatrical AR as 2.39. I would very highly doubt that even if it was actually preserved anybody would be able to tell the difference with the naked eye. I know I'm not going to sit nose to glass and count the pixels and do the math







Black bars appeared about the same for anything 2.4 or 2.35 to me.


----------



## Filmaholic

Some here say they are "running out of BD's to watch".










Well, here is a quick recap of some VERY important films you missed:

*Last Year at Marienbad

Pierrot le Fou

Repulsion

Kagemusha

Batman Returns

The Sky Crawlers

Ghost in the Shell 2: Innoccence*


Like it or not, this does not bode well for your thread. Especially since some of the above are visually very stylish, to say the least.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Filmaholic* /forum/post/17473044
> 
> 
> Some here say they are "running out of BD's to watch".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, here is a quick recap of some VERY important films you missed:
> 
> *Last Year at Marienbad
> 
> Pierrot le Fou
> 
> Repulsion
> 
> Kagemusha
> 
> Batman Returns
> 
> The Sky Crawlers
> 
> Ghost in the Shell 2: Innoccence*
> 
> 
> Like it or not, this does not bode well for your thread. Especially since some of the above are visually very stylish, to say the least.




"This does not bode well for your thread"??? Um. We all do this as a hobby. You already know you're welcome to review the movies and contribute, rather than just predict Doom and Gloom for the thread, Filmaholic. I know I personally am not running out of titles to watch, but the key for me is time; however I can guarantee to you that I probably will not be watching or reviewing any of the titles you've listed above, as they're not really of interest to me. What does it matter if the movies are very stylish? I just don't get the point of that post. Contribute and help place titles, then, especially if they're niche-type titles, rather than sling insults at those of us who are doing our best within the constraints of our lives outside of our blu ray hobby to do reviews.


----------



## vpn75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/17471389
> 
> G.I. Joe
> 
> 
> I really enjoy being able to get the first review up of new titles, because it gives me a chance to better myself by trying to be as accurate as possible without reading any other viewpoints. Luckily, when I started the movie a couple hours ago, nobody had made any comments yet, so here goes:
> 
> 
> Paramount delivers another crisp presentation of a new film on our favorite format, supplying this transfer as MPEG-4 AVC with an Aspect Ratio of 2.39:1, and a DTS-HD MA lossless soundtrack. This transfer seemed very clean of any dirt, specks or artifacting, and showed very little to no grain through most of the film. The first half or so of the movie was predominately darker scenes, and the shadow detail and black level were for the most part quite good, but short of excellent. The latter parts of the movie were overall quite a bit more bright, and in these scenes (such as the street chase through Paris) the transfer really looked quite a bit better.
> 
> 
> Detail was pretty sharp throughout, but I was never overly impressed during the film. It seemed as though every time an opportunity presented itself for a highly detailed close-up, the director instead felt necessary to have a little more depth to the scene, thus making both the foreground and background have a little more overall detail, but nothing stunning on its own. I would say this choice improved the overall average PQ, but lacked the in your face detail we saw a couple weeks ago with Transformers. The most detail, and ironically, the least amount of detail, usually was seen during a total CGI shot (and there were many). For example, during the Paris chase, there are multiple instances of shattered glass and shards/fragments of all other types of objects that happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, but on the other hand, some CGI scenes of helicopters and such were blurry and looked very much like computer (which detracted a bit from the believability of the film, but there wasn't much anyway).
> 
> 
> As I said, the depth in some scenes was pretty decent, and the contrast was good to go along with it. Generally the indoor scenes were pretty nice looking, except when the characters were against a blue screen. It was usually quite evident when the movie was effects and a set, but the edges do not suffer much at all. I think I was more bothered by the lack of good special effects than the fact that you could easily tell when the special effects were in place.
> 
> 
> Color was pretty exceptional throughout the latter brighter half of the movie, but pretty drab throughout the dark first half. Flesh tones were pretty accurate and good looking through the duration, and Rachel Nichols' hair stood out as a nice rich color of red against the black and grey accelerator suit. The green of the nanomite warhead popped nicely from the backgrounds it was on, as did the multiple orange/yellow explosions.
> 
> 
> Overall, this film looked generally solid, but I was never overly impressed with any one aspect. The lack of total sharpness in close-up detail and somewhat drab first half of the movie had me thinking almost a tier 2, but the exceptional color and variety of the second really bumped it up a notch or two. Really good PQ during the whole movie, just not excellent, and not (IMO) reference quality. Therefore, bad storyline not withstanding...
> 
> Tier Recommendation: 1.5
> 
> 
> Viewed on a Panasonic TC-P54G10 at 7.5', played via [email protected]/24
> 
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised to see a couple people pop in at a bit lower of a score, but then again it could go either way. I'd look for this one to be hitting the reference tier in the AQ thread also, the surround mix was pretty awesome and I felt more enveloping than TF2 was a couple weeks back. Sub gets a huge workout here and the surrounds were lit up through 85% of the movie. I kept thinking to myself that if this were a Ralph Potts review, it would get a higher score for audio than video.



Thanks for the review! I have the same TV as you and love it! Do you normally watch in THX mode or custom? I don't mind the dimness of the THX mode, but it lacks some of the pop that you get in custom mode. I also noticed that you watch in 1080p/24p. Does the flicker at 48Hz not bother you? I haven't tried that mode myself yet. The 3:2 pulldown never bothered me that much.


I'm on the fence about picking up G.I. Joe. I loved the cartoon as a kid, but missed this in the theaters. I thought the PQ looked very good from the trailer, but not sure whether this is worth a blind buy even at the reasonable price Amazon is offering it for.


----------



## Filmaholic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17473248
> 
> 
> "This does not bode well for your thread"??? Um. We all do this as a hobby. You already know you're welcome to review the movies and contribute, rather than just predict Doom and Gloom for the thread, Filmaholic. I know I personally am not running out of titles to watch, but the key for me is time; however I can guarantee to you that I probably will not be watching or reviewing any of the titles you've listed above, as they're not really of interest to me. What does it matter if the movies are very stylish? I just don't get the point of that post. Contribute and help place titles, then, especially if they're niche-type titles, rather than sling insults at those of us who are doing our best within the constraints of our lives outside of our blu ray hobby to do reviews.



With all due respect, I think you are way overreacting to my post.


"Doom and gloom"??? "Slinging insults"???

"Niche titles"??? (Batman Returns???) Oh well...









Again, what "niche" are you talking about? That of good films?


I just said that those are very important films, not present on your list, and that you can't deny. If you have no interest in them, well, that really is your (bad) taste, what can I say? I bet a lot of people do have interest in them. Your post did insult me though.


Of course this is everybody's hobby


----------



## fafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/17471389
> 
> G.I. Joe
> 
> 
> I really enjoy being able to get the first review up of new titles, because it gives me a chance to better myself by trying to be as accurate as possible without reading any other viewpoints. Luckily, when I started the movie a couple hours ago, nobody had made any comments yet, so here goes:
> 
> 
> Paramount delivers another crisp presentation of a new film on our favorite format, supplying this transfer as MPEG-4 AVC with an Aspect Ratio of 2.39:1, and a DTS-HD MA lossless soundtrack. This transfer seemed very clean of any dirt, specks or artifacting, and showed very little to no grain through most of the film. The first half or so of the movie was predominately darker scenes, and the shadow detail and black level were for the most part quite good, but short of excellent. The latter parts of the movie were overall quite a bit more bright, and in these scenes (such as the street chase through Paris) the transfer really looked quite a bit better.
> 
> 
> Detail was pretty sharp throughout, but I was never overly impressed during the film. It seemed as though every time an opportunity presented itself for a highly detailed close-up, the director instead felt necessary to have a little more depth to the scene, thus making both the foreground and background have a little more overall detail, but nothing stunning on its own. I would say this choice improved the overall average PQ, but lacked the in your face detail we saw a couple weeks ago with Transformers. The most detail, and ironically, the least amount of detail, usually was seen during a total CGI shot (and there were many). For example, during the Paris chase, there are multiple instances of shattered glass and shards/fragments of all other types of objects that happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, but on the other hand, some CGI scenes of helicopters and such were blurry and looked very much like computer (which detracted a bit from the believability of the film, but there wasn't much anyway).
> 
> 
> As I said, the depth in some scenes was pretty decent, and the contrast was good to go along with it. Generally the indoor scenes were pretty nice looking, except when the characters were against a blue screen. It was usually quite evident when the movie was effects and a set, but the edges do not suffer much at all. I think I was more bothered by the lack of good special effects than the fact that you could easily tell when the special effects were in place.
> 
> 
> Color was pretty exceptional throughout the latter brighter half of the movie, but pretty drab throughout the dark first half. Flesh tones were pretty accurate and good looking through the duration, and Rachel Nichols' hair stood out as a nice rich color of red against the black and grey accelerator suit. The green of the nanomite warhead popped nicely from the backgrounds it was on, as did the multiple orange/yellow explosions.
> 
> 
> Overall, this film looked generally solid, but I was never overly impressed with any one aspect. The lack of total sharpness in close-up detail and somewhat drab first half of the movie had me thinking almost a tier 2, but the exceptional color and variety of the second really bumped it up a notch or two. Really good PQ during the whole movie, just not excellent, and not (IMO) reference quality. Therefore, bad storyline not withstanding...
> 
> Tier Recommendation: 1.5
> 
> 
> Viewed on a Panasonic TC-P54G10 at 7.5', played via [email protected]/24
> 
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised to see a couple people pop in at a bit lower of a score, but then again it could go either way. I'd look for this one to be hitting the reference tier in the AQ thread also, the surround mix was pretty awesome and I felt more enveloping than TF2 was a couple weeks back. Sub gets a huge workout here and the surrounds were lit up through 85% of the movie. I kept thinking to myself that if this were a Ralph Potts review, it would get a higher score for audio than video.



Your TV or your settings on it must have let you down. I found the first half of the movie (the "dark" half) to be anything but drab. The colors were extremely bright and vivid, the contrast just about the highest I have ever seen. I suggest you adjust your settings and look at the first half again and see if you can reproduce what I see. My TV is Sony KDL 524100V with custom settings.


fafner


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Filmaholic* /forum/post/17473398
> 
> 
> With all due respect, I think you are way overreacting to my post.
> 
> 
> "Doom and gloom"??? "Slinging insults"???
> 
> "Niche titles"??? (Batman Returns???) Oh well...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, what "niche" are you talking about? That of good films?
> 
> 
> I just said that those are very important films, not present on your list, and that you can't deny. If you have no interest in them, well, that really is your (bad) taste, what can I say? I bet a lot of people do have interest in them. Your post did insult me though.
> 
> 
> Of course this is everybody's hobby



They may be very important films to you, but this is a general list. If it's important to you for them to be represented on the list, do your part. *Watch them. Provide Reviews. Get them listed. Problem solved.* Once opinions are provided for some titles, that tends to inspire others to want to go out and watch them. Hell, I have a copy of *Domino* here right now, a movie I only rented b/c it was recommended to me due to the PQ by the guys here, wanting to know what I thought of it. Maybe if you provided reviews for those films that I'm not interested in, it may help spark an interest and I might just put them on my zip.ca queue. Stranger things have happened; I'd never have watched "Let The Right One In" if it hadn't been for the rec's from the thread.



Perhaps I did overreact to your post, and for that I do apologize, however I think the problem is easy to solve by helping contribute rather than pointing out that things are missing. It's easy to nitpick at the list; it's a little bit harder to actually provide the reviews to help keep the list going.


----------



## Filmaholic

I would also like to ask you *G3*: by niche, do you mean foreign? Because, if that's what you are implying, I have to say it sounds xenophobic. Anyway, niche or not, that is no excuse for not reviewing and placing this particular films.


There is also another reason why it is very unfair to me when you say: Contribute and help place titles, then, especially if they're niche-type titles, rather than sling insults at those of us who are doing our best within the constraints of our lives outside of our blu ray hobby to do reviews. That reason is, I have been doing my part, I reviewed three niche titles which no one did before: Akira, Playtime and Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children. I also reviewed The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, but that's another story. By the way: you never thanked or commented about those reviews (not that I really care anymore).


Of course, to anyone with half a brain and a modicum of cinema knowledge, all these films are of the utmost relevance (even FFVII:AA, for the massive failure it represents). What do you mean you don't understand why it is important, to a PQ thread, to care about the visual style of a film? Are you kidding? Do you have any idea what the word aesthetic means? G talk about blind leading the blind.


I sincerely don't understand why you attacked me, or why you put words on my mouth, saying I was predicting "doom and gloom", "slinging insults" and whatnot. You were just a huge jerk to me as I was to *Hughmc* once, remember? Which, incidentally, is a very awesome guy, by the way. He sent me a PM that resonated so hardly with me that I could not reply it yet (sorry about that *Hughmc*, and, if you're reading this, be sure that I will reply, once I can articulate my thoughts well enough, I promise).


So, that's precisely why I'm loosing interest on this thread: stress. I don't need more of this in my life from a hobby. It shouldn't be like this.


PS: by the way, in Portuguese, não cai bem is an expression that means something like it doesn't bode well, but it is somewhat different. It is something we say of a fact that detracts from someone who vies to maintain, from its peers, credibility and respect, already having achieved those. That's what I meant. But it is also not something you really want to hear, hence the expression I used: like it or not. So, there you go, I am a freaking Brazilian lost in translation, but that doesn't give you the right to address me like that, or to state I wrote things I did not.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Dude, I apologized.


----------



## Filmaholic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17474244
> 
> 
> They may be very important films to you, but this is a general list. If it's important to you for them to be represented on the list, do your part. *Watch them. Provide Reviews. Get them listed. Problem solved.* Once opinions are provided for some titles, that tends to inspire others to want to go out and watch them. Hell, I have a copy of *Domino* here right now, a movie I only rented b/c it was recommended to me due to the PQ by the guys here, wanting to know what I thought of it. Maybe if you provided reviews for those films that I'm not interested in, it may help spark an interest and I might just put them on my zip.ca queue. Stranger things have happened; I'd never have watched "Let The Right One In" if it hadn't been for the rec's from the thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps I did overreact to your post, and for that I do apologize, however I think the problem is easy to solve by helping contribute rather than pointing out that things are missing. It's easy to nitpick at the list; it's a little bit harder to actually provide the reviews to help keep the list going.



There you go. Unfair again.


Also very wrong, since those films are important not just for me, I can guarantee you that.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Filmaholic* /forum/post/17474279
> 
> 
> There you go. Unfair again.
> 
> 
> Also very wrong, since those films are important not just for me, I can guarantee you that.



I don't totally understand how it is unfair for me to want people to provide reviews for titles & help the list grow.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^


I highly suggest it's time to get back to the purpose of this thread before the mods step in.


Is anyone else as anxious as I am to see Forrest Gump? I've read one "pro" review who extolled its virtues and went out of his way to say he saw no evidence of DNR or EE. Sounds great!! His comments led me to believe it may be on the same level (or better) as _Braveheart_.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Filmaholic* /forum/post/17473044
> 
> 
> Some here say they are "running out of BD's to watch".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, here is a quick recap of some VERY important films you missed:
> 
> *Last Year at Marienbad
> 
> Pierrot le Fou
> 
> Repulsion
> 
> Kagemusha
> 
> Batman Returns
> 
> The Sky Crawlers
> 
> Ghost in the Shell 2: Innoccence*



I own Repulsion but do not intend to get to it immediately. The other titles I have little interest in, so someone else will have to pick up the slack if they wish to see those movies on the list. For classic cinema, I expect to finish up my placements for Great Expectations and The Third Man soon.


----------



## lgans316

Filmaholic,


Most of the veteran posters out here are extremely patient, understanding, emotional, sentimental and level headed unlike other threads where few members consider themselves elitist and try to ignore the rest of the bunch.


Worst offenders are those who derail the flow of the thread by digging the past and whistle blowing in spite of the posters openly acknowledging to publishing incorrect reviews while they were in the learning phase.


This thread is all about eye candy which the so-called self proclaimed purists have been misinterpreting for a long time.


----------



## tfoltz

Filmaholic, get the chip off your shoulder.


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vpn75* /forum/post/17473389
> 
> 
> Thanks for the review! I have the same TV as you and love it! Do you normally watch in THX mode or custom? I don't mind the dimness of the THX mode, but it lacks some of the pop that you get in custom mode. I also noticed that you watch in 1080p/24p. Does the flicker at 48Hz not bother you? I haven't tried that mode myself yet. The 3:2 pulldown never bothered me that much.
> 
> 
> I'm on the fence about picking up G.I. Joe. I loved the cartoon as a kid, but missed this in the theaters. I thought the PQ looked very good from the trailer, but not sure whether this is worth a blind buy even at the reasonable price Amazon is offering it for.



I actually don't see the flicker. I've mentioned this to a couple people before, and it just seems that some people can't see it. I have a friend who is quite bothered by it, but after a few frames it settles down and I don't notice it anymore unless there is some slight banding in a sky shot while the camera pans, or a very bright scene, something such as that. I usually watch most movies in this setting, but some people are mentioning that standard adds some sort of extra video processing that increases the smoothness on top of the 48hz, so I'm a bit suspect to using it right now. As far as the movie itself, it left something to be desired, but it was a decent summer flick if that's all you wanted to get out of it. I think I was more disappointed with the special effects than the movie itself. It was a good bit predictable, but the action was cool and the soundtrack was killer. I'd say to definitely see it, at least as a rental. Fans of the show would probably get more out of it then I did, as I was trying to learn character names as it was going.



> Quote:
> Your TV or your settings on it must have let you down. I found the first half of the movie (the "dark" half) to be anything but drab. The colors were extremely bright and vivid, the contrast just about the highest I have ever seen. I suggest you adjust your settings and look at the first half again and see if you can reproduce what I see. My TV is Sony KDL 524100V with custom settings.
> 
> 
> fafner



I actually watched this movie in THX mode. That is the first time I've done it, as the yellowish look is either starting to go away or I don't see it much anymore. Some people in the G10 thread have suggested that this happens as the panel ages, but I can neither confirm nor deny this. I usually don't bother with THX as it is just a tad too dim during the day for normal viewing, and I usually forget to switch into it when I watch movies at night. Typically I use settings very close to serialmike's standard settings, as custom looks too red to me and the shadow detail seems inconsistent, and of course game and vivid look pretty awful most of the time.


With that said, I will give it another look with my usual Standard settings, and see if anything improves. Color is supposed to be a bit more accurate in THX though, so I'm not sure if that will change my opinion much, but as far as shadow detail/contrast there should probably be little to no change. And just to clarify, I didn't think that any of these were lacking, I just didn't think they were superbly excellent, either. I think 1.5 is still pretty close to where it will end up.


----------



## Filmaholic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/17474754
> 
> 
> Filmaholic,
> 
> 
> Most of the veteran posters out here are extremely patient, understanding, emotional, sentimental and level headed unlike other threads where few members consider themselves elitist and try to ignore the rest of the bunch.
> 
> 
> Worst offenders are those who derail the flow of the thread by digging the past and whistle blowing in spite of the posters openly acknowledging to publishing incorrect reviews while they were in the learning phase.
> 
> 
> This thread is all about eye candy which the so-called self proclaimed purists have been misinterpreting for a long time.



I'm sorry, this is so cryptic I can't understand it.


Care to explain as if I were five years old?


----------



## Filmaholic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/17474755
> 
> 
> Filmaholic, get the chip off your shoulder.



What chip?


----------



## Filmaholic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17474423
> 
> 
> I own Repulsion but do not intend to get to it immediately. The other titles I have little interest in, so someone else will have to pick up the slack if they wish to see those movies on the list. For classic cinema, I expect to finish up my placements for Great Expectations and The Third Man soon.



Cool *Phantom Stranger*, I would like very much to see your review of *Repulsion* when you finally get to it.


----------



## jedimasterchad

I'm headed out the door to my part time job, but I had enough time to pop it in and take a look at the first firefight with my "normally calibrated" settings, and notice a pretty decent difference. I guess the darkness/dimness of the movie+THX really hurt this Disc quite a bit.


Contrast does look quite a good deal better, colors pop more (like the blue of those sweet cannons), but i do notice a tiny bit more grain. I'll hopefully be able to watch the whole thing again in standard settings soon, and if my opinion changes enough to make a difference on my score, I will let you know. (special effects still look like poop).


----------



## K-Spaz

I admit I am also guilty of off topic posts, but please lets keep things civil. I speak to lots of folks who's first language isn't english, and from time to time certain things can be misunderstood, but the above ^^^ isn't hard to understand. Bottom line, if you want to see a title on the list, put it on the list. Last I looked, the list was over 1000 titles. That's 2000 hours of movie watching, much less the time to review and discuss. It takes a lot of time. Many man hours. Titles will get there eventually, and they will be there faster if more people help out.


Back to the topic at hand...

*Wings Of Desire*

I rented this upon release on Blu and watched it last night. This is one of those I'm really sorry I can't place higher. This transfer is devoid of artifacts and if there is digital manipulation, it is IMO, an exemplary example of how transfer from film should be done.


Grain is present in all its glory from start to finish, and I would not go so far to say it is excessive anywhere. This isn't a bright film, its shot in Berlin in the late 80s, has a tremendous number of facial closeups, some very impressive cityscapes, and medium length shots have very good detail that is preserved imo, as well as could be done.


This film is roughly 75% or more in black and white, or some sepia / gray version thereof. Other parts are in color, done for effect. Nothing is inky perse, but given the fact that it's on 35mm and appears not to have been manipulated, I say that is a good thing. When color is used, it's easy to see that when this film was new, it was very well saturated, very vibrant. Unlike some films with similar technique, color here is a bit in your face. You won't ever be slowly introduced to the color, it's like a hammer hitting you when it kicks in. If that was the desired effect, they really did it well.


I never saw banding anywhere in this film, never saw a single halo, and I specifically looked for them in some of the scenes more prone to that.


It suffers from a lot of slow panning, so expect some issues with motion.


I absolutely hated the film itself. One of my rare Netflix 1 stars.


The source for this transfer was obviously lacking. From beginning to end, it looks like it was mastered from something very old but not properly cared for. Dirt is abounding and flaws on the film itself are many. Its film like presentation is truly excellent, though this does not incline me to place it higher given the criteria we are considering here. I have no doubt this is a significant step up from any DVD media, but I cannot justify calling this even a tier silver title. I could possibly be talked into bronze. It contains few Tier 1 shots imho, most of those in B/W. I would say there are plenty of Tier 2 worthy segments, but that's about as far up the line as it goes for any length of time.


Disclaimer: Others may well be more generous to this film.


Gaining all it's points from me on faithfulness to the source:
Tier Recommendation: 4.0

Viewed on InFocus X10, 106" Dalite HCW. Seated 11.5'


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Filmaholic* /forum/post/17473044
> 
> 
> Some here say they are "running out of BD's to watch".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, here is a quick recap of some VERY important films you missed:
> 
> *Last Year at Marienbad
> 
> Pierrot le Fou
> 
> Repulsion
> 
> Kagemusha
> 
> Batman Returns
> 
> The Sky Crawlers
> 
> Ghost in the Shell 2: Innoccence*
> 
> *Like it or not, this does not bode well for your thread.* Especially since some of the above are visually very stylish, to say the least.



You really think that you can post something like this in *OUR* thread and not get people upset?


If it is *OUR* thread (as you say it is) then why are *YOU* posting in it?


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/17475059
> 
> 
> I'm headed out the door to my part time job, but I had enough time to pop it in and take a look at the first firefight with my "normally calibrated" settings, and notice a pretty decent difference. I guess the darkness/dimness of the movie+THX really hurt this Disc quite a bit.
> 
> 
> Contrast does look quite a good deal better, colors pop more (like the blue of those sweet cannons), but i do notice a tiny bit more grain. I'll hopefully be able to watch the whole thing again in standard settings soon, and if my opinion changes enough to make a difference on my score, I will let you know. (special effects still look like poop).




Only grabbing this one but this comment is in reference to THX mode on the Panny's. I watch movies using my Panny TH-58PZ800u tv, and I always watch in THX mode. But in order to achieve what I personally feel are proper conditions for using the THX mode (note I'm obviously not an expert!) I have to watch in almost complete darkness. Drives the husband NUTS when he comes home and the house is dark, save for the bias lighting I have behind the TV thanks to the boys over in the Panny TH-58PZ800u thread in the Plasma area.


I guess the THX mode is meant to be viewed in a theatre-like setting, meaning darkened. The yellowish-ness of the THX mode for me is really obvious when there's lights on, and for normal everyday viewing I don't use THX. Sometimes when I'm curious about just how dark and dreary things are showing up in the movie I'll switch the mode to one of the others -- like when I recently watched Confessions of a Shopaholic, the black levels were so terrible, I couldn't even see the lapels on Hugh Dancy's tuxedo so I wondered if it was THX mode but even in the frightening VIVID mode it was still just a big black blob (albeit brighter!







).



My set is not professionally calibrated, as the cost of getting someone to come up to the arctic to do it is likely a higher cost than that of the set itself, but it has been set up using the DVE HD Basics disc.



I'm sure that I'll be renting *GI Joe* soon and get my own review for it done for the thread as it's one we missed in the theatre. I'm curious as to how it will translate with the THX mode on my tv in comparison to your review (which I didn't read in detail yet since I haven't seen the film I just sort of skimmed it and stumbled upon the THX-mode ponderings). Since I have bought in to the propaganda that it's how things are supposed to be viewed in the theatre







I don't like the thought of boosting any settings to help a movie look better on my tv. even with the amateur calibration done with the DVE, I think the movie should cater to me, not the other way around! Call me high maintenance, hehe!











Edited to add:


Oh and I'm totally jealous that you can't see the flicker. I haven't even attempted that mode, although I should try it out once and see how I handle it. I'm already insanely sensitive to edge enhancement, and I'm driven somewhat mad by the phosphor trailing I see during hockey games (or certain movies like Rock n' Rolla, that one was filled with phosphor trailing for me - so much so I don't think I wrote a review for it although I'd intended to). From what I hear the flicker is really really bad on my set, so I do hope that Panny has improved it for future sets!


----------



## Hughmc

I watched GI JOe and Pelham 123 last night. I watched Pelham first and thought it looked like tier 1.50-1.75. I thought GI joe looked a bit better more like low tier 0 or tier 1.0 even with the CGI and there was lots of it, but it seemed to be done well.


As I said a few weeks ago, I am still watching several BD's a week, but am still struggling with doing full reviews. I must have about 15 I can recommend for placement, but it has been so long since I watched many of them that all I wrote down was the placement and a few details, but most I don't remember details about PQ and most I don't really want to rent and watch again.


----------



## Filmaholic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17475558
> 
> 
> You really think that you can post something like this in *OUR* thread and not get people upset?
> 
> 
> If it is *OUR* thread (as you say it is) then why are *YOU* posting in it?



Well, I guess I never thought about that, as I normally call it "this thread". As for why not calling it "our", maybe it is because I am new here and don't feel like I really belong, as you well put it. Whatever the Freudian reason for such unconscious articulation on my part, that's how it sponteneously came out. Sorry about that. But I must say all I wanted to do was to help.


So, sorry for posting on "this" thread and, as you so well remembered me, *Rob Tomlim*, "why am I here, again"?


Fear not, this time I'll be gone for good.


PS: you are right, "Once upon a time in the west" is better than "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly", but "The Proposition" is better than both.


----------



## Hughmc

I forgot to ask is anyone thinking of getting one of my favorite movies of the 70's, Logan's Run?


I noticed a couple of mentions of Forrest Gump, but since my local Hollywood video doesn't carry catalogue BD's, I have to buy them (for some reason they aren't getting any in, must be poor demand). The review on Logan's Run PQ at DVD beaver isn't that positive, but I want to get it anyway. It looks like I might be buying several this month, like GOne with The Wind, Gump, etc.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17476111
> 
> 
> I watched GI JOe and Pelham 123 last night. I watched Pelham first and thought it looked like tier 1.50-1.75. I thought GI joe looked a bit better more like low tier 0 or tier 1.0 even with the CGI and there was lots of it, but it seemed to be done well.
> 
> 
> As I said a few weeks ago, *I am still watching several BD's a week, but am still struggling with doing full reviews.* I must have about 15 I can recommend for placement, but it has been so long since I watched many of them that all I wrote down was the placement and a few details, but most I don't remember details about PQ and most I don't really want to rent and watch again.



I'm sure it will surprise no one for me to say that I don't think people should feel obligated to do full-scale reviews. I think it is much better just to say what you have to say, no matter how briefly, rather than feel daunted by the task of doing a full-scale review with the result that you don't say anything at all.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Filmaholic* /forum/post/17476175
> 
> 
> Well, I guess I never thought about that, as I normally call it "this thread". As for why not calling it "our", maybe it is because I am new here and don't feel like I really belong, as you well put it. Whatever the Freudian reason for such unconscious articulation on my part, that's how it sponteneously came out. Sorry about that. But I must say all I wanted to do was to help.
> 
> 
> So, sorry for posting on "this" thread and, as you so well remembered me, *Rob Tomlim*, "why am I here, again"?
> 
> 
> Fear not, this time I'll be gone for good.
> 
> 
> PS: you are right, "Once upon a time in the west" is better than "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly", but "The Proposition" is better than both.




Look, we all want more participation in this thread, not less. It only adds credibility the more people you have participating.


But your comments definitely left the wrong impression, and I think that you acknowledge that. This thread is all of ours, including yours, but making cryptic, insulting comments aren't going to help. Otherwise your participation is more than welcome by all of _us._


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/17476264
> 
> 
> I'm sure it will surprise no one for me to say that I don't think people should feel obligated to do full-scale reviews. I think it is much better just to say what you have to say, no matter how briefly, rather than feel daunted by the task of doing a full-scale review with the result that you don't say anything at all.



I completely agree!


Of course we would all prefer to have (and give) full blown reviews, but it just isn't feasible for many of us, and in those case, a very brief statement and Tier recommendation should be all that is required.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Filmaholic* /forum/post/17476175
> 
> 
> Well, I guess I never thought about that, as I normally call it "this thread". As for why not calling it "our", maybe it is because I am new here and don't feel like I really belong, as you well put it. Whatever the Freudian reason for such unconscious articulation on my part, that's how it sponteneously came out. Sorry about that. But I must say all I wanted to do was to help.
> 
> 
> Fear not, this time I'll be gone for good.



This thread always need people like you who are willing to post independent points of view, especially considering you wrote some fine reviews. I would hope you reconsider. My cursory impression from your posts is that English is probably not your first language. A certain tact is required here given the amount of work many of its participants invest in the Tier system and thread.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17476111
> 
> 
> I watched GI JOe and Pelham 123 last night. I watched Pelham first and thought it looked like tier 1.50-1.75. I thought GI joe looked a bit better more like low tier 0 or tier 1.0 even with the CGI and there was lots of it, but it seemed to be done well.
> 
> 
> As I said a few weeks ago, I am still watching several BD's a week, but am still struggling with doing full reviews. I must have about 15 I can recommend for placement, but it has been so long since I watched many of them that all I wrote down was the placement and a few details, but most I don't remember details about PQ and most I don't really want to rent and watch again.



It never hurts to post an opinion. Give us your rankings, even if you do not feel like writing paragraph after paragraph. Full reviews are of course more desirable, but even quick placements give a few more data points to assimilate and ponder. It appears some posters and probably lurkers are a little intimidated by the process, but even brief impressions are helpful. Specific placements often generate discussions that are vital to the essence of the ranking system.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/17476264
> 
> 
> I'm sure it will surprise no one for me to say that I don't think people should feel obligated to do full-scale reviews. I think it is much better just to say what you have to say, no matter how briefly, rather than feel daunted by the task of doing a full-scale review with the result that you don't say anything at all.



















Thanks Patrick99. It is kind of an esteem thing, wanting to perform well, but it is also a combination of motivation and giving my best for fellow posters out of respect for their trying as hard as they do and giving us excellent reviews. Not so much trying to keep up with "the joneses", but giving them back what they put into it.


I will take your advice and tonight I will get my paper with my list and post it.


I had the flu all last week, full 7 days...it was miserable.


djoberg, I meant to comment on your comment about your trip and NYC being nice to visit and not wanting to live there. Well, guess why I am here in Oregon??







I get the best of both, going back several times a year to visit and living here. I am glad you had an enjoyable trip.


Phantom, I seen your post as I was typing this and I also appreciate your comment. I must say I am torn. I selfishly wanted you to stay here for reviews,







but I thought you were THE prime candidate for helping Ralph Potts. I didn't know if you tried to get the position, but you would have been the ideal person for the position.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17476400
> 
> 
> I will take your advice and tonight I will get my paper with my list and post it.
> 
> 
> djoberg, I meant to comment on your comment about your trip and NYC being nice to visit and not wanting to live there. Well, guess why I am here in Oregon??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get the best of both, going back several times a year to visit and living here. I am glad you had an enjoyable trip.



First of all Hugh, I will look forward to your list of placement recommendations. You said you thought _The Taking of Pelham 123_ might be 1.5 or 1.75. As you know I rated it 1.0, so I'm curious to hear something specific as to why you wouldn't rate it a bit higher (though in saying this I can see why some would penalize it more than I did for some of the less-than-stellar subway scenes).


Secondly, your comment on living in Oregon and visiting NYC reminded me of two conversations I had while in NYC. The first was with an elderly man who informed me that he was born and raised in NYC and then he said with a smile on his face, "If you're born a New Yorker you'll die a New Yorker." The second conversation was with a young woman (in her early 20s) who works in a fashion store near Central Park. I had told her what the elderly man had said and she replied, "That may be the norm, but I desperately want to break free and live elsewhere." She went on to say she had never traveled outside of NYC (with the exception of Upstate New York) and I told her, "There's a lot of very nice places to see and live outside of the Big Apple."


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/17476264
> 
> 
> I'm sure it will surprise no one for me to say that I don't think people should feel obligated to do full-scale reviews. I think it is much better just to say what you have to say, no matter how briefly, rather than feel daunted by the task of doing a full-scale review with the result that you don't say anything at all.



+1



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17476301
> 
> 
> I completely agree!
> 
> 
> Of course we would all prefer to have (and give) full blown reviews, but it just isn't feasible for many of us, and in those case, a very brief statement and Tier recommendation should be all that is required.




+2



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17476334
> 
> 
> 
> It never hurts to post an opinion. Give us your rankings, even if you do not feel like writing paragraph after paragraph. Full reviews are of course more desirable, but even quick placements give a few more data points to assimilate and ponder. It appears some posters and probably lurkers are a little intimidated by the process, but even brief impressions are helpful. Specific placements often generate discussions that are vital to the essence of the ranking system.



+3


Hugh, I know that if you were to put up an opinion but didn't have it fully explained, if someone was to ask you your thoughts, you could honestly answer it. Whether the answer is, "Honestly I watched it a few weeks ago and no longer remember," or it's something more in detail.










I like reading in-depth reviews, but I also like a range from people. It's rather daunting at times to think to one's self, "Now I need to write a 500 word essay on what I saw! Ack!"



I'm actually thinking of, for the future, when I am getting TV shows on Blu, doing up a quick paragraph and ranking per disc, that way it'll help me remember. Then once I'm done, do up an average if the quality seems to sway through it. I would love to get through my Battlestar Galactica series and do reviews for the thread, but BOY is that thought a little bit intimidating! But at least the tiny disc reviews might help someone else get a bit of a glimpse into what the series is going to be like, and maybe inspire someone else to go for it and rent/buy it too and provide their thoughts as well.



But I also don't want to drive the thread nuts, either (too late, right?







)! Which is why it's a thought at this point.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/17471330
> 
> 
> I'm watching Forrest Gump. There's grain, but not as much as it should be!





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17472216
> 
> 
> I don't know, I thought the grain was ample. Unfortunately, there was plenty of digital noise as well.



I'm no expert, but I expected more grain from Forrest Gump. There's definitely digital noise! For some reason, detail is slightly lacking IMO. It could be the brightness. Maybe that's the way the film was shot.


----------



## fafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/17475059
> 
> 
> I'm headed out the door to my part time job, but I had enough time to pop it in and take a look at the first firefight with my "normally calibrated" settings, and notice a pretty decent difference. I guess the darkness/dimness of the movie+THX really hurt this Disc quite a bit.
> 
> 
> Contrast does look quite a good deal better, colors pop more (like the blue of those sweet cannons), but i do notice a tiny bit more grain. I'll hopefully be able to watch the whole thing again in standard settings soon, and if my opinion changes enough to make a difference on my score, I will let you know. (special effects still look like poop).



I'm glad to see you see GI Joe more like I see it now.


fafner


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17475645
> 
> 
> Only grabbing this one but this comment is in reference to THX mode on the Panny's. I watch movies using my Panny TH-58PZ800u tv, and I always watch in THX mode. But in order to achieve what I personally feel are proper conditions for using the THX mode (note I'm obviously not an expert!) I have to watch in almost complete darkness. Drives the husband NUTS when he comes home and the house is dark, save for the bias lighting I have behind the TV thanks to the boys over in the Panny TH-58PZ800u thread in the Plasma area.
> 
> 
> I guess the THX mode is meant to be viewed in a theatre-like setting, meaning darkened. The yellowish-ness of the THX mode for me is really obvious when there's lights on, and for normal everyday viewing I don't use THX. Sometimes when I'm curious about just how dark and dreary things are showing up in the movie I'll switch the mode to one of the others -- like when I recently watched Confessions of a Shopaholic, the black levels were so terrible, I couldn't even see the lapels on Hugh Dancy's tuxedo so I wondered if it was THX mode but even in the frightening VIVID mode it was still just a big black blob (albeit brighter!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ).
> 
> 
> 
> My set is not professionally calibrated, as the cost of getting someone to come up to the arctic to do it is likely a higher cost than that of the set itself, but it has been set up using the DVE HD Basics disc.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure that I'll be renting *GI Joe* soon and get my own review for it done for the thread as it's one we missed in the theatre. I'm curious as to how it will translate with the THX mode on my tv in comparison to your review (which I didn't read in detail yet since I haven't seen the film I just sort of skimmed it and stumbled upon the THX-mode ponderings). Since I have bought in to the propaganda that it's how things are supposed to be viewed in the theatre
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like the thought of boosting any settings to help a movie look better on my tv. even with the amateur calibration done with the DVE, I think the movie should cater to me, not the other way around! Call me high maintenance, hehe!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edited to add:
> 
> 
> Oh and I'm totally jealous that you can't see the flicker. I haven't even attempted that mode, although I should try it out once and see how I handle it. I'm already insanely sensitive to edge enhancement, and I'm driven somewhat mad by the phosphor trailing I see during hockey games (or certain movies like Rock n' Rolla, that one was filled with phosphor trailing for me - so much so I don't think I wrote a review for it although I'd intended to). From what I hear the flicker is really really bad on my set, so I do hope that Panny has improved it for future sets!



THX really only becomes watchable in total darkness or very very dim light. That means, no overhead ceiling light on, or the kitchen light or anything. The dimness doesn't bother me, but I do think that the sets pop a little more when they are brighter. For eye candy reasons, THX is not my mode of choice, and it's hard to explain the benefits of it to somebody who doesn't care so much about how good the tv looks (or how accurate, really).


I really wanted to get the 50pz800u last year, but the budget didn't allow for it and my big screen purchase was pushed back a year into the G10 model year. I do remember the 800u being quite dim as well in the THX mode but if I remember correctly it got a little higher marks for color accuracy than the current models (weird!). Being my first HDTV though, it is still light years ahead of the 27" CRT I had been watching for years, and really the best value for the dollar that is on the market now, I think.


BTW, there are no spoilers in the review


----------



## lgans316

G3,



> Quote:
> *(note I'm obviously not an expert!) I have to watch in almost complete darkness. Drives the husband NUTS when he comes home and the house is dark*



I never watch Blu-rays during daytime. This drives my wife nuts when she wants to watch a Blu-ray like V for Vendetta in full daylight for which I am not game for. Complete darkness is the thin line that divides me and my dear Wife and she seldom sits next to me to watch Blu-rays.










Coming to full-blown review, I am afraid I can't do it properly as English isn't my mother tongue.


----------



## Filmaholic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17476334
> 
> 
> This thread always need people like you who are willing to post independent points of view, especially considering you wrote some fine reviews. I would hope you reconsider. My cursory impression from your posts is that English is probably not your first language. A certain tact is required here given the amount of work many of its participants invest in the Tier system and thread.
> 
> 
> It never hurts to post an opinion. Give us your rankings, even if you do not feel like writing paragraph after paragraph. Full reviews are of course more desirable, but even quick placements give a few more data points to assimilate and ponder. It appears some posters and probably lurkers are a little intimidated by the process, but even brief impressions are helpful. Specific placements often generate discussions that are vital to the essence of the ranking system.



Thanks *Phantom Stranger*, as always, you are very pondered, polite, fair and reasonable. You are also a very good reviewer and should consider doing it professionally. I must also thank you, and those involved on the last update, for all the hard work. I guess it must be some sort of a crazy job, trying to extract recommendations, formal or not, from all this mess we make. Again, I must thank you for this fine moderation job. And, of course, no, English is not my first language (not even the second one for that matter).


The reason for my original, controversial post was to provoke the kind of reaction *Phantom* had, something like: “ ok, I’ll review this and that, *Filmaholic* takes this three and *Selimsivad* the other two”…something like that, something that would fix the very apparent omissions. I could, and probably would, review them all, as I own most of them (some still in the shipping process). But I don’t think it is adequate to place something in the Tiers without at least one peer review, that’s why I wanted other reviewers to join me on this task. I would also like to clarify that this is very costly for me here in Brazil, as I pay roughly US$75 for each Blu-ray, not US10 like you. We also don’t get Netflix and our rental stores are a joke. So *G3*, I do the best that I can under these very harsh conditions, so it’s really not fair to ask me for a Ton of reviews. Also, the four I did in this short time were intended to fill some unbearable holes on the list (believe me, the “*Akira*” one is almost inexcusable). See, this is constructive criticism and you should take it.


Think of that, I’m a busy guy, as most here are, why would I waste my time doing the reviews I did if my intent was to sling insults in a “doomy” and gloomy way? This makes no sense. So, yes, I’m feeling really bad right now.


So, as most people think it’s acceptable to make recommendations without a proper review, that’s what I’ll do from now on. I’ll restrain myself from other sorts of posts. I really, really, don’t want to be misinterpreted, especially by people I actually care and like. Hear this *G3*?


Sorry for the off-topic ranting, I just had to wrap this up.


----------



## Filmaholic

As an adendum, please notice that all the titles mentioned in my nefarious post have Video ratings above the 80% mark in CinemaSquid's rankings. So you have to agree with me when I say they are important from a PQ lover's point of view, indeed. Hence my desire to correct the perceived omissions.

_Ipsis literis_ from Squid's Ranks:



Squid Rank (weighted average)ContentVÃ*deoLast Year at Marienbad8992Pierrot le Fou7994Repulsion8091Kagemusha8485Batman Returns (Britt Ver.)7683The Sky Crawlers6287Ghost in the Shell 2: Innoccence6988


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Filmaholic* /forum/post/17479487
> 
> 
> Thanks *Phantom Stranger*, as always, you are very pondered, polite, fair and reasonable. You are also a very good reviewer and should consider doing it professionally. I must also thank you, and those involved on the last update, for all the hard work. I guess it must be some sort of a crazy job, trying to extract recommendations, formal or not, from all this mess we make. Again, I must thank you for this fine moderation job. And, of course, no, English is not my first language (not even the second one for that matter).
> 
> 
> The reason for my original, controversial post was to provoke the kind of reaction *Phantom* had, something like: ok, I'll review this and that, *Filmaholic* takes this three and *Selimsivad* the other twosomething like that, something that would fix the very apparent omissions. I could, and probably would, review them all, as I own most of them (some still in the shipping process). But I don't think it is adequate to place something in the Tiers without at least one peer review, that's why I wanted other reviewers to join me on this task. I would also like to clarify that this is very costly for me here in Brazil, as I pay roughly US$75 for each Blu-ray, not US10 like you. We also don't get Netflix and our rental stores are a joke. So *G3*, I do the best that I can under these very harsh conditions, so it's really not fair to ask me for a Ton of reviews. Also, the four I did in this short time were intended to fill some unbearable holes on the list (believe me, the *Akira* one is almost inexcusable). See, this is constructive criticism and you should take it.
> 
> 
> Think of that, I'm a busy guy, as most here are, why would I waste my time doing the reviews I did if my intent was to sling insults in a doomy and gloomy way? This makes no sense. So, yes, I'm feeling really bad right now.
> 
> 
> So, as most people think it's acceptable to make recommendations without a proper review, that's what I'll do from now on. I'll restrain myself from other sorts of posts. I really, really, don't want to be misinterpreted, especially by people I actually care and like. Hear this *G3*?
> 
> 
> Sorry for the off-topic ranting, I just had to wrap this up.




Could you please stop making assumptions about me? I live in the arctic of Canada. I do not pay $10 US for anything up here. Except maybe for a gallon of milk in the wintertime.



I made one line about you coming here predicting doom and gloom for the thread. And then I went in my very next post and apologized for that line. What have you done to me in return? Go back and read the scathing insults you have slung my way attacking me personally, calling me xenophobic and absolutely freaking out on me, again, PERSONAL ATTACKS, when I simply want people to review titles. Fine, my taste in movies is bad according to you -- yet another personal attack. It's allowed for me to not be interested in all film, and consider some anime and foreign titles to be more of a niche thing for me to get into, and want people to go ahead and provide reviews for such films themselves to help the survival of the thread.



Hell, Filmaholic, I even reached out to you via PM when you initially left the thread, sad that you had been leaving us. I'm a good & nice person. You know what else? I am a busy person just like everyone else here. I may be a stay at home mother, but I'm a home-care nurse for my son, who has severe spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy, is wheelchair bound and is blind and cannot communicate. I spent my entire summer helping him recover from his 25th surgery that he's had in is 4 years of life. So yes, my xenophobic self is the ONLY FEMALE WILLING TO POST IN THIS THREAD, and I live day-in-day-out with one of the people I love having the highest form of disability that a person can have, needing 1-to-1 care 24 hours per day, 7 days a week.



I misinterpreted your line that other people also misinterpreted. Others misinterpreted the statement that you later clarified was due to english not being your mother tongue, yet the ONLY ONE you're attacking repeatedly is me, when I APOLOGIZED IN MY NEXT POST and want you to help out and review the films that are the ones of interest to you to add to the thread. If apologizing was not enough for you, as it seems it was not, then there really is nothing else I can do but repeat it.


I am truly sorry for misinterpreting your post, I'm apologizing to you again, but I have to add that the attacks you slung against me were far more hurtful than the one-line that I said to you wondering about "doom and gloom", and made a lot more assumptions about me and my character than the language-barrier misinterpretation had.



I'm also sorry to the all the guys of the thread, for this stupid bit of drama. Here I was, all happy that I lasted with you guys for over a year now, especially after some previous drama had me gone. I enjoy doing my reviews with you guys and talking about Blu Rays, and the next post that I make will be on topic.


----------



## vpn75

I watched a bit of *Love Actually* last night and was pretty satisfied with what I saw. The contrast seems a little hot which obscures some of the fine detail, but overall the movie had fairly pleasing PQ. I thought the blacks could have been a bit deeper, but colors really popped.


If I had to rank this one right now, I'd probably put towards the lower end of *Tier-2*.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Filmaholic* /forum/post/17479487
> 
> 
> .....
> 
> 
> 
> And, of course, no, English is not my first language (not even the second one for that matter).
> 
> 
> The reason for my original, controversial post was to provoke the kind of reaction *Phantom* had, something like: “ ok, I’ll review this and that, *Filmaholic* takes this three and *Selimsivad* the other two”…something like that, something that would fix the very apparent omissions. I could, and probably would, review them all, as I own most of them (some still in the shipping process). But I don’t think it is adequate to place something in the Tiers without at least one peer review, that’s why I wanted other reviewers to join me on this task.



Wouldn't it have been a whole lot easier to just make a post asking people if they would agree to do that instead of making the "controversial" post that you did?


I mean seriously, you are basically admitting that you were playing games with your initial post. Why should people have to _guess_ as to what you really meant or wanted by your post? Why couldn't you just ask if anyone here would agree to split those titles up in order to get them reviewed?


English may not be your native language, but your last post shows that you are more than capable of saying exactly what you mean. I would politely suggest that you start doing that.


----------



## Filmaholic

G3, I won't quote your message in order not to expose things even more.


Look, first I am immensely sorry to hear about your son. I am deeply in shock, in fact. I'm so embarrassed that I really don't know what to do now. But just leaving after this would be wrong. So, now I respect you even more and I am profoundly sorry for being a moron once again. I don't think the "mom job" is an easy one, quite the contrary, I know it is the most demanding, exhausting one. Of course you have it extra hard.


I also, believe it or not, had not seen your apology up until now. Which terrified me.


You also know I never meant you no harm prior to your ballistic post. I also respect you a lot. But I felt very insulted by your post and "overreacted over your overreaction". How sad is that...


When I made a comment about your taste, I was obviously childishly reacting, just as Newton predicted with that famous third law of mechanics. Which is damn wrong. I am very sorry for that.


Regarding that xenophobic thing, the same, reaction for not understanding what you meant by "niche", being that the vast majority of those films were foreign. Again, I didn't need to do that.


In essence the thing is: I regret all this to no freaking end. I am very sorry about some of the things I said and I appreciate your apology (even though it is maybe too little, too late).


You know G3... you should be infinitely proud of yourself. You have a very positive stance about things, despite life being very hard on you. You also find time to watch and review blu-rays. Amazing.


Man, I'm sooooo sorry. I'm actually crying right now. I am not afraid to admit. For real.


----------



## lgans316

Filmaholic,


I hope by now you have understood what I meant about the frequent posters and their nice and forgiving personalities after reading the above posts.


My apologies if I had derailed the flow of this thread.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Filmaholic, it's never too late to accept an apology.







Okay! Let's move on to Blu's. Review when you can, provide opinions when you can, and just trust that we're all doing the best that we can to help the thread encompass as large of an array of movies as we can. That's what I like to see in this thread. Speaking of... going to fire up Domino now and see if I think it's worthy of it's current Tier 0 placement!



Oh before I do that, I wanted to say something about *Sleeping Beauty*. It still is in Tier 0, and I believe it should stay there, and I wanted to mention to you guys another reason why.


I'm always trying to help convert women to HD. I've actually been able to get a couple of them to make the switch to Blu Ray, and the IMMEDIATE title I go to that helps me change their minds about whether or not it is worth it is *Sleeping Beauty*.



I link them over to the comparison shots in Xylon's screencap thread for Sleeping Beauty, and the amazement they get from seeing the difference -- and I'm not cheating, I'm getting them to look at the platinum DVD vs the platinum Blu, not the original super-ugly dvd screenies!! -- and using that movie has helped me show them the pristine quality that Blu Ray has to offer.



Not that anyone's fighting over Sleeping Beauty (at the moment!!) but I just showed someone the differences recently again, and out of everything in Tier 0, besides saying "Pixar movies are the ultimate" of course, the one that helps me convert more women to Blu is that title. I thought you guys might appreciate hearing that for some reason!


----------



## deltasun

*Forrest Gump*


Fine grain present throughout, a number of scenes plagued by excessive digital noise. This did distract a bit since it mostly happened on still, cinematographic scenes. Facial details were decent, but did not reach the likes of higher Tier 1 titles. Still, whenever Forrest was closed up, I did notice pores, individual strands, etc. The same was true of Lt Dan and even Jenny.


Blacks were deep and contrast was strong. I felt there were an ample amount of 3D pop on a few medium shots, as well as longer shots - the scene of Forrest and Jenny in front of Jenny's old house is one of my favorites. The lighting and detail here were exquisite. Shadow details were ample, though again, not up to the reaches of higher-tiered titles. Colors were dynamic and looked natural - Southern vegetation looked lush. Primaries really stood out.


Overall, I found this title more crisp than _Braveheart_ and probably a tad richer (sure, it can't beat the blue flake detail from the latter, but I'm talking overall). There were a few instances of ringing, but nothing that really detracted from the beautiful presentation. A few times, I paused/rewound to check for DNR but they were inconclusive. I have to take off mandatory points for the period footage spliced throughout the movie and so...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8' & 6'_


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vpn75* /forum/post/17480252
> 
> 
> I watched a bit of *Love Actually* last night and was pretty satisfied with what I saw. The contrast seems a little hot which obscures some of the fine detail, but overall the movie had fairly pleasing PQ. I thought the blacks could have been a bit deeper, but colors really popped.
> 
> 
> If I had to rank this one right now, I'd probably put towards the lower end of *Tier-2*.



I did a little perusing as well. Yes, contrast is super hot and after 10 min of viewing, I felt my retina throb. It's like that scene in _Sunshine_.


Lower Tier-2 seems too harsh (harsher than the contrast







), but I still need to watch the entire thing. I like the colors I saw though.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*The Taking of Pelham 123*


This is a very good looking title overall. I did not notice any real problems or negatives. It looked very film like, and there is definitely fine film grain present, which helped give it a natural, non digital look that I enjoyed. No signs of DNR to these eyes.


That said, I wouldn't really say that this title excels particularly well in certain areas either. It's just very good, but not quite as good as the best titles in terms of overall presentation and "wow" factor (or as some like to say "eye candy" factor). Perhaps the subject matter plays a role in that, so take it for what its worth.


As for the movie, the acting was just good enough to make it worth a rent, but that is about it. Plenty of







moments, but it wasn't horrible.

*Tier Recommendation 2.0 to 2.25*


----------



## djoberg

*G. I. Joe: Rise of the Cobra*


Here's another Tier 1 contender....definitely not _reference_ quality, but easily _demo-worthy_!

*Pros*:


1) Deep blacks and exquisite shadow details in 90% of the scenes.


2) Very strong (and thus impressive) contrast.


3) Colors that POPPED off the screen at times.


4) Facial close-ups that ranged from low Tier 0 to low Tier 1.


5) Daytime, outdoor scenes that were SHARP, CRISP, and DETAILED.

*Cons*:


1) Crushed blacks in a few scenes resulting in little or no shadow detail.


2) Orange flesh tones at times during scenes with a golden hue.


3) Way too many CGI shots that lacked in sharpness and detail.


Overall, I was quite impressed with the PQ and as was the case with the last two titles I reviewed the pros definitely eclipsed the cons. If only there hadn't been so many CGI shots this title could have easily landed in low Tier 0. Taking everything into consideration I'm thinking it deserves the following....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25 or 1.5*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'


PS The audio rocked! Tier 0, without a doubt!!


----------



## djoberg

*The Last House on the Left (2009)*


I see there has only been one review on this title (by deltasun, who gave it a 3.0), and for the most part I agree with his analysis and conclusion.


He was absolutely spot on in saying, "This is a tale of 2 PQs," for the first half of the film had many redeeming qualities that could easily qualify for a low Tier 1 or high Tier 2 placement, but the second half dropped it down to low Tier 3 or high Tier 4.

*The 1st half*:


1) Decent detail, depth, and sharpness, especially the outdoor scenes.


2) Fairly good contrast, though at times it was overblown resulting in a washed out look.


3) Very good facial details, primarily in close-ups, but not limited to them.


4) Mediocre blacks and shadow detail


5) Accurate flesh tones

*The 2nd half*:


1) Most shots were quite flat and lacked detail.


2) Poor contrast with the exception of a few scenes (most notably the last few minutes with beautiful shots of the lake and woods).


3) Some decent facial close-ups, with accurate flesh tones.


4) Crushed blacks with terrible shadow detail in many night time scenes, both indoors and outdoors.


5) Excessive digital noise in several scenes (which could be mistaken for heavy grain).


I see I neglected to include comments on the colors; this is because they just didn't stand out (bad or good), though again the first half was much more colorful than the latter half.


I'm going to agree with deltasun on the placement, for I believe he is totally justified in voting for....

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'


----------



## djoberg

*Bangkok Dangerous*


You know the saying "When the cat's away, the mice do play." Well, in this house "When the wife's away, the husband does play".....Blu-rays, that is!










I just got off the treadmill where I watched one of the worst-looking titles I've seen in quite awhile. I couldn't resist the temptation to check out what the "pros" said on this one and I was very surprised to see many give it a thumbs up for video. They obviously did NOT see what I saw! What I saw was a subpar Blu-ray that looked more like a bad upconverted DVD.


This one doesn't even deserve a full review, for the only positives, and they were rare, were some excellent facial close-ups of Nicolas Cage (and a few others) and some fairly good blacks levels at times with accompanying good shadow detail. And there was one scene (with Thai women in multi-colored dress) where the colors were vibrant and popped off the screen.


The negatives included excessive heavy grain....digital noise on white backgrounds and faces....crushed blacks....drab colors....and an overall lack of detail, depth, and clarity. Some scenes were downright hideous and rivaled the worst scenes in _28 Days Later_.


Again, I see there was only one review on this thread (Rob Tomlin, who gave it a 3.75) and believe it or not I'm going to lower it even more, for I truly believe this one fits the criteria set forth for Tier 4 perfectly. That being said, I do have an image to maintain (of being a _generous rater_







), so I'll put it at the top of the tier....

*Tier Recommendation: 4.0*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'


----------



## djoberg

*Forrest Gump*


What a blessing to be able to watch one of my all-time favorite films in glorious HD!! I'm VERY HAPPY to report that Paramount got this one right in their new Sapphire Series (2 out of 3 ain't bad







), for this one is comparable to _Braveheart_, with one main exception (which I'll get to in a minute).


I think I'll get the nitpicking out of the way first. The biggest flaw that I noticed was what some call *speckles* (this may be what deltasun was referring to when he mentioned *digital noise* in his review). But this truly is a "nitpick" when one considers the running time of this film is 140 minutes and there are probably a half dozen or so occurrences lasting a few seconds each. And then there were quite a few instances of historical footage (of past presidents and other famous persons) that were *snowy*. Aside from these, I didn't notice any evidences of post-processing (EE, DNR, etc.) or anomalies of any kind.


I found myself comparing this to _Bravheart_ throughout the film. It had the same consistent strengths from beginning to end:


1) A nice layer of grain resulting in a film-like look


2) Excellent depth in most scenes


3) Sharpness, detail, and clarity


4) Perfect contrast


5) Natural, vibrant colors....as in _Braveheart_ we are treated to a lot of lush greens, especially in the Vietnam and numerous Alabama scenes.


6) Deep blacks and very good shadow detail....the perfect example of this is found in one of the last scenes where Forrest is telling Jenny about a star-lit night he experienced in Vietnam.


7) Spot on flesh tones and good facial close-ups


You will notice I ended with "good" facial close-ups. They weren't nearly as good as in _Braveheart_ where they all earned Tier 0 status. I would say the facial close-ups in _Forrest Gump_ ranged between high Tier 1 and high Tier 2. But in every other category it rivaled _Braveheart_.


I voted for a low Tier 0 placement for _Braveheart_, so with _Forrest Gump_ I'm opting for....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0 or 1.25*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Heehee, Denny! 2/3 ain't bad when your favourite movie is one of the 2 that are good... Mine ended up the 1/3!! boooooo!!! I'm not a fan of Forrest Gump (likely one of the only ones on the planet I'm sure) so I don't think I'll be seeing that release.


Upcoming for me next week is another PQ thread recommendation... MR. BROOKS. Should be in late next week.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*Domino*


Okay. This movie has been reviewed aplenty in the past, and I only got it b/c of some of you guys. I cannot stand Keira Knightley... my nerves were pretty much shot within 2 minutes of starting this film. I do not understand the casting of her in this role.



I can completely understand its Tier 0 placement, and I don't think it should be moved. The detail in this movie is insane, it really blew me away. Some may not like the stylistic choices made, heck... I can't really recommend this movie to anyone besides on it's PQ merits. It's worth watching for the PQ at least once though. I wish the content was better.



So... not a formal review or anything, more an agreement.


*Recommendation for Domino: Agree with current Tier 0 placement.*
*Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800u THX setting, approx 7.5'.*


----------



## deltasun

*Aliens in the Attic*


Fine even grain present throughout. The film had a stylistic saturated look, which held up well for the storyline. Contrast was strong for the most part and blacks were bold, without any evidence of crushing. Depth and dimensionality were maximized in pretty much all of the daytime scenes. They simply popped out of the screen in some instances. G3 would not be disappointed with the water (pool) scenes. Colors popped as well and, as mentioned, a bit oversaturated.


Facial details showed adequate texture, even for the kids. Certain angles easily exhibited Tier 0 details and rendering. Shadow details were mixed - the basement scenes did not deliver for me in this category. However, the night scenes were better. I believe the biggest drawback of this film was the animation. The aliens' movements were NOT fluid at all and looked too animated and jerky. Their reptile-like skins did not exhibit the texture and qualities one would expect from its appearance.


Overall, this title had plenty of Tier 0 moments. I did not readily detect any DNR or EE. However, taking into account some of the negatives mentioned, I would recommend a placement in...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.50*


As for the movie itself, I felt this was an entertaining kids' movie with some cool moments. The showdown between Nana and the Rick character was a highlight.









_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Thanks for the review, Deltasun! I have that one on my list, to watch w/ the daughter. She's been looking forward to that one... and now I am to see the water.


----------



## djoberg

*My Bloody Valentine*


I believe I have reached the Blu-ray *saturation point*.







This wasn't the best note to end on movie-wise, but the PQ was pretty good. Let's see out of the last 4 I've rated two in Tier 1 and the other two in Tiers 3 & 4. This one seems to be right on the border of Tiers 1 & 2.


I am REALLY tired (and my eyes look like a bloody valentine







), so I'm keeping this review short. This one excelled in the depth department; to me it was its biggest virtue and one that truly deserves to be called "eye candy." Details were okay, both in general and in facial close-ups, but it didn't rank up there with the best titles from Tiers 0 and 1. Contrast was just okay, as were the blacks and shadow detail (though there was some black crush and dark grey in some shots), but nothing to write home about. Colors were a mixed bag, with most of them being a bit muted (with the exception of the bloody scenes where the red really popped). At times the picture was quite sharp; at other times it appeared very soft (especially the scenes in the mine, which were many). Flesh tones were very good.


I'm going to join my fellow-member deltasun again on this one, which means it goes right here....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*North by Northwest*

*

"I don't like the way Teddy Roosevelt is looking at me".*


This is one of my favorite Hitchcock movies, which actually makes it one of my favorite movies of all time. So, for that reason alone, you may want to consider that a "disclaimer".










I am very impressed with this Blu-ray. It looks great, especially considering it was released in 1959.


Colors are _not_ natural looking. But they certainly do look good! The "technicolor look" comes through very nicely.


This is a very nice "film look" title. There is fine film grain present (thank goodness). The biggest complaint on this title for purposes of this thread will be the fact that there are some soft scenes throughout.


Overall, though, I don't think that I could be happier with how this looks, and I am very happy to have it in my Blu-ray collection.


As for the movie, as I said it is one of my favorites, by a master director. There is some excellent cinematography and many very memorable images in this movie. If you have managed to miss this great classic to this point in your life, it is time to change that!









*Tier Recommendation: Tier 2.75*


----------



## Hughmc

Thanks Rob and others for the reviews I was planning on getting it along with Logan's Run, FOrrest Gump and a couple of others over the next week. There is a lot of good titles coming out new and old.


----------



## deltasun

*Oldboy*


Fine to moderate grain present throughout - nothing too distracting. The PQ on this film varied quite a bit and so I'll try to give an average description. There were some examples of excellent facial close-up's. These were fairly consistent throughout.


Blacks weren't the deepest, but looked adequate in most instances. Some crushing did surface, but only in a handful of scenes. Contrast was tweaked a lot, depending on what the director was trying to convey. For the very best examples, they were striking - check out the final confrontation. I did not experience much 3D pop, but sufficient depth was represented in a few medium shots.


Shadow details were the biggest issues that plagued this film. Most low-light scenes were lifeless and were usually lit stylistically and with no color correction. Skin tones on these shots mimicked the ambient light. Skin tones in natural light were usually on the sallow side, and did not detract.


Overall, not an impressive title for picture quality. I don't even know if the stylistic choices really went that well with the storyline throughout. Of course, that's a humble opinion. Incidentally, I didn't spy any DNR or EE. For me, the varying looks average out to...

*Tier Recommendation: 3.75*


Wow, what a disturbingly satisfying ride.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17489754
> 
> 
> Heehee, Denny! 2/3 ain't bad when your favourite movie is one of the 2 that are good... Mine ended up the 1/3!! boooooo!!! I'm not a fan of Forrest Gump (likely one of the only ones on the planet I'm sure) so I don't think I'll be seeing that release.
> 
> 
> Upcoming for me next week is another PQ thread recommendation... MR. BROOKS. Should be in late next week.



I am a big fan of all three movies in the Sapphire Series so I did lose out on one of them.










Regarding Mr. Brooks, I believe I saw that on HD DVD when it first came out and it looked stellar. I remember thinking it was surely a reference disc, but that was a very long time ago and so my view would probably be different now (but I'm sure it would still be "demo-worthy"). I'll be looking for your review.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17493348
> 
> 
> I am a big fan of all three movies in the Sapphire Series so I did lose out on one of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding Mr. Brooks, I believe I saw that on HD DVD when it first came out and it looked stellar. I remember thinking it was surely a reference disc, but that was a very long time ago and so my view would probably be different now (but I'm sure it would still be "demo-worthy"). I'll be looking for your review.



I assure you that you did *not* see Mr. Brooks on HD DVD.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/17493679
> 
> 
> I assure you that you did *not* see Mr. Brooks on HD DVD.



It was so long ago I assumed it was on HD-DVD, but I obviously saw it on Blu-ray.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

I know Mr. Brooks was in Tier 0 and there was a lot of... issues... with that earlier in the thread (way before my time here). I'm definitely interested in seeing how it looks. I don't really know much about the movie. Zip.ca is getting lazy with what it wants to send up to the arctic, I think it was #29 on my list (they're supposed to stick with your top 20, hehe!). I've requested too many new releases methinks.


----------



## deltasun

_Mr. Brooks_ was easily one of the best movies of 2007. Probably Kevin Costner's best role.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17494433
> 
> _Mr. Brooks_ was easily one of the best movies of 2007. Probably Kevin Costner's best role.



It's easily his best role, IMO!










To me, Mr. Brooks is on the cusp of Tiers 0 and 1. It has a blue tint that some can make blacks appear grey at times.


Definitely one the 2007's best. It was made to be the first of a trilogy, but I'm sure poor returns at the box office squashed that idea.







Would have been nice!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

After viewing "The Haunting In Connecticut", I just wanted to concur with the current placement in tier 1.75. Both deltasun and djoberg gave an excellent accounting of it in their placements, so my comments will be brief. It is a nearly flawless transfer that is only held back by certain moments of stylized filming, which leads to a few darker scenes with crushed black levels and noise. But the daytime shots look great with superb contrast and the finest detail.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/17493679
> 
> 
> I assure you that you did *not* see Mr. Brooks on HD DVD.


----------



## deltasun

*G.I. Joe: Rise of the Cobra*


Very fine layer of grain present throughout. This title had it all - the deepest blacks, striking contrast, excellent facial details. A number of medium shots exhibited 3D pop, excellent dimensionality, and generous depth. Low-light scenes also presented a superb sense of space and an adequate amount of shadow detail.


Colors worked their way perfectly within the confines of the look and feel of the movie. Primaries were vivid without being too dominant. Skin tones were faithful for the most part but did exhibit a somewhat orange tone in some scenes. Given all the superlatives above, the other side of the coin found a surprisingly high number of crushed blacks. And, the most egregious offense of all, I felt, was the CGI. Not only did they introduce some softness to an otherwise sharp, well-delineated presentation, but their non-fluid movements were also bothersome. I believe the Paris sequence looked subpar because of the overuse (or misuse) of CGI.


One other thing I noticed that was not up to the standard of the other elements above was texture. Don't get me wrong, I found some decent textured renderings on clothes, walls, etc., but I expected more. Lighting was usually well-situated and so texture should have been a bit more pronounced and obvious. But I nitpick...


Overall, a demo-worthy title that does not belong in Tier Blu. The main culprit - quality of the CGI. Incidentally, I did not spy any EE or DNR and the print looked pristine.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*


Really disappointed in the AQ. LFE was so inconsistent. It was obviously capable of deep bass, but it was often misdirected. The "hovercrafts" had them, but most explosions didn't.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## daPriceIs

*Heroes –Season 1*


Generally speaking it’s quite hard to do a critique of an entire season of a TV show since there’s just so much to go through, too many discs, too many episodes, too many hours. Fortunately, the episodes of the first season of _Heroes_ are all pretty much consistent in PQ throughout, with only one episode that seems weaker that the rest (episode #20: “Five Years Gone”). My typical procedure is to watch a disc multiple times before writing a review but obviously that can’t happen with 17 hours of video. In this case, there was only one complete viewing which was then combined with repeated viewing of multiple sample points –though sometimes the samples became extended when I found myself being sucked back into the action on screen.


A few observations/notes:
The stats:
2006 – 2007 season: 23 episodes spread out over 5 BD-50s for almost 17 hours viewing time
5 43.5 minute episodes per disc except for disc 1. Disc 1 extras include an alternate unaired premier episode lasting 76 minutes.
16:9 AR 1080p/24 VC-1 with DTS-HD MA

The transition between episodes is slow and very annoying as it involves a loading screen.
The video has a combination of grain and compression noise that is at times ugly from my reviewing distance (and no doubt worse on large projection screens). However, at more reasonable viewing distances it’s not that bad.
Contrast appears to have been boosted resulting in deep blacks but also crushing shadow gradations into an indistinct mess.
*This crushing is undoubtedly the most glaring and persistent problem that the video has. This problem is consistent across all scenes in every episode. It not only shows up in dark scenes as one would expect but also in well-lit shots.*
You can especially see it in dark clothing and dark hair. For example, the dark hair of Ted’s (the “atomic” guy) beard is always indistinct and blobby in an especially ugly way.
But it’s not limited to that: it can happen even in scenes with blonde Claire (the cheerleader) or with the strawberry blonde hair of the Texas waitress, Charlie. *In fact, it can happen with anyone anywhere at any time.*








Outdoor daylight scenes sometimes have a very harsh over-processed look
A very few shots show an unholy trifecta of haloes, CA fringes, and crushing; however, haloes are not a persistent problem and the CA is only noticeable in strongly backlit shots.
Detail and sharpness is fairly good, say around lower Tier Gold levels at best. Medium and long shots are generally average to pretty good. Close-ups are better but have their problems, too. Those problems are a result of the extremely shallow depth of field of the lenses/apertures in use; it’s almost ridiculous at times
Color scheme is quite variable, and while color is often good, it is just as often harsh and off-putting
I’m sure that all of this is deliberate, not that that matters, of course.
Outdoor daylight shots in New York seem always to have a blue cast to them. Some of these shots are quite harsh, especially in episode #20 much of which takes place in a post-apocalypse New York. The worst example of this are the hideous outdoor shots of President Petrelli’s speech commemorating the 5th anniversary of the explosion; here the skin textures look over-sharpened and very detailed, but yucky.
The shots in the cheerleader’s home town usually have a mellower yellow cast to them. Sometimes this is overdone and the characters look almost jaundiced and at a few other times kind of orangey.


Overall, a casual viewing would put this set at Tier 1.75/2.0, but the pervasive crushing, hyped contrast, compression noise, and color issues bring it down in my eyes a whole tier or more.

*Recommendation: Tier 3.0*


Panasonic TH-42PZ77U, 1080p/60 @ 3’ to 6’


----------



## daPriceIs

*Afro Samurai*
No full scale review. The title has already been placed more or less appropriately in my view.
Rampant banding
Oddly soft but not bad. Looks kind of like it wasn't authored at a native resolution of 1920 x 1080 and was upscaled. Not like DVD, but maybe up from 720p? Whatever the reason, it's the biggest issue with the video.
*Recommendation: Tier 3.25*
*------------------------------------------------------------*

------------------------------------------------------------
*Afro Samurai: Resurrection*

This disc came out in February 2009 and early pressings were improperly authored. Not only were they missing the Dolby TrueHD 5.1 track stated on the back of the case, the menu didn't even offer any audio options. Funimation had an exchange program for those who had these bad discs. My disc is one of these, but I never bothered to exchange it. I don't know if the program is still active. Here's the link . Here are cinemasquid's specs for the properly authored disc.


The most notable difference between this disc and that for the previous season is the lack of the softness and compression artifacts I mentioned earlier. Another difference this season is the presence of the arch villainess, Sio. *She's extremely sexy and incredibly demented*. Even when she's at her most calm and lucid, the dementia just oozes from her like a spooky and foul dew. Lucy Liu voices her perfectly. Mad? That's a strange word coming from the very image of madness. Ha ha ha! I've twisted the most twisted scientist in the world with _my_ twistedness! You truly are the world's most wicked, s**t-faced-genius scientist.










This, like its predecessor, is not 3D CGI but 2D animation hand drawn on Wacom tablets. Textures are much sharper with the outlines of figures nicely crisp when they are allowed to be, which they often aren't due to the use of simulated focal blur and lens flare, and atmospheric effects like rain, haze, ground fog, smoke, and tear gas. These effects also lessen contrast and black levels.


The animators have gone for a bleak moody desaturated look with monotonic shades of gray/brown or desaturated drab green combined with accents of various other colors or with pale pastel backgrounds. But some scenes feature rich colors; for example, the floats in the annual Hip Hop parade are lush and vibrant while at the same time the background is murky and desaturated.


There are some instances of very mild banding. But otherwise the transfer is artifact free. Basically this disc has all of the strengths and none of the glaring weaknesses of the earlier release.

*Recommendation: Tier 2.5*


Panasonic TH-42PZ77U, 1080p/60 @ 4'


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *daPriceIs* /forum/post/17496593
> 
> *Heroes -Season 1*
> 
> Overall, a casual viewing would put this set at Tier 1.75/2.0, but the pervasive crushing, hyped contrast, compression noise, and color issues bring it down in my eyes a whole tier or more.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 3.0*



Thanks for the descriptive review. I have been considering upgrading my dvd set and was wondering where this title would rank. Different television shows are so inconsistent in quality on Blu-ray (likely due to the reduced budgets in contrast to theatrical movies) that I wish more got ranked. Obviously they are tougher to evaluate because of their sheer length.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17499196
> 
> 
> Thanks for the descriptive review. I have been considering upgrading my dvd set and was wondering where this title would rank. Different television shows are so inconsistent in quality on Blu-ray (likely due to the reduced budgets in contrast to theatrical movies) that I wish more got ranked. Obviously they are tougher to evaluate because of their sheer length.



+1


I have Heroes s1 & 2 on Blu but haven't had the time to get to them. My friend bought them for me in an effort to make me watch the show again (I broke up with I believe shortly into season 3 or at the end of season 2). One day I'll get to it!!


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/17471330
> 
> 
> I'm watching Forrest Gump. There's grain, but not as much as it should be!



There was a silly reason for me assuming Forrest Gump was stripped of detail: My TV's contrast was raised by a friend who thought my television was "too dark!" It took me a week to figure that out. I thought my TV was dying!







Well, I guess it was the thought that counts!

*Forrest Gump*


*2.35 : 1*



First off, Forrest Gump displayed a beautiful film-like transfer. The opening credits had me worried for a minute, but once the feather reached Gump, I was blown away! I can't remember the DVD's appearance, but FG has never looked this way on home video!


For those who love "pop" in their movies, prepared to be amazed! A shot with the soldiers walking through the Vietnam vegetation quickly comes to mind! Outdoor scenes were bright, but not distracting.


Skin tones were just right for the Caucasian characters, but contrast seemed boosted for the drill sergeant and Bubba. Black levels were appropriate for age of the film. Detail in faces, clothing, and fabrics were below average compared to a newer release. Color and contrast were excellent!


Every now and then, white speckles showed the age of the film. The older footage looked... old.







As others mentioned, digital noise pops up every now and then. It wasn't distracting, but definitely noticeable.


Overall, after a minor calibration adjustment, I was pleased!











*Forrest Gump

Tier Recommendation: Tier 2.0

PS3-Samsung 46" 1080p-seven'*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^


Thanks for the good review. With all your glowing comments I thought you'd be putting it somewhere in Tier 1, which, IMHO, is where it belongs. Tier 2 means it's not "demo-worthy" and I can hardly believe anyone would say this isn't a disc they'd want to show off to their family and friends.










I hope others will be chiming in soon with their review; I feel quite confident it will easily end up in Tier 1 (hopefully close to the top).


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17502101
> 
> 
> ^^^^
> 
> 
> Thanks for the good review. With all your glowing comments I thought you'd be putting it somewhere in Tier 1, which, IMHO, is where it belongs. Tier 2 means it's not "demo-worthy" and I can hardly believe anyone would say this isn't a disc they'd want to show off to their family and friends.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope others will be chiming in soon with their review; I feel quite confident it will easily end up in Tier 1 (hopefully close to the top).



I feel you. I placed it in Tier 2.0 for a number of reasons. Details in clothing, faces, fabrics were not strong enough for me to compete with Tier 1 titles. I slightly factored in the vintage footage and digital noise as well. The edge enhancement was minor, but it was there.


I've watched Forrest Gump twice now since its Tuesday release. IMHO, it's right on the cusp of 1.75 and 2.0. This may sound strange to you, but Forrest Gump was a prime candidate for my "2001 Runner Test."


The "2001 Runner Test" consists of scanning through both 2001: A Space Odyssey (currently 1.75) and Blade Runner (currently 2.0), and comparing common and uncommon denominators. When it was all said and done, Forrest Gump was more Blade Runner than 2001.


Blade Runner is a Tier 2 disc that I personally use for demo purposes. Due to the laws of the thread, it isn't considered "demo-worthy." Both are 2.0 in my book. A vote is a vote, so I have no problem with FG ending up in Tier 1.


I hope that helped.


----------



## selimsivad

*The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3*


*2.40 : 1*


I thought this was an entertaining rental. I've read that the original is much better. They usually are! Honestly, if anyone not named Denzel Washington or John Travolta were portraying the two main characters, this could have been easily unwatchable. Kudos to them for a job well done!










This was a beautiful transfer, with a nice layer of grain that helped my viewing look very film-like. Colors were vibrant, blacks were bottomless! Intentional black crush was displayed in most scenes underground. Red, yellow, and greens from the subway lighting leaped off the screen!


Detail, especially facial detail, was top notch! Razor bumps, stubble, grey hairs were front and center. I would say that closeups were clearly Tier 0 material, comparable to other Tony Scott directed films.


Panoramic views of NYC were very three dimensional. Actually, any scenes above ground had great depth of field. Since half of the film took place underground, I docked points for dark views there.


For those who hate Scott's visual style, I would say Pelham 1 2 3 is fairly tame.











*The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3

Tier Recommendation:Tier 1.5

PS3-Samsung 46" 1080p-seven'*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/17502282
> 
> 
> I feel you. I placed it in Tier 2.0 for a number of reasons. Details in clothing, faces, fabrics were not strong enough for me to compete with Tier 1 titles. I slightly factored in the vintage footage and digital noise as well. The edge enhancement was minor, but it was there.
> 
> 
> I've watched Forrest Gump twice now since its Tuesday release. IMHO, it's right on the cusp of 1.75 and 2.0. This may sound strange to you, but Forrest Gump was a prime candidate for my "2001 Runner Test."
> 
> 
> The "2001 Runner Test" consists of scanning through both 2001: A Space Odyssey (currently 1.75) and Blade Runner (currently 2.0), and comparing common and uncommon denominators. When it was all said and done, Forrest Gump was more Blade Runner than 2001.
> 
> 
> Blade Runner is a Tier 2 disc that I personally use for demo purposes. Due to the laws of the thread, it isn't considered "demo-worthy." Both are 2.0 in my book. A vote is a vote, so I have no problem with FG ending up in Tier 1.
> 
> 
> I hope that helped.



It did help! I still don't agree with your conclusion (for to me the strengths far outweigh the weaknesses in _Forrest Gump_ and most of the running time exhibits those virtues), but I do see how you arrived at it.


----------



## daPriceIs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17499196
> 
> 
> ... I have been considering upgrading my dvd set and was wondering where this title would rank. ...



The first part of that line you quoted *"Overall, a casual viewing would put this set at Tier 1.75/2.0 ..."* describes my first impression when I viewed this five or six months ago; that was a month or two before I started doing reviews. When I began rewatching portions of each episode concentrating solely on PQ (as opposed to concentrating on the story like normal folk do







) for a review I was really hoping and expecting that it would hold up under critical scrutiny. No such luck. Then again maybe I've just become jaded.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17500164
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> I have Heroes s1 & 2 on Blu but haven't had the time to get to them. My friend bought them for me in an effort to make me watch the show again (I broke up with I believe shortly into season 3 or at the end of season 2). One day I'll get to it!!



Yeah, I've got season 2 as well. Amazon offered a bundle of the first two seasons as a Gold Box deal back in May or June if I remember right, and I just couldn't resist. I watched season 1 over the course of the weekend after I got it, but I guess I got "Heroed" out and didn't touch season 2 until yesterday when I watched that season's premier episode. I'm taking a few days off from work this week, so a review of season 2 will be forthcoming before the end of the week.


By the way, I appreciate your review of _Fringe_ since that's something I've been considering getting.

*Speaking of television series box sets is anyone else eagerly looking forward to Rome next week?* When it comes to sweaty men in togas I'll take _Rome_ over that sapphire pretender any day. I mean Titus Pullo vs. Maximus Decimus Meridius? No contest.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *daPriceIs* /forum/post/17505091
> 
> 
> By the way, I appreciate your review of _Fringe_ since that's something I've been considering getting.



No problem. I was really immersed in the story, so more eyes watching it will definitely help to narrow down it's true place on the list!



> Quote:
> *Speaking of television series box sets is anyone else eagerly looking forward to Rome next week?* When it comes to sweaty men in togas I'll take _Rome_ over that sapphire pretender any day. I mean Titus Pullo vs. Maximus Decimus Meridius? No contest.
























I wish I could commit to buying Rome on Blu. It's a little out of my price league right now, but I'm hoping it might be on a decent sale maybe after christmas. It's one I know the husband likes, so who knows, maybe he'll splurge and pick it up as a surprise for me







I hope the PQ is good, if it gets some rave reviews from you guys in the thread I might put it onto my zip.ca queue to get a sneak peek before we own it.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *daPriceIs* /forum/post/17505091
> 
> *Speaking of television series box sets is anyone else eagerly looking forward to Rome next week?* When it comes to sweaty men in togas I'll take _Rome_ over that sapphire pretender any day. I mean Titus Pullo vs. Maximus Decimus Meridius? No contest.



I'm with you and G3 on this, but probably not gonna happen just because I have so many other BRs to purchase that Tuesday. Maybe a Netflix rental for now and a bargain sale buy later. Tomorrow, I have 5.


----------



## Ozymandis

Finally got a copy of Domino. While the amount of detail was excellent, there were some crushed blacks in a couple of scenes. I'd say high Tier 1. Excellent example of film grain, though.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *daPriceIs* /forum/post/17505091
> 
> *Speaking of television series box sets is anyone else eagerly looking forward to Rome next week?* When it comes to sweaty men in togas I'll take _Rome_ over that sapphire pretender any day. I mean Titus Pullo vs. Maximus Decimus Meridius? No contest.



I'm sorely tempted to take the plunge on this. But it's been a very, very expensive couple of weeks on Blu-rays and PS3 games


----------



## akademiks




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *daPriceIs* /forum/post/17505091
> 
> *Speaking of television series box sets is anyone else eagerly looking forward to Rome next week?* When it comes to sweaty men in togas I'll take _Rome_ over that sapphire pretender any day. I mean Titus Pullo vs. Maximus Decimus Meridius? No contest.



I've got it already and it looks excellent.

I'm not nearly as knowledgeable about PQ, but it looks great to me and compared to other movies I think it's a solid tier 2 at least..


----------



## Hughmc

*UP*


Way UP as in at the top!!


Another fantastic looking Pixar Blu Ray that qualifies for anywhere among the top 5 of tier 0.


I seen this in the theatre in digital 3-d and while it was impressive I think viewing the Blu Ray at home is even better. Color and contrast are do deep and vibrant, the depth is so intense it renders an almost 3-d look at times, yes the proverbial 3-d pop is really apparent here. Probably the most stunning character visually is the bird with its plumage having the most beautiful rainbow of colors. Textures and details of the clothing of characters, their faces, hair, etc. are all high tier 0 quality possibly the best you will see on BD. This is one of those BD's you could go on and on about the PQ, but seeing it is the only thing that does it justice. If push came to shove I would say it is the new king of BD's and earns the top spot of tier 0. Then we have a great story and reference sound track to make it one of the best all around BD's to date. A must own.
*Recommendation Tier 0 at the top*


SOny A3000 60in @ 7 ft from PS3.


I got this early due to the fact that Modern Warfare 2, a popular video game, was coming out at midnight on the 10th, so my local Hollywood stayed opened and had it out and I was coming home exactly then from my hockey game.


----------



## John Mason

*Howards End*


Disappointed with the transfer quality on this Janus Criterion Blu-ray. Readily admit I haven't viewed many feature-film Blu-rays, though. There seems to be a contrast-limiting filter over most scenes, perhaps with the exception of full sunlit views. Too bad since one of its three Oscars was for art/set decoration.


The appearance of interiors as well as flesh tones reminds me of the 



 comparison[/URL] of the 16mm "Pride and Prejudice" print for the DVD of that BBC/A&E TV series with the 16mm negative transfer used for the Blu-ray--my first Blu-ray acquisition. The contrast limitation for Howards End interiors isn't quite as dramatic as this DVD/Blu-ray P&P comparison, and of course the Blu-ray still delivers more 1080-scan details. But, assume a Howards End print was used instead of a negative--as with most major-feature transfers, AIUI-- and that's the reason for the color/contrast loss with interior scenes. Didn't notice any serious EE or other artifacts, but look forward to other reports and revisiting scenes if they are present. There are about 5 featurettes .


EDIT: Noticed a paragraph about the transfer in a pamphlet with the disc. The scan was with "Oliver Wetgate [?] processing from the original 35mm interpositive." it notes. Also, thousands of instances of dirt, splices, scratches, etc. were removed with three software programs, with similar audio cleanup.


Wouldn't presume to rank this since I haven't seen enough Blu-rays for a comparison. Greatly enjoyed the story and James Ivory's craft, the reason I ordered the disc. -- John


Panasonic TH-65VX100U @8', 1080/24p @96 Hz and Sony PS3.


EDIT 2: During a second viewing I tried tinkering with gamma settings for my plasma. Found that setting it to 2.0 rather than 2.2, used for most viewing, greatly helped interior views and even flesh tones. May have cranked gamma up to 2.6 during the first viewing, which was clearly the wrong way! Scenes appear fine now, although suspect a transfer from a negative, as outlined above for "Pride and Prejudice," would enhance images still more.


----------



## Postmoderndesign




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Mason* /forum/post/17507386
> 
> *Howards End*
> 
> 
> Disappointed with the transfer quality on this Janus Criterion Blu-ray. Readily admit I haven't viewed many feature-film Blu-rays, though. There seems to be a contrast-limiting filter over most scenes, perhaps with the exception of full sunlit views. Too bad since one of its three Oscars was for art/set decoration.
> 
> 
> The appearance of interiors as well as flesh tones reminds me of the
> 
> 
> 
> comparison[/URL] of the 16mm "Pride and Prejudice" print for the DVD of that BBC/A&E TV series with the 16mm negative transfer used for the Blu-ray--my first Blu-ray acquisition. The contrast limitation for Howards End interiors isn't quite as dramatic as this DVD/Blu-ray P&P comparison, and of course the Blu-ray still delivers more 1080-scan details. But, assume a Howards End print was used instead of a negative--as with most major-feature transfers, AIUI-- and that's the reason for the color/contrast loss with interior scenes. Didn't notice any serious EE or other artifacts, but look forward to other reports and revisiting scenes if they are present. There are about 5 featurettes that I haven't viewed yet.
> 
> 
> Wouldn't presume to rank this since I haven't seen enough Blu-rays for a comparison. Greatly enjoyed the story and James Ivory's craft, the reason I ordered the disc. -- John
> 
> 
> Panasonic TH-65VX100U @8' and Sony PS3.



I have seen Howards End many times and this is easily the best picture of all the releases. It is a beautiful film and I would put it at least as a 2.

Panasonic TH-58 plasma from HTPC .mkv at 8 feet.


----------



## akademiks




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17507266
> 
> *UP*
> 
> 
> Way UP as in at the top!!
> 
> 
> Another fantastic looking Pixar Blu Ray that qualifies for anywhere among the top 5 of tier 0.
> 
> 
> I seen this in the theatre in digital 3-d and while it was impressive I think viewing the Blu Ray at home is even better. Color and contrast are do deep and vibrant, the depth is so intense it renders an almost 3-d look at times, yes the proverbial 3-d pop is really apparent here. Probably the most stunning character visually is the bird with its plumage having the most beautiful rainbow of colors. Textures and details of the clothing of characters, their faces, hair, etc. are all high tier 0 quality possibly the best you will see on BD. This is one of those BD's you could go on and on about the PQ, but seeing it is the only thing that does it justice. If push came to shove I would say it is the new king of BD's and earns the top spot of tier 0. Then we have a great story and reference sound track to make it one of the best all around BD's to date. A must own.
> *Recommendation Tier 0 at the top*
> 
> 
> SOny A3000 60in @ 7 ft from PS3.
> 
> 
> I got this early due to the fact that Modern Warfare 2, a popular video game, was coming out at midnight on the 10th, so my local Hollywood stayed opened and had it out and I was coming home exactly then from my hockey game.



I agree.. I was watching on my Samsung PN50B850 and the PQ was absolutely incredible.. The environments were beautiful and the character models were just flawless.

Possibly the best looking Blu-ray I've ever seen.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17507266
> 
> *UP*
> 
> 
> Way UP as in at the top!!
> 
> 
> Another fantastic looking Pixar Blu Ray that qualifies for anywhere among the top 5 of tier 0.
> 
> 
> I seen this in the theatre in digital 3-d and while it was impressive I think viewing the Blu Ray at home is even better. Color and contrast are do deep and vibrant, the depth is so intense it renders an almost 3-d look at times, yes the proverbial 3-d pop is really apparent here. Probably the most stunning character visually is the bird with its plumage having the most beautiful rainbow of colors. Textures and details of the clothing of characters, their faces, hair, etc. are all high tier 0 quality possibly the best you will see on BD. This is one of those BD's you could go on and on about the PQ, but seeing it is the only thing that does it justice. If push came to shove I would say it is the new king of BD's and earns the top spot of tier 0. Then we have a great story and reference sound track to make it one of the best all around BD's to date. A must own.
> *Recommendation Tier 0 at the top*
> 
> 
> SOny A3000 60in @ 7 ft from PS3.
> 
> 
> I got this early due to the fact that Modern Warfare 2, a popular video game, was coming out at midnight on the 10th, so my local Hollywood stayed opened and had it out and I was coming home exactly then from my hockey game.



You seem to the first one to see and review these topnotch animated titles Hugh....good for you!










I'm picking up _UP_ (it sounds like I'm repeating myself







) today at Best Buy, but probably won't be viewing it until Thursday night. After viewing _Coraline_, and before that _A Bug's Life_, I thought to myself that it's going to be near impossible to better this one!


I do wonder though if we were to actually view some of these side by side, if we would possibly conclude that it's near impossible to tell the difference. Just a thought, FWIW.


----------



## captcraig

I tried playing Mutant Chronicles last night on my PIO 51 and it played the previews but refused to play the feature. Anyone else having a problem with this Blu-ray?


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17508539
> 
> 
> You seem to the first one to see and review these topnotch animated titles Hugh....good for you!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm picking up _UP_ (it sounds like I'm repeating myself
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) today at Best Buy, but probably won't be viewing it until Thursday night. After viewing _Coraline_, and before that _A Bug's Life_, I thought to myself that it's going to be near impossible to better this one!
> 
> 
> I do wonder though if we were to actually view some of these side by side, if we would possibly conclude that it's near impossible to tell the difference. Just a thought, FWIW.




I think you are right Denny. It is more posturing than anything when deciding which is actually better. I still think Bolt and Wall E are in that top list as well, although I certainly respect some didn't feel that way and that top of the tier is already "crowded". Anyone of those top tier 0 BD's could be at the very top and it would be justified. I think if we did what you said having 5 exact screens side by side to watch each of them several times next to each other might give us a more definitive champ, but I think what you are saying is they are all equally qualified to be on top and I agree.







I just read some reviews of UP around the net from the usual "pro" sites and most are claiming it is the best or possibly the best they have seen on BD. Either way it is great for us enthusiasts.


I am going to head to Best Buy now asnd grab Logan's Run, North by Northwest and Gump. A heads up for anyone who wants to buy UP and or Monster's Inc. There are coupons that bring the price for both to under 10.00 each. A BD, digital copy and DVD all for about 8.00 each.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Third Man


recommendation: Tier 3.25*


If only more classic films could be treated as well when presented on Blu-ray as this BD-50 disc. Criterion released the 1949 film on December 16, 2008, which has just now gone out of print sadly. The 105-minute main feature is encoded in AVC at a video bitrate that averages 30.48 Mbps. Reproduced below from the included booklet are the exact technical details of the transfer that acts as the source for this excellent film noir movie.

_The Third Man is presented in its original aspect ratio of 1.33:1. The picture has been slightly windowboxed to ensure that the maximum image is visible on all monitors. This high-definition digital transfer was created on a Spirit Datacine from a restored 35mm fine-grain master positive. Thousands of instances of dirt, debris, and scratches were removed using the MTI Digital Restoration System.


Telecine supervisor: Lee Kline

Telecine colorist: Duncan Russell / Blue, London

Blu-ray disc mastering: Radius60, Los Angeles_


The compression encoding looks spectacular in its ability to reproduce the noticeable grain-structure of the film without a trace of artifacting. It holds up perfectly under the heaviest of compression-demands, notably in the darkened shadows of Vienna without macroblocking or mosquito noise. In terms of faithfulness and accuracy to the original master element, the encode appears to be immaculate. Grain does not devolve into a blocky mess like so often happens with thicker noise and texture.


Criterion demonstrates an unerring intent to display the movie as it was originally intended, without any evidence of nefarious processing. The image retains a naturalistic film-like appearance that is appropriate and evinces the era of the movies it was filmed in. There is no evidence of any grain-reduction, digital or otherwise, and halos are entirely absent. Fine detail is remarkably clear and shown in the majority of close-ups. It is easy to make out the individual strands of hair on Joseph Cotten's head and pick up on the fact that he had some natural waviness in his hair. Medium-distance shots have slightly lower levels of visible detail and resolution.


The black-and-white photography is fantastic and acquits itself excellently, even in comparison to more modern filming. The deep, rich black levels display exceptional shadow detail that revels in the coarse textures and small details of the characters' clothing. Light and dark areas play off each other in perfect contrast, with top-notch gradient changes between the two extremes. There are some density and luminosity fluctuations that appear endemic to the existing film elements, but it is a minor complaint in degree and frequency altogether. Interior scenes display a palpable sense of depth and dimensionality that is as strong as a film from the Forties can have. Outdoor shots show a touch less depth and sharpness, but nevertheless remain solid without becoming soft.


Overall the restoration work looks great and vastly superior to any previous version. There are still minor bits of print damage. A glimpse of gate hair can briefly be seen in the lower left corner of the screen at one point, and several faint lines pop up on occasion. Most of it is limited to the first act of the movie. The brief remaining debris and scratches mostly disappear by the middle of the film, leaving the image clean with a decent level of clarity. Only the intrusion of a thin black line near the end of the movie that pops up for a few seconds deviates from that observation.


Criterion's disc is marvelous in bringing out the best picture quality that could be gleaned from the existing film elements. It is doubtful that it will be surpassed by any future Blu-ray version, and thus deserves the highest recommendation for interested fans who want to add it to their permanent collections. The current placement in tier 3.75 is too harsh in my judgment, considering the consistently sharp interior scenes and general level of visible detail. In contrast, another Blu-ray of similar pedigree, _Great Expectations_, that I am going over and intending to do a placement currently, looks slightly worse on a visual basis.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of benes):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post15454495


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17511610
> 
> *The Third Man
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 3.25*
> 
> 
> If only more classic films could be treated as well when presented on Blu-ray as this BD-50 disc.



Indeed, but we do have some others that have been very well done too. The most recent that I saw was The Seventh Seal, also released by Criterion, which I was very happy with.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Got my copy of Up from Amazon in the mail today. I don't know what's happening, but both new releases that I have ordered from Amazon recently (North by Northwest was the other) have been received on release day, and that is using their free shipping option!


----------



## Milt99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17512007
> 
> 
> both new releases that I have ordered from Amazon recently (North by Northwest was the other) have been received on release day, and that is using their free shipping option!



You forgot the Big Grin Rob, so I did it for you.

Plus one for me, I got Heat today totally free using Amazon Rewards


----------



## djoberg

*UP*


What can I say?! Hugh is definitely right is saying this title must go UP to the top of the list in Tier Blu...no doubt about it. Does it deserve to be the King? Possibly! But I will stick by my hypothesis that it's nearly impossible to tell if this is the "best of the best" without doing side by side testing. I guess what I'm really saying is that this title is absolutely awesome and right now, having just watched it, it _seems_ to be the best. But if I were to pop in _A Bug's Life_ or _Coraline_ in a few days I'd probably say the same thing.


Make no mistake about it fellow HD enthusiasts and eye candy lovers, this movie will give your eyes the _sugar rush_ they crave, for it has it all.....tremendous DETAIL, SHARPNESS, and CLARITY......vibrant COLORS that seem to pop off the screen.....inky BLACKS with amazing SHADOW DETAIL.....very strong CONTRAST.....and plenty of DEPTH.


Before I make a placement recommendation, I want to comment on the lighting in various scenes....it is PHENOMENAL and perhaps the best I've seen in an animated title. There is one scene in particular towards the end of the movie that takes place in the Blimp that highlights this...prepare to be AMAZED by it and by other scenes as well.


Again, right now this _seems_ to be a real contender for "King of the Blu-ray Hill," but I'm going to play it safe and propose the following....

*Tier Recommendation: TOP 5 of TIER BLU*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'


PS I forgot to mention that the audio was rock solid as well and I was pleased that this was filmed in the 1.78:1 aspect ratio.


----------



## Hughmc

Milt, I picked up Heat as well today







, Logan's Run, North by Northwest ( THanks Rob), Monsters Inc., UP, Dave and Tim at Radio CIty, and Gump.


Denny, it really is beautiful to look at and how did you like the story?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17512646
> 
> 
> Denny, it really is beautiful to look at and how did you like the story?



I thoroughly enjoyed the story and so did the couple who watched it with my wife and I.


----------



## 42041

*Bolt*

as always i'm way behind on my blu-rays







not sure why this is so low in tier 0, i thought it looked great, there's many furry CGI animals, fabrics, and rich colors here and the resolution of the medium is used to the fullest extent. Technical issues with the video encoding are absent. Really, I find it hard to rank these movies against one another since they all look about the same to me on an eye candy merit. My one problem is that the quality of animation is sorta mixed, some scenes look spectacular, others look a bit rushed or half-assed. Still, I think this needs to be moved up perhaps a quarter tier.

*Tier 0, 1/4 of the way down from top*

(PS3/Pioneer Kuro 50" Elite/1 screen width away)


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/17512853
> 
> *Bolt*
> 
> as always i'm way behind on my blu-rays
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *not sure why this is so low in tier 0*, i thought it looked great, there's many furry CGI animals, fabrics, and rich colors here and the resolution of the medium is used to the fullest extent. Technical issues with the video encoding are absent. Really, I find it hard to rank these movies against one another since they all look about the same to me on an eye candy merit. My one problem is that the quality of animation is sorta mixed, some scenes look spectacular, others look a bit rushed or half-assed. Still, I think this needs to be moved up perhaps a quarter tier.
> 
> *Tier 0, 1/4 of the way down from top*
> 
> (PS3/Pioneer Kuro 50" Elite/1 screen width away)



'Cause that's where it belongs.







All ya gotta do is turn to the pages around the release date and read up on what people have complained/praised about.


I'm not liking the approach of, in this case, voting extra high in order to move a title a quarter tier. This goes back to the premise of this thread NOT being a polling thread. The reason we all put a review down is so that if individuals cite negatives (or positives) that cannot be disputed or carry more weight, their tier recommendation does too - carry more weight, that is. It's not just an average, but a weighted average.


Otherwise, as an example, if one is inclined to get _Coraline_ out of the Blu Tier, he/she simply needs to vote it into somewhere in Tier 2.


----------



## deltasun

*Red Heat*


Fine to moderate grain present throughout, sometimes inconsistent. The film definitely had a soft, dated look. The weak contrast did not help and neither did the smoky, milky look of indoor scenes. Blacks were never the inky variety.


Details, in general, were not the strong point either. In particular, faces looked scrubbed. I've not seen Laurence Fishburne's face this smooth. Colors looked dated as well, but primaries would stand out here and there - reds, in particular, looked vivid. Depth was slightly above average for the most part, but no obvious 3D pop existed.


Print dirt was somewhat common in the first act, but noticed them diminish as the movie progressed along. Overall, not the best catalog title to come out. but was still very watchable. It's still about a quarter tier better than _True Romance_, for example.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.50*


Some classic lines in this movie.









_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17512946
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not liking the approach of, in this case, voting extra high in order to move a title a quarter tier.
> 
> 
> Otherwise, as an example, if one is inclined to get _Coraline_ out of the Blu Tier, he/she simply needs to vote it into somewhere in Tier 2.



+1


Exactly right deltasun!


----------



## OldCodger73

Watched _Up_ last night and all I can say is WOW! This is what BD is all about; in my mind when you factor in PQ, AQ and plot/storyline, it's absolutely the very best BD viewing experience so far.

_Up_ is easily one of the top three movies in Tier 0; where one places it depends on how one likes it's visual style and use of color compared to that of _A Bug's Life_ or _Kung Fu Panda_. My vote goes for *Up Top of Tier 0*.


There's some great gut-punching LFE in a couple of scenes.


Panasonic 50" 720p plasma, Panasonic 10a player, 7 1/2'


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Up


recommendation: fourth best in tier zero, below Coraline*


Ranking the best films, particularly the purely animated CGI selections, against one another is a highly subjective process. Because of the unmatched technical brilliance of the Pixar transfers, directly taken from the digital domain, the rankings should be based off the quality of the animation and the aesthetic choices made in the creative process. Subject matter also counts a small amount, as certain subjects naturally lend themselves to picture quality and eye candy potential more than other subjects. There is really no possible alternative that holds up to repeated scrutiny.

_Up_ redefines certain expectations of visual superiority on the format while occasionally slipping into standard Pixar territory in this regard. Describing perfection of this kind is like debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin at times. Flawless does little justice to how well the original intent of the animators is brought directly to the viewer without deviation or error. Only the limitations of time and money and imagination put a ceiling on the picture quality Pixar seems able to achieve film after film.


I was underwhelmed by the spectacle of the imagery until the action hit the jungles of South America. A conscious creative choice appears to have been made on the human characters. Carl and Russell are not animated with the lavish detail and care typical of the most recent CGI-animation. Their faces are smooth and show few, if any, defining features. The striking imagery is reserved for the animal characters, who set new standards in animation quality. The menacing dogs in particular are truly a marvel to view and represent some of the most amazing animation I have witnessed. Watch the finely detailed fur ripple realistically as their muscles propel them around the screen. The animals look and move as if they are alive and real. It is a substantial leap ahead in this aspect over another CGI film that features animated animals, _Bolt_. The comparison really should end any arguments for Bolt to be placed higher in tier zero.


The jungles surrounding Paradise Falls are where the color-scheme begins to stand apart from other movies. The striking background imagery of foliage is lush, illustrated with immense detail, and bursting off the screen in vibrant hues of the primary colors. Kevin, the large bird, looks incredible with the multi-colored plumage. Foreground objects give a convincing illusion of three-dimensionality that recalls the best depth seen yet on Blu-ray.


It might be petty, but my eyes are relatively undecided if this is the best example of video quality amongst all the Blu-rays released to date. I would still give the nod to _A Bug's Life_ and _Kung Fu Panda_ as superior examples, mainly due to the material being a little more suitable for visual appeal. The titles above it in my opinion make slightly better demonstration selections to impress newcomers to Blu-ray and high-definition. But there is no doubt Pixar has delivered another “perfect” BD in _Up_, so the final ranking should be the fourth-highest ranking in tier zero.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of mitanidani):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...3#post17414323


----------



## deltasun

^^ Beautifully argued, Phantom. You make some really good points in how you dissected your arguments for placement.


Can't wait to watch it myself. This review has whet my appetite even more.


----------



## daPriceIs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17512946
> 
> 
> ... I'm not liking the approach of, in this case, *voting extra high in order to move a title a quarter tier*. This goes back to the premise of this thread NOT being a polling thread. The reason we all put a review down is so that if individuals cite negatives (or positives) that cannot be disputed or carry more weight, their tier recommendation does too - carry more weight, that is. It's not just an average, but a weighted average.
> 
> 
> Otherwise, as an example, if one is inclined to get _Coraline_ out of the Blu Tier, he/she simply needs to vote it into somewhere in Tier 2.



I can't speak for *42041* or his/her motives, but numerically what you suggest isn't, on its face, happening here:
46 BDs in Tier 0
Placement recommendation of 1/4 down from top = 11th or 12th place
Bolt placement = 26
1/4 tier up from 26 = 14th or 15th place, currently occupied by _The Wild_ and _Man on Fire_ respectively
In my book 12 and 14 are close enough as to "make no never mind."








Moreover, suppose the tier rankings _were_ the result of some simplistic mathematical formula and an outlying _vote_ resulted in a drastic shift in placement. So what? If one vote results in a big change, it means that there weren't that many _votes_ to begin with. If there is a sufficient base of recommendations, then the median and to a lesser extent the mean of that base is stable against a single or a few modest outliers. Recommending the top of the second quarter as opposed to the top of the third quarter of Tier 0 hardly constitutes an outlier.

I don't know (or care to know) what history may have motivated your comments or *djoberg*'s. Obviously you feel how you feel and no one can argue that.


My, perhaps naive, approach is simply to take each post, recommendation, and review at face value as the honest opinion of the person who posted it until I have good reason to do otherwise. We don't want to find ourselves in the position of impugning the integrity of a placement recommendation merely because we disagree with it, do we? (Of course, we might very well question the _sanity_ of it or the quality of the reviewer's eyesight!







) To quote the rankings page:


> Quote:
> *We welcome all opinions on all blu-rays, no matter how controversial*, no matter how long a title has enjoyed its placement. Placements are often the result of weighing a wide range of recommendations, so most often, there is no majority opinion on any given title, *nor would we expect anyone to adopt the majority opinion if in fact one did exist*. Opinions and placements often change over time depending on momentum. ... If there is a dispute about a title's placement, other reviewers may challenge you to support your recommendation with further debate and discussion. ...



"Dispute" is not quite the same thing as "dismiss out of hand" merely because a contrarian view has been expressed. As a point of reference, I know that I will be producing some reviews of BDs in Tiers 0 and 1.0 in the not too distant future that will express views at odds with current placements or what appear to be emerging placements, and I would hate to have those reviews denigrated without due consideration.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17512946
> 
> 
> I'm not liking the approach of, in this case, voting extra high in order to move a title a quarter tier. This goes back to the premise of this thread NOT being a polling thread. The reason we all put a review down is so that if individuals cite negatives (or positives) that cannot be disputed or carry more weight, their tier recommendation does too - carry more weight, that is. It's not just an average, but a weighted average.



It's in the middle of tier 0 right now, maybe a few lines lower. I think my recommendation is pretty well in line with where I want it to be, which is around the same area as Open Season


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *daPriceIs* /forum/post/17515730
> 
> 
> I can't speak for *42041* or his/her motives, but numerically what you suggest isn't, on its face, happening here:
> 46 BDs in Tier 0
> Placement recommendation of 1/4 down from top = 11th or 12th place
> Bolt placement = 26
> 1/4 tier up from 26 = 14th or 15th place, currently occupied by _The Wild_ and _Man on Fire_ respectively
> In my book 12 and 14 are close enough as to "make no never mind."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moreover, suppose the tier rankings _were_ the result of some simplistic mathematical formula and an outlying _vote_ resulted in a drastic shift in placement. So what? If one vote results in a big change, it means that there weren't that many _votes_ to begin with. If there is a sufficient base of recommendations, then the median and to a lesser extent the mean of that base is stable against a single or a few modest outliers. Recommending the top of the second quarter as opposed to the top of the third quarter of Tier 0 hardly constitutes an outlier.
> 
> I don't know (or care to know) what history may have motivated your comments or *djoberg*'s. Obviously you feel how you feel and no one can argue that.
> 
> 
> My, perhaps naive, approach is simply to take each post, recommendation, and review at face value as the honest opinion of the person who posted it until I have good reason to do otherwise. We don't want to find ourselves in the position of impugning the integrity of a placement recommendation merely because we disagree with it, do we? (Of course, we might very well question the _sanity_ of it or the quality of the reviewer's eyesight!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) To quote the rankings page: "Dispute" is not quite the same thing as "dismiss out of hand" merely because a contrarian view has been expressed. As a point of reference, I know that I will be producing some reviews of BDs in Tiers 0 and 1.0 in the not too distant future that will express views at odds with current placements or what appear to be emerging placements, and I would hate to have those reviews denigrated without due consideration.



I appreciate the mathematical approach. However, this isn't a mathematical thread. We dispute and argue each others' claims until we can either get straight agreement or agreement to disagree. If we get one person to see the other's argument and attain agreement that way, perfect. If we have to agree to disagree, then it becomes more mathematical.


I would agree with your "swaying" theory, but that would only be valid if we DO have more people participating. Unfortunately, one *outlier* CAN change the outcome significantly.


In regards to motives, I was not implying folks are doing that. 42041's comments somewhat alluded to it in how he phrased his recommendation. I admit that I read a bit more into that, but my main point is just a cautionary one. I'm calling it out because I don't want us to fall into what I described.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17512946
> 
> 
> 'Cause that's where it belongs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All ya gotta do is turn to the pages around the release date and read up on what people have complained/praised about.
> 
> 
> I'm not liking the approach of, in this case, voting extra high in order to move a title a quarter tier. This goes back to the premise of this thread NOT being a polling thread. The reason we all put a review down is so that if individuals cite negatives (or positives) that cannot be disputed or carry more weight, their tier recommendation does too - carry more weight, that is. It's not just an average, but a weighted average.
> 
> 
> Otherwise, as an example, if one is inclined to get _Coraline_ out of the Blu Tier, he/she simply needs to vote it into somewhere in Tier 2.



This is spot on.


Of course I got hell in this thread quite some time ago when I mentioned that the placements were not based on a pure average.


----------



## daPriceIs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17512946
> 
> 
> ... All ya gotta do is turn to the pages around the release date and read up on what people have complained/praised about.



The problem with that is that not all reviews and placement suggestions happen in such a narrow time frame. And we all know how quirky







the "Search this Thread" function can be; sometimes it works well and other times it's a total waste.


The links on the disc titles in the ranking page that lead to HDDB are as far as I can see totally without value. Why link to an external site with "professional" reviews that don't even pretend to follow the guidelines used to produce the rankings? Wouldn't it be better if clicking a link brought up a page showing (in chronological or reverse chronological order) *all the posts that factored into the a BD's current placement*? Such a page would have value for putative reviewers and even more value for casual readers of the rankings who may be using the rankings to help inform their buying or renting choices. Not only that, it gives the actual reviews more weight for those readers who are disinclined to slog through hundreds of pages and thousands of posts to find relevant info. Easier for the reader/visitor = better. Sure they could Google or thread search, but a simple click is always more effective and more likely to be used.


As I understand it, *K-Spaz* has created a recommendation/review database which presumably associates reviews, placement recommendations and post numbers among other things. If so, mightn't it be relatively straightforward to write code that dynamically creates the appropriate pages? Obviously I don't know the details of *K-Spaz's* database nor those of the back-end of this site, so "straightforward" may be anything but.


And of course I'm cavalierly talking about creating further work for *SuprSlow*, *K-Spaz*, and *Phantom*. Hey, don't hate me guys.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17515876
> 
> 
> This is spot on.
> 
> 
> Of course I got hell in this thread quite some time ago when I mentioned that the placements were not based on a pure average.



In the end, the tier system is more a meritocracy than pure democracy in action.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

I actually understood 420...i forget the rest of your #







's post, meaning he just wanted Bolt moved up in the tier, not that he was overestimating the spot where he was suggesting in hopes of averaging it to where it should be, but that he stated exactly where he'd like it to appear. I can understand where Deltasun & Denny could think that though.


Personally I remember I did not do a proper review for Bolt but I felt it belonged in Tier 1.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *phantom stranger* /forum/post/17516218
> 
> 
> in the end, the tier system is more a meritocracy than pure democracy in action.


----------



## daPriceIs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17515863
> 
> 
> I appreciate the mathematical approach. However, this isn't a mathematical thread. We dispute and argue each others' claims until we can either get straight agreement or agreement to disagree. If we get one person to see the other's argument and attain agreement that way, perfect. If we have to agree to disagree, then it becomes more mathematical.
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> In regards to motives, I was not implying folks are doing that. 42041's comments somewhat alluded to it in how he phrased his recommendation. I admit that I read a bit more into that, but my main point is just a cautionary one. I'm calling it out because I don't want us to fall into what I described.



Fair enough. My main point was that his recommendation and comments about raising the placement were perfectly consistent with one another. My secondary point was hypothetical and not intended to suggest any "mathematization" of the rankings. In fact I argued (in response to a post by *Hughmc*) just the opposite a couple of months ago.



> Quote:
> ...I would agree with your "swaying" theory, but that would only be valid if we DO have more people participating. Unfortunately, one *outlier* CAN change the outcome significantly...



But for small enough samples the very notion of an "outlier" becomes meaningless; thus my remarks to the point of "So what?" The bottom line comes down to two points that I think we can all agree on: 1) *we need more reviews and reviewers* (and more titles reviewed, not just the latest sensation and provided the reviewers stick to the posted tier guidelines). 2) The sort of trick or attempt to skew the system that you suggest is very likely to fail since the ranking system _isn't_ a vote-based average and because we trust that the three individuals responsible, SuprSlow in particular, for amalgamating the reviews into the posted rankings aren't likely to be duped by such calculated and abusive recommendations.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/17515837
> 
> 
> It's in the middle of tier 0 right now, maybe a few lines lower. I think my recommendation is pretty well in line with where I want it to be, which is around the same area as Open Season



If I had taken the time to go the Rankings Thread to check out where _Bolt_ is currently ranked, I would have seen that your recommendation was indeed "in line with where [you] want it to be." So, I retract my response to deltasun's post (though I do agree with his thinking if that case should ever truly develop) and apologize to you for it.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17516495
> 
> 
> I actually understood 420...i forget the rest of your #
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 's post, meaning he just wanted Bolt moved up in the tier, not that he was overestimating the spot where he was suggesting in hopes of averaging it to where it should be, but that he stated exactly where he'd like it to appear. *I can understand where Deltasun & Denny could think that though.*



Thanks G3 for "understanding where deltasun and Denny could think that," but as I just wrote I should have checked the actual ratings. Without checking, I made the wrong assumption based on the way 42041 worded his post.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17516827
> 
> 
> Thanks G3 for "understanding where deltasun and Denny could think that," but as I just wrote I should have checked the actual ratings. Without checking, I made the wrong assumption based on the way 42041 worded his post.


----------



## Hughmc

I watched part of Heat last night. All I can say is wow. FOr a catalogue title, the PQ is amazing. I am going to watch it all the way through this weekend, but from what I have seen so far, I would say it is a tier 1.0 or even low tier 0 title. It is incredible. The audio is really powerful and I have this on DVD, but the audio on the BD takes it to the next level. I made a comment about the audio in the Heat thread below, but I put spoiler tags around it, so if you are curious check it out. Again, any fans of this genre and those who own it on DVD, this is a well worth it upgrade in all aspects.


I also watched a bit of Logan's Run and it looks fairly good for a 30 year old movie, maybe tier 2 or better.


North by Northwest I did watch in its entirety and admittedly I either haven't seen it in a long, long time or not at all, because it seemed all new to me. I would say the PQ is on par with some of the early Bond films several of us have reviewed.


Dave Matthews and TIm Reynolds live at Radio CIty is your typical concert BD filmed that looks like it was captured with HD cameras. Probably about a 2.0 in our tier thread, but the audio, reference with a big wow. I couldn't stop watching/listening.


I haven't peeked at Monster's Inc or Gump yet, but will later and although I have said it several times







I will get more formal reviews up for the ones I mentioned above and many others hopefully this weekend.


----------



## Hughmc

As far as "padding" the rankings by over or under rating a title, I honestly never really thought anyone was doing that, but I did believe if they felt strongly about a title, no matter how different from the rest, I thought they were just felt that is where that title really belonged or how it looked.










I also didn't read into 42041's review as anything more than he really believed that is where the title belonged.


I think we should continue to give the benefit of the doubt to each other that we maybe more reasonable and honest in how we rank titles and move on which it seems is already being done.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17517649
> 
> 
> I watched part of Heat last night. All I can say is wow. FOr a catalogue title, the PQ is amazing. I am going to watch it all the way through this weekend, but from what I have seen so far, I would say it is a tier 1.0 or even low tier 0 title. It is incredible. The audio is really powerful and I have this on DVD, but the audio on the BD takes it to the next level. I made a comment about the audio in the Heat thread below, but I put spoiler tags around it, so if you are curious check it out. Again, any fans of this genre and those who own it on DVD, this is a well worth it upgrade in all aspects.



How far did you get, Hugh? I peeked too - the opening (establishing) scene looked no better than _Red Heat_, which I just watched and rated mid-Bronze. Once we got into the characters though it did improve. However, it is a pretty stylized look from Mann - contrast a bit off, black crushing, etc. It'd be interesting to see what you think after you watch the entire movie - it was looking more like Silver to me.










But yes, I've been waiting a while for this to finally hit Blu. From what I've seen, it's worth picking up as an upgrade to SD. I have yet to crank the sound up as it was too late last night to really let her rip.


----------



## Spoonsey




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17517688
> 
> 
> How far did you get, Hugh? I peeked too - the opening (establishing) scene looked no better than _Red Heat_, which I just watched and rated mid-Bronze. Once we got into the characters though it did improve. However, it is a pretty stylized look from Mann - contrast a bit off, black crushing, etc. It'd be interesting to see what you think after you watch the entire movie - it was looking more like Silver to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But yes, I've been waiting a while for this to finally hit Blu. From what I've seen, it's worth picking up as an upgrade to SD. I have yet to crank the sound up as it was too late last night to really let her rip.



I watched the AUS/NZ release last night. Yes, I concur it's a substantial improvement on the DVD, however I would be very reluctant to recommend it for tier 1.0 or above. IMO there is just not the level of detail that I would associate with a tier 1.0 title. I'd place this somewhere lower in the silver tiers for PQ.


I also had to view with reduced volume as the kids were in bed but will hopefully get another chance soon to turn it up and really savour that audio. I found that the dialogue was a touch on the quiet side and when some action occurred I was scrambling to locate the remote and turn down the volume.


----------



## Hughmc

Delta, I must admit I really like this film a lot and it is one of my favs, so I am sure I have some bias towards it and how it looks. In fact, one review which is at Blu Ray forum says, "your appreciation of Warner's 1080p/VC-1 transfer will largely come down to the nature of your expectations. Anyone hoping for a faithful rendering of Mann's grim-n-gritty aesthetics, bleached palette, and oppressive shadows will be enamored with the results, while those looking for the latest and greatest high definition presentation will be slightly underwhelmed."


I believe the above is exactly how I feel Heat looks.


I did just come from a half dozen sites that have screen caps including DVD beaver and my mouth dropped open as I said to myself, WTF, so I put the BD in and stopped at some of the similar screen caps about 4 of them. The BD looks almost nothing like those caps, and yes IMO a poor representation.







I have used screen caps before for making a case and even have agreed most often they give an idea of what the film looks like, but even the caps for Heat at DVD beaver are not what I am seeing and especially if viewed in motion.


Again, I might like the look of this with colors etc., but the facial details are tier 0, I see no signs of DNR or EE, the blacks look deep and inky to me, not crushed at all, there is a fine layer of grain, and the reviews make the same claim about the BD doing justice to the blacks particularly in dark scenes that Mann captures.










I went through Heat from beginning to end and I would agree I was a bit zealous on my pre-recommendation, but I still think it looks mid tier 1. Facial details in most shots I think are tier 0, especially in close ups with extreme detail of pores, hairs, etc.


Delta, if you get a chance would you check out the different sites that have caps, like HD DIgest, DVD Beaver and compare to how the actual BD looks. I really believe the caps in this case don't accurately portray the way the BD looks. Most times it seems caps are more or less some what indicative, but again they seem to be a poor indicator this time. Let me know what you think.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Natural Born Killers: The Director's Cut


recommendation: Tier 1.75*


A word of warning to readers who already own the theatrical version of this Oliver Stone movie on Blu-ray. Be prepared to purchase the movie once again if you are compelled to own the best-looking version of a film. The placement that drove the theatrical version on Blu-ray to the lower rungs of tier two can be read in the link at the bottom of this review, if one is so inclined to read my original thoughts on the subject. For the purposes of placement in the tier system, both cuts have been watched recently and directly compared on my display.


Warner Bros. is the most maddeningly inconsistent Hollywood studio publishing their movies on Blu-ray discs today. Spectacular transfers for a number of older films and certain new releases that feature the maximum fidelity possible, while other discs get substandard attention and encodes that barely pass for true high-definition. The director's cut of Natural Born Killers as a BD belongs in the first group. My highest compliments to the technicians and professionals who are responsible for this particular transfer at each step of the mastering chain. Top-notch work that truly brings out a visually dazzling experience. It exceeds my wildest expectations of a movie I am very familiar with since its original theatrical presentation.


It is obvious a brand-new transfer has been completed for this new release and then scanned with the most advanced equipment available today. Every frame of the movie benefits in almost every criterion one can use to assess picture quality. In comparison the original Blu-ray reveals itself as the result of an older master most likely targeted for standard-definition resolution. It is amazing how a completely new transfer can revitalize the picture of an older catalog selection. Hope springs eternal that many of the early mistakes on Blu-ray can benefit in much the same way, with delicate handling and commitment by the studios in charge when given new life like this movie.


The new Blu-ray shows absolutely no sharpening filters applied to the transfer, leaving the image entirely free of halos. That is the first of many notable differences with the theatrical cut available on Blu-ray. Colors have been subtly tweaked for more visual appeal. The extreme red-push is now gone that was so prevalent in the theatrical Blu-ray. In its place is a color palette that is well-balanced and rendered in a more naturalistic method. The shots of red no longer bleed and green is suitably more saturated. Contrast has been altered to deepen black levels while minimizing blown highlights. Any shots of black crush have been eliminated and now reveal finely-textured shadow detail that is perfectly delineated. The scenes in the prison and the motel benefit the most from this change, but the entire director's cut here surpasses the theatrical version in consideration of the ranking criteria.


A level of digital noise reduction has been applied, reducing the visible grain inherent in the Super 8mm and 16mm-filmed sequences. In this case I am not here to condemn the use of grain-reduction, but to embrace it. While not entirely faithful to the original, messy look first witnessed in the theaters, it undeniably looks better from a visual perspective. The thick noise in the black-and-white photography is absent for the most part and improves the image clarity substantially during these scenes. And there are no untoward artifacts or smeared sections of grain as a result of this added digital processing.


The majority of the movie is filmed on 35mm stock. These scenes on the new Blu-ray easily exceed anything witnessed on the original Blu-ray. Excellent sharpness and improved resolution lead to an impressive level of clarity. In motion, each scene from the new BD appears more well-defined with less softness. The VC-1 encode actually averages a lesser video bitrate, 20.02 Mbps, than the worse-looking theatrical cut. Speculation would lead me to conclude that the removed grain might account for some of that difference. Both are presented on a BD-50, respectively.


The new video encode is a very, very good compression job. Many scenes, like the prison riot, might lead to compression artifacts like macroblocking if not handled properly. Random compression noise and banding never show up though, even upon close inspection at less than one screen-width viewing distance.


A minor note regarding a small problem spotted. The opening logo of WB and the credits at the very end of the film show some degree of telecine wobble. It does look to be some kind of operator error with the transfer, as no other version of the film demonstrates it. Since it did not affect the rest of the film in any way, it plays no part in my evaluation and should not worry any potential viewers.


Some might quarrel with a movie displaying so much stock footage and lower-resolution film stocks to be placed in tier one. There are good arguments to be made because of that mixture to move this disc into tier two. Normally I would agree, but the stunning improvement over the prior BD and the general visual appeal lead me to recommend a placement in tier 1.75


Watching on a 60” Pioneer KURO plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a 60 GB PS3 (firmware 3.01) at a viewing distance of five feet.


Original placement of Natural Born Killers: Theatrical version -
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...7#post14056147 

BDInfo scan for theatrical version (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...6#post14434586 

BDInfo scan for director's cut (courtesy of Stephen Dawson):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...6#post17343336


----------



## deltasun

*The Killers Live from the Royal Albert Hall*

_I'm so much older than I can take_


This 1080i presentation was no slouch. As with most concert footage, there were some contrast issues inherent of this type of "filming." Still, when the spotlights weren't wreaking havoc with color flooding or backlighting, the close-up's were pretty detailed and contrast did strike a strong balance.


Blacks were decent, with just a few instances of crushing. Shadow details were mixed - weak when sweeping over expanse of the audience, but fairly detailed when on the stage elements like instruments, fabric, floor equipment. 3D pop was almost non-existent, but depth and dimensionality made a few impressive marks. There's a wide-angled black & white up shot of the audience and the Royal Albert Hall's ceiling that showed excellent depth and details. In sync with the ending of _Sam's Town_, it switched to color to great effect.


Speaking of B&W, those chosen scenes offered terrific, albeit stylistic, details especially on Brandon's sweat-drenched face. On the flip-side, colors looked energetic and almost metallic. Some of my lesser nitpicks include some heavy grain in darker scenes, soft (slow focusing) medium shots, and some inability of the camera to keep up with the band's frenetic movements. Finally, I did not spot any DNR or any ringing.


Overall, a very fine presentation that is hounding me to be biased in rating it.







I think it's fair to drop this into...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


What can I say - huge Killers fan here. If you are too, this is one BR worth picking up. I've seen them live many times (the most impressive of which was at Red Rocks) and they have never released a live concert DVD/BR before. Needless to say, I was excited to see this one come out and very pleased with the results. Great selection from a loaded catalog of songs.

_ln46a650 - 1080i/60 - 8'_


----------



## Toe

^^^^Off topic question deltasun, but how is the audio on that Killers concert? Is it more of a studio mix or audience type?


----------



## deltasun

Hugh, like you, this is one of my all-time faves as well. I did see some of the Beaver caps and was very impressed. I have not yet seen those scenes in the BR in motion so will be taking note.


Some of the more impressive caps were the close-up's. I can say that during the more enamored opening scenes between Pacino and Venora, the skin details were pretty good. Don't know about Tier 0 quality, but they weren't far.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/17519322
> 
> 
> ^^^^Off topic question deltasun, but how is the audio on that Killers concert? Is it more of a studio mix or audience type?



Ah, good question. I was going to mention this. As you know, it's DTS-HD MA and it delivered. One of the problems with Brandon's singing from their actual concerts is that his voice is usually mixed so low. He's usually drowned out by his bandmates. I am extremely happy with the mix on this BR - his voice is clear and discernible without being unnaturally mixed louder.


The bass (check out the intro to _This is Your Life_) was well-represented - punchy. And, of course, the bass drum is ever present. Sometimes it's a bit muddier than I expect, but nothing that really detracts and only in a few instances.


So, the short answer is that it's more of a studio mix.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17519348
> 
> 
> Ah, good question. I was going to mention this. As you know, it's DTS-HD MA and it delivered. One of the problems with Brandon's singing from their actual concerts is that his voice is usually mixed so low. He's usually drowned out by his bandmates. I am extremely happy with the mix on this BR - his voice is clear and discernible without being unnaturally mixed louder.
> 
> 
> The bass (check out the intro to _This is Your Life_) was well-represented - punchy. And, of course, the bass drum is ever present. Sometimes it's a bit muddier than I expect, but nothing that really detracts and only in a few instances.
> 
> 
> So, the short answer is that it's more of a studio mix.




Great news....thanks


----------



## lgans316

Here are some quick Recommendations:

*Requiem for a Dream - Tier 3.25*

*Office Space - Tier 3.25* Easily the best and enjoyable movie in this lot with good replay value.

*Passion of the Christ - Tier 2.5*

*Memoirs of a Geisha - Tier 2.75*


----------



## Ozymandis

Baraka- first of all, the edge enhancement was obvious in a couple of scenes. Secondly, black levels weren't perfect in the few parts where they were prevalent (towards the end). Still, compared to other documentaries (yes, I know this isn't quite the same thing) the picture was very consistent and quite gorgeous. However, I do think it would be better off as a tier 1 title. If tier 0 is reference, Baraka has enough issues to put it slightly outside of that classification IMO.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ozymandis* /forum/post/17519561
> 
> 
> Baraka- first of all, the edge enhancement was obvious in a couple of scenes. Secondly, black levels weren't perfect in the few parts where they were prevalent (towards the end). Still, compared to other documentaries (yes, I know this isn't quite the same thing) the picture was very consistent and quite gorgeous. However, I do think it would be better off as a tier 1 title. If tier 0 is reference, Baraka has enough issues to put it slightly outside of that classification IMO.



I respectively disagree with your analysis and conclusion. You may want to to a Search on this title and read the MANY pages devoted to the discussion we had for placement which, eventually, resulted in a Tier 0 ranking. You will see that there were quite a few members who couldn't see the EE and others weren't that bothered by it (some were bothered by it, but this constituted a small minority). Regarding imperfect black levels, I don't recall that at all.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17520992
> 
> 
> I respectively disagree with your analysis and conclusion. You may want to to a Search on this title and read the MANY pages devoted to the discussion we had for placement which, eventually, resulted in a Tier 0 ranking.



Denny, this post sounds a bit dismissive.


Just because we already had a discussion on this title doesn't mean that it is set in stone. New opinions are always welcome, and further discussion can be appropriate.


Of course I am not saying you can't disagree with their opinion, all I am saying is give the reasons for your opinion rather than just saying, basically, that it has already been decided.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17521014
> 
> 
> Denny, this post sounds a bit dismissive.
> 
> 
> Just because we already had a discussion on this title doesn't mean that it is set in stone. New opinions are always welcome, and further discussion can be appropriate.
> 
> 
> Of course I am not saying you can't disagree with their opinion, all I am saying is give the reasons for your opinion rather than just saying, basically, that it has already been decided.



It was NOT meant to come across as *dismissive." My main intention was to encourage him to read the discussion we had on that title and if he were to do so, he would read of my opinion and that of many others as to why it ended up in Tier 0. Also, you will see that I did Edit my post before I read your response to me, so I did indeed give him something to consider as to why I (and others) felt it deserved to be in Tier 0 in spite of some spotting EE.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17521211
> 
> 
> It was NOT meant to come across as *dismissive." My main intention was to encourage him to read the discussion we had on that title and if he were to do so, he would read of my opinion and that of many others as to why it ended up in Tier 0. Also, you will see that I did Edit my post before I read your response to me, so I did indeed give him something to consider as to why I (and others) felt it deserved to be in Tier 0 in spite of some spotting EE.




This one's hard for me because EE is a complete thorn in my side and ruins things for me. But if Ozymandis feels that it's enough for his viewpoint to state that it's not worthy of Tier 0, he's definitely allowed to do that.


Methinks I'd better put Baraka on my ziplist. I had bought it when it first came out for the husband but he wasn't interested in it, so I returned it unopened. I am trying to go through titles in tier 0 that I haven't seen before, like the recent viewing of Domino.



Denny have you watched Baraka since you got your new tv? I'm curious about the black levels now after Ozy's comment, I know you and I have a similar feel for black levels in movies on our respective plasmas often. I suppose I am capable of doing a search to see what equipment you used when you did your review.... doing that now and ceasing my babble.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17521347
> 
> 
> Denny have you watched Baraka since you got your new tv? I'm curious about the black levels now after Ozy's comment, I know you and I have a similar feel for black levels in movies on our respective plasmas often. I suppose I am capable of doing a search to see what equipment you used when you did your review.... doing that now and ceasing my babble.



I have NOT watched it on my new set, but I did watch it on my old Samsung DLP just before I got my KURO and I have no recollection of black levels being less-than-perfect. I did go back to read my review and I didn't refer to black levels at all, but then again my *review* was actually given on the actual _Baraka_ thread (and the link was given to it on this thread), so I didn't go into the detail I usually do when giving a full review on this thread.


I was curious after reading the post by Ozymandis and his comments on the black levels so I read quite a few reviews and all them that commented on the black levels said they were "deep" and "rock solid." That is my recollection of the black levels, but I will be checking this out on my KURO to see how they look. If they are indeed good, they should really shine on our plasmas.


----------



## 42041

Baraka was one of the first things I watched on my Pioneer, and while I had several issues with it, I distinctly remember that contrast delineation was excellent. I'm not sure if I was just in the honeymoon phase with my Kuro when I voted it for Tier 0 but this is a movie I wouldn't mind revisiting


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17521635
> 
> 
> I have NOT watched it on my new set, but I did watch it on my old Samsung DLP just before I got my KURO and I have no recollection of black levels being less-than-perfect. I did go back to read my review and I didn't refer to black levels at all, but then again my *review* was actually given on the actual _Baraka_ thread (and the link was given to it on this thread), so I didn't go into the detail I usually do when giving a full review on this thread.
> 
> 
> I was curious after reading the post by Ozymandis and his comments on the black levels so I read quite a few reviews and all them that commented on the black levels said they were "deep" and "rock solid." That is my recollection of the black levels, but I will be checking this out on my KURO to see how they look. If they are indeed good, they should really shine on our plasmas.



Cool. I did go and put it into my top 10 on ziplist, so maybe I might get it by.... June.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/17522013
> 
> 
> Baraka was one of the first things I watched on my Pioneer, and while I had several issues with it, I distinctly remember that contrast delineation was excellent. I'm not sure if I was just in the honeymoon phase with my Kuro when I voted it for Tier 0 but this is a movie I wouldn't mind revisiting



I'm leaving for a 3-day weekend early tomorrow but I may just watch it tonight. I never tire of the awesome PQ of _Baraka_ (I watched it at least 3-4 times on my Sammy) and I trust it will look even better on the KURO. The audio is awesome as well!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I never offered an official opinion on Baraka, but it is definitely stunning quality. One of the best demonstration discs available for picture quality. If anything, it is currently placed lower than where I would personally rank it.


----------



## Ozymandis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17520992
> 
> 
> I respectively disagree with your analysis and conclusion. You may want to to a Search on this title and read the MANY pages devoted to the discussion we had for placement which, eventually, resulted in a Tier 0 ranking. You will see that there were quite a few members who couldn't see the EE and others weren't that bothered by it (some were bothered by it, but this constituted a small minority). Regarding imperfect black levels, I don't recall that at all.



I read some of the discussion on this title. However, I am just now getting to it, so I posted my own review... other posters have done the same for other older titles. As I recall, there were many posters on each side of this issue?


You could see some ringing from the EE in Baraka. There were shots against the sky where it was noticeable to me. *If tier 0 is reference quality then artifacts like this are not acceptable, IMO.* Overall the movie was very impressive but there's a difference between impressive, which many tier 1 titles are, and reference, which should mean near to perfect.


The issue with black levels might have been my panel. I do recall the end segment, where it goes out into space, was a little bit light. I would be willing to watch that again, but compared to the movie I put in last night (Persepolis) which had perfect blacks, I don't think Baraka was quite there. Of course that's an animated movie too, lol.


----------



## kcushing

I can't wait to hear opinions on Star Trek. blu-ray.com rates it a perfect 5 in every category including video. They state, "....save for one or two very minor issues, there may not be a better or more natural-looking Blu-ray out there"

Here is the full review


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ozymandis* /forum/post/17522394
> 
> 
> I read some of the discussion on this title. However, I am just now getting to it, so I posted my own review... other posters have done the same for other older titles. As I recall, there were many posters on each side of this issue?
> 
> *You could see some ringing from the EE in Baraka. There were shots against the sky where it was noticeable to me. If tier 0 is reference quality then artifacts like this are not acceptable, IMO.* Overall the movie was very impressive but there's a difference between impressive, which many tier 1 titles are, and reference, which should mean near to perfect.



I'm sure you read G3's comment on how EE (resulting in halos/ringing) bothers her to no end, and there are others who are equally distracted by it. But _most_ of the members who chimed in either did not see this anomaly at all or it didn't bother them. Here is a line from Page One of the Ranking Thread which sets forth the criteria for Tier Blu:

*Halos and ringing artifacts are either absent or not visible enough to be distracting from standard viewing distances.*


From this standard it was argued by many of us that the halos/ringing should NOT prevent _Baraka_ from being placed in Tier 0, for with many of us it simply wasn't an issue.


Having said that, I truly feel sorry for those who do see halos/ringing and are bothered by it. But as we concluded, we must go by what the majority sees (or, in this case, doesn't see), and therefore it was deemed to still be worthy of a place in the reference tier.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *kcushing* /forum/post/17523170
> 
> 
> I can't wait to hear opinions on Star Trek. blu-ray.com rates it a perfect 5 in every category including video. They state, "....save for one or two very minor issues, there may not be a better or more natural-looking Blu-ray out there"
> 
> Here is the full review



The review sounds very good and I truly hope his thoughts reflect the truth of this title (in every aspect...Movie, Video, Audio). I will by buying a copy of it from Best Buy the morning it is released!


----------



## Ozymandis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17524033
> 
> 
> I'm sure you read G3's comment on how EE (resulting in halos/ringing) bothers her to no end, and there are others who are equally distracted by it. But _most_ of the members who chimed in either did not see this anomaly at all or it didn't bother them. Here is a line from Page One of the Ranking Thread which sets forth the criteria for Tier Blu:
> 
> *Halos and ringing artifacts are either absent or not visible enough to be distracting from standard viewing distances.*
> 
> 
> From this standard it was argued by many of us that the halos/ringing should NOT prevent _Baraka_ from being placed in Tier 0, for with many of us it simply wasn't an issue.
> 
> 
> Having said that, I truly feel sorry for those who do see halos/ringing and are bothered by it. But as we concluded, we must go by what the majority sees (or, in this case, doesn't see), and therefore it was deemed to still be worthy of a place in the reference tier.



Everyone else is entitled to their opinion. But I question people who saw no EE. I'm using a 1080p display, but my viewing distance isn't that close for the size, and it was clear to me.


As I remember too, one of the studio techs involved in the transfer posted here. It's not unlikely that this board is read and frequented by people who actually have something to do with industry. It sends a bad message, in my opinion, lauding titles that could have been better.


----------



## daPriceIs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *phantom stranger* /forum/post/17522325
> 
> 
> i never offered an official opinion on baraka, but it is definitely stunning quality. One of the best demonstration discs available for picture quality. If anything, it is currently placed lower than where i would personally rank it.



+1


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ozymandis* /forum/post/17524138
> 
> 
> As I remember too, one of the studio techs involved in the transfer posted here. It's not unlikely that this board is read and frequented by people who actually have something to do with industry. It sends a bad message, in my opinion, lauding titles that could have been better.



Sorry, but whether or not studio techs post (or read) here is not, in any way, relevant to this thread.


----------



## deltasun

My post after seeing it in the theatres...



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16476083
> 
> 
> Incidentally, just came back from _Star Trek_. Wow, not a slow scene in that one. It definitely kept my attention from beginning to end. The PQ is going to be a treat when it hits BR (hopefully, with no foul play). I can already say that [new] Spock's face, specially in the Enterprise, was very soft, almost waxy save for one scene. I'll make a mental note for when it's reviewed here in a few months. Excellent job by JJ Abrams.



Looking forward to this baby. Hope with all the price wars, we get an even better deal than the current $20 at BB.


----------



## daPriceIs

*The Haunted World of el Superbeasto*


Why? Why? WHHYYYYYYYYY?! *Why? Why? WHHYYYYYYYYY?!*


That's the most apt line in the movie, and it's what I kept asking myself while watching this movie.


OK. The positives: it's colorful and technically speaking the transfer doesn't suck.


I really despise the cheap lazy job the animators did for this movie. It seems better suited for Flash animation on the web than a feature film. The biggest problems involve three elements: object outlines, bit map textures, and the scaling of these two. I'm not going to waste time detailing the distinction between raster and vector graphics and the way they scale since most here already know or can easily look it up. The paths that outline the characters and other objects aren't smoothly stroked but use a brush that appears to vary its diameter randomly, giving the outlines a ragged or scruffy look. The problem with this is that the various close, medium, and long shots reuse objects and scene elements that have been proportionately scaled up or down instead of being specifically redrawn and painted at the proper size for the shot. This practice results in ugly artifacts: up close the ragged vector outlines are ginormous and truly cruddy; in the small, those same outlines exhibit pixel level raggedness that looks practically like aliasing; and up close the raster fills, textures, and gradients often show true aliasing and even pixelation.














It can be ridiculous. The worst example is the scene where Otto, the screw-headed ape, musically explains how Steve Wachowski Dr. Satan can gain *All The Sudsy Powers Of Hell* The backgrounds in this scene are a pixelated mess.


The question is where in Tiers 3 or 4 this dog belongs. I'm going to punt.

*Recommendation: Tier 3.5*

Panasonic TH-42PZ77U, 1080p @ 3' to 4'

---------------------------------------------------


The movie itself? The first time I watched it I fell asleep somewhere in the latter parts of the movie. The next time, I think I zoned out or nodded off for about half of the movie; couldn't tell you exactly cause it's still a blur*. For a film that tries so hard to be both funny and outrageous with graphic violence and gratuitous sex (R rated), it seems to be singularly snooze-inducing. YMMV. I simply have to ask the creator and director, Rob Zombie:

Why? Why? WHHYYYYYYYYY?! .... *Why? Why? WHHYYYYYYYYY?!*


*Just in case you're wondering, I have indeed watched this turd while fully conscious from beginning to end.


----------



## Ozymandis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17524321
> 
> 
> Sorry, but whether or not studio techs post (or read) here is not, in any way, relevant to this thread.



Regardless, tier 0 is for reference-quality titles. Baraka has EE that has been noticed by several posters here besides myself. It's irresponsible of us to rate a flawed title so high. I use this list as a reference for my Blu-ray purchases sometimes, and I bet others do too.


Like I said, there are impressive HD titles in tier 1 too. I don't think it's unfair to rate Baraka as tier 1.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ozymandis* /forum/post/17524138
> 
> 
> Everyone else is entitled to their opinion. But I question people who saw no EE. I'm using a 1080p display, but my viewing distance isn't that close for the size, and it was clear to me.
> 
> 
> As I remember too, one of the studio techs involved in the transfer posted here. It's not unlikely that this board is read and frequented by people who actually have something to do with industry. It sends a bad message, in my opinion, lauding titles that could have been better.



Ozy we go by everyone's review. If I do not see EE, my recommendation still should be counted and those that do see EE IMO should not be given more weight for their recommendation.

I am one of the ones who does NOT readily see EE, even when it is obvious to most. My tv may hide and not exacerbate it like other displays and yes I am convinced some displays, particularly large screen projectors blowing up the image make EE more apparent. My tv does exhibit banding though due to the display type and many don't see the banding on their displays that I have on some BD's.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17524386
> 
> 
> Looking forward to this baby. Hope with all the price wars, we get an even better deal than the current $20 at BB.




I can't wait for Star Trek 2009 either. I'm likely going to have to pay about $35 locally to get it on release day but I don't care. If it turns out that I can't buy it in town like with BSG:The Plan on release day... I'll come home, pout, and order it from amazon.ca and pout more.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ozymandis* /forum/post/17524508
> 
> 
> Regardless, tier 0 is for reference-quality titles. *Baraka has EE that has been noticed by several posters here besides myself.* It's irresponsible of us to rate a flawed title so high.



I'll respond one more time (and then forever hold my peace). YOU believe that _Baraka_ isn't reference-quality because it "has EE that has been noticed by several posters here besides myself." OTHERS believe _Baraka_ is reference-quality because _they either didn't notice the EE or it didn't distract them_. We do NOT place a title based on what what a few may see; we place a title based on what the majority see (like it or not). Surely you wouldn't expect me to vote for a Tier 1 placement based on what YOU see, would you? Conversely, I wouldn't expect you to vote for Tier 0 based on what I see.


----------



## Ozymandis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17524527
> 
> 
> Ozy we go by everyone's review. If I do not see EE, my recommendation still should be counted and those that do see EE IMO should not be given more weight for their recommendation.
> 
> I am one of the ones who does NOT readily see EE, even when it is obvious to most. My tv may hide and not exacerbate it like other displays and yes I am convinced some displays, particularly large screen projectors blowing up the image make EE more apparent. My tv does exhibit banding though due to the display type and many don't see the banding on their displays that I have on some BD's.



I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here. I don't expect Baraka to be moved on my say-so alone. Just stating that I disagree with its placement.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17524610
> 
> 
> I'll respond one more time (and then forever hold my peace). YOU believe that _Baraka_ isn't reference-quality because it "has EE that has been noticed by several posters here besides myself." OTHERS believe _Baraka_ is reference-quality because _they either didn't notice the EE or it didn't distract them_. We do NOT place a title based on what what a few may see; we place a title based on what the majority see (like it or not). Surely you wouldn't expect me to vote for a Tier 1 placement based on what YOU see, would you? Conversely, I wouldn't expect you to vote for Tier 0 based on what I see.



That's your opinion. However, the EE exists, it can be shown (has been shown) in screenshots, and was mentioned in reviews (Highdefdigest's for sure). IQ is a subjective thing, sure, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17524544
> 
> 
> I can't wait for Star Trek 2009 either. I'm likely going to have to pay about $35 locally to get it on release day but I don't care. If it turns out that I can't buy it in town like with BSG:The Plan on release day... I'll come home, pout, and order it from amazon.ca and pout more.




I am with both of you. I didn't see it in the theatres and although not a trekkie, I have watched since the 60's when I was a kid. Hearing the audio and PQ are reference to what is supposed to be a good movie just hits a home run. CHeck out Ralph's Potts review as well for more high praise.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ozymandis* /forum/post/17524638
> 
> 
> I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here. I don't expect Baraka to be moved on my say-so alone. Just stating that I disagree with its placement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's your opinion. However, the EE exists, it can be shown (has been shown) in screenshots, and was mentioned in reviews (Highdefdigest's for sure). IQ is a subjective thing, sure, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.




Here's a thought to throw a wrench into the discussion and maybe where Phantom is coming from, but he can only speak for himself.


What if a BD does have a minor flaw or even two, but has the best overall PQ and simply the highest level of detail of any BD to date?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ozymandis* /forum/post/17524638
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's your opinion. However, the EE exists, it can be shown (has been shown) in screenshots, and was mentioned in reviews (Highdefdigest's for sure). IQ is a subjective thing, sure, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.



I guess I'm guilty of lying, because I'm going to respond again.










To base the existence of EE on screenshots is irrelevant on this thread, for we base our analysis of our viewing experience on what we see (or don't see) while the film is _in motion_. For the record I did notice EE in a couple of the screenshots but when viewing it in motion I didn't see it.


To sum up what I've been trying to say, some of us, for whatever reason, do NOT see EE in some titles where others claim they do. Others see it, but it doesn't distract them. Obviously you see it in _Baraka_ and it bothers you as well. The bottom line is we must respect the experience of others even though it doesn't coincide with our experience. But respecting their opinion does NOT mean we acquiesce and vote the same as they do. So, for those of us who did not see EE in _Baraka_ or if we did it didn't bother us, we must vote accordingly and in this case the majority voted for Tier 0.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I clearly see the edge enhancement (or more properly ringing most likely induced by the machine the film was scanned with) in certain scenes on Baraka. I believe the studio technician that says no sharpening was consciously applied to Baraka. It still deserves a placement in tier zero in my judgment, in spite of its presence. We should not throw the baby out with the bathwater in this case.


But I like this discussion. The titles at the top of the tiers need a dissection occasionally.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17524923
> 
> 
> I clearly see the edge enhancement (or more properly ringing most likely induced by the machine the film was scanned with) in certain scenes on Baraka. I believe the studio technician that says no sharpening was consciously applied to Baraka. It still deserves a placement in tier zero in my judgment, in spite of its presence. We should not throw the baby out with the bathwater in this case.
> 
> 
> But I like this discussion. The titles at the top of the tiers need a dissection occasionally.



I agree with everything you have said here.


----------



## daPriceIs

*Chicago | Earth, Wind & Fire: Live at the Greek Theatre*

172 minute video from Image Entertainment featuring an excellent DTS-HD MA 5.1 soundtrack of an August 2004 outdoor concert in Los Angeles. The concert begins and ends with both bands performing together while the middle two hours features separate performances by the bands.


PQ-wise this BD shows all of the usual strengths and weaknesses of an average rock/pop concert video shot on HD video cams. Saturation is good as are color and skin tones, though the latter can be hard to tell due to the ever changing stage lighting. There is excellent shadow delineation, with pretty good blacks and no crushing. There are lots of smoke effects and roving spot lights, and these can lead to haze and lens flare with concomitant reductions in contrast. The spots also cause a fair amount of blown highlights.


Noise is reasonably well controlled. How readily you see it will likely depend on your display's settings and calibration: on my set in HCFR calibrated Cinema mode it's scarcely noticeable, but in Custom mode (calibrated by eye and DVE) it can jump out. In either case, close examination shows definite macroblocking in noisy shadows.


Detail and sharpness are decent but nothing special. Very high frequency textural details are never adequately resolved, perhaps a fault of imperfect focus. Some of the facial close-up are pretty good, but things really become obscured when the faces are bathed in monochromatic spots, especially red or green.


Let's face it, the star of any disc like this is the audio. This BD does not disappoint. The last half of the show when the bands are reunited on stage is wonderful. These are the best moments on the video; that is, best in terms of not only video and audio, but sheer entertainment value.









*Recommendation: Tier 2.5*Panasonic TH-42PZ77U, 1080p/60 (de-interlaced in the player) @4'


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*G. I. Joe: Rise of the Cobra*


This is a very good looking title in general. It has a very natural look to it, with very fine grain present. No signs of DNR etc. on this one.


Colors are natural looking. Sharpness, detail, and clarity are all very good to excellent.


Regarding contrast: this is the only area where this title fell short in some scenes. I definitely noticed "black crush" in several scenes in the first part of the movie. Overall, though, contrast was very nice. I'm not sure why some of the darker scenes were as bad as they were. Still, not quite enough to take away from an otherwise very impressive title.


As for the movie: it was entertaining enough that I will be renting the sequel when it is eventually released. I have to say, though, that many of the special effects in this movie were downright horrible.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.5*


JVC RS1 on 123" screen at 13.5 feet


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17525226
> 
> *G. I. Joe: Rise of the Cobra*
> 
> 
> This is a very good looking title in general. It has a very natural look to it, with very fine grain present. No signs of DNR etc. on this one.
> 
> 
> Colors are natural looking. Sharpness, detail, and clarity are all very good to excellent.
> 
> 
> Regarding contrast: this is the only area where this title fell short in some scenes. I definitely noticed "black crush" in several scenes in the first part of the movie. Overall, though, contrast was very nice. I'm not sure why some of the darker scenes were as bad as they were. Still, not quite enough to take away from an otherwise very impressive title.
> 
> 
> As for the movie: it was entertaining enough that I will be renting the sequel when it is eventually released. I have to say, though, that many of the special effects in this movie were downright horrible.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.5*
> 
> 
> JVC RS1 on 123" screen at 13.5 feet













It's been awhile Rob, but we're on the exact same page with this title!


----------



## patrick99

Since we are beating the dead Baraka horse once again, as I said at the time it was released, I thought the ringing, or haloing, or whatever you call it, was quite apparent, impossible to ignore, in fact, while viewing the movie, and not in just a few shots.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *daPriceIs* /forum/post/17524469
> 
> 
> I really despise the cheap lazy job the animators did for this movie. It seems better suited for Flash animation on the web than a feature film. The biggest problems involve three elements: object outlines, bit map textures, and the scaling of these two. I’m not going to waste time detailing the distinction between raster and vector graphics and the way they scale since most here already know or can easily look it up. The paths that outline the characters and other objects aren’t smoothly stroked but use a brush that appears to vary its diameter randomly, giving the outlines a ragged or scruffy look. The problem with this is that the various close, medium, and long shots reuse objects and scene elements that have been proportionately scaled up or down instead of being specifically redrawn and painted at the proper size for the shot. This practice results in ugly artifacts: up close the ragged vector outlines are ginormous and truly cruddy; in the small, those same outlines exhibit pixel level raggedness that looks practically like aliasing; and up close the raster fills, textures, and gradients often show true aliasing and even pixelation.



I have seen that phenomenon on other animated titles. The explanation you present has really opened my eyes to the problem.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17525226
> 
> 
> G. I. Joe: Rise of the Cobra
> 
> 
> This is a very good looking title in general. It has a very natural look to it, with very fine grain present. No signs of DNR etc. on this one.



Some have complained about the CGI on the Blu-ray. Did you have any complaints about its softness or look in the movie? I just wonder because it is my understanding this movie heavily integrates CGI and live-action together.


----------



## Ozymandis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/17526536
> 
> 
> Since we are beating the dead Baraka horse once again, as I said at the time it was released, I thought the ringing, or haloing, or whatever you call it, was quite apparent, impossible to ignore, in fact, while viewing the movie, and not in just a few shots.



Nice to see someone else here agrees


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17524923
> 
> 
> I clearly see the edge enhancement (or more properly ringing most likely induced by the machine the film was scanned with) in certain scenes on Baraka. I believe the studio technician that says no sharpening was consciously applied to Baraka. It still deserves a placement in tier zero in my judgment, in spite of its presence. We should not throw the baby out with the bathwater in this case.
> 
> 
> But I like this discussion. The titles at the top of the tiers need a dissection occasionally.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17524979
> 
> 
> I agree with everything you have said here.



+1 for sure!


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17527628
> 
> 
> Some have complained about the CGI on the Blu-ray. Did you have any complaints about its softness or look in the movie? I just wonder because it is my understanding this movie heavily integrates CGI and live-action together.



In some scenes, such as the Apache helicopters in the beginning, the textures are quite soft and not very detailed at all. Edges are decent, and it doesn't interfere with the actual film background or anything else in the picture, but as some others and myself have mentioned, the special FX are bad enough to really detract from the overall picture. There are some scenes in which a CGI plane flies into a base, lands, and some people get out. These are the better scenes of CGI IMO, but they are still not that great. Transformers did a much much better job of integrating live action/CGI into the same shot, and of the two interacting when necessary.


There is an instance in that same sequence as the plane flies through the desert where the animators tried to do some heat waves but it just sort of softened up the whole shot instead of giving the effect of intense heat. It just seems like every time you know what they were intending, but then realize they couldn't quite pull it off.


I think Rob, dj and myself have all given a 1.5, with a special mention of bad special effects. Its best just to try to see for yourself, and you will definitely notice the good and bad effects throughout the movie. I do remember reading a review somewhere that mentions the commentary acknowledges the presence of bad effects, but I have yet to sit through the whole movie again with it turned on (and I probably won't), but I still feel it detracts from the overall PQ just because it's the main focus of the shot in a lot of instances.


----------



## jedimasterchad

Up


I'm not going to go all out here, but I just want to mention some things to go along with what others have said. First of all, this BD is nothing short of mind blowing. Content aside, this is probably the best looking BD I've had the pleasure of inserting into my Playstation 3. The colors are so vibrant, the details are preserved exactly as I remembered them in theaters (I tend to get quite critical as my wife is a digital artist and I love seeing the improvements in animation quality these studios like Pixar and Dreamworks can produce), shadow detail, blacks, contrast, 3D effect, it's all there. To rank this anywhere lower than at the top of Tier 0 would be a mistake. Does it beat out Bug's Life? Hard to say. As someone said, without a straight side-by-side comparison, it's going to be tough to rank these top ones, but I would just say that as the new one comes out, it probably goes at the top and bumps the others down, just because it's newer. In that sense, perhaps Bug's Life, Kung Fu Panda, etc are all tied because they are all perfect. Up is also perfect, and I feel it belongs with the others, right at the top spot.

Tier Recommendation: Top of Tier 0


With that said though, I wonder if it is within the realm of everyone's interest to list these computer animated titles separately, and come up with a little different of a grading criteria. For instance, Chicken Little is a perfect transfer, but the animation quality/detail is not on par with Kung-Fu Panda or Up. The color scale is quite different, with CL relying heavily on bold colors filling the entire screen, and Up having some pretty intricate color patterns throughout. We could spend time adding in some other grading points. Just an idea, as I feel that over time the top of this rating system will be overcrowded with these particular titles, because almost anything drawn/animated/rendered on the computer is going to come out quite pristine, as we continue to see first hand.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/17530651
> 
> 
> With that said though, I wonder if it is within the realm of everyone's interest to list these computer animated titles separately, and come up with a little different of a grading criteria. For instance, Chicken Little is a perfect transfer, but the animation quality/detail is not on par with Kung-Fu Panda or Up. The color scale is quite different, with CL relying heavily on bold colors filling the entire screen, and Up having some pretty intricate color patterns throughout. We could spend time adding in some other grading points. Just an idea, as I feel that over time the top of this rating system will be overcrowded with these particular titles, because almost anything drawn/animated/rendered on the computer is going to come out quite pristine, as we continue to see first hand.













*plugs her ears*


*begins to sing*


La la la... I can't hear you...












Thanks for the review of UP, Chad. My joking aside, it has been suggested and shot down on several occasions with regards to the separation of animated titles from the list. I'm not going to get into it again... personally I'm not a proponent of it but it has been discussed at length from time to time here. I wouldn't know what search criteria to point you in the right direction, but perhaps someone else can.


----------



## deltasun













> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/15727142
> 
> 
> i don't want it separate because i still believe in absolute comparisons, which is the point of this thread. My suggestion is for quick viewing of non-animated titles, and would look something like this (pardon not making the font smaller on the details):
> 
> _kung fu panda video: Avc | audio: Truehd | ar: 2.35:1 | dreamworks
> 
> ratatouille video: Avc | audio: Pcm | ar: 2.40:1 | disney
> 
> cars video: Avc | audio: Pcm | ar: 2.40:1 | disney
> 
> meet the robinsons video: Avc | audio: Pcm | ar: 1.78:1 | disney
> 
> happy feet (import) video: Vc-1 | audio: Pcm | ar: 2.40:1 | warner_ *
> 
> i, robot* video: Avc | audio: Dts-hd ma | ar: 2.35:1 | fox
> *pirates of the caribbean - at world's end video*: Avc | audio: Pcm | ar: 2.40:1 | buena vista
> *pirates of the caribbean: Dead man's chest* video: Avc | audio: Pcm | ar: 2.35:1 | buena vista
> _chicken little video: Avc | audio: Pcm | ar: 1.78:1 | buena vista
> 
> open season video: Avc | audio: Pcm | ar: 1.85:1 | sony_
> *man on fire* video: Avc | audio: Dts-hd ma | ar: 2.40:1 | fox
> _beowulf (uk) video: Vc-1 | audio: Truehd | ar: 2.40:1 | warner
> 
> bee movie video: Avc | audio: Truehd | ar: 1.85:1 | dreamworks_
> *tmnt* video: Vc-1 | audio: Truehd | ar: 2.40:1 | warner
> *prison break season one* video: Avc | audio: Dts-hd ma | ar: 1.78:1 | fox
> *the host* video: Vc-1 | audio: Pcm | ar: 1.85:1 | magnolia
> *black snake moan* video: Avc | audio: Dd | ar: 2.35:1 | paramount
> *crank* video: Mpeg-2 | audio: 6.1 pcm | ar: 1.78:1 | lionsgate
> *rendition (uk)* video: Avc | audio: Dts-hd ma | ar: 2.35:1 | eiv
> 
> 
> i can go right to _i, robot_ and know that's the highest non-animated title and still compare every other title (animated and non-animated).



let's move on


----------



## Hughmc

*Monster's Inc.*


Well, here we go again. Another top tier 0 title. At this point I would just be saying the same thing as I did for UP or Bug's Life.


The colors, detail, black levels, contrast, lighting and all PQ attributes are optimized and flawless.


Again, anywhere in the top 5 would be fine and anyone of the top 5 could be on top. If this keeps up the top 5 are going to become the top 10 and all of equal caliber as Phantom, djoberg and others have stated many of these titles are more or less equal in terms of PQ so rating is subjective.
*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 Anywhere in the top 5 or at top.*


I also agree with the ratings of most for GI Joe. 1.5 seems right to me and the CGI as bad as it is, doesn't bother me near as much as in GLadiator.


Gump also looks about 1.5 and Logan's Run seems to be about 1.75-2.25.


This weekend, starting tonight, I am going to show Heat, Logan's Run, North by NOrthwest and a few others to my 15 year old son who hasn't seen them yet. I can't wait to see and hear his reaction to them.


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17531441
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *plugs her ears*
> 
> 
> *begins to sing*
> 
> 
> La la la... I can't hear you...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the review of UP, Chad. My joking aside, it has been suggested and shot down on several occasions with regards to the separation of animated titles from the list. I'm not going to get into it again... personally I'm not a proponent of it but it has been discussed at length from time to time here. I wouldn't know what search criteria to point you in the right direction, but perhaps someone else can.



Didn't know. I've only been posting on this particular thread for a month or so, and I obviously haven't taken the time to read through 14,000+ posts! Sometimes I search for a particular movie's reviews, but no way was I going to go through all of it







I still think it's something to consider in the future, as just in the past month we've had Ice Age 3, Monsters vs. Aliens, Monsters Inc, and Up all come out on Blu and they are all probably qualified to be at/near the very top of the list. With Dreamworks and Pixar releasing a couple movies a year to theaters, and with the catalog titles appearing on Blu for the first time, it *will* get crowded. That's all I'm saying










Really though, what will be a better demo disc...The Incredibles or Chicken Little? Obviously, one would rank higher...just something to think about.


----------



## Hughmc

Whoops, I just glance at the top 5 which UP of course isn't listed yet, but the top 5 is already like the top 7. From the tier list:



A Bug's Life

Kung Fu Panda Video

Coraline Video: VC-1

Ratatouille

Cars

Monsters Vs. Aliens

Monsters, Inc.


MI, although the UK import, is already listed in the top 7


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17525387
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's been awhile Rob, but we're on the exact same page with this title!



It hasn't been that long, Denny. We were in complete agreement on Coraline!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/17526536
> 
> 
> Since we are beating the dead Baraka horse once again, as I said at the time it was released, I thought the ringing, or haloing, or whatever you call it, was quite apparent, impossible to ignore, in fact, while viewing the movie, and not in just a few shots.



It's there, but I disagree that it is "impossible to ignore". It's not even particularly distracting, and relatively minor compared to other titles.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/17531642
> 
> 
> Didn't know. I've only been posting on this particular thread for a month or so, and I obviously haven't taken the time to read through 14,000+ posts! Sometimes I search for a particular movie's reviews, but no way was I going to go through all of it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I still think it's something to consider in the future, as just in the past month we've had Ice Age 3, Monsters vs. Aliens, Monsters Inc, and Up all come out on Blu and they are all probably qualified to be at/near the very top of the list. With Dreamworks and Pixar releasing a couple movies a year to theaters, and with the catalog titles appearing on Blu for the first time, it *will* get crowded. That's all I'm saying
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really though, what will be a better demo disc...The Incredibles or Chicken Little? Obviously, one would rank higher...just something to think about.




No matter what, I'm all for Tier 0 being so crowded we have to break it into the 0.25/0.5/0.75 state like the other tiers are. The more Tier 0 titles the better!



I know you're new to the thread, Chad, hence my joking nature about the fact that it has been discussed (in hopes of heading off another.... battle of wills that we've all endured in here at times







). I didn't mean it in any sort of bad way or anything, hope you know that! I do appreciate your contributions to the thread!


----------



## lgans316

G.I Joe caps posted by Cinema Squid reminds me of Hancock. Toned down contrast and crushed blacks. I voted Tier 2.5 for Hancock for overzealous post processing. The HD trailer blows the Blu-ray in all aspects.


----------



## 42041

*An American In Paris*


This 1951 musical, originally shot in Technicolor, comes to blu-ray courtesy of Warner in its original 1.37:1 aspect ratio. I think the disc came out earlier this year and currently has no placement in this thread, which isn't a surprise as I imagine the appeal of 20 minute long ballet setpieces is dwindling. The film seems to have undergone some restoration efforts, and it mostly looks very good if you adjust your expectations for its age. Scratches and dirt are not an issue, the amount of detail on display varies but is often excellent, comparable to weaker new titles, and as one would expect from a technicolor production, colors are bold where they need to be.


But as this is a Warner title, there are things to complain about. As always, lossy soundtrack, SD extras, tepid bitrates. Some things are probably due to how it was shot and has aged since, like the occasional very soft scene, color fringing (i guess where the 3 rolls of film didn't quite line up?), and slightly shifting color balance within a shot. The black levels had me checking my RGB range settings. DNR manifests itself mostly in the form of light temporal smearing (the point of which utterly eludes me, since it still superficially looks like a grainy film, yet it will bother the DNR-sensitive, pleasing no one), occasionally going full wax in some of the darker scenes. It's usually pretty ignorable, especially if you sit futher from the screen than me, but... why







I don't want to make it seem like this is a bad blu-ray, it isn't by any stretch, but I don't feel like it's the best they could've done with this restoration.

*Tier 3.0*

(PS3/Pioneer Kuro 50" Elite/1 screen width distance)


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/17532211
> 
> 
> G.I Joe caps posted by Cinema Squid reminds me of Hancock. Toned down contrast and crushed blacks. I voted Tier 2.5 for Hancock for overzealous post processing. The HD trailer blows the Blu-ray in all aspects.



Of course all the usual grains of salt surrounding screen caps apply, but judging black crush from caps is perhaps somewhat more difficult than most PQ aspects since the expanded RGB levels of a cap on a potentially poor contrast computer monitor may not come off the same as what you see on your main calibrated system.


With that being said, I agree that this seems to be a bit of a problem for this title, but otherwise I thought it looked very nice and the mid-tier-1 evaluations given by deltasun, Rob Tomlin, djoberg and jedimasterchad seem fair to me (apologies if I missed others).


A certain lack of detail in close-ups seems to me to be more of a result of the unwillingness of the DP to hold tight focus for more than a moment (which made for a less than easy selection of captures) than any deficit in perceived moving detail.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Up*


Not a lot to say about this one, other than it obviously belongs in Tier 0!


Amazing stuff here. It seems that Pixar just continually improves on its CGI. They have the shadows, shades, tones etc. all down perfectly.


Detail is superb, as is pretty much everything else.


I would put this around spot number 5 or so.


The movie was quite good too, even if not up to the standards of some other Pixar films, such as Ratatouille.
*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (top 5)*


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/17532211
> 
> 
> G.I Joe caps posted by Cinema Squid reminds me of Hancock. Toned down contrast and crushed blacks. I voted Tier 2.5 for Hancock for overzealous post processing. The HD trailer blows the Blu-ray in all aspects.



All due respect, lgans...check out the movie in motion and share with us your opinion then.


Cinema Squid makes a good point in how the movie was shot and how his caps compare to the actual film.


----------



## deltasun

*Heat*

_For me, the sun rises and sets with her, man_


Fine grain present throughout - some digital noise can be seen, specially against blank walls. Some were more bothersome than others. Facial details really varied in this picture. De Niro usually demonstrated excellent facial details (the best was in the bank right before the heist), followed by Pacino (the final scene with De Niro). Through the director's style, there was a fairly high incidence of softness. Check out the first conversation between De Niro and Voight.


Black levels were pretty deep for the majority of the time. Crushing only occurred in about a handful of scenes. Excellent shadow details were also the norm save for a few misplaced scenes. Contrast was often spot on, but there were instances where a thin layer of haze seemed to hover, specially in the beginning. Again, I suspect Mann's stylistic choice.


There were a number of medium shots that exhibited 3D bliss, even with the toned down color palette. Though vivid colors did pop up from time to time, the dominating theme throughout was in the family of tans, sepia, and brownish-orange.


Overall, a fine transfer of one of my favorite films. I am very satisfied with this upgrade and thoroughly enjoyed my umpteenth viewing. It truly never gets old for me. The Moby score still captures the ending perfectly. I didn't spot any DNR and only one instance of ringing - De Niro against the bright window, convincing Eady to go with him after the bank robbery. Some print dirt could also be spotted, but nothing major. The stylistic look and instances of softness were the two critical pieces for me that would land this in...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*


I also noted that the PQ improved as the movie progressed. I wonder if anybody else would notice this. AQ was very dynamic - the dialogue was definitely hushed compared to the action. When surrounds were present, they definitely presented clear directional cues. The accurate sound of the M-16's echoing in downtown Los Angeles was well-preserved and really came alive under the lossless True HD track.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8' & 6'_


----------



## Ozymandis

Up- obviously a tier 0 title. Pixar has come a long way with their animation, there is a ton of texture and detail in certain shots, perfect contrast, and rich colors. Where in tier 0? I'd put it between Ratatouille and Cars. Cars was very slick but I think Up has a little more detail... but I'd still put Coraline and Kungfu Panda over it (haven't seen Bug's life on Blu-ray yet), as well as Ratatouille.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17525226
> 
> *G. I. Joe: Rise of the Cobra*
> 
> 
> This is a very good looking title in general. It has a very natural look to it, with very fine grain present. No signs of DNR etc. on this one.
> 
> 
> Colors are natural looking. Sharpness, detail, and clarity are all very good to excellent.
> 
> 
> Regarding contrast: this is the only area where this title fell short in some scenes. I definitely noticed "black crush" in several scenes in the first part of the movie. Overall, though, contrast was very nice. I'm not sure why some of the darker scenes were as bad as they were. Still, not quite enough to take away from an otherwise very impressive title.
> 
> 
> As for the movie: it was entertaining enough that I will be renting the sequel when it is eventually released. I have to say, though, that many of the special effects in this movie were downright horrible.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.5*
> 
> 
> JVC RS1 on 123" screen at 13.5 feet



You're right on the money with this one. It's a solid release, pretty much ended up right where I expect most summer popcorn flicks will, lol. The Blu-ray is a solid tier 1.5 or 1.75. And it wasn't a total waste of a movie, surprisingly, I liked it much more than I liked that awful Transformers 2.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17532746
> 
> 
> All due respect, lgans...check out the movie in motion and share with us your opinion then.



I will have to wait 2 months for stuffs to get delivered to my country. I remember how the HD trailers / Deleted Scenes so that it gives me a opinion to talk about how various PQ elements have been altered during post processing.


I agree that watching in motion is the best way to determine overall PQ. However, we are so used to watching dozens of Blu-ray in a month or two that it won't take time to take an educated guess on the actual PQ by watching these caps.


Titles like Disturbia, Hancock, AVP-1 and AVP-2 are severely post processed. Just few minutes into these movie you will realize how average they looked in comparison to its HD trailer. My comments were on these lines. I will post my opinion when I receive and watch my copy.


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17532581
> 
> *Up*
> 
> 
> Not a lot to say about this one, other than it obviously belongs in Tier 0!
> 
> 
> Amazing stuff here. It seems that Pixar just continually improves on its CGI. They have the shadows, shades, tones etc. all down perfectly.
> 
> 
> Detail is superb, as is pretty much everything else.
> 
> 
> I would put this around spot number 5 or so.
> 
> *The movie was quite good too, even if not up to the standards of some other Pixar films, such as Ratatouille.*
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (top 5)*



By that are you referring to the PQ or the content of the film itself? Just curious, as I would have to disagree if thats a content evaluation


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/17534702
> 
> 
> By that are you referring to the PQ or the content of the film itself? Just curious, as I would have to disagree if thats a content evaluation



Yes, that is a content evaluation.


Reading it again though, I definitely should NOT have said that it wasn't quite up to the standard of some other Pixar movies, because it absolutely IS.


All I really meant to say was that I still prefer the content of Ratatouille over Up.


----------



## Hughmc

Hey Rob, I sent you a PM.


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17534742
> 
> 
> Yes, that is a content evaluation.
> 
> 
> Reading it again though, I definitely should NOT have said that it wasn't quite up to the standard of some other Pixar movies, because it absolutely IS.
> 
> 
> All I really meant to say was that I still prefer the content of Ratatouille over Up.



IMO, it is their best. Their level of storytelling has matured to a point where I feel such an emotional attachment to the characters and can relate to their human experience on a whole new level than on any of their previous films. Wall-E had a message, sure, but the impact of this movie really hits hard. The rest of their films are great stories, no doubt, but they're just that. I think they have crossed that barrier of make-believe into an adult world of anguish, love, joy, and tragedy, and while doing so created a film that can be seen on that level while still keeping a fun "save the weird looking bird adventure" for the kids at the same time. Their mastery of connecting with so many people has never been better, and I think that really says a lot about the talent they have creating these films.


Sorry to go off on a tangent, but I just can't get over how good Up really is, even after a second and third viewing. I'd say it has a real shot to win Best Picture next spring.


----------



## 42041

*Heat*


Somehow I've never seen this before, fantastic movie. The PQ is quite good as well. Reportedly re-mastered in 4K, the entire film has this gritty, desaturated, metallic hue to it that will render it undesirable for demo purposes. I suspect accurate skin tones are beside the point. It dwells mostly in the darker regions of your TV's luminance that will demand viewing in the dark.


Resolution is inconsistent, as one might expect from a 14 year old film. Much of the time it is indistinguishable from a brand new flick, reminding me of something like Watchmen, with excellent rendition of fine details and skin textures, while preserving a pleasantly film-like look. A faint layer of grain quietly hums along, unmolested to my eyes. Many shots appear to have been sourced from lower quality sources, and others appear to simply have been photographed out of focus. Compression is questionable... guess the studio







An odd thing I noticed is that sometimes brightness seemed to suddenly change in the middle of a shot. Black levels ranged from spot-on, to crushed, to under-extended. Not perfect but generally satisfactory.


Overall, this is a fine transfer, and while by my estimation it's nothing special within the eye candy parameters of this thread, it's a more-than-adequate representation of this film in HD. I thought the audio track was excellent as well, frankly I was more impressed by it than the (IMO) criminally overrated TF2 track. Here things don't explode without making a sound, when loud things happen, they're LOUD.

*Tier 2.0*

(PS3/Pioneer 50" Kuro Elite/1 screen width distance)


----------



## deltasun

*Monsters, Inc.*


Colors were vibrant and alive. Contrast was strong. Shadows details were superb. Blacks, the few that we see, were decent. Saw this back to back with _Up_ and one thing that becomes apparent when comparing older Pixar titles to newer ones is the attention to detail. Perhaps the most impressive feature from this title was how well Sulley's fur behaved - the best example occurring as he's riding the door.


Still, comparing with the best of the best, textures weren't as good. Mr. Waternoose's jacket looked/behaved like clay instead of cloth. In fact, aside from Sulley, no other creature really stood out in detail.


Of course, I'm talking Tier 0 subtleties here. Overall, I would place this title...

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (between _Cars_ and _Ratatouille_)

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## deltasun

*Up*

_I was hiding under your porch because I love you_


As mentioned, I saw this back to back with _Monsters, Inc._ Detail was the name of the game. The details, texture, and realism found in _Up_ were second to none. Details were better than _Ratatouille_. Realism puts _Bolt_ to shame. Consistency of texture bests _Coraline_, specially when it came to faces.







As excellent as the black levels and shadow details found in _Up_, I would say _Coraline_ still rules.


Another jump in Pixar evolution was the attention to detail - fluidity of movements (even the simple traversal of Carl's stair assist exhibited the tiny nuances inherent of such devices), facial ticks and twitches, etc. Materials were faithful to their composition - the worn out journal, texture of Carl's sweater and ties, splintered sidings on the house. I could go on and on.


Depth and dimensionality were also front and center (or off to the sides) for this title. It simply created limitless distance in a number of scenes. Medium shots allowed the viewer to focus on multiple elements scattered across the plane of view, all with perfect clarity and delineation.


As alluded to before by my colleagues, it is becoming more difficult to find proper placement for these titles in Tier 0. Thus, nitpicks become even more important in pitting perfection against perfection. But is it fair to take off points for the introductory black & white feature that young Carl was enjoying? In strictness, yes. However, I truly believe the other positive merits overcame these shortcomings for me. I believe _Up_ pushed the envelope once again in advancing the genre and deserves the top spot.

*Tier Recommendation: Blu-est of Blu's*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Ghosts of Girlfriends Past*


I was not impressed with this one at all. Most scenes are shot indoors, and the result, here, is that skin tones are off, and they all have a red/orange tint.


Contrast is also not very impressive, and the image often looks relatively flat.


Image detail and clarity are somewhat lacking, at least on the indoor shots. The few outdoor scenes do look much better.


Overall a below average looking title.


As for the movie, there were a few funny scenes, but overall it was not a good movie at all.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 3.25*


----------



## Hughmc

A heads up for the Blu Ray Mutants, with Michael Ironside and Steven Bauer.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1131742/ 


Do NOT buy it or rent it or even look at it.










It is horrible. Literally DVD/VHS quality with ONLY a 2.0 PCM soundtrack.














I could have sworn there was a minimum spec with BD to be at least DD 5.1. I thought lgans was up on the minimums since he used to not be able to listen to the lossless tracks and wanted the next best he could get.


I just looked it up and the lpcm is considered a standard minimum and the info provided didn't say it had to be 5.1.


I watched 30 seconds of it and had to shut it off. Oh, and you can't even FF to the next scene. Pathetic!!


I thought it was 1988 for a moment. And trust me no matter how much younger any of us would be, it isn't worth going back.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17538394
> 
> *Ghosts of Girlfriends Past*
> 
> 
> I was not impressed with this one at all. Most scenes are shot indoors, and the result, here, is that skin tones are off, and they all have a red/orange tint.
> 
> 
> Contrast is also not very impressive, and the image often looks relatively flat.
> 
> 
> Image detail and clarity are somewhat lacking, at least on the indoor shots. The few outdoor scenes do look much better.
> 
> 
> Overall a below average looking title.
> 
> 
> As for the movie, there were a few funny scenes, but overall it was not a good movie at all.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 3.25*



I see Denny reviewed it and said the same. I wasn't too impressed by it either. I thought I mentioned in passing that it looked about tier 3ish. I must admit, although it was cheesy, I do like romantic comedies and sought of enjoyed this one.







Don't get me wrong, it wasn't much more than a 1-2 star movie, but I've seen worse.


I looked it up on IMDB, because I from what I remembered about the PQ I thought it might have been captured on HD cameras, but it wasn't. I wonder what happened from capture to BD on this one for the PQ to be poor considering it is a new release?


----------



## subavision212




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17537311
> 
> *Up*
> 
> _I was hiding under your porch because I love you_
> 
> 
> As mentioned, I saw this back to back with _Monsters, Inc._ Detail was the name of the game. The details, texture, and realism found in _Up_ were second to none. Details were better than _Ratatouille_. Realism puts _Bolt_ to shame. Consistency of texture bests _Coraline_, specially when it came to faces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As excellent as the black levels and shadow details found in _Up_, I would say _Coraline_ still rules.
> 
> 
> Another jump in Pixar evolution was the attention to detail - fluidity of movements (even the simple traversal of Carl's stair assist exhibited the tiny nuances inherent of such devices), facial ticks and twitches, etc. Materials were faithful to their composition - the worn out journal, texture of Carl's sweater and ties, splintered sidings on the house. I could go on and on.
> 
> 
> Depth and dimensionality were also front and center (or off to the sides) for this title. It simply created limitless distance in a number of scenes. Medium shots allowed the viewer to focus on multiple elements scattered across the plane of view, all with perfect clarity and delineation.
> 
> 
> As alluded to before by my colleagues, it is becoming more difficult to find proper placement for these titles in Tier 0. Thus, nitpicks become even more important in pitting perfection against perfection. But is it fair to take off points for the introductory black & white feature that young Carl was enjoying? In strictness, yes. However, I truly believe the other positive merits overcame these shortcomings for me. I believe _Up_ pushed the envelope once again in advancing the genre and deserves the top spot.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Blu-est of Blu's*
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_



After watching Up I whole-heartedly agree with this review and the BEST aspect on the disc was any shot dealing with textures. They were out of this world. Watch for shots of the merit badges or carl's shirt and his beard. Felt like you could actually reach out and feel the ridges and edges. a great movie and blu-ray.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17241707
> 
> 
> And I'm NOT going to write a formal review of the "chick flick" I rented for my wife's sake tonight; namely, _Ghosts of Girlfriends Past_. This was such a terrible movie my wife and I quit watching it after about 35 minutes.
> 
> 
> What I did see was average PQ, at best. All the indoor shots were sub par, with horrible skin tones (i.e., bronze-looking), crushed blacks, and less-than-stellar details. A couple of the outdoor shots were quite good, with accurate skin tones, vibrant and natural colors, and very good details and depth. Most of what we saw took place indoors (and so did many of the scenes that I fast forwarded through), so the majority of the PQ is Tier 3 quality or lower.
> 
> 
> It wouldn't be fair to give an actual placement recommendation, but from what I saw the best I would opt for would be 3.25. The movie itself easily falls into a bottom tier (not COAL, but the ABYSS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )....it is absolutely horrible! I have never been a real fan of the "Romantic Comedy" genre, but this one makes others look like Oscar contenders; it is THAT BAD!



Wow, I didn't read one word of this prior to giving my review on this title (I looked up your review after seeing Hugh's post above), but man, we are on the same page here!


Funny, because you just mentioned how we were finally on the same page recently, but I think we are more often than you think.


These comments are very, very similar, and so is the tier recommendation!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17541749
> 
> 
> Wow, I didn't read one word of this prior to giving my review on this title (I looked up your review after seeing Hugh's post above), but man, we are on the same page here!
> 
> 
> Funny, because you just mentioned how we were finally on the same page recently, but I think we are more often than you think.
> 
> 
> These comments are very, very similar, and so is the tier recommendation!



I just got home late last night Rob and perused the reviews from the last three days. It was uncanny how similar our impressions were of GOGP...and yes, we were on the same page with _Coraline_ and _G. I. Joe_, so I believe you are right. I guess I get too fixated on the ones where my _generous rating_ puts us a tier or so apart.










Edit: I forgot to mention _Up_; our analysis and recommendation were very similar there too!


----------



## Zeuser

Hello All,


Long-time Listener, First-Time Caller.


I've been reading this thread for such a long time it feels odd actually posting something. And I hope as soon as I get away from my 720p setup to a 1080p that I'll be able to start contributing.


All that being said my wife and I watched Monsters, Inc. last night. MAN were we blown away! The detail in Sully's hair was IN-SANE! I own and watched 7 of the top 10 Tier-Blu (since I don't have MI-UKVersion) movies. And while my setup doesn't allow for the type of critique I expect from posts in this thread I gotta say I was blown away.


Most of the Pixar, and other animated titles, are amazing but it seems to me that only Monsters, Inc. has a texture quite like Sully's hair. The way it was done throughout the movie, no slacking on quality as far as I can tell, is simply impressive.


Anyway, back to your regularly schedule discussion, possibly already in progress.


HutcH


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Zeuser* /forum/post/17542910
> 
> 
> Hello All,
> 
> 
> Long-time Listener, First-Time Caller.
> 
> 
> I've been reading this thread for such a long time it feels odd actually posting something. And I hope as soon as I get away from my 720p setup to a 1080p that I'll be able to start contributing.
> 
> 
> All that being said my wife and I watched Monsters, Inc. last night. MAN were we blown away! The detail in Sully's hair was IN-SANE! I own and watched 7 of the top 10 Tier-Blu (since I don't have MI-UKVersion) movies. And while my setup doesn't allow for the type of critique I expect from posts in this thread I gotta say I was blown away.
> 
> 
> Most of the Pixar, and other animated titles, are amazing but it seems to me that only Monsters, Inc. has a texture quite like Sully's hair. The way it was done throughout the movie, no slacking on quality as far as I can tell, is simply impressive.
> 
> 
> Anyway, back to your regularly schedule discussion, possibly already in progress.
> 
> 
> HutcH



Good to hear from you Hutch! I haven't seen _Monsters, Inc._ yet, but your post has certainly whetted my appetite!


Regarding your set up and posting reviews, there are others who post reviews here who have a 720p tv, so I wouldn't let that hinder you from doing so (unless it's a large set and you're sitting too close).


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17542961
> 
> 
> Good to hear from you Hutch! I haven't seen _Monsters, Inc._ yet, but your post has certainly whetted my appetite!
> 
> 
> Regarding your set up and posting reviews, there are others who post reviews here who have a 720p tv, so I wouldn't let that hinder you from doing so (unless it's a large set and you're sitting too close).



+1!



Hoping to watch *Mr. Brooks* today. November is an odd month for me... I usually participate in the National Novel Writing Month (NaNo) and given my normal lack of time for things, the watching of Blu's to review is something that has been partially sacrificed. If not today, I will watch it tomorrow so I can send it back.


So, I finally sit down to watch a Blu last night so I can review it, and the film in question was *Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist* (about time, zip.ca!!).


Unfortunately I was so disenchanted with both the movie and the picture quality, I gave up on paying close attention to it. It felt like it had a complete haze over it; there was no detail to be found. I mean, I suppose it's likely better than the DVD... but damn. I think on this one if the PQ was better, I might have cared more about what I was watching, but since they gave me a badly-glazed-over-with-vaseline title, meh. I have no idea where this currently sits on the list, but I would not be surprised if it is at *Tier 3.5 or less.* I *will* be surprised if it shows up in Tier Silver... likely enough so to watch it again and put in a real review later. Must go look now... before I mail this movie back.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Blarg. Nick and Norah is at tier 2.5?? BAH. Now I have to watch it again; I can't believe it belongs that high, although maybe it does if I was paying more attention to it.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17543223
> 
> 
> Blarg. Nick and Norah is at tier 2.5?? BAH. Now I have to watch it again; I can't believe it belongs that high, although maybe it does if I was paying more attention to it.



I just checked G3 and I see that there were two reviews for this title. One by Hugh (2.0) and one by rsbeck (3.25). Obviously rsbeck's conclusion was more in line with yours.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Monsters, Inc.


recommendation: same placement as the UK version in Tier 0
*

One flaw prevents me from ranking it higher against the other top-notch CGI-animated movies. While the modeling for Sulley looks spectacular for the most part, the glimpses of aliasing on his shoulder-fur in several shots precludes a higher placement. At least in my judgment, given the relative perfection of these movies in the rarefied air of the uppermost levels in tier zero. It is most noticeable when Sulley turns slightly and the lighting seems to hit it at certain angles. Other than that minor note which many viewers will likely miss entirely, another fabulous Pixar production that is absolutely pristine and truly deserving of tier zero.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17543997
> 
> 
> I just checked G3 and I see that there were two reviews for this title. One by Hugh (2.0) and one by rsbeck (3.25). Obviously rsbeck's conclusion was more in line with yours.



Ahhh okay. I didn't look up reviews for this one yet. However, I went to watch it again today, and turns out, my husband did something helpful... by taking out the mail, and it was already gone! So I can't re-watch it unless I rent it or borrow it from a friend. I think a friend *might* own it so I'll check with him, otherwise... I don't care enough about the title.











Watched the first 30min of Mr. Brooks so far, can't watch the rest until later on. Looks pretty good so far.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Putting Mr. Brooks on hold atm, as I picked up Star Trek this morning!!


But the reason I'm stopping in, is I'm sure that many of you will be watching/buying Star Trek. There's a preview for *Fringe* at the beginning of the disc(as it's by JJ too), and I wanted to tell you guys that it's a pretty decent depiction of how the PQ came across when I watched the series. I know previews are often different from the actual thing, and of course this is all mixed together as an ad, but since I've seen the series and I know a few of you were thinking about it, it's a decent sample of what you get when you watch it.


----------



## K-Spaz

G3,


I'm a bit skeptical on Star Trek just because of the amount of shaky cam. I hate that and it was pretty rampant in this film. Mine will show up tonight so if it's in one piece, I'll get to see it as well. Should be interesting.


Great movie regardless, but in my experience so far, I've not exactly been impressed with the Star Trek's I've seen.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/17551367
> 
> 
> G3,
> 
> 
> I'm a bit skeptical on Star Trek just because of the amount of shaky cam. I hate that and it was pretty rampant in this film. Mine will show up tonight so if it's in one piece, I'll get to see it as well. Should be interesting.
> 
> 
> Great movie regardless, but in my experience so far, I've not exactly been impressed with the Star Trek's I've seen.



from the reviews, screen caps and discussions, I was expecting to be blown away by the PQ of Star Trek, but count me as underwhelmed. I picked it up last night. It was a good movie and the PQ was fairly good, but IMO I see it as about tier 1.5 or less. I will rewatch again to get a better idea.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*Star Trek (2009)*



While I'm not a Star Trek purist, I am an extreme fan of almost all things Star Trek. When I heard that they were doing a revamp of Star Trek, by JJ Abrams of all people, I was leery, but I absolutely LOVED this movie. I love this movie more than I likely should. As I sat here watching it this morning, I thought to myself, "Self, this is a _comfort movie_. You have chocolate as a comfort food, Cosmopolitans as a comfort drink, well, now you have your comfort movie."



There is so much in this movie that a fan of Trek like myself can enjoy. I'm sure I will pick up on more things as I watch this movie repeatedly (likely to death; my daughter loved this movie in the summer and she knows I picked it up today), that are small inside bits that just make me giggle when I see them.



When I saw this movie in the summer, it was in a Digital theatre as we were down south for my son's surgery. I'm so glad I didn't have to watch it in my crappy theatre here in town! The only thing for me that could be better would be watching it in the comfort of my own home, and now I have.



The picture quality of this film on my Panasonic Plasma was phenomenal. Now, my issue with regards to our beloved thread here, is that there is so much stylizing by JJ Abrams throughout the entire thing (he should have just put a bug in the corner: MADE BY JJ!!) that there is, in my opinion, no way this film can reside in Tier 0, despite the fact that I feel it looks as good as it does.



My number one issue with this movie: LENS FLARE. It's no less annoying at home than it was at the theatre. I've read articles as to WHY he did it; frankly I don't care. There simply did not need to be this much lens flare. I dock you PQ points for this irritation, JJ, and remind you for your next installment that LESS IS MORE.



Extreme detail can be seen throughout the majority of this movie. Sweat; wrinkles, pores, textures, you want it, this movie's got it.... unless it's the parts of the movie where IT IS OUT OF FOCUS.



If it wasn't for the lack of focus (Someone posted a reason for this in the Star Trek 2009 thread), I could forgive some of the lens flare and maybe, just maybe rank this movie at the bottom of Tier 0. It simply happens too many times to be forgiven, though. A glaring example in the spoiler text (which is really spoilerific, don't click it if you haven't seen the movie before, please).

*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) The entire scene at the end of the movie where Zachary Spock is talking with Leonard Spock, for example. It happens WAY too much in that scene, especially for a scene that involves no quick action; they're just STANDING THERE TALKING and yet the camera on Leonard Spock is out of focus. GAH!!




This movie was bright, the colours were lush, any time water was present it was gloriously glossy; the virtues of this film really do outweigh the negatives. Something that glared at me was the presence of high contrast edging, particularly in the opening scene accompanied by the Beastie Boys song and occasionally when the background was pure white, but I don't think it'll bother anyone besides those of us who are extremely sensitive to that sort of thing.



I was leaning towards Tier 1.0 for this film, but I think that's my love for it allowing me to be a bit kinder than perhaps I should be. Seeing *Shoot 'Em Up* in Tier 1.0 reminds me that it does have an edge on PQ to this movie, although in my opinion it is only a slight edge, and it's definitely a little better to me than *Kill Bill V.1* (which in my personal review I rated Tier 1.50), so...


*Recommendation for Star Trek (2009) : Tier 1.25*
*Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800u THX setting, approx 7.5'.*


----------



## 42041

The internet ruined this movie for me. When I saw this in theaters I honestly did not even notice the quantity of flare, until I read other people bitching later. Then I watched the trailer for the movie again and could see nothing else


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/17552332
> 
> 
> The internet ruined this movie for me. When I saw this in theaters I honestly did not even notice the quantity of flare, until I read other people bitching later. Then I watched the trailer for the movie again and could see nothing else



When I saw it in the theatre, the lens flare actually hurt my eyes. At home it was either my glee at finally getting this movie that allowed me to ignore that (I've seriously been driving my friends/family nuts with the wait for November 17 to get this movie), or it wasn't quite so bad on 58" vs however big the theatre screen was.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17552256
> 
> *Star Trek (2009)*
> 
> 
> 
> While I'm not a Star Trek purist, I am an extreme fan of almost all things Star Trek. When I heard that they were doing a revamp of Star Trek, by JJ Abrams of all people, I was leery, but I absolutely LOVED this movie. I love this movie more than I likely should. As I sat here watching it this morning, I thought to myself, "Self, this is a _comfort movie_. You have chocolate as a comfort food, Cosmopolitans as a comfort drink, well, now you have your comfort movie."
> 
> 
> 
> There is so much in this movie that a fan of Trek like myself can enjoy. I'm sure I will pick up on more things as I watch this movie repeatedly (likely to death; my daughter loved this movie in the summer and she knows I picked it up today), that are small inside bits that just make me giggle when I see them.
> 
> 
> 
> When I saw this movie in the summer, it was in a Digital theatre as we were down south for my son's surgery. I'm so glad I didn't have to watch it in my crappy theatre here in town! The only thing for me that could be better would be watching it in the comfort of my own home, and now I have.
> 
> 
> 
> The picture quality of this film on my Panasonic Plasma was phenomenal. Now, my issue with regards to our beloved thread here, is that there is so much stylizing by JJ Abrams throughout the entire thing (he should have just put a bug in the corner: MADE BY JJ!!) that there is, in my opinion, no way this film can reside in Tier 0, despite the fact that I feel it looks as good as it does.
> 
> 
> 
> My number one issue with this movie: LENS FLARE. It's no less annoying at home than it was at the theatre. I've read articles as to WHY he did it; frankly I don't care. There simply did not need to be this much lens flare. I dock you PQ points for this irritation, JJ, and remind you for your next installment that LESS IS MORE.
> 
> 
> 
> Extreme detail can be seen throughout the majority of this movie. Sweat; wrinkles, pores, textures, you want it, this movie's got it.... unless it's the parts of the movie where IT IS OUT OF FOCUS.
> 
> 
> 
> If it wasn't for the lack of focus (Someone posted a reason for this in the Star Trek 2009 thread), I could forgive some of the lens flare and maybe, just maybe rank this movie at the bottom of Tier 0. It simply happens too many times to be forgiven, though. A glaring example in the spoiler text (which is really spoilerific, don't click it if you haven't seen the movie before, please).
> 
> *Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler
> *Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) The entire scene at the end of the movie where Zachary Spock is talking with Leonard Spock, for example. It happens WAY too much in that scene, especially for a scene that involves no quick action; they're just STANDING THERE TALKING and yet the camera on Leonard Spock is out of focus. GAH!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This movie was bright, the colours were lush, any time water was present it was gloriously glossy; the virtues of this film really do outweigh the negatives. Something that glared at me was the presence of high contrast edging, particularly in the opening scene accompanied by the Beastie Boys song and occasionally when the background was pure white, but I don't think it'll bother anyone besides those of us who are extremely sensitive to that sort of thing.
> 
> 
> 
> I was leaning towards Tier 1.0 for this film, but I think that's my love for it allowing me to be a bit kinder than perhaps I should be. Seeing *Shoot 'Em Up* in Tier 1.0 reminds me that it does have an edge on PQ to this movie, although in my opinion it is only a slight edge, and it's definitely a little better to me than *Kill Bill V.1* (which in my personal review I rated Tier 1.50), so...
> 
> 
> *Recommendation for Star Trek (2009) : Tier 1.25*
> *Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800u THX setting, approx 7.5'.*



Great review GGG. I would rank it the same as I was thinking 1.0 to 1.5. THere were some minor issues a couple of times with black crush and dark scenes as well. I really enjoyed the movie, but again from the hype on here I expected more from the PQ. While it could be a demo disk, I don't think it is reference and it certainly isn't flawless.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/17552332
> 
> 
> The internet ruined this movie for me. When I saw this in theaters I honestly did not even notice the quantity of flare, until I read other people bitching later. Then I watched the trailer for the movie again and could see nothing else



I'm with you on the bitching about the flares. I'm going to try NOT to see them when I view this later.


----------



## daPriceIs

*Heroes -Season 2*

Season two (S2) of Heroes is much like the first season (S1) but there are some significant changes. Two important events had an impact on this set: the writers' strike and the death of HD-DVD. The S2 set consists of 11 episodes on two BD-50s (four episodes each) and two BD-25s (two episodes on disc three and one episode on disc 4) for a total run time of a bit over eight hours. S1 was originally an HD-DVD exclusive and from all reports those VC-1 encodings were simply ported over to the S1 BD set. BDs have significantly more space and bitrate headroom than HD-DVDs and this shows in the average bitrates of the discs in this BD set, with apparently some episodes having been encoded before Universal's decision to abandon HD-DVD's sinking ship. According to the blu-ray specs thread , the discs for S1 had video bitrates around 20 Mb/s while S2's start at 21 Mb/s and end at 30 Mb/s, granted the last disc has only one episode on it.


Contrast and black levels are good and reasonably well delineated. The rampant pervasive crushing that was present in S1 is gone in S2, with the exception of Episode 9 where it rears its ugly head again; but even then, E9 of S2 is still better in this regard than any episode of S1. And I can happily report that E11, the final episode, shows virtually no crush at all. Crush breakdown by disc: D1 - occasional, not bad; D2 - same as D1; D3 - E9 worse than every other episode, E10 same as D1; D4 - insignificant.


I didn't note any DNR in use. Detail and resolution of textures is generally very good, often showing excellent depth. Facial close-ups are usually very good to excellent, with the caveat that some are marred by the optical problems typical of extremely tight shots with limited depth of field. However, there are some extreme close-ups that are absolutely maddening!








These typically go like this:
Two talking heads. One of whom fills completely either the right or left half of the screen.
The other head is a lot smaller and farther from the camera.
The big head is facing the little head and the little head is looking at or near the camera
The sharpest focus is on a *small* patch of the big head's face, usually part of the cheek, jaw, or the back of an ear. The other head is in next best focus, but even so, that focus is soft. Everything else is more or less out of focus or at best in mushily soft focus.
Obviously digital tools can be used to create such an oddly blurred image, but it's clear that this weird selective focus is achieved through some optical system like a lensbaby (or whatever the equivalent is for movie cameras).
[rant/]This drives me freaking nuts. What's the point? The PQ sucks in these shots. It adds nothing to the drama and advances the story in no way whatsoever. Its biggest achievement is calling attention to itself. I guess it shows what a freaky cool artiste the







DP







is. I can't begin to tell you how impressed I am (not). I mean, WTF! [/rant]

Dark objects against bright backgrounds show both CA (color fringes in complementary pairs on opposite sides of the dark object) and minor haloes extending beyond the CA fringes. So are the haloes simple ringing or EE? Bitrates that are insufficient can induce ringing at high contrast boundaries but I didn't notice a significant difference in this haloing between Disc 1 with 20.69 Mb/s average bitrate and Disc 4 with 29.91 Mb/s bitrate. This suggests a minor but nonintrusive amount of EE.

*Recommendation: Tier 2.25*

Panasonic TH-42PZ77U, 1080p/60 @ 3' to 5'

*---------------------------------------------------------*

By the way, my copy of _Rome_ was delivered just as I was finishing this post. First impressions by the end of the week and a full review next week some time. Wow, I'm in BD heaven. Today first _Star Trek_ and now _Rome_. That's over 24 hours of viewing fun.







God only knows when I'll have time to sleep.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*North Face (UK import)


recommendation: Tier 1.75*


Occasionally a movie surprises in crafting compelling human drama out of a subject which normally holds no interest for me. The subject here is mountaineering, specifically set in Germany in 1936, against the backdrop of nationalistic pride between Germany and Austria. A German language film that premiered in 2008, the region-free Blu-ray was released in the UK on April 27, 2009, by Metrodome Video. The 126-minute movie is encoded in AVC on a BD-25. The video encode averages 18.99 Mbps for the main feature. Occasionally spectacular in sheer visual quality and rarely poor, this is a fine transfer of a movie that easily lends itself to great visual landscapes.


Shot on varying cameras due to the constraints of filming on location in the Alps, the picture quality is a little schizophrenic in character. Exterior scenes at the base of the mountains are simply splendid in appearance. Wide, sweeping shots fill the screen with beautiful mountain imagery in perfect contrast and bold colors. The image exudes a sharpness that creates a great amount of depth and dimensionality, recalling other great-looking titles in the upper quarters of tier one. Important to note is the complete lack of any blown highlights, especially in the final acts, a critical requirement for a movie set in the sheer-white ice and snow fields of the Alps.


Interior scenes in the hotel, a regular setting, are a little different in appearance from the aerial footage and outdoor setups. Contrast is slightly heavier and black levels are very deep, leading to a slightly flatter appearance that on its own merits could be placed in tier 2.0 or 2.25. Interior shots also show a slight color tweaking that creates an unnatural hue in the flesh-tones. In these moments the actors consistently display a push toward yellowed skin in their faces. Black levels are quite good though, and it will test your display's ability to reproduce the inkiest blacks and superior shadow detail.


Digital post-processing is never evident in the transfer. The picture retains a healthy and fairly thick grain-structure throughout the film appropriate to the particular scene. There is absolutely no evidence of any temporal grain-filtering being applied, as high-frequency detail is excellent for the entire movie in all medium and close shots. The grain never tears or smears into a visible mess. A few select shots indicate a small amount of ringing that may or may not be the result of edge enhancement. My inclination is that the ringing, of fairly minor amplitude, is the result of the original photography. The master shows no degradation of any kind and is reminiscent of other new day-and-date releases on Blu-ray in that regard.


A combination of fog, snow and grain pose a small challenge to the video compression in the most difficult circumstances. For a fairly low-average bitrate encoding, it reproduces the grain fairly well with an absolute minimum of obvious artifacts. But a tiny bit of compression noise pops up during the brief scenes late in the movie with fairly thick weather conditions. A movie of this caliber deserves being released on a BD-50, where the encoding parameters could have been substantially increased to improve the encode's transparency to the master.


Hollywood does not typically make movies like this anymore with emotional depth and realistic characters. A ranking in tier 1.75 is a stretch for parts of the movie, but weighing the overall components together makes it a fair estimate. The short text interviews provided with the director and the cameraman who actually filmed the movie on the cliffs of the Alps, are fascinating and discuss the realities of shooting while climbing a mountain.


Watching on a 60” Pioneer KURO plasma at 1080p/24 from a PS3 (firmware 3.01) at a viewing distance of six feet.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Kannisto):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...9#post16377429


----------



## djoberg

*Star Trek (2009)*


I'm going to start off by echoing Hugh's words...I WAS UNDERWHELMED! I wanted to love the PQ; in fact, I had read so many glowing reviews that I was convinced it would "knock my socks off," but to be brutally honest I was sorely disappointed!


Perhaps I should address the LENS FLARES first. They were absolutely, positively HORRIBLE! I have never seen a movie with so many and I was distracted BIG TIME in just about every scene they were in (and believe me there were quite a few).


I think it was Josh Zyber from HighDefDigest who wrote that the movie's sharpness and detail were better in the second half and this coincided with my experience to a tee. This is NOT to say that detail wasn't good at times in the first half, for there were some shots that easily qualified for Tier 0 (such as a facial close-up of Nero, played by Eric Bana). But overall the second half excelled in the detail department compared to the first 60 minutes.


Black levels were a mixed bag. The majority of the film featured deep blacks and finely-rendered shadow details, especially the deep space scenes and shots of Nero's spaceship. But at times they were either crushed or they just weren't that black.


I thought the fleshtones were topnotch, for they appeared natural with every character. Facial close-ups varied, but when they were good (as in the example cited above and in a few shots of the "elder" Spock, played by Leonard Nimoy), THEY WERE REALLY GOOD!!


Colors didn't impress me like they did others. The best scenes, IMO, were the interior scenes in the USS Enterprise. The colors in the outdoor daytime scenes in Iowa were a definite letdown to me.


Before I give a recommendation, I do want to praise the audio. If you have a halfway decent (or better) 5.1 or 7.1 audio system, you will NOT be disappointed at all.


Well, I guess I may be breaking out of my _generous rater_ mold once again, for after a first viewing I came to the conclusion that this title belongs here....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17552256
> 
> *Star Trek (2009)*
> 
> *Recommendation for Star Trek (2009) : Tier 1.25*
> *Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800u THX setting, approx 7.5'.*



I just got through watching Star Trek for the first time. I was truly entertained! Your review is spot on, except I LOVED the lens flares.









1.25 seems right to me!


Just in.

It seems like djoberg did not like the lens flares.







(j/k)


----------



## Ozymandis

I thought the blacks in Star Trek were really good. Overall a very nice transfer, film grain preserved, plenty of detail, some of the CG shots were a little soft... Tier 1 IMO. It was an above-average transfer for a summer blockbuster, just as it was an above-average movie for this type.


And off-topic but the audio was quite good too.


I ended up very pleased with this release


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17554835
> 
> *Star Trek (2009)*
> 
> 
> I'm going to start off by echoing Hugh's words...I WAS UNDERWHELMED! I wanted to love the PQ; in fact, I had read so many glowing reviews that I was convinced it would "knock my socks off," but to be brutally honest I was sorely disappointed!
> 
> 
> Perhaps I should address the LENS FLARES first. They were absolutely, positively HORRIBLE! I have never seen a movie with so many and I was distracted BIG TIME in just about every scene they were in (and believe me there were quite a few).
> 
> 
> I think it was Josh Zyber from HighDefDigest who wrote that the movie's sharpness and detail were better in the second half and this coincided with my experience to a tee. This is NOT to say that detail wasn't good at times in the first half, for there were some shots that easily qualified for Tier 0 (such as a facial close-up of Nero, played by Eric Bana). But overall the second half excelled in the detail department compared to the first 60 minutes.
> 
> 
> Black levels were a mixed bag. The majority of the film featured deep blacks and finely-rendered shadow details, especially the deep space scenes and shots of Nero's spaceship. But at times they were either crushed or they just weren't that black.
> 
> 
> I thought the fleshtones were topnotch, for they appeared natural with every character. Facial close-ups varied, but when they were good (as in the example cited above and in a few shots of the "elder" Spock, played by Leonard Nimoy), THEY WERE REALLY GOOD!!
> 
> 
> Colors didn't impress me like they did others. The best scenes, IMO, were the interior scenes in the USS Enterprise. The colors in the outdoor daytime scenes in Iowa were a definite letdown to me.
> 
> 
> Before I give a recommendation, I do want to praise the audio. If you have a halfway decent (or better) 5.1 or 7.1 audio system, you will NOT be disappointed at all.
> 
> 
> Well, I guess I may be breaking out of my _generous rater_ mold once again, for after a first viewing I came to the conclusion that this title belongs here....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75 or 2.0*
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'




I am in between you and GGG on this, but I think both your reviews nailed it. I really did like the story and thought it was a no brainer to blind buy based on all the chatter here and elsewhere. I have no regrets other than like you I was hoping for a tier 1.0 or low tier 0 ranking translating to something incredible to look at and while good, and even demo worthy for several reasons, IMO it just isn't tier 0 or even tier 1.0 overall. We are overdue for a good live action movie to make it into tier 0.










Warp speed and teleporting were very cool visually coupled with the sound effects.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ozymandis* /forum/post/17555106
> 
> 
> I thought the blacks in Star Trek were really good. Overall a very nice transfer, film grain preserved, plenty of detail, some of the CG shots were a little soft... Tier 1 IMO. It was an above-average transfer for a summer blockbuster, just as it was an above-average movie for this type.
> 
> 
> And off-topic but the audio was quite good too.
> 
> 
> I ended up very pleased with this release



Ozy, I was looking for the grain, but didn't readily see it. It must be fine. Normally if it hasn't been DNRed, which I don't believe Star Trek was, I can readily see it, but I am going to watch again and look for it more closely.


----------



## deltasun

Well, I just finished a pretty nice review of *Leon: The Professional*, but Firefox decided to mangle it just as I was about to hit save. It's late and don't really feel like regurgitating tonight so I'll do a quick mention here and rate it.


Introductory overground establishing shot did not impress. Contrast boosted, but I felt it complemented the look of the film. It had a brownish/sepia-ish tone to it. Facial details were superb in a number of scenes, particularly the first 3/4's of movie. There were some soft shots. Medium scenes had excellent depth most of the time, specially indoors. Blacks were above average, with instances of crushing. Primary colors were vivid but natural. Skin tones were faithful. Shadow details were decent. The bathroom scene between Mathilda and Stansfield was problematic, with lots of softness and maybe even mild DNR. Some ringing.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Denny I'm surprised that you find that Star Trek is possibly worse than X-Men Origins: Wolverine (which you gave 1.75, but Star Trek 1.75 possibly 2.0.)


I know the lens flare really sucks, but the way I looked at it, it was a stylistic choice that I was able to see beyond and see the true detail this picture had. I mean it had details that rivaled Youth Without Youth and Domino IMO. It has it's negatives, and I know I listed what I felt they were in my review; by no means is ST:2009 a Tier 0 title, but I don't feel in any way it belongs as low as tier 2.0 with the amount that is good with this film. I begrudgingly accept tier 1.75 but the drop to silver seems harsh!


You're definitely entitled to your own opinion, for sure and I totally respect it. I'm just a bit surprised. Although, if this was the first time you saw the film I can understand as I was really really angry with the lens flare when I first saw it; we already know I'm sensitive to EE and high contrast edges as well as phosphor trail on my TV, so the lens flare doesn't bode well with me either.



I watched the first half of the movie again, and I still saw phenomenal details throughout, even textures on the young Kirk's jacket during the Iowa scenes.


*shrug*


I can't wait to hear from more of you!


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/17554839
> 
> 
> I just got through watching Star Trek for the first time. I was truly entertained! Your review is spot on, except I LOVED the lens flares.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.25 seems right to me!



Agree on 1.25 and lens flares.


----------



## Ozymandis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17555155
> 
> 
> Ozy, I was looking for the grain, but didn't readily see it. It must be fine. Normally if it hasn't been DNRed, which I don't believe Star Trek was, I can readily see it, but I am going to watch again and look for it more closely.



I could see it at the beginning of the flick but it was pretty fine, yes. Honestly though, this is one of those movies where I'm not going to debate it (as long as it's somewhere in Tier 1-1.75) because I was too busy watching the movie to really notice the PQ except closeups.


And yes, the movie has good detail. However, what distinguishes Domino is that it's extremely consistent, where Star Trek had some soft scenes. Still a pretty good transfer from where I was sitting


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17555249
> 
> 
> Denny I'm surprised that you find that Star Trek is possibly worse than X-Men Origins: Wolverine (which you gave 1.75, but Star Trek 1.75 possibly 2.0.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're definitely entitled to your own opinion, for sure and I totally respect it. I'm just a bit surprised. Although, if this was the first time you saw the film I can understand as I was really really angry with the lens flare when I first saw it; we already know I'm sensitive to EE and high contrast edges as well as phosphor trail on my TV, so the lens flare doesn't bode well with me either.



Two things G3:


1) Now that you mention _Wolverine_, I believe _Star Trek_ compares quite well to that title. So, perhaps I'll just stick to 1.75 for my rating.


2) I was so distracted in most instances by the _lens flares_ that it was hard FOR ME to look beyond them.


I specifically used the words "my first viewing" in my review because I will watch it again soon and perhaps I'll change my opinion on some things. Having said that, I did watch the PQ very carefully the first time around and in the second viewing I'm actually going to pay more attention to the movie itself.


PS You never said anything about the blacks levels, so what did you think about them?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/17554839
> 
> 
> I just got through watching Star Trek for the first time. I was truly entertained! Your review is spot on, except *I LOVED the lens flares.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 1.25 seems right to me!
> 
> 
> Just in.
> 
> It seems like djoberg did not like the lens flares.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (j/k)



So, the obvious question is: What's to love about the lens flares?!


----------



## sb1

Hey PQ people!


I usually don't pay much attention to picture quality since I'm more into the audio side of things, but I was curious about where everyone was placing Star Trek, since even my non-picky self was a little disappointed in it. I didn't think it was bad, just not as good as previous reviews lead me to believe.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sb1* /forum/post/17556067
> 
> 
> Hey PQ people!
> 
> 
> I usually don't pay much attention to picture quality since I'm more into the audio side of things, but I was curious about where everyone was placing Star Trek, since even my non-picky self was a little disappointed in it. I didn't think it was bad, just not as good as previous reviews lead me to believe.



+1


You hit the proverbial "nail on the head." Reviews led me to believe the PQ was reference-quality, which it was NOT.


Now the AQ is another story....I absolutely loved the workout it gave my 7.1 system, especially the surrounds and my Velodyne sub.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17555985
> 
> 
> Two things G3:
> 
> 
> 1) Now that you mention _Wolverine_, I believe _Star Trek_ compares quite well to that title. So, perhaps I'll just stick to 1.75 for my rating.
> 
> 
> 2) I was so distracted in most instances by the _lens flares_ that it was hard FOR ME to look beyond them.
> 
> 
> I specifically used the words "my first viewing" in my review because I will watch it again soon and perhaps I'll change my opinion on some things. Having said that, I did watch the PQ very carefully the first time around and in the second viewing I'm actually going to pay more attention to the movie itself.
> 
> 
> PS You never said anything about the blacks levels, so what did you think about them?




Sorry, Denny, I should have read your review more carefully. On a first viewing I can totally understand not being able to see past them. Maybe you can give it another chance in a few weeks time, now that you know what to expect out of the lens flare (I'd wait a little bit if I were you to escape the haunting of the lens flare). If I had seen it for the first time yesterday, I can totally see me coming here saying 'TIER FOUR WHAT THE FRAK WAS THAT OMFG BLAHBLAHBLAH!!!" I'd likely proceed to have a total hissy-fit meltdown, and have a tirade written against JJ Abrams, hee! I'm, er... emotional and all







(and I may have done something similar to that in the middle of the summer).



I honestly didn't notice anything wrong with the black levels, however I do know I will be watching this movie numerous times so next time I do, I've made note to pay extra attention to that. If you or Hugh have any specific scenes you remember where the crushing was really glaring, I can pop the disc in and check it out specifically.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sb1* /forum/post/17556067
> 
> 
> Hey PQ people!
> 
> 
> I usually don't pay much attention to picture quality since I'm more into the audio side of things, but I was curious about where everyone was placing Star Trek, since even my non-picky self was a little disappointed in it. I didn't think it was bad, just not as good as previous reviews lead me to believe.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17556146
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> 
> You hit the proverbial "nail on the head." Reviews led me to believe the PQ was reference-quality, which it was NOT.
> 
> 
> Now the AQ is another story....I absolutely loved the workout it gave my 7.1 system, especially the surrounds and my Velodyne sub.



I certainly hope my review didn't mislead you on the reference score! I know I did love this movie and I was happy with the PQ it provided, but just simply knowing how abundant the lens flare was & the focus issues alone, I likely would have fought tooth and nail to NOT let it be in Tier 0, for sure. Honestly as long as it lands in Tier 1 somewhere, I'm good with that, as I think the movie's PQ deserves better than Tier 2.


----------



## sb1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17556184
> 
> 
> I certainly hope my review didn't mislead you on the reference score! I know I did love this movie and I was happy with the PQ it provided, but just simply knowing how abundant the lens flare was & the focus issues alone, I likely would have fought tooth and nail to NOT let it be in Tier 0, for sure. Honestly as long as it lands in Tier 1 somewhere, I'm good with that, as I think the movie's PQ deserves better than Tier 2.



No, not at all. I still thought the picture was good, just not great. Then again, I wasn't impressed with it at the IMAX I saw it in, either....so maybe it's just exactly how it should be.


I'm one of the few who not only didn't mind the lens flare, but actually liked it. To me, it added (as I said in another thread) a futuristic polish to the movie.


----------



## K-Spaz

I saw Star Trek last night, had a few family members over to enjoy it as well. All were pretty impressed with the visuals, I was surprised that I had been the only one to have seen it at the theater, that on 35mm.


I would not have expected this to look as good as it did. Unfortunately, some of the things that detract from what I'd call the PQ were conscious decisions made as a stylistic choice. The lens flare didn't bother me, but then my image isn't all that bright by comparison to some. I watch with my iris completely closed and in a dark room, so I don't like the whites having any chance to get blown out.


There were the few times that they shook the camera so bad I had a hard time following, but I knew that going in. However, generally, the detail was so superior to other Star Trek transfers we should not even mention them together. This was the best of them I've seen by a wide margin.


Discluding stylistic choices which I may or may not have liked, the film look and transfer were great, and I'd probably place this slightly higher than some of my esteemed colleagues at a Tier 1.0. I also would not dispute with anyone who felt it deserved a Tier 0 placment any more than I might others who call for 1.5. I think the subjective opinion of those "Faults" are going to influence our decisions, and those "Faults" didn't bother me very much.


Loosing all it's favor from me on overuse of shaky cam and underuse of the focus ring, I say Tier 1.0, but as you may notice, it's not emboldened. Take my opinion with a grain of salt on this one. I'm biased. What a great movie. Best Star Trek ever. When it falls in price, I'll own it.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17556184
> 
> 
> I certainly hope my review didn't mislead you on the reference score!



It didn't G3; you were very clear in saying it WASN'T reference material. I was speaking of the many "professional" reviews that I had read from Cinema Squid's website.


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17555997
> 
> 
> So, the obvious question is: What's to love about the lens flares?!



In photography, in lieu of lens flare for stylistic effect, people will sometimes use a "Star Filter". Done properly, and on the right subject, it can add a highlight which gives your brain something else to take in. If you don't like the effect, it's difficult to explain what its merits might be. Then too, some people notice them when others do not. I have no explanation for that. Just discussing this with my brother earlier, he also watched ST last night (at his own house) and he noticed the flares quite a lot. However, when watching Transformers 2, we both noticed them. It's funny cause I said today that I didn't think they were near as prominent in ST as in Tr2, but he disagreed and said it was about the same or more so in ST. Go figure. Then the dirtbag just left work to take his wife to see 2012 at noon today.


I think in his case, he is bothered by them, and in my case, I just notice some of them.


Then, we have the invention called the "Lens Hood"! Somebody like Denny invented that!


----------



## audiomagnate

Where can I see a capture of the dreaded/loved lens flare?


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

I wish i knew how to take blu ray screencaps, I'd take some for you, audiomagnate.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/17556720
> 
> 
> In photography, in lieu of lens flare for stylistic effect, people will sometimes use a "Star Filter". Done properly, and on the right subject, it can add a highlight which gives your brain something else to take in. If you don't like the effect, it's difficult to explain what its merits might be. Then too, some people notice them when others do not. I have no explanation for that. Just discussing this with my brother earlier, he also watched ST last night (at his own house) and he noticed the flares quite a lot. However, when watching Transformers 2, we both noticed them. It's funny cause I said today that I didn't think they were near as prominent in ST as in Tr2, but he disagreed and said it was about the same or more so in ST. Go figure. Then the dirtbag just left work to take his wife to see 2012 at noon today.
> 
> 
> I think in his case, he is bothered by them, and in my case, I just notice some of them.
> 
> 
> Then, we have the invention called the "Lens Hood"! Somebody like Denny invented that!



Thanks for the info K-Spaz!


BTW, I (along with G3 and your brother) sure wish Mr. Abrams had used the "lens hood" throughout _Star Trek_!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17557064
> 
> 
> Thanks for the info K-Spaz!
> 
> 
> BTW, I (along with G3 and your brother) sure wish Mr. Abrams had used the "lens hood" throughout _Star Trek_!


----------



## deltasun

Love my lens hood and my star filter.







It really depends on the occasion. I'm halfway through and will have my review up tonight.


----------



## K-Spaz

Lens Flare, Star Filter, Circular Polarizer, Soft Focus, Haze / Smoke, Backlighting, Sepia, fill in flash, pick your poison. They all have an effect that can produce a desired response, however, in overuse, they loose that effect. One of the lessons in still photography is to not go overboard with filters. Yea, they're kewl and all, but the constant messing with the image can get old fast. Bout like DNR/EE. There might even be a place for them.







Well, it happens in filmmaking too. The point of "overuse" though is certainly subjective.


I liken this to the use of foul language. On occasion, it can have profound effect. Sometimes, it's even a good thing. But with overuse, it can have the opposite effect, or simply no effect at all. Examples being, Dexter, The Departed, etc.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *audiomagnate* /forum/post/17556921
> 
> 
> Where can I see a capture of the dreaded/loved lens flare?



You can see quite a few of them in the trailer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0xaCB2nLS0


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17555997
> 
> 
> So, the obvious question is: What's to love about the lens flares?!












For me, it's a beautiful stylistic addition to the film. I agree with sb1. They added a "futuristic" touch.

Punch Drunk Love was the first film that I truly noticed lens flare as an artistic accessory. PTA used them perfectly!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/17560021
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For me, it's a beautiful *stylistic* addition to the film.



It may be *stylistic*, but it isn't *realistic*.







That is to say, it isn't something you'd actually see if you could be present where the filming was done.


At any rate, I do respect the view of those who like the look of lens flares, even though they are a distraction to me. And FWIW, they weren't the main reason I would keep _Star Trek_ out of Tier 0...to me the lack of details in some scenes that were soft, along with some crushed blacks and lackluster colors bumped it down to Tier 1.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17560102
> 
> 
> It may be *stylistic*, but it isn't *realistic*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is to say, it isn't something you'd actually see if you could be present where the filming was done.
> 
> 
> At any rate, I do respect the view of those who like the look of lens flares, even though they are a distraction to me. And FWIW, they weren't the main reason I would keep _Star Trek_ out of Tier 0...to me the lack of details in some scenes that were soft, along with some crushed blacks and lackluster colors bumped it down to Tier 1.



I agree, it isn't realistic. But film is art. Some prefer da Vinci. Others prefer Warhol. It's a personal choice. We agree to disagree. *extends hand*










We both agree that Star Trek doesn't belong in Tier 0.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/17560193
> 
> 
> I agree, it isn't realistic. But film is art. Some prefer da Vinci. Others prefer Warhol. It's a personal choice. We agree to disagree. *extends hand*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We both agree that Star Trek doesn't belong in Tier 0.



My hand is outstretched!


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17560102
> 
> 
> It may be *stylistic*, but it isn't *realistic*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is to say, it isn't something you'd actually see if you could be present where the filming was done.



Actually, that's not true. It is very realistic. If you wear glasses, from time to time you can have very light lens flare. If you're using a camera or looking through virtually any optics, (spotting scope, telecsope, riflescope, binoculars, etc), you can see it. You can even see them when looking out a window. It's just that those are always expected to be there so we ignore it, or at least, don't let it bother us.


There is no person here who can tell me they have never gone to look out a window with the sun shining on it and have to re-position themselves to see out. We've all done it. Especially in our cars looking out the windshield. Side windows in the morning with dew, etc. We see it every single day.


----------



## Jim Cate

If this isn't the right place to post this question, please tell me where to go.


I'm trying to select a few blu-rays for demo purposes for adults who may want to see (and hear) what blu-ray can do. I'm referring specifically to 'adults', because I don't want to use movies like Ratatouille, King Fu, a Bugs Life, etc. (which seem to be high on the recommended "Tier" lists), as their initial introduction to the media. It seems to me that something other than current movies would be preferable, since tastes vary, of course. Also, I would like discs which demonstrate both video and audio capabilities, but they seem to be rated in seperate categories. - Are they mutually exclusive?


Since I don't think movies are the best choice, I had thought that a travel/nature film or PBS-like special might be an appropriate choice. However, there don't seem to be many of them on the recommenced lists, other than the Grand Canyon special and the Earth Series. As one possibility, I'm impressed with some of the Opus Arte discs, such as their production of Swan Lake by the Paris Opera Ballet (which also include some impressive audio). They do seem to have some great recordings of performances of concerts, opera, etc.


Suggestions?


Jim Cate


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jim Cate* /forum/post/17561247
> 
> 
> If this isn't the right place to post this question, please tell me where to go.
> 
> 
> I'm trying to select a few blu-rays for demo purposes for adults who may want to see (and hear) what blu-ray can do. I'm referring specifically to 'adults', because I don't want to use movies like Ratatouille, King Fu, a Bugs Life, etc. (which seem to be high on the recommended "Tier" lists), as their initial introduction to the media. It seems to me that something other than current movies would be preferable, since tastes vary, of course. Also, I would like discs which demonstrate both video and audio capabilities, but they seem to be rated in seperate categories. - Are they mutually exclusive?
> 
> 
> Since I don't think movies are the best choice, I had thought that a travel/nature film or PBS-like special might be an appropriate choice. However, there don't seem to be many of them on the recommenced lists, other than the Grand Canyon special and the Earth Series. As one possibility, I'm impressed with some of the Opus Arte discs, such as their production of Swan Lake by the Paris Opera Ballet (which also include some impressive audio). They do seem to have some great recordings of performances of concerts, opera, etc.
> 
> 
> Suggestions?
> 
> 
> Jim Cate



Check out Baraka, listed in Tier 0.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103767/


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/17561296
> 
> 
> Check out Baraka, listed in Tier 0.
> 
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103767/



Excellent choice!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jim Cate* /forum/post/17561247
> 
> 
> If this isn't the right place to post this question, please tell me where to go.
> 
> 
> I'm trying to select a few blu-rays for demo purposes for adults who may want to see (and hear) what blu-ray can do. I'm referring specifically to 'adults', because I don't want to use movies like Ratatouille, King Fu, a Bugs Life, etc. (which seem to be high on the recommended "Tier" lists), as their initial introduction to the media. It seems to me that something other than current movies would be preferable, since tastes vary, of course. Also, I would like discs which demonstrate both video and audio capabilities, but they seem to be rated in seperate categories. - Are they mutually exclusive?
> 
> 
> Since I don't think movies are the best choice, I had thought that a travel/nature film or PBS-like special might be an appropriate choice. However, there don't seem to be many of them on the recommenced lists, other than the Grand Canyon special and the Earth Series. As one possibility, I'm impressed with some of the Opus Arte discs, such as their production of Swan Lake by the Paris Opera Ballet (which also include some impressive audio). They do seem to have some great recordings of performances of concerts, opera, etc.
> 
> 
> Suggestions?
> 
> 
> Jim Cate




I had a look at the Reference Quality movies in the Audio tier thread, and cross referenced it with the PQ list, limiting it to movies within Tier 0 and all of Tier 1. While Tier 1 has a drop in quality the lower you go on the list, it's _my personal opinion_ that any movie within Tier 0 and Tier 1 have qualities about them that make them usable as reference material, and a person can easily narrow that down by personal taste in the movies themselves. So, this is what I came up with:

*Reference Quality Audio movies, that are within Tier 0 & Tier 1:*

*Tier 0*

A Bug's Life

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian

Grand Canyon Adventure: River at Risk

Kung Fu Panda

Live Free or Die Hard

Ratatouille

*Tier 1.00*

Kill Bill Volume 2

King Kong

Transformers

*Tier 1.25*

The Dark Knight

Hellboy II: Golden Army

The Incredible Hulk

Kill Bill: Volume 1


*Tier 1.50*

Band of Brothers

The Bourne Ultimatum

Pan's Labyrinth

*Tier 1.75*

Batman Begins

The Matrix

The Matrix Reloaded

The Matrix Revolutions

Pearl Harbor

U-571

Wanted



The new Star Trek movie is also on the Audio Reference list, and in my opinion, would qualify somewhere in this list as well, although it's spot on the PQ list is as yet undetermined.











Edited to add: I did realize that you were looking for "non movies" as well, but I went on a bit of a tangent due to curiosity of a cross reference, and wanted to post this anyway, since others may ask the same sort of question. I should have clarified and realized that I forgot to after posting the first time!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/17560863
> 
> 
> Actually, that's not true. It is very realistic. If you wear glasses, from time to time you can have very light lens flare. If you're using a camera or looking through virtually any optics, (spotting scope, telecsope, riflescope, binoculars, etc), you can see it. You can even see them when looking out a window. It's just that those are always expected to be there so we ignore it, or at least, don't let it bother us.
> 
> 
> There is no person here who can tell me they have never gone to look out a window with the sun shining on it and have to re-position themselves to see out. We've all done it. Especially in our cars looking out the windshield. Side windows in the morning with dew, etc. We see it every single day.



The only problem with your *logic* K-Spaz is that there were lens flares in various scenes where you weren't looking out a window, and not all people would be wearing glasses or "looking through...optics" if they were present during the filming of those scenes. So, IMO there still wouldn't have been, realistically, all of those lens flares being seen.


----------



## K-Spaz

I'm not going to dispute that the ones we're seeing in movies are fake, they certainly are. But, even as I thought about the ones in Star Trek, a person could argue that they were supposed to be there (on the camera lens) thus they are justified. (Hypothetical opinion there)


Most of the ones I saw in Tr2 (if not every single one) was actually CG. There's a shot of Optimus out in the desert late in the film and he's got a big red/blue stripe across him at an angle that simply defies optical explanation. I think the pyramids are in the background on that shot.


As I said previously, "if done right and on the right subject..." Well, I'm not going to say these were done right. Imho, if they stand out to where they bother people, they are overdone. For me personally, they were a little too much in Tr2, but I did not take offense in ST. But that's just me.


In my experience in shooting stills, flare is a major pita. For me, without it you get the shot, with it, you simply get no picture cause the result is usually unacceptable to me.


Back on topic, count me amongst the ones who does not think ST should be T Blu. Close but no cigar. Again, jmho.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Anyone wanting to slip in last minute placements for the upcoming update should post it in the next day. The database should be fully up-to-date by the weekend.


----------



## deltasun

*Fight Club*

_My God, I haven't been f***** like that since grade school_


Wow, what a beautiful dark presentation! Someone hold me back, 'cause I'm about to get really generous with my rating.







A healthy layer of grain present throughout, resulting in a very satisfyingly filmic look. I guess the first thing to talk about is the darkness. Blacks were inky and deep. Yes, there were plenty of crushed blacks, but medium indoor shots still held appreciable depth. Shadow details still existed, but not as prominently. Shadow details were rather selective.


Indoor scenes have a greenish, fluorescent tint. Facial details were well-rendered (outside of the crushed blacks, of course) and really embraced the spotlight (or what available light was present). Contrast was a bit boosted, but not too bothersome. Colors were subdued befitting the story's tone and demeanor. When vivid colors did show up, they leaped off the screen. Skin tones were also spot on.


Overall, a very gritty presentation. I would hope that when _Se7en_ finally comes out, it adopts this look. I did spot some ringing in high contrast scenes, but looked like a product of the stylistic look. As promised, my generous rating...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.50*


AQ has to be reference for this title.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## daPriceIs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jim Cate* /forum/post/17561247
> 
> 
> If this isn't the right place to post this question, *please tell me where to go.* [Sorry, couldn't resist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ]
> 
> 
> I'm trying to select a few blu-rays for *demo purposes* for *adults* who may want to see (and hear) what blu-ray can do. ... I *don't want [animation]* ... as *their initial introduction to [blu-ray]*. ... *[C]urrent movies [are not] ... preferable* ... Also, I would like discs which *demonstrate both video and audio capabilities* ... I had thought that a *travel/nature film or PBS-like special might be an appropriate choice*. ... As one possibility ... *performances of concerts, opera, etc*.
> 
> 
> Suggestions?
> 
> 
> Jim Cate



Not asking for much, are ya?










Your criteria are pretty stringent when taken all together. So stringent in fact that I can't think of a single BD that satisfies them all. Even if you relax the constraint against current (how current is current anyway?) films or videos that leaves _Grand Canyon Adventure_ as the sole BD that qualifies as reference on both AQ and PQ threads. (Unfortunately, while its AQ and PQ are stellar, GCA sucks as a film.)


One problem is that if you want both reference/demo quality audio and video you're pretty much limited to current feature films. Films older than say 10 to 15 years are very very unlikely to have *both*. And even contemporary documentaries are unlikely to have demo quality audio. Take for example any of the wide range of National Geographic, Discovery Channel, or BBC documentaries and no matter what the PQ might be, the AQ is usually indifferent at best. In this regard, your best bet might be any of a whole slew of BDs based on IMAX films like GCA or _The Alps_, etc. The Discovery Atlas series is something else you could consider.


If you relax your criteria some more, _How the West was Won_ is a film from the 60's that demonstrates extraordinary image resolution and depth and that will be breathtaking to someone only used to DVD. As already mentioned, _Baraka_, a film from the early 90's, has great PQ and pretty decent AQ; another film from the same era and the same director with excellent but subdued AQ and a highly stylized look is _Chronos_.


Among contemporary feature films with demo-worthy PQ and AQ and an adult sensibility, you might consider _Becoming Jane_, _Apocalypto,_ the last two Bond films or the last two Bournes, _Man on Fire_, and several others.


Classical concerts and opera get scant coverage in this thread (only one review that I'm aware of) and for that you'd be better off perusing the Opera, Ballet and Classical Music thread.


In the end to find what you want you're going to have to research the three aforementioned threads and review sites like High Def Digest where the reviews can be sorted in terms of AQ, PQ, or overall rating.


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jim Cate* /forum/post/17561247
> 
> 
> I'm trying to select a few blu-rays for demo purposes for adults who may want to see (and hear) what blu-ray can do. I'm referring specifically to 'adults', because I don't want to use movies like Ratatouille, King Fu, a Bugs Life, etc. (which seem to be high on the recommended "Tier" lists), as their initial introduction to the media. It seems to me that something other than current movies would be preferable, since tastes vary, of course. Also, I would like discs which demonstrate both video and audio capabilities, but they seem to be rated in seperate categories. - Are they mutually exclusive?



Documentaries are a little tricky since the audio on these have a tendency to be less impressive than the bombast of a movie soundtrack and most of the music/opera titles don't seem to be able to match the sheer visual pop of a good movie. I think the mentioned Baraka is a good choice. For opera/classical titles you may want to peruse the reviews of Jeffrey Kauffman and Svet Atanasov at blu-ray.com and dvdtalk.com. For example, the Opus Arte release of Mozart's Don Giovanni performed at the Royal Opera House seems to be well-regarded by both reviewers in the video and audio departments, although I have not seen it myself.


Honestly though, the Pixar Blus are born demo material in the A/V department and it's almost impossible to go wrong showing something like Up or Ratatouille to your friends and family. These are films of inherent excellence and universal appeal that not only strike a chord with people of all ages but 90%+ of film critics as well, so it's not entirely clear to me what your objection to these is exactly unless you're just looking for some extra variety.


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17561910
> 
> 
> Anyone wanting to slip in last minute placements for the upcoming update should post it in the next day. The database should be fully up-to-date by the weekend.



Not a placement recommendation, but I did notice that Chuck Season 1 is listed twice: in Tier 3.25 and Tier 4.0.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17561618
> 
> 
> The only problem with your *logic* K-Spaz is that there were lens flares in various scenes where you weren't looking out a window, and not all people would be wearing glasses or "looking through...optics" if they were present during the filming of those scenes. So, IMO there still wouldn't have been, realistically, all of those lens flares being seen.



One of the special features has several minutes on the subject of the lens flares.


----------



## Filmaholic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17561910
> 
> 
> Anyone wanting to slip in last minute placements for the upcoming update should post it in the next day. The database should be fully up-to-date by the weekend.



Just to avoid further dammage,

*Reccomenddations:*


*The Godfather*: *as it is now*.

*Wings of Desire*: *Tier 1.75* (this is very awesome, contrary to what some might think)

*Snow White: 1.50* (similar to *Pinocchio*, currently at 1.25)

*Fight Club: Tier 1.50* (Rock on *deltasun*! Thanks for the awesome review).


----------



## jedimasterchad

Phantom, roughly when do you plan to make the update? I have a couple titles coming from Netflix tomorrow (Bruno and The Ugly Truth) and I'm watching Star Trek for the second time right now, and I'm hoping to get all three at least reviewed for a proposed spot on the list for now, and a more-than-temporary for Trek as it's already had a few ratings.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17555173
> 
> 
> Well, I just finished a pretty nice review of *Leon: The Professional*, but Firefox decided to mangle it just as I was about to hit save. It's late and don't really feel like regurgitating tonight so I'll do a quick mention here and rate it.
> 
> 
> Introductory overground establishing shot did not impress. Contrast boosted, but I felt it complemented the look of the film. It had a brownish/sepia-ish tone to it. Facial details were superb in a number of scenes, particularly the first 3/4's of movie. There were some soft shots. Medium scenes had excellent depth most of the time, specially indoors. Blacks were above average, with instances of crushing. Primary colors were vivid but natural. Skin tones were faithful. Shadow details were decent. The bathroom scene between Mathilda and Stansfield was problematic, with lots of softness and maybe even mild DNR. Some ringing.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75*



My impressions are not too dissimilar to the ones above from Deltasun on Leon, though our scores are slightly different. A solid presentation by Sony for an older movie that looks vastly superior to the various dvd versions. The slight softness and crushed details, notably early in the movie, preclude a tier one placement in my judgment. Black levels are jacked up a bit much in the beginning. This is not a disc I would choose to use as any type of demonstration material however and weighs in my decision. The lack of the finest detail at most instances is troublesome. It leads to speculation that an application of digital noise reduction exists on the transfer. Still, a mostly above-average disc, so my final recommendation is for tier 2.25.

*The Professional


recommendation: Tier 2.25*


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/17564978
> 
> 
> Phantom, roughly when do you plan to make the update? I have a couple titles coming from Netflix tomorrow (Bruno and The Ugly Truth) and I'm watching Star Trek for the second time right now, and I'm hoping to get all three at least reviewed for a proposed spot on the list for now, and a more-than-temporary for Trek as it's already had a few ratings.



While I can't give you an exact time, probably in the next 24 hours.


----------



## OldCodger73

_Star Trek_ has been pretty thoroughly reviewed and I have nothing further to add other than a ranking. I guess I fall in the distracted by the flare/reflections camp so *Star Trek Tier 1.75*.


From the comments about AQ I was expecting more from the LFE channel. While nice, the LFE in _Up_ totally blows away that in _Star Trek_.


The action scenes were great story telling but when the pace slowed some of the scenes seemed a little hokey. But then again, I'm not a Trekkie. Anyway the movie was a pleasant two hours viewing experience.


Panasonic 50" 720p plasma, Panasonic 10a player, 7 1/2'


----------



## jedimasterchad

Star Trek (2009)


I have to be careful the same way G3 did and not let my love for this franchise impose on my judgment regarding the rating. I had to watch this Blu-Ray twice to come up with an idea for placement as the first time I was just in awe of the great job that JJ Abrams and crew did on this movie. I saw this movie three times in theaters, including an IMAX, a D-Cinema, and a film presentation. In my memory, this BD offers an extremely faithful transfer of what was presented back in May on the big screen. For that, it gets points.


The lens flare issue is really interesting to me. I do not feel that it detracts from the picture quality in anyway. Yes, it's distracting, but it was purely a style choice made by the filmmaker, and I don't think it should be faulted for that. It is definitely overused, but at least it is consistent. The entire movie contains the flares that give it an overall style as opposed to just using them in the Enterprise interior shots. I'm a bit indifferent to them. They don't bug me, but I wouldn't really miss them if they were gone.


As much as I wanted this to be reference quality as all the reviews were saying, there were some issues I think that keep it out of tier 0. As mentioned, the first half of the movie seems to flip/flop pretty bad between the sharp/soft focus shots. This to me doesn't appear as a design decision as the lens flares did, but rather a lack of direction on what should be in focus during the shot. The worst offense of this is obviously the shot near the end involving Leonard Nimoy, where he is almost a total blur. That said though, when the shot was sharp, it was clear and detailed. Almost a total opposite, and with some reference/near reference closeups throughout a good bit of the film. Really interesting as to why it didn't look consistent one way or the other.


Black levels were decent, but I think shadow detail was better. Again, this seemed more or less a technical issue with lighting on the set. I felt the starfields could have been more dense, but the space shots were very dark overall and looked great. The inside of the Romulan ship was quite dark overall, but the detail was still visible in most areas. Overall though, I didn't feel like this category was a real strong point for the film, but it certainly wasn't bad at all, and was as good as or better than G.I. Joe.


Color seemed a strong point, and my favorite example is the bright colored Starfleet shirts against the stark white of the Enterprise bridge. This film seemed to run a whole course from darks to very bright whites, and it held up very well.


Overall, I felt like I was watching in a more nitpick state, rather than searching for positives. There were plenty of positives about this transfer, which to me indicates the tier 1 scores are pretty accurate. The lens flare doesn't make it lose points to me, but the sharp/soft detail really does. The different locations in the movie are usually either pretty strong sequences or just ok ones, but I felt pretty impressed overall. I would say that considering everything, I was more visually impressed with this title than with G.I. Joe, my most recent review which I gave a 1.5. I don't think this quite reaches the upper echelons of 1.0 though, so therefore...

Tier Recommendation: 1.25


Viewed on a Panasonic TC-P54G10 @ 7.5', PS3 over HDMI at 1080p/24


To comment on the audio, Michael Giacchino's soundtrack is one of the best I've heard recently outside of Up (oh wait, he did both? ha!). I think he took the classic Trek elements and made a new theme all of his own, and it is excellent. The SFX audio was great too, and I think the LFE had more impact with tight punchy bass rather than the tremendous booms of Transformers and GI Joe. I like the new sounds for photon torpedoes and phasers, even if the phasers are more like Star Wars turbolaser blasts instead of phasers.










Oh, and the movie is great too.


----------



## OldCodger73

The other night I watched _The General_, Buster Keaton's great 1927 silent film. The only other time I had seen this was an analog TV broadcast on PBS years ago.


There is some very noticeable film damage at the very beginning. As the film progressed I saw very little, which could mean there wasn't any further damage or else I became so engrossed in the movie that I didn't notice. Otherwise the film looked better than I expected for a movie so old. Depth and detail were acceptable, with the exception of facial close up detail, which was totally lacking probably due to the pancake makeup liberally used in silent films. All in all it was an enjoyable movie watching experience.


Now, where to rate it given its condition and age? To me it's borderline 3.75 and 4.0. I'll rate *The General Tier 3.75* which might be a little high; I could be making too much of an allowance for its age.


Panasonic 50" 720p plasma, Panasonic 10a player, 7 1/2'


I don't normally look at extras but in this case I did. There was a short feature on where the movie was filmed, with then and now pictures. Much to my surprise it was filmed in and around Cottage Grove, OR. Also, the train wreck was the most expense scene ever filmed up to that time. The locomotive remained in the river until WWII, when it was salvage for scrap metal.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/17565861
> 
> _Star Trek_ has been pretty thoroughly reviewed and I have nothing further to add other than a ranking. I guess I fall in the distracted by the flare/reflections camp so *Star Trek Tier 1.75*.
> 
> 
> From the comments about AQ I was expecting more from the LFE channel. While nice, the LFE in _Up_ totally blows away that in _Star Trek_.
> 
> 
> The action scenes were great story telling but when the pace slowed some of the scenes seemed a little hokey. But then again, I'm not a Trekkie. Anyway the movie was a pleasant two hours viewing experience.
> 
> 
> Panasonic 50" 720p plasma, Panasonic 10a player, 7 1/2'



This isn't the audio forum, so I don't want to go OT other than to say on my first viewing I had played Star Trek at slightly higher than my usual listening volumes about -10 above reference, which I usually play BD's at -12 or even -14 like some "hot" DTSMA tracks. I thought to myself there must be something wrong since so many were claiming the audio to be reference and the LFE to be some of the best they heard. Well, I then watched ST two more times at -3. WOW!! is all I can say. I mention this because I know you said UP was much better. The LFE on Star Trek is way more frequent and way more intense than UP. I really think you need to crank your system up higher as I did and I believe you will find the opposite of what you are saying. ST blows most BD tracks out of the water and maybe one of the top BD's audio wise that I have ever heard. I even did a recant in the audio thread, because I too was not impressed in the least at first viewing on low volume levels. Crank it up to "where it should be" and I am sure you will find a dramatic difference. Check my post # 192 in the audio tier thread to see my original post that shows my lack of being impressed and disappointment. I even claimed it was not reference. Then check out my post # 227 where it explains it.


----------



## djoberg

*Vertical Limit (UK Import)*

*WOW!*


I have never seen the U.S. version of this title, but after reading Phantom's glowing review of the UK Import I decided to order it from the Amazon UK online store. Needless to say, I am VERY GLAD I did. I started this review with the word WOW because it has the WOW factor throughout the whole film. It was pure EYE CANDY and I would highly encourage any and all to make the effort to purchase this film (especially if you like the movie itself).


Where do I start? It has all the virtues that we crave:


1) It has exceptional SHARPNESS, DETAIL, and DEPTH. The numerous outdoor scenes, with phenomenal cinematography, rival the best outdoor scenes in titles such as _Baraka_ and _Planet Earth_. Whether it's a close up shot, midrange shot, or panoramic view, the detail and depth defy description. Rob Tomlin likes the word "CLARITY" and I believe that word sums up the majority of this film. Most, if not all, of these scenes EASILY qualify for Tier 0!


2) The COLORS were as vibrant as I've ever seen. Blue & red North Face tents or colorful parkas against the background of pure, sparkling snow is a sight to behold!


3) FLESH TONES are absolutely spot on!


4) FACIAL CLOSE-UPS never disappoint and range from top to low Tier 0 quality. I was thankful for every shot of Scott Glenn, who has one of those defined faces that was made for HD!


5) CONTRAST was as strong as can be in most scenes. The blacks weren't exceptionally deep, but they were satisfying. Scene after scene of dazzling white snow were a visual treat, to be sure!


Now for one or two nitpicks. Phantom mentioned (in his review) some compression noise in a couple of instances in the cave scenes and I spotted this only once. There were one or two soft shots in the cave as well, and a soft shot at the very beginning of the film, but this is really a minor complaint for a movie that has a running time of two full hours.


I did NOT see the EE that bothered Phantom the most (which caused him to lower his recommendation from 1.0 to 1.25). I actually looked for it too, but thankfully I seem to be blind (most of the time) to this anomaly.


After viewing several Tier 1 titles over the last two weeks I can say, without any reservations, that this is as good or better than any of them. But I believe it may even be better than any I've seen in Tier 1 (though not by much), so I'm inclined to vote for..........

*Tier Recommendation: Bottom third of Tier 0 (Right under The International)*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'


PS If I had seen the EE that Phantom had, I no doubt would have matched his recommendation of 1.25. But with the very limited negatives mentioned above, I really believe this title deserves to be labeled "reference quality."


----------



## lgans316

IMO, the EE on Vertical Limit was very distracting. You can easily discern it even on small monitors. Not very hard to notice that infamous purple outline around the face. Also, many portions of the movie looked upscaled probably due to majority of sequences shot with snow covered backgrounds. The CGI shots in many scenes especially during the opening looked too fake and only made the picture look soft. Also, I think I noticed from picture wavering in some scenes. The only thing that stood out for me are the colors and the slight bump in details due to the increase in resolution.


I do not have this BLU in my library as it wasn't a worthy title to retain in terms of PQ.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/17568942
> 
> 
> IMO, the EE on Vertical Limit was very distracting. You can easily discern it even on small monitors. Not very hard to notice that infamous purple outline around the face. Also, many portions of the movie looked upscaled probably due to majority of sequences shot with snow covered backgrounds. The CGI shots in many scenes especially during the opening looked too fake and only made the picture look soft. Also, I think I noticed from picture wavering in some scenes. The only thing that stood out for me are the colors and the slight bump in details due to the increase in resolution.
> 
> 
> I do not have this BLU in my library as it wasn't a worthy title to retain in terms of PQ.



Are you describing the U.S. version or the UK version?


Regarding the opening scene, I did mention it looking soft, but it wasn't the whole scene, for the close-ups in that scene looked great. I did NOT notice any "wavering" in any scenes.


I can't speak as to the U.S. version, but I am here to say it isn't just the "colors" and a "slight bump in details due to the increase in resolution" that stood out to me. The details in the panoramic views of mountains were some of the best I've ever seen (and we are treated to a plethora of them!), bar none. The details of almost every object (like the Muslim's prayer rug or everyone's parka) was phenomenal. And if you love exceptional details in facial close-ups, this title will more than satisfy you. So, if you are actually describing the UK version, we are worlds apart in our analysis of this title.


Again, I would highly recommend this title to anyone who likes the movie, for I don't believe you will be disappointed (even if you are bothered by EE, for you know how Phantom praised this title in spite of the EE).


----------



## djoberg

deltasun,


I thought we were going to be seeing a review from you on _Star Trek_? I'm really curious as to your impressions of this title.


Denny


----------



## Jim Cate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *daPriceIs* /forum/post/17562304
> 
> 
> Not asking for much, are ya?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your criteria are pretty stringent when taken all together. So stringent in fact that I can't think of a single BD that satisfies them all. Even if you relax the constraint against current (how current is current anyway?) films or videos that leaves _Grand Canyon Adventure_ as the sole BD that qualifies as reference on both AQ and PQ threads. (Unfortunately, while its AQ and PQ are stellar, GCA sucks as a film.)
> 
> 
> One problem is that if you want both reference/demo quality audio and video you're pretty much limited to current feature films. Films older than say 10 to 15 years are very very unlikely to have *both*. And even contemporary documentaries are unlikely to have demo quality audio. Take for example any of the wide range of National Geographic, Discovery Channel, or BBC documentaries and no matter what the PQ might be, the AQ is usually indifferent at best. In this regard, your best bet might be any of a whole slew of BDs based on IMAX films like GCA or _The Alps_, etc. The Discovery Atlas series is something else you could consider.
> 
> 
> If you relax your criteria some more, _How the West was Won_ is a film from the 60's that demonstrates extraordinary image resolution and depth and that will be breathtaking to someone only used to DVD. As already mentioned, _Baraka_, a film from the early 90's, has great PQ and pretty decent AQ; another film from the same era and the same director with excellent but subdued AQ and a highly stylized look is _Chronos_.
> 
> 
> Among contemporary feature films with demo-worthy PQ and AQ and an adult sensibility, you might consider _Becoming Jane_, _Apocalypto,_ the last two Bond films or the last two Bournes, _Man on Fire_, and several others.
> 
> 
> Classical concerts and opera get scant coverage in this thread (only one review that I'm aware of) and for that you'd be better off perusing the Opera, Ballet and Classical Music thread.
> 
> 
> In the end to find what you want you're going to have to research the three aforementioned threads and review sites like High Def Digest where the reviews can be sorted in terms of AQ, PQ, or overall rating.




Thanks (to everyone) for the suggestions and explanations. I have ordered several of the recommended BDs, including Baraka and Chronos. I already have some recent Bond and Bourne films.


Sorry if my requests seemed too demanding. - I had assumed that there would be lots of "demo" discs to choose from. But I understand the message that, other than recent movies, there don't seem to be many BDs with both great video and audio (DTS-HD Master Audio, Dolby True HD). - For my purposes (demonstrating the system for just a few minutes to someone who drops by), movies don't seem the best choice, since most people don't want to watch long enough to get involved with the story. And some people don't like Bond or Bourne movies.


For audio, I'll go to one of the other discussion groups.


Thanks again,

Jim


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17570398
> 
> 
> Are you describing the U.S. version or the UK version?



I had described the AVC encoded UK version. Wavering was there in half a dozen places. The EE is similar to Face/Off where you can see that purple outline around the faces. Anyways, beauty lies in the eye of the beholder. If you like it then nothing like that.









*Passion of the Christ - Tier 1.5*


Btw, I incorrectly voted Tier 2.5.







Truly an amazing presentation of a heart wrenching saga especially after the 30 minutes mark.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jim Cate* /forum/post/17570698
> 
> 
> Thanks (to everyone) for the suggestions and explanations. I have ordered several of the recommended BDs, including Baraka and Chronos. I already have some recent Bond and Bourne films.
> 
> 
> Sorry if my requests seemed too demanding. - I had assumed that there would be lots of "demo" discs to choose from. But I understand the message that, other than recent movies, there don't seem to be many BDs with both great video and audio (DTS-HD Master Audio, Dolby True HD). - For my purposes (demonstrating the system for just a few minutes to someone who drops by), movies don't seem the best choice, since most people don't want to watch long enough to get involved with the story. And some people don't like Bond or Bourne movies.
> 
> 
> For audio, I'll go to one of the other discussion groups.
> 
> 
> Thanks again,
> 
> Jim




If any of the movies in question do tickle your fancy, Jim, you could always make note of a particular scene in the movie that you could show as well, while you are on your search for something more ideal.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17568876
> 
> *Vertical Limit (UK Import)*
> 
> 
> PS If I had seen the EE that Phantom had, I no doubt would have matched his recommendation of 1.25. But with the very limited negatives mentioned above, I really believe this title deserves to be labeled "reference quality."



Certainly a great disc for picture quality. The only thing that really kept it out of tier zero for me was the older CGI. A shame more will not get to see it. I am glad you enjoyed it.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/17571374
> 
> 
> I had described the AVC encoded UK version. Wavering was there in half a dozen places. The EE is similar to Face/Off where you can see that purple outline around the faces. Anyways, beauty lies in the eye of the beholder. If you like it then nothing like that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Passion of the Christ - Tier 1.5*
> 
> 
> Btw, I incorrectly voted Tier 2.5.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truly an amazing presentation of a heart wrenching saga especially after the 30 minutes mark.



When I was inputting that score into the database, I was wondering where you got a score that low for it. Good catch of a mistake.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Phantom, have you watched Star Trek yet?


I watched it last night. Haven't done a review yet, but I do know what my tier recommendation will be. Was curious what your thoughts are/will be.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17570629
> 
> 
> deltasun,
> 
> 
> I thought we were going to be seeing a review from you on _Star Trek_? I'm really curious as to your impressions of this title.
> 
> 
> Denny



Sorry for the delay. With all the "controversy" here, I wanted to make sure I gave it more attention. So, after my third viewing, I'm ready to do a review...


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17574349
> 
> 
> Sorry for the delay. With all the "controversy" here, I wanted to make sure I gave it more attention. So, after my third viewing, I'm ready to do a review...



You are such a tease!










Looking forward to it. And Phantom's. I will try to post mine tonight. I will say this: I guess I do understand why there is some "controversy", but......


----------



## Hughmc

Are you guys being pansies and waiting for the other to commit?










I have no room to speak as I didn't put up an actual review, but I couldn't resist.


----------



## deltasun

*Star Trek (2009)*


Fine grain present throughout, interspliced with a number of lens flares.







Facial details varied from Tier 0 quality to Silver, mostly due to director's intent. Some of the more bothersome scenes resulted from intended camera shaking techniques employed by the director. These not only produced softer scenes, but overall lack of clarity.


Black levels were bold and deep, with instances of crushing. Contrast was also strong and provided decent depth and crispness. Shadow details varied as well, but was superb for the most part. There were plenty of demo-worthy low-light instances in the Narada, for example. Skin tones were faithfully rendered. Medium shots offered excellent dimensionality in pretty much every scene. Panoramic views were also impressive - I may be in the minority here, but I really liked how the Iowa landscape was portrayed, specially the fog-covered structures in the distance.


With multiple viewings, the lens flares started to blend in for me. It gave the film a bit of a clinical look- almost as if we were watching the entire action through very clean, shiny glass. The camera shake / softness combination was more bothersome for me. I popped a few other blu-ray's between 1.5 and 1.75 - I found _Star Trek_ to be slightly better than _Iron Man_. In the end, I would have to side with Denny...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## deltasun

Well, I gotta say it was difficult to nail this down. The content really weighs down (or in this case, up) on the PQ. It is so entertaining that it begs to be elevated. Like most who saw this in the theatres and read the early reviews, I wanted a Blu placement. But alas, it was not meant to be.


----------



## Hughmc

^^That was quick. Nice review Delta.

*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Speaking of the Iowa landscape, since when does Iowa have a canyon? Denny, is this what you were referring to or maybe their has been some catastrophic geological changes in the future?


----------



## deltasun

If you watch _2012_ carefully, you'll see how the canyons in Iowa came to be.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17574546
> 
> 
> If you watch _2012_ carefully, you'll see how the canyons in Iowa came to be.




bingo!! haha.










I spoilerized just in case.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17574546
> 
> 
> If you watch _2012_ carefully, you'll see how the canyons in Iowa came to be.



LOL!! That is too funny!


BTW, I agree with your tier recommendation for _Star Trek_.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17574334
> 
> 
> Phantom, have you watched Star Trek yet?
> 
> 
> I watched it last night. Haven't done a review yet, but I do know what my tier recommendation will be. Was curious what your thoughts are/will be.



Come on now Rob....don't keep us waiting!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17574498
> 
> 
> Are you guys being pansies and waiting for the other to commit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no room to speak as I didn't put up an actual review, but I couldn't resist.



You really should chime in too Hugh, especially since you've seen it no less than 3 times!!


FWIW, it's almost a given that this title will be in tier 1. Everyone who has posted on it has agreed upon this, so let's face it we're all pretty close in our assessment. Soooo....the [peer] pressure is off....it's time to weigh in!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

I was really nervous being the first one to post a review, but I was also super excited b/c I love that movie. I found out today as well that the guys over at Rifftrax did a commentary for it as well so I'm gonna have to fire up my paypal and get that puppy; if there's something I love more than some awesome HD, it's awesome HD with some SNARK to go along with it.


The ones they did for Twilight and The Dark Knight are fantastic; I can't wait to hear this one to go along with it. I was going to re-watch Twilight as I'm going to subject myself to the new movie this weekend sometime (no, I'm not forcing the husband to go with me, I'm nice like that), but I may just have to watch Star Trek again tonight instead.











And c'mon Rob... post!!!


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Star Trek (2009)*


First, let me just mention the "lens flare" since that is what everyone talks about more than anything else with this title. Personally, I really liked it. It gave the film a nice personalized style that fit the film very well. I expect to see that type of effect in space because of the extreme contrast. Yet, I have to admit that they may have taken it a tad too far, especially when you consider how pervasive it is in the bar scene in Iowa!


Some people were surprised by the lens flare, but if you had seen any of the trailers for this film, it was obvious that they played a large role in this film. I certainly would have expected it based solely on the trailers (I did not see this in the theater).


The lens flare can obviously have a negative impact on things like clarity and detail, as well as contrast. The difficult part in rating this title is deciding how much, if any, the rating should be docked for this. From my point of view, since I liked the style that the lens flare added to the movie and frankly thought it looked *cool*







I will _not_ be deducting any points for this aspect of the movie. Take that for what its worth.


Now, let me get the bad out of the way: there are some scenes, mostly in the first 1/3 of the movie, where contrast is slightly lacking. Also, as others have mentioned, there are some soft focus scenes. However, based on some comments here and in other threads, I was expecting to see many more soft focus scenes than I did. There is one scene near the very end of the movie with Spock which looked horrible, as he is little more than a big blur. This was definitely the exception, however, and certainly not the rule.


The vast majority of this title looks absolutely fantastic!


Colors are superb, with a natural "clean" look to them, for lack of a better word.


Contrast, other than in a few scenes, is also very good, with many scenes having an excellent sense of depth to them.


Detail and clarity are often superb, with many scenes definitely being worthy of Tier 0. Scenes on the Enterprise and in the smaller ships are excellent. Facial details are also excellent for the most part.


There is very fine grain present, and no signs of DNR, EE, or other artifacts that would interfere with the PQ.


So, the few complaints that I have are relatively minor considering the movie as a whole.


This Tier Thread is largely used as a reference for finding "demo worthy" BD's for PQ. Would I put on Star Trek for some friends in order to show off Blu-ray and how good it can look? You bet I would!


...and again, I do not think that the lens flare detracts from the overall PQ of this title at all. It is stylistic choice (a good one, in my opinion) that gives the movie a unique (and cool) look to it.


The sound does deserve a quick mention: very good! I loved it when the Enterprise went into hyper-drive, and the sound of the phasers was also excellent.


As for the movie, lets just say that I am disappointed that I rented it. I could sit down and watch it again tonight easily. In other words, I should have bought it! I love how they really paid respect to the original characters. There are certain things in the story that I could criticize, but they are relatively minor compared with how good the movie is overall.


Highly recommended!
*Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.25*


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17574862
> 
> *Star Trek (2009)*
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> Highly recommended!
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.25*



+1 Loved your review, and your take on the lens flare (even if it still bothers me







).


You already know I'm on the same page as you with my ranking; from the way the rankings have come in I think it might end up solidly at Tier 1.5 or so.



Maybe when the price drops a bit you should pick it up, Rob. It really is a re-watchable one. I'm envious of your HT with regards to a title like this, that's for sure!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/17555425
> 
> 
> Agree on 1.25 and lens flares.



Holy Moly, Patrick and I agree!!!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17574911
> 
> 
> +1 Loved your review, and your take on the lens flare (even if it still bothers me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ).
> 
> 
> You already know I'm on the same page as you with my ranking; from the way the rankings have come in I think it might end up solidly at Tier 1.5 or so.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe when the price drops a bit you should pick it up, Rob. It really is a re-watchable one. I'm envious of your HT with regards to a title like this, that's for sure!



Actually, I wasn't aware that we were on the same page with this title until literally 1 minute ago. That's why I just went back in the thread to read them, and I came across Patrick's post that I quoted above. I try not to read too many reviews before I do my own. I do remember reading Denny's review though.


Yes, I will definitely be purchasing this title eventually. I am a ST fan, I should have bought it blind based on that fact combined with the positive reviews. Man, I enjoyed this one a lot. Lens flare and all!










The lens flare is an interesting choice by the director. I'm sure he knew some people might not like it. I'm glad I wasn't one of those people.










BTW, if someone as particular as Patrick recommends Tier 1.25, I'm surprised there aren't people recommending it for Tier 0!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/17552332
> 
> 
> The internet ruined this movie for me. When I saw this in theaters I honestly did not even notice the quantity of flare, until I read other people bitching later. *Then I watched the trailer for the movie again and could see nothing else*



Yep, exactly what I said in my review. If people were going to be real sensitive to the lens flare, they would have noticed it in the trailer. Sounds like you weren't that sensitive to it until you heard people complaining about it.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17574334
> 
> 
> Phantom, have you watched Star Trek yet?
> 
> 
> I watched it last night. Haven't done a review yet, but I do know what my tier recommendation will be. Was curious what your thoughts are/will be.



You will have to wait some time unfortunately. I am so behind in my Blu-ray viewing that I have yet to even give Fight Club a look, my favorite film of all-time. Other obligations are taking up too much time at the moment. But I can announce the database is fully updated and ready-to-go through my last post earlier today.


Star Trek looks to have had many strong opinions about it already, so my input is probably not needed at this juncture.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17575002
> 
> 
> 
> Star Trek looks to have had many strong opinions about it already, so my input is probably not needed at this juncture.



Needed and wanted are two different things!


Good to hear about the updates. Thanks for doing them, it is no small task!


----------



## deltasun

Nice job, Rob! Well, everybody really. This is going to sound weird, but (and I'm probably the only one to state this) I'm really having a hard time with the demo-ness of this title in terms of PQ. I know that sounds contradictory having voted it into Tier 1 and even mentioned the word "demo-worthy" in my review. But, I just don't see much in the film that really stands out. To me, it simply has solid PQ.


The real stand out's would be the story itself and of course, the sound.


Incidentally, I've been watching Sheryl Crow Soundstage BR this whole time and am surprised there's no placement for it. This is almost a Tier Blu title, from what I've seen.


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17574930
> 
> 
> BTW, if someone as particular as Patrick recommends Tier 1.25, I'm surprised there aren't people recommending it for Tier 0!



I think I'm the most generous at 1.0, and I said in my review that I would not dispute with anyone who recommended it to be a tier 0, or lower either.


I sometimes feel as if some of the big releases are nitpicked a bit. We see one or two scenes a few seconds each and the film gets knocked down for it. Star Trek sure looks great for the vast majority of the film. And then on top of that, it's entertaining at all levels of viewer.


Afaic, the most re-watchable film of the year. And imo, a fantastic transfer of a film with so much CG.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17574922
> 
> 
> Holy Moly, Patrick and I agree!!!



Hey, miracles DO happen!










This title, more than most, has intrigued me...or should I say, the reactions have intrigued me. To illustrate what I'm thinking, you and G3 gave it the same placement recommendation, yet when reading your reviews it's quite obvious you arrived at that conclusion a little differently (for example, you LOVED the lens flares, G3 HATED them). The same can be said of deltasun and myself; we reached the same conclusion placement-wise, but our thoughts about the PQ weren't exactly the same (for example, I was letdown by the Iowa scenes, deltasun was impressed).


But the main point to be made is that we are ALL in agreement as to which tier it belongs in (so far), so even though we may be a half tier off in our recommendations, that is still fairly close. So, though there have been some varied reactions (and some statements which may come across as if we're miles apart on this title), we are, for the most part, in agreement.


In conclusion, the reactions to this title don't even compare to the infamous debate we had on titles such as _The Dark Knight_. At that time the "strong opinions" ran much deeper, IMHO.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17575064
> 
> 
> Nice job, Rob! Well, everybody really. This is going to sound weird, but (and I'm probably the only one to state this) I'm really having a hard time with the demo-ness of this title in terms of PQ. I know that sounds contradictory having voted it into Tier 1 and even mentioned the word "demo-worthy" in my review. But, I just don't see much in the film that really stands out. To me, it simply has solid PQ.
> 
> 
> The real stand out's would be the story itself and of course, the sound.
> 
> 
> Incidentally, I've been watching Sheryl Crow Soundstage BR this whole time and am surprised there's no placement for it. This is almost a Tier Blu title, from what I've seen.



Thanks Delta, I enjoyed your review too.


As for the "demo worthiness" as I stated in my review, I would not hesitate to use this as demo material. I do think that there are many parts that do, indeed, "stand out", including many of the space scenes and darker interior scenes on the ships. Plus, as I also said, I think the lens flare just looks cool!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/17575155
> 
> 
> I think I'm the most generous at 1.0, and I said in my review that I would not dispute with anyone who recommended it to be a tier 0, or lower either.
> 
> 
> I sometimes feel as if some of the big releases are nitpicked a bit. We see one or two scenes a few seconds each and the film gets knocked down for it. Star Trek sure looks great for the vast majority of the film. And then on top of that, it's entertaining at all levels of viewer.
> 
> 
> Afaic, the most re-watchable film of the year. And imo, a fantastic transfer of a film with so much CG.



Well said!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17575158
> 
> 
> Hey, miracles DO happen!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This title, more than most, has intrigued me...or should I say, the reactions have intrigued me. To illustrate what I'm thinking, you and G3 gave it the same placement recommendation, yet when reading your reviews it's quite obvious you arrived at that conclusion a little differently (for example, you LOVED the lens flares, G3 HATED them). The same can be said of deltasun and myself; we reached the same conclusion placement-wise, but our thoughts about the PQ weren't exactly the same (for example, I was letdown by the Iowa scenes, deltasun was impressed).
> 
> 
> But the main point to be made is that we are ALL in agreement as to which tier it belongs in (so far), so even though we may be a half tier off in our recommendations, that is still fairly close. So, though there have been some varied reactions (and some statements which may come across as if we're miles apart on this title), we are, for the most part, in agreement.
> 
> 
> In conclusion, the reactions to this title don't even compare to the infamous debate we had on titles such as _The Dark Knight_. At that time the "strong opinions" ran much deeper, IMHO.



Yes, interesting points indeed Denny. Perhaps most interesting is, as you said, GGG and I have the same recommendation, but very different opinions re the lens flare.


The review that I read that is most similar to mine is Jedi's!


As for The Dark Knight, funny you mention it. I plan on watching that one again soon, and want to do a "revisited" review to see if my opinion has changed.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17575064
> 
> 
> Nice job, Rob! Well, everybody really. This is going to sound weird, but (and I'm probably the only one to state this) *I'm really having a hard time with the demo-ness of this title in terms of PQ.* I know that sounds contradictory having voted it into Tier 1 and even mentioned the word "demo-worthy" in my review. But, I just don't see much in the film that really stands out. To me, it simply has solid PQ.



I said something quite similar to that in the _Star Trek_ Thread when I stated that this is NOT a Blu-ray that I would use as a demo to show off the virtues of Blu-ray to convince someone to buy into it.


Personally, I would still grab any of the top 7 animated titles for a demo first, or, if I wanted a non-animated title I would probably use _I, Robot, Baraka, Youth Without Youth, Prince Caspian,_...or my new favorite demo, _Vertical Limit_.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17575162
> 
> 
> 
> As for the "demo worthiness" as I stated in my review, I would not hesitate to use this as demo material. *I do think that there are many parts that do, indeed, "stand out", including many of the space scenes and darker interior scenes on the ships.*



Rob, I agree 100% with the words I highlighted above. In addition, since I recommended Tier 1 I do believe it is "demo-worthy." When I wrote my last post to deltasun I forgot to mention that in my post in the _Star Trek_ Thread, I was careful to state that it wouldn't be _one of the first titles I would use as a demo_. And the reason for this is because the scenes that are spectacular are scattered throughout the film. I would rather use a title where the "stand out" scenes are seen consistently throughout the film.


----------



## 42041

*North By Northwest*


Very good looking for a 50 year old film. Originally shot on Vistavision and newly mastered for HD, the increased resolution and finer grain vs. standard 35mm comes through nicely in many scenes. This can be considered one of the "demo" titles of mid 20th century cinema on BD, though it doesn't really hold up to modern films on that merit. Detail is often excellent, easily on par with new movies, you can see the fibers of Cary Grant's tie, the finest details of the environment. Other times it isn't. Diffusion is employed in many shots (excessively, in my opinion) leading to many soft moments. The visual effects and matte paintings look very phony in 1080p. Colors never quite look entirely natural to my eyes, it has that faded film brownish hue. Whether that is how the movie originally looked, I have no idea.


At its best, this blu-ray has a lovely film-like presentation with an unobtrusive layer of random grain. At its not-so-best, light DNR is employed, leading to smeared grain. Whether this is excessive DNR I don't know, having not seen the unfiltered elements but I found it distracting. Occasionally the DNR is cranked to full bore but these shots are isolated.


And once again Warner delivers a disc with uneven compression. While my plasma tends to mask such issues with its dithered texture and pwm noise, my LCD mercilessly reveals smeared vc1 macroblocking in many scenes. Now while this does not undo the other virtues of this transfer and likely wont be objectionable on many people's setups, if Warner keeps expecting me to pay money for quality I could get with a DVD9-sized 1080p rip, at some point I'm going to start cutting out the middleman.

*Tier 2.5*

(ps3/pioneer 50" kuro elite/1 screen width)


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17575173
> 
> 
> Well said!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, interesting points indeed Denny. Perhaps most interesting is, as you said, GGG and I have the same recommendation, but very different opinions re the lens flare.
> 
> 
> The review that I read that is most similar to mine is Jedi's!
> 
> *As for The Dark Knight, funny you mention it. I plan on watching that one again soon, and want to do a "revisited" review to see if my opinion has changed.*




I actually plan on doing this too, for both TDK and Batman Begins. I believe my personal review for TDK was on my old crappy TV, when I first started out here, and while I have rewatched it a few times, none were while I was paying attention the way I do when I know I'm going to do a review.


----------



## rubix

So how bad is Tier 4.0-Copper exactly?


The Fountain and Donnie Darko are 2 of my favorite movies and I have them on DVD and want the Blu-Rays, but they seem to be ranked really low (Tier 4.0-Copper).


Even worse, Dark City is rated Tier 2.5-Silver and everyone says that movie looks like complete garbage with DNR/EE (waxy). So if that is 2.5 and crap then how bad is 4.0?


Is Dark City worth buying on Blu-Ray? Will it ever have a better release?


Also, I don't see Carrie mentioned anywhere. It's a Mpeg-2 encode. blu-ray.com says it's grainy and not so good but probably will never look any better ever. Does Carrie look good?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17574922
> 
> 
> Holy Moly, Patrick and I agree!!!


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17574508
> 
> *Star Trek (2009)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I may be in the minority here, but I really liked how the Iowa landscape was portrayed, *specially the fog-covered structures in the distance.*



I really liked that effect as well.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rubix* /forum/post/17575844
> 
> 
> So how bad is Tier 4.0-Copper exactly?
> 
> 
> The Fountain and Donnie Darko are 2 of my favorite movies and I have them on DVD and want the Blu-Rays, but they seem to be ranked really low (Tier 4.0-Copper).
> 
> 
> Even worse, Dark City is rated Tier 2.5-Silver and everyone says that movie looks like complete garbage with DNR/EE (waxy). So if that is 2.5 and crap then how bad is 4.0?
> 
> 
> Is Dark City worth buying on Blu-Ray? Will it ever have a better release?
> 
> 
> Also, I don't see Carrie mentioned anywhere. It's a Mpeg-2 encode. blu-ray.com says it's grainy and not so good but probably will never look any better ever. Does Carrie look good?



Tier 4 - Copper (Below Average)


The titles in this tier typically represent below-average picture quality that is subpar for the Blu-ray format. While still visually better than upscaled standard definition material, the differences are less obvious upon casual inspection. The image may have deficiencies in one or more areas. The picture will look flat and lack the sharpness seen in higher tiers. Compression artifacts, softness, poor black levels, questionable source material and poorly transferred masters are just some of the problems exhibited in tier four. Some Blu-rays in this tier are significant upgrades over the dvd but are constrained in image quality due to the limitations inherent in the source material or the director's intended look.


Warner controls both Dark City and The Fountain. It is very likely neither will ever see new BD editions of those movies, at least in territories controlled by Warner distribution. Donnie Darko probably looks the way it does due to the source material and intended aesthetic. I have not seen Carrie yet, so someone else will have to comment on that disc.


----------



## selimsivad

Really good reviews for Star Trek!










I've stated earlier that I'm in the 1.25 camp. As someone said earlier, 1.5 is probably where it will end up (which is cool with me).







Since my recommendation would sound like a copy/paste job, I won't be submitting a Star Trek review.


I've had Fight Club since Tuesday. I'll try to watch it tonight, with a review soon after!


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rubix* /forum/post/17575844
> 
> 
> So how bad is Tier 4.0-Copper exactly?
> 
> 
> The Fountain and Donnie Darko are 2 of my favorite movies and I have them on DVD and want the Blu-Rays, but they seem to be ranked really low (Tier 4.0-Copper).
> 
> 
> Even worse, Dark City is rated Tier 2.5-Silver and everyone says that movie looks like complete garbage with DNR/EE (waxy). So if that is 2.5 and crap then how bad is 4.0?
> 
> 
> Is Dark City worth buying on Blu-Ray? Will it ever have a better release?
> 
> 
> Also, I don't see Carrie mentioned anywhere. It's a Mpeg-2 encode. blu-ray.com says it's grainy and not so good but probably will never look any better ever. Does Carrie look good?



I'm a big fan of both The Fountain and Donnie Darko. I own both of them on Blu. Even though they're both listed in copper, they look as they are supposed to. Both have major black crush issues, but they are totally intentional! Blacks aren't as bottomless as titles in higher tiers. I'd say pick them up! You won't be disappointed!


Dark City is another story....























Due to noise reduction, the transfer is stripped of detail. It looks horrible! I can't recommend it, even though it's one of my favorites!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17575236
> 
> 
> Rob, I agree 100% with the words I highlighted above. In addition, since I recommended Tier 1 I do believe it is "demo-worthy." When I wrote my last post to deltasun I forgot to mention that in my post in the _Star Trek_ Thread, I was careful to state that it wouldn't be _one of the first titles I would use as a demo_. And the reason for this is because the scenes that are spectacular are scattered throughout the film. I would rather use a title where the "stand out" scenes are seen consistently throughout the film.



I know exactly what you mean Denny. For me, if I didn't put on one of the animated/cgi titles like KFP or Up to show off Blu-ray, Star Trek would be near the top of live action titles that I would reach for, not just because of the PQ, but because of the SQ. Put the two together, and it is a great demo worthy disc!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rubix* /forum/post/17575844
> 
> 
> So how bad is Tier 4.0-Copper exactly?



I don't want to over-generalize, but I think of Tier 4 titles as not likely being much better than a DVD.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Heat*


This is a film that requires me to try and be as objective as I can with the PQ because of my love for the film itself. Watching this last night, it all came back to me in terms of how much I love this film and why it holds a place as one of my favorite movies of all time! Michael Mann creates an atmosphere in this film that can't be overlooked. Great performances by two great actors, and perhaps this was De Niro's last great performance.


The PQ is quite nice overall, but it does have more soft scenes that I would like. Colors are decidedly under-saturated and certainly do not come close to popping off the screen. This is clearly part of the style that Mann decided on.


Detail and clarity are good, but certainly not on par with Tier 1 titles. There are some impressive facial close ups at times though.


Contrast and depth are adequate overall, but some of the night scenes do have a bit of haze to them.


I would have to say that this title does look better than I expected it to.


The sound quality is also superb. I was very impressed and surprised by how well it holds up to even new titles.


I love this movie!

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 2.5*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17577059
> 
> 
> I know exactly what you mean Denny. For me, if I didn't put on one of the animated/cgi titles like KFP or Up to show off Blu-ray, Star Trek would be near the top of live action titles that I would reach for, not just because of the PQ, but because of the SQ. Put the two together, and it is a great demo worthy disc!



You make a good point (about the AQ). I was VERY PLEASED with the AQ, especially when Scotty put the Enterprise in Warp Speed!







Of all the titles I mentioned that I would use for a demo (non-animated), not one of them has the AQ that _Star Trek_ does. But if my main objective was to show off the PQ I'd still use quite a few titles before _Star Trek_.


----------



## djoberg

*Monsters, Inc.*


A while back our good friend Hugh, in all honesty, admitted that his reviews seem to be all the same.....redundant, if you will. This is the conclusion I have reached when it comes to reviewing any and all Pixar animated titles. They are all done masterfully and, for the most part, without flaws of any kind. They all boast of eye-popping colors, bold contrast, deep black levels and exquisite shadow details, and a depth & clarity that is without rival in the animation world. When we declare they are worthy of a top spot in Tier 0 no argument is heard from any quarters, for everyone knows this to be indisputable.


So, in light of all that was just said, a placement recommendation borders on the impossible. When I compare this with the current top 6 titles I find myself scratching my head and thinking, "Maybe I should just roll the dice and let them decide where to put this one." But that would not be in keeping with the criteria we are to use in our judgment, so one must try, hard as it is, to distinguish this from others and then make an exact placement.


After considering things such as detail and textures (which, perhaps, give us the best yardstick by which to measure differences between Pixar titles, I believe _Monsters, Inc._ should go right here....

*Tier Recommendation: Top of Tier 0...Between Coraline and Ratatouille*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'


PS The audio was excellent as well!!


----------



## subavision212

Just watched Star Trek and enjoyed it even more than when I saw it in the theater (and believe me, I have been a Trek hater for centuries). I thought the humor in the film was priceless. Not sure why people are complaining about the lens flare. The film was obviously lit with many lights (this is a good thing since more light equals greater depth of field which in turn mean more, much more, detail in the picture) so lens flare is going to happen because wherever the camera is being pointed, flare is going to occur when a light shine directly into the lens. I actually thought is was kinda cool and was the type of creative detail that gave the film a bit more character. PQ and AQ were amazing.


----------



## deltasun

*The Mysteries of Pittsburgh*


Fine to extremely fine grain evident throughout. This title had a film-like look for the most part. Facial details was not the strong point - about the only person who had some details to share was Nick Nolte, who was also hit with some DNR work in a number of later scenes.


Blacks were deep, with no instances of crushing. Shadow details, on the other hand, did not deliver. Darker scenes were usually flat and devoid of details. Contrast was a bit on the weak side, save for some brighter outdoor scenes and the early restaurant scenes with Nolte and son.


Most medium shots were flat as well and did not offer much sense of space or dimensionality. I will say that a few of the countryside panoramas were very pleasing to the eyes, but their instances were also very limited.


On a technical note, I noticed what appeared to be pixelation, a tiny bit of ringing, and some moderate DNR. Still, the presentation as a whole was not too bad, nor did the negatives prove too distracting to the overall experience.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *subavision212* /forum/post/17579819
> 
> 
> Just watched Star Trek and enjoyed it even more than when I saw it in the theater (and believe me, I have been a Trek hater for centuries). I thought the humor in the film was priceless. Not sure why people are complaining about the lens flare. The film was obviously lit with many lights (this is a good thing since more light equals greater depth of field which in turn mean more, much more, detail in the picture) so lens flare is going to happen because wherever the camera is being pointed, flare is going to occur when a light shine directly into the lens. I actually thought is was kinda cool and was the type of creative detail that gave the film a bit more character. PQ and AQ were amazing.



Greater depth of field doesn't always equate to more details.







But, ok. Btw, the lens flares were purposely added for effect. They literally had guys on the set shine flashlights towards the cameras (with anamorphic lenses) to create the myriad flares in each scene.


Did you all notice that the flares occurred significantly less immediately after Spock's mother died? Conscious decision?


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *subavision212* /forum/post/17579819
> 
> 
> The film was obviously lit with many lights (this is a good thing since more light equals greater depth of field which in turn mean more, much more, detail in the picture) so lens flare is going to happen because wherever the camera is being pointed, flare is going to occur when a light shine directly into the lens. I actually thought is was kinda cool and was the type of creative detail that gave the film a bit more character. PQ and AQ were amazing.



The lighting was done to intentionally cause flare. I agree that it was a cool look though now that I'm looking for it I'd probably be really distracted.


from the filmmakers: "Much of the lighting built into the interior was designed to cause lens flares, which serve as a visual motif throughout the picture. The Enterprise has lights set in frame that basically point down the lens of the camera in every direction, says Mindel. Wherever you look, you get a flare. It goes against everything one learns as a camera technician, which is to shield the lens from any extraneous light and stop it from flaring. We'll either get slaughtered by our peers or be really admired for it! Abrams adds, The flares often weren't made by a light source in the frame, and to me, that implies there's something extraordinary happening just off camera. It makes me feel like I'm not watching the average moment. And I love the idea of a motif that is so inherently analog and imperfect in its unpredictability; it serves as counterpoint to the sterile, controlled look that so many visual-effects films seem to have.


If the built-in lighting wasn't providing the desired flare, the crew aimed Xenon flashlights at the lenses as the cameras rolled. Our A- and B-camera operators, Colin Anderson and Phil Carr-Forster, would tell us if we needed to go a little farther in or out of the frame, or up or down, to get the ultimate flare, recalls Prampin. It was funny to watch Dan and I were running around, ducking, jumping and hiding behind things just so we wouldn't be seen by the cameras. The flashlights were so bright that there are probably several instances where Dan's actually in the movie, but you can't really tell! "


----------



## djoberg

I just had my second viewing of _Star Trek_ and it was even more enjoyable than the first viewing. Regarding lens flares, they weren't quite as distracting this time, so I was able to appreciate more of the details and depth this film has to offer. At one point I thought I might even raise my placement recommendation from 1.75 to 1.5, but I was also reminded of a few lengthy scenes which were very soft (most notably the scene where Kirk and Zulu had to parachute aboard the drill in order to prevent it from penetrating Earth). These, along with some out-of-focus shots and crushed blacks, confirmed my 1.75 ranking.


One thing that can be said of this title without reservation; _the AQ is_ _absolutely reference quality_. There are multiple scenes that give any 5.1 or 7.1 system a real workout and more than gratify the sense of hearing that we have been blessed with!


I can also say that I really love this movie and hopefully we will be treated to many a sequel. The actors that they have chosen to play the key roles are perfect, IMHO, and with J. J. Abrams leading the charge we can look forward to quality stories as well.


----------



## jedimasterchad

Bruno


First off, this movie was not as good as Borat, but if you are a fan of Da Ali G show, and further still a huge fan of the Bruno segments, then *maybe* you will like this movie, but it's still a bit of a stretch. Granted, it had some parts that were quite hilarious, and I was almost crying I was laughing so hard. The movie as a whole though, not so good. Then again, neither was Borat, but it had more of a story to it than this one seemed to have. Just be advised, it can be quite raunchy at times, and if the gay humor isn't your thing, you should definitely stay away. Myself, I'm pretty good friends with a gay guy at work, and I felt like I could relate to some of the humor a bit more because he makes a lot of the same jokes all the time (maybe I'm just used to it now).


Anyways, there were pretty much three types of shots in this movie. One was the interview shot, in which the characters would be sitting right in front of the camera. Facial details and hair were pretty good, but the film seemed to exhibit some sort of softness to it that didn't quite give it that ultra sharp clarity. Flesh tones seemed mostly accurate, but a lot of people in this movie seemed quite pasty white. Backgrounds were for the most part pretty dull in terms of visual appeal (often just a colored background), and there were no outstanding details to mention otherwise.


The second shot was the indoor medium shot, which varied from quite good to just average. It really depended on the lighting in that particular scene, as the airport scene for instance looked great, but the scene in the psychiatrists office wasn't that spectacular. Shadow detail was pretty good in these indoor scenes, as they offered a bit more of it to notice than the interviews.


Finally, the outdoor stuff. These were generally pretty good, with some good balanced color and contrast. Most of the best scenes were outdoors, although there were a couple at night taken with a night vision camera that weren't so good. I wouldn't expect to get much from that type of view and these didn't exceed those expectations at all. Nighttime outdoor shots were really nothing to speak of, and I noticed a good bit of black crush in the night sky and background.


I think the best scene visually in the whole movie was the cage match. It had some excellent depth during the crowd shots and pretty exceptional detail/clarity of the people in the ring. Unfortunately this was not the norm throughout the whole movie as we would have a pretty good looker on our hands. The lack of real sharp clarity and detail combined with an abundance of soft shots means that this movie isn't one that stands out in my opinion, and wouldn't be used at all as any sort of demo material. On the other hand, it was never terribly bad either, and I didn't feel like it was a chore to watch it. There was a very fine layer of grain present, but it was almost unnoticeable.


Overall, I'd say this one is average at best.

Tier Recommendation: 2.25


54"G10 @7.5' via ps3 HDMI 1080p/24


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs*


Another animated/cgi title that does look very impressive overall. However, this one does not measure up to other such titles that are in Tier 0.


Many scenes had a slight washed out appearance to them (no doubt intentional). There was a lack of dimensionality that is found in the other titles in Tier 0 as well.


Detail is very good, but again, it falls just a bit short compared to other titles.


Still demo worth stuff, but not Tier 0 worthy.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0*


----------



## jedimasterchad

Was Ice Age any good? I liked the first one, the second one was alright.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/17580353
> 
> 
> Was Ice Age any good? I liked the first one, the second one was alright.



I meant to mention that in my review. This one was not bad. Not as good as the first, but better than the second.


----------



## Jim Cate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17571438
> 
> 
> If any of the movies in question do tickle your fancy, Jim, you could always make note of a particular scene in the movie that you could show as well, while you are on your search for something more ideal.



Thanks for the suggestion. I just received the Boraka BD, and IMO the video quality is about as good as it gets. - Certainly suitable for demo purposes. I have the Sanyo Z3000, and the performance is pretty amazing for what some would consider a relatively low-cost projector. Apparently the 70mm format used in filming Boraka makes a difference.


Jim


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Jim Cate* /forum/post/17581355
> 
> 
> Thanks for the suggestion. I just received the Boraka BD, and IMO the video quality is about as good as it gets. - Certainly suitable for demo purposes. I have the Sanyo Z3000, and the performance is pretty amazing for what some would consider a relatively low-cost projector. Apparently the 70mm format used in filming Boraka makes a difference.
> 
> 
> Jim



Hey Jim...glad to hear you're satisfied with Baraka. That happens to be the first Blu-ray I'll use to WOW my family and friends with. There are some scenes in it that are absolutely incredible, my favorite being the temple at the end with all the glass/crystals/precious stones. Not a few people have been totally awed by that shot.


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17581264
> 
> 
> I meant to mention that in my review. This one was not bad. Not as good as the first, but better than the second.



I might give it a rental. I felt the second one relied too much on that squirrel for comedic purposes and let the story kind of fall to the wayside. I'll add it to the queue.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Seraphim Falls (UK Import)


recommendation: Tier 1.5*


Many recent, overlooked movies that deserve to be seen in high-definition resolution are not currently getting Blu-ray editions in the U.S. An excellent period Western starring Pierce Brosnan and Liam Neeson originally from 2006, Icon saw fit to release it in the U.K. on October 6, 2008 as a region-free disc. The movie, which runs 111-minutes in length, is encoded in the AVC codec on a BD-25. The picture looks quite startling at times with its pleasing quality. Icon has delivered in general an outstanding presentation at 1080p that works as good demonstration material and eye candy.


There are possible arguments for a higher placement than the 1.5 score I have recommended. Many scenes might well rank with the best of tier one on occasion. The cinematography by John Toll is quite astonishing throughout the movie. It is a beautifully shot film that highlights the natural geography of the action. The Rockies and deserts of New Mexico are the settings that provide the wonderful imagery that acts as background to the drama unfolding in the story. The perfect focus and clarity of the image highlight the stark landscapes with fabulous detail and color. As the action shifts from cooler climates to warmer climates, so appropriately the color palette switches from a cold, bluish tint to a warmer, redder tone.


The movie displays a sharpness to the picture that truly enhances the perceived depth. As the snow falls early in the movie, individual snowflakes exhibit an extraordinary three-dimensional appearance. This phenomenon is not limited to select scenes but is consistently demonstrated throughout the film. One of the more consistent titles in that regard which never wavers too much in either direction. The opening act contains the darkest scenes, but black levels are strong with an inky appearance. Textures and micro-details are easily delineated within the shadows, revealing the rich production design with the authenticity of items from the Civil War-era. Visibility in the darker scenes are top-notch, without the pumped up brightness so many other titles show. There is no evidence of black crushing or blown highlights to mar the frame. Contrast is perfect with fleshtones taking a healthy, naturalistic look to them.


The transfer is mostly free from the dreaded addition of edge enhancement or ringing artifacts like halos. Late in the movie, in its final moments, are the first appearance of halos. And these are the glowing, relatively thick kind that can distract discerning viewers on the largest displays. Thankfully they do not linger and only affect certain shots that are short in duration. The picture retains a light layer of film-grain and always displays superior high-frequency information, leading me to not suspect any application of digital noise reduction. Print damage is negligible to the master aside from two exceptions. One scene featuring Gideon trying to extract a bullet in the snow has a single instance of gate hair at the top of the frame that flashes off and on for a minute. A minor amount of debris quickly makes its appearance, and just as quickly, its disappearance, during a climatic scene in the desert. Other than those flaws the master is pristine in quality.


There are arguments to place _Seraphim Falls_ slightly higher in tier one, from the excellent clarity to the stunning locales. The compression encoding is not one of them however. Icon has provided the movie a below-average video bitrate that can not be above 18 or 19 Mbps. It would not be surprising to me if the encode was originally purposed for the obsolete HD DVD format. Major compression artifacts are kept to a minimum, but hints of mosquito noise randomly show up. Slight, barely visible artifacting also plagues the clear blue skies during the desert scenes and the white snow-fields of the forest. It does not prove to be a distraction unless one is clearly looking for them at closer than recommended viewing distances.


While tempting to give the disc a recommendation for tier 1.25, my more conservative instincts tell me tier 1.5 is appropriate. But wherever one may place _Seraphim Falls_, the picture quality is truly great on this BD and heightens enjoyment of the movie immensely.


----------



## djoberg

^^^


Good review Phantom....but bad news that here is another excellent release that must be imported from the Motherland! As with _Vertical Limit_, you have whetted my appetite enough to consider making the purchase....British online stores, here I come!


----------



## 42041

Rolling Stones: *Shine a Light*


This is probably the best looking concert footage I've seen on BD, likely by virtue of being shot on film with the involvement of numerous acclaimed cinematographers. It's well lit, it's well shot, the detail is great, and the artifacts usually associated with low budget concert video are absent. Intercut with the main concert is footage of wildly varying quality, sourced from seemingly everything from high quality digital video to 16mm to camcorder to what might well be 8mm, this brings down the overall PQ somewhat. I won't spend much time on this review, it's a recent film that looks good, nothing surprising here.

*Tier 1.75*

(PS3/Pioneer 50" Kuro Elite/1 screen width distance)


edit: fixed for Rob


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/17584140
> 
> *Shine a Light*
> 
> 
> This is probably the best looking concert footage I've seen on BD, likely by virtue of being shot on film with the involvement of numerous acclaimed cinematographers. It's well lit, it's well shot, the detail is great, and the artifacts usually associated with low budget concert video are absent. Intercut with the main concert is footage of wildly varying quality, sourced from seemingly everything from high quality digital video to 16mm to camcorder to what might well be 8mm, this brings down the overall PQ somewhat. I won't spend much time on this review, it's a recent film that looks good, nothing surprising here.
> 
> *Tier 1.75*
> 
> (PS3/Pioneer 50" Kuro Elite/1 screen width distance)



You say its a concert film but you don't mention who the artist is.


----------



## jedimasterchad

I think Shine a Light is more of a documentary, is it not? I kind of looked at it in the store one time, it's done my Martin Scorcese, and I would have picked it up to try it out but I'm just not a big Rolling Stones fan.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/17586718
> 
> 
> I think Shine a Light is more of a documentary, is it not? I kind of looked at it in the store one time, it's done my Martin Scorcese, and I would have picked it up to try it out but I'm just not a big Rolling Stones fan.



It is mostly a concert film.


My big complaint: they called it "Shine a Light" but used that track only very marginally.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*Mr Brooks*



Yes. Another title I'm late to the party on, but on the recommendation by several of my PQ Tier thread peers, I put this one in my queue when I first joined zip.ca in the summer, and finally I have had a chance to watch this movie in its entirety.



I have no problem whatsoever with believing that this title was once in our beloved Tier 0. The detail on this blu ray are unmatched by many; if only all blu rays could have the quality of detail that are present in this film, we would have to split Tier 0 into TEN pieces to fight it out for the best of the best.



Furthermore, I would have no issue if this movie was STILL in Tier 0. *I did go back and read a lot of the discussion, so there is no need to reiterate to me as to the reasons for its downfall.* I understand the contrast issue is one that bothered some. I did look at it as an artistic direction this movie took, and I am fully aware that the artistic intent is not what is in play in this thread.



I do believe this film could be in Tier 1.0, however, and I would not mind seeing it bumped back up to there, but as I do not own this movie and have had it for a week too long as it is, I've got to pop it in the mail ASAP, so I won't be able to go back and re-watch scenes should fellow reviewers request that I do so, so I'm not going to push the issue on such an old title. It's still residing in Tier 1, Tier 1.25 to be exact, and I believe it should firmly stay there and not drop any lower than that.



The effect of the contrast boost throughout this movie is exactly what I personally do not like in Blu; however it still looked really good on my Panasonic in THX mode, which does have a danger of looking overly-yellow and giving me a headache of phosphor trailing (like Rock n' Rolla did). The contrast boost was not so much that it was in danger of doing that for me, which is a good thing.



Personally I prefer movies that are more lush and have deeper colours, so the contrast served against me in this score. This movie felt to me like it was the same as Youth Without Youth, only YWY had an oversaturation, while Mr. Brooks does the opposite and boosts the contrast.



The black levels on this movie for me were SUPERB. I have seen so many movies where when you see someone dressed all in black, in a dark background, everything just blends together and looks blocky. In Mr. Brooks, I could identify the individual pieces of clothing, see the textures of them, see them move independently as characters adjusted themselves; it was beautiful. In the scene where Mr. Brooks finally meets up with Mr. Smith, and the camera keeps looking at Mr. Smith from faraway in the alley, the glossiness and richness of that scene, the inkiness of the blacks, just EVERYTHING about it stuck out in my mind as something I wanted to mention when I wrote here. It was gorgeous on my plasma, absolutely gorgeous.



Again, I don't want to start a debate about Mr. Brooks because I know the thread has been-there-done-that but I could not watch this movie that so many of you recommended to me to watch without doing it the justice of a review.



It was a weiiiiiird frakkin' movie, though. I think if I ever see it on sale I might pick it up and put it on my shelf with my copies of American Psycho. It reminds me that I need to watch and review the Aussie version of AP that my folks picked up for me in the summer!



I will spoiler this because someone else might not have seen this movie before and I don't want to wreck anything, but:

*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) I kind of wished that the movie ended with Mr. Brooks' daughter Jane killing him, and that it wasn't a dream. The credits rolling just after the lights go out on his eyes would have been satisfying to me, even if it is a really fricken morbid thought!!



Also... I'm not a fan of Dane Cook in any way, so I have to admit I did laugh when Costner offed him. My snarky self shouted at the screen, "And that's for GOOD LUCK CHUCK!!".











*Recommendation for Mr. Brooks: Tier 1.0*
*Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800u THX setting, approx 7.5'.*


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17588790
> 
> *Mr Brooks*
> 
> 
> I have no problem whatsoever with believing that this title was once in our beloved Tier 0. The detail on this blu ray are unmatched by many; if only all blu rays could have the quality of detail that are present in this film, we would have to split Tier 0 into TEN pieces to fight it out for the best of the best.
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore, I would have no issue if this movie was STILL in Tier 0. *I did go back and read a lot of the discussion, so there is no need to reiterate to me as to the reasons for its downfall.* I understand the contrast issue is one that bothered some. I did look at it as an artistic direction this movie took, and I am fully aware that the artistic intent is not what is in play in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> I do believe this film could be in Tier 1.0, however, and I would not mind seeing it bumped back up to there, but as I do not own this movie and have had it for a week too long as it is, I've got to pop it in the mail ASAP, so I won't be able to go back and re-watch scenes should fellow reviewers request that I do so, so I'm not going to push the issue on such an old title. It's still residing in Tier 1, Tier 1.25 to be exact, and I believe it should firmly stay there and not drop any lower than that.
> 
> 
> 
> The effect of the contrast boost throughout this movie is exactly what I personally do not like in Blu; however it still looked really good on my Panasonic in THX mode, which does have a danger of looking overly-yellow and giving me a headache of phosphor trailing (like Rock n' Rolla did). The contrast boost was not so much that it was in danger of doing that for me, which is a good thing.
> 
> *Recommendation for Mr. Brooks: Tier 1.0*



Glad you enjoyed! Believe it or not, Mr. Brooks has always been a "break the ice" movie on date nights. I'd actually call it a wild card in my collection!










It's been awhile since I've watched, but it's right on the cusp of Tiers 0 and 1. Lower Tier 0 at best, 1.0 at worst. The facial detail is some of the best in Blu!










Contrast wasn't the issue for me. IMO, the blue tint caused blacks to appear grey at times. I'll watch again soon. I guess I need to round up a new date as well!












> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17588790
> 
> *Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler
> *Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) I kind of wished that the movie ended with Mr. Brooks' daughter Jane killing him, and that it wasn't a dream. The credits rolling just after the lights go out on his eyes would have been satisfying to me, even if it is a really fricken morbid thought!!
> 
> 
> 
> Also... I'm not a fan of Dane Cook in any way, so I have to admit I did laugh when Costner offed him. My snarky self shouted at the screen, "And that's for GOOD LUCK CHUCK!!".


*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Mr. Brooks was intended to be the first in a trilogy. Maybe it would have happened in the final movie!










I'm also not a DC fan. Although I did like his character in Mr. Brooks. Great death scene!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17588790
> 
> *Mr Brooks*
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Another title I'm late to the party on, but on the recommendation by several of my PQ Tier thread peers, I put this one in my queue when I first joined zip.ca in the summer, and finally I have had a chance to watch this movie in its entirety.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem whatsoever with believing that this title was once in our beloved Tier 0. The detail on this blu ray are unmatched by many; if only all blu rays could have the quality of detail that are present in this film, we would have to split Tier 0 into TEN pieces to fight it out for the best of the best.
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore, I would have no issue if this movie was STILL in Tier 0. *I did go back and read a lot of the discussion, so there is no need to reiterate to me as to the reasons for its downfall.* I understand the contrast issue is one that bothered some. I did look at it as an artistic direction this movie took, and I am fully aware that the artistic intent is not what is in play in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> I do believe this film could be in Tier 1.0, however, and I would not mind seeing it bumped back up to there, but as I do not own this movie and have had it for a week too long as it is, I've got to pop it in the mail ASAP, so I won't be able to go back and re-watch scenes should fellow reviewers request that I do so, so I'm not going to push the issue on such an old title. It's still residing in Tier 1, Tier 1.25 to be exact, and I believe it should firmly stay there and not drop any lower than that.
> 
> 
> 
> The effect of the contrast boost throughout this movie is exactly what I personally do not like in Blu; however it still looked really good on my Panasonic in THX mode, which does have a danger of looking overly-yellow and giving me a headache of phosphor trailing (like Rock n' Rolla did). The contrast boost was not so much that it was in danger of doing that for me, which is a good thing.
> 
> 
> 
> Personally I prefer movies that are more lush and have deeper colours, so the contrast served against me in this score. This movie felt to me like it was the same as Youth Without Youth, only YWY had an oversaturation, while Mr. Brooks does the opposite and boosts the contrast.
> 
> 
> 
> The black levels on this movie for me were SUPERB. I have seen so many movies where when you see someone dressed all in black, in a dark background, everything just blends together and looks blocky. In Mr. Brooks, I could identify the individual pieces of clothing, see the textures of them, see them move independently as characters adjusted themselves; it was beautiful. In the scene where Mr. Brooks finally meets up with Mr. Smith, and the camera keeps looking at Mr. Smith from faraway in the alley, the glossiness and richness of that scene, the inkiness of the blacks, just EVERYTHING about it stuck out in my mind as something I wanted to mention when I wrote here. It was gorgeous on my plasma, absolutely gorgeous.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I don't want to start a debate about Mr. Brooks because I know the thread has been-there-done-that but I could not watch this movie that so many of you recommended to me to watch without doing it the justice of a review.
> 
> 
> 
> It was a weiiiiiird frakkin' movie, though. I think if I ever see it on sale I might pick it up and put it on my shelf with my copies of American Psycho. It reminds me that I need to watch and review the Aussie version of AP that my folks picked up for me in the summer!
> 
> 
> 
> I will spoiler this because someone else might not have seen this movie before and I don't want to wreck anything, but:
> 
> *Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler
> *Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) I kind of wished that the movie ended with Mr. Brooks' daughter Jane killing him, and that it wasn't a dream. The credits rolling just after the lights go out on his eyes would have been satisfying to me, even if it is a really fricken morbid thought!!
> 
> 
> 
> Also... I'm not a fan of Dane Cook in any way, so I have to admit I did laugh when Costner offed him. My snarky self shouted at the screen, "And that's for GOOD LUCK CHUCK!!".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Recommendation for Mr. Brooks: Tier 1.0*
> *Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800u THX setting, approx 7.5'.*



Excellent review. I was an original Tier 0 supporter for this title.


----------



## deltasun

Two quick reaffirmations:


*The Lives of Others*


Agree with current placement. Very nice film-like appearance. The title contained a few Tier 0 facial details, e.g., the cafeteria scenes. Blacks were stable; contrast was decent for the most part. I didn't care for the sepia tone that much.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.50*


--------------------------------------------------------------------


*Near Dark*


Agree with Phantom on this one. Severe banding in a few scenes, along with other compression issues. Film appears very soft and hints of DNR plague the title. Blacks and contrast are very weak - bad for a vampire flick. Really looks more like an upconverted DVD for the most part.

*Tier Recommendation: 4.50*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17590597
> 
> 
> Excellent review. I was an original Tier 0 supporter for this title.



Same here on both counts.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

Funny People:


I'm only a half hour into this one, but this may be the worst major studio release of the year. Grain structure is incredibly noisy, edge enhancement is an issue that doesn't go away, and mosquito noise can be severe. Got a ways to go, but this is not looking good.


Edit: Okay, 90 minutes in and yes, this is an awful, processed mess. Definitely a slight bit of DNR as smearing is evident, some static grain, and the EE is thick. Early verdict is a complete avoid and a low tier 3 or high 4, which is a shame because the amount of extras here is staggering and probably worth it.


----------



## Nowucmenowudont




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/17594294
> 
> 
> Funny People:
> 
> 
> I'm only a half hour into this one, but this may be the worst major studio release of the year. Grain structure is incredibly noisy, edge enhancement is an issue that doesn't go away, and mosquito noise can be severe. Got a ways to go, but this is not looking good.
> 
> 
> Edit: Okay, 90 minutes in and yes, this is an awful, processed mess. Definitely a slight bit of DNR as smearing is evident, some static grain, and the EE is thick. Early verdict is a complete avoid and a low tier 3 or high 4, which is a shame because the amount of extras here is staggering and probably worth it.



You may want to double check to make sure that nothing is wrong. I have viewed the disc and it is far from being that bad. None of the reviews fall in line with yours either.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nowucmenowudont* /forum/post/17594956
> 
> 
> You may want to double check to make sure that nothing is wrong. I have viewed the disc and it is far from being that bad. None of the reviews fall in line with yours either.



Nothing is wrong. Believe me. I even double checked to make sure this was a Blu-ray. This review caught it, as will mine later today:


"It definitely exhibits a DNR and edge enhanced look,"

http://blu-news.com/index.php/2009/1...lu-ray-review/ 


All long shots are a muddy, processed mess. There are some shots that look okay, certainly not nice or top tier, just okay. The very first shot of the actual film with Sandler waking up is littered with noise, and it only goes downhill from there.


Look at the grain when Sandler is joking with Ira to kill him. There is a distinct static grain structure, especially notable against the cupboards in the background.


Edge enhancement is everywhere and certainly doesn't need to be pointed out, but watch when Rogen/Hill/Schwartzann are in the park, and Schwartzmann is telling the story about his grandfather. Their legs, their shorts, their shirts, all exhibit enhancement of some kind.


----------



## Nowucmenowudont




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/17595572
> 
> 
> Nothing is wrong. Believe me. I even double checked to make sure this was a Blu-ray. This review caught it, as will mine later today:
> 
> 
> "It definitely exhibits a DNR and edge enhanced look,"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All long shots are a muddy, processed mess. There are some shots that look okay, certainly not nice or top tier, just okay. The very first shot of the actual film with Sandler waking up is littered with noise, and it only goes downhill from there.
> 
> 
> Look at the grain when Sandler is joking with Ira to kill him. There is a distinct static grain structure, especially notable against the cupboards in the background.
> 
> 
> Edge enhancement is everywhere and certainly doesn't need to be pointed out, but watch when Rogen/Hill/Schwartzann are in the park, and Schwartzmann is telling the story about his grandfather. Their legs, their shorts, their shirts, all exhibit enhancement of some kind.



Yes, there are issues. I've seen them as well. Worst studio release of the year? I don't know about that...


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nowucmenowudont* /forum/post/17595759
> 
> 
> Yes, there are issues. I've seen them as well. Worst studio release of the year? I don't know about that...



Should be worst studio _new_ release of the year. Compared to some of the catalog titles, no, but as far as new releases, I haven't come across anything this bad, unless something is slipping my mind. There really is no excuse for a modern film to suffer from this many issues.


----------



## djoberg

I just picked up _Angels and Demons_ at one of our local video stores so I hope to watch it later tonight. I'll write a review immediately afterwards.


We're leaving early tomorrow for a 4-day stay in Minneapolis, but I wanted to wish all my fellow AVS members a HAPPY THANKSGIVING. For those traveling may you be kept safe, and may we all have the will power to pull away from the Thanksgiving table before we can't pull away!


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17596968
> 
> 
> We're leaving early tomorrow for a 4-day stay in Minneapolis, but I wanted to wish all my fellow AVS members a HAPPY THANKSGIVING. For those traveling may you be kept safe, and may we all have the will power to pull away from the Thanksgiving table before we can't pull away!



Stay safe yourself, Denny. Always save room for the pumpkin pie...


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17596968
> 
> 
> I just picked up _Angels and Demons_ at one of our local video stores so I hope to watch it later tonight. I'll write a review immediately afterwards.
> 
> 
> We're leaving early tomorrow for a 4-day stay in Minneapolis, but I wanted to wish all my fellow AVS members a HAPPY THANKSGIVING. For those traveling may you be kept safe, and may we all have the will power to pull away from the Thanksgiving table before we can't pull away!



Haha!! Thanks for the laugh.









I picked up Angels and Demons as well and will watch a bit later.


Have a safe and Happy Thanksgiving.


----------



## djoberg

*Angels and Demons*


Sony has gone and done it again!! This is one nice, clean transfer that opens with an absolutely gorgeous scene (the funeral of the Pope) with ultra-fine detail and amazing color that convinces you that you are in for a visual treat! Detail is one of the prominent virtues throughout this title, whether it be the cobbled streets and brick buildings of Rome, the clothing of the Vatican hierarchy, or the many facial close-ups of Tom Hanks and the rest of the leading actors.


Besides exquisite detail, this transfer boasts some of the best blacks levels that I've seen in awhile. I'm happy to say that the majority of scenes are either at night or in dark interiors, so if your set is good at displaying them you'll be in "black level Nirvana." The shadow details in dark scenes are also remarkable, though there were a few isolated interior shots where it became soft and lacked detail.


Colors are "few and far between," with the director choosing either to tone them down and to give them a golden hue. But when there are bright colors, such as scenes with the Roman Catholic priests wearing their red robes coupled with white, they are simply beautiful (natural and vibrant).


Flesh tones are natural-looking, even in the scenes with the golden hue, and as mentioned above the facial close-ups are excellent, ranging from low Tier 0 to low Tier 1 (with some exceptional shots of some of the priests that rank right up there with the best in high Tier 0).


This isn't the sharpest film I've seen, but there is good depth and clarity. And I was pleased to see a fine layer of grain that served to enhance detail and give it the look of film. I never saw this in the theater but I did read at least one or two reviews where they commented on how true this transfer was to the theatrical version.


I was going over various titles in Tier 1 for comparison and I truly feel it looks as good as _The Orphanage_, _Vantage Point_ and _Underworld_, so my vote goes for...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'


----------



## deltasun

^^ This is good news! I have company over for Thanksgiving who has never seen a movie on blu-ray. Aside from some obvious scene-to-scene demos from my collection, I took a chance and rented _Angels and Demons_ to watch. I was hoping for a good sample, and it appears I got lucky based on your 1.25 vote.


If I don't check in before Thanksgiving, I wish everyone a good one as well! Have a good trip, Denny!


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17598974
> 
> 
> ^^ This is good news! I have company over for Thanksgiving who has never seen a movie on blu-ray. Aside from some obvious scene-to-scene demos from my collection, I took a chance and rented _Angels and Demons_ to watch. I was hoping for a good sample, and it appears I got lucky based on your 1.25 vote.
> 
> 
> If I don't check in before Thanksgiving, I wish everyone a good one as well! Have a good trip, Denny!




Agree. We need and want more of these "better" PQ quality BD's especially on big name titles. I will be watching ina few.


----------



## 42041

*The Graduate*


Currently unranked, this excellent 1967 film finds itself on a merely decent looking blu-ray. The best that can be said of the disc is that there is no distracting extraneous manipulation to the image, it does look quite a bit like what I imagine the film looked like in theaters. But it also seems like they went to pretty much no efforts to make it better. There's either a lot of noise or a lot of grain in many scenes. The distinction is mostly lost in a mushy low-bitrate MPEG2 encode (which, shockingly, is quite equal to Warner's shoddy VC1 encode of North By Northwest that has about 10mbps and 10 years of video compression technology over it







), but some of the darker scenes reveal odd noise patterns that are definitely not the mark of film grain resolved by a state-of-the-art film scanner. The real PQ-tier killer here is that the detail is just all over the place, probably due to the original photography. You can tell it's HD... most of the time. While modern anamorphic movies only have that lens blurring at the very edges of the frame, here many scenes have more blurry areas than crisp detail. Blacks are underextended and typically noisy. Still, this isn't really a "bad" blu-ray, it conveys the film quite capably, I just wish it was better.

*Tier 3.25*

(PS3/Pioneer 50" Kuro Elite/1 screen width)


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Happy thanksgiving and have a safe week to my American friends! This is just a normal week here up in Canada! Hopefully I'll get a couple more reviews done for you all to enjoy when you get back.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17597807
> 
> 
> Stay safe yourself, Denny. Always save room for the pumpkin pie...



Thanks Phantom! Regarding pumpkin pie, it's my favorite at Thanksgiving, even after finding out how it's really made. See the following:

http://commonsenselogic.blogspot.com...e-is-made.html 


See you on the Forum in about 4 days!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17598141
> 
> 
> I picked up Angels and Demons as well and will watch a bit later.



I trust you will be very pleased with the PQ Hugh. It does have a few *soft* shots (during "interior" scenes) and it does lack sharpness and depth at times, but the detail and black levels (and the bright red cloaks on the priests!) more than make up for this. I forgot to mention there are a few aerial shots of Rome that are breathtaking.


I thought the movie was a good rental too. It's fast-paced and I found it hard to keep up with their "detective work," but overall it was an enjoyable 2+ hours.


Well, the Mrs. is telling me we need to hit the road. Again, may all of you have a Happy Thanksgiving. (G3, you could still join us in spirit even though you don't celebrate this holiday in Canada....maybe you could even cook a turkey







.)


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17600721
> 
> 
> I trust you will be very pleased with the PQ Hugh. It does have a few *soft* shots (during "interior" scenes) and it does lack sharpness and depth at times, but the detail and black levels (and the bright red cloaks on the priests!) more than make up for this. I forgot to mention there are a few aerial shots of Rome that are breathtaking.
> 
> 
> I thought the movie was a good rental too. It's fast-paced and I found it hard to keep up with their "detective work," but overall it was an enjoyable 2+ hours.



Interesting. I disliked the first one so much that I really have no intention of watching this one. Is it very different than the first?


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17600721
> 
> 
> I trust you will be very pleased with the PQ Hugh. It does have a few *soft* shots (during "interior" scenes) and it does lack sharpness and depth at times, but the detail and black levels (and the bright red cloaks on the priests!) more than make up for this. I forgot to mention there are a few aerial shots of Rome that are breathtaking.
> 
> 
> I thought the movie was a good rental too. It's fast-paced and I found it hard to keep up with their "detective work," but overall it was an enjoyable 2+ hours.
> 
> 
> Well, the Mrs. is telling me we need to hit the road. Again, may all of you have a Happy Thanksgiving. (G3, you could still join us in spirit even though you don't celebrate this holiday in Canada....maybe you could even cook a turkey
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .)



I know the husband wants to see this, so hopefully Zip will ship it up soon if he doesn't break down and actually rent it in town. I did like the first one well enough, not the best movie but it was what it was.


Oh we do have thanksgiving, it's just in October. No turkey this week, but I'll be making one for christmas to go along with all the other christmas goodies I will do!







I've been dying for more of that puppy chow stuff....


*Hey, did any of you guys pick up Rome yet? Interested in hearing initial thoughts.*



I did watch both "*The Women*" and "*Dan In Real Life*" this week, but they were so blah... no reviews. Neither were better than *Tier 3* to me, and as sub-par movies I just faded out and worked on crafting while they were on.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17601111
> 
> 
> Interesting. I disliked the first one so much that I really have no intention of watching this one. Is it very different than the first?



My daughter is letting me use her computer so....


I didn't care for the first installment, but this one was tolerable. Again, it was fast-paced and a bit hard to follow, but it kept my interest. You may still not like it though Rob ("different strokes for different folks"), so I'm throwing out that disclaimer.


For those of you who do see it, I'd like to know what you thought of the ending. Quite frankly, I didn't see it coming....quite the twist!!


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17601508
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> Oh we do have thanksgiving, it's just in October. No turkey this week, but I'll be making one for christmas to go along with all the other christmas goodies I will do!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been dying for more of that puppy chow stuff....
> 
> 
> *Hey, did any of you guys pick up Rome yet? Interested in hearing initial thoughts.*
> 
> 
> ...



I received _Rome, Disc 1_ from Netflix today. I'm not sure if I'm going to watch it tonight or not. I splurged at Amazon and have five BDs to watch from that order. So it's between _Rome_ and _The Illusionist_.


ggg, I have a question for you. Did you ever watch the whole _John Adams_ series or just Disc 1?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/17604248
> 
> 
> ggg, I have a question for you. Did you ever watch the whole _John Adams_ series or just Disc 1?



I don't know how anyone could watch just disc 1 of that series and not finish the rest!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/17604248
> 
> 
> I received _Rome, Disc 1_ from Netflix today. I'm not sure if I'm going to watch it tonight or not. I splurged at Amazon and have five BDs to watch from that order. So it's between _Rome_ and _The Illusionist_.
> 
> 
> ggg, I have a question for you. Did you ever watch the whole _John Adams_ series or just Disc 1?




I watched the whole thing, I did a review here . I absolutely loved it, it was fantastic.


----------



## daPriceIs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17601508
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> *Hey, did any of you guys pick up Rome yet? Interested in hearing initial thoughts.*
> 
> 
> ...



I got _Rome_ last week as well as _Star Trek_. I've only watched the first disc so far. [_*Excuses/*_] I got distracted by _Trek_ and _Up_ and bunch of other stuff including some books, etc. [_*/Excuses*_] So I've watched about 2 hours so far with 20 more to go.


I haven't put disc #1 to a really critical examination yet, but the initial impression is pretty favorable. Not Tier Blu or upper Tier Gold certainly, more likely 1.75 to 2.25. (*By the way, that's an impression not a recommendation.*) The color and contrast are excellent. Detail is OK. Noise, crushing, etc.? Dunno. Like I said I wasn't watching that close. I was paying more attention to the action, but nothing offended.


I'll try to watch a few more episodes tomorrow in between all the football, turkey (chicken actually), and scouring the web for deals.


One thing I'm curious to discover is if there are any significant differences between season 1 and season 2.


And next time I watch I'll make sure to keep an eye out for EE for you.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Thanks, daPriceIs!


----------



## jedimasterchad

Hey fellow reviewers, hope everybody had a safe and fun Thanksgiving. I unfortunately have to work all day tomorrow, so no shopping for me, however Fight Club and Galaxy Quest should be arriving in the mail. Might not get to them until Sunday night.


I'd like to hear more about Rome. Is the series good? I want to check it out sometime.


----------



## deltasun

_Rome_ is a great series. Once the price drops, I'll be picking this up on blu.


----------



## deltasun

*The Way of the Gun*


A healthy layer of grain present throughout. Facial details were decent for the most part - some (specially of Mr. Del Toro) easily Tier 1 good. Colors were somewhat muted, but still maintained a natural look.


Blacks were decent with no incidences of crushing. Contrast could have been stronger, but as such made for flat and dull medium shots. Not too many instances of limited light scenes, but the ones that cropped up were not too impressive. Shadow details were limited as well.


On the surface, this title looked like a solid presentation. It just did not have any oomph! There were a few instances where faces smoothed out and grain disappeared. Still hard to tell if it was outright DNR. Need to also mention that there were quite a bit of specks and dirt throughout, but not too bothersome.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

*The Ugly Truth*


Fine grain apparent throughout. Facial details really varied for this title from low Tier 0 to low Tier 1. Yes, there were some softness. When done right, even Katherine Heigl's fine facial fuzz was evident. I would say the scene in the balloon produced the best results. Actually, that particular sequence had a lot going to for it - great panoramic depth of the other colorful balloons framed by the bay in the background, excellent dimensionality, and of course, superb facial lighting and texture.


Blacks were bold, but sometimes too bold in the form of crushing on Katherine's outfits. Shadow details again were few, but seemed to hold their own. Contrast was passable for the most part. I really disliked fluorescently lit indoor shots, specially in how skin tones were portrayed in a golden hue. This was not always the case - e.g., scenes in the studio. Unfortunately, the golden hue phenomenon made up over half the movie's shots. This is, after all, a romantic comedy. Most medium scenes offered palatable depth.


Overall, this was a fine Sony presentation. Definitely not their best, but there were some beautiful HD moments. I will give this a solid, high Silver:

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


Nothing new here - just your average, predictable romantic comedy. There were some funny dialogue moments and witty quips. Still, I think I've reached my chick flick quota for the year. Oh wait, I see _Four Christmases in a Netflix wrapper on my table..._

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## oleus

just purchased a ton of catalog titles (and some newer obscure titles):


first impressions:


Ghostbusters looks weird. They definitely boosted the image, making the natural grain appear too often like noise. They should have left it alone. I have a dvhs copy made from Showtime that looks "normal"...i know there was quite a debate about this but tier 3 seems fair to me.


Contact looks surprisingly good, given that the standard dvd was a mess by modern standards.


Hannibal from the 3-disc Lecter collection looks TERRIBLE. Atrocious. Easily as soft as a standard dvd and perhaps the least impressive BD in my collection.


The Living Dead At Manchester Morgue (aka Let Sleeping Corpses Lie), an obscure cult zombie film from the early 70's, looks better than almost any bluray I can think of lately, which makes me think the big studios are laregely half-assing most of their catalog titles instead of putting the care that an indie outfit like Blue Underground seems willing to put in to something very few people may actually see.


what else....Playtime from Criterion is a joy.


Election looks like there is some serious blooming in the highlights. Paramount's catalog titles hardly ever look "right" to me, with too much filtering/processing involved. Same for the jack ryan movies....


True Romance REALLY surprised me. It's a dark movie, but the previous SD version took it to a new level of undefined murkiness. This BD looks great to me.


more coming later.


kudos to Blue Underground but should they really be the gold standard of cleaned-up, sharp as a tack transfers ?!?!?


----------



## Hughmc

The PQ on Funny People looks really good. It starts out with some VHS type of shots, but from there it hovers in mostly tier 0 and tier 1. I am going to go through it again, but it might garner a low tier 0 recommendation from me. I was shocked at how good it looks as I wasn't expecting it from this type of film.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17610117
> 
> *The Ugly Truth*
> 
> 
> Fine grain apparent throughout. Facial details really varied for this title from low Tier 0 to low Tier 1. Yes, there were some softness. When done right, even Katherine Heigl's fine facial fuzz was evident. I would say the scene in the balloon produced the best results. Actually, that particular sequence had a lot going to for it - great panoramic depth of the other colorful balloons framed by the bay in the background, excellent dimensionality, and of course, superb facial lighting and texture.
> 
> 
> Blacks were bold, but sometimes too bold in the form of crushing on Katherine's outfits. Shadow details again were few, but seemed to hold their own. Contrast was passable for the most part. I really disliked fluorescently lit indoor shots, specially in how skin tones were portrayed in a golden hue. This was not always the case - e.g., scenes in the studio. Unfortunately, the golden hue phenomenon made up over half the movie's shots. This is, after all, a romantic comedy. Most medium scenes offered palatable depth.
> 
> 
> Overall, this was a fine Sony presentation. Definitely not their best, but there were some beautiful HD moments. I will give this a solid, high Silver:
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.0*
> 
> 
> Nothing new here - just your average, predictable romantic comedy. There were some funny dialogue moments and witty quips. Still, I think I've reached my chick flick quota for the year. Oh wait, I see _Four Christmases in a Netflix wrapper on my table..._
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_



I like this movie quite a bit and thought Gerald Butler is a natural at comedy. It wasn't great by any means, but I was entertained and I thought it as much as guy flic as a chic flic.


As far as PQ I felt about the same as you, maybe I was going to be a 1/4 to 1/2 tier more generous as some of it looked really good, like you said tier 0 and tier 1 on facial details.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17600721
> 
> 
> I trust you will be very pleased with the PQ Hugh. It does have a few *soft* shots (during "interior" scenes) and it does lack sharpness and depth at times, but the detail and black levels (and the bright red cloaks on the priests!) more than make up for this. I forgot to mention there are a few aerial shots of Rome that are breathtaking.
> 
> 
> I thought the movie was a good rental too. It's fast-paced and I found it hard to keep up with their "detective work," but overall it was an enjoyable 2+ hours.
> 
> 
> Well, the Mrs. is telling me we need to hit the road. Again, may all of you have a Happy Thanksgiving. (G3, you could still join us in spirit even though you don't celebrate this holiday in Canada....maybe you could even cook a turkey
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .)




I felt the same as you with PQ and was thinking about ranking it 1.25 - 1.5.


I thought the first one was good, but I like that kind of movie. WHen Rob and yourself mentioned you didn't care for the first I was a bit shocked as I liked it and thought it was average to good. I was even more shocked when I went to RT and see it rated 24%. WOW. I had no idea it was rated that poorly, but then again so was Ugly Truth @ 14% and I enjoyed it overall. Angels and Demons at least garnered more with 36%. It was fairly good overall.


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17610117
> 
> *The Ugly Truth*
> 
> 
> Fine grain apparent throughout. Facial details really varied for this title from low Tier 0 to low Tier 1. Yes, there were some softness. When done right, even Katherine Heigl's fine facial fuzz was evident. I would say the scene in the balloon produced the best results. Actually, that particular sequence had a lot going to for it - great panoramic depth of the other colorful balloons framed by the bay in the background, excellent dimensionality, and of course, superb facial lighting and texture.
> 
> 
> Blacks were bold, but sometimes too bold in the form of crushing on Katherine's outfits. Shadow details again were few, but seemed to hold their own. Contrast was passable for the most part. I really disliked fluorescently lit indoor shots, specially in how skin tones were portrayed in a golden hue. This was not always the case - e.g., scenes in the studio. Unfortunately, the golden hue phenomenon made up over half the movie's shots. This is, after all, a romantic comedy. Most medium scenes offered palatable depth.
> 
> 
> Overall, this was a fine Sony presentation. Definitely not their best, but there were some beautiful HD moments. I will give this a solid, high Silver:
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.0*
> 
> 
> Nothing new here - just your average, predictable romantic comedy. There were some funny dialogue moments and witty quips. Still, I think I've reached my chick flick quota for the year. Oh wait, I see _Four Christmases in a Netflix wrapper on my table..._
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_



I didn't get a chance to post a review, but this seems pretty spot on. My worst complaint was the flesh tone when they were dancing in the club. Yikes! But the hot air balloon was easily the best looking shot in the movie. Overall I felt this title was pretty solid but not outstanding. This movie had more funny moments than The Proposal did. I agree with your 2.0 assessment.


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17614299
> 
> 
> I felt the same as you with PQ and was thinking about ranking it 1.25 - 1.5.
> 
> 
> I thought the first one was good, but I like that kind of movie. WHen Rob and yourself mentioned you didn't care for the first I was a bit shocked as I liked it and thought it was average to good. I was even more shocked when I went to RT and see it rated 24%. WOW. I had no idea it was rated that poorly, but then again so was Ugly Truth @ 14% and I enjoyed it overall. Angels and Demons at least garnered more with 36%. It was fairly good overall.



Have you read the books? By comparison, the movies hold very close to the storyline, but that is also a hindrance. The actors can't act, and the director can't take any creative liberty with these two movies it seemed, almost to the extreme that they were so boring from knowing *exactly* what they would say or do next! I loved the books but the DaVinci Code was so god-awful boring to sit through, I'm amazed I made it the whole 2 hours. I really couldn't explain who was at fault, but I had a bad feeling A&D would follow the same route, and it seems that it has. Oh well. The books are still great though.


(Lost Symbol is *not* however. It's just OK.)


----------



## spongebob

Is there any reviews for Up? I watched the SD version tonight and was blown away!



bob


----------



## deltasun

spongebob: there's quite a bit, but it's hard to do a search on the word _Up_. I voted it as best of the best, but I believe the consensus was that it's easily top 5.


jedimasterchad: the one view from the balloon was easily a solid Tier 0 scene. Don't get it confused with the green screen moments right after though.










Hugh: agree with Ugly Truth. Definitely much better than I was expecting.


And yes, the _Da Vinci Code_book was an easy, quick read. It seems they complicated it too much once turned into a movie.


----------



## deltasun

Was able to pick up the Target _Gone with the Wind_ Black Friday deal and perused through it a bit. The usual - softness, limited depth, etc. Still, colors look great and some scenes really shine.


Don't have time to watch the almost 4-hour BR. But, at this point, I would still say mid to low Bronze.


----------



## daPriceIs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/17609127
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> I'd like to hear more about Rome. Is the series good? I want to check it out sometime.



Imagine the death of the Republic and the birth of the Empire. Picture two characters, two plebs, two of Gaius Julius Caesar's legionaries at the end of his campaign in Gaul: Lucius Vorenus, first a Centurion and later an Evocati Prefect , an upright priestly citizen dedicated to the ideals of the Republic but consigned by fate to serve a tyrant; Titus Pullo, Hero of the 13th Legion, a rogue and a drunk, a cunning everyman, a lowbrow Ulysses dedicated to what is good (for himself); two men, first commander and soldier, then partners in misadventure, and later best friends. Now follow these men as they wander through all strata of the Roman world, from emperors-in-waiting and Egyptian queens to gangsters and slaves. Watch them as they struggle and agonize, as they rise and fall, as they become inadvertent agents of change, as they save the Roman treasury, and as they cuckold an emperor. Add in skulduggery, backstabbing, political intrigue, civil war, murder in the sewers and murder in the Senate, and pagan gods and curses written on sheets of lead. Season that with liberal doses of melodrama, and R-rated nudity, sex and violence. Leaven it all with adept direction, lush production values, a large budget, and a literate script. The result is the 22 episode HBO phenomenon that is _Rome._ You probably guessed that I'm a fan.







*Highly recommended.*



> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gods of the inferno ... Let dogs rape her. Let her children die and her houses burn. Let her live a long life of bitter misery and shame! Gods of the inferno, I offer to you her limbs, her head, her mouth, her breath! her speech! her heart, her liver, her stomach. Gods of the inferno, let me see her suffer deeply and I will rejoice and sacrifice to you.


*--------------------------------------------------------------------------*


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *daPriceIs* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> ... I haven't put disc #1 to a really critical examination yet, but the initial impression is pretty favorable. Not Tier Blu or upper Tier Gold certainly, more likely 1.75 to 2.25. *(By the way, that's an impression not a recommendation.)* The color and contrast are excellent. Detail is OK. Noise, crushing, etc.? Dunno. Like I said I wasn't watching that close. I was paying more attention to the action, but nothing offended. ...



Thursday night I watched the second disc: episodes 3 - 5. My original impression of lower Gold to upper Silver seems overly optimistic. It's not bad but there are just too many issues for it to reach the Gold.
There is some minor crushing and what may be compression noise. Though it's hard to see why given that there are only two to three episodes on each BD-50; the bitrates ought to be high enough to prevent that kind of thing.
Plenty of grain, which sometimes explodes outrageously in very dark shots.
Those sensitive to EE may see it where I do not, but I never noticed anything significant. There was some ringing at very high contrast boundaries, especially around strongly backlit silhouettes. Seemed minor to me. YMMV.
Close-ups when in proper focus are very good, but there are many medium to close shots that have shallow DOF and inexact/inconstant focus.
*--------------------------------------------------------------------------*


Well two discs down and only eight more to go!


I'd like to be able to say that I'm going to get through at least one disc per day over the next week, but that would surely be a lie. For a sales junkie like me this time of year is a trying/exhilarating time as I try to exercise some discipline while still spending like a drunken sailor. So over the next few weeks I'll be distracted by the delivery of new releases and catalog titles and upgrades of a lot of my DVDs. Can't promise when the real review will come.


As someone in the Blu-ray Specials & Deals thread said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dad1153* /forum/post/17613033
> 
> 
> ... I am losing so much money on all the things I'm saving money on it's getting ridiculous!


----------



## daPriceIs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spongebob* /forum/post/17614859
> 
> 
> Is there any reviews for Up? I watched the SD version tonight and was blown away!
> 
> ...



Most of the discussion and reviews of _Up_ happened between pages 470 and 474. I'll have another review in a few days.


Your comments remind me of my reaction to the _Kung Fu Panda_ DVD. It is superb. *But the BD totally destroys it.*


----------



## spongebob




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *daPriceIs* /forum/post/17614989
> 
> 
> Most of the discussion and reviews of _Up_ happened between pages 470 and 474. I'll have another review in a few days.
> 
> 
> Your comments remind me of my reaction to the _Kung Fu Panda_ DVD. It is superb. *But the BD totally destroys it.*



Thanks,


Getting BD version tomorrow











bob


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*The Ugly Truth*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17610117
> 
> *The Ugly Truth*
> 
> 
> Fine grain apparent throughout. Facial details really varied for this title from low Tier 0 to low Tier 1. Yes, there were some softness. When done right, even Katherine Heigl's fine facial fuzz was evident. I would say the scene in the balloon produced the best results. Actually, that particular sequence had a lot going to for it - great panoramic depth of the other colorful balloons framed by the bay in the background, excellent dimensionality, and of course, superb facial lighting and texture.
> 
> 
> Blacks were bold, but sometimes too bold in the form of crushing on Katherine's outfits. Shadow details again were few, but seemed to hold their own. Contrast was passable for the most part. I really disliked fluorescently lit indoor shots, specially in how skin tones were portrayed in a golden hue. This was not always the case - e.g., scenes in the studio. Unfortunately, the golden hue phenomenon made up over half the movie's shots. This is, after all, a romantic comedy. Most medium scenes offered palatable depth.
> 
> 
> Overall, this was a fine Sony presentation. Definitely not their best, but there were some beautiful HD moments. I will give this a solid, high Silver:
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.0*
> 
> 
> Nothing new here - just your average, predictable romantic comedy. There were some funny dialogue moments and witty quips. Still, I think I've reached my chick flick quota for the year. Oh wait, I see _Four Christmases in a Netflix wrapper on my table..._
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_



I'm going to take the easy way out on this one too, and say that I do agree with most of your comments on this one, but I am not going to go as high as you did.


I would also mention that the colors were "off" in many scenes.


The movie was very predictable, and only somewhat amusing as a chick flick simply due to the fact that it was rated "R"!








*

Tier Recommendation: Tier 2.5*


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17615064
> 
> *The Ugly Truth*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to take the easy way out on this one too, and say that I do agree with most of your comments on this one, but I am not going to go as high as you did.
> 
> 
> I would also mention that the colors were "off" in many scenes.
> 
> 
> The movie was very predictable, and only somewhat amusing as a chick flick simply due to the fact that *it was rated "R"!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tier Recommendation: Tier 2.5



Fair enough. Had to pipe in about the bolded entry above. Yes, that definitely played a huge role. Not much of a Katherine Heigl fan, but that "restaurant" scene was well done.







Almost too well done. Okay, I may even throw in the tree scene as well.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Alpha Dog (UK Import)


recommendation: Tier 2.25*


Icon Home Entertainment in the U.K. decided to release _Alpha Dog_, a film from 2006, on Blu-ray in a region-free edition on August 20, 2007. The 117-minute main feature is encoded in AVC on a BD-50. The video encode averages 24.99 Mbps according to the BDInfo scan. Picture quality is relatively strong for a catalog selection with one notable exception. An egregious application of digital filtering is the only noteworthy detriment that prevents the image from a ranking in tier one.


Produced from a clean-looking Digital Intermediate with no visible flaws or anomalies, the level of clarity is generally strong. The transfer shows no signs of deterioration and generally reminds one of a brand-new release on Blu-ray. The image is suitably crisp and sharp, with perfect contrast for most of the movie. A lone exception is the most critical shot in the entire movie, where due to directorial intent the picture turns washed out and dull. Incidental amounts of ringing occasionally show up that rarely intrude or distract from the viewing experience. As the action shifts to under the bright light of the California sun, the quality easily qualifies in most respects for solid tier one-status.


Black levels are strong and shadows contain a wealth of subtle detail in most frames. There is a small bit of banding and macroblocking in a few scenes. That begs the question why more space was not allocated to a video encode that leaves half of the available space empty on the disc.


The main complaint regarding picture quality here is the application of filtering throughout the movie. One key failing of the transfer is the obvious lack of the best high-frequency detail. Frequently the characters are in various states of undress, with skin on constant display. What is revealed are the missing signs that the transfer has been untouched by digital noise reduction. The visible textures can not be characterized as smeared or waxy, but it does not compare in any way to the better, unfiltered transfers. Rarely are the pores and other minor features visible on the facial features, even in close-ups that should demonstrate them.


The presentation is also slightly flat and uninvolving. Rarely does the picture display the depth and dimension needed for suitable demo-material. Other than that, many will find the transfer generally pleasing to the eye. It is a strong upgrade over standard-definition, while being just a touch above-average in comparison to other movies on Blu-ray for picture quality.


Watching on a 60 Pioneer KURO plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 (firmware 3.10) at a viewing distance of six feet.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Stephen Dawson):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1#post17212301


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17562165
> 
> *Fight Club*
> 
> _My God, I haven't been f***** like that since grade school_
> 
> 
> Wow, what a beautiful dark presentation! Someone hold me back, 'cause I'm about to get really generous with my rating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A healthy layer of grain present throughout, resulting in a very satisfyingly filmic look. I guess the first thing to talk about is the darkness. Blacks were inky and deep. Yes, there were plenty of crushed blacks, but medium indoor shots still held appreciable depth. Shadow details still existed, but not as prominently. Shadow details were rather selective.
> 
> 
> Indoor scenes have a greenish, fluorescent tint. Facial details were well-rendered (outside of the crushed blacks, of course) and really embraced the spotlight (or what available light was present). Contrast was a bit boosted, but not too bothersome. Colors were subdued befitting the story's tone and demeanor. When vivid colors did show up, they leaped off the screen. Skin tones were also spot on.
> 
> 
> Overall, a very gritty presentation. I would hope that when _Se7en_ finally comes out, it adopts this look. I did spot some ringing in high contrast scenes, but looked like a product of the stylistic look. As promised, my generous rating...
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.50*


*Fight Club*


*2.40 : 1*



At the risk of sounding redundant, I agree mostly with everthing you mentioned. We disagree on the Tier placement.


The PQ somewhat resembles The Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions. IMO, the basement and night scenes dropped Fight Club into Silver. Soft spots show up every now and then. Even though FC has never looked better, I would not consider this reference.


By no means am I knocking your placement. I just see it in a different light


*Fight Club

Tier Recommendation: Tier 2.0

PS3-Samsung 46" 1080p-seven'*


----------



## deltasun

*Angels & Demons*


Fine grain present throughout. Black levels on this film really shone - I really enjoyed the color scheme and felt it complemented the story perfectly. Contrast and shadow details were very good for the most part.


Medium shots exhibited decent depth; panoramic shots were superb - St. Peter's Square and most of Rome showed almost unlimited depth and dimensionality. Skin tones were faithful and colors were also, for the most part. Regarding the "red" garb of the cardinals, I had to recheck my calibration because it was coming out almost bright orange (except for the Pope's in the beginning, which was crimson). Still closer to bright orange than crimson red.


Now to my main gripe - the pervasive softness throughout the film. I agree that there were easily some high Tier 1 / low Tier 0 facial details. However, it was also ripe with soft-focus shots. It was enough for me to knock down to almost Silver. I believe the positive merits do save it though.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


I don't know if it's because I didn't read the book prior, but I found that this movie was paced better than _The Da Vinci Code_. I did pick up on the twist towards the end but had a different ending in mind:

*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Would have been better, in my opinion, if they did not find out about the Camerlengo till he was already made Pope. Of course, then that would have questioned the authenticity of the Conclave


_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## daPriceIs

*Star Trek (2009)*


> Quote:
> I'm impressed. For a moment there I thought you were just a dumb hick who only had sex with farm animals.
> 
> Well, not _only._



The BD looks excellent and is clearly demo-worthy and thus by definition belongs somewhere in the Blu or Gold tiers. There are many Tier 0 shots and scenes but there are issues, as well. The only significant ones fall under the category of director's intent, namely the excessive use of shaky cam and lens flare.
*Shaky cam:* Just too damned much of it! This technique damages the overall PQ more than any other element in the film, perhaps more than all of its other faults combined. It happens even when it's clearly pointless
*Flare:* Some of it is natural and appropriate given the way that the sets are lit and shot, but much of it is little more than a directorial affectation. The flares caused by off-camera light sources and that look like thin, sometimes discontinuous, bars stretching horizontally across the frame are the most bothersome and clearly the most artificial. The most jarring of these happens at 0:17:34 in chapter 2 just before the cut to a close-up of Spock and his mother; it is so brief and jarring that it seems like some kind of video anomaly, perhaps it is. In the initial viewing of the movie I was not much bothered by all the flares, but the more I watched it the more annoying it became, especially when multiple viewings occurred in immediate succession.
*Color and saturation:* both are excellent, though the color scheme is overall fairly cool. Flesh tones look good except for some of the aliens (most notably the Romulans), no doubt that's the way they're supposed to look. The only the color was unpleasant is when Kirk and old Spock enter the Star Fleet outpost on the ice planet: the green fluorescents look dreadful.
*Softness:* Not really soft, just inconsistently sharp. Once again, as in so many films, several close-ups are marred by shallow DOF. At its best the detail easily reaches levels at least as good as _Prince Caspian_.
*Black level:* Blacks are deep and well delineated when not washed out by the ubiquitous flaring. There are many shots on the Romulan ship that show this. One of my favorite shots is the one at the very beginning of chapter 3 with the sun setting behind the clouds and the car approaching the bar where Kirk ends up having a fight.
*Encoding:* There is some very minor banding at the end of chapter 1 where the Star Trek title appears. Mixed in with the light natural grain is some slight quantization noise but it is virtually unnoticeable under normal viewing conditions.
*Recommendation: Tier 1.75*

Panasonic TH-42PZ77U, 1080p @ 4'



> Quote:
> I presume you've prepared new insults for today?
> 
> Affirmative.



129 years from now a star will explode and *threaten to destroy the galaxy*. The star went supernova. Using red matter I would create a *black hole that would absorb the exploding star*. I had to extract the red matter and shoot it into the supernova.














WTF? I know that Star Trek's science has only a tenuous connection to reality, but really they would have embarrassed themselves considerably less had they left out this bit of incredibly BS exposition. Granted it's not really worse those episodes of Star Trek that feature the energy barrier at the edge of the galaxy."


----------



## ibre34

I just watched Tell No One yesterday and I don't think it has better PQ than Star Trek 2009 or Shoot' Em Up so I would recommend a Tier 1.25


Watching on a 50” Pioneer KURO plasma at 1080p/24 fed by an OPPO 83 at a viewing distance of 7 feet


----------



## Phantom Stranger

The U.K. edition of _Red Cliff_ is magnificent and stands shoulder to shoulder with other top-notch BDs like _Domino_ and the _Pirates of the Caribbean_ trilogy. While only through part one so far, my initial impression is a placement in the upper third of tier zero. A more formal review will show up in the future.


----------



## daPriceIs

^^ Thanks for the heads up, Phantom. Just ordered this from Amazon UK a few minutes ago. It's dirt cheap (relatively speaking) even with the current exchange rate and shipping. I read on blu-ray.com that there were some issues with some PAL trailers on the first disc. What was your experience?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17629464
> 
> 
> The U.K. edition of _Red Cliff_ is magnificent and stands shoulder to shoulder with other top-notch BDs like _Domino_ and the _Pirates of the Caribbean_ trilogy. While only through part one so far, my initial impression is a placement in the upper third of tier zero. A more formal review will show up in the future.



Once again you have me spending my money across the BIG POND Phantom!










Seriously though, thanks much for the heads up. I did a quick Google Search and read some reviews and those who commented on the PQ were very impressed. I'm quite sure I'll also love the movie as well.


I was able to get it from the UK Amazon website for under $19 (including shipping), which is a VERY good deal. BTW, I'm still waiting for my copy of _Seraphim Falls_, but I plan to watch it as soon as it comes (with a review immediately afterwards).


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17629464
> 
> 
> The U.K. edition of _Red Cliff_ is magnificent and stands shoulder to shoulder with other top-notch BDs like _Domino_ and the _Pirates of the Caribbean_ trilogy. While only through part one so far, my initial impression is a placement in the upper third of tier zero. A more formal review will show up in the future.



Surely a U.S. release can't be far behind?!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17630100
> 
> 
> Surely a U.S. release can't be far behind?!



I tried finding a U.S. release Rob and so far it's only been released in the UK and Hong Kong (if one can believe what they read online). So, even if the U.S. release turns out to be as good (PQ-wise) as the International releases, you will have to wait awhile. Plus, the odds are the price will be higher for the U.S. release, especially for the 2-disc Special Edition.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *daPriceIs* /forum/post/17629547
> 
> 
> ^^ Thanks for the heads up, Phantom. Just ordered this from Amazon UK a few minutes ago. It's dirt cheap (relatively speaking) even with the current exchange rate and shipping. I read on blu-ray.com that there were some issues with some PAL trailers on the first disc. What was your experience?



There were no problems on my Region A PS3. Simply fast forward through the trailer that precedes the main menu and it plays fine. Anyone with a taste for historical epics on a grand scale should at least investigate the special edition release from the U.K. Stunning picture and audio quality spread over two discs.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17630946
> 
> 
> There were no problems on my Region A PS3. Simply fast forward through the trailer that precedes the main menu and it plays fine. Anyone with a taste for historical epics on a grand scale should at least investigate the special edition release from the U.K. Stunning picture and audio quality spread over two discs.



Is that the shortened International cut as well or the original? I watched the International cut on HDNet the other night and enjoyed it, but it really, really rushed. The first hour or so was tough to follow, but the second cleared it up a bit. Still, it's obvious to tell a lot was cut.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/17631268
> 
> 
> Is that the shortened International cut as well or the original? I watched the International cut on HDNet the other night and enjoyed it, but it really, really rushed. The first hour or so was tough to follow, but the second cleared it up a bit. Still, it's obvious to tell a lot was cut.



The Special Edition I own is the full, uncut Red Cliff 1 and Red Cliff 2 together in one package. At least that is my understanding. The first disc runs 145-minutes in length, while the second disc runs 141-minutes.


----------



## selimsivad

I decided to re-watch Mr. Brooks this evening. I agree with its 1.25 placement.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17631391
> 
> 
> The Special Edition I own is the full, uncut Red Cliff 1 and Red Cliff 2 together in one package. At least that is my understanding. The first disc runs 145-minutes in length, while the second disc runs 141-minutes.



The one (2-disc set) I ordered this evening has a running time of 293 minutes, so I'm assuming it is, as you say, the "full, uncut Red Cliff 1 and Red Cliff 2."


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17637359
> 
> 
> Jeff Beck was my "guitar hero" back in the day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I saw him on Palladia this summer and he still has the magic!




Yes, he is my fav, well him and Santana. Did you get the BD of Jeff Beck Live at Ronnie Scotts? It is a must buy for Beck fans. His version of Day in A Life is beautiful and is performed at both MSG and @Ronnie Scotts. He supposedly filled in at the Hall of Fame concert for CLapton who is sick, but for me it was welcomed. I like CLapton, but I like Beck more, I know sacrilegious.










What I find awesome about these concert Blu Rays is the ability to take the volume to even much higher levels than I would movies and yet the clarity is still there.


----------



## Nowucmenowudont

What will it take to get Mr. Brooks bumped back up into Tier 0? I've lost track of the votes at this point.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17637686
> 
> 
> Mine's U2, hence the username.



Here I am a MAJOR U2 fan, being Irish, parents are from there, they are probably my fav band and I didn't even catch that.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17637810
> 
> 
> Here I am a MAJOR U2 fan, being Irish, parents are from there, they are probably my fav band and I didn't even catch that.



He he, it is one of the tougher references from an obscure song, Heartland: _and the delta sun burns bright and violent_










Well, finally picked up my copy of _Terminator Salvation_ from Best Buy. Will probably give it a spin late tonight. We'll see how much I can blast it at that hour.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17638262
> 
> 
> He he, it is one of the tougher references from an obscure song, Heartland: _and the delta sun burns bright and violent_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, finally picked up my copy of _Terminator Salvation_ from Best Buy. Will probably give it a spin late tonight. We'll see how much I can blast it at that hour.




Haha on blasting it and I heard it is loud.







I will be watching in a couple of hours myself. My fav song is also obscure. Drowning man, and most likely we will never hear that in concert or on the radio or for that matter at all unless you own it.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Just finished Terminator: Salvation.


Wow! I'm very impressed with this title. Looks GREAT!


Hope to post a full review tomorrow if I get the chance.


----------



## deltasun

*Terminator: Salvation*


I'm very surprised there's no formal reviews yet. Just got done with it and I don't know if it's the right mood or setting, but I think I enjoyed this even more this time around. I know I seem to be in the minority and maybe it's simply the quality A/V experience, but what a satisfying ride.


Nothing really subtle about this title - the stylized, futuristic look really yielded grit and character. Colors have been muted and somewhat desaturated for the post-apocalyptic look - one of my favorite (biased) looks. Facial details were SUPERB on just about everyone. Sure, there were a few instances of softness on Moon Bloodgod, but I do mean just a few. For the most part, they were easily Tier Blu calibre.


Contrast was strong; blacks deep and detailed, save for a few instances of crushing. This segues to my biggest gripe - in a number of low-lit (read: dark) scenes, medium shots appeared surprisingly flat. The most obvious example coming from the initial attack/exploration of the underground "base" where Marcus was freed. Not the best looking sequences with the flashlights and shallow darkness.


The faithfulness of skin tones were well-preserved even in the stylized realm. Medium to long outdoor scenes were a feast. Even the smoke-laden battlefields exhibited incredible depth and dimensionality.


Overall, a fantastic presentation. I did not spot any DNR or EE (not even any ringing, which was surprising given the director-intended look). Texture was another regular inhabitant of the PQ landscape. Fine, filmic grain was ever present. If it had better low-light dimension, I could easily vote this into Blu, but as such...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17631836
> 
> 
> I don't!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

No one seems to have noticed yet, but the latest Tier update has been posted by SuprSlow. A big thanks to K-Spaz for helping me with the data entry. The following is really a rough list, so check the actual Tier listing for final placement. If you spot any mistakes or listings you feel are in mistake, PM me.


Here are the updates:


Van Helsing - 2.0 (daPriceIs)


Underworld: Rise Of the Lycans - 2.25 (PhantomS)


Woodstock - 4.5 (Phantomstranger)


The Final Countdown - 3.25 (Phantomstranger)


Master & Commander - 3.50 (deltasun)


Year One - 2.0 (deltasun)


Trick r' Treat - 2.5 (deltasun)


Night Train - 4.0 (deltasun)


JCVD - 3.25 (RobT)


Sleep Dealer - 5.0 (selimsivad)


Drag Me To Hell - 1.25 (deltasun), 1.5 (jedimasterchad), 2.25 (RobT)


Equilibrium (CA import) - 3.0 (GGG)


Land Of The Lost - 1.75-2.0 (deltasun)


The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003) - 2.0 (PhantomS)


The Proposal - 1.25 (jedimasterchad)


Batman: The Movie - 2.0 (PS)


The Final Countdown - 3.25 (RobT)


The Day The Earth Stood Still (1951) - 2.75 (RobT)


The Day The Earth Stood Still (2008) - 1.75 (deltasun), 1.75 (RobT), 1.25 (djoberg), 2.5 (PS), 2.5 (GamereviewGod)


MASH - 4.5 (OldCodger)


Bram Stoker's Dracula - 4.5 (selimsivad)


Snow White - 2.5 (PS), 2.5 (jedimasterchad), 1.5 (filmaholic)


Contact - 2.75 (deltasun)


Playtime - 1.75 (filmaholic), 2.25 (selimsivad), 2.25 (RobT)


Transformers 2 - very high 0 (K-Spaz), 2.0 (patrick99), very high 0(garyc), 1.75 (357), low 0 (42041), very low 0/1.0 (RobT)


Transformers 2 (IMAX) - bottom third of 0 (deltasun), 0 (subavision212), high middle of 0 (jedichad), 1.0 (djoberg), top third of 0 (42041)


A Charlie Brown Christmas - 4.0 (PS)


King Of New York - 4 (ozymandis)


Superman/Batman: Public Enemies - 1.5 (PS)


Tyson - 4.0 (deltasun)


Blood:The Last Vampire (live action) - 3.25 (deltasun)


Leonard Cohen - 4.5 (PS)


The Visitor - 2.5 (deltasun)


The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003) - 2.0 (PhantomS), 3.0 (lgans316)


Godfather - 3.75 (K-Spaz), same (filmaholic)


Wizard of Oz - 3.0 (djoberg)


Best of Soundstage - 1.5 (PS)


Vertical Limit (UK) - 1.25 (PS), bottom third of 0 (djoberg)


Ice Age: Dawn of the dinosaurs - 1.5 (deltasun), 1.0 (RobT)


The Counterfeiters - 4.5 (deltasun)


Star Trek: generations - 2.0 (deltasun)


Orphan - 3.0 (deltasun)


Battlestar Galactica: The Plan - 4.0 (RobT)


About Last Night - 4.5 (deltasun)


Star Trek: Nemesis - 2.0 (deltasun)


Fringe: Season 1 - 1.75 (Geekyglassesgirl)


Near Dark - 4.5 (PS)


G.I. Joe - 1.5 (jedimasterchad), 1.0 (hughmc), 1.25/1.5 (djoberg), 1.25 (deltasun), 1.5 (RobT), 1.5 (cinemasquid), 1.5(ozymandis)


Taking of Pelham 123 - 1.0 (djoberg), 1.5 (hughmc), 2.25(RobT), 1.5 (selimsivad)

Wings of Desire - 4.0 (K-Spaz), 1.75 (filmaholic)


Love Actually - 2.50 (vpn75)


Sleeping Beauty - tier 0 (geekyglassesgirl)


Forrest Gump - 1.75 (deltasun), 1.0/1.25 (djoberg), 2.0 (selimsivad), 1.5 (hughmc)


Last House on the Left (2009) - 3.0 (djoberg)


Bangkok Dangerous - 4.0 (djoberg)


Domino - same as current placement (geekyglassesgirl), 1.0 (ozymandis)


Aliens In The Attic - 1.5 (deltasun)


My Bloody Valentine - 2.0 (deltasun)


North By Northwest - 2.75 (RobT), 2.5 (42041)


Oldboy - 3.75 (deltasun)


Mr. Brooks - 1.0 (selimsivad)


The Haunting In Conneticut - same placement (PS)


Heroes: Season 1 - 3.0 (daPriceis)


Afro Samurai - 3.0 (dapriceis)


Afro Samurai: Resurrection - 2.5 (daPriceis)


Hounddog - 1.0 (garyc)


Up - top 5 (Hughmc), top 5 (djoberg), top 3 (OldCodger), 4th best (PS), top 1 (jedimasterchad), top 5 (RobT), above Cars (ozymandis), 1 (deltasun), 1 (subavision)


Howards End - 2.25 (postmoderndesign)


The Third Man - 3.25 (PS)


Bolt - top quarter of 0 (42041)


Red Heat - 3.50 (deltasun)


Heat - 1.5 (hughmc). 2.25 (spoonsey), 2.25 (deltasun), 2.0 (42041), 2.5 (Rob Tomlin)


Logan's Run - 2.0 (hughmc)


Natural Born Killers: DC - 1.75 (PS)


The Killers - 2.0 (deltasun)


Requiem For A Dream - 3.25 (lgans316)


Office Space - 3.25 (lgans316)


Passion of the Christ - 1.5 (lgans316)


Memoirs of a Geisha - 2.75 (lgans316)


Baraka - 1.0 (ozymandis), 0 (PS), 0 (daPriceis)


The Haunted World of el Superbeasto - 3.5 (daPriceis)


Chicago/Earth, WInd, & Fire - 2.5 (daPriceis)


Monsters, Inc. - top 5 (Hughmc), above Cars (deltasun), same as UK version (PS), 0 between Coraline & Rat (djoberg)


An American in Paris - 3.0 (42041)


Ghosts of Girlfriends Past - 3.25 (RobT),


Star Trek (2009) - 1.25 (geekyglassesgirl), 1.25 (Hughmc), 2.0 (djoberg), 1.25 (selimsivad), 1.25 (Patrick99), 1.0 (K-Spaz), 1.75 (oldCodger73), 1.25 (JediChad), 1.75 (deltasun), 1.25 (RobT)


Heroes: Season 2 - 2.25 (daPriceis)


North Face (UK) - 1.75 (PS)


Leon/Professional - 1.75 (deltasun), 2.25 (Phantom Stranger)


Fight Club - 1.50 (deltasun), 1.50 (filmaholic)


The General - 3.75 (oldCodger73)


The Mysteries Of Pittsburgh - 2.75 (deltasun)


Bruno - 2.25 (jedimasterChad)


Shine A Light - 1.75 (42041)


Mr. Brooks - 1.0 (geekyglassesgirl)


The Lives Of Others - 1.5 (deltasun)


Near Dark - 4.50 (deltasun)


Angels And Demons - 1.25 (djoberg)


The Graduate - 3.25 (42041)


The Way Of The Gun - 2.75 (deltasun)


The Ugly Truth - 2.0 (deltasun), 2.0 (jedimasterchad), 2.5 (RobTomlin)


Alpha Dog (UK) - 2.25 (Phantom Stranger)


----------



## djoberg

^^^^


Good job Phantom!!


The only correction that you need to make is my rating for _Star Trek (2009)_. It should be 1.75 in lieu of 2.0.


----------



## djoberg

*Terminator Salvation (Director's Cut)*


I don't know that I have much to add to deltasun's review, for he was spot on about the incredible facial details, strong contrast, deep black levels, good shadow details, natural flesh tones, and a nice layer of grain yielding the coveted film-like look. Where I would probably disagree were with some of the medium to long shots....IMO _some_ of these lacked detail and depth. I also thought there were several scenes in the first half hour that were soft and even a bit *murky* in the really dark shots.


All-in-all, this is definitely a "demo-worthy" title...not reference, mind you, but one that I would be proud to show off to my family and friends. BTW, the audio IS most certainly reference quality; my wife was gone so I was able to crank my Onkyo 705 to reference level and my ears were more than gratified throughout the whole film.


I always find it hard to place a title like this (with muted colors and such a stylized look), but it reminded me so much of _Death Race_ (in almost every respect) that I'm going to recommend the same placement, thus here's where it goes....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*American Psycho (Australian Import)*


*Info for Phantom Stranger/SuprSlow: Video: AVC | Audio: Dolby True HD 5.1 | AR: 2.35:1 | Sony**


*Lionsgate is still listed on the back of the case, but Sony is the only logo on the spine.


Comparison to North American release: Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: DTS-HD | AR: 2.35:1 | Lionsgate


Region: ABC all listed on the back.


I reviewed the North American release of American Psycho here back in February. I had heard that there was an Australian version that were different than the Lionsgate release, and since my folks now reside in Australia, I had them hunt me down a copy.




If you are a real fan of this movie, it's my opinion that the Australian version is a significant upgrade to the North American release. I was finally able to sit down and watch this in its entirety last night, having seen the film numerous times I listened to the Director's commentary with Mary Harron.



In the NA version, edge enhancement is horrifying in this film. It's as though they went in and did it twice; the edge enhancement has edge enhancement. It is also a very dirty print, there are chunks all over the screen, it's rather distracting.



Edge enhancement is still present in the Australian version; however it is minor in comparison. It's enough that I notice it and it bugs me that it is there (since I believe it simply should not be there) but I think it would not bother most people.



The dirt has been cleaned up but not scrubbed free; I can still notice a tiny bit but again, nothing in comparison to the chunks that are everywhere in the NA version.



I popped the NA version in a few minutes ago to compare to what I watched last night, and it just seems so dull. The colours are brighter in the Aussie version, and everything is much clearer.



If I knew how to do screenshots, I'd take some for you guys! I need to learn this secret one of these days.



I'm not completely unconvinced that there is no DNR on this disc, however while I can spot EE a mile away, I do admit to having some difficulty in telling whether or not something has actually been DNR'd or if the cast has bad makeup. There is decent detail throughout this movie, and during the Director's commentary she makes note about how they put so much makeup on Christian Bale's face in a couple of the scenes that his face looks like it is melting off, because they had not got exactly what they wanted to do with his look down perfectly, and because he is a sweaty mess from his nerves (the scene with Bale/Dafoe in the restaurant is where she mentions this part). Faces are definitely suspect, however in this world that Patrick Bateman has surrounded himself in, everything has that over-done china-doll type of falseness to it, so it could be makeup or it could be DNR.




Bottom line is, this version is hands down WAAAAAY better than the North American one we all see in the $10-or-less bin at the stores. I think that this movie could still be cleaned up to look better, the edge enhancement is completely unnecessary, but I doubt this movie will ever get another release. If it does ever get a better transfer than the Aussie one, I'll definitely triple-dip on this title. It deserves it, but if this version is the best one that we'll get, I think it's worth the import for anyone who is a fan of this film.



It's not good enough IMO to make it in Tier 1, but I have no qualms with giving you guys this recommendation:


*Recommendation for American Psycho (Australian Import): Tier 2.25.*
*Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800U, THX setting, approximately 7.5' viewing distance.*


In comparison, for the North American version, my rec was Tier 3.5 (would not be upset with 3.75 either).


----------



## Decado2

Has there been any rankings for the Skynet edition of Terminator 2?


----------



## djoberg

*Seraphim Falls (UK Import)*


What a blessing to able to view 2 outstanding titles back-to-back!

_Seraphim Falls_ is surely worthy of a Tier 1 placement, with many shots easily falling into Tier 0. From the opening scene high in the Rocky mountains to the ending scene on the flats of a New Mexican desert, we are treated to a smorgasbord of visual "eye candies."


After watching _Terminator Salvation_, with its many dark scenes and a limited color palette, it was a nice contrast to have so many bright, daytime scenes featuring one panoramic view after another of beautiful forests, majestic mountains, and sprawling deserts. Each scene had exquisite detail and clarity, and most had appreciable depth.


Flesh tones and facial close-ups were excellent, ranging from high Tier 0 to low Tier 1. The night scenes all had very deep, inky blacks with very pleasing shadow detail to boot.


There were only a couple of negatives, IMO. First of all, I did notice some *debris* (as Phantom mentioned in his review) in a couple of shots. Then there were one or two brief *soft* shots. And lastly, in one scene it was so bright that it appeared to be a tad washed out. But with a running time of 2 hours, these minor occurrences seem to be nitpicking.


After having watched _Vertical Limit_ recently, with its comparable gorgeous panoramic views and cinematography, I would say this title is almost as good, perhaps 1/4 or 1/2 tier lower. I gave that title a low Tier 0 placement, so I'm recommending the following for _Seraphim Falls_....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'


PS I would really encourage my fellow-members to order this one, especially if you like a good Western. I thoroughly enjoyed this (the acting was superb), even though some reviewers thought the pacing was too slow.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Terminator: Salvation*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17639425
> 
> *Terminator: Salvation*
> 
> 
> I'm very surprised there's no formal reviews yet. Just got done with it and I don't know if it's the right mood or setting, but I think I enjoyed this even more this time around. I know I seem to be in the minority and maybe it's simply the quality A/V experience, but what a satisfying ride.
> 
> 
> Nothing really subtle about this title - the stylized, futuristic look really yielded grit and character. Colors have been muted and somewhat desaturated for the post-apocalyptic look - one of my favorite (biased) looks. Facial details were SUPERB on just about everyone. Sure, there were a few instances of softness on Moon Bloodgod, but I do mean just a few. For the most part, they were easily Tier Blu calibre.
> 
> 
> Contrast was strong; blacks deep and detailed, save for a few instances of crushing. This segues to my biggest gripe - in a number of low-lit (read: dark) scenes, medium shots appeared surprisingly flat. The most obvious example coming from the initial attack/exploration of the underground "base" where Marcus was freed. Not the best looking sequences with the flashlights and shallow darkness.
> 
> 
> The faithfulness of skin tones were well-preserved even in the stylized realm. Medium to long outdoor scenes were a feast. Even the smoke-laden battlefields exhibited incredible depth and dimensionality.
> 
> 
> Overall, a fantastic presentation. I did not spot any DNR or EE (not even any ringing, which was surprising given the director-intended look). Texture was another regular inhabitant of the PQ landscape. Fine, filmic grain was ever present. If it had better low-light dimension, I could easily vote this into Blu, but as such...
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.25*



Well, I will just say that you saved me a lot of typing!










I was very impressed with this title overall. The only negatives are the ones you mention, as well a few far shots where detail seemed to be slightly lacking as mentioned by Denny.


However, there are many scenes in this title which are outstanding and clearly worthy of Tier 0. This are almost all scenes that were well lit, and were usually indoors.


I enjoyed this movie quite a bit considering it is number 4 in a series.


The audio is nothing less than incredible. It is up there with the very best titles released on Blu-ray thus far. Simply amazing.


An excellent A/V experience and a very worthy demo disc.
*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*


----------



## tcramer

Anyone seen Angels and Demons on Blu yet any preliminary PQ comments?


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tcramer* /forum/post/17644646
> 
> 
> Anyone seen Angels and Demons on Blu yet any preliminary PQ comments?



There have been a couple of reviews and some chatter around where they posted them:

Review by djoberg 

Review by deltasun 


Hope that helps!


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17643273
> 
> 
> If you are a real fan of this movie, it's my opinion that the Australian version is a significant upgrade to the North American release.
> 
> 
> In the NA version, edge enhancement is horrifying in this film. It's as though they went in and did it twice; the edge enhancement has edge enhancement. It is also a very dirty print, there are chunks all over the screen, it's rather distracting.



Is it just me, or does it seem theres a common practice of releasing a North American release that sucks, and a foreign release that's nice?


Does anyone know of a movie with a NA release that is actually better than its foreign counterparts?



Thanks Phantom and SuprSlow for getting the list up to date. And how bout them nf/bb links! hehe, only took 3 months!


And a bit OT, but, I still cannot watch movies at home (cept on my computer monitor). My new bulb for my projector came today, but, unfortunately, it's not a bulb for MY projector!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/17645098
> 
> 
> Is it just me, or does it seem theres a common practice of releasing a North American release that sucks, and a foreign release that's nice?
> 
> 
> Does anyone know of a movie with a NA release that is actually better than its foreign counterparts?
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Phantom and SuprSlow for getting the list up to date. And how bout them nf/bb links! hehe, only took 3 months!
> 
> 
> And a bit OT, but, I still cannot watch movies at home (cept on my computer monitor). My new bulb for my projector came today, but, unfortunately, it's not a bulb for MY projector!



This is my first ever import, so I really don't know. I have been tempted by some other imports but the cost is so expensive; I lucked out on this one b/c my Dad was able to pick it up for me and just bring it when they visited in the summer. Kind of like how he's picked me up some of those 6-disc blu ray cases from there and is sticking them in with the kids' christmas presents for me. Saves the overseas shipping/tax/blahdityblah for sure. I need to find out if there's more Aussie imports that play in my ps3 that they can snag for me.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Army Of Darkness


recommendation: Tier 3.5*


A low-budget production from 1992, Universal Studios put this out on September 15, 2009. The 80-minute theatrical cut is the only version included, contained on a single BD-25. BDInfo gives the average video bitrate for the VC-1 encoding at 25.91 Mbps. There is only so much that can be done to improve the image quality of a movie shot with questionable special effects like _Army Of Darkness_, but it appears little effort was given to this transfer either to improve it. The current placement in tier 2.0 is too high in my opinion, given its spotty quality and problems.


Deluxe Digital Studios has at least given the transfer a very nice and clean compression encode. The VC-1 encode is flawless in appearance. Difficult scenes involving hazy smoke and clouds of dust are accurately rendered without any extraneous noise or artifacting. This encode is specifically targeted at the increased capabilities of Blu-ray and is no leftover from HD DVD. Many scenes show sustained video bitrates in the thirties. It is clearly the one highlight of this disc and its picture quality.


Whatever source was used as the basis of the transfer looks in rough shape. It simply does not look produced from the original camera negative of a modern film. Dirt and debris litter the picture at times. Optical effects of the kind employed in the movie are prone to these distractions. The problems lead me to speculate a higher-generation film print might have served as the master.


Another major problem is the significant application of digital noise reduction to the entire film. It is almost as poor in this regard as _Patton_. All high-frequency content has been removed, leaving flesh to take on the consistency of soft plastic at times. The resulting grain structure, very heavy in certain shots, is unnatural and has a strange consistency. Do not expect a great deal of excellent detail in any frame.


There are minor moments, particularly in the brightly-lit outdoor scenes that begin the movie, where slight halos at the edge of perception exist. The amplitude of the halos look reduced from some earlier efforts of this movie on home video. In comparison to the easily spotted grain-reduction, it is a hardly objectionable problem. Black levels are very good in relation to every other disappointment. Most scenes demonstrate inky blacks while retaining a solid amount of shadow depth and delineation.


Determining a final score is somewhat difficult for a Blu-ray that varies in image quality from scene to scene. Special effects are relatively crude and a plethora of camera tricks are employed by Sam Raimi. Many shots are soft and unfocused that are suffused with the remaining grain that escaped the digital post-processing. A few scenes look alright, with a surprisingly vivid color palette that one can only describe as “punchy”. The majority of the film could only qualify for the lower rungs of tier three. The better material resides tenuously in tier two due to the rampant loss of finer textures and micro-detail.


While an okay upgrade from the domestic dvd in resolution and clarity, Universal has put little effort in remastering the transfer from new film elements to create a truly substantial difference in the overall picture. My recommendation is for placement in tier 3.5.


Watching on a 60” Pioneer KURO plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a 60 GB PS3 (firmware 3.10) at a viewing distance of six feet.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Patsfan123):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...9#post17199389 

*Merry Christmas from your friends at S-Mart!*


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*Fanboys (Possible Canadian Import?)*
*

Note for Phantom Stranger/SuprSlow: Video: AVC | Audio: 5.1 DTS-HD | AR: 1.78:1 | Alliance**


*I think this may be one of those Canadian Alliance releases that are so iffy. It's obviously not an import for me, but could be like the Equilibrium I got to see as well. I'm not totally sure how to verify this, though; Amazon.ca has it readily available where Amazon.com does not.

_Edited to add that yes, this shows up in the Canadian Blu Ray releases thread. OAR = 1.85:1. I didn't notice any issue from the difference in OAR, but I also have never seen this before. It didn't look weird or anything, though._



I searched the thread but the only thing that came up for me for Fanboys was, well, not a review for this movie.











This was a blind buy, I've never heard of this film before, but reading the back I thought it looked funny. I was pleasantly surprised by this little movie; it is filled with cameos that is sure to make a Star Wars fan smile.



The picture quality of this Blu is really inconsistent. I did not notice any detail that would be worthy of a Tier 0 mention; it's just one of "those" movies; Comedy, decent enough to have on Blu instead of DVD (just a guess here) but nothing that would wow anyone whatsoever.



Colours were okay, black levels were so-so, textures and details were not up to par with what I expect on Blu. There's really not a lot to brag about here; if you're a Star Wars geek it's a good one to have in your collection for the whole laughing-at-yourselves-and-making-fun-of-trekkies value, but there is nothing remotely demo-worthy about this film with regards to PQ.



The story is silly but what fuels it is touching; I have to admit that there were a few moments that made me break down and sob. Granted, I can be a complete sap, so take that for what it's worth. For the most part I was killing myself laughing with this movie.


*Recommendation for Fanboys: Tier 3.25.*
*Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800U, THX setting, approximately 7.5’ viewing distance.*


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/17645098
> 
> 
> Is it just me, or does it seem theres a common practice of releasing a North American release that sucks, and a foreign release that's nice?
> 
> 
> Does anyone know of a movie with a NA release that is actually better than its foreign counterparts?



Sure, here's Blacklac's thread on the subject:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...hlight=version 


Sorry about the bulb. I'd be going nuts with no HD this long.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17643273
> 
> *American Psycho (Australian Import): Tier 2.25.*



I own this version as well. Being a fan of this film, purchasing the AU copy was a no-brainer!









2.25 sounds about right to me!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/17645370
> 
> 
> I own this version as well. Being a fan of this film, purchasing the AU copy was a no-brainer!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2.25 sounds about right to me!



OH good! That makes me feel better


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17644345
> 
> *Seraphim Falls (UK Import)*
> 
> 
> What a blessing to able to view 2 outstanding titles back-to-back!
> 
> _Seraphim Falls_ is surely worthy of a Tier 1 placement, with many shots easily falling into Tier 0. From the opening scene high in the Rocky mountains to the ending scene on the flats of a New Mexican desert, we are treated to a smorgasbord of visual "eye candies."
> 
> 
> PS I would really encourage my fellow-members to order this one, especially if you like a good Western. I thoroughly enjoyed this (the acting was superb), even though some reviewers thought the pacing was too slow.



I am glad the movie met with your approval. It was a total blind purchase for me and was very impressed by the storytelling.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17645154
> 
> 
> This is my first ever import, so I really don't know. I have been tempted by some other imports but the cost is so expensive; I lucked out on this one b/c my Dad was able to pick it up for me and just bring it when they visited in the summer. Kind of like how he's picked me up some of those 6-disc blu ray cases from there and is sticking them in with the kids' christmas presents for me. Saves the overseas shipping/tax/blahdityblah for sure. I need to find out if there's more Aussie imports that play in my ps3 that they can snag for me.



You might want to check out the recent region-free Australian release of Scream, if you like that movie. I have heard good things about it and am thinking of picking it up.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17645249
> 
> *Fanboys (Possible Canadian Import?)*
> *Recommendation for Fanboys: Tier 3.25.*
> *Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800U, THX setting, approximately 7.5' viewing distance.*



I love seeing your reviews of discs exclusive to Canada. There are a dearth of reviews on them available from reliable reviewers. Fanboys has not been released on Blu-ray in the U.S. The Weinstein Company has basically dropped the format because of monetary issues within the company.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17645689
> 
> 
> 
> You might want to check out the recent region-free Australian release of Scream, if you like that movie. I have heard good things about it and am thinking of picking it up.
> 
> 
> I love seeing your reviews of discs exclusive to Canada. There are a dearth of reviews on them available from reliable reviewers. Fanboys has not been released on Blu-ray in the U.S. The Weinstein Company has basically dropped the format because of monetary issues within the company.




Thanks, Phantom Stranger!







I've been thinking of snagging Outlander next time I see it at the store. I know they did a recall on that one, so I've been waiting to see it arrive again, I didn't want to get it the first time I saw it since I was unsure if it was old or not, and by the time I got the info from the Canuck thread to tell, the store was out & have not replaced them.... and the rumour has it that Ella Enchanted was released as well, so I'll have to check into that.


----------



## deltasun

*Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian*


Fine to moderate grain present throughout. At a viewing distance of 6', I found some of the grain excessive. At 8', it was better. This film had two main qualities going for it - striking contrast and rich, natural colors. Octavius' crimson garb, for example, was very regally rendered. The blacks were deep with no instances of crushing. Shadow details were excellent and well-defined.


Facial details was a mixed bag. Instances of softness plagued the title in this category. A few scenes did exhibit fine details, but for the most part, faces never delivered Tier Blu details or texture. Depth and dimensionality were superb even at night or with low light. Skin tones were spot on and faithfully showcased the range presented by the many interesting characters in history.


A very good presentation overall. The seemingly random scenes of softness brings this title down for me. No instances of DNR or EE noted.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 -6'_


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17642687
> 
> *Terminator Salvation (Director's Cut)*
> 
> 
> I don't know that I have much to add to deltasun's review, for he was spot on about the incredible facial details, strong contrast, deep black levels, good shadow details, natural flesh tones, and a nice layer of grain yielding the coveted film-like look. Where I would probably disagree were with some of the medium to long shots....IMO _some_ of these lacked detail and depth. I also thought there were several scenes in the first half hour that were soft and even a bit *murky* in the really dark shots.
> 
> 
> All-in-all, this is definitely a "demo-worthy" title...not reference, mind you, but one that I would be proud to show off to my family and friends. BTW, the audio IS most certainly reference quality; my wife was gone so I was able to crank my Onkyo 705 to reference level and my ears were more than gratified throughout the whole film.
> 
> 
> I always find it hard to place a title like this (with muted colors and such a stylized look), but it reminded me so much of _Death Race_ (in almost every respect) that I'm going to recommend the same placement, thus here's where it goes....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.5*
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'




When I said you should just rate it 1.5 I was joking.







Seriously though after having watched it a second time, I would agree with 1.25, but that is nitpicking compared to 1.5. It is a really good looking BD and seemed a bit better upon second viewing.


----------



## Hughmc

Has anyone got to see Funny People yet? I watched it once last week and still have it, because I wanted to see it again. I was fairly impressed by the way it looked and think it is a low tier 0 or tier 1.0 title.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17646095
> 
> *Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian*
> 
> 
> Fine to moderate grain present throughout. At a viewing distance of 6', I found some of the grain excessive. At 8', it was better. This film had two main qualities going for it - striking contrast and rich, natural colors. Octavius' crimson garb, for example, was very regally rendered. The blacks were deep with no instances of crushing. Shadow details were excellent and well-defined.
> 
> 
> Facial details was a mixed bag. Instances of softness plagued the title in this category. A few scenes did exhibit fine details, but for the most part, faces never delivered Tier Blu details or texture. Depth and dimensionality were superb even at night or with low light. Skin tones were spot on and faithfully showcased the range presented by the many interesting characters in history.
> 
> 
> A very good presentation overall. The seemingly random scenes of softness brings this title down for me. No instances of DNR or EE noted.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75*
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 -6'_



I think I will grab this tomorrow. I don't want to generalize too much, but it does seem I am seeing more and more of yours and others reviews on new releases that indicate no DNR or EE or at least very little of it. I am not claiming the studios stop using it, we know better, but I am actually asking you and others if this seems to be more the case now?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17646187
> 
> 
> When I said you should just rate it 1.5 I was joking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously though after having watched it a second time, I would agree with 1.25, but that is nitpicking compared to 1.5. It is a really good looking BD and seemed a bit better upon second viewing.



Hey Hugh, I had actually forgotten about your post where you mentioned rating it 1.5 when I was doing my review. Like I said, it reminded me so much of _Death Race_ in terms of being a dark movie with the same virtues that I thought it was a no-brainer to give it the same score.


I definitely want to see this again (I had to return it today to the video store), for I was quite engage with the movie itself....and the AQ was to die for!!


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17646221
> 
> 
> I think I will grab this tomorrow. I don't want to generalize too much, but it does seem I am seeing more and more of yours and others reviews on new releases that indicate no DNR or EE or at least very little of it. I am not claiming the studios stop using it, we know better, but I am actually asking you and others if this seems to be more the case now?



That's funny, 'cause I went through that exact thought process when I typed those words. It struck me how many of the recent, non-catalog releases I've reviewed showed no signs of foul play to me. Unless they've refined their techniques, I'm not noticing them.


Of course, I didn't notice the aliasing in _Monsters Inc_ until Phantom mentioned it and got me to scrutinize it.


Phantom: btw, you have the wrong rating from me for _Drag Me to Hell_. I changed my score to 1.75 shortly after re-viewing it. Thanks for all the work!


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17646277
> 
> 
> Hey Hugh, I had actually forgotten about your post where you mentioned rating it 1.5 when I was doing my review. Like I said, it reminded me so much of _Death Race_ in terms of being a dark movie with the same virtues that I thought it was a no-brainer to give it the same score.
> 
> 
> I definitely want to see this again (I had to return it today to the video store), for I was quite engage with the movie itself....and the AQ was to die for!!



I think you are right, it had a similar look to Death Race with muted and limited colors. I am trying to remember if Doomsday also had that look at least in some of it, like the beginning?


Yes the audio was incredible, especially from the 39 min mark for the next 7 min. give or take. The house was a rockin'!!







Rob appropriately gave it a reference recommendation over in the tier thread and Rob can correct me, but I don't think he wanders that way or does that often unless he really feels it is.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17646356
> 
> That's funny, 'cause I went through that exact thought process when I typed those words. It struck me how many of the recent, non-catalog releases I've reviewed showed no signs of foul play to me. Unless they've refined their techniques, I'm not noticing them.
> 
> 
> Of course, I didn't notice the aliasing in _Monsters Inc_ until Phantom mentioned it and got me to scrutinize it.
> 
> 
> Phantom: btw, you have the wrong rating from me for _Drag Me to Hell_. I changed my score to 1.75 shortly after re-viewing it. Thanks for all the work!



Mind Meld







or you have some powerful thoughts.










I tried to see the aliasing, but I couldn't.









Then again, I have mentioned several times how my display doesn't show EE as much like I believe some displays do, but as an LCD RPTV is does show banding more readily than other displays.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17646361
> 
> 
> I think you are right, it had a similar look to Death Race with muted and limited colors. I am trying to remember if Doomsday also had that look at least in some of it, like the beginning?


_Doomsday_ had some scenes of destroyed cities in it that were dark with muted colors, but it also had many scenes with vivid colors so in that respect there is no comparison. In addition, _Doomsday_ was even more detailed and crisp, so much so, that I was one who voted for a low Tier 0 placement.


----------



## tcramer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17644877
> 
> 
> There have been a couple of reviews and some chatter around where they posted them:
> 
> Review by djoberg
> 
> Review by deltasun
> 
> 
> Hope that helps!



Thanks! For some reason I thought it just came out this past Tuesday. If I had realized it was out earlier, I could've searched for those but thanks again!


----------



## daveshouse




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Decado2* /forum/post/17644208
> 
> 
> Has there been any rankings for the Skynet edition of Terminator 2?



I'm wondering the same thing. I own this but haven't had the time to sit down and watch it and make a comparison to the previous release. I'm also wondering about the Bond movie collections. I've only been able to watch Dr. No so far and was wondering what others though about the PQ on these.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17646095
> 
> *Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian*
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75*
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 -6'_



It sounds as though this has been treated well. I know when I saw this in the theatre this summer with my daughter, I thought it looked like total crap. I didn't see it up here, either, it was in a nice theatre when we were out of town. I doubt I'll watch this again unless I absolutely HAVE to; I haven't bothered to put it on my zip.ca list. Maybe I'm still holding a grudge against Ben Stiller from my offense at Tropic Thunder. *shrug* I'm glad that it doesn't look as bad as it did when I saw it, though; I recall having the thought that if people complained that it looked terrible, I was going to nominate it for The-Thread-That-Was-Once-Foxy's, because it would be true to the theatre experience!












> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tcramer* /forum/post/17647220
> 
> 
> Thanks! For some reason I thought it just came out this past Tuesday. If I had realized it was out earlier, I could've searched for those but thanks again!




No problem!




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *daveshouse* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I'm wondering the same thing. I own this but haven't had the time to sit down and watch it and make a comparison to the previous release. I'm also wondering about the Bond movie collections. I've only been able to watch Dr. No so far and was wondering what others though about the PQ on these.



I have the first two Bond collections but I haven't watched much of them. I got them on a kickass sale at amazon.ca last boxing day. Was there a particular movie in Volume 1 or 2 that you were curious about, I can try and crank out a review in the next couple of days.


----------



## Nowucmenowudont




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17646095
> 
> *Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian*
> 
> 
> Fine to moderate grain present throughout. At a viewing distance of 6', I found some of the grain excessive. At 8', it was better. This film had two main qualities going for it - striking contrast and rich, natural colors. Octavius' crimson garb, for example, was very regally rendered. The blacks were deep with no instances of crushing. Shadow details were excellent and well-defined.
> 
> 
> Facial details was a mixed bag. Instances of softness plagued the title in this category. A few scenes did exhibit fine details, but for the most part, faces never delivered Tier Blu details or texture. Depth and dimensionality were superb even at night or with low light. Skin tones were spot on and faithfully showcased the range presented by the many interesting characters in history.
> 
> 
> A very good presentation overall. The seemingly random scenes of softness brings this title down for me. No instances of DNR or EE noted.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75*
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 -6'_



Off topic for the thread, but...was it worth watching? I may rent it, but it didn't look very good.


----------



## DarkSaturn

*Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels*


Quick review here. Didn't really watch this one with the critical eyes turned on, but given I don't see a review yet, thought I should put out a word of warning.


Picked this one up yesterday, a personal favorite. Unfortunately it doesn't look like much attention has gone into this transfer. Overall the picture is very brown with cranked contrast, I believe this is faithful to the theatrical release, but it does seem more distracting in the blu-ray presentation. Doesn't look like noise reduction has been applied, as film grain is present throughout. Did seem to be slight edge enhancement, but I tend not to notice unless I'm looking for it (or if it's during certain shots in Army of Darkness when they hammer you over the head with it). There is dirt on the transfer at points, including one piece that hangs around for about a minute late in the film that is particularly annoying. There are also pure white squares of varying sizes(digital artifacts?) in a few places. The details are soft throughout, only marginally better than an upscaled DVD, there are a couple close-up shots are are a little better.


Overall pretty disappointing. Comparing to movies I've watched I'd say its a little worse than American Psycho and Full Metal Jacket (both 3.25), probably comparable with Reservoir Dogs (3.75).

*Tier Recommendation: 3.75*

_Equipment: PS3 - Samsung LN40A550 (S panel) at 6'_


----------



## daPriceIs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *daveshouse* /forum/post/17647338
> 
> 
> ... I'm also wondering about the Bond movie collections. I've only been able to watch Dr. No so far and was wondering what others though about the PQ on these.



As far as I know there are currently 14 Bonds out on Blu (including the Craig Bonds). I've seen all of them except _Moonraker, The Man With the Golden Gun,_ and _Never Say Never Again._ And all of them have been reviewed and ranked except NSNA, TMWTGG, _The World is Not Enough,_ and _Licence to Kill._ The rankings go from a high of 1.75 (_From Russia With Love_) to a low of 2.75 (_Thunderball_ and _Live and Let Die_). Check the rankings thread for other details.


Of the ones that I've seen, I would say that _Licence to Kill_ is the best of the pre-Craig lot. Based on viewings from at least a few months back, I put LTK at 1.5 and TWINE at about the same; i.e., just a smidge better than FRWL. Formal reviews may come some day (or not







).


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *daPriceIs* /forum/post/17648870
> 
> 
> As far as I know there are currently 14 Bonds out on Blu (including the Craig Bonds). I've seen all of them except _Moonraker, The Man With the Golden Gun,_ and _Never Say Never Again._ And all of them have been reviewed and ranked except NSNA, TMWTGG, _The World is Not Enough,_ and _Licence to Kill._ The rankings go from a high of 1.75 (_From Russia With Love_) to a low of 2.75 (_Thunderball_ and _Live and Let Die_). Check the rankings thread for other details.
> 
> 
> Of the ones that I've seen, I would say that _Licence to Kill_ is the best of the pre-Craig lot. Based on viewings from at least a few months back, I put LTK at 1.5 and TWINE at about the same; i.e., just a smidge better than FRWL. Formal reviews may come some day (or not
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ).



FWIW, I've seen (and own) _Dr. No_ and _From Russia With Love_ and they are absolutely gorgeous transfers, especially considering they are both over 40 years old. I rated them 2.25 and 2.0 respectively, which is not too shabby for their age. I would highly recommend those two titles.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nowucmenowudont* /forum/post/17647716
> 
> 
> Off topic for the thread, but...was it worth watching? I may rent it, but it didn't look very good.



Really hard to answer - if you have kids, I can see this as a treat to watch. I personally didn't care for it too much. One thing though is that the previews really turned me off to it because they seemed too campy. I could safely say the movie was better than the previews.


I would say this is on par with the first one.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DarkSaturn* /forum/post/17648287
> 
> *Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels*
> 
> 
> Quick review here. Didn't really watch this one with the critical eyes turned on, but given I don't see a review yet, thought I should put out a word of warning.
> 
> 
> Picked this one up yesterday, a personal favorite. Unfortunately it doesn't look like much attention has gone into this transfer. Overall the picture is very brown with cranked contrast, I believe this is faithful to the theatrical release, but it does seem more distracting in the blu-ray presentation. Doesn't look like noise reduction has been applied, as film grain is present throughout. Did seem to be slight edge enhancement, but I tend not to notice unless I'm looking for it (or if it's during certain shots in Army of Darkness when they hammer you over the head with it). There is dirt on the transfer at points, including one piece that hangs around for about a minute late in the film that is particularly annoying. There are also pure white squares of varying sizes(digital artifacts?) in a few places. The details are soft throughout, only marginally better than an upscaled DVD, there are a couple close-up shots are are a little better.
> 
> 
> Overall pretty disappointing. Comparing to movies I've watched I'd say its a little worse than American Psycho and Full Metal Jacket (both 3.25), probably comparable with Reservoir Dogs (3.75).
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.75*
> 
> _Equipment: PS3 - Samsung LN40A550 (S panel) at 6'_



Thanks for the contribution and welcome to the thread! I'm assuming you're a fan of _Snatch_ as well, which came out on blu this week. Do you have it and have you had a chance to review?


----------



## DarkSaturn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17649446
> 
> 
> Thanks for the contribution and welcome to the thread! I'm assuming you're a fan of _Snatch_ as well, which came out on blu this week. Do you have it and have you had a chance to review?



Was planning on picking up snatch as well, but ended up opting for Leon instead. Read a review that suggested that the Snatch blu-ray is pretty good. Might pick it up next week unless something else catches my fancy. Trying to pace myself here, don't want to end up with too many things on the shelf I haven't had a chance to watch yet.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *garyc8710* /forum/post/17651719
> 
> 
> Wow, I can't wait to get my NF BD of "Gomorrah" tomorrow. It has rarefied marks of 91 at Rotten Tomatoes and 87 at Metacritic, so I do not expect to be disappointed. That's pretty much as unanimous as critics ever get. Plus I'd say I see about 1 good movie a month out of 25 to 30/month, so I guess this will meet my Dec quota. But, what's up here? I thought I'd get an idea of what kind of PQ to expect but no reviews here to be found . Is that possible.This flick has been available on BD since Nov 24. *Is it the subtitles?*



So, from that assertion, we're not cultured enough to watch subtitled BRs?







If you browse through our reviewed titles, I'm sure you'll find a fair share of such movies.


This has intrigued me enough to add to my Netflix. I should have it by the weekend. How about you post a review when you see it as well?


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *garyc8710* /forum/post/17651719
> 
> 
> Wow, I can't wait to get my NF BD of "Gomorrah" tomorrow. It has rarefied marks of 91 at Rotten Tomatoes and 87 at Metacritic, so I do not expect to be disappointed. That's pretty much as unanimous as critics ever get. Plus I'd say I see about 1 good movie a month out of 25 to 30/month, so I guess this will meet my Dec quota. But, what's up here? I thought I'd get an idea of what kind of PQ to expect but no reviews here to be found . Is that possible.This flick has been available on BD since Nov 24. Is it the subtitles?



Within reason, I now take Rotten Tomatoes with a grain of salt. They have The Terminator, the original film at 100%.







WTF? I believe I have a fairly good memory and I could be wrong, but I could have sworn it got no more than 2.5 stars back in the 1900's, haha, 1984 from reviewers. 100% and you would think it must have won a few academies or been nominated, but it was a "trashy" two star action flic back in the day.










This from Siskel and Ebert which they split which usually means about 2 stars:

http://video.google.com/videosearch?...50899731984950 


I don't think I was too far off. Ebert did say the directing and acting were good, he must have meant everyone but Arnie. I thought it was horrible, well at least Arnie's was. Lol.










My point is 100% for The Terminator and even major films like Casablanca got 97%.














I know it is hairs and nitpicking 3% and I love The Terminator, love it...but IMO no way does it deserve 100% or at the least to be rated higher than a film like Casablanca.


While RT is a good reference and I would go along with it more often than not, it isn't always accurate IMO. Again I love Terminator, but boy did my mouth drop open when I reference it on RT.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *garyc8710* /forum/post/17651719
> 
> 
> Wow, I can't wait to get my NF BD of "Gomorrah" tomorrow. It has rarefied marks of 91 at Rotten Tomatoes and 87 at Metacritic, so I do not expect to be disappointed. That's pretty much as unanimous as critics ever get. Plus I'd say I see about 1 good movie a month out of 25 to 30/month, so I guess this will meet my Dec quota. But, what's up here? I thought I'd get an idea of what kind of PQ to expect but no reviews here to be found . Is that possible.This flick has been available on BD since Nov 24. Is it the subtitles?



I've honestly never heard of it. I agree w/ deltasun, I'd love to hear your thoughts on it after you watch it tomorrow. I just checked it out briefly on IMDB to see what this is. Let me know if it's got a lot of graphic violence, if it's not terribly filled with it I may pop it onto my zip list if I think I can handle it. I have no issues with subtitles myself, I actually use them all the time regardless of the language. I was actually irrationally annoyed at the fact that there were no subtitles on Fanboys when I watched that yesterday.




Soooooo the husband decided he wants to actually see *Terminator: Salvation*, because although I saw it this summer he did not, so we've rented it locally rather than let zip.ca send it to me in 6 months time. I'll try and chime in with my thoughts either tonight or tomorrow morning on that one.


Zip.ca actually was NICE to me, after I took T:S off of my list though, as they've informed me that I should be receiving *Harry Potter & the Half Blood Prince* next week sometime, which is both surprising and good for my wallet, as I really really really need to NOT BUY ANY HARRY POTTER MOVIES ON BLU until they are released in a crazy-arse boxed set at the end of it all. JK Rowling and crew already have enough of my money. They've also somehow decided I'm worthy of getting *The Ugly Truth*, *Push*, and.... *Beverly Hills Chihuahua* (ugh) next week. Hope I have time for that many movies.


----------



## jedimasterchad

Wow, hey guys...been a few days and man was I busy! I had forgotten how much I hated working retail, but I was reminded over the weekend. I have Galaxy Quest and Fight Club sitting here from Netflix, and I bought Terminator yesterday. So far I can't wait to see TS from what you guys are saying about it.


I've had the chance to see about half of Galaxy Quest. Definitely some DNR going on, but to what extent I'm not sure, as I didn't really get to scrutinize the whole thing. I hope to get it finished up so I can mail it back asap. There are new releases on Tuesday again! I'm anxious to see HP6, I missed it in theaters, and I'm hoping I can snag a copy of Public Enemies from NF also. Lots of reviewing to do this weekend! See ya guys in a bit.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17652029
> 
> 
> Within reason, I now take Rotten Tomatoes with a grain of salt. They have The Terminator, the original film at 100%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF? I believe I have a fairly good memory and I could be wrong, but I could have sworn it got no more than 2.5 stars back in the 1900's, haha, 1984 from reviewers. 100% and you would think it must have won a few academies or been nominated, but it was a "trashy" two star action flic back in the day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This from Siskel and Ebert which they split which usually means about 2 stars:
> 
> http://video.google.com/videosearch?...50899731984950
> 
> 
> I don't think I was too far off. Ebert did say the directing and acting were good, he must have meant everyone but Arnie. I thought it was horrible, well at least Arnie's was. Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point is 100% for The Terminator and even major films like Casablanca got 97%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know it is hairs and nitpicking 3% and I love The Terminator, love it...but IMO no way does it deserve 100% or at the least to be rated higher than a film like Casablanca.
> 
> 
> While RT is a good reference and I would go along with it more often than not, it isn't always accurate IMO. Again I love Terminator, but boy did my mouth drop open when I reference it on RT.



Well, I'm not sure exactly what you are taking exception to. You love Terminator but don't like the fact that all the critics at RT liked it? Cause that's all it means!


The RT meter, from what I understand, simply averages the "thumbs up" vs the "thumbs down". It is not average each critics ratings in terms of 2 stars, 3 stars etc.


So, all the 100% rating means is that all the critics that they have listed "recommend" the movie.


Considering it is a true classic with superb writing, made on a low budget, and launched the career of James Cameron, I think 100% is about right!


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *garyc8710* /forum/post/17652934
> 
> 
> It just seems that as I'm now a good 25 years older than the demographics most U.S. film companies aim for, I find myself really enjoying a lot of foreign films more so than American.
> 
> One quick example, As a Blu-ray-aholic, I'll rent just about anything BD, so I had to rent
> 
> "Twilight" but a movie in the same vein "Let the Right One In" from of all places Sweden
> 
> was the vampire movie I really enjoyed.According to IMDB, it looks like "Twilight" made north of 200 million in the U.S. While "Let the right One in" made about 2 million.



Hey, everyone has different tastes in movies, nothing wrong with that. Most of the time I completely ignore what the critics say, because I like to see something with an open mind anyway. And, about the subtitles, it's not like there is any sort of mandated list of stuff to review...we all just volunteer and try to do what we can in and around our busy day to day lives, and I think everyone who contributes does a great job. It would be nice to have someone such as yourself who is more into the foreign releases as a regular contributor, as they aren't really my thing but I tend to notice that some of the best stories come from foreign films (my favorite example is still Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon). Let the Right One In was pretty good too, I streamed it for my wife. I'm not really into the vampires and werewolves type stuff but I really liked the pacing and style of the movie.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

BTW, Hugh, Star Trek is 95% at Rotten Tomatoes!


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17653034
> 
> 
> Well, I'm not sure exactly what you are taking exception to. You love Terminator but don't like the fact that all the critics at RT liked it? Cause that's all it means!
> 
> 
> The RT meter, from what I understand, simply averages the "thumbs up" vs the "thumbs down". It is not average each critics ratings in terms of 2 stars, 3 stars etc.
> 
> 
> So, all the 100% rating means is that all the critics that they have listed "recommend" the movie.
> 
> 
> Considering it is a true classic with superb writing, made on a low budget, and launched the career of James Cameron, I think 100% is about right!



Ah...ok Rob, thanks for clarifying it for me. I didn't really know how they calculated the %'s.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17653055
> 
> 
> BTW, Hugh, Star Trek is 95% at Rotten Tomatoes!



I saw that two weeks ago when watching it. I do reference it. What you said does put it in perspective. So it isn't like the lists of top movies of all time?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17653298
> 
> 
> I saw that two weeks ago when watching it. I do reference it. What you said does put it in perspective. So it isn't like the lists of top movies of all time?



Nope, not at all.


I can recommend a movie (thumbs up) but not necessarily think it is a particularly great movie. Hell, I would HIGHLY recommend that people who have a good HT setup to watch Terminator: Salvation, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I think it is a particularly good movie. But my recommendation (thumbs up) would be counted simply as a "yes" at RT.


----------



## henree

Any impressions of Hitchcock's first Blu-ray release. North By Northwest.

It's the one of the few Hitchcock films I have never seen. I am curious about how Warner handled the VistaVision resolutions.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *henree* /forum/post/17653970
> 
> 
> Any impressions of Hitchcock's first Blu-ray release. North By Northwest.
> 
> It's the one of the few Hitchcock films I have never seen. I am curious about how Warner handled the VistaVision resolutions.



All of the reviews have been positive. It's not perfect but I'd certainly recommend it as long as you aren't expecting it to look like a recent movie; Vistavision or not, it's not quite there.


----------



## deltasun

*The Wackness*


This is a stylized presentation, featuring ample grain throughout, a sepia-toned look, and intentional softness mostly around the edges. Some of the darker scenes exhibited more troubling grain, almost digital noise-like.


Facial details, when meant to be sharp and detailed, were very impressive. Likewise, even with the sepia tint, blacks remain faithfully bold. Contrast was another characteristic manipulated by the director to obtain his desired look. As such, it was not up to par with some of the best out there. Shadow details were surprisingly decent when not in the soft zone. As mentioned, medium shots were not impressive due to the intended soft focus around the edges. Because this soft focus wasn't attained through normal depth-of-field techniques, two objects from the same plane of focus can have vastly different degrees of sharpness. Skin tones seem to be faithful in this monochromatic presentation. Though muted, instances of bright colors (specially primaries) do permeate some scenes beautifully.


Overall, the drab, soft presentation really hurt the PQ, in accordance to this thread. Despite the solid Gold facial close-up's, this title still lands in Tier Bronze for me...

*Tier Recommendation: 3.25*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

Watched the first few episodes of _Rome_. I really like the color saturation in daylight scenes. When the lighting is right, facial details are impressive. So far, the biggest weakness I see are from the darker scenes. They were flat and devoid of any reasonable dimensionality.


Still, looking forward to owning this series eventually once prices come down. High Silver to Low Gold for me, from what I've seen so far.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17642687
> 
> *Terminator Salvation (Director's Cut)*
> 
> 
> I don't know that I have much to add to deltasun's review, for he was spot on about the incredible facial details, strong contrast, deep black levels, good shadow details, natural flesh tones, and a nice layer of grain yielding the coveted film-like look. Where I would probably disagree were with some of the medium to long shots....IMO _some_ of these lacked detail and depth. I also thought there were several scenes in the first half hour that were soft and even a bit *murky* in the really dark shots.
> 
> 
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.5*
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'



Okay. I am being ULTRA LAZY with this title. Pretty much what Denny had to say above is what I saw, however I was still a bit less impressed with it than he was. I don't feel this film is better than X-Men Origins: Wolverine, though, which is rated 1.75.



And yes, I know, I am insane -- I *did* notice some high contrast edges, and also what looked to me to be some _very very minor_ edge enhancement. I was not looking for it, I swear. *In no way did it impede my viewing of this film, and does not affect my recommendation*, however, and I would not be surprised if I'm the only one who noticed it. I don't even want to mention where I did see it, because if you guys didn't notice it I don't want to burst the bubble. I'm only mentioning it b/c I think someone else mentioned they didn't notice any at all. Given this is a Warner title, I'm wondering if the person playing with that EE knob got smacked a bit and was told to tone it down, but didn't totally quit the habit, just to mess with crazy people like me.



Some of the dark scenes were too dark for me and lost all detail completely, and unlike Denny above I felt it was a little more than "some" on the murky shots he references. The dusty scenes got to me as well; while in both Wall-E and Star Trek 2009 I could still see textures and felt they were strong, in this film I felt they were on the weaker side.


*Recommendation for Terminator: Salvation Tier 1.75*
*Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800u THX setting, approx 7.5'.*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^


G3,


I would have no problem, whatsoever, going along with your 1.75 rating. I do want to see this title again, for I loved the audio side of it and I enjoyed the movie itself, but like Hugh my recommendation was possibly a bit skewed because of my enjoyment of the AQ. I definitely remember the first 30 minutes being less-than-stellar, especially the opening scene. And the rest of the movie was somewhat inconsistent, if memory serves me well.


In all fairness, it does have some very detailed scenes (like the one where the aircraft are flying through the canyon), along with some Tier 0 facial close-ups.


Denny


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17656379
> 
> 
> ^^^^^
> 
> 
> G3,
> 
> 
> I would have no problem, whatsoever, going along with your 1.75 rating. I do want to see this title again, for I loved the audio side of it and I enjoyed the movie itself, but like Hugh my recommendation was possibly a bit skewed because of my enjoyment of the AQ. I definitely remember the first 30 minutes being less-than-stellar, especially the opening scene. And the rest of the movie was somewhat inconsistent, if memory serves me well.
> 
> 
> In all fairness, it does have some very detailed scenes (like the one where the aircraft are flying through the canyon), along with some Tier 0 facial close-ups.
> 
> 
> Denny




I definitely agree with that. I watched this twice yesterday, and it has to go back today since it is only a 1-day rental. Facial close-ups can be phenomenal, it just lacked in some other places for me as well.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *garyc8710* /forum/post/17656566
> 
> 
> Well I watched my BD of “Gomorrah” and here is my opinion of the PQ. .I did watch the Criterion collection version. Got it at 9 AM and popped it right in my PS3.
> 
> I made my picture adjustments in the first 5 minutes. When I get my Blu-Ray, I either set my Panasonic 42pz700 to Cinema or Standard mode depending on the movie. Color temp is always warm , tint is always at 0. The only adjustments I make are to color, picture, and brightness. I always keep sharpness turned all the way down.
> 
> With this picture, I got so wrapped up in the story, that I actually didn’t take notice of the PQ that much. What I will say is that the image was sharp and skin tones were fine if a bit warm in tone. There was some fine grain throughout which was intended I imagine. I did notice some loss of detail in the very dark scenes, but the brighter daylight scenes showed very vibrant colors and real fine detail. I don’t think I’ve ever seen such eye catching blues and reds as I saw in the scene with the trucks at the disposal site. One thing I did notice was that I did have to turn my picture (contrast) setting down more than usual to prevent eye strain, but once I got all my settings to my liking I liked what I saw. I’d have to give the PQ a score of 85 out of 100. Very nice. Oh BTW, for anyone concerned with the amount of blood and violence, you’d see more on a CSI or Soprano episode, but be warned when it does come, it comes suddenly so be on your toes because it does send out a shock to your nervous system.



Thanks for the warning







I do appreciate it. I have a panny TH-58PZ800u. I've done my adjustments on it with DVE HD Basics and watch in the THX mode. Have you ever tried using DVE? Maybe it would help you not have to adjust the tv to the movie. I wish I could get it pro calibrated, but I live too far in the arctic to get someone to come up here and do it, without it costing... well... the same thing I paid for my TV!


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17653055
> 
> 
> BTW, Hugh, Star Trek is 95% at Rotten Tomatoes!



I think every one of those 5% are here at various places on this forum complaining about it!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/17657891
> 
> 
> I think every one of those 5% are here at various places on this forum complaining about it!



Too true!


----------



## lgans316

*Transformers - Revenge of the Fallen (Walmart Edition)*


IMAX scenes - Cream of the crop. Should have looked awesome on PJ screens. However, I am disappointed that the IMAX scenes hardly run for 4-5 minutes. Wish every movie was shot in IMAX.










Non-IMAX scenes - First half was a mixed big with plenty of soft scenes. The ones in Egypt looked amazing.


Movie value: Tier-4:

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.75*


----------



## 42041

*Wizard of Oz*

It's been covered in detail by other people and I don't have anything new to say so I'll just keep it brief. This is a great looking disc of a 70 year old film. As such, there are many issues inherent in the source that will ensure it will never rank high in this thread, but it's probably the best of Warner's recent restoration efforts. Colors are rich, detail (considering the source) is great. DNR is absent to my eyes, and the grain is mostly unobtrusive. Compression is a cut above some of their other discs though still spotty in places. Overall I'm very happy with this disc.

*Tier 2.75*


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/17660156
> 
> *Transformers - Revenge of the Fallen (Walmart Edition)*
> 
> 
> IMAX scenes - Cream of the crop. Should have looked awesome on PJ screens. However, I am disappointed that the IMAX scenes hardly run for 4-5 minutes. Wish every movie was shot in IMAX.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Non-IMAX scenes - First half was a mixed big with plenty of soft scenes.* The ones in Egypt looked amazing.
> 
> 
> Movie value: Tier-4:
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.75*



Your evaluation is close to mine. I recommended Tier 2.0 at a time when I had not yet seen the Walmart version.


----------



## daPriceIs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17654048
> 
> 
> Watched the first few episodes of _Rome_. I really like the color saturation in daylight scenes. When the lighting is right, facial details are impressive. So far, the biggest weakness I see are from the darker scenes. They were flat and devoid of any reasonable dimensionality.
> 
> *Still, looking forward to owning this series eventually once prices come down.* High Silver to Low Gold for me, from what I've seen so far.


*Off topic, but just to let you and others know that Amazon has the Rome boxed set as its Gold Box deal of the day.* You can get it for about 29% less than I paid for it. I think that the set is well worth owning if you like the series. This is obviously a more palatable price point.


So far I've watched all of season 1 and five episodes of season 2, that's 17 of the 22. My take is pretty much in line with yours in that I initially thought that low Gold was within Rome's reach. Now Tier 2.25 or 2.5 seems more accurate. As you've stated the strengths of the series are its daylight exterior shots and well-lit facial close-ups, both of which easily reach a high Gold PQ level. But _Rome_ is brought low by its many night scenes and darkly lit interior shots which all exhibit crushing and many of which show elevated grain (or noise, perhaps). There is one shot in episode five in a dark temple of Mars where Lucius Vorenus is undergoing a ritual/vigil raising him to some special rank in which the grain is extraordinarily heavy; it's almost like a brief grain storm.







This scene is exceptional, very very few others are as problematic.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Lies And Illusions


recommendation: Tier 4.0
*

Anchor Bay Entertainment brought this direct-to-video “thriller” out on September 29, 2009. Most will not be thrilled by the plot, which never goes beyond the standard elements seen in made-for-television fare. The 92-minute film is encoded in VC-1 on a BD-25. The picture quality is not impressive for a recent movie and makes me wonder how it was picked for a Blu-ray release when there are more deserving selections.


The low-bitrate video encode, rarely exceeding 25 Mbps in peak moments, produces spots of banding and generally poor detail in dimly-lit scenes. A few establishing shots look okay in the daylight, but interior passages are hard to differentiate from upscaled standard-definition. Colors look odd and processed at times, leaving the palette appearing washed out. Black levels are poor with a commensurate loss of resolution in darker scenes.


The BD is only worth a look for Christian Slater devotees.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *garyc8710* /forum/post/17670690
> 
> 
> Price talk is way off topic here to the point of ridiculous.
> 
> For close to a century , people have gone to the movies. I don't think anybody in those 100 years went to the theater manager and asked to buy a copy of the film and to buy the projector and screen. WHY? Because they just saw the movie! If you want to discuss buying movies here at the PQ thread, fine , just enough with where to get the best price. If you buy them, that tells me , money is not a factor so why discuss it. I never hear Jay Leno talk about where to get the best price on his 13th Duesenberg. That would be nuts. He has 100s of cars, not because he needs them but because he wants to , pure and simple. Good for him, He's done real good and can afford his obsession. . You buy movies not because you need to, but because you want to and you can. Good for you. You've done good and can afford your hobby or obsession or whatever you want to call it. , I don't care. . Does it make sense to buy 100s of cars and on a much smaller scale , 100s of movies, of course not, but people do. But to talk about the price is dumb, and it I seen or hear something dumb, I speak my mind.That's what I'm doing.To me, and most people today, money is an issue. You want to talk the best deal on Rome or any other flick, it's simple. Netflix. I get an average of 12 BDs a month, for 18 bucks. Do the math. And you know what, I watch them and return them,I don't keep them, why???, BECAUSE I JUST WATCHED IT. And the next week there's a bunch more new movies to watch and on and on and on. Maybe in 5 years , there might be one movie out of 200 that I want to see again. So I'll rent it again. Most likey in a whole different format with the way things change at the speed of light so the Blu-Ray I bought 5 years ago is useless. OK , I said my peace.I'll just come here or to dvdbeaver, or to highdefdihgest to get a reading on PQ quality and that's that.
> 
> On last thing, *I can see one reason for buying movies , that is if you have kids. Kids are the only creatures I know than can watch the same flick 15 times til they know it by heart and then watch it again.* But a lot of this where to get the best price talk on this PQ thread, they ain't kid movies.'Rome? Not for kids to memorize the dialogue for sure.



Well I always thought I was still a kid, but you confirmed it.







Anytime Terminator, Minority Report, Mission Impossible, Lethal Weapons and many other movies that are constantly repeated on the HD channels, I watch them. I even get stuck on watching some that I have on BD, when the BD is better PQ/AQ. I know weird.

















Oh to be 10 again.


----------



## RBFC

Most of us have certain favorite titles that we will watch many times and enjoy it every time. Those films, and the films for the kids, are the ones that I tend to buy on BD for the collection.


Lee


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17671000
> 
> 
> Well I always thought I was still a kid, but you confirmed it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anytime Terminator, Minority Report, Mission Impossible, Lethal Weapons and many other movies that are constantly repeated on the HD channels, I watch them. *I even get stuck on watching some that I have on BD, when the BD is better PQ/AQ. I know weird.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh to be 10 again.













Hugh, some times you are just too funny! And what made me laugh more than anything was the fact that I could have written those very same (highlighted) words!


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17671204
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hugh, some times you are just too funny! And what made me laugh more than anything was the fact that I could have written those very same (highlighted) words!



I oftentimes catch my wife watching something on tv that we own. She would rather just sit and watch the commercials I guess. Anyways, the justification for owning movies has been beaten to death on AVS, so I won't get into that here. Suffice it to say, people collect what they want to, and some just borrow it. Who cares? And I'm not trying to defend anyone are start anything, but while he did mention the amazon deal, the vast majority of his post was discussion on pq of the series in question...so I'm not real sure what the need was for the response given.










Moving along...

Terminator Salvation


I have to start out like the others in mentioning my enjoyment of this movie as it relates to the series. Really not a bad effort for number 4, although I would have liked a bit more closure towards the end. Christian Bale was decent, but maybe someone else could have filled the role a little better. I saw this in theaters, although at the time I was not very impressed either visually or by the soundtrack. I attribute this mostly to the fact that it was at a budget theater (which is now out of business) because it was cheap, the movie was getting pounded in the reviews, and I didn't have a lot of faith in it. I liked it much better the second time around, and that says a lot about the BD presentation here.


I'll get it out of the way now: the audio was spectacular. This is how every action movie should be: great pans across the soundstage, tremendous LFE when necessary, and an otherwise incredibly dynamic wave of audio bliss. I'm sure the neighbors weren't too thrilled about me having this one turned up to a good volume










In any event, on to the shortcomings of the disc...that is, the picture. There was a lot to like about this movie. Facial details in the closeups were some of the best I've ever seen. It looked like I could reach out and shave the whiskers off of Christian Bale and Sam Worthington...especially the scene on the operating table. Wow! The scenery in this film was pretty excellent throughout, and the muted, almost sepia color tone helped to exaggerate the feeling of the harsh desert landscape. It reminded me of the road warrior in a lot of ways. This led to some very solid color reproduction when necessary, which contrasted nicely against the muted brown/tan colors that made up so much of the film. The brilliant whites as Marcus entered the skynet control room was awesome too! There was also a very fine layer of grain evident throughout most of the movie. It was more pronounced in the desert scenes, and IMO was only due to the lighting or the brightness of the picture itself. Indoor shots didn't seem to expose as much.


In fact, some dark/indoor shots didn't expose much of anything! There were more than a few times when I noticed a good bit of black crush and loss of shadow detail. I almost thought something was wrong with my tv's gamma at first, but after checking out my settings, it was the film. I can't recall if it was like that in the theater or not, but it definitely showed up on the blu-ray. I really think it hurts the overall rating because it happened somewhat frequently throughout the film, and was at times pretty distracting. The black/shadow detail just had a very washed out look to it. I did notice a very slight bit of some edge issues a couple times, but I think it had more to do with green screen as opposed to any digital alterations (even though I suppose green screen is itself a digital alteration, in a different way). Aside from this, there wasn't much in terms of a problem...but this was common enough and distracting enough for me to lower my score.

Tier Recommendation: 1.75


Viewed on a Panasonic TC-P54G10, played via PS3 at 1080p/24


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Erm. I think DaPriceIs only mentioned it because when a few of us were asking if anyone had seen it yet we expressed we might pick it up when the price drops. *shrug*

*Hugh & Denny,* my husband does that, drives me nuts. It's like 10 feet away to go and grab the disc!!










*Phantom Stranger* -- Did you ever do a PQ review for Watchmen: Complete Motion Comic? I did a search but came up empty. I watched it late last week, it was definitely interesting since I haven't read the graphic novel for it.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17671393
> 
> *Phantom Stranger* -- Did you ever do a PQ review for Watchmen: Complete Motion Comic? I did a search but came up empty. I watched it late last week, it was definitely interesting since I haven't read the graphic novel for it.



I was intending to at one point, but it slipped my mind.







My initial thoughts were that the weird structure of the animation probably limits how high of a placement that disc could obtain. The motion comic process is a little crude in relation to other animated movies. A ballpark figure of low tier one or tier two sounds right, but I will peruse the BD again in the next few days and give a real accounting of it. Thanks for reminding me.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17672952
> 
> 
> I was intending to at one point, but it slipped my mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My initial thoughts were that the weird structure of the animation probably limits how high of a placement that disc could obtain. The motion comic process is a little crude in relation to other animated movies. A ballpark figure of low tier one or tier two sounds right, but I will peruse the BD again in the next few days and give a real accounting of it. Thanks for reminding me.



Yeah I thought it looked strange, but I think it was supposed to look that way. Given I watched it over 2 days (5.5hrs long) and I know I wasn't paying 100% attention to it I did not write a review for it (and frankly on that one I'm unsure how to start!!). It seemed very crisp and clear, just... different.







I think Tier 2.0 would probably be good for it, but would not object if you think it does deserve 1.75.


I did really enjoy it though. I'm still deciding if I should get the Black Freighter one in or if I should just bite the bullet and get the Ultimate Cut of the movie (where I *believe* that is woven into the story?) since I don't own Watchmen on Blu yet, but I am planning on getting it because I did like it (either Directors Cut or Ultimate Cut).


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17671393
> 
> *Hugh & Denny,* my husband does that, drives me nuts. *It's like 10 feet away to go and grab the disc!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *



What they need to do (for us guys) is make a remote that will put our Blu-rays in for us!


----------



## Neo_Reloaded




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *garyc8710* /forum/post/17673445
> 
> 
> Well let's see for those of us living in the real world, which in these days I would say is 99.99% of Americans,it goes like this . Today I got 3 BDs from netflix, they sent me an extra one because my local center didn't have it, they do that a lot.
> 
> Amazon prices:
> 
> The Proposal(29.99)
> 
> Away We Go(25.99)
> 
> Spread (17.49)
> 
> Total cost to buy $73.47
> 
> Then I should have seen 2 of them by Wed, return them and get the next 2 in my queue by thursday,they are
> 
> Julie and Julia (25.99)
> 
> Public Enemies (19.99)
> 
> Amazon cost $45.98
> 
> Total cost for one week to buy = $119.45
> 
> Total cost to me to rent 18.01 x 7/31 = $4.07. (Repeat next week) etc. etc.etc.
> 
> Savings for the week is $115.38 , rental vs. purchase.Plus , by the way, I also have cable with HD package, netflix streaming, internet access, plus a job. My hours in a week
> 
> = 24*7 =168. How about you? Plus according to a quick Google search, there were 750 movies released in the U.S. this year ,that's just the U.S.
> 
> 
> Now for everybody I know and most Americans , this is real money that can be spent on
> 
> things you don't have the option of renting , such as food, utilities and rent.
> 
> Sure there are some exclusive on line groups that consist of wealthy cliques, but on this
> 
> web site, really? I don't know.
> 
> Now you can tell by my posts, I really like to pontificate when I read or hear something that irritates me and making enemies is not a real concern to me.
> 
> 
> So to repeat, Your buying movies is none of my business, but if I wander over here, it says it's the PQ thread for Blu Ray, I don't appreciate seeing price talk.It's crazy nuts.



What's more annoying to the majority of people? The one quick note about the Rome sale that was part of an otherwise PQ-oriented post? Or your two rambling ones that had zero to do with the normal discussion here?


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *garyc8710* /forum/post/17673445
> 
> 
> Well let's see for those of us living in the real world, which in these days I would say is 99.99% of Americans,it goes like this . Today I got 3 BDs from netflix, they sent me an extra one because my local center didn't have it, they do that a lot.
> 
> Amazon prices:
> 
> The Proposal(29.99)
> 
> Away We Go(25.99)
> 
> Spread (17.49)
> 
> Total cost to buy $73.47
> 
> Then I should have seen 2 of them by Wed, return them and get the next 2 in my queue by thursday,they are
> 
> Julie and Julia (25.99)
> 
> Public Enemies (19.99)
> 
> Amazon cost $45.98
> 
> Total cost for one week to buy = $119.45
> 
> Total cost to me to rent 18.01 x 7/31 = $4.07. (Repeat next week) etc. etc.etc.
> 
> Savings for the week is $115.38 , rental vs. purchase.Plus , by the way, I also have cable with HD package, netflix streaming, internet access, plus a job. My hours in a week
> 
> = 24*7 =168. How about you? Plus according to a quick Google search, there were 750 movies released in the U.S. this year ,that's just the U.S.
> 
> 
> Now for everybody I know and most Americans , this is real money that can be spent on
> 
> things you don't have the option of renting , such as food, utilities and rent.
> 
> Sure there are some exclusive on line groups that consist of wealthy cliques, but on this
> 
> web site, really? I don't know.
> 
> Now you can tell by my posts, I really like to pontificate when I read or hear something that irritates me and making enemies is not a real concern to me.
> 
> 
> So to repeat, Your buying movies is none of my business, but if I wander over here, it says it's the PQ thread for Blu Ray, I don't appreciate seeing price talk.It's crazy nuts.



So? You are assuming we all purchase everything we review, which is not the case. Probably all of us have a netflix or rental service of some kind. And Neo, way to hit the nail on the head.


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17673448
> 
> 
> What they need to do (for us guys) is make a remote that will put our Blu-rays in for us!



Sony has released that huge Blu-Ray carousel disc changer...but then we would have to press a button on the remote to change inputs, turn on the BD changer, find which disc we wanted...it's just easier to watch it on tv.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/17674116
> 
> 
> sony has released that huge blu-ray carousel disc changer...but then we would have to press a button on the remote to change inputs, turn on the bd changer, find which disc we wanted...it's just easier to watch it on tv. :d



lol!


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17673448
> 
> 
> What they need to do (for us guys) is make a remote that will put our Blu-rays in for us!




LOL...I am not alone, yea!!.


I don't even know if it is a lazy thing or just habit...ah I am justifying it. It is a lazy habit.







tied into our "neanderthal cave dwelling" genes.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17671393
> 
> 
> Erm. I think DaPriceIs only mentioned it because when a few of us were asking if anyone had seen it yet we expressed we might pick it up when the price drops. *shrug*
> 
> *Hugh & Denny, my husband does that, drives me nuts. It's like 10 feet away to go and grab the disc!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> *Phantom Stranger* -- Did you ever do a PQ review for Watchmen: Complete Motion Comic? I did a search but came up empty. I watched it late last week, it was definitely interesting since I haven't read the graphic novel for it.




That is because he is waiting for you to get up and do it for him,







It is just that in our politically correct world, we can't say things that still make us like cave men. We have to act the part of civilized or hubby don't get no honey. Just a thought.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17677200
> 
> 
> That is because he is waiting for you to get up and do it for him,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is just that in our politically correct world, we can't say things that still make us like cave men. We have to act the part of civilized or hubby don't get no honey. Just a thought.



If that is the passive aggressive way to try and get me to do something like that..... it's totally missing the mark. I'll usually take off and leave him with the kids if he's gonna be that lazy. hahaha.



I'm hoping the store has *Public Enemies* tomorrow. Yes, I have zip.ca... but I do like to own some discs too. Especially if they involve Johnny Depp & Christian Bale in suits lookin' snazzy. _Responsible American?_ Nope, not me. Irresponsible Canadian! Bwahaha!







It doesn't count anyway, since I'll be paying with monopoly money and all.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17677524
> 
> 
> I'm hoping the store has *Public Enemies* tomorrow.



I have a copy of _Public Enemies_ reserved me at the local video store where I have an *insider* who actually puts them aside for me on Monday night. I should be watching it tomorrow night...can't wait! Reviews have been mixed (on PQ and the movie itself), but I'm anticipating decent PQ and a decent movie.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17677640
> 
> 
> I have a copy of _Public Enemies_ reserved me at the local video store where I have an *insider* who actually puts them aside for me on Monday night. I should be watching it tomorrow night...can't wait! Reviews have been mixed (on PQ and the movie itself), but I'm anticipating decent PQ and a decent movie.



I saw it in the theatre, and it was okay. The theatre experience itself annoyed me, though, but I remember noting that I could see like, every single crevice in Johnny Depp's face even at my terrible theatre, so I am curious to compare the experience.


----------



## deltasun

*Gomorrah*


Fine grain present throughout, more evident in some darker areas. When everything came together, this title produced Tier Blu calibre scenes. But as such, everything didn't come together all of the time...not even most of the time, unfortunately.


First off, contrast was way high. A majority of the scenes employed a super bright light source in the background along with darker, foreground elements to produce an overheightened presentation - obviously director intended. Colors were also over-saturated, which augments the overbaked feel another notch. Still, primaries appeared vibrant and welcoming in a number of scenes.


Facial details were usually top-tier as well, except when silhouetted in a high-contrast scene. Medium scenes, indoors and out, were also inconsistent and depended on lighting. For the most part, far too many problematic scenes existed. Shadow details were usually absent in this schema as well. I counted about 3 or 4 outdoor panoramic shots - these were very detailed and showed great depth, dimensionality. Skin tones were mostly faithful.


Overall, there were some beautiful HD moments. Due to the extreme variances, I must do an objective average. I should note that DNR was absent, but some minor ringing did exist - nothing that detracted from the experience.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## maestro50

Hi all,


Long-time lurker, first post.

I watched "It's a Wonderful Life" tonight.

There is a fairly long thread on the film elsewhere in the "Blu-ray software" area, but I don't see any discussion about it here. I have an opinion, based on comparison to other films I have seen from similar vintage that have been ranked, but I am reluctant to be the first to weigh in.


Since I am "putting my toe in the water" I will ask one more question:


Most of the time, my personal conclusions are much the same as the general consensus that is reached about the rankings. I follow all the discussions, see the "final" placements, and think, "yep, that's about right." My question is--would it be helpful to those that are ranking the blu-rays to have another vote of agreement? Or is it only useful to you if someone brings something new to the discussion? If coming in to say "Yes, I agree completely with that ranking" is a waste of bandwidth, then I will be perfectly happy to stay here and continue nodding silently to my monitor!


----------



## deltasun

Opinions are always welcome, especially when there's a wide gap in tier recommendation for a particular title. Another vote/analysis can help sway final placement. I personally don't believe it's a waste of bandwidth...well, unless you're here to criticize our buying habits.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maestro50* /forum/post/17678047
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> 
> Long-time lurker, first post.
> 
> I watched "It's a Wonderful Life" tonight.
> 
> There is a fairly long thread on the film elsewhere in the "Blu-ray software" area, but I don't see any discussion about it here. I have an opinion, based on comparison to other films I have seen from similar vintage that have been ranked, but I am reluctant to be the first to weigh in.
> 
> 
> Since I am "putting my toe in the water" I will ask one more question:
> 
> 
> Most of the time, my personal conclusions are much the same as the general consensus that is reached about the rankings. I follow all the discussions, see the "final" placements, and think, "yep, that's about right." My question is--would it be helpful to those that are ranking the blu-rays to have another vote of agreement? Or is it only useful to you if someone brings something new to the discussion? If coming in to say "Yes, I agree completely with that ranking" is a waste of bandwidth, then I will be perfectly happy to stay here and continue nodding silently to my monitor!





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17678065
> 
> 
> Opinions are always welcome, especially when there's a wide gap in tier recommendation for a particular title. Another vote/analysis can help sway final placement. I personally don't believe it's a waste of bandwidth...well, unless you're here to criticize our buying habits.



+1 deltasun!


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17677524
> 
> 
> If that is the passive aggressive way to try and get me to do something like that..... it's totally missing the mark. I'll usually take off and leave him with the kids if he's gonna be that lazy. hahaha.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm hoping the store has *Public Enemies* tomorrow. Yes, I have zip.ca... but I do like to own some discs too. Especially if they involve Johnny Depp & Christian Bale in suits lookin' snazzy. _Responsible American?_ Nope, not me. Irresponsible Canadian! Bwahaha!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't count anyway, since I'll be paying with monopoly money and all.



GGG, My apologies, I was wrong. I meant to be humorous and typed that before I left for my hockey game. Having come home and read it and your response, I see how chauvinistic and sexist it is.


----------



## jedimasterchad

I have Public Enemies coming from Netflix today also...looks like at least 3 reviews will be up tonight! I will be buying Harry Potter 6 as well for the wifey, so depending on which one she wants to watch first (hmmm...) I'll get on here tonight and let the review fly.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17678401
> 
> 
> GGG, My apologies, I was wrong. I meant to be humorous and typed that before I left for my hockey game. Having come home and read it and your response, I see how chauvinistic and sexist it is.




It's all good, Hugh! It made me laugh, I read it aloud to my husband as well. Hardly the worst thing I've encountered here!










*Maestro50* - I should have elaborated a bit rather than just agreeing with Deltasun; I think that even if you agree with what others have posted it's never a waste of bandwidth IMO to chime in, the more the merrier and helps the final placement be a bit more solidified. Do your best to follow the format recommended for reviews and that'll ensure your thoughts aren't missed (listing equipment, bold/font size changing rec's etc). Jump on in and join us!


I know personally I won't be seeing "It's A Wonderful Life" on Blu, but some others may chime in with their thoughts (I have it on DVD and honestly it's not one of my favourites for a double dip). Sometimes all it takes is a review to get posted to start a chain of getting others interested and watching the same thing.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/17674313
> 
> *Star Trek (2009) - Tier 2
> 
> 
> X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009) - Tier 1.75*




Hey lgans, I know you don't always have time for reviews, but I'm curious as to your thoughts about dropping Star Trek 2009 out of Tier 1 and down to Tier 2 since so far (besides Denny for a little bit) it's the only one knocking it down to Silver. The reason I kept your rec for Wolverine up there is b/c it was a similar vein I asked Denny about; Wolverine is stronger than Star Trek to you?



I hope this is coming across in the manner I mean - which is simply curiosity & discussion and not cranky & adversarial or anything; I haven't had any coffee yet so my manners may not be at their best.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maestro50* /forum/post/17678047
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> 
> Long-time lurker, first post.
> 
> I watched "It's a Wonderful Life" tonight.
> 
> There is a fairly long thread on the film elsewhere in the "Blu-ray software" area, but I don't see any discussion about it here. I have an opinion, based on comparison to other films I have seen from similar vintage that have been ranked, but I am reluctant to be the first to weigh in.
> 
> 
> Since I am "putting my toe in the water" I will ask one more question:
> 
> 
> Most of the time, my personal conclusions are much the same as the general consensus that is reached about the rankings. I follow all the discussions, see the "final" placements, and think, "yep, that's about right." My question is--would it be helpful to those that are ranking the blu-rays to have another vote of agreement? Or is it only useful to you if someone brings something new to the discussion? If coming in to say "Yes, I agree completely with that ranking" is a waste of bandwidth, then I will be perfectly happy to stay here and continue nodding silently to my monitor!



We would LOVE to have you chime in whenever you want. There are others who have posted with a simple assent to a certain view and I for one am always encouraged by that. Feel free to also write in when you _disagree_, for as deltasun said, "All opinions are welcome."


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maestro50* /forum/post/17678047
> 
> 
> Most of the time, my personal conclusions are much the same as the general consensus that is reached about the rankings. I follow all the discussions, see the "final" placements, and think, "yep, that's about right." My question is--would it be helpful to those that are ranking the blu-rays to have another vote of agreement? Or is it only useful to you if someone brings something new to the discussion? If coming in to say "Yes, I agree completely with that ranking" is a waste of bandwidth, then I will be perfectly happy to stay here and continue nodding silently to my monitor!



Welcome to the thread. The marginal costs of bandwidth usage are nearly free, so post what you feel is important. Opinions that only reinforce the consensus are welcome, just as much as contrarian viewpoints. Consider it training for the more contumelious exchanges that occasionally occur. Some have accused this thread of being too insular, but well-reasoned arguments and analysis always carry the day in the end.


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /forum/post/17679673
> 
> 
> Consider it training for the more *contumelious* exchanges that occasionally occur.



I admit I had to consult a dictionary for this one - "insolently abusive and humiliating" indeed.


----------



## stwrt




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/17679905
> 
> 
> I admit I had to consult a dictionary for this one - "insolently abusive and humiliating" indeed.



A good Shakespearian word, used in Hamlet: "The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely


----------



## deltasun

I think that hits my quota of the day for learning something!










I mistimed my NF for the new blu's this week so I'll be interested in seeing reviews come up for _Harry Potter_ and _Public Enemies_. I never had much interest for _Public Enemies_ when I first saw the preview months back, but reading about the anticipation in the other thread has certainly whet my appetite.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17680348
> 
> 
> I never had much interest for _Public Enemies_ when I first saw the preview months back, but reading about the anticipation *in the other thread* has certainly whet my appetite.



Which thread are you referring to? I ask this because the actual _Public Enemies Thread_ has a growing list of naysayers, with many negative comments on both the PQ and the movie itself.


The reviews that I referred to in an earlier post were those of *professional* reviews from Cinema Squid's thread, Rotten Tomatoes, et al. In these we have a real "mixed bag" with some lauding the film and its PQ, others condemning it, and then a handful of reviews somewhere in the middle.


I'm picking up my copy within the hour, but I won't be watching it until after supper tonight.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl









Store didn't have Public Enemies this morning. They were too busy working on the Harry Potter display (which I've vowed not to purchase and should be here this week from zip). Although I'm impressed (sort of), they seemed to have about 50 copies of HP on Blu. Considering on release of Star Trek 2009 they only had about 5 or 6 copies, that's an improvement. I may check back later on if they have it in, since I really did want to watch it today but grr!!


----------



## Nowucmenowudont




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17680491
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Store didn't have Public Enemies this morning. They were too busy working on the Harry Potter display (which I've vowed not to purchase and should be here this week from zip). Although I'm impressed (sort of), they seemed to have about 50 copies of HP on Blu. Considering on release of Star Trek 2009 they only had about 5 or 6 copies, that's an improvement. I may check back later on if they have it in, since I really did want to watch it today but grr!!



Reminds me of a recent experience I had.


I went to a store (Fry's) on the day that North by Northwest (BD) was released. I couldn't find any copies and asked a staff member. He couldn't find any and looked in the computer...they were sold out. I asked him if he could tell how many copies the store had at the beginning of the day to start with. They had two. I was not happy. I had driven there during rush hour traffic after a long day of work to pick up a classic catalog release on blu-ray and they had only managed to have two copies on release day.


I was able to order and receive a copy from Amazon before Fry's ever got another copy in.


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17680491
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Store didn't have Public Enemies this morning. They were too busy working on the Harry Potter display (which I've vowed not to purchase and should be here this week from zip). Although I'm impressed (sort of), they seemed to have about 50 copies of HP on Blu. Considering on release of Star Trek 2009 they only had about 5 or 6 copies, that's an improvement. I may check back later on if they have it in, since I really did want to watch it today but grr!!



We had 2 full shippers of Harry Potter as early as Wednesday at Best Buy. Sometimes these movies come in the day before release, sometimes we have them a week or two ahead. BB always usually seems to have enough though...Wal-mart had plenty today also.


----------



## Nowucmenowudont




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/17682032
> 
> 
> We had 2 full shippers of Harry Potter as early as Wednesday at Best Buy. Sometimes these movies come in the day before release, sometimes we have them a week or two ahead. BB always usually seems to have enough though...Wal-mart had plenty today also.



You're a BB employee? How often do employees snag copies of BD's before the release date? (authorized to do so or not)


----------



## jedimasterchad

I'm only seasonal part time right now, so i usually only work about 15-20 hours a week. I'm in inventory though, so I spend a majority of my day in the wherehouse, and from what I see the shippers remain sealed until the night before they are due to be on the floor. So, as far as I can tell there is no breaking the street date...and they seem pretty serious about keeping it that way. But then again like I said, I'm only there so much, so it's hard to say for sure.


On a side note, the discount is great and my wife is letting me upgrade some home theater components during the holidays while I'm working there


----------



## Hughmc

My local Hollywood only has two copies of Public Enemies and both are out by employees before the store even opened today. If I didn't know or get along with the employees who hold titles for me,







I would have called corporate. Kind of BS.










I am going to get Potter in a few and they might have PE back in.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*The Ugly Truth*



Gah. This movie makes me want to rant. Not because of the content -- I actually found this a lot funnier than I expected to; content-wise I think the only objection I had throughout the entire thing was the term "man-whore" which is really just an issue of language-use that annoys me more than anything.



The reason this film makes me want to rant is, OMFG, is this really the way studios think that women want to see these films on Blu Ray? This picture quality is CRAP. WHY IS IT CRAP?! It doesn't need to be crap, but for some reason b/c this is a pseudo-chick-flick, it has to be softened to all hell.



Maybe non-geeky-glasses-wearing-girls like this softness, but I certainly don't. It actually has me really irate right now to think that this is catered to my supposed demographic and what I get is this picture quality that would be the same as if I watched *Youth Without Youth* or *Live Free or Die Hard* if I coated my glasses in a vat of vaseline. At least *Becoming Jane* got it right, which would be the highest ranked "chick-flick" that the list has.



It's obviously not the worst PQ I've ever seen but it's definitely one that has made me mad.







New releases should not look this ugly, even if the word 'ugly' is in the title. Besides the softness, skin tones go nuts at times. Besides that I guess colours were okay but nothing great. There's just no excuse for how this looks; maybe it was this soft in the theatre too, I don't know, but the PQ on this film was a real disappointment. Devoid of detail, pop, textures, everything. COMPLETELY FLAT.


*Recommendation for The Ugly Truth: Tier 2.75 (or even 3.00).*
*Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800u THX setting, approx 7.5'.*


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Sorry, Deltasun, I totally didn't see what you saw in your review for The Ugly Truth (seeing it now that I've written my own). I've seen more detail on Katherine Heigl on my choked satellite HD feed of Grey's Anatomy than in this film, and Gerry Butler has one of those faces that is filled with detail and while yes, I could see individual facial hairs on him, even in the hard-for-me-to-watch RocknRolla he had a lot more depth and texture.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/17682032
> 
> 
> We had 2 full shippers of Harry Potter as early as Wednesday at Best Buy. Sometimes these movies come in the day before release, sometimes we have them a week or two ahead. BB always usually seems to have enough though...Wal-mart had plenty today also.



They usually have a lot of things in really early up here and hold them in the back. Pretty soon the ferry is going to go out on the Mackenzie River and we'll have no connection to the outside world except by air until the iceroad is up and running again, and that'll be for about 5-6 weeks usually. I think they just hadn't dug it out of the boxes yet, I'm hoping they have it tomorrow. I did give them a call a few hours later and they didn't have it yet; chances are high they are sitting in a box right near the guy's foot and he simply didn't want to look yet.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17683618
> 
> *The Ugly Truth*
> 
> 
> 
> Gah. This movie makes me want to rant. Not because of the content -- I actually found this a lot funnier than I expected to; content-wise I think the only objection I had throughout the entire thing was the term "man-whore" which is really just an issue of language-use that annoys me more than anything.
> 
> 
> 
> The reason this film makes me want to rant is, OMFG, is this really the way studios think that women want to see these films on Blu Ray? This picture quality is CRAP. WHY IS IT CRAP?! It doesn't need to be crap, but for some reason b/c this is a pseudo-chick-flick, it has to be softened to all hell.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe non-geeky-glasses-wearing-girls like this softness, but I certainly don't. It actually has me really irate right now to think that this is catered to my supposed demographic and what I get is this picture quality that would be the same as if I watched *Youth Without Youth* or *Live Free or Die Hard* if I coated my glasses in a vat of vaseline. At least *Becoming Jane* got it right, which would be the highest ranked "chick-flick" that the list has.
> 
> 
> 
> It's obviously not the worst PQ I've ever seen but it's definitely one that has made me mad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New releases should not look this ugly, even if the word 'ugly' is in the title. Besides the softness, skin tones go nuts at times. Besides that I guess colours were okay but nothing great. There's just no excuse for how this looks; maybe it was this soft in the theatre too, I don't know, but the PQ on this film was a real disappointment. Devoid of detail, pop, textures, everything. COMPLETELY FLAT.
> 
> 
> *Recommendation for The Ugly Truth: Tier 2.75 (or even 3.00).*
> *Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800u THX setting, approx 7.5'.*




I enjoyed this movie as well and thought it had some funny moments and seemed to be a "bro" flic as much as a chic flick. Butler is a natural. And yeah man whore bothers me too.


Good review GGG, from the several I have seen from others I think you are all on the same page. I just checked again, and maybe not.!! I thought it was about a 2.25.


I watched FOur Xmases and it seemed that the facial closeups of some, particularly the men were more detailed than the women,







especially scenes when they would go back and forth between Witherspoon and Vaughn, like in their SUV. It could be her skin is more pale so the camera doesn't pick up details as well like it does with men's darker skin and stubble, etc. It just seems like they used a filter on Reese and none on Vaughn.







Then again I could be just imagining it. It had a lot of good laughs.


----------



## deltasun

*What Just Happened*


This title was all over the place PQ-wise. I think I'm asking the same question - _what just happened?!?_ Or actually - what kept happening?!? Grain was heavy in several places and really took over those scenes. Blacks were very inconsistent, ranging from darkish charcoal gray to bold to crushed. Facial details were the same - they would be soft (most scenes in De Niro's house) to tack sharp (during the funeral scene).


There was a general softness that permeated a number of scenes, specially when grain layer was thick. There really was lack of HD-ness to this film - medium shots were average. Contrast wavered. Skin tones were faithful for the most part. Colors can be well-presented, but was limited to a few scenes.


All in all, this was an average presentation at best. It's as if the director was undecided. Personal opinion, of course.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## maestro50

*It's a Wonderful Life*


This is a lovely example of a classic film and what beautiful black and white cinematography can yield on blu-ray. Several important scenes take place at Christmas time and I thought a review might be useful to those who might be interested in watching it as a holiday movie or in giving it as a Christmas gift.


I've watched this 1946 movie dozens of times my whole life, but honestly never really saw it until last night. In fact, both my wife and I feel certain we had never before watched the movie from start to finish in one sitting. It was a great pleasure to see it on a large screen, without commercials, and to appreciate it as a movie and not as a TV special.


Part of the fun of this hobby is getting to re-experience films at home that we enjoyed in the theater, but for me, this was a chance to see on the "big screen" a movie that played in theaters long before I was born.


Prior to watching last night, I would have sworn that most of the movie takes place after Jimmy Stewart's character, George Bailey, has an important encounter with Clarence the angel, but in fact, I was surprised to find that the lion's share of the film is devoted to George's life long before the crucial meeting on the bridge. We come to know him as a child, we ache for him as his hopes and dreams are repeatedly dashed, and we exult with him as he discovers the richness of the life he has made for himself and his community. Some might find it to be overly sentimental, but I am not among them.


As for my tier placement recommendation:


You should know that there is already a thread devoted to IAWL. Last I checked it was 5 pages long and was mostly consumed by an argument over the merits of B&W vs. Colorized films. If you would like to continue that argument, head on over there and jump in! I would hope that if others wish to weigh in on IAWL in this thread, we could avoid that topic. Yes, there is both a B&W and a colorized version in the blu-ray package. I only watched the B&W.


One review of the IAWL blu-ray that I read said that the release was "not astonishing, but was merely excellent." That sums it up pretty well.


I thought the transfer was terrific and I would easily recommend it to any one who wished to rent or buy, yet for the purposes of this thread, it seemed to lack that little extra "something" that the best demo-worthy Blu-rays posses. It was a little soft throughout, and was missing that amazing clarity, detail and depth that makes you mutter "wow!" as you are watching.


In looking at the tier rankings, I can't justify it keeping the company of anything in the top tiers.

Casablanca is currently in 2.25. This is not at that level IMHO.

The Godfather is at 3.0. Nope. So is the Wizard of Oz. No.

The Graduate is at 3.25. Now we're getting closer, but I still think that's a bit too high.

Ground Hog Day, and Butch Cassidy are at 3.5--Ah, there we go! I think both of these transfers are fantastic, and I enjoy them very much, but in absolute "demo" terms, I think they deserve to be at 3.5 and It's a Wonderful Life would fit there nicely.


One of the things I have learned after spending a long time here as a reader is that even thought the films in tier 3 have their "issues" to be sure, they are still well worth the upgrade. It's a Wonderful Life certainly is.


So...

*Tier Recommendation:

"It's a Wonderful Life"---3.5*

***

PS3 to Sony VW60 on a 100" Stewart Firehawk


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Thanks for the review, maestro50! Great way to jump on in!


----------



## djoberg

*Public Enemies*


This title started off promising, especially the first scene with Christian Bale in it with excellent detail, depth and color. The facial close-ups throughout the movie were also above average, ranging from mid Tier 0 to low Tier 1 (even medium shots of Johnny Depp featured phenomenal facial texture). And the blacks in several scenes were simply incredible (the 25:28 mark in a nightclub and the 31:00-31:40 scene in a room with switchboards were as deep and inky as I've seen, with breathtaking shadow details). The colors were also quite pleasing.


If the whole film had been this good, it could land in low Tier 0 or high Tier 1, but there were MANY scenes that featured TERRIBLE blacks with little or no shadow detail. Several of these looked like the camera was shooting through chicken wire or a screen; they were horrendous, even worse than many scenes in _28 Days Later_. Other scenes were VERY SOFT, lacking detail and depth. Add to this some shaky camera work in early scenes and this one is definitely not a contender for the top two "demo" tiers.


I'm tired, so I'm not going to continue. Let's just say that a placement recommendation is going to be hard with all the unbelievable inconsistency, so one has to try to "average things out." I'm going to be as easy as I can on this one (though some of the dreadful shots make this near impossible) and call it....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25 or 2.5*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'


PS The movie itself was okay, but nothing special. I found the character development to be very poor, and it was just too *fragmented* for my liking. I'm glad I didn't do a blind buy on this one.


----------



## John Mason

^^^Interesting mix of too-soft scenes. From the IMDB tech section for Public Enemies it looks like a wide mix of capture gear, including apparently at least one prosumer-type camera. Prosumer cameras, while often format-speced favorably (resolution-wise), seem to deliver poor effective resolution (resolvable details). -- John


----------



## lgans316

*Payback (Theatrical Cut - UK Import) - Tier 3


Payback (Director's Cut - UK Import) - Tier 2.5


Godzilla (1998) - Tier 2.75


Star Trek (2009) - Tier 2


X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009) - Tier 1.75


Transformers - Revenge of the Fallen (Walmart Edition) - Tier 1.75


Watchmen (Theatrical Cut - UK Import) - Tier 1.5


Bolt - Tier 1*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Mason* /forum/post/17686496
> 
> 
> ^^^Interesting mix of too-soft scenes. From the IMDB tech section for Public Enemies it looks like a wide mix of capture gear, including apparently at least one prosumer-type camera. Prosumer cameras, while often format-speced favorably (resolution-wise), seem to deliver poor effective resolution (resolvable details). -- John



I was aware that they kept switching between a HD Video cam and a 35mm camera . That accounts for _some_ of the inconsistency seen throughout the movie, but I can't imagine what caused several scenes which were so bad it looked like the typical footage from an old horror movie from the 50s or 60s. And what in the world caused a few dark scenes to look like they were shot through chicken wire or screen? That really baffles me.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

That sounds really strange, Denny. Ugh. Store still didn't have *Public Enemies* this morning either, although they had a SPOT for it with a price tag. I think I might just pass on buying it and rent it locally if I don't find it in the next couple of days. *Harry Potter* was supposed to arrive today from zip but it didn't, so I'm hoping for tomorrow on that one. Zip has shipped the first disc of *Rome* to me as well, I'm looking forward to that. I'll have to try and keep notes on that one for sure, who knows how long it'll take'em to send me all 10 discs in that set so I can write a proper review.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17688355
> 
> 
> I was aware that they kept switching between a HD Video cam and a 35mm camera . That accounts for _some_ of the inconsistency seen throughout the movie, but I can't imagine what caused several scenes which were so bad it looked like the typical footage from an old horror movie from the 50s or 60s. And what in the world caused a few dark scenes to look like they were shot through chicken wire or screen? That really baffles me.



It's weird. The best shots of the movie are the ending, with the interview. It was shot on film, the grain is apparent, detail outstanding, and depth is remarkable. It is easily Tier 0 live action material. The rest of the movie? not so much.


I'm not completely aware of the capabilities of the cameras used (and there were many), but nearly all the issues can be attributed to a digital source. I also saw the "chicken wire" effect, and didn't have a clue how to describe it. I think you said it the best.


Edit: Also, did anyone catch a dead pixel during the hotel scene? I nearly freaked out thinking it was my TV, but is disappeared in the next shot.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*Push*



I think this is the laziest review I've done yet, but:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17043351
> 
> *Push*
> 
> 
> Fine grain present throughout the film. _Push_ was a stylized action flick that made use of several video techniques ranging from added grain to saturated colors. Facial details were excellent - some instances straddling Tier 0. They were impressive even with some of the smooth-faced cast, which still exhibited texture and suppleness.
> 
> 
> Colors were a bit unnatural due to the techniques employed. They were a bit more saturated and at times, almost glowing. These did not prove too bothersome since they played along with the tone of the film. Depth and dimension were a delight to experience. Hong Kong cityscapes looked 3-dimensional during the day and at night.
> 
> 
> Black levels were bold, but usually clipped - again, probably more for effect. Contrast was a bit elevated at times, but did not detract too much. Skin tones really followed the settings closely. They took on the same shade as their environment and were consistent with the other attributes.
> 
> 
> Overall, a very good looking title. I did not detect any DNR but did spot lots of ringing. I think the ringing was again intentional. I have to administer some mandatory deductions for when the director pushed (no pun intended) the look of the film to make it look like home video during a few sequences. Add to this the scenes within the cabaret where facial details turned waxy, we get more deductions.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75*
> 
> 
> Despite all the bad press regarding the plot, I actually stayed with it and was mildly entertained. I do agree though that it's probably a forgetful movie once the credits roll.
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_




What he said. While I'm not always 100% on the page with deltasun as we all have our own opinions, when I looked at his review, all I could think was, "Yeah, that."



So um... Yeah, that (only on my equipment instead of his!).









*Recommendation for Push: Tier 1.75*
*Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800u THX setting, approx 7.5'.*


----------



## K-Spaz

RE: GGG / The Ugly Truth


Tell us what'cha really think! Lol


I'm probably like you in that I don't mind a softened scene here and there, but when they shoot a movie that looks like it was done through a soft focus filter and then mastered on betamax, it distracts me to where it takes me out of the film.


Now, the ugly truth is, my projector has been down for 2 weeks and will be for at least one more.


----------



## Hughmc

*Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince:*


I watched Harry Potter and the HBP last night. Whoaa.. it's a dark one alright in both story and look.


The PQ is actually fairly good and I would probably rate it higher if it were not for the artistic intent. I love the artistic intent with its dark and dreary mood and use of what seems to be a lot of natural light, candlelight etc. as it really makes the mood of the film. Color wise there isn't a lot going on here either. I didn't notice any over the top EE or DNR. The problem is as good as the PQ is for our purposes of this thread, I feel it belongs in tier 2.5.


I have seen all the other HP movies in the theatre except this one. THe others on BD seemed to be true to the theatre presentation and I think this one is probably no different.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.5*


----------



## Hughmc

Ok here is something interesting. THe story of HP gets darker and more evil. I was just looking at the tier rankings list and each successive Harry Potter got progressively lower ratings in the rankings, with the exception of Order of the Phoenix, almost like as the mood gets darker so does the PQ rating "decline". I am not saying that is what is exactly happening, but it is interesting.


----------



## K-Spaz

Hugh, I've said similar things in the past about the HPs. On my setup, I would actually say that PoA looked the best, but still not worthy of a real high rank here imo. It has a lot of stellar looking shots, but about all they do is serve to show that other areas of the movie were done halfheartedly.


I did see HP6 in the theater and on 35mm. If you look back at my posts here then, I was quite impressed with the dark detail of the film, and I even said that imo, this _Could_ be the best HP BR yet. Obviously I was too optimistic with that. Truly, only Warner could turn such beautiful film work into a something people here would call a 2.5.


When my projector returns from repair/replacement, I have family members just waiting to invade my home to see HP6 here. I told them though they'd have to supply the disk, as I already saw this in the theater, and don't feel it's worth the $1 rental. I'm not so sure it's worth $.50 electricity to play it, but I'll splurge there cause they're family.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/17688426
> 
> 
> It's weird. *The best shots of the movie are the ending, with the interview.* It was shot on film, the grain is apparent, detail outstanding, and depth is remarkable. It is easily Tier 0 live action material. The rest of the movie? not so much.
> 
> 
> Edit: *Also, did anyone catch a dead pixel during the hotel scene?* I nearly freaked out thinking it was my TV, but is disappeared in the next shot.



I agree with you 100% when you say "the best shots of the movie are the ending." What a shame it turned out to be the inconsistent mess that it was.










I had forgotten about the dead pixel, but I did catch it.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17688355
> 
> 
> I was aware that they kept switching between a HD Video cam and a 35mm camera . That accounts for _some_ of the inconsistency seen throughout the movie, but I can't imagine what caused several scenes which were so bad it looked like the typical footage from an old horror movie from the 50s or 60s. *And what in the world caused a few dark scenes to look like they were shot through chicken wire or screen? That really baffles me.*



I haven't seen PE yet, but this sounds like the same thing we saw in some of the night scenes in Miami Vice.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/17692362
> 
> 
> I haven't seen PE yet, but this sounds like the same thing we saw in some of the night scenes in Miami Vice.



I remember _Miami Vice_ having very heavy grain/digital noise, but I don't recall the "chicken wire" effect. I'm sure you are right though Patrick; I was probably taking a "refrigerator break" during those shots.


----------



## Ozymandis

Finally got around to watching *Vexille*- Tier 2.0 IMO. There are problems with the transfer but there are even more problems in the source. Let's see- aliasing, shimmering pixels on distant rendered objects, lots of banding, overall soft picture, etc. Some shots looked like they were done by a high-school student, such as the scene when they were burying the little boy. The bitrate was very low for this Blu-ray, and it was obvious in scenes with a lot of motion. Very little detail overall in the picture.


A few shots were notable for their use of color. There were shots in the market which looked very nice. Otherwise I'd have said Tier 3.0, seriously.



I don't want more mediocre anime transfers. There hasn't been one Tier-0 anime Blu-ray that I can think of. Tekkon Kinkreet was the best. I hope that the Studio Ghibli movies get a nice transfer when they finally come out. Blu-ray has been pretty depressing as an anime fan


----------



## IanRW




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ozymandis* /forum/post/17694952
> 
> 
> I don't want more mediocre anime transfers. There hasn't been one Tier-0 anime Blu-ray that I can think of. Tekkon Kinkreet was the best. I hope that the Studio Ghibli movies get a nice transfer when they finally come out.



I don't think any pre-Mononoke Ghibli title would fit the criteria of Tier Gold. It's enough of a hurdle that they were shot on grainy filmstock (always a major hurdle for the purpose of this thead), and I doubt that Ghibli would go through the same cel-by-cel cleanup process that Disney bestows on their features.


----------



## Ozymandis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *IanRW* /forum/post/17696561
> 
> 
> I don't think any pre-Mononoke Ghibli title would fit the criteria of Tier Gold. It's enough of a hurdle that they were shot on grainy filmstock (always a major hurdle for the purpose of this thead), and I doubt that Ghibli would go through the same cel-by-cel cleanup process that Disney bestows on their features.



This is a good point. But I've seen Howl's Moving Castle on cable in 1080i and it looked very nice. We might get tier 0 transfers from the newer Ghibli stuff.


----------



## Rpresner

I wanted to get everybodys opinion on this. Does anyone think Band of brothers to be one of the best looking blu ray's for they are trying to capture. I have never seen such a difference from DVD to BD. The really capture the mood of ww2.


----------



## Ozymandis

Band of Brothers (as I remember) had some consistency issues. At points it looked very good, though, nice grain and detail in closeups.


----------



## jedimasterchad

Public Enemies


I have to be honest, I didn't finish watching the entire movie. I probably saw the first hour and a half, and that was enough. This title was all over the place. There were some excellent scenes that I saw, mainly outdoors, with great lighting and focused detail, but then there was a number of instances where I felt the lighting was too harsh and the glare from one side of the screen washed out what was supposed to be seen on the other. This didn't happen often, but it was noticeable at least a few times to me. Some of the blacks looked very deep, but then sometimes they came off as a wash (similar to Terminator). I didn't notice the chickenwire effect that DJ was talking about, but it looked bad enough as it was.


I'm not sure what went wrong here, but again, some of the closeups were excellent, and the first shot of Christian Bale in the orchard looked great, but it was really just a mish-mash from that point on. It's hard to take everything into account for a single score, because it ran the gamut from 1.0-3.0, from what I saw. I don't feel like an average score would suit it, as the higher tiers require much more consistency throughout, so I'm going to have to stuff this down into 2.5.

Tier Recommendation: 2.5


On a side note, I didn't find the movie that compelling, and something was screwed up with the dial-norm settings, as I would have a really tough time hearing the dialog, so I would crank up the volume...then a gunfight would break out and sound like somebody shot a real gun in my house, so I'd have to turn it back down. My AVR's Auto Level Control somewhat alleviated this issue, but it is noteworthy that I could not experience the full dynamic range because of the incredibly low speech volume. All around, a messy Blu-Ray to say the least.


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rpresner* /forum/post/17702125
> 
> 
> I wanted to get everybodys opinion on this. Does anyone think Band of brothers to be one of the best looking blu ray's for they are trying to capture. I have never seen such a difference from DVD to BD. The really capture the mood of ww2.



I'm not a huge fan of artistic intent like the style featured, but if they kept the scenes a little more consistent from one to the next it would have been ok. Don't get me wrong, the story is great, but the visuals weren't my cup of tea. As far as the mood is concerned, it's hard to say...I wasn't there so I'm not quite sure how it felt...but if I had to guess, I'd say Saving Private Ryan is probably what I'd feel best captures what it was like to be there.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rpresner* /forum/post/17702125
> 
> 
> I wanted to get everybodys opinion on this. Does anyone think Band of brothers to be one of the best looking blu ray's for they are trying to capture. I have never seen such a difference from DVD to BD. The really capture the mood of ww2.



I have not finished the entire set, even after owning it for nearly a year. From what I watched, it would rank somewhere in the middle of tier two. There was some mild controversy, as comparisons between the U.S Blu-ray and another foreign release, possibly the Japanese release, indicated some digital noise reduction had been applied to it to reduce visible grain.


----------



## Nowucmenowudont




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17702793
> 
> 
> I have not finished the entire set, even after owning it for nearly a year. From what I watched, it would rank somewhere in the middle of tier two. There was some mild controversy, as comparisons between the U.S Blu-ray and another foreign release, possibly the Japanese release, indicated some digital noise reduction had been applied to it to reduce visible grain.



Yes and the Japanese release was also on the other format. Add that to the pile of controversy.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*Public Enemies*



I finally gave up trying to purchase this movie and rented a copy. I'm glad that I did; despite pretty men in suits, I don't think I will be buying this unless I find it on a great sale.



Man oh man. What a mixed bag this movie is. I don't think I've ever seen picture quality shift around quite so much as it did when I watched this.



Now, I've read the Public Enemies thread and I know there's different types of source used, but as an end user of the Blu Ray at home on my TV... I don't give a rats ass what they did to film it, so long as it looks GOOD when I get it home. I hate feeling the processing of a movie. I just want to watch the movie! The last thing I want is to ponder what the Director's intent was with using various types of cameras/film/whatever. I want to be immersed in the movie and bask in how good it looks at home versus my crappy theatre; the only interruption I welcome is if I'm taken out of the movie because the picture quality LOOKS SO FRICKEN GOOD that I'm amazed by it. Any other interruption can just go away. *



The entire opening of this movie is riddled with dreaded EE. I know I'm sensitive to it, and given the high contrast many may not have noticed it or dismissed it as high contrast edges (which is equally as annoying IMO), but I swear it is EE.




The good news is after the initial... 20-25min or so, I didn't notice any more EE whatsoever.



I think I understand what others are saying about the "chicken wire fence" look. To me, this looked as though I was connecting the RCA cables on my daughter's TV, and one was broken or something, those scenes looked horrible.



It just amazes me that this movie could have some seriously gorgeous PQ, just to grab a quick example: to me the death of Pretty Boy Floyd was top notch, yet also look like one of the worst Blu's I've ever seen as well.



In light of the back-and-forth nature of the PQ, I'm not going to go as low as Tier 3.0 since when it is good, it is excellent.



I know there's more I could talk about regarding colours and so forth, but my daughter just got home from school & this is long enough so...

*Recommendation for Public Enemies: Tier 2.75*
*Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800u THX setting, approx 7.5'.*


*At least, not while I'm watching the movie. I like to think about and analyze things after-the-fact but I hate it when the movie/director injects themselves into the picture so much that it is distracting to the story I'm watching... if that makes sense.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ozymandis* /forum/post/17696772
> 
> 
> This is a good point. But I've seen Howl's Moving Castle on cable in 1080i and it looked very nice. We might get tier 0 transfers from the newer Ghibli stuff.



I'd love to see that!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/17702318
> 
> 
> 
> On a side note, I didn't find the movie that compelling, and something was screwed up with the dial-norm settings, as I would have a really tough time hearing the dialog, so I would crank up the volume...then a gunfight would break out and sound like somebody shot a real gun in my house, so I'd have to turn it back down. My AVR's Auto Level Control somewhat alleviated this issue, but it is noteworthy that I could not experience the full dynamic range because of the incredibly low speech volume. All around, a messy Blu-Ray to say the least.




The audio was a mess in the theatre as well. I had blamed my local crappy theatre for this (as it really really does suck -- the BOTTOM of the movie flickered at the TOP of the movie throughout the whole thing when I saw this) but now that I've seen it on Blu and read what the other people had to say about it in the Public Enemies thread, it's a problem with this movie in general. At least this time I was able to turn the subtitles on so I could understand what they were saying.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17703305
> 
> *Public Enemies*
> 
> 
> Man oh man. What a mixed bag this movie is. I don't think I've ever seen picture quality shift around quite so much as it did when I watched this.
> 
> *The entire opening of this movie is riddled with dreaded EE*. I know I'm sensitive to it, and given the high contrast many may not have noticed it or dismissed it as high contrast edges (which is equally as annoying IMO), but I swear it is EE.
> 
> 
> I think I understand what others are saying about the "chicken wire fence" look. To me, this looked as though I was connecting the RCA cables on my daughter's TV, and one was broken or something, those scenes looked horrible.
> 
> 
> 
> It just amazes me that this movie could have some seriously gorgeous PQ, just to grab a quick example: *to me the death of Pretty Boy Floyd was top notch*, yet also look like one of the worst Blu's I've ever seen as well.
> 
> *Recommendation for Public Enemies: Tier 2.75*
> *Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800u THX setting, approx 7.5'.*



I think you are and I are pretty much on the same page G3. I even agree with you regarding the EE, for I forgot to mention in my review that I did see halos/ringing in a couple of the opening scenes.


I had said in my review that I really liked the first scene that Christian Bale was in where he shot Pretty Boy Floyd in the orchard, so we are definitely in agreement there.


We're even fairly close in our placement recommendation, for I had said 2.25 or 2.5 and I believe 2.5 is where it belongs so we're only a notch apart there.


Everyone who commented on the terrible audio was spot on, for this was one of the worst, IMO. I had to turn up my Onkyo to nearly reference level to hear some of the dialogue, and then when an action scene started it was really loud and harsh.


----------



## 42041

*Lost Season 5*

(This review is based on my viewing of only the first episode, but I've found each episode in the previous seasons on Blu to be more or less representative of the overall look of that season.. I'll update my rating if I change my opinion)


Lost has always been one of the better-looking shows on TV, and this season looks a lot like the previous ones, with the Hawaii location lending vibrant colors to the imagery. It seems like they're upgraded something in their post-production pipeline this time around, since very fine detail looks more finely resolved to my eyes than the previous two seasons I saw on Blu, and the slight amount of EE that affected those discs is absent. The show seems to still be shot on film and the image's filmlike qualities are intact. There's a few times where they cut in footage from the previous season and there's a dip in quality to my eyes. The well-lit shots look fantastic, and facial details are wonderfully resolved. The one annoyance I have is that in some of the dark scenes, the black levels are inconsistent and tend to be noisy, and facial details are often soft, an issue that affected previous seasons as well.

*Tier 1.25*

(PS3/Pioneer 50" Kuro Elite/1 screen width distance)


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/17704765
> 
> *Lost Season 5*
> 
> (This review is based on my viewing of only the first episode, but I've found each episode in the previous seasons on Blu to be more or less representative of the overall look of that season.. I'll update my rating if I change my opinion)
> 
> 
> Lost has always been one of the better-looking shows on TV, and this season looks a lot like the previous ones, with the Hawaii location lending vibrant colors to the imagery. It seems like they're upgraded something in their post-production pipeline this time around, since very fine detail looks more finely resolved to my eyes than the previous two seasons I saw on Blu, and the slight amount of EE that affected those discs is absent. The show seems to still be shot on film and the image's filmlike qualities are intact. There's a few times where they cut in footage from the previous season and there's a dip in quality to my eyes. The well-lit shots look fantastic, and facial details are wonderfully resolved. The one annoyance I have is that in some of the dark scenes, the black levels are inconsistent and tend to be noisy, and facial details are often soft, an issue that affected previous seasons as well.
> 
> *Tier 1.25*
> 
> (PS3/Pioneer 50" Kuro Elite/1 screen width distance)



I'm hoping someone in my family decides to get me this for christmas, sounds like a great BD to have. I know what you mean about the dark scenes, but that's probably just the poor lighting...Lost seems to have lots of night shots under torchlight or moonlight, etc. Definitely my favorite TV show of all time though. Can't wait for season 6 in a couple months.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Stargate: 15th Anniversary Edition (AVC)


recommendation: Tier 3.75
*

On October 27, 2009, Lionsgate attempted to improve on the first Blu-ray of _Stargate_ with a new special edition that features both cuts of the film seamlessly branched together. That early MPEG-2 encoded disc came out at the dawn of the Blu-ray era, in 2006. That disc's current placement in tier 3.25 is probably not a good indicator of its actual quality at the present moment. The new version should be in the lower half of tier three at best, while the older version should be a bit lower than that. I still retain the older disc, and the new disc is a small but clear upgrade over it in terms of picture quality.


There is something going on with the particular video codec employed on the new disc. The BDInfo scan listed below reveals a VC-1 encode, while the version in my possession is definitely an AVC encoding. All other numbers correspond exactly, so the conclusion must be that Lionsgate made two different encodes for it at nearly identical bitrates. It would not be unprecedented, given their history on a few other movies like _The Descent_. My placement is solely for the AVC version that I have seen.


The theatrical cut of the movie runs for 120-minutes at an average video bitrate of 22.87 Mbps. The extended version is 129-minutes in length at an average video bitrate of 22.89 Mbps. Both cuts are included on a BD-50 together. Compression artifacts are not a significant problem, but this transfer is not entirely devoid of related problems. Some minor amounts of banding and posterization creep into the frame. One gets the impression after viewing that significantly higher compression parameters would have led to the retention of more fine detail and shadow delineation in the image.


Parts of the film do not look bad, but limitations in the original photography are clearly revealed at times. There were more instances of softness than I anticipated, and little of the razor-sharpness seen in better Blu-rays. Colors are a bit dull overall, though warmer and redder in tone than the 2006 disc. Certain moments reveal visible edge enhancement, as in the throne room when they first encounter Ra and when they first go out to the desert. While there are varying levels of visible grain due to the various film stock and techniques used to shoot the movie, a measure of digital noise reduction has been applied throughout the transfer. This is a transfer that rarely demonstrates much high-frequency information, even in close-ups. It looks like a lot of other recent catalog Blu-rays from Lionsgate in that regard. Black levels are surprisingly good however, with solid contrast to boost the clarity.


The recommendation is for placement in tier 3.75, though it should still be noted that it looks superior to the awful, older Blu-ray. What this movie most likely needs is a complete restoration and 4K scan from new film elements to truly be improved from a visual standpoint. That is unlikely for a movie of this stature.


BDInfo scan for VC-1 version (courtesy of eric.exe):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...4#post17465664 


BDInfo scan for AVC version (courtesy of Patsfan123):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post17851202


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince*


**This review may unintentionally have spoilers within it. I have spoiler tagged things that may be deemed spoilery for people. Read at your own risk.**



I am the first to admit that I'm a huge Harry Potter fan. I love the books and love the movies. Despite this, I've never actually watched a Harry Potter film on Blu Ray before!



This movie is _highly_ stylized. As a *fan*, I actually love how this movie looks on Blu. The story gets darker as the books carry on forward, and I think the look that Yates picked for this movie (even with story issues I may personally have with it) suits it well.



From a PQ standpoint, however, my enjoyment of how this looks does not crossover well for the purposes of this thread. The entire movie is shot as though it's a fantasy sequence; it is very, very soft yet at times some immaculate detail and textures can shine through.

*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) It's almost as if this movie was filmed in black and white and then hints of colour were added in (the scene where Dumbledore and Harry are surrounded by freaky Gollum-like creatures comes to mind here...) afterwards for effect. It's especially effective to me for it to be so dull and devoid of colour and then the searing shock of the fire that Dumbledore creates in order to get them out of there, to me that looked absolutely gorgeous.




This film is murky and have blacks that go too far in my opinion. The overall dreariness of this film just punches that even farther. It suits the content of this story perfectly to me but it can be frustrating as a home viewer because so much detail becomes absolutely lost in the darkness. Having read the books repeatedly, though,
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) given how much Harry has lost at this point in his life, and now is losing even more and becoming even more drawn into his quest to defeat Voldemort, Harry isn't exactly in a happy place right now
the tone suits the lore for me completely.



While I do hate softness in Blu (see my rant about The Ugly Truth a few pages ago), I find I'm more forgiving with its usage in a fantasy-setting than in a real-life setting. It's a double standard with me I suppose. From a PQ perspective, the gauze-like film could be eradicated and the enhanced detail would be welcomed by me; but from an artistic-standpoint I can see why it's been used (even if I'd rather it wasn't there at all).



I did not detect any sort of edge enhancement throughout this movie whatsoever; if it's there it's somehow eluded my sensitive eyes. A high-contrast edge or two were noted but not obtrusive in any way.



I do have severe issues with the storyline, but I learned long ago I had to separate Harry Potter film and Harry Potter books in order to enjoy them. Overall, especially on a 2nd (and 3rd as my husband is watching this right now) viewing, I do appreciate what Yates has done with this film, even if I wish certain elements of the book were present, I'm glad I've given this a chance again and have enjoyed it a lot more than I did when I watched it in the theatre this summer.


Unfortunately the softness and overall lack of detail, even though I enjoyed this presentation very much, I do not think this film is worthy of either Tier 0 or Tier 1.


*Recommendation for Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince: Tier 2.00*
*Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800u THX setting, approx 7.5'.*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

The tiers have been updated through my last post. Due to the holiday season and people looking for gifts, a quick update seemed prudent. Here is a rough list of the placements, but as always check the tiers themselves for the final judgment. PM me for corrections or concerns...


Fight Club - 2.0 (selimsivad)


Angels & Demons - 1.75 (deltasun)


Star Trek (2009) - 1.75 (dapriceis), 2.0 (lgans316)


Tell No One - 1.25 (ibre34)


Mr. Brooks - 1.25 (selimsivad


Four Christmases - 2.5 (deltasun)


Life Before Her Eyes - 1.25 (deltasun)


Terminator: Salvation - 1.25 (deltasun), 1.5 (djoberg), 1.25 (RobTomlin), 1.75 (GGG), 1.75 (jedimasterchad)


American Psycho (AU import) - 2.25 (GGG), 2.25 (selimsivad) Video: AVC | Audio: Dolby True HD 5.1 | AR: 2.35:1 | Sony


Seraphim Falls (UK Import) - 1.25 (djoberg)


Army Of Darkness - 3.5 (the phantomstranger)


Fanboys - 3.25 (GGG) Video: AVC | Audio: 5.1 DTS-HD | AR: 1.78:1 | Alliance


Night At the Museum 2 - 1.75 (deltasun),


Lock, Stock, and 2 Smoking Barrels - 3.75 (DarkSaturn)


License To Kill - 1.5 (daPriceis)


The World Is Not Enough - 1.5 (daPriceis)


The Wackness - 3.25 (deltasun)


Transformers (IMAX) - 1.75 (lgans316)


Wizard Of Oz - 2.75 (42041)


Rome - 2.25 (daPriceis), 1.75 to 2.0 (deltasun)


Lies & Illusions - 4.0 (Phantomstranger


Watchmen: Motion Comic - 2.0 (GGG), 2.25 (Phantomstranger)


Gomorrah - 3.0 (deltasun)


The Ugly Truth - 2.75 or 3.0 (GeekyGlassesGirl)


What Just Happened - 3.75 (deltasun)


It's A Wonderful Life - 3.50 (Maestro50)


Public Enemies - 2.25/2.5 (djoberg), 2.5 (jedimaster), 2.75 (GGG)


Payback (UK Import/theatrical) - 3.0 (lgans316)


Payback (UK Import/director's) - 2.5 (lgans316)


Godzilla - 2.75 (lgans316)


Wolverine - 1.75 (lgans316)


Watchmen (UK Import: theatrical) - 1.5 (lgans316)


Bolt - 1.0 (lgans316)


Push - 1.75 (GGG)


Harry Potter and half-blood Prince - 2.5 (Hughmc)


Vexille - 2.0 (Ozymandis)


Lost: Season 5 - 1.25 (42041)


----------



## K-Spaz

Phantom,

Some time ago I saw another of the Stargate series, I think it was Arc of Truth. It also resembled your comments above. I found it distractingly poor quality.


Thanks for the update too. You are a dedicated man.


G3,

You know my opinion of HP6 storywise, what surprises me is the opinions so far of the PQ. Not that I dispute them, I simply don't understand why something that I felt was really well shot, is looking like such a dog on BR. I fully expected this to be the best looking HP film yet, and I'd go so far to say I expected this to be the first high tier 1 dark film. It's really dark, but I thought it had spectacular detail when I saw it in the theater.


So far the reviews look just like where I'd put it if I had to base a recommendation on Xylons vidcaps. I sorta hoped they were not indicative of the best of the shots, but from the reviews, they may be.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

K-spaz, don't let the reviews and screenshots dissuade you. I think it still looked very good on Blu Ray, but for the purposes of this thread, it simply isn't strong. It's the fact that it is so stylized. Give it a watch and I think you will understand what I mean.


----------



## deltasun

*The Alphabet Killer*


A very stylized presentation, this title was shot with muted colors. Once in a while, a bright color would take center stage and would pop - particularly red. Facial details were very good at times, but for the most part softness crept in. Blacks were mixed, but never very impressive. Contrast was manipulated to achieve the stylistic look, but did not detract.


Medium scenes yielded reasonable depth. Medium to long outdoor shots did not particularly exhibit extraordinary depth or details. Shadow details were also just slightly above average.


Overall, this title had an adequate look, but nothing that really sparkled. No foul play was observed, aside from some print dirt and minor banding.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

*Cyclops*


What did I get myself into?!? Terrible terrible movie. PQ was not going to save this title either. The worst offender has got to be the really bad CGI Cyclops. I cannot believe this was even released. Facial close-up's were mixed - a number of soft scenes were present. However, we did get some Mid-Tier 1 details from time to time. Blacks were never deep, but were adequately portrayed in the few scenes present. Contrast did not fare too well when mixed lighting was present. Most of the darker scenes were flat and exhibited poor shadow details.


The only thing that seemed to work was the panoramic CGI of olden Rome. It looked infinitely detailed. Of course, the scene was recycled a few times during the movie.


I don't want to quite go Copper since there were some Tier 2 HD moments. Some ringing were present and what appeared to be mild DNR. Some grain got thick (digital noise) during darker scenes, but these were confined to only a handful of scenes.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.75*


Please steer clear of this movie

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Miracle On 34th Street


recommendation: Tier 3.0
*

A movie that rightfully deserves its perennial airing around Christmas, Fox has brought the original _Miracle On 34th Street_ into the twenty-first century, in a fine transfer and strong presentation on this disc. Having made its BD debut on October 6th of this year, the 96-minute main feature is encoded in AVC on a BD-25. The only version provided is the only one truly needed for most fans, the original black-and-white film in its original aspect ratio of 1.33:1.


The average video bitrate for the AVC-encoded main feature is 22.71 Mbps per the BDInfo scan, which corresponds well with the 22 Mbps listed on the packaging. The compression job is credited to Deluxe Digital Studios, who handles many of Fox's Blu-rays. There are no compression artifacts to complain about or point out. Fields of grain look naturalistic and film-like in characterization, that are appropriate to films of similar vintage in high-definition. While I hesitate endorsing the practice of squeezing any film onto a BD-25, the lower parameters do not look to have compromised the integrity of the film or its picture quality in any way here.


What is remarkable about the image is the pristine appearance of the film element itself. The master has less visible damage and age-related deterioration than many films shot in the past ten years. There is a distinct lack of any visible digital cleaning remnants, a nice bonus for an older film. Still, the picture is startlingly free of debris that mar other older films which have undergone extensive restorations with digital cleanup. While I will not say unequivocally that no digital noise reduction has been used, the healthy look of the grain-structure leads me to believe either none or very little was applied.


Viewers on larger displays and screens will notice a wisp of ringing around high-contrast edges on occasion. The halos are barely on the threshold of visibility, even to the sharpest-eyed viewers, and will likely be missed by most non-videophile watchers. A small amount of density fluctuations occur in the contrast, which is not atypical for a film of this age. The slightest perceptible level of telecine wobble occurs in one scene, blink and you will miss it. These minor problems do not really detract from the fine viewing experience. The black-and-white cinematography of this movie was not intended for maximum dimensionality or resolution. But the quality is consistent and shows a decent level of high-definition appeal.


Contrast is mostly strong, with just a bit of clipping below-black information in a few, short scenes. Whites are slightly elevated in spots, leading to a few details getting washed out. Clarity is generally very good though. Textures in cloth and fabrics are strong, that show the fine pinstripes on men's suits for example. Close-ups are relatively uncommon and the way the film was shot looks to have minimized the best detail usually visible. The image is generally flat, but has an average level of sharpness that reminds the viewer this is true high-definition at all times.


While this film will never be mistaken for eye candy, Fox has delivered a great transfer in most respects that admirably serves the picture quality and replicates the original source material in a way that likely has not been seen by the general public since it premiered in 1947. It is as good as I believe _Miracle On 34th Street_ can look at 1080p resolution, so pick it up without fear a better edition is coming for visual quality. A placement in tier 3.0 sounds fair.


----------



## akademiks





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rpresner* /forum/post/17702125
> 
> 
> I wanted to get everybodys opinion on this. Does anyone think Band of brothers to be one of the best looking blu ray's for they are trying to capture. I have never seen such a difference from DVD to BD. The really capture the mood of ww2.



I was disappointed with the Blu-ray's DNR to be honest.. Band of Brothers on HD-DVD is probably the only reason why i haven't gotten rid of my HD-DVD player.. It may be a minor thing but it just looked too soft for some reason .


----------



## jedimasterchad

Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince


I really liked this presentation of the film, although, going along with what the others have said, there are some contributing factors that may or may not keep it out of the highest tiers. First of all, it's a very dark film. There were maybe 3 instances altogether where I really was impressed with the color saturation and the pop (the opening London scene, Dumbledore's fire, and snow scenes). Aside from those, the use of brilliant color is noticeably absent. What color there is, say in a sweater, is quite muted and dull. This is, of course, artistic intent though, and we once again come to the fine line of where outstanding PQ and Artistic Intent just don't get along quite so well.


On the plus side though, this film had some of the most absolute darkest blacks I've ever seen. I really was amazed a number of times, at just how deep my set got during this film. I've never seen it that black before, and checking my notes I had marked that more than a few times, objects or backgrounds on the screen were very much noticeably darker than the letterbox bars, and when the night sky or black background blended into the bars it was just exceptional. The black level was really outstanding here. My particular display was praised for its great rendering of shadow detail in a number of reviews, and this movie really brought that out to a forefront. Along with the excellent inky blacks, there was some great shadow detail in probably 80% of the scenes in the movie.


I was a bit offended by the glowy, soft facial details. Especially when this film was rendering the blacks and shadow detail at such an amazing level, the overall softness just drove me nuts. How could you go from absolute nirvana on one category to what looked like HD Satellite feed on another? It really boggled my mind here. I will say that I thought this to be a case of some sort of filtering or DNR, because I did notice an extremely fine layer of grain in some of the brighter scenes, but it was qutie absent in much of the darker segments. So, who knows.


Overall, the EXCELLENT blacks are quite reference level, but unfortunately this title lacks the pure pop and color saturation that would allow it to be ranked in the demo tiers. The lack of detail evident throughout helps to solidify this, and therefore I feel it belongs as high as it can go without breaking into tier 1.

Tier Recommendation: 2.0

Viewed on a Panasonic TC-P55G10 at 7.5', played via PS3 at 1080p/24, calibrated custom mode.


----------



## deltasun

*Office Space*


Clean-looking title, almost clinical, with fine grain present throughout. With this, it does have a sharpened look as well as evidenced by ringing throughout on high-contrast edges. Speaking of contrast, it's a bit boosted which helps create the fluorescent, vitamin D deprived, office look. This is also evident in the cakey appearance of our main characters - these may seem like DNR at first, but there was (1) clearly thicker make up on certain scenes and (2) no wavering of the presence of grain even during scenes where faces seemed smooth. There were a couple of extreme facial close-up's that showed exemplary details.


Skin tones were a bit on the rosy side. Blacks were not really all that impressive. In fact, it's hard to recall a black object that was deep - one of the Bobs' suits, the thermos. Colors were limited to steely hues - shades of grays and dark blues. We do get a dose of red in the form of Milton's Swingline stapler. I own the SD DVD and have definitely noticed an increase in discernible details, specially in the background.


Overall, this blatantly dull and bland look works well with the story. However, for the purposes of this thread,I believe a high Bronze placement is in order.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/17715330
> 
> Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince
> 
> ...
> 
> Overall, the EXCELLENT blacks are quite reference level, but unfortunately this title lacks the pure pop and color saturation that would allow it to be ranked in the demo tiers. The lack of detail evident throughout helps to solidify this, and therefore I feel it belongs as high as it can go without breaking into tier 1.
> 
> Tier Recommendation: 2.0
> 
> Viewed on a Panasonic TC-P55G10 at 7.5', played via PS3 at 1080p/24, calibrated custom mode.



Sounds like you and I were on the exact same page for this one, Chad!


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17715565
> 
> 
> Sounds like you and I were on the exact same page for this one, Chad!



Yeah, I really wanted it to score higher, but I just couldn't bring myself to give it any better of a vote with the entire tone of the movie being so dark. Somebody just got me Crank 2 for my birthday, and by comparison, the level of pop and detail is night and day compared to HP, and I wouldn't hesitate to use Crank 2 as a PQ demo, whereas the only thing to demo with HP was the black level. I still really enjoyed the movie though, especially considering it is my least favorite book in the series.


Another of my favorite scenes was the night-time battle at the Weasely residence. The entire screen had faded completely black except for the characters illuminated just so, and the effect was great in a dark room. I just can't say enough about the blacks in this movie, it really took my set to a new level and I will judge blacks against this film from now on. I just hope that maybe in this holiday rush we still have yet to see another perfect blu-ray that performs well in all categories...(District 9 looks promising, and so does Inglorious Bastards, so maybe we will have one).


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/17715330
> 
> Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince
> 
> 
> I really liked this presentation of the film, although, going along with what the others have said, there are some contributing factors that may or may not keep it out of the highest tiers. First of all, it's a very dark film. There were maybe 3 instances altogether where I really was impressed with the color saturation and the pop (the opening London scene, Dumbledore's fire, and snow scenes). Aside from those, the use of brilliant color is noticeably absent. What color there is, say in a sweater, is quite muted and dull. This is, of course, artistic intent though, and we once again come to the fine line of where outstanding PQ and Artistic Intent just don't get along quite so well.
> 
> 
> On the plus side though, this film had some of the most absolute darkest blacks I've ever seen. I really was amazed a number of times, at just how deep my set got during this film. I've never seen it that black before, and checking my notes I had marked that more than a few times, objects or backgrounds on the screen were very much noticeably darker than the letterbox bars, and when the night sky or black background blended into the bars it was just exceptional. The black level was really outstanding here. My particular display was praised for its great rendering of shadow detail in a number of reviews, and this movie really brought that out to a forefront. Along with the excellent inky blacks, there was some great shadow detail in probably 80% of the scenes in the movie.
> 
> *I was a bit offended by the glowy, soft facial details. Especially when this film was rendering the blacks and shadow detail at such an amazing level, the overall softness just drove me nuts. How could you go from absolute nirvana on one category to what looked like HD Satellite feed on another? It really boggled my mind here. I will say that I thought this to be a case of some sort of filtering or DNR, because I did notice an extremely fine layer of grain in some of the brighter scenes, but it was qutie absent in much of the darker segments. So, who knows.*
> 
> 
> Overall, the EXCELLENT blacks are quite reference level, but unfortunately this title lacks the pure pop and color saturation that would allow it to be ranked in the demo tiers. The lack of detail evident throughout helps to solidify this, and therefore I feel it belongs as high as it can go without breaking into tier 1.
> 
> Tier Recommendation: 2.0
> 
> Viewed on a Panasonic TC-P55G10 at 7.5', played via PS3 at 1080p/24, calibrated custom mode.



I haven't yet watched this newest HP, but it appears that Warner has applied their usual low video bitrate approach here, which often results in softening.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Great Expectations (UK Import)


recommendation: Tier 4.0*


A David Lean film from 1946, ITV released _Great Expectations_ as a region-free Blu-ray on June 24, 2008. It may look better than any prior dvd version, but this is not the impressive leap in quality most discs demonstrate at 1080p resolution. As the U.K. import is the only Blu-ray version in the world, fans have to accept the somewhat suspect quality and tolerate it for now.


The VC-1 encode is a low-bitrate affair by any standard, where the 118-minute main feature is squeezed on a BD-25. An ample amount of free space is inexplicably leftover. Video bitrates rarely leave the teens, and peak moments are noticeably low in magnitude. Henceforth, moments of artifacting and untoward reproduction of the film at times take away from the overall picture quality. A general amount of compression haze obscures the frame, leaving the impression of a transfer with limited detail and reduced fidelity to the source master.


Also of notice is the unremastered state of the film itself. The master looks below-average in cleanliness, showing off regular damage and debris in spots. While the decomposition is not always intrusive, it occasionally does reach the point of distraction. Even tolerant viewers might have problems with the visible print damage that peppers the movie. Most of the films from the period that have made it on Blu-ray have had expensive restorations done to them. Cleaning up debris and finding film elements that are pristine requires some investment of time and money. _Great Expectations_ has not, and suffers in comparison to other gems like _The Third Man_. One positive is the complete lack of filtering or edge enhancement to the master itself in the transfer. Other than the compression problems, the grain resembles natural film-texture. The complete lack of halos and ringing is a welcome sight also.


There is not a lot of ultra-fine detail evident in the transfer, indicating to me it was encoded from an older telecined high-definition master intended for dvd. The impressive cinematography found in most of Lean's films is still visible, but tarnished somewhat by the sub-par effort. Shadow detail and delineation of the darkest elements in the frame is a key feature of _Great Expectations_, which this disc only moderately gets correct. The image is at least stable and a slight improvement over dvd in terms of resolution and detail. Gradations within shadows are a touch better, particularly in the moodily-lit scenes. Visible elements in the frame have a decent level of clarity.


As a long-time fan of both the novel by Dickens and this specific film adaptation, the BD is a slight disappointment. It is nice to have on Blu-ray, but really does not deserve a better placement than tier four. Only a marginal video upgrade for a movie that deserves better.


Watching on a 60 Pioneer KURO plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 (firmware 3.15), at a viewing distance of six feet.


----------



## selimsivad

*Ferris Bueller's Day Off*


*2.35 : 1*



FBDO looks damn good in Blu! I expected soft mush. What I got was a film that showed pretty good detail. Facial closeups showed excellent pore detail, even with caked makeup evident (especially on Principal Rooney).


Contrast seems to have been boosted a tad bit, but improves picture quality dramatically! Reds, on Ferris' bedroom flags, telephone, Cameron's jersey, and even the famous 1961 Ferrari 250 GT California, look awesome!










Detail in clothing and fabrics showed an improvement over the DVD (at least from what I remembered). Panoramic views of Chicago reminded me of the AU version of American Psycho. Beautiful!


Speckles pop up every now and then, but did not distract from the viewing experience. Black levels were black, not grey like I expected. I did expect more grain, but I have no proof of any tampering. Overall, I was pleased!










Wow! I was surprised at how good this movie looks! It also made me realize how much younger I'm NOT getting!

















*Ferris Bueller's Day Off

Tier Recommendation: Tier 3.0

PS3-Samsung 46" 1080p-seven'*


----------



## djoberg

*Red Cliff (UK Import)*


I will preface any remarks by saying this is a review of _Red Cliff: Part 1_, but my understanding is that Part 2 is virtually identical in quality.


It is a real pleasure to view another action film that should easily qualify for a Tier Blu placement. I did NOT find this perfect, but it is definitely good enough to call *reference* material, IMO. I would like to list a few of its greatest virtues, beginning with the best.


1) DEPTH....I am happy to report that we are treated to MANY scenes with the 3D pop we all covet. I paused my TV at the 1 hr. 11 minute mark to just marvel at the blades of grass that stood in the foreground with horses and riders making up the background. This was as close to the "looking through a window" effect that you can get. Simply amazing!! And this is just one example of many.


2) DETAIL....Details in general were superb, with lush scenery affording us plenty of opportunities to exhibit this virtue, along with finely-rendered details in clothing (the coats of armor worn by many of the soldiers were a sight to behold). Facial details were also exemplary, displaying every whisker, scar, wrinkle, and fine texture.


3) FLESH TONES....Spot on!!


4) COLORS....If you like them natural and vibrant, you will not be disappointed. There were a few scenes with a stylized golden hue, but this not distract one iota.


5) CONTRAST....Bold contrast was displayed throughout.


6) BLACK LEVELS....Most of the scenes were filmed during the day with very few instances of blacks, but when blacks were highlighted they were deep and inky and added to the sense of depth alluded to above.


7) FILM GRAIN....I am always glad when I can add that there was a fine layer of grain which resulted in the true, film-look we long for (especially when it yields more detail, as it did in this case).


The *only* real drawback that I noticed from time to time was _softness_, though these occurrences were limited to the first half of the movie and the total running time was probably only 10 minutes or so.


I ended up looking at the Rankings Thread to get some idea where to place this. My thinking is it belongs somewhere in the middle of Tier 0 or perhaps a bit lower. Right now the following placement seems fair....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 Right Below Transporter 3*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'


PS I also enjoyed the movie immensely! After seeing _Public Enemies_ with its poor character development, it was refreshing to see a film where they took their time to introduce you to the lead characters. And my what beautiful cinematography and epic battle scenes! I can't wait to see the final installment later this week.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/17715909
> 
> 
> I haven't yet watched this newest HP, but it appears that Warner has applied their usual low video bitrate approach here, which often results in softening.



Applies to The Hangover too but with sharpening applied as per Ken Brown's review.

*Hot Fuzz - Tier 1 or maybe Low Tier 0*

*Braveheart (UK Import) - Tier 2.25* (smokes the DVD but noticed minor white specks and aliasing. Close-ups could have looked better. Not a sharp transfer but looks good.)

*The Pursuit of Happyness - Tier 1.75*


djoberg,


I hope you like Red Cliff Part II. I think the UK version looked a tad saturated than the HK / Taiwan BDs. Thought Part II PQ was a bit soft in comparison to Part I mainly due to filming in foggy conditions.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/14044268
> 
> 
> I only watched the first half hour or so of this (*There Will Be Blood*), but based on that, I would say high Tier 2 is generous. Both outdoor and indoor shots looked somewhat unresolved to me. Not nearly as sharp as one would expect from a new movie. I wonder who is doing Paramount's BD encodes. Does anyone know? This doesn't strike me as being the same quality level of work in the compression process that we see for Fox, Disney, or Sony.



This post by patrick99 was dated over a year ago. I found it by searching for members who disagreed with There Will Be Blood's placement of 2.0. Black levels are underwhelming. Contrast is lacking. Backround shots are soft. In fact, some closeup scenes appear soft!










I popped in Blade Runner and The Kite Runner just to make sure I wasn't going crazy. Those two titles belong in 2.0. TWBB clearly doesn't.










Honestly, There Will Be Blood appears to be at least a tier too high!


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17722020
> 
> *Red Cliff (UK Import)*
> 
> 
> I will preface any remarks by saying this is a review of _Red Cliff: Part 1_, but my understanding is that Part 2 is virtually identical in quality.
> 
> 
> It is a real pleasure to view another action film that should easily qualify for a Tier Blu placement. I did NOT find this perfect, but it is definitely good enough to call *reference* material, IMO. I would like to list a few of its greatest virtues, beginning with the best.
> 
> 
> PS I also enjoyed the movie immensely! After seeing _Public Enemies_ with its poor character development, it was refreshing to see a film where they took their time to introduce you to the lead characters. And my what beautiful cinematography and epic battle scenes! I can't wait to see the final installment later this week.



It is truly the epitome of pleasure for the eyes, Denny. I am in complete agreement with the factors you cite. Anyone that wants a spectacular demo sequence needs to check out the scene of the horse giving birth. Incredible dimension and resolution as strong as any Blu-ray yet. The only weaker aspects were the few scenes involving some CGI trickery. When the camera pulls out and you see the the enormous CGI naval fleet, that one scene stands out where the overall detail and sharpness momentarily take a step back. My final judgment will likely be in the top half of the Blu tier.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/17722412
> 
> 
> This post by patrick99 was dated over a year ago. I found it by searching for members who disagreed with There Will Be Blood's placement of 2.0. Black levels are underwhelming. Contrast is lacking. Backround shots are soft. In fact, some closeup scenes appear soft!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I popped in Blade Runner and The Kite Runner just to make sure I wasn't going crazy. Those two titles belong in 2.0. TWBB clearly doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, There Will Be Blood appears to be at least a tier too high!



Having not watched this since it first came out, and my recollections being hazy to some degree, there is some merit in your conclusion. If you feel it properly belongs in tier three, give it a quick placement. As opposed to Red Cliff, There Will Be Blood was clearly not filmed to be a paragon of high-definition greatness.


----------



## spongebob




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *marge871* /forum/post/17719722
> 
> 
> A CHRISTMAS TALE
> 
> 
> A must view for any Blu -Ray fan who enjoys a fantastic story with a superb quality picture. From what I can gather on the web, the very talented , creative , and ground breaking director and story teller Arnaud Desplechin, had a direct hand in creating the digital transfer. The detail and color rendition is fantastic and each scene is staged and lit to perfection. A true joy to watch in every sense of the word. The only fault I can see with this disk is that some scenes had a bit more color intensity than others but I would take a guess that this was probably the intention of Mr. Desplechin to create a mood.I've only seen one other film he made"Rois et reine",but along with this one, he appears to be a perfectionist along the lines of Kubrick,creating each scene with care. Detail in darker scenes is very high and flesh tones are like looking in a mirror.
> 
> Do yourself a favor a rent a copy if you can. And don't let the 2 hr. 30 min. runtime dissuade from renting it. It flies by and as a matter of fact , a second viewing might be a good idea. It is that beautiful to watch , I'd say.




This is in French, right?


bob


----------



## deltasun

I see that the US version of _Red Cliff_ is slated to come out at the end of March. Sounds like it may even be the same transfer/encode. Seems too long a wait; should have probably bitten when it was $19 shipped.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17723719
> 
> 
> 
> Having not watched this since it first came out, and my recollections being hazy to some degree, there is some merit in your conclusion. If you feel it properly belongs in tier three, give it a quick placement. As opposed to Red Cliff, *There Will Be Blood was clearly not filmed to be a paragon of high-definition greatness*.



I agree with your statement in bold. That's the exact reason I disagree with its placement. I'll don't have to return it until the weekend, so I'll try to do a review soon. Has anyone else watched this film recently?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/17722360
> 
> 
> djoberg,
> 
> 
> I hope you like Red Cliff Part II. I think the UK version looked a tad saturated than the HK / Taiwan BDs. Thought Part II PQ was a bit soft in comparison to Part I mainly due to filming in foggy conditions.



I trust I will like Part 2!







I was so impressed with the storyline and the battle scenes of Part 1, especially the last battle scene. I had never seen anything like that before, and to think they received their *strategy* by observing a turtle.










I had read that the Hong Kong version was the best, but I didn't see any reviews commenting on Part 2 being "a bit soft." Having said that, when there are "foggy conditions," it can't help but come across as looking soft.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17723719
> 
> 
> It is truly the epitome of pleasure for the eyes, Denny. I am in complete agreement with the factors you cite. *Anyone that wants a spectacular demo sequence needs to check out the scene of the horse giving birth. Incredible dimension and resolution as strong as any Blu-ray yet.*



Agreed! I was mesmerized by that scene (and several others, like the one I mentioned where they were hunting the tiger in the field/woods with the weeds and cattails in the foreground).


----------



## tfoltz

I ordered Red Cliff after your recommendation and a friends recommendation. However, I am not sure I want to see a high def horse birth











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17723719
> 
> 
> Anyone that wants a spectacular demo sequence needs to check out the scene of the horse giving birth.



For anyone else interested, Red Cliff at Amazon UK states £8.98, but when I ordered it came out to £7.81. I found an interested friend and ordered two copies so that we could split the shipping and it came out to £15.62 + £4.07 shipping = £19.69 = $33.39 total.


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/17723886
> 
> 
> I agree with your statement in bold. That's the exact reason I disagree with its placement. I'll don't have to return it until the weekend, so I'll try to do a review soon. Has anyone else watched this film recently?



Already have it on DVD, so I can't say much. There are very few titles I'd get again on Blu just to have it on Blu, and this isn't one of them. I can perhaps add it to my Netflix Q but it would take the better half of the week to get it here. I should have new movies arriving tomorrow.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Watchmen: The Complete Motion Comic


recommendation: Tier 2.25*

An unusual type of feature to get a release on Blu-ray. Warner Bros. has basically animated the panels from the original graphic novel with limited motion, very faithfully at least in terms of art and style, while the dialogue is voiced by one person speaking for every character. The animation process is very simplistic, and not a direct analogue to the more familiar animation we have all seen that displays higher frame-rates. The line-art is as crisp, and colors are as vibrant, as most other animated titles in high-definition.


A release that originally premiered in March, the 325-minute motion comic (yes, the entire graphic novel is covered) is showcased on a BD-50. The VC-1 video encode averages 10.11 Mbps, but do not be shocked by that figure. The compression is very good, as the simplistic animation with limited motion between frames compresses easily and without any artifacting. On a technical basis, the transfer has no problems like halos or distracting debris. Most likely it was taken directly from the digital files of the creative team as the transfer source, and hence as close to the original intentions of the artists as possible. The limits of the picture quality seem entirely imposed by the production process and tools used to create the animation.


Placing this disc in tier 2.25 is more of a subjective judgment than anything, because there are few other movies like this on Blu-ray or any other format. It most closely resembles in appearance the Venture Bros. season that was previously placed at the same ranking. The lack of painstaking detail in the background art, and loss of fluidity in motion, is what drops the ranking into the Silver tier. Still, the overall effect produced works reasonably well and looks pleasing to the eye most of the time. Anyone interested in seeing a comic book come to life, so to speak, should check it out. The only real problem with the program is the entirely baffling decision to allow one person, a man, voice all characters. That includes female characters, which comes off as strange at best, and awkward much of the time.


BDInfo Scan (courtesy of Stephen Dawson):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post16866435


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17725196
> 
> *Watchmen: The Complete Motion Comic
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 2.25*
> 
> An unusual type of feature to get a release on Blu-ray. Warner Bros. has basically animated the panels from the original graphic novel with limited motion, very faithfully at least in terms of art and style, while the dialogue is voiced by one person speaking for every character. The animation process is very simplistic, and not a direct analogue to the more familiar animation we have all seen that displays higher frame-rates. The line-art is as crisp, and colors are as vibrant, as most other animated titles in high-definition.
> 
> 
> A release that originally premiered in March, the 325-minute motion comic (yes, the entire graphic novel is covered) is showcased on a BD-50. The VC-1 video encode averages 10.11 Mbps, but do not be shocked by that figure. The compression is very good, as the simplistic animation with limited motion between frames compresses easily and without any artifacting. On a technical basis, the transfer has no problems like halos or distracting debris. Most likely it was taken directly from the digital files of the creative team as the transfer source, and hence as close to the original intentions of the artists as possible. The limits of the picture quality seem entirely imposed by the production process and tools used to create the animation.
> 
> 
> Placing this disc in tier 2.25 is more of a subjective judgment than anything, because there are few other movies like this on Blu-ray or any other format. It most closely resembles in appearance the Venture Bros. season that was previously placed at the same ranking. The lack of painstaking detail in the background art, and loss of fluidity in motion, is what drops the ranking into the Silver tier. Still, the overall effect produced works reasonably well and looks pleasing to the eye most of the time. Anyone interested in seeing a comic book come to life, so to speak, should check it out. The only real problem with the program is the entirely baffling decision to allow one person, a man, voice all characters. That includes female characters, which comes off as strange at best, and awkward much of the time.
> 
> 
> BDInfo Scan (courtesy of Stephen Dawson):
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post16866435



I agree with this 100% Phantom Stranger. And with the one guy reading the whole thing, it was more like you were listening to an audiobook. At least, that is what I had to tell myself in order to deal with him doing the voices for all of the women.


----------



## deltasun

*Julie & Julia*


Fine grain present throughout - this was a wonderful presentation that showcased vibrant, rich, natural colors coupled with strong and stable contrast. Blacks were deep, with minimal crushing in only a few scenes. Details were excellent, from the threaded textures in sweaters and general clothing to cobblestones and vegetation in France. Shadow details were also well-rendered and gave beautiful depth and dimensionality to almost every scene (will caveat this later). Panoramic shots were fully detailed through the use of limitless depth of field.


Facial details were decent as well, but not as superb as some of the best titles. The best scenes that exhibited my above descriptions existed during the French sequences with Julia, bright outdoor shots in Julie's world, and some of the brighter indoor shots. Somehow, the look diminishes a bit inside Julie's apartment, specially at night. Scenes take on weaker contrast and less details.


All in all, a solid Gold presentation for me despite some ringing here and there. The most offensive of these was on Julie's boss' jawline when he was showing her some displeasure with her new-found hobby. I did not spy any obvious DNR, though some of the problematic apartment scenes came close to the look.


Still, the colors really shone!

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


Though this does graze the chick flick genre a tad, I didn't mind the pacing and development.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

*Inglourious Basterds*


A fine layer of grain present giving way to a beautifully filmic presentation. Colors were geared to represent the time period with its warmer tones and saturated reds. At the same time, the French countryside, with its full complement of fall colors, leaped off the screen.


Blacks were deep and bold; contrast was tight, allowing each scene maximum dimensionality - especially medium scenes that held much of Tarantino's trademark dialogues. In addition, these scenes showed remarkable details, light or dark.


Skin tones were spot on for the most part. Some of the lesser quality ones were products of their environment. Facial details were some of the best on blu, particularly on Aldo and the Colonel. On the flip side, there were an unusual number of softer shots - in the basement, the lunch with Shoshana,etc. Some momentary instances of black crushing also crept in. And finally, I sensed some minuscule ringing. I say _sensed_ because I don't see the actual ringing paused, but there's a bit of sharpening. Regardless, it did not detract too much, but thought it was worth mentioning.


My initial gut reaction was 1.25. However, softness does occur - minor softness at that - as the story progressed. In the end, I will drop it a quarter of a tier....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.50*


As in the theatre, the over 2-hour presentation flew - it's just that enjoyable for me. The deliberate pacing seemed to really squeeze as much gratification from each scene as possible.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Band Of Brothers

recommendation: 2.75*


The picture quality is too inconsistent and contains detectable grain-reduction. High-frequency information is lacking in many scenes, and a touch of minor compression artifacts also briefly appear. A solid Blu-ray presentation, but not what one would call having excellent demonstration-potential because of the intended aesthetic choices. People have to remember the series originally premiered on HBO in 2001, and the CGI looks relatively outdated by today's standards. That is plainly obvious at 1080p resolution. Its current placement in the middle of tier one is a serious reach, compared to the other films in that tier.


----------



## Nowucmenowudont

Just a preview: I had a chance to watch a bit of The Hurt Locker on BD last night...it looked (and) sounded incredible. I only had time to watch the first few chapters. I hope it holds up the rest of the way.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17729226
> 
> *Inglourious Basterds*
> 
> 
> A fine layer of grain present giving way to a beautifully filmic presentation. Colors were geared to represent the time period with its warmer tones and saturated reds. At the same time, the French countryside, with its full complement of fall colors, leaped off the screen.
> 
> 
> Blacks were deep and bold; contrast was tight, allowing each scene maximum dimensionality - especially medium scenes that held much of Tarantino's trademark dialogues. In addition, these scenes showed remarkable details, light or dark.
> 
> 
> Skin tones were spot on for the most part. Some of the lesser quality ones were products of their environment. Facial details were some of the best on blu, particularly on Aldo and the Colonel. On the flip side, there were an unusual number of softer shots - in the basement, the lunch with Shoshana,etc. Some momentary instances of black crushing also crept in. And finally, I sensed some minuscule ringing. I say _sensed_ because I don't see the actual ringing paused, but there's a bit of sharpening. Regardless, it did not detract too much, but thought it was worth mentioning.
> 
> 
> My initial gut reaction was 1.25. However, softness does occur - minor softness at that - as the story progressed. In the end, I will drop it a quarter of a tier....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.50*



What he said.









My only gripe (very minor) is that night scenes could have been more inky. The closeups of Aldo Raine in Chapter Two were some of the best I've ever seen!


*Tier Recommendation: 1.50*


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/17732627
> 
> 
> What he said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My only gripe (very minor) is that night scenes could have been more inky. The closeups of Aldo Raine in Chapter Two were some of the best I've ever seen!
> 
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.50*



i should have mentioned that too, miles...specially towards the end, the night shots could have been deeper. i see you've changed your sig already - good one!







i like that quote in the forest scene:


aldo: werner, do you understand what _sit down_ means

werner: yes

aldo: well, sit down


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Black Narcissus (UK Import)


recommendation: Tier 2.0
*

An early Technicolor classic from 1947, ITV released this movie as a region-free British BD on June 23, 2008. The 100-minute main feature is encoded in VC-1 on a BD-25. BDInfo reveals the average video bitrate to be 20.99 Mbps. _Black Narcissus_ won the Oscar for Jack Cardiff's stunning cinematography in 1947. The transfer is a complete revelation of a very worthy movie, and surpasses my wildest fantasies of how it was going to look in high-definition. Needless to say, this is the definitive version of Black Narcissus, and utterly humiliates prior dvds in every way imaginable for visual superiority.


To allay any fears, the VC-1 encode handles almost all frames excellently, with the shortest glimpses of artifacting in a couple of shots. Video-bitrates, while somewhat low in average, show sustained peaks in the thirties and forties when needed. The only moment that might be questionable comes late in the movie, when the camera pans up to watch the fog rise up and swallow the convent on the mountain. That is when a small but noticeable shot of noise appears. Other than that, grain is nicely reproduced and looks appropriate for the era and film stock used. Superbly shot and lighted, the grain never intrudes and rarely makes its presence obvious.


It is highly doubtful any level of digital noise-reduction was used in the transfer. The slight lack of detail in close-ups can be explained by the soft-focus lighting employed to highlight the nuns' faces. Notice the differences in level of detail between close-ups of the men and the women. Each gender is filmed completely differently, particularly the nuns. A very small amount of ringing on occasion results from the original photography and film elements, and has always been present in the film. Only the most obsessed viewers will be able to distinguish it from normal viewing distances anyway. The entire transfer is as unprocessed by unnecessary filters as a modern Blu-ray can be today.


The wonderful Technicolor production produces marvelous colors in each and every minute of the film. Lush, living greens are mixed with vibrant splashes of pink and red, in a manner that would stand out even if the film had been released yesterday to theaters. A shot in the middle of the film solely focuses on the delicate flowers the nuns have been growing. It was akin to a living garden appearing in my room, as they looked so real one could reach out and pick them. There is an appreciable dimension and depth to the image, that truly deserves a spot in tier one somewhere. When the film flashes back to one of the sisters fishing, the sparkling water of the lake is simply awesome to behold. One can almost feel the sun shining down on it. Contrast is nearly perfect, with inky blacks frequently being tested and proven worthy of demo-quality. A slight, slight amount of blooming occurs where a few details in the nuns' habits get washed out. Flesh tones are remarkably natural in look, from the paler skin of the British nuns, to the darker-shaded skin of the native Hindus. This transfer is not the over-driven, pumped-up contrast of so many modern films.


I am grateful such a powerful piece of cinema has been faithfully preserved on Blu-ray. As I was watching it, my mind kept making the natural comparison for picture quality to _A Passage To India_ on Blu-ray. Another fine example of film-making in itself, while obviously different due to the differing ages involved, is highly reminiscent of the video quality seen on _Black Narcissus_. Many similarities are shared between the two films, to a certain degree.


At times thoughts of tier one danced in my mind for placement, but a few camera tricks that have not aged well and some brief indications of age-related wear force me to recommend the top of tier two. The matte paintings that serve as the image's background when the camera peeks off the cliff, stick out to the modern viewer. While it no doubt inspired awe in 1947, the effect now looks dated at best. Print damage is kept to a bare minimum, and the film element looks in very good condition, but the occasional white speck does pop up. Related to the age of the film, a minor amount of registration errors in the first reel produce a touch of color-fringing. The problem is seen on brightly-colored reds the most, very early in the movie. There is also slight wavering in luminosity, again in the first reel only. These problems are minor in magnitude though and only prevent the disc from a ranking in tier one.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of hastic plank):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...4#post14918914


----------



## djoberg

I just saw _Red Cliff: Part 2_ and I remain confident that this too will easily qualify for Tier 0 (I recommend the same placement I gave for Part 1). Though there was a lengthy scene that appeared soft because of fog, the rest of the movie had the same amazing depth and detail as Part 1.


I noticed two big differences between Part 1 and Part 2. Part 1 had more daytime scenes and with them more color. But Part 2 had an exceptional nighttime scene (with a running time of perhaps 30-45 minutes...the last epic battle scene) with very deep and inky blacks (the KURO and other displays that excel in blacks were made for scenes like these!!) and equally impressive shadow details.


I would join Phantom in recommending the UK Import version of this movie. Not only is the PQ worth the relatively small price you would pay, but the movie itself is quite compelling. Though the two parts have a running time of 286 minutes, the storyline (with its fascinating culture), fairly good acting, and epic battle scenes kept my attention throughout.


----------



## deltasun

*The Hangover*


Sorry, gotta keep this short. The opening scene showed good promise with high Tier 1 qualities. Too bad the PQ wavered throughout.


Fine grain was present and never intrusive. There were some decent close-up's, but again inconsistent. Colors were well-rendered and the night scenes of Vegas showed excellent details.


Blacks were inky, but also crushed regularly. Contrast was a bit weak on a number of medium shots, yielding flat scenes. The better scenes occurred during high-contrast daylight shots. Skin tones were faithful for the most part, but did have a somewhat saturated look at times. Shadow details weren't the best. In fact, details were not its strong point.


On the technical front, lots of sharpened looks but nothing too distracting. A slight bit of banding also occurred as night turned to day on the rooftop. I also spied a number of artifacts. Though I mentioned quite a bit of issues here, their effects were minor and did not call too much attention to themselves.


There were some Gold moments, but overall I think the title belongs in the Silver tier...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.50*


Not as funny the second time around...

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## chumpy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17731057
> 
> *Band Of Brothers
> 
> recommendation: 2.75*
> 
> 
> The picture quality is too inconsistent and contains detectable grain-reduction. High-frequency information is lacking in many scenes, and a touch of minor compression artifacts also briefly appear. A solid Blu-ray presentation, but not what one would call having excellent demonstration-potential because of the intended aesthetic choices. People have to remember the series originally premiered on HBO in 2001, and the CGI looks relatively outdated by today's standards. That is plainly obvious at 1080p resolution. Its current placement in the middle of tier one is a serious reach, compared to the other films in that tier.



Ummmm, it's already in Tier 2.75...


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chumpy* /forum/post/17743703
> 
> 
> Ummmm, it's already in Tier 2.75...



Phantom Stranger is part of the team that helps maintain the main list, so he may have moved it down.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17744243
> 
> 
> Phantom Stranger is part of the team that helps maintain the main list, so he may have moved it down.



That is the correct reason. Until SuprSlow's schedule frees up some, it is mostly myself with some assistance from K-Spaz doing the work of maintaining the tiers and updating them. I should have posted this last night, but the tiers are now fully updated through post #14598 (the actual number seems to have changed since yesterday). It will probably be the last update until January by me. Here are the new placements:


Stargate: 15th Ann. - 3.75 (phantomstranger)


Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - 2.00 (GeekyGlassesGirl), 2.0 (jedimasterchad)


The Alphabet Killer - 3.0 (deltasun)


Cyclops - 3.75 (deltasun)


Miracle On 34th Street - 3.0 (phantomstranger)


Office Space - 3.0 (deltasun)


Great Expectations - 4.0 (phantomstranger)


Ferris Bueller's Day Off - 3.0 (selimsivad)


Red Cliff (UK Import) - Tier 0 below Transporter 3 (djoberg)


Hot Fuzz - low 0 or high Tier 1 (lgans316)


Braveheart (UK Import) - 2.25 (lgans316)


Pursuit Of Happiness - 1.75 (lgans316)


Wachmen: Motion Comic - 2.25 (phantomstranger)


Julie & Julia - 1.75 (deltasun)


Inglorious Bastards - 1.50 (deltasun), 1.50 (selimsivad)


Band Of Brothers - 2.75 (phantom)


Black Narcissus - 2.0 (phantom)


----------



## K-Spaz

I'll get those nf/bb links done next week, I won't have much time this weekend.


I have to say I envy you folks with hi-def displays you can watch BR's on. Must be nice...


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/17744727
> 
> 
> I'll get those nf/bb links done next week, I won't have much time this weekend.
> 
> 
> I have to say I envy you folks with hi-def displays you can watch BR's on. Must be nice...



You still haven't gotten your replacement bulbs yet? That must be excruciating at this time of year.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17744664
> 
> 
> 
> Inglorious Bastards - 1.50 (deltasun), 1.50 (selimsivad)



Minor correction, but important for searches, etc. It should be spelled: Inglourious Basterds. Regarding _Band of Brothers_, shouldn't the original tier vote be taken into consideration as well (unless there wasn't any trace of a review)? I have this set, but have not had a chance to watch it.


Thanks for all your work, Phantom!


----------



## chumpy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17744243
> 
> 
> Phantom Stranger is part of the team that helps maintain the main list, so he may have moved it down.



So no proposed move? Go directly to jail without passing go...


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chumpy* /forum/post/17744939
> 
> 
> So no proposed move? Go directly to jail without passing go...



If you disagree and write up something to dissuade the decision, it will be taken into consideration. I've never seen BoB, but I have always wondered about its placement given that fact that great looking br made for tv series are hard to come by (imho). Comparing to the standards set by other titles in the top tiers anyhow.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17744760
> 
> 
> You still haven't gotten your replacement bulbs yet? That must be excruciating at this time of year.



Yea, usually I'm a patient type, but last year I was without movies all through the Christmas / New Year holidays, and this year I've been without a display since before Thanksgiving. If this continues much longer, I'm going to be a not-very-happy camper. At dinner last night with my family, I was informed that they wanted to do a LotR marathon on my system some day soon. I informed them that they'd be looking at a 24" monitor if they wished to do it at my house!


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17744780
> 
> 
> Minor correction, but important for searches, etc. It should be spelled: Inglourious Basterds. Regarding _Band of Brothers_, shouldn't the original tier vote be taken into consideration as well (unless there wasn't any trace of a review)? I have this set, but have not had a chance to watch it.
> 
> 
> Thanks for all your work, Phantom!



As always, check the Tiers themselves for the definitive and correct spelling.







The update list I post in the thread is mostly for the edification of contributors.


I went through the history of discussion on Band Of Brothers in the thread when weighing the various placements. For a period of time it was placed in tier 2.0, when presumably SuprSlow bumped it up to tier 1.5 about a year ago, due to a couple of vague recommendations. There had been little substantive talk on it since then, but if anyone wants it to be bumped up a couple of notches, speak now. On any title under consideration, more recent reviews tend to get more credit from me. I am not sure how applicable a placement made for tier 0 from two years ago, as an example, is necessarily an accurate, current indicator of quality. The format has evolved a bit, and generally newer releases are a little better on average for picture quality as the studios get a handle on the format.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chumpy* /forum/post/17744939
> 
> 
> So no proposed move? Go directly to jail without passing go...


 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...7#post17731057 

The review has always been there, if you missed it.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17745767
> 
> 
> As always, check the Tiers themselves for the definitive and correct spelling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The update list I post in the thread is mostly for the edification of contributors.



Bast*E*rds is still spelled incorrectly in the main list.







I know, Tarantino went out of his way to make his different from the earlier film with the same title.


Also, thanks for checking on BoB.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17746040
> 
> 
> Bast*E*rds is still spelled incorrectly in the main list.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know, Tarantino went out of his way to make his different from the earlier film with the same title.



I was totally unaware of the alternate spelling in the title. Most of the recent Blu-ray releases have been wrapped and are sitting under the tree for Christmas.







That is why you have not heard a peep from me on newly released movies like Public Enemies yet. It has been corrected in the database and will post in the next update.


----------



## tfoltz

I think Band of Brothers should be higher than 2.75. I saw recommendations for Tier 1 in the search history. I don't believe it should be lower than 2.50.


----------



## deltasun

*G-Force*


Fine grain apparent throughout. This film had exceptional shadow details and depth. Blacks were inky but did produce some crushing on a few scenes. Contrast was a bit boosted and colors saturated - this combination seem to produce a look complementary to the film's genre. Still, skin tones were probably the most affected by this combination, yielding overly tanned (the fake kind) human faces.


Facial details were excellent, showing discernible texture on humans. Texture on the rodents varied - sometimes their fur seemed matted and lifeless; other times their movements look natural and lively.


Overall, there were enough HD characteristics and 3D pop to keep this in Tier 1 (barely). Placement will depend on viewers' tolerance for the oversaturation. I did spy some ringing throughout, but cannot positively discern its source.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Blazing Saddles


recommendation: Tier 3.0
*

This looked a little better than I was anticipating from its current placement in the middle of tier three. There seems to be no discussion of it in the thread, so it must have been a holdover from the prior list. While an early VC-1 encode intended for HD DVD, the video bitrate averages a respectable 23.93 Mbps and is very well-done with no errors.


It is not really eye candy, but a solid offering of a film from the 70s. Probably a minimal amount of digital noise reduction has been used, but no egregious instances of halos show up. Colors are quite robust and contrast is excellent, showing no signs of black crush or clipping. The image has a little more depth and dimension than other titles in tier three generally.


----------



## jedimasterchad

Hey guys. Saw Avatar last night in theaters. I saw it in 3D, so it will be interesting to see how the experience translates onto Blu-Ray. Some reviews mentioned how James Cameron invented new colors; that is no lie. The scenery was beautiful in the world that he created, really a visual treat. Special FX were really top notch also. Wouldn't be surprised to see this one end up with a solid tier 1 ranking sometime next year when it releases.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/17765492
> 
> 
> Hey guys. Saw Avatar last night in theaters. I saw it in 3D, so it will be interesting to see how the experience translates onto Blu-Ray. Some reviews mentioned how James Cameron invented new colors; that is no lie. The scenery was beautiful in the world that he created, really a visual treat. Special FX were really top notch also. Wouldn't be surprised to see this one end up with a solid tier 1 ranking sometime next year when it releases.



I thought it was an amazing looking movie, and I expect the blu-ray to be a bit of a let-down. I can't see how the visual effect of the 3d on the gigantic cinemascope screen will possibly translate to my 2 dimensional television


----------



## Phantom Stranger

The real question being, is Avatar's story any good? Visions of The Abyss dance in my head, where the visuals seemed to outpace the narrative and storytelling.


----------



## deltasun

The story's not an original one and makes it highly predictable. You knew how it was going to end about a third or so into the story. However, in conjunction with the auditory and visual circus, it's quite the entertainment value.


----------



## Hughmc

*District 9* looks really good. I FFed to look at some scenes, actually the whole movie, but I will watch it later tonight. Looks really impressive so far. While the color palette is muted and not really punchy, the detail is incredible. This is where use of the Red One Cameras will get interesting in terms of how film buffs accept them. Basically it looks like film with extraordinary clarity, minus the grain. THe BD looks faithful to what I saw in the theatre, but the plus is the BD looks better on my display then my local DLP theatre. SQ is excellent too. With some minor PQ flaws I would say this is a reference disc excellent for demo.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/17290212
> 
> *Priceless*
> 
> 
> This 2006 French film comes to HD with an unimpressive transfer. While it does look like a recent film and has enough HD-ness to keep it out of the lower tiers, there are several major issues. The most significant one is the AWFUL compression work combined with excessive temporal noise reduction. The grain takes on a completely unnatural look more akin to digital noise, and the NR leaves unsightly smearing and frozen grain patterns, as well as being utterly ineffective in its goal of reducing noise. The moped ride scene around the 1hr:14min mark exhibits the worst compression I've ever seen on any disc. The contrast is too hot at the upper end of things, daylight shots are full of blown highlights, and the frequent sharpening/edge enhancement makes for a harsh image. Focus issues in the photography are frequent.
> 
> 
> a somewhat generous *Tier 3.0*



I can't disagree in principle with any of the negatives cited, though issues are a little overstated in my view. There might be use of temporal DNR, though it looks to me more like an older HD transfer made on inferior equipment, intended for dvd more than the resolution available to Blu-ray. The low-bitrate VC-1 encode, which rarely peaks over 16 Mbps, does not help matters in terms of fine detail.


The current placement is fair, maybe even a little generous by a notch as 42041 states, so a tier 3.0 ranking seems reasonable at the moment.


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17770221
> 
> *District 9* looks really good. I FFed to look at some scenes, actually the whole movie, but I will watch it later tonight. Looks really impressive so far. While the color palette is muted and not really punchy, the detail is incredible. This is where use of the Red One Cameras will get interesting in terms of how film buffs accept them. Basically it looks like film with extraordinary clarity, minus the grain. THe BD looks faithful to what I saw in the theatre, but the plus is the BD looks better on my display then my local DLP theatre. SQ is excellent too. With some minor PQ flaws I would say this is a reference disc excellent for demo.



Glad to hear it cause my projector came home yesterday and this is in the mail to watch tonight. i'll keep my fingers crossed for an unbroken disc now.


----------



## K-Spaz

Just finished District 9. There were lots of places this looked fantastic, but I don't think anything can offset the amount of shakycam in this film. There were times it was so bad I had to close my eyes. It was driving me nuts. I considered stopping the movie.


A large percentage of the film is done in "documentary footage" form, and that also makes it difficult to offer a placement.


There's lots of tier 0 shots, but I think this is going to end up a low tier 1/or tier 2 film. A great movie, great story, but a little art'sy for my taste to score it high here. Off the cuff, I'd say 2.0, but I'll reserve judgment till after I see it again because I think my bias against shakycam and documentary footage adds prejudice to my opinion. Where it looks great, it really looks great.


----------



## sb1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/17773500
> 
> 
> Just finished District 9. There were lots of places this looked fantastic, but I don't think anything can offset the amount of shakycam in this film. There were times it was so bad I had to close my eyes. It was driving me nuts. I considered stopping the movie.
> 
> 
> A large percentage of the film is done in "documentary footage" form, and that also makes it difficult to offer a placement.
> 
> 
> There's lots of tier 0 shots, but I think this is going to end up a low tier 1/or tier 2 film. A great movie, great story, but a little art'sy for my taste to score it high here. Off the cuff, I'd say 2.0, but I'll reserve judgment till after I see it again because I think my bias against shakycam and documentary footage adds prejudice to my opinion. Where it looks great, it really looks great.



Thanks for your thoughts on it. Wonderful movie. I am surprised a bit by your comments about the shakycam, though. I didn't really think this one was that offensive as far as shakycam movies go, which is very unusual since I don't like that style.


I wasn't able to watch it on the projector yet (it was still too early), just a 40" LCD. I'd agree with your assessment that picture quality would be somewhat hard to place, given what seemed to be intentionally different types of shots, depending on the point of view being show at any particular time. Some shots, though, looked like they had detail to spare.


----------



## deltasun

*District 9*

_Don't point your fockin' tentacles at me!_


Because of the way the story was presented, PQ varied quite a bit for this title. Some of the facial close-up's were of the Tier 0 variety. However, the CGI Prawns exhibited quite a bit of softness in medium shots. Their movements were very rudimentary also (and yes, I understand the budgetary constraints), specially after having seen some really well-done CGI renderings of late.


Contrast was a bit overcooked. Blacks were not the best, only witnessing a handful of examples that had a bold look. In fact, some were even crushed. Shadow details didn't fare well either in a number of shots, giving a flat appearance in said scenes.


On the positive side, details in medium to long shots, when the lighting was right, were tremendous. The overhead shots of District 9, with its overcrowded slums were a sight to behold. Colors were vibrant, though a bit on the muted side. I know that sounded like a contradiction. Skin tones were spot on, despite the brighter contrast.


Overall, for the purposes of this thread, I will have to average out the numerous documentary-style scenes with some of the creme de la creme. I did not detect any obvious DNR or EE. I was really underwhelmed by the numerous contrast issues, particularly when the light source was behind the subject. It pains me to do this...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.50*


AQ was well-balanced but I was not as impressed as I anticipated. I felt the new _Terminator_ was still more impressive. That's not to say they were not active, just did not blow me away. As for the story, I enjoyed it more the second time around. I was able to pick up more along the way knowing what was to come.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17773853
> 
> *District 9*
> 
> _Don't point your fockin' tentacles at me!_
> 
> 
> Because of the way the story was presented, PQ varied quite a bit for this title. Some of the facial close-up's were of the Tier 0 variety. However, the CGI Prawns exhibited quite a bit of softness in medium shots. Their movements were very rudimentary also (and yes, I understand the budgetary constraints), specially after having seen some really well-done CGI renderings of late.
> 
> 
> Contrast was a bit overcooked. Blacks were not the best, only witnessing a handful of examples that had a bold look. In fact, some were even crushed. Shadow details didn't fare well either in a number of shots, giving a flat appearance in said scenes.
> 
> 
> On the positive side, details in medium to long shots, when the lighting was right, were tremendous. The overhead shots of District 9, with its overcrowded slums were a sight to behold. Colors were vibrant, though a bit on the muted side. I know that sounded like a contradiction. Skin tones were spot on, despite the brighter contrast.
> 
> 
> Overall, for the purposes of this thread, I will have to average out the numerous documentary-style scenes with some of the creme de la creme. I did not detect any obvious DNR or EE. I was really underwhelmed by the numerous contrast issues, particularly when the light source was behind the subject. It pains me to do this...
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.50*
> 
> 
> AQ was well-balanced but I was not as impressed as I anticipated. I felt the new _Terminator_ was still more impressive. That's not to say they were not active, just did not blow me away. As for the story, I enjoyed it more the second time around. I was able to pick up more along the way knowing what was to come.



Excellent review and placement!







I'd like to add that whites were blown out in a few shots as well.


I have a strange feeling that if D9 was shot on film instead of digitally, it would probably sit at the top of Tier 2.


Still, a great movie
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) that would be diluted by a sequel, IMO. But money talks, and... you know the rest.










*District 9

Tier Recommendation: Tier 2.5

PS3-Samsung 46" 1080p-seven'*


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17773853
> 
> 
> Colors were vibrant, though a bit on the muted side. I know that sounded like a contradiction.





It would sound that way if I hadn't seen it. I think the sharpness of those muted shots is so great, it makes the contrast and saturation seem higher. Strange eh, how a very natural looking overhead view can look so real, it looks unreal... It makes it hard to grade this movie down, but I wouldn't know where else to put it.


Thanks for being braver than I was, I figured if I made an outright recommendation on this film there'd be people out there hunting down my family or something







I don't care what cameras they shot this with, I say it's flawed badly. I can agree with your placement, and I would not dispute views higher or lower, unless they were really overboard about it.


For my next viewing of this, I'm going to zoom the projector all the way down and get farther back. I think I was way too close for this much camera shake. I'd suggest for those looking to enjoy this movie more, add some viewing distance to your normal setup.


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/17775061
> 
> 
> I have a strange feeling that if D9 was shot on film instead of digitally, it would probably sit at the top of Tier 2.



I have a feeling that if they'd have held the camera still once in a while, it'd be at the top of tier one.


----------



## deltasun

Yes, I definitely neglected to mention loss of details in the blown out whites. Thanks for mentioning it.


And K-Spaz, my family's on alert and can transplanted in a moment's notice.







Interestingly enough, the camera shake did not bother me. I thought _Star Trek_ was more notorious. Let me know how it goes once you back up a few, because at this point, even with a still camera I'd still go with my rating.


----------



## deltasun

Wanted to mention too that I watched roughly 90% of _Wings of Desire_ last weekend. I do agree with K-Spaz's rating of *4.0* for similar reasons. I did see some major ringing on the main Angel's trench coat while walking across the field. The colored scenes did indeed pop (but it also could be from the contrasting black & white scenes surrounding them). I was not as impressed with the facial details, just because the grain really got in the way.


So, I will second the *4.0* rating. Another movie I wanted to like (but fell short) for its U2 connection.


----------



## K-Spaz

I seem to remember giving it a 4.0 due to what I thought was a good transfer







If you saw ringing, I'm not so sure it deserved a 4.


----------



## djoberg

Thanks for the current reviews guys! I tried renting _District 9_ for tonight but they were completely out of copies at our local video stores.


I did end up getting _Harry Potter: The Half-Blood Prince_, _Night at the Museum: The Battle of the Smithsonian_, and _Julie & Julia_. Besides these, I still have _The Orphan_ which I purchased over a month ago, along with _Ice Age 2 & Ice Age 3_. We are hunkering down for a 3-day storm/blizzard that will be pummeling the Upper Midwest starting tonight, so I hope to watch most or all of these titles. And if I can get a copy of _District 9_ (that is, if they get a copy at the video store and I'm actually able to drive there) I'll be watching that too.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

I'm curious what your thoughts on *Harry Potter* will be, Denny!


Currently I haven't been watching much in the way of Blu, but when I have been I've been watching *Rome*. I've watched the first disc, and I have disc 2 & 3 here. Unsure if Canada Post will deliver *Julie & Julia* and disc 4 of *Rome* by tomorrow before they shut down, I hope they do!



I also really want to see *District 9*, but like Denny's stores, ours has been either sold out or have no copies available to rent. Hopefully soon! I had been hoping to get a copy of *Inglorious Basterds* for the husband for christmas to no avail. Most of our Blu purchases might have to come on boxing day via Amazon.ca's sale!







In the mean time I have to make some more chocolate chip cookies, peanut butter marshmallow squares, and homemade caramel apple jam .... possibly some of that puppy chow that I made a lot of last year! If I don't make it back for any reviews before Christmas is over, wishing all of you guys happy & safe holidays!


----------



## Hughmc

*District 9:*


I am a bit surprised at some of the reviews, so I guess I will be the lone stranger with my recommendation.


The shaky cam doesn't bother me therefore doesn't play into my review.


I thought the black levels were deep and as was contrast both of which lent themselves to really good detail. The color palette was slightly on the muted side, yet still dynamic and excellent with realistic flesh tones.


Facial detail is some of the best on BD I have seen with extreme rendering of pores, facial hair, sweat, etc.


There were a couple of scenes with whites being hot, like in the opening scene and some blacks being weak indoors, but these were the rare exceptions.


There is one scene in particular that has some of the best detail I have ever seen on BD and is comparable if not better than the Imax scenes from the Dark KNight. I believe it is near the end when they show the white military vehicle in front of the building. I thought it looked incredible.


I think D9 is reference, demo worthy, hence I am recommending:

*Low Tier 0*


Two things I want to point out.

I know there were the documentary shots filmed with a hand held HD camera, so those shots don't look as good as the rest of the BD, but the IMO the rest of the BD looks so good it still earns a low tier 0 recommendation from me.


Second, I have been fooled before by movies shot in 1:78 or 1:85 in that the "closeness" or "zoomed" in look of the material "looks" better or like it has better detail when in fact it is part of the illusion of the closeness of the capture do to the aspect ratio. It becomes even more apparent when I have seen some movies on HBO that the OAR was 2:40:1, but HBO shows it in 1:78:1. Many times the "zoomed" in look gives a false sense of better PQ or detail. Meanwhile....


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/17775061
> 
> 
> Excellent review and placement!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to add that whites were blown out in a few shots as well.
> 
> 
> I have a strange feeling that if D9 was shot on film instead of digitally, it would probably sit at the top of Tier 2.
> 
> 
> Still, a great movie
> *Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler
> *Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) that would be diluted by a sequel, IMO. But money talks, and... you know the rest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *District 9
> 
> Tier Recommendation: Tier 2.5
> 
> PS3-Samsung 46" 1080p-seven'*




Selimsivad, I thought the REd One cameras should capture the same amount of detail as film, minus the grain, since they are the same rez as film and if that is the case PQ should be just as good at least in terms of detail, everything else being equal.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17778618
> 
> 
> Selimsivad, I thought the REd One cameras should capture the same amount of detail as film, minus the grain, since they are the same rez as film and if that is the case PQ should be just as good at least in terms of detail, everything else being equal.



Saying that the Red One cameras capture the same amount of detail as film is a hard thing to quantify.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17778713
> 
> 
> Saying that the Red One cameras capture the same amount of detail as film is a hard thing to quantify.



In a way that is the point I am making. Saying "if D9 were captured on film it would sit on the top if tier 2" is implying film is going to look better all else being equal, when there are too many variables to claim that is true.


Edit, it just occurred to me, Selimsivad could mean the documentary parts captured with the shaky cams, but he did say shot digitally which implies the whole BD.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17778580
> 
> *District 9:*
> 
> 
> I am a bit surprised at some of the reviews, so I guess I will be the lone stranger with my recommendation.
> 
> 
> The shaky cam doesn't bother me therefore doesn't play into my review.
> 
> 
> I thought the black levels were deep and as was contrast both of which lent themselves to really good detail. The color palette was slightly on the muted side, yet still dynamic and excellent with realistic flesh tones.
> 
> 
> Facial detail is some of the best on BD I have seen with extreme rendering of pores, facial hair, sweat, etc.
> 
> 
> There were a couple of scenes with whites being hot, like in the opening scene and some blacks being weak indoors, but these were the rare exceptions.
> 
> 
> There is one scene in particular that has some of the best detail I have ever seen on BD and is comparable if not better than the Imax scenes from the Dark KNight. I believe it is near the end when they show the white military vehicle in front of the building. I thought it looked incredible.
> 
> 
> I think D9 is reference, demo worthy, hence I am recommending:
> 
> *Low Tier 0*
> 
> 
> Two things I want to point out.
> 
> I know there were the documentary shots filmed with a hand held HD camera, so those shots don't look as good as the rest of the BD, but the IMO the rest of the BD looks so good it still earns a low tier 0 recommendation from me.
> 
> 
> Second, I have been fooled before by movies shot in 1:78 or 1:85 in that the "closeness" or "zoomed" in look of the material "looks" better or like it has better detail when in fact it is part of the illusion of the closeness of the capture do to the aspect ratio. It becomes even more apparent when I have seen some movies on HBO that the OAR was 2:40:1, but HBO shows it in 1:78:1. Many times the "zoomed" in look gives a false sense of better PQ or detail. Meanwhile....




Your review is much more in line with what I saw last night watching this. I was pretty surprised seeing tier 2.5 ratings for this.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/17778972
> 
> 
> Your review is much more in line with what I saw last night watching this. I was pretty surprised seeing tier 2.5 ratings for this.




Me too and I just looked at the tier 2.5 list of which I have seen at least 20 of those titles and own 6 and nothing in that tier or even two tiers higher is even close IMO.










And I seen D9 in the theatre and thought it looked good there, so I was anxious to see how the BD looked and it looks considerably better at home. I see D9 as being similar to Dark Knight minus EE or other anomalies.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17778817
> 
> 
> In a way that is the point I am making. Saying "if D9 were captured on film it would sit on the top if tier 2" is implying film is going to look better all else being equal, when there are too many variables to claim that is true.



Got ya!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17728593
> 
> *Julie & Julia*
> 
> 
> Fine grain present throughout - this was a wonderful presentation that showcased vibrant, rich, natural colors coupled with strong and stable contrast. Blacks were deep, with minimal crushing in only a few scenes. Details were excellent, from the threaded textures in sweaters and general clothing to cobblestones and vegetation in France. Shadow details were also well-rendered and gave beautiful depth and dimensionality to almost every scene (will caveat this later). Panoramic shots were fully detailed through the use of limitless depth of field.
> 
> 
> Facial details were decent as well, but not as superb as some of the best titles. The best scenes that exhibited my above descriptions existed during the French sequences with Julia, bright outdoor shots in Julie's world, and some of the brighter indoor shots. Somehow, the look diminishes a bit inside Julie's apartment, specially at night. Scenes take on weaker contrast and less details.
> 
> 
> All in all, a solid Gold presentation for me despite some ringing here and there. The most offensive of these was on Julie's boss' jawline when he was showing her some displeasure with her new-found hobby. I did not spy any obvious DNR, though some of the problematic apartment scenes came close to the look.
> 
> 
> Still, the colors really shone!
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


*Julie & Julia*


Okay, I'm going to be like others who (recently) took the easy way out and simply posted deltasun's review and more or less agreed with him. (For the record, we haven't always agreed, but this is as close as it gets! I'm speaking of his actual analysis and description, not the placement recommendation.)


Seriously, I was about to comment on some of the very same virtues, with some of the very same examples, and after seeing deltasun's review I decided I didn't want to be guilty of plagiarism. The only virtue that he didn't comment on that was absolutely remarkable was the *depth* in MANY scenes...even my wife commented on this and she isn't exactly one to sound the praises of a film's PQ. About the only point where I would disagree is with his comment regarding "ringing," for I saw no instance of this (but then I rarely do







).


I was so impressed with this beautiful, natural-looking film that abounded with warm and vibrant colors, exquisite details, deep blacks with amazing shadow detail to boot, brilliant contrast, and phenomenal depth, that I'm going to raise it a notch or two above my esteemed colleague....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25 or 1.5*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'


----------



## lgans316

*Shaun of the Dead - Tier 2.25* - Excellent looking outdoor scenes and decent looking indoor scenes shot during the day spoiled by the intentionally dark filming style towards the end inside the Winchester Pub.

*Corrections*

*The Pursuit of Happyness* - I initially voted Tier 1.75. This belongs to *Tier 2.25*.

*Godzilla*- I initially voted Tier 2.75. This belongs to *Tier 3.25*.


Sorry for getting this wrong on the first attempt.










After repeat viewings, I agree with Phantom's placement of Band of Brothers. Except Chapter 5, the rest have been noise reduced (not in all shots but in the important spots) to the point where the skin tones begin to look Waxy, similar to Disturbia.


Someone who knew about HBO acknowledged that this one might have slipped through their Quality Control.


----------



## K-Spaz

Hugh,

I'm glad to see you stand your ground. If you feel it should be there, I can respect that. I know that much of my own opinion is subjective. I also see that you're discounting the documentary shots that really don't count, and that's fine. I wasn't willing to disclude them since there were so many. I am surprised to see both you and deltasun say you're not bothered by the shaky cam. I don't think I ever saw a movie with more of it.


To each their own.


Great review! It's refreshing to see some differing opinions once in a while.


I think if this were an easier title to pin a number on, you'd already have a flame war in progress from the recommendations so far.


When I consider turning a movie off because it annoys me that much, I'm not going to move much on my recommendation. It goes without saying I disagree with you, but I respect your opinion.


PQ or no, it was a good movie. Recommended to anyone.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17779296
> 
> *Julie & Julia*
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.25 or 1.5*



I vote for Tier 1. I don't think I've ever seen a disc handle distance shots as well as this one. Some of the long shots of New York are staggering. You can pick out individual bricks a block away from where the camera is sitting.


Look at the wedding close to the hour mark. Here is a tough scene that could have been a nightmare, but is amazingly well defined. Individual blades of grass, tons of peoples, loads of vibrant green vegetation, and it all holds together without an ounce of noticeable artifacting.


That said, I agree with the earlier poster in regards to ringing. I spotted it as well, although it is minor. Also, facial detail is limited enough (but still fine) to knock it down from 0.


I am a flat out ass when it comes to dissecting video, but this transfer had me struggling to find stuff wrong with it, and that usually only happens with Pixar stuff.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/17779854
> 
> 
> I vote for Tier 1. I don't think I've ever seen a disc handle distance shots as well as this one. Some of the long shots of New York are staggering. *You can pick out individual bricks a block away from where the camera is sitting*.
> 
> 
> Look at the wedding close to the hour mark. Here is a tough scene that could have been a nightmare, but is amazingly well defined. *Individual blades of grass, tons of peoples, loads of vibrant green vegetation*, and it all holds together without an ounce of noticeable artifacting.



Ditto! I obviously agree....this title was loaded with detail. In one scene (I believe it was in Paris, or possibly New York) I turned to my wife and said, "Man, I can read the names of street signs in the background (that were a block away from the main focus of the shot)"!!


If it weren't for the lack of facial details and a few soft shots in Julie's apartment I would have opted for a low Tier 0 placement.


----------



## deltasun

Guys, I agree about the details - specially in panoramas. My biggest problem was in Julie's apartment. Contrast was a problem and did not yield consistent shadow details. More than a third of the film took place in their apartment and was enough for me to knock the rating down thus-ly. I believe the worst of the facial (lack of) details occurred there as well.


P.S. I actually mention when the most obvious ringing took place in my review. But yes, understandable that some of us are lucky enough to not be bothered by them. I usually don't get bothered, but there was enough for me to mention.


----------



## djoberg

*Ice Age: The Meltdown*


Okay, I'll admit I'm chiming in quite late on this title, but after just viewing it I have to say "HOW IN THE WORLD DID THIS END UP IN TIER 2.0?!" IMHO this is definitely "demo worthy".....it's not up there with the Pixar animated titles, but it's still deserving of Tier 1.


Besides a very brief instance of banding in the blue sky and a couple of short soft shots, this title had it all..........Vibrant colors, bold contrast, deep blacks (though these shots were limited to a couple of scenes), excellent shadow detail, amazing sharpness, and plenty of 3D pop!!


Even if I take a conservative approach, it's still worthy of the following....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8"


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17780100
> 
> 
> Guys, I agree about the details - specially in panoramas. *My biggest problem was in Julie's apartment*. Contrast was a problem and did not yield consistent shadow details. *More than a third of the film took place in their apartment and was enough for me to knock the rating down thus-ly*. I believe the worst of the facial (lack of) details occurred there as well.



Even though I saw a lack of details in Julie's apartment, I do NOT believe it was consistently bad in those scenes. There were some "dinner scenes" there, as well as scenes by her computer, that were VERY GOOD. I will stick by my recommendation of 1.25 or 1.5.


----------



## deltasun

*Love Actually*


Rounding off my traditional Christmas films is _Love Actually_. Wow, I finally witnessed some DNR (unfortunately, of course). I guess this is a catalog title, Hugh, the streak is still alive.










Grain on this film was inconsistent - heavy at times and DNR'd (read: absent) in others. As in _District 9_, contrast was a bit hot on this one. I actually re-calibrated my system because of the back-to-back high contrast presentations, but it wasn't my settings. Facial details probably reached some Tier 1 moments, but also sank quite low with arbitrary bouts of softness and general lack of textures. In between, we see some acne on "the girl next door / 24 chick" (Cuthbert) and faint lines on Neeson's and Nighy's faces.


Medium shots gave way to good depth, but background details were soft (definitely a depth of field choice in most instances). Blacks were adequate but not inky. I expected more crushing, but were surprisingly minimal - Rickman's secretary's black sweater was a fine example of maintaining detail. Skin tones were also on the light side.


I think overall, this film was plagued by arbitrary softness. The scene between Linney and her co-worker in her bedroom - just plain terrible! The PQ, not Laura.









*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## John Mason

Just $.02 on this. Haven't seen the theater or Blu-ray D9, but TV ads look like intriguing sci-fi. (Also spotted: seasonal TV ads touting the PQ for the Blu-ray "Pride and Prejudice," which agrees with reviews in that review thread.)


From the D9 IMBD tech page it looks like the 4k Red One digital camera capture (actually about 3.2k maximum effective resolution), was maintained, so Blu-rays based on 4k Red code (if the DI was ~4k, too) should benefit PQ-wise, losing some crispness compared to digital theaters using less compression. The more steps in the viewing chain, such as the MTF (and focus) of a digital-theater projection lens), the more detail is lost.


So some detail could be lost transferring the DI data to film for non-digital theaters. Far more would be lost in analog projection by the chattering mechanical process. Tests have shown that film projection often approximates only 720p HD resolution. At the same time those international tests showed that still more details are lost from film negatives as they're processed into prints for mass distribution. And scanning a film for digital-intermediate color corrections (etc.) is another detail-reduction stage. As mentioned, there are a huge number of variables involved influencing PQ results one way or another. -- John


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Mason* /forum/post/17781363
> 
> 
> From the D9 IMBD tech page it looks like the 4k Red One digital camera capture (actually about 3.2k maximum effective resolution), was maintained, so Blu-rays based on 4k Red code (if the DI was ~4k, too) should benefit PQ-wise, losing some crispness compared to digital theaters using less compression. The more steps in the viewing chain, such as the MTF (and focus) of a digital-theater projection lens), the more detail is lost.
> 
> 
> So some detail could be lost transferring the DI data to film for non-digital theaters. Far more would be lost in analog projection by the chattering mechanical process. Tests have shown that film projection often approximates only 720p HD resolution. At the same time those international tests showed that still more details are lost from film negatives as they're processed into prints for mass distribution. And scanning a film for digital-intermediate color corrections (etc.) is another detail-reduction stage. As mentioned, there are a huge number of variables involved influencing PQ results one way or another. -- John



Those are good points you raise. Most of the prints I see at local theaters have issues, that degrade the picture quality to a degree. While we end up ruthlessly dissecting many Blu-rays here, most of them end up looking better than the average theater print found at the local cinema.


Merry Christmas and happy holidays everyone! May you all get the Blu-rays you asked for from Santa. Everyone on Santa's nice list this year deserves something from tier zero.


----------



## Ozymandis

Inglorious Basterds- Well, I was really enjoying this fairly long movie, so my review on PQ will be brief. I thought it looked really solid, good but not great detail; an overall attractive transfer. Night scenes weren't that inky as stated, but still, a fine transfer. I think it was put in Tier 1.5, and that seems fair to me.


Watching District 9 today. Target was all sold out of this and Best Buy had only a couple of copies. I saw it in the theater and so I know to expect different types of shots, but the movie looked really good there despite that.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17781698
> 
> 
> Those are good points you raise. Most of the prints I see at local theaters have issues, that degrade the picture quality to a degree. *While we end up ruthlessly dissecting many Blu-rays here, most of them end up looking better than the average theater print found at the local cinema.*
> 
> 
> Merry Christmas and happy holidays everyone! May you all get the Blu-rays you asked for from Santa. Everyone on Santa's nice list this year deserves something from tier zero.



I can safely say the bolded statement was true again in _D9_'s case. The documentary-style scenes were more crisp on BR than what I recall in the theatre, for example.


I'd like to wish everyone a happy Christmas as well! Thanks for all the reviews and maintenance of this thread. I remember stumbling into this thread about a month ago last year when Circuit City was nearing its end and was selling BRs cheap. I wanted to know which BRs were top tier and voila! - this thread popped in to my Google, catapulting my current addiction.

















Here's to doubling Tier 0 in the upcoming year!


----------



## djoberg

*Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince*


SOFT....LACK of DETAIL....LACK of DEPTH....DRAB COLORS....shall I go on? These are my main gripes regarding the PQ of this title. That's not to say the whole movie was characterized by these, but they did make up a fair percentage. Add to this list the terrible facial details (with the exception of those who had long beards







); they were soft and almost looked like the product of DNR.


So, what about the good stuff? BLACKS!!!! My KURO didn't disappoint me here, for there were MANY scenes with OUTSTANDING BLACK LEVELS and SHADOW DETAILS. But I must add that several scenes also had brief instances of crushed blacks and when it was overly soft the shadow details suffered.


Contrast was also superb and when there were brighter scenes I was impressed with the detail and depth (but these were obviously "few and far between").


Taking everything into consideration, this is NOT a demo-worthy disc, but there was enough "eye candy" (especially in the form of blacks and shadow details) for me to put it into Tier Silver. I see there's 3 votes thus far....2 @ 2.0 and 1 @ 2.5. I'm going to split the difference and put it here....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'


----------



## deltasun

I'd like some of the eggnog you're having...


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17784306
> 
> 
> I'd like some of the eggnog you're having...



Whoa! It sounds like you're talking to me now! It looks like your post caused our "drop-in eggnog guest" to delete the post.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17785226
> 
> 
> Whoa! It sounds like you're talking to me now! It looks like your post caused our "drop-in eggnog guest" to delete the post.



Oh that's too funny! I should have quoted her.







I don't know if I can even match that comment with your review since I probably won't see it for a long time (only seen the first







).


Either way, I'm sure you're quite capable of mixing world-class eggnog, Denny.


----------



## K-Spaz

Speaking of eggnog, every year several of us in my family get together before Thanksgiving and make up a bunch of batches, ready to age for Christmas. Mine has been sitting to mellow for over a month now and it'll get used on Tuesday at a movie marathon day here. Last night we had another members supply. I've never had better eggnog in my life. Anyone interested in a recipe for it, pm me. Of course, it's a bit late to make now but it can be enjoyed without the aging, it's just not as 'refined' for lack of a better word.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

After watching _The Spirit_ a couple of days ago, the current ranking in tier 1.25 seems decent. It might deserve a bump higher to the top quarter of tier one, but I do not plan on making a strenuous push for that judgment. Incredible sharpness and depth, marred only by obvious digital softening on all the actresses in the movie. That technique is very blatant, as when a scene will shift from the unprocessed face of Samuel Jackson for instance, to the softened face of Eva Mendes. The skin of the actresses resemble smooth marble because of the post-processing. Clearly directorial intention, but it does diminish the image a little that in every other criteria is spectacular and worthy of tier zero.


In an unrelated note, it appears this thread is the last ranking system left standing for picture quality. I had not visited High-Def Digest in many months, but their "tier" list seems to have disappeared.


----------



## djoberg

*Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian*


It's late and I'm tired, so I'll keep this short. In short (







), this was another "demo-worthy" title, but _just barely_. I believe deltasun wrote a review of this some time back commenting on the contrast and the rich, natural colors being the greatest virtues...I concur. Let me add that BLACK LEVELS WERE EXCELLENT, as were SHADOW DETAILS. I was REALLY impressed with some of the nighttime skies, and dark backgrounds in interior scenes as well.


There were definitely some SOFT scenes. These, along with too much grain in some shots (which hindered detail to _my eyes_), were the chief negatives. They were enough to drop this a whole tier in my reckoning.


Okay, last time I differed from deltasun by a notch or two, but this time we're on the exact same page, so..............

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'


PS BTW, this was viewed without consuming any eggnog!


----------



## lgans316

*Fight Club - Tier 1.5* - Dark but detailed, sharp, and film like. This is the best looking dark film on Blu-ray. Period. No major complaints here.


*UP - Top 5 in Tier 0* - Agree with current placement. I popped in the DVD copy for fun and though it looked as good as the Blu-ray from a longer viewing distance.








*G.I Joe - Rise of the Cobra - Tier 1.75* - Wish there were many daylight scenes which I thought looked very good. The orangish skin tones looked underwhelming and distracting. There seemed to be lack of definition in texture details. Blacks appeared crushing detail in the shadows. Reminds me of War / Hancock though this one is slightly better than these in terms of PQ.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*District 9*


This was shot on the Red One HD camera. Unfortunately, it was painfully obvious that this was shot on an HD camera.


What I mean by that is that it lacked the depth and three dimensionality that you can get with film. This image was quite flat overall, and lacking in overall contrast. Highlights were blown out in numerous scenes throughout the movie....which is typical of what HD cams do. I thought that they had improved on this, but it doesn't really show here. Very disappointing.


Color are also somewhat muted, which I do believe is intentional.


On the good side, the detail can be extremely impressive indeed. In fact, detail and clarity is very impressive overall, on par with some Tier 0 titles. But, there is more to excellent PQ than just detail and clarity, and the lack of good contrast with strong blacks, as well as the blown out highlights really brings this one down.


I am NOT going to deduct any points for the intentional documentary movie scenes though.


My overall recommendation is still going to be a tad higher than the two Tier 2.5 rankings thus far, just because the detail and clarity is so impressive in many scenes.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*


As for the movie: if I hadn't heard so many good things about this film, I probably would have turned it off after the first 15-20 minutes. Having heard so many positive things about it, I stayed with it. While I am glad that I watched the entire movie as it did get better, it was still a bit of a disappointment. I'm quite surprised by all the great reviews.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*G-Force*


This is a superb looking title! Detail and clarity is top notch. Contrast, black, and three dimensionality are very impressive. Really, the main drawback in this title is the over-saturated color, which is probably intentional given the subject matter.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.25*


----------



## deltasun

*Bedtime Stories*


Another digitally shot presentation with grain absent throughout. This film had above average scoring for most virtues save the overall softness that plagued each shot. It's almost like the focus never quite made it to its intended notch in the camera. Some other lesser complaints would be the weak black levels and shadow details. The blacks were never crushed and looked decent, until I popped in my copy of _Pan's Labyrinth_ (which is coming up right after this one). Suddenly, it wasn't so bold or deep.


Colors were pleasantly presented, but I still would have expected a bit more saturation. Instead, they were almost borderline muted in some cases. Depth, contrast, and skin tones were decent as well.


The film started out with good promise, but quickly came down. In the end, this is a solid top Silver title for me...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


I guess I'd forgotten having blind bought this title for $6.99 back when it came out. Just your typical Adam Sandler flick (of which I'm not particularly a fan of). Nothing really special with the story, but wasn't too bad either. I suppose I already covered that by saying "just your typical Adam Sandler flick."









_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## deltasun

*Pan's Labyrinth (UK)*


Finally got a chance to watch one of my favorite films. Again, another one that I've had for a while but have not had a chance to view. On that note, I should also pop in my German Steelbook version for comparison. I may still do that...


I know there's deep controversy with the US scrubbed version (which I do not have). Fine grain was present in the UK version, but I did find scenes where they vanished. Sometimes, the absence was very deliberate. The film had a rich, saturated look, which actually seemed bothersome at first. As the story unfolded, however, it became par for the course. I will mention that skin tones were probably the most affected by this. While there were a few pale-skinned individuals, the vast majority who had darker tones did exhibit slightly reddish/orange-ish tones.


Black levels on this title were phenomenal. It came very, very close to being one with my bezel (which obviously for an LCD is quite good). And - it did this without any crushing. Shadow details were some of the very best. Of course, this can be attributed to how the director shot and lit those scenes as well. Still, they were just deep and bold and detailed, with a great sense of depth. This is one film that benefited from having a softly backlit living room setting.


Facial details did tip over to Tier 0, but not consistently. Textures on clothes, stones, and even tree bark were quite good. One of the more consistently scrubbed scenes was whenever the Faun himself was on close up. Still, the detail on him was ample.


Some of the daytime panoramic scenes of the forest and mountains were excellently rendered as well. Though some of the effects did look fake and detracted a bit, they were few and far between. There were a couple of problematic night shots that looked flat towards the end. In one of those shots, I did see some thick ringing along the edge of Mercedes' umbrella.


Quite a satisfying feast for the eyes! The current US version is at 1.50. While I would like to move the UK version up higher, 1.50 is where I believe it belongs. I'm not claiming that the US and UK are equal, specially since I have not seen the US version. Rather, if the US scrubbing is as bad as what people have claimed, I believe the US should be moved down instead of the UK getting moved up. Hope that wasn't too confusing.









*Tier Recommendation: 1.50*


One note on AQ. This UK lossy DD 5.1 soundtrack was incredibly aggressive and yielded excellent ambient surrounds. I can only imagine how the US DTS-HD MA 7.1 track sounds, which incidentally is placed at Reference in the AQ thread. I think I'm going to pop in my German version just to see what its DTS-HD MA 5.1 sounds like...

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Ozymandis

I watched District 9 and am in extreme disagreement with the Tier 2.5 rankings. This movie has a ton of detail. Lots of Tier 0-level detail in many scenes, in fact. The one night scene where he's entering District 9 looked great, very inky blacks on my Kuro, but a bit of black crush there too. The other dark scene I can think of was
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) MNU merc entering the control module, which was filmed as if with night vision goggles and so had lots of noise.



On the high end, yes there were blown-out whites. Towards the beginning they were obvious. Still, lots of shots in the movie were Tier 0 level. The panoramic shots of Johannesburg were mostly fantastic. However, the movie didn't have total consistency, which is what put titles like Apocalypto in Tier 1.


I'd put D9 in Tier 1 or 1.25 at worst.


----------



## Hughmc

Rob, I watched North by Northwest again tonight. Third viewing as I own it thanks to your recommendation.










After watching it, I put in Dr No., The reason I did that is I came here and looked at the tier rankings for N by NW. N by NW is ranked tier 2.75.


I only see two recommendations which is yours @ 2.75 and 42041 @ 2.5.


Seeing the reviews and ranking definitely surprised me, as I was that impressed tonight. I also own Dr No as I mentioned. I ranked it @ 1.75 IIRC. I think N by NW looks as good as if not better than Dr No.







I really can't believe how good it looks.


I know that you and I have agreed that ranking, while having criteria, is subjective, but I am going to make an appeal to you. Would you mind watching it again. I thought you might own it, but I figured I would ask. I am really that impressed and blown away by the PQ. Even Xylon is saying it is one of his top five honorable mention BD's for the year, what ever that is worth.










I would like to get your or anyone else's take on the PQ of N by NW.


Thanks!


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17787945
> 
> *District 9*
> 
> As for the movie: if I hadn't heard so many good things about this film, I probably would have turned it off after the first 15-20 minutes. Having heard so many positive things about it, I stayed with it. While I am glad that I watched the entire movie as it did get better, it was still a bit of a disappointment. I'm quite surprised by all the great reviews.



I came close to turning it off as well but for me it was the camera shake. Where I think this movie deserves the most credit is in the story. It probably has been done before, but I've never seen any like it. I called it a 4 on netflix despite my issues mentioned before. I don't often keep movies here but this one stayed for the holiday weekend so I'll get a second viewing and see if I change my mind about anything. (not known to happen very often)


Respectfully Ozymandis, I agree with the Tier2 reviewers. If you re-read the conditions set forth in the thread for a tier 0, it's supposed to look good from curtain to curtain. Tier 1 just slightly lesser in quality with an occasional flaw. This one with all the documentary and shake can't possibly look good all the time.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17788087
> 
> *Pan's Labyrinth (UK)*
> 
> 
> Finally got a chance to watch one of my favorite films.
> 
> 
> Quite a satisfying feast for the eyes! The current US version is at 1.50. While I would like to move the UK version up higher, 1.50 is where I believe it belongs. I'm not claiming that the US and UK are equal, specially since I have not seen the US version. Rather, if the US scrubbing is as bad as what people have claimed, I believe the US should be moved down instead of the UK getting moved up. Hope that wasn't too confusing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.50*



This is a favorite of mine too and I agree 100% with your analysis and placement. FWIW, I have the US version and I believe, as I did when we discussed this title, that it deserves its current 1.5 placement.


I may just slip this disc in the afternoon......


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17787945
> 
> *District 9*
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.25*



Agree with all that was said about the video. Blatantly obvious this was digital. Long shots really don't hold up. Close-up detail is usually excellent, but anything with distance begins to collapse into a bit of mush.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17789473
> 
> 
> This is a favorite of mine too and I agree 100% with your analysis and placement. FWIW, I have the US version and I believe, as I did when we discussed this title, that it deserves its current 1.5 placement.
> 
> 
> I may just slip this disc in the afternoon......



That was kind of my suspicion - that the DNR may not have hurt the US PQ enough to warrant a different placement than the UK version. I also ran through the German version and I would not rate it differently from what I've seen. I did notice it did not have English subs.










Incidentally, I just noticed there's a new US version coming out in Feb. I have not found any details on it yet (new transfer? less DNR?). I posted the same question in the _Best Versions_ thread, hoping for more info.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17788298
> 
> 
> Rob, I watched North by Northwest again tonight. Third viewing as I own it thanks to your recommendation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After watching it, I put in Dr No., The reason I did that is I came here and looked at the tier rankings for N by NW. N by NW is ranked tier 2.75.
> 
> 
> I only see two recommendations which is yours @ 2.75 and 42041 @ 2.5.
> 
> 
> Seeing the reviews and ranking definitely surprised me, as I was that impressed tonight. I also own Dr No as I mentioned. I ranked it @ 1.75 IIRC. I think N by NW looks as good as if not better than Dr No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really can't believe how good it looks.
> 
> 
> I know that you and I have agreed that ranking, while having criteria, is subjective, but I am going to make an appeal to you. Would you mind watching it again. I thought you might own it, but I figured I would ask. I am really that impressed and blown away by the PQ. Even Xylon is saying it is one of his top five honorable mention BD's for the year, what ever that is worth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to get your or anyone else's take on the PQ of N by NW.
> 
> 
> Thanks!



Glad you like the film so much. I definitely own it as it is one of my favorites. I will watch it again before too long, but I doubt that my Tier rating will change much. Maybe up to Tier 2.5. Still great PQ overall, especially for a title this old.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/17789518
> 
> 
> Agree with all that was said about the video. Blatantly obvious this was digital. Long shots really don't hold up. Close-up detail is usually excellent, but anything with distance begins to collapse into a bit of mush.



Yep, blatantly obvious it was shot on HD video. As I said, there is more to PQ than just detail. This disc does have lots of detail in many scenes, but other aspects really fall short, especially in terms of contrast, black levels, and overall three dimensionality (or lack thereof).


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Hangover


recommendation: Tier 2.50*


A popular new release from the past two weeks, _The Hangover_ looks slightly above average, in a transfer that looks like it could have been improved on by Warner Bros. Both the theatrical version and an unrated cut are provided on a single BD-50, though it appears WB did not use seamless branching. This results in the 107-minute unrated cut averaging 16.50 Mbps for the video encode, while the 99-minute theatrical cut averages a nearly identical 16.51 Mbps.


The compression work is tolerable, but not without its faults. The very low-bitrate VC-1 encodes both show minor amounts of banding and posterization at times. A ring of compression noise pops up when the trio first wake up from the titular hangover in the hotel room. The real deficiency is the reduced level of high-frequency information and detail that always seems to be missing from encodes suffering from lower bitrate-parameters. This particular BD is no exception to that rule. It is the real problem here, that usually comes as a consequence of compressing the video too much.


Shot and filmed like a typical Hollywood comedy, the picture is pleasant without the pop or dimensionality that many action films showcase. A touch of softness occurs on occasion, though contrast is okay and flesh tones are natural-looking in appearance. Moderate amounts of ringing is evident throughout the movie. Watch the grille of the Mercedes Benz to see the edge enhancement and shimmering on display.


The image is mostly flat, with a few scenes standing out for their enhanced depth and sharpness. Close-ups are not the ultra-detailed visuals we have come to expect of the better transfers. No use of any digital noise reduction has been used, or at least it was at undetectable levels to my eyes. A solid layer of film grain is noticeable, giving the movie a natural film-like appearance. For a brand-new release, there was a glimpse of debris and white specks on the screen in at least one instance.


The middle of tier two seems a fair placement for the disc's mixture of pleasing qualities and flaws. A middling transfer by Warner probably brings the picture quality down from where this film deserves.


Watching on a 60" Pioneer KURO plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 (firmware 3.15) at a viewing distance of six feet.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Patsfan123):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...0#post17751290


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/17779790
> 
> 
> Hugh,
> 
> I'm glad to see you stand your ground. If you feel it should be there, I can respect that. I know that much of my own opinion is subjective. I also see that you're discounting the documentary shots that really don't count, and that's fine. I wasn't willing to disclude them since there were so many. I am surprised to see both you and deltasun say you're not bothered by the shaky cam. I don't think I ever saw a movie with more of it.
> 
> 
> To each their own.
> 
> 
> Great review! It's refreshing to see some differing opinions once in a while.
> 
> 
> I think if this were an easier title to pin a number on, you'd already have a flame war in progress from the recommendations so far.
> 
> 
> When I consider turning a movie off because it annoys me that much, I'm not going to move much on my recommendation. It goes without saying I disagree with you, but I respect your opinion.
> 
> 
> PQ or no, it was a good movie. Recommended to anyone.




Yeah, no worries in the greater scheme this is relatively unimportant, except for the moment I am into it.










I certainly respect everyone's views, but I think it is fine if we ask each other why or what it is we are seeing. It benefits everyone in the long run to give a more accurate view of what a title might look like. And it seems the diligent regular posters not only keep this thread going, but I am sure there are many people (many we don't know about) that come here weekly to see what is recommend for what tier, so the avid reviewers provide a real service.



I was surprised that I was that far off from the few others including yourself, but it happens occasionally.


Interestingly, I think I tend to be generous, but there were a few titles as of late I thought were lower than they were rated. I thought something must be wrong with my eyes or set. lol.










I said months back that I wouldn't debate much or at all since it is a subjective recommendations, but this title I thought I would put up a review.


I also mentioned in my previous post how the 1:85:1 and 1:78:1 aspect ratios have a tendency to fool me into seeing better PQ detail. For me it is an issue I give some weight to when watching.



I hope everyone is enjoying the holidays.


----------



## Filmaholic

*Reccommendations* by the lot:

*A Scanner Darkly - Tier Blu, below "The Host"

Waltz With Bashir - Tier Blu, somewhere in the middle

Ghost in the Shell 2.0 - Tier 2.25

Ghost in the Shell 2: Innoccence: Tier 1.50

The Sky Crawlers - Tier 2.0

Up - Top of Tier Blu

Monsters Inc. - Tier Blu - as it is

Last Year at Marienbad - Tier 1.25

Pierrot Le Fou - Tier 1.0

Kagemusha - Tier 2.0

North by Northwest - Tier 2.0

Watchmen - Ultimate Cut - Tier 1.0

Amélie (Aussie edition) - Tier 1.25

Repulsion - Tier 2.25

The Seventh Seal - Tier 2.50

The Prisoner - Complete series - Tier 2.50

Talking Heads - Stop Making Sense - Tier 2.75

Gomorrah (brit edition) - Tier 2.50

Natural Born Killers - The Directors Cut- Tier 2.25

Batman Returns - Tier 1.75

Star Trek (2009) - Tier 2.50* Burnt by the lens flare situation.


----------



## JayPSU




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17783806
> 
> *Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince*
> 
> 
> SOFT....LACK of DETAIL....LACK of DEPTH....DRAB COLORS....shall I go on? These are my main gripes regarding the PQ of this title. That's not to say the whole movie was characterized by these, but they did make up a fair percentage. Add to this list the terrible facial details (with the exception of those who had long beards
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ); they were soft and almost looked like the product of DNR.
> 
> 
> So, what about the good stuff? BLACKS!!!! My KURO didn't disappoint me here, for there were MANY scenes with OUTSTANDING BLACK LEVELS and SHADOW DETAILS. But I must add that several scenes also had brief instances of crushed blacks and when it was overly soft the shadow details suffered.
> 
> 
> Contrast was also superb and when there were brighter scenes I was impressed with the detail and depth (but these were obviously "few and far between").
> 
> 
> Taking everything into consideration, this is NOT a demo-worthy disc, but there was enough "eye candy" (especially in the form of blacks and shadow details) for me to put it into Tier Silver. I see there's 3 votes thus far....2 @ 2.0 and 1 @ 2.5. I'm going to split the difference and put it here....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.25*
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'



Could not disagree more with this review. I found this movie to TRULY reward those who have properly calibrated tv's as the depth and shadow detail is superb. The movie is shot with a darker look to it, but not to the detriment of the picture as a whole. This movie was thoroughly enjoyable to my eyes.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JayPSU* /forum/post/17791457
> 
> 
> Could not disagree more with this review. I found this movie to TRULY reward those who have properly calibrated tv's as the depth and shadow detail is superb. The movie is shot with a darker look to it, but not to the detriment of the picture as a whole. *This movie was thoroughly enjoyable to my eyes.*



Man, I sure wish I had your eyes!!










All kidding aside, read my post again and you will see that I praised this film for its outstanding blacks & shadow details, superb contrast, and the detail and depth in some scenes. On top of that, I gave it a half-way decent placement recommendation. But it also had quite a few SOFT scenes that took away from the detail and depth, and the colors were rather dull.


Now you can surely differ (ALL opinions are welcome); in fact, I would encourage you to write a review with a placement recommendation so your opinion can really count.


PS FYI, even though my KURO has not been professionally calibrated, it looks amazing on PURE mode and I have all my settings fine-tuned according to a very reputable calibrator on the Forum (i.e., D-Nice).


----------



## Ozymandis

Tinkerbell:whatever it's called (the sequel). I got this for my daughter for Christmas. It's a Tier 0 title, upper half... flawless digital-to-digital transfer but lacking the more polished production of the top titles like Cars, Kungfu Panda, and so on.


Edit: I see no one else reviewed this. Am I the first? LOL. I did fall asleep a bit but when I woke up it was still Tier 0











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/17788965
> 
> 
> I came close to turning it off as well but for me it was the camera shake. Where I think this movie deserves the most credit is in the story. It probably has been done before, but I've never seen any like it. I called it a 4 on netflix despite my issues mentioned before. I don't often keep movies here but this one stayed for the holiday weekend so I'll get a second viewing and see if I change my mind about anything. (not known to happen very often)
> 
> 
> Respectfully Ozymandis, I agree with the Tier2 reviewers. If you re-read the conditions set forth in the thread for a tier 0, it's supposed to look good from curtain to curtain. Tier 1 just slightly lesser in quality with an occasional flaw. This one with all the documentary and shake can't possibly look good all the time.



I'm not the only one saying Tier 1... there's a Tier 0 recommendation there too. I think that's too optimistic, the movie doesn't have the consistency that a Tier 0 title should have, but I think even you said that there's Tier 0 shots in it?


D9 definitely beats out some Tier 1 and 1.25 titles. It's much more demo-worthy than some, because it has superb detail in a majority shots. More detail than certain Tier 0 titles, in fact.


----------



## 42041

*Dr. Strangelove*


The PQ varies considerably on this disc, but is generally pleasing. The worst offender here is heavy grain in a few scenes, and the detail, while quite good for a 45 year old film, doesn't compete with new titles. I wasn't around in 1964 to know how the "visual effects" looked then but they look quite silly now, which does matter for the purposes of this thread. Contrast is well-delineated and gives the visuals that Kubrick and his crew conjured up a nice sense of weight and drama. I did not detect distracting instances of digital manipulation of the image. If you're watching older films on blu-ray you likely know better than to expect eye popping visuals most of the time, and as long as you go into this disc with that in mind you'll be satisfied.

*Tier 3.0*

(PS3/Pioneer 50" Kuro Elite/1 screen width distance)


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ozymandis* /forum/post/17791774
> 
> 
> Tinkerbell:whatever it's called (the sequel). I got this for my daughter for Christmas. It's a Tier 0 title, upper half... flawless digital-to-digital transfer but lacking the more polished production of the top titles like Cars, Kungfu Panda, and so on.
> 
> 
> Edit: I see no one else reviewed this. Am I the first? LOL. I did fall asleep a bit but when I woke up it was still Tier 0



You know what - you just reminded me that I did purchase this for super cheap sometime after it came out. I better dig it up and watch...












> Quote:
> I'm not the only one saying Tier 1... there's a Tier 0 recommendation there too. I think that's too optimistic, the movie doesn't have the consistency that a Tier 0 title should have, but I think even you said that there's Tier 0 shots in it?
> 
> 
> D9 definitely beats out some Tier 1 and 1.25 titles. It's much more demo-worthy than some, because it has superb detail in a majority shots. More detail than certain Tier 0 titles, in fact.



Fair enough that there are Tier 0 moments. However, how low where the low moments? We can't rank a title just based on its strongest attributes.


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17780123
> 
> *Ice Age: The Meltdown*
> 
> 
> Okay, I'll admit I'm chiming in quite late on this title, but after just viewing it I have to say "HOW IN THE WORLD DID THIS END UP IN TIER 2.0?!" IMHO this is definitely "demo worthy".....it's not up there with the Pixar animated titles, but it's still deserving of Tier 1.



I think it got there because the animation does not have the attention to detail that Pixar titles have. Things like backgrounds that don't move, etc. The whole Ice age series looks good, but not as good as some other animated titles.


I watched Dawn of the Dinosaurs today and that clearly is better than the other Ice Age iterations. Take a look at DotD and you'll have to find a place for it above this, but below the better Pixar films.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17787954
> 
> *G-Force*
> 
> 
> This is a superb looking title! Detail and clarity is top notch. Contrast, black, and three dimensionality are very impressive. Really, the main drawback in this title is the over-saturated color, which is probably intentional given the subject matter.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.25*



Thanks for typing that up Rob! I agree. An enjoyable movie too.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ozymandis* /forum/post/17791774
> 
> 
> I'm not the only one saying Tier 1... there's a Tier 0 recommendation there too. I think that's too optimistic, the movie doesn't have the consistency that a Tier 0 title should have, but I think even you said that there's Tier 0 shots in it?



Yes I did, but I expect films on br to have tier 0 level shots in them. I just watched Felon and it didn't have any, well, it's well down the line imho.


I am more interested in how often the pq falls below tier 0. I thought District 9 did that quite a lot. I didn't look at all the posts in the last two days, but if someone reviewed this at tier 0, I say that's a major reach. Prepare for disappointment!


If I watch again from a greater distance, I'll amend my opinion.


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17438079
> 
> *The Counterfeiters*
> Tier Recommendation: 4.50
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_



Would you be kind enough to point me to the nf link for the movie you refer to, please. I saw a similar titled movie recently, I don't think it was near this bad. But, I see there's about a dozen such films with this title. The one I saw did not have the scenes you refer to so I am pretty certain it's not the one I saw. I'll link to the one you give me, and make a note of the movie year in the rankings.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Filmaholic* /forum/post/17791150
> 
> *Reccommendations* by the lot:
> 
> Natural Born Killers - Tier 2.25



Is this recommendation for the director's cut or the theatrical cut?


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/17792159
> 
> 
> I think it got there because the animation does not have the attention to detail that Pixar titles have. *Things like backgrounds that don't move, etc.* The whole Ice age series looks good, but not as good as some other animated titles.



You mean like _Snow White_?

















Here's _The Counterfeiters_ link:
http://www.netflix.com/Movie/The_Cou...0?trkid=190393


----------



## K-Spaz

I didn't follow the Snow White discussion, so any subtle suggestion there is lost on me, Im sorry. I haven't seen it, so If you mean it also does not belong where it is, I have no opinion on it.


I wasn't attempting to say Ice Age was where it belongs, only suggesting one possible reason for its current placement. When I watched them, that was one of the defining characteristics I saw. I do not think it was as bad as The Wild, which I personally think is overrated. It has facials, and that's it. There's not a decent depth to any scene in the entire movie (imo). But, the characters are stunning, I'll give it that. In both of the above, the backgrounds are very static, and to me, that's a big part of the pq as a whole.


----------



## deltasun

Ahh, it must be late. I meant _Sleeping Beauty_. Yes, I don't believe it belongs in Tier 0, based on our thread criteria.


I'm currently watching _Tinker Bell and the Lost Treasure_. I'm starting to realize (a while ago actually) that the only way to really compare these animated titles is by being anal about the little things.


----------



## Filmaholic

Sorry *Deltasun*, I forgot to mention it was the "Directors Cut" (NBK) that I rated. I'll edit the post right away.


Oh, my HT is: Pana Plasma Viera 50''(50PY85LB), at 2.5m, 1080p, 24fps, PS3.


----------



## deltasun

*Staten Island*


This title was soft throughout. Even scenes where pores were showing - the pores themselves were soft! The production simply looked cheap. Contrast was weak; blacks were average at best. The numerous quick shots of Staten Island looked flat.


There was a sequence with Ethan Hawke and his girlfriend that looked superior to other scenes - having better contrast and an actual HD pop. This sequence was short-lived, however.


I think you get the picture. Oh, some horrible banding were also present.

*Tier Recommendation: 4.0*


I could not get into this movie. It had potential, but I felt it fell flat with poor acting and the director's messy approach to the story.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

*Tinker Bell and the Lost Treasure*


Colors on this title popped off the screen! They were vibrant and simply brilliant! Blacks were bold and shadow details just gorgeous. Depth on outdoor shots was very palatable. Even with the somewhat shallow depth of field in these scenes, the retreating backdrop of mountains and forest paths exhibited incredible dimensionality. Medium scenes followed similar qualities.


To nitpick a bit, I felt textures could have been better. Tinker Bell's hair, for example, appear as one soft clump of hair instead of individual strands making up a whole. Some softness did come up as well - specially when the cast of _A Bug's Life_ showed up.







Also, some backgrounds were more simplistic than some of the better animated BRs like _Up_.


Overall, I would place this on par with the original _Tinker Bell_ (which I have not seen, btw). I know it belongs above _The Host_, etc.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (below Tinker Bell)*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Filmaholic* /forum/post/17791150
> 
> *Reccommendations* by the lot:
> 
> 
> Last Year at Marienbad - Tier 1.25



That seems extraordinarily generous to me. More like 2.75 or 3.0 at best.


----------



## Filmaholic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/17792803
> 
> 
> That seems extraordinarily generous to me. More like 2.75 or 3.0 at best.



Yeah... what can I say?

I'm a weird guy with a weird taste in film aesthetics.


But it does look fenomenal (except for a scratch here, a strain of hair there) and it is still a highly influential piece of art. Love it or hate it, it looks awesome.


I honestly think it belongs in Tier Gold, but not necessarily at 1.25 (1.75 is fine by me).


Edited to add: Here's the link to Cinema Squid's Rankings for "Last Year at Marienbad" (*92* Weighted Average):

http://cinemasquid.com/blu-ray/movie...d?movieid=4988 


Of course this means something, but it does not automaticcaly make it a Tier Gold film. It's just a thought.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Filmaholic* /forum/post/17793066
> 
> 
> Yeah... what can I say?
> 
> I'm a weird guy with a weird taste in film aesthetics.
> 
> 
> But it does look fenomenal (except for a scratch here, a strain of hair there) and it is still a highly influential piece of art. Love it or hate it, it looks awesome.
> 
> 
> I honestly think it belongs in Tier Gold, but not necessarily at 1.25 (1.75 is fine by me).
> 
> 
> Edited to add: Here's the link to Cinema Squid's Rankings for "Last Year at Marienbad" (*92* Weighted Average):
> 
> http://cinemasquid.com/blu-ray/movie...d?movieid=4988
> 
> 
> Of course this means something, but it does not automaticcaly make it a Tier Gold film. It's just a thought.



For a movie that was released in 1961, the BD certainly looks just fine. But how many 1961 releases are in Tier 1?


----------



## Filmaholic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/17793280
> 
> 
> For a movie that was released in 1961, the BD certainly looks just fine. But how many 1961 releases are in Tier 1?



That's exactly the point. There aren't enough films from the 60's in it!










So *Patrick*, since you have been here from day one, wouldn't you help me start a trend or something?


----------



## Filmaholic




> Quote:
> Ahh, it must be late. I meant Sleeping Beauty. Yes, I don't believe it belongs in Tier 0, based on our thread criteria.



Well, I think "Sleeping Beauty" is the best cell animated feature on Blu yet. Seriously. It has insanely fluid, flawless animation, awesome colors, precisse shadow delineation, ultra balanced contrast and the transfer is just about perfect (there are no compression artifacts whatsoever, there's not a hint of color banding on this thing, which is a major plus in my book). This also has to be the best restoration work I've seen in my whole life!


So, no, not even the "modern" cell animated ones can't surpass it. Not even Akira,Tekkonkinkreet, Ghost in the Shell 1&2, etc... Hummm...I guess Studio Ghibli and Hayao Miyazaki actually did surpass it, but we don't have BD's from them yet...


Sorry, but I just can't agree with you. This is one of Disney's finest efforts, probably loosing only to "Fantasia".


Here is an analogy you will understand: *A Bug's Life* is currently our champ, right? But can you in good conscience assevere it has better PQ than *Ratatouille*, *Cars*, *Wall-e* and *Up*? You see, CGI has evolved a whole freaking lot and you just can't compare the geometry intrincancies, texture detail, lighting techniques, filtering, etc.

Do you really believe *Up* has worse PQ than *Kung Fu Panda* and *ABL*? Really?


Anyway, I would never try to demote *A Bug's Life* just because it is somewhat lacking compared to the more recent efforts from Pixar.


----------



## deltasun

All due respect, this is not the Best Restoration Thread. Otherwise, I'd place _Sleeping Beauty_ up top, probably followed by _How the West Was Won_ and _Gone with the Wind_.


These movies still have to follow our established criteria. Comments such as these (if serious) undermine the purposes of the thread:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Filmaholic* /forum/post/17793308
> 
> 
> That's exactly the point. There aren't enough films from the 60's in it!


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17793895
> 
> 
> All due respect, this is not the Best Restoration Thread. Otherwise, I'd place _Sleeping Beauty_ up top, probably followed by _How the West Was Won_ and _Gone with the Wind_.
> 
> 
> These movies still have to follow our established criteria. Comments such as these (if serious) undermine the purposes of the thread:



Indeed. The fact that a movie looks good on BD for something that was released in 1961 is not a ticket to Tier 1.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/17792159
> 
> 
> I think it got there because the animation does not have the attention to detail that Pixar titles have. Things like backgrounds that don't move, etc. The whole Ice age series looks good, but not as good as some other animated titles.
> 
> 
> I watched Dawn of the Dinosaurs today and that clearly is better than the other Ice Age iterations. Take a look at DotD and you'll have to find a place for it above this, but below the better Pixar films.



First of all, I agree with you that _Ice Age: The Meltdown_ doesn't look as good as some other animated titles. I said as much when I stated it didn't compare with Pixar animated titles. But to say the difference is *two whole tiers* is saying too much, IMO. Personally, I thought _Ice Age: The Meltdown_ was very good-looking and easily deserves a Tier 1 placement. The colors pop, the blacks levels and shadow details are superb, the contrast is perfect, and there is plenty of detail, depth and sharpness throughout the film. If that doesn't spell Tier 1 quality, what does?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/17794006
> 
> 
> Indeed. The fact that a movie looks good on BD for something that was released in 1961 is not a ticket to Tier 1.



Exactly.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17794285
> 
> 
> First of all, I agree with you that _Ice Age: The Meltdown_ doesn't look as good as some other animated titles. I said as much when I stated it didn't compare with Pixar animated titles. But to say the difference is *two whole tiers* is saying too much, IMO. Personally, I thought _Ice Age: The Meltdown_ was very good-looking and easily deserves a Tier 1 placement. The colors pop, the blacks levels and shadow details are superb, the contrast is perfect, and there is plenty of detail, depth and sharpness throughout the film. If that doesn't spell Tier 1 quality, what does?



I agree.


----------



## K-Spaz

I didn't review IA Meltdown, so I'll say again, I was just pointing out a possibility. I agree with you on the sequence in which they 'should' appear. As for the tiers, they just don't bother me all that much. I think your opinion will be taken into consideration before the next update. Not that it has anything to do with me.


On another subject, I'm watching Joan of Arc atm and early on there's a scene where she's laying in some grass alongside a sword. Off to the right of the screen, you can see a cameramans legs/knees as he sits and see a still camera lens clearly in the frame. It lasts quite some time. It's been a while since I noticed anything like that and I have never in a more recent movie. Were this not HD, you might mistake the legs for a stump or rock. The lens is a bit hard to miss.


My early impressions are the movie looks great.


----------



## Filmaholic

Originally Posted by deltasun


> Quote:
> All due respect, this is not the Best Restoration Thread. Otherwise, I'd place Sleeping Beauty up top, probably followed by How the West Was Won and Gone with the Wind.



Originally Posted by patrick99


> Quote:
> Indeed. The fact that a movie looks good on BD for something that was released in 1961 is not a ticket to Tier 1.
> 
> These movies still have to follow our established criteria. Comments such as these (if serious) undermine the purposes of the thread:



Look, I was just kidding. But I do think *Marienbad* (despite being a B&W film) deserves a Gold placement. Seriously, it is sooo beautifull. The Coco Chanel wardrobe, the architecture, the cinematography, etc... I really, really believe in that. Of course it will be near impossible for a film with more than ten years old to break the Gold barrier (I also am strongly convinced that *Pierrot le Fou* is the best of the 60's. I almost reccommended it to the Blu Tier (but then I would have lost the litle respect I'm still entitled to). Especially given the preferences most of you guys have towards modern blockbusters/action movies, which is only natural.


Strange is that nobody commented (tried to pick a fight, whatever) on my *A Bugs Life* remark, since it apears that anything I say is met with some sort of agression or something. Even if it is polite agression.


Again, I am not seriously saying that the decade of the production of the film is relevant. I was joking, sorry if it was taken by the letter.


----------



## Ozymandis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Filmaholic* /forum/post/17793367
> 
> 
> Well, I think "Sleeping Beauty" is the best cell animated feature on Blu yet. Seriously. It has insanely fluid, flawless animation, awesome colors, precisse shadow delineation, ultra balanced contrast and the transfer is just about perfect (there are no compression artifacts whatsoever, there's not a hint of color banding on this thing, which is a major plus in my book). This also has to be the best restoration work I've seen in my whole life!
> 
> 
> So, no, not even the "modern" cell animated ones can't surpass it. Not even Akira,Tekkonkinkreet, Ghost in the Shell 1&2, etc... Hummm...I guess Studio Ghibli and Hayao Miyazaki actually did surpass it, but we don't have BD's from them yet...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but I just can't agree with you. This is one of Disney's finest efforts, probably loosing only to "Fantasia".
> 
> 
> Here is an analogy you will understand: *A Bug's Life* is currently our champ, right? But can you in good conscience assevere it has better PQ than *Ratatouille*, *Cars*, *Wall-e* and *Up*? You see, CGI has evolved a whole freaking lot and you just can't compare the geometry intrincancies, texture detail, lighting techniques, filtering, etc.
> 
> Do you really believe *Up* has worse PQ than *Kung Fu Panda* and *ABL*? Really?
> 
> 
> Anyway, I would never try to demote *A Bug's Life* just because it is somewhat lacking compared to the more recent efforts from Pixar.



I don't own Bug's Life on Blu-ray, but it seems to me that the source rendering is not, *CAN NOT*, be better than the newer Pixar titles. Having seen every Pixar title, the level of texturing and detail has improved *dramatically* over the years.


For the digital-to-digital animated transfers we're basically judging the sources. The CGI movies in Tier 0 are all perfect transfers. It's subjective at that point. Like Ratatouille is high Tier 0, and Wall-E low Tier 0, but they are both perfect transfers... in fact Wall-E was made later.


There was some discussion of splitting animated titles off of Tier 0 on there own tier. I think that has some merit. Pretty much every CGI Blu-ray that's released anymore has a perfect transfer... Tier 0 is going to be 200 titles long and 80% animated in a year


----------



## Phantom Stranger

It would be like a knife wound to my heart if Sleeping Beauty got ripped out of tier zero. A beautifully animated movie with a knockout transfer by Disney. Each frame is like its own painting.


As for the Pixar titles, each successive movie seems to be moving further and further away from the extraordinary sharpness of the earlier movies. Pixar's fascination with the simulation of real lenses and filming techniques, while a technical marvel, is knocking them down from each new Pixar release being in the number one slot automatically. No doubt that textures have advanced in the past decade on the CGI-animated films, but the directors continue to make aesthetic choices that are minimizing the visual potential. Wall*E is the strongest example of that process, and why it is not ranked higher.


I was strongly disappointed in the lack of detail on the humans in UP, particularly their faces. It probably is a conscious choice to prevent viewers from getting creeped out by photo-realistic CGI-humans, but facial characteristics do not have to be dull, simplistic cartoons either. There are criteria and benchmarks we can apply to differentiate the purely CGI Blu-rays. The real question is, can we apply them consistently to each and every title?


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17795712
> 
> 
> It would be like a knife wound to my heart if Sleeping Beauty got ripped out of tier zero. A beautifully animated movie with a knockout transfer by Disney. Each frame is like its own painting.
> 
> 
> As for the Pixar titles, each successive movie seems to be moving further and further away from the extraordinary sharpness of the earlier movies. Pixar's fascination with the simulation of real lenses and filming techniques, while a technical marvel, is knocking them down from each new Pixar release being in the number one slot automatically. No doubt that textures have advanced in the past decade on the CGI-animated films, but the directors continue to make aesthetic choices that are minimizing the visual potential. Wall*E is the strongest example of that process, and why it is not ranked higher.
> 
> 
> I was strongly disappointed in the lack of detail on the humans in UP, particularly their faces. It probably is a conscious choice to prevent viewers from getting creeped out by photo-realistic CGI-humans, but facial characteristics do not have to be dull, simplistic cartoons either. There are criteria and benchmarks we can apply to differentiate the purely CGI Blu-rays. The real question is, can we apply them consistently to each and every title?



On the other hand, weren't some of the details, say in Russel's merit badges some of the finest animated detail you've ever seen? I'm of the camp wishing to separate the animated titles and create a standard criteria to judge them on, because this is just a subjective discussion. While Carl's face is rather dull, you could practically count the threads in his jacket. So, is it better or worse? Agreeably, everyone acknowledges the perfect transfers of each of these titles, and you've said yourself that on a technical level, every Pixar title is improved from the last, which would therefore IMO put the newest at the top. Artistic intent aside, I think the visuals on the newest Pixar titles trump the older ones. With that said, it will be interesting to judge Toy Story 3 if they keep the same visual style as the older films in the series.


Also, not trying to add fuel to the fire here, but Coraline didn't impress me at all, and yet there it sits near the top. So, I think there is still a lack of objectivity from all of us at times, and we should try our best to keep that in mind as we review. Having said that though, the criteria we push ourselves to look for now has about 5 titles tied at the top. So who knows.


----------



## 42041

*Inglourious Basterds*


A beautiful film, gorgeously lit and photographed in sweeping anamorphic Panavision. As one might expect, grain is very fine, softness creeps into the edges of the frame, and focus is missed on occasion. The colors are bold, detail is outstanding, and the technical qualities of the blu-ray transfer are impeccable, with no bothersome compression flaws. What I'd consider Tier 0 shots are sprinkled liberally throughout, with facial details being wonderfully resolved (I think digital "makeup" is employed here and there) and long shots and costumes bristling with fine details. My one nitpick is that much of the film is dark interiors where black levels don't quite extend into inky letterbox black. While things like that don't seem to matter at the cinema, on a letterboxed TV it can be a bit annoying... but at least it's fairly consistent. Also annoying is Hitler's awful CGI mustache, but I digress...

*Tier 1.0*

(PS3/Pioneer 50" Kuro Elite/1 screen width distance)


----------



## Filmaholic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17795712
> 
> 
> It would be like a knife wound to my heart if Sleeping Beauty got ripped out of tier zero. A beautifully animated movie with a knockout transfer by Disney. Each frame is like its own painting.
> 
> 
> As for the Pixar titles, each successive movie seems to be moving further and further away from the extraordinary sharpness of the earlier movies. Pixar's fascination with the simulation of real lenses and filming techniques, while a technical marvel, is knocking them down from each new Pixar release being in the number one slot automatically. No doubt that textures have advanced in the past decade on the CGI-animated films, but the directors continue to make aesthetic choices that are minimizing the visual potential. Wall*E is the strongest example of that process, and why it is not ranked higher.
> 
> 
> I was strongly disappointed in the lack of detail on the humans in UP, particularly their faces. It probably is a conscious choice to prevent viewers from getting creeped out by photo-realistic CGI-humans, but facial characteristics do not have to be dull, simplistic cartoons either. There are criteria and benchmarks we can apply to differentiate the purely CGI Blu-rays. The real question is, can we apply them consistently to each and every title?



I agree with everything you said *Phantom*. Demoting Sleeping Beauty would probably kill me with sadness.


As you, I'm also quite convinced that the "cartoony" look of the modern CGI animations is intended to try and stay away from that "uncanny valley" that you mention. About the possibilty of consistently and objectively applying a defined set of criteria and benchmarks to each and every purely CGI BD, well, I'm not sure. You could also ask :"do we really want to?".


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/17797827
> 
> *Also, not trying to add fuel to the fire here, but Coraline didn't impress me at all, and yet there it sits near the top*. So, *I think there is still a lack of objectivity from all of us at times*, and we should try our best to keep that in mind as we review. Having said that though, the criteria we push ourselves to look for now has about 5 titles tied at the top. So who knows.



I will really have to take issue with you here jedi, for IMO (and that of many others) _Coraline_ definitely deserves a spot near the top of Tier Blu. Here is what I said in my review:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...ostcount=13146 


Now if you can read that review and still think I'm not being objective, then I'll have to take issue with you again, for the various virtues that I ascribed to that title were based the criteria set forth for this thread. When one goes by that critieria and cites examples to prove it, they are NOT lacking objectivity.


Well, that my 2 cents worth, FWIW. I thought since you "added fuel to the fire," I should try to play fireman and put it out.


----------



## lgans316

*Green Mile - Tier 3.75* Moderately detailed. Varying degree of texture details. Film grain noticeable. Compression could have been better.

*Terminator Salvation - Tier 2.25* Image on the darker side until the climax. The intentional bleak design, under-saturated / washed out color scheme and dimly lit scenes doesn't produce eye popping PQ. However, close-up shots were very nicely resolved and detailed but overall PQ remains underwhelming due to the artistic choice.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

The Coraline comments do boggle me, as IMO it is pristine. I have not reviewed an excess of animated titles, but I know that I've written a lot of defense for why Sleeping Beauty belongs in Tier 0. I think a big part comes into play the differences in ourselves when it comes to the nitty-gritty of Tier 0; we all have different equipment as well as our strengths and weaknesses when we watch.



I also have no issue whatsoever if Tier 0 suddenly winds up with a zillion titles because as a consumer and a blu ray addict, that only serves to provide me with the best-looking titles I can possibly have!











If you want to see me have a lack of objectivity, though, just put sparkly, shimmery water into a film. Whenever something is pretty and glossy, GeekyGlassesGirl is instantly distracted... "Ooooh, shiny!"


----------



## deltasun

Again, all due respect to my fellow reviewers, but I too can throw my reviews into the mix citing exactly why my opinions differed.


Coraline (sub-par facial details for a blu title):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...e#post17077581 


Sleeping Beauty (simplistic stage design; lack of detail in faces):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...y#post15745217 


I understand the strengths of each as well and have taken them into consideration. And yes, G3, I understand that you don't get as many ooh's and ahh's than when you pop in _Sleeping Beauty_. I am just in disagreement with these being Tier Blu titles and I have stated explicit reasons why.


Anyway, G3 - you have to check out the water scenes in the new _Tinker Bell_. I meant to mention that in my review. I can't remember another animated title with a finer rendition of water.


----------



## Ozymandis

Watched Wolverine last night. Not much to say that differs from what other posters thought. Tier 1.75 placement is fair. A solid BR but not anything special.



Coraline is a reference-quality Blu-ray in every sense of the word. It's not a live-action film, the complaint about soft faces seems a little silly to me. It was clearly the director's choice of physical materials, as this is one of if not the most detailed Blu-ray that I own. Detail, contrast, colors... Coraline is pristine. When I had a friend over and I was showing off my plasma, this was the first movie I picked.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17801397
> 
> 
> Again, all due respect to my fellow reviewers, but I too can throw my reviews into the mix citing exactly why my opinions differed.



My comment, in response to jedi's post, on "NOT lacking objectivity," was not meant to imply that others weren't being objective if they didn't agree with me. I was simply saying that if we adhere to the criteria (i.e., standards) set forth for determining placement, we ARE being objective. And yet, we will still differ as to our opinions and recommended placements at times, for we will still "see things differently" according to a variety of factors, including equipment used, viewing distance, room-lighting conditions, and last, but not least, our own set of eyes.


Where one lacks objectivity is when they allow their love of a movie to hinder their judgment of PQ. In that case, they do NOT follow the criteria as they should for determining placement. This can and does happen, but as I read most of the reviews of this thread I can safely say that members are being objective.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ozymandis* /forum/post/17801624
> 
> *Coraline is a reference-quality Blu-ray in every sense of the word.* It's not a live-action film, the complaint about soft faces seems a little silly to me. It was clearly the director's choice of physical materials, as this is one of if not the most detailed Blu-ray that I own. Detail, contrast, colors... Coraline is pristine. *When I had a friend over and I was showing off my plasma, this was the first movie I picked.*



I couldn't agree more as to the first high-lighted sentence, and regarding the other highlighted sentence: GOOD CHOICE!


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ozymandis* /forum/post/17801624
> 
> 
> Coraline is a reference-quality Blu-ray in every sense of the word. It's not a live-action film, the complaint about soft faces seems a little silly to me. It was clearly the director's choice of physical materials, as this is one of if not the most detailed Blu-ray that I own. Detail, contrast, colors... Coraline is pristine. When I had a friend over and I was showing off my plasma, this was the first movie I picked.



It may be silly, but I highlighted it because just a few mere minutes before the soft Coraline face, I saw clear, discernible, textured detail on the button that was chosen from the drawer. At the time I was viewing it, it was a very noticeable and disappointing drop in quality.


But I do agree - for showing off shadow detail and the inkiest blacks (as well as thread detail), I do reach for _Coraline_ as well.


Maybe it's my philosophy that Tier Blu has to be the best of the best. Sure, it could be checkmarked for each of the attributes listed in the first page, but how strong are they for each attribute? Even a Tier 1 title can hit those attributes, but may do so weakly. Hence, their Tier 1 placement.


----------



## Mr.G

*Notorius*

*Tier Recommendation 1.0*


Surprised this film hasn't been nominated before now, perhaps the subject matter is not everyone's cup of tea but it's a great looking BD. Watched a Blockbuster rental and liked it enough to buy a used copy. Sharp picture quality with strong colors.


Screenshots:

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Notori...eenshots/4366/ 


More screenshots:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...g._blu-ray.htm 


Ralph Potts review (04/27/09):

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...ight=notorious


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ozymandis* /forum/post/17801624
> 
> 
> 
> Coraline is a reference-quality Blu-ray in every sense of the word. It's not a live-action film, the complaint about soft faces seems a little silly to me. It was clearly the director's choice of physical materials, as this is one of if not the most detailed Blu-ray that I own. Detail, contrast, colors... Coraline is pristine. When I had a friend over and I was showing off my plasma, this was the first movie I picked.



Indeed.


Coraline deserves to be discussed as one of the best looking Blu-ray discs ever released imo.


Nothing less than jaw-dropping visuals.


As I said in my review: "As for the discussion that took place regarding "facial details" somewhat lacking, I really think that is a completely inappropriate barometer for a title that doesn't contain human faces. There is absolutely no lack of fine details being shown in this title. Quite the contrary, it has some of the best textures/details I've seen yet. Like you could reach out and touch it".


Obviously I (strongly) stand by those comments and recommendation for a top 5 rating in Tier 0.


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17792625
> 
> 
> A I'm starting to realize (a while ago actually) that the only way to really compare these animated titles is by being anal about the little things.



Well, I suppose you're right. Trouble is, when we're forced to pick out these really small deficiencies, they can be so small they only get seen by those they bother. That's probably how we get disagreement on what belongs in 0 or not.


I just read my own review on Coraline, I must have been drinking heavily to type that much. I'll stand by what I said then (paraphrasing here somewhat), I think several titles needed bumped down, but not necessarily to make room for Coraline, more cause I thought them overrated. WallE and Ratatouille come to mind. While very nice, I just don't think they look "stunning" like some other animated titles. And Up... Well; :shakes head: It just didn't light my fire I guess. I remember one scene in the whole movie that made me say wow, and that was when the balloons came out of the roof. Other than that, I never really got wowed by the images/colors.


If I were to do the placement of Coraline myself, I'd probably opt for 1/3 down in Tier 0. I do think it should loose something for the choice of colors. But not much.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17802723
> 
> 
> As I said in my review: "As for the discussion that took place regarding "facial details" somewhat lacking, I really think that is a *completely inappropriate barometer for a title that doesn't contain human faces.* There is absolutely no lack of fine details being shown in this title. Quite the contrary, it has some of the best textures/details I've seen yet. Like you could reach out and touch it".



It would be inappropriate if I compared it to human faces. I obviously compared it to a button, which is not an inappropriate comparison. This, coupled by the director's explanation on how the "puppets" were "seamed" digitally at the faces makes it even more of an appropriate observation that the "faces" are soft and lacking of detail.


We all have our wows and our letdowns. _Coraline_ is just another example of where we may find different focuses for each.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Inglourious Basterds


recommendation: Tier 1.75*

_Inglourious Basterds_ is a Universal title on home video, that premiered on December 15, 2009. Quentin Tarantino's latest film is a wonderful and faithful transfer that should be placed in the top quarter of tier one. That would have been my thesis and conclusion, if not for the awful and constant presence of halos throughout much of the movie. In every other respect a fantastic and film-like image, the halo-riddled transfer drags the final verdict down several notches.


The 152-minute movie, on a BD-50, was encoded in AVC by Deluxe Digital Studios. The average video bitrate is 25.67 Mbps, and frequently the bitrates touch the upper thirties for action-intensive scenes. Compression artifacts do not appear in any instance, as the picture remains pristine for the duration of the film. Like many other new releases, there is not the slightest hint of print damage or speckling. There is no evidence or solid indication in the use of digital noise reduction. The transfer, aside from the sharpening, appears untouched by crude digital filters.


Sadly the image is almost ruined by the presence of halos and frequent ringing of severe amplitude. The original photography of the film looks a little flatter than other comparable movies of recent vintage, which must have induced the studio technicians to artificially sharpen the picture and enhance its dimensionality and pop to please certain viewers. It was a disastrous decision that results in a much poorer image. The halos are obvious on many high-contrast edges, even from far viewing distances. They must stand out horribly to owners of the largest front-projection systems.


In all other ways, a superb looking transfer that showcases Blu-ray's potential. The clarity and resolution are striking in most scenes. Colors fill the screen that are warm and well-saturated. The deep reds of the theater setting are offset by the lush hues of the verdant forests. The overall presentation is a bit flat, but the sharply focused image displays excellent shadow delineation and detail. Black levels are deep without any crushing or macroblocking in the darkest shadows. Tighter shots demonstrate ample detail. Every wrinkle around Brad Pitt's eyes and the shaved pores of the male actors are easily made out in exquisite clarity.

_Inglourious Basterds_ is still a good title for picture quality that qualifies as tier one on the basis of its many visual strengths. The quantity and magnitude of the ringing cannot be dismissed lightly however. Edge enhancement at this level on a transfer intrudes too much on a calibrated display to rank it any higher than the bottom rung of tier one. It is not natural in appearance and a clear consequence of poor decision-making in the transfer process.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of mitanidani):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...0#post17559990


----------



## maestro50

*Gone With the Wind*

I did a quick search for "Gone with the Wind" and found it hasn't been ranked yet.

It seems my role is to start the vote on these old classics.


I would suggest placing it in the same tier with "the Wizard of Oz"

*Tier 2.75*


Both films were made in the same year and given wonderful restorations.

The hard part about giving GWTW a ranking is how incredibly uneven it is.

Some shots are so vivid in color, (Technicolor!) contrast, and depth that I honestly think they belong in tier blu. Absolutely stunning. Others are horrible--flat, washed out--especially very dark night scenes.


In the end, the good outweighs the bad and the spectacular shots are the ones that stick in my mind.


----------



## lgans316

Phantom / 42041,


I am just half way through Inglorious Basterds which plays fine in my PS3 but won't in my Panny unless I upgrade the f/w.


Not sure about the halos but thought it looked pretty and gorgeous with vibrant colors with grain preserved. Will cast my vote after I watch it fully.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/17804488
> 
> 
> Phantom / 42041,
> 
> 
> I am just half way through Inglorious Basterds which plays fine in my PS3 but won't in my Panny unless I upgrade the f/w.



Is there a perceived difference between the two players? Or is it just convenience? Just a curiosity question.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17804586
> 
> 
> Is there a perceived difference between the two players? Or is it just convenience? Just a curiosity question.



I found the overall PQ to be a hair better on the Panny but I did notice that the grain structure appeared slightly more pronounced and coarse in the PS3 by a hair margin. It looks like the Panny enforces a degree of Integrated NR and 3D-NR by default, especially in Non-User modes.


The Picture can be adjusted through User mode in the Panny which can't be done in the PS3. Also noticed that the Panny did a slightly better job with camera panning and detailed rendering of distant objects. However, you might have to be seated within a distance of 4~5ft to discern these minute differences in PQ.


For sound, there is an important feature called Dialog Enhancer which can be turned ON to offset dialnormed sound mixes.


Ultimately, both are excellent players with their own pros and cons.


----------



## Filmaholic




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ozymandis* /forum/post/17801624
> 
> 
> Coraline is a reference-quality Blu-ray in every sense of the word. It's not a live-action film, the complaint about soft faces seems a little silly to me. It was clearly the director's choice of physical materials, as this is one of if not the most detailed Blu-ray that I own. Detail, contrast, colors... Coraline is pristine. When I had a friend over and I was showing off my plasma, this was the first movie I picked.



+1


I have an unhealthy appreciation for *Coraline*. This is going to be my prime demo disc for a loooong time.


About objectivity and *Coraline*: I clearly remember me and *Deltasun* having a heated, objective, neverending discussion about faces and hummimgbirds. Good times!










Originally Posted by: K-Spaz



> Quote:
> If I were to do the placement of Coraline myself, I'd probably opt for 1/3 down in Tier 0. I do think it should loose something for the choice of colors. But not much.



Now, no offence, but I'm not sure what "choice of colors" are the right ones and which are wrong. This sounds awfully subjective to me. I like black and purple, you like red and blue, and so it goes. That's why I feel we humans are incapable of always beeing objective. Sometimes we don't want to, at others we really want to but don't even realize we're just not. That's how it is. But we should keep trying anyway, right?


----------



## Nowucmenowudont

I am fully aware of the purpose of this thread and I enjoy it. I am not trying to argue against its purpose. Just a personal observation...


My initial reaction to some reviews/recommendations is shock. I have to remind myself that this is an eye candy thread. I tend to judge films against other films of the same type, genre, or decade of filming. I'm not going to compare *Up* to *The Searchers* and then rank them against each other. My own personal rankings/tiers have digital animation separated from classic animation such as *Sleeping Beauty*. I won't judge a film like *Man on Fire* against a classic like *North by Northwest*. Does that make any sense? I wonder if anyone else has to remind themselves of the purpose of this thread before commenting...


----------



## jedimasterchad

I have to be honest and say I saw Coraline at a friend's house on his Sony XBR6, which may or may not have been producing the picture I was intended to see. So, I will try at some point to either borrow it or rent it so I can take a look on my setup so that I get a fair evaluation against some of the other material. On the other hand though, I feel like Up can be compared, and rank just as high if facial details were not present in either film, and detail was superb. Again though, you're comparing a photograph and a drawing. It's tough to make that call. Maybe if the next Wallace and Gromit is filmed in super high res, it will also make the list, even though the characters are made of clay. I suppose that is why Coraline didn't impress me as much...yes, it had the black level, but the colors were a bit artsy and the animation is something we're just not used to seeing, so it became a pretty tough judgment call. I didn't formally review it here though, so when I get the chance I'll take another look.


And sorry if I offended anyone, I didn't mean that anybody was not being objectionable in their reviews, I simply meant that to grade these animated titles against each other, I think a bit of our own opinions creep into our ratings. This is a great example of that. Everybody doing reviews here does an excellent job, and I can't fault anyone for their opinions, and I hope nobody faults me for mine







I usually try to throw in my opinion at the bottom, to keep it separate from my grading points, to say whether or not I liked the movie as a movie, and most others do as well. Anyways, hopefully I'll get a new review up soon...I'm so busy with work! Talk to you guys later.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

With regards to *Coraline*, Chad, when I watched it on my Panny I could see the texture of the material that made Coraline's face, the tiny fuzzy bits on the clothes, the individual strings that would make up threads etc. The depth and textures were amazing to me; perhaps you were marred by watching it on a different display than you were used to? I know when I hooked my PC up in my daughters room so she could watch it in there it was less-than-impressive, but my tv in there is sub-par in comparison to my Panny!!



I haven't seen *UP* yet on Blu but we did get it for my daughter for Christmas so I'm sure I will see it within a week; same as *Monsters Inc, A Nightmare Before Christmas* and *Monsters vs Aliens*.



.....and I may have snuck a double-dip of *Wall-E* on Blu in there somewhere, but that is still hidden.


----------



## Zeuser




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17803068
> 
> *Inglourious Basterds
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 1.75*
> 
> 
> ... That would have been my thesis and conclusion, if not for the awful and constant presence of halos throughout much of the movie. In every other respect a fantastic and film-like image, the halo-riddled transfer drags the final verdict down several notches.



OK. Maybe I'm one of those who doesn't see/notice halos. Can you define for me what you see when you see a halo? I watched this movie just last Wednesday and I didn't notice anything like that at all. Granted I wasn't at home and sat further away and on a smaller screen than I do at home.


HutcH


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Zeuser* /forum/post/17807768
> 
> 
> I watched this movie just last Wednesday and I didn't notice anything like that at all.



I'm usually quite bothered by over-sharpening and I did not find it even worth noting in my review. I would agree with your impressions.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Zeuser* /forum/post/17807768
> 
> 
> OK. Maybe I'm one of those who doesn't see/notice halos. Can you define for me what you see when you see a halo? I watched this movie just last Wednesday and I didn't notice anything like that at all. Granted I wasn't at home and sat further away and on a smaller screen than I do at home.



Even years after it was first posted, no better or simpler explanation exists for ringing and edge enhancement than this page:

http://www.videophile.info/Guide_EE/Page_01.htm 


The ringing seen on Inglourious Basterds is relatively high-frequency (i.e. thin but long) in the vertical direction mostly. On a calibrated display and playback chain that does not introduce ringing of its own, there is some edginess visible on certain sharp lines and high-contrast edges. While the entire disc does not have it, many scenes show evidence of it. It looked to me like an artificial addition to the transfer, and not the result of the photography. Once one understands and can recognize halos, they become hard to miss on the larger displays. Easy places to look for them are on hard-edged lines like cars, power lines, and facial profiles when backlit.


----------



## Zeuser




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17809353
> 
> 
> Even years after it was first posted, no better or simpler explanation exists for ringing and edge enhancement than this page:
> 
> http://www.videophile.info/Guide_EE/Page_01.htm
> 
> 
> The ringing seen on Inglourious Basterds is relatively high-frequency (i.e. thin but long) in the vertical direction mostly. On a calibrated display and playback chain that does not introduce ringing of its own, there is some edginess visible on certain sharp lines and high-contrast edges. While the entire disc does not have it, many scenes show evidence of it. It looked to me like an artificial addition to the transfer, and not the result of the photography. Once one understands and can recognize halos, they become hard to miss on the larger displays. Easy places to look for them are on hard-edged lines like cars, power lines, and facial profiles when backlit.



Thanks for the link. I have a 60" Sony Grand Wega (used DVD Video Essentials to set it up a long time ago.) I'll have to sneak downstairs tonight after the kids are asleep and check it out.



HutcH (not looking forward to discovering "halos")


----------



## Hughmc

I know that large screen projectors tend to show things like halos more readily due to the blown up image. I don't see them that easily on my 60 inch. I know djoberg doesn't see halos that readily either. I am generalizing and only talking about a few, but it seems the plasma owners like Phantom and GGG, and someone else I can't remember now, but they all seem to really notice halos/ringing. My LCD LCOS Rear Projection gives one of the best film like images of any HD display which is what it is known for, but it does at times tend to exacerbate or show banding which other technologies do not near as much.


It is a good point some have mentioned in recent posts about subjectivity based on differences in display types. Some anomalies may appear on some displays and not others and have nothing to do with the source.


Zeuser, I am going to go out on a limb and wager your display being LCD might not exacerbate or readily show halos if you have your sharpness at the proper level or turned all the way down and all the other settings properly calibrated.


----------



## Hughmc

And this is interesting speaking of plasmas from the Public Enemies thread:


"Problem solved!

OK, some good news on this and time to eat a bit of crow. My hats off to Chirpie for making me think about this and testing it.


This is indeed a scaling issue and the issue is that the Kuro does not default to 'dot by dot' mode, but rather 'full' mode. Full mode looks almost identical to 'dot by dot' with the exception of just a tiny bit of scaling that enlarges the picture almost imperceptibly.


With the Pioneer in 'dot by dot' mode, the problem vanishes 100%! I wouldn't be surprised if our other Pioneer owner, who reported no issues on his 60" Kuro, had 'dot by dot' engaged. I don't make a conscious effort to always engage 'dot by dot' since it's never caused any kind of an artifact other than a very very slight crop. If I forget to do it on a given movie, there's nothing in the picture to remind me that this mode was not engaged.


So I still stand by the fact that there is something truly weird about this title that causes some displays to react this way, but at least in the case of the Kuro, engaging 'dot by dot' eliminates the problem.


BTW, the brightness pulsing still occurs in some scenes and that's been reported in some professional reviews on this title."


from this post:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...7#post17809367 


Strange stuff. It really makes you wonder, when we sometimes have really drastic differences in recommendations like two full tiers apart, if there is more to the differences in displays and how they handle the source rather than the subjective review of the BD.


----------



## deltasun

They were not so bothersome for me, but yes...they were there. An excerpt from my review:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17729226
> 
> 
> 
> And finally, I sensed some minuscule ringing. I say _sensed_ because I don't see the actual ringing paused, but there's a bit of sharpening. Regardless, it did not detract too much, but thought it was worth mentioning.



I was a bit shocked the first time I read how invasive they were from Phantom's review. He and I differed by a quarter tier and is understandable and fair based on how much more his viewing was affected by the ringing/halo.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Definitely possible, Hugh. If there was some magic cure for me to no longer notice the edge enhancement on my Panny I'd be up for trying it. I've been watching Rome when I can and the EE is definitely present.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17809583
> 
> 
> I know djoberg doesn't see halos that readily either. I am generalizing and only talking about a few, but it seems the plasma owners like Phantom and GGG, and someone else I can't remember now, but they all seem to really notice halos/ringing.



You're right Hugh, I rarely see halos....and my set is a KURO plasma almost identical to Phantom's.


I clicked on the link that Phantom gave us on EE and would you believe I had a hard time distinguishing between some of those pictures? In other words, I didn't see the halos on all of them (I did see a difference regarding detail, but not the halos). The pics towards the end were much more blatant; the EE was very obvious in them.


I remember when we had the big discussion on EE when we were trying to find a placement for _The Dark Knight_. I could see the EE on most of screenshots that were posted, but when I actually viewed the title _in motion_ I didn't see any.


Bottom line: I am extremely glad I'm not plagued by halos/ringing!


----------



## Ozymandis

I could see ringing in Baraka against the sky, and to me it belongs in Tier 1 because of this. In Inglorious Bastards I wasn't paying as much attention because I was watching the movie but there was definitely some loss of detail in that BR.


Edit: forgot to add, on a plasma.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Public Enemies*


After having watched this very close in time to District 9, I find it rather confusing as to why this title has received relatively low review rankings compared to some that have been received for District 9.










Both were shot on HD video and have a similar look, and similar issues. However, if anything, I would say that this title looks slightly better overall than District 9, as the contrast/black issues didn't seem to be as bad.


However, this title does have a digital sharpened look to it in many scenes, and it also has blown out highlights, but not to the same extent as District 9.


I think the EE/sharpening in some scenes is enough to keep me from rating it any higher overall than District 9, so I will also recommend this for the same Tier at 2.25.


The movie wasn't bad, but it wasn't particularly good either. It was a slight disappointment given my high hopes since it was directed by Michael Mann. Still definitely worth a rental.
*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/17687427
> 
> *Payback (Theatrical Cut - UK Import) - Tier 3
> 
> 
> Payback (Director's Cut - UK Import) - Tier 2.5*



Hey lgans, what was the main difference between the two? I'm getting ready to order _Red Cliff_ and am thinking of adding the Theatrical Cut of _Payback_. Thanks.


Oh, and this is the UK version of the Director's Cut. Wonder if it's the same as the US version that I have.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Interesting you bring up Public Enemies, as I was just going to post something on it after receiving it as a Christmas gift. I agree with all the previous reviews in the thread to various degrees. Just like Rob Tomlin, the movie was a bit of a disappointment for me given the strong cast.

*Public Enemies


recommendation: Tier 2.5*


A wildly inconsistent experience because of the cameras used by Mann. Several of the bright exterior scenes are great, while many of the interior scenes are too murky, clipping low-light detail. The middle of tier two is more a guide that reflects this BD could be placed anywhere in tier two and be reasonably placed. Some minor noise creeps into the frame when Mann pushes the light exposure on the digital cameras.


----------



## jedimasterchad

Did anybody pickup Paranormal Activity or any of the other new releases this week?


----------



## lgans316

*Inglorious Basterds - Tier 1.75* - Agree with Phantom's review but didn't notice any halos. Thought the pacing was slow but the dialogues were amazing.

*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) The running time could have been easily trimmed by 30-40 minutes. The so-called Jew Hunter steals the show.


*Fight Club* - Had changed my vote from Tier 2 to *Tier 1.5*. This is the best dark looking film on Blu.ray. Period.







Congrats FOX.










I haven't watched Mr. Brooks and have no intention of watching it.


Deltasun,


Payback DC has a better color scheme than TC. Hence the higher PQ rating.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/17811245
> 
> 
> Did anybody pickup Paranormal Activity or any of the other new releases this week?



I got: Perfect Getaway and It Might Get Loud.


----------



## Nowucmenowudont




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/17811329
> 
> *Inglorious Basterds - Tier 1.75* - Agree with Phantom's review but didn't notice any halos. Thought the pacing was slow but the dialogues were amazing.
> 
> *Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler
> *Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) The running time could have been easily trimmed by 30-40 minutes. The so-called Jew Hunter steals the show.
> 
> 
> *Fight Club* - Had changed my vote from Tier 2 to *Tier 1.5*. This is the best dark looking film on Blu.ray. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congrats FOX.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deltasun,
> 
> 
> Payback DC has a better color scheme than TC. Hence the higher PQ rating.



No, no, no...the best dark looking film is *Mr. Brooks*.







It belongs in tier 0 actually.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/17811245
> 
> 
> Did anybody pickup Paranormal Activity or any of the other new releases this week?



I have it here. Might watch it tonight.


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17809583
> 
> 
> I know that large screen projectors tend to show things like halos more readily due to the blown up image. I don't see them that easily on my 60 inch. I know djoberg doesn't see halos that readily either. I am generalizing and only talking about a few, but it seems the plasma owners like Phantom and GGG, and someone else I can't remember now, but they all seem to really notice halos/ringing. My LCD LCOS Rear Projection gives one of the best film like images of any HD display which is what it is known for, but it does at times tend to exacerbate or show banding which other technologies do not near as much.
> 
> 
> It is a good point some have mentioned in recent posts about subjectivity based on differences in display types. Some anomalies may appear on some displays and not others and have nothing to do with the source.
> 
> 
> Zeuser, I am going to go out on a limb and wager your display being LCD might not exacerbate or readily show halos if you have your sharpness at the proper level or turned all the way down and all the other settings properly calibrated.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17809643
> 
> 
> And this is interesting speaking of plasmas from the Public Enemies thread:
> 
> 
> "Problem solved!
> 
> OK, some good news on this and time to eat a bit of crow. My hats off to Chirpie for making me think about this and testing it.
> 
> 
> This is indeed a scaling issue and the issue is that the Kuro does not default to 'dot by dot' mode, but rather 'full' mode. Full mode looks almost identical to 'dot by dot' with the exception of just a tiny bit of scaling that enlarges the picture almost imperceptibly.
> 
> 
> With the Pioneer in 'dot by dot' mode, the problem vanishes 100%! I wouldn't be surprised if our other Pioneer owner, who reported no issues on his 60" Kuro, had 'dot by dot' engaged. I don't make a conscious effort to always engage 'dot by dot' since it's never caused any kind of an artifact other than a very very slight crop. If I forget to do it on a given movie, there's nothing in the picture to remind me that this mode was not engaged.
> 
> 
> So I still stand by the fact that there is something truly weird about this title that causes some displays to react this way, but at least in the case of the Kuro, engaging 'dot by dot' eliminates the problem.
> 
> 
> BTW, the brightness pulsing still occurs in some scenes and that's been reported in some professional reviews on this title."
> 
> 
> from this post:
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...7#post17809367
> 
> 
> Strange stuff. It really makes you wonder, when we sometimes have really drastic differences in recommendations like two full tiers apart, if there is more to the differences in displays and how they handle the source rather than the subjective review of the BD.



I have an InFocus X10 projecting a 106" image and even viewed at 11' (and sometimes closer), I don't see ringing nearly as much as some. It's become a rare event for me to see a compression artifact.


I have to say I agree 100% with Hugh here.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Paranormal Activity*


There really isn't much point in going into a detailed review of this title. It was shot from the viewpoint of a home made video (think Blair Witch Project) so the PQ simply isn't good at all, and it shouldn't be expected to be.


As for the movie itself, I would say that it wasn't badly done. Go in with low expectations and it is worth a rental. Again, think Blair Witch Project.

*
Tier Recommendation: Tier 4.0*


----------



## deltasun

*9*


Not as dark as I expected. As with most current animated titles, this one was a sight to behold. The details and texture found in each of the burlap bodies that make up the little creatures were amazing. While not to the same level of attention to detail as _Up_ (for example), there were ample to go around. Each scene invited the viewers' eyes to explore not just the immediate object of focus, but even the ones off to the side.


Blacks were bold, but not to the extent that _Coraline_ perfected. Shadow details, on the other hand, were gorgeous. Though it wasn't as dark and foreboding as I expected (from the previews), it wasn't bright and fully lit either. So, the differing levels of shade and shadows produced very consistent and excellent low-light details. These led to phenomenal depth of field and dimensionality.


Though colors were slightly muted for its post-apocalyptic look, bright primaries were pretty common and were rendered faithfully and with good effect. As for any negatives - I did notice a few instances of banding crop up here and there. One of the smoky fades to black was probably the worst. Still, these were minor. I also felt that more detail could have been added during longer panoramic shots. In medium to long shots, I felt texture was a bit minimal on walls and other surrounding elements. They were detailed, but surprisingly lacking texture.


I would still rate this in Tier 0, just ahead of _Wall-E_.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0, above Wall-E*


This was a mildly amusing bit of post-apocalyptic adventure. As one of my favorite genres, I was a bit disappointed, but still kept my attention through the brisk 79-min fanfare.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/17811329
> 
> *Fight Club* - Had changed my vote from Tier 2 to *Tier 1.5*. This is the best dark looking film on Blu.ray. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congrats FOX.



Ha! Precisely how I felt. I would have supported a Tier 2 placement for this title, but there was just something about the darkness. You could barely see details on faces yet it looked mahvelous! I gave it the same rating, btw.



> Quote:
> Deltasun,
> 
> 
> Payback DC has a better color scheme than TC. Hence the higher PQ rating.



Thanks, order placed!


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17811388
> 
> 
> I got: Perfect Getaway and *It Might Get Loud*.



Had to blind buy this one from Amazon since no Best Buy had these available by the end of last week. How can I go wrong with the The Edge.










Let me know your impressions since I won't get mine till next week.


----------



## lgans316

In Flight Club, the facial close-ups exhibited excellent details for most parts. This ain't the case with Inglorious Basterds which looked smooth but still film like.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ozymandis* /forum/post/17810171
> 
> *I could see ringing in Baraka against the sky, and to me it belongs in Tier 1 because of this.* In Inglorious Bastards I wasn't paying as much attention because I was watching the movie but there was definitely some loss of detail in that BR.
> 
> 
> Edit: forgot to add, on a plasma.



Beats me why everyone doesn't agree on this point.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nowucmenowudont* /forum/post/17811481
> 
> 
> No, no, no...the best dark looking film is *Mr. Brooks*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It belongs in tier 0 actually.


----------



## audiomagnate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ozymandis* /forum/post/17810171
> 
> 
> I could see ringing in Baraka against the sky, and to me it belongs in Tier 1 because of this. In Inglorious Bastards I wasn't paying as much attention because I was watching the movie but there was definitely some loss of detail in that BR.
> 
> 
> Edit: forgot to add, on a plasma.



I didn't notice a lot of ringing, but I too saw several scenes that just looked flat, soft and out of focus. They were medium shots featuring several characters in the frame. I'm using a 54 inch 1080p plasma at eight feet.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/17811329
> 
> *Fight Club* - Had changed my vote from Tier 2 to *Tier 1.5*. This is the best dark looking film on Blu.ray. Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congrats FOX.



Project Mayhem was wondering how you gave it that low of a ranking.







Nice to see you change your mind before they sent a squad after you.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Question to those of you watching *Rome*, or want to hear about *Rome*...


Do you guys want separate reviews for each season of Rome or just for the complete series? I'm only on disc 4 so far, which is still season 1, so I'm unsure if the quality will improve for season 2 or if it will stay the same (which is, to put it mildly, wildly inconsistent).


----------



## Zeuser




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17814048
> 
> 
> Question to those of you watching *Rome*, or want to hear about *Rome*...
> 
> 
> Do you guys want separate reviews for each season of Rome or just for the complete series? I'm only on disc 4 so far, which is still season 1, so I'm unsure if the quality will improve for season 2 or if it will stay the same (which is, to put it mildly, wildly inconsistent).



How about a general feel for the whole thing? And then notable issues, good and bad, when they occur. Something like, AWESOME, except for this 10 minute spot on disc 4 where the lemurs had halos with rings.










HutcH


----------



## Ozymandis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/17812725
> 
> 
> Beats me why everyone doesn't agree on this point.



Having watched the BR several times, I still feel very strongly about this. If nothing else Baraka should be towards the very bottom of tier 0. To me, tier 0 means consistency throughout. Movies like The Host or Domino are examples of live action tier 0 movies (which I own) that maintain excellent PQ pretty much 100% of the time. These are true Tier 0 titles. Baraka, even aside from the EE, does not really compare.


It's similar to me to Apocalypto, which was bumped off of Tier 0 long ago (and rightly so). Yes, it has demo-worthy segments that match or exceed anything else out there. But it has scenes that are soft, that are out of focus, etc.


----------



## maestro50

*The General*


So what, exactly, is "eye candy?"

No, I know, I understand, and I completely agree with the explanations for each tier in the rankings. But when confronted with a release of a truly old (1926) classic film like "The General" it still gets complicated.


"The General", arguably Buster Keaton's greatest movie, is ranked high on the American Film Institute's list of the 100 greatest movies ever made. It has been released in standard def many, many times over the years, but O GOOD GOLLY, BLESS MY HI-DEF STARS, never like this.


Clarity and detail are spectacular. The movie is a delight. They even included three music soundtracks to choose from. (Each was composed to simulate hearing a theater organ or orchestra play along with the silent movie.)


I know that the idea of "eye candy" vs. "director's intent" has been settled.

But what about "eye candy" vs, "previously available versions"?


For anyone comparing "The General" to, let's say, "Up!" or "I, Robot" (which is what we are asked to do) no black and white film like this one (actually, it's tinted to sepia) approaching a century old can possible compete.


But for anyone with any knowledge of the film, this blu-ray is some of the most astonishing "eye-candy" in my entire collection!


If "Sleeping Beauty" stays in Tier 0 (and I think it should), and


If we resist the temptation to split the rankings into multiple types (animated, live action, live action with more than 50% CGI, Classic movies--black-and white, Classic movies--color, etc. etc.)


Then we need to allow for stunning achievement in all types of formats within our current system.


Therefore:

*Tier 1*


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Zeuser* /forum/post/17814305
> 
> 
> How about a general feel for the whole thing? And then notable issues, good and bad, when they occur. Something like, AWESOME, except for this 10 minute spot on disc 4 where the lemurs had halos with rings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HutcH



hee! Actually DaPriceIs did a good initial thoughts post here and I agree with a lot of what he had to say in that post.



So far there have been some scenes with utterly fantastic tier0 quality, but then some horrible ones. It sort of feels a bit like Gladiator on Blu, but the higher-quality parts of Rome last a lot longer than they did on Gladiator.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

Jennifer's Body?


WOW what a transfer from Fox. Honestly, this is one of the one of the best of '09 in terms of live action. Just incredible detail, even in low light situations, where shadow delineation, depth, and texture is maintained. A forest scene, where the trees go on forever into the background, has individual leaves clearly defined in the distance. Facial detail is remarkable in how well it's defined. Colors are beautifully saturated.


I spotted no instances of ringing, the grain is intact, less than a minute of noise, and a moment of aliasing on a casket. That's _it_. I have my full review scheduled to go live tomorrow morning, but I had no reservations about giving this one a 5/5. I would have no problem with a very high Tier 1 or even somewhere in 0 in terms of this thread.


Oh, and the movie was marketed completely wrong too. Hilarious horror comedy with tons of snappy dialogue and comebacks.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maestro50* /forum/post/17814984
> 
> *The General*
> 
> Clarity and detail are spectacular. The movie is a delight. They even included three music soundtracks to choose from. (Each was composed to simulate hearing a theater organ or orchestra play along with the silent movie.)
> 
> 
> For anyone comparing "The General" to, let's say, "Up!" or "I, Robot" (which is what we are asked to do) no black and white film like this one (actually, it's tinted to sepia) approaching a century old can possible compete.
> *Tier 1*



The thing is, _except for the edge enhancement_, this one can compete in some ways. Look at the train, where individual wood chippings are evident. Long shots are maintained beautifully with zero compression issues. Print damage is as minimal as it can probably get without millions of dollars being thrown at it. It really is an amazing looking transfer considering what those public domain copies looked like, and this is not a "oh, it's better than DVD" type thought. This CRUSHES all previous editions.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/17816714
> 
> 
> Jennifer's Body?
> 
> 
> WOW what a transfer from Fox. Honestly, this is one of the one of the best of '09 in terms of live action. Just incredible detail, even in low light situations, where shadow delineation, depth, and texture is maintained. A forest scene, where the trees go on forever into the background, has individual leaves clearly defined in the distance. Facial detail is remarkable in how well it's defined. Colors are beautifully saturated.
> 
> 
> I spotted no instances of ringing, the grain is intact, less than a minute of noise, and a moment of aliasing on a casket. That's _it_. I have my full review scheduled to go live tomorrow morning, but I had no reservations about giving this one a 5/5. I would have no problem with a very high Tier 1 or even somewhere in 0 in terms of this thread.
> 
> 
> Oh, and the movie was marketed completely wrong too. Hilarious horror comedy with tons of snappy dialogue and comebacks.



Sounds good! I'll look forward to renting it.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17818091
> 
> 
> Sounds good! I'll look forward to renting it.



Yeah, I bet you are.










Seriously, Netflix did me wrong on this one. Didn't quite make it as expected. I may have to run to the local BB, specially since I have the next 4 days off.


----------



## maestro50




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/17816744
> 
> 
> The thing is, _except for the edge enhancement_, this one can compete in some ways. Look at the train, where individual wood chippings are evident. Long shots are maintained beautifully with zero compression issues. Print damage is as minimal as it can probably get without millions of dollars being thrown at it. It really is an amazing looking transfer considering what those public domain copies looked like, and this is not a "oh, it's better than DVD" type thought. This CRUSHES all previous editions.



I know that some have called attention to EE in "The General," but I honestly couldn't see any. Perhaps I am one of those lucky enough not to be sensitive to it, but nonetheless, it was a non-issue for me.


----------



## 42041

*District 9*


Pretty good looking. Lots of poor quality documentary-style footage intercut with the high quality stuff. The camera doesn't dwell on any scene very long, and the color palette is subdued. Contrast is a bit weak in a couple scenes. When the camera does get something in focus and steady, the detail is very good, though not as good as the best I've seen from digitally shot stuff (with the exception of a handful isolated shots). I'm not against digital cinematography but for some reason I've yet to be blown away with any film on BD shot with the Red, they always seem to have this drab appearance I'm not fond of.


I liked the film, didn't like the BLATANT sequel setup

*Tier 1.75*

(PS3/Pioneer 50" Kuro Elite/1 screen width distance)


----------



## lgans316

*Changeling - Tier 1.75*


This is the best looking Clint Eastwood film available on BLU. Started off dull and pale but turned out good looking as the movie progressed. What an amazing movie from the legendary Clint Eastwood. Shame that this wasn't awarded Oscar for Best Picture.

*Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs - Tier 1*

*Forrest Gump - Tier 2*

*District 9 - Tier 1.75* - Like Knowing, the sequences shot using RED camera looked amazing as it exhibited plethora of details. I am surprised by the excellent CG on this one but the ending and sound effects could have been a lot better.


----------



## deltasun

A couple of quick hits...

*The Last Waltz - Tier 4.5* - How is this in the 2.25 Tier?









*Stop Making Sense - Tier 4.5* - Great audio, but the video's pretty outdated. Soft, speckled, and flat.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*9*


Overall excellent looking title. There are things about this that remind me of Wall-E in that there appears to be some intentional "depth of field" effects, though not nearly to the same degree as Wall-E.


Detail and clarity can be excellent, but there are also plenty of background items that are soft. Contrast is very good, but not quite the best of the best.


I agree with DeltaSun, and would place this title directly above Wall-E.


As for the movie: it was ok. The visuals were what I enjoyed the most, by far. The AQ was also very good.


*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* right above Wall-E


I have to admit, I thought Wall-E had been moved down to Tier 1.0 for some reason.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17819880
> 
> 
> A couple of quick hits...
> 
> *The Last Waltz - Tier 4.5* - How is this in the 2.25 Tier?



Good catch. I believe it was always ranked somewhere in tier four or thereabouts, but a duplicate entry in the database possibly corrupted the placement. It will be fixed in the next update. Now that we have over 1000 entries, little errors tend to go unnoticed.


If anyone sees an odd listing, just point it out to me.


----------



## deltasun

Ah gotcha...I was too lazy to do a search last night on previous reviews, but alas it looks like you sent it the Copper Tier previously. It's a great BR, which I incorrectly chose from Netflix. I've never even listened to _The Band_ before, but I really enjoyed it.


Thanks.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17823659
> 
> 
> Ah gotcha...I was too lazy to do a search last night on previous reviews, *but alas it looks like you sent it the Copper Tier previously*. It's a great BR, which I incorrectly chose from Netflix. I've never even listened to _The Band_ before, but I really enjoyed it.



Until you pointed that out, I had entirely forgotten about my own placement.







I had to do a search to look it up and came across it.


After watching Wolverine, the current placement in tier 1.75 looks about right. A legitimate argument could be made for anywhere between tier 1.5 to tier 2.0 for this particular BD, given how one tolerates the CGI elements.


----------



## djoberg

Just in case anyone's checking the old PQ thread my wife and I are counting down the hours to 2010 (86 minutes to go!!) and so I thought I'd wish everyone a.....

*HAPPY NEW YEAR!!*


----------



## Hughmc

Happy New Year Denny and to all.


----------



## deltasun

Thanks, Guys - Happy New Year, Happy New Decade to all! May we double the contents of Tier Blu in 2010!


----------



## deltasun

*Jennifer's Body*

_I'm not jealous. That place is disgusting. Everyone in there has a mustache._


Well, I might as well ring in the New Year with a review. Hey Denny, where's yours?








This was indeed a beautiful presentation from Fox. Blacks were deep with rare instances of crushing. Shadow details were also outstanding and helped create depth in most scenes. Facial details in medium shots were not as impressive. However, once we get extreme close-up's, fine pores on the main characters' faces, for example, were in full display. Details weren't just confined to those extreme facial close-up's either. You can literally see individual fine hairs on Megan Fox's shoulder and back after she came out of the lake.


Long shots were impressive as well, exhibiting generous depth of field and dimensionality. The forest scene was an obvious one, but how about Jennifer's block at night at the 48min mark?!? Insanely detailed! Skin tones were faithful, though it was used as a "barometer" for Megan Fox's condition. Colors, again, can be a bit of a distraction to some as it was richly (overly) saturated at times. The only other gripe was some excessive grain in a number of scenes. This was especially bothersome the closer one got to the screen. Some softness also crept in here and there, but that's a nitpick. No obvious foul play noted.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*


I can't believe how much I enjoyed this movie. Sure, the premise was absurd but the quirky dialogue and one-liners kept me at it for the movie's entirety.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Nowucmenowudont




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17826291
> 
> *Jennifer's Body*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe how much I enjoyed this movie. Sure, the premise was absurd but the quirky dialogue and one-liners kept me at it for the movie's entirety.
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_



The dialogue was exactly the reason why my wife and I turned it off. We thought it was awful.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nowucmenowudont* /forum/post/17826479
> 
> 
> The dialogue was exactly the reason why my wife and I turned it off. We thought it was awful.



It's definitely not for everyone. It's similar to when _Clueless_ or _Mean Girls_ came on the scene. I enjoyed those as well, but felt the same way you did with _Bring It On_.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17819901
> 
> *9*
> 
> 
> Overall excellent looking title. There are things about this that remind me of Wall-E in that there appears to be some intentional "depth of field" effects, though not nearly to the same degree as Wall-E.
> 
> 
> Detail and clarity can be excellent, but there are also plenty of background items that are soft. Contrast is very good, but not quite the best of the best.
> 
> 
> I agree with DeltaSun, and would place this title directly above Wall-E.
> 
> 
> As for the movie: it was ok. The visuals were what I enjoyed the most, by far. *The AQ was also very good*.
> 
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* right above Wall-E
> 
> 
> I have to admit, I thought Wall-E had been moved down to Tier 1.0 for some reason.



Sorry for asking an off topic question, but if rating the audio in the audio tier thread, where would you place this one Rob (or deltasun)? Great to hear that the video is so good as well


----------



## djoberg

*Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs*


Well, with it being 1/1/2010 and thus the "Dawn of a New Year," I thought it would be fitting to watch and review the "Dawn of the Dinosaurs."







I know, that's really lame.......and I promise I'll avoid misguided attempts at humor the rest of the year.










I don't have much to add to my former review of _Ice Age: The Meltdown_, where I gave it a 1.25 placement, except that the PQ of this 3rd installment is even better, especially the vibrant colors of the underground dinosaur world; they really POP, as do the details and sharpness.


There was definitely some *softness* (I agree with deltasun regarding the softness of the mammoths' fur) and a lack of detail with some of the characters. But overall it was quite pleasing to the eyes and is definitely "demo-worthy."


I would bump this up a notch from _The Meltdown_, which places it right here....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'


----------



## nick2010

*Lost - The Complete Fifth Season*

*Tier 1.0*



*Lost - The Complete Second Season*

(I had previously rated this as 1.0)
*Tier 1.25*


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

How did The Bourne Identity wind up down in Tier 3? I did a search and see that I gave it 2.0, Old Codger gave it 1.75/2.0, and lgans gave it 2.75 (here - http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...3#post16924123 ), and then an update from SuprSlow at some point said this:



> Quote:
> Bourne Identity - Tier 3.5 (lgans) - was 2.0 - down to 2.25
> 
> 
> Bourne Supremacy - Tier 2.25 (lgans) - was 1.5 - down to 1.75
> 
> 
> Bourne Ultimatum - Tier 1.75 (lgans) - remains 1.5




I'm guessing there was some sort of mistake with transferring numbers, I was just confused when I went to check listings for a bit. Unless lgans changed his mind somewhere, search function isn't bringing it up. Just thought I'd better bring that up b/c I don't think it deserves to be in Tier 3 at all. I can accept that others may not see it as Tier 2.0 but it should be somewhere in there!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*The World Is Not Enough*



I watched this last night as I rang the new year in. I *think* I have all of the Bond movies now with the exception of Casino Royale (and Quantum of Solace is on the way from Amazon).



I did a search of the list and see that this movie is showing up at Tier 1.5. I'm afraid to say that I don't believe this movie should be this high up; there is a severe lack of details; someone who is better at identifying DNR would have to check if it is that or if it is just a soft movie. There is also a LOT of edge enhancement throughout the entire film. It's the EE that is really thin, but it's there and if it's the type of thing that bothers you, you will notice it. I know not everyone is sensitive to it, so it may not be bothersome to others when they watch. I didn't find it obtrusive really, it didn't take me out of the story but it was completely noticeable and unnecessary.



The colour scheme was dull, I am unsure if this is a result of the way the movie is soft or if it's just muted.



Overall it was not horrible, but to me it was in no way worthy of being in what I would use as demo material, it just fell too flat for me.


*Recommendation for The World Is Not Enough: Tier 2.75 (or possibly Tier 3.0).*

*Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800U, THX setting, approximately 7.5' viewing distance.*


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17829970
> 
> 
> How did The Bourne Identity wind up down in Tier 3?
> 
> 
> I'm guessing there was some sort of mistake with transferring numbers, I was just confused when I went to check listings for a bit. Unless lgans changed his mind somewhere, search function isn't bringing it up. Just thought I'd better bring that up b/c I don't think it deserves to be in Tier 3 at all. I can accept that others may not see it as Tier 2.0 but it should be somewhere in there!



It will be altered in the next available update. Does tier 2.25 sound like an equitable placement given the reviews, madam?


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17812234
> 
> *Paranormal Activity*
> 
> 
> There really isn't much point in going into a detailed review of this title. It was shot from the viewpoint of a home made video (think Blair Witch Project) so the PQ simply isn't good at all, and it shouldn't be expected to be.
> 
> 
> As for the movie itself, I would say that it wasn't badly done. Go in with low expectations and it is worth a rental. Again, think Blair Witch Project.
> 
> *
> Tier Recommendation: Tier 4.0*



Completely agree. Would add lots of banding and digital noise in the dark scenes.

*Tier Recommendation for Paranormal Activity: 4.0*


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17830664
> 
> 
> It will be altered in the next available update. Does tier 2.25 sound like an equitable placement given the reviews, madam?



Yeah sounds great Mr. Stranger!







I think that is where it was supposed to end up and somehow got misplaced. Thanks!


----------



## lgans316

G3 / Phantom,


No offense but Tier 2.25 is totally inappropriate for Bourne Identity. It's encoded from a old and filtered film source that exhibited it's age, print damages and softness throughout. The colors are way too muted with skin tones and edges lacking definition. Only few aerial shots gave a sense of 3 dimensionality. There are plenty of titles in Tier 2.5 and below that looks miles better than Bourne Identity.


Requesting you to please view it again by comparing with few titles in Tier 2.5-, and its own sequels.


Btw, Wishing all a very happy, prosperous, pristine and eye candy New Year.


----------



## deltasun

I received this trilogy as a present earlier last year. I only really care for the third in terms of the actual movie. However, I can sacrifice for the thread and have a look at 1 and 2.


----------



## 42041

*Jennifer's Body*


Really good looking disc. Consistency is a virtue here, almost no shots stick out as bad-looking. The AVC compression (courtesy of Fox) looks fine to me. There's a lot of dark scenes here but they're photographed well and black levels are pretty much spot-on throughout. Detail is outstanding, tons of texture, colors are vibrant. There's a good amount of grain, maybe a bit much for some. Some EE halos pop up here and there but rarely to distracting effect. But despite the many merits of the video, the overall effect of the film rarely produced that elusive "wow" factor of the very best demo discs to my eyes, so ...

*Tier 1.25*


Unlike many, I didn't dislike the movie. I went into it expecting Juno with more murder and that's pretty much what I got, for better or worse...


----------



## deltasun

*Bourne Identity*


The presentation was very drab. Most locations were either snowing, overcast, or barely sunny. Contrast was a bit on the weak side, which usually led to messy dark scenes. While some shadow detail was adequate for their scenes, it was far from the quality found in some of the better demo discs. Blacks were decent, but gave way to some crushing. Admittedly, I expected more crushing simply based on the look, but they occurred considerably less often.


Unfortunately, the feature was plagued with softness. There would be excellently detailed close-up's but would be marred by softness a moment later. It was arbitrary and would usually occur during key times. Regardless, the softness coupled with the drab surroundings did not help its cause. I felt skin tones were consistent with the environment. Some of the panoramic night shots of Paris offered excellent dimensionality.


Grain was always present; otherwise, I would have suspected some noise reduction the way some of the facial shots appeared. In some scenes, specially blank walls, grain or digital noise appeared substantially and really detracted. There were also noticeable specks throughout, but was heavier in the first third.


In the end I do believe this title is closer to Tier 3 than Tier 1. The best PQ came from the middle Paris sequence. Some of the darker scenes towards the climax quickly reminded the viewer how problematic the PQ was.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75*


This has actually grown on me. I rather enjoyed it and am now looking forward to watching _The Bourne Supremacy_.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/17831801
> 
> 
> G3 / Phantom,
> 
> 
> No offense but Tier 2.25 is totally inappropriate for Bourne Identity. It's encoded from a old and filtered film source that exhibited it's age, print damages and softness throughout. The colors are way too muted with skin tones and edges lacking definition. Only few aerial shots gave a sense of 3 dimensionality. There are plenty of titles in Tier 2.5 and below that looks miles better than Bourne Identity.
> 
> 
> Requesting you to please view it again by comparing with few titles in Tier 2.5-, and its own sequels.
> 
> 
> Btw, Wishing all a very happy, prosperous, pristine and eye candy New Year.



No offense taken, I have no issue watching the movie again within the next few weeks. My curiosity was stemmed from the fact that there were only 3 reviews posted when I did a search:

*Mine, for 2.0

Old Codger who was 1.75/2.0

and yours, 2.75.*


When agreeing with Phantom Stranger in my previous post, it was based on an averaging of sorts with those numbers.



Now that Deltasun has come in with his review early this morning, however, perhaps it's final placement should be at Tier 2.5 based on the numbers. I'm not one of the people who do that, but when I noticed it was in Tier 3.0 last night and did a search on it given I knew I had rated it higher than that (though couldn't remember exactly where since I've swapped computers since I did that review and don't have the hard-copy on this current computer), and didn't see any reviews putting it in Tier 3.0, I figured there must have been _some sort_ of an issue. I've been off on titles before, but in my humble opinion from what I recall it does not belong as low as Tier 3.0.



Once life calms down and I get through a bunch more titles that I haven't watched yet, I'll give this a re-watch; I like the film but I have to make sure the husband is not home because he has an intense hatred for the Bourne series - so much so you can't even MENTION it near him, or he goes on a tirade about how, "THE VILLAN FROM THE BOOK IS BARELY EVEN IN THE MOVIE. GRRR ROAR GRRR!!" I haven't read the books so I have no clue on the veracity of his statements, but he gets rather animated on the topic so much so that it's actually funny.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Angel Heart

recommendation: 3.25
*

In recent months Lionsgate has released a number of catalog titles at very reasonable prices. Among them is Alan Parker's _Angel Heart_, a stylish horror movie from 1987 that showed up as a BD on November 24, 2009. While many of these budget titles have had shoddy transfers, _Angel Heart_ is not one of them. The upgrade over the dvd is substantial and worth checking out for fans. This BD brings out the full quality of the original cinematography and faithfully preserves its somewhat soft and diffuse nature.


The main feature runs a length of 112-minutes and is contained on a BD-25. The video is encoded in AVC at an average bitrate of 19.00 Mbps. Compression suffers slightly as a result of limiting the disc to a BD-25. Darker scenes reveal a coarse-looking grain pattern that the AVC-encode handles with a small amount of issues. While no digital noise reduction has been used to any degree, the inherent grain of the film produces several moments of questionable compression transparency to the original look. One has to speculate that the increased video parameters allowed by a BD-50 would have eliminated these issues entirely. Nevertheless, these few moments of weakness only marginally distract from the overall picture quality.


It appears Lionsgate has struck a new master for the film, as the quality and lack of degradation for a low-budget movie from 1987 looks stellar. The master is almost entirely free of print damage, aside from a couple of tiny specks and one glimpse of black gate hair. As said before, no use of low-pass filtering has been applied to alter the film's grain. A negligible amount of very thin halos show up on occasion, but only the most dedicated watcher will even notice the low-amplitude ringing. Most videophiles would consider the transfer an uncanny film-like image, with a pleasing replication of the original photography and film stock.


A few scenes are a touch soft and indistinct. Sharpness on the whole is a little below average for high-definition material. It mainly affects longer shots, as close-ups exhibit a good dose of high-frequency information and clarity. The colors come off as lacking the vibrancy we have come to expect in the best high-definition material. Flesh-tones are natural in lighting and complexion, due mainly to the slightly washed-out contrast. Black levels are not anywhere near reference, but maintain a decent level of detail and delineation. A touch of crushing does occur in the moodiest segments. The picture, taken as a whole, looks solidly average without the pop or dimensionality seen in the higher tiers.


There are moments of varying picture quality. Some scenes are nicely representative of tier two, displaying increased color fidelity and resolution. Most of these moments are situated in the sunnier outdoor environments of New Orleans, while certain interior scenes suffer a bit in comparison. The worst-looking material never really looks that bad though, as precious few scenes ever fall below the middle of tier three in qualification. The macabre tone of the script and film itself would likely be out of place in an image shot for maximum depth and sharpness.


Many niche films have gotten rotten, outdated transfers on Blu-ray. _Angel Heart_, while not eye candy in any sense, represents a very good transfer that nicely preserves the intended look of the movie. I was not expecting such a solid presentation, given the status of it. An easy recommendation for interested parties looking to upgrade from the dvd or wanting to see the film at its best. Except for slightly increased compression transparency, I see little room for improvement on future editions.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post17575582


----------



## robsis

Nice review on Angel Heart, Phantom...I've always enjoyed this movie and was curious about adding it to my collection. Thanks!


----------



## mkoby




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17832922
> 
> 
> Once life calms down and I get through a bunch more titles that I haven't watched yet, I'll give this a re-watch; I like the film but I have to make sure the husband is not home because he has an intense hatred for the Bourne series - so much so you can't even MENTION it near him, or he goes on a tirade about how, "THE VILLAN FROM THE BOOK IS BARELY EVEN IN THE MOVIE. GRRR ROAR GRRR!!" I haven't read the books so I have no clue on the veracity of his statements, but he gets rather animated on the topic so much so that it's actually funny.



Long time lurker, first time poster in this thread...


Not to go too far off topic here, but your husband would be correct. The main villain in the books is "Carlos the Jackel" (at least in the first and third Ludlum novels). That being said, the Bourne movies are good in their own right and work well for today's world. If you haven't read the Bourne novels, I highly recommend them, even if you're a fan of the films because they're different enough that they're two different kinds of stories.


Also, to b ring it back on topic, I've read on several review sites that the Bourne transfers are some of the highest quality transfers and that they are nearly identical to their film source. I always find it interesting to see how things rate here because the criteria is completely different from a "how does it compare to the source" discussion. Since I just got these for Christmas, maybe I'll make my first reviews on these


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17832922
> 
> 
> Now that Deltasun has come in with his review early this morning, however, perhaps it's final placement should be at Tier 2.5 based on the numbers. I'm not one of the people who do that, but when I noticed it was in Tier 3.0 last night and did a search on it given I knew I had rated it higher than that (though couldn't remember exactly where since I've swapped computers since I did that review and don't have the hard-copy on this current computer), and didn't see any reviews putting it in Tier 3.0, I figured there must have been _some sort_ of an issue. I've been off on titles before, but in my humble opinion from what I recall it does not belong as low as Tier 3.0.



2.5 would probably be a fair compromise for this title. The whole middle Silver Tier seems to be inconsistent. I found lots titles that I would consider better than _Bourne Identity_ and lots worse. Same in 2.75. We almost have to do some house cleaning in Tier 2. In the end, I simply noted that there were more titles in 2.75 that BI surpassed than in 2.50.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mkoby* /forum/post/17834241
> 
> 
> Long time lurker, first time poster in this thread...
> 
> 
> Not to go too far off topic here, but your husband would be correct. The main villain in the books is "Carlos the Jackel" (at least in the first and third Ludlum novels). That being said, the Bourne movies are good in their own right and work well for today's world. If you haven't read the Bourne novels, I highly recommend them, even if you're a fan of the films because they're different enough that they're two different kinds of stories.
> 
> 
> Also, to b ring it back on topic, I've read on several review sites that the Bourne transfers are some of the highest quality transfers and that they are nearly identical to their film source. I always find it interesting to see how things rate here because the criteria is completely different from a "how does it compare to the source" discussion. Since I just got these for Christmas, maybe I'll make my first reviews on these




Welcome to actually posting in here!










I do have the books, one day I'll get to them... Ahh that "one day", once I hit it, will be *quite* the full day, with all of the things I tag internally with that sentiment!


I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on the PQ! Since the Bourne movies were initially released in a very expensive boxed set originally and the price stayed high until just recently with an Amazon sale and now the movies will finally be released in single copies (I think this January? I haven't paid much attention to that since I already have the set), hopefully more points of view will trickle in and these movies can have better-rounded spots on the list. I have still yet to watch the 3rd of these, so that will likely happen soon-ish.


I also think there may be a rifftrax for the first film, and I might actually have it, so that would be inducement to watch it again sooner-rather-than-later.



Deltasun, I totally agree with you on the middle tiers, but damn that will be quite the undertaking! I think I'm just going to have to try and pay more attention when I do re-watch things I own, or when a film I may be renting is not a new-release, to try and provide a decent review for it (or a second-look type post, for ones I may have already reviewed and have reconsidered my position). The lower Tier 2 and high Tier 3 seem to be a bit of a dumping ground sometimes. I'll have to discipline myself a bit more when it comes to that area of the Tiers.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Frailty


recommendation: Tier 3.75*


Another recent catalog title by Lionsgate, this more modern film has a troubled transfer. On face value, nothing looks too wrong. But close examination reveals a completely grain-filtered image. Almost all details are stripped from the picture, and skin takes on the appearance of a waxy sheen. Hence the difference between the Blu-ray's picture and the upconverted dvd is minimal in terms of real resolution. It is one of the more serious uses of digital noise reduction having a deleterious effect I have seen.


A shame really, as the film elements look in quite good shape otherwise for a movie from 2001. It does make placement difficult on an absolute basis. How to compare a completely filtered Blu-ray of a recent movie to an older film that is unprocessed but showing some age? I have no doubt some might judge this disc higher in tier three, but the lack of detail tempted me to push it into tier four.


If one can rent _Frailty_ to qualify for themselves the minor upgrade in picture quality, that is the best course of action. Owners of the dvd should heed these words carefully before buying. Adequate only to those who see nothing wrong in filtered film. Lionsgate has struck out again with a mediocre disc.


----------



## djoberg

*Orphan*


I see I'm only the second one giving this a review (deltasun reviewed it back on 11/1/09). I'm somewhat puzzled by this, for I thought it was a fairly good movie from the horror genre. This one rewarded you with quite the twist at the end, so if you do rent it don't give in to any temptation to turn it off before then (I'm not saying you will be tempted to do so, but with some their patience may run thin with its rather slow pace).


Okay, the bottom line with me regarding PQ is: I was fairly impressed. By what, you ask? Mainly with the sharpness, detail, and depth. The colors were purposely muted, as were the skin tones, so no real WOW factor there. But there were plenty of close-ups of clothing, furniture, trees, faces, etc. that yielded finely-rendered, intricate detail. I'm talking about some low tier 0 or high tier 1 detail, with depth and dimensionality to boot.


There were some moments of *softness* and I detected digital *noise* on several occasions, but overall it was quite sharp. On top of that there was a nice layer of grain that gave it the look of film, enhancing the details mentioned above.


I was very surprised that my colleague recommended 2.75-3.0, for I kept thinking throughout the whole movie "This is very close to being 'demo-worthy.'" I'm going with that call and placing it right here.....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75 or 2.0*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'


----------



## deltasun

I remember wanting it to look better but not getting impressed. I think it's the type of look that can induce different PQ reactions. I do agree strongly that the movie was quite good, specially with my low expectations of it. In fact, I have it in my wishlist for when the price goes down.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17837411
> 
> 
> I remember wanting it to look better but not getting impressed. I think it's the type of look that can induce different PQ reactions. I do agree strongly that the movie was quite good, specially with my low expectations of it. In fact, I have it in my wishlist for when the price goes down.



I wasn't impressed initially (the "hospital scene"), but once they went to the orphanage, there were some really detailed shots. Take, for example, their interview with the head sister....her face (and that of the couple as well) was very detailed, as was her clothing. This set the pace for what was, IMO, a very detailed movie from that point on. I forgot to mention too that the contrast and shadow details were quite good.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Denny I've had that one in my ziplist since before it was released. They just haven't bothered to send it to me yet!!


----------



## deltasun

*The Bourne Supremacy*


From the opening scene of Bourne waking up in darkness, drenched in sweat, we see a huge improvement in low-light details from the first one.


The visual style of a new director was apparent in _Supremacy_. Colors, specially in the opening scenes in Goa, were more vibrant and pleasing to the eyes. Greengrass' style had a greenish tinge to it overall, which was unnatural but did suit the genre well.


Some of the same issues from _Identity_ plagued this second installment as well - numerous crushed blacks (higher incidence actually) and arbitirary, albeit intentional, softness. The crushing seemed to occur more in Berlin and Moscow. There was a scene with several people having black coats - seemed like three quarters of my TV just disappeared! The softness can be downright annoying in some scenes.


The biggest improvement, as alluded to in my opening statement, was with dark levels. Depth and dimensionality was a lot more apparent in the darker scenes, not to mention in normal, well-lit medium scenes. Skin tones were faithful to each situation and did not contribute negatively to the quality. A few overhead panoramas of Berlin at night and a couple of NY towards the end showed impressionable detail. Grain on these scenes were also thicker.


Overall, despite the crushed blacks, I would still rate it as an improvement to _Identity_ A few scenes were high Tier 1, but I still feel that overall, it doesn't quite fall into the demo zone.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


Even better watching one after another...on to _Ultimatum_

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Wow, I didn't even know Frailty was on blu. I love that movie. Too bad it has problems.


Thanks for the review Phantom.


----------



## deltasun

Yeah, thanks for the review/warning, Phantom. Had a hankering for this after watching _Changeling_ a while back. I guess I'm not upgrading anytime soon.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17834325
> 
> 
> The whole middle Silver Tier seems to be inconsistent. I found lots titles that I would consider better than _Bourne Identity_ and lots worse. Same in 2.75. We almost have to do some house cleaning in Tier 2.



That would not be disagreeable with me. I think we might need a systematic reassessment of most titles between 2.5 to 3.75 because of the muddle that has been created. The bottom half of tier three falls more in line with what I perceive as the top quarter of tier four and so on. A suggestion, somewhat radical and thus would need a wide consensus before implementation, would be to lower each title in that range of 2.5 to 3.75 a quarter-ranking each. That would be a start, but I am open to any other suggestions.


My placements are almost entirely where I would rank a title in my own idealized tier list, according to the standards of the thread. That does lead to some incongruent placements with previously ranked movies, due to differing standards of time and judgment.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17837345
> 
> *Orphan*
> 
> Okay, the bottom line with me regarding PQ is: I was fairly impressed. By what, you ask? Mainly with the sharpness, detail, and depth. The colors were purposely muted, as were the skin tones, so no real WOW factor there. But there were plenty of close-ups of clothing, furniture, trees, faces, etc. that yielded finely-rendered, intricate detail. I'm talking about some low tier 0 or high tier 1 detail, with depth and dimensionality to boot.
> 
> 
> I was very surprised that my colleague recommended 2.75-3.0, for I kept thinking throughout the whole movie "This is very close to being 'demo-worthy.'" I'm going with that call and placing it right here.....



It is not really codified in the current criteria, but some interpret the eye candy requirements as demanding a vibrant color palette. Darker movies tend to get short shrift from some of our esteemed colleagues for picture quality. That has never been a problem when I rank them, but I suspect the deep black levels of the Kuro might lead us to a different conclusion.







I will probably pick this movie up at some future point.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17837991
> 
> 
> Wow, I didn't even know Frailty was on blu. I love that movie. Too bad it has problems.



I like the movie a great deal, and had not watched the dvd in many years. Take away the malignant effect of the DNR and it probably lands in tier 3. A very disappointing BD though, and unlikely to ever get a new transfer on Blu-ray.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*District 9*


Wow. I'm in agreement with Rob on his sentiment that if I had not heard so many good things about this movie that I may have given up on it after a while. I did like the movie although I see no reason to watch this again, some of the violence really got to me, likely the documentary-style of this movie simply "worked" on me, I don't know.



The PQ is completely all over the place, too much so to be considered reference for my taste. I'm not even talking about the documentary video stuff that was in there, unless the movie has that as a predominant feature.



Details could be very impressive, but they were more a highlight when I saw them and enjoyed them rather than the norm for me while watching this. I think this film was meant to be ugly and dirty-looking; I doubt this was supposed to be a polished and pristine, and it most definitely was not a visual treat for me on a whole.



The main flaw with the PQ for me is that it is simply inconsistent almost from shot to shot you could see a different level of quality; other reviewers have done a much better job describing 'why' than I have been able to on this one, sorry guys.


*Recommendation for District 9: Tier 2.0*
*Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800U, THX setting, approximately 7.5’ viewing distance.*


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17841792
> 
> *District 9*
> 
> 
> Wow. I'm in agreement with Rob on his sentiment that if I had not heard so many good things about this movie that I may have given up on it after a while. I did like the movie although I see no reason to watch this again, some of the violence really got to me, _*likely the documentary-style of this movie simply "worked" on me, I don't know.*_



That's actually a good way of putting it.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17839627
> 
> 
> That would not be disagreeable with me. I think we might need a systematic reassessment of most titles between 2.5 to 3.75 because of the muddle that has been created. The bottom half of tier three falls more in line with what I perceive as the top quarter of tier four and so on. A suggestion, somewhat radical and thus would need a wide consensus before implementation, would be to lower each title in that range of 2.5 to 3.75 a quarter-ranking each. That would be a start, but I am open to any other suggestions.



This might be a tad radical.







There are some in that range that are placed correctly. I am really at a loss in how we can "clean" up, aside from re-watching those titles again (which is almost impossible). Is there metadata that shows when certain ratings were given?




> Quote:
> It is not really codified in the current criteria, but some interpret the eye candy requirements as demanding a vibrant color palette. Darker movies tend to get short shrift from some of our esteemed colleagues for picture quality.



+1 on this. Lack of color should never be an automatic deduction based in our ratings. In fact, they should be rated equally, based on the same merits.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17837345
> 
> *Orphan*
> 
> 
> I see I'm only the second one giving this a review (deltasun reviewed it back on 11/1/09). I'm somewhat puzzled by this, for I thought it was a fairly good movie from the horror genre. This one rewarded you with quite the twist at the end, so if you do rent it don't give in to any temptation to turn it off before then (I'm not saying you will be tempted to do so, but with some their patience may run thin with its rather slow pace).



For me, the "twist" made this one of the most disturbing films I have ever seen. Really had quite the effect on me. Well done movie though I thought. Funny thing is I watched "Bruno" right after this which was also one of the more disturbing films I have seen, but for totally dif reasons. That was one disturbing night of film!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/17843922
> 
> 
> For me, *the "twist" made this one of the most disturbing films I have ever seen*. Really had quite the effect on me. Well done movie though I thought. Funny thing is I watched "Bruno" right after this which was also one of the more disturbing films I have seen, but for totally dif reasons. That was one disturbing night of film!



I agree! Not exactly your typical "bad seed" flick, that's for sure. As far as Bruno is concerned, that was more "gross" than it was "disturbing" (or perhaps it's disturbing because it's so gross).


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Cujo*

*recommendation: Tier 4.0*


A 1983 film adaptation of Stephen King's novel, the Blu-ray was released on November 24, 2009 by Lionsgate. The 92-minute main feature is encoded in AVC on a BD-25. BDInfo scan gives the average video bitrate at 22.99 Mbps. A transfer that is technically competent and accurate to the original intent of the film, the tier four placement reflects a solid but unimpressive image.


The compression is just a step below the norm of recent releases. A hint of banding occurs and the prevalent grain structure degrades into minor macroblocking during one nasty-looking scene. That scene is in the middle act, where a young boy walks into the early-morning mist. The combination of grain and haze produces some blocking. Other than that scene, there is nothing of real note to mention.


The master has escaped the digitally-processed look that Frailty suffers from. The pronounced grain-structure is left intact throughout the film. There are no indications the transfer has been filtered at any stage. If anything, some use of a digital scratch-removal tool might have improved the vestiges of minor print damage left. The master contains more specks and age-related damage than is typical for films of similar vintage. A few shots infrequently display minor horizontal ringing, mainly when the car first stalls, but nothing that is distracting in appearance.


The picture is mostly soft, as the film was intended and originally shot. Contrast wavers to some degree, where black levels vary from perfectly acceptable to slightly crushed. There are few razor-sharp images, though resolution is decent in close-ups given the use of diffusion in shooting. The look is reminiscent of the Superman Blu-ray in some measures.


No one will confuse this BD as being reference quality, but the transfer is unprocessed and faithful to the original film. It looks exactly like one would expect from a low-budget film transferred from an older print or ip. Seeing as there is little chance an improvement could be made, I am satisfied with the current BD.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post17824992


----------



## deltasun

*The Seventh Seal - 3.0*


Beautiful transfer of a 1957 film. I don't know if this title can look any better. Excellent contrast, deep blacks. Dimensionality wasn't bad for the look. The only weak attributes were crushing, weaker low-light depth, and facial details. Don't get me wrong though, facial details still looked impressive. Also, I don't think I saw a single speck.


*Ghosts of Girlfriends Past - 3.5*


I actually did sit through this.







The bronze skin tones and extremely crushed blacks were the worst offenders. Most scenes were flat and unnaturally dark. There were some really good facial close-up's, but not enough to salvage it.


*It Might Get Loud - 4.0*


This wasn't meant to be eye candy. Lots of documentary-type footage, old home videos, SD footage intertwined. Even the actual footage was stylized to exhibit heavy grain, some softness, and other effects. All very appropriate for the content.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17843711
> 
> 
> This might be a tad radical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are some in that range that are placed correctly. I am really at a loss in how we can "clean" up, aside from re-watching those titles again (which is almost impossible). Is there metadata that shows when certain ratings were given?



It was merely a suggestion to clarify the sludge of rankings in that range. Since no one apparently wants a radical procedure like it used here, the participants should be mindful of those titles' placements when viewing them. The standards have evolved a bit, considering the format has now been around since 2006. We have a manual text file with the recent rankings going back to June or so of 2009, but nothing earlier than that.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17855011
> 
> 
> It was merely a suggestion to clarify the sludge of rankings in that range. Since no one apparently wants a radical procedure like it used here, the participants should be mindful of those titles' placements when viewing them. The standards have evolved a bit, considering the format has now been around since 2006. We have a manual text file with the recent rankings going back to June or so of 2009, but nothing earlier than that.



Understood. I was asking about the date so that IF we do make this radical move, maybe we can decide to do it from a certain date backwards (since newer placements are probably more accurate).


Anybody else have any thoughts? I take the quiet to mean "not a good idea."


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17856018
> 
> 
> 
> Anybody else have any thoughts? I take the quiet to mean "not a good idea."



I understand the reasoning behind it, but I think it would also just complicate and confuse things even further.


This really comes down to what I have said long ago, which is basically as more time passes, and more titles are released, it will become more and more difficult to correctly place titles. The addition of the "quarter" tier placements helped, but we are even getting beyond that now.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17856278
> 
> 
> I understand the reasoning behind it, but I think it would also just complicate and confuse things even further.



+1


I agree wholeheartedly!


----------



## Hughmc

I am with all of you, but I am torn. I too think tier 2 is a mess. Granted, this is my opinion and subjective, but I think there are a lot of titles that got put there that deserve a higher placement and there are some that probably should be lower. And does lower mean better or does higher mean better?










There are just so many in tier 2, it would be a logistical nightmare to really do it right. I think the issue really starts before 2.0 at 1.75 and goes to 2.75.


I think the only way to even come close to doing anything about it is if we all voluntarily picked as many titles as we can to re-watch, try to minimize overlap by comparing lists and then see what is left on the list. As I said I think the logistics would be a bit overwhelming, not to mention the time factor.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Anyone think tier two is hard to read and scan given the choice of color? That silver hue does not provide enough contrast with the light blue background of the forum. A color closer to the Coal tier's current shade might work better. Improving readability might help get more opinions on titles.


----------



## deltasun

Yep, hard to read. But I don't know if that could lead to misplaced Silver titles.







But yeah, we can make Silver closer to Coal and Coal closer to Black.


I did a quick count and I have about 73 of the titles between 1.75 to 2.75. Of course, a lot of those are recent placements and I feel some of those recent placements are okay. I think we need to visit the first half of Bronze as well, like Phantom mentioned.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17857503
> 
> 
> Anyone think tier two is hard to read and scan given the choice of color? That silver hue does not provide enough contrast with the light blue background of the forum. A color closer to the Coal tier's current shade might work better. Improving readability might help get more opinions on titles.



I just checked it out and I agree 100% as that silver on gray needs to go. How about we use the coal color for silver, since it is like a dark silver, use black for coal, and use red or another color for placement holdings?


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17857582
> 
> 
> How about we use the coal color for silver, since it is like a dark silver, use black for coal, and use red or another color for placement holdings?



That is along the lines of what I was thinking. I will see what I can do about it. K-Spaz will have to change some code for when the database generates the list.


Anyone feel the first post in the main list needs any correction or additions? I did correct some of the broken links already.


----------



## deltasun

Just thinking out loud, but you know what would help in rating these middle tier movies is having foundations, if you will, within each quarter Tier that we can all agree on. Maybe just one movie that we all agree is 2.25, another one for 2.5, one for 2.75, etc. From those, we can always compare to get a relative placement. Then, all we're left with is inserting the new movie at its final placement. They'll serve as sort of a lighthouse for each quarter Tier segment (or half-tier in Tier 4). I usually use _Iron Man_ in 1.75. I think selimsivad (or is it stumlad?) has something similar for placing between 2.0 and 1.75 (is it _2001_ and _Blade Runner_?


Anyway, it'd be good if there is one title at each Separation that we can agree belongs there. What do you all think?


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17859440
> 
> 
> Just thinking out loud, but you know what would help in rating these middle tier movies is having foundations, if you will, within each quarter Tier that we can all agree on. Maybe just one movie that we all agree is 2.25, another one for 2.5, one for 2.75, etc. From those, we can always compare to get a relative placement. Then, all we're left with is inserting the new movie at its final placement. They'll serve as sort of a lighthouse for each quarter Tier segment (or half-tier in Tier 4). I usually use _Iron Man_ in 1.75. I think selimsivad (or is it stumlad?) has something similar for placing between 2.0 and 1.75 (is it _2001_ and _Blade Runner_?
> 
> 
> Anyway, it'd be good if there is one title at each Separation that we can agree belongs there. What do you all think?



I believe you're speaking of my "2001 Runner" test.









Looking at the titles in the discussed sections, I've noticed lots of movies I've never seen! The ones I have seen were viewed a long time ago!

Picking five that we all agree on from each section of Tier Two might be a good starting point.

Whatever we decide on, I'd love to help!


----------



## 42041

*House of Flying Daggers*


Right now this 2004 Chinese film is in tier 5, and I think that ranking should be reserved for SD upconverts and unholy abominations from hell such as Gangs of New York, which this isn't. But it certainly isn't Sony Pictures' finest hour. The first annoyance is that the picture is constantly shaking. The second and most significant problem is the pervasive softness and lack of detail. You can tell it's HD from where I sit but from longer distances it'd probably be a tossup. If the problems ended here it would just look like badly projected film, but the low bitrate MPEG2 compression (on a single layer disc, no less) makes this look like a bootleg rip, and while grain (or is it telecine noise? who knows) is ostensibly unfiltered, it's been reduced to mush by inadequate compression. Contrast is generally adequate. Black dirt spots are visible on the print. IMDB says this film was done with a digital intermediate, which usually seems to result in a decent blu-ray... guess not all DIs are created equal.


It's unfortunate that this disc is plagued by technical issues, since the colorful visuals and excellent photography seem to have the makings of a Tier 0 movie to it.

*Tier 4.0*


(PS3/Pioneer 50" Kuro Elite/1 screen width distance)


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

I think that's a good starting point, however the thing with me is, I find titles wind up in various tiers for various reasons... ie: one might have excess of DNR, pixelation, banding etc, and another may not have any of that at all but an excess of EE, messed up skin tone, and sub par black levels. Or something... I'll go along with whatever you guys decide to do basically, but honestly I'm unsure if it will change how I'm rating titles. While sometimes I do go to the list and try and see where something might stand, generally I use the description list and weigh it from there..



Perhaps another way to do it might be if someone watches an older title and provides a review for it, their ranking could be worth a bit more than it would normally to try and get things settled without bogging people down with a lot of work? For example, if you do a search on the discussion thread and the last review you can find is over a year old... it might help. Sorry, I'm not really helping, so I will now be quiet.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17859440
> 
> 
> Just thinking out loud, but you know what would help in rating these middle tier movies is having foundations, if you will, within each quarter Tier that *we can all agree on*. Maybe just one movie that *we all* agree is 2.25, another one for 2.5, one for 2.75, etc. From those, *we* can always compare to get a relative placement. Then, all *we're* left with is inserting the new movie at its final placement. They'll serve as sort of a lighthouse for each quarter Tier segment (or half-tier in Tier 4). I usually use _Iron Man_ in 1.75. I think selimsivad (or is it stumlad?) has something similar for placing between 2.0 and 1.75 (is it _2001_ and _Blade Runner_?
> 
> 
> Anyway, it'd be good if there is one title at each Separation that *we* can agree belongs there. What do you all think?



I don't disagree with this, as we are always willing to move titles around as needed to make the list more "accurate", but how many people will it take to constitute "we all" in order to get a title moved?


I.e., lets say a title originally had 10 reviews/placement recommendations. Now someone says it should be moved. Will this require 10 people to agree to move it? If not, how many? 4? 3? Would that be fair? ? ?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17859440
> 
> 
> Just thinking out loud, but you know what would help in rating these middle tier movies is having foundations, if you will, within each quarter Tier that we can all agree on. Maybe just one movie that we all agree is 2.25, another one for 2.5, one for 2.75, etc. From those, we can always compare to get a relative placement. Then, all we're left with is inserting the new movie at its final placement. They'll serve as sort of a lighthouse for each quarter Tier segment (or half-tier in Tier 4). I usually use _Iron Man_ in 1.75. I think selimsivad (or is it stumlad?) has something similar for placing between 2.0 and 1.75 (is it _2001_ and _Blade Runner_?
> 
> 
> Anyway, it'd be good if there is one title at each Separation that we can agree belongs there. What do you all think?



This *may* be an exercise in futility, for I can't think of one title, in the whole history of this thread, where *everyone* agreed on a specific placement. We've had top Tier Blu titles where nearly a dozen people have agreed and then along comes someone who, for whatever reason, thinks it belongs in the bottom of that tier or even in tier 1. So my personal opinion is that it will be virtually impossible to seek for a unanimous agreement on any given title.


----------



## djoberg

I just ordered _The Island (UK Import)_ from Amazon UK for under $17 (including shipping)!! For those of you who have been waiting for this release, I would NOT pay the ridiculous price (over $50) that Amazon.com (US company) is charging for it.


From every review I've read, it sounds like a stellar Blu-ray transfer. And IMO it's a really good movie too.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17863813
> 
> 
> I just ordered _The Island (UK Import)_ from Amazon UK for under $17 (including shipping)!! For those of you who have been waiting for this release, I would NOT pay the ridiculous price (over $50) that Amazon.com (US company) is charging for it.
> 
> 
> From every review I've read, it sounds like a stellar Blu-ray transfer. And IMO it's a really good movie too.



Very good picture quality







, lossy audio







. Since it appears a U.S. edition may never come out at this point, a good pickup though.


The tiers should be updated in the next day or two.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17859906
> 
> 
> I'll go along with whatever you guys decide to do basically, but honestly I'm unsure if it will change how I'm rating titles. While sometimes I do go to the list and try and see where something might stand, generally I use the description list and weigh it from there..



I don't know, I think the more titles we get, the more we would have to rely on outright comparisons for accuracy. Sure, we use the Tier descriptions as a first pass, but comparisons zero in on the final resting place, in my opinion.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17861771
> 
> 
> I don't disagree with this, as we are always willing to move titles around as needed to make the list more "accurate", but how many people will it take to constitute "we all" in order to get a title moved?
> 
> 
> I.e., lets say a title originally had 10 reviews/placement recommendations. Now someone says it should be moved. Will this require 10 people to agree to move it? If not, how many? 4? 3? Would that be fair? ? ?



We - as in the regulars. We're not moving titles around - let's pick a title that is already placed on a particular quarter tier and agree that that's a foundation for that quarter tier. One way to do that is for each of us (I'll come up with a list in another post) to come up with 5 each from each quarter tier. The ones we all have will be that quarter tier's foundation title. If there is a quarter tier we don't agree on, let's discuss it. But I think we can find at least one.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17863251
> 
> 
> This *may* be an exercise in futility, for I can't think of one title, in the whole history of this thread, where *everyone* agreed on a specific placement. We've had top Tier Blu titles where nearly a dozen people have agreed and then along comes someone who, for whatever reason, thinks it belongs in the bottom of that tier or even in tier 1. So my personal opinion is that it will be virtually impossible to seek for a unanimous agreement on any given title.



I bet KFP everyone will agree is a high Tier Blu title. Remember, we just need one per quarter tier. For Tier Blu, we don't even have to touch because it doesn't need this type of tweaking. I think we can make this work.






> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17863813
> 
> 
> I just ordered _The Island (UK Import)_ from Amazon UK for under $17 (including shipping)!! For those of you who have been waiting for this release, I would NOT pay the ridiculous price (over $50) that Amazon.com (US company) is charging for it.
> 
> 
> From every review I've read, it sounds like a stellar Blu-ray transfer. And IMO it's a really good movie too.



Denny, I have this and is probably my favorite UK import. The PQ is as it's placed - high Tier 1. As Phantom mentioned, the only drawback is the lossy sound.


Sorry, gotta run off to a meeting...I'll come back and finish my thought.


----------



## djoberg

*Final Destination (2009)*


This was a very short movie (its only "redeeming feature"), so I'll keep this short. It was so-so, but IMO it falls short of being demo-worthy. The opening scene (at the racetrack) had some blown-out whites, and there were instances of video noise sprinkled throughout, but other than that it was free of artifacts, ringing, and other anomalies.


It is a decent transfer with vivid and natural colors, bold contrast, good black levels and acceptable shadow details. I thought the skin tones were spot on and some facial close-ups were worthy of higher tiers. Details in general were okay and some shots had appreciable depth. It is better than average (Tier 3), but not demo-worthy, so here is another title that finds itself in what is becoming the "infamous tier 2".....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'


PS I must admit I skimmed through part of this title due to the excessive violence displayed in various accidents. I thought I had a pretty strong stomach prior to this viewing, but this one was "over-the-top" on many occasions.


----------



## Nowucmenowudont

Well, I hope none of you rely on Netflix for Warner Bros. discs that you want to review. You'll now have to wait 28 days after the release date before they send it to you.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Nowucmenowudont* /forum/post/17864613
> 
> 
> Well, I hope none of you rely on Netflix for Warner Bros. discs that you want to review. You'll now have to wait 28 days after the release date before they send it to you.



linky?


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Found it: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-10...html?tag=mncol


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17864082
> 
> 
> I don't know, I think the more titles we get, the more we would have to rely on outright comparisons for accuracy. Sure, we use the Tier descriptions as a first pass, but comparisons zero in on the final resting place, in my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We - as in the regulars. We're not moving titles around - let's pick a title that is already placed on a particular quarter tier and agree that that's a foundation for that quarter tier. *One way to do that is for each of us (I'll come up with a list in another post) to come up with 5 each from each quarter tier. The ones we all have will be that quarter tier's foundation title.* If there is a quarter tier we don't agree on, let's discuss it. But I think we can find at least one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bet KFP everyone will agree is a high Tier Blu title. Remember, we just need one per quarter tier. For Tier Blu, we don't even have to touch because it doesn't need this type of tweaking. I think we can make this work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denny, I have this and is probably my favorite UK import. The PQ is as it's placed - high Tier 1. As Phantom mentioned, the only drawback is the lossy sound.
> 
> 
> Sorry, gotta run off to a meeting...I'll come back and finish my thought.




I went through tier 2 last night and I own about 6 titles from each 1/4 tier. I was thinking something similar to what you mention which I put in bold when quoting you.

I could watch each one again and then skimmed through to make sure that the PQ for the title is within reason of where it "should" (my subjective opinion) be.


I have also watched about 1/2 of those titles in tier 2, but there is no way I could realistically or honestly remember what the PQ on any of them are except maybe a few that I have watched in the last month. Even then it would be guessing.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17864082
> 
> 
> 
> We - as in the regulars.



So the "non-regulars" who gave their opinions previously don't matter?











I'm just playing devil's advocate here. Like I said, I am not opposed to the idea of moving titles for more accurate placements, but I still have a hard time wrapping my head around *how* it should be done in a fair and accurate manner.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17866393
> 
> 
> I went through tier 2 last night and *I own about 6 titles from each 1/4 tier*. I could watch each one again and then skimmed through to make sure that the PQ for the title is within reason of where it "should" (my subjective opinion) be.
> 
> *I have also watched about 1/2 of those titles in tier 2*, but there is no way I could realistically or honestly remember what the PQ on any of them are except maybe a few that I have watched in the last month. Even then it would be guessing.



I only own 18 from the whole tier and I doubt that I've seen 1/2 of all the titles. Speaking for myself, there is no way I would have the time to revisit a lot of those titles (especially if we're talking about watching a title from beginning to end). I have all that I can do to keep up on current titles that are being released (and catalog titles that I am purchasing, such as _The Island_).


Speaking of current titles, I was just about to slip the movie _9_ into my Panny before making this post. I'm looking forward to this one....I'll chime in with a review right after I'm done.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17866710
> 
> 
> So the "non-regulars" who gave their opinions previously don't matter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just playing devil's advocate here. Like I said, I am not opposed to the idea of moving titles for more accurate placements, but I still have a hard time wrapping my head around *how* it should be done in a fair and accurate manner.



Remember, the premise is that we're taking titles that we all believe belong in their current tier. So, we are not discounting anybody's (regular or otherwise) votes. So, for example (and I stress Example) we all agree that _2001_ is Tier 2.0, _A Few Good Men_ is 2.25, _Independence Day_ is 2.5, and _Payback_ is 2.75. We can then use those as foundations for those quarter Tiers.


Let's say we review a title like _Love Actually_ and from the Tier descriptions, we conclude it's a Silver Title. We can then start the comparisons to the "foundation" titles for a more granular placement. Is it better than _2001_? No. Is it better than _A Few Good Men_? No. Is it better than _Independence Day_? No. Is it better than_Payback_? Yes! So we can place in 2.75.


Sure, the answers to those questions may be subjective and different, but I think it brings us closer to a more accurate placement of titles.


----------



## K-Spaz

I had tried when I made the app for the database to change the colors. The ones used now are very close to what was there before I began. I tried several possibilities for the silver and just wasn't happy so I left it alone.


Changing the colors is pretty much a snap. But I am not sure if I can use Hex values in the UBB code, so we may be restricted to the primaries. I don't remember for sure, it's been a while, but iirc, I was handcuffed on the color choices.


----------



## K-Spaz

Oh, and, not that it bothers me one way or the other, but I would not favor a carte-blanch review of the placements, in tier 2 or any other for that matter. I don't doubt there's titles that could move, but I wouldn't go so far as to say any significant percentage. Titles didn't get where they are without at least a little thought. The criteria hasn't changed. If they fit or were close 2 years ago, they probably are reasonably close now.


It'll never be perfect.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17867343
> 
> 
> Remember, the premise is that we're taking titles that we all believe belong in their current tier. So, we are not discounting anybody's (regular or otherwise) votes. So, for example (and I stress Example) we all agree that _2001_ is Tier 2.0, _A Few Good Men_ is 2.25, _Independence Day_ is 2.5, and _Payback_ is 2.75. We can then use those as foundations for those quarter Tiers.
> 
> 
> Let's say we review a title like _Love Actually_ and from the Tier descriptions, we conclude it's a Silver Title. We can then start the comparisons to the "foundation" titles for a more granular placement. Is it better than _2001_? No. Is it better than _A Few Good Men_? No. Is it better than _Independence Day_? No. Is it better than_Payback_? Yes! So we can place in 2.75.



If some users are unhappy with wholesale changes, the process you suggest might be helpful going forward for future placements anyway. It would seem possible to find a few titles in each quarter of tier 2 (or to expand it further, all the tiers) that most of the regular contributors would agree deserve that placement. That comparative process you describe is how I think through many of my placements. Having a few benchmarks that everyone is familiar with and agrees on would make the ranking decision a little easier.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17867701
> 
> 
> If some users are unhappy with wholesale changes, the process you suggest might be helpful going forward for future placements anyway. It would seem possible to find a few titles in each quarter of tier 2 (or to expand it farther, all the tiers) that most of the regular contributors would agree deserve that placement. That comparative process you describe is how I think through many of my placements. Having a few benchmarks that everyone is familiar with and agrees on would make the ranking decision a little easier.



Precisely, Phantom...it's a good guide as we process more and more titles. And yes, I meant the benchmarks (better word) to be defined for the rest of the Tiers. I do this type of comparative steps as well, but would love to use titles that we all agree to for each quarter tier. We can even bold them in the other PQ thread (or simply have the word benchmark somewhere in its entry) for easier reference.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Benchmarks would have to be relatively popular movies that almost all nearly agree on the placement, as a frame of reference.


Scanning the top quarter of tier-2, possible suggestions for starting a discussion include:


The Aviator

Blade Runner

Donnie Brasco

Leon

Starship Troopers

Underworld: Evolution


There are other movies I see that have potential, but are unlikely to have been widely viewed. Of the titles listed above, I myself have yet to see Starship Troopers on BD.


----------



## djoberg

*9*


After watching an *okay* title earlier today (_Final Destination_), it was a pleasure to view another Tier Blu title this evening. _9_ may not win any awards for colors (with its intended post-apocalyptic browns and blacks), but what it's lacking in that department is more than made up for in DETAIL, DEPTH and DIMENSIONALITY.


From the opening scene (the creation of 9) you knew this one was going to WOW you with plenty of DETAIL, for the stitching of 9 by his human creator is nothing short of amazing! Throughout the whole film there are numerous instances of incredible DEPTH, with DIMENSION that defies description. What a treat and surely deserving of the words we've come to love: EYE CANDY!


Believe it or not, there are NOT a whole lot of blacks, but when there is a scene with a totally dark background, it's deep and inky! Even though the blacks are limited, there are many semi-dark scenes that are rich with shadow detail; in fact, I should have added this virtue in the first paragraph along with detail, depth and dimensionality, for this was easily one of the most impressive features that earn this title a spot in Tier Blu.


This could and should be compared, as it already has, to _Wall-E_, for there are many similar scenes in these titles (I'm speaking of the first 30 minutes or so of _Wall-E_ with its post-apocalyptic theme). But in my opinion, _9_ has the edge and thus I join my two colleagues (deltasun and Rob Tomlin) by recommending the following:

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 right above Wall-E*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17867908
> 
> 
> Benchmarks would have to be relatively popular movies that almost all nearly agree on the placement, as a frame of reference.
> 
> 
> Scanning the top quarter of tier-2, possible suggestions for starting a discussion include:
> 
> 
> The Aviator
> 
> Blade Runner
> 
> Donnie Brasco
> 
> Leon
> 
> Starship Troopers
> 
> Underworld: Evolution
> 
> 
> There are other movies I see that have potential, but are unlikely to have been widely viewed. Of the titles listed above, I myself have yet to see Starship Troopers on BD.



I own _Blade Runner_ and _Underworld: Evolution_ and I believe either one of them would serve as a benchmark for Tier 2.0.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17867096
> 
> 
> I only own 18 from the whole tier and I doubt that I've seen 1/2 of all the titles. Speaking for myself, there is no way I would have the time to revisit a lot of those titles (especially if we're talking about watching a title from beginning to end). I have all that I can do to keep up on current titles that are being released (and catalog titles that I am purchasing, such as _The Island_).



Exactly.


I have no intention whatsoever of re-viewing these titles. The only time I do that is if it is a movie I really like and feel like watching it again (completely apart from having anything to do with this thread). When I do watch a BD for the second time (rare) I do usually come here to see if I still have the same impressions and tier recommendation.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

I will have to defer to you guys on all that re-watching or benchmarking. All of these titles:



> Quote:
> The Aviator
> 
> Blade Runner
> 
> Donnie Brasco
> 
> Leon
> 
> Starship Troopers
> 
> Underworld: Evolution



I have yet to see, so I am of little help on that score I am afraid! I will think on this for a few days and possibly come up with a few titles that I personally will use as my benchmarks for Tier 2.0 through Tier 3.0, I wonder if that might be the best way to go about it? Our opinions differ, even on the quarter-tier basis, at least if I have something that *I* have as my own benchmark so to speak, then you guys will have an understanding of where I am coming from.



I hope that makes sense, I'm pretty tired at the moment.


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17867908
> 
> 
> Benchmarks would have to be relatively popular movies that almost all nearly agree on the placement, as a frame of reference.



Just for laughs.


The Aviator: I thought was more like a very low 1 (1.75)

Blade Runner: Source material does not belong in tier 2 imho. Should be in 3

Donnie Brasco: Didn't see it.

Leon: Middle of tier 2

Starship Troopers: Middle or upper middle of tier 2

Underworld: Evolution: I felt was horrible, after a couple viewings, I'd go as far as 3.75 or 4


Other higher profile titles that I think belong where they are:

Night at the Museum

Enemy at the Gates

Changeling

Die Another Day

League of Extraordinary Gentlemen

Next

Van Helsing

Blood Diamond

Body of Lies

The Departed

Get Smart

Chamber of Secrets

Ocean's Eleven


and I'm just into tier 2.25


Now, I fully understand that there's folks out there who think Underworld ROTL looked great. That's why it is in tier 2 vs tier 4 where it should be


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17868865
> 
> 
> I have yet to see, so I am of little help on that score I am afraid! I will think on this for a few days and possibly come up with a few titles that I personally will use as my benchmarks for Tier 2.0 through Tier 3.0, I wonder if that might be the best way to go about it? Our opinions differ, even on the quarter-tier basis, at least if I have something that *I* have as my own benchmark so to speak, then you guys will have an understanding of where I am coming from.



Those particular movies were just a starting point. I just went through the movies in that quarter and picked the titles I thought many of us had seen at one point. It has been awhile since I watched any of them. Hearing your personal list would be good for discussion.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/17869113
> 
> 
> The Aviator: I thought was more like a very low 1 (1.75)
> 
> Blade Runner: Source material does not belong in tier 2 imho. Should be in 3
> 
> Leon: Middle of tier 2
> 
> Starship Troopers: Middle or upper middle of tier 2
> 
> Underworld: Evolution: I felt was horrible, after a couple viewings, I'd go as far as 3.75 or 4
> 
> 
> Other higher profile titles that I think belong where they are:
> 
> League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
> 
> The Departed



Are you recommending the above placements for a change? If you feel strongly about an incorrect ranking, just give it. Movies that have been hanging around a long time sometimes get overlooked. Personally I have no strong opinions either way on the titles listed, just because my most recent viewings are in the distant past. I agree about LoEG and The Departed though. Those current placements appear accurate and could serve as a reference point.


----------



## Ozymandis

I, Robot- finally got around to getting this, Walmart put it in their 10 dollar selection and I couldn't resist. I had seen the movie before, as a sci-fi fan who read the original Asimov I was horrified originally, but the movie is an average Hollywood actioner.


Anyway, I can see why it's been placed so high in Tier 0. Highest live action flick in fact. There is a ton of detail. Colors and contrast are perfect, blacks are deep and inky. The opening shot of Will Smith's face shows that flesh tones are flawless. Shots of the city skyline are very good. The movie is very slick-looking near-future scifi and this is a true reference-quality Blu-ray disc. Consistently gorgeous picture with no artifacts. The audio is also very, very good.


No argument whatsoever with its top Tier 0 placement. I have been working my way through some of the Tier 0 live action flicks that I do not own, and this one was a worthy investment just for the great transfer. I do not own the PotC movies on Blu-ray yet, so I cannot say whether this is more impressive than those, but I can say that it was more impressive than they were at my local theater


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17868865
> 
> 
> I will think on this for a few days and possibly come up with a few titles that I personally will use as my benchmarks for Tier 2.0 through Tier 3.0, I wonder if that might be the best way to go about it? Our opinions differ, even on the quarter-tier basis, at least if I have something that *I* have as my own benchmark so to speak, then you guys will have an understanding of where I am coming from.
> 
> 
> I hope that makes sense, I'm pretty tired at the moment.



I would hope that we can come up with benchmarks that we all can agree on. That is the only way this system will work. One idea I have is for each person to come up with 5 or 10 (or less, however many a person has seen/rated in each quarter tier) for each quarter tier and the ones that everybody has is a benchmark(s).


Now, we may have quarter tiers where no one agrees on a single title. We can cross that bridge when/if we get there.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17875361
> 
> 
> I would hope that we can come up with benchmarks that we all can agree on. That is the only way this system will work. One idea I have is for each person to come up with 5 or 10 (or less, however many a person has seen/rated in each quarter tier) for each quarter tier and the ones that everybody has is a benchmark(s).
> 
> 
> Now, we may have quarter tiers where no one agrees on a single title. We can cross that bridge when/if we get there.



I don't totally agree with that... as we all have our own idea of where things should be versus where they actually end up. Occasionally a few of us converge on an exact placement with one another but... that's why our reviews are weighted with one another and then based on that the final spot is chosen.



*shrug* I'm sure you guys will do what you think is best.


----------



## 42041

*Jarhead*


Strangely I can't find it on the list, I figured someone would have watched this by now. Nothing to complain about really. Detail is a bit inconsistent, often very good. Black levels are spot-on. Some might be bothered by the occasional dust on the negative (I'm not). This movie has a washed out, bleak look, so it's not really for this thread, but it's a technically sound disc.

*Tier 2.0*


(ps3/pioneer kuro 50" elite/1 screen width distance)


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17876129
> 
> 
> I don't totally agree with that... as we all have our own idea of where things should be versus where they actually end up. Occasionally a few of us converge on an exact placement with one another but... that's why our reviews are weighted with one another and then based on that the final spot is chosen.
> 
> 
> 
> *shrug* I'm sure you guys will do what you think is best.




Doing nothing is best says the lazy procrastinator of reviews.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/17876638
> 
> *Jarhead*
> 
> 
> Strangely I can't find it on the list, I figured someone would have watched this by now. Nothing to complain about really. Detail is a bit inconsistent, often very good. Black levels are spot-on. Some might be bothered by the occasional dust on the negative (I'm not). This movie has a washed out, bleak look, so it's not really for this thread, but it's a technically sound disc.
> 
> *Tier 2.0*
> 
> 
> (ps3/pioneer kuro 50" elite/1 screen width distance)



Was this the US or the international version? The international version is encoded at twice the bit rate of the US version.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17876129
> 
> 
> 
> *shrug* I'm sure you guys will do what you think is best.



I know you know this, but, it shouldn't be "you guys" will do what's best, we should have a consensus.


Frankly, I personally got to the point awhile back where I really look at this thread more for the reviews more than looking at the actual list.


I really have very little idea where most titles are placed. I just look forward to reviews of newly released titles.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17876129
> 
> 
> I don't totally agree with that... as we all have our own idea of where things should be versus where they actually end up. Occasionally a few of us converge on an exact placement with one another but... that's why our reviews are weighted with one another and then based on that the final spot is chosen.
> 
> 
> 
> *shrug* I'm sure you guys will do what you think is best.



I'm sorry, I think I'm doing a poor job explaining.







Maybe PS can explain it better. The idea is that we can find a title or even titles within each quarter tier that we all agree belong there. If we are successful in defining these benchmarks, then it will help us in fine-tuning our final placements in the future.


On another note, I definitely make my final placements based on other titles within the tiers. As you all know, I disagreed strongly with the _Coraline_ placement. But, I respect its eventual placement high in Tier 0 (position 4). The sum of our parts, I believe, is definitely stronger than our individual contributions. If I view a title that is *slightly* better than _Coraline_, I would place said title above _Coraline_ in position 3, not just above Tier 1 (where I believed _Coraline_ belonged). I.e., I respect its final placement as judged by us.


So in that sense, I _don't_ draw final conclusions based on my own list that I keep of where I believe titles should "really" go. I use what we have collectively agree to as my foundation for final placement.


With this current idea where we can define these benchmarks that we ALL agree to, it makes that approach even stronger. Does that make sense?


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

I do understand what you mean, Deltasun, don't get me wrong. It would be really good if we did have proper benchmarks. I'm just really overrun with stuff right now so the prospect of "pq homework" is a bit much for me right now







It's not that I'm LAZY, HUGH. I'm just busy!







When i have time i'll look through what I own and see what i might consider for those tiers.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17877086
> 
> 
> I know you know this, but, it shouldn't be "you guys" will do what's best, we should have a consensus.



Concur on that point. Nothing of this magnitude should be implemented without the input and consensus of all regular posters to this thread. I would love to hear from some of the lurkers about their general impressions of the idea.


The rankings are still very valid to me, or I would not spend the hours it takes to put them in the database. The tiers are a good guide to many entering the world of Blu-ray and demanding the best picture quality.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17877165
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, I think I'm doing a poor job explaining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe PS can explain it better. The idea is that we can find a title or even titles within each quarter tier that we all agree belong there. If we are successful in defining these benchmarks, then it will help us in fine-tuning our final placements in the future.
> 
> 
> With this current idea where we can define these benchmarks that we ALL agree to, it makes that approach even stronger. Does that make sense?



I am in agreement that the idea of possible benchmarks is a good one in theory. My intention was to explicitly name a few popular discs that someone new to the format or the PQ tier list would have seen at some point. So if a new BD owner just bought 2001 as their first disc, they get a good sense of how the various movies on the list rank in relation to it.


I am not proposing these benchmarks to be binding to anyone on their placements at all. Think of these benchmarks as quick and dirty estimates for relative comparison that a majority of regulars have agreed typify that quarter tier. Longtime regulars obviously have developed their own independent methods to qualify rankings through direct experience.


But I will not force the issue if there is any resistance to it. At the present moment it really is a half-baked idea.


----------



## deltasun

Agreed, this idea only becomes reality if we have everyone's buy-in. And G3, understood about the homework concept. It has to be said that this is a hobby for all of us. The second it becomes a chore, it becomes counterproductive as well.


I do like the idea of collective benchmarks the more I think about it. I don't mind putting in some "work" to get some defined. Of course, if it still is our consensus.


'nite, all


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17877086
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly, I personally got to the point awhile back where I really look at this thread more for the reviews more than looking at the actual list.
> 
> 
> I really have very little idea where most titles are placed. I just look forward to reviews of newly released titles.



+1


When I do occasionally look at the actual listings, I am invariably surprised at some of the placements. So I am all in favor of revisiting current placements, provided I don't have to do any work.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/17877884
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> 
> When I do occasionally look at the actual listings, I am invariably surprised at some of the placements. So I am all in favor of revisiting current placements, provided I don't have to do any work.



+2










Seriously though, I really don't have the time to help....wish I did, but I don't. In fact, I gotta run now....trip to Minneapolis over the weekend to visit our girls and their families. In two weeks I'll be out of the country for almost two weeks.


----------



## lwright84

My first nomination..

*DISTRICT 9 - US Release*


Reference video quality. Great details in the blacks of night, hard slums, and even the CGI Aliens themselves. Facial detail is on par with Crank. Environments are crisp and colors are perfectly short of being vibrant (intentional color palette). No EE or DNR.

*Tier 0*


----------



## vpn75

*Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs*


This is one of the more impressive animated titles I have had the pleasure to watch. I was dazzled by the vibrant colors on display throughout the movie! The only other animated title I think that could compare in this respect would be Cars. Even the end-credits sequence were a joy to watch! Fine-detail and black-levels were also exceptional. Facial closeups lacked the amazing detail found in say Monsters vs. Aliens but this was obviously a design decision. The food itself features amazing textures and looks very realistic.


I was also very impressed with the movie itself. When I first saw the trailers for it and heard the premise, I thought it was a bit silly, but it surprised me with its near perfect blend of humor and emotion to go along with some truly wonderful animation. Highly recommended for all ages!

*Tier 0 - Reference*

_(Panasonic TC-P54G10, 1080p, 8")_


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/17877884
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> 
> When I do occasionally look at the actual listings, I am invariably surprised at some of the placements.



In a list as large as the tiers have become (approximately 1100 titles in the database before the upcoming update which should add another 100) now, inappropriate and wrong placements are expected. But speak up if you see a poorly-ranked movie. As a longtime participant here you know when a placement is poor. The only exceptions are the contentious titles when the rankings are more a compromise than a single indicator of quality. But many of the current rankings are based on only one or two reviewers. A few are based on little more than a quick placement in a list.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17879328
> 
> 
> Seriously though, I really don't have the time to help....wish I did, but I don't. In fact, I gotta run now....trip to Minneapolis over the weekend to visit our girls and their families. In two weeks I'll be out of the country for almost two weeks.



Ducking out of the country to avoid some work?







Have a safe trip.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lwright84* /forum/post/17879899
> 
> 
> My first nomination..
> 
> *DISTRICT 9 - US Release*
> 
> 
> Reference video quality. Great details in the blacks of night, hard slums, and even the CGI Aliens themselves. Facial detail is on par with Crank. Environments are crisp and colors are perfectly short of being vibrant (intentional color palette). No EE or DNR.
> 
> *Tier 0*



Welcome to the thread and thanks for the review. New posters to this thread are always encouraged to give their opinions. We need new blood to keep the thread vital and the tiers accurate. Do you have a specific place in tier 0 that you recommend for District 9? Tier 0 is unique in that it is the only tier where each movie is ranked in order within the tier, so A Bug's Life is the current king of the hill for picture quality and so on down the entire tier 0.


Unless I feel a specific ranking in tier 0 is necessary, I usually assign a title in tier 0 by thirds, so the best-looking BDs end up with a score in the upper third.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vpn75* /forum/post/17881036
> 
> *Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs*
> 
> 
> This is one of the more impressive animated titles I have had the pleasure to watch. I was dazzled by the vibrant colors on display throughout the movie! The only other animated title I think that could compare in this respect would be Cars. Even the end-credits sequence were a joy to watch! Fine-detail and black-levels were also exceptional. Facial closeups lacked the amazing detail found in say Monsters vs. Aliens but this was obviously a design decision. The food itself features amazing textures and looks very realistic.
> 
> *Tier 0 - Reference*



Sounds like a good movie. I have heard a 3-D version is coming out this year at some point.


----------



## plaid311

*Snatch*I'm actually a bit surprised that I haven't seen any ratings for this BR. This is one of my favorite movies of all time, and I must admit that I was a bit disappointed with the transfer. During certain scenes, the background will show a flickering effect that's very distracting. I've never really thought about rating a BR on this thread, but my guess is that this movie will be thrown in the mid-to-low 3's by the rest of you. The color, though very neutral by design, looks good, and the detail is decent. I completely disagree with blu-ray.com's four- out-of-five rating, but they seem to be a bit too generous with their ratings to begin with. If I'm guessing correctly, I believe the source for this film isn't anything that was ever going to allow for a Tier 0/1 rating, but I was really hoping for a solid Tier 2/3 rating, and that's just not the case. For what it's worth, I thought the audio was mixed well, but I basically expected that to be the case since the DVD was good. I know this wasn't much of a review, but I'll still throw out a rating, though I'd like to hear what the rest of you think!

*Tier 3.5*

Oh, and as far as Inglourious Basterds, I must state my favorite moment, and I implore each of you to watch it again to see just how perfect no dialog can be. The way I'm wording it shouldn't be a spoiler for those of you who haven't seen this great movie. Once Hiccox orders his glasses, just watch the next 10-15 seconds of the Gustapo officer's (August Diehl's) face. His realization and the look he gives to Von Hammersmark during that moment of silence/drink-pouring are absolutely flawless. I can't imagine it being done any better. That whole "chapter" was incredible, but I think it's possible that Diehl unexpectedly stole the scene. The casting for this movie, at least on the German side, was spot on. Actually, if we want to be realistic about it, Pitt was probably the least compelling person on the screen, though the part itself was still entertaining. (I must admit that I'm a bit biased, as I'm from Texas, and his Southern accent was atrocious, though that may have been the point.) As has been said by many, if Christoph Waltz isn't nominated in *some* way for his Landa, there's no justice in this world. To be honest, I usually stop watching the movie after Operation Kino. The rest of it is good because of Landa, but, as a whole, the final act is only good. (not great)


Cheers,

Brandon


----------



## lwright84




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17881544
> 
> 
> Welcome to the thread and thanks for the review. New posters to this thread are always encouraged to give their opinions. We need new blood to keep the thread vital and the tiers accurate. Do you have a specific place in tier 0 that you recommend for District 9? Tier 0 is unique in that it is the only tier where each movie is ranked in order within the tier, so A Bug's Life is the current king of the hill for picture quality and so on down the entire tier 0.
> 
> 
> Unless I feel a specific ranking in tier 0 is necessary, I usually assign a title in tier 0 by thirds, so the best-looking BDs end up with a score in the upper third..



Unfortunately I havent had the chance to view enough of those Blurays in order to compare accurately. IMO it's as good as Crank and the Pirates trilogy so perhaps on the lower end of Tier 0 or at the top of Tier 1.00 will suffice.


----------



## OldCodger73

Even though I've watched quite a few BD movies lately I haven't done any reviews. I'm finding that devoting enough attention to ranking the movie essentially distracts from the viewing enjoyment. And if I try to spot check, I invariably get caught up in the movie and forget to check.


As that may be, I watched _Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs_ and thought I'd do a review. I'd like to preface this by saying that I've re-watched _Ratatouille_ and _Up_ recently.


IMO, any recent animated film ideally should end up in Tier 0 given the amount of control that can be done in that genre. Sadly, Sony is no Pixar; _Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs_ doesn't achieve that level. While some scenes have nice detail, in many others detail is only hinted at. While the colors are vivid, in many scenes they are also garish.


Maybe part of the problem for me is that I'm very familiar with the Judi Barrett picture book that served as the basis/idea for the movie. The book had some real bite, so to speak, while Sony, in an effort to stretch it to 90 minutes, added some silly plot lines.


Anyway, I'd rate *Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs Tier 1.25*.


Panasonic 50" 720p plasma, Panasonic 10a player, 7 1/2'


----------



## OldCodger73

Even though we have guidelines, reviews are very subjective and in my opinion getting exact placement will always be more of an ideal rather than a reality. If people want to spend the time benchmarking, that's up to them.


I would like to point out, though, that there are 20 new releases due 1/12 and 21 1/19, although in the latter 3 were part of a set that was released earlier. Maybe the time benchmarking could be better spent reviewing new titles?


I know that in this thread this will go over like the proverbial lead balloon. Although PQ and AQ are nice, I'm a movie fan and like to watch quality movies, a title doesn't have to be in Tier 0 or 1 to be enjoyable. It wouldn't break my heart if placement in Tier 0 remains as is as an estimation of PQ quality, while in the rest of the tiers the quarter tiers are eliminated and the titles are ranked alphabetical within that tier.


Please, no tar and feathers.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/17882717
> 
> 
> Even though we have guidelines, reviews are very subjective and in my opinion getting exact placement will always be more of an ideal rather than a reality. If people want to spend the time benchmarking, that's up to them.
> 
> 
> I would like to point out, though, that there are 20 new releases due 1/12 and 21 1/19, although in the latter 3 were part of a set that was released earlier. Maybe the time benchmarking could be better spent reviewing new titles?
> 
> 
> I know that in this thread this will go over like the proverbial lead balloon. Although PQ and AQ are nice, I'm a movie fan and like to watch quality movies, a title doesn't have to be in Tier 0 or 1 to be enjoyable. It wouldn't break my heart if placement in Tier 0 remains as is as an estimation of PQ quality, *while in the rest of the tiers the quarter tiers are eliminated and the titles are ranked alphabetical within that tier.*
> 
> 
> Please, no tar and feathers.



I would not favor that.


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/17882762
> 
> 
> I would not favor that.



I doubt that anyone in this thread would. In one way it's almost as bad in an opposite way as ranking each title by a numerical score.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Zack and Miri Make a Porno

recommendation: Tier 2.25*


A Weinstein Company release from early last year, this Kevin Smith-helmed film looks like many other comedies in high-definition. The image quality is highly reminiscent of the _Superbad_ Blu-ray, another movie featuring Seth Rogen. Running 101-minutes in total for the main feature, the video is encoded in AVC on a BD-50. BDInfo calculates the average video bitrate to be 24.93 Mbps.


Compression quality is excellent throughout the film. The best a reviewer can note about compression is if the picture never reminds one that what we are watching is a lossy visual presentation of the master, in this case a digital intermediate. In that regard, this BD is flawless and holds up under intense scrutiny. A superb effort for a comedy that does not pose too many compression challenges.


Contrast is nearly perfect, revealing solid color tonality and a pleasingly sharp image. There is a slight yellow push to certain scenes, turning a few shots of skin-tones more orange than is natural. What keeps the disc out of tier one is the lack of depth, where many scenes appear flat and ordinary. Resolution is surprisingly strong and the regular presence of high-frequency details shows the transfer does not suffer from any filtering or softening in the camera. There are also no spots of edge enhancement, thus the image is entirely halo-free. Black levels are rarely tested, but the rare dark scene has top-notch clarity and shadow detail.


Overall a very good release that faithfully presents what was originally shot. The flat lighting of most comedies is what keeps the BD from a higher placement. The current placement in tier 2.5 is a touch too low, so my conclusion is the score of tier 2.25.


Watching on a 60” Pioneer KURO plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a 60 GB PS3 (firmware 3.15) at a viewing distance of six feet.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of House):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...0#post15662260


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17864516
> 
> *Final Destination (2009)*
> 
> 
> This was a very short movie (its only "redeeming feature"), so I'll keep this short. It was so-so, but IMO it falls short of being demo-worthy. The opening scene (at the racetrack) had some blown-out whites, and there were instances of video noise sprinkled throughout, but other than that it was free of artifacts, ringing, and other anomalies.
> 
> 
> It is a decent transfer with vivid and natural colors, bold contrast, good black levels and acceptable shadow details. I thought the skin tones were spot on and some facial close-ups were worthy of higher tiers. Details in general were okay and some shots had appreciable depth. It is better than average (Tier 3), but not demo-worthy, so here is another title that finds itself in what is becoming the "infamous tier 2".....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.25*
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'
> 
> 
> PS I must admit I skimmed through part of this title due to the excessive violence displayed in various accidents. I thought I had a pretty strong stomach prior to this viewing, but this one was "over-the-top" on many occasions.




I am in complete agreement with your review except placement, but we are close and I will explain. I would rank Final Destination 2009 as 2.0. The one area I want to bring attention to is what you mentioned about the gore. It is very graphic.


I have a bit of an obsession if you will with respect to special effects/cgi/greenscreen. Almost all movies that have intense action with stunt doubles, violence and gore, I look to see how well the editing is in terms of how they seamlessly or not make the unreal look real. What I do is first slo mo with my PS3 the scene or scenes. I then freeze frame on the exact part in the scene to see how real the "kill", "death" or stunt looks. I have done this for a couple of years now since we can go frame by frame and since BD PQ is most often sharp and very revealing. Movies like the newest Terminator, Star Trek, Transformers 2, Death Race, Doomsday, and on and on I have looked at in this manner. I think for most older movies, like Braveheart, the studios, directors, cinematographers, editors etc didn't know or think we would eventually see this much detail and be able to see the "flaws" or bloopers like we can on BD, because some of them are so poor and so obvious.


Final Destination has some of the best if not the best seamlessly done editing of cgi and special effects and is done better than any of the above mentioned movies.







I was shocked and not just by the realism of the gore, but the fact of how well it was done. Yes, all those big budget and big time directors and cinematographers didn't do as good a job as the crew did with Final Destination.


At normal viewing speed most effects are close to being undetectable, but most often when the effects catch my eye and it seems like their is something not right, I slo mo them and they are very revealing how poor quality the editing is. While I mentioned above that I would rank FInal Destination as 2.0, I would actually drop it another 1/4 tier to 1.75 due to the seamless integration of special effects. The bottom line is the deaths look real, very real and the HD PQ really lends to the realism. Normally poor special effects can take me out of the moment, but not in this case as they are so realistic.


Djoberg, IMO the above mentioned maybe part of the reason why the gore got to you. It was very compelling and of course very graphic. I kept trying to find the flaws and was shocked and pleasantly surprised. The crew did an amazing job on FD and it lends to the realism and shock factor.
*Final Destination: Recommendation: 1.75*


----------



## maestro50

*Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs*
*Recommendation: Tier 3.5*


In my ongoing viewing of classic, great, old masterworks of film, I watched "Snow White" this evening. As the credits rolled, I began to think about the tier placement, not in terms of its place as a landmark piece of cinema (the first feature length animated movie) but as a piece of "eye candy." I have quoted from Phantom's excellent review, below. I agree with everything he writes, but disagree with the conclusion. In my opinion, 2.5 is just too high based on our criteria.


If we ranked based on cinematic importance, or because we appreciate that the restoration was well-done, many titles, such as "Casablanca," or "The Wizard of Oz," or "The General" would be Tier 0.


But as it is, for this thread, IMHO, I would place "Snow White" in the company of "It's a Wonderful Life."

*Tier 3.5*


[/i]



Phantom Stranger said:


> *Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs
> 
> 
> recommendation: 2.5*
> 
> 
> The movie that really started the Disney empire in 1937, it has lovingly been brought to Blu-ray in a transfer that serves the original animation well. Running 83-minutes in length, the main feature is encoded in AVC on a BD-50. The average video bitrate is 24.07 Mbps, an extremely healthy number for simplistic animation featured as such in this timeless tale. The compression work is perfection itself, displaying the source material cleanly without aberration or error.
> 
> 
> My placement reflects acknowledging the reality of an animated feature from the infancy of the technology, in comparison to more modern techniques. The image is entirely free of any dirt or stray anomalies. A more thorny issue is the complete removal of grain from the image. Yes, digital noise reduction has been precisely and delicately used, to remove the appearance of grain from the image to show the pure animation as it looked in the original cels. For animation of this type, I am comfortable with the use of digital processing and its attendant effect on the picture.
> 
> 
> Occasionally the picture is a little softer than one would expect,
> 
> 
> This transfer is likely as close to the original cels as we are likely to get. Every bit of extra resolution seems to have been squeezed out of the extant master in this transfer. It is not though the spectacular upgrade that most other films are on Blu-ray in comparison to the dvd. Limitations in the original film itself prevent me from placing this BD any higher than tier two.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maestro50* /forum/post/17884958
> 
> *Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs*
> *Recommendation: Tier 3.5*
> 
> 
> In my ongoing viewing of classic, great, old masterworks of film, I watched "Snow White" this evening. As the credits rolled, I began to think about the tier placement, not in terms of its place as a landmark piece of cinema (the first feature length animated movie) but as a piece of "eye candy." I have quoted from Phantom's excellent review, below. I agree with everything he writes, but disagree with the conclusion. In my opinion, 2.5 is just too high based on our criteria.



Even though I disagree, 3.5 is a credible assessment that is fair for Snow White. My placement was probably at the upper-end of the range where Snow White could justifiably be placed in the tiers. The clarity of the BD reveals the age of the animation unfortunately.


----------



## Hughmc

*A Perfect Getaway:*


I watched this and upon initial viewing I thought the PQ was mediocre to poor and about a 3.0 or worse. Upon a second viewing and scanning through it I was quite surprised. I think I must have been tired or something was up on my initial viewing. I used that pocket blu app on my iphone that allows one to control certain BD's from your iphone. It works ok, but I was messing with some buttons on it and I think it somehow tweaked the PQ.










My main gripe was I wanted more out of the PQ. I wanted Apocalypto looking shots of Hawaii, but they were never there. Some of the shots of the scenery did look incredible and like we could have some tier 0 material, but it looks like the color palate was messed with a bit to the warm side with golden orange facial tones and whites and contrast a bit blown out at times. I have never been to Hawaii, but I have seen enough video/film shows and movies that lend themselves to what I think Hawaii should look like more than less.


THere was some issues in dark scenes with black crush and there was a scene that went to black and white and lasted long enough to ding this title a bit for less than really good PQ. There was some compression noise in the scene as well.


I didn't notice any DNR that was obvious or any EE, but this BD does have somewhat of a processed look to it with very slight, most often not noticeable grain.


Overall not a bad looking title, but something about it annoyed me from the get go. The music, the mood and the way the actors were acting simply annoyed me. I have a bit of a crush for Mila and I like Steve Zahn and Timothy Olyphant, but even they couldn't save it IMO. If you look it up on IMDB make sure you put in 'A' and not 'The' Perfect Getaway.










*Tier Recommendation: 1.75 - 2.0*


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17884950
> 
> 
> Final Destination has some of the best if not the best seamlessly done editing of cgi and special effects and is done better than any of the above mentioned movies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was shocked and not just by the realism of the gore, but the fact of how well it was done. Yes, all those big budget and big time directors and cinematographers didn't do as good a job as the crew did with Final Destination.
> 
> 
> At normal viewing speed most effects are close to being undetectable, but most often when the effects catch my eye and it seems like their is something not right, I slo mo them and they are very revealing how poor quality the editing is. While I mentioned above that I would rank FInal Destination as 2.0, I would actually drop it another 1/4 tier to 1.75 due to the seamless integration of special effects. The bottom line is the deaths look real, very real and the HD PQ really lends to the realism. Normally poor special effects can take me out of the moment, but not in this case as they are so realistic.
> 
> 
> Final Destination: Recommendation: 1.75[/size][/b]



I also appreciate the correct and seamless integration of live-action and CGI. When done correctly, it looks amazing. I was watching Wolverine recently on Blu-ray. That BD is a classic example of poor CGI-blending and suspect special effects that are easy to spot. Hugh, is Final Destination as a movie any good and like the first one?


----------



## deltasun

*The Other Man*


Weak contrast really plagued this disc. A permanent haze was pretty much present throughout the presentation. Facial close-up's would reveal a tremendous amount of lines on Liam Neeson's face, but it would still appear soft.


Blacks were pretty decent with no signs of crushing. Shadow details weren't so forgiving due to the weak contrast. In fact, darker scenes would exhibit heavy grain...almost as if it had been shot with high ISO and digitally brightened post-processing. Btw, the entire presentation has a sepia tone, which complements the tone of the story. Following suit, colors were also limited to the subtler part of the spectrum. On the flip side, medium scenes did reveal some better than average details in the background.


Overall, this is no demo material. The look works for the subject matter but not for our thread.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.25*


I didn't expect much from this film, but it did keep my attention. There were some entertaining scenes - the one with Liam mocking Tony Flags' love letters is classic. A few times I had to double check I was watching _The Other Man_ and not _Taken_. I don't think this will be a memorable flick, but not too bad.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## jedimasterchad

Time to throw my $.02 in here. At first, I was thinking of something similar to everyone volunteering to re-watch a number of titles, and they could be assigned like 5 each, and then I thought that it sounded like homework too. Besides, it would be incredibly time-consuming and multiple people (I'd say at least 3) would have to watch each title to give it a better consensus rating. Nobody wants to be forced to watch a movie, although sometimes I think the best PQ placements come from those who didn't like the film, because they spend more time critiquing the actual PQ rather than whether or not the film was any good.


Also, benchmarking would be ok, but it would be one huge pain and commitee meeting to come up with a consensus on which titles can be benchmarked in certain tiers. We would go on for pages and pages of discussion about how and which titles to place where, like we do for new titles. As others have said, maybe this time would be better spent reviewing newer titles to add to our ever-growing database of entries.


So, without further ado, my radical suggestion is this. Does anybody read video game reviews? Consider this. A title that is released on launch day of a new gaming system (say, the PS3) might score a 9.5/10 when it is new. However, as the developers better understand how to program for that system, and their new ideas and graphics and things are implemented, a title can be released 3 years later on that same hardware and be a whole new world of video gaming compared to that earlier 9.5 title. Thus, the new title earns a 9.5, but is worlds better than the previous. So, are they equal? No. But they have the same score.


As someone mentioned, we have grown increasingly accurate with our reviewing and placements, and most of these titles in question are much older entries to the database. *Perhaps it is time to carry over and start a new list entirely.* We will keep the blu tier as reference, the BEST of the first 3 years of Blu-Ray, and we will move on, in order to judge where all the new titles henceforth rank in terms of quality. The original list will be archived, locked, and set aside. Any new title, being released from 1/1/10 onward, (except for the Ref. tier) will be placed on List 2, and we will go forth with an extremely accurate list from a group of very talented reviewers. We can continue to add new titles to the old list if everybody wants, but it would only introduce further clutter to an already cluttered list of titles. If necessary, we can even say on our reviews, that this belongs in tier 2.0, but on the old list, it would be tier 1.75, or the other way around. Something like that, if people were still interested in comparing the new titles vs. the old. Also, were this idea to be adopted, we could carry on each year as its own tier list, and then have one giant end-all master tier list. Thus, if you wanted to check on a particular title from 2006-2009, it would be on List 1 + Master. A 2010 title would be on a new tier list, but also again on the master being compared to EVERY blu-ray, not just releases of that year. I know that some people here (like phantom) review a lot more catalog titles, and some of us like myself try to do more on the new releases, and depending on the actual release date of the blu-ray, it would only get ranked and added to the list for that appropriate time frame, and then again to the master list against all other blu-rays.


Were there to be some volunteers to do this, however, the Master List could be broken down into even smaller, tighter tiers to alleviate some of the mess we have created from 1.75 on down to 3.0. Maybe beginning at tier 1.0, move on to 1.1, 1.2, etc. The titles ranked in each quarter tier wouldn't really move much in the grand scheme but would be a little more precise in their placement. Anything 1.0-1.25 would fall into 1.0, 1.1, and 1.2, while 1.25-1.5 would go into 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5, depending. In doing this, the list becomes cleaner, more precise, and maybe even a bit easier to read. I'd say 99% of us use the search feature to find a certain title on the list, so that wouldn't change much. This would really clean up a lot of the mess down in the 2-3 range, but would be a huge project, and one that I would be willing to help with.


This might sound like a cop out, but just think about my videogame example, and think about how far some studios have come in terms of picture quality on their discs, and how the first Blu-Rays stack up to the newer ones (on average). This would alleviate much of the homework and headache that a total revamp of the original list would do to us, by only having to move each title a little instead of a total discussion and re-evaluation on the quarter-tier technique, and would keep newer titles easily organized apart from the incredibly long master list. I also forgot to mention, that the yearly new list could still be organized as quarter tier, since there would not be as much traffic on it, but ultimately the review should list where on the master list it goes in reference to all blu-rays.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17885422
> 
> 
> I also appreciate the correct and seamless integration of live-action and CGI. When done correctly, it looks amazing. I was watching Wolverine recently on Blu-ray. That BD is a classic example of poor CGI-blending and suspect special effects that are easy to spot. Hugh, is Final Destination as a movie any good and like the first one?




It is ok and passable, but IMO the first is the best or at least better. For me it is kind of like watching those chuckie movies. Terrible acting, silly premise, bimbos, but there is something that sucks me into it.










I had to go to RT to refresh my memory, so this is sought of an edit to the above. FD 3 maybe the best, followed by FD 2 and then FD 1, but I would say 2009 is close to 1. It is the way RT rates them, but from what remember I am in close agreement with the percentages they give at RT.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Sophie Scholl (UK import)


recommendation: Tier 3.75*


Because of the current economics of the Blu-ray format, certain niche titles like this 2005 German film are unlikely to ever show up in the U.S. ICA Films has seen fit to release _Sophie Scholl_ in the U.K. as a region-free release with extras that should play on any region A player. The release date for the BD was October 27, 2008. The movie is a dramatized account detailing the arrest and trail of members of the White Rose resistance group in Nazi Germany. A winner of many film prizes, the main feature runs 120-minutes in length on a BD-50. The AVC-encoded film has an average video bitrate of 34.00 Mbps. While demonstrably superior to standard-definition dvd, the picture quality is a shade below average due to the stylistic choices made by the director.


You would think a video encode that rarely leaves the thirties, and peaks frequently in the forties, would have no visible artifacts. That is mostly true, but the very thick grain structure in certain scenes pushes the limits of lossy video compression. The very film-like transfer exhibits dense grain in certain scenes, most notably when Sophie is being interrogated by the Nazi investigator, that a tidbit of compression noise creeps into the frame. The director also pushed the film stock very hard, particularly when lighting the Nazi investigator. It appears that the current specifications of Blu-ray, as high as they are now, might not be enough for the most challenging material to be presented completely free of artifacts. Only the most demanding videophiles will note these minor quibbles with the picture in the end when determining placement. A good job considering the demanding challenge.


The transfer is very consistent in look, rarely wavering from a score in the lower half of tier three for picture quality. I can say without hesitation that this is the lowest I have ever placed a disc with this amount of excellent high-frequency information. There is a nice-looking and highly detailed close-up around eighty-minutes into the film of Sophie that reveals every strand and facial detail, down to the pores. Longer shots suffer in comparison, appearing slightly soft. Clearly no application of filtering or digital noise reduction has been used to degrade the image.


Very late in the movie, as the setting shifts to the courtroom, are when dreaded halos make their first appearance. It is jarring, because the movie looks totally unprocessed up to that point aside from some natural ringing. At least the offending portion containing the edge enhancement only runs for around twenty-minutes. Just follow the high-contrast lines in the Nazi-uniforms to easily spot the artificial ringing.


Interestingly enough, a Warner Bros. logo precedes the film, though that studio is not the distributor of this BD. The master looks a touch dated, as if taken from an older telecined film print. No print damage or debris shows up, but one gets the impression of a transfer not originally intended for high-resolution. It really is a hunch of mine more than a conclusion though, and should not let anyone think it is inferior. In general the transfer looks quite good given the original filming style and likely budget.


The color scheme of the film is drab and lacks the intensity of brighter films. Earth-tones and dull grays dominate the clothing and settings. Of course the one color that stands in stark contrast to the overall palette is the red hue of the Nazi flag, shown frequently on display in the movie. Contrast overall is relatively average, though a few of the interrogation scenes are a bit underexposed. Shadow detail is merely decent, but black levels hold up for the most part. There are no moments of black crushing that are significant to point out.


The cinematography features a flat image with moderate depth in the brightly-lit passages. The limited dimensionality to begin with drops further in the darkest scenes. Better moments feature video quality that would rank in the upper half of tier three, while the worst scenes would possibly rate in tier four. Some shots could be characterized as soft and somewhat muddled. At times I kept wanting to make picture quality comparisons in my mind to _Almost Famous_, another import Blu-ray. That BD is better, but not to a large degree.


My standards have grown tougher in judging video quality. As a more mature format, Blu-ray now has a plethora of great transfers and high-quality reference titles. The _Sophie Scholl_ BD is a good transfer of material never intended for pop or eye candy. That being said, a placement in the bottom rung of tier three is suitable for it.


----------



## daPriceIs

*Rome: The Complete Series
*

Having had the week between the holidays off and having been goaded by * G3’s post *, I engaged in a _Rome_ marathon. The experience taught me a few lessons, the most important of which is that no matter how beloved a series might be or how much fun to watch and immerse oneself in, a lengthy TV series is a royal PITA to review. They’re like family on an extended visit: you love them and are glad they came, but after a few days it’s a relief to see their taillights as they drive away. Well, bye, bye _Rome_, see you again next year! (Speaking of which, *G3*, I’ve got season 1 of _Fringe_ lying around somewhere still unopened. No telling how many days or weeks or even months before I watch it, much less review it.)


Another lesson learned was how easy it is to become obsessed with minutiae, to lose sight of the big picture after repeatedly watching the same or similar videos over an extended period. My first impression on viewing the initial episodes over a month ago was quite favorable, but by the end of the current marathon every little PQ pebble of a flaw became magnified into a mountain. What was once Tier 1.75/2.0 got nightmarishly transformed into the lower depths of Tier 3. Fortunately, the nightmare is over. The wakeup came when I took a break to make direct comparisons to other BDs (initially _Heroes Season 1_, _Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon_, and _Gladiator_ then later several others) and to watch _Red Cliff_ in preparation for a review and to watch bits of _The International_, _Prince Caspian_, _Tell No One_, and _Live Free or Die Hard_ to get a sense of where RC should be placed. (By the way, there’s nothing quite like RC for cleansing the PQ palate, washing away the foul taste of lesser titles.) Which brings up yet a third lesson related to the ongoing discussion about revising the tiers: it is always a salutary exercise to directly compare whatever you’re reviewing to other discs, *especially to those that you are reasonably confident can serve as exemplars for the tiers they are currently in*. I can’t claim that the discs I made formal comparisons to are actually good exemplars, just good enough for my purposes.


The 2005 – 2007 HBO series, _Rome,_ was released by Warner Home Video on November 17th, packaged inside a slipcased 140mm x 171mm x 38mm book with cardboard “pages” (with plastic liners) housing the 10 discs in the series. The packaging has some fans appalled but is no biggie to me. One curiosity is why only 10 discs? There are 22 episodes and every disc except discs 3 and 4 of season 1 has two episodes on it. Why not have 11 discs so that each one has two episodes? Does that matter? Sure does. Check out *paku*’s BDinfo stats for seasons 1 and 2 and you’ll see _very_ healthy average video bitrates for all of the discs except S1 D3 and D4; and this has visible consequences in terms of compression noise and artifacts. Seems a really silly decision on HBO/Warner’s part. Another oddity is that the Season 1 extras are in standard definition, but presented as a 16:9 letterbox inside of the 4:3 SD pillarbox. Clearly all this stuff was ported over directly from the 2006 DVD box set; on the other hand, Season 2’s extras are all HD. The box lists a total run time of 22 hours but it’s actually a bit less than 20. Check out the above links to *paku*’s posts for the full stats. Note that those stats are for the UK release but I am confident that the North American edition that I’m reviewing is identical in every way except for regional variations in outer package labeling. One need only check the odd (for an exclusively NA release) soundtrack choices to reinforce that belief: English and German DTS-HD MA 5.1, Polish DD 5.1, etc. but no Spanish or French DD 5.1.


19 hours and 53 minutes, 22 episodes, 9 featurettes … gaahhhhhhhhhh!







It would be one thing if the PQ was consistent throughout, but alas, _Rome_ is all over the place. However, the general rule is: bright good, dark bad: well-lit well-exposed scenes can look quite nice, but the darker scenes are problematic. I don’t know what exactly it is with the cinematography but even exterior daylight shots many times have an underexposed look to them.

*Contrast and color.* Contrast and saturation are strong but not overdone. The initial title sequence of any episode is a perfect example of just how deep and colorful the picture can be. _Rome_ excels in its sun-drenched high contrast exterior shots –too bad that there are comparatively few of them.

*Shadows.* Blacks are always deep but night scenes and dark interior candlelit or torch-lit shots always seem to have one problem or another: poor delineation of deep shadows, heavy grain and video noise are a constant problem.

*Resolution.* The kind of ultrafine detail found in the reference tier is simply missing here. Whether it was shot that way or was filtered, I can't say. There is however a fair level of fine detail in cloth, clothing, and facial close-ups. Indeed, facial close-ups are often fairly impressive (perhaps more so in season 2 than in season 1).

*Compression/encoding artifacts.* Haloing, mild banding around some light sources (sun, candles, etc.), some occasional banding of out-of-focus image elements (“bokeh banding” for lack of a better phrase), “blocky grain” indicative of quantization noise, slight posterization of facial tones in poor light

*Optical defects.* Fringing is often visible around strongly backlit or silhouetted objects. Facial close-ups often suffer as a result of shallow DOF and imprecise focusing.

*EE*. Ringing and the compression and optical artifacts previously mentioned are readily apparent, but blatant EE (like in _Gladiator_, for example) is not present. This, however, is not an issue that I'm especially sensitive to.

*Direct Comparisons*: I made direct comparisons to some ranked titles in my library. Obviously I couldn’t watch these benchmark titles in their entirety –life’s too short for that– but I feel I sampled them enough to make valid comparisons; of course, one could argue the validity of the benchmarks themselves.
_Gladiator_ (T=3.25): R is clearly better. Incidentally, _Gladiator_ is a textbook example of EE gone wild. If you really want to see excessive EE in all its rampant glory, you need look no further.
_Heroes Season 1_ (T=3.0): Heroes S1 looks fairly good but has a very serious crushing problem which knocks it down from the rank it would otherwise have. ( See my review .) With that in mind, R is by most metrics worse than HS1 but has nowhere near the crushing problem.
_Mummy Returns_ (T=2.75): R has better resolution and contrast, but worse shadow delineation and compression noise.
_Harry Potter and The Philosopher’s Stone_ (T=2.5): R has better resolution and deeper blacks but HP1 is a much more film-like presentation and hasn’t the compression artifacts or noise of R
_Heroes Season 2_ (T=2.25): Close but HS2 is better overall
_L. A. Confidential_ (T=2.25): R has better resolution and is probably better overall; LAC may be placed a little bit higher than it deserves
_Donnie Brasco_ (T=2.0): R has slightly better resolution but is clearly inferior in every other way. If D. B. were sharper, it’d be in Tier 1.
_Van Helsing_ (T=2.0): Resolutions are comparable, with VH in the lead in all other categories, especially shadow delineation.


What follows is not any kind of a plot spoiler, just kind of irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. The incurious can ignore it without loss.
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Three outrageously bad, but atypical, examples. I mention them only because they made such a strong, bad and enduring impression. But as mentioned they really aren’t typical and amount to no more than about one minute out 20 hours of video.

*Season 1, Disc 2, Episode 5*: There is one shot in a dark temple of Mars where Lucius Vorenus is undergoing a ritual raising to some special rank in which the grain is extraordinarily heavy. 42:22 scene with Vorenus starts. It is intercut with shots of Servilia cursing Caesar and Atia. Then with shots of Octavian and Pullo interrogating Vorenus’ brother-in-law. Noise explosion starts at 49:12, ends at 49:21. Scene ends with Vorenus opening the temple doors and standing silhouetted by the exterior lights. All of the shadowy shots of the priest are riddled with grain. This peaks as the priest finishes his invocation.
*Season 2, Disc 3, Episode 5, Chapter 2*: from about 03:19 to about 03:57. Against the light blue/white sky there is an outrageous halo around Pullo. It’s like he has been touched by the gods and is now wearing a holy “force field” around his right side (camera left). This is no ordinary halo. It extends out about a dozen pixels beyond Pullo’s body. It’s glowing and glaring.






















*Season 1, Disc 3, Episode 7*. 26:48 to 26:52: The long cruddy shot of the corpse raft in the middle of the screen surrounded by the immensity of the sea and sky. According to the director’s commentary this is not CGI, but it looks so bad and fake that it’s hard to believe that it isn’t. The water and waves are all blurry and greasy looking. (Speaking of bad CGI, I should nominate the unconvincing long shots of the battle of Philippi in Season 2, Disc 3, Episode 6.)



Season 2 PQ seems somewhat better than Season 1 but I could well be imagining it; whatever difference there is isn't staggering.

*By the way, the current ranking of Rome appears to be based solely on one of my previous posts where I relate my initial impressions and mention a putative (very tentative) placement. If that is the case, then that ranking should be disregarded.*

*Recommendation: Tier 2.5* (But 2.75 seems fair, too, depending on how you weigh _Rome_'s inconsistencies.)

Panasonic TH-42PZ77U, 1080p @ 3’ to 6’


----------------------------------------------------------------
_Rome_ is great television. If you've read any of my previous posts about this series, you know that _Rome_ is my binkie. *And I won't tolerate nasty things being said about it!*







That being said, while having a lavish budget for television, you can still tell it’s television. It’s just not visually on a scale with grand epics like _Red Cliff_ or even _Gladiator_ (sad to say). There are very few sweeping panoramas or large crowd scenes (yes, there are a few), and the battle scenes (with one poorly CGI-riddled exception) are all shot close to the combatants; there is never anything like the infamous opening battle scene in _Gladiator_. _Rome_ is shot close and intimate for the most part and, for me, never quite loses that TV feel. Much is made in the featurettes about the huge sets and the minute attention to detail and how expensive all that was. You know, seems to me some of that money might have been better spent towards improving the cinematography, and in creating a better transfer after all was said and done. Just my $0.02 for all you HBO execs. and fellow Romantics. (Or is that _Romaniacs_?







)


----------



## Hughmc

*9*


I thought this had a similar look to Wall E at least in terms of color palate. While there is excellent detail, blacks are good, no PQ anomalies that I could see....I just went back and looked at djoberg's review. IMO it is spot on, and so I will defer to his review to cut to the chase. The reason I mentioned Wall E is that I thought that placement right above Wall E or close to it would be accurate. I agree Denny.










I bought *9* as an impulse buy. I need to start avoiding Best Buy.







I told myself I don't want to get into owning again like I did with DVD and VHS, but I think I already own more BD's than DVD's.







The movie was good and PQ and AQ outstanding, it is just that I won't watch it again probably at least for a while, like most movies I own and with a rental plan, well you guys/gals know. It gets expensive and seems wasteful since I can rent most titles. The concert BD's are definite buys, but those are more for the sound.
*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 right above Wall E.*



*Cloudy With A CHance of Meatballs:*


I really enjoyed this BD and it has a good story with quite a few good laughs.


The PQ:


Black level: Perfect


Contrast: Excellent


No PQ anomalies that I could see


Detail: While not as good as some of the top Pixar tier 0 BD's, it is very good and many times very close if not equal to those top tier 0 BDs.

*COlors*: This is what takes the lack of detail, that is slightly less compared to top tier 0 BD's, and moves my recommendation to just below Meet The Robinsons. Color, color, color. This BD has a plethora of colors like I have never seen on ANY animated BD. It is what really lends to the eye candy, wow factor of this presentation. I think it equals and then surpasses A Bug's Life in terms of color palate.


Highly recommended feel good family movie.

*Recommendation: Tier 0 right below Meet The Robinsons.*



*V for Vendetta:*


I agree with the placement at 2.5. I have seen this several times in HD, but never on BD. There is some black crush at times in some dark scenes. Detail is average with occasional softness. Colors were accurate most often and contrast was average and sometimes boosted. I think this looks a big better than Master and Commander which I own and is placed at 3.0.


The LFE on V doesn't occur that frequently, but when it does, it is some extremely intense and pounding sounds and feelings. My house rocked when the major explosions occurred. Very impressive!!


My son had never seen this before, but he loved it. While it has a strong political message, it is much more than that as the acting and story are compelling. I loved the verbose language.

*Recommendation: Tier 2.5* where it is.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17885058
> 
> 
> Even though I disagree, 3.5 is a credible assessment that is fair for Snow White. My placement was probably at the upper-end of the range where Snow White could justifiably be placed in the tiers. The clarity of the BD reveals the age of the animation unfortunately.




I own this for several weeks now, but have yet to watch it. I bought it for my niece in NY. What happened was I was at Best Buy and I wanted to buy her the DVD since my sister doesn't have BD yet. The DVD was 15.00 and the BD with the DVD was 19.00. Well, that was a no brainer and I am regifting. SHe is 3 and will be thrilled just to have the movie.







I don't care much about the outside cardboard, so she will get the DVD and I the BD. 4.00 for a BD is cheaper than a pint of microbrew at most places and you know and hour later and the beer is where?










I will try to watch this in the next week and report back. I originally took a glance at it and thought it looked fairly good, but I really need to watch it just for the movie itself as it has been many years since I have seen it.


----------



## Hughmc

*The Other Man:*


I agree completely with Deltasun and his review, so I am just going to link it.









http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...4#post17885664 


As much as I like Neeson, Banderas and even though there is another one of my female actors I have a crush on in THe Other Man, Laura Linney, the story and even acting due to poor script are poor at best.

*Recommendation: Tier 3.25*


----------



## deltasun

*The Bourne Ultimatum*


I did not particularly find much improvement from _Bourne Supremacy_ to _Bourne Ultimatum_. Not that it needed improvement either - Director Greengrass obviously wanted a certain look to this film and felt he achieved it. Still, I would say there were more instances of excellent facial close-up's. Check out the stare down between Damon and Finley towards the climax - probably the best example of facial close-up detail in the entire series. I would also note less incidence of black crush.


There was also an increase in flashbacks, which degraded the PQ to an extent. All in all, I would say this was on par with _Bourne Supremacy_ and would rate it thusly...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


Enjoyed the series even more by watching them in quick succession. Helps tie in a lot of the characters better.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

daPriceIs: Thanks for your comprehensive review of _Rome_. Mine's still in the box and will probably remain so for a bit longer.


Hugh: V for Vendetta is definitely an underrated and well-done flick. I just recently watched this as well and agree with its current placement. Hmm, we may have a benchmark for 2.5 already.


----------



## CruelInventions




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *daPriceIs* /forum/post/17891283
> 
> *Rome: The Complete Series
> *



Wow, herculian effort! Thank you.


I sold my two seasons of Rome (on dvd) without ever watching them. Not because I didn't want to, just never got around to it. After collecting dust for nearly two years, I figured I should cut my losses and plan on picking it up on blu-ray somewhere down the line, when a great deal comes along.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Thank you for the comprehensive review on *Rome*, *DaPriceIs*. I do appreciate it. I've only seen the first 5 discs so far, though it seems I should be getting discs 6-8 at some point this week should the dates on my zip.ca list be trustworthy.


There are some truly beautiful moments in Rome, and IMO is very comparable to Gladiator, only the crappy moments in Rome do not dominate the screen, like they do in Gladiator.



My husband watched this series when it aired on the Canadian movie channels, but I paid them no mind -- they were too violent for me at the time, I couldn't handle it. Something about having a baby made me really wimpy for a couple of years







I'm really glad that I've decided to attempt to watch it, this time successfully. I can't wait for season 2 discs to begin to arrive so I can continue with this story! Only one episode of Season 1 had me freaking out and turning away (spoilering in case there are other Rome 'virgins' out there:

*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Where Pullo is in the Gladiator ring and is saved by Lucius, omg that was SO NASTY!!!


----------



## daPriceIs

*Water Life
*
_Water Life_ is a 3-disc documentary series from CinTV (whoever they are) and distributed by Questar Entertainment (whoever the hell they are). Each of the three discs is available for individual purchase so I'll rate each one as well as the series as a whole, but I'm not going to review them separately as they are much of a piece. The _Water Life_ set, per se, consists of a slipcased bundle of the discs in their individual retail packages. All video is 16:9 AR AVC encoded 1080i60. Each disc is mistakenly labeled as being 125 minutes long. Actual timings:

_Planet Water._ 132 minutes: four regular episodes and a Making Of episode
_The Big Blue._ 137 minutes: five episodes
_Water's Journey._ 133 minutes: five episodes


The audio on the discs is mis-authored. The soundtracks for the discs are supposed to be DD 2.0 throughout but six of the 15 episodes are actually mono (even though your receiver will report DD 2.0): the first two episodes of _Planet Water_, the fourth episode of _The Big Blue_, and the first and the last two episodes of _Water's Journey_. There's really not much to like about the soundtrack in general. The ambient sound is lossy and lousy, the narration is mixed a little too loud, and the narrative itself has the rather dry feel of a High School textbook; and every now and then there will be some odd locution or non-idiomatic phrase indicating that whoever translated the script from Spanish probably didn't have English as his first language. Don't get me wrong, the translation is more than adequate; it just contains the rare oddity. (Then again, maybe the translator was from some country where they speak a weird version of English: say, Canada or Minnesota.







)


From the glimpses I got during the Making Of episode, virtually all the footage in the series was shot on Canon prosumer HD camcorders: the XL H1 and the XH G1. I don't know anything about these cameras beyond what I found on Canon's web site, so I don't know whether the source of the problem is the camera sensor (which only shoots at a resolution of 1440 x 1080) or the camera's recorder or the way the video was edited and processed or the way the BD was encoded, but the 1080i video on these discs *exhibits a ridiculous amount of aliasing of essentially every high contrast edge*. It is a consistent problem throughout each episode of every disc. This issue is severe enough to knock the ranking of this series down at least a full tier. *It's bad enough to cause static shots of stationary sharply focused objects to dance and shimmer!* There is also some judder during pans and flyovers.


OK, so just take the aliasing as a given and temper whatever I say in the sequel with that knowledge.


As we've come to expect from HD video cameras, saturation, color, and contrast are all excellent. Shadow delineation is also good. And, atypically, video noise is very well controlled, of course it doesn't hurt that most scenes are well lit daylight shots.







No hint of noise reduction. Very rarely noticed what appeared to be mosquito noise around some birds in flight.


Some images are really stunning. There are lots of macro shots of insects and small water critters as well as telephoto extreme close-ups of larger creatures. The camera crews seem to specialize in this stuff and they do it very well. This is a true strength of these discs.


The image sharpness and level of detail is inconsistent but generally good. The opening sequence of the first episode of the third disc (_Water's Journey_) is quite cruddy. It looks like a transfer from an SD video tape, and a poor one at that. Yuck! If there were a Tier 6, then this would be in it. It only lasts about two minutes, but that's two minutes too long! These are all shots from space, clearly not all ancient archival footage since you can clearly see part of the tail section of the Space Shuttle in some of the shots. What, they couldn't find some HD space shots? Cost issue? Rights? What?


This is a series focused on water so no surprise that there are a lot of underwater shots. And that causes problems. Yeah, there are plenty of good underwater shots, but there are also lots of shots with issues:
Banding in backgrounds which feature subtle gradients between close shades of blue or blue-green; quite a common problem
Some softness and focus problems but fairly minor
Cloudy silty water. Several very murky shots due to dirty water
_The Big Blue_ concentrates on the open ocean and ocean shorelines and thus has a higher percentage of underwater shots than the other discs. That's why I am going to rank it a quarter tier lower than the others.

*Planet Water: Tier 3.0*
*The Big Blue: Tier 3.25*
*Water's Journey: Tier 3.0*


If there was more consistency and the aliasing problem did not exist, then this series might sneak into Tier 1.75, but as it is 
*Recommendation: Tier 3.0 (Aliasing)
* Panasonic TH-42PZ77U, 1080p @ 4''


----------



## daPriceIs

deltasun, CI, G3 thanks for the kind words. If I'd known there was this kind of interest in _Rome_ I might have done the review earlier.


By the way, is anybody else tired of their "token" expiring? I think I need a lifetime token!


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/17882717
> 
> 
> Maybe the time benchmarking could be better spent reviewing new titles?
> 
> 
> I know that in this thread this will go over like the proverbial lead balloon. Although PQ and AQ are nice, I'm a movie fan and like to watch quality movies, a title doesn't have to be in Tier 0 or 1 to be enjoyable. It wouldn't break my heart if placement in Tier 0 remains as is as an estimation of PQ quality, while in the rest of the tiers the quarter tiers are eliminated and the titles are ranked alphabetical within that tier.



Prepare to be tarred and feathered.







The quarter tiers are a good compromise between the totally comprehensive ranking system the tiers used to be, and what you propose now. Like Patrick99, I would strenuously object to any change that loses the integrity of the current rankings. In fact, I have been contemplating pushing for the addition of quartile placements to tier four, for finer granularity in scoring.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/17886226
> 
> 
> As someone mentioned, we have grown increasingly accurate with our reviewing and placements, and most of these titles in question are much older entries to the database. *Perhaps it is time to carry over and start a new list entirely.* We will keep the blu tier as reference, the BEST of the first 3 years of Blu-Ray, and we will move on, in order to judge where all the new titles henceforth rank in terms of quality. The original list will be archived, locked, and set aside. Any new title, being released from 1/1/10 onward, (except for the Ref. tier) will be placed on List 2, and we will go forth with an extremely accurate list from a group of very talented reviewers. We can continue to add new titles to the old list if everybody wants, but it would only introduce further clutter to an already cluttered list of titles. If necessary, we can even say on our reviews, that this belongs in tier 2.0, but on the old list, it would be tier 1.75, or the other way around. Something like that, if people were still interested in comparing the new titles vs. the old. Also, were this idea to be adopted, we could carry on each year as its own tier list, and then have one giant end-all master tier list.
> 
> 
> Were there to be some volunteers to do this, however, the Master List could be broken down into even smaller, tighter tiers to alleviate some of the mess we have created from 1.75 on down to 3.0. Maybe beginning at tier 1.0, move on to 1.1, 1.2, etc. The titles ranked in each quarter tier wouldn't really move much in the grand scheme but would be a little more precise in their placement. Anything 1.0-1.25 would fall into 1.0, 1.1, and 1.2, while 1.25-1.5 would go into 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, and 1.5, depending. In doing this, the list becomes cleaner, more precise, and maybe even a bit easier to read. I'd say 99% of us use the search feature to find a certain title on the list, so that wouldn't change much. This would really clean up a lot of the mess down in the 2-3 range, but would be a huge project, and one that I would be willing to help with.



The idea is not without merit, but the logistics and laborious work involved plainly frighten me. It sounds like a system beyond the scope and capability of the current database, not to mention the heightened complexity for reviewers and lurkers. A large part of the attraction to the tiers for many I suspect is the sense of continuity with most Blu-rays from a wide range of the format's history.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *daPriceIs* /forum/post/17891283
> 
> *Rome: The Complete Series
> *
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 2.5* (But 2.75 seems fair, too, depending on how you weigh _Rome_'s inconsistencies.)



The tremendous work and thought you put into reviewing Rome is plainly evident. Plowing through the longer television shows can be a daunting task, one which I am experiencing now trying to place True Blood in the tiers. While not completely finished with the show yet, I expect True Blood to be in a range from 1.75 to 2.25, if the quality does not decline in the last few episodes.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17891575
> 
> 
> Hugh: V for Vendetta is definitely an underrated and well-done flick. I just recently watched this as well and agree with its current placement. Hmm, we may have a benchmark for 2.5 already.



We might be coming very close to our first true benchmark, if a couple more participants will agree in unison. V for Vendetta is a solid selection to epitomize the third quarter of tier two. Any others that can vouch for its placement in tier 2.5?


The process can be as easy as that if we select popular titles that many have experience watching. And it has been nice seeing the abundance of quality placements and reviews in the past few days. Both old and new contributors seem energized after the holidays. I expect that many first-time Blu-ray owners were minted in the past month, so I hope their entry into the world of 1080p is eased by this thread. Do not be shy and join in on the discussion here. At some point, all of us were new to the specific system we follow to give assessments of picture quality.


----------



## daPriceIs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17893743
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> I can't wait for season 2 discs to begin to arrive so I can continue with this story! Only one episode of Season 1 had me freaking out and turning away (spoilering in case there are other Rome 'virgins' out there:



You're gonna love Season 2. Plot development is accelerated. Some curses rebound upon their makers. Some characters take a downward spiral. And in the end the little genius gets his way (as of course we knew he would).


There's not a moment as intensely graphic as the one you spoilerized. But be warned that it's still violent and sexy. Some of the scenes of the battle of Philippi or of the latter days of Anthony and Cleopatra may make some squirm.


Enjoy!


----------



## lgans316

daPriceIs = Extended version of Phantom.







Great reviews buddy. Keep it up.


Agree that L.A. Confidential is placed higher than what it deserves.


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *daPriceIs* /forum/post/17891283
> 
> *Rome: The Complete Series
> *
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 2.5* (But 2.75 seems fair, too, depending on how you weigh _Rome_'s inconsistencies.)



Great review. I envy you that you had the time to watch the series over a short period. I've had the set since early December and so far, due to other demands on my time, I've only made it through disc 3 of the second season. From what I've seen so far, your mid Tier 2 placement seems about right.


I'm really enjoying the series, in fact so much so that I even dug up my old college Rome textbook to do some background reading. _Rome_ has also whetted my desire to find time to watch the 1976 Masterpiece Theatre series _I, Claudius_.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

The database and tier list are fully updated through the last post. Any errors in the actual tiers should be pointed out. I went ahead with them this time, but future posts that are basically laundry lists of titles, with nothing more than a ranking and zero explanation, will be ignored by me as long as I am doing the work.


Red Cliff Part 2 - 0 (djoberg)


Hangover - 2.5 (deltasun), 2.5 (Phantom Stranger)


G-Force - 1.75 (deltasun), 1.25 (Rob Tomlin), 1.25 (K-Spaz)


Blazing Saddles - 3.0 (Phantom Stranger)


Priceless - 3.0 (Phantom Stranger)


District 9 - 2.50 (deltasun), 2.5 (selimsivad), low 0 (Hughmc), low 0 (Toe), 2.25 (Ron Tomlin), 1.0/1.25 (Ozymandis), 2 (K-Spaz), 1.75 (42041), 1.75 (lgans316), 2.0 (geekyglassesgirl), 0 (lwright84)


Wings Of Desire - 4.0 (deltasun)


Julie & Julia - 1.25/1.5 (djoberg), 1.0 (gamereviewgod)


Shaun of the Dead - 2.25 (lgans316)


Pursuit of Happyness - 2.25 (lgans316)


Godzilla - 3.25 (lgans316)


Band Of Brothers - 2.75 (lgans316)


Ice Age: The Meltdown - 1.25 (djoberg)


Love Actually - 3.0 (deltasun)


Inglourious Basterds - 1.5 (ozymandias), 1.0 (42041), 1.75 (Phantom Stranger), 1.75 (lgans316)


Harry Potter and the Half-blood - 2.25 (djoberg)


The Spirit - 1.0/1.25 (Phantom Stranger)


Night At The Museum 2 - 1.75 (djoberg)


Fight Club - 1.5 (lgans316)


Up - Top 5 in 0 (lgans316)


G.I. Joe - 1.75 (lgans316)


Bedtime Stories - 2.0 (deltasun)


Pan's Labyrinth (UK) - 1.5 (deltasun)


All of filmaholic's list from page #490:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...0#post17791150 


Tinkerbell and the lost treasure - upper half of 0 (Ozymandis), 0 next to Tinker (deltasun)


Dr. Strangelove - 3.0 (42041)


Staten Island - 4.0 (deltasun)


Last Year At Marienbad - 2.75/3 (Patrick99)


Green Mile - 3.75 (lgans316)


Terminator: Salvation - 2.25 (lgans316)


Wolverine - 1.75 (ozymandis, Phantom Stranger)


Notorious - 1.0 (Mr. G)


Gone With The Wind - 2.75 (maestro50)


Public Enemies - 2.25 (Rob Tomlin), 2.5 (Phantom Stranger)


Paranormal Activity - 4.0 (Rob Tomlin), 4.0 (deltasun)


9 - 0 above Wall*E (deltasun, Rob Tomlin, djoberg, hughmc)


The General - 1 (maestro50)


Jennifer's Body - low 0/1 (gamereviewgod), 1.25 (Deltasun), 1.25 (42041)


Changeling - 1.75 (lgans316)


Ice Age: Dawn of the D - 1 (lgans316), 1 (djoberg)


Forrest Gump - 2.0 (lgans316)


Last Waltz - 4.5 (deltasun)


Stop Making Sense - 4.5 (deltasun)


Lost fifth season - 1.0 (nick2010)


Lost 2nd season - 1.25 (nick2010)


The World Is Not enough - 2.75/3 (geekyglassesgirl)


Bourne Identity - 2.75 (deltasun)


Angel Heart - 3.25 (Phantom)


Frailty - 3.75 (Phantom)


Orphan - 1.75/2 (djoberg)


Bourne Supremacy - 2.0 (deltasun)


Cujo - 4.0 (PS)


Seventh Seal - 3.0 (deltasun)


Ghosts of Girlfriends Past - 3.5 (deltasun)


It Might Get Loud - 4.0 (deltasun)


House Of Flying Daggers - 4.0 (42041)


Final Destination (2009) - 2.25 (djoberg), 1.75 (Hughmc)


Jarhead - 2.0 (42041)


Cloudy With a Chance Of Meatballs - 0 (vpn75), 1.25 (OldCodger73), 0 below Robinsons (hughmc)


Snatch - 3.5 (plaid311)


Zack & Miri make a porno - 2.25 (PS)


Snow White - 3.5 (maestro50)


A Perfect Getaway - 1.75/2.0 (Hughmc)


The Other Man - 3.25 (deltasun), 3.25 (Hughmc)


Sophie Scholl - 3.75 (PS)


Rome - 2.50 (daPriceis)


V for Vendetta - 2.5 (hughmc)


Bourne Ultimatum - 2 (deltasun


Planet Water - 3 (dapriceis)


The Big Blue - 3.25 (daPriceis)


Water's Journey - 3.0 (daPriceis)


----------



## Hughmc




Phantom Stranger said:


> *I went ahead with them this time, but future posts that are basically laundry lists of titles, with nothing more than a ranking and zero explanation, will be ignored by me as long as I am doing the work.[*/QUOTE]
> 
> 
> Wow, what a list!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Phantom. I noticed you went ahead and even counted people who just mentioned where they felt placement should be on a particular title.
> 
> 
> The reason I quoted this part of your post is it is very important in case some might miss it.
> 
> 
> 
> Please correct me if I am wrong, but you are now going to only count reviews that are detailed with descriptions of the review as opposed to someone just posting the title and placement?
> 
> 
> I have no problem with it and I think it will foster a better thread and be more consistent.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17903434
> 
> 
> Please correct me if I am wrong, but you are now going to only count reviews that are detailed with descriptions of the review as opposed to someone just posting the title and placement?



A coherent sentence or two is enough for me. No one should feel compelled to emulate daPriceIs' excellent pieces. Almost all reviews get equal weighting when considering final placement, except in a few situations. I do not want to be exclusionary, but allowing placements without anything backing them up could lead to problems. It also gives undue influence to the commensurate effort exerted and the depth of contribution to the thread. There is a problem when it takes me longer to create the database entry than it was for the placement to be written in the first place. Everything else will proceed as usual.


----------



## 42041

Bram Stoker's Dracula


Apparently this disc was controversial upon its release, but that predates my interest in BD so I don't know the specific complaints. Currently in tier 4, IMO it's a bit better than that since I think it's a great-looking movie and the blu-ray isn't unlike what a film print might have conceivably looked like in '92, while tier 4 is littered with movies that don't look like film. But it's not that great by the standards of the thread. Fine detail is consistently lackluster, even in scenes that don't seem to use optical effects which are everywhere in this movie. (edit: IMDB's trivia says optical effects were barely used in this movie so there goes that excuse I guess) Compression is a bit sludgy despite bitrates that aren't anemic, I guess AVC encoders have come a long way since 2007. The image is dark with frequently crushed blacks, very LCD unfriendly. Overall while I would have preferred more detail the disc conveys the film capably, if not impressively.

Tier 3.5


(PS3/Pioneer Kuro 50" Elite/1 screen width distance)


----------



## CruelInventions




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17903772
> 
> 
> .... I do not want to be exclusionary, but allowing placements without anything backing them up could lead to problems. It also gives undue influence to the commensurate effort exerted and the depth of contribution to the thread......




Your process seems reasonable to me.










I haven't participated in these ranking discussions, apart from being a reading consumer of them. Probably won't for some time, if ever (not much blu-ray viewing under my belt), but *thanks* for your and everyone else's efforts, previous and forthcoming!


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> The idea is not without merit, but the logistics and laborious work involved plainly frighten me. It sounds like a system beyond the scope and capability of the current database, not to mention the heightened complexity for reviewers and lurkers. A large part of the attraction to the tiers for many I suspect is the sense of continuity with most Blu-rays from a wide range of the format's history.



I figured as much, and realized what I was saying later on that night. It would be a nightmare indeed to go ahead with something that drastic, let alone the fact that I didn't even realize the database software is not quite capable of something so itemized and lengthy. It was the only solution I could envision aside from the benchmarking idea, which is seeming to become more the consensus. My only qualm is to make sure everybody has a reasonable amount of time to view and grade a proposed benchmark title. For instance, I haven't seen V for Vendetta on Blu because I own the DVD, and it was nowhere near the top of my list of movies to watch again in HD, just because I can watch it anytime as it is now.


Maybe once a week, or every Sunday, or something like that, we can announce a candidate for tier benchmarking...this should give everybody enough time to throw it in their netflix queue, go to blockbuster or whatever and give it a look. If they've already reviewed it and stand by their original score, that's fine too. We should try to find popular titles that most people have seen or wouldn't mind watching again, so they are familiar with the title, and that everybody is (relatively) close with the score.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

Hurt Locker:


Shot digitally and on 16MM, the digital never shows through as such. Generally excellent transfer, with extensive details on clothing and faces. Colors are nicely saturated yet still natural.


The encode hits a barrier when it comes to smoke, losing the battle to the grain with notable discoloration and artifacting. It's a surprise too, because the bitrate here is generally high.


Tier 1.5/1.75


----------



## deltasun

^^ Looking forward to seeing this and _Moon_ tonight. How was it overall?


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17910643
> 
> 
> ^^ Looking forward to seeing this and _Moon_ tonight. How was it overall?



I loved it. It's a character-driven story, not some mad-bomber run amok. Downbeat ending is perfect. Audio is spectacular too. When the first bomb goes off, it's like being swallowed by the bass. Awesome stuff.


Waiting on Moon. Hopefully Netflix comes through, although I doubt it.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17910643
> 
> 
> ^^ Looking forward to seeing this and _Moon_ tonight. How was it overall?



I'll be watching _Hurt Locker_ later this evening. My friend at the local video store said it was excellent (the movie itself, that is). I was glad to see that Gamereviewgod is also praising the PQ.


----------



## lgans316

Thanks Phantom for updating the rankings. Keep up your good work Mr. Patience.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17024052
> 
> *The Unborn*
> 
> 
> It looks like I'm the first to review this title and I have to say the PQ was very good, though the movie itself was dreadful. Universal did another good job creating a clean and crisp transfer.
> 
> 
> Let me start with the black levels (my "first love"). They are in almost every scene and they truly shine; they are deep and inky with exquisite shadow detail and depth. What a contrast to bygone days when DVD releases of movies in this genre gave us nothing but a murky blob in dark scenes. Blu-ray really earns its accolades in this department when the source is pristine as it is in this case.
> 
> 
> Colors are also to be praised; they are vibrant and natural. Contrast is top-notch as well. Skin tones are spot on and facial close-ups do not disappoint (they don't rank up there with Tier 0 titles, but they easily match those in Tier 1).
> 
> 
> Details are another sight to behold, whether it be in the cobble streets (where our female lead loves to jog), bark and leaves on trees, fabric in clothing, etc.
> 
> 
> The only downside were numerous flashbacks where grain can be heavy and there is an intentional softness. The movie must be penalized for this, and for a few isolated shots (indoor nighttime scenes) where it was a bit flat and lacking detail.
> 
> 
> I feel quite generous tonight (perhaps because I haven't seen a Blur-ray in awhile
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ), so I'm going to recommend the following....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.5*
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'



Denny's placement is almost exactly what I witnessed upon viewing and coincides with my ranking for The Unborn. The only thing unmentioned in it is the very slight use of digital noise reduction. If the level seen in Patton was a 10 for DNR, here it would likely be a 2 or 3 on the same scale. To be fair, only the most obsessed videophile will notice its effects, and even then, only on the largest screens. That or the VC-1 encoder used on the transfer smoothed out too much texture. Still, a very nice-looking image overall.


----------



## djoberg

I got sidetracked tonight (I'm setting up another *small* home theater system in our living room), so I was only able to watch the first chapter of _Hurt Locker_. What I saw though was very impressive, especially facial details (Tier 0, for sure!), and I'm hoping I can watch the whole thing tomorrow night. I should add the audio is, as Gamereviewgod stated, spectacular!


----------



## deltasun

*The Hurt Locker*


Started out great! Like djoberg said, Tier 0 close-up's for sure. The slow-motion sequence, with the dirt, the texture of the bomb suit - A+ for sure. Then we lost the HD cams and we're left with 16mm film the rest of the way.


Well, I hate to say it but the PQ got worse as the film progressed. Heavy grain. Faces not completely resolved indoors - i.e., soft and flat. Colors were a bit washed out, fully complementing the film's desert environs. This was not bothersome and actually enhanced the feel.


Contrast was mixed but I would still count as good overall. Blacks were decent, but I would not describe them as inky. Shadow details were lacking and usually looked out of focus.


Medium to long shots showed great depth; however, dimensional details were soft. I believe these were due to both the limitation of the medium as well as the chosen depth of field for those shots.


Overall, the grain in low-lit scenes really proved bothersome. The latter parts of the film exhibited more dark scenes and hence, underwhelming PQ. The night scenes, as you can imagine, took the brunt. Though the setting was post-2000 Iraq, the combination film choice and style gave it a dated look. I did not readily spot any DNR, but did see quite a bit of ringing.


No offense, Gamereviewgod, but my take on the rating will vary by a full tier...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.50 - 2.75*


The movie definitely went along at an intense pace up until the Sniper scene with Ralph Fiennes (weak point). It was downhill from there for me. Now, the downhill slope wasn't that steep. I still favored the movie, but it was not as good as I thought it would be. Characters were likable (Sanborn was instantly likable). The acting was good, for the most part...save for a couple of scenes. The AQ was definitely ground-shaking with good surround use.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## jedimasterchad

The Hurt Locker


As deltasun mentions, this film started out great. The opening scene showed exquisite detail in both sand/rock and facial features. The slow-motion high speed of the shockwave was highly detailed, but I will attribute that to the use of alternate cameras. A very impressive opening, but...


On the switch to film, it becomes readily apparent. There is a moderate to heavy grain structure that can at times be quite distracting. For the most part, it only occurs in scenes that were brighter overall, and the darker scenes almost made it look like banding or dirt when the picture wasn't fully resolved.


I noticed a few instances of artifacting throughout. Nothing major, just a few white specks here and there, but it seems that the filmprint might have been mishandled during the transfer process.


Shadow detail was good, but not great. Objects were clearly visible but lacked any detail. Depth was good in most of the movie as well, but again, objects in the background lacked that sharp focus we all desire. I think this had a little to do with the style of filming, the excess use of "war/documentary/shaky" cam, where the camera could not keep all objects in focus at the same time. In fact, there were a number of soft focus shots throughout, mainly medium shots where the camera might be 15 feet or so from the actors. The camo uniforms blended in with the desert, which also could have hindered the sharpness from the camera. While the facial-closeups in the start of the film were sharp and detailed, later on they gave off a waxy look, almost like the overly compressed image you would get from your satellite or cable provider.


The color palette was unspectacular, almost the same dreary sand/greys that we got from Terminator Salvation, save for the fact that this film used much more natural lighting, which I think helped it tremendously. It didn't look artificial at all, and the lack of CGI really helped to set the scene.


Blacks were a little iffy in this one. The color of black was reproduced nicely, as when it was part of a uniform (the helmet), but the black level itself wasn't too great, especially the lengthy night time scene towards the end. Even shots travelling in the Humvee suffered as a result of poor lighting and made the blacks look uneven, and not inky like in Harry Potter 6. The fire at the end gave off some banding as the dark sky was quite inconsistent.


Overall, the PQ was good, just not great. I think that it did get worse after the switch in cameras, and it was quite noticeable. I'm going with deltasun on this one...

Tier Recommendation: 2.5


Panasonic TC-P54G10, 8', PS3 at 1080p.


I thought this was a pretty good movie at exploring the psych of those at war, how they cope with being away from their families, and the things they must do/witness for our country. It was slow at times, and some scenes could have been cut entirely. I disagree about the sniper scene though, I instantly stopped my dislike of one character because of how he helped out his team. Scenes like the party in the barracks could have been hacked and nobody would have missed them. The ending was about what I expected. I was surprised to see Evangeline Lilly make an appearance though, a nice treat.


----------



## djoberg

*The Hurt Locker*


I'll keep this short, for I don't have too much to add to the reviews by deltasun and jedimasterchad. I had mentioned seeing the first scene and how impressed I was with the facial details; deltasun was right in intimating that this was the best scene of the movie, though the sniper scene had one beautiful shot (when Sanborn took out the sniper and his empty cartridge fell to the ground....it was in slow motion and the detail was exquisite).


Colors were drab....contrast was good....blacks were a mixed bag....details (including shadow details) were generally acceptable....skin tones were spot on.


My main gripes were heavy grain, video noise, the shaky cam at times, and a few speckles (as noted by jedi). These, along with the drab colors and lack of sharpness, are enough to keep this title out of the two top tiers, and IMO it's close to landing in Tier 3. I will go along with my colleagues on this one and vote for....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.5 or 2.75*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite BDP-05....Viewed from 8'


PS I really got into the movie....from beginning to end. This gave me a perspective of the Iraq war that I didn't have before and the various characters were quite believable. If I had to identify with one of them, it surely wouldn't have been James (the "daredevil").....I think I'd be somewhat of a wimp!


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/17914632
> 
> 
> I thought this was a pretty good movie at exploring the psych of those at war, how they cope with being away from their families, and the things they must do/witness for our country. It was slow at times, and some scenes could have been cut entirely. *I disagree about the sniper scene though, I instantly stopped my dislike of one character because of how he helped out his team.* Scenes like the party in the barracks could have been hacked and nobody would have missed them. The ending was about what I expected. I was surprised to see Evangeline Lilly make an appearance though, a nice treat.



I like the spirit, but I felt it could have been better written...

*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Sure, Eldredge did a heads-up job and saved his teammates' lives. My objection is for the entire sequence. The (seemingly) "elite" British soldiers acted incompetently, from the Team Leader who acted recklessly and got shot to the other soldier who started spraying the 50cal arbitrarily in all directions. Then, after the British sniper gets shot, Sanborn then takes over at the exact same spot. He sits there at the exact spot for 5 minutes (without getting shot himself) while James wipes blood off of the rounds. Sanborn then proceeds to take out a running soldier at almost 1000 meters.


Fine, maybe the EOD team just happens to have sniper training as part of their function. But the careless actions of the "elite" British soldiers and seemingly unsnipable (sorry!) of Sanborn seemed far fetched and lost some credibility for me.



Btw, nice review.


----------



## jedimasterchad

Actually, I was referring to James.

*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) He started coughing and sputtering, and asked for some juice. I was thinking, "What an ass." To that point, I didn't really like his character, and when he got the juice ready and had Sanborn drink it, it really changed my mind about him. I do agree that there's no way Sanborn could have survived when the British squad was wiped out so easily. But, it's a movie. Oh well.



Thanks for the comments. I almost did the copout and just commented on your review, but I felt like I could add a little. Guess we hit the spot then, since dj was right on with us. Really not a bad movie, but I probably won't buy it until I can get it on the cheap.


I should hopefully get a chance to see Moon tonight.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

ok, totally off topic but since you guys know me pretty well I have to ask... how violent is The Hurt Locker? Wondering if I should see this sooner rather than later, or if I should take a break from violence after all this marathon-viewing I've been doing of both Rome (disc 6-8 arrived today!) and Dexter season 2!


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17913575
> 
> *The Hurt Locker*
> 
> No offense, Gamereviewgod, but my take on the rating will vary by a full tier...
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.50 - 2.75*



No offense taken, That's why we're here. I had no issues with the blacks at all. In fact, the nighttime bombing investigation looked great too. Depth and shadow detail were exceptional. The noise, likely caused by the thicker grain structure, was an issue, but not distractingly so. I would compromise on a low tier 2.0, but any less in my eyes takes away from the things this transfer does right.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17917066
> 
> 
> ok, totally off topic but since you guys know me pretty well I have to ask... how violent is The Hurt Locker? Wondering if I should see this sooner rather than later, or if I should take a break from violence after all this marathon-viewing I've been doing of both Rome (disc 6-8 arrived today!) and Dexter season 2!



Not terribly so. There is one gory sequence when they find a body which I won't spoil, and some people being shot with some blood. The focus is really on tension and drama, so the need for violence is limited.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17917066
> 
> 
> ok, totally off topic but since you guys know me pretty well I have to ask... how violent is The Hurt Locker? Wondering if I should see this sooner rather than later, or if I should take a break from violence after all this marathon-viewing I've been doing of both Rome (disc 6-8 arrived today!) and Dexter season 2!



Agree with Gamereviewgod - not too violent. That _one_ scene he's describing was gory, but not violent. And to be honest, there's more gore in, say _Drag Me to Hell_. The scenes with (not giving up much away here - it is, after all, an explosive ordnance movie) bombs going off did not show in detail any gore, parts, or blood. I was expecting more, just from the tone, but glad it wasn't abused.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17917066
> 
> 
> ok, totally off topic but since you guys know me pretty well I have to ask... how violent is The Hurt Locker? Wondering if I should see this sooner rather than later, or if I should take a break from violence after all this marathon-viewing I've been doing of both Rome (disc 6-8 arrived today!) and Dexter season 2!



Compared to _The Final Destination_ this movie could have been rated G!


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Halloween 2 (2009)*


Two movies, both new releases in the same week, and both shot on 16MM. Weird.


Anyone, Rob Zombie wanted a gritty look, and he got one, but like the Hurt Locker, the encode doesn't hold up. Artifacting is a HUGE issue here, littering walls and faces with off-color digital blocks.


It's a shame, because the black levels are really great here, far deeper than they were for the flat-looking original (and by original, I mean 2007). What little fine detail that can escape is minute. I spotted one moment of edge enhancement that was quick to pass. Some banding is noticeable and sharpness wavers, but not offensively so.


I still stand by my statements elsewhere that the best example of 16MM on Blu is The Wrestler. Great fine detail that is not hidden behind the thicker grain structure. Unfortunately for Halloween 2, everything seems lost to the grain and digital compression.
*

Tier 3.0*


----------



## Hughmc

I am curious about the grain some are mentioning they seen in Hurt Locker. Was the movie was captured on HD cameras?


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17919071
> 
> 
> I am curious about the grain some are mentioning they seen in Hurt Locker. Was the movie was captured on HD cameras?



IMDB says it was captured on 16mm and the Phantom HD camera. I haven't seen the film, but the Phantom HD seems to be used only for extreme slo-mo shots in most films.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Thanks for the advice guys!







I remember being intrigued by the story of The Hurt Locker so I'll keep it high on my zip list.


----------



## AR-Ballistic

Can somebody LINK me to "THE 300" BLURAY review? Thanks


----------



## tfoltz

I believe he was rating the eye candy, not director intent (which is the only way for the thread to somewhat work).


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *marge871* /forum/post/17919718
> 
> 
> I read this little thread here a bit and see that it appears to be quite exclusive and harmless. Seems to be populated by about a couple hundred contributors at most.I have no problem with all the cartoons get rave review and top rankings which is humorous to me considering they are cartoons and some other mind numbing color shows that pass for movies such as "Transformers''. No offense taken with them since they are geared to those looking for the most movement on the screens and noise from their speakers. But when possibly the best movie of the year"Hurt Locker" gets criticized somewhat I must take offense and speak my mind because Kathryn Bigelow did some amazing work here and obviously poured her soul into this. I will say this pertaining to this film but it does apply everything else thatgoes on Blu Ray,junk or not. My complaint is that unless you personally discuss the cinematography and thoughts behind each scene with the director and technicians of each film then your criticism carries no weight and has no meaning. All the criteria that you use to rate PQ is not a set standard and the people behind the making of the film and transfer to disk must be contacted individually and hear what they intended for each scene. Then you can decide if they pulled of the intended visual effect.



The Director's intent is irrelevant in this thread. We use the criteria from the following thread for judging PQ:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...4#post16943364


----------



## tfoltz

I think criticizing the reviewers is way off base and not welcome. You sound very demeaning. I actually blind bought this movie yesterday because of actual movie reviews...I come here for picture quality reviews...they don't have to be the same thing.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *marge871* /forum/post/17919858
> 
> 
> I thought criticizing this movie was way off base.


----------



## Pure_McNasty

Marge871, I don't think you are understanding the threads meaning of PQ. It has nothing to do with how good a movie is, it is completely based on how good it *looks*. Also, if you have truly been reading the reviews, while many have taken issue with some of the PQ in Hurt Locker, most of the reviewers have added that as a movie it is good, if not a great movie.


Looking at the rankings Tier Blu does not mean you are getting a movie that is necessarily good, it means you are getting a movie that is good looking. There are many sites that will give you reviews about how a movie is storywise and such. I personally use this thread to determine if the transition to Blu-ray makes the movie look so good it is worth the added cost of buying it over dvd. Because a good story, is a good story no matter how good it looks (I just want to know if Blu is going to make that story look better).


Anyways, I want to thank the guys who do these reviews for your time, I myself am a college student and don't have enough time to do the reviews justice. I've been reading these reviews for a while, and thought an outsider's opinion on your reviews would help.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pure_McNasty* /forum/post/17919967
> 
> 
> Marge871, I don't think you are understanding the threads meaning of PQ. It has nothing to do with how good a movie is, it is completely based on how good it *looks*. Also, if you have truly been reading the reviews, while many have taken issue with some of the PQ in Hurt Locker, most of the reviewers have added that as a movie it is good, if not a great movie.
> 
> 
> Looking at the rankings Tier Blu does not mean you are getting a movie that is necessarily good, it means you are getting a movie that is good looking. There are many sites that will give you reviews about how a movie is storywise and such. I personally use this thread to determine if the transition to Blu-ray makes the movie look so good it is worth the added cost of buying it over dvd. Because a good story, is a good story no matter how good it looks (I just want to know if Blu is going to make that story look better).
> 
> 
> Anyways, I want to thank the guys who do these reviews for your time, I myself am a college student and don't have enough time to do the reviews justice. I've been reading these reviews for a while, and thought an outsider's opinion on your reviews would help.



Thanks for your thoughtful response to marge871; I believe you have done an excellent job articulating what the purpose of this thread is (as opposed to other threads and sites that discuss the merits of the movie itself).


Also, thanks for your encouraging remarks regarding the reviews that are posted on here. It's good to know people are being helped by them.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *AR-Ballistic* /forum/post/17919659
> 
> 
> Can somebody LINK me to "THE 300" BLURAY review? Thanks



In this thread or the greater web as a whole? If the latter, here are the links to reviews of the original Blu-ray from various sites:
http://hddb.net/reviews/300-blu-ray 

and the newer 300 digibook edition:
http://hddb.net/reviews/300-complete...280371-blu-ray 

Currently 300 is ranked Tier 1.5 in our list, a very good ranking. Of course, as an older BD that came out in 2007, most of the reviews will be a touch outdated. A search of the thread using "300" would probably turn up the discussion surrounding its ranking.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *marge871* /forum/post/17919718
> 
> 
> But when possibly the best movie of the year"Hurt Locker" gets criticized somewhat I must take offense and speak my mind because Kathryn Bigelow did some amazing work here and obviously poured her soul into this. I will say this pertaining to this film but it does apply everything else thatgoes on Blu Ray,junk or not. My complaint is that unless you personally discuss the cinematography and thoughts behind each scene with the director and technicians of each film then your criticism carries no weight and has no meaning. All the criteria that you use to rate PQ is not a set standard and the people behind the making of the film and transfer to disk must be contacted individually and hear what they intended for each scene. Then you can decide if they pulled of the intended visual effect.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *marge871* /forum/post/17919858
> 
> 
> I just watched The Hurt Locker. I thought it looked great. I'm glad I don't have to make note of PQ while watching a great film like this. I got so lost in the story that it could have switched to black and white and I wouldn't have noticed. I hope no one who happens upon this little thread here doesn't get discouraged from seeing this film. Best of the year I'd say. A real disservice to Bigelow who has done the work of her life and obviously poured her soul into this. Do another PQ review after you talk to her, OK?



That is really an impossible standard for any reviewer, beyond the realm of common sense. The PQ thread judges the finished product, and nothing beyond that. It would be nice to have the input of the director and director of photography on every movie when formulating a review, not to mention the technical people who supervised the transfer, but that is simply not realistic.


You are welcome to post your opinions here of the picture quality seen on the Blu-ray. Be mindful we almost entirely discount artistic intent and follow a certain set of criteria, as laid out in the link a few posts above. Many beloved movies of mine dwell in the lower tiers. Not all great filmmaking necessarily looks very good to the eye.


----------



## lgans316

Gamereviewgod,


Request you to bold the title and vote in your reviews for Phantom to easily pick up and update the rankings.


----------



## 42041

*Die Hard*


A surprisingly solid disc for an early release on the format. The high quality AVC encode retains the granularity of the film without compression mush. The grain itself isn't subtle but not overbearing for my tastes. I didn't really look for EE but it didn't stand out to me. Detail is well-defined, though the anamorphic lenses the filmmakers employed can be soft at times. As with most older films consistency falters occasionally but overall the quality is high. Colors are subdued and the overall look of the film doesn't lend itself to "eye candy" purposes. Contrast is a notable strong point, black levels are consistently on the money.

*Tier 2.25*


(PS3/Pioneer Kuro 50" Elite/1 screen width distance)


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pure_McNasty* /forum/post/17919967
> 
> 
> Marge871, I don't think you are understanding the threads meaning of PQ. It has nothing to do with how good a movie is, it is completely based on how good it *looks*. Also, if you have truly been reading the reviews, while many have taken issue with some of the PQ in Hurt Locker, most of the reviewers have added that as a movie it is good, if not a great movie.
> 
> 
> Looking at the rankings Tier Blu does not mean you are getting a movie that is necessarily good, it means you are getting a movie that is good looking. There are many sites that will give you reviews about how a movie is storywise and such. I personally use this thread to determine if the transition to Blu-ray makes the movie look so good it is worth the added cost of buying it over dvd. Because a good story, is a good story no matter how good it looks (I just want to know if Blu is going to make that story look better).
> 
> 
> Anyways, I want to thank the guys who do these reviews for your time, I myself am a college student and don't have enough time to do the reviews justice. I've been reading these reviews for a while, and thought an outsider's opinion on your reviews would help.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17920506
> 
> 
> Thanks for your thoughtful response to marge871; I believe you have done an excellent job articulating what the purpose of this thread is (as opposed to other threads and sites that discuss the merits of the movie itself).
> 
> 
> Also, thanks for your encouraging remarks regarding the reviews that are posted on here. It's good to know people are being helped by them.



+1! Completely agree here, Denny. I really appreciate the kind words from you on this issue.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17920833
> 
> 
> In this thread or the greater web as a whole? If the latter, here are the links to reviews of the original Blu-ray from various sites:
> http://hddb.net/reviews/300-blu-ray
> 
> and the newer 300 digibook edition:
> http://hddb.net/reviews/300-complete...280371-blu-ray
> 
> Currently 300 is ranked Tier 1.5 in our list, a very good ranking. Of course, as an older BD that came out in 2007, most of the reviews will be a touch outdated. A search of the thread using "300" would probably turn up the discussion surrounding its ranking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is really an impossible standard for any reviewer, beyond the realm of common sense. The PQ thread judges the finished product, and nothing beyond that. It would be nice to have the input of the director and director of photography on every movie when formulating a review, not to mention the technical people who supervised the transfer, but that is simply not realistic.
> 
> 
> You are welcome to post your opinions here of the picture quality seen on the Blu-ray. Be mindful we almost entirely discount artistic intent and follow a certain set of criteria, as laid out in the link a few posts above. Many beloved movies of mine dwell in the lower tiers. Not all great filmmaking necessarily looks very good to the eye.





It might be hard to find reviews for 300 using the whacky search function b/c it is only 3 characters long! Also +1 to the rest of your post, Phantom!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*Ella Enchanted (Canadian Import)*


This is another one of the Canadian Alliance titles. I have no idea if it is in OAR but if not, I didn't notice. I've seen this movie probably 100 times, so if something was wrong with it it really does not interfere with the enjoyment of it. There are no special features whatsoever on this title, and no subtitles.



For an Alliance title, this one is done very well. There is maybe a HINT of edge enhancement or high contrast edging, and I only noticed it on very rare occasions, so it passes my eagle-eyed EE inspection.



The colours were extremely vibrant and there is a wealth of texture details throughout. It is a tad bit soft, although I did notice some grain was present, so I'm unsure if the softness is a "director's intent" thing or if it is a "DNR thing". Despite the softness there still is some amazing facial detail to be seen. Even in the opening scenes where Ella is a baby, you can see the itty bitty baby acne that the cute little one has.



Overall I was extremely impressed with this title. Was it perfect? No. I didn't expect it to be, but it by far exceeded my expectations for a Canadian Alliance title; maybe they will be improving!



I have this title from Zip.ca right now, and I do own this on DVD but I will definitely be upgrading this title likely the next time I do an amazon.ca order, even without any extras.


*Recommendation for Ella Enchanted (Canadian Import) - Tier 1.75*
*Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800U, THX setting, approximately 7.5’ viewing distance.*


----------



## jedimasterchad

Moon


In the few months I have been participating on this thread, I have yet to see such a dull and lifeless 2 hours of visuals as offered by the release of Moon. Literally, there was about 45% off white, 45% gray, and maybe 10% of actual color. The surfaces in the moon base and elsewhere were flat, contained no texture, and were not visually stimulating in the least. Gerty the robot was also flat and white, save for the small smiley face screen which produced a boring 2D image of the yellow smiley face we've seen for years and years (why they couldn't come up with something more sophisticated for a moon base robot is beyond me).


Contrast suffered quite a bit as a result. The lifeless setting produced very little pop whatsoever, and thus the picture just looked completely flat the entire time. There was not a hint of the 3d effect in this title at all. I didn't notice any EE or ringing, but when the character stood in a jumpsuit with a different color background (read: boring and grey), the difference was legible, but not very noteworthy.


Again, because of the flat texture of everything in the movie, detail was non-existent. The only instance of fine detail came when the character was out on the moon rover, and small particles of moon dust would come into focus. These were probably CGI shots on top of stock footage of some grey dust, and since the camera had nothing else to focus on, the dust looked pretty solid, but again, the boring color lent it no help. At other times, the camera, while close to an object or person, could not keep it sharply in focus. Facial details were at best a 2.0, and I don't really remember seeing anything that looked otherwise.


If it is not obvious, I was thoroughly unimpressed with this title, at least pertaining to the criteria of our reviews here. Soft focus and a total lack of detail, flat textures and lifeless color really made this movie just a total wash, and didn't take advantage of this medium at all. One of the most boring viewings I've had since the switch to Blu.

Tier Recommendation: 3.75


As a movie, not terrible, but I wouldn't recommend it to anyone unless you were a big fan of Castaway, or weird science-fiction. It was a mixture of both, and at times, had the boring Castaway feel of the solitary soul going about his daily life with little to no contact from the outside world (or in this case, Earth). I won't ruin the ending, but suffice it to say it wasn't that intriguing. Rent before buying.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17921606
> 
> *Ella Enchanted (Canadian Import)*
> 
> 
> This is another one of the Canadian Alliance titles. I have no idea if it is in OAR but if not, I didn't notice. I've seen this movie probably 100 times, so if something was wrong with it it really does not interfere with the enjoyment of it. There are no special features whatsoever on this title, and no subtitles.
> 
> *Recommendation for Ella Enchanted (Canadian Import) - Tier 1.75*
> *Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800U, THX setting, approximately 7.5' viewing distance.*



The original aspect ratio for Ella Enchanted is 1.85:1 if IMDB is to be believed. So if the Blu-ray's picture fills the screen, the Alliance BD is good on that mark. Your review might be the only one of the Ella Enchanted Blu-ray on the entire Internet, if my cursory search is correct. One question, is the disc's native resolution in 1080i or 1080p? That is occasionally a problem on Alliance's Blu-rays.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17923606
> 
> 
> The original aspect ratio for Ella Enchanted is 1.85:1 if IMDB is to be believed. So if the Blu-ray's picture fills the screen, the Alliance BD is good on that mark. Your review might be the only one of the Ella Enchanted Blu-ray on the entire Internet, if my cursory search is correct. One question, is the disc's native resolution in 1080i or 1080p? That is occasionally a problem on Alliance's Blu-rays.



It did fill the entire screen, so I guess it was OAR! As for the 1080i or p I'm unsure, but it looked damn good on my screen for what it was! I don't have the disc anymore as I shipped it off this morning, but I know one of the guys in the Canadian Import thread purchased it, so perhaps he can tell, I'll go post there and ask. If it's 1080i they did a really good job. It will probably be sometime in the summer before I do another amazon order as I'm still waiting on my boxing day sale order from there, but when I do one it's being added in.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Just to follow up on that, Phantom:

From poster Dex Robinson in the Canadian Blu Ray thread 



> Quote:
> I don't have the gear to check for 1080i or 1080p myself...but a poster at the Blu-ray.com forum said it was 1080p (I'm not registered there so I can't ask him to elaborate). He's the only one to comment on the encoding and the list of Canadian exclusives over there still lists it as 1080p.
> 
> 
> That's not necessarily definitive but it's the ONLY independent information I can find.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Gamer*


This is REAL tough call. Shot on the Red One, determining the proper Tier depends on whether you value detail or eye-popping color. If you like a mix of both, this is eye candy heaven.


Detail in the "game" scenes is generally remarkable. The crisp clarity the Red can produce is really impressive stuff. It does replicate film, minus the grain. However, color here is completely gone with the exception of red blood and orange explosions. Faces are wonderfully textured, even when things get dark. Black levels are spectacular.


Then there is Society, another online game where facial detail is smoothed over for the sake of _*stunning*_ color. Every shade is saturated as far as it will go without any noticeable bleed. Some fine detail does remain. There is a lot of fur being worn and such, and this one captures it pretty well.


There is some light noise, some light banding, but nothing to get worked up about. Personally, considering intent, I gave it a 5/5 on my site because nothing was severe enough to drop it to a 4. For this thread however, which is of course about eye candy, I'm going to cautiously go with:

*Tier 1.5*


----------



## deltasun

So Game-review-god, how was _Gamer_ as a movie?


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17926208
> 
> 
> So Game-review-god, how was _Gamer_ as a movie?



Offensive to my very soul... seriously. Just awful movie with a few gutsy action scenes. Had potential in its concept, but the debate surrounding using death row inmates in a game is far more interesting than watching it play out.


Oh, and you get to see Gerard Butler projectile vomit into a gas tank. Really.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Resident Evil: Degeneration


recommendation: Tier 1.5
*

The Resident Evil franchise made the leap to a purely CGI-rendered movie in this Sony Pictures' Blu-ray. Released on December 27, 2008, the 96-minute main feature is encoded in AVC on a BD-50. The video encode averages 23.73 Mbps for the entire movie. As opposed to the more flashy and cartoonish CGI of say a Pixar movie, the animation here seeks a degree of realism to the picture. In terms of camera angles, character models and colors, it does not look far removed from a live-action film.


I felt compelled to place it in tier 1.5 mostly because of the close visual similarities with another digitally-animated BD, _Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within_, currently ranked there. _Degeneration_ is probably a notch better looking, but any higher placement felt undeserving for it. Without that pressure, a placement in tier 1.75 would not have been objectionable to me. _Final Fantasy_ might need to get downgraded in placement at some future date.


Sourced directly from the digital files of the animators, the picture is pristine in appearance with an excellent level of clarity. Above-black detail is of reference caliber and the finest of any animated movie on the Blu-ray format. Black levels are perfect, displaying some of the best shadow delineation and textured micro-detail in the dimly lit scenes as any disc. The color palette though lacks the vibrancy and tonality of the CGI movies in tier zero. Primary colors are decent but shown much closer to the standard fidelity of live-action film. The image does not exude great depth and perspective. The overall presentation is a little flatter than is commonly seen in CGI titles. While the picture could not not be characterized as soft, it is not quite razor-sharp.


Detail is solid and definitely a grade above many of the simpler animated films. Character models are appropriately styled and move fluidly enough to make one forget they are watching animation at times. The animators really nailed down the look of authentic hair, displaying individual strands of hair out of place. Faces look fine except in the case of one character, the Senator. He is supposed to look like an older, overweight male. But he comes off looking like a man in a fat suit. His wrinkles look entirely unconvincing and creepy, like melting flesh. Backgrounds are nicely realistic, though a few longer shots exhibit some slight softness and lack of detail in the animation. One problem in the animation is the infrequent but noticeable occurrence of aliasing at times. It is not pervasive, though on occasion it can be distracting.


The compression overall is very competent but not flawless. Infrequent and relatively minor banding does disturb the image on occasion. Upping the bitrate parameters might have helped out with the banding, because some of it did not look endemic to the original animation. Other than that Sony has done a top-notch job in transferring the digital files to Blu-ray. There are no signs of post-processing like edge enhancement or filtering to remove detail.


BDInfo Scan (courtesy of Lazarus Dark):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...7#post15670917


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17926208
> 
> 
> So Game-review-god, how was _Gamer_ as a movie?



Also, how do you get a copy a week in advance?


----------



## audiomagnate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/17922753
> 
> Moon
> 
> 
> In the few months I have been participating on this thread, I have yet to see such a dull and lifeless 2 hours of visuals as offered by the release of Moon. Literally, there was about 45% off white, 45% gray, and maybe 10% of actual color. The surfaces in the moon base and elsewhere were flat, contained no texture, and were not visually stimulating in the least. Gerty the robot was also flat and white, save for the small smiley face screen which produced a boring 2D image of the yellow smiley face we've seen for years and years (why they couldn't come up with something more sophisticated for a moon base robot is beyond me).
> 
> 
> Contrast suffered quite a bit as a result. The lifeless setting produced very little pop whatsoever, and thus the picture just looked completely flat the entire time. There was not a hint of the 3d effect in this title at all. I didn't notice any EE or ringing, but when the character stood in a jumpsuit with a different color background (read: boring and grey), the difference was legible, but not very noteworthy.
> 
> 
> Again, because of the flat texture of everything in the movie, detail was non-existent. The only instance of fine detail came when the character was out on the moon rover, and small particles of moon dust would come into focus. These were probably CGI shots on top of stock footage of some grey dust, and since the camera had nothing else to focus on, the dust looked pretty solid, but again, the boring color lent it no help. At other times, the camera, while close to an object or person, could not keep it sharply in focus. Facial details were at best a 2.0, and I don't really remember seeing anything that looked otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> Panasonic TC-54PS14 at eight feet.
> 
> 
> If it is not obvious, I was thoroughly unimpressed with this title, at least pertaining to the criteria of our reviews here. Soft focus and a total lack of detail, flat textures and lifeless color really made this movie just a total wash, and didn't take advantage of this medium at all. One of the most boring viewings I've had since the switch to Blu.
> 
> Tier Recommendation: 3.75
> 
> 
> As a movie, not terrible, but I wouldn't recommend it to anyone unless you were a big fan of Castaway, or weird science-fiction. It was a mixture of both, and at times, had the boring Castaway feel of the solitary soul going about his daily life with little to no contact from the outside world (or in this case, Earth). I won't ruin the ending, but suffice it to say it wasn't that intriguing. Rent before buying.




I think 3.75 is a little harsh. Sure it had a bland, boring look to it, but that was obviously intentional. The mining models and/or CGI were laughably bad IMO but overall the film didn't have any major visual flaws. I'd put it around 3.0


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/17926627
> 
> 
> Also, how do you get a copy a week in advance?



Review copy.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/17926331
> 
> 
> Offensive to my very soul... seriously. Just awful movie with a few gutsy action scenes. Had potential in its concept, but the debate surrounding using death row inmates in a game is far more interesting than watching it play out.
> 
> 
> Oh, and you get to see Gerard Butler projectile vomit into a gas tank. Really.



GAH. Seriously? Ewwwwwwwww.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/17926836
> 
> 
> Review copy.



TOTALLY jealous!


----------



## 42041

*(500) Days of Summer*


A technically impeccable disc of a new movie that's not really driven by visuals. The color palette is rather muted. Looks great, nothing to complain about, and nothing worth spending many words on.

*Tier 1.5*


(PS3/Pioneer 50" Kuro Elite/1 screen width distance)


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *audiomagnate* /forum/post/17926684
> 
> 
> I think 3.75 is a little harsh. Sure it had a bland, boring look to it, but that was obviously intentional. The mining models and/or CGI were laughably bad IMO but overall the film didn't have any major visual flaws. I'd put it around 3.0



While the movie didn't have any notable flaws, it also IMO had a complete and total lack of "wow factor" and "eye candy". It was hard to come up with a good placement as most of the movies in the 3-4 area I haven't seen in a while so I was going from memory. I wouldn't mind moving it up a little from my previous placement, but not too much. There are some titles in 3.0 and 3.25 that I still feel are quite a bit better.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Faculty (Canadian import)


recommendation: Tier 2.75
*

Due to the economics of bringing older films to Blu-ray, many older and less popular titles are unlikely to see a retail release on the format by the major Hollywood studios in the foreseeable future. Large swaths of Disney's catalog of older movies are being ignored on Blu-ray. _The Faculty_ is a Miramax property in the U.S., which has been folded under Disney's complete control on home video. Alliance is the Canadian distributor for this movie, and gave the 1998 horror film a proper release on October 6, 2009. Unfortunately it is locked to Region A, so Europeans will not be able to play it without the benefit of a modified player.


The main feature runs 104-minutes in length and is correctly presented at 1080p resolution, contrary to the packaging claims on the back listed at 1080i resolution. Video is encoded using AVC and the disc is a BD-25. Without a BDInfo scan available, the best estimate for the average video bitrate is approximately 20 Mbps, based off the bitrate meter. The movie's intended aspect ratio is 1.85:1, while Alliance has used a transfer that is slightly opened up to 1.78:1, a common practice by many studios when releasing on home video.


Compression and authoring are credited to a Montreal firm, La Boîte Numérique. They have handled some of the other Alliance titles in the past. Encoding parameters are lower than a typical U.S. release. Peak bitrates rarely exceed 27.8 Mbps, and most of the video encode ranges from 14.8 Mbps to 24.6 Mbps. The picture is mostly devoid of artifacts. The only moments where the lower bitrates show some macroblocking are the times with little available light for the camera. Darker scenes display an enhanced grain pattern that the encode does not replicate well. Luckily there are few scenes of this type in the movie.


The disc looks made from an older high-definition telecine transfer. Gamma looks a touch too high, with slightly washed-out contrast and colors. That being said, the master is totally unprocessed in appearance. Aside from sporadic and minor ringing in the final act that may or may not be the result of edge enhancement, halos are never a problem. Shorts bouts of softness are more the problem than anything. Clearly no digital noise reduction has been applied, as grain looks untouched and high-frequency information is left intact. While the term film-like is probably overused in reviews, the Blu-ray appears faithful to the original cinematic quality of the film negative.


Detail is about average and shows a moderate upgrade in clarity from the dvd. The flesh-colored tape over the actress' breasts in the nude scene is much easier to spot on the Blu-ray. A ranking anywhere from tier 2.75 to 3.25 makes the most sense. Is this the best _The Faculty_ could look on Blu-ray? My hunch is Disney could surpass it in picture quality with a new transfer from the original film elements , but that is unlikely to happen. Fans will likely be pleased with the picture quality of this exclusive selection from Canada. Nothing happens that approaches demonstration quality at any moment. A few scenes of the football players outdoors look better than average. But most of the film is relatively flat in depth and dimensionality.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Street Fighter (1994)*

Possibly an older master that was tweaked. Extensive edge enhancement/artificial sharpening leads to not only haloing, but grain that is anything but natural. Grain spikes are _ugly_, and the encode breaks down causing artifacting.


Color has been terribly saturated, leading to hilariously neon green plants around Bison's compound. Chun-Li's red dress bleeds. Some fine detail in close-ups, but not fully resolved.

*Tier 2.75*


Terrible movie to this day, but I had an odd appreciation for the sheer stupidity of it this time around. Picked up on some subtle gags I never noticed before, like Bison complaining about the food court in his new world-dominating compound, because that's what all power-mad dictators care about, right?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Bruce Almighty (UK import)

recommendation: 1.75
*

The 2003 comedy starring Jim Carrey has two competing versions on the Blu-ray format. Overseas the movie is distributed by Disney, as opposed to Universal domestically. This British BD was released on August 6, 2007 in a region-free disc with extras that will play on any Region A machine. The domestic issue is a much more recent release from June of 2009, but poor reviews of its picture quality and Universal's decision to squeeze the content on a BD-25 drove me to seek out the British import. With a few exceptions, Disney has proven more trustworthy in properly bringing better quality to their releases than Universal has in the past. But this particular disc is a mixed bag, showcasing a strong encoding of a master with one serious flaw. The Universal logo that precedes the film lends credence to the knowledge that Disney used Universal's existing master.


Disney has encoded the main feature of 101-minutes in AVC on a BD-50. Universal chose to use VC-1 to encode their release. It must be stated outright that I have yet to see the U.S. BD myself, but the information I have on it does not compel me to seek it out and make a direct comparison. The average video bitrate of the U.K. import is 24.10 Mbps. Most of the time the bitrate parameters firmly remain in the twenties, with some short peaks topping 41 Mbps. The picture is almost entirely free of compression artifacting, except a brief touch of banding when Bruce plays with the Moon for his girlfriend. For a relatively early title from the format's lifespan, Disney has given _Bruce Almighty_ a fully transparent encoding to the master used for the transfer that could not be improved on.


There is one major problem with the master used on this BD. While the image is a crisp and clean presentation that may look very good to the uninitiated watcher, the entire master has been noticeably wiped free of grain and most high-frequency information. Many will be mistaken to think the movie was shot on high-definition video cameras, as the original film has been stripped of its inherent visual properties. Grain is completely absent from the image. At least no visible remnants of distorted grain fields show up, as on certain other Blu-rays with egregious levels of digital noise reduction. Some will find the grain-reduction pleasing but cinema purists will likely be very disturbed.


The real loss that results from the filtering is the missing texture and detail in almost all close-ups and midrange-shots. Morgan Freeman has literally not looked this young in decades. All the fine detail in his worn face looks smooth and yes, “waxy”, whenever he makes an appearance. It is this problem that forced me to lower my ranking to the bottom of tier one. Without the filtering's pervasive effects, _Bruce Almighty_ might have been a contender for the top half of tier one. While many comedies are shot poorly with awkward color timing, it was nice to see a large-budget comedy aim for a sharper and more colorful look. A hint of very thin halos show up on occasion that will likely go unnoticed even on the largest displays and screens.


My final score accounts for the filtering already. The disc with it probably straddles the line between tier one and tier two because of its presence. But many viewers comfortable with the effects of post-processing to remove grain will no doubt be very pleased. The picture is sharp and has a high level of clarity. For a catalog selection, the master looks as fresh as a new release with zero damage. Colors and contrast showcase a presentation that pops most of the time. While it certainly will not be good enough for me to use as reference-caliber because of the missing detail, _Bruce Almighty_ is good enough to barely qualify for tier one.


Watching on a 60” Pioneer KURO plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 (firmware 3.15) from a viewing distance of six feet.


----------



## 1brokebrother




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/17926331
> 
> 
> Offensive to my very soul... seriously. Just awful movie with a few gutsy action scenes. Had potential in its concept, but the debate surrounding using death row inmates in a game is far more interesting than watching it play out.
> 
> 
> Oh, and you get to see Gerard Butler projectile vomit into a gas tank. Really.



great.. sounds like a blind buy for me


----------



## 42041

*Moon*


While this is a technically competent release, the drab, antiseptic setting of this film pushes its rating down for the intent of this thread. Fine detail is fine, not exceptional. What bothered me most about this disc were the black levels which for a while made me think my TV was set to the wrong RGB range and give a washed out appearance to the picture. Even deep space is gray most of the time.

*Tier 2.5*


(PS3/Pioneer Kuro 50" Elite/1 screen width distance)


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Cell (Canadian import)


recommendation: Tier 2.5*


Another exclusive Blu-ray courtesy of Alliance debuted on July 7, 2009 in Canada. The BD includes the 107-minute theatrical cut of the movie only. A director's cut that runs approximately two minutes longer has been available on dvd outside of North America and is not included. Like most other Blu-rays from Alliance, the main feature is encoded using AVC and on a BD-25. Resolution is also in the proper form of 1080p, an item one rarely has to worry about with other Blu-ray distributors but is an occasional problem for Alliance. The film is correctly formatted in its proper aspect ratio of 2:35:1, preserving the eye-pleasing framing and imaginative compositions of director Tarsem Singh.


Sadly the compression suffers at times. The extremely low-bitrate encode often remains stuck in the lower teens. Compression noise and banding, while not rampant, are visible on occasion and too numerous for me to point out each specific scene. Touches of macroblocking also manifest in dimly-lit scenes. Clearly a sub-par job which should not be happening this far into the Blu-ray era. The same firm that handled _The Faculty_ Blu-ray authored _The Cell_, but video-bitrates looked substantially lower this time for whatever reason. No BDInfo scan exists yet for me to parse the numbers in more detail.


For a catalog title from 2000, the transfer elements look in solid, if not good, condition overall. Other than a hint of dust and the slight haze of the original photography, the picture is clean when the original photography allows. The overtly stylized fantasy-scenes do show marked differences in picture quality than what happens in the actual world. Contrast becomes much deeper and black levels get marginally crushed on purpose. The apparent grain of the opening scenes in the desert look slightly magnified by optical processes endemic to the film and the age of the master.

_The Cell_ still looks good for the most part, though not the demonstration material I was hoping. Outside of the fantasy world the image is nicely sharp, though the color palette favors a blue-tinted shade to it that flattens the image. Inside the killer's mind is a dream-like visual experience that becomes softer with a wildly different coloring. Detail is apparent and shows no signs of having been removed by digital noise reduction. Outside of a few halos on high-contrast edges, edge enhancement is not visible.


An okay effort by Alliance, _The Cell_ belongs somewhere in the middle of tier two. Parts of it are better than that no doubt, while certain stylized scenes would rank much lower in their own right. If the American rights were held by a studio I trust to do a great job on the transfer, I would tell you to hold off on picking up this import. But Warner Bros. simply can not be trusted in that regard and are unlikely to improve much upon the Alliance BD outside of extras.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

The Tiers are updated once again with the following placements:


Bram Stoker's Dracula - 3.5 (42041)


Hurt Locker - 1.5/1.75 (Gamereviewgod), 2.5/2.75 (deltasun), 2.5 (jedimasterchad), 2.5/2.75 (djoberg)


The Unborn - 1.5 (Phantom Stranger)


Halloween 2 (2009) - 3.0 (Gamereviewgod)


Die Hard - 2.25 (42041)


Ella Enchanted (CA import) - 1.75 (geekyglassesgirl)


Moon - 3.75 (jedimasterchad), 3.0 (audiomagnate), 2.5 (42041)


Gamer - 1.5 (Gamereviewgod)


Resident Evil: Degeneration - 1.5 (Phantom Stranger)


(500) Days of Summer - 1.5 (42041)


The Faculty (CA import) - 2.75 (Phantom Stranger


Street Fighter - 2.75 (Gamereviewgod)


Bruce Almighty (UK import) - 1.75 (Phantom Stranger)


The Cell (Canadian) - 2.5 (Phantom Stranger)


----------



## deltasun

*Moon*


The film had a bland, muted look which was dominated by grays, blacks, and steely blues. This minimal look complemented the clean, empty nature of the moon base. While the color scheme was not bothersome, it did not help contrast the elements within the scenes. Softness permeated the presentation in almost every scene. Lighting on the surface of the moon yielded a lot of haze in those cheapish lunar sequences.


Blacks were pretty weak throughout. They were relegated to charcoal grays for the most part. While most medium scenes showed adequate background details, they appeared out of focus for the most part and lacking the details found in higher-tier titles. Skin tones remained faithful throughout. There were a few choice moments for facial close-up's, but these were but a handful.


Overall, a very good technical presentation. I did not spy any anomalies, no ringing or DNR. Very plain and as such, I do agree this slips into the Bronze tier.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.25*


A very intriguing tale which kept my attention throughout. Would not be a good candidate for repeat viewings.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Hughmc

Phantom, I own the DVD of Cell and probably wouldn't buy the BD anyway, but from your reviews it seems to be an ok BD, but probably not worth an upgrade unless one really is into it.


Reviews seem good...for those who have seen moon, how is the movie itself?


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17955710
> 
> 
> Phantom, I own the DVD of Cell and probably wouldn't buy the BD anyway, but from your reviews it seems to be an ok BD, but probably not worth an upgrade unless one really is into it.



That would be an accurate characterization of my thoughts. A decent upgrade in picture quality from the ancient dvd, but nothing that would compel uninterested parties in seeking it out. It would make a good rental if Canadian Blu-rays were easily available by means of that outlet in the U.S. Devoted fans though will likely be satisfied enough to not regret a purchase.


I also have Boiler Room in my possession, another exclusive from Canada. At some point in the future I will share my thoughts on it here.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17957127
> 
> 
> That would be an accurate characterization of my thoughts. A decent upgrade in picture quality from the ancient dvd, but nothing that would compel uninterested parties in seeking it out. It would make a good rental if Canadian Blu-rays were easily available by means of that outlet in the U.S. Devoted fans though will likely be satisfied enough to not regret a purchase.
> 
> 
> I also have Boiler Room in my possession, another exclusive from Canada. At some point in the future I will share my thoughts on it here.



Thanks Phantom. Boiler room... From memory, isn't that the one with Affleck and Ribisi? That was a good flic.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17955710
> 
> 
> Phantom, I own the DVD of Cell and probably wouldn't buy the BD anyway, but from your reviews it seems to be an ok BD, but probably not worth an upgrade unless one really is into it.
> 
> 
> Reviews seem good...for those who have seen moon, how is the movie itself?


_The Cell_ would be a perfect candidate for BD (if done right) with its visuals, so I'm a bit disheartened by Phantom's PQ review. Hope they do it right for an eventual US (or even UK) release.


Hugh: _Moon_ was definitely watchable. In fact, I really wanted to know how it was going to end once I got about halfway through.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17957670
> 
> _The Cell_ would be a perfect candidate for BD (if done right) with its visuals, so I'm a bit disheartened by Phantom's PQ review. Hope they do it right for an eventual US (or even UK) release.
> 
> 
> Hugh: _Moon_ was definitely watchable. In fact, I really wanted to know how it was going to end once I got about halfway through.



Yes Delta, I was thinking the same about The Cell looking incredible with the visuals. Oh well, it doesn't seem really bad.

Thanks for the feedback on Moon. The premise sounds interesting.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17955710
> 
> 
> Reviews seem good...for those who have seen moon, how is the movie itself?



I didn't like it that much. For my tastes it walks the wrong side of the line between slow and boring. My suggestion would be a rental first.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/17957847
> 
> 
> I didn't like it that much. For my tastes it walks the wrong side of the line between slow and boring. My suggestion would be a rental first.



Thanks, I was going to rent as that is what I usually do unless it is one of those titles I really want or know is a must buy.


I am in NY visiting family as it is my down time of year, so I will have some catching up to do when I get back.


----------



## deltasun

Agreed - rental only. I think I mentioned in my review that it does not lend itself to repeat watchings.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Pandorum*


Shot mostly in low light, this one looks a bit bitter than expected, but low on eye candy. Some fine detail does come through, although it is inconsistent. One moment, Ben Fosters' face is loaded with clearly defined sweat, dirt, and pores, and in the next, it's flat.


Black levels are generally deep and rich, with a few scenes where they appear lackluster. Some noise is evident, but brief. Limited color is dictated by the lighting, although vibrant reds and blues standout. A flashback sequence is the highlight, with natural lighting, gorgeous color, and tremendous depth. Shame it lasts about a minute.

*Tier 2.75*


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17957298
> 
> 
> Thanks Phantom. Boiler room... From memory, isn't that the one with Affleck and Ribisi? That was a good flic.



And Vin Diesel. I agree, good flick.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Monsters, Inc.*


Amazing!!!!


The depth, sharpness, detail, colors and just the overall visual presentation of this disc is simply jaw dropping.


Deserving of being discussed among the very best of the best!



I would personally place it in the top 5 BD's I've ever seen. Incredible sound too.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (top 5 at least)*


----------



## robsis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rob tomlin* /forum/post/17961296
> 
> *monsters, inc.*
> 
> 
> amazing!!!!
> 
> 
> The depth, sharpness, detail, colors and just the overall visual presentation of this disc is simply jaw dropping.
> 
> 
> Deserving of being discussed among the very best of the best!
> 
> 
> 
> I would personally place it in the top 5 bd's i've ever seen. Incredible sound too.
> 
> *tier recommendation: Tier 0 (top 5 at least)*



+1. :d


----------



## deltasun

*8 1/2*


Strong blacks, natural whites...this presentation was wonderfully restored. There are some problematic scenes in the beginning where the contrast was a tad hot. This condition made rare revisits throughout whenever an extreme facial close-up was called for.


There were scenes where lighting was perfectly balanced and showed incredible depth and discernible background details. This was true in numerous darker scenes where shadow details were comparable to higher-tiered titles. The sequence in the "amusement park" was perhaps one of the best - solid sequence!


A mild DNR was applied and can be noted in some close-up's where some cakey-ness was evident. At the same time, it was difficult to tell if these were simply make-up. There are instances of banding in a number of scenes. Surprisingly, dirt, debris, specks were absent from the presentation.


While some extended sequences can live comfortably in high Tier 2, I believe this title, as a whole, falls squarely in...

*Tier Recommendation: 3.50*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## ooms

Gamer


Reference. Just amazing. And its not THAT bad of a movie as I thought it would be.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17961296
> 
> *Monsters, Inc.*
> 
> 
> Amazing!!!!
> 
> 
> The depth, sharpness, detail, colors and just the overall visual presentation of this disc is simply jaw dropping.
> 
> 
> Deserving of being discussed among the very best of the best!
> 
> 
> 
> I would personally place it in the top 5 BD's I've ever seen. Incredible sound too.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (top 5 at least)*



I'd certainly place it high, real high, but the aliasing on Sully's fur drove me nuts. Some background objects show it too.


Everything else is absolutely perfect, but to me it was one of those cases where 1080p is not enough.


----------



## ooms

aliasing is pretty TV set/player/distance seated dependent. I didnt notice any when i watched it a few days ago.


----------



## Zeuser




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/17962195
> 
> 
> I'd certainly place it high, real high, but the aliasing on Sully's fur drove me nuts. Some background objects show it too.
> 
> 
> Everything else is absolutely perfect, but to me it was one of those cases where 1080p is not enough.



I didn't notice any aliasing but I was watching on a 720p HDTV. I definitely felt that 720p was short-changing Monsters, Inc.


The only 1080p TV I have is in the kitchen, no BD Player hooked up to that. May have to make a special hook-up for that to check it out and see if I notice it.


HutcH


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ooms* /forum/post/17962322
> 
> 
> aliasing is pretty TV set/player/distance seated dependent. I didnt notice any when i watched it a few days ago.



It's definitely there. I'm not the only reviewer ( http://www.doblu.com/2010/01/11/monsters-inc-review/ ) who noticed it either:

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/2155/monstersinc.html 


All of those fine strands of fur sticking out turn into blocks.


Another spot I noticed was at 46:57 when Mike is running through the hallway. Look at the ceiling lights. It turns into a bunch of stair-stepping blocks as well.


I didn't find it severe enough to drop down in terms of score, but placing it with those discs that are truly visual perfection seems incorrect.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/17963985
> 
> 
> I didn't find it severe enough to drop down in terms of score, but placing it with those discs that are truly visual perfection seems incorrect.



That was my thought process as well on Monsters, Inc. The slight presence of aliasing, while minor, is still a flaw that needs to be accounted for in its ranking. Still a great-looking BD, even with that caveat. The aliasing is likely an artifact of the original animation and can not be removed from the image.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17964759
> 
> 
> That was my thought process as well on Monsters, Inc. The slight presence of aliasing, while minor, is still a flaw that needs to be accounted for in its ranking. Still a great-looking BD, even with that caveat. *The aliasing is likely an artifact of the original animation and can not be removed from the image.*



Important point.


But, let's DO take the (very) minor aliasing into account. Even WITH that issue, it is still one of the very best looking BD's that I have ever seen, so that's why I still think it belongs at least in the top 5 BD's ever released.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17967727
> 
> 
> Important point.
> 
> 
> But, let's DO take the (very) minor aliasing into account. Even WITH that issue, it is still one of the very best looking BD's that I have ever seen, so that's why I still think it belongs at least in the top 5 BD's ever released.



+1


I agree with you Rob.


As long as I'm making a post, I saw _Tears of the Sun_ on Starz last night and I was VERY impressed with the PQ. I have not seen it on Blu, but if it's as good or better than what I saw last night, then its current placement (1.75) is more than justified...in fact, I'd probably opt for one or two notches higher. The lush landscapes, along with the phenomenal facial close-ups, kept me riveted to my KURO!


I received my copy of _The Island_ the other day from Amazon.UK and I hope to watch it tomorrow or Friday night. I leave on a rather long trip this weekend, so my Blu-ray viewing will come to an end for well over a week.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Whiteout*


Ugh. This movie was painful to sit through. I can see why many put it on their worst of lists...


Anyway, a Warner, generally low bit-rate (or is it bitrate, or bit rate?) VC-1 encode. Fine detail is rare, although some scenes such as an autopsy stand out. Most of the time, faces are flat. Things such as fur on the coats are not well defined.


Black levels come and go, but are generally stable. No noticeable artifacting to note, light grain looks fine. Vista shots, despite the beautiful photography, are bland and soft. Not a terrible transfer, but nothing impressive either.

*Tier 2.25*


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17967727
> 
> 
> Important point.
> 
> 
> But, let's DO take the (very) minor aliasing into account. Even WITH that issue, it is still one of the very best looking BD's that I have ever seen, so that's why I still think it belongs at least in the top 5 BD's ever released.



Yes, but in this thread, dedicated to eye candy, we don't take that into account, do we? If a film has a noisy look, but it is intentional, it is knocked down for it, correct? Whether or not the aliasing is part of the source or not, which I don't really dispute, putting it up there with the likes of a Bug's Life or Cars which exhibit zero issues seems wrong.


But hey, that's what this thread is for. I'm interested to see where the discussion goes. Personally, I'd still vote for Tier 0, but a bit lower, maybe around Chicken Little and Pirates.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Gamereviewgod, do you have any other timecodes for the issues? I know you posted one earlier, i'll look that one back up again, just curious if you know of any more. I have Monsters Inc but I haven't reviewed it yet, we got it for the daughter for christmas.



Disc TEN arrived for Rome today! 2 more episodes to go... I'm kind of sad, I hate it when good shows end (even if I am behind on this).


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17968809
> 
> 
> Gamereviewgod, do you have any other timecodes for the issues? I know you posted one earlier, i'll look that one back up again, just curious if you know of any more. I have Monsters Inc but I haven't reviewed it yet, we got it for the daughter for christmas.



Any long shot of Sully shows the problem, so unless you want a ton of time codes, start with that.










It is the small hair strands that stick out. The fur close to his body is fine. In close-ups, they look great. I remember the opening shot of Sully in bed was awesome. When the "camera" pulls out and he starts exercising, the _slight_ problem begins.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/17968781
> 
> 
> Yes, but in this thread, dedicated to eye candy, we don't take that into account, do we? If a film has a noisy look, but it is intentional, it is knocked down for it, correct? Whether or not the aliasing is part of the source or not, which I don't really dispute, putting it up there with the likes of a Bug's Life or Cars which exhibit zero issues seems wrong.
> 
> 
> But hey, that's what this thread is for. I'm interested to see where the discussion goes. Personally, I'd still vote for Tier 0, but a bit lower, maybe around Chicken Little and Pirates.



You are correct in what you are saying, but I think you entirely missed the point of what I said. I specifically said that we SHOULD take the minor aliasing into account. My point is that even after doing so, Monsters, Inc. still looks better than all but a handful of BD's released thus far...even though they may have no aliasing whatsoever.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/17968781
> 
> 
> Yes, but in this thread, dedicated to eye candy, we don't take that into account, do we? If a film has a noisy look, but it is intentional, it is knocked down for it, correct? Whether or not the aliasing is part of the source or not, which I don't really dispute, putting it up there with the likes of a Bug's Life or Cars which exhibit zero issues seems wrong.
> 
> 
> But hey, that's what this thread is for. I'm interested to see where the discussion goes. Personally, I'd still vote for Tier 0, but a bit lower, maybe around Chicken Little and Pirates.



You are absolutely right, we should penalize a title if it has issues. I'll have to revisit _Monsters, Inc._ because I didn't see any aliasing the first time around. And that's why I felt justified in nominating it for the top 5 (between _Coraline_ and _Ratatouille_).


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I had heard about the aliasing in Monsters, Inc so I was looking for it. Even looking for it, it is very minor to my eyes.


----------



## 42041

*I've Loved You So Long
*

This 2008 French language film seems to have been shot on a very low budget and it shows. Eye popping visuals clearly are not the point. Though IMDB says it was shot on 35mm, it looked digital to me... but what do I know. The disc is technically sound but the cinematography is either intentionally careless or amateurish, with seemingly little concern going into attractive composition and lighting, making this a rather visually bland affair.

I forget what compelled me to add this to my Netflix queue but I quite liked the film, Kristin Scott Thomas's performance is top-notch.

*Tier 3.25*


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17968976
> 
> 
> You are correct in what you are saying, but I think you entirely missed the point of what I said. I specifically said that we SHOULD take the minor aliasing into account. My point is that even after doing so, Monsters, Inc. still looks better than all but a handful of BD's released thus far...even though they may have no aliasing whatsoever.



Gotcha. See, the aliasing drove me nuts. Sort of like that one dead pixel in the corner of the screen, and no matter what you do, you can't look away.


Still, I can see how most people wouldn't care. As long as it's known and mentioned as part of the ranking, I'm fine with it.


----------



## deltasun

I think both takes are valid - top 5 for Rob and next to _Chicken Little_ for GRG. There's a portion of the population who will be represented by each and that's what makes this thread relevant (at least to me).


I, myself, did not notice them till Phantom pointed them out. Since the jaggies were _that_ negligible to me during my review and did not pose much of a difference upon subsequent viewings, I would have it higher than GRG. I think it's an appropriate compromise. It's similar to our well-documented degrees of sensitivity to EE.










I've been slacking a bit, gang. Hope to get a few more BRs in this weekend.


----------



## audiomagnate

*Public Enemies*


Most of it looked really good. The last scene in Billie's jail cell looked perfect to me. As everyone else has noted, some shots look really, really bad. For example, I saw a lot red and green halos around the back window in car interior shots. Maybe that was the "prosumer" camera at work.


I know this is off topic, but the special features go on and on about the meticulous attention to detail that was key to recreating the mid 1930s atmosphere. Well guess what guys, tube radios don't produce sound until the filaments have heated up, about 11 seconds, and stop lights went from red to yellow and then to green back then. I remember (and I grew up in Chicago) when they eliminated the yellow in between the red and the green back in the 60s. The people that made this movie have to know this stuff, so I guess it was Mann's artistic decision. Anyway, even though this film contains some really gorgeous 1.0 or even Blue level scenes, the amaturish looking scenes force me to rate this one at *3.0*

I don't know if it's my player, a Samsung BDP-2500 with current firmware, or the disc but picture in picture feature kept popping up. Talk about taking you out of the movie! I know I didn't turn that feature on, so I guess you're supposed to turn it off before you start the movie. One final nit pick, the French subtitles kept coming on every time I started a new special feature. All in all, this title was a real pain in the a** for me to watch. I had to keep pausing the movie to turn on the lights to turn all these wonderful "extras" off.


Panasonic TC-58S14 at about eight feet


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17972076
> 
> 
> I, myself, did not notice them till Phantom pointed them out. Since the jaggies were _that_ negligible to me during my review and did not pose much of a difference upon subsequent viewings, I would have it higher than GRG. I think it's an appropriate compromise. *It's similar to our well-documented degrees of sensitivity to EE.*



Truer words were never spoken!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17972684
> 
> 
> Truer words were never spoken!



Indeed!!


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/17969749
> 
> *I've Loved You So Long
> *
> *Tier 3.25*



You beat me to reviewing this movie here, as I just picked it up with the intention of giving it a placement. We will see if my impressions mirror your assessment. I also just got in several British imports, like Butterfly On A Wheel, that should compel me to write some recommendations soon.


----------



## Hughmc

*Gamer:*


1080p AVC MPEG-4 captured with the Red One camera in 1.85:1 aspect ratio. 7.1 DTS-MA.


There are three different looks that predominate this Blu Ray.


There is the Slayer world which has a very limited color palette that tends to remind me of District 9 in some ways. Whites at times are hot and really bright while the rest of the Slayer world is mostly dark and drab. Black levels and contrast are excellent. Detail is stunning most often.


There is the real world which has a realistic look and feel to it with colors that are accurate, skin tones that seem to be accurate as well, black levels that are excellent, and with detail that is superb.


Then there is Society that has an amazing amount and pop of colors. Contrast and detail are really good to excellent and again there is excellent black levels. If you have seen or been to Home for the PS3, Society is what it looks like with more intense color and detail, but in reality and not cgi animation.


Facial/skin details throughout the movie are the best there are or at least seem to be on BD.


There is the shaky hand camera movement quite often particularly in the Gamer world during intense action. The overall look and movement of Gamer reminded me of Crank a bit.


I noticed banding one time, when Simon was in game mode and a bluish background displayed the banding for a second or two and my display being LCD RPTV really does tend to exaggerate it, but it was very brief.


I also noticed what seemed to be almost a slight grain to the BD only a few brief times, like in the opening for example at the 1:18 +/- mark, but wonder if it was added??










It seems that the Red One camera does an excellent job of handling low light scenes that I am fairly confident would have a much more noticeable compression artifacting if HD cameras were used. I wonder if Red One Cameras can equal or do better in low light than film cameras?


I really like the look of Gamer overall. As much as I like a movie captured on film and the grain look, I like some of these digital captures just as well with all the amazing detail intact, sometimes seemingly better detail than film BD's minus the grain.


There is one shot in the beginning in @ 1:15 that is almost identical to the one that became controversial in this forum discussed in the Baraka BD thread. There doesn't seem to be any EE or haloing this time.










Overall I would say this BD easily qualifies for reference/demo for both audio and video.







The movie itself, well think Crank and maybe not even that good.










I agree with Gamereviewgod and his review mentioning a struggle as to where this should go for our thread purposes, but am willing to put my feet to the fire.










Minus the couple of issues I really feel this deserves a low tier 0 placement.



*Recomendation: Low tier 0*


Sony A3000 RPTV 60in @ 7ft from PS3 through HDMI


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17972076
> 
> *I've been slacking a bit, gang.* Hope to get a few more BRs in this weekend.



At first when I saw Denny quoting your post and commenting that truer words were never spoken, I thought he meant the part I bolded.














j/k


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17968039
> 
> 
> As long as I'm making a post, I saw _Tears of the Sun_ on Starz last night and I was VERY impressed with the PQ. I have not seen it on Blu, but if it's as good or better than what I saw last night, then its current placement (1.75) is more than justified...in fact, I'd probably opt for one or two notches higher. The lush landscapes, along with the phenomenal facial close-ups, kept me riveted to my KURO!
> 
> 
> I received my copy of _The Island_ the other day from Amazon.UK and I hope to watch it tomorrow or Friday night. I leave on a rather long trip this weekend, so my Blu-ray viewing will come to an end for well over a week.



Denny, Tears of the Sun was one that I thought looked fantastic on my system and was one of my earliest BR purchases. Then I thought the movie looked stellar and I still think it's one of the better ones I've got. The faces probably get a little help from the color timing used in the movie (everyone get's a tan), but that's fine too cause it's set in the jungle with characters that spend rather a lot of time outside.


The Island otoh, didn't impress me quite as much, but it still looks very good.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/17969749
> 
> *I've Loved You So Long
> *
> 
> *Tier 3.25*



I watched this a while ago. I gave it a 1.75, but I do remember very noisy dark scenes. From what I remember, I don't remember it being 3.25 bad. Here's my review.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...4#post16069794 


We both agree on KST's role. It was Oscar worthy, IMO!


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17973958
> 
> *Gamer:*
> 
> 
> I agree with Gamereviewgod and his review mentioning a struggle as to where this should go for our thread purposes, but am willing to put my feet to the fire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Minus the couple of issues I really feel this deserves a low tier 0 placement.
> 
> *Recomendation: Low tier 0*



I honestly can't disagree. It's not like there's anything there that makes me go, "Yeah but what about X?" because "X" doesn't really exist. The only real complaint I had were some drops in facial detail to deal with the amped up color, but then the colors are so remarkably bold, who cares? It is a fantastic transfer.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Butterfly On A Wheel (UK import)


recommendation: Tier 1.5
*

Known as _Shattered_ in the United States, this region-free import from Icon Home Entertainment brings a strong and crisp presentation to Blu-ray. The main feature runs 94-minutes and is encoded in AVC on a BD-25. Originally it was released on August 4, 2008. Parts of it vacillate between tier 1.5 and tier 1.75 for image quality. All things considered, my final analysis slightly leans towards the higher rank at the moment.


After seeing many questionable transfers lately, it is refreshing to see a perfect film-like transfer that is completely unprocessed and transparent to the original film elements. The Digital Intermediate is in pristine condition, with nary a halo or ringing to be spotted. Grain is untouched and faithful to a project shot in Super 35. Being a relatively recent movie from 2007, there are no instances of any debris or print damage to distract the viewer.


Compression encoding is generally good with small exceptions. The average video bitrate is probably around 24 Mbps, where bitrates briefly peak at 33.1 Mbps early in the film. Curiously the typical rate displayed declines a little as the movie progresses into the high-teens for bitrates, allowing minor intrusions of posterization late in the film. While not a critical distraction, it nevertheless proved annoying considering higher bitrates would have alleviated the problem forthright. It still is comparable to most efforts from the better Hollywood studios.


The picture is fairly sharp and shows off a nice sense of depth. Contrast is perfect in an image that favors a slightly muted palette. There are still fairly bold splashes of color, but the color timing veers towards grays and blues in a monochromatic environment. Nothing is ever murky, but much of the action takes place at night in darker locales. Black levels are very good and never crush, though shadow detail is not as finely delineated as one expects of a reference Blu-ray. That was the main weakness in the transfer, which may be attributable to the original photography. But its strengths easily outweigh that one failing. High-frequency information is superb throughout the movie, giving off a tremendous level of detail and clarity that is visible on every surface and face. The years look like they have caught up with Pierce Brosnan, as every line on his face can be noted. Flesh-tones are perfectly natural, a rarity for a film made from a Digital Intermediate. Exterior shots highlight excellent dimensionality and even pop on occasion.


Icon has released a very solid Blu-ray that deserves placement somewhere in tier one. It is not perfect, but definitely better than average and has enough potential to make decent demo material. Unfortunately a BDInfo scan is not available at the present time.


Watching on a 60” Pioneer KURO plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a 60 GB PS3 (firmware 3.15) at a viewing distance of six feet.


----------



## 42041

*Gone Baby Gone*


I think it's currently quite well-placed at 2.75. Nothing horribly amiss here, sometimes it even looks really good, but the visuals here are mostly low-key, the transfer's pretty soft much of the time, and the often less-than-stellar compression doesn't help. Some of the dark scenes are noisy, and grain isn't subtle at the best of times.

*Tier 2.75*


----------



## vpn75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/17975031
> 
> 
> I honestly can't disagree. It's not like there's anything there that makes me go, "Yeah but what about X?" because "X" doesn't really exist. The only real complaint I had were some drops in facial detail to deal with the amped up color, but then the colors are so remarkably bold, who cares? It is a fantastic transfer.



Saw this last night too and agree the transfer is exceptional! I'm really becoming a fan of the RedOne camera! There is also a nice feature in the extras on the use of the RedOne camera for this movie that is worth watching.


Agree on the Tier 0 placement.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

If no one has any strong objections to it, import editions that are identical to the domestic U.S. video encode will be removed from the Tier List, to clean it up for clarity. This would affect two titles in Tier Zero, the UK editions of _Monsters, Inc._ and _Happy Feet_. Both have identical video encodes to the U.S. Blu-rays and are redundant in listing. Imports and editions that are not identical encodes would continue to be listed separately, ala the regular and IMAX versions of Transformers 2.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17980632
> 
> 
> If no one has any strong objections to it, import editions that are identical to the domestic U.S. video encode will be removed from the Tier List, to clean it up for clarity. This would affect two titles in Tier Zero, the UK editions of _Monsters, Inc._ and _Happy Feet_. Both have identical video encodes to the U.S. Blu-rays and are redundant in listing. Imports and editions that are not identical encodes would continue to be listed separately, ala the regular and IMAX versions of Transformers 2.



No objection here Phantom. Again, kudos to you for your "labor of love" on this thread. It is deeply appreciated!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*Rome, Complete Series*


Review by daPriceIs 



That link above, folks. That link is to the intense review that fellow poster daPriceIs provided for us a couple of weeks ago. Kudos to him again for that great analysis; my review will be much, much shorter than that.



Over the last 2 months I've been receiving the 10 discs of Rome from zip.ca, the largest series of discs to date that I've got from them, and I've rather enjoyed the series.



The PQ can be described as inconsistent at best. It goes from Tier 0 crispness and details to lower Tier 3 for the terrible edge enhancement and processing.



I think the limitations with this series, for the most part, would have to do with the way it's been filmed. However, my most hated thing of all, EDGE ENHANCEMENT, while is limited on a per-episode basis to maybe a couple of minutes, can be outright obtrusive on the screen when it is there. But even the edge enhancement, when used, is inconsistent; times it's a tiny thin line that only freaks like me can see, and other times it's as though someone took a white Sharpie and coloured for a few inches around things.



Average is a good place for this series to wind up; for the most part I think viewers would not be disappointed with its appearance. It has disappointing moments that bring the overall Tier-grading down and I do wish that they had spent a bit more time on this one prior to release to get rid of some of the uglier aspects, overall I was fairly pleased with this set.


*Recommendation for Rome, The Complete Series: Tier 2.50 (I concur with daPriceIs)*
*Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800U, THX setting, approximately 7.5' viewing distance.*


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17980632
> 
> 
> If no one has any strong objections to it, import editions that are identical to the domestic U.S. video encode will be removed from the Tier List, to clean it up for clarity. This would affect two titles in Tier Zero, the UK editions of _Monsters, Inc._ and _Happy Feet_. Both have identical video encodes to the U.S. Blu-rays and are redundant in listing. Imports and editions that are not identical encodes would continue to be listed separately, ala the regular and IMAX versions of Transformers 2.



Phantom, is there a way to mark in the entry which versions were considered for the placement?


Thanks for keeping the updates timely! Very much appreciated!


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17982742
> 
> 
> Phantom, is there a way to mark in the entry which versions were considered for the placement?



We do have a small space reserved for extra notes. Currently the only time we have used it is to denote a 1080i BD or if it contains heavy EE/DNR, though not in any systematic way.


Anyone have ideas on the acronyms for the various imports? I have been meaning to standardize their entry across the entire list.


UK = United Kingdom

HK = Hong Kong


Are there any recognizable acronyms or abbreviations for the following countries: Canada, Japan, Germany, Australia, France, Brazil? Thinking about it, following the Olympic naming convention of how broadcasters squeeze those countries' names into the ticker might be prudent.


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/17982846
> 
> 
> Anyone have ideas on the acronyms for the various imports? I have been meaning to standardize their entry across the entire list.
> 
> 
> UK = United Kingdom
> 
> HK = Hong Kong
> 
> 
> Are there any recognizable acronyms or abbreviations for the following countries: Canada, Japan, Germany, Australia, France, Brazil? Thinking about it, following the Olympic naming convention of how broadcasters squeeze those countries' names into the ticker might be prudent.



For the specs thread I use the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 codes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-1_alpha-2 


Here are some examples:


AUAustraliaBEBelgiumBRBrazilCACanadaCZCzech RepublicDKDenmarkFIFinlandFRFranceDEGermanyHKHong KongHUHungaryITItalyJPJapanKRKoreaMXMexicoNLNetherlandsNONorwayPLPolandRURussiaESSpainSESwedenTWTaiwanUKUnited KingdomUSUnited States


----------



## Phantom Stranger

That is exactly what I was looking for Cinema Squid. Thank you for the link.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17982706
> 
> *Rome, Complete Series*
> 
> 
> Review by daPriceIs
> 
> 
> 
> That link above, folks. That link is to the intense review that fellow poster daPriceIs provided for us a couple of weeks ago. Kudos to him again for that great analysis; my review will be much, much shorter than that.
> 
> 
> 
> Over the last 2 months I've been receiving the 10 discs of Rome from zip.ca, the largest series of discs to date that I've got from them, and I've rather enjoyed the series.
> 
> 
> 
> The PQ can be described as inconsistent at best. It goes from Tier 0 crispness and details to lower Tier 3 for the terrible edge enhancement and processing.
> 
> 
> 
> I think the limitations with this series, for the most part, would have to do with the way it's been filmed. However, my most hated thing of all, EDGE ENHANCEMENT, while is limited on a per-episode basis to maybe a couple of minutes, can be outright obtrusive on the screen when it is there. But even the edge enhancement, when used, is inconsistent; times it's a tiny thin line that only freaks like me can see, and other times it's as though someone took a white Sharpie and coloured for a few inches around things.
> 
> 
> 
> Average is a good place for this series to wind up; for the most part I think viewers would not be disappointed with its appearance. It has disappointing moments that bring the overall Tier-grading down and I do wish that they had spent a bit more time on this one prior to release to get rid of some of the uglier aspects, overall I was fairly pleased with this set.
> 
> 
> *Recommendation for Rome, The Complete Series: Tier 2.50 (I concur with daPriceIs)*
> *Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800U, THX setting, approximately 7.5’ viewing distance.*



And it seems we have another benchmark for 2.5 with your and dapriceis review.







Deltasun and I both felt V for Vendetta was/is 2.5. I haven't seen Rome and probably won't, but now it would be interesting for those who have seen V and Rome to compare since both have been recommended for 2.5. If they really are similar and 2.5 worthy, we might really know what we are doing.







If not, ignore everything I said. lol.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Hugh, I think it's more difficult when you are attempting to rank a TV series, because you have so much more volume to get through. I don't think that I would call any TV series benchmark, there's too much room to move around in them.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17983958
> 
> 
> Hugh, I think it's more difficult when you are attempting to rank a TV series, because you have so much more volume to get through. I don't think that I would call any TV series benchmark, there's too much room to move around in them.




Good point GGG, glad I left myself an out..."ignore everything"....










is it in 1080i?


----------



## djoberg

*The Island (UK Import)*


We are experiencing a very serious freezing rain storm here in the Upper Midwest and they are forecasting possible power outages (due to downed power lines), so I'm going to keep this very short.


I absolutely agree with its current rating of 1.0 and I could even be persuaded to promote it to the bottom of Tier 0. For those of you who love to see every pore, wrinkle, bead of sweat, scar, stubble, etc. in facial close-ups, this title will delight you! These, along with excellent black levels, shadow details, and superb contrast, easily qualify as "demo material" (and possibly "reference").


The only *flaws* I noticed were a couple of instances (outdoors) of overblown whites and possibly some halos around the two lead actors in one scene. This was a very stylized flick with golden hues in outdoor scenes and some blue hues in the bunker, so the colors weren't natural at times, including flesh tones. But this did NOT hinder detail or depth, so I wouldn't call this a bad thing (though some will no doubt feel inclined to penalize it for this choice by the director).


Before I echo the placement recommendation of my peers, let me add that I just love this movie! It's Michael Bay's best, IMHO, and one of the all-time best in the Sci-Fi/Futuristic genre.


Okay, I've already given you my recommendation, but let's make it official...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite BDP-05....Viewed from 8'


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Tokyo Motor Show

recommendation: lower quarter of Tier Zero
*

If a program was ever consciously shot for pure eye candy, it is this documentary that covers the 2007 Tokyo Motor Show. Anyone familiar with the happenings at a car show knows that the entire showroom is used to highlight concept cars and regular vehicles in a variety of pleasing colors. Everything is designed to showcase the aesthetic appeal of each vehicle, making for excellent subject-matter that should easily translate to great results in high-definition.


Released by Topics Entertainment on June 30, 2008, the promotional nature of the show serves as visual stimulation and pornography for the devoted car-enthusiast. Running just over fifty-minutes in length, the video is presented at 1080i resolution, which is likely the native resolution of the HD-video camera it was shot on. The video is encoded in MPEG-2 on a BD-25 at a precise average of 37.00 Mbps.


Given the gigantic video-bitrates afforded the encode, it is not surprising that compression artifacting is absent from the picture. The entire feature looks stunning, in a way that frequently recalls some of the best moments I have witnessed on Blu-ray from video-based material. Contrast is superb and showcases each micro-detail in the interior and exterior of each car. Check out the outstanding craftsmanship on the luxurious Rolls-Royce Phantom Drophead Coupé for instance. The razor-sharp image is complemented by incredible colors in a perfectly-lit environment. The cars beam with glowing colors from green and red to a reflective hue of black on the Lamborghini. Shadow details are perfect because there are no shadows to be found anywhere! Many would consider the experience akin to the high-definition video they see on broadcast sports, but on visual steroids and ramped up to the next level.


While the picture quality has many strengths, one small problem dropped my final judgment a few spots. A touch of minor ringing and inconsistent aliasing showed up enough for me to lower the placement. The problem is not severe enough to drop the ranking out of tier zero, but viewers should be aware of it. Tier zero is the only place a title like _Tokyo Motor Show_ should end up.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of eric.exe):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...3#post16712183


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17984128
> 
> 
> Before I echo the placement recommendation of my peers, let me add that I just love this movie! It's *Michael Bay's best*, IMHO, and *one of the all-time best in the Sci-Fi/Futuristic genre*.
> 
> 
> Okay, I've already given you my recommendation, but let's make it official...
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.0*



Agree. Agree. And agree with placement. Now, I'll have to watch this again.


----------



## Mr.G




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17984128
> 
> *The Island (UK Import)*
> 
> 
> I absolutely agree with its current rating of 1.0 and I could even be persuaded to promote it to the bottom of Tier 0.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.0*



Wasn't this in Tier 0 early last year? I agree with its current placement at 1.0 and think once Michael Bay gets off his arse and remasters this for a USA release it will easily make it into the Tier 0 ranking. Even though this BD has a modest bit-rate it looks great even packed onto a BD-25.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mr.G* /forum/post/17986900
> 
> 
> Wasn't this in Tier 0 early last year? I agree with its current placement at 1.0 and think once Michael Bay gets off his arse and remasters this for a USA release it will easily make it into the Tier 0 ranking. Even though this BD has a modest bit-rate it looks great even packed onto a BD-25.



When I preordered this through Amazon.com several months ago (which I canceled when they did release it at a ridiculous price) I believe it was in 1.0. I have no idea if it was in Tier 0 before that, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was.


I doubt that I would double-dip if they do come out with a USA release master that trumps the UK version, for I'm very satisfied with my UK copy. Don't take this wrong, it could look better, but not _that_ much better (to justify a double-dip).


Edit: On second thought I would consider double-dipping if the USA release added a Dolby True HD or DTS HD MA audio track (along with superior PQ).


----------



## Phantom Stranger

The Island was originally in the top tier early in the history of the thread, and then was moved at some point in 2008 to its current placement. An ancient release by Blu-ray standards, its initial debut was back in July of 2007.


I have not watched my copy of it recently, so a refresher course might be in order.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*New Police Story (Lionsgate US release)*


Definite filtering/DNR going on here. Some static grain structure and significant smearing is evident throughout. High contrast edges reveal some irritating ringing.


Fine detail is at a premium, and when it is visible, remains poorly delineated. Black levels are awful, settling into a gray scale. Colors are muted and flat, even inside the Lego store. Very disappointing.

*Tier 3.0*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/17988323
> 
> *New Police Story (Lionsgate US release)*
> 
> 
> Definite filtering/DNR going on here. Some static grain structure and significant smearing is evident throughout. High contrast edges reveal some irritating ringing.
> 
> 
> Fine detail is at a premium, and when it is visible, remains poorly delineated. Black levels are awful, settling into a gray scale. Colors are muted and flat, even inside the Lego store. Very disappointing.
> 
> *Tier 3.0*



By your description it sounds more like Tier 4!







Surely there must be some redeeming features to warrant Tier 3.0.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17988580
> 
> 
> By your description it sounds more like Tier 4!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Surely there must be some redeeming features to warrant Tier 3.0.



Sure there is. It's not Gangs of New York.










Tier 4 should be for those really awful DNR hack jobs. This has a light layer that preserves some grain and causes some smearing. It looks bad, but not so awful that a lot of people would turn it off.


----------



## deltasun

*Whiteout*


This was a pretty mixed presentation. There were a handful of facial close-up's that touched high tier 1 quality, but most of the time they were soft; intentional or otherwise. A perfect example of the contradictory nature of close-up's can be seen whenever Doc and Stetko were conversing. Black levels were adequate for the most part, but contrast was also inconsistent.


Most scenes were flat and lacked the expected details. Shadow details were...wait, what shadow details!?! To be fair, they're not the worst out there. Even the CGI snowflakes were bothersome at times. Flesh tones were consistent with the environs. On the other hand, the flashback scenes had more life. However, they were usually bathed in unnatural light with contrast pushed and filterized.


Overall, it was a quaint presentation that worked with its intended storyline. Some of the high-tiered close-up's reminded the viewer that this was indeed an HD presentation. I think this barely hangs on to tier 2. Oh, some ringing was apparent and some of the facial softness looked like DNR (though I doubt they were).

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75*


There are definitely elements of this movie that pushed reality to a point that credibility was thrown out the window. However, the suspense wasn't as bad as I was expecting. Oh, and did I mention the film stars Kate Beckinsale.









_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

*Pandorum*


Saw this back to back with _Whiteout_ and felt this was a better, albeit much darker, presentation. Everything about it was richer including blacks (though lots of crushing) and details when lighting was good. Shadow details, on the other hand, were mixed but seems to be director intended. That is, certain scenes were crafted to not exhibit details for the suspense as well as claustrophobic factor. In those instances, they were flat but not dull.


Another director-intended source of contention would be how certain sequences were lit. Some of these were bathed in red, blue, gold, etc. While flesh tones were faithful in "normal" light, they obviously took on these hues. Contrast was fairly balanced and worked really well when better lighting was present.


Grain was always present, turning moderate (almost obtrusive) in a few scenes. Facial close-up's varied on this film as well, but would average out to Silver quality. Close-in shots of of objects also showed good texture and weight. Depth and dimensionality were not the strong points, simply because of the intended look. I was not impressed with the creatures' movements.


Overall, this was a rich and sometimes busy presentation. I did not detect any technical anomalies, especially in obvious situations. While this had better contrast and sharpness than the 2.5 benchmark title, _V for Vendetta_, it was slight. I also felt that _Watchmen_ in 2.25 had much better shadow details. This film did, however, had better saturation than both. In the end, I would rate this...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.50*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/17989064
> 
> 
> Sure there is. It's not Gangs of New York.



May not be able to say this for long when the *remastered* version comes out in a couple of weeks.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17989610
> 
> *Pandorum*
> 
> 
> Saw this back to back with _Whiteout_ and felt this was a better, albeit much darker, presentation. Everything about it was richer including blacks (though lots of crushing) and details when lighting was good. Shadow details, on the other hand, were mixed but seems to be director intended. That is, certain scenes were crafted to not exhibit details for the suspense as well as claustrophobic factor. In those instances, they were flat but not dull.
> 
> 
> Another director-intended source of contention would be how certain sequences were lit. Some of these were bathed in red, blue, gold, etc. While flesh tones were faithful in "normal" light, they obviously took on these hues. Contrast was fairly balanced and worked really well when better lighting was present.
> 
> 
> Grain was always present, turning moderate (almost obtrusive) in a few scenes. Facial close-up's varied on this film as well, but would average out to Silver quality. Close-in shots of of objects also showed good texture and weight. Depth and dimensionality were not the strong points, simply because of the intended look. I was not impressed with the creatures' movements.
> 
> 
> Overall, this was a rich and sometimes busy presentation. I did not detect any technical anomalies, especially in obvious situations. While this had better contrast and sharpness than the 2.5 benchmark title, _V for Vendetta_, it was slight. I also felt that _Watchmen_ in 2.25 had much better shadow details. This film did, however, had better saturation than both. In the end, I would rate this...
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.50*
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_



I wanted to rent this title earlier in the week, but they were all out. The PQ sounds fairly good, but how was the movie itself? I'm leaving tomorrow (out of country) for 11 days but I hope to rent this and a few other titles as soon as I get back.


PS BTW deltasun, I really like the Samsung LN40B750 we got for our living room! You can't go wrong with a Sammy LCD (the upper series, that is).


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17989731
> 
> 
> I wanted to rent this title earlier in the week, but they were all out. The PQ sounds fairly good, but how was the movie itself? I'm leaving tomorrow (out of country) for 11 days but I hope to rent this and a few other titles as soon as I get back.



It was so-so, nothing really original. I'm a sci-fi nut though so it was going to get watched one way or another.







A rental for me and not a buyer.


I'm getting impatient with NF and so I've been making trips to Blockbuster lately. Will probably check to see if _Gamer_ is available tonight.


PS: Just saw your PS. Glad you're enjoying it. You got me paying attention to deals on those sets.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*The Hurt Locker*


This one was all over the place. There were some scenes that looked very good, but those were a few short scenes early in the movie. I don't know what happened to them, because it changed dramatically and the majority of the movie doesn't look particularly good.


Detail and clarity is a bit below average. Color are drab, but that would be expected. The film just has a soft grainy look to it that does not impress. Intentional? Quite possibly, but for our purposes, this one just doesn't stack up all that well.


For my rating, I am going mostly ignore the good looking shots because there really aren't very many of them.


As for the movie: I really liked it. No beat you over the head political message here. Very well done, and there are very good acting performances. I wouldn't say it is a "great" film, but it certainly is worth watching.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 3.25*


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Gamer*


This is a superb looking disc. Detail and clarity are top notch. There are facial details on this disc that are as impressive as any I have seen.


One (big) drawback on this title, however, is the fact that it is so frenetic. The camera is almost always moving. Because of this, the superb detail and clarity can rarely be enjoyed. On the few occasions that the camera is still, the PQ is extremely impressive.


Contrast is excellent for the most part, but I definitely did notice some video noise in at least 2 of the films dark scenes. These only lasted a couple of seconds.


I'm not going to recommend this for Tier 0 because of the almost non stop camera movement and a bit of noise in a couple of the dark scenes, but it comes close.


The movie itself was horrifyingly bad.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0*


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*8 1/2
*

Fellini's 8 1/2 has been released on Blu-ray by The Criterion Collection, and overall it looks very nice. The incredible black and white cinematography looks gorgeous.


Unfortunately, there is some EE/ringing that is noticeable in some scenes, usually ones with bright backgrounds, which can be distracting. I did not find this to be present throughout the movie though, thank goodness.


Contrast is good, but somewhat flat at times. The grayscale often looks very good.


Detail is actually better than I was expecting. Fine grain is present, but some of the above referenced brighter scenes with the EE/ringing has some ugly looking coarse grain.


As for the movie, I consider it a true masterpiece. Just amazing film making, truly inspired! If you love film for how artistic it can be, this is an absolute "must see" film. As Roger Ebert proclaims: " 8 1/2 is the best film ever made about filmmaking". Amen.









*Tier Recommendation: Tier 3.0*


----------



## daPriceIs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17983737
> 
> 
> And it seems we have another benchmark for 2.5 with your and dapriceis review.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deltasun and I both felt V for Vendetta was/is 2.5. I haven't seen Rome and probably won't, but now it would be interesting for those who have seen V and Rome to compare since both have been recommended for 2.5. ...



Nooooooooooooo!























_Rome_ is definitely *not* a benchmark title. The most consistent thing about _Rome_ is its inconsistency. We may agree that it belongs at Tier 2.5 but there is no way you could use it for benchmarking. Just on general principles I don't think multi-episode television series should ever be benchmarks. It seems to me that a true benchmark should have its PQ be pretty thoroughly and consistently whatever it is that you end up ranking it. A benchmark title needs to be one that you don't have to watch in its entirety and weigh many disparate and inconsistent factors in order to reach an accurate compromise assessment of its PQ. (By the way, I am emphatically not suggesting that you can get away with merely sampling a disc _when you're reviewing that disc._) After all, no one has time to watch the relevant benchmark discs in their entirety when in the midst of reviewing some other disc. So when, say, comparing a disc with probable Tier 2.5 PQ to a 2.5 benchmark, you can't have that benchmark have significant stretches of Tier 1.25 or Tier 3.75 PQ (for an exaggerated example) that could skew the comparison when that comparison is solely based on viewing snippets.



> Quote:
> ... If they really are similar and 2.5 worthy, we might really *know what we are doing*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If not, ignore everything I said. lol.



No, dude, we don't know what we're doing!







But we keep trying anyway. One day we'll get it right.


----------



## daPriceIs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/17984065
> 
> 
> Good point GGG, glad I left myself an out..."ignore everything"....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is it in 1080i?



1080p24


----------



## jedimasterchad

Pandorum


Not a lot to add here aside from what was already said. A vast majority of this film was shot in extremely low lighting conditions, and most of it was just with a big glowstick. Needless to say, the blacks should have been the strongpoint, and for the most part they were decent but in some instances they appeared faded and washed out, not unlike the Terminator Salvation disc. Not as strong as they should have been for this style of film, to say the least. As a result, shadow detail suffered, and most of the background detail was lost.


Detail was brought out nicely in a few scenes, but could fall flat in others. Little to zero eye candy throughout, and for the purposes of this thread not the best disc. I think I will agree with Gamereviewgod and go with a lower rating.

Tier Recommendation: 2.75


Viewed on a Panasonic TC-P54G10 via [email protected]/24.


Not a good movie. The pacing of the movie felt like a ripoff of Alien. Rental at best.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Smokin' Aces 2: Assassin's Ball*


Shot digitally and cheaply, and it looks the part. Some excellent, well-defined detail in close-ups, but inconsistently. Colors depend on the scene. Inside the bunker, nearly black and white. Inside the bar, typically well saturated, bright, and clean.


Some noise on ceilings. Biggest problem? Black crush, possibly the worst I've ever seen. Literally goes from light to dark with NO separation in-between when inside the bunker set, and the blacks are suffocating to whatever detail should be there. Tom Berenger's suit and tie are a flickering nightmare.

*Tier 3.0*


Awful movie. Can't believe Vinnie Jones agreed to be in it. He does nothing, much like this movie. No budget, direct-to-video crap. Universal obviously had no faith in this one.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17983958
> 
> 
> Hugh, I think it's more difficult when you are attempting to rank a TV series, because you have so much more volume to get through. I don't think that I would call any TV series benchmark, there's too much room to move around in them.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *daPriceIs* /forum/post/17993377
> 
> 
> Nooooooooooooo!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Rome_ is definitely *not* a benchmark title. The most consistent thing about _Rome_ is its inconsistency. We may agree that it belongs at Tier 2.5 but there is no way you could use it for benchmarking. Just on general principles I don't think multi-episode television series should ever be benchmarks.



I have to chime in and agree with the above quotes regarding benchmarks. Newcomers to the thread should not have to sit through an entire television series as a point of reference. The main purpose of benchmarks is to lower the work threshold needed for insight and guidance in ranking titles for Tier "rookies". The best examples would be shorter movies that are very popular and likely to be owned or viewed multiple times.


----------



## IanRW




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/17989064
> 
> 
> Sure there is. It's not Gangs of New York.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tier 4 should be for those really awful DNR hack jobs. This has a light layer that preserves some grain and causes some smearing. It looks bad, but not so awful that a lot of people would turn it off.



There isn't really a correlation between DNR and the tiers. Also keep in mind that there are some perfectly transfered titles in tier 4 due to source/print issues alone.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *IanRW* /forum/post/18002604
> 
> 
> There isn't really a correlation between DNR and the tiers. Also keep in mind that there are some perfectly transfered titles in tier 4 due to source/print issues alone.



Exactly.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*X-Men 2: X-Men United (UK import)


recommendation: Tier 2.25*


The U.S. Blu-ray has a current rank in tier 2.5, which is likely fair. What is interesting about this British import is that it also was released by Fox, but uses slightly higher compression parameters. The BDInfo scans for both are linked for your perusal. The U.K. disc averages 24.20 Mbps for the AVC-encoded movie, while the U.S. version only averages 22.88 Mbps. Given both are likely sourced from the identical transfer, the British Blu-ray is the superior-looking disc for compression issues at the very least. Curiously enough, the situation is reversed for the first X-Men movie, where the American BD gets the superior parameters.


The transfer itself is very professional and conveys a fine sense of the original celluloid, while abstaining from grain-manipulation or edge enhancement. The image is not the best in any particular dimension, but the whole is better than the sum of its parts. A consistent standard is set that hardly varies over the course of the film, except in the instances where the characters enter Cerebro.


UK BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1#post16606881 


US BDInfo scan (courtesy of eric.exe):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post16323962


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Saw VI*


If you asked me from the start where this would end up, it would be quite high. A half-hour in, not so much. Somewhat murky blacks, blown out contrast and faces devoid of texture dominate once past the opening scenes. That's a shame, because this one opens on the shot of a hand that is so defined and crisp, every little mark in the skin comes through.


Wildly shifting color palettes are handled pretty well, and there is only one instance of noise noted. Still, like previous films, really flat, dark, and grim. Bland to look at even with the attempts at style.

*Tier 3.0*


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *IanRW* /forum/post/18002604
> 
> 
> There isn't really a correlation between DNR and the tiers. Also keep in mind that there are some perfectly transfered titles in tier 4 due to source/print issues alone.



I get that, but I would think everyone here is in agreement as to where Gangs of New York should be. That was a broad statement I made though.


I understand something that has been DNR'ed could place higher than something that looks ugly due to intent, but I certainly couldn't see a Gangs of New York ever reaching a high tier. When I said "DNR hackjobs," I meant the ugliest of the ugly that are completely unappealing to the eye.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Quarantine*

*recommendation: Tier 4.5
*

Whatever digital camera this movie was shot on probably should be avoided in the future by directors looking for top-notch picture quality. Very poor detail for a movie in 1080p, I strongly doubt there is that much actual resolution in the image. Frankly, this Blu-ray looks little better than upscaled standard-definition content much of the time. The grim and gritty aesthetic by the director fits the movie's plot but does nothing to enhance the viewing experience. Based on the premise of a single-camera documentary in the process of being filmed, _Quarantine_ is just a sub-par presentation overall with its mediocre detail and depressed color palette. Sony at least did a superb technical job, as compression parameters are very good and no transfer problems are apparent.


Blu-rays that exhibit little difference from upconverted dvd should never be ranked higher than tier four, at best. _Quarantine_ looks to be handicapped in this regard by the quality of the source material.



BDInfo Scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...0#post15848480


----------



## deltasun

*Gamer*


I echo my predecessors' sentiments about this film. Incredible details and textures on facial close-up's - very _Crank_-like. Those pores were some of the most well-defined I've seen. In Society, colors popped and details did not waver.


Contrast was very strong throughout, except for that one Slayer scene where Gerard Butler was conversing with John Leguizamo - contrast was hot and whites were blown. Blacks were bold and deep, but were also crushed in a number of scenes. Shadow details were above average, but also suffered in certain Slayer and real-world shots.


I really enjoyed the dimensionality in city blocks. Details on the buildings helped illustrate 3-dimensionality and depth. Skin tones were faithful, though the "digital" saturated look crept in at times in the real world when lighting was about medium brightness.


I felt the banding was pretty major for a newer release (36:52 forward mark). Although, upon closer inspection, it could have been intended as well. I believe it was emanating from the fire in the game, which in essence is a green screen for the gamer. That is, the banding is coming from the viewing area (TV) that is his room/walls. Kinda like seeing softness in non-HD broadcasts within televisions in a scene, we were experiencing banding from his gaming screen. Regardless, banding occurred. I also noticed the digital noise and it wasn't just in a few places. However, I did not find them distracting at all.


Overall, I believe the negatives do keep this out of Reference for me. The strength of its positives also keep this BARELY out of Reference. Therefore, I will agree with Rob's placement.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Surrogates*


I am honestly hesitant to put this into a tier. This is a bizarre looking film. Robots that look like humans rule the world, and their faces have been digitally smoothed over, wiping all detail. That's how you are supposed to tell human from robot, but the effect is so obvious, it becomes a distraction.


Colors are ridiculously over saturated. Black crush is simply awful. The contrast does not seem natural, and if you've ever seen King Arthur on Blu, the problem is similar. Distracting noise is prevalent. This is one of the few discs in a while where I thought something was seriously wrong with my TV.


Then, there are spots with reference quality detail and color. Any shot with the human Bruce Willis, at least up close, is brilliantly defined and incredibly clear. Some backgrounds offer incredible detail, even in the far distance.


I'm going with 3.25, but would like to hear some other thoughts.

*Tier 3.25*


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Gamereviewgod, I'm hoping that one comes in for me soon, I don't know why but I wanted to see it.


----------



## chripuck

While I agree 28 days later was a horrific Blu Ray, it couldn't have really been any better. Danny Boyles chose to shoot the majority of the film on a Canon XL-1s standard-definition camcorder at 720x576 resolution. Obviously you can't make 1080 lines of resolution from 576, thus the crappy image quality. I don't think it moves it from the Coal category, but perhaps a note saying why it's so awful would help the readers understand.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chripuck* /forum/post/18013918
> 
> 
> While I agree 28 days later was a horrific Blu Ray, it couldn't have really been any better. Danny Boyles chose to shoot the majority of the film on a Canon XL-1s standard-definition camcorder at 720x576 resolution. Obviously you can't make 1080 lines of resolution from 576, thus the crappy image quality. I don't think it moves it from the Coal category, but perhaps a note saying why it's so awful would help the readers understand.



Please post in the main discussion thread, as this thread is not meant to be used for discussion and your post will be wiped by the moderators. The listing already shows:


28 Days Later Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Fox | *SD Resolution*


Picture Quality Tier List Discussion thread:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...58316&page=502


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/18013813
> 
> 
> Gamereviewgod, I'm hoping that one comes in for me soon, I don't know why but I wanted to see it.



I was really curious too. It bombed at the box office. I think it's more of an idea than a well thought out story. In other words, if they expanded the idea and showed more of the societal break down, I would have had more interest.


----------



## deltasun

He he...check out my quote from a while back regarding _Surrogates_. I have this too and will watch tonight probably.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17249133
> 
> 
> Just watched _Surrogates_ tonight. I was cracking up a bit because the surrogates were supposed to be (don't worry, not a spoiler) robotic versions of their human owners. For their look, they have smooth, waxy faces achieved by make-up and probably CGI / processing / filtering. In other words, they look like DNR faces. I was picturing how we would all rate the movie here.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18014760
> 
> 
> He he...check out my quote from a while back regarding _Surrogates_. I have this too and will watch tonight probably.



Yep, and it's not just that it hurts the Blu-ray transfer, but it is such an obvious case of digital manipulation, it pulls you out of the movie.


Let me know if you have any issues with the color or black levels too.


----------



## jedimasterchad

I was hoping to get Surrogates as well, but it would appear I lost the Netflix lottery this week. How was it? I may rent it from Blockbuster if they have it in stock.


----------



## deltasun

_Surrogates_ - thought it was a pretty decent story. With the $10 off coupon, I went ahead and picked it up. Or do you mean the PQ?


----------



## jedimasterchad

I meant the movie, not the PQ...saw the trailer a while back but nobody really talked much about it and it tanked at the box office. I usually like Bruce Willis though, so I'll probably go ahead and rent it.


----------



## deltasun

*This Is It*


Another presentation with mixed content - SD footage, intentional grain, soft black & white. At its best, it still only hit high Silver. That goes for black levels, dimensionality, contrast, facial details, etc. Skin tones were predominantly faithful, even on Michael.







Details were a bit disappointing.


The average would fall somewhere in...

*Tier Recommendation: 4.50*


AQ could have been better, given this is more of a music disc. The feature itself had some unique and interesting insight into what happens behind the scenes. It really gave me a better appreciation of how in control MJ was at all times, and how much input he had in almost every facet of their performance. He was the director.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## deltasun

*A Perfect Getaway*


Once I got passed the oversharpened, orange-fleshed look, details on this feature were very impressive. Facial close-up's had so much 3D pop and Tier 0 details that, for me, this more than made up for the overly saturated skintones.


Colors, in general, were overly saturated and gave the island greens an unnatural look. Blacks were deep and contrast strong. Shadow details, while rare, were also decent. Some of the overhead shots of mountains showed incredible detail, depth, and dimensionality. However, as soon as the camera panned towards the horizon, details weren't so cooperative. In fact, they looked more like panoramic photographs from a 3MP point and shoot camera.


As mentioned above, skin tones were bronzed, almost orange-like. In fact, I had to verify with IMDB that this indeed was shot on film. It looked more like HD digital cameras at first. Though it looked sharpened, I did not detect any obvious ringing. Neither did I detect any DNR.


Overall, I was still impressed with the details, specially facial details, enough to give this a...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.50*


Unfortunately, I figured out the "twist" about a third of the way. Still, I quite enjoyed this film. Olyphant was really good and drove the story forward.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

*Surrogates*


As mentioned by Gamereviewgod, this was a tough one to rate due to its director-intended waxy/filtered/soft facial presentation. Unfortunately, the smudgy look was not confined to surrogate faces. Surroundings, and the world itself, inherited this look. Blacks were crushed and contrast did not reveal well-delineated objects. Low-light details were almost non-existent (specially in the rave).


Now, fast-forward to when Bruce Willis abandoned his surrogate. The overall look changes and there is better color, black levels, and contrast. Facial details were better rendered and skin tones spot on. Medium scenes also improved in its dimensionality.


Even with the intended look of the waxy faces, I felt good blu-ray PQ would at least reveal the cakey make-up to achieve the look. But, there was also filtering and intended softness involved that prevented this. Therefore, I will take off points.


I would easily place the first part of the feature in low Tier Copper, while the latter in high Silver.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## 42041

*Pixar Short Films: Vol. 1*


Considering this collection spans several decades of computer animation technology, the results are quite mixed. The more recent stuff is solid tier 0 quality, but the then-groundbreaking 80s shorts are very crude looking now and clearly sourced from film prints rather than digital images. Makes one wonder if films like Wall-E and Up will look similarly simplistic in another 25 years. I think the superb PQ qualities of the recent work offset the earlier stuff to a greater degree than the current tier 3 placement, and the historical context makes the look of the older films less offensive than it would be otherwise.

*Tier 2.25*


----------



## tcramer

Well, this morning I got an email saying that Saving Private Ryan on Blu is available for pre-order. Anyone else heard about this?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00..._email_title_1 


I am looking forward to it and plan to get it no matter what. I would say I'm expecting a transfer similar to Band of Brothers - great sound but a picture that has an intentional grain and muted color palate. Not that it's bad, it just won't make reference material with the director's intentional WWII era picture.


----------



## tgseaver

To convince my wife that our new Sony blu ray and our 58' v10 was worth the money?


----------



## Pfdjr1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tcramer* /forum/post/18020062
> 
> 
> Well, this morning I got an email saying that Saving Private Ryan on Blu is available for pre-order. Anyone else heard about this?
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00..._email_title_1
> 
> 
> I am looking forward to it and plan to get it no matter what. I would say I'm expecting a transfer similar to Band of Brothers - great sound but a picture that has an intentional grain and muted color palate. Not that it's bad, it just won't make reference material with the director's intentional WWII era picture.



Its also listed on bluray.com as a pre order. http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Saving...-Blu-ray/8683/


----------



## snookfisher

ANY of the disney and or pixar animation will do the job! They are all fantastic (I own all but meet the robinsins). My favorite is Ratatouille. Also Kung Foo Panda and Monters vs. aliens(dreamworks) are great choices too!! I am chomping at the bit for The Incredibles to be released.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*This Is It*

Detlatsun's ranking it a bit low IMO, but not by much, and I can see why he placed like he did. At least 30%, if not more, is presented in non-anamorphic widescreen. Not even going to bother getting into those problems, but they look bad.


The hi-def stuff is clear, generally sharp, clear, with bright contrast and color. Some detail, such as the multiple jackets worn by Jackson which show clearly defined patterns in the midst of some crazy reflections. Some interlacing is evident, along with some light aliasing. Minor compression when the lights move quickly. Really nice texture during a behind-the-scenes look at the making of Thriller, but the scene is brief.


It doesn't look great, but the HD stuff it is still better than I would have thought.

*Tier 4.0*


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18021161
> 
> *This Is It*
> 
> Detlatsun's ranking it a bit low IMO, but not by much, and I can see why he placed like he did. *At least 30%, if not more, is presented in non-anamorphic widescreen. Not even going to bother getting into those problems, but they look bad.*
> 
> 
> The hi-def stuff is clear, generally sharp, clear, with bright contrast and color. Some detail, such as the multiple jackets worn by Jackson which show clearly defined patterns in the midst of some crazy reflections. Some interlacing is evident, along with some light aliasing. Minor compression when the lights move quickly. Really nice texture during a behind-the-scenes look at the making of Thriller, but the scene is brief.
> 
> 
> It doesn't look great, but the HD stuff it is still better than I would have thought.
> 
> *Tier 4.0*




*jaw drops* OMG. That bolded part there guaranteed I will never, ever watch this. I didn't have plans to do so anyway, but GAH!


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tcramer* /forum/post/18020062
> 
> 
> Well, this morning I got an email saying that Saving Private Ryan on Blu is available for pre-order. Anyone else heard about this?
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00..._email_title_1
> 
> 
> I am looking forward to it and plan to get it no matter what. I would say I'm expecting a transfer similar to Band of Brothers - great sound but *a picture that has an intentional grain and muted color palate*. Not that it's bad, *it just won't make reference material* with the director's intentional WWII era picture.



This won't necessarily preclude it from being reference. Along the same lines as _Band of Brothers_ though, the excessive EE could (if _Saving Private Ryan_ has that too). Looking forward to this one as well!


----------



## ChrisWiggles

I guess that depends if your wife likes watching animated films about talking cars...


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/18021777
> 
> 
> *jaw drops* OMG. That bolded part there guaranteed I will never, ever watch this. I didn't have plans to do so anyway, but GAH!



Unfortunately, there's nothing that can be done about it. I mean, none of this was meant to be seen by anyone other than Michael himself, so its impressive that any of it was HD to begin with.


That said, even as a total non-Jackson/minimal music follower, I still enjoyed it quite a bit. It's something worth checking out. You can always fast-forward the music!


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tgseaver* /forum/post/18020080
> 
> 
> To convince my wife that our new Sony blu ray and our 58' v10 was worth the money?





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ChrisWiggles* /forum/post/18022921
> 
> 
> I guess that depends if your wife likes watching animated films about talking cars...



tgseaver: You should scan the Tier Blu titles and find a movie that she likes in that list. This would be a good starting point. Or, what ChrisWiggles said.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/18021777
> 
> 
> *jaw drops* OMG. That bolded part there guaranteed I will never, ever watch this. I didn't have plans to do so anyway, but GAH!



Are you being serious in all due respect?







I am not a MJ fan and this is one of the more interesting and entertaining things I have watched recently (watched on Tues night). It is fascinating to see the production values that went into this show alone. This disc also really shows the genius side of MJ from a performance/musical standpoint. Not to mention the audio is fantastic (IMO).


To skip this one just because the PQ is far from perfect would only be your loss IMO. Obviously you may not like it, but dont skip it simply because of some PQ issues you may or may not have. Having said all that, I thought this one looked great for the most part and much better than the few reviews here have suggested (but take that with a grain of salt as I am far from a videophile). It certainly did not look so bad that it was distracting by any means considering what it is.


My whole point is that no matter if you like MJ or not (as long as you dont HATE him







) this is a very interesting watch and a really cool behind the scenes type of experience and to pass this up just because the PQ is far from perfect is a mistake IMO.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/18023916
> 
> 
> Are you being serious in all due respect?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a MJ fan and this is one of the more interesting and entertaining things I have watched recently (watched on Tues night). It is fascinating to see the production values that went into this show alone. This disc also really shows the genius side of MJ from a performance/musical standpoint. Not to mention the audio is fantastic (IMO).
> 
> 
> To skip this one just because the PQ is far from perfect would only be your loss IMO. Obviously you may not like it, but dont skip it simply because of some PQ issues you may or may not have. Having said all that, I thought this one looked great for the most part and much better than the few reviews here have suggested (but take that with a grain of salt as I am far from a videophile). It certainly did not look so bad that it was distracting by any means considering what it is.
> 
> 
> My whole point is that no matter if you like MJ or not (as long as you dont HATE him
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) this is a very interesting watch and a really cool behind the scenes type of experience and to pass this up just because the PQ is far from perfect is a mistake IMO.



If you read the whole sentence, Toe... I did say I didn't have any plans to watch it to begin with, and that is just another nail in the coffin. Not a MJ fan whatsoever, so I'm not wasting my money on it in any fashion. I'm not an audiophile, i usually watch things with subtitles on and use the speakers on my TV. The non-anamorphic widescreen shots would just annoy me even further if I was forced to sit through this.


I'm glad you enjoyed it though -- nothing worse than sitting through something we don't like!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Saints And Soldiers (UK import)
*
*recommendation: Tier 3.5*


A movie from 2003 that is based on a true story from World War II, Metrodome released _Saints And Soldiers_ as a region-free Blu-ray in the U.K. on June 30, 2008. The 90-minute main feature is encoded in AVC on a BD-25. BDInfo gives the average video bitrate at an exact 27 Mbps. There was a desire on my part to place the final ranking higher but the inconsistent quality forced me to put it no higher than the middle of tier three.


Compression is outstanding and holds up among the best quality in recent times. The encoding handles the thick grain with ease, never devolving into macroblocking or noise like so many other discs. It also does a superb job of replicating the passages where the film stock gets heavily pushed in the darker scenes. There are touches of tiny specks in the print, liberally sprinkled throughout the film. While they do not rise to the level of distraction, they are notable on occasion. It is more print debris than is common for a movie from the past decade.


There is absolutely no evidence of filtering anywhere, as the image looks distinctly film-like and unprocessed. If anything, the heavy level of visible grain might indicate a transfer made from a second or third-generation film print, instead of the original camera negative. No additional sharpening has been added to the transfer in post-production, but minor ringing shows ups in certain shots that looks attributable to the optical photography. Still, film purists will no doubt be pleased by this Blu-ray's appearance.


The low-budget nature of the project appears to have had some effect on the cinematography and leads to the inconsistency alluded to earlier. Daytime shots, even in the swirling snow and forests, look quite good. A nice appreciation of depth and dimension fill the screen, in a slightly desaturated palette that nevertheless has strong clarity and detail. High-frequency information in close-ups display a wealth of texture and all the intricacies of human skin. These scenes, comprising a majority of the film, are not demo-worthy but would generally rate in the middle of tier two or thereabouts.


But a significant portion of the movie, mostly interior shots and scenes with poor available light, comes off much worse in comparison. Black levels take a large hit and much of the shadow detail gets completely crushed. On top of that problem the grain becomes very pronounced, bathing the picture in thick patches of it. Hence the overall resolution drops a degree in those moments. Flesh-tones are naturally rendered however at all times.


Do not expect many scenes to actually rank in the middle of tier three upon viewing. That score was derived from balancing the stronger visual material with the poorest scenes, and finding a middle ground to represent the entire BD. The transfer itself looks very faithful to the original intent of the director. So any problems with the picture quality stem from the film's production.


Watching on a 60” Pioneer KURO plasma at 1080p/24, fed by a 60 GB PS3 (firmware 3.15) from a viewing distance of approximately six feet.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*My Bloody Valentine (2009)

recommendation: Tier 1.25*


For the purposes of this placement, I only considered the normal version of the film and not the 3-D feature. The inclusion of the 3-D process is beyond the scope of this thread, at least in my opinion because of a myriad of issues. It creates an effect that make it very difficult, if not impossible, to rank the 3-D version alongside normal two-dimensional fare.


A transfer struck from a pristine Digital Intermediate, the image is impressive in multiple criteria. Razor-sharp and displaying the kind of detail one rarely glimpses outside of the top tier, the only marks against the picture quality are the subdued colors and the less than spectacular compression. The AVC encode appears slightly comprised by having to include both the normal cut and the 3-D version on a single BD-50. The average video bitrate of 16 Mbps lowers the overall fidelity just a tad in comparison to the original master, with touches of banding.


One also gets the feeling that resolution in various backgrounds is diminished slightly because of the generally low encoding-parameters, an effect I have coined compression haze to represent the loss of general detail from low-bitrate encodings. But only a viewer on the largest displays will notice the problem, so in all consideration it does not have a significant impact on the final assessment.


Contrast is pitch-perfect and throughout the movie shows striking black levels. Shadow detail and delineation are superb in clearly revealing every nook and cranny of the mine and set design. As stated earlier the picture leans toward grayish tones, particularly during the slasher sequences. The normal 2-D film has excellent dimensionality and presence. It is apparent the film was shot for maximum pop and depth, likely a side-effect of filming for a 3-D release.


BDInfo scan of 2-D version (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post17555165


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18037799
> 
> *My Bloody Valentine (2009)
> 
> recommendation: Tier 1.25*



I looked back at my own review and noted some significant motion blur. I don't really remember the transfer all that well, but did you have the same issue?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18037799
> 
> *My Bloody Valentine (2009)
> 
> recommendation: Tier 1.25*
> 
> 
> For the purposes of this placement, I only considered the normal version of the film and not the 3-D feature. The inclusion of the 3-D process is beyond the scope of this thread, at least in my opinion because of a myriad of issues. It creates an effect that make it very difficult, if not impossible, to rank the 3-D version alongside normal two-dimensional fare.
> 
> 
> A transfer struck from a pristine Digital Intermediate, the image is impressive in multiple criteria. Razor-sharp and displaying the kind of detail one rarely glimpses outside of the top tier, *the only marks against the picture quality are the subdued colors and the less than spectacular compression. The AVC encode appears slightly comprised by having to include both the normal cut and the 3-D version on a single BD-50. The average video bitrate of 16 Mbps lowers the overall fidelity just a tad in comparison to the original master, with touches of banding.*
> 
> *One also gets the feeling that resolution in various backgrounds is diminished slightly because of the generally low encoding-parameters, an effect I have coined compression haze to represent the loss of general detail from low-bitrate encodings.* But only a viewer on the largest displays will notice the problem, so in all consideration it does not have a significant impact on the final assessment.
> 
> 
> Contrast is pitch-perfect and throughout the movie shows striking black levels. Shadow detail and delineation are superb in clearly revealing every nook and cranny of the mine and set design. As stated earlier the picture leans toward grayish tones, particularly during the slasher sequences. The normal 2-D film has excellent dimensionality and presence. It is apparent the film was shot for maximum pop and depth, likely a side-effect of filming for a 3-D release.
> 
> 
> BDInfo scan of 2-D version (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post17555165



I haven't seen this one (and have no plans to) but it's not obvious how the bolded comments are consistent with the ranking in Tier 1.25.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18037924
> 
> 
> I looked back at my own review and noted some significant motion blur. I don't really remember the transfer all that well, but did you have the same issue?



Not to any significant degree, but my comments were only regarding the 2-D version. What you refer to as motion blur might very well be what I saw in the special effects, where some obvious liberties were taken with the action. The CGI did stick out a bit, as it looked like many of the slasher sequences had been digitally altered. Sometimes it worked and sometimes it did not, from a visual perspective. Motion blur might have been a result of that process.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/18038445
> 
> 
> I haven't seen this one (and have no plans to) but it's not obvious how the bolded comments are consistent with the ranking in Tier 1.25.



I was too loose with my words, possibly implying the compression looked like a typical WB job. Resolution and detail are both incredibly strong compared against most other Blu-rays. I just felt a superior encode could have brought out even more detail in the film. We are possibly talking a ranking in the lower rungs of tier zero, if say a different studio had encoded the video in the thirties instead of the teens we got. At least that is my speculation. I am probably tougher on compression issues than most other viewers, as I hate to see the bandwidth potential of Blu-ray wasted.


----------



## wxman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18019352
> 
> *Surrogates*
> 
> 
> As mentioned by Gamereviewgod, this was a tough one to rate due to its director-intended waxy/filtered/soft facial presentation. Unfortunately, the smudgy look was not confined to surrogate faces. Surroundings, and the world itself, inherited this look. Blacks were crushed and contrast did not reveal well-delineated objects. Low-light details were almost non-existent (specially in the rave).
> 
> 
> Now, fast-forward to when Bruce Willis abandoned his surrogate. The overall look changes and there is better color, black levels, and contrast. Facial details were better rendered and skin tones spot on. Medium scenes also improved in its dimensionality.
> 
> 
> Even with the intended look of the waxy faces, I felt good blu-ray PQ would at least reveal the cakey make-up to achieve the look. But, there was also filtering and intended softness involved that prevented this. Therefore, I will take off points.
> 
> 
> I would easily place the first part of the feature in low Tier Copper, while the latter in high Silver.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.75*
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_



I would agree with your placement. I watched Surrogates last night and Mongol tonight. Mongol's PQ was much better than Surrogates. If Mongol is rated 1.5, Surrogates at best is 3.75.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18037799
> 
> *My Bloody Valentine (2009)
> 
> recommendation: Tier 1.25*
> 
> 
> The AVC encode appears slightly comprised by having to include both the normal cut and the 3-D version on a single BD-50. The average video bitrate of 16 Mbps lowers the overall fidelity just a tad in comparison to the original master, with touches of banding.
> 
> 
> One also gets the feeling that resolution in various backgrounds is diminished slightly because of the generally low encoding-parameters, an effect I have coined compression haze to represent the loss of general detail from low-bitrate encodings. But only a viewer on the largest displays will notice the problem, so in all consideration it does not have a significant impact on the final assessment.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18038636
> 
> 
> I am probably tougher on compression issues than most other viewers, as I hate to see the bandwidth potential of Blu-ray wasted.



I know this is common belief these days - using more of the disc would yield better PQ, but I don't know if I'm sold. I recall a few examples of low bit rate BRs that look better than higher bit rate ones. Is there irrefutable evidence that higher bit rates produce better quality PQ?


Obviously, the converse is true. Compress the picture even more and you get more issues. But maybe there's a point of diminishing returns also in going higher. Maybe to properly improve upon the picture requires a certain amount of space that is not available on the disc. I.e., they can increase the bit rate x amount that would eat up the available space, but to really improve the picture requires nx which requires more than the total free space left. And anything between nx and x does not do much improvement. Sort of like megapixels on a digital camera - going from 8MP to 10MP doesn't really improve much, but 8MP to 16MP does.


It's obviously late and I'm probably not making sense, but have yet to see using up all available disc space as a definitel improvement. Sure, there are a lot of examples but examples don't prove it. The moment I find a contradiction (i.e., a low bit rate movie that has superb PQ and no compression issues), the theory is blown.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*South Park: Bigger, Longer, Uncut*


This one will probably never rank high, but for the first half, it is a fairly capable transfer. You can pick up the intended texture that makes it look like it was made out of construction paper. Sharpness is generally strong. Colors are quite saturated and bold to great effect.


To that effect, despite the lack of really high fidelity detail, I would have no problem seeing this in Tier 2. However, something goes terribly wrong in the second half. Out of the blue, artificial sharpening becomes evident, leading to significant ringing. It starts when the boys start looking around the internet, and runs through the entire USO show. What a shame.
*Tier 3.5*


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18039252
> 
> 
> I know this is common belief these days - using more of the disc would yield better PQ, but I don't know if I'm sold. I recall a few examples of low bit rate BRs that look better than higher bit rate ones. Is there irrefutable evidence that higher bit rates produce better quality PQ?
> 
> 
> It's obviously late and I'm probably not making sense, but have yet to see using up all available disc space as a definitel improvement. Sure, there are a lot of examples but examples don't prove it. The moment I find a contradiction (i.e., a low bit rate movie that has superb PQ and no compression issues), the theory is blown.



It depends on what type of material is being compressed. My main concern is always the Blu-ray's picture being as transparent as possible to the source material. That means absolutely no artifacting and a flawless reproduction of the master that would be indistinguishable at a viewing distance of one screen-length. There is a point where diminishing returns set in, but it clearly varies according to how much entropy the original source contains.


Live-action movies shot on film or video almost always require substantial bitrates, to extract the full amount of possible resolution to Blu-ray that a Digital Intermediate or HD-master contains. Pure CGI obviously compresses easier than film. A fully transparent encode for Blu-ray from a digital source like that can be easily reached in the twenties, like many of Pixar's discs. But actual film needs much higher bitrates to replicate the look of grain and celluloid on Blu-ray, given careful and demanding scrutiny. Film-based movies look their best with video bitrates in the thirties, in my experience with the Blu-ray format.


How do I know this? At this point I have watched around 1,000 Blu-rays, and carefully followed the numbers. No credible compressionist, unless they had an agenda like the Microsoft people during the format war, would argue bitrates in the teens replicates the source completely at the distances I mentioned. This does not mean every encode at 35 Mbps looks good, because compression is just one factor. The quality and resolution of the master is also paramount, and can vary as much as the compression. Older HD-masters that were made on aging telecine machines a few years ago almost always show less detail and overall resolution than a modern transfer when brought out on Blu-ray. That is why many catalog titles end up looking less than impressive. If someone did a study of the titles in the top two tiers, I suspect a majority of them would be sourced from Digital Intermediates. Hence how some of the low-bitrate encodes can still look very good, even though the compression could be further optimized. The only time that low-bitrate encodes may be optimal is when the compressionist has hand-tweaked the video.


A few of the early HD DVD-encodes are like this, because Microsoft was throwing money around hoping to push VC-1. But that was not a workable model once the studios started releasing a large quantity of movies. Re-encoding movies and tweaking them costs both time and money, something which does not happen if they set the initial bitrates high enough. The best compression results would be a high-bitrate encoding that has also been gone over with a fine-tooth comb for problems, and then tweaked. But I suspect the costs of that are something the studios rarely try except on a handful of titles.


----------



## nick2010




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/18019413
> 
> *Pixar Short Films: Vol. 1*
> 
> 
> Considering this collection spans several decades of computer animation technology, the results are quite mixed. The more recent stuff is solid tier 0 quality, but the then-groundbreaking 80s shorts are very crude looking now and clearly sourced from film prints rather than digital images. Makes one wonder if films like Wall-E and Up will look similarly simplistic in another 25 years. I think the superb PQ qualities of the recent work offset the earlier stuff to a greater degree than the current tier 3 placement, and the historical context makes the look of the older films less offensive than it would be otherwise.
> 
> *Tier 2.25*



I agree, a while ago I made a list of each short film and the tier rating I would assign and found that the average was Tier 2.25-2.5. However, the BD was only moved up to Tier 3.0.


----------



## Human Bean




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18037799
> 
> *My Bloody Valentine (2009)
> 
> recommendation: Tier 1.25*
> 
> [...] The average video bitrate of 16 Mbps lowers the overall fidelity just a tad in comparison to the original master, with touches of banding [...]



Um, have you seen the original master? If not, your statement of fact should have been phrased as an opinion.


Just looking for clarity of language.


[OT: Just got BR playback on my Win7 system; ratings to follow]


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Human Bean* /forum/post/18044464
> 
> 
> Um, have you seen the original master? If not, your statement of fact should have been phrased as an opinion.
> 
> 
> Just looking for clarity of language.



No I have not, but only a small handful of people that have directly worked on the Digital Intermediate for it can claim to have direct knowledge of what the master looks like.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Point Break*


Eww... what a flat, murky transfer this one is. Colors are bland, flesh tones are pale, blacks are gray, and detail is around nill.


Grain is typically under control with the exception of a spike around the six-minute mark. No intrusive edge enhancement or DNR noted thankfully, but maybe a re-master is in order here.
*Tier 3.25*


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Human Bean* /forum/post/18044464
> 
> 
> Um, have you seen the original master? If not, your statement of fact should have been phrased as an opinion.
> 
> 
> Just looking for clarity of language.
> 
> 
> [OT: Just got BR playback on my Win7 system; ratings to follow]



As Phantom said, very few actually have seen the master. We more or less try to point out obvious flaws that were a result of tinkering with the original source, which in turn produces a lesser quality Blu-ray. If you can't detect any, then it is probably a much more faithful transfer. There is a separate thread for discussing preservation of artistic intent and so forth, if you are more concerned with that, but for the purposes of this thread, anytime something is obviously altered, it hurts the final review score.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*All The Boys Love Mandy Lane (UK Import)


recommendation: Tier 4.5*


It is hard to say how an American production ends up only getting released on Blu-ray in Europe. This region-free disc by Optimum presents the 90-minute movie on a BD-25 with a DTS-HD MA soundtrack. The video is encoded in AVC at an average bitrate of 27.80 Mbps.


Like I have said in the past, not every high-bitrate encoding means the picture quality is automatically stellar. The teen-slasher film looks as soft and diffuse as any modern film of the past decade that I have personally watched. Checking IMDB, the credits from there list the movie as being shot on 35mm film in the Super35 format. If so, the results are very poor for picture quality. Any scene in dim or no light quickly loses most layers of shadow detail, giving no sense of delineation or depth. On top of that the image gets overwhelmed at times with noise. Normally-lit scenes show issues with the contrast, as moderate levels of black crush are frequent.


The compression handles the rough, gritty picture quite fine aside from one instance of posterization near the end. The transfer appears to be a correct representation of the original photography without added processing. That original shooting just appears to have been done on a very low budget, with some questionable camerawork to compound the problem. When first watching the movie, I felt it must have been shot on 16mm film. Maybe the director of photography was paying homage to the original _Texas Chainsaw Massacre_ with the cinematography, I thought. But too many questionable lighting choices and out-of-focus moments happened for me to allow for that possibility. This film must look awful on dvd, with the dense grain and the oppressive black levels.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...6#post16954786


----------



## 42041

*March of the Penguins
*

That this is an early Warner release should tell you most of what you need to know. Things start on shakey ground with this being filmed on super16, leading to a very low level of clarity and heavy grain. And this disc doesn't seem to be sourced from a fancy digital intermediate judging by all the debris on the print. There are weird color halos around many objects... maybe some kind of photochemical side effect of filming in such cold? I don't know. Compression is just awful, no other way to describe it. Mush, color banding, and frozen DNRed noise everywhere.


The 1950 WB animated short on the same disc looks considerably better. Go figure.

*Tier 4.25
*

(PS3/Kuro 50" Elite/1 screen width distance)


----------



## lgans316

*Watchmen (DC) | AVC | Paramount (UK Import)* - Tier 1.5

*Watchmen (DC) | VC-1 | Warner* - Tier 1.75

*I am Legend (Ultimate Collector's Edition)* - Identical encode, the cuts are just split into 2 discs with one disc featuring new extras. Shame on you lazy Warner. Can be placed in the slot where the first release belongs.









*The Hangover | VC-1 | Warner - Tier 2.75* - One of the worst PQ for a new and famous title.









*Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince | VC-1 | Warner - Tier 2.75*


----------



## dla26

*Grease - Rockin' Rydell Edition*


Overall, I was very impressed with the transfer. When I bought this, I was concerned that it would look like a 30+ year old movie with some artifacts of a damaged original master. (On a side note, realizing that this movie is over 30 years old makes me feel very, very old.







) Instead, the entire film looked great, even by today's standards. To be clear, I'm writing this review from the perspective of today's standards without taking into account the handicap of being essentially a restoration.


Very little film grain, which almost gave it a digital looking effect. Colors popped without being oversaturated. Skin tones looked spot on. Most scenes were very clear and detailed, maxing out at about Tier 1.5 quality, but there were enough scenes that appeared soft that it knocked my rating down a bit. The first scene where I really noticed it was during the song, "Hopelessly Devoted to You." At first I thought it could be deliberate to have Olivia Newton-John in soft focus for effect, but then I noticed the same problem during "Greased Lightning" which had less romantic overtones.









*Tier 2.0*_Viewed from approx. 12' on a 120" diagonal Firehawk screen with JVC RS1 projector._


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Zombieland*


Wow. Shot digitally, you'd never know it. This looks so rich and detailed, not to mention consistently so, that this is one of the best live action transfers in some time.


Long shots are stunning, with individual weeds on the side of a hill perfectly defined. Not an ounce of noise, the darker scenes perform admirably, and black levels are beautifully rich. Colors are saturated perfectly, keeping flesh tones accurate and environments loaded with pop.


Razor sharp throughout, tons of facial textures, and crystal clear. Near perfection, with a scene in a haunted house appearing slightly murky. That's nitpicking.

*Tier 0.5*


----------



## vpn75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/18053304
> 
> 
> *The Hangover | VC-1 | Warner - Tier 2.75* - One of the worst PQ for a new and famous title.



I watched "The Hangover" last night and thought it looked quite good, especially for a comedy. I would rate it no worse than *tier 2.5*.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vpn75* /forum/post/18055965
> 
> 
> I watched "The Hangover" last night and thought it looked quite good, especially for a comedy. What were your objections with the PQ?



Probably the same issues I had with it. Soft, lack of any real textures, some ringing/aliasing, and the low bitrate can cause issues with the grain structure.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/18053304
> 
> *I am Legend (Ultimate Collector's Edition)* - Identical encode, the cuts are just split into 2 discs with one disc featuring new extras. Shame on you lazy Warner. Can be placed in the slot where the first release belongs.



The encodes are not identical. The Ultimate edition is sourced from the same master that was used for the first Blu-ray, but Warner Bros. actually spent the money in this case and authored entirely new encodes. A very rare exception to WB's standard practices, as the number of titles they have re-authored on Blu-ray can be counted with one hand.


I bet many people here are not aware there are actually two versions of _The Fugitive_ floating around on Blu-ray. The initial MPEG-2 release which is currently ranked in tier five, and a silent reissue featuring VC-1 as the codec of choice. I have been meaning for awhile to review the VC-1 version here, as I own it.


----------



## lgans316

Phantom,


If the encodes aren't identical, how come the bit rates matched with the initial release? I am confident that the theatrical cut is an identical encode.


Let me give another spin and revert.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Love Happens*

Wow. This one is a stunner. Seattle has never looked like this. The opening establishing shot of the city may be one of the most detailed, razor sharp city pans I've ever seen, and that's after a truly awesome opening on a close-up of lemons.


Detail drops, such as the hookah bar, are enough to drop this slightly. Facial textures are typically spectacular and defined. Warm, saturated colors carry enormous pop. No compression are noted. Environments are always incredibly detailed and razor sharp. Great blacks, and bright contrast.

*Tier 1.0*


Terrible, awful, painfully bad movie though.


----------



## Mr.G

*My Best Friend's Wedding (UK import)*


While the quality is not 'heads and shoulders' above the DVD version it is certainly an improvement. After watching this Blu-ray I compared a few scenes to the DVD, but this was not a direct apples to oranges comparison since my Sony BDP-350 player was up-scaling the DVD video to 1080p. But even on that basis the Blu-ray version was clearly superior. I could not see any DNR or EE in the mastering to Blu-ray, if it was there I could not detect it on my 120" front projection screen. I was hoping for a snappier picture with more color pop but the general quality was somewhat flat. Close-ups showed good details such as complexions, hair and other facial features. Objects in the background were better resolved with the Blu-ray versus the up-scaled DVD. This film has been postponed in the USA since September 2008 but some rumors indicate a possible release in May 2010.


Video Resolution/Codec: 1080p/AVC MPEG-4 (Feature) - 480p/i/MPEG-2 (Supplements Only)

*Tier 2.75*


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/18058348
> 
> 
> If the encodes aren't identical, how come the bit rates matched with the initial release? I am confident that the theatrical cut is an identical encode.



Do you have a link or place where we could look at the BDInfo scan for the Ultimate edition? I remember comparing it to the original edition (the BDInfo scan for the first release can be found on the first page of Cinema Squid's specifications thread) and the numbers being different. A few of the reviews even mention the bump in video bitrates. But a little searching of the forum here got me nowhere finding the scan. Maybe another site had it?


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18064892
> 
> 
> Do you have a link or place where we could look at the BDInfo scan for the Ultimate edition? I remember comparing it to the original edition (the BDInfo scan for the first release can be found on the first page of Cinema Squid's specifications thread) and the numbers being different. A few of the reviews even mention the bump in video bitrates. But a little searching of the forum here got me nowhere finding the scan. Maybe another site had it?



Don't have the link to the BDInfo scan for the UCE.










I did a decent comparison of the bit rates. Here is my analysis:


1. Alternate cut - Sampled few scenes. Can confirm that this one is an identical encode. Menu and the bit rates match the previous release.


2. Theatrical cut - I got this wrong the first time. This is a different encode. The daylight scenes are encoded at 2-4 Mbps higher bit rate but the bit rates during some of the night sequences are lower than the previous release. The theatrical cut features a decent looking BD-J menu with more subs/dubs than the previous release. I never saw the bit rate jump above 32 Mbps in the scenes I sampled. Guess this release might be encoded at an average bit rate of 18-20 Mbps.


----------



## Mr.G

*Signs (2002)*


I watched this last night and although I felt the sound field on this BD was reference quality sadly the video is not. I don't think the culprit is the mastering but rather the source. The daytime scenes looked fine but the nighttime scenes (where much of the movie takes place) looked flat and color muted, because of this the blacks looked crushed and lacking in depth. This title is already listed in the 3.0 tier and see no reason to recommend a different rating.

*Tier 3.0*


----------



## jedimasterchad

Zombieland


This is really a great looking movie throughout. Background detail was excellent, texture was great on nearly every object. I felt as though some shots were just a tad fuzzy, especially when viewing a gore shot from a distance, i.e., when the zombie fell off the ride at the end and hit the ground. Interior shots were excellent throughout, especially the scene where they destroy the gift shop, with glass and shards of breakable objects rendered in exquisite slow motion detail (although not nearly as nice as similar slow-mo from The Hurt Locker). Facial details were evident, but not as sharp as in Crank 2, for instance.


The colors were saturated nicely, but the film had an overall darker tone, almost like a black and white, with certain colors accentuated. The movie poster is a great example, of a mostly black and white image, with some minor color creeping in to the characters faces and clothes, and a vibrant "Zombieland" logo. This style is seen throughout the movie in various scenes. In others, such as the grocery store, full color shots look great, with near perfect lighting giving the scene a great sense of depth. The darker stuff can be pretty flat at times, but still overall turned out quite nicely. The aforementioned haunted house scene was the weakest scene visually, and it still wasn't terrible.


Overall, I was very pleased with the PQ but I do not think it quite matches up to the best of the best. A little sharper on facial details and the exclusion of some very minor soft focus would put this into the top tier, but as it is, as GRG mentioned, still the best live-action transfer in some time.

Tier Recommendation: 1.0


I have to mention, I really enjoyed this movie. I didn't get to see it in theaters, and it was quite a bit funnier than I expected. I wasn't quite sure what to expect, except perhaps another B movie with zombies, but I was pleasantly surprised at how this turned out. Woody Harrelson turned in a great performance, and he shined as the perfect opposite to Jesse, and the banter that these two had on screen was very entertaining. I also liked the presentation (if you want to call it that) of the movie, it was something that was totally different and worked very well. Some of the comedy might be missed by some, but the jokes and parodies you catch will have you laughing out loud. Oddly, everyone at work mentioned Bill Murray's work as the best part of the movie, but I actually thought that was pretty lackluster (although, the 3 of them playing Ghostbusters in the house was pretty good). Overall, a great Blu-Ray. I rented this one, but I will soon be adding it to my collection.


----------



## djoberg

*Love Happens*


This would NOT have been my first choice for a Blu-ray viewing after an almost two week hiatus of movie watching, but I felt I owed it to my wife to rent a "chick flick" upon returning home from a 11-day business trip. The movie was incredibly sappy, but the PQ was very good!


I don't have too much to add to Gamereviewgod's review, for I concur with his sentiments wholeheartedly. Colors were exceptionally vivid, blacks were nice and inky with accompanying razor-sharp shadow details, contrast was off-the-charts, and detail and depth left me drooling at times. This is definitely demo material, though it didn't quite rise to reference quality.


I'm anxious to slip _Surrogates_ into my Pioneer player, so I'll get down to business by echoing Gamereviewgod's placement of....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0*


Samsung LN40B750 LCD...Panasonic BD30...Viewed from 6'


PS My wife prefers watching Bu-rays on our smaller set, but I'm moving downstairs to watch _Surrogates_ on the 60" KURO. (Love in a marriage means being willing to compromise one's own desires at times







)


----------



## djoberg

*Surrogates*


I must confess at the outset that I am very surprised by the former reviews of my colleagues (Gamereviewgod---3.25....deltasun---3.75), for I was more than pleased with what _my eyes_ saw. IMO this title deserves at least a Tier 2 placement, if not higher.


Yes, there were the _waxy_ faces on all surrogates, but this was intentional and marked them out as such. To those who believe DNR was applied in order to achieve this look, it appears this is not the case. The director himself (Jonathan Mostow), in an interview, implied that it was not used. He also stated that he purposely used a 35mm camera throughout and wanted to preserve the layer of grain that is plainly seen in many scenes. In view of this, one could hardly penalize the title for lack of detail on the faces of surrogates; they were *meant* to look just like they did (i.e., soft and waxy).


There was a _stylized_ look, especially in the first half where surrogates dominated most every scene, but even here the colors were bold and vivid and contrast was strong.


Flesh tones were natural and spot on in every close up of human faces and we are treated to some high Tier 0 material in quite a few of them (two notable examples are at the 20:28 mark featuring James Cromwell and at the 44:09 mark featuring Ving Rhames). Many, and I mean MANY, close-ups of Bruce Willis display every stubble, wrinkle, cut, etc. and they too would qualify for Tier 0 or a high Tier 1.


Blacks were VERY DEEP and IMPRESSIVE on my KURO, though there were some instances of crushed blacks (and thus a loss of shadow detail).


For reasons other than those expressed by my peers alluded to above, this was also a hard one to call for me. But all-in-all it was filled with enough eye candy to sit on the border of the demo tier, so my vote is for.....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75 or 2.0*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)...Pioneer Elite BDP-05...Viewed from 8'


----------



## deltasun

*Zombieland*


Been really busy, guys, so keeping this short. My experience is similar to the jedi master in that the faces were not impressive at all. I believe this limitation is due to the medium used. I also didn't care for the somewhat darker tone - almost as if the white balance was off.


Details on the other hand was ample, almost up to infinity. You can look around the framing and find excellent details all around. Blacks were surprisingly decent, but shadow details were just above average.


In the end, I don't think this topped _Iron Man_ in Tier 1.75.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Event Horizon*


Yuck. Tons of edge enhancement here, including an early shot of Sam Neil shaving where he clearly has a thick halo around his entire body. Grain is unnatural, robbing long shots but is does pretty well at preserving decent detail in close.


This has been stretched vertically, more apparent in some scenes than others. Black levels are solid with minimal crush. Some flickering on grates and helmets is distracting, and the source needs some work given the amount of specks flying around.

*Completely* disagree with the current placement which has it at 1.5.

*Tier 3.0*


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Yes, there were the waxy faces on all surrogates, but this was intentional and marked them out as such. To those who believe DNR was applied in order to achieve this look, it appears this is not the case. The director himself (Jonathan Mostow), in an interview, implied that it was not used. He also stated that he purposely used a 35mm camera throughout and wanted to preserve the layer of grain that is plainly seen in many scenes. In view of this, one could hardly penalize the title for lack of detail on the faces of surrogates; they were *meant* to look just like they did (i.e., soft and waxy).



I don't what was used to give them the look. All I know is that it completely took me out of the movie because of the obviously digital quality of it. It's likely a CG effect, and since we're looking for eye candy, this is the furthest thing from it, intentional or not.


The completely whacked out colors and black crush just pushed it further down the tier scale for me.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18080127
> 
> 
> I don't what was used to give them the look. *All I know is that it completely took me out of the movie because of the obviously digital quality of it.* It's likely a CG effect, and since we're looking for eye candy, this is the furthest thing from it, intentional or not.
> 
> *The completely whacked out colors* and black crush just pushed it further down the tier scale for me.



First of all, the "digital quality" did NOT "take me out of the movie," and quite frankly I'm surprised it had that effect on you. You are reviewing movies constantly that have CGI and other digital effects (such as the Transformers series with the CGI robots and the Terminator series with similar digital processing; do these "take you out of the movie" as well? Or what about movies like Beverly Hills Chihuahua with the CGI "talking dogs"; does this "take you out of the movie"? I'm not trying to be contentious here; I'm just wondering how CGI, which has been around for so long and is employed in so many movies, bothers you in this movie _if_ (I stress the word *if* because I'm assuming you haven't been bothered by all CGI movies like you were in Surrogates, but I could be wrong) they don't bother you in others.


As for the "completely whacked out colors," I didn't think they were that bad, at least not for the majority of the movie.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18080520
> 
> 
> I'm not trying to be contentious here; I'm just wondering how CGI, which has been around for so long and is employed in so many movies, bothers you in this movie _if_ (I stress the word *if* because I'm assuming you haven't been bothered by all CGI movies like you were in Surrogates, but I could be wrong) they don't bother you in others.



Because the CG in Transformers didn't turn people's faces into blobs of color. In Surrogates, it was poor effect, no different than some cheap, low budget CG affair which yes, would also pull me out of the movie. There is a wide gap in the quality of CG, and Surrogates falls on the lower end. The "young" Bruce Willis was just flat out creepy to me.


----------



## ivanvt

Hi all


This is my first post in what it seems to be a controversial thread.


Ive been using HDTV for quite a while coming from Samsung HDTV CRT, Polaroid LCD Full HP, Hitashi Plasma Directors Edition, Phillips 47PFL7704 and now a Sharp 52E77UN, all of them have been calibrated using THX DVD Certified Discs, DVE and lately DVE Blu-ray edition.


Since the first time i came across this thread ive seen 6 TIER 0 movies and a lot of the rest TIERS, i could not agree more on the TIER 0 movies ive seen, they look absolutely fabolous especially the ones like CARS, BUG LIFE and so on, however but i dont agree on the position of Casino Royale there are a lot

of irregularities on the film and i would lower the calification to TIER 2.25


The set where i watch blu ray is a sharp 52E77UN from a viewing distance of 7 Feet.


My source is a PS3 connected directly to the TV using HDMI (previously it was connected to a Reveiver Yamaha 663 but it was clipping) PS3 configured s Super White ON, RGB Full.


Regards.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18080858
> 
> 
> The "young" Bruce Willis was just flat out creepy to me.



Now THAT we can agree on!


----------



## trinifox

Question: Does Q vary by release / market? Eg. have you see variation in Q between X blu-ray single disc & X blu-ray 10 disc super platinum limited edition with a t-shirt release? Exaggeration obviously but you get the idea. What about NA releases vs EU releases of the exact format & title.


----------



## deltasun

*Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs*


Though not as detailed and rich as some of the better Pixar titles in Tier 0, this title still finds a place in high Tier Gold. Colors were usually on the dark side but still contained good detail when called for. I say "called for" because it seems some scenes were a bit lacking on purpose, specially longer shots. Medium shots, on the other hand, are usually filled with textural nuances that sparkle on blu-ray.


I think the biggest drawback of the film is its lack of in-your-face oomph. Sure, there are no glaring faults, but there is no pop either, 3D or otherwise. Faces were clear and detailed, but did not show texture. Blacks were decent; contrast perfect. Shadow details were also well-defined.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.0*


I thought this was an entertaining feature and definitely worth a rental.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## deltasun

*Glory*


Fine to moderate layer of grain present. This presentation had a film-like look to it with only a handful of scenes exhibiting bothersome grain. Medium shots were generally above average in quality, specially for a film this age. Longer shots suffer quite a bit and loses a fair amount of detail. Low-lit scenes suffer as well - generally appearing flat.


Softness also creeps into medium scenes, specially as the film moves along. Black levels can be decent, with just a few instances of crushing. Contrast is a bit on the weak side at times and there are quite a bit of haziness. Flesh tones were mostly spot on, but there are some rosiness in the winter settings.


Overall, a fine presentation. While age is evident in its look, several scenes looked spectacular in HD. I did note some minor ringing in high contrast edges.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.25*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ivanvt* /forum/post/18081132
> 
> 
> Hi all
> 
> 
> This is my first post in what it seems to be a controversial thread.
> 
> 
> Since the first time i came across this thread ive seen 6 TIER 0 movies and a lot of the rest TIERS, i could not agree more on the TIER 0 movies ive seen, they look absolutely fabolous especially the ones like CARS, BUG LIFE and so on, however but i dont agree on the position of Casino Royale there are a lot
> 
> of irregularities on the film and i would lower the calification to TIER 2.25



Welcome to the thread, as new opinions on old titles are always encouraged. It is only controversial to those who do not understand the intent and purpose of the Tier List. Some do appear to have a quarrel with the system as it exists, but they tend not to articulate reasons for their venom against it.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *trinifox* /forum/post/18083058
> 
> 
> Question: Does Q vary by release / market? Eg. have you see variation in Q between X blu-ray single disc & X blu-ray 10 disc super platinum limited edition with a t-shirt release? Exaggeration obviously but you get the idea. What about NA releases vs EU releases of the exact format & title.



Yes, there are often differences in picture quality between international and domestic releases of the same movie. It often boils down to what studio or distributor is handling the release, and what type of film elements they have access to. Variations have even been seen within the same studio on a movie released in different countries.


But this phenomenon comes down to a title-by-title basis. If you search the tiers, often you will find a Blu-ray of the same movie from one country ranked differently than the U.S. disc. It can lead to intense debate and discussion. The Descent is a perfect example of this process, where the Australian Blu-ray looks completely different to the domestic one produced by Lionsgate.


----------



## 42041

*Gangs of New York (Remastered)*


Disney/BVHE may not have yet done right by the owners of the craptastic original release (though I can find only a little sympathy in myself for people who buy crap in the first place), but they have done right by this movie. Whereas the original disc had issues severe enough to severely hamper the look of the film, this new release lets you see the beautiful cinematography and intricate production design in all of its intended splendor. This new version is full of texture, detail, and rich colors, and sports a pleasingly natural appearance. Grain is retained and fairly heavy in isolated scenes.

My quibbles: dark scenes are often lit in monochromatic yellow hues and, as one may expect, are not as eye-catching as the brightly lit ones; deep shadows tend to be crushed. Occasionally distracting EE halos do pop up, but nothing more severe than what you see in many new films. Detail occasionally falters, perhaps where they weren't scanning from the original camera negative. Compression is only adequate... unfortunate considering how much space is empty on the disc. But overall, this is now a very good looking BD and worthy of your money if you like the film.


I got this from Netflix so the reports of them having replaced the old version seem to be true.

*Tier 1.5*


(PS3/Pioneer 50" Kuro Elite/1 screen width distance)


----------



## deltasun

*The Godfather*


I believe this title is mis-tiered. There are quite a bit of scenes that looked like upconverted DVD. They were soft, flat, faded, and had blown out whites and crushed blacks. The general look, while could be director-intended, was very dated and hinted of sepia. Skintones were natural in daylight, but suffered a bit indoors. Facial close-up's did not reveal any fine details. The scene in Vito's funeral was probably the best in how Micheal's face was portrayed. Grain was moderate throughout, but not too bothersome.

*Tier Recommendation: 4.0*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18080105
> 
> *Event Horizon*
> 
> 
> Yuck. Tons of edge enhancement here, including an early shot of Sam Neil shaving where he clearly has a thick halo around his entire body. Grain is unnatural, robbing long shots but is does pretty well at preserving decent detail in close.
> 
> 
> This has been stretched vertically, more apparent in some scenes than others. Black levels are solid with minimal crush. Some flickering on grates and helmets is distracting, and the source needs some work given the amount of specks flying around.
> 
> *Completely* disagree with the current placement which has it at 1.5.
> 
> *Tier 3.0*



I watched part of this when it was first released and I completely agree on the horrendous EE and the stretching. For some reason most others who commented here at the time didn't seem bothered by these severe issues.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Dances With Wolves (UK import)

recommendation: Tier 2.75*


The multiple Oscar-winner from 1990 has been released to Blu-ray in several countries, but the U.S. is not one of them yet. This region-free edition from Warner debuted on October 26, 2009 in the U.K. MGM would be the studio handling it in America, but their financial problems appear to have put a damper on an aggressive push of their catalog for the moment.


Warner has chosen to include only the theatrical cut on a single BD-50, at its standard running-time of 180-minutes. That will disappoint some folks, but not myself. The extended cut stretches out the narrative too far for my tastes, and makes the pacing questionable. It would have been nice to include the longer cut though, as the German version does. As usual for Warner, the video is encoded in VC-1. While no definitive scan could be found, the average video-bitrate is likely in the low twenties based off my casual observations.


Let me make it perfectly clear that no scenes deserve a proper score in the bottom quarter of tier two. That assessment is more an averaging of the strong outdoor material and the dark, softer interior scenes. There is a wide disparity in quality between the two types. The outstanding composition and cinematography of the outdoor scenes is preserved here in an excellent manner. Dances With Wolves looks better filmed than almost all nature documentaries, showcasing frequent panoramic shots of the Western United States that are breathtaking. These scenes are sharp with perfect color balance and contrast. While they are not the best examples of depth and dimension, the resolution and general clarity of them would generally qualify in the lower levels of tier one.


The shots at night, featuring the Indians in dim light, suffer in comparison and pose a dramatic difference in overall quality. Use of naturalistic lighting in low light reduces the contrast and maximizes the levels of visible grain. Does black crushing occur? Not really, though a tad less shadow detail appears than is normal. Softness starts creeping in at times, with a concomitant loss in fine detail and clarity. These scenes barely qualify for tier three by their nature, and more harsh commentators might push them down into tier four.


I was hoping that Warner might maximize the video encode's bitrate parameters, given only the inclusion of the theatrical version and no extra features. That thought was dashed after following the encode at times and estimating the average. The encode stays in a wide band from 11 Mbps to 33.1 Mbps. Much of the time it hovers in the teens. There are two occasions where the compression produces visible artifacting. The first notable instance is when John Dunbar encounters the buffaloes at night in the fog. If a human compressionist had gone over that scene, it would have been marked for re-encoding to eliminate the obvious macroblocking and posterization. The other main failing is close to the end, where it chokes on the heavy fields of film grain that mix with the snow as the Sioux leave. Most of the compression holds up quite well, but those two instances sticked out the most.


For an older catalog title, print damage is basically nil and retains pleasing color fidelity and saturation. Other than a handful of short moments where minor edge enhancement pops up, ringing is not a major concern. But some level of digital noise reduction has been thoroughly applied throughout the movie. A smidgen of high-frequency information has been removed that most will likely gloss over and not notice missing. Most, but not all of the original grain in the film has been retained to a degree. Only the pickiest of videophiles will have a cause to complain.


Is this a solid release for picture quality? It looks very much like many of the secondary releases from Warner in that regard. The MGM release by Fox is likely to surpass it for the purposes of the Tier list, but I am not holding my breath waiting around for it. There is a German Blu-ray, but my understanding is that it is region-locked. In all consideration it is a decent Blu-ray that has occasional moments of visual brilliance.


The upgrade over the older dvds for the British disc is stunning, particularly during the scenes on the Western plains. A cautious placement in the lowest quarter of tier two appears reasonable, though I imagine there will be a wide range of opinions when others watch it. If you only watch the first hour, you will easily think my judgment is too severe.


----------



## Mr.G




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17742201
> 
> 
> I just saw _Red Cliff: Part 2_ and I remain confident that this too will easily qualify for Tier 0 (I recommend the same placement I gave for Part 1). Though there was a lengthy scene that appeared soft because of fog, the rest of the movie had the same amazing depth and detail as Part 1.
> 
> 
> I noticed two big differences between Part 1 and Part 2. Part 1 had more daytime scenes and with them more color. But Part 2 had an exceptional nighttime scene (with a running time of perhaps 30-45 minutes...the last epic battle scene) with very deep and inky blacks (the KURO and other displays that excel in blacks were made for scenes like these!!) and equally impressive shadow details.
> 
> 
> I would join Phantom in recommending the UK Import version of this movie. Not only is the PQ worth the relatively small price you would pay, but the movie itself is quite compelling. Though the two parts have a running time of 286 minutes, the storyline (with its fascinating culture), fairly good acting, and epic battle scenes kept my attention throughout.


*Red Cliff [Special Edition][UK Import] [2008]*


Let me join Phantom and djoberg in ranking this UK import title as reference as well. I finished watching this (286 minute) two-part epic last night. John Woo is back on track and this movie clearly shows his love of country and history. In addition to the excellent video this film has an aggressive soundtrack with a very active surround sound mix and deep bass. I thought the battle scenes were amazing. I purchased my copy from Amazon UK ($18.10 including shipping) since this Blu-ray will not available in the USA until March 23. It is region-free. The movie and extras played fine on my Sony S350 player. The English subtitles are burnt into the picture portion.

*Recommendation - Tier 0*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mr.G* /forum/post/18095413
> 
> *Red Cliff [Special Edition][UK Import] [2008]*
> 
> 
> Let me join Phantom and djoberg in ranking this UK import title as reference as well. I finished watching this (286 minute) two-part epic last night. John Woo is back on track and this movie clearly shows his love of country and history. In addition to the excellent video this film has an aggressive soundtrack with a very active surround sound mix and deep bass. I thought the battle scenes were amazing. I purchased my copy from Amazon UK ($18.10 including shipping) since this Blu-ray will not available in the USA until March 23. It is region-free. The movie and extras played fine on my Sony S350 player. The English subtitles are burnt into the picture portion.
> 
> *Recommendation - Tier 0*



+1


I am persuaded that ALL who make the effort to purchase this amazing transfer will join our voices with a resounding *"Yes, Tier 0 for Red Cliff"!*


Phantom, I'm still waiting for your official review.


----------



## craftech

This fell on deaf ears back when they had the HD DVD PQ hierarchy so maybe the Blu-ray people will understand this better.


Cartoons don't belong in the same category as "real" movies.


Of course they will always be in the top tier if you confuse them with real films because they don't require any real cinematography skills when they are created in a lab. No lighting problems to deal with, etc. Therefore (IMO) they should be in a separate hierarchy from "real" film transfers. Upscaled SD DVD cartoons look really good too for the same reasons.


John


----------



## deltasun

There are laborious discussions on this subject matter here (just do a search, if interested), but in the end the majority has agreed that any BR title can be compared to any other BR title for a comprehensive list.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/18086269
> 
> *Gangs of New York (Remastered)*
> 
> 
> Disney/BVHE may not have yet done right by the owners of the craptastic original release (though I can find only a little sympathy in myself for people who buy crap in the first place), but they have done right by this movie. Whereas the original disc had issues severe enough to severely hamper the look of the film, this new release lets you see the beautiful cinematography and intricate production design in all of its intended splendor. This new version is full of texture, detail, and rich colors, and sports a pleasingly natural appearance. Grain is retained and fairly heavy in isolated scenes.
> *Tier 1.5*



That sounds excellent, as I had passed on the first release due to the negative reports here and elsewhere about it. And now we get news that Gladiator will be remastered within the year. If only Fox will rectify their Patton mistake and create a new transfer.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18096013
> 
> 
> I am persuaded that ALL who make the effort to purchase this amazing transfer will join our voices with a resounding *"Yes, Tier 0 for Red Cliff"!*
> 
> 
> Phantom, I'm still waiting for your official review.



Your review happened to mirror my own thoughts so well, that it would be nothing more than a pale imitation. Red Cliff justly deserves a high placement in tier zero. Truthfully, the real reason for my procrastination with its review is that other imports in my collection are more enticing at the moment.










> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *craftech* /forum/post/18096841
> 
> 
> This fell on deaf ears back when they had the HD DVD PQ hierarchy so maybe the Blu-ray people will understand this better.
> 
> 
> Cartoons don't belong in the same category as "real" movies.



You are not the first to raise that point in this very thread. I understand the arguments for why some feel it is necessary to split the tiers into separate categories based on animation. The topic was very divisive at one point, because there are strong opinions on both sides and neither side seems to have an overwhelming majority of support.


I do not foresee a major change to the operations of the PQ tiers at this point in time as the current administrator. As Coca-Cola learned when they introduced New Coke, you do not mess with an established and popular formula. But if someone else wanted to maintain a separate Animation and Film list based off the current rankings in a new thread, I would not oppose it. This thread would go on operating business as usual. There is a risk it dilutes the value of the tiers, but repeated calls for it indicate at least a portion of the users want something different.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Cliffhanger*


Faded and flat. Those are the immediate impressions, and little changes as the movie goes on. The grain is so limited, you have to imagine some DNR has been applied, although not in an offensive way. Compared to the trailer on the disc, although it needs some restoration, flesh tones, color, grain, and black levels all look better, if not detail.


One of the final scenes, the infamous moment where Stallone pops out of the ice with a short sleeve shirt, looks great. Superb texture on the ice. Some artificial brightening is evident given the grain spikes/noise in the blacks. Colors are flat, and fine detail is odd, showing up on half of the actors faces, but not the other half. Weird, tough call, but going to go with:
*Tier 3.25*


----------



## jedimasterchad

*Surrogates*


Thought I would chime in on this one, as I wanted to see it anyway and the scores were pretty mixed on here. After going back and checking the other scores, I think I am more inclined to agree with djoberg on this one. This movie was pretty vivid, with quite a fair bit of pop in most scenes. Waxy surrogate faces aside, the movie looked generally quite good. I had a few instances of black crush as well, mostly in interior shots such as when Bruce Willis is making his way around the mansion. The CGI was not overbearing, and I felt that it didn't detract from my enjoyment of the film the way others have mentioned.


Flesh tones were good, but I felt the facial details of non-surrogates were a high Tier 1 at best, with the exception of one particular shot of James Cromwell when he is crying in his chair, which is easily a great tier 0 amount of detail. Medium depth detail was pretty good, but not as good as, say, Zombieland, which I just reviewed, but it was still solid, and probably a consistent low tier 1 throughout. I mention consistent, and for the most part the film stayed true to its intended look for the entire duration. There was no jumping around of quality, and the only knock on quality I totally agree with is the surrogate faces, which as we know was meant to be.


I was not overly impressed with everything, but it was solid, and it definitely is better than a 3.25 or 3.75 rating. I think dj was much closer with his assessment at 2.0, due to the few great face shots being cancelled out by the abundance of smooth ones...for purposes of this thread though, it is a solid title that at times dips into demo quality but remains a solid tier 2 or 2.25 at worst, IMO.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


Viewed on a Panasonic TC-P54G10 (new fixed THX mode), PS3 via HDMI @1080p/24.


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *craftech* /forum/post/18096841
> 
> 
> Cartoons don't belong in the same category as "real" movies.



Exactly!


Animated films should be separated because they are true works of art - painstakingly assembled from a completely blank digital canvas metaphorical brush-stroke by brush-stroke over a period of many years and typically involving hundreds of insanely talented artists. It's hardly fair to those cheap, antiquated "realies" created by a couple beer-swilling guys rolling around with Red One cameras on skateboards or, even worse, some stone-age team of old men capturing a bunch of overpaid actors lounging lazily and hamming it up in front of the juddery flicker of 35mm for a mere couple months of simple photography and editing.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/18097857
> 
> 
> Exactly!
> 
> 
> Animated films should be separated because they are true works of art - painstakingly assembled from a completely blank digital canvas metaphorical brush-stroke by brush-stroke over a period of many years and typically involving hundreds of insanely talented artists. It's hardly fair to those cheap, antiquated "realies" created by a couple beer-swilling guys rolling around with Red One cameras on skateboards or, even worse, some stone-age team of old men capturing a bunch of overpaid actors lounging lazily and hamming it up in front of the juddery flicker of 35mm for a mere couple months of simple photography and editing.



+1
























I'll be back on the scene in a few. I've replaced my 46 inch Samsung LCD with a brand new Panasonic 50 inch V10!









As soon as the break-in period has expired, I'll play a little catch up!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/18097857
> 
> 
> Exactly!
> 
> 
> Animated films should be separated because they are true works of art - painstakingly assembled from a completely blank digital canvas metaphorical brush-stroke by brush-stroke over a period of many years and typically involving hundreds of insanely talented artists. It's hardly fair to those cheap, antiquated "realies" created by a couple beer-swilling guys rolling around with Red One cameras on skateboards or, even worse, some stone-age team of old men capturing a bunch of overpaid actors lounging lazily and hamming it up in front of the juddery flicker of 35mm for a mere couple months of simple photography and editing.



LOL!


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/18097954
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll be back on the scene in a few. I've replaced my 46 inch Samsung LCD with a brand new Panasonic 50 inch V10!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as the break-in period has expired, I'll play a little catch up!



Congrats. I replaced my Samsung LCD with a Pioneer plasma last year and I couldn't be happier with the decision. Not perfect for everything perhaps, but hard to beat for watching films.

Though I would suggest breaking in with 1.78:1 content, not test patterns. Much more fun that way.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/18097857
> 
> 
> Exactly!
> 
> 
> Animated films should be separated because they are true works of art - painstakingly assembled from a completely blank digital canvas metaphorical brush-stroke by brush-stroke over a period of many years and typically involving hundreds of insanely talented artists. It's hardly fair to those cheap, antiquated "realies" created by a couple beer-swilling guys rolling around with Red One cameras on skateboards or, even worse, some stone-age team of old men capturing a bunch of overpaid actors lounging lazily and hamming it up in front of the juddery flicker of 35mm for a mere couple months of simple photography and editing.



Classic!


----------



## djoberg

*Amelia*


Okay, the bottom line on this one is: *the movie sucks, but the PQ rocks!!*


We have another "demo-worthy" title with this one, with gorgeous colors, amazing detail and depth, inky blacks and phenomenal shadow details...a very sharp transfer (generally speaking) from beginning to end! Even my wife was commenting on how "crisp" it was, and her commendations are usually few and far between.


This is not to say it is perfect, or even reference quality, for it had moments of softness, and I was unimpressed with its facial close-ups (a few merited a Tier 1 status, but the majority of them were average at best). This brought it down a whole tier in my estimation, and it is baffling how a transfer can have such crisp details in middle and long range shots, yet fall so short when the camera zooms in.


The cinematography was absolutely breathtaking with sweeping landscapes from around the globe (and we are treated to a plethora of them in the "around the world" flight in the last several scenes). Many of them rival the best aerial scenes in the Planet Earth series.


Before I give my recommendation, I must say that this was watched on our smaller set (Samsung LCD). I was curious to see how it looked on my KURO and to my amazement it appeared a bit softer and the colors weren't as vibrant (though to be fair I must say I only skipped through a few random scenes). It still looked VERY GOOD, but not quite as sharp. I suppose if I were to give two ratings the LCD would be a notch higher, which would be right here....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*


Samsung LN40B750 (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 6'


Edit: I should mention that the black levels were definitely better on the KURO. The Samsung has exceptional blacks for an LCD, but it still doesn't compare to a KURO.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18098177
> 
> 
> This is not to say it is perfect, or even reference quality, for it had moments of softness, and I was unimpressed with its facial close-ups (a few merited a Tier 1 status, but the majority of them were average at best). This brought it down a whole tier in my estimation, and it is baffling how a transfer can have such crisp details in middle and long range shots, yet fall so short when the camera zooms in.



I wouldn't be surprised if they were employing digital "makeup", the leads are not quite fresh-faced Hollywood newcomers...


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/18098002
> 
> 
> Congrats. I replaced my Samsung LCD with a Pioneer plasma last year and I couldn't be happier with the decision. Not perfect for everything perhaps, but hard to beat for watching films.



And here I am watching movies on a new 40" Samsung LCD instead of on my 60" KURO plasma!!







Like I intimated in a recent post, love in a marriage causes one to make serious compromises!







(Of course one can only go so far and that's why I limit this viewing to "chick flick" movies







)



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/18098241
> 
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised if they were employing digital "makeup", the leads are not quite fresh-faced Hollywood newcomers...



Yeah....with Richard Gere's ego I can easily envision him demanding digital makeup.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/18098002
> 
> 
> Though I would suggest breaking in with 1.78:1 content, not test patterns. Much more fun that way.



I'm all about fun!


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Stepfather (2009)*


Solid transfer, with the biggest problem being a hot contrast that blots out color, detail, and depth. When in check, this one looks pretty good, even with the marginal facial detail.


Colors can be bold, blacks are fine (minimal crush), sharpness is typically consistent, and some of the long shots of the house, with tons of plants/leaves, are gorgeous. Grain is intact, and there are no noticeable instances of ringing or EE.

*Tier 1.75*


----------



## djoberg

*The Time Traveler's Wife*


This is my LAST "chick flick" for the month, I promise!







I am happy to say that the story and acting was appreciably better than _Amelia_ and the PQ was just as good.


Let's start with my "first love" (i.e., black levels). They were awesome! Deep and inky in every night scene, as well as in daytime scenes with black clothing, cars, etc. A real feast for the eyes, both on the Samsung and the KURO (I watched part of it on both).


Colors were bold and natural. One location in the movie that I never tired of seeing them in was a meadow where Eric Bana would appear sporadically. The fall foliage was resplendent with gorgeous reds, greens, and yellows. Eye candy for sure!! This is just one example of many that feature warm and vibrant colors.


Skin tones were absolutely spot on (even in scenes with a golden hue). I should add here that facial close-ups still fell short of reference quality, though they were definitely better than last night's viewing (of _Amelia_).


Some scenes had remarkable depth and detail; in fact, there were times where I turned to my wife and said, "It really is like looking through a window," and she would agree (and like I said last night my wife is not very generous with her praises of high definition).


As I said at the beginning, the PQ was just as good as _Amelia_...I am tempted to rate it a notch higher because of the superior facial close-ups, but IMO it wasn't quite as sharp, so as with _Amelia_ I will cast my vote for....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)...Pioneer Elite BDP-05...Viewed from 8'


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Time Traveler's Wife*


For the most part, I concur with everything djoberg said, except on a lower tier. Facial details are great, if a bit inconsistent. The wedding and past Bana's visit to his older daughter at the zoo are incredible scenes in terms of detail.


Other scenes, not so much, including a shot around 16:50 where Bana looks completely smoothed over. Some noise is a mild issue (33:23 against the door), some ringing early that seems to disappear, and minimal black crush remain.


Everything else is spot on, but I'd place it slightly lower at:

*Tier 1.50*


I also want to throw it out there that this movie literally gave me a headache. I had to stop around the 45-minute mark to try and remotely grasp how in the hell this time travel made *any* sense. It doesn't, and with time travel, I can forgive a few gaffes because they're inevitable. By the end, I was so damn frustrated, I actually tried to find a FAQ that explained it. That didn't either. It's been a long time since I shredded a movie like this.


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18098367
> 
> 
> And here I am watching movies on a new 40" Samsung LCD instead of on my 60" KURO plasma!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I intimated in a recent post, love in a marriage causes one to make serious compromises!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Of course one can only go so far and that's why I limit this viewing to "chick flick" movies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )



If you want some shock effect Denny, try what I've just done. Watched the Species series, (all 4), only the first is on blu. Then saw two more DVDs, and saw some streaming via PC. This over the course of about 10 days. Then, threw in a Tier0 Blu. WOW, now I know why I decided to go blu. When you want your system to really hit home, just watch something else or watch some lower grade content a while. It's like day one all over.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/18107725
> 
> 
> If you want some shock effect Denny, try what I've just done. Watched the Species series, (all 4), only the first is on blu. Then saw two more DVDs, and saw some streaming via PC. This over the course of about 10 days. Then, threw in a Tier0 Blu. WOW, now I know why I decided to go blu. When you want your system to really hit home, just watch something else or watch some lower grade content a while. It's like day one all over.



I think I'll pass on this K-Spaz, though I'm quite sure the "shock effect" would be there if I tried it.







Believe me, when I see a movie on TNT, USA, or some other *HD* channel that has actually been upconverted (and stretched), and then I turn to Starz or some other dedicated HD channels with true HD movies, I experience all the "shock effect" that I care to experience.










BTW, when I mentioned the Samsung LCD versus the KURO, I didn't mean to imply that the Samsung was bad, for it actually has a very good picture. I was contrasting the *size* of the two more than anything. (Having said that, I must say the KURO definitely has the better picture, for the blacks trump the LCD by a mile, and the colors and skin tones are, by far, much more natural-looking.)


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Heathers


recommendation: Tier 4.5*


Having never seen _Heathers_ before this Blu-ray, I had little expectations for a 1989 comedy with minimal production values in the domain of picture quality. Starz has unleashed on the world the most filtered image yet seen on the format. Which does absolutely nothing for a movie lensed in a dreamy, soft-focus style that was never sharp as a tack to begin with in the source material. The level of digital noise reduction used here turns a project shot on 35mm film to something resembling a show shot on high-definition video. To top it off, the entire transfer has had the color palette wildly over-saturated to compensate, turning primary colors into a garish experience. The extreme red push alters the entire color balance of the image and disturbs the flesh tones.


The extreme magnitude of the filtering produces a Blu-ray that has no more detail than most upscaled dvds. Strangely there is no appearance of halos, indicating that particular form of digital post-processing was left alone in the transfer process. A strong effort was made in the area of compression at least. Averaging 27.97 Mbps for the video bitrate over the course of the main feature, there is a distinct absence of any artifacting problems.


Even in a hypothetical unfiltered transfer, _Heathers_ just does not look like the type of material that was ever going to rank much higher than tier 3.5 or 3.75. But I do not have any frame of reference for how the movie looks on dvd, so my words should be taken with caution for devotees of this very dark, sarcastic comedy. Though there is no doubt it fails to stand up in comparison to other Blu-rays for various attributes of picture quality.


Watching on a 60 Pioneer KURO plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a 60 GB PS3 (firmware 3.15) at a viewing distance of five feet.


BDInfo Scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post15124815


----------



## Gamepro

Alright this was asked a while ago but didn't seem to get an answer. Is the Terminator 2 ranking the original release, or the skynet edition? Is there any difference at all?


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamepro* /forum/post/18113073
> 
> 
> Alright this was asked a while ago but didn't seem to get an answer. Is the Terminator 2 ranking the original release, or the skynet edition? Is there any difference at all?


 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...ght=terminator 

skynet is the same master, but a different encode with more DNR


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Couples Retreat*


Holy underwear... some of the best color I've ever seen on this format. Bora Bora is just AWESOME to look at. The blues of the water, the lush greens of the palm trees, bright clothing, and stunning environments.


The only thing this transfer doesn't do so well is facial detail. At times, nothing is evident on faces at all, which is a shame. In close, some really well textured stuff, especially on Jean Reno. Environments are gorgeous, down to the straw on each hut. Black levels are great, and the contrast bright.

*Tier 1.25*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^


Sounds good GRG! I'll be checking this out as soon as it is released. And I'm sure G3 will be renting or buying it as soon as she can after reading about the "blues of the water."


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamepro* /forum/post/18113073
> 
> 
> Alright this was asked a while ago but didn't seem to get an answer. Is the Terminator 2 ranking the original release, or the skynet edition? Is there any difference at all?



The Terminator 2 listing in tier 4.5 is for the first, non-Skynet edition. The specifications give that away, as the Skynet BD has lossless audio. I have made it a point in my tenure as administrator to get accurate information for each movie listed. If separate versions of a movie are in the tiers, they are clearly delineated.


So if anyone wants to give a placement for the Skynet version of Terminator 2, feel free to add your opinion here, as it is unranked at the current moment.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18114844
> 
> 
> ^^^^
> 
> 
> Sounds good GRG! I'll be checking this out as soon as it is released. And I'm sure G3 will be renting or buying it as soon as she can after reading about the "blues of the water."



Reading his review made me instantly think of MAMMA MIA.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/18116660
> 
> 
> Reading his review made me instantly think of MAMMA MIA.



Me too!










I just stopped by the video store and was surprised to see _Couples Retreat_ has already been released. I thought Gamereviewgod was giving us one of his pre-release reviews. Anyway, I rented it and I'll give a review right after the viewing. I'm looking forward to some good PQ....especially those "blue waters."


----------



## deltasun

^^ Saw this in the theaters and don't feel like watching again on blu. But from what I recall, I do remember thinking to myself that the Bora Bora scenes will look good in blu. I wish it were a better comedy though.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18118252
> 
> 
> ^^ Saw this in the theaters and don't feel like watching again on blu. But from what I recall, I do remember thinking to myself that the Bora Bora scenes will look good in blu. I wish it were a better comedy though.



Yeah, although I did laugh in a few spots. The youngest kid using the toilet in the hardware store was hilarious, and Faizon Love being forced to strip was priceless, although not capitalized on very well.


Anyway, eager to hear others opinions on the video!


----------



## Hughmc

*A Serious Man*


I am heading to NY again for 10 days. I have been watching BD's and have seen several that some of you reviewed. I have seen The Stepfather, Surrogates, The Proposal, Time Traveler's Wife and a couple more. The first attempt at watching The Stepfather ended due to the opening scene and him drinking out of one of the same coffee cups I have.







It freaked me out a bit, Gibson Everyday collection, same color, same exact cup lol, but the truth is it was late and I was tired.










There does seem to be an issue with WArner and Hollywood video as the last 3 weeks they haven't gotten in any of the Warner BLu Rays they were supposed to get in. My Hollywood is not one of the ones closing, so who knows. HV still doesn't have Whiteout, Invention of Lying, Saw 6.


Last night I watched "A Serious Man". It has excellent PQ and looks to be a tier 0 candidate. Stunning 1:85:1 presentation with an opening scene that is 1:37:1. Blacks are excellent and deep. Colors are very realistic and natural and combined with the excellent PQ detail it often lends to the visual feeling of being there. There is a very slight hint of grain. This movie is a visual treat in many ways and having grown up as a child in the 60's and 70's, the film really lends to the realism of trying to portray that period. A stunning HD treat is what A Serious Man is.


I thoroughly enjoyed the story as the COens have a winner IMO. One of the best stories from last year and up for an oscar or two. Two thumbs way up. Highly recommended.

*Recommendation: Tier 0 around Prince Caspian or better.*


Hey somebody has to balance the thread out with all the tier 3 and 4 movies Phantom reviews.







I kid.... Again, it is just by default since I mostly rent and don't watch so most newer releases tend to have fairly good PQ.


----------



## djoberg

*Couples Retreat*


I ran out of time tonight for viewing the whole movie, but from what I saw I agree wholeheartedly with Gamereviewgod (except for the placement). Colors are off the charts, blacks levels are phenomenal, shadow details are exquisite, and detail/depth is demo-worthy if not reference quality. And those "blue waters" are surreal!! G3 you are in for the eye candy feast of your life!!!


I'm tired and we're leaving for Minneapolis at 7 a.m. so I'm weighing in on the placement.....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0*


Pioneer 60" Eite KURO (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite BDP-05....Viewed from 8'


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Thanks, and have a safe trip, Denny!


----------



## lt99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18119995
> 
> *Couples Retreat*
> 
> 
> I ran out of time tonight for viewing the whole movie, but from what I saw I agree wholeheartedly with Gamereviewgod (except for the placement). Colors out off the charts, blacks levels are phenomenal, shadow details are exquisite, and detail/depth is demo-worthy if not reference quality. And those "blue waters" are surreal!! G3 you are in for the eye candy feast of your life!!!
> 
> 
> I'm tired and we're leaving for Minneapolis at 7 a.m. so I'm weighing in on the placement.....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.0*
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" Eite KURO (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite BDP-05....Viewed from 8'



Totally agree with the tier recommendation.


I watched my Netflix copy last night on my Sammy 55'' 8500, the daytime scene on Bora Bora just phenomenal, the "blue waters" just 3D like, amazing!


----------



## deltasun

*The Stepfather*


Nice looking title from Sony. A healthy layer of grain yielded a very rich, filmic appearance. Rich in the way of colors and contrast. Outdoors, however, I felt the contrast waned a bit and gave way to lighter flesh tones and a brighter appearance, in general. Blacks were a mixed bag - some looked decent with minor crushing and some looked unnatural, almost plasticky.


Facial details were pretty decent, with just a handful of softness. There were a couple of ultra-close shots of Dylan Walsh's face that would qualify for Tier 0. Sela Ward's make-up can easily be noted in a number of scenes. Medium scenes showed decent depth and appropriate dimensionality.


Overall, I was pleased with the presentation. No evidence of foul play.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


I enjoyed the pacing of the movie despite the unoriginal script.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lt99* /forum/post/18120187
> 
> 
> Totally agree with the tier recommendation.
> 
> 
> I watched my Netflix copy last night on my Sammy 55'' 8500, the daytime scene on Bora Bora just phenomenal, the "blue waters" just 3D like, amazing!



I still can't get over how nice those "blue waters" looked. I was just in Nassau, Bahamas a week ago and I thought the waters there were awesome, but Bora Bora has them beat.


BTW, you have a VERY NICE set to be watching movies like _Couples Retreat_ on!


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*The Final Destination*


This is a very good looking title overall. Clarity and detail is quite good, with skin texture being well resolved. Colors look natural and pleasing.


I think the contrast was just a bit weak at times though, and the overall image lacked the depth of the top tier titles.


While this one does flirt with Tier 1 territory, I can't quite get it there, so I will go with Tier 2.0


As for the film itself: I was a fan of the original film. This was absolutely _horrendous_. This film was so bad that it was embarrassing. The way people died was just stupid, ridiculous, and made me do nothing but







during the entire movie. I knew this was going to suck and suck hard after the very first scene at the race track, with race cars landing in the stands, engines landing in the stands, and a crash that lasted about 2 minutes.










The original film treated the audience with more respect than this, and the various causes of death were much more realistic and creative.


This is one of the worst films I have seen in the last year. Stay away.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 2.0*


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Ack! Thanks for taking one for the team, Rob!


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Dante's Inferno: An Animated Epic*


Promotional drivel and it looks the part. Tons of banding, actually the worst I've ever seen on the format so far. Posterization at all chapter title cards. Lots of soft filters used that obviously hinder the sharpness. Blacks come and go dependent on the scene. Any scenes that are sharp show some significant aliasing.


A bright red line runs down the screen at 46:35, must be an encode error. Colors are again scene dependent. Some stuff looks good, especially the gold blood of the gargoyles. Backgrounds are soft and lacking definition. Just a poor transfer all around, although the cheap as hell source probably didn't do much to help.

*Tier 4.0*


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/18122468
> 
> 
> Ack! Thanks for taking one for the team, Rob!



I see that Rotten Tomatoes has it at a 28% approval, with an average rating of 4.2 out of 10.


To be honest, that is far too high.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Phantom


recommendation: Tier 2.5*


A bomb that originally came out in 1996 by Paramount, the Blu-ray has been released under the auspices of Lionsgate. The 100-minute main feature's video is encoded in AVC on a BD-25. Picture quality is not that bad for an unheralded catalog selection that has some moderate edge enhancement and digital noise reduction applied to the transfer. Some of it looks quite good, especially the aerial shots and lush jungle scenery where the Phantom dwells.


Compression quality is solid aside from one or two questionable spots of slight noise. The estimated average video bitrate probably lies somewhere between 18 to 22 Mbps. A touch more transparency could have been achieved with higher parameters, but most of Lionsgate's recent wave of catalog titles have been specifically targeted to fit on a BD-25, no matter what the source material requires.


Without knowing the exact pedigree of the master used as the transfer source, one has to speculate as to its problems. Obvious edge enhancement along high-contrast edges, mostly along the vertical axis, is evident in the jungle scenes and city. Its appearance only becomes distracting in select scenes. The entire movie shows the effects of moderate usage of digital noise reduction. While detail is okay, the absolute finest micro-detail that should be visible is simply missing. Human skin does not resemble wax or plastic at any time, but tiny wrinkles and lines are diminished in scope.


Concurrent with the processing is the lowered visible grain, except at the end in the battle with the pirates. That particular scene almost looks filmed on different stock than the rest of the movie, with noticeably higher levels of grain. On occasion a handful of white specks flash and disappear just as quickly as they show up in the image. That problem is likely a result of an automated defect removal-program gone unchecked or indication the film master was scanned on an older machine.


In spite of these problems, _The Phantom_ does not look that bad. Primary colors have been ramped up just a bit, making greens and reds pop off the screen looking slightly over-saturated. There is an appreciable sense of depth to the picture that showcases the solid cinematography. Contrast is very solid, though black levels show a touch of clipping in a couple of scenes. Outside of one scene in the jungle that shows minor optical distortion at the edges of the frame, outdoor scenes are sharp and pristine.


The underlying film looks good enough to have been placed at the top of tier two or even in tier one with an optimal transfer, but the added post-processing has prevented a placement that high. I guess fans, if there are any, should be happy Lionsgate even released it.


----------



## 42041

*Dirty Harry*


When the topic of Warner's good treatment/restoration of many of their catalog titles comes up, I never see this disc mentioned. Which is a shame, because it is quite excellent. Ok, first impressions are not favorable: the intro titles, as title sequences on older movies often do, look pretty awful. Grain that's DNRd to hell, copious dirt and scratches, softness, the works. Once that's out of the way, things take on a much more pleasing appearance.


The detail/resolution is excellent, among the best I've seen on a 35mm film of this vintage (1971). Much of the time, on par with new films. (Makes me wonder why the Godfather is not even close







) It was shot in anamorphic Panavision and has that characteristic softness to the image that will probably make people seated further from their screens less impressed than I was, but I can only speak for myself. Color and contrast are pleasing throughout. Grain is unobtrusive with the exception of a handful of shots, but unfortunately many scenes are afflicted with the distracting (to me, anyway) temporal noise reduction Warner regrettably employs in many of their catalog transfers. Grain becomes frozen and moving objects are smeared. The scenes with natural random grain, even when its heavy, look so much better that I really don't know why they bother.


An issue some may have is that no dust busting seems to have been performed at all. I'm never really bothered by this in movies, but white dust specks are pervasive. Compression is not Warner's worst effort but is a typically inconsistent HDDVD-friendly encode.

*Tier 2.0*

(PS3/Pioneer 50" Kuro Elite/1 screen width distance)


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Running Man*


Soft and under-detailed, this '80s classic doesn't offer much on Blu. Fine detail is completely non-existent. Colors are fair, especially the bright yellow jump suits. Black levels are deep, with some crush, particularly early.


Grain is fine. The film maintains the same look in nighttime scenes, impressive even if that look is somewhat flat. Source is in great shape with few specks, scratches, or dirt.
*Tier 3.25*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Twelve Chairs (Mel Brooks Collection)*


This one is BEAUTIFUL. Razor sharp, rich, deep color, stunning photography that is maintained, minimal damage, and a marginally thick grain structure this encode handles with ZERO problems.


Close-ups deliver that occasional detail we look for, but textures are evident elsewhere, such as Lengella's undershirt, and environments such as concrete textures. Some ringing is evident (enough to drop it a bit), a disappointment for sure, but this is a must see.

*Tier 2.0*


----------



## Mr.G




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18125205
> 
> *The Phantom
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 2.5*
> 
> 
> A bomb that originally came out in 1996 by Paramount, the Blu-ray has been released under the auspices of Lionsgate. The 100-minute main feature's video is encoded in AVC on a BD-25. Picture quality is not that bad for an unheralded catalog selection that has some moderate edge enhancement and digital noise reduction applied to the transfer. Some of it looks quite good, especially the aerial shots and lush jungle scenery where the Phantom dwells.
> 
> 
> Compression quality is solid aside from one or two questionable spots of slight noise. The estimated average video bitrate probably lies somewhere between 18 to 22 Mbps. A touch more transparency could have been achieved with higher parameters, but most of Lionsgate's recent wave of catalog titles have been specifically targeted to fit on a BD-25, no matter what the source material requires.
> 
> 
> Without knowing the exact pedigree of the master used as the transfer source, one has to speculate as to its problems. Obvious edge enhancement along high-contrast edges, mostly along the vertical axis, is evident in the jungle scenes and city. Its appearance only becomes distracting in select scenes. The entire movie shows the effects of moderate usage of digital noise reduction. While detail is okay, the absolute finest micro-detail that should be visible is simply missing. Human skin does not resemble wax or plastic at any time, but tiny wrinkles and lines are diminished in scope.
> 
> 
> Concurrent with the processing is the lowered visible grain, except at the end in the battle with the pirates. That particular scene almost looks filmed on different stock than the rest of the movie, with noticeably higher levels of grain. On occasion a handful of white specks flash and disappear just as quickly as they show up in the image. That problem is likely a result of an automated defect removal-program gone unchecked or indication the film master was scanned on an older machine.
> 
> 
> In spite of these problems, _The Phantom_ does not look that bad. Primary colors have been ramped up just a bit, making greens and reds pop off the screen looking slightly over-saturated. There is an appreciable sense of depth to the picture that showcases the solid cinematography. Contrast is very solid, though black levels show a touch of clipping in a couple of scenes. Outside of one scene in the jungle that shows minor optical distortion at the edges of the frame, outdoor scenes are sharp and pristine.
> 
> 
> The underlying film looks good enough to have been placed at the top of tier two or even in tier one with an optimal transfer, but the added post-processing has prevented a placement that high. I guess fans, if there are any, should be happy Lionsgate even released it.



I did a mini-review for this a few days ago in the _The Phantom_ thread but wasn't motivated enough to post one here. I agree with most of your sharp observations, some things I didn't catch at all, for a while I was obsessing on the soundtrack. I thought the interior dark scenes taking place in the Phantom and pirate caves showed some black crush and lack of details in the shadows and dark fabrics. All things considered your score works for me.

*Recommendation - Tier 2.5*


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mr.G* /forum/post/18128345
> 
> 
> I did a mini-review for this a few days ago in the _The Phantom_ thread but wasn't motivated enough to post one here. I agree with most of your sharp observations, some things I didn't catch at all, for a while I was obsessing on the soundtrack. I thought the interior dark scenes taking place in the Phantom and pirate caves showed some black crush and lack of details in the shadows and dark fabrics. All things considered your score works for me.
> 
> *Recommendation - Tier 2.5*




I have this coming today from Netflix, so I'll chime in tomorrow. Thanks for getting my expectations in order guys.


----------



## deltasun

*Post Grad*

_I mean, I know you like the way it tastes, but some kids don't like having their heads licked_


This one had potential, but instead most of the scenes appeared flat. Facial details was a mixed bag, being sharp and well-defined in one scene and plagued with softness the next. Michael Keaton and Carol Burnett probably had the best details. Colors were natural, from Ryden's ocean blue eyes to her crimson attire at her father's store.


Blacks were mostly deep with no instances of crushing. Contrast was another chameleon, but the weak-looking ones seemed director intended. Shadow details were unimpressive. Skin tones were faithful. The presentation had a nice film-like look, with a fine layer of grain that proved just right.


Overall, a fine presentation. However, the negatives do drop this to the Silver Tier for me. A few instances of DNR-type facials did show up, but very minor.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.50*


I think you have to be in a certain mood to enjoy this flick, and I just happened to be in one.









_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## djoberg

Okay, I just watched all of _Couples Retreat_ and I definitely stand by my former *1.0 placement recommendation*. This was a very consistent title and one that I would be proud to use for a demo to show off the virtues of Blu-ray HD.


----------



## deltasun

*Mutant Chronicles*


This one had a gritty, stylized look that does not lend itself to reaching the upper Tiers. The overall look has a sepia-ish tone and a lot of filtering. Colors were desaturated, which doesn't quite work for me on this film. Some of the darker scenes have considerable digital noise.


Blacks were weak, but does improve a bit outdoors. Contrast was mostly weak, but really varied throughout. Skin tones followed the look and so did not appear natural. Shadow details was a messy proposition. Details, in general, produced a mixed bag. It would be razor sharp on one scene and soft in another. There's probably a handful of excellent close-up's, but was not the norm. Still, we are graced with arbitrary scenes that can place in Tier Gold.


Weighing all the attributes, this lands solidly in Tier Bronze.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.50*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18125205
> 
> *The Phantom
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 2.5*
> 
> The entire movie shows the effects of moderate usage of digital noise reduction. While detail is okay, the absolute finest micro-detail that should be visible is simply missing. Human skin does not resemble wax or plastic at any time, but tiny wrinkles and lines are diminished in scope.
> 
> 
> On occasion a handful of white specks flash and disappear just as quickly as they show up in the image. That problem is likely a result of an automated defect removal-program gone unchecked or indication the film master was scanned on an older machine.



These two issues bugged the hell out of me. In mid-range shots, especially early in the jungle, the DNR was thick. The white specks drove me nuts too, because they appear far more than on occasion. They are a constant battle. The best shot(s) of the movie are the final beach scene when everyone is saying their goodbyes. That's about the only moment where facial details are allowed to show. The rest is far too processed, and the black crush can really be unbearable.

*Tier 3.0*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*History of the World Part I*


About the only real gripe with this transfer, in terms of this thread, is the subdued, flat color. Everything looks pale in Rome.


Everything else is spectacular, from the level of environment detail on display, general sharpness, black levels, and detail on clothing (especially the armor worn by the Roman troops) is just awesome. Into the French Revolution, the insane amount of foliage is rendered perfectly. Grain is not intrusive and clean. Some print damage, but again, not intrusive on the film.

*Tier 1.75*


----------



## craftech




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/18097857
> 
> 
> Exactly!
> 
> 
> Animated films should be separated because they are true works of art - painstakingly assembled from a completely blank digital canvas metaphorical brush-stroke by brush-stroke over a period of many years and typically involving hundreds of insanely talented artists. It's hardly fair to those cheap, antiquated "realies" created by a couple beer-swilling guys rolling around with Red One cameras on skateboards or, even worse, some stone-age team of old men capturing a bunch of overpaid actors lounging lazily and hamming it up in front of the juddery flicker of 35mm for a mere couple months of simple photography and editing.



Now that's funny.


John


----------



## K-Spaz

I just ran an update on the Rankings Thread. I hadn't consulted with Phantom first, so I hope that didn't cause any issues. If he has things to add they will come in a later update. I had gotten caught up with the bb/nf links and thought they should go up.


Hugh,

We took your recommendation on the colors and changed them. I'm still not thrilled with the colors for Gold vs Bronze. On my monitor they both look like orange to me. They are readable, so that's more than I can say for the way silver was. I might go check and see if I can use #XXXXXX colors in the UBB. If so, there might be some more changes in the works.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/18134196
> 
> 
> I just ran an update on the Rankings Thread. I hadn't consulted with Phantom first, so I hope that didn't cause any issues. If he has things to add they will come in a later update. I had gotten caught up with the bb/nf links and thought they should go up.
> 
> 
> Hugh,
> 
> We took your recommendation on the colors and changed them. I'm still not thrilled with the colors for Gold vs Bronze. On my monitor they both look like orange to me. They are readable, so that's more than I can say for the way silver was. I might go check and see if I can use #XXXXXX colors in the UBB. If so, there might be some more changes in the works.




Ummm...just check and I agree. Everything is readable. Bronze and Gold look identical unless side by side and even then they are very close. Is yellow too light to show up against the background for replacement of Gold? My OCD dictates it is ideal to use colors that represent the tier, but you can only do what the software allows with the limited color palate. I see the nf is in red, but how about placement holdings in red or another standout color as the color is very close to coal, what do you think?


----------



## K-Spaz

On my display, I thought the dark green looked great. But of course, different peoples displays look... different. It's not like our TV's that are all calibrated within nothing. My monitor here can't even be adjusted unless I use the vga port. The silver I had chosen before didn't show up real well, but I found it ok. Other did not so we changed it.


Really, the holdings are only temporary anyhow, so I personally would just say something legible is fine with me. Maybe a thread in the post testing area would be better for our discussion. Something with examples. I'll see about making one.


Oh, and yellow would be out of the question. No doubt on that.


I see the HTML colors can be used. So, that opens up a lot of possibilities.


Go to the very bottom section of the forum index. The thread is in there and I have an example of gold/bronze now.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1226969


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/18134457
> 
> 
> On my display, I thought the dark green looked great. But of course, different peoples displays look... different. It's not like our TV's that are all calibrated within nothing. My monitor here can't even be adjusted unless I use the vga port. The silver I had chosen before didn't show up real well, but I found it ok. Other did not so we changed it.
> 
> 
> Really, the holdings are only temporary anyhow, so I personally would just say something legible is fine with me. Maybe a thread in the post testing area would be better for our discussion. Something with examples. I'll see about making one.
> 
> 
> Oh, and yellow would be out of the question. No doubt on that.
> 
> 
> I see the HTML colors can be used. So, that opens up a lot of possibilities.



Yes to the thread in the post testing area to avoid clutter and OT discussion and as PM's would exclude and it would be best to have anyone who wishes to give feedback. If you set up the thread please send me a link. I never been over in that neighborhood.


----------



## Hughmc

Looks awesome K.... Gold is really gold!


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/18135254
> 
> 
> Looks awesome K.... Gold is really gold!



LMAO, not on my monitor Hugh!










If yer happy, I'm thrilled.


-edit-

I looked at it on my Viewsonic monitors too and it looks green there as well. If I only look at one line, it sorta looks gold, but a whole page of text starts looking like a drab green. A big block of that color really looks gold. I can't go lighter or we can't see it, so that's what it's going to be. If you think bronze needs a little darkening, let me know.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Robin Hood: Men in Tights*


Why this one out of the films in this box set looks so poor is beyond me (although I do have three more to watch). This must be an older master, as everything carries a processed, digital quality. Artifacting is prevalent, edge enhancement is not constant but evident, no facial detail, long shots are muddy, black levels are fine, and some light print damage all add up to an unacceptable presentation.
*Tier 3.25*


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18133231
> 
> 
> These two issues bugged the hell out of me. In mid-range shots, especially early in the jungle, the DNR was thick. The white specks drove me nuts too, because they appear far more than on occasion. They are a constant battle. The best shot(s) of the movie are the final beach scene when everyone is saying their goodbyes. That's about the only moment where facial details are allowed to show. The rest is far too processed, and the black crush can really be unbearable.
> 
> *Tier 3.0*



Those early jungle scenes look that way due more to optical issues than DNR I believe. There are some black level issues later in the pirate's cave. The movie just looked too sharp in most scenes for me to rank it in tier 3, but I see where you are coming from with your assessment. I was very close to recommending tier 2.25 when making my initial judgment.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Law Abiding Citizen*


If the facial details were consistent, this could be a reference disc. Alas, they're not, dipping below that level on a regular basis, readily apparent in Butler's interrogation room. Jamie Foxx's face shows clearly defined pores, Butler's face is relatively flat.


Some stunning skyline shots of Philly, even into the deepest parts of the frame. Black levels are superb, with no crush to note. A bout or two of ringing is forgivable. Razor sharp throughout and colors are intentionally cool for much of the time.

*Tier 1.25*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

The database is now completely updated through post #15161. It will probably go live very soon. Courtesy of K-Spaz, we now have more readable colors for the tiers against the default visitor background. If anyone believes there is an error or mistake, bring it to my attention and it will be corrected.


Moon - 3.25 (deltasun)


Pandorum - 2.75 (Gamereviewgod), 2.5 (deltasun), 2.75 (jedimastechad)


Monsters, Inc. - top5 in 0 (Rob Tomlin, robsis)


8 1/2 - 3.5 (deltasun), 3.0 (Rob Tomlin)


Gamer - 0 (ooms), low 0 (Hughmc), 0 (vpn75), 1.0 (Rob Tomlin), 1.0 (deltasun)


Whiteout - 2.25(Gamereviewgod), 2.75 (deltasun)


I've Loved You So Long - 3.25 (42041), 1.75 (selimsivad)


Public Enemies - 3.0 (audiomagnate)


Butterfly On A Wheel (UK) - 1.5 (the Phantom Stranger)


Gone Baby Gone - 2.75 (42041)


Rome - 2.50 (geekyglassesgirl)


The Island (UK) - 1.0 (djoberg, deltasun, Mr. G)


Tokyo Motor Show - lower quarter of 0 (Phantom Stranger)


New Police Story - 3.0 (Gamereviewgod)


Hurt Locker - 3.25 (Rob Tomlin)


Smokin' Aces 2: Ball - 3.0 (gamereviewgod)


X-Men 2 (UK) - 2.25 (Phantom Stranger)


Saw VI - 3.0 (Gamereviewgod)


Quarantine - 4.5 (Phantom Stranger)


Surrogates - 3.25 (Gamereviewgod), 3.75 (deltasun, wxman), 1.75/2.0 (djoberg), 2.0 (jedimasterchad)


This Is It - 4.5 (deltasun), 4.0 (Gamereviewgod)


A Perfect Getaway - 1.5 (deltasun)


Pixar Short films - 2.25 (42041, nick2010)


Saints & Soldiers (UK) - 3.5 (Phantom)


My Bloody Valentine (2009) - 1.25 (Phantom)


South Park - 3.5 (Gamereviewgod)


Point Break - 3.25 (Gamereviewgod)


All The Boys Love Mandy Lane (UK) - 4.5 (PhantomStranger)


March Of The Penguins - 4.25 (42041)


Watchmen (DC) | AVC | Paramount (UK Import) - Tier 1.5


Watchmen (DC) | VC-1 | Warner - Tier 1.75


I am Legend (Ultimate Collector's Edition) placed in the slot where the first release belongs


The Hangover | VC-1 | Warner - Tier 2.75


Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince | VC-1 | Warner - Tier 2.75


Grease - 2.0 (dla26)


Zombieland - middle of 0 (Gamereviewgod), 1.0 (jedimasterchad), 1.75 (deltasun)


Hangover - 2.5 (vpn75)


Love Happens - 1.0 (Gamereviewgod, djoberg)


My Best Friend's Wedding (UK) - 2.75 (Mr. G)


Signs - 3.0 (Mr. G)


Event Horizon - 3.0 (Gamereviewgod)


Casino Royale - 2.25 (ivanvt)


Cloudy With a chance of Meatballs - 1.0 (deltasun)


Glory - 3.25 (deltasun)


Gangs of New York (remastered) - 1.5 (42041)


The Godfather - 4.0 (deltasun)


Dances With Wolves (UK) - 2.75 (Phantom Stranger)


Red Cliff: Special Edition (UK) - 0 (Mr. G)


Cliffhanger - 3.25 (Gamereviewgod)


Amelia - 1.25 (djoberg)


Stepfather - 1.75 (Gamereviewgod), 1.75 (deltasun)


The Time Traveler's Wife - 1.25 (djoberg), 1.5 (gamereview)


Heathers - 4.5 (Phantom Stranger)


Couples Retreat - 1.25 (Gamereview), 1.0 (djoberg, lt99)


A Serious Man - 0 around Prince Caspian (Hughmc)


The Final Destination (2009) - 2.0 (Rob Tomlin)


Dante's Inferno - 4.0 (Gamereview)


The Phantom - 2.5 (Phantom Stranger, Mr. G), 3.0 (Gamereviewgod)


Dirty Harry - 2.0 (42041)


Running Man - 3.25 (gamereview)


The Twelve Chairs - 2.0 (Gamereview)


Post Grad - 2.5 (deltasun)


Mutant Chronicles - 3.5 (deltasun)


History Of The World Pt. 1 - 1.75 (Gamereview)


Robin Hood: Men In Tights - 3.25 (Gamereview)


----------



## K-Spaz

Nice Job Phantom. Your work is much appreciated. Looking at that hit counter on the Tier list, that's one of the most hit threads on the forum, and without any responses!


----------



## OldCodger73

Indoor and daytime outdoor scenes show above average color and depth. Outdoor night time scenes appear muddy lacking much detail. In fact, most of the movie seems soft with only average detail.


Overall a very average transfer. *Wolf Tier 3.5*.


This 1994 film had the potential of being ludicrous but thanks to better than expected performances from Jack Nicholson and Michelle Pfeiffer it remains watchable although also very predictable.


Panasonic 50 720p plasma, Panasonic 10a player, 7 1/2'


----------



## OldCodger73

The rich vibrant colors are what one would expect from an early 60s Hollywood musical. Depth is above average as is detail in medium and medium close-up shots. Long shots are average. Close-up facial shots show none of the fine detail that we like to see, which is just what one would expect from a film shot in this era as, after all, the studios didn't want to make their stars look unattractive. Contrast was normally fine with the exception of the scene where there was kind of a split scene shot of the barber shot quartet on the left and a very blown out Shirley Jones on the right.


To me, this is a above average transfer. *The Music Man 2.75*.


Maybe it's just my age but I thought this 1962 film held up well for its age and was very enjoyable movie.


Panasonic TC-P65S1 plasma, Panasonic 10a player, 9'


----------



## OldCodger73

Depth and detail range from good to very good, as does contrast. The movie has a subdued color palette. In one backlight scene there's either a noticeable shadow line or perhaps excessive sharpening, other than that there doesn't seem noticeable negative digital processing.

*In the Loop Tier 1.75*.

_In the Loop_ is a very curious, different movie shot with, mostly for us in the US, largely unknown British actors. It's a take on how mid level British and American government appointees tried to come up with material showing that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, even if it meant fabricating the intelligence, so that their leaders, B and B, could justify going to war with Iraq.


We'll be attending a performance of _Glengarry Glen Ross_ next week and the colorful dialogue in _In the Loop_ is a good warm up to the play.


Panasonic TC-P65S1 plasma, Panasonic 10a player, 9'


----------



## OldCodger73

This has been pretty thoroughly reviewed, so I don't have much to add. The PQ seems consistent to the movie's drab desert setting and plot line. On extreme telephoto shots heat wave distortion affects the picture. The movie also seemed quite grainy.

*The Hurt Locker Tier 2.75*


Personally, I found the movie almost too intense to watch.


Panasonic TC-P65S1 plasma, Panasonic 10a player, 9'


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^


Thanks for all the reviews OldCodger....and congrats on the new BIG plasma!


----------



## deltasun

*The Invention of Lying*


I don't think I've seen another picture so nondescript as this. I don't automatically deduct points from a picture for being muted, but this one's different - it is dull, lifeless, and exhibited limited depth. It has to do with its color palette, sure, but I believe the contrast played a huge role as well. Details were also lacking in most scenes. Facial details were not the very best, but was adequate for the most part. In fact, Rob Lowe had an almost sharpened quality, running counter to the film's predominantly shallow presentation.


Blacks were deep, but not helped by the weak contrast. Skin tones were natural. Unfortunately, even the panoramic shots fell short. In particular, there was a brief autumn shot that did not provide details and leaked too much grain.


Still, the picture didn't look messy or overtly bad. It simply looked plain. Technical issues were limited to some ringing in unusual places.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75*


The concept for the story is unique and entertaining while it lasted. It does get old after some time, but garners a rental recommendation.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/18150596
> 
> 
> The rich vibrant colors are what one would expect from an early 60s Hollywood musical. Depth is above average as is detail in medium and medium close-up shots. Long shots are average. Close-up facial shots show none of the fine detail that we like to see, which is just what one would expect from a film shot in this era as, after all, the studios didn't want to make their stars look unattractive. Contrast was normally fine with the exception of the scene where there was kind of a split scene shot of the barber shot quartet on the left and a very blown out Shirley Jones on the right.
> 
> 
> To me, this is a above average transfer. *The Music Man 2.75*.
> 
> 
> Maybe it's just my age but I thought this 1962 film held up well for its age and was very enjoyable movie.
> 
> 
> Panasonic TC-P65S1 plasma, Panasonic 10a player, 9'



I agree that for something from 1962, this looks quite acceptable, but I think that a placement in Tier 2.75 is quite a bit too high. It looks more like about Tier 3.5 to me.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Halo Legends*


This one is all over the place due to the variances in the animation. Seven different stories, each animated with a unique style. The final one is full CG, but still shows aliasing/flickering that bugs the entire film. Banding is notable, at its worst during the opening two chapters.


Lots of blooming/filters are used. The third chapter uses this super cool "living watercolor" effect, but in terms of this thread, I'm not even going to guess where that should be placed. The best two are Odd One Out and Homecoming, done mostly in a traditional style. Homecoming uses bright, saturated colors and generally remains sharp. Odd One Out is much the same, but shows ringing.


I'm going to generalize and say:

*Tier 3.0*


----------



## Mr.G




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/16588194
> 
> *Zulu (UK import)
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 2.25*
> 
> 
> A 1964 classic of British cinema, Paramount released this region-free disc exclusively in the United Kingdom on November 3, 2008. The 138-minute film is encoded in AVC on a BD-50. The average video bitrate is 31.72 Mbps from the BDInfo scan.
> 
> 
> While some have questioned this transfer's level of detail, no one can question the quality of the compression work. The very high video bitrate, which regularly stays in the thirties and occasionally peaks into the forties, produces a reference-quality encoding that is among the best examples of live-action film without visible artifacts on any high-definition format. Even the most difficult sequences, such as a building burning to the ground with smoke rising and flames shooting out, produce absolutely no compression problems under the closest scrutiny.
> 
> 
> It is my understanding that Sky television performed a complete restoration for this film, which serves as the basis of the master used in making this Blu-ray. In some respects the restoration appears stunning and fully captures the glory of a film shot in Super Technirama 70, a Technicolor process. Print damage is remarkably absent and no age-related problems such as fading are apparent. In fact the colors are as vibrant as they probably were in original prints, from the brilliant reds on display in the British uniforms to the strong greens of the countryside. Many viewers will be shocked to find out this movie was originally made in 1964, if they are just going off the clarity of the picture with no other information.
> 
> 
> Sadly I have to confirm that digital noise reduction has been used throughout the transfer. The image has an appearance more akin to modern video than it does to film, even considering the fine-grain look of the original source material. Other than the complete lack of grain, the most telling sign of this processing is the slight loss in high-frequency detail. Facial detail looks okay, but some instances of a waxy sheen hang on various faces. Some fine detail has definitely been stripped away along with the grain. Is it on par with Patton's transfer, a well-known and egregious example of overzealous DNR use? I would unequivocally say no to that proposition. At least whatever type of processing they performed on the transfer did not leave any smeared grain-fields or oddly moving clumps of noise behind. I would characterize its use here as a mid-level example of the process.
> 
> 
> The picture quality in most respects is fabulous. The entire film is sharp as a tack, with almost zero soft moments. Depth and dimensionality to the picture are consistently excellent, with some objects in the foreground figuratively popping off the screen. Contrast is great with superior color fidelity and tonality. White levels are not blown out and black levels are very solid. Low-light photography shows nice shadow detail with wonderful delineation. Flesh tones look very good and accurate to the intent of the story. While the picture does not have the finest visible details of an unprocessed transfer, resolution is still inherently strong with sparkling clarity. The image is a revelation compared to any prior version I have seen, and a quantum leap above dvd-quality. I could easily see how a casual viewer might rank this title in tier zero, with the strong cinematography frequently showcasing panoramic vistas and breathtaking imagery.
> 
> 
> The last flaw I will note is the use of edge enhancement visible at various points. The ringing becomes very heavy at some point midway through the movie and appears occasionally from then on. It is hard to miss if one watches the edges around the British soldiers, for instance the black binocular straps of Chard. By the end of the movie I was more distracted by the visible ringing than the lack of grain, which I had partially accepted by that point.
> 
> 
> My conclusions are nearly the same of Rsbeck, who carefully reviewed this Blu-ray months ago in this very thread. While I would have liked to see less grain reduction and sharpening applied to this Blu-ray, I would still recommend it to fans of classic cinema and anyone interested in visually pleasing material. Purists might quibble with its quality but _Zulu_ still looks very good to my eyes. My final recommendation for placement is in tier 2.25, but a slightly higher ranking in tier two would not bother me.
> 
> 
> BDInfo scan (courtesy of House):
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1#post14994911
> 
> 
> Rsbeck's placement:
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1#post15345971



Great review. Watched this UK import last night and it is absolutely the finest version of this film I've seen. The colors really pop and for a film over 45 years old it's remarkable. I did notice EE in a few scenes but it wasn't enough to distract, likewise DNR wasn't a big factor in this film, perhaps because I'm watching on a projection system it's not as apparent. I thought there was a good deal of facial detail on all of the close-ups. There were a few scenes that looked soft but that may have been in the source. Overall I would tend to vote to place it a little higher.

*Recommendation - Tier 2.0*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Black Dynamite*


Want to see the worst black crush of all time? Here you go. Shot on Super 16, that explains the black crush and spiking grain, the latter of which the encode handles pretty well. Colors are all over the place, sometimes natural, sometimes tinted orange, sometimes tinted yellow.


Some stunning facial details at times, including one of the best close-ups I've ever seen at 10:24. Not much intentional print damage despite some thoughts to the contrary, I'm sure. Some stock footage looks as expected, and the opening (a TV ad) looks to be done on 8MM or tape, not sure which.

*Tier 3.0*


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18160156
> 
> *Black Dynamite*
> 
> 
> Want to see the worst black crush of all time? Here you go. Shot on Super 16, that explains the black crush and spiking grain, the latter of which the encode handles pretty well. Colors are all over the place, sometimes natural, sometimes tinted orange, sometimes tinted yellow.
> 
> 
> Some stunning facial details at times, including one of the best close-ups I've ever seen at 10:24. Not much intentional print damage despite some thoughts to the contrary, I'm sure. Some stock footage looks as expected, and the opening (a TV ad) looks to be done on 8MM or tape, not sure which.
> 
> *Tier 3.0*



Whats the deal with this movie? I have seen the trailer a couple of times on a few different BD's, but the trailer looks like more of a joke than the trailer for "Machete" on the Planet Terror/Death Proof movie. Is it supposed to be funny?


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/18162723
> 
> 
> Whats the deal with this movie? I have seen the trailer a couple of times on a few different BD's, but the trailer looks like more of a joke than the trailer for "Machete" on the Planet Terror/Death Proof movie. Is it supposed to be funny?



At times, a hilariously funny parody of '70s blaxploitation films. Key word there is "at times." The middle _completely_ dies out, but it picks back up for a great finish, including a nunchuck battle between Black Dynamite and Richard Nixon.


I'd link my full review but don't want to be too spammy.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/18162723
> 
> 
> Whats the deal with this movie? I have seen the trailer a couple of times on a few different BD's, but the trailer looks like more of a joke than the trailer for "Machete" on the Planet Terror/Death Proof movie. Is it supposed to be funny?



It's a comedic homage to 70s blaxploitation films. I liked it a lot.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I strongly recommend the Zulu Blu-ray as a great region-free disc to import. It will not be coming out in the U.S. and is unlikely to see a release anywhere else in the world, so waiting for an edition without DNR is foolish as it is not coming. The picture quality is striking in many aspects. Zulu easily could have been placed in tier one if the filtering had not been applied.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18160156
> 
> *Black Dynamite*
> 
> 
> Want to see the worst black crush of all time? Here you go. Shot on Super 16, that explains the black crush and spiking grain, the latter of which the encode handles pretty well. Colors are all over the place, sometimes natural, sometimes tinted orange, sometimes tinted yellow.
> 
> *Tier 3.0*



I can't comment on the movie or Blu-ray of it directly, as I have no experience with Black Dynamite aside from knowing it was released this week. But in my experience I am not sure a film shot using Super 16 could even qualify for the top of tier three, given that format's limitations for picture quality. Remember the vast majority of movies on Blu-rays are shot using some variation of 35mm film. 3.0 would mean it looks slightly better than the average Blu-ray release. All the 16mm-sourced productions I am familiar with would dwell closer to tier four. The size of the negative has a huge impact on the resulting picture quality, which is why we need as many 70mm productions on Blu-ray as possible.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18163898
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't comment on the movie or Blu-ray of it directly, as I have no experience with Black Dynamite aside from knowing it was released this week. But in my experience I am not sure a film shot using Super 16 could even qualify for the top of tier three, given that format's limitations for picture quality. Remember the vast majority of movies on Blu-rays are shot using some variation of 35mm film. 3.0 would mean it looks slightly better than the average Blu-ray release. All the 16mm-sourced productions I am familiar with would dwell closer to tier four. The size of the negative has a huge impact on the resulting picture quality, which is why we need as many 70mm productions on Blu-ray as possible.



The Wrestler was shot on 16MM. Besides the heftier grain, it has some stunning facial textures, deep blacks, and rich color. I totally disagree with the current placement, but don't have the disc to really give it a second go. Hurt Locker is 2.75, also 16mm.


Black Dynamite still maintains detail, and at times quite well. I wouldn't be surprised for someone to knock it down lower, especially with the at times trippy colors and rough black crush. I still think the level of detail provided enough to push it into tier 3.0, maybe 3.25. It has issues, but also quite a few positives.


----------



## 42041

*The Hangover*


Surprisingly good looking for one of these kinds of comedies, the photography doesn't seem to be an afterthought. There's a nice amount of color, the attractive locations are rendered with impeccable contrast delineation that gives the image depth, and detail is pretty decent. I suspect the last of those things aren't what they could be, because despite the seamless branching functionality of blu-ray, two versions of the film are crammed onto the same disc. The incompetent compression job causes a general lack of clean textures, crispness and the kind of detail rendition you expect from new releases. There's also some unsightly thick halos in a few scenes but it's a minor complaint.

*Tier 1.75*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Boiler Room (Canadian Import)
*
*recommendation: Tier 3.75*


For the moment, this import edition is currently a worldwide exclusive on Blu-ray from Alliance. The 2000 movie was released on April 07 of 2009 in Canada as a BD-25. Running 119-minutes in length, the video is encoded using AVC. Without the accuracy of a BDInfo scan, the average video bitrate is likely in the upper teens going off personal observations. Nothing is majorly wrong with the picture quality, but the disc looks sourced from a flat, dull transfer that proves obsolete upon close scrutiny.


Compression looks a little more polished than on Alliance's other Blu-rays, even if the bitrate parameters are not substantially different. Authoring and encoding are both credited to http://www.juiceproductionsinc.com/ , a firm who has done a number of Canadian BDs for Alliance and others. There are still minor bouts of macroblocking and noise in the grainiest passages, but nothing that looks too bad. It would still be nice if Alliance's BDs were maximized to the limits of a BD-25 to minimize these compression problems.


The BD is presented in an aspect ratio of 1.78:1, slightly opened up from the film's proper aspect ratio of 1.85:1. I would not point this out if not for Alliance's suspect history on Blu-ray, but _Boiler Room_ is shown at 1080p resolution. Whatever master was dug up to produce this BD clearly looks old and outdated compared to recent efforts. The New Line Cinema logo still precedes the film, being the original distributors in the U.S., a company that exists in name only now as a subsidiary of Warner Bros.


Given the lack of fine detail in the unprocessed transfer, it looks like it was minted from a telecined master possibly using a second-generation print from the early years of the dvd format. Colors are flat and a touch washed out, with just the slightest quantity of shadow detail rolled off. Fleshtones are noticeably pasty and definitely look incorrect. Vin Diesel has never looked so pale on film. Sharpness is hit-or-miss and depends on the scene, varying from nice-looking outdoor shots to clear but softer interior-scenes.


General picture quality is on that cusp where occasionally it looks no better than a high-quality upscaled dvd in its blandness. There is nothing inherently wrong in the transfer, as absolutely no use of digital noise reduction is apparent and halos are nothing but an afterthought. But this is not a BD that could be used as a demo, as there just is not enough separation from the best dvds to produce any moments of wow.


A firm placement in tier 3.75 is satisfactory for a competent BD produced from a high-definition master that is showing its age. _Boiler Room_ does look better than the Blu-rays located in tier four or below. It would not be crime if placed a quarter higher.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Family Guy: Something, Something Darkside*


Simple animation, but the solid colors are clean, free of noise or artifacting. Lines are crisp and no ringing is noted. Some banding in Cloud City's sunset sky.


Objects in the background complete break down into a digital mess. Not sure if this is a fault of the original animation or the resolution. Star Destroyers and things try to maintain a level of detail, but just can far into the backdrop, and can become unrecognizable. Some Rocky IV footage used in a montage is GREAT, despite being cropped to fit the 4x3 frame.

*Tier 2.5*


----------



## djoberg

*A Perfect Getaway*


I was only able to watch the first 40 minutes of this the other night due to my HDMI circuit board burning out on my Onkyo receiver (I now have to connect my Blu-ray player, and other components, directly to my KURO and then use Optical or Coax audio cables....BUMMER!!), so I can't speak authoritatively about the whole film, but from what I did see I would throw my hat in with Hugh's placement recommendation of 1.75-2.0.


Like deltasun, it took some getting used to the bronze/orange look. It was downright distracting initially, but eventually I was able to focus on detail, depth, and other *positives*. I agree with deltasun as to the facial details being very good, but from my limited viewing I wasn't that impressed with the details in mid to distant shots. It also appeared less-than-stellar in the "sharpness" department. In comparing it with _Couples Retreat_ this is not nearly as sharp or detailed.


I should mention that the "blue waters" were nice, but not quite as *sparkling* as those in _Couples Retreat_. (This observation is mainly for G3.)

















Again, my limited viewing of this film prevents me from going into a lot of detail, so I'll get down to business with the following placement recommendation....

*Tier Recommendation:1.75-2.0*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite BDP-05....Viewed from 8'


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Monster Squad


recommendation: Tier 3.25*


Many of Lionsgate's recent wave of budget titles have been questionable transfers, but _The Monster Squad_ is not one of them. The 82-minute main feature, originally debuting in 1987, is encoded in AVC at an average video bitrate of 34.99 Mbps. A rare occurrence for Lionsgate, the release is on a dual-layer BD-50. It is nice to see a relatively fresh high-definition transfer of an older, niche film given a great treatment. Any defects in the picture quality are due to the original photography and film stock.


Compression-related problems are completely absent, even in the grain-laden scenes. An impeccable encoding for the tough source material, likely due to the very generous bitrate parameters. The visual benefits of spreading a short movie over a BD-50 are shown once again.


There is a touch of dirt on the print that proves distracting only during the opening credits. Its presence indicates that no overdone defect-removal software was applied to the transfer, which can produce its own negative effects. Aside from a few shots of incidental ringing, the film looks unprocessed by sharpening tools and free of halos. The image still looks like film, with a naturalistic level of grain typical of the era it was created. A slight oversaturation of red warms up fleshtones to levels more common today than in the 1980s.


The cinematography goes for a soft-focus intent occasionally, limiting how sharp and detailed certain scenes are on the BD. Outdoor scenes look the best, as they give off more depth and dimensionality to the picture. Interior shots tend to be flatter unless the director keys in on the impressive monster makeup. Black levels are okay for an older film that largely takes place at night, as there are no sustained moments of blacks getting crushed or frequent lack of delineation in the shadows.


This BD is about as good as _The Monster Squad_ will ever look at 1080p resolution. While not a reference disc by any stretch, it holds up nicely in visual comparison to other average-looking Blu-rays and was a pleasant surprise.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...8#post17623128


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *luciano1213* /forum/post/18184954
> 
> Revanche
> 
> 
> I just watched a Blu Ray which I thought was really stunning to look at and a great film to boot.I actually found myself pausing the movie a lot just to take in the scene and all the details.Some of the scenes on the farm were the best looking I've seen in about two years of Blu Ray viewing.The movie is called "Revanche". If anyone who submits reviews here happen to rent it, I'd love to see what you have to say.



That is a new Criterion release, right? Have you seen any of the Blu-rays in the top tiers here to compare as a frame of reference? There are some Criterion BDs already listed, but a number of them are still not ranked. Considering many are great movies that stand on their own merit regardless of picture quality, it is nice to get feedback on them in this thread. I keep putting off giving my thoughts here on The Seventh Seal.







Suffice to say, Criterion did a superior job on it.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *luciano1213* /forum/post/18184954
> 
> Revanche
> 
> 
> I just watched a Blu Ray which I thought was really stunning to look at and a great film to boot.I actually found myself pausing the movie a lot just to take in the scene and all the details.Some of the scenes on the farm were the best looking I've seen in about two years of Blu Ray viewing.The movie is called "Revanche". If anyone who submits reviews here happen to rent it, I'd love to see what you have to say.
> 
> I'll just say that the details,colors, skin tones,and all other attributes which make up a good looking Blu Ray film were a 10 out of 10, from what I saw on my set.



Thanks for the heads up on this! I just checked out the following thread and there are some glowing reviews:

http://www.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray/m...814&locale=all


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18119995
> 
> *Couples Retreat*
> 
> 
> I ran out of time tonight for viewing the whole movie, but from what I saw I agree wholeheartedly with Gamereviewgod (except for the placement). Colors are off the charts, blacks levels are phenomenal, shadow details are exquisite, and detail/depth is demo-worthy if not reference quality. And those "blue waters" are surreal!! G3 you are in for the eye candy feast of your life!!!
> 
> 
> I'm tired and we're leaving for Minneapolis at 7 a.m. so I'm weighing in on the placement.....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.0*
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" Eite KURO (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite BDP-05....Viewed from 8'



I agree with your placement. Couples Retreat is a stunning BD demo/reference worth @ 1:85:1. The colors and clarity are beautiful and the water, ok....it really is some of the best I have seen on BD, nod to GGG.







This is how I think the Perfect Getaway could have looked if it had been captured the same way.

*Recommendation: Tier 1.0.*


I have The Box and Informant on tap to watch today.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/17369141
> 
> The Proposal
> 
> 
> Yeah, yeah I know. And no, G3, you aren't the only one who watches (or has to take in the occasional) chick flick. I really don't mind them too much, but I got this one so the wife wouldn't start complaining about a lack of variety
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Anyway, Sandra Bullock plays a publishing editor who is working in the U.S.A. when her visa expires. In a desperate attempt to stay in the country, she blackmails her assistant (Ryan Reynolds) into marrying her. That weekend, however, he was on his way to Alaska to spend time with his family, and thus she has to go with him to prove to the citizenship officer that their marriage is for real. Soon after, the adventure begins...
> 
> 
> Really though, it's a romantic comedy. You know what is going to happen. They're going to bicker and pretend to squabble while on the trip, only to fall in love for real later on. While the plot is quite cookie cutter, the journey there has its humorous and touching moments that make it unique. Sandra Bullocks character goes through quite the culture shock when she visits Alaska after living in New York City her entire life. Betty White and Mary Steenburgen play as supporting characters in the Alaska family, and contrast nicely with Sandra's character to give a good sense of just how out of place she really is. Craig T. Nelson rounds out the cast as the dad who butts heads with his son, but ultimately does what he must to save the family.
> 
> 
> The weird part of this movie is, it was funnier than some of the "comedies" I've watched lately. Perhaps it has more to do with relating to the material, but the real life situations really were quite entertaining to watch these characters deal with, and the best parts were when the people could put aside their differences to show that they still care for each other, no matter what. I'd recommend this as a good date night movie, or just something to curl up and watch with some hot chocolate (as it is freezing out here in the northeast!). Final Score: 7.5/10
> 
> 
> The Proposal comes to us via Touchstone Home Video, and really presents an interesting challenge to critique. Overall this presentation of the film had a pretty high level of quality. So high, in fact, that things not meant to be seen are staring at you right in the face. At first glance, contrast throughout the whole picture is generally excellent. Indoor scenes have a sharp edge around the character's hair or clothes, and objects in the shot have a good sense of depth and realism. There is, however, one caveat: A lot of scenery in the film was on green screen, and it is blatantly obvious in some scenes. For the most part, any outdoor shot with a "scenic" background is CGI, and while it looks pretty believable due to it being out of focus, the edge around the character looks just a bit too fake to make it not stand out. Perhaps this is a mild case of EE, but it almost has that same look as a weatherman standing in front of the blue screen giving his nightly report. Sharp edge, but just not quite right.
> 
> 
> In spite of that, and probably because of that, the camera was able to better focus on the characters themselves, and it really shows in the level of detail. Hair, fabric, skin, and any other close-up texture in the film showed excellent detail. You could clearly see Ryan's stubble from not shaving in a while and see the texture of Craig's wool sweater. A couple of times in the movie had the characters climbing down a ladder that was attached to a rock face, and even the rocks themselves had a rough texture that was clearly visible throughout the scene.
> 
> 
> Black level and shadow detail weren't real strong points of this film, but that was just because a majority of the film took place during the day or with the lights on inside. There were a couple of moments where the lights were off (before they went to bed) and the result was sort of a mixed bag. Shadow detail was evident on one side of the screen, but on the other side of the bed there was a fair amount of black crush. Could have been a lighting issue, but it was noticeable. To be fair, its only for a few seconds and is easily overlooked when considering the film as a whole.
> 
> 
> There was an extremely fine layer of grain present throughout most scenes, and was most evident in dark wall colors or bright skies. The overall clean appearance leads me to suspect a mild case of DNR, but it was done with no perceivable loss of detail throughout. The more movies I watch on Blu-Ray, the more I can't decide if I like the grain or not. I don't miss it when it's not there, but I can say with some certainty that it should not be there in one scene, and then be gone in the next. "In or out, and shut the door!" as my parents used to say.
> 
> 
> Overall, an excellent presentation and very high PQ throughout. The extreme contrast led to some funny looking edges, making the green-screen backgrounds quite apparent, but not so much that it detracted from the experience. Detail was excellent throughout, although black level and shadow detail were far below reference. Grain was extremely fine and barely noticeable, but it was there during most of the film. Really great looking throughout, but not quite up there with the best of the best.
> 
> Tier Recommendation: 1.25
> 
> Blu-Ray played on PS3 via HDMI to TC-P54G10 at 7.5'



I agree with your review. One thing I did not notice was the gold tone or hue used throughout until I read one review after watching it and then I watched it again. Interesting how I wasn't paying much attention to the gold tone until I read about it.

*Recommendation: Tier 1.25*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Justice League: Crisis On Two Earths


recommendation: Tier 1.5*


A new release from Warner Bros. that made its premiere today, the direct-to-video animated movie does not look substantially different from prior efforts in the DC series of cartoons. Encoded in VC-1 like every other Blu-ray from Warner, the 75-minute main feature is included on a BD-25. An estimated average for the video bitrate is around 15 to 18 Mbps. Stylistically the animation does not look that far removed from other animated DC movies like _Green Lantern: First Flight_, or _Wonder Woman_. Those discs did look slightly better with more polished animation, which drove me to give them recommendations as high as tier one. The line-art for _Justice League: COTE_ looks a tad sketchier than on those Blu-rays. That is one of the main reasons why a lower ranking felt appropriate.


Given the blend of traditional animation and digital animation used to produce the movie, it is comparatively hard separating out compression problems from issues endemic to the source material. There are moderate amounts of banding, though compression noise and chroma artifacts are eliminated by the very modest bitrates afforded the encode. It is not a stellar job but could be accurately described as serviceable. Animation should be translated to Blu-ray very cleanly without the aforementioned banding. Still, most viewers are likely to gloss over this barely visible distraction.


Some new techniques in the animation appear to have been used which soften and blur the image for select scenes. Moments of diffused lighting through the magic of CGI take away just a fraction of the razor-sharpness most hand-drawn animation exhibits. The sporadic appearance of momentary blurring looks intentional, and possibly a side-effect of the animation process. Background animation looks completely rendered in the digital domain, as opposed to the moving objects which are still animated by hand. While the CGI-aided backgrounds look very good, the line-art for characters like Superman and Batman look rough in comparison. The quality of that animation was drawn at the standards of a television cartoon more than a theatrical feature. Minor but frequent aliasing accompanies the sharp, black outlines of each character.


Colors pop off the screen in true comic book-style. From the bright red hues of the Flash's suit to the deepest black of Batman's costume, all primary colors and shades are rendered brilliantly and explode on the screen in vivid quality. There are zero flaws or damage of any kind to the picture. As a Blu-ray sourced directly from the digital files made to create the movie's animation, the chance of post-processing like sharpening or filtering is eliminated and not a concern.


While not quite up to par with recent DC efforts on Blu-ray in terms of picture quality, _Justice League: COTE_ still looks very good. The middle of tier one looks like a good fit as a recommendation. Anyone familiar with the direct-to-video animated features will know what to expect, as this movie continues that tradition quite well. Though a little more spent on the animation, than on stunt voice-casting like James Woods, would likely produce better-looking results. On a minor note, the lack of a lossless soundtrack is very disappointing for a new release.


Included on this BD is a short 11-minute cartoon featuring the Spectre in a self-contained story. For the purposes of this placement it did not impact my assessment, but on its own the short would rank somewhere in tier three. Horrible artifacting for a VC-1 encode that rarely goes above 10 Mbps. On top of the pathetic compression job, the entire short is given the appearance of simulated film damage as a homage to 1970s cop shows to establish tone.


Watching on a 60 Pioneer KURO plasma at 1080p/24, fed by a PS3 (firmware 3.15) from a viewing distance of six feet.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/18192195
> 
> 
> The colors and clarity are beautiful and the water, ok....it really is some of the best I have seen on BD, nod to GGG.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *This is how I think the Perfect Getaway could have looked if it had been captured the same way.*



Exactly! I couldn't agree more Hugh!


----------



## Gamereviewgod

Got hit with a nasty malware/virus combo the other day and have been down. Just getting caught up, so here we go:

*The Informant!*


Shot with the Red One, this one could not be any more different than another R1 shot film, Gamer. This is completely smoothed over, blotching any fine detail. Excessive blooming, intentional, is entirely distracting. Despite a crazy low bitrate in spots (I caught 5.6 MBPS as the low point), there is no artifacting to speak of or ringing. Mostly yellow tinted to give it an older look. Black levels are weak, and the entire film carries that unmistakable digital look.


None of this seems to be fault of the transfer itself. While I didn't see this in theaters, I can't imagine this look being anything but intentional.

*Tier 3.75*


Onto the next one:
*Sorority Row*


This one uses a variety of film stocks and lighting conditions. One scene in a car seems to be shot on 16MM, the higher grain structure being the indicator. The contrast can run hot, and the colors are all over the place. Some are warm and brightly saturated, such as the parties, others are grim and offer limited color, such as the first scene with Carrie Fisher. Some banding is noted, generally unobtrusive. Blacks also vary, from some notable crush to flat and lifeless.


Environments are nicely detailed when in focus, while facial textures come and go. Beyond the banding, the transfer offers no digital problems to speak of.

*Tier 2.75*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Box*


Shot digitally with Panavision's Genesis, and it looks it. Minimal depth, blacks are flat, and facial textures are non-existent. Colors take a natural style, with pale flesh tones. Aliasing is a small battle, including the ceiling lights at 1:12:13. Some establishing city shots are impressive despite the digital sheen, and environmental detail can be strong. Clear and bright.

*Tier 2.50*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Burn After Reading


recommendation: Tier 1.75
*

My placement is a little late to the party, as _Burn After Reading_ has resided in tier 2.0 for the better part of a year. The prior reviews on it here were spot-on for the strengths and weaknesses seen in the picture. Personal preferences though lead me to a score at the bottom of tier one. Universal included the 95-minute main feature on a BD-50. The VC-1 video encode averages a strong 31.42 Mbps, which fully preserves the original grain structure and detail of the film while minimizing any appearance of artifacting.


In all aspects the transfer looks handled properly except for the addition of edge enhancement. Some scenes do display noticeable halos that adds an unwanted edginess at times. A couple of scenes contain moiré patterns in the background. But the image has an inordinate amount of high-frequency information which is regularly shown off in close-ups and long-range shots. The picture is very consistent in look and rarely deviates from the same established quality. Made from a Digital Intermediate, the color palette favors cold, blue tones and neutral colors that were likely tweaked in post-production. There is not a hint of filtering anywhere to be spotted.


Ranking this disc in tier 2.0 is perfectly justified, but I felt it had a tick more detail than most of the Blu-rays at that level. Hence my recommendation to movie it up a notch.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of eric.exe):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...8#post15284628


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18204606
> 
> *Burn After Reading
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 1.75
> *
> 
> My placement is a little late to the party, as _Burn After Reading_ has resided in tier 2.0 for the better part of a year. The prior reviews on it here were spot-on for the strengths and weaknesses seen in the picture. Personal preferences though lead me to a score at the bottom of tier one. Universal included the 95-minute main feature on a BD-50. The VC-1 video encode averages a strong 31.42 Mbps, which fully preserves the original grain structure and detail of the film while minimizing any appearance of artifacting.
> 
> 
> In all aspects the transfer looks handled properly except for the addition of edge enhancement. Some scenes do display noticeable halos that adds an unwanted edginess at times. A couple of scenes contain moiré patterns in the background. But the image has an inordinate amount of high-frequency information which is regularly shown off in close-ups and long-range shots. The picture is very consistent in look and rarely deviates from the same established quality. Made from a Digital Intermediate, the color palette favors cold, blue tones and neutral colors that were likely tweaked in post-production. There is not a hint of filtering anywhere to be spotted.
> 
> 
> Ranking this disc in tier 2.0 is perfectly justified, but I felt it had a tick more detail than most of the Blu-rays at that level. Hence my recommendation to movie it up a notch.
> 
> 
> BDInfo scan (courtesy of eric.exe):
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...8#post15284628



We're on the same page Phantom!

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...postcount=9830


----------



## djoberg

^^^^


I'm confused....I just checked the reviews for _Burn After Reading_ and before today there were 2 for 1.5, 1 for 1.75, and 1 for 2.0. Unless I missed something here...and my math is bad, this should be ranked at 1.75 (or higher).


Edit: Oops! I went back again and saw one more vote for 2.5.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

The lack of good, new releases at the moment seems to be killing discussion in the thread. Burn After Reading did not really look like a tier two-caliber title to me except for the edge enhancement. However it was very close in my opinion. Remember that once a title makes it on the list, the ranking is harder to move. At least that is how I have been treating the decision for placements of current listings. I figure if a title stays in the list for a while with no objections at the current placement, that indicates silent approval by the thousands that regularly view the tiers.


Can anyone think of upcoming Blu-rays that might challenge for the top tier? Toy Story's original animation probably looks outdated by now, but I assume it will be re-rendered at a greater resolution to match Blu-ray quality. That BD is unlikely to challenge for the top spots, but Pixar has pulled rabbits out of their hat before and it should be interesting.


----------



## deltasun

I've just been buried and have not had a chance to view much. Plus, I'm working out the final details to finally get part of my Paradigm setup in a couple of weeks or so. I do have _Dead Snow_, _Sorority Row_, and _Nurse Jackie_ sitting on my sofa. I still have to review _The Final Destination_, but may just quote someone on it and give mine.










As for your question, not the top tier but _Avatar_ might have a chance to surprise. I recently saw a BD preview of _Book of Eli_ and was surprised to see how poorly it ported over (at least on that preview).


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18206380
> 
> 
> Can anyone think of upcoming Blu-rays that might challenge for the top tier? Toy Story's original animation probably looks outdated by now, but I assume it will be re-rendered at a greater resolution to match Blu-ray quality. That BD is unlikely to challenge for the top spots, but Pixar has pulled rabbits out of their hat before and it should be interesting.



I'm cheating a little, since the UK release is already in Tier 0, but the US release of Red Cliff next month should presumably have an opportunity to vie for the top spots.


For animated fare, The Princess and the Frog, Ponyo, Fantastic Mr. Fox, Planet 51 and Astro Boy are also coming soon.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

For me it's the olympics... I have a stack of blu's from Zip.ca that I should have watched and sent back by now but haven't. Between the olympics being on the tv nonstop and making jewelry for my shop (plus the whole 'mom' thing!) I'm soooo behind on watching blu's! I'll catch up soon though and get some reviews done for here!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/18206885
> 
> 
> For me it's the olympics...



Spoken like a true Canadian!


----------



## Hughmc

And gang don't expect much of great PQ on some of these new releases. I watched The Box and The Informant and both were of average to mediocre PQ as Gamereviewgod pointed out in his reviews. I was spoiled after viewing Couples Retreat as it looks really good.







The Box also put me to sleep, literally, as it was way slow.










I am going to watch Law Abiding CItizen tonight.


And yes, Olympics like GGG said...what are you Canadian or something?










This has been the few times I haven't watched more of the winter Olympics as I love them. Canucks really kicked butt on Russia, but Nabi really sucked and was good for letting 4 softies in...shame, because what the game could have been.


OT, but if any of you have a PS3(yes the sacriligeous poor BD player







) and are into gaming check out Heavy Rain as it is like playing a movie and the graphics are stunning.


Edit: I just scanned through THe INformant again. It is interesting looking. At times it looks like some tier 0 and the detail is amazing, but most often it has the goldish hue to it, a soft filtered look, but not DNR, more like the lense/filter they used and whites and bright lights tend to be blown out. A tier 3 that could have easily been tier 1 had different filtering been used. I would guess director's intent and a particular look was trying to be achieved.

*The Informant:


Tier Recommendation: Tier 3.0.*


----------



## Ozymandis

The Princess and the Frog should end up in Tier 0, maybe at the top... it was gorgeous in the theater. If the transfer is good (and I'm sure it will be) I'd bet this one will end up impressing. My feeling is that there is a certain quality to hand-drawn animation that puts CGI to shame, especially some of the ones towards the top of the list. Up IMO is way too high, and A Bug's Life has dated animation.


Just my 2 cents. Haven't seen any reviews of this Blu-ray yet so maybe I'm off.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Much to my daughter's chagrin, we missed Princess and the Frog in the theatre (one of the downsides of having only 1 theatre that has 3 screens when many films are released at once... grr!), so I already know I will be getting that one.



I'm Canuck and proud, and definitely have a soft spot for Olympics, although admittedly even with my Canadian status I don't think I've watched this much Curling, ever, in my life; the Norwegian team's pants definitely have a lot of character in HD!


----------



## Mr.G




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18206471
> 
> 
> I recently saw a BD preview of _Book of Eli_ and was surprised to see how poorly it ported over (at least on that preview).



I saw this in the theater and thought it looked and sounded excellent in spite of the fact that the film sported that 'color-drained' look that seems so in vogue nowadays. I'm looking forward to this BD and hopefully it's better than the preview version you saw.


----------



## Ozymandis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/18209238
> 
> 
> Much to my daughter's chagrin, we missed Princess and the Frog in the theatre (one of the downsides of having only 1 theatre that has 3 screens when many films are released at once... grr!), so I already know I will be getting that one.



Like I said, wow. It looked amazing, I took my daughter and we both loved it. There's just a warmth and life with hand-drawn animation and Tier 0 lacks any of these titles. As it should, there hasn't been a Tier 0-worthy animated release that I can think of, Tekkon Kinkreet is probably the best on Blu-ray, I liked Sleeping Beauty but not sure if it's Tier 0 material.


I predict a high tier 0 placement


----------



## OldCodger73

_The Ladykillers_ is a Liongate release of a 1955 Ealing Studios droll black comedy, one that starred Alec Guiness.


With one major exception the print looks remarkably clean without glaring scratches, dirt or other flaws. However, the color seems badly faded, looking like a poorly preserved Ekatchrome slide from the late 1950s or early 1960s-- but who knows, maybe it was shot that way. Detail and depth are below average. Night scenes look muddy. Overall the movie has an almost DVD look.

*The Ladykillers Tier 4.0.*


Blu-ray.com has a much more positive review of the PQ, rating it 4Bs out of 5 which, I think, is heavily weighted by the fact that it's a 1955 film.


The movie itself was very enjoyable. The English, in the late 1940s and early to mid 1950s, were masters at this type of comedy.


Panasonic S1 65 plasma, Panasonic 10a player, 9'


----------



## OldCodger73

Netflix came through today with _Revanche_, which I hope to watch either tonight or Saturday night.


There are a lot of interesting March releases coming, especially on March 23. So hopefully more people might be motivated to do reviews. Plus the Olympics will be over-- go USA men's hockey!


----------



## djoberg

*Jennifer's Body*


It's time for me to quit my "Blu-ray fast," so I've rented 4 titles for a "Blu-ray feast" today. My first outing was _Jennifer's Body_ and I believe I will echo the sentiments of 42041 and deltasun by saying this is an impressive Blu-ray that easily qualifies as "demo-worthy."


The blacks were topnotch as were shadow details. They were some of the best I've seen in awhile (especially the shadow details) and there were plenty of scenes sprinkled throughout the movie highlighting this "eye candy" (the forest scene, the park scene, and a couple of neighborhood street scenes to name a few).


Facial details were excellent, though I agree with deltasun that this was limited to very close shots. Details in general were VERY GOOD, especially outdoor scenes. There is a scene where Megan Fox is drying off after a swim and you could see every little hair on her shoulder. Such is the detail this title has to offer.


Colors were a bit over saturated at times, but for the most part they were natural and vibrant. Flesh tones were spot on.


My only gripe was (as mentioned by both my peers) some heavy grain at times, but this was rare, so I would only dock it a 1/4 tier or so for that.


During the viewing I kept thinking, "This is definitely worth at least 1.5," but after further consideration, I'm going to line up with my colleagues on this one and place it here.....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite BDP-05....Viewed from 8'


----------



## djoberg

*Zombieland*


I just checked former reviews and I see we have a mixed bag as far as placement recommendations....one for the middle of Tier 0 (Gamereviewgod), 1 for 1.0 (jedimasterchad), and 1 for 1.75 (deltasun). I believe my vote coincides with jedi on this one.


This title has two outstanding virtues: *DETAILS* and *BLACKS*. The details are simply phenomenal in numerous scenes, especially scenes with a lot of color. Bill Murray's residence (both inside and out) was a true feast for the eyes as far as detail (and colors) goes and this occupied a decent amount of running time.


The blacks were to die for!! The last scene at the amusement park (which also had a very long running time) portrayed some of the deepest and inkiest blacks I've ever seen on my KURO. And with deep blacks you also get good depth and an enhancement of other colors, so this scene gave my eyes a sugar rush that I will savor for a very long time!


Colors were very good as well, though there were a few short scenes with muted colors that weren't that impressive.


The only thing holding this back from Tier 0 was facial details. There were times where they bordered on Tier 0, but most of the time they were just a bit above average.


Again, my take on this was much like that of jedimasterchad, so I will vote for....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.0*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite BDP-05....Viewed from 8'


----------



## djoberg

I forgot to mention my next two titles are _Inglourious Basterds_ and _Law Abiding Citizens_ and if they are as good (PQ-wise) as former reviewers say they are, that will be 4 Tier 1 Blu-rays in a row!! I know they say you're supposed to eat light after a fast, but I'm enjoying this 7 course meal too much to abide by the rules.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mr.G* /forum/post/18210162
> 
> 
> I saw this in the theater and thought it looked and sounded excellent in spite of the fact that the film sported that 'color-drained' look that seems so in vogue nowadays. I'm looking forward to this BD and hopefully it's better than the preview version you saw.



Saw it in the theatre too (similar style to _The Road_) and really enjoyed the look there. That's why I was so shocked with the poor quality preview. It seemed the color-drained look was bland, unlike in the theatre. Also, depth seemed drained as well.


I'm with you though - hope the actual BD looks great!


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18212837
> 
> 
> I forgot to mention my next two titles are _Inglourious Basterds_ and _Law Abiding Citizens_ and if they are as good (PQ-wise) as former reviewers say they are, that will be 4 Tier 1 Blu-rays in a row!! I know they say you're supposed to eat light after a fast, but I'm enjoying this 7 course meal too much to abide by the rules.



Haha...fasting can be dangerous to your health and sanity.


Law Abiding...I watched it last night and it is an interesting story and the PQ is really good.


----------



## djoberg

*Inglourious Basterds*


I've still got one more title to go, so this (by necessity) is going to be short. The bottom line on this one is, as others have said, "It's a beautiful looking film!"


I just loved the phenomenal detail and incredible depth, the warm and vivid colors, the rich black levels and finely-rendered shadow details, the superb contrast, the spot-on flesh tones, and the flawless facial details (on close-up shots).


The only (minimal) censure would be a couple of soft scenes (as mentioned the scene in the basement bar is quite soft). I did NOT see the halos that Phantom saw (thankfully I hardly ever do), nor any other anomalies.


This is most definitely a Tier 1 Blu-ray and I'm inclined to put it towards the top of that tier, sooooo.....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite BDP-05....Viewed from 8'


----------



## djoberg

*Law Abiding Citizen*


Well, I think I can safely say I left the best for last; I'm speaking of the movie itself and not necessarily the PQ. This was a fast-paced thriller that kept me thinking all the way through, though I had to "suspend my unbelief" at times, especially during the latter half. The PQ is a winner too, though out of the 4 I watched this one was a tad inferior to the other 3. It's still a shoe in for Tier 1, but I couldn't, with a good conscience, assign it a place at the top of that tier.


This film was, for the most part, amazingly sharp and detailed. Details in clothing, furniture, streets, buildings, etc. were eye candy, to be sure. Facial detail was also very satisfying, with close-ups rivaling those in low Tier 0. Add to this some shots with very impressive depth and dimensionality and you have the perfect recipe for a demo disc!


Black levels were rich with accompanying shadow details. The exception to this was in several scenes (notably those taking place in the prison and a warehouse) where it became quite soft and even murky-looking.


The only other *negative* were a few instances of out-of-focus shots.


I'm tired...and ready to call it a day. So on that note I leave you with this...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite BDP-05....Viewed from 8'


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18212751
> 
> *Zombieland*
> 
> 
> I just checked former reviews and I see we have a mixed bag as far as placement recommendations....one for the middle of Tier 0 (Gamereviewgod), 1 for 1.0 (jedimasterchad), and 1 for 1.75 (deltasun). I believe my vote coincides with jedi on this one.
> 
> 
> This title has two outstanding virtues: *DETAILS* and *BLACKS*. The details are simply phenomenal in numerous scenes, especially scenes with a lot of color. Bill Murphy's residence (both inside and out) was a true feast for the eyes as far as detail goes and this occupied a decent amount of running time.
> 
> 
> The blacks were to die for!! The last scene at the amusement park (which also had a very long running time) portrayed some of the deepest and inkiest blacks I've ever seen on my KURO. And with deep blacks you also get good depth and an enhancement of other colors, so this scene gave my eyes a sugar rush that I will savor for a very long time!
> 
> 
> Colors were very good as well, though there were a few short scenes with muted colors that weren't that impressive.
> 
> 
> The only thing holding this back from Tier 0 was facial details. There were times where they bordered on Tier 0, but most of the time they were just a bit above average.
> 
> 
> Again, my take on this was much like that of jedimasterchad, so I will vote for....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.0*
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite BDP-05....Viewed from 8'



Wow, I thought this was a mid Tier 2 title.


I probably shouldn't say anything since I didn't do a review shortly after watching it. I did enjoy the movie quite a bit though.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Law Abiding Citizen*


I found the PQ on this title to vary quite a bit. There were many scenes that looked very good, with good sense of depth as the result of good contrast and black levels. But other scenes, especially in the second half of the movie it seemed, were not nearly as good in this regard, and many scenes appeared a bit flat by comparison.


Detail is good overall, but not superb by any means. Colors are pleasing and natural looking overall.


Bottom line on this one for me is that it is a good looking title, but it is not good enough to belong in the top tier (1). Yes, we have yet another Tier 2 title (the dumping ground).


As for the movie itself: it was not at all what I was expecting from the previews. This was a very violent film. In fact, I found this film to be FAR more violent/extreme than anything that was seen in The Final Destination, largely due to the latter film being so over the top as to be nearly comical. That wasn't the case here, but it also seemed to be completely unnecessary and out of place.


While Law Abiding Citizen was not a horrible movie, it wasn't very good either. _[EDIT: Actually, I have to take that back. After thinking it through more and after writing this review...I do think it is a "horrible" movie]_ Like Denny said, you definitely have to suspend your disbelief, which is fine...but I think this film was asking us to do that a bit too much, especially in the last 1/3 of the film (again, as Denny said).


But the thing that really ruined it for me was

*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) the fact that we have yet another film, for the millionth time, where someone digs a hole to be able to get out of prison! Ugh!!! We try to answer for ourselves how he was killing all these people from behind bars...thinking that the answer would be unique and interesting.....and the answer is he dug a freaking hole!








.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 2.25*


----------



## djoberg

Rob, after thinking more about it and reading your review, I have lowered my opinion of the movie _Law Abiding Citizen_. I guess what I did like about it was it was fast-paced enough to keep me awake at the end of a long day.







I guess my real favorite out of the 4 was _Inglourious Basterds_. I love *most* movies based on Nazi Germany and I thought some of the dialogue, especially the scenes with the Colonel in it, were quite engaging. Have you seen that title yet?


I read your *spoiler* and I would agree with part of what you say, but you must admit there is a uniqueness (from my vantage point anyway) to the scenario you speak of. PM me if you have no idea what I'm talking about.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Denny, I simply LOVE Inglourious Basterds! It's probably the best film that I have seen in a year. Of course I am a huge Tarantino fan, so take that into consideration.


Not sure what "uniqueness" you are talking about re Law Abiding Citizen. I will PM you.


I agree, it was mostly fast paced, and it was definitely not "boring", I will give it that. I just checked Rotten Tomatoes and it has a 25% rating!


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Wrong Side of Town*


Due to my sheer disdain for the utter atrocity that is this movie, I'm more than tempted to drop this as low as it would go because that's all it deserves.


But that wouldn't be very professional, now would it?


So, this one is definitely going low, due to some of the worst artifacting I've seen on Blu-ray. This was shot digitally, and the encode holds a high bitrate, so I'm assuming this is the source causing the problems. Banding is a constant problem. Black levels are never black, just a murky, unsatisfying gray. Facial details, in close at least, can be outstanding. Well defined, sharp, and crisp despite the digital nature.


Regardless this, one looks cheap as hell and not a single frame really pops.

*Tier 4.0*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18215100
> 
> 
> Denny, I simply LOVE Inglourious Basterds! It's probably the best film that I have seen in a year. Of course *I am a huge Tarantino fan, so take that into consideration*.



I'm a fan of Tarantino too Rob. His movies are always unique, much like the beloved Coen Brothers (I'm not comparing these two exactly, other than to say their movies are unique).


I've been thinking this morning of _Inglourious Basterds_ and how much I loved the dialogue throughout the whole film. As I mentioned last night, I was really engaged when different ones were being *interrogated* by the Colonel (head of security), and the questioning in the bar by the SS officer was classic!


----------



## K-Spaz

*The Tale of Despereaux*


Its been a while since I formally attempted to review anything but when I saw the listing for this, I thought I better chime in.


The sum total of reviews on this so far are:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17184905
> 
> 
> Oh. I Just remembered that I never did a review for *The Tale of Despereaux*. Main reason being I was distracted a few times through the movie and so I didn't feel I watched enough of it to do a review & I've already sent it back. But just in case someone comes surfing around and does a search wondering where it would be, I'm comfortable enough saying that _unofficially_ it would be in around *Tier 1.5 or possibly higher* with a better eye on it than mine was when it was on.



And:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Filmaholic* /forum/post/17147904
> 
> 
> Yeah... Despereaux does not look too hot...



Ok, well, I'm thinking I go with "Possibly Higher", like a whole bunch.


As with many of the higher end animated titles, it really comes down to nit-picking than anything. This movie has a few areas that for lack of a better word, I'll call "archival footage". It's some scenes that are very short, talking about days gone by and using a slow framerate or such effect to make you feel like you're watching artwork animation. Will I fault this? No. Furthermore the scenes are rare. Some of the scenes of the princess are sorta lacking, but lets face it, all animated movies have moments that we don't fall off our chairs.


I think those moments stand out because we are so impressed the rest of the time. Anything that doesn't knock our socks off is "not up to par". I'll say, I've not been impressed with any movie this much since A Bugs Life. Up did not do it for me, Meet The Robinsons, Monsters Inc, Kung Fu Panda is imo far too high and dated, but that's another story.


I don't like to suggest high placement without watching a movie twice and I'll do that tonight probably. I did go and take screenshots just cause it was so impressive I thought I'd share some on the Screenshot War thread. Here's links to them just to wet peoples appetite to see and review this. There's 2 posts (so far), I did take more pics but didn't post). I know, screenshots don't show PQ, but if you can't see this looks good from these, I don't know what to say.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post18214755 

Two posts below there's a few more showing the beloved "Facials"! Impressive.


This movie is THE single most detailed animated film I have seen. The Ice Age stuff is not even in the same league. A person should sit closer to the screen to view this. I was mesmerized. As a bonus, the movie was easy to watch too. I did laugh a little at myself, when listening to the Princess I simply could not think of who that was (didn't want to go look to cheat), it's Emma Watson! I was thinking, "Damn it I know that voice..." and she is distinct. I did not realize she'd done work outside the HP franchise.


I'd really like to hear some other opinions on this. The two linked above were less than adamant, even admittedly not thorough. It really does not belong in T1.5.

*Tier Recommendation: Top Half of 0*and worthy of bumping a few other animated titles down imo. I would not question if others placed it at the #1 position, I might also if I see it a few more times. Think Ratatouille style natural colors with much better depth, lighting, and more detail by a mile, but not shot in a fog like that was. All the lessons from that movie were learned well here by Universal.


ps. The colors in this blew me away. Writing this makes me excited about seeing this again.


==EDIT==

Viewed on InFocus X10, 104" from 11.5' played from LG drive in HTPC.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^


I'm hooking up a new receiver today K-Spaz, but if I have time I'll go rent it. I'm leaving early Monday morning for 5-6 days so if I don't get to it today it'll be a good week before I do. You've definitely whetted my appetite for viewing it!


----------



## K-Spaz

Yea that stinks you had the reactor meltdown there Denny. I know how it feels tho, I was missing a projector for a month a while back.


The movie will probably fit your schedule if you're leaving again. It's pretty short, I think


----------



## jedimasterchad

I have Law Abiding Citizen on the kitchen table, just waiting for the wife to get home. I have been watching a ton of olympics also, can't wait for that hockey game tomorrow! I haven't really gotten to watch anything great lately, but I did pick up a few titles for cheap (Transporter 1,2 and Batman Begins/Dark Knight) so I'll be able to see DK on blu finally.


We might get a winner next week with 2012, btw.


----------



## deltasun

*The Final Destination (2D)*


This had some great 3D moments in medium shots. Facial close-up's did not have the same crispness as Tier 0 titles, but did impress in a few scenes. The biggest issue I had with the look is the filtering that seem to permeate the entire movie. It made for a weak-looking contrast, unnatural surrounding softness, and unnatural colors. Primaries did look good, however. Black levels were not the best, but adequate. Same with shadow details. Skin tones had that digital, saturated look, but was fairly natural.


The odd thing about the look was that once in a while a sequence will look outstanding - upper Tier 1 quality. I then question my overall impression. A quick rewind/review reveals there are Tier 1 aberrations. Some ringing noted.


I see this smack dab in the middle of the Silver Tier:

*Tier Recommendation: 2.50*


Huge fan of the first one, but this one was a bit much. A real insult to the intelligence (whatever I have left after viewing).

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/18217154
> 
> *The Tale of Despereaux*
> 
> 
> I
> *Tier Recommendation: Top Half of 0*and worthy of bumping a few other animated titles down imo. I would not question if others placed it at the #1 position, I might also if I see it a few more times. Think Ratatouille style natural colors with much better depth, lighting, and more detail by a mile, but not shot in a fog like that was. All the lessons from that movie were learned well here by Universal.



I have a review of this pending on my site that I will publish when I have a dry spell of content. Its been a while, but I noted flat blacks in the human world/great in rat world, aliasing on Despereaux's whiskers, and some flatness in the source animation (fur especially). Also noted ringing on some trees at the farm, apparently minor though.


Only two sites gave this one a perfect score (and two 70s, although one is IGN so that's not worth much):

http://cinemasquid.com/blu-ray/movie...008&locale=all


----------



## deltasun

*Dead Snow*


Some blown out whites, decent blacks, and subdued colors were the order of the day. Digital noise was also noted in darker scenes. Depth wasn't the feature's strengths and neither were low-light details. Most of the outdoor scenes, especially, seemed flat. Extreme facial close-up's were excellent - some of the best examples of on-screen textures, particularly the blood-drenched ones towards the end.


Some ringing noted on high contrast edges; no DNR.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75*


A mediocre addition to the zombie genre; in this case, Nazi zombies. Some notable moments.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18217675
> 
> 
> I have a review of this pending on my site that I will publish when I have a dry spell of content. Its been a while, but I noted flat blacks in the human world/great in rat world, aliasing on Despereaux's whiskers, and some flatness in the source animation (fur especially). Also noted ringing on some trees at the farm, apparently minor though.



I figure, colors in an animated title are precisely what was intended. I take them for what they are, not what I think they should have been. I would not say everything in the film was the way I'd have it, but, if we were to wait till every person thought it was perfect, it would never be done.


I saw no ringing, but I didn't go overboard looking for it. I'll see it again and I'll try to pick out things to nit pick. I thought the fur was incredible, as well as clothes/fabric. At least on my system I thought it was amazing.



> Quote:
> Only two sites gave this one a perfect score (and two 70s, although one is IGN so that's not worth much):



Well, I'm with the guys who gave it 100. Whatever perfection is, I don't know, but this looked as close as I have seen.


Is there a way to see if those people who gave this a 70 have ever given a film a 100?


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/18218078
> 
> 
> Well, I'm with the guys who gave it 100. Whatever perfection is, I don't know, but this looked as close as I have seen.
> 
> 
> Is there a way to see if those people who gave this a 70 have ever given a film a 100?



One of them is DVD Talk's Adam Tyner - a personal favorite of mine.


He has indeed given out plenty of 100's as well some 0's (which is fairly unique): Adam Tyner Reviews Sorted by Video Score .


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

I certainly wasn't comfortable giving Desperaux a tier 0 ranking when I know I only half paid attention to it. From memory, what I recalled was definitely in tier 1 and at the time nobody had reviewed it so that's why i did my cursory post about it. It kind of reminded me of Bolt-territory, which I also paid half attention to but also did not think it hit tier 0. *shrug* I'm not going to watch that one again, so I leave it to you guys!


----------



## djoberg

*The Tale of Despereaux*


Okay, I'm thinking to myself about halfway through..."Why haven't I seen this before? It's GORGEOUS!" Thanks K-Spaz for pointing me in the direction of this quality film; I enjoyed the movie and the PQ immensely!


I'm going to echo the praises of K-Spaz on this, for I agree with him that this animated title has more detail (especially in the form of furry rats and mice!) than any that I've seen to date. The first 17 minutes weren't as impressive in this department, but once you entered the "Mouseworld," followed by "Ratworld," you are in for a treat. Detail and depth abound in every scene!!


There were two negatives that keep this title from rising to the top of the hill: occasional softness and less-than-stellar blacks. The soft scenes, for the most part, are seen sporadically in the first 17 minutes and the dull blacks are really limited to just a few shots (this is NOT a title that features a lot of blacks or shadow details).


I'm going to tell you this is a really hard one to call. I say that because even though there are some soft shots and dark grays in lieu of blacks, the majority of the film rocks with incredible detail and depth, vivid colors, superb contrast, and a sharpness worthy of a top tier. All things considered I can't possibly see this in any other tier than Blu, so I'm joining the ranks of K-Spaz and calling for.....

*Tier Recommendation: Middle of Tier 0*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite BDP-05....Viewed from 8'


PS The DTS HD Master Audio was also reference! I just hooked up a new Pioneer receiver and after listening to this Blu and scenes from _Live Free and Die Hard_ I have to say it's better than the Onkyo 705 I had for two years. Sweet!!


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/18218239
> 
> 
> One of them is DVD Talk's Adam Tyner - a personal favorite of mine.
> 
> 
> He has indeed given out plenty of 100's as well some 0's (which is fairly unique): Adam Tyner Reviews Sorted by Video Score .



Thanks for the link CS, good stuff.


Of his 100's, I have seen exactly 11, though that will be 12 by the end of the night. I would pointedly disagree with 2, The Spirit and Push. I'd go lower on several, Thunderball, Doomsday, Enchanted... The rest I'd accept, though, several imo are outclassed by many on the Tier 0 list. It's interesting how little his assessments agree with here.


I did just see tToD again, and though there are parts that look far less real than others, I still have to say this has the best looking images I have seen on blu-ray. Anything that would be deducted here is easily found in any other title (imo).


==edit==

Glad you liked it Denny. I agree that the worst parts are the early passages (laughing as I type, 'worst parts'). Watching the second time, it almost felt like they wanted you to slowly get sucked in and once they got you, set the hook, so to speak. I had guests here tonight and even they said omg it looks incredible.


I also saw 9 tonight, it's not in the same realm.


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/18219369
> 
> 
> Thanks for the link CS, good stuff.
> 
> 
> Of his 100's, I have seen exactly 11, though that will be 12 by the end of the night. I would pointedly disagree with 2, The Spirit and Push. I'd go lower on several, Thunderball, Doomsday, Enchanted... The rest I'd accept, though, several imo are outclassed by many on the Tier 0 list. It's interesting how little his assessments agree with here.



I think that most good reviewers will balance artistic intent and filmic context along with comparative inter-title absolute PQ when coming up with a score, but when it comes down to it there is very much the factor of their personal aesthetic mixed with some amount of arbitrariness so it not surprising that they rarely match the placements of the more democratically determined yet strictly defined tiers.


For many longtime reviewers, there must also often be an issue with 2007 != 2008 != 2009 != 2010...etc. as the standards for what forms the best of the best shifts. A difficult situation for them, since it would be bad practice for them to rescore titles without explanation. An entirely "revisited" review would be preferable in these situations, but hardly practical with a veritable mountain of new title reviews to be published.


In essence, that is the three-pronged beauty of this thread - very clear guidelines for scoring, a constructive debate process, and the ability to rethink decisions once they have been made. The individual reviewer is most interesting for their strongly flavored individual opinion, which can be variably sweet or sour depending on your own taste.


----------



## deltasun

*Sorority Row*


Very mixed results on this one. There's literally an example of each extreme throughout the movie and so I'd just be describing a bad instance, followed by a good instance. Instead, I'll simply talk about what really stood out. Grain was pretty prominent during darker sequences (which this film obviously had plenty of). Shadow details were adequate for the most part and contrast levels were above average. Blacks crushed with annoying regularity.


Dimensionality was limited to outdoor, daytime scenes. Otherwise, it's fairly 2-dimensional. Faces weren't exactly soft, but did not exhibit textures or details. Some did show a bit of very fine follicles at the right lighting.


I have to throw this one into the Bronze tier...

*Tier Recommendation: 3.25*


Denny's getting all the good movies and I'm getting crap!
















_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## OldCodger73

Visually, _Revanche_ is a good transfer. Detail is generally good, bordering on very good at times. Facial close-ups tend to be very good. Depth is also good. I didn't see any digital manipulations, but they have to be very obvious for me to notice. There appears to be some grain but it doesn't detract from the overall viewing experience. Colors are subdued, which fits the mood of the film well.


Overall, Criterion has done a good job with this film. *Revanche Tier 1.5*.

_Revanche_ starts as a ho-hum minor crime flick but once everything is set up, it suddenly turns into a totally engrossing character study. The movie has a definite foreboding feeling that things won't turn out well for the main character, and the open-end ending feels just right.


One note, in the opening scene the subtitles don't start right away. It's a minute or two into the film, when they're in the shower, that they begin. I went to the menu twice to make sure that I did have the subtitles turned on.


Panasonic TC-P65S1, Panasonic 10a player, 9'


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/18220014
> 
> 
> I think that most good reviewers will balance artistic intent and filmic context along with comparative inter-title absolute PQ when coming up with a score, but when it comes down to it there is very much the factor of their personal aesthetic mixed with some amount of arbitrariness so it not surprising that they rarely match the placements of the more democratically determined yet strictly defined tiers.
> 
> 
> In essence, that is the three-pronged beauty of this thread - very clear guidelines for scoring, a constructive debate process, and the ability to rethink decisions once they have been made.



Never have I come across a more convincing argument for the raison d'être of this very thread. I was drawn to this thread in the first place because many reviewers were ascribing all sorts of visual flaws to directorial whim and glossing over them. Many people forget that most films are a commercial enterprise, where budgetary concerns often force limitations on a film's appearance more than any conscious decision by the creative talent.


65mm film would be more commonly used if the studios would agree to pay for it, but few directors are at the level where they can get that approval. The use of artistic intent as a qualifying factor in a review of picture quality often seems to cover for the personal tastes of the reviewer, and nothing more.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Walk The Line


recommendation: Tier 1.5*


Hollywood loves to eulogize dead musicians in the form of biopics. In 2005, Fox did exactly that for Johnny Cash with _Walk The Line_. As opposed to Europe, where Fox released the extended cut of the film, this BD only features the 135-minute theatrical version, spread out over a BD-50. The film is encoded in AVC and there is conflicting information on the average video bitrate. BDInfo reports the average as 22.97 Mbps, while the packaging provided by Fox itself indicates the use of AVC at 24 Mbps. The BDInfo scan is likely accurate, as the packaging information has been proven wrong in a few instances.


Expectations for most catalog films have been tempered by the declining picture quality of them recently, as older titles are now often released without regard for the condition of the existing master. Many early catalog selections were purposely cherry-picked because of their visual appeal in high-definition. _Walk The Line_ is a strong exception to that trend. It easily stands alongside most new releases in the criteria laid out, with exceptional detail and ample depth in the image.


The cinematography and filming is virtually perfect, which gets easily translated to this Blu-ray. Film purists will find little to fault the transfer. Struck from a Digital Intermediate, only the presence of extremely moderate edge enhancement subtracts from the intended film-like experience. Examples can be spotted on larger displays where scenes showcase certain high-contrast lines, such as the strings on June Carter's autoharp. No one should avoid this BD for the minor halos that only show up in a few scenes.


Some were worried the transfer might have been processed with digital noise reduction. There is virtually no evidence to indicate any use of it. An abundance of high-frequency information and detail fill each frame, from the freshly-shaved pores of Joaquin Phoenix, to the tiny worry-lines on Reese Witherspoon's face. Even medium-range shots display an inordinate level of definition. This aspect alone easily qualifies in the upper half of tier one. The grain structure looks remarkably healthy and natural given the typical bitrates seen on the BD.


Deluxe Digital Studios is credited as the authoring house responsible for the compression. In general there are no compression problems, and the image looks comparable in those terms to most recent Blu-rays from clean source material. The parameters are reminiscent of the very solid encoding done for _Fight Club_, another Fox Blu-ray. Peak rates are well over 40 Mbps. Personal preferences lead me to believe an extra ounce of transparency to the master might have been achieved with average rates in the thirties. Remember there are no visible artifacts like macroblocking on the American BD, but the European encode has its video encoded at 32.59 Mbps. A comparison might be interesting for future study.


The picture itself is incredibly clean and well-lit in all instances, giving off superb depth and extraordinary dimension for a catalog selection. Most of the film is very sharp aside from a few short scenes. Contrast is pitch-perfect in appearance, allowing the thoroughly deep black levels to test your display's ability to reproduce shadow detail. This BD might possess the best-looking flesh-tones seen in high-definition. Human flesh actually looks like it should, not the unrealistic red or blue push so many transfers seem to have these days. It really should be used as a reference for pleasing color tonality and in balancing saturation levels of the primary colors. No one color dominates, and all the primary colors look spectacular in balance. Check out the rich and varied green hues on Johnny Cash's father's farm early in the movie. Those scenes possess that "looking-out-the-window" quality that only the best-looking material can achieve.


In the valley between tiers 1.25 and 1.5 is where _Walk The Line_ dwells for the PQ Tier thread. The transfer is about as good as the source elements will ever look, and I am giving it no extra credit for being authentic to the film's original look. _Walk The Line_ truly deserves the ranking of tier 1.5 for the splendid picture quality it exudes for the entire movie.


BDInfo Scan information (courtesy of DVDBeaver):


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/18217358
> 
> 
> I have Law Abiding Citizen on the kitchen table, just waiting for the wife to get home. I have been watching a ton of olympics also, can't wait for that hockey game tomorrow! I haven't really gotten to watch anything great lately, but I did pick up a few titles for cheap (Transporter 1,2 and Batman Begins/Dark Knight) so I'll be able to see DK on blu finally.
> 
> 
> We might get a winner next week with 2012, btw.



I'll be looking forward to your review on _Law Abiding Citizen_. I'd be curious to hear your take on the movie as well. Again, one surely has to "suspend their disbelief" at times, but overall I thought it was a very good rental.


Regarding _2012_, I hope you're right about it possibly being a winner. I was going to reserve it yesterday and then I remembered I'll be gone for most of the week.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*Moon*



Erm. I'm not sure that this really should be my first review after being away from blu rays for the better part of a month! This was a mixed bag, that is for sure.



Facial details during closeups were filled with detail. That's... that's about the only nice thing I have to say about this.



What a weird movie. I couldn't stop watching it, because I wanted to know what the heck was going to happen next, but... wow. Afterwards my only comment to my husband (who's statement after watching it was, "I would never recommend this to anyone,"), was that it felt as though it was a classic Sci-Fi story.


*Recommendation for Moon: Tier 3.0*
*Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800U, THX setting, approximately 7.5' viewing distance*


----------



## b_scott

has anyone reviewed Dumb and Dumber? It's onsale on Amazon today and I thought about grabbing it. I couldn't find it on the list. Thanks!


----------



## Mr.G




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/18226941
> 
> 
> has anyone reviewed Dumb and Dumber? It's onsale on Amazon today and I thought about grabbing it. I couldn't find it on the list. Thanks!



It was reviewed on Blu-ray.com back in 2008 and the video quality is sub-par for a Blu-ray release. However this is a (dumb) guilty pleasure movie for me which I already own on DVD. I have thought about picking it on Blu-ray when the price dropped low enough and I would like to see this in the bargain bin for $7 or $8 before buying.

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Dumb-a...-Blu-ray/2057/


----------



## b_scott

thanks. looks like i'll pass


----------



## Mr.G

*Hitman*


I decided to revisit this title after seeing _The Crazies_ at the theater yesterday which also starred Timothy Olyphant. I see this title was rated in this thread in 2008 and is currently ranked at Tier 2.0. There is a lot to like about this Blu-ray and to my eyes most of the problems associated with this title seemed tied to the source. Some scenes were so varied in color and texture that it looked like they changing film stock as they went along or the lighting was mismanaged. The lack of deep blacks was evident throughout but still okay. I didn't notice much EE or DNR but I'm sure the compression and bitrate hurt the quality by cramping the movie and extras onto a BD-25. My vote would be to leave it where it is in the rankings.

*Recommendation Tier 2.0*


----------



## Mr.G

My last review got me to thinking. Is there anything to be gained by agreeing with and reaffirming a title position already in the rankings? I can understand voting to raise or lower a score, but is agreeing with a placement just a waste of time and effort? Anyone?


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mr.G* /forum/post/18229618
> 
> 
> My last review got me to thinking. Is there anything to be gained by agreeing with and reaffirming a title position already in the rankings? I can understand voting to raise or lower a score, but is agreeing with a placement just a waste of time and effort? Anyone?



Well, I'm assuming if someone comes along down the line and says Hitman is a 2.5, that's 2 votes for Tier 2, and one for 2.5, so in that sense it could affect the final average. Of course, I'm not an admin in this thread so I'm not sure if that is really the case. Just guessing!


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mr.G* /forum/post/18229618
> 
> 
> My last review got me to thinking. Is there anything to be gained by agreeing with and reaffirming a title position already in the rankings? I can understand voting to raise or lower a score, but is agreeing with a placement just a waste of time and effort? Anyone?



It can never hurt to have another review reaffirm the current placement. I had vague recollections when reading your post of some contention around the time of its initial placement, many moons ago. Checking the thread, lgans316 and I had disagreed, with myself favoring a lower placement.


All reviews get noted in the "list" since my tenure began, even if they just repeat the current ranking. So go ahead and post identical placements if you are so inclined. Several of my recommendations in the past were of that exact nature.


----------



## jedimasterchad

*Law Abiding Citizen*


I finally got a chance to finish up on this one, and I have to say, although the ending was lame, it was pretty cool on the way there. I loved the Judge's cell phone. Totally awesome.


Anyway, the picture is not great, but it is not terrible. I noticed quite a few pretty good facial closeups, but nothing tier 0 quality. Detail was pretty good during interior scenes, but I think some of the outdoor shots got pretty soft. Colors were natural looking, and not oversaturated, and it runs a pretty mixed bag of all these shots. Not an overly dark or bright film, which is probably why some scenes look a lot better than others, as they didn't adjust the filming style to compensate.


The biggest flaw I noticed, and if you guys still have the disc I'd like someone to confirm this, is that when Jamie Foxx's wife and daughter leave on their "vacation" in the police car, as soon as Jamie enters the house again, it looks like a terrible double image of him. Look around his neck and head, and you will see what I mean. It was almost like the star wars flaw where you can see Han Solo's reflection in the glass. I looked twice and it was there both times, so I'm not sure what is going on with this. It was only for about 10 seconds though, so not enough to bring down the movie as a whole, but just thought I would note it here.


Anyway, I think I'd have to go with Rob and throw this one in the middle somewhere...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/18233373
> 
> *Law Abiding Citizen*
> 
> 
> The biggest flaw I noticed, and if you guys still have the disc I'd like someone to confirm this, is that when Jamie Foxx's wife and daughter leave on their "vacation" in the police car, as soon as Jamie enters the house again, it looks like a terrible double image of him. Look around his neck and head, and you will see what I mean. It was almost like the star wars flaw where you can see Han Solo's reflection in the glass. I looked twice and it was there both times, so I'm not sure what is going on with this. It was only for about 10 seconds though, so not enough to bring down the movie as a whole, but just thought I would note it here.



Yeah, I saw it. Intentional camera effect to simulate his mental state.


----------



## audiomagnate

*Vicky Christina Barcelona* I had a free non new release rental credit at Blockbuster so I picked this up. Maybe it's me, or maybe it's my rising black-level Panny plasma, but this had the same mildly amber tinted, low contrast soft focus look of as a lot of Blu-rays I've been renting lately. The first bed scene - I hope that's not considered a spoiler - was WAY out of focus. We're talking Barbara Walters on The View out of focus. The outdoor scenes of this gorgeous city were also very blah, even the scenes at the beach. No crispness or detail at all. Facial detail was nonexistent. I enjoyed the movie, one of Woody Allen's better recent efforts. *3.0*
*The Invention of Lying* This looked like Cinemax HD via Dish. You could tell it wasn't SD, but nothing about this disc said "Blu-ray" to me. I watched three Blu-rays last weekend and they all had this washed out blah look. Maybe I need to recalibrate or paint my room black. Couples Retreat and The Serious Man looked spectacular, but these two films and "District 9" were very disappointing. I guess directors/cinematographers don't care about the "magic light" any more, they seem to want this more real bland look. When I look out my window here in Colorado I see deep blues, bright whites (snow) and in general a crisp, high contrast world. You're not going to get it on theses releases*.2.5*


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18233461
> 
> 
> Yeah, I saw it. Intentional camera effect to simulate his mental state.



Why only do it for 10 seconds? Kind of out of place, if you ask me.


----------



## K-Spaz

*Law Abiding Citizen*


I also saw Law Abiding Citizen last night and I'm not sure I want to place this one. It was so inconsistent, I don't think I've ever seen anything like it. IMO, it had tier 1 shots, and tier 5 shots. So I'd recommend somewhere in there!







I had earlier gotten some parts cleaner shot in my eyes so they were sorta hurting and fuzzy, watering pretty bad, but I could see well enough I thought parts of this movie looked pretty bad. The colors were off so far at times I thought something was wrong with my system. I didn't pay close attention to all the flaws, but I remember at least one scene Jamie Foxx looked blue from some "stylistic" choice. Colors as a rule not only seemed inaccurate to me, but it made no sense that sometimes they were and other times they were not.


I'd almost rather chicken out from saying a number on this one, but I'm going to fall in at the low end of the current placements, I'll say:

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*

Viewed on Infocus X10 104" from 11.5'


Rob, I'm very surprised Rotten Tomatoes was at only 25 on this. I sorta liked it, though I admit it wasn't very serious. It was more believable than Eagle Eye


----------



## deltasun

You guys are making me very curious to rent this, just to see the PQ.







And yes, K-Spaz, I thought it was a good ride, but cannot get passed the weak ending. That is literally the only reason I have not bought this title. Though, if it ever dips below $10, I may snag it anyway.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/18237968
> 
> 
> 
> Rob, I'm very surprised Rotten Tomatoes was at only 25 on this. I sorta liked it, though I admit it wasn't very serious. It was more believable than Eagle Eye



Yeah, at least I was able to watch all of Law Abiding Citizen. I couldn't manage to do that with Eagle Eye!


----------



## Shydow

I'm trying to wait on a lady friend to pop in my now 2 day old release copy of 2012 and review, but yall are killin me over here! Not to mention she won't be here for at least another 2 or 3 days.


Although... It would be hard for 2012 to be any lower than Tier 1 from what I've seen of it. It's probably pretty much a sure fire Tier 0 (Judging from the reviews I've seen of it from other sites though, it needs to really be more like a Tier 0.5 due to recording method issues in some scenes).


You Blu-Review gurus, go buy & review 2012, NOW lol.


----------



## deltasun

Ah, you made me look. Surprisingly good, actually, from what I saw so far. I just perused through the Yellowstone scene and the depth and clarity as the flaming rocks were coming down was excellent - great depth and contrast on those scenes (definitely flirting with Tier 0). The only complaints so far are the crushed blacks and some inconsistent faces.


I probably won't get to complete viewing till the weekend, but this may be a promising candidate for Tier 1. Some of darker scenes looked good as well.


Oh, the AQ. I was expecting more bass on the Yellowstone scene but did not get it. There was one guttural sound that was decent, but absent for the most part. I do have the say that the surrounds were very dynamic and reference for sure. Just the bass is a bit lacking so far.


----------



## Shydow

General consensus on the audio seem to support the fact that the low end doesn't necessarily match the magnitude of what's going on during the movie.


I've heard the audio overall is good though...


Seems as though the on-screen action is so ridiculous that they couldn't get the audio to match


----------



## Ozymandis

Ponyo- it is kind of hard for me to review this movie because there's not that many animated titles on Blu-ray to compare it to. I didn't see any grievous flaws. Colors were especially lovely, and the hand-painted backgrounds had great texture and detail. The animation wasn't as striking as Tekkon Kinkreet but it was strong nonetheless. Might have been some slight loss of detail due to compression on the line edges of characters, they were just a little soft?


I thought it was better-looking than Sleeping Beauty which IMO is probably not tier 0-worthy despite its polished restoration. If I had to say, Tier 1.0.


Edit: no other reviews here for Ponyo?


----------



## reanimator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ozymandis* /forum/post/18239582
> 
> 
> Edit: no other reviews here for Ponyo?



I haven't been able to watch the whole thing yet on my big screen (135"), but my early reaction is quite strong. I viewed PONYO theatrically twice -- both times digital projection -- and this BD looks identical to the PQ I saw in theaters. Black lines, as you point out, are a touch soft -- just as they were in the theatrical presentation.


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Shydow* /forum/post/18238071
> 
> 
> I'm trying to wait on a lady friend to pop in my now 2 day old release copy of 2012 and review, but yall are killin me over here! Not to mention she won't be here for at least another 2 or 3 days.
> 
> 
> Although... It would be hard for 2012 to be any lower than Tier 1 from what I've seen of it. It's probably pretty much a sure fire Tier 0 (Judging from the reviews I've seen of it from other sites though, it needs to really be more like a Tier 0.5 due to recording method issues in some scenes).
> 
> 
> You Blu-Review gurus, go buy & review 2012, NOW lol.



Got it in now and waiting for my plasma to warm up a little (stupid 2009 Panasonics), but I didn't get to it last night because I didn't make it home in time to watch it before Lost, so I decided to wait. Surprised nobody else has a full review up, but mine will be up in a few hours.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Private Lives of Pippa Lee
*

Very bland looking movie, shot on film. Outdoor environments can be strong, providing textures on roads and buildings. Plants too, look great.


There are a lot of shots that specifically use various focus styles, limiting facial detail. Colors are scene dependent, as some are warmly tinted, some are cool. Generally, flesh tones are accurate and colors, while slightly saturated, never really pop. Some artifacting is noted, but not severe.

*Tier 2.25*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*2012*


To get it out of the way, beyond the slightest hint of aliasing, the destruction scenes are basically perfect. Every piece of toppling rubble, shattering glass, and humans being catapulted into pits are clearly defined and visible.


The rest of the movie? Not so much. Darker scenes lose their definition, and inconsistent blacks don't hold providing an occasional murky quality. Colors are slightly elevated to provide satisfactory saturation. This one was shot digitally, and it carries that look. Faces carry a slight digital quality, with only a few scenes delivering true high fidelity detail. Some banding is noted, right from the start actually as the camera pans down to the sun.


This is probably a bit generous in my eyes, but the destruction scenes are AMAZING to watch in hi-def.

*Tier 1.75*


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18242471
> 
> *2012*
> 
> 
> To get it out of the way, beyond the slightest hint of aliasing, the destruction scenes are basically perfect. Every piece of toppling rubble, shattering glass, and humans being catapulted into pits are clearly defined and visible.
> 
> 
> The rest of the movie? Not so much. Darker scenes lose their definition, and inconsistent blacks don't hold providing an occasional murky quality. Colors are slightly elevated to provide satisfactory saturation. This one was shot digitally, and it carries that look. Faces carry a slight digital quality, with only a few scenes delivering true high fidelity detail. Some banding is noted, right from the start actually as the camera pans down to the sun.
> 
> 
> This is probably a bit generous in my eyes, but the destruction scenes are AMAZING to watch in hi-def.
> 
> *Tier 1.75*



Yet another review I am in agreement with you, maybe a 1/4 tier higher. I was hoping for a tier 1.0 or even tier 0 based on some hype and while 2012 could serve as a demo, it isn't reference or the best BD to demo. I notcied the black crush as well, particularly in one scene when Cusack gets in his car at the beginning. Complete loss of detail/shadow delineation.


This was a bit of a tooth puller for me. While the action/disaster sequences held me captive, overall 2012 was too long and more like a made for tv disaster movie.









*Recommendation: Tier 1.5*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Lost Worlds: Life in the Balance*

*recommendation: Tier 2.75*


A nature documentary that was shown in IMAX theaters back in 2001, the distributor Razor Digital brought _Lost Worlds_ to Blu-ray on May 26, 2009. Running only forty-minutes in length, the main feature is encoded in AVC on a single-layer BD-25. It was filmed using the IMAX process, where 65mm film is run horizontally through the camera to create a much larger negative than is possible with traditional shooting. The packaging claims the BD is produced from the original 65mm film transfer. A perfect IMAX transfer to Blu-ray should produce spectacular results for the purposes of the Tier system. That may be true, but do not expect this Blu-ray to approach the quality of a title like _Baraka_. With some ambivalence that will be explained later, a placement at the bottom of tier two appears reasonable.


Scenes in daylight show zero evidence of compression flaws. The AVC-encode rarely goes outside the narrow range of 29 to 31.9 Mbps, producing an average video bitrate likely around 30 Mbps. There are some minor blips though, in the few transitions between well-lit scenes and the rare, darker shots in the jungle. A touch of compression noise and macroblocking shows at those moments. Something to note is the short CGI-sequence of water going through a pipe early in the documentary. While not too noticeable as being digitally-generated, a hint of its digital nature creeps into the picture for observant viewers.


Shot mainly on location in the jungles of Guatemala and mountain-tops in Venezuela, the cinematography is awe-inspiring at times. Every shot looks picked to serve the visual narrative, and also produce luscious candy for the eyes. One example would be the time-lapse photography in close-up of a carnivorous plant devouring a fly. If it was not for the inherent beauty and subject matter of the photography, the BB likely would not deserve placement in the second tier.


For a feature filmed utilizing the IMAX process, the transfer does not have the detail or dimensionality one would expect. The 65mm film-scan is credited to IMAGICA USA, back in 2001. That likely acts as the transfer for this particular Blu-ray. While no egregious errors were made, the transfer is showing its age that simply does not compare to modern transfers. No ringing or other forms of post-processing were used, but a certain level of softness and moderate resolution show up. Three specific scenes exhibit gate-weave, resulting in slight waviness and instability. The original aspect ratio has also been altered from the intended IMAX presentation to the dimensions of 1.78:1. That is a little disappointing.


Much of the image has a shallow depth of field and does not produce much pop to any degree. Colors generally look their best in the jungles and forests, where the green hues predominate. A few scenes have slight contrast issues. The director in his commentary explains the reasons, having used a day-for-night filming technique that was the best method possible given the limitations of the production. Clarity is strong throughout and only a smattering of tiny speckling occurs on the film. One shot of an apartment building did show some remnants of interlacing errors.


Though not as good-looking a Blu-ray as the original elements are capable of, _Lost Worlds_ still creates a strong enough picture for the bottom of tier two. Some moments are more deserving of tier three, but the balance likely tilts in favor of the higher placement. Superficially the picture looks impressive on first glance, but the lack of extreme resolution compared to other highly-ranked films guides my decision.


Watching on a 60 Pioneer KURO plasma at 1080p/24, fed by a 60 GB PS3 (firmware 3.15), at a viewing distance of six feet.


----------



## deltasun

*Something, Something, Something Dark Side*

_hug it out, b1tch...yeah...spray that hug all over me_


Simplistic 2D animation will not (nor does it intend to) compete with the higher-tiered Pixar titles. Lines are crisp, colors bright (even with the Family Guy's bland palette), and blacks very deep. Obviously, textures are absent and depth is very limited. Details were also not the order of the day (think the background of _Sleeping Beauty_). Some minor banding noted.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.50*


Pretty entertaining; probably helped that it's only 48 minutes long

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## deltasun

*Nurse Jackie: Season One*


Okay, I have only seen 1 (out of 2) disc, but I think this first disc would represent the entire series well. Shot on digital cameras, details offer great clarity for the most part. Blacks were deep, but did have a shiny-ness to them on occasion.


The clinical look inside the hospital, which dominates the series, offers clean, crisp sets that are well-lit from corner to corner. Colors are predominantly pastel aside from the "occasional" blood.







Contrast is strong once we get passed the Pilot episode, but there is a style choice that softens the edges on most scenes. There are also just arbitrary softness throughout medium shots around faces. Speaking of which, faces have that distinctive saturated, digital look that often looks waxy. Still, in the right lighting, facial close-up's look excellent.


Medium scenes are finely rendered and show good depth. Skin tones are a bit cold, but does reflect the cold hospital environment. Outdoors, colors are richer and more natural. Skin tones are also more faithful. Shadow details are almost non-existent - every scene is lit well, almost soap opera-like.


Overall, a pleasing presentation. I've noticed some artifacting in one scene.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/18244577
> 
> 
> Yet another review I am in agreement with you, maybe a 1/4 tier higher. I was hoping for a tier 1.0 or even tier 0 based on some hype and while 2012 could serve as a demo, it isn't reference or the best BD to demo. I notcied the black crush as well, particularly in one scene when Cusack gets in his car at the beginning. Complete loss of detail/shadow delineation.
> 
> 
> This was a bit of a tooth puller for me. While the action/disaster sequences held me captive, overall 2012 was too long and more like a made for tv disaster movie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 1.5*



+1. Colors were a bit over-saturated and blacks could be washed out at times, giving in to a complete loss of shadow detail. This was my biggest gripe. The picture did pop pretty good but overall it looked a bit too fake for my taste. Disaster scenes looked pretty immaculate though, nearly on par with the IMAX stuff from Revenge of the Fallen. I really wanted a winner with this one, as disaster movies usually have good potential to showcase great PQ and AQ but this one just fell short. I think GRG hits it correctly with 1.75.

*2012 Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


Those wondering about the audio, the surrounds get really heavy use but the LFE is lacking only when you think it *should* be there. There are some scenes in which the boom drops pretty heavy, but other scenes leave you wondering why all of this earthquaking isn't making your house feel the same.


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18246418
> 
> *Something, Something, Something Dark Side*
> 
> _hug it out, b1tch...yeah...spray that hug all over me_
> 
> 
> Simplistic 2D animation will not (nor does it intend to) compete with the higher-tiered Pixar titles. Lines are crisp, colors bright (even with the Family Guy's bland palette), and blacks very deep. Obviously, textures are absent and depth is very limited. Details were also not the order of the day (think the background of _Sleeping Beauty_). Some minor banding noted.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.50*
> 
> 
> Pretty entertaining; probably helped that it's only 48 minutes long
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_



IMO, not as funny as Blue Harvest, but there were still a number of laugh out loud scenes. I bought the DVD though, because it's a simple cartoon and either way it's a full screen presentation. Not worth the extra $8 at the time, and doesn't sound like I missed much.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Where the Wild Things Are*


Pretty bleak photography at work here once into the Wild Thing's kingdom. Some saturated colors at the start quickly turn into intentional hues of brown once into the forested areas.


That's fine, and I guess it is easy to cut it a bit of slack for that. Everything else, not so much. Extensive noise/artifacting on the creatures faces is constant. Blacks rarely hold firm. Some shots appear processed, likely the result of the VC-1 encode dipping low in the bitrate area. Grain is intact, so DNR is an unlikely fault.


Forest long shots are bland and lacking definition, as is just about everything. Banding is rough during Max's boat journey at night in the sky.

*Tier 2.25*


----------



## 42041

*Pierrot Le Fou (Criterion version)*


This is one of the titles Criterion recently lost the rights to and the new StudioCanal version evidently uses a different transfer, according to this forumite's captures: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1228145 Obviously, between the two, something isn't as it should be










But anyway, it's a good quality disc, weird color tints aside. With a 1965 film shot in Techniscope (a low budget format that sacrificed image quality to save on film stock) there are certain limitations inherent to the source. Detail is satisfying but not great, grain is definitely present (but not too bothersome), and natural colors often give way to that faded 60s look. But while it never looks amazing, it never looks bad either. The excellent cinematography offsets the lack of technical pizazz somewhat, the filmmakers employ bold color and beautiful locations throughout.

*Tier 2.5*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Extract*


Color is a good thing, unless it turns characters into orange aliens. Ugh. That's what happens here, along with some red push, completely flatlined facial details, and significant artifacting when the encode tries to keep up with the grain.


Everything here carries a digitally defined look, slightly processed and mushy. Definition is poor. Black levels are decent, and the contrast only blooms slightly.
*Tier 2.75*


----------



## maestro50

I see that *GALAXY QUEST* has not yet been ranked.


I've always enjoyed this movie.

It is the rare combination of spoof and homage that succeeds on both levels. A fun, and silly movie that somehow is elevated to become more than you would expect. Way more than "Spaceballs," for instance. The writing is genuinely funny. The casting is perfect.


The picture quality, however, is not.

Black levels are bit towards gray, contrast is adequate, sharpness varies from scene to scene. I own the DVD an it is in my "unwatchable" pile (a very large stack.) Compared to the DVD, this is an enormous step up. Still, I can't go any higher than tier 3.

Probably *3.25.*


----------



## b_scott

Watching Synecdoche, NY right now. Looks amazing. Easily top gold if not bottom blu. First bluray in awhile that has made me go WHOA. Will try to write more later.


----------



## selimsivad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/18262603
> 
> 
> Watching Synecdoche, NY right now. Looks amazing. Easily top gold if not bottom blu. First bluray in awhile that has made me go WHOA. Will try to write more later.



Starts off excellent, then gets softer. Excellent movie!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Jennifer's Body

recommendation: Tier 1.0*


I will spare you the long explication, and just state that it is nearly worthy of the top tier. A flawless transfer if not for the sporadic, noteworthy ringing in several scenes. The goth kid's funeral had that problem. It mostly showed up in long-range shots. But extraordinary resolution and clarity much of the time makes up for a problem like edge enhancement. Close-ups display a reference amount of high-frequency detail, that few Blu-rays have ever matched.


----------



## djoberg

*2012*


This one definitely had its moments that qualified as "demo-worthy," but overall I think this one is sitting on the fence between tiers 1 & 2. When it did shine, it was brilliant....a good example being when John Cusack and his kids first arrived at Yellowstone where the detail and depth were simply incredible. And yes, the disaster scenes were also phenomenal. And then there were some facial close-ups that ranked right up there with some low Tier 0 titles.


Aside from these though, I found it to be average. There were indeed some crushed blacks (but in fairness there were also some decent blacks with outstanding shadow details) and in many indoor scenes it appeared a bit flat, lacking detail and depth.


FWIW, I liked it more than most movies in this genre, but it could have been shortened by at least 30 minutes. And one does have to "suspend their disbelief" for most of the running time (from the time John Cusack and his family drive through total mayhem and utter destruction to the airport to "catch a plane".....to the very end).


As I stated at the outset, this one belongs on the border of tiers 1 and 2....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75-2.0*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite BDP-05....Viewed from 8'


----------



## Ozymandis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18251731
> 
> *Where the Wild Things Are*
> 
> 
> Pretty bleak photography at work here once into the Wild Thing's kingdom. Some saturated colors at the start quickly turn into intentional hues of brown once into the forested areas.
> 
> 
> That's fine, and I guess it is easy to cut it a bit of slack for that. Everything else, not so much. Extensive noise/artifacting on the creatures faces is constant. Blacks rarely hold firm. Some shots appear processed, likely the result of the VC-1 encode dipping low in the bitrate area. Grain is intact, so DNR is an unlikely fault.
> 
> 
> Forest long shots are bland and lacking definition, as is just about everything. Banding is rough during Max's boat journey at night in the sky.
> 
> *Tier 2.25*



That's a fair review. I was disappointed in this Blu-ray's PQ, for sure, but it was an interesting movie.


----------



## Lestat Phoenix

How can 9 be rated so low? I would put it up against bugs life any day. Thats the only one I don't understand.


----------



## Ozymandis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lestat Phoenix* /forum/post/18268369
> 
> 
> How can 9 be rated so low? I would put it up against bugs life any day. Thats the only one I don't understand.



It's pretty drab? I don't know why Bug's Life tops the list either tbh


----------



## 42041

*Cloudy with A Chance of Meatballs*


Great looking 3d animation, the PQ really picks up after the first quarter of the film or so which is intentionally drab. For whatever reason it doesn't have the razor sharp detail of some animated stuff, same thing as Wall-E. No other issues to speak of really.


Thought the film itself was a lot of fun, not sure why it got such a lukewarm response during its theatrical release.

*Tier 0 (bottom quarter)*


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lestat Phoenix* /forum/post/18268369
> 
> 
> How can 9 be rated so low? I would put it up against bugs life any day. Thats the only one I don't understand.



That isn't low, really. That tier 0 list contains the best of the best and really in no way does something even 10 spots away from another title or halfway from the top mean it isn't the greatest or some of the greatest PQ on BD. In fact some like yourself might think "9" is the best PQ there is on BD, but since several others didn't think it was it gets moved down. While we have certain criteria to follow to establish a placement for a particular title, we acknowledge that we based our recommendations on our perceptions, and that the rankings are ultimately subjectively based. Having said that, there is no doubt that the first so many titles, (animation mainly) in the top of tier 0 have been overwhelmingly and consistently rated as being where they should be.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^


Well said Hugh!


I would add that we encourage members to write in with a review and placement recommendation when they disagree with a current placement. That way their vote (i.e., view) will count and perhaps result in a title being moved closer to where they believe it belongs.


----------



## Shydow

Having finally watched my Blu-Ray copy of 2012, I'm not nearly as disappointed as some of you seem to be. Although for the most part I'm in agreeance with what has already been said for the most part.


With that said... it's probably because I split the movie anyway. Which, 2012 might need to be split to be accurately rated for the tiers.


From the destruction scene standpoint, 2012 would make a fine addition to Tier 0 in my opinion.


Everything else? Tier 1.5- Tier 2.


If someone was using 2012 as demo material and strictly focused on action scenes, Tier 1.Anything would pretty inaccurate imo... Tier 0 would be the only thing suitable.


I'm gonna go ahead and point out, I couldn't tell you what the hell 2012's story was about. I didn't really pay much attention to the movie unless something was getting destroyed.


So thinking about what most people will probably buy 2012 for, how would you who have seen it rate it? Just as you have (Tier 1.5-2?) or higher?


----------



## deltasun

*Funny People*


This is one of those films where you pretty much have a certain perception of how the PQ looks overall, but once in a while the light seems to hit right and you're hit with a high Tier 1 shot. Color-wise, this is a pretty subdued presentation aimed at, IMO, the subject matter. Blacks are stable with a somewhat average contrast. Some scenes do go the other way and gets a bit on the hot side.


Facial details are above average and some hitting High Gold quality. Grain is moderate at times, but not too distracting. Skin tones are faithful and some of the scenes do offer good depth, specially medium shots. One thing to note are the numerous instances of ringing. However, I didn't find them too distracting. Shadow details are also well-rendered.


All in all, this just gets into Tier Silver for me.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*


Not a huge Sandler fan, but did like this one. There are lots of funny moments. The pacing is deliberate and is a tad long for this genre.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## Mr.G




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sujay* /forum/post/16767929
> 
> *The International*
> 
> 
> Wow I was extremely impressed by this one. Definitely the most crisp, detailed picture I have yet to experience on Blu-ray. It may lie on the edge of being perceived as edge enhanced but I really thought the majority of the film just looked superb in all ways (also thanks in part to the great cinematography). Black levels, contrast and shadow detail were exceptional despite maybe one short scene or two. Clarity, color and depth were all superb to my eyes. I can see what some may mean about the DNR'd-ish look of some close-ups but it was never distracting or apparent until I had read about it. Some of the most astoundingly beautiful images (especially scenic views) I've yet to see. I even feel like the PQ made the movie infinitely more interesting to watch.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Lower Tier 0*
> 
> 
> 100" screen, 1080p from a bit less than 18 or so feet away.



I watched this again a few nights ago with friends. It's a great looking BD with amazing detail. Some may confuse the sun-drenched/bleached look of some scenes with boosted contrast but that was the same look it had in the theater. It's ranking in *Tier 0* seems appropriate.


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/18262913
> 
> 
> Starts off excellent, then gets softer. Excellent movie!



I don't know that it got softer - there just weren't as many closeup shots since they were all older and it would've really shown their makeup.


Good movie, very odd. But that's Kaufman for you







I still think it's mid to top tier Gold.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mr.G* /forum/post/18270945
> 
> 
> I watched this again a few nights ago with friends. It's a great looking BD with amazing detail. Some may confuse the sun-drenched/bleached look of some scenes with boosted contrast but that was the same look it had in the theater. It's ranking in *Tier 0* seems appropriate.



I don't know if there is confusion. If there is sun-drenched/bleached look that is bothersome enough to detract from an otherwise excellent PQ, it's really irrelevant (for the purposes of this thread) where it came from - the master, the transfer, encode, post-prod tweaking, etc. So, if anything those shouldn't get a pass just because it's faithful to the intent.


I, for one, didn't find it all too distracting and was on the fence between 0 and 1. And for me, when that is the case, I would 99.99% vote for Tier 1. Because if it is tier 0, it would have screamed that and I wouldn't be in the fence in the first place.


----------



## Mr.G




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Shydow* /forum/post/18270533
> 
> 
> Having finally watched my Blu-Ray copy of 2012, I'm not nearly as disappointed as some of you seem to be. Although for the most part I'm in agreeance with what has already been said for the most part.
> 
> 
> With that said... it's probably because I split the movie anyway. Which, 2012 might need to be split to be accurately rated for the tiers.
> 
> 
> From the destruction scene standpoint, 2012 would make a fine addition to Tier 0 in my opinion.
> 
> 
> Everything else? Tier 1.5- Tier 2.
> 
> 
> If someone was using 2012 as demo material and strictly focused on action scenes, Tier 1.Anything would pretty inaccurate imo... Tier 0 would be the only thing suitable.
> 
> 
> I'm gonna go ahead and point out, I couldn't tell you what the hell 2012's story was about. I didn't really pay much attention to the movie unless something was getting destroyed.
> 
> 
> So thinking about what most people will probably buy 2012 for, how would you who have seen it rate it? Just as you have (Tier 1.5-2?) or higher?



Wow - my experience with this disc was so unlike your review and that of djoberg. I was so disappointed with this special edition BD that I recently sold it on eBay, it was that bad. The overall look was soft with ho-hum blacks. My rating would be to bury it in Tier 3 somewhere, but because my opinion so different from what others are saying I am really confused as to what the problem was on my system, so I will not rate it. By contrast I just re-watched _The International_ and it was razor sharp so the cause of the problem with _2012_ is puzzling.


----------



## Mr.G




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18271129
> 
> 
> I don't know if there is confusion. If there is sun-drenched/bleached look that is bothersome enough to detract from an otherwise excellent PQ, it's really irrelevant (for the purposes of this thread) where it came from - the master, the transfer, encode, post-prod tweaking, etc. So, if anything those shouldn't get a pass just because it's faithful to the intent.
> 
> 
> I, for one, didn't find it all too distracting and was on the fence between 0 and 1. And for me, when that is the case, I would 99.99% vote for Tier 1. Because if it is tier 0, it would have screamed that and I wouldn't be in the fence in the first place.



Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that there _is_ confusion. The scenes mentioned are too brief to affect my overall rating.


----------



## Ozymandis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/18269392
> 
> 
> That isn't low, really. That tier 0 list contains the best of the best and really in no way does something even 10 spots away from another title or halfway from the top mean it isn't the greatest or some of the greatest PQ on BD. In fact some like yourself might think "9" is the best PQ there is on BD, but since several others didn't think it was it gets moved down. While we have certain criteria to follow to establish a placement for a particular title, we acknowledge that we based our recommendations on our perceptions, and that the rankings are ultimately subjectively based. Having said that, there is no doubt that the first so many titles, (animation mainly) in the top of tier 0 have been overwhelmingly and consistently rated as being where they should be.



Is there a mechanism to move titles down or out of Tier 0? I know the original placement is based on an average of impressions.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ozymandis* /forum/post/18271780
> 
> 
> Is there a mechanism to move titles down or out of Tier 0? I know the original placement is based on an average of impressions.



The mechanism would be for more people to review it, and/or for people who have reviewed it in the past to revise their viewpoints on it, and for the results of said reviews to be different from it's placement on the list. Things have moved around a lot on the list; IIRC for example, both Kill Bill's used to be in Tier 0 until more reviews & revised opinions were added.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mr.G* /forum/post/18271162
> 
> 
> Wow - my experience with this disc was so unlike your review and that of djoberg. I was so disappointed with this special edition BD that I recently sold it on eBay, it was that bad. The overall look was soft with ho-hum blacks. My rating would be to bury it in Tier 3 somewhere.



In my review I did say that some of the movie was *average* (because of crushed blacks and some flat scenes lacking detail and depth), which would indeed put it in Tier 3. But I also experienced some very sharp scenes, like the one I alluded to where John Cusack arrives in Yellowstone with his children. That was quite sharp with amazing detail and depth. The disaster scenes were also impressive to me, as were a few others. So, in making my placement recommendation I had to weigh these differences and come up with an average, which, to _my eyes_, was around the 2.0 mark.


Let me just say that if you didn't see *any* sharp scenes with impressive detail and depth, there was either something wrong with the disc, your display, or your eyes. I hope it's not the latter!


----------



## Mr.G




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18272446
> 
> 
> Let me just say that if you didn't see *any* sharp scenes with impressive detail and depth, there was either something wrong with the disc, your display, or your eyes. I hope it's not the latter!



Let's just say it was my (former) disc and leave it at that. It would have been a shame if the movie itself wasn't such a dud. Glad I was able to sell it for what I paid.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Flame And Citron (UK import)


recommendation: Tier 1.75*


An entertaining movie from 2008 about the Danish Resistance in World War II in the vein of _Inglourious Basterds_, the British distributor Metrodome gave _Flame & Citron_ a region-free Blu-ray release on June 29, 2009. The 135-minute film is encoded in AVC on a BD-25. BDInfo calculates the average video bitrate as 17.97 Mbps. Two significant problems prevent me from ranking the BD higher in tier one, where it probably belongs. It still easily qualifies for inclusion at the bottom of tier one with them, and less picky viewers might be inclined for a slightly higher placement.


The first significant problem which lowers my assessment of the picture quality is the inadequate compression, which produces visible posterization in multiple scenes. Fitting a movie of this length, on a BD-25, was a disastrous decision by Metrodome. The only thing that mitigates the problem is the relative lack of grain for a movie shot on film. The best detail in shadows and darkened scenes are affected, to a minor degree. There are no major instances of macroblocking, but several instances of noise in the transitions between lighted and dark shots are apparent. But the vast majority of the movie is well-lit, and high-frequency information is not affected at all in those scenes. The compression is really the lesser of two evils in the transfer, as it only visibly affects a handful of frames.


The master used for this BD shows absolutely no sign of detail-robbing post-processing, like the use of digital noise reduction. Production standards look very high and indistinguishable from any big-budget Hollywood production, which leads to a level of astonishing clarity in most scenes. But the transfer does not escape from the negatives of edge enhancement. The persistent ringing produces intrusive halos throughout much of the movie. That is the main reason for this fine-looking Blu-ray to be placed a fair distance from where it rightfully should sit in the tiers. A touch of aliasing is also evident in spots.


Contrast is impeccable in a film that favors the darker shades of blue and gray on the streets of Copenhagen. The image is razor-sharp and demonstrates incredible amounts of detail and definition. It has an appreciable sense of dimensionality and pop, though not in comparison to the best Blu-rays. Many of the close-ups are worthy of being called reference-caliber in the general clarity and resolution frequently shown. Flesh-tones are pleasingly natural and neutral in color. As briefly mentioned before, shadows are not finely resolved as the better examples in tier one. Black levels display consistency in their dark uniformity and are generally as inky as each scene demands. Much of the picture quality recalls the best-looking scenes from _Public Enemies_ for some reason in my mind. The period setting of the film possibly gave me that idea.


At first my inclination was to rank _Flame & Citron_ in the middle of tier one. A majority of the movie probably deserves that assessment for its excellence. The thick ringing at times degraded the pristine picture enough to lower my final score to the bottom quarter of tier one. It still pleases the eye though, and many viewers are likely to overlook the halos.


Watching on a 60 Pioneer KURO plasma at 1080p/24, fed by a 60 GB PS3 (firmware 3.15) from a viewing distance of six feet.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mr.G* /forum/post/18273785
> 
> 
> Let's just say it was my (former) disc and leave it at that. It would have been a shame if the movie itself wasn't such a dud. Glad I was able to sell it for what I paid.



I picked this up for under $20 last week and I wished I had rented it. Having said that, I still thought it was worth watching (when one suspends their disbelief and goes along for the ride) and I may just use it to demo some of the disaster scenes for friends. The PQ and AQ are quite good in these, IMHO.


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lestat Phoenix* /forum/post/18268369
> 
> 
> How can 9 be rated so low? I would put it up against bugs life any day. Thats the only one I don't understand.



Without even looking at where 9 is at, I'll just say that I watched it recently and I would not even consider it for Tier 0. Personally, I would not even make any comparisons to ABL, I was totally disappointed with it. I think of it a lot like "The Wild", where characters were well defined, though much better in The Wild than in 9. But in both movies, backgrounds were very poor, imo, almost to a point of distractingly poor.


I'd probably place 9 a good bit lower based solely upon the content. I don't think The Wild belongs where it's at but it has some very compelling facials that keep my mouth shut about it.


On a side note, I thought both movies positively sucked. I gave both 1's on Netflix, and it's a shame they don't have a 0.


----------



## Hughmc

Phantom, thanks for another interesting review. There are so many titles you have reviewed I never even heard of, yet I welcome viewing them someday. A search of your posts would be an excellent way for many to check out the wealth of films you have seen and reviewed the many of which aren't the typical Hollywood releases. I think we are very fortunate to have you in this thread and participating the way you do.



Thanks again,


Hugh


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Thank you for the compliment. Many here would probably like Flame & Citron, if they have no problems with subtitles. Almost of the imports I interject into this thread are blind purchases, aside from brief plot synopses. Since many of them have little discussion as to their Blu-ray quality, I do my part to give them a little feedback. A search in this thread of "phantom import" would likely produce the placements of mine you mention.


If you like diverse selections, wait for my next review coming up of _Shigurui: Death Frenzy_, a brutal anime series. The more eclectic selections need a little attention on occasion.


----------



## vipervick

I am really enjoying this PQ thread. I am on the verge of building a decent HT in a new house. So, I want the very best to demo to my wife.


The consensus is that I, Robot and the PotC trilogy have the best PQ for real movies? Not animation of course. Are they the sharpest, clearest looking?


I'm glad. Since I already own them and a few of the animation as well. Looking forward to seeing what a good calibrated system looks like.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*To Be or Not to Be*


It is amazing how wildly different movies in the same collection can look, and I'm not just basing that on film stocks. Where History of the World and Twelve Chairs have their grain retained in the Mel Brooks Collection, To Be or Not to Be shows some clear signs of hastily applied DNR. Pink flesh tones, unnatural (and digital) grain structure, and waxy faces are problems throughout.


Intentional blooming is utilized regularly, further eliminating any detail or sharpness. Some stock footage looks as expected. Black levels are fine.

*Tier 3.75*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vipervick* /forum/post/18275324
> 
> 
> I am really enjoying this PQ thread. I am on the verge of building a decent HT in a new house. So, I want the very best to demo to my wife.
> 
> 
> The consensus is that I, Robot and the PotC trilogy have the best PQ for real movies? Not animation of course. Are they the sharpest, clearest looking?
> 
> 
> I'm glad. Since I already own them and a few of the animation as well. Looking forward to seeing what a good calibrated system looks like.



It's good to read that you're enjoying the thread! And congratulations on the HT being built....we'll look forward to seeing some reviews from you.










The titles you mentioned are topnotch, but I would add _Prince Caspian_, _Live Free and Die Hard_, _Transporter 2 & 3_, and _Baraka_ to the list, to name a few. In fact, any titles you see listed in Tier 0 have the best PQ.


And I would definitely use the animated titles to WOW your wife as well. They are at the top of the list for a good reason.


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vipervick* /forum/post/18275324
> 
> 
> The consensus is that I, Robot and the PotC trilogy have the best PQ for real movies? Not animation of course. Are they the sharpest, clearest looking?
> 
> 
> I'm glad. Since I already own them and a few of the animation as well. Looking forward to seeing what a good calibrated system looks like.



Don't place too much faith in where something falls in the thread. At least not to the point of saying, Tier 0 is X% better than anything else. Down through Tier 1, it's a fine line and there is plenty of differing opinions that titles there belong higher, titles in 0 belong lower. It's a democratic arrival at a livable compromise. Many titles with lower ranking may just not be as consistent as those above it. Since you have I-Robot and PotC, they're good choices. Give them a shot for sure.


All the titles in Tier1 and 0 look pretty amazing.


----------



## tuffluck

yeah i have a hard time seeing how "man on fire" looks better than "the international," even though it's higher on the list. and likewise i must say that i don't really understand why so many animated flicks are at the top. IMO, animated is already a *fake* reality if you will, so the crispness of animation doesn't really make the quality of the blu-ray look better to me, it just makes me think the animation is better. BUT, i've never been a huge animated-movie watcher either. i think seeing real life people on screen depicts image quality more than artificial images do.


i also personally don't find "a bug's life" impressive any whatsoever as far as PQ goes, even in comparison to other animated films. why it's unanimously on the top, i'll never know. i think there needs to be kind of a "dummy that doesn't know anything about blu-ray" tier list, because i know a little bit about blu-ray and of all the movies i've seen, "a bug's life" was certainly not memorable as far as PQ goes, and i think that's important. "the international" is probably the best PQ i have personally seen, and i would put "iron man" up there as well. i own "man on fire" and "live free or die hard" and both are in the top tier and i didn't really think they were all that spectacular in quality (read: not memorable); "live free" was way too dark of a movie. i haven't seen "i, robot" or the "pirate's" movies on blu-ray yet (seen them once, don't really care to see again), so am not sure if they would be *memorable* either.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tuffluck* /forum/post/18277580
> 
> 
> yeah i have a hard time seeing how "man on fire" looks better than "the international," even though it's higher on the list. and likewise i must say that i don't really understand why so many animated flicks are at the top. IMO, animated is already a *fake* reality if you will, so the crispness of animation doesn't really make the quality of the blu-ray look better to me, it just makes me think the animation is better. BUT, i've never been a huge animated-movie watcher either. i think seeing real life people on screen depicts image quality more than artificial images do.
> 
> 
> i also personally don't find "a bug's life" impressive any whatsoever as far as PQ goes, even in comparison to other animated films. why it's unanimously on the top, i'll never know. i think there needs to be kind of a "dummy that doesn't know anything about blu-ray" tier list, because i know a little bit about blu-ray and of all the movies i've seen, "a bug's life" was certainly not memorable as far as PQ goes, and i think that's important. "the international" is probably the best PQ i have personally seen, and i would put "iron man" up there as well. i own "man on fire" and "live free or die hard" and both are in the top tier and i didn't really think they were all that spectacular in quality (read: not memorable); "live free" was way too dark of a movie. i haven't seen "i, robot" or the "pirate's" movies on blu-ray yet (seen them once, don't really care to see again), so am not sure if they would be *memorable* either.



Your post serves to illustrate what we have been saying on this thread since its inception...WE ALL HAVE OUR OWN PERSONAL OPINIONS! But a title is placed according to a consensus that has been formed and like it or not, one must respect the opinions of others, even if you don't agree with them.


Regarding animated films, I continue to stand in awe of the progress that has been made in today's best titles. The detail, depth and color of titles such as _Kung Fu Panda_, _Coraline_, _Monsters, Inc._, et al. are unparalleled compared to titles in the early days of animation. And this most certainly includes the title at the top of the heap (i.e., _A Bug's Life_). The Blu-ray format enables these amazing advancements to be seen in all their splendor.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vipervick* /forum/post/18275324
> 
> 
> I am really enjoying this PQ thread. I am on the verge of building a decent HT in a new house. So, I want the very best to demo to my wife.
> 
> 
> The consensus is that I, Robot and the PotC trilogy have the best PQ for real movies? Not animation of course. Are they the sharpest, clearest looking?
> 
> 
> I'm glad. Since I already own them and a few of the animation as well. Looking forward to seeing what a good calibrated system looks like.



As the thread's token woman, I would have to say if your wife is anything like the masses out there, *Twilight*, *Harry Potter 6*, or, IMHO, *MAMMA MIA* are great ones to help show off to a woman to wow them on home theatre.


I know, I know... sucking it up and being forced to watch Twilight is a special sort of torture for most men out there, but I still think if they had released Twilight last year on Blu Ray only for the first week, or had special features available ONLY on Blu Ray, there would have been millions of women out there "forcing" their husbands to upgrade their home theatres.



If her tastes are more classical than mainstream, I would suggest *Sleeping Beauty* (people can say what they want about whether or not Sleeping Beauty belongs in Tier 0, no matter what it's a gorgeous restoration that has been meticulously done and can still help showcase just how much better Blu is to DVD) and *Becoming Jane*. Also, while I have not reviewed it for the thread yet, the restoration work they did on the *1995 Colin Firth edition of the BBC Pride and Prejudice*, is positively STUNNING; in the general terms of the PQ thread, it *might* hit Tier 2.75 when I do a formal review, but the previous versions on DVD are just so positively horrendous in comparison, anyone who is a fan of this classic series will appreciate the work that has been done to it.



Take it for what you will, I just offer these words of advice as a woman and the type of thing that I've suggested to other women that have helped sell them on "letting" their husbands upgrade to Blu Ray. The #1 movie that has helped me on this score is Sleeping Beauty, followed by Twilight and 1995 Pride & Prejudice.



Edited to add, and if she's a sci-fi fan at all... *STAR TREK 2009*.


----------



## tuffluck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18278166
> 
> 
> Your post serves to illustrate what we have been saying on this thread since its inception...WE ALL HAVE OUR OWN PERSONAL OPINIONS! But a title is placed according to a consensus that has been formed and like it or not, one must respect the opinions of others, even if you don't agree with them.
> 
> 
> Regarding animated films, I continue to stand in awe of the progress that has been made in today's best titles. The detail, depth and color of titles such as _Kung Fu Panda_, _Coraline_, _Monsters, Inc._, et al. are unparalleled compared to titles in the early days of animation. And this most certainly includes the title at the top of the heap (i.e., _A Bug's Life_). The Blu-ray format enables these amazing advancements to be seen in all their splendor.



my experiences with people watching animated blu-ray on my tv is that "yeah it looks good, but it's hard to tell that it's good blu-ray quality and not just good animation." that's all i'm trying to say. i don't see how that isn't a more universal opinion.


----------



## vipervick




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/18278311
> 
> 
> As the thread's token woman, I would have to say if your wife is anything like the masses out there, *Twilight*, *Harry Potter 6*, or, IMHO, *MAMMA MIA* are great ones to help show off to a woman to wow them on home theatre.
> 
> 
> I know, I know... sucking it up and being forced to watch Twilight is a special sort of torture for most men out there, but I still think if they had released Twilight last year on Blu Ray only for the first week, or had special features available ONLY on Blu Ray, there would have been millions of women out there "forcing" their husbands to upgrade their home theatres.
> 
> 
> 
> If her tastes are more classical than mainstream, I would suggest *Sleeping Beauty* (people can say what they want about whether or not Sleeping Beauty belongs in Tier 0, no matter what it's a gorgeous restoration that has been meticulously done and can still help showcase just how much better Blu is to DVD) and *Becoming Jane*. Also, while I have not reviewed it for the thread yet, the restoration work they did on the *1995 Colin Firth edition of the BBC Pride and Prejudice*, is positively STUNNING; in the general terms of the PQ thread, it *might* hit Tier 2.75 when I do a formal review, but the previous versions on DVD are just so positively horrendous in comparison, anyone who is a fan of this classic series will appreciate the work that has been done to it.
> 
> 
> 
> Take it for what you will, I just offer these words of advice as a woman and the type of thing that I've suggested to other women that have helped sell them on "letting" their husbands upgrade to Blu Ray. The #1 movie that has helped me on this score is Sleeping Beauty, followed by Twilight and 1995 Pride & Prejudice.
> 
> 
> 
> Edited to add, and if she's a sci-fi fan at all... *STAR TREK 2009*.



Thank you GGG! I appreciate your feedback. I already own most of these Blu-Rays, so it makes it much easier on my part.


And thank god, my wife read book 1 of the twilight series and threw it away! She certainly does like a few chic flicks, but I have been spared the worst. She really isn't interested in Sci-Fi, but watches with me anyway. So I reciprocate.


I am waiting on the Harry Potter series to all be out on Blu-ray before I even start. Just snatch the set when it's available. I already made that mistake on DVD. I really want to wow her with Elton John. I've never seen it, but most reviews are very good. Too bad there isn't any Sarah McLachlan Blu-Ray. That would sell her 110%


----------



## Ozymandis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tuffluck* /forum/post/18277580
> 
> 
> yeah i have a hard time seeing how "man on fire" looks better than "the international," even though it's higher on the list. and likewise i must say that i don't really understand why so many animated flicks are at the top. IMO, animated is already a *fake* reality if you will, so the crispness of animation doesn't really make the quality of the blu-ray look better to me, it just makes me think the animation is better. BUT, i've never been a huge animated-movie watcher either. i think seeing real life people on screen depicts image quality more than artificial images do.
> 
> 
> i also personally don't find "a bug's life" impressive any whatsoever as far as PQ goes, even in comparison to other animated films. why it's unanimously on the top, i'll never know. i think there needs to be kind of a "dummy that doesn't know anything about blu-ray" tier list, because i know a little bit about blu-ray and of all the movies i've seen, "a bug's life" was certainly not memorable as far as PQ goes, and i think that's important. "the international" is probably the best PQ i have personally seen, and i would put "iron man" up there as well. i own "man on fire" and "live free or die hard" and both are in the top tier and i didn't really think they were all that spectacular in quality (read: not memorable); "live free" was way too dark of a movie. i haven't seen "i, robot" or the "pirate's" movies on blu-ray yet (seen them once, don't really care to see again), so am not sure if they would be *memorable* either.



Man of Fire (and Domino) are awesome Blu-rays. They have great contrast and intact grain with tons of detail. They are also very consistent, which is one thing that I personally look for in Tier 0 titles. There are plenty of titles that have Tier 0 shots and scenes in them but are not in that tier because they have no consistency. Two notable examples are Apocalypto and District 9. I dare someone to find better (non-CG) demo material than parts of those movies, but other parts were pedestrian. I, Robot, another very quality and consistent transfer for a crappy movie, at that, lol.


I agree with A Bug's Life, though. As well as the fact that there are too damn many CG movies in Tier 0. I said it a few months ago but that Tier should be split! Also, we are using different criteria to judge these movies than the live action ones. We are arguing over the source rendering since every one of these transfers is perfect digital-to-digital


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Up in the Air*


I'll admit I'm the type that immediately zones in on facial details, and disc that does that well will win me over. That's Up in the Air.


Simply awesome high fidelity detail going on here. An interview with J.K. Simmons is the highlights, amazingly well rendered with a natural grain structure, bright contrast, deep blacks, and every single possible pore visible. This holds in the mid-range too. Environments are equally impressive at times.


Colors are mostly cool but still saturated. Some pretty bold primaries. A few scenes show some inconsistency, enough to drop this slightly. Softness and very minimal ringing are frustrating, but ever so minor. Some may find the thick grain over the credits bothersome as well, but it clears up for the rest of the film into a more natural state.

*Tier 1.0*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

This is good feedback we are getting on A Bug's Life. It will be knocked down from the top spot posthaste in the next update, unless someone rises to defend its honor. That naturally leads to the next question...what is the best Blu-ray? Which BD deserves the right to sit atop the tiers? Suggestions would be appreciated, or I might just move 28 Days Later to the top.







My personal preference would be Cars or Ratatouille, but in the end the decision is left up to everyone.


----------



## tuffluck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ozymandis* /forum/post/18279016
> 
> 
> I, Robot, another very quality and consistent transfer for a crappy movie, at that, lol.



seriously, whoever is in charge of making the good blu-ray discs should teach their trade to someone with a better taste in movies.







hell, noone has even made a blu-ray version of one of my favorite movies ever: SNEAKERS!!


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18279247
> 
> *Up in the Air*
> 
> 
> I'll admit I'm the type that immediately zones in on facial details, and disc that does that well will win me over. That's Up in the Air.
> 
> 
> Simply awesome high fidelity detail going on here. An interview with J.K. Simmons is the highlights, amazingly well rendered with a natural grain structure, bright contrast, deep blacks, and every single possible pore visible. This holds in the mid-range too. Environments are equally impressive at times.
> 
> 
> Colors are mostly cool but still saturated. Some pretty bold primaries. A few scenes show some inconsistency, enough to drop this slightly. Softness and very minimal ringing are frustrating, but ever so minor. Some may find the thick grain over the credits bothersome as well, but it clears up for the rest of the film into a more natural state.
> 
> *Tier 1.0*



Thanks, sounds good and looking forward to it tonight. Netflix was kind!


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18279439
> 
> 
> This is good feedback we are getting on A Bug's Life. It will be knocked down from the top spot posthaste in the next update, unless someone rises to defend its honor. That naturally leads to the next question...what is the best Blu-ray? Which BD deserves the right to sit atop the tiers? Suggestions would be appreciated, or I might just move 28 Days Later to the top.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My personal preference would be Cars or Ratatouille, but in the end the decision is left up to everyone.



Wait, what?!? What did I miss? No offense, but I stand by my ABL review. The colors, depth, black levels, granularity were all second to none consistently.


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18279827
> 
> 
> Wait, what?!? What did I miss? No offense, but I stand by my ABL review. The colors, depth, black levels, granularity were all second to none consistently.



I'm curious too. We have a couple of posters with little or no history of doing reviews in the thread who don't like the PQ of ABL or including animation in Tier 0, and suddenly the title is going to be moved? I would hope that a thorough evaluation of all the reviews is done, especially those that follow the thread guidelines, before an arbitrary move is made.


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18279247
> 
> *Up in the Air*
> 
> 
> I'll admit I'm the type that immediately zones in on facial details, and disc that does that well will win me over. That's Up in the Air.
> 
> 
> Simply awesome high fidelity detail going on here. An interview with J.K. Simmons is the highlights, amazingly well rendered with a natural grain structure, bright contrast, deep blacks, and every single possible pore visible. This holds in the mid-range too. Environments are equally impressive at times.
> 
> 
> Colors are mostly cool but still saturated. Some pretty bold primaries. A few scenes show some inconsistency, enough to drop this slightly. Softness and very minimal ringing are frustrating, but ever so minor. Some may find the thick grain over the credits bothersome as well, but it clears up for the rest of the film into a more natural state.
> 
> *Tier 1.0*



Sounds good. This was going to be one of my two BD purchases this month. I went over to our local Fred Meyer this morning; they had tons of the DVD but hadn't received any BDs. Sign, what a way to run a store!


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/18280006
> 
> 
> I'm curious too. We have a couple of posters with little or no history of doing reviews in the thread who don't like the PQ of ABL or including animation in Tier 0, and suddenly the title is going to be moved? I would hope that a thorough evaluation of all the reviews is done, especially those that follow the thread guidelines, before an arbitrary move is made.



Right, nobody has posted any reviews disagreeing with it's placement, just some opinions being thrown around. Personally, while I am in agreement that it is an amazing Blu-Ray, it is so hard to judge these animated titles because we all know they are a perfect transfer, which is what we (somewhat) base the rankings on. Thus, we defer to color, BL, shadow detail, etc. and in that case I feel A Bug's Life is not quite the top notch, because the quality of the animation itself has improved so much in the nearly 11 years since its release. *IF* it were to be moved, I feel Up deserves the top spot, with Kung Fu Panda number 2 and then probably Cars, but again, that's just me. I think those few titles are best left alone, and we all pretty much understand it is a tie because there isn't a set way to quantify which ones are in fact the best.


Then again, I've always been in favor of having a separate list for animated titles, with some sort of quantifying method...but that's a can of worms best left unopened.


----------



## tuffluck

if it's any consolation, everyone that has seen animation on my TV agrees it looks good, but since it's animation it is hard to say the image is awesome because of the decoding/transferring (aka technical terms you guys like to use on this forum), or if it's just because it's good animation, heh. does that make sense to you guys? angelina jolie's face looking hotter on BD and a rat looking more like an animated rat on BD is kind of a wild comparison to the normal every-day movie watcher when it comes to "which crisper image do i prefer?" i think when it comes to the animated movies, a lot of this technical conversation needs to be set aside (aka a different rating system altogether). the two types of films just aren't comparable, in my BD-layman mind.


i don't know what the purpose of the creation of the PQ thread was initially, but i always assumed it was so people that don't know a lot about blu-ray movies and that don't have time to watch all of them and decide themselves which are best can pick from a list to demo or to watch because they know they look great. that being said, the majority of people without the technical expertise many of you have on this board would agree with me 9 times out of 10 that the real-life blu-ray image (aka angelina jolie's face) is a better representation of blu-ray quality than an animation flick. use that information how you will, but that was the whole point i brought up "a bug's life" from the beginning.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18279827
> 
> 
> Wait, what?!? What did I miss? No offense, but I stand by my ABL review. The colors, depth, black levels, granularity were all second to none consistently.



Same here and I was one of the forerunners who really believed and still believe ABL is the best of the best. The colors are what really make it. IMO the palate of colors is second to none compared to any other animated BD. ABL is a title that at times seems like 3D sans the glasses. It has that much depth and contrast. Simply stunning.


I see A Bug's Life and where it is ranked just as some might see the some sports team, some religious organization, some famous person or best athlete being ranked #1. Not everyone will agree who or what is the best, but be assured if you are on top you are marked and everyone is gunning for you if they don't feel you should be on top. IMO trust this: We put any other title on top and the same thing is going to happen. There will always be someone or many that want that top spot to go to something else. That doesn't mean or even imply that ABL should stay there by default of what I said, but the process of determining placement by voting with the parameters we use works no matter how subjective it is.


----------



## tuffluck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/18280399
> 
> 
> Same here and I was one of the forerunners who really believed and still believe ABL is the best of the best. The colors are what really make it. IMO the palate of colors is second to none compared to any other animated BD. ABL is a title that at times seems like 3D sans the glasses. It has that much depth and contrast. Simply stunning.
> 
> 
> I see A Bug's Life and where it is ranked just as some might see the some sports team, some religious organization, some famous person or best athlete being ranked #1. Not everyone will agree who or what is the best, but be assured if you are on top you are marked and everyone is gunning for you if they don't feel you should be on top. IMO trust this: We put any other title on top and the same thing is going to happen. There will always be someone or many that want that top spot to go to something else. That doesn't mean or even imply that ABL should stay there by default of what I said, but the process of determining placement by voting with the parameters we use works no matter how subjective it is.



i think we (or at least me) are just suggesting animated movies be in a different type of list altogether, because of their lack of realism.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tuffluck* /forum/post/18280348
> 
> 
> if it's any consolation, everyone that has seen animation on my TV agrees it looks good, but since it's animation it is hard to say the image is awesome because of the decoding/transferring (aka technical terms you guys like to use on this forum), or if it's just because it's good animation, heh. does that make sense to you guys? angelina jolie's face looking hotter on BD and a rat looking more like an animated rat on BD is kind of a wild comparison to the normal every-day movie watcher when it comes to "which crisper image do i prefer?" i think when it comes to the animated movies, a lot of this technical conversation needs to be set aside (aka a different rating system altogether). the two types of films just aren't comparable, in my BD-layman mind.
> 
> 
> i don't know what the purpose of the creation of the PQ thread was initially, but i always assumed it was so people that don't know a lot about blu-ray movies and that don't have time to watch all of them and decide themselves which are best can pick from a list to demo or to watch because they know they look great. that being said, the majority of people without the technical expertise many of you have on this board would agree with me 9 times out of 10 that the real-life blu-ray image (aka angelina jolie's face) is a better representation of blu-ray quality than an animation flick. use that information how you will, but that was the whole point i brought up "a bug's life" from the beginning.



With respect, unfortunately how you and the 9 out of 10 think PQ is on BD is irrelevant to this thread and how it works.


Here is a comparison, although it maybe a poor one. Think of artwork. Think of a modern day artist painting a nature scene compared to some modern day computer generated image or a picture of the same scene. While many people might like what the artist did by hand, most will probably say the PQ of the digital graphic image is much more detailed, stunning and realistic. We look at BD's overall, ALL BD's and don't separate concert or animation BD's.


Here is something to think about that has been brought up before when questioning separating animation from real life titles. What if a title is half animation/half real. What happens if it is 1/4 of either or and 3/4 the other. Then what? Is is animated or real?


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tuffluck* /forum/post/18280639
> 
> 
> i think we (or at least me) are just suggesting animated movies be in a different type of list altogether, because of their lack of realism.



I understand and respect your opinion.







We have been down this road before...see my above previous post that responds to the animation/realism issue.


I do agree with you to some extent about better enjoying real BD's and how well film looks on disc and their PQ more so than animated ones.


----------



## Ozymandis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/18280006
> 
> 
> I'm curious too. We have a couple of posters with little or no history of doing reviews in the thread who don't like the PQ of ABL or including animation in Tier 0, and suddenly the title is going to be moved? I would hope that a thorough evaluation of all the reviews is done, especially those that follow the thread guidelines, before an arbitrary move is made.



I've been posting in this thread for quite a while. I'm not sure how many reviews I've posted here, I'd guess a dozen or more. Just an FYI.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/18280006
> 
> 
> I'm curious too. We have a couple of posters with little or no history of doing reviews in the thread who don't like the PQ of ABL or including animation in Tier 0, and suddenly the title is going to be moved? I would hope that a thorough evaluation of all the reviews is done, especially those that follow the thread guidelines, before an arbitrary move is made.



+1


Add me to the list Phantom Stranger, for I agree 110% with OldCodger73's sentiments and quite frankly I'm astonished that you would even consider moving _A Bug's Life_ down under these circumstances.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18279797
> 
> 
> Thanks, sounds good and looking forward to it tonight. Netflix was kind!



I'll be renting it on Thursday.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/18280399
> 
> 
> Same here and I was one of the forerunners who really believed and still believe ABL is the best of the best. *The colors are what really make it. IMO the palate of colors is second to none* compared to any other animated BD. ABL is a title that at times seems like 3D sans the glasses. It has that much depth and contrast. Simply stunning.



The colors are what did it for me too Hugh! They are in a league all of their own.


----------



## K-Spaz

I tend to agree with Deltasun, GRG, Hugh, etc. I think ABL is, *On My System*, the best looking Blu-Ray I've ever seen. I think that those who find it unimpressive, are not viewing from close enough, or not a large enough display, or both. Sometimes, it's not about comparing just from your normal viewing distance. Some movies truly are so spectacular they test the equipment upon which they're presented. Source, display, sound system, speakers, cabling, room, and all in between.


There are titles that look good on my system at a 0.7:1 viewing distance to display size. ABL is first and foremost of them. But I'll also say I have a personal bias on that and some other titles because I am highly impressed with the color pallete, textures and lighting, and consistency.


On the other hand, I'm not going to kick and scream if it is lowered either. Just like I say, all of Tier0 is remarkable.


It'll still be the go-2 disc for me when people want me to impress them to where they can convince themselves they need a front projection system.


For contrast, I'll use "The Wild". I can sit 6' from my 104" image and since most of the frame is a bokeh blur, I can easily take in the image. With ABL, at 6' from my screen, it is impossible to take it all in.


Personally, if I were forced to make a change to satisfy this "Best of the Best" discussion, and eliminate basically the only controversy we have in this thread, it would be to alphabetize Tier 0. Any votes for that?


==EDIT==

Wow, guess what title would stay at the top then! Lmao


----------



## Hughmc

Zena, The Princess Warrior? ^^ K, are you closer than a screen width when viewing?


I want to let you all know that by the end of this week, maybe even Thursday, I will be watching BD's on a 119" diagonal 16x9 screen and a Panny AE 4000 projector, my first. I will be 10-11 feet away, but it should be interesting for BD viewing. I cannot wait to throw in some BD's I own and see how they look compared to on my 60 in Sony SXRD. Some comments about the High Power 2.8 gain screen I just got have some, who own plasmas and the 2.8 screen, claiming it is like watching a plasma being suspended in mid air.







I can't wait.


----------



## K-Spaz

Hugh,

For my typical viewing, I'm in a recliner or on a reclining sofa. I also sometimes will be on a video-rocker in front of that sofa. My screen is actually 106" 16:9, but for reasons I won't go into, I sometimes have it set to more like 104 with my zoom. I also have 2 screens and can choose between them. If I'm viewing 2.35 material, it's really not 106, but is either 99 or 100" (I think, last time I checked). But that's no different than the guys who say they're viewing on a 60" panel, we can pretty much assume they're looking at it with black bars just like me.


If I'm on the sofa and reclined fully, my eyeballs are 11'6" (give or take) from the center of the screen. I can put my video-rockers pretty much anywhere I want them. I've been known to have my feet propped up in front of the center channel speaker!


In any case, at ~100", that's 8.5' and I'm at 11.5, if not reclined, perhaps a few inches closer. So, I'm not at 1:1 typically. BUT, If I had my way, and could do it in this room, My image would be significantly larger. I've considered the purchase of an anamorphic lens for just that reason. I sometimes move the sofa closer (tho that doesn't go over real big!)


I think with a HP screen, you have to be careful of getting too close. (rolloff). I have samples here but it would not work for my room, and my system is so bright now, I use it with the iris 100% closed.


Congrats on the AE4000, you're gonna LOVE it. I will not be at all surprised if you change some of your placements slightly, or at least, see some new things in some of the movies you've viewed, once getting that thing set up.



I've not seen Zena so can't comment there.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

The masses have spoken, thus A Bug's Life will remain at the top.







It is good to know that many feel it still deserves the crown. That is how the process should work. At least my poorly chosen words stimulated new discussion.










Hugh, your new setup sounds intriguing. Have you picked which BD will christen it?


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/18281354
> 
> 
> Hugh,
> 
> For my typical viewing, I'm in a recliner or on a reclining sofa. I also sometimes will be on a video-rocker in front of that sofa. My screen is actually 106" 16:9, but for reasons I won't go into, I sometimes have it set to more like 104 with my zoom. I also have 2 screens and can choose between them. If I'm viewing 2.35 material, it's really not 106, but is either 99 or 100" (I think, last time I checked). But that's no different than the guys who say they're viewing on a 60" panel, we can pretty much assume they're looking at it with black bars just like me.
> 
> 
> If I'm on the sofa and reclined fully, my eyeballs are 11'6" (give or take) from the center of the screen. I can put my video-rockers pretty much anywhere I want them. I've been known to have my feet propped up in front of the center channel speaker!
> 
> 
> In any case, at ~100", that's 8.5' and I'm at 11.5, if not reclined, perhaps a few inches closer. So, I'm not at 1:1 typically. BUT, If I had my way, and could do it in this room, My image would be significantly larger. I've considered the purchase of an anamorphic lens for just that reason. I sometimes move the sofa closer (tho that doesn't go over real big!)
> 
> 
> I think with a HP screen, you have to be careful of getting too close. (rolloff). I have samples here but it would not work for my room, and my system is so bright now, I use it with the iris 100% closed.
> 
> 
> Congrats on the AE4000, you're gonna LOVE it. I will not be at all surprised if you change some of your placements slightly, or at least, see some new things in some of the movies you've viewed, once getting that thing set up.
> 
> 
> 
> I've not seen Zena so can't comment there.



You did get my poor attempt at humor with the Zena joke and alphabetizing?


You mean I might actually get to see EE in all its glory?







Gee, I can't wait.







Lol.


The HP should work well in my room, due to some ambient light as well as I can sit in what is called the cone (sweet spot) and rolloff up to 3ft sitting from the center of the cone is where issues can start. I have just 4 seats in a row, and the seats left and right of the center two are just at the 3 foot mark from the center of where the cone would be. When my kids come they won't notice or care if they do. They are happy with just watching and are like their mom, not anal like me.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18281790
> 
> 
> The masses have spoken, thus A Bug's Life will remain at the top.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is good to know that many feel it still deserves the crown. That is how the process should work. At least my poorly chosen words stimulated new discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hugh, your new setup sounds intriguing. Have you picked which BD will christen it?




Yes, it seems we can get in cheaper and get good quality now. The 2k projector price tags seems to get one the the equivalent of what 5k+ costs just two years ago. I am paying the same for screen and projector that I did for my 60 inch. I was very fortunate with the Sony A3000 as it has an excellent film like picture to it, so I hope after I get the projector dialed in that I won't be disappointed.


Ah!! you got me. Good question. I haven't even thought of what to watch first, but I will be sure to put in one of the tier 0 BD's that I own first.







I will certainly report back here what I am witnessing and compare what I did rate a title before and what I might rate it now. No don't worry, not all of them.







I will be re-renting a few BD's as well as revisiting a lot of my collection. North by Northwest and some of the Bond films will be a good tell for some good older films with some good PQ. It should be interesting.


I am thinking Curse of the Black Pearl first, then Baraka, Grand Canyon Adventure, followed by A Bug's Life, Ratatouille, Bolt, Up...I would like to pick up Red CLiff after some of the reviews a few of you did. It seems to be stunning.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/18282179
> 
> 
> Yes, it seems we can get in cheaper and get good quality now. The 2k projector price tags seems to get one the the equivalent of what 5k+ costs just two years ago. I am paying the same for screen and projector that I did for my 60 inch. I was very fortunate with the Sony A3000 as it has an excellent film like picture to it, so I hope after I get the projector dialed in that I won't be disappointed.



Congrats on the new system Hugh! I truly do hope though that you won't be stung by the EE bug now with such a large screen.







As far what to christen your new setup with, all of those mentioned sound good. And I would really encourage you to get _Red Cliff_; it is a true epic that deserves to be watched on as big a screen as possible.


Personally, if I had the room...the money....and permission from my wife, I would probably go the same route (with a big screen and the best projector I could get for the most money I could afford).


----------



## deltasun

Ditto on what Denny said, Hugh. Pretty excited for ya! I'm working on my sound at the moment, but will be looking to buy a new house in a year. It will inevitably start with a good basement conducive to HT'ing, no doubt.










Btw, just finished up _Up in the Air_. Excellent, excellent film! I have _The Time Traveler's Wife_ and _Generation Kill_ as well from Netflix.


OldCodger: did you see _Up in the Air_ already? I take it from your message you have. Definitely a buyer for me as well, but will have to wait for a better deal.


----------



## deltasun

*Up in the Air*


GRG described it succinctly. Excellent facial details, deep blacks with no crush, strong contrast, and palatable depth. Colors are subdued, consistent with the feel of the movie, which helps brighter hues pop when they appear. Details are abundant, especially in each of the overhead, establishing scenes of cities (except for San Francisco - what happened there?!?). Textures on clothing, fabric, Clooney's hair look amazing.


There is just a fine amount of grain to yield a filmic quality. For the record, the grain was on the moderate side during the opening scenes; overhead details then were also not as well-defined. Of course, this lasted all of 5 or so minutes. As GRG mentioned, some of the details (facial specially) were inconsistent (the wedding scenes were subpar, for example). I would still count 90% to be on the excellent side. Ringing was also apparent, particularly when Clooney's armada of black suits are up against lighter background.


This title did remind me of the look from _The International_, but not as crisp. I also think _Quantum of Solace_ and the _Kill Bill's_ were slightly better, but not enough to lower this from the top of Tier Gold.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0*


Excellent film - highly recommended.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Beta Tester




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tuffluck* /forum/post/18278356
> 
> 
> my experiences with people watching animated blu-ray on my tv is that "yeah it looks good, but it's hard to tell that it's good blu-ray quality and not just good animation." that's all i'm trying to say. i don't see how that isn't a more universal opinion.



You said it much better than I could have. It is for that reason that I never demo my system using animation, and I hope other theatre owners don't demo their systems to me that way.


Having said that, I still believe that animation titles should be mixed in with the rest. If something is eye-candy, then it is eye-candy regardless of the process that go it there.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18283233
> 
> *Up in the Air*
> 
> 
> GRG described it succinctly. Excellent facial details, deep blacks with no crush, strong contrast, and palatable depth. Colors are subdued, consistent with the feel of the movie, which helps brighter hues pop when they appear. Details are abundant, especially in each of the overhead, establishing scenes of cities (except for San Francisco - what happened there?!?). Textures on clothing, fabric, Clooney's hair look amazing.
> 
> 
> There is just a fine amount of grain to yield a filmic quality. For the record, the grain was on the moderate side during the opening scenes; overhead details then were also not as well-defined. Of course, this lasted all of 5 or so minutes. As GRG mentioned, some of the details (facial specially) were inconsistent (the wedding scenes were subpar, for example). I would still count 90% to be on the excellent side. Ringing was also apparent, particularly when Clooney's armada of black suits are up against lighter background.
> 
> 
> This title did remind me of the look from _The International_, but not as crisp. I also think _Quantum of Solace_ and the _Kill Bill's_ were slightly better, but not enough to lower this from the top of Tier Gold.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.0*
> 
> 
> Excellent film - highly recommended.
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_



Thanks for the good review deltasun; it sounds like a winner. Now I'm really anxious to see this film, especially with your high recommendation for the film itself.


----------



## tuffluck




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/18281056
> 
> 
> With ABL, at 6' from my screen, it is impossible to take it all in.



kind of my whole point about throwing a lot of the technical talk out the window when it comes to BD quality in animation. if you are demoing a BD to someone, it probably isn't someone on this forum, but a neighbor, wife, or friend that knows very little about all this technical stuff. i think a lot of the reasons the BD's at the top are the animated films is for all the technical reasons no ignorant, regulary person is ever going to really notice. the stuff that is memorable is seeing actors, physical landmarks, and places that you recognize from other films or (for physical landmarks) maybe seeing them in person, and when you see them in a great quality BD, that's the kind of stuff the people i know go "wow" for, not the talking cars on an animated flick.


----------



## deltasun

For the most part, the positive technical details is what translates to the wow factor, regardless of a person's technical knowledge. So, I disagree with your statement: "_BD's at the top are the animated films is for all the technical reasons no ignorant, regulary person is ever going to really notice_." They may not know the technical reasons or may not be able to explain why, but I think they can and do notice.


The stuff you're describing sounds more like emotional wow factors. This is important as well and would drive a person to favor one film over another, but I doubt this can be quantified. It's unique to each person's experiences and this is not necessarily the thread to give you that.


----------



## K-Spaz

Tuffluck,

I also have to disagree that a persons technical understanding is any sort of requirement to seeing what this thread addresses. I do not think I could count how many people have either commented to me or said here on the thread, how happy they are that this reference is here. They can easily see the variations in tiers and they don't need to know anything about technical details. Within the tolerance I've already said above that reviewers disagree from time to time, opinions are pretty much universal.


There are many review sites that give a subjective or seat-of-the-pants PQ review to BR's. Any one of them might better suit what you're expecting.


Btw, what I'm talking about with ABL being impossible to take in from close up, is:

There is so much detail from edge to edge of the screen that you simply cannot view it, or, your brain just can't absorb it fast enough, and detail levels are great, even from very close up. As you watch more BR's, you'll see plenty of them that look better the farther you get from the screen. As that becomes the case, you'll see those show up lower on this list. And that's pretty much across the board.


By my count, there's about 512 pages of discussion on this very topic to read through. Pretty much, all opinions have been refuted / discussed ad-infinitem.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Boondock Saints 2*


This is an odd one. From the start, I thought this was shot digitally. No noticeable grain, processed look, soft, flesh tones all over the place, and scenes in the dark were murky. About halfway through, the grain comes into play and it actually looks like film, which is how it was shot. By the end, this becomes nearly reference quality stuff, especially a conversation in a greenhouse.


That has superb image depth, razor sharp facial textures, cool color, and remarkable definition. So, half the movie is basically crap, the second half looks great... that puts it...???
*Tier 2.5*


----------



## selimsivad

Also, a properly calibrated display is very important.


I can remember the first time I watched "Dog Day Afternoon" after my former Samsung was ISF professionally calibrated. It looked like it was filmed yesterday! On my Panny V10, it looks even better!


Just my two pennies. And for the record, I believe Flik and company should remain at the top!


----------



## tuffluck

well...i still think there is an unusual infatuation with ABL here










nevertheless, the people that have watched BD on my system can tell the difference in tiers (what they have seen), but i have yet to find anyone that understands why the animated films are rated so high. maybe that is coincidence, i don't know. i just thought i'd throw it out there. it seems all my "let's do animation in another set of reviews entirely" crew has run away from this thread, so i guess there really isn't anymore to be said from me


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18283078
> 
> 
> Ditto on what Denny said, Hugh. Pretty excited for ya! I'm working on my sound at the moment, but will be looking to buy a new house in a year. It will inevitably start with a good basement conducive to HT'ing, no doubt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Btw, just finished up _Up in the Air_. Excellent, excellent film! I have _The Time Traveler's Wife_ and _Generation Kill_ as well from Netflix.
> 
> 
> OldCodger: did you see _Up in the Air_ already? I take it from your message you have. Definitely a buyer for me as well, but will have to wait for a better deal.



Nope, I went to Best Buy this morning and bought it along with a new BD player; it was time to retire my super slow loading Panasonic 10a. I have a Netfix movie, _An American in Pari_s, that I want to watch tonight so won't get to _Up in the Air_ until Thursday night. The reviews in this thread sound really good.


----------



## deltasun

*The Time Traveler's Wife*


Beautiful blu-ray, beautiful story. First off, this film had a bold, rich color palette that sometimes bordered on over-saturation. In fact, some scenes did show golden, over-saturated flesh tones. This occurred infrequently and usually when indoor lighting was involved. Otherwise, flesh tones were faithful.


Depth and dimensionality were excellent. Blacks were deep and inky, but did cross over to crushing. Contrast was perfect throughout, with no wavering. Details were abundant and rather spectacular. The best scenes were definitely from his visits to the 6-year old Clare - every leaf and brush in the meadow can be picked out clearly.


Facial details were decent, but not the absolute best. Early scenes exhibited some ringing (check out Bana's dark suit against the green grass).


Overall, this film flirts with Tier 0 in a number of scenes, but falls short for the reasons cited above - facials details, some ringing, minimal over-saturation of flesh tones, and minor crushed blacks.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.50*


Another excellent film, despite the chick flick genre.







A very unique approach to time travel and its inherent consequences. I felt it was an effective way to incorporate a love story as well.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## tcramer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18290574
> 
> *The Time Traveler's Wife*
> 
> 
> Beautiful blu-ray, beautiful story. First off, this film had a bold, rich color palette that sometimes bordered on over-saturation. In fact, some scenes did show golden, over-saturated flesh tones. This occurred infrequently and usually when indoor lighting was involved. Otherwise, flesh tones were faithful.
> 
> 
> Depth and dimensionality were excellent. Blacks were deep and inky, but did cross over to crushing. Contrast was perfect throughout, with no wavering. Details were abundant and rather spectacular. The best scenes were definitely from his visits to the 6-year old Clare - every leaf and brush in the meadow can be picked out clearly.
> 
> 
> Facial details were decent, but not the absolute best. Early scenes exhibited some ringing (check out Bana's dark suit against the green grass).
> 
> 
> Overall, this film flirts with Tier 0 in a number of scenes, but falls short for the reasons cited above - facials details, some ringing, minimal over-saturation of flesh tones, and minor crushed blacks.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.50*
> 
> 
> Another excellent film, despite the chick flick genre.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A very unique approach to time travel and its inherent consequences. I felt it was an effective way to incorporate a love story as well.
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_




I really wish I had more time to write detailed reviews for Blu's, but alas I do not. I can however say that I agree with everything Delta said here.


The two things you mentioned that stand out to me are the black crush and just decent facial details. Many of the dark scenes did indeed have black crush, even after I cranked up my brightness a notch.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18283233
> 
> *Up in the Air*
> 
> 
> GRG described it succinctly. Excellent facial details, deep blacks with no crush, strong contrast, and palatable depth. Colors are subdued, consistent with the feel of the movie, which helps brighter hues pop when they appear. Details are abundant, especially in each of the overhead, establishing scenes of cities (except for San Francisco - what happened there?!?). Textures on clothing, fabric, Clooney's hair look amazing.
> 
> 
> There is just a fine amount of grain to yield a filmic quality. For the record, the grain was on the moderate side during the opening scenes; overhead details then were also not as well-defined. Of course, this lasted all of 5 or so minutes. As GRG mentioned, some of the details (facial specially) were inconsistent (the wedding scenes were subpar, for example). I would still count 90% to be on the excellent side. Ringing was also apparent, particularly when Clooney's armada of black suits are up against lighter background.
> 
> 
> This title did remind me of the look from _The International_, but not as crisp. I also think _Quantum of Solace_ and the _Kill Bill's_ were slightly better, but not enough to lower this from the top of Tier Gold.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.0*
> 
> 
> Excellent film - highly recommended.
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


*Up in the Air*


I am literally leaving my house in a few minutes for work so I'm taking the easy route on this review by quoting deltasun's. I absolutely agree with every word he said and thus I would only be guilty of being redundant if I were to write my own review. I even made the comparison throughout the movie with _The International_ and I kept thinking, "This has the same excellent facial details, deep blacks, depth, and subdued color palette, but it's just not as sharp."

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite BDP-05....Viewed from 8'


----------



## audiomagnate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sleater* /forum/post/16674554
> 
> *The Rocker* 16:9 (1:85:1) AR 2008 AC-3
> 
> 
> Ok I realise that this might not be an obvious choice to nominate to Tier 0, but I was so impressed by it even after scrutinizing this film from a 4 foot viewing distance on an 92" screen from my 1080p projector. All I can say is that at its best, it surpasses _Transporter 3, I, Robot and Man on Fire_ for its vividness and that 'looking through a window' type achievement. It isn't all perfect, however, and thus it probably shouldn't be placed above these mentioned titles, but a bit below. I _could_ live with Tier 1.0 but why not go out on a limb.
> 
> 
> A very very fine film grain can be discerned in certain underlit scenes, but for the most part it is difficult to make-out any grain. I don't attribute this to NR but more likely that it was captured using digital camera equipment. It looked similar to "Youth Without Youth" in this regard so for those who prefer a film-like 35mm presentation it isn't found here.
> 
> 
> The more impressive scenes had some bokeh with closeups of the actor and a more blurred background, making the actor pop-off the screen. There were many wide and medium shots that had an incredible depth of field where all objects were in perfect focus as well. The best of the best facial closeups here cannot compete, however, with something like 'Transporter 3' but they are not lacking either. Fine details can be seen such as pores and individual hairs. Skin tones look natural, blacks are pretty good and the darker indoor concert scenes while not invoking the 'wow' factor that the more well-lit or outdoor scenes have, are noise-free and still sharp and detailed. Indoor scenes, for instance the dinner table scene near the beginning, show-off how incredible looking this movie is with great detail in small objects and all actors popping right off the screen.
> 
> 
> I personally think that part of what makes animated movies have an easier time being nominated for Tier 0 is their artifact-free digital to digital conversion that translates to a 'perfect' transfer from original source to the bluray medium. The fact that I think this movie is shot with digital cameras makes this film similar in this regard. I could literally stand right up to my screen on some of the scenes and see extreme fine detail without the usual haze of film stock grain. This just gave it a clean, wow-factor pop that I have to say deserves a Tier 0 spot probably somewhere in the middle right below 'Youth Without Youth'. I doubt there will be the requisite 5 or 6 Tier 0 nominations to achieve this but that is where I think this film belongs.
> 
> 
> Anyone on netflix or zip will probably have no problem whatsoever renting this as its far from a popular release, for whatever reason. If you do decide to give it a rent, don't be too concerned in the first 10 - 15 minutes of ridiculous 'comedy' that feels a bit out of place. The movie does improve later on. It's not a great film by any stretch of the imagination, however.
> 
> 
> I nominate to the middle of *Tier 0*. I have no problem demoing this one to show what is possible with bluray.
> 
> 
> PS3 to HC5500 1080p PJ
> 
> 92" screen 4-7' distance (I sat up really really close for this one for some parts)
> 
> 
> Sidenote: I am more partial to the look of HD digital camera vs film



This looked like *2.0* stuff to me. I saw a good transfer with slightly oversaturated colors and better than average detail, but nothing special at all. What am I missing? My OTA networks look at least this good. Pretty bad movie BTW.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Old Dogs*

Pop. Pop. Pop. Lots of it. Subdued colors, but still bright. Deep, rich blacks. Crazy bright whites. Tons of reference quality facial close-ups. Razor sharp. Minimal grain...


And that is all inconsistent. Almost all close-ups perform, but in the mid-range, only when it wants to. Darker scenes can fall flat, even a bit murky. Environmental definition is lackluster. Some ringing, the usual high contrast edges proving troublesome. Flesh tones also can appear orange.


Still, this one can "pop" with the best of them.

*Tier 1.25*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Shigurui: Death Frenzy - The Complete Series


recommendation: Tier 4.5
*

If one-armed swordsmen and demonic samurai interest you, this 2007 anime from Japan might be the series for you. Twelve episodes are spread out over two discs, a BD-50 and a BD-25. AVC is the codec of choice for the video presentation. The BDInfo scan gives the average video bitrate as 25.99 Mbps for the first BD, and 24.99 Mbps for the second BD. Shigurui utilizes a very stylized form of animation, which does not produce anything approaching typical video quality on Blu-ray. It is also common knowledge that some of the anime Blu-rays are sourced from standard-definition sources. While there is no conclusive proof this is the case for the _Shigurui_ Blu-ray, there is not much visual evidence either that proves its high-definition origins.


In animation of this nature, it is hard to separate compression artifacts from problems due to the original animation. That said, there are levels of banding seen here that few Blu-rays have ever matched in duration or magnitude. The ample bitrates afforded the video compression lead me to believe the problem stems from the animation quality itself in the source material.


The animation director apparently went for a very specific look, given the uncharacteristically soft and diffuse nature of the art. Color saturation is quite subdued, with none of the brilliant rendition that most popular animation displays on Blu-ray. There is also the odd choice to frequently add simulated noise or grain to select scenes. The effect simply looks horrendous, and obscures any underlying detail much of the time. Another negative are the poor white levels, where some scenes are occasionally blown-out, washing out and obscuring the image in fuzzy whites.


Not all animation looks brilliant, as this set proves repeatedly. My verdict might be a touch harsh, but very few moments even reach the caliber of tier three. A ranking at the bottom of tier four looks justified, given a transfer and material of questionable provenance.


BDInfo scan for Region B edition, which exhibits almost identical traits (courtesy of paku):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...7#post18181507


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *audiomagnate* /forum/post/18293375
> 
> 
> This looked like *2.0* stuff to me. I saw a good transfer with slightly oversaturated colors and better than average detail, but nothing special at all. What am I missing? My OTA networks look at least this good. Pretty bad movie BTW.



I actually have *The Rocker* at the house right now from zip.ca, I'm hoping to watch it this weekend sometime and will chime in.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Trailer Park Boys: Countdown to Liquor Day*


Shot in a documentary style with the Sony EX1 digital, this one has all the problems of digital filmmaking when the camera is not right for the job. Glaring edge enhancement is sprinkled liberally throughout. Clear, but incredibly flat and smooth. Fine detail just doesn't exist.


Colors are muted, and black levels are flat. Noise is unbearable in low light, and artifacting is noticeable. Some scenes are shot from a security cam, and you can guess how those look.

*Tier 4.5*


----------



## djoberg

*The Box*


I'll say at the outset that this one is fairly _inconsistent_ and thus a very hard one to call. There are many *virtues*, and a few *flaws*, and the trick will be to weigh them in the balances and come up with a placement that is justified.


The *VIRTUES*:


1) This was no doubt shot digitally and it appears *void of any artifacts*.


2) *Colors are warm and rich-looking*, though at times they were muted and lacking punch.


3) *Blacks were deep and inky* for the most part with accompanying *good shadow details*.


4) *Details were quite good* in several scenes.


5) Perhaps the best of all was the *amazing depth* in MANY scenes.


The *FLAWS*:


1) The *digital look* , though free of artifacts, *appeared too surreal* for my taste, though this too was inconsistent so it didn't necessarily dominate the whole movie.


2) There were a number of *soft scenes*, resulting in a *lack of detail*.


3) *Blacks looked dark gray* in some scenes.


4) *Facial details were lacking* most of the time, though there were a few shots that would qualify for tier 1.


Okay, after putting these on the scales, the good definitely outweighs the bad (in number and in running time), so I'm willing to put this one on the border of of tiers 1 & 2....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75-2.0*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite BDP-05....Viewed from 8'


----------



## audiomagnate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/18300377
> 
> 
> I actually have *The Rocker* at the house right now from zip.ca, I'm hoping to watch it this weekend sometime and will chime in.



Is "zip.ca" Inuit for Netflix?


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *audiomagnate* /forum/post/18302787
> 
> 
> Is "zip.ca" Inuit for Netflix?



Nah, just Canuck.


----------



## djoberg

*The Informant*


Shall I be blunt? The PQ was, except for a few rare shots, a BIG DISAPPOINTMENT! Colors were drab, contrast was overblown, blacks were weak, details and depth were almost nonexistent, and facial close-ups were worse than average.


To be fair, there were a few scenes that were sharp with punchy colors, but they were truly in the minority. There were a couple of shots where facial detail revealed stubble, pores, etc., but again these were the exception and not the rule.


I don't know what was worse, the PQ or the movie itself. I found it hard to follow and it wasn't until the very end that I realized what Matt Damon's character was all about (at least I *think* I have a handle on it).


This was average at best, so it is destined to end up in Tier 3, and IMHO it deserves the lower end of that tier. Sooooo.....

*Tier Recommendation: 3.5*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite BDP-05....Viewed from 8'


----------



## Hughmc

I am reporting some initial viewing observations now that I have a big screen/projector. Please note, I just got the projector and am new to this and while the projector is reviewed to be close to accurate right out of the box, I have yet to do any calibration outside of some minor tweaks.


First off, wow!!.







I cannot use enough hyperbole to describe the experience, out side of me wanting to say this is the way all of us who are really into movie viewing and reviewing want to be watching BD's at home. I had no idea it would be like this. The last few years I felt my audio over powered my picture and I was right. The balance is now there and if anything, my center channel maybe a bit weak.


I am sitting close, very close, like 10 ft from a 119 inch screen. It isn't like the front row at the theatre thankfully, since I don't get nauseous or neck or eye strain, but it is very immersive.


The PQ is stunning and simply blows my Sony A3000 out of the water and it isn't just the size.







Out of the box and on econo mode the PQ and brightness are incredible. I do have what is called a High Power screen with 2.8 gain to help increase brightness and perceived contrast. There are details in BD's that I never knew existed or I hadn't seen before, but blown up on the big screen, my jaw is dropping at the detail.


I first put in Pirates of the Carribean COTBP and it holds up well on the big screen and is deserving of its tier 0 placement. Facial details and details in general are very good to excellent.


I also watched Law Abiding CItizen again and it too looks to be where several have recommended placement. Facial details are really sharp and defined. A good tier 1.0 candidate.


I then put in A Bug's LIfe. Watching it on the big screen on BD is like I have never watched it before. Seriously, it is that profound. Talk about detail. While the colors are still mind blowing and the depth and contrast 3D like, the detail on the bugs themselves is a revelation. I am seeing things on the bugs I didn't know were there when watching on my smaller screen. Lines on antennae, on body parts and other fine details through out the BD are so apparent it is actually shocking that I didn't notice them before.







I wonder how big a BD like this that is CGI animation and "flawless" could be blown up on a big screen without losing detail. If at 119" inches there isn't an issue, I could only imagine.

















I own Up, Ratatouille, Bolt, Snow WHite, Monster's Inc, 9 and I will be checking them out in time. I also own I Robot and will put that in later today as well. I will be revisiting a lot of BD's that I own, The Bonds, Bournes, and others with tier 1 and 2 rankings to see how they hold up on the big screen.


It seems the studios are playing games with Hollywood VIdeo. 1 copy of Hurt Locker on DVD and none on BD; One copy of Precious on BD; one copy of Up In the Air on BD.










One thing I noticed was HD captures on BD just don't hold up like film. I noticed this before on my A3000, as I own several concert BD's, but again the big screen really reveals the limitations of HD camera captures. I do need to check out Crank 2 and District 9 as well as Gamer to see how they hold up on the big screen. I know D9 and Gamer were done with Red One cameras and I rated them tier 0 prior, so it should be interesting. It is the same with HDTV programming. Once I get that HD capture image blown up, I could more readily see the shortcomings of HD camera captures, much like our own Rob Tomlin has commented many times by saying he doesn't like the look of HD captures near as much as film and I can see why. Detail, lighting, contrast in general just isn't there. I witnessed this on the Jeff Beck: Live at Ronnie Scotts BD. I think on one of these forums for screens or projectors someone said the sweet spot for HD is 110 inches and beyond that the image sharpness doesn't hold up well. I would agree.


EE!!...Ok, so I didn't notice it much if at all with the viewing I have done so far, but I rented Transporter 3 to see how the EE or ringing looked. Wow!! Time for a bit of humility and to eat crow.







This is/was not apparent on my A3000. RSbeck was right to an extent. There are some scenes in the Transporter 3 that the ringing is so glaring, that it looks like their jackets are floating around them. The effect is profound. It looks bizarre and does take one out of the moment. Some of the EE is as I suspected. It is dark lines of jackets, objects against light or bright backgrounds giving off the halo effect, so I don't have an issue with it as I believe it is the way film captures the objects against bright lighting. The EE I mentioned as being bad is an anomaly unto itself. There is one scene where they are walking in a hallway and all of the men's jackets have a weird floaty effect to them. If this is ringing, haloing or EE, it is way apparent on the big screen. I feel sorry for you EE sensitive types as it is a nasty anomaly.







I know there were many other tier 0 supporters of Transporter 3 and although I believe overall the PQ is still tier 0, the EE/ringing is enough for me to see it dropped to the top of tier 1. What a shame.


Film grain is also much more readily visible, but not an issue, although on Transporter 3 at times, the grain almost had that bugs crawling on the screen/digital noise look to it.


I do believe I can be more accurate about what I am seeing as the big screen is quite revealing. The EE issue alone is now more obvious where as before I rarely or didn't even notice it.


Thanks to all for your encouragement and support with regards to "Hugh's New Toy's" as K-Spaz put it.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Alphabet Killer

recommendation: Tier 3.25*


Predictably, another serial killer movie that has been drained of color and digitally-graded in postproduction to create an atmosphere the script lacks. The 98-minute film is encoded in VC-1 at decent parameters and is reasonably competent. With no BDInfo scan available, the estimated average video bitrate is likely in the 20 to 25 Mbps range. The current ranking, in Tier 3.0, is perfectly defensible. A good portion of the film looks closer in quality to a score in the confines of tier 2, but in the end a few problems bring it down for my tastes.


The main problem was a general lack of excellent shadow detail and texture. The image even has a touch of crushing at times. Much of the Blu-ray has slight contrast problems, leading to the blacks losing depth and detail in the shadows. In these cheap, independent movies, the lighting of each scene is where the picture quality starts to fall flat. Well-lit objects and exterior scenes show off very nice levels of detail and sharpness, while interior shots appear much flatter and darker. A few shots also showed obvious edge enhancement, though its odd appearance makes me wonder if certain scenes were filmed with a digital camera. Print damage is nil and the master looks fresh, aside from a couple of white specks that briefly flash.


----------



## jedimasterchad

Hugh, congrats on the new setup! The experience you describe is not unlike the first time I loaded a BD into my first HDTV only about 6 months ago. I would love to be able to invest in a projector system but unfortunately my current living scenario does not permit it. I don't think I'd be able to put a projector far enough back from the wall to cast a 110" picture, being in a small apartment, so the 54" Panny will have to do for now. Like you though, I am at a point where I feel the sound definitely is capable of overwhelming the picture, but as a part time BB employee over the holidays, it was at a great discount (and anyway, who cares? I love big sound!).


If anything though, it sounds to me like the lesson to be learned is that ignorance is bliss, and some of the problems/nitpicking you mention are not very apparent on my display, and I can do without them for now. I guess sometimes, a true representation of the source is a bit *more* than the director intended? Although, it's not his fault the picture was compressed.


Say, what prompted you to get the AE4000 over, say, the Epson 8500UB? I am just starting to look into projectors ~$2k for when I move later this year, and it's hard to get a good idea of why one might buy one or the other.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Congrats Hugh!


10 feet is way too close to a screen that size though...in my opinion. The apparent PQ will improve if you move back 2 or 3 feet, and it will still be very immersive.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/18306715
> 
> 
> One thing I noticed was HD captures on BD just don't hold up like film. I noticed this before on my A3000, as I own several concert BD's, but again the big screen really reveals the limitations of HD camera captures. I do need to check out Crank 2 and District 9 as well as Gamer to see how they hold up on the big screen. I know D9 and Gamer were done with Red One cameras and I rated them tier 0 prior, so it should be interesting. It is the same with HDTV programming. Once I get that HD capture image blown up, I could more readily see the shortcomings of HD camera captures, much like our own Rob Tomlin has commented many times by saying he doesn't like the look of HD captures near as much as film and I can see why. Detail, lighting, contrast in general just isn't there. I witnessed this on the Jeff Beck: Live at Ronnie Scotts BD. I think on one of these forums for screens or projectors someone said the sweet spot for HD is 110 inches and beyond that the image sharpness doesn't hold up well. I would agree.



This probably has less to do with the inherent limitations of digital capture and more to do with the fact that film is usually limited to bigger-budget productions and the talented DPs that work on them. I think if you give Apocalypto a rent you'll be quite impressed with the digital visuals.


Congrats on the new rig! I'd kill for a front projector but don't have anywhere to set it up


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/18306715
> 
> 
> 
> One thing I noticed was HD captures on BD just don't hold up like film. I noticed this before on my A3000, as I own several concert BD's, but again the big screen really reveals the limitations of HD camera captures. I do need to check out Crank 2 and District 9 as well as Gamer to see how they hold up on the big screen. I know D9 and Gamer were done with Red One cameras and I rated them tier 0 prior, so it should be interesting. It is the same with HDTV programming. Once I get that HD capture image blown up, I could more readily see the shortcomings of HD camera captures, much like our own Rob Tomlin has commented many times by saying he doesn't like the look of HD captures near as much as film and I can see why. Detail, lighting, contrast in general just isn't there. I witnessed this on the Jeff Beck: Live at Ronnie Scotts BD. I think on one of these forums for screens or projectors someone said the sweet spot for HD is 110 inches and beyond that the image sharpness doesn't hold up well. I would agree.



Just to be clear, I don't really have a big issue with "detail" when it comes to HD capture. HD video can definitely capture a lot of detail. The biggest issue with HD video to me is the reduced contrast range and the tendency of HD video to blow out the highlights. Film has a wider latitude when it comes to contrast range. HD video is definitely getting better though.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/18300377
> 
> 
> I actually have *The Rocker* at the house right now from zip.ca, I'm hoping to watch it this weekend sometime and will chime in.




.....And the disc was cracked, so it doesn't work. I suppose I should have looked at it first. I doubt I'll try and get this one again.


----------



## Mr.G




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/18306715
> 
> 
> I am reporting some initial viewing observations now that I have a big screen/projector. Please note, I just got the projector and am new to this and while the projector is reviewed to be close to accurate right out of the box, I have yet to do any calibration outside of some minor tweaks.
> 
> 
> First off, wow!!.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot use enough hyperbole to describe the experience, out side of me wanting to say this is the way all of us who are really into movie viewing and reviewing want to be watching BD's at home. I had no idea it would be like this. The last few years I felt my audio over powered my picture and I was right. The balance is now there and if anything, my center channel maybe a bit weak.
> 
> 
> I am sitting close, very close, like 10 ft from a 119 inch screen. It isn't like the front row at the theatre thankfully, since I don't get nauseous or neck or eye strain, but it is very immersive.
> 
> 
> The PQ is stunning and simply blows my Sony A3000 out of the water and it isn't just the size.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Out of the box and on econo mode the PQ and brightness are incredible. I do have what is called a High Power screen with 2.8 gain to help increase brightness and perceived contrast. There are details in BD's that I never knew existed or I hadn't seen before, but blown up on the big screen, my jaw is dropping at the detail.
> 
> 
> I first put in Pirates of the Carribean COTBP and it holds up well on the big screen and is deserving of its tier 0 placement. Facial details and details in general are very good to excellent.
> 
> 
> I also watched Law Abiding CItizen again and it too looks to be where several have recommended placement. Facial details are really sharp and defined. A good tier 1.0 candidate.
> 
> 
> I then put in A Bug's LIfe. Watching it on the big screen on BD is like I have never watched it before. Seriously, it is that profound. Talk about detail. While the colors are still mind blowing and the depth and contrast 3D like, the detail on the bugs themselves is a revelation. I am seeing things on the bugs I didn't know were there when watching on my smaller screen. Lines on antennae, on body parts and other fine details through out the BD are so apparent it is actually shocking that I didn't notice them before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how big a BD like this that is CGI animation and "flawless" could be blown up on a big screen without losing detail. If at 119" inches there isn't an issue, I could only imagine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I own Up, Ratatouille, Bolt, Snow WHite, Monster's Inc, 9 and I will be checking them out in time. I also own I Robot and will put that in later today as well. I will be revisiting a lot of BD's that I own, The Bonds, Bournes, and others with tier 1 and 2 rankings to see how they hold up on the big screen.



First, congrats on your new 4000 projector. Second, I'd be interested in your opinion of _2012_ on your new setup - still worthy of your previous 1.5 rating?


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/18307623
> 
> 
> Hugh, congrats on the new setup! The experience you describe is not unlike the first time I loaded a BD into my first HDTV only about 6 months ago. I would love to be able to invest in a projector system but unfortunately my current living scenario does not permit it. I don't think I'd be able to put a projector far enough back from the wall to cast a 110" picture, being in a small apartment, so the 54" Panny will have to do for now. Like you though, I am at a point where I feel the sound definitely is capable of overwhelming the picture, but as a part time BB employee over the holidays, it was at a great discount (and anyway, who cares? I love big sound!).
> 
> 
> If anything though, it sounds to me like the lesson to be learned is that ignorance is bliss, and some of the problems/nitpicking you mention are not very apparent on my display, and I can do without them for now. I guess sometimes, a true representation of the source is a bit *more* than the director intended? Although, it's not his fault the picture was compressed.
> 
> 
> Say, what prompted you to get the AE4000 over, say, the Epson 8500UB? I am just starting to look into projectors ~$2k for when I move later this year, and it's hard to get a good idea of why one might buy one or the other.



A little bit of price, but overall after reading reviews, the only advantage the 8500 has is black levels. I wanted 24p, and a few other features the Panny has that even players double the cost don't.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18307669
> 
> 
> Congrats Hugh!
> 
> 
> 10 feet is way too close to a screen that size though...in my opinion. The apparent PQ will improve if you move back 2 or 3 feet, and it will still be very immersive.



It does seem close at times and a bit overwhelming at 16x9, but not so much with 2:35:1. My eyes are actually more like 11 ft and I do have the ability to move the screen back almost another foot.


To be honest using the HTPC or even gaming is a little overwhelming and big from 11ft looking at 119", but the beauty of this projector is that I can scale down the image to what ever size I want and save that size in memory. I think I can save several or more different sizes. There is also an interesting function to change aspect ratios on the fly. 16x9, 4x3, Zoom, V stretch, H stretch and S16x9. I don't know what the "S" means in S16x9 is, but if I am watching HDTV, like a hockey game in 16x9 HD that I have set to fill the entire screen and I switch to S16x9, it scales the image down to about 84" diagonal. What is nice about this is blowing up an HD image too big, like to 119", reveals the flaws in the source, i.e. artifacting around players gets exacerbated even with the best looking NHL game source, but switching to S16x9 makes it still big, but lessens the artifacting or limits of the source. Granted when I watch BD's in 2:35:1 or do as I mentioned by scaling the image smaller, I have bars like I did with the A3000, but they don't bother me at all. I tune the bars out just like I did with the A3000. Of course some go with 2 screens to do masking, but I don't feel the need.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/18307682
> 
> 
> This probably has less to do with the inherent limitations of digital capture and more to do with the fact that film is usually limited to bigger-budget productions and the talented DPs that work on them. I think if you give Apocalypto a rent you'll be quite impressed with the digital visuals.
> 
> 
> Congrats on the new rig! I'd kill for a front projector but don't have anywhere to set it up




If I was married and in this house, I probably wouldn't be doing this, but since I live alone and I converted my living room into a media room...










I was one of the fervent supporters of keeping Apocalypto in tier 0. I own it and will have to put it in to see what it is like. I will report back. My anticipation is that is won't hold up as well as it did on my smaller screen. I will see.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/18311345
> 
> 
> 
> I was one of the fervent supporters of keeping Apocalypto in tier 0. I own it and will have to put it in to see what it is like. I will report back. *My anticipation is that is won't hold up as well as it did on my smaller screen.* I will see.



Hugh, you will need to accept the fact that *none* of the titles will hold up as well as they did on your smaller screen!


Yet, almost all of them will be more enjoyable overall due to the more immersive experience of the bigger screen. There is no substitute for a bigger screen, including sitting closer to a smaller screen.


----------



## dla26




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tuffluck* /forum/post/18279757
> 
> 
> seriously, whoever is in charge of making the good blu-ray discs should teach their trade to someone with a better taste in movies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hell, noone has even made a blu-ray version of one of my favorite movies ever: SNEAKERS!!



I have Sneakers on HD-DVD. The movie itself is of course a lot of fun to watch, but the transfer was terrible. I'd probably rate it a 3.5 or 4. I hope that if/when they eventually bring it to Blu-Ray, they do it right.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*North by Northwest*


This one sits in Tier 2.5, and that seems about right, which is a shame. At times this thing almost looks colorized, especially in the first half. Bronzed flesh tones look like an advanced version of colorized version of King Kong I have on laserdisc.


That said, there is some remarkable detail here, especially in the cornfield and in the cafe at Mount Rushmore. Scenes are also intentionally filtered to make Cary Grant look younger, and Eva Saint Marie more radiant (as if that was needed).

*Tier 2.5*


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18311832
> 
> *North by Northwest*
> 
> 
> This one sits in Tier 2.5, and that seems about right, which is a shame. At times this thing almost looks colorized, especially in the first half. Bronzed flesh tones look like an advanced version of colorized version of King Kong I have on laserdisc.
> 
> 
> That said, there is some remarkable detail here, especially in the cornfield and in the cafe at Mount Rushmore. Scenes are also intentionally filtered to make Cary Grant look younger, and Eva Saint Marie more radiant (as if that was needed).
> 
> *Tier 2.5*



I agree with all of this.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18311397
> 
> 
> Hugh, you will need to accept the fact that *none* of the titles will hold up as well as they did on your smaller screen!
> 
> 
> Yet, almost all of them will be more enjoyable overall due to the more immersive experience of the bigger screen. There is no substitute for a bigger screen, including sitting closer to a smaller screen.



I am getting that sense Rob and what you are saying about the experience and sitting closer to the smaller screen just doesn't compare.


As far as none of the titles holding up as well, none that are live action hold up as well.







I can tell you that so far A Bug's LIfe and Monster's INc., and Ratatouille, I have to try others, not only hold up well, but actually look better than on my small screen.







THere is no loss of detail and in fact due to blowing up the image of animated BD's, there is greater detail and still no PQ anomalies. I was blown away by watching them. It seems these animation titles can be really expanded to a big screen without loss of detail. The question that has me curious is how big? Really Rob, I was stunned how good the detail looks on A Bug's Life at that size.










I did watch Star Trek last nite and while it too doesn't hold up quite as well as the smaller screen, in some ways some of these BD's look as good if not better. One thing I really want to see is excellent facial details, like skin pores, etc. and Trans 3, LAw Abiding Citizen and Star Trek didn't disappoint. I think it is an acceptance of adjustment to the bigger screen to allow for the fact it won't look as good or it looks different than on the smaller screen. Having said that, my local state of the art DLP theatre doesn't render PQ as good as this. Even the few friends I had over to watch said the same thing that it is better PQ and sound than the theatre. I think a lot of it has to do with blowing that image up as big as it is at the commercial theatres.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/18312390
> 
> 
> I am getting that sense Rob and what you are saying about the experience and sitting closer to the smaller screen just doesn't compare.
> 
> 
> As far as none of the titles holding up as well, none that are live action hold up as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you that so far A Bug's LIfe and Monster's INc., and Ratatouille, I have to try others, not only hold up well, but actually look better than on my small screen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THere is no loss of detail and in fact due to blowing up the image of animated BD's, there is greater detail and still no PQ anomalies. I was blown away by watching them. It seems these animation titles can be really expanded to a big screen without loss of detail. The question that has me curious is how big? Really Rob, I was stunned how good the detail looks on A Bug's Life at that size.



Yep, I'd agree with that.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Informers


recommendation: Tier 2.0*


Not a movie I can recommend as entertainment, but Sony has given the 2009 film a suitably nice presentation on Blu-ray. It never looks bad enough to justify the current ranking in tier three, at least to my eyes. Encoded in AVC on a BD-25, the average video bitrate is 19.99 Mbps. The image possesses strong depth and pop, but lacks the overly warm tones and pumped-up contrast frequently seen in some of the better ranked discs that one often associates with tier one.


Compression is not a major issue, but Sony did the video no favors with the relatively low bitrates. Minor examples of chroma fringing and noise appear in a couple of shots. The transfer was derived from an immaculate Digital Intermediate, as clean and pristine as any new, major Hollywood production can produce. A certain level of digital noise reduction might have been applied to the transfer, but it largely goes unnoticed and does not produce the usual telltale aftereffects. Scattered scenes do exhibit some natural ringing, though low in amplitude and not a large distraction.


The picture has definitely been manipulated to favor cooler, bluish colors. The push is not dramatic, and many viewers would likely not notice much of a difference between it and the standard colors of most dramas. High-frequency information is quite good in close-ups, where there is enough true resolution visible to easily distinguish skin textures down to the pores. Fleshtones look as natural and true to life as film can reproduce. From the tanned skins of the rich girls sunbathing, to the very pale flesh of the drugged-up musician, everything looks perfect. The picture is clean and sharp except for a few soft moments used for effect.

_The Informers_ is not an exceptional Blu-ray by any stretch. But its consistency and look give it enough merit to rank at the top of tier two.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Patsfan123):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...7#post17168587


----------



## audiomagnate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18311832
> 
> *North by Northwest*
> 
> 
> This one sits in Tier 2.5, and that seems about right, which is a shame. At times this thing almost looks colorized, especially in the first half. Bronzed flesh tones look like an advanced version of colorized version of King Kong I have on laserdisc.
> 
> 
> That said, there is some remarkable detail here, especially in the cornfield and in the cafe at Mount Rushmore. Scenes are also intentionally filtered to make Cary Grant look younger, and Eva Saint Marie more radiant (as if that was needed).
> 
> *Tier 2.5*



This one has been in my Netflix queue since it was released. I own the dvd, which looks about as good as it gets for that format. I might have to break down and buy it.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Princess and the Frog*


Traditional animation and it's gorgeous. Lots of rich, bold color. Contrast is bright, blacks are deep, and sharpness is just about perfect. Every stroke of the hand painted backdrops is visible. No banding, impressive considering the night sky is so prominent.


Unfortunately, ringing is creeping into the frame on a regular basis. Some instances are worse than others. Those not sensitive to the issue will gloss right over it, but it is there.

*Tier 0.75*


----------



## Hughmc

*Up In The Air:*


I was pleasantly surprised at how good the PQ is on this title. It borders on tier 0 and does so most often throughout. The facial details are impeccable as is detail in general. I did notice the ringing around Clooney's jacket on occasion, but it wasn't overly distracting or over the top. Colors, depth and black levels are good to excellent. Grain was subtle and on average is not noticeable or distracting.

*Recommendation: Tier 1.*


Panasonic AE4000 projector from 11ft from PS3 through HDMI.


----------



## Hughmc

*Precious:*


While the overall color palate is more often subdued and muted to reflect the mood and locations, detail, shadow delineation and black levels are excellent. Grain is apparent, but not too heavy or distracting. Facial details are most often good to excellent with accurate skin tones. Fine details like patterns in clothing are rendered really well. IF it wasn't for the overall drab mood and look of this film, it could garner a low tier 0 or tier 1.0 recommendation, but in some scenes where Precious daydreams the PQ drops off.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*


Panasonic AE4000 projector from 11ft from PS3 through HDMI.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Up In The Air*


Like Hugh, I was very pleasantly surprised by the PQ on this title! To my eye, it is clearly a Tier 1 title, and it is only a matter of where it should go in that tier.


Very impressive on all fronts. Contrast was very good, including the dark scenes. In fact, the dark scenes were some of the more impressive that I have seen.


Colors are natural and look great. Detail and clarity are top notch all the way. Even the shots taken from planes over the various cities looked great.


Just overall a very impressive and enjoyable picture.


I'm going to go just a quarter tier lower than Hugh, mostly due to a lack of real "eye candy", but that really is just a nit pick.


As for the movie: I really liked it. I'm not quite sure why I liked it so much, but I did. It wouldn't surprise me if a lot of people dislike it though.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.25*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

When tallying recent recommendations for the next update (coming soon), many voices are suggesting _Up In The Air_ as a very strong tier 1.0 candidate. Anyone want to discuss its qualities that prevent a placement in tier 0, just to help differentiate the dividing line between those tiers? This is just a general impression, but some seem reticent to nominate any live-action film for tier zero. It should not be an impossible standard to meet. Just a topic to elicit some commentary and better understanding...


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18324806
> 
> 
> When tallying recent recommendations for the next update (coming soon), many voices are suggesting _Up In The Air_ as a very strong tier 1.0 candidate. Anyone want to discuss its qualities that prevent a placement in tier 0, just to help differentiate the dividing line between those tiers? This is just a general impression, but some seem reticent to nominate any live-action film for tier zero. It should not be an impossible standard to meet. Just a topic to elicit some commentary and better understanding...



In my review Phantom I compared it to _The International_, for I thought the look was very similar in many ways. But there was one striking difference IMO; _The International_ was more sharp. If _Up in the Air_ had been as sharp, it too have been worthy of Tier 0.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18324806
> 
> 
> When tallying recent recommendations for the next update (coming soon), many voices are suggesting _Up In The Air_ as a very strong tier 1.0 candidate. Anyone want to discuss its qualities that prevent a placement in tier 0, just to help differentiate the dividing line between those tiers? This is just a general impression, but some seem reticent to nominate any live-action film for tier zero. It should not be an impossible standard to meet. Just a topic to elicit some commentary and better understanding...



Sometimes, for me, it's just as simple as saying "just because". How's that for a reason?










Seriously, like I said in my review, as strong as the PQ is in Up in The Air, there just isn't a lot of "eye candy", with the exception of some of the overhead shots of the various cities. That does make a difference to me. Perhaps it shouldn't, I don't know.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

No, I understand completely that some films are not consciously shot and made to show off eye candy, even if the original photography is technically perfect. That is a perfectly valid criticism and one I have made on occasion. The glowing reviews here will probably get me to check it out.


----------



## deltasun

*The Fourth Kind*


Another feature where "actual" footage is interspersed with the reenactment on film. I will say right now that if not for the poor, VHS "actual" footage, this could have been a Tier 0 contender. As such, I will only talk about the non-VHS portions and wrap up in the end.


Blacks are deep, with minimal crushing (save for parts where the camera technique pushed some crushing). Shadow details are perceptively superb. Contrast is precise, giving excellent depth and pop. Facial details are some of the best - even showing every imperfection and nuance on Milla's mug. As with _Jennifer's Body_, you can spot individual strands and fuzz on Milla's neck. The details on the other characters exhibit the same amount of detail. Textures (in clothing especially) are touchably present. Skin tones are faithful, though the golden glow of indoor lights do make for an unnatural glow during indoor, nighttime scenes. The few panoramic scenes, particularly as Milla flies into Nome, showed decent details.


Unfortunately, I do have to factor in the VHS footage, which is ripe with pretty much every video anomaly one can think of - jaggies, compression artifacts, etc. I would place this at the cusp of demo-worthiness...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


If you're curious, go for a rental. If not, you're life isn't missing much by skipping this.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## deltasun

Phantom: agree with Denny - _The International_ just had much more crispness. Sorry man, I was crossing my fingers that it stayed in Tier 0. But, it just could not sustain.


----------



## Vegaz

*Ninja Assassin*


The opening of chapter 12 is just stunning. Chapter 20 when Mr. S meets Mr. Fan until the end is also standout. Anything with rain or fire really. The training scenes don't seem to have the same quality (much less CG) but still very high. Had me thinking Gold 1.0 for a bit but the action sequences and excellent black levels make it worthy of being higher.

*Tier Recommendation 0* (somewhere below Wall-E)


42"

1080p/HDMI @ 24fps

7.5 feet

Samsung BD-1600


I forgot how to do this since my PS3 broke. Hope it's right,probably screwed something up or wasn't detailed enough.










Also thought I'd mention I had no problem renting it,try going to the store.


----------



## deltasun

I've thought about renting this one. And now that the PQ sounds good, I'm tempted even more. How was the movie itself?


Thanks for the review, btw.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Ninja Assassin*

Vegaz got most of it right. Black levels are just awesome. Opening scene has the best example of reference quality facial details I've ever seen. Razor sharp and SOOOO defined it becomes ridiculous.


That said, this one suffers at a distance. Sparring/Training scenes in the dojo are riddled with high contrast edge ringing. There are a lot of these sequences. Environments appear soft and smooth, a bit digital too.


Off setting these with the other scenes, this one lands firmly in Tier 1. Every close-up is just awesome. Some crush is due to the lighting, not the transfer.

*Tier 1*


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18324806
> 
> 
> When tallying recent recommendations for the next update (coming soon), many voices are suggesting _Up In The Air_ as a very strong tier 1.0 candidate. Anyone want to discuss its qualities that prevent a placement in tier 0, just to help differentiate the dividing line between those tiers? This is just a general impression, but some seem reticent to nominate any live-action film for tier zero. It should not be an impossible standard to meet. Just a topic to elicit some commentary and better understanding...



Consistency for me. Up in the Air sort of comes and goes in terms of its ability to render detail, which was enough to drop it out of 0.


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18324806
> 
> 
> When tallying recent recommendations for the next update (coming soon), many voices are suggesting _Up In The Air_ as a very strong tier 1.0 candidate. Anyone want to discuss its qualities that prevent a placement in tier 0, just to help differentiate the dividing line between those tiers? This is just a general impression, but some seem reticent to nominate any live-action film for tier zero. It should not be an impossible standard to meet. Just a topic to elicit some commentary and better understanding...



I've watched _Up in the Air_ but haven't reviewed it yet. Much more talented and knowledgeable reviewers have consistently placed it in Tier 1. When I watch a movie I don't dissect the PQ like a good reviewer should, I just go on overall impression. To me, the PQ was borderline Tier 0/Tier 1 and I wouldn't object if it ended up at or near the bottom of Tier 0.


Phantom, I think you're asking a valid question, is it possible for a live action film to make Tier 0? I'm wondering if the term "Eye Candy" has taken on an almost mystically quality, one that only an animated film can achieve anymore.


----------



## 42041

To me, a typical Tier 0 title's photography/visual effects would have to go significantly past just conveying the story in a technically proficient manner (well, unless the story lends itself to stunning visuals somehow). I've seen many films that, on purely technical merits, are as good as anything out there, but just lack that tier 0 level of visual stimulation or consistency.


----------



## ivanpino




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/18306715
> 
> 
> I am reporting some initial viewing observations now that I have a big screen/projector. Please note, I just got the projector and am new to this and while the projector is reviewed to be close to accurate right out of the box, I have yet to do any calibration outside of some minor tweaks.
> 
> 
> First off, wow!!.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot use enough hyperbole to describe the experience, out side of me wanting to say this is the way all of us who are really into movie viewing and reviewing want to be watching BD's at home. I had no idea it would be like this. The last few years I felt my audio over powered my picture and I was right. The balance is now there and if anything, my center channel maybe a bit weak.
> 
> 
> I am sitting close, very close, like 10 ft from a 119 inch screen. It isn't like the front row at the theatre thankfully, since I don't get nauseous or neck or eye strain, but it is very immersive.
> 
> 
> The PQ is stunning and simply blows my Sony A3000 out of the water and it isn't just the size.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Out of the box and on econo mode the PQ and brightness are incredible. I do have what is called a High Power screen with 2.8 gain to help increase brightness and perceived contrast. There are details in BD's that I never knew existed or I hadn't seen before, but blown up on the big screen, my jaw is dropping at the detail.
> 
> 
> I first put in Pirates of the Carribean COTBP and it holds up well on the big screen and is deserving of its tier 0 placement. Facial details and details in general are very good to excellent.
> 
> 
> I also watched Law Abiding CItizen again and it too looks to be where several have recommended placement. Facial details are really sharp and defined. A good tier 1.0 candidate.
> 
> 
> I then put in A Bug's LIfe. Watching it on the big screen on BD is like I have never watched it before. Seriously, it is that profound. Talk about detail. While the colors are still mind blowing and the depth and contrast 3D like, the detail on the bugs themselves is a revelation. I am seeing things on the bugs I didn't know were there when watching on my smaller screen. Lines on antennae, on body parts and other fine details through out the BD are so apparent it is actually shocking that I didn't notice them before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how big a BD like this that is CGI animation and "flawless" could be blown up on a big screen without losing detail. If at 119" inches there isn't an issue, I could only imagine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I own Up, Ratatouille, Bolt, Snow WHite, Monster's Inc, 9 and I will be checking them out in time. I also own I Robot and will put that in later today as well. I will be revisiting a lot of BD's that I own, The Bonds, Bournes, and others with tier 1 and 2 rankings to see how they hold up on the big screen.
> 
> 
> It seems the studios are playing games with Hollywood VIdeo. 1 copy of Hurt Locker on DVD and none on BD; One copy of Precious on BD; one copy of Up In the Air on BD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One thing I noticed was HD captures on BD just don't hold up like film. I noticed this before on my A3000, as I own several concert BD's, but again the big screen really reveals the limitations of HD camera captures. I do need to check out Crank 2 and District 9 as well as Gamer to see how they hold up on the big screen. I know D9 and Gamer were done with Red One cameras and I rated them tier 0 prior, so it should be interesting. It is the same with HDTV programming. Once I get that HD capture image blown up, I could more readily see the shortcomings of HD camera captures, much like our own Rob Tomlin has commented many times by saying he doesn't like the look of HD captures near as much as film and I can see why. Detail, lighting, contrast in general just isn't there. I witnessed this on the Jeff Beck: Live at Ronnie Scotts BD. I think on one of these forums for screens or projectors someone said the sweet spot for HD is 110 inches and beyond that the image sharpness doesn't hold up well. I would agree.
> 
> 
> EE!!...Ok, so I didn't notice it much if at all with the viewing I have done so far, but I rented Transporter 3 to see how the EE or ringing looked. Wow!! Time for a bit of humility and to eat crow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is/was not apparent on my A3000. RSbeck was right to an extent. There are some scenes in the Transporter 3 that the ringing is so glaring, that it looks like their jackets are floating around them. The effect is profound. It looks bizarre and does take one out of the moment. Some of the EE is as I suspected. It is dark lines of jackets, objects against light or bright backgrounds giving off the halo effect, so I don't have an issue with it as I believe it is the way film captures the objects against bright lighting. The EE I mentioned as being bad is an anomaly unto itself. There is one scene where they are walking in a hallway and all of the men's jackets have a weird floaty effect to them. If this is ringing, haloing or EE, it is way apparent on the big screen. I feel sorry for you EE sensitive types as it is a nasty anomaly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know there were many other tier 0 supporters of Transporter 3 and although I believe overall the PQ is still tier 0, the EE/ringing is enough for me to see it dropped to the top of tier 1. What a shame.
> 
> 
> Film grain is also much more readily visible, but not an issue, although on Transporter 3 at times, the grain almost had that bugs crawling on the screen/digital noise look to it.
> 
> 
> I do believe I can be more accurate about what I am seeing as the big screen is quite revealing. The EE issue alone is now more obvious where as before I rarely or didn't even notice it.
> 
> 
> Thanks to all for your encouragement and support with regards to "Hugh's New Toy's" as K-Spaz put it.




What projector do you have?


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/18328610
> 
> 
> To me, a typical Tier 0 title's photography/visual effects would have to go significantly past just conveying the story in a technically proficient manner (well, unless the story lends itself to stunning visuals somehow). I've seen many films that, on purely technical merits, are as good as anything out there, but just lack that tier 0 level of visual stimulation or consistency.



Hey, definitely. When I'm seeing a movie that has terrific quality on the screen (visually) I am still hesitant to place it in 0, unless it really has that "Wow!" factor to it. Take two tier 1.0 titles, Braveheart and Speed Racer. Certainly most would agree that Speed Racer just has that wow factor, while Braveheart is just a great looking film. I have not seen Up in the Air, but it appears to me from what people are saying, that it falls more in line with the Bravehearts and not the Speed Racers. Taking a look through tier 0, it appears we all kind of only put the flash bang action movies or the pristine animated titles in there, and as well we should. Anything on the list would be a great demo for somebody checking out our theaters.


All of the tier 1.0 stuff looks GREAT, but I don't reach for a movie like Up in the Air to show of my tv, either. I'd reach for Transformers, Pirates of the Caribbean, etc.


----------



## jedimasterchad

*The Princess and the Frog*


Wife rented this one because Ninja Assasin was not at Blockbuster yet










Great bold colors throughout, leading to a wonderful animated look not unlike some of the better Disney Classics, such as Beauty and the Beast, etc. While it wasn't completely hand painted (they stopped doing that a long time ago) it was done in the traditional style, and the fluidity of the motion and depth of the colors really gave it some sparkling scenes. Great shadow detail in certain scenes where you could virtually see down a street for miles. I think the biggest strength in PQ was just how BOLD this movie was, with bright colors and dark blacks. Brightness was pretty high throughout, not dark like a re-release of Pinocchio or Jungle Book. Certainly a nice break from the now commonplace 3d animation, and a great example of how to best utilize the format.


Technically perfect from my eyes, with no artifacts, banding, etc. I did not see the ringing that GRG mentioned, lines were bold with no perceivable EE or other digital editing. This is probably a transfer straight from a digital file, and looked quite pristine throughout. Given its merits though, I'd still recommend a low tier 0.

*Tier Recommendation: Low Tier 0, near or next to Sleeping Beauty*


Movie itself was ok, but great soundtrack. Those with a good audio system will appreciate it.


----------



## Ozymandis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/18329400
> 
> 
> Hey, definitely. When I'm seeing a movie that has terrific quality on the screen (visually) I am still hesitant to place it in 0, unless it really has that "Wow!" factor to it. Take two tier 1.0 titles, Braveheart and Speed Racer. Certainly most would agree that Speed Racer just has that wow factor, while Braveheart is just a great looking film. I have not seen Up in the Air, but it appears to me from what people are saying, that it falls more in line with the Bravehearts and not the Speed Racers. Taking a look through tier 0, it appears we all kind of only put the flash bang action movies or the pristine animated titles in there, and as well we should. Anything on the list would be a great demo for somebody checking out our theaters.
> 
> 
> All of the tier 1.0 stuff looks GREAT, but I don't reach for a movie like Up in the Air to show of my tv, either. I'd reach for Transformers, Pirates of the Caribbean, etc.



The two exceptions (for titles I voted for tier 0 and that made it) are Domino and Man on Fire. Neither is a special effects vehicle. Both have heavy grain. But I think of the two movies I have on Blu-ray that these two, especially Domino, are my favorite live action movies to demo. The Host, another great movie, some special effects, but overall just an incredible transfer.


We definitely need more subtle movies in Tier 0, if they meet everyone's criteria.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ivanpino* /forum/post/18328909
> 
> 
> What projector do you have?



Panny AE4000


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18326169
> 
> *The Fourth Kind*
> 
> 
> Another feature where "actual" footage is interspersed with the reenactment on film. I will say right now that if not for the poor, VHS "actual" footage, this could have been a Tier 0 contender. As such, I will only talk about the non-VHS portions and wrap up in the end.
> 
> 
> Blacks are deep, with minimal crushing (save for parts where the camera technique pushed some crushing). Shadow details are perceptively superb. Contrast is precise, giving excellent depth and pop. Facial details are some of the best - even showing every imperfection and nuance on Milla's mug. As with _Jennifer's Body_, you can spot individual strands and fuzz on Milla's neck. The details on the other characters exhibit the same amount of detail. Textures (in clothing especially) are touchably present. Skin tones are faithful, though the golden glow of indoor lights do make for an unnatural glow during indoor, nighttime scenes. The few panoramic scenes, particularly as Milla flies into Nome, showed decent details.
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, I do have to factor in the VHS footage, which is ripe with pretty much every video anomaly one can think of - jaggies, compression artifacts, etc. I would place this at the cusp of demo-worthiness...
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.0*
> 
> 
> If you're curious, go for a rental. If not, you're life isn't missing much by skipping this.
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


*The Fourth Kind:*


I too really wanted this to be a tier 0 candidate and as you said if it wasn't for the VHS like footage it certainly would be. What also was distracting was the split screen with tier 0 and VHS like footage. It makes the film seem that much more real and intense, but for PQ rankings it is a detriment.




I kept thinking I would rate it a bit higher than you like even 1.0 or 1.25, but when I kept watching and then later thinking about the vhs like parts, I felt 1.5 or lower is appropriate.
*Recommendation: Tier 1.5*


I was a bit worried that with the new projector I might see some crappy PQ blown up, but to my surprise the last few BD's I have watched all have a lot of tier 0 characteristics. Precious, Up In THe Air and The Fourth Kind all have fantastic looking and very detailed facial shots/closeups with excellent rendering of skin pores, facial hairs, and blemishes. In fact if someone really likes to see that kind of facial detail, the above three are excellent examples of rendering them really well and I would recommend all three for demoing.


Panny AE4000/Dalite 119in HP [email protected] 11ft from PS3 thru HDMI


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Has everyone seen the latest news about the upcoming Avatar release on Blu-ray.com? Here is the excerpt that should pique everyone's interest:

*Avatar producer Jon Landau explained to the Los Angeles Times that they told Fox that "we wanted to do something really special and reach for the best presentation of any film in the history of the format." Landau adds, "Everything that is put on a disc takes up room - the menus, the extras, the trailers and studio promotions - and we got rid of all of that so we could give this movie the best picture and sound possible." Extra time and care have been devoted to this project, with the video compression sessions taking six weeks, as opposed to the usual two weeks for a typical theatrical release.*


A new reference standard might be approaching the PQ thread.


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18331268
> 
> 
> Has everyone seen the latest news about the upcoming Avatar release on Blu-ray.com? Here is the excerpt that should pique everyone's interest:
> 
> *Avatar producer Jon Landau explained to the Los Angeles Times that they told Fox that "we wanted to do something really special and reach for the best presentation of any film in the history of the format." Landau adds, "Everything that is put on a disc takes up room - the menus, the extras, the trailers and studio promotions - and we got rid of all of that so we could give this movie the best picture and sound possible." Extra time and care have been devoted to this project, with the video compression sessions taking six weeks, as opposed to the usual two weeks for a typical theatrical release.*
> 
> 
> A new reference standard might be approaching the PQ thread.



Sounds excellent. Great PQ in the theater, wonderful colors that I hope can be reproduced at home. No menus though? Really? I'm very anxious to see if they use the entire 50gb's on ONLY video/audio.


----------



## jedimasterchad

*The Box*


Really lackluster here, but this is about to be expected from Warner Bros by now. The film exhibits a very soft and glowy look throughout. Some early scenes give off a very yellowish look with overly soft textures and intrusive lighting that gives the overall scene a bad look. Facial details are mostly non-existent, and overall detail isn't that spectacular. Some exterior shots look good but most interior shots fall victim to the glow/lighting issues and lack of detail. On the other hand, the movie doesn't look terrible, and is completely watchable, but the softness will get to you after a few minutes.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*


Movie was terrible, IMO. Wouldn't watch it again. (So, I'm really hoping bb has Ninja Assassin tomorrow...the wifey is making poor choices this week.)


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18331268
> 
> 
> Has everyone seen the latest news about the upcoming Avatar release on Blu-ray.com? Here is the excerpt that should pique everyone's interest:
> 
> *Avatar producer Jon Landau explained to the Los Angeles Times that they told Fox that "we wanted to do something really special and reach for the best presentation of any film in the history of the format." Landau adds, "Everything that is put on a disc takes up room - the menus, the extras, the trailers and studio promotions - and we got rid of all of that so we could give this movie the best picture and sound possible." Extra time and care have been devoted to this project, with the video compression sessions taking six weeks, as opposed to the usual two weeks for a typical theatrical release.*
> 
> 
> A new reference standard might be approaching the PQ thread.



I've heard this type of stuff before. I'm not getting excited based on this statement.


----------



## 30XS955 User

Yeah Avatar can join 90% of the other animated films that are listed as reference here.


----------



## deltasun

*Astro Boy*


Cooler colors prevail in this animated title, though primaries do pop when present. Excellent presentation all around with reasonably deep blacks, though one is hard-pressed to find true blacks till Toby's hair post accident. And, they don't ever go inky. Details are excellent, but not to the same extent as, say _Up_. The drawing style is a bit more simplistic, with smooth surfaces and clean lines. Dimensionality can be outstanding at times, with excellent rendering through precise shading. I was also impressed at how well smoke is rendered throughout.


As with most lower-tier animation, textures are not as pronounced. Also, there was some slight banding as well as the usual non-Pixar ringing in the black bars. My recommended placement is just above _Bolt_...

*Tier Recommendation: 0* (just above _Bolt_)

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18331809
> 
> 
> I've heard this type of stuff before. I'm not getting excited based on this statement.



Awww...cmon Rob, get excited as they are going to spend 6 weeks using DNR and EE to get it just right,







so they are really going to over anal-yze it.


I got an email from Best Buy today to pre order Avatar. The indications seem to be Cameron is doing some self promoting.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18331809
> 
> 
> I've heard this type of stuff before. I'm not getting excited based on this statement.



I haven't seen the movie, but I believe it is pretty long (nearly three hours?), and they are using 1.78:1 for the BD, so I am not sure that even using the whole disc for the movie will produce anything better than good enough results.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/18332795
> 
> 
> I haven't seen the movie, but I believe it is pretty long (nearly three hours?), and they are using 1.78:1 for the BD, so I am not sure that even using the whole disc for the movie will produce anything better than good enough results.



I haven't seen the movie either, but my friends and relatives who have say it's awesome!


Speaking of _Avatar_, I just received my copies of _Home Theater_ and _Sound & Vision_ magazines and they are really going out of their way to introduce readers to the upcoming 3D technology (3D TVs, 3D Blu-ray players, and 3D software). I have mixed feelings regarding this, for in the last year I've invested a lot of money in my Pioneer KURO, Pioneer Blu-ray player, and a new Pioneer receiver that lacks 3D capability. I am usually more than willing to embrace the newest technology out there, but my wallet says it will be a very long time before I jump on the 3D bandwagon. And I'm not sure if I would jump on if money was no object.


I don't want to derail this thread by bringing this up, but I am curious to hear what my fellow home theater enthusiasts are thinking about this. So, what say you?


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18334735
> 
> 
> I am usually more than willing to embrace the newest technology out there, but my wallet says it will be a very long time before I jump on the 3D bandwagon. And I'm not sure if I would jump on if money was no object.
> 
> 
> I don't want to derail this thread by bringing this up, but I am curious to hear what my fellow home theater enthusiasts are thinking about this. So, what say you?



It is good you brought this topic up, as I had been meaning to get a dialogue going on the impact of 3-D technology and releases, specifically on our standards and criteria for the tiers. I do not know how everyone else feels, but 3-D remains largely unproven to me as an effective visual medium. It took decades of innovations and progress for the 2-D films we are comfortable with today, to reach a point of maturity. I do not see myself jumping head first into these new displays, unless I witness some amazing demonstrations. Nothing yet has convinced me otherwise. Your KURO, Denny, should remain a reference display, which the introduction of 3-D displays will not change or affect.


How do users want to account for the oncoming wave of 3-D Blu-rays in the tiers? Hollywood is nothing if not a pack of followers, and many 3-D projects are in the pipeline to bolster sagging revenues. The trickle of 3-D movies, so far on Blu-ray, have thus been ignored for the most part when giving placements.


Should the presence of an effective 3-D version on the BD be favored? Or should it be ignored, only judging the merits of the regular, flat version? I would be inclined to minimize the influence of 3-D material on the rankings. Someone else can always start a separate "PQ for 3-D" thread, if there is sufficient demand. Their inclusion in this thread might make the sandbox a little too messy and difficult to comprehend, for both newcomers and regular contributors as well.


The area where I do see 3-D technology having a significant and immediate impact, is in the field of video games. Games will benefit immensely, in terms of visual immersion in the artificial environs of their constructed reality. But since I have little interest in gaming, the compulsion to go out and upgrade for a handful of 3-D films is missing in me.


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18334735
> 
> 
> I haven't seen the movie either, but my friends and relatives who have say it's awesome!
> 
> 
> Speaking of _Avatar_, I just received my copies of _Home Theater_ and _Sound & Vision_ magazines and they are really going out of their way to introduce readers to the upcoming 3D technology (3D TVs, 3D Blu-ray players, and 3D software). I have mixed feelings regarding this, for in the last year I've invested a lot of money in my Pioneer KURO, Pioneer Blu-ray player, and a new Pioneer receiver that lacks 3D capability. I am usually more than willing to embrace the newest technology out there, but my wallet says it will be a very long time before I jump on the 3D bandwagon. And I'm not sure if I would jump on if money was no object.
> 
> 
> I don't want to derail this thread by bringing this up, but I am curious to hear what my fellow home theater enthusiasts are thinking about this. So, what say you?



+1. I spent a lot of money in 2009 myself, piecing together my first home theater system. A 54" Panasonic Plasma, a Pioneer 1019 receiver, and Polk Speakers the whole way around left a big dent in the wallet. I am incredibly pleased with my setup, and I am not at all in a big hurry to upgrade to 3D. Like Phantom, I am unimpressed with its impact as a visual medium *so far*. I'm sure one day, there will be something that will change my mind (like a true volumetric display, a la star wars, et al), but sitting around in my recliner with a pair of shutter glasses on is not my idea of relaxing. It sounds like a flop at worst and gimmicky at best. If, in a number of years, the technology is established, supported, and cheap, I will upgrade my gear, but the purchases I made will bring tons of entertainment for years to come.


As far as ranking PQ for 3D, I am in agreement that the listings we have currently should NOT be mixed with 3D presentations. The comparison is obviously not on a level playing field, and I feel pretty confident in saying that a majority of us will not have proper 3D tech right away to say whether or not Avatar 3D is better than Kung-Fu Panda, or whatever. So far, my only BD 3D experience was with Coraline, and after about 10 minutes we took off the glasses and switched it to the regular version. Monsters vs. Aliens has a short cartoon on it also in 3D, which isn't terrible, but so far I just don't like it.


I also dislike how the director will frame a shot or create a shot just for the intent of making something fly at you. It feels like a cheap trick I would see on a simulator ride at Universal Studios. For example, "My Bloody Valentine 3D" had a scene where the ax-wielding madman was about to attack a girl stuck in a pickup truck cab, and her seatbelt was jammed. As she struggles with it, the camera looks up just in time (from inside the vehicle) to see the guy throw the ax and it smash through the window and getting stuck in the glass, with the blade right in your face, but not quite hitting you. Now, when you go and watch it on 2D (because they forgot to put it on Blu-Ray in 3D, or just decided not to) that same 10 seconds looks so super cheesy, its not even fun to watch. There are a number of other scenes guilty of this that I won't list here. Avatar was different, in that the environment was what you were "in", as opposed to things flying at you, but so far I think James Cameron's vision was the only legitimate use of the technology. Clash of the Titans in 3D? I even went to see the Toy Story 1&2 re-release in 3D, and came away unimpressed. It wasn't made to have those "wow" moments in 3D, and it added literally nothing to the film.


Sorry for the ramble, but I am just quite against this sort of hostile takeover of our beloved movie industry, knowing that it will probably fizzle in a couple of years after the novelty has worn off, and I feel bad already for all the suckers who buy all the gear in 2010. Keep this thread 3D free!


----------



## deltasun

Coincidentally, I was at our local Sony Store yesterday and since the store was a bit empty, I was able to play around with the 3D set up. Just to give background, I'm not a big 3D fan and have similar feelings as Denny above about its capabilities. So, I put on the glasses and watched the demo - nothing happened. It wasn't until I hit the ON button on the glasses that it went to 3D mode. And yes, the demo looked amazing, with the swimming polar bear coming out of the screen, but strangely getting flattened as it disappears at the edges.


The soccer players seemed to float over the grass and the crowd in the background showed great clarity and of course, depth. But, as PS mentioned, the best application was probably with the video game that came next. It was a race game where the view up ahead shows a track/trail that seemingly goes on forever. The details as far as the eyes could see did not diminish. I found myself completely immersed and awed.


I asked a few questions as well like, "does the 3D TV itself create the 3D effect or will it require 3D media (i.e., 3D blu-rays, etc.) and equipment." 'Cause I said, if I have redo my whole home theatre to accommodate 3D technology, I probably won't. Interestingly, the Sony guy mentioned that the upcoming generation will feature that - where the 3D TV technology itself would create the 3D effect for existing 2D movies. However, the current technology that's coming out will require new equipment.


I guess my long-winded answer is that yes, it was a pretty impressive demo, but I'm not jumping the bandwagon anytime soon. And probably not till they come out with TVs that actually produce the 3D effect. As for PS' other question - in my opinion, a separate thread will be needed for these new 3D movies. There is definitely a clarity, particularly at horizon distances, that will not be apples to apples with our current PQ standards.


----------



## Vegaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18326216
> 
> 
> I've thought about renting this one. And now that the PQ sounds good, I'm tempted even more. How was the movie itself?
> 
> 
> Thanks for the review, btw.



It was good fun. Not much of a story or anything and I was a little confused about the 5 on 1 type battles and attacks from behind because I thought they were supposed to be honorable and the such when not being sneaky,one on one face to face kind of deal. Pretty much just lives up to the title and nothing more.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom, deltasun, jedi,


Thanks for the quick response to my post. I agree with each of you regarding 3D and this thread; we should keep this thread within the criteria we established long ago. In other words, this is strictly a 2D thread, and if someone feels the need to start a 3D thread, let them have at it.


I also share your sentiments about the merits of 3D. I have never been that impressed with it, though I must say I've been told I will change my mind after seeing _Avatar_ in 3D. I still believe that no matter how impressive it is, it won't move me to the point of calling my current equipment obsolete and reinvesting in another setup.


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18335730
> 
> 
> Coincidentally, I was at our local Sony Store yesterday and since the store was a bit empty, I was able to play around with the 3D set up. Just to give background, I'm not a big 3D fan and have similar feelings as Denny above about its capabilities. So, I put on the glasses and watched the demo - nothing happened. It wasn't until I hit the ON button on the glasses that it went to 3D mode. And yes, the demo looked amazing, with the swimming polar bear coming out of the screen, but strangely getting flattened as it disappears at the edges.
> 
> 
> The soccer players seemed to float over the grass and the crowd in the background showed great clarity and of course, depth. But, as PS mentioned, the best application was probably with the video game that came next. It was a race game where the view up ahead shows a track/trail that seemingly goes on forever. The details as far as the eyes could see did not diminish. I found myself completely immersed and awed.
> 
> 
> I asked a few questions as well like, "does the 3D TV itself create the 3D effect or will it require 3D media (i.e., 3D blu-rays, etc.) and equipment." 'Cause I said, if I have redo my whole home theatre to accommodate 3D technology, I probably won't. Interestingly, the Sony guy mentioned that the upcoming generation will feature that - where the 3D TV technology itself would create the 3D effect for existing 2D movies. However, the current technology that's coming out will require new equipment.
> 
> 
> I guess my long-winded answer is that yes, it was a pretty impressive demo, but I'm not jumping the bandwagon anytime soon. And probably not till they come out with TVs that actually produce the 3D effect. As for PS' other question - in my opinion, a separate thread will be needed for these new 3D movies. There is definitely a clarity, particularly at horizon distances, that will not be apples to apples with our current PQ standards.



Just as another OT side note, I work at a casino here in PA and some slot machines have a feature called "Reel Depth", an obvious play on words, but they are, in effect, a 3D display w/o glasses. The depth is impressive considering it's just an LCD. It is some sort of an LCD with a second, transparent video overlay on top of it. These combine to create a sense of depth and make the "reels" look like they are further "in" the screen than the words that are on the "top". It's a neat trick, and one I have wondered why they can't implement into TV tech. There are a number of other machines that have transparent video overlays, which are really cool. It's almost like a piece of glass and then all of a sudden, lines or colored shapes/words can appear on it.


Click here to check out the company behind this technology. I think this is the future of 3D without having to wear the glasses, and it really does look pretty cool in person. The IGT slot machines that implement these screens, when we open them have a screen depth of maybe 1.5 or 2", so making a flat screen with this stuff is entirely possible. Check this out and let me know what you guys think.


----------



## Hughmc

I too have strong opinions about 3D and I think they line up with most of how some of you responded and at the same time ties into what Deltasun and Jedi brought up for 3D to be successful and mainstream.


3D 60 years later and we still have to wear The damn glasses!! Sure some gamers and movie fanatics like me will occasionally check out some movies in 3D, but the new 3D tech for gaming and movies requires a large majority, who just recently got a BD player and HDTV, to upgrade again. Back to the glasses, most importantly most home viewers are NOT going to want to wear the glasses at all, and especially not for long periods of time. Can you imagine walking into someone's home and every one in the tv/family room is sitting there all evening wearing 3D glasses to watch tv?







I can imagine it not happening.











And really as far as BD movies are concerned at this point the 2D version of the movie is preferred by a large majority of us AVSers as the picture quality of the movie on Blu Ray in 2d blows the 3D PQ out of the water. Why watch something less than to get the 3D effect? It is kind of pointless if you want the best PQ there is to offer today. Then we get into avid gamers like my son who wears glasses and is not into contacts, but has zero interest in wearing glasses and has issues wearing glasses over glasses that fall off a lot. He saw Alice in Wonderland in 3D today for a school trip, can you imagine?










As far as putting or ranking 3D BD's in this thread, it wouldn't bother me at all due to the fact that they aren't going to be able to compete with the 2D version IMO. At this point the BD's I have seen in 3D pale in comparison to the 2D version, which may make the case like some of you have said for separating or keeping out the 3D BLu's from this thread, not to mention the clutter,,,,, and even though 3D, the redundant title factor.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Tale Of Despereaux


recommendation: lower quarter of Tier 0, above Sleeping Beauty
*

An animated movie that lacks the polish of the Pixar films in its style, though it does exhibit some tremendous qualities at times. Amazing dimensionality is plainly visible that usually showcases a very convincing illusion of depth, which ranks with the very best examples of the format. I would rank it above Bolt overall for comparison, but I am one who feels Bolt is currently ranked too high. Watch the animation closely and follow their movements, for why it comes up lacking compared to Ratatouille or Up.


Characters like Despereaux and the princess just do not move as naturally, or with the fluidity, of Pixar characters. Detail is quite impressive in still images, though movement and motion reduces those details somewhat. Reasonable arguments exist to place this BD much higher or lower than my recommendation.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Rieper):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post16240855


----------



## audiomagnate

Why is "The Rocker" above "Baraka" in tier 0? Could a few more people rent this so we can get some opinions? GGG's copy was broken, and mine looked good but not outstanding, tier 2, and I just re-rented Baraka to make sure I hadn't lost my mind. Baraka still looks amazing to me.


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18335498
> 
> 
> It is good you brought this topic up, as I had been meaning to get a dialogue going on the impact of 3-D technology and releases, specifically on our standards and criteria for the tiers.



Just my take on 3D.


I went to see Avatar in a brand new (less than 3 months old digital cinema) and I have to say it was head and shoulders above the next best 3D presentation I have ever seen.


Here, I'd probably place it in tier 5.


Gaming is where it's at. Stuff that's being rendered in realtime.


----------



## 42041

Guess I'll be the dissenting opinion when I say that Avatar 3D (2k dlp projection) was the best visual experience I've had at either the cinema or home video


----------



## K-Spaz

I didn't see a 2D presentation so I can't comment factually. But if I had to guess from looking at how the 3D looked, I'd say the 2d had to be right up there as you say. But, 3d just isn't there for me yet. Not after looking at good quality BR movies at home anyhow.


----------



## deltasun

Really? Tier 5? Come on.


audiomagnate: I'll see if I can get it from Netflix this week.


----------



## audiomagnate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/18341442
> 
> 
> Guess I'll be the dissenting opinion when I say that Avatar 3D (2k dlp projection) was the best visual experience I've had at either the cinema or home video



I agree. I sat closer than usual and felt totally immersed.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

I have no interest in 3D to be honest. We saw UP in 3-D last summer when we were down south for my son's surgery, and while I thought it was cool, the picture was really washed out. Although I haven't reviewed it for here yet, I have seen UP on Blu and the colours were much more lush and vibrant and the overall presentation was better for me in 2D.


It's a cool novelty, and fun to take my daughter out to see when we are out of town but there is no 3D up here at the small theatre we have (it only has 3 screens!). I have zero plans to upgrade my equipment at this time; I think the husband would flip out if I even suggested it, haha.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/18341442
> 
> 
> Guess I'll be the dissenting opinion when I say that Avatar 3D (2k dlp projection) was the best visual experience I've had at either the cinema or home video



For the record, I meant 3D at home. I had seen Avatar in 3D 2k DLP projection as well and it was stunning.

















I think wearing the glasses for a couple of hours every so often at the theatre or even at home is fine and wouldn't be an issue, but pushing 3D at home where one would *wear the glasses* for tv viewing and movies hours per nite is where I see issues.


I also wonder what the long term affects would be of wearing glasses hours per day that changes ones perception and focus. I know just from wearing the cheapo anaglyph type glasses for a couple of hours when one takes them off it takes a few minutes for the eyes to adjust back to perceiving colors normally.


----------



## audiomagnate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/18342930
> 
> 
> For the record, I meant 3D at home. I had seen Avatar in 3D 2k DLP projection as well and it was stunning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think wearing the glasses for a couple of hours every so often at the theatre or even at home is fine and wouldn't be an issue, but pushing 3D at home where one would *wear the glasses* for tv viewing and movies hours per nite is where I see issues.
> 
> 
> I also wonder what the long term affects would be of wearing glasses hours per day that changes ones perception and focus. I know just from wearing the cheapo anaglyph type glasses for a couple of hours when one takes them off it takes a few minutes for the eyes to adjust back to perceiving colors normally.



This could open the door to huge lawsuits!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

The PQ Tiers are updated once again, up through the latest post. Gripes, complaints, and vitriol can be directed to your local representative. There was a slight hiccup, where Google Docs flipped out for a moment. If there is a missing placement, just notify me.


Law Abiding Citizen - 1.25 Gamereviewgod, 1.5 djoberg, 2.25 Rob Tomlin, 2.0 jedimasterchad, 2.25 K-Spaz


Wolf - 3.5 OldCodger73


The Music Man - 2.75 OldCodger73, 3.5 Patrick99


In The Loop - 1.75 OldCodger73


The Hurt Locker -2.75 OldCodger73


The Invention of Lying - 2.75 deltasun, 2.5 audiomagnate


Halo Legends - 3.0 Gamereviewgod


Zulu - 2.0 Mr.G


Black Dynamite - 3.0 Gamereviewgod


The Hangover - 1.75 42041


Boiler Room - 3.75 Phantom Stranger


Family Guy: Something, Something Darkside - 2.5 Gamereviewgod, 1.5 deltasun


A Perfect Getaway - 1.75/2 djoberg


The Monster Squad - 3.25 Phantom Stranger


Couples Retreat - 1.0 Hughmc


The Proposal - 1.25 Hughmc


Justice League: Crisis On Two Earths - 1.5 Phantom Stranger


The Informant! - 3.75 Gamereviewgod, 3.0 Hughmc, 3.5 djoberg


Sorority Row - 2.75 Gamereviewgod, 3.25 deltasun


The Box - 2.5 Gamereviewgod, 1.75/2 djoberg, 2.25 jedimasterchad


Burn After Reading - 1.75 Phantom Stranger


The Ladykillers (1955) - 4.0 OldCodger73


Pirates of The Caribbean:COTBP - same in 0 Hughmc


Transporter 3 - 1.0 Hughmc


The Alphabet Killer - 3.25 Phantom Stranger


North By Northwest - 2.5 Gamereviewgod


The Informers - 2.0 Phantom Stranger


Jennifer's Body - 1.25 djoberg, 1.0 Phantom Stranger


Zombieland - 1.0 djoberg


Inglorious Basterds - 1.25 djoberg


Wrong Side Of Town - 4.0 Gamereviewgod


The Tale Of Despereaux - top half of 0 K-Spaz, middle of 0 djoberg, 0 above Sleeping Beauty Phantom Stranger


The Final Destination (2009) - 2.5 deltasun


Dead Snow - 2.75 deltasun


Revanche - 1.5 OldCodger73


Walk The Line - 1.5 Phantom Stranger


Moon - 3.0 geekyglassesgirl


Hitman - 2.0 Mr.G


Vicky Christina Barcelona - 3.0 audiomagnate


Ponyo - 1.0 Ozymandis


Private Lives of Pippa Lee - 2.25 Gamereviewgod


2012 - 1.75 Gamereviewgod, 1.5 Hughmc, 1.75 jedimasterchad, 1.75/2 djoberg


Lost Worlds: Life In The Balance - 2.75 Phantom Stranger


Nurse Jackie: Season One - 2.25 deltasun


Where The Wild Things Are - 2.25 Gamereviewgod, 2.25 jedimasterchad


Pierrot le fou - 2.5 42041


Extract - 2.75 Gamereviewgod


Galaxy Quest - 3.25 maestro50


Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs - low 0 42041


Funny People - 2.25 deltasun


The International - low 0 Mr.G


Synecdoche, N.Y. - top half of 1 b_scott


Flame & Citron - 1.75 Phantom Stranger


To Be Or Not To Be - 3.75 Gamereviewgod


Up In The Air - 1.0 Gamereviewgod, 1.0 deltasun, 1.0 djoberg, 1.0 Hughmc, 1.25 Rob Tomlin


Boondock Saints 2 - 2.5 Gamereviewgod


The Time Traveler's Wife - 1.5 deltasun 1.5 tcramer


The Rocker - 2.0 audiomagnate


Old Dogs - 1.25 Gamereviewgod


Shigurui: Death Frenzy - 4.5 Phantom Stranger


Trailer Park Boys: Countdown - 4.5 Gamereviewgod


The Princess & The Frog - .75 Gamereviewgod, low 0 around Sleeping Beauty jedimasterchad


Precious - 1.25 Hughmc


The Fourth Kind - 2.0 deltasun, 1.5 Hughmc


Ninja Assassin - 0 below Wall*E Vegaz, 1.0 Gamereviewgod


Astro Boy - 0 above Bolt, deltasun


----------



## Ozymandis

The Princess and the Frog: finally got my hands on a copy, though I had to go with the 1 disc version. The combo pack was all sold out. At least the coupon worked, lol.

*Anyway, Tier 0 for this one, somewhere towards the middle of the tier.* Colors were amazing, bold colors, deep contrast, and the overall image was VERY lively. Traditional animation is so much warmer than CGI; watching The Princess and the Frog was a real treat. One minor gripe, a couple of the backgrounds were on the soft side compared to Ponyo... but unlike Ponyo line edges were sharp and solid throughout.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18321872
> 
> *The Princess and the Frog*
> 
> 
> Traditional animation and it's gorgeous. Lots of rich, bold color. Contrast is bright, blacks are deep, and sharpness is just about perfect. Every stroke of the hand painted backdrops is visible. No banding, impressive considering the night sky is so prominent.
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, ringing is creeping into the frame on a regular basis. Some instances are worse than others. Those not sensitive to the issue will gloss right over it, but it is there.
> 
> *Tier 0.75*



I didn't see ringing. Besides, ringing isn't enough to keep a title out of Tier 0 (Baraka)


----------



## b_scott

Agree on Zombieland at 1.0


Just finished watching it - Pioneer 51 > SC-05 > 5010


Some of the best blacks I've ever seen. Just sharp and clear all around, which is hard to do with that much night.


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/18341442
> 
> 
> Guess I'll be the dissenting opinion when I say that Avatar 3D (2k dlp projection) was the best visual experience I've had at either the cinema or home video





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18341567
> 
> 
> Really? Tier 5? Come on.



Well, sorry guys but it was so soft it was distracting. Again, much better than any 3D presentation I ever saw, just, not even close to a 2D presentation. The visual experience was cool, but after a while I was more watching the movie than anything. The 3D didn't detract from the experience, but in all honesty, it didn't add anything for me either. The heads up displays looked very cool, the colors were way better than anything earlier, but after the first few minutes, nothing really stood out. I did like the snow falling nearby, that reminded me I was watching 3D again.


In any case, I felt the image was way soft and lacked any high frequency detail. But for the purpose of this thread, I didn't think it was any better than a 2D DVD presentation.


jmho... using my eyes.

/edit to add

I should also mention, I enjoyed the movie far more than the presentation. I also enjoyed that if I took my glasses off, the movie was still watchable. Then too, it was nice that wearing the glasses for that period of time didn't cause discomfort (like wanting to rip yer eyes out when you're done). lol. The movie had many merits and I recommended it to a lot of people. So, take my comments in context please.


----------



## deltasun

*Did You Hear About the Morgans?*


Just your average-looking romantic comedy in terms of PQ. Faces are a bit on the soft side, not exactly exhibiting too many details. Contrast seems weak at times and some outdoor scenes getting washed out. Blacks get crushed, but do look deep in certain conditions. I was expecting brighter colors, but instead, they're a bit under saturated and oftentimes dull.


Fine grain is present throughout and never intrusive. Depth and dimensionality are very average and shadow details are usually poor. There are a few panoramic shots of Wyoming (New Mexico) that impressed. There are scenes here and there that challenge high Tier 1 (like the bear shot, some medium outdoor shots, city shots of NY). Flesh tones are a bit on the reddish side. Some banding noted.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75*


Wasn't as bad as I thought - some funny one-liners from Grant.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod

Got a little behind in terms of this thread, so quick thoughts and tier placement on the following:
*Armored:*

Great blacks that always hold up. Crush minimal. Some great textured faces. Marginal ringing, fantastic environments, especially the abandoned steel mill.

*Tier 1.75*


-----

*Fourth Kind*

Lots of this is VHS quality on purpose. The actual film stuff is typically impressive. The opening interview is reference. Some of the darker scenes lose that same level of clarity. Some heavy artifacting during the Aurora Borealis.

*Tier 2.25*


-----

*Did You Hear About the Morgans?*


Agree with Deltasun, but a bit lower on the Tier scale. Really soft, blacks are poor, and environments are merely adequate. Flickering/aliasing are also an issue.
*Tier 3.0*


-----

*Twilight: New Moon*


I thought the original looked fantastic despite the muted color, but this one didn't impress me as much. Maybe my eyes are more trained now. Lots of soft focus shots, and darker scenes take on a small murky quality. Some banding and ringing are noted. Facial textures are not as strong. Environments are soft, but still defined. Still, looks good with enough detail to impress.

*Tier 1.75*


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18348486
> 
> *Twilight: New Moon*
> 
> 
> I thought the original looked fantastic despite the muted color, but this one didn't impress me as much. Maybe my eyes are more trained now. Lots of soft focus shots, and darker scenes take on a small murky quality. Some banding and ringing are noted. Facial textures are not as strong. Environments are soft, but still defined. Still, looks good with enough detail to impress.
> 
> *Tier 1.75*



I doubt I'll be reviewing the disc, but it looked extremely bland on the 35mm print I was forced to endure. I was surprised, since the first movie looked solid.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Astro Boy


recommendation: the pinnacle of 0
*
_Astro Boy_ really sneaked up on my radar for viewing. Purchased on a whim after seeing the last, lone copy left in the store while out shopping, it was never my intention to seek it out on Blu-ray. But some mysterious force pushed me to pick it up as a blind-buy, after seeing the cover. To the employees of Pixar, you are now on notice. Imagi Studios, based in Hong Kong, has finally created the first CGI-animated movie that stands with the best work Pixar has done in the field, and in some regards, surpasses it. In each way that counts, _Astro Boy_ is a reference Blu-ray by any conceivable measure.


Distributed by Summit Entertainment, the new release is a BD-50 where the main feature is encoded in AVC. The average video bitrate is 29.59 Mbps for the 93-minute movie. Outside a few frames of minor banding, the image is completely devoid of compression flaws. It is as transparent to the source animation as the Blu-ray format allows. Notably, the compression parameters and results on _Astro Boy_ are superior to the animated efforts of Disney/Pixar, who tend to bog down their Blu-rays with copious extra features that eat into the bandwidth. A small difference granted, but the top ranking requires careful scrutiny. Transferred directly from the digital files used to create the animation, there is nothing of a technical nature that takes away from the sheer visual impact it possesses.


Anyone that has watched CGI-animation on Blu-ray will be familiar with the general look and style. Colors are very vivid, while maintaining accuracy and avoiding the trap of oversaturation. For the most part it also avoids the artistic choices that many other animated movies are favoring now, like a muted or tinted color palette. I do not want to mislead anyone, the difference in overall quality between Astro Boy and the other top titles of tier zero is a small gap, and not a chasm. Foremost among equals would be an apt description. It simply has no weaknesses, and has some amazing scenes that look better than anything I have seen on Blu-ray. That includes every single disc listed among the top titles.


What partly separated the animation in my mind was the sheer variety and detail in each character model. Pixar and the other studios producing CGI movies have made conscious choices to minimize details on anything but the main characters, giving secondary and tertiary characters less unique modeling. Almost every character in _Astro Boy_, robot or human, gets extremely detailed modeling that gives them an individualized personality and appearance. Zog the robot, a minor character, shows more visual refinement than most main characters in the other top animated films.


The world of Astro Boy, specifically Metro City, is a very clean-looking setting of a futuristic city in the sky. Certain objects lack highly refined textures, but polished metallic-surfaces should not exhibit many irregularities in the first place. When the movie shifts actions to the surface of the planet at the junkyard, the textures change almost instantaneously to exhibit more detail and grime on the flatter surfaces. The junkyard looks on par with the similar setting found in _Wall*E_, except without the reduction in picture quality that Pixar added to simulate a film-like appearance.


The final battle is a staggering display of visual brilliance. Incredible in almost way, Astro Boy and his gigantic opponent jump off the screen in fight scenes that rival anything seen on the format. Eye candy has a new reference standard, and it is _Astro Boy_. There are lots of subtle, little touches to the animation that help set it apart from the pack. The shade of Astro Boy's hair actually changes over the course of the movie, depending on appropriateness to the scene.


I strongly urge fellow viewers here to check out the picture quality for themselves, and report their experience. There are no regrets pushing this for the top placement, as _Astro Boy_ is a shining example of why the tiers exist. The recommendation is for the highest spot in tier zero. It also is an entertaining family film, regardless the merits of its picture quality.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...8#post18323358


----------



## K-Spaz

Wow, there must be a documentary piece at the 86 minute mark. The bitrate drops off a cliff there for 2 minutes. I don't think I ever saw that before.


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/18352237
> 
> 
> Wow, there must be a documentary piece at the 86 minute mark. The bitrate drops off a cliff there for 2 minutes. I don't think I ever saw that before.



That's the first part of the credits with only some simple centered white text (e.x. "Directed by David Bowers") on a black background before the full scrolling credits start around the 88 minute mark.


----------



## Hughmc

*Jennifer's Body:*


While I noticed the majority of my peers rated this 1.25, I am inclined to lean towards 1.0.


While there seems to be some minor issues like ringing and some digital noise on a rare occasion, overall I think Jennifer's Body is a solid ten, I mean a 1.0.







This is a fairly solid and consistent transfer that borders and delves into tier 0 territory quite a bit.


I was pleasantly surprised at PQ for this and wasn't expecting much, but I guess with Megan Fox, the studios want us to see detail.









*Recommendation: Tier 1.0*


----------



## jedimasterchad

*Ninja Assassin*


Wow! This is one stellar title. A prominence of dark scenes throughout that were *exceptional*. Shadow detail was top notch, and the blacks were inky throughout. A number of dark scenes involved some red lighting which brought out just enough detail to make the shots look spectacular. The CGI blood in these scenes was a deep bright red which contrasted nicely against the dark environment, as well as some fire and lightning in other scenes.


Exterior shots proved to show some exquisite detail in some scenes while others appeared a bit soft. The training academy shots in the beginning were some of the worst offenders here. At worst, probably a middle tier 2, but for the most part outdoor shots look pretty solid tier 1, such as when the two agents are having lunch outside in the beginning. These shots exhibited some good color, while inside well lit shots looked a little tinted. For the most part, however, color was a non-issue as a majority of the film was darker material.


All in all, I was continually impressed throughout the entire length of the film. I saw very little in terms of flaws. Some scenes exhibited some extraordinary pop, like when the ninja blade on the chain (not sure what that weapon is called) flew past the screen in slow motion, or when the ninja stars were thrown directly into the viewpoint of the camera. Really cool demo material here, and one of the best live action BD's I've seen in quite some time.

*Tier Recommendation: Low Tier 0*


Plot was pretty darn weak here, but the action was downright awesome. I could totally watch this one again, and with the aggressive surround mix it makes an excellent demo disc for everyone's theater.


----------



## jedimasterchad

*The Twilight Saga: New Moon*


This had a very similar look to the first film in the series, although I noticed it seemed even more muted than before. The color scheme is quite drab, with many earthy greens, browns and grays. Greens were quite strong, but most of the movie is set in a forest. There are a few scenes outside of said forest where color is pretty well saturated and makes a good picture, but these are few and far between. Detail is evident in some longer shots but for the most part this entire film had a very soft look to it. Clarity and sharpness were definitely not strong points here. There were often times you could not make out individual strands of Bella's hair, for instance. Blacks were deep but not overly so. Some scenes had some boosted contrast due to a high overall picture level, but I would consider that luck on the part of the cinematographer. Not a lot of pop otherwise. I understand this movie isn't about visual flair, but even the special effects were a tad on the soft side, with the wolf hair blending in to the body and not really standing out that much. Overall, not quite as good as Twilight, but not terrible.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


Another snooze fest. For fans of the series, I applaud you if you can make it through these 2 hours without complaining about Kristen Stewart. Worst. Actress. Ever.


----------



## audiomagnate

The Twilight Saga: New Moon I think the worst thing about this transfer is the lack of deep blacks. Nothing in any scene came close to matching the level of black in my black bars. Otherwise it's pretty average looking except for the goosed up green of the forest. The wolves are fun but have a CGI look about their movement, and as noted above, they didn't quite get the fur right. 2.25


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Men Who Stare at Goats*


It's a shame the director chose to filter some of this movie, although I support his right to do so. For whatever reason, almost any shot of Kevin Spacey's face is smoothed over, robbing it of high fidelity detail. Other scenes look great, providing exactly what we expect from a transfer.


Long shots of the desert are quite spectacular, picking up on the sand textures and rocks. Blacks are stable, bit of crush at the start, and a bit of murkiness in the second half. Generally a good looking movie, but the filtering is a disappointment.

*Tier 2.0*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Princess and the Frog


recommendation: Tier 1.25*


Let me get right to it on why I do not feel this BD qualifies for tier zero. First, my placement in no way reflects any fault of the transfer. In fact, the BD looks as perfect and pristine as the best quality animation can achieve. The image shows as little banding as any animated feature that I have seen on Blu-ray. If it contains ringing, it was not present during my viewing. Disney did a wonderful job translating the full intent of the animators to Blu-ray. What drags the ranking into tier one is the style and overall cheapness of the animation, for a theatrical Disney feature. The animation takes absolutely no stylistic chances, and looks like the bland, soulless corporate product it is.


Detail and shading are more on par with a direct-to-video feature, than the rich heritage of a studio that single-handedly created the genre. Apparently more money was spent on marketing this film than on the animation budget, and that shows in the unusually simplistic character designs that look taken from other films. It is no secret that traditional animation of this type is dying in the marketplace, as audiences demand more and more CGI. But if Disney itself is unwilling to create the lavish animation that made the company, who will?


----------



## OldCodger73

*Mystic River*

Good detail in most scenes. Close ups are borderline good to very good. Color is on the cool side, even in outdoor scenes, which fits the mood of the film. Detail holds up well in the dark nighttime and interior shots. Overall *Mystic River Tier 1.75*.


This is definitely a character driven movie. Kevin Bacon gives an adequate performance, Sean Penn a good one, while Tim Robbins is outstanding as the troubled Dave.


Panasonic 65S1 plasma, Panasonic 10a player, 9'

*An American in Paris*

The movie's strong point is the rich saturated color. Close ups and medium close ups are borderline average-above average. Anything longer than a medium close up is soft. Contrast is blown in some scenes. There are no glaring print damage or deterioration. A nice transfer, this probably looks the best possible for this award winning 1950s film.

*An American in Paris Tier 3.25*.


Panasonic 65S1 plasma, Panasonic BD85 player, 9'

*The Tale of Despereaux*

There are two plot lines, one dealing with mice, mostly Despereaux, and their enemies the rats, and the other how Despereaux interacts with humans, particularly the princess. The detail in the mice/rat segments are probably the best I've seen, each hair is visible. A real nice touch is Despereaux's nose, you can see light reflecting off the moisture on it. As a subordinate plot line, humans are more roughed in, lacking the detail of the animals. Color is subdued; think _Ratatouille_ or _Coraline_, rather than _A Bugs Life_ or _Kung Fu Panda_.


I'd rate *The Tale of Despereaux Tier 0 right below Coraline*. Others, bothered by the more roughed in humans and lack of bright color pop might rate it lower in Ter 0.


The movie, while enjoyable, was quite different although not as strange as _Coraline_.


Panasonic 65S1 plasma, Panasonic BD85 player, 9'

*Up in the Air*

This has been thoroughly reviewed by many more capable people in this thread. I was really impressed with the long shot detail, which is often a weak point in films. Overall detail was borderline excellent/very good. Colors are subdued. What the movie lacks is the overall bright color pop that most reviewers seem to demand.

*Up in the Air borderline Tier 0/Tier 1*.


Panasonic 65S1 plasma, Panasonic BD85 player, 9'


----------



## 42041

thread admins: I just noticed "I've Loved You So Long" is in the middle of tier 0 for some reason. It was in tier 2 or 3 and no one's voted on it since then so you might want to fix that


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18356805
> 
> *The Princess and the Frog
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 1.25*
> 
> 
> Let me get right to it on why I do not feel this BD qualifies for tier zero. First, my placement in no way reflects any fault of the transfer. In fact, the BD looks as perfect and pristine as the best quality animation can achieve. The image shows as little banding as any animated feature that I have seen on Blu-ray. If it contains ringing, it was not present during my viewing. Disney did a wonderful job translating the full intent of the animators to Blu-ray. What drags the ranking into tier one is the style and overall cheapness of the animation, for a theatrical Disney feature. The animation takes absolutely no stylistic chances, and looks like the bland, soulless corporate product it is.
> 
> 
> Detail and shading are more on par with a direct-to-video feature, than the rich heritage of a studio that single-handedly created the genre. Apparently more money was spent on marketing this film than on the animation budget, and that shows in the unusually simplistic character designs that look taken from other films. It is no secret that traditional animation of this type is dying in the marketplace, as audiences demand more and more CGI. But if Disney itself is unwilling to create the lavish animation that made the company, who will?



I think this is the first time I have ever disagreed with one of your placements. I'm not trying to start an argument about this movie, but from reading your review I feel like you are docking it points because of the style of animation, and how Disney cheated you into thinking it was a hand-drawn masterpiece of years ago. However, as you note, the BD itself is technically perfect, saying "In fact, the BD looks as perfect and pristine as the best quality animation can achieve." Does that not qualify it for tier 0? Personally, I am also hurt by the fact that Disney can lay this down and claim it is of the quality that was present back in the hand-painted days, but for the purposes of this thread, your score seemed a bit contradictory. That's dipping into grading the animation itself, a topic for which I am consistently reminded that we do not do here, because I fight for a movie like Up to be at the top and not a movie like Astro Boy that has a smooth surface look to it (from what I've seen so far). Again, not trying to pick a fight here, but thought I would question that one as it seemed a bit odd, especially coming from you.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/18358329
> 
> 
> thread admins: I just noticed "I've Loved You So Long" is in the middle of tier 0 for some reason. It was in tier 2 or 3 and no one's voted on it since then so you might want to fix that



Good catch, that was a data entry error on my part. The fix will post in the next update.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/18358524
> 
> 
> I'm not trying to start an argument about this movie, but from reading your review I feel like you are docking it points because of the style of animation, and how Disney cheated you into thinking it was a hand-drawn masterpiece of years ago. However, as you note, the BD itself is technically perfect, saying "In fact, the BD looks as perfect and pristine as the best quality animation can achieve." Does that not qualify it for tier 0? That's dipping into grading the animation itself, a topic for which I am consistently reminded that we do not do here, because I fight for a movie like Up to be at the top and not a movie like Astro Boy that has a smooth surface look to it (from what I've seen so far).



???

The statement of mine, quoted above, was mainly to confer the notion that the placement was no reflection on the technical merits of the transfer, which is exemplary in the case of "The Princess and the Frog." That alone is not enough to qualify a Blu-ray for tier zero, and never has been, at least in how I apply the standards of the thread to a BD. And in my experience, not how others here apply the standards to differentiate the selections in tier zero or lower. UP is of spectacular picture quality, that could rank as the top selection if more users would support it in the thread.


The use of pastel colors in the palette, and the relative cheapness of the animation used for TPATF, drove me to place it outside the top tier. The overall animation looked very much a product of budget-driven concerns, which simply did not produce in me the impression it deserved a ranking alongside the higher-quality animation of tier zero. Anything else was me opining about the sad state of traditional animation at the theatrical level, that has little to do with TPATF's evaluation.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18331809
> 
> 
> I've heard this type of stuff before. I'm not getting excited based on this statement.



Same here though it may look and sound reference.


Specs and Back Cover Art of Spanish (EU / UK?) release:

http://www.zonadvd.com/modules.php?n...icle&sid=19422 
http://www.zonadvd.com/modules.php?n...icle&sid=25330 


Features 7 dubs and 16 dubs Menus eating up space sounds childish to me. This is a mere excuse to skimp on extras.


----------



## djoberg

*The Twilight Saga: New Moon*


I don't have too much to add to former reviews, for I agree with them that this is not that impressive. I see I gave _Twilight_ a 1.5 but IMO this one fails to be deemed worthy of the top two tiers.


What surprised me most were the blacks. I had praised the black levels and shadow details in _Twilight_ but I would have to agree with GRG and audiomagnate and say that they were, in most scenes, quite murky and they failed to blend in with my black bars. There was only one nighttime sky scene where the blacks were good, but even there I couldn't call them "deep and inky."


I DID like the forest scenes, not only for the strong greens, but for some pretty amazing detail and depth. In fact, several forest scenes were clearly Tier 0 quality (check out the 57 minute mark for one example where it starts raining; it's amazing!), so this helps to keep this title out of the average bin (i.e., Tier 3).


Colors were okay, as were flesh tones, but facial details were lacking big time and there were MANY soft shots sprinkled throughout.


In the end, one must say that this is good-looking (but not stellar) in most scenes, but only average (or worse) in others. Weighing all points I'm forced to assign it to our "dumping ground" tier......

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite BDP-05....Viewed from 8'


PS The movie SUCKED!!


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18359133
> 
> 
> The statement of mine, quoted above, was mainly to confer the notion that the placement was no reflection on the technical merits of the transfer, which is exemplary in the case of "The Princess and the Frog." That alone is not enough to qualify a Blu-ray for tier zero, and never has been, at least in how I apply the standards of the thread to a BD. And in my experience, not how others here apply the standards to differentiate the selections in tier zero or lower. UP is of spectacular picture quality, that could rank as the top selection if more users would support it in the thread.
> 
> 
> The use of pastel colors in the palette, and the relative cheapness of the animation used for TPATF, drove me to place it outside the top tier. The overall animation looked very much a product of budget-driven concerns, which simply did not produce in me the impression it deserved a ranking alongside the higher-quality animation of tier zero. Anything else was me opining about the sad state of traditional animation at the theatrical level, that has little to do with TPATF's evaluation.



I understand, I guess I was just looking for a little more clarification. I suppose I feel a lot of times you get more technical in your reviews than some of the rest of us and those aspects are more important to you rather than just "how good does it look" like me. Frankly, I'm not as well informed on some of the more technical aspects (as far as why they happen) but I can see them when they are there. OTOH, you sometimes offer technical details that whoosh over my head!







So, because of that...when you mention how technically perfect TPATF is, I just thought it was odd how you didn't set it up in Tier 0, even if at the low end. That's all.


That said, your review of Astro Boy has me chomping at the bit trying to get it, but my local BlockBuster's new release shipment was late this week and after they finally got them in, the AB box was lost by UPS. He said it might be until thursday before they have it in, but I am pretty sure tomorrow night I'll be watching Toy Story 1+2 before Lost comes on.


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18359959
> 
> 
> PS The movie SUCKED!!



No kidding!!! LOL.


----------



## deltasun

*The Princess and the Frog*


Phantom: You were too generous!










I want to apologize ahead of time, but I was even more underwhelmed with this feature. The way the lighter green belly of the our leading frogs merged into the darker green really bothered me. Poor definition, I felt.


The colors really looked dull to me. As intended, the animation was a bit more simplistic but I also thought it was lifeless. Blacks were very deep, just not at the inky stage. Contrast was excellent throughout. The colors, clarity, and details did pick up in the bayou scene.


For comparison, I popped in my copy of _Sleeping Beauty_. Surprisingly enough, even with its occasional banding and seemingly more simplistic brand of cel animation, _Sleeping Beauty_ looked better. The more ornate backgrounds in _Sleeping Beauty_ gave it a more sophisticated and less cheap look.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

I'm a total slacker, but I plan on catching up with some reviews soon.







I haven't been giving the latest blu's I've watched the proper attention to do reviews for here.


I do have Princess and the Frog, and a promise to the daughter to watch it with her ASAP (she's in so many after school activities right now... the earliest day may be thursday since it's her only weekday without an activity) and I'm one of the ones who stands by Sleeping Beauty sticking in tier 0, so I'll have a look out for what your thoughts, *deltasun*.


I also did pick up a copy of New Moon, but I need to watch it when the husband is NOT around... he won't tolerate that one a 2nd time (he saw it in the theatre with me).


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/18360797
> 
> 
> I do have Princess and the Frog, and a promise to the daughter to watch it with her ASAP (she's in so many after school activities right now... the earliest day may be thursday since it's her only weekday without an activity) and I'm one of the ones who stands by Sleeping Beauty sticking in tier 0, so I'll have a look out for what your thoughts, *deltasun*.



He he...I am very unpopular in my _Sleeping Beauty_ opinion.







Come tell us what you think of _The Princess and the Frog_.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18360322
> 
> *The Princess and the Frog*
> 
> The more ornate backgrounds in _Sleeping Beauty_ gave it a more sophisticated and less cheap look.



The matte paintings in TPATF that consisted of the background were particularly dull, and just did not have much going on in them. The world of New Orleans was particularly dull and mundane for an animated feature. There really was no comparison to Sleeping Beauty. The only time the picture quality really stood out were two instances. The first, when Prince Naveen is tricked by the villain, and secondly, the introduction of the fireflies in the swamp. Those might have been the only scenes of tier zero-caliber, if I consciously was looking for scenes that stood out.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18360862
> 
> 
> He he...I am very unpopular in my _Sleeping Beauty_ opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come tell us what you think of _The Princess and the Frog_.



I was also quite unpopular in my opinion of _Sleeping Beauty_. I gave it a 1.0 and was willing to go even lower. I admit the restoration of this classic is amazing, but it lacks a very important ingredient to make Tier 0 status: *DEPTH*. All the characters in it are FLAT due to the cell animation of that day. The colors were superb and there is even a fair amount of detail, but with no depth whatsoever it could hardly qualify for reference (according to the criteria for that tier). Of course my opinion, and that of several others, was overruled, so it still sits in Tier 0 unchallenged by any newcomers.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

I didn't mean to restart any debates on Sleeping Beauty!


----------



## reisb

anything on Blind Side yet?


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *reisb* /forum/post/18365520
> 
> 
> anything on Blind Side yet?



Should be getting it from BlockBuster tomorrow, watching TS1 and 2 tonight before Lost, so won't have time to watch it until then.


TS1 is exquisite so far. Some minor aliasing present in SlinkyDog but other than that this one is pretty flawless. They're only at the Dinoco station now (You know, like from Cars), so I'll let you guys know how it finishes out.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *reisb* /forum/post/18365520
> 
> 
> anything on Blind Side yet?



I had it but rented Ninja Assassin and Brothers instead. As jedi said, I am sure some of us will get to it and report back in the next few days.


I bought Toy Story 1 and 2, and from reviews it seems we have more contenders for the top of tier 0. I will check them out later tonight.


----------



## Ozymandis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18356805
> 
> 
> Detail and shading are more on par with a direct-to-video feature,



Um, what was the last direct-to-video Disney movie that you watched? I think your memory is a little bit off; The Princess and the Frog was worlds better than, say, Mulan II or Lion King II.


The transfer is technically perfect, and although it can be a little drab at points, the animation is IMO flawless.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18360322
> 
> 
> For comparison, I popped in my copy of _Sleeping Beauty_. Surprisingly enough, even with its occasional banding and seemingly more simplistic brand of cel animation, _Sleeping Beauty_ looked better.



I am finding these reviews of The Princess and the Frog to be interesting, but this statement stands out to me. While I think that Sleeping Beauty was an excellent restoration (better than Pinocchio and Snow White by far), it does not hold up compared to Princess/Frog BR. The animation in Sleeping Beauty is extremely simplistic and the backgrounds are nothing to write home about. The whole thing is well-done for the age of the source. But ultimately Sleeping Beauty is very flat and lifeless, where Disney's newest animated feature film jumps off of the screen (at points).


I watched and reviewed Ponyo recently as well. I would say that Blu-ray is better than Sleeping Beauty for the great detail in its backgrounds, though characters don't blend well some of the time. The Princess and the Frog definitely had more consistency than Ponyo and I do think it's a tier 0 title (where I would rate Ponyo in tier 1, as well as Sleeping Beauty, if not lower).


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ozymandis* /forum/post/18366184
> 
> 
> I am finding these reviews of The Princess and the Frog to be interesting, but this statement stands out to me. While I think that Sleeping Beauty was an excellent restoration (better than Pinocchio and Snow White by far), it does not hold up compared to Princess/Frog BR. The animation in Sleeping Beauty is extremely simplistic and the backgrounds are nothing to write home about. The whole thing is well-done for the age of the source. But ultimately Sleeping Beauty is very flat and lifeless, where Disney's newest animated feature film jumps off of the screen (at points).
> 
> 
> I watched and reviewed Ponyo recently as well. I would say that Blu-ray is better than Sleeping Beauty for the great detail in its backgrounds, though characters don't blend well some of the time. The Princess and the Frog definitely had more consistency than Ponyo and I do think it's a tier 0 title (where I would rate Ponyo in tier 1, as well as Sleeping Beauty, if not lower).



Ozy, you must not have read my post correctly. When I spoke about the background from _Sleeping Beauty_, I specifically referred to the more ornate backgrounds. In fact, if you read my review (linked below and rated at 1.5), the other more simplistic and cardboard-like backgrounds from _Sleeping Beauty_ were a source of displeasure for me. But, as a whole, I think _The Princess and the Frog_ is inferior.

deltasun's review of _Sleeping Beauty_ 


Looking forward to seeing _Ponyo_ as well.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *reisb* /forum/post/18365520
> 
> 
> anything on Blind Side yet?



I just walked into my house with a rented copy of _Blind Side_, but I'm tired so I doubt that I'll get to it tonight. I should view it no later than tomorrow afternoon and I'll chime in as the credits roll.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/18363073
> 
> 
> I didn't mean to restart any debates on Sleeping Beauty!



I would never accuse you of such a thing G3!







You are always polite and sensitive and you help keep us _boys_ in line when our egos cause contention.


My post was simply in response to deltasun's comment on his being unpopular with his view on _Sleeping Beauty_; I wanted him to know he wasn't alone. I also wanted to encourage newcomers to present a challenge if they disagreed with its present tier placement.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Astro Boy*


I'm going to make this fairly short and to the point. This is simply a superb, fantastic, and very impressive looking title. One of the best I have seen in terms of pure PQ and "eye candy".


This title deserves to be discussed among the best released on the format. As such, I am going to say why I don't think that it quite reaches the top spot.


I think that I noticed some very minor banding on a couple of occasions. To me, this issue was on a similar scale to the aliasing noticed on Sully's fur in Monster's, Inc. (minor).


It then comes down to a matter of personal preference in terms of how the CGI was done. What I didn't care for too much was the "skin tones" on the faces, as there really wasn't any detail there. But yes, overall, there were lots of tiny details to be noticed in other objects.


To me, I still think a title like Kung Fu Panda was slightly more impressive than this, but this is really splitting hairs.


The bottom line is that this definitely belongs in the top 10 titles in Tier 0, and I personally recommend it at about spot number 5 or 6.


The movie wasn't bad either. Better than a lot of animated/cgi titles I've seen lately.

*Tier recommendation: Tier 0, just below Coraline (spot 6).*


----------



## jedimasterchad

*Toy Story*


I could make a simple, 5 word review that would sum this one up nicely. *Pixar has done it again.*


Of course, that would be the easy cop out review, but accurate nonetheless. Folks, this one is a big-time home run. Toy Story is a personal favorite of mine, but I have *never* seen it looking anywhere close to this good. The biggest improvements come from excellent color saturation and incredible detail that I didn't even know was rendered into this movie until now. You can almost count the threads of fabric, not unlike the famous merit badge shot in Up. If anything, the only detriment to the super increased resolution is how dated it makes certain aspects of the animation look.


And really, that's only when you're looking at a human. The texture detail on Mr. Potato Head and Rex is simply stunning, especially considered this is from 1995. Background detail is crystal clear and small text is clearly legible on many surfaces around the screen (like the books behind Woody or the fine print on the Tinkertoy can). Other objects like Buzz Lightyear have a distinct, plastic-y look that seem entirely natural given the context. Other real world objects like tires, trees, Andy's bed comforter, woodgrains, and the like look spectacular, and I can't remember a presentation of this film where everything looked so real before.


I do have to point out the BD's flaws also, to be fair. A few instances of bad aliasing creep into the body of SlinkyDog at various points. And, well, I suppose that's it. Motion looks spectacular (except for some awkward human movement at times). There really are no faults here, and considering how incredible this movie looks for its age, it really is a magical release. It felt like watching this movie again for the first time, and after owning a VHS, DVD and seeing it in 3D in the fall during the short re-release, and many many other times, that is really saying something.


Some scenes exhibit some really incredible depth and pop thanks to some great shadow detail and color saturation. It is one of the most 3D looking titles I have seen. It's hard to describe, but when you see this for yourself it should stand out at you. Blacks are excellent and color is spectacular. Just the right amount of saturation to make everything pop but without any bleeding, banding or other issues.


I think the hardest part now is to rank this against some other animated titles. Certainly the level of animation is not up to par with Pixar's latest, Up. But, this BD is certainly deserving of recognition on the same level or higher. I think it actually exhibits that level of PQ that puts it that high at the top of tier 0, and my vote is such:

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0, between Up and Kung-Fu Panda*


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ozymandis* /forum/post/18366184
> 
> 
> But ultimately Sleeping Beauty is very flat and lifeless, where Disney's newest animated feature film jumps off of the screen (at points).
> 
> 
> I watched and reviewed Ponyo recently as well. I would say that Blu-ray is better than Sleeping Beauty for the great detail in its backgrounds, though characters don't blend well some of the time. The Princess and the Frog definitely had more consistency than Ponyo and I do think it's a tier 0 title (where I would rate Ponyo in tier 1, as well as Sleeping Beauty, if not lower).



I concur that the main strength of TPATF's image was the consistency. But moments of true demonstration quality were few and far between, in my opinion. My assessment of tier 1.25 was akin to one of Djoberg's 1/1.25 scores. I just did not see enough visual stimulation to assign a placement with the best of the best.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18366700
> 
> *Astro Boy*
> 
> 
> I'm going to make this fairly short and to the point. This is simply a superb, fantastic, and very impressive looking title. One of the best I have seen in terms of pure PQ and "eye candy".
> 
> 
> This title deserves to be discussed among the best released on the format. As such, I am going to say what I don't think that it quite reaches the top spot.
> *Tier recommendation: Tier 0, just below Coraline (spot 6).*



Obviously I agree with the thrust of your review. I wonder if poor performance at the box office will scuttle any chance of a sequel? It definitely should be a title of interest for many of the thread contributors.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/18366878
> 
> *Toy Story*
> 
> 
> I could make a simple, 5 word review that would sum this one up nicely. *Pixar has done it again.*
> 
> 
> Of course, that would be the easy cop out review, but accurate nonetheless. Folks, this one is a big-time home run. Toy Story is a personal favorite of mine, but I have *never* seen it looking anywhere close to this good.
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0, between Up and Kung-Fu Panda*



Sounds excellent, but you might want to save some room at the top for Toy Story 2.







I probably will not get around to watching the Toy Stories until the weekend.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Very much looking forward to seeing the Toy Story movies. Both are great movies.


I am not using the word "great" lightly here either.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18367145
> 
> 
> Very much looking forward to seeing the Toy Story movies. Both are great movies.
> 
> 
> I am not using the word "great" lightly here either.



I agree with you 100% Rob!


I was looking online for good deals on _Toy Story 1 & 2_ and I found the following coupons:

http://www.xpbargains.com/index.php/send_deal/139740 


If you have a Toys-R-Us store in your area you can use these coupons and get each Blu-ray for only $6.99 plus tax. I printed the coupons and they look legitimate.


----------



## deltasun

*Toy Story 2*


I went backwards here, guys. I wanted to demo the audio from the opening scene of _Toy Story 2_ and never stopped.










Well, as expected this is a Tier 0 title. Anybody surprised? Aside from some aliasing and minor minor banding (not even sure it was, but it made me question it), this was a pristine feature. I was never impressed with the HD previews of the Toy Story's, but watching this has proven that wrong.


Depth and dimensionality was amazing on this title. The subtle background blurring of certain scenes showed perfect rendering. Blacks were deep, complemented by perfect contrast no matter the lighting. Textures can be superb on clothing, facial skin, and plastic surfaces. I want to single out the details on Newman's face as he lay sleeping on the couch - the stubble detail was just phenomenal. I also have to mention the doll repairman - his facial details were superb as well.


Colors pop, but was surprised that they did not look rich. Other than that, a very pleasing presentation. Looking at the titles in Tier 0, I believe _Monster's Inc_ still sparkles ahead of this. I vote for...

Tier Recommendation: 0 (between _Monsters Vs. Aliens_ and _Meet the Robinsons_)

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18367535
> 
> 
> I agree with you 100% Rob!
> 
> 
> I was looking online for good deals on _Toy Story 1 & 2_ and I found the following coupons:
> 
> http://www.xpbargains.com/index.php/send_deal/139740
> 
> 
> If you have a Toys-R-Us store in your area you can use these coupons and get each Blu-ray for only $6.99 plus tax. I printed the coupons and they look legitimate.



Very nice, thanks for the heads up!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18367740
> 
> *Toy Story 2*
> 
> 
> I went backwards here, guys. I wanted to demo the audio from the opening scene of _Toy Story 2_ and never stopped.



The opening scene of Toy Story 2 remains one of my favorite demo scenes on dvd of all time. It will be great to be able to show it again now that it is on Blu!


----------



## deltasun

Rob, I don't think you'll be disappointed. The surrounds and LFE were just on.


----------



## deltasun

*Brothers*


This had a predominantly melancholic, drab look that ran complementary to the story line. I thought the look worked well for the subject matter. However, it was mostly soft with little bouts of clarity and details. I felt the best scenes came from medium shots - some of these were blessed with reasonable depth and excellent details. Unfortunately, this wasn't the norm. Still there were enough of these to keep it in Tier 2.


Blacks were deep, but contrast was mixed again. It was a bit imbalanced in Afghanistan, but fared better in Grace's and Tommy's world. Skin tones reflected the look of winter living outdoors and the warmth of the indoors.


Overall, the look worked well for the story. Nothing flashy, but the solid scenes were truly solid. I wish it were more consistent. I did not spot any foul play at all.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.50*


It was a good tale, but thought needed more (even though it was already an hour and 44 minutes) development. Still liked it and would recommend for a rental.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18367013
> 
> 
> Sounds excellent, but you might want to save some room at the top for Toy Story 2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I probably will not get around to watching the Toy Stories until the weekend.



From the Ralph Potts reviews, PQ is about the same but the audio is a bit improved in TS2. I can't wait to pop it in after work today. Would have gotten to it last night but fell asleep early. I will let you know how it goes


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Brothers*


Agree with Deltasun. He pretty much nailed it, so no argument there.

*Tier 2.5*


-----
*The Blind Side*

This one is incredibly rich and detailed. So many lush environments, incredible facial textures, deep, blacks, bold colors, and a bright contrast.


For whatever reason, Sandra Bullock's face is smoothed over in many scenes. It reminded of Surrogates. I don't know if they tried to make her look younger, but it is a distracting effect. Some technical problems creep up with the transfer, including artifacting, aliasing, and banding, but these are minor.

*Tier 1.25*


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18368022
> 
> 
> Rob, I don't think you'll be disappointed. The surrounds and LFE were just on.



Can't wait!


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18369293
> 
> *The Blind Side*
> 
> For whatever reason, Sandra Bullock's face is smoothed over in many scenes. It reminded of Surrogates. I don't know if they tried to make her look younger, but it is a distracting effect.
> 
> *Tier 1.25*



Many Hollywood actresses, particularly at Bullock's age and status, have explicit clauses in their contracts that force the director to smooth or soften facial features. Sometimes it is done in principal photography, but it is common now to handle that in post-production, with software or digital tools.


----------



## djoberg

I just wanted to inform anyone who may want to purchase TS1 & TS2 that I was indeed able to use the coupons I linked you to. However, they only had TS1 at Toys-R-Us so I went to Target and they had a similar deal. With the coupons I paid $18.50 for both of them (including tax). What a deal!!

















I'm scheduled to watch _Blind Side_ in about an hour and after reading GRG's review I'm excited to see it (in spite of the wax job on Sandra's face







).


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18371455
> 
> 
> I just wanted to inform anyone who may want to purchase TS1 & TS2 that I was indeed able to use the coupons I linked you to. However, they only had TS1 at Toys-R-Us so I went to Target and they had a similar deal. With the coupons I paid $18.50 for both of them (including tax). What a deal!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm scheduled to watch _Blind Side_ in about an hour and after reading GRG's review I'm excited to see it (in spite of the wax job on Sandra's face
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ).



Only 16.94 @ Target where I live. Your state must have higher sales tax...in which case, hahaha! No, but really. The cashier didn't have a problem taking the two coupons I had printed out. On the receipt it says "You saved $44.00". That's a great deal if you ask me. I guess I will follow the BOGO thread more often from now on.


I'm about to watch TS2. I hope it's as good as the first one.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/18371520
> 
> 
> 
> I'm about to watch TS2. I hope it's as good as the first one.



TS2 is every bit as good as the original. Plenty of people actually prefer it over the original.


----------



## deltasun

Yeah, the BOGO thread is awesome. I get so many good deals following that thread. My wife made me buy _The Blind Side_, so I just picked that one up as well (no good deals on that one, but still have a BB gift card from Christmas!







). And being snowed in today, I get to watch a few more extra BRs today. I think I'll start out with the Clooney _Goats_ movie and report back.


----------



## EatingPie

*Sherlock Holmes*


A strong emphasis on blacks and dreary greys throughout, with detail well-rendered even, for example, in the pitch-black robe worn by the bad guy in the opening scene. Fast moving scenes even had sharp detail in the darks, and I didn't notice any artifacts. The colors are generally deliberately muted, but plays well the Victorian setting, and the "scary" bad guy (I thought this was supposed to be more silly than scary; had to stop watching with the kids after 15 minutes!)

*Tier Recommendation: 0*


I'm not sure where to place it on Tier 0, though probably in the lower 3/4, as I think the vivid colors of the upper titles are more appealing.

_Mitsubishi 73711 73'' 1080i CRT, ISF Calibrated. Approximately 6' viewing distance._


This is my first Tier recommendation here, so if I apologize in advance if I didn't get things quite right. Thanks for your patience!










-Pie


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18371552
> 
> 
> TS2 is every bit as good as the original. Plenty of people actually prefer it over the original.



Whoops! I meant in terms of the BD. I've seen the movie countless times, I'm sort of a Pixar nerd. It's incredibly hard for me to pick one or the other. I think the second one has a lot more of the "in" jokes for older viewers, but just doesn't match the originality of the first one. Having said that, I have mixed feelings about the third one, but after the skepticism I had before Up was released, I know better and trust they wouldn't release something unless it was great.


I'm getting towards the end here, and this will be so tough to grade because the level of animation is miles ahead of what was accomplished in the first movie, but the level of PQ is relatively the same. At that point, it's comparing the actual animation quality, which I will try to avoid, but the improved animation DOES make a difference. It's a really tough call.


----------



## audiomagnate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *EatingPie* /forum/post/18371827
> 
> *Sherlock Holmes*
> 
> 
> A strong emphasis on blacks and dreary greys throughout, with detail well-rendered even, for example, in the pitch-black robe worn by the bad guy in the opening scene. Fast moving scenes even had sharp detail in the darks, and I didn't notice any artifacts. The colors are generally deliberately muted, but plays well the Victorian setting, and the "scary" bad guy (I thought this was supposed to be more silly than scary; had to stop watching with the kids after 15 minutes!)
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 0*
> 
> 
> I'm not sure where to place it on Tier 0, though probably in the lower 3/4, as I think the vivid colors of the upper titles are more appealing.
> 
> _Mitsubishi 73711 73'' 1080i CRT, ISF Calibrated. Approximately 6' viewing distance._
> 
> 
> This is my first Tier recommendation here, so if I apologize in advance if I didn't get things quite right. Thanks for your patience!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Pie



I saw this at the theater on a DLP projector and it looked awful. Long shots were completely blurry. There was VHS level detail in the city shots. I am very excited to really see this movie correctly for the first time.


----------



## EatingPie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *audiomagnate* /forum/post/18372190
> 
> 
> I saw this at the theater on a DLP projector and it looked awful. Long shots were completely blurry. There was VHS level detail in the city shots. I am very excited to really see this movie correctly for the first time.



Hah, you scared me! At first glance I thought you were saying you saw the Blu-ray on a DLP, and that I'd totally screwed the pooch on my first post in this thread!










The original digital projector in my area was one of the first ever installed. Lucas even had his guys calibrate it prior to Star Wars Episode II, and though it's a 1K, and had a somewhat lacking black level, it looked pretty good, particularly in terms of color reproduction and clarity! But boy, when they let those things go, they go! I can't stand watching movies on the damned thing any more. Last time I was there, _Kung Fu Panda_ was more like _Kung Fu Polar Bear!_


-Pie


----------



## djoberg

*The Blind Side*


If I were to sum this title up in one word, it would be: *GORGEOUS*! This is true EYE CANDY.....Rich, warm and natural colors.....Deep and inky blacks and exquisite shadow details.....Spot on flesh tones.....Strong contrast.....finely textured facial details (there was even a shot or two of Sandra Bullock that revealed some texture) and last, but not least, details and depth to die for!!


And if that were not enough, there were NO ANOMALIES that I could spot, so this is a pristine transfer that deserves at least Tier Gold, if not Tier Blu. I believe we (if I can speak for others) have become somewhat jaded and are thus reluctant to put a "live" (i.e., non-animated) title in the top tier, but that's exactly what I'm nominating _The Blind Side_ for.....

*Tier Recommendation: Lower third of Tier 0 (under Transporter 3)*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite BDP-05....Viewed from 8'


----------



## tfoltz

I watched A Bug's Life twice yesterday (just got it a few days ago) and do not believe it deserves the top spot. I believe it should be just above Monster's Inc. All titles above it provide more detail and depth for my eyes. I know this has been debated plenty, but felt like chiming in anyway.


----------



## deltasun

*The Men Who Stare at Goats*


I guess I'll be reciprocating GRG's agreement with my _Brothers_ review to his review of this title. I agree with the placement completely.


I will add a few more items to his review. Facials were usually very well-detailed. However, they would inexplicably disappear for some scenes. The famous scene of Clooney and the goat is a good example. The psyc power removed his pores for that scene. Flesh tones were also off, taking on a reddish hue throughout.


While there's good three-dimensionality in most medium scenes (indoors) and longer shots (outdoors), most darker scenes were flat. Blacks were deep and contrast wavered. Some of the outdoor shots consisted of washed out backgrounds. Shadow details were also murky at times. Colors varied quite a bit from the more muted interiors to the more lively exteriors. In the end, they did appear natural. Grain was present, but did shimmer unnaturally in a number of scenes.


As mentioned, this one falls perfectly in...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


Not a very memorable flick for me.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## Thunderbolt8

watched TS 1 & 2 on a ~42" screen. both definately look like Tier 0 titles to me, with TS2 (obviously) being ranked higher than the first part. cannot really give an exact position as I haven't seen all the other Tier 0 titles on the same screen, but right now TS2 definately looks like a Top 3 candidate to me.


----------



## audiomagnate

*Astro Boy* Just finished watching Astroboy. Give me a second to pick my jaw up off the floor. Except for a few seconds of blurry fade in on a city scene that just didn't look right to me, this thing is pretty astounding. Why can't every Blu-ray have blacks like this? I saw no banding or aliasing. All I saw was just plain gorgeousity. If these tiers are all about eye candy, this one has it in spades. Even the white on black credits looked perfect. I'm going to have to go almost to the top on this one. *Tier 0, 2nd place behind Bug's Life*


----------



## deltasun

*The Box*


The film (shot in video) had a diffused, hazy look that softened the picture and made light sources emit an unnatural glow. These also produced faces devoid of details, flat scenes, and weak contrast. There were several sequences, seemingly out of nowhere, that restored fidelity and yielded excellent depth and palatable details. I tried to determine the timing of these scenes with what's happening in the story line. I did not find any association.


Just like everything else, blacks were also unpredictable. It went from gray to crush within a few scenes. Colors also seemed unnatural, specially in the haze. Flesh tones remained faithful, but just did not exhibit any discernible texture.


Overall, I really did not like this presentation. The predominant haze, for me, lands it in the Bronze tier. Some ringing and prominent jaggies were also evident (the horizontal party lights and their car's grille were very suspect). Steward's CGI-marred face did not hold up either.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*


It was an intriguing concept - reminded me of either a Lynch or Cronenberg film.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 8'_


----------



## deltasun

I may have to pop _Astro Boy_ back in, specially after some really top-end reviews. I personally was not impressed with the style, but dug the story.


----------



## Mr.G




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *EatingPie* /forum/post/18371827
> 
> *Sherlock Holmes*
> 
> 
> A strong emphasis on blacks and dreary greys throughout, with detail well-rendered even, for example, in the pitch-black robe worn by the bad guy in the opening scene. Fast moving scenes even had sharp detail in the darks, and I didn't notice any artifacts. The colors are generally deliberately muted, but plays well the Victorian setting, and the "scary" bad guy (I thought this was supposed to be more silly than scary; had to stop watching with the kids after 15 minutes!)
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 0*
> 
> 
> I'm not sure where to place it on Tier 0, though probably in the lower 3/4, as I think the vivid colors of the upper titles are more appealing.
> 
> _Mitsubishi 73711 73'' 1080i CRT, ISF Calibrated. Approximately 6' viewing distance._
> 
> 
> This is my first Tier recommendation here, so if I apologize in advance if I didn't get things quite right. Thanks for your patience!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Pie



This doesn't release until March 30, did you get an advance copy? I also saw this in a theater and was underwhelmed by the picture. It was so DARK in certain scenes I couldn't see anything. Glad to hear the Blu-ray experience will let me see this film as it should be seen.


----------



## jedimasterchad

I've decided not to rank Toy Story 2 yet, mainly due to the fact that it is becoming so hard to rank the top titles. I'm going to take today to watch Monsters Inc again, maybe flip through some scenes in Up. I'm really waiting on Astro Boy to see where that one is going to fall, so I don't want to have to move all my rankings around again. So far, I think it might turn out like this:


A Bug's Life

Kung-Fu Panda

Toy Story 2

UP

Ratatouille

Coraline

Cars

Toy Story

Monsters, Inc.


Although between TS and Monsters, it's a really close call because the style is quite different. Monsters has more eye candy, but I think Toy Story just has better color and pop to it, and more depth to the picture. I hope to have Astroboy tonight, but we'll see what happens with that. It's almost getting old having to finaggle these titles around at the very top, but I suppose nothing is ever easy around here.


----------



## K-Spaz

Astro Boy arrives for me today as well (as long as it isn't broke). I'm sorta excited to see that. It'll be a few days till I see TS-1/2. I may see if I can pick them up at best buy this weekend.


It's a nice problem to have, with so many titles in Tier 0 good enough to cause discussion on which is best!











==Edit==


















Well... so much for Astro Boy tonight...


----------



## vpn75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mr.G* /forum/post/18376742
> 
> 
> This doesn't release until March 30, did you get an advance copy? I also saw this in a theater and was underwhelmed by the picture. It was so DARK in certain scenes I couldn't see anything. Glad to hear the Blu-ray experience will let me see this film as it should be seen.



I saw a few reviews for this movie posted online and they all seem to be very positive about the PQ. I'm hoping we're looking at another Tier-0 title!


I'd like to see a few more live-action films make it into the reference-category


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/18377778
> 
> 
> So far, I think it might turn out like this:
> 
> 
> A Bug's Life
> 
> Kung-Fu Panda
> 
> Toy Story 2
> 
> UP
> 
> Ratatouille
> 
> Coraline
> 
> Cars
> 
> Toy Story
> 
> Monsters, Inc.
> 
> 
> Although between TS and Monsters, it's a really close call because the style is quite different.



I'm confused jedi...your review on _Toy Story 1_ had a placement recommendation of right under _Kung Fu Panda_, but here you are thinking of placing it under _Cars_.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/18377891
> 
> 
> Astro Boy arrives for me today as well (as long as it isn't broke). I'm sorta excited to see that. It'll be a few days till I see TS-1/2. I may see if I can pick them up at best buy this weekend.
> 
> 
> It's a nice problem to have, with so many titles in Tier 0 good enough to cause discussion on which is best!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ==Edit==
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well... so much for Astro Boy tonight...



That is so odd - and I've seen other people mention getting their Netflix discs broken, but it's uncanny how many people have this happen. I don't think I've ever received a broken disc. Ever. Is it just that part of the country? You're in PA, right? Obviously more populated than my neck of the woods.


Well, sorry to hear that, Spaz.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^


I went to rent _Astro Boy_ today at my local video store and would you believe they only have it in DVD?! Normally they get everything in on Blu-ray (except for catalog titles) so I was taken aback and disappointed. Oh well, I DO have TS1 and TS2 so I'll be watching them sometime in the next few days.


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18379344
> 
> 
> That is so odd - and I've seen other people mention getting their Netflix discs broken, but it's uncanny how many people have this happen. I don't think I've ever received a broken disc. Ever. Is it just that part of the country? You're in PA, right? Obviously more populated than my neck of the woods.
> 
> 
> Well, sorry to hear that, Spaz.



It happens pretty much coast to coast. Depends on the post office. Actually, some PO's have machines specifically from NF for sorting the NF discs. Those places have no issues. The troubles here tend to come and go, but now that it's warmed up some, I expected more go than come. (cold discs are more brittle yet). I've been averaging about 1 out of 4 broken for the last 5 months or so. I even increased my plan just because of it! Lol...


It does seem that the stuff I'm really interested in seeing is what comes in broke. I haven't figured that out yet. Funny thing was, this Astro Boy actually loaded up. I go to the menu, and was able to see that part, it just wouldn't play. I pulled the disc out cause I'd looked for a break and didn't see it earlier, (lighting in the HT not real good) well, yea, it was cracked. So, since it had loaded I tried to see if I could rip it, it went about 25 minutes and failed. I've never had a disc that was broken that would even load before, though some have said this is very plausible with how BR discs are laid out. Had not proven true for me in the past.


My brother who lives 2 miles from me has been getting DVD's broken lately. This is really rare I guess, (I've never had one), but wow, his are smashed to bits. I mean, he shakes the envelope and it sounds like a cats toy. We're like, wth did they do to this? Ya just laugh and move on I guess.


I bought all new tweeters for my HT speakers and they came today so the evening isn't wasted. I'm sitting listening to music now and reading the forum instead.


Denny, it looks like I'll also be the proud owner of TS 1/2 before I get to see Astro Boy, so don't feel bad.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Shrooms (UK import)


recommendation: Tier 3.75*


An older Blu-ray that was released overseas on May 5, 2008 by Sony, _Shrooms_ does not aim in any way to be eye candy by the director. The 87-minute movie, originally shown in 2006, is on a BD-25 and happens to be region-free. BDInfo gives the average video bitrate of the AVC-encode at a paltry 15.99 Mbps for the main feature. Aesthetically, the director does not stray far from the conventions of the horror genre. That choice limits the picture quality to a degree. On a note that is not critical to this evaluation, only a lossy Dolby Digital soundtrack is included.


Compression issues abound in the image. False contouring between light and dark gradients degrade various scenes at night. Rings of banding and chroma noise are also problems. Exterior shots hold up better, but a few scenes look as awful as the worst examples of compression on the format. One of the poorest efforts from Sony in that regard. It was bad enough for me to heavily weigh it as a factor in dropping the final placement. The results are a far cry from the sterling examples of more recent titles. Shadow structure and detail are severely affected at times. Shadows dissolve into blobs of grayish uniformity.


The image itself possesses the dismal color palette and tone that so many modern horror films use at the moment. Colors are not vivid, and overall the picture tends to be dark and lifeless. A light amount of film grain permeates the movie. Sony did not attempt to filter the image of detail and grain with digital noise reduction. The master has also escaped the addition of any unnatural edge enhancement or ringing. Outside of the compression problems, the largest drag on the picture quality are some of the camera techniques used to enhance the mood. The director pulls out almost all the typical tricks one can do with a camera to heighten the scares. While marginally effective for the story, it actively hurts the main visuals. The amount of intentional stutter and blurring seen becomes annoying after repeated exposures.


Some of the movie easily qualifies for somewhere in tier two. But there are too many questionable scenes and intentional degradation to place it higher than the middle of tier three. Given the poor compression work, a final score at tier 3.75 looks correct for _Shrooms_.


Watching on a 60” Pioneer KURO plasma at 1080p/24, fed by a 60 GB PS3 (firmware 3.15) from a viewing distance of six feet.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post16954672


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

I don't have time for an actual review right now but *Astroboy* looked FANTASTIC on my panny plasma. I don't have a ton of the top tier 0 titles in my collection, but I would have to rank it up there with *Coraline* at least. I was mostly amazed by the fact that *Astroboy* had textures that were just as impressive as *Coraline's*, which I think was phenomenal.


I will be back later with a formal review. I did buy Astroboy when I saw it at the store the other day, as well; first time I saw it there they sold out right away so I grabbed a copy when they restocked.


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18379268
> 
> 
> I'm confused jedi...your review on _Toy Story 1_ had a placement recommendation of right under _Kung Fu Panda_, but here you are thinking of placing it under _Cars_.



Yeah, I am going to probably have to change my recommendation. I was watching it again, after watching TS2, and from looking at some of the others again for a refresher, realized I put it a tad too high. That's probably the correct spot for TS2, which is much more impressive, but I think because of that TS will have to get knocked down a few. That's why I said I was going to try and take a look at them all again before I vote on TS2, as I think I got TS wrong.


I don't have Coraline on BD though, so I'm just going to have to go with everyone else, and I still don't have my hands on a copy of AstroBoy, and I want to see that one first before I make a final placement. I really feel like I am grading animation and not PQ though, and that makes it tough too because the level of detail, reflections, shading, etc. in TS2 is so far and away better than TS, but it doesn't have the same depth and pop that TS does. ARRGGGHHH!! lol.


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18379344
> 
> 
> That is so odd - and I've seen other people mention getting their Netflix discs broken, but it's uncanny how many people have this happen. I don't think I've ever received a broken disc. Ever. Is it just that part of the country? You're in PA, right? Obviously more populated than my neck of the woods.
> 
> 
> Well, sorry to hear that, Spaz.



It didn't happen to me *that* often, but I'd say about 1 out of every 10 discs was cracked. Like one good line from the outside to the inside edge, rendering it unreadable. Not a big deal, as you could report it bad and get a new one almost the next day. What's amazing is how close I am to a netflix facility and still had this problem (about 10 miles, so only a short trip for the post office) but as mentioned it's a problem with processing.


As a side note, I only had problems with DVD's, not BD's. I have since cancelled NF as it was impossible at times to get new releases unless I mailed them back on the perfect day, and even then it was a gamble. I have a movie pass at blockbuster now which allows me to swap 1 movie at a time as often as I wish, and it is pretty good so far (except for this Astro Boy incident) but they don't carry as many copies of BD's as I'd like, as I wasn't able to get Blind Side yesterday because they ran out of blu rays. No perfect rental service out there, afaic.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/18379587
> 
> 
> Denny, it looks like I'll also be the proud owner of TS 1/2 before I get to see Astro Boy, *so don't feel bad*.



I still feel bad!


----------



## spongebob

Are these new releases to BD?


thx


bob


----------



## EatingPie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mr.G* /forum/post/18376742
> 
> 
> This doesn't release until March 30, did you get an advance copy? I also saw this in a theater and was underwhelmed by the picture. It was so DARK in certain scenes I couldn't see anything. Glad to hear the Blu-ray experience will let me see this film as it should be seen.



I'm 100% legal.










Yes, the movie is very dark. I'm not thrilled with thearical presentations any more; the only thing that can beat my HDTV is IMAX these days. And this is obviously a movie that could be wrecked by a dim bulb or poorly calibrated DLP.


But what makes the image quality so astounding is the level of detail in the darks. It's a tad soft in terms of focus here and there, but an absolutely great Blu-ray. The Audio Thread will probably have some nice things to say about it too. I loves me the LFE!


Oh, and having a CRT really helps.







I got the blacks!


-Pie


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I've been a member of Netflix for more than 9 years now. I only recall receiving *one* cracked disc in those 9 years! I clearly remember when it happened too. Pulled it out of the envelope, and it was in about 4 or 5 pieces.


I've had some discs that wouldn't play because of scratches, but even that has been pretty rare (maybe 1 out of 75 movies rented).


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spongebob* /forum/post/18380070
> 
> 
> Are these new releases to BD?
> 
> 
> thx
> 
> 
> bob



They've been out for at least a week on Blu. If you act fast, you can download coupons and pick up both titles for under $20 at either Toys-R-Us or Target. Here's a post I made the other day giving out the link for printing the coupons:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...ostcount=15460


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/18379839
> 
> 
> I don't have time for an actual review right now but *Astroboy* looked FANTASTIC on my panny plasma. I don't have a ton of the top tier 0 titles in my collection, but I would have to rank it up there with *Coraline* at least. I was mostly amazed by the fact that *Astroboy* had textures that were just as impressive as *Coraline's*, which I think was phenomenal.



I agree with all the praise being heaped on *Astro Boy* - it really is a fantastic looking title and a very entertaining story to boot. Subtly darker and more emotional than I expected, although still quite family-appropriate I think.


I've been stepping through frames to collect up some screenshots and, while I don't think it quite has the masterful attention to fine detail and aesthetic artistry of some of the larger CG animation studio titles, one thing that I have found is that it seems to have a much milder application of artificial motion blur on each frame. Individual lines also frequently have a tendency to be less softened sometimes to the point of aliasing. While this may perhaps rob it of the more "filmic" look that the masters at Pixar always strive for, it does seem to make the title pop a little more in (plentiful) motion. An interesting compromise...


----------



## spongebob




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18380300
> 
> 
> They've been out for at least a week on Blu. If you act fast, you can download coupons and pick up both titles for under $20 at either Toys-R-Us or Target. Here's a post I made the other day giving out the link for printing the coupons:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...ostcount=15460



Thanks!



bob


----------



## deltasun

*Toy Story*


I think one of the biggest differences between 1 and 2 are the details around the surrounding elements. In TS1, the door, chair, and drawers were all smooth and flat. TS2 pushes those a bit and gives them a bit more dimensionality and form. TS1's humans were more simplistic as well. PIXAR also played more with depth of field through blurring in TS2. These were not as accurate or present in TS1. Finally, just general textures of clothing were more pronounced in TS2.


Aside from those, I believe the details to the characters themselves were pretty similar. Colors, blacks, contrast, even Slinky's aliasing were comparable.

*Tier Recommendation: 0* (between the two Tinker Bells)

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## vpn75

*Fantastic Mr. Fox*


This was one amazing-looking movie! The stop-motion animation comes across beautifully supported by incredibly realistic textures that take full advantage of the 1080p resolution. I was continuously astounded by the fine detail on display in the character's fur and clothing textures. I really can't find anything to complain about. This is simply a sublime transfer with reference PQ!

*Tier Recommendation: 0 (just above Coraline)*


----------



## audiomagnate

Has anybody seen "African Queen" yet? My local BB didn't order it and it's a "very long wait" on NF. I'm dying to see this restoration.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Toy Story


recommendation: Tier 0 below Wall*E*


The original _Toy Story_ is truly a wonderful movie, that stands alongside the other great movies of the past century, animated or otherwise. As the progenitor of CGI-animation at the theatrical level, Pixar had a serious challenge in updating the older animation of _Toy Story_ for audiences that have seen more advanced efforts of recent times, like _Cars_ and _UP_, and bringing it to Blu-ray without going overboard on the changes. The BD of _Toy Story_ is an unqualified success, updating the 1995 movie to a visually impressive result, that compares very well with the advanced modeling and lighting techniques employed by their newer films.


My only complaint is the use of simple, repetitive textures in almost every background. If you dwell on them, their regularity and lack of variation does not hold up to the best animated titles in tier zero. It is a problem found in the source material, imposed by the constraints of the era's technology it was originally created in, back in the 90's. Minor nitpicks can also be made about the smoothness of both Woody and Buzz in their faces, and how the motion of their mouths while speaking look slightly strange.


For my tastes, _Toy Story_ is probably the most entertaining movie found in tier zero, if it ends up ranked that high. It acts as a great paean to the childhoods of the Baby Boomer Generation. But that does not, and should not, influence my assessment of its placement. The picture quality is fantastic...but it just does not surpass any of Pixar's newer films on Blu-ray. The highest spot I can recommend in good conscience is a ranking below _Wall*E_, another excellent Blu-ray from Pixar.


----------



## JoeBloggz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18367535
> 
> 
> I agree with you 100% Rob!
> 
> 
> I was looking online for good deals on _Toy Story 1 & 2_ and I found the following coupons:
> 
> http://www.xpbargains.com/index.php/send_deal/139740
> 
> 
> If you have a Toys-R-Us store in your area you can use these coupons and get each Blu-ray for only $6.99 plus tax. I printed the coupons and they look legitimate.



Thank you so much for the link. I was able to use both coupons for TS1 and TS2. Toys R us had a sale if you buy both they are 16.99 each. After using the coupons ($10 off each), total with tax $14.85. By far the best blu Ray deal I've gotten yet. Thank you again.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JoeBloggz* /forum/post/18384352
> 
> 
> Thank you so much for the link. I was able to use both coupons for TS1 and TS2. Toys R us had a sale if you buy both they are 16.99 each. After using the coupons ($10 off each), total with tax $14.85. By far the best blu Ray deal I've gotten yet. Thank you again.



You're very welcome!


I tried Toys R Us first, but they only had TS1 but Target had the same deal (except they were a few dollars higher) so I purchased them there. I, like you, had never experienced such a deal before, so I'm one happy camper!


----------



## Mr.G




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *audiomagnate* /forum/post/18383129
> 
> 
> Has anybody seen "African Queen" yet? My local BB didn't order it and it's a "very long wait" on NF. I'm dying to see this restoration.



Looks amazing, wonderful restoration.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare/african.htm 


That said I would have a hard time deciding where in the picture tier I would recommend placing it. I think I would have to re-watch to form a more objective opinion, I was too busy enjoying it in Technicolor. But if you're a fan of the film it's a no-brainer to purchase. Some fans are critical of the fact that the Blu-ray uses a lossy sound format but it didn't bother me.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

You guys probably already know this, but CinemaSquid put up screen caps of Astro Boy.


Pretty amazing stuff!

http://www.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray/m...ieid=12254#top


----------



## Pure_McNasty

Can anyone compare the quality of the new US release of Red Cliff on blu-ray to the UK one?


I've been wanting to get a live tier blu title, and this is the one that interests me the most. I just want to make sure the US release is of the same quality, or if possible better than the UK one. If not I'll just order the UK one, as it is region free correct?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18388169
> 
> 
> You guys probably already know this, but CinemaSquid put up screen caps of Astro Boy.
> 
> 
> Pretty amazing stuff!
> 
> http://www.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray/m...ieid=12254#top



Nice pics Rob, though I find that screen caps never do the film's PQ justice. It always looks considerably better when viewed live and in motion.


I picked up a copy of _Astro Boy_ at Wal-Mart yesterday and I plan to watch it tonight. From all the reviews I trust I'll find it worthy of a spot in at least the top ten.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pure_McNasty* /forum/post/18388272
> 
> 
> Can anyone compare the quality of the new US release of Red Cliff on blu-ray to the UK one?
> 
> 
> I've been wanting to get a live tier blu title, and this is the one that interests me the most. I just want to make sure the US release is of the same quality, or if possible better than the UK one. If not I'll just order the UK one, as it is region free correct?



I can't speak as to the US release, but I would be very surprised if it was better than the UK release. If I were you, I would just pick up the UK release. The price is fantastic (more than likely less than what the US release will be). And it is indeed region free.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18388363
> 
> 
> Nice pics Rob, though I find that screen caps never do the film's PQ justice. It always looks considerably better when viewed live and in motion.
> 
> 
> I picked up a copy of _Astro Boy_ at Wal-Mart yesterday and I plan to watch it tonight. From all the reviews I trust I'll find it worthy of a spot in at least the top ten.



Actually, when it comes to pure CGI movies like Astro Boy, I think screen caps are very valuable and indicative of the PQ on the disc. You are not dealing with any film.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18388532
> 
> 
> Actually, when it comes to pure CGI movies like Astro Boy, I think screen caps are very valuable and indicative of the PQ on the disc. You are not dealing with any film.



I can only speak from experience Rob, but when I've seen screen caps of animated titles it always looked better when actually viewing the movie. Take _Bolt_ for example, I remember screen caps of that being posted and although they looked good, they looked a lot sharper and more detailed when viewing it live and in motion.


So, when I saw the pics of _Astro Boy_ I thought to myself, "Hmmm, this is good, but it's going to look even better!"


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18389506
> 
> 
> I can only speak from experience Rob, but when I've seen screen caps of animated titles it always looked better when actually viewing the movie. Take _Bolt_ for example, I remember screen caps of that being posted and although they looked good, they looked a lot sharper and more detailed when viewing it live and in motion.
> 
> 
> So, when I saw the pics of _Astro Boy_ I thought to myself, "Hmmm, this is good, but it's going to look even better!"



Interesting.


I actually think those screen grabs look _better_ than viewing it in live action.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Jennifer's Body*


Excellent looking title.


This one excels in two important areas: contrast (with great black levels), which helps with a great sense of depth to the image, and clarity/detail. Skin pores and textures are very well revealed.


Colors tend to be on the saturated side. Some will find this to be even more appealing, others may find it a bit unnatural. I'm in the latter category, but it wasn't to the point of being overly distracting either.

_Some_ of the night scenes were less impressive. This was the exception though, as most of the dark scenes looked great.


Overall excellent looking title.


The movie itself was not very good, even if you are a fan of the genre I wouldn't think it would be all that well received.


I see this is currently in Tier 1.0, which is fine, but I will recommend just a tad lower:

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.25*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18389896
> 
> *Jennifer's Body*
> 
> 
> I see this is currently in Tier 1.0, which is fine, but I will recommend just a tad lower:
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.25*



I just checked and I only saw two previous (official) recommendations (deltasun/1.25 and me/1.25), so it *should* be in Tier 1.25. Gamereviewgod made a post on it but he didn't really commit himself by stating an actual tier recommendation (what he did say was it *could* be high tier 1 or even low tier 0).


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18389951
> 
> 
> I just checked and I only saw two previous (official) recommendations (deltasun/1.25 and me/1.25), so it *should* be in Tier 1.25. Gamereviewgod made a post on it but he didn't really commit himself by stating an actual tier recommendation (what he did say was it *could* be high tier 1 or even low tier 0).



Nice catch Denny.


I didn't look at any of the prior reviews on this title, I just looked at it's placement in the other thread.


Wow, three 1.25 recommendations makes it easy to place this one!


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Smokin' Aces 2: Assassins Ball*


Wow, this title has some superb clarity and detail! It could be eye popping at times. It isn't completely consistent though. Contrast is a tad on the weak side, and is enough to keep it from the best of the best.


Colors looked great.


All things considered, this is another excellent looking title, especially in terms of clarity and detail.


As for the movie itself: well, it wasn't very good. If you have seen the first one, you have an idea of what to expect, but it isn't as good as the first one (and no, I'm not saying that the first one was very good)!

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.75*



Wow...I see this is currently in Tier 3.0!


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18263047
> 
> *Jennifer's Body
> 
> recommendation: Tier 1.0*
> 
> 
> I will spare you the long explication, and just state that it is nearly worthy of the top tier. A flawless transfer if not for the sporadic, noteworthy ringing in several scenes. The goth kid's funeral had that problem. It mostly showed up in long-range shots. But extraordinary resolution and clarity much of the time makes up for a problem like edge enhancement. Close-ups display a reference amount of high-frequency detail, that few Blu-rays have ever matched.





> Quote:
> Quote:
> 
> Originally Posted by Rob Tomlin
> 
> Jennifer's Body
> 
> 
> I see this is currently in Tier 1.0, which is fine, but I will recommend just a tad lower:
> 
> 
> Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.25
> 
> I just checked and I only saw two previous (official) recommendations (deltasun/1.25 and me/1.25), so it *should* be in Tier 1.25. Gamereviewgod made a post on it but he didn't really commit himself by stating an actual tier recommendation (what he did say was it *could* be high tier 1 or even low tier 0).



There's another one for you. Phantom's update had yours and his listed as 1.0 and 1.25...so two more votes for 1.25 now it seems. Should bring the total to (3) 1.25 and (1) 1.0.


----------



## jedimasterchad

*Astro Boy*


Another impressive animated title, but one that I feel does not quite reach the upper echelons of ranking. Colors popped here like nothing else, and the primaries were some of the best that I've seen. The Blue/Red energy just came to life with a wonderful glow. Blacks were strong and helped to achieve a good level of depth and contrast. Unfortunately, the movie has an abundance of smooth, lifeless textures that I felt took something away from the vivid colors. The faces are smooth like the humans in a Dreamworks film, and the architecture of Metro City was rounded and plain, not conducive to much visual appeal. While the level of animation wasn't terrible, make no mistake, this is not a Pixar or Dreamworks film, and it becomes evident as you progress. Detail is not on par with the best animated titles, although the art style is still very pretty.


I did notice a bit of banding in some sky shots, but it was very minor. Shadow detail was not in abundance, but there were a few scenes that had some good low light detail. I would be hard pressed to find anything else that affects the score in a negative way. All in all, a very solid title but not quite up there with the best of the best.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0, Agree with current proposed move above "Bolt"*

*Toy Story 2*


Wow! This is one impressive title, especially considering its age. It really made me open my eyes to just how dated Toy Story is, and made me realize that I in fact graded Toy Story too generously. I AM changing my TS recommendation, but I'll take care of that at the end of this review.


Toy Story 2 probably takes on about the spot I originally recommended for Toy Story 1. Blacks are great, color is quite strong, with a good amount of saturation, and contrast is quite good with some pretty nice pop. I do not think, however, that Toy Story 2 had the same level of 3D effect as the first one, but this title still has quite a bit of depth. What this title does better is show the relative size of the toys by some more creative camera angles, and these wide angle shots show some excellent detail in the entire frame. Detail is much, much improved over the first in the series, with good skin and facial detail compared to the smooth look of the first movie. Textures like carpet, plastic (like potato head or Rex) are improved, to the point of it almost looking like a real picture. You can even see the texture on the cheetos and count the hairs in the stubble of the toy collector. This title improved in every area where the first title was lacking, and that wasn't many to begin with. A stellar release for a great movie.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0, between Ratatouille and Up*


And as I mentioned, I will officially change my Toy Story score to reflect how I feel it ranks against the top titles that I perused again: Tier 0, above Chicken Little, and below Pirates at World's End.


----------



## djoberg

*Astro Boy*


WOW!! This was an amazing title, to be sure! Colors were as vibrant as I've seen; blacks were simply amazing; contrast was off the charts; details (when they were there) were second to none; and depth was incomparable! There is absolutely, positively no doubt that this transfer deserves a place in the top ten.


Like jedimasterchad intimated (and I've said it before too), it's getting very difficult to judge an exact placement for some of these exemplary animated marvels. But for me, it came down to detail. When there was detail, like in the field when Toby first saw Zog, the blades of grass and Zog's coat of iron were phenomenal, as good as it gets. But detail was lacking in part of the movie (intentionally so) so IMO I had to dock it for that. In the end, I see it falling (as Rob did) right under _Coraline_ (which had the same blazing colors, inky blacks, strong contrast, and 3D pop), for there were simply more details to behold in _Coraline_.


Before I close this review, let me say that the AQ was reference all the way. If this was a Tier Thread for audio I would be inclined to place this on the top!

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* *(right under Coraline)*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite BDP-05....Viewed from 7'


PS Rob, I actually paused the movie several times to compare it with some of the screen caps you linked us to. The one that I examined most closely was the scene I mentioned above where Toby first saw Zog in the field...it was considerably brighter, sharper, and detailed on my KURO. I should add that I take my KURO out of Pure Mode for animated titles and use Standard Mode, which is inherently brighter. But I did switch it to Pure Mode for that one scene and it still excelled in every way compared to the screen cap.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18390670
> 
> *Astro Boy*
> 
> 
> 
> PS Rob, I actually paused the movie several times to compare it with the some of the screen caps you linked us to. The one that I examined most closely was the scene I mentioned above where Toby first saw Zog in the field...tt was considerably brighter, sharper, and detailed on my KURO. I should add that I take my KURO out of Pure Mode for animated titles and use Standard Mode, which is inherently brighter. But I did switch it to Pure Mode for that one scene and it still excelled in every way compared to the screen cap.



I'm glad that you posted this Denny, as it clarifies things a bit. I assumed that you were talking about watching it in motion, not pausing it.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Here were all the rankings that have been incorporated so far for Jennifer's Body (from my personal notes) that put it into tier 1.0:

*Jennifer's Body - low 0/1 (gamereviewgod), 1.25 (Deltasun), 1.25 (42041)


Jennifer's Body - 1.25 djoberg, 1.0 Phantom Stranger
*


With the recently added placements, it looks like the BD will end up in tier 1.25, whenever the next update occurs. In the interest of being expansive and inclusive as possible, I go through every post in this thread when considering final placements, and include cursory scores when possible.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18390670
> 
> *Astro Boy*
> 
> 
> Like jedimasterchad intimated (and I've said it before too), it's getting very difficult to judge an exact placement for some of these exemplary animated marvels. But for me, it came down to detail. When there was detail, like in the field when Toby first saw Zog, the blades of grass and Zog's coat of iron were phenomenal, as good as it gets.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* *(right under Coraline)*



That scene where they first find Zog is amazing to see. If I was compiling a sampler BD for picture quality, that would be one of my first choices.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18390707
> 
> 
> I'm glad that you posted this Denny, as it clarifies things a bit. I assumed that you were talking about watching it in motion, not pausing it.



Very good Rob! In my first post on this subject I should have said "it looks better on my set" (whether it's live or paused).


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18390731
> 
> 
> That scene where they first find Zog is amazing to see. If I was compiling a sampler BD for picture quality, that would be one of my first choices.



Ditto!


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18390721
> 
> 
> Here were all the rankings that have been incorporated so far for Jennifer's Body (from my personal notes) that put it into tier 1.0:
> 
> *Jennifer's Body - low 0/1 (gamereviewgod), 1.25 (Deltasun), 1.25 (42041)
> 
> 
> Jennifer's Body - 1.25 djoberg, 1.0 Phantom Stranger
> *
> 
> 
> With the recently added placements, it looks like the BD will end up in tier 1.25, whenever the next update occurs. In the interest of being expansive and inclusive as possible, I go through every post in this thread when considering final placements, and include cursory scores when possible.



I thought I had reviewed this one also but I couldn't find it posted anywhere. I don't have the movie but if I recall correctly, 1.0 or 1.25 is probably where I would place it also.


----------



## K-Spaz

*Astro Boy*

Finally got a disc in one piece today and just finished watching it. I'd already read all the reviews here on it so there were no surprises, it looks great and the story is about as good as it gets on an animated title.


I see there's various opinions on the weaknesses of this title, all of them admitting that about the only thing it falls short on is shortcomings! I am really hard pressed to nit-pick this, I mean there were only about 10 seconds of the film that I could rewind and say, ehhh, yea maybe theres something...


It like many animated titles, doesn't have much in the line of blacks so they're really not relevant. I thought the motion in this was superb, maintaining detail very well even in action scenes (which were not rare). Colors and saturation were as good as it gets. Textures might have been just slightly less than the best I've seen in other films, but they were more consistent than I've seen elsewhere. You never see super detailed items on a bla background, it's just a super picture from corner to corner all the time.


I especailly liked the lighting and shadows, I thought they were very well done. I expected the images down on the surface to be sorta bla because that's the way it was protrayed when viewing the "world" from a distance. Fact is, I think the surface shots were even better than those up in the city.


If there were shots with banded sky, I missed it. I can't imagine it being any different than sky shots in any other animated title though. I looked half heartedly for banding, but I didn't notice any so I assume it wasn't bad.


Does it belong at the top of the tier list? Well, I hate having this question come up because it's really coming down to subjective opinions more than scientific evaluation. I'll offer up my subjective view and say yes, I think it does. About the only way I can decide is to think back over the entire movie and ask myself, was that the most impressive thing I've seen on my system. Several times during the movie, I said to myself, "if it stays like this all the way through, it get's my vote for the top". Well, it stayed that good all the way through.

*Tier Recommendation: Top of Tier 0*

Viewed on Infocus X10 FP 104" from 11.5'


----------



## deltasun

Just saw _Astro Boy_ side by side with _Up_ today at BB. While their displays are not calibrated in any sense of the word, I thought it was a good comparison. I just couldn't see how _Astro Boy_ could top the detail and depth of _Up_. That's a head scratcher for me so I came home and A/B'd them in my calibrated display. I also just purchased a new desktop with BR drives and was able to play with comparisons a bit.


Anyway, I do see that _Astro Boy_ was probably more consistent and had much better black levels as a whole. But, I felt that when _Up_ surpassed _Astro Boy_, it shattered it.


So, I still say _Up_ surpasses it. Obviously, just my two cents.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18390721
> 
> 
> Here were all the rankings that have been incorporated so far for Jennifer's Body (from my personal notes) that put it into tier 1.0:
> 
> *Jennifer's Body - low 0/1 (gamereviewgod), 1.25 (Deltasun), 1.25 (42041)
> 
> 
> Jennifer's Body - 1.25 djoberg, 1.0 Phantom Stranger
> *
> 
> 
> With the recently added placements, it looks like the BD will end up in tier 1.25, whenever the next update occurs. In the interest of being expansive and inclusive as possible, I go through every post in this thread when considering final placements, and include cursory scores when possible.



I just found another rating for 1.0:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...ostcount=15429 


I did a Search for this title before I made the post saying there were only two placement recommendations, but for some reason most of the reviews didn't come up.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18390973
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, I do see that _Astro Boy_ was probably more consistent and had much better black levels as a whole. *But, I felt that when Up surpassed Astro Boy, it shattered it.*



I definitely disagree with this. But perhaps I don't understand it. Are you saying that the very best parts of Up shatter the worse parts of Astro Boy?


Because even at that, I don't think that any part of Up "shatters" any part of Astro Boy.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18391289
> 
> 
> I definitely disagree with this. But perhaps I don't understand it. Are you saying that the very best parts of Up shatter the worse parts of Astro Boy?
> 
> 
> Because even at that, I don't think that any part of Up "shatters" any part of Astro Boy.



Not quite - I guess another way to say it is: the best parts of _Up_ surpassed the best parts of _Astro Boy_ for me. However, AB was more consistently excellent as a whole.


So yes, your disagreement is from a correct assumption.


----------



## deltasun

*Yojimbo*


Phenomenal presentation! I cannot believe the excellent black levels, strong well-delineated contrast, and eye-popping background details. Medium scenes are just amazingly three-dimensional, particularly indoors. The characters almost appear to come out of the screen.


I would place this solidly in Tier Gold, but there are some issues. Shadow details are usually murky and flat, particularly outdoors at night. There are quite a bit of these scenes in the latter half of the film. Some scenes exhibited distracting grain as well as flickering scenes (akin to a missing frame).


Facial details aren't as detailed as upper-tier titles, but they are very well rendered. Brightness is a bit hot at times which then pushes skin tones lighter in this B&W feature.


Still, despite these shortcomings, a wonderful presentation of a 1961 film. I did not spy any foul play. I will keep this in a demo tier...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

*Sanjuro*


I wanted to watch these (_Yojimbo_ & _Sanjuro_) back to back so that I can compare accurately. While _Sanjuro_ was still an amazing presentation, it was easy to see that it is a step down from _Yojimbo_. The first thing to notice is how much softer it is, followed by the weaker contrast. Some scenes do get treated with better contrast, but it's inconsistent.


Some minor ringing is evident, but the biggest offender is what appears to be some mild application of DNR. Faces in these scenes lose quite a bit of detail along with the surrounding grain.


I believe the softer, less defined scenes as well as similar issues with darker scenes (which occurred less in _Sanjuro_), flickering frames, and moving grain in certain scenes place this title at least a full tier lower.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75*


Really interesting 35-min feature of the cast and crew discussing portions of the film.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18391097
> 
> 
> I just found another rating for 1.0:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...ostcount=15429
> 
> 
> I did a Search for this title before I made the post saying there were only two placement recommendations, but for some reason most of the reviews didn't come up.



I thought I did a review.







When searching when I did my review I had to put in an apostrophe or nothing came up.


----------



## K-Spaz

I blind bought Up so the first I'd seen it was on my home system. I was fully expecting to be blown away, but when push came to shove, wasn't. I think I was one of the very few here who didn't find it top 5 material. But, you know what opinions are worth.


I'm not going to disagree with the idea that Astro Boy doesn't have one particular blow-you-away scene (or a few) like many other animated titles. Personally, I think Tale of Despereaux has better individual scenes, (not by much) but I wouldn't even consider Up to have that distinction. My favorite scene in that was when the balloons came up out of the roof, but it was a bit short lived to garner extra points from me.


With a cold gloomy day like today, I may throw several back on and compare. Up, ABL, MI. Might even go shopping and pick up the Toy Storys today. I have to give AB another viewing before sending it back. Perhaps sitting a little closer for this one.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Delta-


Wow! If Sanjuro and Yojimbo are really that good looking, that is FANTASTIC news. These are two of my favorite Kurosawa films.


I've got to order them now!


----------



## Ozymandis

A shame Sanjuro isn't quite as nice as Yojimbo. I like Sanjuro better, I got the Criterion DVDs in my collection still but I'm going to upgrade to BR at some point.


Only saw one new BR this week, *Red Cliff 1&2 (US version)*. I agree with the Tier 0 placement, but I might put it below the Host, Domino, but above Baraka. For such a long and epic film the picture quality is remarkably consistent! Up close shots look great, with tons of detail, blacks are not perfect but very good, and I think a few of the shots were a little soft/out of focus but overall an amazing Blu-ray.


The movie itself was fun to watch. It reminded me of a Chinese "Troy", except Red Cliff stomps all over that Hollywood tripe


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18390758
> 
> 
> Very good Rob! In my first post on this subject I should have said "it looks better on my set" (whether it's live or paused).



In theory, if you pull up one of the screenshots on your Kuro (ex. from a memory stick) it should look the same as the equivalent paused frame. In practice, there might be nuances to this, such as the shots already being expanded to full 0-255 RGB range through a YUV->RGB colorspace conversion function that may be subtly different from the results of your own disc playback chain.


Anyway, there doesn't seem to be any disagreement that the movie looks gorgeous - hopefully those shots are able to convey this to at least some extent.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I too have a slight preference for Sanjuro over Yojimbo. I have both of the Criterion DVD's.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/18392785
> 
> 
> In theory, if you pull up one of the screenshots on your Kuro (ex. from a memory stick) it should look the same as the equivalent paused frame. In practice, there might be nuances to this, such as the shots already being expanded to full 0-255 RGB range through a YUV->RGB colorspace conversion function that may be subtly different from the results of your own disc playback chain.
> 
> 
> Anyway, there doesn't seem to be any disagreement that the movie looks gorgeous - hopefully those shots are able to convey this to at least some extent.



Agreed.


It is also difficult to compare the screen grabs while viewing on a computer screen compared to the display device.


----------



## deltasun

Yes, Gents...a fine transfer. I prefer _Sanjuro_ too as it flowed much better and had more comical moments. Modern martial arts may be flashy, but there's something about Sanjuro's movements as a samurai that just cannot be duplicated. Sure, anyone can see though the fakery, but there's something about his (I guess you could say) stage presence that's unbeatable.


Anyway, _Sanjuro_ does waver, but there are scenes in there that match _Yojimbo_ as well. I'll be doing a price watch on this, but probably won't wait long.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/18392785
> 
> 
> In theory, if you pull up one of the screenshots on your Kuro (ex. from a memory stick) it should look the same as the equivalent paused frame. In practice, there might be nuances to this, such as the shots already being expanded to full 0-255 RGB range through a YUV->RGB colorspace conversion function that may be subtly different from the results of your own disc playback chain.
> 
> 
> Anyway, there doesn't seem to be any disagreement that the movie looks gorgeous - hopefully those shots are able to convey this to at least some extent.



For the record, I want you to know that I didn't mean to imply that your screen caps looked bad, or didn't serve a purpose; they look very good and I do appreciate them. The shots that I compared just looked better on my KURO.


Regarding the theory you expressed, doesn't the monitor one is viewing screen caps on make a difference? I'm thinking that I really don't expect a screen shot to look as good on my ACER computer monitor as on the KURO. Is this thinking right or am I employing faulty logic?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18392917
> 
> 
> For the record, I want you to know that I didn't mean to imply that your screen caps looked bad, or didn't serve a purpose; I look very good and I do appreciate them. The shots that I compared just looked better on my KURO.
> 
> 
> Regarding the theory you expressed, doesn't the monitor one is viewing screen caps on make a difference? I'm thinking that I really don't expect a screen shot to look as good on my ACER computer monitor as on the KURO. Is this thinking right or am I employing faulty logic?



See my post above.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18392953
> 
> 
> See my post above.



I noticed that right after I hit "Submit Reply." Once again we're on the same page Rob!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18392970
> 
> 
> I noticed that right after I hit "Submit Reply." Once again we're on the same page Rob!



That's scary!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

I'm not writing a full review (again!) right now but I had to comment on *Casablanca*!


Wow. I haven't seen this one in a handful of years but it is one of my all time favourite movies. I was able to pick up the collectors edition back in the summer when Amazon.ca had a great sale to get it for $22 or so. I finally popped it in last night, and while I agree with where it sits at tier 2.25 currently, it's one of those WOW lower tiers; I was really happy with how this movie looked on Blu. Could it have been better? Honestly, I don't watch a lot of old movies like this so I don't know, that'll have to be answered by our more seasoned veterans here. Either way I enjoyed it!


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/18391637
> 
> 
> I thought I did a review.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When searching when I did my review I had to put in an apostrophe or nothing came up.



Your review was too new to be considered by the last update. Typically I procrastinate, and tally up the recent recommendations just before an update. That was why it was missing from my notes on Jennifer's Body. But now your placement balances the scales between a 1 and 1.25 score...I will probably end up flipping up a coin.

















> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/18393405
> 
> 
> I'm not writing a full review (again!) right now but I had to comment on *Casablanca*!
> 
> 
> Wow. I haven't seen this one in a handful of years but it is one of my all time favourite movies. I was able to pick up the collectors edition back in the summer when Amazon.ca had a great sale to get it for $22 or so. I finally popped it in last night, and while I agree with where it sits at tier 2.25 currently, it's one of those WOW lower tiers; I was really happy with how this movie looked on Blu.



WB usually treats their classic properties quite well on Blu-ray, it is everything else they handle shabbily. A funny coincidence, but I ordered it just last week. The Postal service has yet to deliver it though, so I am not sure when I will see it. It will be the first time I have watched it in over a decade.


----------



## Ozymandis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18392871
> 
> 
> I too have a slight preference for Sanjuro over Yojimbo. I have both of the Criterion DVD's.



Glad to hear I'm not the only one


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/18392149
> 
> 
> I blind bought Up so the first I'd seen it was on my home system. I was fully expecting to be blown away, but when push came to shove, wasn't. I think I was one of the very few here who didn't find it top 5 material. But, you know what opinions are worth.
> 
> 
> I'm not going to disagree with the idea that Astro Boy doesn't have one particular blow-you-away scene (or a few) like many other animated titles. Personally, I think Tale of Despereaux has better individual scenes, (not by much) but I wouldn't even consider Up to have that distinction. My favorite scene in that was when the balloons came up out of the roof, but it was a bit short lived to garner extra points from me.
> 
> 
> With a cold gloomy day like today, I may throw several back on and compare. Up, ABL, MI. Might even go shopping and pick up the Toy Storys today. I have to give AB another viewing before sending it back. Perhaps sitting a little closer for this one.



A second viewing of Astro Boy really works wonders. I'm not sure why I didn't appreciate it so much the first time, but this one really does sparkle. There are a number of "blow you away" scenes, and the previously mentioned walk through the grass and finding of ZOG is definitely one of those. I'm not quite sure why I didn't think so the first time, but as I went through and compared everything again like you plan to, the brilliance of AB really comes through. I really messed up my rankings in the last week, as AB is definitely better than the "above bolt" ranking I gave it, but I just didn't see it at first. Combined with over-ranking the first Toy Story, I had a bad few days







I will concede that AB is better than I ranked it, but I don't feel it necessary to change it as there are enough "top of 0" votes to land it in the top 5 where it belongs.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/18397561
> 
> 
> I will concede that AB is better than I ranked it, but I don't feel it necessary to change it as there are enough "top of 0" votes to land it in *t**he top 5 where it belongs*.



I still think it belongs _right under Coraline_, which would put it in the TOP 6.


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18398171
> 
> 
> I still think it belongs _right under Coraline_, which would put it in the TOP 6.



That's getting nit-picky lol...I pretty much consider everything above Monsters, Inc. to be about a tie, so it really doesn't matter that much to me. Saves me the headache of arguing why Up is better than Ratatouille but not better than Kung-Fu Panda, etc. It's all how you look at it!







I know that just being up there at the top means astounding PQ and that's good enough for me. I think we all agree to disagree about which one we think is *the* best, so if they're all "tied" in my mind I don't get upset about it.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/18398437
> 
> 
> That's getting nit-picky lol...I pretty much consider everything above Monsters, Inc. to be about a tie, so it really doesn't matter that much to me. Saves me the headache of arguing why Up is better than Ratatouille but not better than Kung-Fu Panda, etc. It's all how you look at it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know that just being up there at the top means astounding PQ and that's good enough for me. I think we all agree to disagree about which one we think is *the* best, so if they're all "tied" in my mind I don't get upset about it.



Exactly! We are basically "straining at a gnat" when we try to distinguish between titles in the top ten or so, but it is fun trying.


----------



## K-Spaz

Actually, a while back I asked what everyone thought of alphabetizing Tier 0 also, but nobody commented on it.







Fact is, if something is in Tier 0, it looks pretty darn good. Even if it's "on the bubble"!


And once again, if Alphabetized, we have: A Bugs Life... Astro Boy... Lol! Coincidence or planned?


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*peers into the open can of worms*


Tier 0 could always be split* into either halves (0, 0.5) or quarters (0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75) like the other tiers are.










Imagine our debates for a while as we re-sort Tier 0 into bits...


*edited to add, and then alphabetized, as the other tiers are


----------



## K-Spaz

And...

:G3 leaves for Walmart to find a suitable helmet for the rest of the discussion, followed closely by K-Spaz!:


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz* /forum/post/18399920
> 
> 
> And...
> 
> :G3 leaves for Walmart to find a suitable helmet for the rest of the discussion, followed closely by K-Spaz!:



Canadians are issued regulation hockey helmets & sticks yearly as part of our country's sports & recreation laws. I'm prepared.



Toothless. But prepared.


----------



## Hughmc

As Hugh washes his jersey and readies his equipment for tonight's game.










Speaking of a can of worms...

















I completely agree with Denny's review on The Blind Side. It is a stunning, solid tier 0 BD. In fact I think the Blind Side looks as good if not better than IRobot which I own and have re-watched this past week. Where I disagree with Denny (only because he made mention of nearby placement) and what could open a can of worms is part of why I have been silent for a week. I have been doing a lot of re-watching/re-reviewing of some titles. Transporter 3, IMO does not belong where it is, maybe lowest tier 0 or tier 1. I was a strong advocate of having it in tier 0, but not anymore. What is worse is Transporter 2. Wow, it really has no business at all in tier 0 IMO. While it exhibits some Tier 0 shots, they are the exception and most often the movie hovers around the Tier 1.5 range.


As far as the animated titles, I too bought and watched Toy Story 1 and 2. I would recommend them above IRobot. In fact I believe IRobot and even the Pirates titles are too high. IRobot while good, just doesn't seem like it should be where it is at and it wouldn't surprise me if many if not most of the other animated titles are above it. I haven't even seen Astroboy, but from the reviews of some it sounds implausible that IRobot could be above it after I watched it again. In fact, The Blind Side with no CGI looks as good if not better than IRobot. I don't think it means The BLind Side should be up where IRobot is, but IRobot and most likely the Pirates films need to be dropped down. From the top tier of animated titles I own and have recently re-watched Bolt, Up, A Bug's Life, Ratatouille, and Monster's Inc. I see Toy Story 1 and 2 just below Monster's Inc.


I was also a strong advocate for Bolt which I also own, but now having seen it on the big screen, I can see the softness and other issues some mentioned. I thought high tier 0 at the time, but now I see tier 1 as more appropriate.


"9" which I also own and watched last night seems to be far better than IRobot as well. Yes, far better. I was shocked how good it looks watching it for only the second time. I would easily recommend 9 for somewhere in the top ten or fifteen titles.

*BRoken Embraces:*

A film by Pedro Almodovar starring Penelope Cruz.


This is an excellent film and I found it to be very captivating.


The PQ is excellent most often hovering in tier 1 or even tier 0. BLack levels and shadow detail are excellent as are facial closeups and detail in general. Colors are deep and realistic.


I am glad I just went and revisited Lee Weber's review, because he makes mention of the subtitles:
** CIH users should note that the subtitles appear below the picture area **


While I don't mask off the bottom of my screen as I am used to it from my RPTV and really the bars become like background noise for me, the subtitles in the black bars bothered me, because that made the bars more noticeable. It sucks when they do that with the subtitles.


I do speak and understand quite a bit of SPanish, enough to know when subtitles are used if they are literal or not. Many times as is the case with a lot of translations used for subtitles the true word or meaning is not used, but the general idea is conveyed.







It bothers me a bit though hearing and knowing the differences.


THere is something for guys in Broken Embraces besides the drama and lack of action, well thinking about it there is something for anyone who likes Penelope Cruz.









There is a topless scene of her for probably 10-30 seconds, but it seemed longer in a good way.







It is solid Tier 0 material, twice.








*Recommendation: lowest tier 0 or tier 1*

*Ninja Assassin:*


Have we been fortunate as of late?? Yet another stunning title. Black levels are phenomenal as is facial detail and again detail in general. I did note some of the issues Gamereviewgod mentioned and as such I would recommend low tier 0 or tier 1.0.

*Recommendation: Lowest Tier 0 or TIer 1.*

*Brothers:*

Overall a good looking title that won't disappoint. PQ is good, with plenty of detail and excellent black levels and shadow detail. While the overall color palate seems a bit subdued, it seems realistic and natural.

*Recommendation: Tier 2.0*

*Hachi: A Dog's Story*:


This is an good looking title. A must see for dog owners and animal lovers. PQ is very good and filmed in 1:85:1. Colors are natural and vibrant. Detail is average to good as are black levels. Grain is light but apparent. There are some PQ issues, like some minor ringing and therefore:

*REcommendation: Tier 1.50*


I am seeing most titles as being more or less the same as when I watched them on my Sony 60in RPTV. WHat is interesting is some titles I thought should or would remain in tier 0 from my point of view aren't worthy, like IRobot, Transporter 3 or Bolt, and a few others that I felt looked lower seem higher and better than I previously thought, like "9". I guess what I am saying is I believe the projector is giving me a better overall idea of what the PQ is really like compared to my RPTV, not that I am consistently seeing better or worse PQ on some titles than I previously thought were one way or another, but IMO the big screen is revealing more and more accurately.


I am just thrilled that many recent releases have such good PQ mostly in the tier 1 and tier 0 range. Considering we were lacking for a while in consistency of getting some tier 1 and tier 0 titles, it seems the recent influx of titles is doing BD proud. Precious, Ninja Assassin, The Blind Side, Up in the Air and more are really a pleasure to view. I strongly urge a viewing of The Blind Side. I am a bit of a softy and it really got to me.














It wasn't just Sandra Bullock's acting, overall it is a good watch and then throw in tier 0 PQ!!


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/18401055
> 
> 
> I was also a strong advocate for Bolt which I also own, but now having seen it on the big screen, I can see the softness and other issues some mentioned. I thought high tier 0 at the time, but now I see tier 1 as more appropriate.



It is good to see you come around on Bolt. On the top releases, sometimes you really need a large display to differentiate their quality. Those with the 100" and up screens are very lucky, and have a certain advantage when making their evaluations for the thread.


On another note, some interesting postings I came across on color-grading in modern film, which can be found at the following link. The trend is definitely disconcerting...that hurts the typical picture quality seen on many new Blu-rays. Hollywood needs to stop with the unnatural coloring.

http://theabyssgazes.blogspot.com/20...ease-stop.html


----------



## djoberg

*Toy Story 1*


In view of the fact that this title has been discussed many times already, I'm going to keep this short. I certainly agree with all my colleagues that this is one impressive transfer considering its age (1995). IMHO it has two outstanding virtues: COLORS and DEPTH! Colors were beautiful and vibrant, and the depth is incredible (I was truly WOWED by it in most scenes).


What it lacked was DETAIL. There were some outdoor shots with details of grass, streets, etc., but most of the indoor shots fell short of most of the top animated titles in this department. For this it must be penalized, yet due to the amazing depth and brilliant colors it still deserves a spot with other top contenders. I'm inclined to put it right here....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (under Monsters Vs. Aliens)*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite BDP-05....Viewed from 8'


PS I do feel sorry for Phantom when he tries to find an exact placement for this, for all the placement recommendations differ.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^


Hugh,


Glad to see you were impressed with the PQ of _The Blind Side_. I'm surprised no one else has reviewed it. I would sure encourage others to either rent or buy it and be prepared to be amazed!


You may be right about it being better than _I, Robot_; I need to check that title out again sometime, along with _Transporter 3_ that you referred to. I know I have changed my mind before after revisiting movies that I haven't seen in quite awhile and I may very well agree with you concerning both of these.


Denny

PS I'm a sucker for "feel good" movies too, so I really liked the _The Blind Side_.


----------



## spongebob




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18401137
> 
> 
> It is good to see you come around on Bolt. On the top releases, sometimes you really need a large display to differentiate their quality. Those with the 100" and up screens are very lucky, and have a certain advantage when making their evaluations for the thread.
> 
> 
> On another note, some interesting postings I came across on color-grading in modern film, which can be found at the following link. The trend is definitely disconcerting...that hurts the typical picture quality seen on many new Blu-rays. Hollywood needs to stop with the unnatural coloring.
> 
> http://theabyssgazes.blogspot.com/20...ease-stop.html



Thanks... Very disconcerting. Hancock, Transformers, etc. i can't believe these movies even get a rating with the horrible color they apply these days!



bob


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18401293
> 
> 
> ^^^^^^
> 
> 
> Hugh,
> 
> 
> Glad to see you were impressed with the PQ of _The Blind Side_. I'm surprised no one else has reviewed it. I would sure encourage others to either rent or buy it and be prepared to be amazed!
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> Denny
> 
> PS I'm a sucker for "feel good" movies too, so I really liked the _The Blind Side_.



Regarding _Blind Side_, this is one of those movies that Netflix holds back a month per its agreement with the issuing studio.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/18401677
> 
> 
> Regarding _Blind Side_, this is one of those movies that Netflix holds back a month per its agreement with the issuing studio.



That's a bummer! Any chance of renting it at a local video store?


----------



## vpn75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18401293
> 
> 
> ^^^^^^
> 
> 
> Hugh,
> 
> 
> Glad to see you were impressed with the PQ of _The Blind Side_. I'm surprised no one else has reviewed it. I would sure encourage others to either rent or buy it and be prepared to be amazed!
> 
> 
> You may be right about it being better than _I, Robot_; I need to check that title out again sometime, along with _Transporter 3_ that you referred to. I know I have changed my mind before after revisiting movies that I haven't seen in quite awhile and I may very well agree with you concerning both of these.
> 
> 
> Denny
> 
> PS I'm a sucker for "feel good" movies too, so I really liked the _The Blind Side_.



I agree that *The Blind Side* has marvelous PQ! I really wasn't expecting this one to look so good, though I had read several positive reviews prior to viewing but it still managed to exceed my expectations!


I'm also surprised not to see more reviews of *Fantastic Mr. Fox* which I felt was another amazing looking title worthy of Tier 0 placement.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vpn75* /forum/post/18403767
> 
> *I'm also surprised not to see more reviews of Fantastic Mr. Fox* which I felt was another amazing looking title worthy of Tier 0 placement.



They will come...in time!







I still have _Toy Story 2_ to watch and I just got back from the local video store where I rented _Sherlock Holmes_. Perhaps after those two, I'll rent _Fantastic Mr. Fox_. So many Blus....so little time!


----------



## deltasun

I was just about to comment on the number of Tier 0/1 titles of late. Exciting times!


The wife made me purchase _The Blind Side_ and so I'll be viewing that soon. Probably the most I've ever spent on a single BR!










I'm also in the middle of _Ninja Assassin_ and am seeing tier 0 characteristics there so far as well. I should have _Collateral_ and _Where the Wild Things Are_ from Netflix tonight as well.


Hugh: good thoughts in your post. And yes, I can see your points in re-reviewing some of those titles in Tier 0.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Sherlock Holmes*


Certainly way more detail than a typical Warner VC-1 encode, but still some noticeable artifacting/digital grain and processed faces. A bit of ringing too, but not that bad. Colors are very muted (eliminating the possibility of "pop"), and the film is quite dark, with black levels sometimes appearing gray, although this is rare. A digital look to a few shots as they were shot with the Phantom HD, and some diffused lighting as well.

*Tier 1.75*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Planet of the Apes (1968)*


For the most part, this one can look jaw dropping, especially the sparse mountain/desert environments at the start. The photography really shines. Colors are generally flat, and blacks meager. Grain is handled well, but eliminated in a number of select scenes, leaving it looking like a watercolor and waxy. Hair on the ape appliances is defined and clear.

*Tier 2.5*


----------



## jedimasterchad

The Blind Side is available at Blockbuster, but not redbox/netflix. The guy at BB made clear to me that they were the only place it could be rented, which, really I could care less about their corporate deals, but since it's been mentioned, thought I would pass it along. Of course, it's been out of stock all week and I have yet to get a copy for review. Might grab it today if it's there, but I'm leaning towards Sherlock Holmes as that would be a more interesting title to me. (And as far as feel good movies go, nothing will ever top Rudy. Ever.)


As far as revisiting current tier 0 titles, I'm all for it, because none of us have a life outside of this thread, right? Actually, I base my rental decisions on which reviews would be beneficial to the thread, if it's been reviewed to death or not, etc. But seriously. I still have not seen every one listed, but most of the ones I come across so far deserve their spot. I do have I, Robot but I never looked up the reviews. To be honest, I was quite a bit curious as to how it ended up so high originally, but I never questioned it as I usually trust and agree with the other reviewers here (or, for that matter, at least the consensus agreements that we all arrive at). I have Transporter 2 I got at Target for real cheap but haven't had time to watch it yet, I'll have to give it a look, and I haven't seen Transporter 3 since I got my tv so I'd have to go watch that again. But I'm sure I'll end up like Hugh, and have a projector one day that makes me see all the flaws I'm missing right now at 54". Who knows.


G3, do they really issue hockey gear? That's awesome.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/18405563
> 
> 
> 
> G3, do they really issue hockey gear? That's awesome.



hehe no, I was just being a smartass.


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/18406138
> 
> 
> hehe no, I was just being a smartass.



Darn, that would have been incentive to move up there!


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18405212
> 
> *Sherlock Holmes*
> 
> 
> Certainly way more detail than a typical Warner VC-1 encode, but still some noticeable artifacting/digital grain and processed faces. A bit of ringing too, but not that bad. Colors are very muted (eliminating the possibility of "pop"), and the film is quite dark, with black levels sometimes appearing gray, although this is rare. A digital look to a few shots as they were shot with the Phantom HD, and some diffused lighting as well.
> 
> *Tier 1.75*




I watched this last nite as well and concur. I noticed some black crush, but overall the detail was good, sometimes very good, tier 0. Mostly with the muted and limited color palate trying to represent the time period, there isn't a lot of color or pop. I am inclined to go just a tad higher...

*Recommendation: Tier 1.5*


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18401137
> 
> 
> It is good to see you come around on Bolt. On the top releases, sometimes you really need a large display to differentiate their quality. Those with the 100" and up screens are very lucky, and have a certain advantage when making their evaluations for the thread.
> 
> 
> On another note, some interesting postings I came across on color-grading in modern film, which can be found at the following link. The trend is definitely disconcerting...that hurts the typical picture quality seen on many new Blu-rays. Hollywood needs to stop with the unnatural coloring.
> 
> http://theabyssgazes.blogspot.com/20...ease-stop.html



This bothers me as well. A couple of recent movies like The Proposal and The Perfect Getaway have the overall orange/goldish tone to it making the actors skin tones appear bronze/gold.


I know it is considered artist's intent, but who is authorizing color like the examples in the link you provided. The Director? Producer?


I too believe it lessens PQ and in fact I think A Perfect Getaway is a good example had the coloring not been used it probably would have looked better overall and more detailed, hence a better PQ for this threads purposes and our enjoyment.


----------



## spongebob




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/18406963
> 
> 
> This bothers me as well. A couple of recent movies like The Proposal and The Perfect Getaway have the overall orange/goldish tone to it making the actors skin tones appear bronze/gold.
> 
> 
> I know it is considered artist's intent, but who is authorizing color like the examples in the link you provided. The Director? Producer?
> 
> 
> I too believe it lessens PQ and in fact I think A Perfect Getaway is a good example had the coloring not been used it probably would have looked better overall and more detailed, hence a better PQ for this threads purposes and our enjoyment.



So, do you guys take that into account when rating PQ? I was surprised at the rating of Hancock as it is one of the worst orange skin offenders.



bob


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spongebob* /forum/post/18407092
> 
> 
> So, do you guys take that into account when rating PQ? I was surprised at the rating of Hancock as it is one of the worst orange skin offenders.
> 
> 
> 
> bob



I can only speak for myself...when I see a title with a dominating blue hue (as in _The Matrix_) or golden hue (as in _Transformers_), I will penalize it if it affects detail, depth, contrast, black levels, etc. Many times, believe it or not, it DOESN'T affect these. But if the off-color is really pervasive, it's bound to affect flesh tones (as was the case in _Hancock_) and this is one of the criteria that we consider for placement. Add to this the obvious distraction it is to the whole viewing experience and it can't help but be a contributing factor when you are trying to determine a recommended placement.


Having said that, I recall a discussion where we were talking about B&W films and whether or not they could find themselves in one of the two top demo tiers with them being void of color (this alone may cause some members to put them in tier 2 or below, thinking they're not worthy of being demo material). But we must remember that two of the strongest virtues stated in the criteria for placement are DETAIL and DEPTH, and a B&W transfer may still be very strong in these categories.


I do lament the fact that there seems to a tendency with film makers to introduce an off-color hue, especially if it dominates much of the film. I appreciate a natural-looking film which increases the sense of realism.


----------



## jedimasterchad

*The Blind Side*


I think this movie has been talked about quite a bit on here already, but just wanted to chime in as I finally had a copy to review. This is one of the best overall presentations I have seen in a long time, especially for a live-action movie. Facial details were through the roof here, and the aspect ratio had me searching all over the screen for excellent detail in areas that were not meant to be the focus of the frame, and I often found it. When the cinematographer used depth of field to put the main focal point into sharper focus, it really shined here. I can imagine that blowing this one up onto a huge screen would not reveal any negative aspects of the image, because it is so sharp and clear.


I did not notice any alteration of the source, although I think someone had mentioned before about Sandra Bullock looking flat and waxy, which I would have to agree with. She was the only one who appeared that way, however. Colors were rich and vibrant when available, although some scenes led to a more muted look. Shadow detail was evident but not a strong point of this type of film. For the most part, shadows appeared out of focus just enough to eliminate any fine detail, but I believe that was a choice of the director. This was really a pristine presentation throughout, and one that I believe earns at least a solid 1.0, although a case can be made for tier 0 due to the abundance of excellent facial detail shots and overall detail throughout the film. It was one of those times when you spent more time trying to find a flaw than anything positive, which to me is another indicator of a great looking film. We've been on a roll with some gems lately, and add this one to the list.

*Tier Recommendation: Low Tier 0*


And really not a bad movie at all. I didn't see it in theaters, and was pleased to discover it wasn't a movie that tried to make you cry, but rather present a fascinating true story in a wonderful way. Although, as I said before, not even close to the level of "feel-goodness" as Rudy.










As always...viewed from a PS3 via HDMI to Pioneer VSX-1019 to a Panasonic TC-P54G10 plasma @1080p/24.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spongebob* /forum/post/18407092
> 
> 
> So, do you guys take that into account when rating PQ? I was surprised at the rating of Hancock as it is one of the worst orange skin offenders.
> 
> 
> 
> bob




Good question. The answer for me is yes and no.







I take into account the overall and specific look of a BD. Generally, I don't ding a title for Director's intent, nor do I praise it. I am not attacking or going to qualify how a film "should look", as I have no business or right doing it, but I am qualifying how it does look for the PQ tier thread purposes. I am concerned about the end look of a BD and rating that and not how or why it has the look it does. If a BD has that orange glow or blue steel look to it, I don't criticize the director for the look, but I would criticize the look itself if it distracted or took away from the PQ or praise it if it added to it from my point of view.


Rob Tomlin likes and can comment about this title, Let The RIght One In, and this topic as he is interested in photography and has knowledge about director's and visual intent and I defer to him. If I recall correctly, it had that steely blue look to it, but it lent positively in helping to convey the mood and feeling of the movie. As far as how it impacted our reviews of it, I would have to refer back to them to accurately recall. The problem is I did try to do a search for that title and it came up empty.







The search engine has issues.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18407698
> 
> 
> I can only speak for myself...when I see a title with a dominating blue hue (as in _The Matrix_) or golden hue (as in _Transformers_), I will penalize it if it affects detail, depth, contrast, black levels, etc. Many times, believe it or not, it DOESN'T affect these. But if the off-color is really pervasive, it's bound to affect flesh tones (as was the case in _Hancock_) and this is one of the criteria that we consider for placement. Add to this the obvious distraction it is to the whole viewing experience and it can't help but be a contributing factor when you are trying to determine a recommended placement.
> 
> 
> Having said that, I recall a discussion where we were talking about B&W films and whether or not they could find themselves in one of the two top demo tiers with them being void of color (this alone may cause some members to put them in tier 2 or below, thinking they're not worthy of being demo material). But we must remember that two of the strongest virtues stated in the criteria for placement are DETAIL and DEPTH, and a B&W transfer may still be very strong in these categories.
> 
> 
> I do lament the fact that there seems to a tendency with film makers to introduce an off-color hue, especially if it dominates much of the film. *I appreciate a natural-looking film which increases the sense of realism*.



Well said Denny and I particularly agree with your last sentence.


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18407698
> 
> 
> I do lament the fact that there seems to a tendency with film makers to introduce an off-color hue, especially if it dominates much of the film. I appreciate a natural-looking film which increases the sense of realism.



When it invades the film so deeply as to pump everyone's skin to a glowing Jersey Shore orange hue and all of the film backgrounds to a metallic teal haze, then it arguably has gone too far. The theory of complementary colors is not exactly new though. Once you start looking, you can find teal-orange combinations *everywhere* - in sets, props, background, costumes, etc. from the dawn of color film.


I would say that there is a difference between this and this , however, in terms of subtlety.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Well said regarding Let The Right One In Hugh. It definitely had a "steely blue" look to it. People will defer on whether they like this type of look, but in my opinion, it *added* to the look of the film, and was very appropriate given the subject matter.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/18407861
> 
> 
> When it invades the film so deeply as to pump everyone's skin to a glowing Jersey Shore orange hue and all of the film backgrounds to a metallic teal haze, then it arguably has gone too far. The theory of complementary colors is not exactly new though. Once you start looking, you can find teal-orange combinations *everywhere* - in sets, props, background, costumes, etc. from the dawn of color film.
> 
> 
> I would say that there is a difference between this and this , however, in terms of subtlety.



Werd.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18404702
> 
> 
> I was just about to comment on the number of Tier 0/1 titles of late. Exciting times!
> 
> 
> The wife made me purchase _The Blind Side_ and so I'll be viewing that soon. Probably the most I've ever spent on a single BR!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm also in the middle of _Ninja Assassin_ and am seeing tier 0 characteristics there so far as well. I should have _Collateral_ and _Where the Wild Things Are_ from Netflix tonight as well.
> 
> 
> Hugh: good thoughts in your post. And yes, I can see your points in re-reviewing some of those titles in Tier 0.



Re: The Blind Side, at least you got some quality in that over priced piece of plastic.










Please let us know how Collateral is. I was thinking of grabbing it last night. I like the look and feel of that film as it seems realistic and gritty. I think WalMart had that in a two for one deal for 20.00 the studios put out, IIRC with Heat (damn it I bought Heat just a few months back for 20.00)







, like I picked up Dirty Harry and Magnum FOrce last night in one case for 19.99.







A good deal I think. They even have older release and craptastic title BD's there now for 8.00.


----------



## deltasun

I agree with the general feelings so far. I rate director's intent, in general, in context of the scenes. As in Hugh's example of _Let the Right One In_, it actually complemented the story and did not detract. So, I don't think it's an automatic deduction but has to still adhere to our PQ thread rules. I think the degree to which it detracts or follows the thread rules is the gray area (no pun intended) that comes from individual subjectivity.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18407959
> 
> 
> I agree with the general feelings so far. I rate director's intent, in general, in context of the scenes. As in Hugh's example of _Let the Right One In_, it actually complemented the story and did not detract. So, I don't think it's an automatic deduction but has to still adhere to our PQ thread rules. I think the degree to which it detracts or follows the thread rules is the gray area (no pun intended) that comes from individual subjectivity.



I think you nailed it here.


I always discuss color in my reviews (unless it is B&W obviously), and indicate whether I think the colors appear natural. If they are not natural, I usually try to state whether the colors (either over or under saturated) are appropriate to the movie, or are distracting. If they are distracting, to what degree?


----------



## djoberg

*Sherlock Holmes*


The sandman is calling, so I will make this short. I was very *unimpressed* with the first several scenes which had too much grain and murky blacks. But after about 15-20 minutes it became quite sharp and extremely detailed. So, even though the colors were muted throughout the film (as others have noted), it did NOT hinder detail. Nor did it affect the depth, which was definitely topnotch. Perhaps the most impressive virtue though was facial details....close-ups and even some mid-range shots revealed texture that easily qualifies as EYE CANDY.


I'm going along with Hugh on this one.....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite BDP-05....Viewed from 8'


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/18407861
> 
> 
> When it invades the film so deeply as to pump everyone's skin to a glowing Jersey Shore orange hue and all of the film backgrounds to a metallic teal haze, then it arguably has gone too far. The theory of complementary colors is not exactly new though. Once you start looking, you can find teal-orange combinations *everywhere* - in sets, props, background, costumes, etc. from the dawn of color film.
> 
> 
> I would say that there is a difference between this and this , however, in terms of subtlety.



First of all, I don't think there are too many films where the color scheme is so pervasive as to have gone too far. We can be thankful for that (though again, there seems to somewhat of a tendency towards that).


Secondly, there is definitely a difference between the two!


----------



## spongebob




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18410080
> 
> 
> First of all, I don't think there are too many films where the color scheme is so pervasive as to have gone too far. We can be thankful for that (though again, there seems to somewhat of a tendency towards that).
> 
> 
> Secondly, there is definitely a difference between the two!



What would be a few that you feel do go too far?



bob


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spongebob* /forum/post/18410112
> 
> 
> What would be a few that you feel do go too far?
> 
> 
> 
> bob


_Transformers 1 & 2_ come to mind instantly. The heavily saturated colors (resulting in orange skin tones throughout) and overblown contrast on top of that did NOT appeal to me at all; they were a DISTRACTION. They simply went too far, IMO.


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spongebob* /forum/post/18410112
> 
> 
> What would be a few that you feel do go too far?



A Clockwork Orange

All the Next Gen Star Treks

The Reader

Wings of Desire

Jumper

Fact is, Transformers II... let the flames begin. //Edit. great minds...

The Underworlds, too blue, though I love em.


----------



## babrown92

Do The Right Thing is a great example of what happens to a movie when they get rid of the original color temperature. Still pissed about that one.


----------



## EatingPie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18408470
> 
> *Sherlock Holmes*
> 
> 
> The sandman is calling, so I will make this short. I was very *unimpressed* with the first several scenes which had too much grain and murky blacks.



I'm somewhat surprised by this. For example, during the opening "ceremony" scene, Lord Blackwood is wearing a black robe with dark purple under sleeves. This comes out quite beautifully, and something I would think crushed or murky blacks would mask. It may be my eyes, but I felt I could tell the fabric of his differing wardrobe, from the black "velvet" robes to his black leather jacket. Again, detail that crushed blacks would kill.


I absolutely agree on the muted colors (I think I noted that initially). I would still recommend this for higher than Tier 1.5, but I am not as experienced in this thread. I also see that _Terminator: Salvation,_ which had great PQ, but its own muted pallette, resides at 1.5 as well.


-Pie


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *EatingPie* /forum/post/18411962
> 
> 
> I'm somewhat surprised by this. For example, during the opening "ceremony" scene, Lord Blackwood is wearing a black robe with dark purple under sleeves. This comes out quite beautifully, and something I would think crushed or murky blacks would mask. It may be my eyes, but I felt I could tell the fabric of his differing wardrobe, from the black "velvet" robes to his black leather jacket. Again, detail that crushed blacks would kill.
> 
> 
> I absolutely agree on the muted colors (I think I noted that initially). I would still recommend this for higher than Tier 1.5, but I am not as experienced in this thread. I also see that _Terminator: Salvation,_ which had great PQ, but its own muted pallette, resides at 1.5 as well.
> 
> 
> -Pie



Terminator suffered from a weird color hue and inconsistent blacks, but detail and depth were pretty outstanding. Can't remember exactly what I rated this one but it did have a lot of very strong points to go with the blown-out desert look.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *EatingPie* /forum/post/18411962
> 
> 
> I'm somewhat surprised by this. For example, during the opening "ceremony" scene, Lord Blackwood is wearing a black robe with dark purple under sleeves. This comes out quite beautifully, and something I would think crushed or murky blacks would mask. It may be my eyes, but I felt I could tell the fabric of his differing wardrobe, from the black "velvet" robes to his black leather jacket. Again, detail that crushed blacks would kill.-Pie



I would have to view it again to see what you're referring to. I was speaking in general about the murky blacks in the initial 15-20 minutes (I vividly remember the opening nighttime chase scene through the streets and indoors and most of that looked pretty bad on my KURO), but there might have been some shots with good blacks and shadow details that I missed.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel*


Yes, I suffered through this thing, but damn was it worth it for the eye candy. Razor sharp, brilliantly saturated colors, tons of detail and texture, a bright contrast, deep, inky blacks, accurate flesh tones, no artifacts, and a mild film grain. A bit of noise can be evident on the Chipmunk's shirts, minimal at the worst, and about the only complaint I can find. Even my super picky eye for facial textures was impressed, and they were consistently spectacular. Similar looking to the original, only with a slightly better calibrated contrast and blacks.

*Tier 0.75*


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18413904
> 
> *Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel*
> 
> 
> Yes, I suffered through this thing, but damn was it worth it for the eye candy. Razor sharp, brilliantly saturated colors, tons of detail and texture, a bright contrast, deep, inky blacks, accurate flesh tones, no artifacts, and a mild film grain. A bit of noise can be evident on the Chipmunk's shirts, minimal at the worst, and about the only complaint I can find. Even my super picky eye for facial textures was impressed, and they were consistently spectacular. Similar looking to the original, only with a slightly better calibrated contrast and blacks.
> 
> *Tier 0.75*



The first one looked amazing too. I think I may have recommended Tier 0 for that one if memory serves...


----------



## Earz

The Descent should be in tier 1 as it is nearly perfect transfer with the best upgrade from dvd I have yet seen on Blu Ray.


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Earz* /forum/post/18423636
> 
> 
> The Descent should be in tier 1 as it is nearly perfect transfer with the best upgrade from dvd I have yet seen on Blu Ray.



Maybe, but I wouldn't watch it again to check. Terrible movie, IMO.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18408470
> 
> *Sherlock Holmes*
> 
> 
> The sandman is calling, so I will make this short. I was very *unimpressed* with the first several scenes which had too much grain and murky blacks. But after about 15-20 minutes it became quite sharp and extremely detailed. So, even though the colors were muted throughout the film (as others have noted), it did NOT hinder detail. Nor did it affect the depth, which was definitely topnotch. Perhaps the most impressive virtue though was facial details....close-ups and even some mid-range shots revealed texture that easily qualifies as EYE CANDY.
> 
> 
> I'm going along with Hugh on this one.....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.5*
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite BDP-05....Viewed from 8'



I found the first few scenes so disappointing in terms of PQ that I shut it off in disgust. I don't understand how all of you are giving this such high marks. Based on the portion I watched, I don't see how it gets above about 2.5.


----------



## patrick99

After my very bad experience with SH, I watched about an hour of *Perfect* *Getaway*. I see that this is currently in Tier 1.75. I recall that many comments noted the colors as being off. To me, what was most noticeably bad about the PQ on this was the wide landscape shots, which I thought looked truly horrendous because of the color distortion. Facial close-ups looked pretty good, but the horrendous landscape shots to me would put this below 1.75. Maybe 2.25.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Motherhood*


Ouch. Worst Blu-ray I have watched this year across the board. This is an ugly film, with no black levels (gray only), flat, lifeless color, tons of diffused, blotchy lighting, heavy artifacting, and the whole thing is stupidly soft. Environments are devoid of detail, and faces appear a bit processed. Oh, and it's all in 1080i for reasons I don't quite understand.

*Tier 4.25*


---------
*Alvin and the Chipmunks*


A stunner to say the least. Aside from softness/detail drops in a few very brief scenes and a bit of crush, this is basically perfect. Colors are beautifully saturated. Detail is awesome, revealing every CG fur on the Chipmunks faces. The plants outside Dave's house are immensely detailed. Amazing texture on objects inside and outside the home.

*Tier 1.0*


----------



## Earz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/18425690
> 
> 
> Maybe, but I wouldn't watch it again to check. Terrible movie, IMO.



No maybe to it as it looks almost perfect even when projected on a 110" screen....and IMO...its a great movie. Are we judging P/Q ratings now on whether you happen to like the movie?


This tier thread is useless if thats the case.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Earz* /forum/post/18426806
> 
> 
> No maybe to it as it looks almost perfect even when projected on a 110" screen....and IMO...its a great movie. Are we judging P/Q ratings now on whether you happen to like the movie?
> 
> 
> This tier thread is useless if thats the case.



Keep in mind there are 2 versions, an MPEG-2 and AVC. I've only seen the MPEG-2 transfer and it is a digital mess. Maybe the AVC encode is better.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/18425973
> 
> 
> I found the first few scenes so disappointing in terms of PQ that I shut it off in disgust. I don't understand how all of you are giving this such high marks. Based on the portion I watched, I don't see how it gets above about 2.5.



LOL


You really turned it off after "the first few scenes"?!


And you are making a PQ ranking determination based on those "first few scenes"?


Come on Patrick....


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Earz* /forum/post/18423636
> 
> 
> The Descent should be in tier 1 as it is nearly perfect transfer with the best upgrade from dvd I have yet seen on Blu Ray.



You might find this older thread on the forum very illuminating...

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...hlight=descent 


Even discounting the multiple domestic releases, there are a couple different transfers available overseas for The Descent. Are you saying it should be placed generally somewhere in tier one, or at the top near tier 1.0? I am just trying to pin down your recommendation a little tighter.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Earz* /forum/post/18426806
> 
> 
> No maybe to it as it looks almost perfect even when projected on a 110" screen....



Really? You didn't notice the numerous issues in the dark scenes (lots of noise)?


----------



## Earz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18427084
> 
> 
> Really? You didn't notice the numerous issues in the dark scenes (lots of noise)?



Zero noise....unless you are talking about the dust in the air from select scenes from the cave. Maybe this is a display created problem. I did notice a tint added to the limited daylight outdoor scenes but thats a directors intent thing. Maybe if I watch this again on my new 3 LCD pj there will be LCD added noise....but none on DLP.


----------



## Earz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18426935
> 
> 
> Keep in mind there are 2 versions, an MPEG-2 and AVC. I've only seen the MPEG-2 transfer and it is a digital mess. Maybe the AVC encode is better.



Here is a reveiw I agree with 100% and the original is AVC http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/463/descent.html 

As far as peoples taste , I did not care for the politics of Avatar , nor the story , but that has nothing to do wIth P/Q ratings.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18426941
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> 
> You really turned it off after "the first few scenes"?!
> 
> 
> And you are making a PQ ranking determination based on those "first few scenes"?
> 
> 
> Come on Patrick....



Are you telling me the PQ gets significantly better later on, Rob?


"LOL"? How about "Wow!" or "ROFLMAO"?


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/18427751
> 
> 
> Are you telling me the PQ gets significantly better later on, Rob?
> 
> 
> "LOL"? How about "Wow!" or "ROFLMAO"?




Never judge a movie based on snippets. Worse thing you can do. If I gauged Planet of the Apes '68 on the first 20 minutes, it's easily in tier 1. Later on, that dropped significantly due to a variety of issues.


A few people here had issues with Holmes' opening scene. Later on, the blacks carry a natural quality, and the detail really picks up. It never looks eye popping, but it does impress a bit.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/18427751
> 
> 
> Are you telling me the PQ gets significantly better later on, Rob?
> 
> 
> "LOL"? How about "Wow!" or "ROFLMAO"?



I think LOL covered it.


I just hope that the moderators don't take your opinion into consideration given the fact that it is based on "the first few scenes".


Oh, and I haven't even seen it yet. But I have seen more than enough BD's that had PQ that varied greatly enough from "the first few scenes" to know a lot better than to judge the entirety of disc based on the first few minutes.


Are you saying that doesn't happen?


----------



## Rob Tomlin

You know, the more I think about it, perhaps you are on to something.


I think that we should all do what you do. Just plop in the disc, watch "the first few scenes", then post our Tier Recommendation here based on that.


This will let us all review MANY more discs, and will thereby improve this thread greatly!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/18425973
> 
> 
> I found the first few scenes so disappointing in terms of PQ that I shut it off in disgust. I don't understand how all of you are giving this such high marks. Based on the portion I watched, I don't see how it gets above about 2.5.



I thought I should add my voice to others patrick, especially since your post was initially to me. What surprises me more than anything about your response is not that you turned it off so quickly (for I think it's safe to say you do that from time to time







), but that you didn't take my whole review into consideration. My review specifically stated that the PQ got a whole lot better AFTER the first 15-20 minutes. Couldn't you exercise a little patience and sit through the first 30 minutes; I believe you would have been pleased (or maybe not







)?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Edge Of Love


recommendation: Tier 1.75
*

A mixture of film and digital video, parts of the movie look nice enough to easily rank at the upper limits of tier one. The 2007 British selection uses the same digital camera, the Panavision Genesis, that was employed for _Apocalypto_. The image is not quite on par with that Blu-ray in its best moments, but exudes as much depth and dynamic lighting as any drama I have watched in recent memory.


The director has an intentional tonality shift to the color palette for the first half of the movie, which has to lower the final placement a fair amount. Anyone that stopped watching the film at the halfway point would definitely question my final placement. The first half calls to mind a monochromatic tint that nearly resembles black-and-white photography at times, obviously hoping to set a certain mood and period. Struck from a pristine Digital Intermediate, drastic changes in color and certain filters are used throughout, which does lower the overall impression of the picture quality from where the source elements likely looked before post-production.


High-frequency information is absolutely incredible in close-ups, with the singular exception of Vera, the character played by Keira Knightley. Almost all of her close-ups evoke the glamorous lighting and filming afforded Hollywood stars in films of the 1940's. The difference can be quite jarring as the focus changes between her and one of the co-stars like Sienna Miller, whose every feature and pore is laid out in exquisite detail and resolution. Vera's face is lit with what resembles a Pro-Mist filter, her features are so soft and smooth. A trace of edge enhancement is added to the picture, but it is so slight that almost no one will catch it.


The BBC film was brought to Blu-ray by Image Entertainment on a BD-25. BDInfo gives the AVC-encode at an average video bitrate of 17.99 Mbps. Compression parameters look tailored to the limitations of HD DVD, which does create some artifacts in a couple of shots. The clean appearance of the master with very little noise for a video production, and the lack of fast motion, help prevent the low-bitrate encode from making any serious missteps.


Currently ranked in the middle of tier two, _The Edge Of Love_ just looks too good for a majority of its length to be ranked that low. It easily possesses the most sharpness and definition of any film in that tier. The dimensionality of interior scenes look like they were taken from the latest film by Michael Bay. Other than the intentional changes to the digitally-graded palette, the only other complaint is the relatively poor use of green screens in a handful of short scenes. They stick out so much and look so unnatural, that I am surprised they were not dropped or re-shot.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18428701
> 
> 
> I thought I should add my voice to others patrick, especially since your post was initially to me. What surprises me more than anything about your response is not that you turned it off so quickly (for I think it's safe to say you do that from time to time
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ), but that you didn't take my whole review into consideration. My review specifically stated that the PQ got a whole lot better AFTER the first 15-20 minutes. Couldn't you exercise a little patience and sit through the first 30 minutes; I believe you would have been pleased (or maybe not
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )?



Thanks for the measured and polite response, Denny. Definitely a contrast to the first response my post received.


I wasn't reading your earlier post at the time I shut it off, so my shutting it off didn't ignore your comment. But you're right, my post should have acknowledged that aspect of your comment, where you noted that you thought that the PQ improved after the first few scenes.


In any event, I have now watched *Sherlock Holmes* all the way through, and while there may have been a very slight improvement in PQ after the first few scenes, I will stick with my earlier evaluation of *Tier 2.5.* My complaint is that there was a general pervasive softness accompanied by compression noise. I do think Warner has moved a bit in the right direction. This is not the same softness we saw in things like Batman Begins, where there seemed to have been a filtering applied at an earlier stage than the compression process, resulting in the characteristic "smoothie" Warner look. I would say now (at least in the case of SH) the problems are all occurring at the compression stage. An increase in the bitrate allowed would, I believe, solve the current problem. I also noticed that with this title at least Warner has abandoned the irritating practice of going directly to playing the movie, with no menu.


I see that some of the posters in the SH thread seem to have the same opinion I do, such as posts number 42 and 43.


Based on further perusal of the SH thread, it appears that the compression on this disc was determined by Warner's desire that the movie itself, with no extras, would fit on a single layer disc for the rental version.


----------



## Beta Tester




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18426660
> 
> *Motherhood*
> 
> 
> Ouch. Worst Blu-ray I have watched this year across the board. This is an ugly film, with no black levels (gray only), flat, lifeless color, tons of diffused, blotchy lighting, heavy artifacting, and the whole thing is stupidly soft. Environments are devoid of detail, and faces appear a bit processed. Oh, and it's all in 1080i for reasons I don't quite understand.
> 
> *Tier 4.25*



Usually a terrible movie is accompanied by excellent PQ/AQ. This is certainly an unwelcome change


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Earz* /forum/post/18426806
> 
> 
> No maybe to it as it looks almost perfect even when projected on a 110" screen....and IMO...its a great movie. Are we judging P/Q ratings now on whether you happen to like the movie?
> 
> 
> This tier thread is useless if thats the case.



Whether or not you like the movie has nothing to do with the PQ/AQ in an objective-based review like we do here. I was saying that I wouldn't want to watch it again and do a review on that particular movie. I watched it a long time ago on dvd and didn't like it, so I feel no need to rent the blu and do a formal review here, because there are many other titles I'd rather watch and review instead. If you read through the reviews, you'll notice many bad movies have some pretty good PQ (like The Proposal, for instance). The Descent was really not my cup of tea, so I don't want to watch it again to see just how great the BD quality is. The great thing about this thread is that you can join in and review it yourself if you think the PQ is better/worse than where it currently sits on the list, and your opinion will be heard.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/18430192
> 
> 
> In any event, I have now watched *Sherlock Holmes* all the way through, and while there may have been a very slight improvement in PQ after the first few scenes, I will stick with my earlier evaluation of *Tier 2.5.* My complaint is that there was a general pervasive softness accompanied by compression noise. I do think Warner has moved a bit in the right direction. This is not the same softness we saw in things like Batman Begins, where there seemed to have been a filtering applied at an earlier stage than the compression process, resulting in the characteristic "smoothie" Warner look. I would say now (at least in the case of SH) the problems are all occurring at the compression stage. An increase in the bitrate allowed would, I believe, solve the current problem. I also noticed that with this title at least Warner has abandoned the irritating practice of going directly to playing the movie, with no menu.
> 
> 
> Based on further perusal of the SH thread, it appears that the compression on this disc was determined by Warner's desire that the movie itself, with no extras, *would fit on a single layer disc for the rental version*.



Having not yet seen Sherlock Holmes, I will not comment on the BD itself. But I am in agreement with your general points. Warner Bros. continues to use woefully out-of-date encoding tools in comparison to the other studios. The bolded part is particularly salient. The marginal cost-savings per unit for pressing a BD-25 appears to be pushing many disparate studios in that direction, which is troubling this far into Blu-ray's lifespan.


Happy Easter to everyone reading the thread.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/18430192
> 
> 
> Thanks for the measured and polite response, Denny. Definitely a contrast to the first response my post received.
> 
> 
> I wasn't reading your earlier post at the time I shut it off, so my shutting it off didn't ignore your comment. But you're right, my post should have acknowledged that aspect of your comment, where you noted that you thought that the PQ improved after the first few scenes.
> 
> 
> In any event, I have now watched *Sherlock Holmes* all the way through, and while there may have been a very slight improvement in PQ after the first few scenes, I will stick with my earlier evaluation of *Tier 2.5.* *My complaint is that there was a general pervasive softness accompanied by compression noise. I do think Warner has moved a bit in the right direction.* This is not the same softness we saw in things like Batman Begins, where there seemed to have been a filtering applied at an earlier stage than the compression process, resulting in the characteristic "smoothie" Warner look. I would say now (at least in the case of SH) the problems are all occurring at the compression stage. An increase in the bitrate allowed would, I believe, solve the current problem. I also noticed that with this title at least Warner has abandoned the irritating practice of going directly to playing the movie, with no menu.
> 
> 
> I see that some of the posters in the SH thread seem to have the same opinion I do, such as posts number 42 and 43.
> 
> 
> Based on further perusal of the SH thread, it appears that the compression on this disc was determined by Warner's desire that the movie itself, with no extras, would fit on a single layer disc for the rental version.



I was really glad to read that you watched this all the way through patrick. And I DO agree with you, in measure, that there was *some* softness, but IMO there were also quite a few scenes that were very sharp. Detail and depth were still phenomenal to _my eyes_. I was quite surprised by this with it being a Warner release, so they must be, as you say, "moving in the right direction," at least in that department.


I will still stick by my 1.5 placement, though it won't hurt my feelings if it were moved down a notch to 1.75.


----------



## Earz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/18430807
> 
> 
> Whether or not you like the movie has nothing to do with the PQ/AQ in an objective-based review like we do here. I was saying that I wouldn't want to watch it again and do a review on that particular movie. I watched it a long time ago on dvd and didn't like it, so I feel no need to rent the blu and do a formal review here, because there are many other titles I'd rather watch and review instead. If you read through the reviews, you'll notice many bad movies have some pretty good PQ (like The Proposal, for instance). The Descent was really not my cup of tea, so I don't want to watch it again to see just how great the BD quality is. The great thing about this thread is that you can join in and review it yourself if you think the PQ is better/worse than where it currently sits on the list, and your opinion will be heard.





So you are injecting your distaste for a movie that you have only seen on dvd....in the Blu-Ray Tier thread. Well R/T gave this movie 84 which is fantastic for a movie of this genre...but that has nothing to do with BD P/Q either. Just look at the pro reviews for this BD that rave about the dark scenes....and how many reference looking dark movies are on BD? Not that many IMO.

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/27063/descent-the/ 

http://www.dvdtown.com/review/descent/blu-ray/4580 

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/463/descent.html


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18430814
> 
> 
> Having not yet seen Sherlock Holmes, I will not comment on the BD itself. But I am in agreement with your general points. Warner Bros. continues to use woefully out-of-date encoding tools in comparison to the other studios. The bolded part is particularly salient. The marginal cost-savings per unit for pressing a BD-25 appears to be pushing many disparate studios in that direction, which is troubling this far into Blu-ray's lifespan.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18431284
> 
> 
> I was really glad to read that you watched this all the way through patrick. And I DO agree with you, in measure, that there was *some* softness, but IMO there were also quite a few scenes that were very sharp. Detail and depth were still phenomenal to _my eyes_. I was quite surprised by this with it being a Warner release, so they must be, as you say, "moving in the right direction," at least in that department.
> 
> 
> I will still stick by my 1.5 placement, though it won't hurt my feelings if it were moved down a notch to 1.75.





To me, the issue of Warner's general practices makes the issue of evaluating the PQ on Sherlock Holmes of broader significance than the narrow question of where a particular title is placed. Warner has been guilty of so much bad stuff on their BDs for so long and so consistently that I think it would be unfortunate if people got the idea that all that bad stuff was now fully in the past just because they have moved a bit in the right direction. There is still a long way to go. I have no doubt that if this were a Fox title, for example, it would look much better.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Sherlock Holmes*


I had heard a lot of good things about the PQ (and AQ) on this title, so my expectations were a bit on the high side (but they were also tempered by the fact that I knew this was a Warner title).


Overall, I would probably say that I was very slightly disappointed and didn't feel that this quite lived up to some of the positive reviews that I had been reading.


The first thing that was noticeable to me was in the early scenes. The dark scenes were very weak. Shadow delineation was poor, and black levels were not good either. Blacks looked more gray than black.


The result is that the darker scenes really lacked depth and dimensionality.


Also, this title does have a lot of softness in plenty of scenes typical of so many Warner titles. Yet, by complete contrast, there were also many scenes (almost all outdoors) where the softness was largely gone, and very good detail and clarity was present! In other words, this title's PQ varied greatly throughout the film.


I felt that the second half of the movie had better PQ overall than the first half.


Colors were also somewhat of a mixed bag..but overall fit the mood of the movie well.


For me it is somewhat difficult to rate this one due to the wide variance in PQ. However, bottom line is that there are more than enough issues, present enough of the time, to clearly keep this one out of Tier 1.


As for the movie itself, I liked it....but it certainly wasn't something that stayed true to the books.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 2.25*


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Earz* /forum/post/18431366
> 
> 
> So you are injecting your distaste for a movie that you have only seen on dvd....in the Blu-Ray Tier thread. Well R/T gave this movie 84 which is fantastic for a movie of this genre...but that has nothing to do with BD P/Q either. Just look at the pro reviews for this BD that rave about the dark scenes....and how many reference looking dark movies are on BD? Not that many IMO.
> 
> http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/27063/descent-the/
> 
> http://www.dvdtown.com/review/descent/blu-ray/4580
> 
> http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/463/descent.html



I said I didn't like the movie, so I don't want to watch it again to review it for this thread. What don't you understand about that? We do this as a hobby, and I don't have all the free time in the world to review every movie. I have to pick and choose the ~5 movies I review every week due to time constraints just like everyone else here. I'm sure it looks great on Blu-Ray. I haven't seen it. How would I know how it looks? I clearly stated I haven't seen it, nor do I *want* to see it again (which means that it won't make my ~5 movies for the week anytime soon). I did not say that because I don't like the movie, that it doesn't belong in tier 1.0 as you suggested. If you feel so strongly about it, do a review. Don't link to other reviews. Write one yourself for this thread and make a recommendation.


Also, just because a movie gets a decent score on RT means nothing to me. I have enjoyed many movies that critics hate, and vice versa. I feel bad for people that only like a movie because a critic tells them to like it, and don't have an opinion of their own (and before you get all defensive again, I'm not referring to you specifically, although if you fall into that category, I apologize.).


----------



## djoberg

*Toy Story 2*


This title was simply amazing for its age (1999) and it most definitely trumps the first installment (_Toy Story 1_) in terms of DETAIL. I was mesmerized by the scene where Woody is trying to retrieve his arm out of Al's pocket...the intricate details of Al's face, his hairy arms and cheese-stained fingers, the fabric in the couch and carpet...all left me drooling for more...and there was MORE, and plenty of it. Indoor and outdoor scenes alike abounded in details of every kind!


I found the depth to be comparable to _Toy Story 1_ and the punchy colors popped off the screen (they weren't quite as brilliant as in _A Bug's Life_, but they were just as good as any other animated title in Tier 0). Black levels, though limited, are off the charts (Woody's dream sequence revealed the blackest blacks I've seen on my KURO in an animated title).


All things considered, this one easily deserves a spot in the top five, so my vote is for........

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (between Up and Ratatouille)*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite BDP-05....Viewed from 8'


----------



## Earz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/18432138
> 
> 
> I said I didn't like the movie, so I don't want to watch it again to review it for this thread. What don't you understand about that? We do this as a hobby, and I don't have all the free time in the world to review every movie. I have to pick and choose the ~5 movies I review every week due to time constraints just like everyone else here. I'm sure it looks great on Blu-Ray. I haven't seen it. How would I know how it looks? I clearly stated I haven't seen it, nor do I *want* to see it again (which means that it won't make my ~5 movies for the week anytime soon). I did not say that because I don't like the movie, that it doesn't belong in tier 1.0 as you suggested. If you feel so strongly about it, do a review. Don't link to other reviews. Write one yourself for this thread and make a recommendation.
> 
> 
> Also, just because a movie gets a decent score on RT means nothing to me. I have enjoyed many movies that critics hate, and vice versa. I feel bad for people that only like a movie because a critic tells them to like it, and don't have an opinion of their own (and before you get all defensive again, I'm not referring to you specifically, although if you fall into that category, I apologize.).



The 84 at R/T is from users like us....and not critics.... and this movie was already in tier 1 in the original Tier thread.....and it needs to be moved back .....what do you not understand about this....and who asked you to watch...or even coment on this movie to begin with?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Earz* /forum/post/18433312
> 
> 
> The 84 at R/T is from users like us....and not critics....



That's not exactly true.


Are you thinking of IMDB?


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18433496
> 
> 
> That's not exactly true.
> 
> 
> Are you thinking of IMDB?



No, it has an 84% on the critic meter on RT.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/18433623
> 
> 
> No, it has an 84% on the critic meter on RT.



I know that.


He is saying that the RT meter isn't based on "critics" reviews, but is based on "users like us". But their rating actually is based on critics that they approve.


They have a separate ranking for "top critics" as well.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Beneath the Planet of the Apes*


This one looks the best out of the series, although that is hardly saying much. The grain structure is at the least stable and consistent. Black levels kinda/sorta hold together. The print is in surprisingly good shape considering how beat up the first was, special effects scenes taking the worst of it. Detail can be strong, and Franciscus' constantly sweaty face and body always shows detail. Oddly, the footage of the original movie at the beginning looks terrible, incredibly flat and soft.
*Tier 2.5*


--------

*Escape from the Planet of the Apes*


This one boasts the best color of the series since it is mostly lighthearted fare. Some scenes appear smoothed, especially the opening landing sequence. Flesh tones veer into pink. Some ringing is notable, worse in some scenes than others. Generally soft, the print is in a fine state. Still, not much to gawk at.
*Tier 3.0*


----------



## Earz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18433643
> 
> 
> I know that.
> 
> 
> He is saying that the RT meter isn't based on "critics" reviews, but is based on "users like us". But their rating actually is based on critics that they approve.
> 
> 
> They have a separate ranking for "top critics" as well.



I can sign up and rate movies there....does that make me a professional critic? I only mentioned the rating because it seems all pro reviewers and most personal reveiwers thought this film was well done in an age of so so slasher films.....but the real point here is that this is a reference dark BD movie despite tastes as compared to most , if not all mostly dark movies on BD.


----------



## Earz

I said 84% but it's actually 86% of users like us at RT that liked the movie.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Conquest of the Planet of the Apes*

This is the weakest of the series, mostly because the finale is so dark and the blacks are awful. Outside of the violent ending, this one looks on par with the rest. Facial textures are there but not pronounced. Hair on the ape make-up looks pretty good, and little details like the texture in the concrete are brought out nicely. Some ringing again, and the red uniforms of the gorillas are quite vibrant. Still, that ending is terrible.

*Tier 3.5*


--------
*Battle for the Planet of the Apes*


Black level problems return, although not as severely. Texture of the forest environments are handled nicely, and the long shots of the ending battle maintain themselves well despite heavy smoke and lots of fast movement. Print is in great shape, and the grain structure is consistent.

*Tier 3.25*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^


Gamereviewgod,


I just want to thank you for all the reviews you submit to this thread. It is an invaluable service and I thank you for taking the time to do so. Your reviews may not be long, but I find you're able to say a lot in just a few words.


Denny


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Earz* /forum/post/18434063
> 
> 
> I said 84% but it's actually 86% of users like us at RT that liked the movie.



That's still pretty high. I only use RT as a quick guide, say, if I'm curious about a movie at blockbuster I'll check the RT% on my phone. A score like 86 would probably get me to say "hey, that's pretty good. Lot's of people like this one" and then I would probably rent it. In this particular case, I disagree with the consensus and don't like the movie.


Although, since you have brought it up to be a reference dark title, I may rent it to check it out again. In some cases, my display can not match the darkness that the BD is telling it to display, and could make some scenes crush or wash out. Hopefully, this is not the case, but I have an inkling that this may be why the particular title is not rated higher than it currently is. Variation in displays cause a bit of disagreement on black levels on all but the best of titles usually, so it might be what happened there.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18435962
> 
> 
> ^^^^^
> 
> 
> Gamereviewgod,
> 
> 
> I just want to thank you for all the reviews you submit to this thread. It is an invaluable service and I thank you for taking the time to do so. Your reviews may not be long, but I find you're able to say a lot in just a few words.
> 
> 
> Denny



Thanks! That makes it all worth it.


Just to note and get a shameless plug in, I review everything in full on my site, and then put in my thoughts here. It would be far easier to just cut and paste, but Google severely penalizes rankings for duplicate content, making that an impossibility. It would hurt AVS as well as my own site, and re-typing four or five paragraphs would be a little too time consuming, hence the short and brief notes here.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18438214
> 
> 
> Thanks! That makes it all worth it.
> 
> 
> Just to note and get a shameless plug in, *I review everything in full on my site*, and then put in my thoughts here. It would be far easier to just cut and paste, but Google severely penalizes rankings for duplicate content, making that an impossibility. It would hurt AVS as well as my own site, and re-typing four or five paragraphs would be a little too time consuming, hence the short and brief notes here.



I was aware of that (see highlight above) and I often go to your site to read the full review. I would encourage others to do so as well.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18435962
> 
> 
> ^^^^^
> 
> 
> gamereviewgod,
> 
> 
> i just want to thank you for all the reviews you submit to this thread. It is an invaluable service and i thank you for taking the time to do so. Your reviews may not be long, but i find you're able to say a lot in just a few words.
> 
> 
> Denny



+1!


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Collector*


Low budget horror movie from the guys who are doing the Saw sequels. Shot on 16MM, this one cannot handle the grain. All solid walls show off-color dots. Tons of banding throughout, and at times is so limited in color, this looks like a Sega CD game, if you remember how well those games handled video. Blacks do not hold, but also lacks that murky quality and remains sharp. Minimal facial detail in close. Daylight means blown out highlights and orange flesh tones.

*Tier 4.0*


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18441682
> 
> *The Collector*
> 
> 
> All solid walls show off-color dots.



Do you mean chroma noise?


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18444009
> 
> 
> Do you mean chroma noise?



THANK YOU! Ugh. One of those times where my mind wasn't working. Couldn't think of the term, and I was rushing due to a doctor's appointment. For some reason, I kept thinking of moraie (sp?), and I knew that wasn't right.


----------



## dla26

I've decided to stand on principle and not buy the LotR trilogy until the extended edition comes out, but I'm very curious to know if the PQ is living up to what I'm hoping it will be.


Anyone?


----------



## kcushing




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dla26* /forum/post/18448102
> 
> 
> I've decided to stand on principle and not buy the LotR trilogy until the extended edition comes out



I'm right with you on that one. I bought the DVD's and was not happy when they came out with the extended version later. I refused to buy both. Having the extended version on Blu-Ray would be nice however. Assuming that the quality is there.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dla26* /forum/post/18448102
> 
> 
> I've decided to stand on principle and not buy the LotR trilogy until the extended edition comes out, but I'm very curious to know if the PQ is living up to what I'm hoping it will be.
> 
> 
> Anyone?



I am in the same boat......waiting on the EEs for a purchase. I am curious to read some reviews from this thread though of the TEs







Wide range of opinions so far!


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dla26* /forum/post/18448102
> 
> 
> I've decided to stand on principle and not buy the LotR trilogy until the extended edition comes out, but I'm very curious to know if the PQ is living up to what I'm hoping it will be.
> 
> 
> Anyone?



I watched The Fellowship of the Ring last night. It was a Netflix rental. I have the DVD theatrical release of the trilogy that I'm happy with and am not planning on buying the BD release but did want to see what it looked like on BD.


Overall I thought it looked OK. Sharpness varied, in some close up scenes detailed facial features were lacking, in others, for example in Gandolf's face you could see every pore and each individual hair in his beard. Colors looked fine. I was more interested in enjoying the movie rather than rate it but gut-level it's probably somewhere between 1.5 and 2.0.


I didn't do a comparison with the DVD so can't say how much better the PQ but what really impressed me about the BD was the AQ, it seemed much more aggressive especially in the LFE.


Typed from my iPad


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call - New Orleans*

At first I would have sworn this was shot digitally and on film. It certainly carried those same traits, such as pale flesh tones, inconsistent blacks, and then the exact opposite a few frames later. I was wrong. This is all film.


The second half, well, that's when this one picks up. Facial detail becomes consistent, the black levels take hold, and the hot, bleaching contrast finally cools down. Some black crush and ringing were noted, neither severe.

*Tier 2.0*


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dla26* /forum/post/18448102
> 
> 
> I've decided to stand on principle and not buy the LotR trilogy until the extended edition comes out, but I'm very curious to know if the PQ is living up to what I'm hoping it will be.
> 
> 
> Anyone?



They have been utterly condemned elsewhere in the forum for the widespread use of digital noise reduction. Keep your hopes and expectations to a minimum on the LOTR trilogy. Expect impressions in the thread to start rolling in here by the weekend. Their extended lengths lend themselves better to weekend viewing. Just do not expect me to opine on them anytime soon. I have never understood their massive popularity and allure, so they are not at the top of my priority list.


----------



## deltasun

I'm not a huge screen cap guy (though do see their value and love their power to excite), but the round of screen caps for LOTR has at least given me a lukewarm feeling towards rushing out and owning them. I'm hoping the Extended Editions will be treated better.


So, probably won't be seeing the TEs unless I see Toe over there salivating over the AQ. That in itself may get me to at least rent them.


----------



## jedimasterchad

*Sherlock Holmes*


Yuck. I was perusing over the reviews and would have to agree with some of the lower end reviews. This was a totally bad experience the entire way through. The opening scenes had terrible blacks and a washed out look that made it hard to watch. I suffered through it and while it did get a fair amount better after the opening titles, overall this was a mess. Contrast was blown out in a number of scenes, and the terrible lighting led to terrible blacks throughout. Anytime the actors were in front of a green screen it was painfully obvious, and the special effects shots somehow carried that bad lighting with them.


Occasionally, the film would tighten up and really shine, but these moments were few and far between. A close up of Robert Downey Jr.'s face while talking to blackwood in the prison would go in and out of focus, giving in to some sharp facial detail and then letting it go soft, and finally bringing blackwood into focus in the background. These instances where the film got sharp were great looking, and in some cases the contrast and color evened out and gave a great overall picture with some convincing and natural blacks (mainly outdoor scenes with a brighter overall picture), but these were not as abundant as I would have liked. As mentioned, the problem is probably now in the compression stage, because the faces don't have the soft waxy look throughout as in Harry Potter or other WB releases. A higher bitrate may have preserved more of these sharp scenes and given a better overall presentation. I had the blockbuster rental disc, which as reported is a BD-25, although I did not confirm this myself. It is clearly marked on the bottom of the disc with a large swatch that says "RENTAL" in bold letters. Whether or not the retail version with bonus features is any better, I don't know, but that's another unfortunate slap in the face from WB to go along with their limited rental release period.


Anyways, to give a final score...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.5*


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dla26* /forum/post/18448102
> 
> 
> I've decided to stand on principle and not buy the LotR trilogy until the extended edition comes out, but I'm very curious to know if the PQ is living up to what I'm hoping it will be.
> 
> 
> Anyone?



I'm with you on this one, waiting for the EE's myself. There was a trailer for these on the Sherlock Holmes BD and some scenes looked pretty decent, mainly a closeup of Gimli's beard and a closeup shot of the One Ring in the snow. If they show up at Blockbuster I'll give them a rental with my movie pass, but I'm not in a hurry to get them in the player. They usually aren't in a big hurry to pick up new blu ray catalog releases, either.


Phantom: Any particular reason you are not a fan of these movies? Just curious. You seem to usually stay off the mainstream titles, but most people I talk to who don't like LotR just say they're boring and don't have any other reason. Of course, if you're a fan of the book, they're not even close but I suppose Peter Jackson did a pretty good job, all things considered.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/18450567
> 
> *Sherlock Holmes*
> 
> 
> Yuck. I was perusing over the reviews and would have to agree with some of the lower end reviews. This was a totally bad experience the entire way through. The opening scenes had terrible blacks and a washed out look that made it hard to watch. I suffered through it and while it did get a fair amount better after the opening titles, overall this was a mess. Contrast was blown out in a number of scenes, and the terrible lighting led to terrible blacks throughout. Anytime the actors were in front of a green screen it was painfully obvious, and the special effects shots somehow carried that bad lighting with them.
> 
> 
> Occasionally, the film would tighten up and really shine, but these moments were few and far between. A close up of Robert Downey Jr.'s face while talking to blackwood in the prison would go in and out of focus, giving in to some sharp facial detail and then letting it go soft, and finally bringing blackwood into focus in the background. These instances where the film got sharp were great looking, and in some cases the contrast and color evened out and gave a great overall picture with some convincing and natural blacks (mainly outdoor scenes with a brighter overall picture), but these were not as abundant as I would have liked. As mentioned, the problem is probably now in the compression stage, because the faces don't have the soft waxy look throughout as in Harry Potter or other WB releases. A higher bitrate may have preserved more of these sharp scenes and given a better overall presentation. I had the blockbuster rental disc, which as reported is a BD-25, although I did not confirm this myself. It is clearly marked on the bottom of the disc with a large swatch that says "RENTAL" in bold letters. Whether or not the retail version with bonus features is any better, I don't know, but that's another unfortunate slap in the face from WB to go along with their limited rental release period.
> 
> 
> Anyways, to give a final score...
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.5*



Good review. I agree with what you said about many scenes also having blown out highlights (or contrast as you put it) which I failed to mention in my review.


I recommended 2.25, but 2.5 is also reasonable (I think it is closer to 2.5 than 2.0, lets put it that way).


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18450487
> 
> 
> 
> So, probably won't be seeing the TEs unless I see Toe over there salivating over the AQ. That in itself may get me to at least rent them.



lol


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The African Queen*

Wow. Just flat out wow. What an amazing job on the part of Paramount. Stunning blacks are immediately apparent, and the vibrant Technicolor hues are outstanding. Tons of detail, including Bogie's sweaty, dirty face, filled with pores, lines and specks. The village at the start has fully resolved grass huts, do to individual strands of straw. Hepburn's face is intentionally diffused in many close ups, and the special effects shots look noticeably worse. Not a speck or scratch anywhere on the source though.

*Tier 1.5*


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18452255
> 
> *The African Queen*
> 
> Wow. Just flat out wow. What an amazing job on the part of Paramount. Stunning blacks are immediately apparent, and the vibrant Technicolor hues are outstanding. Tons of detail, including Bogie's sweaty, dirty face, filled with pores, lines and specks. The village at the start has fully resolved grass huts, do to individual strands of straw. Hepburn's face is intentionally diffused in many close ups, and the special effects shots look noticeably worse. Not a speck or scratch anywhere on the source though.
> 
> *Tier 1.5*



Wow! This is very encouraging indeed! To think that this was never released on DVD, then we get a superb release on BD. Great news!


----------



## tfoltz

I watched FOTR last night and I was thinking more along the lines of 2.5-2.75 (maybe lower if I watch again and notice more problems). It's very inconsistent and a lot of detail was washed away. The trolls, orcs, and whatnot look great. The sound is impressive. Lots of *BOOM* moments.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/18448686
> 
> 
> Overall I thought it looked OK. Sharpness varied, in some close up scenes detailed facial features were lacking, in others, for example in Gandolf's face you could see every pore and each individual hair in his beard. Colors looked fine. I was more interested in enjoying the movie rather than rate it but gut-level it's probably somewhere between 1.5 and 2.0.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/18450596
> 
> 
> Phantom: Any particular reason you are not a fan of these movies? Just curious. You seem to usually stay off the mainstream titles, but most people I talk to who don't like LotR just say they're boring and don't have any other reason. Of course, if you're a fan of the book, they're not even close but I suppose Peter Jackson did a pretty good job, all things considered.



I still get around to watching mainstream films, but for the utility of the thread I tend to avoid analyzing them, as most popular releases like LOTR get enough attention on their own without my help.


Without going into too much detail for fear an Orc might smite me, I find Tolkien to be an extremely overrated writer. That was an opinion I held long before the movies were a twinkling in the eyes of Peter Jackson. As for the movies themselves, the theatrical version of the first movie is marginally entertaining to me, but nothing like the esteem the general public holds for it. I have seen both cuts of all three movies, but by the end of "The Return of the King" I was ready for a long slumber. Different strokes for different folks, I guess. It is a little strange, as I have no hostility or disinclination for fantasy material in movies.


----------



## tfoltz

I would love a Silmarillion movie. Though this is near impossible with all the stories. One of my favorite books.


----------



## audiomagnate

*African Queen*


The opening scene on this 59 year old movie is astoundingly beautiful. The huts and foliage have a 3D look as the camera pans over them. Just imagine how these gorgeous Technicolor on location shots of real African natives looked to theater goers back in 1951 who were used to black and white Tarzan movies shot on Hollywood back lots with local African American talent and gobs of fuzzy stock animal footage.


The soft focus on Hepburn is pervasive and a little hard to understand as she's playing a spinster. Detail on Bogart's face more than makes up for this flaw. Black levels are also first rate. The bug scene is a laughingly bad, and there's a long shot of the brother in the garden with a skinny old white haired man standing in for Morely that somehow made it into the final cut. The model scenes weren't quite as bad as I expected, but the rear projection scenes do look pretty bad, but no worse than the horrible CGI water in the new Twilight movie. The bottom line is that this film looks fantastic 90% of the time and deserves a solid *2.0* rating.


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18452714
> 
> 
> I still get around to watching mainstream films, but for the utility of the thread I tend to avoid analyzing them, as most popular releases like LOTR get enough attention on their own without my help.
> 
> 
> Without going into too much detail for fear an Orc might smite me, I find Tolkien to be an extremely overrated writer. That was an opinion I held long before the movies were a twinkling in the eyes of Peter Jackson. As for the movies themselves, the theatrical version of the first movie is marginally entertaining to me, but nothing like the esteem the general public holds for it. I have seen both cuts of all three movies, but by the end of "The Return of the King" I was ready for a long slumber. Different strokes for different folks, I guess. It is a little strange, as I have no hostility or disinclination for fantasy material in movies.



Fair enough. I read the books in high school, and I probably wouldn't read them again because I can't stand reading a book twice, but I do remember liking them when I read them, but they were quite tedious. I think Tolkien was trying too hard to create the epic fantasy instead of just writing one, if that makes sense. I could have done without all the verse that was sprinkled throughout the books, as they really took me out of the story. For me, the movies are a nice way to revisit the story without having to sit through 1,000+ pages again.


On a side note, I'm not looking forward to the Hobbit at all, because I didn't like the book (it's a children's book, IMO) and I'm not a fan of G Del Toro's stuff so far (like Pan's Labyrinth or Hellboy). We'll see what happens though.


About the Simarillion, I haven't had a chance to read it yet, but as my neighbor explained it to me at D&D the other night, the LotR trilogy is but a speck in the timeline of the Simarillion, and some of the stories he mentioned seemed pretty interesting. Probably couldn't make a movie out of it though.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Relic*


Ouch. This is one dark movie, and that's fine considering how well the blacks hold up. Unfortunately, there is some serious digital processing at work. Definitely some light DNR despite the grain structure still visible. Smearing is evident, and edge enhancement is glaring when the light allows it to show. Whatever fine detail becomes visible is obviously smoothed over and digital in nature. Colors are almost non-existent until the end when the fire kicks up.

*Tier 4.00*


----------



## audiomagnate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/18450567
> 
> *Sherlock Holmes*
> 
> 
> Yuck. I was perusing over the reviews and would have to agree with some of the lower end reviews. This was a totally bad experience the entire way through. The opening scenes had terrible blacks and a washed out look that made it hard to watch. I suffered through it and while it did get a fair amount better after the opening titles, overall this was a mess. Contrast was blown out in a number of scenes, and the terrible lighting led to terrible blacks throughout. Anytime the actors were in front of a green screen it was painfully obvious, and the special effects shots somehow carried that bad lighting with them.
> 
> 
> Occasionally, the film would tighten up and really shine, but these moments were few and far between. A close up of Robert Downey Jr.'s face while talking to blackwood in the prison would go in and out of focus, giving in to some sharp facial detail and then letting it go soft, and finally bringing blackwood into focus in the background. These instances where the film got sharp were great looking, and in some cases the contrast and color evened out and gave a great overall picture with some convincing and natural blacks (mainly outdoor scenes with a brighter overall picture), but these were not as abundant as I would have liked. As mentioned, the problem is probably now in the compression stage, because the faces don't have the soft waxy look throughout as in Harry Potter or other WB releases. A higher bitrate may have preserved more of these sharp scenes and given a better overall presentation. I had the blockbuster rental disc, which as reported is a BD-25, although I did not confirm this myself. It is clearly marked on the bottom of the disc with a large swatch that says "RENTAL" in bold letters. Whether or not the retail version with bonus features is any better, I don't know, but that's another unfortunate slap in the face from WB to go along with their limited rental release period.
> 
> 
> Anyways, to give a final score...
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.5*




There's a cityscape shot at 6:56 that is just soooo bad that it looks like an impressionist painting. Other shots look unfinished, as if they never got around to filling in the CGI detail. I agree, yuck! The best part was the ending credits.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *audiomagnate* /forum/post/18459655
> 
> 
> There's a cityscape shot at 6:56 that is just soooo bad that it looks like an impressionist painting. Other shots look unfinished, as if they never got around to filling in the CGI detail. I agree, yuck! The best part was the ending credits.



I agree with your first statement (about the horrendous-looking cityscape), but I believe your overall view is way off the mark. If I'm interpreting your words right, you would want this title in one of the lower tiers. I'm willing to admit (as I have) that the first 15-20 minutes are bad, but I was amazed by the detail and depth in most scenes from that point on. I'm not alone in this for there were three others besides me who recommended a Tier 1 placement. Add to this MANY positive reviews by reviewers such as Ralph Potts and Kris Deering, and you have to admit that _some people_ had a very different viewing experience than you.


I don't normally do this, but I want to include comments from the review by Kris Deering, who some in this thread respect:

*"Warner serves up a first rate presentation for this one on Blu. The image has outstanding depth and dimension and I loved the darker look of the photography. Shadow detail is excellent and the rich blacks add a lot of depth to the image. Fine object detail is exquisite and you can tell this was sourced from a pristine master. The sound is just as good with a really rich and dynamic sound design. This has some of the best discrete surround use I've heard lately and I was really impressed with the dynamic range and bottom end the track offered. I had no issues with the balance of the mix and the panning from speaker to speaker was impressive. A rich presentation on all fronts."*


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18459921
> 
> 
> I agree with your first statement (about the horrendous-looking cityscape), but I believe your overall view is way off the mark. If I'm interpreting your words right, you would want this title in one of the lower tiers. I'm willing to admit (as I have) that the first 15-20 minutes are bad, but I was amazed by the detail and depth in most scenes from that point on. I'm not alone in this for there were three others besides me who recommended a Tier 1 placement. Add to this MANY positive reviews by reviewers such as Ralph Potts and Kris Deering, and you have to admit that _some people_ had a very different viewing experience than you.
> 
> 
> I don't normally do this, but I want to include comments from the review by Kris Deering, who some in this thread respect:
> 
> *"Warner serves up a first rate presentation for this one on Blu. The image has outstanding depth and dimension and I loved the darker look of the photography. Shadow detail is excellent and the rich blacks add a lot of depth to the image. Fine object detail is exquisite and you can tell this was sourced from a pristine master. The sound is just as good with a really rich and dynamic sound design. This has some of the best discrete surround use I've heard lately and I was really impressed with the dynamic range and bottom end the track offered. I had no issues with the balance of the mix and the panning from speaker to speaker was impressive. A rich presentation on all fronts."*




I am with you Denny. I bought it blind buy, which I rarely do, but I had a strong impluse to buy and I have watched it 4 times now. The second viewing really changed my perception. Detail is excellent and while there is black crush on occasion on my setup it is not rampant throughout the film and is the exception not the rule. I can see some not liking the look of this and based on their perceptions and the parameters of this thread they believe the look of this garners a placement in tier 2. something.


I also recently bought DIrty Harry/Magnum force combo. IMO, Warner did an excellent job and I think they rate about 1.75. I think SH suffers less from issues of it being a Warner title and more simply from the look of it. As good as I think Dirty Harry looks, there is no way I can go along with lower than 1.75 for Sherlock Holmes. Walking gently here so not to offend...(too much, lol







) I also agree there is issues with Warner titles, but I am not one that is quick to blame Warner especially after having viewed SH several times and knowing how good other titles from Warner look including some catalogue titles.


I own several Bond titles which I rated at 1.5 and 1.75. I already mentioned the DIrty Harry movies at 1.75. IMO. Outside of differences in colors and yes the drab look of the Victorian era, I just cannot see the look of SH overall with it's detail as being lower.










I really don't agree with some claiming it is a soft title overall when I am seeing excellent detail in the majority of the film.










Jedi, while I rarely disagree with you and have virtually relegated myself to not debating differences with my piers, I just cannot agree with your generalized statements about the look of SH and in fact they shock me.

*"This was a totally bad experience the entire way through. The opening scenes had terrible blacks and a washed out look that made it hard to watch. I suffered through it and while it did get a fair amount better after the opening titles, overall this was a mess. Contrast was blown out in a number of scenes, and the terrible lighting led to terrible blacks throughout."*


We saw two different movies.










What is really surprising to me is the comments from some with smaller displays. I would have thought that a film that some claim doesn't look good on blu would look like crap on my new setup, but blown up, SH looks excellent most often.







I see the focusing in and out of faces at times, less than more, but I agree it is there.


----------



## Hughmc

GGG I just watched all three Bournes again this week as I own the Trilogy and wanted to see how they looked on my new setup. I agree with your placements and what I think I rated them before with my old setup.


Bourne Identity: Looked softer and about 2.0


Bourne Supremacy: Looked a bit better than Identity and would rate it 1.5.


Bourne Ultimatum looked really good and I think it borders on 1.25 and 1.0. I was shocked in fact looking at it how good it looks. My initial viewing of these on my older display had me thinking they were a bit closer in look, but from Identity to Ultimatum there is a fairly dramatic and noticeable difference making Ultimatum worthy of a tier higher.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/18460600
> 
> 
> GGG I just watched all three Bournes again this week as I own the Trilogy and wanted to see how they looked on my new setup. I agree with your placements and what I think I rated them before with my old setup.
> 
> 
> Bourne Identity: Looked softer and about 2.0
> 
> 
> Bourne Supremacy: Looked a bit better than Identity and would rate it 1.5.
> 
> 
> Bourne Ultimatum looked really good and I think it borders on 1.25 and 1.0. I was shocked in fact looking at it how good it looks. My initial viewing of these on my older display had me thinking they were a bit closer in look, but from Identity to Ultimatum there is a fairly dramatic and noticeable difference making Ultimatum worthy of a tier higher.













I still haven't watched Ultimatum. I'm soooo behind on my blu's!



edited to add...



or... if I have watched Ultimatum, I've totally blanked on it. Now Im' wondering if I reviewed it. It could have been a cosmo-filled night if I did see it...


edited again...


ok. i did not review it from my search. *whew* I thought I had lost my mind!


----------



## jedimasterchad

Hugh,


I really wanted to like this one but as I was watching I couldn't bring myself to rate it any higher than 2.25, and I kind of consider that to be around average, which, to my eyes, SH was just below that. There were a lot of good detail shots but the shadow detail, as least on my display, turned the blacks grey in order to keep the appearance in darker shots. I realize that my set is one of those dreaded "rising black level" sets, but I can still pop in Harry Potter 6 and see some really dark, inky blacks with good shadow detail, which I would use as a comparison any day (although HP is not without its own problems).


The darker exterior shots reminded me a bit of Sweeney Todd but with a sort of pale cast over the entire image, almost like someone was shining a light on the camera the whole time. I'm not able to technically explain it as well as I'd like, but whatever the problem was it turned the blacks a soft grey. Again, this may be display specific as some people seem to have this issue and others don't. I was using my normal PS3-Pioneer-Panasonic display chain, and can pop in a movie immediately afterwards that doesn't have the same problem, so I didn't think it was my tv for any reason. I did mention it could have been the fact that it was the rental disc, but I'm not sure if anyone confirmed that it was any worse.


As far as it being sharp, the whole movie just seemed a bit soft. This became more evident during the few scenes where it got *really* sharp, which made the other scenes appear even less so. I definitely think that a few times here and there this one looked every bit the 1.5 you and Denny are rating it, but for the most part it was below this and with the blown out highlights and bad blacks I often thought it was much worse, maybe even a 3.0. I balanced it out and thought it landed somewhere around a 2.5.


Really, I'm not sure why it didn't show up better. There are a lot of positive reviews that just don't really line up with what I saw the other night. Like I said, nothing against the movie, it was pretty entertaining with just a few boring parts. For whatever reason, it just didn't impress me visually. Twilight and GI Joe are a couple 1.5 movies I own, and maybe if SH was quite a bit more consistent at the better end of how it looked I could go higher, but I don't think it was at that level. I'm sure all the votes will even it out around a 2.0 or so, which I won't be completely offended with but I still think is just a *tad* high.










Have to say though, it was funny to have 2 people agree with my review and then 2 hate it right away...lol. Usually they just sort of go unnoticed.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/18461028
> 
> 
> Have to say though, it was funny to have 2 people agree with my review and then 2 hate it right away...lol. Usually they just sort of go unnoticed.



If you are including me in the 2 that hated your review, I'm here to say I didn't hate it; I just disagreed with it.










I too averaged everything out when it came to my recommended placement, but in my viewing experience I saw MANY shots with exceptional detail and depth that easily merited Tier 0 (in contrast to your view that the best shots were only worthy of 1.5), so my average came out to 1.5 (though as I said in an earlier post, my feelings won't be hurt if it ends up at 1.75). I just think there were enough excellent scenes to be able to call this "demo-worthy."


BTW, I'm surprised your set (which is a very decent plasma) failed in the blacks levels and shadow details. Though they were inconsistent in my viewing, there were some shots that were quite impressive in this area (and my KURO never lies when it comes to blacks







).


----------



## djoberg

*Old Dogs*


This one was a mixed bag for me; in other words, it was INCONSISTENT. There were many sharp and detailed scenes, but there were also scenes that were soft and a bit fuzzy (I'm not sure if it was heavy grain, video noise, or what it was). Thankfully the good scenes outweighed the bad.


I wasn't overly impressed with the colors either. At times they were very natural and vibrant; at other times they were subdued and lackluster. They also resulted in skin tones being on the orange side in many shots.


Blacks were also hit and miss. Some of the nighttime skyline scenes were fantastic, and at other times there was definite crush with corresponding shadow details.


Details were a highlight in this title and especially facial details. Robin Williams and John Travolta are definitely aging and this HD transfer proves it! One of the best shots for details was at the end with Seth Green in the arms of a gorilla...this one was Tier 0 all the way (it was also the funniest scene in the whole movie).


I usually have a hard time with placement on films that are inconsistent and this is no exception. I mentioned at the beginning that the good scenes outweighed the bad so I'm going to be somewhat generous and nominate this for......

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75 or 2.0*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite BDP-05....Viewed from 8'


----------



## djoberg

*Fantastic Mr. Fox*


Okay, another tricky one to call. Why? Because even though the DETAIL is absolutely phenomenal (perhaps the best I've seen when it comes to fur on animals), the color scheme is less-than-stellar (a golden hue dominates the majority of the movie). I have come to love punchy colors with a lot of POP (as in _A Bug's Life_, _Kung Fu Panda_, _Up_, and most of the other animated marvels), so I was a bit disappointed with the stylized choice of the director on this one.


Besides unparalleled details, there was a great deal of DEPTH on close-up shots (not so though in many mid-range and long shots), especially close-ups of the lead characters. They exhibited 3D pop that came very close to actual 3D material, and I'm not exaggerating.


Like most animated titles, scenes with blacks levels were rare, but there was one nighttime scene (with a band playing a little number







) that was excellent, with good shadow detail to boot.


This is definitely a Tier 0 contender, without a doubt. But where to put it, that is the question. Considering the top-notch detail in the fur of every animal and fabrics in clothing, along with superb depth at times, I'm inclined to put it here.....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (Below Meet the Robinsons)*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite BDP-05....Viewed from 8'


----------



## Mr.G




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18458171
> 
> *The Relic*
> 
> 
> Ouch. This is one dark movie, and that's fine considering how well the blacks hold up. Unfortunately, there is some serious digital processing at work. Definitely some light DNR despite the grain structure still visible. Smearing is evident, and edge enhancement is glaring when the light allows it to show. Whatever fine detail becomes visible is obviously smoothed over and digital in nature. Colors are almost non-existent until the end when the fire kicks up.
> 
> *Tier 4.00*



I agree with much of your review, however, this BD is not "big screen approved" (read this phrase in another thread) and it applies here. Blown up large the blacks weaken considerably, one of the worst mastering in recent memory and a big disappointment. My vote goes even lower.

*Tier 5.0*


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/18452586
> 
> 
> I watched FOTR last night and I was thinking more along the lines of 2.5-2.75 (maybe lower if I watch again and notice more problems). It's very inconsistent and a lot of detail was washed away. The trolls, orcs, and whatnot look great. The sound is impressive. Lots of *BOOM* moments.



I watched *FOTR* last night and the PQ was much worse than I expected. This looked more like a 40 year old movie and a DVD era master than a ten year old movie. A very soft, processed look, that to me was nearly unwatchable. The occasional decent looking close-up was definitely not enough to save this. I would recommend a placement in *Tier 3.75*.


I watched a bit of TTT for comparative purposes, and there was a clear improvement, but unfortunately not a sufficient improvement. Based on the relatively small portion that I watched, and assuming the PQ is consistent throughout, I can imagine I might give TTT a recommendation of about Tier 3.25 once I watch it through. (In case I haven't yet made it sufficiently clear, I am not making a Tier recommendation on TTT, just giving comparative data based on having watched a small portion.)


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18461140
> 
> 
> If you are including me in the 2 that hated your review, I'm here to say I didn't hate it; I just disagreed with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I too averaged everything out when it came to my recommended placement, but in my viewing experience I saw MANY shots with exceptional detail and depth that easily merited Tier 0 (in contrast to your view that the best shots were only worthy of 1.5), so my average came out to 1.5 (though as I said in an earlier post, my feelings won't be hurt if it ends up at 1.75). I just think there were enough excellent scenes to be able to call this "demo-worthy."
> 
> 
> BTW, I'm surprised your set (which is a very decent plasma) failed in the blacks levels and shadow details. Though they were inconsistent in my viewing, there were some shots that were quite impressive in this area (and my KURO never lies when it comes to blacks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ).



I guess "hate" was too strong a word







Like I said, I'm not really sure why this one just wasn't stronger. I could see the detail, but the whole area would be an unnatural greyish instead of a dark shadow detail. And yeah, this one definitely isn't "demo worthy" at my end, which keeps it out of 1.75 for me, looks worse than a lot of "average stuff" at 2.0 and the other problems knock it out of 2.25 for me, down to 2.5. I try not to average a movie because I think an average would put it in a higher tier than it deserves, mainly due to the film being inconsistent. SH jumped around a lot, and I don't think anything else in 1.5 shows that type of inconsistency that I know of. Just another thought.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Mr. Brooks* (REVISITED)


I watched Mr. Brooks again last night. This is at least the third time I've watched the movie all the way through. The previous two times I viewed it, I recommended it for Tier 0.


Others have claimed that the black levels and dark scenes are rather weak, and this should prevent it from being in Tier 0.


For whatever reason, the lack of good blacks and weak contrast in the dark scenes *really* stood out to me when I watched it last night. There was a real *lack* of depth in many scenes, and they looked rather flat.


I have to lower my recommendation on this title to:

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Guge: The Lost Kingdom Of Tibet

recommendation: Tier 1.5
*

A documentary that was produced in 2006 and shown on the Discovery channel, the digitally-shot production gives a living window into the history of the remotest regions in Tibet. Released to Blu-ray by an entity calling itself MagicPlay Entertainment, the original production appears to be a creation of several international interests. The 52-minute combination of stunning landscape photography and historical reenactments was obviously designed to look awesome in high-definition. Video is encoded in MPEG-2 on BD-25, though only two lossy Dolby Digital soundtracks are provided for the audio.


Having made its debut on BD back in August of 2008, the older MPEG-2 encoding holds up quite well compared to more recent releases. It does not hurt that bitrates rarely fall below 35 Mbps, and that peak rates hit well over 40 Mbps. An estimated average video bitrate is easily in that range. There is not an iota of artifacting, aside from brief touches of banding in a few shots of the bright, blue skies surrounding the majestic Himalayas. The source material is so clean and well-lit throughout, that the picture was unlikely to produce significant artifacting in any case.


The entire documentary was shot on digital video in excellent conditions, giving the image immense clarity. Most of the shooting emphasizes mid-range and longer perspectives, so you rarely get the extreme close-ups necessary to analyze if detail is on par with the best films. But the frequent panoramic scenes always look wonderful, so that lack of brilliant detail is offset to a degree. The picture is surprising colorful as the camera lingers over the painted murals of Buddha and other subjects. Deep bursts of crimson and delicate shades of green demonstrate the superb color fidelity and contrast that is so consistent in the image. Watch the red-colored robes of the Buddhist Monks for an example. At times, one can almost believe they are looking through a window in their backyard at the mountainous environs of Tibet when watching the disc. The cinematography does aim for a slightly shallower depth of field than is typical for this genre.


Articulating why I feel this belongs in the middle of tier one, and not higher, is somewhat difficult. There are no technical problems in the transfer such as edge enhancement or digital noise reduction, and the photography can be stunning on occasion. But few moments of extraordinary depth to the image, and a general sheen of flatness as a consequence of it being digital video, make me inclined to rate it slightly lower than I should. HD-video being shot under natural conditions will rarely best a Hollywood production shot under carefully controlled conditions on a set. It would not surprise me if other reviewers found it worthy of higher consideration in tier one. Production values are very high compared to other examples of this type of documentary.


Watching on a 60 Pioneer KURO plasma at 1080p/24, fed by a 60 GB PS3 (firmware 3.21), from a viewing distance of approximately six feet.


----------



## tfoltz

Watched Fellowship of the Ring twice now and think 3.25 would be my placement. The Twin Towers would be 2.5. Return of the King would be 1.75. Huge improvement.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Sex Drive


recommendation: bottom of Tier 0*


I was surprised to see no one had discovered the startling picture quality of this raunchy teenage comedy for the thread. Released on a BD-50 by Summit Entertainment, both an R-rated and unrated version are included in separate encodes. The 109-minute theatrical feature averages a healthy 26.18 Mbps for the video, while the longer unrated cut averages 22.50 Mbps. While the picture quality took no sacrifices for space limitations, the audio suffers with no lossless soundtrack option to be found on the BD.


Struck from a perfect Digital Intermediate, _Sex Drive_ might be the best-looking, non-animated comedy on the Blu-ray format yet. The clarity is frankly too good for some of the more gross sight-gags peppered throughout the movie. Visual consistency is remarkable for a film that frequently changes locale. Contrast is pitch-perfect and rarely strays from perfection. Color rendition and flesh-tones are very natural, even when some minor CGI elements are inserted into the movie.


The only fault in the transfer is the slight presence of halos. They are easiest to spot on the grille of “The Judge” and its sharp edges, which is the orange-colored 1969 Pontiac GTO that is prominently featured in the film. The amplitude of the halos are quite small and hardly noticeable, even to discerning viewers. But that is a minor complaint in the overall scheme of things, when an image of this quality regularly demonstrates all the things the highest ranked titles should contain.

_Sex Drive_ really straddles the divide between the top two tiers, and some part of me wished to place it in tier one. It does just enough to bridge that gap at the end of the day. The Blu-ray has top-notch potential to be demo material, and should wow most jaded high-definition viewers. For a comedy from an independent studio, the image looks better than any other comedy I have seen.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Patsfan123):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...postcount=1525


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18465559
> 
> *Sex Drive
> 
> 
> recommendation: bottom of Tier 0*
> 
> 
> I was surprised to see no one had discovered the startling picture quality of this raunchy teenage comedy for the thread. Released on a BD-50 by Summit Entertainment, both an R-rated and unrated version are included in separate encodes. The 109-minute theatrical feature averages a healthy 26.18 Mbps for the video, while the longer unrated cut averages 22.50 Mbps. While the picture quality took no sacrifices for space limitations, the audio suffers with no lossless soundtrack option to be found on the BD.



It's probably worth noting for the unprepared that the "unrated and cream-filled" cut is basically an experimental joke on the part of the filmmakers which they admit to on the disc itself and that the theatrical cut is the preferred option for first-time viewing.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/18466141
> 
> 
> It's probably worth noting for the unprepared that the "unrated and cream-filled" cut is basically an experimental joke on the part of the filmmakers which they admit to on the disc itself and that the theatrical cut is the preferred option for first-time viewing.



Yes, I should have noted that in the recommendation. The introduction to the unrated cut basically warns the viewer to watch the theatrical version first. A large component of the extra material in the unrated cut is the digital addition of naked women running through the background of random scenes. The unrated cut would appear to be a marketing stunt for the sake of a few extra sales.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Toy Story 2


recommendation: Tier Zero, next to Baraka*


Pixar definitely raised the quality of the animation from the original _Toy Story_. All textures are vastly improved on both models and backgrounds. The lighting effects are more advanced and reflectivity of Buzz's bubble-dome looks much nicer in comparison. The distinct difference is making me contemplate pushing my recommendation for the original movie down further in tier zero.


Considering the more recent CGI movies to come out of Hollywood, the animation in _Toy Story 2_ looks just a tad dated on Blu-ray. I would be hesitate to classify it strictly on par with the best discs in tier zero like _Cars_. That should not be seen as a slight, as CGI is continually evolving in modern films. Disney has once again done a magnificent job in bringing the purely digital creation to Blu-ray. I am glad that Pixar's films fall under the purview of Disney, as it would be hard to imagine another studio treating these movies with as much care and precision.


----------



## Favelle




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18474264
> 
> *Toy Story 2
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier Zero, next to Baraka*
> 
> 
> Pixar definitely raised the quality of the animation from the original _Toy Story_. All textures are vastly improved on both models and backgrounds. The lighting effects are more advanced and reflectivity of Buzz's bubble-dome looks much nicer in comparison. The distinct difference is making me contemplate pushing my recommendation for the original movie down further in tier zero.
> 
> 
> Considering the more recent CGI movies to come out of Hollywood, the animation in _Toy Story 2_ looks just a tad dated on Blu-ray. I would be hesitate to classify it strictly on par with the best discs in tier zero like _Cars_. That should not be seen as a slight, as CGI is continually evolving in modern films. Disney has once again done a magnificent job in bringing the purely digital creation to Blu-ray. I am glad that Pixar's films fall under the purview of Disney, as it would be hard to imagine another studio treating these movies with as much care and precision.



But is the dated CGI relevant when evaluating PQ. Should it just be pure faithfulness to the source?


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Favelle* /forum/post/18474424
> 
> 
> But is the dated CGI relevant when evaluating PQ. Should it just be pure faithfulness to the source?



Flaws in the source material are what this thread is about at the end of the day. How else to objectively rank disparate films based on visual appeal alone? Many people can not seem to wrap their heads around this paradigm. Many reviews across the Internet and elsewhere softball these issues, giving perfect scores to just about any Blu-ray that appears faithful to the original exhibition of the movie. At the end of the day, certain movies look better than other movies on Blu-ray, even if all movies received the best transfer possible.


An unstated assumption of the tiers is that more detail in an image is always better, and rightly deserves a higher ranking. Why else would millions invest in HDTVs and BD players? Just as properly transferred 65mm film should look better on Blu-ray than 35mm film ceteris paribus, modern CGI presents more detail than dated CGI in a manner that exhibits increased visual appeal. The tools used to create CGI have advanced considerably since Toy Story showed up, allowing the creators to create more convincing artificial realities. That seems like a good justification to use it as a basis for direct comparison when discussing pure CGI.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Favelle* /forum/post/18474424
> 
> 
> But is the dated CGI relevant when evaluating PQ. Should it just be pure faithfulness to the source?



This thread isn't about faithfulness to the source, necessarily, just "eye candy". A reference-grade transfer of some murky movie with lots of fog filters would most likely still land pretty low on the scale.


----------



## Favelle




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/18474916
> 
> 
> This thread isn't about faithfulness to the source, necessarily, just "eye candy". A reference-grade transfer of some murky movie with lots of fog filters would most likely still land pretty low on the scale.



Isn't that exactly what we're against? What if DNR and EE become all the rage and all of a sudden the wax museums of Patton and Gladiator are now considered "reference". I don't want anything but faithfulness to the source. If its 100% faithful, its reference.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Favelle* /forum/post/18475250
> 
> 
> Isn't that exactly what we're against? What if DNR and EE become all the rage and all of a sudden the wax museums of Patton and Gladiator are now considered "reference". I don't want anything but faithfulness to the source. If its 100% faithful, its reference.



It would appear that despite the explanations given to you above, you still don't understand the point of this thread.


----------



## agcohn




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Favelle* /forum/post/18475250
> 
> 
> Isn't that exactly what we're against? What if DNR and EE become all the rage and all of a sudden the wax museums of Patton and Gladiator are now considered "reference". I don't want anything but faithfulness to the source. If its 100% faithful, its reference.



I think the point of the thread is to rank films for their Blu-ray "wow" factor, essentially their sharpness and detail.


If being true to the source material was all that mattered, I could take my student films that were shot on DV, put them on Blu-ray, and call them reference as long as they looked true to the original footage.


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18467506
> 
> 
> Yes, I should have noted that in the recommendation. The introduction to the unrated cut basically warns the viewer to watch the theatrical version first. *A large component of the extra material in the unrated cut is the digital addition of naked women running through the background of random scenes.* The unrated cut would appear to be a marketing stunt for the sake of a few extra sales.



I'm not sure how this negatively affects the picture quality. To many people, this would enhance the viewing experience of a number of films.


----------



## audiomagnate

*Breaking Bad, Season 1*


Season 1 consists of two discs and seven episodes including the pilot. Consistency is good throughout the series, even though the pilot had a different cinematographer, John Toll. Film triva buffs know him as the only living person to receive back to back cinematography Oscars. Contrast and color saturation are very good, and blacks are black but many shots lack shadow detail. Sharpness is better than average. The main problem for me was video noise when viewing my 1080p 54 inch plasma from closer than 10 feet or so.


If you haven't been following this superb show on AMC, you can catch up with season 1 and 2 on Blu-ray and watch season 3 live. The discs are absolutely loaded with special features, but unfortunately they're almost all SD. Bryan Cranston's (Doogie Howser's dad) wisecracks even make the commentary track enjoyable. There is some outdoor eye candy in this one, but the noise and crushed blacks (if that's the right term for a lack of detail within dark areas of the shot) make this a *2.25* for me.


----------



## tfoltz

There was a thread that addressed this, but it died earlier this year ("Film Reference and Analysis"). I enjoyed that thread







.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Favelle* /forum/post/18475250
> 
> 
> I don't want anything but faithfulness to the source. If its 100% faithful, its reference.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Favelle* /forum/post/18475250
> 
> 
> Isn't that exactly what we're against? What if DNR and EE become all the rage and all of a sudden the wax museums of Patton and Gladiator are now considered "reference". I don't want anything but faithfulness to the source. If its 100% faithful, its reference.



Lay your fears to rest. That should never happen in this thread, as DNR and EE never actually improve picture quality in any way. Those tools do nothing but degrade the inherent quality of film. The Patton BD would be ranked much higher here, if an egregious amount of grain-reduction had not been applied to the transfer.


Accuracy to the original prints is obviously an important goal, but not the overriding goal of the PQ-Tiers List. Personally I have docked Blu-rays that drastically alter the image from the intended aspect ratio, as that can noticeably lessen the composition of the framing, which does fall under the auspices of the thread. There are other factors of course that can alter fidelity to the source, and which can and do impact the rankings here.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Slammin' Salmon*

Eww. This one is shot on film but has been processed to hell. Not sure if it's the digital intermediate or the transfer. No way to tell. Colors are completely overblown, especially the reds which bleed. Edge enhancement is apparent throughout, and while the grain is there (although clumpy), faces are waxy and devoid of detail. Michael Clarke Duncan's face shows some textures in close, but that's it.

*Tier 4.5*



-------------
*Planet 51*


Pretty much par for the course CG. Banding noticeable against the night sky right from the start. Basically perfect from there, beyond more banding. Great color, superb blacks, dimensionality is awesome, and some wonderful detail during long shots (grass looks stunning).

*Tier 0.5*


(Let's go with somewhere around Bee Movie for the hell of it)


----------



## Phantom Stranger

An update is coming very soon, so get your recommendations in now if you want to see them reflected on the main page.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Pirate Radio*


Generally pleasing image. Solid black levels with a bit of crush. Scenes on the ship are warmly tinted, but flesh tones maintain some of their natural hues. Scenes involving politicians are cold and blue.


Detail is fine, if not overwhelmingly impressive. Some grain spikes are quickly taken care of. No instances of banding or EE. Quite film like.

*Tier 1.75*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Oh, look at that...the PQ Tiers are up to date again.







Whoever handles that prodigious feat must possess the wisdom of Solomon and have the stamina of Atlas.









http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...943369#anchor0 


The Princess & The Frog - middle of 0 Ozymandis, 1.25 Phantom Stranger, 1.75 deltasun


Zombieland - 1.0 b_scott


Did You Hear About The Morgans? - 2.75 deltasun, 3.0 Gamereviewgod


Armored - 1.75 Gamereviewgod


The Fourth Kind - 2.25 Gamereviewgod


Twilight: New Moon - 1.75 Gamereviewgod, 2.0 jedimasterchad, 2.25 audiomagnate, 2.0 djoberg


Astro Boy - Top of 0 Phantom Stranger, 0 below Coraline Rob Tomlin, 0 below A Bug's Life audiomagnate, 0 around Coraline geekyglassesgirl, 0 around Bolt jedimasterchad, 0 below Coraline djoberg, top of 0 K-Spaz


Jennifer's Body - 1.0 Hughmc, 1.25 Rob Tomlin


Ninja Assassin - low 0 jedimasterchad, low 0/1.0 Hughmc


The Men Who Stare At Goats - 2.0 Gamereviewgod, 2.0 deltasun


Mystic River - 1.75 OldCodger73


An American In Paris - 3.25 OldCodger73


Tale Of Despereaux - 0 below Coraline OldCodger73


Up In The Air - low 0/1.0 OldCodger73


Toy Story - 0 above Chicken Little jedimasterchad, 0 thunderbolt8, 0 between Tinker Bells deltasun, 0 below Wall*E Phantom Stranger, 0 below Monsters V. Aliens djoberg


Toy Story 2 - 0 below Monsters Vs. Aliens deltasun, top 3 of 0 thunderbolt8, 0 below UP jedimasterchad, 0 below UP djoberg, 0 next to Baraka Phantom Stranger


Brothers - 2.5 deltasun, 2.5 Gamereviewgod, 2.0 Hughmc


The Blind Side - 1.25 Gamereviewgod, 0 below Transporter 3 djoberg, 0 Hughmc, low 0 jedimasterchad


Sherlock Holmes - lower quarter of 0 EatingPie, 1.75 Gamereviewgod, 1.5 Hughmc, 1.5 djoberg, 2.5 Patrick99, 2.25 Rob Tomlin, 2.5 jedimasterchad


A Bug's Life - not at the top tfoltz


The Box - 3.0 deltasun


Shrooms (UK) - 3.75 Phantom Stranger


Fantastic Mr. Fox - 0 above Coraline vpn75, 0 below Meet the Robinsons djoberg


Smokin' Aces 2 - 1.75 Rob Tomlin


Yojimbo - 1.75 deltasun


Sanjuro - 2.75 deltasun


Red Cliff 1/2 (US) - 0 above Baraka Ozymandis


Casablanca - 2.25 geekyglassesgirl


Broken Embraces - low 0/1.0 Hughmc


Hachi: A Dog's Story - 1.5 Hughmc


Planet of the Apes (1968) - 2.5 Gamereviewgod


Alvin & the Chipmunks:squeakquel - .75 Gamereviewgod


The Descent- Tier 1? Earz


A Perfect Getaway - 2.25 Patrick99


Motherhood - 4.25 Gamereviewgod


Alvin & the Chipmunks - 1.0 Gamereviewgod


The Edge of Love - 1.75 Phantom Stranger


Beneath the planet of the Apes - 2.5 Gamereviewgod


Escape from the Planet Of the Apes - 3.0 Gamereviewgod


Conquest Of the Planet of the Apes - 3.5 Gamereviewgod


Battle for the planet of the Apes - 3.25 Gamereviewgod


The Collector - 4.0 Gamereviewgod


Fellowship of the Ring - 1.5/2 OldCodger73, 3.25 tfoltz, 3.75 Patrick99


Bad LT: Port Of Call New Orleans - 2.0 Gamereviewgod


The African Queen - 1.5 Gamereviewgod, 2.0 audiomagnate


The Relic - 4.0 Gamereviewgod, 5.0 Mr. G


Dirty Harry - 1.75 Hughmc


Magnum Force - 1.75 Hughmc


Bourne Identity - 2.0 Hughmc


Bourne Supremacy - 1.5 Hughmc


Bourne Ultimatum - 1.25 Hughmc


Old Dogs - 1.75/2 djoberg


Mr. Brooks - 1.5 Rob Tomlin


Guge - 1.5 Phantom Stranger


The Twin Towers - 2.5 tflotz


Return Of the King - 1.75 tfoltz


Sex Drive - low 0 Phantom Stranger


Breaking Bad: Season 1 - 2.25 audiomagnate


Slammin' Salmon - 4.5 gamereviewgod


Planet 51 - middle of 0 gamereviewgod


Pirate Radio - 1.75 gamereviewgod


----------



## tfoltz

Thanks for continually taking the time to do this.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/18484621
> 
> 
> Thanks for continually taking the time to do this.



Ditto!


----------



## tcramer

Anyone seen Apollo 13 on Blu yet? I'm really hoping it has a decent PQ, especially the black levels for the space shots.


Thanks!


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/18484621
> 
> 
> thanks for continually taking the time to do this.



+1!


----------



## Hughmc

mucho grassyass senor Solomatlas!


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Grassy ass?


----------



## Hughmc

Poor landscape maintenance humor Rob, it's that time of year.


----------



## hd nOOb

hello


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hd nOOb* /forum/post/18488714
> 
> 
> hello



Welcome to the thread, everyone's input and ratings are always encouraged here.


On another matter, a point of order regarding double-features in the future. As most of you are probably aware, Warner Bros. has taken to the habit of releasing twin-bills in a single package on Blu-ray. Presumed Innocent and Frantic were packaged this way, among others. Do not think it is necessary to review both features, as BDs like that will get separate entries in the PQ list for each movie. Feel free to give a recommendation of a single movie from a BD double-feature.


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18490336
> 
> 
> Welcome to the thread, everyone's input and ratings are always encouraged here.
> 
> 
> On another matter, a point of order regarding double-features in the future. As most of you are probably aware, Warner Bros. has taken to the habit of releasing twin-bills in a single package on Blu-ray. Presumed Innocent and Frantic were packaged this way, among others. Do not think it is necessary to review both features, as BDs like that will get separate entries in the PQ list for each movie. Feel free to give a recommendation of a single movie from a BD double-feature.



Are there any ways to see if the WB rental discs are any different than a retail version? The discs I'm getting are labeled as such, but generally afaik they are just stripped of special features. Should we just report the encode to corroborate different versions and make sure they are the same?


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/18491043
> 
> 
> Are there any ways to see if the WB rental discs are any different than a retail version? The discs I'm getting are labeled as such, but generally afaik they are just stripped of special features. Should we just report the encode to corroborate different versions and make sure they are the same?



From everything I have seen, no studio has yet altered the video encode from the retail BD to the rental BD. Though knock yourself out with any information you feel might be pertinent. BDInfo could tell you if you have access to a Blu-ray computer drive. I do know that Lionsgate dropped the 3-D version on one of their rental Blu-rays. We have seen what Warner is moving toward, tailoring many of their video encodes to fit on a BD-25 for rental purposes, and then reusing that encode for the retail release. That is why I believe now many of their retail discs barely use up 40 GB on a BD-50.


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18491334
> 
> 
> From everything I have seen, no studio has yet altered the video encode from the retail BD to the rental BD. Though knock yourself out with any information you feel might be pertinent. BDInfo could tell you if you have access to a Blu-ray computer drive. I do know that Lionsgate dropped the 3-D version on one of their rental Blu-rays. We have seen what Warner is moving toward, tailoring many of their video encodes to fit on a BD-25 for rental purposes, and then reusing that encode for the retail release. That is why I believe now many of their retail discs barely use up 40 GB on a BD-50.



In that case, I will just note that it is a "rental" version, although if what you say is true that's really too bad. Corporate greed strikes again.


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/18491476
> 
> 
> In that case, I will just note that it is a "rental" version, although if what you say is true that's really too bad. Corporate greed strikes again.



The whole situation is unfortunate, but as Phantom Stranger said there haven't been any releases as of yet that I know of containing an alternate video (or main audio) encode for the rental version. It's probably bound to happen sooner or later, but I would assume it to be very rare in any eventual case since a separate encode would be a gratuitous expense to provide differentiation for the retail edition. Although the whole creation of a rental-specific edition (implying reauthoring of the disc gold-master image and altered menus at the very least) is an added expense, so you never know...


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Fantastic Mr. Fox*

The only thing that could push this out of eye candy territory is the selective color palette. Almost the whole movie is yellow/brown/orange, but when it is this detailed, you can let that go. Every piece of fur on the puppets is visible, and every background object is clearly defined. You can even pick up the pattern of the material in their eyes during close-ups, and there are a lot of them. Super sharp, and distance shots are fully resolved. Gorgeous.

*Tier 0.5*


-------

*A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)*


Possibly some controversy in how amped up the colors are. Reds and blues are especially vibrant. During the funeral, the mother's lips look like they are glowing. Grain is intact, and generally inoffensive. Some facial detail in close and fully resolved. Blacks are excellent with the exception of one or two scenes. The print is in remarkable shape, with only one or two specks noted.
*Tier. 2.0*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18492550
> 
> *Fantastic Mr. Fox*
> *The only thing that could push this out of eye candy territory is the selective color palette*. Almost the whole movie is yellow/brown/orange, but when it is this detailed, you can let that go. Every piece of fur on the puppets is visible, and every background object is clearly defined. You can even pick up the pattern of the material in their eyes during close-ups, and there are a lot of them. Super sharp, and distance shots are fully resolved. Gorgeous.
> 
> *Tier 0.5*



I agree with you in measure about the "selective color palette," but there is surely enough "eye candy" in other areas to keep it within "eye candy territory." Regarding your recommendation for placement, I had recommended it going right under _Meet the Robinsons_, but I wouldn't mind if it ended up in the middle of Tier 0, somewhere around _Baraka_.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18494926
> 
> 
> I agree with you in measure about the "selective color palette," but there is surely enough "eye candy" in other areas to keep it within "eye candy territory." Regarding your recommendation for placement, I had recommended it going right under _Meet the Robinsons_, but I wouldn't mind if it ended up in the middle of Tier 0, somewhere around _Baraka_.



Hence why the next part of that sentence says it's easy to let that go.







I have not seen Baraka, but Meet the Robinsons is basically perfect. I have no issues with Mr. Fox ending up there.

*Terminator 2 - Skynet Edition*


I know this one caused some controversy when it was released, but let's ignite that fire again. Definitely going with those who believe this was DNR'ed. Pinkish flesh tones, edge enhancement, and even a bit of smearing are evident. Far too clean and digital to look like film. A few close-ups show some facial detail, but are spread thin. Some print damage, and the special effect shots noticeably stand out because of the glowing blacks. Still, it doesn't look awful, just far from natural and noticeably processed.

*Tier 3.5*


Also, if you were ever considering the Limited Edition Endoskull set, don't. That thing is cheap as hell. Feel like I'm going to break it every time I touch it. Don't know how they get off charging $120 for that thing.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18499746
> 
> *I have not seen Baraka*, but Meet the Robinsons is basically perfect. I have no issues with Mr. Fox ending up there.



You haven't seen _Baraka_? I would encourage you to see it someday. Aside from some issues with ringing, it's a gorgeous transfer.


I'm surprised you haven't given us a review yet on _Avatar_. I'm picking up a copy on Tuesday, but it would be nice to get your scoop before then.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18502169
> 
> 
> You haven't seen _Baraka_? I would encourage you to see it someday. Aside from some issues with ringing, it's a gorgeous transfer.
> 
> 
> I'm surprised you haven't given us a review yet on _Avatar_. I'm picking up a copy on Tuesday, but it would be nice to get your scoop before then.



Avatar isn't released on Tuesday, it is released on Thursday.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18502199
> 
> 
> Avatar isn't released on Tuesday, it is released on Thursday.



Thanks for the heads up Rob. You saved me a trip down to my local Super Wal-Mart on Tuesday.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18502169
> 
> 
> You haven't seen _Baraka_? I would encourage you to see it someday. Aside from some issues with ringing, it's a gorgeous transfer.
> 
> 
> I'm surprised you haven't given us a review yet on _Avatar_. I'm picking up a copy on Tuesday, but it would be nice to get your scoop before then.



Didn't get a screener. Not sure is anyone did. Honestly, it's not like they need any publicity.


In other words, I won't know until it's out and I get my own copy.


----------



## djoberg

*The Dark Knight (Revisited)*


My last review for this title was way back on 12/09/08 and I nominated it for the middle of Tier 0. IMHO this title is _still_ worthy of Tier 0, though now I would put it at the *bottom of Tier 0*.


Many excellent titles have emerged since December of 2008 that have better facial details (though I must say every shot of Morgan Freeman was high Tier 0 quality) and more depth, but I was still amazed at the phenomenal blacks levels, the exquisite shadow details, the unrivaled contrast, and the vibrant colors. Flesh tones were a bit *reddish* at times (especially Alfred's face), but overall they were spot one. I simply loved every close-up of the Joker; the detail and colors (his painted face and green hair) were second to none!


I have zero interest in *resurrecting* a debate about this title. It's been in 1.25 for a very long time and I'm not about to start a crusade to move it to Tier Blu (I tried my hardest back in '08 without any success). But I did want to see what it looked like on my KURO and I was NOT disappointed! It's still one that I'll reach for any day to show off the virtues of HD on Blu-ray.


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18504316
> 
> *The Dark Knight (Revisited)*
> 
> 
> My last review for this title was way back on 12/09/08 and I nominated it for the middle of Tier 0. IMHO this title is _still_ worthy of Tier 0, though now I would put it at the *bottom of Tier 0*.
> 
> 
> Many excellent titles have emerged since December of 2008 that have better facial details (though I must say every shot of Morgan Freeman was high Tier 0 quality) and more depth, but I was still amazed at the phenomenal blacks levels, the exquisite shadow details, the unrivaled contrast, and the vibrant colors. Flesh tones were a bit *reddish* at times (especially Alfred's face), but overall they were spot one. I simply loved every close-up of the Joker; the detail and colors (his painted face and green hair) were second to none!
> 
> 
> I have zero interest in *resurrecting* a debate about this title. It's been in 1.25 for a very long time and I not about to start a crusade to move it to Tier Blu (I tried my hardest back in '08 without any success). But I did want to see what it looked like on my KURO and I was NOT disappointed! It's still one that I'll reach for any day to show off the virtues of HD on Blu-ray.



I bought this a couple months ago when it was on sale at Target. When the movie came out originally, I didn't have a hi-def setup yet so my wife bought the dvd and even though I really enjoy this movie, didn't feel the need to upgrade until I found a good price. I would have to disagree with you though, and say that 1.25 is a bit generous. I can't remember exactly what all went wrong, because it's been a couple months since I viewed it and didn't feel like reviewing at the time, but I wasn't that impressed with it. If nothing else, the purchase was worth it for the sound upgrade, but I'm glad I got it on sale, to say the least.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/18505138
> 
> 
> I bought this a couple months ago when it was on sale at Target. When the movie came out originally, I didn't have a hi-def setup yet so my wife bought the dvd and even though I really enjoy this movie, didn't feel the need to upgrade until I found a good price. I would have to disagree with you though, and say that 1.25 is a bit generous. I can't remember exactly what all went wrong, because it's been a couple months since I viewed it and didn't feel like reviewing at the time, but I wasn't that impressed with it. If nothing else, the purchase was worth it for the sound upgrade, but I'm glad I got it on sale, to say the least.



Well, jedi....it looked EXCELLENT on my KURO!










There were a few scenes that weren't that stellar, but the lowest I would go is 1.0.


----------



## vipervick

I don't know if it is just my set up, but The Blind Side looked horrible to me. I've read a few people in this thread say it looks amazing.


Hell, I don't even like the movie. The poor PQ just made me sick. I ended up playing WoW while my wife and mother-in-law watched it. Rented the BR from Blockbuster.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18505448
> 
> 
> Well, jedi....it looked EXCELLENT on my KURO!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were a few scenes that weren't that stellar, but the lowest I would go is 1.0.



It's been a while, but Dark Knight would probably end up around 2.5 for me. The Imax stuff is great, but so processed and digital elsewhere (plus some edge enhancement) there's no way it should even touch Tier 1 IMO.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vipervick* /forum/post/18507679
> 
> 
> I don't know if it is just my set up, but The Blind Side looked horrible to me. I've read a few people in this thread say it looks amazing.
> 
> 
> Hell, I don't even like the movie. The poor PQ just made me sick. I ended up playing WoW while my wife and mother-in-law watched it. Rented the BR from Blockbuster.



What were your problems with the video?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18507820
> 
> 
> It's been a while, but Dark Knight would probably end up around 2.5 for me. The Imax stuff is great, but so processed and digital elsewhere (plus some edge enhancement) there's no way it should even touch Tier 1 IMO.



Again, I have no desire whatsoever to resurrect the debate over this title, but when it was debated there were MANY advocates for Tier 0 and just as many advocates for Tier 1. It averaged out at 1.25. Even those who were bothered by the EE were willing to put it into Tier 1 (with the exception of a few who opted for Tier 2).


I am going to reiterate that it looks amazing on my KURO, and I'm not just talking about the IMAX footage. Granted, there are some scenes with oversaturated colors (resulting in *reddish* skin tones and an unnatural overall look) and a few isolated scenes where the blacks aren't deep and inky, but the majority of the movie is EYE CANDY for sure....to _my eyes_ on _my KURO_.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

The Dark Knight was always going to be tough to assign one ranking to represent it in the tiers. The IMAX portions look spectacular, but the rest of the film simply does not. Some blame Warner and the process they used to create the Blu-ray transfer. Personally I thought a spot in tier 1.25 was a bit too high, though it still merits a placement somewhere in tier one in spite of its flaws.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18505448
> 
> 
> Well, jedi....it looked EXCELLENT on my KURO!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were a few scenes that weren't that stellar, but the lowest I would go is 1.0.



I have been wanting to rent it again and watch it on the big screen. I thought I recommended 1.0 back in the day.


It seems DK is one of those titles similar to Sherlock Holmes in that the recommendations seem to be in either one camp or the other and not much in between. It seems some either like the look or they don't.


And like Solomon said, er I mean Phantom







...in his latest post.


----------



## Hughmc

Was another two week drought, but it looks like this week and the next couple are going to give us some good releases new and catalog. YES!


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I'm overdue for re-watching The Dark Knight.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I have to get my reviews of Ninja Assassin and 2012 up. Why can't I find the motivation to do so????


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18508837
> 
> 
> I have to get my reviews of Ninja Assassin and 2012 up. Why can't I find the motivation to do so????



Probably because you watched 2012 first and it was lackluster....but Ninja Assassin is awesome!


Regarding TDK, I will view it again when I get home and critique it. I'm on vacation for the week in South Carolina, so I won't be home until the weekend.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18507820
> 
> 
> It's been a while, but Dark Knight would probably end up around 2.5 for me. The Imax stuff is great, but so processed and digital elsewhere (plus some edge enhancement) there's no way it should even touch Tier 1 IMO.



I share this view.


----------



## Ozymandis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18504316
> 
> *The Dark Knight (Revisited)*
> 
> 
> My last review for this title was way back on 12/09/08 and I nominated it for the middle of Tier 0. IMHO this title is _still_ worthy of Tier 0, though now I would put it at the *bottom of Tier 0*.
> 
> 
> Many excellent titles have emerged since December of 2008 that have better facial details (though I must say every shot of Morgan Freeman was high Tier 0 quality) and more depth, but I was still amazed at the phenomenal blacks levels, the exquisite shadow details, the unrivaled contrast, and the vibrant colors. Flesh tones were a bit *reddish* at times (especially Alfred's face), but overall they were spot one. I simply loved every close-up of the Joker; the detail and colors (his painted face and green hair) were second to none!
> 
> 
> I have zero interest in *resurrecting* a debate about this title. It's been in 1.25 for a very long time and I'm not about to start a crusade to move it to Tier Blu (I tried my hardest back in '08 without any success). But I did want to see what it looked like on my KURO and I was NOT disappointed! It's still one that I'll reach for any day to show off the virtues of HD on Blu-ray.



The reason why The Dark Knight isn't in Tier 0 is that it's all over the place Yes the IMAX sections are demo-worthy. The rest of the movie is pretty average. It has a look that says to me over-processed. A really "hard" look, it's not natural at all.


I forget what I scored TDK but I think it was Tier 1.5? Even 1.25 is too generous.


And if we're resurrecting old movies I think the ringing in Baraka should put it in Tier 1.0 or 1.25, as I've campaigned for before. There should be no Tier 0 titles with nasty ringing







Watched it over the weekend again and was not particularly thrilled with its Tier 0 placement.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Crazy Heart*


Soft, soft, soft... but then way too sharp. This one is all over the place. Some scenes appear heavily sharpened, with the grain appearing coarse and unnatural. Fine detail is at a premium. Flesh tones are warm but not unnaturally so. Most of the film though is really soft and blacks can lead to crush, but this was also done in a lot of low light scenarios.
*Tier 2.5*


----------



## vipervick




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18507822
> 
> 
> What were your problems with the video?



I've asked ablout my set up in this thread .


I can't believe the difference that some say the PQ is amazing and what I saw was utter garbage.


----------



## tfoltz

The fact that you haven't taken the time to adjust the video settings on your tv should explain the poor results. "Out of the box" settings are typically horrible, and would provide horrible results.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vipervick* /forum/post/18512717
> 
> 
> I've asked ablout my set up in this thread .
> 
> 
> I can't believe the difference that some say the PQ is amazing and what I saw was utter garbage.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vipervick* /forum/post/18506274
> 
> 
> Well, to be honest... Evertything is at default. Basically unpacked the box, hooked it up and good to go.













There you go.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ozymandis* /forum/post/18511343
> 
> 
> The reason why The Dark Knight isn't in Tier 0 is that it's all over the place Yes the IMAX sections are demo-worthy. The rest of the movie is pretty average. It has a look that says to me over-processed. A really "hard" look, it's not natural at all.
> 
> 
> I forget what I scored TDK but I think it was Tier 1.5? Even 1.25 is too generous.
> 
> 
> And if we're resurrecting old movies I think the ringing in Baraka should put it in Tier 1.0 or 1.25, as I've campaigned for before. There should be no Tier 0 titles with nasty ringing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watched it over the weekend again and was not particularly thrilled with its Tier 0 placement.



First of all, I respectfully disagree with your view that TDK is "all over the place." I thought it was quite consistent. But then again, that's _my eyes_ (and I'll add a majority of "professional" reviewers said the same thing and thought it was an _excellent_ transfer).


Regarding _Baraka_, many members (and I mean MANY) either did not see any ringing or they weren't distracted by it, and thus it was placed in Tier 0 by _the majority_. I do sympathize with you and others who are are prone to see ringing and are consequently taken out of the movie by it. But you must also respect those of us who don't see it or are not bothered by it when we do see it. Surely you wouldn't expect us to penalize a title for something we don't see, would you?


----------



## Hughmc

Re: Baraka which I own. I didn't see the ringing on my 60 inch, or what some are calling ringing, and I barely see it on my 120 inch screen. It is simply an affect of the way the object was captured with the bright sun behind it. Similar to the way some of the ringing shows up in Transporter 3. And object, dark object against bright lights or the sun. It is not even close to being an issue for me to lower it especially in motion.


I picked up Minority report last night. Couldn't resist. It looks great, film like, lots of grain, but...IMO for our thread purposes I don't see it any higher than 1.5 and more like 2.0. WHile it is true to the source and "flawless" reference, director's intent gives it the rating I am thinking about recommending. Blown out whites, average black levels at times, and that overall strange look the director intended doesn't make it eye candy or even demo worthy IMO. Great PQ, just not demo.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/18513624
> 
> 
> I picked up Minority report last night. Couldn't resist. It looks great, film like, lots of grain, but...IMO for our thread purposes I don't see it any higher than 1.5 and more like 2.0. WHile it is true to the source and "flawless" reference, director's intent gives it the rating I am thinking about recommending. Blown out whites, average black levels at times, and that overall strange look the director intended doesn't make it eye candy or even demo worthy IMO. Great PQ, just not demo.



I saw part of _The Minority Report_ on a movie channel the other night and it looked terrible!! Granted, I only saw a fraction of the movie, but if that was indicative of what it looks like on Blu it will never make the 2 top tiers.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18513767
> 
> 
> I saw part of _The Minority Report_ on a movie channel the other night and it looked terrible!! Granted, I only saw a fraction of the movie, but if that was indicative of what it looks like on Blu it will never make the 2 top tiers.



I might suggest that you take a look at this thread:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1244019


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18513767
> 
> 
> I saw part of _The Minority Report_ on a movie channel the other night and it looked terrible!! Granted, I only saw a fraction of the movie, but if that was indicative of what it looks like on Blu it will never make the 2 top tiers.




I have the DVD and have seen it on HD channels as well. It looks good on Blu Denny, just that the overall look which is intentional, doesn't shine for this thread's purpose. It looks great to me, but again for this thread it doesn't compare to say The Blind Side, or tier 1.0 titles. The sound is good as well.


----------



## tfoltz

Come on now, you know you can't compare apples to oranges.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18513767
> 
> 
> I saw part of _The Minority Report_ on a movie channel the other night and it looked terrible!! Granted, I only saw a fraction of the movie, but if that was indicative of what it looks like on Blu it will never make the 2 top tiers.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/18513920
> 
> 
> Come on now, you know you can't compare apples to oranges.




Can't speak for Denny, but if he is alluding to what I have seen... typically on HDnet movies they have the best PQ for HD programming and I can tell when a crappy or old master is used compared to newer ones. For example Water World on blu looks like the same crappy transfer as on HDnet or HD channels when broadcast.


Dirty Harry on HDnet movies looks good and the BD which I own looks identical more or less for overall PQ , like it is from the same master/source, (we know BD is going to show up better due to bandwith). The Good, Bad and the Ugly looks like crap on HDnet and on BD as they are from the same transfer.


The look of Minority Report on BLu and quality broadcast HD channels is NOT the fault of poor transfer, but simply the look of the movie, director's intent.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18513822
> 
> 
> I might suggest that you take a look at this thread:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1244019



I must say the Blu-ray caps look VERY impressive Rob! Thanks for the link. I'll definitely have to view this on Blu.....and quit comparing Apples to Oranges.


----------



## deltasun

Sorry for the grouping of reviews, folks...a bit busy with our first born.







And, putting in hardwood floors.


I do want to chime in on a few movies that I've seen recently:

*Ninja Assassin - Tier 1.0*


Definitely excellent blacks and jaw-dropping facial close-up's. It does suffer a bit from dimensionality at times, probably due to the intentional shooting with shadows from which a ninja can pounce. Details outside of the above were not as impressive.


~~~~~~~~~~

*Where the Wild Things Are - Tier 3.0*


Pretty soft presentation with intentional brownish tinge throughout. Details are pretty scarce, but showed some decent blacks with minor crush. Some of the night scenes were problematic and some banding noted.


~~~~~~~~~~

*The Informant - Tier 3.75*


Another stylized look - set in the 90's but the color palette almost makes it look like the 70's. Plenty of haze and very light on details. Blacks are weak and contrast follows. Colors are subdued and lifeless. Lots of technical anomalies, but seem to be part of the look Soderbergh was trying to achieve.


~~~~~~~~~~

*Law Abiding Citizen - Tier 2.0*


This one's been covered quite a bit - very inconsistent, but I agree with the lower-end crowd on this. Really good blacks and overall delineation, but will unexpectedly dip in certain scenes. Btw, the scene jedimasterchad was talking about - the doubling of Jamie Foxx's image. It's neither an equipment or even encode flaw nor done for effect. It was filmed up close through a reflection in the mirror, thereby picking up the second image under the first layer of glass.


~~~~~~~~~~

*Collateral - Tier 3.25*


Love the look for the film, but for the purposes of this thread, it's a mess. Heavy grain, weak blacks (specially when natural night lighting is used), bluish tinge, and some subpar details (Jamie Foxx's face is often found pasty) are all present one way or another. There is a fair amount of scenes, however, where facial details look excellent and blacks stable.


----------



## Hughmc

Congrats Delta, hope all is well.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ozymandis* /forum/post/18511343
> 
> 
> The reason why The Dark Knight isn't in Tier 0 is that it's all over the place Yes the IMAX sections are demo-worthy. The rest of the movie is pretty average. It has a look that says to me over-processed. A really "hard" look, it's not natural at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if we're resurrecting old movies I think the ringing in Baraka should put it in Tier 1.0 or 1.25, as I've campaigned for before. There should be no Tier 0 titles with nasty ringing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watched it over the weekend again and was not particularly thrilled with its Tier 0 placement.



Agree on both titles.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18515063
> 
> 
> Sorry for the grouping of reviews, folks...a bit busy with our first born.



Congratulations!


----------



## Mr.G




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/18513624
> 
> 
> I picked up Minority report last night. Couldn't resist. It looks great, film like, lots of grain, but...IMO for our thread purposes I don't see it any higher than 1.5 and more like 2.0. WHile it is true to the source and "flawless" reference, director's intent gives it the rating I am thinking about recommending. Blown out whites, average black levels at times, and that overall strange look the director intended doesn't make it eye candy or even demo worthy IMO. Great PQ, just not demo.



I would have to agree. The BD looked and sounded great (the sonic blast gun provided a definite impact) but the intended color manipulations and the soft focus at times (often when blending CGI with live action) took away from its demo rating. The film exhibited decent grain and there were times when the picture was very sharp, just not enough instances to rate this BD higher than 1.75.

*Minority Report - Tier 1.75*


----------



## deltasun

*Minority Report*


Much like _Collateral_, this has a stylized look that suits the action and storyline. Personally, this is another favorite of mine and have always found the look complementary to the story. Steely blues and grays dominate the TV-scape, along with heavy grain at times. Filters to bloom lighting in a number of instances unfortunately drop those scenes into the lower Copper tier.


Though the look is stylized, shadow details are decent. Details, in general, are abundant - this includes facial (lots skirting Tier Blu) as well as surface textures. Blacks can get weak in a few scenes, but holds up really well for the most part. Contrast wavers a bit, again as intended. The pool scene is a good example. Skin tones are natural.


Excellent transfer - I cannot be happier. Though if I were to be even pickier, I'd opt for the even steelier, grainier, and more filtered look that I remember in the theatre (and in DVD). For the purposes of our thread...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75*


----------



## Ladic

are there any reviews for avatar BD yet?


----------



## Vegaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ladic* /forum/post/18518246
> 
> 
> are there any reviews for avatar BD yet?



I'll have one later.

It didn't work in my player so I'll have to hook up the PS3.









I should probably mention I'm the one person on the planet that didn't see it in the theatre.


But for now...

*The Lovely Bones*


Well...it's lovely. The in between world,supernatural place,blue horizon,highway to hell,stairway to heaven,purgatory...whatever you wanna call all that stuff is certianly worthy of 0/blu placement. Wonderful colors and pop and all that sort of thing. However that's only part of the movie. While the real world is nothing to scoff at it's hardly on par with that,I'd say 1.25 for that. So it averages out to...

*Tier 1.0*


I would like to note that it's entirely possible the between world just makes the real world look not as good as it actually is and might be higher and I was thrown off due to the wonderfulness of that.


Screen size: 42"

Display resolution: 1080p @ 24hz

Viewing distance: 6-8 feet

Samsung BD-1600


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18515063
> 
> 
> Sorry for the grouping of reviews, folks...a bit busy with our first born.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, putting in hardwood floors.



I was wondering why there were few reviews from you in the last tally. A hearty congratulations to you on the baby.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vegaz* /forum/post/18519202
> 
> 
> I should probably mention I'm the one person on the planet that didn't see it in the theatre.



No, you're not.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18519398
> 
> 
> No, you're not.



Me three!


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/18515325
> 
> 
> Congrats Delta, hope all is well.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/18515757
> 
> 
> Congratulations!





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18519374
> 
> 
> I was wondering why there were few reviews from you in the last tally. A hearty congratulations to you on the baby.



Thanks, gents! I thought I'd be able to watch one flick after another but alas, not so. I'm sure I'll catch up.


----------



## Vegaz

There's THREE people that didn't see it in a theatre? Wow!









*Avatar*


Well the topic specifically for this mentions it uses up 46.6 GB. It shows and then some. Having this as a display movie in stores should increase player/HDTV sales significantly. The description in the guide topic for rating blu level describes _exactly_ this. This near deserve its own teir. Perfectly clean,spectacularly vibrant,I really couldn't see anything wrong with it at all. To heck with extras if stuff can look this good. Wasn't a fan of the movie itself so I doubt I'd buy it but if I did buy something just for how it looked it would be this.

Tier 0 (#1,I haven't seen A Bug's Life but I'm voting it there anyway)


Screen size: 42"

Display resolution: 1080p @ 24hz

Viewing distance: 6-8 feet

PS3 as it didn't work on the Samsung BD-1600


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Thanks for the review, Vegaz! I picked up a copy this morning (anyone else find it weird it is Blu Ray + DVD but no digital copy?). I'm hoping to give it a view early this afternoon & I will post my thoughts as well! That's some high praise for sure!


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Avatar*


Tier 0? Yes. Shots of Pandora are immaculate, pristine, and jaw dropping. Every leaf, every blade of grass, and all detail on the Na'vi are fully resolved. It is on par with any CG animated film.


In the human world, not so much. The nature of digital filmmaking, that processed, smooth look, is always present, at least until the finale. If this were shot on film, people would be crying DNR, but it's not. That's just the nature of the process sometimes. Then again, maybe this transfer is so damn good, it just makes it stand out more.

*Tier 0.5*


----------



## DavidML3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18522859
> 
> *Avatar*
> 
> 
> Tier 0? Yes. Shots of Pandora are immaculate, pristine, and jaw dropping. Every leaf, every blade of grass, and all detail on the Na'vi are fully resolved. It is on par with any CG animated film.
> 
> 
> In the human world, not so much. The nature of digital filmmaking, that processed, smooth look, is always present, at least until the finale. If this were shot on film, people would be crying DNR, but it's not. That's just the nature of the process sometimes. Then again, maybe this transfer is so damn good, it just makes it stand out more.
> 
> *Tier 0.5*



Another vote for Tier 0 up to the top with the animated movies. As much as I hate this cheesy, "after school special" of a story, the visuals are stunning. Even better than the theater in 3d.


----------



## HDphile22

*AVATAR Tier 0, #1, period.


Please rate this ABOVE all animated movies.


They DON'T really count!

*


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDphile22* /forum/post/18524038
> 
> *AVATAR Tier 0, #1, period.
> 
> 
> Please rate this ABOVE all animated movies.
> 
> 
> They DON'T really count!
> 
> *



This IS an animated movie


----------



## LilGator

How are people judging/rating the PQ of these films on 42" TVs from 6-8ft? You can't even resolve all 1080p if you're further than 5.5ft away from a screen this size (20/20); anything will look good at that distance!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LilGator* /forum/post/18524198
> 
> 
> How are people judging/rating the PQ of these films on 42" TVs from 6-8ft? You can't even resolve all 1080p if you're further than 5.5ft away from a screen this size (20/20); anything will look good at that distance!



I happen to have a Samsung 40" LCD (the 750 Series) and believe me I can see flaws on HD content at 6', so not everything "will look good at that distance."


Having said that, I do believe this title will receive its greatest test on bigger screens. I just picked up a copy of _Avatar_ this afternoon and I'll be viewing it tonight on my 60" Pioneer KURO from 7-8', so I'll be weighing in shortly thereafter with my take on this. I really do hope the reviews that have come in are spot on....it would be awesome to have a live action title sitting on the top of all those animated marvels.


----------



## deltasun

Ditto - my mouth is salivating just reading the preliminary reviews. Just rearranged the living room and will be viewing this tonight at a more acoustic-friendly setting. Viewing distance for me will still be 6' for a 46" LCD. I don't typically have an issue spotting anomalies, even at 8'. I don't expect much anomalies in _Avatar_.


As Gamereviewgod mentioned as well, the live action on this film is probably less than 10% of the movie. So in essence, this is a "PIXAR" movie.


----------



## Vegaz

The recommended viewing distance for a 42" TV is 5.3 at mininum and 10.5 max. And no not everything looks good. It's just an estimate but I can get a tape measure if you'd like. Also I have no problem telling the difference between 720p/1080i/1080p with my videogame systems.


Though here are 4 Avatar reviews also saying it's the best (or one of the best at least) they've seen:


1. "Wow. Really, wow. Just … unbelievable.


Healthy speculation and a fair amount of skepticism awaits James Cameron’s blockbuster “Avatar” as it arrives on Blu-ray in time for Earth Day. Without the 3-D component that was essential to the theatrical experience, how would the film hold up? Could the story support a drop off in visual quality? And will people want to revisit Cameron’s imaginary planet of Pandora if they can’t see it in a third dimension?


Here’s the thing, though. There is no drop off in visual quality. None. Yes, “Avatar” is presented in 2-D on the Blu-ray. But to date, this is the best-looking Blu-ray transfer of a film I’ve seen, and man, it ain’t even close.


Cameron’s visuals are razor sharp with no excessive brightness. Pandora’s colors burst off the screen, using a wide palette of blues and greens that I didn’t even know my television was capable of replicating. The purple streams in Chapter 19’s “A Son of the Omaticaya” are gorgeously rendered. Skip right to Chapter 17 on the Blu-ray, “First Flight,” and you’ll swear you are soaring over Pandora with Sam Worthington’s soldier, Jake. I’m not exaggerating when I tell you that this will be the film that inspires everyone on the planet to invest in Blu-ray technology." ( http://www.hollywoodnews.com/2010/04...-got-a-review/ )


2. "Video: This 1080p presntation of Avatar is one of the best HD transfers I have ever seen. Producer Jon Landau wasn't kidding when he said they intended to use almost ever bit of space on a 50gb blu-ray. It isn't without its share of problems though. There are time when the image has a digital appearance that's too clean and quite a number of shots where the soft focus of a shot is distracting. Still, there appears to be no edge enhancement and you can notice a lot more detail in the images than the original 3-D presentation in theaters. Though the standard 2-D theatrical version was cropped to the 2.35 to 1 aspect ration, Cameron has chosen to present the blu-ray in its original 1.78 to 1 aspect ratio." ( http://www.latinoreview.com/news/ava...ay-review-9790 )


3. "The Video:


In Short: flawless. Not a spec of artifacing, not a hint of interlacing, DNR, EE, everything is crystal clear, and wonderous to behold. This is the best the film has ever looked, even besting its theatrical presentation. Presented in the 1:78.1 widescreen format, which was the format the film was shown in during 3D and IMAX presentations, and the format it was shot in, you are getting way more picture then you ever did during the 2D's cropped 2:35.1 transfer. Every skin pore, every facial tic, every nook and cranny of the CGI is in full swing in this transfer, and it's just gorgeous.


5/5" ( http://blog.reelloop.com/10291/news/...bluray-review/ )


4. "Audio/Video: Amazing. Fox's 1.78:1 aspect ratio fills up the TV screen, and this opening of the frame, allows for the nearest, best, recreation of the memorable IMAX presentation. Bold colors, incredibly high in detail, and interestingly enough, brighter than we'd expect, but without any encoding flaws, this is a superb transfer. There is a certain 'wow' factor again, in return to Pandora. The Blu-ray is so good, unless you have the latest and best TV, it'll make you want to run out and buy a bigger and better set. That's how good it is." ( http://www.killerfilm.com/film_revie...y-review-30933 )


I'm sure when IGN's review is up there'll be a 5th as they seem pretty generous in general.


----------



## tfoltz

I'm glad it's good, but statements like this make me ignore the score.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDphile22* /forum/post/18524038
> 
> *AVATAR Tier 0, #1, period.
> 
> 
> Please rate this ABOVE all animated movies.
> They DON'T really count!
> 
> *


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/18524633
> 
> 
> I'm glad it's good, but statements like this make me ignore the score.



I agree.


----------



## sb1

^ It is certainly a good looking title. Sure, statements like that make it hard to take seriously, but in my opinion it does look damn good. Funny, because I'm always obsessing over the audio, but the picture on my tv (projector opinion comes later tonight) was the first thing I noticed.


----------



## Ozymandis

*Avatar- Tier 0, top spot.* Third at the worst. The transfer is flawless. Both the live action and CGI parts are high Tier 0. For such a huge movie I have to put it before Bug's Life (dated animation) and Kung-fu Panda (grudgingly, great transfer but the style can be simplistic). Colors are breathtaking. Lots of detail on the humans in the movie. CGI is better than just about anything, taken as a whole.


I like when a Blu-ray actually deserves the hype. Avatar is the one. I saw it in the theater and it looks better on my Kuro. The movie itself has some flaws but not the visual presentation.


----------



## Sujay




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18522859
> 
> *Avatar*
> 
> 
> Tier 0? Yes. Shots of Pandora are immaculate, pristine, and jaw dropping. Every leaf, every blade of grass, and all detail on the Na'vi are fully resolved. It is on par with any CG animated film.
> 
> 
> In the human world, not so much. The nature of digital filmmaking, that processed, smooth look, is always present, at least until the finale. If this were shot on film, people would be crying DNR, but it's not. That's just the nature of the process sometimes. Then again, maybe this transfer is so damn good, it just makes it stand out more.
> 
> *Tier 0.5*



I would agree with this. The whole "video" look still doesn't sit well with me, even though Cameron pulled it off fairly well compared to other films of the sort. The ultra-smoothness doesn't seem natural. Other than that, it's a first-class disc.


----------



## LilGator




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vegaz* /forum/post/18524372
> 
> 
> The recommended viewing distance for a 42" TV is 5.3 at mininum and 10.5 max. And no not everything looks good. It's just an estimate but I can get a tape measure if you'd like. Also I have no problem telling the difference between 720p/1080i/1080p with my videogame systems.



I'm not doubting Avatar's PQ at all. Maximum viewing distance specified by THX is 6.6ft and maximum specified by SMPTE is 5.7ft. Recommended viewing distance by THX is 4.7ft.


The part that I'm questioning is the inability to distinguish and fully resolve 1080p further than 5.5ft. Claiming to be able to and actually backing that up scientifically are two different things.


Of course, you may have better than 20/20 vision and that range changes!


It wasn't necessarily directed at you, I just used your specs as an example. I'm wondering how many people are judging PQ of BDs but aren't even capable of resolving 1080p at their seating distance.


Sorry for going off-topic from the Avatar buzz- looking to pop that puppy in next.


----------



## tfoltz

Though I understand what you are saying, I don't believe you need 1080p to determine picture quality. My 768p TV has a better picture quality than many 1080p TVs that I've watched movies on. Of course I understand that there are far better TVs, projectors, etc. that make things even better; but a lot goes into picture quality, and it's not easy to draw a line as to where HD begins and ends. Our individual eye balls and thought processes go even further to mess things up!


----------



## jedimasterchad

I hate to rain on the Avatar parade, but just as a word of mention. It already seems like we will be getting a lot of votes from people who aren't normally reviewing titles in this thread. I only say that because I don't want a flood of fanboys coming over to vote it at top of tier 0, and I think it should only get up there if we all agree that it truly deserves to be there. Just think, for instance, if all the Lord of the Rings fanboys came over last week and all started voting tier 0 just because it's their favorite movie.


I think it would be great if all these reviews turn out to be true, and call me names if you want but I trust some of the reviewers here a lot more than others just because I am much more familiar with how they score movies and are rating it based more on our guidelines for this particular thread (and I can gauge what I will experience quite a bit closer before even seeing the movie). I'm not discounting any *reviews*, but I find it hard to take this type of stuff seriously.




> Quote:
> AVATAR Tier 0, #1, period.
> 
> 
> Please rate this ABOVE all animated movies.
> 
> 
> They DON'T really count!



As for myself, I should be picking it up tomorrow, and hope to be home in PA on Saturday night, to give it a proper viewing.


----------



## 42041

Agreed, if you post an Avatar review, put your rabid fanboyism on hold for a minute and please try to qualify it with at least a couple sentences. It's not that difficult


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/18525855
> 
> 
> Agreed, if you post an Avatar review, put your rabid fanboyism on hold for a minute and please try to qualify it with at least a couple sentences. It's not that difficult



+1


Rules are rules (my Momma used to say







)....and the rules say you've got to tell us why you are recommending a certain placement (besides simply saying it's awesome with no flaws). But as 42041 has said, "it's not difficult," so I'd encourage any newcomers who want to be a part of this process to read the guidelines for the thread here: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1168342 and then write a review.


BTW, I slipped my copy of _Avatar_ in my Pioneer Elite Blu-ray player and it turns out I need a firmware upgrade in order to view this title. I could use my other player (Panasonic BD30) from upstairs but it's quite late so I'm waiting until tomorrow night to see it.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/18525828
> 
> 
> I hate to rain on the Avatar parade, but just as a word of mention. It already seems like we will be getting a lot of votes from people who aren't normally reviewing titles in this thread. I only say that because I don't want a flood of fanboys coming over to vote it at top of tier 0, and I think it should only get up there if we all agree that it truly deserves to be there. Just think, for instance, if all the Lord of the Rings fanboys came over last week and all started voting tier 0 just because it's their favorite movie.
> 
> 
> I think it would be great if all these reviews turn out to be true, and call me names if you want but I trust some of the reviewers here a lot more than others just because I am much more familiar with how they score movies and are rating it based more on our guidelines for this particular thread (and I can gauge what I will experience quite a bit closer before even seeing the movie). I'm not discounting any *reviews*, but I find it hard to take this type of stuff seriously.



The same thing happened with The Dark Knight.


----------



## Wallboy

I have just finished watching Avatar on Blu Ray. I have seen many of the Blu Ray's in the top spots, Cars, Kung Fu Panda, Pirates Series... I would put Avatar above all that I have seen. It was completely flawless on my Epson 6500UB on a 104" screen. Just incredible.


----------



## palofex

Avatar - Tier 0 Top of the list.


Pioneer 101FD Kuro

8 Feet


Simply amazing...the best my kuro has ever looked and justifies all the money I've put into my HT "cave" as my wife calls it.


----------



## deltasun

*Avatar*


Incredible ride! The best traits for me are the depth/dimensionality (even in 2D), the fluidity of motion from the CGI pieces, the pop of colors, and the tangibility of textures. Blacks are deep, but I would still place _I, Robot_, _Coraline_, or even _The Unborn_ in this department. Contrast is strong and really brought the elements alive. Facial details are very well-rendered, even in the human world. Though, yes, some of the weaker moments do occur in the non-Na'vi world.


Just excellent attention to detail throughout - the way the little wings on the ikran twitch to maintain balance, the subtle movements on the Na'vi's faces, the leathery skin on the Toruk, etc. I was also impressed at how the CGI elements exhibited weight/density very well throughout. There were a handful of scenes where focus (particularly on the forest elements) wasn't quite where it was expected. I believe these were an aid to the 3D effect. Speaking of which, I'm not much of a 3D fan, but I definitely preferred the 3D presentation over the 2D.


I'm still reluctant to place at the top of the heap. I do think it deserves a spot in the top 5.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier Blu* (just above _Ratatouille_)


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vegaz* /forum/post/18524372
> 
> 
> 
> Though here are 4 Avatar reviews also saying it's the best (or one of the best at least) they've seen:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure when IGN's review is up there'll be a 5th as they seem pretty generous in general.



One of the reasons many of the regulars in this thread are regulars is that the judgments here generally seem much more accurate than what we typically see at "professional" review sites such as those quoted here.

In other words, quoting such reviews here doesn't count for much, and may be viewed as off-topic.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HDphile22* /forum/post/18524038
> 
> *AVATAR Tier 0, #1, period.
> 
> 
> Please rate this ABOVE all animated movies.
> 
> 
> They DON'T really count!
> 
> *


*Animated movies do count in this thread, in fact enough to dominate the top of tier blu overwhelmingly.


Reiterating and adding to what some have already said...if I was running this thread and read comments like that I would discount the vote as well, as worthy of discredit, since the comment ignores and vilifies the intent and importance of this thread and the Blu Rays that are deemed worthy to be here and called the best of the best.*


So far Avatar looks good, really good, but one early scene on the ship lends itself to less than tier 0 PQ. I wouldn't say that alone would drop it out of tier 0 by any means, but I don't see how Avatar is truly flawless and better than the several of the top tier animated movies.


I did see it in 3D in the theatre. I have to watch the entire BD to really place it, but for now I am thinking above Irobot.


----------



## Ozymandis

My thinking on Avatar is like this- the CGI is probably 75% of the movie. And the job they did on that was amazing, taking just those parts I'd put it atop the list! The digitally-filmed sections were also very strong, not perfect like the CGI, but as good/better than I, Robot. Lots of detail, good contrast, good color, no artifacts. The bitrate is great, I can see the wisdom in not including extras.


There's no denying that the movie is Tier 0. How high up the list? At a certain point Tier 0 is all animated titles. I think Avatar compares favorably to them. IMO it's almost all demo-worthy material, the Blu-ray really is something special (even though the movie isn't, lol).


----------



## mac707

Seems like some folks are unnecessarily touchy about that fellow's animated remark. I think there is an argument to be made not that animated movies don't count but that live action/motion captured films should be given more credit for pulling off stunning PQ than animated films. Basically, a level of difficulty adjustment. Given that the top of tier Blu is absolutely dominated by animated films it certainly would seem that it's a fair bit easier to make a stunning animated film than a stunning live action film. People want to recognize that and I don't think they should be shouted down for it.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mac707* /forum/post/18527756
> 
> 
> Seems like some folks are unnecessarily touchy about that fellow's animated remark. I think there is an argument to be made not that animated movies don't count but that *live action/motion captured films should be given more credit for pulling off stunning PQ than animated films*. Basically, a level of difficulty adjustment. Given that the top of tier Blu is absolutely dominated by animated films it certainly would seem that it's a fair bit easier to make a stunning animated film than a stunning live action film. People want to recognize that and I don't think they should be shouted down for it.



Responding to the bolded bit above - *why??* I think folks are forgetting that this is an absolutes thread. The thread criteria is clearly stated up front (as linked by djoberg). We don't grade on a curve. What's next - we give black & white features a tier and a half bump for not having color?


I think that fellow's comment, the way it was worded, tries to discount any of the "regular" folks' work under the guise of our thread criteria. Sure, _Avatar_ may garner that type of emotional outburst, but does not hold water without some supporting explanation on why he believes it belongs at the top.


----------



## deltasun

A few more words on _Avatar_. I think I finally read that the CGI to Live/Action ratio is actually 60/40. As I mentioned in my review, I had a bit of reluctance on my placement. If I only looked at the live/action portion, _I, Robot_ blows _Avatar_ away, aside for some physics-defying depth on the base. Even those were interlaced with some CGI. So, as Hugh mentioned, some live/action sequences would fall out of Tier 0.


However, the CGI-rendered sequences not only carry those "poorer" scenes (for me), they place them on their backs and climb uncharted Tier Blu territory with them. I wouldn't say that every CGI scene on _Avatar_ is better than every other PIXAR film either. But, as a whole, _Avatar_ not only trumps them but actually advances the medium. That's why I was so generous with my end placement.


----------



## mac707




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18528033
> 
> 
> Responding to the bolded bit above - *why??* I think folks are forgetting that this is an absolutes thread. The thread criteria is clearly stated up front (as linked by djoberg). We don't grade on a curve. What's next - we give black & white features a tier and a half bump for not having color?
> 
> 
> I think that fellow's comment, the way it was worded, tries to discount any of the "regular" folks' work under the guise of our thread criteria. Sure, _Avatar_ may garner that type of emotional outburst, but does not hold water without some supporting explanation on why he believes it belongs at the top.



Sure, within the parameters of the thread the ratings are absolute. But the question then becomes how can you objectively compare animated PQ to live action PQ? It's easy to compare animated to animated, slightly harder to compare live action to live action but the vast difference in picture composition, style and content between animated and live action makes it incredibly difficult to say for example "Wall-E has better PQ than POTC" or "Avatar is better than A Bug's Life." That's the crux of the issue, to me anyways


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/18526641
> 
> 
> One of the reasons many of the regulars in this thread are regulars is that the judgments here generally seem much more accurate than what we typically see at "professional" review sites such as those quoted here.
> 
> In other words, quoting such reviews here doesn't count for much, and may be viewed as off-topic.



I will have to strongly concur on that argument. Please no references to external reviews in supporting a particular evaluation, for any film, much less Avatar. An exception might be a review that presents truly unique information that is not readily known. The problem with many of the "professional" reviewers is that there would be 300 or 400 BDs in tier zero if we paid any attention to them. On the whole, they simply do not perform the same very fine differentiation of picture quality that is performed in this thread.


Avatar is clearly a landmark film on Blu-ray, that will launch a new vanguard for how we assess movies in the thread. I will advocate careful deliberation of its merits for all interested participants. With that in mind, it would be nice to hear a wide array of opinions on the Blu-ray, from both regular contributors and first-time participants.


----------



## Ozymandis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mac707* /forum/post/18528197
> 
> 
> Sure, within the parameters of the thread the ratings are absolute. But the question then becomes how can you objectively compare animated PQ to live action PQ? It's easy to compare animated to animated, slightly harder to compare live action to live action but the vast difference in picture composition, style and content between animated and live action makes it incredibly difficult to say for example "Wall-E has better PQ than POTC" or "Avatar is better than A Bug's Life." That's the crux of the issue, to me anyways



Well put and I agree with you. I know it's not a popular viewpoint but I think Tier 0 would be more compelling if it were split between animated and live action... at the same time, I would have a hard time putting Avatar in the live action bracket. I really think the split is close to 75% animated to 25% live actors, and there's CGI in almost every live action shot.


The thing with placing Avatar is how much do you "penalize" the film for its live action segments. The pure CGI segments are better than A Bug's Life, IMO, but of course I never liked that movie sitting at number 1 anyway.


----------



## tfoltz

This is a blu-ray picture quality thread. If it's on blu-ray then it's open to be ranked with all other blu-rays. Live action movies shouldn't get bonus points or penalized. If they can't provide near perfect quality throughout to compare with some of the animated titles, then tough luck.


----------



## Ozymandis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/18528646
> 
> 
> This is a blu-ray picture quality thread. If it's on blu-ray then it's open to be ranked with all other blu-rays. Live action movies shouldn't get bonus points or penalized. If they can't provide near perfect quality throughout to compare with some of the animated titles, then tough luck.



Computer animation can be bit-by-bit flawless. It is difficult to compete with that using real cameras which are subject to physical limitations, let alone comparing them on their visual merits. Tier 0 is topped by so much pixel-perfect CGI to the point where I have a harder and harder time saying that one is significantly better than another.


I wonder of some of you, when you demo your home theater setups, do you just demo Pixar/Dreamworks Blu-rays? I would maybe show one or two and then I put in the best of live action films on Blu-ray, which to me are more impressive (and more rare).


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mac707* /forum/post/18528197
> 
> 
> Sure, within the parameters of the thread the ratings are absolute.



Yes, and that ends the discussion and makes the case for the point of this thread.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mac707* /forum/post/18528197
> 
> 
> But the question then becomes how can you objectively compare animated PQ to live action PQ?



We aren't comparing the two or for that matter any two blu rays directly to determine placement. Each Blu ray gets placed on its own merit and we may use other Blu Rays in comparison as qualifiers for placement, not as direct competitors of each other. I think that maybe part of the issue for some. We aren't directly comparing say Kung Fu Panda to A Bug's Life. We then give qualifiers/reasons as to why A Bug's Life "looks" better than Kung Fu Panda.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mac707* /forum/post/18528197
> 
> 
> It's easy to compare animated to animated, slightly harder to compare live action to live action but the vast difference in picture composition, style and content between animated and live action makes it incredibly difficult to say for example "Wall-E has better PQ than POTC" or "Avatar is better than A Bug's Life." That's the crux of the issue, to me anyways



Again, we aren't directly comparing one blu ray to another.


And we aren't necessarily saying Wall E or some title has better PQ than another as an absolute, but we are saying some look better than others in our own eyes and own opinions.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*Avatar*


I'm just going to jump in and say it: Avatar presented me with the singlehandedly best Blu Ray picture quality that I have experienced on my Panasonic.


90% of this movie is the CGI stuff, and it is utterly fantastic; the depth and textures presented were flawless to me.


The colour palate is very saturated, and this may bother some but I like stunning colours presented like this. The black levels were pristine.


The only downfall I saw was the stylized nature of the non-cgi scenes where there was normally a dominant blue-hue. I think this may bother some of the purists who would prefer that the picture was cleaner and more natural during these scenes.


Despite the blue-hue, though, for the majority of what I saw during them still presented stunning quality and textures. But if Avatar was to have a fault, for me it would resonate with these scenes & the choice by Cameron to use the blue in that manner.


The highest blu rays I have personally rated here on the PQ thread are *Coraline* and *Astroboy*. I believe that Avatar is even better than both of these.


(and before anyone accuses me of being a Cameron-fangirl or anything, I'm probably the only girl on the planet who has never seen Titanic (and plan to keep it that way), and my personal opinion of Avatar is that I thought the movie was better back in the 1990's when I saw it the first time -- when it was called FernGully







)


*Recommendation for Avatar: Top of Tier 0 (edited to add: at least above Astroboy!)*
*Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800U, THX setting, approximately 7.5’ viewing distance.*


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

hey guys, sorry i didn't make it back here for my review yesterday! I ended up waiting for the husband to get home from work, and then watched an insane hockey game that had 3 overtimes... and THEN watched Avatar after that. So my review is a bit later than I expected but given my lack of reviews lately, I'm glad I got it up here at all!










Oh and *DELTASUN*!! Congrats (insert girly squee here) on the baby!! Boy or girl?


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ozymandis* /forum/post/18528484
> 
> 
> Well put and I agree with you. I know it's not a popular viewpoint but I think Tier 0 would be more compelling if it were split between animated and live action... at the same time, I would have a hard time putting Avatar in the live action bracket. I really think the split is close to 75% animated to 25% live actors, and there's CGI in almost every live action shot.
> 
> 
> The thing with placing Avatar is how much do you "penalize" the film for its live action segments. The pure CGI segments are better than A Bug's Life, IMO, but of course I never liked that movie sitting at number 1 anyway.



The pure CGI segments are NOT better than A Bug's Life IMO. I own both. Your admission that you never liked A Bug's Life sitting at number one shows your bias to simply not wanting it there. WHile it maybe your opinion and you don't like the look of A Bug's Life as qualifying for the top of tier 0, that isn't enough reason or justification for placing Avatar or for that matter any BD above it.


Look, A Bug's LIfe is not some pinnacle that every BD needs to meet, achieve or even surpass to be considered Demo/Reference/Eye Candy. While it has no inherent ability to remain on top without question, simply wanting ABL not to be there takes more than wanting another movie to be there, and the parameters of this thread and our subjective placements based on those parameters are what makes it happen.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*snicker* before i irritate people i went and edited my Avatar review to indicate it should at least be above Astroboy to me, as I have not seen or rated Kung Fu Panda or A Bugs Life on Blu.


----------



## Ozymandis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/18529246
> 
> 
> The pure CGI segments are NOT better than A Bug's Life IMO. I own both. Your admission that you never liked A Bug's Life sitting at number one shows your bias to simply not wanting it there. WHile it maybe your opinion and you don't like the look of A Bug's Life as qualifying for the top of tier 0, that isn't enough reason or justification for placing Avatar or for that matter any BD above it.
> 
> 
> Look, A Bug's LIfe is not some pinnacle that every BD needs to meet, achieve or even surpass to be considered Demo/Reference/Eye Candy. While it has no inherent ability to remain on top, simply wanting ABL not to be there takes more than wanting another movie to be there, and the parameters of this thread and our subjective placements based on those parameters are what makes it happen.



I don't "simply not want it to be there." I've said time and time again that I don't think the dated animation places it there, although I like the colors and the clean look. The reason why I said I would put Avatar above it is very simple- *I think the CGI segments in Avatar on BR look better.* I don't know if I would put Avatar over KFP, which is one of my favorite Blu-rays in the Tier in terms of PQ, but I would put it over ABL.


Everyone isn't going to agree on specific placement all of the time, especially at the top of the list. I would have no problem with Avatar anywhere around the top 5. These movies are all pretty close IMO.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/18529271
> 
> 
> *snicker* before i irritate people i went and edited my Avatar review to indicate it should at least be above Astroboy to me, as I have not seen or rated Kung Fu Panda or A Bugs Life on Blu.



Kung-fu Panda is incredible on Blu-ray. I was surprised that a Dreamworks title looked so good. They really gave Pixar some competition with that one. Check it out if you ever get a chance.


----------



## 42041

*Avatar*


Very impressive on its own terms, though my frame of reference is what I saw projected in digital 3D, and though many seem to disagree, to me this pales in comparison. But what can ya do







I don't know if it's the sharpest or most detailed disc out there, but by far the strongest part of the presentation are the colors on Pandora, and the sheer quality/attention-to-detail in the computer generated imagery. It simply beats anything else out there in that regard, going far beyond even the high standard set by Pixar.


However, while the CG is more-or-less flawless (and that IS most of the movie), the live action stuff was remarkably inconsistent, which makes me hesitant to place it on the very top. I don't think it's the best disc I've ever seen. Quite a bit of it wouldn't even cut tier 1 in another movie IMO, with average detail and weak contrast. For some reason there's a light sprinkling of artificial grain in some completely CG scenes, something I do not remember seeing theatrically.

*Tier 0, top quarter*


(PS3/Pioneer 50" Kuro Elite/1 screen width distance)


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ozymandis* /forum/post/18529311
> 
> 
> Kung-fu Panda is incredible on Blu-ray. I was surprised that a Dreamworks title looked so good. They really gave Pixar some competition with that one. Check it out if you ever get a chance.



If a friend ever buys it I'll borrow it, but we have a copy on DVD for the kiddos & it's not one I want to double dip on (or pay to rent!). Given the amount of time it's been at or near the top, though, I do think it has to have merit.


----------



## R Harkness




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/18529344
> 
> *Avatar*
> 
> 
> Very impressive on its own terms, though my frame of reference is what I saw projected in digital 3D, and though many seem to disagree, to me this pales in comparison. But what can ya do



Get a projector.










I projected Avatar with a 10 feet diagonal image size. From a 10 foot seating distance the image was sharp, absurdly detailed and dimensional, immersive and had that almost "fall into it" feeling I got in the theater. Size helps


----------



## Rob Tomlin

It would be nice if all of these "newbies" who have come to this thread to post their opinions on Avatar would do the same for other movies as well. Especially since it appears that there is little to debate about Avatar anyway (universal agreement thus far that it belongs in at least the top 1/4 of Tier 0).


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18529891
> 
> 
> It would be nice if all of these "newbies" who have come to this thread to post their opinions on Avatar would do the same for other movies as well. Especially since it appears that there is little to debate about Avatar anyway (universal agreement thus far that it belongs in at least the top 1/4 of Tier 0).



+1. Where are they the rest of the time? Usually it's about the same 10 of us on here week after week, and every so often a huge movie hits and we get a flood of newcomers. Happened for a week or two after Christmas also, but then died off rather quickly.


All these reviews have me itching to get home!! Can't wait to see this on my (relatively) big screen.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/18530018
> 
> 
> All these reviews have me itching to get home!! Can't wait to see this on my (relatively) big screen.



I get to "scratch my itch" in about two hours!







I'll be setting up my Panasonic Blu-ray player to my KURO (the firmware update I need for my Pioneer player isn't installed yet) for the viewing. I may just watch this one from 5-6'....my eyes are screaming for candy and I want to get all the detail I can from this.


----------



## yyoo

This may be an animated film, but has anyone seen a more DETAILED animated movie?


Sure, Kung Fu Panda looks beautiful and flawless, but it's easier to make something that has less detail look flawless. So hats off to Fox and James Cameron on their achievement.


----------



## Ozymandis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/18530018
> 
> 
> +1. Where are they the rest of the time? Usually it's about the same 10 of us on here week after week, and every so often a huge movie hits and we get a flood of newcomers. Happened for a week or two after Christmas also, but then died off rather quickly.
> 
> 
> All these reviews have me itching to get home!! Can't wait to see this on my (relatively) big screen.



I had been taking a break from this thread, which I have posted in for the last two years, because I stopped buying movies. Right now I have about 60 Blu-rays, and my brother, who lives with me, has about 40... not nearly as many as some of you, lol. I just don't bother to review a lot of them because so many of the Tier placements are good.


I did notice today that Vexille is still in Tier 1.75? That's a Tier 2 (or lower!) Blu-ray for sure... very disappointing PQ. I forget whether or not I posted a full review of that but there were real problems with the transfer as well as the rendering.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18529891
> 
> 
> It would be nice if all of these "newbies" who have come to this thread to post their opinions on Avatar would do the same for other movies as well. Especially since it appears that there is little to debate about Avatar anyway (universal agreement thus far that it belongs in at least the top 1/4 of Tier 0).



yes Rob I completely agree. Where some people want Avatar placed plays into what I was saying previously about when you are number one, i.e. A Bugs Life, everyone is gunning for you. Most seem to be coming here due to the stunning PQ of Avatar, BUT they also seem to be riding the hype which is obvious since we haven't seen many of them before at all. You are all welcome and ABL does NOT have to remain on top, BUT please come in Nd support the thread by reviewing titles with us on a consistent basis. It helps us, brings greater legitimacy to the thread and more importantly really gives the thread a good spectrum of varying opinions and eyes as to where placement should be.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I do feel that I need to do a mea culpa as I feel I may be somewhat of a hypocrite.


The reason I say that is because I only go to the Audio Tier thread when I have just watched a disc that I felt had superb audio that really impressed me. So do as I say, not as I do!


----------



## Human Bean




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/18525809
> 
> 
> My 768p TV has a better picture quality than many 1080p TVs that I've watched movies on.



No. *Hell* no. Nowhere even close to reality *no*.


Obviously I can't see what you see, but the best comparison I've seen between 720 (768) and 1080 is on BBC Planet Earth.


*For me* on the Fresh Water episode, there's a flyover of a waterfall early in the episode. On my 768P HDTV, it looks AWESOME, totally 3D, couldn't be better.


But on a 1080 monitor, it's totally ruined by the radio interference that the BBC acknowledged and can't be fixed.


This is the easiest example I've seen thus far to demonstrate the differences between 720 and 1080. Of course, your mileage may vary.


----------



## Gamepro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/18529191
> 
> 
> (and before anyone accuses me of being a Cameron-fangirl or anything, I'm probably the only girl on the planet who has never seen Titanic (and plan to keep it that way), and my personal opinion of Avatar is that I thought the movie was better back in the 1990's when I saw it the first time -- when it was called FernGully
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )



I would ignore the reviews/hype/bashing/stereotypes/whatever of Titanic and just watch it. You're missing out imo.


Although if you end up enjoying it, you might be annoyed like I am with the wasted potential of it not being out on Blu-Ray and how it probably won't be for a long time


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamepro* /forum/post/18530840
> 
> 
> I would ignore the reviews/hype/bashing/stereotypes/whatever of Titanic and just watch it. You're missing out imo.
> 
> 
> Although if you end up enjoying it, you might be annoyed like I am with the wasted potential of it not being out on Blu-Ray and how it probably won't be for a long time



I'm Canadian. I've had just about enough of Celine Dion as I could ever have been saturated with in my lifetime.











In all seriousness, I will likely continue my Titanic-less life, but I do thank you for the recommendation nonetheless.


----------



## djoberg

*Avatar*


My wife states emphatically that I'm never at a loss for words, but I believe there aren't enough superlatives to describe what I've just seen. This is finally a title where all the hype was justified. I was literally BLOWN AWAY...by the MAJORITY OF THE MOVIE. There were a few shots that were somewhat soft (even in Pandora), but it would be the epitome of nitpicking to draw one's attention to these.


If I were to echo the sentiments of one of the reviews thus far, it would be that of G3, for _Avatar_ is hands down the best Blu-ray I've ever seen on my 60" KURO. I can safely say that even the non-CGI material was pretty amazing, especially in facial detail and depth. Every time they showed the Colonel, and his sculptured arms, his intricately detailed face, and his bronze tan, I said to myself, "Now that's the WOW factor." But it was obviously the glorious world of Pandora, with its lush greens, vibrant blues, reds, oranges, purples (and colors I've never seen before







), and details that made my eyeballs break out with pimples, that made this Blu-ray transfer the standard for all future releases.


I've seen all the animated marvels that currently sit at the top, but I'm ready to crown _Avatar_ as the new "King of the Blu-ray hill" (and I agree with a recent post that implies that this has more detail than any Pixar or other animated title). I want to qualify this though by saying that this was NOT absolutely perfect in every regard, for as I noted above there was a rare shot here and there that lacked sharpness (along with detail), but the majority of the title was so superior to anything else that I simply can't relegate it to a position below others.


The only virtue that I wished there had been more of was black levels. There was a shot of space in the beginning that was second to none (it was made for the KURO!!), and a few other excellent shots with corresponding shadow detail, but these were few and far between. (Maybe I missed some though, for others speak as if there were many shots with deep, inky blacks. If so, I'll catch them on the second viewing!)


There have already been recommendations below mine, and I'm sure there were will be more to come, but due to the unparalleled superiority of the colors, detail and depth of the world of Pandora I can't resist putting this on the top....

*Tier Recommendation: Top of Tier Blu*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 6'


----------



## Gamepro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/18530897
> 
> 
> I'm Canadian. I've had just about enough of Celine Dion as I could ever have been saturated with in my lifetime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In all seriousness, I will likely continue my Titanic-less life, but I do thank you for the recommendation nonetheless.



Hey I'm Canadian too, I know the pain. The whole soundtrack is instrumental though and the Celine song only plays during the credits (much like the Leona song only plays during Avatar's credits), you can do what I do and quickly switch it off then


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/18530897
> 
> 
> I'm Canadian. I've had just about enough of Celine Dion as I could ever have been saturated with in my lifetime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In all seriousness, I will likely continue my Titanic-less life, but I do thank you for the recommendation nonetheless.



I like Celine DIon, well to some extent and yes I like that song. And I like Titanic a lot considering everytime it is on in HD I can't help but get sucked into it.










I can watch movies like Midnight Meat Train, but also Titanic and can watch it over and over, unlike MMT.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/18530897
> 
> 
> 
> In all seriousness, I will likely continue my Titanic-less life, but I do thank you for the recommendation nonetheless.



Why would you do that?


----------



## nick_danger

This is a tough one.


Avatar, in terms of its live action elements, is simply the best I have ever seen Blu-Ray look. In terms of its animated elements, it contains the most detail I have ever seen on a Blu-Ray. However, is it a "better looking" transfer than a Pixar or Dreamworks animated movie?


If someone released an animated movie composed of simple shapes with bold, solid, alternating colors with no blocking, aliasing, or banding, would we call that a "Tier Blu" title? It would be extremely simple looking, but would maintain such fidelity that it would be perfect in its simplicity.


Such is the dilema I see with comparing Avatar to A Bug's Life, for example. ABL looks amazing, but it is simple by comparison. Going by the rules , Avatar successfully passes every requirement and THEN easily surpasses ABL in these two areas:


1#_Exquisite resolution of ultra-fine detail, fabric and surface textures, individual strands of hair, and human faces down to the imperfections and pores. Animated material will often exhibit photo-realistic qualities and will feature beautifully rendered environments._


2#_Sophisticated color palettes will be completely resolved down to the most subtle gradations of each hue. Primary colors will appear striking and dynamic. Black-and-white material will exhibit top-notch and accurate grayscale reproduction._


----------



## tfoltz

Just because a TV is 1080p does not mean it provides a better picture quality than one with lower resolution. There are a lot of aspects that go into picture quality. I won't go into more details, we can just disagree.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Human Bean* /forum/post/18530729
> 
> 
> No. *Hell* no. Nowhere even close to reality *no*.


----------



## spongebob

This my first review:


I have a new Kuro Pro-101FD, calibrated and have counted the days waiting for this release.


Avatar 3D in the theater was my first and only Real D experience and the combination left me breathless. I didn't think I would miss the 3D but as beautiful as this looks on BD, It was not at all the same experience. On a 50" screen from 8' away, it felt small and TV like.


Also, not being 2.35:1 made it not feel as movie like? I assume this was presented in it's original AR?


Sorry if this isn't a "proper" review for this thread, just wanted to add my $.02











bob


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18531162
> 
> 
> Why would you do that?



Because I'm a polite canadian who appreciated the recommendation, but would still prefer to never see that movie.


----------



## kevinsert

lol lots of newbie reviewer on this avatar joke


----------



## Ozymandis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/18530897
> 
> 
> I'm Canadian. I've had just about enough of Celine Dion as I could ever have been saturated with in my lifetime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In all seriousness, I will likely continue my Titanic-less life, but I do thank you for the recommendation nonetheless.



You aren't missing out on much. Titanic was corny as hell, not in a good way. My favorite Cameron movie is probably True Lies, though, so I don't hold my tastes up as the gospel


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spongebob* /forum/post/18531420
> 
> 
> This my first review:
> 
> 
> I have a new Kuro Pro-101FD, calibrated and have counted the days waiting for this release.
> 
> 
> Avatar 3D in the theater was my first and only Real D experience and the combination left me breathless. I didn't think I would miss the 3D but as beautiful as this looks on BD, It was not at all the same experience. *On a 50" screen from 8' away, it felt small and TV like.*
> 
> 
> Also, not being 2.35:1 made it not feel as movie like? I assume this was presented in it's original AR?
> 
> 
> Sorry if this isn't a "proper" review for this thread, just wanted to add my $.02
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bob



Well, no wonder. On a 52" screen, from under four feet away, it did not feel small and TV like.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/18531908
> 
> 
> Well, no wonder. On a 52" screen, from under four feet away, it did not feel small and TV like.



+1


On my 60" screen from 6' it did NOT feel small at all! That guy needs to move in closer, like to 4-5'.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spongebob* /forum/post/18531420
> 
> 
> This my first review:
> 
> 
> I have a new Kuro Pro-101FD, calibrated and have counted the days waiting for this release.
> 
> 
> Avatar 3D in the theater was my first and only Real D experience and the combination left me breathless. I didn't think I would miss the 3D but as beautiful as this looks on BD, It was not at all the same experience. On a 50" screen from 8' away, it felt small and TV like.
> 
> 
> Also, not being 2.35:1 made it not feel as movie like? I assume this was presented in it's original AR?
> 
> 
> Sorry if this isn't a "proper" review for this thread, just wanted to add my $.02
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bob



First of all, congratulations on your new KURO! I have yet to have mine calibrated (though it looks awesome using the Pure Mode)...I'm sure you're more than pleased with the look.


As I posted earlier, you should really move in a few feet if you want the immersion experience for a movie like _Avatar_.


My understanding is that 1.78:1 is the original aspect ratio. I know some theaters have shown it in 2.35:1, but it had to be cropped in order for them to do this. Cameron chose 1.78:1 on purpose for this title, thinking it would work better in IMAX theaters (and so those of us with 16x9 displays would get the most out of the experience).


So, where do you think this title should be placed according to the tier rankings?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/18531401
> 
> 
> Just because a TV is 1080p does not mean it provides a better picture quality than one with lower resolution. There are a lot of aspects that go into picture quality. I won't go into more details, we can just disagree.



I agree.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*2012*


I kept putting these next reviews off for too long, so my reviews will be very short as I have forgot some of the details but do remember where I was going to place them in the tier thread.


This disc looked fine, but I never really thought it was quite good enough to make it to Tier 1. But it is better than most titles in Tier 2.


The movie itself was pretty pathetic. Some good special effects that pretty much went to waste.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Ninja Assassin*


Is this really a Warner title?










This one looks really good. Lots of detail and excellent clarity. At times I thought it might have been shot on HD video, but I don't think that was the case.


If this is a Warner title, it has really separated itself from the vast majority of their other releases.


I enjoyed the movie too!

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*The Blind Side*


I watched this last night, so I am actually submitting a review while it is very fresh in my mind for a change!











My impression of this title was that it is another disc that is "adequate" in terms of PQ, meaning that while there really isn't too much to complain about, it doesn't excel or stand out from the crowd either.


Contrast and black levels were good but not outstanding. Detail and clarity varied, with some scenes looking really good, while many others did seem to have that typical Warner look to them (slight softness).


Colors were a little saturated for my taste, but not to a terrible degree by any means.


Overall a solid looking title that doesn't excite enough to make it into the top tier.


As for the movie: I definitely enjoyed it. However, I do think that it is a bit overrated. There were some scenes that were so stereotypical and "forced" that it really took me out of the movie (such as the scene at the stadium with the father of the white football player yelling racial epithets etc.). Luckily there weren't *too* many of those types of scenes, but still too many.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*


Edit: just went back and looked at the reviews for this title and was shocked to see some tier 0 (and tier 1) recommendations!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Can't Hardly Wait


recommendation: Tier 3.75
*

The current placement for this 1998 movie is perfectly acceptable and adequately describes its condition. Sony looks to have pulled an older HD master out of storage and overran it with a significant level of digital noise reduction. The transfer is generally soft and lacking detail. There are no problems of this nature in the original photography, the film was just brought to Blu-ray in a poor manner.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Duchess


recommendation: Tier 1.75*


Many period films tend to go for a softer look. _The Duchess_ bucks that trend, showcasing the ornate and opulent settings in a sharp, highly-dimensional image. Paramount has done an excellent job in faithfully translating the 110-minute movie's intended look to BD. There are no halos and the picture displays a distinct lack of fringing. An application of digital noise reduction has been sparingly used, though non-videophiles will miss it in all but the darkest scenes. Struck from a modern Digital Intermediate, the image has no age or degradation issues.


Encoded at an extremely generous 36.95 Mbps, the AVC compression is very close to perfection. Only a hint of banding in the background of one scene disqualifies it. Black levels are typically strong, though the dim lighting of certain scenes, bolstered only by candlelight, does pose a minor challenge to the quality for a few minutes. The picture quality is very consistent in all other regards, with good contrast and slightly above-average resolution and detail.


High-frequency information is more evident in the powdered wigs than in close-ups, where the actors are heavily caked in makeup, as was the custom of the upper classes in that period. The neutral color palette favors no shade over another, from the green grass of the manicured estates to the browns of the city. Wide shots of the gardens and interior scenes in the mansions signify the top-notch cinematography.


At one point in the past, a BD like this probably would have settled in the middle of tier one. Newer discs are constantly pushing the limits of the format, and in relation to those, _The Duchess_ now merely deserves a placement at the bottom of tier one.


Watching on a 60” Pioneer KURO plasma at 1080p/24 on a 60 GB PS3 (firmware 3.30), from a viewing distance of 5.5 feet.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Phloyd):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...8#post15402348


----------



## spongebob

Do most of you run your sharpness at minimum (-15 for Kuros)?


It take a while to get used to a proper, unenhanced look but does appear softer. It would affect evaluating PQ.



thx


bob


----------



## deltasun

*Ink*


As nearly perfect is _Avatar_, this film resides on the other side of the spectrum. Director's intent plays the role in this soft, hazy, dream-like presentation. Textures and details do make an appearance once in a while in the form of facial pores and follicles. Still, these are the exceptions rather than the rule.


The scenes also take on differing hues, everything from blue to green to sepia to vaseline.







We get blooming whites and crushed blacks, though black levels can be bold and rich. Dimensionality is not even a factor due to the constant haze. Grain can be heavy at times, depending on which world we're in.


A few times, I had to check to make sure I wasn't watching an SD DVD. I didn't notice any artifacting or any other anomalies. Bottom line though, this wasn't made for our thread.









*Tier Recommendation: 4.5*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## djoberg

*The Fourth Kind*


Another winner, IMO, especially the blacks levels and facial details (they were Tier 0 quality, for the most part). If it weren't for the actual stock footage of taped (VHS) interviews interspersed throughout the whole movie (which makes up approximately 10% of the running time), this would easily fall into high Tier 1. But one simply can't ignore that much running time of very poor PQ, so I'm going to recommend the following:

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'


----------



## djoberg

*Ninja Assassin*


This is uncanny, but I watched this immediately after _The Fourth Kind_ and it excels in the same categories.....BLACK LEVELS and FACIAL DETAILS (I think they are even better, on par with _I, Robot_ and other top tier titles). This one also is sharper and has better shadow details, but there are a few scenes that are on the soft side and it also lacks depth. All things considered, I think it should land here.....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18532993
> 
> *The Blind Side*
> 
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.25*
> 
> 
> Edit: just went back and looked at the reviews for this title and *was shocked to see some tier 0 (and tier 1) recommendations!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *



I was equally shocked Rob when I saw your 2.25 recommendation. We must have seen two different movies with the same title.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18534039
> 
> 
> I was equally shocked Rob when I saw your 2.25 recommendation. We must have seen two different movies with the same title.



This is one of the biggest disparities that I can recall from my recommendation compared to others. Tier 0 for this title just seems *way* out there to me. I don't think I noticed a single scene that was worthy of Tier 0.


*shrug*


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Yet, look how close we are on Ninja Assassin Denny! 1/4 Tier!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18534220
> 
> 
> Yet, look how close we are on Ninja Assassin Denny! 1/4 Tier!



The "law of averages" dictates that this will happen periodically!


----------



## Ozymandis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spongebob* /forum/post/18533352
> 
> 
> Do most of you run your sharpness at minimum (-15 for Kuros)?
> 
> 
> It take a while to get used to a proper, unenhanced look but does appear softer. It would affect evaluating PQ.
> 
> 
> 
> thx
> 
> 
> bob



Yes, that's about what I use on my 500M I think. Your picture will be softer than comparable displays (definitely Samsung, Panasonic even) but I find it gorgeous. Unbeatable, really. I think as far as showing off contrast it's hard to beat Pioneer. Put in any high contrast movie (Persepolis is a personal favorite) and they really shine. But the picture is softer and noisier. I'm okay with that. It's still sharper than CRT, which is reference.


----------



## Milt99

AVATAR

I've never posted in this thread and likely never will again, BUT.

By the standards here, Avatar is the closest to a flawless video presentation I've seen.

I'm on my 3rd viewing and I can't find anything from an objective POV to criticize.
*Tier Recommendation: Avatar*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Milt99* /forum/post/18535278
> 
> AVATAR
> 
> I've never posted in this thread and likely never will again, BUT.
> 
> By the standards here, Avatar is the closest to a flawless video presentation I've seen.
> 
> I'm on my 3rd viewing and I can't find anything from an objective POV to criticize.
> *Tier Recommendation: Avatar*



Welcome to the thread! I would sure encourage you to participate here as often as possible.


So, what is your exact tier recommendation? I'm assuming you're enamored with the PQ from your post and that you believe it deserves a place in the highest tier (i.e., Tier Blu/0), but where exactly would you put it in that tier?


----------



## Milt99

Thanks for the welcome.

My exact tier recommendation is that Avatar is a tier unto itself.


----------



## patrick99

I have watched Avatar all the way through once and part way through a second time. I am not ready to make a placement recommendation, but I am ready to make some comments on strengths. I don't generally watch animated films, so I am not in a position to compare the CGI portions of this one with recent animated titles, but I was definitely impressed by the immense superiority of the jungle scenes CGI with similar scenes in something like King Kong. For example, the use of streaks of sunlight through foliage in Avatar showed a level of sophistication vastly ahead of my recollection of the very crude comparable scenes in King Kong.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Milt99* /forum/post/18535483
> 
> 
> My exact tier recommendation is that Avatar is a tier unto itself.



That's what I thought you were saying.







And for the purpose of this thread, that would equal the *top of Tier Blu*.


----------



## Milt99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18536162
> 
> 
> That's what I thought you were saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And for the purpose of this thread, that would equal the *top of Tier Blu*.



That's why you don't want me posting here


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Avatar*


I watched this last night. Now, I must admit that I had pretty high expectations based on all the reviews here (and elsewhere) where virtually everyone has stated things such as "omg, best PQ in the history of mankind", etc. Well, high expectations can set you up for disappointment, as the actual experience will not live up to the hype.


With Avatar, I am afraid that.....this is NOT the case!







This one definitely lives up to all the hype. Its just an amazing looking title and it excels in all aspects of PQ.


It isn't just the CGI that looks fantastic either. The live action shots are extremely impressive on their own and I would even put those scenes in Tier 0 by themselves.


As I have stated many times, this is really an "eye candy" thread. Given the fact that Avatar has some of the best eye candy I have ever seen, combined with the technical specs to make it come through with superb clarity and no artifacts (WHATSOEVER), this one deserves the very top spot on the Tier list!


I thought I might be in for something special when I saw the opening credits with the Fox logo. EVERY BD disc that I have from Fox I always notice the "jaggies" on the Fox logo. But on Avatar, no more jaggies!


As for the movie itself, it's too bad that there wasn't a good story to support the amazing eye candy. The writing was pretty bad. Overly simplistic if not downright juvenile. I mean seriously, "un-obtain-ium"? The "mother tree"? Really bad dialog. And the characters were as flat and undeveloped as could be. I didn't care about a single one of them, as I never felt that I got to really know any of them. The movie was also overly long. It could have easily been cut by 45 minutes. And this movie truly gives new meaning to the phrase "tree hugger"!










But the PQ made it bearable (though I was definitely wanting it to end by the time it hit the 2 hour mark) as it really is the best looking disc I have seen yet.

*Tier Recommendation: 0 (very top spot)*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^


Ah, yes, the "law of averages" is kicking in again Rob (i.e., we're on the same page again)!!!


Good review Rob, and I completely agree with you about the non-CGI scenes being Tier 0 quality. I also agree with you on the poor storyline, characters and dialogue (having said that, I will still be giving this multiple viewings to immerse myself in video/audio bliss).


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18537061
> 
> 
> ^^^^^^
> 
> 
> Ah, yes, those "law of averages" are kicking in again Rob (i.e., we're on the same page again)!!!
> 
> 
> Good review Rob, and I completely agree with you about the non-CGI scenes being Tier 0 quality. I also agree with you on the poor storyline, characters and dialogue (having said that, I will still be giving this multiple viewings to immerse myself in video/audio bliss).



+1 completely.


----------



## tfoltz

*Avatar*


I can't really disagree with the top placement. I watched it twice yesterday to make sure I didn't miss any glaring problems (well, I watched it twice because it was purdy). While I do believe there were some soft spots at a few points, it really doesn't detract from the video because there are so many aspects that take things to a new level of detail. The intro space scene is amazing. The extra details provided on the Navi/Avatar's faces, hair, etc. are spectacular. The colorful environment makes you appreciate having eyes. When watching the movie you certainly feel that this is the pinnacle of what blu-ray has to offer, more so than any other blu-ray I've seen.


The audio was also amazing. Not bass heavy, but definitely had kick when it needed it. Great mix. Loved it.


Also, I really enjoyed the movie. I love simple stories







. Shoot, I even like Titanic even though it's not popular to like it now.

*Tier 0 (top).*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Pandorum


recommendation: Tier 2.25*


As a horror movie set in the confines of a spaceship, the film uses all the visual cliches that has become _de rigueur_ in that genre. A bleak color palette where much of the time is spent in literal darkness, the image still offers excellent resolution. The level of detail is quite good in close-ups. Every inch and texture of the hideous monsters' hides is clearly delineated, which holds up nicely as a visual effect.


The high-bitrate video encode at 29.82 Mbps handles the darker scenes well and produces no artifacts. Grain structure is pleasingly unaltered and appears in a natural, film-like state. That would indicate to me that no digital noise reduction or other post-processing has been applied to the transfer. The absence of halos is also welcome to see. There is nothing objectionable about the black levels, and they hold hold up throughout the movie. Shadow detail is not the best by any stretch, but solid for a BD in tier two.


This might be the best transfer I have seen Starz release on Blu-ray from a technical standpoint, though my suspicion is that they are merely a distributor for it, and had no hand in its actual production. Anyway, Pandorum's BD deserves a placement at least in tier 2.25, and possibly higher, depending on one's criteria.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post17960262


----------



## Gamepro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/18531908
> 
> 
> Well, no wonder. On a 52" screen, from under four feet away, it did not feel small and TV like.



People sit this close to their TVs? Holy.


I have a 46" and we sit approximately 9 feet back and my family wants to move the couch backwards because they think it's too close


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamepro* /forum/post/18538119
> 
> 
> People sit this close to their TVs? Holy.
> 
> 
> I have a 46" and we sit approximately 9 feet back and my family wants to move the couch backwards because they think it's too close



The short answer to why people sit close to their TV is two-fold:


1) To be able to process all the detail in High Definition (conversely,when you sit too far away from your TV your eyes will fail to see all the detail being displayed in such high resolution).


2) To get the best *immersion* experience possible.


----------



## Ozymandis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/18537266
> 
> 
> The intro space scene is amazing.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18536791
> 
> 
> I thought I might be in for something special when I saw the opening credits with the Fox logo. EVERY BD disc that I have from Fox I always notice the "jaggies" on the Fox logo. But on Avatar, no more jaggies!



I noticed both of these things right at the beginning. The Fox logo really did look sharper! And the clarity and detail in the space station, with Pandora and the gas giant that it orbits around, wow. When I saw that I knew this Blu-ray was going to be something special.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamepro* /forum/post/18538119
> 
> 
> People sit this close to their TVs? Holy.
> 
> 
> I have a 46" and we sit approximately 9 feet back and my family wants to move the couch backwards because they think it's too close



You gotta remember too that this is our "reviewing" distance. I wouldn't necessarily sit this close if I'm just idly watching with friends, etc. I have a specific chair that I sit on for reviewing, in front of the couch. I do have to admit that I find myself at my reviewing sitting distance more and more even when not reviewing. The immersion is addictive.










GGG: girl.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/18537266
> 
> *The intro space scene is amazing.*





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ozymandis* /forum/post/18538347
> 
> 
> I noticed both of these things right at the beginning. The Fox logo really did look sharper! *And the clarity and detail in the space station, with Pandora and the gas giant that it orbits around, wow.* When I saw that I knew this Blu-ray was going to be something special.



+1


I mentioned this scene in my review because of the phenomenal black levels of outer space...perhaps the best I've ever seen. Add to that the clarity and detail of the space station (as you mentioned Ozymandis) and it was simply breathtaking!


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18536791
> 
> 
> I thought I might be in for something special when I saw the opening credits with the Fox logo. EVERY BD disc that I have from Fox I always notice the "jaggies" on the Fox logo. But on Avatar, no more jaggies!



Thanks for the reminder, Rob. I, too, got excited when I saw a brighter, newer, more defined Fox logo. Though I was a bit disheartened when the banding occurred soon after the logo disappeared and the fog-draped shot of Pandora faded in.











> Quote:
> As for the movie itself, it's too bad that there wasn't a good story to support the amazing eye candy. The writing was pretty bad. Overly simplistic if not downright juvenile. I mean seriously, *"un-obtain-ium"*? The "mother tree"? Really bad dialog. And the characters were as flat and undeveloped as could be. I didn't care about a single one of them, as I never felt that I got to really know any of them. The movie was also overly long. It could have easily been cut by 45 minutes. And this movie truly gives new meaning to the phrase "tree hugger"!



Believe it or not, unobtainium is an actual term, used in Engineering circles (among others)...but I know what you mean. Can't say much about "mother tree" though. I'm with you there.


----------



## Gamepro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18538353
> 
> 
> You gotta remember too that this is our "reviewing" distance. I wouldn't necessarily sit this close if I'm just idly watching with friends, etc. I have a specific chair that I sit on for reviewing, in front of the couch. I do have to admit that I find myself at my reviewing sitting distance more and more even when not reviewing. The immersion is addictive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GGG: girl.



What distance do you sit for optimal "regular viewing"? That's what I'm trying to figure out.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18538389
> 
> 
> Believe it or not, unobtainium is an actual term, used in Engineering circles (among others)...but I know what you mean. Can't say much about "mother tree" though. I'm with you there.



Except it was "Home Tree"


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Ong Bak 2*


All of the praise for Avatar means it's time to bring us back to Earth, and the lesser side of hi-def. This movie looks like pure... shi... no, no... cra... nah... garbage. That's family friendly enough.


The digital intermediate tints this movie yellow, making everyone look jaundiced. Filtering has been severely applied, giving it that oh-so-special wax look. Black levels are atrocious in almost every scene. During one of the fights, an encode error causes massive white, interlaced square blocks to appear on screen. Compression can make certain shots look like a watercolor painting. Only a few scenes (count them on one hand) offer any high fidelity detail.


I'm going to put Avatar back in now...

*Tier 4.75*


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamepro* /forum/post/18538540
> 
> 
> What distance do you sit for optimal "regular viewing"? That's what I'm trying to figure out.



Oops, you're right - home tree!


Regular viewing is about 8'-9' and 5'-6' for reviewing (for a 46").


----------



## deltasun

*Armored*


This had lots of pop! Contrast is strikingly strong and bold. Blacks are inky with minimal crush. Facial details galore on pretty much the entire cast. I don't think I've seen Matt Dillon with so much detail and texture.


The only thing keeping this out of Tier 0 (or even high Tier Gold) for me would be lack of dimensionality during mixed lighted content. Low-light medium scenes are usually pretty shallow and had too much dark, unyielding shadows. Shadow details still manage to creep up once in a while, but not often.


Though the movie is dark for the most part, colors that do spring up are well-rendered. Flesh tones look natural. No signs of DNR and just some instances of ringing.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.50*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamepro* /forum/post/18538540
> 
> 
> What distance do you sit for optimal "regular viewing"? That's what I'm trying to figure out.



You didn't ask me, but allow me to give you the following link for you to read and consider:

http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter 


There are many links in that article for you to read if you so desire. You will quickly learn just how important screen size vs. distance is in order to get the most out of your HD viewing experience. I believe THX recommends about 5 feet for optimal viewing on a 46" TV, but there are others who advocate up to 2.5 times the diagonal width of your screen, which for a 46" TV would be 9.5 feet. That is quite a difference; I personally prefer about 1.5-2.0 times the diagonal width (I actually sit 1.6 times the diagonal width from my 60" TV, which is just under 8'), which would equate to 5.5-7.5' for a 46" TV.


Anyway, this will give you something to think about and hopefully you'll be able to make a decision for your setup after reading the article.


----------



## Gamepro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18538814
> 
> 
> You didn't ask me, but allow me to give you the following link for you to read and consider:
> 
> http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter
> 
> 
> There are many links in that article for you to read if you so desire. You will quickly learn just how important screen size vs. distance is in order to get the most out of your HD viewing experience. I believe THX recommends about 5 feet for optimal viewing on a 46" TV, but there are others who advocate up to 2.5 times the diagonal width of your screen, which for a 46" TV would be 9.5 feet. That is quite a difference; I personally prefer about 1.5-2.0 times the diagonal width (I actually sit 1.6 times the diagonal width from my 60" TV, which just under 8'), which would equate to 5.5-7.5' for a 46" TV.
> 
> 
> Anyway, this will give you something to think about and hopefully you'll be able to make a decision for your setup after reading the article.



Thanks for the article. It's actually kind of hard to accurately gauge how far away I sit from the TV since most of the time I'm leaning over a table and eating snacks while viewing


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamepro* /forum/post/18538119
> 
> 
> People sit this close to their TVs? Holy.
> 
> 
> I have a 46" and we sit approximately 9 feet back and my family wants to move the couch backwards because they think it's too close



I love the image to take up most of my field of vision, makes for much more immersive viewing for me. Any time I go to the movie theater by myself, I sit right at the point where closer would be uncomfortable (which tends to be around where my seat makes an equilateral triangle with the edges of the screen). The downside is, every flaw is much more readily apparent. And everyone thinks I'm insane. Oh well


----------



## Milt99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18538389
> 
> 
> Thanks for the reminder, Rob. I, too, got excited when I saw a brighter, newer, more defined Fox logo. Though I was a bit disheartened when the banding occurred soon after the logo disappeared and the fog-draped shot of Pandora faded in.



Someone else mentioned that. I watched that scene like 10 times on a/b repeat and walked up to screen and there is no, none, zip, nada banding on my 96" screen.

Just a velveteen mist.









I thinking this is primarily an LCD artifact.


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/17765492
> 
> 
> Hey guys. Saw Avatar last night in theaters. I saw it in 3D, so it will be interesting to see how the experience translates onto Blu-Ray. Some reviews mentioned how James Cameron invented new colors; that is no lie. The scenery was beautiful in the world that he created, really a visual treat. Special FX were really top notch also. Wouldn't be surprised to see this one end up with a solid tier 1 ranking sometime next year when it releases.



Well. I have to admit. It's nice being wrong sometimes.

*Avatar*


Spectacular. Exquisite. Incredible. These words get thrown around this thread from time to time, but they don't do this BD justice. Watching this Blu-Ray justified my entire collection of receipts for all the home theater gear I've purchased in the last year. A $20 disc that can transport you to another world in stunning clarity and enveloping sound; truly, an immersive experience like nothing else. I could go on...but you get the idea.


I would like to point out that the only time I even noticed a slight dip in PQ was for a split second in the opening scenes, of Jake's arrival on Pandora and him moving about the ship and base. A few seconds (maybe just a few frames) appeared *slightly* soft, and I will guess that it's an artifact of the 3D focus. There was another scene like this, when Jake woke up cryo with the floating speck of water or whatever in front of his face. I might have noticed it briefly here and there in a couple other spots. It happens fast, and if you aren't looking for it, you will never notice. Certainly not a detriment to the product as a whole.


This movie is the epitome of eye candy. The colors are lush, vibrant, well saturated, and pop off the screen in a way that I've never seen before. The depth here was astounding. It almost seemed 3d again, but with a sharper focus and with much more clarity than with the polarized glasses on. Any close-up of a Na'vi is simply breathtaking, and considering that what you're seeing isn't even real, it suspends your belief even more.


My first home viewing was actually on DVD. I was visiting my parents in South Carolina, and had to make due with the equipment available, and the difference between the DVD and BD is remarkable. Getting home and seeing it on my bigger screen, in full resolution, it was like night and day. This is just a flat out gorgeous film. Also, because of the AR, you're eyes will scan across a much broader area of screen real estate, but this one kept it sharp and focused across my entire 54" of screen, and that just added to the effect. This is why we watch Blu-Rays, folks. If they all looked this good, nobody would balk at the price and process to upgrade anymore.


I think of this movie as more of an experience, rather than a film. It is just something you have to take in, and the exceptional quality of this transfer lets you do that with no distracting PQ problems. I really felt like I was there and in some instances, that "window effect" was just jaw-dropping. It's hard to even say "picture quality" because it doesn't *look* like a picture. It doesn't look like you are "watching" anything. It looks like you are standing in the jungle, in the base, and flying among the floating mountains of Pandora. Without a black border around the edge of your TV, you might think you were actually there, and that to me makes this the best Blu-Ray I've ever experienced.

*Tier Recommendation: Top of Tier 0*


The soundtrack here is nothing short of excellent also. This is the new king of reference discs, in every aspect of the word.


----------



## CrispyMyth

AVATAR


I have to say, I have not ever posted here before. Reason being I felt I didn't disagree with any of the ratings given here yet (except maybe the first Pirates movie) and had nothing to really add.


For Avatar I wanted to give my impression because I thoroughly love the movie. Yes, the story isn't new, but I still really enjoyed the film; the story, the video, the audio, the new "performance capture" tech.


So, I am a bit of a fanboy, I'll admit it. But not enough of one to say "top of blue!!!!" without really thinking it over and comparing it to other dics I have in my collection from the list.

*So, after thinking about it, I would have to put it in Tier Blu, above Coraline but below Ratatouille.*


I do not think it quite matches A Bug's Life or Ratatouille in the visual department. I have not seen any of the other films between ABL and Coraline, so I can't comment any more than that.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CrispyMyth* /forum/post/18539744
> 
> AVATAR
> 
> 
> I have to say, I have not ever posted here before. Reason being I felt I didn't disagree with any of the ratings given here yet (except maybe the first Pirates movie) and had nothing to really add.
> 
> 
> For Avatar I wanted to give my impression because I thoroughly love the movie. Yes, the story isn't new, but I still really enjoyed the film; the story, the video, the audio, the new "performance capture" tech.
> 
> 
> So, I am a bit of a fanboy, I'll admit it. But not enough of one to say "top of blue!!!!" without really thinking it over and comparing it to other dics I have in my collection from the list.
> 
> *So, after thinking about it, I would have to put it in Tier Blu, above Coraline but below Ratatouille.*
> 
> 
> I do not think it quite matches A Bug's Life or Ratatouille in the visual department. I have not seen any of the other films between ABL and Coraline, so I can't comment any more than that.




Welcome to the thread! I am curious as to what equipment you watched the disc on?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Milt99* /forum/post/18539315
> 
> 
> Someone else mentioned that. I watched that scene like 10 times on a/b repeat and walked up to screen and there is no, none, zip, nada banding on my 96" screen.
> 
> Just a velveteen mist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thinking this is primarily an LCD artifact.



I didn't notice any banding either....on my 123" screen.


----------



## Hughmc

*Avatar:*


I did see Avatar in Dolby 3D at my local digital DLP theatre. I loved the theatre showing, but I really like the way Avatar looks on BD in 2D, maybe even more in 2D due to the detail being more apparent.


yes it is nice being wrong sometimes, Jedi. FIrst and foremost I want to apologize to Ozymandis. I was being a belligerent prick when I was talking about ABL animation and Avatar. I was wrong and I apologize.


I really don't want to disclose why I thought what I did about the CGI in Avatar as it is really embarrassing.... THe first time I watched it I watched the live action scenes up to the CGI on Pandora.







I fell asleep as it had been a long day at work. I woke up half out of it and scanned some of the CGI parts.










FF to to Friday nite and last nite. I have watched it 2 times. The live action scenes have NO issues at all IMO and are overall even better than IRobot. The CGI is really in a league in and of itself. FOr us gamers we have seen glimpses of some of this type of CGI in games like the latest Metal Gear Solid and Uncharted 2 on the PS3. In fact I highly recommend those that have a PS3 to check out Uncharted 2 to get an idea of what I am talking about.


The CGI in Avatar is beyond a doubt better than ABL, Kung Fu Panda, etc. I am not in any way knocking the CGI in Avatar, but in fairness I think the CGI in Avatar is going for a realistic look, while the other top tier animated titles are not. They seem to be going for or maintaining more of a cartoon look. Regardless, since we don't rank based on differences or have categories for those differences of technology and rank strictly on the merit of each BD, there is no doubt in my mind that Avatar overall really does belong at the top spot. Live action PQ that is better than anything we have seen yet and CGI that is the same, better than anything we have seen yet on this format.


I think with Avatar I am witnessing the closest thing to reality that animation can offer to date on Blu Ray with the look on Pandora.


I admit there is still a part of me that says maybe it shouldn't be on top, ABL is flawless, but I think overall, especially the CGI puts it over ABL and makes it worthy of the top of tier blu.


Frankly, I think it is hard to not like the look of Avatar and really it is what tier blu is about. We now have a new pinnacle to reach for. It does seem like no 100% live action movies will ever be in that top spot unless technology somehow makes it happen.










I do hope that Avatar makes it to the top spot and I think it deserves it.


And Avatar really shines and holds up well on the big screen with no issues and just lots of immersive eye candy.


Panasonic AE4000 from PS3 thru HDMI @ 11 ft. on 119" screen.

*Recommendation: Top of tier 0. ABOVE A BUG'S LIFE!*


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18538548
> 
> *Ong Bak 2*
> 
> 
> All of the praise for Avatar means it's time to bring us back to Earth, and the lesser side of hi-def. This movie looks like pure... shi... no, no... cra... nah... garbage. That's family friendly enough.
> 
> 
> The digital intermediate tints this movie yellow, making everyone look jaundiced. Filtering has been severely applied, giving it that oh-so-special wax look. Black levels are atrocious in almost every scene. During one of the fights, an encode error causes massive white, interlaced square blocks to appear on screen. Compression can make certain shots look like a watercolor painting. Only a few scenes (count them on one hand) offer any high fidelity detail.
> 
> 
> I'm going to put Avatar back in now...
> 
> *Tier 4.75*



Bummer. I liked the first one and although I only seen it on DVD and it was all about what Tony Ja?? could do with his martial arts/stunts, I was hoping to see him with good PQ. Oh well.


In fact it almost sounds like the DVD master was transferred to BD.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/18539364
> 
> 
> I think of this movie as more of an experience, rather than a film. It is just something you have to take in, and the exceptional quality of this transfer lets you do that with no distracting PQ problems. I really felt like I was there and in some instances, that "window effect" was just jaw-dropping. It's hard to even say "picture quality" because it doesn't *look* like a picture. It doesn't look like you are "watching" anything. It looks like you are standing in the jungle, in the base, and flying among the floating mountains of Pandora. Without a black border around the edge of your TV, you might think you were actually there, and that to me makes this the best Blu-Ray I've ever experienced.



I think you nailed it. It is an experience. For me it isn't just like being there, but it also gave me the feeling of wanting to be there.


----------



## Milt99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18539802
> 
> 
> I didn't notice any banding either....on my 123" screen.



Well, some us of go for _quality_ over _quantity_.

But then again, nothing wrong with having both


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18539802
> 
> 
> I didn't notice any banding either.





Me either and my Sony RPTV LCOS(LCD) does show some banding when others haven't seen it on some BD's, so I know what it looks like and what to look for, but usually if it is that apparent one doesn't have to look for it.


I didn't notice it on Avatar and I have an Panny LCD projector. Banding is one of the things I can readily see if it is an issue more so than EE. Gamer for example as good as it looks on BD, has some banding issues. When the kid was in his room the walls of the virtual screen would show some nasty banding in one scene in particular.


----------



## deltasun

*Public Enemies*


Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, this one. Started out picture perfect with deep blacks (though some heavy crushing), strong contrast, and details that skirt Tier 0 territory. It was short-lived, however. Once the story progressed, we are brought into murky indoor scenes, lighting that washed the characters of details. Shadow details and low-light depth suffer here as well. Grain can be heavy at times, particularly in low-lit scenes.


Still, we are presented with lots of what-could-have-been's throughout; at least enough to keep it interesting. Obviously, true to Mann's intent. What is truly distracting is the gratuitous instance of ringing throughout high-contrast scenes.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

I literally only saw one instance - the one I mentioned above. It occurs at the 22 to 23-second mark, as the fog-draped fly-over of Pandora emerges. I remember doing a frame by frame, which made it more apparent.


I can neither confirm nor deny Milton's thinking that it's an LCD artifact, but I guess neither can he.







Either way, I report what I see (though for what it's worth, I did not take off any "points" for it since it did happen only once and only for a couple of seconds). It's similar to the opening title scene in _Gladiator_ - there's banding in the smoke. Of course, _Gladiator_'s was much much more pronounced.


----------



## CrispyMyth




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/18539786
> 
> 
> Welcome to the thread! I am curious as to what equipment you watched the disc on?



Nothing compared to what many on this thread seem to have, but I'm happy with it.


Samsung LN46A650

PS3

Onkyo receiver that does 7.1 (606 iirc)

Running HDMI from PS3 direct to TV for video and fiber optic from PS3 to receiver for audio (since my HDMI pass through on receiver is giving me fits for some reason).

Energy "C" series speakers (iirc, the "cheap" ones) and some old JBL's for the back two channels (that much too seldom get used, *sigh*)


Oh, and a Polk 250 sub.


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CrispyMyth* /forum/post/18540081
> 
> 
> Nothing compared to what many on this thread seem to have, but I'm happy with it.
> 
> 
> Samsung LN46A650
> 
> PS3
> 
> Onkyo receiver that does 7.1 (606 iirc)
> 
> Running HDMI from PS3 direct to TV for video and fiber optic from PS3 to receiver for audio (since my HDMI pass through on receiver is giving me fits for some reason).
> 
> Energy "C" series speakers (iirc, the "cheap" ones) and some old JBL's for the back two channels (that much too seldom get used, *sigh*)
> 
> 
> Oh, and a Polk 250 sub.



That's not a bad setup, but you are missing out on a bit of the audio experience using a fiber optic cable. I thought that series of LCD's looked really nice in the store last year, except for the wayyy too smooth motion of its 120hz feature. I suppose it can be dialed down/turned off, but other than that, I had it on the trading block for a while as I was shopping. Most of us try to use a 24p setting, whether it is 48hz, 96hz, 72hz on the kuros, etc. Gives it a more film-like look. You can use 120 but turn off the anti-judder if you can to keep it more realistic. You might like it better that way.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/18540795
> 
> 
> That's not a bad setup, but you are missing out on a bit of the audio experience using a fiber optic cable. I thought that series of LCD's looked really nice in the store last year, except for the wayyy too smooth motion of its 120hz feature. I suppose it can be dialed down/turned off, but other than that, I had it on the trading block for a while as I was shopping. Most of us try to use a 24p setting, whether it is 48hz, 96hz, 72hz on the kuros, etc. Gives it a more film-like look. You can use 120 but turn off the anti-judder if you can to keep it more realistic. You might like it better that way.



The 120Hz feature is the native refresh rate for the 650's and does not feel "wayyy too smooth" for me. The 24p setting is set on the PS3, not the TV for a film-like experience. The 650 will receive the 24p and employ the 5:5 pulldown (120 refresh rate). The anti-judder you are referring to is the AMP feature and, I agree, it's usually better turned off. Otherwise, you have that unnatural soap opera look.


----------



## hernanu

Avatar


Watched it fully once, went back several times to look at both the CGI and non/mixed CGI - non CGI scenes. I saw no artifacts to speak of, will go back to check the banding mentioned earlier. Easily the best BD that I own, the PQ was just stunning in all scenes - the black levels were great and the color Pandora scenes were vivid; the characters in both CGI and non-CGI modes were detailed and involving. The SQ was excellent also, but will discuss that on the correct thread. I don't have A Bug's Life, but based on my own experience I recommend:


Tier Recommendation : 0


Watched it on:


Vizio SV472XVT LED local dimming 47" TV

Oppo BDP-83 player

Pioneer 1019 AVR

Energy RC-10/RC mini CC/RC-mini surrounds

Energy ESW-V8 sub.

17x15 room.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18539972
> 
> 
> I can neither confirm nor deny Milton's thinking that it's an LCD artifact, but I guess neither can he.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Either way, I report what I see (though for what it's worth, I did not take off any "points" for it since it did happen only once and only for a couple of seconds). It's similar to the opening title scene in _Gladiator_ - there's banding in the smoke. Of course, _Gladiator_'s was much much more pronounced.



Banding can be enhanced or obscured by the calibration of the display. Adjusting a display's gamma can often reveal compression artifacts that would be missed on a properly calibrated system. The problem is that there is no set standard for gamma published, so each transfer might be using a slightly different setting that is optimal.


That is why some displays will reveal artifacts when others will report nothing.


----------



## JoeBloggz

Its like torture watching these glowing Avatar reviews rolling in! My Pio BD player(51FD needs firmware update before I can watch Avatar







. I'll be updating later tonight and hopefully viewing. I have not posted any reviews but I hope to in the future.

I have seen quite a few of the tier Blu titles and if some are putting Avatar at the very TOP I can't wait to see this film on my Kuro. I agree with almost all the placements from the movies I have seen. TS2, Monsters Inc., Cars, Transporter 2, Domino all belong in Tier Blu IMHO.

I can certainly see the differences with the lower tiered titles. For example I was not so impressed with The Hurt Locker, movie was great but PQ not so much.

I'm looking forward to some of the great facial details some of you have talked about in Avatar. Some of the best facial details I've seen are in Black Snake Moan. Samuel L. Jackson looks incredibly natural, detailed, has great depth on most close ups.

Thanks guys for the great reviews so far. Can't wait to see Avatar


----------



## tfoltz

I'm glad this finally got a ranking. I've been trying to watch this in its entirety for a few months now but have fallen asleep in every single viewing. I was thinking around 2.0, but I obviously can't score something that I haven't fully viewed.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18533253
> 
> *The Duchess
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 1.75*


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/18542455
> 
> 
> I'm glad this finally got a ranking. I've been trying to watch this in its entirety for a few months now but have fallen asleep in every single viewing. I was thinking around 2.0, but I obviously can't score something that I haven't fully viewed.



re: the Dutchess -- agreed. Thanks Phantom Stranger for rating this... it was one that I have watched though I was doing a lot of crafting for my shop, and didn't give it enough attention to review it b/c I pretty much LISTENED to the movie rather than watched it. My ability to tolerate Keira Knightly is pretty low so I know I will never watch it again.


----------



## QueueCumber

Avatar --> definitely the best rating possible. It is stunning!


----------



## QueueCumber

I saw Avatar 5 times in the theater (3D, IMAX 3D, 2D) and none had the quality and clarity of the Blu-Ray... I can only imagine how amazing the 3D Blu-Ray will eventually be!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Total Recall (UK import)


recommendation: Tier 3.5*


This region-free edition from Optimum is superior to the available domestic Blu-ray from Lionsgate, which is likely ranked too high at its current placement in tier 3.75 and should be reassessed in the future. Released on a BD-50 in August of 2008, the 113-minute film has an average video bitrate of 19.95 Mbps. Utilizing VC-1, the master used is a tad different than the one employed on the U.S. BD, as it was sourced from Studio Canal. Do not think that this particular transfer is inferior because I am recommending it for tier three, as it replicates the intended look of the film in an excellent manner. Given the age and intended photography, there is likely little room for improvement for the existing film elements on Blu-ray.


Compression parameters are clearly the result of using the lower bandwidth and limits from HD DVD. Saying that, the picture shows few signs of artifacting. There are only faint vestiges of banding in a couple of scenes, mostly evident in the first scene as action shifts to the surface of Mars. This is solid work that holds up well with more recent compression examples.


For a movie first released in 1990, the master from Studio Canal looks clean and free of most age-related problems. The only exception are a few instances of dirt and matte hair as a result of optical effects, which is not uncommon. The vast majority of the print is amazingly pristine, exhibiting a strong level of clarity for a catalog title. The natural grain has been left unmolested by processing, resulting in a film-like state for cinema lovers. Aside from a couple of brief shots that show slight ringing, there is a lack of halos to unnecessarily sharpen the image.


The picture generally stays in that twilight zone between softness and tack-sharp. It never achieves the stunning dimensionality of titles in the upper tiers, though there is no pervasive softness that would drop it further. Contrast is typically good, though some scenes display just a touch of black crush. In one of the first scenes with Melina, her dark hair loses almost all fine structure and delineation. That is a brief distraction, and not common to the picture. Having avoided being handled with digital noise reduction, the image shows a suitable amount of micro-detail, particularly early in the film. Flesh-tones are slightly over-driven towards magenta, making all the reds pop to a degree.


A solid transfer for an older catalog product on Blu-ray, _Total Recall_ stands to merit a placement somewhere in the middle of tier three. The disc is coded for region A and B, so almost anyone can play it.


Watching on a 60 Pioneer KURO plasma at 1080p/24 on a 60 GB PS3 (firmware 3.30), from a viewing distance of 5.5 feet.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of msgohan):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...4#post14470394


----------



## Milt99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18541948
> 
> 
> Banding can be enhanced or obscured by the calibration of the display. Adjusting a display's gamma can often reveal compression artifacts that would be missed on a properly calibrated system. The problem is that there is no set standard for gamma published, so each transfer might be using a slightly different setting that is optimal.
> 
> 
> That is why some displays will reveal artifacts when others will report nothing.



How about I edit this slightly for accuracy.

That is why some displays will *introduce* artifacts when other _*properly calibrated*_ displays will accurately reproduce the data on the disc.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Milt99* /forum/post/18544553
> 
> 
> How about I edit this slightly for accuracy.
> 
> That is why some displays will *introduce* artifacts when other _*properly calibrated*_ displays will accurately reproduce the data on the disc.



Hmm, I'm part of the latter yet I see the banding.


----------



## 30XS955 User

I'd say Avatar is definitely top of tier 1 but not quite as sharp as say Crank 2 which is hard for me to explain considering both were shot with HD cameras and Crank 2 had a considerably smaller budget.


That's for the live action stuff though; the CGI is great most of the time and is definitely tier 0 quality.


46 inch plasma viewed from 6 feet.


----------



## tfoltz

Soooo, that sounds like a mid/bottom tier 0?


----------



## Shydow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/18545134
> 
> 
> Soooo, that sounds like a mid/bottom tier 0?



We've got 3 people saying it should go at the very top of the reference list in the past couple of pages.


1 Person putting it 6th or 7th on the list.


1 Person putting it in no specific position on the reference list


Only one came in with this tier 1 stuff...


I'll be able to chime in around the middle of next week, but if I had to place it based on those claims, at bare minimum it should be in the top 3. But keep in mind, the majority of the reviews have it at the very top beyond both Kung Fu Panda and A Bug's Life. I see no problem with it being there given that that's the case...


----------



## Ozymandis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/18539806
> 
> 
> yes it is nice being wrong sometimes, Jedi. FIrst and foremost I want to apologize to Ozymandis. I was being a belligerent prick when I was talking about ABL animation and Avatar. I was wrong and I apologize.



Apology accepted







I think the regular posters in this thread all have movies that we defend strongly. I always defend Coraline and I'd be grouchy if someone tried dropping it a lot










I'm glad you weren't disappointed with Avatar. You gotta love when a hyped-up disc delivers


----------



## tfoltz

I was just talking about the poster above my post because he gave no placement. I agree that it should be in the top spot, or very close, based upon the reviews we currently have.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Shydow* /forum/post/18546239
> 
> 
> ...the majority of the reviews have it at the very top beyond both Kung Fu Panda and A Bug's Life. I see no problem with it being there given that that's the case...


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Shydow* /forum/post/18546239
> 
> 
> We've got 3 people saying it should go at the very top of the reference list.
> 
> 
> 1 Person putting it 6th or 7th on the list.
> 
> 
> 1 Person putting it in no specific position on the reference list
> 
> 
> Only one came in with this tier 1 stuff...
> 
> 
> I'll be able to chime in around the middle of next week, but if I had to place it based on those claims, at bare minimum it should be in the top 3. But keep in mind, the majority of the reviews have it at the very top beyond both Kung Fu Panda and A Bug's Life. I see no problem with it being there given that that's the case...



I believe you need to do a Search (type in the word Avatar), for you are mistaken when you say there are only 3 recommending _Avatar_ for the top of Tier 0. I counted NINE (yes, I said NINE) recommendations for the top spot and I was very careful not to count someone who simply said Tier 0. The ones I counted were all *official* reviews recommending top of Tier 0 for _Avatar_.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ozymandis* /forum/post/18546241
> 
> 
> Apology accepted
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the regular posters in this thread all have movies that we defend strongly. I always defend Coraline and I'd be grouchy if someone tried dropping it a lot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad you weren't disappointed with Avatar. You gotta love when a hyped-up disc delivers



Worry not, I'd be there right with you if there was a major movement to drop *Coraline* a lot on the list.







Normal aging adjustments (like Avatar's eventual crowning will likely be above Coraline) is one thing, but if suddenly people wanted to have it plummet on the list? no way!


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/18539844
> 
> 
> I think you nailed it. It is an experience. For me it isn't just like being there, but it also gave me the feeling of wanting to be there.



I must have missed you saying that, but it made me think of some articles I read a while back about people being depressed when the movie was over, because they had to go back and face the harsh reality of life on Earth. Like the world of Pandora, and its beauty and splendor and untouched nature was like a heaven, and to be away from it left feelings of sorrow. Frankly, I can understand where they are coming from, and after seeing something like that and watching Planet Earth, it just makes you wonder how some people can litter or do anything else harmful to our planet. Maybe one day, long, long ago, our world was like Pandora, and we've messed it up royally.

CNN article about the "Avatar Blues" 


Article Excerpt:


> Quote:
> Ivar Hill posts to the "Avatar" forum page under the name Eltu. He wrote about his post-"Avatar" depression after he first saw the film earlier this month.
> 
> 
> "When I woke up this morning after watching Avatar for the first time yesterday, the world seemed ... gray. It was like my whole life, everything I've done and worked for, lost its meaning," Hill wrote on the forum. "It just seems so ... meaningless. I still don't really see any reason to keep ... doing things at all. I live in a dying world."



I admit, I am guilty of driving a car just like everyone else, but I try to recycle and do everything else that I can. Maybe these types of movies will spur more people into serious action, rather than just sitting around talking about it. I'm not a believer in global warming, but I can't help but think humans have had a negative impact on our world in many other ways.


Sorry to be way off topic, but it *is* discussion that is started by the most popular movie on this thread lately.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*It's Complicated*


Warmly tinted, although not "super orange" like some films. Grain generally unobtrusive and natural with a few spikes that look unnatural. Facial detail is wildly inconsistent (Streeps face is notably smoothed over in many scenes), but man the environments rock. Opening credits are comprised of the California coast, and they deliver. Super sharp and defined. Great blacks that are always stable.

*Tier 1.5*


And I stand by my Avatar ranking of 0.5 due to the lackluster, processed live action shots.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Wedding Crashers


recommendation: Tier 3.5*


Some discs are difficult to analyze under the criteria of the Tiers. _Wedding Crashers_ looks significantly worse on Blu-ray than it rightfully should, largely as a result of edge enhancement and digital noise reduction gone overboard. It was released by Warner Bros. in December of 2008, but the party likely responsible for the source and master is the defunct New Line. Both the Uncorked version and the theatrical cut are provided in separate video encodes, on a single BD-50. That leads to average bitrates of 14.09 Mbps and 15.57 Mbps respectively, which undoubtedly produces inferior examples of compression and degrades the image quality of the film on BD.


On the surface, the picture quality is superficially pleasing if you ignore the thick, frequent halos and missing textures. Almost all the high-frequency information that should be visible on human skin is completely absent, leading to close-ups that look strange and unnatural. That is disappointing, as the image's color palette is cleanly rendered with perfect contrast and clarity. The cinematography shows adept composition and framing for a comedy.


While it still retains enough quality to be placed in tier three somewhere, make no mistake that _Wedding Crashers_ is one of the worst transfers I have seen of a recent Hollywood film.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Phloyd):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...7#post15459257


----------



## Lestat Phoenix

*avartar


teir 0 above bugs life.


Panasonic g20 ps3 hdmi...*


----------



## Pure_McNasty




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lestat Phoenix* /forum/post/18550340
> 
> 
> NO offense sir, but ...



FYI, you may not like his opinion, but he followed the proper guidelines set up by this thread. He gave his opinion (though brief), and gave a ranking reflecting those opinions.


Your tier recommendation on the other hand only gave a placement, with no reasons. This does not meet the requirements set up by this thread.


On a side note, I finally got to watch both parts of Red Cliff, and am really glad I saw everyone's reviews on that movie. If I hadn't looked through this thread, I doubt I ever would have ever watched it. Was looking for a live-action tier blu title with a good story, and this definitely earned its praise.


Thanks again for the really well written reviews you guys put up. It gives me guidelines on what movies to buy on Blu for the picture quality, and I get to read about some movies I wouldn't see otherwise.


----------



## Shydow




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18546903
> 
> 
> I believe you need to do a Search (type in the word Avatar), for you are mistaken when you say there are only 3 recommending _Avatar_ for the top of Tier 0. I counted NINE (yes, I said NINE) recommendations for the top spot and I was very careful not to count someone who simply said Tier 0. The ones I counted were all *official* reviews recommending top of Tier 0 for _Avatar_.



>_>


Either way, it boils down to this


Avatar should be in the top 3 - and seems well deserving to be on the very top


Also, nobody has a clue what the guy talking about Tier 1 is saying...


----------



## jedimasterchad

*The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus*


This title suffers from the digital look that we've all come to despise. Facial details are seldom highly defined, and a majority of them come from close-ups of Christopher Plummer's title character. No grain and some occasional glowing softness creeped in during a number of scenes. Not nearly as sharp as other digital movies such as Zombieland. Objects in the background do appear detailed for the most part, and some scenes show many small objects (like a dirt surface) pretty well.


The real world scenes were host to a drab and muted color palette, with some light blacks that had me checking the settings on my display. I noticed this was mentioned in a couple other reviews so it wasn't just me. A fair portion of the first half of the movie is outdoor night scenes, and the blacks are not crushed but don't hold up well and are not inky black. Glancing occasionally at the bit-rate, it looked a little suspect and I often found it floating around in the low 20's, which could be the culprit here.


Scenes within the Imaginarium were colorful and boasted the best visual properties of the entire film. Often times these would be bright, detailed, and well saturated, a total departure from the real-world drab. Colors didn't pop but were bright and contrasted well against the backgrounds. Occasionally, edges from green screen work are noticed and are not helped by the set lighting, but these are not as often as in other films of this nature.


I can't confirm that this was shot digitally, but it certainly looks it, and as such there are no problems with artifacting or other associated transfer byproducts. It didn't carry the detail of something like Zombieland, but wasn't as glowy/soft as Harry Potter either. Nothing is wrong here, but the lightened blacks and somewhat drab/dull colors through a good portion of the movie do not produce enough "eye candy" to warrant a ranking too high into tier 1.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


PS3 -> Pioneer VSX-1019 -> Panasonic TC-P54G10 @1080p/24.


I have to say, I haven't seen anything by Terry Gilliam aside from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. I rented this because I wanted to see Heath Ledger's final movie and it was not what I was expecting. It had a sort of Coraline/Pan's Labyrinth fantasy aspect to it, and by the end of the movie I felt like I was in a Pink Floyd music video or something. The story was pretty good, but the experience as a whole was a little too weird for my tastes and I'm glad I rented it because I probably wouldn't watch it again.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pure_McNasty* /forum/post/18550420
> 
> 
> FYI, you may not like his opinion, but he followed the proper guidelines set up by this thread. He gave his opinion (though brief), and gave a ranking reflecting those opinions.
> 
> 
> Your tier recommendation on the other hand only gave a placement, with no reasons. This does not meet the requirements set up by this thread.
> 
> 
> On a side note, I finally got to watch both parts of Red Cliff, and am really glad I saw everyone's reviews on that movie. If I hadn't looked through this thread, I doubt I ever would have ever watched it. Was looking for a live-action tier blu title with a good story, and this definitely earned its praise.
> 
> 
> Thanks again for the really well written reviews you guys put up. It gives me guidelines on what movies to buy on Blu for the picture quality, and I get to read about some movies I wouldn't see otherwise.



First of all, I agree with you that the member did indeed follow the guidelines and we should respect his opinion (even though I don't agree with it







).


Secondly, I was glad to read you checked out _Red Cliff_ and that you enjoyed it. I'm thankful to Phantom Stranger for giving me a heads up on that title, for like you I rely on other members and their reviews to help me to purchase the best Blu-ray titles for the money. I was VERY happy to write a review on _Red Cliff 1 & 2_ after being thoroughly impressed with them.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Shydow* /forum/post/18550554
> 
> 
> >_>
> 
> 
> Either way, it boils down to this
> 
> 
> Avatar should be in the top 3 - and seems well deserving to be on the very top



I surely hope _Avatar_ does end up in at least the top 3 and preferably at the very top (for as you say, and rightly so, it "deserves to be on the very top").


----------



## 30XS955 User




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Lestat Phoenix* /forum/post/18550340
> 
> 
> NO offense sir, but ...



To clarify, the live action scenes are all top tier 1, while the CGI is top tier 0.


Just my opinion, which matters little in the grand scheme of things and even less in this thread, but you can't even begin to compare the live action scenes to say Gamer, Crank 2 or Apocolypto.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus*


IMDB has this listed as being shot on film. There is just no way that is right unless this transfer has been so horrifically scrubbed, not an ounce of grain is left. I tried to find more info but came up empty.


Abysmal looking film, with blacks so light, they do not even qualify as black. Faded color palette, limited facial detail in close-ups only, and truly disappointing "imagination" scenes. Soft, and at a distance, muddy and completely undefined.


Read some other site's reviews after I wrote mine and was stunned to see the scores. If anyone has any more info on how this was shot, I would appreciate it.

*Tier 3.5*



Edit: Didn't see JediMasterChad's review before I posted. You hit on the same issues I did, but ranked it higher. Odd, but you put a lot of faith in the imagination sequences, which is understandable. I thought they were "meh" too.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Africa's Elephant Kingdom (IMAX)


recommendation: Tier 2.5
*

Filmed on-location in the wilds of Africa using the IMAX process, this documentary from the Discovery Channel looks decent. A few problems reveal its age, as the program was originally made in 1998. It was released by Genius Entertainment as a BD on April 7, 2009. The 39-minute feature is encoded in AVC on a BD-25. Happily, the BD does properly present the feature in the accepted IMAX ratio of 1.43:1, which preserves the essential framing of the large-format photography.


The video encode's compression transparency is merely competent for the short documentary. Video-bitrates mainly lie in a range between 16 Mbps to 26 Mbps, with the average somewhere in the middle of those figures. It is an unspectacular effort that produces a slight layer of haze to the picture, though detail is largely retained with no overt macroblocking. The azure skies, overlaid with fine grain, look okay but probably could be more transparent. More substantial parameters would have been helpful to the picture quality.


The image displays a small amount of ringing, which is not really perceivable except at close distances on the sharpest of edges. A few remnants of dirt and debris in the form of black specks are appreciable on the master, indicating the source is likely an older film print. That said, it usually appears clean and only the tiniest bit faded in color and contrast. The original photography is strong enough to overcome those limitations, with generous close-ups of the elephants and panoramic shots of their habitat that exhibit top-notch dimensionality and resolution. There are no indications that any digital processing has been applied to shave grain or detail from the transfer. Given the transfer's age, it is doubtful modern digital noise reduction even existed when the film was created.


Tossed indiscriminately on Blu-ray likely due to its IMAX origins, this disc should reside in the bottom half of tier two. Where exactly it should be placed will fall according to personal preferences. There is just not enough visual impact for it to become a demo piece of choice.


----------



## Ozymandis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Pure_McNasty* /forum/post/18550420
> 
> 
> On a side note, I finally got to watch both parts of Red Cliff, and am really glad I saw everyone's reviews on that movie. If I hadn't looked through this thread, I doubt I ever would have ever watched it. Was looking for a live-action tier blu title with a good story, and this definitely earned its praise.
> 
> 
> Thanks again for the really well written reviews you guys put up. It gives me guidelines on what movies to buy on Blu for the picture quality, and I get to read about some movies I wouldn't see otherwise.



I got alerted of Red Cliff from this thread too. What a great Blu-ray! I don't know if I'm the only one, but a huge movie like that, which has a wide range of scenes, I am more inclined to rate it highly (one argument that makes sense to me for Baraka being in Tier 0, btw).



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *30XS955 User* /forum/post/18550966
> 
> 
> To clarify, the live action scenes are all top tier 1, while the CGI is top tier 0.
> 
> 
> Just my opinion, which matters little in the grand scheme of things and even less in this thread, but you can't even begin to compare the live action scenes to say Gamer, Crank 2 or Apocolypto.



What are you smoking? I want some. I think that Avatar's live action segments are comparable/better than I, Robot. That says a lot, I think that is the highest-rated Tier 0 live action Blu-ray.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/18547125
> 
> 
> Worry not, I'd be there right with you if there was a major movement to drop *Coraline* a lot on the list.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Normal aging adjustments (like Avatar's eventual crowning will likely be above Coraline) is one thing, but if suddenly people wanted to have it plummet on the list? no way!



I love the movie, too, and my kids have watched it a dozen times. You have to love when a Blu-ray is Tier 0 AND is an entertaining watch


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ozymandis* /forum/post/18553079
> 
> 
> What are you smoking? I want some. I think that Avatar's live action segments are comparable/better than I, Robot. That says a lot, I think that is the highest-rated Tier 0 live action Blu-ray.



I disagree with this. If it were *JUST* the live action, _I, Robot_ and a few other live action Tier 0 titles would be ahead. As a whole, however, _Avatar_ is clearly superior.





> Quote:
> I love the movie, too, and my kids have watched it a dozen times. You have to love when a Blu-ray is Tier 0 AND is an entertaining watch



This I agree with.


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18552432
> 
> *Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus*
> 
> 
> Edit: Didn't see JediMasterChad's review before I posted. You hit on the same issues I did, but ranked it higher. Odd, but you put a lot of faith in the imagination sequences, which is understandable. I thought they were "meh" too.



I looked at the technical details on IMDB and I couldn't figure out whether it was film or not. If it is film, it would certainly lower my score because it did not have a film-look *at all*. On the other hand, there were not a lot of negatives in terms of dirty print/artifacting/smearing etc. I thought it was digitally shot w/ a fair of amount of director's intent sprinkled in to give it a soft look, but if we can get some more details I am willing to change my score on this one, and go much lower if this is indeed the case.


I also checked a couple other reviews and thought they over-scored it on the video portion, but I think if it's digital I'm about right, if it's film I'm way high. I'm really inclined to say it's digital because of the type and amount of special effects, but who knows.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/18553293
> 
> 
> I looked at the technical details on IMDB and I couldn't figure out whether it was film or not. If it is film, it would certainly lower my score because it did not have a film-look *at all*. On the other hand, there were not a lot of negatives in terms of dirty print/artifacting/smearing etc. I thought it was digitally shot w/ a fair of amount of director's intent sprinkled in to give it a soft look, but if we can get some more details I am willing to change my score on this one, and go much lower if this is indeed the case.




IMDB has it listed as being shot on the Ariflex series, which are 35MM. IMDB has been wrong in the past, and like we both said, this does not look like film AT ALL.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/18553293
> 
> 
> I looked at the technical details on IMDB and I couldn't figure out whether it was film or not. *If it is film, it would certainly lower my score* because it did not have a film-look *at all*. On the other hand, there were not a lot of negatives in terms of dirty print/artifacting/smearing etc. I thought it was digitally shot w/ a fair of amount of director's intent sprinkled in to give it a soft look, but if we can get some more details I am willing to change my score on this one, and go much lower if this is indeed the case.



Why would the source lower or raise your score?







We are reviewing/scoring based on what we see in front of us. The source, intent, etc. should not play a role - that's the main premise of this thread. I know that we mention such items just to give a bit of an explanation, but it should not affect the overall score. At the very most, it may help place a title between two quarter tiers when a reviewer is on the fence (say, 1.75 and 2.0), but not actually lowering or raising scores.


Not jumping on you here because I do value your contributions and insight, but just making sure we are all on the same plane.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18553765
> 
> 
> why would the source lower or raise your score?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are reviewing/scoring based on what we see in front of us. The source, intent, etc. Should not play a role - that's the main premise of this thread. I know that we mention such items just to give a bit of an explanation, but it should not affect the overall score. At the very most, it may help place a title between two quarter tiers when a reviewer is on the fence (say, 1.75 and 2.0), but not actually lowering or raising scores.
> 
> 
> Not jumping on you here because i do value your contributions and insight, but just making sure we are all on the same plane.



+1


----------



## jedimasterchad

You're right, but I guess what I meant is that it is hard to tell whether or not this has had some sort of work done to it. In a way, that's good, because it's not terribly ugly, but in another way, it's bad, because it probably really changed the look of the film. I was comparing it to other films that had the digital look, and it was not as good as some such as Zombieland, but if this taken from film stock then I am inclined to lower my score for not preserving any detail that I think was probably captured on the film itself. Does that make sense? I wouldn't move it much, because graded against other movies I'm fairly confident it sits around 1.75-2.25, and I leaned towards the more generous end of that spectrum, but if there was a more through explanation to why it looked how it did, I might feel that I scored it too high.


Don't worry though, we're still on the same page. This one was just quite tricky, and I stick by my rating. Maybe GRG saw something different than me. I think I must be questioning myself because I threw up my review first and after he came in that far below me, it made me think I wasn't seeing something that was wrong. In any event, I still have it from Blockbuster and can watch it again, but I'm probably ok at 1.75.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Jedimasterchad, it does appear to have been shot on film going off my cursory research. There is some interesting discussion on the cinematography that Gilliam mentions in interviews on the Internet. The cinematographer used on the movie is a strong proponent of wide-angle lenses, and it was lit for a 360 degree field-of-view. Here is some technical information I gleaned:


Shot in KODAK


TECHNICOLOR


Camera Equipment


TECHNOVISION


Lighting Equipment


IRIDE PANALUX


Information about source material of this type should not be determinative of anyone's placement. Yet it can only help to guide us to a proper and more informed conclusion. I regularly use extraneous information on the source material to aid in formulating my assessment, and cannot castigate anyone who does likewise.


----------



## Fanaticalism

Hello,


I am one of those who only chimes in on the "blockbusters"







, because while I watch a lot of movies, few excite me to the point where I feel like typing anything out. I will say that I try and keep the threads rating criteria in perspective, which is why I rated "TDK" as a tier 1.


With that, IMO, Avatar is one of the best transfers I have seen to date, and that includes "A Bugs Life". The amount of detail and uniformity of color saturation is unlike anything I've seen, and could not fault any aspect of this film no matter how much I tried. To me, it wasn't just the CGI that looked great, but everything in between.

*Avatar


Tier 0

Above "A Bugs Life"*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/18553883
> 
> 
> You're right, but I guess what I meant is that it is hard to tell whether or not this has had some sort of work done to it. In a way, that's good, because it's not terribly ugly, but in another way, it's bad, because it probably really changed the look of the film. I was comparing it to other films that had the digital look, and it was not as good as some such as Zombieland, but if this taken from film stock then I am inclined to lower my score for not preserving any detail that I think was probably captured on the film itself. Does that make sense? I wouldn't move it much, because graded against other movies I'm fairly confident it sits around 1.75-2.25, and I leaned towards the more generous end of that spectrum, but if there was a more through explanation to why it looked how it did, I might feel that I scored it too high.
> 
> 
> Don't worry though, we're still on the same page. This one was just quite tricky, and I stick by my rating. Maybe GRG saw something different than me. I think I must be questioning myself because I threw up my review first and after he came in that far below me, it made me think I wasn't seeing something that was wrong. In any event, I still have it from Blockbuster and can watch it again, but I'm probably ok at 1.75.













I'm still confused by your response jedi....it _seems_ to me like you're still wanting to judge this title based on the source for you say, "*....if this is taken from film stock than I am inclined to lower my score for not preserving any detail that I think was probably captured on the film itself*." To answer your question, NO, it doesn't make any sense.


I do want to echo deltasun's sentiments though that I have always valued your contributions...it just seems like you've lost your way a little bit on this one.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18554040
> 
> 
> Information about source material of this type should not be determinative of anyone's placement. *Yet it can only help to guide us to a proper and more informed conclusion. I regularly use extraneous information on the source material to aid in formulating my assessment, and cannot castigate anyone who does likewise.*



Help me out here Phantom, for I'm just as confused by the words I highlighted as I was with jedi's comments. It sure _seems_ to me that you are contradicting your first sentence by the words that I highlighted. We are to judge titles simply and exclusively BY WHAT WE SEE, regardless of the source material. In other words, the source material should be considered irrelevant when it comes to our determining a title's placement.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18554923
> 
> 
> Help me out here Phantom, for I'm just as confused by the words I highlighted as I was with jedi's comments. It sure _seems_ to me that you are contradicting your first sentence by the words that I highlighted. We are to judge titles simply and exclusively BY WHAT WE SEE, regardless of the source material. In other words, the source material should be considered irrelevant when it comes to our determining a title's placement.



Good points Denny, and I am looking forward to Phantom's reply to this.


It seems that we have to have this discussion every so often in this thread, and that isn't a bad thing.


----------



## 42041

I find biases with source material unavoidable. A stunning transfer of a 1960s movie will impress me more than a routine new movie.... can't help it.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/18555146
> 
> 
> I find biases with source material unavoidable. A stunning transfer of a 1960s movie will impress me more than a routine new movie.... can't help it.



I too find myself impressed with a stunning transfer from an older title, but I still judge it according to the criteria we have for placing titles. To illustrate, I have several of the Bond movies on Blu and I am REALLY impressed with two of them. But I still recommended Tier 2 for both of them BECAUSE their merits versus their flaws dictated such a placement. Another way of saying this is that I placed them where I did because I believe they compared favorably with other titles in that tier, due to THE WAY THEY LOOKED, which has nothing to do with their age.


Having said that, I can see where some may have a bias because of the wonderful transfer of such an old movie, but I really don't believe this bias should affect their placement recommendation. I'm speaking OBJECTIVELY of course, and it is hard to be objective at times.


----------



## deltasun

+1 on all of Denny's points. Again, for me, the only time I will use those other criteria (stunning older transfer, etc.) is if I'm on the fence. And, being on the fence usually means deciding between two tiers a quarter-tier apart.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

There are some titles that I have specifically avoided giving a tier recommendation on because of bias regarding the source material. The Godfather movies are an example. They look superb to me, but it would be very difficult for me to recommend a tier placement in this thread.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I think my comments have been greatly misinterpreted. They were not meant to be taken that we should grade on a curve, giving allowances for questionable source material. I have never given any placement of mine an unfair advantage upon evaluation because of the source material, ever. But knowing the nature of the source material gives excellent insight into possible flaws in the transfer. Each type of film stock produces a characteristic look when faithfully translated to Blu-ray. An image that deviates from that expectation usually indicates something went wrong in the mastering chain, and that is usually obvious upon close inspection.


Take for instance grain structure. If visual evidence indicates it has been altered and is not a transparent replication of the underlying film, that can often inform the viewer about potential processing that has hurt the picture quality. Once aware of that, it makes catching flaws in the image that much easier, which a casual evaluation might miss.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18555574
> 
> 
> I think my comments have been greatly misinterpreted. They were not meant to be taken that we should grade on a curve, giving allowances for questionable source material. I have never given any placement of mine an unfair advantage upon evaluation because of the source material, ever. But knowing the nature of the source material gives excellent insight into possible flaws in the transfer. Each type of film stock produces a characteristic look when faithfully translated to Blu-ray. An image that deviates from that expectation usually indicates something went wrong in the mastering chain, and that is usually obvious upon close inspection.
> 
> 
> Take for instance grain structure. If visual evidence indicates it has been altered and is not a transparent replication of the underlying film, that can often inform the viewer about potential processing that has hurt the picture quality. Once aware of that, it makes catching flaws in the image that much easier, which a casual evaluation might miss.



Well said, and thanks for the explanation.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18555600
> 
> 
> Well said, and thanks for the explanation.



+1


I really did need that explanation Phantom to clear it up for me; your elaboration did bring the needed clarification. I'm wondering if jedi had the same thing in mind when he wrote as he did.


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18556041
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> 
> I really did need that explanation Phantom to clear it up for me; your elaboration did bring the needed clarification. I'm wondering if jedi had the same thing in mind when he wrote as he did.



Phantom hit the nail on the head, and much more elegantly than I managed to. I wanted to know because the negatives I mentioned, light blacks and softness, I wasn't sure to attribute to it being processed or not. If it was an anomaly of processing I would have dinged it a quarter or half tier on my ranking because it was quite an obvious flaw. However, if it was shot that way on digital and meant to be there (which i incorrectly inferred) then I would have been happy giving it the ranking I did.


Since I know now that the blacks and softness/no grain were due to a processing issue, I would be more inclined to change my score by a little, but nowhere close to where GRG had suggested. I still stand firm at 1.75, but in the future I will try to not let this get in my way of a straight comparative review against other films.


However, as Phantom said, knowing that it's film there likely *are* problems with the transfer, and if I had a second viewing they might become more obvious. That said though, during my first viewing I did not notice anything aside from what I mentioned, which might indicate that the DNR/EE process is becoming a lot better at this level of detail to where we might not notice it as much.


Anyways, sorry to throw the thread off track but Phantom summed up pretty well the point I was trying to make. I'd like to see some more opinions on this movie, as both me and GRG at least agree on the fact that other "Pro" reviews were way off base with this one.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/18556327
> 
> 
> Phantom hit the nail on the head, and much more elegantly than I managed to. I *wanted to know because the negatives I mentioned, light blacks and softness, I wasn't sure to attribute to it being processed or not. If it was an anomaly of processing I would have dinged it a quarter or half tier on my ranking because it was quite an obvious flaw.* However, if it was shot that way on digital and meant to be there (which i incorrectly inferred) then I would have been happy giving it the ranking I did.
> 
> *Since I know now that the blacks and softness/no grain were due to a processing issue, I would be more inclined to change my score by a little*, but nowhere close to where GRG had suggested. I still stand firm at 1.75, but in the future I will try to not let this get in my way of a straight comparative review against other films.
> 
> 
> However, as Phantom said, knowing that it's film there likely *are* problems with the transfer, and if I had a second viewing they might become more obvious. That said though, during my first viewing I did not notice anything aside from what I mentioned, which might indicate that the DNR/EE process is becoming a lot better at this level of detail to where we might not notice it as much.



I really don't want to belabor this point jedi, but I don't think you're saying the same thing as Phantom. Phantom told us that if he becomes aware of the source, it may help him to look more carefully for flaws. In your case you already saw the flaws (in this case, *light blacks* and *softness*). You had already docked the title for those flaws so in my thinking it would be wrong to dock it even more simply because you found out what the source was. Flaws are flaws....we dock a title WHEN WE SEE THEM, regardless of the source and any processing that may have been involved that resulted in those flaws. Am I making sense?


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18557830
> 
> 
> I really don't want to belabor this point jedi, but I don't think you're saying the same thing as Phantom. Phantom told us that if he becomes aware of the source, it may help him to look more carefully for flaws. In your case you already saw the flaws (in this case, *light blacks* and *softness*). You had already docked the title for those flaws so in my thinking it would be wrong to dock it even more simply because you found out what the source was. Flaws are flaws....we dock a title WHEN WE SEE THEM, regardless of the source and any processing that may have been involved that resulted in those flaws. Am I making sense?



It makes sense. I was saying I didn't even know if it was in fact a flaw. I didn't change my score, because I graded it on what I saw. But, as Phantom pointed out, knowing the source might have given me more insight into what I was seeing.


----------



## djoberg

*The Lovely Bones*


In one of the _Avatar_ threads I read a post where a member boldly stated that this title's PQ was equal to or better than _Avatar_ (this is what led me to rent it this afternoon). IMO that was a gross exaggeration! That's not to say this title doesn't fare well, for there are some scenes that are quite compelling, with bold, vibrant colors, deep and inky blacks, and detail to die for (facial and otherwise). But overall I believe it's just barely worthy of a Tier 1 placement.


Again, on the positive side there are some scenes with such amazing detail and depth that I found myself pausing it to take it all in. Many have praised the *afterlife* scenes in this regard (and I agree there are phenomenal CGI scenes depicting *heaven*), but I was even more impressed with a few outdoor scenes in the neighborhood where most of the film takes place. Trees, bushes, and leaves abound with color and detail, and the depth is as close to 3D as one could expect.


My main gripe with this title was the director's stylized choice of using a golden hue throughout many scenes. I found it to be distracting to the point where I couldn't concentrate on detail, color or depth. This also resulted in very inaccurate flesh tones.


I also spotted a few instances of video noise, but this was much easier to forgive than the distraction just alluded to. There were also a couple of shots with too much grain, but to be fair most of the scenes shot on film had a nice layer of grain which yielded very good detail.


I couldn't resist checking out Cinema Squid's site to see what some of the "professional" reviewers were saying about this, and I was shocked to see it given an EXCELLENT rating, with some even scoring it 100. To _these eyes_ it was too inconsistent to be in Tier Blu and as I stated at the outset it barely merits a Tier 1 status. As such I opt to put it here....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite BDP-05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Preacher's Kid*

Typical Warner, low bitrate VC-1, but better than most at least. Smooth, underdetailed faces in the mid to long range, but close-ups are generally impressive. A strong warm tint gives colors a glowing quality that pops. Deep blacks are rich and bold. No EE or ringing noted. Some nice environments during a bus trip and great shot of Times Square even though it must be stock footage (everything was shot in Atlanta).
*Tier 1.75*


----------



## deltasun

*Sherlock Holmes*


Maybe it's Guy Ritchie's style, but I just was not impressed with this title's PQ. Blacks were subpar and crushed, contrast was inconsistent, and colors lacked pop (not talking about it being muted either). Details were also lacking and muddied in medium to long shots. I'm talking daytime city / street corner shots. Forget about low-lit / nighttime shots - they were flat for the most part. But even a stopped clock is correct twice a day. That is, some scenes did excel in the attributes above.


Another it did right were numerous examples of excellently detailed facial close-up's. These occasionally got soft, but not too many complaints there.


Ringing is probably the only other item I wanted to mention. Nothing too distracting, but deserves mention.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.50*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

*The Collector*


Don't know what prompted me to add this to my Netflix queue, but it was in my mail this week. This is another stylized horror flick that presented an overdose of grain in darker (greener - yes, certain scenes had a luminous, greenish tinge to them) scenes. Very film-like in the brighter, outdoor scenes with plenty of detail and dimension.


The majority of the main story, however, takes place at night indoors, with limited lighting. In close quarters, details blend a little too well with the surroundings and we're presented with murky, grime-filled sequences. Though at times the lighting is good enough that the grime itself showed a fair amount of detail.


Still, for the purposes of this thread, I have to throw this little thriller in Tier Bronze. Close-up's were also not the very best examples of what high definition has to offer. Softness abounded. Fleshtones looked faithful outside of emerald-influenced indoor lighting.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.50*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Toe

*Avatar*


Wow. I cant think of a title that I have seen in the 3 years of owning my projector that has "wowed" me more from a PQ perspective. As far as eye candy goes, it does not get any better than this one IMO and that is saying a LOT considering some of the competition in the tier 0 list. I just sat there in awe yesterday watching this and was surprised how much better it looked at home compared to the IMAX I watched it at. Of course I did not have the 3d aspect, but otherwise this home presentation was so much better in just about every way.


The thing that impressed me most were the colors, clarity and detail. All 3 of these were as good as it gets to my eyes. I saw colors yesterday that I dont think I have ever seen on my setup as they just appeared to flow out of the screen.


I really cant add anything (or express it as well as you guys







) that has not been said by many of you including Rob, Hugh, deltasun, GGG, etc.......but I agree 100% with all those that feel this should be at the top of tier 0.

*Tier Recommendation: Top of tier 0*

_RS1/94" Studiotek 130, 12' view distance_


----------



## djoberg

*It's Complicated*


It was my wife's turn to pick a movie and this was her choice....I'm glad she did! The PQ, for a romantic comedy, was very pleasing to the eyes!


Grain lovers will LOVE this title, for there was a fine layer of grain present throughout and I'm happy to say it really enhanced the detail! Detail was perhaps the biggest virtue, not so much in the facial department, but every outdoor scene was a sight to behold, especially Meryl Streep's yard and garden with its lush plants and flowers, and well-manicured lawn. (Thankfully this is highlighted in several scenes.) Indoor scenes treat the viewer with all kinds of detail too (furniture, clothing, flowers, etc.).


You know I love blacks and this title didn't disappoint one iota! There were several night scenes that showcased excellent black levels and some of the best shadow detail I've seen in a movie in this genre. Even blacks in daytime or indoor scenes were spot on, with only one brief occurrence of crushed blacks (i.e., on a man's suit where I couldn't make out his lapels or pockets).


Depth was also appreciable in quite a few scenes.....colors were warm and vibrant....and the contrast was perfect. All in all, this is a title you wouldn't be ashamed of using to show off the virtues of HD in Blu-ray.


The only *negatives* were one case of digital noise (on a shot of Meryl Streep's face) and a few instances where flesh tones were a bit off. Also, as intimated above, the facial details were lacking in most close-ups (though there were a couple of shots that veered into Tier 0 territory).


I'm feeling quite generous with this piece of eye candy, so my vote goes for...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite BDP-05....Viewed from 7.5'


PS We also enjoyed the movie. It gave us quite a few laughs and I have yet to see a Meryl Streep performance that left a bitter taste in my mouth. Alec Baldwin should be credited for his willingness to bare it all (well, almost anyway), for HD does him no favors.


----------



## 42041

*Fantastic Mr. Fox*


An outstanding blu-ray. This entire stop-motion animated film has a very clean, superbly detailed appearance without any notable technical flaws. For the purposes of this thread, the limited color palette and the general jerkiness of stop-motion animation may make this less impressive than something like Avatar, but it's still an exemplary disc. I agree with the current placement.

*Tier 0, Top Quarter*


----------



## deltasun

*The Rocker*


Saturated colors were the name of the game for this title. Every scene was bathed in the most brilliant primaries. Colors were complemented with deep blacks and striking contrast. Flesh tones appeared faithful for the most part, though some scenes suffer that digital, saturated look.


Shadow details during the numerous concert sequences were generally average, yielding average depth. Facial details, while adequate for the mostly medium shots, did not exhibit the amount of detail and texture we've come to expect out of Tier 0 titles. There was an extreme close-up of Rainn Wilson that generated fine level of details.


I can see how this was voted into mid-Tier 0. However, it does lack the pop that is typical of Tier 0 titles. Still, I was impressed enough to keep it in mid Gold.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.50*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/18566644
> 
> *Avatar*
> 
> 
> Wow. I cant think of a title that I have seen in the 3 years of owning my projector that has "wowed" me more from a PQ perspective. As far as eye candy goes, it does not get any better than this one IMO and that is saying a LOT considering some of the competition in the tier 0 list. I just sat there in awe yesterday watching this and was surprised how much better it looked at home compared to the IMAX I watched it at. Of course I did not have the 3d aspect, but otherwise this home presentation was so much better in just about every way.
> 
> 
> The thing that impressed me most were the colors, clarity and detail. All 3 of these were as good as it gets to my eyes. I saw colors yesterday that I dont think I have ever seen on my setup as they just appeared to flow out of the screen.
> 
> 
> I really cant add anything (or express it as well as you guys
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) that has not been said by many of you including Rob, Hugh, deltasun, GGG, etc.......but I agree 100% with all those that feel this should be at the top of tier 0.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Top of tier 0*
> 
> _RS1/94" Studiotek 130, 12' view distance_




Hey Toe! Thanks for doing a review! I know you're an active participant here for discussions, but I know your element is more Audio!


----------



## OldCodger73

With the exception of some soft scenes, which appear to be be a director's intent to set mood, detail and depth range from good to borderline very good. Facial closeups are also good to very good but don't show the fine detail of reference class. Colors seem solid.

*The Young Victoria Tier 1.75*.


As to the movie itself, it's a typical British costume drama with some outstanding acting by Emily Blunt. Pace is slow. Overall I'd rate the movie 3.75 on Netflix's 5 star scale.


Panasonic 65" S1 plasma, Panasonic 85 player, 7 1/2'


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/18569324
> 
> 
> Hey Toe! Thanks for doing a review! I know you're an active participant here for discussions, but I know your element is more Audio!




I just had to chime in on Avatar since I was truly floored by it. You and some of the other regulars are very good at describing why this title (among others







) is so impressive, but I at least wanted to get a vote out since I cant think of a title overall that I have been this impressed with from a PQ perspective and they dont get any better as far as eye candy goes to my eyes. Thanks for letting me pop in here when I feel up to it!


----------



## deltasun

*A Serious Man*


Wow, what a visual spectacle...and a great movie, to boot! There's a 5-10min intro story which is set in 1.33:1 AR and a stylized look. I will not consider the drop in quality during these scenes. It's almost independent of the actual story - similar to a short cartoon short before a PIXAR movie.


Where do I start? Blacks are pleasingly solid, with NOT an ounce of crush. Contrast is stunningly strong, maximizing depth and dimensionality in pretty much every scene, inside and outside. Colors - amazing use in almost every aspect. The period look - with the cool greens, earth tones - really sets the mood. This, combined with the excellent contrast makes for refreshingly cool scenes. This is weird for me since I prefer a warmer look. Primaries also pop when they're called for - the yellow period school bus is a great example.


Details, in almost every aspect, are well rendered. I don't know how many times I commented to myself how much texture is conveyed in fabrics. Even in medium shots, they seem touchably textured. It goes without saying that facial details are consistent with the other superlative qualities. Grain presence was perfect - just a thin layer yielding a film-like look to the picture.


Really hard to find flaws - a few scenes do get hot contrast-wise, particularly when Larry and Arthur are outdoors in direct sunlight. A smattering of softness would also be nitpicks. No ringing or any other foul play noted.

*Tier Recommendation: Mid Tier 0*


Thoroughly enjoyed the slow-paced, witty dialogue filled scenes. Be looking to purchase this once the price drops a bit.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

*The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus*


Quite the contrast in PQ compared _A Serious Man_. Terrible washed out blacks and poor contrast throughout. Even the color-filled scenes inside the mirror are washed out and faded. Low-lit scenes are mostly murky and flat.


As alluded to by my fellow reviewers, grain is mysteriously absent and a hybrid digital look is the prevalent look. On the positive side, details do crop up here and there. Lighting also helps some of the brighter scenes result in some achievement of depth. Most of these occur inside the mirror and, towards the end of the movie, in the real world. Facials is another area where rating could reach high Tier 1, but they're marred by inconsistency.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18571202
> 
> *A Serious Man*
> 
> 
> Wow, what a visual spectacle...and a great movie, to boot! There's a 5-10min intro story which is set in 1.33:1 AR and a stylized look. I will not consider the drop in quality during these scenes. It's almost independent of the actual story - similar to a short cartoon short before a PIXAR movie.
> 
> 
> Where do I start? Blacks are pleasingly solid, with NOT an ounce of crush. Contrast is stunningly strong, maximizing depth and dimensionality in pretty much every scene, inside and outside. Colors - amazing use in almost every aspect. The period look - with the cool greens, earth tones - really sets the mood. This, combined with the excellent contrast makes for refreshingly cool scenes. This is weird for me since I prefer a warmer look. Primaries also pop when they're called for - the yellow period school bus is a great example.
> 
> 
> Details, in almost every aspect, are well rendered. I don't know how many times I commented to myself how much texture is conveyed in fabrics. Even in medium shots, they seem touchably textured. It goes without saying that facial details are consistent with the other superlative qualities. Grain presence was perfect - just a thin layer yielding a film-like look to the picture.
> 
> 
> Really hard to find flaws - a few scenes do get hot contrast-wise, particularly when Larry and Arthur are outdoors in direct sunlight. A smattering of softness would also be nitpicks. No ringing or any other foul play noted.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Mid Tier 0*
> 
> 
> Thoroughly enjoyed the slow-paced, witty dialogue filled scenes. Be looking to purchase this once the price drops a bit.
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_












http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1#post18118761


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/18571286
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1#post18118761



Hey - awesome possum!







Can't believe no one else has (re)viewed this.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18571300
> 
> 
> Hey - awesome possum!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't believe no one else has (re)viewed this.



Killer movie and top tier PQ. I loved the look of it. It reminded me a lot of back in the day. Highly recommended!! I think I will own it someday too.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18571300
> 
> 
> Hey - awesome possum!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't believe no one else has (re)viewed this.



You've definitely got my attention now! I'll have to see if one of our local video stores has this title.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Moon*


The look of the film is intentionally sterile, with somewhat flat blacks and slight softness. Almost no color to speak of. Sam Rockwell's pale skin tones are sickly, but appropriately so. Some excellent detail in close, and the lunar surface shows some strongly rendered dust and debris. A few noisy effects shots are noted as well. Not much in terms of eye candy.
*Tier 2.75*


----------



## jutang

Avatar - Top of Tier 0


Just saw Avatar last night and also recommend it as the cream of the crop. The colors really popped and the picture really has that window effect on my screen. While I am horrible at picking out EE and some of the other flaws most of the other reviewers can identify, in my opinion Avatar is superior in eye candy versus Coraline, Kung Fu Panda, and Up.


Equipment specs:

Pioneer 5070 about 8-9 ft away.

Onkyo 605

SVS 5.1 sounds system


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18572367
> 
> 
> You've definitely got my attention now! I'll have to see if one of our local video stores has this title.



Good, let us know what you think!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jutang* /forum/post/18575069
> 
> 
> Avatar - Top of Tier 0
> 
> 
> Just saw Avatar last night and also recommend it as the cream of the crop. The colors really popped and the picture really has that window effect on my screen. While I am horrible at picking out EE and some of the other flaws most of the other reviewers can identify, in my opinion Avatar is superior in eye candy versus Coraline, Kung Fu Panda, and Up.



Thanks for the review! It would be good to hear more from you, so don't be shy.


BTW, that's actually a good thing when one is "horrible at picking out EE."


----------



## dla26




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18575945
> 
> 
> Thanks for the review! It would be good to hear more from you, so don't be shy.
> 
> 
> BTW, that's actually a good thing when one is "horrible at picking out EE."



I'm in a similar boat as jutang. I even looked at some of the examples on the first page of the rankings thread to see what some of these things were, but I don't think I fully understand them. The things that I notice the most are the presence or lack of fine details (skin pores, individual strands of hair, etc. - or on the other extreme, very soft looking images) and motion blur, most likely due to film being 24 fps.


I have a feeling that once I do notice a clear example of these artifacts (DNR, EE, etc.) I'll notice them everywhere. Not necessarily sure if I want to train my eye that well.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dla26* /forum/post/18576912
> 
> 
> I'm in a similar boat as jutang. I even looked at some of the examples on the first page of the rankings thread to see what some of these things were, but I don't think I fully understand them. The things that I notice the most are the presence or lack of fine details (skin pores, individual strands of hair, etc. - or on the other extreme, very soft looking images) and motion blur, most likely due to film being 24 fps.
> 
> 
> I have a feeling that once I do notice a clear example of these artifacts (DNR, EE, etc.) I'll notice them everywhere. Not necessarily sure if I want to train my eye that well.



First of all, I would really encourage you (and jutang) to consider writing reviews in spite of the fact that you're not able to identify certain artifacts/flaws in the transfer. I highly doubt that the majority of regular contributors are able to identify ALL of the various artifacts/flaws that are listed on the rankings page. To this day it is still nearly impossible for me to identify halos/ringing (the common result of EE, though not limited to EE) unless the picture is paused or I see it in a screencap.


When I first began writing reviews I didn't even know what *crushed blacks* were, though I had read many reviews where the poster spoke of this anomaly. I quickly learned that crushed blacks occur when details that should be seen are virtually gone in a dark scene (or on a black object). For example, I wrote a review recently where I mentioned not being able to see the lapels or pockets on a man's black suit...this is crushed blacks.


There are other anomalies I see that I'm not sure what to call it. For example, when I see a person's face (normally with a pale complexion) and it seems to be breaking up or fuzzy, I call that digital/video noise (some may also refer to it as mosquito noise if I'm not mistaken). At any rate, I do realize that the PQ is off and I call attention to it.


I'm going on a bit here to illustrate that spotting flaws and being able to actually identify *exactly* what it is must be learned by experience, and it is NOT a requirement (for posting reviews) to have full knowledge of these things. The main requirement, I believe, is being able to identify the *virtues* of a transfer.....accurate flesh tones, good colors, deep blacks, good shadow details, strong contrast, sharpness, and a sense of depth.


I don't apologize for the length of this post for perhaps there are quite a few members who are reluctant to post a review because of their inexperience. Believe me we ALL start out inexperienced (to a degree, anyway) and in time you will gain more experience that will qualify you to write more detailed reviews. And as I intimated above, some of us *regulars* do not know all there is to know about transfer flaws, nor do we always have the ability to spot them when they do exist.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Supporting djoberg's point, there really is no prerequisite knowledge needed to contribute reviews in the thread. All one needs is a fairly low level of experience and familiarity watching a variety of Blu-rays, hopefully ones that have already been ranked to get a crude understanding of the relationship between placement and actual quality. It helps of course to understand the lingua franca of Blu-ray reviews. Various terms such as macroblocking and halos are useful as commonly understood phenomena, but not a necessity by any means for inclusion.


Simple and direct visual comparisons often work best, and require nothing more than access to well-known BDs. It has been nice to see a lot of new contributors give their commentary for placing Avatar.


----------



## dla26

Thanks for the words of encouragement. I've reviewed a handful of movies so far (3-4) and will continue to do so. I do think I may have a tendency to rate things lower than I maybe should, since I don't want to say something's a tier 0 and have the next person say it was unwatchable because of all the DNR.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Close Encounters of the Third Kind, 30th Anniversary Edition*


This one came out in '07, and it looks it. The encode regularly breaks down, revealing compression and chroma noise. Artificial sharpening is evident, unnaturally heightening the grain. Oddly, daytime scenes look smooth and artificial. Banding is excessive in many sky shots. At least the black levels are solid, and the print is in great shape.
*

Tier 3.5*


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18575945
> 
> 
> Thanks for the review! It would be good to hear more from you, so don't be shy.
> 
> *BTW, that's actually a good thing when one is "horrible at picking out EE."*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Leap Year*

_He's not going to do it, is he?_


I am.

_You, you just can't!_


But I am: Leap Year is a notch better than Avatar. There, I said it. Where Avatar suffered from that digital/processed look in the few human scenes, Leap Year is one of the best transfers of 2010, bar none. If you want to dock it for sheer eye candy, the blooming effect of lights can be tiresome. That's it.


You thought Pandora was amazing? Wait till you see Ireland like this. Not a single flaw dots these landscape views... none. Stunning vistas of mountains, fields of grass, beaches, water, and more. Every time they deliver. Black levels are staggering, rich, and bold. Facial detail, in close or even in the mid-range, is unbelievable. Clothing textures? Yeah, those are perfect too. Colors are bright, along with the contrast.


I had Avatar at Tier 0.5. I'd put Leap Year at 0.5 as well, but above Avatar. It is wonderfully film like, not digital, and the grain never becomes an issue.

*Tier .50*


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*GRG* - I respect that you view *Avatar* as being mid-tier 0, but I think given the overwhelming response by many reviewers, once Phantom Stranger does update the list I think it will be at the top of tier 0. Given that thought, would you describe *Leap Year* to be around *Domino*? While I _know_ you're not loading your review, it _feels_ slightly loaded using Avatar as a basis point, since it's technically not on the list yet.



And ugh... I am an Amy Adams fan, but I really was not looking forward to this chick-flick, I figured everything was in the previews for it!! Now I am going to HAVE to watch it, to see if it defeats *my* interpretation of Avatar being at the top of Tier 0 or not, or if I'd put it more around Domino (or, anywhere on Tier 0 for that matter, as my geeky eyes don't always agree with everyone!!! teehee!







)


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/18583146
> 
> *GRG* - I respect that you view *Avatar* as being mid-tier 0, but I think given the overwhelming response by many reviewers, once Phantom Stranger does update the list I think it will be at the top of tier 0. Given that thought, would you describe *Leap Year* to be around *Domino*? While I _know_ you're not loading your review, it _feels_ slightly loaded using Avatar as a basis point, since it's technically not on the list yet.



I've never seen Domino, so I can't say.


I'm pretty sure Avatar will end up on top as well. If it does, I'm not saying Leap Year deserves to be above that. I'm saying in my own view, where I would _personally_ rank Avatar, I would prefer Leap Year above. It's far more consistent across the board and looks natural, again, a personal preference.


However, I guess you almost have to take into account which you would use at demo material... Given the lackluster movie Leap Year is (despite an Amy Adams' obsession on my end), Avatar has "wow" factor generated by its special effects. Leap Year has "wow" factor generated by its natural, real world environments.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18583432
> 
> 
> I've never seen Domino, so I can't say.
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure Avatar will end up on top as well. If it does, I'm not saying Leap Year deserves to be above that. I'm saying in my own view, where I would _personally_ rank Avatar, I would prefer Leap Year above. It's far more consistent across the board and looks natural, again, a personal preference.
> 
> 
> However, I guess you almost have to take into account which you would use at demo material... Given the lackluster movie Leap Year is (despite an Amy Adams' obsession on my end), Avatar has "wow" factor generated by its special effects. Leap Year has "wow" factor generated by its natural, real world environments.




I totally understood that it was your own view; I have done the same in the past which is why I was seeking clarification. I just grabbed a title randomly from the middle area, honestly (though I have seen both Live Free or Die Hard and Domino, which are in the middle area) so any of the titles in that range would see fit IMO.







Thanks for the explanation, I do appreciate it.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18582929
> 
> *Leap Year*
> 
> 
> But I am: Leap Year is a notch better than Avatar. There, I said it.
> 
> *Tier .50*



You got cajones, man.







I saw the BR box at Best Buy when I picked up _Saving Private Ryan_ earlier. Never heard of the movie before, so it intrigued me a bit. Now, I'll have to rent this chick flick.


----------



## tcramer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18583706
> 
> 
> You got cajones, man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I saw the BR box at Best Buy when I picked up _Saving Private Ryan_ earlier. Never heard of the movie before, so it intrigued me a bit. Now, I'll have to rent this chick flick.




I can't wait to see how Saving Private Ryan looks. Bluray.com says it is wonderful, but I'd like to see an AVS expert review










I plan on picking it up regardless.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18583706
> 
> 
> You got cajones, man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I saw the BR box at Best Buy when I picked up _Saving Private Ryan_ earlier. Never heard of the movie before, so it intrigued me a bit. Now, I'll have to rent this chick flick.



Saving PR in my hand now @best buy










thinking tombstone as well...


----------



## tfoltz

You are all so ahead of the the curve. I'm barely getting Star Trek, and that's only because it was on sale at Amazon.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/18584263
> 
> 
> You are all so ahead of the the curve. I'm barely getting Star Trek, and that's only because it was on sale at Amazon.



you should hear my husband complain at the amount of blu ray's I've accumulated... I'm trying to get better about buying them, though!










He tried to chide me about Avatar. I had sent him to the store to go to the pharmacy for the little guy, and when he came home he was bragging, "I saw AVATAR at the store today."


"Did you buy it?"


"No..."


"Good, I bought it this morning; the pharmacy was still closed when I was there."


"You did WHAT?!?!"


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Oh hey, have any of you guys picked up *DUNE* yet? I saw it at the store and my fingers were itchy... I haven't bought a blu since Avatar.







Ugh though the husband DID pick up that chipmunks squeakuel. I'm scared of that one.


I looked at some of Xylon's screenies and am really curious about where it may place here. I can't remember the last time I even SAW Dune all the way through; I don't own it on DVD.


----------



## deltasun

The past few weeks have had day-1 release pick ups for me - SPR, Traffic, Avatar, Minority Report, etc. Thank God for the Deals thread and Best Buy RewardZone!


Btw, haven't watched it fully yet, but _Traffic_ looks good despite the "look."


tfoltz - pick up the pace!


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/18584402
> 
> 
> Oh hey, have any of you guys picked up *DUNE* yet? I saw it at the store and my fingers were itchy... I haven't bought a blu since Avatar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ugh though the husband DID pick up that chipmunks squeakuel. I'm scared of that one.
> 
> 
> I looked at some of Xylon's screenies and am really curious about where it may place here. I can't remember the last time I even SAW Dune all the way through; I don't own it on DVD.



I may pick this one up as well. I literally haven't seen it since having to watch in my Sci-Fi Lit class. I really did like it though and is a cult classic. The price will have to be right on this one for me.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/18584085
> 
> 
> Saving PR in my hand now @best buy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thinking tombstone as well...



Both are excellent movies and are definitely worth owning!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/18584085
> 
> 
> Saving PR in my hand now @best buy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thinking tombstone as well...





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18584471
> 
> 
> Both are excellent movies and are definitely worth owning!





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/18584402
> 
> 
> Oh hey, have any of you guys picked up *DUNE* yet? I saw it at the store and my fingers were itchy... I haven't bought a blu since Avatar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ugh though the husband DID pick up that chipmunks squeakuel. I'm scared of that one.
> 
> 
> I looked at some of Xylon's screenies and am really curious about where it may place here. I can't remember the last time I even SAW Dune all the way through; I don't own it on DVD.



Dune, on the other hand!!!


Aye carumba, what a huge mess this film is! Sorry to say, but this will *not* be one that I will be reviewing in this thread. I just couldn't subject myself to the agony of doing so, even for the good of the thread.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18582929
> 
> *Leap Year*
> 
> _He's not going to do it, is he?_
> 
> 
> I am.
> 
> _You, you just can't!_
> 
> 
> But I am: Leap Year is a notch better than Avatar. There, I said it. Where Avatar suffered from that digital/processed look in the few human scenes, Leap Year is one of the best transfers of 2010, bar none. If you want to dock it for sheer eye candy, the blooming effect of lights can be tiresome. That's it.
> 
> 
> You thought Pandora was amazing? Wait till you see Ireland like this. Not a single flaw dots these landscape views... none. Stunning vistas of mountains, fields of grass, beaches, water, and more. Every time they deliver. Black levels are staggering, rich, and bold. Facial detail, in close or even in the mid-range, is unbelievable. Clothing textures? Yeah, those are perfect too. Colors are bright, along with the contrast.
> 
> 
> I had Avatar at Tier 0.5. I'd put Leap Year at 0.5 as well, but above Avatar. It is wonderfully film like, not digital, and the grain never becomes an issue.
> 
> *Tier .50*



I have always respected your opinion GRG and when I read your glowing remarks for _Leap Year_ I felt compelled to visit Cinema Squid's site to see what your colleagues are saying about it. I was quite surprised to see most of them giving it an 80 out of 100 and citing flaws such as "softness," "out of focus shots," "bad colors" (at times) and a couple of other anomalies. To be fair, they also praised it for some of the same reasons you did, but they made a point to say it wasn't without issues.


Having said that, experience has taught me to take their views with a grain of salt, so I am hoping your review is closer to the truth.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/18584263
> 
> 
> You are all so ahead of the the curve. I'm barely getting Star Trek, and that's only because it was on sale at Amazon.



Ahead of the curve:


According to Merriam Webster dictionary:


Ahead of the curve: *BROKE!!







*


Damn Best Buy...


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18584471
> 
> 
> Both are excellent movies and are definitely worth owning!



Yes, Rob, love them both and watch them in HD any time they are on. I do have Private Ryan on DVD, but am looking forward to the upgrade. It is a Sapphire series...to bad they weren't offering the same deal as they did with Braveheart and Gladiator...10.00 off if you previously owned the DVD versions.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18584597
> 
> 
> I have always respected your opinion GRG and when I read your glowing remarks for _Leap Year_ I felt compelled to visit Cinema Squid's site to see what your colleagues are saying about it. I was quite surprised to see most of them giving it an 80 out of 100 and citing flaws such as "softness," "out of focus shots," "bad colors" (at times) and a couple of other anomalies. To be fair, they also praised it for some of the same reasons you did, but they made a point to say it wasn't without issues.
> 
> 
> Having said that, experience has taught me to take their views with a grain of salt, so I am hoping your review is closer to the truth.



Thanks DJ. Believe me, when I was watching, all of my notes were basically about how perfect this was. The "softness" issue is undoubtedly the blooming on the lights. I totally understand why that would bother some. After I wrote my own review, I checked CS as well, and some seem to be complaining about the green screen effects being obvious. They are, but I have a real hard time knocking a transfer because the special effects work is shoddy. If anything, if a transfer brings out flaws in effects, that's a sign that it is doing something right, not wrong.


Basically, while I was watching I was doing this:










And once I figured out what my thoughts were going to be, I fully expected to see some of these:


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18584821
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Basically, while I was watching I was doing this:



Sure, it's Amy Adams.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18584821
> 
> 
> After I wrote my own review, I checked CS as well, and some seem to be complaining about the green screen effects being obvious. They are, but *I have a real hard time knocking a transfer because the special effects work is shoddy*. If anything, if a transfer brings out flaws in effects, that's a sign that it is doing something right, not wrong.



That is a very dangerous argument to be made here that leads to a slippery slope. Almost all the movies coming out of Hollywood have special effects today. Their seamless integration is crucial to the look of many modern films, and discounting them entirely for this thread would make much of the current rankings a mockery. The movie "300" is almost entirely green screen. Bad CGI or the poor blending of digital backgrounds are legitimate reasons to lower a placement, in my opinion.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18584910
> 
> 
> That is a very dangerous argument to be made here that leads to a slippery slope. Almost all the movies coming out of Hollywood have special effects today. Their seamless integration is crucial to the look of many modern films, and discounting them entirely for this thread would make much of the current rankings a mockery. The movie "300" is almost entirely green screen. *Bad CGI or the poor blending of digital backgrounds are legitimate reasons to lower a placement, in my opinion*.



Yes, I remember our discussion concerning the latest Final Destination and my claim that the CGI is so good it is seamless. Gladiator CGI/Green Screen is the reason I dinged it liked I did back when I reviewed it.


----------



## deltasun

*Nine*


Dark scenes galore in this one and unfortunately, not handled well for the most part. Blacks can still be bold and deep, but crush does come into play in a number of them. Facial details were a bit disappointing, only because the scenes seemed to lend themselves to well-detailed examples. Instead, they're not very well-rendered.


Grain is present and does thicken during the black & white scenes. Still, its overall appearance does enhance the film-like presentation. Depth can be a problem, particularly in the darkened stage scenes. Strong contrast does help.


Though predominantly dark, colors do make a splash (specially crimson) when present. Some of the better scenes come from outdoors in perfectly overcast lighting. Depth and dimensionality do pop up in those scenes. A good example is Lewis & Dench's stroll seaside towards the end. Though the depth of field is shallow, the scene shows excellent dimensionality.


Softness does creep up here and there. Finally, with all the stage lights, banding does permeate.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Hughmc

I watched most of Saving Private Ryan that I purchased today along with Tombstone and THe Who: Isle of WIght.


AS of now I am leaning towards 1.0 for SPR even with the stylized look and inconsistent PQ, because over all the PQ is actually stunning and far exceeds my expectations.

















IMO,

the stylized look on SPR doesn't impact the look of the film/BD as much as does Minority Report with its stylized look.


And detail on this BD is incredible. On closeups look at the detail...Look at the helmets, particularly Hanks. Look at clothing, skin, pores, hair, etc. WOW!!


----------



## LBFilmGuy

Hey everyone! I haven't been on here in months and am embarrassed to say I have been slacking BIG TIME on my Blu Ray watching and in movie watching in general.










I miss it, and this thread! Nice to see my format still being used and most of the regulars still here as well as some newcomers.










Anyway, I just found out SPR is out on BD (shows how out of the loop I am) so I had to come see what my friends here have to say.


----------



## LBFilmGuy

And Avatar too of course (which I also haven't seen).


----------



## Hughmc

^^ He's alive, welcome back. I was thinking a few back that you haven't been around in a long while. Hope your well.


and SPR...one word for me....W0W!!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/18586531
> 
> 
> Hey everyone! I haven't been on here in months and am embarrassed to say I have been slacking BIG TIME on my Blu Ray watching and in movie watching in general.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I miss it, and this thread! Nice to see my format still being used and most of the regulars still here as well as some newcomers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, I just found out SPR is out on BD (shows how out of the loop I am) so I had to come see what my friends here have to say.



This can't be a mere coincidence LB, but your name came to mind just yesterday as I was trying to think of different ones we haven't heard from in quite awhile. A minute ago I booted up my computer and like magic your post appears! Good to have you back!


Edit: Whoa, I just checked and your last post on this thread was back on 7/11/09 and would you believe it was in response to one of my posts?!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LBFilmGuy* /forum/post/18586531
> 
> 
> Hey everyone! I haven't been on here in months and am embarrassed to say I have been slacking BIG TIME on my Blu Ray watching and in movie watching in general.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I miss it, and this thread! Nice to see my format still being used and most of the regulars still here as well as some newcomers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, I just found out SPR is out on BD (shows how out of the loop I am) so I had to come see what my friends here have to say.



aaaaaand you are WHO again?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/18586448
> 
> 
> I watched most of Saving Private Ryan that I purchased today along with Tombstone and THe Who: Isle of WIght.
> 
> 
> AS of now I am leaning towards 1.0 for SPR even with the stylized look and inconsistent PQ, because over all the PQ is actually stunning and far exceeds my expectations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMO,
> 
> the stylized look on SPR doesn't impact the look of the film/BD as much as does Minority Report with its stylized look.
> 
> 
> And detail on this BD is incredible. On closeups look at the detail...Look at the helmets, particularly Hanks. Look at clothing, skin, pores, hair, etc. WOW!!



Good news on SPR Hugh. I will DEFINITELY be purchasing that title!


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I have Saving Private Ryan, Doctor Zhivago, and Collateral all on their way to me from Amazon.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/18586448
> 
> 
> I watched most of Saving Private Ryan that I purchased today along with Tombstone and THe Who: Isle of WIght.
> 
> 
> AS of now I am leaning towards 1.0 for SPR even with the stylized look and inconsistent PQ, because over all the PQ is actually stunning and far exceeds my expectations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMO,
> 
> the stylized look on SPR doesn't impact the look of the film/BD as much as does Minority Report with its stylized look.
> 
> 
> And detail on this BD is incredible. On closeups look at the detail...Look at the helmets, particularly Hanks. Look at clothing, skin, pores, hair, etc. WOW!!










Hate to be the dissenter here (and obviously, love and share Hugh's enthusiasm), but would have to disagree. Granted, I've only watched the first 30 minutes (the beach landing scene, in essence) and know it will get better. If I were to score just the first 30 minutes, it would land in Tier 3, maybe even low Tier 3.


Still, having about 1/6th of the film already in Tier 3, it would be hard to score an overall 1.0 for me. That landing scene just had so much softness, weak contrast, bleeding backlighting, etc. --- all stylized choices. I will agree though, Tom Hanks' helmet is uncannily sharp throughout; even in his initial scene where his face is soft - his helmet and the _captain_ insignia is tack sharp. I would also add that his extreme close-up once the initial push is done is definite Tier 0 quality. Hope to see more of those.


So again, I share Hugh's enthusiasm because I can at least say that it's probably the best SPR will ever get and would have bought it regardless.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Tooth Fairy*


Pretty standard new release for kids, meaning pumped up colors (flesh tones veering into red), ultra bright contrast, and a hint of black crush. Some occasional chroma noise, and weird shots Stephen Merchant that appear especially noisy.


That said, facial/skin detail is phenomenal, easily reference in a couple of scenes (early shot of The Rock in the locker room). Sharpness typically holds. Pleasing, bit of eye candy, and sporadic problems.

*Tier 1.75*


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18588089
> 
> *Tooth Fairy*



On behalf of parents everywhere, I apologize to you for the fact that you had to watch that film.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/18588346
> 
> 
> On behalf of parents everywhere, I apologize to you for the fact that you had to watch that film.



Hearing the Rock state, "I can shrink to six inches" may have made my week. Almost worth the rest of that mess.


----------



## 42041

*Twilight: New Moon*


Technically, a fine transfer, typical of new films. But for the most part, this movie is as dull visually as it is in every other way. It's dim and murky, and detail underwhelms in many scenes.

Even watching it with Rifftrax, I feel like I need a nap.

*Tier 1.75*


----------



## djoberg

My wife is visiting our daughters for a few days in Minneapolis, so I picked up a few Blus to watch over the next couple of days (_Boondock Saints 2_, _District 9_, and _Drag Me to Hell_). I was going to do a Search on this thread for these titles to see what I'm in for, and those annoying advertisements keep blocking the Search window (I know...at times the Search window will show up over the ad).










I also picked up _Saving Private Ryan_ at Wally World today for $19.99. Can't wait to see it again (it's been a few years, at least), but it may be later this weekend or next week before I have time to sit down for that long of a movie.


----------



## jedimasterchad

*Saving Private Ryan*


Moderate to heavy grain throughout giving this one a beautiful film-like look. Detail captured on film is present here in abundance, and is free of any DNR type filtering. Detail in general is excellent, with many closeup shots displaying fine lines/pores in skin and faces, woodgrain/scratches on guns etc. Dirt looks good as it is blown into the air and contrasts against the film grain giving it a gritty and coarse look throughout. Every bit of detail captured on film remains in this transfer and overall looks great. Contrast was weak at times and strong at others, but the sense of depth is rarely achieved due to the strong film look.


Sky shots are blown out and hot-white during daytime scenes. Blacks are not inky but appear black and not tinged gray or blue and shadow detail is not crushed. A fair amount of artifacting occurs throughout from beginning to end, probably due to an older film print. These are very minor and do not heavily distract from the movie but are noticed fairly often. Some scenes exhibit softness due to the blown out sky and lens flares, a result of the filming process used. Director's intent in this instance works against the film's merits for this particular thread. Lens flare is readily noticed in only a few scenes, but where it is apparent the PQ suffers a good amount.


Color is mostly a muted affair, with many earthly hues, such as browns, grays, reds, and greens. There is not much vibrancy, although some scenes appear abnormally bright. Again, artistic intent plays a part here and doesn't help for this thread. There isn't much in terms of eye candy, except an excellent transfer of the film-look and the detail it contains. It does look better than any previous home releases, such as DVD, and is quite the visceral experience in high definition, however this probably isn't as much a demo for video as it will become for audio. That said, it still looks great, but it doesn't line up in the top tiers of our rankings.

*Tier Recommendation 2.0*


Played via a PS3->Pioneer VSX1019 -> Panasonic TC-P54G10 @1080p/24. This film is still as powerful as the first time you saw it, even 12 years later, and this presentation is quite excellent. The audio is fantastic and the video is probably as nice as it will ever look again. Certainly a must-own, even if you already have the DVD.


Of note, I experienced a number of playback issues starting around chapter 12. There has been some fairly widely reported lip-syncing issues with the UK disc but I did not notice that as much. I had frequent freezes and stuttering starting around the time they rush the old radar bunker on the hill, and again as they planned their bridge defense around chapter 15 or so. I'm using a PS3 w/ the newest 3.3 firmware, so I'm not sure if I got a bad disc or if this is somehow a hardware related issue, such as a layer transition problem or something of that nature. It only happened during the second half of the movie, and turning off then on the PS3 alleviated the problem somewhat, but not for long. I will probably exchange for a new disc at wal-mart, but I'm curious if others have this issue.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18589524
> 
> 
> My wife is visiting our daughters for a few days in Minneapolis, so I picked up a few Blus to watch over the next couple of days (_Boondock Saints 2_, _District 9_, and _Drag Me to Hell_). I was going to do a Search on this thread for these titles to see what I'm in for, and those annoying advertisements keep blocking the Search window (I know...at times the Search window will show up over the ad).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I also picked up _Saving Private Ryan_ at Wally World today for $19.99. Can't wait to see it again (it's been a few years, at least), but it may be later this weekend or next week before I have time to sit down for that long of a movie.



Boondock Saints 2 which I watched last week and failed to review...IIRC has some really good PQ, like tier 1 give or take.


Didn't you see D9 yet, I thought you had?










I just found out ALL Hollywood videos in the US are closing. Bummer. I live in a small town. 10k and it is the only store we have and we were lucky to have it... coincidentally I closed my pay per month account there last week without knowing this, but I did it because of poor BD selection. Netflix here I come.


----------



## Ozymandis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/18584402
> 
> 
> Oh hey, have any of you guys picked up *DUNE* yet? I saw it at the store and my fingers were itchy... I haven't bought a blu since Avatar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ugh though the husband DID pick up that chipmunks squeakuel. I'm scared of that one.
> 
> 
> I looked at some of Xylon's screenies and am really curious about where it may place here. I can't remember the last time I even SAW Dune all the way through; I don't own it on DVD.



I considered getting Dune. I had read the book as a child and have seen most of the movie a while ago on cable. I thought Lynch got more wrong than he got right with it, but I might be willing to give it another shot if the transfer is good.


I got La Femme Nikita this week for 10 bucks. I'm going to watch the rest of it tonight, although I might not review it for the thread.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Lucky Number Slevin


recommendation: Tier 1.5*


There really is little to fault in this stellar transfer from the Weinstein Company. Slight, but persistent, edge enhancement is the only flaw in a picture that showcases excellent dimensionality. Without the unnecessary halos, a higher placement might have been feasible. Contrast, black levels and resolution are all very strong in a manner that is not overly flashy or calls attention to itself. It marks a reference for what Morgan Freeman should look like in close-up on the Blu-ray format, and exposes some of the problems seen in his other work on BD. I have not seen it, but there is a different encode of this movie from overseas currently ranked in the lowest rung of tier two.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of House):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...6#post15006046


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/18590156
> 
> 
> Boondock Saints 2 which I watched last week and failed to review...IIRC has some really good PQ, like tier 1 give or take.
> 
> 
> Didn't you see D9 yet, I thought you had?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just found out ALL Hollywood videos in the US are closing. Bummer. I live in a small town. 10k and it is the only store we have and we were lucky to have it... coincidentally I closed my pay per month account there last week without knowing this, but I did it because of poor BD selection. Netflix here I come.



Netflix isn't terrible, but you will probably find trouble getting new releases as they come out. I'm happy the blockbuster next door to my wife's work is still open, and the movie pass is the answer to poor netflix service. Same monthly price, exchange movies as often as you want, and the only issue is getting new release catalog titles, but not new new releases. Sounds like you don't have that option though.


----------



## deltasun

I know it's off topic, but the key to getting new releases from Netflix is making sure you return your discs on Saturday and having the new releases at the top of your list. I've usually received those new releases on Tuesday. I'm on a three-at-a-time plan and usually get 6 movies a week, when I have time to watch them.


As for Blockbuster, it's more of an issue with their ethical practices for me. I did try their similar Netflix-type program. Not only did it take longer to receive movies, they usually did not send my top movies even though they were showing as available.


My 2 cents...


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/18590156
> 
> 
> Boondock Saints 2 which I watched last week and failed to review...IIRC has some really good PQ, like tier 1 give or take.
> 
> 
> Didn't you see D9 yet, I thought you had?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just found out ALL Hollywood videos in the US are closing. Bummer. I live in a small town. 10k and it is the only store we have and we were lucky to have it... coincidentally I closed my pay per month account there last week without knowing this, but I did it because of poor BD selection. Netflix here I come.



I just finished watching BS2; I'll post a review it after I eat supper. It's going to be a hard one to call because it's SO inconsistent!


No, I passed on D9 but now I'm itching to see it.


I live in a small town too but we do have two video stores and one of them stocks most new releases on Blu (but not catalog titles). I know the manager well and she let's me reserve titles several days before they are released so I'm pretty lucky. Now if I only had the time to watch everything I'd like to see.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/18590320
> 
> 
> Netflix isn't terrible, but you will probably find trouble getting new releases as they come out. I'm happy the blockbuster next door to my wife's work is still open, and the movie pass is the answer to poor netflix service. Same monthly price, exchange movies as often as you want, and the only issue is getting new release catalog titles, but not new new releases. Sounds like you don't have that option though.



I am bummed and as a self employed business owner who employs a couple of people I hate to see this happen. I know and knew for while where this is heading and I am not thrilled. As far as getting good PQ/AQ I have no problem with downloading if some day it is equal to or surpasses BD quality for a reasonable price and not too many restrictions and DRM.


What sucks about this is HV was an Oregon owned and founded company. Movie Gallery bought them out.


I generally buy quite a few catalog titles, more than I thought...so that won't be too big of a deal considering HV was poor at getting in catalog titles.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18590384
> 
> 
> I know it's off topic, but the key to getting new releases from Netflix is making sure you return your discs on Saturday and having the new releases at the top of your list. I've usually received those new releases on Tuesday. I'm on a three-at-a-time plan and usually get 6 movies a week, when I have time to watch them.
> 
> 
> As for Blockbuster, it's more of an issue with their ethical practices for me. I did try their similar Netflix-type program. Not only did it take longer to receive movies, they usually did not send my top movies even though they were showing as available.
> 
> 
> My 2 cents...



A few posts about it don't hurt and it helps all of us get those BD titles so we can review them and review them sooner. I will PM later with a few questions, re: price, 6 BD's a week














etc.


Attn: Who fans. I picked up and watched most of Isle of Wight and it is awesome, well, not PQ (unfortunately for purposes of this thread) as that is about a 4.0, but the 96khz DTSMA track really rocks. WOW!!


----------



## jedimasterchad

Delta,


I don't have the total access where you mail the movies back and forth. I tried it a while back and I had to mail my movies all the way to Gaithersburg Maryland from Hershey, PA. Thus, I could mail movies back on monday and they wouldn't even get them till wednesday...and if they were quick, I'd have a new movie on saturday. Not acceptable. I canceled after the trial and went to netflix, who has a distribution place in harrisburg, meaning I could mail monday, they'd receive/mail on tuesday, and i'd have a new movie wednesday again. I figured out that mailing back on saturday was the key to victory with new releases, but being the weekend i often forgot to mail them back when I wanted to.


What I have now is sort of a hybrid, but it is good in-store only, and is only 1 movie out at a time. I can exchange as often as I want to (multiple times a day even) for a monthly price which isn't quite as good as netflix's pricing, and since my wife works next door at staples she is there everyday, and when she visits in the morning or afternoon all the new releases are still in stock.


No system is perfect, but since it's not really plausible for us to watch more than one movie a night, it works out well enough.


----------



## djoberg

*Boondock Saints 2*


Okay, as I intimated in an earlier post, this one is all over the place. For the most part it's a very decent transfer, but as GRG indicated in his review the real demo-worth material comes in the second half. Having said that, there were a few bright spots in the first half, like the panoramic view of the Ireland coastline at the very beginning. It was like a shot out of _Planet Earth_....very impressive!


What impressed me most was the detail and depth. There is a long scene at the end that takes place in and around a greenhouse (GRG referred to this in his review) and it is nothing short of remarkable...reference quality to be sure! Facial details are phenomenal, as is the detail in every plant, wall, chair, etc. If only the whole transfer had been this good we'd be looking at another live-action Tier Blu title.


Colors were somewhat muted throughout, but we are treated every now and then to a splash of warm and vibrant colors (especially in the clothing of the female lead).


Blacks and shadow detail were mostly very good, but I did notice a couple of scenes of crushed blacks. The black bars were as black as the bezel on my KURO and you can't ask for better than that.


Again, the first half had its moments, but I'd have to call the majority of it average at best with the second half falling somewhere in Tier 1 (with the exception of that greenhouse scene that was clearly Tier 0). All things considered I'm going to place it right here....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite BDP-05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/18590479
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> I canceled after the trial and went to netflix, who has a distribution place in harrisburg, meaning I could mail monday, they'd receive/mail on tuesday, and i'd have a new movie wednesday again. I figured out that mailing back on saturday was the key to victory with new releases, but being the weekend i often forgot to mail them back when I wanted to.
> 
> ...



I hear ya. Also disadvantageous if one is a weekend watcher.


----------



## djoberg

*District 9*


I realize I'm chiming in a bit late on this title, but as my Momma used to say, "Better late than never." (Or did someone before her adopt that adage?







)


Let's get the negatives out of the way first:


1) Shakey camera on documentary-type footage


2) Muted colors


3) Overblown whites on occasion


That's it, as far as I could tell. Now for the positive:


1) DETAIL, DETAIL, DETAIL....Tier 0 quality details on facial close-ups (and there were MANY of them!!) and with most every object, indoors and outdoors.


2) DEPTH....3D pop galore! (Though to be fair there were some scenes that came off flat.)


3) SHARPNESS....or as Rob Tomlin would say...CLARITY!


This is yet another very hard title to place for it is very inconsistent. But to me 2/3 of the movie was Tier 0 quality and the other 1/3 was average or below (i.e., the shots highlighting #1 and #3 above in the negative category). If I'm doing my math right my calculations result in the following placement....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5 or 1.75*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite BDP-05....Viewed from 7.5'


PS I actually like the movie for its creativity.


----------



## deltasun

*Saving Private Ryan*


I preface this review by saying the transfer seems to be true to source, though I do remember the original being grittier and more muted.


Having said that, for the purposes of this thread, the PQ was all over the place. Director's Intent produced soft shots, weak contrast, flares, overblown whites, backlight bleeding, and a drab, desaturated, color palette. One can't say that though about the scene where the team of soldiers are walking through a field of yellow flowers.


Grain helps produce the gritty look that has become the trademark of this film. I did not particularly find this too distracting either because I've seen this film countless times or, more likely, the look goes hand in hand with the feel of the story and setting.


Blacks were bold when present, but not exceptional. Contrast again is inconsistent and really used by the director to help tell the story. When it's strong, it really pushes the depth, grit, and emotion of a scene. Some of the most memorable are from the scenes in the third act, when Private Ryan is "confronted" by Capt. Miller and his team.


Details, when not subjected to the DI mentioned above, really shine. Mud on boots, arbitrary scratches on arbitrary surfaces, vegetation, texture in helmets and uniforms all contribute to the overall "touchiness" of the film. Facial details are not the best in medium to long shots. However, there were a number of extreme close-up's that simply blow one away and rival any in Tier 0. Some of the best examples are of Hanks, Burns, Sizemore, and my personal favorite - the German sniper.


I did not spot any DNR or ringing, even after scrutinizing high-contrast edges. Averaging out the good and bad (with lots of emphasis in the Tier Blu scenes), I would have to place this squarely in the silver Tier.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*


Just want to mention that while the AQ was superb and would qualify as reference, there were a few scenes where I expected a bit more oomph. Some of the tank rounds did not sound full. I did enjoy the low-level grumbling as the Tiger tanks arrived.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## OldCodger73

I think the reviews of jmchad and deltasan do a good job of summing up _Saving Private Ryan_. If close-up detail was the criteria, this film would definitely be Tier 0, but taking everything together it's definitely Tier 2. Near the end there was a strange vertical flare on the right side of the picture; it almost seemed that there was a plexiglass shield in the frame and the edge was catching light.

*Saving Private Ryan Tier 2.25*.


I have the DVD, which I haven't watched for a while, but it seems to me the sound in DVD had a much better presence in the landing scene, a much more alive feeling than the BD. But we all know how memory plays tricks. The bass in the BD was good although the LFE was a little more subtle than it should have been.


Chad, my player had no problems with the movie. Maybe it's time to upgrade your player.


It was a nice watching experience but since I'm doing little double-dipping, not worth purchasing.


Panasonic 65" S1, Panasonic BD85, 7 1/1'


----------



## OldCodger73

From the BD folder case: "David Lean's epic now in stunning hi-Def. Remastered and digitally restored to majestic new 1080p pictorial brilliance and DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1 Vitality."

_Doctor Zhivago_ is a very nice transfer but doesn't live up to the hype. The picture is very clean and free of flaws except in one short transition shot where there's a problem with color. Quite a few scenes seem darker than they should be. Color is usually good and complement the superb scenery. Grain is very film like. Depth is fine, detail in medium close ups approaches slightly above average as does facial close-ups, but only average in longer shots.

*Doctor Zhivago Tier 3.25.*


The soundtrack was very nice, as long as you don't mind Lara's Theme. There were a few short instances when the dialogue sounded muddy. And in one short scene the dialogue came from what seemed the wrong speaker.


All in all, although _Doctor Zhivago_ doesn't qualify as eye-candy it's a very rewarding movie experience. Because of its 200 minute length I don't watch it as often as I would like. I have not seen the DVD so can't compare it with the BD, but it's a huge step up from the LD I have and a nice purchase.


----------



## djoberg

*Saving Private Ryan*


I realize that we've already had 3 reviews from *regular* contributors who all recommended Tier 2 for this title (and I surely respect their opinion), but after being glued to my set for the last 160+ minutes and marveling at the incredible detail in nearly every scene, I don't believe I can bring myself to joining their consensus. To _my eyes_ there is simply too much DETAIL and CLARITY to relegate this to a "non-demo" tier.


Having said that, I surely agree with some of the issues previously stated, such as the *softness* seen in a couple of scenes (most notably the first 20 minutes when they are storming the beach) and some shots where the contrast is off. But when you consider that the running time is nearly 3 hours, and that the majority of the movie teems with amazing details (Tier 0 quality details in facial close-ups, brick buildings, grass, mud, helmets, rifles, uniforms, etc., etc.), the argument can be made for affording this a spot in Tier 1.


I also agree with my colleagues regarding the color palette, for it was clearly quite drab, but again the DETAILS and CLARITY (and DEPTH, at times) still translated into EYE CANDY for me. I went to the Rankings thread to do a little comparison with other titles that have a limited color palette and yet were awarded a place in Tier 1 and IMO _Saving Private Ryan_ can hold its own against titles such as _Bourne Ultimatum_, _Doubt_, and _Terminator Salvation_, which are all currently residing in 1.5. It could also compare favorably with the _Matrix Trilogy_ (with its stylistic blue hue dominating most scenes) which is in 1.75. All things considered, and to compromise somewhat with my peers, I'll choose the latter....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite BDP-05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/18593498
> 
> 
> 
> All in all, although _Doctor Zhivago_ doesn't qualify as eye-candy ....



Well, I think Doctor Zhivago as a film has "eye candy" in an amazing abundance, but I would guess that we are using the term differently here.


This film has so many amazing images in it, it isn't funny.


Thanks for the review!


----------



## deltasun

Just for clarification - it's not officially defined (though I've somewhat adopted it too) that the first 2 tiers are demo tiers. I think we've just come to accept it because let's face it - they are the creme de la creme. However, I hope one is not placing a title within these tiers just because one believes they're demo material. Again, I find lots of titles below Tier 0/1 for demoing purposes.


Demoing is subjective anyway - there are at least two ways to demo titles. One is obviously for overall PQ excellence, which this thread is defined by. Another way is to show how an older film has been meticulously restored or treated and given its best presentation in the blu-ray format. I think _Sleeping Beauty_ is a perfect example of the latter. These two ways are not mutually exclusive either (and some would say SB falls into both).


With regards to the color palette, I don't think a more muted or drab color palette necessarily brings it down. I think we make mention of them, but should not automatically deduct for them. So I don't necessarily buy the argument (and maybe I'm oversimplifying your statement) that _Bourne Ultimatum_, _Doubt_, _Terminator Salvation_ are comparable to SPR because of similarities to their color palettes. Those other three movies also don't have the other issues plaguing SPR and to drop them to Silver.


So I think you're being a bit generous here.







Actually, I thought I was being generous at 2.25.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/18593369
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> I have the DVD, which I haven't watched for a while, but *it seems to me the sound in DVD had a much better presence in the landing scene*, a much more alive feeling than the BD. But we all know how memory plays tricks. The bass in the BD was good although the LFE was a little more subtle than it should have been.



Interesting - this crossed my mind as well.


----------



## tfoltz

I watched *The Matrix* on blu-ray for the first time last night and in my eyes it would fall somewhere around *Tier 2.5*. Heavy stylized look with overblown whites throughout (while in the Matrix), numerous soft spots, and some noise. I was surprised to see it in 1.75, even though it does have nice closeups. Anyone watch it recently?


I watched Harry Potter: Half-Blood Prince (currently in 2.5), right after watching the Matrix and thought HBP was far superior (picture quality-wise), and should be placed higher than 2.5. Maybe 2.0?


HBP is fairly recent, so I'm not sure it needs to get revisited. I just feel that Matrix is a bit high. I'm going to check out Serenity, another 2.5, to get an idea of what we are thinking 2.5 is.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18595726
> 
> 
> With regards to the color palette, I don't think a more muted or drab color palette necessarily brings it down. I think we make mention of them, but should not automatically deduct for them. So I don't necessarily buy the argument (and maybe I'm oversimplifying your statement) that [I*]Bourne Ultimatum[/i], Doubt, Terminator Salvation are comparable to SPR because of similarities to their color palettes*. Those other three movies also don't have the other issues plaguing SPR and to drop them to Silver.



I've only got two minutes (I'm getting company over for another movie), but I just want to say that I certainly wasn't saying the SPR was comparable to those 3 titles in every respect. They DO compare in the color palette category, and I believe some of the same virtues that resulted in a Tier 1 placement for those can be found in SPR. Regarding your last statement, those 3 titles have issues of their own.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18595568
> 
> *Saving Private Ryan*
> 
> 
> I realize that we've already had 3 reviews from *regular* contributors who all recommended Tier 2 for this title (and I surely respect their opinion), but after being glued to my set for the last 160+ minutes and marveling at the incredible detail in nearly every scene, I don't believe I can bring myself to joining their consensus. To _my eyes_ there is simply too much DETAIL and CLARITY to relegate this to a "non-demo" tier.
> 
> 
> Having said that, I surely agree with some of the issues previously stated, such as the *softness* seen in a couple of scenes (most notably the first 20 minutes when they are storming the beach) and some shots where the contrast is off. But when you consider that the running time is nearly 3 hours, and that the majority of the movie teems with amazing details (Tier 0 quality details in facial close-ups, brick buildings, grass, mud, helmets, rifles, uniforms, etc., etc.), the argument can be made for affording this a spot in Tier 1.
> 
> 
> I also agree with my colleagues regarding the color palette, for it was clearly quite drab, but again the DETAILS and CLARITY (and DEPTH, at times) still translated into EYE CANDY for me. I went to the Rankings thread to do a little comparison with other titles that have a limited color palette and yet were awarded a place in Tier 1 and IMO _Saving Private Ryan_ can hold its own against titles such as _Bourne Ultimatum_, _Doubt_, and _Terminator Salvation_, which are all currently residing in 1.5. It could also compare favorably with the _Matrix Trilogy_ (with its stylistic blue hue dominating most scenes) which is in 1.75. All things considered, and to compromise somewhat with my peers, I'll choose the latter....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75*
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite BDP-05....Viewed from 7.5'



I initially said I was thinking SPR was somewhere around 1.0, but after watching the rest, Ramelle to the end, I was thinking exactly as you, 1.75. On my screen I see so much detail and some pop in many scenes, particularly France in the fields. Those scenes in the fields, the grass, shrubs, etc were just incredible and the color was there and seemingly not as muted. Maybe it was just the way the grass stood out, but wow, I would compare those scenes with foliage, grass etc to any tier 0 nature BD. As much as the colors are muted, the helmets, jackets and more seem to be the accurate colors.










Simplifying it, I think I am basing my placement on balancing the overall "look" of it with the detail I am seeing.


Look = 2.5-3

Detail = 1.0


*Saving Private Ryan:


Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


Tombstone...I am probably going to rate it about the same somewhere in mid tier 1. Overall it looks good, to really good.


----------



## jedimasterchad

Am I correct in finding only 2 official reviews for Minority Report? I picked it up when I got SPR and was trying to find some. I see one for 1.75 and one for 2.75. Am I missing any? I will probably get to it tomorrow or this weekend at some point and will weigh in myself. I seem to remember a lot of talk about this one but then could only find 2 reviews, just seeing whats up with this title.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18595726
> 
> 
> Just for clarification - *it's not officially defined (though I've somewhat adopted it too) that the first 2 tiers are demo tiers.* I think we've just come to accept it because let's face it - they are the creme de la creme. However, I hope one is not placing a title within these tiers just because one believes they're demo material. Again, I find lots of titles below Tier 0/1 for demoing purposes.



Actually deltasun, if you would go to the Rankings thread and read the criteria for the first 3 tiers you will read in Tier Gold that it IS "demo-worthy" and then in the description for Tier Silver it specifically states that it is NOT "demo quality." I've been using the language "demo-worthy" for years in many reviews for titles that I recommend for either Tier Blu or Gold...conversely, I've said that titles in Tier Silver or below are not demo-worthy. I've used this language based on the descriptions that were drafted up and accepted by members.


FWIW, I want to repeat myself and say that I truly believe _Saving Private Ryan_ IS "demo-worthy." Does it have issues? Yes! But not enough to disqualify it for Tier 1. The majority of this movie has the DETAIL, DEPTH, and CLARITY to meet the standards for Tier 1.


I see Hugh has weighed in with a 1.75 placement recommendation, so I'm not alone any longer with my *generous* view.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I just received my copy of SPR (along with Doctor Zhivago and Collateral), so I hope to review all three soon.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18596821
> 
> 
> Actually deltasun, if you would go to the Rankings thread and read the criteria for the first 3 tiers you will read in Tier Gold that it IS "demo-worthy" and then in the description for Tier Silver it specifically states that it is NOT "demo quality." I've been using the language "demo-worthy" for years in many reviews for titles that I recommend for either Tier Blu or Gold...conversely, I've said that titles in Tier Silver or below are not demo-worthy. I've used this language based on the descriptions that were drafted up and accepted by members.
> 
> 
> FWIW, I want to repeat myself and say that I truly believe _Saving Private Ryan_ IS "demo-worthy." Does it have issues? Yes! But not enough to disqualify it for Tier 1. The majority of this movie has the DETAIL, DEPTH, and CLARITY to meet the standards for Tier 1.
> 
> 
> I see Hugh has weighed in with a 1.75 placement recommendation, so I'm not alone any longer with my *generous* view.



No BS, I was thinking about placement after watching it last night and rethinking my original thoughts on where it should be. AS soon as I saw Deltas and Codgers reviews and thought about my original 1.0 give or take comment, I immediately thought about 1.75.







I think it the equivalent of the Bonds and Bourne in their respective tiers.


Overall I do tend to think I am generous as well. Without actually looking and with the recent exception of A Serious Man, Delta and I are usually consistently close to a spread. We are generally about a 1/2 to one tier off each other, but we are consistent.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18596849
> 
> 
> I just received my copy of SPR (along with Doctor Zhivago and Collateral), so I hope to review all three soon.



Darn, I forgot to get Collateral when at Best Buy.


Thanks for the reminder Rob.


----------



## deltasun

Agreed, guys...I guess I didn't make my point really well. Two things - there are a number of way someone may use demo-worthiness. One would be pure quality and the other could be how much more improved a title is over it's predecessor release. So that's one point.


The second, which is more of a reminder/warning/caution is that we should not raise a score because we believe it's demo-worthy. The feeling of, "Oh crap, I placed xxxx in Tier 2.5 but I think it's demo-worthy so I better put it in Tier 1 somewhere." Now, I know that sounds accusatory, but it's not meant to be. I'm just cautioning that we not fall into this type of thinking. It should be more like, "After reviewing this title, I believe it should fall into 1.50. Looks like another demo-worthy title." I guess it's the cart before the horse type thing.


Again, please don't take it the wrong way. It's just my way of saying, "are you sure about that placement?" Almost 100% of the time, you've all come back with good arguments on why your score ended up the way it did.


Btw, Hugh, just came back from a few Hollywood Videos around my area that are closing (I believe yours is too). They are nearing the end here and so I was able to get a few titles (new ones and used ones) for cheap. E.g., _A Serious Man_ for $10, _The Wrestler_ and _The Orphan_ for $5. With the Warner DVDtoBlu program, I may even pick up some Warner SD-DVD titles for $1 and send them in for their blu-ray equivalents for $4.95.


Anyway, thanks for the lively discussion guys. Looking forward to Rob's reviews as well. Those are some winners. Btw, did you ever get _Yojimbo/Sanjuro_, Rob?


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18596943
> 
> 
> Btw, Hugh, just came back from a few Hollywood Videos around my area that are closing (I believe yours is too). They are nearing the end here and so I was able to get a few titles (new ones and used ones) for cheap. E.g., _A Serious Man_ for $10, _The Wrestler_ and _The Orphan_ for $5. With the Warner DVDtoBlu program, I may even pick up some Warner SD-DVD titles for $1 and send them in for their blu-ray equivalents for $4.95.



Check the list before you start buying. It's not very comprehensive and most of the titles are ones I'd pass on. I own a couple but they aren't on my short list to upgrade, even for 5 bucks. Also, they had a movie gallery go out of business here in the last couple months, but I haven't checked the Hollywood Video wayyy on the other side of town. I'll have to go out there and see if they're still giving these away.


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18595723
> 
> 
> Well, I think Doctor Zhivago as a film has "eye candy" in an amazing abundance, but I would guess that we are using the term differently here.
> 
> 
> This film has so many amazing images in it, it isn't funny.
> 
> 
> Thanks for the review!



Rob, I was using "eye-candy" referring to how Tier 0 and sometimes Tier 1 are described. For me as a movie experience, _Doctor Zhivago_ is a feast for the eyes thanks to the great cinematography. I think too many people get hung up on the Tier ranking and miss some excellent movies that end up in Tier 2 and particularly Tier 3.


Has there been anything definite as to when we might expect to see _Lawrence of Arabia_ or _The Bridge on the River Kwai_ on BD?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/18598349
> 
> 
> Rob, I was using "eye-candy" referring to how Tier 0 and sometimes Tier 1 are described. For me as a movie experience, _Doctor Zhivago_ is a feast for the eyes thanks to the great cinematography. I think too many people get hung up on the Tier ranking and miss some excellent movies that end up in Tier 2 and particularly Tier 3.



Exactly! As I expected, we are on the same page in terms of how I thought you were using the term eye candy.


Has there been anything definite as to when we might expect to see _Lawrence of Arabia_ or _The Bridge on the River Kwai_ on BD?[/quote]


No, unfortunately. It looks like Lean's two best films will be among the last of his to be released on Blu.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Edge of Darkness*


Hey, it's Warner! Hey it's low bitrate VC-1!


Shocked?


Quite processed with significantly waxy faces. Few scenes show any clearly defined detail. Great blacks lead to very minimal crush. Colors vary but can display some rich, deep, vibrant primaries at their peak. Environments are generally muddy and mushed together. Some artifacting as well.

*Tier 2.75*


----------



## djoberg

*Gamer*


As you can see, I'm still catching up on some older titles! If I could describe this in four words they would be: AMAZING PQ....MINDLESS VANITY. Due to the "mindless vanity," I found myself hitting the FF button on my Harmony Remote quite often, but I did see enough to form an opinion on the PQ, which is, as I said, AMAZING!


As had been noted by others, the *facial details* are as good as they get, right up there with _Crank_ and the _Transporter_ titles. *Blacks* are very deep and inky, along with superb *shadow details*. *Colors* are both muted (in the "Game world") and eye-popping (in the "Society world"). *Flesh tones* are accurate in the majority of scenes. *Contrast* was strong. *Detail* in general is quite good, with the exception of shots of "Society." *Depth* wasn't this movie's strongest suit, but it had its moments.


I did notice some noise in a couple of scenes, one case of banding, and I thought the contrast was way too hot at times. Other than these relatively minor grievances, this one seemed to be free of DNR, EE, or any other artifacts/flaws.


I would agree with most of my colleagues on this one and assign it a place at the top of Tier 1.....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite BDP-05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^


I just checked the Rankings Thread to see where _Gamer_ was placed and was surprised to see it was in the bottom of Tier 0. According to the Search I did most members were recommending somewhere in Tier 1.


----------



## deltasun

Vanity?!? Are you kidding me??? It's easily this century's most thought-provoking, profound piece of cinema!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18600991
> 
> 
> vanity?!? Are you kidding me??? It's easily this century's most thought-provoking, profound piece of cinema!


----------



## djoberg

*The Stepfather*


I was treated to several good Tier 1 titles over the last 24 hours but it looks like this one *may* cross into Tier 2 territory. That's not to say this lacks redeeming features, for I was very impressed with every outdoor scene where colors and detail abound. The luscious yard (front and back) and pool area easily qualify for Tier 1. Blacks were also fairly good (and shadow details), though I was disappointed with the last night time scene (which lasted a good 10 minutes) where it was a bit murky at times.


Facial details were really a mixed bag, with some close-ups of David and Michael being the most impressive. Just about every close-up of Sela Ward came across as if DNR was employed, but perhaps it was just a case of make-up resulting in a waxy-look with zero detail. There were multiples shots of all the actors' faces that appeared very pale and were pretty much void of detail; I suspect that lighting was the culprit in these cases.


Depth and clarity varied from scene to scene and once again I was more gratified with outdoor scenes in this regard.


Because of the inconsistency in all these areas, I find it hard to reward this title with a Tier 1 placement. But it's close, so my vote goes for.....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite BDP-05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## jedimasterchad

*Minority Report*


A fine layer of grain producing a distinct film look. Blown out whites are more harsh than, say, Saving Private Ryan and so lens flare is also more prominent. In several scenes, the blown out background whites can seriously reduce the PQ and weaken contrast and sharpness. Artifacting was noted towards the end, but not at a frequent rate. Colors were mostly blue/white and grey, and combined with the frequent softness and lens flare did not contribute to eye-candy type visuals, but rather a heavily distinct artistic look that does not translate well for this thread. The most "demo-worthy" sequence IMO was during the Lexus plant, as the stark white contrasted neatly against the bright red car, and the other primaries popped against the all white background.


A number of close ups exhibited excellent detail and reached near tier 0 quality but were not that frequent. Overall detail remained pretty high despite the weak contrast, and the CGI blends well with the live action, causing no distractions. Blacks were strong at times but nothing spectacular. Shadow detail was strong.


Of course, this transfer is near flawless and looks great, but for purposes of this thread does not compete in the upper tiers, and is largely just "better than average". The stylized look, drab color and hot whites, combined with a fair amount of softness and weak contrast drop this one into the middle of the silver tier.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.5*


PS3 160gb w/ firmware 3.3, Hdmi->Pioneer VSX-1019, Panasonic TC-P54G10 @1080p/24.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Saving Private Ryan*


I'm going to do something a tad different than my normal format and mention the quality of the actual movie itself first this time, because I think it deserves it. I had not seen this in quite some time, and I think I forgot what a good film it really is. Yes, there are a few legitimate criticism of some of the story, but to me they are minor overall. Excellent film, one that really stays with you.


As for the PQ, I when I watched the opening "present day" scene, I was *very* concerned! It didn't look good at all. Colors were not saturated, clarity and detail was lacking and there was a softness to the image.


Thank goodness, once we flash back to the D-Day invasion, things immediately and noticeably improved. As others have noted, there are plenty of scenes in this movie that have lots of fine detail, where things like dirt/mud, water, sweat, beard stubble, grease, and even scopes on rifles are shown with very good clarity. Yet, there are also scenes that are softer in appearance, and many of the long distance shots do not hold up as well as the close up shots.


Contrast is very much a mixed bag. There are plenty of scenes where the contrast is very good, but perhaps even more often, the contrast is a bit on the weak side.


A lot of scenes have (intentional) lens flare, and obviously the contrast in those scenes suffer because of it.


Colors are somewhat muted, but perhaps less muted than what I thought I remembered or was expecting from reading other comments in this thread. Obviously the subject matter with many scenes shot in the cities results in a monotone feel.


One thing that I felt on several occasions was that the image actually looked a tad too sharp, in an unnatural (digital?) way. Yet, I did not spot the normal tell tale signs of sharpening/edge enhancement. There was definitely film grain present, but the grain was actually a bit less than I was expecting based on my memory from when I saw this in the theater (probably a bad barometer anyway).


Overall I am very happy with this disc, but I really do not think that this belongs in Tier 1.


The sound quality and mix deserves mention. It is fantastic! I do agree with others that I would probably prefer a bit more bass in some scenes where it would seem appropriate, but it doesn't really take away much from an otherwise superb track....and I am not *just* referring to the first 25 minutes. There is *so* much more to it than that. Take the scene in the church at night, for example. Nice echo/reverb effect, and excellent subtle sounds coming from outside.


Highly recommended.
*Tier Recommendation: Tier 2.25*


----------



## djoberg

*The Collector*


I think it's safe to say that I'm completely SATIATED from watching 7 Blu-rays in the last 48 hours so I'm going to make this very short. In short, this is a TERRIBLE transfer as far as eye candy goes, for personally I have seen MANY DVDs that look much better than this. GRITTY is the word that kept coming to mind with its heavy grain (or maybe digital noise at times) and almost perpetual softness. Blacks were only fair (on occasion) and shadow detail was, for the most part, nonexistent. There may have been a few shots with some pleasing color, detail, and depth, but believe me they were "few and far between."


I agree with its current placement of....

*Tier Recommendation: 4.0*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite BDP-05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18600833
> 
> 
> ^^^^^
> 
> 
> I just checked the Rankings Thread to see where _Gamer_ was placed and was surprised to see it was in the bottom of Tier 0. According to the Search I did most members were recommending somewhere in Tier 1.




I was a tier 0 and I thought there were quite a few others as well.


----------



## Hughmc

Rob, I think I know what you mean by sharpened in SPR. The scene at the radar tower for example. Ed Burns facing Hanks IIRC near the end of the scene, they stand out like they are almost separate from the background like it was CGIed, but I am sure they filmed on location. Maybe they used that "bokah" technique to some extent without blurring the background or just pumped up the contrast on the two of them to stand out more?? I thought it looked like there was some sharpening//EE being used, but it was hard to detect. Maybe it was used slightly, but enough to where it is noticeable, like in the example I gave?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/18602298
> 
> 
> I was a tier 0 and I thought there were quite a few others as well.



I just did a Search on _Gamer_ Hugh and here is the breakdown of ALL reviews:


Hugh (that's you







)....Tier 0


deltasun...................1.0


Rob Tomlin................1.0


Gamereviewgod..........1.5


In fairness I should add that there was a very short post where ooms called this title "reference," but it was definitely NOT an official review (by any means).


----------



## djoberg

Rob,


You gave a good, detailed review. I still disagree with your placement, but one could never fault you for not explaining why you placed it where you did. One thing I forgot to mention in my review is how impressed I was with EVERY scene where it was raining; there was *still* plenty of DETAIL and CLARITY, which is remarkable.


Denny

PS BTW, I now remember that I had not seen SPR for at least 8 years. It was a real treat seeing it again, for it is most definitely one of my favorite World War 2 movies. One might think that I may be biased and that this affected my judgment when I made my recommendation.....in all honesty I can't say but I do try to be objective and to adhere to the criteria.


----------



## Hughmc

Denny, here is what I found from when Phantom updated the list:


Gamer - 0 (ooms), low 0 (Hughmc), 0 (vpn75), 1.0 (Rob Tomlin), 1.0 (deltasun)


Gamereviewgod came in at 1.5, but if you look at my review and his comment of it after he actually said he couldn't argue with tier 0 except for some facial details.










It probably will get pulled down to 1.0 with your review. I had originally seen it on my SOny 60 inch, but then re rented it to see how it look on the big screen. I still felt it was low tier 0, but as we have said many times tier 1.0 and low tier 0 have more of an invisible line than a wall separating them, meaning many of us have said titles on just on either side are very close. I think there is more of an invisible line than there is a wall between low tier 0 and tier 1.0, but tier 0, tier blu has that stigma of "perfection" so some might think the difference between the above mentioned tiers is huge when in fact it isn't.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/18602395
> 
> 
> Denny, here is what I found from when Phantom updated the list:
> 
> 
> Gamer - 0 (ooms), low 0 (Hughmc), 0 (vpn75), 1.0 (Rob Tomlin), 1.0 (deltasun)
> 
> 
> Gamereviewgod came in at 1.5, but if you look at my review and his comment of it after he actually said he couldn't argue with tier 0 except for some facial details.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It probably will get pulled down to 1.0 with your review. I had originally seen it on my SOny 60 inch, but then re rented it to see how it look on the big screen. I still felt it was low tier 0, but as we have said many times tier 1.0 and low tier 0 have more of an invisible line than a wall separating them, meaning many of us have said titles on just on either side are very close. I think there is more of an invisible line than there is a wall between low tier 0 and tier 1.0, but tier 0, tier blu has that stigma of "perfection" so some might think the difference between the above mentioned tiers is huge when in fact it isn't.



Again, my Search didn't show a review from ooms, or from vpn75 either.


I do agree with you though Hugh that there is a fine line between low Tier 0 and Tier 1.0. It's when the spread becomes over a half tier apart that the difference becomes a matter for real debate.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18602421
> 
> 
> Again, my Search didn't show a review from ooms, or from vpn75 either.
> 
> 
> I do agree with you though Hugh that there is a fine line between low Tier 0 and Tier 1.0. It's when the spread becomes over a half tier apart that the difference becomes a matter for real debate.



or we get some titles screwing with us and testing our resolve. i.e. the DArk Knight. haha


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/18602434
> 
> 
> or we get some titles screwing with us and testing our resolve. i.e. the DArk Knight. haha



You had to bring up _The Dark Knight_, didn't you? That one really got the testosterone going.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18602453
> 
> 
> You had to bring up _The Dark Knight_, didn't you? That one really got the testosterone going.



is there another?










My Hollywood is closing, so, I am hoping the manager, who knows me since first getting BD's in Nov. of 06, will give me first dibs on the discounts. Dark Knight will be one of the first, although I thought I saw it for 14.99 at Best Buy.


I am hoping to grab at least 10 @ 10.00.










I am going to watch Parnassus in a few. Was hoping for better PQ due to the nature of it or what I thought it was going to be, but several reviews so far were in the mid two to threes. Oh well. In fact I noticed a few new releases reviewed this past week have been stinkers in terms of PQ. I don't see you review a lot of tier 3 or 4 BD's either.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/18602474
> 
> 
> In fact I noticed a few new releases reviewed this past week have been stinkers in terms of PQ. *I don't see you review a lot of tier 3 or 4 BD's either*.



You're right Hugh...I actually try to avoid those, especially Tier 4 or below. I'm really spoiled now with most new releases being good transfers and unless the movie's a classic, or one that I've loved for years or one from the Horror genre (I've always been a sucker for those), I'll pass on them. Well, I'm calling it a day (it's almost 1 a.m. here)...goodnight Hugh.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/18602312
> 
> 
> Rob, I think I know what you mean by sharpened in SPR. The scene at the radar tower for example. Ed Burns facing Hanks IIRC near the end of the scene, they stand out like they are almost separate from the background like it was CGIed, but I am sure they filmed on location. Maybe they used that "bokah" technique to some extent without blurring the background or just pumped up the contrast on the two of them to stand out more?? I thought it looked like there was some sharpening//EE being used, but it was hard to detect. Maybe it was used slightly, but enough to where it is noticeable, like in the example I gave?



I think you make some good points here. I should have mentioned that I do think that the pumped up contrast may be part of the reason that some scenes look unnaturally sharp. It is also possible that a bit of ee/sharpening was done as you mention, but not to a large degree.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18602378
> 
> 
> Rob,
> 
> 
> You gave a good, detailed review. I still disagree with your placement, but one could never fault you for not explaining why you placed it where you did. One thing I forgot to mention in my review is how impressed I was with EVERY scene where it was raining; there was *still* plenty of DETAIL and CLARITY, which is remarkable.
> 
> 
> Denny



I will say that I completely agree with you about the scenes that were shot in the rain. Those were all incredible in detail and contrast. If all scenes looked as good as those, it would be a high Tier 1 title!



> Quote:
> PS BTW, I now remember that I had not seen SPR for at least 8 years. It was a real treat seeing it again, for it is most definitely one of my favorite World War 2 movies. One might think that I may be biased and that this affected my judgment when I made my recommendation.....in all honesty I can't say but I do try to be objective and to adhere to the criteria.



I agree, it is a great movie.


I had not seen it in many years either. One thing it reminded me of was a huge argument that a female friend and I had over the issue of whether the German soldier that they had released earlier (instead of shooting him) was the same one that showed up at the bridge and stabbed to death the Jewish character, and was shot by the interpreter at the end of the movie.


I'm still not sure if we ever resolved that argument!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18603504
> 
> 
> One thing it reminded me of was a huge argument that a female friend and I had over the issue of whether *the German soldier that they had released earlier (instead of shooting him) was the same one that showed up at the bridge and stabbed to death the Jewish character, and was shot by the interpreter at the end of the movie*.
> 
> 
> I'm still not sure if we ever resolved that argument!



I thought it was the same soldier because of the way the interpreter looked at him when he shot him. It seemed to me that he recognized him as the one they had released and this was the catalyst to give him the nerve to shoot him (remember, he had failed to shoot any enemy soldiers prior to this). In other words, he realized that the adamant stand he took to have the soldier released resulted in his Jewish comrade being killed and this emboldened him to avenge his friend's death. I also think the German soldier recognized the interpreter (when he was walking past him down the steps after the stabbing) and didn't harm him because he was instrumental in his release. So, what was your thinking?


(I suppose I could have rewound the disc to remind myself what the German soldier looked like....that would have settled the issue.)


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18603719
> 
> 
> I thought it was the same soldier because of the way the interpreter looked at him when he shot him. It seemed to me that he recognized him as the one they had released and this was the catalyst to give him the nerve to shoot him (remember, he had failed to shoot any enemy soldiers prior to this). In other words, he realized that the adamant stand he took to have the soldier released resulted in his Jewish comrade being killed and this emboldened him to avenge his friend's death. I also think the German soldier recognized the interpreter (when he was walking past him down the steps after the stabbing) and didn't harm him because he was instrumental in his release. So, what was your thinking?
> 
> 
> (I suppose I could have rewound the disc to remind myself what the German soldier looked like....that would have settled the issue.)



Isn't the German soldier also the one who kills captain miller during the bridge battle?


----------



## deltasun

I know, I should just rewatch the scenes myself, but my understanding is that...the German who kills the Jewish member was a different German soldier from the one released. The one released, however, did end up fatally shooting Capt. Miller. Upham saw this and did not hesitate to shoot the German later on when asked to halt and stay. He took a step forward, mentioning Upham's name (as if to say, "hey, we're friends") and Upham shot him with not a second thought.


I'll have to reverify later when I get home, but I believe that's correct.


----------



## tcramer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18604411
> 
> 
> I know, I should just rewatch the scenes myself, but my understanding is that...the German who kills the Jewish member was a different German soldier from the one released. The one released, however, did end up fatally shooting Capt. Miller. Upham saw this and did not hesitate to shoot the German later on when asked to halt and stay. He took a step forward, mentioning Upham's name (as if to say, "hey, we're friends") and Upham shot him with not a second thought.
> 
> 
> I'll have to reverify later when I get home, but I believe that's correct.





I hate to chime in on you guys' discussion, but I have seen this movie probably a dozen times. I would have to say that all 3 scenes are of the same German soldier. They release him, he later kills Mellish (the Jewish soldier), then fires the shot that kills Captain Miller and then is shot by Upham.


Hopefully going to be watching this Blu tonight or tomorrow and can't wait.


----------



## steppinrazer

just picked up the SPR blu myself today..

I haven't viewed it in years, but the german who kills Melish is a different soldier....They don't even look close to the same









Deltasun is correct


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *steppinrazer* /forum/post/18604477
> 
> 
> just picked up the SPR blu myself today..
> 
> I haven't viewed it in years, but the german who kills Melish is a different soldier....They don't even look close to the same
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deltasun is correct




Ditto. That is two different people. I would think if it was the same guy I think in the script some words would have been exchanged as he was coming down the stairs, since Upham and he were on a personal level.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Universal Soldier Regeneration*


Shot digitally with the Red One, this one looks the part, certainly nowhere near Gamer which was shot the same way. Black levels are terribly weak throughout, and there are two color palettes at work (warm and cool) that dictate the flesh tones. Detail in most close-ups is near reference, but at any distance disappointing. Many shots of the industrial complex this was shot in are impressive, picking up lots of rust, water damage, and other little details. Overall, pretty bland though.

*Tier 2.0*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/18604528
> 
> 
> Ditto. That is two different people. I would think if it was the same guy I think in the script some words would have been exchanged as he was coming down the stairs, since Upham and he were on a personal level.



But then that begs the question, "Why didn't the German soldier kill Upham as he was walking down the stairs? Upham was his enemy and he was also holding a rifle, so why in the world would they just look at each other without any conflict?"


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18604411
> 
> 
> I know, I should just rewatch the scenes myself, but my understanding is that...the German who kills the Jewish member was a different German soldier from the one released. The one released, however, did end up fatally shooting Capt. Miller. Upham saw this and did not hesitate to shoot the German later on when asked to halt and stay. He took a step forward, mentioning Upham's name (as if to say, "hey, we're friends") and Upham shot him with not a second thought.
> 
> 
> I'll have to reverify later when I get home, but I believe that's correct.




This is exactly what I believe.


Originally my female friend didn't think that the released German was ever seen again.


If you watch the stabbing scene, it does NOT look like the released prisoner.


Frankly, the story makes more sense if the released German soldier was the same one who did the stabbing and was shot by the interpreter, along the lines of what Denny said above (which was what my original theory was when I first saw the film years ago).


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18604593
> 
> 
> But then that begs the question, "Why didn't the German soldier kill Upham as he was walking down the stairs? Upham was his enemy and he was also holding a rifle, so why in the world would they just look at each other without any conflict?"



The theory I've heard on that is that the German soldier knew that Upham was a weakling, scared out of his wits and it was more humiliating for the German soldier to simply walk past him as if he didn't matter.


Upham was something of a weakling, as shown by how friendly he was to the captured German soldier earlier in the film.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *steppinrazer* /forum/post/18604477
> 
> 
> I haven't viewed it in years, but the german who kills Melish is a different soldier....*They don't even look close to the same*



You haven't seen it in years and yet you remember that they didn't even look close to the same? That's quite the memory, especially since I wasn't sure of that after seeing the two within an hour or so! I'm not saying you're wrong; I am saying if you're right you have an amazing (photographic) memory!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18604411
> 
> 
> I know, I should just rewatch the scenes myself, but my understanding is that...the German who kills the Jewish member was a different German soldier from the one released. The one released, however, did end up fatally shooting Capt. Miller. Upham saw this and did not hesitate to shoot the German later on when asked to halt and stay. He took a step forward, mentioning Upham's name (as if to say, "hey, we're friends") and Upham shot him with not a second thought.
> 
> 
> I'll have to reverify later when I get home, but I believe that's correct.



You may very well be right delta....now we're counting on you to check it out and let us know what's what.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18604607
> 
> 
> The theory I've heard on that is that the German soldier knew that Upham was a weakling, scared out of his wits and it was more humiliating for the German soldier to simply walk past him as if he didn't matter.



That makes sense too Rob, but is their evidence in the movie that this German (if he was different from the German who was released) knew that Upham was a weakling? Seems to me the plot is thickening!

















Perhaps relief will come with deltasun's next post (or another member who's willing to take the time to solve this).


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I remembered this being an issue, so I paid particular attention to the released soldier and the one who stabbed Melish, and they are not the same character.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18604660
> 
> 
> That makes sense too Rob, but is their evidence in the movie that this German (if he was different from the German who was released) knew that Upham was a weakling? Seems to me the plot is thickening!



He knew it as soon as he started walking down the stairs and saw him trembling in his boots and crying......while holding a rifle!


I agree though, it would make more sense if it WAS the released prisoner, since he already *knew* how much of a weakling he was.



> Quote:
> Perhaps relief will come with deltasun's next post (or another member who's willing to take the time to solve this).



Like I said, I knew this was an issue, so I paid particular attention to it, and it is not the same character.


----------



## steppinrazer

yes djoberg.. I can totally picture the SS soldier sitting here.. He was a much larger/thicker build than steamboat willie


this link was in the SPR thread here and references the issue aswell

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_did_t...g_Private_Ryan


----------



## Hughmc

Denny, no need for Delta to check it as some of us do know.







And it was confirmed in the SPR thread.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *steppinrazer* /forum/post/18604711
> 
> 
> yes djoberg.. I can totally picture the SS soldier sitting here.. He was a much larger/thicker build than steamboat willie
> 
> 
> this link was in the SPR thread here and references the issue aswell
> 
> http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_did_t...g_Private_Ryan



Thanks!


----------



## Rob Tomlin

This brings back all those memories of when this was debated to death when the movie was first released!


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Thanks to Milt99 who posted a link in the SPR thread with screen shots of both characters which clearly shows the difference:


"Steamboat Willie":











Waffen SS Soldier who stabbed Mellish:


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Sherlock Holmes


recommendation: Tier 2.5*


Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is likely turning over in his grave, after the release of this modern take on his most famous creation. As for the picture quality, the ugly aesthetic and shoddy CGI prevent any chance of this film being in the discussion for demonstration material. It really deserves tier 2.5 at best, given the underwhelming compression and transfer by Warner Bros. Numerous problems exist that lead to blatant artifacting, such as the propulsive explosion involving Holmes and Watson in the third act.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Snowknight26):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1#post18425751


----------



## Sujay




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18605193
> 
> 
> Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is likely turning over in his grave, after the release of this modern take on his most famous creation.



Why? I found the film to be surprisingly faithful to the books. I was dreading seeing it from what I saw in the trailers but came away from it really satisfied.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sujay* /forum/post/18605591
> 
> 
> Why? I found the film to be surprisingly faithful to the books. I was dreading seeing it from what I saw in the trailers but came away from it really satisfied.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Apollo 13*


Universal, seriously? You can't even use the same HD DVD encode which, while dated, would be tolerable? Noooo, you had to go and DNR the hell out of the movie, amp up the colors to where they bleed, blow out the contrast, and sharpen everything. Way to go. At least space looks good, with deep blacks that never fail. A few sporadic scenes show okay levels of detail, but these are few. Truly disappointing.
*Tier 4.0*


----------



## Sujay




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18606160



Don't make me feel silly now.  Maybe I should've said more faithful than my expectations led me to believe. Faithful to the character, his quirks, all the little nods to the series, etc.


----------



## deltasun

*K-19: The Widowmaker*


No real eye candy here, but a pretty decent transfer nonetheless. Darkness and nondescript colors pervade the tight quarters of the Soviet submarine. While blacks are bold, crush does permeate throughout. Contrast is above average and helps underscore the bleak confines of the sub.


As mentioned, colors are a bit subdued and do not offer any pop. Flesh tones are faithful, albeit a bit on the red side for certain characters like Harrison Ford. Grain is intact and does get heavy at times. Details in faces vary quite a bit, but is generally due to lighting and camera angles. Details in general are the same - they're there in one scene, but somewhat sketchy in another. Dimensionality was a characteristic I thought would be maximized, particularly in scenes where the depth of the sub is in the background. Well, it didn't. Medium shots also lacked this dimensionality.


Overall, a very routine looking blu-ray. I did not note any foul play and the presentation did appear filmic.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

*The Notebook*


Okay, this one was all over the place - soft, soft, soft and then the light strikes right and we get very nice sharpness and clarity. One of the best is the slow boat through the lake of white geese. It doesn't save the overall PQ though.


Blacks are decent, but shadow details can be murky. Contrast is mostly weak; flesh tones natural. The biggest issue I have are the smooth faces. I suspect DNR since grain does thin out, if not flat out disappear at the worst instances. Dimensionality also waxes and wanes, but not good enough to be memorable.


I feel there were plenty of opportunities for a truly gorgeous high-def presentation here, but were mostly missed. Though some scenes do land in Tier 1 territory, the negatives seem to stand out more than the positives.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.50*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sujay* /forum/post/18605591
> 
> 
> Why? I found the film to be surprisingly faithful to the books. I was dreading seeing it from what I saw in the trailers but came away from it really satisfied.



We will have to agree to disagree on that matter. Holmes in the movie is some strange amalgam of Dr. House and Bruce Lee, which is fine but not the authentic Sherlock Holmes in my mind. Your mileage may vary, of course. For a film that supposedly cost close to $100 million, most of that apparently went to the stars and not into the production values, at least going off the results.


----------



## Sujay




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18607475
> 
> 
> We will have to agree to disagree on that matter. Holmes in the movie is some strange amalgam of Dr. House and Bruce Lee, which is fine but not the authentic Sherlock Holmes in my mind. Your mileage may vary, of course. For a film that supposedly cost close to $100 million, most of that apparently went to the stars and not into the production values, at least going off the results.



Good points. I would agree. I think it's a matter of me having had such low expectations that it probably seemed better than it was. And I would agree that it wasn't 100% accurate, but the fact that there was as much effort in being faithful as there was must have shocked me into accepting it more compared to most others.


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sujay* /forum/post/18609106
> 
> 
> Good points. I would agree. I think it's a matter of me having had such low expectations that it probably seemed better than it was. And I would agree that it wasn't 100% accurate, but the fact that there was as much effort in being faithful as there was must have shocked me into accepting it more compared to most others.



Although this would perhaps be better discussed in the Sherlock Holmes thread, I have to agree while it's been given some extra flash and action, I felt that the new film was very Holmesian in the whole to a surprising extent. I say this as a reader of all of Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories and as a fan and owner of the DVDs of the Grenada Television adaptations with Jeremy Brett which I think are the ultimate filmic editions of the original stories. I did find Jude Law's portrayal of Watson interesting since I could actually see him as a more effective Holmes (even though I thought he did quite well in the Watson role), since he might be able to bring a bit more lizard-like analytical coldness to the Holmes character than RDJ provided.


I hope that they continue and make at least another with Mycroft and Moriarty included.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/18609656
> 
> 
> I did find Jude Law's portrayal of Watson interesting since I could actually see him as a more effective Holmes (even though I thought he did quite well in the Watson role), since he might be able to bring a bit more lizard-like analytical coldness to the Holmes character than RDJ provided.



Hollywood could never tolerate a British actor actually playing a British character in a lead role, that would make too much sense.







Jude Law would have made a much better choice as Sherlock Holmes, and I suspect the first choice to play the character, until the studio stepped in and said there was no way he was going to headline their $100 million movie.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18611075
> 
> 
> Hollywood could never tolerate a British actor actually playing a British character in a lead role, that would make too much sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jude Law would have made a much better choice as Sherlock Holmes, and I suspect the first choice to play the character, until the studio stepped in and said there was no way he was going to headline their $100 million movie.



Harry Potter, anyone?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Star Trek: Lens Flare Edition


recommendation: Tier 1.75*


Paramount did a fabulous job in faithfully bringing this film to Blu-ray, lens flares and all. The generous AVC video encode is perfect and renders every detail that was filmed without error. My complaints lie strictly with the stylistic choices made by Abrams, which detract from the picture on occasion. The movie was certainly not filmed in the manner of say a Michael Bay blockbuster, as the image is never as sharp or projects the depth of those movies. Frequent shifts in focus and the almost random use of lens flares nick the quality a notch or two from what it could have been, in my opinion. Even allowing that, the picture quality is good enough for the lower quarters of tier one. The CGI is fantastic and integrates as well as any I have seen on Blu-ray.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post17752302


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Hardware*


Had this one not been heavily sharpened, it probably would have been okay. As it stands, edge enhancement is quite visible, the grain is heightened, compression can be heavy, and smearing is heavy at times. Black levels are okay, and color is saturated without being overdone. Facial detail is rare, but slightly processed when visible.

*Tier 3.5*


----------



## tfoltz

I just watched it for the first time on blu-ray on Saturday (with repeat viewing on Sunday) and figured there was no point in going back to it based on all the reviews that were already provided. But your review inspired me to say something as well.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18612599
> 
> *Star Trek: Lens Flare Edition
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 1.75*


*Star Trek*


I believe it belongs in *Tier 1.5* (though 1.75 would be perfectly fine with me). It was decidedly unfocused on some parts (many scenes with the older Spock; ex. when talking to Kirk over a fire, and towards the end when talking to young Spock), and there was noticeable dithering after the opening title. Also, there were some scenes where it seemed like the character's faces almost seemed stretched/distorted (and no...not the aliens faces). I can't be sure whether it's my mind, director's intent, or odd shaped faces, but something felt off at various parts (ex. Bones talking to Spock after Kirk is exiled to ice planet). Detail was great beyond the unfocused shots mentioned earlier. Colors were used to great effect against sterile backgrounds. I felt the lens flare enhanced the experience as a whole; I would not have minded if they cut down on it a bit, but I don't feel it reduced the picture quality. Loved the movie. Loved the audio.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Legion*


Seriously one of the most mind-numbingly stupid movies I've ever seen...


Anyway, transfer is solid, the biggest fault being some noise and weak blacks. The transfer never kicks into full gear in terms of depth because of the blacks. Colors fall into a warm and cool palettes that are scene dependent. Facial detail is solid. A bit of artificial sharpening is evident, although not terribly so.

*Tier 2.0*


----------



## Hughmc

I won't be reviewing for a while, since Hollywood Video by me is closing and not getting any new titles. I am going to switch to Netflix.


I watched *Imaginarium of Dr Parnassus*. UGH!!. I kept walking away. I like weird, off beat movies like Syncdoche, or A Serious Man, but this just couldn't hold my attention and for some reason annoyed me a lot.


Rating this is tough. There is some excellent detail and some good PQ, but there is also a lot of mediocre PQ. Some where between a 1 and 3.5 leads me to...

*Tier 2.5*


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/18618232
> 
> 
> I won't be reviewing for a while, since Hollywood Video by me is closing and not getting any new titles. I am going to switch to Netflix.



Ha! New titles and Netflix... you're funny.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18618331
> 
> 
> Ha! New titles and Netflix... you're funny.




Been used to it for several months.










If I get them within a few weeks I would be happy. Someone is getting them.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Daybreakers*


Quite stylized, with added video noise that looks like it's trying to be some kind of grain filter. The only is an encode that further complicates matters.Very blue-looking film, with some absolutely superb detail in close. Some aliasing is noted, blooming whites are noted, and sporadic softness are are things keeping it a bit low in terms of this thread.

*Tier 2.75*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Saving Private Ryan*


This was has went through some color timing changes and some brightening, but the results better suit the film, if not necessarily this thread.


The intentional noise is still there, some really heavy blooming, hot contrast, and general lack of depth due to the black levels being weakened. The encode handles it all pretty well with minimal artifacting. That said, detail is simply spectacular. The environments, from shattered buildings to plant life, are simply jaw dropping. Texture of the military uniforms and helmets is amazing. In close, facial detail is undoubtedly reference, and even in the mid-range occasionally.

*Tier 1.75*


----------



## deltasun

*The Edge*


Surprisingly strong presentation from an "older" title. Blacks are bold (no crush), contrast excellent - helping minimize the dated look inherent of _The Edge_. Medium facial details are well-resolved and medium scenes in general exhibited excellent dimensionality. Colors are a bit subdued, but does brighten up when primaries are introduced.


Softness still appears in a number of scenes, but very limited. As far as the sweeping panoramic views, I found these to be a mixed bag. There are some where the grandiose backdrop seem to just tower over the scene and characters, while others just did not have the right light. Flesh tones can be a bit on the red side at times, but not enough to be bothersome.


As far as any foul play, did not spot any obvious ones. There were a few instances of the picture blurring a bit due to movement. It looked unnatural, specially when it happened multiple times (first one being during the plane crash). Aside from that, this is a solid to high Silver Tier title...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*


I had not seen this film before and found it entertaining.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/18618426
> 
> 
> Been used to it for several months.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I get them within a few weeks I would be happy. Someone is getting them.



I think what he is referring to with Netflix is their new policy of delaying new titles for rent for 28 days. So nobody will be getting them "within a few weeks" of release (for sale).


----------



## deltasun

^^^ I don't know if that's for every studio. I know Fox and one other studio was added to Warner, but will have to double check.


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18623800
> 
> *Daybreakers*
> 
> 
> Quite stylized, with added video noise that looks like it's trying to be some kind of grain filter. The only is an encode that further complicates matters.Very blue-looking film, with some absolutely superb detail in close. Some aliasing is noted, blooming whites are noted, and sporadic softness are are things keeping it a bit low in terms of this thread.
> 
> *Tier 2.75*



Thanks for the review. I did think the added "artificial grain" or whatever (presumably added in post) video noise was a bit odd. At times it seemed to gain sentience and form itself into striating, cross-hatched, or even oddly-shaped geometric patterns which was especially noticeable when I was flipping though frames after watching it to make some captures.


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18630854
> 
> 
> ^^^ I don't know if that's for every studio. I know Fox and one other studio was added to Warner, but will have to double check.



It was Universal who is the third major studio delaying rental titles to Netflix, although recent Criterion weirdness suggests there might be something going on there as well.


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18628304
> 
> *The Edge*
> 
> 
> 
> I had not seen this film before and found it entertaining.
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_



It was a great ride at one of the Paramount parks years ago.

The Edge


----------



## djoberg

*Leap Year*


My first Blu in almost a week and I was persuaded to rent this sappy Romantic comedy (my wife loves Amy Adams!), but I've also wanted to see it ever since Gamereviewgod recommended it for the middle of Tier 0. I don't think I can go quite that high, but it was VERY IMPRESSIVE!


Let's get any negatives out the way first. There were indeed some obvious green screen shots, but like GRG they really didn't bother me all that much (but enough to dock it 1/4 tier or so). There were a couple of soft shots (due to lighting though, as GRG suggested), along with some hot contrast at times, and I caught one instance where it seemed out-of-focus. That's about it.


The rest of the film was demo quality all the way, with superb details (facial close-ups, blades of grass, cobblestone streets, brick buildings, pebbles on the beach, etc., etc.), perfect contrast, deep blacks, phenomenal shadow details, vibrant colors (especially the lush greens of Ireland!!), and spot on flesh tones. Depth too was very appreciable in many scenes. If this title doesn't qualify for EYE CANDY, nothing will!


My gut tells me this might be worthy of low Tier 0, but I'm going to be conservative and nominate it for....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite BDP-05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## 42041

*Red Cliff: Part 1 [US "International Version"]*


A very good looking movie, with high production values, attractive photography, good detail, contrast, etc. It is often Tier 0 quality. However, there are quite a few scenes that keep it from the top tier for me, that are either out of focus, distractingly grainy, or contain questionable VFX work.

*Tier 1.0*


(PS3/Pioneer 50" Kuro Elite/1 screen width distance)


----------



## fafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/18636352
> 
> *Red Cliff: Part 1 [US "International Version"]*
> 
> 
> A very good looking movie, with high production values, attractive photography, good detail, contrast, etc. It is often Tier 0 quality. However, there are quite a few scenes that keep it from the top tier for me, that are either out of focus, distractingly grainy, or contain questionable VFX work.
> 
> *Tier 1.0*
> 
> 
> (PS3/Pioneer 50" Kuro Elite/1 screen width distance)



But is the move any good?


fafner


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/18636352
> 
> *Red Cliff: Part 1 [US "International Version"]*
> 
> 
> A very good looking movie, with high production values, attractive photography, good detail, contrast, etc. It is often Tier 0 quality. However, there are quite a few scenes that keep it from the top tier for me, that are either out of focus, distractingly grainy, or contain questionable VFX work.
> 
> *Tier 1.0*
> 
> 
> (PS3/Pioneer 50" Kuro Elite/1 screen width distance)



I see you viewed the US version. I had read from many sources that the UK version is better and that's the copy I viewed and recommended for Tier 0. It would be interesting to get your take on that version.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafner* /forum/post/18636356
> 
> 
> But is the move any good?
> 
> 
> fafner



The movie is EXCELLENT, IMO.


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafner* /forum/post/18636356
> 
> 
> But is the move any good?
> 
> 
> fafner



So-so, probably about a 3.25 on Netflix's 5 star scale. For me the big problem was that some of the individual fight scenes took on a comic book aspect, almost a caricature of martial arts battle scenes. A lot of time was also spent setting up the plot and characters.


On the other hand _Part 2_ was much stronger and very enjoyable because all the ground work was set up in _Part 1_.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Minority Report*


I was very impressed with the look of this disc!


This has some of the same stylized look that SPR has in terms of intentional blown out highlights and blooming in some scenes that obviously have a negative impact on clarity and contrast. The question then becomes how much this will reduce the overall score.


Everything else is very good. Many scenes have very good detail, and most scenes also have good contrast. Color is again "stylized", but I like the color scheme.


Grain is definitely present....and it looks good through most of the film. I.e., it has a natural, non-processed look to it (unlike SPR which I found to have several instances where it looked processed or sharpened). I found this to actually have more noticeable film grain throughout the movie than SPR, but it appears that many disagree on that point.




I personally think that this disc has plenty of eye candy. In fact, LOTS of eye candy! The steely blue hues are very pleasing, and the scenes with the see-through computer screen with Tom Cruise look very cool.


I am very, very happy with how this one looks, and any fan of the movie will not be disappointed. This is a good movie.


The intentional blooming and blown highlights are not enough to keep this one out of Tier 1.


This is a superb "film like" presentation and I highly recommend it.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.75*


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Amelia*


This title was all over the place in terms of sharpness and clarity.


Some scenes had very good detail and clarity (but never tier 0) but others had a very distinct and noticeable softness to them, probably to the point that those shots were simply out of focus. This was noticeable several time throughout the film and it was very distracting.


Contrast and black levels are very good for the most part, again with some exceptions.


Colors: again, all over the place. Some scenes did look good, but overall, the colors of this film bothered me. They are very saturated, almost to the point where they seem to bleed a bit. As a result, the picture does not have a clean look to it. The colors on this title bothered me more than any I can remember recently.


This is a hard one for me to rate, because again, it was all over the place. But the soft focus scenes combined with the over saturated bleeding colors is enough to keep it in mid to low Tier 2.


As for the movie itself: Wow! I haven't used this word to describe a movie in quite awhile: B O R I N G!


And I mean _really_ boring! Nothing interesting. Nothing exciting. Nothing learned. Pretty terrible actually.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 2.5*


----------



## 1brokebrother




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18637055
> 
> 
> the movie is excellent, imo.



+1


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*Angels & Demons - Extended Edition*


I can only find 2 other reviews here for this so far, from Denny & Deltasun, and my experience was much different than theirs with this movie.


I know my Panny plasma is not the best set out there, but it's known for having fantastic black levels. Denny and I have been usually identical on that score with his Kuro and my Panny just in reading past reviews.


Angels and Demons was one where I found it very difficult to see. This is mostly due to filmmaking and the fact that this movie is set at night, lit by candles or flashlights; the environment is a major factor here.


I *know* my TV is good; I know it has good black levels; this was the first time in a while (I think since I reviewed Confessions of a Shopaholic) that I was tempted to take it out of THX mode to try and brighten this up. My husband even commented, "Is this in THX?" (er, DUH, yes of course!) and I said to him that the darkness was not the TV's fault, it is the films' fault.



It set the mood for the topic perfectly, but I was taken out of it because of the fact that I was annoyed at not being able to SEE what was going on. There was no detail IN the darkness, it was simply BLACK. At one point, it was lit in a way (perhaps purposely) where one actor looked like a floating head.


There was one scene, where Tom Hanks and the Italian lady were walking up stairs (this was within the first 30 minutes of the movie) and something very strange happened with the image. I don't know if it is a greenscreen error, a lighting error or a weird film artifact or something, but it's like their shoulders had a translucent overlap; I tell you it was STRANGE. I'll see if I can find the scene before I have to return the disc on Monday (the daughter is watching AVATAR at the moment) to be more specific.
_*Edited to add - OK this scene happens around the *29 minute mark of the extended edition* of the movie. It's really horrible. Double checking the *theatrical release, and it's at the 28 minute mark*. Italian lady & Hanks are walking up a staircase to go to the archives._


Aside from my major issues with how dark this movie was, there was a lot of decent detail WHEN YOU COULD SEE THE MOVIE! *grumble*


Glossiness was nearly fantastic, only to again be overshadowed by going just a bit too far with the dark. Any random car scene shot from above, I would look at the street and see perfect glossy sheen coming from the vehicles and anything wet around and compared it in my head to the gorgeousness of The Watchmen, but then so much more was obscured by the actual darkness going on that it just did not quite hit the way I loved those sorts of scenes in The Watchmen.



This movie was okay; I have not read the book (and I preferred Paul Bettany's bad guy to the bad guy in this movie) and as a former Catholic i tend to like to giggle at this sort of content. Much of it was over the top and my husband even joined in on some of my friend and mines "msting" of the movie (MST3K) which he normally hates. We did watch the Extended version that was on the rental disc versus the theatrical, I'm unsure if that plays any bearing on the overall PQ though.


So, in the end... Angels & Demons is not worthy of the top two tiers for me, and will instead settle in at....


*Recommendation for Angels & Demons (extended edition) - Tier 2.0*
*Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800U, THX setting, approximately 7.5’ viewing distance.
*


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*Knowing*


I can't find any reviews for this movie here, perhaps due to the title being simply one word; there was a mention of it by lgans placing it around tier 1, but that was all I could find.


Detail in this movie was pretty fine. The colours were decent; overall this was a well rounded PQ release. I don't think it's worthy of Tier 0, but I can't pick out any definite flaws aside from the shoddy CGI work in the latter half of the movie. I'm fairly okay with the thought of this title sticking in anywhere in Tier 1, really.



However, this movie was BAD. it was HORRIBLE. The first half was a movie with promise; but then it went downhill and it went downhill faster than an olympic skier. Nicolas Cage's single expression (did botox/surgery do this to him, along with the obvious hair plugs??) acting style got worse as the film progressed, and it's as though they had one story written at first, filmed it, and then decided to change the entire thing come the second half. The only reason I watched it in full was to see WTF they would come up with next, as I looked upon it dumbfounded, for how they could wreck what could have been an average movie into something THAT STUPID.



In the end, I'm using the bad CGI to knock this down a bit from it's current placing at Tier 1.0.


*Recommendation for Knowing: Tier 1.5*
*Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800U, THX setting, approximately 7.5' viewing distance.*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/18638266
> 
> *Knowing*
> 
> 
> I can't find any reviews for this movie here, perhaps due to the title being simply one word; there was a mention of it by lgans placing it around tier 1, but that was all I could find.


 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...ostcount=12971 


G3.....I ALWAYS print the word "Review" before the title I'm reviewing in the "Title" box (in this case then, I wrote "Review: Knowing") and that way it's a lot easier to find when doing a Search. If everyone did this, then all we would have to do to find reviews on a particular title is to write Review: "The Title" in the Search box and everyone's review would come up.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18639369
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...ostcount=12971
> 
> 
> G3.....I ALWAYS print the word "Review" before the title I'm reviewing in the "Title" box (in this case then, I wrote "Review: Knowing") and that way it's a lot easier to find when doing a Search. If everyone did this, then all we would have to do to find reviews on a particular title is to write Review: "The Title" in the Search box and everyone's review would come up.



"What are you a wizard? A genius? Why didn't you tell me that before? "


(name the movie the above came from for 20 points!)


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18639554
> 
> 
> "What are you a wizard? A genius? Why didn't you tell me that before? "
> 
> 
> (name the movie the above came from for 20 points!)



BEST IN SHOW!!


Now, how many more points do I need? And...exactly what are these points good for?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18639590
> 
> 
> BEST IN SHOW!!
> 
> 
> Now, how many more points do I need? And...exactly what are these points good for?



"Anyting you want"!


(name the line that movie came from!)


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18639602
> 
> 
> "Anyting you want"!
> 
> 
> (name the line that movie came from!)



You got me on that one Rob!


----------



## Rob Tomlin

The whole line is said with a certain accent. I didn't misspell "anyting".










Answer in spoiler tag:

*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Full Metal Jacket. When the soldier asks the prostitute what he gets for 10 bucks. "Anyting you want"!


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18639369
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...ostcount=12971
> 
> 
> G3.....I ALWAYS print the word "Review" before the title I'm reviewing in the "Title" box (in this case then, I wrote "Review: Knowing") and that way it's a lot easier to find when doing a Search. If everyone did this, then all we would have to do to find reviews on a particular title is to write Review: "The Title" in the Search box and everyone's review would come up.



+1, same reason I do it too.











(my review of knowing)


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18639369
> 
> 
> G3.....I ALWAYS print the word "Review" before the title I'm reviewing in the "Title" box (in this case then, I wrote "Review: Knowing") and that way it's a lot easier to find when doing a Search. If everyone did this, then all we would have to do to find reviews on a particular title is to write Review: "The Title" in the Search box and everyone's review would come up.



If you want to be super-searchable just put the 12- or 13-digit UPC/EAN code anywhere in your post and then victory is assured (and Google really likes them as well).


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fafner* /forum/post/18636356
> 
> 
> But is the move any good?
> 
> 
> fafner



I thought it was okay. Not the best 4-something hours I've spent on a movie.


Watched Red Cliff Part II a bit ago. I'd place it around tier 1.0 as well.


----------



## deltasun

*Fantastic Mr. Fox*


Agree with current placement. One word: TEXTURE. Incredible details are very well rendered throughout the hour and 27 minutes. Depth of field is pretty much maximized throughout also, giving an uncanny sense of depth. The lighting is very well-controlled and really produces a world that is clear yet still natural (for a stop-motion world).


Colors are warm to reflect the setting. Blacks are bold; contrast always perfect. The attention to detail placed by the production team shine through the presentation. Very impressive.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (just below _Monsters, Inc._)

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Fletch*


Ahh! It's a Universal catalog title! Shield ye eyes!


Heavy sharpening, globs of DNR, DVD-level detail in distance shots, heightened grain, blacks disappear due to brightening, edge enhancement, and... hmm.. what else? Ooh, artifacting too. Ugly.
*Tier 4.5*


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Collateral*


I love the stylized look of this movie and the way Michael Mann captures the look and feel of "LA LA Land". But there is one major flaw with the PQ of this title: black levels/contrast.


Since the vast majority of this film is shot outdoors at night, this is a huge issue in terms of its impact on the PQ. Many scenes have an overall gray look to them, and blacks are weak, giving the image an overall veiled look to it.


Detail and clarity varies, but overall is average.


Colors are good, no complaints there.


I'm not sure what percentage of this was shot on HD video, but there is a lot of "grain" here, but it looks pretty good. Other than the weak contrast, it really doesn't look like video.


Tough call on this title as to whether it is good enough for low tier 2, or whether it should go in Tier 3.


As for the movie itself: I still really like the film a lot, but I did notice some plot holes that I hadn't noticed before. Still, the mood and the way L.A. is captured is great, and the interaction between Cruise and Fox is excellent.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 3.0*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Spy Next Door*


Generally pleasing, bright, and colorful Lionsgate effort, marred by noise, artifacting, and black crush. Seriously, Jackie Chan's head looks like a black blob in a few spots. Brief bouts of softness are quick to pass, and generally facial detail is superb in close. Mid-range tends to suffer however. Merely adequate overall.

*Tier 2.25*


----------



## dla26

I was curious if anyone had seen Alice in Wonderland. How's the PQ?


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Extraordinary Measures*


Very flat film, lacking dimension. Detail is sporadic, saved for the most extreme close-ups or establishing shots. Blooming lights are the result of the soft photography, although why the blacks are so awful is anyone's guess. Grain structure intact, but becoming a bit noisy in spots.

*Tier 3.0*


----------



## djoberg

*Invictus*


This may not win many accolades for color (with its slightly stylized look that comes off as lackluster in many scenes), but DETAIL made up nicely for what it lacks in the color palette. Facial details were often Tier 0 quality, even in midrange shots, and detail in general was superb in many shots (wait till you see some of the aerial shots of South Africa, in particular the scene with a plane circling over Johannesburg).


Blacks levels were excellent in all the night scenes and I especially loved the early morning walks (before daybreak) by Mandela. Blacks were deep and inky and the shadow details were to die for!


Contrast was also quite remarkable, with just a few exceptions where it seemed too high resulting in a washed out daytime sky. Skin tones were natural, and again, facial close-ups revealed plenty of texture (pores, sweat, peach fuzz, moles, etc.).


There were a few scenes that came across as flat, but in fairness there were also some shots with amazing 3D pop. In the final analysis depth was a little over average throughout the whole title.


Overall this lacks the sharpness and color that would make it a contender for the top tier, but considering the many virtues it should qualify for a position in Tier Gold. My vote goes for....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5 or 1.75*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite BDP-05....Viewed fro 7.5'


PS I should mention I really enjoyed the movie. Can Clint Eastwood produce and direct a bad film? (That's a rhetorical question.







)


----------



## tjgar

When will Avatar be placed?


----------



## djoberg

*The New Daughter*


It was very late last night when the credits were rolling so I decided to review this direct-to-DVD/Blu-ray release this morning. I really don't know what possessed me when I decided to rent this yesterday...perhaps I wanted to see if Kevin Costner could make some kind of a comeback by taking on the horror genre. At any rate, I was sorely disappointed with the wooden acting by EVERY actor, and the half-baked storyline.


Thankfully the PQ was much better than the movie itself. Outdoor scenes were drop-dead gorgeous, with color and detail galore. Depth and dimensionality were also quite appreciable in these same scenes. Contrast could be too hot, but generally speaking it was strong.


Nighttime scenes were a mixed bag. Some of the opening scenes were very good, with deep blacks and excellent shadow details. But towards the end of the movie there were a few scenes that were average at best, and the last scene (around and in "the mound") was horrendous (Tier 5 quality, to be sure).


Skin tones were usually spot on, but there were some shots which were on the *orange* side due to the director's stylistic choices. Facial details never reached Tier 0 status, but there were a healthy portion of close-ups of Costner that rivaled some titles in Tier 1. Other close-ups of actors weren't that impressive.


Inconsistency is the plague of this title, but again I was pleased that the daytime scenes were topnotch and they really made up the majority of the movie. All things considered I'd have to say this is borderline between tiers 1 and 2, but I'll be generous (surprise! surprise!) and give it a.....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite BDP-05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Messenger*


Very flat film. The muted color palette is undoubtedly intentional, but the black levels... ugh. They're awful. The entire film seems draped in a gray scale. Detail is sporadic and minimal. Generally soft, with a bare minimum grain structure. Some ringing is noted, but limited.

*Tier 3.0*


Djoberg, I'll counter your New Daughter review tomorrow.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18658676
> 
> *The Messenger*
> 
> 
> Very flat film. The muted color palette is undoubtedly intentional, but the black levels... ugh. They're awful. The entire film seems draped in a gray scale. Detail is sporadic and minimal. Generally soft, with a bare minimum grain structure. Some ringing is noted, but limited.
> 
> *Tier 3.0*
> 
> 
> Djoberg, I'll counter your New Daughter review tomorrow.



Your comments on _The Messenger_ sound worse than Tier 3!







I'm watching it later tonight so I'll chime in right afterwards.


So, your review of _The New Daughter_ is going to be in opposition to mine, eh? I suspect you'll be rating it lower (just a guess, but an educated one, I believe







). I read some reviews that surprised me, such as Kris Deering who thought it was better than I did (both the movie and the PQ).


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tjgar* /forum/post/18655571
> 
> 
> When will Avatar be placed?



Soon...


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tjgar* /forum/post/18655571
> 
> 
> When will Avatar be placed?





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18659771
> 
> 
> Soon...



I believe there were only 3 or 4 of us who voted below the top. As far as I'm concerned, we are outliers and _Avatar_ should be at the top of the heap.


----------



## deltasun

*The Spy Next Door*


This is a pretty bland presentation. Blacks are weak and crushed and colors almost seem desaturated at times, specially in daylight. Contrast is also on the weak side. The best features are probably the extreme close-up's of the main characters, which will sometimes reveal cakey make-up. Medium close-up's are not as well defined and also exhibit some softness in a number of scenes.


Grain can be heavy at times. Skin tones are about average as well. All in all, a very average blu-ray.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## djoberg

*The Messenger*


I agree with GRG...this is one flat film, with the exception of a few scenes that were quite *crisp* and had plenty of *depth* (check out the funeral scene at the 55 min mark and the scene on the lake at the 1 hr. 22 min mark....these were awesome!)


I also agree with his assessment on the blacks; they were more like a dark gray with little or no shadow details. The color palette was indeed limited, but the colors in the scenes alluded to above had some real punch and left you drooling for more.


This title is average at best and I'm inclined to drop it down one notch from my colleague's recommendation, so here it goes....

*Tier Recommendation: 3.25*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite BDP-05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## deltasun

*The Karate Kid*


This one held up pretty well for its age. Though it cannot compete with newer titles, no tampering can be seen from this Sony release. Banding (a slight one at that) is about the only real complaint. Sure, softness does creep in and close-up's never get razor sharp, but it still holds its own amongst other 80's movies. Grain is quite heavy in darker scenes, but is usually tolerable.


Blacks are bold, but not inky, with only some slight instances of crush. Contrast is also adequate, but also helps give it its dated look. Flesh tones are faithful and colors are natural for the most part. Dimensionality is not its strength, but some do qualify once in a while. No real pop here, folks.


Overall, another very capable offering by Sony.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.50*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18659965
> 
> 
> I believe there were only 3 or 4 of us who voted below the top. As far as I'm concerned, we are outliers and _Avatar_ should be at the top of the heap.



It's an odd thing to me, since I really don't think Avatar's live-action segments transcend the best pure live-action titles in PQ, nor does its CGI beat the best of the pure CGI titles, but there seems to be an effect of the whole experience transcending its parts.


From one perspective, it feels wrong for me at the very top from the criteria set forth here, but I seem to be unable to put on my evaluation hat long enough to actually elucidate why - other than my slight annoyance at too much motion blur and the film's consistent refusal to hold sharp focus for more than a moment or two (as a side-effect of its constant dynamic motion). From another perspective, the widespread sheer positive visceral reaction to its world-building and the sense of pure wonder that it instills, which I very much felt myself, gives it a very strong case for being the top contender even though this is more of an artistic or aesthetic choice rather than technical argument.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/18660899
> 
> 
> It's an odd thing to me, since I really don't think Avatar's live-action segments transcend the best pure live-action titles in PQ, nor does its CGI beat the best of the pure CGI titles, but there seems to be an effect of the whole experience transcending its parts.
> 
> 
> From one perspective, it feels wrong for me at the very top from the criteria set forth here, but I seem to be unable to put on my evaluation hat long enough to actually elucidate why - other than my slight annoyance at too much motion blur and the film's consistent refusal to hold sharp focus for more than a moment or two (as a side-effect of its constant dynamic motion). From another perspective, the widespread sheer positive visceral reaction to its world-building and the sense of pure wonder that it instills, which I very much felt myself, gives it a very strong case for being the top contender even though this is more of an artistic or aesthetic choice rather than technical argument.



As mentioned in my review, totally agree about the inferiority of _Avatar's_ live-action segments to others in Tier 0 (even in top Tier 1, in my opinion). However, aesthetic choices and what-seems- pleasing-to-us do play a HUGE role in these placements. _Avatar_, in my opinion, is such a title. In fact, it's probably the culmination of such a title. While I found myself in wonderment as well throughout, there was still something missing for me. It just didn't drive it home for me. Home being top of Tier 0, of course.


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18660962
> 
> 
> However, aesthetic choices and what-seems- pleasing-to-us do play a HUGE role in these placements.



I think that maybe hits the key point in my mind. As weird as it may sound, I think Avatar could actually look better than it does, thus my reluctance. Not a fault of the encode at all, which seems flawless, but rather that I almost seem to perceive a certain compromise in the choices of the final blended artistic presentation which holds it back from the full potential of its original sources. I hate to mention it, but it almost reminds me of The Dark Knight in the sense where you know a superior-looking version can be made. It'll be interesting to see how the next release(s) of Avatar pan out.


Anyway, I am not issuing a concrete vote and I have no objection to Avatar leaping to the top of Tier 0 since it really is quite visually excellent - just airing some vague devil's advocate thoughts at the last minute.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/18660899
> 
> 
> It's an odd thing to me, since I really don't think Avatar's live-action segments transcend the best pure live-action titles in PQ, nor does its CGI beat the best of the pure CGI titles, but there seems to be an effect of the whole experience transcending its parts.



Welcome. You're in the the few, the proud, the "Avatar shouldn't be #1" crowd now. I'm right there with you. The live action scenes are simply awful IMO due to the source material.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The New Daughter*


This one opens on some truly remarkable footage of a swamp, filled with wildlife, plants, and slowly moving water. Detail is immense, and then we cut to a close-up of.... holy crap! Why does Kevin Costner look like a wax statue?


This one has either been DNR'ed or the VC-1 encodes staggeringly low bitrate (single digits in spots) gives this one a digital look. There are moments, especially in the forest and near the burial mound, that can look pretty good. The reddish flesh tones and lack of facial detail are too much though. The ending is littered with noise and lackluster blacks.
*Tier 3.25*


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

I had a few paragraphs written up, essentially defending Avatar and my review of it; however I've decided all I will say is that I stand behind my current review of it, even having seen it multiple times on Blu at this point to the point of absolute IRRITATION thanks to a certain 6 year old offspring of mine. More and more I am filled with appreciation of the whole DVD+BLU fad of the moment as we don't have 2 BRD players yet and my sanity is saved from blue people on occasion thanks to this.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I will just say that I have to disagree with you who say that the live action shots in Avatar are not very good. I think the majority of them are superb and Tier 0 worthy.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18660252
> 
> *The Spy Next Door*
> 
> 
> Grain can be heavy at times. Skin tones are about average as well. All in all, a very average blu-ray.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.50*



Very average BDs should not really be in tier two. That is what tier three was intended for in formulating the criteria. Just a suggestion, as your description did not coincide with your placement.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18663657
> 
> 
> Very average BDs should not really be in tier two. That is what tier three was intended for in formulating the criteria. Just a suggestion, as your description did not coincide with your placement.



I completely agree.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18662128
> 
> 
> I will just say that I have to disagree with you who say that the live action shots in Avatar are not very good. I think the majority of them are superb and Tier 0 worthy.



Well, look at this shot:

http://media.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray...hot-lrg-04.png 


His face is notably smooth and processed, plus carries a bit of softness. His hair is poorly defined.


Here we have a shot that is faded, also a hint of unnatural digital smoothness, and lackluster detail:

http://media.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray...hot-lrg-05.png 


There are some that look good, for sure, but most are weak. The worst of it is when the general/head military guy sits down with Worthington for a 1-on-1 chat. I don't remember the time stamp.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18662128
> 
> 
> I will just say that I have to disagree with you who say that the live action shots in Avatar are not very good. I think the majority of them are superb and Tier 0 worthy.




I agree and maintain what I said before. The live action sequences are better overall than Irobot and anything we have on blu, and no doubt in my mind for the purposes of this thread better eye candy. I feel the same about the cgi, second to none.


----------



## ivanpino




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18661774
> 
> 
> Welcome. You're in the the few, the proud, the "Avatar shouldn't be #1" crowd now. I'm right there with you. The live action scenes are simply awful IMO due to the source material.



Awful? Time for the "Avatar shouldn't be #1" crowd to get some glasses.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18663657
> 
> 
> Very average BDs should not really be in tier two. That is what tier three was intended for in formulating the criteria. Just a suggestion, as your description did not coincide with your placement.



My 2.5 recommendation stemmed from comparing _The Spy Next Door_ to other titles in Tier 3 and Tier 2. We really need an overhaul. While I agree that "very average" should be in Tier 3, this title still looked better than Tier 3 titles I have seen.


I can reevaluate and find a place for it in Tier 3. It really is that average.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ivanpino* /forum/post/18664091
> 
> 
> Awful? Time for the "Avatar shouldn't be #1" crowd to get some glasses.



Not all of us like a digital/processed look, which is what those live action shots look like. CG shots? Reference. Live action? Not even close.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/18664073
> 
> 
> The live action sequences are better overall than Irobot



honestly, i'm completely confused by comments like this, because I didn't see any sort of remarkable detail in all but a handful of the live action bits. But clearly the overall consensus is that Avatar is the demo disc to beat.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/18664650
> 
> 
> honestly, i'm completely confused by comments like this, because I didn't see any sort of remarkable detail in all but a handful of the live action bits. But clearly the overall consensus is that Avatar is the demo disc to beat.



I agree. Aside from some of the colonel's facial close-up's and maybe the initial view of the base (though this was technically CGI as well), I'm hard-pressed to find other scenes at the same calibre as _I, Robot_.







The simple scene with Will Smith talking to Bruce Greenwood has depth, inky blacks, facial details, superb contrast that far surpass anything similar in _Avatar_. My opinion.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Chocolate


recommendation: Tier 2.75*


This 2008 Thai production looks slightly above tier three in quality. Released in February of 2009 by Magnolia Pictures, the movie appears to be a mixture of both film and HD video. That creates a little inconsistency in certain scenes. The scenes that comprise the bulk of the narrative look quite good, nearly meriting consideration for tier one. Those appear to be the result of clear and properly lighted HD video. A few scenes, namely the first fifteen minutes and parts of the final group battle, were either shot on cheap film stock, or video pushed well past its ability to handle dimly-lit shots.


Utilizing a BD-25 to its fullest capacity, the 92-minute main feature has an average video bitrate of 24.25 Mbps. The VC-1 encode is proficient, but shows minor problems that may or may not have been eliminated entirely with a full BD-50 encode.. A spot of banding is quite noticeable in one early scene, and shadow detail looks slightly diminished in the more demanding scenes with little available lighting.


Much of the movie is quite sharp, demonstrating impressive detail in close-ups. The transfer is excellent from a technical standpoint. There has been no digital filtering of any kind and the picture is free of halos. The lack of print damage or degradation anywhere looks just like any recent Hollywood production. Contrast is usually good, though certain scenes show overly dark black levels which leads to crushing. Camera noise does creep into the image on a couple of notable occasions, which is the main reason this BD does not deserve a higher ranking. The color palette is unadventurous for an Asian production, where all the colors in _Chocolate_ have normal saturation levels. Portions of the fight scenes look softer than the rest of the movie, likely as a result of the camera tricks needed to produce the action on screen.


BDInfo Scan (courtesy of stumlad):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...9#post15875689


----------



## ivanpino




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18664599
> 
> 
> Not all of us like a digital/processed look, which is what those live action shots look like. CG shots? Reference. Live action? Not even close.



You said it your self its not that it isn't reference, it's just that you happen not to like it as a personal choice. Just don't say it's not reference because you habppen not to like the digital/processed look as you put it. I personaly think this transfer is what Blu-ray is all about.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18663713
> 
> 
> Well, look at this shot:
> 
> http://media.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray...hot-lrg-04.png
> 
> 
> His face is notably smooth and processed, plus carries a bit of softness. His hair is poorly defined.



Wow. Thanks for helping prove MY point with this screen grab. Overall, this looks SUPERB! There is tons of detail in that shot and excellent clarity. His face doesn't look as good as the rest of the shot, but I wouldn't expect it to given how it is lit (the light source is coming from in front of him, not the side).


So, personally, I find it rather ironic that you would use this screen shot to prove that the live action scenes don't look good. This is a great shot!











> Quote:
> Here we have a shot that is faded, also a hint of unnatural digital smoothness, and lackluster detail:
> 
> http://media.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray...hot-lrg-05.png
> 
> 
> There are some that look good, for sure, but most are weak. The worst of it is when the general/head military guy sits down with Worthington for a 1-on-1 chat. I don't remember the time stamp.



We will agree to disagree then, because I don't see it that way at all.


Yes, the shot above is one of the weaker ones, but that shot looks like it was shot either slightly out of focus, or there was some movement that caused motion blur (though I wouldn't expect a lot of movement in that scene).


Either way, this is a superb looking title, and that most definitely includes the live action scenes.


I have no horse in this race, either, because I really don't even like the movie much at all, as I feel the writing was quite bad (juvenile for lack of a better description).


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ivanpino* /forum/post/18666210
> 
> 
> You said it your self its not that it isn't reference, it's just that you happen not to like it as a personal choice. Just don't say it's not reference because you habppen not to like the digital/processed look as you put it. I personaly think this transfer is what Blu-ray is all about.



I don't think it's reference because I don't think it's reference. The live action stuff doesn't look great to me. I have no ulterior motive.


I'll try to illustrate what I'm saying...


This is what I'd consider representative of reference live action PQ: http://media.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray...hot-lrg-23.png 

Superb clarity and contrast, razor sharp detail goes down to the indidual pixels.


And this is pretty representative of what I saw in Avatar: http://media.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray...hot-lrg-17.png 

Hazy, flat, can barely read the text on that bottle, even though it's in focus.


----------



## Cinema Squid

Ha, well I didn't take screenshots of Avatar for them to thrown around willy-nilly as ammunition in some PQ skirmish, but I should say that I did spend about 2-3x times longer than usual collecting them since it seemed important to me to get them "right", so at the very least I can say that they were not carelessly done.


It was difficult as well, since there are are very few held shots and the *constant* motion and focus dynamics made the collection of impressive-looking stills most challenging. In the end, I tried to pick mostly those that I thought were the best or at least pleasing to me aesthetically in one way or another.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/18666389
> 
> 
> I don't think it's reference because I don't think it's reference. The live action stuff doesn't look great to me. I have no ulterior motive.
> 
> 
> I'll try to illustrate what I'm saying...
> 
> 
> This is what I'd consider representative of reference live action PQ: http://media.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray...hot-lrg-23.png
> 
> Superb clarity and contrast, razor sharp detail goes down to the indidual pixels.
> 
> 
> And this is pretty representative of what I saw in Avatar: http://media.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray...hot-lrg-17.png
> 
> Hazy, flat, can barely read the text on that bottle, even though it's in focus.




In case anyone is keeping count, put me down in the camp that thinks the live action shots in Avatar are definitely inferior to the CGI shots and clearly not at the same PQ level.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ivanpino* /forum/post/18666210
> 
> 
> You said it your self its not that it isn't reference, it's just that you happen not to like it as a personal choice. Just don't say it's not reference because you habppen not to like the digital/processed look as you put it. I personaly think this transfer is what Blu-ray is all about.



That same digital/processed look is what we consistently knock movies for in this thread. For some reason, Avatar gets a pass. 42401 shows in his post what reference level detail looks like. Nothing in Avatar's live action looks like that because of the softness and that smooth digital look.



> Quote:
> Well, look at this shot:
> 
> http://media.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray...hot-lrg-04.png
> 
> 
> His face is notably smooth and processed, plus carries a bit of softness. His hair is poorly defined.
> 
> Wow. Thanks for helping prove MY point with this screen grab. Overall, this looks SUPERB! There is tons of detail in that shot and excellent clarity. His face doesn't look as good as the rest of the shot, but I wouldn't expect it to given how it is lit (the light source is coming from in front of him, not the side).



His face could look superb. His hair should still show definition like the area around him. There is little texture detail on his shirt. The hair on his arms is barely notable. It looks DNR'ed to be perfectly honest, although it is just an after effect of the camera.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Invictus*


Some terrible aliasing early on. The first half hour or so is really bad, although it does get better as the movie moves on. Detail is generally superb, even in the mid-range. A hot contrast is utilized throughout the movie. With the deep blacks, it creates great depth to the image, is one that is obviously a bit blown out. Scenes of rugby stadiums full of fans are presented superbly.

*Tier 1.75*


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/18666589
> 
> 
> Ha, well I didn't take screenshots of Avatar for them to thrown around willy-nilly as ammunition in some PQ skirmish, but I should say that I did spend about 2-3x times longer than usual collecting them since it seemed important to me to get them "right", so at the very least I can say that they were not carelessly done.
> 
> *It was difficult as well, since there are are very few held shots and the *constant* motion and focus dynamics made the collection of impressive-looking stills most challenging.* In the end, I tried to pick mostly those that I thought were the best or at least pleasing to me aesthetically in one way or another.



Thank you for confirming this.


----------



## tfoltz

Personally, I don't think it's the same. I do think there were soft parts, but I think a lot of detail was provided. Also, I don't see a lot of detail in the girl's face here: http://media.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray...hot-lrg-23.png Yes this is how it's supposed to look, but this is intent, which we don't judge. I watched I, Robot again last night to see how many people think a live action film should look, and I see soft spots in that movie too. All movies have flaws, so we judge the movie as a whole. If we get some more reviews saying that it should be lower, then so be it.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18667493
> 
> 
> That same digital/processed look is what we consistently knock movies for in this thread. For some reason, Avatar gets a pass. 42401 shows in his post what reference level detail looks like. Nothing in Avatar's live action looks like that because of the softness and that smooth digital look.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/18666817
> 
> 
> In case anyone is keeping count, put me down in the camp that thinks the live action shots in Avatar are definitely inferior to the CGI shots and clearly not at the same PQ level.



And put me down in the other camp with Hugh, Rob, et al. Avatar deserves, IMO, to be top dog right now, in spite of a few dissenters.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18669274
> 
> 
> And put me down in the other camp with Hugh, Rob, et al. Avatar deserves, IMO, to be top dog right now, in spite of a few dissenters.



Just to be clear, I was not commenting on the placement. I was commenting on the PQ of the live action shots, particularly in comparison to the PQ of the CGI portions of the movie.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/18669248
> 
> 
> Personally, I don't think it's the same. I do think there were soft parts, but I think a lot of detail was provided. Also, I don't see a lot of detail in the girl's face here: http://media.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray...hot-lrg-23.png Yes this is how it's supposed to look, but this is intent, which we don't judge. I watched I, Robot again last night to see how many people think a live action film should look, and I see soft spots in that movie too. All movies have flaws, so we judge the movie as a whole. If we get some more reviews saying that it should be lower, then so be it.



Her face may not have detail, but it also doesn't look smoothed over, digital, and processed. Not a single live action shot in Avatar comes even close to the level of detail, definition, and clarity in Sam Jackson's face in that still. *None*. I'm not saying there are a few sporadic soft shots in Avatar. I'm saying every single live action scene is a downer, unless layered in visual effects (towards the end inside the mech, the general looks great). It's not just, "Oh, I can see pores. Detail!" It's, "Wow, look at how defined and clear they are." Just about any close-up in any film will provide the usual high fidelity detail. The difference maker between discs is how well they are resolved.


By comparison to Avatar, not a single scene of A Bug's Life disappoints in terms of definition. Every single scene is crisp, carrying a stunning level of detail and sharpness. It is perfect. Avatar is not. I'm not saying Avatar should be knocked down to Tier 1, but I will always stand by and state it should never be at the top because of the amount of live action that fails to produce defined detail.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Scarlett's face in that image has little detail because she is caked in makeup. Heavy makeup obscures facial detail. You can't denigrate a transfer because it does not show detail that was never there in the first place. Many parts of _The Spirit_ easily deserve tier zero.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18670320
> 
> 
> Scarlett's face in that image has little detail because she is caked in makeup. Heavy makeup obscures facial detail. You can't denigrate a transfer because it does not show detail that was never there in the first place. Many parts of _The Spirit_ easily deserve tier zero.



This is true, but you will also notice that the main reason there is no detail on the left side of her face is because of the blown highlights. You can still see some detail on the right side of her face, including some texture, even with the makeup.


----------



## tfoltz

I never said the transfer was bad with that Scarlett Johansson shot. I was merely implying that that specific still picture isn't the pinnacle of detail because of the heavy makeup and the blown highlights, which conceals facial detail. I know it's how it's supposed to look.


I also think Bug's Life is a bit simplistic and doesn't deserve to be at the top compared to some other animated movies in Tier 0, regardless of where Avatar is placed.


All this being said, I think most would agree that if Avatar had no CGI it would be ranked significantly lower.


----------



## CrispyMyth

I'm not as experienced in viewing Blu-ray's as you all are, but I have to say:


Why are you comparing live action shots from Avatar with a "live action" shot from The Spirit? The Spirit is by all accounts presented in a HIGHLY stylized manner, very similar in style to Sin City. I would say that such a highly processed look like one see's in Sin City and The Spirit are not valid comparisons for live action shots.


I think some shots from I, Robot would be better served here to make a much more valid point.


I would note that I did not think that Avatar was top of tier 0. I thought Avatar's visuals did not quite meet the quality of A Bug's Life, Up or Ratatouille. I felt the average overall quality of Avatar's peaks and valleys on visuals did surpass Coraline's steady line, hence my recommendation.


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CrispyMyth* /forum/post/18670726
> 
> 
> Why are you comparing live action shots from Avatar with a "live action" shot from The Spirit? The Spirit is by all accounts presented in a HIGHLY stylized manner, very similar in style to Sin City. I would say that such a highly processed look like one see's in Sin City and The Spirit are not valid comparisons for live action shots.



In a way, the comparison is apt since Avatar's live-action is also quite highly stylized and not the least bit natural. However, I think that perhaps a comparison of Avatar to Speed Racer is more appropriate due to their shared levels of hyper-realism (if there really is anything comparable).


EDIT: Actually thinking about it a bit, I suppose Sin City and The Spirit also fall into roughly the same category of hyper-realism as Avatar and Speed Racer along with perhaps Crank 2, Gamer and 300.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *CrispyMyth* /forum/post/18670726
> 
> 
> I'm not as experienced in viewing Blu-ray's as you all are, but I have to say:
> 
> 
> Why are you comparing live action shots from Avatar with a "live action" shot from The Spirit?



We're merely discussing how facial details should look in any disc that is threatening the top spot, and Sam Jackson's face in that shot is as reference as they come.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Valentine's Day*


So bland I'm actually struggling to remember it. It has some issues with noise, a hint of artificial sharpening, and that usual Warner processed look, although not as severe as usual. Bright colors are pleasing, and blacks are deep. Detail in the environments is adequate, and facial detail in close is defined.

*Tier 2.5*


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*Leap Year
*

I picked up this bad rom-com b/c a fellow poster said there was phenomenal scenery of Ireland throughout, and I have always wanted to go over to Ireland, so I figured this would be my opportunity to drool over it a bit.



For me, this entire movie was flat. Soft as a newborn kitten for the most part, although there were some moments of decent detail, they were intermittently spaced at best.


While the movie says it was filmed in Ireland, so much of this movie felt like bad green-screening; poor lighting perhaps? I don't know. Something looked extremely faked whenever the characters were against a background of sorts.



Colours were okay, but they were not as vivid as I would have liked to see in this sort of film, likely due to the muted nature of the softness.


I wanted to like the scenery, I really did. I tried. There was not enough of it to help this movie given how horrible it was, and I really like Amy Adams. It kind of reminded me of when I see Soccer or Baseball on the high-def channels. It looked nice, and would be acceptable for a TV broadcast, but it just didn't have that extra push that I expect out of a blu ray.


All in all it's not horrific or awful or anything, it's pleasing enough, but I would never think of it as being in the top two tiers.


*Recommendation for Leap Year - Tier 2.25*
*Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800U, THX setting, approximately 7.5' viewing distance.*


----------



## Incindium

I haven't really participated in this ranking thread but I have been reading for a long while.


For what its worth... I watched Avatar on Friday night and thought it was visually top notch definitely Tier 0 material.


My kids are now watching Cars blu-ray and watching the first 30 mins of it I was surprised that it looks better in my mind than Avatar. The bright color pop and detail to me has more of a visual wow factor than Avatar. Now I know that Avatar is trying to render more of a natural environment which it is likely at the top of but for pure eye candy I think Cars surpasses it.


For the people nominating Avatar for the very top Tier 0 spot how many of you watched some of the other top Tier 0 titles recently?

Recommendation Avatar Tier 0 below Cars above Meet the Robinsons


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Incindium* /forum/post/18673895
> 
> 
> I haven't really participated in this ranking thread but I have been reading for a long while.
> 
> 
> For what its worth... I watched Avatar on Friday night and thought it was visually top notch definitely Tier 0 material.
> 
> 
> My kids are now watching Cars blu-ray and watching the first 30 mins of it I was surprised that it looks better in my mind than Avatar. The bright color pop and detail to me has more of a visual wow factor than Avatar. Now I know that Avatar is trying to render more of a natural environment which it is likely at the top of but for pure eye candy I think Cars surpasses it.
> 
> *For the people nominating Avatar for the very top Tier 0 spot how many of you watched some of the other top Tier 0 titles recently?*
> 
> Recommendation Avatar Tier 0 below Cars above Meet the Robinsons




For me personally, I think it is better than *Coraline* and *Astroboy*, which are the highest ones I've reviewed for the list, and did mention that in my review. I have seen & own *UP* but I do not think I've reviewed it, but I think Avatar is better than UP as well IMHO. **


**edited to add, and I have seen these titles fairly recently and repeatedly, as my daughter does like these ones.


I have not seen *CARS* on Blu, but I do own a few of the other top titles, *Monsters vs Aliens* and *Monsters Inc*, again two titles I have not reviewed for the list, but still feel Avatar is better. It's been a very long time since I've seen *Ratatouille*, and I don't own that one so I am not comparing it with that.


So, I can only go by what I've seen and where they are ranked on the list currently, which did come into play where I placed Avatar. I hope this helps explain my own thoughts a bit!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Postal


recommendation: 1.25*


In my tireless quest to include all of Uwe Boll's noted body of work in the tiers, _Postal_ surprises with a stellar transfer that looks great. Vivendi released the 2007 film to Blu-ray almost two years ago, in August of 2008. The 102-minute comedy is encoded in VC-1 on a BD-50. Image quality hardly ever varies from a pristine state of crystalline clarity. Only a minor amount of edge enhancement and pumped-up fleshtones prevent a higher ranking, and possibly BD perfection. Depending on one's preference for depth of field and pop in their movies, the title could have ended up slightly lower in tier 1.5 due to the slightly flat style of photography.


----------



## sunnysky

forgive me for a stupid question but, How frequently is the tier list updated? The last update was on 4/10 I think.


----------



## deltasun

*Elektra*

_Elektra_ has a stylized look that is suited for its type of action. As such, black level is the biggest issue with this title. Though it's deep and bold, it does crush quite a bit. Shadows are also used to add to the ninja-esque mystique that dominate the action. Unfortunately, this leads to very shallow and flat picture whenever there are scenes with shadows. Contrast is a bit pushed to achieve the look desired.


Tint is also used to heighten the look of certain scenes. On a positive note, there are some incredible facial close-up's involving Terrence Stamp. Others have it too, but a bit more sparingly. Colors are pretty well-saturated and seems to really seep into the screen. Elektra's red costume really pops and the lush, vivid greens in the extended forest sequence really permeate.


I believe the positive virtues keep this title in the Silver tier...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

*Extraordinary Measures*


Right off the bat, I will mention that I dislike this blooming, soft style of photography. It is distracting for me when everything's shot as if through fog. Lights bloom and details are minimized in areas affected.


Contrast and blacks appear weak with no instances of crushing. Details also come and go, depending on lighting. I will say there are a few examples of really excellent close-up's, but these are few and far between. Colors can be natural when not affected by the blooming and skin tones remain faithful.


Finally, dimensionality is also sapped by the photography style. Some minor instances of banding are evident through the haze. No obvious signs of DNR and one very minor case of ringing. None of these anomalies really brought it down, just the softness and blooming.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.5*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

I have re-evaluated the _average-ness_ of _The Spy Next Door_ and have dropped my rating to 3.0. I have edited my post to reflect this.


----------



## 42041

*Rachel Getting Married*


A visually modest sort of movie. Obviously low budget and shot on HD video, going for a naturalistic sort of look, using available light (or at least light intended to appear as such) and almost entirely with shaky handheld camera work. Which got pretty annoying at times. Technically, nothing wrong with the disc, but it's not much to look at. Kind of amusing to see the disparity of opinion between the RT top critics and imdb users regarding the movie... i liked it, personally.

*Tier 3.5*


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*Ponyo*



I feel like this whole movie has just a bit of softness applied over the top. The colours are *almost* perfectly vibrant... just feels like I'm watching it through a screen of saran wrap or something.



The movie itself is perfectly clean and seemingly flawless otherwise. I can't say it's crisp as the softness prevents it that. Other than that, I don't really have any complaints about this film. I do not think it belongs in tier 0, but I think it would be perfectly fine alongside the Futurama movies in Tier 1.0.

*Recommendation for Ponyo: Tier 1.0*
*Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800U, THX setting, approximately 7.5' viewing distance.
*


On a side note, it was really cute to see my daughter compare this movie to Totoro.


----------



## deltasun

^^ The look of _Ponyo_ really resonated with me. I really liked the simplistic, clean lines and unassuming colors. I did not get to finish watching it, but am looking for a good deal to pick it up. From what I did see, I don't disagree with your observations.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18675214
> 
> 
> ^^ The look of _Ponyo_ really resonated with me. I really liked the simplistic, clean lines and unassuming colors. I did not get to finish watching it, but am looking for a good deal to pick it up. From what I did see, I don't disagree with your observations.



If I didn't sense that layer of softness on it, I would not have hesitated to put it into Tier 0, as it would (for me at least) have been on par with my thoughts of how regular animation would be perfect on Blu. I would not have placed it high within Tier 0; likely the bottom quarter of the list.


Although I found it somewhat disconcerting to listen to Tina Fey's voice in a japanese title, it was a very cute movie and it made me wish for Totoro on Blu.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*Hamlet (2009, BBC version)*


I don't have the booklet for this as it is a rental so I can't give any technical information on it. I have been watching a few episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation and the voice of Patrick Stewart has been resonating in my head, so when I saw this title sitting in the new release section of the video store, I had to grab it.


This is AVC, with what seems to me to be an average bit rate of around the mid 20's to low 30's. I did not keep this on while playing the film, but I did just jump through a bunch of sections and see what it showed for an idea for Phantom Stranger.


This is a 3 hour venture into Hamlet, the play is done very well. The interpretation of Hamlet has the costuming as current-style clothing. Hamlet is portrayed by David Tennant, and he does a decent job with what I would personally consider to be one of the most demanding roles in existance. The IMDB info is here for anyone who is interested in this version.



I did fade my attention in-and-out at times, but I doubt this will be a highly reviewed title so I felt I should chime in just in case someone is curious.


The picture is very clean and crisp, it's not perfect by any means however. It has the look of a really good HD Television channel, pushed a bit further. Colours are precise for the content, and there is a spectacular glossiness that is in the castle. The floors are a black lacquer of some sort, and while I am watching a special feature on the "making of" as I write this, they mentioned that they were constantly polishing up the floor so it could be a mirror, as several shots utilized the floor as a mirror in which Hamlet speaks to himself with.



The very first shot of this movie was done through what would seem to be a security camera, and it's a terrible quality; absolutely atrocious. It is in black and white, and there's a gigantic halo around the figure which it follows. I was worried beyond belief that I had rented a complete dud of a blu ray, until the camera switched and a lush, dark scene where the guards first encounter the ghost of King Hamlet occurs. It is neat the way they use this as a constant theme throughout the picture, but for the purpose of this thread it is a completely ugly picture when it swaps out to the security camera angle -- but it provides for a (to me, anyway) powerful tool to feel as though Big Brother is spying upon Hamlet and other players within the script, and because of the instant downgrade in picture quality, you get a very sinister feeling from it.



This is not a true movie, this is a play performed on a couple of sets. You won't be getting a Mel Gibson or even a Kenneth Brannaugh style movie out of this; but it is a really high quality performance of the play, which is something I would expect out of a BBC Shakespeare presentation.



If anyone else actually sees this, they may be more generous than I am going to be, but I think that I will err on the side of being slightly harsh on it since I don't want to give anyone any false expectations for what they might see if/when they rent this.

*Recommendation for Hamlet (2009 BBC version): Tier 2.0*
*Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800U, THX setting, approximately 7.5' viewing distance.*


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Boondock Saints 2*


This was a very average looking title at best.


It did not excel at any aspect of PQ. Detail and sharpness were average, and actually many scenes were soft. However, there were some scenes that did have much better detail and clarity, but they made up a small portion of the film.


Depth and contrast were mostly lacking, again with some exceptions to this rule, but not a lot.


Colors were dull and uninspiring, but there were some flashback scenes that had a nice cool blue hue to them.


The scenes that did have good PQ were not nearly enough to save this very average looking title from being considered just that.


The movie itself was ok for what it is. Some funny dialog, and the movie doesn't take itself too seriously.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 3.0*


----------



## Ozymandis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/18675055
> 
> *Ponyo*
> 
> 
> 
> I feel like this whole movie has just a bit of softness applied over the top. The colours are *almost* perfectly vibrant... just feels like I'm watching it through a screen of saran wrap or something.
> 
> 
> 
> The movie itself is perfectly clean and seemingly flawless otherwise. I can't say it's crisp as the softness prevents it that. Other than that, I don't really have any complaints about this film. I do not think it belongs in tier 0, but I think it would be perfectly fine alongside the Futurama movies in Tier 1.0.
> 
> *Recommendation for Ponyo: Tier 1.0*
> *Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800U, THX setting, approximately 7.5' viewing distance.
> *
> 
> 
> On a side note, it was really cute to see my daughter compare this movie to Totoro.



That's where I had put the movie too, Tier 1.0, and also noted the softness. The backgrounds are very detailed but the outlines on the animated parts are not as sharp as they could be.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sunnysky* /forum/post/18674513
> 
> 
> forgive me for a stupid question but, How frequently is the tier list updated? The last update was on 4/10 I think.



The normal schedule for periodic updates has been every four or five weeks. The forthcoming update will happen in the next few days, depending on how soon I can find free time for it.


----------



## deltasun

*Tale of Despereaux*


First thing to note is that depth and just general presentation are inferior to some of the better Pixar releases. Details are pretty inconsistent throughout the film, particularly lacking in human faces or the myriad of vegetables used to make soup. However, details and texture truly shine in wooden planks, cobblestones, castle walls, and metal gates. In general, details do get better in Mouseworld and Ratworld.


Black levels are deep and contrast excellent. Colors are of a limited palette, specially when soup gets banned. Again, dimensionality is not its strength, but is no slouch either.


The presentation is pristine - clear of any artifacting (minor banding) or any other kind of anomalies. There's enough positive virtues to keep this in Tier Blu, but not in the upper echelon...

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (just above _9_)

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Phantom Stranger

After much deliberation, there has been a special update of a certain movie that many have clamored for to be ranked in the tiers. Among others, Jacob from Lost, and the Oracle of Delphi gave guidance in placing it.







The following people also helped out:


0(1) Vegaz, .5 Gamereviewgod, 0(1) DavidML3, 0(1) HDphile22, 0(1) Ozymandis, .5 Sujay, 0(1) palofex, 0(top 5) deltasun, 0(1) geekyglassesgirl, 0(top quarter) 42041, 0(1) djoberg, 0(1) Milt99, 0(1) Rob Tomlin, 0(1) tfoltz, 0(1) jedimasterchad, 0(above Coraline) CrispyMyth, 0(1) Hughmc, 0 hernanu, 0(1) QueueCumber, 0(1) Lestat Phoenix, 0(middle) 30XS955 User, 0(1) Fanaticalism, 0(1) Toe, 0(1) jutang, 0 below Cars Incindium


The new notation of "0(1)" means that the reviewer believed it to be the best title in tier zero. The rest of the updates will be posted soon. No one knows the day or hour...


----------



## tfoltz

Like a thief in the night.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/18673125
> 
> *Leap Year
> *
> 
> *Recommendation for Leap Year - Tier 2.25*
> *Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800U, THX setting, approximately 7.5' viewing distance.*



Wow, you rated it almost 2 tiers below that of GRG....and 1 1/4 lower than my recommendation!! That's quite the spread. It will be interesting to see what others have to say about this title and even more interesting to see where it finally ends up.


I will say that to _my eyes_ it was a very nice transfer and I believe it would be a travesty if it didn't end up in one of the top two demo tiers. But hey, that's just my opinion.


----------



## n64ra

*Jerry Maguire*


I've never written a review here because I don't really know the technical terms, but Jerry Maguire looked so bad I had to. This title looks horrible. After reviewing the glossary, the issues appear to be macroblocking and grain.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 4.5*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Tidal Wave*


Korea's most expensive movie ever gets a decent US Blu-ray treatment, marred by the digital source. Lots of distinct palettes, many of them off-set by the discolored sides of the frame. Weird. Some minor EE, a few shots that are quite smooth, and blacks are generally weak. Some great facial detail in certain close-ups, but hardly with any consistency.

*Tier 2.75*


----------



## dla26




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18660869
> 
> *The Karate Kid*
> 
> 
> This one held up pretty well for its age. Though it cannot compete with newer titles, no tampering can be seen from this Sony release. Banding (a slight one at that) is about the only real complaint. Sure, softness does creep in and close-up's never get razor sharp, but it still holds its own amongst other 80's movies. Grain is quite heavy in darker scenes, but is usually tolerable.
> 
> 
> Blacks are bold, but not inky, with only some slight instances of crush. Contrast is also adequate, but also helps give it its dated look. Flesh tones are faithful and colors are natural for the most part. Dimensionality is not its strength, but some do qualify once in a while. No real pop here, folks.
> 
> 
> Overall, another very capable offering by Sony.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.50*
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_



I think you were extremely generous in your review. I was very disappointed in the utter lack of detail and color depth. Frankly, it looked like a DVD. In group scenes (like the tournament) no details could be made out on any of the crowd or even the main characters on screen. The only details that could ever be made out were those in close up, but again, no better than most DVDs, and actually worse than some DVDs I've seen.


The definition of Tier 5 includes, "At various times, the picture quality is hard to distinguish from dvd content." And tier 4 says, "Some Blu-rays in this tier are significant upgrades over the dvd..." By these standards, I'd have to say it falls more in the former category than the latter. Out of respect for one of my favorite movies growing up, I'll split the difference and give it a...

*Tier Recommendation: 4.50*
_JVC RS1, 120" Stewart Grayhawk, 10-12' distance_


On a side note that has nothing to do with PQ, this Blu-Ray includes a new feature called Blu-Pop, where little trivia tidbits and commentary from Ralph Macchio and William Zabka (guy who played Johnny Lawrence) pop up. I thought I'd check out the feature and then go back to normal. Unfortunately, the menu button is disabled while playing the movie, so I had to keep hitting the next chapter button to get all the way to the end in order to start the movie over the right way. Rather pissed me off, frankly.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Tell-Tale*


Simply some of the worst black levels I've ever seen. Muted, flat, ugly during any night scenes, and even some during the day. It's a shame too, because everything else generally performs up to par. Some great facial detail, bright contrast, and fine level of sharpness are great. Not much in the way of encode errors either. Shame.
*Tier 3.0*


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*The Men Who Stare At Goats*


Being lazy on this one... I concur with the *2.0* rating (could even hit 2.25 as far as I am concerned) that it currently has.


----------



## djoberg

*Dear John*


My wife and I just finished watching this "extremely boring" film (the acting is wooden, especially by the male lead) and if it weren't for the pleasing PQ I would have called it quits an hour before it ended.


You know I love blacks and they didn't disappoint; they were VERY DEEP at times with finely-rendered shadow details in night scenes. Colors were natural and vibrant as well, with the exception of scenes overseas where John was serving in the military. They were intentionally muted to suit the war and the sandy landscapes of Afghanistan.


Contrast was good for the most part, but there were a few shots where it was too high resulting in some hot whites. Depth was VERY good in some scenes, but in fairness there were also a few, isolated scenes where it appeared flat. Detail was so-so...facial close-ups did NOT rival those in the top demo tiers (except for shots of John's father, where you could see every fine line and pore on his textured face).


I should add that there was a fine layer of grain throughout that gave it a nice film-like look, though *some* scenes seemed to be grain-free and almost looked like they were shot on a HD Cam.


I was impressed enough with the film's PQ to nominate it for Tier Gold, but its lack of sharpness and detail puts it in the bottom for me, sooooo.....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite BDP-05....Viewed from 7.5'


PS I could easily be persuaded to drop this one notch to 2.0.


----------



## JoeBloggz

Hey guys,

I'm wondering if the variance I see in PQ is a function of non-calibrated panel?

After reading reviews about incredible facial details in certain movies, or black levels or accurate colors in others, sometimes I find it hard to see the same level of PQ as described.

How many of you have had your panel professionally calibrated? And can a properly calibrated display be that much better for BD's?


BTW, I am currently viewing of Pio 111FD via Pio BDP-51FD at 7.5ft.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JoeBloggz* /forum/post/18690626
> 
> 
> Hey guys,
> 
> I'm wondering if the variance I see in PQ is a function of non-calibrated panel?
> 
> After reading reviews about incredible facial details in certain movies, or black levels or accurate colors in others, sometimes I find it hard to see the same level of PQ as described.
> 
> How many of you have had your panel professionally calibrated? And can a properly calibrated display be that much better for BD's?
> 
> 
> BTW, I am currently viewing of Pio 111FD via Pio BDP-51FD at 7.5ft.



I have the Pioneer PRO-151FD which I haven't had calibrated, but in Pure Mode (which *experts* say is nearly perfect regarding grayscale, colors, etc.) I certainly see the "incredible facial details in certain movies," along with excellent black levels and accurate colors. Are you using the Pure Mode? If you are, then I can't imagine why you aren't seeing the same amazing PQ that I see.


I do believe a professional calibration would enhance the viewing experience, but in the case of the Pioneer 111 and 151 they say the improvement would only be around 5-8% (again, this is because the Pure Mode looks so good right out of the box). And the improvement for the Pioneer plasmas would be seen mostly in more depth (marginally), a little better rendering of colors and flesh tones, more pop, and slightly more detail.


----------



## JoeBloggz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18691548
> 
> 
> I have the Pioneer PRO-151FD which I haven't had calibrated, but in Pure Mode (which *experts* say is nearly perfect regarding grayscale, colors, etc.) I certainly see the "incredible facial details in certain movies," along with excellent black levels and accurate colors. Are you using the Pure Mode? If you are, then I can't imagine why you aren't seeing the same amazing PQ that I see.
> 
> 
> I do believe a professional calibration would enhance the viewing experience, but in the case of the Pioneer 111 and 151 they say the improvement would only be around 5-8% (again, this is because the Pure Mode looks so good right out of the box). And the improvement for the Pioneer plasmas would be seen mostly in more depth (marginally), a little better rendering of colors and flesh tones, more pop, and slightly more detail.



I do watch in pure mode and the picture looks fantastic. Don't get me wrong, I think the BD picture on my 111 looks better than any other HDTV I have ever seen.

Recently I've read how a pro calibration can produce dramatic improvements. Maybe the improvements are more on paper than to the plain eye. I am looking for "more pop, and slightly more detail", as you say. I just want my 111 to look the best it can and an overwhelming number of people say get it calibrated


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Road*


Ugly film... really ugly. Done mostly in a gray scale with brown being the dominate color. Very little texture or detail to speak of. No depth either. It is intentional, but the furthest thing from eye candy. Some really nasty edge enhancement is a real distraction too.

*Tier 4.0*


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JoeBloggz* /forum/post/18691984
> 
> 
> Recently I've read how a pro calibration can produce dramatic improvements. Maybe the improvements are more on paper than to the plain eye. I am looking for "more pop, and slightly more detail", as you say. I just want my 111 to look the best it can and an overwhelming number of people say get it calibrated



A professional calibration is really needed if one is a videophile that wants to squeeze every possible ounce of resolution and color fidelity from a display. But the reports of "dramatic" improvement is a marketing exaggeration designed to sell the service. The difference between using the published settings on the Internet, and a full calibration with a colorimeter by a user who knows what they are doing, is at most five to seven percent. Obviously a professional calibration will be a dramatic improvement over the factory settings out of the box, but I would hope anyone reading this thread is not using the default factory settings.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JoeBloggz* /forum/post/18691984
> 
> 
> I do watch in pure mode and the picture looks fantastic. Don't get me wrong, I think the BD picture on my 111 looks better than any other HDTV I have ever seen.
> 
> Recently I've read how a pro calibration can produce dramatic improvements. Maybe the improvements are more on paper than to the plain eye. I am looking for "more pop, and slightly more detail", as you say. I just want my 111 to look the best it can and an overwhelming number of people say get it calibrated



If you want it to look as best as it can, a pro calibration is the way to go. Not that I speak from actual experience, but even using the DVE blu ray disc I was able to improve the quality on my TV. I live up in the arctic, the cost of getting a pro calibrator up here would likely equal the cost of my set, so it's not feasible for me to do, but I wish I could! It just sounds as though this is something that is important to you.


----------



## JoeBloggz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18692770
> 
> 
> A professional calibration is really needed if one is a videophile that wants to squeeze every possible ounce of resolution and color fidelity from a display. But the reports of "dramatic" improvement is a marketing exaggeration designed to sell the service. The difference between using the published settings on the Internet, and a full calibration with a colorimeter by a user who knows what they are doing, is at most five to seven percent. Obviously a professional calibration will be a dramatic improvement over the factory settings out of the box, but I would hope anyone reading this thread is not using the default factory settings.



Five to seven percent? Really? $400 to $500(typical cost of a pro cal) seems a bit steep for five to seven percent improvement. I'm not using default settings. I'm using pure mode tweaked to my preference.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JoeBloggz* /forum/post/18693079
> 
> 
> Five to seven percent? Really? $400 to $500(typical cost of a pro cal) seems a bit steep for five to seven percent improvement. I'm not using default settings. *I'm using pure mode tweaked to my preference.*



I too have *tweaked* the settings in Pure Mode. I use the settings recommended by a professional calibrator on the Forum (his name is D-Nice and is very well-known). They are the best you can get short of a pro calibration.


I do agree with Phantom though that the improvement will only be 5% or a little better (I had said the same thing in my previous response to you). I believe where you would notice the most difference is in the "pop" that the ISF Modes will give you. Some have said that the Pure Mode is rather dull in comparison (I can hardly believe that though, for I have plenty of pop in Pure Mode on most source material).


----------



## Fanaticalism




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18692770
> 
> 
> A professional calibration is really needed if one is a videophile that wants to squeeze every possible ounce of resolution and color fidelity from a display. But the reports of "dramatic" improvement is a marketing exaggeration designed to sell the service. The difference between using the published settings on the Internet, and a full calibration with a colorimeter by a user who knows what they are doing, is at most five to seven percent. Obviously a professional calibration will be a dramatic improvement over the factory settings out of the box, but I would hope anyone reading this thread is not using the default factory settings.



The problem with this statement Phantom is that it is a bit of a sweeping generalization. One will not know what kind of improvement a calibration will yield over settings posted on the net on ones display until measurements have been taken. Many displays will stray very far from target with prefixed settings as was the case with quite a few 151s. My set personally was one of many that was +G and did not look very good with D-Nice' settings' and measured that way with my colorimeter. His updated settings were obviously an improvement but gamma and grayscale were still off.


That being said, D-Nice' settings are the exception and not a rule as they are very different from others settings that have been taken and measured by novices who do not fully understand what the meter may be telling them. Measurements with these devices may be telling them that they are accurate but without understanding the limitations of both their equipment and or ability can in many cases do more harm than good. Also, one can enjoy these "unprofessional" settings, but it is purely subjective without knowing for sure or having a reference for what an accurate display should look like.


I guess what I am trying to say that is by stating "he difference between using the published settings on the Internet, and a full calibration with a colorimeter by a user who knows what they are doing, is at most five to seven percent" is purely untrue. As an example, look at C-nets settings for displays that D-Nice also provides settings for. They can and have in many cases been very different. Does your 5-7% improvement still apply without knowing for sure who is further off track? I mean, they are both on the internet, so they must be correct, no?


----------



## fafner

Everone should be aware that professional calibration sets values to ones that have been determined by someone else, and may in fact have little or no relation to how the calibrated set looks to you.

People do not necessarily have the same perception of how colors should look as do the ones who set the standards.


Before spending the money for such an expesive service I would recommend you look AVS and you will find lots of recommended settings for just about every TV. Use some of these settings as your starting point and see how the colors look to you. And then experiment to see if you can find something that looks better to you. After all this is not rocket science...it is simply you finding a grouping of settings that meet your preference for PQ. The only time I would consider professional calibration is if I thought the set was somehow deficient and not producing the color that was promised by the mnfgs specs.


fafner


----------



## deltasun

*It's Complicated*


This one's eye candy at its finest, with very minor issues (to be covered later). Colors are vivid but natural. Details are probably the biggest driver for PQ bliss, from sweeping panoramas to medium shots that fill the screen with sundry, everyday items. Most indoor shots, particularly in Ms. Streep's house, are ripe with little knick-knacks that almost take a life of their own.


Skin tones remain faithful throughout. Blacks are bold and deep, with just minimal crushing (first issue). Contrast is strong and engaging, which offers most medium shots 3D pop. Check out Alec Baldwin's wife when she's first introduced. You almost don't need 3D glasses to see her leap off the screen!


The only other gripe would be facial details (second issue). While there are a good number of shots, with perfect lighting, that exhibit strong details, they are not as prominent as they should be given the quality of the other characteristics. The thin layer of grain adds the desired filmic look.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## 42041

I don't think calibration is about looking "good". It's about your display adhering to a standard rather that displaying some arbitrary image that has no relation to what the filmmaker wanted.


I think the differences between individual panels of the same TV (unless they switch the panel during production) are greatly exaggerated and for the average user, anyone's calibrated settings will get them close enough for non color critical work. Obviously it's in the interest of calibrators to disagree with that. I think it's just FUD myself. My TV looks, for all reasonable intents and purposes, the same as what the Sony 4K projectors throw on the screen at my local cinema.


----------



## fafner




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/18695426
> 
> 
> I don't think calibration is about looking "good". It's about your display adhering to a standard rather that displaying some arbitrary image that has no relation to what the filmmaker wanted.
> 
> 
> I think the differences between individual panels of the same TV (unless they switch the panel during production) are greatly exaggerated and for the average user, anyone's calibrated settings will get them close enough for non color critical work. Obviously it's in the interest of calibrators to disagree with that. I think it's just FUD myself. My TV looks, for all reasonable intents and purposes, the same as what the Sony 4K projectors throw on the screen at my local cinema.



Agreed.


fafner


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Dear John*


Agree with everything Djoberg said, but will add a slightly processed look to some close-ups, and detail was marginal/inconsistent in my eyes.

*Tier 2.0*


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fanaticalism* /forum/post/18695364
> 
> 
> That being said, D-Nice' settings are the exception and not a rule as they are very different from others settings that have been taken and measured by novices who do not fully understand what the meter may be telling them. Measurements with these devices may be telling them that they are accurate but without understanding the limitations of both their equipment and or ability can in many cases do more harm than good. Also, one can enjoy these "unprofessional" settings, but it is purely subjective without knowing for sure or having a reference for what an accurate display should look like.
> 
> 
> I guess what I am trying to say that is by stating "he difference between using the published settings on the Internet, and a full calibration with a colorimeter by a user who knows what they are doing, is at most five to seven percent" is purely untrue. As an example, look at C-nets settings for displays that D-Nice also provides settings for. They can and have in many cases been very different. Does your 5-7% improvement still apply without knowing for sure who is further off track? I mean, they are both on the internet, so they must be correct, no?



That estimate is a ballpark figure of course, but one that I am comfortable with in giving. I am not disavowing professional calibration, but giving my opinion on when it is needed. Honestly, as a display ages, the most demanding videophiles should probably re-calibrate their display every six to eighteen months, depending on usage and other factors. Different published settings from credible posters may differ slightly in appearance, but the margin is not that drastic.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fanaticalism* /forum/post/18695364
> 
> 
> The problem with this statement Phantom is that it is a bit of a sweeping generalization. One will not know what kind of improvement a calibration will yield over settings posted on the net on ones display until measurements have been taken.



I'm going to jump in here to say that when I referred to a pro calibration on a Pioneer KURO only improving the PQ by 5% or a little better I was basing this on what professional calibrators _themselves_ have told me. I figure if they are bold enough to make such a statement (which may perhaps dissuade a potential customer from using their services) there must be a measure of truth in it. And let me add that the two calibrators I spoke to have also worked on quite a few KUROs, so they obviously know what they're dealing with.


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/18695426
> 
> 
> I don't think calibration is about looking "good". It's about your display adhering to a standard rather that displaying some arbitrary image that has no relation to what the filmmaker wanted.



Exactly, pro-calibration should be about getting it correct not about looking "good". In the end, these should be the same thing, but the default settings and even our own aesthetics usually don't start out that way.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18698904
> 
> 
> I'm going to jump in here to say that when I referred to a pro calibration on a Pioneer KURO only improving the PQ by 5% or a little better I was basing this on what professional calibrators _themselves_ have told me. I figure if they are bold enough to make such a statement (which may perhaps dissuade a potential customer from using their services) there must be a measure of truth in it. And let me add that the two calibrators I spoke to have also worked on quite a few KUROs, so they obviously know what they're dealing with.



That makes a lot of sense and it seems to me you can get 95% of the way there yourself just by turning off any sharpening, denoising, or other filtering that might've been turned on, picking the set's most accurate default color mode and spending an hour or so with some test patterns to get the contrast and brightness balanced correctly, then *maybe* touching up the colors slightly if they are noticeably off.


Dialing in perfectly accurate colors to the best of a display's ability is a separate issue and can be pretty much impossible to do yourself without the proper equipment and training which is true value of pro-calibration IMHO.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/18699266
> 
> 
> Exactly, pro-calibration should be about getting it correct not about looking "good". In the end, these should be the same thing, but the default settings and even *our own aesthetics usually don't start out that way.*
> 
> 
> That makes a lot of sense and it seems to me you can get 95% of the way there yourself just by turning off any sharpening, denoising, or other filtering that might've been turned on, picking the set's most accurate default color mode and spending an hour or so with some test patterns to get the contrast and brightness balanced correctly, then *maybe* touching up the colors slightly if they are noticeably off.
> 
> 
> Dialing in perfectly accurate colors to the best of a display's ability is a separate issue and can be pretty much impossible to do yourself without the proper equipment and training which is true value of pro-calibration IMHO.



Regarding the highlighted words in the first paragraph...HOW TRUE! I believe most of us, in our "pre-HD days," were accustomed more or less to either the *torch* mode or perhaps the standard mode with settings still too high. If I can speak for others....we all had to develop a taste for a more natural look.


I absolutely believe your next point to be true as well, especially if you have a set that is relatively accurate in one of its viewing modes. This is *usually* the Movie Mode, but in my case Pioneer really hit one out of the park with its Elite models that provide the Pure Mode. Not only do you have a fairly accurate grayscale and colors, but the ability to tweak it in every area is almost endless. I can't imagine my picture looking better than let's say 5-8%, and again this seems to be the consensus among calibrators for this set.


----------



## Fanaticalism

Don't disagree with anything said here, Agreed on all fronts.


----------



## JoeBloggz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18699435
> 
> 
> Regarding the highlighted words in the first paragraph...HOW TRUE! I believe most of us, in our "pre-HD days," were accustomed more or less to either the *torch* mode or perhaps the standard mode with settings still too high. If I can speak for others....we all had to develop a taste for a more natural look.
> 
> 
> I absolutely believe your next point to be true as well, especially if you have a set that is relatively accurate in one of its viewing modes. This is *usually* the Movie Mode, but in my case Pioneer really hit one out of the park with its Elite models that provide the Pure Mode. Not only do you have a fairly accurate grayscale and colors, but the ability to tweak it in every area is almost endless. I can't imagine my picture looking better than let's say 5-8%, and again this seems to be the consensus among calibrators for this set.



I started out using D-Nice pure mode setting as well, then tweaked a little bit to my liking. I'm thinking maybe I will try default pure mode and tweak from there and then see if I can see discernable difference.


----------



## 30XS955 User

Can we open this back up to voting now that HD DVD is dead and the chances of sabotage by hold-outs of the format war are remote?


----------



## tfoltz

I don't see a problem with the current procedure as long as the volunteer who takes the time to tabulate the scores is willing to do so (Phantom right now). I would be in favor of voting if he gets tired of doing so and if we have no capable volunteers.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/18702632
> 
> 
> I don't see a problem with the current procedure as long as the volunteer who takes the time to tabulate the scores is willing to do so (Phantom right now). I would be in favor of voting if he gets tired of doing so and if we have no capable volunteers.



Good points.


As someone who opposed blind voting from the beginning, the format war was definitely one reason for doing so, but there are others as well. This includes equipment that people are viewing on and other factors.


One argument that could be made in favor of voting, however, is that I believe that it would result in many more people participating. This is a plus. The negative is that you will have people voting who have little to no understanding of what the criteria for placement of titles is for purposes of this thread.


I do agree though that simple voting would also make it much easier for someone to manage the placements.


However, it would be difficult to set up the voting. AVS will *not* allow separate threads to be created to vote on each individual title. We've been down that road before.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18702847
> 
> 
> The negative is that you will have people voting who have little to no understanding of what the criteria for placement of titles is for purposes of this thread.



In my thinking Rob that is one BIG negative. Add to that the fact that with a simple vote one is not required (at all) to state WHY they voted as they did. I was quite active in the old HD DVD thread, which had the simple voting system, and after starting to post on the Blu-ray thread I was spoiled. I love the interaction there is between members as we *try* to determine a consensus on a title by stating why we recommend a specific placement. With a voting system that interaction would be virtually eliminated.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I am not in favor of a voting system for most cases. I do think movies of significant interest to a multitude of contributors, like Avatar, would probably work better under a voting system. The idea of putting up the top few titles in tier zero to a vote has crossed my mind. We do want to reflect the will of Blu-ray users, or the entire list loses some credibility.


Voting would not save me any time. The bulk of the labor is data entry and researching for specifications. That is something which if it could be automated or spread out, would save me incalculable effort.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18703086
> 
> 
> In my thinking Rob that is one BIG negative. Add to that the fact that with a simple vote one is not required (at all) to state WHY they voted as they did. I was quite active in the old HD DVD thread, which had the simple voting system, and after starting to post on the Blu-ray thread I was spoiled. I love the interaction there is between members as we *try* to determine a consensus on a title by stating why we recommend a specific placement. With a voting system that interaction would be virtually eliminated.



Couldn't agree more.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Night in Rodanthe*


Flat photography is not aided by a low bitrate Warner encode. The entire film looks a tad processed and digital, with barely any grain to take note of (and yes, it was shot on film). Colors are flat, and detail is minimal, but still there. There is a lack of precision to the long shots of the beach.

*Tier 2.75*


----------



## 42041

*Deliverance*


This 1972 film is represented on the format by an underwhelming early Warner blu-ray, featuring only a lossy 5.1 audio remix, and the usual low bitrate VC1. The video transfer itself isn't bad for a 40 year old film, once you get past the opening credits. It looks natural and film-like. As is the case with most anamorphic films made before they perfected the lenses (i'd guess mid-80s/90s?), the image tends to be hazy, but the resolution of fine detail is satisfactory. The colors are faded, and black levels are weak. There's the obnoxious fake twilight sequence, which looks worse than I remember it on DVD... I really don't understand why they chose to do that in a movie otherwise free of obvious fakery.

*Tier 3.5*


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*My Sister's Keeper*


My wife had been wanting to watch this, so we finally got around to it. She started the movie without me, so the opening title sequence had already passed before I started watching, so I didn't know who the studio was.


It didn't take long for me to guess that this was very likely a Warner title. Soft, soft and soft. Also, colors were very poor, with a smeared appearance.


Contrast was never something that excelled, and the image was very flat overall.


Things seemed to improve a bit in the second half of the movie, but not by a lot.


Sure enough, this is a New Line title.


The movie was ok, but I did have some problems with it. Cameron Diaz is absolutely horribly cast in this film.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.5*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

The Tiers are once again thoroughly updated through this post.


Fantastic Mr. Fox - .5 Gamereviewgod, .25 42041, 0 below Monsters, Inc. deltasun


A Nightmare On Elm Street (1984) - 2.0 Gamereviewgod


Terminator 2 (Skynet) - 3.5 Gamereviewgod


The Dark Knight - bottom of 0 djoberg


Crazy Heart - 2.5 Gamereviewgod


Ninja Assassin - 1.0 deltasun, 1.25 Rob Tomlin, 1.0 djoberg


Where The Wild Things Are - 3.0 deltasun


The Informant - 3.75 deltasun


Law Abiding Citizen - 2.0 deltasun


Collateral - 3.25 deltasun, 3.0 Rob Tomlin


Minority Report - 1.75 Mr.G, 2.75 deltasun, 2.5 jedimasterchad, 1.75 Rob Tomlin


The Lovely Bones - 1.0 Vegaz, 1.75 djoberg


Avatar - 0(1) Vegaz, .5 Gamereviewgod, 0(1) DavidML3, 0(1) HDphile22, 0(1) Ozymandis, .5 Sujay, 0(1) palofex, 0(top 5) deltasun, 0(1) geekyglassesgirl, 0(top quarter) 42041, 0(1) djoberg, 0(1) Milt99, 0(1) Rob Tomlin, 0(1) tfoltz, 0(1) jedimasterchad, 0(above Coraline) CrispyMyth, 0(1) Hughmc, 0 hernanu, 0(1) QueueCumber, 0(1) Lestat Phoenix, 0(middle) 30XS955 User, 0(1) Fanaticalism, 0(1) Toe, 0(1) jutang, 0 below Cars Incindium


Vexille - 2.0 Ozymandis


2012 - 2.0 Rob Tomlin


The Blind Side - 2.25 Rob Tomlin


Can't Hardly Wait - 3.75 Phantom Stranger


The Duchess - 1.75 Phantom Stranger


Ink - 4.5 deltasun


The Fourth Kind - 1.75 djoberg


Pandorum - 2.25 Phantom Stranger


Ong Bak 2 - 4.75 Gamereviewgod


Armored - 1.5 deltasun


Public Enemies - 2.75 deltasun


Total Recall (UK) - 3.5 Phantom Stranger


It's Complicated - 1.5 Gamereviewgod, 1.25 djoberg, 1.25 deltasun


Wedding Crashers - 3.5 Phantom Stranger


The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus - 1.75 jedimasterchad, 3.5 Gamereviewgod, 3.0 deltasun, 2.5 Hughmc


Africa's Elephant Kingdom (IMAX) - 2.5 Phantom Stranger


Preacher's Kid - 1.75 Gamereviewgod


Sherlock Holmes - 2.5 deltasun, 2.5 Phantom Stranger


The Collector - 3.5 deltasun, 4.0 djoberg


The Rocker - 1.5 deltasun


The Young Victoria - 1.75 OldCodger73


A Serious Man - .5 deltasun


Moon - 2.75 Gamereviewgod


Close Encounters of the Third Kind - 3.5 Gamereviewgod


Leap Year - .5 Gamereviewgod, 1.0 djoberg, 2.25 geekyglassesgirl


Nine - 2.75 deltasun


Tooth Fairy - 1.75 Gamereviewgod


Twilight: New Moon - 1.75 42041


Saving Private Ryan - 1.75 Hughmc, 2.0 jedimasterchad, 2.25 deltasun, 2.25 OldCodger73, 1.75 djoberg, 2.25 Rob Tomlin, 1.75 Gamereviewgod


Lucky Number Slevin - 1.5 Phantom Stranger


Who: Isle Of Wight - 4.0 Hughmc


Boondock Saints 2 - 2.25 djoberg, 3.0 Rob Tomlin


District 9 - 1.5/1.75 djoberg


Doctor Zhivago - 3.25 OldCodger73


The Matrix - 2.5 tfoltz


HP: Half-blood Prince - 2.0 tfoltz


Edge Of Darkness - 2.75 Gamereviewgod


Gamer - 1.0 djoberg


The Stepfather - 2.0 djoberg


Universal Soldier Regeneration - 2.0 Gamereviewgod


Apollo 13 - 4.0 Gamereviewgod


K-19: The Widowmaker - 2.75 deltasun


The Notebook - 3.5 deltasun


Star Trek (2009) - 1.75 Phantom Stranger, 1.5 tfoltz


Hardware - 3.5 Gamereviewgod


Legion - 2.0 Gamereviewgod


Daybreakers - 2.75 Gamereviewgod


The Edge - 2.25 deltasun


Red Cliff: Part 1(international version) - 1.0 42041


Amelia - 2.5 Rob Tomlin


Angels & Demons - 2.0 geekyglassesgirl


Knowing - 1.5 geekyglassesgirl


Red Cliff: Part 2(international version) - 1.0 42041


Fletch - 4.5 Gamereviewgod


The Spy Next Door - 2.25 Gamereviewgod, 3.0 Deltasun


Extraordinary Measures - 3.0 Gamereviewgod, 3.5 deltasun


Invictus - 1.5/1.75 djoberg, 1.75 Gamereviewgod


The New Daughter - 1.75 djoberg, 3.25 Gamereviewgod


The Messenger - 3.0 Gamereviewgod, 3.25 djoberg


The Karate Kid - 3.5 deltasun, 4.5 dla26


Chocolate - 2.75 Phantom Stranger


Valentine's Day - 2.5 Gamereviewgod


Postal - 1.25 Phantom Stranger


Elektra - 2.75 deltasun


Rachel Getting Married - 3.5 42401


Ponyo - 1.0 geekyglassesgirl


Hamlet (BBC) - 2.0 geekyglassesgirl


Tale of Despereaux - 0 above 9 deltasun


Jerry Maguire - 4.5 n64ra


Tidal Wave - 2.75 Gamereviewgod


Tell-Tale - 3.0 Gamereviewgod


The Men Who Stare At Goats - 2.0/2.25 geekyglassesgirl


Dear John - 1.75 djoberg, 2.0 Gamereviewgod


The Road - 4.0 Gamereviewgod


Night In Rodanthe - 2.75 Gamereviewgod


Deliverance - 3.5 42041


My Sister's Keeper - 3.5 Rob Tomlin


----------



## Gamereviewgod

Thanks Phantom!

*Starship Troopers*


This one sits in Tier 2.0, which seems about right, but seems better suited a bit lower. Some scenes exhibit some heavy edge enhancement ( http://media.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray...hot-lrg-14.png ), possibly a result of the effects. Flesh tones are pasty, marginally processed. Some nice detail though, along with great blacks.

*Tier 2.25*


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*Duplicity*



Some quotes:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17199110
> 
> *Duplicity*
> 
> 
> This is one NICE-LOOKING transfer!! I don't believe I have anything negative to report, other than the first one or two scenes didn't seem quite as sharp as the remainder of the film.
> 
> 
> I LOVED the blacks; they were as inky as I've seen lately with ultra-fine shadow details on top of that. When I say "inky" black, I'm not just referring to night time skies, but to clothes, cars, and other objects as well. If your HDTV does blacks well, you will be pleased!
> 
> 
> Colors were vibrant, natural-looking, and really popped at times. This movie took place in MANY places all over the world (Rome, London, Bahamas, New York, etc.) and the director made sure they were all picturesque and colorful scenes. What a treat!
> 
> 
> Flesh tones were excellent, and facial close-ups were usually around the high Tier 1 mark. In some close-ups they crossed over to Tier Blu territory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Detail and depth were very good as well with a lot of 3D pop to satisfy those of us who are not easily satisfied. Let me just say there were a few scenes where I was completely satiated!!
> 
> 
> Contrast was strong (i.e., well-balanced). I didn't notice any crushed blacks or over-blown whites.
> 
> 
> This is one CLEAN and SHARP transfer that I would be proud to use as a demo for my family and friends. I can't really say it's reference quality though, for it was still lacking a bit in facial details, but all-in-all it's still worthy of a high Tier 1 placement. So, I would naturally put it right here....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.0*
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17199417
> 
> 
> This movie was so horrifyingly bad (my wife even hated it!) that I would never consider putting it on for demo material....not to mention the fact that I didn't think it looked nearly as good as you did.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17199584
> 
> 
> Well, I was very much with you on Coraline, so those cataracts must have come on in the last week!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really, this was a mid Tier 2 movie at best, imo.




Okay, I'm with Rob Tomlin on this one. It's hilarious b/c when I searched out the previous reviews, Denny & I were on the exact same page with regards to X-Men Origins: Wolverine! I know our plasmas are similar, Kuro vs Panny.



Now, this movie's PQ did get slightly stronger oh after the first hour or so, but aside from the extreme closeups (which I do agree with Denny did cross into the Tier 0 category), detail was extremely lacking throughout this film.


Facial details were completely lacking, especially on Julia Roberts; textures were minimal at best, and I thought the black levels left a lot to be desired if anyone was wearing black clothing (a scene with Julia in a black outfit comes to mind) it was completely devoid of detail.


I don't know what the reason would be for lack of detail, it didn't seem like it was overly soft, yet there was no detail. Perhaps because lately when I'm seeing something soft I feel like there's a haze over it, which this movie did not have, and whenever something was close up, the PQ completely changed and was extremely well-done.


In the end, the PQ was just all over the place for me, with the down side of it being too much for the positives of the close ups to drag it out of the tier 2 category; in fact if it was not for how well done the close ups were done, as they are the only redeeming quality in this film PQ-wise, this film would drop down even farther for me.


*Recommendation for Duplicity: Tier 2.5*
*Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800U, THX setting, approximately 7.5' viewing distance.*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Once (UK import)


recommendation: Tier 4.5*


A wonderful and charming movie, the 2007 movie was not released in the U.S. on Blu-ray. Fox did release the Irish film on dvd here, but neglected it on the best format. British distributor Icon saw fit to make it a region-free BD in February of 2009, that will play on any American player. The 86-minute main feature is encoded in AVC on a BD-25. Once's average video bitrate is 24.99 Mbps. The low-budget origins of the production prevents a lofty placement, but the BD is by far the best version available of this movie and showcases a stirring lossless soundtrack that the DVD simply can't match.

_Once_ was shot using a Sony 1080i HDV prosumer camera, which makes the native resolution of the movie less than the typical film seen on Blu-ray. Close-ups show little more detail than upscaled standard-definition video, though daylight scenes display nice contrast and clarity. There are problems in the few low-light scenes. Heavy macroblocking and noise manifests near the end of the recording session, when the main characters play the piano in the dark. A few shots exhibit aliasing and moiré patterning, but nothing that is overwhelmingly intrusive to the picture quality.


The video compression is okay and holds up well during most scenes, but does meet difficulties during the darkest scenes as noted previously. It is hard to separate where the limitations of the source material end, and the problems of the transfer begin. My impression is that the transfer is a very faithful and accurate rendition of the master. But one should not forgot that the movie was a low-budget, independent production. Saying that, the BD deserves a placement somewhere in tier four. Knowing it was shot at less than 1080p resolution guides me to the bottom rung of that tier. Anyone that wants to see a sweet story with a stellar soundtrack should check it out, preferably on Blu-ray.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of lfletcher):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...7#post15864397


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/18706662
> 
> *Duplicity*
> 
> *Okay, I'm with Rob Tomlin on this one*. It's hilarious b/c when I searched out the previous reviews, Denny & I were on the exact same page with regards to X-Men Origins: Wolverine! I know our plasmas are similar, Kuro vs Panny.
> 
> *Recommendation for Duplicity: Tier 2.5*
> *Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800U, THX setting, approximately 7.5’ viewing distance.*



I'm also in good company on this one with these three: Hugh (1.0)...Deltasun (1.25)...and selimsivad (1.0)


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^


As always, GOOD JOB Phantom!! Don't ever think you're not appreciated.


----------



## deltasun

*The Young Victoria*


Overall, a pleasing presentation from Sony. Blacks are stable, with no instances of crushing. Details can be excellent, such as during Victoria's coronation - every person in the wide shot is clearly discernible. Details can also be found in the textures of the meticulously woven garbs. Colors are vivid and natural, as evidenced in the sapphire stones donned by Queen Victoria.


Facial details are very good, but not excellent. This is where the film could have really pushed the envelope, but did not. The lighting, angles, and close-up's produced just-below-reference facial details. Softness, in general, also permeated the feature. These were seemingly arbitrary. Though one rule of thumb is that outdoor scenes were easily half a tier or more better than indoors. Some of those, in my opinion, even skirted into Tier 0 territory.


Overall, I agree with OldCodger's assessment to a tee.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

Thanks, Phantom....as always!


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Milt99* /forum/post/18707072
> 
> 
> I think everyone posting on this thread should take this test and post their results.
> http://www.xrite.com/custom_page.aspx?PageID=77
> 
> 
> I scored 0, i.e., Perfect Color Acuity.



Except you need a color calibrated monitor to do it on...so, it's not happening on my laptop.


----------



## Mr.G

*Tombstone*


One of my favorite westerns so it was heartbreaking to see Disney give this title such a substandard BD authoring. Right off the bat you could tell something was seriously wrong with this title as the picture and colors were too dark (I saw this in the theater in 1993 and don't remember it looking anything like this) and certainly darker than the DVD. The black crush is quite apparent and all detail is lost. The panoramic western scenes which should have looked amazing were dark and lacking in detail. There is some apparent DNR, slight EE and ringing at times but there were a few instances where the picture looked like what a BD should look like. Either this film needs a complete restoration or someone totally incompetent was involved in the mastering to BD.

*Tier Recommendation 3.75*


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Duplicity may very well be the biggest head scratcher for me in this entire thread in terms of how many people gave it such high marks for PQ.










Glad to see GGG "saw it" my way.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Starship Troopers 2*

Shot dirt cheap and digitally, this one suffers from extensive noise and almost no light. Blacks are okay, but it severely limits detail. A few dream sequences look like they're from a VHS. Just ugly all around.

*Tier 4.5*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18708697
> 
> 
> Duplicity may very well be the biggest head scratcher for me in this entire thread in terms of how many people gave it such high marks for PQ.



FWIW, I just checked Cinema Squid's site and there were several "professional" reviewers who gave it a little above average rating (with a few offering some glowing remarks in their commentary, including our own Gamereviewgod). So, this one is a "head scratcher" for me too.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18708937
> 
> 
> FWIW, I just checked Cinema Squid's site and there were quite a few "professional" reviewers who only gave it an average rating (though there was a small percentage who gave it a high rating with glowing remarks, including our own Gamereviewgod). So, this one is a "head scratcher" for me too.




I think there's enough to go on to give this one a second look. Any specific scenes that seem particularly bothersome?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18708965
> 
> 
> I think there's enough to go on to give this one a second look. Any specific scenes that seem particularly bothersome?



Actually....I was NOT bothered by ANY scenes! I said it was a "head scratcher" too because unlike Rob and G3 I thought it was a very good transfer and I'm somewhat surprised it didn't get better reviews from the "pros." That being said, their reviews weren't bad, just a bit above average. My take on it was much more in line with the one you gave on your website.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18709127
> 
> 
> Actually....I was NOT bothered by ANY scenes! I said it was a "head scratcher" too because unlike Rob and G3 I thought it was a very good transfer and I'm somewhat surprised it didn't get better reviews from the "pros." That being said, their reviews weren't bad, just a bit above average. My take on it was much more in line with the one you gave on your website.



.....and my recommendation for Tier 2.5 would seem to perfectly correlate with those "pro" reviews in terms of being "a bit above average".


Nothing special.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18708965
> 
> 
> I think there's enough to go on to give this one a second look. Any specific scenes that seem particularly bothersome?




It felt to me like most scenes that were not extremely close up were almost devoid of the sort of details and textures that would be necessary to warrant a placement of tier 2.0 and above. There were even some scenes that should have been glossy, but simply fell flat (like... cars covered in water, with puddles around, I have that in my memory thinking that it should have been glossy but it simply wasn't, but I can't remember exactly when that part was in the movie).



I can only call it as I see it; I'm not seeking to discredit anyone else's reviews on anything, so I hope no one thinks that is the case here. On my Panasonic TH-58PZ800U, using THX setting and the ghetto "calibration" I've done with DVE, with my eyes using my glasses







from 7.5' away, my review is what I saw.


----------



## Ozymandis

A Serious Man- finally got around to picking this up. Kind of a strange movie, wasn't what I expected at all. What a gutless turd the protagonist was.


As far as PQ, it was a mixed bag. Some of the close-ups and shots were very good, detailed, nice colors. Other shots were blurry and lacked detail, in particular towards the beginning and there was a dream scene forest shot that was just so soft. There were also instances of blown-out contrast.


I'd put it around Tier 1.75, like I said, it was inconsistent PQ-wise.


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18709803
> 
> 
> .....and my recommendation for Tier 2.5 would seem to perfectly correlate with those "pro" reviews in terms of being "a bit above average".



Although it may not mean too much (because of different evaluation criteria), I think the closest approximation of the PQ tiers to most review scores can be had by scaling onto a 50-100 point scale as follows:

_score = 100 - (tier * 10)_


So, for example, Tier 0 is 100-91 (5.0-4.5 stars), Tier 1 is 90-81 (4.5-4.0 stars), Tier 2 is 80-71 (4.0-3.5 stars), ..., Tier 5 is


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/18710479
> 
> 
> Although it may not mean too much (because of different evaluation criteria), I think the closest approximation of the PQ tiers to most review scores can be had by scaling onto a 50-100 point scale as follows:
> 
> _score = 100 - (tier * 10)_
> 
> 
> So, for example, Tier 0 is 100-91 (5.0-4.5 stars), Tier 1 is 90-81 (4.5-4.0 stars), Tier 2 is 80-71 (4.0-3.5 stars), ..., Tier 5 is


----------



## Rob Tomlin

BTW, Squid, I see that you just posted a bunch of captures from the 3 Pirate movies. I think those caps of the original film help prove that it still holds up extremely well, and is still deserving of a Tier 0 placement.


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18710748
> 
> 
> I think it is probably a bit less accurate in the top tier too (tier 0), as I don't think that a score of 4.5, for example, would equate to a Tier 0 title here.



Probably so, although for something to score above 90 in aggregate you are looking at quite a large proportion of "perfect" reviews. It is still only a rough approximation, however, since obviously the criteria here is narrower and more well-defined than that employed by most reviewers and things like Criterions and classic titles that haven't been clearly botched will usually score much higher in the reviewer world than they do here (nothing wrong with that).



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18710759
> 
> 
> BTW, Squid, I see that you just posted a bunch of captures from the 3 Pirate movies. I think those caps of the original film help prove that it still holds up extremely well, and is still deserving of a Tier 0 placement.



Agreed. I did find it interesting flipping through all three back-to-back this weekend how the color scheme for the first movie was slightly richer and warmer as compared to the sequels which often tended towards a more steely look. The sequels do perhaps have a bit more detail, however all three still look quite fantastic I think.


----------



## deltasun

*Edge of Darkness*


I can't remember the last time I've witnessed such variance in facial details. Gibson generally had above average details (really showing his age), but most others seemed smoothed over. Perfect example is the round table discussion towards the end. Had it not been for the grain, I would have cried foul. Regardless of if it's through scrubbing or just the nature of its filming, it's bad and degrades the PQ.


This film had plenty of dark scenes and as such blacks were well-represented. Slight crushing did show up in a few scenes. Contrast was strong throughout and produced some decent examples of dimensionality - usually outdoors. Speaking of which, outdoor scenes in broad daylight yielded the best results. The scene between Gibson and Winstone with the Boston skyline as a backdrop skirted Tier 1 territory. On the other hand, the inside of Gibson's house had a warm quality to it that produced offsetting colors. Flesh tones were mostly faithful, but some scenes did exhibit a reddish hue. Colors, when in full display, were vibrant. Again, most of the outdoor scenes showed lush greens and intense pastels.


Though grain was thinly layered, there was a scene or two where it appeared as noise. A slight bit of banding around the moon was noted. This could have been a solid Silver-tiered film, but the facial inconsistency drops it down for me.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75*


This was a slow developing story. In the end, I felt I should have gotten more for sitting through its developing stages.









_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18708937
> 
> 
> FWIW, I just checked Cinema Squid's site and there were several "professional" reviewers who gave it a little above average rating (with a few offering some glowing remarks in their commentary, including our own Gamereviewgod). So, this one is a "head scratcher" for me too.



I may have to watch this again at some point. I just remember it being _The International_-light and knocked it down a quarter to a half tier.


I think our discrepancy with Rob for this title is similar to the same type of discrepancy for _Revolutionary Road_.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18711225
> 
> 
> I may have to watch this again at some point. I just remember it being _The International_-light and knocked it down a quarter to a half tier.
> 
> 
> I think our discrepancy with Rob for this title is similar to the same type of discrepancy for _Revolutionary Road_.



You aroused my curiosity so I just did a Search on _Revolutionary Road_ and it turns out there were 4 of us recommending Tier 1 (with an average of 1.25) and Rob was alone in recommending 2.75. That is quite the discrepancy!


----------



## djoberg

I watched _Avatar_ for the second time yesterday and even though I noticed a couple more *soft* shots than during my first viewing I was still absolutely blown away by the majority of the movie (including the non-cgi live action shots) and will definitely stick to my *top of Tier Blu* recommendation.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/18711002
> 
> 
> Probably so, although for something to score above 90 in aggregate you are looking at quite a large proportion of "perfect" reviews.



Very good point.


----------



## lgans316

Quick recommendations based on viewing in my tiny Samsung LE40B650:

*Avatar - Above or below I,Robot in Tier-0*

*The Lovely Bones - Below Hot Fuzz in Tier-0* - Can't believe Peter Jackson directed this piece of c**p but the PQ was amazing.

*Atonement - Tier 1.5*

*Zombieland - Tier 1.75*

*Marley and Me - Tier 1.75*

*Stardust - Tier 2*

*Minority Report - Tier 2*

*Saving Private Ryan - Tier 2*

*Elektra - Tier 2.25*

*Gran Torino - Tier 2.5*

*The Hurt Locker - Tier 2.75*

*Wizard of Oz - Tier 3*

*Hero - Tier 3*

*Toy Story 1 / 2 - Agree with current placement*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Dirty Dozen*


When this one is at its peak, it is basically flawless. It's a real shame it can't stay there. Transitions are always obvious, edge enhancement is a problem, and grain spikes make you wonder if the source is from the same source. Still, some amazingly rendered footage, bursting with rich color and detail when its allowed to.
*Tier 3.0*


----------



## 42041

*Lola Montes*


This 1955 film was restored in 2008 and the results are impressive. Detail is very strong, the cinematography is superb (the novelty of widescreen being evident in the framing of the shots) and the intricate production design is wonderfully resolved. The image certainly shows its age, with some scratches, faded colors, and other age-related anomalies. An early Cinemascope film, there's a lot of optical weirdness going on too. The aged look doesn't jive with the point of this thread, but on its own terms, this is one of Criterion's best looking discs.

*Tier 2.0*


----------



## Hughmc

Rob, I am leaning towards 2.5-3.5 for the African Queen based on this threads parameters. Outside of this thread, I give it even higher praise for how it looks. It looks fantastic. Interesting how 42041 put up a review for a film that is a few years younger...it must look really good 42041.


I saw a couple of of reviews in this thread, one at 2.0 and GRG @ 1.5.







Anyone else see The African Queen?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/18714130
> 
> 
> Rob, I am leaning towards 2.5-3.5 for the African Queen based on this threads parameters. Outside of this thread, I give it even higher praise for how it looks. It looks fantastic. Interesting how 42041 put up a review for a film that is a few years younger...it must look really good 42041.
> 
> 
> I saw a couple of of reviews in this thread, one at 2.0 and GRG @ 1.5.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone else see The African Queen?



I have purposely not given a tier recommendation for African Queen because of the difficulty in placing it in the Tier thread. The bottom line is that is really does look great considering how old it is and the original elements. I don't think it would be higher than about 3.0 for this thread though, and I just don't want people to take any negative connotations from that rating, as some think that it means it doesn't look good, but that isn't the case at all.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Wolfman (2010)*


Wildly inconsistent, with only average black levels and lots of noise/compression strewn about. Some shots seem digital or DNR'ed. I can't find anything about any scene being shot digitally. Some superb detail in close-ups, but this is inconsistent too. A bit of blooming is noted too, intentional of course.

*Tier 2.75*


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18715507
> 
> 
> I have purposely not given a tier recommendation for African Queen because of the difficulty in placing it in the Tier thread. The bottom line is that is really does look great considering how old it is and the original elements. I don't think it would be higher than about 3.0 for this thread though, and I just don't want people to take any negative connotations from that rating, as some think that it means it doesn't look good, but that isn't the case at all.



I thought that while _The African Queen_ looked the best it probably ever will, Tier wise I agree with Rob and Hugh that it's probably Tier 3.0/3.25.

_Doctor Zhivago_ is another movie that IMO is the same way, an average Tier rating but a beautifully filmed movie.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

I wish the fact that the movie might garner a lower tier for the purposes of this list would not discourage anyone from doing a review. Your review will be searchable (well, mostly







) and if someone really wants to question where something has wound up on the list, they can always post and ask why it wound up where it did.


I felt the same way about both the *Princess Bride* and *Casablanca* when providing reviews; the tier position did not really tell the tale of what I thought of the movie itself, but it still helped to round out the list.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/18718028
> 
> 
> I wish the fact that the movie might garner a lower tier for the purposes of this list would not discourage anyone from doing a review. Your review will be searchable (well, mostly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) and if someone really wants to question where something has wound up on the list, they can always post and ask why it wound up where it did.
> 
> 
> I felt the same way about both the *Princess Bride* and *Casablanca* when providing reviews; the tier position did not really tell the tale of what I thought of the movie itself, but it still helped to round out the list.



+1


I wholeheartedly agree G3! I can really relate to what you're saying about _Princess Bride_, for even though it wasn't a stellar transfer, it was still MUCH better than the DVD release and was VERY watchable. All such titles deserve a ranking, IMO.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18718093
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> 
> I wholeheartedly agree G3! I can really relate to what you're saying about _Princess Bride_, for even though it wasn't a stellar transfer, it was still MUCH better than the DVD release and was VERY watchable. All such titles deserve a ranking, IMO.



You two aren't going to let us off the hook on this one are you?







No worries, I'm codependent














, but more important, you are right.









*African Queen:*


Overall a great looking BD for a movie filmed in 1:37:1 in 1951. Facial detail at times on Bogie is actually tier 0 or tier 1.0., but it looks like a filter was used on Hepburn and it seems it is because her skin looked like crap at only age 40, brown spots, etc.


SOme of the green screen gave The African Queen that halo, force field look we have seen in early Bond movies. Most often colors were average to good as were black levels and contrast, but there were a few scenes of nature that seemingly look as good as anything captured today on film, true HD PQ.


I am copying and pasting this from my post from the dedicated African Queen thread:


Great movie. The dummies were horrendous...the downside of HD and detail.

The mosquito "noise" was laughable as well and reminded me of The Birds. I can see why they had stunt people and dummies some of the time, but why did they green screen the two of them when they had so many captures of them on the boat going on the river? For example near the end among the marshes they are really in the boat with what seems to be Hepburn actually steering. Having that after so many "fake" looking scenes makes those scenes even more inexcusable and obvious. The green screen use makes it look like they are EE'ed and stand out. Sadly 50+ years later and not much has improved at times....see GLadiator for the same look, or rather don't, but it is the reason I said Gladiator looked even worse with massive EE, poor green screen use+EE=force fields.

*Tier recommendation: 3.0*


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/18717645
> 
> 
> I thought that while _The African Queen_ looked the best it probably ever will, Tier wise I agree with Rob and Hugh that it's probably Tier 3.0/3.25.
> 
> _Doctor Zhivago_ is another movie that IMO is the same way, an average Tier rating but a beautifully filmed movie.




Yes, these old titles look great, they really do and we are fortunate to get to seem them looking as good if not better than they ever did. I would surmise if there was a ranking of classic restoration films on BD thread, The African Queen would be high on the list.


----------



## Hughmc

I also bought Alice in Wonderland, The Wolfman 2010 (impulse, don't know why really and I should return it and rent it from what I am reading) and War of the Worlds.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

I can't wait to read your thoughts on Casablanca, Hugh!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/18718028
> 
> 
> I wish the fact that the movie might garner a lower tier for the purposes of this list would not discourage anyone from doing a review. Your review will be searchable (well, mostly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) and if someone really wants to question where something has wound up on the list, they can always post and ask why it wound up where it did.
> 
> 
> I felt the same way about both the *Princess Bride* and *Casablanca* when providing reviews; the tier position did not really tell the tale of what I thought of the movie itself, but it still helped to round out the list.



Well you are right of course. I shouldn't worry so much.


Since Hugh posted his review after your post and I agree with so much of it, I will just quote it here and say that I agree with much of this:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/18718295
> 
> 
> You two aren't going to let us off the hook on this one are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No worries, I'm codependent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , but more important, you are right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *African Queen:*
> 
> 
> Overall a great looking BD for a movie filmed in 1:37:1 in 1951. Facial detail at times on Bogie is actually tier 0 or tier 1.0., but it looks like a filter was used on Hepburn and it seems it is because her skin looked like crap at only age 40, brown spots, etc.
> 
> 
> SOme of the green screen gave The African Queen that halo, force field look we have seen in early Bond movies. Most often colors were average to good as were black levels and contrast, but there were a few scenes of nature that seemingly look as good as anything captured today on film, true HD PQ.
> 
> 
> I am copying and pasting this from my post from the dedicated African Queen thread:
> 
> 
> Great movie. The dummies were horrendous...the downside of HD and detail.
> 
> The mosquito "noise" was laughable as well and reminded me of The Birds. I can see why they had stunt people and dummies some of the time, but why did they green screen the two of them when they had so many captures of them on the boat going on the river? For example near the end among the marshes they are really in the boat with what seems to be Hepburn actually steering. Having that after so many "fake" looking scenes makes those scenes even more inexcusable and obvious. The green screen use makes it look like they are EE'ed and stand out. Sadly 50+ years later and not much has improved at times....see GLadiator for the same look, or rather don't, but it is the reason I said Gladiator looked even worse with massive EE, poor green screen use+EE=force fields.
> 
> *Tier recommendation: 3.0*




I don't think that Bogey's facial shots ever made it to Tier 0, more like mid Tier 1, but they did look *very* good especially considering.......all there is to consider!










I also agree with Hugh's final recommendation.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Yay! Thanks Hugh & Rob for your reviews.


----------



## 42041

*Funny People*


Judd Apatow's epic-length comedy comes to blu-ray on a rather poor-looking disc. It was shot by Spielberg's usual cinematographer, who is a noted film purist, and I'm guessing a lack of a pristine digital source may have something to do with the look of the disc. The resolution is mediocre, DNR/EE is often excessive, colors are inconsistent, going from natural-looking to weird and pasty in different scenes. Compression is shoddy too. Occasionally it rises above mediocrity, but overall it's not on the level of most new discs.

*Tier 3.0*


----------



## deltasun

*Dear John*


Saw a couple movies back-to-back that will, amazingly enough, have similar placement proposals from me. _Dear John_ is a _chick flick_ that showcases a saturated, warm palette, presumably for its intended genre. Facial details are mostly solid, but never excellent. Amanda Seyfried was inconsistent in this department. In some shots, you can clearly make out the fine hair that line her face. Other times, she appears soft.


Details are not the film's strength (but still capable), probably due to the shallow depth of field employed for most medium shots. Colors are well saturated, yet still retains a natural appearance. Scenes from the war zone take on a distinctive cooler look and hotter contrast. The contrasting scenes play really well with each other.


Blacks are deep, with no evidence of crushing. I did witness an instance of artifacting and some banding, with the latter looking like it was for effect. Having seen this back-to-back with _Legion_, I give this a slight edge.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

*Legion*


Similar in some respects to _Dear John_, save for some (not all) poor shadow details and black levels, in general. Some scenes take on a greenish hue that also makes for weaker blacks. Facial details are on par with my recently reviewed _Dear John_ - strong, but not excellent. Contrast is a bit more even here and holds up well, night or day.


Lots of flat scenes due to poor shadow details. Flesh tones look true to life, but does reflect each scenes lighting. Though dark by nature, some of the brighter daytime shots offer great details and depth. Medium shots will once in a while produce 3D pop.


Grain does get moderate and at times distracting. I'll rate this one a quarter tier lower than _Dear John_ for the mixed black levels and shadow details.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod

42041: Thanks for the Funny People review. No one else had mentioned the DNR and EE, leaving my review the only one that made mention of it. I feel better now knowing I'm not completely nuts (only partially).

*The Stranger*


Ever see a Blu-ray bitrate drop to 840Kbps during the actual film, not during a fade to black or credits sequence? I have. For the record, it looks like hell, like most of this movie. Shot digitally (with what I have no idea), this one suffers from a lack of detail, interlacing problems, no black levels to speak of, and a bitrate that is one of the lowest I've ever seen. There are those few scenes that perk up, but this all summed up in one word: Abysmal.

*Tier 4.5*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18716423
> 
> *The Wolfman (2010)*
> 
> 
> Wildly inconsistent, with only average black levels and lots of noise/compression strewn about. Some shots seem digital or DNR'ed. I can't find anything about any scene being shot digitally. Some superb detail in close-ups, but this is inconsistent too. A bit of blooming is noted too, intentional of course.
> 
> *Tier 2.75*



Whoa! I just checked Cinema Squid's site GRG and MOST of the reviewers are saying just the opposite about this title. They are especially praising the black levels and shadow details, and stating there are no artifacts or other anomalies.


I plan to rent this tomorrow night if I can and I'll give my two cents worth after the credits roll.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^


GRG,


I should have added that there are quite a few comments about heavy grain at times. You mentioned "lots of noise" so perhaps what they saw was actually noise and not grain (or else you saw grain and not noise







).


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18722220
> 
> 
> ^^^^
> 
> 
> GRG,
> 
> 
> I should have added that there are quite a few comments about heavy grain at times. You mentioned "lots of noise" so perhaps what they saw was actually noise and not grain (or else you saw grain and not noise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ).



Some people equate grain with noise. Sometimes it can be difficult for people to discern the difference.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18718990
> 
> *Legion*
> 
> 
> Similar in some respects to _Dear John_, save for some (not all) poor shadow details and black levels, in general. Some scenes take on a greenish hue that also makes for weaker blacks. Facial details are on par with my recently reviewed _Dear John_ - strong, but not excellent. Contrast is a bit more even here and holds up well, night or day.
> 
> 
> Lots of flat scenes due to poor shadow details. Flesh tones look true to life, but does reflect each scenes lighting. Though dark by nature, some of the brighter daytime shots offer great details and depth. Medium shots will once in a while produce 3D pop.
> 
> 
> Grain does get moderate and at times distracting. I'll rate this one a quarter tier lower than _Dear John_ for the mixed black levels and shadow details.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.25*
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_



How was the movie? As bad as it looks? I don't know if I want to waste my time with this one. Should I?


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18722610
> 
> 
> Some people equate grain with noise. Sometimes it can be difficult for people to discern the difference.



And the grain seemingly becomes noisier when shot indoors and or low light, like in War of the Worlds. There is one scene in particular where Cruise is in his bedroom I believe. The grain becomes "excessive" or "noisy". I think this is where DNR comes in, but if used excessively or incorrectly...UGH! but as we become more like purists, the noisy grain is tolerable and better than the alternative, Madame Tussaud's.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18722614
> 
> 
> How was the movie? As bad as it looks? I don't know if I want to waste my time with this one. Should I?



It was incredibly mind numbing and would not recommend it.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18723755
> 
> 
> It was incredibly mind numbing and would not recommend it.



Thanks. I just took it off my zip list... if this was a contender for tier 0 or 1, i would stomach the bad movie, but in this case, nah. not worth it!


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Alice in Wonderland*


Shot on a mixture of film and digital (mostly the latter) this one is a bit inconsistent, but generally pleasing. Detail can waver from perfection to non-existent, and sharpness is all over the place at times too. Colors are bold and vibrant where needed. Blacks, like everything else, are inconsistent, but never flat. The CG stuff is generally flawless, including fur on the rabbits. A few shots contain some weird artifacting/image break-up, but are generally during fast motion are are hard to spot.

*Tier 1.75*


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18722614
> 
> 
> How was the movie? As bad as it looks? I don't know if I want to waste my time with this one. Should I?



One of the most nonsensical movies I've ever seen. The plot makes no sense, nothing is explained, and the ending is completely idiotic.


----------



## trinifox

First off kudos and much appreciation goes out to the contributors and maintainers of this list. Invaluable!


Next a question: The links when clicking on the titles take me to another site, but feel free to call me lazy but I almost half expect that they would take me to the discussion threads (post) with the concluding vote for the entry.


Comments?


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *trinifox* /forum/post/18725890
> 
> 
> First off kudos and much appreciation goes out to the contributors and maintainers of this list. Invaluable!
> 
> 
> Next a question: The links when clicking on the titles take me to another site, but feel free to call me lazy but I almost half expect that they would take me to the discussion threads (post) with the concluding vote for the entry.
> 
> 
> Comments?



The thread you are reading *is* the discussion thread. There is only this thread for discussion regarding the PQ list. You are able to search this thread (check out the top right-hand corner of the forum, should be in around that area) or just ask questions!


There is no real voting for this list; it's essentially an average of the contributors tier recommendations. I say essentially because there is more to it than that, but I am not the one who does that part of it and likely cannot explain it in the proper manner.










Welcome to the thread, and if you have more questions, post away!


----------



## djoberg

I just thought I'd pop in to inform everyone that Cinema Squid has some EXCELLENT screen shots of _Red Cliff 1 & 2_ on his site. Check it out:

http://www.cinemasquid.com/home 


Edit: I thought I should add that if there was someone sitting on the fence with this title these screen shots should persuade you to buy! (BTW, the shots of facial close-ups do NOT do it justice; they looked much better on my set.)


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18723755
> 
> 
> It was incredibly mind numbing and would not recommend it.



Thanks, that's what I thought.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18726670
> 
> 
> I just thought I'd pop in to inform everyone that Cinema Squid has some EXCELLENT screen shots of _Red Cliff 1 & 2_ on his site. Check it out:
> 
> http://www.cinemasquid.com/home
> 
> 
> Edit: I thought I should add that if there was someone sitting on the fence with this title these screen shots should persuade you to buy! (BTW, the shots of facial close-ups do NOT do it justice; they looked much better on my set.)



Very impressive looking caps!


I know that many people tend to be impressed with facial details, but as I have said before, it is more difficult to show a scene from a distance (where the objects are very small) and still show lots of fine detail.


Here is a grab from Red Cliff that does exactly what I am talking about:

http://media.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray...hot-lrg-33.png 


Lots of fine detail in that shot, even though the characters are far away and quite small.


Netflix finally has these available to rent. This is one of my favorite genre's, so I'm looking forward to watching these!


Thanks for the heads up.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *trinifox* /forum/post/18725890
> 
> 
> First off kudos and much appreciation goes out to the contributors and maintainers of this list. Invaluable!
> 
> 
> Next a question: The links when clicking on the titles take me to another site, but feel free to call me lazy but I almost half expect that they would take me to the discussion threads (post) with the concluding vote for the entry.
> 
> 
> Comments?



As geekyglassesgirl correctly said, this is the only thread in the entire forum where the discussion contributes to a movie's placement in the Picture Quality Tiers. Any other threads in the forum pertaining to a movie can encompass a wide range of information that goes beyond the point of this thread. The HDDB links are a shortcut for users who want to see a multitude of reviews on a particular BD. Cinema Squid also runs a similar site that contains links to many disparate reviews, but HDDB was picked prior to my involvement.


If you are looking for the actual discussion within the thread on a certain subject or film, use the thread's search function. It generally works, though short or common titles do have a tendency to return many false hits.


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18727227
> 
> 
> I know that many people tend to be impressed with facial details, but as I have said before, it is more difficult to show a scene from a distance (where the objects are very small) and still show lots of fine detail.



The fine detail in Red Cliff's extreme close-ups is almost something of a drawback, since it becomes all too clear that many of the actors are wearing prosthetic facial hair.


Anyway, definitely a great looking title. For those interested in looking at further pictures, there are some in Xylon's mega-comparison thread:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1207489 


There are also a bunch of nice screenshots of the Mei Ah Hong Kong version at Asian Blu-ray Guide and Hundland.org:

http://www.asianblurayguide.com/capt...ng_kong_china/ 
http://www.asianblurayguide.com/capt...ng_kong_china/ 
http://www.hundland.org/hd/r/r.htm#redcliff


----------



## 42041

*Minority Report*


This blu-ray constantly reminded me of I, Robot. That's a good thing. This doesn't seem to be a popular opinion but I feel most of the movie resides squarely in Tier 0. Amazing resolution and detail, with all the details of the sets perfectly resolved, great visuals, strong contrast, solid compression that doesn't get bogged down by the grain... all the top tier good stuff. But since this 2002 film didn't have the benefit of all-digital post production, consistency isn't on the same level as IRobot, with many effects shots looking a bit soft. The cinematographer's stylistic flourishes are occasionally at odds with our criteria: heavy grain is employed in some scenes, others are glowing or are soft and hazy, at the expense of clarity. Overall, an excellent release, one I wouldn't hesitate to use as demo material.

*Tier 1.0*


(PS3/Pioneer 50" Kuro Elite/1 screen width distance)


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Hee! I am one geeked-out bespectacled gal at the moment, checking out our beloved PQ thread on the AVS app on my spiffy iPad!


Thanks for the review, 42041. I have not seen that yet; now I am curious to get a copy.


----------



## djoberg

*The Wolfman (2010)*


I'll say right out front that I agree with GRG about this title's inconsistency, but the inconsistency was consistent (







). Allow me to explain. All the outdoor scenes during the day were VERY GOOD, with Tier 0 quality DEPTH and DETAIL at times (check out the scene starting at about the 34 min. mark where a priest and others come to the Talbot mansion to take Talbot away), and never venturing beyond Tier 1 quality. But the nighttime scenes were another story, especially those that took place inside the mansion or tavern. They were on the soft side with occasional heavy grain. Nighttime scenes outside were, for the most part, fairly good, with above average shadow details. The actual black levels were where the inconsistency came in, for there would be shots that were deep and inky, and then there would some that bordered on being dark gray.


Flesh tones were spot on, in spite of the muted color palette. Facial details may not have reached Tier 0 quality in most scenes, but they would easily rival any title in Tier 1.


Again, DETAIL and DEPTH, along with accurate FLESH TONES and pleasing FACIAL DETAILS, *almost* make this a Tier 1 contender in my book. But there were just too many indoor scenes that lacked sharpness and detail to justify giving this a "demo-worthy" status. All things considered I would put it right here....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite BDP-05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/18728190
> 
> *Minority Report*
> 
> 
> This blu-ray constantly reminded me of I, Robot. That's a good thing. This doesn't seem to be a popular opinion but I feel most of the movie resides squarely in Tier 0. Amazing resolution and detail, with all the details of the sets perfectly resolved, great visuals, strong contrast, solid compression that doesn't get bogged down by the grain... all the top tier good stuff. But since this 2002 film didn't have the benefit of all-digital post production, consistency isn't on the same level as IRobot, with many effects shots looking a bit soft. The cinematographer's stylistic flourishes are occasionally at odds with our criteria: heavy grain is employed in some scenes, others are glowing or are soft and hazy, at the expense of clarity. Overall, an excellent release, one I wouldn't hesitate to use as demo material.
> 
> *Tier 1.0*
> 
> 
> (PS3/Pioneer 50" Kuro Elite/1 screen width distance)



Very good review and I agree with everything that you have said about this great looking title.


In the end, I gave a lower score mostly due to what you mention: "The cinematographer's stylistic flourishes are occasionally at odds with our criteria: heavy grain is employed in some scenes, others are glowing or are soft and hazy, at the expense of clarity".


The bottom line, though, is that this title was extremely well done!


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*LotR: Fellowship of the Ring*


The early scenes in Bilbo's house are by far and away the most disgusting, deplorable application of DNR I've ever seen on this format, and includes the mess that was Gangs of New York. Gandalf and Bilbo do not even resemble humans, but blobs of color. Most of the early scenes suffer this same fate, but around the midway point, things do pick up. Detail becomes slightly apparent, the grain structure becomes somewhat visible (and defined), and... then it goes right back into processed land depending on the shot. Pathetic. There are some sights to see, but are few considering the length of the film.


*Tier 3.75*


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18729948
> 
> *LotR: Fellowship of the Ring*
> 
> 
> The early scenes in Bilbo's house are by far and away the most disgusting, deplorable application of DNR I've ever seen on this format, and includes the mess that was Gangs of New York. Gandalf and Bilbo do not even resemble humans, but blobs of color. Most of the early scenes suffer this same fate, but around the midway point, things do pick up. Detail becomes slightly apparent, the grain structure becomes somewhat visible (and defined), and... then it goes right back into processed land depending on the shot. Pathetic. There are some sights to see, but are few considering the length of the film.
> 
> 
> *Tier 3.75*



That was my recommendation as well:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...ostcount=15664


----------



## Incindium




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18729948
> 
> *LotR: Fellowship of the Ring*
> 
> 
> The early scenes in Bilbo's house are by far and away the most disgusting, deplorable application of DNR I've ever seen on this format, and includes the mess that was Gangs of New York. Gandalf and Bilbo do not even resemble humans, but blobs of color. Most of the early scenes suffer this same fate, but around the midway point, things do pick up. Detail becomes slightly apparent, the grain structure becomes somewhat visible (and defined), and... then it goes right back into processed land depending on the shot. Pathetic. There are some sights to see, but are few considering the length of the film.
> 
> 
> *Tier 3.75*



You going to be reviewing the other two movies as well? I agree that Fellowship was pretty bad. Two Towers and ROTK were much better in comparison but neither of them did anything to really wow me in the visual department. I'm glad I just rented them instead of buying them. Better to wait for the extended edition versions.


----------



## dla26




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Incindium* /forum/post/18730560
> 
> 
> You going to be reviewing the other two movies as well? I agree that Fellowship was pretty bad. Two Towers and ROTK were much better in comparison but neither of them did anything to really wow me in the visual department. I'm glad I just rented them instead of buying them. Better to wait for the extended edition versions.



Do you know if movie studios do completely new re-masters from the original films when making the extended editions? I was under the assumption that they would leave the original parts as is and then do the transfer for the additional scenes. Should I hold out hope that they'll redo everything for the EE version?


----------



## Decado2

Anyone know what the PQ/AQ is like for The Constant Gardener (Canadian) blu-ray?


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Incindium* /forum/post/18730560
> 
> 
> You going to be reviewing the other two movies as well? I agree that Fellowship was pretty bad. Two Towers and ROTK were much better in comparison but neither of them did anything to really wow me in the visual department. I'm glad I just rented them instead of buying them. Better to wait for the extended edition versions.



Absolutely. Will have them up over the weekend. Preview? Two Towers is a touch better (barely), RotK is spectacular and nearly flawless eye candy.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dla26* /forum/post/18730578
> 
> 
> Should I hold out hope that they'll redo everything for *the EE version*?



Yikes! Don't tell me they're going to make an *E*dge *E*nhancement version!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18731246
> 
> 
> Yikes! Don't tell me they're going to make an *E*dge *E*nhancement version!



Don't worry, Denny, you won't notice that pesky EE anyway.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/18731270
> 
> 
> Don't worry, Denny, you won't notice that pesky EE anyway.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/18731270
> 
> 
> Don't worry, Denny, you won't notice that pesky EE anyway.



Good point! But I do actually LOOK for it, which is distracting in and of itself.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18729948
> 
> *LotR: Fellowship of the Ring*
> 
> 
> The early scenes in Bilbo's house are by far and away the most disgusting, deplorable application of DNR I've ever seen on this format, and includes the mess that was Gangs of New York. Gandalf and Bilbo do not even resemble humans, but blobs of color. Most of the early scenes suffer this same fate, but around the midway point, things do pick up. Detail becomes slightly apparent, the grain structure becomes somewhat visible (and defined), and... then it goes right back into processed land depending on the shot. Pathetic. There are some sights to see, but are few considering the length of the film.
> 
> 
> *Tier 3.75*




UGH!! And to top it off, the downside of Netflix. I had the three lined up in order in my que for obvious reasons. I had Fellowship first, but tomorrow, I will be getting RofTK, which I not only wanted to watch all 3 in order, but also see how the PQ progressively gets better, not worse.










I won't be watching a flic this weekend and it will be going right back. I can wait. Seen them dozens of times.


Denny, I bought Wolfman, but still haven't opened it yet. It was sought of a blind buy, but I want to return it. Had it had tier 0 PQ, good reviews and repeat playback potential, I would have kept it, but it retailed for 25.00 at WM and I don't think I would watch it more than once. I am going to get something I would rather watch multiple times and own. How was it? Any replay value? And seeing the 1941 Wolfman isn't enough incentive to keep it. I watched it back in the day many times when I was a kid.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/18731921
> 
> 
> Denny, I bought Wolfman, but still haven't opened it yet. It was sought of a blind buy, but I want to return it. Had it had tier 0 PQ, good reviews and repeat playback potential, I would have kept it, but it retailed for 25.00 at WM and I don't think I would watch it more than once. I am going to get something I would rather watch multiple times and own. How was it? Any replay value?



It was just okay...definitely NOT a keeper, IMO. I thought Benicio Del Toro was totally miscast as the Wolfman and I wasn't that impressed with Anthony Hopkins' role either.


I am glad I rented it though for two reasons: 1) The special effects were pretty good; and 2) When the PQ was good; it was REALLY GOOD (like I said in my review there were quite a few Tier 0 and Tier 1 scenes, especially the daytime outdoor scenes).


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Duplicity


recommendation: Tier 1.75*


I struggled between tier sub-quarters 1.5 and 1.75 for Duplicity. Seeing the disparity between recent recommendations for it was in my mind, but in the end two issues made my decision easier in the final judgment that led to the lower placement. No one can really fault the perfect clarity or very strong contrast in the picture quality. Dimensionality is stellar for a movie that boils down to a lighthearted caper with little action.


But there are certain problems that are either the result of the transfer, or some tweaking at the Digital Intermediate stage. The first issue is the complete absence of grain for a movie shot on 35mm film. The film has definitely been processed to remove grain from the image. Now it does not leave offensive remnants of digital artifacts, or mutilated grain structure like earlier noise-reduced BDs, but certain signs of DNR-use can be spotted. Most noticeably, there is an unerring sameness to the quality of the skin textures on display. A few close-ups look good in detail and resolution, while a few look somewhat soft of Julia Roberts, but in general there is a slight tampering of what facial detail should approach on modern film. Many non-videophiles will not notice the difference, but it does affect the image in a minor way.


The other issue that stood out was the odd (though I suspect the director was aiming for stylish) camerawork for a big-budget Hollywood production with major stars. Frequent shifts in focus and slight motion blurring looked out of place in a movie of this type. The obvious focus-pulling in some scenes became quite jarring and unnecessarily softened the picture on occasion. Overall there were moments that were just not as pin-sharp as one would expect for a film ranked in tier one, which might have been the result of shooting in anamorphic 35mm.


Compression is not an issue, as the VC-1 encode holds up well for the low average video bitrate of 17.83 Mbps. Universal apparently could not spare anything more than a BD-25 for this film. On the whole, the entire transfer and encode for _Duplicity_ are reminiscent of other recent Universal BDs handled by Deluxe Digital Studios. Check _Burn After Reading_, another Universal Blu-ray, that has a similar look.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=355


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^


It looks like your recommendation is right in the middle of the previous recommended placements, so more than likely that's where it will end up.


What did you think of the blacks? I thought they were stellar on my KURO and with you having the same set I would think you were impressed as well.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18732457
> 
> 
> What did you think of the blacks? I thought they were stellar on my KURO and with you having the same set I would think you were impressed as well.



The black levels were excellent as you mentioned. My only quibble with the color rendition was the slight push fleshtones had in the first hour or so, which made everyone too orange in tone. You could barely make out the red freckles on Julia Roberts because of it, and Clive Owen looked sunburned.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*LotR: Two Towers*


This one does step it up, and those opening shots of the mountains are "drop your jaw to the floor" worthy. In close, facial detail is beginning to show through, but don't worry, it'll all be mucked up soon. Smearing is evident as they pass over those wide landscape, tall grass a huge problem. Scenes inside Theodon's throne room are beyond ugly, practically unwatchable. Gandalf's beard is regularly a clump of gray. Too sporadic with little consistency.

*Tier 3.25*


----------



## deltasun

*Leap Year*


Excellent overall presentation, with great cinematography (green screen or not







in some cases). Actually, the most annoying, obvious green screen would have to be the early car scene. Was this really necessary???


Colors are well-saturated, complementary to the tale. The way the purple flowers "pop" out of the verdant green leaves/shrubbery is very eye-catching and pleasing. The endless cobble stones that line the countryside also offered great texturing and, of course, dimensionality. Depth and dimensionality was also splattered all around, from Amy Adams' scene at the cliff to the opening scene at the bus station. They weren't limited to outdoor scenes either, medium shots exhibited the same spacious feel for the most part.


Blacks are super deep, just at the point of crushing. Contrast was strong and engaging. Flesh tones look natural, though can be a bit saturated as well. Facial details can be very good, but just a few touching Tier 0. In the right lighting, even Amy Adams' skin is well textured. There are some instances of softness and image diffusion, particularly in the pub scene (the "suitcase" scene) on the way to Dublin. There were also some outdoor scenes where the direct sunlight to the face has depleted Amy's and Declan's face of details.


Aside from these minor instances, the film is immaculate. Grain is well-preserved and thinly layered.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Hmm. Maybe I should stop doing reviews for a while... I know I paid attention to Leap Year and frankly, the high praise that others have given to it is completely boggling to me. I know my TV is okay, many other things look fantastic on it, so I'm really not worried about my set. but, wow! I'm seeming to be off-base on many reviews lately!!


----------



## deltasun

G3, please don't let it discourage you. There will be some wide discrepancies such as this (look at _Revolutionary Road_, etc for the other guys) - it's to be expected. And I'm convinced that there will be a percentage of the population that's nodding their heads with your review and another percentage that's nodding at mine, etc. The important thing is that we stay true to what we are seeing and report/review that. We also all have more in common than not, for the most part.


So, keep on truckin'!


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Crazy Heart*


This is a below par looking title. Fine details are lacking and the picture mostly has a soft appearance to it. Other scenes look harsh and digital.


Contrast and black levels are average to below average. There is never any sense of depth.


Colors are ok, but not particularly impressive either.


The movie was ok and worth watching simply for Jeff Bridges great performance.
*Tier Recommendation: Tier 3.25*


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18511916
> 
> *Crazy Heart*
> 
> 
> Soft, soft, soft... but then way too sharp. This one is all over the place. Some scenes appear heavily sharpened, with the grain appearing coarse and unnatural. Fine detail is at a premium. Flesh tones are warm but not unnaturally so. Most of the film though is really soft and blacks can lead to crush, but this was also done in a lot of low light scenarios.
> *Tier 2.5*



From what I can see, it appears that you and I are the only ones to review this title thus far.


I agree with everything that you have *said* above. However, I am having a real hard time understanding how you came up with a Tier 2.5 rating given your comments?!


I do not believe that a title that has the issues that you describe above is deserving of Tier 2.


Any chance of reconsidering?


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/18734256
> 
> 
> Hmm. Maybe I should stop doing reviews for a while... I know I paid attention to Leap Year and frankly, the high praise that others have given to it is completely boggling to me. I know my TV is okay, many other things look fantastic on it, so I'm really not worried about my set. but, wow! I'm seeming to be off-base on many reviews lately!!



That would be a shame, as I often silently agree with many of your recommendations. It was your placement of Duplicity that drove me to finally watch it. Even with the clearly defined guidelines for placement, there is always going to be some latitude for personal preference when evaluating picture quality. If you stopped giving input, everything would end up in tier 1.0/1.25 due to djoberg.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18734416
> 
> 
> That would be a shame, as I often silently agree with many of your recommendations. It was your placement of Duplicity that drove me to finally watch it. Even with the clearly defined guidelines for placement, there is always going to be some latitude for personal preference when evaluating picture quality. If you stopped giving input, everything would end up in tier 1.0/1.25 due to djoberg.



I LOL'ed on that one!!


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18734404
> 
> 
> From what I can see, it appears that you and I are the only ones to review this title thus far.
> 
> 
> I agree with everything that you have *said* above. However, I am having a real hard time understanding how you came up with a Tier 2.5 rating given your comments?!
> 
> 
> I do not believe that a title that has the issues that you describe above is deserving of Tier 2.
> 
> 
> Any chance of reconsidering?



I'm thinking that may have been a typo... I re-read my full review and I only gave it three stars. I honestly don't remember my reasoning for the 2.5 vote. Been too long. I do remember it looking pretty poor though.


I'll go *3.5*, because that does sound right. I still have the disc so I'll give it a quick pass through later tonight to be sure.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18734416
> 
> 
> If you stopped giving input, everything would end up in tier 1.0/1.25 due to djoberg.



Unlike Rob, I didn't LOL on that one!!







But after thinking more on that statement, I thank you for complimenting me on having so much clout on this thread that my recommendations would be placed exactly where I want them in spite of the many members who recommend placements (besides G3).







I was going to write to G3 to encourage her to keep posting her reviews, but now I've decided not to.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18734978
> 
> 
> Unlike Rob, I didn't LOL on that one!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But after thinking more on that statement, I thank you for complimenting me on having so much clout on this thread that my recommendations would be placed exactly where I want them in spite of the many members who recommend placements (besides G3).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was going to write to G3 to encourage her to keep posting her reviews, but now I've decided not to.



I laughed even harder when I read this response! Classic!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18734614
> 
> 
> I'm thinking that may have been a typo... I re-read my full review and I only gave it three stars. I honestly don't remember my reasoning for the 2.5 vote. Been too long. I do remember it looking pretty poor though.
> 
> 
> I'll go *3.5*, because that does sound right. I still have the disc so I'll give it a quick pass through later tonight to be sure.



Great! Thanks.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18732964
> 
> 
> The black levels were excellent as you mentioned. My only quibble with the color rendition was the slight push fleshtones had in the first hour or so, which made everyone too orange in tone. You could barely make out the red freckles on Julia Roberts because of it, and Clive Owen looked sunburned.



We talked about the orange skin tones and using orange and blue color palates in a lot of films today with reference to that article that was linked as while back.


I was watching the beginning of AlicE in Wonderland and got worried as it opened with the orange look, but thankfully that wasn't the way the entire film looked. I saw a preview on a BD for a big title coming to the theaters and it had the orange glow as well. It gets discouraging and distracting when I see the color hues directors are choosing for a particular look for what seems like just the sake of it and it seems to ruin PQ. It isn't doing film or BD's any favors, IMO.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Cool Hand Luke


recommendation: Tier 2.0*


What an absolutely beautiful film transfer by Warner Bros., that almost makes up for their past indiscretions on Blu-ray. One can get quite jaded after seeing hundreds of discs, but an experience like watching this film in pristine condition reminds me what the format is all about. None of the things that can derail a transfer crop up in the picture quality, particularly for a film from 1967. The mild grain is left intact and the master is unmolested by any processing. From the very beginning, the timeless cinematography by Conrad Hall looks better than most movies of today.


A bolder man than I would try to sneak _Cool Hand Luke_ into tier one, but there are limitations imposed by the film stock and lenses of the era it was created. That being said, the results clearly show what dedication and care in bringing a film to Blu-ray from the best surviving elements can produce. If only more classic movies could be handled in such a wonderful manner on Blu-ray. A massive leap in resolution from the DVD that makes it an unqualified recommendation to everyone with an interest in classic film. The people at Warner Bros. responsible for this transfer and BD should stand proud. It will be on my mental short list for reference transfers when evaluating discs in the future.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post17041672


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18736168
> 
> *Cool Hand Luke
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 2.0*
> 
> 
> What an absolutely beautiful film transfer by Warner Bros., that almost makes up for their past indiscretions on Blu-ray. One can get quite jaded after seeing hundreds of discs, but an experience like watching this film in pristine condition reminds me what the format is all about. None of the things that can derail a transfer crop up in the picture quality, particularly for a film from 1967. The mild grain is left intact and the master is unmolested by any processing. From the very beginning, the timeless cinematography by Conrad Hall looks better than most movies of today.
> 
> *A bolder man than I would try to sneak Cool Hand Luke into tier one,* but there are limitations imposed by the film stock and lenses of the era it was created. That being said, the results clearly show what dedication and care in bringing a film to Blu-ray from the best surviving elements can produce. If only more classic movies could be handled in such a wonderful manner on Blu-ray. A massive leap in resolution from the DVD that makes it an unqualified recommendation to everyone with an interest in classic film. The people at Warner Bros. responsible for this transfer and BD should stand proud. It will be on my mental short list for reference transfers when evaluating discs in the future.
> 
> 
> BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post17041672



I'm so glad to read your glowing comments about one of my favorite movies from the "old days" Phantom. I will look forward to seeing this.


BTW, I might just be that "bolder man!"


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

It just feels a bit weird that for some reason I am being a LOT harsher than other reviews! I'm too annoying to go away, so no real worries on that score.


Perhaps everyone else has caught a case of Denny-itis?







I kid, I kid!


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*The Dark Knight (revisited)*


Finally got around to watching this movie for the second time. Why it took me so long, I don't know, because this really is an excellent movie!


In any event, this title holds up just as well as I remembered. The IMAX scenes are fantastic, definitely Tier 0 worthy.


Some of the non IMAX scenes have a few issues, but they are not major by any means. I still think there is a *slight* digital look to it, but the EE is minor.


Overall, this is still a great looking title that holds up to it's current placement at Tier 1.25, which is exactly where I would put it.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.25* (agree with current placement)


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/18736536
> 
> 
> It just feels a bit weird that for some reason I am being a LOT harsher than other reviews! I'm too annoying to go away, so no real worries on that score.
> 
> 
> Perhaps everyone else has caught a case of Denny-itis?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I kid, I kid!



Just to encourage you G3 (even though I wasn't going to so I could get my way on title placements







), I always enjoy your reviews. Also, with you having a plasma that's about the same size as mine, it's always interesting to get your take on things (especially black levels).


And I should also remind you, every so often we DO agree on title placements, as was the case recently with _Avatar_. So, in that case we were like-minded (either that or you temporarily caught the Denny-itis bug







).


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18736681
> 
> *The Dark Knight (revisited)*
> 
> 
> Finally got around to watching this movie for the second time. Why it took me so long, I don't know, because this really is an excellent movie!
> 
> 
> In any event, this title holds up just as well as I remembered. The IMAX scenes are fantastic, definitely Tier 0 worthy.
> 
> 
> Some of the non IMAX scenes have a few issues, but they are not major by any means. I still think there is a *slight* digital look to it, but the EE is minor.
> 
> 
> Overall, this is still a great looking title that holds up to it's current placement at Tier 1.25, which is exactly where I would put it.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.25* (agree with current placement)



+1


I surely agree with you Rob that "this title holds up just as well as I remembered." We weren't very far off in our recommendations either (no, I'm not accusing you of getting the *bug*







). I'm still baffled that back in May there were a few who chimed in saying this title should be in the middle of Tier 2.


----------



## stwrt

Tier 1.25 ?!!? - with all that butt-ugly edge-enhancement ?


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18722614
> 
> 
> How was the movie? As bad as it looks? I don't know if I want to waste my time with this one. Should I?



There are not many films where I would say just skip it instead of watch and judge for yourself, but this is one of the former............SKIP IT. It is pretty bad!







I agree with Deltasun.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*LotR: Return of the King*


This is how all of the films would have looked in a perfect world. Awesome detail, depth, and sharpness. Staggering definition across many scenes, and only a few shots suffer from any notable digital tinkering. Some great color, especially inside Mt. Doom as the lava begins to flow. Blacks are great, and those long sweeping camera pans are awesome.
*Tier 1.0*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18738056
> 
> *LotR: Return of the King*
> 
> 
> This is how all of the films would have looked in a perfect world. Awesome detail, depth, and sharpness. Staggering definition across many scenes, and only a few shots suffer from any notable digital tinkering. Some great color, especially inside Mt. Doom as the lava begins to flow. Blacks are great, and those long sweeping camera pans are awesome.
> *Tier 1.0*



WOW! From 3.75 (FOTR) to 1.0 (ROTK)....that's quite a difference! Do you recall if the DVD releases had such a discrepancy?


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18738343
> 
> 
> WOW! From 3.75 (FOTR) to 1.0 (ROTK)....that's quite a difference! Do you recall if the DVD releases had such a discrepancy?



I called Netflix to complain about having received ROTK before getting FOTR and then Two Towers. They are going to send the other two so I can watch them in proper order.


I did watch about half of ROTK and I concur with GRG. What a shame. I don't even want to see how FOTR looks.







Think Prince Caspian for ROTK, yes that good!!!. I did notice what I thought was some very very mild DNR or filters? on the noses of Gandalf and two others were they were in a conversation. IMO they are using it to "hide" the pimples/blemishes and not because they are trying to remove grain. You can almost see the grain still intact while the above mentioned happens. ANyway, bottom line is what a fantastic looking titles that often hovers in tier 0.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/18738787
> 
> 
> I called Netflix to complain about having received ROTK before getting FOTR and then Two Towers. They are going to send the other two so I can watch them in proper order.
> 
> 
> I did watch about half of ROTK and I concur with GRG. What a shame. I don't even want to see how FOTR looks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Think Prince Caspian for ROTK, yes that good!!!. I did notice what I thought was some very very mild DNR or filters? on the noses of Gandalf and two others were they were in a conversation. IMO they are using it to "hide" the pimples/blemishes and not because they are trying to remove grain. You can almost see the grain still intact while the above mentioned happens. ANyway, bottom line is what a fantastic looking titles that often hovers in tier 0.



Just so you know Hugh, I wasn't really questioning GRG's judgment. I was simply expressing how surprised I was at the difference between FOTR and ROTK. I do have the DVD versions but I haven't watched them in ages, so that's why I was asking GRG if he recalled whether or not there was that big of a difference between the installments on DVD.


I am pumped to watch ROTK after your comments (and GRG's), but I don't believe I'll be buying the trilogy on Blu with the first two being so bad. I was sure willing to double-dip if they had all been good.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18738343
> 
> 
> WOW! From 3.75 (FOTR) to 1.0 (ROTK)....that's quite a difference! Do you recall if the DVD releases had such a discrepancy?



I had only seen the extended cuts on DVD, and no, I don't remember anything close to this level of difference. Then again,


I wasn't a real die-hard back then either, so that could always make a difference.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18738816
> 
> 
> Just so you know Hugh, I wasn't really questioning GRG's judgment. I was simply expressing how surprised I was at the difference between FOTR and ROTK. I do have the DVD versions but I haven't watched them in ages, so that's why I was asking GRG if he recalled whether or not there was that big of a difference between the installments on DVD.
> 
> 
> I am pumped to watch ROTK after your comments (and GRG's), but I don't believe I'll be buying the trilogy on Blu with the first two being so bad. I was sure willing to double-dip if they had all been good.



I know you weren't Denny and I hope my post didn't imply you were.


As far as GGG we need her and my U2 buddy Delta for balance of you and I. Haha. Whoops, brought Delta into this, but overall I think we do have balance.


And U2 360 is a typical HD capture, about 2.0 or better. The sound, AWESOME!!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/18738921
> 
> 
> I know you weren't Denny and I hope my post didn't imply you were.
> 
> 
> As far as GGG we need her and my U2 buddy Delta for balance of you and I. Haha. Whoops, brought Delta into this, but overall I think we do have balance.



Your post did NOT imply that; I was just bringing more clarity to my post to GRG.


I did chuckle when I read your comment about 3G and deltasun. I know you and I are *usually* quite close in our recommendations so perhaps it is good to have those who are somewhat more critical about PQ, especially when EE enters the picture.










I have _Shutter Island_ reserved for next Tuesday and I'm excited to see it. Most of the reviews I've read are VERY GOOD, and I'm talking about both the movie and the PQ.


----------



## trinifox

Thanks geek* and phantom* for your responses...... Also I should add that these forums are one of the few websites that actually look good on the iphone / ipad......


----------



## ibre34

*Armageddon*


I'd say this movie has a really good PQ but I think some time the image looks over processed. I really like this movie tho, it has everything :action, suspense and humor.

*Tier 1.5*


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/18738921
> 
> 
> I know you weren't Denny and I hope my post didn't imply you were.
> 
> 
> As far as GGG we need her and my U2 buddy Delta for balance of you and I. Haha. Whoops, brought Delta into this, but overall I think we do have balance.
> 
> 
> And U2 360 is a typical HD capture, about 2.0 or better. The sound, AWESOME!!



Ha! I'm about to balance you on U2 360.







I haven't seen the entire thing yet, but I'm really disappointed with how flat this title looks. Details are also hard to come by. Initial inkling puts this at around 3.5 for me, unfortunately.







I want to watch it again with full attention to details before I cast my vote.


I'm also halfway through _Life_, guys. I'm leaning high Tier Silver from what I've seen so far. The spread in PQ is pretty much as high as low Tier 0 to high Tier 4. There are these segments called "On Location," which has most of the subpar PQ. Still deciding if they should be counted towards the overall PQ. If so, it would lower my rating even more.


Though they are part of the actual chapters (and not the bonus materials), I think it would be acceptable to exclude them from the PQ recommendation. I'd like to hear others' thoughts on this.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/18673125
> 
> *Leap Year
> *
> 
> I picked up this bad rom-com b/c a fellow poster said there was phenomenal scenery of Ireland throughout, and I have always wanted to go over to Ireland, so I figured this would be my opportunity to drool over it a bit.
> 
> 
> 
> For me, this entire movie was flat. Soft as a newborn kitten for the most part, although there were some moments of decent detail, they were intermittently spaced at best.
> 
> 
> While the movie says it was filmed in Ireland, so much of this movie felt like bad green-screening; poor lighting perhaps? I don't know. Something looked extremely faked whenever the characters were against a background of sorts.
> 
> 
> 
> Colours were okay, but they were not as vivid as I would have liked to see in this sort of film, likely due to the muted nature of the softness.
> 
> 
> I wanted to like the scenery, I really did. I tried. There was not enough of it to help this movie given how horrible it was, and I really like Amy Adams. It kind of reminded me of when I see Soccer or Baseball on the high-def channels. It looked nice, and would be acceptable for a TV broadcast, but it just didn't have that extra push that I expect out of a blu ray.
> 
> 
> All in all it's not horrific or awful or anything, it's pleasing enough, but I would never think of it as being in the top two tiers.
> 
> 
> *Recommendation for Leap Year - Tier 2.25*
> *Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800U, THX setting, approximately 7.5' viewing distance.*



Generally agree with G3 on *Leap Year* after watching it this weekend. The PQ was generally quite bland. The interiors were bland, and the landscape shots were bland. The close-ups were bland, and the wide and medium shots were bland. I think I would go just a bit lower than G3 and recommend a placement in Tier *2.5.*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^


Oh, that's right....we also have patrick to "balance the scales."







Now we need someone to join Hugh and I on the "_generous rater_" side.


----------



## djoberg

I'm just wondering if anyone out there has seen _Shutter Island_ yet? I have it reserved for tomorrow but I'd be willing to purchase this one if the movie is decent and the PQ is really good. From what I've read, there are mixed reviews on the movie, but most are praising the PQ.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Crazies (1973)*


I'm not sure if I have ever seen more over saturated color in my life. At times the movie looks like it has been coated with a neon glow. Some black crush is a problem, although generally minimal. The grain structure is not well resolved by the encode, leading to an odd digital haze over the entire thing. Print damage is minimal.

*Tier 3.75*


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18741612
> 
> 
> I'm just wondering if anyone out there has seen _Shutter Island_ yet? I have it reserved for tomorrow but I'd be willing to purchase this one if the movie is decent and the PQ is really good. From what I've read, there are mixed reviews on the movie, but most are praising the PQ.



I would recommend a rental first. Saw this in the theatres and wanted to like just because it's probably the only Scorsese picture that may place in Tier 1. However, I couldn't wait for it to end. It was somewhat predictable for me.


Of course, I was tired that night too. I still recommend a rental.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18742015
> 
> 
> I would recommend a rental first. Saw this in the theatres and wanted to like just because it's probably the only Scorsese picture that may place in Tier 1. However, I couldn't wait for it to end. It was somewhat predictable for me.
> 
> 
> Of course, I was tired that night too. I still recommend a rental.



Thanks! I'll take your advice and rent it.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/18740867
> 
> 
> Generally agree with G3 on *Leap Year* after watching it this weekend. The PQ was generally quite bland. The interiors were bland, and the landscape shots were bland. The close-ups were bland, and the wide and medium shots were bland. I think I would go just a bit lower than G3 and recommend a placement in Tier *2.5.*



*cheers* YAY.







Some much needed validation for my ego.










Have a couple of blu's kicking around that I should get watched this week. The daughter is home sick today, I might try and cheer her up this afternoon by popping in Alice in Wonderland. I haven't seen it yet!


----------



## Ozymandis

*Alice in Wonderland:*


A movie like this will never score highly. It was, on the whole, very soft and lacked detail. Colors and contrast were nice but it was soft and dream-like, as I'm sure the director intended. Tier 2.0 from me. The movie itself was not to my liking, but the kids loved it.

*Terminator: Salvation:*


Oddly the movie starts with a closeup of Marcus on death row that is Tier 0, but it didn't stay there. Tons of CGI, and the whole look is very gritty, dusty, and washed-out. A couple of Tier 0 scenes that were gorgeous, and overall a fairly decent Blu-ray. Tier 1.75 for this one. Worth checking out for the audio, which was amazing.

*Grace:*


Surprisingly good low-budget horror flick! Great watch for parents and especially women. Lots of film grain, to the point where it was quite noisy, but detail was so-so. Not really an attractive disc but I paid 6 dollars for it. Tier 3.0 for my final review.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Leap Year*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/18673125
> 
> *Leap Year
> *
> 
> I picked up this bad rom-com b/c a fellow poster said there was phenomenal scenery of Ireland throughout, and I have always wanted to go over to Ireland, so I figured this would be my opportunity to drool over it a bit.
> 
> 
> 
> For me, this entire movie was flat. Soft as a newborn kitten for the most part, although there were some moments of decent detail, they were intermittently spaced at best.
> 
> 
> While the movie says it was filmed in Ireland, so much of this movie felt like bad green-screening; poor lighting perhaps? I don't know. Something looked extremely faked whenever the characters were against a background of sorts.
> 
> 
> 
> Colours were okay, but they were not as vivid as I would have liked to see in this sort of film, likely due to the muted nature of the softness.
> 
> 
> I wanted to like the scenery, I really did. I tried. There was not enough of it to help this movie given how horrible it was, and I really like Amy Adams. It kind of reminded me of when I see Soccer or Baseball on the high-def channels. It looked nice, and would be acceptable for a TV broadcast, but it just didn't have that extra push that I expect out of a blu ray.
> 
> 
> All in all it's not horrific or awful or anything, it's pleasing enough, but I would never think of it as being in the top two tiers.
> 
> 
> *Recommendation for Leap Year - Tier 2.25*
> *Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800U, THX setting, approximately 7.5’ viewing distance.*





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/18740867
> 
> 
> Generally agree with G3 on *Leap Year* after watching it this weekend. The PQ was generally quite bland. The interiors were bland, and the landscape shots were bland. The close-ups were bland, and the wide and medium shots were bland. I think I would go just a bit lower than G3 and recommend a placement in Tier *2.5.*



I just finished watching this 5 minutes ago with my wife (the things we do to keep the women in our life happy!) and I think you are both being FAR too generous in your ratings.


It seems that I am seeing a lot of disconnect lately regarding people's actual comments and their final tier recommendation. Comments like those above, to me, are not indicative of a title that is worthy of anywhere in Tier 2.


This title was, without question, *below* average for a BD title.


Softness abounds. Fine details are seldom seen. And the worst part of all: flat, flat and flat. I.e., contrast was very poor. Yes, there were some exceptions, but they were few and far between.


The landscape shots of Ireland, which could and should have looked great, lacked the clarity and depth to make it really stand out. Colors were also not very natural or pleasing, though I have a hard time describing exactly why that is. Perhaps GGG had it right regarding the effect of the overall softness, I don't know.


This movie was *terrible*, and I had nothing to do but pay attention to the PQ, and it was quite bad.


Clearly this is *not* a title worthy of being anywhere in Tier 2.


I don't mean to come on so strong about a movie that I really couldn't care less about, but I just feel strongly about how poor this title looks.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.25*


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/18673125
> 
> *Leap Year
> *
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> All in all it's not horrific or awful or anything, it's pleasing enough, *but I would never think of it as being in the top two tiers.*



Perhaps this is worth discussing a little further. Warning: this also may be looked at as nitpicking or playing "semantics", but I hope it isn't taken that way.


Perhaps we are losing sight of the original intent of Tier "0"? I don't think of Tier 0 as the "top" tier. Rather, Tier 0 was created for purposes of representing the "cream of the crop" or the "best of the best" that BD has to offer. Tier 0 is for the rare title that really separates itself from others. In other words, Tier 0 will and should remain *small*.


As time passes, titles should naturally fall out of Tier 0. We've seen this happen to many titles, including ones that I myself had originally recommended for Tier 0 which I recognize no longer belong there.


My point is that by saying that a title "does not belong in the top 2 tiers" says, to me, that it does not belong in Tier 1 or Tier 2, but rather Tier 3.


I know that we have very specific descriptions for the various tiers as well, but even under those descriptions, I think that there have been some rather generous placements that don't coincide with the descriptions of what people are actually seeing.


Just my 2 cents, and perhaps it isn't even worth that much.


I guess an argument could be made that Tier 0 no longer has the same intent that it did when originally created, based on the description that we now have for that Tier (which, basically, amounts to "reference").


But let's also remember that Tier 3 is described as "average". It seems to me that a lot of people are placing "average" looking titles in Tier 2.


----------



## deltasun

*Old Dogs*


Your typical comedy presentation with saturated skin tones, deep blacks, strong contrast, and popping colors. Depth was fairly appreciable and details hold their own. Facial details are some of the best out there, bordering regularly in Tier 0 territory. Don't let the introductory sequence fool you - it looked terrible, but quickly shifts into Tier Gold.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*Alice in Wonderland*


This one's dark and not as detailed as one would expect given all the opportunities to show off what HD can do with such details. Instead, most scenes are devoid of the type of detail one would expect from this type of film from Disney. Softness and darkness is never a good combination for me and it turned me off completely. Though I would give it an A for shadow details, they're not enough to save this for me. Some facial details - specially of Depp's - do show some fine lines through his make up. Blacks are mostly crushed and/or weak. Contrast wavers as well. Colors, though mostly subdued, do pop in a number of scenes.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*The Wolfman (2010)*


The darker scenes (which comprise the majority of the film) resemble that of _Alice in Wonderland_, but a bit worse. Because of the filtering (director's intent all the way, of course), softness and vignetting is the common look. Blacks are deep and crushed most of the time. Contrast can vary. Some of the daytime scenes, specially the few flashbacks, offer some sharpness. Still, even with the filtering, some of the close-up's do enter high Tier 1 territory. Details also waver - fabric and fur can look absolutely stunning in one scene but disappear in the next. Grain can get really thick in darker areas, but disappear DNR-like in others.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.50*


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18745170
> 
> *Leap Year*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just finished watching this 5 minutes ago with my wife (the things we do to keep the women in our life happy!) and I think you are both being FAR too generous in your ratings.
> 
> 
> It seems that I am seeing a lot of disconnect lately regarding people's actual comments and their final tier recommendation. Comments like those above, to me, are not indicative of a title that is worthy of anywhere in Tier 2.
> 
> 
> This title was, without question, *below* average for a BD title.
> 
> 
> Softness abounds. Fine details are seldom seen. And the worst part of all: flat, flat and flat. I.e., contrast was very poor. Yes, there were some exceptions, but they were few and far between.
> 
> 
> The landscape shots of Ireland, which could and should have looked great, lacked the clarity and depth to make it really stand out. Colors were also not very natural or pleasing, though I have a hard time describing exactly why that is. Perhaps GGG had it right regarding the effect of the overall softness, I don't know.
> 
> 
> This movie was *terrible*, and I had nothing to do but pay attention to the PQ, and it was quite bad.
> 
> 
> Clearly this is *not* a title worthy of being anywhere in Tier 2.
> 
> 
> I don't mean to come on so strong about a movie that I really couldn't care less about, but I just feel strongly about how poor this title looks.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.25*



Words cannot express what a refreshing change it is to be described as being "FAR too generous" in one of my recommendations. This is a moment to cherish and treasure.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18745170
> 
> *Leap Year*
> 
> 
> I don't mean to come on so strong about a movie that I really couldn't care less about, but I just feel strongly about how poor this title looks.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.25*



I am floored anyone could rank it this low. Absolutely floored. The sheer amount of texture in those shots of Ireland is staggering. Every plant, every rock, every blade of grass is perfectly visible and defined. If you want to dock for the indoor scenes, fine. I can at least see that, although I firmly believe facial detail holds there as well.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18745867
> 
> 
> I am floored anyone could rank it this low. Absolutely floored. The sheer amount of texture in those shots of Ireland is staggering. Every plant, every rock, every blade of grass is perfectly visible and defined. If you want to dock for the indoor scenes, fine. I can at least see that, although I firmly believe facial detail holds there as well.



+1


I absolutely, positively agree with you!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18745170
> 
> *Leap Year*
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.25*



Rob, I just have to say that I have NEVER been more baffled by such a wide discrepancy between us as with this title. It's like we truly did watch two different titles. This is one of those times I wish we could be sitting down together to view it (though I too would hate to sit through this terrible movie again







) with the same equipment, viewing distance, lighting, etc. to see if there is still the incredible gulf there is now between our ratings.


----------



## spongebob




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18746079
> 
> 
> Rob, I just have to say that I have NEVER been more baffled by such a wide discrepancy between us as with this title. It's like we truly did watch two different titles. This is one of those times I wish we could be sitting down together to view it (though I too would hate to sit through this terrible movie again
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) with the same equipment, viewing distance, lighting, etc. to see if there is still the incredible gulf there is now between our ratings.



Maybe one of you got the DVD by mistake?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spongebob* /forum/post/18746097
> 
> 
> Maybe one of you got the DVD by mistake?



If so, I wonder which one of us got it?


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18745204
> 
> 
> Perhaps we are losing sight of the original intent of Tier "0"? I don't think of Tier 0 as the "top" tier. Rather, Tier 0 was created for purposes of representing the "cream of the crop" or the "best of the best" that BD has to offer. Tier 0 is for the rare title that really separates itself from others. In other words, Tier 0 will and should remain *small*.
> 
> 
> As time passes, titles should naturally fall out of Tier 0. We've seen this happen to many titles, including ones that I myself had originally recommended for Tier 0 which I recognize no longer belong there.
> 
> 
> My point is that by saying that a title "does not belong in the top 2 tiers" says, to me, that it does not belong in Tier 1 or Tier 2, but rather Tier 3.
> 
> 
> I know that we have very specific descriptions for the various tiers as well, but even under those descriptions, I think that there have been some rather generous placements that don't coincide with the descriptions of what people are actually seeing.
> 
> 
> Just my 2 cents, and perhaps it isn't even worth that much.
> 
> 
> I guess an argument could be made that Tier 0 no longer has the same intent that it did when originally created, based on the description that we now have for that Tier (which, basically, amounts to "reference").
> 
> 
> But let's also remember that Tier 3 is described as "average". It seems to me that a lot of people are placing "average" looking titles in Tier 2.



There are definitely biases and general trends to what people are giving as recommendations. First off, Tier 5 does not even appear to be considered in most evaluations, though I know there are Blu-rays that belong at the bottom. The worst ranking people seem comfortable with grading is Tier 4, which is a problem if the whole system is going to work. Why is it necessary? To fight the problem we see so commonly in Internet reviews, where no one ever gives out failing marks for anything, no matter how atrocious the transfer or source material looks in HD.


Your point about Tier 3 is understood and hopefully followed by everyone. Many catalog titles I see rarely deserve anything higher than Tier 2.75, if that. The Godfather is probably emblematic of that phenomena. A stellar restoration and transfer from the best existing film elements, on one of the handful of greatest movies of all time, but in final comparative analysis it is hard to justify any placement above Tier 3. Picture quality of the released Blu-ray should be the sole determining factor for placement.


I know it gets tough being objective about personal favorites. I consciously avoided giving too much input on Fight Club in the thread, as it is one movie I have a hard time being impartial about, having seen it dozens of times. The only time I give recommendations for personal favorites is when there is a lack of discussion in the thread about them.


----------



## deltasun

very valid points, PS and Rob (in regards to how the tier system is laid out...not the _Leap Year_ placement, of course







). Particularly, we do need to remember that 3.0 is the average *blu-ray* tier. I'm guilty of this as well, because I get lost when I try to compare to movies around them.


The question is...how do we fix it? I can certainly look through my past postings and if it's obvious enough for me to re-place, I can do so. Would that cause a nightmare, accounting-wise, Phantom?


Even my 4.0 vote for _The Godfather_ may be generous.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Rob - in my post where you are quoting my "top 2" tiers, I was specifically referring to tier 0 and tier 1. Perhaps I should have been more specific, but those are what I had been meaning. It was me counting numbers... tier 0 is a tier, and tier 1 is a tier, and thus, they are the top 2 tiers of the list. That's it, that's all.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

And the problem with Leap Year, aside from the whole discrepancy of our ratings for it, is that it was such a BAD movie that I will never rent it again. I'm hoping that our next insane discrepancy with tier ratings will be with a movie that is actually GOOD and that I am willing to go out there and view it more than once to help with getting it placed.


Leap Year belongs in a tier of its own: *Tier Steaming Cow Pie*. Some of us can see that a Steaming Cow Pie has redeeming factors because it can be fertilizer, and others of us are just angry that we've stepped in it and have to toss a pair of perfectly good shoes in order to get away from the stench that it is lingering.











By placing Leap Year in Tier Steaming Cow Pie, that solves its place on the list, and prevents us from wasting more time on, well, the pile of cow crap that this movie is.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*From Paris with Love*


A heavy film grain stock is at work here, and the encode handles it well. Detail is quite high, delivering facial details in both close-ups and the mid-range. Black levels are superb, just one or two scenes where they don't hold. Contrast runs a little hot, and everyone's favorite, orange flesh tones do occur. Still, the level of detail on display is awesome, certainly providing the eye candy.

*Tier 1.5*


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/18747317
> 
> 
> ...and others of us are just angry that we've stepped in it and have to toss a pair of perfectly good shoes in order to get away from the stench that it is lingering...



Careful! You might end up pushing your tiny POS car into a ditch!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18747394
> 
> 
> Careful! You might end up pushing your tiny POS car into a ditch!



haha. I think I'll live with that possibility.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18746733
> 
> 
> I know it gets tough being objective about personal favorites.



Yeah....maybe that's why I gave _Leap Year_ such a high rating.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/18745464
> 
> 
> Words cannot express what a refreshing change it is to be described as being "FAR too generous" in one of my recommendations. This is a moment to cherish and treasure.



























I laughed out loud on that one!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18745867
> 
> 
> I am floored anyone could rank it this low. Absolutely floored. The sheer amount of texture in those shots of Ireland is staggering. Every plant, every rock, every blade of grass is perfectly visible and defined. If you want to dock for the indoor scenes, fine. I can at least see that, although I firmly believe facial detail holds there as well.



I couldn't possibly disagree with you more. "Every plant, every rock, every blade of grass is perfectly visible and definend"?!?!?!

















This is so far off base from what I saw that I really don't even know where we could begin the discussion. We have no common ground from which to start. Soft. Soft. And softer. I did notice a few scenes that were taken at dusk that actually did look pretty good, with good contrast, depth, and even good detail. Very few and far between. The vast majority of daylight shots, including the landscapes, were average at best.


And like I said in my review, the poor contrast is the worst part of this title. Virtually all outdoor scenes had a very flat look to them. No depth at all. Same for the indoor scenes.


This is a poor looking title, seriously lacking in what we are looking for in this thread. Tier 1? Laughable. Tier 2? Still far too high.


Big disconnect? Indeed. Like I said, I don't know where to start, because there is no common ground on this one. This title simply excels at nothing, and is mediocrity defined.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18745940
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> 
> I absolutely, positively agree with you!



Shocking! The most generous ranker in our thread says this mediocre title looks good!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18746079
> 
> 
> Rob, I just have to say that I have NEVER been more baffled by such a wide discrepancy between us as with this title. It's like we truly did watch two different titles. This is one of those times I wish we could be sitting down together to view it (though I too would hate to sit through this terrible movie again
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) with the same equipment, viewing distance, lighting, etc. to see if there is still the incredible gulf there is now between our ratings.



Yes, Denny, I too wish that you could have watched this pos movie with pos PQ on my 123" screen as well.










I don't comprehend it. I really don't. There is a complete lack of clarity, depth, sharpness, detail, contrast, black levels, etc.


Have I mentioned the softness?


These things were blatantly obvious on my setup.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/18747289
> 
> 
> Rob - in my post where you are quoting my "top 2" tiers, I was specifically referring to tier 0 and tier 1. Perhaps I should have been more specific, but those are what I had been meaning. It was me counting numbers... tier 0 is a tier, and tier 1 is a tier, and thus, they are the top 2 tiers of the list. That's it, that's all.



Yes, I know that. I was just countering by saying that I think we are all getting in the habit of thinking that any title can be in Tier 0 as long as there are no artifacts or EE etc, and I don't think that is the case. I didn't mean to pick you out in particular, but just used your post as an example of how people are thinking. If Tier 0 is considered one of the top two tiers, then Tier 3 is the "fourth tier" and would explain why so many people have a hard time putting films in that tier or below.


Except for Patrick.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/18747317
> 
> 
> And the problem with Leap Year, aside from the whole discrepancy of our ratings for it, is that it was such a BAD movie that I will never rent it again. I'm hoping that our next insane discrepancy with tier ratings will be with a movie that is actually GOOD and that I am willing to go out there and view it more than once to help with getting it placed.



I will simply say this: from my point of view, there is absolutely no need for me to view this title again in terms of my ranking. Like I said in my review, the movie sucked hard, so there was nothing more for me to do than to pay attention to the PQ. Unfortunately, there were no redeeming qualities there either.


And I agree with your insightful analysis regarding Steaming Cow Pie's.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18582929
> 
> *Leap Year*
> 
> _He's not going to do it, is he?_
> 
> 
> I am.
> 
> _You, you just can't!_
> 
> 
> But I am: Leap Year is a notch better than Avatar. There, I said it. Where Avatar suffered from that digital/processed look in the few human scenes, Leap Year is one of the best transfers of 2010, bar none.













Speechless.


Utterly and completely....speechless.


----------



## deltasun

Well, sounds like we are talking different movies, Rob. I guess it's time to stop beating on a dead horse and move on. I'm very comfortable with my rating; you're obviously comfortable with yours. No one is convincing anybody else of anything.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18748853
> 
> 
> Well, sounds like we are talking different movies, Rob. I guess it's time to stop beating on a dead horse and move on. I'm very comfortable with my rating; you're obviously comfortable with yours. No one is convincing anybody else of anything.



Obviously.


I didn't mean to come across as beating a dead horse, I simply had not seen his recommendation (nor yours) prior to my last post. I thought that the highest recommendation was for Tier 1, but I was mistaken, so I guess the disconnect is even bigger than I had thought.


Anyway, this title isn't worth the time and effort to argue at length about anyway, it was a horrible film, and even my chick-flick loving wife had to agree!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18748853
> 
> 
> Well, sounds like we are talking different movies, Rob. I guess it's time to stop beating on a dead horse and move on. I'm very comfortable with my rating; you're obviously comfortable with yours. No one is convincing anybody else of anything.



+1


Agreed! I too believe we have reached an impasse *already* (I say that because in reality there hasn't been a lot of substantive debate on this, rather it seems emotions may be rising high which in turn could lead to the mods stepping in).


I do see you rated _Wolfman_ 3.5 and my rating was 2.0. I would love to have others view this and chime in with an opinion and a recommendation. This difference (of ratings) isn't quite as great as those we've seen in _Leap Year_, but it's enough to give me the desire to see more input from others.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18746733
> 
> 
> There are definitely biases and general trends to what people are giving as recommendations. First off, Tier 5 does not even appear to be considered in most evaluations, though I know there are Blu-rays that belong at the bottom. The worst ranking people seem comfortable with grading is Tier 4, which is a problem if the whole system is going to work. Why is it necessary? To fight the problem we see so commonly in Internet reviews, where no one ever gives out failing marks for anything, no matter how atrocious the transfer or source material looks in HD.
> 
> 
> Your point about Tier 3 is understood and hopefully followed by everyone. Many catalog titles I see rarely deserve anything higher than Tier 2.75, if that. The Godfather is probably emblematic of that phenomena. A stellar restoration and transfer from the best existing film elements, on one of the handful of greatest movies of all time, but in final comparative analysis it is hard to justify any placement above Tier 3. Picture quality of the released Blu-ray should be the sole determining factor for placement.
> 
> 
> I know it gets tough being objective about personal favorites. I consciously avoided giving too much input on Fight Club in the thread, as it is one movie I have a hard time being impartial about, having seen it dozens of times. The only time I give recommendations for personal favorites is when there is a lack of discussion in the thread about them.



I hope that this doesn't get lost in the other discussion regarding Leap Year, because I think you have made some great points here, and it appears that others agree as well.


I am just as guilty as many others, as it is pretty rare for me to place a title in Tier 4 (much less Tier 5) as well.


It is also possible that when we went to the "quarter tier" placements, that it subconsciously caused us to think of a Tier 3 (or God forbid Tier 4) as being much further down the rankings than they really are.


We need to remember that Tier 2.0 titles should fit the same descriptions given for that Tier as titles in Tier 2.75. A minor point, but perhaps one worth bringing up.


Tier 3.0 = AVERAGE. Not below average. Not horrible. Average.


If Tier 3.0 is average, it would seem logical that many more titles should be placed there. Like Leap Year, for example.


Sorry, couldn't resist.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18748952
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> 
> Agreed! I too believe we have reached an impasse *already* (I say that because in reality there hasn't been a lot of substantive debate on this, rather it seems emotions may be rising high which in turn could lead to the mods stepping in).
> 
> 
> I do see you rated _Wolfman_ 3.5 and my rating was 2.0. I would love to have others view this and chime in with an opinion and a recommendation. This difference (of ratings) isn't quite as great as those we've seen in _Leap Year_, but it's enough to give me the desire to see more input from others.



Denny, I think all you really need to do is keep ranking films exactly like you have been doing, then take whatever your final ranking is and drop it another 3/4 tier, and you will be spot on accurate most of the time!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18749018
> 
> 
> Denny, I think all you really need to do is keep ranking films exactly like you have been doing, then take whatever your final ranking is and drop it another 3/4 tier, and you will be spot on accurate most of the time!



Okay....let's start with _Avatar_....I have reconsidered my initial recommendation and now I would like to nominate it for the *bottom quarter of Tier 0*. How's that Rob?


----------



## djoberg

And....for my second reconsideration....I'll put _Leap Year_ at *1.75* (instead of my initial recommendation of 1.0). So, how am I doing Rob? Are they accurate now?


----------



## deltasun

*The Illusionist*


Coincidentally, this had almost the same look as _Wolfman_ in terms of softness around the edges, vignetting, occasional sharpness to facial details, crushed blacks, and blooming whites. Almost...but weaker. All due to the stylistic look the director is going for.


Contrast is mostly weak and dimensionality suffers. Flesh tones are on the orange/brown side as reflected by the sepia hue prevalent throughout. The look being achieved is reminiscent of turn-of-the-century Vienna (really, any turn-of-the-century European city).


All in all, though I am pleased with the transfer and overall look, I believe this belongs to...

*Tier Recommendation: 4.0*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## djoberg

*Shutter Island*


I'm quite tired so I'll make this short. In the main I was very impressed with the DETAIL and DEPTH of this title, especially the majority of outdoor scenes. From about the 1 Hr. 16 Min. mark, (where DiCaprio and Ruffalo start out for the lighthouse) the image was nearly impeccable to the very end....extremely sharp and detailed, with great dimensionality.


Colors were muted in much of the movie, in keeping with the mood of this psychological thriller, but there were times where the colors popped. Contrast was superb....blacks were very good (not excellent, but very good)....and shadow detail was pleasing as well.


Where I was somewhat disappointed was with several of the indoor scenes (in some of the institutional buildings, in a cave, and in an out building on the grounds). Some of these scenes appeared flat, soft, a bit gritty, and lacked detail. These were enough to knock it down nearly a tier, IMO.


In the final analysis, my vote goes for.....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite BDP-05....Viewed from 7.5'


Edit: I forgot to mention "facial details." They were NOT Tier 0 quality, but *some* were close. They probably averaged out in Tier 1 or high Tier 2.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^


I reserve the right to change my recommendation to 2.5 at a moment's notice.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18749613
> 
> 
> Okay....let's start with _Avatar_....I have reconsidered my initial recommendation and now I would like to nominate it for the *bottom quarter of Tier 0*. How's that Rob?





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18749626
> 
> 
> And....for my second reconsideration....I'll put _Leap Year_ at *1.75* (instead of my initial recommendation of 1.0). So, how am I doing Rob? Are they accurate now?



Well, I did say that you would be accurate "*most* of the time"!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

You guys are just too funny.


----------



## deltasun

*Invictus*


The stylish look reminded of _Gran Torino_ with its somewhat greenish tinge. Depth is much more pronounced here and details are much more, well, detailed. Plenty of 3D pop here, folks...even in medium shots. Fine grain present, turning moderate in interior scenes.


Blacks are deep, but contrast does vary. Some of the outdoor shots are a bit on the hot side, obliterating details. Skin tones are faithful and colors a bit subdued. Having said all that, there are bouts of softness throughout. Additionally, some of the worst examples of aliasing that I've seen. Check out Mandela's mantle at the 45:50 mark or the jetliner over the stadium.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*


An actual good feel-good movie









_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18749692
> 
> *Shutter Island*
> 
> 
> I'm quite tired so I'll make this short. In the main I was very impressed with the DETAIL and DEPTH of this title, especially the majority of outdoor scenes. From about the 1 Hr. 16 Min. mark, (where DiCaprio and Ruffalo start out for the lighthouse) the image was nearly impeccable to the very end....extremely sharp and detailed, with great dimensionality.
> 
> 
> Colors were muted in much of the movie, in keeping with the mood of this psychological thriller, but there were times where the colors popped. Contrast was superb....blacks were very good (not excellent, but very good)....and shadow detail was pleasing as well.
> 
> 
> Where I was somewhat disappointed was with several of the indoor scenes (in some of the institutional buildings, in a cave, and in an out building on the grounds). Some of these scenes appeared flat, soft, a bit gritty, and lacked detail. These were enough to knock it down nearly a tier, IMO.
> 
> 
> In the final analysis, my vote goes for.....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75*



Lazy day. What he said.

*Tier 1.75*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18749950
> 
> *Invictus*
> 
> 
> An actual good feel-good movie



It was indeed a "feel good movie" and the fact that it was true made it that much better. I was somewhat ignorant of Nelson Mandela (and Rugby







) before viewing this, and I came away with quite the good impression of him. And of course, Morgan Freeman was the perfect pick of Eastwood's for this character.


I want to mention that I also liked _Shutter Island_. It surely made you think and would you believe I guessed the *twist ending* after the first 30 minutes? (I'm not usually very good at that!) Mr. Scorcese left some of the ending open for interpretation and after some of you view it feel free to PM me with your interpretation.


----------



## lgans316

*War of the Worlds (2005) - Tier 2.5*


Yet another typical Spielberg PQ.


Last 15-20 minutes - Tier 2.75

The rest - Tier 2.25


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18746876
> 
> 
> very valid points, PS and Rob (in regards to how the tier system is laid out...not the _Leap Year_ placement, of course
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ). Particularly, we do need to remember that 3.0 is the average *blu-ray* tier. I'm guilty of this as well, because I get lost when I try to compare to movies around them.
> 
> 
> The question is...how do we fix it? I can certainly look through my past postings and if it's obvious enough for me to re-place, I can do so. Would that cause a nightmare, accounting-wise, Phantom?



If you feel strongly enough about a past recommendation, you can always change it. I will then try to incorporate it into the final ranking. A good check would be how much you feel the actual, current ranking in the list is off. There is little point to go back if the current placement is close to your new assessment.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/18747317
> 
> 
> Leap Year belongs in a tier of its own: *Tier Steaming Cow Pie*. Some of us can see that a Steaming Cow Pie has redeeming factors because it can be fertilizer, and others of us are just angry that we've stepped in it and have to toss a pair of perfectly good shoes in order to get away from the stench that it is lingering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By placing Leap Year in Tier Steaming Cow Pie, that solves its place on the list, and prevents us from wasting more time on, well, the pile of cow crap that this movie is.










Thank you very much for my laugh of the day. Luckily I was not drinking anything when I read it, or my computer would now be wet.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/18751839
> 
> *War of the Worlds (2005) - Tier 2.5*
> 
> 
> Yet another typical Spielberg PQ.



I know exactly what you mean by "another typical Spielberg PQ", but others may not. I don't want to put words in your mouth, so maybe you can tell us what you mean by this.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*War of the Worlds '05*


Not sure what to say about this one in terms of this thread. Tons of noise added to the frame, but the encode resolves it well. Detail is mostly smothered, and the blooming lights are constant. Some scenes look great, especially in Tim Robbins basement. There are some shots that look weirdly like a DVD, even down the resolution, but these are brief (two scenes).

*Tier 3.5*


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18754626
> 
> 
> I know exactly what you mean by "another typical Spielberg PQ", but others may not. I don't want to put words in your mouth, so maybe you can tell us what you mean by this.



Meant the highly stylized photography that sometimes doesn't result in producing eye candy picture. One scene offers excellent sharpness with the next scene looking bleached and dull. Nevertheless, I am happy with all the recent Spielberg releases on BLU. About to watch Collateral.


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18749638
> 
> *The Illusionist*
> 
> 
> Coincidentally, this had almost the same look as _Wolfman_ in terms of softness around the edges, vignetting, occasional sharpness to facial details, crushed blacks, and blooming whites. Almost...but weaker. All due to the stylistic look the director is going for.
> 
> 
> Contrast is mostly weak and dimensionality suffers. Flesh tones are on the orange/brown side as reflected by the sepia hue prevalent throughout. The look being achieved is reminiscent of turn-of-the-century Vienna (really, any turn-of-the-century European city).
> 
> 
> All in all, though I am pleased with the transfer and overall look, I believe this belongs to...
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 4.0*
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_



The Canadian import of the _Illusionist_ is listed as Tier 2.25. Are they different transfers or just difference in opinion on where they belong?


----------



## djoberg

*Edge of Darkness*


Overall, I was quite impressed with this title, though there was one very unusual inconsistency that baffled me throughout the film. I'm speaking of facial details (which I see deltasun also referred to in his review). Any close-up of Mel Gibson revealed every line, pore, stubble, etc. (low Tier 0 or high Tier 1 quality), but the majority of other close-ups on other faces were below average (there was one or two exceptions, but that's all). This was so obvious that it served as a distraction to me and will result in at least a half tier penalization in the end.


The biggest virtue, BY FAR, was the black levels and shadow details! They were simply astounding and with many scenes taking place at night or in shadowy places indoors, this helped greatly in my final assessment for placement recommendation. I will add that even in daytime scenes any black object was BLACK, with great detail to boot.


Flesh tones were accurate, as were colors. Detail in outdoor scenes bordered on Tier 0 at times, Tier 1 at other times (check out the scene where Mel Gibson beats up Mr. Robinson in his backard....the detail was simply exquisite). Depth and dimensionality were also above average in many scenes.


Aside from the inconsistent facial details (which, again, were very bothersome to me), there were a few scenes that were soft and a bit flat. This title could have easily been another Tier 1 contender if not for these. All things considered I'm going to assign it to Tier 2, though IMHO it deserves a place near the top.....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Pioneer BDP-05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/18757866
> 
> 
> The Canadian import of the _Illusionist_ is listed as Tier 2.25. Are they different transfers or just difference in opinion on where they belong?



That ranking for _The Illusionist_ was my responsibility. It has been confirmed elsewhere that the compression parameters are bit-for-bit identical between the two editions, though a few vague impressions report that the Fox Blu-ray is a little darker in comparison. The Canadian disc I analyzed could not have been placed in tier four by any reasonable measure, unless the standards are radically shifted. A general tier three ranking is a possibility, depending on one's personal interpretations of the list's criteria.


I never imagined Fox (there is no precedence in Alliance's history for it) would reuse the same Alliance video encode, so I sold off the Canadian BD as soon as the American BD was announced. Little did I know they might very well end up being identical. I will now wait to see a good pictorial comparison between the two versions. Hopefully Xylon or someone else here will take up the challenge.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/18757770
> 
> 
> Meant the highly stylized photography that sometimes doesn't result in producing eye candy picture. One scene offers excellent sharpness with the next scene looking bleached and dull. Nevertheless, I am happy with all the recent Spielberg releases on BLU. About to watch Collateral.




Yep, but you forgot to mention the _*grain*_!


Collateral has its own unique style too.


----------



## cjmx2

*The Lovely Bones*


Overall a beautiful title. I really didn't enjoy the pumped up contrast but gotta love the directors intent







Other than that, the only penalty I could give is the shots of suzie salmon's face had no detail and were washed out in almost every shot I could see...all in all about
*Tier 1.25*
As a side note i have been reading this forum faithfully for about 2 years now...1st post here...


Samsung ln52b750 - lgbd390 - 1080p @ 24hz 8 ft


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cjmx2* /forum/post/18760273
> 
> *The Lovely Bones*
> 
> 
> Overall a beautiful title. I really didn't enjoy the pumped up contrast but gotta love the directors intent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Other than that, the only penalty I could give is the shots of suzie salmon's face had no detail and were washed out in almost every shot I could see...all in all about
> *Tier 1.25*
> As a side note i have been reading this forum faithfully for about 2 years now...1st post here...
> 
> 
> Samsung ln52b750 - lgbd390 - 1080p @ 24hz 8 ft



First of all, it's good to see you posting on the thread after being a faithful reader for two years! Welcome!


I do agree that this is a good-looking title. So far there has only been three of us chiming in and all have been nominations for Tier 1. Quite frankly, I'm surprised that my recommendation is the lowest (1.75) with the reputation I have for being the most "generous rater"....perhaps you have joined just in time to compete for that spot!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Now, now, Denny, don't scare the new poster away with that sort of chatter.










Welcome, cjmx2! thanks for the review.


----------



## Hughmc

There's your welcoming committee, enjoy it while it lasts. Lol., just kidding as you know from reading this thread as a lurker as you said. GGG is most often our welcoming committee. Well, she lives in the Artic, hockey is over, so...







Welcome!!
*Lord of the Rings:*

I am not going to say much about these titles other than they are pretty much, 3, 2, 1.

*FOTR:*

What a mess, but I have to believe it isn't all in the source, but rather several factors, the least being source. I think the DNR is the biggest culprit, but I also believe the transfer used is not the same as they used for 2 and 3, meaning 2 and 3 almost look like they were worked on where as one looks like it was from the DVD transfer.
*Tier Recommendation: Tier 3.5:*

*Two Towers*


This looked remarkably better than FOTR and makes FOTR look almost DVD like in comparison, not that FOTR is DVD like, but the comparison. There are many good shots and details, both facial, closeups, medium and long distance. There is some black crush, some DNR and EE, but nothing on the level of the worst uses of those Digital tools, not even close. I could even go 2.0 while I agree with GRG on FOTR, I definitely disagree with GRG on Two Towers.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 2.25*

*ROTK*


This is by far and away the best of the three virtually garnering a tier blu vote from me. It looks good, really good and as I said before when commenting on GRG's review, think Prince Caspian most often.


If it wasn't for the first, I would be truly tempted to buy this set, but I will hold out, because I just cannot believe there isn't a source or transfer that is better than what they gave us. Here's hoping!!








*

Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.0*


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18758566
> 
> 
> That ranking for _The Illusionist_ was my responsibility. It has been confirmed elsewhere that the compression parameters are bit-for-bit identical between the two editions, though a few vague impressions report that the Fox Blu-ray is a little darker in comparison. The Canadian disc I analyzed could not have been placed in tier four by any reasonable measure, unless the standards are radically shifted. A general tier three ranking is a possibility, depending on one's personal interpretations of the list's criteria.
> 
> 
> I never imagined Fox (there is no precedence in Alliance's history for it) would reuse the same Alliance video encode, so I sold off the Canadian BD as soon as the American BD was announced. Little did I know they might very well end up being identical. I will now wait to see a good pictorial comparison between the two versions. Hopefully Xylon or someone else here will take up the challenge.



Therein lies the dilemma. If we are to define Tier 3 as average, there is no way this title is average or above it. The stylistic shooting alone puts it lower than the average of ALL blu-ray's. Perhaps we define average differently, because my initial gut would have placed this around 2.75.


Rob, you've put me off kilter.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18760513
> 
> 
> Therein lies the dilemma. If we are to define Tier 3 as average, there is no way this title is average or above it. The stylistic shooting alone puts it lower than the average of ALL blu-ray's. Perhaps we define average differently, because my initial gut would have placed this around 2.75.
> 
> 
> Rob, you've put me off kilter.



I know this discussion was a few days ago regarding tier 3 being average, which I am not debating that, but I thought of the tiers like this:


Tier 0: A+ Excellent / 5 stars / 10/10

Tier 1: B+ Very good/ 4 stars / 8/10

Tier 2: B Good / 3 stars / 6/10

Tier 3: C Average /2 stars / 4/10

Tier 4: D Mediocre /1 star /2 /10

Tier 5: F Poor /0 stars 0/10


Funny, I was going to jump into the discussion and refute tier 3 as being average, as I thought tier 2 as more average, but this is how I would list them. Maybe 2.5 to 3.5 is average.

















Sorry Delta, I'm no help.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^


Hugh, delta, Rob, et al.,


I believe that the description for Tier 3 is defined quite well (I'm referring to the standards set forth, not the word "average") and if we simply adhere to those standards we won't "lose our way." Perhaps we are having trouble due to the fact that *most* Blus are NOT average; that is, most Blus are not falling into Tier 3. The word average can take on the meaning of "a representative type" or "statistical norm." Thus, in point of fact, Tier 3 is not actually a representative of the whole. Maybe we should consider dropping the word "average" from the Tier 3 description. That would solve the problem, in my thinking.


Edit: If we did drop the word average, we could change the following Tier names (and leave the other Tier names the same) as follows:


Tier 2: Very Good

Tier 3: Good

Tier 4: Poor


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18760513
> 
> 
> Rob, you've put me off kilter.



Good!










That means that the points that I raised have made you and others take a closer look at this issue, which is a good thing.


Like I said before, I think I am guilty of placing some titles too high as well, and have previously thought of Tier 3 as being poor quality titles (instead of average), and it really isn't true.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/18760609
> 
> 
> I know this discussion was a few days ago regarding tier 3 being average, which I am not debating that, but I thought of the tiers like this:
> 
> 
> Tier 0: A+ Excellent / 5 stars / 10/10
> 
> Tier 1: B+ Very good/ 4 stars / 8/10
> 
> Tier 2: B Good / 3 stars / 6/10
> 
> Tier 3: C Average /2 stars / 4/10
> 
> Tier 4: D Mediocre /1 star /2 /10
> 
> Tier 5: F Poor /0 stars 0/10



Thanks for posting this! This goes directly to the point that I was making earlier (and helps to prove it).


The mistake that I believe that you are making here (and it is an important one, I think) is the fact that you list *Tier 1 as "B+"!*


No!


Tier 1 is an "A"!


Perhaps the titles lower in Tier 1 (Tier 1.75 or so) would be A-


Tier 0, I agree with you: A+ (a title that really sets itself apart from most others)


Similarly, I would rank the rest of the tiers as such (and these pretty much line up with your list too):


Tier 2: B+ to B-


Tier 3: C+ to C-


Tier 4: D+ to D-


Tier 5: F


In summary, thinking of Tier 1 as a "B+" would tend to prove what I was saying before regarding people thinking of Tier 3 as being of very poor quality.

_*In other words, if Tier 1 is a B+, then a Tier 3 title (two tiers lower) would equal a D+!*_


So, what would that make a Tier 5 title?


----------



## sleater

Hey All


Haven't posted in here in ages. I keep up daily (lurker: yes) and enjoy the heated discussion by 'the regulars'. Anyway, I came across a film that is a perfect candidate to throw into the *Tier 5* abyss.

*The English Patient*


I'm not sure if this is a Canadian release (I believe it may be) but it's a 1080i transfer that looks quite horrible all around. Some scenes, specifically indoor scenes shot at night in low light, are so poor and riddled with noise that they make it difficult to discern what exactly you are even looking at. The contrast is very weak, there is absolutely no sharpness or definition to speak of. There is also some print damage that creeps in in a few scenes (hairs, dirt specs, etc.) Very disappointing for a relatively recent Best Picture winner (1996 I believe). I could find no redeeming qualities save for the fact that I did not personally notice any EE (although I'm not sensitive to it). Soft SOFT S O F T.


I'm not sure if this film has been previously reviewed on this forum; I'm pleased I bought it at a very reasonably price (sub-$10) as the film itself is quite lovely.

*Tier Recommendation 5.0*


92" 1080P Mits HC5500 ~9 feet Oppo BD 83


----------



## sleater




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18761938
> 
> 
> So, what would that make a Tier 5 title?



This impelled me to add my .02 about The English Patient.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18759249
> 
> 
> Yep, but you forgot to mention the _*grain*_!
> 
> 
> Collateral has its own unique style too.



Felt there was no need to mention the intentional grain on these films.









*Collateral - Tier 3.25*


Another faithful presentation of an brilliant movie from enigmatic Michael Mann. Thought it sounded great on my HTIB. The soundtrack is amongst the best IMO.


----------



## OldCodger73

I think we all have different ways of interpreting the tiers. For what it's worth I look at it this way.


Tier 0= excellent


Tier 1.0 & 1.25= very good


Tier 1.5 & 1.75= good


Tier 2= above average


Tier 3= average


Tier 4= below average


Tier 5= poor.


Even though we have guidelines, the big problem is a common consistent definition of "average".


----------



## Phantom Stranger

There are likely biases in the representative sample of all Blu-ray titles. The studios are mostly picking day&date releases (which as new films typically look good) and the best-looking HD masters for older films. That will lead to a skewed population in any pool picked from available BDs. If we were 100% correct in our placements, the tiers will likely not fall along the standard normal distribution.


It is interesting to see how all of us seem to have slightly different notions of what each tier constitutes. Here is a rough approximation of my thoughts on the matter.


0 - The absolute best


1 - Very good, verging on greatness the closer to 0


2 - Mildly above average to good


3 - Distinctly average or plain


4 - Sub-par HD material for whatever reason


5 - Awful, no better than upscaled standard-definition content


----------



## djoberg

Tier 0.....Reference

Tier 1.....Excellent

Tier 2.....Very Good

Tier 3.....Good

Tier 4.....Poor

Tier 5.....Unacceptable


As I implied earlier, this leaves most of the present Tier names as is and only changes Tiers 2-4. I just think we need to get rid of the word average which implies it is the "norm," which it isn't.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18763388
> 
> 
> Tier 0.....Reference
> 
> Tier 1.....Excellent
> 
> Tier 2.....Very Good
> 
> Tier 3.....Good
> 
> Tier 4.....Poor
> 
> Tier 5.....Unacceptable
> 
> 
> As I implied earlier, this leaves most of the present Tier names as is and only changes Tiers 2-4. I just think we need to get rid of the word average which implies it is the "norm," which it isn't.



Denny, I like these brief descriptions as much as any other that I've seen thus far! I think this is a very good summary, and I like the fact that you have referred to Tier 3 as "good". That gives that Tier a bit more credibility vs. the current apparent frame of mind that many of us have that Tier 3 titles are fairly crappy.


Of course your term "reference" raises a whole new issue, but that one has been discussed before in this thread, so I know what you mean.


----------



## jedimasterchad

I was pretty much burned out on this thread because I felt like people were getting too nit-picky with other peoples' reviews, so I took a break. I've been reading to follow along when I've had the chance, but I started a new job and have been training there for a month straight (just graduated today) and thought I'd have more time to get back to reviewing titles, only to see that I missed this big argument (not debate) about the value of each tier...


I would like to point out that nobody is perfect. After making a comment about my review of Dr. Parnassus, I got flamed for saying I'd move my score a tiny bit because it was film and not digital or whatever, yadda yadda yadda. So what? What's the big deal? Maybe I was off a quarter tier. OH MY GOD.


Maybe Denny generally rates titles higher than other people. So what? As long as he is consistent in the comparison of one title to another in his eyes, and on his screen, who is to say if he is right or wrong? The system will balance out, because maybe Phantom or Patrick are a bit harder on titles. Every set of data will have outliers, but it will not affect the final result in such a way that he needs to be attacked for generally being higher than others. Rob usually comes in pretty lowball too. I don't go after him for saying that Leap Year got scored too low. On the other hand, I don't have a 120"+ screen to watch movies on, so he might see things I don't. Everybody has different equipment in this thread, so as long as we are consistent in our voting in comparison to our other reviews from what we have seen on our OWN equipment, I have absolutely no qualms if Denny comes in high every time and Patrick hits the low end, because at least there is some consistency in their evaluations and they are comparing apples to apples.


I really logged on today to see some scores given by my peers on some movies I've watched and not rated in the past month to see where they were landing, just to take some mental notes and make sure I'm still seeing everything. I've watched Invictus, Alice in Wonderland, The Road, A Serious Man, and many others, but because of homework and stuff just haven't had time to write a review. I'm at the point where I don't even feel like I want to participate here anymore because of all the confrontation and arguments lately.


For a time, I came here instead of any review site because I felt like I had more of a connection to the way movies were rated. If all of my peers on this thread were rating a movie 3.0, and all the websites were saying how great it looked, I knew who to trust. As I said, I'm not sure if I want to participate anymore, but I do miss being a regular poster on this thread. I'm really not sure what to make of all the squabbling lately, and I guess it will blow over eventually as it usually does, but come on guys. We all just do this for fun, so don't try to take it so seriously. It's not a job we're getting paid for, so if someone goofs a bit, take it easy. It's not the end of the world, or our ranking system. Everyone here posts great reviews and while sometimes my scores may be the outliers, I don't take it personal. I'm just doing my best like everyone else.


I think the tier discussion is a good thing, because yes, it does seem like people are afraid to really rip on a title and stick it down towards tier 5. Personally, I almost always am reviewing new release movies and they generally don't fall anywhere near that low, so that is one reason my reviews never get down there. I agree that tier 3 is average or "good". I think one way to elevate the status of the 0 tier again would be to limit the number of titles allowed in the tier at any time. Like maybe only the 20 best can be up there, and move everything else down to 1.0, etc. I'd say let the list build to 30, then kick the bottom 10 off. Each time that happens, maybe the bottom 10 of tier 1.0 get moved to 1.25, and so on, to keep everything relative and consistent. Yes, I realize that is a lot of work, but nobody ever wants to do the hard work that needs to be done in this thread to keep it current (like that big thread overhaul/benchmark idea that kind of disappeared a few months ago). That's just my $.02 on the tier 0 list.


Anyways, I suppose thats enough rambling. I just really wanted to get my feelings out there and mention that we all have jobs and families and that this thread is just a hobby, and not to take it so seriously. Just do your best and be consistent on your end with every title, and the rankings will balance out. They have thus far, and if you scroll through the master list, everything looks pretty good to me.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/18764234
> 
> 
> I was pretty much burned out on this thread because I felt like people were getting too nit-picky with other peoples' reviews, so I took a break.
> 
> 
> I really logged on today to see some scores given by my peers on some movies I've watched and not rated in the past month to see where they were landing, just to take some mental notes and make sure I'm still seeing everything. I've watched Invictus, Alice in Wonderland, The Road, A Serious Man, and many others, but because of homework and stuff just haven't had time to write a review. I'm at the point where I don't even feel like I want to participate here anymore because of all the confrontation and arguments lately.
> 
> 
> For a time, I came here instead of any review site because I felt like I had more of a connection to the way movies were rated. If all of my peers on this thread were rating a movie 3.0, and all the websites were saying how great it looked, I knew who to trust. As I said, I'm not sure if I want to participate anymore, but I do miss being a regular poster on this thread. I'm really not sure what to make of all the squabbling lately, and I guess it will blow over eventually as it usually does, but come on guys.
> 
> 
> I think one way to elevate the status of the 0 tier again would be to limit the number of titles allowed in the tier at any time. Like maybe only the 20 best can be up there, and move everything else down to 1.0, etc. I'd say let the list build to 30, then kick the bottom 10 off. Each time that happens, maybe the bottom 10 of tier 1.0 get moved to 1.25, and so on, to keep everything relative and consistent. Yes, I realize that is a lot of work, but nobody ever wants to do the hard work that needs to be done in this thread to keep it current (like that big thread overhaul/benchmark idea that kind of disappeared a few months ago). That's just my $.02 on the tier 0 list.



I thought you had been quiet on the thread lately. You bring up many salient points, but I understand the feeling of getting burned out on constant reviewing. Tier recommendations and discussion from you were always proper in my mind, so it would a loss if you decide to stop participation in the thread.


The debates occasionally get heated, but a little dissent is necessary to stir the pot at times. Certain placements and movies will always generate strong arguments. Most here will critique a certain score when they either strongly disagree, or they want to elicit further discussion. But everyone is entitled to their opinion on each BD, and hopefully reasoned discourse here can persuade others to follow that opinion.


Off the top of my head, I believe there are around fifty titles in tier zero at the moment. The only problem I see with limiting it to a fixed count is that many live-action films near the bottom would likely get pushed out, when some feel we already have too few of them in tier zero.


I am still up for the idea of benchmarks for each tier, which dovetails nicely with the current debate on what each tier represents, but I think some thought they would be mandatory knowledge for the purposes of giving recommendations. That was never the intention.


----------



## 42041

*Babel*


A competently photographed film with some nice visuals, on an early Paramount barebones MPEG2/dolby digital disc. Something you'll quickly be annoyed by are the consistently weak black levels, often with a blue hue to the shadow regions of the image. IMDB says this film was shot in 16mm, super35, and anamorphic 35mm, so as you might expect, the image is all over the place, and distracting levels of grain intrude upon several scenes. Still, not a bad looking blu-ray overall.

*Tier 2.75*


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18764501
> 
> 
> Off the top of my head, I believe there are around fifty titles in tier zero at the moment. The only problem I see with limiting it to a fixed count is that many live-action films near the bottom would likely get pushed out, when some feel we already have too few of them in tier zero.



I'm fairly certain there is a growing number of people (myself included) who are still supporting the idea of taking the animated titles and moving them into a separate list. The point you make is a great argument for splitting the reference animated and reference live action films.


----------



## tfoltz

I assume you are speaking of movies that are 100% animated, instead of many (most?) that have a mix of both. Will Wall-E be animated or live action, because it has a human in it? Is there a certain threshold of what defines animation vs. live action? What about Avatar? Would people also vote whether a movie should be ranked as animated or live action? I know it isn't hard to know what is animated (ex. Wall-E), but it will open up a lot of debate on some titles.


My vote has always been to keep all movies together. I want to see how all blu-rays stack up to one another.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/18765158
> 
> 
> My vote has always been to keep all movies together. I want to see *how all blu-rays stack up to one another*.



Which is the point of this thread. Not necessarily comparing one to the other, but at least finding a home for each one relative to it's PQ.


Jedi, as you might know I had decided a year or so ago not to squabble with others since we ranked based on opinion. It has made the thread more enjoyable for me. I still might come in now and then and make a comment, but I try not to get emotionally involved, which I think is what happens most often when debates get heated. We do need some discourse though and I agree with others who say the same.

I haven't said much about it, but when it was brought up recently about some bias coming into play when watching and ranking, and with due respect to everyone, I believe beyond a reasonable doubt that everyone's bias can rate any title off by a full tier or more. NOt just opinion, but bias. IF we really like or really dislike a movie, the colors it has, the story, the actors, the period it takes place, etc. I believe we are going to have the above mentioned attributes come into play when we rank as they certainly do when we watch. THere have been a few titles that I really liked and thought the PQ was better than it was and after a second viewing and more discernment I realized how strongly my bias is.


Denny, I am not singling you out...but I do disagree with tier 3, even most of tier 3.0 being good. I own Master and Commander, which I ranked mid tier 2 or tier 2.75. Even at 2.75 to me the PQ is average at best, definitely not what I would call good and it is ranked 3.0.


I noticed FOTR is already ranked at 3.0, but it probably doesn't even rank average, more like mediocre and I rated it 3.5.


It is interesting going through the tier list. With so many additions over the last couple of years, I get a bit shocked where I see some placements, but so it goes. One that surprised me is Transporter 1. It is in tier 3.0 as well.







Anyone who has it or remembers seeing it on blu ray, is it really that far different than 2 and 3 which are demo tier blu? And I wonder why the PQ is so different.







I have to rent it again. I think I may have and rated it, but I can't remember.


I tend to think of Phantom's description of the tiers as most accurate.


Rob, I think of B+ and A- as very close.










In reflection of that and others thoughts about how the tiers rate:


Tier 0: Reference/Excellent/A+

Tier 1: A to A-

Tier 2: B+ to B-(C+)

Tier 3: C+ to C-(D+)

Tier 4: D to D-(F+







)

Tier 5: F to










I am just messing around with the above, but I do think the bottom of each tier becomes really close to the beginning of the next and many titles could wash either way, even several 1/4 tiers away. With opinions being what they are and how we rank, saying a whole tier is A or B probably isn't precise, but more of a generalization of the tier, which duh Hugh is why we have 1/4 tiers.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Hey, JediChad, I think we all feel the way you are currently feeling from time-to-time. There are days when there's 'squabble' in the thread that I take personally, and other days I find it funny.


I would say don't sweat the small stuff, I know that I value your opinion here and like reading your reviews, but I also don't want anyone to feel as though participating here is work.


Jump back in if/when you feel like you want to contribute, or just post without reviews! It's not a requirement to have reviews to discuss things here.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*M*


This Fritz Lang classic (his first "talkie") has been released on Blu. This film was made in 1930 or so, so expectations would be low to begin with.


That said, I am quite pleased overall. But, there are issues that cannot be ignored. There is a lot of flicker, and that can be distracting. Also, there are many instances where the film appears to speed up and the motions are not natural.


There are still a lot of scratches in the film too.


Detail varied, but it could be very good at times. There is noticeable edge softness in many scenes.


Grain is well preserved and mostly natural looking.


This is an amazing film, and one that was extremely influential. I still can't believe some of the camera movements that were used way back then, still impressive many decades later. If you haven't seen this film, it gets my highest recommendation.


*Tier Recommendation: 4.0*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Horseman (2008)*


Low budget Australian revenge film obviously shot on video. Tons of noise, some surely intentional, but the encode struggles with it. Ugly flesh tones, lackluster detail, crushing blacks, hot contrast, and lack of sharpness do not make a pretty transfer.

*Tier 4.75*


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/18749935
> 
> 
> You guys are just too funny.



Given some of Jedi's comments, I went back and looked over some of the posts of the last week. I guess things can come across differently to some people. I admit that I have pretty thick skin (I have to in my line of work), so maybe I'm not as sensitive as I should be.


So, that said, from my standpoint, I didn't really see anything that was out of line. There was some back and forth regarding some shocking differences of opinion on Leap Year, but I didn't see any of it as being personal, and I certainly never meant to make any of it that way.


I was glad to see that, at least, GGG saw the back and forth between Denny and I as something funny, because that was certainly how I meant it.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/18764234
> 
> 
> I'm at the point where I don't even feel like I want to participate here anymore because of all the confrontation and arguments lately.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyways, I suppose thats enough rambling. I just really wanted to get my feelings out there and mention that we all have jobs and families and that this thread is just a hobby, and not to take it so seriously. Just do your best and be consistent on your end with every title, and the rankings will balance out. They have thus far, and if you scroll through the master list, everything looks pretty good to me.



jedi,


I'm out of town and I just got on my daughter's computer. Saw your post and wanted to tell you that I was thinking of you a few days before you made it. I would really encourage you to keep posting for your reviews were always good (even if you did have that bad experience with one review from some of us who jumped on you). And thanks for reminding us not to take this thread so seriously. You are obviously right in saying this is just a hobby and there are MANY more important things in life (like jobs and families).


Denny


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18767200
> 
> 
> I was glad to see that, at least, GGG saw the back and forth between Denny and I as something funny, because that was certainly how I meant it.



Ditto!


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18766700
> 
> *M*
> 
> 
> This Fritz Lang classic (his first "talkie") has been released on Blu. This film was made in 1930 or so, so expectations would be low to begin with.
> 
> 
> That said, I am quite pleased overall. But, there are issues that cannot be ignored. There is a lot of flicker, and that can be distracting. Also, there are many instances where the film appears to speed up and the motions are not natural.
> 
> 
> Grain is well preserved and mostly natural looking.
> *Tier Recommendation: 4.0*



That sounds promising, as I have been meaning to pick it up soon. Criterion usually does a good job in bringing their films to Blu-ray.


----------



## jedimasterchad

Hey guys-


I'm very glad that what I said hit home with everyone and everybody could take a step back to see what was going on with an objective frame of mind. I am pleased to read all the encouragement about not quitting this thread, and it is taken to heart. I don't plan to, but like I said just felt like I needed a break, and I really miss you guys and being active here, so I know it did me well.


The other reason I've been so absent is because I started a new job as a 911 Dispatcher, and we had to complete a 4 week training academy that required a good amount of time at home to study along with what we did in class everyday. My movie watching was rather limited, and I had to squeeze those in between season finales of some of this seasons shows (namely Lost). That's the other half of why I haven't been able to really get on here much.


Like I said though. I'm not going to take this thread too seriously, nor will I allow it to affect me personally, and I hope to be back at it ASAP, as my future training will all be done at work and not at home. See you guys soon.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18767933
> 
> 
> That sounds promising, as I have been meaning to pick it up soon. Criterion usually does a good job in bringing their films to Blu-ray.



I don't think you will be disappointed overall.


I thought maybe they could have removed more of the scratches, but overall it looks quite good for its age.


Can't wait for Metropolis.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/18768209
> 
> 
> Hey guys-
> 
> 
> I'm very glad that what I said hit home with everyone and everybody could take a step back to see what was going on with an objective frame of mind. I am pleased to read all the encouragement about not quitting this thread, and it is taken to heart. I don't plan to, but like I said just felt like I needed a break, and I really miss you guys and being active here, so I know it did me well.
> 
> 
> The other reason I've been so absent is because I started a new job as a 911 Dispatcher, and we had to complete a 4 week training academy that required a good amount of time at home to study along with what we did in class everyday. My movie watching was rather limited, and I had to squeeze those in between season finales of some of this seasons shows (namely Lost). That's the other half of why I haven't been able to really get on here much.
> 
> 
> Like I said though. I'm not going to take this thread too seriously, nor will I allow it to affect me personally, and I hope to be back at it ASAP, as my future training will all be done at work and not at home. See you guys soon.



Very cool, and good luck. My sister in law is a 911 dispatcher. Lots of good stories at the dinner table!


----------



## 42041

*Disgrace*


A disc that often looks excellent, but is pretty inconsistent. There's some nice shots of the australian (or south african, not sure if it was shot on location) landscape with very high levels of detail. Other times it looks average, where the setting doesnt lend itself to strong visuals.

The PQ was the only thing I found tolerable in this messy, amateurish drama. One of the most trying cinematic experiences of my life, one I wouldn't wish on anyone.

*Tier 1.75*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Crazy*


A 2008 biopic about Hank Garland is poorly (AVC) compressed and soft as hell. Nothing in terms of fine detail to speak of, and the noise continually creeps into the frame. Black levels are fine, although some stock footage looks to be shot on Super 16 resulting in an image that is barely identifiable. Nasty print damage too, odd considering this was shot in 2008. Some natural color is one of the few positives.

*Tier 4.5*


----------



## djoberg

I have a copy of _The Book of Eli_ reserved (for this Tuesday) at my local video store and I'm really anticipating this one. I absolutely love watching Denzel Washington (in *most* of his movies) and so far reviews that have come in have been fairly positive regarding the PQ. It sounds like a lackluster film in the color department, but razor-sharp in DETAILS! I also think I'm going to like the storyline, from what I have read.


So, has anyone seen this yet? Gamereviewgod naturally comes to mind in asking this, for he is the "Privileged One" when it comes to viewing titles before their official release date.


----------



## deltasun

^^^ Saw this in the theatres, and although it didn't appear that it would score high on our PQ, I've seen HD previews and it does look impressive. And yes, this one's a keeper (but just barely), in my opinion. I will be purchasing it day 1 as well.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18771291
> 
> 
> 
> So, has anyone seen this yet? Gamereviewgod naturally comes to mind in asking this, for he is the "Privileged One" when it comes to viewing titles before their official release date.



Warner didn't send this one unfortunately. All I got this week was Horseman and Crazy.


That, and I'm swamped the next day or two with E3 news. Going to get a little behind. May be doing a large post in the next few days with a bunch of titles once I get caught up.


----------



## lagoonalight

I must very much disagree with Coraline at blu tier. The movie dips into DVD bit rates for christ! It has a 16mb transfer since when has that EVER been reference on these sites. Compression can get pretty bad in that movie and there is no doubt in my mind that a 35mb transfer would easily and I mean EASILY best what I just watched. Sure, stop motion always looks great. The source is shot 2 feet away on high def how could it not. But you got to be kidding me. Silver TRANSFER at best for a reference source.


You people need to watch some of these films more closely. I don't even look at this thread anymore because I don't think one viewer and some reviews is enough to judge these films if these people do not monitor bitrates, compression, etc, when they are watching the film. Coraline on multiple occasions goes into 8mb territory and I DO NOT think that demands a reference grade I don't care what you think of it. It was quite 3D but that doesn't mask the obvious compression problems I saw. Sorry if I sound mad but I am tired of these companies like Warner and I am tired of BD50's not being nearly enough for double features and 3 hour classics.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lagoonalight* /forum/post/18777404
> 
> 
> (....blah.......blah........blah.......blah.......blah....bl ah....) I don't care what you think of it.




The feeling is mutual.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lagoonalight* /forum/post/18777404
> 
> 
> I must very much disagree with Coraline at blu tier. The movie dips into DVD bit rates for christ! It has a 16mb transfer since when has that EVER been reference on these sites. Compression can get pretty bad in that movie and there is no doubt in my mind that a 35mb transfer would easily and I mean EASILY best what I just watched. Sure, stop motion always looks great. The source is shot 2 feet away on high def how could it not. But you got to be kidding me. Silver TRANSFER at best for a reference source.
> 
> 
> You people need to watch some of these films more closely. I don't even look at this thread anymore because I don't think one viewer and some reviews is enough to judge these films if these people do not monitor bitrates, compression, etc, when they are watching the film. Coraline on multiple occasions goes into 8mb territory and I DO NOT think that demands a reference grade I don't care what you think of it. It was quite 3D but that doesn't mask the obvious compression problems I saw. Sorry if I sound mad but I am tired of these companies like Warner and I am tired of BD50's not being nearly enough for double features and 3 hour classics.



I appreciate your viewpoint, and I thank you for sharing it here.


However, my point of view with regards to writing my Picture Quality reviews for what is known as the Eye Candy thread, well... I use my eyes and what I see on my equipment and review back with my own thoughts. THe methodology of this thread is far from infallible, especially since we all have differing viewpoints on what we see on our respective pieces of equipment. Personally, I've seen Coraline several times now as I have a daughter who enjoys the film, and I have not noticed any compression issues that affected what my eyes are enjoying on the screen. I'm not shy to point out when something is ugly to my eyes when I do my reviews.


I'm sorry your viewing experience of Coraline did not match the one that I have had when seeing this film on multiple occasions. Regardless of whatever bit rate issues that you feel that the disc had, they did not negatively impact _me_ in the way that they did for you and your viewing experience of the movie.


None of us here are paid to do this for the PQ thread here at AVS, and we are taking the time to assist the thread with placements out of our own enjoyment for blu ray media. I have always been a proponent that the more reviews the merrier, and that the list will be a lot truer if it had a more vast amount of people willing to participate.


If these are truly issues that affected the picture quality within the descriptions of how we are doing reviews here for the thread, please feel free to write up a review. I'd love to know where you are seeing the compression issues actually affect the PQ, so I can go back and look on my disc to see if I also can notice them on my equipment.


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/18777583
> 
> 
> However, my point of view with regards to writing my Picture Quality reviews for what is known as the Eye Candy thread, well... *I use my eyes and what I see on my equipment and review back with my own thoughts*.



As it should be and it is greatly appreciated. I don't want to say that bitrate is meaningless, because that's not exactly correct, but the important thing is the individual experience and no mere bitrate number can reflect that.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/18777583
> 
> 
> I'd love to know where you are seeing the compression issues actually affect the PQ, so I can go back and look on my disc to see if I also can notice them on my equipment.



One thing I have noticed with lower bitrate titles is that they often have macroblocking problems in the below-black areas. This is not something one should necessarily see on properly calibrated equipment, but when the brightness is set too far above standard they become apparent. I wonder if this is what lagoonalight is referring to in terms of compression problems, since I do not recall any noticeable artifacting with Coraline's (admittedly lowish bitrate) encode.


----------



## 42041

*The Man Who Fell To Earth*


Not a bad looking transfer for this 1976 film, distributed by Criterion. On technical merits, nothing spectacular in any respect but it's solid. The film elements they scanned for the transfer appeared not to be in the best shape, and there's some weird stripes of noise in the shadow regions of the image that appear to be introduced by the transfer process. Occasional EE is annoying.

*Tier 3.25*


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lagoonalight* /forum/post/18777404
> 
> 
> I must very much disagree with Coraline at blu tier. The movie dips into DVD bit rates for christ! It has a 16mb transfer since when has that EVER been reference on these sites. Compression can get pretty bad in that movie and there is no doubt in my mind that a 35mb transfer would easily and I mean EASILY best what I just watched. Sure, stop motion always looks great. The source is shot 2 feet away on high def how could it not. But you got to be kidding me. Silver TRANSFER at best for a reference source.
> 
> 
> You people need to watch some of these films more closely. I don't even look at this thread anymore because I don't think one viewer and some reviews is enough to judge these films if these people do not monitor bitrates, compression, etc, when they are watching the film. Coraline on multiple occasions goes into 8mb territory and I DO NOT think that demands a reference grade I don't care what you think of it. It was quite 3D but that doesn't mask the obvious compression problems I saw. Sorry if I sound mad but I am tired of these companies like Warner and I am tired of BD50's not being nearly enough for double features and 3 hour classics.



All the Blu-rays I own are watched very closely, and I am cognizant of the issues you bring up. But Coraline exhibited no visible compression problem upon my viewing, and I am comfortable with its ranking. Animation and the stop-motion photography employed in Coraline compress much cleaner than regular film. While every title on Blu-ray deserves the highest bitrates possible on a BD-50, most animated movies do not require the same parameters as live-action film.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/18777583
> 
> 
> If these are truly issues that affected the picture quality within the descriptions of how we are doing reviews here for the thread, please feel free to write up a review. I'd love to know where you are seeing the compression issues actually affect the PQ, so I can go back and look on my disc to see if I also can notice them on my equipment.



+1 Pointing out specific examples with time codes or scenes would help out greatly in assessing the merits of the critique of Coraline, or any film that falls under intense scrutiny.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/18777838
> 
> 
> One thing I have noticed with lower bitrate titles is that they often have macroblocking problems in the below-black areas. This is not something one should necessarily see on properly calibrated equipment, but when the brightness is set too far above standard they become apparent. I wonder if this is what lagoonalight is referring to in terms of compression problems, since I do not recall any noticeable artifacting with Coraline's (admittedly lowish bitrate) encode.



+1 Too many BDs still exhibit compression problems, but when the studios commit the resources and time to an encode, 99.9% of visible compression flaws go away. I would agree that low-light scenes are the biggest source of remaining problems, where macroblocking and other distractions still lurk on occasion.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Shutter Island*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18749692
> 
> *Shutter Island*
> 
> 
> I'm quite tired so I'll make this short. In the main I was very impressed with the DETAIL and DEPTH of this title, especially the majority of outdoor scenes. From about the 1 Hr. 16 Min. mark, (where DiCaprio and Ruffalo start out for the lighthouse) the image was nearly impeccable to the very end....extremely sharp and detailed, with great dimensionality.
> 
> 
> Colors were muted in much of the movie, in keeping with the mood of this psychological thriller, but there were times where the colors popped. Contrast was superb....blacks were very good (not excellent, but very good)....and shadow detail was pleasing as well.
> 
> 
> Where I was somewhat disappointed was with several of the indoor scenes (in some of the institutional buildings, in a cave, and in an out building on the grounds). Some of these scenes appeared flat, soft, a bit gritty, and lacked detail. These were enough to knock it down nearly a tier, IMO.
> 
> 
> In the final analysis, my vote goes for.....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75*
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite BDP-05....Viewed from 7.5'
> 
> 
> Edit: I forgot to mention "facial details." They were NOT Tier 0 quality, but *some* were close. They probably averaged out in Tier 1 or high Tier 2.



Well, Denny, it appears that you have now saved two of us from having to write out an entire review, because I also think that you *nailed* this one!


I agree with virtually everything that you have said here. In particular, the difference in PQ between indoor and outdoor scenes was rather dramatic.


This disc could have been a tier 1.0 title if the quality remained as good as the vast majority of the outdoor scenes. Sadly, that is not the case.


Contrast and blacks can be very impressive, as can overall detail. Some of the distant shots showed very crisp details. Yet, I agree that facial details, while still good, were not up there with the best titles.


But many of the indoor scenes, while most certainly not *bad*, were still noticeably less impressive than the great outdoor scenes that showed superb depth, dimension, clarity, and deep saturated colors. The outdoor scenes had a real "solidity" to it, for lack of a better description.


The excellent quality of the vast majority of outdoor scenes cant' be overlooked, so I think the title still belongs in Tier 1.


As for the movie: I now understand why the critics didn't particularly care for it. Still a good movie, but not up to Scorsese standards. The "twist" could easily be seen a mile away, and was so obvious that I don't think it could even be called much of a twist. But, the execution was still top notch, with great acting and direction. I thought the music was fantastic!

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.75*


JVC RS1 1080p, 123" screen, 13.5 feet viewing distance


----------



## djoberg

*The Book of Eli*


WOW! My eyes just got an overdose of DETAILS from this post-apocalyptic drama/thriller, along with amazing DEPTH and DIMENSIONALITY. I kept reading the words "razor-sharp" from different reviews and now I can attest to the truth of these words. Throughout the film we are treated to detailed rock-laden streets, desert terrain, buildings, clothing and second-to-none facial details. One of the most incredible scenes I have ever seen was that of a house in the desert (owned by a couple named George & Martha) starting at around the 1 Hr. 13 Min. mark....the detail and depth left me drooling!!


In spite of the muted color palette, flesh tones were still spot on. And the black levels were, for the most part, deep and inky, with corresponding shadow details.


My only gripes would be with the contrast which was too strong at times resulting in bleached whites, and several soft shots. And with the intentional, lackluster colors (consisting mostly of earth tones, blacks, grays, and some orange hues in limited scenes) one will be hard-pressed labeling this as "EYE CANDY" or "reference quality." Having said that, the old adage "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" still holds true and thus IMO the DETAILS and DEPTH save the day and make it a contender for Tier 1...in fact, I'm going to put it right on the border of the two "demo" tiers.....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0 or possibly 1.25*


Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite BDP-05....Viewed from 7.5'


PS The AQ was also amazing, with a haunting soundtrack that set the mood of the film perfectly!


PPS I enjoyed the movie too, though at this point I'm glad I rented it.


----------



## deltasun

*From Paris with Love*


This had potential with it's deep blacks and strong contrast. However, details did waver and, to some extent, contrast. During action scenes in non-natural lighting, details simply went away. Contrast would also get weak during these scenes (and yield flat-looking scenes), but would get hot in sun-drenched, outdoor scenes. Still, facial details remain in Tier 1 for the most part. Skin tones can turn horrible depending on lighting, turning a very ugly orange. Colors, in general, also fall short of pleasing for the most part.


On the flip side, there is enough positives to keep this in high Tier Silver. By the way, a moderate layer of grain is present, particularly in the early, darker scenes.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*


I rather enjoyed this seemingly over-the-top action. Travolta was quite funny and I thought his chemistry with Rhys-Davis worked well.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

Thanks for the promising review, Denny. Family was in town and I have a stack of movies to go through. Looking forward to seeing _The Book of Eli_.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18782935
> 
> *The Book of Eli*
> 
> 
> WOW! My eyes just got an overdose of DETAILS from this post-apocalyptic drama/thriller, along with amazing DEPTH and DIMENSIONALITY. I kept reading the words "razor-sharp" from different reviews and now I can attest to the truth of these words. Throughout the film we are treated to detailed rock-laden streets, desert terrain, buildings, clothing and second-to-none facial details. One of the most incredible scenes I have ever seen was that of a house in the desert (owned by a couple named George & Martha) starting at around the 1 Hr. 13 Min. mark....the detail and depth left me drooling!!
> 
> 
> In spite of the muted color palette, flesh tones were still spot on. And the black levels were, for the most part, deep and inky, with corresponding shadow details.
> 
> 
> My only gripes would be with the contrast which was too strong at times resulting in bleached whites, and several soft shots. And with the intentional, lackluster colors (consisting mostly of earth tones, blacks, grays, and some orange hues in limited scenes) one will be hard-pressed labeling this as "EYE CANDY" or "reference quality." Having said that, the old adage "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" still holds true and thus IMO the DETAILS and DEPTH save the day and make it a contender for Tier 1...in fact, I'm going to put it right on the border of the two "demo" tiers.....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.0 or possibly 1.25*
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite BDP-05....Viewed from 7.5'
> 
> 
> PS The AQ was also amazing, with a haunting soundtrack that set the mood of the film perfectly!
> 
> 
> PPS I enjoyed the movie too, though at this point I'm glad I rented it.



Nice review, definitely sounds promising! Definitely a rental for me too though.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18783232
> 
> 
> Nice review, definitely sounds promising! Definitely a rental for me too though.



Thanks Rob! I trust you will enjoy it.....and would I ever love to see the DETAILS on your 123" screen. You'll have to tell me how you like the scene I referred to (the house in the desert with the old couple)....it's quite long too so prepare your eyes for a sugar rush!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18783208
> 
> 
> Thanks for the promising review, Denny. Family was in town and I have a stack of movies to go through. Looking forward to seeing _The Book of Eli_.



I should have mentioned in my review that this had a a very similar look to _District 9_, except this didn't have some of the issues that one did. I rated that one 1.5 or 1.75 so I thought _The Book of Eli_ deserved to be a half tier higher.


I hope you'll like the look much better than you did at the theater deltasun.


----------



## djoberg

I would like to retract one statement from my review of _The Book of Eli_. I had said that the facial details were "second-to-none" and upon further reflection I believe facial close-ups were better in _Crank 2_, _Transporter 2 & 3_, and even _Man of Fire_, But make no mistake about it, they are still fantastic and are Tier 0 quality in most shots (and a couple of Denzel Washington and Gary Oldman DO rival those of the aforementioned titles.)


----------



## 42041

*One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest*


The great 1975 film is on a characteristically meager early WB disc. The transfer is below average in all respects, if relatively inoffensive. Fine detail is unimpressive, compression is bad, hints of DNR pop up on occasion. The bland-by-necessity visuals of the movie do nothing to help.

*Tier 4.0*


----------



## deltasun

*Dawn of the Dead (2004)*


This one started out looking excellent, with crisp details, vivid color, strong contrast, and incredible black levels. The wheels started coming off shortly thereafter, once we get to the mall. At one point, I had to pause and look up to see if this was shot digitally. Ving Rhames went from having perfectly high Tier 1 facial details to a DNR-looking, filtered mess. I could not believe it was the same film.


I could not delineate when scenes looked good. At first, I thought outdoor scenes are best (and to some extent they are decent), while indoor scenes are bad. There really is no consistency.


To highlight a few items...there is a greenish hue to some indoor scenes. Blacks will go from perfectly rendered to completely crushed. Again, facial details would rival high Tier 1 details and fall completely flat...well, on its face. There is 3D pop in the early scenes, but the overhead shot of the city is devoid of any HD details.


In summary, scenes do reach high Tier 1 territory and are impressive, but averages out in low bronze...

*Tier Recommendation: 3.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod

Time to get caught up.

*Kelly's Heroes*


Fantastic restoration on the part of Warner. Some have said this was brightened, but if it was, the results are no evident on screen. Darker scenes do not hold up, but int he daylight, what a stunner. Wonderfully resolved texture and grain structure. Blacks are deep, and contrast bright.

*Tier 2.75*


---------------

*Unthinkable*


Spectacular facial detail, with only a few scenes of inconsistency. Some sharpening is evident along with some ringing, although it is not too intrusive. This one carries a thick grain structure, heightened by the sharpening undoubtedly. Great black levels generate tremendous depth.

*Tier 2.0*


----------
*Book of Eli*


Not impressed. Yes, there are superlative facial details... at times. However, they are in no way consistent. Some scenes make the actors appear as smooth as plastic. This one was shot digitally so it is hardly a surprise. Outstanding blacks keep the style of the photography intact, and the pale color is accurate to the source (and ugly). Carries a hot contrast too.

*Tier 2.75*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18789714
> 
> *Book of Eli*
> 
> 
> Not impressed. Yes, there are superlative facial details... at times. However, they are in no way consistent. Some scenes make the actors appear as smooth as plastic. This one was shot digitally so it is hardly a surprise. Outstanding blacks keep the style of the photography intact, and the pale color is accurate to the source (and ugly). Carries a hot contrast too.
> 
> *Tier 2.75*



Whoa! Here we go again.....yet another title where it appears two people are watching two altogether different movies!


----------



## tfoltz

Gamereviewgod, what display do you use when viewing blu-rays?


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/18789931
> 
> 
> Gamereviewgod, what display do you use when viewing blu-rays?



Calibrated Toshiba Regza RV530U 46′ LCD TV (5ft. viewing distance)


----------



## cjmx2

*Extraordinary Measures*Just to start out I would say I was disappointed with the overall softness and flat look of this film. Several other reviews (not avs) pointed to the "extraordinary transfer" and I was wondering if we were watching the same movie. There were a few good facial close ups...but that's about it and they were in no way consistent. The 1st half landed I felt in lower tier 3 and the 2nd half was a little better maybe bottom of 2 top of 3....all in all

*Tier 3.25*


samsung ln52b750 1080p @24fps 8ft


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*When in Rome*


Soft photography dominates by design, and the "haze" that sits over a lot of this dreadful movie will irritate some. The heavily saturated color, generally firm blacks, and fine detail in-close make up for quite a bit. A sequence using night vision is noticeably digital, with heavy aliasing. A bit or ringing was spotted, but not too severe.

*Tier 3.0*


----------



## djoberg

I'm just chiming in to say I'll be leaving tomorrow afternoon for 8 days and after returning home for 3 days we're going again for another 8 days. So, I more-than-likely won't be reviewing any titles until after July 8th. Of course that means *someone* is going to have to step up to the (generous rater) plate while I'm gone!










I was hoping to see a review or two on _The Book of Eli_ before I go. I'm curious to see if my recommendation was way too high (according to GRG it was!), though I really don't believe it was. Having said that I will be happy if it ends up no lower than 1.5 or 1.75 at the very lowest.


----------



## deltasun

*North by Northwest*


They did a great job with this one. Blacks are deep, albeit sometimes crushed. Contrast is mostly excellent as well. Grain is present and unobtrusive, save for literally a few scenes.


Facial details are not to the quality of Tier Blu titles, but some of them can leak into Tier 1. There is ample 3D pop in a number of medium shots and some of the panoramas are quite well done. Skin tones are closer to bronze, especially on Cary Grant. Colors are a bit saturated, but not too distracting - seems to complement the storyline. Though the content may look dated, I found the film itself to be less so. The use of "green screen" does detract a bit.


On the flip side, softness does creep in unexpectedly. The darker segments are a bit flat and shadow details can be poor. For a film this old, I was expecting some specks or print damage. I don't recall seeing any. Overall, very pleased with the presentation.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18799138
> 
> 
> 
> I was hoping to see a review or two on _The Book of Eli_ before I go. I'm curious to see if my recommendation was way too high (according to GRG it was!), though I really don't believe it was. .



Why? I'm right and you're wrong.








*Youth in Revolt*


Awesome color depth and environmental detail are the highlights here. The forested areas look simply awesome. Sadly, facial detail does not hold as firmly. Some softness is sporadic but certainly evident, and the grain structure is barely even notable. Black levels are typically superb.

*Tier 1.75*


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18799138
> 
> 
> I'm just chiming in to say I'll be leaving tomorrow afternoon for 8 days and after returning home for 3 days we're going again for another 8 days. So, I more-than-likely won't be reviewing any titles until after July 8th. Of course that means *someone* is going to have to step up to the (generous rater) plate while I'm gone!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was hoping to see a review or two on _The Book of Eli_ before I go. I'm curious to see if my recommendation was way too high (according to GRG it was!), though I really don't believe it was. Having said that I will be happy if it ends up no lower than 1.5 or 1.75 at the very lowest.



Have a safe trip, Denny!



I watched a large chunk of *Battlestar Galactica: The Plan* last night. I'll write up a proper review once I've actually watched the whole thing, I was too tired to watch all of it. The only other review I can find of it here is by Rob Tomlin who gave it 4.0. Talk about a mixed bag, seriously. There are times this blu ray looks worse than the standard definition crappy channels on my dish, and then other times where it has some Tier 0 pristine close-ups. What has shocked me the most is that many of the space scenes just showing the various ships are SO FRAKKING NOISY, and I can't comprehend as to WHY those scenes would be so terribly degraded the way they are. Ugh. When I watch the whole thing I'll put more thoughts together but for now... what a disappointment.


----------



## deltasun

Hey Denny, have a great time wherever you're going. Haven't had a chance to pick up _The Book of Eli_ yet since the prices for it are a bit excessive. May have to wait a bit more to confirm or deny...


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18800014
> 
> 
> Hey Denny, have a great time wherever you're going. Haven't had a chance to pick up _The Book of Eli_ yet since the prices for it are a bit excessive. May have to wait a bit more to confirm or deny...



Hey delta....thanks for wishing me well. The first week we'll be in central Iowa (corn capitol of the world







), so no sightseeing on that trip. But the second trip is pure vacation on the Upper Peninsula of Michigan (a place called Mackinaw Island on Lake Huron) and then a few days on the southern shore of Lake Superior (two nights at the Apostle Islands and one night in Duluth, MN). We love the Great Lakes; one of the best vacation spots in the good old U.S.A.!


I almost purchased _The Book of Eli_ too, but the steep price held me back. I really did like it...one of the best "post-apocalyptic" films, IMO. And the soundtrack was amazing, along with excellent AQ in the surrounds and the lower frequencies.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/18799376
> 
> 
> Have a safe trip, Denny!



Thanks G3!


I'll be expecting to hear from you on _The Book of Eli_ when I get back. I really believe you're going to be impressed with the black levels on your Panny plasma, and the shadow details are pretty good too. And what I'm really hoping to hear (from you and others) is how good the DETAILS and DEPTH are...they aren't good in every scene, but they hold up quite well in the majority of scenes.


----------



## Incindium




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I watched a large chunk of *Battlestar Galactica: The Plan* last night. I'll write up a proper review once I've actually watched the whole thing, I was too tired to watch all of it. The only other review I can find of it here is by Rob Tomlin who gave it 4.0. Talk about a mixed bag, seriously. There are times this blu ray looks worse than the standard definition crappy channels on my dish, and then other times where it has some Tier 0 pristine close-ups. What has shocked me the most is that many of the space scenes just showing the various ships are SO FRAKKING NOISY, and I can't comprehend as to WHY those scenes would be so terribly degraded the way they are. Ugh. When I watch the whole thing I'll put more thoughts together but for now... what a disappointment.



Not that surprising as The Plan contained a lot of repurposed footage from the series which was all over the place with its PQ.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18800086
> 
> 
> Hey delta....thanks for wishing me well. The first week we'll be in central Iowa (corn capitol of the world
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ), so no sightseeing on that trip. But the second trip is pure vacation on the Upper Peninsula of Michigan (a place called Mackinaw Island on Lake Huron) and then a few days on the southern shore of Lake Superior (two nights at the Apostle Islands and one night in Duluth, MN). We love the Great Lakes; one of the best vacation spots in the good old U.S.A.!
> 
> 
> I almost purchased _The Book of Eli_ too, but the steep price held me back. I really did like it...one of the best "post-apocalyptic" films, IMO. And the soundtrack was amazing, along with excellent AQ in the surrounds and the lower frequencies.



I've not been in that part of the country, but you're easily convincing me to put it in my short list. Unfortunately, won't be any time soon since I just took a mini-vacation the past couple of weeks with family visits to see the little one. I am intrigued, however, and will have to do something about it. I guess the closest would be the wedding in Minnesota that I'm going to in about a month's time.


I was surprised there were no deals on _The Book of Eli_...not a gift card or any rewards points to soften the blow. It was an odd feeling having to restrain myself.










Again, have fun and check in on AVS once in a while. Who knows, I may just have to go rent it anyway.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Incindium* /forum/post/18800108
> 
> 
> Not that surprising as The Plan contained a lot of repurposed footage from the series which was all over the place with its PQ.



Totally. I think a drinking game could easily be made simply on sightings of "repurposed" Tyrol and "newly filmed for The Plan" Tyrol... it's REALLY easy to see the difference the length of the series had on that guy.


----------



## 42041

*The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus*


A very middling sort of transfer that I think actually undermines the film itself. For such a visually driven film, it just looks so bland. The main problem is contrast, most of the movie is washed out in gray blacks. I longed for the deep black of the thin 1.85:1 black bars. Detail is merely average for the most part, and the quality of the extensive CGI betrays its low budget. So I have to rank the movie exactly where it already is, which seems like a waste of a review...









*Tier 2.75*


----------



## cjmx2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18799138
> 
> 
> I'm just chiming in to say I'll be leaving tomorrow afternoon for 8 days and after returning home for 3 days we're going again for another 8 days. So, I more-than-likely won't be reviewing any titles until after July 8th. Of course that means *someone* is going to have to step up to the (generous rater) plate while I'm gone!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was hoping to see a review or two on _The Book of Eli_ before I go. I'm curious to see if my recommendation was way too high (according to GRG it was!), though I really don't believe it was. Having said that I will be happy if it ends up no lower than 1.5 or 1.75 at the very lowest.



I've always wanted to rate The Fugitive into Tier-Blu


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cjmx2* /forum/post/18801732
> 
> 
> I've always wanted to rate The Fugitive into Tier-Blu













I now nominate you as my official substitute (as "generous rater") while I'm gone.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*District 13 Ultimatum*

Very Michael Bay-like, with a heavy contrast, crushing blacks, and highly saturated color. Some softness when the light isn't bright is a downer, although this only a few scenes. Textures are otherwise firm, and facial details superb. A bout of noise and some lackluster shots from the air are quick to pass.

*Tier 2.0*


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*It's Complicated*


This one surprised me as it looked much better than I expected for this type of movie. Details were very good and the clarity could be very impressive. Colors were natural and accurate looking.


Facial details were not the best for some reason.


What this film lacked compared to Tier 1 titles in my opinion was a good sensation of depth. The contrast wasn't quite there to really make the image as solid as it could be.


So it just missed Tier 1.


The movie was actually better than I was expecting, but then again, I wasn't expecting much.
*Tier Recommendation: Tier 2.0*


----------



## deltasun

*Flash Gordon*


Wow, this one looks sharp...almost too sharp. DNR also seems at play here with the smoothed out faces. However, it's hard to tell because of the healthy grain present most of the time. Still, it looks very unnatural and affected the PQ.


I found the blacks deep for the most part and I felt contrast was just slightly above average. Details and depth are better than expected. Aside from the very dated special effects (and they are indeed special), colors are probably the next biggest problem. They are very unnatural and leaned towards a blooming reddish hue...or so it seems.


Not sure what it is though (could be sentimentality), but this title looks surprisingly good in blu.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## cjmx2

*Valentine's Day*Finally got around to this one. This was very average and not really a standout. The one thing it did have going for it was that it was consistent...consistently average. I really don't remember more than a few low tier 1 close ups. Not really any depth and dimensionality. Colors were good as well as fleshtones... This definitely reminded me of a really descent 1080i cable broadcast...not the reason I went to blu-ray...


All in all...somewhere in the low tier 2 area or so...

*Tier 2.75*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Steamboat Bill Jr.*


I was totally impressed with what Kino did with Buster Keaton's The General, despite some sharpening.


I am so NOT totally impressed with what they did here.


It is hard to imagine a disc with more amped contrast than this one. At one point, Keaton's eyes disappear from his face because of the intensity. Posters on walls are like blank pieces of paper. It's actually easy to ignore the thick black edge enhancement and print damage because it's the least of the problems. The whole thing sort of exists in a bland gray scale too. What a shame.

*Tier 4.75*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Clash of the Titans (1981)*


This thing is a mess for the first hour. Compression is awful. Tons of chroma noise caused by smoke and grain, and it is soft as hell. Some interlacing is briefly evident, colors are flat, and blacks are merely adequate and nothing more. Detail is quite rare. Second hour loses a bit of the noisy quality, but still doesn't gain much.
*Tier 4.5*


----------



## vpn75

*Mary and Max*


This is another sensational-looking stop-motion picture. Fine detail is impeccable which we have come to expect from this type of film. I really could find nothing to fault from a technical perspective with this film. The only thing keeping it from Tier 0 placement in my mind is the drab color-scheme.


I also can't recommend this movie highly enough! The story is sweet and touching with gentle humor that merits multiple viewings. This along with Toy Story 3 made for a great animated double-feature for me this weekend!

*Recommended: Tier 1.0 placement*


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18806961
> 
> *Clash of the Titans (1981)*
> 
> This thing is a mess for the first hour. Compression is awful. Tons of chroma noise caused by smoke and grain, and it is soft as hell. Some interlacing is briefly evident, colors are flat, and blacks are merely adequate and nothing more. Detail is quite rare. Second hour loses a bit of the noisy quality, but still doesn't gain much.
> *Tier 4.5*



That is really unfortunate, but sounds typical of Warner's lesser efforts from their deep catalog of titles. I guess fans should be happy it saw a Blu-ray release at all, considering the other studios would have skipped it entirely.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vpn75* /forum/post/18807373
> 
> *Mary and Max*
> 
> 
> This is another sensational-looking stop-motion picture. Fine detail is impeccable which we have come to expect from this type of film. I really could find nothing to fault from a technical perspective with this film. The only thing keeping it from Tier 0 placement in my mind is the drab color-scheme.
> *Recommended: Tier 1.0 placement*



Have you seen Coraline? I wonder how it compares to that disc for picture quality.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18808560
> 
> 
> That is really unfortunate, but sounds typical of Warner's lesser efforts from their deep catalog of titles. I guess fans should be happy it saw a Blu-ray release at all, considering the other studios would have skipped it entirely.



I'm sure this was "remake is coming; let's release what we have" type of disc. It may not be one of their great classics like Wizard of Oz, but it is respected if only for the effects. Maybe down the line they'll spend some real time with it. I doubt it will ever look great, but it should look better than it does.


----------



## TitusTroy

anyone seen/reviewed the BBC Nature documentary 'Life' (David Attenborough version)?...I'm curious how it compares to Planet Earth which was a mixed bag of amazing and less then amazing PQ


----------



## ibre34

I have only watched the first disk so far. It's a very good 1080p transfer. Tier 1 I'd say, some scenes may be Tier 0


----------



## deltasun

I'm about halfway through _Life_ and feel it's about the same as _Planet Earth_...maybe a quarter tier better so far.


----------



## 42041

*Crazy Heart*


Not the most consistent transfer I've ever seen. Some parts look very good. Others look just okay, whether it be lacking detail, weird colors, bland visuals, etc. Overall, pretty good looking disc.

*Tier 2.0*


----------



## vpn75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18808560
> 
> 
> That is really unfortunate, but sounds typical of Warner's lesser efforts from their deep catalog of titles. I guess fans should be happy it saw a Blu-ray release at all, considering the other studios would have skipped it entirely.
> 
> 
> Have you seen Coraline? I wonder how it compares to that disc for picture quality.



Yes, I've seen *Coraline* and it just falls a bit short of it on PQ. *Coraline* also benefits from better artistic design and a wider color-pallete.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Green Zone*


Man... this thing is NOISY. Tons and tons of noise. Scenes during the day are fine, with some great detail. At night, forget it. You can barely make out people with all of the noise. The encode resolves it well, I'll give it that, but it certainly isn't pretty.

*Tier 4.0*


----------



## vpn75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18811230
> 
> *Green Zone*
> 
> 
> Man... this thing is NOISY. Tons and tons of noise. Scenes during the day are fine, with some great detail. At night, forget it. You can barely make out people with all of the noise. The encode resolves it well, I'll give it that, but it certainly isn't pretty.
> 
> *Tier 4.0*



Ouch! I heard the night-scenes were bad on this one, but overall the PQ is being well-reviewed. Ralph gave the PQ a 90 in his review, which is pretty close to reference on his scale.


I was considering a blind-buy on this one if the price is right. I'll be interested to hear some other opinions on the PQ.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vpn75* /forum/post/18811340
> 
> 
> Ouch! I heard the night-scenes were bad on this one, but overall the PQ is being well-reviewed. Ralph gave the PQ a 90 in his review, which is pretty close to reference on his scale.
> 
> 
> I was considering a blind-buy on this one if the price is right. I'll be interested to hear some other opinions on the PQ.



Oh it's a good transfer, true to the source. For this thread though it's far from eye candy.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*The Road*


Given the subject matter of this film, I expected it to be somewhat dark and dreary.


Well, not only was it dark and dreary, it was also flat and soft. I felt that contrast was very weak, even if intentionally so, and the picture almost always had a flat non-three dimensional look to it.


As mentioned, there was also a lot of softness. There would be the rare scene that actually did look pretty good with decent detail, but these were the exceptions.


Colors are almost non-existent.


I also noticed some EE in a few scenes.


The movie itself was depressing, but I did remain engaged and never felt like turning it off. Worth a rental.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.25*


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Alice in Wonderland*


This was a disappointment.


I was expecting some seriously impressive PQ on this title due to the nature of the subject matter (with unique characteristics, and wanting to show them off) and the fact that it is a Disney title.


Unfortunately detail is a bit lacking from what one would expect. Johnny Depp's eye's and eyelashes are not as clearly defined as they should be. Even contrast was slightly on the weak side overall. Colors were bright and bold in many scenes and looked good.


Overall, this one just barely stays in Tier 2.


As for the movie: complete waste of time. A huge disappointment from Tim Burton. Ugh!

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 2.75*


----------



## 42041

*Knowing*


This movie was shot digitally with the much-hyped Red 4K camera, and as you might expect, the image is clean and fairly detailed. Well-lit scenes tend to look very good. However, quality dips in the numerous low light sequences. Facial detail comes and goes, whether due to soft photography or the light DNR that appears to have been employed in many scenes. Colors tend to be somewhat dull and yellowish. Overall, something I could conceivably use for demo material, but it wouldn't be high on my list.

*Tier 1.75*


(PS3/Pioneer 50" Kuro Elite/1 screen width distance)


----------



## deltasun

*Possession*


This is a mess. Somewhat of a horror/suspense flick, the film is draped in dark, obscure settings. Unfortunately, it didn't fare well in these environs. Blacks are deep, but too deep that they were crushed. Black levels offer poor, flat scenes. Shadow details are also close to nil.


Contrast is weak and the shooting style employ a stylistic soft, dreamy look throughout. As I've mentioned many times before, a look that I pretty much abhor. I do have to say it wasn't as bad as previous examples of this style of photography, particularly as we get closer to the end. As such, no real good examples of facial details. Okay, there may have been one close-up of Ryan in a coma where fine lines are present. Details on objects, surprisingly enough, did look decent at times. However, textures are not this style's forte.


Colors are somewhat muted, save for a few flashbacks where they looked a bit saturated. Could also just appear that way after much of the drab scenes. As mentioned, things improve a bit towards the end where colors do take on a bit more natural look. Grain, or I should say noise, is inconsistent but fairly moderate. A few scenes overly so.


No signs of foul play to report. Overall, the PQ went with the enjoyment of watching this ho-hum feature.

*Tier Recommendation: 4.5*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*She's Out of My League*


The hell? What happened here? Nearly devoid of grain, and carrying a significantly processed look. Shots a distance are simply awful. For a new release, this is unacceptable. Colors are weirdly saturated neon hues, giving flesh tones a weirdly translucent hue. Detail struggles to come through, and while the blacks are decent, a hint of crush is noted.

*Tier 4.0*


----------



## vpn75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18814968
> 
> *She's Out of My League*
> 
> 
> The hell? What happened here? Nearly devoid of grain, and carrying a significantly processed look. Shots a distance are simply awful. For a new release, this is unacceptable. Colors are weirdly saturated neon hues, giving flesh tones a weirdly translucent hue. Detail struggles to come through, and while the blacks are decent, a hint of crush is noted.
> 
> *Tier 4.0*



I saw this last night and agree with your review. PQ was acceptable for this type of movie, but otherwise completely unremarkable. I think there was one scene that featured strong detail in a facial closeup, but I can't even recall it now.


I might be a bit more generous and propose this for *Tier 3.0*


----------



## tfoltz

Watched *Valkyrie* last night and believe it belongs in *Tier 2.25*. Closeups are very nice, and some outdoor scenes look great, but much of the film has a diffused and soft look to it. Mediocre black levels likely attribute to this.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Virgin Territory


recommendation: Tier 2.25*


Starz graced this 2006 production with a Blu-ray release in February of 2010. The 97-minute movie is encoded in VC-1 on a BD-25, at bitrates that vary more than usual. Peak parameters for the video encode top 40 Mbps briefly, while generally hovering in the 17 to 30 Mbps range. Shot on film, there is nothing that is egregiously wrong in the transfer. The Blu-ray probably looks better than the movie deserves, when so many other films are tepidly brought to high-definition.


A fine layer of grain is evident and the image looks very reminiscent of a solid film print. In fact, the small appearances of print dirt and black speckles indicate the Blu-ray was probably sourced from a telecined film print, and not a Digital Intermediate. That lends the picture a film-like quality one is increasingly missing on recent movies to Blu-ray. The complete lack of edge enhancement is another positive, where the only halos that could be spotted were of the optical variety on the few that showed up.


Two minor problems prevent a tier one placement. Black levels in the few night scenes are not the inky quality one should demand in a demonstration piece. They approach dark gray more than pure black at times. Contrast is surprisingly pleasant, not the over-driven affair many films strive for now. Fleshtones are naturally colored, not the overly reddish complexion one might expect from the many daylight scenes. The second problem is just the slightest loss of sharpness in a few shots. Definition and crispness are typically very good, but certain close-ups possess a softer focus. Clarity surpasses true resolution, as there is not a stellar amount of high-frequency information.


Aside from a short burst of compression noise in the beginning, the video encode looks faithful to the underlying film. Starz clearly did the wise thing on the transfer and did not use any serious digital processing to remove detail, or alter the picture. A couple of years ago, I might have considered _Virgin Territory_ for tier one. But at this moment in time, a placement in tier 2.25 sounds correct.


Watching on a 60” Pioneer KURO plasma at 1080p/24, fed by a 60 GB PS3 (firmware 3.30), from a viewing distance of six feet.


----------



## jedimasterchad

*From Paris With Love*


Overall this one looked pretty decent. Black levels held throughout, but in just a couple of instances seemed like they were tinged blue (mostly on scene fades). The black level was strong otherwise, but held back just enough to get in some good shadow detail. In order to do so, I think they had to turn down the contrast a bit, which made some scenes look pretty flat.


Facial details were for the most part above average, but nothing spectacular. Other details were OK but this one didn't really hang on the strength of small items in the composition of the frame. A heavier than average layer of grain made itself known throughout many darker parts of the picture and the encode seemed to hold up well, giving the film look without any digital noise. Color was a bit blown out in daylight scenes and a bit soft during indoor scenes. The michael bay-esque skin tones make a few appearances but doesn't really affect the film that much.


A pretty well rounded effort that didn't have many problems, but didn't really stand out either. For the purposes of this thread, there was a solid picture throughout but not enough eye candy to jump it into the top tiers. I'll go with Delta on this one.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*


Nice to finally have some time to sit down and watch a movie and relax. I nearly took this one back to blockbuster to get The Crazies instead, but just didn't have that motivation to get outside because of the heat. Not a bad flick, and John Travolta was a little better than I thought, and even produced a few laughs (I loved the homage to Pulp Fiction). A good rental.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Daybreakers*


This one varied quite a bit, but looked very good overall. It has a very distinct steel blue look to it. Details vary substantially, from soft to excellent. Contrast was good, but many darker scenes seemed to have some type of noise in them.


Overall I liked the look of the film a lot, but there are enough negatives to keep it out of Tier 1.


As for the movie, I really liked the premise. It was a unique take on the Vampire genre, something not easy to do given how much it has been done. It is not on par with the much better Let The Right One In, but it was definitely worth watching, and I say this as someone who has not been a fan of vampire films, but that does appear to be changing.
*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Paris, Texas*


Another Criterion release on Blu. This indy was released back in 1984.


This Blu-ray looks very good given its age and the original elements. Colors are bold and stand out, but in a mostly natural way. Detail and clarity certainly isn't superb, but again, given the age of the film, it is actually very impressive.


There were a few scenes that seemed a bit "edgy", but this was not the norm.


Overall a good job with this one, and fans should be extremely happy with the huge improvement over the DVD.



As for the movie, it is a unique road film. It reminded me of a Jim Jarmusch film, and sure enough, I find out that he knew the director of this film as well, and they used the same cinematographer (Robby Muller) in many of their films.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 3.25*


----------



## deltasun

*The Book of Eli*


This was a mixed bag for me. Not much of a diplomat, but I do see each person's (GRG and Denny) point of view. On the one hand there are plenty of details, depth, and dimensionality (per Denny). In the other, there are some ugly facial representation, particularly indoors in Gary Oldman's pad. To add to that, the entire sepia-toned sequence crushed blacks and really flattened out the picture with darkened corners and the pervasive high contrast.


Once we get outside, the contrast just got hotter. So much so that some medium shots created pseudo-silhouettes of the main characters, to the detriment of details. As a counterpoint to the poorer quality indoor scenes in town, I really enjoyed intimacy and play-like atmosphere of the flame-lit scene between Denzel and Ms. Kunis. Here, details are more pronounced and depth more evident.


Colors are limited to an almost monochromatic representation of the post-apocalyptic world. Personally, I love such color schemes. I thought the bleakness could have been better rendered, however, for this picture. Skin tones are consistent with the film's look.


No foul play noted, though banding is an issue in a couple of scenes, particularly pronounced during the sun fade out in the first house. Overall, I liked the look as I did in the theatres, but falls a bit short of demo-worthiness for the purposes of this thread. By the way, some of the facial details reminded me of the Tier 0 dweller, _Man on Fire_.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18818333
> 
> *Daybreakers*
> 
> 
> As for the movie, I really liked the premise. It was a unique take on the Vampire genre, something not easy to do given how much it has been done. It is not on par with the much better Let The Right One In, but it was definitely worth watching, and I say this as someone who has not been a fan of vampire films, but that does appear to be changing.
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.0*



I am in the same boat as you, a non-vampire fan, and I really enjoyed this one. It had just enough story to make it interesting, a good concept with the whole idea of being in the future and fighting for blood, and had better than average violence that kept me entertained and made my wife squirm in her chair (and she was the one that wanted to rent it, knowing it was a vampire flick!). Might go back and purchase this one when the price drops.


----------



## Ozymandis

*Seven Swords:*


I didn't see any reviews of this posted, I got it for cheap at Walmart on a whim. I've been feeling some Chinese martial arts cinema after Red Cliff. This one is long, not nearly as good, and was hard to follow/nonsensical at times.


The video is a little hard to rate. When it started I was like, uck, this looks pretty average. Not a lot of detail, and the contrast was poor, especially at night. But as the movie went on it grew on me, there were some really great facial details in shots, and some gorgeous outdoor work like the seven swordsmen at sunrise. One notable thing is that the bitrate seemed pretty high, around 30mbits/sec, and the action scenes were strong as a result. There were shots that were inexplicably blurry throughout the movie, but enough quality material that I'll say Tier 2.0 would be a fair placement. Poor contrast and inconsistency were my main gripes.


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18782411
> 
> *Shutter Island*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Denny, it appears that you have now saved two of us from having to write out an entire review, because I also think that you *nailed* this one!
> 
> 
> I agree with virtually everything that you have said here. In particular, the difference in PQ between indoor and outdoor scenes was rather dramatic.
> 
> 
> This disc could have been a tier 1.0 title if the quality remained as good as the vast majority of the outdoor scenes. Sadly, that is not the case.
> 
> 
> Contrast and blacks can be very impressive, as can overall detail. Some of the distant shots showed very crisp details. Yet, I agree that facial details, while still good, were not up there with the best titles.
> 
> 
> But many of the indoor scenes, while most certainly not *bad*, were still noticeably less impressive than the great outdoor scenes that showed superb depth, dimension, clarity, and deep saturated colors. The outdoor scenes had a real "solidity" to it, for lack of a better description.
> 
> 
> The excellent quality of the vast majority of outdoor scenes cant' be overlooked, so I think the title still belongs in Tier 1.
> 
> 
> As for the movie: I now understand why the critics didn't particularly care for it. Still a good movie, but not up to Scorsese standards. The "twist" could easily be seen a mile away, and was so obvious that I don't think it could even be called much of a twist. But, the execution was still top notch, with great acting and direction. I thought the music was fantastic!
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.75*
> 
> 
> JVC RS1 1080p, 123" screen, 13.5 feet viewing distance



Just saw this and I don't have much to add to these except for the fact that the green-screen stuff really stood out to me and was an eyesore. Stuff like being on the ferry in the beginning or even when DiCaprio is riding in the Jeep about 3/4 of the way through. The forest looked unbelievably fake. These issues gave it quite a flat appearance, which is my other big ding. While the outdoor scenes popped pretty well color wise, everything still looked a bit flat to me except for the scenes overlooking the rock cliff.


Facial details were near absent throughout most of the film and the above mentioned indoor shots were almost just plain ugly. Luckily, even the matchlit scenes in the C ward don't suffer any black crush and hold up well. The vivid flashback imagery was probably the highlight here, even if it was a bit weird.


Better than average, but for me I will have to go just a bit lower and say

*2.0*


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I do agree with you about some of the special effects/green screen issues Chad. No doubt about it.


----------



## OldCodger73

Here are some ratings of titles I've recently watch, all on a Panasonic 65" S1, Panasonic BD85 at 7 1/2'.

*Sherlock Holmes Tier 2.25


Amelia Tier 3.0


Avatar Tier 0* anywhere above _Coraline_

*Walkabout Tier 4.0


Stagecoach Tier 4.5


Absolute Power Tier 3.5*


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Walkabout is that bad, huh?


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18822855
> 
> 
> Walkabout is that bad, huh?



I really wanted to put this in 3.75 because of the lovely Jenny Agutter but couldn't do it. The PQ is very uneven; many medium shots and anything longer look very DVD like. Of course, heat shimmers don't help. Some medium and medium closeups clearly are in Tier 3. Among the best are the swimming scenes, which are easy on the eye. If you've watched the movie you'll know what I mean.


While I admire that they issue titles that probably wouldn't have seen the light of day from the major studios, I've been disappointed in the quality of Criterion's BD releases. Back in LD days, their releases were the cream of the crop. I haven't watched any of their DVDs so I don't know what those were like.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Karate Kid


recommendation: Tier 3.75*


Sony did as good as they possibly could in bringing this 1984 movie to Blu-ray, faithfully showing the positives and negatives of the original image quality. The score in the lowest quarter of tier three is an acknowledgment that the lenses and film stock used in the production look a tad dated. Running a length of 126-minutes, the AVC video encode runs at an average bitrate of 26.95 Mbps on a BD-50. The film elements used are in pristine shape, and this Blu-ray captures every nuance of the original film image in perfect detail.


Over the whole of the film, there are some moments that are tier four in quality. Many of the darker scenes show a pronounced grain structure, though it does appear film-like in nature. If only Sony could handle other studios' catalog efforts, then many of the complaints lodged here could be avoided. There is not a trace of digital noise reduction or filtering, leaving intact an image that looks like good film. The second half of the movie is a bit softer than the first half, and slight vestiges of edge enhancement do show up, presumably in an attempt to sharpen the picture. It is not objectionable in any way, and hardly noticeable unless watching on a gigantic display or screen.


Compression is never a serious concern, except for one instance. The combination of thick grain, and the fog rolling in off the ocean at night, produce a touch of artifacting at the beach. Other than that minor note, the grain fields are reproduced nicely and consistently without macroblocking or banding. Lower bitrates could have easily turned the grain into a moving mush. Colors are okay, and shine the best in the first half during the daytime scenes. But no one is going to mistake the color fidelity for the lush, vibrant hues that dominate the upper tiers.


Sony has done an excellent job in properly translating a film with questionable source material. The transfer is better than many classics have received on BD by other studios, and is representative of the effort Sony is putting into catalog titles on a regular basis. There is not a lot of eye candy or pop, but the _Karate Kid_ is good enough to be in tier three.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...9#post18777189


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Edge of Darkness*


Not much to be particularly impressed about with this title. Overall, I would describe this as a "typical Warner looking title" and many would know what I mean.


Lots of softness throughout. Flat looking image overall.


There are definite exceptions, with several outdoor scenes looking quite nice, detailed, and even showing a good sense of depth. But these were definitely the exception, not the rule.


I also noticed some minor artifacts.


This is an average looking title, and I don't think that it makes it into Tier 2.


As for the movie: I find it ironic that I just finished talking about how much I liked the premise of Daybreakers, but the executions wasn't that great, because with Edge of Darkness, the premise was completely juvenile, worn out, and cliched (big business eeeevil!), but the execution wasn't too bad. Still didn't care much for the film though.
*Tier Recommendation: Tier 3.0*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Tae Guk Gi: Brotherhood of War (Import)*


A 1080i encode coupled with a staggeringly low bitrate does not a good transfer make. Soft and reluctant to show off those fine details, this one rarely impresses in terms of texture. Black levels are great generating some depth, but few scenes really pop due to the lack of detail. Artifacting is also an issue.

*Tier 4.0*


----------



## cjmx2

*Mission Impossible*Definitely a soft presentation. Facial details never made it out of tier 3 at best. Probably the source material had some problems to start with. The whole move just had an overprocessed look. Colors were drab and dull. This movie sits in 3.5 right now but I think...
*Tier 4.0


Mission Impossible 2*This is currently ranked alongside the 1st mission impossible in tier 3.5. I found this presentation better but not great. The facial details were much better ranging from tier 3 to low tier 1. There was some black crush I noticed in the opening scenes, but it was not too significant. The overall presentation was much more serviceable in every way than the 1st movie. Overall the picture was mostly flat and lacked dimensionality still. I would vote...
*Tier 2.75


Mission Impossible III
*Far and away the best presentation of the three. Facial details were better hovered mostly in tiers one and two. There was much better contrast and dimensionality. I did notice quite a bit of black crush in several darker scenes and It was somewhat distracting. One frustration was during the conversation scenes it would go back and forth between different parties and the 1st facial shot was a strong tier one...going back to the same person a few seconds later many times it was soft and without any detail whatsoever....maybe a minor pick...I wouldn't say it happend too often but too much for a film in tier 1.25...I'd say...
*Tier 1.75*


----------



## deltasun

*The Twilight Saga: New Moon*


What is the deal with this movie? I don't know if I've







this many times while watching a movie. On to the PQ...


It's a surprisingly pleasant presentation. Blacks are deep for the most part. As with the first, complexions on the vampiric brood are on the light side, but cakey make-up is not as apparent this time. In fact, I feel facial details are a bit lacking and never fully resolved. Colors are well saturated and contrast adequate. Depth can be very engaging in a number of scenes.


There's a point (with about 30 minutes to go, when Edward and Bella) where the picture takes a bit of a nosedive. Softness abounds even more during this sequence.


Overall, the PQ is quite decent. I did note some banding (during the jet flyover) and some unexpected artifacts. CGI on the werewolves are disappointing.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## trinifox

Perhaps I missed it but is there an official ranking for this blu transfer?Amazon reviewers seem to like it, but I was wondering if the blu was worthy.


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *trinifox* /forum/post/18828099
> 
> 
> Perhaps I missed it but is there an official ranking for this blu transfer?Amazon reviewers seem to like it, but I was wondering if the blu was worthy.



It's rated Tier 1.75.


Ratings for movies that are discussed in this thread are here.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1168342


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *trinifox* /forum/post/18828099
> 
> 
> Perhaps I missed it but is there an official ranking for this blu transfer?Amazon reviewers seem to like it, but I was wondering if the blu was worthy.



Personally I would not use this thread to determine if a blu-ray of an older movie is "worthy". Many older movies look great, as good as they ever looked, but due to the limitations of the original technology and the deterioration of the film over time, they would only reach the lower tiers of this thread.

But being shot in 65mm, 2001 looks pretty good on Blu-Ray by any standard.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/18828876
> 
> 
> Personally I would not use this thread to determine if a blu-ray of an older movie is "worthy". Many older movies look great, as good as they ever looked, but due to the limitations of the original technology and the deterioration of the film over time, they would only reach the lower tiers of this thread.
> 
> But being shot in 65mm, 2001 looks pretty good on Blu-Ray by any standard.



+1. well said.


----------



## deltasun

*The Girl Next Door (Jack Ketchum's)*


Two words - upscaled DVD. I actually had to eject the disc to verify that I do have a blu-ray in the player. There is not really one item in the film that I can single out as a virtue, unfortunately. Pervasive softness is a common feature, with maybe about 10 min (out of about 1.5 hours) worth of sharpness. Details follow the same pattern, though to be fair, some are due to the chosen depth of field. Colors don't stand out, save for some vivid scenes of foliage. Due to the softness, however, they appear washed out as well. Blacks are mostly weak and contrast is troubled.


While there are no damage, excessive grain, or any other foul play, I could place this in Tier Coal for the softness alone. Looking at the films in that tier, I won't.

*Tier Recommendation: 4.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## trinifox

@OldCodger73 & @42041 @g^3 thanks for the responses.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Watchmen: Director's Cut (region-free UK import)


recommendation: lower half of Tier 0*


Paramount has done an amazing job in surpassing the already stellar picture quality of the domestic Warner Blu-ray. Technicolor, who handles the technical aspects of Paramount's Blu-rays, wisely made the 186-minute director's cut the only feature on a BD-50, taking up nearly the entire disc. Encoded in AVC, the average video bitrate is 27.24 Mbps, which is nearly 10 Mbps higher than the meager VC-1 encoding on Warner's BD. The clear difference in shadow detail, and the frequent resolving of superior high-frequency information over Warner's disc, which is appropriately placed in the upper confines of tier one at the moment, leads to this import easily deserving of tier zero. These observations were made in direct comparison on my display, with both discs in my possession.


The compression itself is absolutely top-notch for a live-action film that constantly bombards the screen with difficult material to render cleanly. From the eerie, blue glow of Dr. Manhattan, to the splashes of crimson from dripping blood, there is not a hint of banding in the subtle gradients. In retrospect it reveals the inadequacy of the low-bitrate VC-1 encode, particularly on larger displays for sharp-eyed viewers.


What really makes the difference for the casual viewer between the two discs is the level of shadow delineation on regular display. The rendition of exquisite texture and nuance in the darker scenes clearly goes to Paramount's Blu-ray in a walk. Black levels are uncanny as they plumb the depths of absolute black. Snyder's intended aesthetics give a tremendous perception of dimensionality to ordinary scenes, as this film shows what Hollywood is truly capable of for image quality when a huge budget is given to the most talented and capable creative people.


Snyder really does possess a strong visual style, well-suited for eye candy potential, when he is not slathering on extra grain like in _300_. The opening credits scene alone projects an extraordinary spatial depth that could work as a great demo for Blu-ray neophytes. But then again, many scenes in the film could double as demo selections. Watch the falling rain at the Comedian's funeral, it almost looks hyper-real, if you can understand what I am meaning.


Having already owned the Warner Blu-ray, I do not regret for a moment laying out the extra money to obtain the region-free BD from the UK. Those concerned with the utmost picture fidelity to the film's master need to acquire it for posterity's sake, as it obviates Warner's BD. Paramount has created the ultimate representation of _Watchmen_ for Blu-ray that simply can't be improved upon without going beyond the bounds of the format.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of mitanidani):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=907


----------



## deltasun

*The Thomas Crown Affair (1999)*


I did not expect this film to hold up in HD, but it surprisingly did. Fox did a good job with the presentation. Colors are strikingly vivid in key scenes, especially during the motor-less flight over fall foliage and the warm pastels in Brosnan's vacation hideaway. Facial details are quite sharp, but ultra close-up's don't seem to yield expected Tier-0 caliber texture and detail. At their best, they may skirt the bottom of Tier 0.


Blacks are quite deep, but do cross over and crush. Contrast, I thought, waver a bit but would describe it as still substantially above average overall. Medium scenes had some 3D pop, but longer shots suffered from softness. Skin tones were a bit on the reddish side, consistent with the warmer tint employed to the presentation.


Some noise can be seen in the early sky scenes but rarely did they return. Overall, a decent presentation that falls right in mid Tier Silver...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.50*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

*M*


As seen in the Cinema Squid's captures, the restoration done on this film is quite satisfying. Sure, it still carries plenty of dirt, scratches, etc., expected from a film of this age, but I don't think it detracted too much.


Blacks, contrast, and depth are better than expected. Picture clarity and details definitely waver, but when they're good, they look impressive. Grain is intact and not too bothersome.

*Tier Recommendation: 4.0*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Thanks for the review of the UK version of Watchmen, Phantom Stranger. I just might have to order that one.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Armageddon*

It's Michael Bay. Colors are oversaturated, blacks crush, and spectacular facial detail in close. Some softness is noted, and noise is a bit bothersome, although not to any significant degree. Oddly, montages of people running for safety are generally lackluster, which could be the result of filters or the zany digital intermediate.
*Tier 1.75*


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*3:10 to Yuma* (revisited)


This is a difficult title to rank, and this is shown by the fact that it was originally placed in Tier 2 on this list way back when, then it was moved up to Tier 1.


I had a hard time trying to place this in a Tier back when I first viewed it too, but said I would probably recommend Tier 2.


After watching it again last night, the only thing that I am sure about is the fact that this does *not* belong in Tier 1!


The EE was more obvious to me this time around. The majority of the picture has a harsh/digital look to it, probably the result of the sharpening. While details are good, the EE and ringing prevent it from having the type of clarity that I would expect from a Tier 1 title.


I still think it belongs in Tier 2...but at the (very) bottom. If someone would recommend this for Tier 3.0, I would not object.


As for the movie, I still feel the same after my first viewing. The first 90% was very good, but the ending was just terrible.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 2.75*


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18831937
> 
> *3:10 to Yuma* (revisited)
> 
> 
> This is a difficult title to rank, and this is shown by the fact that it was originally placed in Tier 2 on this list way back when, then it was moved up to Tier 1.
> 
> 
> I had a hard time trying to place this in a Tier back when I first viewed it too, but said I would probably recommend Tier 2.
> 
> 
> After watching it again last night, the only thing that I am sure about is the fact that this does *not* belong in Tier 1!
> 
> 
> The EE was more obvious to me this time around. The majority of the picture has a harsh/digital look to it, probably the result of the sharpening. While details are good, the EE and ringing prevent it from having the type of clarity that I would expect from a Tier 1 title.
> 
> 
> I still think it belongs in Tier 2...but at the (very) bottom. If someone would recommend this for Tier 3.0, I would not object.
> 
> 
> As for the movie, I still feel the same after my first viewing. The first 90% was very good, but the ending was just terrible.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 2.75*



I don't own this one but can borrow it again. I searched back and my review of this was one of my first ever here at AVS when I was both shy and had a piece of crap television. I have not seen it on my plasma. I'll try and borrow it from my buddy in the next little while and review it on here, perhaps the EE was not quite so bothersome for me on the old crappy TV.


----------



## maestro50




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18799252
> 
> *North by Northwest*
> 
> 
> They did a great job with this one. Blacks are deep, albeit sometimes crushed. Contrast is mostly excellent as well. Grain is present and unobtrusive, save for literally a few scenes.
> 
> 
> Facial details are not to the quality of Tier Blu titles, but some of them can leak into Tier 1. There is ample 3D pop in a number of medium shots and some of the panoramas are quite well done. Skin tones are closer to bronze, especially on Cary Grant. Colors are a bit saturated, but not too distracting - seems to complement the storyline. Though the content may look dated, I found the film itself to be less so. The use of "green screen" does detract a bit.
> 
> 
> On the flip side, softness does creep in unexpectedly. The darker segments are a bit flat and shadow details can be poor. For a film this old, I was expecting some specks or print damage. I don't recall seeing any. Overall, very pleased with the presentation.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.75*
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_



I agree with everything Deltasun writes, except the final placement.


Blacks are great, but the softness was pretty pervasive, I thought. There is not a great deal of detail in faces or fabrics. Cary Grant's skin tone is indeed bronze-to-orange in many shots (makes one wonder if they had some version of a "spray on tan" in 1959!) Mostly, though, I think it is a step below the other vintage titles in 2.75, like "The Wizard of Oz."

*3.0 tier placement*


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18831937
> 
> *3:10 to Yuma* (revisited)
> 
> 
> This is a difficult title to rank, and this is shown by the fact that it was originally placed in Tier 2 on this list way back when, then it was moved up to Tier 1.
> 
> 
> I had a hard time trying to place this in a Tier back when I first viewed it too, but said I would probably recommend Tier 2.
> 
> 
> After watching it again last night, the only thing that I am sure about is the fact that this does *not* belong in Tier 1!
> 
> 
> The EE was more obvious to me this time around. The majority of the picture has a harsh/digital look to it, probably the result of the sharpening. While details are good, the EE and ringing prevent it from having the type of clarity that I would expect from a Tier 1 title.
> 
> 
> I still think it belongs in Tier 2...but at the (very) bottom. If someone would recommend this for Tier 3.0, I would not object.
> 
> 
> As for the movie, I still feel the same after my first viewing. The first 90% was very good, but the ending was just terrible.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 2.75*



Dear Sir,


I will have to humbly disagree with you here, because I felt like the entire movie was kind of boring and led up to a fantastic ending that made the whole movie worthwhile. It was a bit predictable, but the execution was top notch. I remember leaving the theater quite satisfied at the end result.


That is all.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *maestro50* /forum/post/18833269
> 
> 
> I agree with everything Deltasun writes, except the final placement.
> 
> 
> Blacks are great, but the softness was pretty pervasive, I thought. There is not a great deal of detail in faces or fabrics. Cary Grant's skin tone is indeed bronze-to-orange in many shots (makes one wonder if they had some version of a "spray on tan" in 1959!) Mostly, though, I think it is a step below the other vintage titles in 2.75, like "The Wizard of Oz."
> 
> *3.0 tier placement*



No problem, but definitely disagree with which is better. I believe _North by Northwest_ to be superior, albeit by a small margin.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Where Eagles Dare*


This one looks a whole lot like the Dirty Dozen, including the awful-looking fade transitions, random softness, and random striking clarity. Some haloing is evident too. Blacks are great, and detail can be superb when it wants to be. Print is in great shape too. Shame it's not consistent in any way.
*Tier 4.0*


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18745373
> 
> *The Wolfman (2010)*
> 
> 
> The darker scenes (which comprise the majority of the film) resemble that of _Alice in Wonderland_, but a bit worse. Because of the filtering (director's intent all the way, of course), softness and vignetting is the common look. Blacks are deep and crushed most of the time. Contrast can vary. Some of the daytime scenes, specially the few flashbacks, offer some sharpness. Still, even with the filtering, some of the close-up's do enter high Tier 1 territory. Details also waver - fabric and fur can look absolutely stunning in one scene but disappear in the next. Grain can get really thick in darker areas, but disappear DNR-like in others.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.50*



Just finally got to this one, and delta pretty much summed it up quite well here. A few close up shots of Anthony Hopkins look pretty exceptional, with great facial detail and detail in the fabric of his sweater and scarf, and the next moment he is a soft and undetailed mess. Black crush was my biggest complaint, as shadow detail seemed lost throughout the entire movie. The contrast seemed a little weak, and blacks got pale in some instances and dark in others, and it seemed dependent upon the lighting. Also, because of the acute darkness, any bright source of light set against the crushed background yielded ugly banding in many scenes. A good attempt at a moody environment, but the camera work just doesn't hold up on this Blu-Ray.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.75*


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/18834277
> 
> 
> Dear Sir,
> 
> 
> I will have to humbly disagree with you here, because I felt like the entire movie was kind of boring and led up to a fantastic ending that made the whole movie worthwhile. It was a bit predictable, but the execution was top notch. I remember leaving the theater quite satisfied at the end result.
> 
> 
> That is all.




I agree......to disagree!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/18834277
> 
> 
> Dear Sir,
> 
> 
> I will have to humbly disagree with you here, because I felt like the entire movie was kind of boring and led up to a fantastic ending that made the whole movie worthwhile. It was a bit predictable, but the execution was top notch. I remember leaving the theater quite satisfied at the end result.
> 
> 
> That is all.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18838909
> 
> 
> I agree......to disagree!




I really can't go wrong with a movie starring both Russell Crowe and Christian Bale. I should borrow this again sooner rather than later....


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Yojimbo*


Master director Akira Kurosawa's Yojimbo is a favorite film of mine (as are numerous other films by Kurosawa, including the sequel to Yojimbo: Sanjuro, which I actually slightly prefer over Yojimbo).


I am extremely happy with the picture quality of this title! Grain appears to be well preserved. Detail and clarity are about as good as could be expected for this title. That said, it doesn't measure up to what you would see with a Tier 1 title.


Contrast is very good, although I do believe it is a bit "hot", with several scenes having blown highlights.


The print is fairly clean overall. There are a few spots where the film skips, obviously due to some missing frames/print damage.


Again, I am very happy with this title, and any fans of the film will be extremely satisfied overall (and I strongly recommend that you rent this title if you haven't seen it...and open yourself to a world of foreign cinema!).
*

Tier Recommendation: Tier 3.0*


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/18839006
> 
> 
> I really can't go wrong with a movie starring both Russell Crowe and Christian Bale. I should borrow this again sooner rather than later....



Yeah, yeah, my wife loved watching it again partly for that reason too.


Both Crowe and Bale deliver excellent performances! The supporting cast is also top notch. I didn't watch this again by accident, I like the film a lot overall...with the major exception of the ending.


----------



## 42041

*Hunger*


A fairly good-looking and consistent blu-ray. Good detail. An unobtrusive amount of film grain is evident throughout. Criterion's AVC encode handles the material well. The movie is set in a prison, so "eye candy" is hard to come by amidst the bleak visuals, but a strong transfer on technical merits. Curiously, this movie brings back the budget Techniscope format used in 60s spaghetti westerns, which allows for a remarkable 17-minute continuous shot.

*Tier 2.0*


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18839210
> 
> *Yojimbo*
> 
> 
> Master director Akira Kurosawa's Yojimbo is a favorite film of mine (as are numerous other films by Kurosawa, including the sequel to Yojimbo: Sanjuro, which I actually slightly prefer over Yojimbo).
> 
> 
> I am extremely happy with the picture quality of this title! Grain appears to be well preserved. Detail and clarity are about as good as could be expected for this title. That said, it doesn't measure up to what you would see with a Tier 1 title.
> 
> 
> Contrast is very good, although I do believe it is a bit "hot", with several scenes having blown highlights.
> 
> 
> The print is fairly clean overall. There are a few spots where the film skips, obviously due to some missing frames/print damage.
> 
> *Again, I am very happy with this title, and any fans of the film will be extremely satisfied overall (and I strongly recommend that you rent this title if you haven't seen it...and open yourself to a world of foreign cinema!).*
> *
> 
> Tier Recommendation: Tier 3.0*



Added to my ziplist based on your rec, Rob.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/18838671
> 
> 
> Just finally got to this one, and delta pretty much summed it up quite well here. A few close up shots of Anthony Hopkins look pretty exceptional, with great facial detail and detail in the fabric of his sweater and scarf, and the next moment he is a soft and undetailed mess. Black crush was my biggest complaint, as shadow detail seemed lost throughout the entire movie. The contrast seemed a little weak, and blacks got pale in some instances and dark in others, and it seemed dependent upon the lighting. Also, because of the acute darkness, any bright source of light set against the crushed background yielded ugly banding in many scenes. A good attempt at a moody environment, but the camera work just doesn't hold up on this Blu-Ray.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.75*



Interesting! Now, I'm curious what made you drop it a quarter tier lower...


----------



## Kingcarcas

Wow i'm surprised Major League isn't on the list yet......+ Rudy + Clockwork Orange


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kingcarcas* /forum/post/18839508
> 
> 
> Wow i'm surprised Major League isn't on the list yet......+ Rudy + Clockwork Orange



Feel free to assist by providing reviews.


----------



## cjmx2

*Made Of Honor*I noticed this Sony released 2008 romantic something er rather hadn't been rated yet... For what it is the movie actually looks really good. There is a fair amount of color in the movie all of which seems to be produced well including skin tones. There is also a grain structure present...it is there but not too distracting...Also no obvious DNR. Detail is solid and facial closeups are solid, but not spectacular. Also the movie was very consistent thruought...this is nice after looking at movies like Australia that was all over the board...looks like
*Tier 1.75*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Hot Tub Time Machine*


Ah yes... detail and texture. Tons of it. Exquisitely rendered facial detail consistently throughout, even in many low light situations. Deep blacks are superb too. Colors are incredibly vibrant yet still natural, the neon glow of the '80s in full effect. A bit of inconsistency and noise are the only problems.

*Tier 1.0*


----------



## deltasun

^^ How was the movie? (since I won't see this in my NF queue for a month)


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18841237
> 
> 
> ^^ How was the movie? (since I won't see this in my NF queue for a month)



VERY raunchy... very '80s. If you don't like either of those comedy styles, you'll hate it. Since I like them both, I loved it.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kingcarcas* /forum/post/18839508
> 
> 
> Wow i'm surprised Major League isn't on the list yet......+ Rudy + Clockwork Orange



Look again on a Clockwork Orange. It currently resides in tier 3.25, the bronze classification. You are welcome to recommend placements or start discussions on the other BDs mentioned, as there are many movies that have not been ranked at all. While it would be wonderful if every Blu-ray was ranked, that is simply not possible given the very few that regularly participate. Once again, all are welcome to give feedback. Feel free to fill in the missing gaps.


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18839367
> 
> 
> Interesting! Now, I'm curious what made you drop it a quarter tier lower...



Just the banding and total black crush that was in the movie. Plus, I'm trying to go more off the revised "3.0 is average" mentality.


----------



## jedimasterchad

*The Crazies*


Best looking one I've seen in a while. This bears a striking resemblance to the look of Zombieland. Medium and long range outdoor shots hold some pretty good detail, and the shots of main street are excellent. Outdoor shots in general look pretty exceptional, down to blades of grass or rocks in the street. The only detail that is lacking is facial, but with this particular cast it may just be that they are younger. There are some good closeups of the crazies later on that show a disgusting and disturbing amount of facial detail.


Blacks are strong but not inky. They do not become pale or tinge blue, but they are not on par with better examples. What really delighted me was the superb amount of shadow detail that is preserved in low light scenarios. It is simply some of the best. Contrast is pretty good and presents a palpable sense of depth but it is not quite 3d-like. There is some softness throughout if you look closely but for the most part, every area of the screen is in relatively sharp focus. Color is mostly a muted affair, with some great outdoor scenes thrown in. A very fine layer of grain is present and doesn't intrude on the film.


As I said at the beginning, this one looks very similar in style to Zombieland, which was a pretty highly rated film. I don't really have any major digs at this one, but I just don't think it has that little bit of "it" factor to make it really pop and be in the top rated films here. Thus...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.50*


I enjoyed watching this one. The story has been done before, but the thrills provided are new and as always it is funny to watch my wife jump in her chair next to mine. I'd definitely recommend a rental on this one, but I'll probably purchase at a later date.

*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) My favorite scene is definitely the car wash, and the missile strike that destroys the car immediately afterwards. Just as you think everything is finally done and over, WHAM, and that car is blown to smithereens. Awesome moment.


----------



## 42041

*A Bug's Life*


Technically, a flawless disc, with a rich color palette and perfect rendition of detail. But the age of the animation shows. The character models and environments are fairly simplistic compared to more recent Pixar efforts, feeling a bit video game-ish at times, and positively stone-age compared to Avatar.

*Tier 0, just above I Robot*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Warlords*


A disgusting localization ramps up the contrast, adds a garish yellow tint, and fades the black levels. The import did not have these issues. Long shots are plagued by halos, undoubtedly due to the boosting. It's a shame too, because the level of facial detail in close is truly remarkable, some of the best I've come across.

*Tier 3.0*


----------



## deltasun

*Valentine's Day*


I think I'm finally starting to understand the so-called "Warner filtered look." Throughout the presentation, I kept noticing how filtered the picture was. It also didn't have that typical Romance-Comedy saturated flesh tone look, which would have probably improved the picture in this case.


Regardless, there's no HD pop here...more like HD poop. I think the only time it actually looked decent was Jamie Foxx in the news desk towards the end. Otherwise, there are no memorable facial details, no depth/dimensionality to speak of (save Jamie above). Colors can be engaging, but overall just average.


Blacks are pretty deep, but also crushed. I also found shadow details to be poorly rendered - makes for a darker movie. Contrast is mostly strong. Flesh tones are on the reddish side. Fine grain is present throughout and yields a film-like appearance. Unfortunately, some ringing can be a bit distracting. Again, this is a pretty average presentation.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.25*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*From Paris With Love*


There was something that bothered me through most of this presentation, and it was apparent from early on. This title has a "haze" or "veil" over most of the film.


I think it has to do with how many scenes were lit, I'm not sure though. Regardless, this title definitely lacks _clarity_, and there is seldom a good sense of depth to the image.


Colors are not particularly natural, and skin tones often have a tint of red/orange.


Details can be fine, but again, the lack of clarity hurts overall.


As for the film, it was based on a Luc Besson story, and I actually liked the film a lot for what it was: mindless fun action. The underlying story itself actually makes no sense whatsoever
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) for example, the girlfriend was supposedly using Travolta's partner as "cover", but there is zero explanation/reason given for how/why being his girlfriend helped her in any way to do what she planned on doing in terms of using the bomb
, but as long as you turn off your brain, you will have a good time. I LOVED the "Royale with Cheese" line!!









*Tier Recommendation: Tier 3.0*


----------



## jedimasterchad

Rob,

*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) I presume she was with him in order to figure out how to gain access to the summit meeting where she intended to use the bomb. She did end up stealing his access card to get herself in through security, and the photographs you see of him were probably just her or the others trying to analyze the security protocols in order to carry out the bombing. In any event, the final showdown was garbage, because the secret service or whoever probably wouldn't let a guy who stole one of their guns stand around that long without taking him down. I guess in Hollywood, things work differently.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Percy Jackson/Lightning Thief*


A solid effort, with consistently deep, rich blacks and vibrant color saturation. Superb environmental detail, including lush foliage. Not much in terms of facial detail in the mid-range, but close-ups are great. A trip to Vegas looks awesome by the way, the lights really shining on this disc.
*Tier 1.5*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Crazies (2010)*


Warning! Warning! Huge disagreement coming in!


JediMasterChad said this looked like Zombieland. While I don't agree, that movie was shot digitally. The Crazies was shot on film. Some heavy ringing is visible early, the least of this encodes problems. This one carries a very smooth, digital look throughout, especially in the mid-range. Facial detail is rarely there, even in close-ups. Environments looks smoothed over and soft, lacking in definition aside from a late visit to a carry-out. Black levels are okay, not sustained well in limited light.
*Tier 3.0*


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18855215
> 
> *The Crazies (2010)*
> 
> 
> Warning! Warning! Huge disagreement coming in!
> 
> 
> JediMasterChad said this looked like Zombieland. While I don't agree, that movie was shot digitally. The Crazies was shot on film. Some heavy ringing is visible early, the least of this encodes problems. This one carries a very smooth, digital look throughout, especially in the mid-range. Facial detail is rarely there, even in close-ups. Environments looks smoothed over and soft, lacking in definition aside from a late visit to a carry-out. Black levels are okay, not sustained well in limited light.
> *Tier 3.0*



Didn't see any ringing on my end. Also, I felt the environments were some of the stronger points on this one. When you say black levels not sustained well in limited light, are you complaining that there was a huge amount of shadow detail? I noted the black levels weren't the best but the shadow detail was second to none. It's a trade off I will accept, because I think it looks more natural than everything getting crushed.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/18855306
> 
> 
> Didn't see any ringing on my end. Also, I felt the environments were some of the stronger points on this one. When you say black levels not sustained well in limited light, are you complaining that there was a huge amount of shadow detail? I noted the black levels weren't the best but the shadow detail was second to none. It's a trade off I will accept, because I think it looks more natural than everything getting crushed.



Shadow detail was fine, but the blacks were not that deep. They seemed faded and bland, lacking image depth.


Environments were not that impressive to me other than the end when they entered the carry-out. That looked great.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Behind The Mask: The Rise Of Leslie Vernon


recommendation: Tier 5*


Filmed in 16mm on a small budget, Starz/Anchor Bay has done the movie no favors on Blu-ray. Comparing the DVD and the BD, there was little to distinguish one from the other in terms of picture quality, aside from a very slight increase in color fidelity and bloom on the Blu-ray. It hurts assigning such a low score, as this is a fun movie for horror fans with a good dose of meta-humor. At times throughout viewing the disc, one will wonder if the BD was created from a standard-definition source.


This film was never going to produce any eye candy in a faithful transfer of the original negative, but this a poor effort on the part of Anchor Bay. Save your money if you already own the DVD, which happens to contain extra features that were inexplicably left off the Blu-ray.


----------



## deltasun

*The Crazies (2010)*


This is a fine presentation in terms of its cinematography and overall look, but I think the biggest issue here is that nothing really leaped out at ya (figuratively, of course). The set pieces, particularly medium to long shots, showed decent depth and detail. However, I cannot single out any facial close-up's as being upper-Tier worthy.


I was reading the discussion about black levels and I think I see what GRG is saying - it seems most of the blacks are really darker brown. I say "most" because I did find some that looked black. The dark scene in the diner is a good example of the dark brown variety.


Colors are very well-rendered for the subject matter. I also felt skin tones held their own for the most part. Again, this being a darker movie. Speaking of which, shadow details did look decent as well - very well-controlled by the director in this case.


Again, I liked the overall look and panoramic qualities shown. I do struggle to see any one aspect that screamed upper Tier. I found this to be more of a mid-Silver Tier. I didn't find ringing to be much of an issue. I may have spotted some simply because I was looking for them.









*Tier Recommendation: 2.50*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Having finally watched _Terminator: Salvation_, I guess my judgment of it falls more toward those who ranked it in tier 1.75, than some who placed it in tier 1.25. I can see why some placed it that high, the opening scene on death row alone easily fits into Tier Zero. When it is good, the picture quality is simply top-notch material. But the preponderance of green screen work and CGI in the film introduces softer moments that pull the overall quality down.


Do not consider this opinion on _Terminator: Salvation_ an official recommendation on my part, I just wanted to bring it up for future reference. The current placement of _Enchanted_ in tier 1.25 still looked appropriate from a recent viewing.


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18860904
> 
> 
> Having finally watched _Terminator: Salvation_, I guess my judgment of it falls more toward those who ranked it in tier 1.75, than some who placed it in tier 1.25. I can see why some placed it that high, the opening scene on death row alone easily fits into Tier Zero. When it is good, the picture quality is simply top-notch material. But the preponderance of green screen work and CGI in the film introduces softer moments that pull the overall quality down.
> 
> 
> Do not consider this opinion on _Terminator: Salvation_ an official recommendation on my part, I just wanted to bring it up for future reference. The current placement of _Enchanted_ in tier 1.25 still looked appropriate from a recent viewing.



The rest of us were reviewing that one about 70 pages ago...better late than never, I guess










Looking back there though (I had to research back to when we were reviewing terminator to see what we were writing), it seems we were all much more generous overall on our ratings, and now we are a lot tougher crowd. I suppose that's a good thing. On the other hand, it may mean a lot of titles we previously rated into the upper tiers might be a bit incorrect. Just food for thought.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/18861221
> 
> 
> The rest of us were reviewing that one about 70 pages ago...better late than never, I guess
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looking back there though (I had to research back to when we were reviewing terminator to see what we were writing), it seems we were all much more generous overall on our ratings, and now we are a lot tougher crowd. I suppose that's a good thing. On the other hand, it may mean a lot of titles we previously rated into the upper tiers might be a bit incorrect. Just food for thought.



It's been awhile (and I'm still on vacation), but I just had to chime in to say that I (along with G3) actually rated this LOWER than my fellow-colleagues (I rated it 1.5...G3 came in at 1.75). So much for me being the most "generous rater"...at least back in those days!


jedi....regarding _The Crazies_, I wish I was back home so I could view it and possibly help bring the rating up to match yours! I don't get home until Friday though and I probably won't be watching any Blus right away.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

A happy 4th of July to everyone. Always handle the fireworks with care and dispose of them properly.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18863267
> 
> 
> A happy 4th of July to everyone. Always handle the fireworks with care and dispose of them properly.



+1


My wife and I are sitting on the balcony of our motel right on the south shore of Lake Huron in Mackinaw City, MI waiting for a BIG fireworks display to begin. There are at least 30,000 tourists here and we are expecting an amazing display! As Phantom said, Happy 4th to all!


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Night of the Creeps*


The opening of this one, the black and white footage, is troublesome for sure. Tons of posterization, not unlike that which plagued the Ray Harryhausen Collection. Once into the color stuff, it's not bad. Blacks are stable and deep, and colors are quite vivid. Chroma noise is a bit of a bother, and the grain is all over the place, but this is a solid effort.

*Tier 3.25*


----------



## Mr.G




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18804534
> 
> *Flash Gordon*
> 
> 
> Wow, this one looks sharp...almost too sharp. DNR also seems at play here with the smoothed out faces. However, it's hard to tell because of the healthy grain present most of the time. Still, it looks very unnatural and affected the PQ.
> 
> 
> I found the blacks deep for the most part and I felt contrast was just slightly above average. Details and depth are better than expected. Aside from the very dated special effects (and they are indeed special), colors are probably the next biggest problem. They are very unnatural and leaned towards a blooming reddish hue...or so it seems.
> 
> 
> Not sure what it is though (could be sentimentality), but this title looks surprisingly good in blu.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.0*
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_



For the most part I agree with your review but as I noted on the _Flash Gordon_ review thread when viewed on my 120" screen the BD showed good facial details like pores and pocks on the male actor faces. On the female faces I was able to discern where the makeup lines were at times. The DNR was there but not overly done so it did not affect my enjoyment of the film. The garish colors of the sets and costumes really popped and I can imagine on a smaller screen they would look over-saturated as the reds were really red and the greens were quite green. It's definitely a color sensory overload but true to the film. I was able to see small details in the sets and costumes I had never noticed before. This is likely the best this movie will ever look and this BD seems tailor-made for front projection systems. I'm going to score this higher.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18863139
> 
> 
> It's been awhile (and I'm still on vacation), but I just had to chime in to say that I (along with G3) actually rated this LOWER than my fellow-colleagues (I rated it 1.5...G3 came in at 1.75). So much for me being the most "generous rater"...at least back in those days!
> 
> 
> jedi....regarding _The Crazies_, I wish I was back home so I could view it and possibly help bring the rating up to match yours! I don't get home until Friday though and I probably won't be watching any Blus right away.



Here's the list from the first time TS got posted on the Tier List:


Terminator: Salvation - 1.25 (deltasun), 1.5 (djoberg), 1.25 (RobTomlin), 1.75 (GGG), 1.75 (jedimasterchad)


I think as I was just searching for that I saw Hugh come in with a 1.5 also. That's one where we were all in some agreement for once!!


I hope everybody had a safe 4th of July. I certainly enjoyed killing the six-pack I brought home after work. As far as fireworks safety, there was an incident in my hometown as several people were injured by the borough's fireworks display to celebrate not only the 4th of July but also this towns 250th anniversary. Nobody was very seriously injured but there were some transports to a local hospital. Here is the news article: http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/ind...ident_inj.html 


This is what it looked like from the seats:







Just thought I would share that with you all to remind everyone that even "professional" fireworks companies can make a mistake and that stuff can be quite dangerous.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/18865263
> 
> 
> 
> Just thought I would share that with you all to remind everyone that even "professional" fireworks companies can make a mistake and that stuff can be quite dangerous.



This is why we watch several fireworks shows from the view out of our backyard!


----------



## OldCodger73

Sony did a nice transfer of this 1984 Robert Redfern movie. From a PQ standpoint there's nothing really wrong with it but on the other hand nothing great. All in all an average transfer.


T*he Natural Tier 3.25*.


The movie itself is watchable but also very pretentious.


Panasonic 65" S1, Panasonic BD 85 player, 7 1/2'


----------



## OldCodger73

This German language film was shot in color and converted to black and white in post production. Blacks are deep and well defined. Several of the outdoor scenes have the exposure pushed up and look like fine art photographs. Depth and detail are good; however close up facial detail is a mixed bag, some of the women and children's faces looked washed out.

*The White Ribbon Tier 1.5.*


The movie deals with some apparently acts of random violence in a small 1913 rural German village.

_The White Ribbon_ won the Golden Globe Award as the best foreign film and seemed to be almost universally liked by most critics. Maybe I'm too low-brow but perhaps because of the films dourness, it never really resonated with me, a 3 out of Netflix's 5 star rating.


Panasonic 65" S1, Panasonic BD85 player, 7 1/2'


----------



## Ozymandis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/18861221
> 
> 
> The rest of us were reviewing that one about 70 pages ago...better late than never, I guess
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looking back there though (I had to research back to when we were reviewing terminator to see what we were writing), it seems we were all much more generous overall on our ratings, and now we are a lot tougher crowd. I suppose that's a good thing. On the other hand, it may mean a lot of titles we previously rated into the upper tiers might be a bit incorrect. Just food for thought.



That's why it doesn't hurt to revisit some of the older titles. I can see some titles in the different Gold tiers that are pretty generous in light of some of the more recent placements.


I also felt Terminator was a 1.75 title though I can see why it's in 1.5, the death row sequence and some of the close-ups were fantastic.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Monster Squad*


This one definitely shows signs of being sharpened. Some notable halos and heightened grain structure are real disappointment. Colors are unnaturally elevated. Some dirt and specks are evident, but not intrusively so. Black levels are solid, and some facial detail is notable, but sporadic.
*Tier 3.75*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Predator: Ultimate Hunter Edition*


All of the hype is true. This things looks like crap. The DNR is impossibly bad. The opening scenes are the worst. The mushy, processed look is unbearable. Scenes in the jungle make plants look like plastic, and water like jello.


There are some scenes of great detail, don't take it the wrong way. Some of the close-ups are great, but there isn't enough DNR on the planet to wipe everything away.

*Tier 4.75*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Brooklyn's Finest*


Blu-rays Finest would be more appropriate. Just awesome texture and detail, from those aerial views of the city to dark, detail-laden interiors. Black levels are great, and shadow detail superlative. Grain is fully resolved, never compressed, and light. Very few scenes dip off top tier in anyway.

*Tier 1.0*


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18874082
> 
> *Brooklyn's Finest*
> 
> 
> Blu-rays Finest would be more appropriate. Just awesome texture and detail, from those aerial views of the city to dark, detail-laden interiors. Black levels are great, and shadow detail superlative. Grain is fully resolved, never compressed, and light. Very few scenes dip off top tier in anyway.
> 
> *Tier 1.0*



I have this one sitting on the counter, just didn't get to watch it yet. Sounds good!


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Flash Gordon*


Another one for the Universal DNR train. Smooth, with fine detail wiped from the frame. Reds are totally oversaturated, and edge enhancement is a sporadic battle. Costumes look okay, the added resolution boost giving them some nice definition, but the meat of it all has been wiped along with the grain.
*Tier 4.5*


----------



## deltasun

*A Single Man*


The picture really varied throughout the film, as intended by the director. Depending on George's emotional state, the picture can be almost monochromatic (his usual state) to overly saturated reds. The best scenes - clarity, details, texture - do occur during the more muted sequences. Skin tones take on the tone of the scenes as well. Grain varied, again used for a purpose. For the most part, it was well-controlled and did not negatively affect PQ.


Details are probably the most disappointing feature. While some extreme close-up's show adequate texture and fine details (particularly on faces), they are not the norm. 3D pop really fluctuated, but they were more prominent in the first half, especially during the muted scenes.


Averaging the good and the bad, this would fall within the Silver Tier. I believe the first half could comfortably dwell in Tier 1, but there's the other half to consider.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.50*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Trick 'r Treat


recommendation: 2.75
*

The current location in tier 2.5 is close to how I feel about the transfer, so I will be brief. Check the BDInfo scan for the mediocre compression parameters which lead to several instances of banding and other related artifacts. Warner's negligent practices for encoding their Blu-rays hurt this movie more than some other recent releases from them. It affects the possible picture quality enough to drop the ranking nearly a whole tier.


On the positive side of the ledger, Warner left the transfer free of unnatural edge enhancement and did not tinker with the colors in an effort to boost contrast. Overall the Blu-ray looks like a decent, if slightly dull, film print that should look better than it does here.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Rieper):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...4#post17307564


----------



## 42041

*The Class*


The camera is mostly pointed at people talking in a nondescript French school building, and shot on HD video of middling quality. Not much good or bad to say here, a competent transfer of a movie that isn't very visual. Good movie.

*Tier 3.25*


----------



## lgans316

*Green Zone - Tier 2.75


3:10 to Yuma (Sony / AVC / GERMANY) - Tier 2.25


Total Recall (Kinowelt / AVC / Dutch) - Tier 2.5*


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18888485
> 
> *A Single Man*
> 
> 
> The picture really varied throughout the film, as intended by the director. Depending on George's emotional state, the picture can be almost monochromatic (his usual state) to overly saturated reds. The best scenes - clarity, details, texture - do occur during the more muted sequences. Skin tones take on the tone of the scenes as well. Grain varied, again used for a purpose. For the most part, it was well-controlled and did not negatively affect PQ.
> 
> 
> Details are probably the most disappointing feature. While some extreme close-up's show adequate texture and fine details (particularly on faces), they are not the norm. 3D pop really fluctuated, but they were more prominent in the first half, especially during the muted scenes.
> 
> 
> Averaging the good and the bad, this would fall within the Silver Tier. I believe the first half could comfortably dwell in Tier 1, but there's the other half to consider.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.50*
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_



I don't think it ever hit tier 1 quality. There were few scenes that showed good depth. And, as you say, fine details were lacking.


This is definitely an "average" looking title. Therefore:

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*For all Mankind*


Getting out of the way, quite a bit of this was shot on tape. It looks like it. Say, 25% or so. The rest is actually pretty impressive, although the wide variety of sources are evident. No one will consider this eye candy for this thread, but don't let that distract you from this doc. The footage is really powerful and humbling.

*Tier 4.5*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Amelia*


Been a while since I watched this one (review was qued up waiting for an empty content week), but it's pretty obvious this was weak at best. Photography is soft, soft, soft, and it really hampers the gorgeous aerial views. Grain is nearly absent or really light, little fine detail is noticed. Some intentional degraded of the stock to match newsreel footage is noted. Colors are bright and blacks are deep.

*Tier 3.75*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18897207
> 
> *Amelia*
> 
> 
> Been a while since I watched this one (review was qued up waiting for an empty content week), but it's pretty obvious this was weak at best. Photography is soft, soft, soft, and it really hampers the gorgeous aerial views. Grain is nearly absent or really light, little fine detail is noticed. Some intentional degraded of the stock to match newsreel footage is noted. Colors are bright and blacks are deep.
> 
> *Tier 3.75*



Whoa! I'm finally home after nearly 3 weeks on the road, only to find that GRG and I are still miles apart on some releases. I checked on this title and see I gave it a 1.25, so we are over two tiers apart!!!!


My only consolation is the fact that everyone on Cinema Squid's review site rated this quite high, with an average of 85 (i.e., Very Good). GRG was the low man with a rating of 60. Perhaps that's the company I should be in from now on, for it seems like that site parallels my reviews; in other words, they too are "generous raters."


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18897275
> 
> 
> Whoa! I'm finally home after nearly 3 weeks on the road, only to find that GRG and I are still miles apart on some releases. I checked on this title and see I gave it a 1.25, so we are over two tiers apart!!!!
> 
> 
> My only consolation is the fact that everyone on Cinema Squid's review site rated this quite high, with an average of 85 (i.e., Very Good). GRG was the low man with a rating of 60. Perhaps that's the company I should be in from now on, for it seems like that site parallels my reviews; in other words, they too are "generous raters."



At least you know that in three weeks, nothing has changed!


And I'm usually on the low end on Cinemasquid because I don't use half stars. It's just how aggregate sites work, and one of the reasons I hate scoring stuff in the first place. A few ended up with their version of a 70, so it's not that far off. This one has a lot of color, bright contrast, and good blacks, but just nowhere near enough fine detail or sharpness. The lack of grain was a bit questionable as well.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18897370
> 
> 
> At least you know that in three weeks, nothing has changed!
> 
> 
> And I'm usually on the low end on Cinemasquid because I don't use half stars. It's just how aggregate sites work, and one of the reasons I hate scoring stuff in the first place. A few ended up with their version of a 70, so it's not that far off. This one has a lot of color, bright contrast, and good blacks, but just nowhere near enough fine detail or sharpness. The lack of grain was a bit questionable as well.



In fairness I must say that every once and awhile you and I are on the same page (in fact, more often than one would think). Also, as I've said in the past, I really do respect your honest opinion. It just baffles me that we can be SO FAR APART on some titles.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I rated Amelia at Tier 2.5 and was probably a bit generous in doing so.


I noted rather pervasive softness through a good chunk of the film.


Clearly this is not a Tier 1 title. Well, ok, it's clear to me anyway.


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18897370
> 
> 
> And I'm usually on the low end on Cinemasquid because I don't use half stars. It's just how aggregate sites work, and one of the reasons I hate scoring stuff in the first place. A few ended up with their version of a 70, so it's not that far off. This one has a lot of color, bright contrast, and good blacks, but just nowhere near enough fine detail or sharpness. The lack of grain was a bit questionable as well.



True enough, sum garbage in is sum garbage out and the aggregates could use some work to reflect this! I do like the way you provide a limited six-point (0-5) scale on your review scores and use the full-range since it does often reflect a position below (or sometimes above) the norm which I always appreciate seeing. Especially the lower scores, since the average reviewer could probably be considered an overly generous rater. And, of course, your PQ insights are attentively keen so I am personally glad you provide your scores.


I haven't seen Amelia myself yet, so I can't comment in greater detail on my personal experiences for this specific case.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/18897994
> 
> 
> Especially the lower scores, since *the average reviewer could probably be considered an overly generous rater. And, of course, your PQ insights are attentively keen so I am personally glad you provide your scores.*



I trust you're not implying that ALL the other reviewers on your site lack the "PQ insights" needed to provide good, accurate reviews (if you are making that implication, then I would ask you why you even have such a site). I personally respect a number of those who regularly contribute to your site, including Kris Deer and Ralph Potts. Typically their "video scores" (which are based on similar criteria that we have on this thread) are higher than what the average reviewer here would give the same title. Call them "overly generous raters" if you will, but I believe they are simply calling a title the way they see it, and IMO their equipment and their ability to differentiate between quality video and processing flaws should not be questioned (I'm not saying you are calling them into question, but it _seems_ as if you might be questioning their "PQ insights").


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18898977
> 
> 
> I trust you're not implying that ALL the other reviewers on your site lack the "PQ insights" needed to provide good, accurate reviews (if you are making that implication, then I would ask you why you even have such a site). I personally respect a number of those who regularly contribute to your site, including Kris Deer and Ralph Potts.



I agree that Kris and Ralph are both great along with many other reviewers. I think I was just having a cantankerous moment, so I apologize if my post implied disrespect to anyone.


Probably the most fair way to look at an individual reviewer's scores for a given title is to compare them only to that reviewer's own scores for other titles. I do find it an interesting experiment to attempt an average score across sites, but various scoring systems and scales are not always completely compatible. FYI: the average video score across all reviews and titles that I currently have tracked is ~77 / 100 (or 3.85 / 5.0).


----------



## Mr.G

As an example one recent title that I will mention here is Flash Gordon which I gave generally good marks. However, this is a title that has garnered grades as low as 40 to as high as 100. When you see this happening one begins to wonder what in the world is going on.


CinemaSquid - Flash Gordon


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/18899340
> 
> 
> Probably the most fair way to look at an individual reviewer's scores for a given title is to compare them only to that reviewer's own scores for other titles. I do find it an interesting experiment to attempt an average score across sites, but various scoring systems and scales are not always completely compatible. FYI: the average video score across all reviews and titles that I currently have tracked is ~77 / 100 (or 3.85 / 5.0).



What would be more interesting to look at is the shape of the distribution curve for video scores among each reviewer and compare them in that method. Some reviewers clearly have different standards, probably reflecting a certain mindset of what constitutes excellent picture quality on Blu-ray. Most of the professional reviewers are doing it for two things, free Blu-rays from the studios and to drive traffic to their site.


Some readers of reviews are just looking for affirmations of their own beliefs about a disc, which is the subconscious impulse that drives many reviewers to overrate discs trying to please their readership. Constantly negative reviews, no matter how honest they may be, probably drive less-informed readers away. Because if it looks good on a 32" LCD, it must possess great video quality.










> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mr.G* /forum/post/18899347
> 
> 
> As an example one recent title that I will mention here is Flash Gordon which I gave generally good marks. However, this is a title that has garnered grades as low as 40 to as high as 100. When you see this happening one begins to wonder what in the world is going on.



Differing standards and experience levels by each reviewer likely lead to results of that nature. Which is exactly what this thread abhors, as it tries to provide a framework for qualitative judgments among a wide variety of Blu-rays through certain objective and absolute criteria.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/18899340
> 
> 
> Probably the most fair way to look at an individual reviewer's scores for a given title is to compare them only to that reviewer's own scores for other titles.



This is the best way to find someone to your tastes, assuming you've read the content and know *why* they've scored the disc in that manner. If you find someone who scores too low compared to what you're seeing, move on. If they're too high, find a middle ground. Nothing wrong with looking around to find someone who tends to see the things you do.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*A Single Man*


This one is heavily stylized, faded and brown one minute, incredibly hot and oversaturated the next. That means blindingly hot oranges and reds. Sharp and generally full of texture, it is impressive in that regard. The encode reveals a bit of artifacting here and there, but it's not too bad.

*Tier 3.75*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18899851
> 
> 
> This is the best way to find someone to your tastes, assuming you've read the content and know *why* they've scored the disc in that manner. If you find someone who scores too low compared to what you're seeing, move on. If they're too high, find a middle ground. Nothing wrong with looking around to find someone who tends to see the things you do.



+1


I agree wholeheartedly with these sentiments GRG.


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18897275
> 
> 
> Whoa! I'm finally home after nearly 3 weeks on the road, only to find that GRG and I are still miles apart on some releases. I checked on this title and see I gave it a 1.25, so we are over two tiers apart!!!!
> 
> 
> My only consolation is the fact that everyone on Cinema Squid's review site rated this quite high, with an average of 85 (i.e., Very Good). GRG was the low man with a rating of 60. Perhaps that's the company I should be in from now on, for it seems like that site parallels my reviews; in other words, they too are "generous raters."



I'm more with GRG, for what it's worth I rated it 3.0. I thought it pretty average all the way around on PQ.


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18874082
> 
> *Brooklyn's Finest*
> 
> 
> Blu-rays Finest would be more appropriate. Just awesome texture and detail, from those aerial views of the city to dark, detail-laden interiors. Black levels are great, and shadow detail superlative. Grain is fully resolved, never compressed, and light. Very few scenes dip off top tier in anyway.
> 
> *Tier 1.0*



This title did have exceptional black levels and excellent shadow detail. I appreciated the detail in some black stone/brick walls that were not even relevant to the shot. Just excellent detail throughout. I felt it was lacking a bit in the facial details though, unless Richard Gere and Don Cheadle have one hell of a makeup crew. I did notice a bit of softness from time to time but nothing to really detract from an otherwise quite solid blu.


One thing this film lacked, however, was depth. Most scenes appeared flat and boring too me. It could have been the pervasive amount of dark in this movie but only a few outdoor shots really gave that pop we desire. There is a big lack of great color shots, which IMO brings this movie down a few notches in terms of its visual appeal.


In the end, the great black levels are not enough for me to go as high as GRG, and the lack of depth and very occasional softness knocks it down a couple rungs on the ladder.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


Boring movie too. I'd have a hard time recommending this one as a even a rental. I kept waiting for it to end, which is never a good thing.


----------



## OldCodger73

A very pleasing transfer, with nice film-like grain and good to very good detail and depth. Close up facial details bordered on Tier 0. Colors were on the cool side, reinforcing the mood of the film. I may be a little high on placement as this was a hard film to do a minute-by-minute evaluation due to the totally engrossing complex plot and following the subtitles.

*The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo Tier 1.50*.


Panasonic 65" S1, Panasonic 85, 7 1/2'


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/18902275
> 
> 
> A very pleasing transfer, with nice film-like grain and good to very good detail and depth. Close up facial details bordered on Tier 0. Colors were on the cool side, reinforcing the mood of the film. I may be a little high on placement as this was a hard film to do a minute-by-minute evaluation due to the totally engrossing complex plot and following the subtitles.
> 
> *The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo Tier 1.50*.
> 
> 
> Panasonic 65" S1, Panasonic 85, 7 1/2'



Was this any good? I keep seeing the book(s) for sale by this author and read the back of the movie case the other day at blockbuster but wasn't totally convinced.



EDIT: I didn't want to double post, but I thought I would mention here that I had to re-arrange the living room as a result of the wife wanting to get a couch .







However, this has brought along a bit longer of a viewing distance for me, and I have to say that just from a few minutes of viewing it has seemed to improve the look of my set. The Panasonic from a bit too close just seems overly soft and only the sharpest of the sharp blu-rays really stood out at the distance I was at previously. At a more appropriate distance everything appears more clear and defined, perhaps because I can no longer make out individual pixels. I will be conscious of this moving forward and re-watch some of the reference material to familiarize myself with this new set up.


----------



## deltasun

Dragon Tattoo is supposedly a good book. I'm only about 20 minutes into the movie and it's captured my attention so far in content and PQ.


I probably won't finish it (just because of other commitments) for a while, but can definitely see OldCodger's take so far.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/18902594
> 
> 
> Was this any good?



I liked the movie quite a bit when I saw it theatrically.


----------



## cjmx2

*The Bounty Hunter*
Had a chance to see this very average Sony blu-ray last night. I really don't know where to start...the overall detail was just inconsistent and sad...I can recall only one brief scene where facial detail went up out of tier 3. colors were decent and so was contrast...but just recall no sharpness whatsoever...I thought I noticed some DNR on Gerard Butler's Seersucker suit about 2/3 into the movie but I am not sure...All in all...pretty disappointing for a new release from Sony...

*Tier 3.0
*Samsung ln52b750 @ 24hz and 8 ft


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Jason and the Argonauts (1963)
*

Wow. When this thing is "on," it's insanely beautiful. It looks like it was shot yesterday, wit stunning clarity, a fine grain, and immense detail. Colors are saturated and bright. Unfortunately, the double printed effects are of course softer, fades destroy the image, and some stock footage early (maybe 10 seconds) is some of the worst stuff I've ever seen. It's a shame they went that route, but not a whole lot you can do.

*Tier 3.75*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Greatest*


A weepy with Pierce Brosnan and Susan Sarandon, this one echoes the photography. Colors are flat and bland. Black levels are never really black aside from the opening scenes. That's not great for eye candy, but nothing compared to the compression assault that is constantly creating visible artifacts. Very processed look created by the artifacting as well.
*Tier 4.5*


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

hey, just wanted to pop in and thank everyone for continuing with reviews!! i've been a bit more absent than I expected as of late, hoping to get back in the swing of things soon! keep up the good work guys, I appreciate reading all of the reviews that keep popping up.


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18851984
> 
> *Percy Jackson/Lightning Thief*
> 
> 
> A solid effort, with consistently deep, rich blacks and vibrant color saturation. Superb environmental detail, including lush foliage. Not much in terms of facial detail in the mid-range, but close-ups are great. A trip to Vegas looks awesome by the way, the lights really shining on this disc.
> *Tier 1.5*



Agree with everything here. The lightning bolt really popped off the screen and reminded me of the wonderful blue of the lightsabers in the Star Wars prequels. Great blacks and some awesome jungle and city shots really tied this one together.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*


What a fun movie too. I realize it's meant for kids, but it had a decent plot and is a good way to learn some basic Greek mythology. I'm sure the kids reading the books are learning stuff and not even realizing it.


----------



## jedimasterchad

Am I correct in not finding 2 Fast 2 Furious on the tiers list? I'm watching it on FX HD right now and it is one of the best looking HD movies that I've seen on TV. Can't believe it's not been reviewed on here.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/18912853
> 
> 
> Am I correct in not finding 2 Fast 2 Furious on the tiers list? I'm watching it on FX HD right now and it is one of the best looking HD movies that I've seen on TV. Can't believe it's not been reviewed on here.



That would mean someone would have to sit through 2 Fast, 2 Furious, and we wouldn't want that, would we?
*The Bounty Hunter*


Soft? That's about right. Nothing in terms of really fine detail. Faces and flat, and the lack of grain is definitely a warning sign. Oh sure, its colorful, bright, and the blacks are deep, but it lacks really fine definition of any kind.
*Tier 3.5*


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/18902594
> 
> 
> Was this any good? I keep seeing the book(s) for sale by this author and read the back of the movie case the other day at blockbuster but wasn't totally convinced.
> 
> 
> ...



I thought it was. I had read the book and was really looking forward to the movie and wasn't disappointed.


If you haven't read the book it might be a little confusing at first but you'll soon catch on to what's happening. It's a very gritty engrossing movie.


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/18915050
> 
> 
> I thought it was. I had read the book and was really looking forward to the movie and wasn't disappointed.
> 
> 
> If you haven't read the book it might be a little confusing at first but you'll soon catch on to what's happening. It's a very gritty engrossing movie.



I'll give it a rent.


And yes, GRG, somebody WOULD have to sit through that movie. Are you volunteering??


----------



## deltasun

*The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo*


Very strong presentation - bold contrast and deep blacks. Shadow details are also strong for the majority of those scenes. Fine grain is present yielding that filmic quality that we all look for. Facial details are excellent in a number of shots, but still just fall short of Tier 0 for me for the most part.


Colors are a bit tame, which suit the film's gritty feel. Skin tones are faithful but sometimes saturated when exposed to indoor lighting. Panoramic shots have ample depth - the cinematography, specially in establishing shots, does not disappoint but does not blow you away either.


My only complaint would be some instances of softness. Details and textures, while very good, were also not at the level expected based on other elements. Still, I agree with OldCodger's final assessment....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.50*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Darkman*

Hello DNR! Terribly processed and digital, with plenty of source damage as well. Compression can be overbearing, and mid-range shots are just destroyed. Some fine detail in close, but you can't wipe everything away. Black levels are "meh" and the color flat.
*Tier 4.25*


----------



## deltasun

Just got done with _Inception_, and while it may not shatter our PQ universe, some of the 65mm scenes do blow away. Very complex plot and idea, but also very gratifying when it finally all comes together. Clever ending too, which will generate lots of chatter.


Highly recommended!


----------



## vpn75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18921842
> 
> 
> Just got done with _Inception_, and while it may not shatter our PQ universe, some of the 65mm scenes do blow away. Very complex plot and idea, but also very gratifying when it finally all comes together. Clever ending too, which will generate lots of chatter.
> 
> 
> Highly recommended!



Just an amazing movie! I can't wait to get the blu-ray and hear the lossless audio from this one too


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18921842
> 
> 
> Just got done with _Inception_, and while it may not shatter our PQ universe, some of the 65mm scenes do blow away. Very complex plot and idea, but also very gratifying when it finally all comes together. Clever ending too, which will generate lots of chatter.
> 
> 
> Highly recommended!



How were you able to view this on Blu-ray before its release date? Or are you talking about seeing it at a theater?


I've read MANY good reviews on the movie itself and I'm really anticipating this one. I haven't seen a Blu now in over three weeks but like G3 I might be getting some extra time soon. My summer has been SO packed with events almost every weekend, but come August it should slow down a bit.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Denny, I'm guessing he just saw it in the theatre. I'm going to see it this week, I can't wait, it looks rather interesting.


----------



## deltasun

Denny, sorry - I should have clarified. I did see it in the theatres. It's my first theatrical movie in 5 or so months, and ever since the little one came along.


And vpn75 alluded to it - there are some pretty potent LFEs on this. First day purchase, for sure. It gave me the same intrigue as when I saw _Memento_ in the theatre the first time.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/18923463
> 
> 
> Denny, I'm guessing he just saw it in the theatre. I'm going to see it this week, I can't wait, it looks rather interesting.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18923725
> 
> 
> Denny, sorry - I should have clarified. I did see it in the theatres. It's my first theatrical movie in 5 or so months, and ever since the little one came along.
> 
> 
> And vpn75 alluded to it - there are some pretty potent LFEs on this. First day purchase, for sure. It gave me the same intrigue as when I saw _Memento_ in the theatre the first time.



Thanks for the clarification! I MAY just have to head down to my local Cinema for this one....though I haven't seen one in a theater for over a year!


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Major League*


Inherently soft but nice in close-ups, this one has some pretty hefty damage to the source. Bold colors are nice, and some black crush is an off-set of the hefty contrast. Long shots of the stadiums are impressive and the heavy grain structure is resolved well.

*Tier 3.5
*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Mary and Max*


We have a contenda. With the sole exception of some minimal banding and just a hint of aliasing in one brief shot, this is absolutely flawless. Clarity is awesome, detail is through the roof, and technical issues are basically nill. Stark black and white carries incredible depth and contrast, while the muted browns that make up the other half are equally as strong. Truly remarkable.

*Tier 0.25*


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/18923725
> 
> 
> Denny, sorry - I should have clarified. I did see it in the theatres. It's my first theatrical movie in 5 or so months, and ever since the little one came along.
> 
> 
> And vpn75 alluded to it - there are some pretty potent LFEs on this. First day purchase, for sure. It gave me the same intrigue as when I saw _Memento_ in the theatre the first time.



absolutely LOVED Inception. Cannot wait for it to be on Blu, i need to see it again.










apologies for the off-topicness of this post.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18934548
> 
> *Mary and Max*
> 
> 
> We have a contenda. With the sole exception of some minimal banding and just a hint of aliasing in one brief shot, this is absolutely flawless. Clarity is awesome, detail is through the roof, and technical issues are basically nill. Stark black and white carries incredible depth and contrast, while the muted browns that make up the other half are equally as strong. Truly remarkable.
> 
> *Tier 0.25*



Going to add this to my zip queue based on your rec, GRG!










eta: or not... zip does not have the blu listed. booo!


----------



## OldCodger73

I've also added this to my Netflix queue.


GRG, is the movie any good? Rotten Tomato has it listed at 91% but Netflix shows it as only 3 out of 5 stars.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18934548
> 
> *Mary and Max*
> 
> 
> We have a contenda. With the sole exception of some minimal banding and just a hint of aliasing in one brief shot, this is absolutely flawless. Clarity is awesome, detail is through the roof, and technical issues are basically nill. Stark black and white carries incredible depth and contrast, while the muted browns that make up the other half are equally as strong. Truly remarkable.
> 
> *Tier 0.25*



Let us hope we quickly get more feedback on this BD. From your description, it sounds like a stellar transfer and image. There should be an update coming soon, so anyone wanting to get their opinion counted for it should post in the next few days.


----------



## vpn75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18937811
> 
> 
> Let us hope we quickly get more feedback on this BD. From your description, it sounds like a stellar transfer and image. There should be an update coming soon, so anyone wanting to get their opinion counted for it should post in the next few days.



I reviewed this one a few weeks back and felt like it was a top *Tier 1* title. I didn't observe any real technical problems, but felt the muted color-scheme should keep it out of the reference tier.


It also happens to be a fabulous movie!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vpn75* /forum/post/18938218
> 
> 
> I reviewed this one a few weeks back and felt like it was a top *Tier 1* title. I didn't observe any real technical problems, but felt the muted color-scheme should keep it out of the reference tier.
> 
> 
> It also happens to be a fabulous movie!



Your description of this title reminds me of _Fantastic Mr. Fox_. When I reviewed that title I penalized it for its lackluster color scheme (I believe I ranked it under _Meet the Robinsons_), but the DETAIL and DEPTH were so phenomenal that it still deserved a spot in the reference tier. I suspect my opinion will be similar with this title.


If I had time (which I don't), I would go rent it. I'm leaving for 4 days tomorrow and then after a week of work I'll be gone the following weekend also. I won't be viewing any Blus until August and at that time I hope to have a true Blu FEAST!!


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/18937164
> 
> 
> I've also added this to my Netflix queue.
> 
> 
> GRG, is the movie any good? Rotten Tomato has it listed at 91% but Netflix shows it as only 3 out of 5 stars.



It is a phenomenal movie. It's not a kids movie by a long stretch, which is what a lot of people were probably thinking. Happy, dramatic, and warm, with a touching ending.


Cinemasquid has screens, and for once, everyone site is in agreement with perfect video scores:

http://cinemasquid.com/blu-ray/movie...333&locale=all


----------



## vpn75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18939574
> 
> 
> Your description of this title reminds me of _Fantastic Mr. Fox_. When I reviewed that title I penalized it for its lackluster color scheme (I believe I ranked it under _Meet the Robinsons_), but the DETAIL and DEPTH were so phenomenal that it still deserved a spot in the reference tier. I suspect my opinion will be similar with this title.
> 
> 
> If I had time (which I don't), I would go rent it. I'm leaving for 4 days tomorrow and then after a week of work I'll be gone the following weekend also. I won't be viewing any Blus until August and at that time I hope to have a true Blu FEAST!!



I wouldn't object to it being in *Tier 0*, but I do feel it is slightly less "demo-worthy" than *Fantastic Mr. Fox*.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vpn75* /forum/post/18939691
> 
> 
> I wouldn't object to it being in *Tier 0*, but I do feel it is slightly less "demo-worthy" than *Fantastic Mr. Fox*.



You are probably right, especially if the color scheme is more flat. Again, I wish I could see it before all the commitments I have in the next two weeks. I do appreciate this type of animation (I believe it's stop-motion, right?).


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vpn75* /forum/post/18938218
> 
> 
> I reviewed this one a few weeks back and felt like it was a top *Tier 1* title. I didn't observe any real technical problems, but felt the muted color-scheme should keep it out of the reference tier.



I thought someone might have previously brought it up, but a recommendation near the top jumps out in a way that other reviews do not. Someone is going to need to pick up for djoberg's absence as we persevere through the summer lull. There has to be participants reading these words that would like to opine on their favorite Blu-rays' picture quality.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Losers*


Crazy saturated color, really deep blacks, and spectacular detail in close. What's not to like? The encode. Long shots are atrocious, especially the city establishing aerials, which are just pathetic (and one of the worst shots I've ever seen on a Blu-ray; low-res CG maybe?). Mid-range tends to appear a bit muddy and processed as well, which is a real shame. Some sporadic aliasing is noted too, something becoming a bit too common for Warner as of late.

*Tier 2.5*


----------



## J.Mike Ferrara

*The Arrival*


David Twohy's "The Arrival" is a guilty pleasure for me. So when I saw the Blu-ray version on sale, I picked it up. Boy was that a waste of $10.


I knew I was in for diappointment at the very beginning - the first frame (blackout before the title) was ten shades above black. The entire transfer was washed out, with ugly colors and loads of EE. *No doubt the worst transfer I've ever seen - DVD included.*


Is there a rating below COAL?



(PS - I did a search in the thread and did not see a reference to this title.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Cop Out*


Another Warner new release with an inadequate encode. Shocker. Wildly inconsistent, ranging from super detailed to flat and uninteresting. Decent black levels are fine, and color is well saturated. Compression rears up a few times, especially with smoke/fog.

*Tier 3.0*


----------



## cjmx2

*Percy Jackson and Olympians - Lightning Thief*

I can't add much to what has been said here, just a solid transfer from Fox. I really enjoyed the solid blacks and very consistent presentation. A few tier 0 shots but mostly in the tier 1 range. Great contrast and depth to the image. Fun to watch. Some of the mid range stuff was not a sharp as the close ups (I believe this was said before)...but all in all I agree with the other reviews...
*Tier 1.5*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Cube (Dutch Import)


recommendation: Tier 2.75*


I am enthusiastic about Blu-ray as a format precisely to see the films I love in the best resolution and quality. That love largely extends to the intriguing and smart films made over the years that are actually innovative, and not the derivative tripe that constitute the bulk of movies Hollywood serves up for consumption. _Cube_ is one of those gems, an independent production from 1997 shot in Canada that mixes psychological terror and mystery into a potent mix. Unfortunately Lionsgate has not seen fit to release it in America, but the Dutch distributor, E1 Entertainment Benelux, has given it a region-free release back in February of this year that is English-friendly and playable for anyone in the world. The cherry on top for fans is that E1 has created an excellent BD if one is interested in transfer quality and lossless audio.


Lacking a menu structure of any kind, the movie simply plays on any BD player in the world, including the Region A PS3. The 90-minute film is encoded in VC-1 on a BD-25. Lacking any extra features, the average video bitrate is 20.91 Mbps per the BDInfo scan, which indicates that higher bitrates could have been achieved given the 8 GB of free space on the BD. At least very high peak rates have been implemented to handle the most difficult scenes, with sustained bitrates near 40 Mbps. Correctly presented in its original aspect ratio of 1.85:1 and a full 1080p image, there is no comparison to the two different DVDs I own of this movie. The Blu-ray is by far a more satisfying picture that shows significantly more detail when possible, with the benefit of no deleterious processing in the transfer process.


The Dutch Blu-ray shows a relatively clean print in terms of anomalies, damage and specks that looks in good condition. The only exceptions are the first and last couple of minutes each, where it looks like some matte effects or optical processing were employed that are likely from second or third-generation dupes, and inherent to the original movie's experience. Filmed on Kodak film stock, the image retains a pleasing and naturalistic grain structure that is not intrusive to the viewing experience. The complete lack of digital video noise reduction is a welcome sight on an older catalog title, as the major Hollywood studios have made it almost a de facto step for them in transfers to high-definition. Excellent high-frequency information such as pores and eyebrows that are easily visible and clear as daylight in close-ups prove this BD was sourced from a high-quality master. Without beating the term into the ground, this disc does a fine job of translating the film-like experience of the movie onto Blu-ray.


Halos are not a concern either, as the image shows no ringing around edges outside of one moment that looks more like optical ringing than anything else. The cinematography generally does not go for an extraordinarily sharp appearance, except in the close-ups, eschewing dimensionality for a flatter viewpoint. That is one of the factors in keeping my score for the recommendation down. Stylized lighting in certain scenes, such as the aptly named Red room or Blue Room locales, does slightly reduce clarity at times. The drop though is never more than a quarter or half-tier in magnitude. Parts of the movie probably do merit a placement in tier three, but on balance with the regularly-shot scenes ends up in tier two.


Overall clarity is very good, even in the darkest material and passages. The compression never introduces noticeable artifacting or macroblocking in any scene, which is important in a moodily-lit film trying to establish an atmosphere of terror and isolation. The transfer's color levels and contrast do look a touch brighter than is appropriate for a movie of this kind. It helps to reveal shadow delineation to a greater degree, but probably impacts the black levels a bit. The black levels could be a shade darker, but who knows if the contrast might be affected as a result. Resolution is as good as the source material allows, showcasing a major increase in definition from the Signature Series DVD from America. Skin-tones are generally accurate without signs of undue coloration.


No one will ever confuse this as demo material, but fans will definitely be pleased. It is unlikely a domestic Blu-ray could improve upon the picture quality presented on this Dutch disc. An unqualified recommendation for all fans and interested parties. The 5.1 lossless audio mix was surprisingly good for a catalog film that was originally only created in ultra-stereo.


Watching on a 60" Pioneer KURO plasma at 1080p/24, fed by a Region A 60-GB PS3 (firmware 3.40), from a viewing distance of five feet.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Devil N):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...postcount=1692


----------



## dla26

*The Informant*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18303124
> 
> 
> Shall I be blunt? The PQ was, except for a few rare shots, a BIG DISAPPOINTMENT! Colors were drab, contrast was overblown, blacks were weak, details and depth were almost nonexistent, and facial close-ups were worse than average.
> 
> 
> [...]
> 
> 
> This was average at best, so it is destined to end up in Tier 3, and IMHO it deserves the lower end of that tier. Sooooo.....
> 
> Tier Recommendation: 3.5



I agree with this PQ tier recommendation. Some movies deliberately mute the color palette to align with the theme of the movie (The Road, for example), but I couldn't see any reason why this would be the case here. A Serious Man had some similarities in terms of theme but still had solid PQ throughout. I was particularly disappointed with how washed out the colors looked (maybe deserved a 4), but felt that the level of detail was low/middle of the road for Blu-Ray, and deserving of around a 2.5 or 3. Overall, I too split the difference and give it a

*Tier Recommendation: 3.5*.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18303124
> 
> 
> I don't know what was worse, the PQ or the movie itself. I found it hard to follow and it wasn't until the very end that I realized what Matt Damon's character was all about (at least I *think* I have a handle on it).



This is where I must disagree. At the risk of going too OT, I thought the movie itself was fantastic. It may have helped that I was already somewhat familiar with the case prior to seeing the movie (heard a story about the actual case on NPR - including sound clips of the actual tapes the guy recorded) but I thought it was both very funny and fascinating to watch this person completely self destruct. The random thoughts that pop into his head throughout the movie really added for me some sense of the mindset of the character - very smart, but extremely scattered. It's a shame that the movie flopped at the box office. I'd encourage everyone to check it out, despite the low PQ. (Last but not least, I experienced some cognitive dissonance seeing Buster from Arrested Development as a smart, competent lawyer.







)


JVC RS1, 120" Firehawk screen, viewed at approx. 12'


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Evil Aliens*


Oh dear god. One of the worst Blu-rays I have ever seen. Compression is completely overwhelming, as if the digital source itself was loaded with artifacts and then those were compressed along with the unbearable noise. Digital smearing is everywhere, haloing is consistently evident, and black crush is constant.

*Tier 5.0*


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18949664
> 
> *Cube (Dutch Import)
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 2.75*
> 
> 
> I am enthusiastic about Blu-ray as a format precisely to see the films I love in the best resolution and quality. That love largely extends to the intriguing and smart films made over the years that are actually innovative, and not the derivative tripe that constitute the bulk of movies Hollywood serves up for consumption. _Cube_ is one of those gems, an independent production from 1997 shot in Canada that mixes psychological terror and mystery into a potent mix.




Excellent in-depth review Phantom.


Now, if you could just explain this movie to me, your review would be complete!










I'm a big fan of the film, but the ending is just a little *too* vague for my taste.


----------



## 42041

*The Illusionist*


A well-photographed, attractive movie on a weak blu-ray plagued by compression issues. Color banding is everywhere. Grain often dissolves into artifact soup. I'm used to this with Warner, but I did not expect such amateurish work from Fox.

*Tier 2.5*


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18953811
> 
> 
> Excellent in-depth review Phantom.
> 
> 
> Now, if you could just explain this movie to me, your review would be complete!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a big fan of the film, but the ending is just a little *too* vague for my taste.



It's a mystery wrapped in a riddle inside an enigma.







If you do not ask for specifics, I can also explain the meaning of life...










> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/18954396
> 
> *The Illusionist*
> 
> 
> A well-photographed, attractive movie on a weak blu-ray plagued by compression issues. Color banding is everywhere. Grain often dissolves into artifact soup. I'm used to this with Warner, but I did not expect such amateurish work from Fox.
> 
> *Tier 2.5*



Fox was not responsible for the compression or their favored authoring house, Deluxe Digital. The sub-par compression (which does produce noticeable banding on the BD) was the result of some Canadian firm that typically does not handle titles from the American studios. Fox got very cheap and reused Alliance's existing disc which utilized mediocre bitrates.


----------



## OldCodger73

I finally got around to watching _Astro_ _Boy._ It's been thoroughly reviewed and I have nothing to add except IMO it's four places too high and should be between _Coroline_ and _Cars_.


Panasonic 65" S1, Panasonic 85 player, 7 1/2'


----------



## OldCodger73

_Days_ _of_ _Heaven_ was shot on some of the first high speed movie film and it shows with pronouced grain, which gives it a very "film" look. In most cases color is subdued. Darker scenes loose some detail. Over all detail varies between above average to average. Facial features never make it into Tier 1. The movie is borderline between Tier 2 and 3 but seems closer to those movies that I've watched in Tier 2.75 than 3.0.

*Days* *of* *Heaven* *Tier* *2*.*75.*


This is one of the better Criterion releases that I've watched. The cinemographics is truly outstanding, it's a beautifully filmed movie. It's slow paced but totally engrossing with a strong sense of tension and a growing sense of ultimate disaster.


There's some unexpected decent LFE, particularly in hhe blast furnace, steam tractor and fire scenes.


Panasonic 65" S1, Panasonic BD 85, 7 1/2'.


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vpn75* /forum/post/18938218
> 
> 
> I reviewed this one a few weeks back and felt like it was a top *Tier 1* title. I didn't observe any real technical problems, but felt the muted color-scheme should keep it out of the reference tier.



It might help to consider Mary and Max as a halfway monochrome movie along the lines of Sin City or The Spirit with some selected brown and red tones thrown in. I personally don't think a muted color scheme should keep a title out of Tier 0 itself, although I could see an argument for keeping it out of the very topmost spots simply because of this.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Minority Report*


This one sits at Tier 2, which sounds about right, but being a texture guy, I'm going with 1.75. There is just far too much detail in nearly every frame to to slip it down to 2, only those especially noisy scenes blotting out facial texture (and there are few). Amazingly rich black levels, and all of the added noise/grain is fully resolved. Fantastic.

*Tier 1.75*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

The tiers are once again complete and up to date. A little surprise and new wrinkle awaits for those who click the links in Tier Zero. Here are the recommendations that were accounted for by denizens of the thread.


Starship Troopers - 2.25 Gamereviewgod


Duplicity - 2.5 Geekyglassesgirl, 1.75 Phantom Stranger


Once (UK) - 4.5 Phantom Stranger


The Young Victoria - 1.75 deltasun


Tombstone - 3.75 Mr. G


Starship Troopers 2 - 4.5 Gamereviewgod


A Serious Man - 1.75 Ozymandis


Edge of Darkness - 2.75 deltasun, 2.25 djoberg, 3.0 Rob Tomlin


Avatar - reiterated top ranking djoberg, Above or below I,Robot lgans316


All from lgans316:


The Lovely Bones - Below Hot Fuzz in Tier-0


Atonement - Tier 1.5


Zombieland - Tier 1.75


Marley and Me - Tier 1.75


Stardust - Tier 2


Minority Report - Tier 2


Saving Private Ryan - Tier 2


Elektra - Tier 2.25


Gran Torino - Tier 2.5


The Hurt Locker - Tier 2.75


Wizard of Oz - Tier 3


Hero - Tier 3


Toy Story 1 / 2 - Agree with current placement


Dirty Dozen - 3.0 Gamereviewgod


Lola Montes - 2.0 42041


The Wolfman - 2.75 Gamereviewgod, 2.0 djoberg, 3.5 deltasun, 3.75 jedimasterchad


African Queen - 3.0 Hughmc, 3.0 Rob Tomlin


Funny People - 3.0 42041


Dear John - 2.0 deltasun


Legion - 2.25 deltasun


The Stranger - 4.5 Gamereviewgod


Alice In Wonderland - 1.75 Gamereviewgod, 2.0 Ozymandis, 3.0 deltasun, 2.75 Rob Tomlin


Minority report - 1.0 42041


LOTR: Fellowship - 3.75 Gamereviewgod, 3.5 Hughmc


LOTR: Two Towers - 3.25 Gamereviewgod, 2.25 Hughmc


Leap Year - 1.25 deltasun, 2.5 Patrick99, 3.25 Rob Tomlin


Crazy Heart - 3.25 Rob Tomlin, 2.0 42041


Cool Hand Luke - 2.0 Phantom Stranger


Dark Knight - 1.25(redux) Rob Tomlin


LOTR:Return of the king - 1.0 Gamereviewgod, 1.0 Hughmc


U2 360 - 2.0 Hughmc


Armageddon - 1.5 ibre34, 1.75 Gamereviewgod


The Crazies (1973) - 3.75 Gamereviewgod


Terminator: Salvation - 1.75 Ozymandis


Grace - 3.0 Ozymandis


Old Dogs - 1.75 deltasun


From Paris with Love - 1.5 Gamereviewgod, 2.25 deltasun, 2.0 jedimasterchad, 3.0 Rob Tomlin


The Illusionist - 4.0 deltasun


Shutter Island - 1.75 djoberg, 1.75 Gamereviewgod, 1.75 Rob Tomlin, 2.25 jedimasterchad


Invictus - 2.25 deltasun


War of the Worlds - 2.5 lgans316, 3.5 Gamereviewgod


The Lovely Bones - 1.25 cjmx2


The English Patient - 5.0 sleater


Collateral - 3.25 lgans316


Babel - 2.75 42041


M - 4.0 Rob Tomlin, 4.0 deltasun


The Horseman (2008) - 3.75 Gamereviewgod


Disgrace - 1.75 42041


Crazy - 4.5 Gamereviewgod


The Man Who Fell To Earth - 3.25 42041


The Book Of Eli - 1.0 djoberg, 2.75 Gamereviewgod, 2.25 deltasun


One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest - 4.0 42041


Dawn of the Dead (2004) - 3.75 deltasun


Kelly's Heroes - 2.75 Gamereviewgod


Unthinkable - 2.0 Gamereviewgod


Extraordinary Measures - 3.25 cjmx2


When In Rome - 3.0 Gamereviewgod


North by Northwest - 2.75 deltasun, 3.0 maestro50


Youth In Revolt - 1.75 Gamereviewgod


The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus - 2.75 42041


District 13 Ultimatum - 2.0 Gamereviewgod


It's Complicated - 2.0 Rob Tomlin


Flash Gordon - 3.0 deltasun, 2.0 Mr.G, 4.5 Gamereviewgod


Valentine's Day - 2.75 cjmx2, 3.25 deltasun


Steamboat Bill Jr. - 4.75 Gamereviewgod


Clash of the titans(1981) - 4.5 Gamereviewgod


Mary and Max - 1.0 vpn75, top quarter of 0 Gamereviewgod


Green Zone - 4.0 Gamereviewgod, 2.75 lgans316


The Road - 3.25 Rob Tomlin


Knowing - 1.75 42041


Possession - 4.5 deltasun


She's Out of My League - 4 Gamereviewgod, 3.0 vpn75


Valkyrie - 2.25 tfoltz


Virgin Territory - 2.25 Phantom Stranger


Daybreakers - 2.0 Rob Tomlin


Paris, Texas - 3.25 Rob Tomlin


Seven Swords - 2.0 Ozymandis


From OldCodger73:


Sherlock Holmes Tier 2.25


Amelia Tier 3.0


Avatar Tier 0 anywhere above Coraline


Walkabout Tier 4.0


Stagecoach Tier 4.5


Absolute Power Tier 3.5


The Karate Kid - 3.75 Phantom Stranger


Tae Guk Gi: Brotherhood of war(import) - 4.0 Gamereviewgod


Mission Impossible - 4.0 cjmx2


Mission Imposs 2 - 2.75 cjmx2


Mission Imposs 3 - 1.75 cjmx2


Twilight: New Moon - 2.25 deltasun


Jack's The Girl Next Door - 4.75 deltasun


Watchmen: DC (UK import) - lower half of 0 Phantom Stranger


The Thomas Crown Affair - 2.5 deltasun


3:10 to Yuma - 2.75(redux) Rob Tomlin


Where Eagles Dare - 4.0 Gamereviewgod


Yojimbo - 3.0 Rob Tomlin


Hunger - 2.0 42041


Made Of Honor - 1.75 cjmx2


Hot Tub Time Machine - 1.0 Gamereviewgod


The Crazies (modern) - 1.5 jedimasterchad, 3.0 Gamereviewgod, 2.5 deltasun


A Bug's Life - 0 above I, Robot 42041


The Warlords - 3.0 Gamereviewgod


Percy Jackson - 1.5 Gamereviewgod, 1.5 jedimasterchad, 1.5 cjmx2


Behind The Mask - 5 Phantom Stranger


Enchanted - 1.25 Phantom Stranger


Night of the creeps - 3.25 Gamereviewgod


The Natural - 3.25 OldCodger73


The white ribbon - 1.75 OldCodger73


The Monster Squad - 3.75 Gamereviewgod


Predator:Ultimate DNR edition - 4.75 Gamereviewgod


Brooklyn's Finest - 1.0 Gamereviewgod, 1.75 jedimasterchad


A SIngle Man - 2.5 deltasun, 3.0 Rob Tomlin, 3.75 Gamereviewgod


Trick R' Treat - 2.75 Phantom Stranger


The Class - 3.25 42041


3:10 to Yuma (German) - 2.25 lgans316


Total Recall (Dutch) - 2.5 lgans316


For All Mankind - 4.5 Gamereviewgod


Amelia - 3.75 Gamereviewgod


The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo - 1.5 OldCodger73, 1.5 deltasun


The Bounty Hunter - 3.0 cjmx2, 3.5 Gamereviewgod


Jason & the argonauts - 3.75 Gamereviewgod


The Greatest - 4.5 Gamereviewgod


Darkman - 4.25 Gamereviewgod


Major League - 3.5 Gamereviewgod


The Losers - 2.5 Gamereviewgod


The Arrival - 5 J. Mike Ferrara


Cop Out - 3.0 Gamereviewgod


Cube (Dutch) - 2.75 Phantom Stranger


The Informant - 3.5 dla26


Evil Aliens - 5 Gamereviewgod


Illusionist - 2.5 42041


Astro Boy - below Coraline OldCodger73


Days Of Heaven - 2.75 OldCodger73


Minority Report - 1.75 Gamereviewgod


----------



## 42041

*Lucky Number Slevin*


A very average blu-ray. Detail is decent but not impressive, not helped by the mild DNR that pervades the picture. Compression seems mushy despite the high bitrate AVC, occasional color banding is visible here and there. Overall a ho-hum sort of disc that (IMO) is way misplaced, maybe a tier 1.5 in 2008, completely unremarkable now.

*Tier 3.0*


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/16610948
> 
> *True Romance*
> 
> 
> One word: SOFT. With a dollop of DNR.
> 
> 
> The only real saving grace here is the movie itself. PQ-wise, it's still an upgrade from its SD DVD presentation, but average for BR. The second biggest issue is contrast. It gives the film a dated look and renders scenes flat and messy. Black levels were average as well and not exactly notable.
> 
> 
> For what it's worth, the PQ does improve a bit in California. Scenes are a bit more picturesque with decent vibrancy of colors and somewhat sharper delineation of scene elements. Unfortunately, I also saw more obvious signs of DNR.
> 
> 
> Overall, I believe the presentation can still be considered low Bronze...
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.75*



I am in absolute agreement about this placement. Deltasun nailed the part about the softness, though in my mind the picture is a result of an older master prepared for DVD. It will look better once a new scan is completed of the original film negatives.

*recommendation: Tier 3.75*


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18963381
> 
> 
> I am in absolute agreement about this placement. Deltasun nailed the part about the softness, though in my mind the picture is a result of an older master prepared for DVD. It will look better once a new scan is completed of the original film negatives.



If that's the case, then it never should have been released on Blu until they do exactly that.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Repo Men*


A great effort from Universal. A nice, cool color palette shines, along with deep, rich blacks. Film grain is light and limited, barely noticeable. Texture is simply flawless in close, even in darker scenes where light is barely found. A few scenes falter due to softness, but this is generally consistent and pleasing.
*Tier 2.0*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Operation Endgame*


Eww. This thing was lit so poorly it's at times impossible to see anything in terms of detail. Faces are blown out by the overhead lighting, and there are no black levels. Colors are all desaturated and flat, and it's soft as hell.

*Tier 4.75*


----------



## deltasun

*Clash of the Titans (2010)*


I had a pretty comprehensive review earlier until my laptop crashed. I don't really feel like re-writing and so I'll just hit the highlights/lowlights:


Blacks and contrast are weak for most of the feature. Facial details are a bit lacking, though they don't ever get extremely close. Details, for the most part, can be hit or miss, but indoor lairs, etc. usually have very good shadow details. Establishing shots offer decent depth but are usually shown much too quickly to be appreciated.


Medium shots have good 3D pop, even with the weak overall contrast. Colors are on the warm side and are representative of the subject matter. Some DNR seem evident leading to smudgy appearances. Ringing is also noted throughout. Overall, this title still merits a Silver placement for me, but am disappointed with the what-could-have-been aspects of its PQ.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.5*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## 42041

*Sling Blade*


Good looking disc of this 1996 film, has the look of fairly recent transfer. Detail is strong, the colors of the scenery are richly reproduced. But this is a low budget movie and the visuals are low-key. The main technical misgiving I have is the light noise reduction employed throughout the movie. It's still visibly grainy, so the grain-haters won't be happy, but now the grain moves in slow motion and picky viewers may notice subtle texture smearing. If you're making no one happy, what's the point of using it?

*Tier 2.75*


----------



## cjmx2

*Clash of the Titans (2010)*Softness and smearing and lens flare...oh my! Overall I was very disappointed in this title being a new release. But I guess it is Warner...


1st and probably my biggest concern was that it was all over the boards for sharpness and detail...some shots were pretty good in the upper tier 1 range; that lasted for about 60 seconds and then we fell back to the 2 or 3 range.


The few blacks I remember were pretty murky and lacked detail. One positive was that the daylight shots had lots of 3d pop at times and looked very good while it was daylight...


There was a tremendous amount of CGI in the movie which i felt lacked sharpness and dimensionality; as a result it looked a little off (reminded me of GIJOE - Cobra) Basically it was serviceable but I expected more being a new release.


I really did not care for the directors intent in how Zeus was portrayed. It made Liam Neeson look cheesy and not very God like. Pretty much a lens flared DNRed mess...


My disc was a "RENTAL" marked on the disc (Blockbuster). I do remember some discussion about Sherlock Holmes and some "RENTALS" being on a BD25 with lower bitrates, etc...just wondering if anybody had a better or different experience. I did check and there are no special features or chapter selection on this disc I rented...I sincerely hope the movie encode was not effected...


Delta, was your disc a "RENTAL" or purchase?


All in all I'm going a little lower...
*Tier 3.0
*ln52b750 - 1080p - 24hz - 8 ft


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cjmx2* /forum/post/18976059
> 
> *Clash of the Titans (2010)*
> *Tier 3.0*





This.

*Tier 3.0*


It has nothing to do with the rental disc, as I had a retail copy. Having seen both retail and rental discs before, the encodes always remain the same, the only difference is the deletion of special features. This is just another poor encode from Warner on a new release.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Except for a few premium titles, Warner as a policy just does not care about maximizing picture quality for Blu-ray. Anything that turns out looking great from them is more happenstance than design.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18976857
> 
> 
> Except for a few premium titles, Warner as a policy just does not care about maximizing picture quality for Blu-ray. Anything that turns out looking great from them is more happenstance than design.



To be clear, this applies to new releases. Their classic catalog (Gone with the Wind, Wizard of Oz) generally looks superb.


----------



## cjmx2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18976792
> 
> 
> This.
> 
> *Tier 3.0*
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with the rental disc, as I had a retail copy. Having seen both retail and rental discs before, the encodes always remain the same, the only difference is the deletion of special features. This is just another poor encode from Warner on a new release.



This should make me feel better as I had the best viewing experience possible but it sure doesn't...







Maybe Warner contracts out their restorations to Buena Vista...that might explain why they look so good.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/18977318
> 
> 
> To be clear, this applies to new releases. Their classic catalog (Gone with the Wind, Wizard of Oz) generally looks superb.



Outside of the handful of films they have done lavish restorations on, the vast majority of Warner's catalog product looks putrid on Blu-ray. I could list literally hundreds of catalog titles from them that have had zero work done to make them acceptable for Blu-ray.


Any studio should be able to release excellent day-and-date releases on most every film for Blu-ray, as the cost of the Digital Intermediate is folded into the movie's production costs.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18978500
> 
> 
> Outside of the handful of films they have done lavish restorations on, the vast majority of Warner's catalog product looks putrid on Blu-ray. I could list literally hundreds of catalog titles from them that have had zero work done to make them acceptable for Blu-ray.
> 
> 
> Any studio should be able to release excellent day-and-date releases on most every film for Blu-ray, as the cost of the Digital Intermediate is folded into the movie's production costs.



Hence why I said "classic" catalog, which covers me.










I don't how a studio can take so much time and effort to make their rich classics look so damn good, and literally butcher everything else. Makes no sense.


----------



## deltasun

Mine's not a rental - took advantage of the $12.99 Best Buy offer. I agree with your observations, cjmx2. I thought most of the movie was average, with a few that stood out. Hence, its Tier 2 landing for me.


----------



## 42041

*Glory*


A pretty good transfer from Sony, but nothing spectacular visually. Detail is average, colors tend to be drab, film grain can get quite thick and is preserved, although sometimes it takes on an electronic appearance against bright skies. No idea why this won a best cinematography Oscar, to my eye this film sports completely pedestrian TV-style visuals. The blu-ray is quality, though I didn't like the movie.

*Tier 3.0*


----------



## Vegaz

Sorry for the short reviews but I haven't been here in a while so there's a lot of them.

*From Paris With Love*

This is one of the worst new (so not counting say, Dracula) BRs I've seen. Ugly & washed out, especially the blacks. I did enjoy the movie even though it was 10 minutes of story and 80 minutes of John Travolta shooting people in the face.

*Tier 4.0* (below average)

*The Losers*

Another awful recent one but for a reason opposite of the last. Instead of being ugly because it's washed out it's ugly because it's an oversaturated mess. I frequently had to check my settings hadn't changed themselves to dynamic mode with color set at 100. Fun movie with 15 minutes of story and 90 minutes of blowing stuff up.

*Tier 4.0* (below average)

*Roger Corman presents Rock 'n Roll High School*

Pretty nice for an old looking movie. I don't think it's quite up to A Nightmare on Elm Street in terms of old movies but it was decent. I'm not sure if it should be under average or good. It's good considering its age but average overall,I'll say 2.75. Big Ramones fan so loved the movie.

Tier 2.75 (good for its age)

*Roger Corman presents Galaxy of Terror*

Not as good as Rock 'n Roll High School but again solid considering how old it is. Certianly not awful. Didn't find anything standout about it either.

*Tier 3.0* (average)

*Roger Corman presents Forbidden World*

It's better than the other 2. Quite impressive actually. This was made with sets left over from Galaxy of Terror.









*Tier 2.25* (really good for its age)

*Operation: Endgame*

Simply put this is unacceptable for a BR in 2010. This movie was made in 2009 so there's no excuse for this ugly thing. Maybe if it was from the 60's it could have an excuse to be awful. My cable at 1080i can look better than this.

*Tier 5* (unacceptable)

*The Runaways*

I'll admit I was so entrenched in the movie itself I couldn't really pay much attention to PQ. There was one standout scene near the Hollywood sign in LA but the rest was just good. Great movie. Hopefully it's not totally overlooked and some Twilight fans get sucked in. If you were a guy that was dragged to Twilight...well Kristen Stewart and Dakota Fanning make out for about 3 minutes to an Iggy Pop song so don't go in too down on it.









*Tier 2* (good,not great...I think so anyway)

*The Crazies (2010)*

The thing that bothered me most about this was the blacks. This is a horror movie. Black levels are important. For them to be as washed out as they were here...ick. The effects heavy scenes towards the end were pretty nice. The rest of it not so much.

*Tier 4.0* (below average)

*Batman: Under the Red Hood*

The opening credits are absolutely gorgeous,probably worthy of blu tiering. Unfortuantly the spectacular visual style used in the opening is only ever again seen in the end credits and you can't rate a movie on its credits.







In between it's pretty dang good though. I'm pretty sure I haven't seen a non-3D animated movie on blu-ray other than the previous Batman: Gotham Knight which switched visual style with stories. It was better than that from what I rememberd of it. Only seen the trailer for Princess & The Frog. It's nowhere good as that appeared to be of course. I didn't have any big problems with it though and found it to be quite good overall.

*Gold 1.75* (good but nothing to really compare it to so I'm not entirely sure)


I think I'm forgetting some.

I also watched Hot Tub Time Machine but my experience was ruined by having to update the player,the troubles that came with that and my popcorn having gone cold by the time I figured it out so at that point I just didn't care to pay attention to such things.







I don't remember anything about Cop Out but I watched that one too. Well that'll do anyway.


----------



## deltasun

*The Green Zone*


Tale of two PQ's, night and day...literally. Night scenes, which really pick up towards the end, is a noise-ridden mess, with barely any discernible details. Once in a while, you might recognize that it's Matt Damon pursuing another Iraqi.


During the daytime, it's quite detailed, albeit a bit hot. Dimensionality does creep in the daytime scenes also. Overhead scenes of the city blocks can be made out for miles around. Skin tones can be a tad pasty, but natural for the most part. Colors are representative of the desert environs.


Overall, I think I can somewhat balance the night scenes with the day scenes and call it average.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.25*


Interesting take on the controversial missing WMDs. I fail to see all the Bourne comparisons. Aside from Greengrass and Damon, this is a totally different animal. I did enjoy the movie.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Fanboys*


No doubt a cheaply shot film, but the encode does no favors. Grain is poorly resolved, regularly desolving into noise and artifacting. Colors are fairly bland, and the black levels are just "all right." It can be pretty soft, and detail is far too sporadic.

*Tier 4.0*


----------



## deltasun

*The Bounty Hunter*


Looked good on the surface - vivid colors, decent depth - until the movie started progressing. The DNR got so bad at times that it revealed how Aniston does not look good pasty. Coupled with the saturated skin tones, it got ugly. Very disappointing because there were a handful of decent close-up shots, complete with detail and texture.


Dimensionality and details also wavered. Most medium shots were flat, but some of the panoramic shots were detail-filled and exhibited reasonable depth. Blacks weren't particularly inky, but was adequate for the look. Shadow details were not very memorable.


I still believe there's enough POP in plenty of scenes to keep it in Silver...barely.









*Tier Recommendation: 2.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## 42041

*The Boondock Saints*


The 1999 film looks okay on blu-ray. Clearly not a modern transfer, but not terribly so. The film's visuals are unremarkable, colors tend to be dull and brownish. There's mild edge enhancement throughout, but DNR is not an issue. Detail is pretty solid.

*Tier 3.25*


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cjmx2* /forum/post/18976059
> 
> *Clash of the Titans (2010)*Softness and smearing and lens flare...oh my! Overall I was very disappointed in this title being a new release. But I guess it is Warner...
> 
> 
> 1st and probably my biggest concern was that it was all over the boards for sharpness and detail...some shots were pretty good in the upper tier 1 range; that lasted for about 60 seconds and then we fell back to the 2 or 3 range.
> 
> 
> The few blacks I remember were pretty murky and lacked detail. One positive was that the daylight shots had lots of 3d pop at times and looked very good while it was daylight...
> 
> 
> There was a tremendous amount of CGI in the movie which i felt lacked sharpness and dimensionality; as a result it looked a little off (reminded me of GIJOE - Cobra) Basically it was serviceable but I expected more being a new release.
> 
> 
> I really did not care for the directors intent in how Zeus was portrayed. It made Liam Neeson look cheesy and not very God like. Pretty much a lens flared DNRed mess...
> 
> 
> My disc was a "RENTAL" marked on the disc (Blockbuster). I do remember some discussion about Sherlock Holmes and some "RENTALS" being on a BD25 with lower bitrates, etc...just wondering if anybody had a better or different experience. I did check and there are no special features or chapter selection on this disc I rented...I sincerely hope the movie encode was not effected...
> 
> 
> Delta, was your disc a "RENTAL" or purchase?
> 
> 
> All in all I'm going a little lower...
> *Tier 3.0
> *ln52b750 - 1080p - 24hz - 8 ft



Looked more like about *Tier 3.5* to me. I should have known better than to waste time and money on a Warner release. The main reason I made the mistake of giving this a chance was watching Terminator Salvation recently and thinking it looked pretty decent for a Warner release. Well, I've relearned my lesson that Warner can almost always be counted on to put out garbage PQ.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Spies Like Us*


Yeah, the whole "two movies, one disc" thing? Not the best idea. Terribly compressed and likely an older master, but it fares a hair better than Funny Farm, the other movie on the disc. Just a smidgen of fine detail comes through here, and the resolution boost provides a bit of boost. Some black crush is rarely evident, and the colors provide a bit of pop.

*Tier 4.25*


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cjmx2* /forum/post/18976059
> 
> *Clash of the Titans (2010)*Softness and smearing and lens flare...oh my! Overall I was very disappointed in this title being a new release. But I guess it is Warner...
> 
> 
> 1st and probably my biggest concern was that it was all over the boards for sharpness and detail...some shots were pretty good in the upper tier 1 range; that lasted for about 60 seconds and then we fell back to the 2 or 3 range.
> 
> 
> The few blacks I remember were pretty murky and lacked detail. One positive was that the daylight shots had lots of 3d pop at times and looked very good while it was daylight...
> 
> 
> There was a tremendous amount of CGI in the movie which i felt lacked sharpness and dimensionality; as a result it looked a little off (reminded me of GIJOE - Cobra) Basically it was serviceable but I expected more being a new release.
> 
> 
> I really did not care for the directors intent in how Zeus was portrayed. It made Liam Neeson look cheesy and not very God like. Pretty much a lens flared DNRed mess...
> 
> 
> My disc was a "RENTAL" marked on the disc (Blockbuster). I do remember some discussion about Sherlock Holmes and some "RENTALS" being on a BD25 with lower bitrates, etc...just wondering if anybody had a better or different experience. I did check and there are no special features or chapter selection on this disc I rented...I sincerely hope the movie encode was not effected...
> 
> 
> Delta, was your disc a "RENTAL" or purchase?
> 
> 
> All in all I'm going a little lower...
> *Tier 3.0
> *ln52b750 - 1080p - 24hz - 8 ft



First one I've gotten to in a while and was quite disappointed. If 3.0 is "average" than this certainly wasn't. The best shots were wide landscapes but they lasted for only a very short time. Blacks were weak and as mentioned the CGI is similar to the crud that was in GI Joe. Not much facial detail at all, possibly due to the "godlike" complexion that the actors were supposed to have, but for the most part this one was all over the place. Not impressed but also no MAJOR faults either. I'll just go a little lower and come in at *3.25*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Samurai 7: The Complete Series

recommendation: Tier 2.25*


This is an anime show based off Akira Kurosawa's classic “Seven Samurai” from the popular animation house, Gonzo. The garish hues of the color palette come off well in high-definition, though a few problems occur that pull the bright designs out of tier one. The picture is slightly soft for animation, with lighting techniques that look a little too ambitious for non-theatrical animation. That leads to prominent banding and questionable black levels at times.


FUNimation appears to have done a competent job in presenting the source material, with its various limitations, in the best manner possible. No one will mistake the picture quality for the better efforts of Disney or Miyazaki on Blu-ray, but a substantial portion of the lengthy series (there are 26-episodes in this 3-disc set) looks worthy of a good score. It also looks decidedly better than some of FUNimation's other anime Blu-rays, which at times look no different than upscaled DVD.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of eric.exe):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...4#post15791194


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Downfall (UK Import)


recommendation: Tier 4.5*


Excellent movies like _Downfall_ deserve better on Blu-ray than what UK distributor Momentum Pictures has delivered here. The 155-minute German film, a 2004 theatrical release, was released in the UK on Blu-ray in December of 2008. While the transfer is not good, the disc is region-free and should be playable for everyone in the world. Encoded in VC-1 at a total bitrate of 25.83 Mbps (the only figure available to me) on a BD-50, the average video bitrate would be just slightly lower than that total bitrate.


Something went horribly wrong in the transfer process. _Downfall_ is an extremely grainy movie, to enhance the dismal mood of Berlin in its final days of Hitler's leadership and set the tone. A perfect transfer, from the best elements for this film, was never likely to exceed a spot in tiers 2.75 or 3.0. That was the best-case scenario, which clearly does not apply to this BD.


There is an egregious amount of persistent sharpening to the image, ruining the natural look of the grain throughout the entire film. The sharpening filter has turned the grain into a swarm of noise and added a fair amount of ringing. It is not an isolated incident, but pervasive in its effect. The look is not that far removed from a certain number of Blue Underground's transfers seen on BD, with an odd and overly-exaggerated grain level that does not appear normal.


I can't recommend this import unless one is desperate to see the movie in high-definition. Strangely, there is zero evidence to indicate any type of digital noise reduction has been used. The transfer apparently escaped that negative process, though there is an ominous listing for "digital clean-up" in the end credits. Close-ups do show a stellar amount of high-frequency information, while the 35mm photography displays top-notch depth and dimension for a drama.


Another factor that plays into the strange-looking grain is the older VC-1 encode, which simply does not handle the challenging nature of the visuals at these bitrates. It definitely plays into the cause of the problems with the picture quality. Overall this is one of the worst resulting pictures I have seen struck from a movie that has an existing Digital Intermediate. I do not claim perfect knowledge of this movie's history, but cannot believe the director wanted it to look this way. Something went horribly wrong at some step in the mastering or transfer chain.


Watching on a 60" Pioneer KURO plasma at 1080p/24, played from a 60GB PS3 (firmware 3.41) and at a viewing distance of six feet.


----------



## tfoltz

I just finished the *Samurai 7* series on Sunday and loved the series. The banding was definitely distracting, and the drawing quality sure had its ups and downs. The cell animation and CGI combination was odd at times, but ultimately enjoyable. For picture quality, I lean toward *Tier 2.75*. Loved the series.


I also watched Clash of the Titans on Sunday and do not remember it being as bad as everyone is saying. Guess I'll watch it again...because I actually enjoyed the movie for what it was







.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*After.Life*


A pretty mundane encode here, really hampering the facial details as far Liam Neeson is concerned. Most of the time he appears processed and digital. Christina Ricci offers some great facial detail in close. Colors are typically flat and cold by design, funeral flowers being the only positive. Generally firm black levels are just okay.
*Tier 3.75*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Kick-Ass*


Oh man. This one is going to split this thread right down the middle. Colors are crazy over saturated, reds bleeding out pretty regularly. Black levels are wildly inconsistent, faces have been randomly smoothed over intentionally, noise is a struggle, and aliasing seems non-stop in the opening 10-minutes. It still re-appears later.


What this does is look good because of the color, bleeding or not, and insane contrast. I don't even want to know what this would look like an uncalibrated set. It's eye candy for sure. I went back and forth on this one a few times for my own site's review and here.

*Tier 3.0*


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/19000347
> 
> 
> 
> I also watched Clash of the Titans on Sunday and do not remember it being as bad as everyone is saying. Guess I'll watch it again...because I actually enjoyed the movie for what it was
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



The movie was OK, but I actually enjoyed watching Percy Jackson a lot more than this one. This one just seemed kind of boring to me for some reason.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Major League


recommendation: Tier 3.0*


Paramount gave this baseball comedy a solid transfer. The resulting picture quality is good for a movie from 1989 that did not receive an extensive restoration. Running a length of 106-minutes, the video is encoded in AVC on a BD-50, at an average bitrate of 31.78 Mbps. It was first released on May 12, 2009. No major problems crop up along the way, allowing the disc to look faithful to the original director's intent. Older films can turn out very good on Blu-ray as long as the studios utilize solid elements, maximize compression parameters, and leave the transfer free of most digital processing. Paramount has followed all three techniques for _Major League_ on Blu-ray.


Compression quality is very high, as the generous bitrate parameters fully reproduce the film without a hint of artifacting. The minimal amount of grain structure is reproduced in a natural manner, never allowing macroblocking to enter the frame. Colors look very accurately rendered and clean, as the baseball uniforms provide a well-known reference point. Contrast comes off very well, though a touch of black crush appears which lessens the finer details of Vaughn's wild haircut on occasion. The action on the diamond looks sharper and more defined in comparison to scenes outside that venue, likely due to the lighting.


Tiny bits of debris (mostly in the form of black specks) are present in the print for a few scenes, though nothing out of the ordinary for age-related wear to a film. The only real complaint I can lodge is the presence of slight horizontal ringing that manifests in some shots. But the halos are very thin in appearance and will be missed by most viewers, so their contribution is negligible to the overall picture. In good news, Paramount has shied away from applying filtering to this transfer, leaving the original detail intact in the image. Close-ups are not razor-sharp, but clarity is pleasing and the resolution a clear grade above the DVD.

_Major League_ deserves a placement somewhere in Tier Three. The current score in 3.5 is not that far off from my evaluation of it, but there are titles above it that do not look as good. A solid Blu-ray from Paramount, which goes to show they can handle older films. Pity the rumor that says Paramount will be pulling back even further from releasing catalog titles on Blu-ray.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1#post16645871


----------



## 42041

*Monster*


This 2003 film has a tolerable but problematic transfer. Contrast is weak, colors are murky, the print has a lot of dust and debris, and the film grain looks suspiciously like noise (though it's distinction that's hard to make with a weak MPEG2 encode). More problematic than the video is the rampant out-of-sync audio, but that's another thread. Between technical issues and stale oscar bait, this is a disc I'd avoid.

*Tier 4.0*


----------



## Incindium

So reading this thread of late it seems that after having the discussion about rating things too high that the pendulum has swung the other way. Or have the recent crop of movies just really been poor so that we are really only getting Tier 3 and 4 quality titles?


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Incindium* /forum/post/19006601
> 
> 
> So reading this thread of late it seems that after having the discussion about rating things too high that the pendulum has swung the other way. Or have the recent crop of movies just really been poor so that we are really only getting Tier 3 and 4 quality titles?



There has been a slight shift in how most participants are rating discs, mostly to enhance the accuracy of the placements and to appropriately classify them. Another factor driving scores down is the bevy of catalog titles being covered lately, as the summer months have a notable lack of new releases which tend to earn higher scores.


One more reason is that the studios seem less concerned now with releasing great demo discs from their older movies, having already cherry-picked from the best-looking, extant masters and released them. So now we are getting catalog titles with more typical picture quality.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Incindium* /forum/post/19006601
> 
> 
> So reading this thread of late it seems that after having the discussion about rating things too high that the pendulum has swung the other way. Or have the recent crop of movies just really been poor so that we are really only getting Tier 3 and 4 quality titles?



I am now home after nearly a month of extensive traveling so I should be able to watch a few Blus soon. If so, I do NOT plan on changing the way I rate the PQ of titles, so my reviews _may_ cause the pendulum to start swinging the other way again.










Having said that, Phantom's response is food for thought; summer releases typically lack the quality that can be seen during other seasons of the year.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Ghost Writer*


This one has been sharpened _just_ a hair, enough to give it an ever so-slight digital look. Detail is bland and halos are occasionally present. Black levels are generally flat, most likely intent. A few green screen effects cause the detail to appear smoothed. Grain is under control.
*Tier 3.5*


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19009391
> 
> 
> I am now home after nearly a month of extensive traveling so I should be able to watch a few Blus soon. If so, I do NOT plan on changing the way I rate the PQ of titles, so my reviews _may_ cause the pendulum to start swinging the other way again.



Welcome back, Dennis. Get back in the game soon, the thread needs some contributions from you, generous or not.


----------



## Cinema Squid

I noticed some nefarious person(s) down-voted the thread so it was a mere four-stars. My own two cents apparently carry some small weight, since it is now at least temporarily restored to five-star status.


Carry on, good sirs and madams! :salute:


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Incindium* /forum/post/19006601
> 
> 
> So reading this thread of late it seems that after having the discussion about rating things too high that the pendulum has swung the other way. Or have the recent crop of movies just really been poor so that we are really only getting Tier 3 and 4 quality titles?




I am fairly busy this time of year and tend to watch a few less movies and I tend to be less motivated to review.


I agree the pendulum has swung the other way, IMO too far, but it is what it is. I was tempted to make a sarcastic comment a couple of weeks back saying it is ok to rate a movie higher than tier 2.







Granted summer has been the time of titles being lesser than in terms of good movies and PQ, but there are several movies I have watched over the last two months and was shocked to see some of the placements, as I felt they were tier 1-2 but most were rated at tier 3.


Most movies I reviewed in the past couple of years were tier 1-2 IMO, and some occasional tier 0 worthy BD's, including catalogue titles from Warner like The Dirty Harry BD's, but most BD's I review are newer releases.


Edge of Darkness was a title that I definitely thought was better than the majority of reviews. Denny was the lowest at 2.25 but I felt it was a 1.75 -2.0 at worst and most came in at 3.0 or lower.


IMO Book of Eli was low tier 0 or tier 1 with some allowance for the muted color scheme dropping it a bit to mid tier 1.


While BD's PQ may have not gotten that much better overall, I don't believe most have gotten worse either, as most reviews were in the tier 1 and 2 range. Most are coming in now at low tier 2 to tier 3, so I would surmise it is more the perspective of how many are reviewing that has changed to be more conservative or critical.







IN fairness, there are several like myself who tend to be liberal or generous, so the other reviewers tend to balance it a bit.


We do look and rate things differently and I am a generous rater typically, but I too will get back in the game soon to lend some balance.


----------



## 42041

I have been consciously trying to follow the 3=average metric with my recent ratings. The average blu-ray looks pretty good, so I don't think it's a bad rating really.


----------



## deltasun

No worries, gents and lady...I am about halfway through _Ghost Writer_, which (unless it really goes south) should comfortably land in Tier 1 and maybe even low Tier 0. :gulp:


Btw, welcome back, Denny and nice to hear from you, Hugh.


----------



## Hughmc

I was just checking the updates that Phantom last did. WOW!! here is one that really needs some more reviews...From Paris with Love.


1.5 Gamereviewgod, 2.25 deltasun, 2.0 jedimasterchad, 3.0 Rob Tomlin and Vegas 4.0.

















That is a huge difference in reviews.


I thought it was 1.5 to 1.75.


Leap year is another:


Leap Year - 1.25 deltasun, 2.5 Patrick99, 3.25 Rob Tomlin


I thought it was about 1.25 as well, but what is interesting is the above reviewers tend to be conservative and consistent with each other, yet they all rated it in separate tiers. It happens sometimes....


----------



## cjmx2

*When In Rome*
I only found one other review for this one so I thought I'd give it a go...About 1/3 of the movie is covered with a soft haze that is just dreadful. It seemed as it was directors intent since it seemed to rear its ugly head during the wedding scenes (which there were a lot of). Detail was lacking during most of the movie, but there were a few scenes (mostly indoors) where it was better. I thought the blacks were pretty crushed (the few night shots this movie had). The best facial shots (very few) made it into the lower tier one range) All in all I was disappointed with this movie for a new release.

I debated between lower tier 2 and high tier 3. All in all I came in next to Gamereviewgod
*Tier 3.0*


ln52b750 - 1080p - 24hz - 8ft


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/19010642
> 
> 
> I have been consciously trying to follow the 3=average metric with my recent ratings. The average blu-ray looks pretty good, so I don't think it's a bad rating really.



And I consciously try to follow the standards set forth on page one of the ranking page!!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/19010645
> 
> 
> I was just checking the updates that Phantom last did. WOW!! here is one that really needs some more reviews...From Paris with Love.
> 
> 
> 1.5 Gamereviewgod, 2.25 deltasun, 2.0 jedimasterchad, 3.0 Rob Tomlin and Vegas 4.0.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a huge difference in reviews.
> 
> 
> I thought it was 1.5 to 1.75.
> 
> 
> Leap year is another:
> 
> 
> Leap Year - 1.25 deltasun, 2.5 Patrick99, 3.25 Rob Tomlin
> 
> 
> I thought it was about 1.25 as well, but what is interesting is the above reviewers tend to be conservative and consistent with each other, yet they all rated it in separate tiers. It happens sometimes....



Well, I actually have a copy of _The Crazies_ which I hope to watch in a couple of hours. That title was also all over the place in ratings:


jedi...................1.5

delta.................2.5

GRG..................3.0

Vegaz................4.0


That is quite the spread! So, I am quite anxious to see this one....I'll chime in as soon as it's over.


Hugh, I was glad to hear you say that you watched _The Book of Eli_ and that you thought it was low Tier 0 or high Tier 1. I rated it 1.0 or 1.25, while delta gave it a 2.25 and GRG a 2.75. Now I wish you would have weighed in with a review to give the final placement more _balance_.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/19010645
> 
> 
> Leap Year - 1.25 deltasun, 2.5 Patrick99, 3.25 Rob Tomlin
> 
> 
> I thought it was about 1.25 as well, but what is interesting is the above reviewers tend to be conservative and consistent with each other, yet they all rated it in separate tiers. It happens sometimes....



I forgot to mention that I reviewed _Leap Year_ too Hugh and I gave it a 1.0. It really is interesting to note the divergence in ratings lately, though it seems you and I are still quite consistent; in other words, we are still _generous raters_.







(Which isn't a bad thing, for it just means we're really enjoying the PQ more than others







.)


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Diary of a Wimpy Kid*


Really, really great color here, popping out of every frame with intensity. Flesh tones are warm, and Steve Zahn has a really creepy tan for this one. Detail is generally high, facial detail a bit low but we're mostly dealing with kids. A bit of noise here and there, and some great photography really makes the scenery come alive. It's a shame the black levels don't hold.

*Tier 2.0*


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/19010645
> 
> 
> I was just checking the updates that Phantom last did. WOW!! here is one that really needs some more reviews...From Paris with Love.
> 
> 
> 1.5 Gamereviewgod, 2.25 deltasun, 2.0 jedimasterchad, 3.0 Rob Tomlin and Vegas 4.0.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a huge difference in reviews.



It definitely was not easy reconciling a few of the placements last time. You guys certainly do not make it easy for me. Djoberg comes back and the thread explodes in discussion.


----------



## djoberg

*The Crazies (2010)*


Well, I guess I'm ready to "muddy the waters" with this review. I say that because my final analysis doesn't agree with any of the 4 previous reviews. Believe it or not, I'm going to veer from my "generous rater" status a bit and go lower than jedi. I just didn't think this one held up good enough to merit a "demo tier" placement (I believe delta said the same thing). But I don't believe it deserves the lower marks of the others either. I believe this straddles the fence between Tiers 1 and 2.


The black levels (and there were MANY, as is to be expected in the horror genre) were a mixed bag. Some were quite good (in fact, most fell into this category), while others were somewhat murky. I wouldn't call them "dark brown" as GRG labeled them, but they were just flat and lacked depth. Shadow details, on the other hand, were fairly consistent, and as jedi pointed out this was one of the strongest virtues of this title.


I was really disappointed with facial details...definitely average or below. This results in a docking of at least a half tier, if not more. Even close-ups fell short of demo-quality, with the possible exception of a couple shots of the deputy. The close-ups of those who were sick at the end looked good, but with all the make-up it was hard to tell if there was any real detail.


Flesh tones were spot on; contrast was decent; colors were average. Besides the aforementioned shadow detail, details in general were very good. There were many scenes of open farm fields where you could see every corn husk or blade of grass...IMPRESSIVE! And check out the marsh scene at about the 17 minute mark where 3 hunters are wading through water...another impressive scene of details (and very SHARP)!


All things considered, the good outweighed the bad, but not enough to put this one on your demo shelf. Soooo....I opt for the following placement....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0 or 2.25*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer BDP-05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Crazies (2010)

recommendation: Tier 1.5*


The source material looks too good to be stuck in tier two, though once again Starz has done no favors to the Blu-ray. My evaluation falls closest to Jedimasterchad's placement, though I do agree with much of what Djoberg said above on the image. Most of the recent releases from Starz look worse than what the original films are capable of in 1080p resolution, and this remake is no exception. One glaring problem is the unneeded addition of edge enhancement to the transfer. That almost drove me to personally place it in Tier 1.75, but it is very close.


The compression encode is competent, but hardly goes the extra mile to extract the best detail in each frame. I am not sure I can comprehend a ranking for this BD below the middle of tier two. The dimensionality and crispness of the image quality is too great in my opinion to allow that to happen.


BDinfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...postcount=1766


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19012812
> 
> *The Crazies (2010)*
> 
> 
> Well, I guess I'm ready to "muddy the waters" with this review. I say that because my final analysis doesn't agree with any of the 4 previous reviews. Believe it or not, I'm going to veer from my "generous rater" status a bit and go lower than jedi. I just didn't think this one held up good enough to merit a "demo tier" placement (I believe delta said the same thing). But I don't believe it deserves the lower marks of the others either. I believe this straddles the fence between Tiers 1 and 2.
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.0 or 2.25*



Upon further reflection in thinking about your review, I am going to officially lower my own score to Tier 1.75.


----------



## 42041

*Milk*


Good looking movie. The cinematography is attractive, and many shots have excellent detail. Some scenes don't look so good by the criteria of this thread. There's a lot of rough-looking archival footage and new footage made to look like it; diffusion/soft lenses are employed in some scenes. Interiors often have a dimly lit look with grainy shadow regions.

*Tier 2.25*


----------



## deltasun

*The Ghost Writer*


One word: DEPTH! This film had it in abundance, from medium to long, inside, outside...you name it. There's even a scene of "The Ghost" in an airport bar where you can clearly see details in the runway behind him, past the glass window.


Colors are a bit muted, but when primaries show up, they are vivid. A fine layer of grain is always present, preserving the look of film throughout. Skin tones are faithful and natural.


Blacks are a bit shady at times and rarely stand out, but they were adequate for the picture. Still, I would consider it a weakness. Shadow details, on the other hand, were superb. Details, in general, were plentiful. Facial details can be very good, but would count it the second weakness. Understand, however, that they're weaknesses because of all the superb strengths. Contrast is top notch.


I do think the PQ wavered a bit towards the end (the apartment scene). It was probably enough to take it out of high Tier 1. In summary, the picture is very clean and very precise. I would still opt for...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*


Typical Polanski fare - very deliberate, with a nice build up. Endings are usually questionable and that's the case here. The unraveling seems too simple/derived. Still enjoyed it!

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19015517
> 
> *The Ghost Writer*
> 
> 
> One word: DEPTH! This film had it in abundance, from medium to long, inside, outside...you name it. There's even a scene of "The Ghost" in an airport bar where you can clearly see details in the runway behind him, past the glass window.
> 
> 
> Colors are a bit muted, but when primaries show up, they are vivid. A fine layer of grain is always present, preserving the look of film throughout. Skin tones are faithful and natural.
> 
> 
> Blacks are a bit shady at times and rarely stand out, but they were adequate for the picture. Still, I would consider it a weakness. Shadow details, on the other hand, were superb. Details, in general, were plentiful. Facial details can be very good, but would count it the second weakness. Understand, however, that they're weaknesses because of all the superb strengths. Contrast is top notch.
> 
> 
> I do think the PQ wavered a bit towards the end (the apartment scene). It was probably enough to take it out of high Tier 1. In summary, the picture is very clean and very precise. I would still opt for...
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.25*
> 
> 
> Typical Polanski fare - very deliberate, with a nice build up. Endings are usually questionable and that's the case here. The unraveling seems too simple/derived. Still enjoyed it!
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_



You've really whetted my appetite with your good review delta. The local video store that carries Blus dropped the ball on this one and only ordered the SD version, so I'm wondering if I should purchase this. Would you recommend buying it?


BTW, I just saw GRG's review and it's diametrically opposed to yours (with critical remarks and a 3.5 rating). If I recall he too has a 46" LCD so once again I'm baffled that two seasoned reviewers could watch the same movie on similar sets and yet have vastly different conclusions regarding the PQ.


----------



## cjmx2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19011327
> 
> 
> And I consciously try to follow the standards set forth on page one of the ranking page!!



Maybe we declare rating blu-rays an olympic sport so we can drop the highest and lowest rating when phantom scores...


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19014907
> 
> 
> Upon further reflection in thinking about your review, I am going to officially lower my own score to Tier 1.75.



I'm tempted to *raise* my score to 1.0 or 1.25 so that it ends up somewhere close to where it deserves to be. I say this because the rating by Vegaz (he gave it an unbelievable 4.0) is going to drop it down quite a bit. Yet we must judge each title exactly as we see it, so I'll leave mine as is.


Vegaz, if you do read this, I would encourage you to reconsider your recommendation. You basically said it deserves a 4.0 because of the blacks. Personally I thought the blacks were fairly good throughout, but even if they weren't there were enough other virtues to put this one in Tier 2. Let's not be guilty of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater."


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19015936
> 
> 
> I'm tempted to *raise* my score to 1.0 or 1.25 so that it ends up somewhere close to where it deserves to be. I say this because the rating by Vegaz (he gave it an unbelievable 4.0) is going to drop it down quite a bit. Yet we must judge each title exactly as we see it, so I'll leave mine as is.



Just give each Blu-ray a score that reflects your earnest beliefs about its picture quality. Hacking the system in that way treads a dangerous path that undermines the legitimacy of the rankings. This movie has already been placed in the Tiers at 2.25 in the last update, which already accounted for the recommendation by Vegaz. Given the new recommendations, I am disinclined to move it very much unless strong arguments are made.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19016632
> 
> 
> Just give each Blu-ray a score that reflects your earnest beliefs about its picture quality. Hacking the system in that way treads a dangerous path that undermines the legitimacy of the rankings.



I agree wholeheartedly Phantom and that's why I said I would be leaving my score "as is." I have NEVER rated a title in order to "hack the system," though I am *tempted* to (at times).


Well, I just visited one of our local video stores and ended up renting _Green Zone_ with Matt Damon. I have no idea what the PQ is like (I did zero research on it), but the movie sounds good. (The heat is sweltering today with a dew point of about 70...a perfect day to chill out in my air-conditioned theater room!)


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Piranha (1978)*


This is one of those "they did the best with what they had" situations, although the encode could have used a bit more work. Compression is pretty apparent in spots, enough to be a distraction. Some black crush during the movie, yet the opening is too light and reveals noise. Some vibrant colors, including the greens of the various forests. Some print damage, but it's generally under control. Limited detail.
*Tier 4.0*


----------



## djoberg

*Green Zone*


What a mess!! I was truly underwhelmed by this transfer and my recommendation is going to reflect that sentiment.


The BAD:


1) As was mentioned by GRG, this is NOISY! The majority of night scenes looked like scenes out of _28 Days Later_ (which is currently at the bottom of the barrel in Tier 5). In them there is VERY LITTLE DETAIL and DEPTH, and SOFTNESS ABOUNDS.


2) Even in daytime scenes, there is LITTLE in the way of APPRECIABLE DEPTH or DETAIL.


3) CONTRAST was also HOT in multiple daytime scenes, resulting in poor detail.


4) BLACKS LEVELS were INCONSISTENT, to say the least. Even when they were good, they weren't really deep and inky.


4) Many scenes had JERKY CAMERA WORK, making it impossible to identify any PQ virtues there might have been.


5) A MUTED COLOR PALETTE, in keeping with the genre, added to the lack of eye candy.


The GOOD:


1) In _SOME_ daytime scenes there was a FAIR AMOUNT OF DETAIL.


2) Again, in some daytime scenes (and yet very rare), there were _SOME SHOTS_ with DEPTH and CLARITY.


3) FLESH TONES were, for the most part, ACCURATE.


4) There were a _FEW SHOTS_ where FACIAL DETAILS reached TIER 1 QUALITY, but these were "few and far between."


I decided to refresh my memory as to the standards we use for the bottom 3 tiers and I would have to say that MOST of the night time scenes fell squarely in Tier 5. Daytime scenes were a mixed bag, but the majority were average (i.e., Tier 3), at best. Thankfully there were more daytimes scenes so this could still possibly merit a Tier 3 ranking, but IMO it would have to be at the very bottom and thus my vote goes for....

*Tier Recommendation: 3.75*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer BDP-05....Viewed from 7.5'


PS I did enjoy the movie, in spite of Hollywood's relentless desire to preach against the war in Iraq.


----------



## OldCodger73

_Mary and Max_ is definitely a Tier 0 title although IMO its placement is too high. Excellent detail but not quite up to some of the highest ranked titles.

*Mary and Max Tier 0 right below Toy Story.*


The movie itself is either one that you think is unbelievably creative or one that leaves you cold. I fell in the latter camp.


Panasonic 65" S1, Panasonic BD85, 7 1/2'


----------



## OldCodger73

When I first started watching _Cocoon_ I was really impressed with the PQ, that is until I remembered that the previous day I had watched _The Last of the Mohicans_ on LD and realized that a BD had better look outstanding compared to a LD.


When all is said and done, _Cocoon_, while a nice transfer, is a very average BD.

*Cocoon Tier 3.5*


The movie itself is kind of cute, although I must admit not quite as cute as it was when I first saw it shortly after its release. I guess being one of them thar old folks now colors one's perception.


Panasonic 65" S1, Panasonic BD85, 7 1/2'


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19015914
> 
> 
> You've really whetted my appetite with your good review delta. The local video store that carries Blus dropped the ball on this one and only ordered the SD version, so I'm wondering if I should purchase this. Would you recommend buying it?
> 
> 
> BTW, I just saw GRG's review and it's diametrically opposed to yours (with critical remarks and a 3.5 rating). If I recall he too has a 46" LCD so once again I'm baffled that two seasoned reviewers could watch the same movie on similar sets and yet have vastly different conclusions regarding the PQ.



Hey Denny, sorry I'm a bit late in replying. I liked the movie, but would find it hard to have the occasions for repeat viewings. So, I would still recommend a rental first, unless you're a Polanski fan and you can find it inexpensive.


I just read GRG's review and, while I recognize some of what he says, I don't agree that they're to the extent that would bring it down to 3.5. I don't think the sharpening looked unnatural or detrimental to the picture. Just another perspective. 1.25 for me.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19015936
> 
> 
> I'm tempted to *raise* my score to 1.0 or 1.25 so that it ends up somewhere close to where it deserves to be. I say this because the rating by Vegaz (he gave it an unbelievable 4.0) is going to drop it down quite a bit. Yet we must judge each title exactly as we see it, so I'll leave mine as is.
> 
> 
> Vegaz, if you do read this, I would encourage you to reconsider your recommendation. You basically said it deserves a 4.0 because of the blacks. Personally I thought the blacks were fairly good throughout, but even if they weren't there were enough other virtues to put this one in Tier 2. Let's not be guilty of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater."



Regarding the 4.0 score and how it affects final placement...I didn't think it should.







One of the key merits of this thread is that the scoring system is not based on a simple average. For the most part, averaging works, but I thought we also weighed the reviewers actual review. In this case, Vegaz felt the black levels took this all the way to tier 4. Unless, the blacks are actually dirty white, I don't see how it could bring it down this far.


I agree that they were subpar blacks, but not to this extent. Unless there are other issues, I don't see how it holds water to bring it down to tier 4. His/Her rating should be considered an outlier.


----------



## OldCodger73

Quite frankly after reading the _Road to Perdition_ thread I didn't quite know what to expect and feared the worst, given all the negative posting about various digital flaws especially in the dark scenes and in close-ups.


One of the advantages to not being a videophile expert, for better or worse, is these real or imagined flaws totally elude me. I felt the movie was better than average. Dark scenes did suffer some detail loss and outdoor scenes were color manipulated to give a dated creamy look to enhance the time and place. Some facial close-ups of Tom Hanks were clearly edging into Tier 0. The cinematography is truly outstanding.


Overall I'd rate *Road to Perdition a solid Tier 2.5*.


The musical score really adds to the movie and the sound effects are surprising good-- I almost jumped off the sofa at the start of the first machine gun scene.


When I saw the film on release in a theatre I never really liked it, I guess because it was the first "fat" Tom Hanks movie and the he was cast against his good-guy image. Anyway, the movie is a great piece of story telling and very effective movie making.


Panasonic 65" S1, Panasonic BD85, 7 1/2'


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Brothers Bloom


recommendation: Tier 1.5*


The image is just too consistently sharp, and with a high degree of clarity, to rank anywhere but in tier one. Summit has done a decent job on the transfer and Blu-ray, giving it a sizable video encode that averages nearly 29 Mbps on a BD-50. A bit of aliasing does pop up on occasion. But that hardly minimizes the excellent depth of focus and perceived dimensionality throughout much of the movie. Contrast is just short of perfection with appropriate and pleasing color rendition.


For a film that I had not heard much buzz about that anywhere, it is a very good comedic drama in the mold of Rushmore. Fans of Wes Anderson will enjoy the Brothers Bloom, even though he had no hand in the movie.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Patsfan123):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...7#post17284217


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19018235
> 
> 
> Hey Denny, sorry I'm a bit late in replying. I liked the movie, but would find it hard to have the occasions for repeat viewings. So, I would still recommend a rental first, unless you're a Polanski fan and you can find it inexpensive.



Thanks delta! I'll be in a nearby city that is quite large this week and I'll rent it from one their many video stores.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19018257
> 
> 
> Regarding the 4.0 score and how it affects final placement...I didn't think it should.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the key merits of this thread is that the scoring system is not based on a simple average. For the most part, averaging works, but I thought we also weighed the reviewers actual review. In this case, Vegaz felt the black levels took this all the way to tier 4. Unless, the blacks are actually dirty white, I don't see how it could bring it down this far.
> 
> 
> I agree that they were subpar blacks, but not to this extent. Unless there are other issues, I don't see how it holds water to bring it down to tier 4. His/Her rating should be considered an outlier.



I had forgotten the fact that Phantom will be considering the actual review that Vegaz gave on that title.....and I agree 100% that basing his 4.0 placement on just one flaw is not justified and I trust Phantom will use discernment in how much weight to give to his rating.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Darkman


recommendation: Tier 3.75*

_Darkman_ is a Universal film from 1990 and was released in June of this year on Blu-ray. The picture quality is a real mixed bag, though probably acceptable for its fans. Encoded in VC-1 on a BD-25, the average video bitrate for the 95-minute movie is somewhat low at 20.84 Mbps given source material of this problematic nature. Some filtering is evident in certain scenes, which turns textures into a glossy, plastic sheen that stands out on fleshtones that are overly warm and red.


I really wonder if this transfer was taken from the original camera negative, or more likely an early-generation film print or dupe? One shot appears to contain a reel-change indicator mark, meaning the source of this transfer is probably a duller film print. Rumor has it Universal lost a number of original negatives in a warehouse fire a few years ago. None to little dirt and scratch removal has been performed, as a number of lines and anomalies appear at various points. It looks a bit worse than other comparable catalog titles on BD in that aspect. The opening scene and a few later scenes show unmistakable evidence of digital noise reduction, reducing flesh to the now-familiar plasticized look that tool provides.


Parts of the film are simply soft and vary in quality, due to the principal photography and special effects employed. None of Raimi's films have ever looked that great on Blu-ray, as he must not care that much about picture quality. Budgetary limitations are probably another factor in them, though one would expect better consistency from shot to shot. _Darkman_ is definitely not eye candy, but just enough resolution to barely achieve a rank in tier three.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post18818895


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Funny Farm*


The opening may be one of the worst examples of a Blu-ray ever, the mixture of thick smoke and natural grain completely overwhelming the encode. This happens pretty regularly, aside from those shots that appear quite digital and processed. Colors can be vivid, and blacks fairly deep, although they do crush at times. Some filtered lighting toward the end is noted too.

*Tier 4.25*


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*She's Out of My League*


This is one of the worst new releases I've ever seen on Blu-ray.


There is nothing positive here. Zero. Colors don't look natural, details are lacking, and contrast is terrible.


Definitely below average, especially for a new release. Too bad, because the movie has some really funny parts.

*Tier Recommendation: 4.0*


----------



## deltasun

*Paris, Texas*


Vivid colors and the unexpected 3D pop in medium scenes are two unexpected attributes to grace this wonderful Criterion presentation. Blacks are adequate and contrast is right on most of the time.


Some of the issues include the rosy skin tones, poor shadow details, medium to long details, ringing, and the instance of color timing in the beginning. You can literally see details evaporate on Travis as he slowly walks away from the camera in the Texas landscape.


Facial details aren't the best, but is not horribly smoothed over either. A healthy helping of grain is present throughout and noise does play tricks in darker areas. Overall, the picture still looks palatable.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

*Kick-Ass*


There are some excellent bouts of PQ on this title - perfect contrast, very good blacks (though inconsistent), good medium depth. At times, the picture takes on a weird look (the best I can describe it). The smooth faces don't help either, but is the norm for the entire movie. This is probably the first time where I find the smooth faces natural. Natural to the movie's look, not natural in nature. Skin tones also get that saturated look, which can get bothersome. Darker scenes exhibit more of the "weird" look as well as overly bright scenes.


I must say though - the "weird" scenes don't really make the PQ dip much. It's just different and unusual. Some of the panoramas look great, with crisp dimensionality. Others are too crisp and have to be green screen'd - the lighting on these seem unnatural (e.g., Kick-Ass walking down a neighborhood with the sun setting in the background - looks like the two scenes were spliced together).


Some aliasing did crop up on the numerous slow pans (shingles on rooftop was very noticeable), but were short lived. When the scenes look great, I start questioning myself on the "weird" scenes. Thank goodness for the remote or I'd have a Tier 0 contender. Overall, I'd still like to give this a Gold rating, but there are issues that place it just slightly lower for me.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


Very shocked at how violent this was. Thought it was more of a kid's movie, with the super hero motif and all. I am quite mistaken.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19015517
> 
> *The Ghost Writer*
> 
> 
> One word: DEPTH! This film had it in abundance, from medium to long, inside, outside...you name it. There's even a scene of "The Ghost" in an airport bar where you can clearly see details in the runway behind him, past the glass window.
> 
> 
> Colors are a bit muted, but when primaries show up, they are vivid. A fine layer of grain is always present, preserving the look of film throughout. Skin tones are faithful and natural.
> 
> 
> Blacks are a bit shady at times and rarely stand out, but they were adequate for the picture. Still, I would consider it a weakness. Shadow details, on the other hand, were superb. Details, in general, were plentiful. Facial details can be very good, but would count it the second weakness. Understand, however, that they're weaknesses because of all the superb strengths. Contrast is top notch.
> 
> 
> I do think the PQ wavered a bit towards the end (the apartment scene). It was probably enough to take it out of high Tier 1. In summary, the picture is very clean and very precise. I would still opt for...
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.25*[/i]



I'm going to take the easy way out this time and spare you my personal review, for deltasun's review hits the proverbial "nail on the head" in almost every area of description. The only thing I would add to his review is that I thought the first 77 minutes (on the island) were too dreary (i.e., bland due to its lack of color), and in my estimation it deserves to be penalized for it. At the 1 hr. 18 min. mark, when the Ghost Writer goes to the mainland and visits the home of Professor Emmett, the picture becomes much more sharp and colorful, and as a result it really pops at times. I'm not insinuating in the least that it lacked depth before that, for deltasun was quite right in his praise of the depth in this film, but with the added sharpness and color the depth was enhanced remarkably.


Again, I'm going to dock it for its dreariness during much of the first 77 minutes, but not by much. I'm hoping it lands right here.....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer BDP-05....Viewed from 7.5'


PS I found it interesting that the movie's pace was also too slow during the first 77 minutes, but once the Ghost Writer reaches the mainland the pace picks up and so did my interest. So, whether or not it was intentional or not, both the PQ and the film's plot became quite absorbing starting at the 1 hr. 18 minute mark, resulting in my being riveted to the screen from that point on.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*James and the Giant Peach*


This one starts with one of the most god awful sequences I've ever seen. Combine fog, grain, diffused lighting, and an encode that can't keep up. Ouch. It gets marginally better for the opening live action book-end, but is still noisy and overly compressed. Thankfully the animation comes through with some really well-rendered stuff, including some really superb detail on the puppets and spotty but still vibrant color. The ending live action stuff is great too.

*Tier 3.0*


----------



## cjmx2

*Date Night (2010)*The first thing I noticed about this was the very strong film grain presence that seems to dominate a good majority of the film (reminded me of x-men last stand). It was a little distracting a few times but mostly fine. As a result it was very natural and film like...no apparent DNR, etc. Detail and sharpness were fair but also rather consistent...most of the movie hovered around tier 2 with a few good facial shots here and there (not a ton). There were quite a few darker scenes that really didn't have a lot of detail but didn't really looked crushed either. just muddy. Contrast was OK but not stellar...not a ton of 3d pop but it had a few good well lit scenes that did well. Fox has done better work, but for a comedy it was pleasing to watch. A little better than the junk Warner has been releasing lately...All in all I'd say about...
*Tier 2.5*BTW as a Steve Carell fan it was pretty funny...him and Tina Fey play off each other pretty well


ln52b750 - 1080p - 24fps - 8ft


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cjmx2* /forum/post/19032860
> 
> *Date Night (2010)*
> 
> 
> The first thing I noticed about this was the very strong film grain presence that seems to dominate a good majority of the film
> *Tier 2.5*





The issue here is this wasn't shot on film. It's all digital, and that's all noise. It's constant, at times spiking to unbearable levels.


Detail is never very precise, and the awful amount of digital smearing is pathetic. It made taking screen shots damn near impossible. Some scenes are so smoothed over it looks worse than Kick-Ass. Some black crush is evident, and flesh tones are warm. Ugly as hell.

*Tier 3.75*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cjmx2* /forum/post/19032860
> 
> *Date Night (2010)*
> 
> 
> The first thing I noticed about this was the very strong film grain presence that seems to dominate a good majority of the film (reminded me of x-men last stand). It was a little distracting a few times but mostly fine. As a result it was very natural and film like...no apparent DNR, etc.






> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19033472
> 
> 
> The issue here is this wasn't shot on film. It's all digital, and that's all noise. It's constant, at times spiking to unbearable levels.



Don't feel bad about mistaking noise for grain, cjmx2....it happens to MANY of us at times.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19036153
> 
> 
> Don't feel bad about mistaking noise for grain, cjmx2....it happens to MANY of us at times.



Agreed. I didn't make that clear. I'm not calling you out or anything, just getting it out there. Sorry if it was taken any other way.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19036317
> 
> 
> Agreed. I didn't make that clear. I'm not calling you out or anything, just getting it out there. Sorry if it was taken any other way.



For the record GRG, I knew you were just enlightening him (and not meaning to offend); I just wanted cjmx2 to realize that it's easy to mistake the one for the other (and then to conclude that film was the culprit).


----------



## 42041

*Road To Perdition*


A bit of a wonky transfer. Which is unfortunate, since Conrad Hall's beautiful cinematography is the most remarkable part of this film. There seems to be a good bit of noise in the transfer, which has been tamed by temporal noise reduction. Something is surely amiss when many daylight scenes look worse than the dim interiors, with frozen patterns of noise hanging in the image like someone stuck a textured piece of glass between the film and the scanner. From my viewing distance, I found it very distracting and annoying. In some exterior shots, the DNR is dialed down and the noise becomes pretty overwhelming. Interiors tend to look better in this regard, where the noise and reduction thereof is more subtle. Despite these issues, there is often a good bit of detail in the transfer (though the photography tends to favor a soft look and muted colors). Occasionally it's easy to see why Sam Mendes gushes about the blu-ray on his intro to the film, but IMO it's a bit problematic.

*Tier 3.25*


(PS3/Pioneer 50" Kuro Elite/1 screen width distance)


----------



## deltasun

*Death at a Funeral* (2010)


Warm, rich tones dominate this feature, with lots of golden hues. Blacks are bold with no incidence of crush that I recall. Contrast is striking for the most part, with only a handful of outdoor scenes dipping a bit.


Skin tones are spot on and faithful. Details are in abundance (though I would have liked more texture to match) and grain is well controlled. Depth is decent, but doesn't wow. Facial details are solidly in Tier 1 (save for some instances with Frank), but wouldn't consider them higher.


Overall, a pretty solid performance from Sony (as usual). I didn't not spy any foul play.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.50*


Glad I didn't blind buy this BR. The previews were hilarious, but those were pretty much the only funny parts. What's worse is that, in context of the actual scenes, they weren't so funny.









_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## cjmx2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19036317
> 
> 
> Agreed. I didn't make that clear. I'm not calling you out or anything, just getting it out there. Sorry if it was taken any other way.



No Biggie I'm just here to have fun...where do you find out if it is shot on film or digital?...I remember in Phanton's reviews he references cinema squid's thread...when I went to the Blu-ray specs thread thread I was unsuccessful in finding that info. I should have known something was up because it was not consitent and sometimes the picture was smooth (and lacked detail)


Regarding the new information...if that was noise and not grain that is really bad...I am used to seeing that kind of noise in Cable TV HD broadcasts in darker scenes (24 comes to mind)...but many of the scenes were better lit and that just means that did a really bad job on the encode. I would like to lower my initial recommendation a little over one half tier to *3.25*


----------



## John Mason




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cjmx2* /forum/post/19037984
> 
> 
> ...where do you find out if it is shot on film or digital?...



Go to imdb.com. Select and enter drop-down title. Go to 'tech specs' for the movie. Digital vs film shooting isn't always spelled out...but often it's specified. Add a little salt to imdb's listings since, at times, they're clearly in error. -- John


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cjmx2* /forum/post/19037984
> 
> 
> Regarding the new information...if that was noise and not grain that is really bad...I am used to seeing that kind of noise in Cable TV HD broadcasts in darker scenes (24 comes to mind)...but many of the scenes were better lit and that just means that did a really bad job on the encode. I would like to lower my initial recommendation a little over one half tier to *3.25*



Again, it SHOULD NOT matter - noise, grain, digital, film - it's what you SEE on the screen. We are rating these titles based on how it looks, regardless of the underlying explanation on why it looks that way. You should not have to lower or raise your score based on new information on the film, particularly a three quarter tier difference at that!


It is important to maintain this approach to get consistency (which I know we have not been lately, potentially because of reasonings such as this). Otherwise, the thread doesn't really work.


Make sense?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I have not seen Date Night, but know it was shot on the Genesis, a digital camera. From the description of the noise, it sounds like the ISO was set too high during principal shooting which can ruin the image. Lots of film crews sadly do not know how to properly shoot using these digital cameras, as many of them are more familiar or comfortable with traditional film.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19039154
> 
> 
> Again, it SHOULD NOT matter - noise, grain, digital, film - it's what you SEE on the screen. We are rating these titles based on how it looks, regardless of the underlying explanation on why it looks that way. You should not have to lower or raise your score based on new information on the film, particularly a three quarter tier difference at that!
> 
> 
> It is important to maintain this approach to get consistency (which I know we have not been lately, potentially because of reasonings such as this). Otherwise, the thread doesn't really work.
> 
> 
> Make sense?



It makes sense to me!


If I see heavy grain (on a title on film) or lots of noise (on a title shot on digital), I will dock it either way, for both LOOK BAD to me. Now where I would make a distinction is between a fine layer of "light grain" (which may actually enhance details and give it a nice film look) and "light noise" (which, on digital, will look like a flaw). Does that make sense?


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19037378
> 
> *Death at a Funeral* (2010)
> 
> 
> Warm, rich tones dominate this feature, with lots of golden hues. Blacks are bold with no incidence of crush that I recall. Contrast is striking for the most part, with only a handful of outdoor scenes dipping a bit.
> 
> 
> Skin tones are spot on and faithful. Details are in abundance (though I would have liked more texture to match) and grain is well controlled. Depth is decent, but doesn't wow. Facial details are solidly in Tier 1 (save for some instances with Frank), but wouldn't consider them higher.
> 
> 
> Overall, a pretty solid performance from Sony (as usual). I didn't not spy any foul play.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.50*



While I adored this movie and laughed all the way through, I'll agree with this assessment of the pic. The only thing I disagree with are the black levels, which I found lackluster, generally inside the home. Detail always held though, with some really rich texture, sort of balancing it out.

*Tier 1.5*


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19040737
> 
> 
> ...The only thing I disagree with are the black levels, which I found lackluster, generally inside the home...



I only used *bold* for the blacks, not *inky*.







I know, I know...you wouldn't even go bold.










I really wanted to like the movie, just did not get into the flow.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19040134
> 
> 
> It makes sense to me!
> 
> 
> If I see heavy grain (on a title on film) or lots of noise (on a title shot on digital), I will dock it either way, for both LOOK BAD to me. *Now where I would make a distinction is between a fine layer of "light grain" (which may actually enhance details and give it a nice film look) and "light noise" (which, on digital, will look like a flaw). Does that make sense?*



I will answer YES, as long as...again, the ending result is being judged. That is, for the sake of argument, let's say light noise causes more detail. Then, that's positive. If light grain looks like a flaw then that's a negative.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Dracula 2000 (Canadian Import)


recommendation: Tier 2.5*


Dracula 2000's picture quality looks just good enough to nudge its way into the middle of tier two. Alliance's release is the only BD available of this movie in the entire world. Given that it is a property controlled by Miramax, the studio recently sold by Disney, there is little hope it shows up on Blu-ray outside of this disc. The movie runs exactly 99-minutes on a BD-25, encoded in AVC.


Is this BD the best possible quality for Dracula 2000 on Blu-ray? No, Alliance uses their typical methods in acquiring a dated transfer and encoding it at substandard compression parameters. Indicia from the credits give clues that the source employed was originally intended for the UK, possibly a HD master intended for broadcast from a second-generation print. Acknowledging that fact, the picture quality turns out positively decent, bereft of unneeded digital processing or filtering. The framing is mostly correct at an aspect ratio of 2.35:1, whereas the film was theatrically exhibited at 2.39:1. It consistently looks a touch sharper and bolder than another exclusive BD from them reviewed for the thread, The Faculty. Resolution is above-average when the camera focuses in on tight shots and displays more depth than I expected from a neglected catalog title.


The transfer looks to be an older telecine scan likely not from the original film elements, but a latter generation source. Clarity is generally strong throughout with good detail, but there is more detritus from film print irregularities than is common in a movie that is only a decade old. A number of scratches and dirt specks are scattered about the image at times. Check the scene involving Mary's confession to the priest for one example.


The video encode, once again done by the Canadian firm who has handled a number of Alliance's Blu-rays, does not hold up to the best or even average encodes of today coming from the major studios. Bitrates range in a fairly strict manner between 15 Mbps to 25 Mbps, likely producing an average rate near 20 Mbps. Touches of chroma noise and posterization creep in at times, though they are infrequent enough to bother only videophiles.


Certain scenes centered around Dracula look washed out a bit early in the film, which is strange because the contrast is mostly very pleasing in all other scenes. Black levels are not very inky, but shadow delineation is strong and highly revealing. The picture quality is largely consistent, varying between the highs and lows of tier two. Some scenes absolutely exude dimensionality, while a few effect shots soften the proceedings.


A modern transfer from a newly-struck master would likely end up producing a Blu-ray deserving of a placement in the lower quartiles of tier one. The difference might very well end up as large as the gulf between the two different cuts of Natural Born Killers. But that is a theoretical discussion which does not impact my placement. This BD still proves to be an immense upgrade over the DVD in both audio and picture quality, though lacking the extra features of the DVD.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19041781
> 
> 
> I will answer YES, as long as...again, the ending result is being judged. That is, for the sake of argument, let's say light noise causes more detail. Then, that's positive. If light grain looks like a flaw then that's a negative.



I agree, for as the old adage goes..."perception is reality."


----------



## deltasun

*Open House*


Filmed using the mighty Red One, this feature struggled in its darker scenes. Shadow details were pretty....shall we say...lackluster. Blacks fared a bit better, but still not the deepest. Facial details can be really good, specially on Lila. The rest of the cast were hit or miss.


Skin tones were mostly faithful. Contrast was inconsistent. Colors were not only muted, but also catatonic. Most medium shots were flat.


Despite the negatives, the picture still managed to stay on this side of average.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cjmx2* /forum/post/18794024
> 
> *Extraordinary Measures*Just to start out I would say I was disappointed with the overall softness and flat look of this film. Several other reviews (not avs) pointed to the "extraordinary transfer" and I was wondering if we were watching the same movie. There were a few good facial close ups...but that's about it and they were in no way consistent. The 1st half landed I felt in lower tier 3 and the 2nd half was a little better maybe bottom of 2 top of 3....all in all
> 
> *Tier 3.25*





It was "chick flick" night and my wife chose this one. We knew from reviews that it was based on true events and that it was a "feel good" movie, so we decided to get the tissues out and have at it. It wasn't bad at all, though I wish I could say I "felt good" about the PQ!










I'm going to side with cjmx2 on this one; his review was short and to the point and I happen to agree with everything he said. Regarding his comment about "a few good facial close-ups," there were actually several of actor Jared Harris (who played Dr. Kent Webber) that qualified for Tier 0, and a couple of Brendan Fraser that rivaled those in Tier 1 movies. This begs the question, "Why weren't all the facial close-ups that good?"


He didn't comment on blacks but I agree with deltasun and GRG who censured them for being flat, though there were a couple of rare instances (towards the end) of night skies that came close to blending in with the black bezel on my Pioneer. I also noticed several shots with black crush (on black suits worn by Fraser which looked like they had no seams, pockets, lapels, or buttons).


To be fair, there were some isolated scenes where the softness disappeared and it was quite sharp, with corresponding detail. Had this been the rule, and not the exception, this could have landed in Tier 2. But being what it was it can only be looked upon as "average." Again, cjmx2 nailed it with the following recommendation.....

*Tier Recommendation: 3.25*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer BDP-05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## cjmx2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19039154
> 
> 
> Again, it SHOULD NOT matter - noise, grain, digital, film - it's what you SEE on the screen. We are rating these titles based on how it looks, regardless of the underlying explanation on why it looks that way. You should not have to lower or raise your score based on new information on the film, particularly a three quarter tier difference at that!
> 
> 
> It is important to maintain this approach to get consistency (which I know we have not been lately, potentially because of reasonings such as this). Otherwise, the thread doesn't really work.
> 
> 
> Make sense?



yeah it makes sense....thanks for being patient as I am learning the ropes


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cjmx2* /forum/post/19047149
> 
> 
> yeah it makes sense....thanks for being patient as I am learning the ropes



It's always good to get some fresh perspectives in the thread. Give recommendations for anything you might want to comment on or influence.


----------



## djoberg

*From Paris With Love*


I went into this one knowing that previous reviews ranged from 1.5 (GRG) to 4.0 (Vegaz) and believe it or not my final analysis falls into the lower end. (Am I actually losing my ability to be generous?







)


My biggest complaints with this title coincide with those of Rob Tomlin who said it lacked _CLARITY_ and _DEPTH_. There was a fair amount of DETAIL at times (when the grain was minimal), but at other times heavy grain (especially during dark scenes) hindered detail. Skin tones were also a mixed bag with some looking natural and then they would turn orange/golden. Blacks too were inconsistent.....deep and inky one minute....flat and murky the next.


This obviously makes for a hard call, but in the end I couldn't bring myself to raise this above Tier 3. I'm going to join my colleague Rob and vote for....

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer BDP-05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## deltasun

*Escape from New York*


Cannot really find any redeeming qualities for this film in terms of PQ. Okay, maybe I will mention that I did not see any EE or any smudging.


Outside of those, because of the predominantly dark, nighttime shots, I can only describe this as murky. Murky because shadow details are poor and the picture was mostly flat. Details were non-existent also, save for maybe a couple of scenes - and those were maybe Tier 2 detailed. There are no facials details to really speak of. Colors were drab and lifeless.


Oh, I hear this is a worthy upgrade from the DVD.







Grain is preserved, but do see lots of noise in several scenes including the pre-dawn shot Manhattan.

*Tier Recommendation: 4.50*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Smallville: The Complete Sixth Season


recommendation: Tier 4.0*


Currently placed in Tier 2.25, that is nothing but a glaring error. The poor compression, originally intended for HD DVD, simply looks woeful and obsolete. This set looks worse than the broadcast version at times, emphasizing the deficiencies in the original production while subtracting detail that should be included in the picture.


A very marginal upgrade over the DVDs, but expected from the older Warner Blu-rays like this set.


----------



## 42041

*Cool Hand Luke*


The current 2.0 placement may be a bit generous by the standards of the current state of the format, but this is a pretty nice-looking disc from Warner, considering the source limitations of the 1967 film. As with other films shot with old anamorphic lenses, there's a soft haziness to the image, but resolution is good, resolving fine details of the scenery and delivering satisfactory facial detail. There is a mild layer of grain, and I did not note any undue digital manipulation (DVDbeaver's claim of DNR is unfounded). Colors are somewhat faded and the shadow regions of the image are not very dark. The compression is not WB's worst effort, though not up to the standards of most studios. Overall, a satisfactory image, occasionally even impressive.

*Tier 3.0*


----------



## deltasun

*Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief*


I pretty much agree with my predecessors regarding this title. I would like to highlight that there were excellent blacks, contrast, depth, shadow details. The Underworld has never looked this good in high definition, and I don't mean Vegas. Well, Vegas looked great too!


The few complaints that I had: (1) the CGI was horrible and detracted; (2) facial details were not consistent within the cast, but a minor gripe; (3) I spotted some ringing throughout.


Based on these, I will lower the collective rating by a quarter Tier...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

*Road to Perdition*


Still one of my favorite cinemas. I hate to say that this is probably not the best this film will ever look. Despite that, I still think it looks pretty good and lands just above our average benchmark.


Softness is probably the biggest culprit, followed closely by some murky black levels and shadow details. I would say though that though the blacks were not the boldest, they retained some surprising details in most scenes. Crushing was also avoided for the most part. Contrast was not the strongest, but was adequate for the look of the film. Colors were also a bit subdued, but when primaries did show up, particularly in daylight, they popped. Well-rendered facial details were rare - there was an extreme close-up of Daniel Craig that was the exception.


There were the occasional specks here and there and grain was inconsistently present throughout. Noise was also evident in a few daylight scenes, specially in the beach scene towards the end.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*National Lampoon's Vacation*


You know, I'm pleasantly surprised here. Colors are clean and bright, grain is well resolved in most scenes, and quite a bit of high fidelity detail shows through. The source is in great shape too. Shadow detail is unfortunately poor, and grain does spike in darker scenes. It's a bit soft too. Pretty good stuff though.
*Tier 3.5*



__________
*Sphere*


A Warner release with clear signs of excessive DNR. Up close, the detail is fine, certainly tricky to the eye, but any distance and the processing become evident. Waxy faces, pale flesh tones, and limited detail in any environment is a consistent problem. A bit of black crush too. Source material is fine.
*

Tier 4.0*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Edge


recommendation: Tier 3.75
*

A 1997 thriller from the pen of David Mamet, Fox decided to finally release the Edge on May 11 of this year, having held it back for no reason. It is apparent the disc was authored years ago when the format was still young. At a length of 117-minutes, the main feature is encoded in MPEG-2 at an average video bitrate of 17.61 Mbps on a BD-25. The outstanding nature scenery in the film prevents too low of a score, but the transfer is problematic to say the least.


Fox dug up an older master from many years ago for the source of this BD's transfer. It was obviously never intended to be seen at 1080p resolution, probably targeted for a DVD at creation. All the hallmarks of an old transfer made on a telecine from a faded print are present, from the gate weave to the instability and wobble that show up briefly. Touches of accumulated dirt also make their appearance. The major issue is the thorough application of digital noise reduction that visibly affects the skin textures of every actor. Anthony Hopkins has not looked this young in decades, as the wrinkles are wiped away by the filtering. In addition fleshtones are overly warm and ruddy.


Aside from the problems in the transfer, there appear to be a number of issues in the original anamorphic photography of the film. The first thirty minutes or so contain a number of issues, from high-amplitude optical ringing to lens distortions and flares. That section qualifies quite well for Tier four. It is actually a jarring change when the action shifts to the wilds, where the cinematography improves considerably. Quantifying that change as more than a tier in magnitude is the most accurate description.


The combination of an old transfer and inconsistent cinematography lead to the placement in Tier three. Some of the movie looks quite decent, but there are many scenes that simply lack sharpness and definition. Add to that an image that has been largely stripped of finer detail, and you end up with an unsatisfactory BD. If Fox had created a modern transfer from the original negative, this movie might easily have ended up in Tier two.


----------



## JayPSU

*Gladiator: Remastered Edition*


First, I want to thank Paramount for caring enough to correct the obvious problems with the original release of one of their best catalog titles, and offering an exchange program for people to get this new release and only have to pay the postage to send in their old disc.


As for the review of this remastered edition, it is absolutely breathtaking. There appears to be absolutely no traces of the same problems the previous release had. Blacks are deep and glossy, details are no longer obscured and are amazing with film grain restored, facial details are absolutely incredible, the colors are absolutely beautiful and jump off the screen. The fight scenes in the Roman Coliseum are nothing short of top of tier zero quality beauty. Amazing! As disappointed as I was with the original release, I was absolutely floored with this release. I only had two complaints. At times some scenes that should be brighter are overly dark, but I believe this is more of what the director intended and not really a flaw on the transfer. The other minor complaint I have is that at times I could see white specs mixed in with the film grain. I'm not exactly sure what the cause of that is. Really though, these are just small things that I'm nitpicking.


I know some people may argue with me on this one, but honestly, I see no reason this version should not be somewhere in tier zero.

*Tier Recommendation: 0*


Samsung LN-T4065F Samsung BD-1500 1080P/24 5'


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JayPSU* /forum/post/19054683
> 
> *Gladiator: Remastered Edition*
> 
> 
> First, I want to thank Paramount for caring enough to correct the obvious problems with the original release of one of their best catalog titles, and offering an exchange program for people to get this new release and only have to pay the postage to send in their old disc.
> 
> 
> As for the review of this remastered edition, it is absolutely breathtaking. There appears to be absolutely no traces of the same problems the previous release had. Blacks are deep and glossy, details are no longer obscured and are amazing with film grain restored, facial details are absolutely incredible, the colors are absolutely beautiful and jump off the screen. The fight scenes in the Roman Coliseum are nothing short of top of tier zero quality beauty. Amazing! As disappointed as I was with the original release, I was absolutely floored with this release. I only had two complaints. At times some scenes that should be brighter are overly dark, but I believe this is more of what the director intended and not really a flaw on the transfer. The other minor complaint I have is that at times I could see white specs mixed in with the film grain. I'm not exactly sure what the cause of that is. Really though, these are just small things that I'm nitpicking.
> 
> 
> I know some people may argue with me on this one, but honestly, I see no reason this version should not be somewhere in tier zero.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 0*
> 
> 
> Samsung LN-T4065F Samsung BD-1500 1080P/24 5'



Whoa, this is news to me that Universal issued a Remastered version of Gladiator. I did a Google Search and the only thing I came up with to confirm what you say is the following:

http://whathifi.com/News/Universal-P...Blu-ray-discs/ 


The only problem I see with their offer is that it specifically says that UK owners of Gladiator can exchange their copy for the new one. I didn't read anything about those in other countries being able to make the exchange. Can you help us out here? I would obviously love to exchange my copy if this is a legitimate offer....and if more reviews come in confirming the superiority of the Remastered Edition.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19054948
> 
> 
> Whoa, this is news to me that Universal issued a Remastered version of Gladiator. I did a Google Search and the only thing I came up with to confirm what you say is the following:
> 
> http://whathifi.com/News/Universal-P...Blu-ray-discs/
> 
> 
> The only problem I see with their offer is that it specifically says that UK owners of Gladiator can exchange their copy for the new one. I didn't read anything about those in other countries being able to make the exchange. Can you help us out here? I would obviously love to exchange my copy if this is a legitimate offer....and if more reviews come in confirming the superiority of the Remastered Edition.



Absolutely for good for US owners. This was all over the Gladiator thread. This info is from Digital Bits:


For U.S. consumers, mail Disc One of the old Blu-ray ONLY to...


PHE MKT

c/o Deluxe Media Mgmt

PO Box 801464

Valencia, CA 91380-1464


Enclose your name, address and phone number. They'll send you back the new remastered Disc One in about 4 weeks.

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/mytwoc...3.html#080410b


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19055267
> 
> 
> Absolutely for good for US owners. This was all over the Gladiator thread. This info is from Digital Bits:
> 
> 
> For U.S. consumers, mail Disc One of the old Blu-ray ONLY to...
> 
> 
> PHE MKT
> 
> c/o Deluxe Media Mgmt
> 
> PO Box 801464
> 
> Valencia, CA 91380-1464
> 
> 
> Enclose your name, address and phone number. They'll send you back the new remastered Disc One in about 4 weeks.
> 
> http://www.thedigitalbits.com/mytwoc...3.html#080410b



Thanks GRG! Have you seen the Remastered Edition? If so, what is your take on it?


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19055296
> 
> 
> Thanks GRG! Have you seen the Remastered Edition? If so, what is your take on it?



I'm sending mine in this week, although I'm not sure if you have to contact them first or if you want just send it with the requested info. I'll do a full review once I get the new disc.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JayPSU* /forum/post/19054683
> 
> 
> The other minor complaint I have is that at times I could see white specs mixed in with the film grain. I'm not exactly sure what the cause of that is.



It's dust/hairs/fibers on the negative. Out of the new transfers put out by Paramount, only Minority Report seems to have had much dust-busting done, Braveheart and Saving Private Ryan are also a bit dusty.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/19055613
> 
> 
> It's dust/hairs/fibers on the negative. Out of the new transfers put out by Paramount, only Minority Report seems to have had much dust-busting done, Braveheart and Saving Private Ryan are also a bit dusty.



Have you seen the Remastered Edition?


I am really hoping the opening battle scene (which is quite long) is much better. The Sapphire version's opening scene was absolutely, positively horrendous!


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19055727
> 
> 
> Have you seen the Remastered Edition?
> 
> 
> I am really hoping the opening battle scene (which is quite long) is much better. The Sapphire version's opening scene was absolutely, positively horrendous!



I saw the first 30 minutes or so on a friend's TV. It looked excellent in my opinion (though I'm not sure the movie's visual style is Tier 0 material), definitely much improved.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/19055816
> 
> 
> I saw the first 30 minutes or so on a friend's TV. It looked excellent in my opinion (though I'm not sure the movie's visual style is Tier 0 material), definitely much improved.



Sounds good! I'll be sending my Sapphire copy in today and hopefully it will be here by the end of September.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19054948
> 
> 
> The only problem I see with their offer is that it specifically says that UK owners of Gladiator can exchange their copy for the new one. I didn't read anything about those in other countries being able to make the exchange. Can you help us out here? I would obviously love to exchange my copy if this is a legitimate offer....and if more reviews come in confirming the superiority of the Remastered Edition.



Copies of the newly remastered Gladiator are already in some stores if you know what markings to look for on the packaging. I sent in my original Blu-ray (having never actually watched it!) about three weeks ago for replacement by Paramount. I will probably give it a grade for the purposes of the thread, but honestly the movie has never been one of my favorites.


----------



## JayPSU




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/19055816
> 
> 
> I saw the first 30 minutes or so on a friend's TV. It looked excellent in my opinion (though I'm not sure the movie's visual style is Tier 0 material), definitely much improved.



Yeah, maybe the problem for me was that what I remember most is how amazing the scenes in the Roman coliseum looked, because in my opinion, those scenes are top of tier zero material. The entire movie is not quite as good as that, but that is what sticks in my mind. What sealed my decision to recommend Gladiator for tier zero was the fact that I saw Braveheart is in tier 1, and I thought Gladiator was a step above Braveheart in terms of picture quality. Thus the reason for my recommendation.


----------



## Sujay




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19055727
> 
> 
> Have you seen the Remastered Edition?
> 
> 
> I am really hoping the opening battle scene (which is quite long) is much better. The Sapphire version's opening scene was absolutely, positively horrendous!


 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1263450 


Looks like you missed a lot the past few weeks.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19055841
> 
> 
> Copies of the newly remastered Gladiator are already in some stores if you know what markings to look for on the packaging. I sent in my original Blu-ray (having never actually watched it!) about three weeks ago for replacement by Paramount. I will probably give it a grade for the purposes of the thread, but honestly the movie has never been one of my favorites.



I ended up sending my copy to the US address.


I had written to the UK contact and I received the following email from them today:


Dear Customer,


Thank you for your e-mail. We would like to thank you for taking the time to write to us regarding Gladiator blu-ray.


Universal Pictures UK has been pleased with the success of Gladiator on Blu-ray, which has resulted in a high level of customer satisfaction. *However, whilst there was no technical fault on the original Blu-ray master, a small number of enthusiasts have expressed a preference towards slight technical alterations. After careful consideration, we have revisited the mastering process to address those concerns.*


If you wish to exchange your original UK purchased DVNR (digital video noise reduction) feature disc we ask that you send us just your disc 1 in an envelope with your name and address enclosed. Please keep your original packaging and we will post you out a new disc 1.


Please note new discs will not be available in the UK for approximately 1 month.


Universal Pictures (UK) Ltd


Gladiator Exchange'


Kind Regards


Universal UK Customer Service


I found the words that I highlighted quite amusing! "Slight technical alterations"....MY EYE!!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sujay* /forum/post/19057897
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1263450
> 
> 
> Looks like you missed a lot the past few weeks.



Yeah, I've been "out of the loop" for nearly two months (I've been travelling extensively)!










It is a pleasant surprise though to see that Universal/Paramount actually listened to some of us and did the right thing. _Gladiator_ is a favorite of mine so I'm one Happy Camper!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JayPSU* /forum/post/19054683
> 
> *Gladiator: Remastered Edition*
> 
> 
> First, I want to thank Paramount for caring enough to correct the obvious problems with the original release of one of their best catalog titles, and offering an exchange program for people to get this new release and only have to pay the postage to send in their old disc.
> 
> 
> As for the review of this remastered edition, it is absolutely breathtaking. There appears to be absolutely no traces of the same problems the previous release had. Blacks are deep and glossy, details are no longer obscured and are amazing with film grain restored, facial details are absolutely incredible, the colors are absolutely beautiful and jump off the screen. The fight scenes in the Roman Coliseum are nothing short of top of tier zero quality beauty. Amazing! As disappointed as I was with the original release, I was absolutely floored with this release. I only had two complaints. At times some scenes that should be brighter are overly dark, but I believe this is more of what the director intended and not really a flaw on the transfer. The other minor complaint I have is that at times I could see white specs mixed in with the film grain. I'm not exactly sure what the cause of that is. Really though, these are just small things that I'm nitpicking.
> 
> 
> I know some people may argue with me on this one, but honestly, I see no reason this version should not be somewhere in tier zero.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 0*
> 
> 
> Samsung LN-T4065F Samsung BD-1500 1080P/24 5'



I'm quoting your review again because I just came across a very respected reviewer who said it was the BEST Remastered Blu-ray he has ever seen (which means that your review may be "right on the mark"). Here is his review:

http://www.landofwhimsy.com/archives...rsary-edition/ 


If this doesn't whet the appetite of those who want to see _Gladiator_ the way it's meant to be seen, nothing will!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Just remember that even the best remasterings may not necessarily land a movie in Tier Zero. It all comes down to how the end product looks in comparison to other titles currently ranked in that tier.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19059403
> 
> 
> Just remember that even the best remasterings may not necessarily land a movie in Tier Zero. It all comes down to how the end product looks in comparison to other titles currently ranked in that tier.



You are right Phantom.


I neglected to add that on the Gladiator: Remastered thread some (that have seen it) are comparing it with _Braveheart_ and declaring _Gladiator_ the clear winner. IMO _Braveheart_ was nearly a Tier 0 title, so my hopes are definitely up for _Gladiator_.


And besides.....I have possibly a month to wait for my exchanged disc to arrive so I'm going to get as much mileage out of this as I can until the postman delivers it.


----------



## deltasun

I've been waiting a couple of weeks now for a price drop on the Remastered version. I've gone as far as having the copy in my basket at Walmart and thinking...you can't possibly pay $22 for that!! I'm one of the weirdos who wants to keep my busted copy just so I can one day in the future show friends/family how bad it got. I don't mind keeping my $8 copy of history.










Still, my hands are itching...specially with reviews like that. I honestly don't think it can reach Tier 0 territory, but it's gotta be close.


----------



## vpn75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19059366
> 
> 
> I'm quoting your review again because I just came across a very respected reviewer who said it was the BEST Remastered Blu-ray he has ever seen (which means that your review may be "right on the mark"). Here is his review:
> 
> http://www.landofwhimsy.com/archives...rsary-edition/
> 
> 
> If this doesn't whet the appetite of those who want to see _Gladiator_ the way it's meant to be seen, nothing will!



Wow, that was a great review and the posted screenshots look amazing! I'm anxiously awaiting my replacement copy!


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Our Family Wedding*


WOW! What could be one of the worst studio releases of the year gets a simply awesome transfer. Detail is through the roof, whether in low light or daylight. Texture here simply rocks. Black levels are rich and consistent, and the environments are brimming with detail. Colors are slightly elevated, providing plenty of pop. Just a hint of softness in spots.
*Tier 1.0*


--------------

*The Last Song*

A really awful effort from Disney, a rarity. Really processed and digital throughout, with some occasionally waxy faces. Detail is really rare, scenes with any facial texture could be counted on one hand. Environments are muddy and bland. Black levels are inconsistent. Yuck. It's got some sharpness, well resolved minimal grain, and vibrant color in spots.

*Tier 3.75*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Batman: Under The Red Hood


recommendation: Tier 1.5*


Another animated feature from Warner Bros. Animation, the presentation is typically strong as expected on this type of material, but some curious banding problems block any higher of a placement. The 75-minute movie is encoded as usual in VC-1 at an average of 16.94 Mbps. There was enough space on the BD-25 to retain lossless audio for the main feature.


Having watched all of these features on Blu-ray starring various DC Comics' heroes, _Batman: Under The Red Hood_ looks mildly similar to them in style. The combination of traditional, flat animation with CGI backgrounds is again employed here, though the actual animation style of the characters looks a bit improved in quality from the earlier releases. Colors pop from the screen in a way that only animated material can on Blu-ray. The deep, crisp blacks never show a hint of crushing and create the perfect atmosphere for Gotham. Characters exude a razor-sharp appearance which creates an illusion of depth and perspective.


A problem that does emerge is the frequent sighting of significant banding, particularly in the backgrounds. Its magnitude is worse than I have seen on a new release from a true high-definition source in a long time. While the effect is not pervasive, it does intrude and occasionally distracts from the picture quality. The combination of low compression parameters, with defects in the compositing process used to create some of the animation, are the likely cause of the banding. Otherwise the image is stellar, as the animators seem to have solved the problem of visible aliasing along the edges of the line-art.


The aforementioned problem might lead some evaluations of this disc to as low as Tier 1.75, but it really is demo-quality much of the time. A spot in the middle of tier one looks appropriate.


----------



## hernanu

*Gladiator Remastered - US version*


Excellent facial detail, especially good at displaying realistic facial color ranges, from fair skin to dark - just beautiful. All colors really stand out with great blacks and as mentioned, the gladiator combat was very well presented.


I have to commend Panasonic & Universal for stepping up and recognizing a mistake. The easy and cynical thing would have been to let a poor transfer stand, instead they give us this. Not the premise here, but the combination of stellar PQ and sound makes this a showcase disk for me.

*Recommend Tier 0*


Vizio XVT472SV 47" Smart dimming LED HDTV, 1080p60 resolution, source: Oppo BDP-83, viewed at 8 feet.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hernanu* /forum/post/19069306
> 
> *Gladiator Remastered - US version*
> 
> 
> Excellent facial detail, especially good at displaying realistic facial color ranges, from fair skin to dark - just beautiful. All colors really stand out with great blacks and as mentioned, the gladiator combat was very well presented.
> 
> 
> I have to commend Panasonic & Universal for stepping up and recognizing a mistake. The easy and cynical thing would have been to let a poor transfer stand, instead they give us this. Not the premise here, but the combination of stellar PQ and sound makes this a showcase disk for me.
> 
> *Recommend Tier 0*
> 
> 
> Vizio XVT472SV 47" Smart dimming LED HDTV, 1080p60 resolution, source: Oppo BDP-83, viewed at 8 feet.



Thanks for the good review! Where exactly in Tier 0 would you recommend it?


Well, that's two votes for Tier 0 for the Remastered Edition and I hope they keep coming in (in other words, I really do hope the PQ is deserving of such a high placement).


The more I hear about this new edition, the more impatient I become (knowing I probably have a few weeks to wait for my exchanged copy).


----------



## hernanu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19069412
> 
> 
> Thanks for the good review! Where exactly in Tier 0 would you recommend it?
> 
> 
> Well, that's two votes for Tier 0 for the Remastered Edition and I hope they keep coming in (in other words, I really do hope the PQ is deserving of such a high placement).
> 
> 
> The more I hear about this new edition, the more impatient I become (knowing I probably have a few weeks to wait for my exchanged copy).



I can only judge by titles I have, so I'd say ahead of Toy Story 2, not as good as Avatar.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Furry Vengeance*


I swear I'll avoid any snide comments about the movie. Color is fantastic (unlike the movie). Shot digitally, there is no grain to speak of, and just a hint of noise (unlike the sound of Brendan Fraser's voice). Textural detail can be amazing, if a bit inconsistent (also unlike the movie, which was consistently pathetic). Some stunning sights of forested areas resolving every little nuance (like Fraser in a tight hot pink hoodie). Impressive stuff (in terms of video).

*Tier 1.5*


----------



## Sujay

*Mary and Max*

*Wow!* If this doesn't deserve reference placement, I don't know what will. Unbelievable title.


First of all the movie is great, very touching, cute, funny, quirky, emotional. Overall well-rounded film.


Okay, back to the visuals. *Detail, detail, detail.* No other Blu-ray I've seen touches this. The sheer amount of sharp detail within each shot is just astounding. This is another stop-motion animated film akin to Coraline. Shot on Canon Digital SLR still image cameras, the RAW 4K images transfer beautifully here. I can't say enough about the amazing clarity throughout the whole movie.


Several sections of the movie are in black and white, and I think that was a brilliant decision as it lends to more excellent imagery with some of the inkiest blacks and beautiful contrast I've ever seen on my display. I think the black and white also brings forward even more clarity than if it was in color. A lot is owed to the brilliant and thoughtful cinematography.


No edge enhancement or DNR or any other type of meddlesome processing can be seen thank god and I didn't notice any banding or other such issues.


What more can I say? I don't know if I can express it more but I think this is a title that everyone in this thread will really enjoy. It's the type of movie that makes me see the true potential and possible zenith of Blu-ray and how wonderfully it can reproduce such imagery. Props to everyone involved. The audio is a treat too. Not much wham bam, but it shines in excellent moments when needed.

*Tier Recommendation: REFERENCE*


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

hey guys~! has been a long, long summer (ironic, for the arctic!) and hopefully I will be back into the swing of things soon... the kiddos will be back to school in a couple of weeks. I cannot remember the last time I watched a blu...


I did read back, and don't forget... LEAP YEAR belongs in Tier Cow Pie!!! terrible movie, terrible pq.







If you don't know what i'm talking about, search back for my review on it and subsequent posts. hehe!


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/19078737
> 
> 
> hey guys~! has been a long, long summer (ironic, for the arctic!) and hopefully I will be back into the swing of things soon... the kiddos will be back to school in a couple of weeks. I cannot remember the last time I watched a blu...



Everything has been so quiet in the thread this summer, with your and djoberg's extended absences. Get back soon and watch some Blu-rays.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*European Vacation*


A step down from the original Vacation, a transfer where detail really vanishes once into Europe. The sights carry no real impact. The source if fine and flawless, and the encode handles the grain well, but little benefit from the upgrade to Blu besides some increased color.

*Tier 4.0*


--------------

*The Evil Dead*


It's 16 mm and it looks it. Heavy grain structure throughout, well resolved though even with smoke and fog. Some great detail in close, although obviously not up to par with better film stocks. A great boost in color is noted at the start. Flesh tones are accurate, and blood is a rich red. No real anomalies on the transfer, and the source is perfection. Great blacks too, sometimes at the expense of shadow detail.
*Tier 3.75*


----------



## OldCodger73

For what they're worth here are some capsule reviews.

*A Serious Man*


Basically good sums up the PQ on this title, good detail, depth and color.

*A Serious Man Tier 1.75*.


Typical Cohen brothers movie, the film lasts so long and then abruptly stops. Rotten Tomato rates this at 88%. I guess i'm a low-brow, I found this movie pointless, but then again, maybe the point was that there was no point.

*What's Up, Doc?*


This 1972 film is another minimum effort Warners Brothers release. Very pronounced grain, only low average sharpness. Depth and color were average.

*What's Up, Doc? Tier 3.75*


This is one of the great screwball comedies.

*Alice in Wonderland*


PQ was all over the place. In many scenes sharpness suffered. Color was also strange in some scenes, probably director's intent to enhance the fantasy element.

*Alice in Wonderland Tier 3.0*


This was really a disappointing movie and seemed about an hour longer than its almost two hour run time.

*Nanny McPhee*


This was a really nice transfer. Detail and depth were good and closeup detail approached Tier 0. Colors were vivid, although at time background was deliberately washed out to accentuate the main area of focus.

*Nanny McPhee Tier 1.5*


The movie tops in at 110% on the cuteness scale but all in all it's very enjoyable. When Emma Thompson pounds her staff the final time, the LFE really makes you sit up and take notice.


Panasonic 65" S1, Panasonic BD85, 7 1/2'


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Vampyres


recommendation: Tier 4.5*

_Vampyres_ is a film that tries to evoke the horror movies produced by Hammer, the legendary British studio. Originally produced in 1974, the 87-minute feature has been lovingly transferred to Blu-ray by Blue Underground, known for their cult releases and genre classics. The transfer is absolutely perfect and exemplary from a technical standpoint. But the resolution available on the Blu-ray format exposes serious limitations in the original cinematography, which does lead to its placement in Tier four.


Encoded in AVC at an average bitrate of 24.98 Mbps on a BD-25, the transfer eschews any use of filtering or edge enhancement. That is important, as the image retains a distinct film-like appearance where significant layers of grain and softness pervade most frames. Film-lovers will find the picture quality as faithful to the original prints as possible. It likely has not looked this good in the decades since first release. In all phases of the production cycle for Blu-ray, from acquiring solid elements to proper mastering, Blue Underground has done a top-notch and high-quality job on _Vampyres_. The larger studios could take a cue and treat their titles with the same level of respect and care.


The picture itself is very soft much of the time. Scenes inside the boudoir are lit in a moody, romantic style that obscures fine detail and softens the picture. Generally there is little depth to the photography, though certain outdoor settings look decent. There are hints of crushing at times where shadow detail is reduced. Contrast unfortunately falters where the grain becomes exaggerated in the poor lighting of certain scenes.


No one should expect eye candy, but the BD is still an immense upgrade over prior DVDs of the film. The grain structure alone looks much better than in the limited resolution of DVD. Fans of cult movies and horror aficionados should check it out. A ranking this low merely reflects the nature of the original material, as it looks as best it can on BD.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Planet Hulk


recommendation: Tier 2.75*


Marvel's latest animated feature from Lionsgate looks a tad underwhelming on Blu-ray. The disc looks perfectly adequate on a technical basis, but the quality of the animation suffers in comparison to better efforts. Character modeling looks sparse and barely above the standards of a television show. Witness the lack of detail visible in the Hulk's design, not to mention the sparse backgrounds. There is also the presence of slight blurring to much of the feature that leads to a softer and hazier appearance than is typical for animation. I have seen it used before on anime, but never on an American production.


The budget for this feature must have been minuscule and not on par with prior releases of this nature from Marvel or DC comics. One wonders if the native resolution of the animation is truly 1080p, or of a lower caliber. Frankly, _Planet Hulk_ is a disappointment in terms of both story and picture quality.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...9#post18058679


----------



## deltasun

*The Losers*


First thing to note is the boosted contrast. Once the film is in full flight however, the look is appropriate for the content. Colors are wildly exaggerated as well. Blacks are deep and details are mostly impressive. Details on the face - not so much. There were a couple of extremes on Cougar that touched high Tier 1, but wasn't the norm on medium or so shots for the rest.


Depth/Dimensionality is decent as well. The establishing cityscape scenes had good rendering, but noise did creep in in a few of them. Shadow details can be a mixed bag and would say lowered the PQ a tad.


Overall, a very palatable look. Some ringing are apparent on high contrast edges.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*


Surprisingly good movie to boot. Granted, lots of over-the-top action at times, but very enjoyable, in my opinion. There are some funny moments.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## lgans316

*Pandorum - Tier 2.25* (this one looked pretty good but there were few inconsistencies in black levels which looked grey at times)

*Gangs of New York - Tier 2.25* (Good remastering effort but many shots suffers from lack of definition due to the filming style and the smoggy setup)

*Law Abiding Citizen - Tier 3.0* (wished the movie looked like the trailer. Plenty of post processing seems to have been applied to create a cold and desaturated look)

*Snow White and Seven Dwarfs - Tier 3.5*[/size]


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/19078737
> 
> 
> hey guys~! has been a long, long summer (ironic, for the arctic!) and hopefully I will be back into the swing of things soon... the kiddos will be back to school in a couple of weeks. I cannot remember the last time I watched a blu...



Yeah, this has been, without a doubt, one of the busiest summers I've ever had. My wife and I just got back from a 5-day trip and this morning we are leaving for another week of travelling so I won't be sitting in my sweet spot watching Blus until at least next week at this time.


I'll look forward to hearing from you soon G3!


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*DOA: Dead or Alive*


A really bright, colorful effort. Contrast is perfect, and black levels are consistently deep. Detail in close can be phenomenal, if a bit consistent. The biggest issue is the poorly resolved grain which breaks down on a regular basis into clumps of noise. The encode just isn't up to it.

*Tier 2.0*


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19083510
> 
> *The Losers*
> 
> 
> First thing to note is the boosted contrast. Once the film is in full flight however, the look is appropriate for the content. Colors are wildly exaggerated as well. Blacks are deep and details are mostly impressive. Details on the face - not so much. There were a couple of extremes on Cougar that touched high Tier 1, but wasn't the norm on medium or so shots for the rest.
> 
> 
> Depth/Dimensionality is decent as well. The establishing cityscape scenes had good rendering, but noise did creep in in a few of them. Shadow details can be a mixed bag and would say lowered the PQ a tad.
> 
> 
> Overall, a very palatable look. Some ringing are apparent on high contrast edges.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.25*
> 
> 
> Surprisingly good movie to boot. Granted, lots of over-the-top action at times, but very enjoyable, in my opinion. There are some funny moments.
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_



Hey deltasun, did you get my PM?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

To simplify the Tiers list and make the process of updating a little less arduous, there will likely be changes coming ahead to the actual listings. The current listing is in this format:


bb nf *Fighting* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Universal


My current plans are to move new entries into this format:


bb nf *Fighting* Video: VC-1 | Universal


While the aspect ratio and audio specifications are nice to have at a glance, they are by no means authoritative or the raison d'être of the Tiers. More importantly cutting them would save time in handling the updates. Clicking through the movie's title will still lead to scores of reviews with that information.


Do users feel keeping the audio/AR specs for entries that already have them, important or not? The Placement Holdings list will only be used in the future for updates that are new to either Tier 0 or Tier 1. That had somewhat been my unstated policy the last few months and no one seemed to complain, but I just wanted to make that explicit. All other updates will just go on the main list as usual.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Another month passes and the Tiers get another update, current through all posts. The following recommendations were included, but if anyone ever sees a mistake or thinks I overlooked anything, just point it out to me through a private message. As always, please notify me personally if there happens to be a dead or wrong link in the Tiers, or something looks wrong like a duplicate entry. Mistakes will be corrected. That goes for lurkers as well as regular contributors.


Lucky Number Slevin - 3.0 42041


True Romance - 3.75 Phantom Stranger


Repo Men - 2.0 Gamereviewgod


Operation Endgame - 4.75 Gamereviewgod, 5 Vegaz


Clash Of The Titans (2010) - 2.5 deltasun, 3.0 cjmx2, 3.0 Gamereviewgod, 3.5 Patrick99, 3.25 jedimasterchad


Sling Blade - 2.75 42041


Glory - 3.0 42041


From Paris With Love - 4.0 Vegaz, 3.0 djoberg


The Losers - 4.0 Vegaz, 2.25 deltasun


Rock N' Roll High School - 2.75 Vegaz


Galaxy Of Terror - 3.0 Vegaz


Forbidden World - 2.25 Vegaz


The Runaways - 2.0 Vegaz


The Crazies (2010) - 4.0 Vegaz, 2.0 djoberg, 1.75 Phantom Stranger


Batman: Under The Red Hood - 1.75 Vegaz, 1.5 Phantom Stranger


The Green Zone - 3.25 deltsasun, 3.75 djoberg


Fanboys - 4.0 Gamereviewgod


The Bounty Hunter - 2.75 deltasun


The Boondock Saints - 3.25 42041


Spies Like Us - 4.25 Gamereviewgod


Samurai 7: series - 2.25 Phantom Stranger, 2.75 tfoltz


Downfall (UK import) - 4.5 Phantom Stranger


After.Life - 3.75 Gamereviewgod


Kick-Ass - 3.0 Gamereviewgod, 2.0 deltasun


Major League - 3.0 Phantom Stranger


Monster - 4.0 42041


The Ghost Writer - 3.5 Gamereviewgod, 1.25 deltasun, 1.5 djoberg


When In Rome - 3.0 cjmx2


Diary of a wimpy Kid - 2.0 Gamereviewgod


Milk - 2.25 42041


Piranha - 4.0 Gamereviewgod


Mary & Max - 0 below Toy Story OldCodger73, 0 Sujay


Cocoon - 3.5 OldCodger73


Road To Perdition - 2.5 OldCodger73, 3.25 42041, 2.75 deltasun


The Brothers Bloom - 1.5 Phantom Stranger


Darkman - 3.75 Phantom Stranger


Funny Farm - 4.25 Gamereviewgod


She's Out Of My League - 4.0 Rob Tomlin


Paris, Texas - 2.75 deltasun


James & the Giant Peach - 3.0 Gamereviewgod


Date Night - 3.25 cjmx2, 3.75 Gamereviewgod


Death At A Funeral - 1.5 deltasun, 1.5 Gamereviewgod


Dracula 2000 - 2.5 Phantom Stranger


Open House - 2.75 deltasun


Extraordinary Measures - 3.25 djoberg


Escape From New York - 4.5 deltasun


Smallville: Sixth Season - 4.0 Phantom Stranger


Cool Hand Luke - 3.0 42041


Percy Jackson - 1.75 deltasun


National Lampoon's Vacation - 3.5 Gamereviewgod


Sphere - 4.0 Gamereviewgod


The Edge - 3.75 Phantom Stranger


Gladiator (remastered) - 0 JayPSU, 0 above Toy Story 2 hernanu


Our Family Wedding - 1.0 Gamereviewgod


The last Song - 3.75 Gamereviewgod


Furry Vengeance - 1.5 Gamereviewgod


National Lampoon's European Vacation - 4.0 Gamereviewgod


The Evil Dead - 3.75 Gamereviewgod


A serious Man - 1.75 OldCodger73


What's Up, Doc? - 3.75 OldCodger73


ALice In Wonderland - 3.0 OldCodger73


Nanny McPhee - 1.5 OldCodger73


Vampyres - 4.5 Phantom Stranger


Planet Hulk - 2.75 Phantom Stranger


Pandorum - 2.25 lgans316


Gangs of New York (remastered) - 2.25 lgans316


Law Abiding Citizen - 3.0 lgans316


Snow White - 3.0 lgans316


DOA: Dead or Alive - 2.0 Gamereviewgod


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Wolfman (2010)


recommendation: Tier 3.5*


Oh dear, there is something wrong with the picture quality on this one. One of the worst-looking new releases I have watched on Blu-ray, the transfer by Universal is wretched. Sadly that is the least of the problems for the film's image, as the hacktastic post-production done on the feature and unusual directorial choices combine to make _the Wolfman_ look awful for a big-budget Hollywood production. This is one of the first times where the obvious flaws in the picture quality severely curtailed my enjoyment of the movie itself.


To make it clear, the sins that can be attributed to the encoding on the Blu-ray are many, combining to degrade the already murky photography. Universal made a very bad decision to squeeze in two cuts and copious extras on one disc, as the low-bitrate AVC compression work turns out horrible. Chroma noise and frequent posterization are just two problems. Problems abound to give the impression little care was taken on its encoding to Blu-ray.


To sharpen the otherwise soft imagery, a glaring dose of edge enhancement has been applied that produces halos so severe as to be caught by even the most oblivious viewer. Shot originally on film, any vestige of grain has been removed from the entire movie. Decidedly not what a cinephile would describe as film-like or true to the raw, unprocessed source material.


Worse than the technical problems described above are the intentionally-inflicted decisions made by the director and creative personnel on the film. Struck from a Digital Intermediate, the movie shows horrible choices in post-production, from the hackneyed color timing that looks amateurish at times to the use of candle light in the original shooting. Some scenes contain a horrible gauzy appearance, as if filmed using a Pro-Mist filter. The general tone looks similar to the recent Sherlock Holmes, if every bad visual choice in that film was amplified and exaggerated.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1#post18844461


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19091648
> 
> *The Wolfman (2010)
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 3.5*
> 
> 
> Oh dear, there is something wrong with the picture quality on this one. One of the worst-looking new releases I have watched on Blu-ray, the transfer by Universal is wretched. Sadly that is the least of the problems for the film's image, as the hacktastic post-production done on the feature and unusual directorial choices combine to make _the Wolfman_ look awful for a big-budget Hollywood production. This is one of the first times where the obvious flaws in the picture quality severely curtailed my enjoyment of the movie itself.
> 
> 
> To make it clear, the sins that can be attributed to the encoding on the Blu-ray are many, combining to degrade the already murky photography. Universal made a very bad decision to squeeze in two cuts and copious extras on one disc, as the low-bitrate AVC compression work turns out horrible. Chroma noise and frequent posterization are just two problems. Problems abound to give the impression little care was taken on its encoding to Blu-ray.
> 
> 
> To sharpen the otherwise soft imagery, a glaring dose of edge enhancement has been applied that produces halos so severe as to be caught by even the most oblivious viewer. Shot originally on film, any vestige of grain has been removed from the entire movie. Decidedly not what a cinephile would describe as film-like or true to the raw, unprocessed source material.
> 
> 
> Worse than the technical problems described above are the intentionally-inflicted decisions made by the director and creative personnel on the film. Struck from a Digital Intermediate, the movie shows horrible choices in post-production, from the hackneyed color timing that looks amateurish at times to the use of candle light in the original shooting. Some scenes contain a horrible gauzy appearance, as if filmed using a Pro-Mist filter. The general tone looks similar to the recent Sherlock Holmes, if every bad visual choice in that film was amplified and exaggerated.
> 
> 
> BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1#post18844461



I watched this previously and didn't get around to doing a review, but I couldn't agree with you more on your review and placement of this title. Quite disappointing, especially for a new title.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18748952
> 
> 
> 
> I do see you rated _Wolfman_ 3.5 and my rating was 2.0. I would love to have others view this and chime in with an opinion and a recommendation. This difference (of ratings) isn't quite as great as those we've seen in _Leap Year_, but it's enough to give me the desire to see more input from others.



My input is that 2.0 is WAY too high for this title! Even for you!


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/19091834
> 
> 
> I watched this previously and didn't get around to doing a review, but I couldn't agree with you more on your review and placement of this title. Quite disappointing, especially for a new title.



Just my speculation, but the unprocessed camera negative could easily be the caliber of Tier One. I understand the approach of trying to aim for a period setting and mood, but the way it was achieved in the Wolfman drastically hurts the picture quality. The Illusionist had a much better approach for the cinematography, having been set in a fairly similar setting and time. Whoever made the digital coloring choices for the Wolfman should find another profession.


In other news, the newly remastered edition of Gladiator by Paramount is in my hands. Not sure when I will get around to watching it, but hopefully soon. We will see if it merits a placement in the top tier.


----------



## 42041

*The Hurt Locker*


Detail is surprisingly strong for a film shot on Super 16, and grain is relatively unobtrusive most of the time. Nice facial detail. Like most Iraq war movies, the color palette is mostly monochromatic shades of brown. The whole thing is shot in shaky handheld style, focus comes and goes. Things get dicey towards the end of the film during a nighttime sequence, when grain overwhelms some shots. Nice looking disc, overall.

*Tier 2.5*


----------



## cjmx2

*Old Dogs*I'm going to side with the reviews that have been given on this title already. Very good facial details in most shots (definitely tier 0 or upper tier one mostly), however a few were a little less detailed (tier 2, etc)... Detail was somewhat inconsistent in many scenes going from very strong to moderate, but not as bad as some recent titles







Part of me wanted to wonder if the Joker was going to jump out during the scenes with the goofy faces. Other than that there was solid contrast, oversaturated color (it didn't bother me but it was there), and a few funny jokes...I am also going with:

*Tier Recommendation 1.75*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Back-Up Plan*


This one can easily fool you with some really dazzling close-ups, but they are not many. It's a wildly inconsistent effort with a poorly resolved grain structure. Colors and bright and warm, but the black levels are a bit flat. Nice environments from time to time, but again, it's all over the place. Some reference level close-ups a few times, but that last part is the key.

*Tier 3.0*


----------



## barry v s




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sujay* /forum/post/19074589
> 
> *Mary and Max*
> 
> *Wow!* If this doesn't deserve reference placement, I don't know what will. Unbelievable title.
> 
> 
> First of all the movie is great, very touching, cute, funny, quirky, emotional. Overall well-rounded film.
> 
> 
> Okay, back to the visuals. *Detail, detail, detail.* No other Blu-ray I've seen touches this. The sheer amount of sharp detail within each shot is just astounding. This is another stop-motion animated film akin to Coraline. Shot on Canon Digital SLR still image cameras, the RAW 4K images transfer beautifully here. I can't say enough about the amazing clarity throughout the whole movie.
> 
> 
> Several sections of the movie are in black and white, and I think that was a brilliant decision as it lends to more excellent imagery with some of the inkiest blacks and beautiful contrast I've ever seen on my display. I think the black and white also brings forward even more clarity than if it was in color. A lot is owed to the brilliant and thoughtful cinematography.
> 
> 
> No edge enhancement or DNR or any other type of meddlesome processing can be seen thank god and I didn't notice any banding or other such issues.
> 
> 
> What more can I say? I don't know if I can express it more but I think this is a title that everyone in this thread will really enjoy. It's the type of movie that makes me see the true potential and possible zenith of Blu-ray and how wonderfully it can reproduce such imagery. Props to everyone involved. The audio is a treat too. Not much wham bam, but it shines in excellent moments when needed.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: REFERENCE*



I may try this movie for a blind buy since it is a great price now from Amazonn


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Good, The Bad, The Weird*


A 1080i effort that is revealed by the insane amount of motion artifacts, aliasing, and flicker from the start. It's really a rough start. By the second hour though, WOW! This one astounds with some of the best facial close-ups I've ever seen, just so clear, crisp, and detailed as to put your jaw on the floor. The definition is immense. It's a shame the first half is so awful.
*Tier 3.0*


----------



## 42041

*Life*


The followup to Planet Earth suffers from many of the same technical shortcomings, though that should not factor into your decision to buy this if you enjoy such programming. Despite the often beautiful photography and vibrant colors, the challenge of shooting in certain environments results in PQ that's all over the place. Resolution tends to be mediocre and fine details are vague. Even SD cameras are occasionally employed. The high speed photography has color moire and other artifacts. A handful of very strong landscape shots in most episodes provide brief contrast to most of the show. However, the visual subject matter tends to supersede the technical shortcomings.

*Tier 2.75*


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19086628
> 
> 
> To simplify the Tiers list and make the process of updating a little less arduous, there will likely be changes coming ahead to the actual listings. The current listing is in this format:
> 
> 
> bb nf *Fighting* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Universal
> 
> 
> My current plans are to move new entries into this format:
> 
> 
> bb nf *Fighting* Video: VC-1 | Universal
> 
> 
> While the aspect ratio and audio specifications are nice to have at a glance, they are by no means authoritative or the raison d'être of the Tiers. More importantly cutting them would save time in handling the updates. Clicking through the movie's title will still lead to scores of reviews with that information.



That seems perfectly reasonable to me. I don't think that a listing of the primary audio codec nor the aspect ratio is terribly significant for this thread, and perhaps the video codec could go as well. The studio listing is helpful for identification, but in essence the core information boils down to what is the tier ranking and what is the identification of the specific version - i.e. a country + studio + edition annotation as necessary to clear up ambiguity seems sufficient for this.


----------



## Sujay

Yeah it seems like a reasonable omission.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/19103084
> 
> 
> That seems perfectly reasonable to me. I don't think that a listing of the primary audio codec nor the aspect ratio is terribly significant for this thread, and perhaps the video codec could go as well. The studio listing is helpful for identification, but in essence the core information boils down to what is the tier ranking and what is the identification of the specific version - i.e. a country + studio + edition annotation as necessary to clear up ambiguity seems sufficient for this.



I definitely agree.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Inglorious Bastards (1977)*


Flat and faded come to mind, followed by light DNR and inconsistent sharpness. There is some great detail in close, but it's not always notable. Some artifacting is visible too, an bit of annoyance but not too great.
*Tier 4.0*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Hatchet*


Amazing black levels dominate this one, and in the early going, the color is stunning. Facial detail is awesome here too, but then into the swampland things get a bit rough. Shots of the boat early show some aliasing, and any shot involving distance is a downer. Slightly processed for sure, but up close it's always a winner.

*Tier 3.0*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Sugar


recommendation: Tier 1.75*


A strong presentation for _Sugar_, the 2008 film from Sony. The 114-minute main feature is encoded in AVC on a BD-50. While no BDInfo scan is available, my estimate is well into the lower thirties for the average video bitrate. That is a bit unusual for a Sony Blu-ray, but the film is rendered cleanly and without any artifacting at all. They took full advantage of the space on a BD-50 to give the video encode breathing room.


The actual ranking falls somewhere in quality between Tier One and Tier Two, though I felt there were enough moments of stellar resolution to qualify it for the higher assessment. _Sugar_ does not show the same level of demo potential that the better Tier One titles possess, but is generally filmed well. The action on the baseball diamond shines brightest, exuding depth and a sharp focus. Interior shots are slightly softer and the black levels in them are a shade bright. A few of the early scenes set in the Dominican Republic show an elevation in the reds and yellow, though that is tempered as the movie progresses. Color-saturation stabilizes into a nice balance of strong primary colors and fine flesh-tones.


Sony did an excellent job on the transfer, eschewing any notable use of edge enhancement or filtering. The Blu-ray is likely a transparent replica of the original film negative for _Sugar_.


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19105901
> 
> *The Inglorious Bastards (1977)*
> 
> 
> Flat and faded come to mind, followed by light DNR and inconsistent sharpness. There is some great detail in close, but it's not always notable. Some artifacting is visible too, an bit of annoyance but not too great.
> *Tier 4.0*



Wow! All the other reviews place it in Tier 1.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/19112114
> 
> 
> Wow! All the other reviews place it in Tier 1.



He's rating the original version (1977).


----------



## 42041

I believe those reviews are for Quentin Tarantino's _Inglo*u*rious Bast*e*rds_, not the 1978 Italian film


----------



## Sujay

Oh give him a break guys, he's just an old codger.


----------



## jaymalya

It might be a good idea to categorize the movies ( similar to the audio tier thread ) - reference, tier0,tier1 etc instead of absolute ratings - that way it would be easy for the readers to go through a list quickly


----------



## wesslan1

Not sure if this has been discussed before but i find it curious that the US version of domino is a Tier 0 when comparisons on the net showing the Spanish disc (same as UK i believe) seems to benefit from the extra bitrate and holds more grain than the US release.

http://www.hd-compare.com/2009/09/domino.html


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wesslan1* /forum/post/19113493
> 
> 
> Not sure if this has been discussed before but i find it curious that the US version of domino is a Tier 0 when comparisons on the net showing the Spanish disc (same as UK i believe) seems to benefit from the extra bitrate and holds more grain than the US release.
> 
> http://www.hd-compare.com/2009/09/domino.html



It would not surprise me if the Blu-ray encoded by Paramount for Spain looked better than the WB Blu-ray. That would not be the first instance of that occurrence, such as in the cases of Watchmen and Zodiac. But the PQ Tiers only represents what users have already contributed, predominantly made up of people living in North America. Which usually leads to Blu-rays outside that region going unranked in the list. We do include import Blu-rays whenever possible, as they are denoted in the list as being imports.


If you or anyone else wants to give a recommendation for that version of Domino, go right ahead. Right now the only direct input we have had on Domino is for the WB Blu-ray, which is reflected in its Tier Zero ranking.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/19091834
> 
> 
> My input is that 2.0 is WAY too high for this title! Even for you!



Hey Rob, good hearing from you again, even if it is another criticism of my being too generous in my ratings.










I will stick by my rating of 2.0 though, for to *my eyes* it looked worthy of the ranking I gave it. FWIW, there were MANY other reviewers (on other sites) that praised it more than I did. But of course, they aren't *seasoned* and *respected* reviewers like all who participate on this thread.










I just got my replacement _Gladiators: Remastered_ copy in the mail and I am anxious to watch it. If I do, I'll chime in right away with my thoughts. I truly do hope I can join the previous reviews that voted for a Tier 0 placement.


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sujay* /forum/post/19112633
> 
> 
> Oh give him a break guys, he's just an old codger.



Oops, I didn't notice the correct spelling.


----------



## djoberg

*Gladiator: Remastered Edition*


I'm sure glad I paid the $1.22 for postage to get the Remastered Edition; it was well worth this nominal fee! I just looked at my review of the first Sapphire Edition, which I rated at 2.0 or 2.25, and I'm happy to say that the new edition is now worthy of a demo tier status.


If anyone wants to see my first review here it is:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...ostcount=13470 


The most dramatic improvements (to _my eyes_) were in the first two scenes (approximately 40 minutes) where there was plenty of detail, no softness, and the EE was GONE!! It compared easily with battle scenes in _Braveheart_.


After those two scenes I also noticed more clarity and depth, and the colors seemed to pop more too. Facial details were a bit more pronounced as well in a few scenes that were previously marred by DNR, but in fairness I must say that some facial shots were only average, especially midrange shots.


There were still a few scenes that came across as soft and in those the blacks suffered marginally along with a minimal lack of detail, but overall this was a very crisp transfer with great detail and clarity.


I'm tempted to put this in the bottom of Tier 0, but due to the softness and lack of detail in some scenes (and most notably in some facial shots) I'm going to cast my vote for....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer BDP-05....Viewed from 7.5'


PS One can only hope that any future Sapphire releases will be of this caliber.


----------



## 42041

*For All Mankind*


This 1989 documentary on the Apollo 11 mission sports a good transfer, but the source material is not the most consistent stuff. Sourced from both 35mm and 16mm film, as well as the Apollo video camera, quality is all over the place. The film looks like film, with middling detail most of the time. The video portions look like bad TV reception beamed from the Moon. So everything is as it should be, and is quite fascinating stuff, but it's not very pretty as per the thread criteria.

*Tier 4.0*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Dark Crystal*


This one is DNR'ed. Not sure how any other reviewers didn't pick up on this. Hair is mushy and undefined, film is barely noticeable, fine detail on the elaborated clothing designs is poor, and whole thing looks processed to hell and back. Colors are great, a huge improvement over any DVD, but the texture of the world is completely lost.
*Tier 4.0*


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/17377728
> 
> *The Day The Earth Stood Still* (1951)
> 
> 
> I love this movie, so I have to be careful about being biased. That said, this film looked GREAT overall, especially considering it's age.
> 
> 
> The B&W cinematography is beautifully preserved here, with nice grain structure and excellent contrast (though not quite up to today's standards).
> 
> 
> Clarity and sharpness is surprisingly good overall, though some scenes do exhibit some noticeable softness. Also, some scenes are more grainy and noisy than others.
> 
> 
> Still, I have to say that Fox did a superb job on this title. No DNR and no EE that I noticed. Well done Fox!
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 2.75*



Mr. Tomlin's review from long ago falls in perfect alignment with my own evaluation after a recent viewing. There was even a possibility of the overall quality pushing into Tier 2.5, though the occasional soft soft made the decision easier for the lower ranking.


A stellar job by Fox for a classic of science fiction, the Blu-ray really turned out quite impressive for a black-and-white film. Visual satisfaction on multiple levels, the master must be in impeccable shape.

*recommendation: Tier 2.75*


BDInfo scan (courtesy of eric.exe):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...8#post15880198


----------



## deltasun

*Brooklyn's Finest*


This one's got a lot of dark scenes. The black levels hold up really well, with bold, deep, uncompromising blacks. Crushing is very minimal and details (on the uniforms, for example) are well-rendered. Shadow details, when present, also provides ample details. However, plenty of dark scenes also appear flat, no doubt director-intended.


Facial details do not impress as much on this title. Richard Gere is the exception and skirts low Tier 0 on almost all occasions. Colors in daylight really shine. Dimensionality during these scenes also produced beautiful 3D effects.


Overall, I felt the two main issues - flat dark scenes (lots) and lack of facial details - drop this closer to Silver than Blu...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


The film itself is also dark and the story well told.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*City Island*

What the hell happened here? This is one of the worst new releases I've seen this year, filled with glaring sharpening, awful compression, noisy grain, unbearable orange flesh tones, black crush, and smoothed over faces. A few close-ups provide, but man are they ever few in number. Cramming this onto a BD-25 with a PCM mix probably didn't help.

*Tier 4.5*


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Green Zone*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19017517
> 
> *Green Zone*
> 
> 
> What a mess!! I was truly underwhelmed by this transfer and my recommendation is going to reflect that sentiment.
> 
> 
> The BAD:
> 
> 
> 1) As was mentioned by GRG, this is NOISY! The majority of night scenes looked like scenes out of _28 Days Later_ (which is currently at the bottom of the barrel in Tier 5). In them there is VERY LITTLE DETAIL and DEPTH, and SOFTNESS ABOUNDS.
> 
> 
> 2) Even in daytime scenes, there is LITTLE in the way of APPRECIABLE DEPTH or DETAIL.
> 
> 
> 3) CONTRAST was also HOT in multiple daytime scenes, resulting in poor detail.
> 
> 
> 4) BLACKS LEVELS were INCONSISTENT, to say the least. Even when they were good, they weren't really deep and inky.
> 
> 
> 4) Many scenes had JERKY CAMERA WORK, making it impossible to identify any PQ virtues there might have been.
> 
> 
> 5) A MUTED COLOR PALETTE, in keeping with the genre, added to the lack of eye candy.
> 
> 
> The GOOD:
> 
> 
> 1) In _SOME_ daytime scenes there was a FAIR AMOUNT OF DETAIL.
> 
> 
> 2) Again, in some daytime scenes (and yet very rare), there were _SOME SHOTS_ with DEPTH and CLARITY.
> 
> 
> 3) FLESH TONES were, for the most part, ACCURATE.
> 
> 
> 4) There were a _FEW SHOTS_ where FACIAL DETAILS reached TIER 1 QUALITY, but these were "few and far between."
> 
> 
> I decided to refresh my memory as to the standards we use for the bottom 3 tiers and I would have to say that MOST of the night time scenes fell squarely in Tier 5. Daytime scenes were a mixed bag, but the majority were average (i.e., Tier 3), at best. Thankfully there were more daytimes scenes so this could still possibly merit a Tier 3 ranking, but IMO it would have to be at the very bottom and thus my vote goes for....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.75*
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer BDP-05....Viewed from 7.5'
> 
> 
> PS I did enjoy the movie, in spite of Hollywood's relentless desire to preach against the war in Iraq.




I pretty much agree with the vast majority of Denny's review, including his placement of this rather ugly title.


It seemed that whoever filmed this movie didn't know how to shoot in the dark! Noise abounds and is quite distracting.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 3.75*


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Hot Tub Time Machine*


An adequate transfer that is just a bit above average for a new release, but barely.


Colors were not great, as they appeared to bleed slightly. Contrast was good and details varied a bit but were adequate overall.

*Tier Recommendation 2.75*


----------



## djoberg

*The Last Song*


You guessed it....another "chick flick" night and this was my other half's choice.







I must say I missed *some* of the critical viewing of the PQ due to tears welling up in my eyes (







), so I might have to give it another viewing to be fair. NOT!!


At any rate, I'm going to keep this short and simply say that the PQ was AVERAGE. The biggest virtues, by far, were the black levels and shadow details. My KURO lived up to its name in this department (though in fairness I will admit there were a couple of shots where the blacks became a bit murky). There were also some nice outdoor shots of Georgia, especially aerial shots of the sea and beaches.


Contrast was way too hot in a few beach scenes resulting in a washed out look yielding little if any detail. Detail in general was inconsistent, except for facial details which were consistently BAD! Colors were punchy and natural-looking at times; at other times they were over-saturated and unnatural.


I said this was *average* and there were enough pluses to put it right here...

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer BDP-05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Killer Inside Me*


I'm not sure I've ever seen worse black levels than this. Supposedly a modern film noir, I don't see how with the lack of shadows. It started off with more problems too, including heavy artifacting, but that cleared up with time. Eventually the facial detail and some sharpness kicked in, but those black levels suck, along with the color.

*Tier 4.0*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Nanny McPhee*


Colors are insane here, perfect for the younger set this is aimed at. They're not overblown, just pure and gorgeous. Sharpness is excellent, and close-ups resolve superb facial detail. Some of the outdoor scenes aren't quite as sharp, complex environments a little compressed, and a few darker shots look a tad murky.

*Tier 2.0*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Janeane Garofalo: If You Will*


A stand-up act presented in 1080i, and it's going to go right where it belongs. Ugly as hell, with some of the worst compression I've seen on this format. Flicker and aliasing are noted, no fine detail to speak of, and you can barely even make out the crowd. Decent black levels and some bright color mean nothing here.

*Tier 5.0*


----------



## djoberg

I just got back from a local video store where I rented _Brooklyn's Finest_, _Repo Men_, and _Daybreakers_. I've had enough of "Chick Flick" movies for awhile and with my wife gone for the weekend I thought it was time to rent some "Man Flicks" (







).


I see from previous reviews that I'm in for some good PQ on all three of these. If you recall, most of my last several reviews have been average or worse (with the exception of _Gladiator: Remastered_), so I'm really looking forward to some Tier 1 & 2 material. It also sounds like the movies themselves are going to be good, so I'm doubly blessed!!


----------



## djoberg

*Brooklyn's Finest*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19119359
> 
> *Brooklyn's Finest*
> 
> 
> This one's got a lot of dark scenes. The black levels hold up really well, with bold, deep, uncompromising blacks. Crushing is very minimal and details (on the uniforms, for example) are well-rendered. Shadow details, when present, also provides ample details. However, plenty of dark scenes also appear flat, no doubt director-intended.
> 
> 
> Facial details do not impress as much on this title. Richard Gere is the exception and skirts low Tier 0 on almost all occasions. Colors in daylight really shine. Dimensionality during these scenes also produced beautiful 3D effects.
> 
> 
> Overall, I felt the two main issues - flat dark scenes (lots) and lack of facial details - drop this closer to Silver than Blu...
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75*
> 
> 
> The film itself is also dark and the story well told.



I couldn't agree more with everything deltasun said, including his closing comment on the film itself. I have absolutely nothing to add, except to second his recommendation.....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer BDP-05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## djoberg

*Repo Men*


My second "Man Flick" compared nicely with the previous viewing. Both titles had a lot of dark scenes with a *cooler* color palette, deep blacks, good contrast, accurate flesh tones, and plenty of detail. Speaking of detail, facial details were perhaps a tad better with MANY close-ups of Forest Whitaker and Jude Law that were at least Tier 1 quality. This one also had a nice layer of grain that gave it a nice film-like look.


Where it differed was in this title you had occasional scenes where softness crept in resulting in a loss of detail. Otherwise these two films were comparable in most every area of PQ, though again _Repo Men_ had better facial details overall. So, if I've done my math well, the negatives in these two cancel one another out, and with the positives lining up squarely the obvious conclusion for placement is.....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer BDP-05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*2001 Maniacs


recommendation: Tier 3.0
*

Lionsgate has brought this independent, low-budget horror film from 2005 to Blu-ray just in time for the upcoming Halloween. The 87-minute main feature gets a BD-25 and is encoded using AVC. While there are some peaks in the 40s for the video encode, the average is closer to 19-21 Mbps. Parts of it actually look much better than Tier 3, but some inconsistencies and a couple of problems downgrade the ranking.


One of the more notable problems is the regular presence of white speckles throughout the film. For a movie made in the last decade, the transfer shows an inordinate amount of what is either damage or an automated scratch removal program gone overboard. The artifacts will be noticeable to all but the most unobservant viewer. The duration of these white splotches pop in and out in a flash, but are still annoying.


The second major problem is the pervasive occurrence of halos. This is edge enhancement of the variety that intrudes on the picture and creates a distraction. Grain is left untouched by digital noise reduction, but the wildly uneven nature of it in the film hurts the picture quality. Exterior shots look normal and would rank on their own in the upper sections of Tier 2, while everything else shows a certain amount of noisy grain that degrades the presentation.


The picture itself shows strong detail and has a sharp appearance in close to midrange shots. Longer shots are oddly soft and unfocused for some reason. Reds are oversaturated, tinting most fleshtones to a burnt orange in daylight. It does not look like Lionsgate gave a ton of effort and care to this transfer, but the underlying source material for _2001 Maniacs_ has its own problems.


----------



## djoberg

*Daybreakers*


Well, the "Man Flick" marathon has finally ended, and I believe I can say I have had my fill of Blus for the day.










One word comes to mind from the outset of this review: INCONSISTENT! There were scenes with impeccable detail and depth that would rival most titles in our top Tier (one such scene is when Ethan Hawke first meets Willem Dafoe out in the field by the big tree....it is simply phenomenal). Then again there were scenes that were soft, grainy (noisy?), lacking detail, and with murky blacks to boot (most of these took place inside buildings or in cars). Just about every outdoor, daytime scene was demo-worthy all the way, while many inside shots (though not all) bordered on low Tier 3 or high Tier 4.


All things considered I'm going to go with my peers on this one and assign it to Tier 2, though my placement falls in between Rob's 2.0 and GRG's 2.75. I must confess this (a Tier 2 placement) is very hard for me to do, for there were quite a few Tier 0 shots....but considering the many bad shots I believe it lands right here....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer BDP-05....Viewed from 7.5'


PS I found the movie quite compelling for a number of reasons, the chief reason being its uniqueness. I can't remember seeing a vampire movie with a plot like this and I really enjoyed it.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Deep Blue Sea*


A great transfer when in close, producing some truly amazing facial details, possibly some of the best I've ever seen. It's stunning stuff. Unfortunately, the mid-range stuff looks like a typical Warner encode, soft, flat, and too compressed. There are also problems with black crush. Thankfully Renny Harlin shot this one really tight, so the vast majority of the film is close up, and man does it look good..

*Tier 2.0*


----------



## deltasun

*After.Life*


A very cold, clinical looking film as appropriate for the subject matter. Though on many occasions, colors are well rendered and buoyant. Check out Ricci's RED nightie, especially in the monochromatic setting she's in. The flowers and textured facades of Neeson's abode also stand out. Blacks are mostly impressive, particularly in the scene with Ricci surrounded by the dead (all dressed in black). No crush there. Contrast is a bit weak at times, but held up fine mostly. I didn't check the bitrate, but it seemed to struggle a bit in certain scenes, causing some blocking.


Facial (and skin) details looked pretty good especially on Ricci. Neeson looked smooth, though lines still marked his face at close-up's. Grain was almost entirely absent, but did not spy any deliberate foul play. Can't say much for dimensionality - the presentation seemed flat to me. There were also some minor banding throughout.


Overall, I still feel this belonged in Silver...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.50*


The premise was decent, just didn't execute for me.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## djoberg

*Clash of the Titans*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cjmx2* /forum/post/18976059
> 
> *Clash of the Titans (2010)*Softness and smearing and lens flare...oh my! Overall I was very disappointed in this title being a new release. But I guess it is Warner...
> 
> 
> 1st and probably my biggest concern was that it was all over the boards for sharpness and detail...some shots were pretty good in the upper tier 1 range; that lasted for about 60 seconds and then we fell back to the 2 or 3 range.
> 
> 
> The few blacks I remember were pretty murky and lacked detail. One positive was that the daylight shots had lots of 3d pop at times and looked very good while it was daylight...
> 
> 
> There was a tremendous amount of CGI in the movie which i felt lacked sharpness and dimensionality; as a result it looked a little off (reminded me of GIJOE - Cobra) Basically it was serviceable but I expected more being a new release.
> 
> *Tier 3.0
> *ln52b750 - 1080p - 24hz - 8 ft



Well, I thought I had had my fill of "Man Flicks," but I was drawn to this particular title when I returned the others this afternoon.










Once again I'm going to take the easy way out and use cmjx2's review. I believe all the points he makes relevant to PQ are spot on! I also believe he nailed it with his recommendation. This was one "mixed bag," with a very sharp and detailed image one minute, and then a soft and flat image the next. It is beyond me why filmmakers can't give us consistency in PQ!







So, I'm forced to consign this to the average bin....

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer BDP-05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19146161
> 
> 
> This was one "mixed bag," with a very sharp and detailed image one minute, and then a soft and flat image the next. It is beyond me why filmmakers can't give us consistency in PQ!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, I'm forced to consign this to the average bin....



A combination of budgetary limitations, visual indifference and tight shooting schedules. Some directors just do not care about picture quality at all, focusing only on getting the best performances from the actors. You can usually tell the filmmakers with a unique visual style who clearly imbue their movies with a personal style. Tim Burton would be one example that comes to mind.


----------



## djoberg

*Paranormal Activity*


I thought it might be fitting to close the day with a "Man/Chick Flick," so I chose this one. (For those of you who haven't seen this title, the majority of the movie is filmed with just a man...and a chick...in it







).


I believe its current placement of 4.0 is justified, though in comparing it with _Quarantine_ (which was also shot with a jerky home video cam), which is currently in 4.5, I thought it had considerably better PQ, so perhaps my vote would go for....

*Tier Recommendation: 3.75*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer BDP-05...Viewed from 7.5'


PS I think it stinks that the director took the liberty of making one think this movie was based on actual events (by a statement made at the very beginning of the movie and then by statements made right after the closing scene) and then later he states that it wasn't based on actual persons or events.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19146790
> 
> 
> Some directors just do not care about picture quality at all, focusing only on getting the best performances from the actors. You can usually tell the filmmakers with a unique visual style who clearly imbue their movies with a personal style. *Tim Burton would be one example that comes to mind.*



And of course James Cameron would be another fine example!


----------



## 42041

*Last Year at Marienbad*


A pretty good transfer of this visually striking 1961 black and white film. The resolution and detail are solid, like most of Criterion's HD transfers, though not on par with the best of the format. After some very scratchy company logos at the very beginning, the image is largely free of any scratches or debris; there's a mild amount of natural-looking grain, and compression is not an issue. A bit of aliasing may be visible to viewers seated close to their displays. Contrast is satisfactory, giving the B&W images the appropriate depth. Currently placed at Tier 2.0, I feel that's a bit high. Perhaps a more extensive restorative effort would merit it scraping the demo tier, but IMO this current release is average in the overall scope of older films on the format.

*Tier 3.0*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Frozen*


A pale, rather flat film. The black levels are fine, it's just the rather bland color and lackluster detail do this image no favors. Grain is slightly noisy, although at night it's barely a factor. A few moments of softness/grain spikes are noted too.

*Tier 3.5*


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19146917
> 
> *Paranormal Activity*
> 
> 
> PS I think it stinks that the director took the liberty of making one think this movie was based on actual events (by a statement made at the very beginning of the movie and then by statements made right after the closing scene) and then later he states that it wasn't based on actual persons or events.



Nothing of real consequence happens for most of the film. A horribly boring film, unless I wanted to see camcorder footage of people sleeping in their bedrooms. At least The Exorcist will soon be out...


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19146917
> 
> *Paranormal Activity*
> 
> 
> 
> PS I think it stinks that the director took the liberty of making one think this movie was based on actual events (by a statement made at the very beginning of the movie and then by statements made right after the closing scene) and then later he states that it wasn't based on actual persons or events.



It's been done numerous times.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19149587
> 
> 
> Nothing of real consequence happens for most of the film. A horribly boring film, unless I wanted to see camcorder footage of people sleeping in their bedrooms. At least The Exorcist will soon be out...



I found it to be a very well done movie overall, and I am not one who normally cares for these types of films. I enjoyed it a lot. I thought it was far from boring.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

This is from Roger Ebert regarding Paranormal Activity:


"*It illustrates one of my favorite points, that silence and waiting can be more entertaining than frantic fast-cutting and berserk f/x. For extended periods here, nothing at all is happening, and believe me, you won't be bored.*"


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/19149820
> 
> 
> This is from Roger Ebert regarding Paranormal Activity:
> 
> 
> "*It illustrates one of my favorite points, that silence and waiting can be more entertaining than frantic fast-cutting and berserk f/x. For extended periods here, nothing at all is happening, and believe me, you won't be bored.*"



We will have to agree to disagree on Paranormal Activity. The ethos from reality fare on television seems to be creeping ever so slowly into theatrical films, which is not something I tend to like that much. Ebert has never been a reliable barometer for my tastes, though I always considered him an entertaining reviewer.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19150078
> 
> 
> We will have to agree to disagree on Paranormal Activity. The ethos from reality fare on television seems to be creeping ever so slowly into theatrical films, which is not something I tend to like that much. Ebert has never been a reliable barometer for my tastes, though I always considered him an entertaining reviewer.



Ok, if Roger Ebert doesn't convince you, how about the fact that Rotten Tomatoes shows a rating of 82%!










Seriously though, I completely understand how/why someone wouldn't like this film. As I said, I'm one who normally doesn't like this type of film (didn't care for Blair Witch) but I thought this one worked quite well.


So, yes, agree to disagree, but it isn't like I am offended or even surprised that you didn't care for the film.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19149587
> 
> 
> Nothing of real consequence happens for most of the film. A horribly boring film, unless I wanted to see camcorder footage of people sleeping in their bedrooms. At least The Exorcist will soon be out...



I'm with Rob on this one....I thought the "build-up" in demonic activity was well-paced and entertaining. I even thought the couple were quite convincing, especially the girl.


Regarding "The Exorcist," I am DEFINITELY looking forward to that!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/19149809
> 
> 
> It's been done numerous times.



It still stinks!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19151736
> 
> 
> It still stinks!



Agreed.


----------



## lgans316

*Gladiator (10th Anniversary Edition - EU/UK/AUS) - Tier 1.75*


This is certainly a major improvement over the previous edition. Some exterior shots looks excellent. The sequence where Maximum rides to his home to save his family looks splendid. Some close up shots reveal reasonable details. No doubt the quality is very good and THE picture looks filmic, But, the PQ takes a considerable blow due to presence of plenty of smoke filled shots and interior sequences shot in low lighting conditions.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/19152413
> 
> *Gladiator (10th Anniversary Edition - EU/UK/AUS) - Tier 1.75*
> 
> 
> This is certainly a major improvement over the previous edition. Some exterior shots looks excellent. The sequence where Maximum rides to his home to save his family looks splendid. Some close up shots reveal reasonable details. No doubt the quality is very good and THE picture looks filmic, But, the PQ takes a considerable blow due to presence of plenty of smoke filled shots and interior sequences shot in low lighting conditions.



I certainly agree with your initial statement Igans316....for the original Sapphire edition pales in comparison to the Remastered Edition. Where I don't agree is with your placement recommendation; I believe it is close to reference quality (i.e., Tier 0), but due to some softness it falls into high Tier 1. I'm not sure what you mean by there being "plenty of smoke-filled shots." Perhaps you can explain what you mean by that.


I'm really anxious for others (who have seen both versions) to chime in with their assessment.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19154564
> 
> 
> I'm really anxious for others (who have seen both versions) to chime in with their assessment.



My disc came in late last week, but I'm crammed this week so I don't know if it'll make into the review plan or not, especially with the length. Soon though!
*9th Company*


I've never seen worse aliasing on any Blu-ray. I think I said that about Invictus, but this trounces that sports effort. Jaggies are everywhere in long shots, so bad that it's it pulled me right out of an otherwise solid movie. That said, the close-ups are amazing, so beautifully resolved and crisp as to be the total opposite of the mid and long shots.

*Tier 3.75*


----------



## lgans316

djoberg,


The slightly low Tier recommendation for Gladiator (Remastered) is due to the lack of definition (similar to Gangs of New York) in many shots that are filmed in a smoke / smoggy ambiance. I agree that the picture looks filmic but from an eye candy perspective smoke degrades the overall picture quality.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19155785
> 
> 
> My disc came in late last week, but I'm crammed this week so I don't know if it'll make into the review plan or not, especially with the length. Soon though!



I'll look forward to your review. I'm amazed (and jealous







) at how many Blus you watch, so I completely understand the time constraints you have.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/19156126
> 
> 
> djoberg,
> 
> 
> The slightly low Tier recommendation for Gladiator (Remastered) is due to the lack of definition (similar to Gangs of New York) in many shots that are filmed in a smoke / smoggy ambiance. I agree that the picture looks filmic but from an eye candy perspective smoke degrades the overall picture quality.



Thanks for the quick reply Igans316. I still don't recall the "smoke/smoggy ambiance" shots that you refer to, but I'll be on the lookout the next time I view it.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Killers*


This one was shot on film but the grain is rarely found. Probably was smoothed out a bit at the digital intermediate, which would be the easy guess as to why the high fidelity detail is pretty much gone most of the time. Contrast is bright, and the blacks are rich. It goes along with some elevated color for some low-level eye candy.

*2.75*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Gladiator (remastered)


recommendation: 1.25*


Just to give everyone a frame of reference, I did own the original version of _Gladiator_ on Blu-ray. But outside of some screen captures on this forum, I never watched it. Mundane disinterest in finding approximately 170-minutes of free time, for the extended cut with a flawed transfer, created that situation. Having made the exchange through Paramount for the remastered edition, the picture quality has turned out quite nicely on it based upon my initial impressions. While releasing a flawed transfer in the first place was not the right move, Paramount should be commended for going back and bringing a proper presentation to _Gladiator_ on BD so soon. Certain other studios should take a lesson from Paramount's handling of the issue.


The evaluation largely mirrors what Djoberg reported earlier, that Gladiator looks striking at times with some minor nuisances to the overall quality. Now that Lgans316 pointed it out in a prior post, there is an abundance of smoke in many scenes once you start looking for it. The set designer must have felt compelled to use torches and burning incense in most backgrounds. It only has a negligible effect on the image, as the AVC-encode looks transparent to the master without obvious artifacting. My criticisms fall more along the lines of the long shots, where the heavy use of CGI to recreate backgrounds introduces a slight softness to the proceedings.


Close-ups do demonstrate a remarkable abundance of detail in an image that exudes dimensionality and strong depth of field in most moments. They are truly first-rate, which might drive some to place _Gladiator_ in Tier Zero. A minority portion of the film just did not strike me as being worthy enough to obtain that lofty designation. But I can see the arguments for a higher placement are equally valid and something that I do not feel strenuous about by any stretch. The color timing was another standout feature of the picture, where it appears some amount of care and discretion was performed on this new transfer. From all reports, a vast improvement in image quality over the travesty first released to Blu-ray in 2009.


BDInfo Scan (courtesy of mcantu1):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...9#post19017509


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*MacGruber*


Shot digitally and it shows. Mid-range stuff is pretty poor, with dominant softness. Close-ups are resolved well, at least in general terms. Some nice facial detail. The color palette jumps all over the place, making flesh tones warm, then pink, and then back again. Just meh.

*Tier 3.25*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19164155
> 
> *Gladiator (remastered)
> 
> 
> recommendation: 1.25*
> 
> 
> Just to give everyone a frame of reference, I did own the original version of _Gladiator_ on Blu-ray. But outside of some screen captures on this forum, I never watched it. Mundane disinterest in finding approximately 170-minutes of free time, for the extended cut with a flawed transfer, created that situation. Having made the exchange through Paramount for the remastered edition, the picture quality has turned out quite nicely on it based upon my initial impressions. While releasing a flawed transfer in the first place was not the right move, Paramount should be commended for going back and bringing a proper presentation to _Gladiator_ on BD so soon. Certain other studios should take a lesson from Paramount's handling of the issue.
> 
> 
> The evaluation largely mirrors what Djoberg reported earlier, that Gladiator looks striking at times with some minor nuisances to the overall quality. *Now that Lgans316 pointed it out in a prior post, there is an abundance of smoke in many scenes once you start looking for it. The set designer must have felt compelled to use torches and burning incense in most backgrounds. It only has a negligible effect on the image, as the AVC-encode looks transparent to the master without obvious artifacting.* My criticisms fall more along the lines of the long shots, where the heavy use of CGI to recreate backgrounds introduces a slight softness to the proceedings.
> 
> 
> Close-ups do demonstrate a remarkable abundance of detail in an image that exudes dimensionality and strong depth of field in most moments. They are truly first-rate, which might drive some to place _Gladiator_ in Tier Zero. A minority portion of the film just did not strike me as being worthy enough to obtain that lofty designation. But I can see the arguments for a higher placement are equally valid and something that I do not feel strenuous about by any stretch. The color timing was another standout feature of the picture, where it appears some amount of care and discretion was performed on this new transfer. From all reports, a vast improvement in image quality over the travesty first released to Blu-ray in 2009.
> 
> 
> BDInfo Scan (courtesy of mcantu1):
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...9#post19017509



Thanks Phantom for your good review. I obviously agree with your conclusion (i.e., placement recommendation), for we are only 1/4 tier apart. I also noted the highlighted words above. I too will look for the *smoke* in my next viewing, but like you I'm sure it will be negligible, especially since I missed it the first time around.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Marmaduke*


Holy near-reference material Batman. The only thing that comes close to keeping this out of the top tier is that god-awful CG animation on the dog's mouths. They smooth out the muzzle on the dogs to match it (poorly), and the result is just awful. *Everything* else about this transfer is perfect, from the well-resolved grain, incredible high-fidelity detail, heavily saturated colors, and deep, rich black levels. It's a stunner.
*Tier 1.0*


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Clash of the Titans*


This will be short: average looking title at best, if not slightly below average. Contrast/blacks are lacking. Details are average. Not horrible, but the lack of depth is it's weakest point.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/19171205
> 
> *Clash of the Titans*
> 
> 
> This will be short: average looking title at best, if not slightly below average. Contrast/blacks are lacking. Details are average. Not horrible, but the lack of depth is it's weakest point.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.0*



The original movie or the recent one? The endless rehashing of ideas by Hollywood has almost made putting the year of release mandatory for clarification.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19171983
> 
> 
> The original movie or the recent one? The endless rehashing of ideas by Hollywood has almost made putting the year of release mandatory for clarification.



The recent one.


----------



## djoberg

*The Back-Up Plan*


You guessed it....I'm NOT home alone this weekend, so it's back to "Chick-Flick" night!










I agree with GRG that this title was quite inconsistent. When it was good, there were excellent black levels and shadow details (its biggest plus, IMO), strong contrast, warm and natural colors, accurate flesh tones, and decent depth and detail. But there were a fair amount of scenes that were average or below...they came across as a bit flat and lacking detail, with washed out whites and only mediocre black levels. Let me add that the facial details only impressed me once or twice; in fact, Jennifer Lopez looked like a DNR mess on quite a few shots and everyone else looked below average.


Taking everything into consideration, I would have to join my colleague GRG and vote for....

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer BDP-05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19174068
> 
> *The Back-Up Plan*
> 
> 
> You guessed it....I'm NOT home alone this weekend, so it's back to "Chick-Flick" night!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with GRG that this title was quite inconsistent. When it was good, there were excellent black levels and shadow details (its biggest plus, IMO), strong contrast, warm and natural colors, accurate flesh tones, and decent depth and detail. But there were a fair amount of scenes that were average or below...they came across as a bit flat and lacking detail, with washed out whites and only mediocre black levels. Let me add that the facial details only impressed me once or twice; in fact, Jennifer Lopez looked like a DNR mess on quite a few shots and everyone else looked below average.
> 
> 
> Taking everything into consideration, I would have to join my colleague GRG and vote for....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.0*
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer BDP-05....Viewed from 7.5'





I watched this last week but didn't have the energy to post a review (and didn't care enough about the title anyway) but I agree with your assessment here.


Add me as a *Tier 3.0* recommendation as well.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Twilight Zone Season 1*


Holy awesomeness Batman! This is truly remarkable stuff. Sure, there are inconsistencies; they range from print damage, to light banding, and some grain spikes. When it's on the mark (and it usually is), this is the best looking black and white footage I've ever seen on the format. Contrast is perfect, the amount of image detail is just incredible, the texture retained well beyond any expectation, and the grain is resolved beautifully.
*Tier 2.75*


----------



## deltasun

*Diary of a Wimpy Kid*

_Check it out - it's got a hair in it_


Bothersome haze around light sources, window, etc. provide a distracting backdrop to most scenes where they're present. Colors pop, but can sometimes be a bit over-saturated. Skin tones are on the warm side and are NOT very detailed for any of the cast members' faces.


Blacks are deep and contrast strong (outside of the diffused light). Shadows details are surprisingly decent. Details, in general, are well-rendered for most of the feature. There are some softness inherent of the style of photography.


A fine layer of grain is present and does yield a filmic look. This was closer to average for me, but does have some bright spots.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

*Keane Live*


Typical concert presentation with the usual issues - detail-less, nuclear-glowing audience bathed in colored strobes, lack of depth, and black crush. In addition, there are instances of jaggies and banding. Footage is also mixed among regular video, heavy-noise video, and close-captioned video.


On a positive note, there are some excellent facial close-up's from the band members. Unstrobed skin tones are natural and some of the stage elements can be very detailed. The acoustic set up front had superb blacks and contrast was strong all around.


Overall, there's enough positives here to still get a Bronze rating

*Tier Recommendation: 3.25*

_ln46a650 - 1080i/60 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

*The Score*


Fair presentation from Paramount. This isn't the sharpest, and there are bouts of softness here and there, but I still found some scenes ripe with details. Blacks are bold, but not deep. Contrast is strong for the most part. Facial details are also on the soft side and the overall look can be dated.


The picture is flat overall, especially darker scenes. Grain is suspiciously light compared to my DVD copy.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Harry Brown*


A very muted, drab looking film by design. Black levels are pretty bland, and the colors are all but missing. Light grain is resolved well. The film opens with some SD cam footage. Facial detail in close is pretty strong, although it suffers in the mid-range. Too smooth.

*Tier 3.5*


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*The Crazies*


This one was just good enough to stay out of Tier 3, but just barely. Details, colors, contrast would vary a bit through the movie, but overall were adequate. It just isn't a film that is going to qualify as demo material when it comes to PQ.


The sound quality on the other hand was very impressive!


I also really enjoyed the movie. Not a new concept by a long shot (in fact, this is a remake of a George Romero movie from the early 70's) but I found the execution to be quite good. This one is worth a look.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 2.75*


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Sling Blade*


This one is really all over the place! The difference in PQ from scene to see can be quite startling. Most of the darker/indoor scenes look pretty bad. But most of the brighter/outdoor well lit scenes exhibit good details and decent contrast.


But again, those indoor scenes can be quite bad, some of them completely lacking in detail and contrast.


This film remains one of my favorites.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 3.75*


----------



## trinifox

Hi,


Not sure what is supposed to be linked (did a cursory search) but
Master Source Quality - http://uk.imdb.com/Sections/DVDs/dvd-review#source 

Compression Encoding Process - http://www.digitalvision.se/resource...u-ray_Disc.pdf 

Video Artifacts - http://uk.imdb.com/Sections/DVDs/dvd...ideo-artifacts


don't lead to the content described.


These are from post #1 in the tier listing.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *trinifox* /forum/post/19181209
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 
> Not sure what is supposed to be linked (did a cursory search) but
> 
> 
> don't lead to the content described.
> 
> 
> These are from post #1 in the tier listing.



Thank you for the notification on the bad links. They did work at one point, but in what has become increasingly common, websites reshuffle or drop links all the time. The main post will be fixed.


----------



## jedimasterchad

Hello friends,


I once again must apologize for my prolonged absence from the boards. As I mentioned the last time this happened, scheduling with my new job (911 Dispatcher) has been a struggle, however after serving 3 months straight on the 3pm-11pm shift, it seems the gods of public safety have granted me some extended time on the 7am-3pm as I learn my first radio dispatching position (to this point, all of my work has been learning/being a 911 call taker). During that period my wife and I decided it best to cancel our netflix/blockbuster subscription because we had perhaps one night a week we could even enjoy a movie together, and even that was a crapshoot. It seems I'll be on this shift (barring any major unforeseen complications) until at least the end of the year, and I can get back to enjoying/reviewing movies once again.


Look forward to catching up with everyone.


Chad


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/19182359
> 
> 
> Hello friends,
> 
> 
> I once again must apologize for my prolonged absence from the boards. As I mentioned the last time this happened, scheduling with my new job (911 Dispatcher) has been a struggle, however after serving 3 months straight on the 3pm-11pm shift, it seems the gods of public safety have granted me some extended time on the 7am-3pm as I learn my first radio dispatching position (to this point, all of my work has been learning/being a 911 call taker). During that period my wife and I decided it best to cancel our netflix/blockbuster subscription because we had perhaps one night a week we could even enjoy a movie together, and even that was a crapshoot. It seems I'll be on this shift (barring any major unforeseen complications) until at least the end of the year, and I can get back to enjoying/reviewing movies once again.
> 
> 
> Look forward to catching up with everyone.
> 
> 
> Chad



I completely understand your current circumstances Chad. It will be nice when you have more time for viewing Blus, but you're doing what you have to do now and I wish you luck in your new job. We'll look forward to hearing from you later when you're able to rejoin the thread with your good reviews.


Denny


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19182574
> 
> 
> I completely understand your current circumstances Chad. It will be nice when you have more time for viewing Blus, but you're doing what you have to do now and I wish you luck in your new job. We'll look forward to hearing from you later when you're able to rejoin the thread with your good reviews.
> 
> 
> Denny



Whoops, I guess I worded that a little funny. I meant that I'll be on 7-3 like a normal person for the time being. I have re-activated my netflix account and hope to start receiving some movies again on Tuesday. I've been doing research trying to figure out what has come out recently that I missed but I can't seem to find anything major. I am definitely looking forward to Iron Man later this month though, I didn't get to see it in the theater. Only movie I went to see this summer was Toy Story 3.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/19182840
> 
> 
> Whoops, I guess I worded that a little funny. I meant that I'll be on 7-3 like a normal person for the time being. I have re-activated my netflix account and hope to start receiving some movies again on Tuesday. I've been doing research trying to figure out what has come out recently that I missed but I can't seem to find anything major. I am definitely looking forward to Iron Man later this month though, I didn't get to see it in the theater. Only movie I went to see this summer was Toy Story 3.



Actually, I read your post too fast and misinterpreted it. My BAD!!


Regarding upcoming releases, I'm looking forward to _Robin Hood_ and this week I may rent _Prince of Persia_. I'm really anticipating the release of _Inception_, but that may be awhile since it's still showing in some theaters.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Is it just me, or has this been a really bad year for movies so far?


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/19186601
> 
> 
> Is it just me, or has this been a really bad year for movies so far?



Agreed. Except for few very titles has been a boring year.

*Prince of Persia: Sands of Time - Tier 1.75


Hot Tub Time Machine - Tier 1.75*


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/19182359
> 
> 
> Hello friends,
> 
> 
> Look forward to catching up with everyone.
> 
> 
> Chad



Good to see you back from hiatus. Fitting movies into any schedule can be tough, but those sound like brutal hours.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/19186601
> 
> 
> Is it just me, or has this been a really bad year for movies so far?



The worst year for movies in recent memory. Hollywood is churning out less and less quality cinema each year. Attendance on a ticket basis is actually down year over year, but revenues are slightly up because of the increased pricing for 3-D movies.


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/19186601
> 
> 
> Is it just me, or has this been a really bad year for movies so far?



+1. Aside from Toy Story 3, I can't remember the last time I was at the theater. I did hear good things about Inception and can't wait to see that one, but there certainly hasn't been much outside the usual summer blockbusters and rom-coms. Fall looks a little promising, but trailers have a way of being misleading.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/19190505
> 
> 
> +1. Aside from Toy Story 3, I can't remember the last time I was at the theater. I did hear good things about Inception and can't wait to see that one, but there certainly hasn't been much outside the usual summer blockbusters and rom-coms. Fall looks a little promising, but trailers have a way of being misleading.



Yes, I'm really looking forward to Inception as well.


----------



## djoberg

*Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time*


I'm anxious to get to the Minnesota Twins vs. Chicago White Sox game that I recorded, so I'm going to keep this relatively short. Let me say boldly that this movie could have been reference quality if it had not been for some softness, a lack of good facial details, and poor PQ in a vast majority of the CGI shots.


Most of you know that I'm a stickler for good facial details and I was underwhelmed in this department. They did get better as the film progressed, but even then they never reached Tier 0 quality. Detail in general was AMAZING at times, especially in clothing, buildings, and panoramic shots of deserts (with lush green foliage in a few rare shots) and cities.


Depth and dimensionality were top-notch in MANY scenes, and are easily the title's greatest virtues (along with the details just mentioned). Who needs 3D when you can enjoy such depth in 2D?!


As you may know, the director chose to give most of the movie a golden hue, but this did not detract from primary colors that I found warm and vibrant. Flesh tones looked a bit unnatural at times, but other scenes offered up some spot on shots.


Many reviews I looked at boasted of the deep and inky blacks; I thought they were good, but not excellent. However, there were a few night scenes, especially at the beginning, where shadow details excelled.


One more observation....it had a fine layer of grain throughout and it was quite satisfying (for those of us who like a film-like look).


In comparing this with _Gladiator: Remastered_, which had many similar desert scenes and period costumes, I found this to be almost a tier lower. I gave the former a 1.0 rating, so my gut tells me to place this one here....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer BDP-05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*THX 1138*


Clear signs of DNR here, faces coming off so unbelievably unnatural as to pull you right out of the movie. There are some superb close-ups for sure, but they are few. Most of the movie is just plain white, so there's not much to see here. The awful added CG effects are notably sharper and clash with the near zero-grain film footage.
*Tier 4.5*


----------



## deltasun

*Se7en*


No disappointment here. Another dark presentation a la _Fight Club_, but not as enveloping. This one still achieves dimensionality despite the multitude of tight, shadowy scenes. Speaking of which, shadow details aid in the storytelling, only revealing what needs to be revealed. Details, in general, are well-rendered in most scenes. Lots of texture here, folks.


The entire presentation is cast on the warm side. Sometimes skin tones follow suit, but are mostly faithful. Facial details are not of the Blu variety, but do reveal lines, stubble, and a variety of other textures.


Grain is present and yields that filmic look we all (well, mostly all) crave. Colors are muted, perfectly supporting the storyline. A few soft scenes here and there (btw, don't let the shallow depth of field lure you into thinking softness - it's sharp at the point of focus), some black crush, banding, and even ringing are apparent. Still, the story comes alive through its visuals.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19192964
> 
> *Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time*
> 
> 
> Most of you know that I'm a stickler for good facial details and I was underwhelmed in this department. They did get better as the film progressed, but even then they never reached Tier 0 quality. Detail in general was AMAZING at times, especially in clothing, buildings, and panoramic shots of deserts (with lush green foliage in a few rare shots) and cities.
> 
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75*



Going to agree with this aside from the facial detail. It did take a while to get going, but once it did, it really picked up with some impressive close-ups. The incredible aerial shots of the cities were simply stunning too.
*Tier 1.25*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19194096
> 
> 
> Going to agree with this aside from the facial detail. It did take a while to get going, but once it did, it really picked up with some impressive close-ups. The incredible aerial shots of the cities were simply stunning too.



I agree there were some impressive facial close-ups (after about midway into the movie), but personally I didn't think they were as good as titles in Tier Blu. And they surely weren't consistent during the latter half of the movie, which caused me to lower my rating even more.


Regarding the aerial shots of the cities, they were some of the best I've ever seen! They were phenomenal!


What did you think of the PQ during the mulitple scenes employing CGI? I thought they were horrible (for the most part).


----------



## JayPSU




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/19152413
> 
> *Gladiator (10th Anniversary Edition - EU/UK/AUS) - Tier 1.75*
> 
> 
> This is certainly a major improvement over the previous edition. Some exterior shots looks excellent. The sequence where Maximum rides to his home to save his family looks splendid. Some close up shots reveal reasonable details. No doubt the quality is very good and THE picture looks filmic, But, the PQ takes a considerable blow due to presence of plenty of smoke filled shots and interior sequences shot in low lighting conditions.



Wow, obviously since I gave a tier 0 recommendation, I can't say that I agree with your review. The battle scenes in the Roman Colosseum, and really all of the scenes in Rome, to me are all top of tier 0 eye candy. Here and there maybe there were scenes that were not up that standard, perhaps as low as 1.25. But 1.75 overall? That seems overly harsh to me. But you're entitled to an opinion.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JayPSU* /forum/post/19195325
> 
> 
> Wow, obviously since I gave a tier 0 recommendation, I can't say that I agree with your review. The battle scenes in the Roman Colosseum, and really all of the scenes in Rome, to me are all top of tier 0 eye candy. Here and there maybe there were scenes that were not up that standard, perhaps as low as 1.25. But 1.75 overall? That seems overly harsh to me. But you're entitled to an opinion.



Lgans316 is always a very tough grader, I would have hated for him to be my teacher in school.







His standards are very high, but within the bounds of the Tiers framework. Though in this particular instance my personal preference lies closer to your score.


I wonder if there are any substantial differences between the remastered version by Paramount versus Universal's release, who handles Gladiator in Europe? They are known to be different video encodes of the same transfer.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19196789
> 
> 
> I wonder if there are any substantial differences between the remastered version by Paramount versus Universal's release, who handles Gladiator in Europe? They are known to be different video encodes of the same transfer.



From what I've read on the _Gladiator: Remastered_ Comparison Pix thread, the differences between the US version (Paramount) and the Dutch version (Universal) are subtle. I saw MANY comparisons of the two and in most instances the differences were so slight it wouldn't be worth mentioning.


----------



## lgans316

I have become a tough grader after learning a lot about how to assess PQ from other tough graders here.







Many reviews posted here shows true enthusiasm and involvement that's missing in many professional reviews.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19192964
> 
> *Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time*
> 
> 
> I'm anxious to get to the Minnesota Twins vs. Chicago White Sox game that I recorded, so I'm going to keep this relatively short. Let me say boldly that this movie could have been reference quality if it had not been for some softness, a lack of good facial details, and poor PQ in a vast majority of the CGI shots.
> 
> 
> Most of you know that I'm a stickler for good facial details and I was underwhelmed in this department. They did get better as the film progressed, but even then they never reached Tier 0 quality. Detail in general was AMAZING at times, especially in clothing, buildings, and panoramic shots of deserts (with lush green foliage in a few rare shots) and cities.
> 
> 
> Depth and dimensionality were top-notch in MANY scenes, and are easily the title's greatest virtues (along with the details just mentioned). Who needs 3D when you can enjoy such depth in 2D?!
> 
> 
> As you may know, the director chose to give most of the movie a golden hue, but this did not detract from primary colors that I found warm and vibrant. Flesh tones looked a bit unnatural at times, but other scenes offered up some spot on shots.
> 
> 
> Many reviews I looked at boasted of the deep and inky blacks; I thought they were good, but not excellent. However, there were a few night scenes, especially at the beginning, where shadow details excelled.
> 
> 
> One more observation....it had a fine layer of grain throughout and it was quite satisfying (for those of us who like a film-like look).
> 
> 
> In comparing this with _Gladiator: Remastered_, which had many similar desert scenes and period costumes, I found this to be almost a tier lower. I gave the former a 1.0 rating, so my gut tells me to place this one here....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75*
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer BDP-05....Viewed from 7.5'



I ordered this with the expectation that the PQ would be impressive, even if the movie itself might not be. After reading initial reactions, and after seeing that the movie as compressed could practically fit on a single layer disc, I am not sure that I even want to remove the cellophane. I guess Disney has joined Warner in the category of not safe to pre-order.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/19198467
> 
> 
> I ordered this with the expectation that the PQ would be impressive, even if the movie itself might not be. After reading initial reactions, and after seeing that the movie as compressed could practically fit on a single layer disc, I am not sure that I even want to remove the cellophane. I guess Disney has joined Warner in the category of not safe to pre-order.



I *almost* purchased this too (I had an $8 off coupon from Disney), but at the last minute I decided to rent it. I'm glad I did, for the movie itself was pretty bad and the PQ just didn't live up to my expectations (especially with the facial details, which I know would be an issue with you as well patrick).


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Letters to Juliet*


You want terrible facial detail? That's what you're getting here. I'm not sure what's going on here, but it looks like every single actor had their face smoothed over like Sandra Bullock in the Blind Side. On some parts, compression is pretty evident, almost creating a kind of dithering effect. It's a shame too, because the aerial views of Verona are awesome, even up there with Prince of Persia.

*Tier 3.25*


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

I will chime in with reviews of Prince of Persia very shortly, picked up a copy this week! I liked the movie, I did see it in the theatre, though I was not expecting much from it, so that is perhaps why I liked it! I would easily describe it as a Live Action version of Aladdin.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Natural


recommendation: 3.5
*

There is some ambivalence in judgment on Sony's work in bringing _The Natural_ to Blu-ray. From a technical standpoint, the presentation is very strong for the most part. A significant decision was made to alter the color timing and contrast from what had been the standard temperature for the mythic story of Roy Hobbs on this BD. The movie always tried to evoke a certain era in America that has passed, so the colors have been newly desaturated and the contrast flattened to enhance the atmosphere. Personally the previous color timing was a more pleasing appearance, one that I had grown accustomed to over repeated viewings.


I understand that line of thinking in regards to the intended aesthetic of the period, but it is simply not faithful to the movie's prior history on film. Frankly the change in contrast and color rendition hurts the overall presentation of the film, from both the artistic perspective and in terms of picture quality. I wonder if Caleb Deschanel, the movie's respected cinematographer, had a hand or input into these drastic changes?


Released earlier this year in April, the 137-minute extended version is spread over a BD-50. The average video bitrate is 26.75 Mbps for the AVC encode. Compression is impeccable, even for the more difficult scenes that contain an abundance of grain in the darker moments. The transfer shows no halos of any amplitude or any kind of sharpening process. Shot in a very diffuse, almost romantic manner, the picture is not razor-sharp. Average levels of detail are interspersed with scenes that obscure the finest detail. No accusation of filtering, as the original photography and the decreased contrast would account for the sub-par high-frequency information seen at times.


My main criticism is the altered color timing, which I think many will share the same feeling. Certain scenes show a distinct red push, particularly in the last reel. Watch closely the final confrontation between Roy Hobbs and the Judge as Roy refuses the bribe. The shadows of his office, which should be nearly black, appear with red chroma noise. Kim Basinger's face becomes an awkward-looking shade of pink in that scene. The rich amber and yellow hues that dominate the early scenes are drained of their vitality, increasing the saturation of green to the detriment of other colors. The grass of the baseball fields look great, but not much else in comparison does unfortunately. Crisp white uniforms become off-white throughout the film.


The changes achieve their intended effect, creating an aged look to the film. A ranking in Tier 3.5 reflects no extra downward adjustment based on my personal feelings for the movie's original look. _The Natural_ tries to set a certain tone through diffusion and soft lighting, which for the purposes here limits the score. It could have been placed slightly lower with no argument.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...6#post18464826


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19192964
> 
> *Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time*
> 
> 
> I'm anxious to get to the Minnesota Twins vs. Chicago White Sox game that I recorded, so I'm going to keep this relatively short. Let me say boldly that this movie could have been reference quality if it had not been for some softness, a lack of good facial details, and poor PQ in a vast majority of the CGI shots.
> 
> 
> Most of you know that I'm a stickler for good facial details and I was underwhelmed in this department. They did get better as the film progressed, but even then they never reached Tier 0 quality. Detail in general was AMAZING at times, especially in clothing, buildings, and panoramic shots of deserts (with lush green foliage in a few rare shots) and cities.
> 
> 
> Depth and dimensionality were top-notch in MANY scenes, and are easily the title's greatest virtues (along with the details just mentioned). Who needs 3D when you can enjoy such depth in 2D?!
> 
> 
> As you may know, the director chose to give most of the movie a golden hue, but this did not detract from primary colors that I found warm and vibrant. Flesh tones looked a bit unnatural at times, but other scenes offered up some spot on shots.
> 
> 
> Many reviews I looked at boasted of the deep and inky blacks; I thought they were good, but not excellent. However, there were a few night scenes, especially at the beginning, where shadow details excelled.
> 
> 
> One more observation....it had a fine layer of grain throughout and it was quite satisfying (for those of us who like a film-like look).
> 
> 
> In comparing this with _Gladiator: Remastered_, which had many similar desert scenes and period costumes, I found this to be almost a tier lower. I gave the former a 1.0 rating, so my gut tells me to place this one here....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75*
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer BDP-05....Viewed from 7.5'



Pretty much agree with everything here. I wasn't as big of a fan of the city-shots as they were all CG, and IMO any still objects at this point in time should be rendered near perfect/perfect depending on the studio, and I kept getting some softness creeping into the picture. I'm not sure if it was the camera panning speed or what, but just wasn't SUPER impressed with them. Other details were great and the colors did stand out against the beige/tan hues of the desert and architecture. Overall though, I noticed a bit too much softness to go any higher than this.

*Tier recommendation: 1.75*


Boring movie, too. Was somewhat looking forward to this as it was a Bruckheimer film but on the other hand, the fact that it is a video game movie should have been a clear warning. Also, Jake Gyllenhaal as a Persian is about as convincing as Tom Cruise was as a German in Valkyrie, or Harrison Ford as a Russian in K-19. Just doesn't quite do it for me.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

So, it looks like I am not alone in thinking that this has been a *really* _bad_ year for movies. Not only have several in this thread agreed, but check out this article:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...ekendjournal_0


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/19202769
> 
> 
> So, it looks like I am not alone in thinking that this has been a *really* _bad_ year for movies. Not only have several in this thread agreed, but check out this article:
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...ekendjournal_0



Thanks for the article Rob!


I wasn't among the "several in this thread" who weighed in on this topic, but I surely agree with you. I judge a movie's worth by my willingness to BUY IT, and there were only a precious few (since January) that are now sitting in my Blu-ray library. That's a sad commentary on my take on this year's releases.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/19202769
> 
> 
> So, it looks like I am not alone in thinking that this has been a *really* _bad_ year for movies. Not only have several in this thread agreed, but check out this article:
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...ekendjournal_0



Hi all. I agree as well, Rob. I have been busy this summer with work and other things, but I have been watching a lot of movies, at least 5-10 BD's a week, or should I say listening.







It is sad to even admit this, but I turned on the projector many a time this summer, put in a movie and walked away. They just couldn't hold my interest. Meanwhile my bulb is burning.










As far as me reviewing, I am so far off most often I think I am out of touch. I watch thinking this or that movie looks about tier 1.0-1.5. I then come here like I did last nite after watching Elektra and see most if not all reviews are 2 tiers away. I keep coming back as I enjoy the convo, but I am confident I am not seeing these BD's the way others are or by the thread parameters. On the plus side, I find myself paying attention to the movie itself more, enjoying it more and caring a bit less about PQ, unless it is atrocious. i.e. See the Protector.


I have been watching and looking at all the comments and reviews. I do appreciate the nod some gave to me saying hello when I posted a brief comment a while back.


I hope you all are well.










Fall is here and hockey and my slower season so I will check in more as I will be more into the forum.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/19203010
> 
> 
> Hi all. I agree as well, Rob. I have been busy this summer with work and other things, but I have been watching a lot of movies, at least 5-10 BD's a week, or should I say listening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is sad to even admit this, but I turned on the projector many a time this summer, put in a movie and walked away. They just couldn't hold my interest. Meanwhile my bulb is burning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fall is here and hockey and my slower season so I will check in more as I will be more into the forum.



These Blu-rays do not rate themselves, just quote another review and make a pithy comment or two before giving a score that you feel is accurate.







Do not burn that bulb for nothing, watch enough BDs to get harassed here.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Spread


recommendation: Tier 1.0
*

For the purposes of this thread, the strongest BD I have watched from Starz. Created from a Digital Intermediate, only a mild bit of aliasing prevents a placement in Tier 0. Pristine clarity from a movie that looks shot in an exacting manner. Every once in a while the picture quality of a Blu-ray will surprise, and _Spread_ fits that mold nicely.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Forbidden Planet*


This is an old HD DVD encode, and it shows. The compression doesn't fully resolve the grain, although the color is maintained as is some detail on the various effects shots. Black levels are fine, and the contrast is bright. No sharpening or DNR here, which is a plus, but it's a shame they didn't re-encode.

*Tier 3.50*


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time*


This title was a hard one to nail down in terms of a final Tier recommendation. Throughout the movie I kept changing my opinion on whether it was good enough to be in low Tier 1, or whether high Tier 2 was more appropriate.


The good: contrast was very good overall, but not the best of the best. While dimensionality was very acceptable overall, it was not as good as the very best titles, but still definitely well above average. Colors were also nicely rendered. Details were also very good in many scenes (but not all).


The not so good: Details were lacking in enough shots to bring this one down. Facial details were not particularly impressive here for some reason. Some distant shots definitely lacked detail, while others were fairly impressive.


Some of the darker scenes were not well rendered and had a lack of detail. There were several of these scenes.


In the end, this one fell a bit short in terms of qualifying for Tier 1, and the lack of well defined details in facial features, and many of the poorly defined darker scenes put this one at Tier 2.25 for me.


The sound quality was superb. Excellent use of surround channels! Great demo disc to show off your surround system!


If not for the excellent sound mix, I would have shut this one off, because the movie itself was pretty terrible. (what's new?)

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 2.25*


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19205994
> 
> *Spread
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 1.0
> *
> 
> For the purposes of this thread, the strongest BD I have watched from Starz. Created from a Digital Intermediate, only a mild bit of aliasing prevents a placement in Tier 0. Pristine clarity from a movie that looks shot in an exacting manner. Every once in a while the picture quality of a Blu-ray will surprise, and _Spread_ fits that mold nicely.



Is the movie worth watching?


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/19209562
> 
> 
> Is the movie worth watching?



It was worth the $6 or whatever I paid for it off Amazon a few months ago as a blind buy. The subject matter is likely not to going to appeal to everyone, but the movie for what it aims is watchable. Ashton Kutcher gives a solid performance in the lead role. The soundtrack is actually quite good with a number of unknown L.A. indie tunes. Giving everyone a bit of notice for more sensitive viewers, there is rampant female nudity (now that I mentioned that factoid why do I get the feeling we will be seeing multiple reviews for it in the thread in a short while...) in the film.


Best to probably read a short plot summary at IMDB or the like to gauge interest.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19211309
> 
> 
> It was worth the $6 or whatever I paid for it off Amazon a few months ago as a blind buy. The subject matter is likely not to going to appeal to everyone, but the movie for what it aims is watchable. Ashton Kutcher gives a solid performance in the lead role. The soundtrack is actually quite good with a number of unknown L.A. indie tunes. Giving everyone a bit of notice for more sensitive viewers, there is *rampant female nudity* (now that I mentioned that factoid why do I get the feeling we will be seeing multiple reviews for it in the thread in a short while...) in the film.
> 
> 
> Best to probably read a short plot summary at IMDB or the like to gauge interest.



For some reason, the bolded part is all that my eyes saw.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Road To Perdition*
_

"Why are you always smiling?" "Because it's all so f*cking hilarious."_


This very good film, with the incredibly good cinematography from the late Conrad Hall, is introduced to us on Blu-ray by director Sam Mendes, who proceeds to gush about how great the Blu-ray transfer is, and how it does justice to Hall's cinematography.


I'm sorry to say that this really does not appear to be the case.


The transfer really does not excel in any of the areas that we deem important in this thread. Details are often sorely lacking, especially in virtually any of the indoor scenes (which is the majority of the film). There are no facials details to speak of, and fine details just are not well rendered at all.


Contrast is often weak and relatively flat.


There is a lot of grain, but it is not well preserved or uniform. As such, I would call much of it noise instead of grain.


It is hard to judge the colors because of the intentional artistic decision by the director, but overall they are pleasing if not somewhat muted.


I also noticed Edge Enhancement/ringing.


Overall a rather disappointing transfer of a really good movie, with superb cinematography by a master cinematographer.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 3.5*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Mars Attacks!*


This one is definitely using a dated master, one that has been filtered and DNR'ed. Colors are overblown, reds bleeding quite a bit. There is some haloing, very little fine detail, and the blacks are merely adequate.
*Tier 4.25*


----------



## audiomagnate

*Old Dogs*



When you leave Blockbuster empty handed more and more often, you know it's a bad year. When you downgrade your Netflix account from three out, then two out then finally one out at a time, you know it's a bad year. But when you come home from Redbox with the "Old Dogs" BD and actually watch most of it-with my eleven year old daughter-you know it's a really, really bad year. The movie actually looked pretty good to me.


*2.0*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *audiomagnate* /forum/post/19217192
> 
> 
> When you leave Blockbuster empty handed more and more often, you know it's a bad year. When you downgrade your Netflix account from three out, then two out then finally one out at a time, you know it's a bad year. But when you come home from Redbox with the "Old Dogs" BD and actually watch most of it-with my eleven year old daughter-you know it's a really, really bad year.



Well said!


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Seven*


Best black levels I've ever seen. Just amazing stuff, so deep and rich it's remarkable. Consistent too. Colors are flat, but the level of detail is truly awesome. SO much texture and definition, plus some amazing dimensionality. It may not be bright, but it's all eye candy.

*Tier 1.50*


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19221650
> 
> *Seven*
> 
> 
> Best black levels I've ever seen. Just amazing stuff, so deep and rich it's remarkable. Consistent too. Colors are flat, but the level of detail is truly awesome. SO much texture and definition, plus some amazing dimensionality. It may not be bright, but it's all eye candy.
> 
> *Tier 1.50*



Does it look as nice as Fight Club? That truly is a reference-grade transfer and BD, about as close to the original film as possible in 1080p.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19224756
> 
> 
> Does it look as nice as Fight Club? That truly is a reference-grade transfer and BD, about as close to the original film as possible in 1080p.



There is actually less crush in _Se7en_. There is definitely something special about the dark scenes in _Fight Club_, which I preferred. But _Se7en_ is within specifications.


----------



## djoberg

*Robin Hood (2010/Director's Cut)*


Let me start out by expressing how disappointing the movie was; it was not terrible, but the first half was somewhat confusing and the character development left something to be desired. The second half was much better, but in the end I was glad I decided to rent it instead of parting with nearly $25.


Thankfully the PQ was quite pleasing throughout, though it did have its flaws. The flaws consisted primarily of soft scenes (usually at night) with a bit too much grain and some lackluster black levels during those same scenes. This probably amounted to about 20 minutes of the 2 Hr. 35 Mins. running time.


The majority of the transfer was sharp and detailed, especially daytime outdoor scenes. Every close-up shot of soldiers wearing coats of mail was simply amazing, as were dozens of shots of England's countryside and forests (they were LUSH and definitely rate as EYE CANDY). And then there was an impeccable scene at approximately the 1 Hr. 21 Min. mark where Robin Hood and Maid Marian rescue a long-horned sheep in deep mud....the detail and depth was as good as I've seen in any film, bar none! Towards the end of the movie (around the 2 Hr. 12 Min. mark) we are treated to several panoramic views of the beach invasion and nearby cliffs; they are breathtaking!!


Facial details were also good, but overall they fell between mid Tier 1 and mid Tier 2. That's not to say we aren't treated to any Tier 0 shots; check out two scenes in particular....one at the 1 Hr. 30 Min. mark where the cameral zooms in on King John's mother and the other at the 1 Hr. 37 Min. mark which features William Marshall (played by William Hurt).


Skin tones were spot on, contrast was strong, black levels and shadow details were fairly good (with the exception of a couple of nighttime scenes that had too much grain...as noted above).


In drawing my final conclusion (i.e., the placement recommendation), I couldn't help but compare it with two titles I reviewed recently (_Gladiator: Remastered_ and _Prince of Persia_) and IMHO it falls squarely between the two. Thus my vote goes for.............

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer BDP-05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## deltasun

*Robin Hood* (2010/Theatrical Cut)


I know, I know...I'm getting lazy.







I agree with most of Denny's observations. I'd like to add the terrible aliasing on chain mails, particularly towards the end. I also did not care for the black levels during fire light. It's the same type of look in _Gladiator_. Furthermore, there were some great dimensionality in a number of scenes, but there were also a few notably flat scenes. Colors are a bit on the muted side. Aside from that, I pretty much echo Denny...but have to lower the final score a bit.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19226146
> 
> *Robin Hood (2010/Director's Cut)*
> 
> 
> Let me start out by expressing how disappointing the movie was; it was not terrible, but the first half was somewhat confusing and the character development left something to be desired. The second half was much better, but in the end I was glad I decided to rent it instead of parting with nearly $25.
> 
> 
> Thankfully the PQ was quite pleasing throughout, though it did have its flaws. The flaws consisted primarily of soft scenes (usually at night) with a bit too much grain and some lackluster black levels during those same scenes. This probably amounted to about 20 minutes of the 2 Hr. 35 Mins. running time.
> 
> 
> The majority of the transfer was sharp and detailed, especially daytime outdoor scenes. Every close-up shot of soldiers wearing coats of mail was simply amazing, as were dozens of shots of England's countryside and forests (they were LUSH and definitely rate as EYE CANDY). And then there was an impeccable scene at approximately the 1 Hr. 21 Min. mark where Robin Hood and Maid Marian rescue a long-horned sheep in deep mud....the detail and depth was as good as I've seen in any film, bar none! Towards the end of the movie (around the 2 Hr. 12 Min. mark) we are treated to several panoramic views of the beach invasion and nearby cliffs; they are breathtaking!!
> 
> 
> Facial details were also good, but overall they fell between mid Tier 1 and mid Tier 2. That's not to say we aren't treated to any Tier 0 shots; check out two scenes in particular....one at the 1 Hr. 30 Min. mark where the cameral zooms in on King John's mother and the other at the 1 Hr. 37 Min. mark which features William Marshall (played by William Hurt).
> 
> 
> Skin tones were spot on, contrast was strong, black levels and shadow details were fairly good (with the exception of a couple of nighttime scenes that had too much grain...as noted above).
> 
> 
> In drawing my final conclusion (i.e., the placement recommendation), I couldn't help but compare it with two titles I reviewed recently (_Gladiator: Remastered_ and _Prince of Persia_) and IMHO it falls squarely between the two. Thus my vote goes for.............
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.5*
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer BDP-05....Viewed from 7.5'


*Tier Recommendation: 1.75* (closer to 2 for me, but did enjoy the detail and dimensionality of the final battle scene).


Oh, and I echo Denny's take on the movie itself as well, though I did blind buy this. I did get a great deal though with some Rewards points.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19226146
> 
> *Robin Hood (2010/Director's Cut)*
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.5*
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer BDP-05....Viewed from 7.5'



Agree with most of what was said, but I will add flicker drove me nuts too. There's a fence in Nottingham that goes nuts every time it's on camera. Chain mail was a small bother too.


Tier 1.75


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19224756
> 
> 
> Does it look as nice as Fight Club? That truly is a reference-grade transfer and BD, about as close to the original film as possible in 1080p.



I liked this better than Fight Club. The blacks are better calibrated as said before, and the detail is richer.


----------



## vpn75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19227213
> 
> 
> I liked this better than Fight Club. The blacks are better calibrated as said before, and the detail is richer.



Wow, high praise indeed! I've been waiting for a price-drop on Amazon, but I might just run out and take advantage of the Walmart deal.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19226340
> 
> *Robin Hood* (2010/Theatrical Cut)
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75* (closer to 2 for me, but did enjoy the detail and dimensionality of the final battle scene).





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19227203
> 
> 
> Agree with most of what was said, but I will add flicker drove me nuts too. There's a fence in Nottingham that goes nuts every time it's on camera. Chain mail was a small bother too.
> 
> 
> Tier 1.75



I could easily go along with 1.75; in fact, I was actually thinking of that score several times throughout the film. But when it came down to an actual recommendation I thought this title was a wee bit better than _Prince of Persia_, which I rated at 1.75.


----------



## jedimasterchad

*2 Fast 2 Furious*


I had mentioned a few weeks ago on here that I ran across this one playing on TNT HD (or some other channel) and it looked exceptional for an HDTV presentation. I decided to waste a netflix rental on it to check out the Blu-Ray because I could not for the life of me find it on the big list. After checking here on the boards, it would appear I was right...because apparently nobody wanted to suffer through the torture of watching this again. Thus, it was time to take one for the team.


While the movie is mediocre at best, the Blu-Ray is exceptional. It is typically rare to find something of this quality. The film had a great deal of clarity and sharpness to it. Detail in facial texture was excellent throughout, except for a few instances. Shadow detail was excellent, and the opening sequence and other night scenes had a wonderful style of low-light photography, the stuff that still cameras can only dream of. The neons and bright colors of the vehicles really popped and even with the bright highlights there were no instances of black crush. Color throughout was a bit vivid but was a stylistic choice and didn't detract from the picture quality.


Daylight scenes were generally excellent, and blown highlights such as a bright sky reveal a moderately coarse grain structure that is not intrusive but makes itself present enough to remind you this is top level film stock being used. Texture was almost always top notch except for a few instances of mild softness and focus issues. It was hard to spot any flaws until the car chase towards the end, when half of Florida's cops are chasing the two cars down I-95. A few of the cameras mounted on chase cars were suspect to some heavy grain and film damage, and white specks and dirt were present but only for a short amount of time in just a few scenes.


I am inclined to place this among the best of the best but without a broader consensus I don't want to overdo it. I would love for some more people to suck it up and enjoy this fantastic looking Blu from Universal. For now, my recommendation will have to be:

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0*


----------



## jedimasterchad

*American Beauty (2010 Sapphire Series)*


I'm not going to go into a ton of detail on this one, but suffice it to say this release was more "Braveheart" than it was "Gladiator". There are a lot of things to like about this transfer, and it has preserved the look of the original quite well. There are instances of film where the look is handycam (not unlike District 9 or others) so I will omit those instances from my rating as they intentionally look bad.


Colors are bold when called for, especially the use of the color red as a theme throughout the film. Most scenes are rendered very well but lack depth of newer titles. Blacks are decent but not of the strongest variety. Grain is evident but it does appear that some smoothing has been done. Overall a solid presentation but they didn't perform magic on this one. A worthy upgrade if you are a fan of the movie but if it's not one you watch all the time, perhaps your Blu money can be spent on others.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/19229967
> 
> *2 Fast 2 Furious*
> 
> I am inclined to place this among the best of the best but without a broader consensus I don't want to overdo it. *I would love for some more people to suck it up and enjoy this fantastic looking Blu from Universal.*
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.0*



I'll try to give this a rent this fall jedi. I'm one that is willing to suffer through a bad movie if the PQ is anywhere close to reference quality.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Tombstone*


Close-ups are superb, wonderfully and richly rendered with precision. Sadly, not much else is due to the rather awful black crush. There is no shadow detail here. Long shots appear too digital and processed, and there is some glaring edge enhancement at work. Colors are heavily skewered to warm tints.

*Tier 3.5*


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19232108
> 
> *Tombstone*
> 
> 
> Close-ups are superb, wonderfully and richly rendered with precision. Sadly, not much else is due to the rather awful black crush. There is no shadow detail here. Long shots appear too digital and processed, and there is some glaring edge enhancement at work. Colors are heavily skewered to warm tints.
> 
> *Tier 3.5*



I have been meaning to watch my copy for a couple of months now. There are some issues in the transfer regarding consistency if reports are true. Disney's abandonment of older live-action films on Blu-ray likely means we do not get another release.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/19083719
> 
> *Gangs of New York - Tier 2.25* (Good remastering effort but many shots suffers from lack of definition due to the filming style and the smoggy setup)



I am in general agreement about _Gangs Of New York_ after a recent viewing. A very solid transfer is apparent from the remastering process. However the cinematography shows good dimensionality and sharpness with a curious lack of detail in most instances. There just was not the typical amount of detail to merit a placement in Tier 1. Also one or two scenes showed a slight bit of clipped black levels, leading to a loss in shadow delineation. On the whole though a very good image that just does not produce enough moments of wow to elicit a higher ranking.

*Gangs Of New York (Remastered)


recommendation: 2.25*


----------



## John Mason




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19236150
> 
> 
> I am in general agreement about _Gangs Of New York_ after a recent viewing. A very solid transfer is apparent from the remastering process. However the cinematography shows good dimensionality and sharpness with a curious lack of detail in most instances. There just was not the typical amount of detail to merit a placement in Tier 1. Also one or two scenes showed a slight bit of clipped black levels, leading to a loss in shadow delineation. On the whole though a very good image that just does not produce enough moments of wow to elicit a higher ranking.
> 
> *Gangs Of New York (Remastered)
> 
> 
> recommendation: 2.25*



Reads like contrast-boosted lower/mid-range resolutions/frequencies, but filtered higher resolutions that can impart a "sharp" appearance--without great detail. TV engineer Mark Schubin outlined how a broader/steeper MTF curve aids sharpness, even on VHS tapes.


Maybe someone with access to a high-end spectrum analyzer would see a mid-range resolution boost, not as prominent on zero-rated movies here. Or perhaps the boost would even appear with PC shareware software for spectrum analysis plotting (contrast versus resolution) and MSU picture-quality graphing software--the latter having SNR modes, too. Naturally, this couldn't compare to eyeball evaluation here.  -- John


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Big Trouble in Little China*


A sharp, pleasing transfer of this '80s goofy classic. Primaries are bolder than ever, facial detail produces loads of texture, but crushing blacks take away some of their impact. Grain is well resolved and consistent.

*Tier 3.25*


----------



## lgans316

*Kick Ass (GER / UK / EU - AVC - Universal)*


Another dodgy title to rate because of the director's stylistic choice and artistic intent. Contrast and oversaturated colors are the strong points of this rather amusing picture which takes a blow due to intentional digital airbrushing that obviously affects skin tones (not to the level of Island or Resident Evil 3) and fluctuating black levels that appeared dark scenes to look a bit bluish / grayish. Thankfully there are no EE or other easily discernible film-to-video artifacts and outdoor shots offers a nice sense of dimensionality and 3D pop.


Having watched this the second time by reducing the color / brightness / gamma levels by few notches, this one looked very pretty. There is a fine layer of film grain and plenty of eye candy shots. Confusion cleared. We have one of the best movie for 2010.

*Tier 1.75*


----------



## deltasun

*American Beauty*


My first thought as the film started (after the home video footage) was, "this is better than I was expecting!" This was short-lived, however, as the quality of the picture went through a roller coaster ride. There are some great scenes with perfectly rendered color (specially the director-intended muted scenes), excellent depth, and adequate shadow details. On the flip side, some of the blacks appear weak, skin tones are on the rosy side, and details and textures are just mediocre for high definition.


On the technical side, there's aliasing (the worst of it on the dishwasher), noise, pretty obvious ringing, and slight DNR. Again, it was inconsistent - grain came and went. I didn't find these negatives too distracting, but I did notice them throughout. Oh, there are also plenty of print dirt throughout.


Titled under the _Sapphire Series_ banner, it was disappointing for such a great film.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.25*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/19229967
> 
> *2 Fast 2 Furious*
> 
> 
> 
> I would love for some more people to suck it up and enjoy this fantastic looking Blu from Universal. For now, my recommendation will have to be:
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.0*



I thought I would chime in again to say that I saw part of this on Starz the other day and it did look phenomenal. My only gripe is it looked too good to be true, which is another way of saying it looked unrealistic. Don't get me wrong, the colors are amazing, as are the details, sharpness, and depth, but it comes across as unnatural, akin to productions like _CSI Miami_.


I was going to rent it from a local video store but then I remembered they don't have catalog titles on Blu-ray.


Well, my wife and I leave early Monday morning for 5 days of viewing fall colors on the North Shore of Lake Superior. I hope you're all blessed by the amazing colors wherever you live!


----------



## win200




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19242842
> 
> 
> Well, my wife and I leave early Monday morning for 5 days of viewing fall colors on the North Shore of Lake Superior. I hope you're all blessed by the amazing colors wherever you live!



That's the best kind of hi-def viewing. No concern about EE or DNR there. Enjoy!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *win200* /forum/post/19243162
> 
> 
> that's the best kind of hi-def viewing. No concern about ee or dnr there. Enjoy!



You got that right!


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*SPREAD*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19205994
> 
> *Spread
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 1.0
> *
> 
> For the purposes of this thread, the strongest BD I have watched from Starz. Created from a Digital Intermediate, only a mild bit of aliasing prevents a placement in Tier 0. Pristine clarity from a movie that looks shot in an exacting manner. Every once in a while the picture quality of a Blu-ray will surprise, and _Spread_ fits that mold nicely.



Phantom, you and I are on the same page a very high percentage of the time, but I think we are going to part ways on this one pretty substantially.


This title had *lots* of softness throughout large portions of the movie. Details were often noticeably lacking. Distant shots of actors faces were largely a smeared mess.


Contrast was adequate but not overly impressive.


The majority of this one, to me, lacked the "clarity" that I look for in top notch titles. Don't get me wrong, there *are* scenes, mostly in bright sunlight, that look really good, with lots of detail and clarity. You could easily post screen grabs of those scenes and everyone would talk about how great the film looks. But the less stellar scenes make up a significant part of the film.


I honestly started to wonder if my projector lens had been knocked out of focus (I am not exaggerating here). I started to second guess myself, and I held off writing a review. The next evening I watched Black Hawk Down. It was good to watch what I consider a clear Tier 1 title to compare Spread to, and I though the differences were clear and obvious. The clarity, detail, and superb contrast of BHD were all noticeably better.


As for the movie, I even watched this with my wife who could utter no more than a "interesting" to describe this sex filled movie.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.5*


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/19244152
> 
> *SPREAD*
> 
> Phantom, you and I are on the same page a very high percentage of the time, but I think we are going to part ways on this one pretty substantially.
> 
> 
> This title had *lots* of softness throughout large portions of the movie. Details were often noticeably lacking. Distant shots of actors faces were largely a smeared mess.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.5*



Honestly it was a recommendation that I did not have 100% confidence in as internally I thought it could have ended up anywhere between Tier 1.0 to 1.5. The middle of Tier Two is lower however than I would place the BD, as there are lots of nice moments around the pool and patio of the swanky home in the California hills. Spread is generally sharper than all of the films in Tier Two to my eyes. One point in your favor is the relative lack of top-notch high frequency content, though the direction tends to avoid tight close-ups.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19244546
> 
> 
> Honestly it was a recommendation that I did not have 100% confidence in as internally I thought it could have ended up anywhere between Tier 1.0 to 1.5. The middle of Tier Two is lower however than I would place the BD, as there are lots of nice moments around the pool and patio of the swanky home in the California hills. Spread is generally sharper than all of the films in Tier Two to my eyes. One point in your favor is the relative lack of top-notch high frequency content, though the direction tends to avoid tight close-ups.



When I spoke of the bright scenes that looked really good, I was speaking of the ones that you refer to here (around the pool and patio). But those scenes, as good as they are, simply don't make up enough of the movie to put this in Tier 1 imo.


Really the thing that confirmed for *me* more than anything that this is a Tier 2 title was watching Black Hawk Down after this. There is at least 1 full tier difference between the two of them.


Phantom, I think you were simply swayed by the beautiful naked bodies!


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest Collector's Edition*


Despite the new box, this is the same encode Warner used from 2008 with a totally inadequate VC-1 encode that causes an unbearable amount of smearing. Fine detail is okay in close, at least when everything is still. The grain actually looks decently resolved, but the compression can't seem to handle much of anything else. It's soft, not a lot of color, and the source is in decent shape.

*Tier 4.25*


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19244679
> 
> *One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest Collector's Edition*
> 
> 
> Despite the new box, this is the same encode Warner used from 2008 with a totally inadequate VC-1 encode that causes an unbearable amount of smearing. Fine detail is okay in close, at least when everything is still. The grain actually looks decently resolved, but the compression can't seem to handle much of anything else. It's soft, not a lot of color, and the source is in decent shape.
> 
> *Tier 4.25*



That's very discouraging.


----------



## djoberg

*Letters to Juliet*


I thought it prudent, before whisking my wife away to view beautiful fall colors, to rent a movie with lush landscapes and gorgeous colors, and I'm happy to say that _Letters to Juliet_ filled the bill perfectly!


I was really impressed with this title, from the aforementioned warm and vibrant colors, to the amazing depth and detail in a majority of scenes. Italy's countryside (with its exquisite vineyards) and Verona's cityscapes did not disappoint; they were chock-full of eye-pleasing colors and detail. The _only_ censure here would be the lack of highly-defined background detail, though my eyes were so fixated on the details up close that I barely noticed this.


Blacks, though limited to a few rare scenes, were very good, and shadow details were excellent. Contrast was strong. Flesh tones were spot on. Except for a couple of scenes (most notably the indoor part of a wedding scene at the end of the movie), the PQ was quite sharp, and as intimated above there was plenty of depth and dimensionality.


I have to agree, for the most part, with GRG concerning the facial details. They fell far short of what we would expect from a demo-worthy title, and yet the other virtues of this film eclipsed this negative. But I simply can't agree with his placement of 3.25; in fact, I believe he is being far too critical (judging by what _my eyes_ observed). _My eyes_ tell me this deserves a place on a demo shelf (not *reference*, mind you, but *demo*), so I'm casting my vote for........

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer BDP-05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19242842
> 
> 
> I thought I would chime in again to say that I saw part of this on Starz the other day and it did look phenomenal. My only gripe is it looked too good to be true, which is another way of saying it looked unrealistic. Don't get me wrong, the colors are amazing, as are the details, sharpness, and depth, but it comes across as unnatural, akin to productions like _CSI Miami_.
> 
> 
> I was going to rent it from a local video store but then I remembered they don't have catalog titles on Blu-ray.
> 
> 
> Well, my wife and I leave early Monday morning for 5 days of viewing fall colors on the North Shore of Lake Superior. I hope you're all blessed by the amazing colors wherever you live!



I thought the same until I found the film grain. On the other hand, a fair amount of it could be green-screen, but it blends well enough not to notice. I think you will be pleasantly surprised by the BD. Have a nice trip.


----------



## djoberg

*Remember Me*


We're starting to pack, so I'm going to make this very short. For the most part I was *underwhelmed* by this title, due to MANY soft scenes and less-than-stellar blacks levels and shadow detail. Colors were muted for the majority of the movie, but there were shots in bright, daytime scenes where they came alive and gave my eyes a bit of a rush.







In those same scenes (which increased in the latter half of the film) detail, depth, and clarity were VERY GOOD, approaching Tier 0 at times. Facial details were average at best.


This is one of those "hard calls," but in the end the best I could give this is....

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer BDP-05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Iron Man 2*


A disappointment actually. Facial detail just isn't there, and when it is, it's not that impressive. This is far more effective in the long range with expansive city shots that are simply incredible. Some of the Iron Man shots are nifty, and the particle effects are clean. The mid-range isn't bad either. Black levels are a bit weak in spots too. Shame about those close-ups.

*Tier 2.25*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Get Him to the Greek*


This one starts off with mostly cable-quality HD video, then switches to film when the detail really sets in. I never knew Puff Daddy had such a textured face. Simply stunning high fidelity detail in close, and that holds true for much of the film. Some inconsistency for sure, black levels and facial detail included.

*Tier 2.0*


----------



## Superman2

So Iron man 2 is only tier2 quality... and I'm suppose to pay $30 for it (Canada).


If a new release like IRM2 isn't reference quality, they have no business pushing 3D until HD quality issues are addressed... IMO.


Sorry for ranting in the wrong place.


----------



## Incindium

Anyone compare Iron Man 2 PQ to Iron Man directly yet? I've always thought that Iron Man has been ranked too high.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Incindium* /forum/post/19262558
> 
> 
> Anyone compare Iron Man 2 PQ to Iron Man directly yet? I've always thought that Iron Man has been ranked too high.



No, but that would be a good benchmark to compare the sequel's video quality. From what I remember the current placement for Iron Man in Tier 1.75 seemed fair at the time given the disparity in viewpoints, but possibly another evaluation is needed. Do not feel awkward, just contribute your impressions or score on one or both Iron Man movies. The rankings are never etched in stone, comparative scores can change over the course of time.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*King Kong (1933)*

Definitely not eye candy, but man does it look great. The encode only breaks down in thick fog/smoke. Blacks are deeper and richer than they were on the DVD. Nice detail on the Kong model, and the giant face used to eat people. Jack Driscoll wears a striped shirt and out of all the times I've seen this movie, I never spotted that. Wonderful detail on the glass paintings too.
*Tier 4.0*


----------



## ivanpino

*THE THIN RED LINE*


STUNNING TRANSFER.

*TIER 0*


Ivan


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ivanpino* /forum/post/19268049
> 
> *THE THIN RED LINE*
> 
> 
> STUNNING TRANSFER.
> 
> *TIER 0*
> 
> 
> Ivan



Good news on the transfer. How's the PQ?


----------



## ivanpino




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19269130
> 
> 
> Good news on the transfer. How's the PQ?



The color scheme on this film is breathtaking. The yellow's green's blue's and all the flestones are some of the best colors Iv'e seen on Bluray. The black levels are also strong for a movie this this age. This film has a window effect throughout. I strongly recommend to anyone who is serious about PQ. This will be my new PQ demo for quite some time.


Ivan Pino


----------



## cjmx2

I have not posted for a while as we have been moving, but had a chance to sit down and watch both IM1 and 2 last night and today.

*Iron Man*Let me start and say that I was never really impressed with this title when it came out. I always would have ranked it @ 1.75 where it has been standing but after re-watching i think I will go with *2.0* Detail is never strong especially in the arial shots and pans. Facial Detail is OK most of the time but is soft in some instances. Not going to beat a dead horse...we have rehashed this all before

*Iron Man 2*To me this looked much better in many ways. Overall detail was stronger. There was some issues with the facial details which GRG pointed out, but to me it was not as bad as he said. The biggest improvement was in the large group shots and arial shots. Facial details I would say were 1/2 tier 1.0 and 1/2 tier 2.75. With the other merits I am going to round out at *1.5* call me generous...but of well I'm a sucker for good demo scenes
BTW - some of the best audio I've heard in a while - nice to have reference audio and PQ "demo scenes" the race section and the closing battle were both reference fun!!


ln52b750 24hz 8ft


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Feast*


This was on HD DVD I believe but I never saw it. Can't say for sure if it's any different. If it is, I can't imagine this being much better. This is an ugly film in low light, which can be fine, but the blacks are far too weak for this material. Facial detail is all but completely absent, and you can hardly see much else. A bit of color due to the bar having some bright lights. Not much else going on.

*Tier 4.5*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ivanpino* /forum/post/19268049
> 
> *THE THIN RED LINE*
> 
> 
> STUNNING TRANSFER.
> 
> *TIER 0*
> 
> 
> Ivan



I just read several excellent reviews on this transfer from Cinema Squid's website:

http://www.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray/m...?movieid=13948 


They substantiate your take on it. I only wish the price wasn't so high. I may have to wait for a price drop on this one.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19276584
> 
> 
> I just read several excellent reviews on this transfer from Cinema Squid's website:
> 
> http://www.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray/m...?movieid=13948
> 
> 
> They substantiate your take on it. I only wish the price wasn't so high. I may have to wait for a price drop on this one.



Netflix is your friend.


This is an excellent film.


----------



## rusky_g

*MacGruber*


Hi all, welcome to my first review.


It's amazing how big budget blockbuster's can fall short of expectation, whilst for a relatively low budget flick, a film like this can *really* wow me.


A clear, crisp picture throughout with no grain (which I prefer). Daytime scenes had lots of pop and detail was solid from start to finish, with only the odd slightly softer scene keeping this from placing higher. The film itself was the funniest I have seen in a long time, so for me a great all round package.

*Recommendation: Tier 1*


Optoma HD65 PJ / 94" screen


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/19276668
> 
> 
> Netflix is your friend.
> 
> 
> This is an excellent film.



I've seen the film Rob and it is indeed excellent! That's why I'd like to buy it instead of renting it and right now it's going for $30, which is quite steep for a catalog title.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g* /forum/post/19277401
> 
> *MacGruber*
> 
> 
> Hi all, welcome to my first review.
> 
> 
> It's amazing how big budget blockbuster's can fall short of expectation, whilst for a relatively low budget flick, a film like this can *really* wow me.
> 
> 
> A clear, crisp picture throughout with no grain (which I prefer). Daytime scenes had lots of pop and detail was solid from start to finish, with only the odd slightly softer scene keeping this from placing higher. The film itself was the funniest I have seen in a long time, so for me a great all round package.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 1*
> 
> 
> Optoma HD65 PJ / 94" screen



Thanks for the review rusky_g and welcome to the thread!


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ivanpino* /forum/post/19269712
> 
> 
> The color scheme on this film is breathtaking. The yellow's green's blue's and all the flestones are some of the best colors Iv'e seen on Bluray. The black levels are also strong for a movie this this age. This film has a window effect throughout. I strongly recommend to anyone who is serious about PQ. This will be my new PQ demo for quite some time.
> 
> 
> Ivan Pino



Thanks Ivan, I'll have to rewatch this on BR via Netflix. I'm in the minority in that I did not have the urge to own this movie. I just really preferred the book and did not care too much for the adaptation. At the same time, I don't know that any adaptation would have done it justice. It's a very cerebral story and that's always going to be a challenge for any director.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g* /forum/post/19277401
> 
> *MacGruber*
> 
> It's amazing how big budget blockbuster's can fall short of expectation, whilst for a relatively low budget flick, a film like this can *really* wow me.
> 
> 
> A clear, crisp picture throughout with no grain (which I prefer). Daytime scenes had lots of pop and detail was solid from start to finish, with only the odd slightly softer scene keeping this from placing higher. The film itself was the funniest I have seen in a long time, so for me a great all round package.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 1*



That is good to hear on MacGruber, a movie which many tell me is very funny. MacGruber may be the exception to the rule that comedies are not filmed for eye candy. Suspect cinematography is a common problem for comedic fare on Blu-ray.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Marmaduke*


"Wait for it...wait for it..."


This dog comedy looked excellent! Details and clarity were very impressive, well above average.


Contrast was good overall, but my biggest complaint with this title was blown highlights. The majority of scenes were shot in daylight and some were in bright sun at the beach, and exposure seemed to be just a bit on the hot side.


I suspect that this would have looked even better if it was pulled down just a tad. Contrast in the few dark/night scenes was excellent.


Colors are bold and bright.


Facial details are good, but there were times when I almost felt there was a tad of DNR applied.


Other than those few relatively minor complaints, this was a title that was pretty impressive looking.


The movie was good for a few decent laughs too. The kids loved it.
*Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.5*


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Killers*


"How weird is this going to get? Because some things you cannot unsee".


This was an interesting looking title, and it had some strange anomaly with the focus. At the edge of the frame in many scenes, the picture would appear fuzzy and out of focus. Weird.


Also, much of this film had a golden hue to it.


Overall pleasing looking title, but the focus at the edges did distract me a bit.


Contrast was good, details were more than acceptable, and the colors and aforementioned golden hue were also interesting.


The movie itself was pretty bad, and not something I would recommend...even as a rental.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.5*


----------



## deltasun

*Killers*


This one started out well and had potential, then we left France. As with most movies of this genre, there is the signature golden hue, particularly in skin tones. Facial details are not exceptional, but are not completely smoothed out either. Dimensionality is great in France, but does wane a bit as the movie progresses. Blacks are pretty bold; contrast strong. Colors are vivid throughout. Finally, shadow details are just slightly above average.


Overall, the inconsistency lands this in high Tier 2 for me. The Nice scenes are easily in Tier 1, but that did not last long.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

Nice job, Rob


----------



## lgans316

*Robin Hood*


At first, I admit that I got this wrong after going through the comparison pix thread.










Very good PQ on most parts except for some shimmering, very minor EE and slightly weak black levels in couple of scenes. Grain appears to be in-tact. Contrast / Colors are very good though the film has a slightly desaturated and monochromatic look. The highlight of the PQ is that the fine object, texture / skin tone and high frequency details are well preserved despite the slightly dark tone of the movie. I couldn't discern any film-to-video artifacts.

Tier Recommendation: *Tier 2*


----------



## rusky_g

Thanks for the welcome guys, I have been following this threead for months so thought it was about time I'd chime in







great source of info here with a nice balance of opinions, I guess pq is quite subjective to the I individual.


Phantom, MacGruber was very in tune with my humour, I hope you enjoy it as much as I did


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19280640
> 
> 
> Nice job, Rob



Funny, I almost thought that I was reading my own review for a minute!


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Adventures of Robin Hood*


A simply staggering restoration of this classic, bogged slightly by poor compression (notable at a distance). Nothing can take away from the beauty of Technicolor though, the colors so rich and bold, you can't take away. Lavish costumes are wonderfully defined, in close or in the mid-range. Very minor damage is noted. Great black levels too.


Honestly, if this ever gets re-encoded, it could be an easy Tier 2.

*Tier 3.25*


----------



## djoberg

I see that _The Last of the Mohicans_ is being released on Oct. 5th. That is one of my all-time favorites and I'm hoping it looks great on Blu-ray. I have read elsewhere that it is quite dark and there is a yellow-tint throughout the movie. Has anyone read anything more positive? Again, I absolutely LOVE this film and I'm hoping the Blu-ray does the film justice.


----------



## djoberg

I just ordered _The Thin Red Line_ at a decent price from the following website:

http://www.familyvideo.com/catalog/p...ucts_id=350838


----------



## djoberg

*Iron Man 2*


I tried doing a Search to see what placement I gave to the initial _Iron Man_, for IMO this one deserves to be a notch higher. This definitely has more detail, depth, and better black levels (and is void of noise which plagued the former _Iron Man_ in several scenes). A former review penalized it for the facial details, but I thought they were above average (somewhere between mid Tier 1 and mid Tier 2). Some of the close-ups of Mickey Rourke came close to Tier 0 and there was one of Don Cheadle (inside his Iron Man suit) that also came close to reference. Detail in general was very good....check out the scene in the park at approximately the 1 Hr. 46 Min. mark (where Cheadle and Downey do battle with the *others*) where the detail in the shadows is phenomenal (with plenty of 3D pop).


I was also impressed with the warm and vivid colors, the accurate flesh tones, and the superb contrast.


My main gripe would be with a few soft scenes and some isolated murky blacks, but really these were so rare that I feel I'm guilty of nit-picking.


If memory serves me right, I gave the first installment a 1.75, so a notch higher would make it.....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer BDP-05....Viewed from 7.5'


PS The movie itself SUCKED!!


----------



## ivanpino




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19285221
> 
> 
> I just ordered _The Thin Red Line_ at a decent price from the following website:
> 
> http://www.familyvideo.com/catalog/p...ucts_id=350838



Nice. Let us know what your thoughts are when you receive and watch.


Ivan


----------



## tfoltz

Just finished Iron Man 2 and I felt the picture quality was worse than the first Iron Man (I felt Iron Man was 1.75 and Iron Man 2 should be 2.5-2.75). Maybe I'm just getting tired of the overly tan/warm skin tones in a majority of the movies nowadays. I also felt the contrast was lacking and image soft. However, the park scene with Iron Man/War Machine looked great; actually, most scenes with the machines were good, of course. I'll have to give both Iron Mans another watch.


I hadn't seen the movie before this viewing. It took about 1.25 hours before I started to enjoy it, but it turned out ok.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)


In a bit of time crunch. Dark film, but the blacks are deep enough. Facial details hindered by focal issues, a bit of aliasing, solid compression.

*Tier 2.5*


----------



## vpn75

I watched *Hard Candy* last night and came away very impressed with the PQ. Some of the facial closeups during the torture scenes ranked up there with the best I've seen on the format. Contrast varied a bit from scene to scene, but overall detail was excellent.


My initial recommendation would be *Tier 1.5* I'm interested to hear what others have to say about this title.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/19289555
> 
> 
> Just finished Iron Man 2 and I felt the picture quality was worse than the first Iron Man (I felt Iron Man was 1.75 and Iron Man 2 should be 2.5-2.75).
> 
> 
> I hadn't seen the movie before this viewing. It took about 1.25 hours before I started to enjoy it, but it turned out ok.



I have to disagree with you on this, for IMO the first half _Iron Man_ had a lot of anomalies, especially heavy grain/noise. It also lacked the sharpness and clarity of the second installment.


I also have to disagree with your take on the movie. I thought it was terrible all the way through. Granted, I've never been a Robert Downey, Jr. fan, but he was worse than usual in this one. His narcissism, immaturity, and drunkenness were more than I could handle.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19283226
> 
> 
> I see that _The Last of the Mohicans_ is being released on Oct. 5th. That is one of my all-time favorites and I'm hoping it looks great on Blu-ray. I have read elsewhere that it is quite dark and there is a yellow-tint throughout the movie. Has anyone read anything more positive? Again, I absolutely LOVE this film and I'm hoping the Blu-ray does the film justice.



$14.99 at Amazon. May be worth it if you like the movie that much, regardless of PQ.


----------



## tfoltz

Djoberg: I know you disagree, I read your review.







I said I would watch it again.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19294021
> 
> 
> $14.99 at Amazon. May be worth it if you like the movie that much, regardless of PQ.



Thanks delta.....I ordered it earlier tonight from Amazon, along with _The Exorcist_.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/19294230
> 
> 
> Djoberg: I know you disagree, I read your review.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said I would watch it again.



Sorry tfoltz if I came across sarcastically. I'll be interested in hearing from you after you watch it again, regardless of the conclusion you reach.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19293886
> 
> 
> 
> I also have to disagree with your take on the movie. I thought it was terrible all the way through. Granted, I've never been a Robert Downey, Jr. fan, but he was worse than usual in this one. His narcissism, immaturity, and drunkenness were more than I could handle.



Wow. Robert Downey Jr. can act with the best of them in my opinion.


Haven't seen Iron Man 2 yet, but from everything that I've heard, it doesn't sound very promising in terms of the movie itself (vs PQ).


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/19294802
> 
> 
> Wow. Robert Downey Jr. can act with the best of them in my opinion.



One problem I have with him Rob is I can hardly understand him in some of his movies (he often talks too fast and sometimes too low), such as the two _Iron Man_ outings and especially in _Sherlocke Holmes_. Besides that, I think he brings some of his personal conceit (which I've seen off screen) to his film roles.


----------



## djoberg

*The Karate Kid (2010)*


This one could have been reference if not for three things: sporadic soft scenes (and a lack of depth in those same scenes) in the first half of the movie, some overblown whites in a couple of daytime scenes, and mediocre facial details. Aside from these, I was really impressed with the details, sharpness and clarity. During many of the *training* scenes in China's glorious mountains and on the Great Wall of China, we are treated to lush, panoramic views with excellent details. And there was a plethora of close-ups that yielded above average detail and depth.


Flesh tones were good, contrast was strong (with the exception of the shots alluded to above with overblown whites), colors were pleasing, blacks levels were acceptable, and shadow details were remarkable.


I'm forced to dock this a whole tier for the flaws mentioned, so I'm recommending.....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75 or 2.0*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer BDP-05....Viewed from 7.5'


PS I was wondering how well Will Smith's son would be in the Kung Fu arena and I was pleasantly surprised at how good he was.


----------



## b_scott

hey we were shown on HD Nation today


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/19294985
> 
> 
> hey we were shown on HD Nation today



What is HD Nation? A show of some kind?


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19295000
> 
> 
> What is HD Nation? A show of some kind?



http://revision3.com/hdnation/appletvreview 











About halfway through he shows this thread, and then another time shows an avsforum LG 390 thread.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/19295016
> 
> 
> About halfway through he shows this thread, and then another time shows an avsforum LG 390 thread.



Patrick Norton, I remember him when he was on TechTV. He always did seem to know what he was talking about on gear. Good to see the thread getting attention outside the forum.


Hopefully I will be able to squeeze in some reviews before the baseball playoffs get in full swing. The number of Blu-rays sitting in a pile waiting to be watched has reached epic proportions.


----------



## b_scott

haha. Yeah he was on DL.TV until that ended


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Splice*


It's a Warner encode! Lots of smooth, processed faces, but a number of really solid ones too. Sometimes it does seem like focus though, the encode handling a grain spike without any issues. Go figure. Special effects blend well, and close-ups generally resolve quite a bit. Black levels are only fair, and the colors are washed out.
*Tier 3.75*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^


GRG,


How was the movie? It sounds intriguing but then I've been sorely disappointed with many that sounded just as good.


----------



## cjmx2

*Beauty and the Beast*Being one of my favorite Disney Classics I had to get this "for the kids". Just to start out: absolutely beautiful...Disney did a great job of putting this on Blu-Ray. The animation is getting a little dated and the facial / texture detail is not there, but that is a source problem and not a transfer problem. Bright, vivid colors and just a great looking disc. I don't believe that this could look any better than it does. The famous digital ballroom from 1989 digital animation definitely looked dated. Aside from the date of the source material the movie had a tremendous amount of 3d pop...very pleasing transfer.

I would like to quote from our opening page: *Addendum:*

Some, but not all, of the Blu-rays ranked in the various tiers look as good as they possibly can on Blu-ray given limitations in the original photography and the director's intended visuals. We recognize films and videos are not all created with the same intent and quality, and this is why certain titles can never achieve a tier zero or tier one ranking for example, even given a perfect transfer from the best possible source.
I believe that Beauty and the beast and Sleeping Beauty fall into this category. Both are pristine transfers, but will lack the detail expressed in modern animation. I cannot place these in tier 0 without better detail (since the other movies there are both pristine transfers and have the facial / texture detail)

*Sleeping Beauty Tier 1.0

Beauty and The Beast Tier 1.0*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^


I rated _Sleeping Beauty_ in Tier 1 for the exact same reasons cited by you. As you say, it is the best transfer possible given the source, but it definitely lacks the details that recent animated titles have. I can imagine I'll feel the same way as you once I see _Beauty and the Beast_.


----------



## tfoltz

I would probably put Beauty and the Beast in Tier 0. Amazing amounts of detail for my eyes; the backgrounds have so much detail and aesthetic interest that surpasses many movies currently in Tier 0 (many of which may only be in Tier 0 for facial detail). The intro nature scene, and especially the last scene of the movie with the stained glass window, were incredible.


That being said, I definitely understand why someone would vote for Tier 1. I plan to watch again to see if any banding is present in a few scenes.


I pretty much need to watch every movie a few times before I decide on a placement. This may be why I don't vote more often.


----------



## RBFC

For a movie this old, my jaw was on the floor right from the start. Gorgeous job with this one!


Lee


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19295948
> 
> 
> ^^^^^
> 
> 
> GRG,
> 
> 
> How was the movie? It sounds intriguing but then I've been sorely disappointed with many that sounded just as good.



Adrien Brody has sex with the creature. That's all that needs to be said. Completely destroys all credibility in the final 20-minutes.


----------



## subavision212




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19297290
> 
> 
> Adrien Brody has sex with the creature. That's all that needs to be said. Completely destroys all credibility in the final 20-minutes.



Boy, ain't that the truth!


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*30 Days of Night: Dark Days*

Shot digitally, this one has a nice level of clarity, and in close, facial detail is quite strong. Unfortunately, the black levels don't really hold up. Texture is inconsistent, the smoothness entirely unnatural at times. Video noise is kept to a minimum, as is softness.

*Tier 3.25*


----------



## djoberg

*The Losers*


I was ready for an "over-the-top" action flick and _The Losers_ more than satisfied! It was a fun ride with the perfect cast. Granted, I had to suspend disbelief for all but a few minutes, but after a busy day "at the office," I was more than willing to check my mind at the door.










This was as stylized as they come, with saturated colors and pumped up contrast. It took me awhile to adapt to this look but once I did I rather enjoyed it. Blacks levels were superb, as were the shadow details. Close-ups of objects and faces yielded above average detail....mid Tier 1-mid Tier 2 quality, IMO.


There were some drawbacks; namely, a lack of detail in backgrounds and even in some midrange shots. It also lacked depth in these same scenes. Some shots seemed out-of-focus as well.


All things considered, I wouldn't put this on my demo shelf, but it's close enough to put it right here....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer BDP-05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Karate Kid (2010)*

This is reference grade live action material if there ever was any.


Those training scenes on the mountains are amongst the best images I have ever seen in HD. Staggering. DJ had mentioned some softness, and it is there, although so brief and so minor that it's an easy pass. Whites do tend to run a bit hot, but detail still exists within the frame when they do. Color is simply staggering, so rich and bold yet still completely natural in terms of flesh tones. Wonderful black levels and the smallest amount of crush. Amazing.

*Tier .50*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19307173
> 
> *The Karate Kid (2010)*
> 
> This is reference grade live action material if there ever was any.
> 
> 
> Those training scenes on the mountains are amongst the best images I have ever seen in HD. Staggering. DJ had mentioned some softness, and it is there, although so brief and so minor that it's an easy pass. Whites do tend to run a bit hot, but detail still exists within the frame when they do. Color is simply staggering, so rich and bold yet still completely natural in terms of flesh tones. Wonderful black levels and the smallest amount of crush. Amazing.
> 
> *Tier .50*



I'm a bit surprised by your generous recommendation GRG, but I certainly agree with you regarding the training scenes on the mountains (I said as much in my review) and the wonderful black levels. My issue with it was mostly in the first 1/3 or so of the movie where softness and a lack of clarity crept in (for example, the scene in the airplane). This happened too often to allow me to recommend Tier 0. Also, IMO the facial details were DEFINITELY *not* Tier 0 quality. But perhaps I was a bit too harsh in my recommendation (especially considering the reputation I have to maintain as _most generous rater_), so I might be willing to go as high as 1.5. And yet that still leaves a whole tier between us!!


----------



## djoberg

*Brothers*


First of all, this movie was diametrically opposed to last's night mindless action flick (i.e., _The Losers_), for I was riveted to each performance in this excellent wartime drama. The lead performances by Toby Maguire, Jake Gyllenhaal, and Natalie Portman were all deserving of Oscar nominations...and even the supporting cast had my full attention. I would HIGHLY recommend this gem to all my fellow AVS Forum members.


I'm happy to say the PQ was also quite good, though it isn't one of the first titles I'd grab to show off the virtues of HD/Blu-ray. Its greatest pluses were excellent black levels/shadow details, superb depth and dimensionality (though these were sporadic), accurate flesh tones, and a fair amount of detail in close or midrange shots (and some above average detail in distant shots of Afghanistan). The color palette was muted for a majority of scenes, but when primary colors did pop they were very pleasing to the eyes. All-in-all a very clean transfer!


I put _The Losers_ at the top of Tier Silver and I'm inclined to assign this one to the same position (though not exactly for the reasons).....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer BDP-05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## djoberg

*30 Days of Night: Dark Days*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19301443
> 
> *30 Days of Night: Dark Days*
> 
> Shot digitally, this one has a nice level of clarity, and in close, facial detail is quite strong. Unfortunately, the black levels don't really hold up. Texture is inconsistent, the smoothness entirely unnatural at times. Video noise is kept to a minimum, as is softness.
> 
> *Tier 3.25*



I generally agree with GRG in every point he made. I would also mention that I was impressed with the flesh tones, which were really highlighted in many close-ups of the female lead. Regarding black levels, there were some very nice nighttime cityscapes one minute, and then the next minute the same aerial shot would be quite murky which obscured details big time. If only every every shot looked like the last two aerials of LA and Barrow, Alaska (at the end of the movie); they were reference quality all the way.


Again, I agree with GRG's observations, but I thought the clarity and facial details were good enough to bump it up a notch to.....

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer BDP-05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19307488
> 
> 
> I'm a bit surprised by your generous recommendation GRG, but I certainly agree with you regarding the training scenes on the mountains (I said as much in my review) and the wonderful black levels. My issue with it was mostly in the first 1/3 or so of the movie where softness and a lack of clarity crept in (for example, the scene in the airplane). This happened too often to allow me to recommend Tier 0. Also, IMO the facial details were DEFINITELY *not* Tier 0 quality. But perhaps I was a bit too harsh in my recommendation (especially considering the reputation I have to maintain as _most generous rater_), so I might be willing to go as high as 1.5. And yet that still leaves a whole tier between us!!



Reference to me is determined by how many times my jaw dropped purely based on video quality. I did that A LOT while watching this movie, both for the training stuff and facial detail. Those small bouts of softness still contained detail and that amazing color saturation.

*Beauty and the Beast: Diamond Edition*

Speaking of color, holy hell this is awesome. The opening frames of the castle are just loaded with vivid hues that yes, made my jaw drop. Sharpness is pristine down to individual pencil strokes, even some paint bleeding out of the lines. The sole CG scene holds up well enough. Backdrops are loaded with texture from the paint strokes. Enough for low top tier for me. (two in a week!)!

*Tier .75*


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19311511
> 
> 
> Reference to me is determined by how many times my jaw dropped purely based on video quality. I did that A LOT while watching this movie, both for the training stuff and facial detail. Those small bouts of softness still contained detail and that amazing color saturation.
> 
> *Beauty and the Beast: Diamond Edition*
> 
> Speaking of color, holy hell this is awesome. The opening frames of the castle are just loaded with vivid hues that yes, made my jaw drop. Sharpness is pristine down to individual pencil strokes, even some paint bleeding out of the lines. The sole CG scene holds up well enough. Backdrops are loaded with texture from the paint strokes. Enough for low top tier for me. (two in a week!)!
> 
> *Tier .75*


*Beauty And The Beast*


This is a good one to jump back into the fray.

I could not agree more. You nailed it. This one is all about color, but it has sharpness and detail that abound as well. I was blown away by the color. Within reason, think A Bug's Life, but with paint. I was thinking of low tier 0 as well and could have even gone higher. This is truly a treat. It must be seen. It is a no brainer purchase.


I forgot how entertaining and enveloping this movie is. What a treat.
*Tier Recommendation: Low Tier 0*


----------



## Hughmc

*The Killer Inside Me:*


Hot whites, poor black levels and overall average to mediocre PQ. I agree with GRG's review, but might be a little more generous.


THis is an extremely powerful and mind messing movie. Two days after I was still reeling from it. Brutal in a word. I thought The GIrl with the Dragon Tattoo was a intense, but this trumped it. Highly recommended, but be prepared.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.5*



*THe Girl with the Dragon Tattoo:*


This has excellent PQ overall with very good detail and facial detail often tier 1 or tier 0. Black levels and contrast are excellent as well. I could have gone low tier 0 on this, but some minor, barely noticeable issues and an overall average color pallate don't make for a tier 0 presentation, close, but just not there.
*Tier Recommendation: 1.0*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Robocop 2*


Sharpened for sure, detail is coarse ans harsh. Grain is elevated and poorly resolved. Colors, especially the steel blue of the new Robo suit, looks great. Blacks are fine. Mid-range detail is meager.

*Tier 4.0*


----------



## jedimasterchad

I have Beauty and the Beast sitting there but I can't watch it until me and wife have time to do it together (it's really for her), so that might be Tuesday. Also have Iron Man 2 waiting for the same reason...oh well.

*Star Wars: The Clone Wars (Season 1)*


I have spent a fair amount of time watching Star Wars Clone Wars season 1 on BD, and for the most part it was pretty good. It is not as detailed as the Clone Wars movie, but I feel that is due to lack of production time and having to pump out show after show. Colors are generally great and the explosions light up the rest of the scene as they should, and blaster fire looks just like in the movies. As far as Lucasfilm animation is concerned, the quality is top-notch as always, but you have to get past the stylized look that this show has in order to enjoy it.


PQ-wise, the only thing to grade on here is detail, which isn't the best, and as I surmised earlier I think it can be attributed to it being a TV series and not a full blown movie production. Everything else is pristine, and as it's a digital-digital transfer there are no errors that are commonly found during the film-digital process. As such, I think I will have to give it a rating in the higher echelons of tier 1.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*


As for the content itself, if you are a Star Wars fan, you will enjoy it as I did. If you're just a casual SW fan and you don't know the difference between Boba Fett and IG-88, this series isn't for you. It mainly comes off as being targeted towards a younger audience, with silly slapstick jokes that come off as annoying as Jar Jar Binks, but with enough reference to canon material from the expanded universe to delight the more mature and educated SW enthusiast. It is evident they spent a good amount of time on the audio, using authentic sound effects from the movies and creating new ones for the show, as well as developing a surprisingly enveloping surround mix for an animated TV show. Overall, a good rental for the casually interested but something that the big SW fan should collect.


P.S. While I started Netflix again, I'm already disappointed in it and have barely had it activated for a month so far. A number of titles in the past few weeks are cursed by the "Netflix people have to wait" disease, including: Get Him to the Greek, Splice, Nightmare on Elm Street, Robin Hood, Predators, Jonah Hex, Karate Kid, and others. It is terribly aggravating when I am paying a monthly fee and having to wait to rent titles that I am seeing on the store shelves. As someone who doesn't normally review catalog titles for this thread, are there any other alternatives? I would go back to Blockbuster for the movie pass but fear they will close the only remaining store in my area soon.


----------



## rusky_g

*The Karate Kid 2010*


Inspired by its good reveiws on here, I felt compelled to give this title a go. And boy, was I glad I did.


The PQ on this film is sublime. Whilst watching, I found it hard to put my finger on why I found the picture to be so absorbing and 'different from the rest'.


I concluded that its clear, natural look, mixed with beautiful colours was the trump card here. Depth, at times, is amazing and there is a great balance between softness and sharpness without sacrifice to detail. To me, this is what added to the natural quality of the film, which is a welcome change from some of the over-sharpened titles of late.


If I was to make a gripe, it would be that there were a couple of occasions where I could see what looked to be some digital effects (example: one of the panning / zooming shots of Smith & Chan on top of The Great Wall) but this really is a minor issue and probably not noticable on a conventional sized TV.


In summary, it's films like these that make me feel the need to write a little praise on here









*Recommendation: Tier 1 (top of)*


Optoma HD65 / 94" / 10.5ft


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/19315414
> 
> 
> P.S. While I started Netflix again, I'm already disappointed in it and have barely had it activated for a month so far. A number of titles in the past few weeks are cursed by the "Netflix people have to wait" disease, including: Get Him to the Greek, Splice, Nightmare on Elm Street, Robin Hood, Predators, Jonah Hex, Karate Kid, and others. It is terribly aggravating when I am paying a monthly fee and having to wait to rent titles that I am seeing on the store shelves. As someone who doesn't normally review catalog titles for this thread, are there any other alternatives? I would go back to Blockbuster for the movie pass but fear they will close the only remaining store in my area soon.



Hey jedi.....you just stated the exact reason why I don't use Netflix. I'm one that likes to watch a new release as soon as it comes out and I don't think I'd have the patience to wait for it. Thankfully I have the option of renting Blu-rays at my local video store for a reasonable price.


Regarding catalog titles, I just received my copy of _The Thin Red Line_ which has been receiving rave reviews for PQ. I will be watching it some time this week and then I'll chime in with a review. That would be a very good title for you to rent. I have seen the movie before and I was really impressed with the story, cast, etc. And now it looks like I'm in for reference quality PQ on top of that.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jedimasterchad* /forum/post/19315414
> 
> 
> I have Beauty and the Beast sitting there but I can't watch it until me and wife have time to do it together (it's really for her), so that might be Tuesday. Also have Iron Man 2 waiting for the same reason...oh well.
> 
> *Star Wars: The Clone Wars (Season 1)*
> 
> *I have spent a fair amount of time watching Star Wars Clone Wars season 1 on BD, and for the most part it was pretty good. It is not as detailed as the Clone Wars movie, but I feel that is due to lack of production time and having to pump out show after show.*
> 
> 
> PQ-wise, the only thing to grade on here is detail, which isn't the best, and as I surmised earlier I think it can be attributed to it being a TV series and not a full blown movie production. Everything else is pristine, and as it's a digital-digital transfer there are no errors that are commonly found during the film-digital process. As such, I think I will have to give it a rating in the higher echelons of tier 1.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.25*



Are you sure about what I bolded in the quote? It was my understanding that the movie was nothing more than some episodes originally intended for the series that were repurposed for a theatrical release, and slightly extended. I have vague memories of reading that the animation quality actually increased as the series progressed from the movie, but no idea where I saw that information.


Personally I am in no hurry to pick up the first season on Blu-ray as I just stopped watching season three that is currently running. There are some nice moments in the first two seasons but the overall scripting leaves much to be desired.


----------



## jedimasterchad




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19317149
> 
> 
> Are you sure about what I bolded in the quote? It was my understanding that the movie was nothing more than some episodes originally intended for the series that were repurposed for a theatrical release, and slightly extended. I have vague memories of reading that the animation quality actually increased as the series progressed from the movie, but no idea where I saw that information.
> 
> 
> Personally I am in no hurry to pick up the first season on Blu-ray as I just stopped watching season three that is currently running. There are some nice moments in the first two seasons but the overall scripting leaves much to be desired.



No, of course not. I have no fact to back up that claim but from what I can remember when I saw the movie in the theater, it seemed a lot more detailed and fluid. I do have the DVD of the movie as I was not in possession of any BD equipment yet so I'd have to waste another Netflix rental to compare. As far as it being a long episode, it does tell the complete story of how Ashoka became Anakin's padawan, and has quite a lot of action in it. I will have to do a little research and look into this, as I admit I'm not too sure about it. I see that you agree with me though about the childish dialog. It's almost difficult to watch sometimes, especially the scenes with all of the moron battle droids.

*EDIT:* It would appear you are somewhat right. George was looking over some of the work that was being done to develop the series and thought they should use those characters and the original cast as voice actors and do a movie instead, and that would be the lead in to the series. I can't find whether or not the movie story was actually pulled from the series or if they just decided to make a full length movie out of the characters they were using for the show. In any event, watching an episode from the current season is more pleasant on the eyes, and it's obvious that they have become even more talented at animating these shows every week. Season 2 comes to blu ray in the near future, perhaps it will be a fair amount better than season 1.


----------



## undecided




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/18830492
> 
> *Watchmen: Director's Cut (region-free UK import)
> 
> 
> recommendation: lower half of Tier 0*
> 
> 
> Paramount has done an amazing job in surpassing the already stellar picture quality of the domestic Warner Blu-ray. Technicolor, who handles the technical aspects of Paramount's Blu-rays, wisely made the 186-minute director's cut the only feature on a BD-50, taking up nearly the entire disc. Encoded in AVC, the average video bitrate is 27.24 Mbps, which is nearly 10 Mbps higher than the meager VC-1 encoding on Warner's BD. The clear difference in shadow detail, and the frequent resolving of superior high-frequency information over Warner's disc, which is appropriately placed in the upper confines of tier one at the moment, leads to this import easily deserving of tier zero. These observations were made in direct comparison on my display, with both discs in my possession.
> 
> 
> The compression itself is absolutely top-notch for a live-action film that constantly bombards the screen with difficult material to render cleanly. From the eerie, blue glow of Dr. Manhattan, to the splashes of crimson from dripping blood, there is not a hint of banding in the subtle gradients. In retrospect it reveals the inadequacy of the low-bitrate VC-1 encode, particularly on larger displays for sharp-eyed viewers.
> 
> 
> What really makes the difference for the casual viewer between the two discs is the level of shadow delineation on regular display. The rendition of exquisite texture and nuance in the darker scenes clearly goes to Paramount's Blu-ray in a walk. Black levels are uncanny as they plumb the depths of absolute black. Snyder's intended aesthetics give a tremendous perception of dimensionality to ordinary scenes, as this film shows what Hollywood is truly capable of for image quality when a huge budget is given to the most talented and capable creative people.
> 
> 
> Snyder really does possess a strong visual style, well-suited for eye candy potential, when he is not slathering on extra grain like in _300_. The opening credits scene alone projects an extraordinary spatial depth that could work as a great demo for Blu-ray neophytes. But then again, many scenes in the film could double as demo selections. Watch the falling rain at the Comedian's funeral, it almost looks hyper-real, if you can understand what I am meaning.
> 
> 
> Having already owned the Warner Blu-ray, I do not regret for a moment laying out the extra money to obtain the region-free BD from the UK. Those concerned with the utmost picture fidelity to the film's master need to acquire it for posterity's sake, as it obviates Warner's BD. Paramount has created the ultimate representation of _Watchmen_ for Blu-ray that simply can't be improved upon without going beyond the bounds of the format.
> 
> 
> BDInfo scan (courtesy of mitanidani):
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=907



I'm sold - but where can I order this disc from in the US?


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Robocop 3*


While it doesn't have the sharpening issues of the second, it still looks pretty rough. Probably an older master that wasn't ready for Blu. This one is soft, the grain is roughly resolved, the colors are bland, although the black levels are fine.

*Tier 4.0*


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *undecided* /forum/post/19317833
> 
> 
> I'm sold - but where can I order this disc from in the US?



My preferred vendor for purchases from the UK is Amazon.co.uk; here is the link to the Paramount version of the director's cut:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Watchmen-Dir...6811022&sr=8-1 


Price comparison for the UK BD:
http://www.cheapbluraymovies.co.uk/f...-%5BBlu-ray%5D


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Superman / Batman: Apocalypse


recommendation: Tier 1.5*


Warner churns out these animated features now with startling regularity, having just released _Superman/Batman: Apocalypse_ at the end of September. One of the more entertaining ones, the 78-minute main feature is encoded in VC-1 at typical numbers for a WB video encode. An estimated, average video bitrate would likely be around 20 Mbps, with infrequent peaks in the mid-thirties. What stands out about this particular movie is the stronger than normal art direction and character design, especially in comparison to past efforts on the DCU (DC Comics Universe) animated movies. Partly that is because the artwork pays homage to the dynamic style of deceased comic book artist Michael Turner. Slight technical hiccups do downgrade the final assessment a touch.


The animation really nails the colors that are an essential part of the costumes' visual appeal. Bright, vivid reds and blues are splashed across the screen in a way that live-action just cannot match in intensity. Black levels show no hint of crush or macroblocking, important for Batman and his dark ensemble, though the opening scene does manifest ugly compression problems. Banding is rampant in it, which does not help to set a tone for the picture. But those problems fade away for the most part as the movie progresses. The opening credits, created in CGI, show a fair amount of aliasing. No one will confuse the animation style with the quality of a theatrical feature, but clearly it rises above the level of television material.


Different animation houses seem to be handling these animated DCU features, though in general they look roughly similar depending on art design. I wish Warner would improve on the compression encoding for them, as their typical bitrates are not sufficient to produce perceptually flawless video at all times on them. Spots of faint chroma noise and artifacting will be noticeable to viewers on larger displays. A BD-50 was used for this Blu-ray, but there was likely a large amount of empty space that could have been utilized for improved compression parameters.


Probably the best character designs and line art for any of the DCU movies helps to solidify a placement in the middle of Tier One. I would have had no hesitation in assigning a placement in Tier 1.25, if not for the minor technical problems that mainly occur in the first act.


Watching on a 60 Pioneer KURO plasma at 1080p/24, fed by a PS3 (firmware 3.50) from a viewing distance of six feet.


----------



## Superman2

Can someone explain why we get two different versions of quality between US and UK?? (watchmen as stated above). Starting to get fed up with purchasing movies?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Superman2* /forum/post/19321146
> 
> 
> Can someone explain why we get two different versions of quality between US and UK?? (watchmen as stated above). Starting to get fed up with purchasing movies?



If the truth be told, we can have MORE than two versions and each version can vary in quality. I'm trying to remember my last import (I think it was _Gladiator: Remastered_), for when I ordered it I was trying to decide between the Dutch version and the UK version, and to complicate things I believe there was also a Chinese (or other Asian) version. I ended up going with the UK version because after doing some research on various threads (where they had comparison pix of the different versions) I was persuaded there were only subtle differences between the the European and Asian versions.


It can be frustrating, to be sure, but this is reality and we have to deal with it. I'm quite sure most people (especially those outside of the Forum) could care less about the different versions and they automatically purchase the US version. I should add that another reason I opt to buy the UK version (or another version outside the US) at times is because of price. I remember when I bought the UK version of _The Island_ it was at least $10 cheaper than the US version.


----------



## undecided




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19318814
> 
> 
> My preferred vendor for purchases from the UK is Amazon.co.uk; here is the link to the Paramount version of the director's cut:
> 
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Watchmen-Dir...6811022&sr=8-1
> 
> 
> Price comparison for the UK BD:
> http://www.cheapbluraymovies.co.uk/f...-%5BBlu-ray%5D



Thanks for the link. One of the reviewers at Amazon UK says 'That despite the UK now having the DC available on Blu-ray, the US DC-edition is superior as it has a DTS-HD Master Audio soundtrack, instead of English Dolby TrueHD 5.1'


Is this correct?


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *undecided* /forum/post/19321559
> 
> 
> Thanks for the link. One of the reviewers at Amazon UK says 'That despite the UK now having the DC available on Blu-ray, the US DC-edition is superior as it has a DTS-HD Master Audio soundtrack, instead of English Dolby TrueHD 5.1'
> 
> 
> Is this correct?



Entirely false, both soundtracks are fully lossless experiences derived from the original master audio of the film. The audio will sound 100% the same on your system if it is setup correctly.


----------



## Superman2

No actually, both dont sound the same. There are birate differences that will allow for one or the other (DTS) to sound better (more clarity).


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Superman2* /forum/post/19323053
> 
> 
> No actually, both dont sound the same. There are birate differences that will allow for one or the other (DTS) to sound better (more clarity).



Incorrect. The bitrate has nothing to do with it. The codecs works like zip files, one compressing the content more than the other. Then, they are uncompressed by either the player or the receiver on the fly, resulting in the same PCM source.


Think about it. If you have a video file on your computer and you compress it with WinZip and WinRar (WinZip compressing it say 50%, WinRar 30%), and then extract it, does the video quality change? No. That's how the audio codecs work.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Superman2* /forum/post/19323053
> 
> 
> No actually, both dont sound the same. There are birate differences that will allow for one or the other (DTS) to sound better (more clarity).



Bitrates do not matter for lossless codecs like DTS-HD MA and Dolby TrueHD. There could be differences in the bit-depth and sampling rate, but Watchmen was recorded at 24-bit/48 kHz. There is zero mathematical difference between the two soundtracks when the decoding is properly implemented. For listeners on a system that can only handle the older, lossy DTS stream, the DTS-HD MA soundtrack would be preferable. But that would only apply to people who have not upgraded their receivers in years.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Last of the Mohicans*


This is a dark, dark film. The whole thing is dim as hell, with black crush being dominate, but that's how it's always looked. Whites seem clipped, and what detail that does escape is limited, save for the environments. The North Carolina locales are stunning.
*Tier 3.75*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19325069
> 
> *Last of the Mohicans*
> 
> 
> This is a dark, dark film. The whole thing is dim as hell, with black crush being dominate, but that's how it's always looked. Whites seem clipped, and what detail that does escape is limited, save for the environments. The North Carolina locales are stunning.
> *Tier 3.75*



I just checked Cinema Squid's website and I see you gave this a "video" score of 4/5 (and you had some very glowing remarks about the PQ as well in contrast to the thoughts expressed here) . How does that translate to your recommendation of 3.75 on this thread?


Amazon just shipped my copy yesterday with an estimated arrival this Friday. I'm not expecting it to be above average, but I'll be very happy if it is a considerable improvement over the DVD version. I have always been an avid fan of the movie and it should be well worth the $14.99 I paid for it.


----------



## Superman2

I understand, maybe it's not the bitrate, but DTS tracks always seem more full.


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19326299
> 
> 
> I just checked Cinema Squid's website and I see you gave this a "video" score of 4/5 (and you had some very glowing remarks about the PQ as well in contrast to the thoughts expressed here) . How does that translate to your recommendation of 3.75 on this thread?



I assume that video score is a blend of rating things according to the PQ tier criteria and more of the "film reference" representational system. I very much appreciate that Gamereviewgod provides both views through his insightful postings here and his website reviews since they are both equally valid and interesting perspectives.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/19327377
> 
> *I assume that video score is a blend of rating things according to the PQ tier criteria and more of the "film reference" representational system.* I very much appreciate that Gamereviewgod provides both views through his insightful postings here and his website reviews since they are both equally valid and interesting perspectives.



With all due respect, the highlighted words above were a bit ambiguous to me (especially the words "'film reference' representational system"). Could you speak English, please?










As you know (because it's your website), GRG breaks down each review into 4 sections: 1) Movie; 2) Video; 3) Audio; and 4) Extras. When I turn to his review on your site to compare it with his review on this thread, I'm only interested in reading what he says on the "video" section. In that section he's *basically* employing the same language that we do here, so we hear him comment on black levels, shadow details, colors, contrast, depth, black crush, noise, banding, etc. As I commented above in my post to him, he gives quite a few glowing remarks about the video side of this release (in fairness he also censures it). So, one would expect him to offer some of the same remarks in his review here and a comparable score as well. In fact, his video score on your site *usually* is reflected in his score on this thread. Thus on this release I saw an inconsistency in both his remarks and his placement recommendation when comparing it with his review on your site.


Now having said all that, I guess I'd rather hear from GRG himself, unless you feel constrained to answer on his behalf again (though I would like you to respond to the question I posed to you at the beginning of this post). I'm not trying to be contentious in asking GRG to explain this _seeming_ inconsistency; I just want to know why he felt more positive about the video presentation when writing his review for your site and more negative when writing his review here.


----------



## polishpower




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19327531
> 
> 
> With all due respect, the highlighted words above were a bit ambiguous to me (especially the words "'film reference' representational system"). Could you speak English, please?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ....



Sorry if I'm speaking out of turn here, feel free to tell me if so. To me it seems like the PQ tiers are more based on the eye candy factor, whereas at cinemasquid something like director's intent or the film's age may be taken into account. Just guessing though, so I'll defer the "official" answer to either squid or GRG.


On a side note, thanks to all of you so much for this and the tier threads.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *polishpower* /forum/post/19327647
> 
> 
> Sorry if I'm speaking out of turn here, feel free to tell me if so. To me it seems like the PQ tiers are more based on the eye candy factor, whereas at cinemasquid something like director's intent or the film's age may be taken into account. Just guessing though, so I'll defer the "official" answer to either squid or GRG.
> 
> 
> On a side note, thanks to all of you so much for this and the tier threads.



I'm glad you chimed in and it's encouraging to hear that you appreciate this thread.


You are absolutely right in stating that "the PQ tiers are....based on the eye candy factor." This thread is really ALL about EYE CANDY or the lack thereof. But even on Cinema Squid's site the various reviewers are commenting on how good the film looks (i.e., EYE CANDY) in their "video" section. They may also, at times, refer to what the director's intent was, but I believe their "video score" is meant to reflect more on "how good the video looks," rather than "how true the video reflects the director's intent."


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19327531
> 
> 
> With all due respect, the highlighted words above were a bit ambiguous to me (especially the words "'film reference' representational system"). Could you speak English, please?



Sorry for being confusing - "'film reference' representational system" is supposed to mean "how true the video reflects the director's intent". I imagine many reviewers balance the separate aspects of eye candy and intent in their video scores, sometimes emphasizing one over the other depending on their own preferences or the context of the film itself.


I won't presume to answer for GRG again that this is what he's doing, however, since I'm sure he'll chime in himself. I would like to point out that no one writes for my site - I just link to Blu-ray reviews published elsewhere (including the tier placements from this thread) and average those published scores for the "Squid Rank" numbers.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/19328920
> 
> 
> Sorry for being confusing - "'film reference' representational system" is supposed to mean "how true the video reflects the director's intent". I imagine many reviewers balance the separate aspects of eye candy and intent in their video scores, sometimes emphasizing one over the other depending on their own preferences or the context of the film itself.



Thanks for the clarification; it was helpful!


I do realize that some of the reviewers allude to how true the transfer is to the theatrical release (i.e., director's intent) in their review and when they do I assume their video score is based *partially* on that. But there are MANY times that they don't mention director's intent and in those cases I assume their video score is simply based on how good the film looks (i.e., eye candy). I don't recall GRG mentioning director's intent in his review of _The Last of the Mohicans_; if not, then his video score was all about EYE CANDY.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/19328920
> 
> 
> Sorry for being confusing - "'film reference' representational system" is supposed to mean "how true the video reflects the director's intent". I imagine many reviewers balance the separate aspects of eye candy and intent in their video scores, sometimes emphasizing one over the other depending on their own preferences or the context of the film itself.



The big words explain it all. It's much the same with King Kong. Scored that highly on my site, dinged it here. The sheer amount of darkness and flat contrast in Mohicans doesn't make it look that great, but the questions becomes if it was shot mostly in natural light, what can the Blu-ray do to improve it? Not much. So, it seems accurate to intent, still maintains some great detail, but it's not eye candy by any stretch.


Now, there is some debate over in the Mohicans thread about the darkness of the transfer. It's been YEARS since I last saw this one, and I do remember it being dark. Some are saying no though, so if a comparison pops up between versions, I may end up dropping that score (my site) yet upon a second look if that's not the case.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Jonah Hex*


I just want to get it out of the way and say the smoothing on Megan Fox's face (and hers alone) is the worst I've ever seen, and it's not even consistently applied.


In close, facial detail is generally solid... otherwise. So is sharpness. Pan back a bit and compression takes over. Lots of flicker, aliasing, and shimmering to be had. Shots with lots of trees are poorly rendered and a bit mushy. It looks like most of Warner's encodes as of late. Thankfully, this is mostly shot in close-up, limiting those issues. That said, black crush affects everything, and it's terrible.

*Tier 3.00*


----------



## djoberg

I received my copies today of _The Last of the Mohicans_ and _The Exorcist_. I'm really anxious to watch both of them....right now it looks like it will be _The Last of the Mohicans_ tomorrow night and _The Exorcist_ on Friday night. I'm expecting mediocre PQ on _The Last of the Mohicans_, which will be quite acceptable with me for this being such a DARK film. I'm expecting demo-quality on _The Exorcist_, which would be remarkable for a film that dates back to 1973!!


For those of you that are fans of _The Exorcist_, Amazon and other online sites are selling it for a very reasonable price (and this is a double disc set...A Director's Extended Cut and the Theatrical Version, which are both from the same encode). Supposedly Warner Bros. went all out on this catalog title and it's a superior transfer. If you want to read what reviewers are saying about it, check this out:

http://www.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray/m...153&locale=all


----------



## Phantom Stranger

The Exorcist digibook has been waiting for me, though I still need to write up my thoughts on the latest Blu-ray from Leonard Cohen. Thread followers, feel free to comment on one or both versions of The Exorcist. Since Walmart is offering a cutdown package featuring only one cut, the theatrical version will get a separate ranking in the Tiers.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19332007
> 
> 
> The Exorcist digibook has been waiting for me, though I still need to write up my thoughts on the latest Blu-ray from Leonard Cohen. Thread followers, feel free to comment on one or both versions of The Exorcist. Since Walmart is offering a cutdown package featuring only one cut, the theatrical version will get a separate ranking in the Tiers.



I just read that BOTH versions are:


1) VC-1 encode

2) Similar bitrate

3) Same color timing


Again, I am really anticipating a good transfer no matter which version I watch (most reviewers that have seen both say they are, for the most part, identical in picture quality). For those who want the option of watching either version, Amazon was selling the 2-disc set for the same price that Wal-Mart is selling the 1-disc set for.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Leaves of Grass*


Shot digitally, this one features good black levels and some great fine detail up close. Colors are bright and warm, and there is no noise noted. Some smearing is noted in spots, although limited. Some of the effects appear a bit soft, but so do most of the long shots too, a bit too compressed. Could be the source or the encode, or maybe both.

*Tier 3.0*


----------



## Ozymandis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cjmx2* /forum/post/19296334
> 
> *Beauty and the Beast*Being one of my favorite Disney Classics I had to get this "for the kids". Just to start out: absolutely beautiful...Disney did a great job of putting this on Blu-Ray. The animation is getting a little dated and the facial / texture detail is not there, but that is a source problem and not a transfer problem. Bright, vivid colors and just a great looking disc. I don't believe that this could look any better than it does. The famous digital ballroom from 1989 digital animation definitely looked dated. Aside from the date of the source material the movie had a tremendous amount of 3d pop...very pleasing transfer.
> 
> I would like to quote from our opening page: *Addendum:*
> 
> Some, but not all, of the Blu-rays ranked in the various tiers look as good as they possibly can on Blu-ray given limitations in the original photography and the director's intended visuals. We recognize films and videos are not all created with the same intent and quality, and this is why certain titles can never achieve a tier zero or tier one ranking for example, even given a perfect transfer from the best possible source.
> I believe that Beauty and the beast and Sleeping Beauty fall into this category. Both are pristine transfers, but will lack the detail expressed in modern animation. I cannot place these in tier 0 without better detail (since the other movies there are both pristine transfers and have the facial / texture detail)
> 
> *Sleeping Beauty Tier 1.0
> 
> Beauty and The Beast Tier 1.0*



I agree with this review and I second the Tier 1.0 ranking. Disney did a wonderful job with Beauty and the Best considering the limitations of the dated animation. It was a very attractive effort, detail was excellent, colors were good... I will be pleased if The Lion King looks as impressive in 2011!


Compared to other animated titles I own, I'd rate it slightly below Princess and the Frog, but slightly above Sleeping Beauty and Ponyo.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Please forgive the intrusion of comments on the audio quality and other aspects of the Blu-ray, but I thought it best to leave the analysis unaltered for the thread.

*Leonard Cohen: Songs From The Road*

*recommendation: Tier 2.75
*

Leonard Cohen had not had a tour since the early 1990s, enjoying a retirement of sorts from the toil of public performances. Due to monetary issues not of his own doing, he struck back out on the road and performed over 150 dates during extended world touring in 2008 and 2009. Returning to rave reviews, attending one of the concerts was akin to a spiritual experience for many fans. Old in body but young in spirit, the 75-year-old singer's commitment to the shows seemed a parting gift to fans for a lifetime of devotion and admiration.


Did you get a chance to see him perform from the front rows on the world tour at a good venue? Fortunately I was able to attend several shows and enjoy the experience firsthand, but if you did not get the chance, do not despair. Watching this Blu-ray is as close a perfect document of the show as any concert I have seen in high-definition. A remarkably tasteful and restrained edit of various concert performances, twelve songs were picked to showcase on the BD for their power and intensity, which are exactly the same ones found on the CD and DVD package. Image quality is inconsistent from song to song, as each venue posed their own unique challenges for capturing to HD video. In conjunction with the magic of the music though, it fully captures what it was like to attend one of the shows from a premium seat.


The intimate filming style zooms in on Cohen's face as he sings, allowing one to catch the slightest details. What brand of microphone he is using, or the fact that he had a very scruffy beard at the concert in Helsinki, Finland for _The Partisan_. Other angles fare less well in terms of resolution and clarity, but the camera rarely strays from the singer outside of the solo instrumentals.


The opening performance of _Lover, Lover, Lover_ in Israel, under less than ideal shooting conditions, looks the worst of any song on the Blu-ray. For this performance alone the side-shots appear to be from standard-definition cameras. That proves distracting when the image goes soft with a significant drop in resolution. A curious choice it was chosen to open a disc highlighting the best possible video and audio fidelity. Though the rendition is sublime and the audio does sound incredible, as the two audio options given on the BD are phenomenal in quality. Outside of _Hallelujah_, taken from the performance at the outdoor Coachella Music Festival, the rest of the songs look more typical of a modern concert shot on HD video under controlled conditions. The artificial lighting does pose a slight challenge at times, leading to blown highlights and clipped whites in the picture. But the bulk of the songs demonstrate excellent depth and sharpness, amply creating the illusion of a window effect through your television display.


One audio option is a full 2-channel LPCM track at 24-bit/96kHz, while the other option is a 5.1 Dolby TrueHD soundtrack at 24-bit/96kHz. The sound was mastered by legendary mastering engineer Doug Sax, one of the most respected and acclaimed men in the business. The Blu-ray version is far superior in tonality, resolution and transparency in comparison to the sound from either the CD or the DVD, both of which I performed extensive comparisons in preparation for this review. Listening to the Blu-ray is like being at the concert, right at the soundboard with a good set of headphones plugged in. Hear the delicacy and rhythm of Javier Mas' 12-string guitar at work from the right side of the sound stage.


The main concert feature consist of twelve songs from eleven different venues, clocking in at just over 71-minutes. Sony Legacy wisely made the BD region-free and presents the video at the source resolution of 1080i, in its native aspect ratio of 1.85:1. The direct and up-close shots of Leonard Cohen performing, which predominate throughout the feature, were shot on a digital HDTV-camera which explains the resolution. The video is encoded in AVC on a BD-50, though the average video bitrate appears to have been negatively impacted by the audio bandwidth at times.


While no BDInfo scan is available at the present moment, an estimate close to 20 Mbps for the average video bitrate is reasonable based off my observations. Peaks rarely exceed the upper range of the twenties, to allow room for the impressive audio specifications. That does impact the picture quality on occasion, as hints of video noise and artifacting appear during the darker shots. The lack of fast movement on the screen, as the camera trains itself on either Leonard, or his backing singers and band members, precludes macroblocking in the image. Touches of digital video noise creeps into the frame, likely due to the cameras used for production.


Packaged in a standard Blu-ray case, the set also includes a fine booklet featuring extensive liner notes and production information with large photographs. The booklet is identical in content to the one included in the CD/DVD package, but formatted to a bigger size to fit the Blu-ray case. Leon Wieseltier, literary editor for The New Republic, in the liner notes writes an ode to Leonard Cohen and the tour simply titled, “The Art Of Wandering.” His descriptions are apt and timely observations, as he writes “The shows were unforgettable. I saw two of them. They were elegant, witty, warm, dark, and light. The love with which Cohen was met by his audiences was oceanic.” Another section is written by Edward Sanders, the producer and person responsible for picking out the twelve performances from the hundreds that were captured on tour. He deftly goes through the reasoning behind each choice in lucid and clear logic. Also included is a mysterious novelty, the Fortune Teller Fish. It is supposed to reveal your emotional state if you follow the directions provided. As they say, your mileage may vary with it.


One bonus feature is included, a short behind-the-scenes documentary called Backstage Sketch that runs slightly over 21-minutes. Created by Lorca Cohen, the daughter of Leonard Cohen, it was shot on the tour using a HD-camera that actually looks better than the main concert footage. Interviews with the band are the primary focus, though glimpses of other songs from the tour are teasingly included. It is encoded in AVC for the video and is also presented in 1080i, with a 2-channel PCM track at 16-bit/48kHz provided. One piece missing that feels conspicuous by its absence, is a direct interview with Cohen himself. Every band member and singer talks in Backstage Sketch except for Cohen. The documentary is still interesting and you do get to hear a decent amount of stories from the tour, from people like Sharon Robinson and the Webb sisters.


A superb audio presentation and good enough image make for a fantastic concert to relive on Blu-ray. Several of the songs sound better than ever, such as _Heart With No Companion_ and _Closing Time_. Never have I heard a better live version of _Waiting For The Miracle_. The performance of _Closing Time_ is a raucous and rousing end to the proceedings. It would have been nice to hear a couple of more songs from the vast discography, as the main feature ends leaving you wanting more. Hopefully more material from the world tour is made available in such high quality as this disc in the future. If you are capable of playing Blu-ray discs, the CD/DVD set is a distinctly inferior option in both audio and video quality. Only on the BD can you hear the audio as it was meant to be heard from the original live recordings.


----------



## djoberg

*The Last of the Mohicans*


I'll say from the outset that I agree wholeheartedly with GRG (and many others) who said this is a DARK film, even in daytime scenes (which are much dimmer than in the DVD version). There is also considerable murkiness and noise in nighttime scenes (the worst example being when Hawkeye and others first approached the fort). I also observed black crush, though not to the extent that others have reported on the thread devoted to this title. But in fairness I must also say that *some* nighttime scenes had good blacks levels and shadow detail. The best one that comes to mind is when Magua and General Montcalm are speaking about the surrender that just took place earlier that day; this scene was quite impressive!


Where this version trumps the DVD version is in daytime scenes. Even though they were dimmer, there was more detail and depth than I ever remembered seeing. The first and last daytime scenes highlight these virtues, and there are others sprinkled throughout the movie. The mountains and forests of North Carolina were a sight to behold in these scenes!


Flesh tones were, for the most part, accurate. But facial details were average at best (with the sole exception of a shot of Magua at the very end, which ventured close to Tier 0). Colors, when not muted, were warm and vibrant, especially the red uniforms of the British and the lush green foliage alluded to above.


I'm going to go along with GRG's recommendation of Tier 3, but I feel it deserves to be a notch higher.....

*Tier Recommendation: 3.5*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer BDP-05....Viewed from 7.5'


PS I forgot to mention that the audio was underwhelming. I had to really crank up the volume for dialog (and then turn it back down during the two scenes where cannons were going off). To be fair, the battle scenes did sound good, especially in the surrounds and lower end, but one should never have to adjust the volume for different scenes.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Gladiator - Remastered Edition*


Yeah, it's near perfect. Hard to disagree with many of the previous posters. Simply awesome detail and texture, some of the best close-ups on the format, and consistently so. Blacks are incredible, and flesh tones carry a natural look as determined by the scene, never purple-ish. Grain is a hair noisy, although never intrusive to the image up close. Long shots of the cities are staggering in their definition. Just a stunning effort which should have been released the first time.

*Tier .75*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*How to Train Your Dragon*


Not much color compared to most animated films, although when it's there, wow is it gorgeous. Some core animations flaws, like a clumpy mustache, become visible in HD. This one does have the sights though, including some wonderful vistas and flying sequences. Some banding is a bother though, ruining a few shots of the sky.

*Tier .75*


----------



## vpn75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19339510
> 
> *Gladiator - Remastered Edition*
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's near perfect. Hard to disagree with many of the previous posters. Simply awesome detail and texture, some of the best close-ups on the format, and consistently so. Blacks are incredible, and flesh tones carry a natural look as determined by the scene, never purple-ish. Grain is a hair noisy, although never intrusive to the image up close. Long shots of the cities are staggering in their definition. Just a stunning effort which should have been released the first time.
> 
> *Tier .75*



I watched the remastered version the other night and I agree it was a stunning presentation! I had also forgotten how much I loved this movie










I'm grateful Paramount finally gave this movie the release it deserved!


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19339510
> 
> *Gladiator - Remastered Edition*
> 
> *Tier .75*





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19341029
> 
> *How to Train Your Dragon*
> 
> *Tier .75*



Since you ranked these BDs so close together, would you care to state which one deserves the higher ranking in direct comparison? I am just trying to make the final determination a little easier for myself. As always, keep up the good work.


----------



## djoberg

*Splice*


This one fared a tad better than my last viewing (_The Last of the Mohicans_, which I rated at 3.5). I found it to be a mixed bag, with the first half of the movie (which took place primarily in a laboratory) offering up a lot of softness, very little depth, and only occasional shots with admirable detail. The second half was definitely better (which had many scenes on a farm) with some pleasing detail and depth, and not nearly the softness which plagued earlier scenes.


Black levels were decent, but I wasn't wowed by the shadow details in this title. The color palette was extremely limited and there was a steel-blue tint throughout which added to the lack of eye candy. Flesh tones were spot on, but as with the last movie I reviewed the facial details were only average or below.


This one seems, IMO, to be destined for the average bin, and I'd put it right near the middle of that tier.........

*Tier Recommendation: 3.25*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer BDP-05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## djoberg

*The Exorcist (1973 Extended Director's Cut)*


You know I've been anticipating this title for several days and had mentioned that I had high hopes (based on about a dozen reviewers who were singing its praises) of it being a demo transfer. Sadly, I can't join in the chorus of praise, at least not to the same degree.


This one was REALLY a mixed bag. One minute you would have a sharp and extremely detailed shot, the next minute heavy grain would intrude (usually during nighttime shots) obscuring almost all detail or murky blacks would rear their ugly head (there was a shot of Damien laying on his bed at night that rivaled scenes from _28 Days Later_; the blacks in that shot were as bad as I've ever seen and his face looked unnatural and flat).


The movie started out with a scene in Iraq where excavations were taking place and the landscapes and ancient buildings were teeming with detail. Then the cameraman zoomed into the face of Max von Sydow and I was absolutely mesmerized by the fine detail in every square inch of his facial features. Even his wrinkled hands were high Tier 0 quality! I thought to myself, "Whoa, this is going to be one fine transfer." The next scene shifted to Georgetown (in Washington, D.C.) which highlighted panoramic shots of ornate university buildings and cathedrals, all serving up plenty of detail and warm, natural colors. But from that point on the "mixed bag" came into play and my early hopes for demo quality were quickly dashed.


Perhaps the worst offender throughout the movie was black levels. There were rare instances where they were somewhat deep, but overall they were murky (as alluded to above) and filled with video noise.


Grain lovers will love the fact that grain is present from beginning to end and in the "good shots" of the film it has that wonderful filmic look and really enhances the detail. But with most nighttime scenes the grain turned HEAVY and detail was lost.


In conclusion I will say that given the age of this film (37 years old!!) the Blu-ray is still quite good (and perhaps age was a determining factor in the video score of the reviewers I referred to above), but if we are going to adhere to the standards set forth on page one of the PQ Tier Rankings, this title must, of necessity, fall well below the demo tiers. I feel constrained to consign it to the same spot as my last recommendation.......

*Tier Recommendation: 3.25*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer BDP-05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Gamera: Guardian of the Universe*


Maybe cramming two movies with DTS-HR audio onto a single BD-25 wasn't the best idea? Compression here really hurts, although some detail does come through. The grain is far too noisy, which is a shame. There is a soft source behind everything, but it could have looked so much better. Weak black would be an issue regardless, and the natural color is normal for the movie.

*Tier 4.0*


----------



## tocaje

I've looked at the formums available for my question and please forgive me if I've posted in the wrong place and redirect me.


I love bluray but why is it that the discs are non-anamorphic? I remember all the hubbub years ago when video enthusiasts and sites were pushing pushing for the studios to release their dvd's in anamorphic. The reasoning was that it would allow for increased resolution. Since we're always seeking the best, if not, why bother with bluray or 4k or 8k; then why wouldn't there be an advantage to making anamorphic blurays?


Thanks for any replies.


----------



## Sujay

Blu-ray is still the best you can get, but yes it was probably an oversight not to include some sort of anamorphic support. Still, it doesn't really *detract* from the type of quality titles you can still have with the current spec.


Edit: I forgot to mention my main point, which is that there is less benefit from an anamorphic format with Blu-ray and how TVs are now, than there was back in the 4:3 days with DVD.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tocaje* /forum/post/19344885
> 
> 
> I've looked at the formums available for my question and please forgive me if I've posted in the wrong place and redirect me.
> 
> 
> I love bluray but why is it that the discs are non-anamorphic? I remember all the hubbub years ago when video enthusiasts and sites were pushing pushing for the studios to release their dvd's in anamorphic. The reasoning was that it would allow for increased resolution. Since we're always seeking the best, if not, why bother with bluray or 4k or 8k; then why wouldn't there be an advantage to making anamorphic blurays?
> 
> 
> Thanks for any replies.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sujay* /forum/post/19344899
> 
> 
> Blu-ray is still the best you can get, but yes it was probably an oversight not to include some sort of anamorphic support. Still, it doesn't really *detract* from the type of quality titles you can still have with the current spec.


----------



## Sujay




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/19344967



He's talk about this: http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articl...ic185demo.html , where you would both be able to get native 16x9 on DVDs, but also with the added benefit on slightly better picture quality from non-square pixels squeezed from 4:3 to 16:9. Feel free to correct what I said, it's just based on what knowledge I have about how it worked on DVD. I added an edit to my previous post.


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sujay* /forum/post/19344899
> 
> 
> Edit: I forgot to mention my main point, which is that there is less benefit from an anamorphic format with Blu-ray and how TVs are now, than there was back in the 4:3 days with DVD.



That was probably the main motivation for leaving out anamorphic support - the expectation that the vast majority of users will be using 16:9 digital displays at 1920x1080 for some time to come. Anamorphic provides no benefit in that situation at the cost of some additional complexity.


Obviously the extra resolution (about 30% at most?) from scope films would be nice for CIH front projection, but probably not really all that significant perceptually. Digital displays with more than 1080p resolution are inevitable, but those will likely be 16:9 as well and would be better served by a higher native resolution format rather than anamorphic 1080p.


With all that being said, they probably should have added anamorphic support into the Blu-ray spec anyway, unless there's a better reason for its absence than a little bit of added complexity.










Here's an old discussion thread about it:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=652716


----------



## djoberg

*MacGruber*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g* /forum/post/19277401
> 
> *MacGruber*
> 
> 
> Hi all, welcome to my first review.
> 
> 
> It's amazing how big budget blockbuster's can fall short of expectation, whilst for a relatively low budget flick, a film like this can *really* wow me.
> 
> 
> A clear, crisp picture throughout with no grain (which I prefer). Daytime scenes had lots of pop and detail was solid from start to finish, with only the odd slightly softer scene keeping this from placing higher. The film itself was the funniest I have seen in a long time, so for me a great all round package.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 1*
> 
> 
> Optoma HD65 PJ / 94" screen





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19167372
> 
> *MacGruber*
> 
> 
> Shot digitally and it shows. Mid-range stuff is pretty poor, with dominant softness. Close-ups are resolved well, at least in general terms. Some nice facial detail. The color palette jumps all over the place, making flesh tones warm, then pink, and then back again. Just meh.
> 
> *Tier 3.25*



I just finished watching this mindless action/comedy transfer. Thankfully the movie was redeemed by some remarkable PQ (I'm obviously going to side with rusky_g on this one).


Let's get the BAD out of the way: Intermittent SOFTNESS and some WEIRD COLORATION at times. These were limited to only a fraction of the running time, but they occurred often enough to keep the transfer out of reference territory.


Now for the GOOD: Deep, deep blacks (and there were MANY of them!) with corresponding shadow details. Colors (when they were natural-looking) really popped, and especially in nighttime scenes with the inky black backgrounds. Most of the running time was characterized by sharpness, plenty of detail, and amazing depth & dimensionality. Facial details averaged mid to high Tier 1 and there were a couple of close-ups of Val Kilmer that were off the charts (i.e., High Tier 0)!! Need I say more? I think not. You get the picture (pun intended







)!


I said I'd be siding with rusky_g, though I'm inclined to knock it down a couple of notches due to the BAD mentioned above. Soooooo.........

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer BDP-05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## djoberg

*The Thin Red Line*


Lady (G3) and Gentlemen....we have another WINNER!!! Words will surely fail me in attempting to describe what my eyes just saw over the last 2 hours and 45 minutes. Imagine, if you will:


1) _Baraka_ without DNR and EE


2) _Braveheart_ without SOFTNESS and WHITE SPECKLES


3) _Saving Private Ryan_ without SOFTNESS and a DRAB COLOR PALETTE


4) _Prince Caspian_ without MEDIOCRE FACIAL DETAILS


Let me say it another way: This transfer is, HANDS DOWN, the best live action film I have ever seen on Blu-ray! It has CONSISTENT:


1) Sharpness

2) Detail

3) Depth & Dimensionality

4) Deep Blacks

5) Impressive Shadow Details

6) Accurate Flesh Tones

7) Lush Colors (Mainly GREEN, but wait 'til you see them!)

8) Strong Contrast


On top of the first rate PQ, the Audio Track is to die for. One is encouraged to PLAY IT LOUD at the beginning and if you heed that advice you'll experience Audio Nirvana.


I want to join my fellow AVS member (ivanpino) in nominating this for Tier 0 and I will go out on a limb and recommend the TOP SPOT. There may be an outcry from those of you who (like me) helped to put _Avatar_ on the top, but I believe _The Thin Red Line_ is superior because, as mentioned before, it is CONSISTENTLY EXCELLENT from beginning to end. _Avatar_ can surely boast superior colors and depth, but I don't believe it is has the SHARPNESS and CLARITY _all the way through_. Others may argue, "But what about all those lovely ANIMATED TITLES?" To this I would respond, it's time we give a real, live action transfer the place it deserves for achieving such a visual marvel apart from any CGI.

*Tier Recommendation: Top of Tier 0*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer BDP-05....Viewed from 7.5'


PS If my colleagues feel as strongly about this transfer as I do, but simply can't bring themselves to elevate this above the animated marvels, then at least consider putting it near the very top...at least in the top 5 or 10.


----------



## Beta Tester




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19277616
> 
> 
> I've seen the film Rob and it is indeed excellent! That's why I'd like to buy it instead of renting it and right now it's going for $30, which is quite steep for a catalog title.



I see what you mean. $38.49 on amazon.ca, holy moley!


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^


I thought of one more argument that could be made for NOT putting _The Thin Red Line_ on top....a lack of facial close-ups. I can say with certainty that there were MANY midrange shots of faces and they had considerable detail. There were a few shots that started to draw close and they were even better. But there were no "in your face" close-ups such as those in the _Transporter_ series, _Man on Fire_, _Youth Without Youth_, _I, Robot_, and the _Pirates of the Caribbean_ series. My counter to that would be, "Yes, all these titles have top-notch facial close-ups, but they are NOT as consistent in all the other areas I mentioned." Anyway, I thought I would throw that into the mix for your consideration.


I should also add I HIGHLY RECOMMEND SEEING THIS TITLE so you can experience the EYE CANDY that I did, and so you can weigh in with your own placement recommendation.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Beta Tester* /forum/post/19346648
> 
> 
> I see what you mean. $38.49 on amazon.ca, holy moley!



Here you go:

http://www.familyvideo.com/catalog/p...ucts_id=350838


----------



## cjmx2

*Review: Music and Lyrics*Having watched this several times in the past I decided to give it another spin. This movie currently sits at 2.5 in the silver tier. I was surprised how soft this was...there were a few moments of sharpness and a few good facial details (the 1st scene with Brad Garrett comes to mind) There is also a partial haze over several parts of the film (opening scene with the POP dance really sticks out)...just soft soft soft overall. Other than that the colors are strong and skin tones seem natural. Kind of a BLAH Warner transfer at its best...seems to be a lot of those lately. I'd Say

*Tier 3.0*


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19346614
> 
> *The Thin Red Line*
> 
> 
> Let me say it another way: This transfer is, HANDS DOWN, the best live action film I have ever seen on Blu-ray! It has CONSISTENT:
> 
> 
> 1) Sharpness
> 
> 2) Detail
> 
> 3) Depth & Dimensionality
> 
> 4) Deep Blacks
> 
> 5) Impressive Shadow Details
> 
> 6) Accurate Flesh Tones
> 
> 7) Lush Colors (Mainly GREEN, but wait 'til you see them!)
> 
> 8) Strong Contrast
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Top of Tier 0*



You have definitely piqued my interest in acquiring this disc, Djoberg. I was not planning on picking it up, but your strong review has me reconsidering that thought. One point you did not make which should be mentioned is the beautiful cinematography of a Terrence Malick film. Some have called his work visual poems for the stunning imagery in them. The cinematographer on The Thin Red Line, John Toll, won most every award that year except the Oscar in a shocking upset.


----------



## deltasun

+1. I'm going the Netflix route, but rewatching after Denny's glowing reviews. Sorry for the absence - work and finally some vacation to AK. I'm ready for some HD therapy. As always, I've had a great time reading you all's reviews/comments via my smart phone.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19347254
> 
> 
> You have definitely piqued my interest in acquiring this disc, Djoberg. I was not planning on picking it up, but your strong review has me reconsidering that thought. *One point you did not make which should be mentioned is the beautiful cinematography of a Terrence Malick film. Some have called his work visual poems for the stunning imagery in them*. The cinematographer on The Thin Red Line, John Toll, won most every award that year except the Oscar in a shocking upset.



Yes Phantom, the cinematography was breathtaking! And often the director filmed it from the vantage point of the men marching through fields or jungles and with the amazing depth it truly gave you the sense that you were there first-hand sweeping through the tall blades of grass or tramping through a shallow river bed. Simply amazing! You will NOT be disappointed, I assure you.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19347391
> 
> 
> +1. I'm going the Netflix route, but rewatching after Denny's glowing reviews. Sorry for the absence - work and finally some vacation to AK. I'm ready for some HD therapy. As always, I've had a great time reading you all's reviews/comments via my smart phone.



I've been wondering about you lately delta....it's good to see you're okay and ready to dive into HD waters once again! I'll really look forward to your review on _The Thin Red Line_. I am quite confident you and my other peers will find this transfer reference quality. I'm NOT sure all will find it deserving of the Top Spot in Tier Blu; if not, I trust it may be at least in the top ten. Time will tell!


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Gamera 2: Attack of the Legion*


This is a weird one, just a hint sharper but without as much detail. Go figure. Other than that, mostly the same as the first movie, overly compressed, weak black levels, and natural color. Some stock footage is painfully obvious with the upgrade over DVD too.

*Tier 4.0*


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19341883
> 
> 
> Since you ranked these BDs so close together, would you care to state which one deserves the higher ranking in direct comparison? I am just trying to make the final determination a little easier for myself. As always, keep up the good work.



Hmm... Probably Gladiator honestly. More texture to the image despite the difference in color.


----------



## rusky_g




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19345582
> 
> *MacGruber*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just finished watching this mindless action/comedy transfer. Thankfully the movie was redeemed by some remarkable PQ (I'm obviously going to side with rusky_g on this one).
> 
> 
> Let's get the BAD out of the way: Intermittent SOFTNESS and some WEIRD COLORATION at times. These were limited to only a fraction of the running time, but they occurred often enough to keep the transfer out of reference territory.
> 
> 
> Now for the GOOD: Deep, deep blacks (and there were MANY of them!) with corresponding shadow details. Colors (when they were natural-looking) really popped, and especially in nighttime scenes with the inky black backgrounds. Most of the running time was characterized by sharpness, plenty of detail, and amazing depth & dimensionality. Facial details averaged mid to high Tier 1 and there were a couple of close-ups of Val Kilmer that were off the charts (i.e., High Tier 0)!! Need I say more? I think not. You get the picture (pun intended
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )!
> 
> 
> I said I'd be siding with rusky_g, though I'm inclined to knock it down a couple of notches due to the BAD mentioned above. Soooooo.........
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.5*
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer BDP-05....Viewed from 7.5'



Hi DJ


Glad we were in the same ball park. I'm looking forward to checking out The Thin Red Line next










Russell


----------



## Beta Tester




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19346672
> 
> 
> Here you go:
> 
> http://www.familyvideo.com/catalog/p...ucts_id=350838



Thanks, unfortunately they don't ship outside the U.S. I am going to give this a rental first.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g* /forum/post/19348010
> 
> 
> Hi DJ
> 
> 
> Glad we were in the same ball park. I'm looking forward to checking out The Thin Red Line next
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Russell



Russell,


Prepare to be amazed at the striking detail, depth, and clarity of _The Thin Red Line_. This is definitely my new "demo" disc!


Denny


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Beta Tester* /forum/post/19348482
> 
> 
> Thanks, unfortunately they don't ship outside the U.S. I am going to give this a rental first.



I'll look forward to hearing from you after you see it. As I just posted to Russell, you will be AMAZED at the phenomenal PQ of this transfer. This is High Definition at its best!


----------



## JoeBloggz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19346614
> 
> *The Thin Red Line*
> 
> 
> Lady (G3) and Gentlemen....we have another WINNER!!! Words will surely fail me in attempting to describe what my eyes just saw over the last 2 hours and 45 minutes. Imagine, if you will:
> 
> 
> 1) _Baraka_ without DNR and EE
> 
> 
> 2) _Braveheart_ without SOFTNESS and WHITE SPECKLES
> 
> 
> 3) _Saving Private Ryan_ without SOFTNESS and a DRAB COLOR PALETTE
> 
> 
> 4) _Prince Caspian_ without MEDIOCRE FACIAL DETAILS
> 
> 
> Let me say it another way: This transfer is, HANDS DOWN, the best live action film I have ever seen on Blu-ray! It has CONSISTENT:
> 
> 
> 1) Sharpness
> 
> 2) Detail
> 
> 3) Depth & Dimensionality
> 
> 4) Deep Blacks
> 
> 5) Impressive Shadow Details
> 
> 6) Accurate Flesh Tones
> 
> 7) Lush Colors (Mainly GREEN, but wait 'til you see them!)
> 
> 8) Strong Contrast
> 
> 
> On top of the first rate PQ, the Audio Track is to die for. One is encouraged to PLAY IT LOUD at the beginning and if you heed that advice you'll experience Audio Nirvana.
> 
> 
> I want to join my fellow AVS member (ivanpino) in nominating this for Tier 0 and I will go out on a limb and recommend the TOP SPOT. There may be an outcry from those of you who (like me) helped to put _Avatar_ on the top, but I believe _The Thin Red Line_ is superior because, as mentioned before, it is CONSISTENTLY EXCELLENT from beginning to end. _Avatar_ can surely boast superior colors and depth, but I don't believe it is has the SHARPNESS and CLARITY _all the way through_. Others may argue, "But what about all those lovely ANIMATED TITLES?" To this I would respond, it's time we give a real, live action transfer the place it deserves for achieving such a visual marvel apart from any CGI.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Top of Tier 0*
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer BDP-05....Viewed from 7.5'
> 
> 
> PS If my colleagues feel as strongly about this transfer as I do, but simply can't bring themselves to elevate this above the animated marvels, then at least consider putting it near the very top...at least in the top 5 or 10.



I have to completely agree with all of this. I picked this BD up a few days ago after reading ivan's review. It is a bit costly, I picked it up at my local BB for $30( I had a gift card too,







.

Simply put, this is the best non-animated transfer I've seen on BD. I own quite a few tier 0's(Avatar, Domino, Man on Fire, and a few animated Tier 0's). The thin Red line is sharper, more clear, and more detailed than any other non-animated film I've seen. It exhibits NO clear softness or edge enhancement. Colors are as natural and real as I've seen. The black level has great depth and adds to the unrivaled dimensionality of the film.


I have never written a formal review, but this film made me want to chime in. When the dust settles, this transfer has to be in the top 3 or 5 at the very least

*The Thin Red Line: Tier Recommendation: Top of Tier 0.*


Viewed on Pioneer Elite 111FD via Pio 51FD at 7'.


----------



## subavision212




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19346665
> 
> 
> ^^^^^
> 
> 
> I thought of one more argument that could be made for NOT putting _The Thin Red Line_ on top....a lack of facial close-ups. I can say with certainty that there were MANY midrange shots of faces and they had considerable detail. There were a few shots that started to draw close and they were even better. But there were no "in your face" close-ups such as those in the _Transporter_ series, _Man on Fire_, _Youth Without Youth_, _I, Robot_, and the _Pirates of the Caribbean_ series. My counter to that would be, "Yes, all these titles have top-notch facial close-ups, but they are NOT as consistent in all the other areas I mentioned." Anyway, I thought I would throw that into the mix for your consideration.
> 
> 
> I should also add I HIGHLY RECOMMEND SEEING THIS TITLE so you can experience the EYE CANDY that I did, and so you can weigh in with your own placement recommendation.



I'm with you on this blu-ray. An absolutely gorgeous looking transfer on my ISF calibrated 65" panny plasma.


----------



## Hughmc

Awesome review and news Denny about Thin Red Line. I was going to get this two weeks ago at Best Buy but they didn't have it. I will certainly pick it up. The cast alone is impressive and is a virtual who's who of today's male actors.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JoeBloggz* /forum/post/19349870
> 
> 
> I have to completely agree with all of this. I picked this BD up a few days ago after reading ivan's review. It is a bit costly, I picked it up at my local BB for $30( I had a gift card too,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Simply put, this is the best non-animated transfer I've seen on BD. I own quite a few tier 0's(Avatar, Domino, Man on Fire, and a few animated Tier 0's). The thin Red line is sharper, more clear, and more detailed than any other non-animated film I've seen. It exhibits NO clear softness or edge enhancement. Colors are as natural and real as I've seen. The black level has great depth and adds to the unrivaled dimensionality of the film.
> 
> 
> I have never written a formal review, but this film made me want to chime in. When the dust settles, this transfer has to be in the 3 or 5 at the very least
> 
> *The Thin Red Line: Tier Recommendation: Top of Tier 0.*
> 
> 
> Viewed on Pioneer Elite 111FD via Pio 51FD at 7'.



Good review and welcome to the thread (keep them coming)! And of course I agree with everything you said. I trust more reviews like this will be trickling in.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *subavision212* /forum/post/19350109
> 
> 
> I'm with you on this blu-ray. An absolutely gorgeous looking transfer on my ISF calibrated 65" panny plasma.



+1


I hope more members get the word on this title and at least rent it. Methinks a rental will lead to a purchase in many cases.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/19350166
> 
> 
> Awesome review and news Denny about Thin Red Line. I was going to get this two weeks ago at Best Buy but they didn't have it. I will certainly pick it up. The cast alone is impressive and is a virtual who's who of today's male actors.



Thanks Hugh...and it's good to hear from you! I would LOVE to see this transfer on your HUGE screen!


----------



## JoeBloggz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19350293
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> 
> I hope more members get the word on this title and at least rent it. Methinks a rental will lead to a purchase in many cases.



This title is absolutely worth a rental, if not an outright purchase. If you care about blu-ray and the stunning visual treat it can be, this transfer is a must have!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JoeBloggz* /forum/post/19350742
> 
> 
> This title is absolutely worth a rental, if not an outright purchase. If you care about blu-ray and the stunning visual treat it can be, this transfer is a must have!



Besides using this transfer for a demo, this is one I will break out at least once a year to watch. It is, as you say, a "visual treat," and the philosophical musings of the various characters are good "food for thought." Mr. Malick has truly given us a cinematic gem!


----------



## lgans316

So, are we saying that Thin Red Line looks better than Avatar?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/19353495
> 
> 
> So, are we saying that Thin Red Line looks better than Avatar?



I'll repeat what I said above Igans316, "_Avatar_ can surely boast superior colors and depth, but I don't believe it has the SHARPNESS and CLARITY _all the way through_." In other words, _The Thin Red Line_ has a consistency of sharpness, detail, and clarity that we don't see in any other non-animated film, including _Avatar_. I was a strong advocate for placing _Avatar_ at the top of Tier 0, but in my review of that transfer I still had to admit that at times it was SOFT (especially in the non-CGI scenes in the beginning). _The Thin Red Line_ has virtually no softness or any other anomaly, other than a very brief (a few seconds) shot which seemed to be a bit out of focus. Other than that it was consistently EXCELLENT (meeting every standard of excellence marked out in the criteria set forth on page one of the PQ Rankings thread).


So, to answer your question, "*Yes, it looks better than Avatar in terms of its consistent sharpness, detail, and clarity*." But this is just the opinion of a few of us so far, so I'm anticipating the weighing in of others so a large consensus can be formed as to the merits of this film. I truly believe, as stated previously, that ALL who view this will consider it REFERENCE QUALITY, but I'm NOT certain that all will vote to put it on the top of our reference tier.


----------



## lgans316

Thanks buddy for the clarification. Your comments is making me pull the trigger.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Predators*


I'm not sure the first 30 or so minutes of a film could look any better. Everything, depth, detail, color, brightness... is perfect. Once the film goes dark, forget about it. This was shot digitally with the Panavision Genesis, and like many films shot with it, the blacks just collapse once the lights go out. Detail does remain though.

*Tier 1.75*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Altitude*


Some great detail at the start despite the orange-y flesh tones, the heavy light helping out. Inside the plane (and inside a storm), darkness takes over. The adequate - and nothing more - black levels are fine, and some detail does escape in close-up. A lot of noise in spots, but clean otherwise.

*Tier 4.0*


----------



## djoberg

I just watched the first installment (_Challenges of Life)_ of the BBC's version of _Life (Narrated by David Attenborough)_ and I was thoroughly impressed. It's been awhile since I watched _Planet Earth_ but I can safely say I don't remember it looking this good, and especially having the consistency of detail and clarity (without artifacts) that this exhibits. Of course _Planet Earth_ was filmed in 1080i compared to a superior 1080p in the BBC's _Life_. On the cover of the boxed set of _Life_ we read, ".....with breathtaking new high definition filming techniques developed since _Planet Earth_," and it shows!


I had to go to the PQ Tier Ranking thread to be reminded that _Planet Earth_ is currently sitting in Tier 2.25. If the rest of the discs in _Life_ look as good as the first, this set could easily land in the top of Tier 1 or possibly in low Tier 0.


I am surprised this transfer hasn't been reviewed by anyone yet on this thread, which begs the question: Has anyone seen it?!


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19367097
> 
> 
> I had to go to the PQ Tier Ranking thread to be reminded that _Planet Earth_ is currently sitting in Tier 2.25. If the rest of the discs in _Life_ look as good as the first, this set could easily land in the top of Tier 1 or possibly in low Tier 0.
> 
> 
> I am surprised this transfer hasn't been reviewed by anyone yet on this thread, which begs the question: Has anyone seen it?!



I watched it in HD on cable and was not that entertained by it. Some cool visuals, but Oprah's insipid narration grated on my nerves after watching the whole program.


In the future I will possibly give the BBC version, with a different narrator, a viewing.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Collector


recommendation: Tier 4.5
*

No review prepared me for how bad this movie looked on Blu-ray. A couple of problems manifest that litter the image with digital noise, instead of the proper grain structure that should be present. At times it was hard to distinguish the picture quality from DVD, though a few scenes jump into Tier Three or thereabouts. The 2009 film looks to have been heavily processed at the post-production stage, partly intentionally to reproduce the visual aesthetic of the Saw franchise. A Digital Intermediate was created which usually produces better results, though not in this case. The image looks decidedly soft with very little detail.


Poor compression and a nasty sharpening filter have combined to turn the movie, naturally laden with grain, into something swarming with unnatural digital noise. What you see is not in anyway natural grain from 16mm film, even under poor lighting conditions.


The problems lead me to recommend skipping the Blu-ray if you already own the film on DVD. I feel I am being lenient in placing this in the lower rung of Tier Four. Many scenes are little better than Tier Five in quality, which is a shame as the movie itself was more enjoyable than any of the Saw sequels.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19367097
> 
> 
> I am surprised this transfer hasn't been reviewed by anyone yet on this thread, which begs the question: Has anyone seen it?!



I believe I reviewed it, or maybe I started typing up a review and didn't finish. I thought it looked comparable to Planet Earth. It's not technically pristine due to the nature of what they're shooting, and the large number of high-speed/low light shots, but artistically the photography is often amazing. Personally I think it's a must-own if you're a fan of nature shows, regardless of PQ.


----------



## deltasun

That is exactly how busy I've been - I own _Life_ but have only seen an episode or two. I'm with 42041 though, I didn't think it deviated too much from _Planet Earth_, based on the couple of episodes. I think it's more consistent than _Planet Earth_, but still on the soft side on a number of spots.


I'll eventually watch it in its entirety...


----------



## deltasun

*Spartacus: Blood and Sand*


Okay, I have not totally been off blu-ray's. I did complete the entire series and am ready to review. I would have to say that hands down, there is not another title that can best the facial details found in _Spartacus_. It is detailed, textured, and 3D in quality. There are a few characters/instances of (a wee bit) less than stellar facial details, particularly on Batiatus (on occasion). But, I stress it's almost negligible in relation to the entire series.


Though digitally shot, blacks are well-rendered but can be a bit glossy at times. Shadow details is the only other category I will complain a bit about and ding the series slightly. Some of the darker scenes lose some dimensionality and details inherent of brighter, daytime scenes. Details are not confined to faces. Details, in general, are in abundance. Textures of rocks, stones, fabrics are just incredible.


Speaking of dimensionality, there are plenty to speak of including the CGI-heavy aerial panoramas of the ludus and surrounding areas. Medium scenes show ample depth, even indoors. Contrast is a bit boosted, but still retain a pleasant look that defines the storyline. Colors range from the earthy sands/stone to the more dazzling and ornate gemstones and decor found throughout the villas. As can be imagined, *RED* is the star color in the _300_-like rendition of blood (times 100!). Yes, blood is used in excess though in a more cartoonish representation.


The positive virtues remain consistent throughout the 4-disc series. If it ever did waver, it would be on the very last episode (which had a bit more dark scenes). Technically, some banding does occur. Aside from that, maybe a bit of ringing in high-contrast edges. I believe these are more due to the intended look than any foul play. Either way, they did not detract.


I am feeling generous - I was on the fence here at Tier 1. I believe this is an example of where the strong facial details as a virtue can overcome some of the weaker areas mentioned above.

*Tier Recommendation: Bottom of Tier 0*


As for the story, this is no _Rome_. It started out weak, but definitely finished strong. I would still recommend - maybe the excess nudity early can get you through to the much-improved storyline that comes in the latter half of the series.









_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19367207
> 
> 
> I watched it in HD on cable and was not that entertained by it. Some cool visuals, but Oprah's insipid narration grated on my nerves after watching the whole program.
> 
> 
> In the future I will possibly give the BBC version, with a different narrator, a viewing.



FWIW, many reviewers are saying that the BBC version is superior in narration.


Again, I've only seen the very first episode on disc 1, but it was quite consistent throughout and it had MANY Tier 0 shots of landscapes and animals. But I remember a couple of the discs in _Planet Earth_ being High Tier 1 quality while others ventured into Tier 3 territory. So, I will definitely wait until I've seen the whole set before recommending a placement.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/19367268
> 
> 
> I believe I reviewed it, or maybe I started typing up a review and didn't finish. I thought it looked comparable to Planet Earth. It's not technically pristine due to the nature of what they're shooting, and the large number of high-speed/low light shots, but artistically the photography is often amazing. Personally I think it's a must-own if you're a fan of nature shows, regardless of PQ.



I won't repeat what I just wrote to Phantom, but I will say that I think you hit the nail on the head when you said, "It's not technically pristine *due to the nature of what they're shooting, and the large number of high-speed/low light shots*." Most of the shots in the first episode avoid low light shots (and nighttime scenes altogether) so most of it WAS technically pristine. And the high speed shots (like the one of the three cheetahs chasing an ostrich) were very good, unlike similar shots in _Planet Earth_, but this may not hold true on every disc.


I am a fan of nature shows so yes, it was a "must-own" for me. Having said that, it still takes me awhile to get through a set with 10 episodes (it's not something I'll watch straight through), so it may be a few months before I actually write a review.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Three Kings*

Not sure what to do with this thing. Shot with such exaggerated colors, blacks, and contrast, it does create some incredible pop, but also crush and blown out highlights. The color is anything but natural too. Still, the facial detail is incredible at times with few drops in intensity. Let's say... somewhere in the middle.

*Tier 3.5*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19367210
> 
> *The Collector
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 4.5
> *
> 
> No review prepared me for how bad this movie looked on Blu-ray. A couple of problems manifest that litter the image with digital noise, instead of the proper grain structure that should be present. At times it was hard to distinguish the picture quality from DVD, though a few scenes jump into Tier Three or thereabouts. The 2009 film looks to have been heavily processed at the post-production stage, partly intentionally to reproduce the visual aesthetic of the Saw franchise. A Digital Intermediate was created which usually produces better results, though not in this case. The image looks decidedly soft with very little detail.
> 
> 
> Poor compression and a nasty sharpening filter have combined to turn the movie, naturally laden with grain, into something swarming with unnatural digital noise. What you see is not in anyway natural grain from 16mm film, even under poor lighting conditions.
> 
> 
> The problems lead me to recommend skipping the Blu-ray if you already own the film on DVD. I feel I am being lenient in placing this in the lower rung of Tier Four. Many scenes are little better than Tier Five in quality, which is a shame as the movie itself was more enjoyable than any of the Saw sequels.



I gave a very brief review of this back in May:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...ostcount=16021 


We are certainly on the same page with our description Phantom, but I gave it a 4.0, which was perhaps too generous. It won't bother me if that title ends up on the lower end of that tier.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19367440
> 
> *Spartacus: Blood and Sand*
> 
> 
> Okay, I have not totally been off blu-ray's. I did complete the entire series and am ready to review. I would have to say that hands down, there is not another title that can best the facial details found in _Spartacus_. It is detailed, textured, and 3D in quality. There are a few characters/instances of (a wee bit) less than stellar facial details, particularly on Batiatus (on occasion). But, I stress it's almost negligible in relation to the entire series.
> 
> 
> Though digitally shot, blacks are well-rendered but can be a bit glossy at times. Shadow details is the only other category I will complain a bit about and ding the series slightly. Some of the darker scenes lose some dimensionality and details inherent of brighter, daytime scenes. Details are not confined to faces. Details, in general, are in abundance. Textures of rocks, stones, fabrics are just incredible.
> 
> 
> Speaking of dimensionality, there are plenty to speak of including the CGI-heavy aerial panoramas of the ludus and surrounding areas. Medium scenes show ample depth, even indoors. Contrast is a bit boosted, but still retain a pleasant look that defines the storyline. Colors range from the earthy sands/stone to the more dazzling and ornate gemstones and decor found throughout the villas. As can be imagined, *RED* is the star color in the _300_-like rendition of blood (times 100!). Yes, blood is used in excess though in a more cartoonish representation.
> 
> 
> The positive virtues remain consistent throughout the 4-disc series. If it ever did waver, it would be on the very last episode (which had a bit more dark scenes). Technically, some banding does occur. Aside from that, maybe a bit of ringing in high-contrast edges. I believe these are more due to the intended look than any foul play. Either way, they did not detract.
> 
> 
> I am feeling generous - I was on the fence here at Tier 1. I believe this is an example of where the strong facial details as a virtue can overcome some of the weaker areas mentioned above.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Bottom of Tier 0*
> 
> 
> As for the story, this is no _Rome_. It started out weak, but definitely finished strong. I would still recommend - maybe the excess nudity early can get you through to the much-improved storyline that comes in the latter half of the series.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


*Spartacus: Blood and Sand(AKA Blood and Boobs)







*


Delta, I agree with this completely. You beat me to it.







I was also thinking low tier 0 or tier 1. Detail, detail...very similar to Crank 1 and 2 IMO. Colors aren't as intense due to mostly earth tones, but overall a good color palate. I was wondering how it was captured, since the BD is 1080 24p, but it seems as though it was done with HD cameras. I am guessing the slightly hot whites and at times average shadow detail is due to HD cameras.

*Recommendation:Tier 0, Bottom*


----------



## audiomagnate

Robin Hood


I kept moving my viewing seat forward on this one. Lot's of dull overcast looking scenes, but wow, so many of the long shots are stunners on this one I figured I had to put in a vote. The distance detail is what impressed me, like on the helicopter shot of Robin and his boys running through the forest. The shot of the Thames estuary looked like the better Baraka stuff. Much of this is tier 0 for me, but all the washed out low contrast stuff forces me to go to 1.25

1.25


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/19370628
> 
> *Spartacus: Blood and Sand(AKA Blood and Boobs)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> Delta, I agree with this completely. You beat me to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was also thinking low tier 0 or tier 1. Detail, detail...very similar to Crank 1 and 2 IMO. Colors aren't as intense due to mostly earth tones, but overall a good color palate. I was wondering how it was captured, since the BD is 1080 24p, but it seems as though it was done with HD cameras. I am guessing the slightly hot whites and at times average shadow detail is due to HD cameras.
> 
> *Recommendation:Tier 0, Bottom*



LOL, I was going to write Boob and Sand. But yes, there are definite hot whites from the boosted contrast. Do you agree with the improvement in script as we neared the end?


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Maltese Falcon*


General Warner restoration... which means awesome. No damage whatsoever, and the thick grain structure is pretty well resolved. Good rich blacks keep the lighting as it should be, and the gray scale is excellent. Sharp with some great detail in spots.

*Tier 3.25*


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Hey guys! Long time, no see! Miss me?










I have a question that I though you guys might be able to help me with. My ps3 has suffered the dreaded Red Light Of Death. Part of me blames the new netflix Canada app, as it worked fine before I installed that, but probably gave the machine a more vigorous work out than normal blu ray watching did. (I went a little nuts watching season 2 and 3 of Mad Men)


Ok bringing me back to topic... Does the blu ray player itself affect the actual PQ for the purposes of this thread? We actually do have a back up Blu player, but it is this noname el cheapo machine we got for my daughter's room for $88 at Walmart... Seiki? Something like that, never heard of it but the price was right.


I watched Couples Retreat with it and was underwhelmed by the PQ; we also watched Iron Man 2 and the scenes with Scarlett Johansen in that white hallway had some crazy high contrast edging on her -- so much so my daughter commented, "she looks like a cartoon, she is glowing all around her!" I joked that she has discovered her first taste of edge enhancement though figure it is more likely high contrast edging.



I did not notice a drop in quality while watching True Blood season 2, one disc simply refused to play on the ps3 so that was the first time I swapped to her machine. (side note, I would rank True Blood s2 at top of tier 2.0, it looks good but much like a lot of HDTV on blu, it lacks the polish and pq substance to push it any higher IMO).



So while I save up for a new ps3, this is what I have now, and figured I would seek your thoughts on if reviewing is worth it yet.


----------



## JoeBloggz

*How to train your dragon*


This tranfer stacks up nicely with other Dreamworks titles. Colors look rich and vibrant. Blacks are on par with other highly rated animations. For me the contrast was not as impressive as toy story, up, monsters inc.

Detail was sharp, although in some scences I was expecting something more! Whites looked natural and not overblown(one of the more left out aspects of overall PQ).


In the end this is a solid transfer(not to mention the movie is actually pretty good) but it does not measure up to the animated titles I mentioned earlier.


Recommendation: .75


----------



## Incindium




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/19374220
> 
> 
> we also watched Iron Man 2 and the scenes with Scarlett Johansen in that white hallway had some crazy high contrast edging on her -- so much so my daughter commented, "she looks like a cartoon, she is glowing all around her!" I joked that she has discovered her first taste of edge enhancement though figure it is more likely high contrast edging.



I noticed some PQ processing weirdness in that scene when watching it in the theater. I'm not surprised that you are seeing in on the bluray.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/19374220
> 
> 
> Hey guys! Long time, no see! Miss me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok bringing me back to topic... Does the blu ray player itself affect the actual PQ for the purposes of this thread? We actually do have a back up Blu player, but it is this noname el cheapo machine we got for my daughter's room for $88 at Walmart... Seiki? Something like that, never heard of it but the price was right.



Don't become a stranger, it's nice to hear from you again in the PQ thread. If the other player is connected right and properly set, there should be little to no difference when evaluating 1080p/24 content between various players. The display or projector is where 99% of the differences are introduced, not the player.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/19374220
> 
> 
> Hey guys! Long time, no see! Miss me?



Hey G3....I actually referred to you a few days ago when I reviewed _The Thin Red Line_, in fact, I called you a "Lady"!










Speaking of _The Thin Red Line_, if you want to see some real EYE CANDY, give it a rent. It will look great on your Panny plasma.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19372359
> 
> 
> LOL, I was going to write Boob and Sand. But yes, there are definite hot whites from the boosted contrast. Do you agree with the improvement in script as we neared the end?



Yes beyond a doubt it improved, but I think it was on the first disc around episode 4 that it got better. Watching it again as the characters develop is interesting.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Year Without a Santa Claus


recommendation: Tier 2.75*


A stop-motion classic from Rankin/Bass gets remastered for Blu-ray, and shows it in an impressive upgrade. Prepare for a revelatory experience, as no prior television or DVD viewing looks remotely close in picture quality for this special. As someone that grew up on these television specials around Christmas every year, I was frankly stunned at the substantial leap in video quality on BD for a television production from 1974. It was just released to Blu-ray in the past month, in a package that also includes the DVD for some reason.


Running slightly over 50-minutes, the video is encoded in Warner's typical codec of choice, VC-1. Correctly framed in in the original broadcast ratio of 4:3, only a BD-25 is used which apparently precluded the use of a lossless soundtrack. In a major disappointment that goes completely unmentioned anywhere on the packaging, even though the ad copy indicates all three have been remastered, the two other Rankin/Bass features included are in standard-definition. They are respectively: _Nestor, The Long-Eared Christmas Donkey_ and _Rudolph's Shiny New Year_. It would have been wonderful to have seen them at greater resolution if they truly were remastered like _The Year Without A Santa Claus_.


While no BDInfo scan is currently available, video bitrates follow the usual course for a Warner-produced BD. Peak rates barely shoot over 26 Mbps, and the majority of the main feature stays under 20 Mbps. An estimated average would dwell slightly below that figure. Due to the nature of the production's stop-motion techniques for filming, and general lack of quick movement or shifting colors, compression artifacts are no problem at all. In this instance I did not find the compression encoding to have reduced possible fidelity and fine detail in any significant way, as the case usually is with a majority of Warner Bros. Blu-rays. Outside of two scenes purposely in soft-focus, there is a general crispness to the picture that helps showcase the puppets and background sets.


Colors show a nice and pleasing improvement over the faded prints of yesteryear. Various shades of Christmas reds paint the screen, offset by the lush green jackets of Santa's elves. The original elements look in fantastic shape, with little visible damage. Sure, a few minor and faint scratches pop up on occasion. But I have seen major films from the same period look much worse in comparison. The high-definition scan must be relatively new and fresh to produce such a fine image. I believe the claims of “remastering” in this instance, when that term has been thrown around so loosely by studios.


There are no indicators of edge enhancement or digital manipulation anywhere to be spotted. The very light grain pattern has not been scrubbed away or tampered with to any degree. If anything, the enhanced clarity and resolution reveal a few things from the original production that have all but been invisible on lesser formats. Sharp-eyed viewers will likely notice the thin, black wires holding up Santa's sleigh as Mrs. Claus uses it to fly through the air. But that is a small concern when you can marvel at the fine detail work of the animated puppets. Details like shoe buckles are visible for the first time, that show a level of craftsmanship I was frankly unaware of before viewing.


Having condemned many of Warner's Blu-rays in the past for less than impressive images, this BD shines in a manner thought impossible by myself. A cherished Rankin-Bass special gets the top-quality picture it deserves. The transfer is top-notch and an absolute gem, but limitations in the production confine the BD to a maximum ranking in Tier 2.75.


Watching on a 60” Pioneer KURO plasma at 1080p/24, fed by a 60GB PS3 (firmware 3.41) from a viewing distance of approximately six feet.


----------



## Hughmc

GGG, hope you are well. I haven't been posting a lot either, but glad to see you say hello. It seems the benefit of today's BD players is that digital is digital and if we are just passing the BD unaltered then PQ should be a wash. Many were surprised Criterion and others were using a PS3 as their reference player, but the science is there.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Treasure of Sierra Madre*


A step above Maltese Falcon, the grain levels lighter, but the detail higher. Same great contrast, same awesome gray scale. Pans of the landscape are impressive. A few shots lose their sharpness, but it's minor stuff.

*Tier 3.5*


----------



## audiomagnate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19377972
> 
> *Treasure of Sierra Madre*
> 
> 
> A step above Maltese Falcon, the grain levels lighter, but the detail higher. Same great contrast, same awesome gray scale. Pans of the landscape are impressive. A few shots lose their sharpness, but it's minor stuff.
> 
> *Tier 3.5*



Amazon has suspended sales of this title: QUOTE:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Item Under Review


While this item is available from other marketplace sellers on this page, it is not currently offered by Amazon.com because customers have told us there may be something wrong with our inventory of the item, the way we are shipping it, or the way it's described here. (Thanks for the tip!)


We're working to fix the problem as quickly as possible.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*It's The Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown

recommendation: Tier 3.5*


An indelible part of the Halloween experience since its first airing in 1966, Warner Bros. has done a credible job in bringing the Peanuts special to Blu-ray. A new transfer, or at least a fresh high-definition scan, appears to have been created for this edition of _It's The Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown_. In comparison, _A Charlie Brown Christmas_ on BD looks sourced from a faded and dull print. That, or the original elements are in significantly worse shape. The Christmas special is currently ranked in Tier Four, though that evaluation could easily be lowered a notch.


Taking the main feature on its own consideration, the picture quality leans close to the top of tier three. The Blu-ray reproduces the simple line-art and crude animation to a fault. What drags the overall score down to Tier 3.5 is the inclusion of the secondary feature: _It's Magic, Charlie Brown_. For a newer feature produced in 1981, the image actually looks worse. While the main feature displays clean and bold colors with a negligible amount of print anomalies, the secondary feature looks rougher in scope of dirt and debris. No remastering or care appears to have gone into it. At least it is presented in true 1080p resolution.


Both are a clear step above in picture quality against the BD of _A Charlie Brown Christmas_. That disc's video was hard to distinguish from DVD for stretches. _It's The Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown_ fares much better with a high-quality, fresh transfer that the DVD format simply could not hope to match. The VC-1 encode contains standard parameters for a Warner BD, though there is not a ounce of macroblocking due to the simple animation used in production.


----------



## deltasun

Thanks, Phantom for another insightful review. I have the Peanuts Holiday Collection in my Wishlist and am getting antsy with pulling the trigger. So, the Halloween one isn't bad; Christmas is bad. Have you had a chance to see the Thanksgiving one?


Obviously, in the end, the nostalgia will be the determining factor here.







I'm also looking into the Original Christmas Classics set.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *audiomagnate* /forum/post/19378344
> 
> 
> Amazon has suspended sales of this title: QUOTE:
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> Item Under Review
> 
> 
> While this item is available from other marketplace sellers on this page, it is not currently offered by Amazon.com because customers have told us there may be something wrong with our inventory of the item, the way we are shipping it, or the way it's described here. (Thanks for the tip!)
> 
> 
> We're working to fix the problem as quickly as possible.
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------



Wonder what that's about. Anyone know?


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19379313
> 
> 
> So, the Halloween one isn't bad; Christmas is bad. Have you had a chance to see the Thanksgiving one?
> 
> 
> Obviously, in the end, the nostalgia will be the determining factor here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm also looking into the Original Christmas Classics set.



Comments are likely forthcoming when I have the time over the next few days to thoroughly analyze the Thanksgiving episode.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19343238
> 
> *The Exorcist (1973 Extended Director's Cut)*
> 
> This one was REALLY a mixed bag. One minute you would have a sharp and extremely detailed shot, the next minute heavy grain would intrude (usually during nighttime shots) obscuring almost all detail or murky blacks would rear their ugly head (there was a shot of Damien laying on his bed at night that rivaled scenes from _28 Days Later_; the blacks in that shot were as bad as I've ever seen and his face looked unnatural and flat).
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.25*



I'm with you in the unimpressed club. The work done on the other Warner classics lately is far more impressive, and they are way older. The encode is completely inefficient at handling the grain structure, to the point where the grain becomes nothing but noise. There is no grain here, only noise... and Zuul. The start was great, but then it quickly dropped a notch, and then another... and another. Totally disappointed.

*Tier 3.75*


----------



## lgans316

*Australia*


This one looked pretty except for some smoke filled shots and few dark scenes with weak blacks.


The movie could have been lot better had the production crew trimmed the running time which is dragged by a chaotic screenplay and a lengthy story.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.25*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19381537
> 
> 
> I'm with you in the unimpressed club. The work done on the other Warner classics lately is far more impressive, and they are way older. The encode is completely inefficient at handling the grain structure, to the point where the grain becomes nothing but noise. There is no grain here, only noise... and Zuul. The start was great, but then it quickly dropped a notch, and then another... and another. Totally disappointed.
> 
> *Tier 3.75*



Agreed! I can hardly believe the praise this transfer is getting when I was so underwhelmed by it. Granted, there were some remarkable scenes (especially in the beginning, as we both mentioned), but the inconsistency is blatant and thus the accolades it's receiving is unconscionable.


Your mention of "other Warner classics lately" being "far more impressive" brought to mind _How the West Was Won_, which dates back to 1962. That transfer is drop dead gorgeous compared to _The Exorcist_.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19382648
> 
> 
> Agreed! I can hardly believe the praise this transfer is getting when I was so underwhelmed by it. Granted, there were some remarkable scenes (especially in the beginning, as we both mentioned), but the inconsistency is blatant and thus the accolades it's receiving is unconscionable.
> 
> 
> Your mention of "other Warner classics lately" being "far more impressive" brought to mind _How the West Was Won_, which dates back to 1962. That transfer is drop dead gorgeous compared to _The Exorcist_.



I haven't seen the Exorcist on Blu yet, but comparing that title to How the West Was Won is wrong on so many levels it isn't even funny.


Just sayin'.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/19382696
> 
> 
> I haven't seen the Exorcist on Blu yet, but comparing that title to How the West Was Won is wrong on so many levels it isn't even funny.
> 
> 
> Just sayin'.



So, why is it wrong to compare those two transfers? They're both "classics" and "Warner" titles.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19382900
> 
> 
> So, why is it wrong to compare those two transfers? They're both "classics" and "Warner" titles.



Haven't seen HTWWW, but I was talking about Maltese Falcon and Sierra Madre, both of which had far better compression and natural grain.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19382900
> 
> 
> So, why is it wrong to compare those two transfers? They're both "classics" and "Warner" titles.



HTWWW was shot in cinerama, which is 3 strips of vertical 6-perforation 35mm negative for every frame. The Exorcist was shot in flat 35mm, so the image is about 3 vertical perforations high. By a rough estimate, HTWWW has about 6 times the resolution per frame, and is more comparable to IMAX than 35mm.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19382900
> 
> 
> So, why is it wrong to compare those two transfers? They're both "classics" and "Warner" titles.



They were filmed in a much different style. Even a reference transfer of The Exorcist would not look that great in comparison to HTWWW. The Exorcist is in my possession and waiting to viewed, but the comments have prepared me for another sub-par WB effort. My hunch is that the video encodes were not prepared recently, but the result of an older transfer done a couple of years ago. One gets the feeling that this title would have been released as early as two years ago if the Blu-ray market had grown faster. I know Friedkin and his DP "approved" this transfer, but that could mean as little as they spot-checked it on a 20" monitor. Not that I trust anything Friedkin does to a transfer after the French Connection fiasco.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19382929
> 
> 
> Haven't seen HTWWW, but I was talking about Maltese Falcon and Sierra Madre, both of which had far better compression and natural grain.



Yes, I knew you were referring to them because of your recent reviews on those two, but I thought I'd throw HTWWW into the mix as well.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/19382939
> 
> 
> HTWWW was shot in cinerama, which is 3 strips of vertical 6-perforation 35mm negative for every frame. The Exorcist was shot in flat 35mm, so the image is about 3 vertical perforations high. By a rough estimate, HTWWW has about 6 times the resolution per frame, and is more comparable to IMAX than 35mm.



Okay....that's ONE LEVEL where it's wrong to compare the two, but Rob said it was wrong on MANY LEVELS. Give me a few more!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19382945
> 
> 
> The Exorcist is in my possession and waiting to viewed, but the comments have prepared me for another sub-par WB effort. My hunch is that the video encodes were not prepared recently, but the result of an older transfer done a couple of years ago. One gets the feeling that this title would have been released as early as two years ago if the Blu-ray market had grown faster. I know Friedkin and his DP "approved" this transfer, but that could mean as little as they spot-checked it on a 20" monitor. Not that I trust anything Friedkin does to a transfer after the French Connection fiasco.



I believe you too will be "underwhelmed" by this transfer Phantom. Again, I am amazed at the stellar reviews some critics are giving this title. A case in point is the words below of Kris Deering:

*"When you open the packaging of this deluxe Blu-ray release you'll find a letter from the director praising Warner's effort with this video presentation. I have to agree with him. Warner continues to inspire with the effort they make with the classic catalog films. The restoration effort here has paid off with a great looking print. Detail and dimension look great and you really get the sense of watching a solid film presentation of this nearly perfect horror gem. Colors don't have that dated feel to them and contrast levels are strong. In some ways the HD presentation may be a bit too good as it reveals shortcomings with the makeup. Both cuts are equally great too."*


I *usually* look to Mr. Deering for a fair critique of restorations on Blu-ray, but I was shocked at his conclusions.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19382945
> 
> 
> They were filmed in a much different style. Even a reference transfer of The Exorcist would not look that great in comparison to HTWWW.



One of the reasons I referred to HTWWW was because IMO Warner was to be credited for a remarkable restoration. Isn't it conceivable that Warner could have botched it with that title as they did, in measure, with _The Exorcist_? This question has nothing to do with these titles being "filmed in a much different style," but is simply speaking as to the restoration itself.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19382945
> 
> 
> The Exorcist is in my possession and waiting to viewed, but the comments have prepared me for another sub-par WB effort. My hunch is that the video encodes were not prepared recently, but the result of an older transfer done a couple of years ago. One gets the feeling that this title would have been released as early as two years ago if the Blu-ray market had grown faster. I know Friedkin and his DP "approved" this transfer, but that could mean as little as they spot-checked it on a 20" monitor. Not that I trust anything Friedkin does to a transfer after the French Connection fiasco.



I don't think it's an older master so much as it is the encode completely and utterly failing to keep up. These types of things should not happen, ruining much of the finale of the film when they're in the hallways. They all look like that.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19383586
> 
> 
> I don't think it's an older master so much as it is the encode completely and utterly failing to keep up. These types of things should not happen, ruining much of the finale of the film when they're in the hallways. They all look like that.



That effect you linked tends to occur when a film, thick with natural grain, has not been DNRed by Warner Bros. Leaving the film's grain in is the right thing to do of course, but the standard VC-1 encodings they use simply can't handle an image of that nature.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19383975
> 
> 
> That effect you linked tends to occur when a film, thick with natural grain, has not been DNRed by Warner Bros. *Leaving the film's grain in is the right thing to do of course*, but the standard VC-1 encodings they use simply can't handle an image of that nature.



You are absolutely correct Phantom and in many scenes throughout the film the grain looks marvelous. But in a number of scenes, as I noted in my review, the grain becomes extremely heavy resulting in a gritty look that obscures (instead of enhancing) detail.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19383975
> 
> 
> That effect you linked tends to occur when a film, thick with natural grain, has not been DNRed by Warner Bros. Leaving the film's grain in is the right thing to do of course, but the standard VC-1 encodings they use simply can't handle an image of that nature.



Absolutely. It happens on their modern releases too. It's such a shame too. Baffling as it is, the disc is a BD-50, but only uses 31GB of space (Theatrical). I can't even fathom the reasoning behind that.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19382900
> 
> 
> So, why is it wrong to compare those two transfers? They're both "classics" and "Warner" titles.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/19382939
> 
> 
> HTWWW was shot in cinerama, which is 3 strips of vertical 6-perforation 35mm negative for every frame. The Exorcist was shot in flat 35mm, so the image is about 3 vertical perforations high. By a rough estimate, HTWWW has about 6 times the resolution per frame, and is more comparable to IMAX than 35mm.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19382945
> 
> 
> They were filmed in a much different style. Even a reference transfer of The Exorcist would not look that great in comparison to HTWWW. The Exorcist is in my possession and waiting to viewed, but the comments have prepared me for another sub-par WB effort. My hunch is that the video encodes were not prepared recently, but the result of an older transfer done a couple of years ago. One gets the feeling that this title would have been released as early as two years ago if the Blu-ray market had grown faster. I know Friedkin and his DP "approved" this transfer, but that could mean as little as they spot-checked it on a 20" monitor. Not that I trust anything Friedkin does to a transfer after the French Connection fiasco.



I see some of my capable colleagues beat me to the answer.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/19384277
> 
> 
> I see some of my capable colleagues beat me to the answer.



The question still remains Rob, "Why did Warner do such a fantastic restoration with HTWWW and a mediocre restoration with _The Exorcist_? I believe Warner could have botched the HTWWW transfer too, but it didn't, so when I was *comparing* the two I was simply praising Warner for their effort with HTWWW and criticizing them for messing up TE.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19384325
> 
> 
> The question still remains Rob, "Why did Warner do such a fantastic restoration with HTWWW and a mediocre restoration with _The Exorcist_? I believe Warner could have botched the HTWWW transfer too, but it didn't, so when I was *comparing* the two I was simply praising Warner for their effort with HTWWW and criticizing them for messing up TE.



But that is not what you said/asked in the post that I responded to.


Obviously I couldn't begin to answer that question, as I haven't even seen the Exorcist (as I already said in my original post). Having some knowledge regarding how the Exorcist was filmed, how it was intended to look, and having seen it in various forms, I would expect it to be quite grainy, which means it will be a challenge for the encoding to handle it correctly.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Dinosaurs Alive 2D/3D edition*


Two versions of the movie on the same disc. I can't speak for the original 2D only version, but this one definitely has compression issues. Lots of banding against the skyline, and some notable artifacting elsewhere. Blacks are weak enough to reveal compression there as well. Sharpness is high and the film itself is impressive, but those sights are diluted here.

*Tier 3.75*


Note: 2D version only reviewed. I don't have a 3DTV. Probably about time to work out some protocol in this thread for 3D stuff though, right?


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19386919
> 
> 
> Note: 2D version only reviewed. I don't have a 3DTV. Probably about time to work out some protocol in this thread for 3D stuff though, right?



Real 3-D releases would require a different set of criteria. Focus issues, depth of field, and myriad other issues come into play. Honestly I see myself sitting out the 3-D craze until the technology settles down and is proven for a period measured in years. Buying unproven, first-generation consumer technology such as the new 3-D displays is a sucker's game.


I tried to gauge feelings in the thread toward 3-D earlier in the year and no one seemed overly enthusiastic about it. My opinion is that if someone wants to start a new "3-D PQ Tier thread" on the forum, go right ahead. But if people want to see them included, I will go with the consensus.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19387635
> 
> 
> Real 3-D releases would require a different set of criteria. Focus issues, depth of field, and myriad other issues come into play. Honestly I see myself sitting out the 3-D craze until the technology settles down and is proven for a period measured in years. Buying unproven, first-generation consumer technology such as the new 3-D displays is a sucker's game.
> 
> 
> I tried to gauge feelings in the thread toward 3-D earlier in the year and no one seemed overly enthusiastic about it. My opinion is that if someone wants to start a new "3-D PQ Tier thread" on the forum, go right ahead. But if people want to see them included, I will go with the consensus.



+1


I'm with you on this one Phantom. In the last two years I've invested well over 5k in A/V equipment (non-3D) and I'm not about to jump on the 3D bandwagon. First generation buyers of ANYTHING are gambling, IMO.


I also feel that if members want to review 3D releases, they should start a 3D thread. We have enough *diversity* here with live action vs. animated titles.


----------



## Hughmc

I agree with the previous posters. 3D is a technology really unto itself and while we have 3D Blu Rays, 3D is not Blu Ray, is how I look at it. I don't think there would be any valid or reasonable comparison between 3D BD's and regular BD's and a category would have to created just for it. Phantom's take is right on...it would be difficult to judge or rate PQ when the PQ is being viewed with glasses with a PQ that is dramatically different and reviews based on current parameters wouldn't work.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

Guess that takes care of the 3D stuff.







Onto more 2D:
*Wild Oceans 2D/3D*


Some gorgeous photography on land, some of the most vibrant stuff you'll probably ever see in reality. Colors, black levels, and detail are remarkable. Underwater, the blues are pretty hearty, but it's tough to pick up on detail given the motion and nature of shooting underwater. Some banding doesn't help either.

*Tier 3.5*


____________________

*Grand Canyon Adventures 2D/3D*


Reference tier for sure. Just incredible. From the most amazing views of the Canyon I've ever seen to the best shots of Vegas probably ever, this transfer oozes perfection. Very few trouble spots, some obvious compression here, some aliasing there, but it's oh so near perfect beyond that.

*Tier .5*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving


recommendation: Tier 3.75*


There are two episodes of the Peanuts gang included in high-definition. The “bonus” episode, entitled _The Mayflower Voyagers_, actually looks quite good. Created in 1988, it probably looks the best of the Peanuts specials that have been released so far on Blu-ray. Virtually no print damage, and improved animation from prior specials, almost gets the picture quality to reach the second tier in spots.


The titular episode does not look as good. _A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving_ first premiered in 1973, the print quality and television animation look it. On its own merits, the BD straddles the divide between the third and fourth tiers. The remastering that looked apparent on _It's The Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown_ episode, is not so easily found on this original Thanksgiving special.


Contrast fluctuates a tiny amount. Colors just are not as vibrant and saturated as most animated programs look, even most other Peanuts episodes on Blu-ray. Woodstock's yellow has a flat, dull coloring to it. Snoopy looks off-white more than a crisp, clean white. A very minor level of compression artifacting is present in the grain structure. The print shows a moderate amount of dirt. Some of that is possibly endemic to the type of animation used, given the television budget. No processing was applied to the image, Warner Bros. has been good about leaving animated material alone from digital noise reduction and sharpening on Blu-ray.


The Thanksgiving special does look slightly better than the original Christmas BD. The transfer looks satisfactory, but one wonders if better elements or a restoration would create a noticeable improvement. Not knowing the history of the production, the master looks like a third-generation source.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19387635
> 
> 
> Real 3-D releases would require a different set of criteria. Focus issues, depth of field, and myriad other issues come into play. Honestly I see myself sitting out the 3-D craze until the technology settles down and is proven for a period measured in years. Buying unproven, first-generation consumer technology such as the new 3-D displays is a sucker's game.
> 
> 
> I tried to gauge feelings in the thread toward 3-D earlier in the year and no one seemed overly enthusiastic about it. My opinion is that if someone wants to start a new "3-D PQ Tier thread" on the forum, go right ahead. But if people want to see them included, I will go with the consensus.



I agree with this.


3D PQ rankings should have their own separate thread if anyone is interested in something like that.


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/19389491
> 
> 
> 3D PQ rankings should have their own separate thread if anyone is interested in something like that.



At the risk of beating a dead horse, I also agree. Conveniently, there's a good place for such a thread in the 3D Content forum if someone is bold enough to start one:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?f=196 


I do think it's worth paying closer attention to some of the 3D releases in this thread, however, since the included 2D versions on these might not always come out exactly the same as existing or forthcoming 2D-only BD releases.


----------



## MidnightWatcher




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19387889
> 
> 
> First generation buyers of ANYTHING are gambling, IMO.



Yep. My dad opted for Betamax back in the day. I opted for HD DVD. Like father, like son. Oy vey.


----------



## deltasun

Didn't we just have the 3D discussion? Seems like just yesterday!







I agree with the consensus.


PS: thanks for the Thanksgiving review. Oh well.










Just came out of _Back to the Future_ on the big screen. Talk about memory lane. Gotta say though - you can really see the make up on Michael J. Fox! Should be interesting when I see it on blu.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/19389526
> 
> 
> I do think it's worth paying closer attention to some of the 3D releases in this thread, however, since the included 2D versions on these might not always come out exactly the same as existing or forthcoming 2D-only BD releases.



Good point, the new 3-D Coraline Blu-ray has already shown that situation. Apparently the newer 2-D video encode on it is superior to the regular BD, currently ranked eighth best in the tiers.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Sex and City 2*


You know what trend I hate? Smoothing the faces of actors/actresses. It's sucks, and it's ugly, and this god awful POS movie is full of it. It makes no sense to smooth a face, but the leave the suit/clothes perfectly defined and clear. It's a shame, because this one could have looked okay, with some stunning color and general sharpness. Blacks are stable and rich too.

*Tier 3.25*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Damned by Dawn*


Oh dear. Maybe cheap, consumer grade digital video cams are worse than smoothing faces if this thing is any indication. Not only is slathered in fog, artificial and CG, there is almost nothing positive here. No detail, poor blacks, blue color, soft, banding, compression, and EE. Hideous.

*Tier 5.0*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^


I feel for you GRG in having to view to such atrocious-looking titles.


----------



## Herve

My wife and I received "Supernova" a few days ago. I thought it was the 2000 space-sci-fi, but it was the 2005 movie of the same title, starring Peter Fonda, Luke Perry, Emma Samms, etc.


We decided to watch it even though it was not the one we wanted. I'm glad we did. The story and acting wasn't bad and the PQ was better than excellent, except for, amazingly, the CGI.


Anyway, I'd love to hear other people's comments about the PQ of this movie.


----------



## deltasun

*Get Him to the Greek*

_Stroke the furry wall_


Surprisingly beautiful looking transfer. Detail was king on this feature, from the colorful, saturated environs to the cast's facial close-up's. Okay, there were some bouts of softness but not enough to bring it too far down. The concert footage looked great!


The biggest issue was lack of dimensionality due to some weaker moments of contrast. This usually occurred during the darker scenes. Blacks, in general, were decent with no crush. The next biggest issues was a really bad instance of aliasing on Aldous' ski hat. This whole scene seemed out of place.


Aside from those, a fine presentation.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19396453
> 
> 
> ^^^^
> 
> 
> I feel for you GRG in having to view to such atrocious-looking titles.



Gotta take one for the team some times, although that seems more often than not lately...

*Winter's Bone*


Shot digitally, and it's not too bad. Very clear, crisp image full of life, even if the movie isn't. Set in the drab Ozarks where the color has been drained, the detail typically remains. A nice window effect thanks to the clarity, but the black levels are washed out, and the colors don't carry much pop by design.
*Tier 2.75*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19403056
> 
> 
> Gotta take one for the team some times, although that seems more often than not lately...










You're the man!


----------



## audiomagnate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19401101
> 
> *Get Him to the Greek*
> 
> _Stroke the furry wall_
> 
> 
> Surprisingly beautiful looking transfer. Detail was king on this feature, from the colorful, saturated environs to the cast's facial close-up's. Okay, there were some bouts of softness but not enough to bring it too far down. The concert footage looked great!
> 
> 
> The biggest issue was lack of dimensionality due to some weaker moments of contrast. This usually occurred during the darker scenes. Blacks, in general, were decent with no crush. The next biggest issues was a really bad instance of aliasing on Aldous' ski hat. This whole scene seemed out of place.
> 
> 
> Aside from those, a fine presentation.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75*
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_



Whatever was going on with that hat was down right bizarre! It looked like radioactive chainmail. The rest looked too stylized for me to enjoy. None of the outdoor scenes really popped for me, and closeups were just average.


I thought the movie was awful and I enjoyed Brand in the same roll in the Sarah Marshall movie.


Pan TC-54PC14 from 9 feet

*2.5*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Back to the Future*

Definitely loads of DNR and EE going on here, the severity ranging from scene to scene. Flesh tones have that unnatural pinkish hue, while other colors are quite vivid. Some minimal black crush in spots. Detail suffers all around, and light grain structure that is barely there remains unimpressive.

*Tier 3.75*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Back to the Future II*


If the DNR was bad in the first one, it's atrocious here. Oddly, the EE seems to have been toned down, but a lot of the film takes place at night, so it's probably hiding. Lots of effects shots don't help admittedly. They do look notably worse, but no grain? That makes no sense.

*Tier 3.75*


----------



## lgans316

Universal to announce BTTF 26th anniversary edition with properly remastered picture.










A must buy has been turned into a no buy.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Frosty The Snowman


recommendation: Tier 1.5*


Found only on Blu-ray as part of the 3-BD set, The Original Christmas Classics, _Frosty The Snowman_ looks absolutely spectacular. There is no other way to express my amazement at the 1969 animated special's first appearance in high-definition. The Christmas magic that was used to bring Frosty to life must have been applied to the Blu-ray's stunning image. You can safely donate or give away prior DVD versions to a church or charity without a second thought, for the BD is simply breathtaking.


Licensed from Classic Media, the 3-disc set was released on October 12, 2010 by distributor Vivendi Entertainment. The 25-minute television special from Rankin and Bass originally aired in 1969, but looks as sparkling in 1080p as a new feature. The video is encoded in AVC on a BD-25, at an average video bitrate around 30 Mbps that rarely dips below 27 Mbps. Given that high-quality treatment, there is zero macroblocking and the BD looks 100% transparent to the master. That allows the Blu-ray's picture to retain every bit of detail possible from it.


Correctly framed in the original broadcast aspect ratio of 4:3, the lack of debris and dirt is remarkable. The original production elements must be in fantastic shape, or a top-notch restoration of recent vintage had to have been used as the basis for the HD-transfer. It is easily in the same class as the excellent work that Warner did on the theatrical Looney Tunes shorts. Revitalized is an apt description for a Blu-ray that removes the damages of time and neglect, as in this case.


No one since the original animators working on the animation cels themselves, have seen Frosty in such vivid and pristine clarity. White levels are clean and uniformly excellent, while primary colors leap off the screen. Not a hint of fading or dullness pervades the nicely saturated hues of red and green that pepper the picture, as is common in older animated material of this type. The master has been left untouched by any postprocessing like sharpening or filtering.


The impressive picture quality deserves to be ranked somewhere in Tier One. By no means is _Frosty The Snowman_ being graded on a curve, but for a production from 1969 the cleanliness and consistency speaks for itself. It makes the _Peanuts_ stuff on Blu-ray look as dull as dishwater in comparison. What makes the BD important is that future generations will now have an impeccable reference version preserved for posterity of this Rankin-Bass classic in splendid 1080p resolution. The cost of the entire set is worth it for the transfer and handling of _Frosty The Snowman_ alone.


Watching on a 60 Pioneer KURO plasma at 1080p/24, fed by a 60 GB PS3 (firmware 3.41), from a viewing distance of six feet.


----------



## deltasun

Excellent, PS! As I've mentioned before I'm about to purchase the Peanuts classics as well as the Holiday ones. Great start on the holiday ones already...


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19413732
> 
> 
> Excellent, PS! As I've mentioned before I'm about to purchase the Peanuts classics as well as the Holiday ones. Great start on the holiday ones already...



My thoughts on Rudolph will be coming soon, it is not quite up to the magnificent standards of Frosty's BD.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Back to the Future III*


A lot of the outrage over this set is focused squarely on the first one, and I understand why. However, the third is the worst of the bunch, we're talking Predator UHE terrible. Edge enhancement is laid on thick with no apparent benefit, the DNR is seriously offensive, detail one step shy of being completely wiped from the frame. Absolutely one of the worst cases of DNR to date on the format.

*Tier 4.25*


----------



## rusky_g

*Knowing*


I've concluded this month that all films should be shot with Red HD cameras having revisited 'Knowing' last night







.


Previously this title impressed me on my Plasma TV so thought I'd give it a viewing on my Projector; for me this defines how movies should look - crisp, clear, packed with detail and depth from beginning to end, yet retaining a filmic quality. Contrast and blacks, awesome. Perhpas not everyone's cup of tea, but for me, marvellous.

*Tier rating: 0*


_OptomaHD65 / 94" / 10.75'_


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g* /forum/post/19415254
> 
> *Knowing*
> 
> 
> I've concluded this month that all films should be shot with Red HD cameras having revisited 'Knowing' last night
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> Previously this title impressed me on my Plasma TV so thought I'd give it a viewing on my Projector; for me this defines how movies should look - crisp, clear, packed with detail and depth from beginning to end, yet retaining a filmic quality. Contrast and blacks, awesome. Perhpas not everyone's cup of tea, but for me, marvellous.
> 
> *Tier rating: 0*
> 
> 
> _OptomaHD65 / 94" / 10.75'_



I agree with you except for one thing: FACIAL DETAILS! In my review I said this was definitely a Tier 0 contender except for these; everything else was reference quality. I gave it a 1.0.


----------



## rusky_g

Hiya DJ


Hope you are well and enjoying Halloween










Thanks for the feedback - I guess, split between the two of us, its in an appropriate ranking area, which is good. I felt the overall 'greatness' of the picture made up for the odd shortcoming, although I am pretty new to reveiwing and still getting to grips with what criteria we look at - so please bear with me, as currently my decision making is formulated from the simplest of forms: gut feeling and smile factor lol


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Rudolph The Red-Nosed Reindeer

recommendation: Tier 3.5*


One of the earliest Rankin/Bass stop-motion productions, the beloved Christmas special starring Rudolph first aired in 1964 on NBC and remains the longest running Christmas television special. Classic Media, through the distributor Vivendi Entertainment, released the Blu-ray as its own standalone feature on October 12, 2010. The 51-minute program is encoded in AVC on a BD-25, averaging a strong 29.98 Mbps on the video portion alone. Production quality looks a notch below the later Rankin/Bass animated programs, but there is no doubt this disc is fully transparent to the source material. A commendable and strong technical effort produces a solid, but not stellar, image at 1080p.


The grain of the film has a pleasing and naturalistic film-like quality that is untouched by modern processing techniques. Print damage is kept to a minimum, though several very thin gate scratches and minor anomalies show up on occasion. While not as clean in general as the other Rankin/Bass productions I have recently viewed on Blu-ray, the master looks in good shape. The resolution of the BD actually reveals a few minor quirks of the early, crude stop-motion process used for _Rudolph The Red-Nosed Reindeer_. Characters show an amazing sense of originality and charm in their design, but lack the intricate detail work of later specials in the physical models. There will not be moments when you pause the feature to marvel at small details like belt buckles.


I suspect that as much quality as possible has been squeezed out of the surviving prints for _Rudolph The Red-Nosed Reindeer_ on this BD, which never quite projects the astonishment and sense of visual appeal I had watching _Frosty The Snowman_. The picture is flatter and the color palette is more restrained. The main feature was remastered in high-definition back in 2005, so that is likely how along go the transfer was cultivated. A newer transfer might improve matters a wee bit, but there is only so much life that can be squeezed out of the source material in this case. Placement in the middle of Tier Three is a sensible judgment call on the BD. Fans should no doubt pick it up, as it presents a satisfactory upgrade from DVD.


BDInfo scan information courtesy of DVDBeaver.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

As an addendum to my placement for _Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer_, new information has come to my attention about subtle changes to the color palette between the new Blu-ray and older DVD versions. In particular, the color of Yukon Cornelius' coat is a shade of green on the Blu-ray from Classic Media. Prior versions had always shown the coat as a light shade of blue. Someone on another forum has received this semi-official reply on the color change:

*...looked into this with our post-production team and received the following response:


The picture restoration was locked in a timeline and the audio was done after the picture-lock. There was originally damage on the word Everyone and unfortunately during the restoration of that song, when that word was fixed, the damage unfortunately covered the word For.

So unfortunately this is on all the Rudolph BR discs.


Regarding the color, due to older film prints- all previous releases do indeed have a blue coat.


With sophisticated digital systems with finer RGB separation we find the original materials to have the coat as green. Manufacturers in the past used the existing tape materials to model their products so they made the coat blue.


If you look at a scene that has both Hermie/Herbie and Cornelius in it you will see that the separate colors are apparent within the same frame.
*


That does appear to confirm at least a new transfer was used on the Blu-ray. The new information does not alter my evaluation of its placement, but thought it would be good to share.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Toy Story 3*

I've been a big supporter of Bug's Life since I joined this thread, but forget it. This one has so much TEXTURE, it's absurd. Plus toys are incredibly defined, hair on humans is perfect, metals are distinct, and wood, its well wood. Colors are incredible, sharpness impeccable, blacks amazing, and contrast bright.

*Tier 0, top*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19425876
> 
> *Toy Story 3*
> 
> I've been a big supporter of Bug's Life since I joined this thread, but forget it. This one has so much TEXTURE, it's absurd. Plus toys are incredibly defined, hair on humans is perfect, metals are distinct, and wood, its well wood. Colors are incredible, sharpness impeccable, blacks amazing, and contrast bright.
> 
> *Tier 0, top*



Sounds good GRG! I picked up a copy at Wally World today and I'll be watching it tonight. I'll chime in as the credits roll.


BTW, I'm waiting for you to view _The Thin Red Line_ to get your input on that. IMHO it's definitely the BEST live action title (without any CGI) to date. It may not have the EYE CANDY that the animated marvels have (especially in terms of COLOR), but it has no rival in the context of CONSISTENT sharpness, detail, and depth in the non-animated world of Blus.


----------



## deltasun

*The Killer Inside Me*


This was a lackluster presentation, both in BR quality and how it was filmed. Blooming lights and weak contrast plague the entire feature. Some facial details come through well, but still not up to par with what's found in the upper tiers.


Again, there is a specific dated look that is achieved, but runs counter to what we are rating. Blacks are not bold and darker scenes are flat as a pancake.

*Tier Recommendation: 4.0*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

Sorry, but I just have notes of my ratings for these two movies I watched about 3-4 weeks ago...


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*Spread*

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*Hot Tub Time Machine*

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


All I remember was that they had the usual orange-ish skin tones, usually found in the comedy or romance/comedy genres and the facial details were lacking in both. _Hot Tub Time Machine_ had better "pop" factor with bolder blacks and more dimensionality and gets a slight edge.


----------



## djoberg

*Toy Story 3*


IMPECCABLE!!! This word sums it up *perfectly* and because this transfer excels in every area I MUST join my colleague Gamereviewgod and nominate this for the TOP SPOT (among animated titles) in Tier Blu. What a feast for the eyes with even bolder colors than the first two installments and much more texture, detail, and depth. You truly have to see it to believe it! Pixar has set a new standard and quite frankly I can't possibly see how an animated transfer could look any better.


You notice I said I'm nominating this for TOP SPOT "among animated titles," for IMO _The Thin Red Line_ and _Avatar_ deserve the number one and two spots for achieving such perfection in the live action genre (especially _The Thin Red Line_ where no CGI was employed). I'm still waiting for others to view _The Thin Red Line_ and hopefully others will join the three of us who have weighed in with a "Top of Tier 0" recommendation.


I want to mention in closing that the audio was reference quality too in _Toy Story 3_ and I enjoyed the storyline immensely. What a treat all the way around!!

*Tier Recommendation: Top of Tier 0 below Avatar*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer BDP-05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Exorcist (Extended Director's Cut)


recommendation: 3.5*


Thinking it over, a fair assessment of the merits for this specific cut of the movie is somewhere in the upper half of Tier Three. The transfer is really a mixed bag from Warner, though in the end does not heavily affect the outcome. Is this the best one of the great pieces of cinema history will ever look? That is a highly doubtable proposition. A better transfer could be created and probably will, whenever WB feels the need to sell another format to us. Regular viewers will surely be pleased with how the film looks, but videophiles will definitely find fault in some of the digital processing used.


The digibook edition includes a letter from director William Friedkin, which claims this is the best print ever available for _The Exorcist_. That statement is probably true, given the advances in modern scanning tools. Friedkin further elaborates that both himself and cinematographer Owen Roizman supervised the color-timing of this new transfer. On that point, they succeeded in using a delicate touch to not alter anything too drastically, just enhancing what was always there in the film. Most will be pleased with that aspect of the picture, as the film does show significant improvement in that regard. Contrast is not overdone and flesh-tones remain healthy, without an excess warmth to the reds so common with modern color-timing.


My complaints mostly reside in the area of oversharpening. _The Exorcist_ has never been a razor-sharp film experience, as a slight softness was part of the original cinematography. Given the sometimes thick patina of grain on the original camera negative, it appears some level of digital noise reduction was employed throughout to lower it. In all fairness, the filtering is mostly applied in a judicious manner at a uniformly low level. Only one or two scenes have occurrences of problems like frozen grain, or ripples of “swimming” grain. On the other hand, textures look a little too clean and smooth. Close-ups early in the film suffer the most from the effect, showing a loss of high-frequency information to a degree. Watch the skin on Father Merrin's face in the desert for one example. On the whole though, I could live with the amount of digital noise reduction used on this transfer. The resolution is still quite good, likely owing to the 4K scan of the master.


Unfortunately, the technicians working on the transfer used a common technique on it after the degraining. To sharpen it for Blu-ray, a pervasive sharpening filter of some type was applied throughout the movie. The ringing is noticeable in spots, but that is not the main problem with it. The remaining grain in the image takes on a slightly noisy appearance at times after being sharpened. Many will just chalk it up to the age of the film and its inherent grain, but certain scenes show visual indicators of the problem.


Compression issues are really confined to the scene involving the actual exorcism. The VC-1 encode holds up quite well until that moment, when it starts to slightly break down at the combination of fast action, dark interior lighting and murkiness. After seeing the Blu-ray, the compression encoder did a better job with the film than I expected before viewing.

_The Exorcist_ was never intended to be eye candy. The Blu-ray looks okay, but a nagging thought reminds me that a better edition in terms of absolute picture fidelity and quality is very possible. As is, the picture quality turned out acceptable to me, a huge fan of the film since I first watched it many years ago.


BDInfo scan of director's cut (courtesy of RDarrylR):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...4#post19292414


----------



## deltasun

Phantom, thanks for the reviews on the Christmas specials. I'll be ordering those in the next few days.


Denny/GRG - I have TS3 sitting here and will probably get to it in the next few days. Makes it hard to wait with your glowing reviews.


Hugh, I think it was you who mentioned the the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame (standard) DVDs a while back. Looks like a BR version came out today and couldn't help but put it on before TS3. It's quite good so far.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19428302
> 
> *Toy Story 3*
> 
> 
> You notice I said I'm nominating this for TOP SPOT "among animated titles," for IMO _The Thin Red Line_ and _Avatar_ deserve the number one and two spots for achieving such perfection in the live action genre (especially _The Thin Red Line_ where no CGI was employed). I'm still waiting for others to view _The Thin Red Line_ and hopefully others will join the three of us who have weighed in with a "Top of Tier 0" recommendation.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Top of Tier 0 below Avatar*



I actually saw Toy Story 3 in the theaters (remember those things?) so I am not sure when I will get around to watching it on Blu-ray. Pixar continues to push standards higher and higher.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19426728
> 
> 
> Sounds good GRG! I picked up a copy at Wally World today and I'll be watching it tonight. I'll chime in as the credits roll.
> 
> 
> BTW, I'm waiting for you to view _The Thin Red Line_ to get your input on that. IMHO it's definitely the BEST live action title (without any CGI) to date. It may not have the EYE CANDY that the animated marvels have (especially in terms of COLOR), but it has no rival in the context of CONSISTENT sharpness, detail, and depth in the non-animated world of Blus.



I really want that disc, but Blockbuster doesn't have it as a rental, and the price is just too much after Back to the Future, Alien, and the Toy Story box. Maybe at Christmas some kind, wonderful caring person will get me a copy.









*Centurion*


Heavily stylized with a blown out contrast, muted colors, and some flickering details. Fine detail is all over the place, as are the black levels. Reasonably sharp, but not enough to hammer home they eye candy.

*Tier 3.75*


----------



## Incindium

Thin Red Line is now only $20 at Barnes and Noble with their Criterion Collection Sale. Plus I think you can find coupons to drop it a bit more as well.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Incindium* /forum/post/19429856
> 
> 
> Thin Red Line is now only $20 at Barnes and Noble with their Criterion Collection Sale. Plus I think you can find coupons to drop it a bit more as well.



Well, there you go GRG! And for others who may be "sitting on the fence" because of price, I would encourage you to take advantage of this excellent deal and treat your eyes to a visual marvel. If you're as fanatical about PQ as I am (and I'm assuming you are because you're reading this thread







), you need to do yourself a favor and see the best (IMHO) non-animated transfer to date.


----------



## vpn75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19430048
> 
> 
> Well, there you go GRG! And for others who may be "sitting on the fence" because of price, I would encourage you to take advantage of this excellent deal and treat your eyes to a visual marvel. If you're as fanatical about PQ as I am (and I'm assuming you are because you're reading this thread
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ), you need to do yourself a favor and see the best (IMHO) non-animated transfer to date.



I picked this up from Borders when they had their 50%-off coupon for new Rewards members. I haven't had a chance to sit down and watch it in its entirety yet, but from what I've seen I agree that this is an exceptional looking transfer. The transfer is so naturally filmic with tremendous contrast and detail. You really have to hand it to Criterion for doing a great film like this justice


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vpn75* /forum/post/19430671
> 
> 
> I picked this up from Borders when they had their 50%-off coupon for new Rewards members. I haven't had a chance to sit down and watch it in its entirety yet, but from what I've seen I agree that this is an exceptional looking transfer. The transfer is so naturally filmic with tremendous contrast and detail. You really have to hand it to Criterion for doing a great film like this justice



Agreed! I bought this online for just over $25 and I thought it was well worth it. IMO the movie itself is a classic and the phenomenal PQ is an added benefit.


----------



## audiomagnate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17792683
> 
> *Staten Island*
> 
> 
> This title was soft throughout. Even scenes where pores were showing - the pores themselves were soft! The production simply looked cheap. Contrast was weak; blacks were average at best. The numerous quick shots of Staten Island looked flat.
> 
> 
> There was a sequence with Ethan Hawke and his girlfriend that looked superior to other scenes - having better contrast and an actual HD pop. This sequence was short-lived, however.
> 
> 
> I think you get the picture. Oh, some horrible banding were also present.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 4.0*
> 
> 
> I could not get into this movie. It had potential, but I felt it fell flat with poor acting and the director's messy approach to the story.
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_




I pretty much agree. It looked like a DVD except for one or two scenes. All of the outdoor scenes looked bland and washed out with lots of ringing. I did enjoy the movie and thought Ethan Hawk did a great job. Bass freaks will love the soundtrack.

*4.0*


Panny 54" 1080P from way too close on this one


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Just to give everyone a head's up, an update of the Tier List will likely be posted by the end of the weekend. I am surprised we have not seen more reactions in the thread to the Alien Anthology, that is a big release.


----------



## tcramer

I recently purchased _The Thin Red Line_ and _Toy Story 3_ and will hopefully be able to view them both by the end of the weekend. Could it be a weekend of viewing the top 2 PQ Blu-rays? I sure hope so!


I don't chime in much in this thread but I will provide my opinion on these PQ marvels as soon as I'm finished with them.


I'm also hoping to pick up _The Pacific_ soon as well and will provide my thoughts. Has anyone else checked this out?


Quote:

Originally Posted by *djoberg* 
*Toy Story 3*


IMPECCABLE!!! This word sums it up *perfectly* and because this transfer excels in every area I MUST join my colleague Gamereviewgod and nominate this for the TOP SPOT (among animated titles) in Tier Blu. What a feast for the eyes with even bolder colors than the first two installments and much more texture, detail, and depth. You truly have to see it to believe it! Pixar has set a new standard and quite frankly I can't possibly see how an animated transfer could look any better.


You notice I said I'm nominating this for TOP SPOT "among animated titles," for IMO _The Thin Red Line_ and _Avatar_ deserve the number one and two spots for achieving such perfection in the live action genre (especially _The Thin Red Line_ where no CGI was employed). I'm still waiting for others to view _The Thin Red Line_ and hopefully others will join the three of us who have weighed in with a "Top of Tier 0" recommendation.


I want to mention in closing that the audio was reference quality too in _Toy Story 3_ and I enjoyed the storyline immensely. What a treat all the way around!!

*Tier Recommendation: Top of Tier 0 below Avatar*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer BDP-05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## deltasun

Quote:

Originally Posted by *tcramer* 
I'm also hoping to pick up _The Pacific_ soon as well and will provide my thoughts. Has anyone else checked this out?
Just finished the first episode. It's definitely got a prescribed look - good saturation, but some softness and flat low-lit scenes. Daytime details and colors look great though. I'll put in a review when I finish the series.


I was looking at the rankings and saw that _King Fu Panda_ is ahead of _A Bug's Life_. Is it my imagination that _A Bug's Life_ took over top spot before _Avatar_?


Oh also - despite my rant about _Thin Red Line_, I'm taking advantage of the Criterion sale.


----------



## djoberg

Quote:

Originally Posted by *tcramer* 
I recently purchased _The Thin Red Line_ and _Toy Story 3_ and will hopefully be able to view them both by the end of the weekend. Could it be a weekend of viewing the top 2 PQ Blu-rays? I sure hope so!


I don't chime in much in this thread but I will provide my opinion on these PQ marvels as soon as I'm finished with them.


I'm also hoping to pick up _The Pacific_ soon as well and will provide my thoughts. Has anyone else checked this out?
I'll look forward to your reviews on TTRL and TS3...ENJOY!!


Regarding _The Pacific_, I just saw the trailer for the Blu-ray and it looks pretty good. I will definitely give it a rent, if not a purchase.


----------



## djoberg

Quote:

Originally Posted by *deltasun* 
I was looking at the rankings and saw that _King Fu Panda_ is ahead of _A Bug's Life_. Is it my imagination that _A Bug's Life_ took over top spot before _Avatar_?


Oh also - despite my rant about _Thin Red Line_, I'm taking advantage of the Criterion sale.








I thought _A Bug's Life_ was on the top too delta.










Glad to hear you're getting in on the Criterion sale of _The Thin Red Line_. Believe me, my friend, you will NOT regret this purchase...I guarantee it! I'll await your review, knowing you'll find it a Tier 0 contender and hoping you'll nominate it for TOP SPOT.


----------



## deltasun

*Toy Story 3*


Can't disagree with the previous reviews - well-rendered texture and details. Shadow details are excellent. The scene with the Buster smothering Woody show excellent texturing and movement. The scene at the landfill - you can hardly tell it was animation.


Depth, dimensionality are just breath-taking. Colors pop and are well saturated. There is just a vibrancy in each scene.


Since I didn't vote for _Avatar_ to the top and I believe TS3 is the best of the animated titles (though I believe some scenes of _Up_ are better, I conclude...

*Tier Recommendation: Top of Tier 0*

_lh46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* 
Just to give everyone a head's up, an update of the Tier List will likely be posted by the end of the weekend. I am surprised we have not seen more reactions in the thread to the Alien Anthology, that is a big release.
Working on the series now. First review will be up tomorrow. Shipment got delayed, and Back to the Future offered a lot of debate so I started there.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Alien*


Incredible. The film looks almost new, and quite often. The clarity is really impressive, no tinkering here beyond the colors, which are not that offensive either. Detail is striking. The only shots that falter are inside the control room, and they falter pretty bad for some reason. Blacks are exceptional, and the contrast is great.

*Tier 2.25*


----------



## hernanu

*Sound of Music*


Some of the shots are amazing. The detail of both outside scenes (looking down in the beginning on a lake, seeing the waves), to inside (inside the chapel, look at the floor). Nothing to complaing about, some scenes had a gauzy look, but I expect they were meant to look that way.


Anyhow, a great transfer from an 8K scan.

*Tier 0*


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18782935
> 
> *The Book of Eli*
> 
> 
> WOW! My eyes just got an overdose of DETAILS from this post-apocalyptic drama/thriller, along with amazing DEPTH and DIMENSIONALITY. I kept reading the words "razor-sharp" from different reviews and now I can attest to the truth of these words. Throughout the film we are treated to detailed rock-laden streets, desert terrain, buildings, clothing and second-to-none facial details. One of the most incredible scenes I have ever seen was that of a house in the desert (owned by a couple named George & Martha) starting at around the 1 Hr. 13 Min. mark....the detail and depth left me drooling!!
> 
> 
> In spite of the muted color palette, flesh tones were still spot on. And the black levels were, for the most part, deep and inky, with corresponding shadow details.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.0 or possibly 1.25*



Having now seen the Blu-ray, I will have to concur with you on _The Book Of Eli_. The only thing keeping it out of the top echelon is the nearly monochromatic palette. Amazing dimensionality and a consistently high level of detail that is just marvelous to see. I would have been very tempted to place it in Tier Zero if not for several instances of notable banding, directly a result of Warner's low video bitrate that only averages 16.96 Mbps for the main feature. One would have to severely penalize the image for its lack of primary colors to rank it anywhere in Tier Two.

*The Book Of Eli


recommendation: Tier 1.0*


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...0#post19010000


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19429630
> 
> 
> I actually saw Toy Story 3 in the theaters (remember those things?) so I am not sure when I will get around to watching it on Blu-ray. Pixar continues to push standards higher and higher.



I really can't see how Pixar can better this one Phantom; the textures, details, colors, and depth are simply off the charts. I ended up putting my KURO on "Standard" for this one to get that EXTRA pop.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19436281
> 
> 
> Having now seen the Blu-ray, I will have to concur with you on _The Book Of Eli_. The only thing keeping it out of the top echelon is the nearly monochromatic palette. Amazing dimensionality and a consistently high level of detail that is just marvelous to see. I would have been very tempted to place it in Tier Zero if not for several instances of notable banding, directly a result of Warner's low video bitrate that only averages 16.96 Mbps for the main feature. One would have to severely penalize the image for its lack of primary colors to rank it anywhere in Tier Two.
> 
> *The Book Of Eli
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 1.0*



Of course I absolutely, positively agree with your assessment and conclusion.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hernanu* /forum/post/19436147
> 
> *Sound of Music*
> 
> 
> Some of the shots are amazing. The detail of both outside scenes (looking down in the beginning on a lake, seeing the waves), to inside (inside the chapel, look at the floor). Nothing to complaing about, some scenes had a gauzy look, but I expect they were meant to look that way.
> 
> 
> Anyhow, a great transfer from an 8K scan.
> 
> *Tier 0*



I've been waiting for this release (my wife and I watched this with our 5 daughters at least a half dozen times through the years) and I'm thrilled to read from you and others that it's a stellar transfer. I just checked Cinema Squid's website and read some glowing reviews. I especially liked what I read from Robert Harris, who I esteem higher than most reviewers out there.


I just printed out a $2 off coupon for the Combo pack at Target. That drops it down to under $18...an excellent buy!!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19437316
> 
> 
> I've been waiting for this release (my wife and I watched this with our 5 daughters at least a half dozen times through the years) and I'm thrilled to read from you and others that it's a stellar transfer. I just checked Cinema Squid's website and read some glowing reviews. I especially liked what I read from Robert Harris, who I esteem higher than most reviewers out there.
> 
> 
> I just printed out a $2 off coupon for the Combo pack at Target. That drops it down to under $18...an excellent buy!!



I've specifically held off on buying this title on pre-order because I wanted to wait for the reviews to come in. They botched this title repeatedly on DVD, so I just wasn't sure what the source components were like. It appears that they've done a great job, so I will have to pick this classic up (it is just about the ONLY musical I like).


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/19437410
> 
> 
> I've specifically held off on buying this title on pre-order because I wanted to wait for the reviews to come in. They botched this title repeatedly on DVD, so I just wasn't sure what the source components were like. It appears that they've done a great job, so I will have to pick this classic up (it is just about the ONLY musical I like).



I agree with you completely Rob about the botched DVD attempts, so I'm anticipating the Blu-ray transfer. I also echo your sentiment about not liking musicals, though I must admit our family also watched (many times) and enjoyed _Swing Kids_ with Christian Bale. Did you ever see that?


Edit: I woke up this morning Rob and realized the musical was actually _The Newsies_ starring (a rather young) Christian Bale. He was also in _Swing Kids_, but that movie isn't a musical (even though there is a lot of music in it). I would still like to know if you've seen either of these titles, for I think _The Newsies_ was quite entertaining for a musical, and _Swing Kids_ was an awesome movie set in Nazi Germany with some really fine acting and an excellent storyline.


----------



## UnexplainedBacon

Toy Story 3 - Tier 0 (Above Avatar)


I didn't like the look of some the live action parts of Avatar (possibly due to the cameras) so I am recommending Toy Story 3 for the top spot.

Lost: The Complete Sixth and Final Season - Tier 1.0


The sixth season is similar in quality to the fifth season. The bright scenes are good, but the darker scenes sometimes have poor black levels or low-level noise.


50", 1080p, 6'


----------



## cjmx2

*Robin Hood*Finally had a chance to see this one...gonna keep it short as many have weighed in on this already...lots of solid high tier 1 material...there was also some softness here and there...many of the darker scenes were murky and crushed, however facial detail was strong and consistent during the whole movie....I am going right down the middle with...
*Tier 1.5*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Aliens*

Not quite as detailed as Alien, but still up there. Grain is well resolved. The biggest issue here are the black levels, which vary wildly from scene to scene. Colors are tinted, certainly a little unnatural but still delivering a pleasing image.

*Tier 2.75*


----------



## hernanu

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* 
I've specifically held off on buying this title on pre-order because I wanted to wait for the reviews to come in. They botched this title repeatedly on DVD, so I just wasn't sure what the source components were like. It appears that they've done a great job, so I will have to pick this classic up (it is just about the ONLY musical I like).
Well, from my perspective, it's time to dive in. The outdoor locations look incredible, the indoor shots are excellent. Some of the better scenes include the wedding with all of the detail inside the church, and the final performance where you see how good a scene in lower light looks.


I like musicals, and this one in particular is one of my top favorites, so any weakness would have disappointed me. The sound quality was incredible as well, but that is meant for another thread.


----------



## djoberg

*Halloween 2*


I have no idea what possessed me to rent this gritty slasher (perhaps I felt guilty for NOT watching something similar on Halloween). I found myself fast-forwarding through the scenes with outrageous, gratuitous violence, but I saw enough of it to write a very short review.


There were only two redeeming qualities to speak of: EXCELLENT BLACK LEVELS and SEVERAL VERY GOOD FACIAL CLOSE-UPS (especially of Malcolm McDowell).


The negatives are too many to number, but suffice it to say this was one grainy and noisy flick, which hindered detail and depth. It was far from sharp as well.


Believe it or not, the pluses were enough to call it AVERAGE, but just barely, thus I'm shooting for.....

*Tier Recommendation: 3.75*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer BDP-05....Viewed from 7.5'


PS Now to move on to bigger and better things: _Predators (2010)_


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Santa Claus Is Comin' To Town!


recommendation: Tier 4.0
*

No lengthy spiel this time for the 1970 Rankin/Bass television special, the picture quality is a grade below its companion discs in the Original Christmas Classics set. The print just does not look in the same state of preservation or remastering as the other specials. Flaws in the original production process for the stop-motion puppetry are more visible. A possibility is that much of the special's production budget was devoted to the famous voices starring in it, such as Fred Astaire who serves as narrator, so cuts might have been made to the animation.


For some reason the motion of objects looks rougher, as if the producers tried to cheat with less frames per second. It produces clear stuttering at times to the picture. There are also minor luminosity fluctuations to the image that were not apparent on the other Rankin/Bass Blu-rays. By far the lowest upgrade over DVD in terms of resolution and clarity among all of the Rankin/Bass Blu-rays.


----------



## djoberg

*Predators (2010)*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19358821
> 
> *Predators*
> 
> 
> I'm not sure the first 30 or so minutes of a film could look any better. Everything, depth, detail, color, brightness... is perfect. Once the film goes dark, forget about it. This was shot digitally with the Panavision Genesis, and like many films shot with it, the blacks just collapse once the lights go out. Detail does remain though.
> 
> *Tier 1.75*



Once again I have to agree with my comrade GRG. The first 35-40 minutes were high Tier 0 quality but there was a long scene (perhaps 15 or more minutes) in Laurence Fishburne's hideout where the blacks were murky, details were all but lost, and it was extremely soft at times. There were some other nighttime scenes after that which were also sub-par. If _only_ the whole transfer had held up as consistently as the first 1/3 of the movie we'd be looking at a rival to titles such as _I, Robot_.


Let me tell you how impressed I was with those first 35-40 minutes. You recall my glowing review of _The Thin Red Line_....well, this was comparable to that. Details, sharpness, depth, contrast, colors, flesh tones, and facial details (wait til you see the pockmarks in Laurence Fishburne's face) were all off the charts. Simply amazing!!


I believe GRG nailed the placement, so I second the motion....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer BDP-05....Viewed from 7.5'


PS Now you know GRG what you have to look forward to when you are finally able to watch _The Thin Red Line_.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Alien 3 Review*


A definite drop in terms of sharpness. This one obviously did not get the same treatment. Still has some pretty nice detail in close, and the blacks are fairly stable. The dim color palette isn't very eye-catching either. Some black crush is evident too.

*Tier 3.25*


----------



## stwrt




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19444996
> 
> *Alien 3 Review*
> 
> 
> A definite drop in terms of sharpness. This one obviously did not get the same treatment. Still has some pretty nice detail in close, and the blacks are fairly stable. The dim color palette isn't very eye-catching either. Some black crush is evident too.
> 
> *Tier 3.25*



It looks like what it's supposed to look like, that color scheme is not going to deliver Blu-Ray pop.


----------



## deltasun

*The Joneses*


This was an average-looking BR for most of the 1.5 hours that it played. It had a golden hue throughout, including skin tones. Details were a bit meager in longer shots, but were better in medium shots. Facial details wavered a bit, but not because of any foul play. In fact, grain is intact providing a very natural, filmic look throughout.


Blacks are bold with no incidence of crush; contrast is strong. Colors didn't really pop, probably doused a bit by the golden hue. The film did exhibit a mostly flat appearance. Other items noticed were jaggies and some artifacts.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.50*


The first half to three-quarters of the movie was quite good, I thought. It just kinda fell apart towards the end.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Alien Resurrection*


A really dark film, and the black crush can be unbearable. The softness is back, surely because of an older master. Color is saturated by design, giving off those warm flesh tones and bright interiors. Detail is wildly inconsistent.

*Tier 3.0*


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stwrt* /forum/post/19445068
> 
> 
> It looks like what it's supposed to look like, that color scheme is not going to deliver Blu-Ray pop.



Hence why it's rated low in this thread.


For accuracy to the source purposes, it could really take off with a new scan. The final two sequels did not get the same attention, and the effect is obvious.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Robin Hood (2010)*


This is an excellent looking title! Detail and clarity is absolutely top notch, and it remained so for the vast majority of the film. There were only a few scenes that exhibited some softness.


Contrast was very good. Even most of the night scenes were rendered very well, with some exceptions existing in some of the interior shots.


Colors were somewhat muted, but still pleasing and natural.


The main thing the impressed me with this title was the clarity! The feeling of depth was also good, but not quite up to the very best of the best, and that would be the main thing that would keep it out of Tier 0 contention.


That said, this is one very impressive looking disc! I wish I could say the same thing about the movie itself, which was completely forgettable. The film had no life to it, and it just seemed that everyone was going through their lines. Pretty bad.


*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Kick-Ass


recommendation: Tier 1.5/1.75*


A heavily stylized presentation by the director, the film appears to have been manipulated in post-production to enhance the visuals. Remnants of the digital composites process are slightly visible, in the form of minor aliasing in a few scenes. The raw shooting would probably have produced a Tier Zero-caliber BD, if not for the filtering to smooth out facial features and slight softening that appears to have been done by software instead of optics. Colors have been digitally tweaked in certain scenes to add a neon glow that looks unique to this film and catches the eye on Blu-ray. A real fun movie that I missed in the theaters.


BDInfo scan:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...0#post19010030 

*Toy Story 3


recommendation: Top 10 in Tier 0
*

Multiple moments of extraordinary demo potential, Toy Story 3 looks incredible. Pixar's films are quintessential examples of the Blu-ray format, and Toy Story 3 continues that tradition. Is it better than the other titles at the top of the PQ Tier? The progress of technology and Moore's Law would indicate Toy Story 3 is the finest CGI animation to date, but I can't say with any certainty it surpasses in any meaningful way the other ranked movies. Raw rendering power has definitely increased over the years, but I get the feeling Pixar is holding back on the photorealism possible with CGI.


BDInfo scan:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...7#post19363567


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Triangle


recommendation: 1.25
*

Some of the action takes place on open water, which looks very good with ample depth and dimensionality. There is not a whole lot wrong in the image, as clarity remains high throughout the film. I would definitely rent this one before purchase, I am not sure how many repeat viewings one could get out of a script of this type. _Triangle_ does belong in Tier One.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...0#post18194200


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Two months worth of updates, current through today. Notify me if you spot a problem or have an issue with anything you see on here.


The Wolfman - 3.5 Phantom Stranger, 3.5 Rob Tomlin


The Hurt Locker - 2.5 42041


Old Dogs - 1.75 cjmx2


The Back-Up Plan - 3.0 Gamereviewgod, 3.0 djoberg, 3.0 Rob Tomlin


The Good, The Bad, The Weird - 3.0 Gamereviewgod


Life - 2.75 42041


The Inglorious Bastards (1977) - 4 Gamereviewgod


Hatchet - 3.0 Gamereviewgod


Sugar - 1.75 Phantom Stranger


Gladiator (remastered) - 1.0 djoberg, 1.25 Phantom Stranger, 0.75 Gamereviewgod


For All Mankind - 4.0 42041


The Dark Crystal - 4.0 Gamereviewgod


The Day The Earth Stood Still (1951) - 2.75 Phantom Stranger


Brooklyn's Finest - 1.75 deltasun, 1.75 djoberg


City Island - 4.5 Gamereviewgod


Green Zone - 3.75 Rob Tomlin


Hot Tub Time Machine - 2.75 Rob Tomlin, 1.75 lgans316, 1.75 deltasun


The Last Song - 3.0 djoberg


The Killer Inside Me - 4.0 Gamereviewgod, 3.5 Hughmc, 4.0 deltasun


Nanny McPhee - 2.0 Gamereviewgod


Janeane Garfalo - 5.0 Gamereviewgod


Repo Men - 2.0 djoberg


2001 Maniacs - 3.0 Phantom Stranger


Daybreakers - 2.25 djoberg


Deep Blue Sea - 2.0 Gamereviewgod


After.Life - 2.5 deltasun


Clash Of The titans (2010) - 3.0 djoberg, 3.0 Rob Tomlin


Paranormal Activity - 3.75 djoberg


Last Year At Marienbad - 3.75 42041


Frozen - 3.5 Gamereviewgod


Gladiator (EU remastered) - 1.75 lgans316


9th Company - 3.75 Gamereviewgod


Killers - 2.75 Gamereviewgod, 2.5 Rob Tomlin, 2.25 deltasun


MacGruber - 3.25 Gamereviewgod, 1.0 rusky_g, 1.5 djoberg


Marmaduke - 1.0 Gamereviewgod, 1.5 Rob Tomlin


Twilight Zone: Season 1 - 2.75 Gamereviewgod


Diary Of A Wimpy Kid - 2.75 deltasun


Keane Live - 3.25 deltasun


The Score - 3.0 djoberg


Harry Brown - 3.5 Gamereviewgod


The Crazies (2009) - 2.75 Rob Tomlin


Sling Blade - 3.75 Rob Tomlin


Prince Of Persia - 1.75 lgans316, 1.75 djoberg, 1.25 Gamereviewgod, 1.75 jedimasterchad, 2.25 Rob Tomlin


THX 1138 - 4.5 Gamereviewgod


Se7en - 1.75 deltasun, 1.5 Gamereviewgod


Letters To Juliet - 3.25 Gamereviewgod, 1.5 djoberg


The Natural - 3.5 Phantom Stranger


Spread - 1.0 Phantom Stranger, 2.5 Rob Tomlin, 2.0 deltasun


Forbidden Planet - 3.5 Gamereviewgod


Road To Perdition - 3.5 Rob Tomlin


Mars Attacks! - 4.25 Gamereviewgod


Old Dogs - 2.0 audiomagnate


Robin Hood (2010) - 1.5 djoberg, 1.75 deltasun, 1.75 Gamereviewgod, 2.0 lgans316, 1.25 audiomagnate, 1.5 cjmx2, 1.25 Rob Tomlin


2 Fast 2 Furious - 1.0 jedimasterchad


American Beauty - 2.0 jedimasterchad, 3.25 deltasun


Tombstone - 3.5 Gamereviewgod


Gangs Of New York (remastered) - 2.25 Phantom Stranger


Big Trouble In Little China - 3.25 Gamereviewgod


Kick-Ass (Universal EU) - 1.75 lgans316


One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest - 4.25 Gamereviewgod


Remember Me - 3.0 djoberg


Iron Man 2 - 2.25 Gamereviewgod, 1.5 cjmx2, 1.5 djoberg, 2.5 tfoltz


Get Him To The Greek - 2.0 Gamereviewgod, 1.75 deltasun, 2.5 audiomagnate


King Kong (1933) - 4.0 Gamereviewgod


The Thin Red Line - 0 ivanpino, top of 0 djoberg, top of 0 JoeBloggz


Iron Man - 2.0 cjmx2


Feast - 4.5 Gamereviewgod


The Adventures Of Robin Hood - 3.25 Gamereviewgod


Nightmare On Elm Street (2010) - 2.5 Gamereviewgod


Hard Candy - 1.5 vpn75


Karate Kid (2010) - 1.75/2.0 djoberg, middle of 0 Gamereviewgod, 1.0 rusky_g


Splice - 3.75 Gamereviewgod, 3.25 djoberg


Beauty & the Beast - 1.0 cjmx2, 0 tfoltz, low 0 Gamereviewgod, low 0 Hughmc, 1.0 Ozymandis


Sleeping Beauty - 1.0 cjmx2


30 Days Of Night: Dark Days - 3.25 Gamereviewgod, 3.0 djoberg


The Losers - 2.0 djoberg


Brothers - 2.0 djoberg


The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo - 1.0 Hughmc


Robocop 2 - 4.0 Gamereviewgod


Star Wars: The Clone Wars Season 1 - 1.25 jedimasterchad


Robocop 3 - 4.0 Gamereviewgod


Superman/Batman: Apocalypse - 1.5 Phantom Stranger


Last Of The Mohicans - 3.75 Gamereviewgod, 3.5 djoberg


Jonah Hex - 3.0 Gamereviewgod


Leaves of Grass - 3.0 Gamereviewgod


Leonard Cohen: Songs From The Road - 2.75 Phantom Stranger


How To Train Your Dragon - .75 Gamereviewgod, .75 JoeBloggz


The Exorcist (director's cut) - 3.25 djoberg, 3.75 Gamereviewgod, 3.5 Phantom Stranger


Gamera: Guardian Of The Universe - 4.0 Gamereviewgod


Music & Lyrics - 3.0 cjmx2


Gamera 2: Attack Of The Legion - 4.0 Gamereviewgod


Predators - 1.75 Gamereviewgod, 1.75 djoberg


Altitude - 4.0 Gamereviewgod


The Collector - 4.5 Phantom Stranger


Spartacus: Blood & Sand - bottom of 0 deltasun, low 0 Hughmc


Three Kings - 3.5 Gamereviewgod


The Maltese Falcon - 3.25 Gamereviewgod


The Year Without a Santa Claus - 2.75 Phantom Stranger


Treasure Of Sierra Madre - 3.5 Gamereviewgod


It's The Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown - 3.5 Phantom Stranger


Australia - 1.25 lgans316


Dinosaurs Alive (2d/3d) - 3.75 Gamereviewgod


Wild Oceans (2d/3d) - 3.5 Gamereviewgod


Grand Canyon Adventures (2d/3d) - .5 Gamereviewgod


A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving - 3.75 Phantom Stranger


Sex & the City 2 - 3.25 Gamereviewgod


Damned By Dawn - 5.0 Gamereviewgod


Winter's Bone - 2.75 Gamereviewgod


Back To The Future - 3.75 Gamereviewgod


Back To the Future 2 - 3.75 Gamereviewgod


Frosty The Snowman - 1.5 Phantom Stranger


back To the Future 3 - 4.25 Gamereviewgod


Knowing - 0 rusky_g


Rudolph The Red-Nosed Reindeer - 3.5 Phantom Stranger


Toy Story 3 - Top of 0 Gamereviewgod, 0 below Avatar djoberg, top of 0 deltasun, top of 0 UnexplainedBacon, top 10 of 0 Phantom Stranger


Centurion - 3.75 Gamereviewgod


Staten Island - 4.0 audiomagnate


Alien - 2.25 Gamereviewgod


The Sound Of Music - 0 hernanu


The Book Of Eli - 1.0 Phantom Stranger


Lost: Season 6 - 1.0 UnexplainedBacon


Aliens - 2.75 Gamereviewgod


Halloween 2 (2009) - 3.75 djoberg


Santa Claus Is Comin' To Town! - 4.0 Phantom Stranger


Alien 3 - 3.25 Gamereviewgod


The Joneses - 3.5 deltasun


Alien Resurrection - 3.0 Gamereviewgod


Kick-Ass - 1.5 Phantom Stranger


Triangle - 1.25 Phantom Stranger


----------



## deltasun

Phantom - thanks, as always, for all the work!! Please double check how _Kung Fu Panda_ surpassed _A Bug's Life_. I believe it's always been the other way around. Thanks!


----------



## deltasun

*Tinker Bell and the Great Fairy Rescue*


As my 7-month old daughter can attest - the first 10 minutes of the feature was a blissful assortment of ultra-vibrant colors made up predominantly of the lushest greens. She did not move or avert her eyes from the screen!










It is really getting harder and harder to differentiate these types of features. While everything was very near-close to perfect, I would like to nitpick some flat scenes that occur in the darker sequences, some jitter in movements, syncing issues when talking, and finally (and most egregiously), some aliasing. Oh, I also think textures could have been rendered better. There was a scene where Tinker Bell is holding on to wood. While it showed it's rings and characteristics well, it appeared quite smooth, almost glazed over.


Aside from those minor nitpicks, the feature has very strong contrast and the deepest blacks. It also had good use of depth of field, rendering some beautiful bokeh in a number of scenes. Details are all over the place and really add to the viewing experience.


Still, with the aliasing and lack of textures, I would have to rate this...

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (just below _Monster's Inc_)

_ln46a650 -1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19452292
> 
> 
> Phantom - thanks, as always, for all the work!! Please double check how _Kung Fu Panda_ surpassed _A Bug's Life_. I believe it's always been the other way around. Thanks!



Ditto on both counts!


----------



## JoeBloggz

Phantom, thanks for updating the tiers with the most recent reviews. I really appreciate your hard work. I'm sure we can all agree on that.


----------



## djoberg

I just ordered the _Alien Anthology_ for an AMAZING price at Amazon.co.uk:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Alien-Anthol.../dp/B003AQBYUG 


The reviews on this set are quite remarkable, even though the last two sequels (_Aliens 3_ and _Alien Resurrection_) aren't as good PQ-wise. Most U.S. online stores are selling this set for over $90 with shipping, so the price above (which comes to about $58 with shipping) is unbeatable.


----------



## audiomagnate

We have only one (tier 0) review of "The Sound of Music." Blockbuster Netflix and Redbox don't have it - I guess they just don't do classics - so I would love too see some more input here before I plunk down hard cash for it.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *audiomagnate* /forum/post/19456860
> 
> 
> We have only have one (tier 0) review of "The Sound of Music." Blockbuster Netflix and Redbox don't have it - I guess they just don't do classics - so I would love too see some more input here before I plunk down hard cash for it.



Perfect timing....I'll be slipping it into my Pioneer Blu-ray player in a few minutes. I'll be writing a review in approximately 3.5 hours.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19456926
> 
> 
> Perfect timing....I'll be slipping it into my Pioneer Blu-ray player in a few minutes. I'll be writing a review in approximately 3.5 hours.



Cool.


My copy is on it's way. I can't wait to watch this classic on a format that finally did it right!


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19456797
> 
> 
> I just ordered the _Alien Anthology_ for an AMAZING price at Amazon.co.uk:
> 
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Alien-Anthol.../dp/B003AQBYUG
> 
> 
> The reviews on this set are quite remarkable, even though the last two sequels (_Aliens 3_ and _Alien Resurrection_) aren't as good PQ-wise. Most U.S. online stores are selling this set for over $90 with shipping, so the price above (which comes to about $58 with shipping) is unbeatable.



Yeah, this a great way to go to save a respectable amount of money. I have the UK set and all of the discs, extras included, are 100% identical byte-for-byte to the U.S. discs according to BDInfo scan comparisons, and are completely compatible with North American players. I've only had a chance to watch Alien all the way through thus far, but I thought that it turned out great. Gamereviewgod's Tier 2.25 recommendation seems very reasonable to me.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JoeBloggz* /forum/post/19455227
> 
> 
> Phantom, thanks for updating the tiers with the most recent reviews. I really appreciate your hard work. I'm sure we can all agree on that.



I definitely agree as well - thanks for all the hard work Phantom, it's greatly appreciated!


With the latest update, I did spot one duplicate: Brothers (2009 / Lionsgate) in both Silver Tiers 2.0 and 2.5.


----------



## deltasun

Got a few goodies coming in the next few days, guys - _The Sound of Music_, _White Christmas_, and _The Thin Red Line_. Hope to find the time to enjoy these in the next few. With the Criterion sale, I also picked up _Sanjuro/Yojimbo_, which I've already reviewed.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/19457226
> 
> 
> With the latest update, I did spot one duplicate: Brothers (2009 / Lionsgate) in both Silver Tiers 2.0 and 2.5.



I have now addressed that mistake and responded to some of the other concerns for Tier 0. I finally got around to fixing all of the links for each title in that tier to Cinema Squid's excellent and useful website. A real wealth of information can be found there, so give it a try.


The top rankings are fluid enough that no one should think they are set in stone. Anyone can start a discussion or raise issues that you may have regarding the top titles. It is an ongoing and evolving list. That goes for every movie or feature in the Tiers, but I feel getting the best of the best in the proper order is important.


----------



## djoberg

*The Sound of Music*


I begin this review with a measure of fear and trepidation, for I desperately want to "get it right" without allowing my natural bias for this beloved film to affect my judgment. Having said that, I believe I can objectively sum this marvel of a restoration up with one word: EXQUISITE!!


Let me qualify that *superlative* by stating clearly that this transfer is NOT perfect. I noticed 3 negatives which will surely result in a penalization when determining placement:


1) There were instances of SHIMMERING (some may call this COLOR WAVERING), where objects, especially faces, would fluctuate from a lighter to a darker color. Thankfully it wasn't too distracting and it seemed to be more pronounced in earlier scenes.


2) FLESH TONES were a also a bit inconsistent.


3) There were sporadic shots of SOFTNESS.


Now for the GOOD:


1) DETAIL & DEPTH were amazing, especially in outdoor, daytime scenes (and these were plentiful). I should mention though that details suffered at times in long distance shots and facial details weren't what we'd call demo-worthy.


2) COLORS were WARM & NATURAL with a fair amount of PUNCH at times.


3) CONTRAST was perfect!


4) BLACK LEVELS were very good and SHADOW DETAILS were excellent. I would draw your attention to 3 nighttime scenes in particular.....1) The first scene in the glass gazebo when it was raining; 2) When the von Trapp family was pushing their car through the courtyard and they were confronted by the Nazis on the road; and 3) Inside the monastery when the von Trapp family was hiding from the Nazis. These were all EXEMPLARY!!


5) The GRAIN structure was absolutely beautiful....as film-like as you could ask for without ANY hindering of detail.


All-in-all this is much more than I ever would have expected from a title dating back to 1965. I am thrilled with the final product (in spite of the few flaws enumerated above). The majority of this transfer is definitely Tier 0 quality (in the bottom third of the tier), but when judging by the standards of this thread I'm forced to drop it into GOLD, albeit at the very top.....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer BDP-05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I'm curious about the grain Denny.


This was shot in 65mm large format so I wouldn't expect there to be very much in the way of noticeable grain.


Did you get the feeling that you were watching a movie that was shot in 65mm? I.e., lots of extra detail and clarity?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/19457964
> 
> 
> I'm curious about the grain Denny.
> 
> 
> This was shot in 65mm large format so I wouldn't expect there to be very much in the way of noticeable grain.
> 
> 
> Did you get the feeling that you were watching a movie that was shot in 65mm? I.e., lots of extra detail and clarity?



Good morning Rob!


All I can say is what others have said:


"Most importantly, the fine grain structure of the 70mm negative hasn't been tampered with at all and there have been no attempts to artificially sharpen the picture."


I read this on several "professional" reviews and I can surely attest to the truthfulness of this statement. Having said that, I did "get the feeling that I was watching a movie that was shot in 65mm" because of the amazing detail and clarity.


Believe me Rob, you will love the look of this phenomenal restoration and I wish I were living near you so you could invite me over to see it on your HUGE screen (and superb JVC projector). Robert Harris noted that the larger the screen the better the viewing would be. Enjoy!!


Denny


Edit: I'm confused Rob, for I just checked and some are saying the restoration was scanned from a 70mm negative and others are saying it was from a 65mm interpositive (whatever that is). Either way, both camps are saying the fine film grain was not tampered with leaving it with a beautiful film-like look and again I can attest to that by my viewing.


----------



## audiomagnate

So the hills ARE alive. I should look up an old girlfriend from college who was obsessed with this movie. How is the sound?


----------



## JoeBloggz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Got a few goodies coming in the next few days, guys - The Sound of Music, White Christmas, and The Thin Red Line. Hope to find the time to enjoy these in the next few. With the Criterion sale, I also picked up Sanjuro/Yojimbo, which I've already reviewed.



I'm anxious to hear your thoughts on The Thin Red Line(TTRL). djoberg and I have already expressed our glowing remarks and I'm sure others will agree in a similar fashion: )


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *audiomagnate* /forum/post/19459173
> 
> 
> So the hills ARE alive. I should look up an old girlfriend from college who was obsessed with this movie. How is the sound?



I quote AVS's own Ralph Potts to answer your question:


"The films originally recorded soundtrack has been re-mastered into a lossless 7.1 DTS-HD Master Audio surround mix. Similar to the film restoration it is readily apparent that plenty of care went into the redesigned audio. The mix retains a front oriented perspective and features sparkling clarity and imaging. Dialogue is refined and tonally distinctive as it seamlessly blends with the front three channels. The vocal performances are sibilant free with smooth transitions and opulent texture. Excellent channel separation enhances the discerning of sound effects and the orchestrated elements present in the music as the sound field in the front of the room bristles with sonic detail. The surrounds are utilized for atmospheric extension that creates an enveloping presence that appreciably enhances the film's superlative music. Good dynamic range and low frequency effects combine to provide good solidity and weight to the audio without sounded unnatural. These primarily come in the form of bass content associated with the music score and to a lesser degree in support of recorded elements (such as the cathedral's pipe organ during the wedding sequence) that contain lower bass response. I was extremely pleased with the outcome of this audio presentation. It highlights the strengths of the source material without ostentatious display and sounds great."


I concur with everything he said.


----------



## JoeBloggz

*Toy Story 3*


I'm gonna have to agree with of the other reviews on this one. One word: EXCELLENT, all the way around. It seems Pixar outdoes itself with nearly every new release.

Detail, detail, detail.......this may be one of the most detailed BD's I've seen to date. From Woody's brown plaid shirt to the the fur on Lot So(hugging bear) the detail is jaw dropping. Another example would be Rex's green body, the little rivets in his plastic look so real it's like you can touch it.

Colors palette is sublime. So many vivid colors(after all this is animation) but without the sense of being overblown(better than UP and Monsters, Inc.) Its hard to imaging the colors having more pop than TS1 and TS2, but Pixar found a way to do so.

Contrast is perfect as well as shadow detail. Even some of the darker scenes seemed to have more depth than the two previous installments in this series.

For my eyes, this is the best animated BD to date. One last thing, aside from the outstanding PQ, this may be the best movie I've seen this year









*Recommendation: Tier 0(second spot below TTRL)*


Viewed on Pioneer 111FD via Pioneer 51FD from 7'

Btw I just picked a copy of SOM, looking forward to viewing this classic!


----------



## Sujay

*Toy Story 3*


Detail is stunning. In many wide shots, you can still make out eyeballs and pupils in characters that take up hardly a small percentage of the screen. Grass and trees can appear to be even more detailed than real life. The textures of the plethora of toys in the film are palpable and intricate.


Contrast is exemplary, black levels are solid and shadow detail is some of the best I’ve ever seen.


Two things that need to be singled out and praised are the artists’ eye for color palette and lighting. There’s likely not a single color in the world that’s not displayed in this film. Pixar’s tools and knack for lighting have become so fantastic that almost every shot in this movie could be singled out as a beautiful painting. The combination of color, lighting and contrast make this movie and disc not only a technical marvel, but an artistic one as well.


My full review: http://blurayview.com/review/toy-story-3/ 

*Recommendation: Tier 0*


I'll say another thing, I haven't seen The Thin Red Line yet but I'm getting really excited with what I'm seeing in this thread.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Scott Pilgrim vs. The World*


This one is all over the place, the style varying between scenes. It's inconsistent, from various film stocks to digital shooting all together. It's consistent in black levels at the least, but detail never stays still. When there, it''s quite impressive. Colors are a bit subdued too, the biggest disappointment of them all.

*Tier 2.75*


----------



## tfoltz

Were there really enough votes of Thin Red Line to replace Avatar in the top spot? I didn't look into all the people who voted on Avatar, but I seem to recall quite a bit of votes (though many were individuals who do not frequent the thread). No biggie to me, just curious.


I have recently viewed Toy Story 3, and do believe it looks very nice. Top spot? Maybe. I do remember some purposely blown contrasts when Woody was on top of the day-care roof due to the sun being out and whatnot (director's intent). I was always big on Wall-E and remember one of the reasons it got lower scores was the early portions of the movie with the dirty earth since director's intent is not recognized, and with this in mind I'm pondering where I put my vote for Toy Story 3. This example probably won't affect where I put it anyway, since I just go with my gut. It will be high in Tier 0 for sure; I would put it above Bug's Life (which I think is too high), but not sure if it surpasses Up, Kung Fu Panda, Ratatouille, and Cars. After one viewing I am leaning in the direction of TS3 being above them all. I'm going to try and watch Toy Story 3 and Avatar back to back to see which provides a better impression in my personal top spot. The intricacies in the toys with the scuff marks and chips of paint were very impressive.


----------



## OldCodger73

What djoberg said in post #17178.


As I was watching it I was initially borderline Tier 0/1.0 but the ultra fine facial detail we demand of Tier 0 is lacking, which nudged me to Tier 1.0. It's still a gorgeous transfer though, if only all classic movies could look this good.

*Sound of Music Tier 1.0.*


Speaking of a new release of classic movies, has anyone watched _The Bridge on the River Kwai_ yet?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19459089
> 
> 
> Good morning Rob!
> 
> 
> All I can say is what others have said:
> 
> 
> "Most importantly, the fine grain structure of the 70mm negative hasn't been tampered with at all and there have been no attempts to artificially sharpen the picture."
> 
> 
> I read this on several "professional" reviews and I can surely attest to the truthfulness of this statement. Having said that, I did "get the feeling that I was watching a movie that was shot in 65mm" because of the amazing detail and clarity.
> 
> 
> Believe me Rob, you will love the look of this phenomenal restoration and I wish I were living near you so you could invite me over to see it on your HUGE screen (and superb JVC projector). Robert Harris noted that the larger the screen the better the viewing would be. Enjoy!!
> 
> 
> Denny
> 
> 
> Edit: I'm confused Rob, for I just checked and some are saying the restoration was scanned from a 70mm negative and others are saying it was from a 65mm interpositive (whatever that is). Either way, both camps are saying the fine film grain was not tampered with leaving it with a beautiful film-like look and again I can attest to that by my viewing.



Thanks Denny.


First off, ALL film has grain. Period. It is the grain structure that constitutes the image that we see. However, grain can very greatly in size (and shape for that matter). When the grain gets larger, it becomes more of a distraction (generally speaking).


When you are dealing with a 65mm negative (or large format still photography), the image does not need to be "blown up" to nearly the same degree that the smaller formats do in order to achieve the same size picture. As a result, the film grain on the larger formats, all things being equal (and they seldom are because the film emulsions have changed so much over the years), will be much smaller, tighter, and less noticeable vs the smaller formats.


I would expect that you would need to move very close to the screen to be able to see much in the way of film grain on a large format film. But I'm not sure exactly how SoM was shot, with what emulsion, etc, which can all have a role in what the grain looks like.


----------



## deltasun

While this is true for the most part, the film speed could affect what you end up seeing on the screen as well, specially in darker shots. But yes, I'll take 65mm/70mm film over 35mm (almost) every time for clarity and details.


Looking forward to seeing my copy.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/19461273
> 
> 
> Were there really enough votes of Thin Red Line to replace Avatar in the top spot? I didn't look into all the people who voted on Avatar, but I seem to recall quite a bit of votes (though many were individuals who do not frequent the thread). No biggie to me, just curious.
> 
> 
> I have recently viewed Toy Story 3, and do believe it looks very nice. Top spot? Maybe.



First of all, I'm hoping a lot more votes come in for _The Thin Red Line_ so a large consensus can be formed for wherever it ends up. Let's face it, the chances of this transfer getting the attention that _Avatar_ did is probably ZERO, so we aren't going to be able to compare votes numerically.


Regarding _Toy Story 3_, I believe it trumps the other animated transfers because of the incredible colors, detail, depth, and clarity. There are two scenes that come to mind to illustrate what I'm saying: 1) The first "daycare" scene where it shows all the toys and some of the kids. I have never seen so many colors ALL AT ONCE, and the clarity defies description. 2) The last scene when Andy takes his toys to the little girl in her yard. That scene was as real (the "window effect" that we sometimes refer to), detailed and colorful as it comes. I know of no other scene in any other animated title that had me picking my jaw up from off the floor like that one did.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/19461662
> 
> 
> Thanks Denny.
> 
> *First off, ALL film has grain. Period. It is the grain structure that constitutes the image that we see.* However, grain can very greatly in size (and shape for that matter). When the grain gets larger, it becomes more of a distraction (generally speaking).
> 
> 
> When you are dealing with a 65mm negative (or large format still photography), the image does not need to be "blown up" to nearly the same degree that the smaller formats do in order to achieve the same size picture. As a result, the film grain on the larger formats, all things being equal (and they seldom are because the film emulsions have changed so much over the years), will be much smaller, tighter, and less noticeable vs the smaller formats.
> 
> 
> I would expect that you would need to move very close to the screen to be able to see much in the way of film grain on a large format film. But I'm not sure exactly how SoM was shot, with what emulsion, etc, which can all have a role in what the grain looks like.



Yes Rob, I realize that "all film has grain." It is *inherent* in that source. But what I didn't know, until you enlightened me, is that "film grain on the larger formats, all things being equal.....will be much smaller, tighter, and less noticeable vs the smaller formats." Thanks for the edification!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19462313
> 
> 
> While this is true for the most part, the film speed could affect what you end up seeing on the screen as well, specially in darker shots.



Of course it can. Which is why I specifically mentioned the fact that I did not know which emulsion they had used for this film.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19462369
> 
> 
> Yes Rob, I realize that "all film has grain." It is *inherent* in that source. But what I didn't know, until you enlightened me, is that "film grain on the larger formats, all things being equal.....will be much smaller, tighter, and less noticeable vs the smaller formats." Thanks for the edification!



Yes, but you should understand *why* that is the case, and you didn't mention it, so I'm just going to repeat it here.


The actual grain structure and size is exactly the same on a large format negative as it is on the small format negative. However, since the large format negative does not need to be blown up to nearly the same degree, the appearance of the grain will be smaller, tighter, etc.


I need to look for a diagram so I can explain this better.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Ok, lets try this illustration comparing large format (4x5) against 35mm film (this is for still photography, but the concept is exactly the same for 65mm movie film vs 35mm):











If you think of the small area that the 35mm negative takes up compared to the 4x5 negative. If you took a picture of the same scene (with same emulsion, same exposure etc) with the 35mm and 4x5 film, the area in the 4x5 negative that is the same size as the 35mm negative *will have the same size and shape of grain in that same area!*


The difference, however, should be obvious: that same small area on the 4x5 negative will only contain a small portion of the overall image!


Now look at all the extra area that is available on the 4x5. To get a 8x10 picture, the film is only blown up a factor of 2 (that is not actually quite accurate, but this is for simple illustrative purposes). By contrast, the 35mm negative would have to be blown up many more times that. That results in greater magnification of the negative, which in turn makes the grain structure more noticeable.


4x5 film has nearly 16 times the area of the 35mm negative! This also equates to much higher resolution vs the smaller negative.


Bottom line: large format FTW!!!


----------



## deltasun

One example to explain what Rob is explanation is to look at a 35mm photographic negative vs. a medium format negative (let's say the negative is the size of a 5x7). If you blow up the 35mm image to say an 8x10, it's getting "stretched" much more than a medium format negative - 5x7 to an 8x10 is not much of a "stretch" in comparison.


That's just a quick and dirty.


----------



## deltasun

Rob's too quick!







Nice graphics!


----------



## Hughmc

*Toy Story 3:


WOW!!


Recommendation: TOp of tier 0*


*The Thin Red Line:*


It is simply a stunning and jaw dropping Blu Ray. It has to be seen to be believed. Outside of a few seconds of tier 1 PQ on occasion and some weird shadow banding on faces for about ten seconds (I can't remember the time stamp, but will reference it again and post it. maybe 29:12-20), the whole BD is more like 'The Phat Blue Line'...it is tier 0 from beginning to end. The nature shots of wildlife and scenery are gorgeous. I don't think there is a BD with this quality of PQ in terms of a specific shot or overall PQ.

*Recommendation: Tier 0, just below Toy Story 3 and above Avatar*.


*Harry Brown:*


This is a stunning transfer that boasts extremely good detail. The bitrate on this doesn't seem to fall below 33Mbps the whole time. While the color palate tends to be muted to some extent, overall PQ is excellent. If it weren't for the color, I would have put this in low tier 0. As such I am recommending:

*Tier 1.5*


PS on Harry Brown...the soundtrack is excellent as well, very impressive and makes up a bit for the muted color in terms of overall viewing pleasure.

*Robin Hood: Recommendation: tier 1.25.* I was thinking tier 1.0-1.5 while watching, so I settled on the middle.


Delta, it was me who mentioned the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 25th anniversary as I saw it on HBO I believe in HD. How is it on BD?


After a summer of overall poor PQ Blu Rays, it seems we are getting and seeing quite a few stunning, demo/reference worthy Blu Rays both new releases and catalogue!!


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^


Thanks for the reviews Hugh! Of course I agree wholeheartedly with your praise of _The Thin Red Line_. You echoed my words when you said, "It has to be seen to be believed!"


I do think you should have reversed the order of _Toy Story 3_ and _The Thin Red Line_, but hey, we're close enough!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Delightful Forest


recommendation: Tier 5*


A 1972 film from the oeuvre of the Shaw Brothers, the Blu-ray from distributor Well Go USA offers only the slimmest of improvements to the image over a DVD. Multiple issues crop up that degrade the viewing experience, some which are tolerable and some that are not. The 92-minute main feature is encoded in AVC on a BD-25. The average video bitrate is probably in the vicinity of 28 Mbps, as the video encode hardly wanders outside of a narrow band between 26 to 31 Mbps.


One issue is that the film, which should be properly presented in 1080p/24, is instead an interlaced transfer at 1080i. That result produces a number of combing problems. The transfer is licensed from Celestial Pictures' 2007 high-definition “remastering” of the movie, but I have to question if a real scan of the surviving elements was truly done. The apparent resolution looks nearly identical to an upscaled DVD. Another possibility is that a new master was struck, but that an older style of heavy digital noise reduction was applied to strip out any high-frequency information whatsoever. Faces lack any sort of texture or detail. A shame, because the print looks in nearly unblemished shape. Contrast is very good with strong color rendition and solid black levels.


The film needs a real transfer of the surviving elements to high-definition, as there is no doubt a quality harvesting of the surviving print could produce a Blu-ray ranked as high as Tier Two. Sure, the original film has slight focus issues on occasion, but generally the cinematography is sharp and colorful. But major issues force the picture quality of this disc into Tier Five. Only a very marginal upgrade over DVD, I can't recommend it unless one does not own the DVD. If one is looking for positives, _The Delightful Forest_ would be considered a slight step ahead of the other BDs in that tier.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^


Thanks Rob for the "object lesson." I think I'm "getting the picture" (pun intended).


----------



## Hughmc

Whoops... Almost forgot...thanks phantom for all your diligence and effort.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

No problem Denny, I just hope that I didn't confuse more than help. I still don't think I explained things all that great.


Hugh, good to see you posting here again!


----------



## Hughmc

Quote:

Originally Posted by *djoberg* 
^^^^^


Thanks for the reviews Hugh! Of course I agree wholeheartedly with your praise of _The Thin Red Line_. You echoed my words when you said, "It has to be seen to be believed!"


I do think you should have reversed the order of _Toy Story 3_ and _The Thin Red Line_, but hey, we're close enough!








Thanks Denny.


I do contradict myself in my review The THin Red Line claiming it has the best overall PQ of any BD, while TTRL has virtually flawless PQ and is the most beautiful film like looking live action Blu ray, TS3 is flawless and has just that touch to give it top nod. It seems to me those first top so many are all really, really close.


----------



## Hughmc

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* 
No problem Denny, I just hope that I didn't confuse more than help. I still don't think I explained things all that great.


Hugh, good to see you posting here again!


Thanks Rob. It seems you too were off more than on the last few months, so good to see you back more as well. I have been reading your posts regarding some catologue BD's that you are eagerly anticipating getting and watching. I am with you there. I look forward to getting a few of those myself. The reviews for them seem to be most often nothing less than reference/demo, so good times for HT/film/movie enthusiasts. Thanks for your informative posts regarding grain in relation to film size and PQ differences.










I am probably generous on Harry Brown, maybe even by a tier, but I liked the look and the movie and thought detail was excellent.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Hunt to Kill*

From the start, this was about to overtake the tiers. Seriously. It's so incredibly sharp, detailed, and clear, it's unreal. Unfortunately, the nature of digital photography takes over, with one of the character's faces smoothed, the black levels totally falter at night, and some stock footage is tossed in. Still some amazing forest views though.

*Tier 1.75*


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19456797
> 
> 
> I just ordered the _Alien Anthology_ for an AMAZING price at Amazon.co.uk:
> 
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Alien-Anthol.../dp/B003AQBYUG
> 
> 
> The reviews on this set are quite remarkable, even though the last two sequels (_Aliens 3_ and _Alien Resurrection_) aren't as good PQ-wise. Most U.S. online stores are selling this set for over $90 with shipping, so the price above (which comes to about $58 with shipping) is unbeatable.



Just be aware it may take a while to arrive. Mine was shipped on 10/25 and just arrived yesterday.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/19467565
> 
> 
> Just be aware it may take a while to arrive. Mine was shipped on 10/25 and just arrived yesterday.



Thanks for the heads up Patrick! Mine was shipped yesterday with no estimate for arrival, so it's time to exercise some patience.










I'd like your take on the PQ of this set Patrick, so don't be shy. And if you've seen _The Thin Red Line_ it would be great if you could weigh in on that too.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/19467565
> 
> 
> Just be aware it may take a while to arrive. Mine was shipped on 10/25 and just arrived yesterday.



I will chime in with Denny and agree it would be interesting to hear your takes on the Alien Blu-rays. The thread has few participants still around from the early days of its inception. Some of your reviews on the thread always seemed the most honest take on a particular disc.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sujay* /forum/post/19460821
> 
> *Toy Story 3*
> 
> 
> Detail is stunning. In many wide shots, you can still make out eyeballs and pupils in characters that take up hardly a small percentage of the screen. Grass and trees can appear to be even more detailed than real life. The textures of the plethora of toys in the film are palpable and intricate.
> 
> 
> Contrast is exemplary, black levels are solid and shadow detail is some of the best I’ve ever seen.
> 
> 
> Two things that need to be singled out and praised are the artists’ eye for color palette and lighting. There’s likely not a single color in the world that’s not displayed in this film. Pixar’s tools and knack for lighting have become so fantastic that almost every shot in this movie could be singled out as a beautiful painting. The combination of color, lighting and contrast make this movie and disc not only a technical marvel, but an artistic one as well.
> 
> 
> My full review: http://blurayview.com/review/toy-story-3/
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 0*
> 
> 
> I'll say another thing, I haven't seen The Thin Red Line yet but I'm getting really excited with what I'm seeing in this thread.



I forgot to respond to your excellent review. Thanks for contributing and I most certainly agree with every word you wrote! Where, in Tier 0, would you recommend it?


I will look forward to your review on _The Thin Red Line_. It obviously won't compare to the dazzling colors of _Toy Story 3_, but one would be hard-pressed to name another _live action_ transfer, without any CGI, that matches this for consistent sharpness, detail, depth & dimensionality, contrast, flesh tones, and yes, colors too (the GREENS are amazing and the sporadic shots of parrots and other colorful species from the animal kingdom are simply mesmerizing).


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Toy Story 3*


I'm going to make this a fairly short one and get right to the point. This obviously looks incredible! But so do all of the Pixar titles.


What really makes this one stand out compared to the others? The amazing use of "light" (I put light in quotes since no lighting is actually used obviously). They have truly gone to another level regarding their creative use of light on this title! It is simply amazing!


They have got to the point now where they actually vary the *quality* of the light, depending on things like the time of day, or on the surroundings, with the *color* of light changing accordingly. As a photographer, I found this aspect of the movie to be extremely impressive.


The Pixar guys continue to improve their artistic craft. Amazing!


Everything else is top notch too, and this one obviously deserves a Tier 0 placement.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (top 5 or so)


Edit: It probably would have been easier for me to just say "what Sujay said!"


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^


I'm a novice Rob when it comes to *lighting* in films (animated or otherwise) but I did indeed notice the amazing quality of light in _Toy Story 3_. I also noticed it in _Up_ as well.


I want to say that in addition to the quality of light, I believe the colors and detail also stand out compared to other animated titles. Again, when I first laid eyes on the first "Daycare" scene, with all of those brilliant colors popping out at you at the same time, I knew I had never seen anything like that before. And then the last scene (where Andy takes his toys to the young girl in her yard) is the epitome of realism and detail for animation. The clarity (I know you like that word Rob







) left my jaw on the floor for several minutes!


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Indeed Denny!


I forgot to mention the quality of the movie itself regarding Toy Story 3.


Pixar makes some *great* movies (forget about the technical aspects for a moment, just the movie itself in terms of story, acting, etc.). But as good as most of them are, the Toy Story movies are the true stand outs in my book. Toy Story 1 and 2 are both fantastic films, and I was extremely happy to see that Toy Story 3 lives up very well to the first two episodes. And that was not an easy feat.


Also, I am confident enough in my manhood to admit that I definitely got seriously choked up at the end of the movie.


Very well done.


----------



## djoberg

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* 
Indeed Denny!


I forgot to mention the quality of the movie itself regarding Toy Story 3.


Pixar makes some *great* movies (forget about the technical aspects for a moment, just the movie itself in terms of story, acting, etc.). But as good as most of them are, the Toy Story movies are the true stand outs in my book. Toy Story 1 and 2 are both fantastic films, and I was extremely happy to see that Toy Story 3 lives up very well to the first two episodes. And that was not an easy feat.


Also, I am confident enough in my manhood to admit that I definitely got seriously choked up at the end of the movie.


Very well done.
Yes indeed Rob! The _Toy Story Trilogy_ is by far the best, IMHO. It has the _Shrek Trilogy_ and the _Ice Age Trilogy_ beat by a long shot. I was more than impressed with the final episode (all the way through it) and especially the well-crafted ending (and I too had to reach for the tissues).


----------



## deltasun

*The Sound of Music*


Wow, what a splendid presentation! Once we get passed the color-wavering scenes through the clouds, things just settle into its eventual Golden residence.


Denny did a good job enumerating the strengths and weaknesses. I wholeheartedly agree - some soft scenes, funky flesh tones, just above average facial details. Those are the main points of weakness. There were also a couple of darker scenes where color and definition wavered a bit. This is witnessed in the scene between Plummer and Andrews in the glass gazebo.


Aside from those negatives, it's a feast for the senses (did have to turn up the overall volume to be enveloped by the beautiful singing). Contrast is incredibly strong, but not overpowering. Blacks are bold and did not exhibit any crush. Dimensionality in medium shots is consistent throughout. Grain is definitely noticeable but not a distraction at all. It yields a very filmic look that, in my opinion, really enhances the experience. Clarity is astounding, especially in daytime scenes. Dirt and debris are nowhere to be found.


My placement will differ slightly with my esteemed colleagues. I was reviewing some of the titles in Tier 1 and even 1.25. As pristine as the restoration is, it's hard to compare this to titles like _Quantum of Solace_ or _Casino Royale_, just to keep the James Bond theme. I feel like a party pooper, but I have to opt for...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.50*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

*The Square*


While I get the director's intended look for this film, there is simply no way to scurry this film into the upper Tiers. The look is dull, bleak, unnaturally dark, and seemingly devoid of primary colors. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe color is a prerequisite for the upper tiers. However, it just falls even flatter in this feature. Details are hard to come by and contrast is purposefully weak.


Blacks are okay but sometimes crushed. Shadow details do excel for the most part. The picture shows plenty of specks and print dirt throughout.


This one's not made to be eye candy, folks. It's also not marred by any artificial foul play.

*Tier Recommendation: 4.0*


The story itself is not bad. The execution can be better, but it still worked for me - kept my interest throughout.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Grown Ups*


The most disgusting example of digital filmmaking I've ever seen. This whole movie looks like a movie watercolor. Water looks more like oil, faces are comprises of three colors like an FMV video game, the black levels are terrible, and there is not a lick of fine detail to had at any juncture. The color saturation is the only positive. Awful.

*Tier 4.25*


----------



## Rob Tomlin

^ You need to tell us how you *really* feel!


----------



## audiomagnate

From Blu-ray.com. It's downsized, but it looks the same at 1080P. Ouch! What was this shot with, a Flip? The movie itself has a 9% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. I've never seen single digits there before.


----------



## Sujay




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19468405
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sujay* /forum/post/19460821
> 
> *Toy Story 3*
> 
> 
> Detail is stunning. In many wide shots, you can still make out eyeballs and pupils in characters that take up hardly a small percentage of the screen. Grass and trees can appear to be even more detailed than real life. The textures of the plethora of toys in the film are palpable and intricate.
> 
> 
> Contrast is exemplary, black levels are solid and shadow detail is some of the best I've ever seen.
> 
> 
> Two things that need to be singled out and praised are the artists' eye for color palette and lighting. There's likely not a single color in the world that's not displayed in this film. Pixar's tools and knack for lighting have become so fantastic that almost every shot in this movie could be singled out as a beautiful painting. The combination of color, lighting and contrast make this movie and disc not only a technical marvel, but an artistic one as well.
> 
> 
> My full review: http://blurayview.com/review/toy-story-3/
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 0*
> 
> 
> I'll say another thing, I haven't seen The Thin Red Line yet but I'm getting really excited with what I'm seeing in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I forgot to respond to your excellent review. Thanks for contributing and I most certainly agree with every word you wrote! Where, in Tier 0, would you recommend it?
> 
> 
> I will look forward to your review on _The Thin Red Line_. It obviously won't compare to the dazzling colors of _Toy Story 3_, but one would be hard-pressed to name another _live action_ transfer, without any CGI, that matches this for consistent sharpness, detail, depth & dimensionality, contrast, flesh tones, and yes, colors too (the GREENS are amazing and the sporadic shots of parrots and other colorful species from the animal kingdom are simply mesmerizing).
Click to expand...


Thanks for the kind comments. Considering the placement of Avatar in 3rd place of Tier 0 right now, I think I would definitely place it above that.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *audiomagnate* /forum/post/19471898
> 
> 
> From Blu-ray.com. It's downsized, but it looks the same at 1080P. Ouch! What was this shot with, a Flip? The movie itself has a 9% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. I've never seen single digits there before.



Looks just as bad as it did during the flight I took last month.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *audiomagnate* /forum/post/19471898
> 
> 
> From Blu-ray.com. It's downsized, but it looks the same at 1080P. Ouch! What was this shot with, a Flip? The movie itself has a 9% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. I've never seen single digits there before.



Panavision Genesis, the same cam used on Predators and Zombieland, both great looking movies. I have no idea why this one looks as terrible as it does. I don't remember it looking this bad in theaters either, which means that yes, I paid to see it.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/19467565
> 
> 
> Just be aware it may take a while to arrive. Mine was shipped on 10/25 and just arrived yesterday.



I just checked the _Alien Anthology_ thread Patrick and a few members are getting their set quite soon. Check this out:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...postcount=2480


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Seven Samurai*


A great effort from Criterion that can't solve all the problems (the original negative is long lost), but is still rife with detail and texture. Softness definitely creeps in, although rarely. Some interlacing is a bother, random as it may be. Gray scale and blacks are great. Some noticeable compression and of course source damage are evident.

*Tier 3.25*


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19476532
> 
> *Seven Samurai*
> 
> 
> A great effort from Criterion that can't solve all the problems (the original negative is long lost), but is still rife with detail and texture. Softness definitely creeps in, although rarely. Some interlacing is a bother, random as it may be. Gray scale and blacks are great. Some noticeable compression and of course source damage are evident.
> 
> *Tier 3.25*



Cool. My copy should arrive any day now.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19468065
> 
> 
> Thanks for the heads up Patrick! Mine was shipped yesterday with no estimate for arrival, so it's time to exercise some patience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like your take on the PQ of this set Patrick, so don't be shy. And if you've seen _The Thin Red Line_ it would be great if you could weigh in on that too.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19468362
> 
> 
> I will chime in with Denny and agree it would be interesting to hear your takes on the Alien Blu-rays. The thread has few participants still around from the early days of its inception. Some of your reviews on the thread always seemed the most honest take on a particular disc.





Thanks to both of you for the encouragement.










Perhaps this weekend for a viewing.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19473816
> 
> 
> I just checked the _Alien Anthology_ thread Patrick and a few members are getting their set quite soon. Check this out:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...postcount=2480




I may just have been unlucky. I have ordered from Amazon UK quite a few times before and never had such a long wait. Hope you have a shorter wait.


----------



## deltasun

*Jonah Hex*


Contrast is too high and there's a DNR cloud following Megan Fox's face around. Everybody else's are detailed but hers. Colors are pushed and unnatural. Shadow details can be murky. Aside from those, other details are above average and no single characteristic really enter the upper tiers. Oh, ringing does occur...either from the high contrast or via EE, not really sure which.


For the most part, there's still enough of the scenes that look bold and "modern" - not necessarily a good thing, but saves it from toppling into the lower echelons.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.50*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

*The Breakfast Club*


Typical 80's fare with some degree of softness, average details, and desaturated colors. Add to that some wavering picture (mostly in the beginning), print dirt, and the occasional skipped frame and you have another Bronze title.


Grain is present and presents a very film-like appearance that carries the scenes through. Blacks are bold; contrast is well balanced.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.50*


----------



## lgans316

*The Sound of Music (1965)*


A fantastic effort by Fox. Looks very good for most of the running time but in my opinion that there are dozens of scenes that lacked definition possibly due to the filming style. I also noticed minor color wavering in many scenes. I am not sure if this is inherent to the source material or due to incorrect film-to-video transfer. Overall, very satisfied with this Blu-ray which will remain forever in my blubrary.









*Tier Recommendation: Tier 2*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Harpoon: Whale Watching Massacre*


Yes, this movie exists. Anyway, seems to have been shot on 16 mm by my guesstimates, the heavier grain structure and lackluster texture the keys. The movie sits in an exaggerated orange/blue palette that can be eye catching at times. Sharpness is fine and the black levels are consistently great.

*Tier 3.0*


----------



## sbpyrat

I finally about a week ago joined the BR ray world...long over due and am jumping in with both feet. I bought a 40" Sony Bravia and Vizio BR player. I had been buying some BR/DVD combos in anticipation of getting an HD tv.


It didn't take long to realize that the picture quality of BR releases varies greatly. Not really a surprise, but it enticed me to do a little web research and see what titles were considered the best (or the worst) and finding the list compiled here is WAY better than I could have ever hoped for. I would really like to thank every one who has contributed to this list as it is an extremely valuable resource.


I've already watched about 10 of my about 25 blu rays (and 3 from Netflix) and am really enjoying this format. Nearly kicking myself for waiting so long, but really not to upset with waiting til the prices went down.


When I was hooking up my system, I tested it with Avatar (figured a good one) and it looked amazing. It was late though, and didn't finish the movie. I had seen it fairly recently, but am anxious to watch it on Blu Ray.


Then I watched Psycho, which was really good, but only black and white.


Followed that up with The Breakfast club and decided I needed to start doing a little web research about picture quality. While the picture quality wasn't great, I did enjoy the interviews and commentary with the cast that weren't on the bare bones DVD I had.


I decided I needed to watch something I figured would be top notch, so I popped in my copy of Toy Story 3...now we're talking. It became obvious that the Pixar and Disney releases were really going to shine in High Def.


When I found this tiered/ranked list, I was very happy to see that I coincidentally I already owned Avatar/Toy Story 3 and had JUST that day ordered Thin Red Line (and Curious Case of Benjamin Button) from the B&N criterion sale. So right off the bat, I have arguably the top 3 dvds for picture quality. Avatar and Toy Story 3 weren't surprises that they'd be among the top, but I had no idea on Thin Red Line when I ordered it. I only watched it once when it first came to DVD and liked it, but never owned it. I've been wanting to watch it again, and snapped it up from B&N not knowing it was possibly the best picture quality on Blu Ray...I'm excited to get it and check it out.


Anyway, before this gets TOO long, I just wanted to say again...thanks to all that have contributed to and compiled this list. I really do like the structure, with the tiers and the top tier being ranked.


I haven't explored these forums past the ranked list and this discussion thread (just read the last few pages) so far...but I registered so I could thank everyone for this great list.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^


It's good to hear your positive input regarding this thread sbpyrat! Welcome! We'll look forward to hearing more from you as you continue your journey down the awesome Blu-ray highway. I'll especially be interested in getting your thoughts on _The Thin Red Line_. I truly believe it's destined to be the #1 live action transfer (for the moment, that is). And I hope Criterion and others will continue to "push the envelope" with their new releases.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by *sbpyrat* 
I finally about a week ago joined the BR ray world...long over due and am jumping in with both feet. I bought a 40" Sony Bravia and Vizio BR player. I had been buying some BR/DVD combos in anticipation of getting an HD tv.


I've already watched about 10 of my about 25 blu rays (and 3 from Netflix) and am really enjoying this format. Nearly kicking myself for waiting so long, but really not to upset with waiting til the prices went down.
Welcome to the forum, it is always refreshing to see a newcomer here, particularly one who appreciates and understands what the Tiers List represent. Just be careful, this can quickly become an expensive hobby when you see all the quality releases Blu-ray has to offer and want to own them. It gets very difficult watching DVD when one becomes accustomed to the resolution and clarity on most Blu-rays. Hopefully the Tiers will help guide you down the correct path and inform your choices.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* 
*Black Narcissus (UK Import)


recommendation: Tier 2.0
*

An early Technicolor classic from 1947, ITV released this movie as a region-free British BD on June 23, 2008. The 100-minute main feature is encoded in VC-1 on a BD-25. BDInfo reveals the average video bitrate to be 20.99 Mbps. _Black Narcissus_ won the Oscar for Jack Cardiff's stunning cinematography in 1947. The transfer is a complete revelation of a very worthy movie, and surpasses my wildest fantasies of how it was going to look in high-definition. Needless to say, this is the definitive version of Black Narcissus, and utterly humiliates prior dvds in every way imaginable for visual superiority.


To allay any fears, the VC-1 encode handles almost all frames excellently, with the shortest glimpses of artifacting in a couple of shots. Video-bitrates, while somewhat low in average, show sustained peaks in the thirties and forties when needed. The only moment that might be questionable comes late in the movie, when the camera pans up to watch the fog rise up and swallow the convent on the mountain. That is when a small but noticeable shot of noise appears. Other than that, grain is nicely reproduced and looks appropriate for the era and film stock used. Superbly shot and lighted, the grain never intrudes and rarely makes its presence obvious.


It is highly doubtful any level of digital noise-reduction was used in the transfer. The slight lack of detail in close-ups can be explained by the soft-focus lighting employed to highlight the nuns' faces. Notice the differences in level of detail between close-ups of the men and the women. Each gender is filmed completely differently, particularly the nuns. A very small amount of ringing on occasion results from the original photography and film elements, and has always been present in the film. Only the most obsessed viewers will be able to distinguish it from normal viewing distances anyway. The entire transfer is as unprocessed by unnecessary filters as a modern Blu-ray can be today.


The wonderful Technicolor production produces marvelous colors in each and every minute of the film. Lush, living greens are mixed with vibrant splashes of pink and red, in a manner that would stand out even if the film had been released yesterday to theaters. A shot in the middle of the film solely focuses on the delicate flowers the nuns have been growing. It was akin to a living garden appearing in my room, as they looked so real one could reach out and pick them. There is an appreciable dimension and depth to the image, that truly deserves a spot in tier one somewhere. When the film flashes back to one of the sisters fishing, the sparkling water of the lake is simply awesome to behold. One can almost feel the sun shining down on it. Contrast is nearly perfect, with inky blacks frequently being tested and proven worthy of demo-quality. A slight, slight amount of blooming occurs where a few details in the nuns' habits get washed out. Flesh tones are remarkably natural in look, from the paler skin of the British nuns, to the darker-shaded skin of the native Hindus. This transfer is not the over-driven, pumped-up contrast of so many modern films.


I am grateful such a powerful piece of cinema has been faithfully preserved on Blu-ray. As I was watching it, my mind kept making the natural comparison for picture quality to _A Passage To India_ on Blu-ray. Another fine example of film-making in itself, while obviously different due to the differing ages involved, is highly reminiscent of the video quality seen on _Black Narcissus_. Many similarities are shared between the two films, to a certain degree.


At times thoughts of tier one danced in my mind for placement, but a few camera tricks that have not aged well and some brief indications of age-related wear force me to recommend the top of tier two. The matte paintings that serve as the image's background when the camera peeks off the cliff, stick out to the modern viewer. While it no doubt inspired awe in 1947, the effect now looks dated at best. Print damage is kept to a bare minimum, and the film element looks in very good condition, but the occasional white speck does pop up. Related to the age of the film, a minor amount of registration errors in the first reel produce a touch of color-fringing. The problem is seen on brightly-colored reds the most, very early in the movie. There is also slight wavering in luminosity, again in the first reel only. These problems are minor in magnitude though and only prevent the disc from a ranking in tier one.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of hastic plank):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...4#post14918914
Regular readers might remember the effusive praise, quoted above, that I showered the British Blu-ray release of _Black Narcissus_ with in the thread. Well, Criterion has surpassed that 2008 BD with their own release that makes the film look better than ever. Struck from a newly created 35mm interpositive, the image is as faithful as one will ever see the Powell & Pressburger movie at 1080p resolution. Anyone with an interest in classic film, especially films made in Technicolor, needs to give this specific Criterion Blu-ray a hard look.


Criterion wildly surpassed the technical parameters of the earlier disc, the average video bitrate for the new AVC-encode is 34.99 Mbps. That level produces an accuracy to the underlying master which shows a more refined grain structure and oodles of extra detail over the older import BD. The contrast has subtly been improved, removing just a touch of garishness from the exuberant reds splashed throughout the film. The better color balance simply enhances the viewing experience as a more authentic and proper tonality to the palette. A few scenes do exhibit minor pulsations to the color, particularly solid blues in the background of interior shots.


The British import currently resides in Tier 2.25. I am going off memory unfortunately for my picture evaluation, as that Blu-ray was sold by me the moment I heard of the Criterion release. So I did not get a chance to directly compare the two Blu-rays side-by-side. The Criterion release produces a cleaner and more refined image that videophiles will be eminently pleased with in its totality.

*Tier recommendation: 1.75*


BDInfo scan (courtesy of paku):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...6#post19323236


----------



## sbpyrat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19484271
> 
> 
> ^^^^
> 
> 
> It's good to hear your positive input regarding this thread sbpyrat! Welcome! We'll look forward to hearing more from you as you continue your journey down the awesome Blu-ray highway. I'll especially be interested in getting your thoughts on _The Thin Red Line_. I truly believe it's destined to be the #1 live action transfer (for the moment, that is). And I hope Criterion and others will continue to "push the envelope" with their new releases.



Thanks. I'm really looking forward to Thin Red Line. I will comment here. By the time I get it, I'll be on vacation...so it might be early December.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*The Sound of Music*


Simply put and straight to the point, this is a fantastic release of a fantastic film by Fox!


It's great to know that we can get these movies shot on large format done correctly, and this is especially true in light of the fact that Fox was the same studio who notoriously botched Patton!


Detail is excellent!! The grain pattern is more noticeable than I may have expected from a large format film, but it is preserved extremely well here. Colors are also great for the most part, though there were some scenes when faces seemed to be on the red side.


The color wavering is noticeable in a few scenes, and there are some soft focus shots (some of which are very clearly intentional).


This movie has some great cinematography, and it comes across beautifully in this great transfer!


I am extremely happy with this blu-ray release and the fact that they treated this great film with the care that it deserves. It gets my highest recommendation.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.25*


----------



## sbpyrat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19484434
> 
> 
> Welcome to the forum, it is always refreshing to see a newcomer here, particularly one who appreciates and understands what the Tiers List represent. Just be careful, this can quickly become an expensive hobby when you see all the quality releases Blu-ray has to offer and want to own them. It gets very difficult watching DVD when one becomes accustomed to the resolution and clarity on most Blu-rays. Hopefully the Tiers will help guide you down the correct path and inform your choices.



Thanks...it's nice to find a forum/thread like this. I am aware of the pitfalls of getting into something like a new higher quality video format...I've already been on the VHS/LD/DVD path. So yes, it's good to make informed decisions whenever possible...this list will prove invaluable.


I've already got my eye on Bug's Life. I already have it on regular DVD, so it might not have been one that I would have considered so soon, but since it's #4 on the list, next in line...I am more tempted haha.


I've never seen Astro Boy or Kung Fu Panda, so for now I added them to my Netflix queue to rent and check out.


I'll have to see how obsessed I become with the blue tier ;-)


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19481153
> 
> *The Breakfast Club*
> 
> 
> Typical 80's fare with some degree of softness, average details, and desaturated colors. Add to that some wavering picture (mostly in the beginning), print dirt, and the occasional skipped frame and you have another Bronze title.
> 
> 
> Grain is present and presents a very film-like appearance that carries the scenes through. Blacks are bold; contrast is well balanced.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.50*



I was hoping for a bit better but it seems passable at average, not too shabby? It is one of my fav movies, as I could relate so much to the stereotypes back in the day.


How is the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 25th looking and sounding?


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/19485124
> 
> 
> I was hoping for a bit better but it seems passable at average, not too shabby? It is one of my fav movies, as I could relate so much to the stereotypes back in the day.
> 
> 
> How is the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 25th looking and sounding?



Hey Hugh...yes, definitely not too shabby. Don't let that Bronze score scare you - it looks much much better than DVD.


The Rock & Roll Hall of Fame is your typical 1080i/60 fare. It's clean, but you can see the limitations. Still, the performances are awesome. I have not officially reviewed because I've jumped around so far.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Goonies: 25th Anniversary Edition*


This one looks dated, possibly an older master, or maybe something planned for HD DVD then pulled. Grain is barely noticeable and faces are smoothed. There is a light layer of edge enhancement too. Colors are elevated, but there is some black crush, and not due to the underlit caves either.

*Tier 3.75*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Superman / Shazam!: The Return Of Black Adam


recommendation: Tier 2.0*


Another digital ink-and-paint animated adventure starring superheroes from DC Comics, the only new segment on this BD is the 24-minute titular episode. Three shorter features from prior Blu-rays as backup segments, clocking in around 12-minutes each, round out the high-definition material. The new feature looks very typical of the quality on prior Warner releases of this nature. I wonder if the budget was as substantial, given the fact that all of the short features look worse in production quality than the longer ones like _Wonder Woman_ or _Green Lantern: First Flight_. The secondary features and the stylized atmosphere of the Spectre short reduce the overall ranking barely into Tier 2.


----------



## tcramer

*Toy Story 3*


I can mirror what everyone else has said that this an outstanding disc. The level of detail in this is unbelievable. As earlier mentioned, the lighting effects are quite amazing - just look at the detail in the reflections seen on Buzz's helmet. Incredibly sharp with an amazing 3-D feel throughout. I really didn't see a single flaw through this entire movie and I believe it surpasses _A Bugs Life_ and _Toy Story 1/2_.


I am hoping to watch _The Thin Red Lin_e soon, but until then I have to vote to put _Toy Story 3_ at the top of the heap!

*Recommendation: Top of Tier 0*


6' Viewing Distance

PS3

Calibrated Pioneer Kuro 5020fd


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*A Christmas Carol (2009)*


A digital feat, loaded with texture and detail. Virtual faces and clothes are brimming with detail. Sharpness is amazing, and the black levels are perfect. That said, this is a dark film, and much of the time color is muted too. When it's bright, it showcases a dazzling array of hues.

*Tier .50*


----------



## deltasun

*White Christmas*


We have another winner here, folks! Contrast, saturation, and black levels are excellent! The blacks may border on crushing at times, but not a distraction. Saturation is a bit more evident in reds and greens, probably by design. Clarity for a 1954 film is incredible!


On the flip side, details do degrade in longer shots. Facial details are not on par with some of the top Tier 0/1-ranked films. Some of the set pieces do look dated, specially under high definition. And, there is evidence of print dirt here and there.


I would rank this slightly better than _The Sound of Music_, but will keep it within the same placement...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.50*


Wish it came with better sound, but not complaining!









_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/19479088
> 
> 
> I may just have been unlucky. I have ordered from Amazon UK quite a few times before and never had such a long wait. Hope you have a shorter wait.



Hey Patrick....I received my _Alien Anthology_ set this morning, so it only took 7-8 days to ship it. Not bad! I more than likely won't be viewing them until at least this weekend.


I'm still really curious to get your take on this set, so please write in after you've seen some or all of them. Thanks!


Denny


----------



## Incindium

Hey I'm going to throw up a few quick rankings of some titles I've watched recently.


*Predators*

Early jungles scenes looked really really good with lots of detail. Wasn't as good in later night scenes but still I'll give it
*Tier 1.75*

*Karate Kid 2010*

I had seen GRG's review of this and was expecting some good PQ of this title. However I really didn't see anything that wowed me. The picture was consistent throughout, however it didn't provide the detailed facial feature shots that I expect and nothing about it particularly stood out to me.
*Tier 2.25*

*Get Him to the Greek*

I may not have been paying as much attention to the PQ of this as the other two but I distinctly remember some nice facial feature details and nice color pop with some of the wardrobe. It looked better to me that Karate Kid from what I remember so I'll give it a
*Tier 2.0*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Alien 2: On Earth*


It's utterly amazing this is even on Blu-ray, let along looking like this. This is an incredible transfer job, remarkably clear with no real encoding issues. Colors are pure, and the grain is extremely well resolved. Damage is limited. Some sections of the screen look smoothed over, possibly the result of the restoration process, best guess. Some stock footage at the start is of course awful.

*Tier 3.0*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Last Airbender*


This is a great looking movie after the rather flat start. Really intense color specifically matched to the kingdom (water/blue, fire/red, etc.). Facial detail is stunning, black levels are great, and the image depth is awesome. Razor sharp and there are some awesome establishing views too.
*Tier 1.25*


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*The Last of the Mohicans*


This is a really, really crappy looking title.


I am not kidding when I say that I actually had to get out of my chair, go over to my blu-ray player, hit the eject button and remove the disc to make sure that Netflix didn't send me the old DVD version.


Simply put, there is nothing about this transfer to praise (I am not comparing it to the DVD, so if it is better than the DVD, I guess that's something).


Where to start? How about black levels and overall contrast? Terrible. This is one of the flattest looking titles I have seen in quite some time. Very muddy looking.


Details are also lacking. Like I said, I thought it was a DVD. Softness abounds.


Colors are also not impressive as they seem to be muted by the terrible contrast.


This title most certainly does not belong in anything higher than Tier 4.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 4*


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/19507913
> 
> *The Last of the Mohicans*
> 
> 
> This title most certainly does not belong in anything higher than Tier 4.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 4*



Thank you for saving me a wasted purchase on it. Catalog titles are so hit-or-miss, usually depending on how recently the master and scan of it were created.


----------



## thegage




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19346614
> 
> *The Thin Red Line*
> 
> 
> Lady (G3) and Gentlemen....we have another WINNER!!! Words will surely fail me in attempting to describe what my eyes just saw over the last 2 hours and 45 minutes.
> 
> 
> Let me say it another way: This transfer is, HANDS DOWN, the best live action film I have ever seen on Blu-ray! It has CONSISTENT:
> 
> 
> 1) Sharpness
> 
> 2) Detail
> 
> 3) Depth & Dimensionality
> 
> 4) Deep Blacks
> 
> 5) Impressive Shadow Details
> 
> 6) Accurate Flesh Tones
> 
> 7) Lush Colors (Mainly GREEN, but wait 'til you see them!)
> 
> 8) Strong Contrast
> 
> 
> I want to join my fellow AVS member (ivanpino) in nominating this for Tier 0 and I will go out on a limb and recommend the TOP SPOT. There may be an outcry from those of you who (like me) helped to put _Avatar_ on the top, but I believe _The Thin Red Line_ is superior because, as mentioned before, it is CONSISTENTLY EXCELLENT from beginning to end.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Top of Tier 0*
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer BDP-05....Viewed from 7.5'
> 
> 
> PS If my colleagues feel as strongly about this transfer as I do, but simply can't bring themselves to elevate this above the animated marvels, then at least consider putting it near the very top...at least in the top 5 or 10.



I've got to check my display (Panny 50V10 plasma). While I agree that the film is gorgeous, I noticed for the first time an instance of severe macroblocking in the shadows on characters' faces. I've only seen it so far in the scene just after they hit the beach, where they're crouching down for a quick discussion (I'll get a time stamp later). Anyone else seen this?


John K.


----------



## trinifox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *thegage* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I've got to check my display (Panny 50V10 plasma). While I agree that the film is gorgeous, I noticed for the first time an instance of severe macroblocking in the shadows on characters' faces. I've only seen it so far in the scene just after they hit the beach, where they're crouching down for a quick discussion (I'll get a time stamp later). Anyone else seen this?
> 
> 
> John K.



Any chance you can help me understand 'macroblocking' & 'crushing' in context of this thread?


----------



## dla26

Everyone please correct me if I'm wrong:


Macroblocking - Splotchiness (for lack of a better word) in dark scenes that occurs when there is compression of the digital image. The ideal is that different shades of black should smoothly flow into each other rather than being able to see clear gradations.


Crushing - In dark scenes when there is too little contrast, so things in the shadows just appear to be black. The ideal is that you should be able to tell the difference between something that is black vs. something that is in the shadows or merely dark.


The OP has some links to help understand some of this terminology and what to look for. I'll be honest, though, that I really have a hard time telling when some of this artifacting (such as DNR) is going on. Even in the articles linked to in the OP when they show 2 images side by side, one with and one without DNR, I have a hard time telling the difference. I know some people notice it immediately, so I'll count myself lucky that it doesn't bother me.


----------



## Sujay

dla26, I'd say you are pretty correct about the black crush definition, however I would classify macroblocking as what's seen in this example image:


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sujay* /forum/post/19508592
> 
> 
> dla26, I'd say you are pretty correct about the black crush definition, however I would classify macroblocking as what's seen in this example image:



That is the classic macroblocking effect from poor compression. It was more common on DVD than it ever was on Blu-ray, though I have seen it infrequently on low-bitrate video encodes. The same effect can also occur in the shadows, but it looks different from that picture. If you check out the BDInfo information for The Thin Red Line at the link, you can see the average video bitrate for the AVC-encode is only 23.03 Mbps.


The combination of Criterion putting a lengthy movie and multiple extras on a single Blu-ray created a situation where the compression is no reference by any standard. Almost every single Blu-ray I have ever watched at those parameters will produce minor artifacting on occasion, particularly if you are viewing on the largest screens and consciously looking for problems.

http://www.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray/m...948&locale=all


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *thegage* /forum/post/19508318
> 
> 
> I've got to check my display (Panny 50V10 plasma). While I agree that the film is gorgeous, I noticed for the first time an instance of severe macroblocking in the shadows on characters' faces. I've only seen it so far in the scene just after they hit the beach, where they're crouching down for a quick discussion (I'll get a time stamp later). Anyone else seen this?
> 
> 
> John K.



A time stamp would be nice, but even if you don't give me one I should be able to check it out since you mentioned the specific scene in which it *supposedly* takes place. I say "supposedly," for you're the first one to mention "severe macroblocking."



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19508999
> 
> 
> That is the classic macroblocking effect from poor compression. It was more common on DVD than it ever was on Blu-ray, though I have seen it infrequently on low-bitrate video encodes. The same effect can also occur in the shadows, but it looks different from that picture. If you check out the BDInfo information for The Thin Red Line at the link, you can see the average video bitrate for the AVC-encode is only 23.03 Mbps.
> 
> 
> The combination of Criterion putting a lengthy movie and multiple extras on a single Blu-ray created a situation where the compression is no reference by any standard. Almost every single Blu-ray I have ever watched at those parameters will produce minor artifacting on occasion, particularly if you are viewing on the largest screens and consciously looking for problems.
> 
> http://www.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray/m...948&locale=all



I wouldn't jump to any conclusions Phantom until you've seen the transfer firsthand. I, for one, would never *judge* a title based on the average video bitrate. I'm really suspicious concerning this alleged macroblocking, for there wasn't one single reviewer, including the likes of Robert Harris, who mentioned this. According to John K. (a.k.a. thegage) it's "severe." I would think others would have caught this and stated this *obvious* anomaly in their review. Instead, you have EVERYONE singing its praises and boasting of a near flawless transfer.


Having said that, I do remember Hugh, in his review of this title, mentioning a brief occurrence of "banding" on a character's face. Perhaps it was banding and not macroblocking that thegage actually saw.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19508999
> 
> 
> That is the classic macroblocking effect from poor compression. It was more common on DVD than it ever was on Blu-ray, though I have seen it infrequently on low-bitrate video encodes. The same effect can also occur in the shadows, but it looks different from that picture. If you check out the BDInfo information for The Thin Red Line at the link, you can see the average video bitrate for the AVC-encode is only 23.03 Mbps.
> 
> 
> The combination of Criterion putting a lengthy movie and multiple extras on a single Blu-ray created a situation where the compression is no reference by any standard. Almost every single Blu-ray I have ever watched at those parameters will produce minor artifacting on occasion, particularly if you are viewing on the largest screens and consciously looking for problems.
> 
> http://www.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray/m...948&locale=all



I just checked various reviews and I thought the following would be of interest to you:


PICTURE


Terrence Malick's The Thin Red Line comes to Blu-ray from The Criterion Collection, who present the film in its original aspect ratio of 2.35:1 in 1080p/24hz on this dual-layer disc.


As everyone has been already saying the image on here is absolutely breathtaking, certainly one of the best high-def transfers from Criterion so far. Just the opening shot of the crocodile slipping into the water gives you a clear idea of what you're in for. The crispness of the image is incredible, presenting fine object detail with such shocking clarity. Colours are rendered beautifully, with striking blues and greens, as well as sharply rendered reds when they appear, either in explosions or the various forms of wildlife that appear throughout the film. Blacks are inky and deep without losing any of the details in darker moments, presenting fine shadow delineation, and darker sequences present no noticeable artifacts to speak of. Film grain is there, barely registering really, but when it is noticeable it's natural looking.

*I was surprised by the average bitrate but this doesn't seemed to have hampered it in anyway as the transfer doesn't present any noticeable artifacts* and I didn't detect any obvious edge-enhancement on screen. The film is fairly new and was a big production so it should be no surprise that the source materials are in marvelous shape, with a few minor blemishes present.


In all it's a stunner and I must say I'm just beyond impressed with it. It's more than I could have possibly hoped for and it's perfect for what is an unbelievably beautiful looking film.


10/10


As you can see Phantom, he specifically alludes to the fact that he was surprised that the average bitrate didn't hamper the transfer in any way. He states there were no "noticeable artifacts" as a result of the average bitrate. This seems to be the consensus of all reviews thus far.


----------



## dla26




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sujay* /forum/post/19508592
> 
> 
> dla26, I'd say you are pretty correct about the black crush definition, however I would classify macroblocking as what's seen in this example image:



Thanks for the clarification. Makes sense. For some reason, I really notice macroblocking in dark scenes, which is why I had that association.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *trinifox* /forum/post/19508443
> 
> 
> Any chance you can help me understand 'macroblocking' & 'crushing' in context of this thread?



I think I gave you some wrong info above saying that the definition of those terms were in the original post of this thread. I had forgotten that this thread had migrated from an older thread. All of the definitions (plus examples) can be found in the OP of the The New PQ Tier Thread for Blu-Ray - Rankings thread. That is where the net results of all of these discussions are ultimately kept.


----------



## thegage




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19510146
> 
> 
> A time stamp would be nice, but even if you don't give me one I should be able to check it out since you mentioned the specific scene in which it *supposedly* takes place. I say "supposedly," for you're the first one to mention "severe macroblocking."



Time stamp is from 29:11 to about 29:20; image below is at 29:19. I don't know what you'd call what's shown below, but I would appreciate knowing if anyone else sees this, other wise I'm going to have to do a system check-up!


John K.


----------



## tfoltz

Posterization. thegage, what settings do you use on your panny?


----------



## thegage

I'll take it off line since it seems unrelated to the quality of the transfer.


John K.


----------



## MrTorino351

Quote:

Originally Posted by *thegage* 
Time stamp is from 29:11 to about 29:20; image below is at 29:19. I don't know what you'd call what's shown below, but I would appreciate knowing if anyone else sees this, other wise I'm going to have to do a system check-up!


John K.
mate,i am getting the exact same problem on my new 55inch Samsung LCD, mine is only 3 weeks old and im about to take it back because in some blu rays i cant stand all the little blocks in the dark shadows and the colors not blending. i have a LG 42 inch lcd that is 720p that looks better than this!!!


it happens with all my equipment running hdmi, xbox 360,ps3, PC.


like in media player when you have the now playing screen on with no music playing it goes light blue to black and you can see banding or posterisation where the colors dont blend properly!!


----------



## trinifox

Thanks all for the clarification. In december I will net flix a couple 'bad' transfers and try to align what I see with comments in this thread.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by *djoberg* 
I wouldn't jump to any conclusions Phantom until you've seen the transfer firsthand. I, for one, would never *judge* a title based on the average video bitrate. I'm really suspicious concerning this alleged macroblocking, for there wasn't one single reviewer, including the likes of Robert Harris, who mentioned this. According to John K. (a.k.a. thegage) it's "severe." I would think others would have caught this and stated this *obvious* anomaly in their review. Instead, you have EVERYONE singing its praises and boasting of a near flawless transfer.
No need to defend the Blu-ray so vigorously to me, in most cases compression is a minor factor in overall picture quality. I am not putting down The Thin Red Line, but making more of a general observation. A video encode at 23 Mbps is right around the figure where it becomes very hard to create a totally flawless, artifact-free image of film from a compression standpoint. Even the animated movies show tiny artifacts at that level, if one goes over the image with a finetooth comb. Most Blu-rays have isolated occurrences of artifacting, even ones ranked in the upper tiers, the real question is how does that impact the overall picture quality?


Criterion has generally been excellent in attempting to maximize compression parameters on their discs. It would have been nice if they moved the extras to a second Blu-ray, to allow the film to take up the full space of a BD-50.


----------



## djoberg

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* 
No need to defend the Blu-ray so vigorously to me, in most cases compression is a minor factor in overall picture quality. I am not putting down The Thin Red Line, but making more of a general observation. A video encode at 23 Mbps is right around the figure where it becomes very hard to create a totally flawless, artifact-free image of film from a compression standpoint. Even the animated movies show tiny artifacts at that level, if one goes over the image with a finetooth comb. Most Blu-rays have isolated occurrences of artifacting, even ones ranked in the upper tiers, the real question is how does that impact the overall picture quality?


Criterion has generally been excellent in attempting to maximize compression parameters on their discs. It would have been nice if they moved the extras to a second Blu-ray, to allow the film to take up the full space of a BD-50.
Point taken Phantom. I realized that you were making a "general observation," but it _seemed_ that you were implying that with the average bitrate of _The Thin Red Line_ it might very well have been a case of macroblocking.


I do agree with you that "it would have been nice if Criterion had moved the extras to a second Blu-ray, to allow the film to take up the full space of a BD-50."


----------



## Cinema Squid

For those seeing macroblocking artifacts in black regions, have you tried tweaking your display's brightness and contrast using a calibration disc? It's an unfortunate reality that black regions are one of the first areas of the picture that suffer from compression artifacts, but often they are in the below-black areas that should be clipped to solid black with proper settings.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* 
For those seeing macroblocking artifacts in black regions, have you tried tweaking your display's brightness and contrast using a calibration disc? It's an unfortunate reality that black regions are one of the first areas of the picture that suffer from compression artifacts, but often they are in the below-black areas that should be clipped to solid black with proper settings.
What he said.


----------



## Hughmc

Quote:

Originally Posted by *thegage* 
I've got to check my display (Panny 50V10 plasma). While I agree that the film is gorgeous, I noticed for the first time an instance of severe macroblocking in the shadows on characters' faces. I've only seen it so far in the scene just after they hit the beach, where they're crouching down for a quick discussion (I'll get a time stamp later). Anyone else seen this?


John K.


Yes, I mentioned this as on my lcd projector it looks a bit like banding or shadowing. I thought I mentioned the time stamp in my review. 29:12-22?...or 1:29:12-22?


----------



## thegage

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Hughmc* 
Yes, I mentioned this as on my lcd projector it looks a bit like banding or shadowing. I thought I mentioned the time stamp in my review. 29:12-22?...or 1:29:12-22?
0:29:12-22.


I have used both the Spear & Munsil and the DVE discs to calibrate.


John K.


----------



## oleus

a few observations from recent catalog discs i've viewed:


FRIDAY - looks pretty bad. horrible artifacting, artificially boosted colors, completely un-filmlike.


DR. STRANGELOVE - perhaps the best B&W transfer i've seen on the format.


RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD - same master as the dvd - not bad though for a budget title.


THE RED SHOES / BLACK NARCISSUS - Criterion at their best, absolutely amazing....


DAYS OF HEAVEN - Criterion at their most mediocre, this looks like the same exact master as the paramount DVD from ages ago with edge enhancement abound.


ROCKY HORROR - extremely filmlike, sharp and impressive. care has been taken on this one.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oleus* /forum/post/19511710
> 
> 
> a few observations from recent catalog discs i've viewed:
> 
> 
> FRIDAY - looks pretty bad. horrible artifacting, artificially boosted colors, completely un-filmlike.
> 
> 
> DR. STRANGELOVE - perhaps the best B&W transfer i've seen on the format.
> 
> 
> RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD - same master as the dvd - not bad though for a budget title.
> 
> 
> THE RED SHOES / BLACK NARCISSUS - Criterion at their best, absolutely amazing....
> 
> 
> DAYS OF HEAVEN - Criterion at their most mediocre, this looks like the same exact master as the paramount DVD from ages ago with edge enhancement abound.
> 
> 
> ROCKY HORROR - extremely filmlike, sharp and impressive. care has been taken on this one.



Thanks for your observations; they are appreciated!


Have you seen _The Thin Red Line_? Methinks, if you had, you would also include that title in your list of "Criterion at their best."


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *thegage* /forum/post/19510578
> 
> 
> Time stamp is from 29:11 to about 29:20; image below is at 29:19. I don't know what you'd call what's shown below, but I would appreciate knowing if anyone else sees this, other wise I'm going to have to do a system check-up!
> 
> 
> John K.



Thanks for the time stamp. I will try to slip TTRL in soon and check that out. I'm quite sure I would have remembered such a glaring anomaly if I had seen this before, but perhaps I was distracted during those 9 seconds. Right now my guess would be what Cinema Squid intimated....that your brightness/contrast setting must be off. But in fairness to you I will check it out and report back to you.


----------



## MrTorino351

yeah i have given it a calibrate using a basic set up. if i turn the brightness down the blocks go away but the picture is pretty dark then,i am getting it professionally calibrated soon so i will see what he thinks. the main problem that is worrying me is with gradient colors,i think thats what its called. where it goes black to grey or red to orange then white,its supposed to look smooth as it changes shades but you can see the rings where it changes,like it cant reproduce enough different shades of color


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *thegage* /forum/post/19510578
> 
> 
> Time stamp is from 29:11 to about 29:20; image below is at 29:19. I don't know what you'd call what's shown below, but I would appreciate knowing if anyone else sees this, other wise I'm going to have to do a system check-up!
> 
> 
> John K.



Well, I checked and....lo and behold, it is the same on my Pioneer KURO! It isn't quite as pronounced as the screen grab you gave us; what I'm seeing is a relatively small dark blotch by the left eyes and temples of two soldiers and the rest of their face looks normal (in contrast to your screen shot where the blotch runs down the whole side of his face into his neck). I don't know how I missed it on my last viewing, but with it being somewhat sudden and short-lived, I might have mistaken it for a shadow caused by their helmets. Whatever the case, I will be interested in others checking this out so we can determine if it is a universal problem or one that is limited to those who have incorrect contrast/brightness settings. I actually will be surprised if this is related to settings, for I did as good of a calibration as one can do shy of hiring a professional calibrator.


----------



## deltasun

^^^ +1


Finally got my copy and noticed this briefly. Like Denny says, it wasn't as pronounced as the screen shot, but it's there. It is in the helmet's shadow, which makes it a bit subtle. Obviously, individual settings will affect the degree in which this displays. I believer there was only one other instance that was even more minor than the example above. Still, I don't think it's enough to drastically drop the rating.


I'll have my review up later on today, but the look reminded me of _Apocalypto_, but with better blacks and shadow details.


----------



## thegage




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19514056
> 
> 
> Well, I checked and....lo and behold, it is the same on my Pioneer KURO! It isn't quite as pronounced as the screen grab you gave us; what I'm seeing is a relatively small dark blotch by the left eyes and temples of two soldiers and the rest of their face looks normal (in contrast to your screen shot where the blotch runs down the whole side of his face into his neck). I don't know how I missed it on my last viewing, but with it being somewhat sudden and short-lived, I might have mistaken it for a shadow caused by their helmets. Whatever the case, I will be interested in others checking this out so we can determine if it is a universal problem or one that is limited to those who have incorrect contrast/brightness settings. I actually will be surprised if this is related to settings, for I did as good of a calibration as one can do shy of hiring a professional calibrator.



Well, I guess I'm feeling a bit better about this, then!


My understanding is that some Panasonic plasmas are worse on posterization than others, and so my set may be making more out of what is a relatively small picture anomaly.


John K.


----------



## djoberg

*Alien*


This is an OUTSTANDING restoration that, IMHO, is worthy of demo-status, even if it's on the very border between Tiers 1 and 2. As GRG noted (and MANY others in reviews outside this thread), it's looks like new.


I absolutely LOVE any film that highlights blacks (KURO means BLACK, ya know







), and _Alien_ featured these in almost every scene. The shots of outer space were spectacular, as were dark interior shots of the space ship. Shadow details were phenomenal throughout, with the exception of a few shots in air chambers or other enclosed areas. The director chose to give us many shots of instrument panels and the walls of the ship and they were either low Tier 0 or high Tier 1 quality. Amazing, considering it dates back to 1979!


Facial details were off the charts, especially towards the end of the movie. In GRG's full length review on his website he refers to the intricate details in Brett's face before he's attacked by the alien. These were as good as I've ever seen and from that point on every actor's face was pure EYE CANDY. Even facial shots earlier on in the film were very good, though there weren't as many close-ups.


Colors were limited, but those that did appear were vivid and natural. Contrast was superb from beginning to end. The clarity in the majority of scenes was excellent.


My only gripe would be sporadic scenes of softness. They were inherent to the source, but the standards of this thread dictate penalization because of these. As mentioned above, there were some scenes where shadow details faltered, so this too will cause me to dock the final score by perhaps a quarter of a tier.


GRG's review is the only review prior to mine and he gave it a 2.25. I feel it deserves a notch or two higher, so I'm going with.....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


PS Because of the _dark_ nature of this film and the negatives cited in my review, I could see where my colleagues might reject a demo status and put it in Tier 2 (as GRG did). If so, I won't lose any sleep over it. But if you love awesome blacks levels and shadow details like I do, you may very well be in favor of the demo tier too.


----------



## tcramer

I'm about to pop in _The Thin Red Line_. I will post my thoughts and also if I see what *thegage* first mentioned as soon as I am finished.


Here's to hoping I see the PQ everyone has been seeing!


----------



## tcramer

I just passed the 29:11 point and I too see what *thegage* mentions about _The Thin Red Line_. I't doesn't appear quite as severe for me, but I notice it nonetheless.


I am seeing this on a pro calibrated Kuro 5020 so I would say that pretty much rules out it being a 'settings issue'. Just an abnormality in the film I suppose, something that was glossed over.


----------



## Sujay

I was watching Fantastic Mr. Fox, and I thought it was... fantastic. (Sorry.) For the most part at least. One thing I thought was a lacking were the black levels. Contrast was good most of the time but some of the nighttime scenes seemed to really suffer. I looked online and every single review seems to be saying they're solid or excellent. Even some of the reviews in this thread. Did I get a strange copy or are my eyes playing tricks on me?


To be noted: this is a Netflix copy. It had no features on the first disc (there should be) so maybe it's some altered version?


----------



## tcramer

*The Thin Red Line*


As promised, here are my thoughts on this great movie. I agree with the other reviews that this is an excellent transfer all around! Besides for the 10 second scene where there are some strange things on a couple faces, this is the most consistent Blu I have seen (non-animated of course).


There is a great sharpness throughout, but it it is natural sharpness. This helps bring out the incredible detail from small things close up to grass and trees way out in the background. It also gives a depth and real look to the picture.


The blacks are not perfect but very good, and shadow detail is excellent - some of the best I've seen. Color is simply fantastic in The Thin Red Line. There is so much green and all of it is so defined, from the grass to the trees to the soldiers uniforms. Not much in terms of popping/vibrant colors, but when the colors that do exist are this accurate it is very impressive. Throw in the fact that the flesh tones are spot-on and this is one amazing movie.


I say easily top 3, however I cannot bring myself to rank it above _Toy Story 3_. If there was just one disc I could pop in to really impress someone, that's what it would be. As far as live action, I say _The Thin Red Line_ is cream of the crop! Taking that into account, I give you my top 5.

*1. Toy Story 3

2. The Thin Red Line

3. A Bug's Life

4. Avatar*


Viewed on a calibrated Kuro 5020 from 6' via PS3.


I say TS3 is the best of the best so it's #1. TTRL is the best live so I put it at #2. A Bug's Life is the best animation after TS3 so I rank it #3 and Avatar is a combo of excellent live action and cgg, and I rank it #4. If I were new to Blu and wanted to start my collection, these are the 4 I would pick to prove that going Blu was worth it!


----------



## djoberg

^^^^


Excellent review tcramer!


Even though I would still like to see _The Thin Red Line_ placed at the top of Tier Blu (for achieving such a visual marvel apart from any CGI), I can surely sympathize with all my peers who want _Toy Story 3_ to have that coveted spot. It is, IMO, the best animated title to date. Maybe _someday_ the seemingly impossible will happen (i.e., a live action movie being voted #1), though quite frankly I don't know what it will take to accomplish that.


----------



## tcramer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19517204
> 
> 
> ^^^^
> 
> 
> Excellent review tcramer!
> 
> 
> Even though I would still like to see _The Thin Red Line_ placed at the top of Tier Blu (for achieving such a visual marvel apart from any CGI), I can surely sympathize with all my peers who want _Toy Story 3_ to have that coveted spot. It is, IMO, the best animated title to date. Maybe _someday_ the seemingly impossible will happen (i.e., a live action movie being voted #1), though quite frankly I don't know what it will take to accomplish that.





That's something I would love to see too. As much as I wanted to put _The Thin Red Line_ at the top, _Toy Story 3_ is just way to impressive and well above and beyond everything else at this point, in my opinion anyways.


----------



## tfoltz

The best looking movie should be on top. Votes should not be screwed just to put a live action film on top. Also, if there is posterization then Thin Red Line should be moved down.


----------



## trinifox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tcramer* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> That's something I would love to see too. As much as I wanted to put The Thin Red Line at the top, Toy Story 3 is just way to impressive and well above and beyond everything else at this point, in my opinion anyways.



Perhaps there may be enough reason to have a split at the top tier for live action vs cgi films? Or there is not enough technical differentiation to do this?


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sujay* /forum/post/19517075
> 
> 
> I was watching Fantastic Mr. Fox, and I thought it was... fantastic. (Sorry.) For the most part at least. One thing I thought was a lacking were the black levels. Contrast was good most of the time but some of the nighttime scenes seemed to really suffer. I looked online and every single review seems to be saying they're solid or excellent. Even some of the reviews in this thread. Did I get a strange copy or are my eyes playing tricks on me?
> 
> 
> To be noted: this is a Netflix copy. It had no features on the first disc (there should be) so maybe it's some altered version?



As far as I know, there haven't been any cases of rental editions with different video encodes from the retail versions. It's probably bound to happen eventually, but in the meantime it seems safe to rate rentals here as if they were "the real thing".


Here's the BDInfo reports for Fantastic Mr. Fox retail and rental (Netflix) showing them to be the same encode:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...postcount=1645 
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...postcount=1395


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Denny, thanks for that great review on Alien!


----------



## Sujay




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/19518682
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sujay* /forum/post/19517075
> 
> 
> I was watching Fantastic Mr. Fox, and I thought it was... fantastic. (Sorry.) For the most part at least. One thing I thought was a lacking were the black levels. Contrast was good most of the time but some of the nighttime scenes seemed to really suffer. I looked online and every single review seems to be saying they're solid or excellent. Even some of the reviews in this thread. Did I get a strange copy or are my eyes playing tricks on me?
> 
> 
> To be noted: this is a Netflix copy. It had no features on the first disc (there should be) so maybe it's some altered version?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I know, there haven't been any cases of rental editions with different video encodes from the retail versions. It's probably bound to happen eventually, but in the meantime it seems safe to rate rentals here as if they were "the real thing".
> 
> 
> Here's the BDInfo reports for Fantastic Mr. Fox retail and rental (Netflix) showing them to be the same encode:
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...postcount=1645
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...postcount=1395
Click to expand...


Hm, okay well that's good. Thanks. I see you scanned it, did you watch it? Did you have any black level issues?


----------



## barry v s

Dragon Hunters


Just finished this movie last night and it really really impressed me. From the detailed animation to the music to the amazing imagery. This definately has alot going for it. WELL worth the $10 price tag. I havent ever posted about a movie in the PQ thread but this movie got me to do it. Highly recommended.


I definately agree with its Tier Zero placement.


Viewed on a Pioneer 60" Kuro 6010 from ~8' via PS3 using D-nice's settings.


----------



## oleus




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19511906
> 
> 
> Thanks for your observations; they are appreciated!
> 
> 
> Have you seen _The Thin Red Line_? Methinks, if you had, you would also include that title in your list of "Criterion at their best."



Not a huge fan of the film, but I will get it from netflix soon and let you know what i think.


With the wildly inconsistent quality of catalog (and even newer) titles, i continue to be amazed at how good the transfer of a campy midnight movie (Rocky Horror) can be in terms of actually looking like FILM when compared to a lot of other titles. The black and white transfer of Dr. Strangelove was a revelation to me as well. DNR, edge-enhancement, and contrast/color boosting on more recent titles is a phenomenon a lot of us naively thought would be a relic of DVD, but in some respects it's actually gotten worse because the added clarity/resolution makes these artifices more visible!!!!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/19517662
> 
> 
> The best looking movie should be on top. Votes should not be screwed just to put a live action film on top. Also, if there is posterization then Thin Red Line should be moved down.



IMO, _The Thin Red Line_ *IS* the best looking movie.


If I want to dazzle my friends with phenomenal bright colors and amazing details, I will put in _Toy Story 3_. But if I want to impress my friends with a real, live action film that has it all (including accurate flesh tones and facial details, which can't really be figured in when you're watching animation), I'll put in _The Thin Red Line_.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/19518958
> 
> 
> Denny, thanks for that great review on Alien!



Thanks Rob!


I'll be looking for your review on this wonderful restoration. I'm assuming you're a fan of the Alien Anthology.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oleus* /forum/post/19520160
> 
> 
> Not a huge fan of the film, but I will get it from netflix soon and let you know what i think.
> 
> 
> With the wildly inconsistent quality of catalog (and even newer) titles, i continue to be amazed at how good the transfer of a campy midnight movie (Rocky Horror) can be in terms of actually looking like FILM when compared to a lot of other titles. The black and white transfer of Dr. Strangelove was a revelation to me as well. DNR, edge-enhancement, and contrast/color boosting on more recent titles is a phenomenon a lot of us naively thought would be a relic of DVD, but in some respects it's actually gotten worse because the added clarity/resolution makes these artifices more visible!!!!



Again, I believe you will be more than delighted with _The Thin Red Line_. It is consistently gorgeous from the opening scene to the rolling of the credits (with the exception of 10 seconds where a bit of posterization takes place....which can be easily dismissed when one considers the long running time of the film and its many attributes).


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*A Christmas Carol (2009)


recommendation: Apex of Tier Zero*


Disney's _A Christmas Carol_ is the greatest visual spectacle I have personally seen on the Blu-ray format, out of nearly 1000 movies watched by now. Certain moments really require a new tier classification, above and beyond what has gone before it. The disc is nearly one continuous demo reel, exhibiting a dimensionality that sparkles with extraordinary depth and pop. An added degree of realism to the animation, aided by the motion-capture process, is what helps set it apart from the other animated titles that dwell in the upper confines of the highest tier. The recommendation can be nothing else but the highest placement in my opinion.


Given the familiarity most adults have with the tale, one can sit back and soak in the spectacular imagery. The scenes involving the Ghosts of Christmas Past and Present are simply stunning. Words are inadequate to describe an image that overwhelms the senses and makes one readjust their expectations for the format. Perfect black levels, colors that melt off the screen, and background detail that just begs to be paused and admired, the Blu-ray should be watched in a light-controlled environment to truly appreciate its wonder.


Only one complaint can be lodged against the transfer, and that is a tiny amount of banding. Most noticeable surrounding the glow of individual candlelights, the AVC-encoded video handles everything flawlessly except slight banding on at least two brief instances. A tiny nitpick to be sure for a picture of this exemplary quality, but fair to point out. Disney handed out their typical bitrate parameters for animation, which should be increased to avoid issues of this type. There is the small chance the banding is endemic to the original animation, but either way it is present.


A stellar presentation in all phases, it should be essential, even required, viewing for videophiles seeking out the best of the best in picture quality. It may just redefine what you expect to see from a Blu-ray. For my tastes, a new standard for eye candy has been established.


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sujay* /forum/post/19519211
> 
> 
> Hm, okay well that's good. Thanks. I see you scanned it, did you watch it? Did you have any black level issues?



I don't recall having any problems with Fantastic Mr. Fox's black levels when I watched it, although flipping through screenshots now I can definitely see where you are coming from. For example, in this shot it is clear that the in-frame blacks are not as dark as the black bars and it would be much more effective if the blacks were deeper:

*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) 



I couldn't find any good examples from the shots I made or from others with areas of deep black, so perhaps they are a bit elevated overall. This probably shouldn't prevent it from being in Tier 0, although it's a good argument for keeping it out of the topmost spots.


----------



## Sujay




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/19521356
> 
> 
> I don't recall having any problems with Fantastic Mr. Fox's black levels when I watched it, although flipping through screenshots now I can definitely see where you are coming from. For example, in this shot it is clear that the in-frame blacks are not as dark as the black bars and it would be much more effective if the blacks were deeper:
> 
> *Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler
> *Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show)
> 
> 
> 
> I couldn't find any good examples from the shots I made or from others with areas of deep black, so perhaps they are a bit elevated overall. This probably shouldn't prevent it from being in Tier 0, although it's a good argument for keeping it out of the topmost spots.



Ah yes, that's exactly the kind of thing I was seeing. There were other times, one particularly bad moment was the initial "meeting" of the badguys that was set entirely at night. Very noticeable there. Anyway, thanks for the confirmation. I might be getting more picky about black levels, but it's also nice to know I'm not going crazy.


----------



## MrTorino351

hi i am having a problem i need help with


----------



## MrTorino351

hey guys sorry to but in but could someone point me in the right direction with my problem, as i mentioned before, i have a brand new 55 inch samsung LCD and i am getting this problem with everything i run through it(all HDMI)


this describes what i am seeing best
http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgu...ed=0CB4Q9QEwAQ 


is there a topic on this already or a way for me to fix


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sujay* /forum/post/19521369
> 
> 
> Ah yes, that's exactly the kind of thing I was seeing. There were other times, one particularly bad moment was the initial "meeting" of the badguys that was set entirely at night. Very noticeable there. Anyway, thanks for the confirmation. I might be getting more picky about black levels, but it's also nice to know I'm not going crazy.



I think all of us are at least a little crazy, since we're here reading and posting.










Personally, I don't get too hung up on elevated black levels unless they are off-the-charts bad (for example, something like Outlander ) but that's probably because I've always viewed on LCD monitors and now an LCD projector (Epson 8500UB). The Epson does a pretty respectable job, but it's not the same as having a nice plasma for the inky blacks department.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19521290
> 
> *A Christmas Carol (2009)
> 
> 
> recommendation: Apex of Tier Zero*



Phantom, thanks for a really good review! This is about #3 in my list to watch this weekend.


However, I think this presents a bit of a conundrum. As far as I know (and correct me if I'm wrong), you have not viewed the current top 2 titles - _Toy Story 3_ and _The Thin Red Line_. So, voting something to be ahead of those two titles doesn't make sense until there is a comparison.


We may need a new procedure/rule to address this occurrence. One way would be that you can only vote above a title that you have viewed (not necessarily reviewed) and can attest is inferior to whichever one is being voted higher. Please note, one doesn't have to view everything in Tier Blu to vote a title to the top spot. Rather, one only needs to have viewed the current top title and make that comparison. I think this yields to a more educated vote to the top spot.


Thoughts?


Incidentally, I have seen the current top 10 at least and, again, will be watching _A Christmas Carol_ this weekend for comparison.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MrTorino351* /forum/post/19521419
> 
> 
> hey guys sorry to but in but could someone point me in the right direction with my problem, as i mentioned before, i have a brand new 55 inch samsung LCD and i am getting this problem with everything i run through it(all HDMI)
> 
> 
> this describes what i am seeing best
> http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgu...ed=0CB4Q9QEwAQ
> 
> 
> is there a topic on this already or a way for me to fix



MrTorino, you would need to provide much more info to troubleshoot this - TV model, receiver (if applicable) model, BR player, connections, settings, etc. The best way to get it diagnosed is to search for your particular equipment in the Hardware threads and pose the question there with the above info. Hope that helps!


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19521442
> 
> 
> Phantom, thanks for a really good review! This is about #3 in my list to watch this weekend.
> 
> 
> However, I think this presents a bit of a conundrum. As far as I know (and correct me if I'm wrong), you have not viewed the current top 2 titles - _Toy Story 3_ and _The Thin Red Line_. So, voting something to be ahead of those two titles doesn't make sense until there is a comparison.



Au contraire, I have seen both movies on Blu-ray. Here is the link to my brief evaluation of Toy Story 3 . The viewing of The Thin Red Line was not on my personal reference display, so I did not feel comfortable evaluating it for the thread. Since I do not own it, I am unsure of when I will get to see it on the Kuro. A Christmas Carol definitely left me in a state of awe that surpassed watching Toy Story 3. Others were more impressed by Toy Story 3's image than myself, which I am still unsure merits the highest placement.


If anyone cares to notice, we have passed two million page views for the thread's entire history in the last day.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19497231
> 
> *A Christmas Carol (2009)*
> 
> 
> A digital feat, loaded with texture and detail. Virtual faces and clothes are brimming with detail. Sharpness is amazing, and the black levels are perfect. That said, this is a dark film, and much of the time color is muted too. When it's bright, it showcases a dazzling array of hues.
> 
> *Tier .50*





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19521290
> 
> *A Christmas Carol (2009)
> 
> 
> recommendation: Apex of Tier Zero*
> 
> 
> Disney's _A Christmas Carol_ is the greatest visual spectacle I have personally seen on the Blu-ray format, out of nearly 1000 movies watched by now. Certain moments really require a new tier classification, above and beyond what has gone before it. The disc is nearly one continuous demo reel, exhibiting a dimensionality that sparkles with extraordinary depth and pop. An added degree of realism to the animation, aided by the motion-capture process, is what helps set it apart from the other animated titles that dwell in the upper confines of the highest tier. The recommendation can be nothing else but the highest placement in my opinion.
> 
> 
> Given the familiarity most adults have with the tale, one can sit back and soak in the spectacular imagery. The scenes involving the Ghosts of Christmas Past and Present are simply stunning. Words are inadequate to describe an image that overwhelms the senses and makes one readjust their expectations for the format. Perfect black levels, colors that melt off the screen, and background detail that just begs to be paused and admired, the Blu-ray should be watched in a light-controlled environment to truly appreciate its wonder.
> 
> 
> Only one complaint can be lodged against the transfer, and that is a tiny amount of banding. Most noticeable surrounding the glow of individual candlelights, the AVC-encoded video handles everything flawlessly except slight banding on at least two brief instances. A tiny nitpick to be sure for a picture of this exemplary quality, but fair to point out. Disney handed out their typical bitrate parameters for animation, which should be increased to avoid issues of this type. There is the small chance the banding is endemic to the original animation, but either way it is present.
> 
> 
> A stellar presentation in all phases, it should be essential, even required, viewing for videophiles seeking out the best of the best in picture quality. It may just redefine what you expect to see from a Blu-ray. For my tastes, a new standard for eye candy has been established.



Oh my, now my appetite is whetted once again!! It _seems_ obvious that we have another Tier 0 title to add to the GROWING list...how great is that! Whether or not it deserves the accolades Phantom has given it remains to be seen (considering the fact that GRG was only willing to recommend the middle of Tier Blu).


I will be leaving on Tuesday or Wednesday for a very long Thanksgiving weekend, but hopefully I'll have the opportunity to rent it before then. If, for some reason, I don't make another post before my trip, I want to wish all my fellow "Home Theater/Blu-ray viewing enthusiasts" a very HAPPY THANKSGIVING!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19521442
> 
> 
> Incidentally, *I have seen the current top 10* at least and, again, will be watching _A Christmas Carol_ this weekend for comparison.



Which means you've seen _The Thin Red Line_. I've been anxiously waiting for your review on this delta, so I trust it will be coming soon.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19521629
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone cares to notice, we have passed two million page views for the thread's entire history in the last day.



Quite the feat given how much criticism this thread has received.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Bridge on the River Kwai*


What an amazing disc. Technicolor is so beautiful, and this film is shot so perfectly, the combination is remarkable. Hardly any damage exists on the print, the only real flaw are the fade edits, and you can't do anything about that. Incredible levels of detail and texture as the jungle scenes make their presence felt. The mid-range is detailed too. The only real issue is the compression, barely noticeable most of the time.

*Tier 1.0*


----------



## djoberg

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* 
*The Bridge on the River Kwai*


What an amazing disc. Technicolor is so beautiful, and this film is shot so perfectly, the combination is remarkable. Hardly any damage exists on the print, the only real flaw are the fade edits, and you can't do anything about that. Incredible levels of detail and texture as the jungle scenes make their presence felt. The mid-range is detailed too. The only real issue is the compression, barely noticeable most of the time.

*Tier 1.0*
Keep those positive reviews coming GRG!! This is another one of my favorite classics that I can look forward to watching in beautiful HD. Yes!!


----------



## rusky_g

*A Christmas Carol 2009*


I concur with Phantom's opinion that this title opens the door to a new world of eye candy, providing a mesmerising experience from start to finish. As commented by GRG, the bright scenes explode with detail and colour which really does pull you into the picture.
*Tier 0 [2nd only to Avatar]*


-----------------------------------------

*Toy Story 3*


Not much to say other than what has been said, without a doubt:

*Tier 0 [3rd place]*




Yet to see TTRL, so for now Avatar holds the top spot for me.



We have been really spoilt these past few weeks folks, lets hope it continues as 2010 draws to a really positive end


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19521696
> 
> 
> I will be leaving on Tuesday or Wednesday for a very long Thanksgiving weekend, but hopefully I'll have the opportunity to rent it before then. If, for some reason, I don't make another post before my trip, I want to wish all my fellow "Home Theater/Blu-ray viewing enthusiasts" a very HAPPY THANKSGIVING!



A happy Thanksgiving to you, Denny. Travel safely and eat well.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g* /forum/post/19524799
> 
> *A Christmas Carol 2009*
> 
> 
> I concur with Phantom's opinion that this title opens the door to a new world of eye candy, providing a mesmerising experience from start to finish. As commented by GRG, the bright scenes explode with detail and colour which really does pull you into the picture.
> *Tier 0 [2nd only to Avatar]*
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------
> 
> *Toy Story 3*
> 
> 
> Not much to say other than what has been said, without a doubt:
> 
> *Tier 0 [3rd place]*



I think some people are going to be shocked when they see A Christmas Carol for the first time. It's the first movie I have seen in 2-D that almost resembles a projected 3-D experience in certain moments. Anyone seen the real 3-D Blu-ray?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19524813
> 
> 
> A happy Thanksgiving to you, Denny. Travel safely and eat well.



Thanks Phantom! I hope the words "eat well" are open to interpretation!











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19524833
> 
> 
> I think some people are going to be shocked when they see A Christmas Carol for the first time. It's the first movie I have seen in 2-D that almost resembles a projected 3-D experience in certain moments. Anyone seen the real 3-D Blu-ray?



I just returned home from one of our local video stores with _A Christmas Carol_. I'm quite excited to see it after your glowing remarks (and those of GRG and now rusky_g). I'll weigh in later tonight.


I would really love to get your take Phantom on _The Thin Red Line_. You mentioned you hadn't seen it on your "personal reference display" (I'm assuming you mean on your "KURO"), so I hope the opportunity will present itself someday. Believe me it looks stunning on the KURO!


----------



## tcramer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19521107
> 
> 
> IMO, _The Thin Red Line_ *IS* the best looking movie.
> 
> 
> If I want to dazzle my friends with phenomenal bright colors and amazing details, I will put in _Toy Story 3_. But if I want to impress my friends with a real, live action film that has it all (including accurate flesh tones and facial details, which can't really be figured in when you're watching animation), I'll put in _The Thin Red Line_.




Well said djoberg.


After seeing Phantom's review of A Christmas Carol, I just added it to the top of my queue. Hopefully I'll be able to check it out within the next week.


----------



## djoberg

*A Christmas Carol*


What a treat! I believe I can echo Phantom's sentiment by saying there are moments in this title that "require a new tier classification, above and beyond what has gone before it." I have NEVER seen such realism in an animated movie, especially in facial features (most notably, that of Mr. Scrooge). I had mentioned yesterday that we could hardly include "flesh tones" and "facial details" in animated titles, but with _A Christmas Carol_ we're on the same level as live action with some of the characters.


DEPTH and DETAIL were the two outstanding features. There were some action scenes where I perceived objects flying towards me. And there were levels of detail unmatched in any other animated title, bar none. Cobblestone streets, Scrooge's leather chair, and most any object seen in daytime scenes were a sight to behold! Pure EYE CANDY!!


Black levels were impressive, as were shadow details, but I did spot a couple of isolated shots where they were a tad murky. The *lighting* in darker scenes was phenomenal, much like those we've been praising in recent Pixar movies.


I seem to be leading up to a "Top of Tier 0" recommendation, but in all honesty I don't believe it merits that coveted position. Why? Because overall this was a _dark_ transfer, and although there were moments of unrivaled PQ, there were MANY shots in darker scenes that didn't reach "King of the Blu-ray Hill" status. In fact, in some of those shots, I thought it was too soft (such as the chase scene through the nighttime streets when Scrooge is being chased by the horse and carriage). I still believe _Toy Story 3_ will grab the average viewer's attention more than _A Christmas Carol_ due to its brilliant colors.


This is a hard one to rate, for on the one hand you have the best animation to date in terms of detail and realism, but on the other hand you have a rather dark title with a limited color palette. Initially I was going to recommend a spot right below the top animated titles in Tier 0 (right below _Meet the Robinsons_), but I feel constrained, due to the superior quality of animation in many scenes, to put it at the #4 position, below _The Thin Red Line_, _Toy Story 3_, and _Avatar_.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 Below Avatar*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19521629
> 
> 
> Au contraire, I have seen both movies on Blu-ray. Here is the link to my brief evaluation of Toy Story 3 . The viewing of The Thin Red Line was not on my personal reference display, so I did not feel comfortable evaluating it for the thread. Since I do not own it, I am unsure of when I will get to see it on the Kuro. A Christmas Carol definitely left me in a state of awe that surpassed watching Toy Story 3. Others were more impressed by Toy Story 3's image than myself, which I am still unsure merits the highest placement.
> 
> 
> If anyone cares to notice, we have passed two million page views for the thread's entire history in the last day.



Oh man, I got au contraired!







Sorry for the oversight, Phantom. I missed that. Do you see my point though, in general? We should only be able to vote above something we've seen first hand. And yes, great milestone surpassing 2 mil!





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19521797
> 
> 
> Which means you've seen _The Thin Red Line_. I've been anxiously waiting for your review on this delta, so I trust it will be coming soon.



Yes, I did finally see it last Friday but have not had a chance to review. I'm about 3 behind in reviews and will have to confer with my notes. I'll try to get them in tonight. The suspense builds!


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19530133
> 
> 
> Oh man, I got au contraired!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry for the oversight, Phantom. I missed that. Do you see my point though, in general? We should only be able to vote above something we've seen first hand. And yes, great milestone surpassing 2 mil!



Your point has validity, though my inclination is to be more inclusive now in regards to recommendations. Even for the titles in the top tier where the exact rankings are more important. The rigorous standards we have imposed on recommendations tend to impose a burden that already prevents some lurkers from proffering their opinions. More participation here is the vital lifeblood that keeps the list accurate and relevant.


So I do not feel it should be a fundamental requirement for each person giving their top selections to have seen every Blu-ray above it. I am but one man, so anyone can feel free to chime in on the issue. Of course if a poster does not give a context to their recommendations for the very best Blu-rays, it would not be unfair to weigh it slightly less in the final tally. A few titles are more contentious placements where each opinion can sway the matter.


----------



## 42041

*The Last of the Mohicans*


Opinion seems fairly polarized regarding this title, but I happen to think it looks outstanding. This is my first time seeing the film in its entirety, so I have no frame of reference with respect to previous DVD releases. The transfer conveys Dante Spinotti's skillful cinematography in beautifully film-like fashion, with no trace of excess sharpening to be found. Detail is excellent when the film captures it, which is somewhat inconsistently; I believe the issue to be entirely with the original anamorphic photography and the occasional optical subtitle. IMHO many daylight shots are solidly in upper Tier 1 range. The low-light sequences are the more problematic, and the occasional weirdly grainy/unfocused/red-tinted shot is bothersome. It's a fairly dark transfer, but I didn't find it bothersome on my Kuro. Considering the number of low-lit scenes, I don't think it's "demo material" per the criteria of this thread, but I'm very satisfied with this presentation.

*Tier 2.5*


(PS1/Pioneer 50" Kuro Elite/1 screen width distance)


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/19532385
> 
> *The Last of the Mohicans*
> 
> 
> Opinion seems fairly polarized regarding this title, but I happen to think it looks outstanding. This is my first time seeing the film in its entirety, so I have no frame of reference with respect to previous DVD releases. The transfer conveys Dante Spinotti's skillful cinematography in beautifully film-like fashion, with no trace of excess sharpening to be found. Detail is excellent when the film captures it, which is somewhat inconsistently; I believe the issue to be entirely with the original anamorphic photography and the occasional optical subtitle. IMHO many daylight shots are solidly in upper Tier 1 range. The low-light sequences are the more problematic, and the occasional weirdly grainy/unfocused/red-tinted shot is bothersome. It's a fairly dark transfer, but I didn't find it bothersome on my Kuro. Considering the number of low-lit scenes, I don't think it's "demo material" per the criteria of this thread, but I'm very satisfied with this presentation.
> 
> 
> Thanks for the review 42041. For the record, I too was "very satisfied with this presentation." I said as much in my review, for it was infinitely better than the previous DVD releases.
> 
> *Tier 2.5*
> 
> 
> (PS1/Pioneer 50" Kuro Elite/1 screen width distance)



Thanks for the review 42041!


For the record, I too was "very satisfied with this presentation." I said as much in my review, for it was a dramatic improvement over any of the previous DVD releases. I gave it a 3.5 because of the dark scenes that didn't hold up very well, but I was more than impressed with the detail in most of the daytime scenes. The cinematography in the last 20 minutes was glorious!


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Expendables*


Something tells me this one was a wee bit too compressed. There are too many of "those" close-ups where the detail just isn't there or simply smoothed over. Don't take this the wrong way. Most of it does look spectacular, lots of detail in many of these frames, but those shots where the detail flattens and the blacks let go stick out distractingly. Grain is at times poorly resolved too.

*Tier 2.25*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19534989
> 
> *The Expendables*
> 
> 
> Something tells me this one was a wee bit too compressed. There are too many of "those" close-ups where the detail just isn't there or simply smoothed over. Don't take this the wrong way. Most of it does look spectacular, lots of detail in many of these frames, but those shots where the detail flattens and the blacks let go stick out distractingly. Grain is at times poorly resolved too.
> 
> *Tier 2.25*



I JUST got home after picking this up at the video store. I've been looking forward to this for some time and if the PQ is 2.25 quality that's okay with me. Did you like the movie GRG?


----------



## lgans316

*Karate Kid (2010)*


Bright, colorful and nice blacks let down by some a number of soft focussed shots and facial close-ups which looked hardly above average. Depth of field appeared limited and filtered in some exterior shots possibly due to the soft and smooth cinematography.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 2*


---------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Predators*


The first hour looked very good but once darkness steps in the PQ consequently takes a hit. Close-up and facial details are resolved better than Karate Kid. This one reminded me of Robin Hood which had a slightly bleak cinematography. Some complained that the picture is too dark. I agree that it is dark but it isn't too dark but this trend is not going to do any good to eye candy fans who expect pristine PQ.









*Tier Recommendation: Tier 2.25*


Overall, I enjoyed Karate Kid more than Predators which I thought was a missed opportunity.


----------



## djoberg

*The Expendables*


It's late...the wife and I are leaving early tomorrow...and I wasn't overly impressed with this transfer...so, this will be SHORT!


A one-word summary would be: INCONSISTENT! Whether we're talking black levels, detail, grain structure, clarity....it doesn't matter. One minute we're blessed with a sharp-looking picture with a nice film-like look, plenty of eye-popping detail (especially in facial close-ups and biceps







), beautiful colors, and exquisite black levels & shadow details. The next minute we're cursed with a flat-looking picture with too much grain or digital noise, a lack of detail, and murky blacks that are void of shadow details. This could have easily been a high Tier 1 contender if the virtues had held up, but as it is I have to go along with my colleague GRG and assign it to Tier 2. I am happy to say that the majorty of the movie's running time (of approximately 100 minutes) exhibited the positives mentioned above, so I'm going to go one notch higher that GRG and put it right here....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5


PS The audio ROCKED! Tier 0 all the way in that department...there were more explosions in this than I've seen for a very long time, especially the last 15 minutes or so. Prepare to give your sub a stress test!


----------



## deltasun

*The Expendables*


Denny beat me to it, but it is the best way to describe this title: INCONSISTENT. There are some ultra-close up's that are so detailed and textured, one wonders how it could go the other way. But it does, check out Bruce Willis - soft. Yet, Stallone looks sharp in the same shot. Black levels are the same - murky one minute and great shadow details the next.


I will keep it the same as GRG in this case.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*


I enjoyed this more than I thought I would. It had the beginnings of cheese, but actually got more entertaining. And yes, the audio was dynamite!

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

*Predators*


Another inconsistent title, more apt would be a tale of two halves. As the others have commented, great detail, color, and depth in the beginning. Once in the dark, dimensionality and detail fled to zero.


Facial details in the light are still only tier 1 quality. Greens are lush and well-saturated, which really complemented the look and mystery at the start. The red beams are a fine contrast to the dark, sweaty jungle. Noise isn't much of a problem.


I believe the details and texture in the first hour or so is enough to put this ahead of my recently watched and fellow inconsistent title, _The Expendables_.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

*The Secret in their Eyes*


PQ really varies for this title depending on the setting. When indoors, the fluorescent lighting really made for pasty looking skin tones. Outdoors, contrast seemed an issue but did bring the color out. The Red One, used for this feature, did not really offer the fine details we've seen in the past. Facial close-up's, though one can see all the lines and creases in the actors' faces, looked really smooth and puffy.


This smoothness carried through other aspects of texture and proved bothersome for me. Still, there are some decent dimensionality in a number of scenes. Blacks are not the inkiest, but appeared bold. Contrast waned a bit from scene to scene. Shadow details are average.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*


Movie-wise, this was a good find. The storyline was engaging and the dialogue had good humor. Not a movie designed for repeat viewings, but the first time is well worth it. Recommended!

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

*Prince of Persia*


The golden hue did this film's PQ in for me. It messed with the skin tones, though it can be explained as the acceptable tone in that type of climate and environs. Colors (primaries, in particular) did appear vivid. While aerial and cityscape shots provided plenty of detail and dimensionality, I expected more from the facials. On the contrary, surrounding objects did hold more details and texture. Contrast was up and down also, but can't complain too much. Blacks were fantastic, though some crush does occur.


Shadow details could have been a tad better, but again, in some instances they were superb. Overall, I believe this still had the sheen to keep it competing in Tier Silver.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

Denny, have a safe trip and happy Thanksgiving to you and yours as well! I'm going to re-watch _The Thin Red Line_, because I really want to give it justice. It is beautiful, but I only have it in low Tier 0 currently. I want to see it again after a few other titles and officially chime in.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19535296
> 
> 
> I JUST got home after picking this up at the video store. I've been looking forward to this for some time and if the PQ is 2.25 quality that's okay with me. Did you like the movie GRG?



LOVED the movie, especially when it really picked up at the end. Terry Crews running through the hallways with a shotgun blowing everybody away? Awesome.

*Eat Pray Love*


The whole movie has a slight filter over it, at times more offensive than others. There is an unintentionally hilarious shot of James Franco where he's made to look like a saint because of the blooming. Still some great detail in close at times, pleasing color, and consistent blacks if not the deepest.

*Tier 3.0*


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/19532385
> 
> *The Last of the Mohicans*
> 
> 
> Opinion seems fairly polarized regarding this title, but I happen to think it looks outstanding. This is my first time seeing the film in its entirety, so I have no frame of reference with respect to previous DVD releases. The transfer conveys Dante Spinotti's skillful cinematography in beautifully film-like fashion, with no trace of excess sharpening to be found. Detail is excellent when the film captures it, which is somewhat inconsistently; I believe the issue to be entirely with the original anamorphic photography and the occasional optical subtitle. IMHO many daylight shots are solidly in upper Tier 1 range. The low-light sequences are the more problematic, and the occasional weirdly grainy/unfocused/red-tinted shot is bothersome. It's a fairly dark transfer, but I didn't find it bothersome on my Kuro. Considering the number of low-lit scenes, I don't think it's "demo material" per the criteria of this thread, but I'm very satisfied with this presentation.
> 
> *Tier 2.5*
> 
> 
> (PS1/Pioneer 50" Kuro Elite/1 screen width distance)





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19534674
> 
> 
> Thanks for the review 42041!
> 
> 
> For the record, I too was "very satisfied with this presentation." I said as much in my review, for it was a dramatic improvement over any of the previous DVD releases. I gave it a 3.5 because of the dark scenes that didn't hold up very well, but I was more than impressed with the detail in most of the daytime scenes. The cinematography in the last 20 minutes was glorious!



I watched this last week and overall was pleased taking into account the style of filming as being a bit dark. It seems Michael Mann likes the use of "natural" as possible lighting to lend a sense of realism and mood in his films and especially in Last of the Mohicans.


Denny, the last scene on the plateau made me say to myself, why couldn't the entire film look that way. CLear, sharp PQ mostly hovering in tier 0 and reminded me of my recent viewing of the The Thin Red Line.

*Last of the Mohicans: Recommendation Tier 2.5*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Happy Thanksgiving to everyone reading here! May all your turkeys be plump and juicy tomorrow. Hopefully everyone gets in on some of the cheap Blu-rays that Amazon has been offering for Black Friday week, to generate more reviews.


----------



## Hughmc

Happy thanksgiving phantom and all. I am in NY ten days.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Happy Thanksgiving!!!


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19498489
> 
> 
> Hey Patrick....I received my _Alien Anthology_ set this morning, so it only took 7-8 days to ship it. Not bad! I more than likely won't be viewing them until at least this weekend.
> 
> 
> I'm still really curious to get your take on this set, so please write in after you've seen some or all of them. Thanks!
> 
> 
> Denny





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19434537
> 
> *Alien*
> 
> 
> Incredible. The film looks almost new, and quite often. The clarity is really impressive, no tinkering here beyond the colors, which are not that offensive either. Detail is striking. *The only shots that falter are inside the control room, and they falter pretty bad for some reason.* Blacks are exceptional, and the contrast is great.
> 
> *Tier 2.25*






> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19515707
> 
> *Alien*
> 
> 
> This is an OUTSTANDING restoration that, IMHO, is worthy of demo-status, even if it's on the very border between Tiers 1 and 2. As GRG noted (and MANY others in reviews outside this thread), it's looks like new.
> 
> 
> I absolutely LOVE any film that highlights blacks (KURO means BLACK, ya know
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ), and _Alien_ featured these in almost every scene. The shots of outer space were spectacular, as were dark interior shots of the space ship. Shadow details were phenomenal throughout, with the exception of a few shots in air chambers or other enclosed areas. *The director chose to give us many shots of instrument panels and the walls of the ship and they were either low Tier 0 or high Tier 1 quality. Amazing, considering it dates back to 1979!*
> 
> 
> Facial details were off the charts, especially towards the end of the movie. In GRG's full length review on his website he refers to the intricate details in Brett's face before he's attacked by the alien. These were as good as I've ever seen and from that point on every actor's face was pure EYE CANDY. Even facial shots earlier on in the film were very good, though there weren't as many close-ups.
> 
> 
> Colors were limited, but those that did appear were vivid and natural. Contrast was superb from beginning to end. The clarity in the majority of scenes was excellent.
> 
> 
> My only gripe would be sporadic scenes of softness. They were inherent to the source, but the standards of this thread dictate penalization because of these. As mentioned above, there were some scenes where shadow details faltered, so this too will cause me to dock the final score by perhaps a quarter of a tier.
> 
> 
> GRG's review is the only review prior to mine and he gave it a 2.25. I feel it deserves a notch or two higher, so I'm going with.....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75*
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'
> 
> 
> PS Because of the _dark_ nature of this film and the negatives cited in my review, I could see where my colleagues might reject a demo status and put it in Tier 2 (as GRG did). If so, I won't lose any sleep over it. But if you love awesome blacks levels and shadow details like I do, you may very well be in favor of the demo tier too.



Thanks again for your interest in my thoughts, Denny.


To me, I would say that Tier 2.25 is more what I see.


I agree that facial close-ups were generally very good, but there was too much softness in medium shots and even relatively close shots of details of the ship interiors. I agree that the softness was most pronounced in the control room, but to my eyes it wasn't limited to those shots.


I agree that there seems to be no manipulation of the image and probably this is the best it can look. But to me it definitely does not look new or even almost new.


Happy Thanksgiving everybody.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Victory at Sea*


We have a series comprised of footage taken during WWII in 35mm, 16mm, and 8mm, mostly during combat, then spliced together onto another negative. There's just not a lot you can do with that. The restoration is fairly impressive for sure, but the overall level of damage and wildly varying quality from one shot to the next unfortunately dips this to the bottom rung. It's a shame because it looks impressive for what it is, but not for this thread.

*Tier 5.0*


----------



## deltasun

*A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving*

Happy Thanksgiving, Everyone!!


There are really two features in the BR and so I will rate them separately and average them.


The main feature did not fare so well over the years. It's moderately to heavily grainy with plenty of specks and dirt. Colors are unfortunately lifeless and dull. Blacks do better, but contrast wavers in certain scenes. Artifacting is also evident. _*Tier Recommendation: 4.50*_

_Mayflower Voyagers_, on the other hand, looks great! A fine layer of grain is evident throughout with minor specks present. Colors are a bit more saturated and vivid, helping the feature come alive (it also doesn't hurt that I watched this immediately after the main feature







). There's a bit more dimensionality and blacks remain excellent. Throw in something like _Ponyo_ for comparison, and this still comes in at..._*Tier Recommendation: 3.25*_

*Tier Recommendation: 3.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## JoeBloggz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19521107
> 
> 
> imo, _the thin red line_ *is* the best looking movie.
> 
> 
> If i want to dazzle my friends with phenomenal bright colors and amazing details, i will put in _toy story 3_. But if i want to impress my friends with a real, live action film that has it all (including accurate flesh tones and facial details, which can't really be figured in when you're watching animation), i'll put in _the thin red line_.


*+1*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/19544158
> 
> 
> Thanks again for your interest in my thoughts, Denny.
> 
> 
> To me, I would say that Tier 2.25 is more what I see.
> 
> 
> I agree that facial close-ups were generally very good, but there was too much softness in medium shots and even relatively close shots of details of the ship interiors. I agree that the softness was most pronounced in the control room, but to my eyes it wasn't limited to those shots.
> 
> 
> I agree that there seems to be no manipulation of the image and probably this is the best it can look. But to me it definitely does not look new or even almost new.
> 
> 
> Happy Thanksgiving everybody.



We just returned home (early) from our "Thanksgiving" weekend. Thanks for your thoughts Patrick. For the most part we are in agreement and as I intimated in my review I can see where others would want this title in Tier 2. I hope you weigh in on the other titles in the Alien Anthology after you view them. I may not be getting to them for awhile, though I may be able to sneak in _Aliens_ later tonight or tomorrow.


I trust you all had a good Thanksgiving. We were blessed with a house full of 22 family members (my daughters are VERY fertile







) in a northern suburb of Minneapolis. The weather was a bit dicey but we hunkered down and ate and played games and watched football...and then ate some more...and then ate some more, etc. I don't believe I heeded Phantom's exhortation to "eat well."


----------



## djoberg

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Hughmc* 
I watched this last week and overall was pleased taking into account the style of filming as being a bit dark. It seems Michael Mann likes the use of "natural" as possible lighting to lend a sense of realism and mood in his films and especially in Last of the Mohicans.


Denny, the last scene on the plateau made me say to myself, why couldn't the entire film look that way. CLear, sharp PQ mostly hovering in tier 0 and reminded me of my recent viewing of the The Thin Red Line.

*Last of the Mohicans: Recommendation Tier 2.5*
Agree with you 100% Hugh! I have seen this movie MANY times and I grew accustomed to the style long ago. It really doesn't bother me one iota. And yet....that last scene was so beautiful that it left me wishing the whole transfer had been that good.


I hope you're having a great time in NY Hugh. My wife and I were there (in East Manhattan) last year about this time and it was a memorable experience.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Having just recently watched Fantastic Mr. Fox in its entirety, does anyone else think the current position as the 19th best disc is a bit high? Fox definitely deserves to be in the top tier, but a few things drop it in my mind against the other top contenders. The amber and gold tones that dominate the palette are a different choice of aesthetic that are not quite the equal of the bold primary colors of the CGI movies. Another factor is the stilted, quirky movement of the characters and the stop-motion production. Detail and fluidity is just not as high in some instances.


A ranking in the lower half of Tier 0 looks more correct to my eyes.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19558126
> 
> 
> Having just recently watched Fantastic Mr. Fox in its entirety, does anyone else think the current position as the 19th best disc is a bit high? Fox definitely deserves to be in the top tier, but a few things drop it in my mind against the other top contenders. The amber and gold tones that dominate the palette are a different choice of aesthetic that are not quite the equal of the bold primary colors of the CGI movies. Another factor is the stilted, quirky movement of the characters and the stop-motion production. Detail and fluidity is just not as high in some instances.
> 
> 
> A ranking in the lower half of Tier 0 looks more correct to my eyes.



I would go along with that suggestion Phantom. I remember being underwhelmed by the choice of gold tones that dominated the title and I said as much in my review.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...ostcount=15662


----------



## Sujay

I don't know if I would factor in things like animation style when it comes to rating video quality personally. The style of that movie added a lot to its charm and personality, including the color choices, which were obviously very intentional. To compare two different types of movies like that... I don't know if that's how I'd rank or review for picture quality. Otherwise every movie would look the same. I take more issues with the technical qualities of that transfer, like black levels and contrast, which I mentioned being disappointed in earlier in the thread in regards to FMF.


----------



## deltasun

^^ Agreed. I don't think we penalize for color (or lack thereof) choice. In theory, a black and white feature should be able to make it to the top tier if it met all the other requirements. I would also say the stop motion should only be penalized if it affects PQ. Having said all that, 19th place seems pretty lofty for that title. I re-read my review, and I can't quite contradict it without watching it again. I almost picked it up during BF, but the price went back up before I could act.


Phantom: be careful about the movements and technique of animation - _Sleeping Beauty_ may slip out of Tier 0.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sujay* /forum/post/19558507
> 
> 
> I don't know if I would factor in things like animation style when it comes to rating video quality personally. The style of that movie added a lot to its charm and personality, including the color choices, which were obviously very intentional. To compare two different types of movies like that... I don't know if that's how I'd rank or review for picture quality. Otherwise every movie would look the same. I take more issues with the technical qualities of that transfer, like black levels and contrast, which I mentioned being disappointed in earlier in the thread in regards to FMF.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19559082
> 
> 
> ^^ Agreed. I don't think we penalize for color (or lack thereof) choice. In theory, a black and white feature should be able to make it to the top tier if it met all the other requirements. I would also say the stop motion should only be penalized if it affects PQ. Having said all that, 19th place seems pretty lofty for that title. I re-read my review, and I can't quite contradict it without watching it again. I almost picked it up during BF, but the price went back up before I could act.
> 
> 
> Phantom: be careful about the movements and technique of animation - _Sleeping Beauty_ may slip out of Tier 0.



While I agree in *theory* with what you two are saying, I don't believe it holds up in *practice*. I would point you to _Toy Story 3_ to prove my point, for I truly believe that title is being recommended for the #1 spot (by a majority of reviewers) for one huge contributing factor: *BRIGHT COLORS!!* It simply can't be denied that if the colors are done right (and they SURELY are in _Toy Story 3_), they are a _BIG_ *EYE CANDY* factor. In the case of _Fantastic Mr. Fox_, there isn't the color factor and many of us are inclined to think less of it based on that one criterion.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19559082
> 
> 
> ^^ Agreed. I don't think we penalize for color (or lack thereof) choice.



Well, I think we certainly *can* penalize for color. If I think that a live action film has colors that are not natural and are far too saturated, it obviously has an impact on overall PQ. But I think I know what you are saying in context of animation.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

One thing I forgot to include about Fantastic Mr. Fox was the relative lack of depth to the image. The sense of space was flatter and more confined than a lot of the best CGI titles. The choice of color palette is certainly quirky and fits the movie's style. It is not a huge detriment by any means to the picture quality, but one has to look at every determining criteria possible when making precise rankings in the top tier.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19559567
> 
> 
> While I agree in *theory* with what you two are saying, I don't believe it holds up in *practice*. I would point you to _Toy Story 3_ to prove my point, for I truly believe that title is being recommended for the #1 spot (by a majority of reviewers) for one huge contributing factor: *BRIGHT COLORS!!* It simply can't be denied that if the colors are done right (and they SURELY are in _Toy Story 3_), they are a _BIG_ *EYE CANDY* factor. In the case of _Fantastic Mr. Fox_, there isn't the color factor and many of us are inclined to think less of it based on that one criterion.



That's the strength for that particular color-filled feature. However, I would still submit that a blandly-colored feature can take top spot if the look works. I thought _The Machinist_ came close at 1.5, but had some softness and poor black levels. It could have easily gone to Tier 0 even with it's very stylistic look. But yes, it's quite more difficult for them.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/19559568
> 
> 
> Well, I think we certainly *can* penalize for color. If I think that a live action film has colors that are not natural and are far too saturated, it obviously has an impact on overall PQ. But I think I know what you are saying in context of animation.



I think you do get my context. If it's not animation and the colors are off, e.g. skin tones, it definitely loses points. I suppose points could also be taken off in animation if the gold color really is distracting. But, in my opinion, it shouldn't be automatic just because there's a preference of color.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19560659
> 
> 
> One thing I forgot to include about Fantastic Mr. Fox was the relative lack of depth to the image. The sense of space was flatter and more confined than a lot of the best CGI titles. The choice of color palette is certainly quirky and fits the movie's style. It is not a huge detriment by any means to the picture quality, but one has to look at every determining criteria possible when making precise rankings in the top tier.



Agreed!


----------



## djoberg

*Aliens*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19439954
> 
> *Aliens*
> 
> Not quite as detailed as Alien, but still up there. Grain is well resolved. The biggest issue here are the black levels, which vary wildly from scene to scene. Colors are tinted, certainly a little unnatural but still delivering a pleasing image.
> 
> *Tier 2.75*



I agree with GRG's assessment on all counts (not as detailed as in _Alien_....grain is well resolved....and inconsistent black levels). He didn't mention facial details in close-ups, but they were just as good (if not better) as in _Alien_ and were far more numerous. There were also a lot more soft scenes, which came across as flat and lacking detail. All things considered this was NOT as good PQ-wise, but with the amazing facial details I would still go a notch or two higher that GRG's placement.....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25 or 2.5*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19560800
> 
> *Aliens*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with GRG's assessment on all counts (not as detailed as in _Alien_....grain is well resolved....and inconsistent black levels). He didn't mention facial details in close-ups, but they were just as good (if not better) as in _Alien_ and were far more numerous. There were also a lot more soft scenes, which came across as flat and lacking detail. All things considered this was NOT as good PQ-wise, but with the amazing facial details I would still go a notch or two higher that GRG's placement.....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.25 or 2.5*
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'



I cannot agree that Aliens is not as detailed as Alien. I never saw in Aliens the truly embarrassing softness that I very often saw in Alien.


That is not to say that Aliens looked perfect by any means, but it did, to me look notably better in terms of clarity and detail than Alien.


With Aliens, however, in contrast to Alien, I did NOT feel that what I was seeing was the best it could look. It seemed to me that the video bitrate was somewhat stingy for a movie with a 1.78:1 aspect ratio.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/19561390
> 
> 
> I cannot agree that Aliens is not as detailed as Alien. I never saw in Aliens the truly embarrassing softness that I very often saw in Alien.



We'll have to "agree to disagree" on this one Patrick, for I thought _Alien_ had better detailed interior shots, especially of instrument panels and corridors. I also thought there were a lot more soft shots in _Aliens_, mostly in interior scenes but also some outside when they were investigating the colony.


Where _Aliens_ trumped _Alien_ was in facial details, for there were MANY more close-ups (right from the beginning). I should add that in those shots the detail of the person's clothes and other objects were also remarkable.


What did you think of the black levels? I personally was very disappointed. In _Alien_ you had consistent black levels and shadow details (with a couple of fleeting exceptions), but in _Aliens_ they were often quite murky.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19561751
> 
> 
> We'll have to "agree to disagree" on this one Patrick, for I thought _Alien_ had *better detailed interior shots, especially of instrument panels and corridors.* I also thought there were a lot more soft shots in _Aliens_, mostly in interior scenes but also some outside when they were investigating the colony.
> 
> 
> Where _Aliens_ trumped _Alien_ was in facial details, for there were MANY more close-ups (right from the beginning). I should add that in those shots the detail of the person's clothes and other objects were also remarkable.
> 
> 
> What did you think of the black levels? I personally was very disappointed. In _Alien_ you had consistent black levels and shadow details (with a couple of fleeting exceptions), but in _Aliens_ they were often quite murky.



Denny, it was precisely in the shots of instrument panels and corridors that I thought Alien was at its weakest (softest).


See what you get for encouraging me to speak up on these movies?

















You should know by now that what I care about is detail, sharpness, and clarity. Black levels are not what I care about.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/19564091
> 
> 
> Denny, it was precisely in the shots of instrument panels and corridors that I thought Alien was at its weakest (softest).
> 
> 
> See what you get for encouraging me to speak up on these movies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should know by now that what I care about is detail, sharpness, and clarity. Black levels are not what I care about.



Patrick, we've just got to get together some time so I can see what you're seeing (or NOT seeing)!










Even if we don't agree, I'm glad to hear from you. I have ALWAYS admired your honesty, even when the consensus is going the other way. And in fairness, we have actually agreed on some things in the past and when that happens it's really _sweet_.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Knight and Day*


The big issues here are a wildly varying level of grain resolution and some smoothing applied to Cameron Diaz (can this please stop?). I can deal with the orange flesh tones, but the noisy grain is a bother on a random basis. Some really awesome texture on display though at times when it's under control, and the environments look great. Blacks are superb save for some sequence.

*Tier 2.0*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19569304
> 
> *Knight and Day*
> 
> 
> The big issues here are a wildly varying level of grain resolution and some smoothing applied to Cameron Diaz (can this please stop?). I can deal with the orange flesh tones, but the noisy grain is a bother on a random basis. Some really awesome texture on display though at times when it's under control, and the environments look great. Blacks are superb save for some sequence.
> 
> *Tier 2.0*



Thanks for the review (as always) GRG! I just rented this an hour ago and plan to watch it tonight. Sorry to hear about the grain/smoothing, but I'm looking forward to the awesome texture/superb blacks.


----------



## deltasun

^^^ Hopefully, it's a good flick! I blind-bought this a couple months ago when there was a good deal.


----------



## djoberg

*Knight and Day*


First of all (deltasun), I hope your "blind-buy" was insanely cheap, for after one viewing you'll most certainly assign this to your pile of (never-to-be-seen-again) archives, or to your garbage, or you'll put it on eBay (where someone else will part with a few bucks, hoping to get lucky). (In fairness I should say it had its moments which entertained both my wife and I. We especially enjoyed the role played by Miss Diaz.)


The PQ was quite good! GRG was spot on with his take on the black levels and I might add that the shadow details were exquisite at times. These added a sense of depth to several scenes, as well as enhancing the colors.


Flesh tones did indeed have a golden hue much of the time and in a few isolated shots they became reddish. Facial details were excellent for the most part (high Tier 1 quality) with the exception of Cameron Diaz (the *smoothing* referred to by GRG).


There were a few soft shots, but overall it was sharp and detailed. Even the many fast-motion shots held up remarkably well. Film grain was minimal and I thought it looked good (in contrast to GRG's remarks about a "varying level of grain resolution").


To _my eyes_ the PQ kept getting better as the movie progressed, with the majority of scenes falling some where in Tier 1. Once again I feel constrained to bump it up a notch from my colleague's recommendation, and thus I'm voting for........

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19572176
> 
> *Knight and Day*
> 
> 
> First of all (deltasun), I hope your "blind-buy" was insanely cheap, for after one viewing you'll most certainly assign this to your pile of (never-to-be-seen-again) archives, or to your garbage, or you'll put it on eBay (where someone else will part with a few bucks, hoping to get lucky). (In fairness I should say it had its moments which entertained both my wife and I. We especially enjoyed the role played by Miss Diaz.)



Nooooooooo....I usually don't blind buy, but thought this may be one that's safe. Oh well.







At least the PQ may be okay. Thanks, hopefully I'm in a more open mood when mine arrives.


I'll have a review for _Fantasia_ up in a few...


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19572376
> 
> 
> Nooooooooo....I usually don't blind buy, but thought this may be one that's safe. Oh well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least the PQ may be okay. Thanks, hopefully I'm in a more open mood when mine arrives.



Again, it had its moments delta. And I DID enjoy the incredible predicaments that Miss Diaz found herself in throughout the movie (especially a hilarious scene involving "truth serum"). But being a characteristic "mindless" action/comedy it isn't something I find worthy of multiple viewings.


----------



## deltasun

*Fantasia*


I chose to review _Fantasia_ and _Fantasia 2000_ separately since they are two entities and come in two different discs, albeit one blu-ray package.


First off, this is a wonderful restoration of a 1940 film. Some colors retain their vibrancy, clarity, and even brilliance. Blacks are deep, contrast excellent. The obvious drawback being that _Fantasia_ has to be compared to more recent animation, particularly Pixar offerings. For the most part, it is soft due to the nature of the painted animation. Colors are flat. The live action suffers from not having much definition. There is banding, color bleeding, and some ringing.


The best sequence for me PQ-wise is Dance of the Hours, where the animation peaks at upper Tier 2 / lower Tier 1. Overall, I still place this below average as defined by our tier structures.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

*A Christmas Carol (2009)*


Let me just start by saying the depth and pure dimensionality on this title was simply staggering! 3D in a 2D shell. I think it's the details that give it a 3D effect even in medium to short shots. The facial expressions and subtle skin movements are a marvel to watch. Black levels are excellent. There are many scenes where it seems blacks were more dark gray than black. However, I believe those truly were dark gray. I thought colors, from white to black, are perfectly rendered.


Shadow details is another characteristic that is underrated in this feature. I felt there is as much dimensionality in the darkest of scenes. Having said all that, I've only noticed a few nitpicks - namely some aliasing in Scrooge's hair in the beginning and some minor banding.


Overall I would place this just between _Toy Story 3_ and _Avatar_ in Tier 0.

*Tier Recommendation: 0*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

*Fantasia 2000*


The animation and live action are vastly improved in _Fantasia 2000_ in depth, clarity, and rendering. Blacks are deep and movements are more fluid (with the exception of Pines of Rome, which also featured some macro blocking as well as some primitive computer animation by today's standards). Some dimensionality was evident in the Firebird Suite presentation and blacks remained inky for most of the film.


The famed Sorcerer's Apprentice from the original _Fantasia_ is included here as well, which drops the PQ a bit, but not by much. Overall, I believe this still languishes in the Silver Tier.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.5*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Sorcerer's Apprentice*

Black levels. Period. Some of the best ever, and most of the movie is stuck at night. Detail in close in strong and consistent, but tends to fall apart in the mid-range. The movie has the worst application of the orange/teal palette I've ever seen in the second half, the oranges bleeding out blending blonde hair and what looks like sun-fried skin. Some artifacting during the Chinese celebration too.

*Tier 1.75*


----------



## deltasun

*Audition*


This one's atrocious! It's like watching standard definition. Grain is moderate and can be seen as noise in darker areas. Flesh tones vary, but are usually on the reddish side. Occasionally, some facial details may emerge. Blacks are deep, but crushed and contrast is sub par. There is ringing, a smattering of dirt/specks (including some burnt in segments), artifacts, and very little dimensionality. Softness abounds as well.


Clearly...

*Tier Recommendation: 5.0*


If you have a weak stomach, don't try this.









_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Nature of Existence*


If you know of a problem that can happen within a Blu-ray, this disc has it. I'm betting this was shot in SD, because there's no other excuse, and the interlacing is so severe, the upscale to 1080i did it no favors. Black crush, hot contrast, poor color, banding, aliasing, macroblocking, halos, lackluster detail... I could keep going.

*Tier 5.0*


----------



## djoberg

*The Sorcerer's Apprentice*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19575687
> 
> *Sorcerer's Apprentice*
> 
> Black levels. Period. Some of the best ever, and most of the movie is stuck at night. Detail in close in strong and consistent, but tends to fall apart in the mid-range. The movie has the worst application of the orange/teal palette I've ever seen in the second half, the oranges bleeding out blending blonde hair and what looks like sun-fried skin. Some artifacting during the Chinese celebration too.
> 
> *Tier 1.75*



I COMPLETELY agree with every point made by GRG, except for one thing. The blacks, although very good, were not "some of the best ever." In addition to his assessment, I would add that the facial details were really inconsistent; one minute you would have a close-up of Cage or Molina that rose to Tier 0 heights, and the next minute (mostly in midrange shots) they seemed a bit smoothed over (with brief instances of digital noise on a couple of occasions).


I was so disappointed with especially the orange hues (that wreaked havoc on flesh tones BIG TIME) and the artifacting during the celebration in China Town that I find it hard to assign this to a demo-worthy tier. It's close though, so I'm putting it right here....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## deltasun

*Sorcerer's Apprentice*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19581679
> 
> *The Sorcerer's Apprentice*
> 
> 
> I COMPLETELY agree with every point made by GRG, except for one thing. The blacks, although very good, were not "some of the best ever." In addition to his assessment, I would add that the facial details were really inconsistent; one minute you would have a close-up of Cage or Molina that rose to Tier 0 heights, and the next minute (mostly in midrange shots) they seemed a bit smoothed over (with brief instances of digital noise on a couple of occasions).
> 
> 
> I was so disappointed with especially the orange hues (that wreaked havoc on flesh tones BIG TIME) and the artifacting during the celebration in China Town that I find it hard to assign this to a demo-worthy tier. It's close though, so I'm putting it right here....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.0*
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'



Exactly what I was going to add to GRG's review. I was even going with the 2.0 rating. Yes, I thought black levels can be better. Some of the shadow scenes turned murky for me. I also felt the same about the orangeness (Bruckheimer special) of the skin tones.


Nice job, guys! I will piggyback.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


----------



## djoberg

*The Twilight Saga: Eclipse*


I am really, really beginning to get frustrated by the absolute INCONSISTENCY in many of today's Blu-ray transfers. Here is yet another title that could easily have been a low Tier 0 or high Tier 1 contender were it not for this. Sigh! Perhaps this is why it is so refreshing to see a movie like _The Thin Red Line_ where you are actually waiting for the softness to appear or the murky blacks or the digital noise, only to be pleasantly surprised by a pristine transfer from beginning to end.


I believe I voted for Tier 1.5 for the first installment and Tier 2.0 for the second; this one falls squarely in-between those two. It had a lot going for it in the majority of its 2 hours running time: Sharpness, clarity, depth, excellent details (especially the outdoor mountain and forest scenes), warm & vivid colors, deep blacks and equally impressive shadow details, and superb contrast. But then, out of the blue, softness would creep in creating a rather flat look void of details (this happened all too often) or the black levels would break down. Facial details could be quite good at times, but overall they weren't much better than Tier 2. Flesh tones were decent to very good, with an occasional shot that appeared as if DNR had been applied.


Again, this could (and should) have been a high demo transfer, but as it is I can't go higher than.....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


PS Like its predecessors, this movie also SUCKED....but hey, what do you expect for a _vampire_ flick.


----------



## Incindium

*Brothers Bloom*


One scene will be nice an sharp and look very nice then the next will be hazy and soft as a result of some weird lighting chocies. Very Inconsistant.


There are only two prior reviews in this thread that I could find 2.75 by deltasun and 1.5 by Phantom Stranger. I'm going to agree with deltasun and go with
*Tier 2.75*


I think it may be currently ranked incorrectly in the PQ rankings thread as it is sitting in Tier 1.5.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Mutiny on the Bounty (1940)*


Another restoration from Warner that's a knock-out, although maybe a hair less than their previous efforts. There is definitely more damage on display here. Definition is superb, and grayscale is perfect. Sporadic softness, including a really ugly storm sequence, are one of the few major downers.

*Tier 3.25*


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19586015
> 
> *The Twilight Saga: Eclipse*
> 
> 
> I am really, really beginning to get frustrated by the absolute INCONSISTENCY in many of today's Blu-ray *transfers*.




Are you sure it's the *transfer*?


Or is it because of the way it was shot?


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*The Thin Red Line*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19586015
> 
> 
> Perhaps this is why it is so refreshing to see a movie like _The Thin Red Line_ where you are actually waiting for the softness to appear or the murky blacks or the digital noise, only to be pleasantly surprised by a pristine transfer from beginning to end.



I'm going to try to get my review of The Thin Red Line posted later today, but I will say that I have to disagree with this statement.


When I put The Thin Red Line on and started watching it, I was really starting to think my eyes were going bad because I simply could not understand all the amazing accolades this disc was getting for being the best PQ of any live action movie on BD thus far.


Then I started thinking things would get better. Well, they most certainly did get better, and by quite a large margin.


But the first 16 minutes (I've gone back and watched it twice, so I can tell you that it is at the 16:00 minute mark that things improve quite noticeably) are not so great. Don't get me wrong, it isn't *bad* by any means at all...still in high tier 2.0 and some in low Tier 1, but clearly not tier "0" material.


The first 16 minutes are mostly (there are exceptions) shot in shade, and has an overall flat look to it (again, this is *comparatively* speaking regarding tier 0 titles). Also, the sharpness, detail, and clarity expected from a tier 0 title was not there in these first 16 minutes, and that includes one of the bright scenes in those first 16 minutes.


If I had to place the first 16 minutes of this film in one of the tiers, I would put it at tier 2.0.


Thankfully, the rest of the film was pretty much high tier 0 territory, and had outstanding PQ, more than enough to overcome the not quite perfect first 16 minutes!










Heck, since I've written this much, I might as well make this my full review.

















Details are simply superb! Fine textures can be seen throughout most of the film, including the texture of the soldiers helmets.


Contrast, black levels, and shadow detail are all top notch, with most scenes having a great sense of depth.


Colors seem natural and accurate. Clarity was excellent overall.


I think one reason this looks so great is because of the way it was shot. Many scenes have a very deep depth of field, so the image is sharp from near to far.


It is an absolute joy to see such a top notch transfer like this on a film that contains such fantastic cinematography. This really is an example of John Toll at his best. For my money, he is one of the best cinematographers working today.


As for the film itself: I hadn't seen it in probably 7 years. I always remembered liking it and thinking it was a very good film. But this time around it *really* made an impression on me....and I came to the conclusion that this is a true masterpiece, and deserves to be discussed as one of the best war movies ever made.


I very highly recommend this BD. Not only is the movie itself fantastic, but it is also a great disc to show off your system, as it contains not only excellent PQ, but the audio is superb as well. And do what director Terrence Malick recommends (as shown at the beginning when you push "play"): play it LOUD!









*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (upper half)*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/19587637
> 
> 
> Are you sure it's the *transfer*?
> 
> 
> Or is it because of the way it was shot?



I am sure that it is the "way it was shot" in many cases Rob. I should have said I'm really "frustrated by the absolute inconsistency in many of today's *movies*." I'm sure there are various factors, such as lighting, that contribute to this inconsistency.


What baffles me though, is that in the very same shot there can be such fluctuation. Take for instance the last scene in _Twight: Eclipse_ (with Edward and Bella in a meadow); one second they show Edward and it is sharp and clear, the next second the camera turns to Bella and it's soft and fuzzy. Then the camera shows both of them and it's sharp and clear again. I don't know if that can be attributed to lighting or what, but it sure degrades the PQ.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^


Good review Rob on _The Thin Red Line_. I'll have to re-watch it to see what you're saying about the first 16 minutes. I believe I can say now though that I surely didn't have the same impression you did about the first 16 minutes being only Tier 2 quality. I actually DID notice that the first couple of scenes were not as *bright* and *sharp* as the rest of the movie, but I still remember thinking, "This is GOOD STUFF!"


So, where exactly do you think it belongs in the "upper half of Tier 0"?


----------



## deltasun

I still have to get in my second viewing for _The Thin Red Line_. So, Rob, let's nail down "upper half" and start with a few of the other live action. Is it better than _Man on Fire_? The 2 _Pirates_ movies? _I, Robot_?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19588176
> 
> 
> 
> So, where exactly do you think it belongs in the "upper half of Tier 0"?



I'll be honest, it is too hard to say. I'd have to go back and watch those other worthy titles again to freshen my memory, and that isn't likely to happen any time soon, so I'll just leave the recommendation at somewhere in the top half of Tier 0.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19588263
> 
> 
> I still have to get in my second viewing for _The Thin Red Line_. So, Rob, let's nail down "upper half" and start with a few of the other live action. Is it better than _Man on Fire_? The 2 _Pirates_ movies? _I, Robot_?



Can't say.


Video memory is short.


I'd have to watch all those films again in order to make a definitive statement. Bottom line is that The Thin Red Line looks fantastic overall (the first 16 minutes being the exception, and even that isn't bad by any means), and belongs up there with the best of the best.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19587829
> 
> 
> I am sure that it is the "way it was shot" in many cases Rob. I should have said I'm really "frustrated by the absolute inconsistency in many of today's *movies*." I'm sure there are various factors, such as lighting, that contribute to this inconsistency.
> 
> 
> What baffles me though, is that in the very same shot there can be such fluctuation. Take for instance the last scene in _Twight: Eclipse_ (with Edward and Bella in a meadow); one second they show Edward and it is sharp and clear, the next second the camera turns to Bella and it's soft and fuzzy. Then the camera shows both of them and it's sharp and clear again. I don't know if that can be attributed to lighting or what, but it sure degrades the PQ.



Yep, I agree. It's distracting, and can take you out of the movie (not that you were ever "into" this one anyway)!


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JoeBloggz* /forum/post/19374290
> 
> *How to train your dragon*
> 
> 
> This tranfer stacks up nicely with other Dreamworks titles. Colors look rich and vibrant. Blacks are on par with other highly rated animations. For me the contrast was not as impressive as toy story, up, monsters inc.
> 
> Detail was sharp, although in some scences I was expecting something more! Whites looked natural and not overblown(one of the more left out aspects of overall PQ).
> 
> 
> In the end this is a solid transfer(not to mention the movie is actually pretty good) but it does not measure up to the animated titles I mentioned earlier.
> 
> 
> Recommendation: .75



My thoughts mirror this review on _How To Train Your Dragon_. A solid CGI experience, but just not in the realm of the best Pixar Blu-rays. The look seems inspired by videogame visuals more than traditional animation. It should probably be dropped a few spots from the current ranking in the top tier.

*recommendation: bottom quarter of Tier 0*


----------



## Sujay

I noticed a lot of slight sharpening in How to Train your Dragon, anyone else? Otherwise it was a pretty great looking title.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Sujay* 
I noticed a lot of slight sharpening in How to Train your Dragon, anyone else? Otherwise it was a pretty great looking title.
I would not call it a lot, but there were some sporadic instances of questionable aliasing. My assumption is that was baked into the movie's picture by the original animation process. I think that happens when not every CGI character model is rendered at the exact same resolution.


----------



## Sujay

Sorry, I didn't mean "a lot", here and there. Your theory makes sense though.


----------



## lgans316

*Toy Story 3*


I wasn't overly impressed by TS3 in comparison to TS2 but it looks excellent with plenty of eye popping scenes. Maybe, its down the animation quality and technique deployed by Pixar to make it look smooth and natural.


The last 5-10 minutes in TS3 is similar to the first 10 minutes in UP from an emotional perspective.









*Recommendation: Bottom quarter of Tier 0*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/19589395
> 
> *Toy Story 3*
> 
> *I wasn't overly impressed by TS3 in comparison to TS2 but it looks excellent with plenty of eye popping scenes*. Maybe, its down the animation quality and technique deployed by Pixar to make it look smooth and natural.
> 
> *Recommendation: Bottom quarter of Tier 0*













As always, I respect your opinion, but I can't believe you're implying that TS3 was inferior to TS2. IMHO TS3 had superior colors (more bright and bold), along with more texture, especially in hair, fur, grass, trees, etc.


----------



## DarkSaturn

Alright, bit of a big update here. Just going through my own watched and rated spreadsheet adding a couple new additions. I've got a AVS PQ column on there, figured I would go ahead and try and fill in some of the blank spots of movies I've watched but haven't been added to the PQ thread with few quick reviews.

*City of God | 2002 (Canadian release - Alliance)*


This one is tough, one of my favorite movies ever, and a solid upgrade over an unremarkable dvd. However this is pretty mixed bag, inconstant from scene to scene times (some super 16mm shots in the film). Worst of all there seems to be some sort of interlacing artifacts on the left and right edge of the screen. Fairly typical of an Alliance release.

*Tier Recommendation 3.5*


*Dune | 1984 (David Lynch)*


The blu-screen work here is certainly not done any favors by a HD transfer but overall this is a pretty solid catalog title. Detail is solid, but never really pops.

*Tier Recommendation 2.5*


*Ichi the Killer | 2001*


Downright awful transfer, only other blu-ray I've watched that was comparable was Legend of Drunken Master. Thanks to this thread I've avoided most of the other crud belonging this far down the list. Poor black levels, detail surpassed by good DVD transfers. Might even be generous suggesting tier 4.5, as I'm not sure that it looks better than the original Gangs of New York. Friend of mine who is a big Miike fan watched it as well, and seemed reasonably content it was better than the dvd.

*Tier Recommendation 4.5*


*Legend of Drunken Master | 1994*


Soft and dull... and with bonus noise suppression. Also debris.

*Tier Recommendation 5.0*


*The Postman | 1994*


The first minute is ominous as the lion in the desert sequence looks considerably worse than the rest of the film. Compares to the Canadian Devil's Rejects or Equilibrium.

*Tier Recommendation 2.75*


*The New World | 2005*


Couple glimpses of edge enhancement here and there but overall a faithful transfer of a beautiful movie.

*Tier Recommendation 1.75*


*The Bridge on the River Kwai | 1957*


This one is a treat, don't be put off by the incredibly cheesy CG bridge in the menu's - it's incredible that a movie 50 years old can look this good. One strange scene did stand out - wide shot close to the beginning where the captured British soldiers are all along the right side sitting down and the Japanese gaurds are standing on the left seem to be in different lighting conditions - like the '57 version of the CSI filter installed on the lens sideways. Impressive detail on the closeups. Seems to be a slight magenta shift during a few fades, not sure if this is an artifact of the era.

*Tier Recommendation 2.25*


----------



## deltasun

Nice contribution! _River Kwai_ and _Dune_ are coming up in my list to watch.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DarkSaturn* /forum/post/19591304
> 
> 
> *City of God | 2002 (Canadian release - Alliance)*
> 
> 
> This one is tough, one of my favorite movies ever,.....




Very interesting, didn't know this was on Blu-ray at all. Truly a remarkable film, which leaves a lasting impact.


Sorry to hear it doesn't look so great.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DarkSaturn* /forum/post/19591304
> 
> 
> Alright, bit of a big update here. Just going through my own watched and rated spreadsheet adding a couple new additions. I've got a AVS PQ column on there, figured I would go ahead and try and fill in some of the blank spots of movies I've watched but haven't been added to the PQ thread with few quick reviews.



Good list, thanks for the contributions. That fills in some holes on catalog titles the Tiers have been missing. Of course it will create more work for myself...I plan on doing an update in the next week or so, to make the list as accurate and fresh as possible for the holiday gift-giving season.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19590665
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As always, I respect your opinion, but I can't believe you're implying that TS3 was inferior to TS2. IMHO TS3 had superior colors (more bright and bold), along with more texture, especially in hair, fur, grass, trees, etc.



Even I can't believe myself denny.










Let me give it another spin as I watched TS3 at midnight after 13 daunting hours at work.










I just got Avatar Extended Collectors Edition Steelbook from China and A-Team. Looking forward to watching these.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19591880
> 
> 
> I plan on doing an update in the next week or so, to make the list as accurate and fresh as possible for the holiday gift-giving season.



Sounds good Phantom!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/19592780
> 
> 
> Even I can't believe myself denny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me give it another spin as I watched TS3 at midnight after 13 daunting hours at work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just got Avatar Extended Collectors Edition Steelbook from China and A-Team. Looking forward to watching these.



I wish you could do an actual A/B test with TS2 and TS3. That would do the trick, I believe.










Enjoy your Avatar Extended Collectors Edition!


----------



## tfoltz

Toy Story 3 - Tier 0, below Avatar

Sound of Music - Tier 1.5

Dragon Hunters - Tier 1

Prince of Persia - Tier 2

Fantasia - Tier 2.75 (originally had it at 3, but bumped it up because the colors are great)


Most of these have been discussed to death, so I am just providing my score. With regard to Fantasia, I am very happy they released it, though there are some aspects they can't do much with. Some banding and lack of detail. I recommend watching the extra "The Schultheis Notebook: A Disney Treasure" on this disc, it was amazing to see the way they filmed this movie.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

Quote:

Originally Posted by *djoberg* 
*The Twilight Saga: Eclipse*

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*
What he said because I would rather not discuss the film any further.
*Tier 1.75*


----------



## deltasun

*Altitude*


Promising start with great details and dimensionality. Once on board the plane, things fall apart...really fast. Shadow details were nil and flat. Faces were disappoint due to lack of details, almost DNR-treated. Noise is prevalent in darker scenes, which there were plenty. Minor banding was also observed. Some of the stylized, darker, contrasty, facial shots looked okay.

*Tier Recommendation: 4.0*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19572799
> 
> *Fantasia 2000*
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.5*


*Fantasia 2000


recommendation: Tier 2.25*


Disney's 2000 update of Fantasia has a solid presentation that just does not overwhelm the senses. The simple, clean animation is handled with the utmost care by Disney. There was a bit of edge enhancement noticeable on the bridging segments with the celebrities. That was the only real imperfection outside of some very minor banding. But overall Disney brings another excellent transfer to Blu-ray. While not the exact same ranking, I concur with the thrust of deltasun's review.


Given the movie consists of different sections, each with its own style of animation, one score is probably not a fair representation of the Blu-ray. A couple of the sections would end up in Tier One, while others like the Gershwin accompaniment are more deserving of Tier Three. Put them all together and you end up with a Blu-ray that deserves a placement around the middle of Tier Two.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Zombieland


recommendation: Tier 1.25*


After watching Sony's BD of _Zombieland_ I would have no qualms with its current placement in Tier 1.0, if not for the frequent bouts of ringing. The image is quite stellar aside from scattered shots that are just littered with halos. While the amplitude of the ringing is not that bad, the quality took a dip in several scenes because of its intrusive presence. In every other regard the presentation is a real beauty, with inky blacks and phenomenal clarity.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...8#post18057868


----------



## lgans316

*A-Team (2010) - Extended Version*


Above average Contrast and black levels. Color palatte varies from location to location. Close up shots exhibits very good details. At times, the poor quality CGI is exposed as seen in HD. Throughout the presentation I noticed a general lack in definition which is usually absent with upper Tier titles, alongside some scenes looking like soft and less detailed with minor banding giving a feeling of viewing a nice upconverted DVD. The good news is there are signs of DNR or EE.

*Recommendation: Tier 2.25*

*Beauty and the Beast (1991) - Diamond Edition*


Wow. This looks absolutely amazing considering its age.










No complaints. Hats off to the engineers who worked on the Digital Restoration.


Wish Lion King looked like this.

*Recommendation: Tier 1*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Unleashed*


An HD DVD port... that Universal then decide to layer with some truly awful edge enhancement. The term "force fields" will suffice, hilariously surrounding objects and people with no discrimination. The sharpening ruins everything else too, the grain terribly elevated, and fine detail is muddy or indistinct. Black crush is everywhere, so they probably boosted the contrast too. Very little fine detail remains.

*Tier 4.50*


----------



## audiomagnate

*The Pacific Episode 3*



I just finished episode three of "The Pacific" which takes place in Austrailia and looks very nice indeed. There was none of the oversaturated postcard look of the first two episodes. Lots of beautiful outdoor scenes and fantastic facial details. Since I haven't seen the whole series I cant rate it, but I would give this episode a

*1.5*


----------



## audiomagnate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/19589395
> 
> *Toy Story 3*
> 
> 
> I wasn't overly impressed by TS3 in comparison to TS2 but it looks excellent with plenty of eye popping scenes. Maybe, its down the animation quality and technique deployed by Pixar to make it look smooth and natural.
> 
> 
> The last 5-10 minutes in TS3 is similar to the first 10 minutes in UP from an emotional perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Recommendation: Bottom quarter of Tier 0*



I've watched this three or four times, and each time I found myself scoothing my viewing position a little bit more forward, until I was about four feet from my 54 inch Panny 1080p plasma, which I know is ridiculous, but I loved it! I haven't seen The Thin Red Line on Blu yet so I have to go with

*Top of Tier 0*


----------



## deltasun

*Chloe*


I couldn't quite nail this one down. Details are excellent specially the wide shots around town, hotel rooms, lavish bathrooms. Facial details are across the board from naturally sharp, well-rendered freckles on Julianne Moore to subtle softness the next. There is also a slight golden push to the picture, which didn't prove too bothersome except for skin tones. Grain is preserved quite well and really adds to the filmic quality.


Some of the darker scenes did look flat and muddled around the edges. Facial definition wavers in these scenes as well. Plenty of well-executed shots where bokeh-induced background lights provide a soft, almost Holiday-like feel to those scenes.


Contrast is usually strong, with deep (albeit mostly crushed) blacks. I did not spot any foul play.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.50*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Sujay

*Inception*


Slightly problematic image, but overall very good. But most of that is due to the really great cinematography. There are times where it looks really amazing, and granted, that's most of the film, but then there are other times where there are soft shots, detail-less faces and smeary focus, and sometimes, just sometimes, slight ringing. Most of these are issues I noticed in theaters as well, so I don't think it's due to the transfer. Regardless, it's got great great black levels, TDK style, decent shadow detail with not a lot of crushing (similar to TDK as well) and great contrast. Colors are beautiful in my opinion, but sometimes skin tones can get to be too orangish or too redish. Doesn't happen too often and it's not overly distracting. I didn't notice any digital artifacting or compression issues.


While it seems I'm criticizing a lot, I don't think anybody would be too disappointed in owning it. While the flaws are there and are puzzling, it's still looks really good overall. Stand-out reference scenes include the snow fortress segments and the scene in the rain, as well as a few close-up dialog bits with DiCaprio. Oh, and audio is fantastic.










I go into more detail here: http://blurayview.com/review/inception/ 

*Tier 1*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^


Thanks for the review Sujay! I've been looking forward to this Blu-ray transfer for a long time and I just ordered it at Amazon for a very good price. Check it out:

http://www.amazon.com/Inception-Thre...1610691&sr=1-1


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19600706
> 
> 
> ^^^^
> 
> 
> Thanks for the review Sujay! I've been looking forward to this Blu-ray transfer for a long time and I just ordered it at Amazon for a very good price. Check it out:
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Inception-Thre...1610691&sr=1-1



Funny, I made the same post here:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...postcount=1854 


Great price, especially with the free shipping.


----------



## deltasun

^^ Yep, great deal. Mine should be here Monday - I get free Prime now just for being a parent and buying kid's paraphernalia deals.


Easily the best movie I saw this year (though this was a drought of a year for me in terms of movies). Sujay's review has definitely re-invigorated my desire to see this again.


----------



## deltasun

*Knight and Day*

_June, I've been trained to dismantle a bomb in pitch black with nothing but a safety pin and a Junior Mint. I think I can get you in and out of some clothes without...looking._


Excellent looking title, as mentioned by my predecessors. This one could have easily gone Tier 0, and I started wondering if I was going to be the generous one. But yes, the pervasive golden turning orange skin tones and smoothing of Cameron Diaz's face (which wasn't too bad at first, and started to affect other cast members later on) ruined any hopes. Some arbitrary softness also creeps in. Those are the negatives.


The positives easily outweigh these. First off, contrast is strong! This leads to a very rich, but natural color palette. Blacks are rich and bold. Dimensionality is amazing - check out the establishing scene of the train click-clacking through the Alps. Details are just everywhere and in abundant supply. Facial details, outside of the scrubbing, are excellent.


Fine grain is present throughout. I did notice GRG's mention of more moderate noise in certain scenes (usual during establishing shots), but did not find these to be too distracting. They are there though. I was at 1.50 pretty much the whole way, till the worsening skin tones really got to me. Therefore, I will agree with Denny in still keeping this demo-worthy.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


I did enjoy the mindless action and can definitely find occasion with friends or family over to pop this in.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## djoberg

^^^^


I'm assuming your review is of *Knight and Day* delta.

















I liked the quote you gave us at the beginning (My wife and I both laughed when he said that). I also guessed what Cameron Diaz would say at the end of the movie.


----------



## deltasun

Thanks, Denny. You are correct, sir!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Ice Age


recommendation: Tier 2.25
*

While not up to the standards of modern CGI-animation, the current placement in Tier 2.75 for _Ice Age_ seems overly harsh. Colors are not as vibrant and healthy as the latest Pixar features, nor are the textures and surfaces as detailed. Minor examples of compression noise and banding are present, but in general the transfer and encoding are good. Definitely not the first CGI movie I would choose for a demo, so its potential in that regard is limited. But the image is still of sufficient quality to rank in the upper half of Tier Two.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Phloyd):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...9#post17555159 


Watching on a 60" Pioneer KURO plasma at 1080p/24, fed by a 60 GB PS3 (firmware 3.41), from a viewing distance of five feet.


----------



## lgans316

*The Book of Eli - Germany - Universal*


Excellent looking title.


I think the background score is awesome as it perfectly sets the mood for every scene.


I liked the movie except the ending which I thought was realistic but a bit hard to digest.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*


----------



## deltasun

*Inception*


Wish this was a bit more consistent! First off, blacks are just amazing and we get a sampling with Cobb and Arthur's suits right at the beginning. Shadow details are excellent for the most part. In some sequences, however, contrast does waver.


Contrast, in general, is strong as well, giving way to rich colors that are conducive to the overall look. Facial details seem to drop a bit in the middle stanzas, but are excellent (specially on diCapuccino) otherwise - Tier 0 caliber in plenty of scenes. Establishing scenes offer breathtakingly pinpoint details, specially in even lighting. Medium scenes retain ample dimensionality.


Skin tones are mostly baked. In most indoor lighting, they take on a golden tint. Finally, there are instances of macro blocking, the worst of which occurs in the "basement" level. Softness is also splattered across the presentation, though not too bad.


Overall, there's just some inconsistencies that bring this down for me. I wish I can be more generous, but my gut tells me...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


Now, the audio is out of this world good!

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## John Mason

Quote:

Originally Posted by *42041* 
*Knowing*


This movie was shot digitally with the much-hyped Red 4K camera, and as you might expect, the image is clean and fairly detailed. Well-lit scenes tend to look very good. However, quality dips in the numerous low light sequences. Facial detail comes and goes, whether due to soft photography or the light DNR that appears to have been employed in many scenes. Colors tend to be somewhat dull and yellowish. Overall, something I could conceivably use for demo material, but it wouldn't be high on my list.

*Tier 1.75*


(PS3/Pioneer 50" Kuro Elite/1 screen width distance)
Caught this only on Showtime HD last week, hoping (finally) to see a RED-shot movie with decent dynamic range, color, detail, etc. No doubt the BR somewhat exceeds Showtime's PQ, but was disappointed by the cablecast images--similar to most of this review. Looks like, unless it was deliberate filtering, they didn't have timely access to some of Red's newest firmware for color and gamma processing: Filed away these before/after comparisons from reduser.net; further comparisons are just above that post and elsewhere on that site. Knowing, IMO, looks like most of the "befores." Posts there also mention newer movies are being shot with the ~5k Epic camera from Red (see full link page), with better dynamic range, which also delivers ~4k effective resolution versus Red One's ~3.2k effective (~4k sensor). Suspect productions will filter away any potential visible resolution boosts, though. -- John


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19606863
> 
> *Inception*
> 
> Overall, there's just some inconsistencies that bring this down for me. I wish I can be more generous, but my gut tells me...
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75*



Agreed. Good stuff at its peak, but it has some wild inconsistencies. In other words, it looks like a really good version of a usual Warner new release. Softness is annoying, and there are some rough moments of artifacting too. But, tier 1.75 is fine by me.

*Tier 1.75*


----------



## deltasun

*Scott Pilgrim vs. the World*


Probably the single best feature of this film is its black levels. It never really wavered. Facial details were inconsistent, but were upper Tier 1 decent for the most part. This isn't a film that will impress PQ-wise, specially with its nondescript, muted color palette. When colors did appear though (in the form of Ramona's ever-changing hair color), they were vivid and natural.


Skin tones went with the muted look. Dimensionality looked good at times, but would flatten out in some of the action scenes, especially near the end. I found the special effects to be really well-done and complemented the vibe of the movie.


Overall, a palatable fare.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Shrek Forever After*


This one is actually quite dark, so kudos to the black levels which hold up. However, it diminishes the full impact of the colors, dragging them down slightly from their daytime intensity. It's never muted or flat though. Tons of detail as expected with the sharpness at this level.

*Tier .75*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Dear Mr. Gacy*


Thought this was shot digitally with its smooth faces and lackluster definition. It wasn't. Ouch. Black levels are lackluster, and the color is sapped from the frame to its minimum. A layer of noise is added to some flashbacks. Just all-around blah.

*Tier 4.0*


----------



## deltasun

*Igor*


Not quite at the same level as Pixar animation. This is a darkly "shot" feature that usually lacks depth in plenty of scenes. There are also bouts of softness, particularly in the characters' faces. Details can be palatable in close-up shots of objects and clothing, but really degrades with any distance. Textures are never really evident. Backgrounds are usually of a static and detail-less, in-the-shadows nature.


Colors are a bit on the dull side, even in brighter lighting. Blacks are somewhat weak. Some blooming also occur. I spied banding in some fog-draped scenes.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

*Shrek Forever After*


Another dark feature. However, unlike _Igor_, this one's ripe with details. Shadow details remain filled with good delineation. There is a crispness to the picture regardless of differing levels of "light." Colors do start looking odd in mixed lighting (surely, DI). I found them unnatural in relation to the normal Shrek color palette. Colors, in general lighting, are vibrant and full of life. Dimensionality can be really astounding in parts! Blacks are excellent.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (just above _Chicken Little_)

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Fantasia*


A really great piece of restoration work, if lacking that pinpoint sharpness of other Disney features. Live action looks a bit too processed, but the animation is clean, and the colors are vibrant where need be. Not much in the way of technical issues, just a rich presentation that is pleasing to the eye.

*Tier 2.0*


----------



## 42041

*Easy Rider*


I watched the old Sony disc, not the new Criterion one... i think they use different encodes of the same 4k transfer. The 1969 film looks great on blu-ray, richly textured and film-like; detail ranges from decent to excellent, and seems limited by the photography, not the transfer process. The location photography doesn't show many signs of color fading. Quality dips during some scenes towards the end, which look like 16mm, and compression seems to struggle in a handful of shots. Overall, a great-looking disc.

*Tier 2.25*


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Inception*


Overall a pretty good looking title, but there are inconsistencies and plenty of soft looking shots that will bring this one down a bit.


Contrast is quite good overall, with good black levels. Still not on par with the very best titles, but there isn't much to complain about here.


Colors looked good and were natural looking overall.


My biggest problem was the slight overall softness of the image, and a resulting lack of clarity compared with the top tiered titles.


Plenty of scenes looked great, and I had a somewhat difficult time deciding if I would recommend this for low Tier 1, or high Tier 2.


In the end, I think it falls just a tad short of being deserving of a Tier 1 placement.


I really liked the movie a lot. Very well done. Nolan is becoming one of my favorite directors.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/19630864
> 
> *Inception*
> 
> 
> Overall a pretty good looking title, but there are inconsistencies and plenty of soft looking shots that will bring this one down a bit.
> 
> 
> Contrast is quite good overall, with good black levels. Still not on par with the very best titles, but there isn't much to complain about here.
> 
> 
> Colors looked good and were natural looking overall.
> 
> 
> My biggest problem was the slight overall softness of the image, and a resulting lack of clarity compared with the top tiered titles.
> 
> 
> Plenty of scenes looked great, and I had a somewhat difficult time deciding if I would recommend this for low Tier 1, or high Tier 2.
> 
> 
> In the end, I think it falls just a tad short of being deserving of a Tier 1 placement.
> 
> 
> I really liked the movie a lot. Very well done. Nolan is becoming one of my favorite directors.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.0*



Thanks for the review Rob! We got home very late last night (having left Minneapolis at 10 p.m. to escape a fierce winter storm that is still plaguing the Twin Cities Metro) and my copy of _Inception_ was in the mail when we arrived home. I plan to watch it later today and then I'll chime in. I'm glad you enjoyed the movie Rob; I've been wanting to see this for months so I'm really pumped!


Most reviewers on Cinema Squid's site are giving this an EXCELLENT video score, but in fairness they do cite the softness that you spoke of in your review (and in their score they're not penalizing the softness because it was the director's intent). I imagine I'll be docking it for that too, though I'll more than likely be more _generous_ in my final placement than you were Rob.


----------



## lgans316

It looks like Inception PQ is sandwiched between IAL and Batman Begins. It looks to be attributed to the filming style of Nolan but can't trust WB.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Inception is technically a Christmas gift for me, so I am not going to be able to watch it for a couple of weeks. Nolan is not the type of director that seems to place a great deal of emphasis on the picture quality. His stuff exhibits solid craftsmanship, but not a great deal of visual flair.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

I guess it depends on your definition of "visual flair".


I personally think that he does have a good deal of visual flair in most of his films.


----------



## djoberg

*Inception*


I just spent almost 4 hours watching a movie with a running time of less than 148 minutes!! Why? Because I kept hitting "rewind" for two reasons: 1) To figure out the *maze* of a plot that Mr. Nolan created for us







; and 2) To admire the MANY _amazing_ scenes of impeccable PQ. For these two reasons you can rest assured I'll be giving this title multiple viewings.










Quite frankly I went into this viewing expecting to be somewhat underwhelmed in light of the last 3 reviews (deltasun...1.75...GRG...1.75...Rob Tomlin...2.0). But I must say my viewing experience lines up more with other reviews posted on Cinema Squid's cite, for in all honesty I thought it was superb. Yes, there were sporadic scenes of softness (but these were few and far between and each one only lasted for a few fleeting seconds) and at times the flesh tones were off (those were really rare), but overall this was pure EYE CANDY!


Shall I start with my favorite virtue? The BLACKS were phenomenal!! They were better than in _The Dark Knight_ and that's saying a lot! They never faltered, and accompanying SHADOW DETAILS were as good as I've seen in recent high tier titles.


COLORS were very pleasant to the eyes....CONTRAST was strong....DETAILS were off the charts for a majority of the movie....DEPTH was appreciable in most cases....and the SHARPNESS and CLARITY were excellent.


I know my three aforementioned colleagues docked this considerably for inconsistencies (mainly softness, some artifacts, and a lack of clarity), but with _my eyes_ on _my KURO_ they were not that bad, at least not bad enough to bring it down to a low tier 1 or high tier 2 placement. In fact if not for the sporadic soft shots and a few abnormal flesh tones, I would nominate this for Tier Blu. All things considered I'm going with.....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0 or 1.25*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


PS I was going to mention Sujay's recommendation too, but because he only said "Tier 1" (without giving a specific place in that tier) I didn't. Perhaps he can weigh in again and give us a more precise recommendation.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/19632814
> 
> 
> I guess it depends on your definition of "visual flair".
> 
> 
> I personally think that he does have a good deal of visual flair in most of his films.



+1


Phantom, I agree with Rob's comment regarding Mr. Nolan's films having "a good deal of visual flair." And believe _Inception_ is no exception!


----------



## deltasun

I think Phantom's talking about our forum rules. He's right in that it may still score high, but will probably not top the charts. I personally like Mr. Nolan's visual style as well, or is it more his vision. Either way, movies like _Memento_ will not top the charts, even though it's easily in my top 5 favorite films.


Nice review of _Inception_, btw, guys!


----------



## Sujay

Quote:

Originally Posted by *djoberg* 
PS I was going to mention Sujay's recommendation too, but because he only said "Tier 1" (without giving a specific place in that tier) I didn't. Perhaps he can weigh in again and give us a more precise recommendation.
Ha, admittedly I kind of forgot about the individual placements within tiers. This was really a hard one to judge for picture quality. I kept going from 4 to 4.5 (out of 5) when rating it on my site, and it's even harder to decide where to place it here. I personally love the cinematography and "visual flare" of the film. It made up for most of the issues I took with the technical side of things. Additionally, looking at the titles currently in the tiers makes it even more difficult to figure out a specific placement. TDK seems to be in Tier 1.25, and Inception is certainly better than that. But then something like Fight Club is in Tier 1.5, so..














1.0 or 1.25 would be something I'd agree with.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Going the Distance*


This is a routine, typical effort from Warner, pretty bland. Never pops, never astounds. It's just sort of there. Minimal fine detail, less so during the few digitally shot sequences. Some noise and mild compression show through. Blacks are fine, but not exciting.

*Tier 3.0*


----------



## deltasun

*Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer*


Nostalgia aside, this is a wonderful transfer of a classic seasonal feature. Blacks are bold and details are reasonably remarkable. Grain/Noise can become distracting in certain scenes, but are kept under control for the most part. Some scenes do look a bit noise-reduced, but nothing too distracting.


Colors are not as saturated as expected. Textures of the stop motion characters and props occasionally stand out, but nothing to write home about. In general, the picture is on the soft side. In the end, this is a worthwhile upgrade/addition to the collection. Agree with Phantom's placement.


Edited to mention that there is quite a bit of print dirt and debris compared to the other features.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.5*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

*Frosty the Snowman*


The transfer looks to be pristine, save for a few specks. Colors are well saturated throughout the presentation, particularly the reds. Blacks are bold and the backgrounds have a brushed-paint postcard quality. My biggest issue would have to be the softer look, particularly around the lines (which are drawn double, adding to the perceived soft look). There are instances of color changes on objects (coat) from frame to frame.


Fine grain is present throughout, almost too fine. All in all, a very satisfying presentation! I would have to go a bit lower than Phantom's on this one...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*


I should mention there is a bonus feature entitled _*Frosty Returns*_. This one did not look as good. In fact with the very bad aliasing, softness, less-saturated colors, I would give it a _*4.0*_

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

To complete the set...

*Santa Claus is Comin' to Town*


This one looked really good go me! Of the three, I thought this exhibits some really good dimensionality. Textures from the dolls/puppets (you can see the string!) are a bit more palatable. Color saturation is between _Rudolph_ and _Frosty_ and really sparkles. Blacks are above average and contrast is pretty good.


I actually prefer this over _Frosty_ in several categories. However, some of the wavering grain, poor shadow details, and minor artifacting bring it down overall by a tad. Still, a very beautiful presentation, albeit some minor inconsistencies in its almost 51-min run time.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.50*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

*When in Rome*


Biggest hater here of blooming/hazed lights. Lots of these in this feature. On top of that, the overall palette has the bright, yellowish tinge reminiscent of this genre. An overall soft look pervades this movie and grain is minimal throughout. Textures are also absent.


Blacks are pretty good - deep. Contrast can be weak at times. Dimensionality - forget about it. Still, there is enough there to keep this out of the farthest depths of the thread.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

*Splice*


The look is generally soft. But scattered throughout, are some really beautiful, 3-dimensional scenes full of details and natural sharpness. Still, these are vastly outnumbered by the director-intended drab, almost smeared look that especially dominate the early scenes. Fine grain is present throughout, though I could not describe this as filmic.


Blacks are just above average but shadow details are flat; contrast not always strong. Facial details are not so apparent. The CGI, I thought, was a bit see-through specially in the beginning (on young Dren). The movements, especially, are distracting.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Ozymandis

Wow, haven't posted in this thread for a while.


Inception- some softness and some inconsistency. There were some shots that looked amazing but then there were more that were lacking. Blacks were very good, I will say that. Highlights for me were the wide city shots (which looked a lot like similar shots in The Dark Knight). Lowlights were the closeups, facial detail was not as good as I would expect.


Also having read the thread about teal and orange or whatever, skin tones are just whack in this movie. Far too golden, ugh.


Tier 2.0 for me.


And I know this is OT but the audio in Inception is fantastic. Demo-worthy beyond a doubt. It's a shame that the video quality wasn't as good but it was still acceptable.


----------



## dla26

Does anyone know if the LotR movies got a facelift when they were re-released as individual movies instead of only as a box set? I recently bought these on Amazon and was prepared to be disappointed with the PQ. In actuality, I was favorably impressed. I probably would have given each movie between a 1.0 to 1.5.


I wasn't taking notes while watching, but I didn't see much softness and lots of the closeups had great detail. The colors in the beginning of Fellowship of the Ring were deliberately saturated, but I thought it was in line with the Director's intent.


Does anyone know if the discs I have are improved over the box set edition? Or am I just in disagreement with the ultimate placement of these movies in the tier list?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ozymandis* /forum/post/19640472
> 
> 
> Wow, haven't posted in this thread for a while.
> 
> 
> Inception- some softness and some inconsistency. There were some shots that looked amazing but then there were more that were lacking. Blacks were very good, I will say that. Highlights for me were the wide city shots (which looked a lot like similar shots in The Dark Knight). Lowlights were the closeups, facial detail was not as good as I would expect.
> 
> 
> Also having read the thread about teal and orange or whatever, skin tones are just whack in this movie. Far too golden, ugh.
> 
> 
> Tier 2.0 for me.
> 
> 
> And I know this is OT but the audio in Inception is fantastic. Demo-worthy beyond a doubt. It's a shame that the video quality wasn't as good but it was still acceptable.



First of all, what kind of display did you view this on? I ask this because I took my copy over to my brother's last night and we watched it on his Sony LCD. It was NOT nearly as good as on my Pioneer KURO Elite plasma. The blacks weren't as good, there was more softness, and overall detail and clarity fell short of what I saw on my KURO.


Regarding the facial details, I didn't think they were Tier 0 quality (with the exception of a few shots), but they were easily Tier 1, IMHO. The flesh tones were off at times, but not as bad as you make them out to be (again, IMO).


I DEFINITELY agree with your take on the AUDIO; it was spectacular, reference quality all the way!


----------



## djoberg

I am reluctant to provide the following review by AVS Forum reviewer Ralph Potts, but with _some_ of the negative comments being expressed by reviewers here I feel constrained to do so. I realize it's taboo to do this (so please don't rebuke me for it), but his assessment coincides with my viewing experience so I want to give this link for others to read what he has to say.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...86&postcount=1


----------



## tfoltz

^*REBUKE*


I'm going to watch Inception again soon, but based on my first viewing I would put it in Tier 2. Definitely a lot of interesting things to look at in this film, so it can only go higher.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/19642705
> 
> 
> ^*REBUKE*
> 
> 
> I'm going to watch Inception again soon, but based on my first viewing I would put it in Tier 2. Definitely a lot of interesting things to look at in this film, so it can only go higher.



I respect your opinion tfoltz, and that of others (like Rob who also thought it belongs in Tier 2), but I have to say I'm quite amazed. I was certain, after my initial viewing on my KURO, that everyone would vote for Tier 1 on this one. I even suspected some might opt for Tier 0.


I would ask you too what kind of display you're using, for after watching this on my brother's set last night I was thinking of lower tier 1 based on that viewing. But in fairness I should say his Sony is NOT a high end model and the rendering of blacks aren't that good.


----------



## tfoltz

Panasonic 50px80u plasma with 9 feet viewing distance. My set is not a kuro, nor 1080p, but I can only judge what I see. I did not have problems with the blacks, and I thought this particular blu-ray looked good, just not great. I watched Taken the other night and actually thought it looked better than Inception. My same set and eyes think Transformers, Casino Royale, Hellboy, etc. are high tier movies, so I'm not sure what to say.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dla26* /forum/post/19642082
> 
> 
> Does anyone know if the LotR movies got a facelift when they were re-released as individual movies instead of only as a box set? I recently bought these on Amazon and was prepared to be disappointed with the PQ. In actuality, I was favorably impressed. I probably would have given each movie between a 1.0 to 1.5.
> 
> 
> Does anyone know if the discs I have are improved over the box set edition? Or am I just in disagreement with the ultimate placement of these movies in the tier list?



The individual discs are identical to the box set. Any differences in the evaluation of their picture quality can be attributed to subjective tastes.


----------



## dla26

Thanks for the confirmation. Next time I watch it, I'll try to take some notes and formulate my own official tier recommendation. I know it's already been discussed to death, but I was just surprised at the delta between what the group said and what I thought it should be. Usually those two are much closer aligned.


----------



## tfoltz

^Actually, I don't remember too many people weighing in on Lord of the Rings, so more opinions should help. I remember I gave Fellowship of the Ring 3.25, Twin Towers 2.5, and Return of the King 1.75. Initially I was going to give Fellowship a higher score, but after repeated viewing I noticed too many soft/ugly spots in the first portion of the film.


----------



## deltasun

Regarding _Inception_ and people's sets, it's really all relative. Regardless of you're watching on 720p or Plasma vs. LCD, if you're comparing your viewing experience consistently on the same set, your opinion counts. As tfoltz said, _Taken_ looked better on the same set as _Inception_.


I've watched quite a bit of these movies (obviously







) and I gotta tell ya that _Inception_ just didn't cut it (and trust me, I wanted _Inception_ in Tier 0) due to its intended look. I actually thought I was being generous at 1.75 (and probably still is).


the beauty of it is there is probably a percentage of the population who agree with your assessments, Denny. Another percentage who agree with Rob, etc. Just do what you do and stay true to what you see. Man, I'm sounding like a feel good commercial - stay true to yourself! LOL


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19644172
> 
> 
> Regarding _Inception_ and people's sets, it's really all relative. Regardless of you're watching on 720p or Plasma vs. LCD, if you're comparing your viewing experience consistently on the same set, your opinion counts. As tfoltz said, _Taken_ looked better on the same set as _Inception_.



This is spot on correct, and I have been saying this since the beginning of this thread several years back.



> Quote:
> I've watched quite a bit of these movies (obviously
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) and I gotta tell ya that _Inception_ just didn't cut it (and trust me, I wanted _Inception_ in Tier 0) due to its intended look. I actually thought I was being generous at 1.75 (and probably still is).



I must agree with you here.











> Quote:
> the beauty of it is there is probably a percentage of the population who agree with your assessments, Denny. Another percentage who agree with Rob, etc. Just do what you do and stay true to what you see. Man, I'm sounding like a feel good commercial - stay true to yourself! LOL



Can't argue with that at all!m


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19638865
> 
> *Splice*
> 
> 
> The look is generally soft. But scattered throughout, are some really beautiful, 3-dimensional scenes full of details and natural sharpness. Still, these are vastly outnumbered by the director-intended drab, almost smeared look that especially dominate the early scenes. Fine grain is present throughout, though I could not describe this as filmic.
> 
> 
> Blacks are just above average but shadow details are flat; contrast not always strong. Facial details are not so apparent. The CGI, I thought, was a bit see-through specially in the beginning (on young Dren). The movements, especially, are distracting.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.75*
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_



This movie sucked so hard that I simply refused to do a review of the PQ. It was so bad it actually pissed me off!


I was going to make a post on Splice saying something like:

*Tier Recommendation: None. Nobody should ever have to be subjected to watching this crap!*


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19642804
> 
> 
> I respect your opinion tfoltz, and that of others (like Rob who also thought it belongs in Tier 2), but I have to say I'm quite amazed. I was certain, after my initial viewing on my KURO, that everyone would vote for Tier 1 on this one. I even suspected some might opt for Tier 0.



I am similarly surprised by your praise of this title. I know some will think this is silly, but I swear that even if I didn't know which studio released this film, I would have said that it was a Warner title. It just seems to have that typical Warner softness to it.


One thing that you praised this title for was the clarity. Ironically, I would say that was probably the aspect that I docked it for the most.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/19644415
> 
> 
> I am similarly surprised by your praise of this title. I know some will think this is silly, but I swear that even if I didn't know which studio released this film, I would have said that it was a Warner title. It just seems to have that typical Warner softness to it.
> 
> 
> One thing that you praised this title for was the clarity. Ironically, I would say that was probably the aspect that I docked it for the most.



I believe you're telling me like you saw it Rob and I do respect your opinion. Regarding it being a Warner title, let's remember that they do occasionally release a winner, such as _The Dark Knight_, which, if memory serves me right, you recommended for a high Tier 1 placement.


I guess all I can say now (with all the _somewhat_ critical remarks being made about _Inception_), is *WHERE IN THE WORLD IS HUGHMC WHEN YOU NEED HIM*!!!


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19644172
> 
> 
> the beauty of it is there is probably a percentage of the population who agree with your assessments, Denny. Another percentage who agree with Rob, etc. Just do what you do and stay true to what you see. Man, I'm sounding like a feel good commercial - stay true to yourself! LOL



Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19644172
> 
> 
> the beauty of it is *there is probably a percentage of the population who agree with your assessments, Denny*. Another percentage who agree with Rob, etc. Just do what you do and stay true to what you see. Man, I'm sounding like a feel good commercial - stay true to yourself! LOL



I feel MUCH better now delta....thanks!


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Oh, Warner has definitely released *some* great looking titles. But they still haven't got over the hump regarding their soft look on many titles.


The IMAX scenes in TDK were amazing, and helped to boost my overall score for that title.


----------



## tfoltz

*Scott Pilgrim vs. the World - Tier 2.5*


Another visually pleasing title without any exceptional qualities.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19644510
> 
> 
> Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.



now if only i can bottle it and mass produce it...


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19644498
> 
> 
> I guess all I can say now (with all the _somewhat_ critical remarks being made about _Inception_), is *WHERE IN THE WORLD IS HUGHMC WHEN YOU NEED HIM*!!!



He he. I don't know, even Hugh may not bail you out on this one...


----------



## deltasun

*Planet 51*


I made the mistake of casually watching this one at about 10 or so feet away and being underwhelmed by it's softer looking characters. Of course, once scooted down to normal 6' viewing distance, the look started to sparkle. The best feature is easily the incredible depth and dimensionality to the picture in pretty much every scene - the exception being some of the darker indoor scenes. Details are exceptional and sublime textures are found in everything but the smoother, green facial shots of the planet's inhabitants. I guess smoothness is also a texture, but you know what I mean.










I also want to call out deep blacks, strong contrast, and adequate color presence. The colors, while vivid and strong, don't come anywhere near the richness of the upper tier Pixar titles. Some banding does plague the presentation.

*Tier Recommendation: 0* (just above _Wall-E_)

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Ozymandis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19642452
> 
> 
> First of all, what kind of display did you view this on? I ask this because I took my copy over to my brother's last night and we watched it on his Sony LCD. It was NOT nearly as good as on my Pioneer KURO Elite plasma. The blacks weren't as good, there was more softness, and overall detail and clarity fell short of what I saw on my KURO.
> 
> 
> Regarding the facial details, I didn't think they were Tier 0 quality (with the exception of a few shots), but they were easily Tier 1, IMHO. The flesh tones were off at times, but not as bad as you make them out to be (again, IMO).
> 
> 
> I DEFINITELY agree with your take on the AUDIO; it was spectacular, reference quality all the way!



Pioneer 500M










Flesh tones weren't the worst I've seen but they were noticeably off a lot of the time. I was torn between Tier 1.75 and Tier 2; I felt that the picture quality was just a little worse than the Dark Knight, which had the IMAX sections which were phenomenal. I think I gave that a Tier 1.75 so I voted 2 for Inception.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19644708
> 
> 
> He he. I don't know, even Hugh may not bail you out on this one...



Actually....Hugh might even go higher than I did!










As far as being "bailed out," Sujay agreed with my recommendation and you (and GRG) and I were only about a half tier off, so there isn't a dramatic difference like there has been on some titles.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ozymandis* /forum/post/19645222
> 
> 
> Pioneer 500M
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flesh tones weren't the worst I've seen but they were noticeably off a lot of the time. I was torn between Tier 1.75 and Tier 2; I felt that the picture quality was just a little worse than the Dark Knight, which had the IMAX sections which were phenomenal. I think I gave that a Tier 1.75 so I voted 2 for Inception.



You are being very consistent (and I commend you for that), for I too felt _Inception_ was a notch lower than _The Dark Knight_ (based mainly on the IMAX scenes). Where we really differ then is on _The Dark Knight_, for I still believe, after a recent viewing, that it deserves either low Tier 0 or high Tier 1.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/19644680
> 
> 
> Oh, Warner has definitely released *some* great looking titles. But they still haven't got over the hump regarding their soft look on many titles.
> 
> 
> The IMAX scenes in TDK were amazing, and helped to boost my overall score for that title.



I agree Rob. For whatever reason Warner is stuck on softness and in too many of their titles it is either sporadic or pervasive.


----------



## tfoltz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ozymandis* /forum/post/19645222
> 
> 
> I felt that the picture quality was just a little worse than the Dark Knight, which had the IMAX sections which were phenomenal. I think I gave that a Tier 1.75 so I voted 2 for Inception.



I felt the same, and gave the exact scores you did for both movies (assuming my second viewing of Inception doesn't increase my score).


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The A-Team*

Inconsistent. Shocker, I know. At times beautifully detailed and crisp, other times soft and flat. Shot digitally, there is some noise, although the black levels are quite firm. The film has that orange/teal look palette too, leaving flesh tones garish.

*Tier 1.75*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Other Guys*


One of the worst modern releases I've seen in some time. Not only is the coloring hideous (and I mean this thing vomits orange and teal like few others), but there is significant edge enhancement. The sharpening leads to coarse edges, elevated grain that is poorly resolved, and a digital, processed look that is inexcusable.

*Tier 3.5*


----------



## vpn75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19645562
> 
> 
> Actually....Hugh might even go higher than I did!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as being "bailed out," Sujay agreed with my recommendation and you (and GRG) and I were only about a half tier off, so there isn't a dramatic difference like there has been on some titles.


Inception


I've seen the movie twice now and I'm inclined to agree with Denny and Sujay on the PQ. I actually thought the PQ in Inception bested the non-IMAX scenes in Dark Knight. Sharpness and detail were evident throughout the movie and I could not find anything to complain about.


Maybe I'm a bit biased by my love for the film, but I would have to vote for placement in *Tier 1.25*


----------



## djoberg

Quote:

Originally Posted by *vpn75* 
Inception


I've seen the movie twice now and I'm inclined to agree with Denny and Sujay on the PQ. I actually thought the PQ in Inception bested the non-IMAX scenes in Dark Knight. Sharpness and detail were evident throughout the movie and I could not find anything to complain about.


Maybe I'm a bit biased by my love for the film, but I would have to vote for placement in *Tier 1.25*
Thanks for helping to "bail me out" vpn75!










Seriously though, I don't believe it was personal bias (in your case or mine) that led to recommending high Tier 1, for I agree with your observations regarding the PQ in _Inception_ besting the non-IMAX scenes in _The Dark Knight_. You called it the way you saw it, thus you heeded the wise counsel of our "resident motivational speaker" who said, "*Just do what you do and stay true to what you see*" (i.e., *stay true to yourself*).


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Since Denny has been bailed out regarding Inception, I am calling on Patrick to come bail me out by agreeing that Inception does not belong anywhere in Tier 1!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/19654553
> 
> 
> Since Denny has been bailed out regarding Inception, I am calling on Patrick to come bail me out by agreeing that Inception does not belong anywhere in Tier 1!



Hey....I'm crying "Foul"....I never asked vpn75 to bail me out, so you can't ask Patrick.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19654717
> 
> 
> Hey....I'm crying "Foul"....I never asked vpn75 to bail me out, so you can't ask Patrick.



Yeah, but you asked Hugh to bail you out, so close enough.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/19655179
> 
> 
> Yeah, but you asked Hugh to bail you out, so close enough.



touché!


----------



## deltasun

*The Other Guys*

_I don't like you._
_I think you're a fake cop._
_The sound of your piss hitting the urinal - it sounds feminine._
_If we were in the wild, I would attack you._
_Even if you weren't in my food chain, I would go out of my way to attack you._
_If I were a lion, and you were a tuna, I would swim out in the middle of the ocean and freaking eat you!_
_And then I'd bang your tuna girlfriend._



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19651294
> 
> *The Other Guys*
> 
> 
> One of the worst modern releases I've seen in some time. Not only is the coloring hideous (and I mean this thing vomits orange and teal like few others), but there is significant edge enhancement. The sharpening leads to coarse edges, elevated grain that is poorly resolved, and a digital, processed look that is inexcusable.
> 
> *Tier 3.5*



Wow, we saw two different movies! Though I do know what you mean about the coloring and processed look, I didn't think it remained throughout. There were moments when the skin tones were a bit closer to normal, but the other orange-ish look also existed. I thought Ferrel's facial details were well-rendered, save for one waxy example when he was talking about...

*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) being a pimp



Other than that, I thought the dimensionality was good and so were the details. Blacks were strong, contrast was a bit elevated (which accounted for the EE look, in my opinion), and grain was fine throughout.


Anyway, had it not been for the coloration and waxy faces, I would have gone higher in Tier 1. This is going to be interesting...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


I was caught off guard on how many funny moments this little flick had. Some were over the top delivery, but some are really funny. And I'm not a big Ferrel fan!

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

*Superman/Shazam! The Return of Black Adam*


There are actually 4 HD features (I'm not going to review the other Shazam! feature in SD). I will review each separately and give the average rating.

*Superman/Shazam! The Return of Black Adam*

Some banding present. The picture looks clean, clear, and crisp. The shallow depth of field treatment proves distracting in a few scenes. Blacks are bold and contrast is beautiful. Some macro blocking apparent.
*Tier 2.0*

*The Spectre*
_The Spectre_ is given a 70's, vintage-film look much like _Planet Terror_ or _Grindhouse_, complete with scratches, specks, and all encompassing haze of blooming lights. Though those elements were all intended, they were still there. Banding was also present, probably the most of the 4 features. Still, there was a serene sheen to the look that was positive.
*Tier 3.75*

*Green Arrow*

Banding is again the star here, though the lines are crisp and unassuming. The colors are well-saturated and rich. Blacks again are bold.
*Tier 1.75*

*Jonah Hex*

What a problematic feature. Banding, really bad blocking, and just an overall ugly palette. The color scheme does improve a bit, giving way to smoother tones. Still the worst of the bunch technically.
*Tier 4.0*

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Despicable Me*


CG feature time. Everything is just about perfect, as expected. Some aliasing on certain lines, a bit of banding too. Great texture, brilliant colors, flawless sharpness, and hair is spectacular. It's quite as detailed as some other animation though, so I'm going to drop this one down just a hair at around:
*Tier .50*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19651294
> 
> *The Other Guys*
> 
> 
> One of the worst modern releases I've seen in some time. Not only is the coloring hideous (and I mean this thing vomits orange and teal like few others), but there is significant edge enhancement. The sharpening leads to coarse edges, elevated grain that is poorly resolved, and a digital, processed look that is inexcusable.
> 
> *Tier 3.5*





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19656119
> 
> *The Other Guys*
> 
> 
> Wow, we saw two different movies!
> 
> 
> Anyway, had it not been for the coloration and waxy faces, I would have gone higher in Tier 1. This is going to be interesting...
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.0*




So, which one should I bail out?


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19657862
> 
> 
> So, which one should I bail out?



Money says the 2.0.










It'd be interesting to see how people perceive _The Other Guys_. Like I said, I know where GRG is coming from as well. It'll really depend how the look hits you in this case.


It's worth watching, in my opinion. I had a few laugh out loud moments. What do you think, GRG?


----------



## vpn75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19658086
> 
> 
> Money says the 2.0.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It'd be interesting to see how people perceive _The Other Guys_. Like I said, I know where GRG is coming from as well. It'll really depend how the look hits you in this case.
> 
> 
> It's worth watching, in my opinion. I had a few laugh out loud moments. What do you think, GRG?



I should have my copy by Friday and will watch and review over the weekend. Most of the PQ reviews I've read have been positive so I'm optimistic about this one. It doesn't hurt that the movie is also hilarious


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19658086
> 
> *Money says the 2.0.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It'd be interesting to see how people perceive _The Other Guys_. Like I said, I know where GRG is coming from as well. It'll really depend how the look hits you in this case.
> 
> 
> It's worth watching, in my opinion. I had a few laugh out loud moments. What do you think, GRG?



Are you saying you're betting on me (because of my usual _generous_ placement recommendations), or are you offering me money?










I'm heading to a local video store in a few minutes and if they have it I'll rent it and view it tonight. I too read quite a few good reviews on it so I'm anticipating a good rent.


----------



## deltasun

Send me your Paypal account and I just might!







Some of the delivery are over the top, but some very funny dialogue. Oh yeah, and then there's the controversial PQ.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19633535
> 
> *Inception*
> 
> Quite frankly I went into this viewing expecting to be somewhat underwhelmed in light of the last 3 reviews (deltasun...1.75...GRG...1.75...Rob Tomlin...2.0). But I must say my viewing experience lines up more with other reviews posted on Cinema Squid's cite, for in all honesty I thought it was superb. Yes, there were sporadic scenes of softness (but these were few and far between and each one only lasted for a few fleeting seconds) and at times the flesh tones were off (those were really rare), but overall this was pure EYE CANDY!
> 
> 
> Shall I start with my favorite virtue? The BLACKS were phenomenal!! They were better than in _The Dark Knight_ and that's saying a lot! They never faltered, and accompanying SHADOW DETAILS were as good as I've seen in recent high tier titles.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.0 or 1.25*


*Inception


recommendation: Tier 1.5*


While djoberg might have been a tad generous in his evaluation of Inception's image, there is still enough eye candy to recommend a placement in the middle of Tier One. Using my Christmas ninja skills to artfully unwrap the gift early and restore it to the original condition after viewing, the general impression left me with a film that has some nice demo moments, but a few caveats. While much better than the typical Warner Bros. produced Blu-ray, the VC-1 encode shows minor traces of possible deleterious manipulation on the Digital Intermediate.


I was mightily impressed by the impeccable contrast and color timing, the transfer does show a slight weakness in absolute high-frequency content against the best of the best. The extensive blending of CGI never helps picture quality because of the techniques needed to combine it with real footage. That process usually leads to a certain look, which while impressive in certain ways, saps just a bit of the best details from a film. Inception does not avoid that pitfall.


Another disappointment are the scenes set in the blindingly white hills of snow. If shot in a specific manner, snow can be made to look highly dimensional and practically project off the screen. That was not the case in the third act at all, where the photography appears very flat and lifeless. Some of the other settings truly help to show off Inception at its finest though, as Nolan switches locales frequently.


Make no mistake, most will be very happy with the picture quality of Inception. Only if you judge the disc on its worst scenes could it rank in Tier Two. Its lack of sheer brilliance probably prevents a ranking near the top of Tier One, but generally compares favorably to titles in the lower half of Tier One.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of TylerAfx):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post19527002


----------



## djoberg

*The Other Guys*


Okay, this one was indeed a mixed bag.


The GOOD:


1) The blacks levels and shadow details were simply outstanding. Every night time scene was pristine, with the inky blacks adding depth and dimensionality, as well as enhancing other colors. The shadow details in those scenes were impeccable.


2) Facial details were excellent in many scenes (Tier 0, for sure), even in midrange shots. The facial textures of Will Ferrell and Michael Keaton were amazing (and I'm here to tell you that HD doesn't do Mr. Keaton any favors; I can't believe how much he has aged).


3) Details in general were quite good, though they seemed to falter a bit towards the end of the movie (in daytime scenes).


4) Clarity and sharpness were evident as well throughout the film. They weren't consistent though, for they suffered in sporadic shots indoors and most notably in two car chase scenes towards the end.


The BAD:


1) In all fairness to GRG's review, there were a fair amount of scenes with the orange and teal coloring scheme. Some of them didn't bother me, but there were a couple (in Will Ferrell's home) where the orange skin tones were on the obnoxious side.


2) GRG referred also to "heavy edge enhancement," but I'm inclined to go along with deltasun's take on this and attribute it to high contrast. I'm not one to usually notice *halos* (or course edges), but there were a few scenes in the police station and one in a condo where I saw this look surrounding Mark Wahlberg's jacket. But the whole shot betrayed high contrast, so that's my theory.


3) The two car chase scenes alluded to above were terribly soft, along with some high contrast that gave it a flat look.


I'm inclined to go along with deltasun on this one (even though he hasn't paid me yet







), so put me down for.....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Rush Hour*


Nice catalog effort from New Line/Warner. Color is outstanding, deeply saturated. Great detail in close, and in the mid-range too. Some of the house exteriors are simply amazing. It's not always firm though. Definitely brief moments of softness and some noise.

*Tier 1.75*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Rush Hour 3*


An early release, but one that holds up. Much like the first, great blacks, rich color, and superlative fine detail. Contrast can run hot and there's a bit of ringing here and there, but nothing with any severity that it detracts from the overall eye candy.

*Tier 1.75*


----------



## audiomagnate

*Gone Baby Gone*


I have no idea how this got into my Netflix queue, but there it was in my mailbox. Very grainy, crushed blacks, lots of out of focus shots, and the aerial shots of the city have almost no pop. The worst thing though is the out of control edge enhancement on almost all shots, but especially noticeable during the daytime quarry scenes. This is the poster child for EE.

*3.0*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

It is that time again, so here are the recommendations from the past month or so. The tiers are updated through the last post.


Tinkerbell & the Great Fairy Rescue - 0 below Monsters Inc. deltasun


Alien - 2.25 Cinema Squid, 1.75 djoberg, 2.25 patrick99


The Sound Of Music - 1.0 djoberg, 1.0 OldCodger73, 1.5 deltasun, 2.0 lgans316, 1.25 Rob Tomlin, 1.5 tfoltz


Toy Story 3 - 0 below TTRL Joe Bloggz, 0 above Avatar Sujay, top of 0 Hughmc, 0 top 5 Rob Tomlin, top of 0 tcramer, 3rd in 0 rusky_g, bottom quarter 0 lgans316, o below Avatar tfoltz, top 0 audiomagnate


Scott Pilgrim Vs The World - 2.75 Gamereviewgod, 2.25 deltasun, 2.5 tfoltz


The Thin Red Line - 0 below Toy Story, above Avatar Hughmc, 2nd in 0 Sujay, upper half of 0 Rob Tomlin


Harry Brown - 1.5 Hughmc


Robin Hood (2009) - 1.25 Hughmc


The Delightful Forest - 5 Phantom Stranger


Hunt To Kill - 1.75 Gamereviewgod


The Square - 4.0 deltasun


Grown Ups - 4.25 Gamereviewgod


Seven Samurai - 3.25 Gamereviewgod


Jonah Hex - 3.5 deltasun


The Breakfast Club - 3.5 deltasun


Harpoon: Whale Watching Massacre - 3.0 Gamereviewgod


Black Narcissus - 1.75 Phantom Stranger


The Goonies - 3.75 Gamereviewgod


Superman / Shazam!: The Return Of Black Adam - 2.0 Phantom Stranger, 3.0 deltasun


A Christmas Carol (2009) - middle of 0 Gamereviewgod, top of 0 Phantom Stranger, 2nd in 0 rusky_g, 0 below Avatar djoberg, 0 below TY3 deltasun


White Christmas - 1.5 deltasun


Predators - 1.75 incindium, 2.25 lgans316, 2.0 deltasun


Karate Kid (2010) - 2.25 incindium, 2.0 lgans316


Get Him To The Greek - 2.0 incindium


Alien 2: On Earth - 3.0 Gamereviewgod


The Last Airbender - 1.25 Gamereviewgod


Last Of The Mohicans - 4.0 Rob Tomlin, 2.5 42041, 2.5 Hughmc


Avatar - 4th in 0 Sujay, top of 0 rusky_g


A Bug's Life - 3rd in 0 Sujay


Dragon Hunters - current rank in 0 barry v s, 1.0 tfoltz


Bridge On The River Kwai - 1.0 Gamereviewgod, 2.25 DarkSaturn


The Expendables - 2.25 Gamereviewgod, 2.0 djoberg, 2.25 deltasun


The Secret in Their Eyes - 3.0 deltasun


Prince Of Persia - 2.25 deltasun, 2.0 tfoltz


Eat Pray Love - 3.0 Gamereviewgod


Victory At Sea - 5.0 Gamereviewgod


Charlie Brown Thanksgiving - 3.75 deltasun


Aliens - 2.25/2.5 djoberg


Knight and Day - 2.0 Gamereviewgod, 1.75 djoberg, 1.75 deltasun


Fantasia - 3.75 deltasun, 2.75 tfoltz, 2.0 Gamereviewgod


Fantasia 2000 - 2.5 deltasun, 2.25 Phantom Stranger


Sorcerer's Apprentice - 2.0 deltasun, 2.0 djoberg, 1.75 Gamereviewgod


Audition - 5 deltasun


The Nature Of Existence - 5 Gamereviewgod


Twilight Saga: Eclipse - 1.75 djoberg, 1.75 Gamereviewgod


Brothers Bloom - 2.75 incindium


Mutiny On The Bounty (1940) - 3.25 Gamereviewgod


How To Train Your Dragon - bottom quarter of 0 Phantom Stranger


City Of God (Canadian) - 3.5 DarkSaturn


Dune - 2.5 DarkSaturn


Ichi The Killer - 4.5 DarkSaturn


Legend Of Drunken Master - 5 DarkSaturn


The Postman - 2.75 DarkSaturn


The New World - 1.75 DarkSaturn


Altitude - 4.0 deltasun


Zombieland - 1.25 Phantom Stranger


A-Team - 2.25 lgans316, 1.75 Gamereviewgod


Beauty And The Beast - 1.0 lgans316


Unleashed - 4.5 Gamereviewgod


The Pacific - 1.5 audiomagnate


Chloe - 1.5 deltasun


Inception - 1.0 Sujay, 1.75 deltasun, 1.75 Gamereviewgod, 2.0 Rob Tomlin, 1.25 djoberg, 2.0 ozymandis, 1.5 Phantom Stranger, 1.25 vpn75


Ice Age - 2.25 Phantom Stranger


Book Of Eli (Germany/Universal) - 1.5 lgans316


Knowing - 1.75 John Mason


Shrek Forever After - bottom quarter 0 Gamereviewgod, 0 above Chicken Little deltasun


Dear Mr. Gacy - 4.0 Gamereviewgod


Igor - 3.0 deltasun


Easy Rider (Sony) - 2.25 42041


Going The Distance - 3.0 Gamereviewgod


Rudolph - 3.5 deltasun


Frosty - 2.25 deltasun


Santa Claus Is Comin' To Town - 2.5 deltasun


When In Rome - 3.75 deltasun


Splice - 3.75 deltasun, Unwatchable Rob Tomlin


Planet 51 - 0 above Wall-E deltasun


The Other Guys - 3.5 Gamereviewgod, 2.0 deltasun, 2.0 djoberg


Despicable Me - .5 Gamereviewgod


Rush Hour - 1.75 Gamereviewgod


Rush Hour 3 - 1.75 Gamereviewgod


Gone Baby Gone - 3.0 audiomagnate


----------



## lgans316

Good work, as always Phantom.









*Knight and Day*


Looks a tad better than A-Team.

*Tier 1.75*

*Twilight: Tier 1.5*


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/19654553
> 
> 
> Since Denny has been bailed out regarding Inception, I am calling on Patrick to come bail me out by agreeing that Inception does not belong anywhere in Tier 1!



Unfortunately, Rob, I have not yet even watched three minutes of the movie, so I can't yet weigh in on it. But your comment doesn't make me hopeful that I will be pleased when I do.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Town*


Outstanding aerials of the city, mesmerizing amounts of sharpness and detail there. That holds true for most of the close-ups too, with the occasional focal issue. Grain is sadly poorly resolved, the result of cramming too much on the disc undoubtedly. Definitely turning into noise more than grain. Nice color, veering both warm and cool.

*Tier 1.75*


----------



## Ozymandis

I got Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole sitting here, I had bought it for my son for Christmas. Has anyone seen it yet? I saw the trailer and the animation looked incredible. Definitely going to review it next Saturday or Sunday when we watch it


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ozymandis* /forum/post/19669104
> 
> 
> I got Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole sitting here, I had bought it for my son for Christmas. Has anyone seen it yet? I saw the trailer and the animation looked incredible. Definitely going to review it next Saturday or Sunday when we watch it



My oldest daughter told me a couple of weeks ago that I just had to see this because of the phenomenal PQ. I have been procrastinating but one of these fine days I'll give it a rent.


The reviews on it are as glowing as can be. Check it out:

http://www.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray/m...004&locale=all


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/19668346
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, Rob, I have not yet even watched three minutes of the movie, so I can't yet weigh in on it. But your comment doesn't make me hopeful that I will be pleased when I do.



I'm looking forward to your opinion on this one. Hopefully after you watch more than 3 minutes of it though.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Hellboy: Sword Of Storms / Blood & Iron


recommendation: Tier 3.0*


Starz put these two animated features together on a BD-25. Both movies run the nearly identical length of 76-minutes and largely look similar in quality, as they were both animated by Film Roman. Encoded using low-bitrate VC-1, they look about as good as the earlier animated efforts from Marvel on Blu-ray. That is a small step above the production values of a weekly television show, but obviously not close to the better direct-to-video titles.


It translates to a style that is relatively clean, but simple and sparse in both details and backgrounds. Colors are not quite as vibrant as animated material from the upper tiers. Overall a satisfactory title for picture quality constrained by the production budget.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/19669224
> 
> 
> I'm looking forward to your opinion on this one. Hopefully after you watch more than 3 minutes of it though.



FWIW Rob, even if Patrick helps to "bail you out" (which I'm sure he will







), Phantom has come aboard the Tier 1 train too so there a majority is forming fast for the demo-worthy tier.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19668681
> 
> *The Town*
> 
> 
> Outstanding aerials of the city, mesmerizing amounts of sharpness and detail there. That holds true for most of the close-ups too, with the occasional focal issue. Grain is sadly poorly resolved, the result of cramming too much on the disc undoubtedly. Definitely turning into noise more than grain. Nice color, veering both warm and cool.
> 
> *Tier 1.75*



I tried renting this today but all the copies are out for the weekend. How did you like the movie?


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19669414
> 
> 
> FWIW Rob, even if Patrick helps to "bail you out" (which I'm sure he will
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ), Phantom has come aboard the Tier 1 train too so there a majority is forming fast for the demo-worthy tier.



Yes, it is interesting to see so many respected members getting this one wrong.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/19669456
> 
> 
> Yes, it is interesting to see so many respected members getting this one wrong.



I only see TWO respected members getting it wrong (and possibly 3 when tfoltz weighs in).


----------



## rusky_g

*Inception*


Given this was one of the biggest films this year, my hopes were high, I have to say however that I was left feeling disappointed. Perhaps it was the overall feel of the film which didn't lend itself well (enough) to provide the WOW factor that hi-def is capable of.


I like films which are bold, vibrant and shiny and I accept that Inception isn't from that mould. There are a lot of dimly lit scenes, which, even with the best will in the world, make it difficult for a Blu-ray disc to blow you away during those moments. On the plus side, blacks were excellent throughout. Daytime scenes (to me) appeared a bit soft and flat in places - detail was good but not up there with the best.


In conclusion it's difficult to mark a film down when it remains accurate to its source and the Director's intent, but in the context of this thread (i.e we rank PQ in terms of demo material), I would have to score with a....


*2.25*

94" screen via Optoma HD65 at 10.75'


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g* /forum/post/19670285
> 
> *Inception*
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> Daytime scenes (to me) appeared a bit soft and flat in places - detail was good but not up there with the best.
> 
> 
> In conclusion it's difficult to mark a film down when it remains accurate to its source and the Director's intent, but in the context of this thread (i.e we rank PQ in terms of demo material), I would have to score with a....
> 
> 
> *2.25*
> 
> '



This summarizes exactly how I feel about this title.


----------



## vpn75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19668681
> 
> *The Town*
> 
> 
> Outstanding aerials of the city, mesmerizing amounts of sharpness and detail there. That holds true for most of the close-ups too, with the occasional focal issue. Grain is sadly poorly resolved, the result of cramming too much on the disc undoubtedly. Definitely turning into noise more than grain. Nice color, veering both warm and cool.
> 
> *Tier 1.75*



I saw this last night too and was quite impressed with the PQ. I agree there was a lot of great facial detail and fleshtones appeared accurate. I didn't see any signs of DNR or edge-enhancement. I wasn't expecting the film to look so good given the low bitrates, but maybe this shows how strong AVC compression can be. Hopefully Warner will start using it more in future BD releases.
*

Recommendation: Tier 1.75*


----------



## deltasun

Thanks as always, Phantom. Right on time for the holidays!


A little correction in that I did cast a 1.75 vote for _Get Him to the Greek_ found here .



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19666312
> 
> 
> 
> Karate Kid (2010) - 2.25 incindium, 2.0 lgans316
> 
> 
> Get Him To The Greek - 2.0 incindium



I also saw _Karate Kid (2010)_ and thought I provided a review. I guess I never did post it. Anyway, blacks were superb and there were some great depth in certain scenes. Colors were vibrant, while still remaining natural. Details were good, but was not impressed with facial details. I saw this as 2.0 also.


----------



## deltasun

*St. Elmo's Fire*


Just as most 80's films of this genre, there is a dated, faded look. Blacks are really deep, with no signs of crushing. Details are the problem - just not enough there to really impress. Facial details - forget about it. What's worse is that some of them get even less detailed in latter scenes. Contrast is not the strongest, but is adequate for the most part. It's always hard to find any decent dimensionality, but there was one that looked excellent. It's when the brat pack was driving away in their jeep through a fall-draped road. Distant details looked really good in this scene.


Grain is fine throughout. Finally, skin tones are on the pink side.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## lgans316

*Twilight - New Moon*


Entirely different to the look of the first movie but still looked pretty good due to natural colors and deep blacks.

*Recommendation: Tier 1.75*


-----------------------------------------------------

*Twilight - Eclipse*


Something is seriously wrong with the black levels as it appeared too pumped up desaturing colors.

*Recommendation: Tier 2.5*


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/19670734
> 
> 
> This summarizes exactly how I feel about this title.



Same here. I agree with a *Tier 2.25* recommendation for *Inception.* Characteristic Warner softness throughout. I don't think there was a single shot in the entire movie where I thought the PQ was really impressive. And I agree with Phantom that the snow scenes at the end were especially bad. And just to be clear, Rob, I watched the whole thing.










As far as the movie itself, it seemed hugely overrated to me. Completely uninvolving. The whole wife/kids thing seemed utterly fake. Was that intentional? Maybe I just don't like Leo.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Deep Impact*


Processed and digital, this is one of those that probably sat around a while before release. Some extensive edge enhancement at times too. Colors are natural, even muted for effect. Detail is just bland, nothing coming through as striking or stunning.
*Tier 4.0*


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/19672524
> 
> 
> Same here. I agree with a *Tier 2.25* recommendation for *Inception.* *Characteristic Warner softness throughout.* I don't think there was a single shot in the entire movie where I thought the PQ was really impressive. And I agree with Phantom that the snow scenes at the end were especially bad. And just to be clear, Rob, I watched the whole thing.



Thanks Patrick. I said the same thing in my review regarding the typical Warner softness, and even mentioned that I thought I could have guessed which studio did this release based on the look it had.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/19672524
> 
> 
> Same here. I agree with a *Tier 2.25* recommendation for *Inception.* Characteristic Warner softness throughout. I don't think there was a single shot in the entire movie where I thought the PQ was really impressive. And I agree with Phantom that the snow scenes at the end were especially bad. And just to be clear, Rob, I watched the whole thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as the movie itself, it seemed hugely overrated to me. Completely uninvolving. The whole wife/kids thing seemed utterly fake. Was that intentional? Maybe I just don't like Leo.



I figured you'd go with Tier 2 Patrick, but I should remind you that Tier 2 is still fairly good PQ. I say this because of your statement: "*I don't think there was a single shot in the entire movie where I thought the PQ was really impressive.*" I don't see how you can make that statement in light of the following criteria for Tier 2:


Tier 2 - Silver (Good)

The titles in this tier are representative of *good picture quality that is above-average and a significant upgrade over standard definition. The image will demonstrate a sharp nature that begins to approach a stronger quality of depth and dimensionality not present in the lower ranked tiers*. Typically the image will lack any of the major deficiencies seen in the lower tiers such as visible compression artifacts, inappropriate application of post-processing tools, master defects, etc. While the Blu-rays ranked here are not truly worthy of being demo quality, they are visually pleasing to a casual watcher of HD material and are strong upgrades over the equivalent dvd version.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/19673545
> 
> 
> Thanks Patrick. I said the same thing in my review regarding the typical Warner softness, and even mentioned that I thought I could have guessed which studio did this release based on the look it had.



There definitely was softness (which I docked it for in my review), so your comment above is noteworthy. But I just re-read your review and to your credit you had some very good things to say about the PQ too, unlike Patrick who was not impressed with a single shot in the entire movie. Quite frankly, if my viewing experience had been the same as Patrick, I would have dumped the title into Tier 4, or perhaps the bottom of Tier 3.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19672377
> 
> 
> A little correction in that I did cast a 1.75 vote for _Get Him to the Greek_ found here .
> 
> 
> I also saw _Karate Kid (2010)_ and thought I provided a review. I guess I never did post it. Anyway, blacks were superb and there were some great depth in certain scenes. Colors were vibrant, while still remaining natural. Details were good, but was not impressed with facial details. I saw this as 2.0 also.



The Get Him To The Greek recommendation by you was included in the prior update. My records indicate you did have a ranking for the original Karate Kid, but nothing for the remake.


To address the issues surrounding Inception, the interior scenes simply looked better than many of the on-location shots or where large parts of the background were CGI. The film was definitely altered by digital grading, and filmmakers will often soften a picture to effectively blend the CGI.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19674321
> 
> 
> The Get Him To The Greek recommendation by you was included in the prior update. My records indicate you did have a ranking for the original Karate Kid, but nothing for the remake.



Ah, gotcha. Thanks for checking! Yes, I completely spaced typing up the 2010 version of _Karate Kid_.


----------



## hernanu

Hey, folks, I have to ask your opinion. I went to see "The Fighter" in the theaters yesterday. I saw it on a newly converted Sony 4K projection system. The movie itself was great, excellent acting and a great story. I also saw the first time that an outsider (Christian Bale) got the Boston accent right. Very enjoyable.


My problem was with the display. I saw quite a bit of stair stepping visible on several scenes, the worst was during some of the fight scenes. I know that it was supposed to take place in the 80's (I think), but the world wasn't low resolution then, the displays were







.


Do you think the display was improperly calibrated, or is this part of the source and will that carry over to the Bluray transfer?


I saw another movie using this 4K system, and didn't have these complaints, so hopefully it was a one time thing.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hernanu* /forum/post/19675055
> 
> 
> Hey, folks, I have to ask your opinion. I went to see "The Fighter" in the theaters yesterday. I saw it on a newly converted Sony 4K projection system. The movie itself was great, excellent acting and a great story. I also saw the first time that an outsider (Christian Bale) got the Boston accent right. Very enjoyable.
> 
> 
> My problem was with the display. I saw quite a bit of stair stepping visible on several scenes, the worst was during some of the fight scenes. I know that it was supposed to take place in the 80's (I think), but the world wasn't low resolution then, the displays were
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> Do you think the display was improperly calibrated, or is this part of the source and will that carry over to the Bluray transfer?



That question is beyond the scope of my knowledge, but it sounds more of an issue with the local theater. Digital projection is so new that I assume problems may arise of that nature. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable on the subject could answer your concern.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Sorority Row


recommendation: Tier 4.5*


An ugly presentation for a newer movie, a substantial portion of _Sorority Row_ just looks very poor. The 2009 film runs approximately 100-minutes and is encoded in AVC on a BD-50. Ironically the compression encode, which averages a strong 29.95 Mbps, is the best aspect of the dilapidated picture quality for the Blu-ray from Summit Entertainment. It never wavers under the constant noise and various types of film stock used in the production.


The image is a soft, defocused mess much of the time. Washed-out colors and and an abundance of halos on occasion are constant intrusions into the frame. Certain scenes look okay, but if examined closely reveal a disturbing lack of detail and texture. The limited budget and possible attempt to enhance the atmosphere of the film leads to some scenes with poor lighting and clarity.


The best information I could find says this was shot using 35mm film, but that can't be right given the results. Some shots look like cheap digital and a mixture of 16mm work. While a few scenes might rank in Tier Three, a sizable majority rest comfortably in Tier Four.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...0#post18262090


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19669418
> 
> 
> I tried renting this today but all the copies are out for the weekend. How did you like the movie?



Didn't see you until today, sorry. Yeah, great movie. Bit underdeveloped in terms of characters, but still tense.

*Gulliver's Travels (1939)*


Worst. Blu-ray. Ever. The very definition of a Tier 5., the bottom of the barrel too. This thing is a mess, loaded with so much DNR it wipes out entire characters from the screen. Colors are lost or bleed out so heavily the animation lines disappear. There's damage left on the print, and some banding against the sky.

*Tier 5.0*


----------



## tfoltz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hernanu* /forum/post/19675055
> 
> 
> My problem was with the display. I saw quite a bit of stair stepping visible on several scenes, the worst was during some of the fight scenes. I know that it was supposed to take place in the 80's (I think), but the world wasn't low resolution then, the displays were
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> Do you think the display was improperly calibrated, or is this part of the source and will that carry over to the Bluray transfer?



I had the same issues when watching Valkyrie in the local theater. Looked very bad with the same "stair stepping" you mention. However, the Valkyrie blu-ray looks great, so it is likely that the local theater you went to doesn't have everything calibrated correctly.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19674017
> 
> 
> There definitely was softness (which I docked it for in my review), so your comment above is noteworthy. But I just re-read your review and to your credit you had some very good things to say about the PQ too, unlike Patrick who was not impressed with a single shot in the entire movie. Quite frankly, if my viewing experience had been the same as Patrick, I would have dumped the title into Tier 4, or perhaps the bottom of Tier 3.



I understand what you are saying, but you have to take it as a whole. I don't want to speak for Patrick, but my assumption is that *despite* the negative aspects of the PQ, he still thought that it looked pretty good overall, which was the basis for a Tier 2.25 rating. Often people might concentrate on the negative aspects of the PQ in their review if they are trying to explain why they are giving it a lower score than most others have given it.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/19678615
> 
> 
> I understand what you are saying, but you have to take it as a whole. I don't want to speak for Patrick, but my assumption is that *despite* the negative aspects of the PQ, he still thought that it looked pretty good overall, which was the basis for a Tier 2.25 rating. Often people might concentrate on the negative aspects of the PQ in their review if they are trying to explain why they are giving it a lower score than most others have given it.



It's possible you're right about Patrick thinking "it looked pretty good overall," but when one makes a strong statement like he did where he basically states that not ONE SINGLE SHOT impressed him, it's hard to conclude that he thought it was "pretty good overall."


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/19678615
> 
> 
> I understand what you are saying, but you have to take it as a whole. I don't want to speak for Patrick, but my assumption is that *despite* the negative aspects of the PQ, he still thought that it looked pretty good overall, which was the basis for a Tier 2.25 rating. Often people might concentrate on the negative aspects of the PQ in their review if they are trying to explain why they are giving it a lower score than most others have given it.



Thanks, Rob. That's a very accurate description of the state of mind that went into my evaluation. When I said that there wasn't a single shot in the entire movie where I was "really impressed with the PQ," I certainly didn't mean to say that I thought the PQ was horrible, or even bad, just not "really impressive." I also meant to convey that the softness was present throughout the movie, although I also agree with Phantom that the CGI sequences, such as the scene with Leo and Ellen Page at a sidewalk cafe, were especially soft.


----------



## oleus

now i need to clarify up front that i have NOT seen the Inception bluray, but instead have rented it in HD from Itunes. I definitely had the "not one single shot impressed me" feeling when it was over; i'm all for a "dark" look but often it comes across as plain murky, especially when watching on a projector setup. usually the HD itunes transfers aren't too far off from their bluray counterparts....as for the movie, i was massively let down on this one. it felt to me like a Nightmare on Elm Street movie without Freddy Kruger.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^


As more and more *negative* reviews come in regarding _Inception_, it reminds me (in measure) of _The Dark Knight_. This begs the question: Can Christopher Nolan direct a movie that everyone will agree on (PQ-wise and story-wise)? I think NOT!


----------



## 42041

*Say Anything...*


A surprisingly solid transfer for this somewhat visually plain 1989 film; this is another disc that makes me wish there was another tier thread where technical quality trumped silly "eye candy" assessments. This disc is not demo material by any stretch, but it looks very natural and film-like, none of the searing contrast or hideous edge enhancement that afflicts certain other films from this time period, with fineness of grain and resolution that makes me suspect Fox went with a 4k scan of the negative, or at least a nice 2k one. But no matter how fancy the scan is, I think the movie was shot to have a softer look, and details tend to be hazy. Black levels are elevated and give the image a low-contrast, flat appearance that looks decidedly 80s. That may be historically accurate, I don't know. Overall, I don't think this is a visually striking movie, but it's a top-notch blu-ray, among the best transfers of 80s films on the format, content to just leave the movie how it's supposed to look.

*Tier 2.75*


----------



## dla26

*Princess Bride*


Lots of great detail on many (but not all) close-ups and lush colors without oversaturation. PQ was inconsistent with some Tier 0 scenes followed by tier 2.5 scenes, but most of the movie fell somewhere higher in the range.

*Tier 1.25*


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19680483
> 
> 
> ^^^^
> 
> 
> As more and more *negative* reviews come in regarding _Inception_, it reminds me (in measure) of _The Dark Knight_. This begs the question: Can Christopher Nolan direct a movie that everyone will agree on (PQ-wise and story-wise)? I think NOT!



Denny,


I think it reminds us of Batman Begins than TDK which looked too enhanced.







I still remember the wife saying why is the picture unnaturally sharp.










I got my German briefcase edition with Steelbook though I am yet to open it.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/19684117
> 
> 
> Denny,
> 
> 
> I think it reminds us of Batman Begins than TDK which looked too enhanced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I still remember the wife saying why is the picture unnaturally sharp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I got my German briefcase edition with Steelbook though I am yet to open it.



It may have a similar look to _Batman Begins_ (I can't even recall what I thought of that title), but it's _The Dark Knight_ that resulted in people being so polarized. _Inception_ is beginning to go down that same road, though I doubt it will reach the level of polarization that TDK had.


Well Igans....it's time to break open that briefcase so you can weigh in on _Inception_. I'm not sure what you'll think of the PQ, but I trust you'll be impressed with the movie. I found it refreshing after being subjected to so many mindless action flicks this year.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Devil*


Man what a mess of black crush. There's not a lick of shadow detail here, and hair becomes a giant clump of nothingness. Colors vary wildly, and detail is only "meh." It's a fairly ugly film by design. Sharpness is okay, and grain is quite minimal, resolved well.

*Tier 3.5*


----------



## cjmx2

*Salt*
I have been absent for a while but moving / new baby will do that to you...I have not had the chance to watch many Blu-rays lately but had a chance to throw this in...

Let me 1st say that there is some good and some bad although it was generally good. The bad: softness in many scenes especially the flashbacks (exery one was dissappointing - directors intent I'm sure) Also the blacks were not very good...crushed in every dark scene I saw...just messy. The good: there were many good looking daytime scenes...some with excellent high tier 1 quality facial details (it was not very consistent at worst they were tier 2) generally it seemed to have strong contrast and skintones were accurate. Overall long shots were good but not great...It was kinda a mixed bag but a pretty good mixed bag...hopefully that makes sense...it looks a little better than several titles in tier 2.0 to me, but I would not be opposed to:
*Tier 1.75 or 2.0*


----------



## djoberg

*The Town*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19668681
> 
> *The Town*
> 
> 
> Outstanding aerials of the city, mesmerizing amounts of sharpness and detail there. That holds true for most of the close-ups too, with the occasional focal issue. Grain is sadly poorly resolved, the result of cramming too much on the disc undoubtedly. Definitely turning into noise more than grain. Nice color, veering both warm and cool.
> 
> *Tier 1.75*



It's late....I'm tired....and I'm taking the easy way out on this one by echoing GRG's sentiments above. I agree 100% with every word he said. The only thing I would add is that facial close-ups, in particular, were spectacular in most instances.


I also agree with a recent post of GRG's where he stated that it was a great movie (though lacking in character development).


Well, I only have one more small detail to agree with him on, and here it is....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 6'


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Easy A*


Digitally shot, the results are in the picture. Smooth faces, limited texture, but awesome clarity, superb color, and great blacks (which is usually the case with the Genesis). Sharpness is fine and environments are spectacular. Not too bad if you're not obsessed with the finest of textures.

*Tier 1.75*


----------



## deltasun

*Unthinkable*


Plenty of details on this feature. Seems the _sharpness_ know was turned a bit too far to the right. There are great details in faces, but almost unnaturally so. Skin tones are a bit on the pale side and the entire movie has a clinical look. Grain is on the moderate side, but only distracts in the darker corners. Blacks are deep and contrast is strong, almost a heightened result. Colors are somewhat muted as well.


Though I didn't care for the look, I have to watch it through thread rules glasses.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19694354
> 
> *Unthinkable*
> 
> 
> Plenty of details on this feature. Seems the _sharpness_ know was turned a bit too far to the right. There are great details in faces, but almost unnaturally so. Skin tones are a bit on the pale side and the entire movie has a clinical look. Grain is on the moderate side, but only distracts in the darker corners. Blacks are deep and contrast is strong, almost a heightened result. Colors are somewhat muted as well.
> 
> 
> Though I didn't care for the look, I have to watch it through thread rules glasses.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.0*
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_



Just out of curiosity, what did you think of the movie?


----------



## deltasun

I didn't care much for it. It's basically _24_ in slow motion and less suspense. I thought the acting was also horrible and over-done, specially when establishing that everything is "classified." It was almost pretentious that they have so much clout.


The only time my interest was piqued was a scene where the team got to go out in the field. Don't want to give anything away.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19694902
> 
> 
> I didn't care much for it. It's basically _24_ in slow motion and less suspense. I thought the acting was also horrible and over-done, specially when establishing that everything is "classified." It was almost pretentious that they have so much clout.
> 
> 
> The only time my interest was piqued was a scene where the team got to go out in the field. Don't want to give anything away.



I agree with some of that, especially the acting, but I did like how it gave you something to think about. I kept changing my mind regarding whose methods I agreed with.


----------



## deltasun

Ah, you're asking about the actual story. Definitely agree - you're forced to take each side at least once or twice throughout. Then, you question yourself...

*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) ...how far do you really go in getting the information for the potential 4th bomb??? At what point - when you've killed one of the kids? - do you believe him that there are only x number of bombs?


----------



## Rob Tomlin

^ Exactly!


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Salt*


Meh. Another Sony release with a little bit of edge enhancement. Some fantastic detail in close though. Grain spikes are rough, black levels are just okay, a bit warm on the flesh tones, and some flashbacks are noticeably different in terms of style.

*Tier 2.75*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Elf*


DNR! Yeah! Smothered with it too, just like the DVD. Probably the same master too, although the edge enhancement isn't quite as prominent. Blacks are too deep, causing crush. Colors are hefty, but the flesh tones are ghastly. So much for holiday cheer.

*Tier 4.5*


----------



## djoberg

*Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'hoole*


MESMERIZING!! Just when you think you've seen the best animated marvels possible in _Toy Story 3_ and _A Christmas Carol_, along comes this visual feast that defies description (though I'll give it a shot







). And perhaps the greatest miracle in this accomplishment is that it comes to us from...gasp!....Warner Bros!!!!


I don't want to set anyone up for disappointment by resorting to multiple superlatives, so I'll just simply say that this title had the best DETAIL, DEPTH, and DIMENSIONALITY (I guess you could call it 3D then







) that I've ever seen. You have to see it to believe it....so, by all means, SEE IT!! The DETAIL in the various owls' feathers, claws, and beaks is phenomenal. The DEPTH and DIMENSIONALITY is breathtaking in a majority of scenes. We sometimes talk about photorealism and I'm here to say this is the KING!


Though the color palette isn't as full and bright as _Toy Story 3_, it is still pure EYE CANDY. Wait till you see the bright white feathers of the King and Queen Owls of the Guardians. And when other primary colors are featured they are as bold and vibrant as can be.


The BLACKS, which are abundant, are DEEP and INKY, and the corresponding shadow details are as good as those in _Coraline_. Again, you have to see these to believe them. Let me add that the lighting is exquisite in most of the dark scenes, adding to the already excellent shadow details.


I'll just mention one more virtue: CLARITY!! This is so sharp and clear that you will find yourself pausing it time and time again to allow your eyes to take in all the resolution.


I saw absolutely no anomalies of any kind. There were some (rare) scenes with dark clouds or smoke that gave it a somewhat soft look, but even in these if there were owls in the shot they were still crystal-clear and teeming with detail.


I'm going out on a limb and nominating this gem for....

*Tier Recommendation: Top of Tier 0*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


PS There may be those who would be reluctant to put this above _Toy Story 3_ due to the darker nature of the production, but IMO the detail, depth, and clarity trump TS3, as well as _A Christmas Carol_ (which is just as dark or darker).


----------



## deltasun

You've whet my appetite yet again, Denny. I also heard the story's not bad. What'd ya think?


----------



## deltasun

*The Complete Metropolis*


I've actually not seen this film before. I was astonished how captivated I was of the story and how expressive the actors' eyes were (particularly that of Maria). The restoration is spectacular, just from how it looks. There are 25 minutes that were recovered from Argentina that are in bad shape. These show up as very vertically scratched scenes, which would surely fall into Tier 5.


Blacks are of the dark gray variety, while whites bloom in numerous scenes. Contrast is strong for the most part. Some of the ultra close-up's show good facial details and obvious cakey make-up on the actors' faces. Dimensionality can be decent at times in the city. There are instances of banding and some artifacting. Grain is quite moderate to heavy.

*Tier Recommendation: 4.0*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## djoberg

Quote:

Originally Posted by *deltasun* 
You've whet my appetite yet again, Denny. I also heard the story's not bad. What'd ya think?
To be honest delta, I was so into the PQ that I'll have to give this a second viewing to concentrate more on the story. I can say it's a rather typical "good versus evil" storyline and you find yourself loving the "good guys" and hating the "bad guys."


I didn't mention this in my review, but some of the scenery is gorgeous. When you arrive at the "heavenly island" of the Guardians it will remind you of scenes out of _Avatar_. There is rich detail in trees, plants, rocks, etc., besides the phenomenal detail in all of the owls.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps*


Easily some of the best city aerials I've ever seen. Astonishing levels of detail. In close, it's pretty firm too. Texture is strong if a hair inconsistent. Flesh tones are far too warm, teal is in abundance, black levels are superb, and sharpness is firm.

*Tier 2.0*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*White Christmas*


Technicolor was the greatest thing ever. Everything here is so rich, so vibrant, so... colorful it's astounding. Detail on the elaborate costumes is amazing, and definition staggering. Could use another damage pass, but it's remarkable anyway. Grain is well resolved and natural.

*Tier 1.75*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*How The Grinch Stole Christmas!


recommendation: Tier 2.5*


Wow, the colors look great on this Blu-ray for a television special from 1966. While the image does not have the pristine flawlessness of modern animation, it is on a different level than the Peanuts' specials of the period. Warner did a very nice job on the restoration without deviating too much from the original source. A pleasant surprise on the picture quality and general condition of the film elements.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Phloyd):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post17562332


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19700768
> 
> *Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'hoole*
> 
> 
> MESMERIZING!! Just when you think you've seen the best animated marvels possible in _Toy Story 3_ and _A Christmas Carol_, along comes this visual feast that defies description (though I'll give it a shot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ). And perhaps the greatest miracle in this accomplishment is that it comes to us from...gasp!....Warner Bros!!!!
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Top of Tier 0*



Will this new disc finally bring Warner to the top of the mountain? That would be a true Christmas miracle...I have heard lots of chatter about how great this BD looks. Remember though not everyone gets to watch it on a KURO.










On another note, merry Christmas to everyone reading and to all of the thread participants, both past and present!







As we stroll along the path seeking the shiniest and best Blu-rays, have a safe and happy holiday with family and friends.


----------



## deltasun

*Elf*


There's DNR. There's edge enhancement. There's softness. There's inconsistent skin tones. There's crush. There's wavering grain/noise. There's bad CGI. However, two things - (1) vibrant, perfectly saturated colors and (2) incredible dimensionality even in medium shots. For these two strong features, I would still keep this at...

*Tier Recommendation: 3.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

Merry Christmas everyone!!


----------



## 42041

*The Green Mile*


This is a pretty good looking disc, and a well-shot film, but mushy compression reveals its Warner Bros origins. It's obviously not a cutting-edge film transfer, but there's also nothing particularly wrong with it. There's a good bit of detail and facial textures, colors are rich, and it looks pretty natural. I imagine it looked similar to this theatrically. Unfortunately, the VC1 encode of the 3-hour film reduces grain to blocky soup. I suspect plenty of fine detail was lost along with the grain.

*Tier 2.25*


----------



## lgans316

*Sherlock Holmes*


Not sure if I had recommended this before.










Starts off dull but picks up well after that.


This could be amongst Warner's best efforts as I couldn't spot any artifacts.

Looks very faithful to filmmaker's intent with many scenes offering a nice sense of depth despite the under-saturated and stylized look.

*Tier 2.25*


----------



## cjmx2

*Inception*I'm going to keep this short, but I had high hopes for this one...To me it stayed in the lower half of the demo tier until the snow fortress stuff...pretty inconsistent as far as detail goes...just hit and miss...it was beautiful one minute and soft the next...I would echo the typical Warner encode statements I believe it could have looked much better. in the sharpness detail areas...BTW awesome movie
*Tier 2.0*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Miracle on 34th Street (1947)*


Merry Christmas to all, and they don't get much better than this one in terms of the film. Sadly, the negative is long lost leaving multi-generational prints to take over. That's fine as it's still impressive stuff, just a hair softer than it would have been and suffering from some very analog-like halos. Grain is well resolved and contrast/blacks/gray scale are superb.

*Tier 3.0*


----------



## Ozymandis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19700768
> 
> *Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'hoole*
> 
> 
> MESMERIZING!! Just when you think you've seen the best animated marvels possible in _Toy Story 3_ and _A Christmas Carol_, along comes this visual feast that defies description (though I'll give it a shot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ). And perhaps the greatest miracle in this accomplishment is that it comes to us from...gasp!....Warner Bros!!!!
> 
> 
> I don't want to set anyone up for disappointment by resorting to multiple superlatives, so I'll just simply say that this title had the best DETAIL, DEPTH, and DIMENSIONALITY (I guess you could call it 3D then
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) that I've ever seen. You have to see it to believe it....so, by all means, SEE IT!! The DETAIL in the various owls' feathers, claws, and beaks is phenomenal. The DEPTH and DIMENSIONALITY is breathtaking in a majority of scenes. We sometimes talk about photorealism and I'm here to say this is the KING!
> 
> 
> Though the color palette isn't as full and bright as _Toy Story 3_, it is still pure EYE CANDY. Wait till you see the bright white feathers of the King and Queen Owls of the Guardians. And when other primary colors are featured they are as bold and vibrant as can be.
> 
> 
> The BLACKS, which are abundant, are DEEP and INKY, and the corresponding shadow details are as good as those in _Coraline_. Again, you have to see these to believe them. Let me add that the lighting is exquisite in most of the dark scenes, adding to the already excellent shadow details.
> 
> 
> I'll just mention one more virtue: CLARITY!! This is so sharp and clear that you will find yourself pausing it time and time again to allow your eyes to take in all the resolution.
> 
> 
> I saw absolutely no anomalies of any kind. There were some (rare) scenes with dark clouds or smoke that gave it a somewhat soft look, but even in these if there were owls in the shot they were still crystal-clear and teeming with detail.
> 
> 
> I'm going out on a limb and nominating this gem for....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Top of Tier 0*
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'
> 
> 
> PS There may be those who would be reluctant to put this above _Toy Story 3_ due to the darker nature of the production, but IMO the detail, depth, and clarity trump TS3, as well as _A Christmas Carol_ (which is just as dark or darker).



Thanks for your review. I should be watching this tonight or tomorrow and based on this glowing praise I'm definitely looking forward to it even more


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Ozymandis* /forum/post/19705815
> 
> 
> Thanks for your review. I should be watching this tonight or tomorrow and based on this glowing praise I'm definitely looking forward to it even more



I'll look forward to your review.


I ended up purchasing this yesterday because of the phenomenal PQ. The story is "okay," but nothing great. I can envision using this as a demo disc quite often. If I want to show people brilliant colors I'll use _Toy Story 3_, but if I want to highlight photorealism and clarity I'll use _Legend of the Guardians_ (or _A Christmas Carol_).


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cjmx2* /forum/post/19705525
> 
> *Inception*I'm going to keep this short, but I had high hopes for this one...To me it stayed in the lower half of the demo tier until the snow fortress stuff...pretty inconsistent as far as detail goes...just hit and miss...it was beautiful one minute and soft the next...I would echo the typical Warner encode statements I believe it could have looked much better. in the sharpness detail areas...BTW awesome movie
> *Tier 2.0*




Thanks for the review. I think we are probably close to the point now where there are as many votes for Inception being in Tier 2 as there are Tier 1.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/19705970
> 
> 
> Thanks for the review. I think we are probably close to the point know where there are as many votes for Inception being in Tier 2 as there are Tier 1.



You're right Rob (







), but if reviews stopped today it would still land in Tier 1 because there are quite a few votes for *high* or *middle* Tier 1, and all the votes for Tier 2 are also high. I figure it's averaging out somewhere around 1.5 or 1.75.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/19705336
> 
> *Sherlock Holmes*
> 
> 
> Not sure if I had recommended this before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Tier 2.25*



As far as I can tell, you had never previously given a ranking to Sherlock Holmes.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19706086
> 
> 
> You're right Rob (
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ), but if reviews stopped today it would still land in Tier 1 because there are quite a few votes for *high* or *middle* Tier 1, and all the votes for Tier 2 are also high. I figure it's averaging out somewhere around 1.5 or 1.75.



Actually I didn't see it that way. I saw several Tier 1 votes that were for 1.75.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/19706189
> 
> 
> Actually I didn't see it that way. I saw several Tier 1 votes that were for 1.75.



But there were several for 1.25 and one for 1.5. If you average those (and the ones for 1.75) with the half dozen votes or so for high tier 2 you will come up with a Tier 1 result. Putting it another way, for those high Tier 1 votes to be cancelled out, you would have to have the same amount of low Tier 2 votes, and they just aren't there. All of the Tier 2 votes are rather high (2.0 or 2.25), so the high Tier 1 votes are going to cause the average to be somewhere in the lower half of Tier 1.


Here's the breakdown so far:


1.25....Sujay

1.25....djoberg

1.25....vpn75

1.5......Phantom

1.75....GRG

1.75....deltasun

2.0.....ozymandis

2.0.....tfoltz

2.0.....cjmx2

2.25....Rob Tomlin

2.25....Patrick

2.25....rusky_g


I'll let you do the math Rob (or Phantom), but in my calculations it definitely comes out to a low Tier 1 average (it comes to 1.79 after adding these up and dividing them by 12).


----------



## tfoltz

Watched Inception again last night. I noticed a lot more softness this time around. Before I was thinking Tier 2 leaning toward 1.75, and now I'm thinking Tier 2 leaning toward 2.25. However, since djoberg just listed all the scores I won't mess it up by going 2.25, so I'll stick with Tier 2







.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19706369
> 
> 
> But there were several for 1.25 and one for 1.5. If you average those (and the ones for 1.75) with the half dozen votes or so for high tier 2 you will come up with a Tier 1 result. Putting it another way, for those high Tier 1 votes to be cancelled out, you would have to have the same amount of low Tier 2 votes, and they just aren't there. All of the Tier 2 votes are rather high (2.0 or 2.25), so the high Tier 1 votes are going to cause the average to be somewhere in the lower half of Tier 1.
> 
> 
> Here's the breakdown so far:
> 
> 
> 1.25....Sujay
> 
> 1.25....djoberg
> 
> 1.25....vpn75
> 
> 1.5......Phantom
> 
> 1.75....GRG
> 
> 1.75....deltasun
> 
> 2.0.....ozymandis
> 
> 2.0.....tfoltz
> 
> 2.0.....cjmx2
> 
> 2.25....Rob Tomlin
> 
> 2.25....Patrick
> 
> 2.25....rusky_g
> 
> 
> I'll let you do the math Rob (or Phantom), but in my calculations it definitely comes out to a low Tier 1 average (it comes to 1.79 after adding these up and dividing them by 12).



1.79 is lower than 1.75, so it should go in Tier 2.0.


----------



## Hughmc

*Merry Christmas*


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19660671
> 
> *Inception
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 1.5*
> 
> 
> While djoberg might have been a tad generous in his evaluation of Inception's image, there is still enough eye candy to recommend a placement in the middle of Tier One. Using my Christmas ninja skills to artfully unwrap the gift early and restore it to the original condition after viewing, the general impression left me with a film that has some nice demo moments, but a few caveats. While much better than the typical Warner Bros. produced Blu-ray, the VC-1 encode shows minor traces of possible deleterious manipulation on the Digital Intermediate.
> 
> 
> I was mightily impressed by the impeccable contrast and color timing, the transfer does show a slight weakness in absolute high-frequency content against the best of the best. The extensive blending of CGI never helps picture quality because of the techniques needed to combine it with real footage. That process usually leads to a certain look, which while impressive in certain ways, saps just a bit of the best details from a film. Inception does not avoid that pitfall.
> 
> 
> Another disappointment are the scenes set in the blindingly white hills of snow. If shot in a specific manner, snow can be made to look highly dimensional and practically project off the screen. That was not the case in the third act at all, where the photography appears very flat and lifeless. Some of the other settings truly help to show off Inception at its finest though, as Nolan switches locales frequently.
> 
> 
> Make no mistake, most will be very happy with the picture quality of Inception. Only if you judge the disc on its worst scenes could it rank in Tier Two. Its lack of sheer brilliance probably prevents a ranking near the top of Tier One, but generally compares favorably to titles in the lower half of Tier One.
> 
> 
> BDInfo scan (courtesy of TylerAfx):
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post19527002


*Inception:*


Exactly how I think it looks.


I heard my ears ringing a week or so ago when I seen my name mentioned in a post to "bail" Denny out in regards to Inception.










I was...going to do a review prior to Phantom and post 1.5; going to respond to the bail Denny post; going to quote Phantom...anyway procrastination.









*REcommendation: Tier 1.5*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/19707178
> 
> *Inception:*
> 
> 
> Exactly how I think it looks.
> 
> 
> I heard my ears ringing a week or so ago when I seen my name mentioned in a post to "bail" Denny out in regards to Inception.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was...going to do a review prior to Phantom and post 1.5; going to respond to the bail Denny post; going to quote Phantom...anyway procrastination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *REcommendation: Tier 1.5*



Better late than never, my friend!










That brings the AVERAGE to 1.77 and my momma always told me to round DOWN if it's closer to that number, so 1.75 is the magic number (right now).


----------



## deltasun

You guys should have just listened to my 1.75 score and saved all the unnecessary arithmetic.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19426936
> 
> *Hot Tub Time Machine*
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75*
> 
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> 
> All I remember was that they had the usual orange-ish skin tones, usually found in the comedy or romance/comedy genres and the facial details were lacking in both. _Hot Tub Time Machine_ had better "pop" factor with bolder blacks and more dimensionality and gets a slight edge.



I am in total agreement with deltasun's observations, right down to the fleshtones with the blatant red push. It really sticks out when the hot tub starts to light up. There must be some secret edict in Hollywood that comedies have to contain serious levels of magenta in their color palette. Is there secret research I am not aware of that makes the movie funnier if colors are burnt-orange? The resulting effect was pushing me to drop the BD into the second Tier.

*Hot Tub Time Machine


recommendation: Tier 1.75*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Step Up 3*


Digital but all eye candy when it wants to be. This thing breathes color, so many rich, vibrant hues it's absurd. Black levels are outstanding and the contrast perfect. Detail is only fair, the big problem being the lead actress smoothed over in almost every scene she's in. If it weren't for that, this would be awfully close to the top tier.

*Tier 1.25*


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* 
I am in total agreement with deltasun's observations, right down to the fleshtones with the blatant red push. It really sticks out when the hot tub starts to light up. There must be some secret edict in Hollywood that comedies have to contain serious levels of magenta in their color palette. Is there secret research I am not aware of that makes the movie funnier if colors are burnt-orange? The resulting effect was pushing me to drop the BD into the second Tier.

*Hot Tub Time Machine


recommendation: Tier 1.75*
Personally I don't understand how either of you could put this in Tier 1. The colors are distracting, and the rest of the picture doesn't look particularly good either.


How does a title with distracting color/skin tones justify a Tier 1 placement? Aren't Tier 1 titles supposed to be Top Tier Demo quality titles? I wouldn't dream of putting this one on to show off my system.


Hot Tub Time Machine doesn't come close to this in my opinion, which is why I ranked it at Tier 2.75.


----------



## lgans316

*Scott Pilgrim Vs. the World*

*Tier 2.5*


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/19709422
> 
> 
> Personally I don't understand how either of you could put this in Tier 1. The colors are distracting, and the rest of the picture doesn't look particularly good either.
> 
> 
> How does a title with distracting color/skin tones justify a Tier 1 placement? Aren't Tier 1 titles supposed to be Top Tier Demo quality titles? I wouldn't dream of putting this one on to show off my system.
> 
> 
> Hot Tub Time Machine doesn't come close to this in my opinion, which is why I ranked it at Tier 2.75.



If we were docking flesh tones that heavily, 90% of the new releases wouldn't have a chance. For those who have never seen it:

http://theabyssgazes.blogspot.com/20...ease-stop.html 


There was another one showing examples of box art recently but I can't find that one. It's standard now. I mean, I have no problem docking it (Other Guys was a recent pet peeve for that same palette), but a whole tier and then some? It's rebelling against something that is sadly becoming a standard.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/19709422
> 
> 
> Personally I don't understand how either of you could put this in Tier 1. The colors are distracting, and the rest of the picture doesn't look particularly good either.
> 
> 
> How does a title with distracting color/skin tones justify a Tier 1 placement? Aren't Tier 1 titles supposed to be Top Tier Demo quality titles? I wouldn't dream of putting this one on to show off my system.
> 
> 
> Hot Tub Time Machine doesn't come close to this in my opinion, which is why I ranked it at Tier 2.75.



In my mind Tier 2.75 signifies a disc barely above average, among not just new releases but every Blu-ray ever released. That includes a ton of older catalog titles and titles with questionable sources that simply do not hold up as well compared to the clarity and sharpness of recent films just transferred to 1080p.


Is Hot Tub Time Machine average quality for a new release? Probably, but it would throw the entire Tiers out of alignment if something like it was really put that low. It easily could have ended up in Tier 2.0, but in general I felt it surpassed a number of discs ranked there at the moment.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*District 9


recommendation: Tier 1.25*


There was a large disparity in prior recommendations for _District 9_, which was filmed digitally. Many downgraded it for that reason, among others. It does show some of the weaknesses of that production style, like poorer shadow detail and weaker black levels. The image was razor-sharp and possessed a high degree of clarity in close-ups. If you ignore some of the minor faults, one could imagine this Blu-ray as being worthy of the highest Tier.


----------



## cjmx2

*Despicable Me*Definitely a great looking BD from Universal...technically really a beautiful almost perfect transfer as most of the tier 0 animated titles. It does not have the level of detail of TS3 or texture detail of UP, but still EYE candy...I would recommend *Tier 0* somewhere between bee movie and chicken little.

Also a very funny movie!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19710304
> 
> *District 9
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 1.25*
> 
> 
> There was a large disparity in prior recommendations for _District 9_, which was filmed digitally. Many downgraded it for that reason, among others. It does show some of the weaknesses of that production style, like poorer shadow detail and weaker black levels. The image was razor-sharp and possessed a high degree of clarity in close-ups. If you ignore some of the minor faults, one could imagine this Blu-ray as being worthy of the highest Tier.



We're close on this one Phantom; I gave it a 1.5. I docked it mainly for shaky camera-work and overblown whites. The muted colors were another drawback. But the DETAILS were amazing and for that reason alone it deserves a Tier 1 ranking.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Secret


recommendation: Tier 3.5
*

Image Entertainment released this 2007 movie on August 26, 2008. The 91-minute film uses a BD-25 and is encoded in AVC at an average video bitrate of 19.98 Mbps. Nothing sticks out as horribly wrong on the transfer, but the dull presentation precludes any demo potential.


The cinematography is very restrained and colors are cold. Most of the filming, particularly interior scenes, show mere hints of depth and dimension. Detail is fine in tight shots, but noticeably lower in medium-range shots. Brief flashes of halos occur that look a natural result of the optics, and not added processing. Black levels are a step below the average, resulting in a black that slightly crushes shadow detail while still not looking inky or deep. The gamma on the transfer is just not that good.


The video encode is reasonably competent for an older Blu-ray. The master looks sourced from a high-quality print and is free of blemish or degradation. A new scan of the original film elements today would probably up the detail level, but at least it shows no major problems. _The Secret_ probably deserves a rank somewhere in the bottom half of Tier Three.


Watching on a 60 Pioneer KURO plasma at 1080p/24, from a 60-GB PS3 (firmware 3.55), at a viewing distance of five feet.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...9#post14547769


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19710304
> 
> *District 9
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 1.25*
> 
> 
> There was a large disparity in prior recommendations for _District 9_, which was filmed digitally. Many downgraded it for that reason, among others. It does show some of the weaknesses of that production style, like poorer shadow detail and weaker black levels. The image was razor-sharp and possessed a high degree of clarity in close-ups. If you ignore some of the *minor faults*, one could imagine this Blu-ray as being worthy of the highest Tier.



There aren't all that many aspects to evaluating picture quality, so when any one of those aspects falls short, I don't consider it a "minor fault". Such is the case with the contrast/black levels in District 9. It completely lacked the depth and dimensionality that one should expect from a Tier 1 placement in my opinion.


So, while I agree with you regarding the excellent details that are seen in this title, like I said in my review: "But, there is more to excellent PQ than just detail and clarity, and the lack of good contrast with strong blacks, as well as the blown out highlights really brings this one down".


I guess I am once again feeling that people are being generous on their ratings and are losing sight of the fact that Tier 1 titles are Tier 1 titles, and there is very little difference between a Tier 1.0 title and a Tier 1.75 title.


End rant.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19710736
> 
> 
> But the DETAILS were amazing and for that reason alone it deserves a Tier 1 ranking.



I don't think that I could possibly disagree more with this statement.


You are virtually throwing out all other aspects of PQ for the mere sake of details, when there is a lot more to PQ than that.


I'm getting pretty discouraged with some of the opinions I'm seeing here lately.


Probably best that I take a break from the thread for a while, as it isn't worth causing a commotion. Nothing personal at all guys, but when I see rankings so high that completely contradict obvious deficiencies in the PQ that the reviewer himself acknowledges, the thread seems to lose some credibility.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/19712233
> 
> 
> I don't think that I could possibly disagree more with this statement.
> 
> 
> You are virtually throwing out all other aspects of PQ for the mere sake of details, when there is a lot more to PQ than that.
> 
> 
> I'm getting pretty discouraged with some of the opinions I'm seeing here lately.
> 
> 
> Probably best that I take a break from the thread for a while, as it isn't worth causing a commotion. Nothing personal at all guys, but when I see rankings so high that completely contradict obvious deficiencies in the PQ that the reviewer himself acknowledges, the thread seems to lose some credibility.



Hey Rob, sorry to hear about your discouragement. I think I was even less generous than you on this particular title. While I understand wanting to take a break (I've come across this before myself), I would encourage you to continue with your reviews. Though we all disagree a fair bit on scores, we all have a place in the overall outcome/scheme of things. I know how frustrating it can be when something "obvious" is not accepted by everyone. It's just another vote and your vote counts as well.


I understand though if you still want to take a few. Just letting you know that I'm sure we've all been through the same feeling. Just gotta plow through it and keep the balance.


----------



## deltasun

*How to Train Your Dragon*


A very solid submission from Dreamworks. Some of the animation sequences surpassed _Kung Fu Panda_, in my opinion. But, as a whole, I think _Kung Fu Panda_ is still superior. Comparing to the higher Pixar titles? Forget about it.


Contrast is not the strongest attribute for this title. Blacks are close to inky, but still inconsistent. Colors are of the dark variety, but looked very good. Shadow details are well rendered.


Some of the issues remain - banding, aliasing. Dimensionality is also not up to par, though the panoramic scenery looked awesome.


Still Tier 0, but not nearly as impressive as some of the top tier titles...

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (just above _Corpse Bride_)

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/19712233
> 
> 
> I don't think that I could possibly disagree more with this statement.
> 
> 
> You are virtually throwing out all other aspects of PQ for the mere sake of details, when there is a lot more to PQ than that.
> 
> 
> I'm getting pretty discouraged with some of the opinions I'm seeing here lately.
> 
> 
> Probably best that I take a break from the thread for a while, as it isn't worth causing a commotion. Nothing personal at all guys, but when I see rankings so high that completely contradict obvious deficiencies in the PQ that the reviewer himself acknowledges, the thread seems to lose some credibility.



First of all Rob, I will admit to resorting to a bit of *hyperbole* in stating _District 9_ was worthy of Tier 1 simply based on DETAILS. My review surely bears out that in addition to DETAILS, DEPTH and CLARITY were also exemplary. Here's the link for my review:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...ostcount=15993 


So, in truth I am NOT "throwing out all aspects of PQ for the sake of details."


Let me elaborate a bit on DETAILS. If there is a scene with phenomenal details (as was the case with many scenes in _District 9_), it will also be accompanied with other virtues. I can't possibly imagine a superbly detailed shot lacking clarity, can you? And under most circumstances that same shot will exhibit a good sense of depth...wouldn't you agree?


If you read my review on that title you will see that I do mention the inconsistencies that characterized the movie. I concluded that 2/3 of the title fell into Tier 0 while the other 1/3 was average at best. That makes it hard to draw a sound conclusion but I tried doing a little math and I came up with 1.5 or 1.75. Like it or not, my *opinion* was reached according to my interpretation of the criteria set forth for this thread.


I sincerely hope you don't retreat from the thread, for you have ALWAYS been a major contributor. Yet I must admit that our *opinions* on some recent titles have differed considerably and I can understand why you are discouraged. I don't have a solution to this, for in all honesty I'm still judging titles as I have in the past....using the criteria on page one of the rankings thread....and leaning towards my normal generosity in placement recommendations (







....I thought I should end this rather serious response on a light note).


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/19712200
> 
> 
> There aren't all that many aspects to evaluating picture quality, so when any one of those aspects falls short, I don't consider it a "minor fault". Such is the case with the contrast/black levels in District 9. It completely lacked the depth and dimensionality that one should expect from a Tier 1 placement in my opinion.
> 
> 
> So, while I agree with you regarding the excellent details that are seen in this title, like I said in my review: "But, there is more to excellent PQ than just detail and clarity, and the lack of good contrast with strong blacks, as well as the blown out highlights really brings this one down".
> 
> 
> I guess I am once again feeling that people are being generous on their ratings and are losing sight of the fact that Tier 1 titles are Tier 1 titles, and there is very little difference between a Tier 1.0 title and a Tier 1.75 title.



I can only speak for myself, but in the course of evaluating Blu-rays for the thread, sometimes the visceral impact of the picture quality overwhelms critical considerations. District 9 might fit into that category. It is currently ranked in Tier 2.0, so most seem to agree with your evaluation of its rank.


While trying to stick as closely as possible to the criteria, I do lean towards being consistent with my prior recommendations. Based on pop and dimensionality, District 9 definitely does not stand out as a reference title. But its picture does have virtues that could possibly make up for the deficiencies cited above.


----------



## deltasun

*The New Daughter*


Wow, this one started out strong - natural clarity, good depth, and decent black levels. Contrast was a bit hot, but did not look distracting. Unfortunately, the movie continues. Right away, shadow details go down the drain. While some facial details initially looked good, those details disappear and it feels like the camera can't quite get to the correct plane of focus.


Skin tones are never good anywhere in the film. Fine grain is present, though bordering on noise once we get into darker, indoor scenes. The finale really takes the cake, where blacks become murky and any signs of shadow details disappear.


Some of the daylight scenes do save this from completely tanking...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19538022
> 
> *The Expendables*
> 
> 
> A one-word summary would be: INCONSISTENT! Whether we're talking black levels, detail, grain structure, clarity....it doesn't matter. One minute we're blessed with a sharp-looking picture with a nice film-like look, plenty of eye-popping detail (especially in facial close-ups and biceps
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ), beautiful colors, and exquisite black levels & shadow details. The next minute we're cursed with a flat-looking picture with too much grain or digital noise, a lack of detail, and murky blacks that are void of shadow details. This could have easily been a high Tier 1 contender if the virtues had held up, but as it is I have to go along with my colleague GRG and assign it to Tier 2. I am happy to say that the majorty of the movie's running time (of approximately 100 minutes) exhibited the positives mentioned above, so I'm going to go one notch higher that GRG and put it right here....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.0*





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19538138
> 
> *The Expendables*
> 
> 
> Denny beat me to it, but it is the best way to describe this title: INCONSISTENT. There are some ultra-close up's that are so detailed and textured, one wonders how it could go the other way. But it does, check out Bruce Willis - soft. Yet, Stallone looks sharp in the same shot. Black levels are the same - murky one minute and great shadow details the next.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.25*



There is not much to disagree with these reviews concerning _The Expendables_, the inconsistency in the picture quality was disappointing for a mindless action spectacle.

*recommendation: Tier 2.25*


----------



## lgans316

*Inception*


PQ is sandwiched between Nolan's own Batman Begins and The Prestige w.r to the look and the usual Warner's filtering.


Top class and brilliant film-making and the Wife enjoyed and understood better in the first viewing than me.









*Tier 2.25*


----------



## deltasun

*The Goonies*


I couldn't pass up the $6 _Goonies_ deal on Amazon! Unfortunately, this transfer is riddled with DNR, some edge enhancement, and noise. Okay, the noise is usually in the darker segments of the film. Grain, in general, wavers as well.


Pervasive softness is another property that mars this title. Following that would be details - check out the mass of globs during the top view of the Goonies riding their bikes to the coast. I will submit though that some medium shots of the gang are appropriately rendered. Contrast is not the strongest, and neither are the black levels. Shadow details aren't too bad, but certain sequences in the tunnel appear flat.


Positives? Does nostalgia count?







Colors are probably the closest to being a positive, though still not that vibrant.


These negatives are still not to the degree that I would place in Tier Coal, but close...

*Tier Recommendation: 4.25*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19717501
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 4.25*



Do not think I am singling you out deltasun, but I will point out that we technically do not have a Tier 4.25. Tier 4 is only broken up into 4.0 and 4.5 at the moment. You're not the first regular poster to give recommendations for a mythical Tier 4.25.







When this has happened in the past I have just counted that score as a Tier 4 placement.







No worries, the Tiers will go on and survive. That sounds like a great deal on the Goonies.


----------



## deltasun

I was actually going to ask if we should break Tier 4 down, but just realized that would be more trouble than it's worth.







4.0 is okay for _The Goonies_ - the whole still looked good, but the individual attributes were just so subpar.


Thanks.


----------



## deltasun

*A Nightmare on Elm Street* (2010)


Another excellent start gone sour. There is so much detail, pore detail, on the Kris character that I was starting to say Tier 1.5 or higher. These are some fantastic close-up's! However, just as the character
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler  
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) succumbed
so did the PQ.


First off, there's a greenish tinge to most scenes, obviously intended by the director. This isn't bothersome, just noticeable. Secondly, shadow details start to suffer about midway through the flick. Facial details also start hurtling into inconsistent hell, as the plane of focus cannot seem to make it a few micrometers to its target. Of course, the next arbitrary scene would achieve this.


Blacks look very nice, though more prominent crushing does occur in the latter half. Contrast is excellent for the most part in brightly lit domains and still above average in not-so-well-lit places. There's a fair amount of dimensionality in the former half as well. Not too many complaints on colors. The green leaves really pop!


Grain is well-resolved for the most part. There are again instances of noise in darker scenes. Some minor banding noted. Overall, I have to drop this into Tier Silver...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*And Soon the Darkness*


Absolutely amazing pans of this location shoot, mountains fully defined, loaded with color, and depth. Flesh tones are great, and detail can be stunning. Bit of softness here and there, but not too much. The third act cuts out much of the color, but not the definition or detail.

*Tier 1.75*


----------



## cjmx2

*Knight and Day
*I'll echo most of what has been said about this so far...definitely a strong looking title with generally a well refined sense of sharpness. Although the detail was good it never hit that WOW tier 0 level for me...mostly it fell in various sections of tier 1*.* Blacks were generally strong and detailed...there was one night scene about 1/2 way thru that pretty messy and crushed to me. There was also some softness, just enough to be annoying, but just enough to detract from a all together solid looking title. I was debating between 1.5 and 1.75 but I am going with...
*Tier 1.75*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Resident Evil Afterlife*


Not only do blatant 3D effects annoy me, the after effect at home in 2D is pathetic. People look like plastic most of the time, the effects scenes are even worse. It struggles to find that real fine detail. Black levels are weak at best, at times a bit off-color too. Colors themselves are bland and faded by design. Not too much technically wrong, some artifacting the only issue in one scene, but an ugly, ugly movie nonetheless.

*Tier 3.5*


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/18813327
> 
> *The Road*
> 
> 
> Given the subject matter of this film, I expected it to be somewhat dark and dreary.
> 
> 
> Well, not only was it dark and dreary, it was also flat and soft. I felt that contrast was very weak, even if intentionally so, and the picture almost always had a flat non-three dimensional look to it.
> 
> 
> As mentioned, there was also a lot of softness. There would be the rare scene that actually did look pretty good with decent detail, but these were the exceptions.
> 
> 
> Colors are almost non-existent.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.25*


*The Road


recommendation: Tier 3.5
*

For once I will be harder on the score than Rob for a film that really should have been shot in black-and-white. The description of the picture quality is quite accurate. Almost all color is drained from the palette, leaving the imagery in a bleak state of darkness. A relentlessly depressing tone is evoked to set the mood of alienation and isolation inherent in the script.


----------



## deltasun

*Cronos*


Another fine submission from Criterion. Fine to moderate grain present throughout. There is a slight bit of DNR that is more evident in some scenes than others. For the most part, facial details show adequate texture and noticeable follicles, etc. Blacks are deep, with just a tiny bit of crushing. Contrast is also adequately strong.


Dimensionality is not as well-pronounced. Colors are a bit subdued, simply due to the intended look of the film. Details are above average and looks really good at times. Skin tones have a red push. The print's relatively clean.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

*Resident Evil: Afterlife*


Another rating where I will differ greatly with GRG. This digital presentation had plenty of details to offer. Facial details do have that digital look that is bordering on pasty. Dimensionality is noteworthy, as the numerous panoramas showed great depth with plenty of detail, albeit CGI detail. Medium scenes also exhibit beautiful 3D rendering. Blacks are deep, but does have a weird sheen to them in some scenes. Contrast is mostly perfect, but shadow details continue to be the nemesis of digital video. They are just murky and flat.


Finally, there is a steely color scheme to the feature, which is not necessarily a negative - just an observation. However, when primaries are present, they do pop. I also did not care for the CGI copies of Milla. It really detracted from the viewing experience.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The American*


A spectacular looking film, and the panoramas of this small Italian village simply gorgeous, maybe up there with the best I've seen. That slight consistency with facial detail is minor, clothes and building texture the same. Black levels are where it goes flat, the muted style the film is going for failing to establish sufficient depth.
*Tier 1.25*


----------



## audiomagnate

*The Other Guys*


While not demo material, this really didn't look too bad to me. I noticed some EE in a few scenes but the colors didn't seem as out of whack as GRG mentioned. Facial details - and there were a ton of closeups - were very good, not tier 0, IMO, but very good. I have to go

*Tier 2.5*


----------



## Lestat Phoenix

*Toy Story 3*


Best In Class Transfer

*Tier 0 top of list*


----------



## Lestat Phoenix

*Despicable Me*


Would but this right in the middle of tier 0

*Middle of Tier 0*


----------



## Lestat Phoenix

*UP*


I think this is one of the best detail transfers out there. Would put this right below Avatar.

*Tier 0 Below Avatar*


----------



## Lestat Phoenix

Just bought a Christmas Carol will chime in 2 night on a ranking.


----------



## QuiGonJosh




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19725961
> 
> *Resident Evil Afterlife*
> 
> 
> Not only do blatant 3D effects annoy me, the after effect at home in 2D is pathetic. People look like plastic most of the time, the effects scenes are even worse. It struggles to find that real fine detail. Black levels are weak at best, at times a bit off-color too. Colors themselves are bland and faded by design. Not too much technically wrong, some artifacting the only issue in one scene, but an ugly, ugly movie nonetheless.
> 
> *Tier 3.5*



You might not care for the visual aesthetic of the film, but the transfer is about as perfect as they come in its representation of the material.


----------



## deltasun

Lestat: you're flirting with a bunch of Tier 0 titles there, including _A Christmas Carol_.










QuiGonJosh: FYI - the thread guidelines center around aesthetics precisely.


----------



## QuiGonJosh

Quote:

Originally Posted by *deltasun* 
QuiGonJosh: FYI - the thread guidelines center around aesthetics precisely.
Well that's a stupid guideline then.










So if you don't like the visual style of the movie, it's a knock against the transfer? That's pretty dumb.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*End of Days*


Certainly a older master, soft and dull with some extensive damage at times. Black levels are stable, important since this one has almost no light to speak of. Grain is mushy and some edge enhancement is visible. Colors are blah by design.

*Tier 4.0*


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *QuiGonJosh* /forum/post/19738173
> 
> 
> Well that's a stupid guideline then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if you don't like the visual style of the movie, it's a knock against the transfer? That's pretty dumb.



It's the whole point of the thread, movies you can pop-in and show off at any time. Not everyone understands "intent," so the top tier appeals to everyone with pure eye candy.


RE: Afterlife isn't so much intent as it is "we want this in 3D; shoot it this way." The fake, digital nature of the entire thing is just ugly as hell.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *QuiGonJosh* /forum/post/19738173
> 
> 
> Well that's a stupid guideline then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if you don't like the visual style of the movie, it's a knock against the transfer? That's pretty dumb.



I wouldn't say it's a knock against the transfer. Visual style has nothing to do with the transfer.







We are reviewing how the finished product looks on blu-ray. Period. We're not taking into consideration how it got there. That's the premise of this particular thread. Read the complete description here .


There's a thread that takes into consideration director's intent, faithfulness of transfer, etc. here 


Either one is valid for their own purposes. To say something is "dumb" (apparently because that's all you can muster) is in itself...well...dumb.


----------



## QuiGonJosh

So everything should pop off the screen like Avatar or it's no good? I'm sorry, but every movie has it's own unique visual language and if they all looked the same, it would get redundant and boring. I thought the point was to judge the transfers themselves - artifacts, compression, DNR, etc., not "I don't like the way they shot this movie..."


----------



## oleus

finally watched Thin Red Line. Still not a huge fan of the movie, but this was definitely the best transfer i've ever seen. It was almost a depressing experience to see how much deeper, more defined, and sharper it is than 99.9% of other discs and by a fairly wide margin. I know a lot has to do with the cinematography, but c'mon, this many years into the format a title like this shouldn't be the lone live action super-ultra-uber tier 0 title around!!!!


on a side note - watched ALIEN - and was blown away also. It was insanely razor-sharp without any EE or DNR that I could see...i know some have complained that it doesn't look right, i couldn't disagree more. there was a 3-d quality to the opening scenes in the ship that were breathtaking on my system (epson 1080p projector) and dark films are often hard to "pop out" on my big screen.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *QuiGonJosh* /forum/post/19739662
> 
> 
> So everything should pop off the screen like Avatar or it's no good? I'm sorry, but every movie has it's own unique visual language and if they all looked the same, it would get redundant and boring. I thought the point was to judge the transfers themselves - artifacts, compression, DNR, etc., not "I don't like the way they shot this movie..."



Did you read what deltasun said in response to one of your former posts? He gave you the link to the criteria which we use to judge titles for placement recommendations. If you are unwilling to read that, or even worse, if you're unwilling to accept the standards set forth after reading them, then you are clearly visiting the wrong thread. I don't mean to sound harsh, or to discourage you from posting on this thread, but if one doesn't like what this thread is all about (and it's ALL ABOUT VISUAL AESTHETICS...or EYE CANDY), then I'd suggest you go elsewhere.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *QuiGonJosh* /forum/post/19739662
> 
> 
> So everything should pop off the screen like Avatar or it's no good? I'm sorry, but every movie has it's own unique visual language and if they all looked the same, it would get redundant and boring. I thought the point was to judge the transfers themselves - artifacts, compression, DNR, etc., not "I don't like the way they shot this movie..."



Have you read the material in the link I posted? It's really a moot argument if you haven't. Nothing says it has to pop like _Avatar_. You post in the Audio thread, correct? So tell me, if it was the intent to have muted sounds and not big LFEs...how would you rate it? Do you take into account that it's meant to be a silent feature or a dialogue-driven film? If so, would you then rate those REFERENCE? What if it was originally recorded in mono, but it's now in 5.1 DTS-HD MA? It's no longer as originally intended! Do you rate it lower for that reason, despite being done well in 5.1?


Someone can even start an audio thread where they rate how natural the sound is, not the special effects and over-the-top sound that's found in most movies. It would still be a valid sound thread - maybe not as interesting as what you all have over there.


Works the same here. We have pre-defined parameters in how we rate blu-ray picture quality. Doesn't make it right or wrong - it's just how it's defined.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oleus* /forum/post/19739705
> 
> 
> finally watched Thin Red Line. Still not a huge fan of the movie, but this was definitely the best transfer i've ever seen. It was almost a depressing experience to see how much deeper, more defined, and sharper it is than 99.9% of other discs and by a fairly wide margin. I know a lot has to do with the cinematography, but c'mon, this many years into the format a title like this shouldn't be the lone live action super-ultra-uber tier 0 title around!!!!
> 
> 
> on a side note - watched ALIEN - and was blown away also. It was insanely razor-sharp without any EE or DNR that I could see...i know some have complained that it doesn't look right, i couldn't disagree more. there was a 3-d quality to the opening scenes in the ship that were breathtaking on my system (epson 1080p projector) and dark films are often hard to "pop out" on my big screen.



I agree with you on both counts...._The Thin Red Line_ is clearly the best live action Blu-ray to date....and _Alien_ was absolutely gorgeous (considering its age), especially the opening scenes with the deep, deep blacks (of space and interior shots in the space ship) and razor-sharp details inside the ship.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19739842
> 
> 
> Have you read the material in the link I posted? It's really a moot argument if you haven't. Nothing says it has to pop like _Avatar_. You post in the Audio thread, correct? So tell me, if it was the intent to have muted sounds and not big LFEs...how would you rate it? Do you take into account that it's meant to be a silent feature or a dialogue-driven film? If so, would you then rate those REFERENCE? What if it was originally recorded in mono, but it's now in 5.1 DTS-HD MA? It's no longer as originally intended! Do you rate it lower for that reason, despite being done well in 5.1?
> 
> 
> Someone can even start an audio thread where they rate how natural the sound is, not the special effects and over-the-top sound that's found in most movies. It would still be a valid sound thread - maybe not as interesting as what you all have over there.
> 
> 
> Works the same here. We have pre-defined parameters in how we rate blu-ray picture quality. Doesn't make it right or wrong - it's just how it's defined.



I saw this as soon as I posted my response delta....very good reply!


We are experiencing back-to-back blizzards here in West Central Minnesota/Eastern North Dakota and I've been so busy snow-blowing the 6-7' snow drifts we had (from 55 mph winds whipping the 12" of new snow around all day yesterday and last night) I haven't had time to watch any Blus. They are closing all businesses again today with blizzard #2 coming in (winds may exceed what they did last night and up to 16" of snow is predicted) so even if I wanted to rent one I couldn't. Time to watch my two remaining titles in my _Alien Anthology_ set!


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *audiomagnate* /forum/post/19733610
> 
> *The Other Guys*
> 
> 
> While not demo material, this really didn't look too bad to me. I noticed some EE in a few scenes but the colors didn't seem as out of whack as GRG mentioned. Facial details - and there were a ton of closeups - were very good, not tier 0, IMO, but very good. I have to go
> 
> *Tier 2.5*



This is what I meant in terms of color:

Attachment 196105 


Is everything in Bed, Bath, and Beyond now tinted orange and blue? Those products don't happen to have other colors? His skin has to match the stuff behind him too?


It's not "bad" necessarily, just an annoyance to me since all movies look like that these days. It's a comedy and should be teaming with other colors.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19739933
> 
> 
> I saw this as soon as I posted my response delta....very good reply!
> 
> 
> We are experiencing back-to-back blizzards here in West Central Minnesota/Eastern North Dakota and I've been so busy snow-blowing the 6-7' snow drifts we had (from 55 mph winds whipping the 12" of new snow around all day yesterday and last night) I haven't had time to watch any Blus. They are closing all businesses again today with blizzard #2 coming in (winds may exceed what they did last night and up to 16" of snow is predicted) so even if I wanted to rent one I couldn't. Time to watch my two remaining titles in my _Alien Anthology_ set!



Thanks, Denny. So, you have the blues for the Blus!







We finally just got hit here in the Rocky Mountains, but still not as much as you guys. Very slick though! Those snow drifts can be a real handful. Anyway, hope you get some more Blus in between blows.


I actually went to a local Blockbuster yesterday to stock up on some Blus myself. Watched _The American_ last night and will be giving my impressions today (pretty much in line with GRG's). PQ is really nice; story is very deliberately paced, but I really liked it.


Hope you guys get some relief soon!


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19740064
> 
> 
> This is what I meant in terms of color:
> 
> Attachment 196105
> 
> 
> Is everything in Bed, Bath, and Beyond now tinted orange and blue? Those products don't happen to have other colors? His skin has to match the stuff behind him too?
> 
> 
> It's not "bad" necessarily, just an annoyance to me since all movies look like that these days. It's a comedy and should be teaming with other colors.



Come on, GRG, this is a pseudo Bed, Bad, and Beyond made to look like that.


----------



## Ozymandis

Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole: with a film like this the only question is "how high up Tier 0 does it belong?" I haven't seen every film in the top 5 on Blu-ray so it's hard for me to say with certainty. But the transfer is perfect in every way (except one minor quibble that I'll mention later).


Compared to Toy Story 3, the colors aren't as brilliant in every shot but when they need to shine they are magnificent. Check out Metalbeak's mate's eyes for instance. Or the blue on the echidna's fur as he stands in the arch on the coast.


The detail in the feathers of the owls is superb. Every shot has a high amount of detail which matches something like Coraline. Contrast is flawless, no complaints there.


IMO this Blu-ray is comparable to Avatar (but 100% consistent where Avatar suffers slightly in the live action portions). I say top 5 for sure.


And OT but the audio is reference quality IMO.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19700768
> 
> I saw absolutely no anomalies of any kind. There were some (rare) scenes with dark clouds or smoke that gave it a somewhat soft look, but even in these if there were owls in the shot they were still crystal-clear and teeming with detail.



That's my only little gripe. I noticed it when the owls are flying through fog. It's clearly the director's intent and I didn't penalize the movie for it, as it didn't affect but a couple of short scenes.


----------



## deltasun

*The American*


I know, I know...but I seldom do this. That's odd - I just realized I seldom use the word seldom. Anyway, yes, I've gotten a bit lazy but I agree with GRG on this pretty much to the letter. I think he meant INconsistency with facial details. It was so minor that it didn't drop it too much, for if it were consistent, this could break into the upper Tier. I'd say at least 85% of those were mid to high Tier 0 good!


The other issue is the black levels. Actually, to be more precise, it's the definition when in mixed lighting (which includes dark scenes). The definition is not the best and, in my opinion, deserves to be docked. It would almost lower it to 1.5, but I'll agree with the below...



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19732599
> 
> *The American*
> 
> 
> A spectacular looking film, and the panoramas of this small Italian village simply gorgeous, maybe up there with the best I've seen. That slight consistency with facial detail is minor, clothes and building texture the same. Black levels are where it goes flat, the muted style the film is going for failing to establish sufficient depth.
> *Tier 1.25*


*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*


Again, I thought the story was good albeit deliberately paced. Anton Corbijn really speaks to us through the characters' (particularly, Clooney's) expressions and mannerisms as well as the changing of the color palette.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *QuiGonJosh* /forum/post/19739662
> 
> 
> So everything should pop off the screen like Avatar or it's no good? I'm sorry, but every movie has it's own unique visual language and if they all looked the same, it would get redundant and boring. I thought the point was to judge the transfers themselves - artifacts, compression, DNR, etc., not "I don't like the way they shot this movie..."



Depth and projection to the image are definitely key elements of what we have defined as typical of the best look on Blu-ray. That is not to say a film shot in a flat manner is bad, but just does not score as highly in our system. What the thread ultimately tries to achieve is the comparison of each Blu-ray's picture quality against every other available disc, determined by consensus after applying the standards we have created here.


Technical aspects and shortcomings of the transfer are one component in the evaluation, but some movies just plain look better than others. Often that comes down to source or budget issues with the original production, but just as often is a result of conscious decisions made by the creative people behind a film.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Outlander


recommendation: Tier 2.5*


By all rights this disc should have ended up in Tier One. A majority of the film's image is sharp and detailed, especially the outdoor scenes during the day. Substantial use of CGI for the creature and some questionable lighting in the darker scenes drags the final score into the middle of Tier Two. The transfer is quite nice, with little evidence of digital noise reduction or edge enhancement in sight. What prevents the higher placement are the questionable black levels that change from a slight crush to light grey, depending on the available light of the scene. Shadow delineation falls victim in those sections, leaving only average detail at best visible.


Many of the day scenes are razor-sharp and display excellent high-frequency information, such as close-ups where stubble and pores can easily be made out. The only exception is where the CGI monster becomes a part of the action, where a touch of softness creeps into the frame. The AVC video encode does a suitable job until minor banding shows up during a scene set underwater. _Outlander_ is not a BD that could be used as reference material, so my final recommendation is for Tier 2.5. I was sure someone had previously covered _Outlander_ here, but it seems not.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid's website):
http://www.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray/m...731&locale=all


----------



## deltasun

*The Runaways*


This has a period look of the 70's, complete with a washed out palette. Grain is moderate to heavy, particularly noticeable in low light. Blacks are plenty strong, but shadow details do waver a bit making for a flat appearance. Details in faces or in general vary from shot to shot, but never climbing higher than top of Silver.


Overall, this is another average presentation.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## lgans316

*Sorcerer's Apprentice*


This one impressed me from start to finish. Very sharp and detailed with inky deep blacks alongside a wonderful and warm color palette. Facial close-ups too exhibits plenty of details. The only issue is a bit of softness exhibited during the CG sequences. IMO, this is truly a reference grade presentation.

*Bottom quarter of Tier 0*


deltasun,


I think the Runaways was shot on 16-mm. That could be the reason for the average video quality.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/19745332
> 
> *Sorcerer's Apprentice*
> 
> 
> This one impressed me from start to finish. Very sharp and detailed with inky deep blacks alongside a wonderful and warm color palette. Facial close-ups too exhibits plenty of details. The only issue is a bit of softness exhibited during the CG sequences. IMO, this is truly a reference grade presentation.
> 
> *Bottom quarter of Tier 0*
> 
> 
> deltasun,
> 
> 
> I think the Runaways was shot on 16-mm. That could be the reason for the average video quality.



Whoa! You're usually lower in your recommendations than me, but with this one I'm over a Tier lower (I went with a 2.0 rating). To me there were three nagging issues:


1) Orange hues throughout that wreaked havoc on the flesh tones

2) Artifacting during the Chinatown scene

3) Inconsistent facial details


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19745535
> 
> 
> Whoa! You're usually lower in your recommendations than me, but with this one I'm over a Tier lower (I went with a 2.0 rating). To me there were three nagging issues:
> 
> 
> 1) Orange hues throughout that wreaked havoc on the flesh tones
> 
> 2) Artifacting during the Chinatown scene
> 
> 3) Inconsistent facial details



Haha. That trend has gotta change once in a while.










The orange hues were nowhere annoying as seen in Prince of Persia. I didn't spot that artifact during the Chinatown scene which was filled with cheeky CGI. Facial details weren't too inconsistent and it looked very sharp to my eyes. Perhaps I am eating too many carrots these days.










Wishing all a very happy and eye candy 2011.


----------



## oleus

delving deeper into the Alien boxed set - i have to say that i am just as impressed with ALIENS as i was with the first movie. after suffering through years of noisy transfers and being told "that's how it's supposed to look, it's grainy", i was shocked to see how razor sharp and deep the picture is on bluray!! there is a light amount of visible grain that finally looks filmlike instead of mosquito noise. the 1.85:1 aspect ratio REALLY pulls you into the frame and there were some shots that looked as 3-d as i've ever seen on my projector.


----------



## UnexplainedBacon




> Quote:
> Blu-ray titles in this tier consistently offer reference level high-definition picture quality that continues to impress both at viewing distances approximately 1.5 screen widths from the display and on larger projection screens over 100.
> 
> 
> A Blu-ray in Tier Zero will generally exhibit the following characteristics:
> 
> *A sharp image with a palpable sense of depth, clarity, and presence that will often appear nearly three-dimensional in nature.*
> 
> 
> Excellent contrast, superb shadow detail, and the deepest black levels without macroblocking or clipping.
> 
> 
> Exquisite resolution of ultra-fine detail, fabric and surface textures, individual strands of hair, and human faces down to the imperfections and pores. Animated material will often exhibit photo-realistic qualities and will feature beautifully rendered environments.
> 
> 
> Sophisticated color palettes will be completely resolved down to the most subtle gradations of each hue. Primary colors will appear striking and dynamic. Black-and-white material will exhibit top-notch and accurate grayscale reproduction.
> 
> 
> A film-based title will exhibit natural grain structure free of excessive digital noise reduction (DNR) or filtering that results in a noticeable impact on the image, including waxy looking faces and missing high-frequency detail in general.
> 
> 
> Halos and ringing artifacts are either absent or not visible enough to be distracting from standard viewing distances.
> 
> 
> No alteration from the originally intended aspect ratio or viewable image area.
> 
> 
> An artifact-free video compression encoding that shows virtually no signs of chroma noise, banding, posterization, aliasing, macroblocking, compression noise, and other encoding deficiencies.
> 
> 
> The transfer of the Blu-ray will be sourced from a master with virtually no visible flaws. This entails an image free of print damage, dirt, specks, cue marks, and other flaws that should be absent from a new and pristine transfer of source material in excellent condition.



Many of the criticisms of this thread would be addressed by removing the third (bolded) sentence in the Tier Blu guidelines. Since we make an exception for black-and-white content on the color palette entry, why not do the same for films that are not meant to "pop" but still can still be demo material?


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *UnexplainedBacon* /forum/post/19745831
> 
> 
> Many of the criticisms of this thread would be addressed by removing the third (bolded) sentence in the Tier Blu guidelines. Since we make an exception for black-and-white content on the color palette entry, why not do the same for films that are not meant to "pop" but still can still be demo material?



I don't think I can agree to that. A flat picture is just not as desirable for me for this thread. I think a picture can still score high without it, but I believe, with all things being equal, a scene with palpable depth will always look better. My opinion, of course.


Now, I can still appreciate shallow depth of field shots with excellent bokeh. When done right, it can easily trump a scene with endless depth. It really depends on how it's presented and that's why we still have to watch it and review/discuss.


Remember that these are guidelines that give the reviewers an avenue in which to articulate why one picture is better than another. Also, this thread will never be for everyone. Again, there are two threads here - the other dealing more with what you're describing. But, there's another set of the population that get it the way we get it. Hence, this thread.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *UnexplainedBacon* /forum/post/19745831
> 
> 
> Many of the criticisms of this thread would be addressed by removing the third (bolded) sentence in the Tier Blu guidelines. Since we make an exception for black-and-white content on the color palette entry, why not do the same for films that are *not meant* to "pop" but still can still be demo material?




I bolded the part of your post that is problematic in terms of this thread.


I understand the point that you are making by comparing it to B&W films and how we don't punish them for not having color (or at least not much), but the *intent* (of the director, dp, etc.) is not relevant for this thread (as has been pointed out repeatedly).


----------



## djoberg

*Alien 3*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19444996
> 
> *Alien 3 Review*
> 
> 
> A definite drop in terms of sharpness. This one obviously did not get the same treatment. Still has some pretty nice detail in close, and the blacks are fairly stable. The dim color palette isn't very eye-catching either. Some black crush is evident too.
> 
> *Tier 3.25*



Once again I'm going to echo the sentiments of GRG, though I just want to add that when he speaks of "pretty nice detail in close" this is especially true of facial close-ups. They are really, really nice at times....I'm talking Tier 0. But this is such a dark and gritty film with plenty of softness and less-than-stellar blacks, that I'm going to drop this a whole tier from my recommendation for _Aliens_. In other words, I'm agreeing with GRG and opting for....

*Tier Recommendation: 3.25*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## rusky_g

Happy New Year all contributors to this thread







Lets hope 2011 continues to push the capabilities of hi-def!


*The Thin Red Line*


Although its not a title that would be first in queue for demo material, this was still a pleasure to watch. For a film of its age the picture is remarkably clear and detailed and looked great on my Projector. Nice natural colours, deep blacks and good contrast; with the progression of modern technology there is no excuse for some recent titles to fall well short of what TTRL offers










As said, its not the purest of eye candy material, but I will still give it a well deserved:

*1.0*


Optoma HD65 @ 11' - 94" screen


----------



## 42041

*Salt*


Good action flick, but I was hoping for more with the visuals. Perhaps a third of the movie exhibits upper Tier 1 quality, with excellent facial textures, deep blacks, etc. Most of it just looks kinda bland though, taking on a brown color palette (with the occasional splash of orange/teal), with detail falling short of most movies of this sort. Grain is bothersome in a few scenes.

*Tier 2.25*


----------



## deltasun

Thanks for the review, 42041. I've not had a chance to view my copy and, like you, I was hoping for good visuals. And what is up with the orange/teal combination lately?!?


----------



## audiomagnate

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* 
This is what I meant in terms of color:

Attachment 196105 


Is everything in Bed, Bath, and Beyond now tinted orange and blue? Those products don't happen to have other colors? His skin has to match the stuff behind him too?


It's not "bad" necessarily, just an annoyance to me since all movies look like that these days. It's a comedy and should be teaming with other colors.
I admit teal was all over the place in this movie, but not just in the tinting, but in the costuming and set design. In the scene with the ridiculously hot ex-girlfriend - Christinith - and and her goofy husband she's wearing a teal dress and IIRC, he's got some teal on too. Someone thought teal = funny and it got a little bit out of hand, like everything else in this movie.


----------



## mhanlen1

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* 
*The Thin Red Line*


When I put The Thin Red Line on and started watching it, I was really starting to think my eyes were going bad because I simply could not understand all the amazing accolades this disc was getting for being the best PQ of any live action movie on BD thus far.


Then I started thinking things would get better. Well, they most certainly did get better, and by quite a large margin.


But the first 16 minutes (I've gone back and watched it twice, so I can tell you that it is at the 16:00 minute mark that things improve quite noticeably) are not so great. Don't get me wrong, it isn't *bad* by any means at all...still in high tier 2.0 and some in low Tier 1, but clearly not tier "0" material.


If I had to place the first 16 minutes of this film in one of the tiers, I would put it at tier 2.0.
While I haven't posted in this thread before I actually follow it regulary, and use it as research when I'm upgrading a title. I'm a little late, but thought I'd post here anyway.


I can agree with this. I just started watching this today, and the first part of the movie wasn't the best I had ever seen. Even so it's not bad. Look at the detail of the metal floor in the battle ship, and the texture in the hair of the islanders.


I noticed things really started to pop on the exterior of the ship, before the beach landing. After that it looks amazing. The contrast is amazing. The hilltop advance really displays the fine detail this transfer has. Facial close-ups are an awesome metric. Look at the inky blacks of the helmet interiors and then the dirt and fine texture on soldier's faces and uniforms.


I actually owned the original DVD release and did a side by side comparison (before the DTS rerelease). It's such a massive picture upgrade- not that there was any debate. Current set-up: PS3 and Sony KDL46v2500

*Tier Recommendation: 0*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Tremors*


Recycled HD DVD transfer it seems, overloaded with outrageous edge enhancement, pathetic DNR, and muddy detail. Some black crush at night, and smearing during some movement. Photography is ruined for sure.

*Tier 5.0*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mhanlen1* /forum/post/19748023
> 
> 
> While I haven't posted in this thread before I actually follow it regulary, and use it as research when I'm upgrading a title. I'm a little late, but thought I'd post here anyway.
> 
> 
> I can agree with this. I just started watching this today, and the first part of the movie wasn't the best I had ever seen. Even so it's not bad. Look at the detail of the metal floor in the battle ship, and the texture in the hair of the islanders.
> 
> 
> I noticed things really started to pop on the exterior of the ship, before the beach landing. After that it looks amazing. The contrast is amazing. The hilltop advance really displays the fine detail this transfer has. Facial close-ups are an awesome metric. Look at the inky blacks of the helmet interiors and then the dirt and fine texture on soldier's faces and uniforms.
> 
> 
> I actually owned the original DVD release and did a side by side comparison (before the DTS rerelease). It's such a massive picture upgrade- not that there was any debate. Current set-up: PS3 and Sony KDL46v2500
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 0*



Welcome! Thanks for your good review mhanlen 1. I obviously agree with each point made. Where, in Tier 0, would you put it?


Keep your reviews coming!


----------



## mhanlen1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19749683
> 
> 
> Welcome! Thanks for your good review mhanlen 1. I obviously agree with each point made. Where, in Tier 0, would you put it?
> 
> 
> Keep your reviews coming!



To be honest, I have a bigger DVD collection than anything, so I have only about 50 or so Bluray Discs... and about 20 HDDVDs. Being that I don't rent a lot, it means that I only own a few in each tier. In the 0 Tier for example, I own only the 2 other "Pirates" movies. I haven't watched them in quite sometime but I remember them looking quite good. They were a bit dense for my taste, and if I remember correctly there was some noise in the night photography. It's been a year or more since I've watched either, so I may not be spot on.


I prefer TRL's beautiful naturalistic photography, and it seems to be the best I've seen on the format yet. It looks 3 Dimensional, has a very fine grain structure, and the detail in the sweeping hilltop scenes is next to none.


Part of the reason I don't post here often, is because I don't watch as many new releases- which seem to take up quite a few spaces in the upper tiers. That and since I own quite a few pre 1990 films on Blu-ray, I find it difficult to compare something that uses newer digital effects, film stock, or digital photography to something like say the Black Narcissus. Anyway I apologize for the novel, but I figure I'd explain myself.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19748927
> 
> *Tremors*
> 
> 
> Recycled HD DVD transfer it seems, overloaded with outrageous edge enhancement, pathetic DNR, and muddy detail. Some black crush at night, and smearing during some movement. Photography is ruined for sure.
> 
> *Tier 5.0*



Universal should sell their catalog vault to Criterion or some other reliable Studio for better treatment.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/19745662
> 
> 
> Haha. That trend has gotta change once in a while.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The orange hues were nowhere annoying as seen in Prince of Persia. I didn't spot that artifact during the Chinatown scene which was filled with cheeky CGI. Facial details weren't too inconsistent and it looked very sharp to my eyes. Perhaps I am eating too many carrots these days.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wishing all a very happy and eye candy 2011.



Yes, I agree, we certainly don't want to be too predictable, do we?










Regarding the orange hues in _Prince of Persia_, I wasn't as annoyed as you were, for the primary colors still came through nicely (though they did affect flesh tones at times).


Happy New Year to you too Igans....wherever you may find yourself on the globe in 2011 (it amazes me how many places you've lived in the last few years).


----------



## lgans316

Thanks Denny.


Difference of opinions is all that matters, as always.










This Vagabond life has to come to an end soon. Have changed at least 15 houses in the past 8 years across geographies, the sole reason I am unable to spend money on a proper HT gear and experience HD picture on a giant screen and true HD sound.


I am still searching for the Thin Red Line at a reasonable price.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/19751483
> 
> 
> I am still searching for the Thin Red Line at a reasonable price.



This is where I purchased it and it's the best price I know of:

http://www.familyvideo.com/catalog/p...ucts_id=350838 


I had sent you a link that advertised it for under $22 and free shipping, but their website has horrible reviews.


----------



## deltasun

^^ Unless you're in a super hurry, you can always wait for Barnes and Noble's 50% off Criterion sale. I was lucky enough to snag it then for $17 and change. Of course, it's almost another year to wait.


----------



## deltasun

*Babylon A.D.*


Beautiful presentation. Vin Diesel's facial close-up's show exquisite details and texture. Unfortunately, the rest of the cast are not as accommodating. Also, there's a scene inside a tent in Canada where it everything is just soft, including Vin. Grain is fine throughout and unobtrusive. Black levels are gorgeous and deep. Contrast is strong, producing some very good shadow details and sufficient scene depth. Again, there are a few dark scenes that appear flat, but seem to be an aberration.


Skin tones look faithful. Medium shots retain reasonable depth and panoramas retain even more. Colors are somewhat muted except for the flash and dazzle of the Big Apple.


Overall, a fine Gold presentation. I will dock it a bit for the inconsistencies in facial details.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.50*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

*Harry Brown*


This one's tough to nail down. First off the palette is limited to shades of brown, some grays, and black. Skin tones can turn palish yellow and always at the mercy of a scene's ambient lighting. Facial details are mixed. While fine lines are visually evident, faces look smooth...the obvious digital look. Scenes are also one-dimensional for the most part. The drab look doesn't help in this category.


Having said all that, details are abundant in the form of the surrounding elements. Texture on outdoor walls, clothing are palatable. Blacks are actually deep and bold, but some of the darker brown colors can make one think it's a poor representation of black. They're not - they're really dark brown. Contrast isn't the strongest, but complements the storyline. Finally, shadow details are not the best, but show enough to help the story along.


I still believe there's enough positives to keep this from the Bronze pile...or not.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*


Really good blind rent. Definitely recommended.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## UnexplainedBacon

*Wallace & Gromit: The Complete Collection*

_A Grand Day Out:_ Tier 2.0

- While there is noticeable "noise"/"grain", there is also a good level of detail.

- 4:3 aspect ratio

_The Wrong Trousers:_ Tier 2.0

- 4:3 aspect ratio

_A Close Shave:_ Tier 2.0

- This film is presented in 1.66:1, which is the original aspect ratio according to the back cover. However, I have read reviews that say otherwise but in my viewing I did not see any framing problems.

_A Matter of Loaf and Death:_ Tier 0

- There is noticeable aliasing in this last film.

- 16:9 aspect ratio


All four of the short films have similar running times so I will give the disc a rating of Tier 1.5. The _Cracking Contraptions_ shorts, which are in standard definition, are not included in my rating because they are considered "extras" rather than "movies".

*Tier 1.5*


______________________________

*Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer*


I noticed that the overall brightness and color of a shot often suddenly changes just before a fade transition to the next scene. Strangely, there is also one shot in which the brightness of the _black pillar-box bars_ significantly increases along with the actual film in the center.

*Tier 3.5*


______________________________

*Futurama: Volume 5*


Similarly to the two _Futurama_ movies available on Blu-ray Disc, the fifth volume has no significant image quality issues but its animation style inherently lacks the detail needed for a Tier 0 rating.

*Tier 1.0*


50", 6', 1080p


----------



## cjmx2

*Toy Story 3* (and 1 and 2 as well)
If finally had a chance to watch this and was really impressed at how good blu-ray animation looks these days. Bright and vibrant colors...tons of pop...tremendous details...in every scene...the daylight scenes blew me away but the darker scenes were equally detailed. This movie excels over its 2 predecessors in 1 major way that I can see. Background texture details!! Toy story 1 had great colors and pop but in most scenes the backdrops are primitive and lack details...most of them lack textures as well...also the human animation was not very good...(1995)...enough said...still toy story 1 and 2 are great looking titles...number 2 had better details and textures and just better animation...Al from Al's toy barn was much better animated than Andy's mom was in the 1st movie(also SKUD the dog's animation from the 1st movie never set right with me)...however compare both of those to the 3rd movie and TS3 blows them away...not to bash on 2 great movies too much...all are nearly technically perfect it is just in the details of the source material...ok so I am going with...
*TS3* - Top of tier 0
*TS2* - middle of tier 0 around chicken little
*TS 1* - bottom 1/4 of tier 0


----------



## djoberg

*Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps*


Here's another tough one to call, for it's right on the border of Gold and Silver. Hopefully I'll make up my mind by the end of this short review!










It seems I've watched quite a few Blus lately where the PQ gets better as the movie progresses. For the first 1/3 or so of the title it just didn't WOW me at all. The color palette was far from dazzling (you guessed it....lots of TEAL), and it came across in many scenes as flat and lacking detail (though facial details were excellent from beginning to end).


Then, all of a sudden, a *subtle* switch was turned on and I found my eyes being bathed in warm and vibrant primary colors, lush aerial views (daytime and nighttime) of New York City, and plenty of detail and depth to qualify for demo-worthy material. Contrast was strong and the blacks/shadow details were definitely above average. Flesh tones were spot-on. And did I mention facial details?! They were, in most shots, low Tier 0 quality (with very few exceptions, such as a terrible shot of Josh Brolin sitting at an informal hearing in one of the last scenes).


All in all this was very pleasing to the eyes, but I still can't decide if this deserves Gold or a high placement in Silver. Being on the fence forces me to recommend.....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75 or 2.0*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## deltasun

*The Town*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19668681
> 
> *The Town*
> 
> 
> Outstanding aerials of the city, mesmerizing amounts of sharpness and detail there. That holds true for most of the close-ups too, with the occasional focal issue. Grain is sadly poorly resolved, the result of cramming too much on the disc undoubtedly. Definitely turning into noise more than grain. Nice color, veering both warm and cool.
> 
> *Tier 1.75*





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19688849
> 
> *The Town*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's late....I'm tired....and I'm taking the easy way out on this one by echoing GRG's sentiments above. I agree 100% with every word he said. The only thing I would add is that facial close-ups, in particular, were spectacular in most instances.
> 
> 
> I also agree with a recent post of GRG's where he stated that it was a great movie (though lacking in character development).
> 
> 
> Well, I only have one more small detail to agree with him on, and here it is....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75*
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 6'



Guys, I agree with everything here. However, while there were some spectacular close-up details, the softness that crept in was too much for me. Most of these were related to facials, but there is also that shot of those pigeons. It was a FTW? moment for me. I will say that there were less instances of softness as the movie progressed.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


----------



## Murilo

Why is watchmen uk directors cut rated alot higher in the blue tier then watchmen uk directors cut?


Are they not the same encode?


----------



## UnexplainedBacon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Murilo* /forum/post/19759356
> 
> 
> Why is watchmen uk directors cut rated alot higher in the blue tier then watchmen uk directors cut?
> 
> 
> Are they not the same encode?



There are two different encodes but I couldn't find the thread that compares them.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Murilo* /forum/post/19759356
> 
> 
> Why is watchmen uk directors cut rated alot higher in the blue tier then watchmen uk directors cut?
> 
> 
> Are they not the same encode?



I'm assuming you are comparing the "director's cut" and the "*theatrical* cut."



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *UnexplainedBacon* /forum/post/19759590
> 
> 
> There are two different encodes but I couldn't find the thread that compares them.



Here's the link to the Tier Thread:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...7#post16943367


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Murilo* /forum/post/19759356
> 
> 
> Why is watchmen uk directors cut rated alot higher in the blue tier then watchmen uk directors cut?
> 
> 
> Are they not the same encode?



Assuming you made a mistake and meant the U.S. version for comparison, there are several different encodes of Watchmen released across the world. There is the U.S. director's cut, the U.S. ultimate cut, the U.K. theatrical cut, and finally the U.K. director's cut. Yes, all four have different video encodes. I should know, I personally own them all. Watchmen was released by Warner Bros. in the U.S., while Paramount had distribution in most of Europe. For the most part, the high-bitrate AVC encodes released in Europe are superior to the domestic editions. Honestly I have not watched the exclusive ultimate cut all the way through yet for the final word on that one. If you search this thread, my review of the U.K. version should pop up.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Boys! Checking in! I have a new ps3 and a big ol' pile of Blu to plow through. Thought I would stop in and wish a belated Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays and hope everyone had a great new years! I need to read a chunk of pages and will likely have a couple of bad reviews as I remove the dust from my reviewing skills so please be nice if I am super rusty!


----------



## deltasun

Hey G-cubed! Nice of you to drop by! I'm sure it'll be like riding a bicycle.










Belated Merry Christmas to you as well. Hope everything is dandy. I need a new PS3 too, as mine is starting to whine. I'm sure it's exciting to have all those blu's to plow through! Can't wait to read your takes!


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Machete*


Like orange? Hope so. This thing is bleeding it. It's supposed to be. However, the facial detail is phenomenal, as if anything less is expected from the grizzled face of Danny Trejo. Some faux film scratches to start that disappear later. Blacks crush late, and some noise infects low light situations. Sharpness is consistent.
*Tier 1.75*


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/19763122
> 
> 
> Boys! Checking in! I have a new ps3 and a big ol' pile of Blu to plow through. Thought I would stop in and wish a belated Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays and hope everyone had a great new years! I need to read a chunk of pages and will likely have a couple of bad reviews as I remove the dust from my reviewing skills so please be nice if I am super rusty!



The thread sorely missed your presence in the interim. Nice? You came to the wrong place looking for niceties.


----------



## djoberg

*Salt*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/19747319
> 
> *Salt*
> 
> 
> Good action flick, but I was hoping for more with the visuals. Perhaps a third of the movie exhibits upper Tier 1 quality, with excellent facial textures, deep blacks, etc. Most of it just looks kinda bland though, taking on a brown color palette (with the occasional splash of orange/teal), with detail falling short of most movies of this sort. Grain is bothersome in a few scenes.
> 
> *Tier 2.25*



Due to time constraints, I checked previous reviews to see if anyone had the same thoughts as I did and those of 42041 fit the bill, perfectly.


The only thing I would add is that at times there were some exemplary high Tier 0 shots, most notably one of a white Russian compound (an aerial view in one of the early scenes) that was simply astounding. Also, every close-up of Liev Schreiber revealed every pock, pore and stubble on his made-for-hi-def face!!


I agree with his recommendation as well, so......

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## cjmx2

*Sorcerer's Apprentice*


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19745535
> 
> 
> Whoa! You're usually lower in your recommendations than me, but with this one I'm over a Tier lower (I went with a 2.0 rating). To me there were three nagging issues:
> 
> 
> 1) Orange hues throughout that wreaked havoc on the flesh tones
> 
> 2) Artifacting during the Chinatown scene
> 
> 3) Inconsistent facial details



Sorry lgans I am siding with djoberg in this one...I thought he hit it pretty well...although I didn't notice the artifacts in china town either...wow the orange tint was crazy thru the entire movie...bothered me a lot...I thought details were pretty inconsistent and it didn't seem demo worthy to me...a few good facial details bit they were only good a few times to my eyes...wish the video was as good as the audio....i'm going with...
*Tier 2.0* as well


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Case 39*


Man this thing is noisy. Backgrounds are riddled with artifacts, odd since the encode is pretty high on the bitrate. Softness is pretty pervasive. Colors are dim and flat, especially flesh tones. Blacks are just meh, but sufficient. Just an ugly looking movie. Detail is just okay and wildly inconsistent.

*Tier 4.0*


----------



## tfoltz

*Bucket List*

*Tier 2.75*


Nice looking overall. Closeups and people looked great, scenery and backgrounds were mediocre to my eyes.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*
The thread sorely missed your presence in the interim. Nice? You came to the wrong place looking for niceties.















Awww!! Ok fine be mean. I will survive. Hopefully will have something in the next day or two.


----------



## deltasun

*Pirate Radio*


On the surface (or a farther seating distance), this looks great - bright, clean colors, striking picture, excellent dimensionality in medium shots (even inside the vessel). Grain is fine to moderate and yields a film-like look, but can be distracting in darker areas. There is, however, a softness that is evident in facial close-up's. This trait does get better as the movie progresses. Skin tones are accurate. Blacks are pretty deep, contrast is strong. Stylistically, tint is warmer in the ship and cold green in Parliament.


Overall, a decent presentation. I did not spy any foul play.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

*Max Payne*


Much like _Pirate Radio_, this one's sharp, clean, but darker and more muted. Also, this one's shot on video (though there were flashback scenes with natural film grain structure) and is evident once we scurry into the darkness. Facials are usually the other weakness for video presentations, but in this case it remains mostly strong, showing off Marky Mark's texture and chiseled face. Skin tones are another story - they are a bit on the pale side, almost lifeless. Dimensionality is incredible at times, even in medium scenes.


Blacks are excellent, though sometimes has that plasticky sheen. Contrast is another high point - a tad hot, but still revealing a strong presence. Some of the cityscapes look fairly detailed, though not as good as the recently viewed _The American_. All in all, I felt there are plenty of demo scenes to show off. This one is a strong...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cjmx2* /forum/post/19766654
> 
> *Sorcerer's Apprentice*
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry lgans I am siding with djoberg in this one...I thought he hit it pretty well...although I didn't notice the artifacts in china town either...wow the orange tint was crazy thru the entire movie...bothered me a lot...I thought details were pretty inconsistent and it didn't seem demo worthy to me...a few good facial details bit they were only good a few times to my eyes...wish the video was as good as the audio....i'm going with...
> *Tier 2.0* as well



lgans and I are almost always in nearly complete agreement on PQ issues, but in this case I agree with those who think this title should be lower. I watched this shortly after Inception, and I thought the PQ in SA was worse. So I will go with Tier 2.5 for SA.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Dinner for Schmucks*


Nicely detailed but sadly desaturated once out of the opening credits. Loses all the pop. Stupidly, the cool, blue tint is really off in some points, gray hair turning completely blue in an early office scene. Detail is outstanding though, and no technical issues of note. Nice grain structure, full resolved.

*Tier 2.0*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/19774242
> 
> 
> lgans and I are almost always in nearly complete agreement on PQ issues, but in this case I agree with those who think this title should be lower. I watched this shortly after Inception, and I thought the PQ in SA was worse. So I will go with Tier 2.5 for SA.













This is one of the rare occasions where we're pretty close Patrick. And with most everything that is *rare*, it's quite *precious*. Who knows, maybe you and I will be agreeing more than usual in 2011.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19776625
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is one of the rare occasions where we're pretty close Patrick. And with most everything that is *rare*, it's quite *precious*. You knows, maybe you and I will be agreeing more than usual in 2011.



Well, Denny, I guess we will just have to wait and see how things develop as the year goes by.


----------



## djoberg

*The American*


Once again time is of the essence, so I'll keep this short. I agree with my peers (GRG and deltasun) who afforded this a place in our Gold Tier, for it is most surely demo-worthy.


Its major virtues, beyond a doubt, were DETAILS and DEPTH. 95% of facial close-ups fell easily into Tier 0 and close-ups of buildings, cobblestone streets, trees, clothing, etc. were topnotch as well. Flesh tones were extremely accurate. Contrast was very good, though at times it seemed a bit overblown in daytime scenes. Blacks were good, but not excellent (with the exception of a couple of nighttime scenes which featured superb shadow details).


My only complaints would be with the somewhat muted color palette and some soft/hazy scenes (of distant countrysides and a couple village shots). Colors just didn't pop for me and this brought my placement down a notch or two.


As I stated at the beginning, this one definitely deserves a place in Tier 1 and I have no argument whatsoever with the consensus that's been formed already, so my vote goes for......

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*


Pioneer 60 KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## deltasun

*Dinner for Schmucks*


Excellent facial details are on display here. There is an early scene in Tim's office where colors are of a cooler nature and details not as forthcoming. Once the movie progresses though, the tint turns warmer and facial details flourish. Colors also pop, but remain natural. Medium shots show appreciable depth, while the 1 or 2 panorama shots are decent.


Skin tones are a bit off, particularly on Barry, who's hair matches his complexion. Blacks are decent, with only 1 scene of crushing. Contrast is strong throughout. Grain is well-controlled and contributes to its film-like qualities.


Overall, a very solid presentation. However, it seems most scenes are close-up's with the same depth of field and (I know it's odd) is monotonous/distracting. I agree with GRG here...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Last Exorcism*


One of those annoying "found footage" movies, shot on digital. Tons of noise in darker scenes, black levels barely hold, colors are flat, and detail is sporadic. Sharpness is poor, and flesh tones are faded. The constantly shaking camera doesn't help either.
*Tier 4.5*


----------



## 42041

*Easy A*


A bright, colorful picture that's pretty easy on the eyes. Like many comedies, the warm colors are overdone at times, making people look yellow/orange and washing out the scenery. I think this was shot digitally, daylit scenes are very clean-looking. The resolution is excellent, though fine details/textures are sometimes hazy. A nice looking blu-ray overall.

*Tier 1.75*


----------



## deltasun

*Vicky Cristina Barcelona*


This is a great example of director's intent being the sole reason to drop this title. First off is the yellow-tinted color scheme that permeates the film. I never quite got used to the look, though it complemented the feel of the story and the location really well. The second offender is softness. Don't get me wrong, the cameras were definitely capable of sharp focus, for it is evident in several scenes. Granted, those scenes benefited from some really good lighting and shadows. Still, there is a scene of Scarlett and Javier in bed (first time) and I swear the focus is closer to the wall 10 feet behind them. So, I felt it wasn't even intended in this case.


Blacks are just not inky. I believe the sun-drenched look prevented any inky-ness that we may get. Contrast is also weak and resulted in a flat picture. Colors did pop through the golden hue and I felt look really good. Finally, while skin tones are also influenced by the tint, it easily delineated among the different complexions.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

*Mary and Max*


Another stop motion feature a la _Coraline_. However, this one's not as complex. While _Coraline_ had denser examples of showing off its inky blacks, _Mary and Max_ had more balance with its predominantly monochromatic presentation. Whites aren't quite white, but more like somewhat dirty putty. The only other two colors are brown and a very vibrant red.


Details are excellent and the opening scene's array of focused items really showed fantastic texture. Thinner depth of field is used throughout to really isolate the characters/objects of interest. This technique does rob the look of potential added depth. Still, depth is decent but the dimensionality is superb.


Overall an excellent looking title with a slight bit of aliasing. It's still reference and I am voting it so...

*Tier Recommendation: 0* (just below _Sin City_)


This one kinda tugs at the heartstrings a bit. Did not expect that at all.

_ln46a650- 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## lgans316

*Salt*


This movie was totally unbelievable.














but I took it with a pinch of Salt.:

*Recommendation: Tier 2.25*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*White Wedding*


Very pleasing South African piece. Shot digital with all of the benefits and almost none of the downside besides sporadic softness. Black levels are great, clarity is awesome, and definition perfect. Loads of facial detail on display, and the locations impressive. Color is saturated without being overbearing.

*Tier 1.5*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Vampire Circus


recommendation: Tier 3.25
*

Synapse Films has lovingly brought the 1971 Hammer production, _Vampire Circus_, to new heights of glory on Blu-ray. Released just last month on a BD-50, the 87-minute Gothic horror is encoded in AVC at a generous video-only average of 30.01 Mbps. Presented in a 1.66:1 presentation that restores for the first time its original theatrical framing seen in Europe, the transfer looks sourced from high-quality elements in excellent condition. For a small distributor, Synapse Films has greatly surpassed expectations in the picture quality for this cult movie, and puts some of the work from the major studios to shame.


Grain does play a role in this film's image, though the video encode handles it flawlessly. Looking for evidence of macroblocking or artifacting problems, even during the more demanding scenes with flames and explosions, the image was entirely devoid of such distractions. A solid amount of high-frequency detail and information is apparent at times, but not uniformly present. Part of that may be due to the optics and original filming. Certain sections, notably the first reel of the film, appear to have been processed with a bit of digital grain reduction. Nothing too drastic, but either the makeup was inconsistently applied during the course of production, or some early sections of the transfer have had minor processing applied in some way. Some faint, low-amplitude ringing also pops up, only to disappear or recede in magnitude as the film progresses. Neither annoyances really do anything to diminish the image to any significant degree and largely vanish in the last hour.


One area that the picture excels in, particularly for an older film, are the nice black levels and easily discerned shadow detail. This is important for a movie that a substantial portion takes place at night. Outside of one or two questionable moments in nearly pitch-black light, scenes like the panther's black fur display excellent delineation and a level of detail that is quite high. The image also possesses a heightened sense of depth over many other catalog films, though I would not quite call it pop or dimensional. Better moments might be rated in the middle of Tier Two, alongside newer movies, if there had been more consistency.


Expecting dull, faded colors due to the film's age and obscurity, in actuality primary colors are deep and vivid in this transfer. Red blood obviously plays a huge role in the film, looking bright and fully saturated. Contrast is decent given the generally dark atmosphere of the settings. The color timing pays respect to the conventions of the era it was made, not straying far from the balanced and conservative look. Outside of a few optical composite effects that look dated now, the source looks clean and stable, as if the transfer was struck from a very good negative or possibly interpositive. Only a handful of thin, short scratches briefly appear to remind one that _Vampire Circus_ was filmed many years ago. The general resolution and clarity is good, only dipping in a few spotty moments of focus.


Fans and newcomers will find little wrong with the quality seen in the image, especially those familiar with films of similar vintage. Source limitations dating back to the Seventies prevent a higher placement for the most part, but the transfer has given new life to one of the more obscure Hammer films. While certain extended moments deserve a higher placement, in the end a ranking in Tier 3.25 for _Vampire Circus_ is a good representation of the overall quality.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Nanny McPhee Returns*


A step down from the original, although not by much. Primaries are still striking, black levels still strong, and detail fairly firm. A trip through London turns quite digital due a wide array of effects. A nice, bold contrast is pleasing. Lots of shots dealing with wide fields and other expansive environments, all greatly detailed.

*Tier 1.75*


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Jonah Hex*


This review will be one of those relatively rare instances where I place a title higher than what others are recommending. I think there are two ratings for this title so far, at tier 3.0 and 3.5.


I'm recommending this title for a tier 2.0 placement.


One of the main criticisms of the title is the smoothing of Meghan Fox's face. This is certainly a very valid criticism, as it is very noticeable. However, I think it is important to note that this was not done to the other actors. It was intentionally done to Fox only. I found the facial details, and details and clarity in general to be very, very good with the obvious exception being with regard to Meghan Fox.


I also found the contrast, black levels etc. to be above average, and the image had a good sense of depth to it.


I certainly did not find this title to exhibit the typical "Warner softness" that one might expect.


If the DNR (or whatever was applied to Fox) was applied to the entire image, this would be a tier 4.0 title, but that isn't the case.


So, I'm going against the grain on this one, with a recommendation of

*Tier 2.0*


----------



## deltasun

*Atonement*


Beautiful cinematography, excellent low-light scenes, faithful skin tones, and fine details. The biggest issue for me is the blooming once again and some weaker contrast scenes (not all). The blooming (which really hits the whites badly) occurs heavily during the first 50 or so minutes (the first act) and gives everything a somewhat soft, surreal, fog-draped look. The amazing part about it is details outside of the bloom are still impeccable in these scenes. Dimensionality is also affected, specially indoors.


Facial details are not up to par as higher-tiered titles, but definitely stays above average, especially past the first act. Blacks are deep, contrast improves, again past the first act. Fine grain is present throughout. Some instances of banding noted, but not in the obvious places and not in too a distracting manner.


Overall, a beautifully shot film. The cinematography easily overcomes some of the downfalls, but I have to penalize the blooming. I swear, it's like waking up after sleeping, and applying undue pressure, on one's eyes.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Phantom Stranger

In remembrance of things past and to give newer readers an idea of how the Tiers originated, I hunted around the Internet for this fossilized version of the original list. It was apparently current as of December 31, 2006. The PS3 had only been out for approximately five weeks. The Fifth Element's original transfer to Blu-ray had taken justified criticism and Blu-ray was no sure winner in the format war at the time. I looked for a direct link to the list, but many posts from the era of the format war were wiped out on the forum. Remember the list was not alphabetized within the tiers at that embryonic stage, so The Wild was the pinnacle.


TIER 0- A deeply immersive experience. Flawless or near flawless transfers.


The Wild (PCM)

Crank (PCM)(IME)

Kingdom of Heaven (MA)

Black Hawk Down (BW)(PCM)

Ice Age: The Meltdown (MA)

Corpse Bride

The Ant Bully


TIER 1- No visible compression, sharp image with many examples of 3D.


The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (MA)

Tears of the Sun (PCM)

Underworld: Evolution (PCM)

X-Men: The Last Stand (MA)

Aeon Flux

Sahara

Goal: The Dream Begins

Mission: Impossible III (crushed blacks)

Eight Below (PCM)

Kung Fu Hustle (PCM)

World Trade Center

Training Day

ATL

Transporter 2 (MA)

Fantastic 4 (MA)

The Manchurian Candidate

Phantom of the Opera

Good Night and Good Luck

Toto: Live in Amsterdam

Swordfish

Into the Blue (PCM)

Invincible (PCM)

The Covenant (PCM)

The Descent (PCM) DOES NOT PLAY ON SONY BDP-S1/MUST UPDATE SAMMY!

Pearl Harbor (PCM)

Monster House (PCM)

Behind Enemy Lines (MA)


Tier 2- Very good

Not as many 3D effects, but a very sharp image that feels real


The Brothers Grimm (PCM)

Ultraviolet (PCM)

The Transporter (MA)

Flightplan (PCM)

Haunted Mansion (PCM)

Stargate

S.W.A.T. (PCM)

Enemy of the State (PCM)

Species (PCM)

The Great Raid(PCM)

Syriana

Space Cowboys

The Last Samurai

Stealth (PCM)

Lord of War

Stir of Echoes

Dinosaur (PCM)

Gone in 60 Seconds (PCM)

House of Wax

Blazing Saddles

Glory Road

Sky Captain (purposefully blurry)

Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang

Click (PCM)

The Terminator (PCM)

Million Dollar Baby

Unforgiven

Under Siege

Mission Impossible 2

Mission: Impossible

Speed (MA)

50 First Dates (PCM)

Four Brothers

16 Blocks

Johnny Legend: Live at the House of Blues

Rumor Has It

The Exorcism of Emily Rose (UK Import)(PCM)

Terminator 2

Superman: The Movie

RV (PCM)

Superman Returns


Tier 3- Good

Few 3D effects, some digital noise/artifacting


The Black Crowes

The Lake House

Rocky

The Devil Wears Prada

Hostel (UK Import)(PCM)

Firewall

The Italian Job

Lethal Weapon 2 (bobbed)

Silent Hill (PCM)

Lethal Weapon (bobbed)

Talladega Nights (PCM)

The Devil's Rejects

The New Orleans Benefit Concert

Tomb Raider

Sky High (PCM)

Crash

Dark Water (PCM)

Hitch (PCM)

Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut

Saw

Total Recall

XXX (PCM)

Nacho Libre

Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back

Sleepy Hollow (digital noise)

Reds


Tier 4- A bit underwhelmed

Visible artifacting, softness, few if any 3D effects


U2: Rattle and Hum

The Dirty Dozen

The Fugitive (bobbed)

Full Metal Jacket (bobbed)

The Fifth Element (PCM)

The House of Flying Daggers


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Wow, talk about a blast from the past!!


I can't believe it has been 4 years. I remember that list well. Hilarious!


We were calling The House of Flying Daggers the House of Flying Artifacts!


----------



## harbinger93

Warner's first AVC CGI film is a big hit quality-wise. Tier 0, easy. I so posted in the wrong thread...


Supporting reviews -
AVSForum 
HD Digest 
Blu-Ray.com 
DVDTown 
DVDTalk 
Film.com 
Collider.com 
IGN.com 


-H


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *harbinger93* /forum/post/19799106
> 
> 
> Warner's first AVC CGI film is a big hit quality-wise. Tier 0, easy.



I just heard that WHV will be using AVC on all of their 2011 BD releases.


Will the "typical Warner softness" finally be a thing of the past?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* 
I just heard that WHV will be using AVC on all of their 2011 BD releases.


Will the "typical Warner softness" finally be a thing of the past?
Wow, that is just stunning news. Warner has never seemed like the type of corporation that moves at a lightning pace, but welcome to the modern world when every other studio had virtually abandoned VC-1. Hopefully some of their bigger films already released might get new video AVC encodes, but that might be asking for too much. We will see if they decide again that bitrates in the teens are transparent to the master.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* 
Wow, that is just stunning news. Warner has never seemed like the type of corporation that moves at a lightning pace, but welcome to the modern world when every other studio had virtually abandoned VC-1. Hopefully some of their bigger films already released might get new video AVC encodes, but that might be asking for too much. We will see if they decide again that bitrates in the teens are transparent to the master.
I'm glad that you found this information as interesting as I did. I think it is pretty big news as well, and I have no reason to doubt my source on this issue.


----------



## Cinema Squid

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* 
Wow, that is just stunning news. Warner has never seemed like the type of corporation that moves at a lightning pace, but welcome to the modern world when every other studio had virtually abandoned VC-1. Hopefully some of their bigger films already released might get new video AVC encodes, but that might be asking for too much. We will see if they decide again that bitrates in the teens are transparent to the master.
It may be a little premature to get excited over these AVC encodes being "better", since (not counting Blu-ray 3D and HBO titles) they've already started authoring some titles with AVC recently:


Once Upon a Time in America (AVC @ 15 Mbps)

The Town (AVC @ 14 Mbps)

Flipped (AVC @ 19 Mbps)


----------



## Murilo

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* 
Assuming you made a mistake and meant the U.S. version for comparison, there are several different encodes of Watchmen released across the world. There is the U.S. director's cut, the U.S. ultimate cut, the U.K. theatrical cut, and finally the U.K. director's cut. Yes, all four have different video encodes. I should know, I personally own them all. Watchmen was released by Warner Bros. in the U.S., while Paramount had distribution in most of Europe. For the most part, the high-bitrate AVC encodes released in Europe are superior to the domestic editions. Honestly I have not watched the exclusive ultimate cut all the way through yet for the final word on that one. If you search this thread, my review of the U.K. version should pop up.


I have the watchmen uk version imported, it is the theatrical. Basically I know the u.s. is different encode (I sold mine for the u.k one) but I am asking if the directors cut UK is a different encode then the UK theatrical cut and has better picture quality then the uk theatrical cut?


I just find it a bit odd, i assumed they would be nearly identical.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Kathleen Madigan: Gone Madigan*


Pretty simple: 1080i, visible artifacting, tons of noise, plastic skin, pale flesh tones, blown out highlights, and all ugly.

*Tier 5.0*


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Murilo* /forum/post/19801451
> 
> 
> I have the watchmen uk version imported, it is the theatrical. Basically I know the u.s. is different encode (I sold mine for the u.k one) but I am asking if the directors cut UK is a different encode then the UK theatrical cut and has better picture quality then the uk theatrical cut?
> 
> 
> I just find it a bit odd, i assumed they would be nearly identical.



The two different UK editions are roughly similar in picture quality, given nearly identical bitrates from the same digital intermediate using the same compression codec. But they are not identical video encodes.


Here are the relevant BDInfo scans:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...6#post16841286 

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...0#post17658300


----------



## oleus

are the UK versions of Wacthmen worth seeking out over the US versions for PQ?


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oleus* /forum/post/19803412
> 
> 
> are the UK versions of Wacthmen worth seeking out over the US versions for PQ?



Definitely as it is priced affordable.

*Shawshank Redemption*


My top 5 favorite films of all time looks good on Blu-ray. Tight close-ups and bright outdoor shots reveal decent sense of depth and dimensionality. Black levels appears acceptable and contrast is mostly spot on. Compression could have been better but its Warner, so have to lower my expectations.


Ultimately, this is an eye candy thread and unfortunately this one serves as feast for the eyes only in a handful of scenes.

*Recommendation: Tier 3*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Social Network*


Digitally shot, the black levels and details tell the story. Blacks are digital, and faces are smooth. Black crush is a dominate issue as times. Very little color in 95% of the movie, mostly just yellow and black. Nice lighting, but ugly in terms of eye candy.

*Tier 3.0*


----------



## stwrt

Watching Social Network theatrically I got the impression Fincher didn't want us to be wowed by the visuals, he wanted us to pay attention to the terrific script. Having said that, now it's on home video we can gorge on the visuals and the script and there is a lot of fine detail in both to gorge on.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Piranha (2010)*


Overloaded with COLOR... SO. MUCH. COLOR. The thing is, the flesh tones stay relatively natural considering the spring break scenario. Overloaded with sharpness and detail too. A light grain is barely noticeable. The only issue are those underwater scenes where things get murky (and not just because of the water) and banding is noticeable.

*Tier 1.25*


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stwrt* /forum/post/19813447
> 
> 
> Watching Social Network theatrically I got the impression Fincher didn't want us to be wowed by the visuals, he wanted us to pay attention to the terrific script. Having said that, now it's on home video we can gorge on the visuals and the script and there is a lot of fine detail in both to gorge on.



Hi stwrt, are you saying you've seen it in blu then? If so, what are your impressions for placement? I have this in my queue to watch and will probably chime in on the weekend.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19813945
> 
> *Piranha (2010)*
> 
> 
> Overloaded with COLOR... SO. MUCH. COLOR. The thing is, the flesh tones stay relatively natural considering the spring break scenario. Overloaded with sharpness and detail too. A light grain is barely noticeable. The only issue are those underwater scenes where things get murky (and not just because of the water) and banding is noticeable.
> 
> *Tier 1.25*



Have this too from NF...looking forward to the feast!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Cabin Fever

recommendation: 2.25*


A decidedly strong and suitable presentation for a horror movie filmed on the cheap. Cabin Fever's picture quality does dip as the movie shifts into darker settings, but the film-like image contains some very strong moments. Panoramic views of the lake and the early happenings around the cabin show a significant amount of depth and pop. The look does become flatter and softer near the climax as the focus of the film changes to pure gore.


Lionsgate has been very hit-or-miss on their catalog titles, but technical aspects of the transfer are good to great. The AVC-encode only falters on two or three occasions with a minimum of macroblocking, though does hold up during the more difficult low-light shots. The compression could have likely been improved. Only the tiniest glimmering of halos become noticeable, most notably on the grills of the trucks. Black levels are strong throughout the movie, leaving only a few moments where shadow depth and detail wane.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Patsfan123):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...8#post18257558


----------



## deltasun

*Dances with Wolves*


The almost 4-hour Extended Cut version had some major ups and downs as one can imagine. At the highest highs, I would say it reached low Tier 1 and would probably skirt through Tier 5 during some very problematic, albeit relatively short bouts of macroblocking during some difficult scenes in darkness and fog. I would still submit that a good portion of the film - particularly, in the first act and outside of indoor/night scenes - resides in the upper portion of my spread. Some of the panoramic scenes of the Great Plains are easy highlights.


Facial close-up's, particularly in the beginning, are above average but never resembles anything in the top Tier. Though lines can be seen, they are not as crisp as they should be - pores, for example, are not as well rendered. Colors are not overly saturated, but can be counted on to reveal beautiful vistas and creative garments. Blacks and contrast really vary from scene to scene. In particular, darker scenes really suffer quite a bit more than their brighter counterparts. Finally, there is a lot of softness.


Overall, a satisfying presentation.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.25*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19700768
> 
> *Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'hoole*
> 
> 
> MESMERIZING!! Just when you think you've seen the best animated marvels possible in _Toy Story 3_ and _A Christmas Carol_, along comes this visual feast that defies description (though I'll give it a shot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ). And perhaps the greatest miracle in this accomplishment is that it comes to us from...gasp!....Warner Bros!!!!
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Top of Tier 0*



I'm going to be "that guy." This one has that filtered Warner look. There, I said it. Everything DJ said is correct and I'll agree with, except that at a distance, it's just not as refined as some other animation. There's a shot where the owls are sitting on a tree in a sunset, and the leaves are just mud. It happens more than once. In close, it's a freakin' marvel, a sequence where the birds fly through a thunderstorm simply awe-inspiring no doubt. Every feather is visible. I would go with just above Meet the Robinsons.

*Tier .25*


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19819192
> 
> *Dances with Wolves*
> 
> 
> The almost 4-hour Extended Cut version had some major ups and downs as one can imagine. At the highest highs, I would say it reached low Tier 1 and would probably skirt through Tier 5 during some very problematic, albeit relatively short bouts of macroblocking during some difficult scenes in darkness and fog. I would still submit that a good portion of the film - particularly, in the first act and outside of indoor/night scenes - resides in the upper portion of my spread. Some of the panoramic scenes of the Great Plains are easy highlights.
> 
> 
> Facial close-up's, particularly in the beginning, are above average but never resembles anything in the top Tier. Though lines can be seen, they are not as crisp as they should be - pores, for example, are not as well rendered. Colors are not overly saturated, but can be counted on to reveal beautiful vistas and creative garments. Blacks and contrast really vary from scene to scene. In particular, darker scenes really suffer quite a bit more than their brighter counterparts. Finally, there is a lot of softness.
> 
> 
> Overall, a satisfying presentation.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.25*
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_



Thanks for the review. I was hoping for a little more with this title, where cinematography plays a major role in the quality of the film.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/19820545
> 
> 
> Thanks for the review. I was hoping for a little more with this title, where cinematography plays a major role in the quality of the film.



The cinematography is definitely the highlight, particularly in the first hour or so. I was hoping for a little more too.


----------



## tfoltz

*Legend of the Guardians*

*Tier 0* *below Toy Story 3 and Avatar*.


This movie looked amazing. The blacks, colors, shading, details were all spectacular. That being said, I could easily tell when they were trying to pull 3D gimmicks and it bothered me since it seemed out of place and forced. It took me out of the movie and made it seem corny in certain parts. I've seen this in other movies as well (Toy Story, Avatar, Harry Potter, and more), but it was particularly noticeable in this movie. And it is for this reason I am not recommending it for top placement.


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19794662
> 
> *Nanny McPhee Returns*
> 
> 
> A step down from the original, although not by much. Primaries are still striking, black levels still strong, and detail fairly firm. A trip through London turns quite digital due a wide array of effects. A nice, bold contrast is pleasing. Lots of shots dealing with wide fields and other expansive environments, all greatly detailed.
> 
> *Tier 1.75*



GRG, back in post #16790 you rated _Nanny McPhee_, the original, as Tier 2.0.

_Nanny McPhee Returns_ features rich, vibrant color. Depth and detail are are in the bottom of Tier 1, unfortunately closeup facial features aren't what we expect for a Tier 1 movie. According I'd rate *Nanny McPhee Returns Tier 2.0*.


It's a cute movie and you have to love those computer generated piglets.


Panasonic 65" S1 plasma, Panasonic BD85 player, 7 1/2'.


----------



## OldCodger73

Unless I missed it I don't think this movie has been rated here.


Visually _The Girl Who Played with Fire_ bears a strong resemblance to the first movie in the trilogy, _The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo_, only not quite at the level of the first picture. The movie has a very cool palette with very little in the way of bright colors. Some of the longer shots seem very flat. Detail is very good, especially in facial closeups which approach Tier 0.


Overall I'd rate *The Girl Who Played with Fire Tier 1.75*.


I've only seen the first two movies and am eagerly looking forward to the release of the third, _The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest_, later this month. The movies are excellent, as long as you don't mind subtitles, and the books are even better.


Panasonic 65" S1 plasma, Panasonic BD85 player, 7 1/2'.


----------



## OldCodger73

I recently watched Inception or wait, did I only dream that I watched it. Quick, where's my totem.


Seriously, _Inception_ has been reviewed pretty thoroughly so the only thing I can add is that even with its ups and downs in PQ, I'd still rate *Inception Tier 1.75*.


For such a weird movie it really works well. The LFE gives your subs quite a workout.


Panasonic 65" S1 plasma, Panasonic BD85 player, 7 1/2'.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cjmx2* /forum/post/19710419
> 
> *Despicable Me*Definitely a great looking BD from Universal...technically really a beautiful almost perfect transfer as most of the tier 0 animated titles. It does not have the level of detail of TS3 or texture detail of UP, but still EYE candy...I would recommend *Tier 0* somewhere between bee movie and chicken little.
> 
> Also a very funny movie!


*Despicable Me


recommendation: upper quarter of Tier Zero above Chicken Little
*
_Despicable Me_ is an entertaining movie with top-notch picture quality. The only real fault is the short appearance of minor aliasing on some scattered horizontal lines. Outside of that error the transfer is perfect and the CGI sparkles with clarity and interesting design. The green shrubbery around the houses was particularly impressive. Preventing a higher rank near the top is the somewhat simplistic character models for the minions and humans, though background scenery looks as detailed or even better than certain recent Pixar films.


If you are only going to watch a handful of animated movies, make sure this movie is one of them. Excellent demo potential leads to a placement just above _Chicken Little_ in Tier Zero. Universal did a great job on this Blu-ray.


Watching on a 60” Pioneer KURO plasma at 1080p/24, played from a 60 GB Sony PS3 (firmware 3.55), watching from a viewing distance of five feet.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73* /forum/post/19822548
> 
> 
> GRG, back in post #16790 you rated _Nanny McPhee_, the original, as Tier 2.0.
> 
> _Nanny McPhee Returns_ features rich, vibrant color. Depth and detail are are in the bottom of Tier 1, unfortunately closeup facial features aren't what we expect for a Tier 1 movie. According I'd rate *Nanny McPhee Returns Tier 2.0*.
> 
> 
> It's a cute movie and you have to love those computer generated piglets.
> 
> 
> Panasonic 65" S1 plasma, Panasonic BD85 player, 7 1/2'.



I may have to bump that then, that or my memory wasn't that strong. Ah, screw it:

*Nanny McPhee


1.5


Nanny Mcphee 2:


1.75*


On that note:

*Chain Letter:*


I have no idea how this was shot, but the grain is so noisy it's like it was done digitally and layered artificially. Probably not even grain at all. Dark movie, and the black levels that are so crucial don't hold. Detail is at a premium and not that impressive when it is there. Very little color.

*Tier 4.5*

[/b]


----------



## ivanpino




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/19820545
> 
> 
> Thanks for the review. I was hoping for a little more with this title, where cinematography plays a major role in the quality of the film.



Hi Rob,


I have not seen the entire film, but from the few clips that I saw it didn't look so bad. As soon as I get a chance to see the entire film I will give my input.



Ivan


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ivanpino* /forum/post/19828862
> 
> 
> Hi Rob,
> 
> 
> I have not seen the entire film, but from the few clips that I saw it didn't look so bad. As soon as I get a chance to see the entire film I will give my input.
> 
> 
> 
> Ivan



Great Ivan, the more input the better. I'm torn on whether to buy this one or not...


----------



## djoberg

*The Social Network*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19809397
> 
> *Social Network*
> 
> 
> Digitally shot, the black levels and details tell the story. Blacks are digital, and faces are smooth. Black crush is a dominate issue as times. Very little color in 95% of the movie, mostly just yellow and black. Nice lighting, but ugly in terms of eye candy.
> 
> *Tier 3.0*



I've been agreeing with GRG quite a bit lately, but not so on this title. This one is FAR from average, so we're going to be off at least a tier in our recommendations.


Regarding the blacks, I thought they were superb, especially nighttime shots around campus. Shadow details were exquisite in these shots. I only noticed a brief instance of black crush, so I would need time stamps to confirm what GRG saw.


Details and depth were excellent! I will concur with GRG regarding facial details, though at times (rarely) they did veer into tier 1 territory. But with details in general, they were most definitely demo-worthy.


Flesh tones were accurate...contrast was strong (with the exception of one daytime shot where the it was overblown)...and the clarity was very good!


Colors were muted for the most part, but they didn't detract from the exceptional detail and depth, so there was still material we can call EYE CANDY.


I'm going with GOLD on this one, though a bit on the low end....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5 or 1.75*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## 42041

*White Christmas*


A really good-looking restoration of the 1954 film, which (as the opening credits waste no time telling you) was the first to be shot in the Vistavision format. The big negative results in a clear and detailed picture with fine grain. Compared to some other Vistavision productions on blu-ray, like North by Northwest, the film is remarkably well-preserved, many scenes look like they could've been shot in the last 10 years, exhibiting few obvious age-related issues. Colors are bright and saturated, though skin tones are a bit off. Only a handful of shots look like they had to use low-quality sources. Not a big fan of the brightly lit sound-stage aesthetic of the movie, but it is what it is.

*Tier 1.75*


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19831743
> 
> *The Social Network*
> 
> 
> Regarding the blacks, I thought they were superb, especially nighttime shots around campus. Shadow details were exquisite in these shots. I only noticed a brief instance of black crush, so I would need time stamps to confirm what GRG saw.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.5 or 1.75*



The whole scene where they first have the meeting with Justin Timberlake is a mess.

Attachment 197984 


It's like he doesn't even have an arm anymore. The whole scene is like that.


I rarely bicker in this thread, but simply because of how dark and and muted the color palette is with yellow/orange being so dominate, I have no idea how it can reach anywhere near Tier 1. I thought I was being generous with Tier 3.

*True Grit (1969)*


Paramount is rarely off with their classic catalog (White Christmas may be the best thing ever), and this might be their first misstep for a pre-1980 film. There's definite DNR here, first becoming really noticeable at the hanging when the camera pans the crowd. Faces are plastic and waxy, with only a minute amount of fine detail. Color is natural and pleasing. Blacks are solid.

*Tier 3.25*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19833215
> 
> 
> The whole scene where they first have the meeting with Justin Timberlake is a mess.
> 
> Attachment 197984
> 
> 
> It's like he doesn't even have an arm anymore. The whole scene is like that.
> 
> 
> I rarely bicker in this thread, but simply because of how dark and and muted the color palette is with yellow/orange being so dominate, I have no idea how it can reach anywhere near Tier 1. I thought I was being generous with Tier3



If you're talking about black crush in that scene (where you mention "he doesn't even have an arm anymore"), I don't think it's bad at all. I can make out details quite well on his suit coat.


Because you're making an issue out of this GRG, I must inform you that ALL of your colleagues who Cinema Squid posted on his site are praising the PQ on this title. I happen to agree with their assessment.


Having said that, I will concede that the color palette is on the dark side with splashes of yellow/orange in *some* scenes, but this didn't bother me because of the excellent DEPTH and DETAILS.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19833361
> 
> 
> If you're talking about black crush in that scene (where you mention "he doesn't even have an arm anymore"), I don't think it's bad at all. I can make out details quite well on his suit coat.
> 
> 
> Because you're making an issue out of this GRG, I must inform you that ALL of your colleagues who Cinema Squid posted on his site are praising the PQ on this title. I happen to agree with their assessment.
> 
> 
> Having said that, I will concede that the color palette is on the dark side with splashes of yellow/orange in *some* scenes, but this didn't bother me because of the excellent DEPTH and DETAILS.



I did too, because it's not going to get much better because of the source material. It's not like it's being manipulated from what Fincher wanted. We're on a totally different scale here which is purely based on eye candy. I'm not seeing much of any detail, faces tend to be smooth, and the blacks aren't that great. It looks like everything else shot on the Red One with the exception of Gamer.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19833682
> 
> 
> I did too, because it's not going to get much better because of the source material. It's not like it's being manipulated from what Fincher wanted. We're on a totally different scale here which is purely based on eye candy. I'm not seeing much of any detail, faces tend to be smooth, and the blacks aren't that great. It looks like everything else shot on the Red One with the exception of Gamer.



What can I say? This is yet another example where it's like you and I saw two different versions of the same Blu-ray. I absolutely believe it deserves a Tier 1 ranking, but time will tell (hopefully other reviews will be coming in) if my desire will be granted.


----------



## Thebarnman

I have a friend who has never seen my system...the 9th Generation Pioneer 60 inch Elite Kuro Pro 151FD. And it was recently calibrated again.


I asked him what his favorite genre was. His reply was...


"Would love to see something in technicolor. Perhaps the 1950s. Western."


So I'm wondering, what is the BEST transfer to Blu-ray of a 1950s Western technicolor film?



Thanks!


----------



## Gamereviewgod

The Searchers looks great.


----------



## 16x9enhanced

it's not like there are a lot of choices.

I think the only other western from the 50's that is out on blu-ray is "*Rio Bravo*" and it does not look that good. It was an early Warner title and looks far too digitized for me.

I thought it looked ok originally, but recently I watched it again and I was shocked at how poor it looked compared to some more recent older films.

honestly, the studios just haven't released many classic western yet, and who knows how many they will ever release.

I would recommend "*Bridge On the River Kwai*" for a better representation of how good

a 50's film can look on bd.
*The Magnificent Seven* (1960) is also out and looks pretty decent.

Also: *How The West Was Won* (1962) looks very nice.

as far as a great Technicolor bd, you could try "*The Red Shoes*" or "*Black Narcissus*"

those bds look phenomenal.

Also: a few other great 50's blu-ray color titles are "*A Star is Born*", "*Gigi*", and "*An American in Paris*".


----------



## paku

Don't forget The African Queen, great restoration and looks fantastic on Blu-ray. Other Technicolor titles with good transfers are Gone With the Wind and The Wizard of Oz.


----------



## 42041

I don't know of any westerns shot in actual 3-strip Technicolor on blu-ray, since the format completely died off a couple years after Eastmancolor was introduced (the last 3-strip production was from 1954 I believe). I've heard the Searchers looks nice (shot in Vistavision on Eastman color negative).

Some actual Technicolor titles that look great:

Gone With The Wind, Wizard of Oz, The Red Shoes, The African Queen, An American in Paris.


----------



## 42041

*Dog Day Afternoon*


Typical early Warner blu-ray. BD25, lossy audio, SD extras, video that's loaded with compression artifacts and some subtle DNR. The movie goes for a somewhat drab, realistic appearance, so it's not much to look at. The transfer was probably fine before Warner's VC1 codec chewed it up: not particularly sharp but free of heavy digital manipulation. But the atrocious compression brings it down considerably. Overall, a frustratingly half-assed release of a great WB film.

*Tier 3.5*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Thebarnman* /forum/post/19835143
> 
> 
> I have a friend who has never seen my system...the 9th Generation Pioneer 60 inch Elite Kuro Pro 151FD. And it was recently calibrated again.
> 
> 
> I asked him what his favorite genre was. His reply was...
> 
> 
> "Would love to see something in technicolor. Perhaps the 1950s. Western."
> 
> 
> So I'm wondering, what is the BEST transfer to Blu-ray of a 1950s Western technicolor film?
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks!



First of all, you have the exact same KURO as I do. Congrats on the best plasma ever made!


I have my Blu-ray copy of _How The West Was Won_ sitting in my lap and it states:

_"The color film for Cinerama is manufactured by Technicolor and has been made by the imbibition process. This process ensures positive registration when printing the film from the three Cinerama cameras. It also achieves improved color matching between the three panels."_


Take my word for it when I say that this is one beautifully restored classic and I'm sure your friend would be amazed by it, especially if he sees it on your KURO!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Magnificent Seven


recommendation: Tier 3.75*


A popular Western from 1960, MGM's _The Magnificent Seven_ made its Blu-ray debut on May 20, 2010. The 128-minute movie is encoded in AVC on a BD-50, at an average video bitrate of 30.97 Mbps. Tier 3.75 might be a reach for certain scenes, particularly where the image reveals deterioration in the original elements due to the film's age. This may be the best the movie can look given the current state of the source material and how it was originally filmed.


Print damage is kept to a minimum in a serviceable condition. A couple of moments reveal faint yellow splotches that appear to be the result of age and wear in the print. It is clear that not a huge amount of money was thrown at the restoration, if any, as the Blu-ray's master looks derived from a source that is merely okay. While the colors are superior to the DVD, they seem less vibrant than other films on Blu-ray of similar vintage and condition. Clarity is quite good in most respects, as the day scenes stand out for their depth and pleasing contrast. The choice of lenses prevents the typical razor-sharp appearance, though the picture rarely goes soft or unfocused.


The question on everyone's mind for the grain-laden picture is the possible use of digital noise reduction. A healthy amount of grain that moves naturally and which intensifies in the correct moments, such as for the occasional optical dissolve, leaves my mind at ease that little video processing of that type has been used on Yul Brynner and company. The compression easily handles the thick grain fields without much of a problem. One gets the impression the video encode is fully transparent to the current master being used for _The Magnificent Seven_ and retains as much resolution as possible from it.


The only issue which has to be brought to attention is the sporadic shot or scene with intense ringing. It appears to be mostly optical ringing, but certain high-contrast angles display ringing aplenty. The first example that springs to mind is an early scene where Yul Brynner's Chris is standing against the horizon on the hill after successfully delivering a casket against hostile forces. He is almost glowing with a forcefield for several seconds. Most scenes do not have the ringing, but it is something to keep in mind. Pay attention to the brims of the stylish hats worn by the hired guns to seek it out.


A decent job has been done for this older Western's transfer to 1080p. _The Magnificent Seven_ rarely recalls any hint of eye candy, but holds up reasonably well. A ranking in Tier Four would not have been that much of a stretch for me, but had enough decent moments to be placed in the bottom quarter of Tier Three.


----------



## deltasun

*Piranha* (2010)


On the surface this looked really good with its well-saturated colors. However, as the movie progresses, the contrast is just way too HOT. There are too many scenes that look washed out as a result. Facial details are not the best either - seems only Jerry O'Connell showed good lines and texture.


Certain scenes, designed for the 3D audience, just look fake and out of place in 2D. While I enjoyed the "synchronized swimming" routine in a number of levels, it just looked fake due to the 3D presentation. Dimensionality also suffers, probably due to the hot contrast.


Underwater scenes are murky in general. Particularly, the scene in the underwater lake is ripe with heavy banding and some blocking. Grain is very minimal, if they can even be spotted. I had to double check that this is shot on film.


Though it seems I just ripped its PQ above, there are a number of scenes where the elements come together really well, producing crisp, clear, and colorful images. The water usually looks great! Skin tones remain faithful for the most part. There are a few indoor scenes where Jake's skin turns reddish, for example. Details look good in the medium to short range. Once we venture a bit farther, they lose definition.


Overall, still a pleasing presentation but does not resolve well under close scrutiny. I will have to part ways with my esteemed colleague...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.50*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Ok I am making a bad choice to use my iPad to write this; note to self don't do that again!


I think this film was in-between Denny & Deltas reviews. I agree with Delta on wanting it to be a bit better; there was some really irritating black crush and I felt like the movie had a bit of a haze to it.

*Recommendation for Orphan: Tier 2.25.*


Promise my next review will be better!











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/17837345
> 
> *Orphan*
> 
> 
> I see I'm only the second one giving this a review (deltasun reviewed it back on 11/1/09). I'm somewhat puzzled by this, for I thought it was a fairly good movie from the horror genre. This one rewarded you with quite the twist at the end, so if you do rent it don't give in to any temptation to turn it off before then (I'm not saying you will be tempted to do so, but with some their patience may run thin with its rather slow pace).
> 
> 
> Okay, the bottom line with me regarding PQ is: I was fairly impressed. By what, you ask? Mainly with the sharpness, detail, and depth. The colors were purposely muted, as were the skin tones, so no real WOW factor there. But there were plenty of close-ups of clothing, furniture, trees, faces, etc. that yielded finely-rendered, intricate detail. I'm talking about some low tier 0 or high tier 1 detail, with depth and dimensionality to boot.
> 
> 
> There were some moments of *softness* and I detected digital *noise* on several occasions, but overall it was quite sharp. On top of that there was a nice layer of grain that gave it the look of film, enhancing the details mentioned above.
> 
> 
> I was very surprised that my colleague recommended 2.75-3.0, for I kept thinking throughout the whole movie "This is very close to being 'demo-worthy.'" I'm going with that call and placing it right here.....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75 or 2.0*
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/17837411
> 
> 
> I remember wanting it to look better but not getting impressed. I think it's the type of look that can induce different PQ reactions. I do agree strongly that the movie was quite good, specially with my low expectations of it. In fact, I have it in my wishlist for when the price goes down.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

@Phantom Stranger, did you pick up the new Buffy the Vampire Slayer motion comic for Season 8? Curious if you will review it, I hope to give it a peek this week a if my schedule will permit it!


Just curious as we both reviewed the watchmen motion comic.







dunno if you like Buffy and all...


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* 
@Phantom Stranger, did you pick up the new Buffy the Vampire Slayer motion comic for Season 8? Curious if you will review it, I hope to give it a peek this week a if my schedule will permit it!


Just curious as we both reviewed the watchmen motion comic.







dunno if you like Buffy and all...
Spuffy forever!







One of my favorite shows ever, I was not aware the motion comics had already been released. Please give it a review if you can, because I am on the fence about getting it. Just from reading the summaries and some of the fan reaction about the general turn the story takes in the comic books for season 8, I am not sure I will love it like the show. But hope springs eternal as I probably will pick it up down the road. It would be a show of support more than anything else so that Fox might actually release the entire series on Blu-ray if sales were good.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*The Box*


OK I think this is an older film, but I can't help what Zip.ca decides to finally send me when it does ship titles up here!


I don't know what was wrong with this movie, but the presentation on my TV looked almost like DVD. I actually had to double check the disc to see if it possibly was the wrong thing.


Well okay it wasn't THAT bad but it was close.


It had almost NO detail at all. You know when you see money up close, you can usually tell that the paper has texture; when they showed the money in this film it had zero texture detail.


There was some sort of filter over top of this movie - I wondered if it was a Warner film (and OMG IT IS... BIG SHOCK!), but this was actually WORSE than typical Warner softness. Also a lot of crushed blacks were present.


I feel like I was reviewing the same movie I did yesterday, but this one is a LOT worse than that movie.


The colours felt desaturated and there was no facial detail. The special effects for the water was horrendous, and blatantly obvious, same as the facial deformity. Reminded me of Wolverine's Claws it just screamed out at you HELLO WE ADDED SPECIAL EFFECTS, AREN'T THEY COOL? No, they weren't cool; they completely took me out of the movie with how obvious they were, it was just BAD BAD BAD.



Sorry, I can't find any other reviews (searching The Box does not really help much), but I checked the list and it shows Tier 2.5. I think this is way to generous for this title.


*Recommendation for The Box: Tier 3.25 (Tier 3.0 at the highest!)*
*Equipment: ps3 80gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800U, THX setting, approximately 7.5' viewing distance.*


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/19846650
> 
> *The Box*
> 
> 
> Sorry, I can't find any other reviews (searching The Box does not really help much), but I checked the list and it shows Tier 2.5. I think this is way to generous for this title.
> 
> *Recommendation for The Box: Tier 3.25 (Tier 3.0 at the highest!)*



Here were the prior scores, going off my personal records:


The Box - 2.5 Gamereviewgod, 1.75/2 djoberg, 2.25 jedimasterchad, 3.0 deltasun


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19845537
> 
> 
> Spuffy forever!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of my favorite shows ever, I was not aware the motion comics had already been released. Please give it a review if you can, because I am on the fence about getting it. Just from reading the summaries and some of the fan reaction about the general turn the story takes in the comic books for season 8, I am not sure I will love it like the show. But hope springs eternal as I probably will pick it up down the road. It would be a show of support more than anything else so that Fox might actually release the entire series on Blu-ray if sales were good.



Spuffy!! hehe.


I had no idea this was coming out either, I just saw it at the store. I like Buffy but I haven't read any of the info on the season 8 comic, i considered it but haven't got around to it yet. Was a nice surprise, I was picking up Inception and was deciding between Buffy and The Social Network, but I decided Buffy would win; I'm sure The Social Network will be on sale soon enough so I'll grab that then.







Trying to get rid of my zip.ca discs this week and then I should get to Buffy & Inception to review!


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19846679
> 
> 
> Here were the prior scores, going off my personal records:
> 
> 
> The Box - 2.5 Gamereviewgod, 1.75/2 djoberg, 2.25 jedimasterchad, 3.0 deltasun



Maybe i'm being harsh given I'm just getting back into the fold of reviewing again. But i thought it looked terrible!


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/19846712
> 
> 
> Maybe i'm being harsh given I'm just getting back into the fold of reviewing again. But i thought it looked terrible!



I definitely remember the odd desaturated look to the film, but my only experience with it was a viewing on one of the movie channels in HD. I own the Blu-ray and have not even opened it.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19846775
> 
> 
> I definitely remember the odd desaturated look to the film, but my only experience with it was a viewing on one of the movie channels in HD. I own the Blu-ray and have not even opened it.



Well it could be worse, I suppose; I could become the dreaded *generous rater*!!


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19846679
> 
> 
> Here were the prior scores, going off my personal records:
> 
> 
> The Box - 2.5 Gamereviewgod, 1.75/2 djoberg, 2.25 jedimasterchad, 3.0 deltasun



I remember this - it had that dreaded haze around light sources.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/19846820
> 
> 
> Well it could be worse, I suppose; I could become the dreaded *generous rater*!!



Excuse me for correcting you G3, but I'm quite sure you meant to write:


Well it could be *better*; I could become the *COVETED generous rater*.


----------



## 42041

*The Thin Red Line*


Beautifully shot film (some very nice magic-hour photography) and a very good transfer. More often than not, the detail is razor sharp and grain is very fine; the jungle foliage is rendered with great detail. The quality dips slightly for about the length of a reel towards the middle of the movie, where I suspect they must've scanned the IP rather than the negative for some reason. I didn't note when the dip begins, but it ends sometime during the scene where the soldiers capture the bunker on the hill.


I don't quite agree with the film's current placement, because the more frantic scenes seemed to be shot less deliberately and with looser focus, and didn't particularly wow me, and consistency isn't quite on the level of the computer-generated stuff that populates the upper half of tier 0. In many scenes the color palette leans towards the drab, desaturated side of things. To my eyes, it _is_ among the best live-action discs, but not distinctly above the rest. This disc is somewhat comparable visually to (another film shot by John Toll) Braveheart, which I also feel is a solid Tier 0 effort, and personally I prefer the richer colors of that film









*Tier 0, Middle*


----------



## trinifox





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> .... they must've scanned the IP rather than the negative for some reason.



Can you clarify IP for me please? Is this like a copy of a negative?


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *trinifox* /forum/post/19849162
> 
> 
> Can you clarify IP for me please? Is this like a copy of a negative?



Interpositive - so, a positive made from the negative or a negative processed in a positive process.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/19829576
> 
> 
> Great Ivan, the more input the better. I'm torn on whether to buy this one or not...



Should be a no-brainer now for $10 at Target: $14.99 minus the $5 off coupon.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Buried*


It's a guy inside a casket for 90 minutes. The first minute doesn't even have light (literally a black screen). Still, there are some moments of great detail when there is light, but the odd focus and such to get some of these angles takes that away. Color is dictated by the lighting, varied greatly but one color is usually dominate.

*Tier 4.0*


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19851917
> 
> 
> 
> It's a guy inside a casket for 90 minutes.



LOL...I may be skipping this one.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19849590
> 
> 
> Interpositive - so, a positive made from the negative or a negative processed in a positive process.



I might be wrong on this, but I don't think a negative processed in a positive process is considered an "interpositive".


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19850342
> 
> 
> Should be a no-brainer now for $10 at Target: $14.99 minus the $5 off coupon.



Thanks Delta!


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19852006
> 
> 
> LOL...I may be skipping this one.



Don't. It's spectacular. Like Phone Booth which is, well, a guy in a phone booth for 90 minutes. Or like Frozen where people are stuck in a ski lift for 90 minutes. Or Open Water... well, you get the point.


Fantastic movie, if a bit stupid in spots. It recovers though.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19853763
> 
> 
> Don't. It's spectacular. Like Phone Booth which is, well, a guy in a phone booth for 90 minutes. Or like Frozen where people are stuck in a ski lift for 90 minutes. Or Open Water... well, you get the point.
> 
> 
> Fantastic movie, if a bit stupid in spots. It recovers though.



The average rating at Netflix is 3.6, which is pretty high. I just added it to my Queue.


----------



## Sujay




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19853763
> 
> 
> Don't. It's spectacular. Like Phone Booth which is, well, a guy in a phone booth for 90 minutes. Or like Frozen where people are stuck in a ski lift for 90 minutes. Or Open Water... well, you get the point.
> 
> 
> Fantastic movie, if a bit stupid in spots. It recovers though.



I agree, I really loved it. Very true in its filmmaking, no cheats, and exciting.


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19851917
> 
> 
> It's a guy inside a casket for 90 minutes.



For a movie featuring Ryan Reynolds stuck in box for 90 minutes, I also agree that Buried was surprisingly tense and engaging.


From a PQ perspective, however, I have to register some disappointment with the black levels especially considering it forms an integral part of the experience for this particular film. From the opening shot of darkness through the credit roll, the blacks are noticeably grey and never achieve any deepness.


This would probably be more forgivable if it were shot in 1.78:1, but the black bars from the 2.35:1 framing are a constant distracting reminder that the picture area blacks are not what they could be.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/19852958
> 
> 
> I might be wrong on this, but I don't think a negative processed in a positive process is considered an "interpositive".



Reading what I wrote, I can see where the confusion may come from. Even I was a bit confused!







I guess the best way to describe it is...if the negative of a negative makes a positive image, then the interpositive is used to make another negative. I'm talking strictly of photography here, but I'm sure it applies to motion picture film as well.


If I have to go beyond this, I'd have to look it up.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/19853973
> 
> 
> The average rating at Netflix is 3.6, which is pretty high. I just added it to my Queue.



Ditto, just added it tonight. Speaking of, I just finished _Devil/I] (and will be putting up my review in a few). I guess one could say it's 90 minutes of 5 people trapped in an elevator. Incidentally, it's rated 3.6 stars on Netflix as well.







_


----------



## deltasun

*Devil*


One word: clumpy! Aside from the upside down scenes during the opening credits, some of the outdoor scenes as the story begins, and the early lobby sequences, this was a horrifically uni-dimensional fare. Blacks are crushed, contrast totally wavers from scene to scene, and shadow details become shadow murk. The only redeeming quality is facial details (and I would even say object details from the early scenes were above average). Skin tones are faithful. Colors are okay, though a bit subdued. A thin layer of grain is present throughout.


The scene of a character emerging from his car after a collision is just unbearable.

*Tier Recommendation: 4.0*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Death Race 2*


Digital with most of the benefits. A few shots lose their sharpness, but it's mostly rendered incredibly well. Some of the detail is just remarkable, including one shot of Ving Rhames that is truly one of the best I've seen. Exteriors are incredible and the black levels sufficient. The subdued palette is the only thing holding it back.

*Tier 1.75*


Here's that Rhames close-up BTW:

Attachment 198487


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19856377
> 
> *Death Race 2*
> 
> 
> Digital with most of the benefits. A few shots lose their sharpness, but it's mostly rendered incredibly well. Some of the detail is just remarkable, including one shot of Ving Rhames that is truly one of the best I've seen. Exteriors are incredible and the black levels sufficient. The subdued palette is the only thing holding it back.
> 
> *Tier 1.75*
> 
> 
> Here's that Rhames close-up BTW:
> 
> Attachment 198487



Good to hear, GRG. I plan to rent this one soon. If memory serves me well, the first installment (_Death Race_) had very good PQ too.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

_*Batman (1989)*

*recommendation: Tier 3.5*
_
_Batman_ is ranked at the moment in Tier 2.0 on the basis of one review, a very generous assessment for a fairly mundane and dull transfer. The level of detail to the image is underwhelming, though Tim Burton's original photography appears to be the main culprit. A slight showing of ringing and possible grain reduction are unobtrusive for the most part. Compression artifacts are not that bad, but the VC-1 video encode struggles at times with the frequent appearances of colored gas as it swirls on the screen.


The master has the look that many of Warner's transfers struck around five or six years ago share, one of decent resolution and clarity, but some softness and possible filtering. Overall an acceptable fate for a catalog property not filmed in the sharpest manner to begin with, but _Batman_ does not compare favorably to the better Blu-rays.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of RDarrylR):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...9#post16049859 


Watching on a 60" Pioneer KURO plasma at 1080p/24, using a 160-GB slim PS3 (firmware 3.55) from a viewing distance of five feet.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/19855071
> 
> 
> From a PQ perspective, however, I have to register some disappointment with the black levels especially considering it forms an integral part of the experience for this particular film. From the opening shot of darkness through the credit roll, the blacks are noticeably grey and never achieve any deepness.
> 
> 
> This would probably be more forgivable if it were shot in 1.78:1, but the black bars from the 2.35:1 framing are a constant distracting reminder that the picture area blacks are not what they could be.



I was worried when the opening shot, which is literally a blank screen, came up. It was a very obvious gray. Once the movie started, it wasn't that bad to me. Were they super awesome superb? Not really, but I think all things considered, that's probably as good as the can be. And yeah, the framing doesn't do it any favors.

*Takers*


Some hideous DI coloring here. There's literally one scene where our main character look like Avatars the screen is so blue. Beyond that, the Panavision Genesis does it's job, producing a clean, clear image with stable, deep blacks. Fine detail, while slightly inconsistent, can be superlative. A little bit of noise and slight smoothness are here too, but it's not awful.

*Tier 1.75*


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19855138
> 
> *Devil*
> 
> 
> One word: clumpy! Aside from the upside down scenes during the opening credits, some of the outdoor scenes as the story begins, and the early lobby sequences, this was a horrifically uni-dimensional fare. Blacks are crushed, contrast totally wavers from scene to scene, and shadow details become shadow murk. The only redeeming quality is facial details (and I would even say object details from the early scenes were above average). Skin tones are faithful. Colors are okay, though a bit subdued. A thin layer of grain is present throughout.
> 
> 
> The scene of a character emerging from his car after a collision is just unbearable.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 4.0*
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_



I am glad to read this review........I watched this last night and it seemed very flat and lifeless to me..........I kept wondering if I had changed some settings or something, but Rambo right before it looked good. PQ was underwhelming on Devil to say the least.


----------



## audiomagnate

*American Psycho*


If you don't understand why people rant about edge enhancement (ee) on this thread, rent this. It starts with the credits and never stops. It is a very entertaining movie and contrast and color look decent, so I enjoyed it in spite of the over the top ee.

*3.5*


----------



## djoberg

*The Devil*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19855138
> 
> *Devil*
> 
> 
> One word: clumpy! Aside from the upside down scenes during the opening credits, some of the outdoor scenes as the story begins, and the early lobby sequences, this was a horrifically uni-dimensional fare. Blacks are crushed, contrast totally wavers from scene to scene, and shadow details become shadow murk. The only redeeming quality is facial details (and I would even say object details from the early scenes were above average). Skin tones are faithful. Colors are okay, though a bit subdued. A thin layer of grain is present throughout.
> 
> 
> The scene of a character emerging from his car after a collision is just unbearable.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 4.0*
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_



I ended up looking on Cinema Squid's site to see what the reviews looked like there and man, what a mixed bag of opinions. I'm figuring it may be the same here, for I thought it looked quite a bit better than what delta saw.


Take black levels for instance...on my KURO they looked pretty good most of the time. There were a few shots (in the elevator or elevator shaft) with some black crush, and there was one horrific scene towards the end (the car crash scene) where the blacks bottomed out big time, but other than those they were deep and inky, with good shadow details as well.


Facial details were definitely above average....somewhere in Tier 1 I'd say, and flesh tones were excellent. Details in general were quite good.


Colors were nothing to write home about, but the blue hues and overall muted color palette fit into the storyline without obscuring details, so I wouldn't penalize the PQ in this category.


The bottom line is...this isn't a stellar-looking title, but it certainly isn't below average. My vote goes for.....

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## djoberg

*Takers*


I, for one, can put up with stylized colors if they don't overdo it, but this was permeated with blue/gold/yellow hues throughout and for me it was quite distracting. Add to that MANY overblown whites in daytime scenes and some jittery camera work and this one is taken off my demo shelf.


The two redeeming qualities were EXCELLENT BLACK LEVELS and SUPERB DETAILS, though even here there was a bit of black crush in a few shots (most notably the underground tunnel scene) and details became a bit murky in some *soft* shots.


Facial details were stunning at times, especially close-ups, and it seemed to fare better as the movie progressed.


Well, this is one of those rare occasions where I'll be parting company with GRG in the opposite direction (meaning I'm going LOWER than him) and opting for....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Stone*


Flat looking palette, so it's never going to leap off the screen. Black levels are okay, and detail comes and goes. It's impressive since quite a bit is a static conversation in an office, medium shots, and detail is superb. Grain structure tends to cause problems against the office walls.

*Tier 2.75*


----------



## Thebarnman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19836612
> 
> 
> First of all, you have the exact same KURO as I do. Congrats on the best plasma ever made!
> 
> 
> I have my Blu-ray copy of _How The West Was Won_ sitting in my lap and it states:
> 
> _"The color film for Cinerama is manufactured by Technicolor and has been made by the imbibition process. This process ensures positive registration when printing the film from the three Cinerama cameras. It also achieves improved color matching between the three panels."_
> 
> 
> Take my word for it when I say that this is one beautifully restored classic and I'm sure your friend would be amazed by it, especially if he sees it on your KURO!




Thanks for the compliment for the TV we have! I love it and it feels good to have it calibrated again (just recently for a 2nd time.)


The title you mentioned "How the West Was Won" based off from what you read was a pretty major restoration. I do remember seeing threads about that title when it was first released on Blu-ray. The images from the Blu-ray were off the chart.


I recently bought "The Sound of Music" only because of it's restoration. I was blown away with that transfer...probably the best I've ever seen of a live action film.


Do you know if "How the West Was Won" comes close to that transfer?


----------



## Thebarnman




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19856377
> 
> *Death Race 2*
> 
> 
> Digital with most of the benefits. A few shots lose their sharpness, but it's mostly rendered incredibly well. Some of the detail is just remarkable, including one shot of Ving Rhames that is truly one of the best I've seen. Exteriors are incredible and the black levels sufficient. The subdued palette is the only thing holding it back.
> 
> *Tier 1.75*
> 
> 
> Here's that Rhames close-up BTW:
> 
> Attachment 198487



I'm going to have to watch that movie again. I bought the Blu-ray when that title came out and though I like the movie very much, I've always been disappointed with how dark the whole movie looks. Maybe it is suppose to look that way due to the theme of the movie. And it's sometimes hard to enjoy the quality when the image shakes as much as it does in this movie...though it's suppose to be that way and it is cool for the movie.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Thebarnman* /forum/post/19872041
> 
> 
> Thanks for the compliment for the TV we have! I love it and it feels good to have it calibrated again (just recently for a 2nd time.)
> 
> 
> The title you mentioned "How the West Was Won" based off from what you read was a pretty major restoration. I do remember seeing threads about that title when it was first released on Blu-ray. The images from the Blu-ray were off the chart.
> 
> 
> I recently bought "The Sound of Music" only because of it's restoration. I was blown away with that transfer...probably the best I've ever seen of a live action film.
> 
> 
> Do you know if "How the West Was Won" comes close to that transfer?



The cinematography is obviously different for these movies with HTWWW having mostly a wide-angle point of view. PQ-wise, I prefer HTWWW.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19864892
> 
> *The Devil*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I ended up looking on Cinema Squid's site to see what the reviews looked like there and man, what a mixed bag of opinions. I'm figuring it may be the same here, for I thought it looked quite a bit better than what delta saw.
> 
> 
> Take black levels for instance...on my KURO they looked pretty good most of the time. There were a few shots (in the elevator or elevator shaft) with some black crush, and there was one horrific scene towards the end (the car crash scene) where the blacks bottomed out big time, but other than those they were deep and inky, with good shadow details as well.
> 
> 
> Facial details were definitely above average....somewhere in Tier 1 I'd say, and flesh tones were excellent. Details in general were quite good.
> 
> 
> Colors were nothing to write home about, but the blue hues and overall muted color palette fit into the storyline without obscuring details, so I wouldn't penalize the PQ in this category.
> 
> 
> The bottom line is...this isn't a stellar-looking title, but it certainly isn't below average. My vote goes for.....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.0*
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'



So you're claiming that the average blu-ray looks like this? I do remember some good blacks on some clothing. However, on walls and backgrounds (and even some instances of clothing), they were crushed.


I would hope that the average blu-ray wouldn't look like this.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Thebarnman* /forum/post/19872041
> 
> 
> The title you mentioned "How the West Was Won" based off from what you read was a pretty major restoration. I do remember seeing threads about that title when it was first released on Blu-ray. The images from the Blu-ray were off the chart.
> 
> 
> I recently bought "The Sound of Music" only because of it's restoration. I was blown away with that transfer...probably the best I've ever seen of a live action film.
> 
> 
> Do you know if "How the West Was Won" comes close to that transfer?



I watched and reviewed HTWWW back in 2008 and I was recommending a Tier 0 placement. I watched TSOM in November of 2010 and gave it a Tier 1.0 placment. This is NOT to imply that HTWWW is better than TSOM, for I learned a long time ago that in the space of two years things change, among them the standards being set by current titles. I would really have to view HTWWW again to answer your question accurately, but I think I can say that they must be fairly close in quality.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19872182
> 
> *So you're claiming that the average blu-ray looks like this?* I do remember some good blacks on some clothing. However, on walls and backgrounds (and even some instances of clothing), they were crushed.



What I'm _claiming_ is that it looks *average* using the criteria set forth for Tier 3.










I just looked up the word "average" in my The American Heritage College Dictionary and for synonyms it lists the following words: _medium, mediocre, fair, run-of-the-mill, so-so, tolerable_. In light of those synonyms, yes, I would say that _Devil_ looks average.


But as we consider the total sum of Blu-rays on the market today, I'm not prepared to claim "that the average Blu-ray looks like this." That may sound like a contradiction, but it isn't. I believe the "average Blu-ray" looks more like the titles found in Tier 2, and yet when we were discussing the possibility of removing the word "average" from the description for this very reason it was rejected and the word remains to this day. I was one who opted to just call Tier 3 "fair" instead of "average."


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Thebarnman* /forum/post/19872041
> 
> 
> I recently bought "The Sound of Music" only because of it's restoration. I was blown away with that transfer...probably the best I've ever seen of a live action film.
> 
> 
> Do you know if "How the West Was Won" comes close to that transfer?



The Sound of Music was shot on 65mm film. How the West Was Won was shot in Cinerama, which uses so much film 65mm is puny in comparison. Think wide-screen IMAX. The only problem is, it's way wider than our TVs.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/19872398
> 
> 
> The Sound of Music was shot on 65mm film. How the West Was Won was shot in Cinerama, which uses so much film 65mm is puny in comparison. Think wide-screen IMAX. The only problem is, it's way wider than our TVs.



Wasn't it actually more than one camera being used, and the film had to be spliced together?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/19872398
> 
> 
> The Sound of Music was shot on 65mm film. How the West Was Won was shot in Cinerama, which uses so much film 65mm is puny in comparison. Think wide-screen IMAX. The only problem is, it's way wider than our TVs.



Good point 42041. I should have mentioned this, for they are two altogether different types of film, and in that respect can hardly be compared.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/19872424
> 
> 
> Wasn't it actually more than one camera being used, and the film had to be spliced together?



Yes, Rob, you are correct. I believe they referred to the splicing as *stitching*.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Salt


recommendation: Tier 1.5
*

Prior evaluations for _Salt_ look somewhat harsh in the thread, as the high-frequency information is absolutely exquisite and top-notch on the Blu-ray. This is what a completely unfiltered movie derived from a digital intermediate should display in terms of overall detail, making it very close to reference for at least one key aspect of the picture quality.


Each actor's facial features are rendered with incredible precision, revealing every line or blemish with the utmost resolution. Some high-profile actresses sometimes use their power to soften the picture whenever their face is on display. There is none of that occurring in this film, where every pore and line on Angelina Jolie's face is there for the world to see. The tiny cracks in her famous lips are easily discerned, indicating she might have needed more lip balm when she filmed _Salt_.


Two items though do prevent a higher placement in my perspective. There is a fair amount of persistent sharpening scattered throughout the film. Another thing to consider is the relative lack of depth to the image, compared against the best of Tier One and above. The image never really pops, which may have led Sony to use the edge enhancement in the first place. A minor complaint is the AVC video encode that fails on at least two occasions, one in a pivotal moment in the middle of the movie after a huge explosion. Cramming three different cuts of the film, even employing seamless branching, hurts the compression's transparency to the master.


My evaluation of _Salt_ differs from previous judgments because I feel it looks better than most of the titles in Tier Two. Head-to-head against older films made from inferior stocks and bad masters, Salt at times is stunning to see. One really can't find fault with the color timing, as the palette is basically neutral with fleshtones running slightly cool. Weighing all the characteristics carefully, I conclude _Salt_ should be ranked in Tier One.


----------



## deltasun

*Stone*


Good detail (though inconsistent at times) in ultra close-up's, but gets worse in medium to longer shots. Ed Norton seem to fare the best with facial details. DeNiro's is very inconsistent. Contrast is really weak and gives an overall appearance that is dated and soft. Some blooming occur in scenes around the Mabry household, especially when Mrs. Mabry is present. There's also an uncharacteristic number of white specks.


Grain is present and can get noisy against walls. Nothing really standing out here, just slightly below average PQ.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.25*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

*Case 39*


Watching this back to back with _Stone_, the contrast is much improved and gave me the illusion of better PQ. As the movie went along, the true PQ unfolded. There is literally no definition in the characters' faces. Okay, maybe a scene or two. Grain/Noise is probably one of the most distracting I've seen in a while - especially at 6' viewing distance. It is all over the place and really does a number in darker scenes.


Blacks are crushed, but still not deep. Contrast is above average. Colors are on the subdued side, which does complement the storyline. Flesh tones can be a bit on the reddish side, but not too bad.


Overall, a pretty lousy presentation.

*Tier Recommendation: 4.50*


This is one of those movies that keep you interested based on each development. Then, the movie ends and you feel like it was good till you think back through the whole experience.







Still, worth a rental, I think.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19872313
> 
> 
> What I'm _claiming_ is that it looks *average* using the criteria set forth for Tier 3.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just looked up the word "average" in my The American Heritage College Dictionary and for synonyms it lists the following words: _medium, mediocre, fair, run-of-the-mill, so-so, tolerable_. In light of those synonyms, yes, I would say that _Devil_ looks average.
> 
> 
> But as we consider the total sum of Blu-rays on the market today, I'm not prepared to claim "that the average Blu-ray looks like this." That may sound like a contradiction, but it isn't. I believe the "average Blu-ray" looks more like the titles found in Tier 2, and yet when we were discussing the possibility of removing the word "average" from the description for this very reason it was rejected and the word remains to this day. I was one who opted to just call Tier 3 "fair" instead of "average."



In my viewing, it's well below average. Fair enough (or _average_ enough).


----------



## lgans316

*Resident Evil Afterlife*


Very hard to judge the PQ. Except for a handful of bright outdoor and interior shots this one looked dodgy and murky with poor blacks and overexposed shadows.










There appears to be a bit of sharpening applied in couple of scenes but no as bad as Salt.


Also, this is easily the amongst the worst movies in my book due to very poor directing and wooden acting. Everyone looked tired and botoxed.

*Recommendation: Tier 2.75*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Family Guy: It's a Trap*


Razor sharp except for the scenes involving ships that suffer from an atrocious level of aliasing. Sometimes lines even just flicker out of view entirely. Standard, solid color produces no issues to take note of. Not much in terms of "detail" other than the animation lines being so precise. A live action scene is literally pulled from a VHS I believe.

*Tier 2.5*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19874357
> 
> 
> In my viewing, it's well below average. Fair enough (or _average_ enough).



Yeah, but did you view it at the same (early) hour you made this post? If so, your eyes were no doubt tired and obscured your vision.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19876167
> 
> 
> Yeah, but did you view it at the same (early) hour you made this post? If so, your eyes were no doubt tired and obscured your vision.



Nah, I'm a night owl.







I viewed this a few nights ago and reviewed it then.


----------



## ibre34




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19809397
> 
> *Social Network*
> 
> 
> Digitally shot, the black levels and details tell the story. Blacks are digital, and faces are smooth. Black crush is a dominate issue as times. Very little color in 95% of the movie, mostly just yellow and black. Nice lighting, but ugly in terms of eye candy.
> 
> *Tier 3.0*



I agree. Very little color. Skin tones weren't natural. Bad contrast as well.

*Tier 3.0*[/quote]


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *selimsivad* /forum/post/17720412
> 
> *Ferris Bueller's Day Off*
> *2.35 : 1*
> 
> 
> FBDO looks damn good in Blu! I expected soft mush. What I got was a film that showed pretty good detail. Facial closeups showed excellent pore detail, even with caked makeup evident (especially on Principal Rooney).
> 
> 
> Contrast seems to have been boosted a tad bit, but improves picture quality dramatically! Reds, on Ferris' bedroom flags, telephone, Cameron's jersey, and even the famous 1961 Ferrari 250 GT California, look awesome!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Detail in clothing and fabrics showed an improvement over the DVD (at least from what I remembered). Panoramic views of Chicago reminded me of the AU version of American Psycho. Beautiful!
> 
> 
> Speckles pop up every now and then, but did not distract from the viewing experience. Black levels were black, not grey like I expected. I did expect more grain, but I have no proof of any tampering. Overall, I was pleased!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Ferris Bueller's Day Off
> 
> Tier Recommendation: Tier 3.0
> 
> PS3-Samsung 46" 1080p-seven'*


*Ferris Bueller's Day Off


recommendation: Tier 3.5*


No real disagreement with selimsivad's analysis, just a downward adjustment after a recent viewing given the recent trends in the thread. Check out the parameters from the BDInfo scan to see how Paramount gave this video encode flawless compression performance, even during the grainiest passages. Many scenes never dip below 35 Mbps.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Phloyd):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...6#post16385706


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Psycho (1960)*


There's a great master here probably, but light layers of DNR and edge enhancement are enough to bring it down. There are some scenes of great detail, the extreme close-up of the cop for example, while the rest is just too muddy to accept. Nice grayscale and black levels.

*Tier 4.0*


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19367097
> 
> 
> I just watched the first installment (_Challenges of Life)_ of the BBC's version of _Life (Narrated by David Attenborough)_ and I was thoroughly impressed. It's been awhile since I watched _Planet Earth_ but I can safely say I don't remember it looking this good, and especially having the consistency of detail and clarity (without artifacts) that this exhibits. Of course _Planet Earth_ was filmed in 1080i compared to a superior 1080p in the BBC's _Life_. On the cover of the boxed set of _Life_ we read, ".....with breathtaking new high definition filming techniques developed since _Planet Earth_," and it shows!
> 
> 
> I had to go to the PQ Tier Ranking thread to be reminded that _Planet Earth_ is currently sitting in Tier 2.25. If the rest of the discs in _Life_ look as good as the first, this set could easily land in the top of Tier 1 or possibly in low Tier 0.



I have only watched the first disc so far, but my opinion is relatively close to the upper-half of Tier One for Life. The shallow depth-of-field does pose a problem, but consistency looks vastly better than Planet Earth so far.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19883815
> 
> 
> I have only watched the first disc so far, but my opinion is relatively close to the upper-half of Tier One for Life. The shallow depth-of-field does pose a problem, but consistency looks vastly better than Planet Earth so far.



I've watched a couple more episodes since I made the post you quoted. I still believe the PQ is better than _Planet Earth_, but I have seen more softness and poorer black levels than in the first episode. I will wait until I view the whole set to make a recommendation, but right now, based on the three episodes that I've seen, I would go for at least the middle of Tier 1.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Saw: The Final Chapter*


Digitally shot unlike the others. The plastic skin effect is here, along with some atrocious black crush. When they don't hold up, a substantial amount of noise becomes visible. Colors are typical Saw (green, yellows) except for the opening. Sharpness is only okay.

*Tier 3.75*


----------



## deltasun

*Takers*


Initial reaction to the super-high contrast and black crush equated to below average PQ. However, as the movie progresses, contrast and blacks stabilize a bit. There are still some instances where contrast is too hot (even indoors), but not to the same extent. Details, amazingly enough, stay consistently superb throughout. Flesh tones are accurate and facial details are some of best for a video capture. Colors are rich, albeit stylized, and dimensionality is decent. Some instances of banding are also noted.


Agree with Denny on this one...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Red*


This is based on the movie only version which seemingly has a slightly lower bitrate than the special edition (see the Red thread for details on this debacle). It's a decent looking movie regardless, even if the detail is all over the place. Colors are bright as is the contrast, but the flesh tones are a bit chalky. Grain is at times exceedingly noisy.

*Tier 2.0*


----------



## Hughmc

*The American:*


The American has excellent sharp PQ with lots of detail exhibited. Facial closeups and shots of Clooney's and Placido's face and hair show excellent detail, color, and black levels. Lot's of visible pores on this BD. The color palette, while not outstanding or pumped up in any way and a bit on the subdued side, is excellent and lends to the realism of the scenery and locations both indoors and out. While not flawless in and of itself or outstanding in terms of color, the PQ on The American is top notch IMO.


Violante Placido (calm violation, haha) is all eye candy and is easily top of tier 0.









*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*


I really enjoyed this film. Clooney seems to be ideal for these roles and throw in some eye candy, a decent story and interesting locations and you have one of the better films I have seen in a while and one of the best of the year.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/19900596
> 
> *The American:*
> 
> 
> The American has excellent sharp PQ with lots of detail exhibited. Facial closeups and shots of Clooney's and Placido's face and hair show excellent detail, color, and black levels. Lot's of visible pores on this BD. The color palette, while not outstanding or pumped up in any way and a bit on the subdued side, is excellent and lends to the realism of the scenery and locations both indoors and out. While not flawless in and of itself or outstanding in terms of color, the PQ on The American is top notch IMO.
> 
> 
> Violante Placido (calm violation, haha) is all eye candy and is easily top of tier 0.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.25*
> 
> 
> I really enjoyed this film. Clooney seems to be ideal for these roles and throw in some eye candy, a decent story and interesting locations and *you have one of the better films I have seen in a while and one of the best of the year.*



Good to see a review from you Hugh!


I don't know if I go so far as to say this was "one of the best of the year," but it still deserves some kind of nomination for causing 4 members in a row to give it the exact same placement (1.25). How unlikely is that?!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19901005
> 
> 
> Good to see a review from you Hugh!
> 
> 
> I don't know if I go so far as to say this was "one of the best of the year," but it still deserves some kind of nomination for causing 4 members in a row to give it the exact same placement (1.25). How unlikely is that?!



Just wait until I get a hold of it, and I'm sure that streak will come to an abrupt end!


----------



## deltasun

^^^ Saw this again and liked it even better the second time around. Good review, Hugh!


----------



## djoberg

Quote:

Originally Posted by *rob tomlin* 
just wait until i get a hold of it, and i'm sure that streak will come to an abrupt end!



















Maybe...maybe not!


----------



## deltasun

*Red* (movie-only)


Very colorful is the first impression I got. Blacks are deep and bold, no crushing. Contrast is strong for the most part, but does weaken a bit in areas. The biggest gripes here are the reddish (and orange) skin tones and the inconsistent facial details. As good as some of the medium close-up's looked, there is inexplicable softness. It just drove me batty! Dimensionality is excellent, specially in New Orleans.


Grain is fine throughout and I noticed some aliasing. I rated this the same as _Takers_, but for different reasons. I think _Takers_ has the slight edge PQ-wise (and story-wise), but not enough to drop this even a quarter tier.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*I Spit on Your Grave (1979)*


A nice, naturally soft, filmic look. Grain is well resolved, and the mass of trees, weeds, and other plants are incredibly presented. Colors have been increased, and the black levels are pleasing. Detail isn't the finest to make it into any of the top tiers, but that's change that this looks quite impressive. There's a constant flicker, a little judder, and mild damage too.

*Tier 3.25*


----------



## Rob Tomlin

"Filmic".


I've got to remember that one!


----------



## djoberg

*Death Race 2*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19856377
> 
> *Death Race 2*
> 
> 
> Digital with most of the benefits. A few shots lose their sharpness, but it's mostly rendered incredibly well. Some of the detail is just remarkable, including one shot of Ving Rhames that is truly one of the best I've seen. Exteriors are incredible and the black levels sufficient. The subdued palette is the only thing holding it back.
> 
> *Tier 1.75*
> 
> 
> Here's that Rhames close-up BTW:
> 
> Attachment 198487



I'm really in a hurry so I'm taking the easy way out again. I pretty much agree with GRG's comments. I would just add that there were some very SOFT shots with little or no detail (check out the scene with Sean Bean with the girl at the prison towards the end) and there were also some shots with OVERBLOWN CONTRAST.


Facial details were off the charts at times...High Tier 0, but most of them were in low Tier 0 or high Tier 1. Flesh tones were a bit pale at times. Details in general were mostly superb, in the prison and especially the scenes that took place at Sean Bean's home (a night scene there had exemplary shadow details).


I also agree with his placement of....


*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


PS The movie was horrendous!!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Predators


recommendation: Tier 1.75
*

A clean, sharp movie that looks like video instead of film. Good black levels that are definitely needed, as the last hour or so takes place at night in dim light. The beginning act would be a strong candidate for the top quarter of Tier One.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19906948
> 
> *Predators
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 1.75
> *
> 
> A clean, sharp movie that looks like video instead of film. Good black levels that are definitely needed, as the last hour or so takes place at night in dim light. The beginning act would be a strong candidate for the top quarter of Tier One.



Absolutely agree with your placement Phantom. I don't agree though with your comment on the beginning act being "a strong candidate for the top quarter of Tier One....*I believe it was good enough for "the top quarter of Tier 0!"*


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/19903621
> 
> 
> "Filmic".
> 
> 
> I've got to remember that one!



Filmic(TM): The nature of film in regards to its high quality on a digital format.


My word. You may use it for $189 per use (plus tax, shipping and handling is free).

*Secretariat*


Thing thing goes digital to film, film to digital, and the effect is jarring. Grain is not well resolved and noise can dominate the other scenes. It's as if they added it to try and make a consistent look. Black levels are great, and the colors typically bright with a few segments taking on that orange/teal palette.

*Tier 2.0*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19909472
> 
> 
> Filmic(TM): The nature of film in regards to its high quality on a digital format.
> 
> 
> My word. You may use it for $189 per use (plus tax, shipping and handling is free).
> 
> *Secretariat*
> 
> 
> Thing thing goes digital to film, film to digital, and the effect is jarring. Grain is not well resolved and noise can dominate the other scenes. It's as if they added it to try and make a consistent look. Black levels are great, and the colors typically bright with a few segments taking on that orange/teal palette.
> 
> *Tier 2.0*



First of all, I have used the word *filmic* in reviews before, but I didn't know I got it from you. I'm going to guess I've used it a good ten times, so if you take PayPal I'll send you $1890.










I just purchased _Secretariat_ yesterday for $14.96 plus tax (not bad!) and I'm hoping to watch it later this weekend. I've heard it was a fairly good movie...what did you think of it?


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19910072
> 
> 
> First of all, I have used the word *filmic* in reviews before, but I didn't know I got it from you. I'm going to guess I've used it a good ten times, so if you take PayPal I'll send you $1890.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just purchased _Secretariat_ yesterday for $14.96 plus tax (not bad!) and I'm hoping to watch it later this weekend. I've heard it was a fairly good movie...what did you think of it?



Sorry, I predate both of you guys on "filmic" - I'll be charging royalties. As far as _Secretariat_, I have this too. I probably saw about 45 minutes in the theatres when I was rudely interrupted and had to leave. I thought the build up was good and so semi-blind bought it for the same price as you, Denny.


I have a lot of catching up - lots of unwatched BRs on my desk!


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19907541
> 
> 
> Absolutely agree with your placement Phantom. I don't agree though with your comment on the beginning act being "a strong candidate for the top quarter of Tier One....*I believe it was good enough for "the top quarter of Tier 0!"*



Parts of Predators clearly might qualify for Tier Zero. If the jungle action had lasted longer in the daylight, it would have deserved a high ranking.


As for filmic, I remember seeing it first being used in place of film-like a couple of years ago in different Blu-ray reviews. Its popularity may possibly be attributed to the disastrous transfer for Patton. I believe the criticism surrounding that Blu-ray started the trend. The term has now become shorthand for a disc that has been left visually untouched by digital processes such as filtering, at least in popular usage.


----------



## deltasun

*Easy A*

_And sure, we can sit and fantasize all we want about how things are gonna be different one day but this is today and it sucks._


Shot on video, we get the familiar smooth faces, though some extreme close-up's do produce decent texture. The genre dictates the familiar golden hue throughout, especially on skin tones. Detail can be quite impressive, but I found this to be inconsistent - more good than bad though. Blacks are the same way - crushing in more than a few scenes. Contrast appeared pretty strong throughout.


Dimensionality is just slightly above average and some instances of banding are noted.


The movie had enough richness and pop to keep it at...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19911284
> 
> 
> Sorry, I predate both of you guys on "filmic" - I'll be charging royalties. As far as _Secretariat_, I have this too. I probably saw about 45 minutes in the theatres when I was rudely interrupted and had to leave. I thought the build up was good and so semi-blind bought it for the same price as you, Denny.
> 
> 
> I have a lot of catching up - lots of unwatched BRs on my desk!



Yes, but neither one of you legally trademarked it, and because I went through the appropriate channels (typing "TM" after the word on an internet forum), I claim full rights.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Avatar: Extended Edition*

Looks the same as the original disc, which means the live action stuff is way too plasticy for my tastes. The rest is unreal though, everything involving the Na'vi perfect. Colors are incredible, and sharpness stunning. However, since there's more of it (a whole 16-minutes), I guess it could go a notch higher.

*Tier .50*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Full Metal Panic? Fumoffu: The Complete Series


recommendation: 3.5*


This set from Funimation looks surprisingly good for a 2003 production that was not originally intended for high-definition. Notably, the animation is upscaled but shows little of the problems that some prior Funimation releases have shown. The color palette shows a nice range and contrast is perfect. The show will never look better in 1080p, and one might even be fooled at times that it was animated at 1080p. A clean master that has no defects or technical anomalies, in the end the limited resolution of the source material is a major factor.


Determining a final score is challenging for material of this type, somewhere in Tier Three appears correct. Funimation did a great job handling the transfer, supposedly the DVD looks much poorer.


----------



## IanRW

Personally, I don't see how even the best upscaled content could warrant a mid-range rating. Perhaps we should gauge some other opinions on this?


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *IanRW* /forum/post/19917691
> 
> 
> Personally, I don't see how even the best upscaled content could warrant a mid-range rating. Perhaps we should gauge some other opinions on this?



Simple forms of traditional animation can be upscaled in a better manner than other content, particularly live-action film. I have never seen upscaled film from a 480p source look any better than Tier Five, the lack of actual detail gives it away upon examination. But this set looks far better than anything in Tier Five.


I probably would not have known myself about the source material if I had not researched the issue before posting. Many popular anime shows are being upconverted from lower resolutions for their Blu-rays. In some cases, the results are not pretty at all, with interlacing artifacts and technical problems in the transfer. This set shows none of those problems.


Making allowances for the known limitations of the production, a placement in Tier Four would not be out of the question. Strictly going head-to-head with other Blu-rays based on the picture quality, I felt "Full Metal Panic? Fumoffu" merited a placement in the lower half of Tier Three. That was just my observation, but the floor is open to discussion for upscaled content.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19917506
> 
> *Full Metal Panic? Fumoffu: The Complete Series
> 
> 
> recommendation: 3.5*



After thinking about the precedent it would set, I agree that upscaled content does not belong in Tier Three. The image on the set is still solid and would probably fool most people into believing it was animated in high-definition. Saying that, I will lower my official recommendation.

*Full Metal Panic? Fumoffu: The Complete Series


recommendation: 4.0*


----------



## deltasun

*Nowhere Boy*


A decent presentation from Sony. Great dimensionality in a number of scenes. Blacks can be deep, but there are a few instances where they're not as dark as the black bars on top and bottom. Details are also inconsistent in places, but predominantly well-rendered. The color palette is a bit on the muted side, but is consistent with the setting and doesn't detract. Accordingly, skin tones are also on the pale side.


Contrast is pretty strong throughout. Grain is fine throughout and gives it a fine, filmic appearance. The PQ regularly dips within the Gold Tier, but there's just enough inconsistency for me to keep it on the outskirts.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

*A Beautiful Mind*


I've not uttered ringing in my reviews in a while. I hope I don't start a trend with _A Beautiful Mind_. Really horrendous EE that I've not seen in quite some time. Right from the beginning scene in the Princeton lawn, Mr. Nash's coat is glowing in the light.


Faces are cakey and sometimes lose even that definition. Blacks are above average, but contrast wavers. There is also a hue on the overall scene depending on Mr. Nash's state of mind. These can really mess around with the accuracy of colors, and especially on skin tones. Dimensionality can be quite good at times, but is equally inconsistent. Shadow details are all right.


Despite these shortcomings, some scenes do look great and show how much better this Universal title can look. Grain is well-preserved and does not get in the way of the presentation. It actually enhances the cinematic experience. Some specks do show up, but very minimal.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.50*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Canuck89

Hello all,

My name is Chris, from Toronto. Never posted on this thread before but I've been following it religiously for the past year or so. Perhaps I'll start chiming in on ratings now that I have a feel for what warrants a certain level. Anyways, what prompted this first post is that if anyone is still looking for TTRL, it's 23.99 on Amazon right now. I grabbed my self a copy!


Regards!


----------



## deltasun

Hey Chris, welcome to the forums! Congrats on the TTRL deal (which reminds me, I need to post my thoughts on it) and looking forward to your input in here!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Welcome to the thread, it's always good to see a new poster here who has been following the Tiers. The Thin Red Line is certainly a great place to start.


----------



## Canuck89

Indeed, although I wouldn't say I'm starting with The Thin Red Line. I've viewed hundreds of Blus, just never really enough perspective to place them in tiers. You'll also have to excuse me if my reviews aren't as technical as others. I can pick out sharpness, clarity, contrast, grainy pictures and simply put "eye-candy". But I don't expect I'll be commenting on macroblocking, halo-effect, or digital noise reduction as in previous posts! Maybe with time. . .


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Your fair, honest assessment is all that is needed. The technical breakdown is only to help buttress the recommendation, but is not a requirement by any means. After watching that many Blu-rays you probably have an innate sense of where each Blu-ray fits into the scale.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Canuck89* /forum/post/19924880
> 
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> My name is Chris, from Toronto. Never posted on this thread before but I've been following it religiously for the past year or so. Perhaps I'll start chiming in on ratings now that I have a feel for what warrants a certain level. Anyways, what prompted this first post is that if anyone is still looking for TTRL, it's 23.99 on Amazon right now. I grabbed my self a copy!
> 
> 
> Regards!



I'll join the others in giving you a HEARTY "Welcome to the Thread!"


I would very much like your take on _The Thin Red Line_, as well as other Blus that you would feel comfortable rating. That was a VERY GOOD price that you paid for TTRL. Perhaps others will now avail themselves of this fantastic film with superb PQ.


----------



## deltasun

*Leaving Las Vegas*


What a piece of crap. It's shot on 16mm, but come on! The whole film looks like upconverted SD DVD. You can really see how stretched objects are on screen, losing definition and any sharpness. Some scenes don't even have the focus on correctly (see the bartender where the bottles behind him are more in focus). There is pervasive softness, blacks are crushed, and contrast is weak. Grain is moderate to heavy and really gets distracting in darker scenes. Colors are washed out.


Flesh tones are fairly accurate.


If there was a Tier 6, I'd place this there.

*Tier Recommendation: 5.0*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Alpha and Omega*


If Lionsgate wanted in the animation game, they just killed their chances. What a POS in a number of ways, video too. Colors are boring, black levels just "meh," fur barely rendered at all (more of a blob), backgrounds are cheap, and it's oddly soft. The encode isn't awful, but it's a weird disc in that the animation looks so incredibly poor, the video quality suffers.

*Tier 2.5*


----------



## audiomagnate

*The American*


Some nice outdoors scenes but most are flat and understaurated. Nobody's looking for the perfect light here. The flatness goes well with the somber, pensive mood of the movie. An outdoor scene with the priest showed excellent black levels on my system. The night time chase scene went for the new overused gold/teal look. I swear I'm not going to let the fact that this was a mind-numbingly boring and pretentious film influence my rating.

*Tier Recommendation 2.0*


----------



## longeal

*Solomon Kane*


The picture quality in the film is excellent. It is a lot of gray and dark scenes in the film but the picture are clear and define. The outdoor scenes, especially at the monastery, are some of the best I’ve seen.


It is perhaps easier to see rate a film high in the tier list if it has brilliant coloring, but in my opinion this is almost as good as it gets. I think it is as good, if not better, than The book of Eli.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25 (or 1*)


Note: Ny first post in this excellent thread. Thanks guys for tips and reviews.


Edit: Panasonic 42G20, PS3, 2 meters (6 feet)


----------



## audiomagnate

*Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'hoole*


This one knocked my socks off. Unlike Toy Story or UP, this one goes for a super realistic look, and it really delivers. There are just amazing amounts of detail, gorgeous color and amazingly depth for a 2d presentation. There are some long stylized shots that look a lot like Maxfield Parish posters and are a little soft, but we're only talking about a few seconds for the entire film, so I can't doc for this. This is eye candy defined.

*Top of Tier 0*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *audiomagnate* /forum/post/19931624
> 
> *Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'hoole*
> 
> 
> This one knocked my socks off. Unlike Toy Story or UP, this one goes for a super realistic look, and it really delivers. There are just amazing amounts of detail, gorgeous color and amazingly depth for a 2d presentation. There are some long stylized shots that look a lot like Maxfield Parish posters and are a little soft, but we're only talking about a few seconds for the entire film, so I can't doc for this. This is eye candy defined.
> 
> *Top of Tier 0*













I couldn't agree more!


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *audiomagnate* /forum/post/19931624
> 
> *Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'hoole*
> 
> 
> This one knocked my socks off. Unlike Toy Story or UP, this one goes for a super realistic look, and it really delivers. There are just amazing amounts of detail, gorgeous color and amazingly depth for a 2d presentation. There are some long stylized shots that look a lot like Maxfield Parish posters and are a little soft, but we're only talking about a few seconds for the entire film, so I can't doc for this. This is eye candy defined.
> 
> *Top of Tier 0*



Just to be clear, you are recommending it for the highest spot in Tier Zero? Or just the top handful of titles?


----------



## audiomagnate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19932351
> 
> 
> Just to be clear, you are recommending it for the highest spot in Tier Zero? Or just the top handful of titles?



Yes, all the way to the top.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *longeal* /forum/post/19931378
> 
> *Solomon Kane (UK Import)*
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.25 (or 1*)
> 
> 
> Note: Ny first post in this excellent thread. Thanks guys for tips and reviews.



I presume you are referring to the UK Blu-ray for Solomon Kane, it has not been released here in the United States. Just a warning, the BD is locked to Region B for those who might be interested importing it.


Welcome to the thread longeal, the thread seems to be getting newcomers and posters willing to offer up recommendations on a daily basis. While the list is primarily targeted at Region A Blu-rays, it tries to be inclusive, so keep up the Region B reviews. Solomon Kane looks interesting but I have not seen it. Too bad it has not been released in America on Blu-ray.


----------



## Canuck89

*Moulin Rouge*


Inconsistency is the best word to describe this film. Some facial close-ups were stunningly detailed, (down to the pore) while at times there seemed to be a soft cascade over the whole picture, drowning out certain details. Clarity was all over the map as well. Certain scenes demanded high detail in costumes and they delivered, and others simply fell flat. While the film was certainly filled with lots of colour (excuse the Canadian spelling), it didn't pop the way many Sony titles do. Film lacked details in shadows (unfortunate, considering the several back-stage scenes). At times a little grainy, especially in fast-moving dance sequences. Overall, average looking Blu.


Great movie for those in to musicals.

*Tier 2.75*


40" Sony HX701, 1080p 24hz, 8'


----------



## deltasun

*Let Me In*


Pretty soft throughout, which is not helped by the super shallow depth of field. I normally like shallow depth of field shots, but this one did not impress. Plus, it seems at any given scene, you are only seeing the middle third of the viewing area. Lots of orange and no teal balance.







The darker scenes are purposely uni-dimensional and leaves no room for shadow detail. Blacks are deep, but does crush. Contrast is adequate and skin tones are predominantly accurate, save for scenes bathed in mixed lighting.


There's not much dimensionality to speak of. Despite the softness, there are details that jump out, including a few facial details. Overall, still a pleasant watch, but will score relatively low for the purposes of this thread.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## longeal




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19934538
> 
> 
> I presume you are referring to the UK Blu-ray for Solomon Kane, it has not been released here in the United States. Just a warning, the BD is locked to Region B for those who might be interested importing it.
> 
> 
> Welcome to the thread longeal, the thread seems to be getting newcomers and posters willing to offer up recommendations on a daily basis. While the list is primarily targeted at Region A Blu-rays, it tries to be inclusive, so keep up the Region B reviews. Solomon Kane looks interesting but I have not seen it. Too bad it has not been released in America on Blu-ray.



I did not think of that, thanks.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*I Spit on Your Grave (2010)*


Completely desaturated digital presentation. What color is left barely carries any weight. Black levels are taken with it. Contrast is blown out, and light sources heavily bloom. Detail is fine in close, but flatlines with any distance.

*Tier 3.5*


Also, the snowstorm has killed any chances of new content this week, so this will be it from me most likely for a bit. We don't even have mail service right now.


----------



## audiomagnate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19935810
> 
> *Let Me In*
> 
> 
> Pretty soft throughout, which is not helped by the super shallow depth of field. I normally like shallow depth of field shots, but this one did not impress. Plus, it seems at any given scene, you are only seeing the middle third of the viewing area. Lots of orange and no teal balance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The darker scenes are purposely uni-dimensional and leaves no room for shadow detail. Blacks are deep, but does crush. Contrast is adequate and skin tones are predominantly accurate, save for scenes bathed in mixed lighting.
> 
> 
> There's not much dimensionality to speak of. Despite the softness, there are details that jump out, including a few facial details. Overall, still a pleasant watch, but will score relatively low for the purposes of this thread.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.75*
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_



Orange without teal? That's like that's like yin without yang, Abbot without...


----------



## audiomagnate

*The Town*


I'm on a Redbox binge so I saw this the night after viewing "The American" and they had a fairly similar look, but I thought this one didn't look washed out; a very unstylized straightforward presentation. Not exactly demo material (the soundtrack IS BTW) but no serious flaws. The aerial shots were quite nice. Do your dog a favor and put them in another room if you're going to play this one loud.

*Tier 1.75*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Alice In Wonderland (1951)


recommendation: Lowest Quintile Of Tier 0*


Another classic theatrical feature from Disney's vault springs to new life in a spectacular transfer to Blu-ray. The 75-minute animated movie from 1951 is encoded in AVC on a BD-50. BDInfo shows the average video bitrate to be 24.02 Mbps, a fairly typical number for Disney's animated movies on Blu-ray. _Alice In Wonderland's_ picture quality never wavers or fades for a moment, almost equaling the stunning results seen in _Sleeping Beauty_. If someone had told me that each and every frame had meticulously been restored by hand, obviously an impossible task, I would almost believe it after seeing the results. My hat is off to the people responsible for the incredibly impressive and consistent restorations bringing Disney's hallowed animation to Blu-ray. No one is doing it better on the format.


The range of color nearly looks perfect, displaying shades that are almost too rich and saturated for something of this vintage. No one ever made cel animation of this remarkable quality outside of Disney, a gorgeous fluidity to character motion that gives the animation a life of its own. Black levels are deep and inky with one noted exception. When Alice is peeking out of the Rabbit's house after she has outgrown it, the shadows around her eyes show minor limitations. That is the only complaint in a film that goes from one stunning moment of eye candy to another with ease.


The hand-drawn animation does provide a level of depth to the picture, some scenes more than others. It really depends on the movement of objects against the painted backgrounds and the contrast in the layered colors. On some level digital cleanup had to have been performed, the image displays little evidence it was ever derived from film. The look is closer to how the cel animation appears before it reaches the finished product of film. Disney is making the correct decision in getting as close as possible to the original animation in this case. There are absolutely no signs of edge enhancement halos or video artifacts.


Making a case for _Alice In Wonderland_ to be ranked over _Sleeping Beauty_ in Tier Zero is tough. The quality of the transfers are very comparable, though _Sleeping Beauty_ shows a more refined touch in just about every phase of the actual animation. I have always felt _Sleeping Beauty_ deserved a higher placement than it currently possesses, so my final score for the Cheshire Cat and gang is the lowest quintile of Tier Zero. Its pristine master looks as fresh and vibrant as the CGI movies of today. That being said, a placement in the upper parts of Tier One would not be unreasonable, taking into account the simplicity of the art and line-work.


----------



## audiomagnate

Nice review. Isn't it amazing that this new medium can take us back so far in time and put things in perspective. State of the art, even by today's standards, visuals were around when our parents or grandparents were young. It boggles the mind. I can't wait to see this with my daughter.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* 
@Phantom Stranger, did you pick up the new Buffy the Vampire Slayer motion comic for Season 8? Curious if you will review it, I hope to give it a peek this week a if my schedule will permit it!
Perusing a retailer the other day, the Buffy Motion Comic beckoned to me like a siren's call on the shelf. So it is now in my possession, but the length of the Blu-ray will probably preclude an immediate review.
Quote:

Originally Posted by *audiomagnate* 
Nice review. Isn't it amazing that this new medium can take us back so far in time and put things in perspective. State of the art, even by today's standards, visuals were around when our parents or grandparents were young. It boggles the mind. I can't wait to see this with my daughter.
It is amazing that these films look better now than when they were first released. I think it is safe to postulate that no one outside of the original animators have ever seen the Disney films in this condition until the Blu-ray editions. Another pleasant surprise, the disc starts with an incredible-looking trailer for the new Winnie The Pooh movie that opens in the summer.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19945193
> 
> 
> Perusing a retailer the other day, the Buffy Motion Comic beckoned to me like a siren's call on the shelf. So it is now in my possession, but the length of the Blu-ray will probably preclude an immediate review.



What!?! What are we paying you for?!?







I just bit on the _Deadwood_ deal and will obviously take some time to be able to do a review.




> Quote:
> It is amazing that these films look better now than when they were first released. I think it is safe to postulate that no one outside of the original animators have ever seen the Disney films in this condition until the Blu-ray editions. Another pleasant surprise, the disc starts with an incredible-looking trailer for the new Winnie The Pooh movie that opens in the summer.



I may have to bump this up on my to-watch queue. And yes, agreed - good review, PS.


----------



## djoberg

*Red*


Whoa! This one was all over the place! One minute you had a sharp, finely detailed shot, with exemplary colors, accurate flesh tones, and very good depth and dimensionality (example: the scene in Richard Dreyfuss's home)...the next minute you had softness creeping in with hot contrast, weird colors, and inaccurate flesh tones. I also noticed one scene early on with some jittery, out-of-focus camera work. As is the case with MANY titles, it fared much better as the movie progressed.


I must add that I was impressed throughout with the black levels and shadow details and there were a fair amount of scenes to showcase this virtue.


To be fair, if the *good* scenes had characterized the whole title, this would have EASILY been a high Tier 1 contender, but it being the mess (i.e., inconsistent) that it was, I can't go any higher than....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## 4eyez




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19934538
> 
> 
> I presume you are referring to the UK Blu-ray for Solomon Kane, it has not been released here in the United States. Just a warning, the BD is locked to Region B for those who might be interested importing it.
> 
> 
> Welcome to the thread longeal, the thread seems to be getting newcomers and posters willing to offer up recommendations on a daily basis. While the list is primarily targeted at Region A Blu-rays, it tries to be inclusive, so keep up the Region B reviews. Solomon Kane looks interesting but I have not seen it. Too bad it has not been released in America on Blu-ray.



Be warned the Region B BD is in the wrong aspect ratio, 1.78:1 instead of 2.40:1.


Typical Roadshow crappiness.


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *4eyez* /forum/post/19948052
> 
> 
> Be warned the Region B BD is in the wrong aspect ratio, 1.78:1 instead of 2.40:1.
> 
> 
> Typical Roadshow crappiness.



Are you referring to the Australian release of Solomon Kane?


The region B locked UK release from Entertainment in Video is definitely 2:35:1 (~1920x816 picture area) - I have this disc and just double-checked it by measuring the black borders of frames in a picture editor. Not sure about other region B releases, but it sounded from reviews as if at least the Paramount Germany release was also 2:35:1.


EDIT: Although to compound the confusion the stupid back of the case actually says 1:85:1 which is completely wrong.


----------



## audiomagnate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19947832
> 
> *Red*
> 
> 
> I also noticed one scene early on with some jittery, out-of-focus camera work.



You must be referring to the very early scene where Moses walks out of his house and does a 360 scan of his neighborhood. It was just awful on both of my setups. This was a tier 1.5 with some 3.0 or worse moments, so I agree it can't be labled "demo worthy."

*Tier 2.0*


----------



## longeal




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/19948194
> 
> 
> Are you referring to the Australian release of Solomon Kane?
> 
> 
> The region B locked UK release from Entertainment in Video is definitely 2:35:1 (~1920x816 picture area) - I have this disc and just double-checked it by measuring the black borders of frames in a picture editor. Not sure about other region B releases, but it sounded from reviews as if at least the Paramount Germany release was also 2:35:1.
> 
> 
> EDIT: Although to compound the confusion the stupid back of the case actually says 1:85:1 which is completely wrong.



I checked my copy too and it was 2:35:1, region B bought at play.com (UK release).

It also have 1:85:1 at the back of the case.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *audiomagnate* /forum/post/19950250
> 
> *You must be referring to the very early scene where Moses walks out of his house and does a 360 scan of his neighborhood.* It was just awful on both of my setups. This was a tier 1.5 with some 3.0 or worse moments, so I agree it can't be labled "demo worthy."
> 
> *Tier 2.0*



I believe that's the one. My wife even commented on how bad it was, which is rare (she's usually not very observant).


----------



## deltasun

*Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps*


I was pretty impressed with this title (both the PQ and the movie). Facial details are excellent, save for a few inconsistently soft shots. Although, I felt skin tones are also a bit on the warm side in parts. In fact, the entire make-up or look of the movie is on the warm side. Contrast is very strong and blacks are deep and bold. The cityscapes are completely three-dimensional in most instances (though I did spy some shimmering in parts). Colors are vivid but remain natural - the fall colors during the bike "race" scene are just breathtaking.


Finally, depth and details are just exceptional throughout. Some shadow details could have been better, but this is a minor gripe. Despite the softness mentioned, I will generously score this title...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.50*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

*Centurion*


Daytime sun-lit scenes are a bit washed out and skin tones have a bit of a yellow cast indoors. The film has a cold look as the soldiers traverse the bleak landscape. Facial details remain excellent despite the somewhat murky look of medium shots (primarily due to the fog-draped sequences). Colors are somewhat muted, save for the overly indulgent crimson of blood splashes and the blue "war" paint on the Pict warriors. Blacks are deep, but do crush. Shadow details aren't the best here either, with many scenes looking grayish.


Some of the indoor scenes do produce warmer tones, but overall, a pretty nondescript presentation. Much of the overhead panoramic shots are one-dimensional.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75*


Surprisingly decent flick.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Monsters*


Shot cheap and digitally, resulting in massive amount of noise in darker situations. Facial definition is poor, apparent in only a few scenes. Colors elevate slightly to include a couple of stunning sunsets. Black levels are mostly "meh," but not awful.
*Tier 3.5*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Poltergeist II (Best Buy Exclusive)


recommendation: Tier 4.5
*

The 1986 sequel to _Poltergeist_ was released this week by MGM as a retailer exclusive at the moment. Packaging indicates the video encode is “AVC @ 34 MBPS,” a very healthy figure confirmed by observation while watching the Blu-ray. A BD-50 was utilized for the 90-minute film, with only the trailer as the lone extra feature. If Fox, the actual distributor, did anything perfect on this disc, it is the compression. Whatever grain was evident in the original film is replicated without failure.


The transfer looks relatively unprocessed by modern standards, but derived from an older master that is in sub-par condition. Given the questionable optics and dated effects in scattered use throughout the movie, _Poltergeist II_ is a fair release that is only a marginal upgrade over DVD.


More than once contrast will visibly alter within a scene, as if someone was changing your television's setting. The most notable occasion occurs early in the film when the couple discuss how the insurance company is denying their house claim from the first movie. The entire picture turns dark, leaving the contrast in shambles.


A few scenes do appear decent and well-lit, particularly the moment where Henry Kane creepily introduces himself to the family at their front door. Substantial sections are just not filmed that well, being under-lit and soft. Grain is wildly uneven, going from clean to noisy depending on camera angle. The principal photography on the movie must have been a wreck severely limited by budgetary considerations.


While there are lengthy scenes that qualify for Tier Three, more dwell closer to Tier Five considering the changing quality. Too much softness, and possible optical aberrations at the edge of the frame, lead to a lack of detail that makes a Tier Four evaluation reasonable. Print damage is fairly minimal if you make allowances for the dated special effects, done before the era of CGI and green screens.


----------



## djoberg

*Secretariat*


I must confess from the outset that during the first few scenes I was mildly disappointed with the PQ and I kept saying to myself, "This one is going to end up in the *average* bin (i.e., Tier 3)." There were quite a few soft shots in those scenes along with those nagging orange/teal hues that wreaked havoc on flesh tones. Detail and depth were also underwhelming.


But then "all of a sudden" it became sharp with eye-popping colors, detail, and superb depth. One exemplary scene that illustrates what I'm saying is at the awards ceremony of the Kentucky Derby. That shot was one of the best that I've ever seen on Blu! Most of the scenes that took place at the various race tracks were definitely well above average, in contrast to some of the indoor scenes.


Black levels and shadow details never faltered. They weren't the best I've seen, but they too were good enough to help keep this out of Tier 3.


Facial details would be my biggest gripe. They remained *average* throughout, with some falling below that level (some shots of Diane Lane looked smoothed over).


As one can expect from my remarks, this is a difficult title to rate. There were scenes that fell into each of the first four tiers, but thankfully most of them were close to being demo-worthy. I know I have a reputation to uphold as the most "generous rater," but in good conscience I must relegate this to Tier Silver, albeit IMO it deserves a place at the top.....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Arrival*


A DNR mess from Lionsgate, processed as far as it could be. All of that manipulation leaves behind extensive artifacting and ugly flesh tones. The image is soft, and the black levels barely register.

*Tier 4.5
*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Red Mist


recommendation: Tier 4.0*

_Red Mist_ is a 2008 horror film released by Starz in the U.S. The 85-minute film is encoded in VC-1 at an average video bitrate of 26.38 Mbps, on a BD-25. Shot digitally using a Sony HDW-F900 camera, the picture looks decent in the bright interior shots of the hospital but frequently fails in all other settings. While a sizable minority of those crisp interiors rank in Tier 2.5 or better, many shots elsewhere look horrible and loaded with digital noise. Some scenes look bad enough to actually distract from enjoyment of the movie. The crushed black levels and rampant noise in certain scenes prove overwhelming at times. It looks less like an intentional aesthetic choice and more a function of poor digital cinematography.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...7#post17825057


----------



## rusky_g

*Pirhana 2010*


If you like films which are big on pumped up colours, this is the movie for you










The plot is intentionally [I hope] ridiculous but the PQ kept my eyes watching. Mostly shot in daytime I have to say the detail, depth and dimensionality were great to my eyes with many scenes providing that HD 'Pop'. I always guage a film by how many times I pause it to soak up the moment and there were quite a few in this presentation. Accordingly I will award a placement of....

*1.5*


----------



## rusky_g

*Frozen*


In contrast to Pirhana, I didn't enjoy Frozen from a PQ perspective. Firstly, I do not like grain, and this film had some. I found the picture to be pretty flat, detail was nothing special and the colours were quite dim. To be fair, the plot / settings don't lend themselves well to eye candy opportunity, a lot of the film is at night and the daytime scenes have lots of snow laden backgrounds. After watching this, I had to play something nice on my Projector to remind me how awesome it is










I'm going to rate a....

*2.5*


----------



## rusky_g

*Red*


A triple whammy from the Ruskmeister tonight! [possibly a Quadruple if I can stay awake to write a 4th review]


I thought Red looked great. Clear, good depth and detail which held up enough for me to find this an enjoyable experience. Did it dip in places? Yeah, although for myself not to anything too bad. I really enjoyed the scene where Helen Mirren is snipering on a snowy mount as Morgan Freemans character pulls up at the stately manor...his powder blue uniform adorned with gold decoration looks absolutely fantastic, as does the scene which follows once inside the house [as noted by DJ]...the colours and mood absorbed my eyes. Superb stuff.


I will go with

*1.5*


----------



## deltasun

*Salt*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19873654
> 
> *Salt
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 1.5
> *
> 
> Prior evaluations for _Salt_ look somewhat harsh in the thread, as the high-frequency information is absolutely exquisite and top-notch on the Blu-ray. This is what a completely unfiltered movie derived from a digital intermediate should display in terms of overall detail, making it very close to reference for at least one key aspect of the picture quality.
> 
> 
> Each actor's facial features are rendered with incredible precision, revealing every line or blemish with the utmost resolution. Some high-profile actresses sometimes use their power to soften the picture whenever their face is on display. There is none of that occurring in this film, where every pore and line on Angelina Jolie's face is there for the world to see. The tiny cracks in her famous lips are easily discerned, indicating she might have needed more lip balm when she filmed _Salt_.
> 
> 
> Two items though do prevent a higher placement in my perspective. There is a fair amount of persistent sharpening scattered throughout the film. Another thing to consider is the relative lack of depth to the image, compared against the best of Tier One and above. The image never really pops, which may have led Sony to use the edge enhancement in the first place. A minor complaint is the AVC video encode that fails on at least two occasions, one in a pivotal moment in the middle of the movie after a huge explosion. Cramming three different cuts of the film, even employing seamless branching, hurts the compression's transparency to the master.
> 
> 
> My evaluation of _Salt_ differs from previous judgments because I feel it looks better than most of the titles in Tier Two. Head-to-head against older films made from inferior stocks and bad masters, Salt at times is stunning to see. One really can't find fault with the color timing, as the palette is basically neutral with fleshtones running slightly cool. Weighing all the characteristics carefully, I conclude _Salt_ should be ranked in Tier One.



Many reviews already for _Salt_, but this is the most agreeable to what I experienced, down to the compression issues in the smoky haze after the explosion. I will only add two more [minor] things: Softness in Jolie's face "staring" down at her husband (not going to spoil it) and some aliasing on the outdoor AC unit.


I also agree with the rating...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.50*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## djoberg

^^^^


Now I feel like you and Phantom are vying for the coveted most "generous rater" position.










Actually, this is just one of those rare instances where I didn't see the virtues that you did, at least not in the same measure.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19964654
> 
> 
> ^^^^
> 
> 
> Now I feel like you and Phantom are vying for the coveted most "generous rater" position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, this is just one of those rare instances where I didn't see the virtues that you did, at least not in the same measure.



We are conspiring.







I didn't expect it to look that good based on its previews found in other BRs. I was surprised how much better it looked "in person." If it had more depth, I would have rated it into Tier 0 for sure - just didn't have that pop.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19964654
> 
> 
> ^^^^
> 
> 
> Now I feel like you and Phantom are vying for the coveted most "generous rater" position.



To each their own, I would consider it accuracy over generosity.














Has anyone seen the region-free Prince Valiant from the U.K. yet? I wonder how the 1954 CinemaScope presentation holds up to today's standards.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Kansas City Confidential*


What a mess. While the damage has been cleared up, they took all of the grain and detail with it. The whole thing is clumpy, digital, and contrast boosted. Shadow detail is poor, and a digital layer of grain seems to have been added that is completely obvious. A few scenes of detail, but barely worth mentioning.
*Tier 4.0*


----------



## abintra




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19966482
> 
> *Kansas City Confidential*
> 
> 
> What a mess. While the damage has been cleared up, they took all of the grain and detail with it. The whole thing is clumpy, digital, and contrast boosted. Shadow detail is poor, and a digital layer of grain seems to have been added that is completely obvious. A few scenes of detail, but barely worth mentioning.
> *Tier 4.0*



It can't be a good thing when the restoration demo shows that the pre-restoration both is more authentic and looks better than the after.


Hey look, our diet after shots make you look worse than you did before you started our program.


----------



## Canuck89

Sorry guys, I realize this has been reviewed at least ten times but here's my take anyway.

*Inception*


Well at first, I wasn't overly impressed. A few issues in the opening scenes caught my attention (in a negative light), in particular some shots were out of focus and a few blurring edges. As the movie played on less and less of these hiccups were evident (is this an emerging trend?). Blacks were deep and shadows were well detailed. At times details fell flat (usually during CGI sequences). For the most part the picture was sharp, and facial close-ups were very well done. During the snow scenes the contrast was poor, and seemed over-saturated. Would've liked to see a more vivid colour scheme, more emphasis on detail, and control over contrast.

Overall, Inception had it's moments of upper tier 1, but couldn't uphold that throughout.

*Tier 1.5*


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*Doctor Who, Season 5 (BBC)*


Edited to add... perhaps I should have called this _Series_ 5?










I have watched the first 4 of 5 discs of Doctor Who, Season 5. I'm not sure when they will send me disc 5, so I'm doing this review now, and if anything changes I will update this review.


Season 5 of Doctor Who is the first season to be filmed in HD by the BBC (3 of the specials with David Tennant's doctor before season 5 began started the shift to HD). This was very pleasant as I was getting used to a new Doctor on top of it all, the HD presentation helped me out a lot










There is some amazing detail in these episodes. Facial detailing is extremely impressive for a television show. Doctor Who episodes can be stylized so there might be oversaturation of colour in one episode to a dull look in the next, but overall the detail and textures are present and accounted for, and in a fantastic way.


Occasionally there are things like lens flare but it's not enough to be distracting or take away from the picture quality of this television show.


Black levels can be on the iffy side on a couple of occasions, however; I wondered at first if this was due to my television, but I watched something else afterwards (Torchwood Season 1, disc 1, OMG THE PQ ON THAT IS FREAKING AMAZING!!!) and no, it was not my presentation at all. I think it may be due to lighting and/or HD cameras perhaps, but that's getting too technical for me to really speculate on, honestly.



If you are a Doctor Who fan, even if you're on the fence about the new Doctor, the picture quality on this blu ray set (minus disc 5) does not disappoint in any way from this reveiwer's standpoint. It's not perfect, I would not put it into Tier 0 by any means, as the picture quality can dip depending on the scene (indoor/outdoor etc), but I would never describe this disc as going anywhere near Tier 2.


*Recommendation for Doctor Who, Season 5 (BBC) - Tier 1.5*
*Equipment: ps3 160gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800U, THX setting, approximately 7.5’ viewing distance.*


----------



## geekyglassesgirl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19945193
> 
> 
> Perusing a retailer the other day, the Buffy Motion Comic beckoned to me like a siren's call on the shelf. So it is now in my possession, but the length of the Blu-ray will probably preclude an immediate review.



yay! i won't be alone on this one ("this one" being the *Buffy Season 8 motion comic*). I haven't had a chance to sit down and watch it yet either.


Welcome, *Canuck89*!


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Ong Bak 3*


Orange and teal, orange and teal, ORANGE AND TEAL! Ah! A hideous looking movie, but thankfully without the manipulation the second one suffered from. Still a bit of sharpening though. Great detail in close, and there's a lot of close-ups. Black crush is overbearing, and the contrast hot.

*Tier 3.0*


----------



## Canuck89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> yay! i won't be alone on this one ("this one" being the Buffy Season 8 motion comic). I haven't had a chance to sit down and watch it yet either.
> 
> 
> Welcome, Canuck89!



Thanks for the warm welcome! That goes for everyone.


----------



## djoberg

*You Again*


For starters, I was pleasantly surprised to see a Romantic/Comedy without the annoying golden hues. That, in and of itself, made quite the impression on me. This, along with MANY other pluses, resulted in some fantastic EYE CANDY!


Let me get the BAD out of the way. In short, there were a few sporadic soft shots....and the facial details were less-than-stellar (ranging from the middle of Tier 2 to somewhere in Tier 3). That's it! There were no other issues that I could spot; no black crush, over-saturated colors, inaccurate flesh tones, artifacting, banding, ringing, or any other anomalies.


The GOOD: Beautiful and vibrant colors, inky blacks, excellent shadow details, strong contrast, spot on flesh tones, razor-sharp images (indoors and outdoors), and very good details & depth. Let me add that this was shot with a HD camera, but it didn't have the *glossy* look; in fact, there were some scenes that actually looked *filmic*. If the facial details had fared better we could be looking at a Tier 0 contender.


I'm feeling GENEROUS once again, so I'm opting for....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25 or 1.5*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


PS Now if only the movie had been half as good as the PQ.


----------



## deltasun

*The Treasure of the Sierra Madre*


Beautiful presentation from Warner. First off the contrast is very strong for most of the film. Blacks are deep, with just barely any crush. Facial details are excellently rendered and easily shows pores, wrinkles, and caked dirt. Grain is well-preserved and unobtrusive. There are a handful of scenes that exhibit excessive grain, but they are isolated and few.


Depth is a not that strong, though some scenes that make use of fake backgrounds really exaggerate the "pop" of the foreground actors. Sharpness and clarity are impressive for the majority of the presentation. The only complaints are the aforementioned grain infestation on a limited amount of scenes and some arbitrary softness.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.50*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19975294
> 
> *The Treasure of the Sierra Madre*
> 
> 
> Beautiful presentation from Warner. First off the contrast is very strong for most of the film. Blacks are deep, with just barely any crush. Facial details are excellently rendered and easily shows pores, wrinkles, and caked dirt. Grain is well-preserved and unobtrusive. There are a handful of scenes that exhibit excessive grain, but they are isolated and few.
> 
> 
> Depth is a not that strong, though some scenes that make use of fake backgrounds really exaggerate the "pop" of the foreground actors. Sharpness and clarity are impressive for the majority of the presentation. The only complaints are the aforementioned grain infestation on a limited amount of scenes and some arbitrary softness.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.50*
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_



Wow, that's a very high rating for a film of this age. Sounds great!


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Paranormal Activity 2*


Abysmal. See, it's real because most of it is seen through security cameras, which also translates into, "director doesn't really want to shoot anything." Boatloads of noise, colors meh, blacks weaks, artifacting severe, and no detail.

*Tier 5.0*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

Quote:

Originally Posted by *djoberg* 
*You Again*


For starters, I was pleasantly surprised to see a Romantic/Comedy without the annoying golden hues. That, in and of itself, made quite the impression on me. This, along with MANY other pluses, resulted in some fantastic EYE CANDY!


Let me get the BAD out of the way. In short, there were a few sporadic soft shots....and the facial details were less-than-stellar (ranging from the middle of Tier 2 to somewhere in Tier 3). That's it! There were no other issues that I could spot; no black crush, over-saturated colors, inaccurate flesh tones, artifacting, banding, ringing, or any other anomalies.


The GOOD: Beautiful and vibrant colors, inky blacks, excellent shadow details, strong contrast, spot on flesh tones, razor-sharp images (indoors and outdoors), and very good details & depth. Let me add that this was shot with a HD camera, but it didn't have the *glossy* look; in fact, there were some scenes that actually looked *filmic*. If the facial details had fared better we could be looking at a Tier 0 contender.


I'm feeling GENEROUS once again, so I'm opting for....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25 or 1.5*
Going to agree with most of that purely based on the colors. There was some nasty smoothing going on in regards to Yustman, but there's a fair level of texture elsewhere to make up for it. Nice black levels and contrast too.

*Tier 1.75*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19982861
> 
> 
> Going to agree with most of that purely based on the colors. There was some nasty smoothing going on in regards to Yustman, but there's a fair level of texture elsewhere to make up for it. Nice black levels and contrast too.
> 
> *Tier 1.75*



I agree with you regarding Yustman, in fact I was going to mention that she almost looked as bad as General Patton!!


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*My Soul to Take*


Well resolved grain but a minimal looking movie. Everything is heavily desaturated. Contrast can run hot and the black levels are nothing special. There's a light haze over the image at times too. Detail is all over the place.

*Tier 2.75*


----------



## deltasun

*The Pillars of the Earth*


Surprisingly decent, at times incredible, offering from Sony in a 1080i package at that! I am hard-pressed to find any real compression issues. There are some banding and aliasing (of pillars and chain mail), but even these are kept to a minimum. Softness creeps in as well. I spied the most in episodes 4 and 5, and sporadically scattered amongst the rest. I think my biggest complaint is depth - most of the picture remains flat, particularly in low light.


Blacks are inky and ALWAYS yielded ample details in garments. Facial features are consistent upper Tier 1 / Low Tier 0, save for the soft (of the misfocused variety) moments mentioned above. Colors are rich - regal blues and reds - but natural. Grass and vegetation are alluringly green and lush. Contrast is predominantly strong, with just a limited number of weakening.


Again, very impressed with the picture, which only got better as the series progressed. I am teetering between Gold and Silver, so will place it at the precipice...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*

_ln46a650 - 1080i/60 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Life as We Know It*


So, Warner has switched codecs and the result? They still can't get their new releases right. Simple abominable grain structure, so compressed and ugly it wipes the detail right out of the frame. Hideous orange flesh tones cause the entire image to reek of orange. Blooming is excessive, but black levels are fair. That counts for something, right?

*Tier 3.75*


----------



## John Mason

^^^Wonder if "The Pillars of the Earth" was HDCAM shot (per IMDB.com tech specs) at 24pSF or it's a rare scripted drama made at 1080/60i (1080i30) and put on Blu-ray that way? If UK produced, guess they'd be variations in the original, such as 25p shot and OTA etc. at 1080/50i, requiring complete conversion for most U.S. gear. Rare 1080/60i-only dramas are sometimes labeled soap-opera-like because of the smoother-motion 60i or 50i video capture (versus 24p/25p). -- John


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Mason* /forum/post/19993274
> 
> 
> ^^^Wonder if "The Pillars of the Earth" was HDCAM shot (per IMDB.com tech specs) at 24pSF or it's a rare scripted drama made at 1080/60i (1080i30) and put on Blu-ray that way? If UK produced, guess they'd be variations in the original, such as 25p shot and OTA etc. at 1080/50i, requiring complete conversion for most U.S. gear. Rare 1080/60i-only dramas are sometimes labeled soap-opera-like because of the smoother-motion 60i or 50i video capture (versus 24p/25p). -- John



It showed as 60 on my TV, but don't know how it was originally shot. Amazingly enough, it did not have the soap opera look to it as you might expect and I would even go out on the ledge to say it looked quite filmic most of the time.


One other note is that I recall the info in the case incorrectly states 1080p, instead of 1080i.


----------



## John Mason




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19993626
> 
> 
> It showed as 60 on my TV, but don't know how it was originally shot. Amazingly enough, it did not have the soap opera look to it as you might expect and I would even go out on the ledge to say it looked quite filmic most of the time.
> 
> 
> One other note is that I recall the info in the case incorrectly states 1080p, instead of 1080i.



Thanks. Recall some posts in the HD programming section by BBC engineer Sneals2000 explaining, if I recall correctly, how some UK-made releases are video processed from a 50i shoot to make them more 'filmic' looking at 25p. That might have been the Torchwood series shown on BBC-A, presumably converted to 24p. -- John


----------



## Joe Bloggs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Mason* /forum/post/19994277
> 
> 
> Thanks. Recall some posts in the HD programming section by BBC engineer Sneals2000 explaining, if I recall correctly, how some UK-made releases are video processed from a 50i shoot to make them more 'filmic' looking at 25p. That might have been the Torchwood series shown on BBC-A, presumably converted to 24p. -- John



The BBC don't allow that for HD broadcasts any more ie. converting from 50i (50hz motion) to 25p (BBC Worldwide won't accept a production which has an added film effect (ie. 50hz->25hz) - according to their HD production guide). For things like Torchwood etc. they'll record it in 25p mode. I suppose it depends on the broadcaster. ITV in the UK also don't allow it. Channel 4 in the UK's guidelines also say adding film-look (eg. "field doubling") is "not generally acceptable".


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Stranger*


Same issues as Kansas City Confidential, although there doesn't seem to be any digital grain. Contrast is still terrible, black crush is hideous, there's hardly any gray scale to speak of, and detail is nill. The original/restored comparison still shows the original as an improvement.

*Tier 4.25*


----------



## Canuck89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19873654
> 
> *Salt
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 1.5
> *
> 
> Prior evaluations for _Salt_ look somewhat harsh in the thread, as the high-frequency information is absolutely exquisite and top-notch on the Blu-ray. This is what a completely unfiltered movie derived from a digital intermediate should display in terms of overall detail, making it very close to reference for at least one key aspect of the picture quality.
> 
> 
> Each actor's facial features are rendered with incredible precision, revealing every line or blemish with the utmost resolution. Some high-profile actresses sometimes use their power to soften the picture whenever their face is on display. There is none of that occurring in this film, where every pore and line on Angelina Jolie's face is there for the world to see. The tiny cracks in her famous lips are easily discerned, indicating she might have needed more lip balm when she filmed _Salt_.
> 
> 
> Two items though do prevent a higher placement in my perspective. There is a fair amount of persistent sharpening scattered throughout the film. Another thing to consider is the relative lack of depth to the image, compared against the best of Tier One and above. The image never really pops, which may have led Sony to use the edge enhancement in the first place. A minor complaint is the AVC video encode that fails on at least two occasions, one in a pivotal moment in the middle of the movie after a huge explosion. Cramming three different cuts of the film, even employing seamless branching, hurts the compression's transparency to the master.
> 
> 
> My evaluation of _Salt_ differs from previous judgments because I feel it looks better than most of the titles in Tier Two. Head-to-head against older films made from inferior stocks and bad masters, Salt at times is stunning to see. One really can't find fault with the color timing, as the palette is basically neutral with fleshtones running slightly cool. Weighing all the characteristics carefully, I conclude _Salt_ should be ranked in Tier One.


*Salt*


Much like Deltasun and Phantom, I had a similar viewing experience. A few compression issues here and there, and apart from a few day-time scenes which had some noise, the picture was very crisp and detailed. This movie was a treat to watch during indoor scenes with dim-lighting. The colour palette was indeed cool for fleshtones, however I believe that held true for the majority of the film (maybe neutral but a little closer to cool). Overall, a good copy from the master, suffering from a few hiccups that should have been ironed out.

*Tier: 1.50*


----------



## Canuck89

*Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs*


Colours were eye-popping (not quite to the extent of top tier Pixar films), yet there was a full spectrum that really defines eye-candy. Everything you would expect from an animated feature; there was plenty of detail, blacks were deep, and the contrast was spot on. During the collapse of "Mount Leftovers" I found myself cowering from the flying debris. For a second I thought I was watching the 3-D version. Excellent photo realism! In comparison to other animated films that are reference quality, I just recently saw Shrek Forever After and would place this just above that. Just below Toy Story.

*Tier: 0*


----------



## deltasun

*Heavy Metal*


Ugly and slimy, but that's the way it's meant to look. Obviously, there's no comparison to today's PIXAR animation, but don't know if the creators would have opted for it even today.


There is arbitrary softness, bleeding colors, distracting noise, jitter, and banding. The picture also appears flat. Blacks are deep and rich for the most part and contrast is adequate.

*Tier Recommendation: 4.50*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19945193
> 
> 
> Another pleasant surprise, the disc starts with an incredible-looking trailer for the new Winnie The Pooh movie that opens in the summer.



I just watched this trailer. All I can say is *WOW!!*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Unstoppable*


Well, it's a Tony Scott movie, and you can tell as soon as it starts. Ugly as hell color palette, absurd contrast, and insane black levels. Detail is phenomenal though, as is the sharpness. The shaky/spinning camera makes it hard to see at times.

*Tier 2.0*


----------



## deltasun

*Death Race 2*

_The box, with its implications of rigidity and squareness symbolizes unimaginative thinking and painful frustration. Sometimes we just have to step back, see if the solutions to our problems lie outside the box._


This one ends up looking disappointing. It starts out with arguably some of the best display of facial details out of any BR. Ving Rhames and the Luke character are simply stunning in their high-definition portrayal. Texture and details are just second to none.


Blacks can be really deep, but does wane a bit in some scenes. Skin tones are on the fair side. Contrast a bit on the hot side, creating some washed out backgrounds mostly. Details, in general, are superb as well. Depth, for the most part, helps display excellent dimensionality. Colors are a bit muted, but primaries do burst through beautifully.


I was already thinking high Gold, even low Blu, but then...heavy noise, soft shots with no rhyme or reason scattered throughout, banding, and chromatic aberration creep in. By the time it was over, I wanted to throw this in the Silver Tier but considering the average...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Alice in Wonderland (1951)*


Fantastic looking effort, with bright colors, rich blacks, and tremendous sharpness. Disney again takes the grain out with precision, resulting in living animation cells of incredible detail. Sharpness never wavers, and compress is never visible.

*Tier .25*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Another update should be forthcoming in the next week. So if anyone wants to insert a recommendation that gets accounted for in this update, you might want to hurry up.


----------



## Xavier1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/19971304
> 
> *Doctor Who, Season 5 (BBC)*
> 
> 
> Edited to add... perhaps I should have called this _Series_ 5?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have watched the first 4 of 5 discs of Doctor Who, Season 5. I'm not sure when they will send me disc 5, so I'm doing this review now, and if anything changes I will update this review.
> 
> 
> If you are a Doctor Who fan, even if you're on the fence about the new Doctor, the picture quality on this blu ray set (minus disc 5) does not disappoint in any way from this reveiwer's standpoint. It's not perfect, I would not put it into Tier 0 by any means, as the picture quality can dip depending on the scene (indoor/outdoor etc), but I would never describe this disc as going anywhere near Tier 2.
> 
> 
> *Recommendation for Doctor Who, Season 5 (BBC) - Tier 1.5*
> *Equipment: ps3 160gig to Panasonic TH-58PZ800U, THX setting, approximately 7.5' viewing distance.*



GGG, I completely concur with you on your review. I was stunned how good a show produced for TV can look. Only watched the first 2, but the first in particular is one of the best I have seen as regards facial detail.


----------



## lgans316

*Social Network*


Disappointing picture except for few outdoor shots. I am surprised that a high profile director preferred to shoot this way.









*Tier 3*


----------



## djoberg

*Piranha*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19837545
> 
> *Piranha* (2010)
> 
> 
> On the surface this looked really good with its well-saturated colors. However, as the movie progresses, the contrast is just way too HOT. There are too many scenes that look washed out as a result. Facial details are not the best either - seems only Jerry O'Connell showed good lines and texture.
> 
> 
> Certain scenes, designed for the 3D audience, just look fake and out of place in 2D. While I enjoyed the "synchronized swimming" routine in a number of levels, it just looked fake due to the 3D presentation. Dimensionality also suffers, probably due to the hot contrast.
> 
> 
> Underwater scenes are murky in general. Particularly, the scene in the underwater lake is ripe with heavy banding and some blocking. Grain is very minimal, if they can even be spotted. I had to double check that this is shot on film.
> 
> 
> Though it seems I just ripped its PQ above, there are a number of scenes where the elements come together really well, producing crisp, clear, and colorful images. The water usually looks great! Skin tones remain faithful for the most part. There are a few indoor scenes where Jake's skin turns reddish, for example. Details look good in the medium to short range. Once we venture a bit farther, they lose definition.
> 
> 
> Overall, still a pleasing presentation but does not resolve well under close scrutiny. I will have to part ways with my esteemed colleague...
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.50*
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_



I'm tired (after two long days in the Minneapolis area waiting for one of my daughters to give birth to her first child) so I will echo the sentiments of deltasun's spot-on review. I agree with him 100%. The only comments I would add are that the black levels and shadow details were horrendous in a couple of underwater scenes (maybe that's what delta meant by "murky") and it became a bit *noisy* at times (during daytime scenes where the contrast was too hot).


Again, I concur wholeheartedly with this review, including the placement....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.5*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## deltasun

^^ Congrats, Denny...not just for agreeing with me, but the grandchild!







Seems just yesterday when my wife and I went through the same thing with our first child, but that was 10 months ago! She just started walking. How time flies!


----------



## deltasun

_Still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem. If no one else can help and if you can find them, maybe you can hire..._

*The A-Team*


Terribly inconsistent, specially in the facial details department. Ironically, Face had the most consistent and probably best rendered facial details and texture. The others have some substantial bouts of softness throughout the film. Contrast is strong, except for some of the low-light sequences. Blacks, however, are deep throughout. Dimensionality is excellent most of the time, including medium shots.


Again, shadow details suffer a bit. Colors are well-saturated for the content. Skin tones do take on a reddish hue at times. The poor CGI sequences are quite distracting. Grain/Noise also flutter in certain scenes. However, I did not spot any foul play. I started out thinking 1.75, then 2.0, but I finally settled on (the inconsistent softness being the biggest culprit for me)...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Game of Death (2010)*


Hideous color timing again (teal and orange, AHHHH!) but a staggering level of facial detail. These are probably the best black levels to come out of the Red One, and there is limited noise. Sharpness is almost firm, at least when the "what the hell just happened?" editing isn't taking over.

*Tier 1.75*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/20018808
> 
> 
> ^^ Congrats, Denny...not just for agreeing with me, but the grandchild!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems just yesterday when my wife and I went through the same thing with our first child, but that was 10 months ago! She just started walking. How time flies!



Thanks delta....our daughter had a whopping TEN POUND baby girl!! (She was overdue by 9 days.) We're just thankful she and "Mariah" are alright. I imagine your child will be keeping you busy now that she's walking....you'll have to train her to stay away from all your shiny A/V equipment!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* 
*Alice in Wonderland (1951)*


Fantastic looking effort, with bright colors, rich blacks, and tremendous sharpness. Disney again takes the grain out with precision, resulting in living animation cells of incredible detail. Sharpness never wavers, and compress is never visible.

*Tier .25*
Glad to see someone else chime in on Alice In Wonderland. Surprised to see someone rank it even higher than me, but it truly does look great.
Quote:

Originally Posted by *djoberg* 
Thanks delta....our daughter had a whopping TEN POUND baby girl!! (She was overdue by 9 days.) We're just thankful she and "Mariah" are alright. I imagine your child will be keeping you busy now that she's walking....you'll have to train her to stay away from all your shiny A/V equipment!








Congratulations on the new baby granddaughter, Denny!


----------



## tfoltz

I was thinking of Alice in Wonderland being Tier 1, but I need to view it again since I fell asleep before it ended







. To be continued.


----------



## djoberg

*Unstoppable*


This was a good-looking transfer and also a decent movie (I never once checked my watch to see how much time was left







), so it was worth both the time and money invested.


As many of you know, facial details can make it or break it for me, and I'm happy to report that they were excellent throughout (low Tier 0 most of the time and the high Tier 1 the rest of the time). There were multiple close-ups of Denzel Washington and Chris Pine and they revealed every line and stubble!


Contrast was perfect....colors were pleasing....blacks were deep with corresponding shadow details (though most scenes took place outside in daylight)....details and depth were appreciable...and the grain was fine, yielding the coveted look of film.


The only negatives would be some shaky camera-work at times and a few scenes where the grain looked a bit noisy. I should mention an occasional inaccurate flesh tone (on the *red* side), though these were few and far between.


This is demo material in my book (though NOT reference) and I would put it right here....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/20021679
> 
> 
> Congratulations on the new baby granddaughter, Denny!



Thanks Phantom! I just called my wife (she's staying with our daughter, her husband, and baby Mariah to help out) and Momma and baby are doing well. With the wife gone for a few days I'm indulging in Blus!


----------



## djoberg

*Buried*


How does one judge the PQ of a film that takes place, from beginning to end, inside a buried coffin, with the lighting being restricted to a butane lighter, a cell phone, a flashlight (with either red or regular lighting), and a couple of flash sticks? It ain't pretty, that's for sure!


There was one outstanding virtue that was constant: FACIAL DETAILS! They were remarkable (high Tier 0, to be sure!), revealing every whisker, bead of sweat, scratch, patch of dirt, etc. This alone will keep this from joining the ranks of titles in the "coal bin."


I was truly hoping for better black levels, but I knew from the opening scene that it was destined to be a dark gray event, whether you are viewing shadows inside the coffin or your top & bottom bars.


I mentioned various light sources above and it was from these that any colors appear, but they were quite dismal (in keeping with the theme of this sobering and depressing film).


Grain was also heavy at times, or perhaps it was noise. Whatever the case, it wasn't pretty.


Let me end where I started. The MANY facial close-ups (as well as close-ups of Ryan Reynold's hands) were reference quality (sharp and highly detailed) and this is enough, IMHO, to assign this to either Tier 3 or 4. Right now I'm not sure which, so I'm going to cast my vote for....

*Tier Recommendation: 3.75 or 4.0*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Let Me In*


Dark... oppressively dark. Very little detail to take note of. Black levels are merely okay, enough to be stable and make their point but never becoming as rich as they should be. Minimal color and sharpness is bland. Grain can spike and become noisy.

*Tier 3.75*


----------



## djoberg

*Resident Evil: Afterlife*


I had seen all the episodes in the _Resident Evil_ trilogy, but IMO this trumps them all. This had a more realistic feel to it, especially the majority of the movie inside the LA prison and the surrounding area. The PQ was quite satisfying and I would easily put this on my demo shelf.


Let's start with FACIAL DETAILS. They were a mixed bag, for you had your share of those with the waxy/smooth look, and then you had some with some fairly good texture (there were even shots of Milla that revealed the aging actress).


BLACKS were superb throughout! I watched this in the morning and so my room wasn't completely dark, and yet the black bars blended right in with my black bezel. I believe deltasun referred to less-than-stellar shadow details (due to it being shot on video) and I agree with him.


CONTRAST was very strong, which resulted in some excellent whites....check out the scenes inside the ship _Arcadia_ towards the end of the movie...they were astonishing!


DETAIL and DEPTH were definitely above average. There was a scene in a bathroom where water pipes were exploding with water droplets falling over the lead actresses...the detail was phenomenal!


The only real disappointment (in addition some smooth facials and below average shadow details) were some of the CGI shots. When I weigh everything in the balances I come up with.....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


PS I could be persuaded to raise it a notch to 1.5.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Last Exorcism*

*recommendation: Tier 2.25*


The direction shows slavish devotion to the style of a faux documentary, at times which hurt both the picture quality and the overall movie itself. Shot on video, much of the movie looks clean in the manner of a competent high-definition documentary one might see on Discover. Those moments appear perfectly sharp with a curious situation where the focus occasionally falters for no apparent reason. A decline in the image is quite noticeable as the horror elements ramp up the atmosphere, particularly near the pivotal moments in the script.


There is little actual content in the movie that lies in Tier Two, that rank is obtained by splitting the difference between the cleaner scenes that begin the movie with the noisy ones set in the dark of night that end the movie. Technically the transfer is very strong with no added processing and a transparent video encode.


Watching on a 60" Pioneer KURO plasma at 1080p/24, fed from a PS3 (firmware 3.55), watching at a viewing distance of approximately six feet.


----------



## djoberg

*Paranormal Activity 2*


My sister decided to join me for some movies (in my wife's absence) so we decided to have a "Fright Night" (I'll review _The Last Exorcism_ right after this one).


I rated the first installment 3.75. This one was, for the most part, identical in quality, though with the security cameras used I found that night scenes were more noisy and less detailed, so this one will go down a notch or two. During daytime scenes the color wasn't half bad and the sharpness and detail were acceptable, but all things considered there isn't any real EYE CANDY to speak of.

So, I am forced to assign this title to....

*Tier Recommendation: 4.0*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


PS As with _Paranormal Activity_, I thought this was well-paced and there were definitely some _intense_ moments.


----------



## djoberg

*The Last Exorcism*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19782324
> 
> *The Last Exorcism*
> 
> 
> One of those annoying "found footage" movies, shot on digital. Tons of noise in darker scenes, black levels barely hold, colors are flat, and detail is sporadic. Sharpness is poor, and flesh tones are faded. The constantly shaking camera doesn't help either.
> *Tier 4.5*





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/20028767
> 
> *The Last Exorcism*
> 
> *recommendation: Tier 2.25*
> 
> 
> The direction shows slavish devotion to the style of a faux documentary, at times which hurt both the picture quality and the overall movie itself. Shot on video, much of the movie looks clean in the manner of a competent high-definition documentary one might see on Discover. Those moments appear perfectly sharp with a curious situation where the focus occasionally falters for no apparent reason. A decline in the image is quite noticeable as the horror elements ramp up the atmosphere, particularly near the pivotal moments in the script.
> 
> 
> There is little actual content in the movie that lies in Tier Two, that rank is obtained by splitting the difference between the cleaner scenes that begin the movie with the noisy ones set in the dark of night that end the movie. Technically the transfer is very strong with no added processing and a transparent video encode.
> 
> 
> Watching on a 60" Pioneer KURO plasma at 1080p/24, fed from a PS3 (firmware 3.55), watching at a viewing distance of approximately six feet.



Both reviews above have meritorious comments, but I believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle. There were indeed some horrendous nighttime scenes with oodles of noise and zero detail. But there were also some favorable daytime scenes with noticeable sharpness and detail. I'm inclined to split the difference in the two previous placement recommendations....

*Tier Recommendation: 3.25*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Denny, knowing how much I like the original Paranormal Activity, do you think I would still enjoy the sequel? I just worry that it may ruin the original for me since it's already been done. Does the sequel work?


----------



## lgans316

*Princess and the Frog*


Nice flick though the animation is too soft and doesn't suit my taste.

*Recommendation: Tier 2*


----------------------------------------------------

*Sleeping Beauty*


I am surprised that restored catalogs have a better PQ than some of the recent ones










and, a nice movie too by Ben Affleck.

*Recommendation: Tier 1.5*


----------------------------------------------------

*The Town*


Agree with others on this. The aerial shots and bright outdoor shots truly shines.

*Recommendation: Tier 1.75*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/20029501
> 
> 
> Denny, knowing how much I like the original Paranormal Activity, do you think I would still enjoy the sequel? I just worry that it may ruin the original for me since it's already been done. Does the sequel work?



I had the same concerns because of how much I like the original, but I still enjoyed the *prequel*. Yes, this is a prequel, and it really helped seeing the events that led up to what happened in the original. I don't want to give away too much, but the ending REALLY ties the two together.


Let me just say Rob that even though *some* things are similar to the original, there are enough new elements (characters and happenings) to make it work. I also thought it was a bit more intense (at times). I'll be very interested to get your take on it, so let me know what you think after viewing it.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/20030425
> 
> 
> I had the same concerns because of how much I like the original, but I still enjoyed the *prequel*. Yes, this is a prequel, and it really helped seeing the events that led up to what happened in the original. I don't want to give away too much, but the ending REALLY ties the two together.
> 
> 
> Let me just say Rob that even though *some* things are similar to the original, there are enough new elements (characters and happenings) to make it work. I also thought it was a bit more intense (at times). I'll be very interested to get your take on it, so let me know what you think after viewing it.




Cool, thanks Denny!


----------



## djoberg

*Alien Resurrection*


Well, I thought I would end my "Blu-ray Feast" by finishing off my _Alien Anthology_ set. I just checked my review for _Alien 3_ and I would have to say they are both quite similar regarding PQ, except that _Alien 3_ had better facial details.


In summing up the negatives, these words come to mind: SOFT, GRITTY, and FLAT. This is true of the majority of the running time, though it did have its moments where it became sharp along with *some* depth and detail. The greatest redeeming quality throughout was facial details, but even there they were inconsistent (they probably averaged somewhere in Tier 2).


The blacks could be decent, but I was, for the most part, underwhelmed in this department too. Shadow details were nothing to write home about either.


It is really disappointing that this later release didn't have the attention given to it that the first two installments had. I'm going to have to drop this down one notch from _Alien 3_ and give it a....

*Tier Recommendation: 3.5*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 6'


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Elvis On Tour


recommendation: Tier 5
*

The King is alive...at least on Blu-ray. _Elvis On Tour_ is the chronicle of a 1972 tour that runs 93-minutes. Released in August of 2010 by Warner Bros., the concert film is encoded in VC-1 on a BD-25. What ends up here is a fine transfer from a very poor source. While the soundtrack is in fantastic condition, the picture looks incredibly soft and messy. 16mm film looks to have been the primary stock used in the film. Changing aspect ratios for montages and multiple uses of split-screen lead to generational loss in the resolution that Blu-ray reveals all too well.


Consider the Blu-ray's image a historical document more than anything else. The film appears to have been shot on the cheap with minimal lighting, even during the concert performances. One of the better transfers by Warner where the video encode handles the omnipresent granular structure with ease, though some black crush is evident. A distinct lack of digital processing leaves the picture free of halos.


Only the hardcore Elvis fanatics should buy it sight unseen on Blu-ray. The lossless DTS-HD MA soundtrack does sound great and it is an interesting documentary for at least one viewing.


----------



## deltasun

*Punisher: War Zone*


Extremely deep blacks is the name of the game. So deep, that there are bouts of crushing in a number of scenes. Contrast is generally strong, save for a handful of hazy shots. Facial details are usually excellent, but details in general do suffer a tad. There is a stylized color scheme which turn specific scenes in a golden wash, a green wash, and some in a reddish wash. I know this was DI, but I believe it hurt the PQ. Jigsaw looked overly sharpened at times in a golden wash.


Skin tones varies from character to character, but is predominantly sullen. Dimensionality can be superb at times also. Grain is well controlled for the most part.


For me, this film *just* steps out of the Golden tier despite the abundance of golden color scheme.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

*Jacob's Ladder*


Another of my faves making it to blu-ray. For the purposes of this thread, this is a soft picture. Blacks are decent, but contrast is just too low to really make an impact. Grain is often heavy and distracting, though after some time, your eyes do adjust. There is no depth to speak of and colors are undersaturated throughout.


For what it's worth, there is no foul play to speak of and I did not spot any banding or major compression issues. There are some sequences that reach the pinnacle that is Tier 4 and so it saves this from going to the Coal bin...

*Tier Recommendation: 4.50*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Stagecoach (1939)*


Damage, damage, and more damage. Not much can be done with it (the original negative is long gone), which is a shame because this thing looks incredible otherwise. Some spectacular close-ups and awe-inspiring establishing views of Monument Valley are worth the price of admission. Grain is well resolved.

*Tier 3.75*


----------



## djoberg

*Kick-Ass*


You know how you can eat a buffet one day and the next day you're STILL HUNGRY....well, I thought I'd had my fill of Blus after the last couple of days but here I am....HUNGRY AGAIN!


Would you like a one word review? INCONSISTENT!! That word describes the BLACK LEVELS (deep and inky one moment...dark gray or crushed the next), the DETAILS (amazingly precise in one shot...totally washed out the next), the COLORS (warm and vibrant on occasion...wildly over-saturated at other times), the FLESH TONES (absolutely accurate on some faces...reddish or pale on others), the FACIAL DETAILS (low Tier 0/high Tier 1 shots revealing wonderful texture in one scene...waxy-looking manikins a few seconds later)...and the list goes on and on.


Don't get me wrong, for this movie was quite pleasing to the eye in many scenes, but it just didn't hold up with all the inconsistency, and therefore as much as I would have liked to put this in GOLD, I'm forced to assign it to SILVER, albeit I'll give it a place at the top....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## rlindo

I watched Red Cliff today and King Kong extended cut and during Kong I checked the tier thread out of curiosity to see where it ranked and had to do a double take when I saw it wasn't in the top tier. It looks INCREDIBLE and there is no way it should not be in tier 0.


I scanned the movies in tier 0 and agreed with most but was curious about Sex Drive and Man on Fire so I threw both those in for a bit after Kong and can confirm Man on Fire deserves top tier status but Sex Drive? Nooooooooo way.


I have no clue how anyone could watch Sex Drive and Kong back to back and say Sex Drive looks superior. I saw in the Kong comparison thread talk about some compression artifacts and maybe Sex Drive doesn't have any but EVERY other area is inferior to Kong.


I don't think even if Kong has compression artifacts people can notice from a normal distance during reg watching that they should knock it out of tier 0 when Baraka is in tier 0 and has obvious DNR applied. I think Baraka looks fantastic for the most part but if Kong gets dinged for artifacts then so should Baraka and Sex Drive should get dinged for having worse depth, detail, black level, contrast and colour compared to Kong and pretty much every other tier 0 movie listed, at least of those that I own which is most of them.


I was watching on my JVC RS50 on a 106" diag screen at about 1.5 distance.


----------



## deltasun

^^


rlindo, thanks for the comments. I looked at the votes for both King Kong (reviewers are split between low Tier 0 and Tier 1.0) and Sex Drive (lone score of low Tier 0). That's pretty much a wash. The difference between the two is probably thinner than an eyelash. Do this thread a favor and present your review of both (preferably all that you mentioned) movies and recommend a suitable placement, in your eyes. We welcome all opinions so please make yours count.


----------



## deltasun

*The Maltese Falcon*


Having recently viewed _The Treasure of the Sierra Madre_, I am able to compare and contrast the two films. Doing so, two to three things become very evident in _The Maltese Falcon's_ inferiority. First is details - there is simply little to no details in comparison, particularly facial details. The second is dimensionality - _The Maltese Falcon_ is flat. Third is inconsistent black levels. _The Maltese Falcon_ runs the gamut of weak blacks, crushed blacks, and somewhat decent blacks.


Contrast is also not its strong point, but less so than the other three mentioned above. Still, a very good looking title for its age. Some of the shadow details are good to decent.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## audiomagnate

*The Thin Red Line*


Netflix finally decided to ship me The Thin Red Line. It's gorgeous just like everyone says. The early quick cut to the bow of the ship cutting through the water is something to behold, especially if you follow the director's instructions to play it loud. This is the most consistently excellent non animated title I've seen. I can't recall one bad shot. Why can't everything look this good, or at least come close?

*#2 of tier 0, below Legend of the Guardians*


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rlindo* /forum/post/20037075
> 
> 
> I watched Red Cliff today and King Kong extended cut and during Kong I checked the tier thread out of curiosity to see where it ranked and had to do a double take when I saw it wasn't in the top tier. It looks INCREDIBLE and there is no way it should not be in tier 0.
> 
> 
> I scanned the movies in tier 0 and agreed with most but was curious about Sex Drive and Man on Fire so I threw both those in for a bit after Kong and can confirm Man on Fire deserves top tier status but Sex Drive? Nooooooooo way.



So your recommendation boils down to King Kong being placed in Tier Zero over Sex Drive? That is fine, I just wanted a clarification.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *audiomagnate* /forum/post/20040305
> 
> *The Thin Red Line*
> 
> 
> Netflix finally decided to ship me The Thin Red Line. It's gorgeous just like everyone says. The early quick cut to the bow of the ship cutting through the water is something to behold, especially if you follow the director's instructions to play it loud. This is the most consistently excellent non animated title I've seen. I can't recall one bad shot. Why can't everything look this good, or at least come close?
> 
> *#2 of tier 0, below Legend of the Guardians*



+1


I totally agree with your recommendation for BOTH titles!


----------



## audiomagnate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/20040433
> 
> 
> So your recommendation boils down to King Kong being placed in Tier Zero over Sex Drive? That is fine, I just wanted a clarification.



The way I read it, I don't think he/she thinks Sex Drive belongs in Tier 0 at all.


----------



## deltasun

*The Deep*


Another reasonably decent offering from Sony. Grain is mostly well-controlled, though it spikes in a few areas - particularly darker, indoor shots. Some wavering grain also appear in some sky and other panoramic shots. Contrarily, the opening scene of the Bermuda islands offer phenomenal color and depth. Unfortunately, these are few and quite far between.


Blacks are not inky, but are adequate for the feature. Contrast can be overtly strong in sun-drenched scenes causing some of the colors to be washed out. It does not fare too well during low-lit scenes either, resulting in flat, murky scenes. Facial details are mid to low Tier 1 during close-up's, but details start to fade in medium shots. This is true of details in general as well.


Flesh tones are faithful for the most part, albeit on the reddish side in some. Aside from the beautiful wide-angle shots of the beaches in the early part of the film, colors are a bit subdued, which gives the film a dated look. Surprisingly enough, a majority of the underwater shots are very impressive - exceptional clarity, depth, and color reproduction. Finally, some significant banding from the underwater flashlights are noted.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.5*

_ln46a650 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## BrownTown

Watched *Legends of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole* yesterday and believe it should go *above* Toy Story 3 in *Tier 0*.


PQ was absolutely amazing.


----------



## djoberg

Quote:

Originally Posted by *BrownTown* 
Watched *Legends of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole* yesterday and believe it should go *above* Toy Story 3 in *Tier 0*.


PQ was absolutely amazing.
Good to hear from you BrownTown; I'd encourage you to keep posting here.


I obviously agree with your placement recommendation. This title may not have the color of _Toy Story 3_, but the detail, depth, and photorealism are definitely superior. Kudos to Warner Bros. for finally getting their act together!


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/20023387
> 
> *Unstoppable*
> 
> 
> This was a good-looking transfer and also a decent movie (I never once checked my watch to see how much time was left
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ), so it was worth both the time and money invested.
> 
> 
> As many of you know, facial details can make it or break it for me, and I'm happy to report that they were excellent throughout (low Tier 0 most of the time and the high Tier 1 the rest of the time). There were multiple close-ups of Denzel Washington and Chris Pine and they revealed every line and stubble!
> 
> 
> Contrast was perfect....colors were pleasing....blacks were deep with corresponding shadow details (though most scenes took place outside in daylight)....details and depth were appreciable...and the grain was fine, yielding the coveted look of film.
> 
> 
> The only negatives would be some shaky camera-work at times and a few scenes where the grain looked a bit noisy. I should mention an occasional inaccurate flesh tone (on the *red* side), though these were few and far between.
> 
> 
> This is demo material in my book (though NOT reference) and I would put it right here....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.5*
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'



I am in pretty much complete agreement in every respect.


One other slight flaw: some occasionally softish aerial shots.


I also agree on recommended placement: *Tier 1.5*.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/20045684
> 
> 
> I am in pretty much complete agreement in every respect.
> 
> 
> One other slight flaw: some occasionally softish aerial shots.
> 
> 
> I also agree on recommended placement: *Tier 1.5*.



The last time we corresponded on this thread I had said that *perhaps* we will agree more in 2011 and your response was "we'll have to wait and see." It looks like we're off to a good start!










Good observation patrick on the aerial shots....some were stellar, and others were, as you say, on the soft side.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Due Date*

Hey, a good looking one from Warner! Sure, it's still a bit too compressed at times, but the detail is firm, clarity is good, and the black levels are great. Nothing is too amiss here. Color scheme is deep but bland. Good stuff, if not great.
*Tier 2.0*


----------



## bacon333




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *QuiGonJosh* /forum/post/19736162
> 
> 
> You might not care for the visual aesthetic of the film, but the transfer is about as perfect as they come in its representation of the material.



Agreed. This film is at least tier 1.5 IMO. Some of the CGI is horribly rendered, lacking detail/shadow (the alice clones, zombies with squid mouths, etc) but it's definitely one of the better blu-ray discs for absolute video quality transfer (I own most of the reference and gold tier discs). The visual aesthetics especially in the scene with the planes and ocean just blew me away. Without bringing up my opinion on the video quality, I demo'ed the disc to a few videophiles and simple humans. They volunteered their opinion on how great it looked.


Resident Evil Afterlife is a beautiful transfer and 100% demo worthy (the sound engineering isn't bad either).


Watched it on a 6020FD E-Lite @ 8


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *bacon333* /forum/post/20047731
> 
> 
> Agreed. *This film is at least tier 1.5 IMO*. Some of the CGI is horribly rendered, lacking detail/shadow (the alice clones, zombies with squid mouths, etc) but it's definitely one of the better blu-ray discs for absolute video quality transfer (I own most of the reference and gold tier discs). The visual aesthetics especially in the scene with the planes and ocean just blew me away. Without bringing up my opinion on the video quality, I demo'ed the disc to a few videophiles and simple humans. They volunteered their opinion on how great it looked.
> 
> 
> Resident Evil Afterlife is a beautiful transfer and 100% demo worthy.



I agree with your assessment and even though I recommended 1.75 I did say, in a postscript, that I could be persuaded to go up a notch to 1.5.









http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...ostcount=17888


----------



## zoey67




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BrownTown* /forum/post/20043932
> 
> 
> Watched *Legends of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole* yesterday and believe it should go *above* Toy Story 3 in *Tier 0*.
> 
> 
> PQ was absolutely amazing.



totally agree, I think this was the best animation I've ever seen. The details were unreal, you can see a thousand feathers on their face. Whats more I think this was 3x times better than toy story 3 which was soo over rated in the PQ and movie itself. To me toy story and cars can never be as good as HTTYD or Legends of guardians because the latter have picturesque landscape scenery whereas cars, toy story..etc just looks like a fancy cartoon.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Kites: The Remix*


Absolutely the worst example of smearing I have ever seen from one hell of a terrible DNR application. They look like ghosts moving through some plane of existence as they move around, meaning any fine detail that was left is lost once they move. The US cut has better color, but that's the only difference between the Bollywood/International versions. Both have the outrageous DNR.

*Tier 4.5*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*All-Star Superman


recommendation: Tier 1.25*

_All-Star Superman_ is probably the best, purest take on the character in any medium since the iconic _Superman: The Movie_. A new animated production that is a direct adaptation of Grant Morrison's best-selling _All-Star Superman_ comic book, Warner Bros. released the 76-minute animated feature on February 22, 2011. As with all of Warner's new Blu-ray releases in 2011, the video encode is in AVC at bitrates that are some of the lowest in the industry. Given the brevity of the main feature, the disc is only a BD-25. Video quality in most ways surpass prior efforts on Warner's direct-to-video animated projects by a hair, with strong character and graphic design taken straight from the artwork of Frank Quitely. The animation this time around is a bit more polished with very few flaws such as aliasing or improper melding of digital models.


Red, blues and yellows are all important to the color palette of Superman's world. All of them are in vivid clarity for the splendid visuals of _All-Star Superman_, contrasted against pitch-perfect black levels. The low-bitrate AVC video encode, often dipping into the single digits and teens, does introduce a little unfortunate banding early in the movie. The animation shows much less obvious aliasing on the line art than other examples in the genre. The design and fluidity to the movement and action adds a needed element that elevates this particular feature over the work seen in _Superman / Batman: Public Enemies_ or _Superman / Batman: Apocalypse_.


An overall impressive picture quality that deserves a ranking at least in the upper quarters of Tier One. The style of the animation makes the prospect of a higher rating, with its sparse backgrounds, difficult to justify. But make no mistake, both longtime fans and newcomers will find an excellent image that is solid demo material and eye candy.


----------



## deltasun

*The Peacemaker*


On the surface, this is seemed destined for the upper tiers. Beneath the sheen, however, the inconsistency really did the PQ in. I believe this is the first time in any of my reviews that I will mention oversharpening as a heavy detraction for me. I've seen them in other titles, but not to the extent that really detracted. Here, I find quite a few scenes really give that digital look. I'm not talking about ringing here at all.


Besides that, there are some incredible looking scenes - good depth & dimensionality, excellent (albeit inconsistent) facial details, deep blacks (a fair amount of crushing), and strong, rich contrast. Flesh tones can fall on the warm side, but not too much of a distraction. Colors are vibrant, but remain natural. Shadow details are never well-resolved, but adequate. Again, I've mentioned inconsistencies, which predominantly include some arbitrary softness. I also thought there are an inordinate amount of specks and dirt.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## audiomagnate

Quote:

Originally Posted by *zoey67* 
totally agree, I think this was the best animation I've ever seen. The details were unreal, you can see a thousand feathers on their face. Whats more I think this was 3x times better than toy story 3 which was soo over rated in the PQ and movie itself. To me toy story and cars can never be as good as HTTYD or Legends of guardians because the latter have picturesque landscape scenery whereas cars, toy story..etc just looks like a fancy cartoon.
It's so good it doesn't feel like animation. It needs a new category. It's not a cartoon like Toy Story, Bug's Life etc. Those owls were REAL! If you haven't seen it yet, you just have to. This is THE demo disc.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Pleasantville*


Has some of the hallmarks of an older master. Soft, poor grain resolution at times, and average detail. Colors pop when color finally comes into play. B&W scenes suffer from rough contrast that blooms. No print damage to speak of. Average all around.

*Tier 3.25*


----------



## lgans316

*Despicable Me 2D Gru-ray edition*










A true breath of fresh air. Top notch animation. Enjoyed this more than Toy Story 3.

*Recommendation: Tier 0 above Toy Story 3*


----------



## m_burlock

Is this thread where I'd find out which non-American Blu-Rays are better than their American equalivalents?


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *m_burlock* /forum/post/20056850
> 
> 
> Is this thread where I'd find out which non-American Blu-Rays are better than their American equalivalents?



This thread is focused on determining the best picture quality for the Blu-ray format. Foreign Blu-rays are included in the list, but the vast majority of titles are from Region A. There is another thread on the forum that tries to answer your specific inquiry.


In other matters, I am a little disappointed no one noticed the Tiers are once again fully updated through the _All-Star Superman_ recommendation.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

The PQ Tiers now incorporate the following:


Knight & Day - 1.75 lgans316, 1.75 cjmx2


Twilight - 1.5 lgans316


The Town - 1.75 Gamereviewgod, 1.75 vpn75, 1.75 djoberg, 2.0 deltasun, 1.75 audiomagnate, 1.75 lgans316


Hellboy: Sword Of Storms/Blood & Iron - 3.0 Phantom Stranger


Inception - 2.25 rusky_g, 2.25 patrick99, 2.0 cjmx2, 2.0 tfoltz, 1.5 Hughmc, 2.25 lgans316, 1.75 OldCodger73, 1.5 Canuck89


Karate Kid (2010) - 2.0 deltasun


St. Elmo's Fire - 3.75 deltasun


Twilight: New Moon - 1.75 lgans316


Twilight: Eclipse - 2.5 lgans316


Deep Impact - 4.0 Gamereviewgod


Sorority Row - 4.5 Phantom Stranger


Gulliver's Travels - 5.0 Gamereviewgod


Say Anything... - 2.75 42041


Princess Bride - 1.25 dla26


Devil - 3.5 Gamereviewgod, 4.0 deltasun, 3.0 djoberg


Salt - 1.75/2 cjmx2, 2.75 Gamereviewgod, 2.25 42041, 2.25 djoberg, 2.25 lgans316, 1.5 Phantom Stranger, 1.5 deltasun, 1.5 Canuck89


Easy A - 1.75 Gamereviewgod, 1.75 42041, 2.0 deltasun


Unthinkable - 2.0 deltasun


Elf - 4.5 Gamereviewgod, 3.75 deltasun


Legends of The Guardians - Top 0 djoberg, top 5 in 0 Ozymandis, 0 harbinger93, top fourth of 0 Gamereviewgod, below Avatar in 0 tfoltz, top 0 audiomagnate, top 0 BrownTown, top 0 zoey67


Metropolis - 4.0 deltasun


Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps - 2.0 Gamereviewgod, 1.75/2 djoberg, 1.5 deltasun


White Christmas - 1.75 Gamereviewgod, 1.75 42041


How The Grinch Stole Christmas! - 2.5 Phantom Stranger


Green Mile - 2.25 42041


Sherlock Holmes - 2.25 lgans316


Miracle On 34th Street (1947) - 3.0 Gamereviewgod


Hot Tub Time Machine - 1.75 Phantom Stranger


Step Up 3 - 1.25 Gamereviewgod


Scott Pilgrim Vs The World - 2.5 lgans316


District 9 - 1.25 Phantom Stranger


Despicable Me - 0 above Chicken Little cjmx2, middle 0 Lestat Phoenix, 0 above Chicken Little Phantom Stranger


The Secret - 3.5 Phantom Stranger


How To Train Your Dragon - 0 above Corpse Bride deltasun


The New Daughter - 2.75 deltasun


The Expendables - 2.25 Phantom Stranger


The Goonies - 4.0 deltasun


Nightmare On Elm Street (2010) - 2.0 deltasun


And Soon The Darkness - 1.75 Gamereviewgod


Resident Evil: Afterlife - 3.5 Gamereviewgod, 2.0 deltasun, 2.75 lgans316, 1.75 djoberg, 1.5 bacon333


The Road - 3.5 Phantom Stranger


Cronos - 2.25 deltasun


The American - 1.25 Gamereviewgod, 1.25 deltasun, 1.25 djoberg, 1.25 Hughmc, 2.0 audiomagnate


The Other Guys - 2.5 audiomagnate


Toy Story 3 - top 0 Lestat Phoenix, top 0 cjmx2


UP - 0 below Avatar Lestat Phoenix


End Of Days - 4.0 Gamereviewgod


The Thin Red Line - top 0 oleus, 1.0 rusky_g, 0 mhanlen1, middle 0 42041, 2nd in 0 audiomagnate


Outlander - 2.5 Phantom Stranger


The Runaways - 3.0 deltasun


Sorceror's Apprentice - bottom fourth of 0 lgans316, 2.0 cjmx2, 2.5 patrick99


Alien 3 - 3.25 djoberg


Tremors - 5 Gamereviewgod


Babylon A.D. - 1.5 deltasun


Harry Brown - 3.0 deltasun


Wallace & Gromit: Complete Collection - 1.5 UnexplainedBacon


Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer - 3.5 UnexplainedBacon


Futurama: Volume 5 - 1.0 UnexplainedBacon


Toy Story 2 - middle 0 cjmx2


Toy Story - bottom fourth of 0 cjmx2


Machete - 1.75 Gamereviewgod


Case 39 - 4.0 Gamereviewgod, 4.5 deltasun


Bucket List - 2.75 tfoltz


Pirate Radio - 2.0 deltasun


Max Payne - 1.75 deltasun


Dinner For Schmucks - 2.0 Gamereviewgod, 2.0 deltasun


The Last Exorcism - 4.5 Gamereviewgod, 2.25 Phantom Stranger, 3.25 djoberg


Vicki Christina Barcelona - 3.75 deltasun


Mary And Max - 0 below Sin City deltasun


White Wedding - 1.5 Gamereviewgod


Vampire Circus - 3.25 Phantom Stranger


Nanny McPhee Returns - 1.75 Gamereviewgod, 2.0 OldCodger73, 1.75 Gamereviewgod


Jonah Hex - 2.0 Rob Tomlin


Atonement - 2.25 deltasun


Kathleen Madigan: Gone Madigan - 5 Gamereviewgod


Shawshank Redemption - 3.0 lgans316


Social Network - 3.0 Gamereviewgod, 1.5/1.75 djoberg, 3.0 ibre34, 3.0 lgans316


Piranha (2010) - 1.25 Gamereviewgod, 2.5 deltasun, 1.5 rusky_g, 2.5 djoberg


Cabin Fever - 2.25 Phantom Stranger


Dances With Wolves - 3.25 deltasun


Girl Who Played With Fire - 1.75 OldCodger73


Nanny McPhee - 1.5 Gamereviewgod


Chain Letter - 4.5 Gamereviewgod


True Grit (1969) - 3.25 Gamereviewgod


Dog Day Afternoon - 3.5 42041


The Magnificent Seven - 3.75 Phantom Stranger


Orphan - 2.25 geekyglassesgirl


The Box - 3.25 geekyglassesgirl


Buried - 4.0 Gamereviewgod, 4.0 djoberg


Death Race 2 - 1.75 Gamereviewgod, 1.75 djoberg, 1.75 deltasun


Batman (1989) - 3.5 Phantom Stranger


Takers - 1.75 Gamereviewgod, 2.25 deltasun, 2.25 deltasun


American Psycho - 3.5 audiomagnate


Stone - 2.75 Gamereviewgod, 3.25 deltasun


Family Guy: It's A Trap - 2.5 Gamereviewgod


Ferris Bueller's Day Off - 3.5 Phantom Stranger


Psycho - 4.0 Gamereviewgod


Saw: Final Chapter - 3.75 Gamereviewgod


Red - 2.0 Gamereviewgod, 2.25 deltasun, 2.0 djoberg, 2.0 audiomagnate, 1.5 rusky_g


I Spit On Your Grave (1979) - 3.25 Gamereviewgod


Predators - 1.75 Phantom Stranger


Secretariat - 2.0 Gamereviewgod, 2.0 djoberg


Avatar: Extended Edition - middle 0 Gamereviewgod


Full Metal Panic? Fumoffu - 3.5/4 Phantom Stranger


Nowhere Boy - 1.75 deltasun


A Beautiful Mind - 3.5 deltasun


Leaving Las Vegas - 5 deltasun


Alpha And Omega - 2.5 Gamereviewgod


Solomon Kane (UK import) - 1/1.25 longeal


Moulin Rouge - 2.75 Canuck89


Let Me In - 3.75 deltasun, 3.75 Gamereviewgod


I Spit On Your Grave (2010) - 3.5 Gamereviewgod


Alice In Wonderland (1951) - bottom fifth of 0 Phantom Stranger, .25 Gamereviewgod


Centurion - 2.75 deltasun


Monsters - 3.75 Gamereviewgod


Poltergeist II - 4.5 Phantom Stranger


The Arrival - 4.5 Gamereviewgod


Red Mist - 4.0 Phantom Stranger


Frozen - 2.5 rusky_g


Kansas City Confidential - 4 Gamereviewgod


Doctor Who: Season 5 - 1.5 geekyglassesgirl, 1.5 Xavier1


Ong Bak 3 - 3.0 Gamereviewgod


You Again - 1.5 djoberg, 1.75 Gamereviewgod


Treasure Of Sierra Madre - 1.5 deltasun


Paranormal Activity 2 - 5 Gamereviewgod, 4.0 djoberg


My Soul To Take - 2.75 Gamereviewgod


The Pillars Of the Earth - 2.0 deltasun


Life As We Know It - 3.75 Gamereviewgod


The Stranger - 4.25 Gamereviewgod


Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs - 0 below Toy Story Canuck89


Heavy Metal - 4.5 deltasun


Unstoppable - 2.0 Gamereviewgod, 1.5 djoberg, 1.5 patrick99


A-Team - 2.25 deltasun


Game Of Death (2010) - 1.75 Gamereviewgod


Princess and the Frog - 1.75 lgans316


Sleeping Beauty - 1.5 lgans316


Alien Resurrection - 3.5 djoberg


Elvis On Tour - 5 Phantom Stranger


Punisher: War Zone - 2.0 deltasun


Jacob's Ladder - 4.5 deltasun


Stagecoach - 3.75 Gamereviewgod


Kick-Ass - 2.0 djoberg


King Kong - 0 above Sex Drive rlindo


Maltese Falcon - 3.75 deltasun


The Deep - 3.5 deltasun


Due Date - 2.0 Gamereviewgod


Kites: The Remix - 4.5 Gamereviewgod


All-Star Superman - 1.25 Phantom Stranger


I would like to see more feedback on _Legend Of The Guardians_ before putting it any higher, the movies above it all had more top votes and discussion surrounding them.


----------



## deltasun

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* 
In other matters, I am a little disappointed no one noticed the Tiers are once again fully updated through the _All-Star Superman_ recommendation.
Thanks as always, Phantom! Superb job! I will have a review on the Owls soon, but may not be till the next update.


----------



## sbpyrat

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* 
In other matters, I am a little disappointed no one noticed the Tiers are once again fully updated through the _All-Star Superman_ recommendation.
I noticed and perused the updated list last night. As always, thanks for keeping the list up to date and to all those who provide reviews.


I do have one question, and forgive my ignorance, but I see that Avatar is ranked #2 and Avatar (Extended) is ranked #28. Does this mean that all three versions on the new Extended set are inferior to the original bare bones edition, or just the extended version on the extended set.


I fear that I may have made a mistake in giving away my original copy when I got the extended set...doh!


----------



## audiomagnate

Quote:

Originally Posted by *zoey67* 
totally agree, I think this was the best animation I've ever seen. The details were unreal, you can see a thousand feathers on their face. Whats more I think this was 3x times better than toy story 3 which was soo over rated in the PQ and movie itself. To me toy story and cars can never be as good as HTTYD or Legends of guardians because the latter have picturesque landscape scenery whereas cars, toy story..etc just looks like a fancy cartoon.
Hey Zoey, you need to do an official review.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/20057168
> 
> 
> I would like to see more feedback on _Legend Of The Guardians_ before putting it any higher, the movies above it all had more top votes and discussion surrounding them.



First things first....thanks ONCE AGAIN Phantom for your "labor of love" in maintaining this thread. Don't ever, for one moment, think you are not appreciated.


Secondly, I am really surprised that more have not watched and reviewed _Legend of the Guardians_ after some of the glowing reviews recommending it for either the top of Tier 0 or near the top. I, for one, am quick to try to either rent or buy a title that has been given the praise that this one has. Quite frankly, I'm confused!


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sbpyrat* /forum/post/20057601
> 
> 
> I do have one question, and forgive my ignorance, but I see that Avatar is ranked #2 and Avatar (Extended) is ranked #28. Does this mean that all three versions on the new Extended set are inferior to the original bare bones edition, or just the extended version on the extended set.



There was a great flurry of opinion and reviews on Avatar when it first hit Blu-ray. The consensus at that point was Avatar was the best, or close to it, in the Tiers. The Extended Collector's Edition for Avatar with multiple cuts is a different video encode. So far the only person to offer an opinion on it of any note is Gamereviewgod, who gave an evaluation in the middle of Tier Zero. That was the sole determination of where it ended up currently ranked.


I can't imagine it looking significantly different than the theatrical version, though I have no firsthand experience with the newer Extended version. Stranger things have happened on Blu-ray. If one was to believe the pre-release marketing press for the theatrical edition of Avatar, it was to be specifically tuned to maximize video quality over the later edition, which had to contain a number of extras and multiple cuts. Anyone that has seen both for comparison, now would be an excellent time to step forward.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/20058850
> 
> 
> Secondly, I am really surprised that more have not watched and reviewed _Legend of the Guardians_ after some of the glowing reviews recommending it for either the top of Tier 0 or near the top. I, for one, am quick to try to either rent or buy a title that has been given the praise that this one has. Quite frankly, I'm confused!



There might be a general fatigue creeping in for CGI movies among thread participants. Eventually I will get around to watching it, but Hollywood's endless stream of CGI family films has dulled any desire on my part to keep up with all of them. I have to be choosier now and generally only focus on CGI movies with interesting subject matter, or from known creative teams like Pixar.


----------



## sbpyrat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/20058916
> 
> 
> I can't imagine it looking significantly different than the theatrical version, though I have no firsthand experience with the newer Extended version. Stranger things have happened on Blu-ray. If one was to believe the pre-release marketing press for the theatrical edition of Avatar, it was to be specifically tuned to maximize video quality over the later edition, which had to contain a number of extras and multiple cuts. Anyone that has seen both for comparison, now would be an excellent time to step forward.



Thanks for the explanation. I would like to hear the opinion of someone that's compared both. When I was setting up my system in November, I had the bare bones Avatar in and it looked amazing, but I didn't watch much of it or very close, as I was more concerned with making sure my system was set up as good as possible.


I picked up the Extended collection when it came out. And gave the bare bones set to my sibs at Christmas (one the DVD and one the BR).


I wish I would have compared them before hand, but actually didn't even think of it.


For now I will hope that there isn't actually a significant drop off in the extended version unless I hear otherwise down the road.


Thanks again for everything!


----------



## zoey67




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *audiomagnate* /forum/post/20057662
> 
> 
> Hey Zoey, you need to do an official review.



ok, Megamind BD is due tomrorrow so I'll so that & unstoppable


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sbpyrat* /forum/post/20057601
> 
> 
> I noticed and perused the updated list last night. As always, thanks for keeping the list up to date and to all those who provide reviews.
> 
> 
> I do have one question, and forgive my ignorance, but I see that Avatar is ranked #2 and Avatar (Extended) is ranked #28. Does this mean that all three versions on the new Extended set are inferior to the original bare bones edition, or just the extended version on the extended set.
> 
> 
> I fear that I may have made a mistake in giving away my original copy when I got the extended set...doh!



If you look at Gamereviewgod's review of the original _Avatar_, he voted it Tier 0.5. For the extended edition, he mentioned that it wasn't much different, but had more of the CGI (which he deemed to contain the better PQ in the film, which, btw, I agree) and so rated it slightly higher in Tier 0.5.


So really, if we go with GRG for consistency (since he's the only who's reviewed both), the extended edition is actually a hair better due to the added minutes of CGI.


----------



## deltasun

*Red Hill*


Predominantly soft, with about a handful of crisp facial details. Blacks are sometimes crushed, but did offer some strong examples. Contrast is fairly strong as well. Grain on this one looks like noise and really distracts, especially in darker scenes. Depth is quite decent, which brings me to the best feature of all: the seemingly endless depth found in panoramic shots - probably some of the best I've seen.


Skin tones are spot on and colors are natural. Low light scenes are pretty much 2-dimensional. Finally, some minor banding is evident.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.25*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## sbpyrat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/20059959
> 
> 
> If you look at Gamereviewgod's review of the original _Avatar_, he voted it Tier 0.5. For the extended edition, he mentioned that it wasn't much different, but had more of the CGI (which he deemed to contain the better PQ in the film, which, btw, I agree) and so rated it slightly higher in Tier 0.5.
> 
> 
> So really, if we go with GRG for consistency (since he's the only who's reviewed both), the extended edition is actually a hair better due to the added minutes of CGI.



Thanks!


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Waiting for Superman*


A mix of crisp, natural digital footage and, well, everything else. There's aged 16mm, tape, animation, still pics, etc. The quality then goes all over the place. The core footage is consistent though, and the strong colors and nice blacks pleasing. Kinda hard to ignore, you know, everything else though.

*Tier 3.5*


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/20059959
> 
> 
> If you look at Gamereviewgod's review of the original _Avatar_, he voted it Tier 0.5. For the extended edition, he mentioned that it wasn't much different, but had more of the CGI (which he deemed to contain the better PQ in the film, which, btw, I agree) and so rated it slightly higher in Tier 0.5.
> 
> 
> So really, if we go with GRG for consistency (since he's the only who's reviewed both), the extended edition is actually a hair better due to the added minutes of CGI.



Keen forensic work, deltasun. I might bump the extended cut of Avatar up a tad in Tier Zero, just so there is no confusion about the issue.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/20058950
> 
> 
> There might be a general fatigue creeping in for CGI movies among thread participants. Eventually I will get around to watching it, but *Hollywood's endless stream of CGI family films has dulled any desire on my part to keep up with all of them*. I have to be choosier now and generally only focus on CGI movies with interesting subject matter, or from known creative teams like Pixar.



I hear you Phantom and I agree with you regarding "Hollywood's endless stream of CGI family films [dulling] any desire on my part to keep up with all of them." But I would still check out *one* of those "endless CGI family films" if a number of people were nominating it for the top spot in Tier Blu. That's my basic argument here....this title has amazing graphics that are distinct from other CGI animated titles and that alone should instill a "renewed desire" (in contrast to a "dulled desire") in members to check it out.


----------



## Incindium




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> That's my basic argument here....this title has amazing graphics that are distinct from other CGI animated titles and that alone should instill a "renewed desire" (in contrast to a "dulled desire") in members to check it out.



I dunno... I was more impressed by Toy Story 3(own it and the kids watch it all the time) than Legend of the Guardians(one time Netflix rental) in regards to PQ. I was thinking about picking up Legend of the Guardians since its only $14 for the single disk version on Amazon. If so I'll re-evaluate that assessment.


----------



## tfoltz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Incindium* /forum/post/20062599
> 
> 
> I was thinking about picking up Legend of the Guardians since its only $14 for the single disk version on Amazon. If so I'll re-evaluate that assessment.



Just an FYI, it's actually the combo set. I just got it in the mail.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Incindium* /forum/post/20062599
> 
> 
> I dunno... *I was more impressed by Toy Story 3*(own it and the kids watch it all the time) *than Legend of the Guardians*(one time Netflix rental) *in regards to PQ*. I was thinking about picking up Legend of the Guardians since its only $14 for the single disk version on Amazon. If so I'll re-evaluate that assessment.



To each their own, I guess. For me, you can't even compare the detail, depth, and photorealism of LOTG with TS3. But perhaps you (and others) were so wowed by the colors in TS3 that you were disappointed by the lack of color in LOTG.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/20062393
> 
> 
> Keen forensic work, deltasun. I might bump the extended cut of Avatar up a tad in Tier Zero, just so there is no confusion about the issue.



Didn't even have to get my CSI gloves dirty on this one.







I would agree with you on keeping them closer together since it's misleading why they're apart. You almost need to just have them together with an asterisk or something. Or, don't we still place 1-vote Blu titles in Holdings? Wasn't sure how that worked.


To be quite honest, I like the audio thread's method of only placing titles in Reference when the voting percentage is over a specified amount. I know that'll be a major change for us, but would like to bring it up for consideration.


----------



## sbpyrat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/20063293
> 
> 
> To be quite honest, I like the audio thread's method of only placing titles in Reference when the voting percentage is over a specified amount. I know that'll be a major change for us, but would like to bring it up for consideration.



I'm new to this group (following since Nov), so always want to tread lightly...but something likes that sounds sort of logical. Having not been around since the beginning, I don't know all the history of how things were set up. Though I have checked the archived listing when everything was ranked which I enjoyed checking out, but agree that would have been much hard to maintain. Ranking the top tier, with the following tiers seems like a good system to me.


I would like to participate in the rankings and plan to in the not too distant future. I sort of feel like I should watch a certain number of the topped ranked titles before ranking the top titles. I have collected quite a few blu rays through the Thanksgiving/Christmas sales, including many of the top-ranked titles. I've not yet watched them all. I've also rented a few from Netflix and have more in my queue. Once I've watched some more of the ones I own, I will feel more comfortable ranking some of the top tier movies. The following tiers are a bit easier and I guess I could start submitting rankings to those fairly safely, now that I've been watching blu rays for about 4 months. I certainly don't have quite the expertise and detailed analysis of the different factors as some of the regular posters here, but I think I'd be good enough to rank the movies where they should fall based on comparison to other movies.


Interesting note (possibly), the reason I found this group was the vast difference in movie quality when I first started watching my very first blu rays in November. I stuck in the bare bones Avatar while I was setting up my system and the little of it I watched blew me away and made me feel that much better about finally upgrading. This was on a Friday and it was late. The next day, I watched Psycho (and all the special features)...certainly the best it had ever looked, but not a system tester by any means. Then I had popped in The Breakfast Club and was a bit disappointed at the quality, but still enjoyed all the special features I hadn't seen before. The next one I watched was Toy Story 3...again, feeling good about my purchase as I haven't seen better PQ to date (haven't rented Legend of the Guardians yet, but will get it from Netflix). The next title I watched was my first blu ray from Netflix, Altitude...and it was bad. My little sister came over the next day and we watched Kick-Ass...which was good, but the colors were so bright I was thinking my set needed to be adjusted (hoped maybe just because it was a comic movie, that the colors were more intense). But then we watched Bedtime Stories and the colors looked normal.


I turned to google to see what I could find out about the PQ on some of these titles and in general. Sure enough Breakfast Club and Altitude were popping up as bad PQ titles, which at least made me feel better about my system. It was obvious that there was a great variation in PQ and I needed to become more informed. I found this forum and was like...THANK YOU...this is such a great tool for making informed buying/watching decisions...especially when considering upgrading previously owned dvd titles. I have been following this forum faithfully ever since and have recommended it to others.


I do think I have good judgment and would like to start submitting rankings. I will hold off a little longer before ranking the blue tier 0 titles, still want to watch at least a few more of the top titles. It does seem like I have roughly similar rankings to most of the titles I've watched so far, so I don't think I'd be too much of a rogue.


Just a couple early thoughts (not submitting for ranking), Toy Story 3 was one of the first titles I watched and it hasn't been surpassed in 4 months of viewing...though A Bug's Life is a VERY close second. It's obvious the animated films are going to rule the top level, which makes me even more intrigued to see the best live action films. I have had The Thin Red Line for awhile, but haven't watched it yet. For some reason I was surprised that Live Free or Die Hard was among the top (before I watched it). I picked it up during black Friday (I think for $5 from Walmart). I finally popped it in last weekend and have to say that it does seem worthy of it's blue tier ranking. I have and need to watch I Robot, The Pirates Trilogy, Domino, and some lower-ranked live-action blue tiers.


I'm definitely going to have to take another look, but the title I have disagreed with the most so far is Man on Fire. I like the movie and it was one of the first titles I watched, but I remember the grain being so heavy that it was distracting...maybe partially the director's choice, but it really was distracting. It was the title that had me on google finding out about grain. I may have to watch it again, or at least sample it...but I was surprised to find it in the blue tier.


I've gone on enough (maybe too much), but just once again...thanks too everyone who has participated to provide this list...it's a great asset.


----------



## deltasun

^^ Welcome to the threads and thanks for sharing your genesis into the forums. I have a similar story and can't believe it was over 2 years ago!


I believe the grain on _Man on Fire_ complements the look of that particular title, which also boasts awesome facial details and deep blacks. Of course, that's my opinion. Looking forward to your contributions, but definitely feel free to compare existing titles with your experiences...that's how I first started too.


Enjoy!


----------



## sbpyrat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/20064462
> 
> 
> ^^ Welcome to the threads and thanks for sharing your genesis into the forums. I have a similar story and can't believe it was over 2 years ago!
> 
> 
> I believe the grain on _Man on Fire_ complements the look of that particular title, which also boasts awesome facial details and deep blacks. Of course, that's my opinion. Looking forward to your contributions, but definitely feel free to compare existing titles with your experiences...that's how I first started too.
> 
> 
> Enjoy!



Thanks...I'll definitely have to give Man on Fire a second look sometime since it was one of the first ones I watched.


----------



## deltasun

*And Soon the Darkness* (2010)


Wow, what a fantastic presentation! The colors are soft and natural, though you will find some teal/orange combination. These did not take me out of the experience, however. The almost monochromatic scenes towards the end really stood out and represented that aspect of the story well. Very well done! Blacks are well-rendered and contrast is well-balanced and strong. Some beautiful panoramas are showcased in top-notch high definition.


Flesh tones are accurate. Dimensionality is excellent from the aforementioned panoramas to medium scenes. The problem, which really irked me, comes from arbitrary softness of the characters' faces. It's not of the technical variety either - just bad/careless focusing. I would even go as far as say it completely took this out of Tier Blu for me. I gotta say though, there are some incredible facial textures from the two main characters when the focus and lighting are right on.


Some other minor complaints are some heavier noise in low-lit scenes, some above average shadow details (just some), and finally some banding (strong during the boat scene).


Still, a very pleasant PQ experience...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.50*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## tcramer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/20058850
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> Secondly, I am really surprised that more have not watched and reviewed _Legend of the Guardians_ after some of the glowing reviews recommending it for either the top of Tier 0 or near the top. I, for one, am quick to try to either rent or buy a title that has been given the praise that this one has. Quite frankly, I'm confused!




Well, _Legends of the Guardians_ should arrive Monday. It's been near the top of my Netflix queue for a while but after this comment I bumped it to the top







.


Having recently (within the past 2 months) seen _Toy Story 3, The Thin Red Line, Avatar_ and _a Bug's Life_, I should have a fairly good grasp on how it compares. The only top contender I'm missing is _A Christmas Carol_, but since I was unable to get it from Netflix before Christmas the wife forbade me from getting a Christmas movie after the day


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tcramer* /forum/post/20065962
> 
> 
> Well, _Legends of the Guardians_ should arrive Monday. It's been near the top of my Netflix queue for a while but after this comment I bumped it to the top
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



Great! I'll be looking for your review next week.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/20065490
> 
> *And Soon the Darkness* (2010)
> 
> 
> Wow, what a fantastic presentation! The colors are soft and natural, though you will find some teal/orange combination. These did not take me out of the experience, however. The almost monochromatic scenes towards the end really stood out and represented that aspect of the story well. Very well done! Blacks are well-rendered and contrast is well-balanced and strong. Some beautiful panoramas are showcased in top-notch high definition.
> 
> 
> Flesh tones are accurate. Dimensionality is excellent from the aforementioned panoramas to medium scenes. The problem, which really irked me, comes from arbitrary softness of the characters' faces. It's not of the technical variety either - just bad/careless focusing. I would even go as far as say it completely took this out of Tier Blu for me. I gotta say though, there are some incredible facial textures from the two main characters when the focus and lighting are right on.
> 
> 
> Some other minor complaints are some heavier noise in low-lit scenes, some above average shadow details (just some), and finally some banding (strong during the boat scene).
> 
> 
> Still, a very pleasant PQ experience...
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.50*
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_



Thanks for whetting my appetite delta! How was the movie itself?


----------



## Canuck89




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/18782935
> 
> *The Book of Eli*
> 
> 
> WOW! My eyes just got an overdose of DETAILS from this post-apocalyptic drama/thriller, along with amazing DEPTH and DIMENSIONALITY. I kept reading the words "razor-sharp" from different reviews and now I can attest to the truth of these words. Throughout the film we are treated to detailed rock-laden streets, desert terrain, buildings, clothing and second-to-none facial details. One of the most incredible scenes I have ever seen was that of a house in the desert (owned by a couple named George & Martha) starting at around the 1 Hr. 13 Min. mark....the detail and depth left me drooling!!
> 
> 
> In spite of the muted color palette, flesh tones were still spot on. And the black levels were, for the most part, deep and inky, with corresponding shadow details.
> 
> 
> My only gripes would be with the contrast which was too strong at times resulting in bleached whites, and several soft shots. And with the intentional, lackluster colors (consisting mostly of earth tones, blacks, grays, and some orange hues in limited scenes) one will be hard-pressed labeling this as "EYE CANDY" or "reference quality." Having said that, the old adage "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" still holds true and thus IMO the DETAILS and DEPTH save the day and make it a contender for Tier 1...in fact, I'm going to put it right on the border of the two "demo" tiers.....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.0 or possibly 1.25*
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite BDP-05....Viewed from 7.5'
> 
> 
> PS The AQ was also amazing, with a haunting soundtrack that set the mood of the film perfectly!
> 
> 
> PPS I enjoyed the movie too, though at this point I'm glad I rented it.


*Book of Eli*


Going to leech off of djoberg's review from above. I agree wholeheartedly with the incredible amount of detail packed into each shot and the desert scene was done extremely well. Facial details were incredible, every last wrinkle and pore were defined, and the flesh tones were very consistent. It's a very sharp picture throughout with a wide range of depth. I know Phantom commented as well on the lack of colour palette, but it's hard to judge whether the colour scheme is intentionally drab because the directors wanted that effect, or is it part of the transfer? Personally, I don't believe the lack of colour merits penalization and that this title should squeak into the bottom of tier 0.


Which gets me wondering, could a black and white movie ever merit tier 0 ranking?

*Tier: 0 (Bottom)*


P.S. Thanks for the update Phantom!


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/20066094
> 
> 
> Thanks for whetting my appetite delta! How was the movie itself?



I wish I could say otherwise, but not that great of a movie. Maybe worth a rental just for the PQ. It's not terrible, just very typical and predictable.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Canuck89* /forum/post/20066303
> 
> 
> Which gets me wondering, could a black and white movie ever merit tier 0 ranking?



Absolutely.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/20065490
> 
> *And Soon the Darkness* (2010)
> 
> 
> Wow, what a fantastic presentation! The colors are soft and natural, though you will find some teal/orange combination. These did not take me out of the experience, however. The almost monochromatic scenes towards the end really stood out and represented that aspect of the story well. Very well done! Blacks are well-rendered and contrast is well-balanced and strong. Some beautiful panoramas are showcased in top-notch high definition.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.50**
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_



I am using deltasun's latest recommendation here to demonstrate a small change in the manner that recommendations should be posted going forward. The only change is a * added next to the 1.50, for reasons explained below.


As a small favor to me, it would be a great help if a small asterisk was placed next to all recommendations that are not currently ranked yet on the main PQ Tiers List. All that would entail would be checking the master list before posting the review, to check if it is already in the Tiers.


An asterisk or plus sign next to the numerical score for unlisted Blu-rays would be fine. This small step would simplify the work necessary when the Tiers are updated. Technically, _And Soon The Darkness_ is already ranked and in the list, so it would not qualify for an asterisk. Anything that is currently listed in the Tiers would not need an asterisk. It should only be included for unranked and unlisted movies. Thank you and direct any questions my way about the change.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Canuck89* /forum/post/20066303
> 
> 
> Which gets me wondering, could a black and white movie ever merit tier 0 ranking?





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/20067138
> 
> 
> Absolutely.



I second this. I don't penalize for lack of color, unless it's completely distracting. But I definitely don't take off points just because.


----------



## sbpyrat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/20067452
> 
> 
> I second this. I don't penalize for lack of color, unless it's completely distracting. But I definitely don't take off points just because.



Does anyone know off the top of their head what the highest ranked B&W blu ray(s) is(are) on the tier list?


I think the only one I've watched so far is Psycho, which just happened to be the very first blu ray I watched in it's entirety. Granted, I wasn't thinking about rankings at that time at all, but just checked and was a little surprised that it comes in as 4.0 Copper. I don't remember having any huge PQ issues when watching it, but I'll definitely need to sample it again and see what I think in comparison to other titles.


I'm waiting for The Treasure of the Sierra Madre to arrive from Amazon anytime...I see it's ranked 2.0 Silver. Looking forward to seeing it...it's one of my all-time favorite movies and I haven't watched it in years.


I'm having a tough time coming up with B&W blu rays I already own (I'm not at home to check). Just came up with Rio Bravo (3.5 Bronze) which I haven't watched. That reminded me that I have Stagecoach (4.0 Copper) coming in the mail from Criterion. That's all I can think of so far. One more thing to add to my to do list, find out what some of the best B&W titles are and compare see how they rank overall (by others and by myself).


I did a quick google search and see Casablanca gets high ratings (and is 2.25 on this list). I have the very first bare bones DVD and haven't watched in at least a decade...so worthy of an upgrade sometime for sure. I also see It's A Wonderful Life mentioned (gets a 3.5 Bronze on here). A good movie that I have never owned and haven't seen in over a decade, so might pick it up sometime before next holiday season...or at least rent it.


Definitely something worth looking into further.


----------



## deltasun

*Megamind*


I'll get right to it - probably the worst example of aliasing of any animated (or otherwise) titles. It is all over the place! After a while, it's all one can focus on.


I did try to pay attention to the other attributes - colors are bold and richly saturated. Contrast is just astounding. Dimensionality is up there as well. Blacks can be inconsistent when it turns plasticky at times.


This is a top tier title for sure, except for the shimmering and some banding. It's also worth mentioning that I've not seen smoke (from explosions or dust) done as well as how it's rendered in this title. Great work!


I will take it out of blu, just for the seemingly constant shimmer...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sbpyrat* /forum/post/20067667
> 
> 
> Does anyone know off the top of their head what the highest ranked B&W blu ray(s) is(are) on the tier list?



Sin City? Granted it's not 100% B&W, but goodly portions of it are more B&W than color. Similarly, Mary and Max, also in Tier 0.


----------



## sbpyrat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/20068091
> 
> 
> Sin City? Granted it's not 100% B&W, but goodly portions of it are more B&W than color. Similarly, Mary and Max, also in Tier 0.



Thanks. Interesting...I hadn't thought of Sin City as a B&W film and haven't seen Max & Mary to know it was the same concept (just did a quick image search). They almost seem like they might fall into an honorary B&W category (or a category of mixed B&W/Color)...throw in Wizard of Oz too maybe (though it's a little different). But I wouldn't probably consider them B&W movies per se. Interesting to think about though.


I still want to find out what the highest ranked strictly B&W titles are. I remembered I also ordered The Night of the Hunter from the Criterion sale...which isn't yet ranked on here.


I just got home and put on Megamind which has lots of color.


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sbpyrat* /forum/post/20068141
> 
> 
> I still want to find out what the highest ranked strictly B&W titles are. I remembered I also ordered The Night of the Hunter from the Criterion sale...which isn't yet ranked on here.



For pure B&W then, I believe it might be The White Ribbon in Tier 1.75. Another "disqualified for color sequences" title would be Persepolis, also in Tier 1.75.


----------



## sbpyrat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/20067801
> 
> *Megamind*
> 
> 
> I'll get right to it - probably the worst example of aliasing of any animated (or otherwise) titles. It is all over the place! After a while, it's all one can focus on.
> 
> 
> I did try to pay attention to the other attributes - colors are bold and richly saturated. Contrast is just astounding. Dimensionality is up there as well. Blacks can be inconsistent when it turns plasticky at times.
> 
> 
> This is a top tier title for sure, except for the shimmering and some banding. It's also worth mentioning that I've not seen smoke (from explosions or dust) done as well as how it's rendered in this title. Great work!
> 
> 
> I will take it out of blu, just for the seemingly constant shimmer...
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.0**
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_



I kind of hate for my first review to be a big ditto, but I think deltasun was right on...

*Megamind*


When I first popped it in, it looked really good...like it would be on par with mid-level tier 0 animated titles. It has many great qualities...depth of field, colors are great. As deltasun said, the smoke is impressive....very realistic.


But the biggest drawback for me was jitteriness at several points...I hadn't noticed that in the tier 0 titles I've been watching recently. The detail while often top notch, was occasionally not. There were also moments when characters would seem to have some blur or glow to them (and not the little glowy character), like Tighten's neck at 1:04:23. I had noticed this a few times ealier and decided to take note of one.


I'd say Megamind has very good PQ, but not quite worthy of a tier 0 (reference) ranking.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**


Sony Bravia 40"

1080p

6.5'


----------



## sbpyrat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/20068326
> 
> 
> For pure B&W then, I believe it might be The White Ribbon in Tier 1.75. Another "disqualified for color sequences" title would be Persepolis, also in Tier 1.75.



Thanks, I wasn't familiar with The White Ribbon (didn't know it was B&W). I'll have to check that out from Netflix when I get a chance.


----------



## deltasun

*Memento* (10th Anniversary / Lionsgate)

_How can I heal? How am I supposed to heal if I can't...feel time?_


Another all-time fave. I know there's been lots of talk about the new color palette of the re-release. The added saturation is quite noticeable, even bothersome at first (and especially after just watching the original Sony release). However, it does settle down. Then, you notice the teal/orange palette and that settles down also.


The one thing this version has in droves is detail and texture, especially in the characters' faces but also in clothing, etc. I'm talking mid to high Tier 0 details. The depth of field is perfect for this feature, in my opinion, and really helps accentuate the dimensionality in medium shots. The only time details wane a bit (and I do underscore a bit) is during the bar scene. The black and white scenes wane a bit around that same time stamp as well. Incidentally, the B&W scenes are bit more washed out and exhibit less details.


Blacks are decent and contrast remain strong (save for the B&W scenes) throughout. There's minor aliasing (e.g., Teddy's glasses) and some rare specks are present. The biggest flaw would have to be the overly saturated orange flesh tones. Grain can be moderate, but never bothersome.


Averaging the attributes out, I come up with...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

*Insomnia*


Back to back Nolans for me. This one is wonderfully filmic with a fine layer of grain throughout. Though not as textured and detailed as the color portions of _Memento_, there's still enough here to maintain demo-worthiness. In particular, Williams' face readily shows a healthy amount of pores. I must say it's much more difficult to find similar examples on Swank. So, there are minor inconsistencies in this area.


As expected, the cold, panoramic shots of the Alaskan mountains and especially the ice-blue glacier towards the end are just breathtaking. The green foliage is lush and teeming with life. Colors all around are really well rendered throughout the film, yet remaining natural.


There's adequate depth in pretty much every scene. Contrast is stable and blacks beautifully deep, with no instances of crushing. Skin tones do tend to skirt into the warm side, specially indoors, where the atmosphere is generally warm anyway. I also noticed some ringing on high-contrast edges.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.50**

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Megamind*

Yep, there's alasing. Lots of of it. Even some moire at one point, which at this period in the CG game is totally unacceptable. Everything else is fine though, which is odd. Plenty of color, depth, and detail to go around. It still looks good, but it's hardly perfect.
*Tier 1.0*


----------



## audiomagnate

Megamind is not available on Blu from Redbox. That's different.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

For an idea of how their Blu-ray counterparts measure up, here are the 10 nominees for Best Picture tonight at the Oscars:


Black Swan - unreleased


The Fighter - unreleased


Inception - Tier 2.0


The Kids Are All Right - unranked


The King's Speech - unreleased


127 Hours - released in the next week


The Social Network - Tier 2.75


Toy Story 3 - current champion of the Tiers


True Grit - Unreleased


Winter's Bone - Tier 2.75


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Ultimate Wave: Tahiti (2D/3D combo)*


Stunning, gorgeous, remarkable. Detail is off the hizzy (yeah, I went there), colors are just unreal, and the blacks perfect. Shot on film and digital, the differences never noted. It all blends. One single shot is noisy and that's the only flaw here. Amazing IMAX work.

*Tier .5**


--------------
*Dinosaurs: The Giants of Padagonia (2D/3D combo)*


Couldn't be farther from Tahiti. Riddled with flickering, ringing, and muddy detail. Contrast looks pumped up and blacks are just meh. Some nice detail in close, but the whole thing looks too harsh, like it was manipulated to look better in 3D.

*Tier 3.5**


----------



## zoey67

*Megamind*

Before seeing it I read several BD reviews and was bummed to discover that just about all of them praised the audio giving it 5 stars and pretty much trashed the PQ. I was really looking forward to this more so than Dispicable me but unfortunately the critics were partially right. 1st the audio from BB rental copy was just terrible but I'll digress since this is the PQ thread.


With that said, I was actually fine with PQ maybe because the colors were really robust, bursting and popping remisicent of the Incredibles. And even though it wasn't polished like say Up or Despicable me, it made up for it with the cinematography and scenic panarama landscapes to me was a tad nicer here.

As for the movie, I liked it more than Despicable me. Although will ferrell did a great voice job, I thought david cross as his minion was the MVP. Pretty much everything came out his mouth was hilarious, great depth of voice and use of it. Brad pitt however was meh, didn't take away but wasn't great either.

*Tier 1.0*


Epson 1080UB ISF'd Avical, 100" elec Elite spectrum, 11'









[/IMG]








[/IMG]


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Bambi


recommendation: Tier 1.25**


Another classic from Disney gets treated to a stupendous restoration and transfer. The image probably looks cleaner and more radiant now, than upon its release in 1942. I would brook no argument if others wanted it placed in Tier Zero. Consider this recommendation more a starting point for discussion on the merits of _Bambi_ than the final word. The animation has aged remarkably well, better than _Snow White_ or _Pinocchio_.


Watching on a 60 Pioneer KURO plasma at 1080p/24, played on a 160 GB slim PS3 (firmware 3.55), from a viewing distance of 6 feet.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*127 Hours*

Shot digitally, this one is all over the place. Some nice color saturation, contrast, and black levels. Detail is here and there, as is some noise. SD footage is spliced in, including some VHS stuff in flashbacks. Nice color.

*Tier 3.75**


----------



## sbpyrat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/20081828
> 
> *Bambi
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 1.25**
> 
> 
> Another classic from Disney gets treated to a stupendous restoration and transfer. The image probably looks cleaner and more radiant now, than upon its release in 1942. I would brook no argument if others wanted it placed in Tier Zero. Consider this recommendation more a starting point for discussion on the merits of _Bambi_ than the final word. The animation has aged remarkably well, better than _Snow White_ or _Pinocchio_.



So glad to hear it...I hope to watch it tonight. I've been looking forward to this one. It's the first Disney movie I remember watching as a kid in the early 70s...and named my first dog Thumper when I was a toddler because he thumped his food like Thumper.


----------



## djoberg

*Faster*


FACIAL DETAILS rivaled those of the _Transporter Series_, so that automatically puts this one on my demo shelf. They were simply superb in every close-up of every actor. You will NOT be disappointed in this department!


Where you *may* be disappointed is with the muted color palette which in some of the scenes with boosted contrast came across as over-saturated. There were also a fair amount of scenes with that characteristic (for today's action/comedy films) golden/orange hue. These tended to wreak havoc on flesh tones and was distracting to _my eyes_.


Details in general were also quite good, whether you're looking at paved streets, brick walls, cars, clothing, etc.....they all resulted in EYE CANDY.


Black levels were somewhat inconsistent, but when they were good, they were REALLY GOOD. There were a few instances of crush and I noticed in some darker scenes that nighttime skies were definitely lighter than the black bars (which were pleasingly BLACK, as black as my Pioneer's bezel).


It had a layer of grain throughout which, for the most part, gave it a nice film look. But in some nighttime scenes it was a bit too *gritty* for my taste.


As stated at the outset, this is definitely demo material, but I'm not ready to call it *reference*. I do believe it will end up in Tier 1 though and my vote goes for....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## lgans316

zoey67,


I thought Incredibles had one of the most bland color palette amongst the Pixar titles.










deltasun,


So, according to you, both Memento and Insomnia looks better than the Inception? Looks like Lionsgate have screwed up the Black and White scenes.


----------



## djoberg

*Love and Other Drugs*


This may sound very unconventional, but this was one of the most _natural-looking_ titles I've seen in quite awhile....and I LOVED it! By *natural* I mean that the colors were exceptionally natural (warm and vibrant), the flesh-tones were spot-on, the contrast was perfect, etc., etc.. Whether the scenes took place in Ann or Jake's apartment, or in a hospital, or on the streets of Chicago, everything looked as if you were right there, which translates into NATURAL!


I want to add that it had a *filmic* look on top of everything else I just said, so it was simply a joy to watch in every way. Add to that the realistic black levels, amazing shadow details, and appreciable depth in many scenes and you have yet another Blu to add to your demo shelf.


The only area that fell a tad short was that of facial details. I say a "tad," because most shots, especially close-ups, were still Tier 1 or high Tier 2 quality.


All things considered I'm ready to assign this to the very same place as my last viewing, which is.....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## sbpyrat

After about 4 months in the world of blu ray, I’ve watched about half of the Tier 0 Blue titles and have ranked them as follows. Please forgive the non-standard mass ranking. I wanted to hold off submitting my rankings until I had watched many of them. That way I could fairly say where I thought they should fall, in comparison to the other titles...as well as get more of a feel for the range of titles out there. I’m not writing detailed reviews for each title, but will share some thoughts on the PQ of these highest ranked titles.

*Tier 0 Blu*


Toy Story 3

Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole

A Bug's Life

The Thin Red Line

Avatar (Extended)

A Christmas Carol (2009)

Ratatouille

Cars

Monsters, Inc.

Despicable Me

Tangled

Up

Kung Fu Panda

Astro Boy

Coraline

Toy Story 2

Toy Story

I, Robot

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest

Pirates of the Caribbean: At the World's End

Monsters vs. Aliens

Meet the Robinsons

Live Free or Die Hard

Sin City

Mary and Max

The Tale of Desperaux

TMNT

Corpse Bride

Bolt

The International

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs

Man on Fire

Shrek Forever After

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl

Wall-E

Fantastic Mr. Fox

Hot Fuzz

Alice in Wonderland (1951)

Horton Hears a Who!

Beauty and the Beast

Sleeping Beauty

Crank 2: High Voltage

Sex Drive

*1.00 Gold* - Gamer
*1.00 Gold* - King Kong (2005)
*1.25 Gold* – Domino


Sony Bravia 40”

1080p

6.5’


When compiling this list, I went back and sampled each title that I have access to in order to make sure my thoughts hadn’t changed in comparison to titles that were watched subsequently. There were a handful of Netflix rentals that I couldn’t re-sample, but I don't think it would have affected the rankings probably at all, or least not significantly. For the most part, my opinions didn’t really change much, if at all with one exception, Man on Fire. I had originally thought it would fall somewhere in the gold range, but after a second sampling, I definitely had a better impression of it. It was one of the first blu rays I had watched, and comparing it to so many other live action movies I’ve seen since, feel that it is deserving of a Tier Blu ranking.


Something to keep in mind (especially for me) is that these are ranking the best of the best titles, so sometimes we’re talking about very subtle differences.


Sure there is a difference between the top and bottom of the list, but say in comparing say Ratatouille and Cars, we are talking about personal preference I think because they are both so close and so close to perfection.


For me, there is a line between the top 10 and the rest. If I were specifically wanting to show off my system, I would choose one of the top 10 titles, depending on who I was showing it too. I ranked Up at #11, which is an absolutely fantastic PQ title, but just slight below where it’s currently ranked. For me, it just didn’t quite have some of the WOW factor that the top 10 had, but is still close to perfect…just a tic below. For the top 10, I really say they are all in the perfect category…they just have that extra WOW factor for me. Up, and the titles below, are very impressive, but just a little less so.


I’m keeping Toy Story 3 ranked #1. It was one of the first blu rays I watched and no title has impressed me more. That said, I would rank Legend of the Guardians and A Bug’s Life an extremely close second and third. I watched A Bug's life a couple weeks ago and it WOWed me like I hadn't been since Toy Story 3. Tonight I got Legend of the Guardians from Netflix and even with very high expectations, was WOW'd. Anyone who wants to rank it above Toy Story 3 is welcome in my book. It's definitely a masterpiece of PQ. The detail on the Owls is amazing, The surroundings are also extremely detailed. If there was even the slightest less than perfect bit, I did notice a couple times that the background in flying scenes looked slightly flat...though most of the time it was extremely detailed as well.


My #4 is The Thin Red Line. Talk about WOW. In my opinion, no other live action blu ray I’ve seen can touch it. It will be my live action demo title for sure. I’m not quite sure why this title is so much better than others, but I would sure love to see more titles released at, or even close to, this level.


#5, Avatar (Extended). You may have seen my earlier question/comments about the difference between the extended and non-extended. I had the bare bones blu ray set before I got my HD system and it’s what I used to test the system as I was setting it up. It blew me away for sure. I had recently watched it on DVD, so put it back on the shelf to watch fully later. Meanwhile I got the extended version when it came out and gave away my bare bones edition. I hadn’t even thought about the fact that the PQ might be different on the different versions and I got concerned when new Tier list came out and the extended version was ranked so much lower. There was some discussion and discovery about why it was ranked that way. I wish I had the two version to compare, but my hope is that the PQ isn’t significantly less on the extended version and it is amazing.


Titles 6-10 (A Christmas Carol, Ratatouille, Cars, Monsters Inc, Despicable Me) round out the rest of my absolute perfect rankings. Anyone could argue their rankings among each other and I wouldn’t quibble a bit. For me, I figure it’s just my personal preference and mileage could vary as these titles are basically perfect, but this is the way I order them.


Since I’m ranking nearly 40 titles at once, I’m just going to say…the rest of the titles that I rank in the Blu Tier, certainly seem to belong. They are all

great, but maybe just a little something here or there that keeps them from being at the Top 10 level.


There are two titles I rank below the Blu Tier (down to the gold). They are both great live action PQ titles, but just not quite worthy of the Blu Tier in my opinion. They are both fantastic and I it doesn’t bother me that they are there, but just calling it like I see it and they didn’t WOW me.


I apologize if this mass ranking is frowned upon, I just felt like it was the only way I could be accurate to rank these top titles, was to watch as many as

possible to ensure that they were being accurately placed where they should be in reference to the other titles. From now on, I will submit any new additions in the standard review format.


I have added the majority of the remaining tier blu titles to my Netflix queue to watch when I get the chance. I don’t really have much interest in the

Tinkerbell movies, but who knows, maybe if I get through all the rest, I might feel compelled to rent them haha. And the imports will be hard to come by.

Watchmen (UK) would be the one I’d be most tempted to buy, but I have the deluxe DVD set, so if I do, it’ll probably be somewhere down the line a bit.


I welcome comments, constructive criticism, and don't even mind being ignored. I do feel like I've gotten a good feel for where to rank these best of the best titles, mostly just by comparing them to each other. I'll probably have to work a bit more to tune in on the rankings in the lower tiers. Can't blame me for wanting to start by focusing on the best. I have watched many other titles that run the whole gamut, but haven't really taken the time to really compare the titles I've seen in the lower rankings nearly as much. I have paid a little more attention to the Gold range and Silver a bit, but not the Copper and Coal so much.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Very interesting work and analysis, sbpyrat. That is a fresh approach here to the problem of grading Blu-rays into one list, comparing many within a very short time span. When a big list like that is presented with thoughtful reasoning like yours is, go right ahead and make it as large as desired. Domino is an interesting selection to single out and move down a notch. I have not seen it in a long time, but its current placement could be too high.


----------



## deltasun

Quote:

Originally Posted by *lgans316* 
deltasun,


So, according to you, both Memento and Insomnia looks better than the Inception? Looks like Lionsgate have screwed up the Black and White scenes.
_Memento_'s color segments were a bit over-saturated, but everything else about it (particularly details) excelled - Tier 1.0 / Bottom 0. The B&W segments were a bit more wild, more so towards the 3/4 mark. I had to average it out to 1.75. Incidentally, I voted _Inception_ into 1.75 and I had to take a peek to see where it ended up, which is 2.0. I would call them even and if someone suggests I should move _Memento_ down a quarter Tier for that reason, I wouldn't be too opposed. I do respect that we should be comparing to where titles ended up and not necessarily where we voted them. Sometimes - easier said than done. Either way, _Inception_ was very inconsistent.

_Insomnia_, on the other hand, is a different animal. It's beautifully filmic with gorgeous cinematography. It has a more natural look as well, despite the muted color palette. It edges either title for its consistency.


Of course, just my opinion.


----------



## deltasun

*Revanche*


This is another gorgeously filmic title with a healthy, unobtrusive grain structure. The picture is more on the cold side, which perfectly complements the mood of the film. Colors still remain natural and details, particularly around the farm, are just spectacular. Facial details are excellent as well, but hover between mid to low Gold. Blacks are inky with ease and contrast is well-balanced, save for a few scenes where the picture is washed out.


Skin tones are spot on and dimensionality is breath-taking during panoramas. Shadow details are still top notch, but definitely wanes a bit in a handful of scenes.


Finally, I didn't detect any foul play and would only report minor, minor banding. Criterion did a masterful job.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.50*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## sbpyrat

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* 
Very interesting work and analysis, sbpyrat. That is a fresh approach here to the problem of grading Blu-rays into one list, comparing many within a very short time span. When a big list like that is presented with thoughtful reasoning like yours is, go right ahead and make it as large as desired. Domino is an interesting selection to single out and move down a notch. I have not seen it in a long time, but its current placement could be too high.
Thanks, I was hoping it would be okay. It seemed like a logical way to approach the task. And doable since I was watching so many of the top titles in a short time frame. I started compiling the list a little bit ago, but was holding off til I saw a few more titles (needed to watch Thin Red Line and wanted to get Legend of the Guardians which I just go from Netflix today). I have three more blu tiers coming in the mail soon (Wall-E, Toy Story 2, Bolt). I was thinking I would hold off til I got them, but decided to pull the trigger after watching Legend of the Guardians tonight. I can plug the others in after I watch them.


I watched Domino around Christmas and just watched some bits of it this weekend. While a quality title for sure, just not quite blu tier in my opinion.


It's interesting that there aren't more live action movies that are at the blu tier level. It's not surprising the animated/CGI movies can really shine. But when you see titles like Thin Red Line especially and others like Live Free and Die hard, it makes me want more. I'm not surprised that they don't remaster a ton of older movies, especially if they aren't the classics. But you'd think some of the newer movies might be a bit higher quality to get to that the higher level. There are a lot in the gold range that are really great though.


----------



## deltasun

*Faster*


I was just going to quote Denny above since we saw a lot of this similarly. However, while the facials details on ultra close-up's are some of the best I've seen as well, medium shots are very inconsistently soft early on. Contrast is pumped up and the color-of-the-scene choices dominate said scenes - be it greenish, yellowish, bluish. These wreak havoc on skin tones quite a bit. Some of the fast action with mixed lighting and subpar shadow details hurt those segments also.


I do recognize the beautiful filming and vantage points considered. Some of the overhead driving scenes really accentuate their 3D capabilities in 2D. Finally, blacks are inconsistent and crushed in a few scenes though they seemed generally strong.


I will differ by a half tier...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## sbpyrat

*Faster*


I don't disagree with the previous reviewers. For me this movie really shines in the closeups...and I really enjoyed the driving scenes. I'm a sucker for muscle cars and the Chevelle looked awfully good in HD. Some of the wider scenery shots and some others were less impressive though. A quality title, that seems to fit well in the gold tier.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.50**


Sony Bravia 40"

1080p

6.5'


----------



## audiomagnate

*Takers*


Lots of golden tones here, beautiful sets, costumes etc, but quite possibly the worst movie I've ever seen. I hate to say it it but it looked really good. My 16 year old son picked this out after I took him to "True Grit." His review of "True Grit": "Good movie but not enough action." Lots of pretty good eye candy for the brain dead here. Interior shots look good, LA helicopter shots have tons of detail, but DO NOT rent or buy this movie. It's horrible.

*2.0**


----------



## djoberg

Quote:

Originally Posted by *deltasun* 
*Faster*

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_
Quote:

Originally Posted by *sbpyrat* 
*Faster*

*Tier Recommendation: 1.50**


Sony Bravia 40"

1080p

6.5'
Upon further reflection (after reading the reviews of deltasun and sbpyrat) I have decided I would be more than willing to change my placement recommendation to.....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.50**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Faster*


I'm going to disagree with everyone here and bump this thing up a few notches. Aside from two shots that appear soft, the detail is far too great to knock this out of the top tier. I was floored almost every second of this thing. Everything is fully resolved, and the black levels are superior. I have almost no complaints other than yes, the flesh tones are kicked up warmly.

*Tier .75*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^


In view of GRG's recommendation I would like to change my rating to.....


JUST KIDDING FOLKS!










I DO feel comfortable with my last rating of 1.5 due to the hot contrast in a few scenes, the inaccurate flesh tones, and the inconsistent blacks. If it weren't for those issues this would definitely be a Tier Blu contender!


----------



## djoberg

*127 Hours*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/20082229
> 
> *127 Hours*
> 
> Shot digitally, this one is all over the place. Some nice color saturation, contrast, and black levels. Detail is here and there, as is some noise. SD footage is spliced in, including some VHS stuff in flashbacks. Nice color.
> 
> *Tier 3.75**



I will agree with GRG that "this one is all over the place," for there were several cameras used (including footage from VHS) and it was quite the "back and forth" with those cameras. Having said that, a good portion of the film was simply excellent, especially the many panoramic views of Utah's landscapes. These shots were reference quality, revealing every texture of hills, rocks, shrubs, etc. The deep blue sky was also very pleasing to the eye and there was a scene of an underground pool that looked like the turquoise blue water of the Caribbean (check it out G3







)....EYE CANDY, to be sure!


Close-ups of James Franco's face were top-notch and the scene towards the very end where he resorts to desperate measures to save his life looks all too real in HD.


Contrast was strong....flesh tones were accurate....colors were good....and black levels/shadow details were more than acceptable.


The "bad" consisted of shots from old footage and *some* taken inside the canyon (i.e., crevice) on Franco's HD cam. Most of these shots were very soft, flat, and lacked detail. If it weren't for these I believe this title would find itself in the top tier. I don't know exactly how much of the running time had these *inferior* shots but I'm guessing it was a good 15-20 minutes out of the 90 minute total, so I'm going to dock it at least a whole tier and cast my vote for.....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25* or 2.5**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## deltasun

*Never Let Me Go*


This is probably the third time I've written this in the last few reviews, but this is a gorgeous and filmic presentation. The cinematography is just incredible. Details jump off the screen in a number of scenes. Colors are natural despite the drab palette and yellowish/greenish tinge in select scenes.


Contrast to me is a bit weak, particularly in the second act. Blacks can vary, but they are mostly adequate. Facial details do not come through as well as upper-tiered titles. Skin tones are more on the sullen side. Finally, dimensionality is not as deep as can be. There are some panoramic scenes that exhibited superb depth - the scene at the beach is one. Just breath taking!


This is the kind of film that could have just taken off right into Tier Blu, but fell flat. It just didn't have that oomph in picture quality, that _wow_ factor.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## tcramer

*Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole*


As others have stated, this is a tremendous looking film. The detail is excellent throughout and the owls look incredibly real. Some scenes you almost have to ask yourself, is this real footage? The owls are essentially perfect in every scene and for the vast majority of the film, the background detail is phenomenal. Black levels and contrast are excellent throughout, and again, the fine detail is spectacular.


However, there are occasional instances where the background just doesn't offer very much. 90% of this film also has a dark color palate, and a few instances show very minor banding. That is it on the negative side, and it may be nitpicking, but nonetheless the issues exist.

_Legend of the Guardians_ is very impressive to me, but I honestly believe that for those who don't know much about what makes good PQ, they would prefer _Toy Story 3_ for the vividness of the picture. I'm split between the two, but for that reason, I am going to keep _Toy Story 3_ in 1st, and recommend _Legend of the Guardians_ as the runner up.

*Tier Recommendation: #2 Overall, below Toy Story 3*


PS3 to Kuro 5020fd - Distance of 6'.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Love and Other Drugs*


Did you know that every doctor's office is painted teal to contrast pasty orange flesh tones? No, I didn't either. Going to go the opposite way of DJ again, but in the other direction. There are a few grain spikes, and Hathaway seems to have been shot with a slight filter. None of her shots show much of any fine detail. Most of it comes from Gyllenhaal. Nice blacks and contrast.
*Tier 2.0**


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tcramer* /forum/post/20090328
> 
> *Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole*
> 
> 
> As others have stated, this is a tremendous looking film. The detail is excellent throughout and the owls look incredibly real. Some scenes you almost have to ask yourself, is this real footage? The owls are essentially perfect in every scene and for the vast majority of the film, the background detail is phenomenal. Black levels and contrast are excellent throughout, and again, the fine detail is spectacular.
> 
> 
> However, there are occasional instances where the background just doesn't offer very much. 90% of this film also has a dark color palate, and a few instances show very minor banding. That is it on the negative side, and it may be nitpicking, but nonetheless the issues exist.
> 
> _Legend of the Guardians_ is very impressive to me, but I honestly believe that for those who don't know much about what makes good PQ, they would prefer _Toy Story 3_ for the vividness of the picture. I'm split between the two, but for that reason, I am going to keep _Toy Story 3_ in 1st, and recommend _Legend of the Guardians_ as the runner up.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: #2 Overall, below Toy Story 3*
> 
> 
> PS3 to Kuro 5020fd - Distance of 6'.



Good review tcramer!


I do agree with your assessment regarding _Toy Story 3_ vs. _Legend of the Guardians_; I have said as much in previous posts. I still chose to give LOTG the top spot because IMO it has more to offer than TS3 (with its phenomenal photorealism and unrivaled details), even though a majority of viewers are going to give the nod to TS3 based on how vivid (because of the awesome colors) it looked.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Walking Dead Season 1*


16mm shoot with varying detail, but generally superb in close. Grain structure is all over the place. Black levels are great and color is typically elevated naturally. Some obvious edge enhancement in the first episode that dissipates in later episodes.
*Tier 3.25**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Blood: The Last Vampire (animated)


recommendation: Tier 3.25, Tier 2.75**


An animated feature produced in 2000 that served as the inspiration for the later live-action movie from Sony, _Blood: The Last Vampire_ was released in an unusual configuration on Blu-ray. Starz chose to include a version from the new scanned telecine master, while also including a version taken directly from the digital animation. That produces two different video encodes of ostensibly the same movie, one from the celluloid output that hit theaters and one as raw and pure as the original digital animation. The result is an interesting, if not unexpected, outcome where the direct digital version slightly surpasses the look of film. The differences are not staggering and without reference to the digital-only version, one would be pressed to criticize the telecine version.


A modest level of concentric banding, particularly around the light effects, is the main negative factor to the image. It appears endemic to the embryonic animation process of digital ink & paint used to produce the film, where digital tools are employed to emulate traditional hand-drawn animation. Both versions show the flaw on occasion in the exact same spots. The AVC-video-encode shows little trouble, outside of one instance where definite chroma noise bleeds into the frame in the final confrontation with the monster. Even the film version looks sourced from an immaculate print, displaying zero evidence of age or wear.


The color palette looks toned down to a degree, especially on the telecine version. Darker hues are favored and no color really pops off the screen. One noticeable scene is set in a Halloween dance, but the orange looks dull and flat on the pumpkins. A small, but perceptible, increase in clarity and vividness is obvious on the purely digital version. Another consideration keeping the score relatively low is the animation itself, which looked good for a digital production ten years ago, but looks somewhat obsolete now.


For this title, I have decided on two scores, to reflect the differing transfers.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...7#post17665417


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Law Abiding Citizen


recommendation: Tier 1.5*


About a year late on this review's timeliness, but better late than never as they say. A strong, visceral image consistently marred by one bad flaw. That problem is severe ringing that runs rampant at times and proves an eye-sore in some scenes. Too bad, because everything else looks in very fine shape, from top-notch dimensionality and depth, to the extreme detail evident in the tighter shots. A higher ranking could have been justified if not for the amount of sharpening applied to the transfer.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Stephen Dawson, technically the AU import but numbers look identical to US release):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1#post18793121


----------



## djoberg

^^^^


We're on the same page Phantom, for I gave it a 1.5 too (but unlike you, I wasn't even considering the case of "severe ringing"....for as you know, I rarely see that anomaly).


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/20099992
> 
> 
> ^^^^
> 
> 
> We're on the same page Phantom, for I gave it a 1.5 too (but unlike you, I wasn't even considering the case of "severe ringing"....for as you know, I rarely see that anomaly).



Great minds do think alike, Denny.


----------



## sbpyrat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/20081828
> 
> *Bambi
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 1.25**
> 
> 
> Another classic from Disney gets treated to a stupendous restoration and transfer. The image probably looks cleaner and more radiant now, than upon its release in 1942. I would brook no argument if others wanted it placed in Tier Zero. Consider this recommendation more a starting point for discussion on the merits of _Bambi_ than the final word. The animation has aged remarkably well, better than _Snow White_ or _Pinocchio_.
> 
> 
> Watching on a 60 Pioneer KURO plasma at 1080p/24, played on a 160 GB slim PS3 (firmware 3.55), from a viewing distance of 6 feet.


*Bambi*


I finally got around to watching it and am in agreement. It looks really fantastic for a 1942 film...very crisp and clean. I'm placing just a hair below the blu tier. It's close, but I think just falls short. I popped Sleeping Beauty in for comparison and it's just not quite at that level. But it looks great and I am very pleased.

*Recommendation: Tier 1.00**


----------



## deltasun

*Fish Tank*


Even with its 1.33:1 aspect ratio, characters and objects readily leap off the screen. Clarity and definition are simply AMAZING! Then there are the colors. The colors are something else! Rich, vivid, and vibrant without looking unnatural. Objects in focus are just brimming with texture. I say "in focus" because the style employed by the director uses a lot of shallow, often-changing depths of field. More on this later.


Contrast is perfectly balanced throughout. Dimensionality is palpable and very well represented. Skin tones are faithful and natural. Blacks are very good, through there are instances where they are not as deep, particularly in mixed lighting.


I have two minor gripes. First, low-light scenes do suffer a slight bit with noise (one scene) and lack of depth. Second, there are "action" scenes where the camera is a tad shaky and the director employs a technique whereby focus is continuously shifting amongst the screen elements. This can be a bit disconcerting.


Aside from those, just an excellent film-like presentation throughout. There's shimmering on Mia's cross-hatched shirt and a slight bit of ringing. My 2 gripes above lower the score a bit...

*Tier Recommendation: Tier Blu* (bottom third)***


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/20100179
> 
> 
> Great minds do think alike, Denny.













Or, how about....Great eyes see alike, especially when viewing a great display (i.e., KURO).


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*SWAT Firefight*

Cheap direct-to-video fodder. Some SD footage is sprinkled in, but it's _mostly_ clear. A great opening aerial of LA, but it never reaches that level again. Somewhat bland, the fine detail isn't always there. Color is flat and black levels can waver.
*Tier 3.25*


----------



## rusky_g

*Faster*


Hey guys, just enjoying my 2nd from last can of beer as I sit here to write this review.


I only enjoy watching things that look good on my Projector - my heart sinks when I watch something bad on it, resulting in the need to pop in a copy of Avatar/TS3/TTRL to restore faith in my set-up and remind me that all is well again










So, prompted by the positive reviews of Faster, I settled down tonight and gave this a whirl. Overall I was impressed. Bits of the film reminded me of Gone in 60 Seconds [the Nic Cage version], as it sports a similar washed out colour / high contrast look which lends lends itself well to the film's 'gritty' feel.


As others have said, there are some really good close up shots and in places the blacks looked nice and inky in lots of the night time shots. Although not too bad, I did feel that the PQ dipped on longer range shots and I have yet to see *any* film which can pull off office/interior shots well (maybe it's because the walls are always flat colours with little scope for texture in the frame?).


I quite enjoyed the plot too, so all round it was an evening well spent. Agreed with DJ with a placement of....

*Tier ranking: 1.25*


----------



## b_scott

someone more discerning than myself show rent "Get Low" - it has a very crisp and vibrant, yet natural picture. Also super inky blacks.


----------



## djoberg

Quote:

Originally Posted by *b_scott* 
someone more discerning than myself show rent "Get Low" - it has a very crisp and vibrant, yet natural picture. Also super inky blacks.
Thanks for the heads up on this b_scott (btw, it's good to see a post from you on this thread; it's been a long time).


I'll have to try and rent this. Here's what some are saying about it:

http://www.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray/m...240&locale=all


----------



## audiomagnate

I am so bummed. Right after watching "The Thin Red Line" with my son, a thin green line appeared on the left side of my Panny 54 inch plasma. Pretty ironic, huh? I got a text from Amazon today saying my replacement, a TC-P54G25 won't get here till the 15th! Life in 32 inch 720P land is NO FUN!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Monsters Vs. Aliens


recommendation: middle of 0, above Sin City*


Dreamworks Animation serves up a pleasing CGI-fest that does not do enough visually to garner a higher placement against the best of the best. Technical problems are strictly limited to the minor shimmering and aliasing on a few horizontal edges, in all other ways the image is flawless. In the end, one can't help but hold it up against the best of the Pixar films, and in that regard the quality of the animation and picture are a step below. _Monsters Vs. Aliens_ is still an incredible demo choice with the usual characteristics inherent to theatrical CGI.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...0#post17283470


----------



## deltasun

*Buried*


Not much to talk about here - as GRG said, it's a guy in a box for 90 minutes. Blacks aren't even really black. The only real positive would be the details in close-up's...at the points of focus, of course. Otherwise, not much else. Oh, some banding is noted.

*Tier Recommendation: 4.0*


----------



## deltasun

*Days of Heaven*


Beautiful cinematography. However, that's about as good as it gets. Facial details are almost absent - there are a handful that may enter Tier Gold. Grain can be very heavy at times, marring the picture a bit. Skin tones take on a reddish tinge. Depth is decent in panoramas, but turns flat and almost detail-less in low light scenes.


Again, there some really well-rendered details - check out the close-up of the locusts or the fibres on Sam Shepard's coat. Overall though, it's fairly soft. There is also a substantial amount of ringing throughout.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.50*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## rusky_g




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/20103653
> 
> 
> someone more discerning than myself show rent "Get Low" - it has a very crisp and vibrant, yet natural picture. Also super inky blacks.



Yep, to quote Bluray.com 'Get Low will dazzle with its natural, film-like detailing'


They gave it 5 stars for PQ


----------



## lgans316

*The Runaways (Germany - AVC)*


As per imdb, this one was shot on 16-mm but it didn't look that bad as outdoor scenes look very nice and colors are well saturated. Film Grain is well preserved. However, the definition seem to lack in general due to the filming format.


Thought this movie was very crude and raw in its screenplay and doesn't have any replay value unless you are a teen obsessed about Rock N Roll and Drugs. I am not sure how the producers allowed 16 year old Dakota Fanning to be cast this way.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Burlesque*


A mess of filters, soft lighting, and gaudy colors in only four different shades. No fine detail to speak of. It's so fuzzy, the grain structure isn't even noticeable. Black levels are fine at least. Contrast blows out everything when it's allowed to breathe.

*Tier 4.25*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World


recommendation: Tier 2.5*


Wildly inventive cinematography, it really plays with the format of a film for the videogame generation. I imagine the raw, ungraded footage looked superb but much has been done in post to achieve a consistent look and to integrate the superimposed graphics and effects. Good shadow detail that comes very close to being crushed in a handful of spots, a few scenes do show flashes of brilliance. A comedy that stays far away from orange-tinted fleshtones, the picture leans blue if anything.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post19537605


----------



## deltasun

*The Man from Nowhere*


Under clear, bright sunlight and well-lit interior scenes, the picture is just amazing - perfectly strong contrast, excellent delineation, and visually appealing dimensionality. Outdoors, it's almost endless depth. However, some issues do creep in during the numerous ultra dark scenes in the beginning, inside the pawnshop. Some blocking are apparent in the darkest of scenes, particularly CHA's and So-Mi's faces.


Blacks are strong and offer really good details, though some minor crushing do occur. Colors outdoors are natural and vibrant. However, they're dictated by the chosen hue indoors - a mostly bluish cast. Skin tones do turn yellowish at times and can look too smooth. Facial details are inconsistent - again, smooth towards the beginning but turning high Tier 1 in daytime and well-lit interiors.


All in all, very hard to find a middle ground. Some of the ultra dark scenes, as mentioned, are very 1-dimensional and problematic. But when the planets line up, this is up there with the best of them. There is also major banding during fade out in the end.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75**

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Next Three Days*


Not bad. Not bad at all. Nice, crisp image quality aided by bright contrast and stable blacks. Brief moments of focal softness. Grain is well resolved and clean. Colors are natural with minor saturation.
*Tier 1.50**


----------



## djoberg

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* 
*The Next Three Days*


Not bad. Not bad at all. Nice, crisp image quality aided by bright contrast and stable blacks. Brief moments of focal softness. Grain is well resolved and clean. Colors are natural with minor saturation.
*Tier 1.50**
Good to hear GRG...I just picked this up at the video store and I'll be watching it later tonight.


----------



## deltasun

^^ Should be arriving from Netflix today. Hopefully, it's good!


----------



## djoberg

*The Next Three Days*


I'm quite tired so I'm going to make this short. I agree with GRG regarding the crisp image, bright contrast, and stable blacks. I might add that the colors were natural and vibrant, details were very good, and there was appreciable depth in several scenes (check out the two scenes at the playground which highlighted these virtues).


My only gripe would be with a couple of nighttime scenes (especially those where drug deals were taking place) which came across as flat and with less-than-stellar blacks. Add to that the few soft shots that GRG mentioned and I am forced to go a notch lower than my colleague....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/20120759
> 
> *The Next Three Days*
> 
> 
> I'm quite tired so I'm going to make this short. I agree with GRG regarding the crisp image, bright contrast, and stable blacks. I might add that the colors were natural and vibrant, details were very good, and there was appreciable depth in several scenes (check out the two scenes at the playground which highlighted these virtues).
> 
> 
> My only gripe would be with a couple of nighttime scenes (especially those where drug deals were taking place) which came across as flat and with less-than-stellar blacks. Add to that the few soft shots that GRG mentioned and I am forced to go a notch lower than my colleague....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75**
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'



Have to agree with Denny on this one. My main gripes are definitely the less than stellar low-light scenes. There's even really bad macro blocking in the first scene where Crowe tucks his son in - off to the right. The other gripe would be the arbitrary softness that really picked up towards the end, specially with Crowe in the Chevy.


Aside from those, there is a really good stretch where PQ is simply consistently good. I just don't get the low-light issues.


I have to admit I did get so engrossed in the last 45-50 minutes with the flurry of activities that I lost track of the PQ. Had to go back and rewatch.







I know this movie didn't get good reviews, but I felt the slow start was made up for by the exhilarating ending.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/20104334
> 
> *Buried*
> 
> 
> Not much to talk about here - as GRG said, it's a guy in a box for 90 minutes. Blacks aren't even really black. The only real positive would be the details in close-up's...at the points of focus, of course. Otherwise, not much else. Oh, some banding is noted.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 4.0*



Yeah I agree this looked awful, even on my Kuro. When it was pitch black, the whole screen was grey.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Sharktopus!!!!!!!*


IT'S HERE! THE SINGLE GREATEST BLU-RAY IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND!


(90-minutes later)


Okay, that was ass. May have overreacted a tad. Seems they shot this thing with whatever they had lying around. There's some digital, some film, and some 16mm. It's pretty much a travesty no matter what anyway. Tons of noise, poorly resolved grain, banding during general effects, and detail is routinely pretty poor. Colors are bright at least. That counts for something.

*Tier 4.0**


----------



## deltasun

^^ Oh this is a real movie? I thought it was one of those NatGeo specials. Does it have special powers?


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/20122429
> 
> 
> ^^ Oh this is a real movie? I thought it was one of those NatGeo specials. Does it have special powers?



It is very real. And other than the fact that it can walk on land despite being the blending of two sea creatures, it's a pretty normal Sharktopus.
*Jackass 3*


Shot on a variety of digital formats, from security cameras to the Red One. It's a wide range of content. Not much striking detail, but it rarely looks awful. Color is stern and strong. Some noise, haloing, softness, etc. sprinkled throughout. Nice contrast.

*Tier 3.75*


----------



## deltasun

*The Magician*


Filmed in black & white and in 1.33:1 format, this film offers stunning clarity in close-up's and medium shots. Cakey make-up, fine facial hair, and pores are readily viewable for close scrutiny. Blacks are deep, but some low-light scenes do appear more on the brownish side. Contrast is a bit hot - almost as if there are heat lamps directly on the actors. In some scenes these do reduce fine details.


The print is pretty immaculate, with just one scene with specks (damage) and a hair. Dimensionality is a bit mediocre, specially in the chosen aspect ratio. I also detected a bit of ringing in the beginning and a few minor ones towards the end. All in all, a very impressive presentation from 1958.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Bambi*


Yep, perfect. I truly have no idea how Disney manages to remove the grain from the frame and suffer no ill effects. Lines are sharp, brush strokes are clearly defined, color is outstanding, and black levels are perfect. Just like everything else Disney has done for their classic animation, this deserves all of the cred in the world.

*Tier 0.75*


----------



## djoberg

*Morning Glory*


This one was a "mixed bag," but fortunately the PQ was good-excellent in many scenes. If it were not for the EYE CANDY, I most surely would have hit the stop button early on, for the movie itself was horrendous!


Let me get the BAD out of the way first. Some scenes were a bit drab, with either muted colors or the dreaded "golden hue" playing a part in this. Flesh tones were also off at times. Facial details, though quite good in some scenes, only averaged Tier 2 quality.


Now for the GOOD. Details, depth, and clarity were simply astounding at times. There were several scenes with McAdams and Ford which I paused to take these virtues in (especially outdoor shots, with the scene at the Governor's country home taking first prize). Check out the scene towards the end when McAdams is being interviewed for the Today Show....not only did this scene highlight the aforementioned pluses, but the colors and contrast were also SUPERB.


If not for the *drab* scenes, sporadic shots with reddish flesh tones, and the lack of detail in many facial shots, I would be tempted to recommend this for low Tier 0. But I feel the negatives bring this down almost a whole tier so my vote goes for....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75* or 2.0**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## deltasun

*Bigger Than Life*


Colors are well-saturated, giving skin tones a bold look. Detail is abundant for the most part, with some bouts of softness appearing in certain close-up's and medium shots. There are also instances where facial details seem to behave oddly, possibly the result of the slight DNR used in Criterion's process. These are few and pure speculation. Facial details do appear to "break up" in these instances.


Lighting does get tricky in some key scenes, sometimes bathing the characters in darkness unexpectedly (or intentionally). Contrast is rich and blacks reasonably deep, with some minor crushing. Dimensionality is above average. The football scene in their yard shows a bit more depth, but still compresses the surroundings. Finally, there remains a fine layer of grain throughout, helping give a film-like appearance.


Overall, an excellent presentation of a 1956 title.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.50**

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Robe


recommendation: Tier 3.25*
*
_The Robe_ is an important piece of cinematic history as the first film shown in widescreen, created in the CinemaScope process. 20th Century Fox released the 133-minute movie to Blu-ray nearly two years ago, on March 17, 2009. A major restoration was performed on the movie's existing elements by Lowry Digital, of which this disc is the result. Martin Scorsese, who makes a small introduction prior to the movie, is rumored to have made a substantial contribution to see the movie restored to its full glory. The AVC video encode averages 21.69 Mbps for the main feature, spread out over a BD-50. Given prior editions, the leap in picture quality is amazing to view. Under the auspices of the criteria for the Tiers, certain deficiencies do reveal the age and limitations of a film that first premiered in 1953.


The single-strip Technicolor movie shows only scant evidence of damage to the film. Lowry Digital really worked their magic, producing an image that looks remarkably free of speckles or other age-related debris. Digital cleanup and a touch of processing had to have been extensively used to achieve a result as clear and pristine as the original elements would allow. Without reference to an original print, I can't say how altered the grain structure is on this BD. Bearing that in mind, a deft handling of the employed filtering has left no remnants of common problems, such as smeared or swarming grain. The compression shows no overt problems, though one wonders if the tiniest amount of extra detail was removed from the newly-restored master by a video encode that is curiously low for a disc from Fox.


High-frequency detail is left intact when the camera allows it. Few scenes are sharp as a tack, though several, such as when Marcellus first meets Peter, are just extraordinary in their definition. Select instances do possess a modicum of sharpening, though most of it looks optical in nature, a product of the filming.


The placement in Tier 3.25 reflects the wide disparity between the best and worst scenes. A few scenes could be put into Tier 1, like the sham trial that Caligula holds for Marcellus. The resplendent colors of the gaudy robes in that scene are almost jarring they are so vibrant, while the new concept at the time of widescreen cinematography allows an enormous amount of bystanders to be shown in full detail. The image does soften at times, or lose resolution, when optical processes of the time are used for various purposes. Painted backgrounds are painfully obvious at 1080p, transitions between scenes show the added generations of film needed, and minor registration errors in color pop up on a handful of occasions.

_The Robe_ is a worthy Biblical epic that received the restoration it deserved. While probably not eye candy in any real sense, true fans of cinema will find the Blu-ray a rewarding and rich experience that holds its own in Tier 3.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Phloyd):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...6#post16096336


----------



## zoey67




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/20108514
> 
> *Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 2.5*



Hey Stranger, try not to take this the wrong way and Im not trying to make new enemies here or anything but did you watch this with VHS tape on a oldie but goodie 19" RCA 4:3 tv set?










I just got done with SPvTW today on BD master copy on my 100" Elite spectrum series, epson 1080UB ISF by Avical with Denon BDP-2010 and the PQ was no higher Tier 1.25...prob more like Tier 1.00 if anything. In fact this was one the best BD I've seen so far in 2011.


----------



## zoey67




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/20083567
> 
> 
> zoey67,
> 
> I thought Incredibles had one of the most bland color palette amongst the Pixar titles.



Are you really serious...bland color palette among pixar titles?









Ok, well either you have a valid point or Im color blind. It's been a while but the memory of the robust reds, blacks on their costumes and yellows were about as rich and deep as I've seen on any animation film.


Tell you what, let's do this the democratic way. I'll give you $5 for every person that agrees with you that The Incredibles had bland color palette. Anyone else agree with lgans?


----------



## rusky_g

Couple of forthcoming titles that I'm looking forward to seeing reviews of are Tron Legacy and Gullivers Travels....trailers for both looked good on my projector


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Morning Glory*


This one looks a little too filtered and even a hair sharpened. There's some minimal ringing and a couple of exteriors are muddy. Finely textured suits flicker in motion. There is a little bit of fine detail, but it's here and there. It has no consistency. The final interview has been clearly wiped smooth for effect. Nice color at times though and the black levels are acceptable.

*Tier 2.25*


----------



## deltasun

*Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind*


Compared to today's PIXAR animation, this is a crude presentation. The style doesn't offer clean lines or strong dimensionality. Colors do pop in certain well-"lit" scenes, but is generally more subdued and earthy. Blacks aren't on par with the best, but still fall above average.


Film grain is intact, though shows up more prominently in some scenes. There are hardly any specks or print dirt. All in all, a very good presentation for its intended look. For the purposes of this thread, I would have to place...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19461039
> 
> *Scott Pilgrim vs. The World*
> 
> 
> This one is all over the place, the style varying between scenes. It's inconsistent, from various film stocks to digital shooting all together. It's consistent in black levels at the least, but detail never stays still. When there, it''s quite impressive. Colors are a bit subdued too, the biggest disappointment of them all.
> 
> *Tier 2.75*





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19612443
> 
> *Scott Pilgrim vs. the World*
> 
> 
> Probably the single best feature of this film is its black levels. It never really wavered. Facial details were inconsistent, but were upper Tier 1 decent for the most part. This isn't a film that will impress PQ-wise, specially with its nondescript, muted color palette. When colors did appear though (in the form of Ramona's ever-changing hair color), they were vivid and natural.
> 
> 
> Skin tones went with the muted look. Dimensionality looked good at times, but would flatten out in some of the action scenes, especially near the end. I found the special effects to be really well-done and complemented the vibe of the movie.
> 
> 
> Overall, a palatable fare.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.25*
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/19644698
> 
> *Scott Pilgrim vs. the World - Tier 2.5*
> 
> 
> Another visually pleasing title without any exceptional qualities.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/19709783
> 
> *Scott Pilgrim Vs. the World*
> 
> *Tier 2.5*





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/20108514
> 
> *Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 2.5*
> 
> 
> Wildly inventive cinematography, it really plays with the format of a film for the videogame generation. I imagine the raw, ungraded footage looked superb but much has been done in post to achieve a consistent look and to integrate the superimposed graphics and effects. Good shadow detail that comes very close to being crushed in a handful of spots, a few scenes do show flashes of brilliance. A comedy that stays far away from orange-tinted fleshtones, the picture leans blue if anything.
> 
> 
> BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post19537605





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zoey67* /forum/post/20142314
> 
> 
> Hey Stranger, try not to take this the wrong way and Im not trying to make new enemies here or anything but did you watch this with VHS tape on a oldie but goodie 19" RCA 4:3 tv set?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just got done with SPvTW today on BD master copy on my 100" Elite spectrum series, epson 1080UB ISF by Avical with Denon BDP-2010 and the PQ was no higher Tier 1.25...prob more like Tier 1.00 if anything. In fact this was one the best BD I've seen so far in 2011.



Just give your honest opinion on Scott Pilgrim's placement, if that is what you saw. I take no offense when someone challenges my reviews. Though as you can see above, prior reviews largely saw the same things I noted in the recommendation.


Flashes of genuine brilliance briefly show. The original footage for Scott Pilgrim, before being digitally-processed in postproduction for all of the special effects, was probably very close to Tier 1.0, or even higher. A fun flick, overall resolution and dimensionality to the picture were suspect at times. The highest placement I personally would assign it is Tier 2.25, if pushed to look at its highlights and ignore the problems.


----------



## abintra




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/20142666
> 
> *Morning Glory*



I saw that trailer so many times in the theater as it seemed to be before every movie I saw. The trailer looked quite stunning.


----------



## rusky_g

*Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World


My rating: 2.5*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Paranoiac! (Region-free UK Import)


recommendation: Tier 2.5**


Here is an interesting 1963 film from the Hammer oeuvre that is more psychological thriller than the monster movies that would make their name famous. The 80-minute main feature was released in 2010 by Eureka Entertainment, a British distributor. Fit on a single BD-25, the AVC video encode averages a strong 29.99 Mbps according to the BDInfo information. The black-and-white picture is from a brand-new HD transfer, the packaging claims. I can see why a relatively obscure film was picked for Blu-ray, the condition of the print looks great with an extraordinary level of contrast and shadow detail.


Black levels are superb throughout the movie, though highlights veer towards being blown out in the exterior shots of the mansion. Inky blacks add a dimension to the excellent black-and-white cinematography. The image looks free of any digital noise reduction, with a strong amount of high-frequency information and clarity when the camera allows it. The direction does not favor close-ups, so the best examples are in the clear shots where the individual strands of hair can be delineated for each person. There are no compression artifacts in the picture, the video encode could easily be called reference-caliber for transparency and faithfulness to the source.


Some scenes do display ringing halos, an indication that sharpening was added to the transfer. Which is strange, as this film hardly looks like it needed help to be any sharper in appearance. The depth of many shots is incredible, as the director plays with angles of light to enhance the moodiness of the atmosphere. As the story revolves around a girl accused of being psychotic, the deep and possibly skewed perspective seem a natural fit.


Outside of the occasional ringing, and a brief shot which shows an unusual pattern of damage to the master, _Paranoiac!_ vastly exceeded my expectations for picture quality. The image was obviously derived from high-quality film elements in wonderful condition, which then had a great transfer to high-definition. While Tier 2.5 is where I would place the disc, one could conceivably go higher.


----------



## rusky_g

*Chronicles of Narnia - Prince Caspian*


The great thing about family adventure films like the Chronicle of Narnia series is that typically they have a wonderfully epic feel which, if done well, can transfer very well to the home cinema experience.


Upon my viewing of Prince Caspian tonight, it occurred to me that the most pleasurable Hi-Def experiences have the ability to transcend me away from the daily duress that life pushes upon on us, off to a warm, visual nirvana. And it's a very nice place to be...


From beginning to end, Prince Caspian delighted my eyes with its stellar presentation. Colours and contrast are beautifully balanced with excellent detail and depth, all complimented with a very fine layer of grain. Not only do the daytime scenes often burst with fantastic dimensionality, the night-time scenes are captured so well with detail which glisten under the sheen of moonlight.


In conclusion, there is nothing I can mark this film down on, and as such it has cemented its well deserved placement in Tier 0.

*Tier 0*


Optoma HD65 @ 11' / 92" screen


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Hereafter*


A generally detailed looking transfer... until it becomes Warner'ed. Aliasing is atrocious, much like it was with Invictus, another Eastwood effort. Black levels are superb, thankfully hiding any additional noise because walls tend to be scattered with poor compression. Great shots of the cities, but those shouldn't the highlight.

*Tier 2.0**


----------



## deltasun

*Black Narcissus*


The facial details on this film easily rivals those found in mid Tier 0. Amazing how a film this old is able to yield such results. Unfortunately, surrounding details are not as crisp - either through equipment limitations or the chosen depth of field. I would surmise the latter. Either way, objects in focus are tack sharp, save for some softer shots that do creep in towards the end. The close-up's of Sister Ruth being the most egregious.


Dimensionality can also be inconsistent at times, but is decent for the most part. Contrast is strong and blacks are deep and bold. The only other negative is the wavering color found throughout the feature. It does wane a bit as the film progresses, but it never really goes away. This is distracting enough that I would drop this from the upper reaches of Tier Gold. Fine grain is present throughout and I did notice some specks towards the end. Some light ringing is evident as well.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Fighter*


Great looking film, but some of it is also shot of tape to better represent the era. Film stuff is highly detailed, mid-range, close-up, whatever. Black levels are superb. Flesh tones veer a little too orange. Grain is well resolved aside from a handful of shots that appear noisy.
*Tier 2.75**


----------



## djoberg

*The Fighter*


I'm going to really go against the flow (GRG and MANY other reviewers are calling this a "great-looking film"), for to _my eyes_ this had *average* PQ, at best.


One word that comes to mind: BLAND! It had a muted color palette the whole way through and many scenes that came across as flat. There was _some_ appreciable detail in close-ups, but detail was lacking in the mid-range and distant shots. Facial details were definitely average, though some shots of Wahlberg fared better.


I would have to disagree with GRG regarding black levels, for IMO they were *okay* in some scenes, very good in others, but far from *superb* in any. Shadow details weren't all that great either in a few of the night scenes.


I will agree with GRG that the "grain was well resolved," but I didn't spot the "shots that appear noisy" that he did.


In fairness, clarity and depth were good at times.


All things considered I can't go any higher than....

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


PS The movie itself was quite good. Christian Bale deserved the Oscar he received for Best Supporting Actor and other roles were commendable as well.


----------



## rusky_g

*The Fighter*


I echo what Dj said and score the same ranking.


A modern day film yet it can be outclassed by peers which were 6-7 years before it's time. A poor show.

*Tier ranking: 3*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

It is disappointing to hear the reports on The Fighter. I still plan to buy it, but the picture quality sounds disappointing for a new release.


Not sure how many saw this thread, now locked, in the forum earlier today on breaking down the Tiers using numerical analysis, by tier and studio.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1322082 


It is all forum member DanLW's work and analysis. Interesting stuff can be found in the results, hopefully it will be posted here in the thread to discuss it more thoroughly.


----------



## deltasun

*Unstoppable*


Your usual Tony Scott fare - oversaturated colors, pumped up contrast, steady blacks, unmistakable details, and constant motion. That cherry red train really comes alive! Still, I was not as impressed by this as _The Taking of Pelham 123_, in terms of facial and general mid-range details. I felt some of the low-light scenes are a bit murky. Skin tones remain faithful despite the greenish tint.


Still, depth is incredible and technical flaws (banding, aliasing) are kept to a minimum.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* 
It is disappointing to hear the reports on The Fighter. I still plan to buy it, but the picture quality sounds disappointing for a new release.


Not sure how many saw this thread, now locked, in the forum earlier today on breaking down the Tiers using numerical analysis, by tier and studio.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1322082 


It is all forum member DanLW's work and analysis. Interesting stuff can be found in the results, hopefully it will be posted here in the thread to discuss it more thoroughly.
There's a $5 off coupon for _The Fighter_, which I really enjoyed in the theatres. I'm a bit surprised by the scores so far, but have not viewed my copy yet.


I did see this threat, which is very interesting. Disappointed it was closed; could have generated some good discussion. Hopefully, we'll have it here.


----------



## DanLW

Since I was told to post here, I interrupt this thread for analysis!


Looking over the tier rankings so far, I was trying to determine which studios are doing well, which studios aren't, and which ones don't really care. And so, here are the numbers, re-posted from the locked thread.


Of course, this is only a superficial analysis. This doesn't go as deep as to separate movies by decades, and see how transfers from similar eras fare against each other. However, I do notice that the only re-mastered movies in the Blu section are old animated Disney flicks. It looks like all the live action flicks in the Blu section are releases which are less than about 10 years old.


But should a majority of movies really end up being "Silver" transfers? Indeed, there are some old titles sitting happily in "Gold" status. What should be the minimum expected tier for properly re-mastered movies to fall into?


I wonder if lower tiered movies boil down to quality of available transfers, or negligence on the part of the studio? I noticed that some movies had reasons for their ratings listed, such as "DNR, Vertical Filtering", etc. What would be the reason most movies rate lower than "Gold"? Sloppy transfer, or is Gold just unobtainable for the majority of movies without an inordinate investment?


One conclusion I can draw is that it definitely looks like Disney cares much more about their movies than all the other companies. 62.8 of their movies are Gold or better, 82.6% are Silver or better, 95.4% are Bronze or better. That leaves 4.6% of their collection having been severely mis-treaded in Blu-ray treatment. Much better than most of the other big studios. Dreamworks and New Line are better with no copper or coal movies. Fox is jut a tiny bit worse with 5.6% copper/coal.


Disney

2630.2%2832.6%1719.8%1112.8%22.3%\ t22.3%86


Anyhow, here are the numbers.








BluGoldSilverBronzeCopperCoalWarner51.8%6423.5%8932.7%7828.7%3312.1%31.1%272Sony62.2%7427.5%9535.3%6925.7%217.8%41.5%269Fox84.5%4826.8%6134.1%5229.1%95.0%10.6%179Universal86.8%3731.6%4437.6%1714.5%108.5%10.9%117Paramount32.9%3130.4%3534.3%2423.5%87.8%11.0%102Lionsgate33.2%1717.9%3132.6%2223.2%2122.1%11.1%95Disney2630.2%2832.6%1719.8%1112.8%22.3%22.3%86Buena Vista1022.2%1942.2%1226.7%48.9%45Starz/Anchor Bay12.3%24.7%1739.5%1125.6%818.6%49.3%43MGM617.6%1235.3%823.5%720.6%12.9%34Criterion13.0%39.1%1339.4%1030.3%618.2%33Image26.5%516.1%825.8%722.6%619.4%39.7%31Magnolia13.7%311.1%829.6%1244.4%311.1%27New Line729.2%1250.0%520.8%24Dreamworks526.3%947.4%421.1%15.3%19Summit211.8%952.9%211.8%317.6%15.9%17Weinstein541.7%325.0%325.0%18.3%12First Look Studios433.3%216.7%433.3%216.7%12Alliance218.2%436.4%436.4%19.1%11MPI Media337.5%112.5%225.0%225.0%8Funimation457.1%228.6%114.3%7Icon342.9%342.9%114.3%7Eagle Rock342.9%228.6%228.6%7Vivendi Visual114.3%342.9%342.9%7Echo Bridge120.0%120.0%120.0%240.0%5BBC125.0%250.0%125.0%4ITV DVD250.0%125.0%125.0%4Metrodome Video125.0%125.0%125.0%125.0%4Optimum125.0%125.0%125.0%125.0%4Shout Factory250.0%125.0%125.0%4Blue Underground375.0%125.0%4Screen Media125.0%125.0%250.0%4A & E Video133.3%133.3%133.3%3Discovery3100.0%3HBO133.3%266.7%3Razor Digital266.7%133.3%3Questar3100.0%3Phase 4133.3%266.7%3BCI133.3%266.7%3Kino Video133.3%266.7%3EIV2100.0%2EMI150.0%150.0%2Koch150.0%150.0%2Mei Ah2100.0%2Peace Arch Trinity150.0%150.0%2Tai Seng2100.0%2Tartan150.0%150.0%2Well Go USA150.0%150.0%2WTTW National Prod2100.0%2Severin Films150.0%150.0%2Artificial Eye1100.0%1Bandai Visual1100.0%1Benelux1100.0%1Brightspark1100.0%1Def Jam1100.0%1Deltamac1100.0%1Deutsche Grammaphone1100.0%1Dimension1100.0%1Dreamgirls1100.0%1DVD Intl1100.0%1Hannover House1100.0%1Honneamise1100.0%1IFC Films1100.0%1LRS1100.0%1Maya1100.0%1Medici Arts1100.0%1Mega Star1100.0%1Music Box1100.0%1Scanbox1100.0%1Showbox1100.0%1Zoe1100.0%1National Geographic1100.0%1Revolver1100.0%1Oscilloscope labratories1100.0%1E-M-S1100.0%1Narrative1100.0%1ICA Films1100.0%1Visual entertainment1100.0%1Splended1100.0%1Tropics Entertainment1100.0%12 Entertain1100.0%1774.9%38724.6%52633.5%38824.7%16610.6%281.8%1572


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Switch*


Hideous flesh tones, "meh" detail, and random softness. There seems to be a hint of filtering. Not sure who ran this through color correction because they flat out suck. Nothing but orange and teal. Grain is so-so resolved at times. Black levels are mediocre.

*Tier 3.0**


@dj


Here's one of the noiser shots in The Fighter; they're usually quick to pass:

Attachment 205633 


There's another one when Bale goes to visit Adams late.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^


Your "labor of love" is really appreciated DanLW! I did a quick perusal of your findings, but when I have more time I'll take a closer look.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/20163348
> 
> 
> 
> @dj
> 
> 
> Here's one of the noiser shots in The Fighter; they're usually quick to pass:
> 
> Attachment 205633
> 
> 
> There's another one when Bale goes to visit Adams late.



Thanks for the shot GRG....there's definitely noise there, but as you say they are "quick to pass" so I missed them.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Cool work up of the data Dan.


We do need to be careful in looking at that data and what it actually means though. For example, Disney rates extremely high, and while they have long been my top pick for putting out the best product on Blu, it should also be noted that they also release the most animated titles. Animated titles almost always rate quite high. This gives them an advantage.


----------



## DanLW




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/20163870
> 
> 
> Cool work up of the data Dan.
> 
> 
> We do need to be careful in looking at that data and what it actually means though. For example, Disney rates extremely high, and while they have long been my top pick for putting out the best product on Blu, it should also be noted that they also release the most animated titles. Animated titles almost always rate quite high. This gives them an advantage.



True enogh. So I took a second look, and counted up the live action movies from each company in the "Blu" tier with 2 or more releases. Here's what I came up with:


Disney: 6

Fox: 5

Sony: 4

Universal: 4

Lionsgate: 3

Paramount: 3

MPI Media: 2


Consider that Disney has a smaller library than all the other companies (except MPI Media), and I think it is still a valid finding that Disney does better when it comes to putting movies on Blu Ray.


Then there's New Line, on a different note. They will be releasing the extended Lord of the Rings trilogy this year... and they have yet to place in the Blu tier. A solid 50% of their movies have been placed in the "Silver" tier. Return placed Gold, Towers placed Silver, and Fellowship placed Bronze. (Did they have three separate houses do each transfer?) Not looking good for one of the iconic trilogies of our time. But on a positive note, New Line has put out no Copper or Coal offerings.


Another interesting way to look at the movies is with the type of cameras they were shot with. Of the live action movies in the Blu tier, how many were shot with digital cameras? For this reason, it will be interesting to see how Star Wars II and III place, since they were shot digitally. (Not sure about I)


Live Action BLU Tier movies from studios with more than 2 releases:


Disney:

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl, Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian, Sin City, Becoming Jane


Fox:

Man on Fire Video, Avatar , Live Free or Die Hard, I Robot, Alvin And The Chipmunks: The Squeakquel


Sony:

Transporter 2 (Japan Import), The International, Youth Without Youth, Lonely Hearts (Japan Import)


Universal:

Hot Fuzz, A Serious Man, King Kong, Fighting


Lionsgate:

Transporter 3, Gamer, Crank 2: High Voltage


Paramount:

Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen (IMAX), Watchmen: Theatrical Version (UK Import), Watchmen: Director's Cut (UK Import)


MPI Media:

Tell No One, Baraka Video


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/20161375
> 
> 
> There's a $5 off coupon for _The Fighter_, which I really enjoyed in the theatres. I'm a bit surprised by the scores so far, but have not viewed my copy yet.



Thanks for mentioning that coupon on The Fighter, that will nudge me into getting it immediately.


Very interesting data regarding the breakdown of studios in the Tiers. Disney almost always makes a great effort on their Blu-rays, rarely do they phone-in their transfers like some studios. Disney also releases fewer catalog titles than almost any other major studio. My guess is that there is a strong correlation between a new movie's budget and the eventual picture quality on Blu-ray.


New blockbusters have enormous budgets, and that almost always leads to better results for picture quality. With the exception of stylistic choices made in the original creation process for a few films, most of the films in Tiers 4 and 5 are low-budget movies filmed with cheaper methods.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DanLW* /forum/post/20164345
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> ...I think it is still a valid finding that Disney does better when it comes to putting movies on Blu Ray.



Absolutely, and I indicated such in my post.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

One of the more interesting points from the data was this set:


Of all 1572 movies rated (movies without studio names attached were discounted)

Blu: 4.9%, 77 movies

Gold: 24.6%, 387 movies

Silver: 33.5%, 526 movies

Bronze: 24.7%, 388 movies

Copper: 10.6%, 166 movies

Coal: 1.8%, 28 movies


That distribution looks close to how I expected the Tiers to end up. Based on just the numbers, Tier 2 appears to be closer to the average quality than the Bronze(3) Tier that was intended. Hard to say if that is due to unintentional bias on our part somewhere in the process, or if the studios are skewing the distribution by only picking good-looking movies for release.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/20166097
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> Based on just the numbers, Tier 2 appears to be closer to the average quality than the Bronze(3) Tier that was intended.
> 
> 
> ...



No surprise to me. As you know, that has been a point of contention for me for quite some time. If anything, though, I'm surprised there aren't even more titles in tier 2 than there are.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Mummies: Secrets of the Pharaohs 2D/3D*


Some superb exteriors of the Egyptian landscape, although hampered a bit by halos. Strong, warm colors. Skin tends to look a little plastic, probably something to do with the downconversion. Black levels are strong.

*Tier 2.75**


--------------

*Ultimate G's: Zak's Flying Dream 2D/3D*


There's something seriously wrong with the grain here, a weird, static glaze effect that is unlike anything I've see before. I don't think it's DNR because nothing else really appears amiss. Pretty poor until you hit the Grand Canyon flying stuff, and then WOW does this one come to life. Amazing definition on those rock structures, and the bold color is something to see.

*Tier 2.75**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by *DanLW* 
Then there's New Line, on a different note. They will be releasing the extended Lord of the Rings trilogy this year... and they have yet to place in the Blu tier. A solid 50% of their movies have been placed in the "Silver" tier. Return placed Gold, Towers placed Silver, and Fellowship placed Bronze. (Did they have three separate houses do each transfer?) Not looking good for one of the iconic trilogies of our time. But on a positive note, New Line has put out no Copper or Coal offerings.


Another interesting way to look at the movies is with the type of cameras they were shot with. Of the live action movies in the Blu tier, how many were shot with digital cameras? For this reason, it will be interesting to see how Star Wars II and III place, since they were shot digitally. (Not sure about I)
Domino is listed under Warner on the list because I think it was released on Blu-ray after New Line's operations got swallowed up by WB. That was originally a New Line production. People are going to be disappointed when the newer Star Wars Trilogy hits Blu-ray. Lucas used digital production before the tools were fully mature. The cameras he used on them maxed out at 1080p resolution. Given the preponderance of CGI use in the movie that rarely ages well, it could look quite dated for image quality.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/20170268
> 
> 
> ...People are going to be disappointed when the newer Star Wars Trilogy hits Blu-ray. Lucas used digital production before the tools were fully mature. The cameras he used on them maxed out at 1080p resolution. Given the preponderance of CGI use in the movie that rarely ages well, it could look quite dated for image quality.



Wait, I better cancel my pre-order then...not!


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Uncle Buck*


Universal slaps this one with some edge enhancement and contrast boosting, leaving this one with an unnaturally elevated grain structure. There's some good stuff under all of it, including some very visible fine detail. Shame it's almost lost. Source print is in good shape, although some colors seem artificially pumped up.
*Tier 3.75**


----------



## sbpyrat

*The Treasure of the Sierra Madre*


I've only seen a few old B&Ws on blu ray so far, but this is the best yet for me. If they were all this good, I'd be content. The last B&W I watched was _The Night of The Hunter_ which is a great movie, but the grain was so heavy in that movie that I found it distracting.

_Sierra Madre_ isn't perfect, but it's pretty darn crisp and clean overall. The grain creeped up on occasion, but not bad at all. Some scenes were close to the upper gold tier, a few dropped down to the silver level. Over all, I'm recommending the bottom of the gold tier for _Sierra Madre_ and hoping more of the classics are at least this good.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75 Gold*


----------



## audiomagnate

*From Russia with Love*


This is my idea of eye candy. Except for some glaringly bad rear projection and maybe some stock footage at the very end it's a gorgeous transfer. I admit I'm adjusting to my new TV, Panny 54 G25, but man this looked good. The indoor scenes were delicious and the outdoor scenes look better than many new releases. The non-CGI action scenes were fun to watch and looked great.

*Tier 1.5*


----------



## deltasun

*Chungking Express*


For the purposes of this thread, this one's an easy call. Excessive grain, artistic slow-motion with plenty of blurred-out motion, little to no facial details, artificial lighting, and sub-par blacks. Otherwise, contrast is decent. Dimensionality can be inconsistent.


All this...just how the director ordered it! Don't get me wrong, the look serves its purpose for the story well.

*Tier Recommendation: 4.0*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DanLW* /forum/post/20163163
> 
> 
> But should a majority of movies really end up being "Silver" transfers? Indeed, there are some old titles sitting happily in "Gold" status. What should be the minimum expected tier for properly re-mastered movies to fall into?
> 
> 
> I wonder if lower tiered movies boil down to quality of available transfers, or negligence on the part of the studio? I noticed that some movies had reasons for their ratings listed, such as "DNR, Vertical Filtering", etc. What would be the reason most movies rate lower than "Gold"? Sloppy transfer, or is Gold just unobtainable for the majority of movies without an inordinate investment?



An interesting theoretical proposition, which movies are getting the best treatment on Blu-ray and where should the majority end up in the Tiers? The Silver tier feels like the default answer, at least for most modern films coming from Hollywood. The reverence I see in reviews here and elsewhere for any decision made by the director or cinematographer that affects the image is slightly misguided, strictly judging the picture quality alone.


Just as in other fields, there are good and bad cinematographers with varying levels of experience and budgetary concerns. Making allowances for a vintage movie seems more reasonable than something made in the last decade where budgets have exploded.


----------



## deltasun

*The Switch*


Surprisingly, not your typical romance/comedy scheme with warm colors and over-saturated skin tones. This presentation is instead cold, almost icy - lots of greenish blues and teals. Facial details are quite good save for Jennifer Aniston, who seems to have a DNR cloud following her face throughout. Details, in general, are quite decent. Skin tones vary quite a bit from pale to almost disgusting at times. Contrast is strong and blacks, while inconsistent, are deep.


Dimensionality is also decent, specifically in medium shots. Grain is well resolved and exhibits a thin filmic layer. Some aliasing is present during panoramic pans, but not too distracting.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.50*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

*Lola Montès*


While I applaud the restoration efforts that went into this 1955 classic, including how it compares to its SD DVD counterpart, I strongly disagree with its current placement. Details are few and far between - and gradually got worse as the film progresses. Because of the 'scope presentation, objects around the edges are rarely in sharp focus and is presented softly. Well, the entire presentation is soft overall. There are some bouts of definition and dimensionality in plenty of the flashback scenes.


Blacks are a bit washed out, but contrast is above average for a film of this age. Colors can look dull and dated in most scenes, but do spring to life in a fair number of scenes. Shadow details are remarkably well rendered, as can be seen during Lola's foray into the outside of the ship at night. Skin tones are heavily influenced by the harsh lighting during the circus segments, but remain somewhat natural everywhere else.


Finally, there are random debris, minor color pulsations, and wavering grain (particularly in darker scenes).

*Tier Recommendation: 3.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Skyline*


Pretty much what I remember seeing in the theater, which is the ugliest movie I've ever seen from a Red One standpoint. Simply awful, pitiful black levels. Colors are dull. The whole thing is soft and almost totally lacking in fine detail. Even the CG aliens are rather bland. Plenty of noise at times too.

*Tier 4.0**


----------



## djoberg

*The Tourist*


Once again I've learned that I should avoid Cinema Squid's site (and the reviews it offers) until I have written my own review. I say this because in all honesty I found this title to be, for the most part, MEDIOCRE, and yet most reviewers on that site are giving it an EXCELLENT VIDEO SCORE. What can I say, other than this is one case where the majority are definitely WRONG!

















My main complaint would be that most daytimes scenes seemed "washed out" to _my eyes_. I'm not sure if this was due to pumped up contrast, but the result was a lack of depth and a soft look. In contrast, nighttime scenes fared quite well with excellent shadow details and inky blacks (with the exception of a few scenes where it became a bit murky).


Details were really a mixed bag; at times shots of Venice revealed amazing texture in buildings, streets, trees, shrubs, etc.; at other times there were shots that appeared somewhat flat and even blurry on occasion.


Facial details were a real disappointment. Though there were sporadic shots where the camera zoomed in revealing *some* facial texture, most shots were midrange and appeared to be smoothed over (especially the beautiful, but aging, Angelina).


I kept thinking throughout most of the movie, "This is going to fall squarely in Tier 3," and then lo and behold a spectacular shot would appear, forcing me to reassess what my conclusion might be. After careful deliberation, I'm going to cast my vote for....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.5**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


PS I must say that I DO agree with the aforementioned reviewers in their utter condemnation of the film itself. It was absolutely DEPLORABLE. The pacing was excruciatingly slow; the acting was mediocre (even with the BIG NAMES in the cast); the storyline was painful; and the ending was SO predictable.


----------



## deltasun

*Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance*


I'm hard-pressed to find any flaws on this film. There is arbitrary softness, some ringing and some aliasing on the the dude's shirt. Outside of those, this film has incredible depth and dimensionality. Colors are vivid without looking unnatural. Blacks are strong, though I would note that there are a few exceptions. Contrast is rich and perfectly applied.


Details are quite exceptional, be it faces or surrounding objects. To top it off, the cinematography and creative views and angles really make for a pleasing presentation. Skin tones are a bit on the pale side, but still looks faithful.


Overall, a noteworthy film...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25**

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*How Do You Know*


Not only is it mediocre video week apparently, it's mediocre (or flat out terrible) movie week in general. Yeesh. Minimal detail, awful flesh tones, hot contrast, bleeding colors, mosquito noise, decent black levels, and whole thing has this light haze hovering over it. Yuck.

*Tier 3.5*


----------



## deltasun

*Walking Dead: The Complete First Season*


Filmed using 16mm film, grain is excessive in darker and indoor areas. With ample lighting, however, details just pop off the screen. The majority of facial details are excellent, with a generous helping of pores and textures. The general color palette is on the muted side, but do remain faithful when primaries are present. Episode 4 has an intro that is almost too saturated and soft. Flesh tones are accurate for the subjects on hand.


Contrast is strong throughout and blacks are deep, but not inky. Crush is only evident in a few scenes. Dimensionality is not consistent, but does have its share of depth. Medium shots look great for the most part.


There is not much variety in PQ from the first episode to the last (save for the beginning of episode 4). All in all, a very nice presentation.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25**

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## audiomagnate

Quote:

Originally Posted by *djoberg* 
*The Tourist*


Once again I've learned that I should avoid Cinema Squid's site (and the reviews it offers) until I have written my own review. I say this because in all honesty I found this title to be, for the most part, MEDIOCRE, and yet most reviewers on that site are giving it an EXCELLENT VIDEO SCORE. What can I say, other than this is one case where the majority are definitely WRONG!

















My main complaint would be that most daytimes scenes seemed "washed out" to _my eyes_. I'm not sure if this was due to pumped up contrast, but the result was a lack of depth and a soft look. In contrast, nighttime scenes fared quite well with excellent shadow details and inky blacks (with the exception of a few scenes where it became a bit murky).


Details were really a mixed bag; at times shots of Venice revealed amazing texture in buildings, streets, trees, shrubs, etc.; at other times there were shots that appeared somewhat flat and even blurry on occasion.


Facial details were a real disappointment. Though there were sporadic shots where the camera zoomed in revealing *some* facial texture, most shots were midrange and appeared to be smoothed over (especially the beautiful, but aging, Angelina).


I kept thinking throughout most of the movie, "This is going to fall squarely in Tier 3," and then lo and behold a spectacular shot would appear, forcing me to reassess what my conclusion might be. After careful deliberation, I'm going to cast my vote for....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.5**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


PS I must say that I DO agree with the aforementioned reviewers in their utter condemnation of the film itself. It was absolutely DEPLORABLE. The pacing was excruciatingly slow; the acting was mediocre (even with the BIG NAMES in the cast); the storyline was painful; and the ending was SO predictable.


How does a movie this bad make it this far? I can't rate it because I couldn't last more than half an hour.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *audiomagnate* /forum/post/20198145
> 
> 
> How does a movie this bad make it this far? I can't rate it because I couldn't last more than half an hour.



I don't blame you one bit for hitting the STOP BUTTON. I was tempted to do the same but I kept thinking it would get better, which it didn't.










How would you rate the PQ during the first half hour? (I ask this because that too didn't get any better.)


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/20197638
> 
> *Walking Dead: The Complete First Season*
> 
> 
> There is not much variety in PQ from the first episode to the last (save for the beginning of episode 4). All in all, a very nice presentation.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.25**



That is very surprising to me, the show looked absolutely dreadful in broadcast HD. I guess AMC was to blame, though I do not expect to watch the Blu-ray set to confirm or refute your recommendation.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/20198560
> 
> 
> That is very surprising to me, the show looked absolutely dreadful in broadcast HD. I guess AMC was to blame, though I do not expect to watch the Blu-ray set to confirm or refute your recommendation.



That's probably because cable codecs can't deal with 16mm as well as Blu-ray.

*Yogi Bear*


Actually had some expectations for this one since kids fare stereotypically looks over saturated and sharp. Nope. Yogi looks great sure, each individual hair completely visible. Jellystone can be impressive too. It's the human characters that lack are refinement in close-ups or otherwise. There are some insane compression issues during a fireworks scene too. There is an attempt to make people stand out from the backgrounds to, probably to aid the 3D effect.

*Tier 2.25**


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/20198560
> 
> 
> That is very surprising to me, the show looked absolutely dreadful in broadcast HD. I guess AMC was to blame, though I do not expect to watch the Blu-ray set to confirm or refute your recommendation.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/20199221
> 
> 
> That's probably because cable codecs can't deal with 16mm as well as Blu-ray.



It'd be good to get other views on this. I was actually surprised by the loftiness of my final score once I weighed in everything that I've watched. The pilot episode had some incredible facial close-up's even at 6', and obviously much better the farther out you go. At 10', you can barely see grain. The only thing that may turn off some viewers would be the muted palette, but I obviously found this complementary to the tale.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/20192263
> 
> *The Tourist*
> 
> 
> Once again I've learned that I should avoid Cinema Squid's site (and the reviews it offers) until I have written my own review. I say this because in all honesty I found this title to be, for the most part, MEDIOCRE, and yet most reviewers on that site are giving it an EXCELLENT VIDEO SCORE. What can I say, other than this is one case where the majority are definitely WRONG!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My main complaint would be that most daytimes scenes seemed "washed out" to _my eyes_. I'm not sure if this was due to pumped up contrast, but the result was a lack of depth and a soft look. In contrast, nighttime scenes fared quite well with excellent shadow details and inky blacks (with the exception of a few scenes where it became a bit murky).
> 
> 
> Details were really a mixed bag; at times shots of Venice revealed amazing texture in buildings, streets, trees, shrubs, etc.; at other times there were shots that appeared somewhat flat and even blurry on occasion.
> 
> 
> Facial details were a real disappointment. Though there were sporadic shots where the camera zoomed in revealing *some* facial texture, most shots were midrange and appeared to be smoothed over (especially the beautiful, but aging, Angelina).
> 
> 
> I kept thinking throughout most of the movie, "This is going to fall squarely in Tier 3," and then lo and behold a spectacular shot would appear, forcing me to reassess what my conclusion might be. After careful deliberation, I'm going to cast my vote for....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.5**
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'
> 
> 
> PS I must say that I DO agree with the aforementioned reviewers in their utter condemnation of the film itself. It was absolutely DEPLORABLE. The pacing was excruciatingly slow; the acting was mediocre (even with the BIG NAMES in the cast); the storyline was painful; and the ending was SO predictable.



Going to agree with everything here, but I think he's way too kind. This movie simply looks awful. The coloring is pathetic (no one owns color computer screens anymore; they only display teal), flesh tones are hideous, and facial detail is contained to about four shots for the whole movie. It's soft, and honestly looks digital despite being shot on film. The only decent shots in the entire movie are the aerials of Venice, which are admittedly spectacular.
*Tier 3.25**


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/20205195
> 
> 
> Going to agree with everything here, but I think he's way too kind. This movie simply looks awful. The coloring is pathetic (no one owns color computer screens anymore; they only display teal), flesh tones are hideous, and facial detail is contained to about four shots for the whole movie. It's soft, and honestly looks digital despite being shot on film. The only decent shots in the entire movie are the aerials of Venice, which are admittedly spectacular.
> *Tier 3.25**



I would be willing to drop my vote to *3.0*, for as I intimated in my review MOST of the movie's PQ was definitely MEDIOCRE.


What did you think about some of the nighttime scenes? I really did think the blacks and shadow details were impressive in a couple of scenes (like the one where Jolie and Depp were eating at a waterfront restaurant) and this helped in my final score.


I'm glad you mentioned the "teal," which I had planned to include in my review but I forgot. There was also a barrage of scenes with the dreaded "orange" as well.


----------



## Sujay

*Tron: Legacy*


I'll be the first to admit that I don't like digitally-shot films. Most have failed to impress me (other than Zombieland). But this one... I like this one. I think maybe it's the digital setting of the film and the abundance of (albeit, pretty convincing) visual effects, but I didn't have many of the usual problems I have with shot-on-video movies. No smoothed over look, really good detail, and good texturing. There's a fine layer of digital noise over every frame, and it doesn't distract and is generally not noticeable, but I feel it added a bit more grit and texture for me, like film grain would. Again, detail is razor sharp. Contrast and black levels were invented for this movie.







All around great for the visual style. No EE, DNR or compression artifacts to be seen either.


Oh, and it is mixed aspect ratio, and it looks just fine, but there is a bit of empty-space-ness feeling. I wrote a full review on my site where I go into a bit more detail. Just a great looking title and a great compression job. This could have gone badly, but didn't, and l'm thankful to Disney for it. The audio matches the picture too, don't forget that.

*Tier Recommendation: Zero**

*I'm really bad at within-tier rankings, I'll need some help with this once more opinions come in.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Nausicaä Of The Valley Of The Wind


recommendaton: Tier 3.0**


A 1984 animated film from the Walt Disney of Japan, Hayao Miyazaki, Nausicaä looks okay on Blu-ray. The transfer is the typical high-quality work we have come to expect from an animated Disney Blu-ray, but the style of the animation does not look as vigorous as some other films. Colors are stable but do not possess the vibrancy of something like Sleeping Beauty. The level of craft to the animation is appreciable, but reminds one of other animated films from the period overall. Print and film debris is kept to an absolute minimum, quite good for a film made from animation cels.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of paku):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post20168645


----------



## deltasun

*Antichrist*


Shot with both the RED One camera and the Phantom (for high-speed sequences), we get two different results. The prologue/epilogue, shot with the Phantom, is in black & white and shows incredible details and textures of the main characters, as well as pouring water and other objects. A good example of a black & white scene that I would comfortably place in Tier 0.


The rest of the film (well, there may be some minor high-speed sequences thrown in) is shot with the RED One and do show a lot of softness and smoothed out faces. Some extreme close-up's, however, do show ample wrinkles, lines, and pores. Blacks are a bit murky and shadow details almost nil. Contrast is not very strong due to the nature of the cinematography. I would like to go on record that even with these "negatives," there is a beauty in how the picture intertwines and flows.


Colors are impactful and is primarily used for the film's artistic merits and symbolism. Still, the greens are lush and the reds striking. Skin tones are a bit on the artificial side. Finally, dimensionality wavers and would not be the first thing noticed in this film.


Overall, a satisfying feast for the eyes, though not necessarily for the purposes of this thread.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.25**


You have been warned - not for the faint of heart.









_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/20205237
> 
> 
> I would be willing to drop my vote to *3.0*, for as I intimated in my review MOST of the movie's PQ was definitely MEDIOCRE.
> 
> 
> What did you think about some of the nighttime scenes? I really did think the blacks and shadow details were impressive in a couple of scenes (like the one where Jolie and Depp were eating at a waterfront restaurant) and this helped in my final score.



Yeah, they looked fine; black levels were good all around. Still a total lack of fine detail to go around which drove me nuts. Had to make sure this was shot on film about 20 minutes into it.
*The Crater Lake Monster*


A 1080i presentation crammed onto a BD-25 with another movie and four uncompressed audio tracks. It's pretty compressed, some scenes simply swarming with artifacts. My screens show some pretty heavy interlacing, but I didn't see any in motion, and I'm pretty sensitive to it. Detail is actually quite good at times, close-ups strong. Black levels are okay, and color is certainly exaggerated.

*Tier 3.75*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Order


recommendation: Tier 2.0**


Having seen my share of poor catalog titles recently, the picture quality for _The Order_ stands out as a pleasant surprise. A 2003 pseudo-religious thriller released by Fox in September of 2010, the 102-minute movie is on a BD-25. The packaging indicates an AVC video encode that averages 22 Mbps, which appears as accurate as I can claim, without the benefit of a BDInfo scan to confirm. The crisp, professional photography is preserved in a transfer that does not try to drastically alter the original film's image in a ruinous way. While a substantial minority of the film flirts with Tier One quality, a handful of darker scenes come off as intentionally muddy.


The video encode by Deluxe Digital Studios is solid and rarely encounters difficulties. An exception would be a handful of the darkest scenes, where the video encode does not reproduce the interplay of dark shadows and grain very well. In those moments you see touches of both macroblocking and posterization. These traits are particularly evident in the underground dungeon. Both transparency and clarity are great, allowing a strong level of visible detail and definition to the image. _The Order_ is a beautifully filmed movie, the cinematography takes great advantage of the setting in Rome and good production design. Each shot looks carefully composed and framed, depending on the intentions of the scene and characters.


A couple of problems are noticeable, however. Low-amplitude ringing is a common sight, though the halos are small enough that untrained eyes will likely not pay attention to them. It is hard to say if the transfer has been filtered of detail, a few scenes look curiously smooth and devoid of texture. If digital noise reduction has been used, it was applied in an uneven manner that leaves most of the movie still looking like it was shot on film. These are really minor criticisms, most will be very pleased with how the transfer turned out. The contrast looks partly changed on Blu-ray, the image is brighter than I would expect for a horror film. A probable change in the gamma is likely not that faithful to the original movie. That improves shadow detail to a degree, at the expense of deep black levels at select times.


Knowing how poorly even major catalog titles get treated most of the time, _The Order_ is a large upgrade over the DVD. Some scenes are sharp enough and project enough perspective to rank in Tier One, but scattered moments drag the evaluation down into Tier Two.


Watching on a 60" Pioneer KURO plasma at 1080p/24, fed by a 60-GB PS3 (firmware 3.60) at a viewing distance of six feet.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Galaxian*


Crammed in with Crater Lake Monster, compression here is overbearing, although the haze this thing tends to be shot in doesn't help. Some okay detail on the model shots that disappears when actors are involved. Black levels are pretty poor, space hardly the level it should be. Everything is faded and bland.

*Tier 4.5**


----------



## djoberg

I may be picking up _Black Swan_ tomorrow afternoon. I looked on Cinema Squid's site and no one has even posted a review yet...which I find strange with it being nominated for so many awards.


Have you seen it yet GRG?


----------



## deltasun

*House*


The film has a moderate layer of grain as well as a blooming, dreamy look throughout. The film is also soft overall, though still looks decent for the its age. Colors are vibrant, especially on visual effects. Blacks are deep and inky, but contrast is on the weak side. Flesh tones are faithful.


Finally, there is not much dimensionality to speak of. Some banding is evident and dirt/debris can be found in a number of scenes.

*Tier Recommendation: 4.0**

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## 42041

*Magnolia*


The blu-ray for this 1999 film is pretty solid stuff. Not the sharpest/most detailed/technically perfect transfer, but the colorful production design and excellent cinematography often make for good visuals. I didn't note any objectionable digital manipulation of the film image. Strong facial detail pops up pretty frequently... less frequent are the occasional out-of-focus shots.

*Tier 2.0*


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/20222949
> 
> 
> I may be picking up _Black Swan_ tomorrow afternoon. I looked on Cinema Squid's site and no one has even posted a review yet...which I find strange with it being nominated for so many awards.
> 
> 
> Have you seen it yet GRG?



Blu-ray.com has a review up.

Based on what I saw in theaters, don't expect much eye candy. It's a very grainy and dark film by design.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/20222949
> 
> 
> I may be picking up _Black Swan_ tomorrow afternoon. I looked on Cinema Squid's site and no one has even posted a review yet...which I find strange with it being nominated for so many awards.
> 
> 
> Have you seen it yet GRG?



Not to jump in for GRG...


16mm + Aronofsky. Think of _The Wrestler_ for comparison. At least, that's what it looked like in the theaters. However, from the blu preview I saw (can't remember which movie now), it looked much better. He also uses Canon DSLRs for some scenes, which I can vouch for can look excellent. I have shot 1080p video on the 7D and the detail and clarity are amazing!


Anyway, I'll be picking this up as well unless the bug really bites and convinces me to wait for a better price (been taking advantage of Ultimate Electronics going out of business). I really enjoyed this film in the theaters and can't wait to watch it again!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/20223149
> 
> 
> Blu-ray.com has a review up.
> 
> Based on what I saw in theaters, don't expect much eye candy. It's a very grainy and dark film by design.



Thanks! I read the review right after I saw your post. He gave it high video score, even though he mentions how "grainy and dark" the film is. No doubt he was impressed with how accurate it was to the theatrical presentation, in other words, to the "director's intent."



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/20223155
> 
> 
> Not to jump in for GRG...
> 
> 
> 16mm + Aronofsky. Think of _The Wrestler_ for comparison. At least, that's what it looked like in the theaters. However, from the blu preview I saw (can't remember which movie now), it looked much better. He also uses Canon DSLRs for some scenes, which I can vouch for can look excellent. I have shot 1080p video on the 7D and the detail and clarity are amazing!
> 
> 
> Anyway, I'll be picking this up as well unless the bug really bites and convinces me to wait for a better price (been taking advantage of Ultimate Electronics going out of business). I really enjoyed this film in the theaters and can't wait to watch it again!



Trailers I've seen coincide with what you and 42041 have said about the PQ.


I plan to rent this first delta, but if I'm impressed with the movie itself I may end up buying it.


I had no idea Ultimate Electronics was going belly-up! That's sad, for I always loved shopping there (at least in the Minneapolis area stores).


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/20222949
> 
> 
> I may be picking up _Black Swan_ tomorrow afternoon. I looked on Cinema Squid's site and no one has even posted a review yet...which I find strange with it being nominated for so many awards.
> 
> 
> Have you seen it yet GRG?



No review copies were sent early most likely. I have it here though via rental and will be getting to it tomorrow.

*Tangled*


Utterly fantastic, but what else did you expect? Brilliant colors, hair is spectacular, grass is perfect, and depth is amazing. Lots of nighttime stuff to show off the black levels. A few shots have a blooming effect. Not quite as mega detailed or as precision sharp as some of the others, but still deserves to be up there.
*Tier .25**


----------



## djoberg

*Black Swan*


I was warned "...don't expect much eye candy" (by 42041) and his warning proved to be *mostly* true. I say "mostly true" for it had its moments, most notably in scenes with blacks in the background (they were quite deep!) and in close-ups (which yielded very good details in clothing, furniture, and a few facial shots). There were also some shots in the studio with appreciable detail and clarity.


The grain was heavy at times (with noise creeping in on occasion), but to be fair that was the exception and not the rule. I thought it looked very *filmic* in many scenes and enhanced the detail.


Colors were intentionally muted throughout and thus there is little or no eye candy in that department. Contrast was a bit weak at times; and fair at other times.


I kept thinking "this is a little under average" so I'm going with....

*Tier Recommendation: 3.25*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


PS I was NOT that impressed with the movie. It was rather depressing (as was intended) and I dislike ballet with a passion, though I must say Natalie Portman really threw herself into this role and probably deserved the Oscar she received.


----------



## b_scott

that's disappointing


----------



## 42041

*Logan's Run*


The blu-ray of this 1976 film looks pretty poor. I'm not sure if its due to the quality/age of the source or the transfer, but there's a consistently flat, dull, lifeless quality to the image, with very little detail. There's a lot of cheesy optical effects that don't look so great. Print damage is plentiful. Grain/noise tends to be bothersome in many scenes. The only time quality impressed was in a couple daylit scenes in the second half of the movie. I've never seen this movie before, thought it was horrible drivel.

*Tier 4.0*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Fair Game*

Digitally shot with the Red One, I'm still waiting for something that will blow me away with this camera. This isn't it. Soft, fuzzy medium range shots, wildly inconsistent close-ups, and simply terrible black levels. Color is bland and faded. A hint of aliasing that is nothing to worry about, but everything else is worthy of worry.

*Tier 3.5*


----------



## 42041

*All About Eve*


Excellent transfer of a brilliant movie. Not the stuff of PQ tier threads though. There's nary a discernible transfer flaw, but it looks like a very good transfer of a 60 year old film (with a missing camera negative, according to Robert Harris). Details tend to be hazy, especially with the unfortunate habit of cinematographers of the day to photograph actresses through a cloud of fog. Everything else, like contrast and compression, is pretty much on the money to my eye.

*Tier 3.0*


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/20234330
> 
> *All About Eve*
> 
> 
> Excellent transfer of a brilliant movie. Not the stuff of PQ tier threads though.
> *Tier 3.0*



I have been meaning to pick it up since release. A shame the camera negative is gone.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Black Swan*


Great looking 16mm, but it's still 16mm so eye candy isn't there. Colors have a wonderful richness to them when they're on screen, and the black levels are fantastic. In close, detail can be firm, but generally disappears any further back. Grain structure is well resolved.

*Tier 3.0*


----------



## djoberg

*Hereafter*


What a treat! DETAILS, DEPTH and CLARITY abound, along with superb BLACKS and SHADOW DETAILS. I was simply mesmerized by the aerial shots of San Francisco, Paris, and London, and close-ups and midrange shots were equally impressive. Buildings, streets, foliage, clothing, and facial textures were all jumping off the screen in the majority of scenes.


One might be somewhat critical of the color palette, but even here they were amazingly *natural* and thus I would classify them as EYE CANDY too.


I really don't know where to turn a critical eye. Perhaps one might fault a few, short night scenes where the blacks became slightly dull and flat, but these were rare compared to the exquisite blacks and shadow details that normally graced the screen. Some shots were also a bit bland and soft, but again, these were few and far between (most scenes were definitely sharp, with amazing depth and dimensionality).


I can't bring myself to call this reference, but it is EASILY "demo material" and I'm inclined to put it right here....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## deltasun

*The White Ribbon*


This black & white film is a sight to behold. Inky blacks and wintery whites. Clarity is simply amazing in almost every shot. Textures are readily evident when the screen is filled with organic elements. Dimensionality is another top-notch quality that really bring the characters to life.


Facial details are a bit inconsistent - they are well-defined in some scenes, but can lose details in other washed out scenes. There are also some instances of black crush and blooming whites, though pretty minor.


Finally, some noise is evident in darker scenes where shadow details are a bit limited.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

*The Ten Commandments*


Colors on this film are simply stunning. The crimson garments are especially striking! There are some really detailed faces, but does wane when the lighting is not just so. Contrast is strong throughout and blacks are quite deep for the most part. Fine object details are readily visible in the points of focus. However, depth of field is usually shallow and details almost unnaturally wane as they're farther away from focus.


Fine grain is present and enhances the filmic qualities of the presentation. Flesh tones remain faithful. Dimensionality is not as pronounced simply because, for the most part, the fake back drops are more obvious with the increased resolution.


Overall, just an awesome job from Paramount.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.50*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*All Good Things*


It must be 16mm week. I'm okay with that as it's great format. Grain-based trouble spots are few, this is a good encode that can keep up. Some softness and a few scenes with blatantly obvious sharpening dim the fun. In general, detail is fine, and color veers cool without much a hit to any of the elements.

*Tier 3.0**


----------



## deltasun

*All Good Things*


Completely agree here. Would like to add the bluish (sometimes greenish) tinge to the picture, which really messes with the sullen skin tones.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/20240965
> 
> *All Good Things*
> 
> 
> It must be 16mm week. I'm okay with that as it's great format. Grain-based trouble spots are few, this is a good encode that can keep up. Some softness and a few scenes with blatantly obvious sharpening dim the fun. In general, detail is fine, and color veers cool without much a hit to any of the elements.
> 
> *Tier 3.0**


*Tier Recommendation: 3.0**

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## djoberg

*Tangled*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/20227935
> 
> 
> *Tangled*
> 
> 
> Utterly fantastic, but what else did you expect? Brilliant colors, hair is spectacular, grass is perfect, and depth is amazing. Lots of nighttime stuff to show off the black levels. A few shots have a blooming effect. Not quite as mega detailed or as precision sharp as some of the others, but still deserves to be up there.
> *Tier .25**



I concur with GRG in all points mentioned. The only thing I would add is that this animated title had the best black levels I've ever seen. The first scene that showcased deep, deep blacks was at approximately the 13 min. mark and it lasted almost two minutes (it was a scene in the tower where both mother and daughter were singing with a pitch black background....the blacks were so deep that the depth and dimensionality were simply incredible).


After careful consideration of the current rankings of top animated titles I believe this deserves to be between _Kung Fu Panda_ and _Ratatouille_......

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (#10)**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Resident*


Orange, orange, and more orange. Lots of orange for everyone! Still, detail is simply fantastic, the wide range of sharpness and facial detail even in low light is pretty stunning. Black levels are outstanding, and the contrast is firm with a few light spikes. Grain is well resolved. Bouts of softness dampen the fun, but minimally.

*Tier 1.5**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Short Circuit 2*


Nice looking catalog effort. Pleasing, resolved grain, solid detail in close-ups, general color palette, and light softness. Blacks are a bit wobbly, but the print used only has minimal damage. Looks like a film stock from the '80s.

*Tier 3.0**


----------



## djoberg

*Tron: Legacy*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sujay* /forum/post/20206143
> 
> *Tron: Legacy*
> 
> 
> I'll be the first to admit that I don't like digitally-shot films. Most have failed to impress me (other than Zombieland). But this one... I like this one. I think maybe it's the digital setting of the film and the abundance of (albeit, pretty convincing) visual effects, but I didn't have many of the usual problems I have with shot-on-video movies. No smoothed over look, really good detail, and good texturing. There's a fine layer of digital noise over every frame, and it doesn't distract and is generally not noticeable, but I feel it added a bit more grit and texture for me, like film grain would. Again, detail is razor sharp. Contrast and black levels were invented for this movie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All around great for the visual style. No EE, DNR or compression artifacts to be seen either.
> 
> 
> Oh, and it is mixed aspect ratio, and it looks just fine, but there is a bit of empty-space-ness feeling. I wrote a full review on my site where I go into a bit more detail. Just a great looking title and a great compression job. This could have gone badly, but didn't, and l'm thankful to Disney for it. The audio matches the picture too, don't forget that.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Zero**
> 
> *I'm really bad at within-tier rankings, I'll need some help with this once more opinions come in.



If this were an audio thread I'd be tempted to put this one on the top of the heap, for I was really blown away by the techno music, the incredible bass, and all the soaring activity in the surrounds. I can't remember my sound system sounding so good; it was really AUDIO NIRVANA for me.


But this is a PQ thread, and I must confess that I wasn't as impressed as some were. That's not to say it wasn't good, for there were moments when I was drooling at the incredible blacks, the limitless depth, the perfect contrast, the vivid colors (thought these were limited), the mesmerizing details, the spot-on flesh tones and the amazing sharpness & clarity. In fact, if this had been true from start to finish I would indeed be recommending this for a place in the coveted Tier Blu.


There was one pesky negative that kept rearing its ugly head...and that was SOFTNESS. It was very sporadic, but it appeared enough times for me to knock it down from the reference tier. Oddly enough, this occurred in the GRID more so than in the "real-world" scenes (I say this because many reviewers saw nothing but perfection in the GRID scenes).


I should also mention facial details. Though they were definitely good throughout, they were NOT consistently Tier 0 quality (their texture didn't even compare to those in titles like the _Transporter Series_). IMHO most of them fell into the Tier 1 range.


In spite of the softness, this is definitely EYE CANDY and deserves a place in a demo tier, so I'm inclined to assign it to....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## Foxarwing42

*Tron Legacy*


The demo disc of the moment. Probably the best transfer of any movie currently out on the format. It's even better than anything Pixar or Criterion have put out. This is the disc to beat. From the deep black levels and crisp detail this disc is pretty much unbelievable from start to finish.

*Tier Recommendation: Zero*


Sony Bravia 40" 1080p


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Little Fockers*


Nice looking one from Universal with awesome facial detail. Gets off to a rough start with some noisy grain, but turns itself around about 10-minutes in. Colors veer warmly which means ugly flesh tones but the other primaries shine. Black levels are a bit "meh" here and there, although nothing to really worry about.

*Tier 1.25*


----------



## ivanpino




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/20263617
> 
> *Tron: Legacy*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If this were an audio thread I'd be tempted to put this one on the top of the heap, for I was really blown away by the techno music, the incredible bass, and all the soaring activity in the surrounds. I can't remember my sound system sounding so good; it was really AUDIO NIRVANA for me.
> 
> 
> But this is a PQ thread, and I must confess that I wasn't as impressed as some were. That's not to say it wasn't good, for there were moments when I was drooling at the incredible blacks, the limitless depth, the perfect contrast, the vivid colors (thought these were limited), the mesmerizing details, the spot-on flesh tones and the amazing sharpness & clarity. In fact, if this had been true from start to finish I would indeed be recommending this for a place in the coveted Tier Blu.
> 
> 
> There was one pesky negative that kept rearing its ugly head...and that was SOFTNESS. It was very sporadic, but it appeared enough times for me to knock it down from the reference tier. Oddly enough, this occurred in the GRID more so than in the "real-world" scenes (I say this because many reviewers saw nothing but perfection in the GRID scenes).
> 
> 
> I should also mention facial details. Though they were definitely good throughout, they were NOT consistently Tier 0 quality (their texture didn't even compare to those in titles like the _Transporter Series_). IMHO most of them fell into the Tier 1 range.
> 
> 
> In spite of the softness, this is definitely EYE CANDY and deserves a place in a demo tier, so I'm inclined to assign it to....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.0**
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'



I didn't see the softness that you are talking about. What scenes in the Grid in particular?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ivanpino* /forum/post/20267240
> 
> 
> I didn't see the softness that you are talking about. What scenes in the Grid in particular?



I've already returned the rental disc, so I can't review it to give you specific time stamps. I do remember that several of the soft shots were of Jeff Bridges. They were in stark contrast to the majority of the film which was incredibly sharp.


----------



## djoberg

*Unthinkable*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19694354
> 
> *Unthinkable*
> 
> 
> Plenty of details on this feature. Seems the _sharpness_ know was turned a bit too far to the right. There are great details in faces, but almost unnaturally so. Skin tones are a bit on the pale side and the entire movie has a clinical look. Grain is on the moderate side, but only distracts in the darker corners. Blacks are deep and contrast is strong, almost a heightened result. Colors are somewhat muted as well.
> 
> 
> Though I didn't care for the look, I have to watch it through thread rules glasses.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.0*
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_



My take on this is almost identical to deltasun's, for I too was impressed with the details and the black levels. They were most definitely the two outstanding virtues.


I also liked his characterization of the film when he said "the entire movie has a _clinical_ look." That's exactly the word that came to my mind as I was watching scenes inside the interrogation and observation rooms. It also seemed a bit "washed out" in some outdoor, daytime scenes.


The nighttime scenes were the best, with exceptional black levels and shadow details. It's too bad that they were rare, with the majority of the film taking place in the interrogation building.


I too believe this falls short of demo material and that it belongs in Tier 2, but I'm inclined to drop it a notch or two, so......

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25* or 2.5**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## deltasun

*King of Kings*


This one shares similar characteristics with my previously reviewed _The Ten Commandments_ at 2.50. _King of Kings_ had a better overall look in terms of contrast, black levels, and dimensionality. However, the most disappointing aspect is facial details. It is highly inconsistent and does veer more towards being soft (out of focus) than sharp. It came to the point of being distracting, especially at 6 feet viewing distance. It is almost pervasive, but I would surmise it's from the source.


Aside from the aforementioned softness (of faces), textures of objects and native elements are just superb. Colors are just as grandiose and rich as _The Ten Commandments_. Dimensionality is top notch. Shadow details are above average, but definitely not up to top tier standards.


I believe the facial softness is enough to drop it a quarter tier below _The Ten Commandments_. Otherwise, this could have resided comfortably in mid Tier 1.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

*127 Hours*


Awesome panoramas that are well saturated in color - almost too saturated. Though most of the "normal" photography is on the warm side, there is a mix of Aron's own filming, some VHS footage, etc with different white balance levels and, of course, quality.


Facial details only showed the requisite pores, stubble, etc. during extreme close-up's. Those scenes are impressive in terms or detail and texture. The same details and texture can be found in rocks and surrounding elements. Skin tones are natural and faithful to the different stages that Aron goes through. Contrast is just about perfect throughout and black levels are quite deep for this video-shot feature. As can be expected, dimensionality is exceptional from the tight, almost claustrophobic shots of the canyon to the open expanse that showcases Utah's unique landscape.


I did spy some aliasing, but very minor and short-lived. Taking the inconsistent qualities into consideration, this averages out to be average.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*I Love You Phillip Morris*


Enjoyably colored and brilliantly detailed, this one is a total looker... except for the black levels. They have no bite whatsoever. Contrast is vivid and intense, so that's something. Grain is generally well resolved aside from the opening.

*Tier 1.75*


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/20269450
> 
> *King of Kings*
> 
> 
> I believe the facial softness is enough to drop it a quarter tier below _The Ten Commandments_. Otherwise, this could have resided comfortably in mid Tier 1.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.75*



Wow, that gets me really excited hearing your opinion on it. I still have yet to see it in any store, will probably be forced to order it from Amazon.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/20271836
> 
> 
> Wow, that gets me really excited hearing your opinion on it. I still have yet to see it in any store, will probably be forced to order it from Amazon.



That's what I ended up doing since it's $14.99 (still is!). Great great work on this title!


----------



## Vegaz

Tangled


The others pretty much covered it. Standard Disney fair. Just to add to what they said there's some impressive water in there too. I don't think it's as good as Kung Fu Panda but it's in that tier.

0-Blu (below Kung Fu Panda somewhere. Haven't seen anything else on the list down to Corpse Bride so I'm not sure where exactly but it's better than that.)


----------



## djoberg

*The A-Team*


I'd like to "cut to the chase" on this one (especially since I have at least one more Blu to watch tonight







). This was yet another title that was "all over the place," with some scenes featuring sharpness along with excellent details and depth, and other scenes being soft and flat. Facial details were outstanding at times (low Tier 0-high Tier 1) and lacking texture in the very next shot. Blacks too were a mixed bag; some were quite deep resulting in appreciable depth, and others were merely acceptable. Contrast was also inconsistent and when it was bad there were some really hot whites in daytime scenes. It had a *gritty* look through most of the film (which wasn't necessarily a bad thing) and sporadic instances of *noise*.


The overall range (of PQ) covered the first four tiers and when you weigh everything in the balances it comes out right about here....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## djoberg

*Stone*


Man, it's past my bedtime, so I'll definitely have to "cut to the chase" once again. Overall I was pleased with the PQ, even though the majority of scenes took place in the prison with a somewhat *sterile* (I used the word *clinical* in one of my recent reviews and I don't want to be redundant







) look. The color palette lent itself to this look, for it was quite muted throughout, and the weak contrast had the same effect.


Details were consistently good in most areas, including the brick walls of the prison, the outdoor exercise area, and the majority of facial close-ups (with the exception of those of De Niro). These were the highlight of this title, though black levels was also a redeeming quality (they weren't real deep or inky, but they were black enough to add some depth to whatever was in the foreground).


Flesh tones were spot-on and most everything was pleasingly *natural*. When this occurs I'm always thankful for being able to view this on a plasma (which majors in a "natural-looking" picture when the source is good).


This one wasn't as good as my last viewing (_The A-Team_), but I still found it worthy of a ranking in the same tier...though it's going on the opposite end....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5


----------



## djoberg

*Case 39*


Yet ANOTHER inconsistent Blu-ray!! I am surprised at the negatives I'll have to list, for this transfer has an AVC MPEG-4 encode with an average bit rate of 35-40 mbps. One would expect better with such a solid bit rate, but it just goes to show you that other factors come into play that determine the overall PQ.


The NEGATIVES:


*Gritty at times with heavy grain

*Washed out at times as well with hot whites

*Pervasive softness in multiple scenes

*Pale skin tones on Ms. Zellweger and others

*Speckles in a couple of shots


The POSITIVES:


*Blacks were solid with impressive shadow details in several scenes

*Warm natural colors (when they weren't muted)

*Excellent facial textures on Ian McShane and Lillith's father on a couple of close-ups

*Details and depth were quite good in isolated instances


I will have to part company with my colleagues (deltasun and GRG) who assigned this to Tier 4. Though there were definitely scenes that fell into this category, there were others (albeit in the minority) that bordered on the edge of Tier 2/3. My average comes out to be....

*Tier Recommendation: 3.75**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader*


The first one shot digitally in this series, and it looks it. Just overly cheap, with unnaturally smooth motion, noise, and weak black levels (in spots). Detail is all over the place and inconsistent. The furry animals looks great though, as do all of the sights showing the ship coming into land. Colors are subdued but generally pleasing.

*Tier 2.75**


----------



## deltasun

*Tron*


Fantastic job overall! Sure, there's quite a bit of black crush to go with weak shadow details, but facial details are excellently rendered and when appropriate, medium shots offer some dimensionality. Grain is also well-preserved, but does exhibit noise in the darker scenes, especially in the grid. Contrast is inconsistent and wavers quite a bit in a number of scenes. Skin tones are on the reddish side in the real world.


Colors can be unnatural and can bleed, but works well for the look of the grid. Finally, there's the (expected) outdated special effects. While the cartoonish presentation is rudimentary compared today's effects, its consistency does become routine as the movie progresses. Some banding is also noted.


Overall, I was impressed with how well it came together despite its age. It's gotta be one of the better PQ's to come from the 80's.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.25**

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## djoberg

^^^^


I'll look forward to your review on _Tron: Legacy_ deltasun!


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/20279155
> 
> *Tron*
> 
> 
> Fantastic job overall! Sure, there's quite a bit of black crush to go with weak shadow details, but facial details are excellently rendered and when appropriate, medium shots offer some dimensionality. Grain is also well-preserved, but does exhibit noise in the darker scenes, especially in the grid. Contrast is inconsistent and wavers quite a bit in a number of scenes. Skin tones are on the reddish side in the real world.
> 
> 
> Colors can be unnatural and can bleed, but works well for the look of the grid. Finally, there's the (expected) outdated special effects. While the cartoonish presentation is rudimentary compared today's effects, its consistency does become routine as the movie progresses. Some banding is also noted.
> 
> 
> Overall, I was impressed with how well it came together despite its age. It's gotta be one of the better PQ's to come from the 80's.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.25**
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_



I have a mega head cold and I'm too sick to care. What he said, but it's a hair better in my eyes.
*Tier 3.0**


----------



## djoberg

*Little Fockers*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/20264917
> 
> *Little Fockers*
> 
> 
> Nice looking one from Universal with awesome facial detail. Gets off to a rough start with some noisy grain, but turns itself around about 10-minutes in. Colors veer warmly which means ugly flesh tones but the other primaries shine. Black levels are a bit "meh" here and there, although nothing to really worry about.
> 
> *Tier 1.25*



Pretty much spot-on review from GRG. The only area I would disagree with is the black levels, which I found to be very good throughout. Regarding the first 10 minutes, I also thought the contrast was pumped up resulting in a washed out look in most of that time frame.


The colors were over-saturated, but they *popped* nicely and gave my eyes a real candy rush in many scenes (most notably at the birthday party scene).


Along with exemplary details, there was some amazing depth and dimensionality in multiple shots.


Facial details were excellent (as noted by GRG) in most cases (though in some of the female shots they appeared a bit smoothed over, especially earlier shots of Jessica Alba). The first shot of Dustin Hoffman (dancing in Spain) was as good as it gets...high Tier 0 to be sure. I would say overall facial close-ups averaged high Tier 1.


Because of the ugly beginning (which I would rate as Tier 3/4 material), I'm going to go a notch lower than my peer....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## deltasun

*Burlesque*


Soft, hazy lighting. Weak contrast. Blooming lights. Heavy banding. Zero facial details. Away from club, some semblance of film does show up. Facial details are a bit more pronounced and the haze disappears. Still, these are rare.


Inside the club, shadow details are quite decent. Black levels are mixed. Dimensionality is below average for the most part.

*Tier Recommendation: 4.0**

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

*Love and Other Drugs*


This one's visually appealing overall except for the burnt orange skin tones that permeate throughout. Facial details are also a bit inconsistent, but are still Tier 1 for the most part.


Contrast is excellent and blacks are simply stunning. Medium shots offer appreciable depth. The picture is clean, sharp, and filmic with a fine layer of grain. Colors are well-saturated and add to the overall look and feel. I did notice the dreaded teal/orange combination, but was not too bothersome.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.50**

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## audiomagnate

Tron Legacy blew a woofer in my system. Gobs of insane LF. The first scene is deceptively quiet so you might turn up the level beyond your normal max. This will result in speaker damage. BTW this does not look like tier 0 to me.


----------



## deltasun

*Taxi Driver*


This is a wonderful restoration from Sony and the film has probably not looked better. However, for the purposes of this thread...


Though there is renewed dimensionality in medium scenes, there is still softness in quite a number of scenes. Grain is well-preserved but does waver and thicken a bit in a number of scenes. Low-light shots fare the worst - they are usually noisy and retain minimal shadow details. Contrast is generally strong in daylight, but does weaken towards the end. Speaking of which, the quality really diminishes during the climactic ending.


Colors are a bit dated. Blacks are decent, but do crush. Skin tones remain faithful for the most part, but does turn a shade of red in some scenes. Some minor banding also noted.


I hope this doesn't dissuade anyone from purchasing this blu-ray. It is a worthwhile upgrade from any previous versions!

*Tier Recommendation: 4.0**

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Tron Legacy*


Not joining the hype. Incredible when we're dealing with visual effects, sure. The ships, the lights, the games, etc. are reference. I was wowed more than a few times and the black levels are simply staggering. Everything else though? It's fake, it's digital, and it's bland. Facial detail is rare, softness creeps into the frame, and noise can be a bother. Good, not great.

*Tier 1.25*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *audiomagnate* /forum/post/20282632
> 
> 
> BTW this does not look like tier 0 to me.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/20283606
> 
> *Tron Legacy*
> 
> 
> Not joining the hype. Good, not great.
> 
> *Tier 1.25*



I agree 100% with my colleagues above!


----------



## 42041

Anyone else feel that this thread should be renamed to be more indicative of its purpose? "PQ" is too general a term. I'd hate for someone not doing their research properly to see that Taxi Driver is in the lower tiers and conclude that it's a poor quality release or not worth upgrading.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/20283747
> 
> 
> Anyone else feel that this thread should be renamed to be more indicative of its purpose? "PQ" is too general a term. I'd hate for someone not doing their research properly to see that Taxi Driver is in the lower tiers and conclude that it's a poor quality release or not worth upgrading.



I believe Picture Quality *is* what best describes this thread. If we're talking true-to-source or other relative descriptions, there should be another thread (and there already was) that depicts that accordingly. Because the posters in this thread do not consider directors' intent, how close it looks to the original release, etc., picture quality indeed is what we "grade" against other releases.


----------



## snsguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/20283606
> 
> *Tron Legacy*
> 
> 
> Not joining the hype. Incredible when we're dealing with visual effects, sure. The ships, the lights, the games, etc. are reference. I was wowed more than a few times and the black levels are simply staggering. Everything else though? It's fake, it's digital, and it's bland. Facial detail is rare, softness creeps into the frame, and noise can be a bother. Good, not great.
> 
> *Tier 1.25*





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/20283658
> 
> 
> I agree 100% with my colleagues above!



I read your guys thoughts on the PQ of a movie a few times a week and I don't think I've ever posted in here before.


I saw that a few of you ahd posted on the PQ of TRON Legacy and I have to agree that the PQ of the film is not way up there as some have stated. I noticed throughout it that the picture was very soft. IMAX scenes looked much more detailed then standard aspect ratio. I noticed especially during the scene in Kevin Flynn's lair to be very soft. Facial dtail was not pronounced and at times I thought as was watching a DVD upconverted. I even checked to make sure I didn't.


I loved this movie but am disappointed that it wasn't more detailed. Some parts wow'd and others didn't.


SNSGUY


----------



## IanRW




> Quote:
> Tier Four
> 
> 
> The titles in this tier typically represent below-average picture quality that is subpar for the Blu-ray format. While still visually better than upscaled standard definition material, *the differences are less obvious upon casual inspection*. The image may have deficiencies in one or more areas. The picture will look flat and lack the sharpness seen in higher tiers. *Compression artifacts, softness, poor black levels, questionable source material, and poorly transferred masters* are just some of the problems exhibited in tier four. Some Blu-rays in this tier are significant upgrades over the dvd but are constrained in image quality due to the limitations inherent in the source material or the director's intended look.



I understand the perpose of this thread, and I'm not sure myself where to rate Taxi Driver, but I really can't agree with the Tier Four placement on its own terms.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/20283747
> 
> 
> Anyone else feel that this thread should be renamed to be more indicative of its purpose? "PQ" is too general a term. I'd hate for someone not doing their research properly to see that Taxi Driver is in the lower tiers and conclude that it's a poor quality release or not worth upgrading.



Do you have an alternative in mind? I understand the concern about confusing the more casual follower of the PQ Tiers, on the older films at a minimum that sometimes have trouble competing strictly on eye candy. But the framework laid out tries to explicitly detail the criteria used in determining placement, to not confuse anyone if they pay attention.


Taxi Driver sounds like a high-quality release, from everything I have read about the Blu-ray. Sony apparently spent an immense amount of time and money doing the very best for the film. But if Tier Four reflects its reality for the PQ Tiers, so be it. I will do my best to watch Taxi Driver this week and report back.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/20282830
> 
> *Taxi Driver*
> 
> *This is a wonderful restoration from Sony and the film has probably not looked better.* However, for the purposes of this thread...
> 
> 
> Though there is renewed dimensionality in medium scenes, there is still softness in quite a number of scenes. Grain is well-preserved but does waver and thicken a bit in a number of scenes. Low-light shots fare the worst - they are usually noisy and retain minimal shadow details. Contrast is generally strong in daylight, but does weaken towards the end. Speaking of which, the quality really diminishes during the climactic ending.
> 
> 
> Colors are a bit dated. Blacks are decent, but do crush. Skin tones remain faithful for the most part, but does turn a shade of red in some scenes. Some minor banding also noted.
> 
> *I hope this doesn't dissuade anyone from purchasing this blu-ray. It is a worthwhile upgrade from any previous versions*!
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 4.0**
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/20283747
> 
> 
> Anyone else feel that this thread should be renamed to be more indicative of its purpose? "PQ" is too general a term. *I'd hate for someone not doing their research properly to see that Taxi Driver is in the lower tiers and conclude that it's a poor quality release or not worth upgrading.*



The words in *BOLD* from deltasun's review should cause any fan of _Taxi Driver_ to realize it is indeed worth the upgrade.


I've seen this many times 42041....where an excellent movie doesn't make the higher tiers yet the reviewer has still encouraged fans to make the purchase (because of it being better than its DVD counterpart).


So, in answer to your question, no, I don't believe it's necessary to rename the thread, especially when efforts are made to inform any researcher of this thread that the Blu-ray is still better than any previous releases.


----------



## rusky_g




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/20283747
> 
> 
> Anyone else feel that this thread should be renamed to be more indicative of its purpose? "PQ" is too general a term. I'd hate for someone not doing their research properly to see that Taxi Driver is in the lower tiers and conclude that it's a poor quality release or not worth upgrading.



A good point, and one which I too have considered.


In 'my mind', I title this the Eye Candy thread. And when I post a review, I often rate films favourably which have exactly that. A film shot in 90% darkness could have excellent PQ for example...but would that be Eye Candy? Not for me, however it does give some indication of accuracy to source, hence I find all reviews in this thread to be useful....I just have to pluck out the ones which I think are geared towards my taste


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/20284844
> 
> 
> The words in *BOLD* from deltasun's review should cause any fan of _Taxi Driver_ to realize it is indeed worth the upgrade.
> 
> 
> I've seen this many times 42041....where an excellent movie doesn't make the higher tiers yet the reviewer has still encouraged fans to make the purchase (because of it being better than its DVD counterpart).
> 
> 
> So, in answer to your question, no, I don't believe it's necessary to rename the thread, especially when efforts are made to inform any researcher of this thread that the Blu-ray is still better than any previous releases.



Good points, they show the necessity of following the dialogue in this thread on specific films in how we arrive at certain evaluations. Placing a disc in context is very important, there are many good transfers that reside in the lower Tiers, aside from the dreaded fifth tier. It can safely be said nothing of visual quality resides there.


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/20283747
> 
> 
> Anyone else feel that this thread should be renamed to be more indicative of its purpose? "PQ" is too general a term. I'd hate for someone not doing their research properly to see that Taxi Driver is in the lower tiers and conclude that it's a poor quality release or not worth upgrading.



Honestly, you could say the same thing in reverse about reviewers casually throwing out 5/5 video scores for Taxi Driver. I don't see any contradiction in something receiving a perfect video score from a number of reviewers and yet at the same time being placed it Tier 3 or 4 of this thread - both provide useful perspectives. At least this thread provides paragraph upon paragraph that explicitly outlines its goals and system. The thread title is the most minor of points, since as you said, it's about doing your research properly to know what a particular rating might mean. There are pitfalls on both sides of the video evaluation coin for the uninformed reader.


I've always wondered why the AQ tier thread doesn't receive the same constant criticism as the PQ tier thread, even though it is based on an almost identical premise (i.e. ranking against an "ideal" audio presentation without considering faithfulness to the source).


----------



## deltasun

*Justice League: The New Frontier*


Now, for something (hopefully) less controversial...










Sharp, clean lines describe the animation style and presentation of _Justice League: The New Frontier_. Blacks are deep and bold, colors are well-suited for the story's period, contrast is strong. A number of scenes exhibit 3-dimensionality.


For the negatives, there is quite a bit of banding and some aliasing. Still, agree with current placement.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.50*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Way Back*

While the color palette isn't always pleasing, detail can be. Some of the environmental shots, including some staggering ones of a farmland, are just unreal. Black levels are a bit wonky in spots. Grain is pleasing and holds up well.

*Tier 2.00**


----------



## rusky_g

*Tron Legacy*


When I saw the 1080p Trailer for Tron Legacy last year, it planted itself firmly on my Hi-Def radar as being one to look out for. The brief glimpse of detail in the 'real world' shots mixed with the razor edged neon glow of the' grid world' had me captivated for sure. And with Disney serving up the goods, it could not _fail_ to please...


Several months down the line then, the Blu-ray release is upon us. Was I disappointed? In a word, No. Is it a contender for the upper Tier 0 echelons of Avatar et all? No, it's not that either.


Whilst my thoughts continue to digest, my knee jerk reaction is that Tron Legacy belongs at the top end of Tier 1 and that is by no means a bad thing. I agree that some scenes do look sharper than others but even the softer ones were still on a level that some films could only aspire to. Blacks and contrast were solid throughout, although I have seen better...what really wowed me was how epic some of the IMAX action scenes looked. Trust me, if you want to impress someone with your projector, Tron Legacy is sprinkled with succulent moments which will do exactly that.


If it had been released a year or so ago, Legacy would have been given a Tier 0 placement from myself. However, recently we have seen the Hi Def format envelope being pushed further and further and the bar continues to raise. Therefore, as above, top end of Tier 1 is where Legacy resides.

*Tron Legacy: Tier 1*


----------



## rusky_g

*Little Fockers*


I'll cut to the chase with this one. A few scenes looked good, but none had me reaching for the pause button, although there was one which came close (a head on shot of DeNiro on the phone to Stiller which had excellent black level and contrast). Mostly, it looked average, falling short of what modern transfers can achieve.

*Tier 2.75*


----------



## djoberg

*Country Strong*


I can hardly believe I watched this to the end; the storyline was lame, the pace was far too slow, and the acting was wooden. I guess the *okay* PQ must have been the only force that kept me from hitting the STOP button on my Harmony Remote.


I said "okay PQ," for this was NOT demo-material, by any stretch of the imagination (though reviewers on Cinema Squid's cite were singing its praises). It DID have some excellent black levels (for the most part), some very good details, and a nice filmic look (though the grain became distracting in a few instances).


The bad consisted of the dreaded orange hue (which wreaked havoc on flesh tones in several scenes), some minor banding, and sporadic bouts of softness.


Overall the PQ just didn't do much for me (except prevent my finger from punching the STOP button







), though in fairness I must say it was slightly above average due to the positives mentioned above. By "slightly above average," I mean just that and thus my vote goes for....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Scream*


Scream came out in 1996... and that's probably when this master was created. It's a mess of edge enhancement, poorly resolved grain, muddy definition, and wildly overdone color. Close-ups are okay if a bit rigid. Print damage is a constant bother.

*Tier 4.0**


----------



## audiomagnate

*Tron Legacy*


I'm sure this will be running continously in Best Buys across the nation for quite a while. It looked very good, but honestly, I don't see this as a tier 0 contender. I saw digital noise and what looked like DNR, especially on facial closeups and several soft scenes. Clu looked really strange on facial closeups but I guess that was digital "youthing" done to Jeff Bridges. It's a must rent, and if you have a truly full range system and gobs of power, an INSANE ride.No wonder this won the Oscar for best sound.

*1.5*


----------



## snsguy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *audiomagnate* /forum/post/20301771
> 
> *Tron Legacy*
> 
> 
> I'm sure this will be running continously in Best Buys across the nation for quite a while. It looked very good, but honestly, I don't see this as a tier 0 contender. I saw digital noise and what looked like DNR, especially on facial closeups and several soft scenes. Clu looked really strange on facial closeups but I guess that was digital "youthing" done to Jeff Bridges. It's a must rent, and if you have a truly full range system and gobs of power, an INSANE ride.*No wonder this won the Oscar for best sound.*
> 
> *1.5*



To bad they didn't even put it in the best original score category. It was clearly one of the best of the year. Very disappointing.










I saw some of the same things you did. Great to look at but it's not up there with the best. It fell short in those aspects you described.


SNSGUY


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Scream 2*

Just as bad as the first, if not a hair worse. The compression here is pretty blatant. Still plenty of sharpening to go around, so you'll still get all those beautiful halos. Colors are super overdone, especially the greens of the campus. Facial detail is still nice, but only in close. Any distance and this one collapses.

*Tier 4.0*


----------



## 42041

*Showgirls*


Through some incomprehensible act of cruelty, the notorious 1995 bomb and multiple Razzie award winner sports a high quality new film transfer on Blu-ray. There's nothing wrong with the technical side of the production though, and the colorful cinematography and production design serves up some nice visuals. Everything is glittery and bold-colored, contrast is solid, and it looks perfectly film-like. Perhaps to a fault, since there's a pretty healthy amount of grain in the darker scenes, and although I don't mind personally, I suspect it'll keep it out of the demo tier for most viewers. It's not the sharpest movie ever filmed either, with many scenes going for a hazy diffuse look, but resolution is plentiful.

*Tier 2.0*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Scream 3*


A hair better than the prior two, the grain buzzing wildly still and edge enhancement still laid on thick though. Still lacking definition via medium or long range shots. Close-ups are still okay, and this one has the least amount of damage. This one is dark though, which leads to a lot of the ugly stuff being hidden by default. Winner?
*Tier 3.75**


----------



## lgans316

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1


Looks much better than 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6. I still feel Azkaban has the best PQ in this series so far.

*Recommendation: Tier 2.25*

Wall Street - Money Never Sleeps


Looked very filmic. Naturally sharp.

*Recommendation: Tier 2*


----------



## rusky_g

Hey guys


This evening I was curious about what HD treats were on the horizon for this year so I checked out some trailers for new movies. And wow am I glad I did! I anticipate there will be a new candidate for the top of tier 0 in the form of Disneys 'Mars Needs Moms'! just completely and utterly amazing, I'm still trying to find the words...also looking very nice were 3 musketeers, Pirates of the Caribbean 4, Captain America and Transformers 3. All looked amazing!


Think it might be time to upgrade to a 1080p PJ ;-D


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Batman Beyond: Return Of The Joker


recommendation: Tier 1.75**

_Batman Beyond: Return Of The Joker_ was a standalone feature that sprung to life based off the animated television series. One of the best Batman stories told in any medium, one can get nervous when a catalog title makes it to high-definition for the first time if no work has been done to properly transfer it. Have no fear here, a sparkling Blu-ray edition by Warner Bros. made its debut for the format on April 5, 2011.


For a movie that had been unjustly treated on home video in the past, a top-notch job has been accomplished on this disc. Cutting to the crux of the matter, the picture quality easily overwhelms the prior DVD versions in all considerations, bringing new life to an animated production that was originally released in 2000. At a brisk 76 minutes, the main feature is encoded in AVC on a BD-25.


The main feature is presented exactly as it was originally animated, at an aspect ratio of 4:3 in an open matte transfer that looks as fresh as a new movie. That choice is controversial to some degree, for while the animation was created at that ratio, the producers behind the movie intended for a matted 1.78:1 widescreen presentation. As a personal preference, the open matte framing found on the Blu-ray simply looks better most of the time than the tighter 1.78:1 framing found on the old DVD. The widescreen presentation is cramped in comparison, though a handful of scenes on the prior DVD do take advantage of the wider space effectively. Scenes where the new Batman soars through the night skies of Gotham are good examples. But typically the tighter framing often cuts off parts of objects on the screen and even some action.


Given the clean animation style and simple textures employed in the backgrounds, the okay compression parameters generate an impressive image. Going off an estimate, the average video bitrate is 20 Mbps. Peak to trough rates generally range from 27 Mbps to 15 Mbps. Only one glimpse of minor banding mars an otherwise flawless video encode, the switch to AVC from VC-1 by Warner appears to have improved some of the banding problems noted in prior animated Blu-rays from them. Looking for problems, a touch of aliasing crops up along the line art on occasion. But its effect is very minor and a normal viewer will not notice the problem.


The quality of the animation was a complete surprise in high-definition, expectations were quite low for a movie produced in 2000 using the digital ink and paint process. But the transfer is pristine and it ends up looking very close to more recent efforts in the field, like the various direct-to-video features starring Superman and Batman. The tremendous leap in video quality is reason enough to buy _Batman Beyond:ROTJ_, but the lossless soundtrack is no slouch and surprisingly good. An unqualified recommendation for fans of Batman or good animation on Blu-ray.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1*


A huge step in the right direction for Warner. Crisp, well detailed, clear, and defined. Black levels are tremendous. Grain can sometimes appear static, some shots look a little too filtered, and there is a bit of ringing from time to time, but it's not the mess Half-Blood Prince was in that regard. Maybe Warner is getting it together. That said, overall dark film so eye candy isn't exactly oozing from the screen.

*Tier 2.50**


----------



## rusky_g

*Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows - Part 1*


Technically, there's not much wrong, but being a modern big release there's no excuse to be. However, I do like films to be punchy and vibrant, and as pointed out by GRG, this is dark and gloomy for most of the film. As such, it's not demo material for me and accordingly I concur at....


*Tier 2.50*


----------



## OldCodger73

*The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest Tier 2.25*


Moonstruck Tier 2.75*


Thelma & Louise Tier 3.0*


Babe Tier 1,75*


Fiddler on the Roof Tier 3.25*


Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1 Tier 2.75*


----------



## 42041

*Taxi Driver*


Excellent transfer. It ain't Avatar, but the superbly resolved and textured representation of a grimy mid-70s New York is a treat. Not much vibrant color or ultra-sharp detail. My only real quibble is that the encode seemed to struggle with the grain in a couple scenes, top-notch otherwise.

*Tier 3.25*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*King's Speech*


Wonderful film, but ugly as hell. Oh sure, there's some nice fine detail here and there, close-ups well resolved. But the coloring... oh my god.... what the hell people? This thing is faded, which is fine, but faded with what? ORANGE AND TEAL!!!! Ahhh! They might as well label this as dualchromatic (TM) because hardly any other colors get through. In the process of fading it, they took the black levels too because there is no depth to go around. Hideous to look at.

*Tier 3.75*


----------



## deltasun

*Due Date*


This one started out at Tier 1.0 with solid blacks, exceptional details, and strong contrast. Colors have predominantly coolish hue, but primaries do pop. Dimensionality is adequate, but not always consistent.


First major issue is the overly saturated and orange skin tones. This doesn't happen throughout. Secondly, there are number of backlit shots that remove a lot of shadow details and render the scenes flat. In general, shadow details usually get more noisy and lose an inordinate amount of detail.


Overall, there's enough high-definition pizazz to please. However, I do feel it's just out of reach of the demo tiers.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## djoberg

*Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows-Part 1*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/20310779
> 
> Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1
> 
> 
> Looks much better than 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6. I still feel Azkaban has the best PQ in this series so far.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 2.25*



I'm inclined to agree with Igans316 on this one (though the others who have chimed in are all in same ballpark with their votes for Tier 2). It's been awhile since I watched the first 6 installments but this one seemed to have better details and depth at times. The most remarkable scenes were in chapters 11-13 (most of which took place in the ministry building) with incredible clarity, details (including some excellent facial close-ups), black levels/shadow details and depth. I would rate those scenes in low Tier 0 or high Tier 1. It's just a crying shame this was the exception and not the rule.


As has been noted, the overwhelming darkness that permeates the movie prevents this from being serious EYE CANDY, even though *some* of the dark scenes featured good black levels and crisp details. I sincerely believe it all averages out to a Tier 2 ranking, and IMHO Igans316 got it right with his rating of....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## deltasun

*Everlasting Moments*


The movie, shot in 16mm film, is bathed in a sepia-toned hue, which adequately complements the early 1900's setting. Details are excellent in a great number of scenes. They do wane a bit in some of the more grain-filled indoor/darker scenes. During these scenes, grain does overpower a bit and can get distracting. Contrast is strong for the most part (though did overcook in a handful of scenes). Blacks are deep, but does crush from time to time.


Dimensionality is not a strong point, but medium scenes do offer some periodically. Skin tones remain faithful despite the chosen color scheme, but colors are pretty absent outside of it.


Just a beautifully rendered film that holds up well against newer ones with less constraints.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25**

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/20319917
> 
> *Everlasting Moments*
> 
> 
> shot in 16mm film
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.25**



Would that be the highest 16mm production in the Tiers? You sure there aren't other film or video formats being used in it? I don't know the movie or its production history, but many low-budget films are using a mix of different shooting formats.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/20322086
> 
> 
> Would that be the highest 16mm production in the Tiers? You sure there aren't other film or video formats being used in it? I don't know the movie or its production history, but many low-budget films are using a mix of different shooting formats.



I went with IMDB (which I know can be off). I thought I read it somewhere too. Anyway, I gave _Walking Dead_ the same rating ironically.







I bet part of what makes it work is the sepia color scheme, but details look Tier 1sh for the most part.


The next Criterion title I'm watching is looking Tier 0 so far - _Summer Hours_. I should finish it by tonight or tomorrow.


----------



## deltasun

*Summer Hours*


Sorry for the false alarm - this one didn't stay in Tier 0, unfortunately. It started out there with well-saturated, lush foliage...great dimensionality...exquisite details. As the movie progressed, however, inconsistency crept in. Perhaps it was used as a tool to reflect the mood. Either way, facial details were erratic and produced some really soft scenes. Contrast was not very strong and blacks were crushed.


Some blooming started appearing in mixed lighting, sapping some of the depth. Colors were also less saturated as time passed. Still, there are enough of the initial positives sprinkled throughout that I believe saves the overall score. I also noted some ringing, but very minor.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.50**

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Incredibles*


Pixar. Disney. The only question is how high? Colors are spectacular, hair, shirts, and faces carry plenty of detail, the island is stunning, and sharpness is firm. Black levels are perfect. A bit if aliasing here and there, nothing to be concerned about.

*Tier 0**, just below Astro Boy.


----------



## tfoltz

^I've been trying to decide where to place it. As far up as below Despicable Me, or as low as just above How to Train Your Dragon. It's a wide range, but I haven't seen too many movies in the middle of them. I believe I noticed some banding throughout Incredibles. Also, the island is definitely great, but they don't get there until an hour into the movie. The rest of the time the colors are muted (purposely, but I suppose that doesn't matter here).


I probably won't cast an official vote until I can watch it twice...which is why I hardly vote here, I always want to view a movie twice to make sure I got it correct and of course I don't end up watching it for a few months.


----------



## djoberg

Quote:

Originally Posted by *tfoltz* 
I probably won't cast an official vote until I can watch it twice...which is why I hardly vote here, I always want to view a movie twice to make sure I got it correct and of course I don't end up watching it for a few months.
You were once a regular contributor here tfoltz (and a very good one at that!) and I would encourage you to write reviews BEFORE your second viewing. If all of us waited for two viewings to write a review, I believe this thread would have met its demise long ago!


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/20317231
> 
> *Due Date*
> 
> 
> This one started out at Tier 1.0 with solid blacks, exceptional details, and strong contrast. Colors have predominantly coolish hue, but primaries do pop. Dimensionality is adequate, but not always consistent.
> 
> 
> First major issue is the overly saturated and orange skin tones. This doesn't happen throughout. Secondly, there are number of backlit shots that remove a lot of shadow details and render the scenes flat. In general, shadow details usually get more noisy and lose an inordinate amount of detail.
> 
> 
> Overall, there's enough high-definition pizazz to please. However, I do feel it's just out of reach of the demo tiers.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.0*
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_



it's funny, because with the bitrate you wouldn't think it would be that great picture quality (entire movie was like 16GB) but I thought it looked decent as well.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *b_scott* /forum/post/20328321
> 
> 
> it's funny, because with the bitrate you wouldn't think it would be that great picture quality (entire movie was like 16GB) but I thought it looked decent as well.



You can definitely tell something was off though, but yes...better than expected.


----------



## deltasun

*Meet the Parents*


This could have been demo material, except for the extra dose of DNR. Clarity, contrast, blacks are all good. Dimensionality is so-so. Skin tones have a pinkish hue. But faces! Faces have no definition. Even the close-up of DeNiro's temple in the car with Stiller. You can still make-out the lines but just completely smoothed over.


Everything's Tier 1 minus the negatives. It's now just a call on how badly the minuses affected the PQ.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0**

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## audiomagnate

*127 Hours*

This could have looked so good. This was shot right down the road from me and the guy was life flighted to my local hospital. There's gobs of noise, haloing, no real detail, and the color of the stone was off in most scenes. Some scenes were grossly underexposed, possibly intentionally for artistic reasons. This was definitely below average in my opinion, so I'm going to have to slam it with a big

*4.0*


----------



## ivanpino




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *audiomagnate* /forum/post/20330690
> 
> *127 Hours*
> 
> This could have looked so good. This was shot right down the road from me and the guy was life flighted to my local hospital. There's gobs of noise, haloing, no real detail, and the color of the stone was off in most scenes. Some scenes were grossly underexposed, possibly intentionally for artistic reasons. This was definitely below average in my opinion, so I'm going to have to slam it with a big
> 
> *4.0*



I would have to seriously disagree with you on this one. It looked great, not perfect but very good. I would give it a 1.5 on the tier list.


Ivan


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *audiomagnate* /forum/post/20330690
> 
> *127 Hours*
> 
> This could have looked so good. This was shot right down the road from me and the guy was life flighted to my local hospital. There's gobs of noise, haloing, no real detail, and the color of the stone was off in most scenes. Some scenes were grossly underexposed, possibly intentionally for artistic reasons. This was definitely below average in my opinion, so I'm going to have to slam it with a big
> 
> *4.0*





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ivanpino* /forum/post/20330961
> 
> 
> I would have to seriously disagree with you on this one. It looked great, not perfect but very good. I would give it a 1.5 on the tier list.
> 
> 
> Ivan



WOW! I don't believe I've ever seen a title with such *mixed* opinions. So far there have been 5 who have weighed in....check out the diversity of placement recommendations:


1.5............ivanpino

2.25..........myself

3.0............deltasun

3.75..........GRG

4.0............audiomagnate


Phantom's going to have fun with this one!


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Street Kings 2: Motor City*


Great looking digital effort. Facial detail is fantastic, some of the most consistent you'll see. Black levels are good if not the greatest. Some noise here and there. Outstanding views of Detroit. Definitely has a case of aliasing though, small objects shimmering and flickering during camera pans.

*Tier 1.50*


----------



## sbpyrat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/20331296
> 
> 
> WOW! I don't believe I've ever seen a title with such *mixed* opinions. So far there have been 5 who have weighed in....check out the diversity of placement recommendations:
> 
> 
> 1.5............ivanpino
> 
> 2.25..........myself
> 
> 3.0............deltasun
> 
> 3.75..........GRG
> 
> 4.0............audiomagnate
> 
> 
> Phantom's going to have fun with this one!


127 Hours


I'll throw my had in the ring. It was a Netflix rental, so I don't have it to refer back to. But I remember thinking it varied from good to mediocre depending on the scene. I rank it in the middle of that range.

Recommendation: Tier 2.5*


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/20331296
> 
> 
> WOW! I don't believe I've ever seen a title with such *mixed* opinions. So far there have been 5 who have weighed in....check out the diversity of placement recommendations:
> 
> 
> 1.5............ivanpino
> 
> 2.25..........myself
> 
> 3.0............deltasun
> 
> 3.75..........GRG
> 
> 4.0............audiomagnate
> 
> 
> Phantom's going to have fun with this one!



You must mean a headache...


----------



## deltasun

*Skyline*


One word to describe this presentation: muddy. Blacks are pretty weak. Contrast is pretty weak. There are not many details to speak of. Low light scenes are relatively flat.


There are some daytime scenes that show better definition. However, as a whole, a pretty disappointing adventure all around (not limited to PQ







). Some banding and noise are also evident.

*Tier Recommendation: 4.0**

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Born to Raise Hell*


Seagal video schlock, but loaded with fine detail. Some stunning close-ups and establishing shots of buildings. Colors are a little flat although it depends on the lighting too. Superb black levels, rare for a cheap DTV production. Bit of noise here and there, little bits or ringing, and some moire are the only faults.

*Tier 1.75*


----------



## deltasun

*Mesrine: Killer Instinct*


Excellent presentation from Music Box Films. Blacks are inky. Medium shots offer adequate dimensionality. Contrast is strong, but well-balanced. Colors are rich, though there is a push towards bathing scenes in blues or greens. Nothing distracting and suits said scenes.


There is a beautiful layer of grain throughout yielding a very film-like feel to the movie. Skin tones remain faithful (outside of the push mentioned above). Facial details retain every pore, line, and texture. Shadow details are also very palatable throughout.


There is an early scene in Algeria that utilizes coarser grain to illustrate the harder setting, but this is short-lived. There are also arbitrary scenes of softness. Therefore, I place this at the threshold of Tier 1 and 0.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*El Topo*


This one was hit with a small DNR stick, because it's not terribly offensive, but there's no way it should be this clean either. Detail is meager, the whole thing is a little soft (naturally so), and black levels simply don't exist. The encode is fine although it doesn't have much to do.

*Tier 3.75**


----------



## deltasun

*Hereafter*


Gorgeous presentation. Deep, deep blacks and staggering details. Contrast is predominantly strong, but is too strong in a number of scenes, leading to some loss of shadow details. Aliasing is very minor, but present.


Can't really complain much - dimensionality is superb in panoramic and medium shots. Skin tones are natural and accurate. The cooler color scheme is on par with the feel of the film. Grain is perfectly rendered and gives the requisite film-like appearance. Some noise does creep in, but it's a nitpick at this point.


Facial details don't hang around the upper reference tier, but is still notable. Some minor ringing and some flatter low-light scenes are also noted.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.50*


Am I the only one who enjoyed the film???

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## audiomagnate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/20316531
> 
> *King's Speech*
> 
> 
> Wonderful film, but ugly as hell. Oh sure, there's some nice fine detail here and there, close-ups well resolved. But the coloring... oh my god.... what the hell people? This thing is faded, which is fine, but faded with what? ORANGE AND TEAL!!!! Ahhh! They might as well label this as dualchromatic (TM) because hardly any other colors get through. In the process of fading it, they took the black levels too because there is no depth to go around. Hideous to look at.
> 
> *Tier 3.75*



You are being way too kind. This thing is an abomination! Hideous. Worse than a Netflix HD streaming rental in many ways. The teal gets into the washed out skin tones. 4.0 equals below average. I'm being kind. The closer you get, the worse it looks. Maybe it was artistic intent, but for our purposes, it looks bad. I guess underexposure is right up there with teal/orange. God help us.

*4.0*


----------



## audiomagnate




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/20198514
> 
> 
> I don't blame you one bit for hitting the STOP BUTTON. I was tempted to do the same but I kept thinking it would get better, which it didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would you rate the PQ during the first half hour? (I ask this because that too didn't get any better.)



I thought it looked pretty good. In the 2.0 range.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/20312945
> 
> *Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1*
> 
> 
> A *huge* step in the right direction for Warner. *Crisp, well detailed, clear, and defined.* Black levels are tremendous. Grain can sometimes appear static, some shots look a little too filtered, and there is a bit of ringing from time to time, but it's not the mess Half-Blood Prince was in that regard. Maybe Warner is getting it together. That said, overall dark film so eye candy isn't exactly oozing from the screen.
> 
> *Tier 2.50**



I would say more like a baby step in the right direction for Warner.


"Crisp, well detailed, clear, and defined" are not words that I would use to describe the movie I saw.


It looked like the usual Warner PQ mess to me, except *not quite* as bad as usual.


The opening close-up of Bill Nighy was representatively bad: that "swarming," unstable look that we all know so well.

*Tier 3.25*


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/20276991
> 
> *Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader*
> 
> 
> The first one shot digitally in this series, and it looks it. Just overly cheap, with unnaturally smooth motion, noise, and weak black levels (in spots). Detail is all over the place and inconsistent. The furry animals looks great though, as do all of the sights showing the ship coming into land. Colors are subdued but generally pleasing.
> 
> *Tier 2.75**



I generally agree with this description, but I would place it slightly lower:

*Tier 3.0*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Gulliver's Travels*


Nice color and clear digital presentation. Close-ups typically resolve facial detail with ease, although the mid-range doesn't quite have the same bite. Black levels lose their luster in spots, and there are a few moments of softness. Of course, to enjoy all of this, you need to site through this movie...

*Tier 1.75*


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/20344589
> 
> 
> I would say more like a baby step in the right direction for Warner.
> 
> 
> "Crisp, well detailed, clear, and defined" are not words that I would use to describe the movie I saw.
> 
> 
> It looked like the usual Warner PQ mess to me, except *not quite* as bad as usual.
> 
> 
> The opening close-up of Bill Nighy was representatively bad: that "swarming," unstable look that we all know so well.
> 
> *Tier 3.25*


 Attachment 209866 


That opening close-up?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/20344693
> 
> Attachment 209866
> 
> 
> That opening close-up?



What I was recalling was actually not just one shot but the whole sequence of him giving a speech. I don't recall it being quite as dark as that shot.


In any event, the "swarming" effect that I am talking about would not be apparent from a screen shot.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Happy Easter everyone!







Hopefully I will get the chance to watch the Blu-ray for _The Greatest Story Ever Told_ today and comment on it. I have not heard very good things about the transfer, but my expectations are low.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/20296904
> 
> *Country Strong*
> 
> 
> I said "okay PQ," for this was NOT demo-material, by any stretch of the imagination (though reviewers on Cinema Squid's cite were singing its praises). It DID have some excellent black levels (for the most part), some very good details, and a nice filmic look (though the grain became distracting in a few instances).
> 
> 
> The bad consisted of the dreaded orange hue (which wreaked havoc on flesh tones in several scenes), some minor banding, and sporadic bouts of softness.
> 
> 
> Overall the PQ just didn't do much for me (except prevent my finger from punching the STOP button
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ), though in fairness I must say it was slightly above average due to the positives mentioned above. By "slightly above average," I mean just that and thus my vote goes for....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.75**



I'll agree with this, but go a notch higher. Detail is better than this in close, but yeah, the colors are simply unbearable.
*Tier 2.50*


----------



## patrick99

*Tron Legacy*


I will go with a *Tier 1.25* for this.


I thought the opening scenes in the real world looked very nice, and the scenes in the grid looked appropriate.


I thought facial detail was generally quite good. Complaints that Clu (or the youthified Jeff Bridges in the early scenes) looked DNR'd seem misplaced, in light of the fact that what we are seeing here is essentially a digital character.


And I enjoyed the movie a lot.


----------



## rusky_g

Happy Easter guys


Well I started to watch the Kings Speech but I stopped after 15 mins as the PQ was DEPRESSING. I wont cast a full vote but I guess that tells you what you need to know.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Greatest Story Ever Told


recommendation: Tier 5**


A Biblical epic in every sense of the word, it is my sad duty to report how bad this stirring film looks on Blu-ray. The 1965 MGM film was released by their distributor, Fox, on March 29, 2011. The 199-minute main feature is encoded in AVC on a BD-50. Packaging indicates an average video bitrate at 24 Mbps, which is generally accurate given Fox's history on Blu-ray. The presentation does preserve the aspect ratio of 2.75:1, a necessity for the exquisite compositions of each scene in the film. A multitude of problems though exist in the transfer, ultimately making the picture quality only the slightest upgrade over a typical DVD.


The disc actually opens with a disclaimer that _The Greatest Story Ever Told_ was made from the best available elements. That was the first sign of trouble. Having never seen that statement before on a Blu-ray, the image throughout the movie failed to live up to my diminished expectations. The damaged print, showing numerous signs of age and wear, was the least of the problems. Not one bit of cleanup has been attempted to remove scratches or fix the visual defects on this transfer.


A massive amount of sharpening has been applied at various points, some of it regular optical ringing and at times of a digital nature. That artificial sharpening does a real number to the grain, turning it into video noise than regular celluloid grain. The level of detail to the master is deplorable for a 70mm production, many scenes look sourced from a rather bad dupe print than any camera negative. Some scenes obviously were shot with a soft-focus, but many of the scenes are just devoid of the detail a good Blu-ray will display.


The cinematography is too good to be completely obliterated, the constant distraction of film artifacts and print defects makes watching the BD an unpleasant chore for the uninitiated viewer. At a minimum, the compression is quite good for a film over three hours in length on one disc. It still has difficulties in the darkest shadows when the image is not being crushed of shadow detail. A bit of optical aberration and distortion is apparent in the right corner of the frame on select occasions.


Having not watched the DVD in several years, I will not make any definitive statements on the Blu-ray's comparison to it. The soundtrack does sound nice in lossless audio, particularly the wonderful score. But the ugly, dated transfer from poor elements would likely not have been released by any other major studio on Blu-ray, outside of the cash-strapped MGM. The film needs a true film restoration and this disc is not it by any stretch. A Tier Five candidate if I have ever seen one, a shame because a fully-restored film would surely look marvelous.


----------



## djoberg

*Fair Game*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/20229597
> 
> *Fair Game*
> 
> Digitally shot with the Red One, I'm still waiting for something that will blow me away with this camera. This isn't it. Soft, fuzzy medium range shots, wildly inconsistent close-ups, and simply terrible black levels. Color is bland and faded. A hint of aliasing that is nothing to worry about, but everything else is worthy of worry.
> 
> *Tier 3.5*



Well, as the old adage goes, "I couldn't have said it better myself." I'm in total agreement with each point made. This was a "washed out" mess, though a few sporadic scenes with sharpness and detail prevent this from falling into one of the two bottom tiers. I even agree with GRG's recommendation of....

*Tier Recommendation: 3.5*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Blue Valentine*


A mixture of digital and 16mm, both with their quirks. Detail isn't great in either, at least not consistent enough to say so. Black levels can come and go dependent on the format. Grain is well resolved, colors fluctuate, and as does clarity.

*Tier 3.25*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Librarian: Quest For The Spear (Region-free Dutch Import)


recommendation: 3.5**


Originally made for American basic cable on TNT in 2004, this adventure movie was released as part of the entire franchise in _The Librarian: The Trilogy_. Warner, the U.S. distributor, only released it on a DVD back in 2005, which has gone out-of-print. Dutch Filmworks (DFW) in Holland has put the entire trilogy in a 3-disc BD set, that happens to be region-free and completely playable on all Region A players. The only other release in the world for these films on Blu-ray happens to be from Australia.


The Australian set has video encodes done in AVC, as reported by the circulating BDInfo scans. I can confirm they are not identical encodes in any way, with totally different features and possibly from different sources. Having never personally seen the Australian Blu-rays outside of the BDInfo scans, I will leave it to others to make that comparison. It should be known that the 12 minutes of extended footage from the Warner DVD did not make it to the Dutch disc, and only the original broadcast cut is included here.


The Dutch BD runs 94 minutes on a BD-25, with no menu structure of any kind and no features, outside of the lossy English soundtrack and defeatable English subtitles. The English audio is in Dolby Digital 5.1 at 640 kbps. Video is encoded in VC-1 at bitrates rarely seen anymore from Hollywood. Outside of one brief scene in the Himalayas, the video bitrate almost never drops below 30 Mbps, often peaking in the high 40s. The compression is nearly flawless, though that lone scene does produce brief, but intense, evidence of macroblocking in the swirling snow.


The transfer itself looks fine, a faithful reproduction of the source material. But the movie's roots in cable are revealed by the unremarkable image and questionable CGI at times. Shot on HD cameras, the picture occasionally looks very good with a clear image and great resolution. Just as often, a bit of video noise creeps into the picture and shadow detail flattens out. What drags the overall evaluation down is the occasional use of digital composites and green screen, resulting in a moderate amount of aliasing and softness against the digital backgrounds. Not a bit of added color has been added to push the image in any direction, so flesh-tones remain natural and healthy in look. If anything, contrast is a touch limited in some scenes, making a few shots too dark.


The picture quality is not stellar, but it is good enough for a basic cable production that was shot digitally in 2004. There is not the visual consistency one sees in higher ranked titles, as it meanders from Tier 2.5 to Tier 4 quite easily depending on the setting. But it does represent a nice upgrade in quality over the DVD's image. The entire trilogy can be purchased by North Americans from Amazon.co.uk marketplace sellers, at the following link:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Librarian-Tr...3860181&sr=8-1 


Watching on a 60” Pioneer KURO plasma, at the resolution of 1080p/24, from a 160-GB PS3 (firmware 3.60). Approximate viewing distance is six feet.


----------



## deltasun

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* 
*The Greatest Story Ever Told


recommendation: Tier 5**
Too bad about this...


----------



## deltasun

*Contempt*


First thing to notice is how washed out the presentation is. Secondly, the opening scenes and the first 1/4 to 1/3 look pretty decent for an older film. Then, inconsistency comes in and comes in hard. Some scenes are worse than DVD quality (interwoven parts from a different source).


My eyes did adjust to the overall washed out look, giving way to decent saturation of colors in some of the outdoor scenes. Contrast can be stronger and blacks can be darker. Skin tones are generally spot on. Some of the gorgeous panoramas benefit from interesting cinematography vantage points. Dimensionality is not excellent, but does creep in once in a while.


There are a number of problematic segments where the picture is not stable, colors waver, and grain dances. White specks can be found scattered throughout the feature. Softness is also a constant companion.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.75**

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Blood Out*


Direct-to-video digital, and not too bad when things settle down. Unfortunately, the camera never stops moving and filters can be in full effect. Still some amazing facial details in here. Black levels are all over the place as is the contrast and color. No sense of style or technique here at all.

*Tier 3.0*


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/20362051
> 
> 
> Too bad about this...



Having always been a big fan of The Greatest Story Ever Told, the Blu-ray was a crushing disappointment. MGM should have never released it in that condition. It was apparent that absolutely nothing was done to restore it or find better elements. The difference between it and DVD is negligible. That is the one case where I wish a studio like Warner had owned the rights, they would have done a much better job on the transfer and possible film restoration. Someone like Robert Harris needs to be hired to get the job done.


King of Kings is sitting in my library, so I should get around to it soon.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/20364775
> 
> 
> Having always been a big fan of The Greatest Story Ever Told, the Blu-ray was a crushing disappointment. MGM should have never released it in that condition. It was apparent that absolutely nothing was done to restore it or find better elements. The difference between it and DVD is negligible. That is the one case where I wish a studio like Warner had owned the rights, they would have done a much better job on the transfer and possible film restoration. Someone like Robert Harris needs to be hired to get the job done.



I hear ya. Quite a disappointment, it sounds like.



> Quote:
> King of Kings is sitting in my library, so I should get around to it soon.



Well, you may have to wear shades at first after the other fiasco, just till your eyes can adjust to this better restoration.







Enjoy the viewing!


----------



## lgans316

*Monsters Vs. Aliens - Tier 0* (below Monster's Inc)

*How to Train Your Dragon - Tier 0* (above TMNT but in my opinion the Animation quality was excellent)

*Tron Legacy - Tier 1.5* (Better than my IMAX experience but I wasn't wowed)

*Unstoppable - Tier 1.25* (Has Tony Scott written all over the place)


----------



## deltasun

*The King's Speech*


I really didn't hate the look as much as some here. I liked the style in filming, particularly the wide angle, follow-the-actor treatment and shallow depth of field. To some extent, I even liked the drab, WWII-era color scheme. What really bothered me are the smeary and reddish faces, orange/teal push, and black crush.


Having said that, details are hard to come by, even within the field of focus. Facial details are inconsistent, but some scenes do produce positive results. Grain is layered throughout, but does exhibit some noise in darker segments.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.50*


I often wondered how this film could have won (over _The Fighter_ and _Black Swan_) or even be interesting enough for me to pick up and rent. That was before I actually watched it. Complete 180 on this one - excellent watch!!

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Terror*

A public domain classic cleaned up... and that's about it for the good stuff. Pretty hefty layer of DNR, color saturation, smearing, contrast boosting, and everything else that shouldn't have been done. It's a shame because the source looks competent, better than expected.

*Tier 4.0*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Dementia 13*


Another DNR'ed public domain effort, with quite possibly the worst smearing I've ever seen. The whole image breaks down and streaks across the screen. Detail is nill, and the contrast is completely over cooked. Black crush is a constant problem.
*Tier 5.0*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/20376481
> 
> *Dementia 13*
> 
> 
> Another DNR'ed public domain effort, with quite possibly the worst smearing I've ever seen. The whole image breaks down and streaks across the screen. Detail is nill, and the contrast is completely over cooked. Black crush is a constant problem.
> *Tier 5.0*



Thanks for the heads up on that title GRG! I'll avoid that like I would the plague....or AIDS....or Dementia!


----------



## sbpyrat

*Tangled*


An awesome Disney release.

*Tier Recommendation: 0* (#11 on my list)*


Sony Bravia 40"

1080p

6.5'


----------



## djoberg

*The Green Hornet*


This is going to be another tough call with its many inconsistencies. The first third of the movie was especially bad, with hot contrast (resulting in poor flesh tones and a washed out look in daytime scenes) and multiple _lens flares_ during action sequences (I haven't seen a title riddled with these since _Star Trek (2009)_). Black levels were excellent though and thankfully there were several night scenes to highlight this virtue.


The last 75 minutes or so fared MUCH better, with good contrast, natural flesh tones, pleasing colors and several scenes with adequate detail and depth. Black levels remained deep and inky to the very end.


Facial details were really a mixed bag, with *some* close-ups edging towards the demo tiers and the *majority* merely average.


I should add that there was a thin layer of grain that looked quite nice (with the exception of those scenes with hot contrast).


The first third was well below average to _my eyes_; the latter two thirds fell mostly into Tier 2, with several scenes reaching Tier 1 status. When all is weighed in the balances it *may* just be worthy of the following....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.5* or 2.75**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## deltasun

*Army of Shadows*


Commendable effort from Criterion, though will fall short for the purposes of this thread. Blacks and contrast are weak. Low-light scenes are flat and murky, looking smeary at times. Some of the day time scenes do offer some very good details, including facial details. Colors are bit subdued, complementary to the setting. Skin tones are mostly faithful.


The picture is mostly stable and grain is well-resolved throughout. There are instances of noise, which becomes a slight distraction. Some banding and ringing also apparent, but not major.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.75**

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## rusky_g

*The Green Hornet*


I thought this looked superb pretty much from beginning to end. I witnessed some lovely deep blacks, a crisp, cinematic picture with vibrant colours and strong contrast. My type of film in terms of PQ.

*Tier 1.0*


Optoma HD65 / 11' / 92"


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/20378214
> 
> *The Green Hornet*
> 
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.5* or 2.75**





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g* /forum/post/20382418
> 
> *The Green Hornet*
> 
> *Tier 1.0*



Rusky, you are destroying Djoberg's reputation here as an easy grader.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/20383749
> 
> 
> Rusky, you are destroying Djoberg's reputation here as an easy grader.



Not to worry....I'm sure I'll be back on track soon!










Seriously though, I will be surprised if others don't weigh in commenting on the HOT CONTRAST throughout the opening scenes and those pesky LENS FLARES. I just had to dock it a good tier for these, especially the poor contrast which resulted in unnatural flesh tones (check out the opening scene with James Franco....his face looked like he had seen a ghost....or, better yet, his face looked like a ghost







)) and a washed out look in some daytime scenes.


----------



## rusky_g












I'll chime in and say that when I review a title I don't focus on technical issues / flaws so my scoring is really just based on the gut feeling that the PQ left me with.


You could argue that my approach is wrong but in all honesty I'd class myself as a novice reviewer who simply isn't too au-fait with many of the things that you guys look out for.


Hope that's OK


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Green Hornet*


Just not much detail. Couldn't really find much that wowed me in that regard, most of this one shot in the mid-range. Good color, black levels, and well resolved grain when present. Flesh tones were a bit too orange. Not bad, just underwhelming.

*Tier 2.0*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Another update will likely be made by next week. Just a notice for those who want to include any particular placements in the next update.


----------



## lgans316

Thanks Phantom.

*The Incredibles - Tier 0 above Monsters Vs. Aliens*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Dilemma*


Decent looking comedy suffering from orange flesh tone syndrome. Detail is pretty firm, the encode cleanly resolves the grain, and sharpness is pleasing enough, if not spectacular. A couple aerials of Chicago in the daylight are wonderful. However, black levels completely betray this one, a muddy brown and blue that don't come together.

*Tier 2.25**


----------



## audiomagnate

*Black Swan*


This actually looked pretty good to me, especially considering it was 16mm. The worst part was the grain and lack of sharp detail. The movie itself...don't get me started!

*3.0*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Search for the Great Sharks*


An IMAX piece from 1995 and that might have been when this was mastered. Riddled with compression artifacts, black crush, and a processed, digital look. Fine detail doesn't exist. You'll find some banding too. No grain to speak of because it's all too digital. Soft with inconsistent color saturation.

*Tier 4.75**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Inside Job*


Variety of sources used here, from tape to so-so digital. Not much of it can be said to look great other than a couple of exteriors. Facial detail of the participants is all over the place. Some major halos in places, along with an overly digital look.

*Tier 4.75**


----------



## lgans316

The American - Tier 2.25 - Complete bore-fest but PQ was quite good especially the panoramic shots.

Dardevil (Director's Cut) - Tier 2.25 - Outdoor scenes shines.


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/20371196
> 
> *The King's Speech*
> 
> 
> I really didn't hate the look as much as some here. I liked the style in filming, particularly the wide angle, follow-the-actor treatment and shallow depth of field. To some extent, I even liked the drab, WWII-era color scheme. What really bothered me are the smeary and reddish faces, orange/teal push, and black crush.
> 
> 
> Having said that, details are hard to come by, even within the field of focus. Facial details are inconsistent, but some scenes do produce positive results. Grain is layered throughout, but does exhibit some noise in darker segments.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.50*
> 
> 
> I often wondered how this film could have won (over _The Fighter_ and _Black Swan_) or even be interesting enough for me to pick up and rent. That was before I actually watched it. Complete 180 on this one - excellent watch!!
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_



Agreed here. I would say a saw a purple cast a lot of the movie, with little sharp detail, and lots of black crush and otherwise lack of good contrast.


The whole film is very gray but without any stark differentiation.


----------



## sbpyrat

*Mary and Max*


Great picture quality. And a darn good movie, especially for something that fell completely under my radar until I came across it on this list. I'd leave it right where it is between Sin City and Shrek Forever. I haven't seen Baraka or Youth without Youth.

*Tier Recommendation: 0 (right where it's at, between Sin City and Shrek Forever)*


Sony Bravia 40"

1080p

6.5'


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Love Actually*


Mostly pleasing effort, if short on fine detail, especially in the first half. Bright color scheme is pleasing. Compression creates some noise here and there. Softness here and there. Black levels are a bit "meh" and the contrast slightly hot here and there.

*Tier 2.0*


----------



## b_scott




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *audiomagnate* /forum/post/20343986
> 
> 
> You are being way too kind. This thing is an abomination! Hideous. Worse than a Netflix HD streaming rental in many ways. The teal gets into the washed out skin tones. 4.0 equals below average. I'm being kind. The closer you get, the worse it looks. Maybe it was artistic intent, but for our purposes, it looks bad. I guess underexposure is right up there with teal/orange. God help us.
> 
> *4.0*



yeah it's pretty sad for such a great movie


----------



## lgans316

*Green Hornet - Tier 1.5* - Impressive PQ except for few shots during the climax sequence inside the building.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Bob Dylan: The Other Side Of The Mirror - Live At The Newport Folk Festival 1963-1965


recommendation: Tier 5**


A compilation of live performances by a youthful Dylan from his musical prime, the video quality is as good as one could expect for an outdoor concert filmed in the 1960s. Shot in 16mm black-and-white, Sony Legacy has done a creditable job delivering an honest representation of Murray Lerner's movie. At 83 minutes in length, the video is encoded in AVC on a BD-50. The image is presented in its original aspect ratio of 4:3.


Compression achieves full transparency to the source material for the rough, grainy image at a video bitrate that averages nearly 35 Mbps. Contrast and resolution depend on which performance is being shown, as some were filmed in afternoon sessions that help bump up the quality of the picture to Tier Four on occasion. The nighttime selections do not fare nearly as well, where the limited availability of light for the outdoor venue leads to horribly crushed black levels and shockingly poor detail.


There are a number of scratches and white speckles on the print. The film elements must not be in very good shape and little has apparently been done to improve their condition. No post-processing using edge enhancement or DNR has been applied to the picture. Do I recommend this Blu-ray? Not for the video, which is not much of an upgrade over DVD. But the lossless stereo and 5.1 surround PCM tracks are stellar at 24-bit / 48 kHz fidelity, the main purpose of this disc. So in that regard, the qualitative audio upgrade over the DVD makes enough of a difference for the double-dip purchase.


----------



## sbpyrat

*The Incredibles*

As expected, another top notch Disney Pixar release. Not quite top ten, but close.
*Tier Recommendation: 0* (#14 on my list)*

*Taxi Driver*

I read the previous discussions of this title and am of the thinking that the ranking on this list should be in comparison to all other blu ray titles and not whether or not it's the best an individual title has looked or can possibly look. It seems that is the purpose of this list. Beyond that, it requires a little further (but not difficult) research to find out the other information. There are several sites I check (elsewhere on AVS, HiDef Digest, DVD Talk, etc). I was very happy with the picture quality on this great title. It is certainly the best I've ever seen the movie look, but it would have no business ranking with the top blu ray titles on the PQ list. For the $12.99 Amazon price, it was a no-brainer for me to upgrade from my old dvd.
*Tier Recommendation: 3.0**

*Black Swan*

Definitely a bit disappointed with the pq for a modern release.
*Tier Recommendation: 3.25**

*Tron: Legacy*

This movie seems to skirt the line between Blue and Gold, but ultimately I think it spends more time in the gold range.
*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**

*Tron*
*Tier Recommendation: 3.0**

*Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1*
*Tier Recommendation: 2.5**


Sony Bravia 40"

1080p

6.5'


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*No Strings Attached*


Pleasing to look at romantic comedy, saturated heavily. Flesh tones are too warm though. Black levels are fine as is the contrast. Grain is handled well and the detail is fair enough. Not knockout material, but pleasing.

*Tier 2.0*


----------



## sbpyrat

*Fish Tank*

Some really excellent PQ from this Criterion title, especially in close ups. But a bit too inconsistent, ranging from top notch to mediocre.
*Recommendation: Gold 1.75**


*Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind*

Not horrible, but it definitely makes me appreciate the quality of the Disney releases even that much more.
*Recommendation: Silver 2.75**


*South Park: The Complete Fourteenth Season*

I have the first 13 seasons on dvd and debated whether or not get get this one on dvd or blu ray. It was only $5 more, so I got the blu rays and am glad I did. The detail is really impressive, more than I would have guessed from South Park.
*Recommendation: Gold 1.00**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Black Death*


A mess of noise, almost total lack of color, awful black levels, and meager fine detail. Very few positives to speak of of, the film going for a certain look and sticking to it.

*Tier 4.75*


----------



## sbpyrat

*Country Strong

Recommendation: Tier 2.25*


Unstoppable

Recommendation: Tier 1.5*


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sbpyrat* /forum/post/20425014
> 
> *Country Strong
> 
> Recommendation: Tier 2.25**



I would rank this quite a bit lower.


The medium and distance shots (especially outdoor shots) were generally soft, and close-ups were very inconsistent in detail. Close-ups of Paltrow were generally good, but generally not so with other actors. The scenes at the beginning of the movie with Paltrow and Hedlund are an example; the shots of Paltrow were pretty good, and the shots of Hedlund were atrocious.

*Tier 3.5*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Mortal Kombat: Annihilation*


Definitely an older master, low on grain, sharpness and detail. Black crush is prominent. Gaudy color scheme is eye-searing.

*Tier 3.75*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers (Canadian Import)recommendation: Tier 4.5**


Also known as Halloween 6, Alliance released this 1995 film as part of a Halloween triple feature in Canada. The 87-minute theatrical cut is included and presented at the questionable resolution of 1080i for a movie shot on film. Alliance has used the rare BD-50 for them, though all three features are included on it. That situation creates one of the worst compression jobs I have viewed from a movie on Blu-ray, at an average video bitrate that likely does not exceed 15 Mbps for the AVC video. The transfer is really a mixed bag of issues. The image dwells in that twilight region where a BD looks mildly better than upscaled standard definition content, but ultimately lacks the resolution and clarity that most films possess on Blu-ray.


The master looks taken from a dull, old scan of second-generation elements. Past history would indicate Alliance utilized an older HD master intended for cable broadcast, from many years ago. The picture is not horrible, at least showing few signs of egregious processing. A minor amount of ringing is viewable in select scenes, but is fairly benign and tolerable. There is a distinct lack of extreme detail and high-frequency information in close-ups. That is more likely attributable to a dull source that was scanned years ago from poor film elements, than any modern implementation of DNR.


What bothered me more than the print was the severe red push in many scenes, leading to some scenes containing wildly over-saturated reds. That particular color shift just does not look correct in several different scenes. The people look like red lobsters baked in the sun at times, with the walls blindingly red. A bigger distributor, such as a Sony or Fox, would have likely had color correction performed to alleviate that problem on Blu-ray. Black levels are slightly elevated, leading to the clipping of some shadow detail. That is a frequent problem in the interior shots.


The other main complaint I have are the hideous compression artifacts that pepper the screen. Banding, bad examples of macroblocking, chroma noise and the general grain structure dissolving into noise are common sights in the image. The elements used for the master likely had more film grain than the original camera negative would show, but that film grain often turns to noise under the mediocre compression. That problem becomes very serious in the darker scenes, where the original photography was not the greatest to begin with for a film made just 16 years ago.


While it is doubtful any better version pops up on Blu-ray, it is hard for me to blindly recommend buying this Alliance release for the marginal improvement in picture quality. Only diehard fans should bother hunting a copy down, only the 5.1 lossless audio is really worth it.


Watching on a 60" Pioneer KURO at 1080i, fed by a 60-GB PS3 (firmware 3.60), from a viewing distance of six feet.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Mortal Kombat*

Same as the sequel, an outdated master that really wasn't ready for Blu. Some minor edge enhancement on this one. Same gaudy colors at times, way too soft, and detail is all over the place.

*Tier 3.75**


----------



## djoberg

*The Rite*


This was a pretty decent-looking title considering the genre (i.e., Horror, with its characteristic dark or dim-lit scenes dominating the running time). It had bouts of softness and sporadic scenes where the blacks faltered, but overall it was quite pleasing to the eyes.


The best redeeming features were details, with superb shots of Rome and the Vatican, clothing, foliage, and most notably facial details (especially those of Anthony Hopkins in later scenes). Flesh tones were also top-notch.


Colors were on the drab side, but when a bright color did appear it was vibrant and natural.


Even though the blacks wavered at times, they excelled for the majority of the movie and shadow details in night time scenes were simply excellent.


I succumbed to the temptation to check other reviews on Cinema Squid's site and was surprised to find poor scores from a high percentage of those who weighed in. My take on it was much more in line with Aaron Peck (from _High-Def Digest_) and thus I'm casting my vote for....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75* or 2.0**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## lgans316

*The Last King of Scotland - Tier 2.25* - Tough one to rate due to the filming style and varying picture quality.

*Lord of the Rings - Part 1 (Theatrical version)- Tier 3.75* - Soft and waxy throughout.

*Lord of the Rings - Part 2 (Theatrical version) - Tier 2* - Much better but somewhat disappointed.

*Out of Sight - Tier 2* - Very impressive presentation except for a few dodgy looking scenes that appears to give a slightly de-grained look alongside minor traces of EE.


----------



## thegage

Don't know if it's worth bringing up The Thin Red Line again, but as a poster points out in another thread, there are problems with the Criterion disc that are not present in the French version:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...&postcount=218 


John K.


----------



## 42041

*An Affair To Remember*


This appears to be a high quality film transfer of the 1957 movie, but it very much shows it age. The filmmakers made the unfortunate decision to litter the whole film with optical dissolves, all of which look grainy, blurry, and generally horrible. The non-optical bits look a lot better, having excellent resolution. Unfortunately, the colors tend to have a dull, faded appearance, and black levels are always gray and have a blueish tinge. More subjectively, I thought the movie's visual appeal often suffered from very bland production design and a heavy dependence on unconvincing soundstages/matte paintings/rear projection.

*Tier 3.75**


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/20438456
> 
> *An Affair To Remember*
> 
> *Tier 3.75**



Please remember to include an asterisk for discs that have never been ranked before in the main PQ list. That change was made a couple of months ago to save me a little time.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Wrestlemania XXVII*


Meh. Cut and paste every WWE Blu-ray video review here and you're good to go, although this one crams about 4 and half hours of content on a single disc. That doesn't help. Lots of compression, ringing, interlacing errors (it's 1080i), aliasing, and plastic looking skin. But hey, colors are strong and black levels are great, so the basics are there.

*Tier 4.0**


----------



## 42041

*A Star Is Born*


Another quality restoration of a 50s color film that suffers from badly degraded and missing source materials. This film probably looked spectacular before decades of color fading and neglect: many parts still look great, with good colors, skillful photography, and solid detail. All the usual CinemaScope lens defects are on display: mumps, softness, focus that comes and goes, etc. The not-so-preserved parts have that grainy, blurry dupe look. Then there are the not-preserved-at-all parts, where they just pan over black and white production stills. Watching classic films on blu-ray is a very frustrating experience sometimes.

This being a 3-hour Warner disc, there are some occasional compression issues, but it's a pretty decent encode overall, and a satisfying disc provided the viewer has reasonable expectations.

*Tier 3.5**


----------



## 42041

*Django*


The 1966 spaghetti western is almost painful to watch in many places. It is incredibly noisy, with a completely unnatural level of sharpness for a film of this (or any) vintage, murky washed out colors, and a heapin' helping of source damage and wobbling. DNR is visible in places. About the only positive thing I can say is that detail is generally solid. I could see this looking good on small displays or greater viewing distances, where the overpowering noise could be mistaken for film grain, but to me it looked harsh, artificial, and thoroughly unpleasant.

*Tier 4.5**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Another big update, going back to February. The x indicates the title has not previously been ranked. Including the asterisk in your placements for previously unranked titles does save me a bit of time. The number of unique titles being reviewed has greatly increased, which does pose somewhat of a challenge in updating the tiers.


That is why less and less new entries are including the specifications. Only discs that end up ranked in Tiers 0 and 1 get full specification listings. The excellent data analysis of the Tiers by DanLW has been included in the main Tiers list.


x The Peacemaker - 2.75 deltasun


x Pleasantville - 3.25 Gamereviewgod


Despicable Me - 0 above Toy Story 3 lgans316


x Red Hill - 3.25 deltasun


x Waiting For Superman - 3.5 Gamereviewgod


And Soon The Darkness (2010) - 1.5 Gamereviewgod


Book Of Eli - bottom of 0 Canuck89


x Megamind - 1.0 deltasun, 1.0 sbpyrat, 1.0 Gamereviewgod, 1.0 zoey67


x Memento (10th Ann.) - 1.75 deltasun


x Insomnia - 1.5 deltasun


x The Ultimate Wave: Tahiti (3-D combo) - middle of 0 Gamereviewgod


x Dinosaurs: The Giants of Padagonia (3-D combo) - 3.5 Gamereviewgod


x Bambi - 1.25 Phantom Stranger, 1.0 sbpyrat, .75 Gamereviewgod


x 127 Hours - 3.75 Gamereviewgod, 2.25/2.5 djoberg, 3.0 deltasun, 4.0 audiomagnate, 1.5 ivanpino, 2.5 sbpyrat


x Faster - 1.25 changed to 1.5 djoberg, 1.75 deltasun, 1.5 sbpyrat, lower 0 Gamereviewgod, 1.25 rusky_g


x Love And Other Drugs - 1.25 djoberg, 2.0 Gamereviewgod, 1.5 deltasun


Gamer - 1.0 sbpyrat


King Kong (2005) - 1.0 sbpyrat


Domino - 1.25 sbpyrat


Revanche - 1.5 deltasun


x Takers - 2.0 audiomagnate


x Never Let Me Go - 2.25 deltasun


Legends of The Guardians - 2nd in 0 tcramer, 3rd in 0 sbpyrat


x Walking Dead: Season 1 - 3.25 Gamereviewgod, 2.25 deltasun


x Blood The Last Vampire (animated) - 2.75/3.25 Phantom Stranger


Law Abiding Citizen - 1.5 Phantom Stranger


x Fish Tank - bottom third of 0 deltasun, 1.75 sbpyrat


x SWAT Firefight - 3.25 Gamereviewgod


Monsters Vs. Aliens - middle of 0 above Sin City Phantom Stranger


Buried - 4.0 deltasun


Days Of Heaven - 3.5 deltasun


x The Runaways (German AVC) - 2.75 lgans316


x Burlesque - 4.25 Gamereviewgod, 4.0 deltasun


Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World - 2.5 Phantom Stranger, 1.25 zoey67, 2.5 rusky_g


x The Man From Nowhere - 2.75 deltasun


x The Next Three Days - 1.5 Gamereviewgod, 1.75 djoberg, 1.75 deltasun


x Sharktopus - 4.0 Gamereviewgod


x Jackass 3 - 3.75 Gamereviewgod


x The Magician - 2.25 deltasun


x Morning Glory - 1.75/2 djoberg, 2.25 Gamereviewgod


x Bigger than life - 2.5 deltasun


x The Robe - 3.25 Phantom Stranger


x Nausicaä Of The Valley Of The Wind - 2.25 deltasun, 3.0 Phantom Stranger, 2.75 sbpyrat


x Paranoiac! (UK) - 2.5 Phantom Stranger


Prince Caspian - 0 rusky_g


x Hereafter - 2.0 Gamereviewgod, 1.5 djoberg, 1.5 deltasun


Black Narcissus - 1.75 deltasun


x The Fighter - 2.75 Gamereviewgod, 3.0 djoberg, 3 rusky_g


Unstoppable - 2.0 deltasun


x the switch - 3.0 Gamereviewgod, 2.5 deltasun


x Mummies: secrets of the pharaohs (3-D) - 2.75 Gamereviewgod


x Ultimate G's: Zak's Flying Dream 3-D - 2.75 Gamereviewgod


x Uncle Buck - 3.75 Gamereviewgod


Treasure Of The Sierra Madre - 1.75 sbpyrat


From Russia With Love - 1.5 audiomagnate


Chungking Express - 4.0 deltasun


Lola Montes - 3.75 deltasun


x Skyline - 4.0 Gamereviewgod, 4.0 deltasun


x The Tourist - 2.5 djoberg, 3.25 Gamereviewgod


x Sympathy For Mr. Vengeance - 1.25 deltasun


x How Do You Know - 3.5 Gamereviewgod


x Yogi Bear - 2.25 Gamereviewgod


x Tron: Legacy - 0 Sujay, 1.0 djoberg, top of 0 Foxarwing42, 1.25 Gamereviewgod, 1.0 rusky_g, 1.5 audiomagnate, 1.25 patrick99, 1.5 lgans316, 1.0 sbpyrat


x Antichrist - 3.25 deltasun


Crater lake Monster - 3.75 Gamereviewgod


x The Order - 2.0 Phantom Stranger


x Galaxian - 4.5 GRG


x House - 4.0 deltasun


Magnolia - 2.0 42041


x Tangled - .25 Gamereviewgod, 10th in 0 djoberg, 0 Vegaz, 11th in 0 sbpyrat


x Black Swan - 3.25 djoberg, 3.0 Gamereviewgod, 3.0 audiomagnate


Logan's Run - 4.0 42041


Fair Game - 3.5 Gamereviewgod, 3.5 djoberg


x All About Eve - 3.0 42041


The WHite Ribbon - 1.25 deltasun


The Ten Commandments - 2.5 deltasun


x All Good Things - 3.0 Gamereviewgod, 3.0 deltasun


x The Resident - 1.5 Gamereviewgod


x Short Circuit 2 - 3.0 Gamereviewgod


x Little Fockers - 1.25 Gamereviewgod. 1.5 djoberg, 2.75 rusky_g


x Unthinkable - 2.5 djoberg


x King Of Kings - 2.75 deltaun


x I Love You Phillip Morris - 1.75 Gamereviewgod


x A-Team - 2.0 djoberg


x Stone - 2.75 djoberg


x Case 39 - 3.75 djoberg


x Narnia: Dawn Treader - 2.75 Gamereviewgod, 3.0 patrick99


x Tron - 3.25 deltasun, 3.0 Gamereviewgod, 3.0 sbpyrat


x Taxi Driver - 4.0 deltasun, 3.25 42041, 3.0 sbpyrat


Justice League: New Frontier - 1.5 deltasun


x The Way Back - 2.0 Gamereviewgod


x Country Strong - 2.75 djoberg, 2.5 Gamereviewgod, 3.5 patrick99, 2.25 sbpyrat


x Scream - 4.0 Gamereviewgod


x Scream 2 - 4 Gamereviewgod


x Showgirls - 2.0 42041


x Scream 3 - 3.75 Gamereviewgod


x Harry Potter and deathly Hallows Pt 1 - 2.25 lgans316, 2.5 Gamereviewgod, 2.5 rusky_g, 2.75 OldCodger73, 2.25 djoberg, 3.25 Patrick99, 2.5 sbpyrat


Wall Street 2 - 2.0 lgans316


x Batman Beyond: Return of The Joker - 1.75 Phantom Stranger


x Girl Who Kicked Hornet's Nest - 2.25 OldCodger73


x Moonstruck - 3.75 OldCodger


x Thelma Louise - 3.0 OldCodger


x Babe - 1.75 OldCodger


x Fiddler On The Roof - 3.75 OldCodger


x King's Speech - 3.75 Gamereviewgod, 4.0 audiomagnate, 3.5 deltasun


Due Date - 2.0 deltasun


x Everlasting Moments - 2.25 deltasun


x Summer Hours - 2.5 deltasun


x The Incredibles - 0 below Astro Boy Gamereviewgod, 0 above MvA lgans316, 0 14th sbpyrat


x Meet The Parents - 3.0 deltasun


x Street Kings 2 - 1.5 Gamereviewgod


x Born To Raise Hell - 1.75 Gamereviewgod


x Mesrine: Killer Instinct - 1.0 deltasun


x El Topo - 3.75 Gamereviewgod


x Gulliver's Travels - 1.75 Gamereviewgod


x The Greatest Story Ever Told - 5 Phantom Stranger


x Blue valentine - 3.25 Gamereviewgod


x Librarian: Quest For The Spear (Dutch import) - 3.5 Phantom Stranger


x Contempt - 3.75 deltasun


x Blood Out - 3.0 Gamereviewgod


x The Terror - 4 Gamereviewgod


x Dementia 13 - 5 Gamereviewgod


x Green Hornet - 2.5 djoberg, 1.0 rusky_g, 2.0 Gamereviewgod, 1.5 lgans316


x Army Of Shadows - 3.75 deltasun


x The Dilemma - 2.25 Gamereviewgod


x Search For the Great Sharks - 4.75 Gamereviewgod


x Inside Job - 4.75 Gamereviewgod


The American - 2.25 lgans316


Daredevil - 2.25 lgans316


Mary and Max - current 0 sbpyrat


Love Actually - 2.0 Gamereviewgod


x Bob Dylan: Other Side of the mirror - 5 Phantom Stranger


x No Strings Attached - 2.0 Gamereviewgod


x South Park 14th season - 1.0 sbpyrat


x Black Death - 4.75 Gamereviewgod


x Mortal Kombat 2 - 3.75 Gamereviewgod


x Halloween 6 (canada) - 4.5 Phantom Stranger


x Mortal Kombat - 3.75 Gamereviewgod


x The Rite - 1.75 djoberg


Lord of the rings 1 - 3.75 lgans316


Lord of the rings 2 - 2 lgans316


Out of Sight - 2 lgans316


Last king of scotland - 2.25 lgans316


x An Affair To Remember - 3.75 42041


x Wrestlemania XXVII - 4.0 GRG


x A Star Is Born - 3.5 42041


x Django - 4.5 42041


----------



## sbpyrat

Thanks for the update! I'm heading out of town for 8 days today, but will check out the newly updated list closer when I return.


----------



## djoberg

Great work Phantom! As always, it is appreciated.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Elephant White*


Decent enough digital production but stuck in some of the most god awful colors you've ever seen. Reds, pinks, purples, blues, you name it, and all oversaturated. Detail can be firm in close, but noise and softness can get in the way. Black levels are mediocre at times too.

*Tier 2.25*


----------



## lgans316

Great work Phantom. Your patience is highly appreciated.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Mechanic*


Saddled with a nearly monochromatic orange tint, this one suffers for it in terms of eye candy. Grain is a bit noisy here and there too, enough to be distracting. Detail is strong though, plenty of richly textured faces in close or in the mid-range. Blacks crush with a little too much regularity.

*Tier 2.0**


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/20453880
> 
> *The Mechanic*
> 
> 
> Saddled with a nearly monochromatic orange tint, this one suffers for it in terms of eye candy. Grain is a bit noisy here and there too, enough to be distracting. Detail is strong though, plenty of richly textured faces in close or in the mid-range. Blacks crush with a little too much regularity.
> 
> *Tier 2.0**



How was the movie itself?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

A minor milestone today, the active Tiers page passed 300,000 page views since it went live on 8/04/09 from SuprSlow. That does not include any of the page hits for the prior Tier posts at all, which would add another several hundred thousand to the total.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1168342


----------



## Gamereviewgod

Quote:

Originally Posted by *djoberg* 
How was the movie itself?
Meh. Sluggish and dull. Struggled with tone.

*The Roommate*


Glossy skin that is a remnant of the digital source, plus simply awful black levels. Detail is here, typically hidden behind a layer of noise. Some aliasing, blooming contrast, and so-so close-ups. This one is all over the place.

*Tier 2.75*


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/20454235
> 
> 
> How was the movie itself?



and how was the audio?


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe* /forum/post/20459608
> 
> 
> and how was the audio?



At the risk of stepping on GRG's thunder, you can always read his full review:
http://www.doblu.com/2011/05/18/the-mechanic-review/


----------



## audiomagnate

*A Woman, a Gun, and a Noodle Shop**


I loved the way this film looked. There's not a lot of variety here, you're either in the noodle shop or out in the desert, but the colorful costumes leap off the screen, and the gorgeous desert landscapes show how miserably 127 Hours failed in representing a landscape of this type. Grain was just barely perceptible 6 feet from my new 54 inch Panny. Detail came close to Thin Red Line levels. Color accuracy was spot on.

*Middle of tier 0**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Rite*


Dark film stuck mostly in interiors that apparently don't have light. Black levels don't hold up to the task as they need to. Plenty of of orange/teal to go around. Grain looks okay but the film looks filtered, a few special effects especially ghastly. Ringing and aliasing are also a factor.

*Tier 3.25*


----------



## djoberg

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* 
*The Rite*


Dark film stuck mostly in interiors that apparently don't have light. Black levels don't hold up to the task as they need to. Plenty of of orange/teal to go around. Grain looks okay but the film looks filtered, a few special effects especially ghastly. Ringing and aliasing are also a factor.

*Tier 3.25*
I disagree with what you say about the black levels; they looked excellent in most scenes on my KURO. And how could you not mention the stunning details that more or less characterized the film from start to finish? Depth was also appreciable in quite a few scenes.


I'm sticking with my 1.75 or 2.0 recommendation.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/20463169
> 
> 
> At the risk of stepping on GRG's thunder, you can always read his full review:
> http://www.doblu.com/2011/05/18/the-mechanic-review/



Cool! Thanks.


----------



## djoberg

*I Am Number Four*


Another stylized, CGI-laden action flick with the characteristic orange/teal hues, but I have to say: I LIKED WHAT I SAW!!


You know I'm a sucker for BLACKS and they did NOT disappoint (except for some fleeting moments of black crush in a few night scenes). They were generally deep and inky and the corresponding SHADOW DETAILS were to die for. There were plenty of scenes highlighting them too....my favorites were outside the home of the female lead, with breathtaking foliage, sidewalks, and city streets.


FLESH TONES had a bronze tint to them, yet they appeared quite natural (a paradox of sorts). FACIAL DETAILS in close were definitely demo material, though not quite reference in the majority of shots (high to low Tier 1, IMO).


COLORS were warm and vibrant. In a few instances they were a bit too over-saturated, but even these were pleasing to the eyes.


DETAILS were phenomenal at times, especially in daytime scenes featuring aerial views of the countryside. They were spectacular in close as well.


DEPTH and DIMENSIONALITY were also remarkable in some scenes.


SHARPNESS and CLARITY were, for the most part, consistent throughout, but there were some scenes where softness crept in resulting in a flat look void of details. Thankfully these were "few and far between."


This could have found itself in the reference tier were it not for the anomalies mentioned above, along with some less-than-stellar CGI. As it is, I'm inclined to nominate it for....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


PS For Toe's sake, I should mention that the audio ROCKED!


----------



## 42041

Watched two excellent restorations by Sony recently...

*The Bridge on the River Kwai*

Visually, this was probably The Thin Red Line of 1957, with fantastic location photography. The decades have clearly taken their toll on the negatives, however. Despite the obvious quality of the 4K film transfer, the colors pretty consistently have a either a faded dull look, or one that's slightly unnatural, like the restoration people had to strain the film for color. Skin tones are the worst casualty, taking on flat brown hues regularly. Opticals are pretty bad too. A few spots toward the beginning of the film have subtle DNR applied but nothing significant. This being a CinemaScope film, sharpness isn't the greatest, but resolution is excellent in general. All of that may sound rather negative but it's great stuff, really.
*Tier 2.75*

*Jason and the Argonauts*

Eastman Kodak must've cleaned up their act sometime between 1957 and 1963, because the colors on this film fare much better. When the transfer is going straight from the negative, it looks great, and even the opticals don't look as bad as most of the 50s stuff I've watched in recent weeks. Looks like film all the way. The photography is less visually inspired than the David Lean film, though still generally pleasant to look at. Although I think it often looks better than _River Kwai_ in a technical sense, what makes me rank this lower is the extended visual effects sequences, which are heavy with grain and lack detail.

The film itself doesn't really hold up in my opinion. The effects have some dated charm, but most aspects of the production are lackluster.
*Tier 3.0*


----------



## lgans316

*Crazies (2010)*


Inconsistent picture. Some scenes looks like upconvert but compensated by few nice and bright looking outdoor scenes.


P.S: The PQ of the movie in the special features looks stunning but obviously its raw and unprocessed. I thought the movie was right on the money but the ending was a slightly missed opportunity.

*Recommendation: Tier 2.5*


--------------------------------------------------------

*Next Three Days*


Starts off dull but PQ improves after that. There is a bit of black crush making some dark scenes look murky and lifeless. Besides that, the abundance of outdoor scenes compensates these by offering nice PQ.

*Recommendation: Tier 2*


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/20467078
> 
> *I Am Number Four*
> 
> 
> Another stylized, CGI-laden action flick with the characteristic orange/teal hues, but I have to say: I LIKED WHAT I SAW!!
> 
> 
> You know I'm a sucker for BLACKS and they did NOT disappoint (except for some fleeting moments of black crush in a few night scenes). They were generally deep and inky and the corresponding SHADOW DETAILS were to die for. There were plenty of scenes highlighting them too....my favorites were outside the home of the female lead, with breathtaking foliage, sidewalks, and city streets.
> 
> 
> FLESH TONES had a bronze tint to them, yet they appeared quite natural (a paradox of sorts). FACIAL DETAILS in close were definitely demo material, though not quite reference in the majority of shots (high to low Tier 1, IMO).
> 
> 
> COLORS were warm and vibrant. In a few instances they were a bit too over-saturated, but even these were pleasing to the eyes.
> 
> 
> DETAILS were phenomenal at times, especially in daytime scenes featuring aerial views of the countryside. They were spectacular in close as well.
> 
> 
> DEPTH and DIMENSIONALITY were also remarkably in some scenes.
> 
> 
> SHARPNESS and CLARITY were, for the most part, consistent throughout, but there were some scenes where softness crept in resulting in a flat look void of details. Thankfully these were "few and far between."
> 
> 
> This could have found itself in the reference tier were it not for the anomalies mentioned above, along with some less-than-stellar CGI. As it is, I'm inclined to nominate it for....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75**
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'
> 
> 
> PS For Toe's sake, I should mention that the audio ROCKED!



Thanks djoberg.....you know me well!








Looking forward to this one.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Daughters Of Darkness

recommendation: Tier 3.0*


This Blu-ray looks much better than any cult horror film from 1971 should at this point, especially given the poor state in general of older films on the format. Blue Underground has given the film a brilliant treatment outside of one caveat. Gorgeous colors, excellent contrast, and deep black levels combine to produce a striking transfer.


The rich, crimson reds pop off the screen, a signature motif in the movie. An ample amount of detail is evident in most scenes, allowing an unprecedented level of clarity to the picture unseen since the movie was first shown in theaters. The AVC video encode averages a high 31.10 Mbps, revealing every inch of the original source without breaking down into artifacting. There is virtually no amount of print damage in the image and no trace of deleterious digital noise reduction usage.


The one caveat mentioned before is the unsightly appearance of ringing and halos in select scenes. If one can get past the ringing problems, much of it optical in nature, the picture quality really looks more in the area of Tier 2. A substantial minority of the film does show large halos, particularly the scenes set in the hotel's ornate lobby. There does look to be some level of edge enhancement added to the master, at least on a select basis. Unfortunately you would have to be blind to miss the glowing force fields that surround certain objects in the lobby. Possible problems in the surviving film elements might be at fault.

_Daughters of Darkness_ on Blu-ray is an immense increase in resolution and clarity over the prior DVDs. Even with the minor problems, Blue Underground has performed stellar work on this transfer. The final score in Tier 3.0 probably gives the wrong impression of the image, as the disc usually looks incredible for the movie's age and status.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of McCrutchy):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...4#post20172804


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/20463169
> 
> 
> At the risk of stepping on GRG's thunder, you can always read his full review:
> http://www.doblu.com/2011/05/18/the-mechanic-review/



I have little thunder left, and now you're stomping what I do have out of existence? Cruel, cruel man.









*The Company Men*


Absolutely fantastic. Best live action I've seen this year. There's a natural purity to the colors, never oversaturated or blown out. Everything is just _real_. Sharpness is amazing, the exteriors of the houses meticulous and the facial detail staggering. Black levels are brilliant, and the contrast perfect. Just a slight hint of ringing and one moment of aliasing.
*Tier .75*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/20471390
> 
> 
> I have little thunder left, and now you're stomping what I do have out of existence? Cruel, cruel man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Company Men*
> 
> 
> Absolutely fantastic. Best live action I've seen this year. There's a natural purity to the colors, never oversaturated or blown out. Everything is just _real_. Sharpness is amazing, the exteriors of the houses meticulous and the facial detail staggering. Black levels are brilliant, and the contrast perfect. Just a slight hint of ringing and one moment of aliasing.
> *Tier .75*



Thanks for whetting my appetite GRG!


Reviews on the movie (at Amazon) also sound good.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/20472638
> 
> 
> Thanks for whetting my appetite GRG!
> 
> 
> Reviews on the movie (at Amazon) also sound good.



It is a great movie. Some people have trouble feeling sorry for the guys since they're in a significant pay grade, but the movie is more about their feelings of diminishing self-worth and their inability to provide than money.

*The 36th Chamber of Shaoilin*


DNR'ed and interlaced (1080i) leading to plenty of problems. Facial detail does remain, if uncommonly. Colors are way oversaturated, blues and reds bleeding out. Black levels do the same with with a near complete crush of shadow detail.

*Tier 4.25**


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/20480022
> 
> *The 36th Chamber of Shaoilin*
> 
> 
> DNR'ed and interlaced (1080i) leading to plenty of problems. Facial detail does remain, if uncommonly. Colors are way oversaturated, blues and reds bleeding out. Black levels do the same with with a near complete crush of shadow detail.
> 
> *Tier 4.25**



I really wish another company had acquired the license to distribute The 36th Chamber than Vivendi, whom has proven themselves a problematic Blu-ray provider at best. The film deserves better as the influential classic it is in the history of kung fu cinema. A company like Blue Underground or Criterion needs to save it for posterity.


----------



## deltasun

*White Material*


Contrast is a bit weak in places, but a commendable high-def presentation with decent details. Facial close-up's are even better, especially of the main character. Colors can be a bit washed out, predominantly browns and yellows, but the occasional greens look striking.


Not a stunning presentation, but adequate.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


P.S. Thanks, Phantom, for the recent updates. I can't stress enough how much we appreciate your time spent in propagating this thread!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*She's Out Of My League


recommendation: Tier 3.5*


What happens when a modern production is hit with a heavy dose of low-pass filtering? A sharp image with pleasing color rendition, showing an amazing lack of detail. This is one of the worst cases of digital noise reduction ever utilized for any movie, much less one that first premiered in 2010. The very high video bitrate is never needed, as the clean image has been stripped of any decent high-frequency information. One could easily imagine the ungraded and unprocessed original footage staking a claim to Tier One, but alas that is not the case on this BD.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post18818902


----------



## 42041

*The African Queen*


This is one of the finer-looking restorations of a 50+ year old film I've seen on the format. Shot in unfading 3-strip Technicolor, colors are well-represented, though they tend to lean towards unnaturally warm hues. Wisely, the filmmakers shot a great deal of the movie on location, and there's nice scenery and relatively little fakery to be seen. Paramount seems to have digitally recomposited all the opticals and cleaned up the blue-screen shots, so it looks more consistent than most blu-rays from this time, though there are certainly spots where they seemed to have used a lower quality film element as the source. Detail is very good. There are many closeups of Bogart where facial detail is excellent, on the other hand, Katharine Hepburn is usually shot through hazy diffusion. It's a pretty contrasty image with deep, crushed shadows, which as I understand is a result of the immense amount of light required by the Technicolor camera to capture anything, rather than the transfer. In the making-of documentary, two giant spotlights can be seen pointed at the actors in broad daylight







Grain is usually in place and is compressed without flaw. This is a fantastic blu-ray considering the age of the film and I agree with its current placement.

*Tier 2.25*


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/20493078
> 
> *The African Queen*
> 
> 
> This is one of the finer-looking restorations of a 50+ year old film I've seen on the format.
> *Tier 2.25*



It is great when a substantial investment is made to restore an older film classic. Everything I have heard on The African Queen BD has been positive. Hopefully everyone enjoys pleasant summer weather for the Memorial Day weekend.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/20467078
> 
> *I Am Number Four*
> 
> 
> Another stylized, CGI-laden action flick with the characteristic orange/teal hues, but I have to say: I LIKED WHAT I SAW!!
> 
> *You know I'm a sucker for BLACKS and they did NOT disappoint (except for some fleeting moments of black crush in a few night scenes). They were generally deep and inky and the corresponding SHADOW DETAILS were to die for. There were plenty of scenes highlighting them too....my favorites were outside the home of the female lead, with breathtaking foliage, sidewalks, and city streets.*
> 
> FLESH TONES had a bronze tint to them, yet they appeared quite natural (a paradox of sorts). FACIAL DETAILS in close were definitely demo material, though not quite reference in the majority of shots (high to low Tier 1, IMO).
> 
> 
> COLORS were warm and vibrant. In a few instances they were a bit too over-saturated, but even these were pleasing to the eyes.
> 
> *DETAILS were phenomenal at times, especially in daytime scenes featuring aerial views of the countryside. They were spectacular in close as well.*
> 
> DEPTH and DIMENSIONALITY were also remarkable in some scenes.
> 
> *SHARPNESS and CLARITY were, for the most part, consistent throughout, but there were some scenes where softness crept in resulting in a flat look void of details. Thankfully these were "few and far between."*
> 
> This could have found itself in the reference tier were it not for the anomalies mentioned above, along with some less-than-stellar CGI. As it is, I'm inclined to nominate it for....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75**
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'
> 
> 
> PS For Toe's sake, I should mention that the audio ROCKED!



On the issue of blacks, I saw a large number of dark scenes with substantial noise, far more than in King's Speech, for example.


I did not think the detail and clarity were anything special. To my eyes the panoramic and distance shots were not at all special.


I would say more like *Tier 2.25.*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Legends of Flight 2D/3D*


Superb looking IMAX feature, full of incredibly sharp, rich definition and detail. Usually IMAX stuff is hit or miss, but this one really blows it out of the park. So many aerials that reveal fine, defined objects for miles. Some aliasing on the various CG effects is a slight eyesore, but everything else is masterful.

*Tier 1.0*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/20497433
> 
> 
> On the issue of blacks, I saw a large number of dark scenes with substantial noise, far more than in King's Speech, for example.
> 
> 
> I did not think the detail and clarity were anything special. To my eyes the panoramic and distance shots were not at all special.
> 
> 
> I would say more like *Tier 2.25.*



All I can say is the blacks looked good to _my eyes_ on my KURO. And the details looked just as good.


Our final recommendations are still fairly close.


I have been reading some VERY POSITIVE reviews on the upcoming _True Grit_. I plan to buy it the day it's released.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Black Shield Of Falworth (Region-Free UK Import)

recommendation: Tier 3.75**


Eureka Entertainment released this 1954 Universal movie as a region-free Blu-ray in the UK, that will play throughout the world. One of the first Cinemascope films in Technicolor, a reasonably solid transfer from okay film elements acts as the basis of this disc. Print damage is fairly minimal, though there are both positive and negative specks that show up on occasion. No disastrous usage of filtering is apparent, as the grain structure appears consistent for a film of this age. There are minor touches of what is often referred to as shimmering in the picture. It may be a byproduct of the surviving film elements, or a problem that occurred during the high definition scan.


The average video bitrate for the AVC encode is 29.99 Mbps. Compression artifacts never make an appearance, showing faithful transparency to the original master. Black levels are surprisingly solid, revealing the thick hair gel that Tony Curtis used to slick his hair on the sides in most scenes. The rich, garish colors associated with a Technicolor production shine in certain scenes. From the stylized emblems of the knights to the extravagant dresses of Janet Leigh's character, the color palette favors sharp greens and crimson reds.

_The Black Shield Of Falworth_ has just enough dimensionality and pop to sneak into the Tier 3.75. Detail and overall resolution are a little questionable in longer shots, but most tighter shots are relatively sharp and clean. Softness becomes a problem during the optical fades and dissolves, but that is expected for a film of its era. This disc is never going to be true eye candy, but serves up a solid presentation of an older film that has been neglected on Blu-ray in other countries. The final result is a clear improvement over any possible DVD edition for picture quality.


----------



## deltasun

Quote:

Originally Posted by *djoberg* 
I have been reading some VERY POSITIVE reviews on the upcoming _True Grit_. I plan to buy it the day it's released.
Definitely a must watch; just not sure of its replayability. But yes, great movie and Jeff Bridges is spectacular here.


----------



## deltasun

*Mesrine: Public Enemy No. 1*


I went ahead and quoted my earlier review of what is essentially part 1 of the Mesrine series. Part 2 is similar and would rate it the same.

Quote:

Originally Posted by *deltasun* 
*Mesrine: Killer Instinct*


Excellent presentation from Music Box Films. Blacks are inky. Medium shots offer adequate dimensionality. Contrast is strong, but well-balanced. Colors are rich, though there is a push towards bathing scenes in blues or greens. Nothing distracting and suits said scenes.


There is a beautiful layer of grain throughout yielding a very film-like feel to the movie. Skin tones remain faithful (outside of the push mentioned above). Facial details retain every pore, line, and texture. Shadow details are also very palatable throughout.


There is an early scene in Algeria that utilizes coarser grain to illustrate the harder setting, but this is short-lived. There are also arbitrary scenes of softness. Therefore, I place this at the threshold of Tier 1 and 0.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_
*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

*The Disappearance of Alice Creed*


Excellent presentation from Anchor Bay. Details are off the charts in a good number of scenes, specially facial close-up's. The use of depth of field creates soft, yet well-focused sequences. Blacks are decent and don't show much crush.


Dimensionality is the first inconsistency - there are some relatively flat scenes. Colors do pop, but there is a brownish/yellowish cast that permeates the overall look (similar to _I Spit on your Grave (2010)_, another Anchor Bay presentation).


Aside from some instances of banding, aliasing, and minor noise in darker scenes, the presentation is free from any other anomalies.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25**

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/20499245
> 
> 
> All I can say is the blacks looked good to _my eyes_ on my KURO. And the details looked just as good.
> 
> 
> Our final recommendations are still fairly close.
> 
> 
> I have been reading some VERY POSITIVE reviews on the upcoming _True Grit_. I plan to buy it the day it's released.



After a second viewing, I withdraw my comments on noise. You are right, the blacks look good.


I stand by my comments on detail, though. Closeups generally look good, but landscape shots do not look crisp to me.


I will leave my Tier recommendation where it was.


----------



## djoberg

*The Incredibles*


WOW! It's always amazing to watch another Pixar Blu-ray release, especially when it's been months since the last viewing. I find it nearly impossible to do a just comparison between them; they are SO good!


I could multiply superlatives to extol the virtues of this amazing animated marvel. Suffice it to say that the BLACKS were perfect with superb SHADOW DETAILS; CONTRAST was as strong as I've ever seen; COLORS couldn't be more vivid, especially in the "island" scenes; DEPTH & DIMENSIONALITY were unbelievable at times; and SHARPNESS and CLARITY were exemplary. If you've never seen this on Blu, do yourself a big favor and give your eyes a good CANDY rush.


I'm inclined to put this right here....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (#5...above A Bug's Life)*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Drive Angry*


Nice looking digital piece. Color has a slight desaturation and remains pleasing. Sharpness is pretty solid stuff, but focal issues tend to hamper the fun. There's some smoothing going on too, and that's quite annoying. Some noise and banding are minor.

*Tier 1.75**


----------



## b_scott

*Rabbit Hole*


Very sharp in focus picture the whole movie. Nice contrast. Image is a little dim, for effect since it is a dreary sad movie; however, color is still very nice throughout. I was very engaged, due not only to the plot but the razor sharp image. Highly recommended.

*Tier 1.50*


I wish someone more articulate than me would review this one, since I'm not here much and might not be the best judge of placement.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Kill the Irishman*


Shot on a budget, the digital nature is always apparent. Instead of age make-up, they use digital smoothing that is far too obvious. Sharpness never really pops and the color palette is fairly routine. Blacks are okay if never outstanding. Some vintage tape footage from newscasts is included too.

*Tier 3.25**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Happythankyoumoreplease*


No, that's the title, not a broken space bar. Awesome movie though, but a shame it looks like this. Some of the worst black levels I've seen. Another example of where the Red One completely fails to impress me. Noise is constant in a few spots. Faces are generally under detailed and texture struggles except for close-ups.
*Tier 3.5**


----------



## djoberg

*The Mechanic*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/20453880
> 
> *The Mechanic*
> 
> 
> Saddled with a nearly monochromatic orange tint, this one suffers for it in terms of eye candy. Grain is a bit noisy here and there too, enough to be distracting. Detail is strong though, plenty of richly textured faces in close or in the mid-range. Blacks crush with a little too much regularity.
> 
> *Tier 2.0**



I can honestly say that I drew the EXACT SAME CONCLUSIONS as GRG on this one (which rarely happens). I was about to write a review bringing out each point that he covered and then I decided to check former reviews. Upon doing so the "Search" took me to his review and I thought I'd avoid the redundancy and simply quote my esteemed colleague.


He even nailed the recommendation....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*I Am Number Four*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/20497433
> 
> 
> On the issue of blacks, I saw a large number of dark scenes with substantial noise, far more than in King's Speech, for example.
> 
> 
> I did not think the detail and clarity were anything special. To my eyes the panoramic and distance shots were not at all special.
> 
> 
> I would say more like *Tier 2.25.*



Agreed. Just felt average without much kick.
*Tier 2.25*


----------



## deltasun

*Drive Angry*


Very impressive picture quality despite the digital nature. Details in faces are impeccable, even on Amber Heard. Pores and textures are just bursting to be noticed. Blacks are very impressive as well - bold while maintaining details throughout. Contrast is strong, if not a bit pushed.


The overall look gives a nice three-dimensional effect from beginning to end. Skin tones are faithful and colors are well rendered. The poor CGI is a bit bothersome and does detract periodically. Some banding is evident, but not too distracting. Would have been a solid 1.0 for me had it not been for the bothersome CGI...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25**

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 -6'_


----------



## deltasun

*(500) Days of Summer*


With a sepia-toned look, this is a handsome looking presentation. Medium scenes offer decent dimensionality and details are adequate for the most part. Facial details are a bit on the soft side, save for some extreme close-up's of Zooey Deschanel. Blacks are also adequate, with some minor crushing. Contrast is average.


Colors are a bit muted, consistent with the aforementioned sepia hue that is prevalent throughout the feature. Skin tones remain faithful, however. Finally, there are instances of noise in darker scenes, but again, very minor.


All in all, not a look that would wow, PQ-wise. But there are moments where it shines nonetheless.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.50*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Phantom Stranger

With the big Superman anthology box set coming out next week, anyone planning on viewing them and giving feedback? A few early reviews are already saying the sequels look surprisingly great for picture quality.


----------



## deltasun

Tough to shell out that kind of money, should have taken advantage of the Borders 50% off going around last week. The positive early reviews have definitely piqued my interest. What about you, Phantom...are you picking them up?


----------



## djoberg

*True Grit*


I was able to procure a rental of this amazing Western before its official release date (a privilege I have often in the independent video store of my local community) and thus the last two hours were spent in video nirvana. It was truly EYE CANDY, though I did find a couple of minor faults which may prevent it from being placed in the coveted reference tier.


My only real gripes would be with some boosted contrast in early, daytime scenes, resulting in a washed out look in outdoor shots, and a couple of nighttime shots (again, earlier on in the film) where the blacks were a bit on the murky side. I also noticed some fleeting softness, but to dwell on these would be equal to the proverbial "straining at a gnat."


Overall, this had fascinating PQ with exceptional detail and depth. From close-ups of faces to broad-sweeping panoramic shots we are treated to superb detail (Tier 0 quality, to be sure). Depth and dimensionality were off the charts in some scenes.


Notwithstanding the isolated shots with *murky* blacks mentioned above, the majority of nighttime scenes were as deep and inky as one could hope for, and the corresponding shadow details were exquisite as well.


The color palette was, for the most part, muted (with many earth tones dominating the film). But the details more than made up for this, though I could understand some penalizing it a notch or two for the lack of bold and vibrant colors.


As intimated above, I can't, with a good conscience, afford this a spot in Tier Blu, but I do believe it easily deserves demo status in the next tier. My vote goes for.....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


PS The movie was paced slowly (as in most Coen Brothers films), but it did pick up towards the end with a rewarding conclusion. I found the character buildup and acting from the three leads quite satisfying.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/20524591
> 
> 
> Tough to shell out that kind of money, should have taken advantage of the Borders 50% off going around last week. The positive early reviews have definitely piqued my interest. What about you, Phantom...are you picking them up?



Yes, I have already ordered the set. Not sure when I will get around to watching all of them. The missing scene in Superman Returns sounds intriguing to see.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Chawz*


Korean flick, shot digitally and then seemingly mangled by Magnolia for this US release. Signs of noise reduction everywhere, from filtered and processed faces to abysmal definition. Every shot looks muddy. Color is fine and black levels are decent enough.
*Tier 4.0**


----------



## ChrisBack5

Woah. Now I know which DVDs to hold on to.


----------



## lgans316

*The Thin Red Line (AVC / FOX / UK)*


Certainly looks stunning and natural in parts (especially the combat sequence in the mountains)


At the same time, looks soft and lifeless during every smoke filled shots (there are plenty of it)

*Recommendation: Tier 1.5*


----------------------------------------------------------------

*Easy A (AVC / SONY / UK)*


Looks pristine but the black levels during the night sequences could have looked better.

*Recommendation: Tier 1.5*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Gnomeo & Juliet*


CG. Disney. Awesome. Definitely a transfer that makes you appreciate the texture work, as the gnomes, with their chips and cracks, look totally convincing at times. Colors are strong, sharpness is perfect, definition flawless. Where to put it? Hell if I know. How about:

*Tier.... uh... 0.5*


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/20534686
> 
> *The Thin Red Line (AVC / FOX / UK)*
> 
> 
> Certainly looks stunning and natural in parts (especially the combat sequence in the mountains)
> 
> 
> At the same time, looks soft and lifeless during every smoke filled shots (there are plenty of it)
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 1.5*
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> *Easy A (AVC / SONY / UK)*
> 
> 
> Looks pristine but the black levels during the night sequences could have looked better.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 1.5*



It's been a while since I watched Easy A, but I don't recall thinking anything remotely like "pristine" while watching it.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Supercop*


Cropped. Ouch. And to think we were almost past the VHS/DVD times of cropping images. Not a great source anyway, the master clearly outdated, compression way out of control, and the damage rather alarming considering this US cut isn't exactly that old. Primaries seem unnaturally elevated, and there's a hint of edge enhancement at work. Yuck.

*Tier 4.25*


----------



## deltasun

*Blow Out*


The picture quality generally looks good for an 80's film. Still, the look is very dated. Low-light scenes absorb much of its environment and doesn't preserve details as readily. Contrast is a bit weak and the picture looks flat for the most part. There are some examples of fine detail in well-lit scenes. However, details do take a toll the farther away they are from the camera.


Colors are still an improvement from previous versions. Facial details can reach high Tier 1 in select scenes, especially at extreme examples. There also some minor stability issues throughout, but not too bad. Skin tones are not consistent, but again, not too bad.


Overall, this is a huge improvement from the DVD, but for the purposes of this thread...

*Tier Recommendation: 3.25**

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/20540964
> 
> 
> It's been a while since I watched Easy A, but I don't recall thinking anything remotely like "pristine" while watching it.



I forgot what I assigned Easy A, but vaguely remember a few solid moments.


----------



## audiomagnate

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* 
*Kill the Irishman*


Shot on a budget, the digital nature is always apparent. Instead of age make-up, they use digital smoothing that is far too obvious. Sharpness never really pops and the color palette is fairly routine. Blacks are okay if never outstanding. Some vintage tape footage from newscasts is included too.

*Tier 3.25**
I'm sorry, but I have a problem with this film's title.


Kevin Sweeney


----------



## Gamereviewgod

Quote:

Originally Posted by *audiomagnate* 
I'm sorry, but I have a problem with this film's title.


Kevin Sweeney
If it's any consolation, the title is that way because the Irishman is such a bad ass, no one can kill him, and it's a true story.
*True Grit*


Holy underwear! What a stunning live actioner, just brilliant across the board with natural clarity, detail, and sharpness. Definition has this purity about it, and the encode never comes close to impeding on the image. Black levels are superb and the color scheme is totally natural, if not eye-popping for this thread.
*Tier .75*


----------



## Cinema Squid

Quote:

Originally Posted by *audiomagnate* 
I'm sorry, but I have a problem with this film's title.


Kevin Sweeney
There is also this gem coming out next month on BD:
http://movies.netflix.com/Movie/Whit...nkers/70154142


----------



## deltasun

*The Company Men*


I will follow up GRG's Blu placement with another. Talk about limitless dimensionality in almost every scene. Check out the scene with Jones and Affleck by the docks! Blacks are just bold and deep without losing details. Contrast is just perfect all the way.


Facial details are excellent - though Tier Blu caliber, it does not touch some of the ones from Domino or Transporter 3, for example. Details, in general, are top tier as well. Grain is well-preserved and really adds to the filmic qualities of the movie.


A few nitpicks would be the color scheme - it was predominantly a cold greenish/yellowish hue. It's possibly director's intent to capture the dour mood of the story. There were also some moderate ringing in a few high contrast edges and some aliasing. Other that those, this was near perfect.

*Tier Recommendation: Blu* (just above _Despicable Me_)


Really enjoyed and related to the film; though I was able to get out before things really fell apart.









_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## 42041

*Inside Job*


Don't really agree with its current 4.5 ranking, I thought this looked unexpectedly good for a documentary, with some good-looking photography in places and bouts of excellent detail. Source quality is all over to place, from SD to high-end digital video. Mild edge halos are present throughout. To me it totals up to a blu-ray that is average looking in the overall scheme of things.

*Tier 3.0*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Sanctum*

Pretty much awful, which is surely the source at work. An oddball interlacing-like issue tends to creep in, along with fairly miserable black levels and mediocre at best fine detail. Tons of noise and a few shots with vertical lines running through the image. Color is natural if a bit pale. Encode is decent though, preventing banding despite a lot of focused lighting underwater.
*Tier 4.0**


----------



## djoberg

*Sanctum*


Once again I have to agree with GRG regarding the PQ of this title. It was a mess, to be sure! Black levels were horrendous except for a couple of isolated shots. Faces looked smoothed over in most instances. Detail was lacking in most of the running time, especially after the first 15-20 minutes (there were actually some VERY GOOD aerial shots in the first two scenes, most notably when they first flew over the mouth of the cave....the detail was demo material there but quickly lapsed into murkiness and softness once they entered the cave).


Because of some excellent shots in the opening sequences I'm willing to go a notch higher than my colleague, thus I'm putting it here....

*Tier Recommendation: 3.75**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 6'


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/20554235
> 
> *Sanctum*
> 
> 
> Once again I have to agree with GRG regarding the PQ of this title. It was a mess, to be sure!



There is just way too much agreement going on here.







To pull in the audience, we need conflict. Someone start yelling at someone else and challenge their manhood. Everyone is just being too nice to one another.


----------



## deltasun

Yeah, it's almost sickening...


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/20554491
> 
> 
> There is just way too much agreement going on here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To pull in the audience, we need conflict. Someone start yelling at someone else and challenge their manhood. Everyone is just being too nice to one another.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/20554582
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's almost sickening...



Alright...already! I promise to end the love-fest as of today.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/20555110
> 
> 
> Alright...already! I promise to end the love-fest as of today.



I'm looking forward to it.


----------



## lgans316

*True Grit (2010)*


Had great expectations but wasn't blown away due to some softness and slight lack of detail in few shots which appeared foreground focused.


The movie wasn't that great as it was predictable which is quite unusual considering that it was directed by the Coen Brothers.

*Recommendation: Tier 2 or Tier 1.75 at best*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Green Lantern: Emerald Knights


recommendation: Tier 1.5**


A new release by Warner Bros., the 83-minute animated feature is encoded in AVC on a BD-50. Outside of one bad patch of color banding very early in the movie, there are no serious flaws or errors in the image. The clean animation looks a little softer than prior DCU efforts, favoring pastel shading and less brilliant hues. This particular production seems to have solved the aliasing problems that have shown up on occasion in this type of modern animation. What prevents a higher placement is the lack of detail to the backgrounds and characters common in the better theatrical films, like _Cars_. _Green Lantern: Emerald Knights_ still provides a suitable demo piece that will wow Blu-ray newcomers and prepare them for the upcoming live-action blockbuster coming to theaters this month.


Watching on a 60" Pioneer KURO plasma at 1080p, from a Sony PS3 (firmware 3.65). Viewing distance is approximately six feet.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*G.I. Joe: The Movie (1987)

recommendation: Tier 4.5*
*

Shout Factory did everything they could with the existing elements, but a direct-to-video film based off a children's television show did not command much of a budget in 1987 and it shows in the picture quality. The new widescreen image looks partially cropped at times, leaving the composition too cramped and tight in certain scenes. Prior to this disc, the only existing presentation was a 1.33:1 image which is preserved on the companion DVD included in the package.


The AVC compression is very good and print damage is not that distracting. However, the animation looks very soft. Detail is barely above what one might see on a typical DVD. Colors are dull and faded. Outside of mastering this for Blu-ray, little cleanup or restoration has been done to improve the existing source. No serious attempt at digital noise reduction has been used, one of the few positives for the picture quality. A curious pattern of noise does appear for the obsessed videophile upon close inspection. It looks like a problem possibly from the digital scanning of the print.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray/m...251&locale=all


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Just Go With It*


Pleasing digital image with generally firm facial detail, plus instances where it doesn't click. Great Hawaiian locales shine during a few aerials. Flesh tones are irritating, while the rest of the palette is typical. Black levels and contrast are great.

*Tier 1.75*


----------



## 42041

*Seven Samurai*


As unfortunate as it is, Criterion didn't have much to work with here. The transfer is from a dupe negative quite riddled with scratches and various film degradation/generation loss issues. The transfer itself is decent and mostly looks film-like; a few scenes have a more digitally enhanced appearance, and occasionally scaling artifacts are visible as faint grid patterns in the grain. I found it a serviceable but not entirely satisfying HD image.

*Tier 4.0*


----------



## deltasun

*Shadows and Lies*


This is a highly stylized video presentation that utilizes plenty of smearing and blending of lights. As a result, fine details are rarely in the surroundings. Low-light scenes are murky and colors are unnatural. Dimensionality is rarely exhibited.


Extreme close-up's can reveal quite a bit of facial details, but these are about the only positives.

*Tier Recommendation: 4.0**

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

*Biutiful*


This one's a mixed bag. There are some exceptional, well-saturated scenes. But, some are just...well, saturated. There is a definite style that can look theatrical at times, but others can be washed out and messy. Shadow details are not the best - lots of crush in darker scenes. Contrast is decent for the most part.


Grain is wonderfully preserved and really strikes a balance for that filmic look. Facial details can be spectacular, with well-textured examples. There are a number of panoramic shots that elevate the scenes as well. Skin tones seem to be spot on. Colors take on a darker tone and, as mentioned above, are quite a bit saturated (which leads to some bleeding).


As you can see, I'm all over the place. Such was the PQ of this film. One can focus on a few scenes and call them Tier 0, while others can register south of 4.0. In the end, I will take the middle road, with a touch of generosity.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75**


Excellent film, but quite depressing.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Battle: Los Angeles*


Pretty much what I remember from the theater. A clean, clear presentation with a hint of grain, hot contrast, and here-and-there black levels. Detail can be exceptional up close although the constant camera shake can ruin it. Colors intentionally muted with no particularly negative consequences.

*Tier 2.0**


----------



## deltasun

*The Green Hornet*


The look reminded me of your typical Romance Comedy, with saturated (orange) skin tones and warmer color scheme. The one thing that did deviate is the deep blacks, which dominated the film. As deep as they are, they also swallowed some details in a few scenes. Contrast is a bit hot.


A fine dusting of grain is visible throughout. Colors are a bit on the dark side, which suits the mood well. Facial details are inconsistent, but does yield some choice shots. Dimensionality didn't really stand out.


All in all, not completely wowed, but still pleasing nonetheless.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Hall Pass*


Meh. Not an awful looking comedy, just one without any defining characteristics. Forgettable if you will. Detail sort of wanders, the mid-range is flat and bland, and there's some smoothing in a few spots. Good color, black levels, and generally clean grain structure.

*Tier 2.5**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Legend of the Fist: Return of Chen Zhen*


Worst use of the orange/teal palette I've ever seen, flesh tones so orange they glow, glistening of objects containing no white, just teal. Disgusting coloring aside, it's okay if riddled with some sporadic problems. Facial detail is strong when it wants to be, but typically dominated by a flat digital appearance.

*Tier 3.75**


----------



## deltasun

*Battle: Los Angeles*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/20568931
> 
> *Battle: Los Angeles*
> 
> 
> Pretty much what I remember from the theater. A clean, clear presentation with a hint of grain, hot contrast, and here-and-there black levels. Detail can be exceptional up close although the constant camera shake can ruin it. Colors intentionally muted with no particularly negative consequences.
> 
> *Tier 2.0**



I pretty much agree with this, but was really disappointed in how muddied the night scenes were. I would lower it just by a half tier...


...and don't get me started about the movie itself. They really need to leave the drama out of these movies (or at least the type of cliche drama they came up with).

*Tier Recommendation: 2.50**

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## djoberg

*Battle: Los Angeles*


There's really no need to go into a lot of detail here (even though THERE WAS A LOT OF DETAIL in this title







). If one were to rate this based on facial details, it would fall somewhere in the bottom quarter of Tier 0. Other details were excellent too when there was clarity.


Black levels were a real disappointment. Much of the movie was filled with smoke (from gunfire of one sort or another) which resulted in a very soft look, and quite *gritty*. The jerky camera-work about drove me nuts at times.


All things considered I'm going to side with delta on this one and place it here....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.5**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 6'


PS I listened to this with headphones on (because of the hour of the night and to keep peace with my wife) but I would venture to say the audio would have really rocked my sound system....with LOTS of action in the subwoofer.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Red Riding Hood*


Stylized endlessly with filters, blooming lights, and zero grain despite a film source. Detail finally kicks in comes during the third act, but it's awfully late by then. Black levels are a mess typically and it never carries that pop for eye candy.
*Tier 3.0**


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/20555989
> 
> *True Grit (2010)*
> 
> 
> Had great expectations but wasn't blown away due to some softness and slight lack of detail in few shots which appeared foreground focused.
> 
> 
> The movie wasn't that great as it was predictable which is quite unusual considering that it was directed by the Coen Brothers.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 2 or Tier 1.75 at best*



I agree with lgans on this one. After reading some very glowing comments about the PQ, I was disappointed. Nothing special at all.

*Tier 2.0*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Big Mommas: Like Father Like Son*

A rough start that indicates sharpening, which then disappears. The grain is elevated a bit, the encode not quite up to snuff. Black levels are miserable at times, washed out and flat. Colors are nice enough and close-ups pleasing, but this one is bothersome throughout.

*Tier 2.75**


----------



## lgans316

Glad to hear Patrick and I are on the same boat w.r to True Grit. There were few exceptional looking scenes but I felt the background depth was on the mid-range. Could be due to the filming style but nevertheless I felt True Grit to be couple of notches below No Country in terms of PQ.

*Alien*


Looks nice during bright lighting and tight close-ups but I felt the picture looked a bit too smooth and waxy.

*Recommendation: Tier 3*


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Aliens*


Slightly better than Alien.

*Recommendation: Tier 2.75*


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Aliens 3*


Epic Fail. Soft, murky and blurry from start to finish. Shame that Fox didn't invite Fincher for restoration. Total waste of money and time. Completely ruined.

*Recommendation: Tier 4.25*


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Alien Resurrection*


Nice looking close-ups. Grainy and gritty but could have looked better if Fox invited the director for proper restoration as this had the potential to look excellent.

*Recommendation: Tier 2.5*


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In terms of restoration or faithful reproduction I would rank as follows:
Aliens
Alien
Alien Resurrection
Aliens 3


----------



## deltasun

*Little Fockers*


Very impressed with this Universal release. Though not perfect, there is plenty of pop in each scene. Facial details really rule the day here, showing us how much Ben Stiller has aged from _Meet the Parents_. Blacks are deep and inky, but do crush in a number of scenes. Contrast can be overcooked, but not too bothersome.


The most egregious aspect would probably be the typical overly saturated/orange skin tones. Ringing is also rampant, which I have not seen in a while (save for _Company Men_). Colors, on the other hand, is just spectacular. In particular, they just burst out in the party scene towards the end. Check out the pool of balls.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.50*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

*The Rite*


Having seen this back to back with _Little Fockers_, there is a distinct difference in the area of facial details. This is a softer presentation that only shows facial texture during extreme close-up's (less than a handful of scenes). This is also a darker feature and does an average job in this department. Panoramic details, however, do excel.


The filmic presentation shows a healthy layer of grain that does get noisy in the darker corners. It also seems compression issues are about to jump out from every dark corner, but doesn't materialize. Aliasing, on the other hand, does.


Skin tones are predominantly faithful, but does cross over to the reddish side on a few occasions. Colors are few and far between, but do hold their own when onscreen. Finally, dimensionality and contrast are above average for a darker movie.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## 42041

*Night of the Hunter*


A relatively high quality presentation of the 1955 black and white film; very detailed at its best, but not consistent, detail readily comes and goes. Most detrimental to the image is a lot of harsh noisy grain, and I couldn't quite shake the suspicion that it's induced or exacerbated by the transfer. The photography is very skillful and the black levels complement the shadowy visuals well. A satisfactory HD image for this film, but not demo material.

*Tier 3.5**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Beverly Hills Cop*


A pleasing '80s transfer that looks mostly natural. Grain is well resolved with nominal spikes. A little bit of processing seems evident behind the grain at times, and possibly a hint of sharpening. Those are minor. Source is great, and there are minor problems with some compression.

*Tier 3.0*


----------



## Coxwell

*X-Men origins : Wolverine*


Back to this thread to make a couple evaluations of my lasts viewings.

Since I moved from a Plasma to a Projector with a big screen, I' ve become more rigorous about titles with defaults "corrected" with an inferior screen size and superior distance of viewing.


I just watched X-Men origins : Wolverine and I have to complain about the current placement in Tier 1.

The sharpness is never gorgious and consistent, the blacks are a bit muddy and too gray to be considered enough solid for a placement in Tier 1.

Color grading, and vibrancy are not that great and digital noise is sometimes disturbing. Web critics are way too lenient about that title.

*Tier Recommendation: 2*


Sony HW20 LCOS Projector - Oppo 93 - Screen size 92" - Distance of viewing 9 feet


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Coxwell* /forum/post/20596399
> 
> *X-Men origins : Wolverine*
> 
> 
> I just watched X-Men origins : Wolverine and I have to complain about the current placement in Tier 1.
> 
> The sharpness is never gorgious and consistent, the blacks are a bit muddy and too gray to be considered enough solid for a placement in Tier 1.
> 
> Color grading, and vibrancy are not that great and digital noise is sometimes disturbing. Web critics are way too lenient about that title.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2*



The rushed CGI in the movie definitely softened the picture up at times. A lot of the summer action films are composed of so much poorly integrated CGI now that it destroys the image. Basically it comes down to product being rushed through production, to meet the imposed release date that marketing has already decided. The same will probably be said for Green Lantern when it arrives on Blu-ray.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Rodrick Rules*


Heavily saturated with a thick grain structure, the latter sometimes a bit too much. Sharpness is good, detail is firm too but inconsistent. Black levels are great, giving this one plenty of depth.

*Tier 2.0**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Adjustment Bureau*


This thing is all over the place. Slapped with the irritating teal/blue/orange palette for most of the film, this one is definitely smooth at times, flat without much definition. Some close-ups are great, and a couple of aerial city shots are awesome. The rest are mud, and that's the kindest way to describe them.
*Tier 2.75**


----------



## djoberg

*Red Riding Hood*


Here is yet another highly-stylized title that had its strengths and weaknesses. Though there was a muted color palette, the primaries, especially the "Red-Hooded cloak," looked gorgeous. The blacks were very inconsistent, with only a few stellar shots, yet ironically the shadow details looked quite good.


Depth and dimensionality could be striking at times, but this was the exception and not the rule. Sharpness fluctuated as well, with bouts of softness strewn throughout.


There was a bit of noise in early scenes, but generally I found this to be free of artifacts and other anomalies.


Details were lacking in the first half but became progressively better. Facial details were nothing to write home about.


With all of these inconsistencies in every department (except for the beautiful primary colors), it's a hard one to rate. I'm feeling somewhat generous today so I'm going to opt for Tier 2, albeit on the lower end....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.5**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## djoberg

*The Company Men*


DETAIL....DEPTH....DIMENSIONALITY!!! This about sums up the superb qualities of this title which is absolutely destined to be placed in Tier Blu. I was mesmerized through much of the film, to the point where I had to hit the rewind button (several times) in order to catch what I had missed in the dialogue.


It's been awhile since I've seen these virtues permeating EVERY scene. I know this didn't get a lot of fanfare at the box office, but if you're looking for exemplary PQ, and some very good acting to boot, then hurry on down to your local video store or Wally World and pick this gem up. You will NOT be disappointed!


My only real gripe would be the drab color scheme. And yet it was quite *natural-looking* and in keeping with the depressing theme of the movie, so I really can't complain.


My vote goes for....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (Above The International)**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## deltasun

*The Roommate*


This is not your typical Sony fare, in my opinion. Details are about the only thing that stood out - not very consistent either. There are some scenes that excelled in this area.


Blacks are mediocre and contrast is all over the place. I felt claustrophobic watching this film, with its darker/warmer color palette. It's also a bit flat and had some noticeable noise. Skin tones are right on.


The movie itself was terrible!

*Tier Recommendation: 3.25**

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

Nice review, Denny! The PQ blew my socks off as well since I wasn't expecting it. Plus, I haven't seen upper-Tier PQ in a while. This was a breath of fresh air.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Unknown*


Absolutely one of the ugliest movies I've ever seen. Not because of EE or DNR, but color grading. TEAL. Teal everywhere. They might as well have filmed it monochromatic. Detail is here and there, never eye-popping but pleasing. Nice grain structure and black levels.
*Tier 2.75**


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/20605781
> 
> 
> Nice review, Denny! The PQ blew my socks off as well since I wasn't expecting it. Plus, *I haven't seen upper-Tier PQ in a while. This was a breath of fresh air*.



Yes, it was a "breath of fresh air." There are simply too many Blus coming down the pike that lack the detail and depth we witnessed in _The Company Men_ and I don't believe there is any excuse for it.


----------



## 42041

*Antichrist*


Mostly shot on the Red camera, has the characteristic smooth, blandly colored video look. Some of the daylit forest shots have nice detail, most of the time it's a solid "meh". The visuals are far from the most repellent thing about this movie, but they rarely impress, at least from the perspective of this thread.

*Tier 3.0*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Eagle*


Hot contrast, jumpy blacks, and some occasional striking detail. Colors are desaturated but proper. A little orange/teal at night, nothing too offensive, but annoying. Focus is toyed with for some softness.

*Tier 2.75**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*American Graffiti*

Would have been a lot better had Universal left well enough alone. Edge enhancement is rampant, elevating grain and creating halos. A little color bleed isn't the end of the world. Grain spikes are resolved well. The source print is superb, making it a further disgrace that the studio tampered with it.
*Tier 3.75**


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/20588220
> 
> *The Rite*
> 
> 
> Having seen this back to back with _Little Fockers_, there is a distinct difference in the area of facial details. This is a softer presentation that only shows facial texture during extreme close-up's (less than a handful of scenes). This is also a darker feature and does an average job in this department. Panoramic details, however, do excel.
> 
> 
> The filmic presentation shows a healthy layer of grain that does get noisy in the darker corners. It also seems compression issues are about to jump out from every dark corner, but doesn't materialize. Aliasing, on the other hand, does.
> 
> 
> Skin tones are predominantly faithful, but does cross over to the reddish side on a few occasions. Colors are few and far between, but do hold their own when onscreen. Finally, dimensionality and contrast are above average for a darker movie.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.25*


*The Rite


recommendation: Tier 2.25
*

A surprisingly high-bitrate video encode in AVC from Warner, that rarely dips below 25 Mbps. The average video bitrate is likely 27 or 28 Mbps, leading to few noticeable compression artifacts. As deltasun noted, there is a preponderance of ringing to the image. Many horizontal lines show signs of severe sharpening, or remnants from severe filtering at the Digital Intermediate stage.


The one point I can't agree on is that the Blu-ray looks film-like to any great degree. Multiple scenes show signs of having been low-pass filtered. It would be far shorter for me to pick the scenes that have had no noise reduction applied, than it would be to list all the filtered portions of the movie. A handful of close-ups look unprocessed, but the vast majority show none of the high-frequency information expected from a modern film production that has a Digital Intermediate. So Warner finally gives a Blu-ray a strong compression job, only for it to reveal the master having been filtered of detail and grain somewhere along the line.


My conclusion is largely the same as deltasun's recommendation, so Tier 2.25 is appropriate for _The Rite_. The image's sharpness and depth are good enough for that ranking, though an unprocessed version likely would be in Tier 1. The movie did not get very good mainstream reviews, but is entertaining for people interested in horror films centered around religious matters.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/20617783
> 
> 
> The one point I can't agree on is that the Blu-ray looks film-like to any great degree. Multiple scenes show signs of having been low-pass filtered.



There was definitely something not _rite_ with the look, specially after having seen _Little Fockers_ immediately before this one.


And yes, about the movie itself. I was surprised how much I liked it. Movies of late find me checking how much more time is left at about the 15-20 minute mark. Not so with this one.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/20580395
> 
> *Battle: Los Angeles*
> 
> 
> There's really no need to go into a lot of detail here (even though THERE WAS A LOT OF DETAIL in this title
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ). If one were to rate this based on facial details, it would fall somewhere in the bottom quarter of Tier 0. Other details were excellent too when there was clarity.
> 
> 
> Black levels were a real disappointment. Much of the movie was filled with smoke (from gunfire of one sort or another) which resulted in a very soft look, and quite *gritty*. The jerky camera-work about drove me nuts at times.
> 
> 
> All things considered I'm going to side with delta on this one and place it here....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.5**
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 6'
> 
> 
> PS I listened to this with headphones on (because of the hour of the night and to keep peace with my wife) but I would venture to say the audio would have really rocked my sound system....with LOTS of action in the subwoofer.



I agree with these comments and also with the conclusion. *Tier 2.5.*


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Much of the movie was filled with smoke (from gunfire of one sort or another) which resulted in a very soft look



This appears to be similar to what I experienced with Thin Red Line. Too many smoke filled shots in my opinion.

*A Christmas Carol (2009)*


Wonderful animation but a bit too dark for my taste reminiscent of Robert Zemeckis's Beowulf.

*Recommendation: Tier 1.25*


----------



## hernanu

*Last Tango In Paris*


Surprisingly good for an older film. Severe black crush, but facial detail is very good, which for an introspective movie that concentrates on people is a plus. Overall a gauzy feel to the movie, which may have been Bertolucci's intent.


No artificial sharpening that I could detect. I thought it a good transfer.

*Tier 3.5*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Beastly*


Boring to look at, with muted colors and mostly shot in the dark. Detail is fine if not striking, a light softness throughout keeping it at bay. Black levels are great if not substantial, and the grain is resolved enough that you can barely make it out.

*Tier 3.0**


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Who is going to be first to post a review of the LOTR trilogy?!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* 
Who is going to be first to post a review of the LOTR trilogy?!








It will be interesting to see how much better the Extended Editions look over the woefully outdated Theatrical cuts on Blu-ray. Given the early reports from others, as long as one can handle Frodo entering the Matrix







, the new box is supposed to have a vast increase in resolution and overall quality.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Very funny regarding the Matrix quip!


Man, you talk about some people blowing a gasket!


----------



## Hughmc

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* 
Who is going to be first to post a review of the LOTR trilogy?!








is that a threat? haha


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Hughmc* 
is that a threat? haha








No kidding!


Whoever posts a review will be criticized for either 1) being blind to the green/teal color push and/or an apologist for the studio or 2) a zealot who just wants to criticize WB as a crap studio regardless of what the picture actually looks like.


I can't help but feel the remnants of the format war based on many of the comments I've read on this issue.


----------



## deltasun

I'm about to go out and pick up my pre-order. Don't have the TEs to compare to though, but I'm dying to see this green push with my very own eyes.










Btw, look who's come out of the woodwork for LOTR.


----------



## 42041

I'll probably have a chance to borrow Fellowship in the next few days. I'm not particularly enthused about the color changes, but I doubt the green tint will be visible in normal viewing, aside from a general reduction of brightness/contrast.

I've always thought this film was all over the place visually and I doubt it'll be the stuff of demo tiers even if it's a perfect presentation.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

Quote:

Originally Posted by *deltasun* 
I'm about to go out and pick up my pre-order. Don't have the TEs to compare to though, but I'm dying to see this green push with my very own eyes.










Btw, look who's come out of the woodwork for LOTR.








It's a film worth coming out of the woodwork for!









Quote:

Originally Posted by *42041* 
I'll probably have a chance to borrow Fellowship in the next few days. I'm not particularly enthused about the color changes, but I doubt the green tint will be visible in normal viewing, aside from a general reduction of brightness/contrast.

I've always thought this film was all over the place visually and I doubt it'll be the stuff of demo tiers even if it's a perfect presentation.
If you haven't seen it yet, how can you say you are not particularly enthused about the color changes? I know, I know...there is evidence. But still, I wish people would hold judgment until they actually view it, in motion, with their own eyeballs.


I agree with you about Fellowship being all over the place visually though.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/20628882
> 
> 
> I'll probably have a chance to borrow Fellowship in the next few days. I'm not particularly enthused about the color changes, but I doubt the green tint will be visible in normal viewing, aside from a general reduction of brightness/contrast.
> 
> I've always thought this film was all over the place visually and I doubt it'll be the stuff of demo tiers even if it's a perfect presentation.



Ive been following the controversial thread and looking at videos on you tube and pics,etc. I agree with Rob with reference to the "war". People sure do line up.










What I am struggling with .... the new FOTR looks great going by the video someone posted from the extras disc regarding the color grading, but the grading almost looks like DNR or smoothing as compared to it not being color graded. In the video they show before and after the color grading is done and the shire for example looks like detail is lost when the color grading is done. Maybe it is just as you say the contrast and brightness are reduced, so in the youtube video it seems worse than what it actually is when viewing the BD.

















Other than that I am sure I will enjoy it regardless. I don't own it yet and haven't bought the previous release and was waiting for this set.


What a controversy though, huh?


We all hear about director's intent and reference, etc, meanwhile the directors intent to change gets slammed. Its a no win for him or for those who find fault, unless they simply choose to be "happy".










I've been following the thread daily, just way too busy, plus both my projector and display need bulbs and some tuning.


I do appreciate all who keep reviewing and posting.


Thanks!!


Hugh


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Season of the With*

Hooray, more orange and teal. Why? Who knows at this point. Extraordinary detail though oozing out of nearly every frame of this one. Black levels are great, grain is resolved, and depth is impressive. All comes back to that damn color grading though. It's simply unoriginal, oppressive, and boring to look at.

*1.75**


----------



## deltasun

Not too shabby, guys. I'm about 2.5 hours in and I'm looking at low Gold to high Silver. The green push is definitely noticeable in some scenes more than others and does give one pause, but details abound for the most part. That and the AQ is enough to distract me from noticing too much of the green tint.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/20631984
> 
> *Season of the With*
> 
> Hooray, more orange and teal. Why? Who knows at this point. Extraordinary detail though oozing out of nearly every frame of this one. Black levels are great, grain is resolved, and depth is impressive. All comes back to that damn color grading though. It's simply unoriginal, oppressive, and boring to look at.
> 
> *1.75**



The "With and Without" perhaps?


----------



## trinifox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/20632177
> 
> 
> Not too shabby, guys. I'm about 2.5 hours in and I'm looking at low Gold to high Silver. The green push is definitely noticeable in some scenes more than others and does give one pause, but details abound for the most part. That and the AQ is enough to distract me from noticing too much of the green tint.



I have not seen it discussed (or go look at the fan pages) but is any one thinking that the green push was director's intent, like the 'bronze' of Prince of Persia?


----------



## deltasun

I would say go look at the fan pages .










Personally, intentional or not, it'll probably get corrected.


----------



## zoman504




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/20633300
> 
> 
> I would say go look at the fan pages .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, intentional or not, it'll probably get corrected.



Not any time soon. Maybe whenever the Hobbit is released and there's a new combo pack.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Unless Peter Jackson raises a public stink about the issue, the color timing changes will not be "corrected" until at least the next iteration of the box. Though Warner has passed again and again on fixing problems in their reissues on Blu-ray, for the most part. The same woeful VC-1 video encode on _Superman Returns_ from 2006 was used again for the Superman Anthology.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Sucker Punch*


Absolutely fantastic looking film, with just enormous scale and definition. Grain is used in various levels, always well resolved by one of the better Warner encodes... well, ever really. Unfortunately, most of those visuals lose their impact thanks to the orange/teal laziness, but it's not hampering the overall enormity of the fight scenes and loads of brilliantly defined CG.
*Tier 1.25**


----------



## deltasun

*The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (Extended Edition)*


Got through this last night, all 3hrs 48mins of it. As mentioned earlier, the green cast is quite noticeable in a number of areas, but it's not consistent. There are scenes where, let's just say, it's not as apparent. It could be that my eyes have adjusted, but then there would be a later scene where it's even more obnoxious.


Either way, it's there and does affect some of the darker / lower contrast scenes detrimentally. However, it's akin to the "golden" look of romance comedies, though I don't recall those swallowing details. On the same token, there are some beautiful details, both facial and within the surroundings. Some of the panoramas are just spectacular, which provide for some much needed eye candy.


The (intentional) blooming around the Elven abode doesn't look as distracting, and neither does the smoothing of their skin. As expected, contrast is inconsistent, but does show plenty of strong examples throughout. Blacks are adequate for the most part.


I was surprised to find quite a number of flat scenes, both during the nighttime and daytime. Skin tones do vary, but do not distract too much.


Overall, there are quite a few scenes dipping in low Tier 0 and throughout Tier 1. However, some of the negatives do creep pretty low. I still think this presentation belongs comfortably in the Silver Tier.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.50**


Incidentally, I popped in _The Two Towers_ right after to see how "different" it'll look. In my eyes, _The Two Towers_ suddenly looked a bit washed out. I'll let my eyes readjust and watch again...









_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

*Le Mans*


Though a bit inconsistent, this presentation from Paramount offers up plenty of discernible facial details, details in fabrics, details in immediate areas. Contrast is strong during daytime scenes, but does wane during the flatter nighttime scenes (specially racing sequences). Blacks are oppressive and does crush quite regularly.


Details also tend to soften the farther away objects are from the point of focus. Still, medium shots are well-rendered. Check out the opening pan of Steve McQueen as he surveys the area of the track where he had a prior accident.


Colors are a bit dated, but does offer some striking primaries on occasion. Skin tones are spot on most of the time, but does get reddish in some scenes. Finally, there are some specks, dust, as well as some stability issues to the picture. Still, this is an excellent presentation on blu-ray.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.25**

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## tfoltz

Quote:

Originally Posted by *deltasun* 
*The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (Extended Edition)*...

Overall, there are quite a few scenes dipping in low Tier 0 and throughout Tier 1. However, some of the negatives do creep pretty low. I still think this presentation belongs comfortably in the Silver Tier.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.50**
Boy, I'm going to have to get this if FotR gets a 2.5. This is great.


----------



## tfoltz

Side note, I just got a 65ST30 and can see so many more problems in blu-rays now, most movies pretty much drop a tier while the special ones shine through. Larger TVs are a blessing and a curse (mostly a blessing).


----------



## 42041

*Fellowship of the Ring (Extended)*


Looks a lot better than the theatrical edition. Fine detail is very appreciable now. The excessive, ugly DNR afflicting the theatrical BD is gone. I enjoy the new color timing, I think it's a bit more vibrant, though that's going from memory rather than comparison. Many scenes look downright superb. However, the film is still fairly inconsistent. Most of it is still derived from the early days of digital post-production, and detail rarely measures up to the best of what you see today. Soft photography, occassional filtering of facial details, intentional blooming, and some of the less effective VFX take their toll.

I would say that the green cast, although it is measurable objectively, is subjectively a non-issue. The eyes just tune it out, though I suspect some vibrance/luminance is lost for it.

*Tier 2.25*


(PS3/Pioneer 50" Kuro Elite/about 1 screen width distance)


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Warrior's Way*


Crazy movie that is littered with green screens, various effects, some noise, but always phenomenal detail. Close-ups are just ridiculous. Some orange/teal in spots to annoy. Black levels are exceptional and contrast absurdly bright.
*Tier 1.75**


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041*  /forum/post/20640355
> 
> *Fellowship of the Ring (Extended)*
> 
> 
> Looks a lot better than the theatrical edition. Fine detail is very appreciable now. The excessive, ugly DNR afflicting the theatrical BD is gone. I enjoy the new color timing, I think it's a bit more vibrant, though that's going from memory rather than comparison. Many scenes look downright superb. However, the film is still fairly inconsistent. Most of it is still derived from the early days of digital post-production, and detail rarely measures up to the best of what you see today. Soft photography, occassional filtering of facial details, intentional blooming, and some of the less effective VFX take their toll.
> 
> I would say that the green cast, although it is measurable objectively, is subjectively a non-issue. The eyes just tune it out, though I suspect some vibrance/luminance is lost for it.
> 
> *Tier 2.25*
> 
> 
> (PS3/Pioneer 50" Kuro Elite/about 1 screen width distance)



I watched this in its entirety last night. Thank you for making my job easy in terms of writing a review, as I pretty much agree with everything you have said above.


You *can* notice the greenish cast in several scenes. It does exist. But is it really distracting? No. It isn't like this film was shot to be as accurate and realistic in terms of color balance anyway. What about all the scenes that have a very pronounced golden hue to them? Far from *accurate*, but it sets a mood and is very pleasing.


Overall this definitely *exceeded* my expectations. Fellowship has always looked soft to me, but this version brings out some clarity that I didn't think existed (though there are still soft scenes).


I've seen some people say that contrast is weak, and that many scenes were way too dark. I would strongly disagree with that statement. Never once did I feel that any scene was too dark, and contrast was very good overall (yes, there were *some* scenes where the blacks seemed a bit lacking, but those were few and far between).


A great presentation, and as I said, my expectations were exceeded. It had been several years since I'd since the movie, and it was great to watch it again and be reminded of how great it is.

*

Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


----------



## deltasun

*A Passage to India*

_Mrs. Moore!_


A very noteworthy presentation (again) from Sony. The colors just burst out - very rare for a film of this age (I know it's from '84, but it has that timeless quality). Very filmic as well, with grain complementary to the look. Facial details are also noteworthy, though cannot compete against some of the newer, upper-tier titles.


Dimensionality is really exceptional, particularly coupled with the grandiose cinematography. It is also evident in medium scenes for the most part. Skin tones are a bit mixed, but not really distracting. Contrast is strong and blacks are bold and deep, though I wouldn't say inky.


I didn't spy any true negatives, though the age shows a bit here and there. The picture is pretty stable, save for a few scenes. Some very faint vertical lines also appear in a few frames.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## djoberg

*The Adjustment Bureau*


A muted color palette with the typical teal/orange hues dominate the majority of the running time, but fine detail and an incredible depth of field (and some very good black levels, though these were few and far between) save the day. Not that it doesn't have its anomalies (some fleeting black crush, a brief shot of terrible noise, and several bouts of softness), but overall I was quite pleased.


This isn't going to find itself in the demo tiers, but IMHO the detail (especially some impressive facial details, stunning shadow details, and incredible aerial shots of New York City) and depth (which was jaw-dropping at times) elevate it close to the top of Tier 2. I'm going with....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## djoberg

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* 
*

Tier Recommendation: 2.0*
Hi Rob! Good to see you visiting the thread with a good recommendation for _FOTR_. I never did buy the Theatrical version so I hope to pick up the EE soon.


I'll take this opportunity to let everyone know that in 3-4 weeks we'll be moving to a new home in Minnesota (a bit closer to the Twin Cities). I plan to have a room built in the basement for my Home Theater as soon as we move in, but it may take up to a month to complete the construction. So, I may be out of the loop for 6-8 weeks, though I do plan to check the thread on my laptop or iPad 2 from time to time.


----------



## deltasun

Congrats, Denny. Still waiting to move into a house where I have my own basement home theatre. Hoping it's next year. Really excited to hear your situation!


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Tropical Rainforest (IMAX)*


DNR'ed to the ends of the Earth, which is a shame because the footage is quite beautiful at times. Colors are bright and intense, but the detail is simply missing.

*Tier 4.0**



------


*Ring of Fire (IMAX)*


Also DNR'ed but this one isn't quite as complex, and the lava still looks awesome. Black levels are great. Grain is gone, and colors pop when they can. However, it's generally dusty and gray.
*
Tier 3.75**


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/20644426
> 
> 
> Congrats, Denny. Still waiting to move into a house where I have my own basement home theatre. Hoping it's next year. Really excited to hear your situation!



Thanks deltasun!


I have somewhat of a dedicated room in our present home, but the ceilings are really low (only 6' in half of the room) due to an expansion beam we had installed and the flooring is tile instead of carpet. Also, I always had to worry about seepage during really heavy rains. The place we're getting now is in a new development a half mile out of the city (with city amenities though!!) on a small hill and it doesn't even require a sump pump.


The dimensions of the room will be 13' x 27'. Right now it will be set up for my KURO and a 7.1 speaker system (with a small office/library in the very back of the room), but someday I would love to buy a projector and use the whole room. The contractor will be wiring it for such a setup in case it ever happens.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/20644242
> 
> 
> I plan to have a room built in the basement for my Home Theater as soon as we move in, but it may take up to a month to complete the construction. So, I may be out of the loop for 6-8 weeks, though I do plan to check the thread on my laptop or iPad 2 from time to time.



Good, now you can watch all those loud action movies without bothering your wife.







Invest in soundproofing the ceiling.







We all expect once it is done, three reviews a week like clockwork.


A happy Fourth Of July weekend to everyone, enjoy the fireworks.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/20645922
> 
> 
> A happy Fourth Of July weekend to everyone, enjoy the fireworks.



Happy 4th to you too Phantom...and all AVS members!


If memory serves me well, my wife and I were at a nice resort at Mackinaw City (on Lake Huron) last year at this time....now we're forced to stay home to begin packing for our move. It is a daunting task ahead of us and I wish I could just fast forward two months. Oh well, such is life!


I'll be sliding the movie _Unknown_ into my Blu-ray player later tonight. According to GRG I'm in for the "Mother of All Teal Movies!"


----------



## djoberg

*Unknown*


The BAD: TEAL permeates the movie, along with ORANGE hues on occasion.


The GOOD: SHARP and DETAILED, with some amazing DEPTH at times. Add to this some beautiful primary COLORS (mixed in with the teal).


I'm tired so this is all I have to say. I thought it looked a tad better than _The Adjustment Bureau_, so I'm going with....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/20641354
> 
> 
> I watched this in its entirety last night. Thank you for making my job easy in terms of writing a review, as I pretty much agree with everything you have said above.
> 
> 
> You *can* notice the greenish cast in several scenes. It does exist. But is it really distracting? No. It isn't like this film was shot to be as accurate and realistic in terms of color balance anyway. What about all the scenes that have a very pronounced golden hue to them? Far from *accurate*, but it sets a mood and is very pleasing.
> 
> 
> Overall this definitely *exceeded* my expectations. Fellowship has always looked soft to me, but this version brings out some clarity that I didn't think existed (though there are still soft scenes).
> 
> 
> I've seen some people say that contrast is weak, and that many scenes were way too dark. I would strongly disagree with that statement. Never once did I feel that any scene was too dark, and contrast was very good overall (yes, there were *some* scenes where the blacks seemed a bit lacking, but those were few and far between).
> 
> 
> A great presentation, and as I said, my expectations were exceeded. It had been several years since I'd since the movie, and it was great to watch it again and be reminded of how great it is.
> 
> *
> 
> Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


*FOTR*


I agree with both the comments and the placement.


And I did not notice the green tint at all, not even in the scenes that have been most widely noted.

*Tier 2.0*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Miral*

At times garishly colored with some of the hottest, brightest oranges I've ever seen. Hot contrast and deep blacks too. Detail is simply awesome, rich, textured, and natural. Grain is well resolved. Some tape footage inserted for historical purpose.

*Tier 2.0**


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/20647711
> 
> *FOTR*
> 
> 
> I agree with both the comments and the placement.
> 
> 
> And *I did not notice the green tint at all*, not even in the scenes that have been most widely noted.
> 
> *Tier 2.0*



You didn't notice as in you didn't see? Or, just not distracting?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/20648083
> 
> 
> You didn't notice as in you didn't see? Or, just not distracting?



I didn't see it.


----------



## deltasun

Wow, good for you.


----------



## deltasun

*Hall Pass*


Happy 4th, all!


This is your typical comedy palette of warm overall look, and particularly, over-saturated, orange-ish skin tones. Facial details are mostly good, but there are some unexpected inconsistencies. Blacks are deep with some minor crushing. Contrast is strong all the way through.


Nothing really stands out, but a decent-looking title nonetheless. Some ringing are noted in high-contrast edges.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.50**

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

*The Mechanic* (2011)


Saw this back to back with _Hall Pass_ above. Though similar in choice of a warm palette, with warm skin tones, this one was more consistent with details. It also managed depth and dimensionality much much better. There are very rare instances of softness and stylized, contrast boosting in the picture.


Blacks are very deep and well-rendered. Colors are a bit muted, but did not hurt the overall presentation.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0**

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Island*


Nice catalog release from Paramount but there's some definite sharpening. Aliasing and flicker are at times rampant, and other spots it's not noticeable because of the absurd amount of detail on display. Colors are intense and contrast insane. Grain is well resolved. Spotty, but excellent overall.

*Tier 1.75**


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/20656395
> 
> *The Island*
> 
> 
> Nice catalog release from Paramount but there's some definite sharpening. Aliasing and flicker are at times rampant, and other spots it's not noticeable because of the absurd amount of detail on display. Colors are intense and contrast insane. Grain is well resolved. Spotty, but excellent overall.
> 
> *Tier 1.75**



You haven't by any chance had the opportunity to see the UK import Blu-ray from WB for a comparison? That was an older video encode released years ago, but it looked good at the time and was very close to being a demo title. There were calls for it to be placed in Tier Zero back when it came out. Scuttlebutt around the Internet about this Paramount release is it's far superior in terms of detail and fewer compression artifacts.


----------



## 42041

*LOTR: The Two Towers (Extended Edition)*


I've never seen the theatrical version on bluray so I have no idea how it compares. I thought it was similar but a slight step down in quality from the extended version of the first film overall, with the inconsistent sharpness and occasionally patchy vfx shots being now joined by a rather enthusiastic application of DNR in many shots, which leads to odd-looking grain and details smearing when things move on screen. Although the image is brighter than the first film, it tends to favor desaturated or monochromatic color palettes, which also affects its demo-worthiness.

*Tier 2.5**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* 
You haven't by any chance had the opportunity to see the UK import Blu-ray from WB for a comparison? That was an older video encode released years ago, but it looked good at the time and was very close to being a demo title. There were calls for it to be placed in Tier Zero back when it came out. Scuttlebutt around the Internet about this Paramount release is it's far superior in terms of detail and fewer compression artifacts.
I haven't. I came close to buying the import, but decided against it since I tend to get screwed and they announce a US release a week after I import. This one does look great, but the sharpening and hot contrast are enough to kick it down a notch for me.

*Bloodrayne: The Third Reich*


Flat, ugly, and bland presentation nearly devoid of detail. Clear, the benefit of digital, but just nothing that's striking or impressive. Black levels are okay, it's relatively noise free, just never striking.

*Tier 3.75**


----------



## 42041

*The Treasure of the Sierra Madre*


Warner's Blu-ray presentation of the 1948 black and white classic is, to my eye, without significant flaw. It looks consistently film-like and natural, detail is remarkably well-resolved, contrast and black levels are excellent. A few dupe shots and opticals spoil the consistency, but that's to be expected. I always struggle placing B&W films in the PQ thread, I don't expect this film could look significantly better than it does here, but it isn't the kind of eye-popping Technicolor show that could secure a film of this vintage a high ranking in this thread.

*Tier 3.0*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Hobo with a Shotgun*


I've never seen color THIS saturated, sort of like turning the turning the color up to the max on your set and leaving it there. Shot digitally with a fake grain laid over it, the encode needs more help than its allowed, leading to some compression issues. Detail is awesome in close though.

*Tier 2.0**


----------



## robsis

Gamereviewgod,


Hobo with a Shotgun and Bloodrayne, Third Reich....


Wow, now that's a double feature!


----------



## Ozymandis

Anyone review 13 Assassins yet? I was planning on picking it up tomorrow (huge fan of samurai flicks) and I'm wondering what the PQ is like.


----------



## deltasun

I messed up my Netflix timing on this one. Blockbuster doesn't have it or _Hobo with a Shotgun_, unfortunately.


----------



## 42041

*Return of the King (Extended)*


Once again, no idea how it compares to the theatrical edition. For my tastes this was pretty similar to the first film, and somewhat better than Two Towers, due to more judicious application of DNR. Some scenes are thoroughly demo-worthy, others look very "meh". Between the abundance of visual effects and the photographic styles employed, inconsistency is the biggest visual problem with these films, and to me it averages out at about...

*Tier 2.25**


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/20667897
> 
> *Return of the King (Extended)*
> 
> 
> Once again, no idea how it compares to the theatrical edition. For my tastes this was pretty similar to the first film, and somewhat better than Two Towers, due to more judicious application of DNR. Some scenes are thoroughly demo-worthy, others look very "meh". Between the abundance of visual effects and the photographic styles employed, inconsistency is the biggest visual problem with these films, and to me it averages out at about...
> 
> *Tier 2.25**



Thanks for your reviews on these three films 42041. I'm more than satisfied with them being in Tier 2 so I purchased the set at Best Buy yesterday. The only bad part is it may be almost two months before I can watch them (I leave on vacation on Monday for a week and then it's back to the "big move" when we return).


----------



## 42041

*Red Riding: 1974*


The first of the 3-part series of British TV films is most unwisely crammed on one blu-ray disc with two other full-length films. It's a good movie, but makes for brutal HD viewing. Shot in 16mm, it suffers from horrible contrast, non-existent black levels, banding, spikes of extreme grain, and awful compression (the video bitrate is often in the single digits, despite the grainy, incompressible material). The cinematography is relentlessly bleak and overcast, not helping matters much.

*Tier 4.5**


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *robsis* /forum/post/20666177
> 
> 
> Gamereviewgod,
> 
> 
> Hobo with a Shotgun and Bloodrayne, Third Reich....
> 
> 
> Wow, now that's a double feature!



Sometimes, you need a little gratuitous violence to kick-start the day. I'm fairly certain I got more than six times the daily recommended dose.

*Daylight*


Well, it's a catalog title and it's Universal. Anyone up for a guess? Anyone?


Oh, I'm writing to myself. Anyway, it's a mess, riddled with DNR and edge enhancement, this one top of a master that's suitable for 2002 and not much later. Black levels are good, so that's something. Miniscule detail spread about.

*Tier 4.0**


----------



## deltasun

*13 Assassins*


I did ascertain a copy. Unfortunately, it's an inconsistent-looking blu-ray in terms of PQ. Details come and go, and had quite a bit of softness in medium scenes. Facial details follow the same inconsistencies, and never really got better that low Tier 1.


Contrast is above average, but black levels really suffer - almost a washed out look at times. Noise can also be problematic in the numerous dusk to dark type scenes, which there are plenty in the first half of the movie.


Dimensionality is okay, but nothing really stood out. Skin tones look faithful. Colors are not very saturated, but did complement the somber feel. Blood is a deep crimson. Overall, very average.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.25*


Movie started out slow, but quickly picked up and was well set up for the finale.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/20674749
> 
> *13 Assassins*
> 
> 
> I did ascertain a copy. Unfortunately, it's an inconsistent-looking blu-ray in terms of PQ. Details come and go, and had quite a bit of softness in medium scenes. Facial details follow the same inconsistencies, and never really got better that low Tier 1.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.25*



That is disappointing to hear your score. The movie is worth at least one viewing, but most of Miike's movies are so carefully crafted that a good-looking Blu-ray should not be that hard to create. Magnolia, the U.S. distributor, may be at fault. Some of their Blu-ray transfers are spotty at best, as often it looks like they take whatever transfer the international owner gives them.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*61*


recommendation: Tier 2.25*

_61*_ is HBO's 2001 production fictionalizing Roger Maris' chase of the single-season home run record in 1961. The 128-minute film was released by Warner Bros. on June 7, 2011. Encoded in AVC and included on a BD-50, the video bitrate for the main feature averages somewhere between 25 to 27 Mbps, topping out around 35 Mbps. For the most part this is a solid transfer with few problems. Some green screen work for the baseball action produces the most questionable moments from a picture quality perspective, but most of the film is set indoors. The image lacks the superior depth and focus of the upper tiers, though it shows a good amount of high-frequency information in facial detail and is constantly sharp. Close-ups are razor-sharp and rendered as well as many Tier One discs.


Nothing makes it stand out as a demo title as the cinematography favors a flatter appearance for medium and long shots. Flesh tones are a tad too pink at times. Crisp whites and solid black levels result in a pleasing contrast. Colors are nicely saturated and only a light layer of grain is noticeable. A few scenes do have a slight amount of visible edge enhancement that largely fades as the film progresses. Baseball fans will be happy how the disc has turned out, the picture is good enough to be placed in Tier 2.25. There are no traces of the film having been filtered by digital noise reduction.


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/20672292
> 
> *Red Riding: 1974*
> 
> 
> The first of the 3-part series of British TV films is most unwisely crammed on one blu-ray disc with two other full-length films. It's a good movie, but makes for brutal HD viewing. Shot in 16mm, it suffers from horrible contrast, non-existent black levels, banding, spikes of extreme grain, and awful compression (the video bitrate is often in the single digits, despite the grainy, incompressible material). The cinematography is relentlessly bleak and overcast, not helping matters much.
> 
> *Tier 4.5**


*Red Riding: 1980*


Part two is shot in 35mm; still pretty unpleasant viewing. The grain is finer and there's more detail, but non-existent black levels/contrast and weak compression remain, making the image look utterly flat and dull. The visuals are also constrained by modest production values and the subject matter. There also appears to be some kind of color screwup, saturated reds take on bizarre hues in a few shots, making people's lips look bloody.

*Tier 3.75**


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/20675490
> 
> 
> That is disappointing to hear your score. The movie is worth at least one viewing, but most of Miike's movies are so carefully crafted that a good-looking Blu-ray should not be that hard to create. Magnolia, the U.S. distributor, may be at fault. Some of their Blu-ray transfers are spotty at best, as often it looks like they take whatever transfer the international owner gives them.



The picture still looked good. My initial instincts were 2.75, till I compared to movies in that area. I think today's movies have just gotten better also and so, it's no longer criminal to be in the bronze tier. But yes, I'm with you - it would have been nice to have seen a 1.75-2.0 for this type of film. I didn't mention that grain is well-preserved, and super 35 used.


Definitely worth owning, in my opinion.


----------



## lgans316

*The Other Guys (Sony / UK)* ---> *Recommendation: Tier 1.75*

*In Bruges (Universal / UK)* ---> *Recommendation: Tier 2.25* - A great movie with terrific performance.

*Paul (Universal / UK)* ---> *Recommendation: Tier 2.5*


----------



## rusky_g

*Drive Angry*


Really enjoyed the look of this picture; crisp, detailed and punchy throughout. Bar the odd bit of softness, quality held up from beginning to end. Much of the action takes place in bright daytime, which lends itself well to my viewing environment. That being said, night scenes had excellent shadow detail.

*Tier 1.25*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Lincoln Lawyer*


Clean, crisp digital production. Good black levels and general detail consistency. Noise free and typical flaws like aliasing/noise are non-existent. Colors are limited, so it doesn't have that major "pop." Still a looker.

*Tier 1.75**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Insidious*


Drab, ugly looking movie. The digital translation is clean and the black levels are fine, but people continue to look like plastic. Fine detail is at a premium here. Very little color, although some sequences are doused in teal, because you know, no other color exists.

*Tier 3.75**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Now that digital color-grading has become the new standard in Hollywood for movies, I think a dialogue on its relationship to the Tiers might be in order. The current set of criteria is agnostic on the issue, but references to color timings have become more and more frequent in most of the recent PQ Tier placements.


The trend toward unnatural color schemes is not going to slow down anytime soon, as Hollywood feels it is commercially necessary. It's even affecting catalog titles, as evidenced by the recent release of the _Lord Of The Rings Trilogy_.


To date, I have never penalized a film in a placement for an unfortunate choice of tint, unless it was an egregious and outlandish violation. But some reviewers are clearly docking titles that show the worst of this new trend toward teal or sickly orange. That does not bother me at all, but a census of opinion on the matter from regular thread participants and lurkers would be welcome.


Do the current guidelines for placement need to be altered for this issue?


----------



## deltasun

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* 
Now that digital color-grading has become the new standard in Hollywood for movies, I think a dialogue on its relationship to the Tiers might be in order. The current set of criteria is agnostic on the issue, but references to color timings have become more and more frequent in most of the recent PQ Tier placements.


The trend toward unnatural color schemes is not going to slow down anytime soon, as Hollywood feels it is commercially necessary. It's even affecting catalog titles, as evidenced by the recent release of the _Lord Of The Rings Trilogy_.


To date, I have never penalized a film in a placement for an unfortunate choice of tint, unless it was an egregious and outlandish violation. But some reviewers are clearly docking titles that show the worst of this new trend toward teal or sickly orange. That does not bother me at all, but a census of opinion on the matter from regular thread participants and lurkers would be welcome.


Do the current guidelines for placement need to be altered for this issue?
I don't think it needs special consideration. I agree with your third paragraph as an approach (which is the approach I've always taken). It either bothers or it doesn't, and is graded accordingly.


I thought _Lincoln Lawyer_ had the teal/orange scheme also, but I don't think it bothered GRG much (no mention in his review). So, (not to speak for GRG) I'm assuming he's docking when it truly is egregious.


I'd like to hear from others as well.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/20690055
> 
> 
> Now that digital color-grading has become the new standard in Hollywood for movies, I think a dialogue on its relationship to the Tiers might be in order. The current set of criteria is agnostic on the issue, but references to color timings have become more and more frequent in most of the recent PQ Tier placements.
> 
> 
> The trend toward unnatural color schemes is not going to slow down anytime soon, as Hollywood feels it is commercially necessary. It's even affecting catalog titles, as evidenced by the recent release of the _Lord Of The Rings Trilogy_.
> 
> 
> To date, I have never penalized a film in a placement for an unfortunate choice of tint, unless it was an egregious and outlandish violation. But some reviewers are clearly docking titles that show the worst of this new trend toward teal or sickly orange. That does not bother me at all, but a census of opinion on the matter from regular thread participants and lurkers would be welcome.
> 
> 
> Do the current guidelines for placement need to be altered for this issue?



I agree with Delta. No need for change. It has always been part of the overall equation: i.e., does it _look good_ or not? Director's intent has never been considered in this thread, no reason to start considering it now.


We grade black and white films in this thread, so just because a film has digital color grading done doesn't require any special consideration or addendum to how we rank the title. IMO.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Many new releases have an adjusted color grading, that is a fact. Should the goal for a top-ranked disc be a naturalistic tint that does not exaggerate some hues? I am inclined to say yes on that matter, as certain choices made today in that area effectively degrade picture quality. Altered flesh tones are the most obvious result, but secondary considerations exist.


I am just trying to tease out what people believe is the preferred look for films in the higher tiers. This is not about re-writing the definitions for each tier, but being more explicit about this particular facet. Some are more concerned about it than others, from reading a wide variety of Blu-ray reviews here and on other sites.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/20691687
> 
> 
> Should the goal for a top-ranked disc be a naturalistic tint that does not exaggerate some hues? I am inclined to say yes on that matter, as certain choices made today in that area effectively degrade picture quality.



The answer is easy: it depends.










While I agree that certain choices made in that area _can_ effectively degrade overall picture quality, I am not inclined to say that that will always (or even a majority of the time) be the case.


I think if colors don't look right, we automatically take that into consideration in ranking the disc.


----------



## tfoltz

I think the answer is that we need to start boycotting these orange and teal movies. Maybe we can make an Orange and Teal Tier, so that we can know which blu-rays to avoid.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/20690080
> 
> 
> I don't think it needs special consideration. I agree with your third paragraph as an approach (which is the approach I've always taken). It either bothers or it doesn't, and is graded accordingly.
> 
> 
> I thought _Lincoln Lawyer_ had the teal/orange scheme also, but I don't think it bothered GRG much (no mention in his review). So, (not to speak for GRG) I'm assuming he's docking when it truly is egregious.
> 
> 
> I'd like to hear from others as well.



Right. If it's bad, like Unknown, it's bad. Lincoln Lawyer? Not so much, used sparingly. I mean, we rank highly if the color is bright, saturated, and purty. If the entire movie is loaded with only two colors, that's detrimental to the eye candy.

*From Dusk Till Dawn*


Woefully outdated master, filled with black crush to 'nth degree and colors so absurdly hot, flesh tones might as well be bleeding from their confines. Sure, there's some facial detail thrown around, but it looks like the whole thing was rendered at 720p. It's muddy and soft, and the grain isn't presented naturally.

*Tier 3.75**


----------



## rusky_g




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/20691367
> 
> 
> I agree with Delta. No need for change. It has always been part of the overall equation: i.e., does it _look good_ or not?



Agreed.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

It appears there are many politicians in the thread.







I am not trying to push the issue too hard, just on a quest to determine the platonic ideal. There must be people in the audience who prefer the recent trends in color timings, though they hardly ever seem to show up on discussion forums.


What audience is Hollywood catering to by pushing everything orange or teal? The effect seems predominant in the bigger summer blockbusters, which tells me the studios think younger moviegoers prefer the look. But the trend is now affecting a much broader swath of genres, from comedies and dramas to older films that get new transfers. Or are the digital colorists that every film employs now a bunch of hacks?


The first director that comes to mind as an active practitioner is Michael Bay, whose early films showed the change.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/20696460
> 
> 
> It appears there are many politicians in the thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not trying to push the issue too hard, just on a quest to determine the platonic ideal. There must be people in the audience who prefer the recent trends in color timings, though they hardly ever seem to show up on discussion forums.
> 
> 
> What audience is Hollywood catering to by pushing everything orange or teal? The effect seems predominant in the bigger summer blockbusters, which tells me the studios think younger moviegoers prefer the look. But the trend is now affecting a much broader swath of genres, from comedies and dramas to older films that get new transfers. Or are the digital colorists that every film employs now a bunch of hacks?
> 
> 
> The first director that comes to mind as an active practitioner is Michael Bay, whose early films showed the change.



It's about artistic intent. You can like it or not. I don't necessarily accept the premise that Hollywood is catering to a certain audience by doing this. Also, it is very far from anything new (its just done differently now compared to decades ago), so from that standpoint I really don't understand what the big deal is in terms of this thread and applying it to the Tiers.


----------



## UnexplainedBacon




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/20692027
> 
> 
> I think the answer is that we need to start boycotting these orange and teal movies. Maybe we can make an Orange and Teal Tier, so that we can know which blu-rays to avoid.



How about a separate Tier Thread that ranks the intensity of the Teal/Orange?


----------



## 42041

*Sin Nombre*


This 2009 film does not have a North American release for some strange reason; I viewed the (region B locked) UK disc. This is an well-shot movie, with striking scenery and bright yet natural colors. Detail is generally very nice, though consistency falters in a few low-light shots. The biggest shortcoming to my eye were grey blacks in many shots. When black levels are where they should be, this disc looks demo-worthy. Compression quality is questionable in places.

*Tier 1.75**


*Gone with the Wind*


Hard to believe this film is more than 70 years old from viewing the Blu-ray. By virtue of Technicolor photography, the colors look excellent, with the vibrancy and richness lacking in so many faded Eastmancolor films from the 50s and 60s. The film's sumptuous production design and photography are well-represented. On the negative side, the photography is rarely razor sharp, and some optical effects are softer still. Like other Technicolor productions, the image is contrasty and prone to black crush. And unfortunately, even cinematic landmarks get inconsistent Warner VC1 encodes.

*Tier 2.5*


----------



## deltasun

*Breaking Bad: The Complete Second Season*


The second season is a nice improvement over the first. The colors are more striking, blacks richer/bolder, and facial details just ooze in pretty much every close up. In general, the look is just more vibrant with strong contrast and realistic colors. The colors are well-representative of the New Mexico landscape.


Details, in general, are an improvement, but still seems lacking. Dimensionality is certainly above average also. There are still some banding and aliasing in a number of scenes, as well as specks and dirt.


Overall, this is a top-notch presentation.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6' - 8'_


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by *42041* 
*Gone with the Wind*


Hard to believe this film is more than 70 years old from viewing the Blu-ray. By virtue of Technicolor photography, the colors look excellent, with the vibrancy and richness lacking in so many faded Eastmancolor films from the 50s and 60s. The film's sumptuous production design and photography are well-represented. On the negative side, the photography is rarely razor sharp, and some optical effects are softer still. Like other Technicolor productions, the image is contrasty and prone to black crush. And unfortunately, even cinematic landmarks get inconsistent Warner VC1 encodes.

*Tier 2.5*
How good of condition are the film elements in, compared to other movies of similar vintage like _The Wizard Of Oz_? Given its level of prestige and status, you would think the negative should be in pristine condition. Warner Bros. at least handles their classics very well.


----------



## lgans316

*Sucker Punch*


Nothing special.

*Recommendation: Tier 2.25*


----------------------------------------------------------------

*Adjustment Bureau*


Detailed but suffers from crushed blacks. Just compare the main feature with the deleted scenes to know how much of black was crushed during post processing. I am not sure why such a choice was made in the first place when the picture looks so detailed.
*

Recommendation: Tier 2.25*


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/20686774
> 
> *The Lincoln Lawyer*
> 
> 
> Clean, crisp digital production. Good black levels and general detail consistency. Noise free and typical flaws like aliasing/noise are non-existent. Colors are limited, so it doesn't have that major "pop." Still a looker.
> 
> *Tier 1.75**



Generally agree. Very nice detail on close-ups. I would go a little higher.

*Tier 1.5*


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/20696511
> 
> 
> It's about artistic intent. You can like it or not. I don't necessarily accept the premise that Hollywood is catering to a certain audience by doing this. Also, it is very far from anything new (its just done differently now compared to decades ago), so from that standpoint I really don't understand what the big deal is in terms of this thread and applying it to the Tiers.



But this thread isn't about intent. It's about eye candy. If you can't allow black & white in the top tiers, why should equally monochromatic modern films not be dinged?
*Rango*


Pleasing animated feature with desaturated color and awesome definition. Brilliantly sharp, clean, and richly textured. Gorgeous black levels and an intense contrast at times too. A hint of artifacting in one scene is no bother. Fantastic stuff.

*Tier 0.5**


----------



## rusky_g

*The Lincoln Lawyer*


A delightful presentation and pretty much what others have said. All new releases should be this good; clean, crisp and detailed....chrome fenders on a black car can look so good in hi-def! Good to hear some old hip hop tunes in the soundtrack too.


I'm leaning towards Patrick so will chime in with...

*1.5*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Regulars, just remember to mark previously unranked titles (i.e. any Blu-ray not currently on the main list) with an asterisk in your placements. Some infrequent contributors are probably not aware of that little change, so pointing it out again seems appropriate. Nothing else has changed to the review format, thank you.


----------



## deltasun

Oops, sorry about that, PS...anything we can do to help keep better track. Will try to keep it in mind moving forward.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Arthur (2011)*


Miserable Warner encode showing that whether it's VC-1 or AVC, their compressionists still suck. Soft and noisy, few scenes exhibit any significant detail, and even then it's sort of "meh." Smearing becomes an issue during some movement, a trail of artifacts left in its wake. Color is okay and black levels are decent enough, although that's about it.

*Tier 3.0**


----------



## deltasun

*Brazil*


Pretty soft overall, with faces showing some signs of scrubbing. It's more apparent in some scenes than others. Blacks are surprisingly deep, but does crush a bit. Contrast is adequate, but would not be considered strong. Colors are also apt for the look, while skin tones are on the reddish side.


Some dimensionality is apparent, especially given Gilliam's style - which is unmistakable here. Some of the wider shots do lose plenty of details in the periphery.


There are quite a few spectacular scenes, but overall, falls in the average pile.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.50**

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/20701916
> 
> 
> But this thread isn't about intent. It's about eye candy. If you can't allow black & white in the top tiers, why should equally monochromatic modern films not be dinged?



Yeah, I need to be told that this thread isn't about director's intent and is about eye candy. Really?!










You obviously (completely) missed my point. Try reading the post again. I was referring to the color timing changes being part of artistic intent. Comprendo?


And at no time did I ever say that it should not (or should) be "dinged", but regardless, I have no idea what you are talking about when you say:

*"If you can't allow black & white in the top tiers, why should equally monochromatic modern films not be dinged?"*


Huh?


Did I miss something? Is there a new rule saying that a B&W film can't be in the top tiers? When did this happen? Was it voted on? What was the reasoning behind it?


If this didn't happen, and there is no such rule, then why are you saying it? Aren't you a regular poster/reviewer in this thread? If so, why are you doing reviews under these mistaken assumptions regarding tier placements?


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/20716027
> 
> 
> *"If you can't allow black & white in the top tiers, why should equally monochromatic modern films not be dinged?"*
> 
> 
> Huh?
> 
> 
> Did I miss something? Is there a new rule saying that a B&W film can't be in the top tiers? When did this happen? Was it voted on? What was the reasoning behind it?
> 
> 
> If this didn't happen, and there is no such rule, then why are you saying it? Aren't you a regular poster/reviewer in this thread? If so, why are you doing reviews under these mistaken assumptions regarding tier placements?



The discussion came up a while back, somewhere amidst all of the "CG should be separate" debates that creep into the thread every once in a while. Or possibly the "thread is useless because older films don't stand a chance" discussions.


The reasoning was that eye candy generally correlates to bright colors. Animated features typically have bright, purty color saturation, and in terms of eye candy, that will always elevate them over B&W stuff. I'm not saying it's impossible for a B&W film to rank highly; hell, I wish they would. It's simply unlikely because of their nature.

*Take Me Home Tonight*

Resembling an '80s film stock, with some weighty grain and general softness, this one is still pleasing enough. Colors are bright, flesh tones aren't overly orange, and the encode is decent. It's not one for fine detail though, the appearance and intent clearly playing a role. Pretty typical and not very memorable.

*Tier 2.25**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Limitless*


You will rarely see a film use more filters, extreme saturation, black crush, noise, or visual flair than this one. Colors are either extraordinary saturated or settled into a deep blue, the saturation pushing flesh tones yellow. Detail is limiting, many medium shots pushing detail out of the frame.

*Tier 2.75**


----------



## 42041

*The Outlaw Josey Wales*


The 1976 Clint Eastwood movie looks remarkable on Blu-ray. The often beautiful cinematography is well-rendered by Warner's high-quality film transfer. Resolution is great, the colors are bold and saturated, the image looks natural and film-like. Some viewers might be put off by the high contrast and somewhat underexposed look, resulting in deep/crushed shadows, and very shadowy faces back-lit against bright skies. Eastwood has been noted by his current cinematographer to request deep blacks in his films so I presume this was intentional. The softness that invariably afflicts movies shot on older anamorphic lenses is also present in many scenes, as well as the usual quality drop during optical dissolves/titles. A very nice-looking Blu-ray, to my eye.

*Tier 2.25**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Tekken*


I have never seen a disc this overloaded with noise. It's like every shot is just swarmed by it, really hampering the visuals. The second half (really the third act) is better, some really firm, digital-based definition showing through. Colors are pretty bright and the black levels are fine.

*Tier 3.0**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Crack in the World*


One of the first Blu-rays from Olive Films, and I think that their upcoming slate of Paramount catalog titles will be safe. They didn't do a whole lot to this '60s disaster flick, damage is still pretty notable at times and it appears to have come from a second or third generation print. Colors have lost their luster and the contrast is beginning to overtake the image a bit. Still nice and pleasing, with a clean grain structure and enough sharpness to appease discerning HD classic fans.

*Tier 3.0**


----------



## deltasun

*Beauty and the Beast (1946)*

*AKA, La Belle et la Bête*


Almost hate to do a review on this only because it won't reflect the truly commendable quality of work to restore this classic. Having said that, don't hate.










Though quite a bit of work went into cleaning up the picture of debris, etc., there are still quite a bit of vertical lines, damage, and frame transition judder. Grain is intact, but details are highly inconsistent. Some the the Beast's close-up's show noticeable texture but La Belle's close-up's are always smooth and soft. Soft is pretty much draped throughout the feature to varying degrees.


Contrast seems to be consistent and blacks are predominantly weak. There are also some stability issues with the picture.


Overall, a very welcome addition to blu, but for the purposes of this thread...

*Tier Recommendation: 4.50**

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## djoberg

*The Lincoln Lawyer*


Well, in the midst of packing up our belongings for the big move, I was able to squeeze one more Blu-ray in before I disassemble my home theater tomorrow afternoon (it will be at least another month before I see one on my KURO, though I may view some on our Samsung LCD), and I am more than satisfied with my choice. Let me just say that I'm surprised my fellow-colleagues (so far) opted for a Tier 1 recommendation, when IMO this is clearly Tier Blu material.


I have zero negatives to write about, though I'm sure some may find fault with the stylized colors sprinkled throughout the 2 hour running. The details were off the charts (facial details were mid to high Tier 0 in every scene), as were the black levels, shadow details, contrast, depth, sharpness, and clarity. What a visual feast!


Again, this is clearly Tier 0 status, and I'm inclined to put it right here....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (right below Transporter 3)*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/20730109
> 
> *The Lincoln Lawyer*
> 
> 
> Well, in the midst of packing up our belongings for the big move, I was able to squeeze one more Blu-ray in before I disassemble my home theater tomorrow afternoon (it will be at least another month before I see one on my KURO, though I may view some on our Samsung LCD), and I am more than satisfied with my choice. Let me just say that I'm surprised my fellow-colleagues (so far) opted for a Tier 1 recommendation, when IMO this is clearly Tier Blu material.
> 
> 
> I have zero negatives to write about, though I'm sure some may find fault with the stylized colors sprinkled throughout the 2 hour running. The details were off the charts (facial details were mid to high Tier 0 in every scene), as were the black levels, shadow details, contrast, depth, sharpness, and clarity. What a visual feast!
> 
> 
> Again, this is clearly Tier 0 status, and I'm inclined to put it right here....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (right below Transporter 3)*
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'



Awesome Denny, Ill have to check it out. Been wanting to rent it several days now, but Redbox is out...


Saw Rango!!...looks Amazing...somewhere near the top of 0. MIght have to purchase that one.


Seen some good movies lately,, Hereafter, PQ looked really good, Secretariat and this looked good too... The Adjustment Bureau, but again my displays aren't worthy of me giving any reviews....Ill be back soon enough...haha...towards the fall when things slow down and my projector is up and running.


Good luck with the move. Best always...


----------



## martyball619

IMAX DEEP BLUE SEA would have to be tier 0 as i look at the image it becomes 3dlike. very sharp and colorful very pleasing to the eyes !


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Vanishing on 7th Street*


Like banding? Have I got the disc for you! This thing is loaded with it, and there are few times where it's not bothersome. There are some filters used to soften the light and the contrast will bloom for effect. Black levels are spotty and fine detail is here and there. Nothing is very consistent.

*Tier 3.5**


----------



## deltasun

*Breaking Bad: The Complete Third Season*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/20699468
> 
> *Breaking Bad: The Complete Second Season*
> 
> 
> The second season is a nice improvement over the first. The colors are more striking, blacks richer/bolder, and facial details just ooze in pretty much every close up. In general, the look is just more vibrant with strong contrast and realistic colors. The colors are well-representative of the New Mexico landscape.
> 
> 
> Details, in general, are an improvement, but still seems lacking. Dimensionality is certainly above average also. There are still some banding and aliasing in a number of scenes, as well as specks and dirt.
> 
> 
> Overall, this is a top-notch presentation.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75*
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6' - 8'_



Sorry to quote myself, but Season 3 is pretty much like season 2, but did have better dimensionality, richer colors, and stronger black levels. I will go ahead and raise it a quarter tier.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.50**


Highly recommended series. I really need Season 4 now!









_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6' - 8'_


----------



## deltasun

*Kill the Irishman*


Elements are mostly smoothed out due to the digital nature of the picture. These were bothersome, but one does get used to them. Blacks have that shiny quality and does crush. The tone down nature of the colors and washed out contrast help give the film its intended look. A look that is not conducive to receiving good marks in this thread.


Low-light scenes also suffer and dimensionality is not very apparent. Some facial details are elevated, but is too inconsistent. Skin tones are also a bit sullen.


Overall, not a very pleasing presentation but still maintains instances of brilliance. There are also some archival TV footage from the 70's in SD as well.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.75**

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## rusky_g

DJ, glad to hear you enjoyed the Lincoln Lawyer







definitely a good looking Bluray


Russell


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g* /forum/post/20735270
> 
> 
> DJ, glad to hear you enjoyed the Lincoln Lawyer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> definitely a good looking Bluray
> 
> 
> Russell



Thanks Russell! Yes, it is indeed a good-looking Blu-ray. I hope it ends up in Tier 0, or at the very least the top of Tier 1.


Well, that's all the time I have for the Forum today. We are closing on our home in a little over an hour and then we begin the move to our new home where we close a week from today.


Denny


----------



## 42041

*It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World*


The 1963 film, shot using the Ultra Panavision 70mm format, tends to look very nice. The picture is mostly very sharp and detailed, though the extremely wide 2.75:1 aspect ratio means there isn't much of it, with the black bars encroaching on half of the screen. Very fine details, like distant street signs, are clearly resolved. Quality dips in a few places, as one might expect from a 50 year old film, but generally the image is solid. Contrast is a bit overcooked and there are mild edge halos in many scenes, but colors are nice and bright.

*Tier 1.75**


----------



## deltasun

*Insignificance*


Very soft, with bouts of crispness. Unfortunately, details are very inconsistent and are mostly on the soft side. Some blooming around light sources and haziness around characters (specially the Actress) are also apparent, possibly director's intent. Blacks are crushed and contrast is a bit weak.


There are also some stability issues with parts of the picture, maybe a handful. Colors are indicative of the period. Skin tones are spot on, though some characters do appear flushed in a few scenes. A healthy heaping of grain is present, while a few darker scenes exhibit a fair amount of noise.


Some dimensionality is also present, including during medium shots. Overall, one of the better presentations from the 80's, though not the best. Again, inconsistency really kills it a bit for this thread.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.75**

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041* /forum/post/20741182
> 
> *It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World*
> 
> 
> The 1963 film, shot using the Ultra Panavision 70mm format, tends to look very nice. The picture is mostly very sharp and detailed, though the extremely wide 2.75:1 aspect ratio means there isn't much of it, with the black bars encroaching on half of the screen. Very fine details, like distant street signs, are clearly resolved. Quality dips in a few places, as one might expect from a 50 year old film, but generally the image is solid. Contrast is a bit overcooked and there are mild edge halos in many scenes, but colors are nice and bright.
> 
> *Tier 1.75**



Good review. I was inclined to go higher, but have only watched about 30 minutes of my copy.


----------



## deltasun

*Just Go With It*


Typical romance comedy look - great black levels, strong contrast, and burnt orange skin tones.







Excellent depth in some scenes and brilliant color and details throughout. Beautiful panoramic shots and intact shadow details.


Hard to argue with the eye candy factor, save for the skin appearance.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Trust*


Muted drama with meager black levels and significant softness. Mild grain is totally unobtrusive and close-ups can be detailed. Color is dim and grayish, while the contrast doesn't really pop either. It's all intent but not much for eye candy.
*Tier 3.5**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Source Code*


In the immortal words of one Inspector Gadget, "Wowzers!" Simply awesome transfer, rife with the finest of fine details and texture. Colors have a generous pop and depth, even the orange/teal of the control room not all that bothersome. City aerials are amongst the best I've ever seen, and the black levels never lose their oomph.

*Tier 0.5**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Ironclad*


Clean, which is of limited value here since everything else is rather poor. Black levels are miserable and detail is stuck in the 12th century. By the 13th, humans were smooth apparently. Colors are muted into bland, earthy tones.
*Tier 3.25**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Animal House*


It's Universal catalog title. 'Nuff said.


Aww, do you need more? Fine. Terrible HD DVD transition, now layered with visible DNR, glaring edge enhancement, black crush, unnaturally boosted color, and an encode that couldn't handle what little grain structure there is if it went past the limits of the spec.

*Tier 4.5**


----------



## deltasun

*Zazie Dans Le Metro*


The first thing to notice is the vibrancy of the colors of this 1960 comedy from Louis Malle. Primaries just pop and gives a buoyant quality to the scenes. Blacks are deep, with just a bit of crush. Contrast is just a touch below being strong, which gives the picture its period look.


Another surprising feature is the incredible depth and dimensionality in a number of scenes. Check out the playful chase and wanderings on the Eiffel Tower - just incredible. Details are abundant as well, though not very discerning as the distance increases.


The biggest flaw is the overt halos mostly present, but not limited to, around darker objects. Note that I used halos and not ringing. It's quite distracting. Due to the cartoon-like nature of the filming, e.g., fast motion chases and conversations, lip movements are not in sync with the sound. This can be quite distracting too. Finally, there is an inherent softness throughout.


Overall, the colors do dazzle. Grain is present throughout and yields that filmic quality we look for.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75**

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/20754644
> 
> *Animal House*
> 
> 
> It's Universal catalog title. 'Nuff said.
> 
> 
> Aww, do you need more? Fine. Terrible HD DVD transition, now layered with visible DNR, glaring edge enhancement, black crush, unnaturally boosted color, and an encode that couldn't handle what little grain structure there is if it went past the limits of the spec.
> 
> *Tier 4.5**



I was reading a bit in the _The Big Lebowski_ thread. Looks like the same thing - very, very disappointing! I don't do this, but I may actually cancel my pre-order and rent first.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Baby: Secret of the Lost Legend*


Slightly filtered catalog release of a movie no one remembers, presented by Mill Creek with fine source materials. Grain is limited, faces look slightly waxy, but that's about it. There's still some fine detail remaining, and the jungle locales look great with some vivid color at times.
*Tier 3.25**


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/20760886
> 
> 
> I was reading a bit in the _The Big Lebowski_ thread. Looks like the same thing - very, very disappointing! I don't do this, but I may actually cancel my pre-order and rent first.



Buyer beware on any Universal catalog property. They simply are rehashing the same outdated DVD masters from years ago, which can't hold up at Blu-ray resolution.


----------



## tfoltz

*Source Code* - *Tier 1*


Detail is generally great, and is the strongest quality of the movie, but not always perfect. There were a few scenes where black was a bit overbearing, though it is solid throughout. The color selection worked for this movie, though facial tones were still a little hot. I thought the city aerials were just OK, nothing spectacular. Everything was high quality, but fell short of greatness for me.


Really enjoyed the movie. Missed it in theaters, but watched it twice in the last two days and am very pleased.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Scott Walker: 30 Century Man (Region-free UK Import)


recommendation: Tier 5*
*

A 2006 documentary about the enigmatic musician, Scott Walker, it was released to Blu-ray on March 22, 2010 by Verve Pictures in the UK. Running 99 minutes, the documentary is presented in 1080p and encoded in AVC on a BD-25.


I was really looking forward to watching this feature in high-definition, but unfortunately have to report the entire thing is just an upscale from a standard-def master. Nothing on this disc is sourced from a master at high-definition resolution. Several indicators actually point to a source at a resolution of 480i.


It's nice that two separate lossless audio soundtracks are included and one of the finest booklets ever packaged with a Blu-ray is also included, but it was disappointing to find out about the poor picture quality. To add insult to injury, it looks like the “transfer” was taken from an interlaced source and improperly converted to 1080p. Scads of interlacing errors show up that regularly produce severe aliasing problems.


On a side note, the disc will play in any North American BD player even though the back cover claims it is “Region B” only.


----------



## 42041

*Mad Men - Season 1*


The HD presentation of this show is, to my eye, not remarkable. Detail is decent but not outstanding, the 35mm photography has a vaguely digital sheen to it, both because of mild edge enhancement and often hard-clipped highlights. In terms of the visuals, for each attractive shot there's a bland one. "Average" was a word that consistently came to mind, hence...

*Tier 3.0*


----------



## rusky_g

*Source Code*


Technically decent, but not what I would consider an eye candy title. Much of the film takes place in a train carriage which isn't the best scenario for showing what Hi-Def can do. Good blacks, detail was OK, colour scheme was pretty bland.

*Tier 2.5*


----------



## deltasun

My machine crapped out on me and so I'll have to send these in batches. I've been a busy bee.

*Beastly*


One of Sony's poorer efforts with plenty of director-intended softness. Low-light scenes are impressive, blacks are incosistent, but contrast is decent in daylight. Some noise is present in darker corners.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.50**


----------O----------O----------O----------O----------O----------

*Black Moon*


Beautiful filmic presentation from Criterion. Colors are perfectly saturated for the content. Low-light scenes are well-rendered and facial details are excellent. The main character's hair has very pronounced texture and details. Blacks are very good, but not consistently inky. Some slight ringing and minor blocking are noted.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75**


----------O----------O----------O----------O----------O----------

*Warrior's Way*


Incredible facial details, mostly hovering in high Tier 0. However, the somewhat shoddy CGI work, messy shadow scenes, and questionable blacks bring it down. I first thought this was digitally shot a la _300_, but IMDB says otherwise. Skin tones really vary depending on the "set pieces" and backgrounds usually look fake.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**


----------O----------O----------O----------O----------O----------

*Trust*


There's literally a handful of scenes where the picture demonstates resolute sharpness. Other times, it's just soft and is rivaled but upscaled DVD (almost some smoothing in faces). Blacks are not impressive at all and contrast follows suit.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.75**


----------O----------O----------O----------O----------O----------

*Fat Girl*


These next two offer more filmic examples with beautifully rendered, unobtrusive grain and simply beautiful, natural colors. Delineation is very apparent in a number of medium scenes. Blacks are mostly deep with no instances of crush. The only negatives would be some ringing in high contrast edges.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25**


----------O----------O----------O----------O----------O----------

*Sweetie*


I felt this was a touch better than _Fat Girl_, with better depth/dimensionality and similar pop in colors. The close-up's are also a bit more textured for the most part. Skin tones are natural and I didn't spot any ringing. I did think some of the faces looked smooth (just a handful). Otherwise, beautifully shot in that Jane Campion style of increased depth of field and higher-than-eye-level camera angles.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Rio*


A stunner, overloaded with candy-coated colors, brilliantly bright contrast, and fantastic black levels. The finale, set inside a parade, is easily my new favorite scene on Blu-ray ever. The immense detail within the floats is mesmerizing. Bird feathers are astounding, and fur on the other creatures? Marvelous.

*Tier 0, right below Avatar**


----------



## vpn75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/20773890
> 
> *Rio*
> 
> 
> A stunner, overloaded with candy-coated colors, brilliantly bright contrast, and fantastic black levels. The finale, set inside a parade, is easily my new favorite scene on Blu-ray ever. The immense detail within the floats is mesmerizing. Bird feathers are astounding, and fur on the other creatures? Marvelous.
> 
> *Tier 0, right below Avatar**



Wow, high praise indeed! I'm really glad I did blind-buy on this one now. Look forward to checking it out tonight


----------



## 42041

*White Material*


I think this is one of the rare newer films to avoid digital post-production, and the results on a digital format are not particularly impressive. Aside from some very textured shots of faces, detail and sharpness are middling; the film has a dull, reddish color palette, and features irritating overuse of wobbly handheld photography.

*Tier 3.0**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Blitz*


Pretty heavy grain structure at work, handled fairly well by the encode. Colors are dim or sickly, and black levels are firm. Detail tends to be sparse and flat.

*Tier 2.75**


----------



## tfoltz

Rio definitely looks amazing. I only watched it on 3D so far, so not sure I can rank it for this thread. Hopefully I watch it again soon in 2D. I would guess I put it around Tangled.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Perfect Game*


Inviting warmth and rich contrast offset by some painfully unfinished special effects. Detail is firm and textures are pretty apparent. Some focal softness hinders the best of the best. Some vintage newsreel footage is in there, damaged heavily and sometimes compressed like it was pulled off YouTube.

*Tier 2.50**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Superman II (theatrical cut)


recommendation: Tier 3.5*
*

Currently exclusive to the Superman Motion Picture Anthology box set, Warner has delivered a fairly strong effort for Richard Lester's take on _Superman II_. The 1980 film has never looked better since its premiere. Running 127 minutes, the movie is encoded in AVC on a BD-50. The average video bitrate for the main feature is 19.97 Mbps. It's a competent encode that handles most of the film without problem and retains a little more transparency and detail than the VC-1 encodes used on the first releases of _Superman_ and _Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut_.


The good news about the transfer is very little unnecessary digital processing has been applied. The image is an unmolested affair with virtually no halos, leaving a highly natural appearance to the grain fields. Film elements look in decent quality, though no attempt at serious film restoration has been made by Warner. The quality of the image harvest and HD scan is just a tick below what Sony has done on Blu-ray with films of similar age.


Some of the optical effects look dated and drag the picture quality down a notch in a few scenes. The credits, multiple generations away from the negative, look positively dreadful. The video encode chokes on the heavy grain in the credits, producing an enormous amount of chroma noise and macroblocking. Thankfully that never happens again during the movie.


Contrast is actually very solid, particularly given its age. Black levels are relatively deep without a hint of crushing. The cinematography is still the same soft, diffuse approach of the original _Superman_. That does not lead to an extraordinary level of depth to the picture, but high-frequency detail is quite good in close-ups. Several scenes, such as the outdoor one set in Niagara Falls, show an enhanced clarity above the rest of the film.


This version of _Superman II_ looks very good at times and surpassed my expectations. The BD looks fairly faithful to the original intent and style of the movie, while bringing out a level of detail that was positively new to me. It is still one of best comic book movies ever made.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of MisterXDTV):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...8#post20590788


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Stake Land*


Forgettable digital fare. Black levels are decent, and noise is typically freed from the image, but those of statements can change on a whim. Colors are completely gone at times, and detail is mediocre at best.

*Tier 3.25**


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/20746084
> 
> *Source Code*
> 
> 
> In the immortal words of one Inspector Gadget, "Wowzers!" Simply awesome transfer, rife with the finest of fine details and texture. Colors have a generous pop and depth, even the orange/teal of the control room not all that bothersome. City aerials are amongst the best I've ever seen, and the black levels never lose their oomph.
> 
> *Tier 0.5**






> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/20765350
> 
> *Source Code* - *Tier 1*
> 
> 
> Detail is generally great, and is the strongest quality of the movie, but not always perfect. There were a few scenes where black was a bit overbearing, though it is solid throughout. The color selection worked for this movie, though facial tones were still a little hot. I thought the city aerials were just OK, nothing spectacular. Everything was high quality, but fell short of greatness for me.
> 
> 
> Really enjoyed the movie. Missed it in theaters, but watched it twice in the last two days and am very pleased.






> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g* /forum/post/20771307
> 
> *Source Code*
> 
> 
> Technically decent, but not what I would consider an eye candy title. Much of the film takes place in a train carriage which isn't the best scenario for showing what Hi-Def can do. Good blacks, detail was OK, colour scheme was pretty bland.
> 
> *Tier 2.5*



Pretty wide range of views here.


I think the lower ranking is closer to the mark.


I thought the city aerials were not impressive, and the facial close-ups were not very impressive either.


I will go with *Tier 2.25**


----------



## rusky_g

Thanks for chiming in, Patrick. It's quite funny how our recommendations can vary, but it's good that we all 'say it as we see it', that's what makes the thread the success that it is


----------



## rusky_g

*The Roommate*


Much like the movies lead character, I thought this was a bit of a stunner. Lovely clean, crisp image with great depth and colours. Even Billy Zane's acting had some pop







Outdoor scenes are naturally vibrant, detail holds up very well in darker scenes. Not quite an A+ but definitely worthy of a....

*Tier 1.5*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Shogun Assassin


recommendation: Tier 4.5**

“Your technique is magnificent. When cut across the neck, a sound like wailing winter winds is heard, they say. I'd always hoped to cut someone like that someday, to hear that sound.”

_Shogun Assassin_ is the 1980 Samurai film that became wildly influential in various forms, from Tarantino's _Kill Bill_ to the music of the Wu-Tang Clan. Animeigo has gone back and transferred the movie to high-definition from the best possible, extant film elements. This is not a case of a small distributor taking a DVD master and calling it a day, as every effort has been made to create the best Blu-ray possible. The 84-minute movie is encoded in AVC on a BD-25. Average video bitrate for the main feature is a satisfactory 24.99 Mbps. It was first released on Blu-ray in August of 2010.


The strongest aspect of the disc is the excellent facial detail in the numerous close-ups of the actors. One can make out the hair pieces and prosthetics used for makeup, while singular details such as pores and wrinkles are plainly visible in almost every shot. The transfer is completely free of digital filtering, leaving copious amounts of grain in the film.


Print damage is minimal, but several scenes give indicators the original negatives were likely not available for all scenes. A number of things, such as white specks and gate scratches on the print, indicate a film print or interpositive as the likely source for the transfer.


Only the slightest amount of ringing shows any untoward problems added to the transfer. The vast majority of problems with the image appear as a result of principal photography and the original budgetary limitations of the production. Given the strong levels of grain present in many scenes, the video encode rarely even hints of showing compression artifacts.


A number of scenes, particularly the ones that take place at night, crush shadow detail and are severely underexposed. That dragged my final score down quite a bit, because a good number of scenes in the film look much better than Tier Four in quality. But there are moments when almost nothing is visible and one would be hard-pressed to not nominate the disc for Tier Five.


Do not let a placement as low as Tier 4.5 fool you, I am personally recommending this transfer as a strong improvement over any prior version of _Shogun Assassin_. For years it was only available as a bootleg and looked wretched. This new transfer is an amazement in comparison and truly shows potential at times. Certain moments might be considered good enough for Tier Two, but the overall assessment has to be lowered with the general condition and inconsistency of the image.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of eric.exe):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...6#post19111456


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Soul Surfer*


Terrific encode and great color. Detail is slick and contrast is definitely appropriate for Hawaii. Some close-ups are certainly soft, the quick recoveries enough to forgive the mild faults. Grain will occasionally be too much for the encode, a definite annoyance.
*Tier 1.5**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Super*


Pale and constantly over exposed super hero (kind of?) movie. Close-ups are extraordinary, providing some insane facial detail. Definition can wander. Noise can and will creep into the frame but with limited detrimental effect. Surprising black levels from the Red One, usually a sour spot for the digital cam.

*Tier 2.75**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Your Highness*


Fantastic detail, facial definition and the various forests nothing less than striking. A bit of smoothing on Portman's head isn't enough to ruin the fun, neither will hints of aliasing. Great grain structure and intense saturation are pleasing too, flesh tones just missing dangerous orange levels. Black levels become the concern in the first act, weirdly blue and wonky. They recover later.

*Tier 1.75**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Paul*


Great looking transfer of a great looking film, boldly colorful and richly textured. Black levels prove superb, and the mild grain is totally unobtrusive. Contrast is bright (if maybe a little clipped), and the whole thing is given this intense dimensionality.

*Tier 1.5**


----------



## djoberg

I just thought I'd chime in to thank those who continually post reviews. I'm taking notes and plan to rent many titles once my home theater room is completed (tentatively in 1-2 weeks).


I have been viewing movies via Dish satellite but due to the small screen (40") and viewing distance (10') I've decided to wait until my KURO is set up for reviewing Blu-rays. The old adage "patience is a virtue" has been somewhat of a consolation to me, but methinks this virtue is on the decline!


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/20813664
> 
> 
> I have been viewing movies via Dish satellite but due to the small screen (40") and viewing distance (10') I've decided to wait until my KURO is set up for reviewing Blu-rays. The old adage "patience is a virtue" has been somewhat of a consolation to me, but methinks this virtue is on the decline!



Hopefully the KURO made the journey unscathed. Fear not, there will be an update coming soon to the PQ Tiers. This will likely be the last update before the Holiday shopping season begins.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/20813953
> 
> 
> Hopefully the KURO made the journey unscathed. Fear not, there will be an update coming soon to the PQ Tiers. This will likely be the last update before the Holiday shopping season begins.



My KURO and all my components/speakers are still in storage at my brother's home (30 miles away). I did NOT want my equipment in our new home while we were moving and with the construction taking place.


Again, I will be taking advantage of all the recent reviews and the upcoming update in due time.


----------



## martyball619

*Sunshine cleaning TIER 0*

this blu ray disc quality is so amazing, looks real sharp with accurate colors and brightness and gives me many reasons to really love my TV. feels a little like ive never even experienced blu ray till now!


----------



## 42041

*The Lincoln Lawyer*


This one's been pretty well covered already. Shot digitally, with the earth-tone heavy, somewhat desaturated look that seems characteristic of the Red camera (or its users, at least); a pretty slick looking film with a nice sense of contrast and solid detail in many places. However, the overall visual style and subject matter of the film just didn't scream home-run demo material to me.

*Tier 1.75*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Mars Needs Moms*


Not quite a lock, as the dark,mostly colorless interiors don't carry a burst of color until later. Black levels prove outstanding, and the detail where applicable can be remarkable. A little aliasing is visible here and there, but minor. Sharpness is pristine. Great disc, but not top of the Tiers stuff.
*Tier 0.75**


----------



## lgans316

*Source Code (UK / Optimum Releasing)*


A bit dark for my taste but after adjusting the PQ settings in my player thought it looked very nice, sharp, saturated and detailed. I disagree that the aerial shots didn't look detailed.

*Recommendation: Tier 1.5*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Priest*


A blue/orange/teal assault, monochromatic in the extreme. Contrast ranges from blistering hot to non-existent. Black levels could use the occasional boost but are serviceable. Detail is precise and appreciated.

*Tier 2.5**


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/20829830
> 
> *Priest*
> 
> 
> A blue/orange/teal assault, monochromatic in the extreme. Contrast ranges from blistering hot to non-existent. Black levels could use the occasional boost but are serviceable. Detail is precise and appreciated.
> 
> *Tier 2.5**



sleep in today?


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Ward*


Some awful compression at work here, breaking down with some regularity. Mosquito noise makes an appearance here too. Colors are bland and flat, while the disc suffers from banding and aliasing. Black levels have no bite. Definition has its moments but not many.

*Tier 3.25**


----------



## mweflen

*Dark City*


A waxy-faced DNR nightmare. Its current rating of silver (i.e. above average) is WAY too high.

*Tier 4.0*


Viewed on a 52" 1080p screen, from 8 feet. Hardware: Sony KDL-52EX700, Panasonic BDP-65.


----------



## mweflen

*Life During Wartime (Criterion Collection)*


Shot on a RED camera, Life During Wartime evinces a highly pleasing level of detail and depth of field. The idiosyncratic color palette is pleasingly rendered. Blacks are deep and solid. The transfer is a bit off from the finest from-film or animated transfers, so I wouldn't call it the absolute best. But it's quite, quite good.

*Tier 1.5*


Viewed on a 52" 1080p screen, from 8 feet. Hardware: Sony KDL-52EX700, Panasonic BDP-65.


----------



## tim_1335

Any of u guys saw Winter in Wartime? Stunning picture quality. It's a Dutch film.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Marley and Me: The Puppy Years*

Cheap digital production, cleanly saturated with pleasing, natural primaries. Detail is crisp while the stupid smoothing for the dog's mouths ruins the fur definition. Blacks are consistent. Some shots suffer from extensive pixelization and heavy compression.

*Tier 2.5**


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tim_1335* /forum/post/20837089
> 
> 
> Any of u guys saw Winter in Wartime? Stunning picture quality. It's a Dutch film.



I can assure you I *wish* I had seen that instead of a Marley and Me sequel where the dogs talk.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tim_1335* /forum/post/20837089
> 
> 
> Any of u guys saw Winter in Wartime? Stunning picture quality. It's a Dutch film.



Netflix hasn't come through for me and the current price is a bit steep. But yes, I like what I'm seeing in screen shots and am dying to watch it. I may just blind buy at the current price point and get it free through Sony Rewards.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/20837452
> 
> 
> I can assure you I *wish* I had seen that instead of a Marley and Me sequel where the dogs talk.



LOL...glad you're reviewing that one, 'cause I'll probably never see it.


----------



## deltasun

*Hobo with a Shotgun*


Holy smokes - the saturation of colors! I've never seen so many orange faces outside of a carrot juice wresting convention! This really detracted from the movie for me. The boosted contrast didn't help either, destroying any semblance of depth for the most part.


Details, on the other hand, are superb. Every line and crease is well textured. Blacks are crushed for the most part, though whites do retain details.


Overall, it is UGLY. But PQ-wise, it's still above average.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75**

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen* /forum/post/20836530
> 
> *Life During Wartime (Criterion Collection)*
> 
> 
> Shot on a RED camera, Life During Wartime evinces a highly pleasing level of detail and depth of and field. The idiosyncratic color palette is pleasingly rendered. Blacks are deep and solid. The transfer is a bit off from the finest from-film or animated transfers, so I wouldn't call it the absolute best. But it's quite, quite good.
> 
> *Tier 1.5*



Since the normal greeters are missing in action at the moment, welcome to the thread, mweflen. Anyone know off hand the highest ranked film in the Tiers shot on the RED? It seems to get a lot of Tier One recommendations, though I can't think of too many higher placements.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/20837984
> 
> *Hobo with a Shotgun*
> 
> 
> Holy smokes - the saturation of colors! I've never seen so many orange faces outside of a carrot juice wresting convention! This really detracted from the movie for me. The boosted contrast didn't help either, destroying any semblance of depth for the most part.
> 
> 
> Overall, it is UGLY. But PQ-wise, it's still above average.



All I saw it was on cable, but have to agree on how ugly Hobo looks. The color timing was actually offensive at certain points in the movie.


----------



## deltasun

*Source Code*


Agree with the recommendation, though I watched the US release. It didn't look dark on my set, but agree with everything else too. I also thought the aerial shots were handsomely detailed, though they did have some shimmering. Not the best aerials, but are still striking.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/20821844
> 
> *Source Code (UK / Optimum Releasing)*
> 
> 
> A bit dark for my taste but after adjusting the PQ settings in my player thought it looked very nice, sharp, saturated and detailed. I disagree that the aerial shots didn't look detailed.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 1.5*


*Tier Recommendation: 1.50*


Really enjoyed this one; may be my fave blockbuster of the year. I do hear _Fast Five_ is excellent as well. Looking forward to that.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

Yes - welcome, mweflen! I'm looking forward to watching my copy of _Life During Wartime_.


Phantom: it'll probably saturate even more on blu.







It did help make that Drake character vampirically sinister in one of the blue-hued scenes.


----------



## mweflen

*Star Trek: The Original Series Season One*


Fine detail is exquisite at times, though shots with optically composited effects (such as transporters or phasers) tend to degrade picture. Color and contrast are punchy, deep and solid. Many facial close-ups lead to a feast of detail generally speaking. New special effects shots display inky black starscapes and a highly detailed set of CGI chip models. Most episodes show a fine 35mm grain structure. No visible EE or DNR.


Overall, competitive with modern televised HD, but not in the absolute top tier of blu-rays. Spectacular for what it is - a transfer of 40+ year old film.


*Tier 1.75*


Sony KDL52EX700

Panasonic BD65

8 foot viewing distance


----------



## mweflen

*Spartacus*


DNR has washed away fine detail, and EE has been applied to pump things back up. Very little film grain is evident at all. Colors are a bit wan and greenish. Black levels are inconsistent throughout. Mid-range detail is better than the previous Criterion DVD, but not by much. A travesty.

*Tier 4*


Sony KDL-52EX700

Panasonic BD65

8 foot viewing distance


----------



## mweflen

*The Red Shoes (Criterion Collection)*


Restoration of degraded film materials has led to a truly pleasing presentation - with a few minor exceptions of technicolor strips not quite matching up. Colors are solid and vibrant generally. Detail, both fine and mid-level, is at least in the upper half of Blu-Ray transfers. No DNR or EE evident whatsoever. Film grain is omnipresent and pleasing.

*Tier 2.0*



Sony KDL-52EX700

Panasonic BD65

8 foot viewing distance


----------



## mweflen

*Star Trek III: The Search For Spock*


Film grain has been stripped away by DNR, and has been compensated for with EE. Scenes with an abundance of smoke (such as several close-ups on the Genesis Planet) show bizarre pixellation and posterization artifacts as a result. Faces tend towards waxy, except in the aforementioned smoky shots. Mid-level detail is pleasing. Colors have been bumped up to enjoyable if perhaps a bit cartoonish, levels of saturation. Black levels are strong. This transfer is, to my mind, the poster-boy for overly aggressive treatment of 80s material.

*Tier 3.75*



Sony KDL-52EX700

Panasonic BD65

8 foot viewing distance


----------



## mweflen

*Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind*


An accurate presentation of a film with many focus changes and soft filters. When cinematography allows, detail is strong but not overwhelming. Dream scenes tend towards haziness. Film grain is omnipresent. Colors are pleasant and realistic, black levels are solid. No DNR or EE are evident. A solid if unspectacular HD upgrade over the DVD.

*Tier 2.0*



Sony KDL-52EX700

Panasonic BD65

8 foot viewing distance


----------



## mweflen

*Boogie Nights*


Extremely filmic presentation of the movie. Reminds me more than almost any BD I've seen of the theatrical presentation. Accurately renders P.T. Anderson's use of focus and depth-of-field. Strong, omnipresent grain. Warm, natural, lush color-scape. Stable black levels only fluctuate every once in a while - but are quite accurate to a projected film print. Good but not overwhelming detail. No DNR or EE evident. A definite upgrade over what was one of the better DVDs of its generation.

*Tier 1.5*



Sony KDL-52EX700

Panasonic BD65

8 foot viewing distance


----------



## mweflen

*Nixon*


As good as a BD of Stone probably gets. He shifts film stocks, focus effects, and filters so frequently it can be dizzying. This BD accurately captures all of them. No DNR or EE seems evident - especially in grainy super-8 intercuts. A light sheen of film grain is present throughout 35mm shots. Detail is strong generally, and depth of field can be very strong. Facial close-ups show pores, whiskers, individual hairs, etc. Colors and black levels are pleasing and punchy, very accurate and naturalistic. Black level fluctuates in some scenes, but is accurate compared to theatrical presentation.


Without Stone's stylistic choices, this would be near reference. As it is, it is very good.

*Tier 1.75*



Sony KDL-52EX700

Panasonic BD65

8 foot viewing distance


----------



## mweflen

*The Ten Commandments*


Superb depth of field. Superb fine detail, especially in the intricate costumes and set designs. Vibrant, rock solid color and black levels. Only optical effects show matte lines and diminished detail.


This would be a top reference-level BD for 1950s transfers, but the ragged optical effects take it out of the absolute top tier.

*Tier 1.0*



Sony KDL-52EX700

Panasonic BD65

8 foot viewing distance


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Something Borrowed*


Warner is back to their old tricks again. This is a miserable encode, starved of bitrate energy and the whole thing is overly compressed. You have some scenes of waxy, filtered faces, and black crush is unbearable at times. Colors are at least a bit vivid, although it does lead to some orange flesh tones.
*Tier 3.5**


----------



## deltasun

*Cedar Rapids*


Overall unimpressive looking blu-ray, from the golden skin tones to the lack of fine details. The warmer palette also diminishes any colors, which does promote the intended mood of this drama/comedy. Contrast is not the best and neither are the black levels. Some of the low-light scenes did produce some decent shadow details.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.25**

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

*The Night of the Hunter*


Commendable effort from Criterion, given what they had to work with. This black and white feature showcases plenty of dark scenes, which hold up surprisingly well for the most part. Blacks are bold, but can be oppressive. Grain can be obtrusive and is inconsistent throughout. Details are the same way - you can find at least two scenes where it seems portions of the film were spliced in. The details noticeably drop in these scenes.


There are plenty of stand out scenes that show higher levels of detail (though not to the heights of today's films, understandably) and even some dimensionality.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.75**

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Bang Bang Club*


Generally sharp with some loss of detail at times. At its peak, it's brilliantly defined and crisp. On the lower side, it's lacking all of that. Typically warm with a brutal contrast, this one stick mostly to earthy colors, with one scene drenched in teal because all movies need that. Pleasing overall, just not striking in any real way.

*Tier 2.5**


----------



## Floob

Are these tier based reviews independent of the region of release?


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Little Big Soldier*


So-so looker with some distinct lack of detail at times and some muddy exteriors. Grain is oddly missing for the most part, and close-ups rarely impress. The film is dual-chromatic (?) orange and teal. Black levels are tolerable and the contrast has plenty of zip.

*Tier 2.5**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Floob* 
Are these tier based reviews independent of the region of release?
If the region is not noted on a review or in the Tiers, you can assume it is the American Region A release. But many have reviewed Blu-rays from other regions, including myself. They are listed by country if they are from outside the U.S.A. in the Tiers.


Any Blu-ray review from across the globe is welcome, but the majority of contributors are from the U.S. I try to include important region-free discs from Europe that have yet to get an American release or are superior editions to domestic versions. Some studios just re-use the same video encode in all territories like Warner and Universal.


----------



## 42041

*Unforgiven*


One of WB's early releases, the 1992 Best Picture sports a merely decent transfer but is supported by some beautiful locations, with Canada standing in for the sweeping vistas of the American West. It is relatively film-like but features some irritating edge halos, and the mushy compression characteristic of WB discs. Frequent dust and fibers mar the source, and there's a general lack of refinement/consistency to the image. I kept wishing it was better than it was. With a sharper, cleaner modern transfer and a healthier encode I think this movie could make for solid demo material, but the present disc is merely okay.

*Tier 2.75*


----------



## Floob




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/20859078
> 
> 
> If the region is not noted on a review or in the Tiers, you can assume it is the American Region A release. But many have reviewed Blu-rays from other regions, including myself. They are listed by country if they are from outside the U.S.A. in the Tiers.
> 
> 
> Any Blu-ray review from across the globe is welcome, but the majority of contributors are from the U.S. I try to include important region-free discs from Europe that have yet to get an American release or are superior editions to domestic versions. Some studios just re-use the same video encode in all territories like Warner and Universal.



Thanks very much for that.

Sounds like I cant rely 100% on the reviews as I'm in the UK. I suppose I could always get the US release version.


----------



## John Mason




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/20859078
> 
> 
> ...Any Blu-ray review from across the globe is welcome, but the majority of contributors are from the U.S. I try to include important region-free discs from Europe that have yet to get an American release or are superior editions to domestic versions. Some studios just re-use the same video encode in all territories like Warner and Universal.



When it's available, wish ads, reviews, etc. would list whether discs are either 24p, 1080/60i, or 1080/50i. As I posted yesterday in the Import Thread , "region free" seems meaningless if your hardware--like my Sony PS3--doesn't support 1080/50i or (if overseas) 1080/60i. -- John


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Beaver*

Odd looking movie with glassy, glowing skin that seems to be the result of some type of filter. Some smoothing is evident with the female characters, certainly irritating. Ugly color with overly warm flesh tones and traditional teal as a backdrop. Black levels never connect with any authority.

*Tier 3.5**


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Mason* /forum/post/20861057
> 
> 
> When it's available, wish ads, reviews, etc. would list whether discs are either 24p, 1080/60i, or 1080/50i. As I posted yesterday in the Import Thread , "region free" seems meaningless if your hardware--like my Sony PS3--doesn't support 1080/50i or (if overseas) 1080/60i. -- John



I do make an effort to note the region-free discs that would not be playable on the average American players in the Tiers, mostly the 1080i/50Hz ones. Most of the region-free discs currently listed in the Tiers will play in the U.S.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Conspirator*


Simply atrocious looking film and even worse encode. This is a non-stop barrage of noise and compression, terrible blooming that leads to banding, and so little detail you'll wonder why you bothered on Blu-ray. It's soft as hell, and only a couple of exteriors produce anything eye-popping. Colors are stuck in muted oranges and browns.

*Tier 4.75**


----------



## djoberg

*The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring (Extended Edition)*


After a Blu-ray famine lasting nearly two months, I was anxious to finally watch the first installment of the _The Lord of the Rings (EE)_. It was an excellent choice for the launch of my new home theater room.


After such a lengthy viewing, I'm inclined to keep this short. Suffice it to say that I was thoroughly impressed with this new Blu-ray release, a definite improvement over its original counterpart.


Sharpness and clarity, crisp details, and excellent blacks were the obvious virtues that, at times, crept into the top tiers. But overall they tended towards Tier Silver and I believe my previous peers are right on the mark in assigning it to that tier. Perhaps my lack of Blu-ray viewing leaves me vulnerable to my typical generosity, but I can't help but vote for the top of that tier.....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05...Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## deltasun

*Pale Flower*


Very strong presentation from Criterion. The contrast is strong, almost too strong in a majority of scenes. Some whites seem clipped, but do retain some detail upon closer inspection. Blacks crush in some scenes and never gets inky. Shadow details are often not there. Dimensionality is also flattened in a number of scenes, but is still retained a fair bit (depending on how they're shot).


Facial details can be mixed, but there is an abundance of high Tier 2 examples. The picture is also stable. Finally, fine grain is noted yielding a wonderfully filmic presentation.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.50*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

*Take Me Home Tonight*


This was quite an ugly presentation in my eyes. The 80's simulation seems to have crept into the film stock as well, save for the orange skin tones (which is a more modern concept). Softness creeps in and out of faces. The picture is mostly flat. Colors are not well-defined or crisp. Again, like in the 80's.










Contrast is not strong and black levels are a bit muddy at times. Grain is fine to moderate, completing the intended look. I did not spot any foul play.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.25*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## lgans316

*Hanna*


I have to either check my eyesight, video settings or something is really wrong with the picture quality on this one.


Looks super soft in many places with average texture and facial details. I usually like changing color schemes but it looks worse in this movie. If this is intentional then its fine from an artistic intent but not on this thread.


However, this has great potential to be a demo disc for audiophiles.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 2.75*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Tie That Binds*


A 1080i, dated effort from Mill Creek. Mostly faded and flat with little kick from the blacks. Damage is pretty heavy at times, and there's an encode error on a few frames late. Not much detail and the compression can be alarming. Likely a master from the early '00s that was hardly Blu-ray material.

*Tier 4.5**


----------



## oleus




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/20872628
> 
> *The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring (Extended Edition)*
> 
> 
> After a Blu-ray famine lasting nearly two months, I was anxious to finally watch the first installment of the _The Lord of the Rings (EE)_. It was an excellent choice for the launch of my new home theater room.
> 
> 
> After such a lengthy viewing, I'm inclined to keep this short. Suffice it to say that I was thoroughly impressed with this new Blu-ray release, a definite improvement over its original counterpart.
> 
> 
> Sharpness and clarity, crisp details, and excellent blacks were the obvious virtues that, at times, crept into the top tiers. But overall they tended towards Tier Silver and I believe my previous peers are right on the mark in assigning it to that tier. Perhaps my lack of Blu-ray viewing leaves me vulnerable to my typical generosity, but I can't help but vote for the top of that tier.....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.0**
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05...Viewed from 7.5'



so in addition to the additonal footage, the disc as a whole looks better (transfer/encoding) than the theatrical cut blurays?


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oleus* /forum/post/20874017
> 
> 
> so in addition to the additonal footage, the disc as a whole looks better (transfer/encoding) than the theatrical cut blurays?



Yes, they skipped the DNR in the extended editions.


----------



## Joe Bloggs




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Mason* /forum/post/20861057
> 
> 
> When it's available, wish ads, reviews, etc. would list whether discs are either *24p, 1080/60i, or 1080/50i*. As I posted yesterday in the Import Thread , "region free" seems meaningless if your hardware--like my Sony PS3--doesn't support 1080/50i or (if overseas) 1080/60i. -- John



I agree about listing the format. 720p60 too (there are at least 3). But if the Blu-ray player manufacturers (and TV manufacturers if the players don't convert) supported all formats it wouldn't really be that needed (other than for information about the format of the release - not for compatibility with players/TVs). I think the player & TV manufacturers are to blame not the people releasing the titles as they were originally made - unless they were selling them on US sites. Since this is the 'PQ Tier thread', surely releasing in the original format should be the highest PQ version - or at least the most accurate (assuming the player & TV output it correctly).


> Quote:
> like my Sony PS3--doesn't support 1080/50i *or (if overseas) 1080/60i*.



I don't think there are any Blu-ray players anywhere (including Europe) that don't support playback of 60i disc content.


----------



## djoberg

Quote:

Originally Posted by *oleus* 
so in addition to the additonal footage, the disc as a whole looks better (transfer/encoding) than the theatrical cut blurays?
Quote:

Originally Posted by *deltasun* 
Yes, they skipped the DNR in the extended editions.
I concur with deltasun. The whole tranfer/encoding is superior to the theatrical version. That's not to say it's without issues, but overall it is a beautiful production.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/20875074
> 
> 
> I concur with deltasun. The whole tranfer/encoding is superior to the theatrical version. That's not to say it's without issues, but overall it is a beautiful production.



All three movies look significantly better than the TEs; however, the second and third still have a way to go before they will look acceptable.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/20876827
> 
> 
> All three movies look significantly better than the TEs; however, the second and third still have a way to go before they will look acceptable.



It may be awhile before I'm able to view _Two Towers_ and _Return of the King_, but I was under the impression that they looked quite good. I was especially impressed with what Robert Harris (who I look to more than any other reviewer outside of this thread) had to say about them. Having said that, you may be right patrick and I'll be weighing in right after I see them with what I trust will be an unbiased view.


----------



## oleus

two towers and return of the king looked odd to me, sort of harsh looking.


----------



## deltasun

*Secret Sunshine*


Solid presentation with bold, gorgeous blacks and mostly excellent contrast. There are a handful of scenes that are a bit washed out (though looking intentional). Colors add a pleasant splash, while remaining natural and balanced. Depth and dimensionality are constant companions, especially during the daytime. Shadow details are very good. Skin tones are also faithful throughout.


I did not see any anomalies, save for some very minor aliasing. While the picture quality is almost perfect, there was nothing that really brought the picture "over the top."

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/20879475
> 
> *Secret Sunshine*
> 
> 
> Solid presentation with bold, gorgeous blacks and mostly excellent contrast. There are a handful of scenes that are a bit washed out (though looking intentional). Colors add a pleasant splash, while remaining natural and balanced. Depth and dimensionality are constant companions, especially during the daytime. Shadow details are very good. Skin tones are also faithful throughout.
> 
> 
> I did not see any anomalies, save for some very minor aliasing. While the picture quality is almost perfect, there was nothing that really brought the picture "over the top."
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.25*
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_



One of these days I plan to rent about 5 Blus for a Blu-ray feast. Your review on this title has whetted my appetite, but is the movie itself any good? Thanks in advance delta for responding.


Denny


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/20882464
> 
> 
> One of these days I plan to rent about 5 Blus for a Blu-ray feast. Your review on this title has whetted my appetite, but is the movie itself any good? Thanks in advance delta for responding.
> 
> 
> Denny



Hey Denny, sorry to say but this film didn't do much for me. A pretty heavy Korean drama that kinda collapses in the end. If you can find a place to rent it and have a couple of hours to spare, go for it.


----------



## deltasun

*The Greatest Movie Ever Sold*


Documentary-type approach, with poor production, poor equipment, and mixed quality content. Some of the close-up's show fair details, but most of the scenes are bland and not color-corrected (for indoor, for example). Blacks are not that impressive and contrast is inconsistent.


It still looks passable overall, but pretty is not what this feature had in mind. Some banding, shimmering, and even macro blocking are evident throughout the film. It really just looked cheap, which for its subject matter it should not have been.









*Tier Recommendation: 3.75*


Great concept, but I felt it did not quite deliver. Still, worth a watch.

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Big Lebowski*

Because Universal hates you comes this DNR'd mess. Plenty of waxy faces, muddy images, and plastic mid-range shots. Edge enhancement is tossed in to sharpen what the DNR softened. Only one close-up provide any real detail. One. Shots with any distance are mud. Colors seem to be unnaturally warm, flesh tones hammered.
*Tier 4.75**


----------



## hernanu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oleus* /forum/post/20877943
> 
> 
> two towers and return of the king looked odd to me, sort of harsh looking.



Maybe it's the lack of the warm green patina...


----------



## BrownTown




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/20773890
> 
> *Rio*
> 
> 
> A stunner, overloaded with candy-coated colors, brilliantly bright contrast, and fantastic black levels. The finale, set inside a parade, is easily my new favorite scene on Blu-ray ever. The immense detail within the floats is mesmerizing. Bird feathers are astounding, and fur on the other creatures? Marvelous.
> 
> *Tier 0, right below Avatar**



+1, I would place it somewhere between Avatar and Despicable Me.


I think we need to split the Tier 0 up into 2 parts. One section for live action and one section for Animation.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BrownTown* /forum/post/20887555
> 
> 
> +1, I would place it somewhere between Avatar and Despicable Me.
> 
> 
> I think we need to split the Tier 0 up into 2 parts. One section for live action and one section for Animation.


_Rio_ is another title I'm going to have to see when time allows.


Regarding splitting up "live action" and "animated" titles, this has been discussed at length in the past and the majority has always favored keeping them together.


BTW, good choice on your flat panel. As you may know, I have the PRO151 and I still believe the Pioneer KUROs are the best flat panels today (though Panasonic plasmas are inching closer each day).


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Entitled*


Shot mostly in darkness, the black levels don't keep up their end of the bargain. Exteriors are strangely muddy and facial detail doesn't really pop. Soft, but the encode keeps up so that's probably not at fault in anyway. A little bit of blooming is easy to forgive. Mostly colored cool, there are occasional bouts of orange/teal, but they're rare.

*Tier 2.75**


----------



## BrownTown




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/20888504
> 
> 
> Regarding splitting up "live action" and "animated" titles, this has been discussed at length in the past and the majority has always favored keeping them together.



I do not read the thread day to day. I think comparing live video with CG is like comparing apples vs oranges.


Photography is an image capture of an actual object, weather it be living or man made. Animations these days are done behind a Mac/PC. I don't see how you can compare picture quality of 2 complete different mediums in the same list.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BrownTown* /forum/post/20892030
> 
> 
> I do not read the thread day to day. I think comparing live video with CG is like comparing apples vs oranges.
> 
> 
> Photography is an image capture of an actual object, weather it be living or man made. Animations these days are done behind a Mac/PC. I don't see how you can compare picture quality of 2 complete different mediums in the same list.



Denny's right about how many times this topic has been brought up...and shut down. I even recommended kind of a hybrid way of identifying animation. Anyway, the other issue you'll run into is where to draw the definition of animation vs. live action. Sure, it's easy to differentiate _Sleeping Beauty_ vs. _Man on Fire_. But what about _Transformers_ or _Avatar_, or even something like _Fantastic Mr. Fox_ or _Coraline_.


Besides, I think we should be able to compare any two titles and decide which is better PQ-wise, regardless of how the pieces built the whole. As a whole, we should be able to discern.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *BrownTown* /forum/post/20892030
> 
> 
> I do not read the thread day to day. I think comparing live video with CG is like comparing apples vs oranges.
> 
> 
> Photography is an image capture of an actual object, weather it be living or man made. Animations these days are done behind a Mac/PC. I don't see how you can compare picture quality of 2 complete different mediums in the same list.



While I get your point, we aren't comparing picture quality of 2 completely different mediums in this thread. We don't compare one against another. We look at each title in and of itself and where it ranks. We are focused on one medium, Blu Ray Picture Quality or lack there of.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Wrecked*

Deeply colored survival piece with woeful black levels. Constantly a struggle to keep dimensionality up, Wrecked never really hits the mark because of it. Detail is pretty firm, especially the forest which can be quite dazzling. In close, facial detail is inconsistent although never way off the mark.

*Tier 2.75**


----------



## djoberg

*Soul Surfer*


I went into this viewing expecting demo material throughout, but with sporadic soft shots sprinkled throughout and less-than-stellar facial details (though there were moments when shots of Dennis Quaid and Helen Hunt veered into low Tier 0 territory), I was disappointed.


Colors and contrast were the strongest virtues, along with some impressive flesh tones (with the exception of a few shots that were marred by intruding orange hues). Blacks were a mixed bag with one amazing night scene (at the party where they went night surfing) and the majority of scenes only average.


The GGI (of the lead actor's severed arm) was also somewhat disappointing and I found it too distracting.


All things considered I'm forced to relegate this to Tier Silver, albeit at the very top....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Madea's Big Happy Family*


Spectacular looking film (if not much else), loaded with fine detail, brilliant color, deep blacks, and sparkling contrast. The only things dragging it down is some obvious smoothing used. The Madea make-up becomes brutally obvious with this transfer, the seams impossible to miss. Exteriors are some of the best I've see, and I certainly wish there were more.

*Tier 1.0**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*TrollHunter*


Noisy, but not all that disappointing. Not much detail to go around, although some of the forests are impressive. Much is shot in the dark where the black levels will hold up thankfully. Pale color is meant remain natural, although it's not much for eye candy.

*Tier 3.5**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Hanna*


In a bit of rush: Pretty pale and bland. Black levels are decent enough, detail meh at best, all intent.

*Tier 3.0**


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/20913493
> 
> *Hanna*
> 
> 
> In a bit of rush: Pretty pale and bland. Black levels are decent enough, detail meh at best, all intent.
> 
> *Tier 3.0**



Exactly what I thought although I rated Tier 2.75.


----------



## Paultje66




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/20913493
> 
> *Hanna*
> 
> 
> In a bit of rush: Pretty pale and bland. Black levels are decent enough, detail meh at best, all intent.
> 
> *Tier 3.0**



Its funny how big the differences are between the ratings on this thread and the ratings from the subforum *AVS Blu-ray Disc Reviews*


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Paultje66* /forum/post/20915682
> 
> 
> Its funny how big the differences are between the ratings on this thread and the ratings from the subforum *AVS Blu-ray Disc Reviews*



Slightly different criteria.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Everything Must Go*


Extraordinary detail most of the time, Ferrell having a really textured face that shows through. It looks a bit sharpened though, some aliasing and harsh edges enough to detract from otherwise striking quality. Warm flesh tones and bright primaries are awesome. A light grain is a barely a factor.

*Tier 1.75**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Ernest Goes to Camp*

In need of some restoration work (desperately), this one isn't too bad otherwise. Clean, 1080i encode that only carries a few artifacts. Some filtered-looking shots dampen the fun, which can produce some well rounded definition in close. Colors need a boost too especially with the nature of the film.
*Tier 3.5**


----------



## saginawjuggalo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/20921325
> 
> *Ernest Goes to Camp*
> 
> In need of some restoration work (desperately), this one isn't too bad otherwise. Clean, 1080i encode that only carries a few artifacts. Some filtered-looking shots dampen the fun, which can produce some well rounded definition in close. Colors need a boost too especially with the nature of the film.
> *Tier 3.5**




Did you review the single or double-feature? I ask because the single has better video compression.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *saginawjuggalo* /forum/post/20922724
> 
> 
> Did you review the single or double-feature? I ask because the single has better video compression.



Single. I never saw the double so I can't compare.

*X-Men: First Class*


Outstanding live action feature. Vivid contrast is mixed with intensely bright colors. A great encode keeps a firm, natural grain structure at bay and the detail flowing with incredible regularity. Black levels may lose a little bit in certain interiors and some aliasing is a mild distraction, but those are so minor in the scheme of things here.

*Tier 0.75**


----------



## deltasun

*Mimic*


One of my guilty pleasures comes out as a surprisingly great catalog release from Lionsgate/Miramax. Details are really well-rendered for a number of scenes, specially in faces (including Mira Sorvino). Textures are easy to discern - again, for the most part. The film starts out with some panoramas of the city in poor lighting, which did not set the tone well. These were almost detail-less and uninteresting. Don't hit your stop buttons quite yet because the PQ dramatically improves.


Black levels are bold with minimal crush, though low-light scenes still look flat most of the time. Contrast is not the strongest but definitely holds its own. Colors are subdued, mimicking the feel of the story well. Skin tones appear natural, though it does warm up depending on lighting.


Overall, pretty impressive effort from Lionsgate. Hope this is a sign of things to come, especially their next few catalog Miramax releases.







I do have to mention that the teal/orange scheme does pop in this one as well, but not too bad.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75**

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## djoberg

*Source Code*


I'm a bit late chiming in on this one, but "better late than never." I see that tier recommendations varied (from Tier 0 to Tier 2). Quite honestly, I can't imagine this striking title falling below any of the two demo tiers; it was a stunning release!


From the opening shot of Jake Gyllenhaal's face you knew that details were going to be phenomenal. Every pore, stubble, and bead of sweat jumped out at you, along with the texture we crave. Thankfully the director chose to zoom in often, treating us to Tier 0 quality shots each and every time.


Details in general were just as impressive, especially the aerial views of Chicago (some weren't that impressed with them, but on my KURO they were simply amazing). Fine detail on clothing is also to be noted as reference quality.


Where PQ dropped off at times were in flesh tones and a few soft shots, but even here they never detracted from the details mentioned above. Blacks also failed slightly in a few instances, but overall they were deep and inky, with corresponding shadow details.


I'm tempted to drop this into Tier Blu, but the objective side of me dictates otherwise, so.....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


PS The audio also rocked!!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/20927811
> 
> 
> Single. I never saw the double so I can't compare.
> 
> *X-Men: First Class*
> 
> 
> Outstanding live action feature. Vivid contrast is mixed with intensely bright colors. A great encode keeps a firm, natural grain structure at bay and the detail flowing with incredible regularity. Black levels may lose a little bit in certain interiors and some aliasing is a mild distraction, but those are so minor in the scheme of things here.
> 
> *Tier 0.75**



Good to read your take on this GRG; I rented this today and I'll be watching it tomorrow. Looking forward to another demo disc!


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/20927811
> 
> 
> Single. I never saw the double so I can't compare.
> 
> *X-Men: First Class*
> 
> 
> Outstanding live action feature. Vivid contrast is mixed with intensely bright colors. A great encode keeps a firm, natural grain structure at bay and the detail flowing with incredible regularity. Black levels may lose a little bit in certain interiors and some aliasing is a mild distraction, but those are so minor in the scheme of things here.
> 
> *Tier 0.75**



Very much disagree. Ordinarily lacking in crisp detail; extremely disappointing PQ.


Particularly disappointing that the PQ was so mediocre since the movie itself was pretty enjoyable.

*Tier 2.25**


----------



## lgans316

*Rango*

Absolutely stunning animation but I found the movie itself to be dragging and boring most of the time except for the action sequences.

*Tier Recommendation: Top 5 in Tier 0*


--------------------------------------------------
*Insomnia*


This is easily the best and natural looking Nolan directed film released on Blu-ray so far. This is exactly how the facial details should have looked like in his other movies released on Blu-ray. What a pleasant surprise.









*Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.75*


--------------------------------------------------

*The Island (US / Paramount)*


Slightly sharper than the filtered Warner BD. Can notice more grain and close up shots exhibits more details. This means Warner BD can be pushed to Tier 1.5

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0.75*


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/20930318
> 
> *The Island (US / Paramount)*
> 
> 
> Slightly sharper than the filtered Warner BD. Can notice more grain and close up shots exhibits more details. This means Warner BD can be pushed to Tier 1.5
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0.75*



Thanks for the comparison, I will definitely consider moving the UK Blu-ray down a notch in light of the new version available in the U.S.


To get myself motivated for pushing through the updated Tiers, it will be posted before Star Wars gets released next week. I hope to see solid reviews of it on here.


----------



## lgans316

Good move Phantom. I have toned down my expectations on Star Wars.

*Pirates of the Caribbean - On Stranger Tides*


Slightly disappointed by the PQ. So many dark and poorly lit scenes offering a sort of murky picture. Contrast lacking a bit even in daylight scenes which appears to be a trend nowadays although there are few of them which shines. Close up shots reveals nice details. Film grain is hardly noticeable and some scenes bear a video look.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 2.25*


----------



## alexg75

Quote:

Originally Posted by *lgans316* 
Good move Phantom. I have toned down my expectations on Star Wars.

*Pirates of the Caribbean - On Stranger Tides*


Slightly disappointed by the PQ. So many dark and poorly lit scenes offering a sort of murky picture. Contrast lacking a bit even in daylight scenes which appears to be a trend nowadays although there are few of them which shines. Close up shots reveals nice details. Film grain is hardly noticeable and some scenes bear a video look.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 2.25*


It was shot with the new RED Epic camera...


----------



## djoberg

*X-Men: First Class*

Quote:

Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* 
*X-Men: First Class*


Outstanding live action feature. Vivid contrast is mixed with intensely bright colors. A great encode keeps a firm, natural grain structure at bay and the detail flowing with incredible regularity. Black levels may lose a little bit in certain interiors and some aliasing is a mild distraction, but those are so minor in the scheme of things here.

*Tier 0.75**
Quote:

Originally Posted by *patrick99* 
Very much disagree. Ordinarily lacking in crisp detail; extremely disappointing PQ.


Particularly disappointing that the PQ was so mediocre since the movie itself was pretty enjoyable.

*Tier 2.25**
I'm going with patrick on this one....very disappointing PQ sprinkled throughout the transfer. One minute you would have an extremely detailed shot with vivid colors and excellent contrast and clarity, the next minute softness would creep in along with noise and a nagging hot contrast (in some daytime scenes), resulting in a lack of detail. A real inconsistent mess!


Blacks levels too were a mixed bag; black and inky one moment, murky the next.


I will say though that the PQ became more consistently better in later scenes (some of the scenes at sea and on the beach were stunning, with incredible detail and depth) and had the whole transfer been that good it would have easily fallen into Tier 1. It's a shame to have to relegate this to Tier Silver, though I'm inclined to put it on the top.....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *alexg75* /forum/post/20932376
> 
> 
> It was shot with the new RED Epic camera...



Thanks for the info. This explains why it had a video look. What's your opinion on the SQ as I believe you are an audiophile?


----------



## alexg75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/20933437
> 
> 
> Thanks for the info. This explains why it had a video look. What's your opinion on the SQ as I believe you are an audiophile?



I have not seen the movie yet, waiting for the Blu-ray...


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Big Bang*

Some of the worst color choices you'll ever see. Simply hideous combinations. Everything is oversaturated too which just makes it worse. When falling into a somewhat natural realm, detail is okay. Black levels are the only savior here, brilliant intensity and depth.

*Tier 3.75**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Dorian Gray

recommendation: Tier 1.5**


A decent update on the classic story of Dorian Gray, this 2009 movie has turned out quite nicely for the most part on Blu-ray. The film runs 112 minutes on a BD-25, encoded in VC-1 at an average video bitrate of 20.01 Mbps. It looks shot on a combination of film and possibly digital video, though it has definitely been sourced from a Digital Intermediate. The DI gives a crisp, clean shine to the image, but some questionable digital mattes and CGI stick out like a sore thumb. Most exterior shots and scenes in London look a creation of the digital realm, which is an odd choice for a film that is largely a period piece.


Definitely the weakest aspect of the overall picture is the fault of a video encode at middling bitrates. The compression fails in a couple of obvious spots, producing notable chroma noise in one scene and large banding in another moment. Luckily the movie was shot with great lighting and clarity, allowing the compression to be a minor nuisance most of the time. One gets the feeling a larger distributor than E1, with more Blu-ray experience, would have produced a superior-looking video encode of this feature.


Positives are numerous, as nearly perfect clarity reveal a razor-sharp image that extrudes from the flat screen. Both depth and dimensionality for a drama are nearly as good as the best Hollywood productions on Blu-ray. Without revealing too much, one scene near the end utilized CGI to approach an almost 3-D effect where the character in question appears to leave the screen. Top-notch detail is a bit lacking at times, particularly in the more distant shots. Close-ups occasionally show extraordinary levels of detail, down to the pores and fine makeup on the actors.


There is a certain amount of minor aliasing to many scenes, though the problem comes and goes. One notable moment where it's really evident is along the piano at the beginning. It looks more a problem of satisfactorily combining the CGI mattes into the background than any wrongful sharpening.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...9#post19112219 


Yes, I still perform here the occasional placement or two. Though there was some minor rust in writing this one.


----------



## djoberg

*Hanna*


Ah, how one yearns for consistency in today's films! This one was "all over the place," like many recent titles. There were some scenes with incredible sharpness and clarity (mainly those featuring Cate Blanchett), but the majority looked soft and lifeless.


Blacks were really inconsistent. There were a few scenes which yielded above average blacks and shadow details, but there were just as many that bordered on dark gray along with some pesky noise.


Details were really disappointing for the most part, though again there were some shots (albeit few and far between) that were stellar (easily falling into the demo realm).


The lighting played a huge part in some of the softness alluded to above, and in some of those same shots the whites were overblown. This was more than likely the director's intent, but on this thread we are obligated to penalize those scenes.


All things considered I believe this was the epitome of *average* so I must go with the following....

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


PS I agree with Igans regarding the audio....it was phenomenal!!


----------



## tfoltz

*X-Men: First Class*


Nice detail with a lot of soft, if not blurry, shots throughout. Colors were great, though skin tones seemed a little hot at times. Black levels were mediocre.

*Tier 2.75*


I thought the picture fit the movie perfectly, it just doesn't get a higher rating in this thread. Watched on Panasonic 65ST30 from 9.5'.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Some of these scores for X-Men: First Class are very disappointing. What happened, did all the budget go to the actors?


----------



## oleus

wasn't X-Men First Class in 3d in the theaters? why no 3d BD release?


----------



## dla26

*The American*


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/19900596
> 
> *The American:*
> 
> 
> The American has excellent sharp PQ with lots of detail exhibited. Facial closeups and shots of Clooney's and Placido's face and hair show excellent detail, color, and black levels. Lot's of visible pores on this BD. The color palette, while not outstanding or pumped up in any way and a bit on the subdued side, is excellent and lends to the realism of the scenery and locations both indoors and out. While not flawless in and of itself or outstanding in terms of color, the PQ on The American is top notch IMO.
> 
> 
> Violante Placido (calm violation, haha) is all eye candy and is easily top of tier 0.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.25*
> 
> 
> I really enjoyed this film. Clooney seems to be ideal for these roles and throw in some eye candy, a decent story and interesting locations and you have one of the better films I have seen in a while and one of the best of the year.



I know this is going way back into the past, but I just got around to watching The American last night and was planning on writing up a quick review. I agree with Hughmc on all points, so I won't just retype the same info, though I would rate it even higher - somewhere in the low Tier 0 area (somewhere around Transporter 3, which I haven't seen in a while). I was surprised to see some people had rated it somewhere in the 2s. Not sure what movie they were watching.










*Tier Recommendation: 0 (Above Transporter 3)*


----------



## vpn75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oleus* /forum/post/20944327
> 
> 
> wasn't X-Men First Class in 3d in the theaters? why no 3d BD release?



I'm pretty sure it was never released in 3D in the theaters.


----------



## tfoltz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/20944262
> 
> 
> Some of these scores for X-Men: First Class are very disappointing. What happened, did all the budget go to the actors?



It has nice grain and seems faithful to the director's intent and the way it looked in the theater. The picture does get better as the film progresses. Plus, it doesn't have orange/teal







. I'm starting to wonder if I was too hard on it.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/20944262
> 
> 
> Some of these scores for X-Men: First Class are very disappointing. What happened, did all the budget go to the actors?



Too much of the disc-space allocation budget went to extras.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/20945033
> 
> 
> It has nice grain and seems faithful to the director's intent and the way it looked in the theater. The picture does get better as the film progresses. Plus, it doesn't have orange/teal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . I'm starting to wonder if I was too hard on it.



After a second viewing I thought maybe I was too generous in my placement.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dla26* /forum/post/20944368
> 
> *The American*
> 
> 
> I know this is going way back into the past, but I just got around to watching The American last night and was planning on writing up a quick review. I agree with Hughmc on all points, so I won't just retype the same info, though I would rate it even higher - somewhere in the low Tier 0 area (somewhere around Transporter 3, which I haven't seen in a while). I was surprised to see some people had rated it somewhere in the 2s. Not sure what movie they were watching.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 0 (Above Transporter 3)*




Its a great looking disc and I did go a bit conservative and was thinking 1.0. It all works as some are more generous than others and some are more conservative.


----------



## tfoltz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/20945261
> 
> 
> After a second viewing I thought maybe I was too generous in my placement.



Well, you need to join me at 2.75 then, or we can meet in the middle at 2.5







.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*All Dogs Go To Heaven


recommendation: Tier 4.5**


A very marginal improvement over the DVD versions, at best. The transfer looks sourced from a dull interpositive or film print, the color palette simply fails to breathe and pop in 1080p like other theatrical animation taken from a good negative. Most of Bluth's movies were done on shoestring budgets and hence the animation would occasionally suffer in quality. A good movie, but a poor Blu-ray that looks slightly mis-framed in widescreen.


BDInfo scan:

http://www.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray/m...c27c904b#specs


----------



## djoberg

*Thor*


It's always a bit daunting writing the first review/tier recommendation for a new title, but I'll take a stab at it. For the most part, I was quite pleased with the transfer, though it was not without its flaws/anomalies.


Let me start with the BLACKS...they were EXCELLENT!! They were easily the greatest redeeming feature. Deep and inky from start to finish, and always serving to enhance depth and dimensionality, as well as surrounding colors. Shadow details were just as impressive. You will NOT be disappointed in this department, I can assure you!


COLORS were also a visual treat, whether one is viewing Asgard, the kingdom of the Frost Giants (I can't remember its name), or the deserts of New Mexico. Some will no doubt complain of the orange/teal hues strewn throughout, but I actually didn't mind it with everything else that was going on.


DETAILS were lacking, IMHO, though it had its moments when the director chose to zoom into an actor or object. There were a couple of close-ups of Anthony Hopkins that bordered on Tier 0/Tier 1, but this was the exception and not the rule (most facial details were only average). Medium and long-distance shots just didn't do it for me, except on a couple of rare occasions.


SHARPNESS and CLARITY were present in some scenes, but softness kept rearing its ugly head sporadically.


This is a hard one for me to rate, though in comparing it to my recent viewing of _X-Men: First Class_, which I rated at 2.0, I would have to say it was a notch better. Having said that, I just can't bring myself to label this a demo disc, so I'm going with....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


PS I simply MUST say something about the audio track...WOW!!!!!! This is, by far, the most dynamic track I've listened to in a very long time. I was wondering if my Velodyne Sub was going to survive the beating it took; it had the walls of my new Home Theater room shaking BIG TIME. And the action in the surrounds was AMAZING! For all you audio lovers out there, be prepared for AUDIO NIRVANA!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Fox And The Hound

recommendation: Tier 3.25**


Surprisingly unranked at the moment in the Tiers list, _The Fox And The Hound_ looks satisfactory with one caveat. First to dispel any illusions, Disney has spent very little restoring the film like they have done on their more famous animated titles. The disc looks like it received the standard treatment any normal catalog movie would receive when released by Disney, meaning no million-dollar restoration going back to the original film elements and animation cels. So the level of care and attention to detail is severely lacking compared to the magnificent work done on _Bambi_ or _Sleeping Beauty_.


The master looks decent for its age, but there is a problem that some will consider a major negative. The right edge of the frame in the lower half semi-regularly has a persistent artifact that proves annoying once it is noticed. A fuzzy black line or print stain fades in and out. It bothered me enough to pull me out of the movie on occasion. Some have demanded the disc to be recalled, but I am not holding my breath waiting on a fix.


It's a shame that problem occurs, as the rest of the image is strong enough to qualify for Tier 2. Colors are rock-solid and make for a vibrant palette of greens, reds and browns. There is no undue processing, as the picture is free of halos and has a normal level of grain.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/20946190
> 
> *Thor*
> 
> 
> This a hard one for me to rate, though in comparing it to my recent viewing of _X-Men: First Class_, which I rated at 2.0, I would have to say it was a notch better. Having said that, I just can't bring myself to label this a demo disc, so I'm going with....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.0**



If you really feel Thor outclasses X:Men:FC, it might be a good idea to lower the X-Men score. Just a suggestion, but I know I always try to keep the scores I assign to titles internally consistent. Another disappointment if a new release, summer action movie can't break into the upper Tiers.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/20946263
> 
> 
> If you really feel Thor outclasses X:Men:FC, it might be a good idea to lower the X-Men score. Just a suggestion, but I know I always try to keep the scores I assign to titles internally consistent. Another disappointment if a new release, summer action movie can't break into the upper Tiers.



I would be willing to drop my Tier Recommendation for _X-Men: First Class_ to 2.25.


----------



## djoberg

*Let Me In*


I had wanted to see this title for a long time and as I perused the Blu-ray titles in a local video store this one jumped out at me. I'm glad I rented it for the acting was superb and it was quite unique for its genre. I only wished the PQ had been as good!


I don't have much to say....it was simply average (or below), with a lot of soft shots, inconsistent blacks, so-so details, and acceptable colors. It had a few stellar moments with decent sharpness, clarity and details, but they were definitely rare.


I believe former reviews were at the bottom of Tier 3; I'm feeling somewhat generous so I'll go a notch higher....

*Tier Recommendation: 3.5*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/20945582
> 
> 
> Well, you need to join me at 2.75 then, or *we can meet in the middle at 2.5*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



Sold!


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/20946190
> 
> *Thor*
> 
> 
> It's always a bit daunting writing the first review/tier recommendation for a new title, but I'll take a stab at it. For the most part, I was quite pleased with the transfer, though it was not without its flaws/anomalies.
> 
> 
> Let me start with the BLACKS...they were EXCELLENT!! They were easily the greatest redeeming feature. Deep and inky from start to finish, and always serving to enhance depth and dimensionality, as well as surrounding colors. Shadow details were just as impressive. You will NOT be disappointed in this department, I can assure you!
> 
> 
> COLORS were also a visual treat, whether one is viewing Asgard, the kingdom of the Frost Giants (I can't remember its name), or the deserts of New Mexico. Some will no doubt complain of the orange/teal hues strewn throughout, but I actually didn't mind it with everything else that was going on.
> 
> 
> DETAILS were lacking, IMHO, though it had its moments when the director chose to zoom into an actor or object. There were a couple of close-ups of Anthony Hopkins that bordered on Tier 0/Tier 1, but this was the exception and not the rule (most facial details were only average). Medium and long-distance shots just didn't do it for me, except on a couple of rare occasions.
> 
> 
> SHARPNESS and CLARITY were present in some scenes, but softness kept rearing its ugly head sporadically.
> 
> 
> This a hard one for me to rate, though in comparing it to my recent viewing of _X-Men: First Class_, which I rated at 2.0, I would have to say it was a notch better. Having said that, I just can't bring myself to label this a demo disc, so I'm going with....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.0**



Agree with everything except the color (muted/bland everywhere except Earth) and the X-Men jab. I stand by my X-Men ranking and DLA's confusion over The American. Both discs are... First Class! Hi-oh!

*Tier 2.25**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Greatest Movie Ever Sold*


Varying quality both because of the source materials used and general documentary style. Black levels will give and noise will creep in. Digital clarity is present without plastic-y skin. Limited detail though on the flipside of that. Nice, natural color though.

*Tier 3.5**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Okay, another update is in the books. The Tiers are updated through the last recommendation. One problem, many of the links for the new entries are broken. Cinema Squid updated his website's format and any movie with a name longer than 12 characters broke our database's character limit. I should have checked if the links were going to work beforehand, but several hours of manual data entry were for naught.










I am not sure all the links will ever be fixed, the updates are becoming an unwieldy monster. If you do post a review, please include an asterisk by the score if the disc is not currently ranked. Most people have picked that up, but there are a few stragglers. Be more specific on placements in Tier 0, some of the recommendations give me nothing more than a huge range that does not help at all in placing a disc. And just for clarification, "G" refers to Gamereviewgod in the following check list.


Elephant White - 2.25 Gamereviewgod


x The Mechanic - 2.0 Gamereviewgod, 2.0 djoberg, 2.0 deltasun


The Roommate - 2.75 G, 1.5 rusky_g, 3.25 deltasun


x A Woman, a Gun, and a Noodle Shop - middle 0 audiomagnate


The Rite - 3.25 G


x I Am Number Four - 1.75 djoberg, 2.25 patrick99, 2.25 G


Bridge On The River Kwai - 2.75 42041


Jason And The Argonauts - 3.0 42041


Crazies (2010) - 2.5 lgans316


Next Three Days - 2.0 lgans316


x Daughters Of Darkness - 3.0 Phantom Stranger


x The Company Men - lower quarter of 0 G, 0 above Despicable Me deltasun, 0 above International djoberg


x 36th Chamber Of Shaolin - 4.0 G


x White Material - 2.25 deltasun


x She's Out Of My League - 3.5 Phantom Stranger


The African Queen - 2.5 42041


x Legends of Flight 2D/3D - 1.0 G


x The Black Shield Of Falworth (UK import) - 3.75 Phantom Stranger


x Mesrine: Public Enemy No. 1 - 1.0 deltasun


x The Disappearance Of Alice Creed - 1.25 deltasun


The Incredibles - top 5 in 0 djoberg


x Drive Angry - 1.75 G, 1.25 deltasun


x Rabbit Hole - 1.5 b_scott


x Kill The Irishman - 3.25 G, 3.75 deltasun


x Happythankyoumoreplease - 3.5 G


500 Days Of Summer - 2.5 deltasun


x True Grit (2010) - 1.25 djoberg, low 0 G, 1.75 lgans316, 2.0 patrick99


x Chawz - 4.0 G


x The Thin Red Line (UK FOX) - 1.5 lgans316


Easy A - 1.5 lgans316


x Gnomeo & Juliet - middle 0 G


Supercop - 4.25 G


x Blow Out - 3.25 deltasun


Inside Job - 3.0 42041


x Sanctum - 4.0 G, 3.75 djoberg


x Green Lantern: Emerald Knights - 1.5 Phantom Stranger


x G.I. Joe: The Movie (1987) - 4.5 Phantom Stranger


Just Go With It - 1.75 G


Seven Samurai - 4.0 42041


x Shadows And Lies - 4.0 deltasun


x Biutiful - 2.75 deltasun


x Battle: Los Angeles - 2.0 G, 2.5 deltasun, 2.5 djoberg, 2.5 Patrick99


The Green Hornet - 2.25 deltasun


x Hall Pass - 2.5 G, 2.5 deltasun


x Legend of the Fist: Return of Chen Zhen - 3.75 G


x Red Riding Hood - 3 G, 2.5 djoberg


x Big Mommas: Like Father Like Son - 2.75 G


Alien - 3 lgans


Aliens - 2.75 lgans


Aliens 3 - 4.25 lgans


Alien Resurrection - 2.5 lgans


Little Fockers - 1.5 deltasun


The Rite - 2.25 deltasun, 2.25 Phantom Stranger


x Night Of The Hunter - 3.25 42041


Beverly Hills Cop - 3.0 G


Wolverine - 2 Coxwell


x Diary Of A Wimpy Kid: Rodrick Rules - 2.0 G


x The Adjustment Bureau - 2.75 G, 2.25 djoberg, 2.25 lgans


x Unknown - 2.75 G, 2.0 djoberg


Antichrist - 3.0 42041


x The Eagle - 2.75 G


x American Graffiti - 3.75 G


A Christmas Carol (2009) - 1.25 lgans


x Last Tango In Paris - 3.5 hernanu


x Beastly - 3.0 G, 3.5 deltasun


x Season Of The Witch - 1.75 G


x Sucker Punch - 1.25 G, 2.25 lgans


x LOTR: Fellowship Of The Ring (EE) - 2.5 deltasun, 2.25 42041, 2.0 Rob Tomlin, 2.0 patrick99, 2.0 djoberg


x Le Mans - 3.25 deltasun


x The Warrior's Way - 1.75 G, 1.75 deltasun


A Passage To India - 2.25 deltasun


x Tropical Forest (IMAX) - 4 G


x Ring OF Fire - 3.75 G


x Miral - 2 G


x The Island - 1.75 G


x LOTR: Two Towers - 2.5 42041,


x Bloodrayne: Third Reich - 3.75 G


Treasure Of The Sierra-Madre - 3.0 42041


x Hobo With A Shotgun - 2 G


x LOTR: Return Of The King - 2.25 42041


x Red Riding (1974) - 4.5 deltasun


x Daylight - 4 G


x 13 Assassins - 3.25 deltasun


x 61* - 2.25 Phantom Stranger


x Red Riding: 1980 - 3.75 42041


The Other Guys - 1.75 lgans316


In Bruges - 2.25 lgans


x Paul - 2.5 lgans, 1.5 G


Drive Angry - 1.25 rusky_g


x The Lincoln Lawyer - 1.75 G, 1.5 patrick99, 1.5 rusky_g, 0 below Transporter 3 djoberg, 1.75 42041


x Insidious - 3.75 G


x FRom Dusk Till Dawn (US) - 3.75 G


x Sin Nombre - 1.75 42041


Gone WIth The Wind - 2.5 42041


x Breaking Bad: Season two - 1.75 deltasun


x Rango - middle 0 G, high 0 Hughmc, top 5 lgans316


x Arthur (2011) - 3 G


x Brazil - 3.5 deltasun


x Take Me Home Tonight - 2.25 G


x Limitless - 2.75 G


x Outlaw Josey Wales - 2.25 42041


x Tekken - 3 G


x Crack In THe World - 3 G


x La Belle et la Bête - 4.5 deltasun


x Deep Blue Sea (IMAX) - 0 martyball619


x Vanishing On 7th Street - 3.5 G


x Breaking Bad: Third season - 1.5 deltasun


x It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World - 1.75 42041


x Insignificance - 3.75 deltasun


x Just Go With It - 1.75 deltasun


x Trust - 3.5 G, 3.75 deltasun


x Source Code - middle 0 G, 1.0 tfoltz, 2.5 rusky_g, 2.25 patrick99


x Ironclad - 3.25 G


x Animal House - 4.5 G


x Zazie Dans Le Metro - 2.75 deltasun


x Baby: secret of the lost legend - 3.25 G


x Scott Walker: 30 Century Man - 5 Phantom Stranger


Mad Men: Season One - 3.0 42041


x Black Moon - 2.75 deltasun


x Fat Girl - 2.25 deltasun


x Sweetie - 2 deltasun


x Rio - 0 below Avatar G, 0 between Avatar & Despicable Me BrownTown


x WHite Material - 3 42041


x Blitz - 2.75 G


x The Perfect Game - 2.5 G


x Superman II(theatrical cut) - 3.5 Phantom Stranger


x Stake Land - 3.25 G


x Shogun Assassin - 4.5 Phantom Stranger


x Soul Surfer - 1.5 G, 2.0 djoberg


x Super - 2.75 G


x Your Highness - 1.75 G


Sunshine Cleaning - 0 martyball619


x Mars Needs Moms - .75 G


x Source Code (UK) - 1.5 lgans316


x Priest - 2.5 G


x The Ward - 3.25 G


Dark City - 4.0 mweflen


x Life During Wartime - 1.5 mweflen


x Marley and Me: The Puppy Years - 2.5 G


x Hobo With A Shotgun - 2.75 deltasun


x Source Code - 1.5 deltasun, 1.0 djoberg


Star Trek: Season One - 1.75 mewflen


Spartacus - 4 mweflen


The Red Shoes - 2.0 mweflen


Star Trek III: Search for Spock - 3.75 mweflen


Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind - 2 mweflen


Boogie Nights - 1.5 mweflen


Nixon - 1.75 mweflen


The Ten Commandments - 1.0 mweflen


x Something Borrowed - 3.5 G


x Cedar Rapids - 3.25 deltasun


x Night Of the Hunter - 3.75 deltasun


x The Bang Bang Club - 2.5 G


x Little Big Soldier - 2.5 G


Unforgiven - 2.75 42041


x The Beaver - 3.5 G


x The Conspirator - 4.75 G


Pale Flower - 2.5 deltasun


Take Me Home Tonight - 3.25 deltasun


x Hanna - 2.75 lgans316, 3 G, 3.0 djoberg


x The Tie That Binds - 4.5 G


Secret Sunshine - 1.25 deltasun


x Greatest Movie Ever Sold - 3.75 deltasun, 3.5 G


x Big Lebowski - 4.75 G


x The Entitled - 2.75 G


x Wrecked - 2.75 G


x Madea's Big Happy Family - 1.0 G


x Trollhunter - 3.5 G


x Everything Must Go - 1.75 G


x Ernest Goes To Camp (single) - 3.5 G


x X-Men: First Class - .75 G, 2.25 patrick99, 2.0 djoberg, 2.75 tfoltz


x Mimic - 2.75 deltasun


Insomnia - 1.75 lgans316


x The Island (US) - .75 lgans316


The Island (UK) - 1.5 lgans316


x Pirates Of The Caribbean: Stranger Tides - 2.25 lgans316


x The Big Bang - 3.75 G


x Dorian Gray - 1.5 Phantom Stranger


x All Dogs Go To Heaven - 4.5 Phantom Stranger


x Thor - 2.0 djoberg, 2.25 G


x The Fox And The Hound - 3.25 Phantom Stranger


Let Me In - 3.5 djoberg


The Greatest Movie Ever Sold - 3.5 G


----------



## djoberg

^^^^


As always....GREAT WORK PHANTOM! Thanks for your labor of love!


----------



## rusky_g

Nice one Phantom


----------



## mweflen

Yes indeed, thanks for the dedication and hard work.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Star Wars: A New Hope*

Generally, a spectacular piece of work from Lucas and Fox. Facial detail is far better than it has a right to be, texture work is superb, and sharpness is perfect. Print is flawless. A few moments of questionable grain and a shot or two that look significantly filtered aside, this is impressive work.

*Tier 2.0**


----------



## rusky_g

Been wondering how well an old film like Star Wars would compare up against modern films, thanks for the review GRG


----------



## alexg75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/20959137
> 
> *Star Wars: A New Hope*
> 
> Generally, a spectacular piece of work from Lucas and Fox. Facial detail is far better than it has a right to be, texture work is superb, and sharpness is perfect. Print is flawless. A few moments of questionable grain and a shot or two that look significantly filtered aside, this is impressive work.
> 
> *Tier 2.0**



Good to know, thanks for the review...


----------



## deltasun

Great work as always, Phantom. I've been out of town for business the past week and am glad to see a flurry here. I'm anxiously and eagerly watching Episode IV of Star Wars - I'm already agreeing with GRG with the score so far, but still a bit to go. Faces are amazingly detailed in a number of scenes so far and the dimensionality can be really eye opening.


----------



## tfoltz

Only watched an hour of Episode IV, and right now I'm in the 2.5-2.75 ballpark. I'll watch the entire movie before deciding, of course.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Empire Strikes Back*


Close-ups are again pretty impressive, and the battle scenes are epic as always. Black crush can be dominate here and the mid-range shows clear signs of DNR and general manipulation. The blue color timing of Hoth really kicks on Blu, more than it ever did previously, Grain, when it's there, is nicely resolved.

*Tier 2.50**


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/20946190
> 
> *Thor*
> 
> 
> It's always a bit daunting writing the first review/tier recommendation for a new title, but I'll take a stab at it. For the most part, I was quite pleased with the transfer, though it was not without its flaws/anomalies.
> 
> 
> Let me start with the BLACKS...they were EXCELLENT!! They were easily the greatest redeeming feature. Deep and inky from start to finish, and always serving to enhance depth and dimensionality, as well as surrounding colors. Shadow details were just as impressive. You will NOT be disappointed in this department, I can assure you!
> 
> 
> COLORS were also a visual treat, whether one is viewing Asgard, the kingdom of the Frost Giants (I can't remember its name), or the deserts of New Mexico. Some will no doubt complain of the orange/teal hues strewn throughout, but I actually didn't mind it with everything else that was going on.
> 
> 
> DETAILS were lacking, IMHO, though it had its moments when the director chose to zoom into an actor or object. There were a couple of close-ups of Anthony Hopkins that bordered on Tier 0/Tier 1, but this was the exception and not the rule (most facial details were only average). Medium and long-distance shots just didn't do it for me, except on a couple of rare occasions.
> 
> 
> SHARPNESS and CLARITY were present in some scenes, but softness kept rearing its ugly head sporadically.
> 
> 
> This is a hard one for me to rate, though in comparing it to my recent viewing of _X-Men: First Class_, which I rated at 2.0, I would have to say it was a notch better. Having said that, I just can't bring myself to label this a demo disc, so I'm going with....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.0**
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'
> 
> 
> PS I simply MUST say something about the audio track...WOW!!!!!! This is, by far, the most dynamic track I've listened to in a very long time. I was wondering if my Velodyne Sub was going to survive the beating it took; it had the walls of my new Home Theater room shaking BIG TIME. And the action in the surrounds was AMAZING! For all you audio lovers out there, be prepared for AUDIO NIRVANA!



I agree with your overall recommendation, Denny, but I get there using a somewhat different path.


The scenes in New Mexico, and the scenes in Asgard that didn't involve massive amounts of CGI, I thought were much more than a notch better than X-Men First Class. Those scenes I thought were about Tier 1.75. However, the CGI scenes in Asgard and the frost world were all pretty unsatisfactory, most notably the panoramic exterior shots in Asgard. For me, those shots bring the overall recommendation down to 2.0.

*Thor: Tier 2.0*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/20962099
> 
> 
> I agree with your overall recommendation, Denny, but I get there using a somewhat different path.
> 
> *The scenes in New Mexico, and the scenes in Asgard that didn't involve massive amounts of CGI, I thought were much more than a notch better than X-Men First Class. Those scenes I thought were about Tier 1.75. However, the CGI scenes in Asgard and the frost world were all pretty unsatisfactory, most notably the panoramic exterior shots in Asgard*. For me, those shots bring the overall recommendation down to 2.0.
> 
> *Thor: Tier 2.0*



I agree with you patrick regarding the CGI scenes. When I stated that I thought the title was "a notch better than _X-Men: First Class_," I was speaking of the movie overall. The non-CGI scenes were definitely superior.


It's kind of scary, but we have been "on the same page" quite a bit lately.


----------



## lgans316

Thanks again for the update Phantom. Really admire your patience and enthusiasm.


Regarding Thor, I was under the impression that its going to look like Clash of the Titans (2010) due to CGI but glad that its getting good recommendations here.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Star Wars: Return of the Jedi*


The best of the original trilogy. Crisper and cleaner overall and no signs of manipulation anywhere. Certain shots have always been degraded, no different here, but the detail is striking. Endor is a showcase, and the colors are brighter than ever. Black crush is a concern, although the finale has always been pretty harsh in terms of darkness.

*Tier 2.0**


----------



## patrick99

Quote:

Originally Posted by *djoberg* 
I agree with you patrick regarding the CGI scenes. When I stated that I thought the title was "a notch better than _X-Men: First Class_," I was speaking of the movie overall. The non-CGI scenes were definitely superior.


It's kind of scary, but we have been "on the same page" quite a bit lately.















Well, Denny, I think we disagreed on Source Code. So it's not quite time to be too concerned, yet.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Star Wars: The Phantom Menace*


Oh dear. What a DNR fest, muddy and simply miserable. Water is oily, faces are smothered with wax, and distance shots turn into an incomprehensible mess. A handful of exteriors are acceptable. Grain is completely lost, and even some of those battle scenes get hit with flicker and aliasing.

*Tier 3.75**


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/20969401
> 
> *Star Wars: The Phantom Menace*
> 
> 
> Oh dear. What a DNR fest, muddy and simply miserable. Water is oily, faces are smothered with wax, and distance shots turn into an incomprehensible mess. A handful of exteriors are acceptable. Grain is completely lost, and even some of those battle scenes get hit with flicker and aliasing.
> 
> *Tier 3.75**



Shooting on those early digital cameras will be the downfall of the Empire.







I wonder if privately Lucas regrets filming the Prequels like he did, before the technology was really ready.


----------



## sound dropouts




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/20970110
> 
> 
> Shooting on those early digital cameras will be the downfall of the Empire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if privately Lucas regrets filming the Prequels like he did, before the technology was really ready.



TPM was 35mm


----------



## alexg75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *sound dropouts* /forum/post/20970477
> 
> 
> TPM was 35mm



Yes it was, however there is one scene that was shot with an early Sony HD camera as a test.

AOTC and ROTS were both shot with Sony CineAltas.


----------



## mweflen

*Star Wars (AKA Episode IV)*


-Good mid-level detail, but lacking fine details. Similar to "Superman: The Movie," inasmuch as focus effects and lens filters tend to reduce fine detail.

-Solid black levels. Good color depth and solidity, except for the same old hot-flashing Threepio on Tatooine.

-Little to no dimensionality.

-Several instances of processing artifacts (e.g. frozen grain, weird grain halos around persons), especially on Tatooine scenes. To be fair, these were visible only at shorter than normal viewing distances. Also, the darker the scene, the less evident these issues are.

-All in all, a pretty average transfer of a 70s-era period film. Uncritical viewers should like it, nitpickers will be ho-hum on it. Enjoyable, better than a DVD, but not mind-blowing at all. I've seen much, much better transfers of 35mm prints. It's pretty sad that Lucasfilm didn't give us a new 4k scan - especially after 6 years of waiting for this release.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*


Sony 52EX700, 8 foot viewing distance


----------



## mweflen

*SWE5: The Empire Strikes Back*


-Strong detail, both in close-ups and mid-level shots. More facial detail and pores than SWE4. Fewer focus effects and lens filters than SWE4, thus more detail as a whole.

-Solid black levels. Good color depth and solidity.

-A bit of dimensionality.

-Although there are fewer than SWE4, there are still a few instances of processing artifacts (e.g. frozen grain, weird grain halos around persons), especially on Hoth scenes. To be fair, these were visible only at shorter than normal viewing distances. Also, the darker the scene, the less evident these issues are.

-This transfer is better than SWE4 and offers a very nice upgrade over the DVD version. Although it's not competitive with a fresh transfer of a modern film (such as SWE3), it is a very good rendition of a film from 1980. Unlike SWE4, the disc for Empire is a definite step above the sort of HD you might find on cable or streaming.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


Sony 52EX700, 8 foot viewing distance


----------



## mweflen

*SWE3: Revenge of the Sith*


-Very strong fine and mid-level detail. Pores and tiny hairs visible in many, but not all scenes. Cloth textures are quite impressive. City scenes are positively swimming with a zillion little ships and lights.

-Very strong color and black levels, except for low light scenes in which the digital camera clearly wasn't up to the task of rendering a deep black.

-Dimensionality is an issue on non-existent green-screen sets. But when there is a real set, the image feels deep and realistic.

-No DNR or Artifacting issues. Only a very few tiny instances of alaising on high-contrast edges of animated ships (I noticed it on Bail Organa's speeder near the end, for instance).

-This is really the only film in the set that looks competitive with fresh transfers of new films. The few flaws that exist seem endemic to the way Lucas shot it (i.e. digital cameras, lots of CG animation), not any faults of the transfer.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*


Sony 52EX700, 8 foot viewing distance


----------



## mweflen

*SWE1: The Phantom Menace*


-As others have indicated, aggressive DNR has washed away all grain, and thus all fine detail, from the image. The whole thing looks unnaturally clean. Faces in particular have a soft look, but not as waxy as "Dark City," let's say. That said, mid-range detail is pretty strong when the shot allows. The parade at the end looked pretty good, for instance. If the whole movie looked like this, it would get a higher rating - it's just so inconsistent. This movie has a lot of early attempts to meld CGI with filmed material, and most such scenes tend towards a hazy softness. The awful CGI battle between droids and gungans, for intance, looks really bad, with very little fine detail at all.

-Very strong color and black levels.

-Dimensionality is an issue on non-existent green-screen sets. But when there is a real set, the image shows a bit of dimension.

-I would rate this pretty close to SWE4. They both have very different problems, but they add up to a similar conclusion - a pretty average, middling BD transfer. It's not going to win any awards, but it _is_ stronger than a DVD and looks at _least_ as good as good cable or streaming HD. I give it a slightly worse rating than SWE4 mainly because there are so many flat textures in animated scenes - not a fault of the transfer _per se_, but still a factor that diminishes the disc's "demo potential." I don't think it's as bad as some have made it out to be though - I wonder if opinions on the movie itself are leaking into evaluations of the transfer.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.25*


Sony 52EX700, 8 foot viewing distance


----------



## hyperactiveme

See this has temporarily turned into star wars thread. Gonna have to watch them someday.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Star Wars: Attack of the Clones*

Meh. Just overly bland. Detail struggles to find its groove, and colors feel washed out. So do the black levels actually. The saving grace are the mountain of CG shots as those look spectacular. Exteriors of planets, cities, etc. are top notch stuff. Even the CG Yoda has some punch not seen on any of the human characters.
*Tier 3.0**


----------



## tfoltz

*Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope - Tier 3

Star Wars Episode V: Empire Strikes Back - Tier 2.75*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

It is great to see all these reviews and placements pouring in for the Star Wars films. I would encourage as many comments and placements as possible on them now and in the future, from both lurkers and regular participants. As some of the most popular movies of all time, it would be nice to build a strong consensus on their rankings.


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/20976076
> 
> 
> It is great to see all these reviews and placements pouring in for the Star Wars films. I would encourage as many comments and placements as possible on them now and in the future, from both lurkers and regular participants. As some of the most popular movies of all time, it would be nice to build a strong consensus on their rankings.



I agree. It's just too bad that such a high profile release wasn't better. It's sub-par releases like these that fuel all the BS "upscaled DVD is just as good" talk.


Lucas is a jerk for re-using inferior 2004 transfers (which were probably actually scanned in 2003 and then futzed with for a year) and trying to patch them up to 2011 standards with computerized trickery. He had six years to just run his negatives through a machine, and couldn't be bothered. They're all improvements over the DVD, but the gap isn't wide enough. I'm on the fence over whether my money was well spent, and that's a sucky position to be in.


I'll be putting up my evaluations of the LOTR:EE discs soon. They're much better than the SW release, IMHO.


----------



## alexg75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/20976076
> 
> 
> It is great to see all these reviews and placements pouring in for the Star Wars films. I would encourage as many comments and placements as possible on them now and in the future, from both lurkers and regular participants. As some of the most popular movies of all time, it would be nice to build a strong consensus on their rankings.



What say you Mr.Stranger?

Have you seen the discs yet?


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *alexg75* /forum/post/20977962
> 
> 
> What say you Mr.Stranger?
> 
> Have you seen the discs yet?



I have not yet seen any of the Star Wars BDs, hopefully soon.


----------



## mweflen

*SWE2: Attack of the Clones*


-Moderate detail, about on a par with OTA HD network programming. Pores and tiny hairs are generally not visible, but occasionally pop up on close ups. Cloth textures and other mid-range details are nice. Basically, I think this transfer very accurately displays all the strengths and limitations of the early HD cameras it was shot with.

-Very strong color and black levels, except for low light scenes in which the digital camera clearly wasn't up to the task of rendering a deep black. Loads of low level noise in dark scenes.

-Dimensionality is an issue on non-existent green-screen sets. But when there is a real set, the image feels deep and realistic.

-I do not think DNR was used in any aggressive way here. Why? Because of all that mosquito noise in dark scenes. There is artifacting and posterization in some scenes, ESPECIALLY ones in Palpatine's red office. Yikes.

-Overall this is comparable to average televised HD Video. It doesn't look like film at all. It looks like HD video shot early in the last decade. I don't think the transfer can be faulted, only the source material. It certainly has much more detail than a DVD. But it doesn't have as much detail as a 35mm or 70mm film print. This is probably as good as it's going to get.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.5*


Sony 52EX700, 8 foot viewing distance


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen* /forum/post/20973520
> 
> *SWE3: Revenge of the Sith*
> 
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.5*



Everything that need to be said was in there. By far the looker of the set.

*Tier 1.5**


----------



## mweflen

*SWE6: Return of the Jedi*


-Virtually identical to Empire in strengths and weaknesses. Strong detail, both in close-ups and mid-level shots. Faces show a good but not overwhelming amount of detail in close-ups.

-Solid black levels. Good color depth and solidity.

-A bit of dimensionality.

-There is a persistent trend of DNR/EE that shows itself as halos around characters. The DNR is not terribly bad, it just seems to have reduced background grain and not done much to characters. It appears to me that Lucasfilm, in an attempt to make this master look better than its 2004 origins, amped up sharpness on characters in frame. Thus, you can see an odd frozen grain halo around characters, especially on a lighter background. Check out 3P0 in front of the door to Jabba's palace for a particularly noticeable example. It is not terribly noticeable from a normal viewing distance, but if you have good eyesight and are looking for it, it's there. From a close distance it's easy to see.

-This transfer offers a nice upgrade over the DVD version. It has problems that owe to its inferior negative scan and digital monkeying to try and compensate. It is still a definite step above the sort of HD you might find on cable or streaming, and is a pretty good BD of a 1983 flick. Better than, let's say, Star Trek III, which had much worse DNR/EE.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*


Sony 52EX700, 8 foot viewing distance



So, my final tally for the set:
*SWE1: 3.25

SWE2: 2.5

SWE3: 1.5

SWE4: 3.0

SWE5: 2.0

SWE6: 2.25*


Not an utter disaster, but nowhere near what I was hoping for. In an era in which we see the benefits of new 2k and 4k scans of old film prints, this can't help but be a bit of a disappointment.


----------



## deltasun

*Airplane!*


"What do you expect?!?" is what first came to mind once I started down this BD. Generally soft and lacking dimensionality. There are some isolated scenes of individuals that show some definition, but even these are in the Silver territory. Blacks are crushed and low-lit scenes are flat.


Grain fluctuates, but seem to disappear for periods of time. Skin tones are a bit on the brown side and contrast is not the strongest. It's really what we've come to expect an average 80's film to look.


Overall, it's a marked improvement from the DVD, but does not compete well with other more modern blu-rays.

*Tier Recommendation: 4.0**

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## djoberg

*The Warrior's Way*


I had not heard of this title prior to my visit to the video store, but my interest was peaked enough to give it a rent; I'm glad I did, for the PQ was stunning at times and the movie itself was quite unique.


DETAIL, DEPTH, and DIMENSIONALITY were the highlights of this extremely stylized "East meets West" action movie. There were most definitely some Tier 0 scenes with facial detail to die for (Geoffrey Rush's face especially was made for HD....remember his pores, lines, and texture in the POTC series!!) and amazing depth that had me checking to see if I had those funny 3D glasses on.










Colors were also a visual treat when primaries were featured against the background of desert browns and other earth tones. Granted, the director felt constrained to throw in the usual scenes of teal/orange throughout much of the running time, but these did NOT detract from the detail and depth mentioned earlier.


I only noticed a few instances of softness and a couple of shots where the contrast was spiked, resulting in some overblown whites. But these were the exception and not the rule.


Blacks were also impressive, with corresponding shadow details. I only saw one or two brief shots where they became murky and shadow detail broke down.


I'm surprised no one else has reviewed this title (at least the Search I did came up empty-handed), for this meets all the criteria of demo material (meaning all PQ lovers should at least consider shelling out a couple of bucks for a rental). My vote goes for....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/20992296
> 
> *The Warrior's Way*
> 
> 
> I'm surprised no one else has reviewed this title (at least the Search I did came up empty-handed), for this meets all the criteria of demo material (meaning all PQ lovers should at least consider shelling out a couple of bucks for a rental). My vote goes for....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.5**



Just for the sake of being thorough, "The Warrior's Way" has had two prior placements to yours, by Gamereviewgod and deltasun. It was placed in Tier 1.75 in the last update, as both of them gave it that score. Searching the thread works sporadically at best, it often skips over results for some reason. Searching the actual PQ Tiers list found here works better.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen* /forum/post/20973356
> 
> *Star Wars (AKA Episode IV)*
> 
> 
> -Good mid-level detail, but lacking fine details. Similar to "Superman: The Movie," inasmuch as focus effects and lens filters tend to reduce fine detail.
> 
> -Solid black levels. Good color depth and solidity, except for the same old hot-flashing Threepio on Tatooine.
> 
> -Little to no dimensionality.
> 
> -Several instances of processing artifacts (e.g. frozen grain, weird grain halos around persons), especially on Tatooine scenes. To be fair, these were visible only at shorter than normal viewing distances. Also, the darker the scene, the less evident these issues are.
> 
> -All in all, a pretty average transfer of a 70s-era period film. Uncritical viewers should like it, nitpickers will be ho-hum on it. Enjoyable, better than a DVD, but not mind-blowing at all. I've seen much, much better transfers of 35mm prints. It's pretty sad that Lucasfilm didn't give us a new 4k scan - especially after 6 years of waiting for this release.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.0*
> 
> 
> Sony 52EX700, 8 foot viewing distance



While I was watching it, I was thinking Tier 3.5, but maybe that was a little harsh. The close-ups were generally pretty good, but the shots of the droids in the sandy desert were so extremely poor that those alone left a very bad taste. I agree that it is most unfortunate there was not a new scan. Undoubtedly, when there is, this movie will look much better.

*Tier 3.25**


----------



## tfoltz

*Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi - Tier 3.25

*Blacks are inconsistent. Detail was decent toward the beginning and in space...but Endor was extremely awful.


I have:

IV at 3

V at 2.75

VI at 3.25


I wouldn't mind if each were lower.


----------



## lgans316

*Limitless*


Already been reviewed enough. Nothing much to add. Excellent and a very different movie.

*Recommendation: Tier 1.75*


----------------------------------------------------------

*Thor*


Pretty much agree with the folks who voted Tier 2.


I would vote Reference for the Steelbook case which looks gorgeous.

*Recommendation: Tier 2*


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen* /forum/post/20973510
> 
> *SWE5: The Empire Strikes Back*
> 
> 
> -Strong detail, both in close-ups and mid-level shots. More facial detail and pores than SWE4. Fewer focus effects and lens filters than SWE4, thus more detail as a whole.
> 
> -Solid black levels. Good color depth and solidity.
> 
> -A bit of dimensionality.
> 
> -Although there are fewer than SWE4, there are still a few instances of processing artifacts (e.g. frozen grain, weird grain halos around persons), especially on Hoth scenes. To be fair, these were visible only at shorter than normal viewing distances. Also, the darker the scene, the less evident these issues are.
> 
> -This transfer is better than SWE4 and offers a very nice upgrade over the DVD version. Although it's not competitive with a fresh transfer of a modern film (such as SWE3), it is a very good rendition of a film from 1980. Unlike SWE4, the disc for Empire is a definite step above the sort of HD you might find on cable or streaming.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.0*
> 
> 
> Sony 52EX700, 8 foot viewing distance



Didn't look appreciably better than Episode IV to me. The snow shots during the first part of the movie looked especially bad, comparable to, or even worse than, the sand dune scenes in IV.

*Tier 3.25**


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen* /forum/post/20973520
> 
> *SWE3: Revenge of the Sith*
> 
> 
> -Very strong fine and mid-level detail. Pores and tiny hairs visible in many, but not all scenes. Cloth textures are quite impressive. City scenes are positively swimming with a zillion little ships and lights.
> 
> -Very strong color and black levels, except for low light scenes in which the digital camera clearly wasn't up to the task of rendering a deep black.
> 
> -Dimensionality is an issue on non-existent green-screen sets. But when there is a real set, the image feels deep and realistic.
> 
> -No DNR or Artifacting issues. Only a very few tiny instances of alaising on high-contrast edges of animated ships (I noticed it on Bail Organa's speeder near the end, for instance).
> 
> -This is really the only film in the set that looks competitive with fresh transfers of new films. The few flaws that exist seem endemic to the way Lucas shot it (i.e. digital cameras, lots of CG animation), not any faults of the transfer.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.5*
> 
> 
> Sony 52EX700, 8 foot viewing distance



Clearly much better than IV and V, but not competitive with the best looking new releases.

*Tier 2.0**


----------



## djoberg

*Skyline*


I see that this title has already been placed in 4.0 and I am in full agreement with this sub par release. What a mess...filled with artifacts from beginning to end...soft as the day is long...and only a handful of shots with any detail and sharpness. And to top it all off, the movie was even worse than the PQ!









*Tier Recommendation: 4.0*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21004720
> 
> *Skyline*
> 
> 
> I see that this title has already been placed in 4.0 and I am in full agreement with this sub par release. What a mess...filled with artifacts from beginning to end...soft as the day is long...and only a handful of shots with any detail and sharpness. And to top it all off, the movie was even worse than the PQ!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 4.0*
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'



To make matters worse, this was the first movie I saw after our theaters went all digital. I was terrified at the possibility of all movies looking like this. Thankfully, Skyline just looked awful.

*Bridesmaids*


Some fantastic aerials here, the cities superb and flawless in their detail. Facial detail isn't that grand, wildly inconsistent, but never bland or flat. Black levels will lose their zip here and there, but are mostly powerful. Sharpness is pristine and the grain structure minimized.
*Tier 2.0**


----------



## tim_1335

Any of you guys seen The Tree of Life?


The transfer seems pretty sweet.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tim_1335* /forum/post/21006666
> 
> 
> Any of you guys seen The Tree of Life?
> 
> 
> The transfer seems pretty sweet.



I haven't seen the movie yet, but Terrence Malick always brings a unique visual perspective to his films. There is a good chance it ends up high in the Tiers. Definitely a movie to keep an eye on, if you know what I mean.


So who is going to be first here to review Ben-Hur, it comes out today.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/21007303
> 
> 
> 
> So who is going to be first here to review Ben-Hur, it comes out today.



I would love to Phantom, but I'm strapped for time. I watched this amazing classic MANY times growing up. I hope they gave it the transfer it deserves.


Edit: I just checked Cinema Squid's site and EVERY reviewer is giving it a 100 for the Video Score. This will definitely be in my Blu-ray library before the week closes!


----------



## mr. wally



*STAR WARS EPISODES 1-6*


watched them all on pio 111 elite, 50", 7 foot viewing distance


while all of them have some issues, i didn't find pq to be as bad as many others.

the pt is clearly superior to the ot.



*MY RECOMENDATIONS ARE;

EP 1: 2.75

EP 2: 1.75

EP 3: 1.0

EP 4: 2.5

EP 5: 2.0

EP 6: 2.25*


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/21007303
> 
> 
> So who is going to be first here to review Ben-Hur, it comes out today.



I'm waiting for the bare-bones. As much as I want it, and as stoked as I am about the reported PQ, I just can't justify the cost for one movie.


I'm waiting for Citizen Kane, as well. And I got the bare-bones editions of Gone With the Wind, Wizard of Oz, and Ten Commandments.


I love the movies. I just can't pay $50-plus for that much fluff.


----------



## tfoltz

Walmart the barebones version for $20. I'm going to try and grab one tomorrow.


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/21009458
> 
> 
> Walmart the barebones version for $20. I'm going to try and grab one tomorrow.



I'm not seeing anything other than the CE on walmart.com. Are you sure it's a BD? I don't think there is a bare-bones yet.


----------



## tfoltz

It's not on walmart.com. Link


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/21009508
> 
> 
> It's not on walmart.com. Link



Found it on Amazon.co.uk . It's region free, contains the extras disc and ships for $26.49 total. That's bare bones pricing with the extras! Just placed my order. So I'll be reviewing it in 6-10 days


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen* /forum/post/21009572
> 
> Found it on Amazon.co.uk . It's region free, contains the extras disc and ships for $26.49 total. That's bare bones pricing with the extras! Just placed my order. So I'll be reviewing it in 6-10 days



Yeah, UK and Germany are always good places to look for cheaper alternatives to these silly Warner special collector's edition boxes that get foisted on us here in the States. The Ben-Hur UK release was a bit under £12 on preorder a few months ago, so will likely drop again from its relatively high current price of £16 in the near future.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen* /forum/post/21009572
> 
> Found it on Amazon.co.uk . It's region free, contains the extras disc and ships for $26.49 total. That's bare bones pricing with the extras! Just placed my order. So I'll be reviewing it in 6-10 days



Mine shipped from Amazon UK on Monday. Looking forward to it.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Ledge*


Digital indie film, and pretty superb. Very natural, crisp, and clear. Black levels are firm, solid, and steady. Detail is flawless up close, losing its bite in the mid-range. Color is naturally presented without much tinkering.

*Tier 1.75**


----------



## deltasun

I'm still undecided on which route to go with my purchase. I may go the UK route as well, but those damn logos...


----------



## djoberg

I just picked up the "bare bones" copy at Wally World for under $20 (plus tax) and I'll be satisfied with that. Hope to watch it this weekend.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*United 93*


Did this movie ever have black levels? There's nothing but off-color and gray here, and the VC-1 encode isn't up to snuff either; some of this was shot 16mm. Color is okay, flesh tones are spot on for example, but this is certainly a movie that isn't meant to pop in anyway.

*Tier 3.75**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Transformers: Dark of the Moon*


Orange and teal a plenty here, diminishing ever so slightly what should be a candidate for one of the best discs out there. Detail is unreal, cityscapes easily some of the best ever seen and the effects are so sharp it's absurd. Facial detail is superior to just about anything up close, some clear smoothing in the mid-range just knocking it a notch. Black levels are brilliant while the contrast runs a little hot. Eye candy all the way regardless.

*Tier .75**


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/21021986
> 
> *Transformers: Dark of the Moon*
> 
> 
> Orange and teal a plenty here, diminishing ever so slightly what should be a candidate for one of the best discs out there. Detail is unreal, cityscapes easily some of the best ever seen and the effects are so sharp it's absurd. Facial detail is superior to just about anything up close, some clear smoothing in the mid-range just knocking it a notch. Black levels are brilliant while the contrast runs a little hot. Eye candy all the way regardless.
> 
> *Tier .75**



Sounds good! I'm slipping my copy into my Pioneer Blu-ray player in about 5 minutes.


----------



## djoberg

*Transformers: Dark of the Moon*


I will say from the outset that this beat out the first two installments (I gave the first one a 1.5 and the second a 1.0), though it was only marginally better than #2.


I could have just posted GRG's review, for I agreed with every point he made. I would only add that softness did creep into a few scenes and flesh tones were really affected by the orange/teal hues. But these are somewhat minor quibbles when one considers the EXCELLENT BLACK LEVELS and SHADOW DETAILS, the EYE-PLEASING COLORS, the INCREDIBLE DETAILS and SHARPNESS, and the AMAZING FACIAL CLOSE-UPS. They truly hit a home run in the PQ department! It's just a crying shame the movie itself was a disaster (which means I WON'T be purchasing this and wasting another 2 1/2 hours of my life by watching it again).


I do believe GRG's Tier 0 placement is justified, though I would go to the bottom of the tier instead of at the .75 mark....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (between Gamer and The Island)**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Eite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


PS As with its predecessors, this one also ROCKED in the Audio department!


----------



## oleus

wish they'd go ahead and release Transformers 3 in 3d...


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21023100
> 
> *Transformers: Dark of the Moon*
> 
> 
> I will say from the outset that this beat out the first two installments (I gave the first one a 1.5 and the second a 1.0), though it was only marginally better than #2.
> 
> 
> I could have just posted GRG's review, for I agreed with every point he made. I would only add that *softness did creep into a few scenes* and flesh tones were really affected by the orange/teal hues. But these are somewhat minor quibbles when one considers the EXCELLENT BLACK LEVELS and SHADOW DETAILS, the EYE-PLEASING COLORS, *the INCREDIBLE DETAILS and SHARPNESS, and the AMAZING FACIAL CLOSE-UPS.* They truly hit a home run in the PQ department! It's just a crying shame the movie itself was a disaster (which means I WON'T be purchasing this and wasting another 2 1/2 hours of my life by watching it again).
> 
> 
> I do believe GRG's Tier 0 placement is justified, though I would go to the bottom of the tier instead of at the .75 mark....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (between Gamer and The Island)**
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Eite 05....Viewed from 7.5'
> 
> 
> PS As with its predecessors, this one also ROCKED in the Audio department!



Well, Denny, it appears that our period of being generally in agreement has come to an end.


I did not see "incredible details and sharpness" or "amazing facial close-ups."


In contrast, for example, The Lincoln Lawyer definitely did have "amazing facial close-ups." This movie generally did not.


I would not say that most of the movie looked soft; it just didn't look sharp.


This was especially disappointing because after the first one's generally excellent PQ, I was expecting much better than this.


You guys are just sitting too far away.

*Tier 2.0**


----------



## djoberg

Patrick,


I will stand by my rating. The details and sharpness WERE amazing to my eyes, especially the robots, cars, and all the aerials of Chicago (which made up the majority of the movie). You didn't comment on the black levels, but they too were superb. My only gripe were the flesh tones and a few soft shots.


The facial details weren't as good as some Tier 0 titles, but there was enough texture to call them "demo."


I think you need to back up a couple of feet!










Denny


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/21024580
> 
> 
> You guys are just sitting too far away.
> 
> *Tier 2.0**













Definitely not the case of being too far away.


The Transformers themselves were resolved, clear, and sharp enough to push it higher, and those aerials of the cities are enough to stun even if the facial detail didn't impress... somehow.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/21024952
> 
> 
> Definitely not the case of being too far away.



Ditto!


I am sitting approximately 7' from a 60" screen, which is the distance recommended by THX for optimal HD viewing.


----------



## tim_1335

Perhaps Patrick99 is suggesting that 7' viewing distance is too far away from a 60" Kuro because Transformers 3 is a 2.39:1 aspect ratio film.


Which makes the screen approximately or a little less than 56.83 inches when viewing TF3. The viewing angle is 32.9 deg. from 7 feet.


THX recommends a 36 deg. viewing angle which amounts to 6.4 feet from a 56.83" diagonal image.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21025195
> 
> 
> Ditto!
> 
> 
> I am sitting approximately 7' from a 60" screen, which is the distance recommended by THX for optimal HD viewing.



Have you tried sitting closer, Denny?


I experimented with different viewing distances when I first started watching HD movies, and I found that a viewing distance of about one screen width was the most satisfying for me.


When I had a 40" inch display, that meant a viewing distance of about three feet. Now that I have a 52" display, my viewing distance is about four feet.


I thought the whole point of this thread was to get away from "authorities" like "professional" reviewers and "recommended" viewing distances.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I do think the THX recommended viewing distance is a little conservative for absorbing every possible detail on a display or screen. In my experience, a foot of viewing distance for every 10" of screen provides the best way to review Blu-rays. It gets more and more difficult to see and differentiate the resolution in the picture beyond that distance.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/21026026
> 
> 
> I thought the whole point of this thread was to get away from "authorities" like "professional" reviewers and "recommended" viewing distances.



No.....actually, the whole point of this thread is to critique the PQ of Blu-ray titles!

















I do, occasionally, sit at 6' (as Phantom does) when the aspect ratio is like the upcoming viewing of Ben-Hur (2.76:1), but for the majority of titles that range between 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 I find it's easier to take in the whole picture (without moving my head or eyes from side to side) at around 7'. I can't imagine sitting at 5', which is what you'd be doing if you were watching my KURO.


But, to each their own........


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/21026026
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the whole point of this thread was to get away from "authorities" like "professional" reviewers and "recommended" viewing distances.



Where did you get that idea? That isn't the point of the thread at all.


The point of the thread is to attempt to categorize the various Blu-ray releases in terms of overall picture quality using guidelines that have been discussed extensively here and are defined in the first post. The main difference is that when rating PQ in this thread, we do NOT take "directors intent" into consideration.


Also, many reviewers will give a perfect rating if the "transfer" is perfect. So something shot on SD Video could theoretically receive a perfect score for the transfer if it was true to the original. We don't do that here. All we care about (in this thread) is how the picture looks.


But this thread's intent sure doesn't have any thing to do with "getting away from recommended viewing distances" and the like.


P.S. It's been a few years since I first told you that I think that your viewing distance is too close. But, as Denny said, "to each their own".


----------



## patrick99

It's refreshing to see some conflict and controversy return to this thread. It's been far too tame lately.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Submarine*


Off and on (visually of course) indie flick. Digital with stern blacks, facial detail becomes a routine for this disc, at least in close. Mid-range is a bit lost in the scheme of things. Colors are bland, almost monochromatic for effect at times. Some blooming usage and focal softness (including some 8mm/tape footage) kill a bit of its vigor too.

*Tier 2.5**


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/21028341
> 
> 
> It's refreshing to see some conflict and controversy return to this thread. It's been far too tame lately.



my ears are ringing....


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/21028341
> 
> 
> It's refreshing to see some conflict and controversy return to this thread. It's been far too tame lately.



Soooo....you thought we needed some "refreshing conflict and controversy" and thus you took it upon yourself to get the ball rolling. Interesting!


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21026703
> 
> 
> No.....actually, the whole point of this thread is to critique the PQ of Blu-ray titles!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do, occasionally, sit at 6' (as Phantom does) when the aspect ratio is like the upcoming viewing of Ben-Hur (2.76:1), but for the majority of titles that range between 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 I find it's easier to take in the whole picture (without moving my head or eyes from side to side) at around 7'. I can't imagine sitting at 5', which is what you'd be doing if you were watching my KURO.



I think eyesight needs to be taken into account as well. A 6 feet viewing distance to some might be the same as 10 feet to another at the same screen size.


I've got 20/20 vision, and can see stuff like grain from a good ten feet. That said, I often get up close and personal (like 6 feet) when watching something I really want to evaluate seriously - or, in the case of The Ten Commandments, something so beautiful that I just want to soak it in better. I'll definitely be doing so for Ben-Hur when it arrives.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen* /forum/post/21031333
> 
> 
> I think eyesight needs to be taken into account as well. A 6 feet viewing distance to some might be the same as 10 feet to another at the same screen size.



That simply isn't true.


A given viewing distance from the same size screen results in the same viewing angle regardless of your eyesight.


If you are saying that some people need to sit much closer to be able to see details that normal people can't see at a normal viewing distance, they probably 1) don't care too much about PQ anyway and 2) shouldn't be evaluating Blu-ray discs in this thread.


And I'm confident that neither of those apply to Patrick!


----------



## mweflen

*Tron (1982)*


Really very impressive transfer for a film of this vintage. The "real world" scenes present probably the best early-80s material I've seen - equal at least to Star Trek II. Better than Back to the Future Pt 1, and Return of the Jedi. I would not be shocked if Disney scanned the negative at 2k for this transfer, the detail is that strong.


No DNR is evident, nor is any EE. Colors are vibrant but not hot, blacks are deep with plenty of near-black detail. Detail is very strong, with facial pores, individual hairs, and some very nice cloth textures in evidence. Particularly impressive is Bruce Boxleitner's corduroy jacket - every line is crisply detailed, but there is absolutely no aliasing or moire. A light sheen of stable film grain is evident as well. It really doesn't seem to me like any noise reduction was done here - not anything obtrusive, anyway.


Of course, the computer world scenes are a bit of a different story. Matte lines from optical compositing are painfully obvious, but this is of course a flaw in the original material, not of the transfer. Color levels of b&w faces and clothes tend to flicker. There is still nice grain and the colors of the computer graphical elements are nice and strong. Detail is still good in faces, but not as good as real-world scenes.


Basically, I think it's as good as a 1080p rendering of the original film can be. So where to place it? If the whole movie were set in the real world, It would be somewhere in tier 1, easily. It really is strong HD, especially for its age. But given the inherent limits of the composited scenes in the computer world, I think this averages out to...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.5*


Sony 52EX700, 8 foot viewing distance


btw, I won't review Tron:Legacy, because I think 1.0 is right on the money.


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/21031375
> 
> 
> That simply isn't true.
> 
> 
> A given viewing distance from the same size screen results in the same viewing angle regardless of your eyesight.
> 
> 
> If you are saying that some people need to sit much closer to be able to see details that normal people can't see at a normal viewing distance, they probably 1) don't care too much about PQ anyway and 2) shouldn't be evaluating Blu-ray discs in this thread.
> 
> 
> And I'm confident that neither of those apply to Patrick!



Oh, I'm not accusing anyone of having bad eyesight. I don't know any of you, and would never presume. I'm just saying that, if you did have bad eyesight, your optimum viewing distance for evaluation of the presence of fine detail would be correspondingly shorter (Or longer, I suppose, if you were severely farsighted, though this is rarer than myopia).


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/21026272
> 
> 
> I do think the THX recommended viewing distance is a little conservative for absorbing every possible detail on a display or screen. In my experience, a foot of viewing distance for every 10" of screen provides the best way to review Blu-rays. It gets more and more difficult to see and differentiate the resolution in the picture beyond that distance.



I also agree that the common recommended viewing distances are too conservative, especially if you are watching from the angle of critical evaluation. One screen width distance seems perfectly valid to me and I find that to be close to an optimal immersion point for my own casual viewing on a 92" screen. However, I don't see anything wrong with getting a little bit closer even and I think the ideal source material should be good enough to withstand that.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/21031469
> 
> 
> I also agree that the common recommended viewing distances are too conservative, especially if you are watching from the angle of critical evaluation. One screen width distance seems perfectly valid to me and I find that to be close to an optimal immersion point for my own casual viewing on a 92" screen. However, I don't see anything wrong with getting a little bit closer even and I think the ideal source material should be good enough to withstand that.



In my experience there are precious few titles that can stand up to that kind of scrutiny.


I would also submit that if everyone in this thread viewed these titles at 1 screen width from a 9 foot wide screen, a *lot* of titles would be rated a lot lower than they are currently rated.


----------



## deltasun

I do prefer a generally closer viewing distance. I, of course, only have a 46" screen and so, while I generally sit 6' away, I'm usually much closer. Another thing to consider is the actual viewing height. I find that to be right at the same level as the screen is optimum (obviously) and being too high or too low makes a huge huge difference. I've experienced this in both LCDs and plasmas.


Anyway, I am so far behind in my viewing - Transformers 3 is begging to be watched. Hope to have some time in the next few days...


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/21031534
> 
> 
> In my experience there are precious few titles that can stand up to that kind of scrutiny.
> 
> 
> I would also submit that if everyone in this thread viewed these titles at 1 screen width from a 9 foot wide screen, a *lot* of titles would be rated a lot lower than they are currently rated.



Well, Rob, I think what you have acknowledged pretty much makes my point.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid* /forum/post/21031469
> 
> 
> I also agree that the common recommended viewing distances are too conservative, especially if you are watching from the angle of critical evaluation. One screen width distance seems perfectly valid to me and I find that to be close to an optimal immersion point for my own casual viewing on a 92" screen. However, I don't see anything wrong with getting a little bit closer even and I think the ideal source material should be good enough to withstand that.



I do believe you and patrick (and anyone else that sits back one screen width while viewing Blu-rays) are in a small minority, yet I respect your decision to do so and also the opinion you give (in a review) using that viewing distance. One of the criteria when posting reviews is to give your viewing distance and there is no rule against sitting that close.


Having said this, I also believe that the vast majority of viewers sit back at a distance closer to the THX recommended distance (I base this on those who give their viewing distance in their review). This doesn't make it *right*, but it does give us an idea of the *average* viewing distance of members who participate. If this is true of participants, it's probably reasonable to assume that others who simply come to the thread to see the reviews are also sitting at this *average* distance. If so, then I believe this thread will best serve the majority when the viewing distance is closer to the *average*.


Am I saying that you and patrick should sit back farther to help meet the needs of other? No! You should be able to enjoy the viewing at the distance you prefer. But I do believe you, patrick, and any others who sit one screen width away should at least GIVE YOUR VIEWING DISTANCE IN YOUR REVIEW. (Patrick's reviews do NOT give his viewing distance even though that is part of the criteria stated in the ratings thread.) In fact, I would implore others who participate in this thread on a regular basis to give their viewing distance so people who rely on our reviews have all the relevant facts at their disposal when they read a review. I believe this will help them to determine what their viewing experience *might* be.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/21031935
> 
> 
> Well, Rob, I think what you have acknowledged pretty much makes my point.



I must have missed it. What is your point, exactly?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/21032410
> 
> 
> I must have missed it. What is your point, exactly?



That sitting too far away leads to overlooking defects and giving overly generous rankings.


----------



## tfoltz

People who sit closer may score lower than those who sit further. Those will poor eyesight may score differently than those with great eyesight. Those who use overscan on their TVs may score differently than those who watch with 1:1 pixel mapping. Those with high quality panels/projectors may score differently than those with entry levels sets.


In the end it averages out and makes the rankings beneficial for all. We just need more people to provide input.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/21032559
> 
> 
> That sitting too far away leads to overlooking defects and giving overly generous rankings.



But it would only be "overly generous" to someone like you! The vast majority of viewers (as mentioned above in my last post) would share a similar viewing experience because they aren't sitting so close; to them they would more than likely walk away from that viewing with similar thoughts about the PQ.


Now you may still maintain, "But they are missing the defects gleaned from sitting in closer." My reply to that would be quite simple, "So what! Who *wants* to see defects anyway?"










If your argument was more positive...such as, "But they are missing out on seeing more texture in people's faces, or rich details in landscapes, or more appreciable depth, etc., etc.," then you would have an argument that carries more weight and would appeal to more viewers.


----------



## deltasun

*Win Win*


On the surface, this is an aesthetically pleasing presentation - lots of texture, good details, solid blacks. However, it lacks the oomph to bring it to the demo tiers. It's also somewhat flat for the most part.


Contrast is well-balanced. Skin tones, like the rest of the film, are on the warm side. Speaking of film, grain is well-resolved and helps create that fine filmic look. Colors are not bright, but enough to complement the somewhat subdued nature of the storyline.


Some of the darker scenes are even flatter and less defined. Just barely out of the Gold Tier...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25**


Scary how close this is to Transformers 3, according to Patrick.









_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/21032559
> 
> 
> That sitting too far away leads to overlooking defects and giving overly generous rankings.



Who is sitting "too far away"?


What constitutes "too far away"?


People who sit at one screen width or less from the screen are getting so close that you can start seeing the actual pixels (yes, even at 1080p resolution). I don't know about you, but I don't want to see the actual pixels. It is distracting and it isn't part of the actual picture. It could be considered an artifact inherent in the display and can have an (unfair) negative impact on a PQ rating.


----------



## vpn75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/21033422
> 
> 
> Who is sitting "too far away"?
> 
> 
> What constitutes "too far away"?
> 
> 
> People who sit at one screen width or less from the screen are getting so close that you can start seeing the actual pixels (yes, even at 1080p resolution). I don't know about you, but I don't want to see the actual pixels. It is distracting and it isn't part of the actual picture. It could be considered an artifact inherent in the display and can have an (unfair) negative impact on a PQ rating.



I also find it hard to sit at the recommended distance for my TV due to room layout and preference. It is one thing for blu-ray movies, but sitting too close to the TV makes overly compressed HDTV programming difficult to watch.


I currently sit about 10' back from 54" plasma. With the layout of my basement HT, I find it difficult to sit any closer.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/21033422
> 
> 
> Who is sitting "too far away"?
> 
> 
> What constitutes "too far away"?
> 
> 
> People who sit at one screen width or less from the screen are getting so close that you can start seeing the actual pixels (yes, even at 1080p resolution). I don't know about you, but I don't want to see the actual pixels. It is distracting and it isn't part of the actual picture. It could be considered an artifact inherent in the display and can have an (unfair) negative impact on a PQ rating.



Agree with Rob and Denny.


I think there's a point of diminishing returns when sitting too close. Again, the key here is consistency and relativity. It's the same with the reviewers' TV quality. As long as they're consistently watching from the same viewing distance (albeit, eliminating extremes like 100' away







), their reviews are valid. That and using the current list of tiered titles to come up with a relative placement for new reviews.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/21033422
> 
> 
> Who is sitting "too far away"?
> 
> 
> What constitutes "too far away"?
> 
> 
> People who sit at one screen width or less from the screen are getting so close that you can start seeing the actual pixels (yes, even at 1080p resolution). I don't know about you, but I don't want to see the actual pixels. It is distracting and it isn't part of the actual picture. It could be considered an artifact inherent in the display and can have an (unfair) negative impact on a PQ rating.



Rob, I think your earlier words really speak for themselves:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/21031534
> 
> 
> In my experience there are precious few titles that can stand up to that kind of scrutiny.
> 
> 
> I would also submit that if everyone in this thread viewed these titles at 1 screen width from a 9 foot wide screen, a *lot* of titles would be rated a lot lower than they are currently rated.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21033045
> 
> 
> But it would only be "overly generous" to someone like you! The vast majority of viewers (as mentioned above in my last post) would share a similar viewing experience because they aren't sitting so close; to them they would more than likely walk away from that viewing with similar thoughts about the PQ.
> 
> 
> Now you may still maintain, "But they are missing the defects gleaned from sitting in closer." My reply to that would be quite simple, "So what! Who *wants* to see defects anyway?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If your argument was more positive...such as, "But they are missing out on seeing more texture in people's faces, or rich details in landscapes, or more appreciable depth, etc., etc.," then you would have an argument that carries more weight and would appeal to more viewers.*



You put it very well there, Denny.


Do you think I sit as close as I do because I enjoy seeing defects?


I sit as close as I do to get the full benefit of HD, when it is there to be had. Which, unfortunately, is not very often.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/21033040
> 
> 
> People who sit closer may score lower than those who sit further. Those will poor eyesight may score differently than those with great eyesight. Those who use overscan on their TVs may score differently than those who watch with 1:1 pixel mapping. Those with high quality panels/projectors may score differently than those with entry levels sets.
> 
> 
> In the end it averages out and makes the rankings beneficial for all. We just need more people to provide input.



Hard to disagree with any of this, actually.


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/21033785
> 
> 
> Rob, I think your earlier words really speak for themselves:



LOL!


Patrick, based on the way that you are trying to interpret MY words, it is obvious that they, in fact, do NOT speak for themselves.


Seriously, you would not allow the author of the words that you are relying on to explain further what was meant? Do you know what I meant and what my point was better than I do?


Do you understand/agree that sitting 1 screen width or closer means that you can start seeing artifacts that are inherent in the display itself?


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

*waves hello*


Hihi~ miss you guys! need to catch up, haven't been here in forever.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/21033890
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> 
> Patrick, based on the way that you are trying to interpret MY words, it is obvious that they, in fact, do NOT speak for themselves.
> 
> 
> Seriously, you would not allow the author of the words that you are relying on to explain further what was meant? Do you know what I meant and what my point was better than I do?
> 
> 
> Do you understand/agree that sitting 1 screen width or closer means that you can start seeing artifacts that are inherent in the display itself?



What I am saying is that I think your earlier words reflected a genuine attitude on your part that you now regret expressing and are trying to backtrack from.


I do not agree that sitting one screen width, which is where I sit, not closer, shows artifacts inherent in the display itself.


----------



## Sujay

*Transformers: Dark of the Moon*


I gotta say, I really love the look of Bay's movies. The contrast is just right to me, and the colors are always pretty striking. Detail is perfect, having been shot on digital seems to have benefited this film compared to most others. No digital artifacts or unnatural "feel" to this one. Best parts are when the robots are on screen. The amount of detail on the metal bodies is really amazing. Detail can falter in some other scenes, but rarely, and the overall quality is just very sharp that I can't complain. Compression job was great too. Lots of movement and action and it all holds together.


I wrote a full review on my site where I go into a bit more detail. I'd recommend this in Tier Zero definitely, but I'm not sure where to recommend it within that. I think it looks better than Avatar (too digital, too smooth for me), but probably not better than Toy Story 3.

*Tier Recommendation: Zero**


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/21034189
> 
> 
> What I am saying is that I think your earlier words reflected a genuine attitude on your part that you now regret expressing and are trying to backtrack from.
> 
> 
> I do not agree that sitting one screen width, which is where I sit, not closer, shows artifacts inherent in the display itself.




Well, you can think whatever you want, but it does not make it so.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/21033809
> 
> 
> You put it very well there, Denny.
> 
> 
> Do you think I sit as close as I do because I enjoy seeing defects?
> 
> 
> I sit as close as I do to get the full benefit of HD, when it is there to be had. Which, unfortunately, is not very often.



I wouldn't think you (or anyone else) would enjoy seeing defects, but your earlier posts spoke only of the defects one is missing if they don't sit close enough, so my responses were based on that.


As far as sitting one screen width away in order "to get the full benefit of HD," I have viewed Blu-rays (for a brief period) at 5' to see if I could see more detail, but I really didn't notice any.


----------



## mweflen

Believe it or not, I find this whole viewing distance debate very interesting for reasons other than pure Blu-Ray quality assessment. I am finishing up a PHD in philosophy, and one topic I'm writing and thinking about is the "resolution" of descriptions (mostly descriptions of systems like a cosmos or an ethical system), and what level of resolution makes a description or a theory valuable. A cosmological theory that can only describe things between 1 inch and 1,000 inches in diameter, for instance, would not be very useful or accurate, given what we know about our universe.


So for movies, some questions: What viewing distance do film directors and DP's create their films for? The middle of the theater? The front? The back? Do they take the home audience into account at all? I know that some, like James Cameron, do frame shots differently for these reasons. Should a direct-to-video movie be viewed with a different eye for quality than a 70mm Cinerama feature? Should things like being shot on film vs. being shot on video matter?


Since the goal of a movie is generally a selective re-creation of reality (or fantasy), it seems to me like the optimum viewing distance should either:


1. correspond to the level of detail one sees in reality

2. correspond to the director or cinematographer's intention to distort or exaggerate reality/fantasy.


I doubt very much that there are directors out there who intend their viewers to see pixels. If they did, it seems like they would introduce them into the image as an optical effect. So it seems like viewing at a distance close enough to discern the display's pixel structure would not be optimum.


So what distance should one be at to make viewing correspond to reality, albeit a selectively focused and framed version of reality? Maybe discs should include an eye chart that you can calibrate your viewing distance with.


On the other hand, what we are doing, evaluating vagaries of transfer quality, probably DOES require sitting a bit closer, at least at times, than the director or DP might intend viewing of their film. How else is one to see edge enhancement, or aggressive DNR, to pick out whether the noise in an image is grain or something inappropriate like mosquito noise?


Personally, when I'm just watching a movie *as* movie for enjoyment, my viewing distance tends to be around 8 feet for a 52 inch screen. But then, I have really good eyesight and can see small details even at that distance.


But when I am writing a review of a Blu-Ray, I often get up closer for various stretches of time, between 4 and 6 feet, to look for transfer flaws that would otherwise be less noticeable (but not completely unnoticeable) from the further distance.


Anyway, I don't see what all the fussin' and the feudin' is all about. Let's get back to the lovin'.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/21034115
> 
> 
> *waves hello*
> 
> 
> Hihi~ miss you guys! need to catch up, haven't been here in forever.



Miss you too G3!


But wouldn't you know it; now that you're ready to rejoin us a new controversy is in progress. Oh well, you've always been a good moderator at times like these!


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21035042
> 
> 
> Miss you too G3!
> 
> 
> But wouldn't you know it; now that you're ready to rejoin us a new controversy is in progress. Oh well, you've always been a good moderator at times like these!



New controversy? Hardly. Patrick has been viewing Blu-rays from an inappropriate distance for a very long time!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/21035071
> 
> 
> New controversy? Hardly. Patrick has been viewing Blu-rays from an inappropriate distance for a very long time!



Exactly...what was I thinking?!


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen* /forum/post/21035033
> 
> 
> Believe it or not, I find this whole viewing distance debate very interesting for reasons other than pure Blu-Ray quality assessment. I am finishing up a PHD in philosophy, and one topic I'm writing and thinking about is the "resolution" of descriptions (mostly descriptions of systems like a cosmos or an ethical system), and what level of resolution makes a description or a theory valuable. A cosmological theory that can only describe things between 1 inch and 1,000 inches in diameter, for instance, would not be very useful or accurate, given what we know about our universe.



Interesting stuff. I'm not familiar with the philosophic writings on the subject, but I think all honest descriptions are inherently valuable.


In the context of this thread and in the Blu-ray reviewing continuum as whole, I don't believe there even is a concept of a wrong evaluation, inappropriate viewing distance or even inferior screen size / equipment. Every opinion has merit and is intrinsically correct by its own nature as one individual observation of the universe given a frame of reference dictated by aesthetics, knowledge and tools. Ideally you could filter out existing observations by these three points that are most closely aligned to your own situation to predict your own reaction, but it's still useful to see the whole spectrum (and the outliers are usually the most interesting).


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/21032559
> 
> 
> That sitting too far away leads to overlooking defects and giving overly generous rankings.



Are you seeing more defects that close from BD's or are you seeing the exacerbated limitations of your or any display when watching that closely? IMO you aren't just seeing the flaws of any particular BD, but also the flaws your display will readily show you when sitting that close. ALL displays can and will show defects dependent on....LCD's, banding, black levels...I can't speak for other displays, but all have some inherent limitation/defect over and above what problems occur on any particular BD.



And I see Rob responded to your claim that sitting close does not reveal artifacts/flaws inherent in your display. As Rob said, believing that doesn't make it so, and in fact scientific evaluation based on the current displays we have clearly states otherwise. Sitting close, even recommended viewing distance, will indeed reveal flaws inherent in one's display. When I have seen banding on some BD's, it turns out that it is my display's limitations revealing what isn't as readily apparent or maybe even apparent at all on other displays.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

The one thing that sticks out to me immediately at very close viewing distances are the video compression artifacts on Blu-ray. Due to the nature of lossy video compression, some of the more mild artifacts are easier to spot when the picture is closely scrutinized. Those same artifacts tend to disappear into the image if you sit farther back than 1.5 screen widths.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin* /forum/post/21035071
> 
> 
> New controversy? Hardly. Patrick has been viewing Blu-rays from an *inappropriate* distance for a very long time!



And perhaps also illegal and immoral?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/21036500
> 
> 
> And perhaps also illegal and immoral?



If I can speak for Rob, I'm sure he'd say you're being much too hard on yourself. It's not illegal or immoral, just IRRESPONSIBLE!


----------



## stwrt22




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/21036500
> 
> 
> And perhaps also illegal and immoral?



...it's neither but it is trying to ruin the whole grading system by introducing an anarchical marking which would attempt to downgrade even the PQ of state-of-the-art theatrical showings.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *stwrt22* /forum/post/21037176
> 
> 
> ...it's neither but it is trying to ruin the whole grading system by introducing an anarchical marking which would attempt to downgrade even the PQ of state-of-the-art theatrical showings.



Repent, the end is nigh!


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Scream 4*


Strong start, but eventually this one loses its luster to deadened blacks and middling detail. It has flashes, but nothing extraordinary. Colors are warmly saturated and the contrast is overbearing (lots of blooming). Grain is resolved cleanly.

*Tier 2.25**


----------



## djoberg

*The Roommate*


Another lackluster thriller...both in terms of movie quality and PQ! This was inconsistent from the get-go with *some* decent detail and depth at times, but the majority of shots were only average at best with *some* very atrocious scenes.


Black levels were the real culprit here, with murkiness and zero shadow details in most every night scene. I would rate them, overall, Tier 4 quality. Softness comes in second in the negative department, which reared its ugly head over half of the running time.


Flesh tones were the highlight...and there were some daytime scenes that popped (with the "decent detail and depth" alluded to above).


I see this title has a "proposed move" at 2.5, but IMO it fits right here....

*Tier Recommendation: 3.25**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## djoberg

*Drive Angry*


It was "Double Feature" night and thankfully the second title fared much better than the first (in PQ, that is). I see it's already received a 1.25 placement and even though I'd probably go a notch lower I could surely live with this.


Detail was insane throughout most of the 100 minute running time, especially in facial close-ups. They were Tier 0 all the way. (Though midrange shots of faces didn't do as well.) This, along with incredible sharpness and depth and some very satisfying black levels, would have easily landed the title in Tier 0, were it not for bouts of softness that came unexpectedly from time to time. This resulted in a fair amount of loss of detail.


The colors were definitely over-saturated, which wasn't a bad thing until it interfered with flesh tones (which took on a reddish look in a few shots). Shadow details in several night time scenes were stellar, though I did notice a couple of fleeting moments of black crush.


Again, I have no intention of raising a protest against its present placement, but my vote still goes for....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## mweflen

*Ben-Hur (1959)*


The short review: this is as good as "The Ten Commandments," but with fewer instances of inconsistency, since the optical process shots are of higher quality, showing smaller matte lines and less fuzziness. Thus deserving of a slightly higher rating than that film.


The long review:

-Very strong detail across the entire range, large and small, near and far. Faces show tiny beads of sweat, cloth shows realistic texture, foliage and stones pop with realism.

-Very light film grain is evident, whereas no DNR or EE is evident.

-Very strong colors, especially the reds of the Roman uniforms. Flesh tones are pleasingly realistic.

-Good dimensionality in bright shots, less so in dark shots.

-Excellent and solid black levels, with a good amount of detail near black.

-Very few shots besides process shots show some degradation of the film elements. I counted two dropped frames, and about ten seconds worth of print damage manifesting itself in some wavering colors.


Basically, in every way except special effects and lighting choices (that is, many interior shots are realistically lit, and thus look somewhat dark to an eye trained by the likes of Michael Bay), this transfer is competitive with any on the market today, and stands as probably the single best 65mm transfer available. It is a terrific companion piece to "The Ten Commandments."
*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*


Sony 52EX700, _6 foot_ viewing distance (closer than my normal 8 feet, due to the 2.75:1 aspect ratio.)


----------



## djoberg

^^^^


I was glad to see mweflen's review above, for I decided to "test the waters" by watching the first 30 minutes of _Ben-Hur_ after the Double Feature reviewed earlier. My take on it coincides perfectly with each point he made. I would only add that facial close-ups are lacking (so far) and in the one I did see (of Mr. Heston) it did NOT reveal the texture that we see in today's Tier 0 titles.


I do suspect, if the remaining 110 minutes hold up with excellent details and depth, amazing colors, and sharpness, that this will easily end up somewhere in Tier 1.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Robert Harris seemed pretty happy with how Ben-Hur's restoration turned out in his review.


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21040539
> 
> 
> ^^^^
> 
> 
> I was glad to see mweflen's review above, for I decided to "test the waters" by watching the first 30 minutes of _Ben-Hur_ after the Double Feature reviewed earlier. My take on it coincides perfectly with each point he made. I would only add that facial close-ups are lacking (so far) and in the one I did see (of Mr. Heston) it did NOT reveal the texture that we see in today's Tier 0 titles.
> 
> 
> I do suspect, if the remaining 110 minutes hold up with excellent details and depth, amazing colors, and sharpness, that this will easily end up somewhere in Tier 1.



I agree that, for the most part, the facial close-ups have less detail than some modern movies. Skin pores and tiny hairs aren't really evident. But I think this owes more to stylistic differences, lighting, and lens choices between periods of directors and cinematographers, as opposed to quality of the video transfer. Today's directors of photography often go for a hyper-focused style on facial close-ups, whereas directors of yore often were much more impressionistic (or outright protective of their aging actors, who did not have the benefit of plastic surgery) when it came to close-ups.


Also, later in, there are one or two extended close-ups of Heston that are close the the Tier 0 level you mention. In fact, one of them is quite close to where your initial preview left off, at around 34:50.


The bedouin tent scene starting at 1:46:16 really dazzles, too.


But yes, the stylistic choices lead to less "visual interest" as stated in Phantom Stranger's rating criteria. So It's below tier 0.


----------



## tfoltz

*Lion King*
*

Amazing colors. Great detail. Great depth. I didn't notice any banding or similar flaws.

*Tier 0*, above Bee Movie.


I admit that I am a sucker for hand-drawn animation.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen* /forum/post/21040605
> 
> 
> I agree that, for the most part, the facial close-ups have less detail than some modern movies. Skin pores and tiny hairs aren't really evident. But I think this owes more to stylistic differences, lighting, and lens choices between periods of directors and cinematographers, as opposed to quality of the video transfer. Today's directors of photography often go for a hyper-focused style on facial close-ups, whereas directors of yore often were much more impressionistic (or outright protective of their aging actors, who did not have the benefit of plastic surgery) when it came to close-ups.
> 
> 
> Also, later in, there are one or two extended close-ups of Heston that are close the the Tier 0 level you mention. In fact, one of them is quite close to where your initial preview left off, at around 34:50.
> 
> 
> The bedouin tent scene starting at 1:46:16 really dazzles, too.
> 
> 
> But yes, the stylistic choices lead to less "visual interest" as stated in Phantom Stranger's rating criteria. So It's below tier 0.



I surely agree with you regarding stylistic choices of directors in that day and how that affected facial close-ups. A good example of that is _How The West Was Won_. It had absolutely amazing PQ but the director never zoomed in on actors' faces. I must confess I LOVE facial detail so this is a definite negative for me.


I'm glad to read that there are a few scenes where there are *dazzling* scenes of Heston close up; I will look forward to them!


I should mention I was wrong in stating I had 110 minutes left to watch. The running time is 222 minutes (and NOT 2 hrs. 22 min. like I had thought) so I have 192 minutes left to see.


----------



## vpn75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/21040626
> 
> *Lion King*
> *
> 
> Amazing colors. Great detail. Great depth. I didn't notice any banding or similar flaws.
> 
> *Tier 0*, above Bee Movie.
> 
> 
> I admit that I am a sucker for hand-drawn animation.



I actually thought Beauty & the Beast looked a bit better to me in terms of pure eye-candy. I didn't see anything as good as the "Be Our Guest" or ballroom sequences in Lion King.


I would probably vote for top Tier 1 placement.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Fast Five*


Holy facial detail Batman! This thing just glistens with texture in close, and even sometimes in the mid range too. Oddly, there are moments where it completely flatlines in the mid or at a distance, revealing a very smooth, digital appearance. Female characters are especially prone to this. Hot color, deep blacks, and rich contrast keep it high, but not at the top.

*Tier 1.25**


----------



## tfoltz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vpn75* /forum/post/21041495
> 
> 
> I actually thought Beauty & the Beast looked a bit better to me in terms of pure eye-candy. I didn't see anything as good as the "Be Our Guest" or ballroom sequences in Lion King.
> 
> 
> I would probably vote for top Tier 1 placement.



Minor banding bugged me in various areas in Beauty and the Beast (particularly in the Be Our Guest scene), though I agree it is Tier 0. I was watching it last night in 3D and was blown away.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Drive Angry*

_"..no one reaches the end and says I wish I hadn't f*cked so much"!_




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21040132
> 
> *Drive Angry*
> 
> 
> It was "Double Feature" night and thankfully the second title fared much better than the first (in PQ, that is). I see it's already received a 1.25 placement and even though I'd probably go a notch lower I could surely live with this.
> 
> 
> Detail was insane throughout most of the 100 minute running time, especially in facial close-ups. They were Tier 0 all the way. (Though midrange shots of faces didn't do as well.) This, along with incredible sharpness and depth and some very satisfying black levels, would have easily landed the title in Tier 0, were it not for bouts of softness that came unexpectedly from time to time. This resulted in a fair amount of loss of detail.
> 
> 
> The colors were definitely over-saturated, which wasn't a bad thing until it interfered with flesh tones (which took on a reddish look in a few shots). Shadow details in several night time scenes were stellar, though I did notice a couple of fleeting moments of black crush.
> 
> 
> Again, I have no intention of raising a protest against its present placement, but my vote still goes for....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.5*
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'




Good review, and I think the placement of Tier 1.5 nails it!


Contrast was good overall, but I didn't think that this one had quite the 3 dimensional look that most of the very top tier discs have.


Still, a very impressive disc for the most part.


Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.5


----------



## djoberg

*Fast Five*


Another super-stylized action title with blown-out contrast (resulting in overly bright whites at times) and over-saturated colors (giving most actors a tan you can't get at a tanning salon or on the beach







). Grain seemed to be spiked at times (or was it simply *noise*?) and the first half of the movie had sporadic soft shots.


Does it sound like I'm heading for a sub par recommendation? No way! This also had tons of detail in close (facial close-ups of all the male actors) and the aerial shots of Rio were to-die-for. Blacks levels were yummy as were most shadow details. Depth and dimensionality were also on the ticket, along with some impressive sharpness in several scenes.


This was on the same level as last night's viewing of _Drive Angry_ and I'm going with the same placement....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## djoberg

*Limitless*


Okay, I may (or may not) be getting a bit burnt out from watching too many Blus, so I have decided to keep this relatively short. Let me just say that I was even more impressed with this title than the last two (which I rated 1.5). The THREE OUTSTANDING QUALITIES were DETAILS, DEPTH, and SHARPNESS. Details in clothing, buildings, sidewalks, and faces were phenomenal. Depth was simply incredible. And a majority of scenes were "sharp as a tack."


To be fair, there were a couple instances of black crush. And the contrast was jacked too high once or twice, resulting in very bright whites. But these were the exception and not the rule.


I'm tempted to put this on the top of Tier Gold, but I'll be conservative and recommend....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


PS This was one unique movie...a very enjoyable rental!


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*African Cats*


In close, this one is impeccable. Just mesmerizing levels of textural definition that will blow your mind. These digital images are simply REAL. Very little noise around, and it's all amazingly clear. Aerial views are a bit of a downer, enough to dock it. Water looks like oil and trees off in the distance look like mud. Still, much of this one is in close-up, and truly impressive.

*Tier 1.75**


----------



## djoberg

*Scream 4*


I'm ending my "Blu-ray Feast" (before I head for Minneapolis tomorrow) with a "Fright Night." I haven't been a big fan of the _Scream_ movies, but I had heard this one was worth watching so I gave it a try. NO SUCH LUCK (it was HORRIBLE)!!


The PQ was better than average, but not by much. I happened to read what some of the "experts" were saying and based on their "above average" scores I thought I would at least be treated to a demo disc. Again, NO SUCH LUCK!


This was yet another inconsistent mess, with deep, inky blacks in one scene, followed by a murky blob the next. The same could be said of details; one minute they were impressive, the next minute they fell flat. This includes facial details, though even the *good* shots missed "demo quality" IMHO.


Some mentioned *blooming* and I did see this anomaly on occasion, though thankfully they were fleeting.


It did have a pleasing color palette and flesh tones were accurate. These were the only reliable virtues that weren't hampered by inconsistency.


I believe GRG gave it a 2.25 but I'm inclined to go a notch lower....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.5**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


PS _Insidious_ is next in line....I'm not expecting much on the PQ side but I do have some hope for the movie itself.


----------



## djoberg

*Insidious*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/20688997
> 
> *Insidious*
> 
> 
> Drab, ugly looking movie. The digital translation is clean and the black levels are fine, but people continue to look like plastic. Fine detail is at a premium here. Very little color, although some sequences are doused in teal, because you know, no other color exists.
> 
> *Tier 3.75**



I would NOT call this a "drab, ugly-looking movie." It has the typical muted color palette for the genre it represents (i.e., horror), but there is a good amount of detail and depth throughout. So, in my book the colors were a bit on the *drab* side, but the movie wasn't ugly.


There were also *some* facial close-ups that revealed pores, wrinkles, etc., especially on Patrick Wilson and the woman who played the spirit medium.


It was, as GRG said, "clean" (with the "Home Video" look) and he also hit the nail on the head in calling the black levels "fine." (I was impressed every time they showed the outside of the first house at night; the night sky was so black that it gave the house and yard a real sense of depth.) That being said, the end had a long scene with Mr. Wilson groping in the darkness and the blacks looked quite murky to my eyes.


This may not have the WOW factor, but I actually thought it was above average, though certainly not what we would call *reference* or *demo* material. Still, I'm thinking it is deserving of....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.5**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Lion King*

Brilliant job by Disney as always. Lion King has, by far, some of the best backdrops Disney animators ever came up with. Their color and the amount of it is just an achievement, nothing less. Fine lines are impeccable and seeing all of those distinct pencil lines is a joy. Transfers like this make it easier to appreciate animation.

*Tier 0* (above TMNT)


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Gamera 3: Revenge of Iris*

Like the other two, this one needs a better, spacier codec. Under 13GB is deplorable for a 107 minute movie. Grain isn't handled well, and motion leaves a distinct blur; made taking clean screen shots a pain. Black levels are a dud, and detail is tough to spot, but there. Colors have a nice warmth. Print damage is minimal.

*Tier 3.75**


----------



## deltasun

*Jackie Brown*


Incredible facial details and texture! Even Bridget Fonda's pores are completely exposed, almost too leathery from her tan. The two major gripes I have are the over-saturation and some less than stellar shadow details. The over-saturation is over the top and is immediately apparent in the opening scene/credits. Skin tones are overly saturated as well and start veering towards brick red.










Some of the darker scenes yield a bit more noise and seem flatter in general. Grain in the lighter scenes is noted, but with a beautiful texture throughout. Blacks are deep; contrast well balanced. Dimensionality is there, but nothing to write home about.


Overall, a very worthwhile upgrade.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.50**

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## 42041

*Pulp Fiction*


Not a bad-looking disc overall, but softness is very pervasive. Close shots of faces impress the most, but longer shots tend to be vaguely defined. Colors are sometimes drab, sometimes quite rich. Grain is minimal but no DNR is evident. Mild edge halos sometimes give the image a vaguely electronic feel. I hoped for a stronger transfer for such an iconic 90s film but for $15 bucks it's serviceable.

*Tier 2.5**


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Star Wars: A New Hope*


Actually watched this one a week ago. Been struggling with placement on this one due to the fact that I think that it actually looks pretty darn good considering the age/source. I'm actually pretty happy with how it came out.


Some of the closer shots look really good, with lots of impressive detail in faces. Contrast and colors are quite good overall.


The main problems that I had with this one were some very soft scenes (the desert scenes are good examples) and almost all shots from a distance had poor resolution. Also I'm not sure if this should be taken into consideration, but I definitely found the digitally added characters to be very distracting as they were just too obvious and did not blend in with the original film well.


I wanted to put this in Tier 2, but in the end, I think some of the negatives are just enough to keep it out of that tier.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back*


This one was really impressive. Even more detail in the close-ups than A New Hope, and fewer soft scenes (although they did exist).


Colors could be very good and vibrant, but there was definitely a blue cast in the snow scenes that was very noticeable.


I felt that the contrast was better on this than A New Hope, and some scenes really popped off the screen. Very impressed with this one!

*Tier Recommendation: 2.5*


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Star Wars: Return of the Jedi*


This one, like the others, varied a bit in quality both in terms of detail and contrast. For most of the run time I was thinking that this one was a tad better than The Empire Strikes back, and perhaps it is, but not by much. Very nice presentation overall.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 2.25*


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Star Wars: The Phantom Menace*


This one was a bit of a disappointment. You would think a new film in the series would look at least as good as the films from the original trilogy, but that isn't quite the case.


Don't get me wrong, there are some scenes that are still pretty impressive, but not to the degree that I had hoped. Then again, the subject matter plays a part in this as well. Some of the desert scenes just won't be all that impressive..


Contrast seemed to be lacking a bit too.
*Tier Recommendation: 2.75*


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Star Wars: Attack of the Clones*


A very clean look, obviously with no grain. For the most part, this actually fits the subject well, except when on the planet of Tatooine (desert).


Considering that this was shot on a fairly early digital camera, this looks quite a bit better than I expected it too. Details can be pretty impressive at times. Yet, there are still soft scenes too.


Contrast is a bit weak, which isn't that surprising considering it was shot digitally...but still, it is again better than I thought it would be...


Overall I was pleasantly surprised with this one.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*


----------



## lgans316

*Fast Five*


Agree with Gamereviewgod's comments but would vote *Tier 1.5* for some softness and flatness due to poor CGI. Easily the best looking in the series. Although nothing seems believable, it was fun especially the climax.

*Once Upon a Time in the West*


Didn't impress me at all except for couple of sequences. Loved the soundtrack and the ending.

*Recommendation: Tier 3.5*


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/21057890
> 
> *Once Upon a Time in the West*
> 
> 
> Didn't impress me at all except for couple of sequences. Loved the soundtrack and the ending.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 3.5*



I had the privilege of watching the fully restored print on its anniversary release at The Academy Theater in Beverly Hills. It is an excellent restoration, but it was obvious to me while watching this that there is no way that this one will *ever* be considered eye candy in a thread like this one.


There is a lot of grain (which, for this film and subject matter I felt was very appropriate since it gives a gritty feeling) which a lot of people don't like. Also, there are a lot of soft focus shots.


Some of the close ups did look good though, with good resolution of beard stubble etc.


Remember, this was shot in Techniscope 2 perforation and framed to 2.35:1. In other words, there is very little film negative being used, so resolution is reduced. You are using half of the normal negative vs regular 4 perforation formats. Since half the negative is being used, it is being blown up twice as much. That is why there is so much grain. The grain on the negative is still the same...but it is blown up to about twice its size, so it is much more noticeable.











One reason that Leone used this format was that it reduced distortion when shooting the many super close ups of actors faces that you would otherwise see if he used anamorphic lenses, which are notorious for doing this. The Techniscope format allowed Leone to use the technically superior spherical lenses..which do not have that type of distortion on close ups.


I received my copy earlier in the week. Can't wait to watch it. This is in my Top 3 favorite films of all time!


----------



## lgans316

Thanks Rob for the insight. Didn't know about the filming techniques involved.


Although this isn't eye candy it certainly looks film-like and should please the faithful community. To me, it lacked high frequency details and resolution which appears to be due to the filming process. What I loved is the soundtrack and the last 30 minutes where "Who are you" is answered.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

I did giggle at the fact that I seemed to reappear at an... opportune time.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Horrible Bosses*


Middling source material infested with noise problems. Compression seems evident but it's probably the source. Detail struggles and black levels have a small bite, nothing else. Just bland, bland, bland.

*Tier 3.0**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Wolverine And The X-Men: The Complete Series


recommendation: Tier 2.0*
*

An animated program that ran one season back in 2008, _Wolverine and the X-Men_ looks quite decent and sometimes even spectacular on this Blu-ray. Released in October of 2010 by Lionsgate, the animation was produced in HD so the show makes a natural transition to Blu-ray. The one season is spread out over three separate BD-50s, encoded in AVC at generous bitrates for modern animation. There is no BDInfo scan available at the moment.


The image consists of bright, clean colors that is typical of standard animation these days. One of the few real negatives to the picture is the somewhat inconsistent line art. While it really can't be called sloppy work, there are a number of instances where details go askew upon close examination. It's a clear step below theatrical animation and maybe even below the better direct-to-video features being pumped out by Marvel and DC. The overall character designs are a little rough around the edges and backgrounds are barren at times.


Outside of that issue, one can expect a pristine transfer made straight from the animators' digital files. A slight touch of banding pops up that appears more endemic to the original production than to any compression troubles. But that is a nitpick more than anything else, as modern animation of this kind translates very nicely to 1080p. If the animation had been just a little more polished and ornate, it might have been a serious contender for Tier One.


Watching on a 60” Pioneer KURO plasma at a viewing distance of approximately six feet, using a 60 GB Sony PS3 (firmware 3.72) for playback.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Set Up*


Clumsy 50 Cent vehicle which the video reflects. Aliasing, clear sharpening, and overbearing contrast sap the intensity of the look. Some extraordinary detail in close though. Color is kept to some bland, singularly focused palettes.
*Tier 3.0**


----------



## Murilo

Out of curiosity why is red cliff SE uk ranked tier 0 and the u.s. ranked tier one.


They should be ranked together, they look the same, if anything i would give a very slight nod to the u.s. based on one of xylons caps where the man and woman are sleeping.


Dont mean to nitpick but they should be together.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Murilo* /forum/post/21074351
> 
> 
> Out of curiosity why is red cliff SE uk ranked tier 0 and the u.s. ranked tier one.
> 
> 
> They should be ranked together, they look the same, if anything i would give a very slight nod to the u.s. based on one of xylons caps where the man and woman are sleeping.
> 
> 
> Dont mean to nitpick but they should be together.



Different people reviewed the differing versions, leading to a disparity in their ranking. It's one of the byproducts of international releases being included, because often they are not judged against the domestic version. Though no one should ever solely rank movies in the PQ Tiers based on Xylon's or anyone's screen captures. Stating that and seeing your concern, in the next update I will try to examine the current placements for Red Cliff and try a more equitable comparative ranking.


Since few are going to repeatedly buy or obtain multiple copies of the same movie and review the differences here, it is a bit of guesswork to compare the rankings. Some have done it for a handful of movies. I own every extant copy of Watchmen and have given recommendations on most of them. Lgans316 recently gave the direct comparison for "The Island" in a review, stating the new domestic U.S. BD is superior to the older UK edition from Warner.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Green Lantern*


Lots of green (duh?) in this one, but diluting its summer movie eye candy too. Facial detail is a bit blah and inconsistent, while the special effects wow at every turn. Black levels have a nice hold on the material, and the encode is well done.

*Tier 2.0**


----------



## lgans316

*The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)*


Great movies deserves great PQ and this one doesn't disappoint.









*Recommendation: Tier 2.75*


----------



## Rob Tomlin




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/21081595
> 
> *The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)*
> 
> 
> Great movies deserves great PQ and this one doesn't disappoint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 2.75*


----------



## djoberg

*Green Lantern*


Kudos to Warner Bros. for giving us another excellent Blu-ray release! I recall former days when you could bank on most of their titles being a disappointment, especially in the "sharpness" department. This one was SHARP and DETAILED from beginning to end, with the exception of a few shots where the CGI created some SOFTNESS resulting in a LOSS OF DETAIL.


COLORS were also amazing, as were BLACK LEVELS and SHADOW DETAILS (there were many night scenes where the shadow details were simply phenomenal). CONTRAST was spot on for a majority of the running time, but there were a few instances where it suffered.


The most annoying feature was FLESH TONES. On occasion they became reddish or they took on that deplorable tan look (similar to those in _Fast Five_). FACIAL DETAILS were also inconsistent, though I must say close-ups fared quite well with plenty of detail and texture. Mid range shots of Ryan Reynolds often looked smoothed over.


I was so impressed with the first few scenes that I kept thinking to myself, "Well, do we actually have a Tier 0 contender here?" But then the anomalies mentioned started rearing their ugly heads and I realized that at best this would fall into Tier Gold. I sincerely believe it belongs in this tier, though not at the top. I'm wavering between the following....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5* or 1.75**


Pioneer 60' KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Zookeeper* (because everyone here just HAD to know)


Stale color palette botches this family clunker. At times, it looks like Ted Turner colorized it back in the '90s. No, seriously:

Attachment 225281 


Detail is tremendously bland and struggles to come through. This is an odd outing for the typically reliable digital Genesis. Black levels dim as time marches on.

*Tier 3.5**


----------



## djoberg

*Season of the Witch*


I always find it particularly hard to rate titles like these, for even though it was rich in detail and depth (in daytime scenes, that is), the color palette was extremely drab coupled with a pervasive golden/blue tint. Black levels were really a mixed bag, with some shots displaying the coveted "deep and inky" blacks with exquisite shadow details to boot, and others (especially the MANY night time scenes in the last half) bordering on a "murky mess."


Facial details in close were very impressive and details in general were excellent (most notably the lush landscapes: mountains and forests). But they did begin to falter in some of the night time scenes, as well as the scenes with heavy fog.


I really *want* to assign this to a demo tier, but the drabness, along with the murkiness and loss of details in later night time scenes, forces me to go with...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Pulp Fiction*

Sharpening galore visible in medium shots, hampering what seems to be an otherwise well done update in HD. Facial detail is striking and crisp, carrying a nicely done, pure quality. Colors are distinctly warm and far more saturated then they ever were. Great black levels help with the depth.

*Tier 2.0**


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21082435
> 
> *Green Lantern*
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.5* or 1.75**
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60' KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'



Didn't look as bad as reviewed by Ken Brown at Blu-ray.com but black crush and softness is evident in quite a number of shots especially the CGI which I thought was innovative but poorly done. Not sure why the mass hated this but I enjoyed the movie and didn't find it to be too dragging or boring.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*


----------



## Murilo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/21075735
> 
> 
> Different people reviewed the differing versions, leading to a disparity in their ranking. It's one of the byproducts of international releases being included, because often they are not judged against the domestic version. Though no one should ever solely rank movies in the PQ Tiers based on Xylon's or anyone's screen captures. Stating that and seeing your concern, in the next update I will try to examine the current placements for Red Cliff and try a more equitable comparative ranking.
> 
> 
> Since few are going to repeatedly buy or obtain multiple copies of the same movie and review the differences here, it is a bit of guesswork to compare the rankings. Some have done it for a handful of movies. I own every extant copy of Watchmen and have given recommendations on most of them. Lgans316 recently gave the direct comparison for "The Island" in a review, stating the new domestic U.S. BD is superior to the older UK edition from Warner.



I based it on xylons caps, but I have seen the movie and chose the u.s. because i was told there was very little difference between them by people who have seen multiple copies of the movie. Its been a month since I watched it but it could arguably be tier 0 as well.


I think xylons caps however allow us to view them more closely on a frame by frame basis and also lends a hand to this very thread and possible discrepancies like this. It is the closest we will get to all being able to view the same screen captures.


Admittedly i also own various copies of the same movies but never really give recommendations to this thread as i typically post in which movie imports are better then the u.s. releases or comparison threads. With that said i dont do it because i find it way to hard to gauge the differences on a rating scale. You guys definitely do a great job given the circumstances I only want to help where i can.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*13*


Hampered by a noisy encode, this one falters in a number of areas. Some clear ringing, filtering, and even a little smearing brings this one down a few notches. Detail is fine in close though, one of the few benefits. Great blacks, not so great color.
*Tier 3.25**


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Murilo* /forum/post/21094563
> 
> 
> I based it on xylons caps, but I have seen the movie and chose the u.s. because i was told there was very little difference between them by people who have seen multiple copies of the movie. Its been a month since I watched it but it could arguably be tier 0 as well.
> 
> *I think xylons caps however allow us to view them more closely on a frame by frame basis and also lends a hand to this very thread and possible discrepancies like this*. It is the closest we will get to all being able to view the same screen captures.



I will NOT argue the merits of screen caps, for I do believe they have their place. But this thread is all about viewing Blu-ray titles _in motion_. I have often seen an anomaly on a screen cap that I missed while viewing it in motion. In fact, after seeing a halo, banding, etc. on a screen cap, I have sometimes gone to the time stamp given and I _still_ don't see it while viewing it in motion.


The lesson I learn from this is obvious; one can hardly base their reviews on Blu-ray titles from a screen cap, especially for this thread. We have actually discussed this at length in times past and the general consensus coincided with this conclusion.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Screen captures can give us guidance on what to look for and inform our actual viewing of a Blu-ray on our personal displays, but Djoberg is right about seeing the transfer in person for an evaluation. People do not watch movies frame-by-frame, but at 24 frames per second in continuous motion.


Saying that, certain defects are easier to spot when images are paused and can be examined in leisure.


----------



## Murilo

"I have often seen an anomaly on a screen cap that I missed while viewing it in motion. In fact, after seeing a halo, banding, etc. on a screen cap, I have sometimes gone to the time stamp given and I still don't see it while viewing it in motion."


Thats exactly why I am in favor of screen caps when they exist because you miss things you might not see otherwise. And I still believe its good for lending a hand to this thread, im not suggesting it to be definitive.


However if thats not what the thread is about then disregard my above statement. Im just suggesting they can *help* when multiple movies exist for a more non biased ranking.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
*


The first Pirates shot digitally, this one is a bit off and on. When detail strikes, it's spectacular. When it doesn't, blah. Black levels are great, sharpness high, but it doesn't dig deep enough. Colors can be intense in the daylight, deadened at night with orange flame and blue everything else.
*Tier 2.0**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Bad Teacher*


Off and on, sometimes sparkling with firm facial detail, other times flat and non-existent. Grain is typically resolved well with a few bumps in the road. Colors are nicely saturated and bright. Black levels hold. Overall, not terrible impressive, but suffering from few issues.

*Tier 2.75**


----------



## tfoltz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Murilo* /forum/post/21098543
> 
> 
> "I have often seen an anomaly on a screen cap that I missed while viewing it in motion. In fact, after seeing a halo, banding, etc. on a screen cap, I have sometimes gone to the time stamp given and I still don't see it while viewing it in motion."
> 
> 
> Thats exactly why I am in favor of screen caps when they exist because you miss things you might not see otherwise. And I still believe its good for lending a hand to this thread, im not suggesting it to be definitive.
> 
> 
> However if thats not what the thread is about then disregard my above statement. Im just suggesting they can *help* when multiple movies exist for a more non biased ranking.



This thread is all about biased opinions based on moving images







.


----------



## tfoltz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/21099445
> 
> *Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
> *
> 
> 
> The first Pirates shot digitally, this one is a bit off and on. When detail strikes, it's spectacular. When it doesn't, blah. Black levels are great, sharpness high, but it doesn't dig deep enough. Colors can be intense in the daylight, deadened at night with orange flame and blue everything else.
> *Tier 2.0**



I was thinking Tier 1, or even low Tier 0. I'll try to watch it again.


----------



## zoey67




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/21104166
> 
> 
> I was thinking Tier 1, or even low Tier 0. I'll try to watch it again.



+1...you're not imagining things. It was a very good transfer for a crap film.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Griff the Invisible*


16mm piece with fantastic definition up close. Unfortunately, the encode isn't up to snuff, wildly out of control of the grain structure. Tons of noise in this one. There's some smearing too with small movement. Colors are a garish mixture of orange, blue, teal, and yellow, never all that pleasing.

*Tier 3.75**


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/21104166
> 
> 
> I was thinking Tier 1, or even low Tier 0. I'll try to watch it again.



I'm not seeing anywhere enough fine detail. Close-ups are inconsistent and the mid-range is decent. It kind of remains me of the last Narnia, decent enough, but bland qualities bring it down for me.


----------



## djoberg

*Rio*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/20773890
> 
> *Rio*
> 
> 
> A stunner, overloaded with candy-coated colors, brilliantly bright contrast, and fantastic black levels. The finale, set inside a parade, is easily my new favorite scene on Blu-ray ever. The immense detail within the floats is mesmerizing. Bird feathers are astounding, and fur on the other creatures? Marvelous.
> 
> *Tier 0, right below Avatar**



I couldn't agree more than I do with GRG's assessment of this title. I also believe he nailed the recommendation. I checked the thread for rankings and I see the *proposed* ranking is right below _Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End_. This happens to be below many of the Pixar titles and others as well; IMHO it would be a travesty to put it that low.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (below Avatar)**


PS In some ways this is actually better than _Toy Story 3_ (the colors seem more bright and numerous at times and the depth is superior in selected scenes).


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/21099445
> 
> *Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
> *
> 
> 
> The first Pirates shot digitally, this one is a bit off and on. When detail strikes, it's spectacular. When it doesn't, blah. Black levels are great, sharpness high, but it doesn't dig deep enough. Colors can be intense in the daylight, deadened at night with orange flame and blue everything else.
> *Tier 2.0**


*Tier 2.0** seems about right to me. Nothing special here at all.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*'Twas The Night Before Christmas

recommendation: Tier 4.5**

When, what to my wondering eyes should appear,


But a miniature sleigh, and eight tiny reindeer,


With a little old driver, so lively and quick,


I knew in a moment it must be St. Nick.


Another Rankin-Bass classic holiday special makes it to Blu-ray, courtesy of Warner Bros. Released on October 4, the 24-minute animated feature is encoded in AVC on a BD-25. Picture quality is spotty at best, though at least the original mono soundtrack gets a nice DTS-HD MA treatment that sounds very good for its age.


The AVC video encode runs a steady 18 or 19 Mbps throughout the special, showing no problems. Originally a television special that was first broadcast in 1974, the program's framing of 1.37:1 has been preserved in high-definition on Blu-ray. No attempt to restore the hand-drawn animation has been made here, so colors do not pop off the screen like the Disney classics on BD. The film print shows its age at times in the form of dirt and possible problems in the original production.


The BD appears to have been transferred straight from a second-generation source or dupe with no additional filtering or digital processing. A healthy layer of grain is noticeable, not to mention a number of positive specks on the print. There is an increase in actual resolution over the DVD version, but it does not compare very favorably with better transfers of hand-drawn animation. The source is dull and lacking the typical clarity of pure animation.


Maybe expectations were too high, having seen some of the other Rankin-Bass specials released in high-definition that look better than this one. The BD is only worth it at a very reduced price, the visual upgrade is just too marginal for my tastes.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Batman: Year One


recommendation: Tier 1.25**


A new animated feature that came out just a few days ago, _Batman: Year One_ looks as good as anything that Warner Bros. Animation has previously created for DCU movies. The picture's palette revels in more colors than the standard comic book fare, painting the setting of Gotham as a grimy New York City in the 1970s. The 64-minute main feature is encoded in AVC on a BD-50, alongside a bonus 14-minute Catwoman short also in high-definition.


The amount of banding in the main feature is not as frequent as prior DCU Blu-rays, though it does show up on a couple of occasions. That has been a problem almost endemic to these animated efforts by WB, but the action largely takes place at night with few potential sources of problematic moments in this one. Other than that the video encode handles the image flawlessly.


Colors are rich with a touch of subtle shading. Backgrounds show much more detail than normal, filling in small bits of detail that add a sense of authenticity and realism to the art. Commissioner Loeb's office has a lot of little touches that might have gone blank in shoddier animation with less attention to detail.


Another strong factor helping the animation quality out is the sense of character design taken straight from the graphic novel. This is by far the most consistent and detailed of the character designs for a DCU project, from main characters like Bruce Wayne and James Gordon, to lesser characters like Sarah Essen. They are all fully realized graphic designs and the linework is much cleaner and tighter than usual.

_Batman: Year One_ is modern animation taken straight from the original digital files that created it. The picture quality has no problem with incredible black levels and perfect, bold colors. It shows more polish than prior DCU features on Blu-ray and deserves to be ranked somewhere in the upper half of Tier One.


If I could digress for a moment, the voice work done for Batman is not very good at all and sounds amateurish at times. Thankfully the character of James Gordon, the real focus in the movie, is excellently voiced by Bryan Cranston.


----------



## lgans316

*Jurassic Park*


Definitely sourced from an outdated master. Only few shots looks natural and film like due to presence of film grain (the sequence leading to the folks entering the lab). The rest including many facial close-up shots looks a bit waxy, washed out, lacks high frequency details, and definition due to application of DNR. To make things worse, artificial sharpening has been liberally applied particularly on some outdoor shots that results in displaying halos against bright backgrounds and ruining the view of aerial / landscape shots (the Green foliage looks like a lump of sharp edges)


Disappointing transfer overall. Universal should immediately stop releasing butchered catalog titles on Blu-ray.









*Recommendation: Tier 3.25*


-------------------------------------------------------------------------

*The Lost World - Jurassic Park*


I am not sure if this was shot digital. If it is not then I can confidently say that this is scrubbed. There is hardly any grain to be seen. Everything looks squeaky clean and waxy. Could have looked excellent if no DNR was applied as the print appears to be in pristine shape. Let me have another close look but I am not confident that its going to change my opinion.


Looks like the engineers who did the transfer tried to use more DNR and less EE in contrast the JP which had more EE than DNR.

*Recommendation: Tier 3.5*


-------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Scarface*


Another botched release from the notorious Universal. Outdated transfer + EE galore + some DNR.

*Recommendation: Tier 3.75*


----------



## mweflen

*King of Kings*


Very strong detail at times, especially environmental detail. Every pebble on the ground seems evident. There is a stretch of foliage shots near the beginning that is truly breathtaking. Cloth details and hairs are crisp and defined. Facial detail can be great, but some shots appear to use softer focus and are thus hampered.


No intrusive DNR or EE seem evident. No posterization or banding.


Superb color, especially the reds of Roman uniforms, whites and grays of stone buildings, and blues of the sky.


Occasional softness keeps this out of the rarefied heights that TTC and Ben-Hur reach - but this does seem an issue of camera focus, not transfer quality. Overall this is still an extremely impressive transfer of a 70mm film.

*Tier Recommendation 2.0*


Sony KDL-52EX700, 1080p. 8 foot viewing distance.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/21115125
> 
> *Jurassic Park*
> 
> 
> Definitely sourced from an outdated master. Only few shots looks natural and film like due to presence of film grain (the sequence leading to the folks entering the lab). The rest including many facial close-up shots looks a bit waxy, washed out, lacks high frequency details, and definition due to application of DNR. To make things worse, artificial sharpening has been liberally applied particularly on some outdoor shots that results in displaying halos against bright backgrounds and ruining the view of aerial / landscape shots (the Green foliage looks like a lump of sharp edges)
> 
> 
> Disappointing transfer overall. Universal should immediately stop releasing butchered catalog titles on Blu-ray.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 3.25*
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------



Here is a quote from Ralph Potts:

*The Jurassic Park Trilogy comes to Blu-ray from Universal Studios Home Entertainment featuring 1080p VC-1 encoded video that has an average bitrate of 32 Mbps and lossless DTS-HD 7.1 Master Audio sound that has an average bitrate of 5.4Mbps.


I watched these films in order during my evaluation and found that predominantly speaking they contain many of the same characteristics. Jurassic Park shines the brightest while The Lost world and Jurassic Park III are a step below in terms of perceivable resolution. Those concerned with fidelity infringing digital noise reduction can relax as I didn’t find that to be a problem. Any softening I noted appeared inherent to the original photography. Artificial sharpening has been applied though and its effects, while not egregious, could be problematic for viewers that are sensitive to it. Those things aside, here is what I saw. Jurassic Park looks terrific and features an appreciable level of refinement that enhances depth/delineation during close up and mid level camera pans. The video is predominantly sharp with a satisfying level of clarity that enhances the textures of the images onscreen. This is true in both light and dark sequences as contrast and brightness achieve an excellent balance that when coupled with the improved resolution gives it a resplendent quality. Blacks are fairly deep and gradationally strong which enhances depth of field. The variety of earth tones, primary and secondary colors are vividly reproduced with appreciable variety and tonal separation. Grain is preserved naturally and is visible throughout the course of the presentation. Jurassic Park Video Rating: 88.


Jurassic Park: The Lost World and Jurassic Park III are on equal ground in terms of picture quality so my comments will pertain to both of them. These high definition renderings deliver fair to good overall image quality that appears predominantly faithful to the film’s original elements. The only noteworthy difference being the aforementioned artificial sharpening, which results in edge enhanced lines and occasional halos, neither of which are overtly distracting. Images offer an appreciable level of detail during close ups and certain wide angle camera shots. Depending on the lighting exterior shots look vivid with naturally rendered colors and stable resolution. The majority of the time the image doesn’t exhibit a high level of dimension. Definition/perceivable resolution are probably as good as it gets based upon the original photography but the image lacks polish and softens at times. Blacks are punchy which adds a little pop during some of the low level sequences. Those same scenes have an improved sense of depth thanks to a discernible level of visible detail in dark backgrounds. Grain is preserved naturally and is noticeable throughout. Jurassic Park – The Lost World & Jurassic Park III Video Rating: 84 .* (End of Quote)


As you can see, he was NOT bothered by the DNR or articificial sharpening. His view is representative of others and I'm hoping this will be my viewing experience as well. I just ordered the trilogy through Amazon Prime so it should arrive here in two days.


----------



## patrick99

Denny, I really disagree with the concept of posting lengthy, or really any, quotes from "regular" reviewers in this thread.


One of the purposes or at least characteristics of this thread is to form and express our own views, not cite views from elsewhere.


I have occasionally posted links to other threads containing views of AVS members, and maybe I should not have done so, but in any event I think that is a long way from posting massive quotes from reviews found outside this thread.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/21119476
> 
> 
> Denny, I really disagree with the concept of posting lengthy, or really any, quotes from "regular" reviewers in this thread.
> 
> 
> One of the purposes or at least characteristics of this thread is to form and express our own views, not cite views from elsewhere.
> 
> 
> I have occasionally posted links to other threads containing views of AVS members, and maybe I should not have done so, but in any event I think that is a long way from posting massive quotes from reviews found outside this thread.



You're probably right about posting lengthy quotes, but I have never taken issue with members posting links. I guess I felt it would be good for those who are not that sensitive to EE or halos to read what Mr. Potts had to say (in case they weren't inclined to visit a posted link) so they would not be dissuaded (from Igans' review) from purchasing the set. Taking your words of correction to heart, I will refrain from doing so in the future...and will wait for reviews from regular members to come in.


----------



## tfoltz

I will be receiving Jurassic Park tomorrow. At the request of Samuel L. Jackson, I am holding onto my butt until I watch it with my own eyes.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz* /forum/post/21120401
> 
> 
> I will be receiving Jurassic Park tomorrow. *At the request of Samuel L. Jackson, I am holding onto my butt until I watch it with my own eyes.*



LOL!


----------



## javanpohl

No one's gotten to Tree of Life yet? Can't recommend the film to everyone, but anyone who has an interest in video quality has got to check it out. Tier 0 for sure. Personally, I think it's the best looking blu-ray I've ever seen, but that's me.


----------



## vpn75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *javanpohl* /forum/post/21120813
> 
> 
> No one's gotten to Tree of Life yet? Can't recommend the film to everyone, but anyone who has an interest in video quality has got to check it out. Tier 0 for sure. Personally, I think it's the best looking blu-ray I've ever seen, but that's me.



I've seen it and agree it deserves top tier status. I would place it just ahead of Malick's other film, The Thin Red Line.


I found the film a bit pretentious and over-indulgent, but I find it worth owning merely for the phenomenal AV qualities.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *javanpohl* /forum/post/21120813
> 
> 
> No one's gotten to Tree of Life yet? Can't recommend the film to everyone, but anyone who has an interest in video quality has got to check it out. Tier 0 for sure. Personally, I think it's the best looking blu-ray I've ever seen, but that's me.



Thanks for the heads-up on this film. I have just got to see this for the exceptional PQ. I just read multiple reviews on it on Cinema Squid's site and I simply must paste a few copies of those reviews to whet the appetite even further of all reading this post....


JUST KIDDING PATRICK!!


----------



## Krayg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *vpn75* /forum/post/21120927
> 
> 
> I've seen it and agree it deserves top tier status. I would place it just ahead of Malick's other film, The Thin Red Line.
> 
> 
> I found the film a bit pretentious and over-indulgent, but I find it worth owning merely for the phenomenal AV qualities.



I agree that this is definitely a notch (maybe more) above The Thin Red Line in the top tier rankings. My wife and I were amazed at the detail and clarity in scene after scene...this disc is what Blu-ray is all about. The film itself....I liked it better than you did, it made the tears come a few times, a flawed masterpiece for sure, but still a masterpiece.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Winnie the Pooh


recommendation: Tier 1.0*
*

Winnie the Pooh has been turned into an unrepentant honey addict in this new film starring Christopher Robin's menagerie of animals. Or as the film calls it in the street parlance of the Hundred Acre Wood, “hunny.” Pooh's slide into depravity is marked by vivid, lurid fantasy sequences where he swims in the liquid and dreams about consuming it. The shots do look pretty, but one wonders what message it sends to impressionable youth. A warning, the psychedelic imagery in the musical scenes might give some viewers acid flashbacks with the splendid colors melting off the screen.


Eeyore serves as nothing but an unabashed endorsement for anti-depressants. He should really look into the corporate endorsement possibilities with Eli Lilly's products. His morose behavior is offset by Tigger's obvious use of amphetamines, who bounces around like a maniac on crystal meth. Rabbit looks strung-out much of the time and is always cranky to others, as if he was coming off a bender. Disney has given us a forest full of animals who very much behave as if they are on illegal narcotics and do off-label use of prescription drugs.


The mastermind behind this drug ring is clearly Christopher Robin, the drug lord who masquerades as a cheery school boy in the film. He curiously is absent for much of the action, leaving his charges to fend for themselves with their paranoid thoughts about a monster that only exists in their minds.


Disney has wrapped this tale of moral degeneracy under animation so sweet and sugary that adults and children alike will fall under its magic Pixy dust's spell. Thinking about it more closely, what exactly is Tinkerbell shooting out of her wand? Do we have evidence for another drug dealer in the stable of Disney characters? A point to ponder for another day.


The picture is perfection itself with a rich color palette; only the animation hewing close to the original artwork's simplicity keeps it from Tier Zero. Don't let the simple bear's tale fool you and your children before it is too late. His shocking level of illiteracy is repeatedly referenced in the story. I guess the moral is that children who can't spell will become drug addicts...or something.


----------



## tfoltz

^Great review







. I don't have kids but will still be receiving this tomorrow.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Jurassic Park*


Clear filtering and a smidgen of sharpening dampen what seems to be an otherwise fine transfer. Facial detail is miles better than anything that came before. Colors have a pure quality, something the movie has always had. Black crush is a problem as is the grain structure which is clearly being held back by the encode/sharpening.

*Tier 3.0*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Exam (Region-free UK Import in 1080i / 50 Hz)


recommendation: Tier 1.75**

_Exam_ is a 2009 independent production that got picked up by Sony for Blu-ray release in the UK. The 96-minute main feature is encoded in AVC on a BD-50. The disc is coded for all regions, but a word of warning on compatibility with various American players. The film's 2.35:1 framing is presented at the video resolution of 1080i/50Hz. It will not play on any North American PS3, I had to use a secondary player I use for cases like this one in the form of a LG BD370. Those with American Oppo players should also have no problem playing this BD.


Getting that little inconvenience out of the way, the picture is quite startling at times. The raw image shows an incredible level of high-frequency detail that Hollywood studios simply are not allowing anymore on Blu-ray. It has the ample detail of a completely unfiltered movie shot on film and then transferred using a 2K digital intermediate. From the very first moments, close-ups just look better than the typical new release with crystal-clear focus and sharpness. Apparently the low-budget nature prevented any mucking of the image in post-production or mastering.


That is the good news about the picture quality. Something went wrong in the compression or Sony was given a bad digital master, because there are a number of strange instances where significant noise anomalies disrupt and mar the clarity and razor-sharp dimensionality. It does not look like typical compression noise, but the problem is clearly not analogue in nature either. I have never really seen it occur on other Blu-rays and Sony is usually very good handling compression issues, so I am at a loss for its cause. A more minor issue is the infrequent judder problems exhibited by the transfer, easily seen in the credits and opening. I don't believe this film was shot at 25 frames per second, which means it was converted from 24 fps and possible cadence issues might have been introduced.


I wanted to place this complex psychological thriller higher in the Tiers, but the final placement really can't be higher than Tier 1.75. An insane amount of dimensionality for a drama and detail on par with movies in Tier Zero, but nagging issues drop the recommendation.


Unless something remarkable happens, _Exam_ will never be released on Blu-ray in the U.S. It's easily worth hunting down on Blu-ray if one is capable of playing 1080i/50Hz content.


----------



## trinifox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/21128688
> 
> *Jurassic Park*
> 
> 
> Clear filtering and a smidgen of sharpening dampen what seems to be an otherwise fine transfer. Facial detail is miles better than anything that came before. Colors have a pure quality, something the movie has always had. Black crush is a problem as is the grain structure which is clearly being held back by the encode/sharpening.
> 
> *Tier 3.0*



Sorry to ride on your thread, but I was wondering if you could help me put your review in contrast with the pretty high marks it got for video in the official AVS review? I agree with your synopsis and having read the official review before getting my discs today, I was very disappointed when I looked at the first 10 minutes.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *trinifox* /forum/post/21131941
> 
> 
> Sorry to ride on your thread, but I was wondering if you could help me put your review in contrast with the pretty high marks it got for video in the official AVS review? I agree with your synopsis and having read the official review before getting my discs today, I was very disappointed when I looked at the first 10 minutes.



The system for this thread tends to be much tougher on individual releases than other sources of reviews. Very few movies made in the 90's, without the benefit of lavish restorations, are going to produce a Blu-ray that directly competes in picture quality with a magnificent demo-quality disc like Avatar or Toy Story 3.


That is largely why standard catalog releases rarely score higher than Tier 2.


----------



## mweflen

Speaking of catalog releases...

*Citizen Kane*


First, before I rag on the transfer, I want to commend WB for doing a wonderful job on this movie. I can imagine a "Dr. Strangelove" level atrocity being committed with this film - artificial sharpening sending the grain structure into pixellated overdrive. But instead, WB was ultra-respectful - very few post-processing tricks seem evident. Grain is lush and consistent from the first second to the last. Gamma seems not to have been jiggered with, preserving shadow detail (and there are LOTS of shadows to deal with!). So it seems that this is a respectful transfer that preserves a classic film in its best possible state.


OK, that said...


Some shots show superb detail, with cloth textures, snow, facial wrinkles, and so on appearing very crisp. But other shots are soft, soft, soft. Sometimes this seems to be due to optical effects shots and fancy dissolves (of which there are many), sometimes it is a deliberate depth-of-field focus effect, sometimes... well, sometimes things just seem soft.


Had every shot in the movie looked like some of the very best, this might be a candidate for a rating around 2.0. But quality varies widely from shot to shot, and it's hard to go above a 3.

*Tier Recommendation 3.0*


52EX700, 8 foot viewing distance


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *trinifox* /forum/post/21131941
> 
> 
> Sorry to ride on your thread, but I was wondering if you could help me put your review in contrast with the pretty high marks it got for video in the official AVS review? I agree with your synopsis and having read the official review before getting my discs today, I was very disappointed when I looked at the first 10 minutes.



Phantom summed it up pretty well. I can't speak for anyone else's work, and I'd always recommend an aggregate site like CinemaSquid for an all-around look at new discs. Your eyes are always the best judgement though.
*The Lost World: Jurassic Park*


Soft to infinity, the sharpening has clearly been toned down although some sporadic visible signs of DNR remain. Detail rarely pops. Colors feel a little elevated and mild crush remains. Grain structure is at least better, although quite light.

*Tier 3.25**


----------



## deltasun

*The Exterminator*


One of my guilty pleasures as a kid (can't believe I was allowed to watch this!). Anyway, I don't know how much effort Synapse actually put into this production, but the results are very poor indeed. Granted, a lot of the "issues" are probably from the source materials, this being a relatively low-budget movie and all.


Softness definitely abounds - pretty arbitrarily, I might add. Again, I will point out that most of these are focus issues. Still, even the most focused shots are still Tier 2 sharpness. Banding is a major issue as well, from the opening explosion and throughout the feature. Noise is unnaturally heavy in darker scenes and stability can become an issue in others.


The overall look is washed out. No real dimensionality to speak of.


All in all, good to see this again. Probably haven't seen it in 30 years!

*Tier Recommendation: 4.95**


----------



## djoberg

*Jurassic Park*


The old adage still holds true, "Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder." In this case, _these eyes_ were VERY IMPRESSED with this transfer and I'm most certainly going to go against the previous recommendations by Igans316 and GRG.


Did it have its faults? Yes! But they were minimal and consisted mostly of sporadic softs shots, fleeting moments of noise, and some brief instances of filtering.


What I loved most about this definite improvement over the DVD version was the amazing DEPTH, DETAILS, and CLARITY in many scenes. Facial details were insane, especially of Dr. Grant (check out, for instance, the 39 minute and 1 hr. 31 minute time stamps featuring close-ups of Dr. Grant revealing some of the best facial texture I've seen in a movie of this age...or any age, for that matter). Another phenomenal scene starts at the 51 minute mark where they come across the sick dino in the jungle; the detail and depth are astounding!!


Contrast, black levels, and shadow details were also above average. From some of the comments that I read (here and elsewhere) I was expecting to see more black crush but in the numerous night scenes (even in the rain) we are treated to excellent black levels and a clarity revealing very fine details.


Before I give a rating, I will say that I wasn't as impressed with the first few scenes (where inconsistency reigned from shot to shot), but after those scenes it became relatively sharp and detailed to the very end.


Because of the anomalies mentioned above, I can't bring myself to nominating this for a demo tier (though I'm tempted to), but IMHO it still deserves a top spot in Tier Silver....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


PS The audio (DTS-HD Master Audio 7.1) really ROCKED!! That was reference quality all the way. Remember the scene at the "dig" in the badlands when the underground explosion happens....well, the walls of my Home Theater were shaking BIG TIME! And every time a dinosaur roared the same thing happened!


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Jurassic Park III*


Clear sharpening in play again, giving this one an edgy, imprecise quality even if facial detail is spectacular at times. Grain is noisy and elevated, although not to the extent of the first movie. Colors feel unnaturally elevated, especially greens. Blacks are fine, probably the best of the series, no crush to be had here.

*Tier 2.75**


----------



## javanpohl




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21136664
> 
> 
> Facial details were insane, especially of Dr. Grant (check out, for instance, the 39 minute and 1 hr. 31 minute time stamps featuring close-ups of Dr. Grant revealing some of the best facial texture I've seen in a movie of this age...or any age, for that matter).



Glad I'm not the only one that felt this way. Thought maybe I had some sort of subconcious favoritism for Sam Neil or something.


... or maybe his face is just jacked in comparison to everyone else.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *javanpohl* /forum/post/21138433
> 
> 
> Glad I'm not the only one that felt this way. Thought maybe I had some sort of subconcious favoritism for Sam Neil or something.
> 
> 
> ... or maybe his face is just jacked in comparison to everyone else.



No, I think you just appreciate a face that was made for HD!







(Others that come to mind are Morgan Freeman and Tommy Lee Jones.)


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Holy Mountain


recommendation: Tier 3.5*
*

This is a good-looking Blu-ray given the age of the film, originally made in 1973. Apparently an extensive restoration was made a few years ago under the supervision of its director, Alejandro Jodorowsky. A minor touch of digital noise reduction has been applied in select scenes, but the grain has been largely left untouched.


Several scenes display some unnecessary ringing and halos. The picture does remain consistently film-like most of the time with excellent contrast. An extra featurette on the restoration shows how much of an improvement the new master makes in both contrast and color.


A very strange movie that is treated in this transfer about as well as one could expect, given its status and age. There is a complete lack of technical problems and the print is very clean, outside of the opening credits.


----------



## djoberg

*The Lost World: Jurassic Park*


This was a definite STEP DOWN from the first installment. It didn't have the same sharpness, clarity, or detail, especially in the first 70 minutes. After that point it did improve, but even then it had bouts of softness and some murky blacks.


I must add that facial details were REALLY a disappointment here, for unlike _Jurassic Park_, which featured mesmerizing close-ups of Sam Neill, this one barely veered into demo territory in the few times the director chose to zoom in on an actor.


As intimated above, the black levels were also sub par, as were shadow details (though there were a few scenes that grabbed my intention and put a smile on my face).


All things considered this was a rather drab offering (including the color palette) and I am going to drop this a whole tier (and then some) from my recommendation of JP1.......

*Tier Recommendation: 3.25**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


PS I had forgotten how much I disliked this movie, which makes me feel a little better about the rather poor PQ, for it won't hurt my feelings if I never waste another 2 hours of my life on this one. Now I trust that _Jurassic Park 3_ will be a different story.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21144417
> 
> *The Lost World: Jurassic Park*
> 
> 
> PS I had forgotten how much I disliked this movie, which makes me feel a little better about the rather poor PQ, for it won't hurt my feelings if I never waste another 2 hours of my life on this one. Now I trust that _Jurassic Park 3_ will be a different story.



It can't have been as bad as watching The Holy Mountain, though my memories of the Jurassic Park sequels are sketchy at best. My eyes were not quite prepared for some of the more shocking scenes. Though shock quickly grew to boredom by the tedious visual allegories that stretch on and on with little payoff.


----------



## djoberg

*Jurassic Park 3*


This is most definitely the BEST of the trilogy (PQ-wise, that is), due to a CONSISTENCY not found in the first two installments. This has very good DETAILS, DEPTH, and CLARITY from beginning to end!


I love facial details and they were just as good as in _Jurassic Park_, though perhaps not as numerous. Details in general were excellent, with most scenes taking place in daytime in jungle scenes....the foliage was real EYE CANDY! Depth and dimensionality were also virtues in MANY scenes.


My only real gripe would be with a few isolated soft shots and....believe it or not, some CGI shots of the dinos that were TOO SHARP AND DETAILED. Yeah, you read that right, they were so crisp and detailed they looked out of place next to objects that paled in comparison.


I'm VERY HAPPY to place this one in a demo tier, though just barely....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


PS This is a title I'd watch again, along with _Jurassic Park_. So, 2 out of 3 ain't bad and I feel justified in my purchase of this trilogy for just under $50.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/21147415
> 
> *It can't have been as bad as watching The Holy Mountain*, though my memories of the Jurassic Park sequels are sketchy at best.



I will have to take your word on that Phantom, for I doubt that I'll be renting that title anytime soon (after reading your take on it) to see if you're right.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

A few reviews from the past to help you make decisions on what to watch for Halloween tonight. These were just picked randomly from the past year.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/19718343
> 
> *A Nightmare on Elm Street* (2010)
> 
> 
> Another excellent start gone sour. There is so much detail, pore detail, on the Kris character that I was starting to say Tier 1.5 or higher. These are some fantastic close-up's! However, just as the character
> *Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler
> *Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) succumbed
> so did the PQ.
> 
> 
> First off, there's a greenish tinge to most scenes, obviously intended by the director. This isn't bothersome, just noticeable. Secondly, shadow details start to suffer about midway through the flick. Facial details also start hurtling into inconsistent hell, as the plane of focus cannot seem to make it a few micrometers to its target. Of course, the next arbitrary scene would achieve this.
> 
> 
> Blacks look very nice, though more prominent crushing does occur in the latter half. Contrast is excellent for the most part in brightly lit domains and still above average in not-so-well-lit places. There's a fair amount of dimensionality in the former half as well. Not too many complaints on colors. The green leaves really pop!
> 
> 
> Grain is well-resolved for the most part. There are again instances of noise in darker scenes. Some minor banding noted. Overall, I have to drop this into Tier Silver...
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.0*





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19722375
> 
> *And Soon the Darkness*
> 
> 
> Absolutely amazing pans of this location shoot, mountains fully defined, loaded with color, and depth. Flesh tones are great, and detail can be stunning. Bit of softness here and there, but not too much. The third act cuts out much of the color, but not the definition or detail.
> 
> *Tier 1.75*





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19738829
> 
> *End of Days*
> 
> 
> Certainly a older master, soft and dull with some extensive damage at times. Black levels are stable, important since this one has almost no light to speak of. Grain is mushy and some edge enhancement is visible. Colors are blah by design.
> 
> *Tier 4.0*





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/19793264
> 
> *Vampire Circus
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 3.25
> *
> 
> Synapse Films has lovingly brought the 1971 Hammer production, _Vampire Circus_, to new heights of glory on Blu-ray. Released just last month on a BD-50, the 87-minute Gothic horror is encoded in AVC at a generous video-only average of 30.01 Mbps. Presented in a 1.66:1 presentation that restores for the first time its original theatrical framing seen in Europe, the transfer looks sourced from high-quality elements in excellent condition. For a small distributor, Synapse Films has greatly surpassed expectations in the picture quality for this cult movie, and puts some of the work from the major studios to shame.
> 
> 
> Grain does play a role in this film's image, though the video encode handles it flawlessly. Looking for evidence of macroblocking or artifacting problems, even during the more demanding scenes with flames and explosions, the image was entirely devoid of such distractions. A solid amount of high-frequency detail and information is apparent at times, but not uniformly present. Part of that may be due to the optics and original filming. Certain sections, notably the first reel of the film, appear to have been processed with a bit of digital grain reduction. Nothing too drastic, but either the makeup was inconsistently applied during the course of production, or some early sections of the transfer have had minor processing applied in some way. Some faint, low-amplitude ringing also pops up, only to disappear or recede in magnitude as the film progresses. Neither annoyances really do anything to diminish the image to any significant degree and largely vanish in the last hour.
> 
> 
> One area that the picture excels in, particularly for an older film, are the nice black levels and easily discerned shadow detail. This is important for a movie that a substantial portion takes place at night. Outside of one or two questionable moments in nearly pitch-black light, scenes like the panther's black fur display excellent delineation and a level of detail that is quite high. The image also possesses a heightened sense of depth over many other catalog films, though I would not quite call it pop or dimensional. Better moments might be rated in the middle of Tier Two, alongside newer movies, if there had been more consistency.
> 
> 
> Expecting dull, faded colors due to the film's age and obscurity, in actuality primary colors are deep and vivid in this transfer. Red blood obviously plays a huge role in the film, looking bright and fully saturated. Contrast is decent given the generally dark atmosphere of the settings. The color timing pays respect to the conventions of the era it was made, not straying far from the balanced and conservative look. Outside of a few optical composite effects that look dated now, the source looks clean and stable, as if the transfer was struck from a very good negative or possibly interpositive. Only a handful of thin, short scratches briefly appear to remind one that _Vampire Circus_ was filmed many years ago. The general resolution and clarity is good, only dipping in a few spotty moments of focus.
> 
> 
> Fans and newcomers will find little wrong with the quality seen in the image, especially those familiar with films of similar vintage. Source limitations dating back to the Seventies prevent a higher placement for the most part, but the transfer has given new life to one of the more obscure Hammer films. While certain extended moments deserve a higher placement, in the end a ranking in Tier 3.25 for _Vampire Circus_ is a good representation of the overall quality.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/20033913
> 
> *Jacob's Ladder*
> 
> 
> Another of my faves making it to blu-ray. For the purposes of this thread, this is a soft picture. Blacks are decent, but contrast is just too low to really make an impact. Grain is often heavy and distracting, though after some time, your eyes do adjust. There is no depth to speak of and colors are undersaturated throughout.
> 
> 
> For what it's worth, there is no foul play to speak of and I did not spot any banding or major compression issues. There are some sequences that reach the pinnacle that is Tier 4 and so it saves this from going to the Coal bin...
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 4.50*





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19343238
> 
> *The Exorcist (1973 Extended Director's Cut)*
> 
> 
> You know I've been anticipating this title for several days and had mentioned that I had high hopes (based on about a dozen reviewers who were singing its praises) of it being a demo transfer. Sadly, I can't join in the chorus of praise, at least not to the same degree.
> 
> 
> This one was REALLY a mixed bag. One minute you would have a sharp and extremely detailed shot, the next minute heavy grain would intrude (usually during nighttime shots) obscuring almost all detail or murky blacks would rear their ugly head (there was a shot of Damien laying on his bed at night that rivaled scenes from _28 Days Later_; the blacks in that shot were as bad as I've ever seen and his face looked unnatural and flat).
> 
> 
> The movie started out with a scene in Iraq where excavations were taking place and the landscapes and ancient buildings were teeming with detail. Then the cameraman zoomed into the face of Max von Sydow and I was absolutely mesmerized by the fine detail in every square inch of his facial features. Even his wrinkled hands were high Tier 0 quality! I thought to myself, "Whoa, this is going to be one fine transfer." The next scene shifted to Georgetown (in Washington, D.C.) which highlighted panoramic shots of ornate university buildings and cathedrals, all serving up plenty of detail and warm, natural colors. But from that point on the "mixed bag" came into play and my early hopes for demo quality were quickly dashed.
> 
> 
> Perhaps the worst offender throughout the movie was black levels. There were rare instances where they were somewhat deep, but overall they were murky (as alluded to above) and filled with video noise.
> 
> 
> Grain lovers will love the fact that grain is present from beginning to end and in the "good shots" of the film it has that wonderful filmic look and really enhances the detail. But with most nighttime scenes the grain turned HEAVY and detail was lost.
> 
> 
> In conclusion I will say that given the age of this film (37 years old!!) the Blu-ray is still quite good (and perhaps age was a determining factor in the video score of the reviewers I referred to above), but if we are going to adhere to the standards set forth on page one of the PQ Tier Rankings, this title must, of necessity, fall well below the demo tiers. I feel constrained to consign it to the same spot as my last recommendation.......
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.25*





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/19146917
> 
> *Paranormal Activity*
> 
> 
> I thought it might be fitting to close the day with a "Man/Chick Flick," so I chose this one. (For those of you who haven't seen this title, the majority of the movie is filmed with just a man...and a chick...in it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ).
> 
> 
> I believe its current placement of 4.0 is justified, though in comparing it with _Quarantine_ (which was also shot with a jerky home video cam), which is currently in 4.5, I thought it had considerably better PQ, so perhaps my vote would go for....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.75*
> 
> PS I think it stinks that the director took the liberty of making one think this movie was based on actual events (by a statement made at the very beginning of the movie and then by statements made right after the closing scene) and then later he states that it wasn't based on actual persons or events.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Captain America*


Looks just like it did in theaters, a bland, pale looking digital appearance. Shot on film and digital, it would seem the film stuff is manipulated to match everything. High fidelity detail just isn't there, close-ups are typically understated, and, well, the black levels aren't too bad. The encode itself is fine.

*Tier 3.0**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Cars 2*


Well, let's see. The tech is better than Cars 1, so there's a detail boost. Backgrounds are littered with small, intricate details. The Tokyo scenes are the most reference of the year. Contrast is great, blacks are superb, the encode is perfect. Where to put it? How about above Cars 1? Makes the most sense to me.

*Tier 0* (above Cars)*


----------



## JoeBloggz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/21157497
> 
> *Cars 2*
> 
> 
> Well, let's see. The tech is better than Cars 1, so there's a detail boost. Backgrounds are littered with small, intricate details. The Tokyo scenes are the most reference of the year. Contrast is great, blacks are superb, the encode is perfect. Where to put it? How about above Cars 1? Makes the most sense to me.
> 
> *Tier 0* (above Cars)*



Nice to hear! My son loved it in the theater! Looks like I'll be picking this one up


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/21157497
> 
> *Cars 2*
> 
> 
> Well, let's see. The tech is better than Cars 1, so there's a detail boost. Backgrounds are littered with small, intricate details. The Tokyo scenes are the most reference of the year. Contrast is great, blacks are superb, the encode is perfect. Where to put it? How about above Cars 1? Makes the most sense to me.
> 
> *Tier 0* (above Cars)*



Sounds good GRG!


For those interested in picking up a copy, I downloaded a $5 off coupon on Disney's website and was able to use it at Target where they were already running a special on the Blu-ray/DVD combo. It came to under $20 with tax included!! Just so you know, the coupon says it only applies to the 5-Disc Collector's Set, but Target still honored the coupon with the Blu/DVD set.


Here's the site: http://www.disneymovierewards.go.com...rs/cars2coupon


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21159005
> 
> 
> Sounds good GRG!
> 
> 
> For those interested in picking up a copy, I downloaded a $5 off coupon on Disney's website and was able to use it at Target where they were already running a special on the Blu-ray/DVD combo. It came to under $20 with tax included!! Just so you know, the coupon says it only applies to the 5-Disc Collector's Set, but Target still honored the coupon with the Blu/DVD set.
> 
> 
> Here's the site: http://www.disneymovierewards.go.com...rs/cars2coupon



Just for the record, DMR always has $5 or even $10 coupons available for major releases. Always useful.

*Carjacked*


Easily the worst movie I've reviewed in 2011, and I've seen a lot so far. Cheap, cheap, cheap digital with clearly SD exteriors. Black levels are firm at least, and facial detail is crisp. Some noise and visible compression doesn't help. Ugly yellow dominates the color scheme making flesh tones hideous.

*Tier 3.5**


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/21162248
> 
> 
> Just for the record, DMR always has $5 or even $10 coupons available for major releases. Always useful.



I knew that, but I wasn't sure others did. Also, I wanted people to know that even though the coupon seems to apply to the big 5-Disc set only, you can still use it on the 2-Disc Combo set (perhaps many would avoid the coupon based on that). With most movies I'm perfectly satisfied with the smaller set which means at least a $5 savings, if not more.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*She*


Colorized 1935 film, also in B&W. The B&W has been bitrate starved to accommodate four movies on a single disc. Ouch. The color version has more room to breathe, but the colorization... eww. Gray scale is great on the B&W version, and this seems to be culled from a good source. However, about 10 minutes of it is pulled from a multi-gen 16mm source, and it's obvious. Damage isn't extensive, but noticeable.

*Tier 4.0**


----------



## lgans316

*Faster - Recommendation: Tier 2.5*


------------------------------------------

*Smokin' Aces - Recommendation: Tier 1.5*


------------------------------------------

*X-Men First Class - Recommendation: Tier 1.75*


------------------------------------------

*Battle: Los Angeles - Recommendation: Tier 2.75*


Not sure if I already cast my vote for this.

------------------------------------------


----------



## djoberg

*Captain America*


Let me start by giving you a time stamp: 1 Hour 12 Minutes. In that particular scene you have everything that adds up to Tier Blu; you have SHARPNESS, BOLD CONTRAST, RICH COLORS, AMAZING DEPTH, and EXQUISITE DETAILS (and void of any artifacts or other anomalies). The bad news is it lasts for under one minute and you have less than a handful of shots that look like that.


The rest of the movie is a MIXED BAG, with at least half of the running time featuring a muted color palette that is soft & flat. The rest looks fairly decent with very good depth, details, and black levels. And even though the color palette remains on the dull side, there were flashes of primary colors that really caught the eye.


Facial details were a disappointment. The best to be found were a few of Tommy Lee Jones, but he still didn't have the texture that can be found on some of the reference titles.


I'm inclined to go along with GRG on this one, but my reputation for being generous is going to come into play and cause me to vote for....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Things to Come*


Sourced from a sloppy 16mm multi-generational source, there are few positives here. This is a master from around 2007/2008, which probably doesn't help either. Images are devoid of detail, damage is extensive, gray scale is gone, and the colorization is miserable. Pass.

*Tier 5.0**


----------



## djoberg

*Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides*


Yet another MIXED BAG....with spectacular daytime scenes (Tier 0 all the way!)....some less-than-stellar night time scenes (especially those taking place indoors or outdoor scenes with fog)....and then some night time scenes with fantastic black levels and exquisite shadow details.


In the daytime scenes we are treated to amazing COLORS (you gotta love the dazzling green foliage in the multiple jungle shots and those beautiful Red Coats worn by British soldiers), accurate FLESH TONES, strong CONTRAST, mesmerizing DETAILS & DEPTH, and SHARPNESS & CLARITY to-die-for. If the whole movie was characterized as such, this one would rival _The Thin Red Line_.


In the good night time scenes I'd rate this somewhere in Tier 1. But in the not-so-good night time scenes it would be generous to call it average.


All things considered I believe this deserves demo status and I'm willing to put it right here....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Trespass*


Really rough start with softness, pitiful detail, and hideous color. Things calm down and detail starts pouring in, even if it's not the high-end. Black crush is a little too common but adds a nice intensity to the images regardless. Film grain is crisp but resolved well.

*Tier 2.75**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Reunion*


Plastic-y medium shots limit definition, although the digital offers a nice clean, smooth appearance that isn't entirely unnatural. Pans of the landscapes are stunning. Noise is a non issue and the black levels pack a nice punch.

*Tier 2.25**


----------



## mweflen

*Superman II (Box Set Theatrical Cut)*


I was quite pleasantly surprised by the quality of this transfer. Grain is lush and pretty throughout, though it gets a bit out of control in re-cut footage such as the recycled intro from the first movie. Fine detail is superb in scenes without soft focus (such as the editorial room scenes, and especially the moon scenes), and is acceptable in the soft focus shots, which comprise perhaps 25% of the film (especially close-ups of Margot Kidder). Optically composited shots suffer an expected reduction in resolution. Colors really pop, and blacks are deep and solid. No DNR or EE is evident.


Overall, this is a superb upgrade over the DVD, and its only flaws are endemic to the original print. I'm really wowed.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.5*


Sony KDL-52EX700, 8 foot viewing distance


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Change-Up*


Typical of the modern comedy, saturated with a little too much orange in the flesh tones and inconsistencies abound. Grain is cleanly resolved and black levels hold firm. It's the detail that wander, especially with Olivia Wilde who looks plastic through the whole thing.

*Tier 2.5**


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen* /forum/post/21193119
> 
> *Superman II (Theatrical Cut)*
> 
> 
> Overall, this is a superb upgrade over the DVD, and its only flaws are endemic to the original print. I'm really wowed.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.5*



I thought the newer transfers for the Superman movies in the box set were very good, it was the older scans released years ago that looked sub-par. Superman II has never looked better.


----------



## oleus




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/21195877
> 
> 
> I thought the newer transfers for the Superman movies in the box set were very good, it was the older scans released years ago that looked sub-par. Superman II has never looked better.



how does it compare to the "donner cut" from a few years ago?


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *oleus* /forum/post/21195962
> 
> 
> how does it compare to the "donner cut" from a few years ago?



It looks much better than the Donner version on Blu-ray, even after making allowances for the nature of the edits and rough footage in that cut.


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/21195877
> 
> 
> I thought the newer transfers for the Superman movies in the box set were very good, it was the older scans released years ago that looked sub-par. Superman II has never looked better.



I didn't know they needed to be differentiated with the exception of the first movie. I will amend if need be.


I'm in the midst of III right now, and it's even better than II (owing to the relative lack of lens and soft-focus issues).


As far as I'm concerned, these are "reference standard" transfers of early-mid-80s material. I can't think of anything from the same time period that's better, with the possible exception of Star Trek II. I wish Star Wars looked nearly as good.


----------



## djoberg

*Ben-Hur*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen* /forum/post/21040508
> 
> *Ben-Hur (1959)*
> 
> 
> The short review: this is as good as "The Ten Commandments," but with fewer instances of inconsistency, since the optical process shots are of higher quality, showing smaller matte lines and less fuzziness. Thus deserving of a slightly higher rating than that film.
> 
> 
> The long review:
> 
> -Very strong detail across the entire range, large and small, near and far. Faces show tiny beads of sweat, cloth shows realistic texture, foliage and stones pop with realism.
> 
> -Very light film grain is evident, whereas no DNR or EE is evident.
> 
> -Very strong colors, especially the reds of the Roman uniforms. Flesh tones are pleasingly realistic.
> 
> -Good dimensionality in bright shots, less so in dark shots.
> 
> -Excellent and solid black levels, with a good amount of detail near black.
> 
> -Very few shots besides process shots show some degradation of the film elements. I counted two dropped frames, and about ten seconds worth of print damage manifesting itself in some wavering colors.
> 
> 
> Basically, in every way except special effects and lighting choices (that is, many interior shots are realistically lit, and thus look somewhat dark to an eye trained by the likes of Michael Bay), this transfer is competitive with any on the market today, and stands as probably the single best 65mm transfer available. It is a terrific companion piece to "The Ten Commandments."
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.5*



I remembered that mweflen had given a good review of this and I'm in agreement with _almost_ every point he makes. The only area where I would differ is the black levels; they were pretty inconsistent with some being stellar, and others on the murky side and with a bit of black crush in a few night scenes.


Facial details were really a mixed bag. There were some close-ups of Heston and others that fell into demo territory, but most were only average. Flesh tones were, as noted by mweflen, spot on.


Let me just say that this is the most amazing restoration I've seen to date of a film this old. It's truly incredible and if any one is fond of this classic it deserves a place in your Blu-ray library.


I'm going one notch lower....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 6'


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Harry Potter/ Deathly Hallows Part 2*


Clumsy, low bitrate encode leaves the images looking filtered, muddy, and flat. Tricks are played on the grain, including noisy appearances and smearing. Some light ringing and aliasing are a downer too. Close-ups are still fine, and the black levels... wow. Just wow on the black levels. And this movie is DARK. It's crucial that they succeed, but the rest doesn't.

*Tier 3.0**


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/21199883
> 
> *Harry Potter/ Deathly Hallows Part 2*
> 
> 
> Clumsy, low bitrate encode leaves the images looking filtered, muddy, and flat.
> 
> *Tier 3.0**



WB used to take pride and extra care when making the Blu-ray for their flagship new releases, but that has generally not been the case now for a couple of years. If it is not a classic film, many of their current video encodes appear to be handled by interns.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/21199883
> 
> *Harry Potter/ Deathly Hallows Part 2*
> 
> 
> Clumsy, low bitrate encode leaves the images looking filtered, muddy, and flat. Tricks are played on the grain, including noisy appearances and smearing. Some light ringing and aliasing are a downer too. Close-ups are still fine, and the black levels... wow. Just wow on the black levels. And this movie is DARK. It's crucial that they succeed, but the rest doesn't.
> 
> *Tier 3.0**





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/21200973
> 
> 
> WB used to take pride and extra care when making the Blu-ray for their flagship new releases, but that has generally not been the case now for a couple of years. If it is not a classic film, many of their current video encodes appear to be handled by interns.



GRG, I'm sure you are aware of all the praise this title is getting from your peers that are posted on Cinema Squid's site (this praise includes KUDOS to WB for going the extra mile on this one). I've always admired you for being willing to "call it the way you see it," even if it goes against the general consensus.


I'll be watching this title in a little while and I'll chime in as soon as I finish.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/21200973
> 
> 
> WB used to take pride and extra care when making the Blu-ray for their flagship new releases, but that has generally not been the case now for a couple of years. If it is not a classic film, many of their current video encodes appear to be handled by interns.



It's a shame too because DH Part 1 turned out okay. I didn't have any of the filtering going on. Sort of thought they were on the right track after that. Clearly that was not the case.



> Quote:
> GRG, I'm sure you are aware of all the praise this title is getting from your peers that are posted on Cinema Squid's site (this praise includes KUDOS to WB for going the extra mile on this one). I've always admired you for being willing to "call it the way you see it," even if it goes against the general consensus.



Yeah, I saw the others. I called out Half-Blood Prince for most of the same stuff and ended up getting slammed on a few sites for it. Blu-ray.com makes mention of some of the problems, but their critic didn't take as much issue with them. For a top tier release, any issues that are not source related seem sloppy to me, but some don't mind and that's fine too.


----------



## djoberg

*Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows-Part 2*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/21199883
> 
> *Harry Potter/ Deathly Hallows Part 2*
> 
> 
> Clumsy, low bitrate encode leaves the images looking filtered, muddy, and flat. Tricks are played on the grain, including noisy appearances and smearing. Some light ringing and aliasing are a downer too. Close-ups are still fine, and the black levels... wow. Just wow on the black levels. And this movie is DARK. It's crucial that they succeed, but the rest doesn't.
> 
> *Tier 3.0**



After watching the first couple of scenes I thought I'd be throwing my lot in with those who are singing the praises of the _Harry Potter Finale_ (and thus I'd be taking to task my fellow-contributor GRG). Those scenes were quite dazzling, with all the virtues (amazing DEPTH, DETAILS, FLESH TONES, CLARITY, and even COLORS) resulting in demo quality. But these were *daytime* scenes! Once the DARK SCENES became pervasive there was a definite drop in PQ, with some of the anomalies mentioned above. In fairness there were also *some* shots that excelled in DETAILS and DEPTH, and a fair amount of scenes where the BLACK LEVELS and SHADOW DETAILS were simply mesmerizing.


I just have to mention that the last 20 minutes or so were the very BEST and had the whole running time been characterized as such we'd all be scratching our heads and trying to determine what part of Tier Blu it should be assigned to. The SHARPNESS, CLARITY, and DETAILS were phenomenal!!


Though I agree generally with most of GRG's analysis, I do think it deserves a slightly better placement, thus my gut is telling me to vote for...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.5**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/21199883
> 
> *Harry Potter/ Deathly Hallows Part 2*
> 
> 
> Clumsy, low bitrate encode leaves the images looking filtered, muddy, and flat. Tricks are played on the grain, including noisy appearances and smearing. Some light ringing and aliasing are a downer too. Close-ups are still fine, and the black levels... wow. Just wow on the black levels. And this movie is DARK. It's crucial that they succeed, but the rest doesn't.
> 
> *Tier 3.0**



Completely agree in all respects, including the placement.

*Tier 3.0**



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/21200973
> 
> 
> WB used to take pride and extra care when making the Blu-ray for their flagship new releases, but that has generally not been the case now for a couple of years. If it is not a classic film, many of their current video encodes appear to be handled by interns.



I am not recalling any time when Warner has done anything better than a poor job on new releases on Blu-ray. In my recollection they have been consistently poor to mediocre.


But I don't blame the people who are actually doing the encoding. They are clearly just following orders from higher-ups.


----------



## lgans316

*Transformers: Dark of the Moon*


Typical Michael Bay picture quality. This is the first movie with a lengthy climax I have ever seen, reminiscent of its prequel. I wanted it to end but didn't but when it reached the end, it ended so quick, in a flash.









*Recommendation: Tier 1 or Tier 0.75*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/21204495
> 
> *Transformers: Dark of the Moon*
> 
> 
> Typical Michael Bay picture quality. This is the first movie with a lengthy climax I have ever seen, reminiscent of its prequel. I wanted it to end but didn't but when it reached the end, it ended so quick, in a flash.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 1 or Tier 0.75*



I agree with you! I suggested the bottom of Tier 0 so for once we're on the same page.


----------



## mweflen

*The Tree Of Life*


OK, look, let me say right out, _as a movie_, this will not be everyone's cup of tea. It is dense and strange and long and lacks what most people would recognize as plot, dialogue, story, and so on. So don't go and rent or buy this because of what I'm about to say or because I enjoyed it (at least I think I did...).


But as a Blu-Ray? Holy crap. Easily, easily, EASILY the finest Blu-ray I've ever seen. This transfer trumps Thin Red Line, Baraka, Sin City, Hot Fuzz, Pirates of the Caribbean, and any other live action BD on the Tier 0 list I've seen (I won't evaluate it against the animated stuff except to say that I'd rather watch this than any of those, because reality trumps animation in terms of visual interest, IMHO).


In terms of detail, every single frame of the film displays absolutely pristine detail. Every blade of grass, pore of skin, stray hair, texture of fabric, pebble on the ground, ripple of paint on a wall - is visible with absolute crystal clarity. The detail on faces is unreal (and believe me, I was transfixed by Jessica Chastain's face whenever it was on screen - she may be the most radiant specimen of feminine beauty ever committed to celluloid). Peach fuzz on a baby's face in a mid-focus shot was easily evident.


Color is superbly realistic, black levels are deep and inky but not crushed, and there is absolutely no posterization or banding on a set of very challenging scenes depicting skies, spacescapes, starfields, and so on.


Film grain is visible from up close, but I am assuming the film stock used was a relatively low-grain one (similar to "The Reader"). There is absolutely no evidence of any undue digital manipulation. It is as if there is a piece of film being projected with perfect focus on your HD television screen.


Stunning, stunning, stunning. Even if you don't end up liking the movie, it's worth a rental just to witness the Blu-Ray format in its full flower.

*Tier Recommendation: 0 (somewhere above "The Thin Red Line")*


Sony KDL52EX700, 8 foot viewing distance


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Destroy All Monsters*


Great Toho monster mash presented with better than expected results by Media Blasters. It represents the usual Toho film stock as presented on DVD from various studios, a bit faded and flat blacks. Detail on monster suits and close-ups is well above par and colors have some zest. For thread purposes, it's overly soft and pale.

*Tier 3.5**


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21204676
> 
> 
> I agree with you! I suggested the bottom of Tier 0 so for once we're on the same page.



Yep. Thought it looked fantastic with only few soft scenes and deserves to be in the top Tier.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen* /forum/post/21205809
> 
> *The Tree Of Life*
> 
> 
> Stunning, stunning, stunning. Even if you don't end up liking the movie, it's worth a rental just to witness the Blu-Ray format in its full flower.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 0 (somewhere above "The Thin Red Line")*



You have most definitely whetted my appetite for seeing this title. I just checked out some reviews on Amazon and I believe I may actually enjoy the movie. And there is NO DOUBT I will LOVE the PQ!!


Better than _The Thin Red Line_ you say....WOW!


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen* /forum/post/21205809
> 
> *The Tree Of Life*
> 
> 
> OK, look, let me say right out, _as a movie_, this will not be everyone's cup of tea. It is dense and strange and long and lacks what most people would recognize as plot, dialogue, story, and so on. So don't go and rent or buy this because of what I'm about to say or because I enjoyed it (at least I think I did...).
> 
> 
> But as a Blu-Ray? Holy crap. Easily, easily, EASILY the finest Blu-ray I've ever seen. This transfer trumps Thin Red Line, Baraka, Sin City, Hot Fuzz, Pirates of the Caribbean, and any other live action BD on the Tier 0 list I've seen (I won't evaluate it against the animated stuff except to say that I'd rather watch this than any of those, because reality trumps animation in terms of visual interest, IMHO).
> 
> 
> In terms of detail, every single frame of the film displays absolutely pristine detail. Every blade of grass, pore of skin, stray hair, texture of fabric, pebble on the ground, ripple of paint on a wall - is visible with absolute crystal clarity. The detail on faces is unreal (and believe me, I was transfixed by Jessica Chastain's face whenever it was on screen - she may be the most radiant specimen of feminine beauty ever committed to celluloid). Peach fuzz on a baby's face in a mid-focus shot was easily evident.
> 
> 
> Color is superbly realistic, black levels are deep and inky but not crushed, and there is absolutely no posterization or banding on a set of very challenging scenes depicting skies, spacescapes, starfields, and so on.
> 
> 
> Film grain is visible from up close, but I am assuming the film stock used was a relatively low-grain one (similar to "The Reader"). There is absolutely no evidence of any undue digital manipulation. It is as if there is a piece of film being projected with perfect focus on your HD television screen.
> 
> 
> Stunning, stunning, stunning. Even if you don't end up liking the movie, it's worth a rental just to witness the Blu-Ray format in its full flower.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 0 (somewhere above "The Thin Red Line")*
> 
> 
> Sony KDL52EX700, 8 foot viewing distance



Agreed, 100%...I fired up the projector and seen the best PQ on BD Ive ever seen for a live action film.

*Tier 0 above Thin Red Line.*


And the movie was good...at least for me...and the visuals...cinematography was stunning, some of the best Ive seen and the fantasy/visual sequences were surreal.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/21209230
> 
> 
> Agreed, 100%...I fired up the projector and seen the best PQ on BD Ive ever seen for a live action film.
> 
> *Tier 0 above Thin Red Line.*
> 
> 
> And the movie was good...at least for me...and the visuals...cinematography was stunning, some of the best Ive seen and the fantasy/visual sequences were surreal.



It's SO GOOD to see a post from you Hugh!


I really believe, based on many reviews I've read, that I'll like the movie too. I rather enjoy directors who "march to the beat of a different drum" and are willing to put out a movie "for the love of their craft" instead of catering to the masses (for the almighty dollar).


----------



## JoeBloggz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21208643
> 
> 
> You have most definitely whetted my appetite for seeing this title. I just checked out some reviews on Amazon and I believe I may actually enjoy the movie. And there is NO DOUBT I will LOVE the PQ!!
> 
> 
> Better than _The Thin Red Line_ you say....WOW!



+1 Really looking forward to this title. Especially after seeing some glowing reviews here. TTRL(The Thin Red Line) has been at the top of Tier 0 for me since it came out. Can't image anything better.

I've just recently had my Elite 111 calibrated by UMR(Jeff Meier) so I've been re-watching my Blu collection and the improvement in PQ with all content is absolutely astonishing!

I'll have to watch TTRL on my newly calibrated set before making a judgement on Tree of Life.

I might wait, until it comes down in price a bit as well, currently $29.99 on Amazon. That seems to be the going price at most places at the moment.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JoeBloggz* /forum/post/21210534
> 
> 
> +1 Really looking forward to this title. Especially after seeing some glowing reviews here. TTRL(The Thin Red Line) has been at the top of Tier 0 for me since it came out. Can't image anything better.
> 
> I've just recently had my Elite 111 calibrated by UMR(Jeff Meier) so I've been re-watching my Blu collection and the improvement in PQ with all content is absolutely astonishing!
> 
> I'll have to watch TTRL on my newly calibrated set before making a judgement on Tree of Life.
> 
> I might wait, until it comes down in price a bit as well, currently $29.99 on Amazon. That seems to be the going price at most places at the moment.



I just picked up _The Tree of Life_ this afternoon at Best Buy for the price you mentioned. EVERYONE is currently selling it for that price, but my thinking is it's going to be worth every penny! I probably won't get around to watching it until later this week (if I have enough patience, that is).


I envy you for having had your Elite calibrated by UMR; he is one of the best in the business of calibration. I had a calibration scheduled last spring with David Abrams (another EXCELLENT choice for calibration) and then we went and sold our home and moved to West Central Minnesota so I had to cancel it. I doubt that we'll ever move again so I'm going to try to get David here on his next tour of this area.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21210472
> 
> 
> It's SO GOOD to see a post from you Hugh!
> 
> 
> I really believe, based on many reviews I've read, that I'll like the movie too. I rather enjoy directors who "march to the beat of a different drum" and are willing to put out a movie "for the love of their craft" instead of catering to the masses (for the almighty dollar).



Thanks Denny, You'll love it then. ....I looked at IMDB at the films Malick is coming out with in the next few years and outside of the next release, and even that looks to use digital cameras to some extent, I think we aren't going to see anymore or the same PQ that we have been seeing like in the THin Red Line or Tree of Life. He is moving to digital cameras and the next film, after the one coming out next, is shot with digital cameras. Im ok with digital, but after seeing Tree of LIfe...it doesn't get any better or "more flawless" for live action.


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/21212316
> 
> 
> Thanks Denny, You'll love it then. ....I looked at IMDB at the films Malick is coming out with in the next few years and outside of the next release, and even that looks to use digital cameras to some extent, I think we aren't going to see anymore or the same PQ that we have been seeing like in the THin Red Line or Tree of Life. He is moving to digital cameras and the next film, after the one coming out next, is shot with digital cameras. Im ok with digital, but after seeing Tree of LIfe...it doesn't get any better or "more flawless" for live action.



Apparently, 95%-plus of Tree of Life was filmed on low-grain 35mm Kodak stock, and certain shots were supplemented with coverage on a RED digital camera. I think, perhaps, I can see the difference in one or two spots, having been armed with this knowledge on my second viewing. (I suspect the butterfly scene is digital, for instance)


Also, on the second viewing, I did see about 5 seconds worth of banding on the edges of one of the space scenes. But it doesn't alter my rating. For one thing, I can't tell for sure whether it is the transfer or my display (although I am leaning towards transfer). For another, the rest of the movie is so overwhelming and superior to any other bd (including TTRL) it still rates the same.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/21212316
> 
> 
> He is moving to digital cameras and the next film, after the one coming out next, is shot with digital cameras. Im ok with digital, but after seeing Tree of LIfe...it doesn't get any better or "more flawless" for live action.



It looks like most everyone is moving towards digital production in Hollywood because of the economics and ease of use. Though it will be a sad day when film stops being the dominant medium of movies.


----------



## mweflen

*Amelie*


This is a film with a unique color palette, and thus may fool someone who has never seen it into thinking the video is off. It's not. I've seen it in the theater and on DVD. Color looks over-saturated in accordance with the director's intentions. Green is by far the dominant cast, owing to the use of gel filters and post-production color timing. There are many predominantly amber scenes as well. Basically, it looks totally accurate to the theater presentation.


Detail is quite strong, consistently. There is a lot of wallpaper in this movie, and the patterns are frequently quite sharp. Cloth displays fabric textures. Facial close-ups, of which there are many, are quite good for detail, showing many pores, wrinkles and whiskers, even in mid-focus shots... but are perhaps not at the absolute pinnacle of Blu-Ray transfers. Grain is consistent and pleasing from start to finish.


Black levels are strong but not crushed. No edge enhancement or DNR seems evident. I did catch a few slight instances of moire and one odd scene with purple shimmering pixels against a white fence. But these sorts of flaws are not the dominant impression one gets.


The disc this most reminds me of is Fight Club, another flick from about the same time, with a similarly individual color palette. And since I agree with that disc's placement, I also give this the same rating...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


It's a well above-average catalog transfer, and a slam dunk upgrade for any fan of the film. It's a very involving, very film-like visual experience that is hard to press "stop" on once started.


Sony 52EX700, 8 foot viewing distance


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Sarah's Key*


Short on time today, so awful black levels and sometimes inconsistent detail pull this one down, but not bad overall.

*Tier 2.75**


----------



## JoeBloggz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21211921
> 
> 
> I just picked up _The Tree of Life_ this afternoon at Best Buy for the price you mentioned. EVERYONE is currently selling it for that price, but my thinking is it's going to be worth every penny! I probably won't get around to watching it until later this week (if I have enough patience, that is).
> 
> 
> I envy you for having had your Elite calibrated by UMR; he is one of the best in the business of calibration. I had a calibration scheduled last spring with David Abrams (another EXCELLENT choice for calibration) and then we went and sold our home and moved to West Central Minnesota so I had to cancel it. I doubt that we'll ever move again so I'm going to try to get David here on his next tour of this area.



If UMR is ever up in your area I would HIGHLY recommend him to calibrate your set. It was by far the best experience I've had with any of my Electronics! Even if you have to wait a bit for him to get up to you, its surely worth it. After watching a few blu's after calibration(Man on Fire, Up, so far) the difference is really remarkable. Biggest difference is skin/flesh tones are spot on now. Gamma is perfect and the picture has a lot more "pop".

He is on top of his craft and has a wealth of knowledge regarding proper calibration. He's got a lot of experience with Elites as well(as I noticed you have) he even spoke to the Chief product engineer at Pioneer about the specific construction of these sets when they were being produced. Some great info!!


I you wanna see my Calibration report(pre vs post) let me know. I can surely provide it


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JoeBloggz* /forum/post/21214397
> 
> 
> If UMR is ever up in your area I would HIGHLY recommend him to calibrate your set. It was by far the best experience I've had with any of my Electronics! Even if you have to wait a bit for him to get up to you, its surely worth it. After watching a few blu's after calibration(Man on Fire, Up, so far) the difference is really remarkable. Biggest difference is skin/flesh tones are spot on now. Gamma is perfect and the picture has a lot more "pop".
> 
> He is on top of his craft and has a wealth of knowledge regarding proper calibration. He's got a lot of experience with Elites as well(as I noticed you have) he even spoke to the Chief product engineer at Pioneer about the specific construction of these sets when they were being produced. Some great info!!
> 
> 
> I you wanna see my Calibration report(pre vs post) let me know. I can surely provide it



Perhaps we should PM each other regarding this subject (so as not to bore the others with our off-topic discussion), but let me just say that I don't believe UMR does tours in this area. If he did, I would definitely hire him, for he is also excellent at calibrating your sound system. If you do PM me, you can send the calibration report and let me know too if he did your sound system and how much it cost.


----------



## tfoltz

*Jurassic Park - Tier 2.75


Jurassic Park: Lost World - Tier 3.25


Jurassic Park III - Tier 2.75


Winnie the Pooh - Tier 0 (above Alice in Wonderland 1951)


Captain America - Tier 2.5
*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Flypaper*


Fun little heist flick shot digitally with some visible issues. Mild banding is quick to pass, but the edgy appearance isn't. Halos are a presence, and there's atrocious smoothing on Ashely Judd's face. Colors are intentionally faded leaving flesh tones a little pale.
*Tier 3.0**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Larry Crowne*


Pleasing if a little inconsistent. Colors are vibrant and saturated without going overboard. Black levels are crisp and sharpness is relatively high. A sagging mid-range pulls it down as do some close-ups that appear flat.

*Tier 2.25**


----------



## mweflen

*Green Lantern*


I am trying not to let a ho-hum story and poor design choices (ugh, that mask) alter my review. At times, detail could be very strong, but faces had a waxy DNR-ed look about 50% of the time. Extreme close-ups showed a lot of detail. Middle distance shots frequently looked like wax dummies. I have read that things look this way in the theatrical presentation, and background detail is strong, so I am assuming this was some sort of idiot choice on the part of the Director, editor, or DP.


The colors were... colorful. I did not see this in the theater, and I can only assume that such a wacked-out color palette was intentional. Black levels were strong and consistent throughout, as was detail near black.


I do think the crap CGI inherently lowers the visual interest of this disc. This might be just as good a BD as, say, Dark Knight. But the more I see poor animations and hokey looking characters, and the intentionally smoothed faces, the less impressed I am.


Thus, my rating is:
*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


Sony 52EX700, 8 foot viewing distance


----------



## mweflen

*Fellowship of the Ring (Extended Edition)*


Detail sees a big upgrade over both the EE DVD and the TE BD. At times, facial pores, hair, beards, and cloth are quite striking. But at other times, detail is only middling - the difference is usually apparent when there is a big person/little person composite shot. I would say this disc is 80% superbly detailed and 20% so-so.


Yes, the color timing has been shifted towards green. I for one like the change, as I felt the EE DVD was way too hot, color-wise. So I think the colors are consistent and realistic, with even, realistic flesh tones.


What really blew me away was detail near black. The mines of moria were absolutely loaded with detail that I had never noticed before, as was the bug scene during the initial hobbit chase. Black levels are for the most part very strong and deep.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


Sony 52EX700, 8 foot viewing distance.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Attack the Block*


Absurdly ugly color scheme dims a so-so low budgeter. Black levels are off a few notches and medium shots struggle to cope. The encode is fine, handling some complex material without fault.

*Tier 3.25**


----------



## djoberg

I slipped _The Tree of Life_ in about an hour ago, watched the first 30 minutes, and then during the creation scene the picture started breaking up and pixelating. I ended up skipping thru chapters but it kept happening. I took the disc out and cleaned it up and tried again....to no avail (though I was able to watch it from the 45 minute mark for approximately 20 minutes before it started breaking up again). So, it's back to Best Buy for an exchange!


What was my viewing experience like in the first half hour? Amazing! But I'm not ready to nominate it for the top of Tier Blu (or above _The Thin Red Line_). The detail and depth is astounding, but there were shots that lacked the clarity and sharpness I remember seeing in TTRL (though I'll have to pop that in again for a comparison after I see TTOL all the way through).


Another observation was the rather dull color palette in many shots, unlike the continuous lush green foliage of TTRL. But when the colors did appear (usually in panoramic views of various landscapes) they were gorgeous. And what can I say about the shots of the universe? SPECTACULAR!! (With the exception of a slight case of banding).


I did also see some fleeting *noise* in one dark scene. Other than that and the banding just alluded to, it was free of artifacts.


I was really bummed when I had to quit watching it because I was really getting into the movie itself. I believe you have to be in the *mood* for this one and I was obviously there this afternoon.


----------



## djoberg

*Cars 2*


Can it get any better than this? Just barely! The COLORS blew me away, especially Holly the Spy and her incredible PURPLE. The World Race held in Paris, Italy, and London had mesmerizing aerials of the cities (I should mention Tokyo too, where the World Race was announced), with such fine DETAILS and exhilarating colors . And the BLACK LEVELS rivaled any I've seen in an animated movie, with equally impressive SHADOW DETAILS. At times the DEPTH was so close to 3D I paused the picture to take it all in. Let me add that the photo-realism in multiple scenes was jaw-dropping!


I think this is just as good as _Toy Story 3_, minus the details (it didn't have *some* of the texture that popped in TS3, but this may be "straining at a gnat" for in most scenes the texture was impeccable). I'm hoping it lands right here....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (Between Toy Story 3 and Avatar)**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21230518
> 
> 
> I slipped _The Tree of Life_ in about an hour ago, watched the first 30 minutes, and then during the creation scene the picture started breaking up and pixelating. I ended up skipping thru chapters but it kept happening. I took the disc out and cleaned it up and tried again....to no avail (though I was able to watch it from the 45 minute mark for approximately 20 minutes before it started breaking up again). So, it's back to Best Buy for an exchange!
> 
> 
> I was really bummed when I had to quit watching it because I was really getting into the movie itself. I believe you have to be in the *mood* for this one and I was obviously there this afternoon.



That is always a huge letdown when you get into a movie and something of that nature intrudes. Hopefully the stock at your local store is not all bad, these problems tend to happen in batches.


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21230518
> 
> 
> 
> Another observation was the rather dull color palette in many shots, unlike the continuous lush green foliage of TTRL.



The color palette of the texas scenes does indeed run towards the cool end of the spectrum. But it seems pretty clear this was a stylistic choice, not a fault of the transfer, and it didn't bug me.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen* /forum/post/21231437
> 
> 
> The color palette of the texas scenes does indeed run towards the cool end of the spectrum. But it seems pretty clear this was a stylistic choice, not a fault of the transfer, and it didn't bug me.



I'm sure it was a stylistic choice. A drab color palette *can* rob the movie of eye candy, especially if sharpness and clarity are also lacking (which was the case in some of the shots in the Texas scenes).


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/21231381
> 
> 
> That is always a huge letdown when you get into a movie and something of that nature intrudes. Hopefully the stock at your local store is not all bad, these problems tend to happen in batches.



I wish I HAD purchased this locally Phantom; I bought it about an hour away from home and it just so happens I may not get there again until AFTER Thanksgiving. With that being the case, it will be an even bigger letdown if the stock is all bad.


----------



## umr




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21214482
> 
> 
> Perhaps we should PM each other regarding this subject (so as not to bore the others with our off-topic discussion), but let me just say that I don't believe UMR does tours in this area. If he did, I would definitely hire him, for he is also excellent at calibrating your sound system. If you do PM me, you can send the calibration report and let me know too if he did your sound system and how much it cost.



I do not travel to Minnesota. I would if I had enough interest.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *umr* /forum/post/21232097
> 
> 
> I do not travel to Minnesota. I would if I had enough interest.



I know there is *some* interest in the Minneapolis area (which is 2 hours from me), for David Abrams and others have tours there, but perhaps it's limited. I hope to get my PRO-151 calibrated before too long so I may just have to contact Mr. Abrams again. But as I stated earlier, I know of your excellent reputation for calibrating both video and audio systems, so you would have been my first choice.


----------



## mweflen

*The Two Towers (Extended Edition)*


Even better than FOTR. Gone are the soft-ish composited scenes. In their place are a seemingly endless succession of facial close-ups that show really great detail. Also providing a lot of visual interest are beautiful rocks, grasses, and clothing textures. There is a very pleasing sheen of grain throughout, and there is no EE or DNR evident.


Shadow detail is spectacular. Really dazzling. The Helms Deep battle scenes are bristling with detail near black. Black levels are inky and stable but not crushing. Color is even and pure, without the appearance of any undue tinting.


The only thing keeping this from an even higher ranking in my book are some soft aerial landscape shots, and maybe 2 minutes worth of wishy-washy blacks.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*


Sony 52EX700, 8 foot viewing distance


----------



## djoberg

Sounds good mweflen! I've been meaning to watch that title and the third installment too...you've encouraged me to do so.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Jeff Dunham: Controlled Chaos*


Typical stand-up meant for TV. Clarity is strong but it's hampered a noisy appearance. Blacks are good while colors bleed excessively, especially during pans of the crowd. Also note this is 1080i, although no visible artifacts result.

*Tier 3.0**


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21235594
> 
> 
> Sounds good mweflen! I've been meaning to watch that title and the third installment too...you've encouraged me to do so.



Well when you do, you should post your own reviews. The more the merrier, right? I personally think they're a bit underrated here so far.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen* /forum/post/21237649
> 
> 
> Well when you do, you should post your own reviews. The more the merrier, right? I personally think they're a bit underrated here so far.



It never hurts to give another opinion here, that goes for everyone. Many major films don't get more than one review at this point in the thread. The Tiers are only as accurate as the sum of its contributors, we need a plethora of diverse views for it to function well.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen* /forum/post/21237649
> 
> 
> Well when you do, you should post your own reviews.



I have been known to post a review every now and then, so I guess I could oblige you.


----------



## mweflen

*Return of the King (Extended Edition)*


Better still than TTT. Facial close-ups are basically flawless, showing every whisker and pore (and there are loads of both in this sausage-fest!). Cloth, rock foliage textures all impress. Black levels almost never falter, and show convincing detail in shadows. No EE or DNR seems evident. Film grain is present and consistent. The color palette swings from the dingy grays of Mordor to the sunlit plains of Rohan and Gondor quite convincingly.


The only thing holding this from tier 0 status for me is some of the CGI. Motion in the final battle scene isn't terribly convincing on the oliphaunts, for instance. Just the way it goes with early-oughts CGI, I guess.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0*


52EX700, 8 foot viewing distance


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Super 8*


This one will have some back and forth discussion on it. Black levels slip rarely, keeping a brilliant gloss over the dark portion of the screen. Detail is superb, crisp, and consistent. Colors are brilliant in the day, annoyingly clipped in the dark. Grain is well resolved. Despite its general brilliance, a lot of it is dark, enough to drop it a few notches.

*Tier 1.75**


----------



## deltasun

*The Four Feathers*


Generally soft, with literally a handful of well-defined close-up's. Color saturation is decent, but still portrays a dated look. Some color fluctuations are also evident in a few scenes. Grain is present throughout, though some scenes suffer from "dancing" grain, usually right after scene changes and darker shots.


Black levels are acceptable, but shadow details can get murky. While the cinematography is stunning, dimensionality is kept to a minimum. Contrast levels are generally decent as well.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.75**

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## lgans316

*Rio 2D*


Not very impressed because many scenes has a soft look.

*Recommendation: Tier 0.75*


-----------------------------------------------------

*Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2*

*Recommendation: Tier 2.5*


-----------------------------------------------------


----------



## deltasun

*The Devil's Double*


A smudgy looking title - thanks, Red One! There is not much definition in faces, particularly Ms. Sagnier's. Really annoying when her face looks half defocused all of the time. Blacks are inconsistent and crush quite a bit. Contrast can be a bit much, but such is the look in the desert environs when scenes are taken outside. There are some high-contrast scenes that look stunning, simply by its nature. If you close though, still none of the expected details.


The golden hue does tamper with skin tones, depending on the degree of exposure. There is also a mix of artificial lighting that further pushes the tonality of skin throughout.


Dimensionality isn't exactly noteworthy, but is still adequate. Overall, I found this to be a below average presentation.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.25**

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Conan the Barbarian (2011)*


This is a great looking disc except for the bland color scheme dominated by blues and oranges. Superb close-ups are totally natural, and exteriors are pristine. Black levels are rich and consistent. So much of this movie is swinging swords and fast editing though, it can be tough to appreciate it all.

*Tier 1.5**


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/21246798
> 
> *Rio 2D*
> 
> 
> Not very impressed because many scenes has a soft look.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 0.75*
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------
> 
> *Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2*
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 2.5*
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------



I agree with you on Harry Potter, but definitely NOT on Rio. I thought Rio was sharp as a tack, with ZERO softness. BTW, if you weren't very impressed, why would you vote for Tier Blu?


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21249441
> 
> 
> I agree with you on Harry Potter, but definitely NOT on Rio. I thought Rio was sharp as a tack, with ZERO softness. BTW, if you weren't very impressed, why would you vote for Tier Blu?



I voted Tier BLU because it had most of the positive qualities of modern animated titles.







Just wasn't impressed like the ones voted in top of Tier BLU.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Travel safely and enjoy Thanksgiving, everyone. Then go out and buy as many cheap Blu-rays as possible on Black Friday to discuss here.







Thinking of topical BDs for the holiday, the first one that comes to mind is Planes, Trains and Automobiles. It is a Best Buy exclusive, so I imagine few have yet to come across it.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/21252313
> 
> 
> Travel safely and enjoy Thanksgiving, everyone. Then go out and buy as many cheap Blu-rays as possible on Black Friday to discuss here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinking of topical BDs for the holiday, the first one that comes to mind is Planes, Trains and Automobiles. It is a Best Buy exclusive, so I imagine few have yet to come across it.



Happy Thanksgivings to you Phantom (and to all). I'm in Minneapolis for three days and we were thinking of shopping at The Mall of America on Black Friday...and then our common sense returned to us!










I have always loved Planes, Trains and Automobiles (I wish John Candy was still with us; he was a natural at his craft), so I will be checking that one out. Thanks for the heads up on it.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21252355
> 
> 
> Happy Thanksgivings to you Phantom (and to all). I'm in Minneapolis for three days and we were thinking of shopping at The Mall of America on Black Friday...and then our common sense returned to us!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have always loved Planes, Trains and Automobiles (I wish John Candy was still with us; he was a natural at his craft), so I will be checking that one out. Thanks for the heads up on it.



Amazon always seems to have some great deals on Black Friday if you don't want to brave the crowds. John Candy was a great comedic actor who passed before his time, though at least Uncle Buck has made it out on Blu-ray.


----------



## deltasun

Happy Thanksgiving to you guys!! I may go ahead and pick up _Planes, Trains, and Automobiles_. I wasn't a big fan, but perhaps I was too young when I saw it. It goes to show that I picked up the other two exclusives - _Naked Gun_ and _Airplane_.







I do have a few items to pick up from Best Buy on Friday - _Fast Five_, _Horrible Bosses_, _Sparacus 2_, _Mad Men 4_, and maybe some other Christmas classics.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/21252313
> 
> 
> Travel safely and enjoy Thanksgiving, everyone. Then go out and buy as many cheap Blu-rays as possible on Black Friday to discuss here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thinking of topical BDs for the holiday, the first one that comes to mind is Planes, Trains and Automobiles. It is a Best Buy exclusive, so I imagine few have yet to come across it.



Possibly my fav comedy ever...Candy is priceless.


Happy THanksgiving!!!


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/21245051
> 
> *Super 8*
> 
> 
> This one will have some back and forth discussion on it. Black levels slip rarely, keeping a brilliant gloss over the dark portion of the screen. Detail is superb, crisp, and consistent. Colors are brilliant in the day, annoyingly clipped in the dark. Grain is well resolved. Despite its general brilliance, a lot of it is dark, enough to drop it a few notches.
> 
> *Tier 1.75**



Based on one viewing I am not yet prepared to give a placement recommendation, but I expect it will be lower than that. Detail and clarity did not seem to be sufficient for that sort of placement.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Our Idiot Brother*


Pleasingly saturated and bright with great black levels. Detail will pop at times, flounder at others. Medium shots are a little down and out. Exteriors are superb though, houses, plants, etc. A bit here and there overall, but a looker still.

*Tier 1.75**


----------



## djoberg

*The Tree of Life*


WOW!!! That word sums up *most* of the scenes from this unquestionable Tier Blu title! There are shots that simply defy description and that are unrivaled by other Tier Blu movies. I found myself pausing this MANY times just to marvel at the DETAIL and TEXTURE being displayed. I believe I went back to view the chapter on CREATION (lasting well over 10 minutes) several times! I was REALLY impressed with facial details, and in particular those of children (of all ages). I don't recall EVER seeing that much texture on the faces of children and infants before.


That being said, there are also scenes (and shots) that fall short of other Tier Blu titles. I had said in a previous post that there are scenes where the color is on the drab side, and where the sharpness and clarity are not quite as striking as other movies. I stand by that statement. But even in those scenes there are appreciable details and depth that still fall easily into Tier 0 territory.


If not for a lack of color, sharpness, and clarity in selected scenes, I would join my peers in recommending a placement ABOVE _The Thin Red Line_, but as it is I must, with a good conscience, place it here....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (right below Toy Story 2)**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


PS I really DID enjoy the movie, though I could see where others would be turned off by it.


PPS I did end up exchanging this (because my initial copy kept "breaking up" at times), but my second copy did the same. Then it occurred to me that perhaps my Blu-ray player's Firmware was not up-to-date. It turned out I was a few updates behind, so I downloaded the update on a zip file and burned it to a CD-RW. That did the trick! I did a Google and found out others were having the same problems with this Fox title, so if you have the same experience just check your Firmware to be sure you're up-to-date.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Spy Kids: All the Time in the World*


Fantastic crispness and stern texture that make this one a winner. Even medium shots are lively with their definition. Black levels land themselves where they need to be. Sadly, green screen effects are painfully terrible, enough to ruin the visuals sometimes in terms of a showcase.
*Tier 1.75**


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21262676
> 
> *The Tree of Life*
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (right below Toy Story 2)**
> 
> 
> PS I really DID enjoy the movie, though I could see where others would be turned off by it.



Would you recommend a blind buy, or is the movie one of those love it or hate it type of experiences? I guess I will see it down the road as I try to see as many of the titles in Tier Blu as possible.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/21265706
> 
> 
> Would you recommend a blind buy, or is the movie one of those love it or hate it type of experiences? I guess I will see it down the road as I try to see as many of the titles in Tier Blu as possible.



This is most definitely a "love it or hate it" movie, so I would NOT recommend a blind buy. Having said that, you are one who can appreciate a movie that deviates from the mainstream (I consider _Youth Without Youth_ a good example of this and I know you liked that title) and I have a hunch you'll like _The Tree of Life_. I can't say I LOVED it, but I found myself immersed in it (with the *plot* and the amazing visuals) and I will indeed watch it again.


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/21265706
> 
> 
> Would you recommend a blind buy, or is the movie one of those love it or hate it type of experiences? I guess I will see it down the road as I try to see as many of the titles in Tier Blu as possible.



At its current price, definitely rent before buying. If you find it for $15 or less, then maybe.


----------



## mweflen

*Superman IV: The Quest For Peace*

At the beginning of this movie, I had a really bad feeling. The title sequence looks positively atrocious - soft, blurry, with weak colors. It turns out, this typified any scene with an optical effect. The effects were terrible, and they degraded the clarity of the image significantly.


On the other hand, well-lit scenes without effects looked pretty decent. A dinner scene in one of the character's apartments showed nice background and facial detail, with good color. Had most scenes looked like this, the rating might be in the upper 3's. But as it stands, this film is far too inconsistent to rate anything above a 4. I don't think it's the fault of the transfer _per se_, as I did not notice any obtrusive DNR or EE. The film itself just looks awful for about 30%-40% of the runtime.

*Tier Recommendation 4.0*


----------



## mweflen

*Superman Returns*


There are two big problems with this release, one of which is persistent, the other occasional. The persistent problem is black level - whether it is some insane choice of the director, or maybe the Panavision Genesis digital movie camera is not capable - the black levels are terrible. It's like watching soupy gray mush whenever the scene is dark. The other problem, which is less frequent, is softness, mostly on CGI scenes.


That said, at times this can offer a pleasing level of detail which clearly looks high definition. Many facial close-ups and cloth textures offer strong but not best-of-format detail. There is little in the way of DNR or EE that is evident. In fact, the movie this probably looks most like is Star Wars Episode 2, another early digital film. But that movie has better contrast and color, and thus deserves a higher rating. Color banding is relatively frequent in this transfer.


Overall, I give it a 3.5, because its level of detail has to at least tie it with something like Dark City, which, though possessing punchy blacks, was a DNR'ed nightmare. Persistently bad black levels and persistent softening DNR seem to be problems of about the same severity to me.
*Tier Recommendation 3.5*


Sony KDL52EX700, 8 foot viewing distance


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen* /forum/post/21267585
> 
> *Superman Returns*
> 
> 
> There are two big problems with this release, one of which is persistent, the other occasional. The persistent problem is black level - whether it is some insane choice of the director, or maybe the Panavision Genesis digital movie camera is not capable - the black levels are terrible. It's like watching soupy gray mush whenever the scene is dark. The other problem, which is less frequent, is softness, mostly on CGI scenes.
> *Tier Recommendation 3.5*



That's a very fair assessment though it should be repeated the movie needs a completely new video encode for Blu-ray. Warner had little idea what it was doing with VC-1 compression on Blu-ray when it was first released as the artifacts are abundant. Singer was shortsighted for shooting the film digitally when he tried in every way to emulate the soft look of Donner's Superman. That smacks of some budgetary decision by WB to keep costs down.


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/21269744
> 
> 
> That's a very fair assessment though it should be repeated the movie needs a completely new video encode for Blu-ray. Warner had little idea what it was doing with VC-1 compression on Blu-ray when it was first released as the artifacts are abundant. Singer was shortsighted for shooting the film digitally when he tried in every way to emulate the soft look of Donner's Superman. That smacks of some budgetary decision by WB to keep costs down.



The color palette in this flick is also positively bizarre. Many shadows end up looking teal-blue. I wonder if this was an intentional lighting filter, or a deficiency in the camera. It's pretty ugly, whatever it is. Dark scenes were also swimming with typically digital mosquito noise.


I agree that Singer seemed to be trying to emulate Donner. It is just altogether strange that part of this emulation did not include saying "huh, we should go 35mm on this one." The Geoffrey Unsworth photography on "Superman The Movie" was soft-ish due to lens filters, but exhibited razor sharp color clarity as well as excellent black levels and overall contrast. One look at the dailies on "Superman Returns" should have raised a red flag immediately. "Wait! This looks NOTHING like what we're going for!"


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*30 Minutes or Less*


Bland looking comedy without much energy or color saturation. Detail is at a premium with minimal definition. Black levels are fine is not outstanding and contrast is "meh." There's nothing drastically wrong here, but nothing all that right in terms of eye candy either.
*Tier 2.75**


----------



## deltasun

*Ben-Hur*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21198718
> 
> *Ben-Hur*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I remembered that mweflen had given a good review of this and I'm in agreement with _almost_ every point he makes. The only area where I would differ is the black levels; they were pretty inconsistent with some being stellar, and others on the murky side and with a bit of black crush in a few night scenes.
> 
> 
> Facial details were really a mixed bag. There were some close-ups of Heston and others that fell into demo territory, but most were only average. Flesh tones were, as noted by mweflen, spot on.
> 
> 
> Let me just say that this is the most amazing restoration I've seen to date of a film this old. It's truly incredible and if any one is fond of this classic it deserves a place in your Blu-ray library.
> 
> 
> I'm going one notch lower....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75**
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 6'



Agree with Denny here, especially black levels and facial details. The blacks don't usually get to the same depth as the black bars, but when they do, they're often crushed.


Facial details are hard to come by, simply due to the way they're shot. However, when they do come in close, there are some excellent details to be seen.


Everything else is just spectacular. Colors are rich and perfectly saturated. Contrast is top notch. And, as mweflen mentioned, daytime dimensionality is just amazing!

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

*Faces in the Crowd*


Excellent transfer from Millenium Media. The opening scene shows an extreme close-up of the main characters' faces / body parts, revealing pores and lines readily. I believe only the requisite texture keeps those scenes out of Tier Blu.


The atmosphere slopes toward the darker side of the spectrum, but the encode holds up rather well, with no signs of blocking or unnatural doses of noise. Colors seem subdued, but do hold their own throughout. Contrast is typically perfect, but do exhibit a bit of weakness in a handful of scenes. Black levels are excellent throughout, with some minor crushing.


Medium shots show ample evidence of dimensionality and skin tones are spot on. Overall, a very strong entry from Millenium Media, that seems to grow on you as the movie progresses. Finally, I did not spot any foul play.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.50**

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/21269744
> 
> 
> That's a very fair assessment though it should be repeated the movie needs a completely new video encode for Blu-ray. Warner had little idea what it was doing with VC-1 compression on Blu-ray when it was first released as the artifacts are abundant. Singer was shortsighted for shooting the film digitally when he tried in every way to emulate the soft look of Donner's Superman. That smacks of some budgetary decision by WB to keep costs down.



+1. One of the most horrible Blu-ray with an experimental low bit rate VC-1 encode.


----------



## mweflen

*Days of Heaven*


While this transfer won't please any grain-haters out there, I found myself enjoying it quite a bit after letting it grow on me. There are times at which detail is strong on cloth and hair textures, and some of the scenes with grass and leaves are knockouts. But there are also times based on scene lighting in which things are soft. I don't find this to be a transfer killer. Some movies are soft, because of the way they were shot and the type of film used. This looks like film. So I have a hard time knocking it. Grain IS detail. And this preserves that detail excellently.


Does it look HD? At times. Maybe 50% of the time. Does it look like film? All the time. So where should it rate? I'd give it a 3.0. Scanning the films on that list, 2010 actually strikes me as quite visually similar in terms of grain, color scheme and detail level. I know it's an odd comparison, but I think it's apt.


On the other hand, scratch that. I see Star Trek IV sitting at 2.75, and I think this looks at least as good if not better.
*Tier Recommendation 2.75*


Sony KDL52EX700, 8 foot viewing distance.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Tanner Hall*


Pleasing earthy-colored encode with plenty of room to handle a rich grain structure. Fantastic if somewhat inconsistent detail up close, but clarity remains sublime. Black levels have superb depth, and the contrast is rich to create a deep sense of dimensionality.
*Tier 1.75**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Crazy, Stupid, Love*


Absolutely fantastic movie butchered by Warner. The encoding job is nothing less than totally inexcusable, with crawling dots and visible compression over every shot of this thing. While it clears up in the third act just a bit, medium shots are slaughtered. Black crush is catastrophic to shadow detail, and ringing is present on a few occasions. Ugh.

*Tier 4.0**


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/21284737
> 
> *Crazy, Stupid, Love*
> 
> 
> Absolutely fantastic movie butchered by Warner. The encoding job is nothing less than totally inexcusable, with crawling dots and visible compression over every shot of this thing. While it clears up in the third act just a bit, medium shots are slaughtered. Black crush is catastrophic to shadow detail, and ringing is present on a few occasions. Ugh.
> 
> *Tier 4.0**



Agree on all points.


----------



## lgans316

Looks like Warner is still continuing their preschool experiments with AVC instead of VC-1. They have the worst decision makers on the top.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Star Wars: A New Hope


recommendation: Tier 2.5**


What strikes me is the impressive amount of detail in most shots. Check out the fur of Chewbacca to see the excellent quality of the image in close-ups. The movie that started the franchise looks very, very good in select moments but doesn't always have the pop or depth of the upper tiers. For a vintage movie with as many optical effects as _Star Wars_, the transfer turned out better than I had expected from the prior discussion of the commentariat on the Internet.


There is probably a tiny amount of picture quality left that could be squeezed out of the original negatives that is absent. Even accounting for that notion, I would say this is a fairly strong effort by Lucasfilm to bring this beloved film to Blu-ray. Compression is exemplary and the lack of major technical problems is a decided advantage to the picture quality.


Outside of one or two minor examples, the extensive cleanup and care that has been performed keeps the print damage to an absolute minimum. This film looks as good as when it was first released, which really can't be said for many other films of its era. Exact placement is tough, but there are just too many films in Tier 2.75 that look worse than _Star Wars_. On that basis is how I arrived at Tier 2.5 for my assessment.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...postcount=3465


----------



## djoberg

*Super 8*


This one had some inconsistencies, but in the main it had the coveted virtues that make up a demo transfer. DETAILS and DEPTH were incredible in most every scene, with the exception of some night scenes where blacks levels faltered, resulting in a drop in shadow details (other night scenes were stellar, with deep and inky blacks and exquisite shadow details). In mentioning details, I'm including my first love (i.e., FACIAL DETAILS), where close-ups revealed amazing texture. COLORS, CONTRAST, and FLESH TONES were all exemplary...again, they wavered during the few night scenes where black levels became murky.


My biggest gripe were with the numerous "lens flares." I realize they were the director's intent (as they were in his similar-looking _Star Trek_), but I found them distracting, to say the least. If not for them, I would be inclined to nominate this for the middle of Tier Gold, but my conscience dictates dropping it a notch....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


PS I enjoyed the movie so there is no "buyer's remorse." The acting by the children was superb, especially the male and female leads.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/21284737
> 
> *Crazy, Stupid, Love*
> 
> 
> Absolutely fantastic movie butchered by Warner. The encoding job is nothing less than totally inexcusable, with crawling dots and visible compression over every shot of this thing. While it clears up in the third act just a bit, medium shots are slaughtered. Black crush is catastrophic to shadow detail, and ringing is present on a few occasions. Ugh.
> 
> *Tier 4.0**





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/21286882
> 
> 
> Agree on all points.



Wow, I can't believe how bad a brand new release can get. I will throw in another 4.0 vote. But yes, great movie.

*Tier Recommendation for Crazy, Stupid, Love: 4.0**


----------



## mweflen

*A Serious Man*


This is already in the right tier, I just wanted to add my two cents, since I watched it tonight. Ho-lee crap, what a nice looking transfer. It is in every respect perfect, as far as I can tell. Detail is spectacular, black levels inky and solid, no artifacts or flaws to be found in the image. Flawless. If anything, I think it should be a tad higher in the tier than it sits currently.

*Tier Recommendation: 0 (above Pirates of the Caribbean)*


Sony KDL52EX700, viewing distance between 2 and 8 feet (I kept getting close to marvel at the image!)


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21293489
> 
> *Super 8*
> 
> 
> This one had some inconsistencies, but in the main it had the coveted virtues that make up a demo transfer. DETAILS and DEPTH were incredible in most every scene, with the exception of some night scenes where blacks levels faltered, resulting in a drop in shadow details (other night scenes were stellar, with deep and inky blacks and exquisite shadow details). In mentioning details, I'm including my first love (i.e., FACIAL DETAILS), where close-ups revealed amazing texture. COLORS, CONTRAST, and FLESH TONES were all exemplary...again, they wavered during the few night scenes where black levels became murky.
> 
> 
> My biggest gripe were with the numerous "lens flares." I realize they were the director's intent (as they were in his similar-looking _Star Trek_), but I found them distracting, to say the least. If not for them, I would be inclined to nominate this for the middle of Tier Gold, but my conscience dictates dropping it a notch....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75**
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'
> 
> 
> PS I enjoyed the movie so there is no "buyer's remorse." The acting by the children was superb, especially the male and female leads.





I noted after my first viewing that I thought 1.75 was probably too high. After a second viewing I think it's maybe only a little too high. I think this could have looked better with a more generous bit budget.


As with Star Trek, the lens flares didn't bother me.

*Tier 2.0**


After posting, I saw there are comparative bitrate scans for retail and rental versions and the rental version is much higher.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Friends with Benefits*


Marginal looking romantic comedy with struggling fine detail in close, but (mostly) superb exteriors and aerials. There are some shots of New York and LA that are brilliant. Then things move in close and it's not so much fun. Black levels are crisp, and there's a fine clarity afforded to the piece by the digital source. Flesh tones veer too warm, but it's minor.

*Tier 2.25**


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/21294171
> 
> 
> I noted after my first viewing that I thought 1.75 was probably too high. After a second viewing I think it's maybe only a little too high. I think this could have looked better with a more generous bit budget.
> 
> 
> As with Star Trek, *the lens flares didn't bother me*.
> 
> *Tier 2.0**
> 
> 
> After posting, I saw there are comparative bitrate scans for retail and rental versions and *the rental version is much higher*.



First of all patrick, I wish I wasn't bothered by lens flares but I am, to the point where I want to hit the Fast Forward button when the flares are really glaring.


Secondly, I would think IF there was a difference between bitrate scans for retail and rental versions, the RETAIL would be higher.


Thirdly, what did you think of some of the facial details on close-ups (I know you really love and appreciate facial details too)? There were a couple of Professor Woodward that were in the high Tier 0 range, IMO.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/21294171
> 
> 
> I noted after my first viewing that I thought 1.75 was probably too high. After a second viewing I think it's maybe only a little too high. I think this could have looked better with a more generous bit budget.
> 
> 
> As with Star Trek, the lens flares didn't bother me.
> 
> *Tier 2.0**
> 
> 
> After posting, I saw there are comparative bitrate scans for retail and rental versions and the rental version is much higher.



You should at least feel relieved that Paramount doesn't bit starve like Warner. Tier 2.0 or Tier 1.75 shouldn't make a big difference but glad that your recommendation is close to that of Denny's which is not a common sighting here.


I just got Hangover 2 and feel a bit sad because its a Warner release.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen* /forum/post/21227479
> 
> *Green Lantern*
> 
> 
> I am trying not to let a ho-hum story and poor design choices (ugh, that mask) alter my review. At times, detail could be very strong, but faces had a waxy DNR-ed look about 50% of the time. Extreme close-ups showed a lot of detail. Middle distance shots frequently looked like wax dummies. I have read that things look this way in the theatrical presentation, and background detail is strong, so I am assuming this was some sort of idiot choice on the part of the Director, editor, or DP.
> 
> 
> The colors were... colorful. I did not see this in the theater, and I can only assume that such a wacked-out color palette was intentional. Black levels were strong and consistent throughout, as was detail near black.
> 
> 
> I do think the crap CGI inherently lowers the visual interest of this disc. This might be just as good a BD as, say, Dark Knight. But the more I see poor animations and hokey looking characters, and the intentionally smoothed faces, the less impressed I am.
> 
> 
> Thus, my rating is:
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.0*
> 
> Sony 52EX700, 8 foot viewing distance


*Green Lantern

recommendation: Tier 2.0*
*

I am in agreement with almost everything mweflen said in his analysis of Green Lantern. The CGI looks wretched in stretches for what was supposedly Warner's new tentpole superhero franchise. The budget must have gone to the actors and not into the production.


Before the digital smoothing of faces, most evident with Blake Lively in almost any scene, there appears to be upper Tier-quality yearning to be set free. But alas, digital color grading and questionable production values for a Hollywood blockbuster easily drag the picture quality down to Tier Two.


In a not unexpected development for Warner, the mediocre video bitrates lead to serious instances of macroblocking and banding. The scene involving the fight between Green Lantern and Hector ripples with banding. This is a stunningly poor effort for a new Blu-ray release, that Warner once had high hopes for as a new franchise. Please bring on a better sequel only involving Sinestro and Hal Jordan.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post21165202


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Smurfs*


You know what? It's worth suffering through this tripe at least once just to stare at it. The effects and lighting are so unbelievably sharp, the depth doesn't even require 3D to pop out. Colors are awesomely saturated and the sharpness is superb. Firm detail is everywhere, and aside from one scene where some smoothing is evident, it's all untampered with.

*Tier 0.75**


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21295774
> 
> 
> First of all patrick, I wish I wasn't bothered by lens flares but I am, to the point where I want to hit the Fast Forward button when the flares are really glaring.
> 
> 
> Secondly, I would think IF there was a difference between bitrate scans for retail and rental versions, the RETAIL would be higher.
> 
> 
> Thirdly, what did you think of some of the facial details on close-ups (I know you really love and appreciate facial details too)? There were a couple of Professor Woodward that were in the high Tier 0 range, IMO.



Denny, look at the specs thread and the Super 8 thread for insight on the bitrate difference between the two versions.


Yes, I agree on the facial details, but frankly that is not ordinarily where the difference between good and exceptional PQ shows. It does not require a really high bitrate to get outstanding facial details. It is more in the medium shots and long shots where the difference shows.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/21296634
> 
> 
> You should at least feel relieved that Paramount doesn't bit starve like Warner. Tier 2.0 or Tier 1.75 shouldn't make a big difference but glad that your recommendation is close to that of Denny's which is not a common sighting here.
> 
> 
> I just got Hangover 2 and feel a bit sad because its a Warner release.



Ordinarily Paramount is at the top of the heap in PQ so I expect more from them. I expect Warner to produce garbage in terms of PQ so I am never disappointed with their product.


Actually, as Denny has noted, he and I have been close in our evaluations more often than not lately.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Horror Express


recommendation: Tier 4.0**

"There is the stench of Hell on this train, even the dog knows it."


Another film from the vault of Hammer is unearthed on Blu-ray, this time it's _Horror Express_ from 1972. Running 87 minutes in length on a BD-25, the video is encoded in a sub-par AVC encode. MPI is the entity responsible for this transfer and disc from newly-discovered film elements. There is fairly extensive print damage and debris on the first reel that mostly goes away after that point.


Some have criticized the odd artifacting and noise from that first reel as compression artifacts. It looks more to my eyes as a remnant of a bad telecine scan. There are a number of spots where compression problems arise, but the noise goes beyond compression issues. The AVC video encode only averages 17.59 Mbps, which is simply too low for an older film from damaged elements that has not been stripped of grain by digital noise reduction. That is a key feature of this transfer, the distinct lack of digital tinkering to the transfer. Halos are completely absent and the original grain structure has been left intact. A BD-50 would have been a much better choice for this disc to eliminate the compression issues.


The actual resolution of the master used in this transfer is somewhat questionable. While the main feature is presented in 1080P, the level of detail and clarity is more akin to high-definition in 720P. It's still a noticeable upgrade over DVD, but do not expect a stunning picture with razor-sharp imagery. One does get the feeling one of the bigger studios could have gotten more out of these elements than MPI.


This edition of _Horror Express_ definitely belongs somewhere inside Tier 4, though its exact placement will depend on individual preference. After the rough going of the first reel, the picture quality settles into steady territory that occasionally looks as good as Tier 3. The quality is not on par with the stronger BDs from Blue Underground of similar vintage, but it is the best extant version of _Horror Express_ to date.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/21298560
> 
> 
> Denny, look at the specs thread and the Super 8 thread for insight on the bitrate difference between the two versions.
> 
> 
> Yes, I agree on the facial details, but frankly that is not ordinarily where the difference between good and exceptional PQ shows. It does not require a really high bitrate to get outstanding facial details. It is more in the medium shots and long shots where the difference shows.



Thanks patrick; I'll take a look at those threads.


I agree with you, in measure, regarding facial details. But if a title has everything else going for it and yet is lacking in facial details, I will most definitely penalize it. Sometimes, if they are bad enough, I'll dock it a whole tier (which means it *could* make "the difference between good and exceptional PQ shows"). I do this because it is inexcusable for a transfer to have excellent detail in all other areas and not in facials. It tells me there has been some doctoring of the transfer, either DNR or smoothing, which deserves to be lowered considerably in one's placement recommendation.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Hangover Part 2*


Orange flesh tones, like super orange, dominate this one. Heavy black levels and brutally hot contrast give it plenty of dimensional energy. Detail is superb at times, even in the mid-range. Warner's encode shows through a few times with floating grain and a bit of chroma noise, but it's clean otherwise.

*Tier 1.75**


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/21309784
> 
> *Hangover Part 2*
> 
> 
> Orange flesh tones, like super orange, dominate this one. Heavy black levels and brutally hot contrast give it plenty of dimensional energy. Detail is superb at times, even in the mid-range. Warner's encode shows through a few times with floating grain and a bit of chroma noise, but it's clean otherwise.
> 
> *Tier 1.75**



+1 to the GRG. Much better PQ than Part 1 but the orange flesh tones, bit of crushed blacks and some noise degrades the overall PQ.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Cowboys & Aliens*

Conflicting movie as the daylight scenes are everything a reference track should be and at night it's a muddy, murky mess. Black levels aren't terrible but they carry so little oomph it's like they're not even trying. Dimensionality goes to this transfer's nighttime scenes to die. On the positives, day brings with it extensive definition, gorgeous landscapes, and pleasing color palette.

*Tier 2.25**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Catch .44*


Sterling digital produces awesome black levels and stunning facial detail. Color can be a bit off by design, although not offensive. Some aliasing is a downer, but the images are noise free. Impressive.

*Tier 1.75**


----------



## zoey67




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/21318398
> 
> *Catch .44*
> 
> 
> Sterling digital produces awesome black levels and stunning facial detail. Color can be a bit off by design, although not offensive. Some aliasing is a downer, but the images are noise free. Impressive.
> 
> *Tier 1.75**



Is this the one with bruce willis that went straight to video? how was the movie btw?


----------



## 42041

*Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace*


This transfer is a pretty big mess, I'm not sure I've ever seen a less consistent blu-ray. Sometimes it looks very good, but these shots are sandwiched between hideous DNR, softness, patchy effects compositing and dated CG, weird colors, etc. Texture is in very short supply. Not sure what's due to the limitations of 90s digital technology and what's due to misguided tinkering, but regardless, it's all over the place. This rating is somewhat generous...

*Tier 3.5*


----------



## djoberg

*Another Earth*


I was at a video store yesterday and after discovering that all the *popular* new releases were already rented, I opted to rent this low-budget, independent film put out by Fox. I found it quite enjoyable, though like my recent viewing of _The Tree of Life_ it was definitely NOT mainstream. The pace was sometimes annoyingly slow, but I still found myself being drawn in by the drama and the thought-provoking Sci-Fi plot.


There is NO EYE CANDY here, with the exception of a few facial close-ups (of the Indian janitor and Rhoda) that veered into Tier 0 territory. Daytime scenes also yielded numerous shots with appreciable detail and depth.


Colors were bland....contrast was often too strong, with overblown whites...blacks in most night time scenes were quite murky and often accompanied with video noise... and there was a bit of aliasing as well.


I'm inclined to put this at the top of Tier 4, but my "generosity gene" is kicking in tonight and thus it's going right here....

*Tier Recommendation: 3.75**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elilte (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## mweflen

*Superman: The Movie (Box Set Extended Edition)*


First off, I honestly cannot tell the difference between this and the original BD. Granted, I no longer own it, since I sold it in advance of buying this set. But I watched it several times and am quite familiar with its appearance (which is also why I watched movies 2-5 before this one).


So, the name of the game here is filters, haze, and soft focus. Once you reset your expectations and remember that you're stuck firmly in the 70s (films like All The President's Men and Star Wars share many visual features with this film), this ends up being quite enjoyable. The movie is firmly divided into 3 parts, and is seems that different stocks, filters, and lenses were used for each. The Krypton scenes are quite grainy, but it actually looks pretty nice in this BD (and much better than the DVD's rendition of this grain), with a fair amount of mid-level detail. Smallville scenes are by far the haziest, and the contrast of the print is reduced - blacks are not as dark, whites not as bright. Some of the foliage looks pretty decent, but the contrast ratio of the image is not high. Metropolis brings back a bit of visual punch, with a bit more fine detail and more grain. Colors throughout all three sections of the movie are vibrant but still realistic and controlled.


But all told, none of it rises into "demo" territory. Ultra-fine details such as pores and individual hairs are simply not present, or are only present at the focal point of a given shot. Every once in a while, usually in a high contrast scene, a face or a cloth texture looks impressive. This is not the movie to break out to impress your friends with how great HD looks. Instead, it is a respectful and accurate transfer for lovers of this movie. I don't think it's possible for it to look better than it does here. It's way better than the DVD, which I also own. In looking at the tier, the movie this most reminds me of is Forbidden Planet, another grainy and relatively soft, but colorful and still pleasing BD. So...

*Tier Recommendation: 3.5*


Sony KDL-52EX700, 8 foot viewing distance


----------



## John Mason




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21322031
> 
> *Another Earth*
> 
> 
> I was at a video store yesterday and after discovering that all the *popular* new releases were already rented, I opted to rent this low-budget, independent film put out by Fox. I found it quite enjoyable, though like my recent viewing of _The Tree of Life_ it was definitely NOT mainstream. The pace was sometimes annoyingly slow, but I still found myself being drawn in by the drama and the thought-provoking Sci-Fi plot.
> 
> 
> There is NO EYE CANDY here, with the exception of a few facial close-ups (of the Indian janitor and Rhoda) that veered into Tier 0 territory. Daytime scenes also yielded numerous shots with appreciable detail and depth.
> 
> 
> Colors were bland....contrast was often too strong, with overblown whites...blacks in most night time scenes were quite murky and often accompanied with video noise... and there was a bit of aliasing as well.
> 
> 
> I'm inclined to put this at the top of Tier 4, but my "generosity gene" is kicking in tonight and thus it's going right here....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.75**
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" KURO Elilte (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'



Shot with a Sony EX3 at 720p. Hmm. As usual, appreciate the review to avoid wasting time or money here. -- John


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *zoey67* /forum/post/21321674
> 
> 
> Is this the one with bruce willis that went straight to video? how was the movie btw?



Miserable. Not as bad as Setup which Willis did this year, but Catch is still a terrible Tarantino knock-off with none of the charm.

*Arabia 2D/3D (IMAX)*


One of the best discs I've ever seen. Other than marginal banding and a slight hint of aliasing, it's perfection in the extreme and I'm passed the 1,000 (!) mark. Intense colors bring about incredible saturation, and the sharpness is just ridiculous. Detail aims high and nails it. There's a brief moment of stock footage and some of the worst CG you'll ever see in another, but everything else is perfection.
*Tier 0.25**


And this is the CG made in 2009!

Attachment 230194


----------



## djoberg

*Cowboys & Aliens*


It's simply a crying shame that black levels faltered during most of the night scenes (as GRG pointed out), for this *could* have been a Tier 0 (or at least a high Tier 1) contender.


The daytime scenes were, for the most part, stellar, with crisp details, mesmerizing depth, and stupendous sharpness/clarity. There were a few isolated shots where the contrast was too hot (resulting in overblown whites) and one scene with over-saturated colors, but they were so minimal they only call for a minor censure.


Night scenes, on the other hand, were so murky and flat 80% of the time. The other 20% fared alright, especially one scene towards the end where the night time sky was as deep and inky as it comes, and then again in the closing scene in the spacecraft where shadow details excelled.


Due to the MANY dark scenes, I feel constrained to penalize this at least a whole tier, so my vote goes for....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21322031
> 
> *Another Earth*
> 
> 
> I was at a video store yesterday and after discovering that all the *popular* new releases were already rented, I opted to rent this low-budget, independent film put out by Fox. I found it quite enjoyable, though like my recent viewing of _The Tree of Life_ it was definitely NOT mainstream. The pace was sometimes annoyingly slow, but I still found myself being drawn in by the drama and the thought-provoking Sci-Fi plot.
> 
> 
> There is NO EYE CANDY here, with the exception of a few facial close-ups (of the Indian janitor and Rhoda) that veered into Tier 0 territory. Daytime scenes also yielded numerous shots with appreciable detail and depth.
> 
> 
> Colors were bland....contrast was often too strong, with overblown whites...blacks in most night time scenes were quite murky and often accompanied with video noise... and there was a bit of aliasing as well.
> 
> 
> I'm inclined to put this at the top of Tier 4, but my "generosity gene" is kicking in tonight and thus it's going right here....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.75**
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" KURO Elilte (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'




generosity gene....I think you have coined a phrase...good one...


The devil's double has some good PQ, but some gold tones, etc...wondering if anyone saw it? Bit intense...


----------



## djoberg

*Water for Elephants*


Overall this was a LOOKER, with a beautiful warm color palette, rich details (including some *decent* facial close-ups), a fair amount of depth, accurate flesh tones, deep and inky blacks (in *most* scenes) and above average clarity.


It was NOT without its flaws though, for *some* of the black levels became a dark gray and there were a few instances of black crush. It also had intermittent soft shots, especially in the first few chapters.


If I were to rate this based on the first half, I'd probably opt for (low) Tier 2, but the PQ really became more consistent (consistently GOOD) in the latter half and I'd rate that half a high Tier 1. I'm torn on this one....my "generosity gene" is saying, "Give it a Tier 1 placement," but my sense of objectivity (based on the criteria of this thread) tells me to balance the pros and cons fairly and place it right here....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


PS It won't hurt my feelings one bit if this ends up in the bottom of Tier 1, for there really were some stunning scenes sprinkled throughout.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Mr. Popper's Penguins*


Bland as can be. Totally pale with sickly flesh tones and weak primaries. Softness is dominate, with middling mid-range work. Only a few close-ups are strong enough to produce anything of merit. Black levels just get by with a pass.

*Tier 3.25**


----------



## lgans316

*Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)*


Almost a mess from start to finish due to the artistic choices. Few outdoor scenes shines, though the rest looks murky. This is how a remastered Superman Returns may look like










Despite being the first avenger, this appears to be the weakest amongst the four in terms of both the Film & PQ. I hope Captain America shines better in The Avengers.

*Recommendation: Tier 2.75*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/21331993
> 
> *Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)*
> 
> 
> Almost a mess from start to finish due to the artistic choices. Few outdoor scenes shines, though the rest looks murky. This is how a remastered Superman Returns may look like
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Despite being the first avenger, this appears to be the weakest amongst the four in terms of both the Film & PQ. I hope Captain America shines better in The Avengers.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 2.75*



Agreed! We even agreed on the same placement! Will wonders ever cease?!


----------



## mweflen

FYI, Tree of Life just dropped to 14.99 on Amazon.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Rise of the Planet of the Apes*


Awesome live action work. Almost flawless really. Immense black levels and bright contrast create awesome dimensionality. Detail is staggering and colors are vibrant. Sharpness wavers only a handful of times, and there's a couple of instances where the grain freezes during effect shots. It's all minor.

*Tier .75**


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/21342683
> 
> *Rise of the Planet of the Apes*
> 
> *Tier .75**



This one's on my netflix queue and I'm definitely excited about seeing it, based on reviews and your comments. I didn't blind buy though before I can see the story itself.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Fright Night (2011)*


What a boring movie to look at. Awful color grading during the nighttime scenes turns this one monochromatic. During the day, color saturation peaks, and a few shots of the Vega skyline are tremendous. It's a shame the rest of the movie doesn't explode in a flurry of detail like that. Flat and plastic.

*Tier 3.25**


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/21086673
> 
> 
> Sharpening galore visible in medium shots, hampering what seems to be an otherwise well done update in HD. Facial detail is striking and crisp, carrying a nicely done, pure quality. Colors are distinctly warm and far more saturated then they ever were. Great black levels help with the depth.
> 
> *Tier 2.0**



*Pulp Fiction*


I'm with Gamer on the rating, although I did not see as much sharpening. The strengths of this transfer are very rich but not overblown colors, deep blacks, and good detail in shadows. Mid level details are pretty strong. Fine detail is not a strength except in facial closeups. Very filmic and pleasing, very poppy contrast with good depth, just not beat-you-over-the-head HD, probably owing to the focus effects.


The transfer this reminds me most of is The Truman Show, minus the aggressive EE.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


Sony KDL52EX700, 7 foot viewing distance (watched on the floor while my son did "tummy time")


----------



## oleus




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen* /forum/post/21348432
> 
> *Pulp Fiction*
> 
> 
> I'm with Gamer on the rating, although I did not see as much sharpening. The strengths of this transfer are very rich but not overblown colors, deep blacks, and good detail in shadows. Mid level details are pretty strong. Fine detail is not a strength except in facial closeups. Very filmic and pleasing, very poppy contrast with good depth, just not beat-you-over-the-head HD, probably owing to the focus effects.
> 
> 
> The transfer this reminds me most of is The Truman Show, minus the aggressive EE.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.0*
> 
> 
> Sony KDL52EX700, 7 foot viewing distance (watched on the floor while my son did "tummy time")



interesting, i haven't seen pulp fiction yet, but I got around to watching the new US version of JACKIE BROWN and found it to be quite a bit softer and riddled with DNR than the import I watched years ago. argh!!!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/21342683
> 
> *Rise of the Planet of the Apes*
> 
> 
> Awesome live action work. Almost flawless really. Immense black levels and bright contrast create awesome dimensionality. Detail is staggering and colors are vibrant. Sharpness wavers only a handful of times, and there's a couple of instances where the grain freezes during effect shots. It's all minor.
> 
> *Tier .75**



I picked up a copy today at Wally World for under $20. I'm pretty psyched to see this, especially after reading the review by Robert Harris where he boasted of both the PQ AND the movie itself.


I also purchased _Kung Fu Panda 2_ (the 3-Disc Set) for under $18 with a coupon. I hope to watch both titles over the next few days.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Kung Fu Panda 2*


A lot of this is set at night with deep red flames and rich blue sky being the sole colors. It doesn't have the constant color assault of the original. It's still meticulous in its definition and detail, plus the black levels are spectacular. When the colors are allowed to breathe, it's all spectacle. Still, it's enough to ding this one for thread purposes.

*Tier 0*, between Pirates and Despicable Me. *


----------



## djoberg

*Rise of the Planet of the Apes*


I truly wish I could echo the sentiments of my colleague GRG (who gave this a Tier .75 rating), but I can't (with a good conscience). That's not to say this isn't a very good-looking title; I just didn't find it to be *reference* quality.


I found most of the inside scenes (especially any that took place in the lab or at the zoo where Caesar was taken to) to lack the sharpness and detail that one would expect to see in a Tier 0 title. They were a bit soft at times and I would actually rate those scenes somewhere in high Tier 2. I also thought facial details fell into the same area, though there were a few of John Lithgow that had the WOW factor. Besides these *negatives*, black levels faltered a couple of times (though thankfully they were short-lived) and flesh tones missed the mark on occasion.


On the plus side, I was amazed at the CGI of the apes; details on close-ups were definitely reference! And the panoramic views of San Francisco, along with the Red Wood forest scenes and scenes in the neighborhood where James Franco lived, were spectacular. Colors were good, but again I expected better if they were going to be worthy of a Tier 0 placement.


All things considered I believe this is just barely deserving of demo-status, so my vote goes for....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## lgans316

*Rise of the Planet of the Apes
*

Movie of the year for me but doesn't mean that it was great. This shows how many poor to average quality movies have been released this year.


The PQ is pretty much flawless with only few hints of softness, especially the ones inside the monkey jail.


As Denny said, the CGI is the stand out aspect of the movie. Kudos to WETA for doing a brilliant job.
*Recommendation: Tier 1.5*


-------------------------------------------------

*Super 8*


Hype, Hype & more Hype throughout accompanied by a dud ending.

*Recommendation: Tier 2*


-------------------------------------------------


----------



## djoberg

*Beastly*


Let me state from the outset that I have no idea what possessed me to rent this horrific, modern-day Beauty and the Beast. I found myself hitting the Fast-forward button at times, though I watched the majority of the film and thus I feel qualified to give it a PQ placement recommendation.


The PQ itself actually had some redeeming qualities. Blacks levels were fair to good at times and there were several night scenes with very good shadow details. Flesh tones were spot on and facial details were a little above average. Several daytime scenes featured appreciable depth.


The bad consisted of a bland color palette and a heavy dose of softness. As with many titles though the PQ became better as the movie progressed.


I kept thinking to myself throughout the short 80 minute running time (and believe me it was good this was a SHORT movie!), "This is the epitome of *average*," and thus it fits quite nicely right here....

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


PS I also rented _The Help_ and I feel confident my viewing tomorrow night will be a more positive experience (at least in the "movie itself" department).


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Help*


Outstanding warm color pallete, high-fidelity detail, and exteriors. Grain structure is perfectly resolved. There are no signs of aliasing or other issues present. Black levels are spectacular, and the contrast rich. This is just about perfect with only a slightly inconsistent level of facial detail to bring it down just a hair.

*Tier 1.0**


----------



## lgans316

*Memento*


Looks good except for the Black & White scenes which lacks definition.

*Recommendation: Tier 2.5*


----------------------------------------

*Gulliver's Travels (2010)*


On my God, what a crap movie. Was waiting for it to end. PQ was good though but let down by softness in CG shots.

*Recommendation: Tier 2*


----------



## djoberg

*Kung Fu Panda 2*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/21351706
> 
> *Kung Fu Panda 2*
> 
> 
> A lot of this is set at night with deep red flames and rich blue sky being the sole colors. It doesn't have the constant color assault of the original. It's still meticulous in its definition and detail, plus the black levels are spectacular. When the colors are allowed to breathe, it's all spectacle. Still, it's enough to ding this one for thread purposes.
> 
> *Tier 0*, between Pirates and Despicable Me. *



I agree with GRG's assessment and placement recommendation. I was torn on this one, for with the many night scenes came brilliant shadow details, more than I've ever seen in an animated movie. But the obvious downside to this is the lack of colors and IMO colors are one of the biggest factors in the world of animation.


In checking the tier placement thread I see that the proposed move for _Rio_ is several titles below _Despicable Me_. This presents a problem to me, for I believe _Rio_ has some of the best colors and details EVER and it should NOT be placed below KFP2.


However, with _Rio_ still being in limbo (because it's still a "proposed move"), I will go along with GRG and place KFP2 here....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (below Despicable Me)**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## tfoltz

*Cowboys & Aliens - Tier 2.25


Super 8 - Tier 1.5*


Cowboys suffered from some poor black levels once in a while.


Super 8 looked great to me.


----------



## djoberg

*The Help*


GORGEOUS!!! This is what High Definition is all about! Absolutely amazing colors (warm and vibrant) all the way through with details, depth and dimensionality to-die-for. Facial details may not have been high Tier 0, but they were at least worthy of a high Tier 1 rating (and higher in some shots). Black levels and shadow details didn't disappoint either. The cinematography was also beautiful, with rich green foliage in nearly every outdoor shot. This is classic EYE CANDY!!


I really don't have any negatives to speak of, so I'll get right to the tier placement...

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (right below Transporter 3)**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## mweflen

*Crazy, Stupid, Love.*


Got this one via Netflix at watched it with the wife. Besides Steve Carrell always being good for a few laughs, this was also a pleasant HD transfer. Colors were a little aggressive for my tastes, but not Michael Bay cartoonish. Detail was consistently quite good, but not great - faces showed plenty of wrinkles, freckles, hairs, and so on, but perhaps not fine pore detail (there was a relative dearth of close-ups, as well). The image was very punchy with solid blacks and a good feeling of depth. Film grain was present, and except for the opening WB logo which showed odd jaggies, the image was free of artifacts and obtrusive DNR/EE.
*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


Sony KDL52EX700, 8 foot viewing distance


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Greece: Secrets of the Past*


It always astounds me how wildly inconsistent these IMAX transfers are. This one is a mess of DNR and sharpening, totally unnecessary for a feature like this. Water turns into oil, fine detail shimmers, aerials appear edgy, and I'd swear one shot of a city is a low-res JPEG in motion. I mean, really? -

Attachment 231233 

*Tier 4.0**


----------



## lgans316

Looks like you watched the DVD


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21353083
> 
> *Rise of the Planet of the Apes*
> 
> 
> I truly wish I could echo the sentiments of my colleague GRG (who gave this a Tier .75 rating), but I can't (with a good conscience). That's not to say this isn't a very good-looking title; I just didn't find it to be *reference* quality.
> 
> 
> I found most of the inside scenes (especially any that took place in the lab or at the zoo where Caesar was taken to) to lack the sharpness and detail that one would expect to see in a Tier 0 title. They were a bit soft at times and I would actually rate those scenes somewhere in high Tier 2. I also thought facial details fell into the same area, though there were a few of John Lithgow that had the WOW factor. Besides these *negatives*, black levels faltered a couple of times (though thankfully they were short-lived) and flesh tones missed the mark on occasion.
> 
> 
> On the plus side, I was amazed at the CGI of the apes; details on close-ups were definitely reference! And the panoramic views of San Francisco, along with the Red Wood forest scenes and scenes in the neighborhood where James Franco lived, were spectacular. Colors were good, but again I expected better if they were going to be worthy of a Tier 0 placement.
> 
> 
> All things considered I believe this is just barely deserving of demo-status, so my vote goes for....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75**
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'



Yes, the CGI was excellent, but the negative aspects that you identify, denny, loomed larger for me than they apparently did for you.

*Tier 2.25**


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/21367973
> 
> 
> Yes, the CGI was excellent, but the negative aspects that you identify, denny, loomed larger for me than they apparently did for you.
> 
> *Tier 2.25**



I *almost* gave it a 2.0, but I felt that would have been too harsh. The CGI, which you admit was excellent, dominated the running time of the movie, so all things considered I still feel it deserves demo status. However, our esteemed colleague (GRG) gave it a Tier 0 rating and that was way too high, IMHO.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21368439
> 
> 
> I *almost* gave it a 2.0, but I felt that would have been too harsh. The CGI, which you admit was excellent, dominated the running time of the movie, so all things considered I still feel it deserves demo status. However, our esteemed colleague (GRG) gave it a Tier 0 rating and that was way too high, IMHO.



I *almost* gave it a 2.5....


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/21368740
> 
> 
> I *almost* gave it a 2.5....



Touché


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Colombiana*

Like orange? Hope so. That's about the only color here. Scorching doesn't begin to describe it. Heavy black levels keep shadow detail while the contrast could care less. Noise is heavy in spots. Detail comes and goes, but when it's on, it's an impressive bit of work. Tough call.

*Tier 1.75**


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/21375188
> 
> *Colombiana*
> 
> Like orange? Hope so. That's about the only color here. Scorching doesn't begin to describe it. Heavy black levels keep shadow detail while the contrast could care less. Noise is heavy in spots. Detail comes and goes, but when it's on, it's an impressive bit of work. Tough call.
> 
> *Tier 1.75**



excuse the hyperbole, but WTF!! it seems all I see as of late is orange. it was overdone a year or more ago, now it seems to have moved to orange gold and in more films.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/21377987
> 
> 
> excuse the hyperbole, but WTF!! it seems all I see as of late is orange. it was overdone a year or more ago, now it seems to have moved to orange gold and in more films.



It's all about orange and teal. They're the only two colors left.

*Dolphin Tale*

Sort of nauseatingly saturated just to make it look appealing because the movie isn't. Colors are bursting at the seams and the contrast is heavy. Black levels lose themselves a few times but recover. What's missing is consistent, thick detail. It just sort of wanders and appears when it wants to.

*Tier 2.0**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

It won't happen this weekend because of a certain festive holiday, but the Tiers should be fully updated by the start of 2012. So if you have a hankering to review any particular BD here and see it added to the Tiers soon, now would be the time.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Straw Dogs (2011)*


At times meant to mimic an older film stock, black levels will fall out and sharpness will take a hit. Grain is bumped up but remains resolved. During the day and before the chaos, there's a pleasing level of saturation at work but fine detail is always at a premium. It rarely leaps from the screen with any real intensity.

*Tier 2.75**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Someone has brought to my attention that HDDB, the reviews site that all the titles in the lower tiers linked for Internet reviews, has gone away to be replaced by a thoroughly useless site called moviemarbles. Test it out on most of the older listings in the bottom Tiers if you want to check.


HDDB was the first choice for the review links in the Tier List until about a year ago, when I felt the switch to Cinema Squid's fine site was necessary. All Tier Zero titles are linked to Cinema Squid's site for reviews and BDInfo scans, but I would say a good 80% of the lower tiers currently link to the dead HDDB.net.


Fixing the links will be some work and might not be fully updated for many months.


----------



## mweflen

*Midnight In Paris*


Present day scenes are pleasantly poppy, with vivid colors and average-for-BD detail. It is in the past scenes where things get problematic. There is a sepia haze that permeates everything. Facial close-ups still show a fair amount of detail, but any middle or long shot is flat and rather dull looking. As such, I think the whole affair has to rate...

*Tier Recommendation 3.0*

Sony KDL-52EX700, 8 foot viewing distance


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Justice League: Season Two


recommendation: 1.0**

This is where you belong, Superman, under my heel! - Darkseid


Widely considered the pinnacle of DC animation, the second season of Justice League looks better on Blu-ray than any prior release from the WB division. Having a bit of foresight back in 2003, the show was produced in native high-definition and animated in widescreen. The sophisticated storytelling unfolds in a picture that can best be described as pristine and immaculate. Twenty-six episodes are spread out over two BD-50s, in a strong AVC video encode that handles the clean animation without a problem.


The show simply looks fabulous on this set and there is a noticeable step up in animation quality from the first season of the show, where the backgrounds were simpler and less ornate. Presented in its native widescreen ratio of 1.78:1, the animators get more imaginative and use the framing to highlight better action sequences and wider views. Images bleed off the screen in a stunning array of colors, making locations like far-off galaxies and alien worlds such as Apokolips come alive. Pitch-perfect black levels round out the virtues, adding a nice sense of dimensionality to the two-dimensional drawings.


Textures are probably the weakest aspect of the picture quality, as the animation's style preferred flat surfaces to textural detail. There is a good sense of individuality to the character designs, so viewers will not get bored by the designs. Tier 1.0 is as high as I would personally assign this style of animation, but it sure does look great on a calibrated display. How a weekly show turned out to look this good is amazing and a credit to its production staff.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Warrior*


Noised up to give it a gritty feel, especially in the front half. Want to see a codec totally outmatched? Here you go. It's a shame because the good stuff is quite good, great definition and all that. Black levels have a pretty consistent heft, and colors have a pleasing saturation. Still not enough to push it higher, a pleaser on some levels.

*Tier 2.5**


Also, I'm taking a vacation next week so I won't be around although DoBlu will still have a handful of updates. I'll update the thread when I'm back into the swing of things.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/21388970
> 
> *Warrior*
> 
> 
> Noised up to give it a gritty feel, especially in the front half. Want to see a codec totally outmatched? Here you go. It's a shame because the good stuff is quite good, great definition and all that. Black levels have a pretty consistent heft, and colors have a pleasing saturation. Still not enough to push it higher, a pleaser on some levels.
> 
> *Tier 2.5**
> 
> 
> Also, I'm taking a vacation next week so I won't be around although DoBlu will still have a handful of updates. I'll update the thread when I'm back into the swing of things.



I thought I had seen this title, but I saw _The Warrior's Way_.


Have a good vacation; I'll also be gone most of next week too (on a business trip).


----------



## djoberg

*The Debt*


Add another title to the *average* bin!


This was rather a drab-looking movie with a very subdued color palette (artistic choice that fit the subject matter quite well), so-so black levels (a few were superb but the majority were murky), less-than-stellar contrast (with some really hot whites in earlier scenes), and okay detail (though we are treated to a few Tier 0/1 close-ups of Helen Mirren and Tom Wilkenson).


This had a fairly nice *filmic* look and the grain was never intrusive. I did NOT notice any noise...or other disturbing artifacts or anomalies.


Before my Tier placement recommendation, I want to encourage any lovers of the Spy/Espionage/Thriller genre to give this a rent. It was well-cast and each actor gave a good, if not excellent performance (especially the two female leads....Jessica Chastain and Helen Mirren).

*Tier Recommendation: 3.5**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen* /forum/post/21193119
> 
> *Superman II (Box Set Theatrical Cut)*
> 
> 
> I was quite pleasantly surprised by the quality of this transfer. Grain is lush and pretty throughout, though it gets a bit out of control in re-cut footage such as the recycled intro from the first movie. Fine detail is superb in scenes without soft focus (such as the editorial room scenes, and especially the moon scenes), and is acceptable in the soft focus shots, which comprise perhaps 25% of the film (especially close-ups of Margot Kidder). Optically composited shots suffer an expected reduction in resolution. Colors really pop, and blacks are deep and solid. No DNR or EE is evident.
> 
> 
> Overall, this is a superb upgrade over the DVD, and its only flaws are endemic to the original print. I'm really wowed.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.5*
> 
> 
> Sony KDL-52EX700, 8 foot viewing distance


*Superman III


recommendation: Tier 2.0**

"Congratulations, buddy. You are going to go down in history as the man who killed Superman."


Superman III from the Superman Anthology looks stunning on Blu-ray. The film transfer is one of the finest on the format and stands on par with the best restorations. This is the result when you take the original film elements in a brand-new scan and leave the image unprocessed by filtering. The picture is remarkably film-like and the print looks like the movie just came out this year. There is a level of detail in this transfer that is simply missing from other Blu-rays of the movie's era.


Mweflen's comments above could all be used again for Superman III, though the optical effects are cleaner and less noticeable in this sequel. The clarity of the image reveals that Superman III is the best-shot film in the entire franchise.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of MisterXDTV):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...3#post20759923


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/21391789
> 
> *Superman III
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 2.0**
> 
> 
> Superman III from the Superman Anthology looks stunning on Blu-ray. The film transfer is one of the finest on the format and stands on par with the best restorations. This is the result when you take the original film elements in a brand-new scan and leave the image unprocessed by filtering. The picture is remarkably film-like and the print looks like the movie just came out this year. There is a level of detail in this transfer that is simply missing from other Blu-rays of the movie's era.
> 
> ]



I think I'd call is 2.25 tops (because the intentionally blurry title sequence is off-putting as far as eye candy goes), but I agree entirely with the sentiment re: fresh film scans with no tampering. This is what Star Wars should have looked like. The Superman set was really, really impressive when it came to being a relatively unaltered, fresh set of scans that looked filmic.


----------



## mweflen

*The Truman Show*


If there were a poster child for the old "slather it with DNR and then Edge Enhance the crap out of it" routine, this would be it. It's a shame, too, because this would otherwise be a visually appealing movie. Faces in the middle distance of shots are waxy, and when a face gets up close you can see the detail fighting to get past the computer program. It seems clear someone at Paramount has a serious issue with the concept of grain. Weird dot crawl occurs on bright elements when they are static on the screen. Serious halos creep around high-contrast borders. On the bright side (literally), colors and contrast are poppy and realistic.


Since it is not as bad as Dark City insofar as waxy-face goes, I'll put it one notch higher.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.25*

Sony KDL-52EX700, 8 foot viewing distance


----------



## mweflen

*Magnolia*


Beautiful, filmic transfer, with a minimum of EE and/or DNR. Close-ups show good but not spectacular detail. Objects in the middle distance also show good resolution. Cloth and hair look very nice. Film grain is present and natural looking. Color is spot-on realistic. Black levels and shadow details are strong.


This is a BD for those who like their films to look like films. It's not going to be absolute top-tier demo material because of the lenses Paul Thomas Anderson shoots scenes with. But it is definitely worth placement at...


*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*


Sony KDL-52EX700, 8 foot viewing distance


----------



## mweflen

*The Rocky Horror Picture Show*


ASTONISHING. This absolutely shattered my expectations, given the age of the movie and the "Z-movie" cult status of it. Colors are vivid and lush but not overblown. Blacks are strong. Fine detail is superb, film grain is consistent, pleasing, and revealing of good detail at all focal lengths. Facial close-ups show pores, make-up textures, small hairs, fine wrinkles. There is absolute;y no DNR or EE evident. Apparently this was a fresh 4k scan from the original negative, with little to no digital monkeying after the fact. It shows.


There are only a few soft scenes (of the narrator), comprising perhaps 5 minutes of the run-time. These are soft in the film itself, I think due to optically composited wipes and dissolves, and it is clearly no fault of the transfer. The grain structure remains consistent through these scenes, and the softness clearly starts and ends around each wipe.


Honestly, I'm looking at Tier 1, running down the list of one's I've seen, and I keep saying "better, better, better." So (and don't knock me until you see it for yourself), I have to go with Tier Zero on this. Seriously, get this from Netflix or Redbox or something. It's simply the finest 1970s material BD I've seen.

*Tier Recommendation: 0 (Right below Hot Fuzz)*


Sony KDL-52EX700, 8 foot viewing distance (though it easily stands up to scrutiny at half that)


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen* /forum/post/21392105
> 
> *The Truman Show*
> 
> 
> If there were a poster child for the old "slather it with DNR and then Edge Enhance the crap out of it" routine, this would be it. It's a shame, too, because this would otherwise be a visually appealing movie. Faces in the middle distance of shots are waxy, and when a face gets up close you can see the detail fighting to get past the computer program. It seems clear someone at Paramount has a serious issue with the concept of grain. Weird dot crawl occurs on bright elements when they are static on the screen. Serious halos creep around high-contrast borders. On the bright side (literally), colors and contrast are poppy and realistic.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.25*



The Truman Show also has that bizarre stretching problem, as documented previously in this forum.


People tend to be traveling with their families for the holidays, so safe voyages to everyone and hopefully Santa picks the Blu-rays you desire as gifts.







I trust you've all been good this year.

Merry Christmas and have a wonderful weekend!


----------



## deltasun

*Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale*


Beautiful and film-like presentation from Oscilloscope Pictures. Colors, bathed slightly in a golden hue, conveys a warm image in the cold Finnish setting. Still, primaries are well-defined and vivid. Contrast is perfectly balanced, and at times redeemingly strong. Blacks are deep and boasts some excellent shadow details. There are only a handful of scenes where black levels are not up to par.


Details, particularly in objects, are excellently rendered. Facial details are excellent on some of the characters as well, but do wane a bit on others. As expected, the children show less of the texture that can be found on the adults and elves. Medium shots show appropriate depth and dimensionality.


Overall, a very pleasant presentation with good overall clarity and great definition! I did not spy any ringing or obvious signs of DNR.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25**

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/21393605
> 
> *Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale*Details, particularly in objects, are excellently rendered. Facial details are excellent on some of the characters as well, but do wane a bit on others. *As expected, the children show less of the texture that can be found on the adults and elves.*
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.25**
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_



Have you seen _The Tree of Life_ yet? One of the things that REALLY impressed me in that movie was the texture shown in the faces of children. In fact, an early scene shows the birth of a son and his formative years and it's quite extraordinary seeing the peach fuzz on an infant...and there's a shot of the baby's feet where you can see every wrinkle.


----------



## lgans316

*Cowboys and Aliens - Paramount / UK*


Enjoyed this better than Captain America but the PQ on the dark scenes is almost a complete mess due to poor definition and very poor black levels. Daylight scenes look very nice but didn't wow me due to the slight digital softness that took out the finest of the finest details in some medium shots.

*Recommendation: Tier 2.5*


------------------------------------------

*Devil's Double (2011) - UK / Icon*


Looks very nice despite the intentional golden hue and high contrast look. Very good underrated movie too based on a true story.

*Recommendation: Tier 2.0*


------------------------------------------

*Tron Classic*


Disappointing overall but I blame the filming style and the technical limitations. Also the movie was meh in comparison to its misunderstood and underrated sequel.

*Recommendation: Tier 3.5*


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *geekyglassesgirl* /forum/post/17352731
> 
> *Equilibrium (Canadian Release)*
> 
> 
> 
> More on topic, I'm sorry I haven't reviewed Equilibrium. I did watch that one and sent it back already. It was underwhelming but not terrible, and I've been really busy setting up an online storefront for some handmade items that I've made, by the time I get online... blah! Anyway I don't think any of you should go out of your way to purchase the Canadian edition of Equilibrium if you are a fan of this flick; a US edition would probably (hopefully???) be in the correct aspect ratio, and maybe it would be a bit better PQ wise. It's a rather drab film colour-wise. The print seemed dirty and speckled with crap here and there. I didn't notice any horrendous EE although it peeked out at me occasionally.
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's a stylistic thing, trying to make it more artsy, as it's pretty soft a lot of the time but then some of the close-ups have great detail.
> 
> 
> This isn't a true spoiler, but it's an OT rant by me, GeekyGlassesGirl, that's indeed very GIRLY/sexist so I figured I'd cover it up as it's not really necessary but I haven't had my coffee yet today and felt the need to type a bit too much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Spoiler
> *Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) If anything, I still can't forgive this movie's director for allowing a cool fight-scene between Christian Bale & Taye Diggs, yet NEITHER of them are shirtless. WTF, listen up directors! While I'm a sci-fi fan, many many women are NOT, and if you want them to tolerate their husbands/boyfriends/whatEVER! watching this sort of crappy film(OKAY don't kill me, Gun Kata or whatever the fake matrix stuff in this movie is, is kinda cool but....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ), it's a good start to have great looking men in them, but THROW US A FREAKIN' BONE HERE and make'em shirtless. Jeez. We tolerate topless women in chick flicks all over the place to help pacify the guys we force to watch that dreck... Do us the same solid!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose that's kind of turned into as much of a review as I'll likely make of this film that most of you probably won't see as there'll eventually be a US version instead of the craptastic Alliance release.
> 
> 
> 
> So.......
> 
> 
> *Recommendation for Equilibrium (Canadian Release): Tier 3.0*


*Equilibrium (Canadian)


recommendation: Tier 3.0*


There is not much else to say about this release that Geekyglassesgirl did not already mention. Her placement is right on the spot. The only point I will add to the discussion is the iffy black levels that dance from scene to scene, from overly bright to moments of black crush.


It's disappointing that it is almost 2012 and the only good edition of the movie is a pricey import from Japan.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of msgohan):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...4#post17164074


----------



## djoberg

Well Phantom, the fact that this title is still worthy of Tier 3.0 after over 2 years (GGG's post was back in October of 2009!!!) is saying something. There's not too many titles that would hold up after that much time.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21394572
> 
> 
> Have you seen _The Tree of Life_ yet? One of the things that REALLY impressed me in that movie was the texture shown in the faces of children. In fact, an early scene shows the birth of a son and his formative years and it's quite extraordinary seeing the peach fuzz on an infant...and there's a shot of the baby's feet where you can see every wrinkle.



Hey Denny. I did see it, just haven't had a chance to speak to its PQ. You're right though, definite texture including children's faces. It would easily top our Blu list, had it not for inconsistencies.


I would still vote it above _Astro Boy_.

*The Tree of Life*

*Tier Recommendation: 0** (above _Astro Boy)_

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Soul Eater: The Meister Collection


recommendation: Tier 2.0*
*

An anime production released by Funimation in 2011, the show was actually animated in high definition and looks it on this release. The animation has a unique Pop Art feel and definitely possesses visual panache. There are no technical problems marring the Blu-ray and the clean visuals translate well onto a large display.


The stylistic animation does employ a limited amount of layering and three-dimensional effects on occasion, but most of the series involves very simplistic background designs that are not worthy of Tier One. Overall the picture quality is nice but will not knock the socks off of viewers accustomed to the better animated titles. It does look significantly better than the upscaled Blu-rays that are a common occurrence in the anime field.


----------



## mweflen

*Bridesmaids*


A solid Blu-Ray presentation, typical of most Universal releases. Detail is good, color is fine, black levels are fine. It is clearly and obviously HD, but isn't spectacular or demo-worthy.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*


Sony KDL52EX700, 8 foot viewing distance


----------



## Sheriff Woody

When is the PQ Tier set to be updated?


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sheriff Woody* /forum/post/21426202
> 
> 
> When is the PQ Tier set to be updated?



I had planned for it to be today, but probably now around late Tuesday if I had to guess. It's good to know someone is paying attention. A happy new year to all users of the Tiers!


----------



## lgans316

Happy New Year to Phantom and other readers / contributors.


----------



## Sheriff Woody




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/21426951
> 
> 
> I had planned for it to be today, but probably now around late Tuesday if I had to guess. It's good to know someone is paying attention. A happy new year to all users of the Tiers!



Happy New Year to you, too!











I'm curious to see where Apocalypse Now lands on the list. I thought it looked phenomenal - and not just for an old movie. Just an absolutely beautiful release that can easily stand in comparison to almost any other (live-action) blu-ray in my collection.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

I'm back! No, please, hold your adoration and applause. No, it's too much, really. Thank you, thank you. Glad to be back. Delusional? I have no idea what you're talking about. But anyway, here's what was missed in capsule form:

*Rubber*


Worst. Aliasing. Ever. Otherwise just okay.

*Tier 3.75**


____________

*King of Fighters*


Solid digital with a spotty mid-range.

*Tier 2.75**


____________

*Casino Jack*


Some noise is a downer, but a detail spectacle for most of the runtime.

*Tier 1.75**


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21322031
> 
> *Another Earth*
> 
> 
> There is NO EYE CANDY here, with the exception of a few facial close-ups (of the Indian janitor and Rhoda) that veered into Tier 0 territory. Daytime scenes also yielded numerous shots with appreciable detail and depth.
> 
> 
> Colors were bland....contrast was often too strong, with overblown whites...blacks in most night time scenes were quite murky and often accompanied with video noise... and there was a bit of aliasing as well.
> 
> 
> I'm inclined to put this at the top of Tier 4, but my "generosity gene" is kicking in tonight and thus it's going right here....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.75**



I didn't find this as objectionable as DJ. I was entertained and pleased overall by the video presentation, knowing going in that it was shot on digital. Who knows, maybe I was entranced by Brit Marling's beauty...


Anyway, detail was solid, and I'd put a few close-ups in tier 1 (not 0) range. Predictably, dark scenes were quite lackluster, with a lot of digital noise. But I rarely found myself being annoyed by things, with the exception of some banding around the "Earth 2" effect in the sky. Cloth textures were strong, as were environmental textures. The color was washed out, presumably as the director intended, and I thus won't knock the disc too much for this (while agreeing that it probably cannot go too high as a result.


Long story short, you shouldn't buy this for PQ, as it is merely average compared to other titles on the format. You should rent or buy for the thought provoking SF/psychological thriller tale, and for Brit Marling, who may or may not be the next big thing.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Shark Night*


Remember black levels? Yeah, I do. Nice, deep, rich and contrast-creating blacks. What good times. Sadly, those are in the past thanks to this mess. Color is fine, but nothing else really is. It's all so flat and lifeless, even the fine detail which is near zilch. Blah.

*Tier 3.25**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Once more, with feeling...*


x Star Wars: A New Hope Episode IV - 2.0 Gamereviewgod, 3.0 mweflen, 3.0 tfoltz, 3.25 Patrick99, 2.5 mr. wally, 3.0 Rob Tomlin, 2.5 Phantom Stranger


x Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back - 2.5 Gamereviewgod, 2.0 mweflen, 2.75 tfoltz, 3.25 patrick99, 2.0 mr. wally, 2.5 Rob Tomlin


Thor - 2.0 Patrick99, 2.0 lgans316


x Star Wars: Return Of The Jedi - 2.0 Gamereviewgod, 2.25 mweflen, 3.25 tfoltz, 2.25 mr. wally, 2.25 Rob Tomlin


x Star Wars: The Phantom Menace - 3.75 Gamereviewgod, 3.25 mweflen, 2.75 mr. wally, 2.75 Rob Tomlin, 3.5 42041


x Stars Wars: Revenge Of The Sith - 1.5 mweflen, 1.5 Gamereviewgod, 2.0 patrick99, 1.0 mr. wally


x Star Wars: Attack Of The Clones - 3.0 Gamereviewgod, 2.5 mweflen, 1.75 mr. wally, 2.25 Rob Tomlin


x Airplane! - 4.0 deltasun


The Warrior's Way - 1.5 djoberg


Limitless - 1.75 lgans316, 1.25 djoberg


Skyline - 4.0 djoberg


x Bridesmaids - 2.0 Gamereviewgod, 2.25 mweflen


x The Ledge - 1.75 Gamereviewgod


x United 93 - 3.5 Gamereviewgod


x Transformers: Dark Of the Moon - .75 Gamereviewgod, 0 between Gamer & Island djoberg, 2.0 patrick99, 0 above Avatar Sujay, low 0 lgans316


x submarine - 2.5 Gamereviewgod


Tron - 2.5 mweflen, 3.5 lgans316


Tron: Legacy - 1.0 mweflen


x Win Win - 2.25 deltasun


x Scream 4 - 2.25 Gamereviewgod, 2.5 djoberg


x The Roommate - 3.25 djoberg


Drive Angry - 1.5 djoberg, 1.5 Rob Tomlin


x Ben-Hur - 1.5 mweflen, 1.75 djoberg, 1.75 deltasun


x Lion King - 0 above Bee movie tfoltz, 1.0 vpn75, 0 above TMNT Gamereviewgod


x Fast Five - 1.25 Gamereviewgod, 1.5 djoberg, 1.5 lgans316


x African Cats - 1.75 Gamereviewgod


x Insidious - 3.75 Gamereviewgod, 2.5 djoberg


x Gamera: Revenge Of Iris - 3.75 Gamereviewgod


x Jackie Brown - 1.5 deltasun


x Pulp Fiction - 2.5 deltasun, 2.0 Gamereviewgod, 2.0 mweflen


x Once Upon A Time In The West - 3.5 lgans316


x Horrible Bosses - 3.0 Gamereviewgod


x Wolverine And The X-Men: Complete Series - 2.0 Phantom Stranger


x Set Up - 3.0 Gamereviewgod


Red Cliff


x Green Lantern - 2.0 Gamereviewgod, 1.5 djoberg, 2.25 lgans316, 2.0 mweflen, 2.0 Phantom Stranger


Bridge On The River Kwai - 2.75 lgans316, Rob Tomlin


x Zookeeper - 3.5 Gamereviewgod


x Season Of The Witch - 2.0 djoberg


x 13 - 3.25 Gamereviewgod


x Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides - 2.0 Gamereviewgod, 2.0 patrick99, 1.5 djoberg


x Bad Teacher - 2.75 Gamereviewgod


x Griff the Invisible - 3.75 Gamereviewgod


x Rio - 0 below Avatar djoberg, low .75 lgans316


x 'Twas The Night Before Christmas - 4.5 Phantom Stranger


x Batman: Year One - 1.25 Phantom Stranger


x Jurassic Park - 3.25 lgans316, 3.0 Gamereviewgod, 2.0 djoberg, 2.75 tfoltz


x Jurassic Park: The Lost World - 3.5 lgans316, 3.25 Gamereviewgod, 3.25 djoberg, 3.25 tfoltz


x Scarface - 3.75 lgans316


King Of Kings - 2.0 mweflen


x Tree Of Life - 0 above The Thin Red Line vpn75, 0 javanpohl, 0 krayg, 0 above Thin Red Line mweflen, 0 above Thin Red Line Hughmc, 0 below Toy Story 2 djoberg, 0 above Astro Boy deltasun


x Winnie The Pooh - 1.0 Phantom Stranger, 0 above Alice tfoltz


x Exam (UK region-free import in 1080i/50Hz - 2.0 Phantom Stranger


x Citizen Kane - 3.0 mweflen


x The Exterminator - 4.95 deltasun


x Jurassic Park 3 - 2.75 Gamereviewgod, 1.75 djoberg, 2.75 tfoltz


x The Holy Mountain - 3.75 Phantom Stranger


x Captain America - 3.0 Gamereviewgod, 2.75 djoberg, 2.5 tfoltz, 2.75 lgans316


x Cars 2 - 0 above cars Gamereviewgod, 0 below Toy story 3 djoberg


x Carjacked - 3.5 Gamereviewgod


x She - 4.0 Gamereviewgod


Faster - 2.5 lgans316


smokin' Aces - 1.5 lgans316


x X-men: First Class - 1.75 lgans316


Battle: Los Angeles - 2.75 lgans316


x Things TO Come - 5.0 Gamereviewgod


x Trespass - 2.75 Gamereviewgod


x The Reunion - 2.25 Gamereviewgod


x Superman II (theatrical version) - 2.5 mweflen


x The Change-Up - 2.5 Gamereviewgod


x Harry Potter: Deathly Hallows Part 2 - 3.0 Gamereviewgod, 2.5 djoberg, 3.0 patrick99, 2.5 lgans316


x Destroy All Monsters - 3.5 Gamereviewgod


x Amelie - 1.75 mweflen


x Sarah's Key - 2.75 Gamereviewgod


x Flypaper - 3.0 Gamereviewgod


x Larry Crowne - 2.25 Gamereviewgod


Fellowship Of The Ring (extended) - 1.75 mweflen


x Attack The Block - 3.25 Gamereviewgod


Two Towers (extended) - 1.5 mweflen


x Jeff Dunham : COntrolled Chaos - 3.0 Gamereviewgod


Return Of The King (extended) - 1.0 mweflen


x Super 8 - 1.75 Gamereviewgod, 1.75 djoberg, 2.0 patrick99, 2.0 lgans316, 1.5 mweflen


x The Four Feathers (1939) - 3.75 deltasun


x The Devil's Double - 3.25 deltasun


x Conan (2011) - 1.5 Gamereviewgod


x Our idiot brother - 1.75 Gamereviewgod


x Spykids: All The Time In the World - 1.75 Gamereviewgod


x Superman IV - 4.0 mweflen


Superman Returns - 3.5 mweflen


x 30 minutes or less - 2.75 Gamereviewgod


x Faces In the Crowd - 1.5 deltasun


Days Of HEaven - 2.75 mweflen


x Tanner Hall - 1.75 Gamereviewgod


x Crazy, Stupid, Love - 4.0 Gamereviewgod, 4.0 patrick99, 4.0 deltasun, 1.75 mweflen


A Serious Man - 0 above Pirates mweflen


x Friends with Benefits - 2.25 Gamereviewgod


x The Smurfs - .75 Gamereviewgod


x Horror Express - 4.0 Phantom Stranger


x Hangover Part 2 - 1.75 Gamereviewgod, lgans316


x Cowboys & Aliens - 2.25 Gamereviewgod, 2.0 djoberg, 2.25 mweflen


x Catch .44 - 1.75 Gamereviewgod


x Another Earth - 3.75 djoberg


Superman (extended) - 3.5 mweflen


x Arabia 2d/3d - .25 Gamereviewgod


x Water For elephants - 2.0 djoberg


x Mr. Popper's Penguins - 3.25 Gamereviewgod


x Rise of the planet of the apes - .75 Gamereviewgod, 1.75 djoberg, 1.5 lgans316, 2.25 Patrick99


x Fright Night (2011) - 3.25 Gamereviewgod


x Kung FU Panda 2 - 0 between Pirates & Despicable Me Gamereviewgod, 0 below Despicable Me djoberg


x Beastly - 3.0 djoberg


x The Help - 1.0 Gamereviewgod, 0 below Transporter 3 djoberg


Memento - 2.5 lgans316


Gulliver's Travels (2010) - 2.0 lgans316


x Greece: Secrets Of The Past - 4.0 Gamereviewgod


x Colombiana - 1.75 Gamereviewgod


x Dolphin Tale - 2.0 Gamereviewgod


x Straw Dogs (2011) - 2.75 Gamereviewgod


x Midnight In Paris - 3.0 mweflen


x Justice League: Season Two - 1.0 Phantom Stranger


x Warrior - 2.5 Gamereviewgod


x The Debt - 3.5 djoberg


x Superman III - 2.0 Phantom Stranger, 2.25 mweflen


x The Truman SHow - 3.25 mweflen


Magnolia - 1.5 mweflen


x The Rocky Horror Picture Show - 0 below Hot Fuzz mweflen


x Rare Exports: A CHristmas Tale - 1.25 deltasun


x Cowboys & Aliens (paramount UK) - 2.5 lgans316


x The Devil's Double (Icon UK) - 2.0 lgans316


Equilibrium Canada - 3.0 Phantom Stranger


Soul Eater: The Meister Collection - 2.0 Phantom Stranger


Soul Eater: The Weapon Collection - 2.0 Phantom Stranger


x Rubber - 3.75 GameReviewgod


x King Of Fighters - 2.75 Gamereviewgod


x Casino Jack - 1.75 Gamereviewgod


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/21435687
> 
> *Once more, with feeling...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> x Super 8 - 1.75 Gamereviewgod, 1.75 djoberg, 2.0 patrick99, 2.0 lgans316, 1.5 mweflen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> x Cowboys & Aliens - 2.25 Gamereviewgod, 2.0 djoberg, 2.25 mweflen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> x Another Earth - 3.75 djoberg



Hey Phantom,


I never reviewed Super 8 or Cowboys and Aliens. Also, I just posted a review for Another Earth, but I understand if it's too late for inclusion.


Also, WOW did people ever disagree with me on Crazy Stupid Love! I need to do a search and see why - maybe I wasn't sitting close enough!


----------



## lgans316

Once more, great job Phantom.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen* /forum/post/21436278
> 
> 
> Hey Phantom,
> 
> 
> I never reviewed Super 8 or Cowboys and Aliens. Also, I just posted a review for Another Earth, but I understand if it's too late for inclusion.



Your score for Another Earth will be reflected in the next installment. No one seemed to notice, but the Tiers have been updated since Monday.










After a forensic investigation of the placements, I appear to have wrongly attributed those scores to you. They are in fact recommendations by tfoltz. It doesn't change the final placements of those discs. My apologies to both you and tfoltz.


Most of the links in the lower Tiers are still broken, due to HDDB being replaced as we knew it as a source of Blu-ray reviews. All the links in Tier Blu work fine. As a matter of simplicity, do people still feel the glossary links in the first post of the Tiers list are necessary?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/21436523
> 
> 
> once more, great job phantom.



+1


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Final Destination 5*


Decent looking digital source with enough fidelity and sharpness to get a pass. Even if detail can waver, close-ups are impressive and exteriors nicely rendered. Black levels could use a little more kick and there are some moments of aliasing plus noise, but it's pretty minor.
*Tier 2.25**


----------



## mweflen

*Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country*


-Colors are very poppy and relatively accurate

-Black levels are deep and strong, and do not appear particularly crushed.

-DNR runs amok in many scenes. Faces in medium shots are terribly waxy. Stuble and pores recede into a digital haze. Close-ups retain some good detail. Grain is almost completely obliterated, except for smoky scenes, in which it often freezes in strange patterns.

-Aliasing issues abound on high-contrast elements. Grates, railings, and so on show lots of jagged edges.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*


Sony KDL-52EX700, 8 foot viewing distance


----------



## mweflen

*Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan*


-Excellent color reproduction and fidelity. Black levels are strong and deep, with no crushing of detail

-Very light film grain is present throughout. Little or no DNR or EE seems evident.

-Detail is strong but not overwhelming.

-There are some very nice scenes with dimensional aspects, especially the Starfleet Command lobby with Kirk and Spock, and the circle pan of the Regula scientists.


Overall, a truly excellent rendition of a film from 1980, and easily the best transfer of the TOS movie box set.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


Sony KDL52EX700, 8 foot viewing distance


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Puncture*


Middling digital source with pale black levels, muted color, and gaudy color timing in spots. Fine detail is spotty at best, never hauling in the real fine stuff. Just boring to look at really, but a great movie nonetheless.

*Tier 3.0**


----------



## deltasun

Thanks for keeping the list updated, Phantom!


----------



## mweflen

*Star Trek: The Motion Picture*


Detail - 40% of the images on this BD are tier 1. These are interior set shots with no opticals. Faces frequently show very good detail, with hair and cloth textures clearly evident (but not really pores). The exterior space shots (30% of the movie?) are probably tier 3. Clean but not really impressive. Then there are some very soft shots with optical effects, probably the remaining 30% of the film, which are tier 4 level shots.


Color - superb, revelatory colors really. Anyone who was stuck watching this on DVD or (gasp) VHS should be dazzled by the colors on display. Rich, warm, accurate. Black levels are solid and deep, and do not crush near-black detail.


Based on the look of the interior non-optical shots, I do not think aggressive DNR or EE was employed here. No transfer-induced aliasing or shimmering is evident.


Overall, I think this is a very respectful transfer, much better than the abominations of films 3-6. Source limitations hold it back.
*Tier Recommendation: 2.75*


Sony KDL 52EX700, 8 foot viewing distance


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Mysterious Island (1961)*


Stunning vintage Eastman color presentation with dazzling saturation, flawless back levels, and gorgeous textural grain structure. Detail can be superb, and sharpness top tier. It's the effects work that gets in the way for our purposes here, especially the first 20-minutes on the balloon which are all shot via blue screen.

*Tier 2.75**


----------



## mweflen

*The Matrix (TUMC Box set)*


I think this one is quite underrated here. Detail is consistently spectacular, with pores, whiskers, hairs, and dust motes consistently visible. In Matrix scenes, it's at the top of tier one. For whatever reason, "real world" scenes seem a bit softer, but are still highly pleasing. Heavy CG effects shots are the only ones that slip from these lofty heights, probably 10 minutes worth of footage overall. Color and contrast are lovely, with oodles of detail near black, and all the black-on-black elements are rendered very cleanly and distinctly. A light sheen of film grain is present. Given the grain and detail, no DNR seems evident. There were perhaps 3 minutes worth of scenes in which I detected a whiff of edge enhancement.


Scanning the list, I think this transfer is at least as good as Zodiac. So I'll place it at 1.5.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*


Sony 52EX700, 6 foot viewing distance (sat on the floor folding laundry tonight







)


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen* /forum/post/21463054
> 
> *The Matrix (UCE Box set)*
> 
> 
> I think this one is quite underrated here. Detail is consistently spectacular, with pores, whiskers, hairs, and dust motes consistently visible. In Matrix scenes, it's at the top of tier one. For whatever reason, "real world" scenes seem a bit softer, but are still highly pleasing. Heavy CG effects shots are the only ones that slip from these lofty heights, probably 10 minutes worth of footage overall. Color and contrast are lovely, with oodles of detail near black, and all the black-on-black elements are rendered very cleanly and distinctly. A light sheen of film grain is present. Given the grain and detail, no DNR seems evident. There were perhaps 3 minutes worth of scenes in which I detected a whiff of edge enhancement.
> 
> 
> Scanning the list, I think this transfer is at least as good as Zodiac. So I'll place it at 1.5.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.5*
> 
> 
> Sony 52EX700, 6 foot viewing distance (sat on the floor folding laundry tonight
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )




is that the first matrix or the whole set? 1.5 is awesome for this...you have me curious


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/21467297
> 
> 
> is that the first matrix or the whole set? 1.5 is awesome for this...you have me curious



Mweflen can speak for himself but I think he is referring to the first movie from the box set. Warner has never re-done any of the Matrix movies on Blu-ray, so the discs in the box set are identical to the individual releases. One has to remember that the Matrix is from that era when digital post-production tools were in their infancy. The picture quality results are less than what they would be if worked on today. The Matrix has some good shots but I don't remember the type of fine detail in it that the better Tier One titles should possess.


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/21467665
> 
> 
> Mweflen can speak for himself but I think he is referring to the first movie from the box set. Warner has never re-done any of the Matrix movies on Blu-ray, so the discs in the box set are identical to the individual releases. One has to remember that the Matrix is from that era when digital post-production tools were in their infancy so the picture quality results are less than what they would be if worked on today. The Matrix has some good shots but I don't remember the type of fine detail in it that the better Tier One titles should possess.



Hugh,


I am indeed referring only to the first flick. I'd love to know whether you agree with 1.5 after watching it.


As far as my rating goes, I can only call them as I see them. I sat rather close to the tv on this one, and was consistently impressed. I think this is stronger generally than Fight Club (which sits at 1.75, and I agree with this rating), which I also own and enjoy as HD.


There are a lot of facial close-ups in this movie, some of very craggy faces (i.e. Laurence Fishburne), and the definition on these was truly spectacular at times. I agree that some soft effects shots take this out of tier 0, and the inconsistency knocks it out of the top of Tier 1. But I absolutely think it _"demonstrate reference picture quality but [has] brief periods of inconsistency; Or may exhibit excellent quality in general but ever so slightly rank below tier zero quality in terms of visual interest, detail, contrast, depth or clarity."_


Also, there is grain. I am a confessed grain-liker. If you show me consistent fine grain that doesn't waver or display any weird freezing issues indicative of DNR (see: Star Wars OT, Star Trek 3-6), I'm going to give a good rating. The MAtrix showed beautiful grain.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Apollo 18*

All done with a variety of styles and cameras, none of them all that great. Heavy grain dominates the 16mm, and visual filters keep the digital from being anything great. If it needs to look like tape, it does. Pitiful in terms of this thread, fine stylistically.

*Tier 5.0**


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen* /forum/post/21463054
> 
> *The Matrix (UCE Box set)*
> 
> 
> I think this one is quite underrated here. Detail is consistently spectacular, with pores, whiskers, hairs, and dust motes consistently visible. In Matrix scenes, it's at the top of tier one. For whatever reason, "real world" scenes seem a bit softer, but are still highly pleasing. Heavy CG effects shots are the only ones that slip from these lofty heights, probably 10 minutes worth of footage overall. Color and contrast are lovely, with oodles of detail near black, and all the black-on-black elements are rendered very cleanly and distinctly. A light sheen of film grain is present. Given the grain and detail, no DNR seems evident. There were perhaps 3 minutes worth of scenes in which I detected a whiff of edge enhancement.
> 
> 
> Scanning the list, I think this transfer is at least as good as Zodiac. So I'll place it at 1.5.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.5*
> 
> 
> Sony 52EX700, 6 foot viewing distance (sat on the floor folding laundry tonight
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )



Your remarks on _The Matrix_ are note-worthy, for I recall, back in the day when it was being critiqued and placed, that I was of the mind that it deserved a better placement than Tier 2. And yet I couldn't actually weigh in myself, for I have never seen the Blu-ray version (I own the trilogy on HD-DVD). The HD-DVD version had the same stunning details you describe and I remember chiming in and saying, "If the Blu-ray version has the same encode as the HD-DVD version, it deserves a Tier 1 placement."


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21471416
> 
> 
> Your remarks on _The Matrix_ are note-worthy, for I recall, back in the day when it was being critiqued and placed, that I was of the mind that it deserved a better placement than Tier 2. And yet I couldn't actually weigh in myself, for I have never seen the Blu-ray version (I own the trilogy on HD-DVD). The HD-DVD version had the same stunning details you describe and I remember chiming in and saying, "If the Blu-ray version has the same encode as the HD-DVD version, it deserves a Tier 1 placement."



Yeah, considering where some of the Superman movies have been placing, Tier 2 is a real injustice to The Matrix transfer. I love the Superman transfers (well, 1-3 anyway), but The Matrix is way better, certainly "a tier above."


In my cursory examination of previous ratings, people seem to be claiming softness, and some overblown whites in white backdrop scenes. As for the former, well, I'm not seeing the level of softness described (admitting that there is fluctuation between "good" tier 2 and "really great" tier 1 detail), and as for the latter, it seems intentional.


I also wonder if maybe some Warner Hate is permeating the ratings.


----------



## mweflen

*The Matrix Reloaded (TUMC Box set)*


Something about this transfer makes it less visually appealing than the previous movie. Whereas the dark scenes in the prior movie were crisp and the blacks seemingly endless, here the dark scenes look muddier and noisier at times. I'd almost suspect they were shot on digital instead of film, but a bit of research indicates it was indeed shot on Kodak Vision film. Thus I can only conclude that the muddiness is the result of there being ten times as many effects shots as the previous film.


That said, this one still shares many of the strengths of the previous film. Detail is very strong except during effects shots and detail near black is good when the muddiness doesn't take over. Colors are "matrixy."


Basically, when a high contrast, non-CGI scene is onscreen, this movie looks great, near the top of tier one. But a full half of it looks considerably worse, probably low tier 2 or even 3. So I'll split the difference and call it...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


Sony KDL52EX700, 6 foot viewing distance (more laundry folding tonight! Baby poops in a lot of diapers







)


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Contagion*


Awful color grading take a lot of the appeal out of this one. Yellows, greens, and oranges are dominate, ugly and sickly which is sort of the point. Detail comes and goes, the appearance more glossy than natural. Some banding and general softness is evident. Black levels are firm.

*Tier 2.5**


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen* /forum/post/21474559
> 
> *The Matrix Reloaded (TUMC Box set)*
> 
> 
> Something about this transfer makes it less visually appealing than the previous movie. Whereas the dark scenes in the prior movie were crisp and the blacks seemingly endless, here the dark scenes look muddier and noisier at times. I'd almost suspect they were shot on digital instead of film, but a bit of research indicates it was indeed shot on Kodak Vision film. Thus I can only conclude that the muddiness is the result of there being ten times as many effects shots as the previous film.
> 
> 
> That said, this one still shares many of the strengths of the previous film. Detail is very strong except during effects shots and detail near black is good when the muddiness doesn't take over. Colors are "matrixy."
> 
> 
> Basically, when a high contrast, non-CGI scene is onscreen, this movie looks great, near the top of tier one. But a full half of it looks considerably worse, probably low tier 2 or even 3. So I'll split the difference and call it...
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.0*
> 
> 
> Sony KDL52EX700, 6 foot viewing distance (more laundry folding tonight! Baby poops in a lot of diapers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )



Be prepared to be challenged, for this title was actually awarded a place in Tier 1.75 (along with the third installment).


You have me curious, for I don't recall _The Matrix Reloaded_ being inferior (in its PQ) to _The Matrix_. Maybe it's time for me to watch that trilogy again!


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21477495
> 
> 
> Be prepared to be challenged, for this title was actually awarded a place in Tier 1.75 (along with the third installment).
> 
> 
> You have me curious, for I don't recall _The Matrix Reloaded_ being inferior (in its PQ) to _The Matrix_. Maybe it's time for me to watch that trilogy again!



I certainly did not expect this to be the case. I expected, like the LOTR set, that the PQ would improve gradually with each release (I still need to watch the third one). But instead, at least in my view, the increased use of CGI effects leads to a correspondingly degraded picture.


When it's not an effects shot, it looks great, don't get me wrong. But things start to look blurrier and softer when CG is in use (especially the awful CG Neo). And since there is so much of it, I just feel it's necessary to downgrade a few ticks.


----------



## audio/videoman

I was a bit underwhelmed with the matrix series. I've only watched a few select scenes from each of the three, but none of them have the color saturation or overwhelming detail I expected, given the rave reviews.


Take the second scene in avatar for example where Jake is waking from cryo: the blue is very intense yet you can still see every fine detail.


In comparison, the colors in the matrix aren't quite as saturated; obviously, some of this may be due to low lighting or artistic choices about how the films should look, but I'm now used to seeing richly saturated colors in combination with fine detail, and the matrix trilogy did not quite deliver.


Also, the bit rate is far below that of other blu rays. There is simply a lot less information on the screen. The matrix trilogy is far from reference quality.


----------



## mweflen

Eh, I watch movies, not bitrates










I can only call them as I see them. That's why there's a diversity of opinions here, I suppose.


----------



## audio/videoman

The bit rate is only relevant insofar as it confirms my subjective impressions.


Also, to put this in perspective, I am comparing the blu ray to the remastered dvd, which looks quite good; the jump in picture quality is much more modest than I had anticipated.


The next time you watch the matrix, ask yourself: do color saturation and contrast truly rank with the best blu rays you've seen? Compared to a blu ray like avatar, the answer is clearly no. Even in dark scenes, such as when jake wakes up from cryo, or during the safety briefing, color saturation and contrast are clearly superior.


Matrix is good to very good, but it is nowhere near reference quality.


Also, while it's nice to know that so many animated films are considered reference quality, the challenge is not really there: every single frame is computer generated; of course there won't be any noise or grain. It almost seems as if these films constitute a separate category; the ability to present clean images from actual live footage seems like a completely different project and challenge altogether.


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *audio/videoman* /forum/post/21480424
> 
> 
> The bit rate is only relevant insofar as it confirms my subjective impressions.
> 
> 
> Also, to put this in perspective, I am comparing the blu ray to the remastered dvd, which looks quite good; the jump in picture quality is much more modest than I had anticipated.
> 
> 
> The next time you watch the matrix, ask yourself: do color saturation and contrast truly rank with the best blu rays you've seen? Compared to a blu ray like avatar, the answer is clearly no. Even in dark scenes, such as when jake wakes up from cryo, or during the safety briefing, color saturation and contrast are clearly superior.
> 
> 
> Matrix is good to very good, but it is nowhere near reference quality.
> 
> 
> Also, while it's nice to know that so many animated films are considered reference quality, the challenge is not really there: every single frame is computer generated; of course there won't be any noise or grain. It almost seems as if these films constitute a separate category; the ability to present clean images from actual live footage seems like a completely different project and challenge altogether.



1. Having had the DVDs, I agree that they were quite good for the format, especially the latter two movies. But the BDs blow them away - I personally was not disappointed in the jump in quality.


2. You talk about grain as if it's a bad thing. IMHO, it isn't.


3. When I popped in the first Matrix BD for a "PQ Tier Thread" viewing, I was coming to it fresh, not having read any previous reviews, and not having watched it for a year or more. It kept impressing me with black and near black detail, contrast, dimensionality, and fine detail. There are spots where it betrays the age of the movie with some subpar CG effects. It's not tier 0 by any means. But overall, I think it belongs in tier 1 just as Fight Club does - a _very_ similar looking BD that I also own and have watched frequently.


----------



## audio/videoman

You didn't address my comparison however: avatar is far superior, and is indeed of reference quality.


I would even rank a film like 3:10 ahead of the matrix. Granted 3:10 is a newer film, but again, color saturation and contrast are clearly better.


I'd feel more comfortable rating the matrix as a high quality 2 rather than a 1.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen* /forum/post/21474360
> 
> 
> Yeah, considering where some of the Superman movies have been placing, Tier 2 is a real injustice to The Matrix transfer. I love the Superman transfers (well, 1-3 anyway), but The Matrix is way better, certainly "a tier above."
> 
> 
> In my cursory examination of previous ratings, people seem to be claiming softness, and some overblown whites in white backdrop scenes. As for the former, well, I'm not seeing the level of softness described (admitting that there is fluctuation between "good" tier 2 and "really great" tier 1 detail), and as for the latter, it seems intentional.
> 
> *I also wonder if maybe some Warner Hate is permeating the ratings.*



The Warner Hate is very well earned.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/21480706
> 
> 
> The Warner Hate is very well earned.



Ah, but prejudice can, at times, blind one's eyes!


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Moneyball*


One of the worst new release Sony encodes I've ever encountered. The grain structure is a total nightmare. Detail is generally fine when the grain isn't overwhelming the image. Black levels lose out a few times but are generally rich and firm. Not sure what happened here, but just no to this:

Attachment 233902 

*Tier 3.0**


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen* /forum/post/21480485
> 
> 
> It kept impressing me with black and near black detail, contrast, dimensionality, and fine detail. There are spots where it betrays the age of the movie with some subpar CG effects. It's not tier 0 by any means. But overall, I think it belongs in tier 1 just as Fight Club does - a _very_ similar looking BD that I also own and have watched frequently.



Personally I think the black levels in Fight Club are significantly better than the Matrix. I'm also not a huge fan of the altered color timing on the Matrix that was made for home video, though I guess that wouldn't really factor in the evaluation here.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/21481691
> 
> *Moneyball*
> 
> 
> One of the worst new release Sony encodes I've ever encountered. The grain structure is a total nightmare. Detail is generally fine when the grain isn't overwhelming the image. Black levels lose out a few times but are generally rich and firm. Not sure what happened here, but just no to this:
> 
> Attachment 233902
> 
> *Tier 3.0**



Sony turns out clunkers on Blu-ray here and there. They are usually consistent but there have been lapses. It's too bad as I was planning to purchase this BD until your comments.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/21483017
> 
> 
> Sony turns out clunkers on Blu-ray here and there. They are usually consistent but there have been lapses. *It's too bad as I was planning to purchase this BD until your comments.*



I wouldn't cancel your order too quickly. If you check Cinema Squid's site you will see that ALL the reviewers are singing the "PQ" praises of this title. The only exception is our dear friend and colleague, GRG. I find myself agreeing with GRG half the time, but that means that there's just as many titles that I don't see eye-to-eye with him on. Let YOUR EYES be the judge!


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21483518
> 
> 
> I wouldn't cancel your order too quickly. If you check Cinema Squid's site you will see that ALL the reviewers are singing the "PQ" praises of this title. The only exception is our dear friend and colleague, GRG. I find myself agreeing with GRG half the time, but that means that there's just as many titles that I don't see eye-to-eye with him on. Let YOUR EYES be the judge!



You've got it all backwards. You're WRONG half the time.










I can't speak for other reviews, but a handful said there's no aliasing when there clearly is, and on multiple occasions. Some just aren't as picky, and for a new release, Moneyball is just appalling.


But yes, at least rent it and see it for yourself. Everyone has a different tolerance for these things. The movie itself is more than worth it.


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *audio/videoman* /forum/post/21480668
> 
> 
> You didn't address my comparison however: avatar is far superior, and is indeed of reference quality.
> 
> 
> I would even rank a film like 3:10 ahead of the matrix. Granted 3:10 is a newer film, but again, color saturation and contrast are clearly better.
> 
> 
> I'd feel more comfortable rating the matrix as a high quality 2 rather than a 1.



I can't compare Matrix to Avatar because I haven't seen it. It's way down on my netflix queue right now. (next up, Rise of the Planet of the Apes!)


I'm going by a combination of two things - the tier descriptions, and comparing a disc I've just watched to others in a given tier. Maybe this makes me overly generous. But it's a subjective enterprise. I _personally_ think The Matrix is quite excellent with some soft spots. That says tier 1 to me. I don't expect color saturation because I know what the movie looks like - it has an intentionally bland, washed out color palette. Reloaded is more problematic (in my opinion), but is still overall pleasant to look at, and thus rates a 2.


I think maybe I see much more of a difference between 0 and 1 than some here. 0 to me is "Tree of Life" good (i.e. absolutely stunning with exceptions of 1% of running time or less). I personally think "Hot Fuzz" should be in tier one. It's really good, but there is occasional softness.


To put it simply, I don't view the description of Tier 1 as indicating "reference quality." I read it as "would have been reference quality except for XYZ." And I view tier 2's description as "pleasing to the casual eye, but well below reference quality." Tier 3 is where problems begin, such as DNR or EE, and 4 and under is where these problems take over the whole presentation and make it very hard to watch.


----------



## audio/videoman

That's why the matrix rates a 2. You'll understand very clearly after watching avatar. The main problem with the matrix is that you get green and blue, and not that much else. The challenge for any transfer is to give great contrast, color and detail all at the same time.


Avatar is a reference mark in that regard, and 3:10 is also excellent. Avatar just doesn't do all that well with color, or contrast. It's solid at displaying detail, but hey, it's blu ray. That's what you expect.


Anyway, lots of people love how the matrix looks so who am I to rain on their parade.


----------



## djoberg

Now's as good a time as any to jump into the fray, having just watched the credits roll on _The Matrix_.


If I were to make a recommendation based on the first 30-40 minutes, I would go along with audio/videoman and give it a Tier 2 rating (maybe even in the bottom of that tier). There were numerous soft shots and the contrast was too hot in several scenes.


But after that point...easily a Tier 1 rating. The sharpness, clarity, and contrast became much better and the details were off the charts. All who know me know of my extreme love for facial details and I would say that 90% of them fell into Tier 0...and I'm not just speaking of Morpheus (though the close-ups of him were as good as I've seen on the Blu-ray format). Depth too became superb in multiple shots. Yes, the colors were still on the drab side, but they did NOT take away from the amazing details and clarity and so one need not penalize them in that case.


BTW, I have seen _Avatar_ at least 4 times and it is most certainly better than _The Matrix_. That's why it was awarded a high Tier 0 placement, for it's one of the "cream of the crop." It was REFERENCE all the way, whereas _The Matrix_ falls into the next tier, which is still DEMO, but NOT REFERENCE.


I guess I need to make the disclaimer though that I alluded to in the "Title" line...I watched this on HD DVD and not on Blu-ray. But every source that I've read that commented on the encode said the Blu-ray is the identical encode, so I believe I am "comparing apples to apples."


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *audio/videoman* /forum/post/21485658
> 
> 
> The challenge for any transfer is to give great contrast, color and detail all at the same time.



A transfer can't "transfer" what isn't on the film. Not all movies look like Avatar or Speed Racer. And while I realize this might put me at odds with some (i.e. the "eye candy" enthusiasts as opposed to the "film enthusiasts"), I will always rate a transfer highly if it accurately renders what was on the original piece of film (or digital file for newer flicks).


Does "Casablanca" or "Citizen Kane" get rated more poorly because it isn't colorful?


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21485774
> 
> _The Matrix_ falls into the next tier, which is still DEMO, but NOT REFERENCE.



This is exactly how I would put it, comparing it to a clear Tier 0 title like "Tree of Life" or "A Serious Man." I'm not claiming "The Matrix" is the end-all and be-all, and it is certainly not the equal of those discs. Those discs are consistently mind blowing.


But there are many, many scenes on The Matrix disc that have the detail, depth of black and near black, and dimensionality that I would expect from an _excellent_ BD. Because of the inconsistencies, I don't think it's at the top of Tier 1, either. Reloaded and Revolutions did not, they looked more Tier 2 to me, i.e. "pleasing to a casual HD viewer" and a "still a distinct upgrade from DVD."


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen* /forum/post/21485808
> 
> 
> This is exactly how I would put it, comparing it to a clear Tier 0 title like "Tree of Life" or "A Serious Man." I'm not claiming "The Matrix" is the end-all and be-all, and it is certainly not the equal of those discs. Those discs are consistently mind blowing.
> 
> 
> But there are many, many scenes on The Matrix disc that have the detail, *depth of black and near black*, and dimensionality that I would expect from an _excellent_ BD. Because of the inconsistencies, *I don't think it's at the top of Tier 1*, either. Reloaded and Revolutions did not, they looked more Tier 2 to me, i.e. "pleasing to a casual HD viewer" and a "still a distinct upgrade from DVD."



Two points I forgot to make (which you refer to in the highlighted words above). The blacks were incredibly good...you gotta love the sheen on their leather jackets! And I would rate it Tier 1.75 (not at the top of the tier).


----------



## audio/videoman

The only way of knowing what the originals looked like would be either to:


1. view the actual master.


2. compare the blu ray to the film based upon recollection of how the film looked in a theater.


Now obviously very few of us have seen the older films in question in their original theatrical runs.


Therefore, we are left with hypothetical guesses as to what older films should look like.


In addition, it's very clear that some blu rays actually look quite a bit better than their original theatrical versions, i.e., the godfather.


In other words, in some cases, we don't know what the original theatrical versions looked like, in others, the transfers aren't accurate because they actually look much better than the original theatrical versions.


That is to say, "accuracy" in either sense is really irrelevant. Again, the three key criteria of excellence here are color saturation, contrast and detail.


And no, "accuracy" in terms of how the human eye perceives is not the criterion either. The human eye doesn't see reflections from the sun through a lens or stains on the lens, etc. Conversely, the camera lens doesn't record "ghost images" or imprints that we see when the eye moves.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen* /forum/post/21485780
> 
> 
> A transfer can't "transfer" what isn't on the film. Not all movies look like Avatar or Speed Racer. And while I realize this might put me at odds with some (i.e. the "eye candy" enthusiasts as opposed to the "film enthusiasts"), I will always rate a transfer highly if it accurately renders what was on the original piece of film (or digital file for newer flicks).
> 
> 
> Does "Casablanca" or "Citizen Kane" get rated more poorly because it isn't colorful?


----------



## mweflen

Granted, I haven't seen Casablanca in the theater (I have seen plenty of classics however at the Music Box in Chicago, and would feel justified in comparing a BD to a restored film print). But most or all of us have seen The Matrix and can comment on whether or not the transfer is accurate.


If you're going to downgrade Matrix for colors, say it's because of the altered color grading (like Phantom did above), not because it's drab. The movie _is_ drab! I don't get as down on color grade changes if they are at the behest of the director (e.g. FOTR).



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *audio/videoman* /forum/post/21485658
> 
> 
> The main problem with the matrix is that you get green and blue, and not that much else. The challenge for any transfer is to give great contrast, color and detail all at the same time.



Your quote above indicated that a transfer which is not "colorful" cannot be good. I fundamentally disagree. If the movie itself is only green and blue (which it isn't), and the BD accurately reflects this, I just can't see faulting the "transfer" for this. The Aviator is another great example for this. since Scorsese tried to replicate color strip technology that fit with the era he was depicting.


Are we rating Blu-Rays or directors and cinematographers?


I would recast your statement above as follows: the challenge of any transfer is to accurately reflect (with as few alterations or post processing effects as possible) as pristine as possible a copy of the original film, preserving the creative intentions of those who produced it.


Now, to be fair, I'm not saying that only a person who has seen the movie in a theater is qualified to rate a Blu-Ray. But DNR, EE, macroblocking, banding, posterization, and so on are pretty easy to spot, and it is safe to assume (with a few exceptions, mostly shot on digital) that they were not in an original print. So it may be difficult for someone who hasn't seen a movie in the theater to rate the disc as perfect, but it should be easy enough to rate it as fundamentally flawed.


This does of course lead to the whole "eye candy" vs. "film preservation" debate. I guess it should be clear where my sympathies lie. But I'm willing to reserve Tier 0 for movies that are both accurate reflections of the original film _and_ totally kick-butt pieces of eye candy. So, for the sake of the argument, "The Matrix" might have just as good a _transfer_ as "Avatar." But Avatar _looks_ better. So it gets Tier 0 while Matrix lands in Tier 1.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen* /forum/post/21487559
> 
> 
> This does of course lead to the whole "eye candy" vs. "film preservation" debate. I guess it should be clear where my sympathies lie. But I'm willing to reserve Tier 0 for movies that are both accurate reflections of the original film _and_ totally kick-butt pieces of eye candy.



Here is where I would have to part company with you mweflen. This thread IS an EYE CANDY thread, period! It has NOTHING to do with FILM PRESERVATION. If you read the first page of the Tier Rankings thread the criteria is given for reviewing and rating Blu-rays and it specifically states that the director's intent is NOT to be considered nor is its faithfulness (or lack thereof) to the theatrical version. ALL the criteria given has to do with HOW GOOD IT LOOKS; not on how faithful does it look in comparison to what you saw in the theater.


Having said this, I always enjoy your reviews and the last thing I want to do is to dissuade you from posting reviews on this thread. I just thought you should be reminded of the main purpose of this thread and that you should try to adhere to that purpose by judging Blu-rays by the criteria laid out in the Tier Ranking Thread.


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21488566
> 
> 
> Here is where I would have to part company with you mweflen. This thread IS an EYE CANDY thread, period! It has NOTHING to do with FILM PRESERVATION. If you read the first page of the Tier Rankings thread the criteria is given for reviewing and rating Blu-rays and it specifically states that the director's intent is NOT to be considered nor is its faithfulness (or lack thereof) to the theatrical version. ALL the criteria given has to do with HOW GOOD IT LOOKS; not on how faithful does it look in comparison to what you saw in the theater.
> 
> 
> Having said this, I always enjoy your reviews and the last thing I want to do is to dissuade you from posting reviews on this thread. I just thought you should be reminded of the main purpose of this thread and that you should try to adhere to that purpose by judging Blu-rays by the criteria laid out in the Tier Ranking Thread.



I agree with and admit this fact. That's why I try to do both (acknowledge eye candy as well as transfer quality) when I review something. It's why I gave "Citizen Kane" a 3, for instance, or "Bridesmaids" a 2.25. I think they're fine transfers, but I acknowledge that they wouldn't be the first things a person will pop in to "demo" their system.


I'm just resisting the impulse to only give good ratings to movies that look like Michael Bay films.


I also disagree slightly with the claim that the criteria stated take no account of how accurate a transfer is to the filmed original. For instance, in the tier four description, it states: "Compression artifacts, softness, poor black levels, questionable source material, and poorly transferred masters are just some of the problems exhibited in tier four." Compression artifacts and poorly transferred masters certainly sound to me as if they are means of evaluating how a film was transferred, as opposed to its absolute eye candy potential.


So it seems to me that faithfulness to the original, while not being the only criterion (since eye candy _clearly_ is also a criterion), is still a valid means of assessing a BD's merit for the purposes of this list.


People have differing definitions of what looks good. To me, looking good for a home video product means actually looking like what it is supposed to be a home version of. So DVDs, for instance, can look very nice. But they can't look _right_. Why? Because film grain and fine detail just can't be rendered at 480p. So when I see a BD, it will certainly appeal to me on a pure eye candy level (Speed Racer, for instance). But to look good to my eyes, it also has to look _right._ Meaning, it has to look like a piece of film, or look like the original digital file of a movie shot that way.


To _me_, this constitutes eye candy just as well as pretty colors or facial pores. So the fact that this is one of my emphases might lead to me rating something more highly than someone else (or lower, for that matter, as is clear in the case of "Dark City," which I loathe as an abomination of grain destruction by DNR). There are people who think smooth=good and grain=bad. I disagree with them, but they're just as welcome to post a review as I am, so it will all even out.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen* /forum/post/21488719
> 
> 
> I agree with and admit this fact. *That's why I try to do both (acknowledge eye candy as well as transfer quality) when I review something.* It's why I gave "Citizen Kane" a 3, for instance, or "Bridesmaids" a 2.25. I think they're fine transfers, but I acknowledge that they wouldn't be the first things a person will pop in to "demo" their system.
> 
> *I'm just resisting the impulse to only give good ratings to movies that look like Michael Bay films.*
> 
> *I also disagree slightly with the claim that the criteria stated take no account of how accurate a transfer is to the filmed original.* For instance, in the tier four description, it states: "Compression artifacts, softness, poor black levels, questionable source material, and poorly transferred masters are just some of the problems exhibited in tier four." Compression artifacts and poorly transferred masters certainly sound to me as if they are means of evaluating how a film was transferred, as opposed to its absolute eye candy potential.
> 
> *So it seems to me that faithfulness to the original, while not being the only criterion (since eye candy clearly is also a criterion), is still a valid means of assessing a BD's merit for the purposes of this list.*
> 
> 
> People have differing definitions of what looks good. To me, looking good for a home video product means actually looking like what it is supposed to be a home version of. So DVDs, for instance, can look very nice. But they can't look _right_. Why? Because film grain and fine detail just can't be rendered at 480p. So when I see a BD, it will certainly appeal to me on a pure eye candy level (Speed Racer, for instance). But to look good to my eyes, it also has to look _right._ Meaning, it has to look like a piece of film, or look like the original digital file of a movie shot that way.
> 
> 
> To _me_, this constitutes eye candy just as well as pretty colors or facial pores. So the fact that this is one of my emphases might lead to me rating something more highly than someone else (or lower, for that matter, as is clear in the case of "Dark City," which I loathe as an abomination of grain destruction by DNR). There are people who think smooth=good and grain=bad. I disagree with them, but they're just as welcome to post a review as I am, so it will all even out.



Sorry mweflen, but this last post did NOT "calm the muddy waters."










You start your post by saying, "I agree and admit this fact." Now if you had really agreed with me you would NOT have gone on, as you did (see highlighted sentences above), and imply that "faithfulness to the original" is one of the criteria of this thread. It simply IS NOT!


I should tell you not to feel bad...and that countless others have made the same argument that you are making with the same zeal and passion you have for a transfer being true to its theatrical version...but I'm not going to. Why? Because it won't serve any purpose, other than to cloud the issue. I'm trying to help you see that no matter how a transfer looks in comparison to its original production (i.e., theatrical version), it DOESN'T MATTER in considering its merits for this thread and the placement it deserves.


Allow me to illustrate what I'm saying by using GRG as an example. He writes reviews on his own website and one of the things he considers in those reviews is FAITHFULNESS TO THE ORIGINAL. But when he writes reviews for this thread, you will NEVER see him referring to this. On his thread he may give a movie a higher rating because of its faithfulness, but on this thread he may lower his rating considerably because of its weak contrast, noise, poor black levels, over-saturated colors, etc. Just recently he reviewed _Apollo 18_ and ended his review here by saying, "Pitiful *in terms of this thread*, fine *stylistically*." His other comments suggested that the intentional use of various cameras resulted in the poor PQ, but that this was the director's intent. So, GRG was adhering faithfully to the *criteria of this thread* and purposely avoided rewarding it because of its "faithfulness to the original."


Well, it's time to get off my soapbox and watch _Moneyball_. I hope this helps to "calm the muddy waters."


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21490147
> 
> 
> 
> Allow me to illustrate what I'm saying by using GRG as an example. He writes reviews on his own website and one of the things he considers in those reviews is FAITHFULNESS TO THE ORIGINAL. But when he writes reviews for this thread, you will NEVER see him referring to this. On his thread he may give a movie a higher rating because of its faithfulness, but on this thread he may lower his rating considerably because of its weak contrast, noise, poor black levels, over-saturated colors, etc. Just recently he reviewed _Apollo 18_ and ended his review here by saying, "Pitiful *in terms of this thread*, fine *stylistically*." His other comments suggested that the intentional use of various cameras resulted in the poor PQ, but that this was the director's intent. So, GRG was adhering faithfully to the *criteria of this thread* and purposely avoided rewarding it because of its "faithfulness to the original."



I don't think we disagree as much as you seem to think we do.


I think I _deduct_ points from a disc for a lack of faithfulness, as opposed to rewarding it. It's exactly why I gave "Ben Hur" a 1.5 instead of a 0. If I were rewarding faithfulness, restoration, preservation, etc., I'd have given it a 0, because it's an absolute triumph of a restoration, as is "The Ten Commandments." But I didn't. I think it's a 1.5 on pure visual appeal terms.


"Spartacus" is an absolute piece of dog doo, in my opinion. I can imagine many people liking it, but I absolutely loathe it, because I know, having seen the Criterion DVD and a theatrical presentation, that there is SOOOO much detail that has been scrubbed away by DNR, and there are so many artifacts created by edge enhancement. It's a travesty. So even though some might give it as high as a 2 based on midrange detail and color, I can't go above a 4. But you see, it is precisely the lack of faithfulness to the original that led to the crap BD presentation.


Some other ratings I've given point I think exactly to what you're saying about GRG - acknowledging that a transfer looks close to director intent, but makes for a less than stellar BD:


Midnight In Paris 3.0 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...ostcount=18954 


Days of Heaven 2.75 http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...ostcount=18890 


Green Lantern 2.0 (in which I rag on the director for choosing weird DNR effects on faces) http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...ostcount=18845 


Star Trek: TMP 2.75 (in which I say inherent limitations drag it down despite a really nice transfer) http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...ostcount=18990 


Now it's time for ME to start watching "Rise of the Planet of the Apes."


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen* /forum/post/21488719
> 
> 
> I also disagree slightly with the claim that the criteria stated take no account of how accurate a transfer is to the filmed original. For instance, in the tier four description, it states: "Compression artifacts, softness, poor black levels, questionable source material, and poorly transferred masters are just some of the problems exhibited in tier four." Compression artifacts and poorly transferred masters certainly sound to me as if they are means of evaluating how a film was transferred, as opposed to its absolute eye candy potential.
> 
> 
> So it seems to me that faithfulness to the original, while not being the only criterion (since eye candy _clearly_ is also a criterion), is still a valid means of assessing a BD's merit for the purposes of this list.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen* /forum/post/21490433
> 
> *I think I deduct points from a disc for a lack of faithfulness, as opposed to rewarding it.* It's exactly why I gave "Ben Hur" a 1.5 instead of a 0. If I were rewarding faithfulness, restoration, preservation, etc., I'd have given it a 0, because it's an absolute triumph of a restoration, as is "The Ten Commandments." But I didn't. I think it's a 1.5 on pure visual appeal terms.
> 
> 
> "Spartacus" is an absolute piece of dog doo, in my opinion. I can imagine many people liking it, but I absolutely loathe it, because I know, having seen the Criterion DVD and a theatrical presentation, that there is SOOOO much detail that has been scrubbed away by DNR, and there are so many artifacts created by edge enhancement. It's a travesty. So even though some might give it as high as a 2 based on midrange detail and color, I can't go above a 4. But you see, it is precisely the lack of faithfulness to the original that led to the crap BD presentation.



Your point in the second quote is probably the best approach to undertake when scoring films for the PQ Tiers. A perfect film transfer doesn't guarantee a high placement, but a bad film transfer can definitely drag a placement down. It's how I approach evaluations here, particularly for the older films.


----------



## djoberg

*Moneyball*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/21481691
> 
> *Moneyball*
> 
> 
> One of the worst new release Sony encodes I've ever encountered. The grain structure is a total nightmare. Detail is generally fine when the grain isn't overwhelming the image. Black levels lose out a few times but are generally rich and firm. Not sure what happened here, but just no to this:
> 
> Attachment 233902
> 
> *Tier 3.0**



A few posts ago I stated that I agree with GRG "half the time"....this is NOT included in that 50%!! In fact, this is one of those times that I truly wish GRG and I had the advantage of sitting down in the same Home Theater to watch the movie together. That way ALL THINGS WOULD BE EQUAL (the SAME tv monitor, the SAME seating distance, the SAME lighting, etc.), with the exception of OUR EYES! I have to believe we would reach a more *agreeable* conclusion under those circumstances.


He found the grain structure to be a NIGHTMARE; I thought it was DREAMY! I am a GRAIN-LOVER when it doesn't detract from detail and clarity and in this case it was excellent...not too heavy...not too fine...giving it a true, *filmic* look that definitely enhanced detail.


What I really loved about this film was how NATURAL it looked, with accurate flesh tones and beautiful, warm colors. Contrast too was spot on, with pleasing black levels and shadow details.


Details in general weren't that spectacular, but facial details were exemplary. The director chose to zoom in MANY times on Brad Pitt and the texture was true EYE CANDY. Even midrange shots didn't disappoint.


To be fair there were a number of shots that were only *average* (they just didn't POP and they lacked appreciable depth), but all things considered I would still be inclined to put this on my DEMO shelf, albeit at the bottom. Thus my vote goes for....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## mweflen

*Rise of the Planet of the Apes*


A crisp, snappy picture with good (but not spectacular) levels of detail. Faces look nice, but rarely exhibited tiny pores and wrinkles. CG details could look really good, except when in motion (mentioned below). Generally there was a nice, warm color palette that was pleasing and realistic, neither overly hot nor cool. There don't seem to be any issues with DNR or EE. Grain was very light but was consistent throughout, which makes sense given the use of Kodak Vision 35mm stock.


There were two areas of problems - one was during foliage scenes, which seemed softer than the rest of the film. These comprised probably 5 minutes of run time. The other was with fast-motion shots of the apes - of which there was plenty - and the general blurriness surrounding them, probably a function of the visual effects, totaling 20 minutes or so of run time. There were a few scenes in which the black levels lightened somewhat, but it wasn't fatally bad.


Scanning the tiers, I see "I am Legend," a movie that looks significantly like this one on BD (lots of CG, lots of urban scenery with action scenes), at 1.75. I think this looks just about as good, so I would put this at....
*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


Sony KDL52EX700, 6 foot viewing distance


----------



## mweflen

*The Matrix Revolutions*


For whatever reason, this looks a fair bit better than Reloaded to my eyes. I realize this is odd given that they were filmed concurrently and presumably using the same equipment and materials. But there it is. Perhaps it is because of the balance of where scenes take place. Again, scenes on ships tend to be a tad softer than scenes in the matrix or scenes at Zion. Maybe the CG was ever so slightly better than 2 given another year of production (though some shots were almost unbearably fakey, especially the final big Smith punch at the end).


Anyway, overall detail was quite good, but still not up to the level of Matrix 1 IMHO. The things I was specifically looking at and comparing were: the 5-o'clock shadow on Keanu Reeves' chin, cloth textures, especially on black clothing, and the presence (or lack) of dust motes. Colors were very matrix-y, as with the other two films. Black levels are again a star performer. When scenes had high contrast, they were relatively dimensional. Little or no DNR or EE seems apparent, as grain was consistent and there did not appear to be any halos.


Since I think it rates in between the first two movies in terms of PQ, it seems like 1.75 is where I have to stick it.
*Tier Recommendation 1.75*


Sony KDL52EX700, 6 foot viewing distance


----------



## deltasun

_Colombiana_ may be another Sony clunker (not just the absurdity of the movie either). I wasn't sitting close enough to really give a clean take, but it did not impress at all. It may fall in the 3 range for me, not even knocking the overtly warm, goldish color tone.


Despite the absurdity (which turned laughable after the first 10 minutes), I still enjoyed it.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21490765
> 
> *Moneyball*
> 
> He found the grain structure to be a NIGHTMARE; I thought it was DREAMY! I am a GRAIN-LOVER when it doesn't detract from detail and clarity and in this case it was excellent...not too heavy...not too fine...giving it a true, *filmic* look that definitely enhanced detail.



I love grain. That's not my issue with it. My complaint is that there's no grain, it's all noise. Constant, noisy, compressed noise that swarms backgrounds and at times actors. The detail is great during intense close-ups, but most of the time the camera settles back a ways to the point where the noise gobbles up fine detail. Plus, aliasing/some light halos.

Attachment 234117 Attachment 234118 

Attachment 234119 


And, just for tier thread's sake, don't forget there's a ton of tape-based stock footage, plus shots made to look like they're from a taped source.


*Killer Elite*


Boring color palette that switches between warmth and teal cools. Detail is firm, crisp, and clean. Blacks are fine while the contrast sort of wanders. Meh.

*Tier 3.0**


----------



## Saturn94

*My Fair Lady*


Fading on the sides is bad, especially in darker scenes. Also in some scenes the color fluctuates quite a bit. Even Robert Harris who was part of the restoration team says this release is terrible and should have never been released this way.


Fortunately I rented first; I will not be purchasing this title until it is given the treatment it deserves.

*Tier Recommendation 5*


Viewed on 60" professionally calibrated plasma at 9ft.


----------



## oleus

while i haven't seen the Moneyball bluray yet, it was by far the worst HD Vudu rental i've ever tried. Worst black crush I have ever seen. Luckily the movie was good enough to make me forget about all that, but those screenshots above look a little like what i saw except there is more shadow detail (and those are pretty dark screen grabs too - imagine it much darker and that's what i saw on Vudu!)


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/21492077
> 
> 
> I love grain. That's not my issue with it. My complaint is that there's no grain, it's all noise. Constant, noisy, compressed noise that swarms backgrounds and at times actors. The detail is great during intense close-ups, but most of the time the camera settles back a ways to the point where the noise gobbles up fine detail. Plus, aliasing/some light halos.



I was just going by your remark in your review, "The *grain structure* is a total nighmare." You never mentioned the word *noise*.


Again, it's times like these where I wish we could watch the Blu together in the same environment and with the same equipment, lighting, etc. In my totally darkened room on my Pioneer KURO using a Pioneer Elite Blu-ray player the grain was intact, from start to finish. I didn't witness any noise whatsoever.


Regarding the stock footage, I thought it was quite minimal for a movie with over 2 hours of running time. I was thinking it was 5-10 minutes tops, but if it was longer than that, I would probably change my rating from 1.75 to 2.0.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen* /forum/post/21490433
> 
> *I don't think we disagree as much as you seem to think we do.*
> 
> 
> I think I _deduct_ points from a disc for a lack of faithfulness, as opposed to rewarding it. It's exactly why I gave "Ben Hur" a 1.5 instead of a 0. If I were rewarding faithfulness, restoration, preservation, etc., I'd have given it a 0, because it's an absolute triumph of a restoration, as is "The Ten Commandments." But I didn't. *I think it's a 1.5 on pure visual appeal terms.*
> 
> 
> "Spartacus" is an absolute piece of dog doo, in my opinion. I can imagine many people liking it, but I absolutely loathe it, because I know, having seen the Criterion DVD and a theatrical presentation, that *there is SOOOO much detail that has been scrubbed away by DNR, and there are so many artifacts created by edge enhancement.* It's a travesty. So even though some might give it as high as a 2 based on midrange detail and color, I can't go above a 4. But you see, it is precisely the lack of faithfulness to the original that led to the crap BD presentation.



I agree with you mweflen; we really aren't disagreeing as much as I had thought. But here's why!


In the two highlighted sentences from paragraphs two and three, you clearly bring out that your placement recommendation is based on the VISUAL MERITS (or lack thereof), and that is what the criteria for this thread is all about. You didn't rate them higher or lower because of how they compared to the theatrical version; you went by the standards set forth for this thread. Does it have good details, colors, flesh tones, contrast, depth, clarity, etc.? Does it have DNR, halos, noise, black crush, aliasing, etc.? These are the points that matter and by which we evaluate Blu-rays. And thus the "film's faithfulness to the original" is irrelevant for the purposes of this thread. If it was a criterion, no one could write a review unless they had seen the film in a theater...and had a very good memory as to its presentation on top of that.


In closing this *debate*, let me use another illustration. Consider a movie like _28 Days Later_. That movie looked horrible in the theater...and it looks horrible on Blu-ray. Was the Blu-ray faithful to its theatrical version? Most would say it is. But it still looks like crap and thus there it sits in the bottom of the heap (i.e., Tier 5). It sits there because IT LOOKS LIKE CRAP!! Period!!


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21490765
> 
> *Moneyball*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A few posts ago I stated that I agree with GRG "half the time"....this is NOT included in that 50%!! In fact, this is one of those times that I truly wish GRG and I had the advantage of sitting down in the same Home Theater to watch the movie together. That way ALL THINGS WOULD BE EQUAL (the SAME tv monitor, the SAME seating distance, the SAME lighting, etc.), with the exception of OUR EYES! I have to believe we would reach a more *agreeable* conclusion under those circumstances.
> 
> 
> He found the grain structure to be a NIGHTMARE; I thought it was DREAMY! I am a GRAIN-LOVER when it doesn't detract from detail and clarity and in this case it was excellent...not too heavy...not too fine...giving it a true, *filmic* look that definitely enhanced detail.
> 
> 
> What I really loved about this film was how NATURAL it looked, with accurate flesh tones and beautiful, warm colors. Contrast too was spot on, with pleasing black levels and shadow details.
> 
> 
> Details in general weren't that spectacular, but facial details were exemplary. The director chose to zoom in MANY times on Brad Pitt and the texture was true EYE CANDY. Even midrange shots didn't disappoint.
> 
> 
> To be fair there were a number of shots that were only *average* (they just didn't POP and they lacked appreciable depth), but all things considered I would still be inclined to put this on my DEMO shelf, albeit at the bottom. Thus my vote goes for....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75**
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


*Moneyball*


^^This is where I would rate Moneyball. I would put it at low tier 0 and then deduct for video shots and a few other anomalies. Grain is only an issue for me when it looks like digital noise and bugs crawling on the screen. I didn't see that type of grain. My favorite go to movie to show healthy abundant grain, details, etc and still be in tier 0 is Prince Caspian.

*Moneyball: Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21492492
> 
> 
> I agree with you mweflen; we really aren't disagreeing as much as I had thought. But here's why!
> 
> 
> In the two highlighted sentences from paragraphs two and three, you clearly bring out that your placement recommendation is based on the VISUAL MERITS (or lack thereof), and that is what the criteria for this thread is all about. You didn't rate them higher or lower because of how they compared to the theatrical version; you went by the standards set forth for this thread. Does it have good details, colors, flesh tones, contrast, depth, clarity, etc.? Does it have DNR, halos, noise, black crush, aliasing, etc.? These are the points that matter and by which we evaluate Blu-rays. And thus the "film's faithfulness to the original" is irrelevant for the purposes of this thread. If it was a criterion, no one could write a review unless they had seen the film in a theater...and had a very good memory as to its presentation on top of that.



You are correct that the movies that I have evaluated have been done by the criteria listed on the tier page. BUT, I would still downgrade a BD if it suffered due to various inappropriate post processing effects, precisely because it destroys what I want in a BD, which is an accurate, high definition transfer of a piece of film (or HD digital file).


So for instance, if "The Day The Earth Stood Still" were to be offered in a colorized only BD version, I'd rate it poorly, because I want to see the original black and white photography. The color is obscuring detail and gradation that I know to be present. Even if the color looks wonderful, I know it is preventing me from seeing something.


Also for instance, if "Dr. Strangelove" were to be offered in an artificially sharpened version that made the grain structure a "nightmare," (oh, wait...) I'd rate it poorly. Am I rating it poorly because it looks like crap? Yes. But I am also rating it poorly (probably moreso) because it has been poorly transferred from the original print, which, having seen it in the theater, I know doesn't have a swimming morass of digital mosquitoes crawling over every frame.


I'm not saying "Faithfulness" is my sole criterion. I'm not even saying it's my primary criterion. I'm just saying it's a tool for judging a Blu-Ray, for someone who believes "eye candy" doesn't just mean "pretty colors." Eye Candy to me also means "looking like film." If a movie that I know looks like film doesn't look like film, that is the absence of at least some eye candy by definition, no matter what the disc looks like in other respects. It may be irrelevant to you, and it may be irrelevant to many others. But it's not irrelevant to me, and I do not take its relevance to be specifically contradicted by the officially stated criteria.


If you aren't familiar with the particular movie, then you can just judge the merits of the disc in front of you without comparison to something else. Is you review less accurate? No, because none of our reviews are "accurate," they are expressions of subjective favor or disfavor. But if you are familiar with the movie in its original medium, then you have another tool at your disposal to evaluate. That's it, and that's as far as I try to take it.


It's good that a few discs are still being reviewed here and there


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/21493238
> 
> 
> My favorite go to movie to show healthy abundant grain, details, etc and still be in tier 0 is Prince Caspian.



I think this would be an interesting discussion. What's the best disc for grain?


Some that spring to mind for me:


W.

Rocky Horror Picture Show

Fight Club

Watchmen

Gone With The Wind


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen* /forum/post/21493456
> 
> 
> You are correct that the movies that I have evaluated have been done by the criteria listed on the tier page. BUT, I would still downgrade a BD if it suffered due to various inappropriate post processing effects, precisely because it destroys what I want in a BD, which is an accurate, high definition transfer of a piece of film (or HD digital file).
> 
> 
> So for instance, if "The Day The Earth Stood Still" were to be offered in a colorized only BD version, I'd rate it poorly, because I want to see the original black and white photography. The color is obscuring detail and gradation that I know to be present. Even if the color looks wonderful, I know it is preventing me from seeing something.
> 
> 
> Also for instance, if "Dr. Strangelove" were to be offered in an artificially sharpened version that made the grain structure a "nightmare," (oh, wait...) I'd rate it poorly. Am I rating it poorly because it looks like crap? Yes. But I am also rating it poorly (probably moreso) because it has been poorly transferred from the original print, which, having seen it in the theater, I know doesn't have a swimming morass of digital mosquitoes crawling over every frame.
> 
> 
> I'm not saying "Faithfulness" is my sole criterion. I'm not even saying it's my primary criterion. I'm just saying it's a tool for judging a Blu-Ray, for someone who believes "eye candy" doesn't just mean "pretty colors." Eye Candy to me also means "looking like film." If a movie that I know looks like film doesn't look like film, that is the absence of at least some eye candy by definition, no matter what the disc looks like in other respects. It may be irrelevant to you, and it may be irrelevant to many others. But it's not irrelevant to me, and I do not take its relevance to be specifically contradicted by the officially stated criteria.
> 
> 
> If you aren't familiar with the particular movie, then you can just judge the merits of the disc in front of you without comparison to something else. Is you review less accurate? No, because none of our reviews are "accurate," they are expressions of subjective favor or disfavor. But if you are familiar with the movie in its original medium, then you have another tool at your disposal to evaluate. That's it, and that's as far as I try to take it.
> 
> 
> It's good that a few discs are still being reviewed here and there



I believe we have reached an impasse! However, for the sake of possibly helping others, allow me to copy one of the opening paragraphs in the Tier Rankings Thread:

*How each Tier is categorized and other signifiers


Notice: For the purposes of this tier system we do not take director's intent into consideration when evaluating the visual quality of each Blu-ray. This list represents an absolute ranking system, where every available Blu-ray's picture quality is directly compared against every other release. Those who are interested may want to use the thread search feature to peruse the individual reviews that contributed to these placements for further clarification. Tier placements can change over time as feedback warrants.*


Notice two pertinent facts:


1) We do NOT take director's intent into consideration when evaluating the visual quality of each Blu-ray.


2) This list represents an absolute ranking system, *where every available Blu-ray's picture quality is directly compared against every other release*.


If we are to adhere to these guidelines, then the original film is NOT to be considered. To do so is to "take [the] director's intent into consideration."


The only *comparison* to be made is "against every other release"...NOT against the theatrical version.


I rest my case!


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/21494809
> 
> 
> Djoberg just likes re-posting the Tiers criteria he helped write every once in awhile.



Ah. That explains his staunch resistance to my interpretation of wiggle room.


----------



## mweflen

*The Player*


Right out of the box, it's easy to tell this is not going to be a disc that people turn to in order to be wowed by HD. But if you let it work on you, it does have its merits.


Grain is present but not fully resolved. Hair and cloth textures are pretty good. Foliage and flowers look pretty crisp when they are at the focal point of the image. There is a general haze to lighting schemes that lends an air of softness to the image, although when we get close-ups, they are nice looking with moderate detail. The main benefit of this presentation in my book is the solid, bright, naturalistic color scheme and stable black levels with no apparent crushing. There don't appear to be any problems with DNR or EE.


This is the best this Robert Altman title has ever looked on home video. But it's not going to blow anybody's mind.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.25*


Sony KDL52EX700, 8 foot viewing distance


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/21494809
> 
> 
> I doubt many share audio/videoman's opinion of your commentary here, I certainly don't. The discussion has merit, though nothing we really have not seen before. As much information as possible can't be anything but helpful when deciding on a placement, so the accuracy of the Blu-ray to the film is important on some level.
> 
> 
> Djoberg just likes re-posting the Tiers criteria he helped write every once in awhile.



Actually...I was NOT part of this thread when the criteria was drafted up. I know I've been here longer than you Phantom, but the standards were well in place by the time I started posting here.


Having said that, I'm just a firm believer in living by the rules. And if the rules ever change that state we should also include comparing a Blu-ray with the original film (i.e., theatrical version) as part of the criteria for evaluation, I would certainly try to abide by that rule. The biggest problem I would foresee with that is that would mean I would have to start attending public movie theaters, which I _rarely_ do anymore. I am quite satisfied with my Home Theater and the privileges one has by watching movies in the privacy of their own home, and I would hate to have the shell out more money just to see a movie in a crowded and usually sub par environment.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen* /forum/post/21493477
> 
> 
> I think this would be an interesting discussion. What's the best disc for grain?
> 
> 
> Some that spring to mind for me:
> 
> 
> W.
> 
> Rocky Horror Picture Show
> 
> Fight Club
> 
> Watchmen
> 
> Gone With The Wind



Some that come to mind for me would be:

A Serious Man

The Company Men

Up in the Air

Se7en

Revanche

Mesrine pt 1 & 2


Also, for the record, I disagree with audio/videoman's comments about your style of debate. It's about time we had another discussion on how this thread is set up.


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/21495284
> 
> 
> Some that come to mind for me would be:
> 
> A Serious Man
> 
> The Company Men
> 
> Up in the Air
> 
> Se7en
> 
> Revanche
> 
> Mesrine pt 1 & 2



Of those I own A Serious Man and have rented Up In the Air. Indeed, both have killer grain. I think I left A Serious Man off my list because it has very tight grain, and I was thinking of discs with heavier grained stocks.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/21495284
> 
> 
> Some that come to mind for me would be:
> 
> A Serious Man
> 
> The Company Men
> 
> Up in the Air
> 
> Se7en
> 
> Revanche
> 
> Mesrine pt 1 & 2
> 
> 
> Also, for the record, I disagree with audio/videoman's comments about your style of debate. It's about time we had another discussion on how this thread is set up.



I've only seen _Se7en_ from your list delta...that is most definitely an excellent Blu-ray in the grain department. It's also a topnotch movie!


Regarding "how this thread is set up," I believe you've always been one (like myself) who favored criteria NOT considering the director's intent and NOT comparing it to the original film. Do you still share those thoughts or would you rather scrub those rules altogether and start comparing Blus to their theatrical counterpart?


Not to *preach*, but IMO that would turn this thread into something it was never meant to be. It was always about EYE CANDY, not FILM PRESERVATION. There are (or used to be) other threads that dealt with whether or not a Blu is faithful to the film and I would personally like to keep this thread focused on EYE CANDY.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21495051
> 
> 
> Actually...I was NOT part of this thread when the criteria was drafted up. I know I've been here longer than you Phantom, but the standards were well in place by the time I started posting here.
> 
> 
> The biggest problem I would foresee with that is that would mean I would have to start attending public movie theaters, which I _rarely_ do anymore. I am quite satisfied with my Home Theater and the privileges one has by watching movies in the privacy of their own home, and I would hate to have the shell out more money just to see a movie in a crowded and usually sub par environment.



My memory might be playing tricks on me, but I'm pretty sure you helped out on the revisions to the thread criteria.







Amongst a handful of contributors anyway, when we re-constructed them from the ground up. The latest version of the criteria certainly don't predate me, as I wrote the drafts for most of them with assistance from several members like rsbeck and others.


I really don't see any support or movement here to require theatrical viewings for placements. It's a nice little bonus if one has the time or inclination, but wholly unnecessary to make a sound judgment for the Tiers. The Tiers will always be about the final product in the end, as long as I am running it. Looking for the finest picture quality is always the aim.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/21498193
> 
> 
> My memory might be playing tricks on me, but I'm pretty sure you helped out on the revisions to the thread criteria.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amongst a handful of contributors anyway, when we re-constructed them from the ground up. The latest version of the criteria certainly don't predate me, as I wrote the drafts for most of them with assistance from several members like rsbeck and others.
> 
> 
> I really don't see any support or movement here to require theatrical viewings for placements. It's a nice little bonus if one has the time or inclination, but wholly unnecessary to make a sound judgment for the Tiers. The Tiers will always be about the final product in the end, as long as I am running it. Looking for the finest picture quality is always the aim.



Thanks for "jarring my memory" Phantom. I had forgotten that a revision was done and I may have contributed to it (though my input was minimal, I believe).


I am SO GLAD to read your last paragraph. I obviously agree with you and I hope this is the consensus of all (or most) that participate on this thread.


Your mention of rsbeck brought back memories, for he was a major participant for a good year or two, if not more.


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/21498193
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't see any support or movement here to require theatrical viewings for placements. It's a nice little bonus if one has the time or inclination, but wholly unnecessary to make a sound judgment for the Tiers. The Tiers will always be about the final product in the end, as long as I am running it. Looking for the finest picture quality is always the aim.



Well, since we're still talking about it, let me just reiterate as _clearly and concisely_ as possible







:


I am definitely focused on the end result. I think looking at my ratings will confirm this unequivocally. I scan the stated criteria _each and every time_ I write a review (seriously!). I just think that if and when (and ONLY if and when) I have knowledge of what a film should look like in its original medium, this can influence my appraisal _of that end result_. If I know that the BD looks significantly different than the film, then I know something is up, and that this something is, practically by definition, a bad thing.


By no means whatsoever do I think everyone should go to theaters to see new movies for their ratings to have merit. I hate them for the same reasons you do, DJ.


----------



## mweflen

*The Social Network*


Smooth. Smooth is the dominant feeling I get from watching this, regardless of viewing distance. There is no grain, since this was shot digitally on a Red One camera. There is pretty strong (but not best of format) detail on things like zippers, foliage, and cloth, especially on faces.


What drags this down is the hazy fog that permeates many scenes, and the relatively lackluster black levels. Overall, these detriments make some of the strengths hard to see, unless sitting awfully close to the screen.

*Tier Recommendation 3.0*


Sony KDL52EX700, 6-8 foot viewing distance


----------



## rusky_g

*Rare Exports - A Christmas Tale*


Largely splendid, only dipping here and there. Blacks at night looked insanely deep, colours (namely on the kids clothes) looked superb. Snow scenes looked as good as they can. Dimensionality reared its head a good few times.

*Tier 1.25*



*Spy Kids 4 - All The Time In The World*

Clean and colorful, hard to fault. I felt like I was watching HD.

*Tier 1.25*


*

Planet Of The Apes*


No suprises. Solid throughout, detail ahoy and foliage looked great. A couple of scenes looked a bit flat but no major issues.

*1.5*


----------



## djoberg

Good to hear from you again rusky_g!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Clannad: Complete Collection


recommendation: Tier 2.5**

_Clannad_ is a popular anime series produced by Kyoto Animation. Released on Blu-ray in the U.S. by Sentai Filmworks, 24 episodes are spread over 3 BD-50's. The video is encoded in AVC.


Natively produced in high-definition, the animation has a distinct look that favors interesting lighting and softer pastel colors. Line art is clean but not incredibly detailed. The animation is not as rich as a theatrical feature but uses visually appealing locales to buttress the overall picture quality. Some pivotal scenes are bathed in amber lighting, which adds a nice golden glow to them.


The transfer looks perfect in the digital domain and has no flaws. There is a touch of small posterization and banding to the video compression. Fortunately this only occurs a handful of times over the course of the series. On the whole _Clannad_ looks quite good for its genre but does not try to go beyond the call of duty for animation. A lack of complexity to the background designs and colors that do not jump off the screen prevent a higher placement.


It can be said there was no edge enhancement or digital noise reduction applied to the animation files, as the picture is 100% free of those problems. The Blu-ray was likely produced straight from the original digital animation with no intervening steps.


Watching on a 60 Pioneer KURO plasma at 1080p/24, from a PS3 (firmware 4.0), at a viewing distance of approximately six feet.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21497009
> 
> 
> I've only seen _Se7en_ from your list delta...that is most definitely an excellent Blu-ray in the grain department. It's also a topnotch movie!
> 
> 
> Regarding "how this thread is set up," I believe you've always been one (like myself) who favored criteria NOT considering the director's intent and NOT comparing it to the original film. Do you still share those thoughts or would you rather scrub those rules altogether and start comparing Blus to their theatrical counterpart?
> 
> 
> Not to *preach*, but IMO that would turn this thread into something it was never meant to be. It was always about EYE CANDY, not FILM PRESERVATION. There are (or used to be) other threads that dealt with whether or not a Blu is faithful to the film and I would personally like to keep this thread focused on EYE CANDY.



Sorry, I just got back to reading this thread today. But, yes...ABSOLUTELY even! This thread does NOT take director's intent into consideration at all. It may be mentioned in passing, but has no bearing on the final score or placement. I don't think that's going to change any time soon.


As we all know (or most of us), there is/was a thread that catered exclusively to director's intent. I also fancied that thread and wished it was still updated. I believe each has its merits, but I've always felt more at home here.


Thanks to all who's kept this going and thanks to Phantom for the most recent update.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*I Don't Know How She Does It*


Tough, thick grain structure that the encode can't quite hang onto. Color saturation veers into a brutal warmth that soaks up flesh tones and turns them gaudy. Shadow detail is a loss, and fine detail is a rarity. Blah.

*Tier 3.25**


----------



## rusky_g




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21503386
> 
> 
> Good to hear from you again rusky_g!



Thanks DJ, sorry for being low key the past few months, recently moved to a new property and have only just got the PJ up and running. Hope you're keeping well.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g* /forum/post/21506649
> 
> 
> Thanks DJ, sorry for being low key the past few months, *recently moved to a new property and have only just got the PJ up and running.* Hope you're keeping well.



I completely understand, especially after the grueling experience my wife and I had moving this summer. My Pioneer KURO was in storage for over six weeks so I too was forced into a "low key" position. Again, it was good to see your post and I hope to see more.


Thanks for wishing me well (which we are!) and I hope the same for you.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Ides of March*


A stunning textural achievement. Staggering facial definition and exterior sharpness everywhere. A little bit of black crush is notable if not a game killer, and the palette tends to veer washed out to sap some of the power from the visuals. Still, this is all DETAIL. Stunning stuff.

*Tier .75**


----------



## DavidML3

Resolution so high and clear it almost looks 3d without the glasses. I do know despicable me is high up there but is there one single movie that just stands out above the rest that when you see it you just say WOW?


----------



## john hunter

Much as I dislike Jim Cameron with his current 3D mania, 2D Avatar does really pop on a properly set up display.


----------



## eric.exe

The Human Centipede


----------



## XxDeadlyxX




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *eric.exe* /forum/post/21514311
> 
> 
> The Human Centipede



Nice one....


----------



## nick_danger

Find a movie you like from this list.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1168342


----------



## thorr

The new Star Trek movie is great demo material.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Abduction*


This isn't just Taylor Lautner hate... okay, some of it is, but medium shots here have an off look, super smooth and saturated to ludicrous levels. It's hilarious to see flesh tones move from super orange to pale in just one edit, and texture to pop-in like a N64 game. Forests lack crispness and this one never settles into a groove.

*Tier 3.0**


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DavidML3*  /forum/post/21514199
> 
> 
> Resolution so high and clear it almost looks 3d without the glasses. I do know despicable me is high up there but is there one single movie that just stands out above the rest that when you see it you just say WOW?



For an animated title I'm inclined to pick _Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole_. The DEPTH and PHOTOREALISM are unbelievable.


For a live action title I'd pick _The Thin Red Line_ or _Prince Caspian_.


----------



## rusky_g




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DavidML3* /forum/post/21514199
> 
> 
> Resolution so high and clear it almost looks 3d without the glasses. I do know despicable me is high up there but is there one single movie that just stands out above the rest that when you see it you just say WOW?



I'm not sure if it was the beer needed to endure the plots but in my hazy memory I swear a couple of daytime scenes in The Stepfather and Piranha 2D were poptastic '_'


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DavidML3* /forum/post/21514199
> 
> 
> Resolution so high and clear it almost looks 3d without the glasses. I do know despicable me is high up there but is there one single movie that just stands out above the rest that when you see it you just say WOW?



Some of the most underrated ones are the Transformers movies. Say what you will about the stories and dialogue, but Michael Bay knows how to shoot film for maximum depth and pop.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/21516019
> 
> *Abduction*
> 
> 
> This isn't just Taylor Lautner hate... okay, some of it is, but medium shots here have an off look, super smooth and saturated to ludicrous levels. It's hilarious to see flesh tones move from super orange to pale in just one edit, and texture to pop-in like a N64 game. Forests lack crispness and this one never settles into a groove.
> 
> *Tier 3.0**



I was going to blind buy this (since there are coupons going around that would get this down to $13), but then saw the preview. This guy can't act...AT ALL. Too bad too since the plot seems like it would be a good one. And now, with the subpar PQ...


----------



## DavidML3




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21516667
> 
> 
> For an animated title I'm inclined to pick _Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole_. The DEPTH and PHOTOREALISM are unbelievable.
> 
> 
> For a live action title I'd pick _The Thin Red Line_ or _Prince Caspian_.



I heard about the owls. I will check that out. I noticed that computer animated movies have the potential to show the most POP in a movie(some more than others).


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/21517616
> 
> 
> I was going to blind buy this (since there are coupons going around that would get this down to $13), but then saw the preview. This guy can't act...AT ALL. Too bad too since the plot seems like it would be a good one. And now, with the subpar PQ...



It's not just the acting. The plot is SOOO ludicrous. He just happens to be partnered with his girlfriend in sociology, happens to be doing to a report on kidnapped kids, happens to find a site with his childhood picture on it, that happens to be monitored by Russian thugs, who happen to be monitored by CIA.


Yeah, that's just the first half hour.


And it looks clumsy, especially for the first hour. The back half is better, but not enough to salvage it.


----------



## Foxarwing42

*Redline*


An amazing direct-to-digital transfer of the highest caliber. If you seen a trailer for this movie, you know how much high-action and extreme amounts of motion is in this. This transfer by Manga Entertainment and Anchor Bay is rock solid, no signs of artifacting, macroblocking or screen-tearing. The AVC encode is extremely steady and pulls it off like a champ. The ever so slight windowbox is something your going to have to look for even on larger screens, but this a artifact of the original Japanese Blu-ray and shouldn't have it's score lowered for that. The blacks are the darkest of the dark, and the details in the hand drawn images come through brilliantly. This movie will become your new demo disc, and it's even more amazing because it's anime. This will become your new demo disc too if you're looking for something other than a live action movie, or a Pixar CG film to show for once.

*Tier 0*


46', 1080p/24, 6'


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Foxarwing42* /forum/post/21519664
> 
> *Redline*
> 
> 
> An amazing direct-to-digital transfer of the highest caliber. If you seen a trailer for this movie, you know how much high-action and extreme amounts of motion is in this. This movie will become your new demo disc, and it's even more amazing because it's anime. This will become your new demo disc too if you're looking for something other than a live action movie, or a Pixar CG film to show for once.
> 
> *Tier 0*



I have read reports the fluidity of the animation on this release is spectacular. I might get around to watch it for the spectacle, though the story does not really interest me.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*What's Your Number?*


Boring photography is not conducive to this thread. Detail is lackluster with few exceptions, and flesh tones are orange... because Hollywood says we are. Grain structure bumps itself up from time to time an the encode dips, but it's all quick to pass. It's all quite soft and dull regardless.

*Tier 2.75**


----------



## mweflen

*Dead Poets Society*


Overall a strong, solid transfer, especially of a movie of this vintage. Inappropriate post-processing tricks seem completely absent. Facial detail on close-ups _can_ approach high levels, but just as frequently does not. Cloth textures look very nice, especially on the 50's era houndstooth suits. There was one scene in front of a window in which dust motes could be seen. Black levels are solid. Grain is present and film-like. Colors are realistic, some might say muted (but not me).


It's not a demo disc by any means. It "looked HD" about half the time. It looked like a piece of film the whole time. It is definitely a consistent and easily noticeable upgrade over DVD. To me, that spells:
*Tier Recommendation: 2.5*


Sony KDL52EX700, 8 foot viewing distance


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory 40th Anniversary Edition*


Apparently, the original disc was never ranked, but this is the same encode/master. It's a few years old but doesn't age itself too much. Colors are certainly impressive if a bit overdone at times. Grain is well resolved and the print used is immaculate. Definition isn't _quite_ there as with the best catalog efforts given the lightly dreamy quality Wonka is going for.

*Tier 2.75**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Sekirei: Pure Engagement


recommendation: Tier 2.75**

_Sekirei_ features surprisingly average animation, even for a television production, on Blu-ray. One has to wonder if the show is truly animated in 1080p or if its true resolution is closer to 720p. Line work looks a bit unpolished and colors are slightly dull for traditional animation.


There are no technical problems other than a spot of banding to the AVC video encode. Picture quality possesses a high degree of clarity and does showcase the art design for each character quite well. The animation for _Sekirei_ is not flashy and never tries to break out of its two-dimensional confines, limiting perspective and perceived motion.


----------



## IanRW




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/21536793
> 
> _Sekirei_ features surprisingly average animation, even for a television production, on Blu-ray. One has to wonder if the show is truly animated in 1080p or if its true resolution is closer to 720p.



Phantom, check at the back of the case to see if the show is "HD Native" or if its "SD Remaster". FUNimation has been providing that information for a couple of years now.


Though, even so, that only refers to the master. Sekirei could have an "HD Native" 1080p master, but the artwork might have inherently less less line resolution than full 1080.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *IanRW* /forum/post/21539399
> 
> 
> Phantom, check at the back of the case to see if the show is "HD Native" or if its "SD Remaster". FUNimation has been providing that information for a couple of years now.
> 
> 
> Though, even so, that only refers to the master. Sekirei could have an "HD Native" 1080p master, but the artwork might have inherently less less line resolution than full 1080.



They do not provide that information on the limited edition Sekirei case or packaging. It's probable this release was mastered from a true high-definition source, but the actual animation does not look sharp enough for 1080p. Many of these shows are rendered at a resolution below 1080p while still being in HD.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Real Steel*


Superb looking digital, for sure one of the better looking live action efforts to come out in quite some time. Generous saturation makes everything look exquisite, and the detail just soars off the screen. Sharpness is never lost, and the few complaints (light noise, aliasing) are so minor, it was tempting to not even mention them.

*Tier 0.5**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*50/50*


Mostly pale color palette dims the impact of this dramedy if not its soft eye for fine detail. Close-ups are resolved well and black levels add a hint of dimensionality to the proceedings. Grain is resolved without fault and the image has a pleasingly clean appearance.
*Tier 2.0**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Gojira (Godzilla) Criterion*


Masterful restoration of a film that has languished for decades in a sea of scratches and dirt. Few imperfections remain, just light scratches really, that it's a marvel of restoration techniques. Black levels and gray scale are tremendous, and textural precision is stunning. Special effects shots are even up there despite their permanent softness. Sharpness is jaw dropping, and even in terms of this thread, Gojira is a looker. Staggering work.

*Tier 3.0**


----------



## JoeBloggz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Ides of March
> 
> 
> A stunning textural achievement. Staggering facial definition and exterior sharpness everywhere. A little bit of black crush is notable if not a game killer, and the palette tends to veer washed out to sap some of the power from the visuals. Still, this is all DETAIL. Stunning stuff.
> 
> 
> Tier .75*



Agreed! This is wonderful transfer with amazing DETAIL! Facial detail is some of the best I've seen. Some black crush here and there but overall blacks were inky. The scene where George Clooney has the sit down interview with Charlie Moore has amazing blacks(my Kuro has never looked blacker)







.


Recommendation: .75


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Captain America: The First Avenger


recommendation: 2.5*

_Captain America_ has received some very tough marks in this thread, resulting in a placement in Tier 2.75. That is just a tick too low in my viewpoint, though I do see some problems as a result of the production and some meddling to the image in post-production.


The opening blizzard scene is abysmal and the CGI does not look good in it. A certain level of edge enhancement has been used, creating halos on occasion when they shouldn't be there. The tools have improved so the effect is more subtle, but this transfer has been manipulated and filtered on some level. It lacks the refinement and visceral detail of an untouched Blu-ray. Tommy Lee Jones' face and its lack of real high-frequency information gives it away the most, if you use the many other movies he has appeared in on Blu-ray as a reference.


Colors are mostly tinted for a vintage period look, at least as understood by modern Hollywood. The video encode has no major artifacts except in the opening blizzard, where banding problems around points of light appear. Black levels are solid with a decent amount of shadow delineation, though nothing that could be called amazing or spectacular.


To be honest, the picture quality is a little disappointing for a new summer actioner. The extensive use of CGI for minor modifications have led to a softer than normal picture at times, particularly early in the film when Chris Evans is digitally altered to look like a weakling. That makes the image somewhat inconsistent, switching in quality from Tier One to Tier Two moment to moment.


If one is very lenient about digital manipulation to the picture, a placement in Tier 2.25 sounds correct. But putting all the little nagging weaknesses into account, my final verdict is Tier 2.5.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...9#post21316189 

Technically this scan is for the rental version and Paramount has been known to do separate video encodes for retail, but I thought it was better to include it than nothing at all. The copy I viewed was the retail version.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Godzilla: King of the Monsters*


As a supplement, not a main feature, KoTM gets the short end of the compression stick. Grain is heartier and nowhere near as resolved. It's a consistent struggle through the whole movie. Godzilla's attacks are brighter, lacking the real depth and tightness of the Japanese version. Still rich and crisp, just not as good. Fantastic restoration considering how damaged it was before.

*Tier 3.5**


----------



## djoberg

*Contagion*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/21475690
> 
> *Contagion*
> 
> 
> Awful color grading take a lot of the appeal out of this one. Yellows, greens, and oranges are dominate, ugly and sickly which is sort of the point. Detail comes and goes, the appearance more glossy than natural. Some banding and general softness is evident. Black levels are firm.
> 
> *Tier 2.5**



I couldn't agree more with GRG's assessment of this title. I will add though that *some* of the facial close-ups are quite detailed, with superb texture and accurate flesh tones. I kept thinking throughout the movie, "The PQ is very STERILE-looking" (in keeping with the theme of the movie). I'm inclined to bump it up a notch, so......

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## djoberg

*Courageous*


This a hard one to call! Why? Because it's INCONSISTENT, though for the most part it looks pretty darn good.


The BAD:


1) Some ALIASING

2) Some SOFT and FLAT shots

3) Some JERKY CAMERA WORK that resulted in a LOSS OF DETAIL

4) Some SMOOTHED-OVER faces


The GOOD:


1) Some remarkable CLARITY and SHARPNESS

2) Some WARM and VIVID COLORS

3) Some decent BLACKS and SHADOW DETAILS

4) Some amazing DEPTH in daytime scenes


When I started out by saying this would be a hard call, I was thinking primarily of its worthiness to be deemed "demo-worthy." It's surely NOT REFERENCE, but it *may* be worthy of Tier 1 status. MY "generous gene" is telling me, "Give it a 1.75 rating," but my "common sense" is telling me, "Give it a 2.0." Well......common sense is ruling today.....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## Phantom Stranger

This thread alone just hit 3,000,000 page views in the past day, making it number one in that category by a wide margin in the Blu-ray software sub-forum on AVS.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/21577369
> 
> 
> This thread alone just hit 3,000,000 page views in the past day, making it number one in that category by a wide margin in the Blu-ray software sub-forum on AVS.



Long live the King!!!


----------



## mweflen

*Star Trek: TNG - The Next Level*


I should preface this by saying that I am inherently biased towards this release, because TNG is so dear to me. But I will try to control the bias.


Right out of the box, this is superior to the TOS BD set, because the transfer was taken from the original film elements of BOTH the live action AND the effects shots, and recomposited for this release. This leaves the effects shots looking like pristine 35mm film, as opposed to TOS, which was a transfer of already composited material.


Detail ranges from quite good to extraordinary. At its best it is close to tier 0. In a show with so many varied lighting schemes, it doesn't always stay that high. Here is a photo I took for my blog (treknobable.net), which shows how detailed face shots can get [ http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2NvLFs57AB...0/DSCF2169.JPG ]. Keep in mind it is only a digital photo, not a direct screen grab. The biggest upgrade over the DVD is in the effects shots, for the reasons elucidated above. Film grain is present throughout and is well resolved.


Color is rock solid and vibrant, with very accurate flesh tones. The uniforms leap off the screen. Blacks are solid with good detail near black in most scenes.


I agree with the TOS rating of 1.75. I think this is better in terms of visual interest and overall quality because of the improved models and visual effects, and the improvement in original elements for scanning. Thus, I think this can only fairly be placed at ...

*Tier Recommendation 1.25*


Sony KDL52EX700, 6-8 foot viewing distance (I kept getting close to scope out the lovely details)


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/21577369
> 
> 
> This thread alone just hit 3,000,000 page views in the past day, making it number one in that category by a wide margin in the Blu-ray software sub-forum on AVS.




Thanks to all who contribute and keep the thread alive and kicking, especially to you Phantom as your diligence and perseverance make it possible.


----------



## Hughmc

PS....can't wait to see the reviews for Drive...


----------



## javanpohl

Word is Melancholia is reference. Sucks that the UK version is region locked


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen* /forum/post/21578107
> 
> 
> Detail ranges from quite good to extraordinary. Here is a photo I took for my blog (treknobable.net), which shows how detailed face shots can get [ ​ ]. Keep in mind it is only a digital photo, not a direct screen grab. The biggest upgrade over the DVD is in the effects shots, for the reasons elucidated above. Film grain is present throughout and is well resolved.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation 1.5*



That screenshot of Picard looks incredible, I never imagined they could wring that much detail out of a television production from the 1980s. It gives me hope for other television shows from the era, if they ever get the lavish care and attention that Star Trek:TNG is receiving. I can only dream about a show like the X-Files getting that treatment.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/21578116
> 
> 
> Thanks to all who contribute and keep the thread alive and kicking, especially to you Phantom as your diligence and perseverance make it possible.



Thank you for the kind words, now on to the next three million page views. Your check is in the mail.










> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *javanpohl* /forum/post/21578163
> 
> 
> Word is Melancholia is reference. Sucks that the UK version is region locked



I have not seen the Blu-ray yet, but its broadcast on HDNet Movies looked about as good as a cable showing can look.


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/21579683
> 
> 
> That screenshot of Picard looks incredible, I never imagined they could wring that much detail out of a television production from the 1980s. It gives me hope for other television shows from the era, if they ever get the lavish care and attention that Star Trek:TNG is receiving. I can only dream about a show like the X-Files getting that treatment.



I only wish I could do direct screen grabs of blu-rays, but I don't have a PC drive for it. It's honestly twice as impressive in person. I tried to match resolutions and angles, but the contrast is a bit off and the detail is not as prominent in the photos as in the real thing.


Basically, once anyone sees the title sequence, they will be sold. It's astonishing.


The rest of the pics I posted online are here.


----------



## mweflen

*The English Patient (US Lionsgate)*


Bad news first - certain dark scenes are a bit muddy with some unpleasant noise at closer viewing distances. The overall gamma is a bit dim, but this can be punched up considerably by just tweaking your gamma upward a tad.


Good news - this is light years ahead of the soft, muddy DVD (I haven't seen the Canadian BD, since I was waiting for this one). Scenes with strong lighting show very good detail, with whiskers, rocks and sand textures, and so on, easily evident. The best portions of this disc have tier one detail. The scenes of shopping in Cairo are particularly impressive, with all sorts of fine rugs and gewgaws in store booths to look at. Colors have a distinct sepia, sunlit tone in flashback scenes, a more realistic cool palette in "present day" scenes. Both look fine to my eyes.


Film grain is present, but not resolved to a particularly fine level. It looks filmic, but not among the best, most filmic transfers available today. I could detect no edge enhancement or DNR, which was a pleasant surprise to me, since I knew that this was a grainy, soft film in general (saw it 3 times in the theater







), and that this might inspire undue tinkering. This transfer is respectful, and thus free of any of those sorts of blemishes.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.5*

Sony KDL52EX700, 8 foot viewing distance


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Thing (2011)*


Set mostly in the dark, lighting will help preserve some great fine detail. Texture is consistent. Black levels are generally deep with a few lapses. Colors are plain but enough to get the point across; flames look fantastic. Pleasing, just never outstanding.

*Tier 2.5**


----------



## mweflen

Updated my blog post with new better higher res digital photos of TNG The Next Level, as well as screengrabs from the DVD for comparison.

http://www.treknobabble.net/2012/01/...l-blu-ray.html 

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2NvLFs57AB...0/DSCF2169.JPG


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*In Time*


Typically bright but pale digital with superlative definition and facial detail. Black levels are consistent, and noise isn't a concern. Things get a little shaky in the back half, just enough to knock this one out a bit.

*Tier 2.0**


----------



## JoeBloggz

Drive


This is a solid transfer with plenty of detail. Color palette is a little drab in some scenes but just a few here and there. Solid blacks, few instances of black crush but nothing to pervasive. Close ups for the most part are nicely detailed. Some nice aerials of the city at night as well. There are a few tier 0 quality scenes but not enough to put it there. Most notably toward the end of the film when the camera pans up from Ryan gosling bloody shoe on up. Amazing detail and contrast between blood and brown shoe










RECOMMENDATION: 1.0


----------



## deltasun

*Agora*


This is an French-imported region-B locked film from Warner. The transfer and presentation are solid. Contrast is beautifully strong, though it does get overcooked in a few scenes, causing sun-drenched stonework to lose some details. These are the exceptions, however.


Color is strikingly rich, particularly the red in robes. Facial details don't disappoint for the most part, yielding exquisite texture and details. There are some inconsistencies with faces, and so softness does creep in hear and there. Still, nothing to affect the rating too much.


Blacks are inky and crisp, with no signs of crush. Dimensionality is in full display, even in medium shots. One thing that does disappoint are the overhead, CGI shots of the city and certain landmarks. Seems these could have been done right as well, but are not.


Overall, a very worthwhile candidate to Tier Blu. I did not spy any foul play.

*Tier Recommendation: 0** (just above _I, Robot_)


----------



## djoberg

*Dream House*


Bottom Line: An absolutely DREADFUL MOVIE...with fairly IMPRESSIVE PQ!


Aside from some soft shots sprinkled throughout, this title had tons of detail and depth, with a very good color palette to boot. This was true in EVERY daytime and outdoor scene. Facial textures were above average, but they rarely veered into demo territory. Blacks were quite pleasing in *most* night scenes, especially those outdoors (they became murky indoors at times, most notably flashback shots and the last scene during the fire). Flesh tones were spot on. Contrast was strong. All things considered, I'm inclined to award this a place in Tier 1, albeit in the very bottom....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


PS It still amazes me that stars such as Daniel Craig and Naomi Watts would sign on to such a miserable movie.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21594837
> 
> 
> PS It still amazes me that stars such as Daniel Craig and Naomi Watts would sign on to such a miserable movie.



A pithy Michael Caine quote of some relevance to your question about _Jaws 4: The Revenge_, a movie he had a role in-


"I have never seen the film, but by all accounts it was terrible. However I have seen the house that it built, and it is terrific."


----------



## lgans316

*Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (UK)*


Average PQ due to the intentional period and dull look. I was expecting worse but it turned out better. However, the application of a bit of EE seem results in halos in few medium / long shots. Film grain appears to be preserved.


Overrated and boring flick in my opinion and have no idea why Gary Oldman Oscar nominated for best acting.

*Recommendation: Tier 2.75*


-------------------------------

*Drive (UK)*


One of the best movies of 2011. PQ was great but let down by few compression artifacts and noise in dark scenes.

*Recommendation: Tier 1.75*


-------------------------------

*The Lion King Diamond Edition*


Another superb effort from Disney but few notches below BATB

*Recommendation: Tier 1.25*


-------------------------------


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21594837
> 
> *Dream House*
> 
> 
> Bottom Line: An absolutely DREADFUL MOVIE...with fairly IMPRESSIVE PQ!



I agree with the first part as it's already one of the worst things I've seen this year, but when the review goes up, we're going to be miles away on PQ.









*Drive*


Noise will scatter across this one a little too frequently, a bit of a bother. Night sequences lose their intensely saturated palette too, just a boring orange and teal. That said, everything else works, including the movie. Texture is stunning and consistent and black levels are simply a work of art.

*Tier 1.75**


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/21595297
> 
> 
> A pithy Michael Caine quote of some relevance to your question about _Jaws 4: The Revenge_, a movie he had a role in-
> 
> *"I have never seen the film, but by all accounts it was terrible. However I have seen the house that it built, and it is terrific."*



Ah, yes...the Almighty Dollar!!










The thing is, this film would NOT have had the draw that any of the _Jaws_ sequels had. Granted, they were showing the trailer quite often on tv, but that, in and of itself, doesn't attract the masses. In my case, I was attracted to it by the Star Power....Daniel Craig, Naomi Watts, and Rachel Weisz. I'm sure that was what they were counting on and I fell for it!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/21596054
> 
> 
> I agree with the first part as it's already one of the worst things I've seen this year, but when the review goes up, *we're going to be miles away on PQ.*



Hmmmm...I wonder which direction you'll be going in?










I believe I'm going to stick by my recommendation no matter who chimes in with a different opinion. I was very impressed by details and depth in MANY shots, and the blacks levels, when they were good, were pure EYE CANDY!


I will repeat myself by saying there were quite a few soft shots. They were, I believe, intentional, but this thread dictates it should be penalized for them. I will add that in my short review I mentioned "a very good color palette." I should elaborate on that by saying much of the film has a cool, blue hue to it, but when the primaries are displayed they are VERY PLEASING to the eye.


----------



## djoberg

*The Thing (2011)*


Well GRG....we won't be MILES apart on this one, but at least a couple of football fields!


I was not WOWED at all with this title. About the only real positive thing I can say is that some of the daytime and outdoor scenes with the dazzling, white snow were impressive. The contrast and details were very good in them, but then those scenes were "few and far between," with most of the running time taking place indoors or at night.


The negatives consisted mainly of less-than-stellar blacks (quite murky at times) and a real *gritty* look, similar to what you might have seen 20 years ago in a movie in this genre.


I'm not going to pick this apart any more than I already have....I'll get right to the placement recommendation. To _my eyes_ this was only average and not even worthy of the top of that tier, so my vote goes for....

*Tier Recommendation: 3.25**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Operation Condor*


Crammed onto a single disc with three other Jackie Chan movies, this one is in trouble by default. Add an ancient master with extensive damage, DNR, and a little edge enhancement, and it's even worse. Compression is constantly noticeable, and the mild fine detail isn't close to being enough to save it.

*Tier 3.75**


----------



## deltasun

*Dream House*


Whoa - this was missing quite a bit of high-frequency details. That first shot of Daniel Craig in his office - he's either caked in make-up or some foul play was at work! Facial details and/or textures simply did not exist, or was kept to a minimum through some DNR. Indoor scenes were also pretty flat, particularly the ending scene at the house.


The scenes, for the most part, were warmer in tone. I say "for the most part" because there are some "cooler" scenes to fit the story. Skin tones were fairly close to normal, but does reflect the portion of the story they're in.


Black levels were deep and satisfying in the beginning and particularly outdoors. I would still call the contrast above average, save for a few poorly shot scenes (Daniel Craig staring at his male neighbor driving off). Details were also inconsistent for me and cannot easily recall any memorable examples to the contrary.


Overall, I felt the picture really took a nose dive along with the story. I actually liked the build up until the "revelation."

*Tier Recommendation: 3.25**

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun

*Hung: The Complete First Season*


As with most series, it's hard to pin down a good rating for the entire run. In particular, the first season of _Hung_ is a mixed bag for me. Definition does waver quite a bit and details come and go. The overall tone is a bit on the cooler side, with a lot of blues, light greens. Despite this, skin tones are a bit baked for the most part. Go figure!


Inky blacks is not the strongest attribute of the series. It's quite weak and so is the contrast. Still, the most annoying feature's got to be the random softness that seems to linger, and doesn't quite go away.


Depth is an issue as well in most scenes and shadow details are just average. Some slight ringing in high-contrast edges are also apparent throughout.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0**

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (2011)*


Talk about black crush. This one doesn't let much of anything through within the shadows. There's dark and there's, "Let's blend entire bodies with the background." Detail is fair if inconsistent. Exteriors are the best stuff and they're simply stunning. Grain is limited but resolved.

*Tier 2.75**


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/21608582
> 
> *Dream House*
> 
> 
> Whoa - this was missing quite a bit of high-frequency details. That first shot of Daniel Craig in his office - he's either caked in make-up or some foul play was at work! Facial details and/or textures simply did not exist, or was kept to a minimum through some DNR. Indoor scenes were also pretty flat, particularly the ending scene at the house.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.25**



Daniel Craig is starting to get up there in age for a headlining actor. I haven't seen Dream House specifically but many stars are having their faces smoothed out by digital tools now, including leading men. It's going to be rarer and rarer to find unmanipulated transfers in the future featuring stars over the age of 40.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/21611194
> 
> 
> Daniel Craig is starting to get up there in age for a headlining actor. I haven't seen Dream House specifically but many stars are having their faces smoothed out by digital tools now, including leading men. It's going to be rarer and rarer to find unmanipulated transfers in the future featuring stars over the age of 40.



For the record, there were scenes featuring close-ups of Daniel Craig that revealed good texture. In other words, I saw no evidence of smoothing in those scenes.


----------



## djoberg

*Abduction*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/21516019
> 
> *Abduction*
> 
> 
> This isn't just Taylor Lautner hate... okay, some of it is, but medium shots here have an off look, super smooth and saturated to ludicrous levels. It's hilarious to see flesh tones move from super orange to pale in just one edit, and texture to pop-in like a N64 game. Forests lack crispness and this one never settles into a groove.
> 
> *Tier 3.0**



Well, it's about time we saw "eye to eye" on a Blu-ray!










Your assessment is spot on. I would also add that the black levels are, for the most part, deplorable. This one was one inconsistent mess....one second you'll have a okay shot with decent details and accurate flesh tones...the next second it turns flat and orange.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.25**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Lego Star Wars: The Padawan Menace*


Cheap, quickie animated piece with a breezier style than mega-budget stuff from other studios. It's softer and texture is less of a factor. Colors are a little bland and black levels are just okay. There's some noise but it's barely perceptible in motion.
*Tier 1.75**


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/21579683
> 
> 
> That screenshot of Picard looks incredible, I never imagined they could wring that much detail out of a television production from the 1980s. It gives me hope for other television shows from the era, if they ever get the lavish care and attention that Star Trek:TNG is receiving. I can only dream about a show like the X-Files getting that treatment.



PS,


I just edited my own rating of TNG up by a quarter tier (to 1.25). I've watched it several more times and compared it to the TOS set. The complete lack of compression is notable in comparison, and there is less inconsistency. If only the few inconsistent scenes were less apparent, it would be Tier 0 in my book.


----------



## rusky_g

*Hot Fuzz*


First full viewing on my projector - beautiful.

*Tier 0 (upper half)*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*A Very Harold & Christmas 3D Christmas*


Strong color and heavy contrast can be a bit of a curse. Contrast will blot out fine detail and the color scheme is flat out gaudy in spots. Heavy detail is uncommon at best, and noise tends to swarm the image whenever it has a chance to.

*Tier 2.75**


----------



## deltasun

*The Double*


Lots of fine details in the main characters' faces. Excellent contrast throughout with satisfying black levels. Shadow details can be a bit touch and go, and seemed worse towards the latter half of the film.


Skin tones vary, but do tend to flounder towards the warm side when indoors. Colors are vibrant without being saturated, though again, tends to warm up indoors also. Dimensionality is excellent in panoramic shots, but are not as pronounced in medium shots.


Some slight ringing is noted in high contrast edges. Aside from these minor negatives, the picture is clean and full of details.

*Tire Recommendation: 1.75**

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Texas Killing Fields*


Great black levels for the most part but not enough to hide the abundance of noise. Fine detail is spotty, and there's a rather consistent level of aliasing, even if it's minor. Saturation is a little heavier than the norm, but the effect doesn't add much.

*Tier 2.75**


----------



## djoberg

*Percy Jackson & Olympians: The Lightning Thief*


I am fully aware of the fact that this title dates back to 2010 and that it is currently ranked at 1.5. I opted not to rent this back then, but last week I purchased a new subwoofer (SVS PC12-NSD) and this title was recommended as one of the best Blu-rays for testing one's new sub, with exceptional material in the LFE department. WOW!! It ROCKED from beginning to end; at times my walls and furniture were shaking like never before! The action in the surrounds also excelled...definitely reference for audio!!


I'm going to keep this short, for I have no intention whatsoever of challenging the current placement. I pretty much agree with previous reviews where accolades were given to it for very good blacks, details, colors, depth, contrast, etc. There were a number of scenes though where blacks faltered a bit, along with poor facial details (especially on the faces of the *younger* actors), so I'm inclined to drop it down one notch....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Operation Condor 2 - Armour of God*


The best looking of the four Jackie Chan movies shoved onto a single disc, with some noticeable definition, some fine detail, and relatively visible grain structure. What goes wrong are the black levels with ridiculous crush, compression is a bother, and print damage is troubling.

*Tier 3.50**


----------



## mweflen

*(500) Days of Summer*

This was a solid, unspectacular BD transfer of the movie. Colors are pleasant to look at and never hot or unrealistic. Outdoor scenes are frequently awash in sunny, almost sepia tones. Facial detail is passable but not remarkable in any way. Background detail is the same. Black levels are a bit floaty, and had me wondering if this was shot on digital, but apparently it was not. There is no DNR, EE, or artifacting that was detectable from my couch. Pretty much average to slightly above average for the format, all told.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75*


Sony KDL52EX700, 8 foot viewing distance


----------



## mweflen

*Paul*

Loaded with outdoor desert scenes, set both at day and night, this is a visually appealing disc for the most part. The only areas that suffer a bit are some overhead shots of pitch blackness which seem a bit soft and fuzzy. Exterior detail of foliage and highways looks very good. Facial detail can be quite strong, especially on the wrinkle and facial hair front. Colors are pleasingly real. I saw no artifacts or undue digital monkeying with the image (outside of the Paul CGI of course). Basically, this is a typically strong Universal release of a new movie on BD.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


Sony KDL52EX700, 8 foot viewing distance


----------



## deltasun

*The Ides of March*


This has some of the best facial details and textures out there. I did notice a bit of inconsistency towards the latter half of the film. Blacks are just near perfect on a number of scenes. Contrast is well balanced and usually appear strong.


Skin tones are spot on, with the usual inclination to warmer tones indoors, with softer lighting. Dimensionality is also solid in medium shots. Fine grain is noted, rendering that filmic look.


A great looking transfer for a great film!

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Twilight: Breaking Dawn - Part 1*


There's some serious filtering and smoothing applied to the vampires here, as if the performances don't make them look soulless enough. Medium shots are bland too, but other close-ups score. Environments are strong too, plus color finally finds a way into this franchise. Grain is well resolved save for a few stray shots.

*Tier 2.0**


----------



## deltasun

*Winter's Bone*


The look and feel of dreariness in _Winter's Bone_ is captured well by the Red One as presented by Lionsgate. Clarity is pretty decent, but does quell much of the texture in facial close-up's. Depth is not the strong point and colors are pretty much muted.


Blacks can be a bit muddled, but does cope well for the most part. Low-lit scenes, on the other hand, are less than stellar. Contrast can be weak at times, but suits the mood.


I still found the picture quality above average.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.50**

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Recoil*


Clear and precise digital production free of noise. Black levels will take a dive here and there, but are otherwise beneficial. Detail is firm and only a little inconsistent. Some flickering/aliasing is a bother although never too serious.

*Tier 2.0**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Deadly Spawn*


They rarely come much worse than this. Not only is this an encode with a bitrate so low a few DVDs can beat it, but it's been smoothed over and DNR'ed to infinity and beyond. Even with allowances for cheap, off-the-wall film stocks and fast shooting, there's still little excuse with an end result like this. Compression is so awful, it breaks up the image, which in motion, makes it look like everything is running interlaced. It's not. Never seen anything like it.

*Tier 5.0**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Scarlet Worm*


Zero budget indie flick shot digitally with a little bit of everything wrong. While there's some detail to take note of, the reality is that it's smooth and inconsistent. A blistering contrast wipes out even more than that. Heavy compression is visible, and one or two shots are the worst I've ever seen on the format:

Attachment 237515 


All things considered, it looks as good as it probably could, just not not enough for this thread.

*Tier 4.75**


----------



## rusky_g

Looking forward to some reviews of Hugo.


----------



## djoberg

*The Ides of March*


For the most part I agree with my peers who sang the praises of this title's PQ, for it did indeed have EXCELLENT BLACK LEVELS and SUPERB DETAILS (though I did NOT believe it had the some of the best facial details ever seen, for they didn't come close to titles like the _Transporter_ or _Pirates of the Caribbean_ series). I don't recall others commenting on its DEPTH and DIMENSIONALITY, but they too were PHENOMENAL.


My biggest grievance was with the color palette, which was on the drab side for a majority of the film. Don't take this wrong, for it had its moments when primaries came to life, exhibiting real punch and vibrancy, but these were the proverbial "exception and not the rule."


I'm still going to join my colleagues in giving this "demo status," but IMO it doesn't deserve a spot in the top tier (where two members placed it), nor is it worthy of a place at the top of Tier 1 (where the last review put it). My vote goes for....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## tcramer

*Lady and the Tramp*


Another wonderful restoration from Disney. Nice and sharp throughout with great color that pops from the backgrounds, but not over saturated and fake looking. Excellent blacks and shadow details come through on dark scenes. A great improvement from the DVD version, the Diamond Editions continue to show Disney animated movies how they were meant to be seen.


I would say this is not quite as good as Beauty and the Beast, but just a touch better than Bambi which makes sense given its age. Therefore I rank it...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0, right above Bambi*


----------



## djoberg

*In Time*


NICE!! As an avid LOVER OF BLACKS I must say this one was IMPRESSIVE!! Night time scenes were simply gorgeous, with blacks as deep and inky as they come!


Daytime scenes were another story...for there are three stories to tell. This title gave you orange hues...blue hues...and then, thankfully, normal-looking. Detail held up no matter what the case was, so there's no complaint there....and the details were exemplary.


Contrast was generally good, but at times it was spiked resulting in overblown whites. Flesh tones were spot on, most notably in the *normal* scenes, not so much when the *orange* or *blue* hues became intrusive.


I found this to be better than my last outing (i.e., _The Ides of March_), though only by a smidgen...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Sword Of The Stranger


recommendation: Tier 0* below Gamer
*
_Sword of the Stranger_ is a 2007 anime movie out of Japan. Looking as good or better than any hand-drawn animation on the Blu-ray format, it's a excellent candidate for tier zero. This is a disc that will wow some viewers and makes perfect demo material, forcing me to internally question and re-evaluate my prior scores in the tiers for certain animated features.


Encoded in AVC on a BD-50, the 102-minute feature showcases some of the strongest and most polished animation seen in high-definition. Imagine if Miyazaki tackled fast-paced samurai action and sword-play in one of his Studio Ghibli films, and you get a small sense of the visual aesthetic for _Sword of the Stranger_. Bandai Entertainment released this Blu-ray back in June of 2009, though sadly they have now pulled out of the American Blu-ray market due to market conditions.


The scenery is the real mind-blowing aspect to the picture. The backgrounds are closer in scope to paintings than the static, flat drawings one usually sees in animated fare. An extraordinary amount of detail and artistry lurks in each scene and setting, even throwaway moments. Bones, the animation studio responsible, has gone above and beyond the call of duty in adding speed and a kinetic motion to the movie. Fight scenes are spectacular and simply look great. Production values reach far beyond most hand-drawn animation produced outside of Disney and a few select animation houses.


Using multi-plane techniques seen in the best animation, there is an extraordinary level of depth and projection. Snow flakes seem to float off the screen in the final act as the characters fight through the snow. The impeccable animation has no aliasing of any kind and perfect black levels, allowing a color palette that is a little more restrained and subtle in the primary colors than most animated programs aimed at children. Expect a wider range of colors employed to convey an added sense of realism to the film's historical setting.


The video encode averages 26.30 Mbps in a perfect transfer of the movie. In some ways this encode might qualify as slightly better than even the Disney efforts on their classic catalog. Banding and posterization, the bane of most animation in high-definition, is completely absent. The picture quality is flawless and beyond reproach in all criteria. _Sword of the Stranger_ gets an unqualified recommendation as a stunning animated spectacle.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of eric.exe):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1#post17127461


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Project A*


Awful compression drowns this Jackie Chan effort. While there's some fine detail to be had, it's minimal and sparse. Damage to the source is severe and colors have been boosted in a weak attempt at saving it. Black levels overstep their bounds. Awful, but there's still worse ahead.

*Tier 4.25**


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/20916483
> 
> *Everything Must Go*
> 
> 
> Extraordinary detail most of the time, Ferrell having a really textured face that shows through. It looks a bit sharpened though, some aliasing and harsh edges enough to detract from otherwise striking quality. Warm flesh tones and bright primaries are awesome. A light grain is a barely a factor.
> 
> *Tier 1.75**


*Everything Must Go*


I did not notice the same aliasing or sharpening that GRG did - just the very strong detail, good black levels, and realistic color palette. Since I think this is better than Paul, which I just reviewed, I'd go with 1.25 on this one.


Kind of a boring movie, though.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*


Sony KDL52EX700, 8 foot viewing distance


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Hugo*


SOO close to being perfect. The first half is littered with shots that will make your jaw hit the floor in the amazement. Texture is striking, and so are the sets. Then, it turns out there's not an ounce of saturation to be had, this one drowning in dulled orange and teal. With a little bit of a saturation push, this one would be reference. Medium shots are flat too, although environments make up for them.

*Tier 1.25**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Dream House*


Filtered to the 'nth degree until the halfway mark when it finally shows life. Even then, it still doesn't shine, especially in medium shots. Flat and dull. Way too much orange and teal too. Black levels are passable at least.

*Tier 3.25**


----------



## rusky_g

Disappointed with GRG's thoughts on Hugo although the glowing review on BR.com has raised hopes a bit.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Son of No One*


Well textured police drama that is almost saved on the the quality of the transfer... okay, not really. Unimaginably stupid movie that tends to waver in focus, but pours on the facial detail, even with the kids. Black levels keep a fine consistency. A little flicker and dull color palette bring it down a few notches.

*Tier 1.75**


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g* /forum/post/21679336
> 
> 
> Disappointed with GRG's thoughts on Hugo although the glowing review on BR.com has raised hopes a bit.



It's a great disc with marginal problems, enough to ding it in this thread for sure, namely the bland color palette. You can remain excited, especially for the spectacular exteriors and aerials.


----------



## rusky_g

Thanks dude


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tcramer* /forum/post/21665556
> 
> *Lady and the Tramp*
> 
> 
> Another wonderful restoration from Disney. Nice and sharp throughout with great color that pops from the backgrounds, but not over saturated and fake looking. Excellent blacks and shadow details come through on dark scenes. A great improvement from the DVD version, the Diamond Editions continue to show Disney animated movies how they were meant to be seen.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.0, right above Bambi*



I'm torn, because for the first time, it looks like the noise reduction used to remove the grain appears visible. It seems apparent during longer shots of the dogs. Everything else said is true, but I can't get past what looks noise reduced.

*Tier 1.75**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Big Year*


Fox sharpens this one, result in marred aerials and environment shots. In close it's fine, superior to most discs. Problems only tend to arise as a distance, and especially in motion. Some black crush clears itself up, while stock footage looks even worse than it did before because of the tampering.

*Tier 2.75**


----------



## tcramer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/21686387
> 
> 
> I'm torn, because for the first time, it looks like the noise reduction used to remove the grain appears visible. It seems apparent during longer shots of the dogs. Everything else said is true, but I can't get past what looks noise reduced.
> 
> *Tier 1.75**




That's very possible. I got stuck with the 'bad seat' on the couch, so I was more like 9' away instead of the usual 6' (from a 50"). I probably just missed it from that distance.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tcramer* /forum/post/21695963
> 
> 
> That's very possible. I got stuck with the 'bad seat' on the couch, so I was more like 9' away instead of the usual 6' (from a 50"). I probably just missed it from that distance.



I'm not saying you were wrong at all. I just looked like it to me when it was in motion. The backgrounds looked fine to me, which made me question what was going on, if anything.


For all I know, it's a side effect of the animation style that just looks a little "blob-ish" these days.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Needless: Collection 1


recommendation: Tier 1.75**

_Needless_ is a 2009 series from animation studio Madhouse and distributor Sentai Filmworks. Lush colors and simple, clean artwork are the highlights on this two-disc set. It wavers between tiers one and two from time to time but displays enough quality to permanently reside in the higher tier.


The transfer is quite good for animation and the VC-1 video encode is up to the task of delivering an artifact-free presentation. Character designs are too simplistic and do not show enough detail and fluidity to compare to the better animated theatrical features on Blu-ray. Fans though should be happy with how the picture quality looks overall.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Project A 2*


What a pile. Out of 1200+ discs viewed, this ranks right near the very bottom. I've never seen compression like this, even on a DVD. They at least hide it better. Black crush is debilitating to the image, and medium shots turn into flat, mushy messes. Print damage is evident and there's no detail to speak of. Actually, the only thing I've seen that's worse was the '39 version of Gulliver's Travels.

*Tier 5.0**


----------



## rusky_g

*Ghost Rider (2007)*


For an older title this had me impressed. Nice and clear, good detail and close ups too! Really nice filmic look about it, not perfect but a pleasure to watch.

*Tier 1.25
*

Optoma HD65 @ 11', 94"


----------



## mweflen

*Moneyball*


Finally watched Moneyball. Definitely not in GRG's camp. I found the grain to be not only tolerable but nice looking, generally speaking. Detail was moderately strong. The color palette was realistic, and shadow detail was good. Black levels did seem to fluctuate every once in a while, usually in interior sets, which were shot rather darkly.


There are of course a good number of of archival shots which look like slightly older television. But honestly, they flash by so quickly that they don't pull be out of "HD land," personally. Also, I'm kind of partial to the representation of pixels these images showed. I did not see any edge enhancement or DNR, and I detected about 5 second of moire on one character's shirt (I believe it was a blue striped shirt worn by the Art Howe character). All in all, this is a good, solid, filmic, but not _great_ HD presentation of a modern film.
*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


Sony KDL52EX700, 8 foot viewing distance


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Ponyo


recommendation: Tier 1.5*


Disney released this Studio Ghibli film back in 2010 and did an exemplary job on the transfer. _Ponyo's_ palette employs softer pastels in an animation style that is softer and rounder than is typical for a theatrical feature. The picture quality is still stunning but lacks some of the sparkle seen in the best animated features in high-definition. Its current placement in Tier 1.0 looks a bit too high in my estimation, though it definitely has an argument for that ranking. How one feels about the artwork in _Ponyo_ will heavily influence one's judgment of the picture quality. What we really need is _Howl's Moving Castle_ on BD.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of eric.exe):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...4#post18969384


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen* /forum/post/21707377
> 
> *Moneyball*
> 
> 
> Finally watched Moneyball. Definitely not in GRG's camp. I found the grain to be not only tolerable but nice looking, generally speaking. Detail was moderately strong. The color palette was realistic, and shadow detail was good. Black levels did seem to fluctuate every once in a while, usually in interior sets, which were shot rather darkly.
> 
> 
> There are of course a good number of of archival shots which look like slightly older television. But honestly, they flash by so quickly that they don't pull be out of "HD land," personally. Also, I'm kind of partial to the representation of pixels these images showed. I did not see any edge enhancement or DNR, and I detected about 5 second of moire on one character's shirt (I believe it was a blue striped shirt worn by the Art Howe character). All in all, this is a good, solid, filmic, but not _great_ HD presentation of a modern film.
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75*
> 
> 
> Sony KDL52EX700, 8 foot viewing distance



Ditto!


Well, that makes THREE votes for 1.75 and only ONE for 3.0. Maybe if we get a few more votes for Tier One this title will get the placement it deserves. (Sorry GRG, I just HAD to say that.







)


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21711262
> 
> 
> Well, that makes THREE votes for 1.75 and only ONE for 3.0. Maybe if we get a few more votes for Tier One this title will get the placement it deserves. (Sorry GRG, I just HAD to say that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )



I tend to disregard outlier recommendations if there is a strong consensus from a plethora of participants on a different score. To use an illustrative example, an imagined user ranking *Avatar* in Tier 4.5 would likely not be included for consideration unless that poster made a very compelling argument for the low score.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21711262
> 
> 
> Ditto!
> 
> 
> Well, that makes THREE votes for 1.75 and only ONE for 3.0. Maybe if we get a few more votes for Tier One this title will get the placement it deserves. (Sorry GRG, I just HAD to say that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )



And I still stand on the side that the compression is a mess, so there.









*Beneath the Darkness*


Black levels are pitiful, ruining every nighttime shot. No depth is generated whatsoever and it washes out the image. Was actually beginning to believe my set was on the way out. Detail is fair at best, but not enough to save it.
*Tier 3.5**


------------

*Johnny English Reborn*


Brightly saturated until the end when it becomes a bland teal. Detail is crisp is totally inconsistent. Contrast is poppy, and sharpness is acceptable.

*Tier 2.75**


----------



## RedOctober205

Can someone recommend a movie (non-animated and something other than The Spirit) to show off display black level performance? Thank you.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RedOctober205* /forum/post/21714216
> 
> 
> Can someone recommend a movie (non-animated and something other than The Spirit) to show off display black level performance? Thank you.



Try _The Unborn_. I'm sure there are other better ones, but that comes to mind.


----------



## RedOctober205




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Try The Unborn. I'm sure there are other better ones, but that comes to mind.



Thank you.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RedOctober205* /forum/post/21714216
> 
> 
> Can someone recommend a movie (non-animated and something other than The Spirit) to show off display black level performance? Thank you.



Good question that brings to mind several different answers from the upper tiers. Live Free Or Die Hard, Youth Without Youth, any flavor of Watchmen, and Hot Fuzz are all good examples.


----------



## mozilla314




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RedOctober205* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Can someone recommend a movie (non-animated and something other than The Spirit) to show off display black level performance? Thank you.



The Dark Knight, Hell Boy 2, Mission to Mars, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Underworld, Crouching Tiger (night scenes), Blade 2, Sin City probably the best for black levels.


----------



## jpeter1093




> Quote:
> Detail is crisp is totally inconsistent.



Gamereviewgod...uh, what?


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mozilla314* /forum/post/21716918
> 
> 
> The Dark Knight, Hell Boy 2, Mission to Mars, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Underworld, Crouching Tiger (night scenes), Blade 2, *Sin City* probably the best for black levels.



Good call on Sin City, that might be the best choice for this question.


----------



## Snitzl5

anybody by chance pick up Hugo and test it out yet?


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jpeter1093* /forum/post/21716999
> 
> 
> Gamereviewgod...uh, what?



Ha! Should be "BUT totally inconsistent."


Guess it's good to know that someone actually reads these things.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Snitzl5* /forum/post/21717076
> 
> 
> anybody by chance pick up Hugo and test it out yet?



My notes are back a page. Great looking disc with few faults.


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RedOctober205* /forum/post/21714216
> 
> 
> Can someone recommend a movie (non-animated and something other than The Spirit) to show off display black level performance? Thank you.



Watchmen

Sin City

The Two Towers EE disc 2 (i.e. the battle of Helm's Deep)

Fight Club

Batman Begins/The Dark Knight


----------



## Snitzl5




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/21717187
> 
> 
> My notes are back a page. Great looking disc with few faults.



ah dang i missed it, thanks!


----------



## abintra




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *RedOctober205* /forum/post/21714216
> 
> 
> Can someone recommend a movie (non-animated and something other than The Spirit) to show off display black level performance? Thank you.



Not show off but impressive black levels are a must for something like *The Last of the Mohicans*. *Se7en* comes to mind also.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Adventures of Tintin*


An absolute marvel that should dominate this thread. Fantastic, rich texture. Brilliant, popping colors. Flawless, rich black levels. Outstanding bright, vivid contrast. Immense, perfect dimensionality. Short of some limited aliasing, this is perfect.

*Tier 0** (above Avatar)


----------



## vpn75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/21718775
> 
> *The Adventures of Tintin*
> 
> 
> An absolute marvel that should dominate this thread. Fantastic, rich texture. Brilliant, popping colors. Flawless, rich black levels. Outstanding bright, vivid contrast. Immense, perfect dimensionality. Short of some limited aliasing, this is perfect.
> 
> *Tier 0** (above Avatar)



Very excited to own the BD after reading that review! I'm not surprised either...it looked sensational in the theater.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/19176532
> 
> *The Twilight Zone Season 1*
> 
> 
> Holy awesomeness Batman! This is truly remarkable stuff. Sure, there are inconsistencies; they range from print damage, to light banding, and some grain spikes. When it's on the mark (and it usually is), *this is the best looking black and white footage I've ever seen on the format*. Contrast is perfect, the amount of image detail is just incredible, the texture retained well beyond any expectation, and the grain is resolved beautifully.
> *Tier 2.75*


*The Twilight Zone: Season 1 (1959)


recommendation: Tier 2.25*

_There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call the Twilight Zone._


Gamereviewgod's review is not hyperbole, Image has produced the most astonishing black-and-white transfer released to date on the format. The image is literally jaw-dropping in some moments and looks better than any movie, much less a television production, from its era on Blu-ray. The only complaint I can even begin to offer is the slight appearance of razor-thin halos in a couple of scenes. Mere words really cannot describe the clarity and textural detail plainly evident in every scene.


Every self-respecting Blu-ray owner needs to own this classic series in their personal library. Image has seen fit to properly remaster the _Twilight Zone_ for posterity, setting a new standard in the process. The Blu-ray version is worth every penny it costs and more.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Town: Ultimate Collector's Edition*


Same encode as before just with a new ending. Looks identical, which means superb with a few bouts of noise and a little crush.

*Tier 1.75**


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/21718775
> 
> *The Adventures of Tintin*
> 
> 
> An absolute marvel that should dominate this thread. Fantastic, rich texture. Brilliant, popping colors. Flawless, rich black levels. Outstanding bright, vivid contrast. Immense, perfect dimensionality. Short of some limited aliasing, this is perfect.
> 
> *Tier 0** (above Avatar)



I will most definitely be adding this to my Blu-ray library! I just picked up _Hugo_ at Wally World this afternoon and I hope to watch it later this weekend.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/21723668
> 
> *The Town: Ultimate Collector's Edition*
> 
> 
> Same encode as before just with a new ending. Looks identical, which means superb with a few bouts of noise and a little crush.
> 
> *Tier 1.75**



Are you sure its the same encode? Kenneth Brown (Blu-ray.com reviewer) says its re-encoded.


----------



## wesslan1

It's higher bitrate than before on a separate BD50 so yes should be a new encode


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wesslan1* /forum/post/21726341
> 
> 
> It's higher bitrate than before on a separate BD50 so yes should be a new encode



I took comparison shots. Absolutely zero difference between them. Compression issues crop up in the exact same locations. If they re-encoded it, they didn't turn it into anything perceptible.


----------



## djoberg

*The Art of Flight*


I waited a good half hour after viewing this before I sat down at my computer to write a review. Why? Because I wanted the *EUPHORIA* I had just experienced to abate so I wouldn't resort to hyperbole. So, after returning to some semblance of normalcy, I can now say, without exaggeration, that I now have *MY NEW DEMO DISC!!!*


Believe me fellow AVS members, I was picking my jaw up from the floor throughout this 81 minute film/documentary...it was that good!! This film is all about snowboarding, but whether you are a fan of this extreme sport or not, you will still be entertained beyond your wildest dreams by the phenomenal cinematography, the unrivaled audio, and the death-defying runs of some of the best athletes in the world. We are treated to some of the best aerial shots of mountainous terrain ever, including shots of Austria, Alaska, Wyoming, British Columbia, Chile, and Patagonia. They equaled the best shots you've seen in the _Planet Earth_ series, with dazzling detail, undefinable depth, and incomparable contrast. The colors of parkas, snowboards, and helicopters against the impeccable white snow were mesmerizing.


From what I've read, multiple cameras were used, but primarily the Red One was employed for the majority of the running time. The only censures I would mention (and they were rare and brief) would be some minor aliasing and some compression issues when helmet-mounted cameras were used.


I just have to say something about the audio. If you have a half-way decent 5.1 or 7.1 speaker system (and preferably a good subwoofer that is capable of going into the lower end...and I'm talking about below 25 Hz in a few instances), you will be spellbound by the 7.1 track used throughout the film. Whether you're hearing helicopter blades or avalanches, or the rich soundtrack consisting of pop rock, techno, and even a splash of classical, you will know that your ears are being treated to REFERENCE audio.


Because of the minimal negatives listed above, I'm not able to award this with the coveted "King of the Hill" status (i.e. Top of Tier 0), but this easily fits somewhere in the top quarter of Tier Blu. My thinking after one viewing is...

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (Between Toy Story 2 and I, Robot)**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


PS I'm going to actually plead with all of you to at least RENT this if you can (though I believe it deserves a place in your library and that you would use it over and over again to show off your HD display and audio equipment as well). I can't imagine anyone not being totally impressed with it. Some may think the running time is a bit long, but I'm quite certain it would hold your attention for at least the first 45 minutes...even if you've been a victim of ADD all of your life.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21727231
> 
> *The Art of Flight*
> 
> 
> I waited a good half hour after viewing this before I sat down at my computer to write a review. Why? Because I wanted the *EUPHORIA* I had just experienced to abate so I wouldn't resort to hyperbole. So, after returning to some semblance of normalcy, I can now say, without exaggeration, that I now have *MY NEW DEMO DISC!!!*
> 
> 
> Believe me fellow AVS members, I was picking my jaw up from the floor throughout this 81 minute film/documentary...it was that good!! This film is all about snowboarding, but whether you are a fan of this extreme sport or not, you will still be entertained beyond your wildest dreams by the phenomenal cinematography, the unrivaled audio, and the death-defying runs of some of the best athletes in the world. We are treated to some of the best aerial shots of mountainous terrain ever, including shots of Austria, Alaska, Wyoming, British Columbia, Chile, and Patagonia. They equaled the best shots you've seen in the _Planet Earth_ series, with dazzling detail, undefinable depth, and incomparable contrast. The colors of parkas, snowboards, and helicopters against the impeccable white snow were mesmerizing.
> 
> 
> From what I've read, multiple cameras were used, but primarily the Red One was employed for the majority of the running time. The only censures I would mention (and they were rare and brief) would be some minor aliasing and some compression issues when helmet-mounted cameras were used.
> 
> 
> I just have to say something about the audio. If you have a half-way decent 5.1 or 7.1 speaker system (and preferably a good subwoofer that is capable of going into the lower end...and I'm talking about below 25 Hz in a few instances), you will be spellbound by the 7.1 track used throughout the film. Whether you're hearing helicopter blades or avalanches, or the rich soundtrack consisting of pop rock, techno, and even a splash of classical, you will know that your ears are being treated to REFERENCE audio.
> 
> 
> Because of the minimal negatives listed above, I'm not able to award this with the coveted "King of the Hill" status (i.e. Top of Tier 0), but this easily fits somewhere in the top quarter of Tier Blu. My thinking after one viewing is...
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (Between Toy Story 2 and I, Robot)**
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'
> 
> 
> PS I'm going to actually plead with all of you to at least RENT this if you can (though I believe it deserves a place in your library and that you would use it over and over again to show off your HD display and audio equipment as well). I can't imagine anyone not being totally impressed with it. Some may think the running time is a bit long, but I'm quite certain it would hold your attention for at least the first 45 minutes...even if you've been a victim of ADD all of your life.



I have an HTPC and it looks great on it...:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kh29_SERH0Y 


Looks like a def buy...I love that genre...stunning cinematography. Thanks Denny


----------



## rusky_g

WOW, looks stunning, Denny & Hugh......


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/21729490
> 
> 
> I have an HTPC and it looks great on it...:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kh29_SERH0Y
> 
> 
> Looks like a def buy...I love that genre...stunning cinematography. Thanks Denny





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g* /forum/post/21730065
> 
> 
> WOW, looks stunning, Denny & Hugh......



Wait until you guys HEAR it on a good 5.1 or 7.1 system with a good sub. It will BLOW YOU AWAY!!!!


Thanks Hugh for posting the You Tube link. That will serve to whet the appetite even more for this incredible film.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21730126
> 
> 
> Wait until you guys HEAR it on a good 5.1 or 7.1 system with a good sub. It will BLOW YOU AWAY!!!!
> 
> 
> Thanks Hugh for posting the You Tube link. That will serve to whet the appetite even more for this incredible film.



Okay, I'm sold. I just looked it up on Amazon (no entries at Best Buy). Is it the black slipcase looking thing?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/21730149
> 
> 
> Okay, I'm sold. I just looked it up on Amazon (no entries at Best Buy). Is it the black slipcase looking thing?



Yes, delta, it has a black slipcase. I did a Google Search and found the best buy here:

http://www.spinnakerextreme.com/the-...rain-farm.html 


Before I ordered it, I also did a Google Search for "coupons for spinnakerextreme" and found a small discount. In the end I think I paid $25, where Amazon and most all other online stores were selling it for $30 or more.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21730172
> 
> 
> Yes, delta, it has a black slipcase. I did a Google Search and found the best buy here:
> 
> http://www.spinnakerextreme.com/the-...rain-farm.html
> 
> 
> Before I ordered it, I also did a Google Search for "coupons for spinnakerextreme" and found a small discount. In the end I think I paid $25, where Amazon and most all other online stores were selling it for $30 or more.



Thanks, I'll look into it. I may check quickly locally before taking the plunge. I know of a shop that might have something like this. Love these types of documentary too, with great cinematography and sound.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

The German Amazon has a full trailer in English for the Blu-ray edition of The Art Of Flight:

http://www.amazon.de/Art-Flight-Blu-...bluraycom04-21


----------



## djoberg

*Hugo*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/21673070
> 
> *Hugo*
> 
> 
> SOO close to being perfect. The first half is littered with shots that will make your jaw hit the floor in the amazement. Texture is striking, and so are the sets. Then, it turns out there's not an ounce of saturation to be had, this one drowning in dulled orange and teal. With a little bit of a saturation push, this one would be reference. Medium shots are flat too, although environments make up for them.
> 
> *Tier 1.25**



I just watched this gem of a movie with my 8 year old granddaughter and we both loved it! For some it may move a bit too slow, but I thought the character development was perfect, along with the unfolding of the plot itself.


The PQ was SUPERB, with the exception of the "orange and teal" alluded to by our esteemed colleague. I was mesmerized by the DETAILS (especially in clothing....the textures of suits, dresses, hats, etc. were resolved down to every thread) and DEPTH (some scenes in the train station had more 3D pop than I've seen in a very long time). Primary COLORS were real EYE CANDY; every time they showed Inspector Gustave in his bright, blue suit I hardly had eyes for anything else). BLACKS, though somewhat rare, were exemplary. There were a couple of aerial views of Paris at night (with the Eiffel Tower in the background) that highlighted them, along with excellent SHADOW DETAILS.


I wish I could nominate this for Tier Blu, I really do. But the heavy "orange and teal" did take away from the PQ in some ways (most notably in the FLESH TONES) and must be penalized for it. I also detected shots that became a tad soft. I'm siding with GRG in recommending Tier 1, though I'm bumping it up one notch....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## deltasun

Thanks again for the recommendation, Denny. Went ahead and ordered it with the 5% discount. Can't wait to get it and take it for a spin!


----------



## djoberg

You're more than welcome delta! I will look forward to your review.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Twin Dragons*


Compression city as with nearly all of Echo Bridge's Jackie Chan releases. Print damage is deplorable and colors are over saturated. This looks far more like a late '90s DVD encode than a Blu-ray.

*Tier 4.0**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Puss in Boots*


Depth is remarkable. Texture is superb. Color can be intense. It's animated and as usual, flawless.

*Tier 0.25**


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/21741052
> 
> *Puss in Boots*
> 
> 
> Depth is remarkable. Texture is superb. Color can be intense. It's animated and as usual, flawless.
> 
> *Tier 0.25**



How was the movie itself?


Have you seen _Immortals_ yet? I do want to see it ( especially to hear all the awesome bass on my new sub) and I'm wondering if it's worth purchasing.


----------



## Murilo

Immortals sound is fantastic, its video i found extremely nice at times, but other times dark scenes or black levels seemed to be off and crushed. I checked cinema squid and seen only 2 reviews available, one gave it perfect rating for video, the other discussed the black issues i seen.


Would be interested what people felt.


----------



## Murilo

Was the town ultimate cut really a re-encode? Can anyone do a bit rate scan of the ultimate, that will end this confusion.


----------



## djoberg

*Immortals*


HERE WE GO AGAIN! Another Tier Blu title, IMHO.


I couldn't resist picking up a copy of _Immortals_ while I was at my local Target store this morning. I had read, on the "New Master List of Bass in Movies Thread," that it had excellent bass with many scenes reaching subsonic levels and my new sub (SVS PC12-NSD) was begging me to get it. So...I succumbed!










The PQ was _almost_ as good as the bass, with exceptional SHARPNESS and DETAILS. For those of you who love seeing every wrinkle, pore, scar, bead of sweat, etc. in faces, you are in for the treat of your life with this title...Tier 0 all the way in that category. Details in general were phenomenal in most scenes, with craggy rocks, clothing, armor, etc. all creating the EYE CANDY we long for.


Let's talk about BLACK LEVELS. This movie is DARK throughout most of its 110 minute running time and I'm here to tell you that BLACKS were DEEP & INKY, with the exception of a few fleeting shots where *some* minor crush occurred. SHADOW DETAILS were also off the charts. I can't tell you how many scenes took place on a rocky cliff with a beautiful moon manifesting everything in sight.


COLORS were VIBRANT when primaries were shown. I just loved the velvety red cloaks of the oracles (4 women priests), especially a scene which took place in an outside temple room with a pool. They were rich and the white/almond colored wall in the background highlighted the strong CONTRAST this title also offered.


My only *nitpicks* would be the rare black crush mentioned above, a couple of cases of banding, and one soft shot that seemed to go out of focus. All of these were so fleeting, but I do feel constrained to mention them. There was also a golden hue at times, but in this case it didn't detract AT ALL from details, flesh tones, or anything else.


Bottom line: This is REFERENCE MATERIAL and I'll put it right here...

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (Between Grand Canyon Adventure and Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen)**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


PS Regarding the audio, there were multiple scenes where every piece of furniture in my Home Theater room was shaking! Bass Nirvana!!


----------



## djoberg

*The Double*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/21620422
> 
> *The Double*
> 
> 
> Lots of fine details in the main characters' faces. Excellent contrast throughout with satisfying black levels. Shadow details can be a bit touch and go, and seemed worse towards the latter half of the film.
> 
> 
> Skin tones vary, but do tend to flounder towards the warm side when indoors. Colors are vibrant without being saturated, though again, tends to warm up indoors also. Dimensionality is excellent in panoramic shots, but are not as pronounced in medium shots.
> 
> 
> Some slight ringing is noted in high contrast edges. Aside from these minor negatives, the picture is clean and full of details.
> 
> *Tire Recommendation: 1.75**
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_



I agree with *most* of deltasun's review.


My last two outings were both impeccable and worthy of Tier 0...not so with this one (but hey, two out of three ain't bad







). This one does have some mighty fine detail, especially, as delta noted, in facial close-ups. I really liked the close-up of the Russian in the prison with the scar (the HD was so good you could definitely tell the scar was NOT real







). Another telling shot was early on when they flashed back to a CIA office in Paris in 1988...Richard Gere is meeting with Martin Sheen and would you believe the facial texture was so good that he looked OLDER than he did in the present-day scenes?

















Black levels were good, but I noticed they faltered a bit towards the end. There were multiple *soft* shots in the car chase and the final scene in the warehouse, and these affected the blacks and shadow details big time.


Colors were satisfying; contrast was good; and flesh tones were, for the most part, spot on.


I said I agreed with most of deltasun's review and that includes his placement recommendation....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## Hughmc









Pay particular attention to the 30-35 second mark: http://cnettv.cnet.com/1606-13489_53...?tag=txt;title


----------



## Murilo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21744186
> 
> *Immortals*
> 
> 
> HERE WE GO AGAIN! Another Tier Blu title, IMHO.
> 
> 
> I couldn't resist picking up a copy of _Immortals_ while I was at my local Target store this morning. I had read, on the "New Master List of Bass in Movies Thread," that it had excellent bass with many scenes reaching subsonic levels and my new sub (SVS PC12-NSD) was begging me to get it. So...I succumbed!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The PQ was _almost_ as good as the bass, with exceptional SHARPNESS and DETAILS. For those of you who love seeing every wrinkle, pore, scar, bead of sweat, etc. in faces, you are in for the treat of your life with this title...Tier 0 all the way in that category. Details in general were phenomenal in most scenes, with craggy rocks, clothing, armor, etc. all creating the EYE CANDY we long for.
> 
> 
> Let's talk about BLACK LEVELS. This movie is DARK throughout most of its 110 minute running time and I'm here to tell you that BLACKS were DEEP & INKY, with the exception of a few fleeting shots where *some* minor crush occurred. SHADOW DETAILS were also off the charts. I can't tell you how many scenes took place on a rocky cliff with a beautiful moon manifesting everything in sight.
> 
> 
> COLORS were VIBRANT when primaries were shown. I just loved the velvety red cloaks of the oracles (4 women priests), especially a scene which took place in an outside temple room with a pool. They were rich and the white/almond colored wall in the background highlighted the strong CONTRAST this title also offered.
> 
> 
> My only *nitpicks* would be the rare black crush mentioned above, a couple of cases of banding, and one soft shot that seemed to go out of focus. All of these were so fleeting, but I do feel constrained to mention them. There was also a golden hue at times, but in this case it didn't detract AT ALL from details, flesh tones, or anything else.
> 
> 
> Bottom line: This is REFERENCE MATERIAL and I'll put it right here...
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (Between Grand Canyon Adventure and Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen)**
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'
> 
> 
> PS Regarding the audio, there were multiple scenes where every piece of furniture in my Home Theater room was shaking! Bass Nirvana!!



I dont feel you can give a movie like this tier 0 title due to the crushed blacks, it was much more then the odd scene but frequent and distracting especially at the beginning. I know some love inky blacks but when it crushes details its not good. Currently on cinemasquid it has an average ranking of 89 for video.


I would put it someone in the tier 1 range, but I dont do reviews on here, but thats just something i think should be considered. Here is a quote from one reviewer that sums up how i felt.


"Immortals appears in an aspect ratio of approximately 1.85:1 on this Blu-Ray Disc. Though usually excellent, some parts of the image disappointed.


My only concern related to blacks and shadows. Dark elements tended to be a bit inky, and low-light shots – of which we found many – were often quite tough to discern. While I got the impression this was a stylistic choice found in the original photography, it still created a distraction. Frankly, I got tired of attempting to figure out what was happening in all the murk.


Without the muddy shadows and blacks, this would’ve been an “A” transfer, but those elements distracted too much for a grade above a “B”; probable director’s intent or not, a flawed image is a flawed image."


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/21745465
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pay particular attention to the 30-35 second mark: http://cnettv.cnet.com/1606-13489_53...?tag=txt;title



Thanks Hugh....it's good to know that this thread is being recognized and even influencing "some in high places."


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Murilo* /forum/post/21745871
> 
> 
> I dont feel you can give a movie like this tier 0 title due to the crushed blacks, it was much more then the odd scene but frequent and distracting especially at the beginning. I know some love inky blacks but when it crushes details its not good. Currently on cinemasquid it has an average ranking of 89 for video.
> 
> 
> I would put it someone in the tier 1 range, but I dont do reviews on here, but thats just something i think should be considered. Here is a quote from one reviewer that sums up how i felt.
> 
> 
> "Immortals appears in an aspect ratio of approximately 1.85:1 on this Blu-Ray Disc. Though usually excellent, some parts of the image disappointed.
> 
> 
> My only concern related to blacks and shadows. Dark elements tended to be a bit inky, and low-light shots – of which we found many – were often quite tough to discern. While I got the impression this was a stylistic choice found in the original photography, it still created a distraction. Frankly, I got tired of attempting to figure out what was happening in all the murk.
> 
> 
> Without the muddy shadows and blacks, this would’ve been an “A” transfer, but those elements distracted too much for a grade above a “B”; probable director’s intent or not, a flawed image is a flawed image."



Are you ready for a "tit for tat?" Here's what _another_ reviewer had to say about black levels and shadow details on Cinema's site:


"Blacks are superb and shadow details never lacking."


That, my friend, is what I, for the most part, experienced. I did allude to a few "fleeting shots" that had "some minor crush," but this is NOT what the reviewer you quoted experienced.


Let me just say that I had read all the reviews on Cinema's site BEFORE my viewing of _Immortals_ and so I was more than ready to be disappointed with the black levels and shadow details, based on what a few said. Thus I was pleasantly surprised to find the blacks deep with excellent shadow details in all but a few, rare shots.


So, why is there such a difference among viewers' experiences? I hate to bring this subject up Murilo, but it *may* just boil down to one's display. I have a calibrated Pioneer KURO plasma, which, as you may know, excels in black levels and shadow details. I'm surely not saying I don't ever experience poor blacks or shadow details, but if a title is extremely DARK throughout (like _Immortals_), it will take a good, calibrated display like this to bring out the *good* that is there.


Let me add, as long as we're talking about this, that the same can be said when one is viewing a title with extreme WHITES. I recently viewed _The Art of Flight_ and most of the 81 minute running has incredible white snow taking up most of your display. Reviewers on Cinema's site and elsewhere said that if you don't have a good, calibrated display that excels in good contrast, you're going to have issues with this film.


I want to be perfectly clear that I'm not trying to start a "display war" with these words. I'm just trying to reconcile the seeming differences viewers are having with this title regarding black levels and shadow details. If I have time today I will view some of _Immortals_ on my Samsung LCD display upstairs. That display is not as good as my Pioneer when it comes to black levels and shadow details, so it would be interesting to compare the two.


----------



## Murilo

My projector is also professionally calibrated and I have never had this issue on any other movie that I am aware of, i think zodiac some might complain about crushed blacks but if it does occur it is very rare and i have never seen anything quite like this.


That review you linked to also is from just another forum user. Many of the professional review sites claim the picture is absolutely stunning, and i agree. They agree blacks are inky, however besides that one review from a forum user they all deduct points for the crushed blacks in some scenes. Other then that they completely agree with everything else you said.



There should be no argument, you mentioned there is crushed blacks at times, I said so as well. A display should properly show that detail if its calibrated properly it should show that detail above reference black. I dont want to get into a calibration argument.




I feel it should not be tier 0 given that there is crushed blacks, and you feel it should, i think the argument here is clearly down to personal opinion on how much weight you feel that holds. I will wait and see what others have to say, not just on here but the screen engineers as well. This will be my last post on the subject.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Murilo* /forum/post/21746346
> 
> 
> My projector is also professionally calibrated and *I have never had this issue on any other movie* that I am aware of, i think zodiac some might complain about crushed blacks but if it does occur it is very rare and i have never seen anything quite like this.
> 
> 
> There should be no argument, you mentioned there is crushed blacks at times, I said so as well. A display should properly show that detail if its calibrated properly. I dont want to get into a calibration argument.
> 
> 
> I feel it should not be tier 0 given that there is crushed blacks, and you feel it should.



First of all, is it really true that you "have never had this issue on any other movie?" You are saying that you've only experienced crushed blacks on _Immortals_ and _Zodiac_? If so, all the more power to you, for I've experienced crushed blacks on quite a few films.


Regarding your last point, I DO sympathize with your thinking that a title that has *some* crushed blacks should not be placed in Tier 0. If we take the criteria for this thread literally in every case, that would be so. But as you look over all the titles in Tier Blu you will NOT see ANY that has absolute perfection in every area. Take, for example, the _Pirates of the Caribbean_ series. They are most definitely reference quality Blu-rays that deserve a spot in Tier 0 and _yet_ they are NOT without issues, one of them being that in some of the "nighttime" or "indoor" scenes you have a loss of detail (i.e. black crush). You can go up and down the whole list of titles and you will find, without fail, some imperfections in each of them (even some of the coveted animated titles in Tier Blu have brief instances of banding at times), and if we were to demand absolute perfection THERE WOULDN'T BE A TIER BLU!


----------



## Gamereviewgod

I had few crush issues with Immortals when I watched it last night. I have far more of an issue with the color palette which will kill it from top tier contention for me. But that's a review for another day.

*Young Adult*

Black levels can lack some density but generally perform up to par. Clean and clear, the digital source doesn't suffer from any noise and keeps the detail flying. Some aliasing issues disappear later in the film, and the muted color palette won't win it any fans here.

*Tier 2.0**


----------



## Murilo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21746460
> 
> 
> First of all, is it really true that you "have never had this issue on any other movie?" You are saying that you've only experienced crushed blacks on _Immortals_ and _Zodiac_? If so, all the more power to you, for I've experienced crushed blacks on quite a few films.
> 
> 
> Regarding your last point, I DO sympathize with your thinking that a title that has *some* crushed blacks should not be placed in Tier 0. If we take the criteria for this thread literally in every case, that would be so. But as you look over all the titles in Tier Blu you will NOT see ANY that has absolute perfection in every area. Take, for example, the _Pirates of the Caribbean_ series. They are most definitely reference quality Blu-rays that deserve a spot in Tier 0 and _yet_ they are NOT without issues, one of them being that in some of the "nighttime" or "indoor" scenes you have a loss of detail (i.e. black crush). You can go up and down the whole list of titles and you will find, without fail, some imperfections in each of them (even some of the coveted animated titles in Tier Blu have brief instances of banding at times), and if we were to demand absolute perfection THERE WOULDN'T BE A TIER BLU!



Hold on here when I said "have never had this issue on any other movie" I have seen crushed blacks but what I said after that

never to this extent, I have never had crushed blacks as problematic as this on any other movie, i have seen black level issues in many films and zodiac was the only one that were as problematic that i could remember off the top of my head but as I said "nothing quite like this" which means I have not seen black crush become such an issue that it is a permanent distraction like this film at times, except for maybe zodiac but from memory zodiac was not this bad. Keep in mind im doing this all from memory. And zodiac is one of my favorite transfers but it is not in tier 0 for that reason.


I will probably forget this one to since the movie was not at all memorable.


I dont agree with all of those tier 0 titles. This issue however is to big for me to look past and were back at square 1, I feel this issue is much more problematic then you seem to feel.


Looks like the poster above feels somewhat the same, I will wait for his review.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Murilo* /forum/post/21746555
> 
> 
> I dont agree with all of those tier 0 titles. This issue however is to big for me to look past and were back at square 1, I feel this issue is much more problematic then you seem to feel.
> 
> *Looks like the poster above feels somewhat the same*, I will wait for his review.



First of all. GRG said in his post above, "I had *few* crush issues with _Immortals_..." and then he went on to say he had *more* issues with the color palette. So, I really don't believe he "feels somewhat the same" as you do about the black levels. But perhaps you weren't thinking of the black levels when you made that statement...but that GRG feels, "the same as you," that there is something preventing it from being a Tier 0 contender.


Murilo, I don't know you, but I respect your opinion and I believe you sincerely had problems with the blacks in your viewing of _Immortals_. I can't explain why you had so many problems with it and I didn't. I mentioned the "display" factor because that *can* make a difference in the experiences people have watching the same movie. I've said this before, and I'll say it again, "This is one of those times that I wish you and I could sit down together with the same viewing conditions (same display, same lighting conditions, same distance, etc.) and then see if we are that far off in our conclusions."


One more thing. You said you don't agree with all of the Tier 0 titles. That's okay. As you know from reading this thread there is often disagreement among posters on any given title, but we submit our reviews with placement recommendations and then a consensus is formed (for good or evil







). That's how it works and I have come to accept it, even though there are definitely some titles that I believe are misplaced. I would encourage you to start submitting reviews so your *voice* (and vote) can be heard more loudly.


----------



## rusky_g

......and on that note

*Hugo


Top of tier 0*


2 crisp pints of fine Italian beer at my local, and the need to write a review ensues...


So. Hugo. An astounding, enveloping, jaw dropping festival of HD delights. Whatever flaws others have felt with this tilte, for me, are blinded by how bright the good moments shine.


The re-definition of _high definition_


Optoma HD 65 @ 11' via HTPC


----------



## djoberg

*Straw Dogs (2011)*


Well, my *luck* was bound to run out. The PQ on this title doesn't come close to demo material, though it has its moments where you can still appreciate the fact that it's a Blu-ray.


The GOOD came in the daytime, outdoor scenes of the countryside/woods, which featured a fair amount of details, warm and natural-looking colors, spot on flesh tones, and good contrast.


The BAD came in *most* nighttime scenes and indoor scenes, where blacks became murky resulting in a flat picture void of details. The last 20 minutes were actually horrendous, where black levels suffered the most. It almost appeared as if heavy grain was present (or noise) and colors, details, and flesh tones were all but lost.


I would be remiss if I didn't mention that during the daytime/outdoor scenes it had a nice *filmic* look, and one longed for this to remain constant. But inconsistency reigned from scene to scene.


One review has been offered thus far and he gave it a 2.75. I don't believe it's worthy of that tier but I'm willing to put it at the top of the average bin...

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## djoberg

*Drive*


What a blessing to "get back on track" (i.e. to be in demo territory again)! This excelled in details, especially my "first love" (facial close-ups), but not limited to them.


Black levels and shadow details were exquisite, with quite a few nighttime scenes to highlight them (including a couple aerial views of the city that were pristine). I did detect *some* noise in one scene, but it was brief.


Colors were so-so, but when primaries were pumped up they were pure EYE CANDY.


Depth and clarity were reference quality at times.


I'm calling it a night for Blu-rays (though I have two more to view tomorrow night...._Killer Elite_ and _Paranormal Activity 3_, so you're not rid of me yet







).


This easily falls into Tier 1, somewhere in the middle....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


PS I REALLY enjoyed this movie! The acting and pacing were perfect, and it had a beautiful, haunting soundtrack.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/21745465
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pay particular attention to the 30-35 second mark: http://cnettv.cnet.com/1606-13489_53...?tag=txt;title



That adds a degree of credibility to the PQ Tiers to find out CNET is using it to make a Top-40 Blu-ray list. Next thing you know sites are going to start poaching the talent from the thread.










> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Murilo* /forum/post/21746346
> 
> 
> My projector is also professionally calibrated and I have never had this issue on any other movie that I am aware of, i think zodiac some might complain about crushed blacks but if it does occur it is very rare and i have never seen anything quite like this.
> 
> 
> That review you linked to also is from just another forum user. Many of the professional review sites claim the picture is absolutely stunning, and i agree. They agree blacks are inky, however besides that one review from a forum user they all deduct points for the crushed blacks in some scenes. Other then that they completely agree with everything else you said.
> 
> 
> I feel it should not be tier 0 given that there is crushed blacks, and you feel it should, i think the argument here is clearly down to personal opinion on how much weight you feel that holds. I will wait and see what others have to say, not just on here but the screen engineers as well. This will be my last post on the subject.



Murilo, you appear to have a grasp of the concepts used to rank movies for the PQ Tiers with a solid frame of reference. You might as well put forward a definitive score for *Immortals* to have your voice heard in its ranking.


----------



## deltasun

A few quick thoughts...


Watched Immortals this morning and The Art of Flight (yes, it arrived!) this afternoon.

With Immortals, it wasn't so much the black crush but the shadow details. I felt on a number of scenes, the contrast was off and did not reflect too many details.


The Art of Flight was definite eye candy (and yeah, ear/chest candy). The only complaint I have is the over-sharpened look, heavy shimmer in a number of scenes. It will definitely be Tier Blu. Denny - thanks again for the recommendation. Happy to have it in my collection!


----------



## Murilo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21746704
> 
> 
> First of all. GRG said in his post above, "I had *few* crush issues with _Immortals_..." and then he went on to say he had *more* issues with the color palette. So, I really don't believe he "feels somewhat the same" as you do about the black levels. But perhaps you weren't thinking of the black levels when you made that statement...but that GRG feels, "the same as you," that there is something preventing it from being a Tier 0 contender.
> 
> 
> Murilo, I don't know you, but I respect your opinion and I believe you sincerely had problems with the blacks in your viewing of _Immortals_. I can't explain why you had so many problems with it and I didn't. I mentioned the "display" factor because that *can* make a difference in the experiences people have watching the same movie. I've said this before, and I'll say it again, "This is one of those times that I wish you and I could sit down together with the same viewing conditions (same display, same lighting conditions, same distance, etc.) and then see if we are that far off in our conclusions."
> 
> 
> One more thing. You said you don't agree with all of the Tier 0 titles. That's okay. As you know from reading this thread there is often disagreement among posters on any given title, but we submit our reviews with placement recommendations and then a consensus is formed (for good or evil
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ). That's how it works and I have come to accept it, even though there are definitely some titles that I believe are misplaced. I would encourage you to start submitting reviews so your *voice* (and vote) can be heard more loudly.



Just to clarify i really enjoy these tier rankings, and check it often, so I hope i did not sound negative or like i could do any better.


I also need to make clear it was not like the entire movie had crushed blacks throughout, I noticed it mainly at the beginning i think i posted that in my first post, so I agree with the poster who said he had a few crush issues. It was not to the point I said this movie looks unacceptable... However i dont feel it qualifies for tier 0. Zodiac also had a few black crush scenes and thats the reason I was told why its not in tier 0 back in the day. I also consider zodiac one of the best transfers i have seen as well but also agree it should not be quite demo material for that reason.


I will leave it to the other reviewers though you guys do a great job, im more curious how others feel. I would put it in tier 1 somewhere.


----------



## Murilo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/21749598
> 
> 
> A few quick thoughts...
> 
> 
> Watched Immortals this morning and The Art of Flight (yes, it arrived!) this afternoon.
> 
> With Immortals, it wasn't so much the black crush but the shadow details. I felt on a number of scenes, the contrast was off and did not reflect too many details.
> 
> 
> The Art of Flight was definite eye candy (and yeah, ear/chest candy). The only complaint I have is the over-sharpened look, heavy shimmer in a number of scenes. It will definitely be Tier Blu. Denny - thanks again for the recommendation. Happy to have it in my collection!



I just assumed crushed blacks would include crushing dark shadow detail as the gradation of black seemed similar in shadows to actual black area's of the film a "few" times. Maybe my definition of it is a bit to broad.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Murilo* /forum/post/21750140
> 
> 
> I just assumed crushed blacks would include crushing dark shadow detail as the gradation of black seemed similar in shadows to actual black area's of the film a "few" times. Maybe my definition of it is a bit to broad.



No, you're right - they are caused by the same (usually), which is contrast. I just wanted to focus on the shadow details more because it's what bothered me the most. Crushing blacks can be tolerable at times (so long as it's not too extreme) since there is nothing significant to see related to the story. It's usually closer to aesthetics (e.g., seeing texture). Lack of shadow details on the other hand can make it difficult to follow what's going on, especially when there's action.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*My Week with Marilyn*


I've never seen black levels do this. With one edit, they go from flat and pale to brilliant and deep, then back again. It's distracting. Colors are pale and lifeless for effect, saturated during a few moments meant to instill a sense of happiness. Detail can be firm, and other times lost to a slightly hazy style.

*Tier 2.75**


----------



## djoberg

*Killer Elite*


It was inevitable that my "lucky streak" would come to an end (I've been SO blessed lately with reference/demo titles).


DRAB is the word that comes to mind as I begin the review on this action/political thriller, and the color palette fits that description to a tee. There are no bold primaries to extol and most of the running time you meet with the typical "teal" that comes with this genre.


Details *can* be good, especially when the camera-man chose to zoom in. Facial close-ups revealed a fair amount of stubble, pores, etc., but they never veered into Tier Blu territory.


Contrast was really WEAK, resulting, again, in a very *drab* look. Having said that, there were some nighttime scenes where the the contrast picked up creating some impressive black levels and shadow details. But these were the exception and not the rule.


Along with the rare exceptions just alluded to, there were a few daytime scenes that rose to the occasion and produced some impressive sharpness and clarity, though it was fleeting. So, inconsistency also marked this title.


Everything else that could be said about this could be summed up by the word MEDIOCRE; in fact, all things considered that's what this title was...AVERAGE. That being said, it fits nicely in the *average* tier, so my vote goes for....

*Tier Recommendation: 3.25**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## amarshonarbangla

Is it me or does the Jack and Jill bluray really has incredible PQ?


----------



## djoberg

*Paranormal Activity 3*


Most of the *footage* of this title is theoretically from the late '80s on VHS, so "what can you expect?" Not much! It is...what it is...a film that looks like it was filmed on VHS (though a tad better because it REALLY was filmed on HD).


Let me just say that I gave PA1 a 3.75 rating...PA2 a 4.0 rating...and because this one is almost a carbon copy of the other two...and I can't split the dfference...I'm going to compromise a bit and give it a....

*Tier Recommendation: 3.75**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


PS I'm not going to apologize for not going into details on this film, for quite frankly...THERE ARE NO DETAILS! It looks like a smoothed over Home Video at times...and the rest of the time it is gritty...noisy...murky...well, you get the picture.


----------



## mweflen

*Hugo*

I must respectfully disagree with criticisms of the color palette, and that it is sufficient to drop this out of tier 0. The palette is not the "orange and teal" of bad shot-on-digital movies like "Superman Returns" or awful Michael Bay-style action movies. It is a very specific choice by Scorsese intended to evoke the two-strip technicolor process of the early 20th century (similar to

"Aviator," another disc I think is rated a bit low here). And just as a black and white film (such as "Sin City" for example) can be eye candy of the highest order, I see no reason why another intentional palette choice cannot be.


Anyway, this is easily the best looking shot-on-digital live action movie ever committed to Blu-Ray. The Arri Alexa camera must be light years ahead of the PanaVision cameras that were responsible for the look of Star Wars ep 2, Superman Returns, and so on. The detail is unreal. If anything, it's TOO detailed, because Scorsese's panning shots leave you breathless trying to soak it all in. Dust motes, cloth textures, facial detail, it is all absolutely top rate. Digital noise (e.g. mosquito noise) is completely absent, even in very dark shots. Fine gradations of color are superb - the shot of the light passing through the station superintendent's ears were amazing to look at. Basically, this seems to have all of the strengths of good film stock, and none of the weaknesses that had plagued digital to this point.


This is one of those discs that is unequivocally high definition. No one, not even the biggest "I can't tell the difference" or "DVD is just fine" dullard could feasibly deny that this is HD. It's spectacular. This new camera, in the hands of competent creative staff, spells a new era for shot-on-digital movies.

*Tier Recommendation: 0 (above "Up")*

Sony KDL52EX700, 6 foot viewing distance (I could not bring myself to sit further)


----------



## rusky_g

Nice write up M! Your words was what I was trying to say...damn those after work beers


----------



## drewtang14

Anybody check out Game of Thrones yet? It looks pretty spectacular. I'm new to this thread so I'm going to hold off on a rating, but I'd say it probably deserves a spot somewhere in tier blu. I urge everyone to check this out. Great audio too.


----------



## upstate-avfan-da




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *drewtang14* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Anybody check out Game of Thrones yet? It looks pretty spectacular. I'm new to this thread so I'm going to hold off on a rating, but I'd say it probably deserves a spot somewhere in tier blu. I urge everyone to check this out. Great audio too.



I picked up the set, love it. HBO puts a lot into the BD releases now.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Justice League: Doom
*

recommendation: *Tier 1.25**


Another direct-to-video animated feature from Warner Bros. that looks suitably impressive. The banding problems that creep into these type of productions seems to have been fixed in this one. The artwork is clean and fluid, though there is some troubling inconsistency limited to how Superman is drawn from scene to scene.


Color saturation is slightly less intense than usual up against other animated DC features on BD.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Pixies Live: Acoustic and Electric*


recommendation: *Tier 3.0**

_Pixies Live_ is actually a compilation of two separate performances, one an outdoor show in Newport and the other a show at a club in Boston. So a perfect ranking would give each show its own evaluation, but both are close enough in picture quality that tier 3.0 fairly ranks the entire BD.


The Boston show appears shot in the standard 1080i high-definition video that is so common with live concerts. It has some crispness and detail to the image, but shows some of the problems with rushed digital video like noise and limited shadow detail. The outdoor show in Newport has much less detail and shows traits of being shot on film.


These concerts are both worth viewing on Blu-ray, but they will not wow experienced HD-viewers.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *drewtang14* /forum/post/21760530
> 
> 
> Anybody check out Game of Thrones yet? It looks pretty spectacular. I'm new to this thread so I'm going to hold off on a rating, but I'd say it probably deserves a spot somewhere in tier blu. I urge everyone to check this out. Great audio too.



I just finished the series and it does look great in HD, in general. However, it's got some inconsistencies and feel it doesn't quite cut it into Tier Blu.


I will post some reviews once I get some time. I have a few BDs that need to be written up as well.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Scarface*


Clear signs of sharpening and DNR at work. Color saturation is boosted well past any natural state. Some fine detail is left in close, while everything else muddies up. Black crush is a constant bother too.

*Tier 3.75*


----------



## upstate-avfan-da




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Scarface
> 
> 
> Clear signs of sharpening and DNR at work. Color saturation is boosted well past any natural state. Some fine detail is left in close, while everything else muddies up. Black crush is a constant bother too.
> 
> 
> Tier 3.75



How would you compare to most other transfers of older movies? I've always been hesitant to buy BD of anything 80's and older.


----------



## pbarach




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *upstate-avfan-da* /forum/post/21763569
> 
> 
> How would you compare to most other transfers of older movies? I've always been hesitant to buy BD of anything 80's and older.



Transfers of older movies are variable in quality. A couple of good ones from the 60s are "It's a Mad Mad World" and (except for a minor goof in transferring a fade-in from the opening credits to a helicopter shot over NYC) "West Side Story." The BD transfer of Citizen Kane (1941) has a much wider range of detail in shadows and an overall sharper (without overdoing it) image compared to prior transfers to DVD.


A good place for some comparisons of various titles (DVD to BD) is http://www.dvdbeaver.com


----------



## upstate-avfan-da




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pbarach* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> 
> Transfers of older movies are variable in quality. A couple of good ones from the 60s are "It's a Mad Mad World" and (except for a minor goof in transferring a fade-in from the opening credits to a helicopter shot over NYC) "West Side Story." The BD transfer of Citizen Kane (1941) has a much wider range of detail in shadows and an overall sharper (without overdoing it) image compared to prior transfers to DVD.
> 
> 
> A good place for some comparisons of various titles (DVD to BD) is http://www.dvdbeaver.com



Awesome, thanks for the link!


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *upstate-avfan-da* /forum/post/21763569
> 
> 
> How would you compare to most other transfers of older movies? I've always been hesitant to buy BD of anything 80's and older.



Stuff like African Queen, Twilight Zone, White Christmas, and others will blow your mind at how good older films can look on Blu-ray. Anything pushed out by Universal (like Scarface)? Not so much.


Edit: And yes, DVDBeaver always offers great comparison shots.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *upstate-avfan-da* /forum/post/21763569
> 
> 
> How would you compare to most other transfers of older movies? I've always been hesitant to buy BD of anything 80's and older.



I have several EXCELLENT transfers of older movies, including _The Sound of Music_, _How The West Was Won_, _The Exorcist_, _Ben Hur_, _Dr. No_, and _From Russia With Love_.


----------



## upstate-avfan-da

Nice , I had always been skeptical if they would be worth it.


I can't get the rankings link to work from the AVS app.... anyone else?


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *upstate-avfan-da* /forum/post/21769777
> 
> 
> I can't get the rankings link to work from the AVS app.... anyone else?



I assume you are referring to the iPhone app for the forum? The Tiers page is huge and I've seen older desktop computers with limited RAM choke on loading it. That could be one possibility. Thinking about the situation for those who want to access the PQ Tiers on a phone or tablet, I could post the entire Tiers in plain text on Google docs. That would make it readable for those who need a quick check of it away from home on a smartphone. I could see it being a handy guide when browsing at a store before purchase.


----------



## upstate-avfan-da




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> I assume you are referring to the iPhone app for the forum? The Tiers page is huge and I've seen older desktop computers with limited RAM choke on loading it. That could be one possibility. Thinking about the situation for those who want to access the PQ Tiers on a phone or tablet, I could post the entire Tiers in plain text on Google docs. That would make it readable for those who need a quick check of it away from home on a smartphone. I could see it being a handy guide when browsing at a store before purchase.



Im using the android app... just hangs on loading notification.


Google doc link would be awesome since it would open native on my phone and tablet 


I rarely come to the forum from my desktop since the app is so handy.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Immortals*


Some great stuff here, especially facial detail and black levels, but we've been there already in this thread. Complaints include the annoying fake visuals effects, likely so to give them added pop in 3D. In 2D, it looks like an early 3D video game. On top of that, the whole thing is golden orange. No other primaries really exist, so it's flattened quite a bit.

*Tier 1.25**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Three Musketeers (2011)*


WOW. Stunning, vivid, vibrant, sharp, and clear. In other words, top tier material. Facial detail is lacking, but it retains a natural look. The winner here are the costumes, stunningly complex yet never succumbing to flicker. Castle interiors feel immense and staggering in complexity. Colors are bright and saturated, while contrast and black levels deepen the image. Almost totally flawless.

*Tier 0.75**


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/21776635
> 
> *Three Musketeers (2011)*
> 
> 
> WOW. Stunning, vivid, vibrant, sharp, and clear. In other words, top tier material. Facial detail is lacking, but it retains a natural look. The winner here are the costumes, stunningly complex yet never succumbing to flicker. Castle interiors feel immense and staggering in complexity. Colors are bright and saturated, while contrast and black levels deepen the image. Almost totally flawless.
> 
> *Tier 0.75**



That's good to hear GRG! I also read that the AQ is reference too...and that the movie itself is *fun* (and not to be taken seriously). Would you agree with these assessments?


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21777785
> 
> 
> That's good to hear GRG! I also read that the AQ is reference too...and that the movie itself is *fun* (and not to be taken seriously). Would you agree with these assessments?



Yeah. Very boomy, low-end heavy mix. Movie is fun with a few lulls. Clearly a lot of money was put into this one, making the costumes and sets shine. Action scenes are hilariously cheesy.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Descendants*


Pleasing, warm color palette accentuates flesh tones and gives plenty of oomph. Light grain is mild and never intrusive to the encode. Beautiful exteriors give the location life and close-ups are generally appealing. Medium shots flatten just a bit detail wise.

*Tier 1.75**


----------



## mweflen

*The Debt*

DJO's review is accurate. The color palette is drab, and the black levels are slightly inconsistent over the course of the movie. While this is appropriate to the setting in East Germany, it does not exactly lend itself to eye candy. However, there is average-for-the-format-detail at all times, and above average detail on faces. There is commendable absence of EE, DNR, Moire and Banding. So I can only conclude that this is a decent transfer of a rather average looking movie. As such, it rates as perfectly average given the tiers.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*


Sony KDL52EX700, 8 foot viewing distance


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Jack and Jill*


Blah. Superb color and awesome black levels. That's all well and good. Everything else? Flat. Medium shots are murky, facial definition is only passable in a handful of scenes, and some stock shots are sharpened. Katie Holmes clearly has some smoothing applied.

*Tier 2.75**


----------



## djoberg

I just purchased a copy of _The Adventures of Tintin_ and I hope to view it this weekend with a few of my young grandchildren. Needless to say, I'm excited to see the PQ after reading GRG's glowing review!


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Casablanca - 70th Anniversary Edition*


Remastered at 4K, the differences between the prior release is... negligible. The way this was captured, with smoky interiors and a romantic haze, doesn't let much in the way of fine detail through. I doubt even an 8K scan will help make this compete against the best B&W material. Differences though include a better resolved grain structure and far better gray scale.

*Tier 3.75**


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/20615588
> 
> *American Graffiti*
> 
> Would have been a lot better had Universal left well enough alone. Edge enhancement is rampant, elevating grain and creating halos. A little color bleed isn't the end of the world. Grain spikes are resolved well. The source print is superb, making it a further disgrace that the studio tampered with it.
> *Tier 3.75**


*American Graffiti*


Although I agree that this was on the edgy side of good, and that this led to some odd grain behavior, overall this was pretty decent. Only dark scenes without a lot of contrast really suffered from mosquito noise. When there was something bright on the screen (colorful cars, neon lights, etc.) this really popped in a pleasing "eye candy" sort of way. Detail is pleasing but not overwhelming.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*


----------



## djoberg

*The Adventures of Tintin*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/21718775
> 
> *The Adventures of Tintin*
> 
> 
> An absolute marvel that should dominate this thread. Fantastic, rich texture. Brilliant, popping colors. Flawless, rich black levels. Outstanding bright, vivid contrast. Immense, perfect dimensionality. Short of some limited aliasing, this is perfect.
> 
> *Tier 0** (above Avatar)



First of all, I reserve the right to change my mind after a second viewing (which may not happen for a good while). I say this because I had 5 grandchildren and my son-in-law viewing this with me and I decided to play the "gracious host" and give them the best viewing positions. I was at considerable distance from my "sweet spot" (off-axis) and I'm not sure I had my normal "discerning eyes."


Having said that, what I did experience pretty much coincided with GRG's except I also noticed some fleeting *softness* on a couple of occasions (though this appeared to be the director's intent due to the lighting employed).


I was REALLY impressed with the PHOTOREALISM! If they had not chosen to give many of the characters a "caricature-look," it would have been SO REAL it could have passed for a non-animated film in some scenes.


Details abounded...colors jumped off the screen...and contrast exploded with a dazzling display. I simply LOVED the black levels, with nighttime scenes that rendered shadow details flawlessly.


I'm NOT completely sure this deserves SECOND PLACE (above _Avatar_), but it's mighty close. So, until I do give this a second viewing, I'll echo GRG's recommendation and place it here...

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (below Toy Story 3)**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 6.5'


----------



## lgans316

*In Time*


Detailed but not a fan of the aesthetics. Great concept but very average execution.

*Recommendation: Tier 1.75*

*Real Steel*


Crisp and detailed. Very impressive. No major complaints here. A different movie but a bit of a letdown as the story felt too light.

*Recommendation: Tier 1 or 0.75*


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21792916
> 
> *The Adventures of Tintin*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, I reserve the right to change my mind after a second viewing (which may not happen for a good while). I say this because I had 5 grandchildren and my son-in-law viewing this with me and I decided to play the "gracious host" and give them the best viewing positions. I was at considerable distance from my "sweet spot" (off-axis) and I'm not sure I had my normal "discerning eyes."
> 
> 
> Having said that, what I did experience pretty much coincided with GRG's except I also noticed some fleeting *softness* on a couple of occasions (though this appeared to be the director's intent due to the lighting employed).
> 
> 
> I was REALLY impressed with the PHOTOREALISM! If they had not chosen to give many of the characters a "caricature-look," it would have been SO REAL it could have passed for a non-animated film in some scenes.
> 
> 
> Details abounded...colors jumped off the screen...and contrast exploded with a dazzling display. I simply LOVED the black levels, with nighttime scenes that rendered shadow details flawlessly.
> 
> 
> I'm NOT completely sure this deserves SECOND PLACE (above _Avatar_), but it's mighty close. So, until I do give this a second viewing, I'll echo GRG's recommendation and place it here...
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (below Toy Story 3)**
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 6.5'



This is one of those cases where you and I disagree, Denny.


Looks very nice, certainly but to my eyes it looks about *Tier 1.0**


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99* /forum/post/21797231
> 
> 
> This is one of those cases where you and I disagree, Denny.
> 
> 
> Looks very nice, certainly but to my eyes it looks about *Tier 1.0**



What were the *negatives* that you observed patrick?


Again, I will have to view this again in my "sweet spot," for with me being so far "off axis," and with grand kids screaming during all of the action shots, I wasn't in the best position or frame of mind for critical viewing. You may very well be right in your assessment patrick....I won't say anymore until I give it a second viewing.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21798151
> 
> 
> Again, I will have to view this again in my "sweet spot," for with me being so far "off axis," and with grand kids screaming during all of the action shots, I wasn't in the best position or frame of mind for critical viewing. You may very well be right in your assessment patrick....I won't say anymore until I give it a second viewing.



I'll definitely admit for myself it becomes much tougher to make a critical evaluation when not watching from my preferred seating location, straight-on from the middle of the display. I would even add a preferred viewing height in relation to where I'm sitting. The change in perspective sometimes needs to be taken into account.


On the highest placements in Tier Zero, I tend to go back after the first viewing and spot-check scenes from a much closer distance of 3' to the screen, to closely examine how much detail is actually present. The differences are so minute at the top of the Tiers that it sometimes takes that effort.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/21798268
> 
> 
> I'll definitely admit for myself it becomes much tougher to make a critical evaluation when not watching from my preferred seating location, straight-on from the middle of the display. I would even add a preferred viewing height in relation to where I'm sitting. The change in perspective sometimes needs to be taken into account.
> 
> 
> On the highest placements in Tier Zero, I tend to go back after the first viewing and spot-check scenes from a much closer distance of 3' to the screen, to closely examine how much detail is actually present. The differences are so minute at the top of the Tiers that it sometimes takes that effort.



I agree wholeheartedly Phantom. It is so RARE that I have to sit where I did for the viewing of _The Adventures of Tintin_, that I must confess I really felt like a "fish out of water." And like I said, I had some loud, animated grandchildren that were distracting me as well, so my review was, undoubtedly, premature. I will try to watch this again in the near future and give another quick review.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21798151
> 
> 
> What were the *negatives* that you observed patrick?
> 
> 
> Again, I will have to view this again in my "sweet spot," for with me being so far "off axis," and with grand kids screaming during all of the action shots, I wasn't in the best position or frame of mind for critical viewing. You may very well be right in your assessment patrick....I won't say anymore until I give it a second viewing.



Surely you can guess what are likely to be negatives for me, Denny. The detail and clarity were not as consistent as I would expect to see in a Tier 0 placement. Some shots were unquestionably outstanding, like, for example, closeups of the unicorn at the front of the model ships. If there had been more shots like that, I could understand and endorse a higher placement.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Happy Feet Two*


Pretty, gorgeous except for a smeary texture or two. Krill are stunning with their oranges and transparencies. Background colors are striking, and depth is superb. Amazing compression job too.
*Tier 0.75**


----------



## rusky_g




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mister1* /forum/post/21795608
> 
> 
> I must strongly disagree. A solid tier 1, yes. But absolutely not a zero. It doesn't look like film at all; *more like a film/video hybrid*. There is obvious smearing of details in the night time panorama shots. The complete absence of film grain is glorious, however.
> 
> 
> There is a seemingly endless series of facial closeups which might bias results a bit as well.




You disagree away, this thread encourages the individual's opinion










My placement, however, remains


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Muppets*


While black levels lose their full impact at times and there's some smoothing on Amy Adams that sticks out, this is a superb presentation. Colors are immense and the texture on the puppets is absolutely perfect. Medium shots capture the same definition as the close-ups. Noise doesn't clog up the image, and clarity is consistent.

*Tier 1.5**


Oh, and best movie ever.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Sitter*


Typical of modern comedies. Saturated heavily with a slight orange tint to the flesh tones. Detail is passable if inconsistent. Black levels are the problem area, washing out into a definite blue. The grain structure is fine and resolved cleanly.

*Tier 2.5**


----------



## djoberg

*The Three Musketeers (2011)*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/21776635
> 
> *Three Musketeers (2011)*
> 
> 
> WOW. Stunning, vivid, vibrant, sharp, and clear. In other words, top tier material. Facial detail is lacking, but it retains a natural look. The winner here are the costumes, stunningly complex yet never succumbing to flicker. Castle interiors feel immense and staggering in complexity. Colors are bright and saturated, while contrast and black levels deepen the image. Almost totally flawless.
> 
> *Tier 0.75**



What he said...and THEN SOME!!!! How can one add to the superlatives used by GRG? CLARITY and DEPTH!! Those two words come to mind, along with EXHILARATING CINEMATOGRAPHY (especially the many aerial views). The contrast was as strong as I've ever seen, with phenomenal whites and staggering blacks/shadow details. I was mesmerized from beginning to end, with the rare exception of one or two fleeting shots of softness that took place in the dwelling place of the three musketeers.


Let me say boldly that if not for the lack of facial details (alluded to by GRG) I would nominate this for the best action movie ever...above _Avatar_. This one easily equals and in some instances surpasses _Prince Caspian_ (which it reminded me of in many respects) and I sincerely believe it is worthy of being placed significantly higher, let's say right here....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (above I, Robot)**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


PS The audio was also reference quality with very precise sound in both the high and low ends. You'll be thankful for having good surrounds and a decent sub with this title!


----------



## rusky_g

Inspired by that glowing review of TTM 2011....I'll be posting a full review later.....first impressions though, are indeed WOW...with a capital W


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g* /forum/post/21821213
> 
> 
> Inspired by that glowing review of TTM 2011....I'll be posting a full review later.....first impressions though, are indeed WOW...with a capital W



I'll look forward to your review. The movie SUCKED (though it was FUN at times), but the PQ (and AQ) ROCKED! I may skim thru it today before returning it to the video store to see if my opinion holds up with a second viewing, but I highly doubt it will change.


----------



## audiomagnate

RE: The photorealism of Tin Tin. I have a Pomeranian who loves to watch TV, but goes nuts when anything animated comes on. Tin Tin fooled him. It is a pretty amazing looking movie. I'd have to put it towards the top of Tier 0, but below The Thin Red Line and the owl movie.

*Tier 0*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Hmmm, that is interesting. A post of mine I made after djoberg made his post last night has disappeared from the thread.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/21822085
> 
> 
> Hmmm, that is interesting. A post of mine I made after djoberg made his post last night has disappeared from the thread.



I saw your post last night. It Looks like somebody reported him as his post is deleted but they took yours with it too. Your was as an excellent post with a good explanation and not at all confrontational or antagonistic. it was very respectful.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/21822085
> 
> 
> Hmmm, that is interesting. A post of mine I made after djoberg made his post last night has disappeared from the thread.



You've aroused my curiosity Phantom, so I'd encourage you to post it again.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21822135
> 
> 
> You've aroused my curiosity Phantom, so I'd encourage you to post it again.



It was nothing too important, just my explanation for why users are recommended to bold their placements and enlarge the font size. It was a response to an earlier sarcastic post by someone new to the thread.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Demetrius And The Gladiators


recommendation: Tier 5**


The 1954 sequel to _The Robe_, _Demetrius And The Gladiators_ has been exclusively released by Twilight Time on Blu-ray in a limited edition pressing of 3000 units. Running 101 minutes on a BD-50, the AVC video encode averages well over 30 Mbps. One should probably not watch the two BDs back-to-back, as the marked difference in the quality of the transfers is jarring upon casual inspection.


While a massive amount of monies and resources were committed to restoring _The Robe_, it's apparent from the first moments that none of those funds went towards _Demetrius and the Gladiators_. The result is a blu-ray which looks close to likely what it is, an older transfer made more than a few years ago from suspect film elements intended for DVD resolution. There is little detail or color fidelity to the picture that makes a viewer immediately aware one is watching a Cinemascope film at 1080p. To say it is a disappointment is an understatement.


The transfer shows signs of intrusive edge enhancement, particularly noticeable in the earlier reels of the movie. St. Peter has halos of a different kind surrounding his head on this BD, added to sharpen a very soft picture.







No attempt has been made to clean up the age-related print damage and a number of blemishes are strewn throughout the film. That is a marked contrast to the Robe's magnificent transfer that is as nearly pristine as a vintage film can be.


One would be hard-pressed to believe this was a Technicolor movie given what we have seen from other examples on the format. There is little chance this transfer was produced from the original camera negative and is much more likely to be a film source many generations away from the negative. The transfer appears old enough that it looks to have escaped the problems of digital filtering, though the source used has so little inherent resolution that it does not matter.


I am not sure I can recommend a purchase if one already owns the DVD released by Fox. There is so little difference that this BD is not a compelling upgrade by any means. So as not to leave you on a sour note, the isolated score in DTS-HD MA does sound sublime.


----------



## rusky_g

*The Three Musketeers 2011*


Yes, believe the hype, this is an absolute stunner.


It's funny how you can guage the clarity and resolution of a film within its opening minutes...before I knew it, depth and dimensionality slashed their way onto the screen, coupled with beautiful colours, costumes and backdrops.


There's not much I can add onto what has already been said....the realism and pop in a couple of the day time shots is outstanding and (as with Hugo) I was reaching for the pause button regularly so I could soak up every glorious detail.


Presentations like this restore my faith in HD and accordingly I'm placing this in....

*Tier 0.25*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^


We are definitely on the same page rusky_g! Even your placement is approximately where I suggested (above _I, Robot_).


I've been viewing quite a few demo-worthy titles recently, so like you my faith in HD is being restored.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/21822573
> 
> 
> It was nothing too important, just my explanation for why users are recommended to bold their placements and enlarge the font size. It was a response to an earlier sarcastic post by someone new to the thread.



Ah yes, I did read his post. Your post would have been a fitting response to his post. But since the mods thought it best to delete his post I can see why they would deem your post unnecessary. FTR, I'm glad that you were ready to "step up to the plate" and set him straight...and in your usual tactful manner.


----------



## rusky_g




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21822680
> 
> 
> ^^^^
> 
> 
> We are definitely on the same page rusky_g! Even your placement is approximately where I suggested (above _I, Robot_).
> 
> 
> I've been viewing quite a few demo-worthy titles recently, so like you my faith in HD is being restored.



Definitley, DJ. Thanks for the heads up on this one. A few average titles can waiver my belief, but then you watch something like this and all those good feelings come back. Surely 1080p Bluray can't get much better.....


----------



## rusky_g

By the way have you checked out the new Spiderman trailer? 4K lushness....


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g* /forum/post/21822956
> 
> 
> By the way have you checked out the new Spiderman trailer? 4K lushness....



No, I haven't seen it yet. Sounds good though...could it be that Hollywood is finally on a roll (PQ-wise, that is)?










Well, time to slip _J. Edgar_ into my Pioneer Blu-ray player.


----------



## rusky_g

Well hopefully they are...the trailer looks awesome on my Projector! Looks like 2012 could be a good year for HD fans!


Enjoy J Edgar, I expect a full report in the morning


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Fright Night (2011)


recommendation: Tier 1.75
*

Dreamworks' recent update to _Fright Night_ looks very solid for a modern digital production. Some of the movie might qualify for a higher placement, but digital grading in post-production interferes on occasion and much of it takes place at dusk or night. Blacks are appropriately deep and inky, while shadow delineation is quite good for a digitally-shot movie. There is a curious lack of high-frequency content to the picture when Colin Farrell makes an appearance, but the effect is not severe enough to ding the ranking any further.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post21344015


----------



## djoberg

*J. Edgar (2011)*


Let me say at the outset that this title would never win any awards for color, for it is, for the most part, muted throughout. I have no doubt this was Mr. (Clint) Eastwood's intent, in keeping with the time period that most of the movie revolves around. Grays, greens, browns and blacks dominate the film.


Speaking of blacks, this was MUCH darker that I had anticipated, but overall I was very pleased with them. They were deep and inky with beautifully rendered shadow details, except for some fleeting instances of black crush.


Flesh tones really impressed, and there were many close-ups to highlight this virtue. And the most redeeming quality of all was found in those same close-ups; I'm speaking of the many EXCELLENT FACIAL DETAILS. These were demo material all the way, with too many examples to cite. Let me just say that the camera-man had liberty to zoom in often on Judy Dench, Leonardo DiCaprio, Naomi Watts, and Armie Hammer and whether viewed as young or old, the texture was amazing. EYE CANDY, to be sure!!


Because of the drab color palette and occasions of black crush, I could never nominate this for Tier 0, but IMHO it is deserving of Tier Gold. I'm thinking somewhere close to the middle and being in a somewhat conservative mood I'll go with....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


PS I could well imagine others penalizing this even more for the MANY dark scenes (especially if their display doesn't excel in that department) and dropping it to the bottom of Tier Gold or even assigning it to Tier Silver. I would NOT fault them for this, but for my part I was more than pleased with what I saw.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21823653
> 
> *J. Edgar (2011)*
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.5**



I'll come close, but it's so dark and drab there's not much to go on other than the facial detail and the spectacular black levels. I was amazed to see how well the blacks held up, and consistently for the entire movie.
*Tier 1.75**


----------



## oleus




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/21823514
> 
> *Fright Night (2011)
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 1.75
> *
> 
> Dreamworks' recent update to _Fright Night_ looks very solid for a modern digital production. Some of the movie might qualify for a higher placement, but digital grading in post-production interferes on occasion and much of it takes place at dusk or night. Blacks are appropriately deep and inky, while shadow delineation is quite good for a digitally-shot movie. There is a curious lack of high-frequency content to the picture when Colin Farrell makes an appearance, but the effect is not severe enough to ding the ranking any further.
> 
> 
> BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...5#post21344015



i'll have to check this out in 2d. i thought the movie was surprisingly fun, but in 3d some of the scenes were so dark you couldn't even tell what was going on (like the scenes you mentioned with Colin Farrell - what's up with that?)


----------



## rusky_g

*Zookeeper*


Those who aren't fans of the golden / teal look won't like this movie....sometimes the golden hues are very pronounced indeed!


That aside, this wasn't all bad to be honest, in fact it was pretty decent for your average kids comedic vehicle. On the plus side were solid detail, clarity and depth, held together by a pristine transfer that you'd expect from a modern title. Textures on the animals were refined although facial details were disappointing.


Overall, could have been a lot worse....
*Tier 2.0*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Girl with the Dragon Tattoo*


Dim lighting requires hearty blacks which the disc provides. Limited color palette leaves most of the film stuck in oranges and light blues, heated or cold. Flashbacks are weirdly tinted blue. Facial detail is generally superb with few exceptions.

*Tier 2.0**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Hop*


Other than a shot or two where the grain structure loses focus, this disc is perfect eye candy. The color is immense. The detail is insane. The texture is remarkable. The contrast is brilliant. The black levels are flawless.


Animation sometimes cheats on the fur, turning it into more of a blur, but otherwise, remarkable.

*Tier 0.75**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol*


Obsessed with teal and occasionally burnt flesh tones, the disc is still (mostly) a dazzler. Extensive fine detail is appreciated in close-ups and it's consistent. Black levels are pure with a few exceptions. One in-car car chat is especially murky. The 35mm footage blends with the IMAX stuff perfectly.

*Tier 1.5**


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/21842976
> 
> *Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol*
> 
> 
> Obsessed with teal and occasionally burnt flesh tones, the disc is still (mostly) a dazzler. Extensive fine detail is appreciated in close-ups and it's consistent. Black levels are pure with a few exceptions. One in-car car chat is especially murky. The 35mm footage blends with the IMAX stuff perfectly.
> 
> *Tier 1.5**



How was the movie? I'm thinking seriously of a purchase on this one, but would hate to be let down.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21845117
> 
> 
> How was the movie? I'm thinking seriously of a purchase on this one, but would hate to be let down.



I loved it. With one lull, it's constant tension, explosions, fighting, and action, wrapped up in a fun shell. There's just enough narrative and character to give it a purpose. Stunt work is crazy awesome.


----------



## mweflen

*My Week With Marilyn*


Quite a sun-soaked movie, color palette-wise. Detail ranges from very strong to just pretty good. Some of the static/slow panning shots that show the English countryside and ornate architecture really bristle with detail. Facial detail is quite strong as well, esp. on Dame Judi Dench and the actress portraying Viven Leigh.


The transfer is free of negative artifacts or tinkering as far as I can tell. The black levels do fluctuate somewhat, but I did not find it as objectionable as GRG. A similar problem plagues "Alexander Revisited," and I think they have very similar strengths (despite being two obviously very different movies.) Thus, I rate it the same.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*

Sony KDL-52EX700, 8 foot viewing distance


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21845117
> 
> 
> How was the movie? I'm thinking seriously of a purchase on this one, but would hate to be let down.




I recommend a buy Denny...as GRG mentioned the stunt work...Cruise on the tower alone maybe worth it. I don't go to the theater much a few times a year, but I did see this and it was a great ride.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/21845219
> 
> 
> I loved it. With one lull, it's constant tension, explosions, fighting, and action, wrapped up in a fun shell. There's just enough narrative and character to give it a purpose. Stunt work is crazy awesome.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/21846254
> 
> 
> I recommend a buy Denny...as GRG mentioned the stunt work...Cruise on the tower alone maybe worth it. I don't go to the theater much a few times a year, but I did see this and it was a great ride.



Thanks guys! I'll definitely be adding this to my Blu-ray library.


GRG, how far in advance do you get some of the new releases? I ask this because I learned yesterday this title doesn't come out until the middle of April. You surely are one of the privileged elites!


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21846925
> 
> 
> Thanks guys! I'll definitely be adding this to my Blu-ray library.
> 
> 
> GRG, how far in advance do you get some of the new releases? I ask this because I learned yesterday this title doesn't come out until the middle of April. You surely are one of the privileged elites!



Depends on the studio. Fox doesn't even ship until after the release date, and now you know the usual Paramount dates. It can vary elsewhere.

*The Iron Lady*


With some taped stock footage to add authenticity (plus it's stretched to fill the frame), flattened color palette, and dulled blacks, this one won't win awards for eye candy. Excellent detail, especially on the make-ups, does help this disc's cause. Close-ups are typically clean, and grain is resolved well.
*Tier 2.75**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I'm not sure of the exact date, but the Tiers will be updated with the latest rankings sooner rather than later. Passing that along for those with a burning desire to include any reviews and see them reflected in the Tiers immediately.


----------



## djoberg

*Colombiana*


This title is PURE GOLD...and I'm NOT talking, necessarily, about the Tier it belongs in. I'm talking about the GOLDEN HUES that dominated this title from beginning to end. There were also the characteristic BLUE HUES at night and in some indoor scenes, but this was really ALL ABOUT GOLD.


Blacks were, for the majority of the running time, very impressive. The only time they faltered is when noise became intrusive, but these occurrences were minimal.


Details were very inconsistent, but when they emerged they were superb. Facial details, in particular, rose to Tier 0 quality in many close-ups.


Contrast was also sporadic; one minute it was strong and quite appealing; the next minute it become HOT, resulting in overblown whites in outdoor, daytime scenes.


Okay...placement time. I said this was "all about GOLD," so does it deserve a place in Tier Gold? I want to say yes and join my colleague GRG in his 1.75 placement, but I just can't ignore the *noise*, *overblown whites*, *inconsistent details*, and some *less-than-stellar flesh tones* due to the pervasive golden hues. My gut says to lower it a notch and put it in Tier Silver....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


PS The audio ROCKED, with MANY EXPLOSIONS that will have you checking out your walls to see if pictures or other objects are falling off!


----------



## pbarach




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen* /forum/post/21845938
> 
> *My Week With Marilyn*
> 
> 
> Quite a sun-soaked movie, color palette-wise. Detail ranges from very strong to just pretty good. Some of the static/slow panning shots that show the English countryside and ornate architecture really bristle with detail. Facial detail is quite strong as well, esp. on Dame Judi Dench and the actress portraying Viven Leigh.



I happened to watch it yesterday. There were some very odd facial hues on some of the players--Colin, for example, appearing chalk-faced at the beginning but then of a normal skin tone. Otherwise I agree with your assessment. The opening was striking--all black screen, with Marilyn appearing in a sequined dark dress singing in a spotlight.


----------



## djoberg

*Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close*


I can't believe what I'm about to say...but....KUDOS to Warner Bros. for an excellent Blu-ray title!! Criticism for a host of anomalies produced by artificial means are often forth-coming for the average Warner Bros. outing, but this time they definitely got it right!


The two outstanding virtues are DETAILS and DEPTH. Clothing in particular jumped out at me...you could see every fiber in Oskar's sweaters/shirts and in clothes worn by his parents, grandparents, etc. Hair too was exemplary, along with most objects close-up and even in mid-range shots. Surprisingly, facial details were NOT as exemplary; they weren't bad, but they didn't veer into Tier 0 territory (with the exception of possibly a couple shots of Max Von Sydow and one of Oskar, where you could see the peach fuzz on his cheeks and chin). The depth and dimensionality were simply superb in a host of scenes.


Flesh tones were as accurate as they come; blacks were consistently good (not excellent, but very good) with corresponding shadow details; contrast was strong; and colors were warm and vivid when primaries were manifested (but there were a fair amount of shots that fell into the "muted camp").


Besides the minor criticisms just alluded to (less-than-stellar facial details and muted colors), my only other complaints would be a few shots that lacked detail and were a bit flat (these were confined to indoor shots with poorer lighting) and one shot (though brief) that seemed out-of-focus.


With all of the praise just heaped upon this you would think I *may* be leading to a Tier 0 placement, but the negatives are enough to force me to drop it into Tier Gold, though I'm inclined to put it near the top....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Kate & Leopold*


Ancient scan creates muddy visuals and a noisy grain structure. Some filtering and a smidgen of edge enhancement is no fun either. Some facial detail can give it the appearance of a clean master, but it's weak diversion. Colors are natural except for the orange hued past.

*Tier 3.75**


----------



## rusky_g




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21853233
> 
> *Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close*
> 
> 
> I can't believe what I'm about to say...but....KUDOS to Warner Bros. for an excellent Blu-ray title!! Criticism for a host of anomalies produced by artificial means are often forth-coming for the average Warner Bros. outing, but this time they definitely got it right!
> 
> 
> The two outstanding virtues are DETAILS and DEPTH. Clothing in particular jumped out at me...you could see every fiber in Oskar's sweaters/shirts and in clothes worn by his parents, grandparents, etc. Hair too was exemplary, along with most objects close-up and even in mid-range shots. Surprisingly, facial details were NOT as exemplary; they weren't bad, but they didn't veer into Tier 0 territory (with the exception of possibly a couple shots of Max Von Sydow and one of Oskar, where you could see the peach fuzz on his cheeks and chin). The depth and dimensionality were simply superb in a host of scenes.
> 
> 
> Flesh tones were as accurate as they come; blacks were consistently good (not excellent, but very good) with corresponding shadow details; contrast was strong; and colors were warm and vivid when primaries were manifested (but there were a fair amount of shots that fell into the "muted camp").
> 
> 
> Besides the minor criticisms just alluded to (less-than-stellar facial details and muted colors), my only other complaints would be a few shots that lacked detail and were a bit flat (these were confined to indoor shots with poorer lighting) and one shot (though brief) that seemed out-of-focus.
> 
> 
> With all of the praise just heaped upon this you would think I *may* be leading to a Tier 0 placement, but the negatives are enough to force me to drop it into Tier Gold, though I'm inclined to put it near the top....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.25**
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'



Denny, I quite agree.

*1.25*


----------



## mweflen

*Melancholia*


This movie was shot with the Arri Alexa camera (Hugo being the other big one) but it is nowhere near as visually appealing. Why? Shaky-cam is the biggest culprit here. Lars Von Trier just can't leave the f-ing camera be. It makes for a very tiring experience on the eyes. During the 40% or so of the movie where things are somewhat stationary, detail is very strong. There is no grain or digital noise, as was the case in Hugo. The color palette is quite yellow for the first hour, given the atmospheric lighting. Space shots show some very good blacks at times, but other ones do not. There are some examples of quite beautiful imagery to be found here. It's just not a drop-dead gorgeous HD presentation with any consistency.


I should also just add that this movie will not be everyone's cup of tea and I strongly recommend renting before buying. It's kind of long and droning and bizarre. It is better than the travesty that was "Antichrist" though.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


Sony KDL52EX700, 8 foot viewing distance


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*We Bought a Zoo*


Harmless video presentation with warmth, striking facial detail (mostly) and great close-ups of the animals. The fault here are the black levels which lack the oomph they need to push this one into any of the upper tiers. Image is flat and often lacking.

*Tier 2.0**


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g* /forum/post/21863802
> 
> 
> Denny, I quite agree.
> 
> *1.25*


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen* /forum/post/21865718
> 
> *Melancholia*
> 
> 
> This movie was shot with the Arri Alexa camera (Hugo being the other big one) but it is nowhere near as visually appealing. Why? Shaky-cam is the biggest culprit here. Lars Von Trier just can't leave the f-ing camera be. It makes for a very tiring experience on the eyes. During the 40% or so of the movie where things are somewhat stationary, detail is very strong. There is no grain or digital noise, as was the case in Hugo. The color palette is quite yellow for the first hour, given the atmospheric lighting. Space shots show some very good blacks at times, but other ones do not. There are some examples of quite beautiful imagery to be found here. It's just not a drop-dead gorgeous HD presentation with any consistency.
> 
> 
> I should also just add that this movie will not be everyone's cup of tea and I strongly recommend renting before buying. It's kind of long and droning and bizarre. It is better than the travesty that was "Antichrist" though.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.0*



After watching it on cable, I would have thought the BD would turn out better than your comments indicate. There is a lot of striking imagery, though I completely agree with your synopsis of the plot.


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/21867705
> 
> 
> After watching it on cable, I would have thought the BD would turn out better than your comments indicate. There is a lot of striking imagery, though I completely agree with your synopsis of the plot.



Had the photography been more stable, it would definitely be in the top of tier 1 (Hugo, shot with the same equipment, is far better in terms of detail, though). When it looks good, it looks very good. But I just can't consider it so highly when so much of the movie is blurry/smeary due to constant camera movements, loss and recovery of focus, etc. I'm not saying it's at "Cloverfield" levels, but it significantly detracts from enjoyment in my book.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*FernGully*


Too brightly saturated, mildly sharpened, and damaged heavily. Grain is slightly noisy, enough to be noticeable. It looks sourced from a low resolution scan, because the information isn't there.

*Tier 3.0**


----------



## lgans316

*The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn*


Kudos to WETA for producing another top quality photo-realistic CGI feature which looks splendid for most parts except for couple of dark scenes which makes it look a bit soft.

*Recommendation: Tier 0.5*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/21872841
> 
> *The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn*
> 
> 
> Kudos to WETA for producing another top quality photo-realistic CGI feature which looks splendid for most parts except for couple of dark scenes which makes it look a bit soft.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 0.5*



I agree Igans...the photo-realism is absolutely superb!


I'll take this opportunity to say that I purchased _War Horse_ yesterday and I'm really looking forward to seeing it. However, I may not get to it for a few days, so I'm wondering if anyone has seen it yet and if so, what did you think? It's getting rave reviews elsewhere, but I especially value the input from those who contribute to this thread.


----------



## pbarach




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn
> 
> 
> Kudos to WETA for producing another top quality photo-realistic CGI feature which looks splendid for most parts except for couple of dark scenes which makes it look a bit soft.
> 
> 
> Recommendation: Tier 0.5



Looks good, but what a bland, boring movie.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21872960
> 
> 
> I agree Igans...the photo-realism is absolutely superb!
> 
> 
> I'll take this opportunity to say that I purchased _War Horse_ yesterday and I'm really looking forward to seeing it. However, I may not get to it for a few days, so I'm wondering if anyone has seen it yet and if so, what did you think? It's getting rave reviews elsewhere, but I especially value the input from those who contribute to this thread.



Not seen War Horse Denny as it is not yet released in the UK. I am sure it will be somewhere in the top or middle of Tier 1 based on the reviews.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pbarach* /forum/post/21873294
> 
> 
> Looks good, but what a bland, boring movie.



Yeah, it was a bit boring at times but certainly not that bad.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21872960
> 
> 
> I agree Igans...the photo-realism is absolutely superb!
> 
> 
> I'll take this opportunity to say that I purchased _War Horse_ yesterday and I'm really looking forward to seeing it. However, I may not get to it for a few days, so I'm wondering if anyone has seen it yet and if so, what did you think? It's getting rave reviews elsewhere, but I especially value the input from those who contribute to this thread.



War Horse story or the PQ? Both are good...tier 1.5 give or take and I really enjoyed the story and cinematography, and the soundtrack was awesome. I thought it had gotten poor reviews or I heard wrong...meanwhile one of the better ones from last year.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc* /forum/post/21878030
> 
> 
> War Horse story or the PQ? Both are good...tier 1.5 give or take and I really enjoyed the story and cinematography, and the soundtrack was awesome. I thought it had gotten poor reviews or I heard wrong...meanwhile one of the better ones from last year.



Sounds good Hugh...thanks for whetting my appetite!


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Bounce*

Light DNR, edge enhancement, print damage, eye-injuring judder, pasty color, and occasional fine detail. It's not pretty. Grain is an issue, noisy and handled poorly by the codec.

*Tier 3.75**


----------



## lgans316

*Priest*


Superb looking title from Sony except for a some black crush resulting in poor shadow details and a bit of banding.

*Recommendation: Tier 1.5*


----------



## djoberg

*Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy*


I was so looking forward to this "Spy/Thriller" with its all-star cast (Gary Oldman, John Hurt, Colin Firth, Tom Hardy, et al.), with hopes that I would be entertained mentally and visually. I was NOT!!


This thread is all about PQ, so let me just say that this is a drab (color-wise), grainy (with many instances of noise), and soft (with the exception of *some* sharp scenes, though I have no idea where they came from







) movie.


The black levels were a real disappointment, which I suspected might be the case with the opening scene (it was murky and filled with noise). There were a few exceptions to this rule, but they were, as the old adage goes, "few and far between."


Details were good when sharpness prevailed, but as intimated above they were rare. When the camera-man zoomed in close on an actor's face, we are treated to the greatest redeeming quality of this otherwise lackluster title. Several shots of Gary Oldman and John Hurt were especially good (check out, for instance, the 1 Hr. 15 Min. time stamp and you will revel in the texture of Mr. Oldman's well-defined face for up to 60 seconds).


When you have such inconsistency it is virtually impossible to determine the exact placement value, but after weighing all the pros and cons I've decided on....

*Tier Recommendation: 3.5**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


PS Now for a quick word about the movie itself: BORING!! Just so you know, I don't mind a slow-paced movie if the character development and dialogue rewards you, but this was sorely lacking. Action was limited to a few scenes and even there I was let down (with the exception of the last action shot). These are two hours I wish I could retrieve!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

May everyone have a happy and blessed Easter. An older review of mine from March of 2009







for a BD that still holds up quite well against the latest releases. On a related note, Jesus of Nazareth (the 1977 miniseries) recently came out in Mexico on Blu-ray in reputedly decent quality. I've been tempted to pick it up to give the disc a ranking in the Tiers.




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/15979368
> 
> *The Passion Of The Christ
> *
> *recommendation: Tier 1.75*
> 
> 
> A blockbuster when it first launched to theaters in 2004, Twentieth Century Fox released the Blu-ray on February 17th of this year. Two versions are included on the disc by way of seamless branching. A re-cut version that is less graphic and the original theatrical version. For the purposes of this review I have only watched the theatrical cut, which runs 126-minutes in length. The re-cut version runs for 121-minutes.
> 
> 
> The main features are encoded in AVC on a single BD-50. The average video bitrate for the theatrical version is 22.39 Mbps per the BDInfo scan. Fox themselves list the average video bitrate on the back of the case at 22.5 Mbps. The encoding and authoring of the disc is credited to Deluxe Digital Studios. While the encode peaks around 36.0 Mbps late in the movie, most of the time it stays within a much lower range from 18.2 Mbps to 26.4 Mbps.
> 
> 
> This is a very good video encode in terms of compression with a couple of slight flaws the only visible problems. There is a short instance of banding at the end of the movie when the rock is rolled away at Jesus' tomb. Some false contouring appears in the opening scenes that is not easily noticeable but still present. There are no motion artifacts or macroblocking throughout the entirety of the movie. I do have to wonder whether the encode would have looked slightly more transparent to the master if it had a higher average bitrate.
> 
> 
> The original source material simply looks in phenomenal shape. There are no print marks, anomalies, or debris that affect the integrity of the image. Without having seen the master myself, it looks like a light application of temporally-filtered grain reduction has been applied at selective points. This would definitely not be picked up by a casual viewer, as high-frequency information appears virtually untouched and a constant layer of grain remains in darker scenes. It does not alter the overall look of the film but may be noticeable to eagle-eyed viewers who have familiarity with a theatrical screening of this film.
> 
> 
> While the use of digital noise reduction barely impacts the picture quality, the real negative seen in this transfer is the overzealous use of edge enhancement. Halos appear regularly and they vary in amplitude from unobjectionable to easily noticed. A notable example for an egregious instance of this problem is the scene where the crowd has to choose between Jesus and Barabbas to free. That is not the only scene with a thick presence of added sharpening apparent. It was objectionable enough at times to drop my final ranking over half a tier in consideration. Viewers on smaller displays will ignore this problem but projection owners might want to take note.
> 
> 
> The opening scene, set at night in the Garden of Gethsemane, looks the lowest in terms of picture quality for the movie. There is a bluish tint to the proceedings and black levels appear average at best. Fine shadow detail is resolved nicely but it does not look worthy of tier one. But once the movie shifts to daylight and the aftermath of Jesus' arrest, the image picks up strongly in quality. Watch the interior scene where Caiaphas interrogates Jesus. The tremendous depth of field and clarity exhibited are stunning. Objects look like they are going to come off the screen with excellent dimensionality to the image. These scenes have more of an amber coloring to them. Flesh tones do not look problematic but this is a highly stylized image at various points.
> 
> 
> As the movie progresses the superior detail and resolution in the image becomes apparent. The lavish production and costume design are shown down to the finest detail, with coarse and very fine textures revealing the quality of the fabrics worn. Every wound is explicitly laid out to bare during the scourging and the makeup used for that effect is visually effective and realistic, even in 1080p. But the image reaches new heights of visual quality during the crucifixion. That scene on its own would not be awkwardly placed in tier zero. The cinematography is simply incredible throughout the film and never looks better than at that moment.
> 
> 
> Outside of the extra sharpening, I was pleased with this transfer. I was contemplating a higher placement even considering that problem, but concluded it occurred too frequently to merit a better ranking. My recommendation is for tier 1.75, though some moments look nearly in caliber to tier zero.
> 
> 
> Watching on a 60” Pioneer Kuro plasma at 1080p/24 fed by a PS3 (firmware 2.60) at a viewing distance of six feet.
> 
> 
> BDInfo Scan:
> http://www.avsforum.com
> 
> /avs-vb/showthread.php?p=9044310#post9044310
> 
> 
> Video Bitrate Graph:
> http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...st_blu-ray.htm


----------



## lgans316

I agree with Denny that Tinker Tailor is a very boring overrated film. There is not much of acting or suspense going on. PQ was faithful but I remember seeing some halos and noise.


----------



## mweflen

*Anonymous*


It's starting to become pretty easy to pick out movies shot on the Arri Alexa camera. I suspected this was the case within about two minutes of watching this flick. They all share utterly spectacular detail, black levels as deep as the director's intention will allow, and a perfect sort of crystal smoothness, without any film grain, digital noise, or the need for any artificial enhancements. Well, that pretty much describes Anonymous. The opening scene featuring Derek Jacobi on a modern stage demonstrates the complete blackness this transfer is capable of, with dazzling contrast and near three-dimensionality. The period material, which is of course the bulk of the movie, is more varied, with some scenes quite hazy with atmospheric smoke and dim fire/candle light sources. So perhaps this shifts from "ultimate eye candy" to "quite good" and then back again. But the detail remains consistently superb, with every thread of the period costumes, and every hair on a given head easily discernible. The 3-D effect remains through the lion's share of the scenes. The CGI depicting the architecture of ancient England looks absolutely superb.


I don't think it's the equal of Hugo, but it remains as good looking as every disc that I've watched from Tier 1. So, I think this belongs at the top of Tier 1.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0*


I can't help but add that I find this movie to be problematic in the extreme, and borderline offensive in its treatment of Shakespeare. I think it is quite competently directed and acted, and I'm willing to entertain theories that claim Shakespeare was a fraud, but turning Shakespeare into an illiterate, murderous, vain, whoring drunkard just to illustrate the contrast between him and the noble Earl of Oxford seems both manipulative and irresponsible, and verges on outright character assassination. If you care at all about Shakespeare, or value intellectual probity in your historical fiction, I recommend a rental before you consider purchasing.


Sony KDL-52EX700, 8 foot viewing distance


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Darkest Hour*


Some great black levels highlight a bright, sharp presentation. Colors are dulled yet still peppy. Fine detail is lacking in close, but it can be dazzling at a distance.

*Tier 2.0**


___________

*Thumbelina (1994)*


Heavy dirt and damage highlight what looks like a fairly recent scan. Saturation is pleasing without going overboard. Mosquito noise can be bothersome.

*Tier 2.75**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*War Horse*


Generally appealing encode that resolves a minute grain structure cleanly. Colors can be remarkable. Black levels falter from time to time, the only apparent flub in this grand visual presentation. Fine detail can be spectacular, and contrast is hearty.

*Tier 1.75**

*Note*: I HATED this movie. Absolute tripe.


----------



## mweflen

*Rushmore (Criterion Collection)*


EXTREMELY impressive transfer. Criterion did a fresh 2k scan under the supervision of director Wes Anderson, along with a thorough clean-up of dirt and print damage. Detail is superb both in close-ups and wide-angled shots. Facial detail is outstanding, among the best on the format. So is cloth texture - some of the tweedy and hounds-tooth jackets are amazing. Colors are lush and vibrant but free of any bleeding or over-saturation. Black levels are stout and never waver, but still retain perfect detail near black. Grain is stable, light, and omnipresent. There is no edge enhancement, noise reduction, or anything untoward or artificial. This looks as much like the film as a Blu-Ray can, and I say this having seen it three times in the theater.

*Tier Recommendation: 0 (right below Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl.)*

Sony KDL52EX700, 6 foot viewing distance


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen* /forum/post/21900996
> 
> *Rushmore (Criterion Collection)*
> *Tier Recommendation: 0 (right below Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl.)*



Sic transit gloria...


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked*


If nothing else, these movies have been visual showcases, and really, this one is no different. The only difference is a lack of depth in the black levels. They crumble here for some reason. Everything else is top tier, from the color to the fine detail, right on par with the other two.

*Tier 1.5**


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/21901183
> 
> 
> Sic transit gloria...



The glory only faded ever so slightly during the extracurricular montage scene - due to optical compositing with each club title.











Edit: I just did some comparisons between this and the Criterion DVD. The difference is astonishing, even more pronounced in motion than the screen caps on Blu-Beaver . I've sealed the envelope in which I am reselling the DVD on Amazon. There is no reason in the world to keep it.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Stake Land


recommendation: 1.25
*

Shot on the Red One camera, the transfer on the BD taken from a digital intermediate looks superb. The video encode holds up well and shows off excellent detail with perfect black levels. You would not know by the cinematography or production values that this is a fairly low-budget affair made outside of a Hollywood studio. There are no real flaws to the picture that one could criticize. Its lack of extreme close-ups and good, but not great, depth hinder a higher placement.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post21085302


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21853233
> 
> *Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close*
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.25**



I'll mostly agree with this one, but once again found the teal overwhelming. Whites are rarely allowed to breathe, but instead tinted, and it drove me nuts. Detail was spectacular though, especially of the kid, which is even more impressive.

*Tier 1.5*


----------



## djoberg

I'm just chiming in to say I haven't been on the Forum lately because my wife (Jenny) was in a serious car accident last Thursday and had to be life-flighted to Hennepin County Medical Center in Minneapolis. She is in stable condition with broken bones in her neck and two broken ribs which caused a blockage in her right lung. If any of you believe in prayer (as we do) I would appreciate them.


I would not normally think of posting this on the Forum, but I know I've often been curious when a regular participant isn't heard from in awhile and I didn't want to get to that point to cause some on here to wonder. I will probably be here, by Jenny's side, for close to another week (we hope she's released by then). I look forward to her recovering, and then to my return to Blu-ray viewing and giving reviews.


Denny


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21913152
> 
> 
> I'm just chiming in to say I haven't been on the Forum lately because my wife (Jenny) was in a serious car accident last Thursday and had to be life-flighted to Hennepin County Medical Center in Minneapolis. She is in stable condition with broken bones in her neck and two broken ribs which caused a blockage in her right lung. If any of you believe in prayer (as we do) I would appreciate them.
> 
> 
> I would not normally think of posting this on the Forum, but I know I've often been curious when a regular participant isn't heard from in awhile and I didn't want to get to that point to cause some on here to wonder. I will probably be here, by Jenny's side, for close to another week (we hope she's released by then). I look forward to her recovering, and then to my return to Blu-ray viewing and giving reviews.
> 
> 
> Denny



You and your wife are definitely in our thoughts and prayers, Denny. Hope everything turns out all right for Jenny. Keep us updated.


----------



## rusky_g




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21913152
> 
> 
> I'm just chiming in to say I haven't been on the Forum lately because my wife (Jenny) was in a serious car accident last Thursday and had to be life-flighted to Hennepin County Medical Center in Minneapolis. She is in stable condition with broken bones in her neck and two broken ribs which caused a blockage in her right lung. If any of you believe in prayer (as we do) I would appreciate them.
> 
> 
> I would not normally think of posting this on the Forum, but I know I've often been curious when a regular participant isn't heard from in awhile and I didn't want to get to that point to cause some on here to wonder. I will probably be here, by Jenny's side, for close to another week (we hope she's released by then). I look forward to her recovering, and then to my return to Blu-ray viewing and giving reviews.
> 
> 
> Denny



I'll say a prayer tonight Denny, and here's to a speedy recovery and return to reviewing.


Russ


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21913152
> 
> 
> I'm just chiming in to say I haven't been on the Forum lately because my wife (Jenny) was in a serious car accident last Thursday and had to be life-flighted to Hennepin County Medical Center in Minneapolis. She is in stable condition with broken bones in her neck and two broken ribs which caused a blockage in her right lung. If any of you believe in prayer (as we do) I would appreciate them.
> 
> Denny



That is awful to hear, Denny. Your wife will be in my thoughts and prayers for a speedy recovery.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/21913163
> 
> 
> You and your wife are definitely in our thoughts and prayers, Denny. Hope everything turns out all right for Jenny. Keep us updated.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g* /forum/post/21913340
> 
> 
> I'll say a prayer tonight Denny, and here's to a speedy recovery and return to reviewing.
> 
> 
> Russ





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/21913643
> 
> 
> That is awful to hear, Denny. Your wife will be in my thoughts and prayers for a speedy recovery.



Thanks much guys; I deeply appreciate your concern and prayers.


I had said that broken ribs caused a *blockage* in Jenny's lung...I meant to say *collapse*. The rib punctured the lung causing it to collapse. Because of this she is on oxygen at all times. They say it will heal on its own in time, but until then it is extremely painful, though they try to keep her medicated enough to alleviate most of the pain.


Again, I never meant to hijack the thread, but you guys have become like an extended family to me so I feel free to share this burden with you.


----------



## lgans316

Sorry to hear that Denny. I hope Jenny gets well soon. Wishing her a speedy recovery.


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21913152
> 
> 
> If any of you believe in prayer (as we do) I would appreciate them.
> 
> 
> Denny



Best wishes to you and your wife. Here's hoping for a good recovery


----------



## tcramer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21913152
> 
> 
> I'm just chiming in to say I haven't been on the Forum lately because my wife (Jenny) was in a serious car accident last Thursday and had to be life-flighted to Hennepin County Medical Center in Minneapolis. She is in stable condition with broken bones in her neck and two broken ribs which caused a blockage in her right lung. If any of you believe in prayer (as we do) I would appreciate them.
> 
> 
> I would not normally think of posting this on the Forum, but I know I've often been curious when a regular participant isn't heard from in awhile and I didn't want to get to that point to cause some on here to wonder. I will probably be here, by Jenny's side, for close to another week (we hope she's released by then). I look forward to her recovering, and then to my return to Blu-ray viewing and giving reviews.
> 
> 
> Denny



Prayers sent for a quick recovery. Get well soon Jenny.


----------



## windwaves




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21913152
> 
> 
> I'm just chiming in to say I haven't been on the Forum lately because my wife (Jenny) was in a serious car accident last Thursday and had to be life-flighted to Hennepin County Medical Center in Minneapolis. She is in stable condition with broken bones in her neck and two broken ribs which caused a blockage in her right lung. If any of you believe in prayer (as we do) I would appreciate them.
> 
> 
> 
> Denny



we'll pray for your wife and her good recovery.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

I'll echo all previous sentiments for DJ's wife. Hope it turns out okay!

*The Divide*


Noisy and dim, the detail will be the saving grace for most. Close-ups are outstanding in their definition, even if backed by drab black levels. Colors are flattened oranges and a bit of red for blood, not much else.

*Tier 3.0**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Battle Royale: The Complete Collection (Theatrical Cut)


recommendation: Tier 3.75**


I'm unsure whether there is a problem with the source material or original film elements, but this disc from Starz/Anchor Bay looks heavily filtered. There is little high-frequency content to a film that was first released in 2000. Other than that serious problem, the presentation is satisfactory and inoffensive. The AVC video encode is a high-bitrate affair that rarely dips below 30 Mbps. I could see an argument being made that this release deserved Tier 4 due to the lack of detail.


I did not sit through the whole director's cut provided on a separate BD-50, but it looked substantially identical to the theatrical version in picture quality.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Seven Below*


Dull black levels hinder most of the film, while fleeting issues with aliasing and noise are less common. Facial detail is superb and consistent. Dull color platte doesn't lead to many striking images, if any.

*Tier 3.0**


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21913152
> 
> 
> I'm just chiming in to say I haven't been on the Forum lately because my wife (Jenny) was in a serious car accident last Thursday and had to be life-flighted to Hennepin County Medical Center in Minneapolis. She is in stable condition with broken bones in her neck and two broken ribs which caused a blockage in her right lung. If any of you believe in prayer (as we do) I would appreciate them.
> 
> 
> I would not normally think of posting this on the Forum, but I know I've often been curious when a regular participant isn't heard from in awhile and I didn't want to get to that point to cause some on here to wonder. I will probably be here, by Jenny's side, for close to another week (we hope she's released by then). I look forward to her recovering, and then to my return to Blu-ray viewing and giving reviews.
> 
> 
> Denny



Hi Denny. I wish her well and a fast recovery. I can only imagine how difficult this is for her and more so for you and your daughters.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Born to Be Wild*


Stunning showcase for IMAX 4K digital cams. With the exception of flicker on especially busy jungle shots, the visuals are flawless. The level of information is striking, intense, and loaded with depth. Black levels are outstanding and rich, while colors aid the feeling of dimensionality.
*Tier 0.5**


----------



## trinifox




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/0
> 
> 
> Born to Be Wild
> 
> 
> Stunning showcase for IMAX 4K digital cams. With the exception of flicker on especially busy jungle shots, the visuals are flawless. The level of information is striking, intense, and loaded with depth. Black levels are outstanding and rich, while colors aid the feeling of dimensionality.
> 
> 
> Tier 0.5*



I did a blind buy of this mostly to see the array of wildlife. I have only viewed the regular d version, however I agree with your comments. Is there a separate 3d weighting that would affect ranking?


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *trinifox* /forum/post/21929133
> 
> 
> I did a blind buy of this mostly to see the array of wildlife. I have only viewed the regular d version, however I agree with your comments. Is there a separate 3d weighting that would affect ranking?



Yes, there's a 3D release, but I don't have the equipment.

*Clueless*


Sharpened enough to produce some notable edge enhancement and elevated grain structure, this one loses some of its zest but is pleasing otherwise. Colors are impressive and facial detail is excellent. Black levels have depth.

*Tier 2.75**


----------



## deltasun

Has anybody seen the new 8K version of _Baraka_? Saw it today at Barnes & Noble.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/21931770
> 
> 
> Has anybody seen the new 8K version of _Baraka_? Saw it today at Barnes & Noble.



There is a new version? I thought the original BD was scanned at 8K.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun* /forum/post/21931770
> 
> 
> Has anybody seen the new 8K version of _Baraka_? Saw it today at Barnes & Noble.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/21933177
> 
> 
> There is a new version? I thought the original BD was scanned at 8K.



Phantom is right; the initial version was scanned at 8K.


Jenny and I returned home from Minneapolis yesterday. She is still hurting from her fractured bones in her neck and her broken ribs. She also has a heart condition (Atrial Fibrillation) and a thyroid problem (hyperthyroidism) that will be addressed. We will be seeing 5 specialists in all over the next 3 months.


We stopped at the accident site on the way home. She had fainted while driving on Interstate 94 and drove into a somewhat gentle sloping ditch (thankfully!) and continued through a grassy field until she crashed into two trees. Our Toyota Highlander was totaled and if you were to see it you'd be amazed that she survived the crash. Continued prayers are deeply appreciated.


Denny


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Red House*


Mimicking previous Film Chest releases, this one is scrubbed of all grain, leaving the image smooth and lacking any real definition. Brightness is cranked far too high, and blacks crush whatever they can. Some banding adds to the problems.

*Tier 4.25**


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21933723
> 
> 
> We stopped at the accident site on the way home. She had fainted while driving on Interstate 94 and drove into a somewhat gentle sloping ditch (thankfully!) and continued through a grassy field until she crashed into two trees. Our Toyota Highlander was totaled and if you were to see it you'd be amazed that she survived the crash. Continued prayers are deeply appreciated.
> 
> 
> Denny



It does sound amazing she survived the accident at all. Run a car into a tree at a certain angle and often no one will survive. Hopefully her recovery will be speedy and there are no further complications.


----------



## lgans316

*Immortals (Netherlands)*


Although there are a number of bright scenes which looks pristine, the PQ is an disaster due to severe banding and crushed blacks resulting.


Audio was an epic fail in every level due to poor mixing.

*Recommendation: Tier 2.75*


----------



## mweflen

*The Help*


Wow, I was bowled over by this transfer. The foliage is the most obvious thing that impresses detail-wise, but clothing, surface textures, and facial detail are all really striking. Better still are the rich, saturated colors and blacks. The numerous sweet 50s cars in this movie absolutely leap off the screen, but not in a cartoonish way. The shadow detail on this is truly exceptional as well, which is a good thing, as there are many "naturally lit" scenes.


In looking at Gamereviewgod's and Djoberg's reviews, I think both are fair. But I'm going to side with Djoberg on this one. I think it is tier 0, because of the ultra fine detail combined with the completely absorbing color presentation. _If_ there is a soft face now and again (and this could be true for no more than 2 or 3 minutes of screen time over a 2 plus hour movie), the rest of the detail is so strong that it overrides it in my book. Scanning my shelf, the movie this reminds me of most quality wise is "A Serious Man." So that's where I'd put it.

*Tier Recommendation: 0 (below A Serious Man)*


Sony KDL52EX700, 8 foot viewing distance


----------



## cjmx2

It has Been Some time since I have posted...my ln52b750 had an unexpected attack from one of my kid's play balls with a marble inside...it was not pretty. As my other LCD was not big enough to do reviews I have waited till I was able to get a new TV...being a Samsung Fan I Went with the UN55D7000...

*Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol*

I had high hopes for this title because of what I had heard...the 1st 35 minutes or so were very good. I would say tier 0 to my eyes but I am a little rusty







Great Sharpness great clarity...great closeups and long cityscape shots... However after the car crash scene...the blacks fell apart the skin tones went amber...the level of sharpness was not as consistent...it still looked good but certainly not as good as before. I would say somewhere in tier 2 for the rest. It is a little disappointing when movies are not consistent as they should be...also great movie...and the audio rivals all demo audio tracks I have heard...coolest part of the movie hands down...


All in all I would go with...
*Tier 1.75*


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cjmx2* /forum/post/21936668
> 
> 
> It has Been Some time since I have posted...my ln52b750 had an unexpected attack from one of my kid's play balls with a marble inside...it was not pretty. As my other LCD was not big enough to do reviews I have waited till I was able to get a new TV...being a Samsung Fan I Went with the UN55D7000...



You're not alone on that score, I know someone whose child decided throwing a football straight at the plasma was a good idea.







The good news was the child knew how to throw a nearly perfect spiral, the bad news was that plasmas are not football-resistant.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Graduate (regions A&B UK import)


recommendation: Tier 2.75*
*

MGM in 2009 released an American BD of 1967's _The Graduate_, that was a holdover originally made in the very early days of the format. It contained an outdated transfer and MPEG-2 video encode. Its current ranking in the Tiers is 3.25, which by the way was not evaluated by me. Under review here is the widely-regarded superior edition, the UK Studiocanal collection disc that is sourced from a completely different source.


The 105-minute film is encoded in AVC at solid video bitrates around 23 Mbps on a BD-50. There are slight differences to the color timing and the gamma is higher than on the MGM BD. The film elements are in great condition and show little to no signs of aging or wear in the print. Fine object detail is very good in most shots, though flesh-tones waver in certain scenes. A small amount of edge enhancement has been added that does produce thin halos. The halos are unobjectionable in magnitude and viewers will have to be looking for them to see the sharpening.


This BD for the most part faithfully reproduces the light grain structure of _The Graduate_. It's largely film-like and there are no obvious shots that look strange. If I had to guess there has been a slight filtering pass to the transfer, as some shots are missing that little extra bit of noise and fine detail that should be there. But that is really something that will be all but unnoticeable. The digital noise reduction was handled with a deft touch, if in fact it was used on the transfer. The average viewer will find it a pleasing transfer that contains a high degree of clarity.


My only real complaint, though minor, is the movie looks too bright. It helps the colors to pop more but looks off in some scenes. The black levels never clip but the brightness prevents blacks from being deep and inky.


Based on available information, the Studiocanal version appears to be the best transfer and Blu-ray for _The Graduate_ at the moment. This is a solid disc with excellent picture quality.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Night of the Demons (2010)


recommendation: Tier 4.5*
*

One of the worst-looking Blu-rays I've seen created from a movie made during the Blu-ray era. It is shot and lit so poorly on 16mm film that the budget must have all gone to pay for Shannon Elizabeth's role. There are modern amateur films being produced with better picture quality. Little discernible detail beyond the resolution of 720p and a grotesque amount of noise mixed with the copious grain. There was a strong impulse to place it in Tier 5 but its recent vintage does confer a few small benefits to the image.


This modern update on _Night of the Demons_ is a poor effort by E1 and one wonders why it saw a release on the Blu-ray format at all.


BDinfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...9#post19367219


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Contraband*


Don't be easily fooled by the facial detail. That looks great, but the black crush is abhorrent. It makes scenes difficult to make out:

Attachment 244464 


Colors have intensity but are limited in scope. Grain veers towards noise far too often to be excused as a fluke.

*Tier 3.0**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Stone


recommendation: 1.25*

_Stone_ has outstanding picture quality and only the lack of flashy cinematography prevents a higher placement. Most noticeable is the distinct lack of teal-and-orange color timing that has become so prevalent in Hollywood movies of late. Flesh-tones are perfectly natural in a color palette that is neutral and does not call attention to itself.


The only real flaw is the appearance of aliasing, particularly early in the film during interior scenes in the prison. Created from a Digital Intermediate, fine micro-detail is superb as the transfer has not been filtered. There is an immediate clarity to the film that remains strong throughout the length of its running time. For a drama, depth and dimension are very good and comfortably qualifies the BD for Tier One.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...2#post19854992


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Dark Tide*


Full of underwater banding and lackluster detail. Colors are nice, but not enough to save it. Black levels lose their kick a few times, and the best stuff are the shots of South Africa's coast. Only a handful of close-ups are worth the effort.
*Tier 3.25**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Innkeepers*


A low budget flick that actually uses a film stock, this one resolves the grain structure beautifully. Facial detail perks up, although black levels will soak up some shadow detail. Contrast is bland and colors are desaturated, so it's not a showcase, but still a surprise.
*Tier 2.75**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Heaven's Lost Property: Season One


recommendation: Tier 3.5**

_Heaven's Lost Property_ is an anime series released by Funimation. While upscaled from an original source animated at lower than true high-definition resolution, the traditional animation still translates nicely on BD. It shows few of the problems normally associated with the process and will fool a majority of viewers into believing they are watching a true high-definition production.


The video encode in AVC handles the picture with a minimal amount of banding. The stylish animation alternates between cartoonish characters and more realistic line art, though both styles are softer and hazier than normal. The color palette favors pastels over brighter primary colors.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Boardwalk Empire: The Complete First Season


recommendation: Tier 1.5**


HBO's lavish production values shine quite nicely on Blu-ray, in this 2012 release of the first season for _Boardwalk Empire_. Its placement should really be higher than the Tier 1.5 I've assigned it, but a couple of problems drag the assessment down. A razor-sharp image with deep contrast and impeccable clarity are marred by spotty black levels and a lack of top-notch high-frequency content. It's still a very pleasing look that most will be quite satisfied to watch on a large display.


The black levels do vary in quality for some reason, particularly in the darker exterior locations. From one minute to another, inky black levels will revert to a washed-out, dull appearance during night shots. Its especially noticeable because the rest of the picture quality is so exemplary in all phases.


A smaller matter is the lack of visible detail down to the pores. The show has many close-ups, but high-frequency information still lacks much of the time. By some unknown magnitude the entire transfer has been filtered. No other remnants of this manipulation are evident except the slight loss in fine detail. In fact, there are no halos to the picture or weird noise artifacts. As usual, the video encode for one of HBO's releases is very good as the series is spread out over 5 BDs.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid's website):
http://www.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray/m...9da33049#specs


----------



## mweflen

*Take Shelter*


A typically strong Sony encode. Overall quite sharp, but perhaps a bit too "digital" looking in spots, especially the film grain in some lower light scenes. At times, the Ohio foliage is very detailed. Faces are very good but not best of format. Black levels are solid. High contrast scenes look great. Colors are very accurate looking and stable.


There are a few scenes featuring optical effects that show some sort of manipulation, jaggies, and blown out contrast values. It's only perhaps 2 or 3 minutes total, but it is noticeable and it takes things down a few ticks.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*


Sony 52EX700, 8 foot viewing distance


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*W.E.*


Hideously ugly film that swaps film stocks with regularity and the encode can't keep up. Black levels are awful, some of the worst I've come across for sure. It's meant to pale the piece, with takes colors with it as well. That makes sense for the vintage footage, not so much for the modern stuff (the film has two timelines). Detail is shockingly low, confined to a handful of shots, and it's all so soft, nothing has much punch.

*Tier 4.0**


----------



## djoberg

*Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/21842976
> 
> *Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol*
> 
> 
> Obsessed with teal and occasionally burnt flesh tones, the disc is still (mostly) a dazzler. Extensive fine detail is appreciated in close-ups and it's consistent. Black levels are pure with a few exceptions. One in-car car chat is especially murky. The 35mm footage blends with the IMAX stuff perfectly.
> 
> *Tier 1.5**





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cjmx2* /forum/post/21936668
> 
> *Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol*
> 
> I had high hopes for this title because of what I had heard...the 1st 35 minutes or so were very good. I would say tier 0 to my eyes but I am a little rusty
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great Sharpness great clarity...great closeups and long cityscape shots... However after the car crash scene...the blacks fell apart the skin tones went amber...the level of sharpness was not as consistent...it still looked good but certainly not as good as before. I would say somewhere in tier 2 for the rest. It is a little disappointing when movies are not consistent as they should be...also great movie...and the audio rivals all demo audio tracks I have heard...coolest part of the movie hands down...
> 
> 
> All in all I would go with...
> *Tier 1.75*



Well, my first Blu-ray and review since returning home with my recovering wife (Jenny)....she even joined me for this viewing, a rare exception...and a welcome one!


I agree with many of the points noted above by GRG and cjmx2. I truly believe this would have easily been a Tier 0 placement had it not been for a few isolated cases where black levels faltered (in most scenes they were magnificent!) and then those pesky teal/gold hues that hindered flesh tones.


Facial details were Tier Blu all the way!! You gotta love it when every pore, bead of sweat, scar, etc. are seen in all their glory...amazing texture on just about every actor's face!


Colors too were EYE CANDY, especially the last shooting in Mumbai, India. They were a bit on the over-saturated side, but dazzling none-the-less.


Aerial views of the various locations were a sight to behold. Even my wife, who doesn't usually appreciate fine detail, commented on the definition of buildings and city streets. I just knew I had to mention this highlight as soon as she chimed in with her ever-so-rare praise.


Maybe it's due to seeing my first Blu in nearly three weeks, but I feel inclined to go a notch or two higher than my colleagues, so here's where it goes....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


PS The audio was rock-solid. Lots of LFE for us bass heads...and stellar material in the surrounds too.


----------



## djoberg

I should update you concerning Jenny's condition. She is getting stronger every day, though she still hurts with her broken ribs, fractured neck bones, bruised sternum, and collapsed lung. She begins a big round of doctoring with 5 specialists starting next week to address these issues and her heart and thyroid problems. Your continued prayers are coveted and appreciated. Thanks!


Denny


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21959842
> 
> 
> I should update you concerning Jenny's condition. She is getting stronger every day



Good to hear!

*Road Trip*


Clean Paramount catalog title that is likely an older master. There are signs of mild halos around, although nothing offensive. Print damage is super minimal, and colors have a nice presence. Black levels are pure, and facial detail can be outstanding in close. Things drop in quality as the camera moves back, revealing a mushy, slightly filtered look.

*Tier 2.5**


----------



## lgans316

Hi Denny,


Good to hear that Jenny is making some progress. I hope she makes a speedy recovery.

*Mission Impossible 4 Ghost Protocol*


Close ups are mostly sharp. Black levels are a bit inconsistent. Banding appears here and there despite high bit rate encoding which is a shame. Couple of scenes are DVD quality.


Overall an excellent presentation. Think MI3 remains best of the series as a movie, and in the PQ department.

*Recommendation: Tier 1.5*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^


Thanks Igans!


I agree with you regarding MI3; I enjoyed that more than the other three. I had thought the recent outing was going to trump all the others (based on all the glowing reviews all over the web), so I was somewhat disappointed with the movie.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

The updates creep up without much notice. As of the last post, the Tiers are current again. I'm still working my way through the broken review links, everything through Tier 1.25 has been fixed. This update was posted about a month later than I had planned, but this is a slow time of the year for new releases. The target is to update the Tiers at least once every three months.


As always, thanks to all the contributors who post the picture quality reviews. And a special thank you to K-Spaz, who still allows us space on his server for the database. In the list below, "G" refers to Gamereviewgod.


Another Earth - 3.0 mweflen, 3.75 djoberg


x Shark Night - 3.75 gamereviewgod


x Final Destination 5 - 2.25 G


Star Trek VI - 3.0 mweflen


Star Trek II - 2.0 mweflen


x Puncture - 3.0 G


Star Trek: The Motion Picture - 2.75 mweflen


x Mysterious Island - 2.75 G


The Matrix - 1.5 mweflen, djoberg


x Apollo 18 - 5 G


The Matrix Reloaded - 2.0 mweflen


x Contagion - 2.5 G, 2.25 djoberg


x Moneyball - 3.0 G, 1.75 djoberg, 1.75 Hughmc, 1.75 mweflen


Rise Of the Planet of the Apes - 1.75 mweflen, 1.5 rusky_g


The Matrix Revolutions - 1.75 mweflen


Colombiana - 3.0 deltasun, 2.0 djoberg


x Killer Elite - 3.0 G, 3.25 djoberg


x My Fair Lady - 5.0 Saturn94


The Player - 3.25 mweflen


The Social Network - 3.0 mweflen


Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale - 1.25 rusky_g


Spy Kids 4 - 1.25 rusky_g


x Clannad: Complete Collection - 2.5 Phantom Stranger


x I Don't Know How She Does It - 3.25 G


x Ides Of March - .75 G, .75 Joe Bloggz, 1.0 deltasun, 1.5 djoberg


x Abduction - 3.0 G, 3.25 djoberg


x Redline - 0 Foxarwing42


x What's Your Number? - 2.75 G


Dead Poets Society - 2.5 mweflen


x Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory - 2.75 G


x Sekirei: Pure Engagement - 2.75 Phantom Stranger


x Real Steel - .5 G, .75 lgans316


x 50 / 50 - 2.0 G


x Gojira - 3.0 G


Captain America - 2.5 Phantom Stranger


x Godzilla: King Of Monsters - 3.5 G


x Courageous - 2.0 djoberg


x Star Trek: TNG Next Level - 1.25 mweflen


The English Patient - 2.5 mweflen


x The Thing (2011) - 2.5 G, 3.25 djoberg


x In Time - 2.0 G, 1.25 djoberg, 1.75 lgans316


x Drive - 1.0 JoeBloggz, 1.75 G, 1.5 djoberg


x Agora - 0 above I, Robot deltasun


x Dream House - 1.75 djoberg, 3.25 deltasun


Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (UK) - 2.75 lgans316


Drive (UK) - 1.75 lgans316


The Lion King - 1.25 lgans316


x Operation Condor - 3.75 G


x Hung: Complete First Season - 3.0 deltasun


x Don't be Afraid Of the Dark (2011) - 2.75 G


x Lego Star Wars: Padawan menace - 1.75 G


Hot Fuzz - upper half of 0 rusky_g


x A very Harold and Kumar Christmas 3-D - 2.75 G


x The Double - 1.75 deltasun, 1.75 djoberg


x Texas Killing Fields - 2.75 G


Percy Jackson & Olympians: The Lightning Thief - 1.75 djoberg


x Operation Condor 2 - Armour of God - 3.5 G


500 Days Of SUmmer - 2.75 mweflen


Paul - 1.75 mwflen


x Twilight: Breaking Dawn - Part 1 - 2.0 G


x Winter's Bone - 2.5 deltasun


x Recoil - 2.0 G


x The Deadly Spawn - 5 G


x Scarlet Worm - 4.75 G


Lady and the Tramp - 1.0 tcramer, 1.75 G


x Sword Of the Stranger - 0 below Gamer Phantom Stranger


x Project A - 4.25 G


Everything must go - 1.25 mweflen, 1.75 G


x Hugo - 1.25 G, 1.0 djoberg, top of 0 rusky_g, 0 above Up mweflen


x The Son of No One - 1.75 G


x The Big year - 2.75 G


x Needless Collection 1 - 1.75 Phantom Stranger


x Project A 2 - 5 G


Ghost Rider - 1.25 rusky_g


Ponyo - 1.5 Phantom Stranger


x Beneath The Darkness - 3.5 G


x Johnny English reborn - 2.75 G


x The Adventures of Tintin - 0 above Avatar G, 0 below TS3 djoberg, 1.0 patrick99, 0 below The Thin Red Line audiomagnate, .5 lgans316


Twilight Zone: Season One - 2.25 Phantom Stranger


x The Town: UCE - 1.75 G


x The Art Of Flight - 0 between TS2 & IRobot djoberg


x Twin Dragons - 4 G


x Puss In Boots - .25 G


x Immortals - 0 above Transformers: Revenge, Grand Canyon Adventure djoberg, 1.25 Gamereviewgod


x Young Adult - 2.0 G


x Straw Dogs (2011) - 3.0 djoberg


x My Week With Marilyn - 2.75 G, 1.75 mweflen


x Paranormal Activity 3 - 3.75 djoberg


x Justice League: Doom - 1.25 Phantom Stranger


x Pixies Live - 3.5 Phantom Stranger


Scarface - 3.75 G


x Three Musketeers (2011) - .75 G, 0 above iRobot djoberg, .25 rusky_g


x The Descendants - 1.75 G


The Debt - 3.0 mweflen


Jack And Jill - 2.75 G


x Casablanca (70th) - 3.75 G


American Graffiti - 3.0 mweflen, 3.75 G


x Happy Feet 2 - .75 G


x the Muppets - 1.5 G


x The Sitter - 2.5 G


x Demetrius And The Gladiators - 5 Phantom Stranger


Fright Night (2011) - 1.75 Phantom Stranger


x J. Edgar - 1.5 djoberg, 1.75 G


Zookeeper - 2.0 rusky_g


The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (sony) - 2.0 G


x Hop - .75 G


x Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol - 1.5 G, 1.75 cjmx2, 1.25 djoberg, 1.5 lgans316


x The Iron Lady - 2.75 G


x Extremely Loud And Incredibly Close - 1.25 djoberg, 1.25 rusky_g, 1.5 G


x Kate & Leopold - 3.75 G


melancholia - 2.0 mweflen


x We Bought A zoo - 2.0 G


x Ferngully - 3.0 G


x War Horse - 1.5 Hughmc, 1.75 G


x Bounce - 3.75 G


Priest - 1.5 lgans316


x Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy - 3.5 djoberg


x Anonymous - 1.0 mweflen


x The Darkest Hour - 2 G


x Thumbelina - 2.75 G


x Rushmore - 0 below POTC: BP mweflen


x Alvin And The Chipmunks: Chipwrecked - 1.5 G


Stake Land - 1.25 Phantom Stranger


x The Divide - 3.0 G


X Battle Royale: theatrical cut - 3.75 Phantom Stranger


x Seven Below - 3.0 G


x Born To Be Wild - .5 G


x Clueless - 2.75 G


x The Red House - 4.25 G


Immortals (Netherlands) - 2.75 lgans316


The Help - 0 below A Serious man mweflen


x The Graduate (UK) - 2.75 Phantom Stranger


x Night Of The Demons (2010) - 4.5 Phantom Stranger


x Contraband - 3.0 G


Stone - 1.25 Phantom Stranger


x Dark Tide - 3.25 G


x The Innkeepers - 2.75 G


x Heaven's Lost Property: Season One - 3.5 Phantom Stranger


x Boardwalk Empire: Season One - 1.5 Phantom Stranger


Take Shelter - 1.5 mweflen


x W.E. - 4 G


x Road Trip - 2.5 G


----------



## djoberg

^^^^


Another job well done Phantom! Thanks for the time and energy you invest in this endeavor.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Joyful Noise*


Troublesome Warner transfer with sporadic bouts of heavy noise and blooming. Detail is all over the place. Black levels are pleasing and colors are vivid, but the underlying issues drag it down.

*Tier 2.75**


----------



## lgans316

Great job as always Phantom.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Inglorious Bastards (1978)


recommendation: Tier 2.25
*

Severin has served up a gem of a transfer for _The Inglorious Bastards_. Claiming to be fully restored, the BD looks startling clean and pristine with little sign that untoward digital manipulation has been applied. The 99-minute film is encoded in AVC at an average video bitrate of 23.99 Mbps, spread out over a BD-50.


A consistent level of clarity reveals a solid amount of fine detail. Print damage is negligible and the transfer appears to be derived from the original camera negative, ensuring the best quality possible for this disc. The colors do look a bit faded from age and black levels are questionable at times, leaving an image a little too devoid of proper shadow depth. There are few indicators of any sharpening have been used, leaving the transfer free of halos.


The relative lack of grain in the image might be mistaken for having been filtered. That would be a wrong assumption in this case. The very fine patina of grain looks highly natural and the result of a high-quality scan from clean film elements.


Rarely do films of this period, much less ones produced outside of Hollywood, do well by the standards of the tiers. But Severin has made a BD here that easily stands alongside other very good transfers of older films on Blu-ray. It easily surpassed my picture quality expectations for what most would label an Exploitation flick from the seventies.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray/m...2-195df033dd2d


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/21972813
> 
> 
> Great job as always Phantom.



Hear, hear!


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*New Years Eve*


Digital source leaves a clear windowed effect into the movie, free of noise or other errant defect. Close-ups can be clean if imprecise at times. Black levels sell nighttime scenes, while the exteriors of Times Square are certainly memorable.

*Tier 2.0**


----------



## mweflen

*Carnage*

Very middling as far as Blu-Rays go. Everything is stable and decent looking, but fine detail is lacking, both in faces and backgrounds. Black levels stay solid, and colors are quite realistic. No artifacts, banding, or edge enhancement are evident. It looks better than a DVD, to be sure. But it is about as far from demo material as it gets. Totally, completely average.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*


Sony KDL52EX700, 6 foot viewing distance


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Haywire*


Soderbergh goes crazy with the color timing as usual, shifting it from scene to scene, and little of it being natural. Detail can be firm but all over the place. Free of noise, the clarity is fine, and the encode is solid. Focus takes a little from everywhere, rarely spot on.

*Tier 2.75**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Cleopatra (Region-free UK Import)


recommendation: Tier 2.75**


Much praise has been showered on this disc in certain circles for its transfer. _Cleopatra_ was possibly the costliest production in Hollywood history adjusted for inflation, filmed at 65mm with a cast of literally thousands and released in 1963. The BD's transfer has turned out decent, though I expected more detail and less digital processing given the discussion surrounding its release in the UK.


A lengthy movie at 251 minutes, Fox has wisely split the movie over two BD-50s. The AVC video encode is acceptable but rarely hits the bitrates needed to achieve full transparency to the master. It likely averages around 20 Mbps. A large-format film such as this has finer grain than 35mm film, but the occasional optical effect shows a pronounced grain structure that looks unnatural from the lower compression average. While not unacceptable, Fox could have improved the compression parameters for heightened picture fidelity.


Many of the medium-range shots are softer than expected and lack the type of resolution seen in better 65mm transfers. Some of that is due to cinematography inherent to the movie, but the scan looks a tad out-of-date compared to a modern reference. A touch of edge enhancement has also been added that produces slight ringing. It's not a serious detriment but its complete absence would have been preferable. Speculation would have me conclude the transfer was likely created at a time when DVD was the preferred home viewing format. The transfer is largely film-like in nature with a few inconsistencies that prevent a higher placement.


The movie's strong point are the vivid colors and its huge panoramic set designs. Bold primary colors and deep splashes of alternate hues from the costumes fill the screen. Every inch of the wide frame is brightly lit, creating a huge sense of space and impressive clarity. The movie takes full advantage of the wider 65mm frame to enhance the scale and depth of each shot. While objects rarely have the pop and dimension of the better Tier One discs, scenes are not flat and uninvolved by any means.

_Cleopatra_ is not a perfect transfer and I wonder how it would have turned out with a brand-new 8K scan. This is still a very good BD that turned out better than the majority of catalog BDs I've seen.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Mimic: The Director's Cut*


Deep, crushing blacks are intentional, and not enough to wipe out a staggering level of fine detail. Close-ups astound with their perfection, and the set designs rusty texture is marvelous. The color scheme warms and cools regularly, leaving most primaries aside. It's all quite basic. The biggest struggles comes with the grain structure which never finds a groove in this encode. It breaks down far too often.

*Tier 2.0**


----------



## djoberg

*Girl With The Dragon Tattoo*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/21833417
> 
> *Girl with the Dragon Tattoo*
> 
> 
> Dim lighting requires hearty blacks which the disc provides. Limited color palette leaves most of the film stuck in oranges and light blues, heated or cold. Flashbacks are weirdly tinted blue. Facial detail is generally superb with few exceptions.
> 
> *Tier 2.0**



I'm tired so I'll take the easy way out and post GRG's review, which I agree with 100%. The only thing I would add on the negative side is several scenes with overblown whites (i.e., HOT contrast). On the plus side there were MANY scenes with outstanding details, especially clothing, brick buildings, cobble streets, etc.


GRG nailed the placement too...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 6'


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Mimic 2*


Black levels lessened from the first movie and they lose some of their punch, but gain in shadow detail. Mild grain is resolved without too many problems, and the color scheme has bursts of energy. The real loss are the close-ups, still impressive on the high end, but the low end of the scale are more prevalent.

*Tier 2.75**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Mimic 3: Sentinel*


Blah. Colors are drained and detail is bland at best. Black levels are passable with some crush returning to the series. At the very least, the grain is under control. That's something.

*Tier 3.25**


----------



## mweflen

*The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (US)*


I think this is a bit better than GRG and DJO have put it - but I understand why they did. There is indeed a muted color palette. I just don't find it as objectionable. When I watch this, I'm mostly drawn in by the excellent (but not best of format) detail levels and the inky, stable blacks. No color banding or undue noise in low light scenes seems evident. This is easily the best-looking movie shot with the Red family of cameras, and is a very good looking HD release.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*


Sony KDL52EX700, 8 foot viewing distance


----------



## mweflen

*The Universe, Season 1*


A total mixed bag as far as PQ goes. The episodes get better looking as the season progresses. Overall, black levels are usually solid, and there isn't a tremendous amount of color banding or edge enhancement. HD video of talking heads and locales shot early in the season struggles to look better than DVD. As the season goes on, this video can look quite striking, at near "Planet Earth" levels. CGI evinces deep black levels and good detail, but some of it is rather dated looking. Episodes have a hodge-podge of video sources, such as old NASA animation (usually looks pretty bad), NASA footage, space probe photographs, and so on. The best looking program on the set by far is the 90 minute extra feature "Beyond The Big Bang," which has newer CGI and excellent talking head shots, as well as really nice close-ups of period photographs, a la Ken Burns documentaries. If everything looked like this, it might approach lower tier 1 levels.


Overall it's better than streaming or DVD PQ, but not to a "slam dunk" degree. It's too inconsistent.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.25*


----------



## lgans316

*War Horse*


Very good cinematography but few long and some medium shots shots lacked a bit of depth. There appears to be a touch of haloing but not sure if it is EE or something else. The War sequence prior to the climax looks too soft, murky and a bit lifeless.


Very good movie although a bit predictable at times but perfect for family viewing.

*Recommendation: Tier 1.75*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/22000048
> 
> *War Horse*
> 
> 
> Very good cinematography but few long and some medium shots shots lacked a bit of depth. There appears to be a touch of haloing but not sure if it is EE or something else. The War sequence prior to the climax looks too soft, murky and a bit lifeless.
> 
> 
> Very good movie although a bit predictable at times but perfect for family viewing.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 1.75*



Thanks for the review on this title Igans! I believe you're the first.


I've had this Blu-ray since its release date but haven't been able to view it yet. Hopefully I'll see it sometime after Mother's Day weekend (we heading for Minneapolis to be with all of our daughters and their families).


Edit: I was wrong...GRG reviewed it too. He gave it the same score but unlike you he thought the movie was rubbish! Different strokes for different folks, I guess.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/22000138
> 
> 
> Edit: I was wrong...GRG reviewed it too. He gave it the same score but unlike you he thought the movie was rubbish! Different strokes for different folks, I guess.



Mere words cannot express my disdain for this movie.

*Mother's Day (2011)*


Clean grain structure textures this horror flick. Detail is high, and sharpness is appreciable. Color palettes are limited to orange interiors and blue exteriors. Black levels don't always pack a punch, but they do preserve shadow detail.
*Tier 2.0**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Underworld: Evolution*


The other films are saddled in tiers 1 and 2, which is surprising to me given that they're nothing but blue. Lots of blue. So much blue. Detail can be high, while medium shots carry a plastic-ish look. Black crush is also another series identifying factor that carries over here. Minor aliasing is barely worth docking the disc for.

*Tier 2.5**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Vow*


Nice color scheme fitted with a clean encode that handles the grain structure without too many problems. A black level goof here or there are minor at worst. Great texture all around in terms of facial detail and Chicago views.

*Tier 1.75**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Spice And Wolf: Season Two


recommendation: Tier 1.25*
*

The second season of _Spice and Wolf_ was natively produced in high-definition and looks beautiful for animation. Funimation has spread the entire season over two BDs. The very solid AVC video encode holds up quite well without the typical problem of banding seen in animation on Blu-ray. The rustic colors bloom on the screen, showing off the strong line-art and detailed background scenery.


A notable lack of aliasing or any other detrimental artifact of the animation process is a welcome feature that is rare for a production not intended for theatrical distribution. Pristine in clarity and contrast, this set is a definitive example of a tier one disc. Extremely polished art for a non-theatrical production, only the lack of a strong multi-plane effect and a few other high-end flourishes prevent _Spice and Wolf_ from a better placement.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/22000138
> 
> 
> Thanks for the review on this title Igans! I believe you're the first.
> 
> 
> I've had this Blu-ray since its release date but haven't been able to view it yet. Hopefully I'll see it sometime after Mother's Day weekend (we heading for Minneapolis to be with all of our daughters and their families).
> 
> 
> Edit: I was wrong...GRG reviewed it too. He gave it the same score but unlike you he thought the movie was rubbish! Different strokes for different folks, I guess.



Yep, GRG reviewed it first I think. Regarding the movie, to each their own. I sort of liked it but didn't feel like a Spielberg movie although it was decent.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Wrestlemania XXVIII*


Just a smidgen better than the cable broadcast, which is par for WWE discs. The color of the set brings some great saturation into the mix, but it's impossible to miss the heavy artifacting, smeary skin, and aliasing at almost every turn. It's a mild improvement over last year at best.

*Tier 3.75**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Gremlins 2: The New Batch*


Grain tends to move all the place from clean to dominating the image, but the encode is pretty handy at keeping tabs. Detail is great, and the brighter tone makes for an instantly more pleasing look than the first. Black levels are jumpy but passable.

*Tier 2.75**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Super


recommendation: 1.75*


A dark and violent satire on superhero themes, _Super_ looks relatively decent for an independent production as it was shot using the Red One digital camera at 4K resolution. IFC Films has done a credible job producing the BD, as the AVC video encode averages a robust 34 Mbps that is flawless.


The main strength of the picture is its high level of detail and consistent clarity. Lacking a bit is the pedestrian cinematography, leaving colors a bit dull and the camerawork uninspired. Shadow depth and delineation is also less than exemplary, a common problem with digital video productions.


In a surprise for a newer film, colors are quite neutral and show no obvious bias toward a teal-and-orange color timing. That leaves the fleshtones looking natural and untouched. There are no indications that any filtering or edge enhancement was applied to the transfer, likely taken straight from a digital intermediate.

_Super_ possesses a clean, clinical appearance that reminds the viewer it is not shot on film. The picture quality has enough positive attributes to qualify for Tier One, though its lack of demo appeal might be a sticking point for some.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Patsfan123):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...7#post20851117


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Chronicle*


For 14 minutes, the opening is shot with DVD-era resolution including edge enhancement to spruce it up. Past that, it's generally glorious. Fantastic definition, outstanding color, and the most minor of problems. Texture is superb too.
*Tier 2.25**


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/22024393
> 
> *Gremlins 2: The New Batch*
> 
> 
> Grain tends to move all the place from clean to dominating the image, but the encode is pretty handy at keeping tabs. Detail is great, and the brighter tone makes for an instantly more pleasing look than the first. Black levels are jumpy but passable.
> 
> *Tier 2.75**



Do you remember which alternate scene they used when the Gremlins break into the projection booth? Was it the home video version where the screen turns into a test pattern? I didn't see it in your review on your site.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/22031754
> 
> 
> Do you remember which alternate scene they used when the Gremlins break into the projection booth? Was it the home video version where the screen turns into a test pattern? I didn't see it in your review on your site.



It's the film version. The VHS version is in the extra features.
*The Devil Inside*


Crummy video is the nature of these found footage clunkers (most of the time). Beginning with '80s era VHS and moving to sub-par, low res everything else, only a scene or two of this movie looks appealing. It's muddy, full of noise, and lacking any real fine detail.
*Tier 4.0**


----------



## djoberg

*War Horse*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/22000048
> 
> *War Horse*
> 
> 
> Very good cinematography but few long and some medium shots shots lacked a bit of depth. There appears to be a touch of haloing but not sure if it is EE or something else. The War sequence prior to the climax looks too soft, murky and a bit lifeless.
> 
> 
> Very good movie although a bit predictable at times but perfect for family viewing.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 1.75*



I pretty much agree with every point mentioned. Implied in the remarks by Igans is that depth was very good in "close shots," which is certainly true. I was delighted with the depth and dimensionality throughout the whole film, though *some* medium and long shots suffered in this regard.


As a lover of facial details I was impressed with *most* close-ups; the texture was finely rendered revealing every wrinkle, bead of sweat, scar, etc. Definitely Tier 0 quality in this department! Details in general were striking, though here too it was somewhat inconsistent. The big war scene had moments were they fell flat with less-than-stellar detail, though there were sporadic shots that were quite compelling.


Colors were natural and vibrant throughout the many outdoor shots, whether the director was zooming in close or giving us sweeping, panoramic shots of the lush countryside.


Black levels were more than satisfactory for 90% of the movie, with exquisite shadow details in nighttime shots. Low Tier 0/high Tier 1, for sure.


If not for the soft and flat shots in the war scene I'd be tempted to nominate this for Tier Blu. Penalizing it as I must, it's still demo-worthy and I'm going to bump it up a notch from the 1.75 given by Igans (and GRG)....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)...Pioneer Elite 05...Viewed from 7.5'


PS When the war scene began the audio rocked...BIG TIME. the galloping of horses and all the cannons going off had me smiling.


PPS Being a sucker for movies in this genre (i.e., "horse" movies), I found it very acceptable, not spectacular, but good enough to watch again someday.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*One for the Money*


Bland Katherine Heigl vehicle is tolerable without much of a push towards precision. Colors have nice variety and saturation. The encode is harmless and the contrast has energy. Blacks do too for that matter. It's fine detail where this disc will fail to find its groove, although it's never unnatural.

*Tier 2.25**


----------



## djoberg

*The Grey*


How can I sum up _The GREY_ in a word? Let's see...how about "GRAY"...or perhaps "GRAIny." Yeah, those TWO WORDS will do.

















Let's talk about GRAY. Most of the 2 Hr. running time had a consistent GRAY, muted color palette. Nothing exciting that screams EYE CANDY...but perfectly true to the solemn theme of the movie, which is one of desperation and death.


Now let's muse on GRAIny. I can't recall the last time I saw a current title with this much grain...and this grain was intrusive and downright NOISY in many scenes, especially the night scenes and the multiple daytime scenes when it snowed. It wasn't pretty, though it didn't reach Tier 5 status like _28 Days Later_.


So, were there any redeeming qualities? I'm happy to say there were, and they happened to be my favorite kind of EYE CANDY....FACIAL DETAILS!! Thankfully we are treated to many facial close-ups in the second half and they don't disappoint, with the director favoring Liam Neeson AND the FACES OF WOLVES (yes, we see many angry wolves "up close and personal" and you can see every strand of their unkempt hair, the threatening yellows of their glaring eyes (at night) and the pearly whites of their ravenous teeth







).


Details in general were also quite good towards the end (once they reached the wilderness and during "the river" scenes) coupled with appreciable depth. Blacks were good at times; but...you guessed it, a "dark gray" at other times.


As you can imagine from my somewhat unusual description of the PQ, this is going to be a hard call. This isn't a "black and white" situation as in other titles...instead it's a....oh, what shall I call it?...well, I'll just say there's too many "gray areas" to be certain where it belongs.







But one must reach a conclusion....so after considerable deliberation I'll put it right here...

*Tier Recommendation: 3.25**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## lgans316

Nice review Denny. Had huge expectations but looks like I have to tone it down.

*Puss in Boots*


Top quality presentation. Decent animated flick. Couple of soft moments but looks to be intentional and widely prevalent in modern animation. Enjoyed this better than Rango which I felt was too dragging.

*Recommendation: Tier 0 (Below Rango)*


----------



## mweflen

*Chinatown*


Really nice looking transfer. Extremely filmic. Rock solid black levels, quite good dimensionality. Focus effects diminish detail around the edges of frame, but generally speaking detail is quite strong. Foliage and cloth really stand out. Facial detail is middling to very good depending on where the actor is in frame. Colors are vibrant and realistic. Grain is present and consistent. No undue DNR or EE seem evident.


Basically, this looks every bit as good as "LA Confidential," which was filmed more than 20 years later. Really excellent transfer of 1970s material. Easily trumps dvd level presentations.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


Sony 52EX700, 8 foot viewing distance


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen* /forum/post/22048258
> 
> *Chinatown*
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.0*



That sounds like a fantastic transfer from your description. I've been meaning to pick it up but haven't gotten around to it yet.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Whisper Of The Heart


recommendation: Tier 2.5**


Studio Ghibli's 1995 coming-of-age tale looks fine on this edition produced by Disney. _Whisper Of The Heart_ does not have flashy animation and the color palette stays relatively muted for animation, producing a solid transfer that is not going to knock the socks off veteran Blu-ray owners. It's possible a modicum of digital noise reduction has been used, but there is little noticeable effect on the picture quality.


The traditional cel animation looks painterly in the backgrounds but character designs are somewhat limited and simplistic in style. Set mostly in a realistic suburban environment in Japan, the story does not provide the opportunity for the type of artistic flourish the medium is best suited.


On technical matters Disney has once again done a credible and near-perfect effort on the actual transfer and encoding. Claiming to be from a new digital master, there is virtually nothing one can criticize and point to as a fault of the transfer. The BD looks to be a pristine copy of the original animation, free of visible flaws. The animation is clean enough to allow a video bitrate that frequently dips below 20 Mbps while maintaining transparency and detail.


When it comes down to it, ranking an animated title like this one is more subjective than objective. It looks perfectly fine but on the whole possesses less artistic value and demo potential than newer Studio Ghibli efforts on the format.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Hondo*

Absolute gem of a 4K restoration, unfortunately downed by a source that is consistently hampered by chemical fades. At its peak, it's one of the best of the best in terms of pre-1960 catalog titles I've seen. At its worst, it's down there with the cheapest throw-away piece on the market. What a shame, but it's unavoidable.
*Tier 2.75**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I figure some that follow the thread might be interested to learn I've gone pro and started reviewing BDs for DoBlu . The first one for _Coriolanus_ went up a few days ago. After passing up opportunities to review in the past for other sites, Gamereviewgod made me an offer I couldn't refuse.










This should not impact my contributions here and the PQ Tiers will be run the same as they always have been under my guidance.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/22059967
> 
> 
> I figure some that follow the thread might be interested to learn I've gone pro and started reviewing BDs for DoBlu . The first one for _Coriolanus_ went up a few days ago. After passing up opportunities to review in the past for other sites, Gamereviewgod made me an offer I couldn't refuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This should not impact my contributions here and the PQ Tiers will be run the same as they always have been under my guidance.



Awesome news Phantom!!


----------



## lgans316

I thought you were already a PRO Phantom.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316* /forum/post/22061300
> 
> 
> I thought you were already a PRO Phantom.



Exactly! Only now he's *officially* a pro, so we have the right to call him on the carpet when we think he's way off on his critique (like we do with the "other experts" on various websites other than this thread).










All kidding aside, congrats Phantom! You most definitely have the ability to see the good and the bad in any given title...and the gift to write it down as well. I'll certainly be reading your reviews, along with GRG's.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/22061666
> 
> 
> Exactly! Only now he's *officially* a pro, so we have the right to call him on the carpet when we think he's way off on his critique (like we do with the "other experts" on various websites other than this thread).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All kidding aside, congrats Phantom! You most definitely have the ability to see the good and the bad in any given title...and the gift to write it down as well. I'll certainly be reading your reviews, along with GRG's.



After I come from Facebook and then here, I am often looking for the 'like' button...


----------



## Phantom Stranger

See, I'm still here.









*Journey Through The Past


recommendation: Tier 5**


Solely released as part of the mammoth box set known as the _Neil Young Archives_, this film should be treated more as a historical document than anything else. It's enough that it exists and fans finally get to watch it years after it was made in 1972, but the picture quality is quite poor. Combining archival footage and 16mm film that is extremely rough, the final result is barely watchable. Fans will eat up the rare glimpses of Buffalo Springfield and outtakes from the Harvest sessions, but be prepared for copious amounts of grain with poor contrast and crushing.


----------



## djoberg

*Beyond*


MEDIOCRE...that word came to mind throughout most of the 90 minute running time. There just wasn't the WOW factor that one longs for in the Blu-ray format, though I don't mean to imply that there were no redeeming features. Let me name a few:


1) Blacks were decent in most scenes, as were their corresponding shadow details.


2) Contrast rose to the occasion in most instances as well. In fact, there was one daytime scene in particular at about the 41 minute mark (and lasting 2-3 minutes) that took place in the harbor (where Jon Voight was looking for a suspect among the slips) and the white snow in the background was dazzling and served to enhance the detail quite nicely.


3) Facial details were fairly good, revealing the aging of the lead actors.


But on the negative side there were numerous shots that were soft and fell flat and this contributed to my ongoing thought that this was going to end up in the average bin (i.e. Tier 3) or close to it. My gut is dictating the following...

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)...Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## djoberg

*Haywire*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/21979463
> 
> *Haywire*
> 
> 
> Soderbergh goes crazy with the color timing as usual, shifting it from scene to scene, and little of it being natural. Detail can be firm but all over the place. Free of noise, the clarity is fine, and the encode is solid. Focus takes a little from everywhere, rarely spot on.
> 
> *Tier 2.75**



Once again I find myself quite tired and having found a previous review that I happen to agree with, I will take the easy way out and echo GRG's sentiments. I will add that there were some scenes (particularly towards the end) that had remarkable detail and depth, along with warm and vibrant colors (without the dreaded bronze or teal). Black levels were also pleasing at times, which is always a big plus.


Before I hit the STOP button on my Harmony Remote I said to myself, "I'm giving this one a 2.75," so I was surprised to see GRG on the same page in his placement too....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


Edit: I thought I should add the movie itself was DIFFERENT. I had never seen a martial arts flick that was so REAL; every fight looked like they were packing real punches and kicks and they didn't come across like super heroes either.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Ip Man


recommendation: Tier 2.5**

_Ip Man_ is widely considered one of the best, if not the best, martial arts films of recent vintage. Unfortunately the transfer exposes severe limitations in the filmed source's cinematography and has its own problems to boot on this disc. Some moments are razor-sharp and pristine in their clarity, easily qualifying for the upper level of tier one.


That pulchritude does not hold up, especially in the darker scenes. A significant portion of General Miura's “tournaments” are shown in dim light and the picture quality becomes severely degraded with noise and constant underexposure.


Those problems do not even begin to account for the sporadic ringing seen throughout several different scenes. Ip Man's production standards are not quite up to the caliber of a Hollywood movie and the entire transfer's contrast looks slightly off here. I was surprised to see this film had a digital intermediate, that usually translates to a higher level of picture quality for the BD than what we got here.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Goon*


Very bright, chipper looking film with intense primaries. Contrast is marvelous even if the black levels tend not to be. Detail is here and there, but at the peak, it's flawless. No signs of noise give this one a reality-like base that is immediately appealing.

*Tier 2.0**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Lucio Fulci's Zombie


recommendation: Tier 3.5**


Blue Underground has produced an excellent BD that looks very good considering the origin and age of the film. The 91-minute _Zombie_ was released in 1979 and has never looked better on home video. Claiming to be from the camera negative, the transfer looks pleasingly film-like with a lack of notable digital processing. Magenta has been oversaturated to some degree, leading to flesh-tones that are a bit too warm. It does provide some visual benefit to the copious amounts of blood on the screen.


Unlike several other Blue Underground BDs, _Zombie_ does not seem to suffer from the analog noise problem that has proven bothersome in the past. Print damage is kept to an absolute minimum, with a few faint lines in a couple of scenes the only visible problem. The AVC video encode averages 22.99 Mbps and does a satisfactory job in most instances, though some early blue skies have a touch of artifacting.


Zombie on Blu-ray is not anyone's idea of a demo disc but is a clear upgrade over the DVD.


BDInfo scan (Courtesy of eNoize):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...9#post21172809


----------



## deltasun

Congrats, Phantom! GRG can spot talent, that's for sure. That probably means you'll be watching more movies!










Btw, sorry guys for the whole 8K comment on Baraka. Don't know where my head was. I just saw new packaging and thought it was a new scan.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Gone*


Very film-like digital source loaded with fine detail. Texture is immense. The drab blue/orange color palette saps some of the intensity out of this one, which is a shame. Black levels are dominating and consistent.

*Tier 2.25**


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg* /forum/post/21049075
> 
> *Insidious*
> 
> 
> I would NOT call this a "drab, ugly-looking movie." It has the typical muted color palette for the genre it represents (i.e., horror), but there is a good amount of detail and depth throughout. So, in my book the colors were a bit on the *drab* side, but the movie wasn't ugly.
> 
> 
> There were also *some* facial close-ups that revealed pores, wrinkles, etc., especially on Patrick Wilson and the woman who played the spirit medium.
> 
> 
> It was, as GRG said, "clean" (with the "Home Video" look) and he also hit the nail on the head in calling the black levels "fine." (I was impressed every time they showed the outside of the first house at night; the night sky was so black that it gave the house and yard a real sense of depth.) That being said, the end had a long scene with Mr. Wilson groping in the darkness and the blacks looked quite murky to my eyes.
> 
> 
> This may not have the WOW factor, but I actually thought it was above average, though certainly not what we would call *reference* or *demo* material. Still, I'm thinking it is deserving of....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.5**
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


*Insidious


recommendation: Tier 2.0*


My thoughts on the disc are not that far removed from Djoberg's review. The Blu-ray has a fairly clean, sharp look to it. Outside of the persistent ringing and stark teal color palette, I found it a relatively pleasing appearance. It did have more sharpening than most new films these days, but clarity is very high for a horror movie.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...9#post20732769


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*This Means War*


Surprisingly stern grain structure that has a number of spikes, but the encode holds out. Colors are super, ultra, mega saturated at times, including flesh tones. Then, CIA headquarters turns teal, because all super computer monitors are monochrome teal, right? Fine detail is tight and focused, while black levels will skip the occasion in spots.

*Tier 2.0**


----------



## Techno Tonis

I have an interesting question... does anyone know what the highest ranked blu-ray transfer for a movie made prior to 1960 is on this list?


Just out of curiosity sake, I wouldn't mind seeing just a few older films that have been given exceptional restoration treatment.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

The oldest animated film in Tier 0 is Disney's _Sleeping Beauty_, from 1959. The highest ranked live-action film of that vintage is _How The West Was Won_ in Tier 1.0, released in 1962. For those wondering, the oldest live-action film in Tier 0 is _Baraka_. It was released in 1992. There are a few older films scattered throughout Tier One. _The Professionals_ is in Tier 1.25.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Techno Tonis* /forum/post/22080452
> 
> 
> I have an interesting question... does anyone know what the highest ranked blu-ray transfer for a movie made prior to 1960 is on this list?
> 
> 
> Just out of curiosity sake, I wouldn't mind seeing just a few older films that have been given exceptional restoration treatment.



As Phantom mentioned, _How The West Was Won_; it's simply amazing!


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/22029218
> 
> *Chronicle*
> 
> 
> For 14 minutes, the opening is shot with DVD-era resolution including edge enhancement to spruce it up. Past that, it's generally glorious. Fantastic definition, outstanding color, and the most minor of problems. Texture is superb too.
> *Tier 2.25**



Spot on. Superb looking title except for the first 14 minutes. Interesting movie but expected more. Felt a bit underplayed, lack of budget??


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Lethal Weapon (Lethal Weapon Collection)*


A (much) newer encode than the one from 2006 brings the film to life with great color and vivid sharpness. Fine detail is consistent, and the grain is resolved beautifully. Black levels could use at least a little kick, but they still work. Huge improvement.

*Tier 2.0**


----------



## Techno Tonis




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/22081159
> 
> 
> The oldest animated film in Tier 0 is Disney's _Sleeping Beauty_, from 1959. The highest ranked live-action film of that vintage is _How The West Was Won_ in Tier 1.0, released in 1962. For those wondering, the oldest live-action film in Tier 0 is _Baraka_. It was released in 1992. There are a few older films scattered throughout Tier One. _The Professionals_ is in Tier 1.25.



Outstanding, thank you!


----------



## mweflen

*Whip It*

Pretty nice. Good solid black levels, realistic and vibrant color. Facial detail on close-ups is quite good. Background details in wide angle shots are just average. This is obviously HD, but it's pretty a average "new movie" transfer overall.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*


SOny 52EX700, 8 foot viewing distance


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Lethal Weapon 2 (Lethal Weapon Collection)*


More of the same with marginally improved black levels. Not enough to move it up from the first film.

*Tier 2.0**


----------



## djoberg

*The Iron Lady*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod* /forum/post/21847289
> 
> 
> *The Iron Lady*
> 
> 
> With some taped stock footage to add authenticity (plus it's stretched to fill the frame), flattened color palette, and dulled blacks, this one won't win awards for eye candy. Excellent detail, especially on the make-ups, does help this disc's cause. Close-ups are typically clean, and grain is resolved well.
> *Tier 2.75**



This is absolutely uncanny, but for the second time in a row I find myself agreeing 100% with GRG and thus I feel compelled to post his review and placement and add my hearty Amen!


I really don't have anything to add (or subtract) so I'll sign off now with the same placement recommendation....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elilte (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Lethal Weapon 3 (LW Collection)*


Weakest transfer of the four. Some super slight edge enhancement reveals itself on occasion, enough to ding the transfer. Medium shots have a lightly filtered appearance, while close-ups still hold. What goes super awry are the black levels. They never find a groove they can stick with and flatten the entire film.

*Tier 2.75**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Angel Beats!

recommendation: Tier 1.5**


A 2010 production, the animation sparkles in 1080p. Released by Sentai Filmworks, this is an exemplary BD set that has no problems with the transfer. More importantly the original production quality looks quite high with detailed background scenery and fluid motion. Contrast is perfect and the colors are vivid. The picture quality is just a step behind theatrical animation in terms of effects and depth.


----------



## lgans316

*Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows*


Looks nice and better than it's prequel. Ultra thin layer of grain visible but some shots looks a bit filtered. Contrast is strong. Well defined close up shots. Colors are a bit saturated than its prequel but confines to the period look. Black levels are a bit weak on some scenes. Very good PQ overall.

*Recommendation: Tier 2.0*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Sucker Punch


recommendation: Tier 4.0*


I guess it's called _Sucker Punch_ because that is what I felt like happened to me, after watching this ugly presentation. Currently in the middle of tier one, something went horribly wrong between the raw filming and post for _Sucker Punch_. Digitally graded beyond recognition to meld the videogame-like mix of CGI and green-screen environments, the BD possesses a harsh digital appearance. The amount of noise at times proves distracting except in the more conservative “reality” scenes. Imagine the look of "_300_" on steroids to the nth degree.


There are so many problems to mention it's hard to come up with a list of positives, except for the superior resolution in a few select scenes. It looks to be a conscious effort by Zack Snyder, the director, to make the aesthetic in the film as gritty as possible. A shame since _Watchmen_ looked so effortlessly great on BD. It doesn't help any that the script is an incoherent mess that would have been more suitable for a 90s music video.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Jojos):
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...7#post20789837


----------



## djoberg

*Coriolanus*


I was drawn to this movie based on the amazing cast (Ralph Fiennes, Gerard Butler, Vanessa Redgrave, Jessica Chastain, and Brian Cox) and I was also curious to see how Ralph Fiennes fared in his directorial debut. The acting was superb, but the pacing, alone with the story-line, left something to be desired.


The PQ was sub-par, with poor black levels, gobs of noise, weak contrast, sporadic soft shots, a drab color palette, and less-than-stellar detail. To be fair, I will point out that there were facial close-ups that rivaled titles in the top two tiers. This, along with some appreciable depth at times, were the only two redeeming qualities of note.


This was most definitely below average and I'm inclined to nominate it for....

*Tier Recommendation: 3.5**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elilte (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Denny, that was exactly where I would have placed _Coriolanus_ had I considered it for the PQ Tiers. For the most part I don't plan on posting my reviews from DoBlu.com here in the thread. Hopefully some of you will be motivated to check them out over there.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger* /forum/post/22093689
> 
> 
> Denny, that was exactly where I would have placed _Coriolanus_ had I considered it for the PQ Tiers. For the most part I don't plan on posting my reviews from DoBlu.com here in the thread. Hopefully some of you will be motivated to check them out over there.



I had read your review of _Coriolanus_ last week and I agree with each point made. I plan to read your reviews and would encourage others to do so. You most definitely have the gift of a writer, as does GRG.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Lethal Weapon 4 (LW Collection)*


A step up from the third film and the best of the bunch. Being so young has its advantages. Grain is super fine, detail soars, and color is warmer. Black levels are precise too. Solid material.

*Tier 1.75**


----------



## djoberg

*Underworld: Awakening*


As with each outing in this series, this is DARK throughout. This being the case one longs for good black levels and shadow details....I'm happy to say that they don't, for the most part, disappoint. There were a few instances of black crush, but overall we are treated to excellent clarity and sharpness in black levels with exceptional shadow detail (brick buildings, streets, rain drops, etc. were gleaming with fine detail).


Facial details were also exemplary in the majority of close-ups, with the exception of Kate Beckinsale (I fear the aging actress demanded enough make-up to cover her wrinkles and other *natural* flaws that come with years).


Colors were lacking due to the prominent dark scenes, but when primaries were manifested they popped. Flesh tones were a bit on the pale side, but hey, we're dealing with vampires so what can we expect.
 









I mentioned "excellent clarity and sharpness" above (regarding the many dark scenes) and this was true in daytime/outdoor scenes as well, though at times they faltered and I suspect the CGI is the main culprit here.


I did a search and found that I gave the third installment a 2.0 rating. I believe _Awakening_ was a tad better (besides, I'm feeling generous tonight) so I'm opting for....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


PS If this were an audio thread I *might* be tempted to nominate this for the "King of the Hill." They spared no expense in this department with thunderous bass in multiple explosions and plenty of action in the surrounds. The movie itself sucked but it was worth the rental for the PQ and especially for the AQ.


----------



## djoberg

*The Woman In Black*


I didn't actually plan it this way, but my last two viewings have both been dark transfers throughout their running time of approximately 90 minutes. I can easily say this one did NOT fare as well as _Underground: Awakening_, for it lacked the sharpness and clarity that ruled the day in _U:A_. The first two-thirds were inconsistent with many soft shots coupled with several scenes with either smoke or fog. Black levels were mostly murky with shadow details suffering as a consequence.


The last one third was much better with more detail, depth, and clarity. There are two scenes with Daniel Radcliffe and Ciaran Hinds driving in the countryside with incredible depth and dimensionality and the director chose to zoom in on Hinds revealing amazing facial texture. But those shots were few and far between and simply left you drooling for more. The standout scene was a nighttime scene with Hinds pulling Radcliffe out of the mud (via a rope)...the blacks were incredible as were the shadow details.


Colors were muted from beginning to end. Flesh tones were spot on. Contrast was average.


I read some of the "experts" and I was taken aback at the chorus of praise this received in the PQ department. That was NOT my experience; in fact, I'm convinced this is only worthy of the average bin, though the latter third of the title serves to put it at the top of the tier....

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## djoberg

*Gone*


I knew, from the opening scene in Forest Park (outside of Portland, OR), that I had some EYE CANDY to look forward to. This was one crisp and detailed transfer from beginning to end. Blacks levels were to-die-for (again, in the opening scene the black bars blended in perfectly with my Pioneer's bezel and they never let up). Shadow details were off the charts, with many nighttime scenes highlighting this virtue. Facial details were also good (high Tier 1, IMO); even close-ups of Jill and Molly revealed texture rarely seen in female leads. Colors were vibrant, especially the lush forest and hills outside of Portland (I was there several years ago and it brought back memories of just how beautiful the country is around Portland). Add to these praises some solid depth in numerable scenes.


I believe GRG gave this a 2.25, so we will have to part company on this one. This is DEFINITELY "demo material" and easily deserves a place in Tier Gold. My vote goes for....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


PS I would even be willing to bump it up a notch (1.25) if others are so inclined.


----------



## djoberg

*Contraband*


NOT Pretty!! The first half of this title was very disappointing with terrible blacks levels coupled with intrusive grain. Gritty is the word that came to mind after the first scene or two. The black crush was deplorable in many scenes with fine detail being almost nil. The PQ did get significantly better as the movie progressed but I never found myself saying "WOW!" or hitting the pause button to revel in the detail or definition. This one will more than likely find its way into the average bin, though perhaps it *may* reach the top....

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## djoberg

*My Week With Marilyn*


This was one INCONSISTENT MESS!!! Sharp one moment; soft the next. When it was sharp it was quite pleasing to the eye, with warm and vibrant colors, good blacks levels, excellent contrast, spot-on flesh tones, and satisfying details (including facial details). But when it was soft (and I'm here to say this was all too often) I felt like I was watching a cheap cable broadcast with little or no depth and less-than-stellar details. The lighting in those instances may have been a factor, but it changed so quickly that there must have been other variables involved. If I were to rate this based on the soft scenes I'd have to assign it to low Tier 3 or even high Tier 4, but thankfully the sharp scenes reached Tier 1 status at times bringing me to the following conclusion....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.5**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Man on a Ledge*


A bland sense of black levels and muted (but dense) color palette knock it out of contention here. Sharpness is wonderful though and the detail is just oozing from the frame. Definition is stern even if the camera pulls back.

*Tier 1.75**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Everyone should be aware the main PQ Tier list has temporarily disappeared for the moment with the changeover in the forum's software. No data has been lost (it's all kept on a private server off of AVS) but I am trying to address the issues. I was afraid this was going to happen and it could take a little time. The complex coding needed for the other software forum might have to be changed for this new software.


----------



## pbarach




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19410#post_22102259
> 
> *My Week With Marilyn*
> 
> This was one INCONSISTENT MESS!!! Sharp one moment; soft the next.



I agree--the color balance and sharpness changed from scene to scene for no reason that I could relate to the content of the movie. The best single shot was the opening shot of Marilyn appearing in a spotlight wearing a white dress, from a completely black screen. After that, it was downhill, then uphill, then downhill, etc.... Entertaining movie, though.


----------



## tfoltz

The new forum design has gimped this thread since you can't see activity in sticky threads and can't go to the last page. I'm sure it's possible to follow it easier if you subscribe to it, but that shouldn't be necessary. If I'm missing something, let me know. Haven't posted in this thread in a while, but still like to keep track.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Hallelujah, the main list for the PQ Tiers is back up and working again!

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1168342/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-rankings 


We'll see how the change to the forum affects the thread in the long run. It does appear now that subscribing to the thread might be a good idea for regular readers. It's business as usual from my perspective, though it will take some time to adjust to the new look and how the Blu-ray software forum is laid out.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Gone Fishin'*


A slight edge enhancement doesn't dampen the tightness of the fine detail, this despite maybe a smidgen of DNR. Black levels are passable, while compression hangs over the image. What do you expect for $6?

*Tier 2.75**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Meatballs*


Burdened with thick grain and an encode that can't resolve it, Meatballs takes a beating on this disc. It doesn't help that the master takes a liking to the color and saturates it outside of usual boundaries either. The print is clean for the most part, and black levels play nice with the contrast. Passable.
*Tier 3.25**


----------



## djoberg

*Chronicle*


As noted in a previous review, the first 14 minutes of this title is sub par, with plenty of noise, little detail, and lacking depth. After that point it definitely improves in clarity, detail, and color. Black levels could be good but there were still instances where they faltered. Facial details up close were superb, as were details in general shot up close. The "battle scene" at the end was a mixed bag, with some of the CGI creating a blur and some soft shots.


I realize GRG was so impressed with the footage after the 14 minute mark that he gave it a 2.25 and Igans316 echoed his sentiments, but I'm having trouble going that high. Why? Because the first 14 minutes were approximately 18% of the running time (this was one SHORT film!) and there were some anomalies in the remaining 82% along with the dreaded "shaky cam." So, I'm forced to go considerably lower. I'm thinking it deserves to be right here....

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *pbarach*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19410#post_22104533
> 
> 
> I agree--the color balance and sharpness changed from scene to scene for no reason that I could relate to the content of the movie. The best single shot was the opening shot of Marilyn appearing in a spotlight wearing a white dress, from a completely black screen. After that, it was downhill, then uphill, then downhill, etc.... Entertaining movie, though.



I agree...it was an entertaining movie. I have heard from several reliable sources that this *week* in Marilyn's life was quite characteristic of her (short) adult life. What a tragedy it was...the inevitable outcome of Hollywood's influence on one who rose to fame from obscurity based mainly on her beauty and charm.


----------



## lgans316

*Kung Fu Panda 2*


Nothing much to criticize. Looks fantastic. Sound wise, it looks to be slightly less aggressive in comparison to it's predecessor. Well done sequel.

*Recommendation: Tier 0, above Kung Fu Panda 1*


----------



## djoberg

*Man on a Ledge*


WOW!!! Details, details, and more details....and then add in a good dose of depth and dimensionality. I guess that makes this 3D.







Regarding details, facial details excelled all the way through, especially close-ups of Ed Harris and Sam Worthington (they were Tier Blu FOR SURE).


Flesh tones were also spot-on....contrast was very good....clarity and sharpness were the norm...and colors, though hindered somewhat by blue/teal hues, were still excellent. Blacks were the only disappointment to me, though even here they weren't bad (no instances of crush or murkiness). They just didn't rise to the "deep and inky" status that gives an even greater sense of depth and provides other colors with a definite pop.


I have no doubt this will be voted into Tier 1. The question is high, mid, or low? My vote goes for near the top....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## lgans316

*The Descendants*


Looks excellent. A few soft shots but the rest looks natural coupled with many eye catching imagery.


Very good movie too,

*Recommendation: Tier 1.5*

*The Tree of Life*


Visually stunning but oh my god, this movie sucked and is a mess from start to finish. It was like switching between a drama in ultra slow motion and a muted National Geographic documentary. Should be called Colossal Pile of Crap.









*Recommendation: Tier 1.0*


----------



## reisb

Anyone else just getting a summary email now instead of individual?


Is there a way to change back? I used to just skim any changes. Now I have to click on the link, then goto end page and work from there to get where i last saw.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Act of Valor*


Tight detail is great with minor flubs quickly passed over. Some noise, aliasing, banding, and black level dimming are are all brief. Act of Valor is shot on a variety of stuff to keep the look shifting, but the encode handles the challenge. Shot soft, the look is specific, but not enough to kill a generally high placement.

*Tier 2.0**


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *reisb*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19400_50#post_22120935
> 
> 
> Anyone else just getting a summary email now instead of individual?
> 
> Is there a way to change back? I used to just skim any changes. Now I have to click on the link, then goto end page and work from there to get where i last saw.


I tried subscribing when the forum software was changed and I have yet to get any email updates at all.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Superman Vs. The Elite


recommendation: Tier 1.0**


Once again Warner Bros. Animation has produced another superlative animated feature that takes full advantage of the format's potential. The 74-minute main feature is encoded in AVC on a BD-25. Video bitrates are not overwhelming, as the AVC encode rarely peaks above 19 Mbps with frequent dips to the low teens. The clean animation still looks beautiful and neatly polished, particularly for a direct-to-video movie.


Since most of the traditional animation was created in a computer, this is a perfect digital transfer with no anomalies at all. It's clean as a whistle and takes full advantage of a bright color palette to maximize the eye candy effect. Having top-notch clarity and possessing high-quality animation that looks more polished than prior DCU movies, _Superman Vs. The Elite_ is a sure candidate for the top of Tier One. Perfect black levels and contrast are so welcome to view after a string of poor BDs.


The animation studios behind these DCU features have definitely gotten wiser in producing them, as each new one seems to look better and better on Blu-ray. The rampant banding seen in the earliest efforts is all but gone by now. Backgrounds are more detailed and the character designs are becoming more consistent from scene to scene. Even the audio mixes have been improved, as this disc has an aggressive sound mix that is as good as any new movie I've heard this year.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Ef – A Tale Of Memories.
*
*recommendation: Tier 1.75**


This anime series has a very interesting look to it, primarily because the series utilizes the animation medium to full effect. The series will shift art and animation styles within a scene to highlight key points in the story. It creates a beautiful tableau of colors and line-art at select moments. The visual design elements nearly approach the work of Studio Ghibli in creativity.


The picture quality itself is flawless and pristine. The strong line-art is filled out with a mellower color palette than is usual for animation, though it is appropriate for the emotional tonality of the show. Sentai Filmworks has provided an excellent AVC video encode and spreads the series over two BDs. This set did not end up with a higher recommendation because of the softer approach to lighting in it and the fairly simple character designs. The animation does not pop like the best features so often do on Blu-ray with excellent dimensionality.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Journey 2: The Mysterious Island*


Brilliant splashes of color highlight this kid's feature, along with some intense, deep texture. It's a shame the black levels don't come to play on that same level. Awesome shots of the island reveal spectacular definition on plants and trees. A bit of noise will dampen a little bit of the fun, but only slightly.

*Tier 1.75**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Jeff, Who Lives at Home*


Very crisp comedy with endless dazzling close-ups. Definition is pouring from this one. A black level lapse now and then is forgivable. Colors retain a natural beauty with a little saturation, enough to have some oomph.

*Tier 1.5**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Doors - Mr. Mojo Risin': The Story Of L.A. Woman


recommendation: Tier 3.75**


A documentary on the production of the Doors' final album, it's difficult to assign one score to represent its total video quality. The short feature, running 59 minutes, is the standard mix of talking head interviews shot on digital cameras, interspersed with very rough archival footage from the 60s. The modern interviews are ultra-clear in HD, with a style reminiscent of material found on the Discovery channel or something similar.


Where the picture quality becomes quite rough are the frequent historical clips and montages, mostly from poor elements and degraded video of the era. The bulk of the archival footage looks bad enough for me to almost create a new Tier, below the dregs of Tier Five. This is material meant to be seen by fans alone. Trying to balance the disparity between the two main elements of this documentary, I'm probably being generous in assigning it a score of 3.75.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19410#post_22093008
> 
> *Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows*
> 
> 
> 
> Looks nice and better than it's prequel. Ultra thin layer of grain visible but some shots looks a bit filtered. Contrast is strong. Well defined close up shots. Colors are a bit saturated than its prequel but confines to the period look. Black levels are a bit weak on some scenes. Very good PQ overall.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 2.0*



I'm afraid I can't agree with you on this one, lgans. To my eyes, this was the typical mediocre Warner PQ that is so sadly familiar.

*Tier 2.75**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Okami-san & Her Seven Companions


recommendation: Tier 3.25**


This is a 2010 series, released a couple of months ago in the U.S. by Funimation. It appears to be a 1080p upscale from a show animated at 720p, rendering the animation a tad softer than if it had been originally produced in 1080p. There are no compression problems aside from minor glimpses of banding. The animation is fairly basic with sparse backgrounds and simple line art. While the increase in resolution is decent over the included DVD, Okami-san does not impress immediately like most HD animation.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Machine Gun Preacher*


Shifting film stocks (35 and 16mm) brings about wild grain shifts. Grain spikes are handled without the care the they need, and black levels will miss some opportunities to score. Close-ups are impressive, and the earth toned palette is appealing.

*Tier 2.0**


----------



## mweflen

*The Ides of March*

I know I'm a little late to the rating party, but I finally watched this one from Netflix. It is almost without flaw. It presents a perfectly filmic transfer of a new-release 35 mm print. Grain is light and stable. Both close up facial detail as well as background detail are superb. For the most part black levels and shadow details are superb, with the exception of about ten seconds in the abortion clinic, in which things look oddly digital and crushed. I have know way of knowing if this was the director's intent, though, having only seen this on BD.

*Tier Recommendation: 0 (above Watchmen)*


KDL52EX700, 8 foot viewing distance


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Bad Ass*


Bright, saturated, and pleasing all around until the final moments when stock footage from Red Heat is used. Those moments are hilariously DNR'ed to match the rest of the movie and hide their origins. Everything else is fine though, with passable black levels and awesome detail.

*Tier 2.0**


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19440#post_22138159
> 
> 
> I'm afraid I can't agree with you on this one, lgans. To my eyes, this was the typical mediocre Warner PQ that is so sadly familiar.
> *Tier 2.75**


*Sherlock Holmes - Game of Shadows*


I'm going more in this direction. Oppressive lack of color and middling medium shots are a disappointment. Black levels can be startlingly bad too. There's still enough detail to be worthwhile, but it's lost in a sea of problems.

*Tier 2.5**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Rushmore


recommendation: Tier 1.0*
"When one man, for whatever reason, has the opportunity to lead an extraordinary life, he has no right to keep it to himself."


Criterion has given Wes Anderson's _Rushmore_ a gorgeous transfer that looks as good as any 2K scan I've seen on the format. It is amazing how good the BD looks with luscious black levels and one of the purest color timings a film transfer can receive, given the revisionist approach in Hollywood today. From the first frame it's readily apparent that Criterion went above and beyond the call of duty, manually removing thousands of dirt specks and other flaws from the film source as the included booklet explains.


The compression encode produces a new standard in transparency, replicating the film to perfection without error. It should as the parameters nearly max out the format's capacity, averaging 35.00 Mbps on the AVC video encode. Most encodes start breaking down visually if you inspect them at distances of less than two feet, but in this case the image continues to impress with razor-sharp clarity and an impressive level of high-frequency detail.

_Rushmore_ is currently nominated for the middle of Tier 0 and I really wanted to agree with that score. In spirit I do but unfortunately a trace amount of edge enhancement is visible throughout the movie. The halos are not egregious but their presence can definitely be seen by sharp eyes. So that is why I have to lower my personal assessment of the picture quality down to Tier 1.0. Though I am tight with the fellow whom makes the ultimate decision for these matters and I expect the final placement for _Rushmore_ to remain in Tier 0.










BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1155731/new-unofficial-blu-ray-audio-and-video-specifications-thread/3630#post_21251743


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Mac & Devin Go to High School*


Hoo boy. A mess of over exposed elements, wacky flesh tones, noise, poorly resolved simulated grain, aliasing all over the place, and a softly animated talking joint. Yeah, it happens. Color is heavy and some close-ups will work their HD magic, but it's mostly bottom of the barrel visual material and made on the super cheap.

*Tier 3.75**


----------



## djoberg

*Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19410#post_22093008
> 
> *Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows*
> 
> 
> 
> Looks nice and better than it's prequel. Ultra thin layer of grain visible but some shots looks a bit filtered. Contrast is strong. Well defined close up shots. Colors are a bit saturated than its prequel but confines to the period look. Black levels are a bit weak on some scenes. Very good PQ overall.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 2.0*





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19440#post_22138159
> 
> 
> I'm afraid I can't agree with you on this one, lgans. To my eyes, this was the typical mediocre Warner PQ that is so sadly familiar.
> *Tier 2.75**





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19440#post_22153531
> 
> *Sherlock Holmes - Game of Shadows*
> 
> I'm going more in this direction. Oppressive lack of color and middling medium shots are a disappointment. Black levels can be startlingly bad too. There's still enough detail to be worthwhile, but it's lost in a sea of problems.
> *Tier 2.5**



I'm siding with patrick and GRG on this one. The color scheme was so undesirable (as GRG intimated) and I found a good portion of the title to be quite soft. Yes, close up shots were exemplary in many instances (especially facial details), but there were not enough to tip the scales for me and cause me to go any higher than 2.5. I should mention that black levels could be brilliant, but again inconsistency reigned resulting in some rather murky shots. I could go with either 2.5 or 2.75, but with a keen fear of losing my "generous rating status," I feel constrained to assign it to...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.5**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Hoosiers: 25th Anniversary Edition*


Funny that Fox re-releases this one, changes the codec, but doesn't do a thing to the master. Even the change in codec doesn't do much honestly, the film still overly compressed and muddy., Fine detail is at a premium. Edge enhancement remains, as does a rather high amount of damage. What a shame.

*Tier 3.25**


----------



## djoberg

*John Carter*


My how the *experts* raved about the PQ of this Disney Blockbuster....I wonder if I saw the same encode as they did?! Do NOT take that as a definite slam against the PQ; I just didn't find it to be "reference quality," though I might still put it on my "demo worthy" shelf.


To be sure there were some stellar scenes with warm and vibrant colors, superb facial details, deep and inky blacks with exquisite shadow details, and amazing depth. But there were also scenes with hot contrast (daytime shots) resulting in a washed out look (this occurred far too often, IMO) and details were lacking at times. Flesh tones also suffered, especially in the first half. Blacks also faltered occasionally, though they too picked up towards the end (the last nighttime scene during the wedding was absolutely phenomenal). And lastly, there were numerous bouts of softness, usually during scenes with heavy CGI.


Even after years of judging and reviewing Blu-rays, I still find it hard to judge a title that has the inconsistency that characterizes this movie. Some scenes had the WOW factor and easily fell into Tier 0 or 1; others were only average or a wee bit better. I'm going to split the difference right down the middle and give it a...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19440#post_22163837
> 
> *John Carter*
> 
> My how the *experts* raved about the PQ of this Disney Blockbuster....I wonder if I saw the same encode as they did?! Do NOT take that as a definite slam against the PQ; I just didn't find it to be "reference quality," though I might still put it on my "demo worthy" shelf.
> 
> To be sure there were some stellar scenes with warm and vibrant colors, superb facial details, deep and inky blacks with exquisite shadow details, and amazing depth. But there were also scenes with hot contrast (daytime shots) resulting in a washed out look (this occurred far too often, IMO) and details were lacking at times. Flesh tones also suffered, especially in the first half. Blacks also faltered occasionally, though they too picked up towards the end (the last nighttime scene during the wedding was absolutely phenomenal). And lastly, there were numerous bouts of softness, usually during scenes with heavy CGI.
> 
> Even after years of judging and reviewing Blu-rays, I still find it hard to judge a title that has the inconsistency that characterizes this movie. Some scenes had the WOW factor and easily fell into Tier 0 or 1; others were only average or a wee bit better. I'm going to split the difference right down the middle and give it a...
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75**
> 
> Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'



I pretty much agree, Denny, but you may not be surprised that my recommendation is just a bit lower.

*Tier 2.0**


----------



## dla26




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19080#post_21589206
> 
> *Agora*
> 
> 
> 
> This is an French-imported region-B locked film from Warner. The transfer and presentation are solid. Contrast is beautifully strong, though it does get overcooked in a few scenes, causing sun-drenched stonework to lose some details. These are the exceptions, however.
> 
> 
> 
> Color is strikingly rich, particularly the red in robes. Facial details don't disappoint for the most part, yielding exquisite texture and details. There are some inconsistencies with faces, and so softness does creep in hear and there. Still, nothing to affect the rating too much.
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks are inky and crisp, with no signs of crush. Dimensionality is in full display, even in medium shots. One thing that does disappoint are the overhead, CGI shots of the city and certain landmarks. Seems these could have been done right as well, but are not.
> 
> 
> 
> Overall, a very worthwhile candidate to Tier Blu. I did not spy any foul play.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 0** (just above _I, Robot_)



I absolutely loved this movie to the point of suffering through watching the DVD version.







I've been waiting for this to come to Blu-Ray for a couple years now. Does anyone know when the US (or at least non-region locked) version might come out?


----------



## tfoltz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19440#post_22163837
> 
> *John Carter*
> 
> My how the *experts* raved about the PQ of this Disney Blockbuster....I wonder if I saw the same encode as they did?! Do NOT take that as a definite slam against the PQ; I just didn't find it to be "reference quality," though I might still put it on my "demo worthy" shelf.
> 
> To be sure there were some stellar scenes with warm and vibrant colors, superb facial details, deep and inky blacks with exquisite shadow details, and amazing depth. But there were also scenes with hot contrast (daytime shots) resulting in a washed out look (this occurred far too often, IMO) and details were lacking at times. Flesh tones also suffered, especially in the first half. Blacks also faltered occasionally, though they too picked up towards the end (the last nighttime scene during the wedding was absolutely phenomenal). And lastly, there were numerous bouts of softness, usually during scenes with heavy CGI.
> 
> Even after years of judging and reviewing Blu-rays, I still find it hard to judge a title that has the inconsistency that characterizes this movie. Some scenes had the WOW factor and easily fell into Tier 0 or 1; others were only average or a wee bit better. I'm going to split the difference right down the middle and give it a...
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75**
> 
> Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'



I agree with you. The picture was not as great as the reviews say, and it deserves 1.75 or 2.0. I could see someone going lower as well.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19440#post_22165802
> 
> 
> I agree with you. The picture was not as great as the reviews say, and it deserves 1.75 or 2.0. I could see someone going lower as well.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19440#post_22164088
> 
> 
> I pretty much agree, Denny, but you may not be surprised that my recommendation is just a bit lower.
> *Tier 2.0**



It wouldn't hurt my feelings at all if this ends up being placed at 2.0.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Before and After*


Pasty, flat and uninspired. The master used is far outdated, and the compression isn't kind. Contrast feels held back.

*Tier 3.5**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*High School Of The Dead


recommendation: Tier 2.0**


An anime series originally produced in 2010, the 2-BD set looks decent despite an occasional banding problem. It's a minor shame, as the animation itself is quite flashy with fluid motion and a vivid color palette. If one overlooks the banding, _High School Of The Dead_ would belong in Tier One somewhere. It's definitely a native high-definition production.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Holy Man*


There is clearly some light filtering at work here, but so light it can't dampen all of the detail. Grain is reasonably resolved, colors are pure, and the detail continues to pour from the frame.
*Tier 2.25**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Pink Floyd - The Story of Wish You Were Here


recommendation: 2.75*
*

Released just this week by Eagle Rock, the 59-minute documentary looks okay with no major problems. Mostly consisting of very recent interviews with the surviving band members, the digital HD shots look like what one would expect for intimate interviews set in well-lit music studios. Eschewing archival video footage from the period of the album's creation in 1975, photographic stills are mostly used in their place. The results look much better than the very rough concert footage that tend to fill out these types of documentaries. While the picture is not going to win any awards, it never pulls you out of the presentation or brings attention to itself for faults.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Wanderlust*


Black levels drop this one down from a colorful, saturated beauty. Flesh tones turn orange, but it's a fair trade. Detail can be firm, but those black levels... This one is close, especially thanks to the photography, but those black levels...
*Tier 2.75**


----------



## djoberg

*Act of Valor*


For whatever reason I find myself reviewing Blu-rays at a very late hour, so I feel constrained to keep this short and then head for bed. In short, this was great-looking title, albeit inconsistent at times (due, no doubt, to the use of multiple cameras). For the most part it is quite sharp and detailed, especially facial close-ups which revealed every bit of grime, dirt, sweat-beads, stubble, etc. Blacks were impressive with equally satisfying shadow details, though at times noise reared its ugly head in night shots and blacks faltered. Flesh tones were spot on....contrast was strong...colors were okay. There were instances of banding, but they were "few and far between," and the only real anomaly that I noticed (except for the noise mentioned earlier).


I'm more than willing to place this on my demo shelf, though it may be placed at the bottom....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


PS The audio ROCKED!!!


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Project X*


Cell phone video, handheld cam video, and high-end Sony work. It's everywhere. Detail never flourishes, at least not fully, and sharpness will go all over the place. Black levels are fine at least, and colors are fine. But, it's not a disc you can expect much out of overall by design.

*Tier 3.0**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*American Reunion*


Highly textured and detailed comedy also fitted with superb color. Flesh tones are baked a little too much, but that's minor. A rough start pushes the grain structure a little overboard, but that subsides as the disc moves on. Black levels are generally on good behavior with a handful of lapses.

*Tier 1.75**


----------



## djoberg

*Wrath of the Titans*


Details...details...and then MORE DETAILS!!! Whether the camera is highlighting a sweeping panoramic view of lush landscapes...or close-ups of rocks and foliage...or, my favorite, facial close-ups, we are treated to some of the best details Blu-ray has to offer. Many, and I mean many, shots were clearly reference quality, right up there with the best to be seen in Tier Blu.


Contrast was generally strong (with sporadic lapses).....colors were somewhat limited to earth tones, but when primaries were on display they were vibrant....flesh tones were accurate...and blacks were good, not excellent, but good enough to be pleasing to the eye in most instances. I will add that this has the look of film with a light layer of grain that never detracted but only enhanced the detail.


I have one main criticism with this film. Can you guess what it is? I'll give you a clue; this is a WARNER RELEASE. Patrick's already nailed it (even if he hasn't seen it yet), for it's their "par for the course" BOUTS OF SOFTNESS. It was bothersome, for one minute it would be "sharp as a tack," and without warning it would be soft, resulting in a dull and flat look. This was especially true during the first half, but even the second half had enough soft shots to call for a heavy penalization of the rating. Let me just say that had it not been for this, I would be tempted to cast my vote for low Tier 0, but I would be dishonest if I didn't drop this a whole tier so I'm opting for....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


PS The audio was phenomenal. If you have a decent subwoofer, hang on to your hat...and make sure your pictures and other wall hangings are secured firmly!!


----------



## tenia54

I was reviewing the full listing, and I'm still questioning some placements for catalog movies, especially from Criterion.


I want first to say that, if I don't fully agree with it, I perfectly understand the point that most catalog movies, even if treated the best possible, won't get very high in the Tiers.


I still find surprising that a beautiful and sharp transfer as Last Year at Marienbad is as low as 3.5 (with movies I consider to be technically much worse, as Dracula, American Graffiti, Superman Returns or Once Upon A Time in The West). Or the other end, it is on par with beautiful transfers such as Taxi Driver, The Maltese Falcon and Forbidden Planet, which fits well.


However, my point is that I'm amazed to see The 400 Blows with Seven Samurai, much lower than The Last Emperor (which is one of the worse Criterion transfers, easily), Stagecoach with Walkabout, Black Narcissus with Ben Button in Tier 1.75 but Lola Montes in Tier 3.25, Kagemusha in Tier 2.0 with Pierrot le fou when Last Year At Marienbad is 3.5, Gojira in 3.0 but the US version in 3.5, etc etc.



Understand me : I don't want to say that this is awful, blah blah blah. It is not, and I don't want to look agressive or whatever. I do believe that this is a wonderful listing to start with, when looking for demo stuff notably.


It just suprises me, because it is far from the ranking I would have, and, I believe, most of the people (both professionnal and personnal) would have over the web.


My question would then be : considering that this is far from being the purpose of this thread, is it still making sense to include catalog movies in this ranking ? Because reading the full listing just make it seems, past the very first thread, as if you're comparing apples and pears altogether. And since, obviously, the people here are much more experienced with apples, and tends to be more interested by them than by pears, I keep on wondering.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

You have to remember that some of the Criterions were ranked by a single user's recommendation. Catalog movies rarely get more than a handful of votes unless it is a very popular franchise like Star Wars, so individual rankings for them will often come down to the individual preferences of the reviewer. That leads to a bit more variation than the new release discs, where multiple people will review it within a short time span. If you believe a specific ranking is out of place or unjustified, please put forward your placement for it. The Tiers are only as accurate as the placements given by users. Placements are not set in stone and will change if users feel a BD is unfairly ranked.


The Criterions pose a specific problem, as I think they have a devoted fan following whom have a difficult time evaluating their discs objectively. The Hollywood studios have set the bar so low that Criterion gets praise when they don't DNR a transfer. Many of their discs use less-than-perfect elements for the transfer due to the type of niche films they release.


----------



## tenia54

The single-user testing is what I came down to while trying to understand what I believe to be a strange ranking among them all.


Again, I perfectly understand, and agree with most of the placements, because clearly, this is mostly not demo material, but I do think that some of the transfers are under-estimated, and some probably over-estimated.


I understand what you say with "less than perfect" transfer, which then might fall in the "it's not perfect, but transparent to the source", but I believe they have in their catalog (as studios such as Warner or FOX) some titles that are visually stunning (especially when I see Patton at 2.75 and the first release of Gladiator at 3.25).


I will probably, now that I have some of them, take some time to write a few reviews for here, it's probably the best to nuance this.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Hunter*


Short on time, so generally gorgeous Willem Dafoe outing with some oddball black levels at times. Great photography.

*Tier 1.75**


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19450_50#post_22186889
> 
> *The Hunter*
> 
> Short on time, so generally gorgeous Willem Dafoe outing with some oddball black levels at times. Great photography.
> *Tier 1.75**


The movie itself is also very good. I imagine the Australian wildlife looks great on the BD.


----------



## tenia54

*The Lost Weekend* :


Overall very film-looking picture, good definition and good contrast, but some shots stays dirty (white / black speckles, vertical lines) and the fade in - fade out shots are, as usual, less defined than the rest of the movies. However, the most parts of the transfer are very nice looking, no sign of digital processing / tweaking, fine grain is well handled by the healthy bitrate.


The sound is crystal clear, but without any real power and width. However, dialog are well rendered and music benefits of this nice track without pops or distorsion.


*Recommandation : Tier 3.0*


Panasonic 50G20, viewed from 8 ft.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/18750_50#post_21108038
> 
> *Griff the Invisible*
> 
> 
> 
> 16mm piece with fantastic definition up close. Unfortunately, the encode isn't up to snuff, wildly out of control of the grain structure. Tons of noise in this one. There's some smearing too with small movement. Colors are a garish mixture of orange, blue, teal, and yellow, never all that pleasing.
> 
> *Tier 3.75**


This is an older review of yours from last year, but I am going to end up being even more harsh on this 2010 indie production out of Australia. The grain structure is quite messy and appears to have been processed on some level to cope with the FX work at the digital intermediate stage, producing bouts of aliasing and ringing. The transfer has spotty black levels always on the verge of being crushed and loses a tad of shadow detail. I think the video compression is not that bad, it was dealt a very difficult master to cleanly encode. The VC-1 encode averages a robust 32.66 Mbps and frequently peaks over 40 Mbps, near the limits of the format. Shooting on 16mm film in this case was not a good choice for a movie centered around the fantasies of a man pretending to be a superhero.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1155731/new-unofficial-blu-ray-audio-and-video-specifications-thread/3660#post_21316088 

*Griff The Invisible


recommendation: Tier 4.5*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Safe House*


Exaggerated in the extreme in terms of contrast and color, but still a looker. Facial detail is startling and consistent. Black levels are hyper aggressive leading into heavy moments of crush. Colors are blazing hot except for interiors which dive into orange and teal boredom (why does the CIA have monochrome teal computer monitors these days?). Grain is all over the place, sometimes artificially added (it has to be in order to become this thick) and the encode does a great job of keeping it in line.
*Tier 1.5**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Blade


recommendation: Tier 2.25**


The _Blade_ BD was released around two weeks ago courtesy of Warner Bros., finally releasing the 1998 New Line movie on the format after it had been put out in other countries by different distributors. Running 120 minutes on a BD-50, the AVC video encode averages 29.88 Mbps. The picture quality is fairly strong for a catalog title but does have one troubling flaw that discerning viewers might find objectionable.


The compression has been handled in a satisfactory manner that goes well beyond the typical Warner effort. Outside of possibly one scene near the finale where dust and smoke completely fills the screen as Blade battles a horde of vampires, the picture is totally absent of compression noise or artifacting. More importantly, the generous bitrate budget preserves the excellent amount of micro-detail visible in most scenes beyond the scope of older AVC encodes from Warner.


Outside of a few soft and dated CGI moments, the image is very sharp with excellent depth and focus. The pleasing dimensionality provides ample pop to the set action pieces. Unlike many other recent catalog releases on Blu-ray, the contrast has not been pumped up and the color timing has not been manipulated towards magenta. That leaves the flesh-tones with a normal appearance and the color palette fairly neutral.


Black levels are very strong with substantial shadow detail, outside of one scene where Deacon Frost first meets with the vampire elders. That particular scene does not look like the rest of the movie and almost looks like it wasn't from the same camera negative or film source. Which is odd as the transfer clearly has been taken from the camera negative. The BD shows zero print or film debris, and overall has an amazing level of clarity for a 1998 production.


Most of the film has outstanding high-frequency content, showing off a plethora of facial information in close-ups and even long shots. Digital noise reduction has been sparingly applied if used at all and likely in select moments only, leaving the film looking very good with a decent sense of cinematic texture. The grain does look a little strange in a few early scenes but my concerns were allayed as the movie developed.


What does bother me and will likely bother viewers on the largest screens over 55”, are the all-too-frequent signs of ringing and sharpening throughout the movie. The halos are noticeable and will be spotted by viewers aware of their appearance. Blade's car glows with them and they show up in other places on a regular basis. It's not a dealbreaker for a transfer that generally looks great in most other aspects, but it's clearly not perfect or desirable. The problem was serious enough for me to drop my final ranking some ways down the Tiers List.

_Blade_ does enough to satisfy most requirements of Tier One, but unfortunately the ringing is bad enough to place it in Tier Two at the very least. The BD is still a must-buy for interested fans and looks much better than the available alternatives.


Watching on a 60” Pioneer KURO plasma played from a Sony PS3 (firmware 4.21), at a viewing distance of six feet.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Patsfan123):
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1155731/new-unofficial-blu-ray-audio-and-video-specifications-thread/4350#post_22186280 


Comparison against the Netherlands BD:
http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/comparison.php?cID=1126#auswahl


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19200#post_21749520
> 
> *Drive*
> 
> What a blessing to "get back on track" (i.e. to be in demo territory again)! This excelled in details, especially my "first love" (facial close-ups), but not limited to them.Black levels and shadow details were exquisite, with quite a few nighttime scenes to highlight them (including a couple aerial views of the city that were pristine). I did detect *some* noise in one scene, but it was brief.Colors were so-so, but when primaries were pumped up they were pure EYE CANDY.Depth and clarity were reference quality at times.
> 
> 
> This easily falls into Tier 1, somewhere in the middle....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.5**
> 
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'
> 
> 
> 
> PS I REALLY enjoyed this movie! The acting and pacing were perfect, and it had a beautiful, haunting soundtrack.



*Drive*



Agree on all counts except for the final rating. Facial detail is excellent, with fine pores and hairs easily visible. Black levels are superb. Grain is VERY light but stable. The only thing holding this back a bit in my estimation is some changing film stocks which leads to inconsistency - it goes from reference quality to just really good at times. The movie it most reminds me of PQ wise is Tron: Legacy. So I'm going to go with a 1.0.


*Tier Recommendation: 1.0*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Terminal Velocity*


One of the better discs out of the recent catalog crop of Mill Creek flicks, but still in need of better elements & master. Grain becomes a threat as compression sweeps in and medium shots are dull. Close-ups are fine though, and colors have some brightness. Signs of filtering can't be ignored.

*Tier 3.0**


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19470#post_22195098
> 
> *Safe House*
> 
> Exaggerated in the extreme in terms of contrast and color, but still a looker. Facial detail is startling and consistent. Black levels are hyper aggressive leading into heavy moments of crush. Colors are blazing hot except for interiors which dive into orange and teal boredom (why does the CIA have monochrome teal computer monitors these days?). Grain is all over the place, sometimes artificially added (it has to be in order to become this thick) and the encode does a great job of keeping it in line.
> *Tier 1.5**



Sounds good GRG!


I'm leaving for over a week tomorrow but I have time to squeeze in one more Blu; you just made my decision as to "which one?" an easy one.


----------



## djoberg

*Safe House*


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19470#post_22195098
> 
> *Safe House*
> 
> Exaggerated in the extreme in terms of contrast and color, but still a looker. Facial detail is startling and consistent. Black levels are hyper aggressive leading into heavy moments of crush. Colors are blazing hot except for interiors which dive into orange and teal boredom (why does the CIA have monochrome teal computer monitors these days?). Grain is all over the place, sometimes artificially added (it has to be in order to become this thick) and the encode does a great job of keeping it in line.
> *Tier 1.5**



I couldn't have said it better myself!!









*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Five Element Ninjas (aka Chinese Super Ninjas)


recommendation: Tier 2.0**


Widely considered a kung fu classic from the vault of the Shaw Brothers, _Five Element Ninjas_ makes it to Blu-ray with a brilliant transfer that looks stunning most of the time. Perfect black levels, a saturated color palette, amazing clarity and resolution that far surpass anything I've seen of this vintage from the genre. The lone criticism is that the entire transfer has been low-pass filtered, leaving all shots of skin looking waxy and dull at times. The master has been kept in remarkable shape as there are no signs on this disc the film has aged a day since it was released in 1982. It is pristine with vivid colors and a sharpness few films, much less a Shaw Brothers' movie, have ever shown.


Without the low-pass filtering that leaves most flesh shots with a plastic sheen, Five Element Ninjas would unquestionably be in Tier 1.5 or higher. The transfer is that good if you can ignore the effects of the DNR.


----------



## tenia54

*Pina (2D version, French BD)*


Absolutely gorgeous picture from the beginning to the end. So far, it's the best looking disc I've seen this half-year. The scenes outside of the theater are especially beautiful, with impressive precision and amount of detail. No post processing at all, very natural all through.


Simply gorgeous.


I thought it could be a Tier 1.0, but after a closer look of the titles in the Tier 0, my recommandation is :

*Tier 0, below The Art of Flight*


----------



## lgans316

*John Carter*


Outdoor scenes shine but black levels were weak although it appears to be spot on towards the middle and in the end. Contrast runs hot with the teal / orange skin tones.


The movie was entertaining and not as bad as panned by Disney and the critics.

*Recommendation: Tier 1.75*

*Safe House*


Lava of orange / teal colors flowing out of the screen. Contrast is red hot. Blacks are crushed and in some scenes it becomes difficult to discern shadow details. Some intentionally grainy and gritty shots. Nothing much to complain although it doesn't deserve any further high praise.

*Recommendation: Tier 1.75*

*Apocalypse Now*


Oh dear. A bit too much of DNR and the result is plenty of waxiness and smoothness all over the place. Otherwise, this would have looked great and deserved a Tier 2.25~Tier 2.5 placement.

*Recommendation: Tier 3.75*


----------



## hernanu

Blade II


Just watched Blade II last night - bought it at Best Buy after hearing about the $10 deal. They were out of Blade and Trinity, or they would also be mine, but was more than satisfied with Blade II.


Video was very good, I thought. The night scenes were well defined, no crush that I could see and color representation very distinguishable. Especially good on the color of the uber vampire and reaper's faces. There was no real weakness in it, but was not up to tier 0 to me.


Equipment: 47" Vizio LED, Oppo BDP-83 bluray player, Pioneer Elite VSX-33 receiver, Energy RC-50''s x2, RC-LCR, RC-10 x2 side surrounds, RC-min surround backs, 2x S10.3

in an apartment living room at night. Watched with all lights out.

Recommendation: Tier 1.5


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Straw Dogs (2011)


recommendation: Tier 1.75*


The remake of _Straw Dogs_ resides in Tier 3.0 at the moment, which looks a little harsh from my perspective. There are some problems in the final act, where the questionable lighting leads to poor shadow detail and a general loss in clarity from the rest of the film. But overall the picture quality looks pleasing enough to rank higher than the average designation that Tier 3.0 implies. It has a solid compression encode which is free of artifacts and is generally a well-shot film. One strong positive is the transfer has not been filtered, producing an image with a strong level of detail and high-frequency content.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Night Of The Living Dead (Japanese Happinet version)


recommendation: Tier 4.0**


Reputedly made from the best existing elements, this Japanese BD is probably the best this public domain film from 1968 has ever looked on home video. Print damage is virtually nil and mainly confined to a few thin scratches that run vertically in a couple of shots. The print is clean and stable, largely revealing flaws in the original production more than any technical errors made during the transfer.


As is typical for a Japanese disc, the AVC video encode exactly averages a robust 38 Mbps. The 96-minute movie is included on a BD-50 and any visible noise is probably baked into the master. A hint of sharpening possibly shows up, but it's virtually unnoticeable unless one watches extremely closely. The grain is largely left in the transfer, though it does appear the transfer was made on an older CRT scanner which has a habit of producing some odd-textured grain at times and some very minor chroma noise.


The black-and-white cinematography looks decent with solid detail and okay black levels. There are instances of softness and a few murky shots with crushed blacks, but overall the clarity is impressive. Faces do get washed out on occasion from the odd lighting of the low-budget film, producing blown highlights. Contrast is acceptable but seems to vary a bit from scene to scene.


Some shots look fabulous, displaying excellent dimensionality and a surprising level of detail. If it always looked as good as it does in the first reel, the BD might have ended up being recommended for Tier 3.0. But as the action moves to the interior of the house, quirks in the production lower the standard picture quality. This edition is a little more expensive than other options, but _Night Of The Living Dead_ has never looked better. Purists may note that a few scenes have been slightly cropped from the original negative's image, but no uncropped transfer exists that is this clean and pristine.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

This is not a formal recommendation, but I am going over season one of _Boss_ at the moment for an upcoming review on DoBlu. It's a political drama so it doesn't have the constant pop of something like _Avatar_, but what I've already seen is some of the best live-action video I've ever witnessed on Blu-ray. Consistently as good as practically anything at the highest reaches of Tier Zero. Its quality is making me re-think my personal standards for the Tiers.


Long ago in this thread I politely declined to get involved on _The Thin Red Line's_ rank, as I had only watched it on a friend's display that wasn't calibrated. I now own it so look for that review in the future.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19470#post_22224738
> 
> 
> This is not a formal recommendation, but I am going over season one of _Boss_ at the moment for an upcoming review on DoBlu. It's a political drama so it doesn't have the constant pop of something like _Avatar_, but what I've already seen is some of the best live-action video I've ever witnessed on Blu-ray. Consistently as good as practically anything at the highest reaches of Tier Zero. Its quality is making me re-think my personal standards for the Tiers.



I am an avid fan of _Boss_; in fact, I just reordered Starz so I could catch the upcoming premiere in August. I agree its PQ is excellent, though the color scheme is less-than-desirable at times. But the details, depth, and clarity can be absolutely striking and easily falls into Tier Blu when this occurs. I can only imagine what it looks like on Blu-ray.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19440_60#post_22224915
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19470#post_22224738
> 
> 
> This is not a formal recommendation, but I am going over season one of _Boss_ at the moment for an upcoming review on DoBlu. It's a political drama so it doesn't have the constant pop of something like _Avatar_, but what I've already seen is some of the best live-action video I've ever witnessed on Blu-ray. Consistently as good as practically anything at the highest reaches of Tier Zero. Its quality is making me re-think my personal standards for the Tiers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am an avid fan of _Boss_; in fact, I just reordered Starz so I could catch the upcoming premiere in August. I agree its PQ is excellent, though the color scheme is less-than-desirable at times. But the details, depth, and clarity can be absolutely striking and easily falls into Tier Blu when this occurs. I can only imagine what it looks like on Blu-ray.
Click to expand...

Having only seen a handful of episodes at the moment, the show does seem to be a very effective political drama set in the dirty world of Chicago politics. I assume you're referring to the cooler color temperatures of the show with its slight teal tint and restrained saturation of warmer hues.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19470#post_22226957
> 
> 
> Having only seen a handful of episodes at the moment, the show does seem to be a very effective political drama set in the dirty world of Chicago politics. I assume you're referring to the cooler color temperatures of the show with its slight teal tint and restrained saturation of warmer hues.



Yes, the "slight teal tint" is quite pervasive at times and one longs for some warm, vibrant colors.


This is one of the best political dramas I've seen, and the acting is superb, especially that of Kelsey Grammar, who was nominated for best actor in a TV series.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Friends with Kids*


Great black levels and firm definition highlight this one, marred mostly by a decision to smooth out a certain actress' face. Noise is so minor as to be barely noticeable. Color timing steers warmly which will take the flesh tones, but not severely. Great fine detail in close-ups too. A looker (mostly).
*Tier 1.75**


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/18540_60#post_20929972
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very much disagree. Ordinarily lacking in crisp detail; extremely disappointing PQ.
> 
> 
> 
> Particularly disappointing that the PQ was so mediocre since the movie itself was pretty enjoyable.
> 
> *Tier 2.25**





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/18540_60#post_20932926
> 
> *X-Men: First Class*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*
> 
> 
> _
> *X-Men: First Class*
> 
> 
> 
> Outstanding live action feature. Vivid contrast is mixed with intensely bright colors. A great encode keeps a firm, natural grain structure at bay and the detail flowing with incredible regularity. Black levels may lose a little bit in certain interiors and some aliasing is a mild distraction, but those are so minor in the scheme of things here.
> 
> *Tier 0.75**_
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *patrick99*
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> Very much disagree. Ordinarily lacking in crisp detail; extremely disappointing PQ.
> 
> 
> 
> Particularly disappointing that the PQ was so mediocre since the movie itself was pretty enjoyable.
> 
> *Tier 2.25**_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going with patrick on this one....very disappointing PQ sprinkled throughout the transfer. One minute you would have an extremely detailed shot with vivid colors and excellent contrast and clarity, the next minute softness would creep in along with noise and a nagging hot contrast (in some daytime scenes), resulting in a lack of detail. A real inconsistent mess!
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks levels too were a mixed bag; black and inky one moment, murky the next.
> 
> 
> 
> I will say though that the PQ became more consistently better in later scenes (some of the scenes at sea and on the beach were stunning, with incredible detail and depth) and had the whole transfer been that good it would have easily fallen into Tier 1. It's a shame to have to relegate this to Tier Silver, though I'm inclined to put it on the top.....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.0**
> 
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/18540_60#post_20942510
> 
> *X-Men: First Class*
> 
> 
> 
> Nice detail with a lot of soft, if not blurry, shots throughout. Colors were great, though skin tones seemed a little hot at times. Black levels were mediocre.
> 
> *Tier 2.75*
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the picture fit the movie perfectly, it just doesn't get a higher rating in this thread. Watched on Panasonic 65ST30 from 9.5'.


*X-Men: First Class


recommendation: 2.75*


These reviews were all correct, the picture quality for X-Men: First Class was horribly inconsistent and disappointing for a new release. Some of the worst cinematography I've seen on a big-budget summer movie in a long time and the FX looked poorly integrated with the film. The production had to have been rushed, some of the shots barely look better than 16mm with an odd optical distortion. I thought about recommending Tier 3 for a minute it's so bad at times.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19470#post_22183524
> 
> *Wrath of the Titans*
> 
> I have one main criticism with this film. Can you guess what it is? I'll give you a clue; this is a WARNER RELEASE. Patrick's already nailed it (even if he hasn't seen it yet), for it's their "par for the course" BOUTS OF SOFTNESS. It was bothersome, for one minute it would be "sharp as a tack," and without warning it would be soft, resulting in a dull and flat look. This was especially true during the first half, but even the second half had enough soft shots to call for a heavy penalization of the rating. Let me just say that had it not been for this, I would be tempted to cast my vote for low Tier 0, but I would be dishonest if I didn't drop this a whole tier so I'm opting for....
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75**



Saw very little indication of Warner-related issues. Even those shots with a softer focus are pumping out detail. Way too much eye candy here to go any lower than:

*Tier 1.0**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Flowers of War


recommendation: Tier 1.5**


I ended up reviewing _The Flowers of War_ for DoBlu and came away mightily impressed by the picture quality. It's a Chinese production that just so happens to star Christian Bale, but it has a Hollywood pedigree with the talent involved behind the camera. Beautiful imagery in spots, particularly the scenes set inside the church. There are few notable flaws and the transfer is unfiltered, leaving a crisp image with a pleasing sense of depth.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19470#post_22232374
> 
> 
> Saw very little indication of Warner-related issues. Even those shots with a softer focus are pumping out detail. Way too much eye candy here to go any lower than:



I may rent this title again to see if I'm more impressed with a second viewing, but I specifically remember being let down by the shots with a "softer focus." They were such a contrast to the shots that were sharp and oftentimes they occurred without any notice, which served to heighten the contrast between the two (sharp vs. soft) all the more.


Patrick, if you have seen this title I'd love to get your take on it. I know you've been very critical of Warner Releases and in particular for their softness, so I want to see if those shots bothered you as much as they did me.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19470#post_22236122
> 
> 
> I may rent this title again to see if I'm more impressed with a second viewing, but I specifically remember being let down by the shots with a "softer focus." They were such a contrast to the shots that were sharp and oftentimes they occurred without any notice, which served to heighten the contrast between the two (sharp vs. soft) all the more.
> 
> Patrick, if you have seen this title I'd love to get your take on it. I know you've been very critical of Warner Releases and in particular for their softness, so I want to see if those shots bothered you as much as they did me.



Denny, I hated everything about the first movie, including the PQ, so I have not been inclined to waste any time or money on the sequel. It is hard to imagine that the PQ would be much better on the sequel than it was on the first movie.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Collector (1965)


recommendation: Tier 3.5**


Image licensed this newer transfer from Sony's catalog to produce the BD. _The Collector_ was first released in 1965 and the BD looks appropriately film-like with strong color saturation. Image has provided a satisfactory AVC video encode that handles the filmic grain nicely, though not perfectly. The picture is reasonably sharp with only sporadic softness. A good portion of the film might qualify for the middle of Tier 2, but some interior shots are noticeably worse in quality. _The Collector_ runs for 119 minutes on a BD-25.


Print damage is nonexistent for a catalog title of this vintage. All things considered it's a solid remastering of an older film, where the image's faults lie mostly at the feet of the original cinematography. Solid contrast levels and generally healthy flesh-tones dominate most of the time. A recent scan of high-quality film elements will typically produce solid results on Blu-ray and _The Collector_ fits neatly into that paradigm.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Samurai Girls: Complete Collection


recommendation: Tier 1.25**


Fantastic linework with a thick pen stroke and a very innovative animation technique where multiple layers of cells seemingly float on top of one another, producing incredible dimensionality for 2-D animation. Interesting cel shading gives a subtle twist to the color palette, creating an ephemeral appearance in select scenes. Perfect demo material for anime fans.



*Legend Of The Legendary Heroes: Part I


Legend Of The Legendary Heroes: Part II


recommendation: Tier 2.25*
*

Bland animation and simple character designs don't help the picture quality, which does have nice color saturation. Nothing grossly bad here, Legend's video quality simply does not stand out.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Lockout*


This is a tricky one. In close, it's top tier material, even right up there with the CG stuff. Facial detail is immense. That's about it though. Medium shots suffer from heavy filtering and clear edge enhancement. The color grading is gaudy, sickly, and widely unappealing. Aliasing runs rampant in certain scenes, while the black levels will take a spill now and then. Real potential here too, so it's a shame.

*Tier 2.25**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Clue*


Well done catalog effort. Colors have a natural brightness to them, and black levels are incredibly dense. There's loss of shadow detail now and then, but it's manageable. Grain loses out on a few battles, but wins the war with a nicely layered, textured quality. Fine detail is precise when called upon, and the print is just about perfect.
*Tier 2.75**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Story Of O


recommendation: Tier 4.5**


Possibly the softest movie I've ever watched in HD. Every scene from the 1975 movie is filmed in a diffuse, fuzzy manner with romantic lighting befitting a soap opera. Frequent bouts of optical ringing occurs in-camera, producing fringing around some of the actors. The transfer is largely film-like, but a film lacking definition and clarity. The AVC video encode mostly hovers around 17 Mbps, which is just barely adequate in dealing with the dated HD master. Over the course of 104 minutes, only a few scenes display enough clarity for even Tier 3.


The film elements appear to be from an older scan of somewhat gritty materials, possibly an internegative. It displays a number of worn-out areas, including some minor film damage on the right side of the frame in the last act. A hint of detail will sneak out in close-ups and a few exterior shots, but at times it's hard to distinguish from a top-notch DVD. Probably the best it's going to look on BD, as I doubt it's going to receive a new restoration anytime soon. The color timing has been shifted toward magenta, making flesh-tones noticeably reddish.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Contest*


The first person whom posts the top three ranked discs in Tier 0 here will receive $5 in Hollywood Movie Money for _The Dark Knight Rises_. The code does expire on 8/5/2012.


This shouldn't be a difficult question to answer.


----------



## obxdiver

Toy Story 3

Avatar

Legend Of The Guardians: The Owls Of Ga'Hoole


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Congratulations to OBXDIVER, you have a private message.







I might have movie money for _The Amazing Spider-Man_ posted as a prize, later this weekend.


----------



## obxdiver




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19500#post_22256679
> 
> 
> Congratulations to OBXDIVER, you have a private message.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I might have movie money for _The Amazing Spider-Man_ posted as a prize, later this weekend.


Thanks very much. What a wonderful thread


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Get the *******


Generally a great looking disc with superb definition. Striking facial detail is everywhere, and the warmly tinted colors are stunning. A little noise isn't much of a downer. Black levels are superb. What's odd is a rather constant smearing with motion that goes beyond motion blur. The image doesn't hold together very well.

*Tier 1.75**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

$10 Worth of e-Movie Cash, Valid for One Movie Ticket to See _The Amazing Spider-Man_



Another day, another giveaway. The first person who names their favorite movie from *Tier 3.25* in this thread can have the prize, which expires on 8/13/2012. Instead of a movie ticket, the code can be used for $5 in e-Concession Cash. If you aren't a big fan of Spidey, I hear movie theaters aren't that strict about which movie you see on these type of vouchers.


----------



## tcramer

There are too many to pick from. I'll let someone else win today's prize


----------



## Hughmc

The Last Samurai


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tcramer*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19500#post_22260862
> 
> 
> There are too many to pick from. I'll let someone else win today's prize



Agree!...Shocking how many good titles there are in that 3.25


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19500_60#post_22260968
> 
> 
> The Last Samurai


Congratulations, you have a PM with your prize information. It would be interesting to ponder if _The Last Samurai_ got newly remastered today, where it would place in the Tiers. It's a victim of being an early release on the format, when WB was churning out many mediocre transfers with poor video encodes. I believe it still only has lossy audio on the domestic issue.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19500#post_22260993
> 
> 
> Congratulations, you have a PM with your prize information. It would be interesting to ponder if _The Last Samurai_ got newly remastered today, where it would place in the Tiers. It's a victim of being an early release on the format, when WB was churning out many mediocre transfers with poor video encodes. I believe it still only has lossy audio on the domestic issue.



Thanks, Phantom. I would be curious as well...as I was looking at the list many titles caught my eye, especially Last of the Mohicans. Another one of my favs, like Last Samurai, that if I see it on cable, I can't help but watch no matter how many times I have seen it.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Boss: Season One


recommendation: Tier 0* (#1 above both Toy Story 3 and Avatar)*


While reviewing the first season of _Boss_ for DoBlu, I became increasingly convinced over its eight episodes that I was seeing the best live-action material ever presented on Blu-ray. Stunning consistency and outrageous resolution, from the purest digital video presented in 1080p that has been released to date. It lacks the jacked-up contrast and hot colors of a fantasy movie like _Avatar_, but the lack of CGI and digital enhancements (a few backgrounds have been digitally filled, but nothing you would notice unless it was pointed out by the production staff) means the video receives one less round of processing than normal practice in the standard big-budget movies of the Hollywood summer. That works in the image's favor, adding that extra bit of fine detail lacking in other discs found in Tier Zero.


The subdued color palette works better for the drama but does leave flesh-tones a bit paler than natural. Production values are as high as the best theatrical features. Every shot has a laser-like clarity and focus, producing fantastic dimensionality and demo material in practically every scene. Exterior and aerial shots of Chicago look bright and beautiful. The picture is a vibrant, living window into the world of dirty politics inside Chicago.


It's hard to compare to other movies at the pinnacle of the Tiers, due to the lack of CGI and its pedigree from digital video. Given enough care and skill, the best digital video has now surpassed 35mm for picture quality. _Boss_ sets a new reference standard that will make it hard to usurp its crown in the future.


----------



## Famouss




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19500#post_22261066
> 
> *Boss: Season One
> 
> recommendation: Tier 0* (#1 above both Toy Story 3 and Avatar)*
> 
> While reviewing the first season of _Boss_ for DoBlu, I became increasingly convinced over its eight episodes that I was seeing the best live-action material ever presented on Blu-ray. Stunning consistency and outrageous resolution, from the purest digital video presented in 1080p that has been released to date. It lacks the jacked-up contrast and hot colors of a fantasy movie like _Avatar_, but the lack of CGI and digital enhancements (a few backgrounds have been digitally filled, but nothing you would notice unless it was pointed out by the production staff) means the video receives one less round of processing than normal practice in the standard big-budget movies of the Hollywood summer. That works in the image's favor, adding that extra bit of fine detail lacking in other discs found in Tier Zero.
> 
> The subdued color palette works better for the drama but does leave flesh-tones a bit paler than natural. Production values are as high as the best theatrical features. Every shot has a laser-like clarity and focus, producing fantastic dimensionality and demo material in practically every scene. Exterior and aerial shots of Chicago look bright and beautiful. The picture is a vibrant, living window into the world of dirty politics inside Chicago.
> 
> It's hard to compare to other movies at the pinnacle of the Tiers, due to the lack of CGI and its pedigree from digital video. Given enough care and skill, the best digital video has now surpassed 35mm for picture quality. _Boss_ sets a new reference standard that will make it hard to usurp its crown in the future.


Holy crap!







I will definitely have to check this series out.


----------



## tfoltz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19500#post_22261008
> 
> 
> Thanks, Phantom. I would be curious as well...as I was looking at the list many titles caught my eye, especially Last of the Mohicans. Another one of my favs, like Last Samurai, that if I see it on cable, I can't help but watch no matter how many times I have seen it.



Though I am a day late in this little contest, I would have voted for Fantasia followed by Music Man.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Three Stooges (2012):*


A bit of a looker, if not for super fine detail. Texture can be fierce, but not always. This one wins on contrast, black levels, and depth. Colors prove striking too, intense and rich. Grain is well resolved without any noted dips in how it looks.

*Tier 1.75**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Another contest for $10 Worth of e-Movie Cash, Valid for One Movie Ticket to See _The Amazing Spider-Man_



The first person to name their favorite movie from Tier 1.5 in the thread will get a $10 code to see Spidey.


----------



## reisb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19500#post_22266022
> 
> Another contest for $10 Worth of e-Movie Cash, Valid for One Movie Ticket to See _The Amazing Spider-Man_
> 
> The first person to name their favorite movie from Tier 1.5 in the thread will get a $10 code to see Spidey.



se7en for sure........


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *reisb*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19500_60#post_22266085
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19500#post_22266022
> 
> Another contest for $10 Worth of e-Movie Cash, Valid for One Movie Ticket to See _The Amazing Spider-Man_
> 
> The first person to name their favorite movie from Tier 1.5 in the thread will get a $10 code to see Spidey.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> se7en for sure........
Click to expand...

Congratulations, you have a private message.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19500#post_22261066
> 
> *Boss: Season One
> 
> recommendation: Tier 0* (#1 above both Toy Story 3 and Avatar)*.



Okay, Phantom, you really have me curious now! As I mentioned earlier, this looked GREAT on satellite, but I never would have suspected that it would rival live action Blus such as _Avatar_ or _The Thin Red Line_. I'm either going to rent this or (Gasp!) buy it to see if it really does set a new standard for live action Blu-ray.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I had never seen the series before the Blu-ray and was blown away by the impeccable detail, the best I've ever seen at 1080p. Starz must have sunk a huge budget into the production of _Boss_, because every episode is filmed with the care of a large-scale theatrical drama. I recently watched _Strike Back_ for a review, shot on the same digital cameras used for _Boss_, and the results were nowhere nearly as good. _Boss_ is the first non-CGI material I've thought that consistently matched up with the best CGI has to offer on BD.


----------



## djoberg

*Real Steel*


I'm late at rating this title....and it's late at night, so I'll make this "short and sweet." In SHORT, this is a real LOOKER, with CLARITY and SHARPNESS in nearly every scene. DETAILS are off the charts in most shots. BLACK LEVELS are to-die-for, with exquisite SHADOW DETAILS. FLESH TONES falter a bit at times, but for the most part they were spot on. COLORS were punchy and CONTRAST was strong. What more can I say? Oh, yeah, there was DEPTH on top of all the other virtues. EYE CANDY all the way through, so SWEET is the word I'll end with.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (At about .75)**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Total Recall: Mind-Bending Edition*


Controversy over this one due some changes from previous editions, but during viewing, it's solid stuff. Biggest change is color timing, which warms up the flesh tones inconsistently. Black levels waver too, but the sheer amount of detail within the frame - at almost all times - is just jaw dropping. The film has never looked this textured before. Grain is thick and controlled.

*Tier 2.0**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Let Me In


recommendation: 3.25*


A dark, gloomy movie has a dark, gloomy look for its entire length. Currently ranked in the middle of Tier Three, the limited lighting in most of the film obscures the image much of the time, enveloping the actors in shadows and crushed black levels. There is also a strong hint of edge enhancement in select scenes. The choices seem to be a conscious part to set the mood and tone, and not a technical problem or lack of budget. _Let Me In_ looks okay but the subdued color palette adds no pop to the picture. The solid AVC video encode holds up without macroblocking or banding in the darkest scenes.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Hijacked*


Low rent straight-to-video flick with some decent close-ups and not much else. Lighting is sub-par and the black levels can't hold up to what they need to be. Colors are bland and the stock footage (although brief) is a mess of artifacting.
*Tier 3.0**


----------



## djoberg

*The Three Stooges (2012)*


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19500#post_22265195
> 
> *The Three Stooges (2012):*
> 
> A bit of a looker, if not for super fine detail. Texture can be fierce, but not always. This one wins on contrast, black levels, and depth. Colors prove striking too, intense and rich. Grain is well resolved without any noted dips in how it looks.
> *Tier 1.75**




For the most part I agree with GRG, though I wasn't quite as impressed with the details and colors. I also thought there was a good amount of soft shots sprinkled throughout. Contrast, black levels and depth were the reigning virtues.


I just can't bring myself to call this "demo material." Is it "a looker" at times? Yes! But it had enough softness (especially in medium to long range shots) to drop it a notch from my colleague's placement....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Ring (Best Buy Exclusive)


recommendation: Tier 3.5*
*

Paramount has given _The Ring_ a solid treatment on Blu-ray, especially for a 2002 movie. Going off a cursory impression, the transfer appears to be a new 2K scan of older film elements. _The Ring_ is a dark movie, tinted with a sickly green pallor for the color timing. Running 115 minutes, the main feature is encoded in AVC and spread out over a BD-50. The compression encode does its work with little fault, often hitting peaks over 37 Mbps.


A touch of filtering and ringing is evident in a few early moments, but the film source is not that detailed to begin with to cause serious visual problems from that extraneous processing. The print is in immaculate condition, with nary a scratch or flaw. Black levels are decent but not spectacular, which was disappointing for a story that relies so heavily on its use. Crushing never becomes a real problem but there is a distinct lack of superior shadow delineation, losing some clarity in crucial moments. Close-ups are surprisingly soft and lack focus, producing a questionable level of fine detail for a modern film.

_The Ring_ could likely have turned out a tad better with a more careful eye towards the picture quality on this disc. The BD does represent a substantial upgrade over the DVD but may not be the final word on this horror film.


Watching on a 60" Pioneer KURO plasma at a viewing distance of six feet, fed from a Sony PS3 with the latest firmware.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19500#post_22261066
> 
> *Boss: Season One
> 
> recommendation: Tier 0* (#1 above both Toy Story 3 and Avatar)*
> 
> While reviewing the first season of _Boss_ for DoBlu, I became increasingly convinced over its eight episodes that I was seeing the best live-action material ever presented on Blu-ray. Stunning consistency and outrageous resolution, from the purest digital video presented in 1080p that has been released to date. It lacks the jacked-up contrast and hot colors of a fantasy movie like _Avatar_, but the lack of CGI and digital enhancements (a few backgrounds have been digitally filled, but nothing you would notice unless it was pointed out by the production staff) means the video receives one less round of processing than normal practice in the standard big-budget movies of the Hollywood summer. That works in the image's favor, adding that extra bit of fine detail lacking in other discs found in Tier Zero.
> 
> The subdued color palette works better for the drama but does leave flesh-tones a bit paler than natural. Production values are as high as the best theatrical features. Every shot has a laser-like clarity and focus, producing fantastic dimensionality and demo material in practically every scene. Exterior and aerial shots of Chicago look bright and beautiful. The picture is a vibrant, living window into the world of dirty politics inside Chicago.
> 
> It's hard to compare to other movies at the pinnacle of the Tiers, due to the lack of CGI and its pedigree from digital video. Given enough care and skill, the best digital video has now surpassed 35mm for picture quality. _Boss_ sets a new reference standard that will make it hard to usurp its crown in the future.




Based on this glowing recommendation, I bought and watched this show. I definitely agree that close-ups were superb, but my overall reaction is to go just a little bit lower.


Perhaps it's not fair to take the opening credit sequence into account, but to me the PQ on that was at a much lower level. Having to watch it 8 times didn't help.


Even though I am a bit lower, those who are familiar with my very demanding standards will appreciate that this is still very high for me.

*Tier 1.0**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Fair enough, the credit sequence is somewhat rougher than the episodes themselves. Though I usually don't penalize a disc for something like the credits. I know how tough your standards are, Patrick, though I do think the picture quality in Boss meets about every challenge one can muster. The one thing it seriously lacks are the glowing hot colors of the best CGI, that gives CGI a touch of extra pop. Though oversaturating the primary colors brings its own problems that need to be recognized.


What separates Boss from the other live-action features is the machine-like consistency of the resolution and picture attributes. Over eight episodes, I could count on one hand the number of shots that look anything less than jaw-dropping. If I had to speculate, the ease of setting up mostly still shots, without having to plan for movement or action in the frame, immensely helped out the production crew. It's much easier to shoot someone sitting at a desk in a studio environment, rather than a guy running through a warehouse waving a gun.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19530#post_22283875
> 
> 
> Even though I am a bit lower, those who are familiar with *my very demanding standards* will appreciate that this is still very high for me.
> *Tier 1.0**



Patrick, just what are your "very demanding standards?" Don't you go by the same standards we do that were written up years ago?

















All kidding aside, how much did you have to pay for the set? I did enjoy the series, but I'm not sure I want to buy them. I may just rent them if one of the surrounding locales has them for rent in a video store.


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19410#post_22093586
> 
> *Coriolanus*
> 
> 
> I was drawn to this movie based on the amazing cast (Ralph Fiennes, Gerard Butler, Vanessa Redgrave, Jessica Chastain, and Brian Cox) and I was also curious to see how Ralph Fiennes fared in his directorial debut. The acting was superb, but the pacing, alone with the story-line, left something to be desired.
> 
> 
> The PQ was sub-par, with poor black levels, gobs of noise, weak contrast, sporadic soft shots, a drab color palette, and less-than-stellar detail. To be fair, I will point out that there were facial close-ups that rivaled titles in the top two tiers. This, along with some appreciable depth at times, were the only two redeeming qualities of note.
> 
> 
> This was most definitely below average and I'm inclined to nominate it for....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.5**



Yet again, I didn't find this as objectionable as djoberg. But I do agree on the weaknesses of this as eye candy. The dark scenes were washed out and the color palette was drab. I didn't notice any terrible noise, though. Facial detail on closeups was strong but overall detail was just average. Average is my operative thought here, so I'm going to say...

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*


Sony KDL52EX700, 8 foot viewing distance


As far as the movie goes, I agree that the cast was stellar. I found the pace of the film weird, as it jumped very quickly from plot point (victory in war) to plot point (banishment, revenge, etc.) with little in the way of characterization or context. This is definitely on the lower end of Shakespeare adaptations for me (I can't wait for Titus to hit Blu).


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19530#post_22287503
> 
> 
> Patrick, just what are your "very demanding standards?" Don't you go by the same standards we do that were written up years ago?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All kidding aside, how much did you have to pay for the set? I did enjoy the series, but I'm not sure I want to buy them. I may just rent them if one of the surrounding locales has them for rent in a video store.



The Amazon price is about $27, Denny.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19530#post_22284056
> 
> 
> Fair enough, the credit sequence is somewhat rougher than the episodes themselves. Though I usually don't penalize a disc for something like the credits. I know how tough your standards are, Patrick, though I do think the picture quality in Boss meets about every challenge one can muster. The one thing it seriously lacks are the glowing hot colors of the best CGI, that gives CGI a touch of extra pop. Though oversaturating the primary colors brings its own problems that need to be recognized.
> 
> What separates Boss from the other live-action features is the machine-like consistency of the resolution and picture attributes. Over eight episodes, I could count on one hand the number of shots that look anything less than jaw-dropping. If I had to speculate, the ease of setting up mostly still shots, without having to plan for movement or action in the frame, immensely helped out the production crew. It's much easier to shoot someone sitting at a desk in a studio environment, rather than a guy running through a warehouse waving a gun.



Actually, Phantom, I found the scenes shot in the set used for the mayor's office not the most impressive. Perhaps it is just my general dislike of sets, with this office set looking particularly fake, especially the ridiculously small single window with a very unconvincing exterior view. I much preferred the scenes shot in "real" locations.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*ATM*

Ugly flesh tones and color caused by some bland lighting drowns ATM in mediocrity. The Red One is more than serviceable in terms of black levels and some fine detail, but medium shots are completely flat. Vertical banding and noise will suffocate a handful of shots too.

*Tier 3.25**


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19530#post_22288344
> 
> 
> Yet again, I didn't find this as objectionable as djoberg.



As the defending champion of the "Most Generous Rater" now for going on 4 years, I'm getting concerned that I may be defeated by you. Just so you know, once you earn that coveted title, you must prepared for persecution from those who have more "demanding standards."


----------



## Phantom Stranger

My personal stance on Coriolanus would be much closer to Djoberg's ranking. The budget appears to have mostly gone towards the cast and the Serbian production crew doesn't have the polish of a slick Hollywood production. The picture was disappointing for a new release. I also thought it was a huge vanity exercise for the movie to be spoken in iambic pentameter. That might have worked on a play that most of us would already be more familiar with, like Hamlet or King Lear. I had never even heard of Coriolanus before this movie.


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19530#post_22290333
> 
> 
> As the defending champion of the "Most Generous Rater" now for going on 4 years, I'm getting concerned that I may be defeated by you. Just so you know, once you earn that coveted title, you must prepared for persecution from those who have more "demanding standards."



My earlier ratings were more generous than my recent ones. But I'm sure it all evens out with multiple raters.


Either way, if I'm easier to please, it just means I'm a happier guy.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19530#post_22295641
> 
> 
> My earlier ratings were more generous than my recent ones. But I'm sure it all evens out with multiple raters.
> 
> Either way, if I'm easier to please, it just means *I'm a happier guy.*



I hear ya!! I've been a very happy guy for a very long time!


----------



## djoberg

*Too Big To Fail*


I frequented a video store today in a nearby town and as I was perusing the New Releases I was arrested by the title I'm reviewing. I had never heard of this HBO Film but I was intrigued by the content (the "bail out of Wall Street banks") and decided to rent it. I"m glad I did! Not only was the acting and story-line superb, but the PQ was excellent!


Except for the muted color palette in a majority of the film, the PQ is stunning, with phenomenal DETAILS, DEPTH, and CLARITY (especially in close-ups). Along with these, the BLACK LEVELS and SHADOW DETAILS were amazing. I should mention that when primary COLORS did appear, they were warm and vibrant. FLESH TONES were spot on and CONTRAST was strong. I would highly recommend this film to my fellow AVS members, and in particular to those who value good PQ. Kudos to HBO for another stellar Blu-ray release.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


PS After viewing this "political drama," I'm really anticipating _Boss_ on Blu-ray more than ever. If Phantom's analysis is correct, and _Boss_ turns out to be "King of the Hill" in Tier Blu, I'm going to be recommending that series to every PQ die-hard that I know.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Woman in Black*


So bland it's ridiculous. Pale and dark. That's it really. Concerns are brought up over blacks that can't hold their own on a consistent basis, which damages a film trying so hard to impress with the darkness. Detail is minimal too, and there's a hint of smoothing.

*Tier 3.5**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Lorax (2012)*


It's CG. It's colorful. It's sharp. It's detailed. It's like we've been here before. Great material, but where to place? Not at the top. Detail isn't always there at the source there and animation isn't a stand out. So....

*Tier 0.25**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Freelancers*


Dud of a direct-to-video film that looks okay. There's some definite edginess, and the contrast is ridiculous. Super hot to the point where backgrounds outside of cars are wiped clean. Low resolution cuts to city shots are pretty rough, but thankfully the close-ups hold plentiful detail. Black levels are okay and grain is typically well resolved.

*Tier 2.75**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Raid: Redemption*


Dear god, what happened here? I don't know if was Sony or if it was tweaked like this in post, but this is DNR run super amok. Smearing is just ludicrous, and when you're talking fast action, it's unacceptable. Noise is prevalent, definition is resoundingly poor, and color timing is ugly. A handful of close-ups look okay, but that's it.

*Tier 4.75**


----------



## dvdmike007

That is what the film looks like........ its not Avatar


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19500_60#post_22311943
> 
> *The Raid: Redemption*
> 
> 
> Dear god, what happened here? I don't know if was Sony or if it was tweaked like this in post, but this is DNR run super amok. Smearing is just ludicrous, and when you're talking fast action, it's unacceptable. Noise is prevalent, definition is resoundingly poor, and color timing is ugly. A handful of close-ups look okay, but that's it.
> 
> *Tier 4.75**


I'm not personally familiar with _The Raid: Redemption_, but it appears to be an Indonesian-based production shot on some sort of prosumer digital camcorder, going off the quick information I dug up. Which might help to explain its visual quality.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dvdmike007*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19530#post_22312028
> 
> 
> That is what the film looks like........ its not Avatar



I didn't expect Avatar, but I also didn't expect it to smear so terribly making some scenes utterly unwatchable. My lowly Flip Video cam, for all of its artifacts, takes cleaner images.

*A Thousand Words*


Weak black levels, mediocre grain resolution, edge enhancement, and uber warm color timing highlight another weak new release. While facial detail will soar, the rest of the transfer dips and swerves away from the pristine. It was shot in 2008, and one wonders if that's when this master was created.

*Tier 3.25**


----------



## dvdmike007




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19530#post_22312643
> 
> 
> I'm not personally familiar with _The Raid: Redemption_, but it appears to be an Indonesian-based production shot on some sort of prosumer digital camcorder, going off the quick information I dug up. Which might help to explain its visual quality.



There will be not much more to get out of this, it looked like that projected


----------



## djoberg

*The Lorax*


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19530#post_22305857
> 
> *The Lorax (2012)*
> 
> It's CG. It's colorful. It's sharp. It's detailed. It's like we've been here before. Great material, but where to place? Not at the top. Detail isn't always there at the source there and animation isn't a stand out. So....
> *Tier 0.25**



I'm on the same page with GRG...this is MORE OF THE SAME in the "animated" genre. I did LOVE the colors...at times...but it still didn't compare with titles like _Toy Story 3_. And the graphics were nothing like _Legend of the Guardians_. I'm inclined to put it next to its cousin...

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (Above Despicable Me)**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## Phantom Stranger

If things go according to plan, I hope to have the PQ Tiers updated by Monday. But the best laid schemes of mice and men often go awry.


----------



## Kool-aid23

Thanks in advance for your time and work on the tiers.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Faculty*


Noise reduction city flattens the image out and robs it of fine detail. The edge enhancement doesn't help either, bumping up the grain and filling the screen with halos. Colors are devoid of energy and push towards paleness. A handful of close-ups produce detail of mention, but they're outliers.

*Tier 3.75**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I promised an update to the Tiers but a problem has arisen. The offsite database has been completely updated since Saturday and ready to be posted, but the forum's change in software platforms is proving to be problematic in allowing me to edit SuprSlow's posts without changes to the format of the Tiers. Would readers have a problem if the Holdings area is removed?

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1168342/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-rankings/0_60#user_anchor5 


Another aspect not working at the moment are the anchor points that link to each Tier, as seen here in a test post:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1425229/picture-quality-tiers-research-and-testing/0_60#post_22322012 


The new update could be posted very soon if both of these elements are dropped. It's still going to be difficult but not impossible. Any BBCode wizards around? The raw data generated from the Tiers database is pure BBCode that is very complex and does not seem to behave on the new site.


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19530#post_22323857
> 
> 
> The new update could be posted very soon if both of these elements are dropped. It's still going to be difficult but not impossible. Any BBCode wizards around? The raw data generated from the Tiers database is pure BBCode that is very complex and does not seem to behave on the new site.



I had some difficulty with BBCode for the specs thread as well after the forum update, so I ended up changing to HTML. The conversion for my database export wasn't too difficult since the tags are mostly the same.


Here's code for HTML anchors:
Code:


Code:


[CODE][URL='#anchor1']Link to Anchor 1[/URL] 

 [URL='']Anchor 1[/URL]

[/CODE]


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19500_60#post_22323928
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19530#post_22323857
> 
> 
> The new update could be posted very soon if both of these elements are dropped. It's still going to be difficult but not impossible. Any BBCode wizards around? The raw data generated from the Tiers database is pure BBCode that is very complex and does not seem to behave on the new site.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had some difficulty with BBCode for the specs thread as well after the forum update, so I ended up changing to HTML. The conversion for my database export wasn't too difficult since the tags are mostly the same.
> 
> 
> Here's code for HTML anchors:
> Code:
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> [CODE][URL='#anchor1']Link to Anchor 1[/URL]
> 
> [URL='']Anchor 1[/URL]
> 
> [/CODE]
Click to expand...

I've been thinking along much of the same line, that the old BBCode is not going to work and it will need to be converted to HTML, for it to post correctly on the new forum. That's beyond my capabilities but I will consult with K-Spaz on the issue, the actual man behind the Tiers' database.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

This post is more a sign marker for my personal reference and to etch a demarcation line where the following reviews have been added to the Tiers database. The Tiers themselves have not been posted yet but they will look a little different when the new thread is posted. For the moment the Holdings section has been eliminated, there was simply too much work involved trying to rescue it. I did get the anchor points to work in the new thread (by far the hardest part having to manually edit it by hand), so each sub-Tier will still be clickable from each post. Each sub-Tier had to be moved to its own separate post due to limitations in Huddler, the new software platform for AVS. I am also in the process of cleaning up the first post in the PQ Tiers list. I've eliminated the glossary section for starters.


I'm always interested in fixing known errors or mistakes in the listings if brought to my attention, though I am aware of the still-broken HDDB links for a sizable number of entries.


"G" here refers to Gamereviewgod


Joyful Noise x - 2.75 G


The Inglorious Basterds (1978) x - 2.25 Phantom


New Years Eve x - 2.0 G


Carnage x - 3.0 mweflen


Haywire x - 2.75 G, 2.75 djoberg


Cleopatra (UK) x - 3.0 Phantom


Mimic x - 2.0 G


The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo - 2.0 djoberg, 1.25 mweflen, 2.0 G


Mimic 2 x - 2.75 G


Mimic 3 x - 3.25 G


The Universe: Season 1 x - 3.5 mweflen


War Horse x - 1.75 lgans316, 1.5 djoberg


Mother’s Day (2011) x - 2.0 G


Underworld: Evolution x - 2.5 G


The Vow x - 1.75 G


Spice And Wolf: Season Two - 1.25 Phantom


Wrestlemania XXVIII x - 3.75 G


Gremlins 2 x - 2.75 G


Super - 1.75 Phantom


Chronicle x - 2.25 G, 2.25 lgans316, 3.0 djoberg


The Devil Inside x - 4.0 G


One For The MOney x - 2.25 G


The Grey x - 3.25 djoberg


Puss In Boots x - 0 below Rango lgans316


Chinatown x - 2.0 mweflen


Whisper Of The Heart x - 2.5 Phantom


Hondo x - 2.75 G


Journey Through The Past (Neil Young Archives) x - 5 Phantom


Beyond x - 3.0 djoberg


IP MAN x - 2.5 Phantom


Goon x - 2.0 G


Lucio Fulci’s Zombie x - 3.5 Phantom


Gone x - 2.25 G, 1.5 djoberg


Insidious - 2.0 Phantom


This Means War x - 2.0 G


Lethal Weapon (from remastered Collection) x - 2.0 G


Whip It x - 2.25 mweflen


Lethal Weapon 2 x - 2 G


The Iron Lady - 2.75 Djoberg


Lethal Weapon 3 x - 2.75 G


Angel Beats! x - 1.5 Phantom


Sherlock Holmes: Game Of Shadows - 2 lgans316, 2.75 Patrick99, 2.5 G, 2.5 djoberg


Sucker Punch - 4.0 Phantom


Coriolanus x - 3.5 djoberg, 3.5 Phantom, 3.0 mweflen


Lethal Weapon 4 x - 1.75 G


Underworld: Awakening x - 1.75 djoberg


The Woman in Black x - 3.0 djoberg, 3.5 G


Contraband x - 3.0 djoberg


My Week WIth Marilyn x - 2.5 djoberg


Man On A Ledge x - 1.75 G, 1.25 djoberg


Gone Fishin’ = 2.75 G


Meatballs x - 3.25 G


Demon King Daimao x - 2.0 Phantom


Kung Fu Panda 2 - 0 above KFP lgans316


The Descendants - 1.5 lgans316


Tree Of Life - 1.0 lgans316


Act of Valor x - 2.0 G, 1.75 djoberg


Superman Vs. The Elite x - 1.0 Phantom


Ef - A Tale Of Memories x - 1.75 Phantom


Ef - A Tale Of Melodies x - 2.0 Phantom


Journey 2 : Mysterious Island x - 1.75 G


Jeff, Who live At Home x - 1.5 G


Doors Mr Mojo Risin’ x - 3.75 Phantom


Okami-san And Her Seven Companions x - 3.25 Phantom


Machine Gun Preacher x - 2.0 G


The Ides OF March x - 0 above Watchmen mweflen


Bad Ass - 2.0 G


Rushmore x - 1.0 Phantom


Mac & Devin Go To High School - 3.75 G


Hoosiers: 25th x - 3.75 G


John Carter x - 1.75 djoberg, 2.0 patrick99, 2.0 tfoltz, 1.75 lgans316


Before and after x - 3.5 G


High School OF The Dead x - 1.75 Phantom


Holy Man - 2.25 G


Pink Floyd - Wish You Were Here - 2.75 Phantom


Wanderlust x - 2.75 G


Project X x - 3.0 G


American Reunion x - 1.75 G


Wrath Of The Titans x - 1.75 djoberg, 1.0 G


The Hunter x - 1.75 G


The Lost Weekend x - 3.0 tenia54


Griff The invisible - 4.5 Phantom


Safe House - 1.5 G, 1.75 djoberg, 1.75 lgans316


Blade x - 2.25 Phantom


Drive - 1.0 mweflen


Terminal Velocity x - 3.0 G


Five Element Ninjas - 2.0 Phantom


Pina (French) - 0 below Art OF Flight tenia54


APocalypse Now - 3.5 lgans316


Blade II x - 1.5 hernanu


Straw Dogs (2011) - 1.75 Phantom


Night Of The Living Dead (Happinet Japan) x - 4.0 Phantom


Friends WIth Kids x - 1.75 G


X-Men First Class - 2.75 Phantom


The Flowers OF War x - 1.5 Phantom


The Collector (1965) x - 3.5 Phantom


Samurai Girls x - 1.25 Phantom


Legend OF The Legendary Heroes Part I, II x - 2.25 Phantom


Lockout x - 2.25 G


Clue - 2.75 G


The Story Of O x - 4.5 Phantom


Get the ****** x - 1.75 G


Boss Season One x - top 0 Phantom, 1.0 patrick99


The Three Stooges - 1.75 G, 2.0 djoberg


Real Steel x - .75 djoberg


Total Recall: Mind Blown x - 2.0 G


Let Me in - 3.25 Phantom


Hijacked x - 3.25 G


The Ring x - 3.5 Phantom


ATM x - 3.25 G


Too Big To Fail x - 1.5 djoberg


The Woman IN Black x - 3.5 G


The Lorax x - .25 G, 0 above Despicable Me djoberg


Freelancers x - 2.75 G


The Raid: Redemption x - 4.75 G


A Thousand Words x - 3.25


The Prophecy x - 4.5 Phantom


La Grande Illusion x - 2.5 Phantom


Marley x - 1.75 Phantom


The Faculty U.S. x - 3.75 Gamereviewgod


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Hunger Games*


Some softness and standout smoothness doesn't hamper this one too much. Weak black levels at night on the other hand do lessen the punch. Extensive fine detail is appreciated, and a fair lockdown on the grain looks great. Color are flat and typically two tone, chilled slightly.

*Tier 2.25**


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19530#post_22326425
> 
> *The Hunger Games*
> 
> Some softness and standout smoothness doesn't hamper this one too much. Weak black levels at night on the other hand do lessen the punch. Extensive fine detail is appreciated, and a fair lockdown on the grain looks great. Color are flat and typically two tone, chilled slightly.
> *Tier 2.25**



I was led to believe this might at least be worthy of a Tier 1 rating, so I'll have to see if I have the same impressions as you. I'll be viewing it later today.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

The new Tiers are completely finished and have been posted as a sticky thread (click the link in my signature). It reflects all recommendations to date and the sub-links to other tiers work perfectly. Give it a spin and tell me if it works for you. A thank you goes out to the AVS moderators and forum member Wajo, who offered as much help as they could in fixing the Tiers for the new forum software. I did have to drop the Holdings section for new placements, but I'll see if they could be included in the future.

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1425519/the-official-picture-quality-tiers-for-blu-ray-rankings-updated-through-august-21-2012/0_60


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19560#post_22327863
> 
> 
> The new Tiers are completely finished and have been posted as a sticky thread (click the link in my signature). It reflects all recommendations to date and the sub-links to other tiers work perfectly. Give it a spin and tell me if it works for you. A thank you goes out to the AVS moderators and forum member Wajo, who offered as much help as they could in fixing the Tiers for the new forum software. I did have to drop the Holdings section for new placements, but I'll see if they could be included in the future.
> http://www.avsforum.com/t/1425519/the-official-picture-quality-tiers-for-blu-ray-rankings-updated-through-august-21-2012/0_60



It works!!! Three cheers for Phantom!!! As always, your work is to be commended, dear friend.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Denny, you don't know how close I came to stepping away from the Tiers this time. Re-configuring the Tiers and getting it to properly work on the forum was a time-consuming and challenging process, about double the normal workload of a typical update. Things should go smoother in the future, now that I've come up with an orderly process (patent pending) to update the Tiers on the new forum.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19560#post_22328913
> 
> 
> Denny, you don't know how close I came to stepping away from the Tiers this time. Re-configuring the Tiers and getting it to properly work on the forum was a time-consuming and challenging process, about double the normal workload of a typical update. Things should go smoother in the future, now that I've come up with an orderly process (patent pending) to update the Tiers on the new forum.



Again, thank you Phantom for your labor of love and endurance. I for one am VERY GLAD you didn't "step away."


----------



## djoberg

*The Hunger Games*


Lionsgate had their work cut out for them with a production this big...and they did NOT disappoint! This was, for the majority of its 140 minute running time, quite stunning!


I agree with GRG that it had some soft shots (very sporadic) and the black levels *could* be weak at night (but they could also be inky with beautiful shadow details). These were actually minimal (as intimated above when I stated the majority of the film was stunning).


I don't agree with GRG's statement, "Colors are flat and typically two-tone." In fact, I can't believe he said this, for only the first few scenes, inside the District 12, could be characterized as such. Once the two leads came to the arena where the Games were held, colors popped big time (EYE CANDY, for sure). The many, many forest scenes yielded drop-dead gorgeous shots with lush greens and phenomenal details/depth. Facial details were topnotch, easily Tier 0 quality in 90% of the close-ups. Flesh tones were accurate and contrast was strong. Another pleasing aspect of this "film" was the "film-like look," with a fine layer of grain gracing the entire production. This is most definitely "demo material."


There were enough soft shots and less-than-stellar black levels to keep this out of the top tier, but IMHO it should easily land in Tier Gold. I'm thinking right here....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Jaws*


Outstanding restoration leads to a fine grain structure that holds with few spikes. Only a handful of scenes take on any appearance of filtering, and they're minor. Color are injected with a nice boost of saturation. Primaries are elevated naturally. Black crush can be thick inside the cabin, but it's generally not a concern. Remarkable textural detail has been brought to the surface.

*Tier 2.5**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Tigger Movie


recommendation: Tier 1.25*
*

Disney has given _The Tigger Movie_ an almost flawless presentation. The 77-minute main feature was originally produced in 2000 and I was afraid the hand-drawn animation would end up looking dull; my fears were completely unfounded. It was around the time of this movie where the tools of production for traditional animation were changing under the auspices of the digital age. Some of the hand-drawn animation from the era has suffered a bit from those early tools, but _The Tigger Movie_ looks as fit and fresh as new animation produced this year.


The only real flaw in the transfer is the splotchy live-action opening, beset by compression noise and an unusually grainy background. Thankfully the animation looks gloriously pristine by comparison. Its clean line-work and bold colors make for excellent demo material, though it's a step below the magnificent _Winnie the Pooh_, which came out last year.


Disney has provided Tigger with their fairly standard AVC video specifications. The transfer has not been tampered with by filtering or sharpening. I suspect the animated portion has been directly transferred from the digital master files, which results in high-quality Blu-rays most of the time.


TTFN, I have to bounce somewhere.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Dictator*


Bland digital with an overly aggressive color palette that is overdone as it is unappealing. Fine detail is passable if just barely. Contrast is bland, although black levels keep up their end of the bargain. The best stuff here are the nighttime aerials of New York. Nothing else compares to them on this disc.

*Tier 2.75**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Piranha 3DD*


This one was clearly rushed, and the photography matches. While filled with extraordinary definition at times, much of it soft and lacking refinement. It's muddy. Underwater footage is abysmal, and a lot is taken from the first movie. Noise becomes heavy, and banding prolific. Some shots are hit with heavy compression that look akin to a cell phone. Color is great, but this remains a huge step down from the first.
*Tier 2.75**


----------



## rusky_g

*This Means War*


Watched this on the Projector a couple of weeks ago with my sister and bro-in-law as we wanted something funny and light hearted.


By no means was the PQ mind blowing but it was good enough to make the film an enjoyable watch and I've seen far worse. Detail was what you'd expect from the average modern release, colours were pumped up to give a bit more dazzle and it suited the films pace.


Overall, *2.50*.


Optoma HD65 @ 11' - 94" diagonal screen


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Hellraiser: Revelations


recommendation: Tier 1.25*
*

Pinhead returns in vivid detail on this disc. The 75-minute movie is in AVC at suitably high bitrates on the BD-25. Its pristine clarity and razor-sharp appearance are largely due to the digital cameras this feature has been shot with. The image is rock-solid after a brief foray into simulated camcorder footage that opens the movie. More of the budget apparently went into shooting the movie than its cast or the script.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Red State

recommendation: 1.0*
*

An awful movie that looks much better than it deserves. Shot in Redcode RAW at a native resolution over 4K, the picture is literally flawless. The movie's cinematography is a tad lifeless but overall hits high marks in almost every picture attribute. If the movie wasn't so bad, _Red State_ might have been recommended for Tier Zero.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Prophecy (as part of the 4-film multi-feature The Prophecy Collection)


recommendation: 5**


Echo Bridge licensed this 1995 horror film from Miramax and has released it in a number of different configurations. The Prophecy BD has been derived from an obsolete transfer that looks marginally better than a DVD, if that. Horrible compression specifications, as all four movies are crammed together on a single BD-50 in varying HD resolutions. That produces an image swimming in artifacts, especially the darker scenes.


----------



## |Tch0rT|

Damn, I was looking forward to the Blu-Ray of The Prophecy (the 1st one). The DVD looks like butt on my 73".


----------



## Phantom Stranger

The Prophecy Collection has been seen at Walmarts for under $10, so Echo Bridge is not overcharging for the disc. Ironically the one movie in the collection that most people want, _The Prophecy_, looks the roughest of the bunch. The sequels look far better in comparison. Echo Bridge's version of _The Prophecy_ comes from an older telecine transfer, likely from inferior film elements. To soften the blow, I will say it likely vaults to the status of best-looking Tier 5 movie. The picture is much better in exterior and daylight scenes.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Lock Up*


Coming from a three-pack of Stallone flicks, this is the same disc as the stand-alone release. Light noise reductions lends the piece a plastic look, and varies the grain structure heavily. Black levels have an odd glow, and weaken into murky grays. Some fine detail and consistent color are a highlight, if you can call the that. No damage, but that won't save this one.

*Tier 3.5**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Battleship*


There are shots in this movie with some of the best facial detail you can find, certainly some of the best I've ever come across. However, the camera has a way of losing focus and dampening the fun significantly. The color scheme is too restrictive most of the time to really land that killer blow too, while being offset by one hell of a contrast and stable black levels.
*Tier 1.5**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*High School*


Stoner comedy with heavy orange/teal push and strong facial detail. Black levels are striking and rich without any lapses. Film grain is tight, controlled, and clean. Really quite clear with an almost digital appearance in a good way.

*Tier 2.0**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Chaos; Head: The Complete Series


recommendation: Tier 1.5**


A wonderful Blu-ray edition of the 2008 series from animation studio Madhouse. Vibrant colors and fluid animation are backed by a nearly flawless video encode, marred only by a few instances of banding. It does not have the best line-art I've seen but works quite well within the confines of Tier One.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19560#post_22353263
> 
> *Battleship*
> *There are shots in this movie with some of the best facial detail you can find, certainly some of the best I've ever come across*. However, the camera has a way of losing focus and dampening the fun significantly. The color scheme is too restrictive most of the time to really land that killer blow too, while being offset by one hell of a contrast and stable black levels.
> *Tier 1.5**



I can't really agree with that statement about "some of the best facial detail you can find." To me, the better facial close-ups were good but not great. I would say somewhere in the 1.75 to 2.0 range. Having to pick between those two, I will go with:

*Tier 1.75**


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19560#post_22362346
> 
> 
> I can't really agree with that statement about "some of the best facial detail you can find." To me, the better facial close-ups were good but not great. I would say somewhere in the 1.75 to 2.0 range. Having to pick between those two, I will go with:
> *Tier 1.75**


   


I really can't imagine squeezing more detail out of a frame than that in my defense.
*Pirates! Band of Misfits*

Jumpy black levels are one of the few gripes via this stop motion epic. Texture is everywhere, even more impressive when you consider the sets are miniature. Metal looks like metal, and wood looks like wood. Colors will often take a monochromatic approach to sell the surroundings while dampening the visual fun.

*Tier 1.75**


----------



## lgans316

Thanks Phantom for keeping the Tier thread alive. God has gifted you lot of patience.










Today's show. Will post my thoughts shortly.


----------



## djoberg

*Battleship*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19560#post_22353263
> 
> *Battleship*
> 
> There are shots in this movie with some of the best facial detail you can find, certainly some of the best I've ever come across. However, the camera has a way of losing focus and dampening the fun significantly. The color scheme is too restrictive most of the time to really land that killer blow too, while being offset by one hell of a contrast and stable black levels.
> *Tier 1.5**





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19560#post_22362346
> 
> 
> I can't really agree with that statement about "some of the best facial detail you can find." To me, the better facial close-ups were good but not great. I would say somewhere in the 1.75 to 2.0 range. Having to pick between those two, I will go with:
> *Tier 1.75**



You guys are basically on the same page and I'm about to join you! Opening scenes weren't all that impressive but as the movie progressed the EYE CANDY exploded with mesmerizing details (especially island shots of Hawaii) and black levels to-die-for (including amazing shadow details). Regarding facial details, they don't get any better than the MANY shots of Mick (the guy with the two prosthetic legs) and then the elderly crew on the USS Missouri. Other facials weren't as good, but they were still in the Tier 1 range, albeit towards the bottom. I do agree with GRG concerning out-of-focus shots and the color scheme, but when the camera was in focus there was some very decent sharpness and clarity.....and colors truly POPPED at times (especially the lush green foliage in the numerous panoramic views of Hawaii). I thought half the movie was worthy of low Tier 0 and the other half low Tier 1, so I'm siding with GRG and voting for...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


PS The audio was incredible in the surrounds and there were some very impressive LFE moments (though nothing that rattled my walls like the pod emergence scene in _War of the Worlds_).


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Five-Year Engagement*


Nice image with clarity and no artifacts to speak of. Warm color base ramps up flesh tones without diluting other primaries. Strong black levels and pleasing detail are worth taking a look at. A shot or two appears to be stock (especially the opening aerials of LA; they look pulled from 1990), but the rest is up to the modern par.

*Tier 1.75**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Snow White and the Huntsman*


Super sharpness highlights this lavish production with rich production values that offers up plenty to define. Locations are stunning and costumes are gorgeous. Colors are muted but have a real density to them. Black levels are gorgeous and contrast is perky when it needs to be. Great looking disc with a lot of high points.

*Tier 1.75**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

A very exciting development is coming up for videophiles. Ron Fricke, the director behind _Baraka_, currently has a new movie in theaters called _Samsara_ that was shot entirely in 70mm film and scanned at 8K resolution. The Blu-ray should come out before the end of the year and will likely be a new reference point for video quality if nothing goes wrong.

http://barakasamsara.com/


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19560#post_22382871
> 
> 
> A very exciting development is coming up for videophiles. Ron Fricke, the director behind _Baraka_, currently has a new movie in theaters called _Samsara_ that was shot entirely in 70mm film and scanned at 8K resolution. The Blu-ray should come out before the end of the year and will likely be a new reference point for video quality if nothing goes wrong.
> http://barakasamsara.com/



Ah yes, I have been reading up on this in various threads and on websites and I echo your sentiments...."a very exciting development is coming for videophiles." Mr. Fricke and others emphasize the progress that has been made since the filming of _Baraka_ and thus we can anticipate a stunning visual experience. When I learned of this a week ago I felt compelled to watch _Baraka_ again and aside from some soft shots and a bit of EE, it is still worthy of the Tier 0 ranking that it currently enjoys. So, that begs the question, "Will _Samsara_ rise to the coveted number one position?" Time will tell.










This is an EDIT....I wanted to give a link to show the process they used in producing _Samsara_. As you will read, they decided to go the DIGITAL route in lieu of the FILM PRINT route, and they believe that this, along with other advancements in filming (including superior film stocks), produces an even better image than in the highly acclaimed _Baraka_. Here is the link:

http://barakasamsara.com/updates


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Titanic (1997)*


Truly stunning work in terms of depth, detail, and contrast. This one is a total stunner. Color timing has been changed slightly without any detriment to the overall image. Compression is excellent considering the length and single disc nature of the film. A handful of trouble shots are seconds in length. Effects shots show some light age, but are still passable. There's way too much to praise to find much fault.

*Tier 1.25**


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19560#post_22391959
> 
> *Titanic (1997)*
> 
> Truly stunning work in terms of depth, detail, and contrast. This one is a total stunner. Color timing has been changed slightly without any detriment to the overall image. Compression is excellent considering the length and single disc nature of the film. A handful of trouble shots are seconds in length. Effects shots show some light age, but are still passable. There's way too much to praise to find much fault.
> *Tier 1.25**



I read similar praise from Robert A. Harris in his review. I've always been a fan of this film and I do plan to add this to my Blu-ray library.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Since _Titanic_ is James Cameron's baby and it made him "King Of The World" in his own words, I imagine he went over the transfer with a fine-tooth comb as he usually does for each release of it. I remember the DVD being a reference standard when it was first released.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Cop Land*


Coming from the Stallone 3-film collection, this is the same disc as the standard release. Don't get excited. Clear signs of edge enhancement and DNR mar a transfer that if done well, could be something special. The print is clearly holding something special with all of this fine detail, but it collapses as soon as the camera pans back. Murky, plastic people are not appealing.

*Tier 3.0**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Moneyball


recommendation: 2.0
*

Almost everyone that has chimed in already thought Moneyball deserved to be ranked in Tier 1.75. It does have fantastic detail, though I noticed frequent ringing problems. To be fair, the sharpening is mild and smaller displays will obscure it a bit. Another trait of Moneyball is the authentic standard-definition footage of the baseball highlights, which is common enough in the narrative to lower my personal score of the disc. There are already too many votes for Tier 1.75 for my score to alter its placement, but I'm not sure Moneyball deserves to be in Tier One.


----------



## djoberg

*Snow White and the Huntsman*


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19560#post_22380077
> 
> *Snow White and the Huntsman*
> 
> Super sharpness highlights this lavish production with rich production values that offers up plenty to define. Locations are stunning and costumes are gorgeous. Colors are muted but have a real density to them. Black levels are gorgeous and contrast is perky when it needs to be. Great looking disc with a lot of high points.
> *Tier 1.75**



Laziness dictates tonight so I'm only going to add two or three observations to the points in GRG's review. There were definitely SOFT SHOTS sprinkled throughout the film and a few scenes with MURKY BLACKS (these were nighttime scenes where the black bars on my KURO and the nighttime sky were definitely NOT inky black but rather a dark gray). I'll also mention that facial details, though exemplary at times, fell short of demo-worthy in numerous scenes. In view of these shortcomings I'm going to drop the recommendation a notch....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Raiders of the Lost Ark*


Color timing has definitely been turned warm, an odd motion artifact is visible early, and some chroma noise is visible in spots, but overall, Raiders is impressive. Textural detail is high, and the source photography is maintained. That means some softness from the lens, but not enough to mar this into oblivion. Dense blacks keep a tight image, and the image is free of source damage.

*Tier 2.25**


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19590#post_22404187
> 
> *Raiders of the Lost Ark*
> 
> Color timing has definitely been turned warm, an odd motion artifact is visible early, and some chroma noise is visible in spots, but overall, Raiders is impressive. Textural detail is high, and the source photography is maintained. That means some softness from the lens, but not enough to mar this into oblivion. Dense blacks keep a tight image, and the image is free of source damage.
> *Tier 2.25**



I have been a fan of the "Indy" series (except for the dreadful _Crystal Skull_ debacle) and have been anticipating the Blu-rays for years. I've read that the third installment has the best PQ, followed by #2 and #1 (I could care less about #4). I'll look forward to your take on the next two.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/18540_60#post_20946190
> 
> *Thor*
> 
> 
> 
> It's always a bit daunting writing the first review/tier recommendation for a new title, but I'll take a stab at it. For the most part, I was quite pleased with the transfer, though it was not without its flaws/anomalies.
> 
> 
> 
> Let me start with the BLACKS...they were EXCELLENT!! They were easily the greatest redeeming feature. Deep and inky from start to finish, and always serving to enhance depth and dimensionality, as well as surrounding colors. Shadow details were just as impressive. You will NOT be disappointed in this department, I can assure you!
> 
> 
> 
> COLORS were also a visual treat, whether one is viewing Asgard, the kingdom of the Frost Giants (I can't remember its name), or the deserts of New Mexico. Some will no doubt complain of the orange/teal hues strewn throughout, but I actually didn't mind it with everything else that was going on.
> 
> 
> 
> DETAILS were lacking, IMHO, though it had its moments when the director chose to zoom into an actor or object. There were a couple of close-ups of Anthony Hopkins that bordered on Tier 0/Tier 1, but this was the exception and not the rule (most facial details were only average). Medium and long-distance shots just didn't do it for me, except on a couple of rare occasions.
> 
> 
> 
> SHARPNESS and CLARITY were present in some scenes, but softness kept rearing its ugly head sporadically.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a hard one for me to rate, though in comparing it to my recent viewing of _X-Men: First Class_, which I rated at 2.0, I would have to say it was a notch better. Having said that, I just can't bring myself to label this a demo disc, so I'm going with....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.0**
> 
> 
> 
> Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'
> 
> 
> 
> PS I simply MUST say something about the audio track...WOW!!!!!! This is, by far, the most dynamic track I've listened to in a very long time. I was wondering if my Velodyne Sub was going to survive the beating it took; it had the walls of my new Home Theater room shaking BIG TIME. And the action in the surrounds was AMAZING! For all you audio lovers out there, be prepared for AUDIO NIRVANA!


*Thor


recommendation: 1.5*


I would disagree with Denny's conclusion that _Thor_ lacked fine detail. It was about the only thing I noticed after mentally checking out on the plot. Yes, whenever a scene is set in a pure CGI setting the picture goes very soft for a new film. The bulk of the movie however looks shot at real locations and on physical sets, where the detail is easily on par with discs ranked in Tier 1.25/1.5. For a summer blockbuster there is hardly any use of de-focusing or filtering, leaving an unmolested picture with excellent high-frequency content. That makes for a highly revealing image, as one can easily see the caps on Natalie Portman's teeth or other details that would be impossible to notice on a lesser disc in the Tiers. Denny was entirely correct about the audio, it's a reference quality mix.


Thor looks vastly better than _X-Men: First Class_, which I thought barely deserved to be ranked anywhere in Tier 2, due to the horribly soft CGI elements and other problems.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Patsfan123):
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1155731/new-unofficial-blu-ray-audio-and-video-specifications-thread/3420#post_21025158


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19590#post_22405657
> 
> *Thor
> 
> recommendation: 1.5*
> 
> I would disagree with Denny's conclusion that _Thor_ lacked fine detail. It was about the only thing I noticed after mentally checking out on the plot. Yes, whenever a scene is set in a pure CGI setting the picture goes very soft for a new film. The bulk of the movie however looks shot at real locations and on physical sets, where the detail is easily on par with discs ranked in Tier 1.25/1.5. For a summer blockbuster there is hardly any use of de-focusing or filtering, leaving an unmolested picture with excellent high-frequency content. That makes for a highly revealing image, as one can easily see the caps on Natalie Portman's teeth or other details that would be impossible to notice on a lesser disc in the Tiers. Denny was entirely correct about the audio, it's a reference quality mix.



I own this disc Phantom so I might have to view it again to see if I misjudged the _details_. I did a Search and I see that GRG gave it a 2.25 and patrick99 a 2.0, so the consensus before your review was a Tier 2 placement. Killer AQ though; we surely agree on that.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19560#post_22329152
> 
> *The Hunger Games*
> 
> Lionsgate had their work cut out for them with a production this big...and they did NOT disappoint! This was, for the majority of its 140 minute running time, quite stunning!
> 
> I agree with GRG that it had some soft shots (very sporadic) and the black levels *could* be weak at night (but they could also be inky with beautiful shadow details). These were actually minimal (as intimated above when I stated the majority of the film was stunning).
> 
> I don't agree with GRG's statement, "Colors are flat and typically two-tone." In fact, I can't believe he said this, for only the first few scenes, inside the District 12, could be characterized as such. Once the two leads came to the arena where the Games were held, colors popped big time (EYE CANDY, for sure). The many, many forest scenes yielded drop-dead gorgeous shots with lush greens and phenomenal details/depth. Facial details were topnotch, easily Tier 0 quality in 90% of the close-ups. Flesh tones were accurate and contrast was strong. Another pleasing aspect of this "film" was the "film-like look," with a fine layer of grain gracing the entire production. This is most definitely "demo material."
> 
> There were enough soft shots and less-than-stellar black levels to keep this out of the top tier, but IMHO it should easily land in Tier Gold. I'm thinking right here....
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.5**
> 
> Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'



I found the PQ on this to be extremely satisfying, with the exception of a very few soft shots, and a few shots with very fake-looking backgrounds. Nice to see a proper presentation, with the extras all on a separate disc from the movie. Too bad this isn't done more often.

*Tier 1.25**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom*


Weakest of the four by means of a digital coating. It's the least film-like. Edgy ridges, mild halos, and the slightest hints of aliasing are noticeable, and it effects the entire image whether those are visible or not. That said, the tremendous level of fine detail, solid black levels, and lack of drastic color timing changes means it's not all bad. It looks too good to hate.

*Tier 2.5**


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19560_60#post_22405879
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19590#post_22405657
> 
> *Thor
> 
> recommendation: 1.5*
> 
> I would disagree with Denny's conclusion that _Thor_ lacked fine detail. It was about the only thing I noticed after mentally checking out on the plot. Yes, whenever a scene is set in a pure CGI setting the picture goes very soft for a new film. The bulk of the movie however looks shot at real locations and on physical sets, where the detail is easily on par with discs ranked in Tier 1.25/1.5. For a summer blockbuster there is hardly any use of de-focusing or filtering, leaving an unmolested picture with excellent high-frequency content. That makes for a highly revealing image, as one can easily see the caps on Natalie Portman's teeth or other details that would be impossible to notice on a lesser disc in the Tiers. Denny was entirely correct about the audio, it's a reference quality mix.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I own this disc Phantom so I might have to view it again to see if I misjudged the _details_. I did a Search and I see that GRG gave it a 2.25 and patrick99 a 2.0, so the consensus before your review was a Tier 2 placement. Killer AQ though; we surely agree on that.
Click to expand...

The scenes on the Rainbow Bridge are very soft with only moderate resolution, but I found most of the action on Earth to be razor-sharp with excellent detail. I am pointing out Thor only because it's appreciably more detailed than others in its genre, such as Captain America or the aforementioned X-Men: First Class. The production of Thor looks deftly filmed compared to the low-pass filtered transfers I see these days from other summer action movies.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade*


While suffering from the same issues as Temple, including the sharpening, it's not as impactful on the overall imagery. Exteriors are clean and natural as opposed to a bunch of digital fuzz. Tight photography is beneficial to the piece with remarkable fine detail. Color has a balance that feels '80s vintage yet impressive.

*2.25**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull (Complete Adventures version)*


This looks identical to the 2008 version currently ranked in Tier 1. Maybe someone will see it differently, but I can't imagine what has changed. With time, it doesn't really belong that high. The level of filters used, the bleaching contrast, and other elements dim too much detail. Still a looker, but not what it once was.
*Tier 1.75**


----------



## tfoltz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19590#post_22404187
> 
> *Raiders of the Lost Ark*
> 
> Color timing has definitely been turned warm, an odd motion artifact is visible early, and some chroma noise is visible in spots, but overall, Raiders is impressive. Textural detail is high, and the source photography is maintained. That means some softness from the lens, but not enough to mar this into oblivion. Dense blacks keep a tight image, and the image is free of source damage.
> *Tier 2.25**



I think you were kind on the rating. It's pretty soft, at times blurry, and mediocre black levels.
*Raiders of the Lost Ark - 2.75* leaning more toward 3.


----------



## tfoltz

*Rescuers - Tier 1.75


Rescuers Down Under - Tier 2*


Both look great, but Down Under felt a little dull and dated at times.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19590#post_22419230
> 
> 
> I think you were kind on the rating. It's pretty soft, at times blurry, and mediocre black levels.
> *Raiders of the Lost Ark - 2.75* leaning more toward 3.



From what I've read this series isn't as good as I had hoped. So, I doubt that I will be spending nearly $70 on this set, especially given the fact that I detest the _Crystal Skull_ and I'm not that fond of _The Temple of Doom_. I'll probably wait for them to be released as singles and then I'll purchase installments #1 and #3. But even then, with PQ not being "demo-worthy," I may wait until the price is reduced significantly.


Tonight I plan to watch the new release of _Titanic_. I'm excited, given the praise that's coming from every quarter, with most reviewers on Cinema Squid's site giving the PQ a score of 100!


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19560_60#post_22419297
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tfoltz*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19590#post_22419230
> 
> 
> I think you were kind on the rating. It's pretty soft, at times blurry, and mediocre black levels.
> *Raiders of the Lost Ark - 2.75* leaning more toward 3.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From what I've read this series isn't as good as I had hoped. So, I doubt that I will be spending nearly $70 on this set, especially given the fact that I detest the _Crystal Skull_ and I'm not that fond of _The Temple of Doom_. I'll probably wait for them to be released as singles and then I'll purchase installments #1 and #3. But even then, with PQ not being "demo-worthy," I may wait until the price is reduced significantly.
Click to expand...

That mirrors my line of thinking quite well on the Indy box set. I already own Crystal Skull and the other transfers seem satisfactory at best for such a beloved franchise. We'll probably see better transfers of the Indiana Jones' movies down the line, in a special edition box.


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19590#post_22419398
> 
> 
> That mirrors my line of thinking quite well on the Indy box set. I already own Crystal Skull and the other transfers seem satisfactory at best for such a beloved franchise. We'll probably see better transfers of the Indiana Jones' movies down the line, in a special edition box.



I haven't finished viewing the discs and collecting my thoughts, but my initial impression is that they are way better than the Star Wars set, which seemed to average about 2.75 here, and better than the Superman set, which you and I both liked.


It's got some fluctuating black levels and softness owing to photography/title cards. But time after time I find myself thinking "why couldn't Star Wars have looked like this?"


More to come when I have time to really look at everything.


----------



## djoberg

*Titanic (1997)*


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19560#post_22391959
> 
> *Titanic (1997)*
> 
> Truly stunning work in terms of depth, detail, and contrast. This one is a total stunner. Color timing has been changed slightly without any detriment to the overall image. Compression is excellent considering the length and single disc nature of the film. A handful of trouble shots are seconds in length. Effects shots show some light age, but are still passable. There's way too much to praise to find much fault.
> *Tier 1.25**



I couldn't agree more with my colleague on this one....an absolute *stunner* throughout the majority of the 3+ hour running time. I kept saying to myself, "This is most definitely a candidate for Tier Blu," and then softness would creep in (this happened sporadically and often enough to drop it down from the coveted Tier 0 ranking). There were also a couple of shots where a very dark scene revealed dark gray bars that failed to blend in with my bezel. These were rare though, for most black levels were deep and inky with exquisite shadow details. Flesh tones were spot on....contrast was super strong....colors were brilliants....details were phenomenal (especially facial close-ups)....and sharpness and clarity were amazing (with the exception of the soft shots alluded to earlier). If you're a fan of this movie you simply have to pick up a copy. I actually purchased the copy with the 3D version included for future use.
















*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 6.5'


PS For those who appreciate good audio, this was REFERENCE quality!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*30 Days Of Night: Dark Days


recommendation: Tier 1.75*


For a sequel that I'm not sure made it to theaters, Dark Days has a high-quality transfer with a crisp HD experience. Excellent shadow detail and only the faintest hint of noise in darker scenes. Razor-sharp definition in close-ups and medium-range shots.

*Halloween II (2009)


recommendation: Tier 4.0*


Did amateurs film this movie? One of the poorest-shot films of the past decade from a major studio, with erratic lighting and overly noisy grain.


----------



## mweflen

*Raiders of the Lost Ark (box set)
*


The start of the opening sequence, which features optically composited title cards, looks atrocious. Luckily for us, things settle down immediately after the credits end. There is the one weird motion blur that some have mentioned, also in the opening sequence.


The rest of the film has no evident smoothing, sharpening, or EE as far as I can tell. Detail is middling in most shots but quite good in close-ups. Focus effects and lens distortions diminish detail on the edges of shots most of the time. Black levels fluctuate but never cripplingly so. Grain is present and veers into somewhat noisy territory in dark scenes.


Overall, I can't help but have the Star Wars OT BDs in mind when I watch this. And this is superior, in my book, to at least two of them, especially Ep.4. It has none of the weird frozen grain or obvious processing halos around characters. The colors are equally good. Close-up detail is stronger. So I'm with GRG, and think it's a 2.25. I think it looks about as good as we can expect from a movie of this vintage and shot in this style.
*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19590#post_22400693
> 
> *Snow White and the Huntsman*
> 
> Laziness dictates tonight so I'm only going to add two or three observations to the points in GRG's review. There were definitely SOFT SHOTS sprinkled throughout the film and a few scenes with MURKY BLACKS (these were nighttime scenes where the black bars on my KURO and the nighttime sky were definitely NOT inky black but rather a dark gray). I'll also mention that facial details, though exemplary at times, fell short of demo-worthy in numerous scenes. In view of these shortcomings I'm going to drop the recommendation a notch....
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.0**
> 
> Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'



My one-word review of this: soft.

*Tier 2.5**


----------



## Tompa




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19590#post_22394445
> 
> 
> Since _Titanic_ is James Cameron's baby and it made him "King Of The World" in his own words, I imagine he went over the transfer with a fine-tooth comb as he usually does for each release of it. I remember the DVD being a reference standard when it was first released.



The first DVD was non-anamorphic though...


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Tompa*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19560_60#post_22425447
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19590#post_22394445
> 
> 
> Since _Titanic_ is James Cameron's baby and it made him "King Of The World" in his own words, I imagine he went over the transfer with a fine-tooth comb as he usually does for each release of it. I remember the DVD being a reference standard when it was first released.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first DVD was non-anamorphic though...
Click to expand...

It might have been the second DVD I was thinking about.

*Dylan Dog: Dead Of Night


recommendation: Tier 3.5*
*

A strong AVC video encode can't save this movie from looking somewhat shabby for a newer release. Clipped black levels, a garish color timing, and certain scenes that inexplicably drop in resolution, Dylan Dog does not look filmed with high definition in mind. I would have no qualms if someone suggested Tier 4.0 for it. The digital colorist went crazy on the orange hues, the first half has people looking more like pumpkins than real flesh.


BDInfo scan:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1155731/new-unofficial-blu-ray-audio-and-video-specifications-thread/3540_60#post_21143675


----------



## lgans316

*Avengers Assemble (UK)*


Incredibly sharp, saturated and detailed. Facial details looks stunning. Amazing CGI work with very little motion blur / softness. The biggest culprit is the first 30 minutes which looks a bit too dark and dangerously close to AVP2. Some may feel that I was too liberal with my rating but to my eyes it looked exceptional after the 31 minute mark.


A very entertaining movie but a bit too long.

*Recommendation: Tier 0.75*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*A Nightmare On Elm Street (1984)


recommendation: Tier 3.75
*

Freddy Krueger receives a solid transfer from New Line/Warner Bros. with a VC-1 video encode (remember them?) at an average bitrate of 27.59 Mbps. The film-like image retains some grain, though it wouldn't surprise me if a little digital clean-up has been performed. Shadow depth and delineation is excellent, crucial to a horror film of this type. It's not the sharpest picture you'll come across in spots, but the print is free of damage and looks in healthy shape. I'm mostly covering this disc because I thought the current placement in Tier 2.0 was very high. A good-looking catalog disc for what it is but Freddy can't compete with the newer movies in Tier 2. Don't mistake my score for criticism, fans will love the way this particular BD has turned out.


BDInfo scan:
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1243165/a-nightmare-on-elm-street-comparison-pix#post_18491896


----------



## lgans316

*Jaws*


A decent restoration effort overall but easily the best by a long shot from the notorious Universal. There seems to be a certain degree of scrubbing plus a touch of sharpening which is quite noticeable on the facial close ups. Otherwise, this looks great as there are plenty of detailed and well defined outdoor shots. What I like about the restoration is the new color timing and contrast which are mostly spot on.


To me, Jaws and Spielberg's Duel are kind of films that rekindles the interest in movie watching.

*Recommendation: Tier 2.5*


----------



## haste

Anyone here watched Hatfields & McCoys? It looks absolutely amazing for a short mini-series.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *haste*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19560_60#post_22427261
> 
> 
> Anyone here watched Hatfields & McCoys? It looks absolutely amazing for a short mini-series.


I haven't watched it yet on Blu-ray but did catch it when it aired this summer on the History channel. Great mini-series with a very strong performance by Kevin Costner.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *haste*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19590#post_22427261
> 
> 
> Anyone here watched Hatfields & McCoys? It looks absolutely amazing for a short mini-series.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19590#post_22427914
> 
> 
> I haven't watched it yet on Blu-ray but did catch it when it aired this summer on the History channel. Great mini-series with a very strong performance by Kevin Costner.



I too saw the mini-series on the History Channel. I was very impressed with the details but the muted colors left it looking quite drab. Still, if the Blu-ray version shows off the details and depth, it should be demo material.


I also was impressed with Costner's performance and Bill Paxton's wasn't too shabby either.


----------



## Famouss

Has anyone got a chance to see Cabin in The Woods yet? I am eager to hear your opinions on the picture quality of it before I buy it.


----------



## nathanddrews




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Famouss*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19620#post_22429642
> 
> 
> Has anyone got a chance to see Cabin in The Woods yet? I am eager to hear your opinions on the picture quality of it before I buy it.



While I haven't seen the Blu-ray yet, is there any reason to believe that it won't be transparent to its theatrical presentation? It was shot on film, but it has a 2K DI, so I'm guessing it will look "perfect" on Blu-ray.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Famouss*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19620#post_22429642
> 
> 
> Has anyone got a chance to see Cabin in The Woods yet? I am eager to hear your opinions on the picture quality of it before I buy it.



This should help....until reviews start coming in from the "real experts" on this thread (














)....

http://www.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray/movies/reviews?release-key=23ea2bdf-61ac-46ea-88e8-54d5f38590d6


----------



## djoberg

Has anyone watched _Revolution_ on NBC? I just finished tonight's episode and the PQ was the best I've ever seen on satellite tv. Details and depth were absolutely mesmerizing, as were the black levels, shadow details, colors, flesh tones, and contrast. I can't imagine much in the way of improvement, but once it comes out on Blu-ray it's going to be a must-see for me.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Famouss*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19620#post_22429642
> 
> 
> Has anyone got a chance to see Cabin in The Woods yet? I am eager to hear your opinions on the picture quality of it before I buy it.



I have, but a deluge of sent materials have to be live first. It's just okay visually, including remarkably poor black levels.

 


That said, the movie is so damn good, I didn't care.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19620#post_22433232
> 
> 
> I have, but a deluge of sent materials have to be live first. It's just okay visually, including remarkably poor black levels.
> 
> 
> That said, the movie is so damn good, I didn't care.



my feelings as well. A wild ride for sure, but the black levels are horrendous. Definite must see for the concept alone.


----------



## rusky_g

*Bait (2012)*


It's a funny world, the old PQ / Movie game, in that big budget doesn't always equal big PQ.


Bait is a low budget B movie flick but the PQ is stunning. Sharper than the teeth on a Great White, more depth than the deepest Ocean....I felt like I was truly watching HD from start to end. Facial detail was exceptional.


Highly recommended.*


Tier 0.5*


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19560_60#post_22425924
> 
> *Avengers Assemble (UK)*
> 
> 
> Incredibly sharp, saturated and detailed. Facial details looks stunning. Amazing CGI work with very little motion blur / softness. The biggest culprit is the first 30 minutes which looks a bit too dark and dangerously close to AVP2. Some may feel that I was too liberal with my rating but to my eyes it looked exceptional after the 31 minute mark.
> 
> 
> A very entertaining movie but a bit too long.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 0.75*


*The Avengers


recommendation: Tier 1.25*
*

I largely agree with lgans316's pointed remarks on _The Avengers_. The opening act is a tad dark for some reason, though the color timing is remarkably restrained for a summer blockbuster. It has the largest budget of Marvel's movies and the results are spectacular for the most part. The cinematography is crisp and clean with production values that only Hollywood can produce. A thin wisp of aliasing can be spotted on the SHIELD helicarrier's bridge, likely the CGI for its interior was rendered at some other resolution than 1080p. Clearly the best-looking Marvel production, though the first movies that come to mind when watching the Avengers are the ones from the Transformers' franchise. That series of movies is shot with a little more eye candy in mind, and the slightly cooler color temperatures and level contrast of the Avengers makes it a cut below them for my tastes.


It wouldn't offend me if this disc ends up in Tier 0, my first gut reaction to it was simply it's a Tier 1 disc at best. The audio is closer to being a pure reference title than the video. Discounting the endless parade of trailers one has to skim through to see the movie, Disney has flawlessly brought _The Avengers_ to Blu-ray.


Screenshot comparisons with the DVD (courtesy of Xylon):
http://www.xylonhd.com/home/2012/9/20/the-avengers-comparison-pix.html


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19620#post_22437645
> 
> *The Avengers
> 
> recommendation: Tier 1.25*
> *



In disagreement with both. Image is largely flat with dull black levels that have a digital sheen. Detail IS high, breathtaking during the finale, but elsewhere muted. Color palette is marginal, and sharpness can waver. Medium shots carry a filtered look. For every great close-up, there's another that's just bland. Still a looker, but not outstanding.

*Tier 1.75**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I will say that Avengers is a little duller and flatter in terms of dimensionality than most of the top movies in the Tiers. Joss Whedon has never been a meticulous craftsmen behind the lens.

*Drive


recommendation: 2.0*


When I saw this disc ranked in Tier 1.0, actually watching it was a disappointment. _Drive_ has some of the most prominent halos I've seen from a new release in ages. It's definitely sharp with excellent depth, but most of the film is littered with intrusive ringing. It was damaging enough to the picture quality for me to drop my score half a tier, at a minimum.


----------



## TitusTroy

no Game of Thrones Season 1 box set in the PQ rankings list?


----------



## Morpheo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TitusTroy*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19620#post_22444002
> 
> 
> no Game of Thrones Season 1 box set in the PQ rankings list?



the "Bush Limited Edition" or the newest release?


----------



## TitusTroy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Morpheo*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19620#post_22444096
> 
> 
> the "Bush Limited Edition" or the newest release?



the Bush severed head Edition needs its own custom box art


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Either season of HBO's _Game Of Thrones_ has yet to be ranked in the PQ Tiers. HBO shows typically have excellent production values on par with theatrical features. I've seen the show on cable but have yet to get it on Blu-ray, it's a fabulous series to date. This is a supposition based on no personal experience, but I imagine the first season is likely good enough for somewhere in Tier 1. I'd be surprised if it ended up any lower than Tier 2.0.


For those unaware, the first pressing of season one included a shot in one episode of George W. Bush's head on a pike. HBO got nervous when media outlets became aware of it and pulled the existing stock, only to reissue the first season without Bush's head.


----------



## TitusTroy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19620#post_22444820
> 
> 
> Either season of HBO's _Game Of Thrones_ has yet to be ranked in the PQ Tiers. HBO shows typically have excellent production values on par with theatrical features. I've seen the show on cable but have yet to get it on Blu-ray, it's a fabulous series to date. This is a supposition based on no personal experience, but I imagine the first season is likely good enough for somewhere in Tier 1. I'd be surprised if it ended up any lower than Tier 2.0.



agreed...I watched both the broadcast version and own the Blu-ray...high Tier 1 for sure in my opinion


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19620#post_22437645
> 
> *The Avengers
> 
> recommendation: Tier 1.25*
> *
> 
> I largely agree with lgans316's pointed remarks on _The Avengers_. The opening act is a tad dark for some reason, though the color timing is remarkably restrained for a summer blockbuster. It has the largest budget of Marvel's movies and the results are spectacular for the most part. The cinematography is crisp and clean with production values that only Hollywood can produce. A thin wisp of aliasing can be spotted on the SHIELD helicarrier's bridge, likely the CGI for its interior was rendered at some other resolution than 1080p. Clearly the best-looking Marvel production, though the first movies that come to mind when watching the Avengers are the ones from the Transformers' franchise. That series of movies is shot with a little more eye candy in mind, and the slightly cooler color temperatures and level contrast of the Avengers makes it a cut below them for my tastes.
> 
> It wouldn't offend me if this disc ends up in Tier 0, my first gut reaction to it was simply it's a Tier 1 disc at best. The audio is closer to being a pure reference title than the video. Discounting the endless parade of trailers one has to skim through to see the movie, Disney has flawlessly brought _The Avengers_ to Blu-ray.
> 
> Screenshot comparisons with the DVD (courtesy of Xylon):
> http://www.xylonhd.com/home/2012/9/20/the-avengers-comparison-pix.html





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19620#post_22441002
> 
> 
> In disagreement with both. Image is largely flat with dull black levels that have a digital sheen. Detail IS high, breathtaking during the finale, but elsewhere muted. Color palette is marginal, and sharpness can waver. Medium shots carry a filtered look. For every great close-up, there's another that's just bland. Still a looker, but not outstanding.
> *Tier 1.75**



My take is in between these two. There were some spectacular close-ups but other shots that fell short.

*Tier 1.5**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Daimajin Trilogy*


Tossing these three together as they're largely look-a-likes, shot at the same time and under similar conditions. Mill Creek has definitely begun turning themselves around, and these are are great encodes. Detail can be quite high, and compression is limited. Colors are flat with age and some intent. Blacks falter regularly. Damage is rare, and the source looks great.

*Tier 2.75**


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19620#post_22444820
> 
> 
> Either season of HBO's _Game Of Thrones_ has yet to be ranked in the PQ Tiers. HBO shows typically have excellent production values on par with theatrical features. I've seen the show on cable but have yet to get it on Blu-ray, it's a fabulous series to date. This is a supposition based on no personal experience, but I imagine the first season is likely good enough for somewhere in Tier 1. I'd be surprised if it ended up any lower than Tier 2.0.
> 
> For those unaware, the first pressing of season one included a shot in one episode of George W. Bush's head on a pike. HBO got nervous when media outlets became aware of it and pulled the existing stock, only to reissue the first season without Bush's head.



I'm pretty sure Season 2 hasn't been released on BD yet. To me, GoT's PQ seemed pretty similar to Rome, which I think is ranked, but maybe a little better.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19620#post_22445585
> 
> 
> My take is in between these two. There were some spectacular close-ups but other shots that fell short.
> *Tier 1.5**



I purchased a copy the other day and hope to watch it tonight or tomorrow. You and I have the same love for good close-ups and I have a feeling I may be echoing your sentiments. I'm looking forward to the movie itself just as much as the PQ, for I've heard nothing but good from all quarters.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Season Of The Witch


recommendation: 2.0*


Someone has already rated this disc and it's been in Tier 2.0 since release. Throwing my own two cents in, that ranking seems correct and I won't challenge it. I wanted to give it a much higher placement after the first ten minutes with an amazing battle scene in the desert, but the picture noticeably declines from that point. Minor but consistent ringing is plainly evident in multiple scenes. A good deal of pop and impressive depth much of the time, but the finale is poorly underexposed with noisy grain and poor FX work. So no one gets confused, this is the Nicholas Cage movie, not the 1973 film by Romero.


----------



## djoberg

*The Avengers*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19590#post_22425924
> 
> *Avengers Assemble (UK)*
> 
> Incredibly sharp, saturated and detailed. Facial details looks stunning. Amazing CGI work with very little motion blur / softness. The biggest culprit is the first 30 minutes which looks a bit too dark and dangerously close to AVP2. Some may feel that I was too liberal with my rating but to my eyes it looked exceptional after the 31 minute mark.*Recommendation: Tier 0.75*





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19620#post_22437645
> 
> *The Avengers
> 
> recommendation: Tier 1.25*
> *
> 
> I largely agree with lgans316's pointed remarks on _The Avengers_. The opening act is a tad dark for some reason, though the color timing is remarkably restrained for a summer blockbuster. It has the largest budget of Marvel's movies and the results are spectacular for the most part. The cinematography is crisp and clean with production values that only Hollywood can produce. A thin wisp of aliasing can be spotted on the SHIELD helicarrier's bridge, likely the CGI for its interior was rendered at some other resolution than 1080p. Clearly the best-looking Marvel production, though the first movies that come to mind when watching the Avengers are the ones from the Transformers' franchise. That series of movies is shot with a little more eye candy in mind, and the slightly cooler color temperatures and level contrast of the Avengers makes it a cut below them for my tastes.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19620#post_22441002
> 
> 
> In disagreement with both. Image is largely flat with dull black levels that have a digital sheen. Detail IS high, breathtaking during the finale, but elsewhere muted. Color palette is marginal, and sharpness can waver. Medium shots carry a filtered look. For every great close-up, there's another that's just bland. Still a looker, but not outstanding.
> *Tier 1.75**





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19620#post_22445585
> 
> 
> My take is in between these two. There were some spectacular close-ups but other shots that fell short.
> *Tier 1.5**



Well, I'm inclined to side with Phantom on this one, though all those with a Tier 1 recommendation are, for the most part, on the same page. There were most definitely many scenes that were "incredibly sharp, saturated, and detailed" (as noted by lgans316), but "slighter cooler color temperatures" (Phantom) and a few "dull black levels" (GRG) keep this out of the top tier. Close-ups were phenomenal, but GRG and patrick were right on the money in saying that others were "bland" and "fell short." I also agree with GRG regarding the finale; DETAILS were BREATHTAKING!!


My only *addition* to my colleagues' comments would be that there was incredible DEPTH in a number of scenes. They whetted my appetite for seeing this in 3D. But I must agree again with GRG that other scenes fell flat. Oh, and flesh tones were amazingly accurate, which is always appreciated by _my eyes_.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25**


Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'


PS The audio was superb!! I had read in the "Master List of Bass in Movies" Thread that the LFE was filtered at the 30 Hz mark and I believe there were scenes that confirmed this. Having said that, there was still enough room-shaking bass to put a smile on my face, but it just didn't rattle my walls (and chair) as other titles have.


----------



## mweflen

*Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade*


Really spectacular. Easily the best of the first 3 movies in the set, and probably the best movie of 1989 vintage that i can think of on the format. Facial closeups (of which there are a plethora) are superb, with great cloth and background texture detail. depth of field is apparent in many scenes. Film grain is very light but stable. No obtrusive filtering, EE, or DNR seems evident. There is no doubt that you're watching top tier HD at basically any point during the runtime, and the optical shots look nowhere near as bad as the previous two movies. I was wowed by this transfer from start to finish.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*


Sony KDL52EX700, 7 foot viewing distance, Panasonic DMP-BD65 player


----------



## lgans316

*The Terminator (Remastered)*


This is a simply superb restoration effort that puts the previous releases to shame. Film grain is present on the most of the scenes except for couple of shots but without sacrificing the details mainly the close ups. I found the facial details on this one to be more detailed and natural than Jaws. The opening scenes are a little bit underwhelming but that's due to the filming style. After the first 7 or 8 minutes, the PQ picks up and shines especially in the daylight scenes which looks colorful with a great degree of depth and dimensionality. As most of the movie is shot in the dark, you may find some parts to be a little bit noisy and less detailed. The new color timing is spot on and I couldn't notice any of those teal hues which appears to be widely prevalent on remastered releases nowadays.


Do not throw away your special edition DVD copy as this release is missing some special features but if you only care about the film then simply bin your copy and grab this release.


You might find the DTS-HD MA SQ to be slightly better than the PQ although the mono track isn't included.


Update: One thing I forgot to mention is the grain could tend to look a tad digital / electronic in few shots but I didn't notice this negatively impacting the PQ.


Video

Video codec: MPEG-4 AVC

Video resolution: 1080p

Aspect ratio: 1.85:1

Original aspect ratio: 1.85:1


Audio

English: DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1 (48kHz, 24-bit)

Spanish: Dolby Digital 5.1

French: DTS 5.1

Portuguese: Dolby Digital 2.0

Thai: Dolby Digital 2.0


Subtitles

English SDH, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Chinese, Indonesian, Thai, Danish, Icelandic, Korean, Finnish, Norwegian, Swedish


Discs

50GB Blu-ray Disc

Single disc (1 BD)

Region Free

*Recommendation: Tier 2.25*


----------



## djoberg

I just pre-ordered my copy of _Finding Nemo_ from Amazon (December 4th release date). I am predicting this title will dethrone _Toy Story 3_ and be the new "King of the Blu-ray Hill." I trust my prediction won't compromise my objectivity when actually viewing and recommending a placement.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19620_60#post_22452309
> 
> 
> I just pre-ordered my copy of _Finding Nemo_ from Amazon (December 4th release date). I am predicting this title will dethrone _Toy Story 3_ and be the new "King of the Blu-ray Hill." I trust my prediction won't compromise my objectivity when actually viewing and recommending a placement.


Before you get ahead of yourself, remember that _Finding Nemo_ is a CGI production made around 2002. It's going to be tough for an older CGI feature to compete with newer movies on texture and ultimate detail. I still expect it to be a top-shelf title.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Bored To Death: The Complete Third Season

recommendation: 1.0*
*

A nearly flawless image, shot by some of the best digital cameras available. I'll give it to HBO, they treat all their properties on Blu-ray with proper respect, even the shows that get canceled. Atypical picture quality for a comedy with none of the strange color choices or blown-out contrast so common for the genre.

http://www.doblu.com/2012/10/01/bored-to-death-the-complete-third-season-review/


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19620#post_22452656
> 
> 
> Before you get ahead of yourself, remember that _Finding Nemo_ is a CGI production made around 2002. It's going to be tough for an older CGI feature to compete with newer movies on texture and ultimate detail. I still expect it to be a top-shelf title.



Of course you're right about its date, but if memory serves me right it had a fair amount of detail for that time. I just remember being blown away by _Finding Nemo_, especially the mesmerizing colors; it had no equal back then. Disney has been keeping this gem from us for a very long time and I just have to believe they are sparing no expense in producing the Blu-ray version and that we may be surprised at how it competes with contemporary animated films. Time will tell!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19620#post_22452656
> 
> 
> Before you get ahead of yourself, remember that _Finding Nemo_ is a CGI production made around 2002. It's going to be tough for an older CGI feature to compete with newer movies on texture and ultimate detail. I still expect it to be a top-shelf title.



Not to belabor the point Phantom, but _Toy Story 2_ came out in 1999 and we were all quite amazed at how good the Blu-ray release looked, with texture and detail we had never seen in the DVD counterparts. It is currently ranked in the top 20, so isn't it conceivable that _Finding Nemo_ could surprise us even more, with added texture and detail that could possibly compete with many contemporary titles? Again, time will tell, but methinks Disney has reserved this title for this late date to give us something special. And if I'm wrong, it should still be, as you intimated, "a top-shelf title."


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Famouss*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19620_60#post_22429642
> 
> 
> Has anyone got a chance to see Cabin in The Woods yet? I am eager to hear your opinions on the picture quality of it before I buy it.


I've been meaning to see it, I simply haven't had the chance yet.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19620_60#post_22453153
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19620#post_22452656
> 
> 
> Before you get ahead of yourself, remember that _Finding Nemo_ is a CGI production made around 2002. It's going to be tough for an older CGI feature to compete with newer movies on texture and ultimate detail. I still expect it to be a top-shelf title.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to belabor the point Phantom, but _Toy Story 2_ came out in 1999 and we were all quite amazed at how good the Blu-ray release looked, with texture and detail we had never seen in the DVD counterparts. It is currently ranked in the top 20, so isn't it conceivable that _Finding Nemo_ could surprise us even more, with added texture and detail that could possibly compete with many contemporary titles? Again, time will tell, but methinks Disney has reserved this title for this late date to give us something special. And if I'm wrong, it should still be, as you intimated, "a top-shelf title."
Click to expand...

_Toy Story 2_ did turn out quite well, though personally I think it's a tad overranked in Tier 0. _Finding Nemo_ does have beautiful colors and I'm sure Pixar spiffed it up some for the 3D release.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Anyone that wants the following iTunes code, simply speak up and it shall be yours. It's from the Disney Movie Rewards program and I have no use for it.


It's a gift code for *The Aristocats Disney Classics Storybook App* only valid for iPhone, iPad and iPod touch, redeemable on the App Store. Valid iTunes account required for redemption.


----------



## deltasun

*Porky's*


Run along, nothing to see here. One of the worst catalog presentations I've seen in a while. This literally looks like DVD quality. It does have its moments, though they are rare and nothing higher than Tier 3. Details are simply lacking and definition is lackluster. Blacks are predominantly crushed. Contrast is on the weak side and dimensionality is almost non-existent, particularly indoor shots.


Grain is mostly present, but it does waver in places. Skin tones are faithful for the most part, but white balance is not corrected in scenes bathed with indoor lighting.


*Tier Recommendation: 4.50*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Bait*


Wow! This one is a stunner. With a deeper color palette we could be talking near the top of the list. Detail is simply awesome, producing a rarely seen level of texture that really cannot be any better. The Achilles hell is the under water footage and attempt to enhance the 3D effects. They're fuzzy and broken visually. It's such a contrast from the simply unreal level of consistent definition seen elsewhere.

*Tier 1.0**


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19620_60#post_22456973
> 
> *Porky's*
> 
> 
> Run along, nothing to see here. One of the worst catalog presentations I've seen in a while. This literally looks like DVD quality. It does have its moments, though they are rare and nothing higher than Tier 3. Details are simply lacking and definition is lackluster. Blacks are predominantly crushed. Contrast is on the weak side and dimensionality is almost non-existent, particularly indoor shots.
> 
> 
> Grain is mostly present, but it does waver in places. Skin tones are faithful for the most part, but white balance is not corrected in scenes bathed with indoor lighting.
> 
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 4.50*


Ouch, I saw this disc recently at a Walmart (I believe it's an exclusive at the moment) and wondered how it turned out. Hopefully your placement will help people to avoid wasting money.


----------



## deltasun

*Pet Sematary*


Seems a bit oversharpened, but colors look great and has some decent dimensionality in medium shots. Some close-up's, in the right light, look great for an 80's flick. On the flip side, faces can look smooth at times. Blacks are probably the weakest part of the presentation, which occur in quite a few key sequences.


Still, looks pretty good on the whole and would recommend it at...

*Tier Recommendation: 3.25*

_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19650#post_22458592
> 
> 
> Ouch, I saw this disc recently at a Walmart (I believe it's an exclusive at the moment) and wondered how it turned out. Hopefully your placement will help people to avoid wasting money.



Yep, pretty scary.


Hey, thanks for keeping this going. I know the upgrade yielded a lot of work for you, but I'm glad you didn't walk away.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19620_60#post_22458659
> 
> *Pet Sematary*
> 
> 
> Seems a bit oversharpened, but colors look great and has some decent dimensionality in medium shots. Some close-up's, in the right light, look great for an 80's flick. On the flip side, faces can look smooth at times. Blacks are probably the weakest part of the presentation, which occur in quite a few key sequences.
> 
> 
> Still, looks pretty good on the whole and would recommend it at...
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.25*


I thought _Pet Sematary_ looked excellent for a 1989 catalog property (hint, hint..my thoughts on it are already available on DoBlu ), the transfer is likely the exact same master used for the special edition DVD, released in 2006. There is a tiny amount of edge enhancement but it's generally a very film-like experience if you discount the somewhat dated optical effects. My recommendation would be right around yours, probably Tier 3.0 at first consideration.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19650#post_22458699
> 
> 
> I thought _Pet Sematary_ looked excellent for a 1989 catalog property (hint, hint..my thoughts on it are already available on DoBlu ), the transfer is likely the exact same master used for the special edition DVD, released in 2006. There is a tiny amount of edge enhancement but it's generally a very film-like experience if you discount the somewhat dated optical effects. My recommendation would be right around yours, probably Tier 3.0 at first consideration.



I thought it looked great too. The sharpness, I thought, was a bit unnatural (as mentioned), especially on those trucks. What'd you think of the black levels? I guess I can look at your review.


I think our tier 3 is full of excellent looking titles, just because there are so many more consistently excellent titles in the upper tiers. I think it's a reflection of how much better titles have gotten, including plenty of catalog titles.


----------



## djoberg

I'm just jumping in to say, "It's good to see you posting reviews again deltasun!"


----------



## rusky_g

Glad to see its not just me who thought Bait was awesome


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19650#post_22459003
> 
> 
> Glad to see its not just me who thought Bait was awesome



Alright, I've heard enough....I'm going to take the "bait" and rent this Blu!


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19620_60#post_22456681
> 
> 
> Anyone that wants the following iTunes code, simply speak up and it shall be yours. It's from the Disney Movie Rewards program and I have no use for it.
> 
> 
> It's a gift code for *The Aristocats Disney Classics Storybook App* only valid for iPhone, iPad and iPod touch, redeemable on the App Store. Valid iTunes account required for redemption.


Someone from the thread has privately claimed this offer, so consider it gone.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19620_60#post_22458765
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19650#post_22458699
> 
> 
> I thought _Pet Sematary_ looked excellent for a 1989 catalog property (hint, hint..my thoughts on it are already available on DoBlu ), the transfer is likely the exact same master used for the special edition DVD, released in 2006. There is a tiny amount of edge enhancement but it's generally a very film-like experience if you discount the somewhat dated optical effects. My recommendation would be right around yours, probably Tier 3.0 at first consideration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought it looked great too. The sharpness, I thought, was a bit unnatural (as mentioned), especially on those trucks. What'd you think of the black levels? I guess I can look at your review.
> 
> 
> I think our tier 3 is full of excellent looking titles, just because there are so many more consistently excellent titles in the upper tiers. I think it's a reflection of how much better titles have gotten, including plenty of catalog titles.
Click to expand...

Regarding _Pet Sematary's_ black levels, there are some minor issues on certain shots, particularly whenever optical mattes introduce another generation of film into the picture. I am largely forgiving of older FX shots when I review movies from a different era. The black levels during the majority of the film are quite good. Are they as crisp as something shot on a large-budget studio movie from this decade? No, but _Pet Sematary_ was never anything but a cult hit.


----------



## djoberg

*The Cabin in the Woods*


Okay, let's get the WORST out of the way....BLACK LEVELS! They were, as Hugh and GRG said, HORRENDOUS, and with a good deal of the running time taking place at night, or in dimly-lit interior rooms, one must dock this title significantly. There was only one nighttime scene where the blacks were quite good with very acceptable shadow details too....I found myself thinking, "Where in the world did these come from?"


Now for the BEST....DETAILS! Facial details *could* be phenomenal, a case in point being at around the 12 minute mark when the 5 teens stop for gas and the owner, with a wrinkled, unshaven face appears. The close-up of him was one of the best I've ever seen, and even a mid-range shot of him revealed excellent texture. Other facial shots were a mixed bag. Scenes of the lush mountains/forests on their drive to the cabin were also EYE CANDY.


Flesh tones were accurate and the colors were pleasing. Other than these, I wouldn't boast of any sharpness or strong clarity. Depth too was lacking in most scenes, but there were a few exceptions.


All things considered, this will NOT find its way to anyone's "demo shelf," though I wouldn't relegate it to the "average bin" either. My thinking is Tier Silver, albeit at the bottom....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75**


PS The audio was rock-solid! There was PLENTY of action in the surrounds and some THUNDEROUS LFE moments (my wife is gone so I indulged myself by turning it up to near reference volumes) where I was looking around to see if pictures were still hanging on my walls.


----------



## johncourt

Thanks for the reviews on the avengers. I agree that this film should be rated as a tier 1, but I'm not particular about where exactly within that tier it should rank.


This was the best looking film I've ever seen in a theatre: detail and sharpness were absolutely spectacular. The film has lost some of it's sheen in the blu ray format however.


Detail is merely very good but then again it should be considering it's blu ray. Colors are very natural, rather than exaggerated and punchy. A significant amount of detail is lost in the darker scenes however. Darkness is rendered all too often in a dull, homogeneous grey. That is, in the nasa facility, blacks, greys, navys and even browns all seem to blend into a single color with minimal contrast and detail. Contrast is just not very good it seems.


I suppose I'd rate it at the lower end of tier 1. This should have been a reference disc. I was hoping it would be one of the top 3 or top 5 best looking blu rays we've ever seen, but it's nowhere close to that.

*A very generous 1.5. More like 1.75 if you wanted to be critical.*

*edit*: there is a tiny bit of aliasing in the final scene aboard the heli-carrier. You can see it in the arc of the metal supports for the windows. It's not a huge demerit, but it is present, and brings down the rating just a bit.


----------



## lgans316




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19590#post_22400693
> 
> *Snow White and the Huntsman*
> 
> Laziness dictates tonight so I'm only going to add two or three observations to the points in GRG's review. There were definitely SOFT SHOTS sprinkled throughout the film and a few scenes with MURKY BLACKS (these were nighttime scenes where the black bars on my KURO and the nighttime sky were definitely NOT inky black but rather a dark gray). I'll also mention that facial details, though exemplary at times, fell short of demo-worthy in numerous scenes. In view of these shortcomings I'm going to drop the recommendation a notch....
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.0**
> 
> Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'



Same here but felt some of daylight outdoor shots especially in the forest looked too sharp. Not sure if it is due to filming style or artificial sharpening added in post processing.









*Recommendation: Tier 2.0*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *johncourt*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19650#post_22470255
> 
> 
> Thanks for the reviews on the avengers. I agree that this film should be rated as a tier 1, but I'm not particular about where exactly within that tier it should rank.
> 
> This was the best looking film I've ever seen in a theatre: detail and sharpness were absolutely spectacular. The film has lost some of it's sheen in the blu ray format however.
> 
> Detail is merely very good but then again it should be considering it's blu ray. Colors are very natural, rather than exaggerated and punchy. A significant amount of detail is lost in the darker scenes however. Darkness is rendered all too often in a dull, homogeneous grey. That is, in the nasa facility, blacks, greys, navys and even browns all seem to blend into a single color with minimal contrast and detail. Contrast is just not very good it seems.
> 
> I suppose I'd rate it at the lower end of tier 1. This should have been a reference disc. I was hoping it would be one of the top 3 or top 5 best looking blu rays we've ever seen, but it's nowhere close to that.
> *A very generous 1.5. More like 1.75 if you wanted to be critical.*



Thanks john for your review and recommendation. I agree with you overall. I would encourage you to post reviews more often!


Regarding this title looking worse than what you experienced in the theater, I have found that it works both ways...sometimes better, other times worse (and very rarely exactly the same). A Blu-ray will, as you well know, often reveal flaws that weren't seen in a movie theater. Conversely, it can also enhance details, sharpness, etc. if it is a good transfer.


----------



## tfoltz

I thought Avengers looked great in 2D and 3D. Was thinking low 0 or high 1. I'll watch again.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19650#post_22465096
> 
> *The Cabin in the Woods*
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.75**
> 
> .



I concur. Nothing more to add to what was said aside from some light sharpening noticeable from the get go. Nothing to get worked up over.

*Tier 2.75**


----------



## Mr.G




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19650#post_22465096
> 
> *The Cabin in the Woods*
> 
> Okay, let's get the WORST out of the way....BLACK LEVELS! They were, as Hugh and GRG said, HORRENDOUS, and with a good deal of the running time taking place at night, or in dimly-lit interior rooms, one must dock this title significantly. There was only one nighttime scene where the blacks were quite good with very acceptable shadow details too....I found myself thinking, "Where in the world did these come from?"



I got this as a gift and watched it last night. I agree the black levels are atrocious.


----------



## emgesp

Titanic's transfer is among the best out there. I really think it's of reference quality. *TIER 1*


----------



## Johnny Vertigo

*Titanic*


One word: stunning. Titanic looks like it was shot yesterday, it looks even better than many modern titles. Greath depth, clarity and nice, very film like layer of grain. Amazing level of details, you can even clearly see Kate Winslet's facial hair. There are few soft shots in the finale, all of them FX heavy so I'm sure it's due to quality of the source material, not the transfer. There's also one shot that looks like it was heavy DNRed , but it was reshot on green screen and that's the reason why it looks that way.

*Tier Recommendation: 1*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *emgesp*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19650#post_22476187
> 
> 
> Titanic's transfer is among the best out there. I really think it's of reference quality. *TIER 0.5*
> *I know there are a couple of soft shots, but I truly believe those were done on purpose and not a transfer related error.* Plus, those soft shots only lasts for a few seconds, so I don't think it's enough to lower the tier to Gold.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Johnny Vertigo*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19650#post_22476218
> 
> *Titanic*
> 
> One word: stunning. Titanic looks like it was shot yesterday, it looks even better than many modern titles. Greath depth, clarity and nice, very film like layer of grain. Amazing level of details, you can even clearly see Kate Winslet's facial hair. There are few soft shots in the finale, all of them FX heavy so I'm sure it's due to quality of the source material, not the transfer. There's also one shot that looks like it was heavy DNRed , but it was reshot on green screen and that's the reason why it looks that way.
> *Tier Recommendation: 0*



As you may know, I recommended this for Tier 1.0, so we aren't far off in our recommendation. It wouldn't bother me if it ends up in Tier 0, though I believe it should be near the bottom of the tier because of the sporadic soft shots. Regarding the statement about the soft shots, "...those were done on purpose and not a transfer related error," we must still penalize a title for softness even though it was the "director's intent." In the criteria set forth for rating a Blu-ray's PQ, it specifically says that we are NOT to consider the director's intent, so if a title has softness, we dock it accordingly.


Let me end this short post though by saying this truly is a STUNNING transfer and one that is clearly "demo-worthy" (NOT "reference" quality, but still worthy to show off to our friends and relatives).


----------



## Johnny Vertigo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19650#post_22476756
> 
> 
> In the criteria set forth for rating a Blu-ray's PQ, it specifically says that we are NOT to consider the director's intent, so if a title has softness, we dock it accordingly.


Ok, you're right, I changed my recommendation to Tier 1.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Johnny Vertigo*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19650#post_22476770
> 
> 
> Ok, you're right, I changed my recommendation to Tier 1.



First of all, welcome to AVS!


I wasn't actually asking either of you (that recommended a Tier 0 placement) to change your rating to Tier 1; I was simply giving my reason for my Tier 1 recommendation.


Having said that, one thing I have always loved about this thread is the opportunity for us to *debate* placement recommendations, which may indeed result in convincing another member to change their mind based on reading another member's reason(s) for their rating.


----------



## Johnny Vertigo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19650#post_22477280
> 
> 
> First of all, welcome to AVS!


Thanks










> Quote:
> I wasn't actually asking either of you (that recommended a Tier 0 placement) to change your rating to Tier 1; I was simply giving my reason for my Tier 1 recommendation.


And your reason was absolutely right - it's not perfect from first to last frame, and that's why I changed my recommendation.


Cheers!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I will say it is a positive the Picture Quality Tiers seem to be getting new life from several different contributors. No one watching any horror films this month, besides _The Cabin In The Woods_? The first season of American Horror Story looks okay on Blu-ray.

*American Horror Story: The Complete First Season


recommendation: 2.75**


Not the strongest effort I've seen from a Fox release, AHS is a weekly television show shot on actual film and not digital HD, unlike so many others. Some edge enhancement and stylized cinematography prevent a higher placement.


----------



## emgesp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19650#post_22477280
> 
> 
> First of all, welcome to AVS!
> 
> I wasn't actually asking either of you (that recommended a Tier 0 placement) to change your rating to Tier 1; I was simply giving my reason for my Tier 1 recommendation.
> 
> Having said that, one thing I have always loved about this thread is the opportunity for us to *debate* placement recommendations, which may indeed result in convincing another member to change their mind based on reading another member's reason(s) for their rating.



I fully realize most people will probably vote Tier 1.0 for Titanic because of those couple of scenes that are soft, but I'm still sticking with my original tier recommendation.


Someone should write down how many seconds/minutes during the 3+ hour running time of the film where the picture quality drops below what many would consider demo worthy. Maybe because of it's 3+ hour length we should consider cutting it a little more slack than say your average 2 hour film.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *emgesp*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19650#post_22477381
> 
> 
> I fully realize most people will probably vote Tier 1.0 for Titanic because of those couple of scenes that are soft, but I'm still sticking with my original tier recommendation.
> 
> Someone should write down how many seconds/minutes during the 3+ hour running time of the film where the picture quality drops below what many would consider demo worthy. Maybe because of it's 3+ hour length we should consider cutting it a little more slack than say your average 2 hour film.



Here is a statement regarding Tier 1 from the criteria on the "PQ Tier Thread" page:

*Tier 1 - Gold (Excellent)


Blu-rays in this tier are demo-worthy and exhibit many of the same image qualities as titles in tier zero, albeit with a few qualifications: May demonstrate reference picture quality but have brief periods of inconsistency; Or may exhibit excellent quality in general but ever so slightly rank below tier zero quality in terms of visual interest, detail, contrast, depth or clarity. Differences between titles in the top two tiers can be very subtle.*


As you can see from this description emgesp, the "differences between titles in the top two tiers can be very subtle." I would especially draw your attention to this statement, "May demonstrate reference picture quality but have brief periods of inconsistency." That statement fits _Titanic_ to a tee, for the majority of the film is most definitely "reference quality," but no one would argue that there are "brief periods of inconsistency." Those "periods of inconsistency" are the soft shots I referred to in my response to your post (and also in my review of that title). They occurred at least several times and they were quite jarring, in that the PQ up to that time was so sharp and detailed. I realize that the running time of _Titanic_ is 3+ hours and one should take that into consideration, but in my experience there were enough sporadic soft shots to drop it into Tier Gold. If not for those shots, I probably would have nominated it for somewhere in the upper half of Tier Blu.


Edit: I want to add that in addition to the _soft shots_, I noticed the _black levels falter_ a couple of times. They were brief, but noticeable. A true test is comparing them with your bezel (if your bezel is black, that is); they should "blend in," for the most part, but in the cases I referred to they looked dark gray next to my Pioneer's bezel.


----------



## djoberg

Here is the link to the PQ Tier Thread so any newcomers can read over the criteria for reviewing and recommending placements for Blu-rays:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1168342/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-rankings#post_16943364


----------



## gthornley

*Dispute: Quantum of Solace in Tier 1*


The edition of the disk I have appears to have crushed blacks and substantial detail BELOW the reference black level. I was not very impressed with the mastering of this disk. I was originally using this disk to evaluate my brightness/contrast settings of Samsung LED-LCD, which lead to substantially misleading results.


(I adjust brightness/contrast using AVSHD709 test disk, then evaluate with a real movie or many.)


----------



## emgesp




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19650#post_22478572
> 
> 
> Here is the link to the PQ Tier Thread so any newcomers can read over the criteria for reviewing and recommending placements for Blu-rays:
> http://www.avsforum.com/t/1168342/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-rankings#post_16943364



I've lowered my score to Tier 1 based on the information you provided. I guess I was being a little too generous with my previous score. Regardless, still an amazing Blu-ray. Thanks for helping me understand the Tier rankings a bit better.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *emgesp*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19650#post_22479319
> 
> 
> I've lowered my score to Tier 1 based on the information you provided. I guess I was being a little too generous with my previous score. Regardless, still an amazing Blu-ray. Thanks for helping me understand the Tier rankings a bit better.



It is indeed "an amazing Blu-ray!"


I'm glad you were helped by "the information provided" and trust that is what led you to change your recommendation. For the sake of other *newcomers* to this thread, I sincerely hope I didn't come across as trying to *coerce* you or Johnny Vertigo by challenging your view. We truly welcome members giving their reasons for their view based on the thread's PQ standards and even if we don't agree a healthy debate over titles is encouraged,


Having said that, what I have experienced through the years is that some come to this thread not realizing that there are standards written out for judging the PQ on a separate thread (i.e. the link I gave to you for the "PQ Tier Thread") and thus they end up giving out placement recommendations based on their own standards. I can honestly say that when I first started posting on this thread it took me awhile to understand and apply all the criteria for making informed recommendations. I'm not saying this to intimidate you; in fact, I'm really encouraged that you read over some of the standards and as a result you were willing to change your placement recommendation. I would really encourage you to continue reviewing titles emgesp, for as Phantom intimated we need "new life from different contributors."


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *gthornley*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19620_60#post_22478999
> 
> *Dispute: Quantum of Solace in Tier 1*
> 
> 
> The edition of the disk I have appears to have crushed blacks and substantial detail BELOW the reference black level. I was not very impressed with the mastering of this disk. I was originally using this disk to evaluate my brightness/contrast settings of Samsung LED-LCD, which lead to substantially misleading results.
> 
> 
> (I adjust brightness/contrast using AVSHD709 test disk, then evaluate with a real movie or many.)


That seems to be a very old ranking that may not be as relevant anymore. Any idea where you would place Quantum Of Solace now? Might I add that name is horrible for a James Bond movie, probably the worst one in the franchise's history.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *emgesp*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19620_60#post_22479319
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19650#post_22478572
> 
> 
> Here is the link to the PQ Tier Thread so any newcomers can read over the criteria for reviewing and recommending placements for Blu-rays:
> http://www.avsforum.com/t/1168342/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-rankings#post_16943364
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've lowered my score to Tier 1 based on the information you provided. I guess I was being a little too generous with my previous score. Regardless, still an amazing Blu-ray. Thanks for helping me understand the Tier rankings a bit better.
Click to expand...

When push comes to shove, let your personal take on the ranking outweigh whatever is written for the various Tier descriptions. We tried to make them as complete as possible, but it's hard coming up with a defined set of criteria encompassing all manner of material on Blu-ray. They are a guide more than anything else, though Djoberg is correct in that Tier 0 should be reserved for those flawless spectacles that scream demo material. I always felt one would immediately know if they were watching something from the highest tier. Rarely do I ever have to think long and hard about a movie's placement that ends up in Tier Blu/0. But if doubts start creeping in about the picture quality, it probably doesn't merit anything more Tier 1.0 anyway.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Madagascar 3*


We might as well quit now, because I don't foresee ANYTHING matching this. This is now it. The new #1. The new pinnacle. The new, "Holy crap this format truly is the be all, end all of home video" disc.


I really cannot express it any better aside from the sheer amount of outstanding color, sharpness, and definition on display here. My jaw hit the floor as I saw fur as defined as it's ever been, cities glorious in their detail, and people textured in brilliant ways. A circus display of neon and reflections is such a highlight, I might as well have turned it off there. Nothing will top that I figured, and I was wrong. People, get excited for this disc:

  

*Tier 0, Top.*


______________________

*Safe*

Occasional slipping black levels and dull, boring color palette. Otherwise passable.
*Tier 2.25**


______________________
*The Raven*


Heavy black crush at times is all about location. Grain holds up despite difficulty, but this is never going to be reference.

*Tier 2.5**


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19680_60#post_22480109
> 
> *Madagascar 3*
> 
> 
> We might as well quit now, because I don't foresee ANYTHING matching this. This is now it. The new #1. The new pinnacle. The new, "Holy crap this format truly is the be all, end all of home video" disc.
> 
> 
> I really cannot express it any better aside from the sheer amount of outstanding color, sharpness, and definition on display here. My jaw hit the floor as I saw fur as defined as it's ever been, cities glorious in their detail, and people textured in brilliant ways. A circus display of neon and reflections is such a highlight, I might as well have turned it off there. Nothing will top that I figured, and I was wrong. People, get excited for this disc:
> 
> 
> 
> *Tier 0, Top.*


Wow, people really need to check out the screenshots in your review. They are glistening with beauty from the lush color palette and incredible detail in _Madagascar 3_. Truly a stunning disc from what I've seen in those shots. I had no prior interest in watching this Blu-ray and will now consider a purchase.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19680#post_22480911
> 
> 
> Wow, people really need to check out the screenshots in your review. They are glistening with beauty from the lush color palette and incredible detail in _Madagascar 3_. Truly a stunning disc from what I've seen in those shots. I had no prior interest in watching this Blu-ray and will now consider a purchase.



Agreed! I wanted to post a few .png images here for full glory. Anything that could possibly dilute these images isn't fair to them.


----------



## TitusTroy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19680#post_22480109
> 
> *Madagascar 3*
> 
> We might as well quit now, because I don't foresee ANYTHING matching this. This is now it. The new #1. The new pinnacle. The new, "Holy crap this format truly is the be all, end all of home video" disc.
> 
> I really cannot express it any better aside from the sheer amount of outstanding color, sharpness, and definition on display here. My jaw hit the floor as I saw fur as defined as it's ever been, cities glorious in their detail, and people textured in brilliant ways. A circus display of neon and reflections is such a highlight, I might as well have turned it off there. Nothing will top that I figured, and I was wrong. People, get excited for this disc:



usually screenshots don't do a quality image justice but WOW that 2nd screenshot you posted is alive with stunning detail...the wig on his head looks amazing...I also never had any interest in this movie before your post but now I will definitely be looking to buy


----------



## JoeBloggz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19680#post_22480109
> 
> *Madagascar 3*
> 
> We might as well quit now, because I don't foresee ANYTHING matching this. This is now it. The new #1. The new pinnacle. The new, "Holy crap this format truly is the be all, end all of home video" disc.
> 
> I really cannot express it any better aside from the sheer amount of outstanding color, sharpness, and definition on display here. My jaw hit the floor as I saw fur as defined as it's ever been, cities glorious in their detail, and people textured in brilliant ways. A circus display of neon and reflections is such a highlight, I might as well have turned it off there. Nothing will top that I figured, and I was wrong. People, get excited for this disc:
> 
> *Tier 0, Top.*
> 
> ______________________
> *Safe*
> 
> Occasional slipping black levels and dull, boring color palette. Otherwise passable.
> *Tier 2.25**
> 
> ______________________
> *The Raven*
> 
> Heavy black crush at times is all about location. Grain holds up despite difficulty, but this is never going to be reference.
> *Tier 2.5**



Wow!!! I'm surely preordering Madagascar 3 now. I saw this film in the theater with my 6yr old, the movie itself is very good.


----------



## JoeBloggz

Anyone pick up Prometheus yet?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JoeBloggz*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19680#post_22481519
> 
> 
> Wow!!! I'm surely preordering Madagascar 3 now. I saw this film in the theater with my 6yr old, the movie itself is very good.



I ordered mine this morning with Amazon Prime so I'll get it the day of its release. I trust GRG in his assessment of this title so I'm really pumped!


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19650#post_22458843
> 
> 
> I'm just jumping in to say, "It's good to see you posting reviews again deltasun!"



Thanks, Denny...hope to have more time this fall to contribute again!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19650#post_22462384
> 
> 
> Someone from the thread has privately claimed this offer, so consider it gone.
> 
> Regarding _Pet Sematary's_ black levels, there are some minor issues on certain shots, particularly whenever optical mattes introduce another generation of film into the picture. I am largely forgiving of older FX shots when I review movies from a different era. The black levels during the majority of the film are quite good. Are they as crisp as something shot on a large-budget studio movie from this decade? No, but _Pet Sematary_ was never anything but a cult hit.



Fair enough. Incidentally, I watched it again and was more impressed the second time around. I think it was because I watched Red Dawn and Annie right before - and those were pretty decent too, just not as good as Pet Sematary. I might even let it seep in to low Silver. Let me sleep on it some more and may update my rating for Pet Sematary.


----------



## deltasun

I was on the fence about purchasing Madagascar 3, but GRG's praise and screenshots may have just tipped it over for me to purchase it on Tuesday.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JoeBloggz*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19680#post_22481524
> 
> 
> Anyone pick up Prometheus yet?



Haven't watched it critically yet, but my overall impression is that it's solid in pretty much every way. This is going to sound weird, but I didn't get hit by any real wow factor - just consistent presentation throughout at a high calibre. If I were to rate it now, it'd be 1.0 at the lowest.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JoeBloggz*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19680#post_22481524
> 
> 
> Anyone pick up Prometheus yet?



I just rented this a few hours ago and will be watching it later tonight. The few reviews that have come in (on Cinema Squid's site) are singing its praises, (for PQ and AQ). I *almost* purchased it from Amazon, but then the thought occurred to me that I may not be impressed with the actual movie. I want it to be good enough for repeat viewings.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19680#post_22487868
> 
> 
> Thanks, Denny...hope to have more time this fall to contribute again!



Sounds good delta....I'll be looking for those reviews from you!


----------



## djoberg

*Prometheus*


What can I say? All the *experts* that have weighed in so far are calling this *reference* quality.....and *my* reputation (as "most generous rater") is at stake urging me to agree with them....yet my first viewing of this film did NOT coincide with the current general consensus. To use the words of deltasun, "I didn't get hit by any real wow factor," though there was, as deltasun said, a "consistent presentation throughout at a high caliber." So, IMHO this falls a bit short of "reference," though it may still be deemed worthy of being "demo material."


To be sure, there were elements that definitely had the EYE CANDY factor. Most facial close-ups fall into that category, with a few being upper Tier 0. But there weren't numerous close-ups and the mid-range shots of faces weren't all that impressive. There were a few shots towards the end of Shaw having *surgery* that had incredible detail, perhaps the best shot of the whole film...come to think of it, that scene DID have the "wow factor." Landscapes, especially in outdoor, daytime scenes, were also spectacular, with every rock and pebble gleaming with detail. Flesh tones were excellent, as was contrast, so no complaints in these areas.


I guess where I was somewhat letdown was in the many indoor scenes (in the human space ship and the alien space ship) with dim lighting. Black levels were *okay*, but not as deep and inky as others reports. Shadow details in those same scenes were lacking too. But perhaps my biggest gripe in those scenes was the lack of sharpness and clarity. Again, it wasn't bad, but it just didn't WOW me like I was expecting. I kept comparing this to _Tron: Legacy_, with both titles having a lot of CGI and dark scenes...IMO _Tron: Legacy_ trumped _Prometheus_ in darker scenes with more sharpness and clarity.


I should add that the typical Ridley Scott color palette was in play here, with teal, green, and blues permeating the majority of the running time, and this tends to lower the visual nirvana in some shots.


Before I give my recommendation let me give a huge shout-out for the reference quality AQ!! From the opening scene you knew you were in for an aural experience that would envelope you in tantalizing sounds. All the activity emanating from the surrounds was phenomenal, with amazing precision. The LFE material was exemplary, especially the scenes involving the taking off and landing of the spaceships. But even here (in the LFE department), _Tron: Legacy_ won the day.


I intimated that this would still find itself in the demo tier, and with _Tron: Legacy_ being in 1.0, I believe this should be right here....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Beyond (region-free UK import)*


recommendation: *Tier 3.25**


Moral: Never purchase real estate that happens to have a gateway to Hell on the premises


This placement is solely for the corrected pressing, where UK label Arrow bumped the AVC video encode up to a BD-50 and fixed the wrong color timing of a key scene. The 1981 movie receives a beautiful transfer with one huge negative. Arrow is known for their love of sharpening and inconsistent DNR. Scanned from a clean print with only a twinkling of any film debris, the transfer displays stellar resolution and clarity(until the climax where some moderate DNR appears in play). It possesses all the hallmarks of a movie deserving Tier 2, with a singular exception that proves too overwhelming to ignore in the final score.


Where it fails unfortunately is that a majority of the movie has very sharp ringing. Actors occasionally glow on their edges, from the halos surrounding them like an outline. This sharpening was applied in post and totally unnecessary. It's a textbook case of high-amplitude ringing that was so common on the DVD format and should not have been applied to this transfer. The picture already had an immense sense of depth and natural definition from Fulci's stylish direction.

_The Beyond_ on Blu-ray is still very watchable, with excellent color saturation and extreme detail that makes one question what year this movie was really produced. The halos simply drag the placement down from a high score in Tier 2, to a much more pedestrian Tier 3.25 ranking.


----------



## lgans316

*Prometheus*


Typical Ridely Scott look and feel here. There were few CG effect shot that looks astounding. At the same time, there are some dark scenes that looks murky due to poor lighting. Coming to facial details, almost most of them shot with bright lighting inside the ship looks impressive. Colors could appear a bit subdued but it is typical of the director's intent. I did notice some aliasing / net effect on landscape shots, not sure if it is due to my player or something else.


The special features and few deleted scenes answers few of the questions but this movie was a missed opportunity as it had so much potential to trounce the entire Alien franchise. The element of surprise and tension are all there but it could have been taken to the next level had Ridley addressed the points mentioned here http://avp.wikia.com/wiki/Engineer and focused a bit on character development. The idea to keep things a mystery back fired in my opinion.

*Recommendation: Tier 1.5*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^


I would have no problem going along with lgan's recommendation of 1.5. He and I agree on the black levels, though I'm not sure I would classify them as murky. They just came across as a very dark gray in some shots and lacked, in measure, shadow details.


As I intimated last night, others are singing the praises of this title and claiming it was nearly perfect from beginning to end. I would like to watch this with them in their Home Theater to see if I would see something different than what I viewed in my Home Theater.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Now for something outside the bounds of our regular discussion in the thread, I have some sad news to report. Longtime AVS forum member Kosty, known around numerous sites dedicated to HD for exclusively maintaining extensive sales charts for the Blu-ray format, has passed away at the age of 53. An obituary can be found here for Daniel Kostyshak, Kosty's actual name:

http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/pressconnects/obituary.aspx?pid=159707384#fbLoggedOut 


I never knew him personally but had brief contacts with him over the years through this and other forums. He always remained a gentleman, even when the format wars on this forum were filled with strife and bitterness. His obvious enthusiasm for Blu-ray, and before that HD DVD, came through to everyone with his tireless work on the sales data. Rest in peace, Kosty. Here's his 2012 Sales thread:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1415115/2012-blu-ray-weekly-sales-reports-discussion-of-results-by-title/0_60#post_22121991


----------



## moviewatcher123

Hi, what a great list, thanks.


I was wandering when its likely to be updated, as I use it to when I buy my Blu ray movies


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moviewatcher123*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19680_60#post_22494121
> 
> 
> Hi, what a great list, thanks.
> 
> 
> I was wandering when its likely to be updated, as I use it to when I buy my Blu ray movies


The last update was on August 21st. It's normally updated every 2-3 months, though I typically try to update it more frequently in the fourth quarter of the year, when people like using it as a guide for their gift purchases in the holiday season. My personal timetable for the next update would be early November.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19680#post_22493769
> 
> 
> Now for something outside the bounds of our regular discussion in the thread, I have some sad news to report. Longtime AVS forum member Kosty, known around numerous sites dedicated to HD for exclusively maintaining extensive sales charts for the Blu-ray format, has passed away at the age of 53. An obituary can be found here for Daniel Kostyshak, Kosty's actual name:
> http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/pressconnects/obituary.aspx?pid=159707384#fbLoggedOut
> 
> I never knew him personally but had brief contacts with him over the years through this and other forums. He always remained a gentleman, even when the format wars on this forum were filled with strife and bitterness. His obvious enthusiasm for Blu-ray, and before that HD DVD, came through to everyone with his tireless work on the sales data. Rest in peace, Kosty. Here's his 2012 Sales thread:
> http://www.avsforum.com/t/1415115/2012-blu-ray-weekly-sales-reports-discussion-of-results-by-title/0_60#post_22121991



Sad...much too young and I remember his AVS name and seeing it quite frequently in the blu ray forums. COndolences to his family.


----------



## lgans316

Very sad news. Kosty used to post a lot about Blu-ray mass production and some inside information. My heartfelt condolences to his family.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Hole (2009)*


Joe Dante clunker shot on a budget and with TV level production values. It looks the part. Excessive noise, dull black levels, mediocre detail, and over saturated color do not a good presentation make.

*Tier 4.0**

*Rescue 2D/3D*


Top tier IMAX disc with only one problem: aliasing. It's generally minor and the images are just breathtaking in their definition. The best live action I've seen since the last IMAX feature stunned me, Arabia. This one preserves a disaster (Haiti earthquake) in stunning resolution for the ages. It's a historical document and a video showcase all in one.

*Tier 0.25**


----------



## djoberg

*Madagascar 3*

*WOW!!*


Okay GRG.....I'm a BELIEVER! Seeing is believing (in this art) and I've just seen the BEST BLU-RAY to date! Mesmerizing DETAILS....incredible COLORS.... unparalleled BLACKS....phenomenal SHARPNESS....and last, but not least.....unrivaled DEPTH! You really do have to see this to believe it folks, so why wait? It's been on retail shelves now for two days, so what are you waiting for?


Let me just add that in early scenes I found myself entertaining this thought, "Yeah, this is amazing, but it's been quite awhile since I've seen a top tier animated movie so maybe this isn't any better than let's say _Kung Fu Panda 2_, _Toy Story 3_, or _Legend of the Guardians_." But as the movie progressed and the colors, sharpness, details, and depth never faltered I finally concluded, "Yep, this is it, we have reached the pinnacle." I also found myself thinking (towards the end), "Man, I went and predicted that _Finding Nemo_ was going to find its way to the top, now I'll have to eat some humble pie and admit I'm more than likely wrong." Time will tell if I am wrong, but right now I'm thinking this one is going to be VERY HARD TO BEAT!!

*Tier Recommendation: Top of Tier 0**


Viewed from 7.5' using equipment listed below....


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Human Centipede


recommendation: Tier 1.5*
*

I am simply amazed this heartwarming tale hasn't been placed yet in the tiers. For an independent production released by IFC, _The Human Centipede_ looks quite nice on Blu-ray. It does appear to be a digitally-shot production and interior scenes exude a clarity and definition that is hard to match. Some of the exterior scenes from early in the movie have problematic halos, but they seem to later dissipate in the proceedings as the action mostly shifts indoors. Close-ups show spectacular levels of detail, especially of the kind Dr. Heiter's aged facial features. Dimensionality is quite excellent, producing a significant amount of depth to the image with a razor-sharp focus. The color palette is somewhat cold and leans toward the darker hues, which is partly the reason why the ranking isn't higher.


----------



## rusky_g

*Thats My Boy (2012)*


Pristine, shiny and new with plenty of dimensionality and pop, sharp throughout with only a couple of softer looking shots.


Good stuff.

*1.25*


----------



## hillcrest6

*Madagascar 3 - Best 3D content to date for depth, pop out effects, and consistency.*


I think it is better than Avatar, Hugo, and any other 3D movie out there.


Viewed on Epson 6010 on 120" matte white screen with Darbee Darblet processor.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hillcrest6*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19680#post_22508914
> 
> *Madagascar 3 - Best 3D content to date for depth, pop out effects, and consistency.*
> 
> I think it is better than Avatar, Hugo, and any other 3D movie out there.
> 
> Viewed on Epson 6010 on 120" matte white screen with Darbee Darblet processor.



That's good to know, even though we don't actually review 3D movies on this thread. I may be getting another flat panel someday and it will no doubt be a 3D tv, so I'm keeping a list of all highly recommended 3D Blu-rays. In some cases I've already purchased the combo with the 3D version. I *should* have gone that route with this title!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Spirits Of The Dead: Histoires Extraordinaires (region-free UK import)

recommendation: Tier 2.25*
*

Arrow Films has served up a magnificent edition for 1968's _Spirits Of The Dead_. A new transfer made from a complete restoration of the film negative, the picture quality is a revelation and looks as good as anything from the period that hasn't received an 8K scan. For those unfamiliar with the movie, it's comprised of three separate stories all helmed by different directors, among them Fellini and Malle. In terms of cleanliness and visual appeal, Fellini's segment ranks last of the three and drags the overall ranking down from the first two stories. If one could ignore the purposely soft shots of Jane Fonda in the first story directed by Roger Vadim, that would be a prime candidate for Tier One.


A first-rate transfer and Arrow Films has provided it with a video encode that averages well over 30 Mbps, preserving every speck of detail from the negative. I'm not sure it's possible the movie could look any better in 1080p.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Cinderella Diamond Edition*


Disney's processes can show through from time to time, and this one of them. The noise reduction used to remove the grain is blatantly evident on a few occasions. I couldn't say the same for Sleeping Beauty or Beauty and the Beast. I don't know if they're sloppy now or what. For the most part though, this is still a winner, but not up to the high Disney standard. Sharpness is high when it can be, colors are strong, and textures within the pencile strokes or painted backdrops are evident.

*Tier 2.0**


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19680#post_22488729
> 
> *Prometheus*
> 
> What can I say? All the *experts* that have weighed in so far are calling this *reference* quality.....and *my* reputation (as "most generous rater") is at stake urging me to agree with them....yet my first viewing of this film did NOT coincide with the current general consensus. To use the words of deltasun, "I didn't get hit by any real wow factor," though there was, as deltasun said, a "consistent presentation throughout at a high caliber." So, IMHO this falls a bit short of "reference," though it may still be deemed worthy of being "demo material."
> 
> To be sure, there were elements that definitely had the EYE CANDY factor. Most facial close-ups fall into that category, with a few being upper Tier 0. But there weren't numerous close-ups and the mid-range shots of faces weren't all that impressive. There were a few shots towards the end of Shaw having *surgery* that had incredible detail, perhaps the best shot of the whole film...come to think of it, that scene DID have the "wow factor." Landscapes, especially in outdoor, daytime scenes, were also spectacular, with every rock and pebble gleaming with detail. Flesh tones were excellent, as was contrast, so no complaints in these areas.
> 
> I guess where I was somewhat letdown was in the many indoor scenes (in the human space ship and the alien space ship) with dim lighting. Black levels were *okay*, but not as deep and inky as others reports. Shadow details in those same scenes were lacking too. But perhaps my biggest gripe in those scenes was the lack of sharpness and clarity. Again, it wasn't bad, but it just didn't WOW me like I was expecting. I kept comparing this to _Tron: Legacy_, with both titles having a lot of CGI and dark scenes...IMO _Tron: Legacy_ trumped _Prometheus_ in darker scenes with more sharpness and clarity.
> 
> I should add that the typical Ridley Scott color palette was in play here, with teal, green, and blues permeating the majority of the running time, and this tends to lower the visual nirvana in some shots.
> 
> Before I give my recommendation let me give a huge shout-out for the reference quality AQ!! From the opening scene you knew you were in for an aural experience that would envelope you in tantalizing sounds. All the activity emanating from the surrounds was phenomenal, with amazing precision. The LFE material was exemplary, especially the scenes involving the taking off and landing of the spaceships. But even here (in the LFE department), _Tron: Legacy_ won the day.
> 
> I intimated that this would still find itself in the demo tier, and with _Tron: Legacy_ being in 1.0, I believe this should be right here....
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.25**
> 
> Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19680#post_22489391
> 
> *Prometheus*
> 
> Typical Ridely Scott look and feel here. There were few CG effect shot that looks astounding. At the same time, there are some dark scenes that looks murky due to poor lighting. Coming to facial details, almost most of them shot with bright lighting inside the ship looks impressive. Colors could appear a bit subdued but it is typical of the director's intent. I did notice some aliasing / net effect on landscape shots, not sure if it is due to my player or something else.
> 
> The special features and few deleted scenes answers few of the questions but this movie was a missed opportunity as it had so much potential to trounce the entire Alien franchise. The element of surprise and tension are all there but it could have been taken to the next level had Ridley addressed the points mentioned here http://avp.wikia.com/wiki/Engineer and focused a bit on character development. The idea to keep things a mystery back fired in my opinion.
> *Recommendation: Tier 1.5*



After repeated viewings, my recommendation is a bit lower. Very disappointing lack of detail, sharpness, and clarity, for such a high-profile new release.

*Tier 1.75**


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19710#post_22517050
> 
> 
> After repeated viewings, my recommendation is a bit lower. Very disappointing lack of detail, sharpness, and clarity, for such a high-profile new release.
> *Tier 1.75**



Like I told lgans316, I would be willing to lower my score to 1.5. I'm not sure I would go as low as 1.75, but I will say that I too was sorely disappointed with this release based on it being a big budget new release and based on *expert* reviews I had read.


----------



## johncourt

I had exceptionally high expectations for the avengers, and sadly, the bu ray transfer did not meet them. I've already written about this, but suffice to say in this post, there is a distinct lack of contrast, where darker colors are difficult and sometimes impossible to differentiate from each other (blacks, navy, gray, and earth brown all congeal and blend into a dark grey with shades of each of these colors.


Detail is very good, but seems disappointing in light of the fact that it was absolutely incredible, the best I have ever seen, on a 30' wide movie theater. It should be absolutely crystal clear on a 40" monitor, but only strikes me as 'very good.'
*The Avengers 1.75*




As far as prometheus, I had low expectations, since the film did not look very good when I saw it during it's theatrical run. It really looks outstanding on blu ray. It has better contrast than the avengers, and detail is very good, bordering on excellent. Color saturation is a bit better as is contrast than the avengers.


Everything is in place. Colors aren't as richly saturated as in tier 0 avatar, but still looks very good. None of the scenes stand out as noticeably disappointing which occurs with surprising frequency in the avengers.


Everything looks good.
*Prometheus 1.25*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Dreamworks' Spooky Stories*


Compilation of TV specials and shorts worth a watch for about half of the features. Some of these are older and suffer from sub-par animation, but detail is high. No compression is evident, and colors are bright. Still, not much a showcase.

*Tier 1.5**
*Everybody's Fine*

I've never seen noise like this. It's everywhere; splotchy, intrusive, and alarming. Detail is just passable and definition is lacking. Black levels are ruined by the dancing dots of white noise, and that goes for anything black on screen. Awful.

*Tier 3.5**


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19680_60#post_22522256
> 
> *Everybody's Fine*
> 
> I've never seen noise like this. It's everywhere; splotchy, intrusive, and alarming. Detail is just passable and definition is lacking. Black levels are ruined by the dancing dots of white noise, and that goes for anything black on screen. Awful.
> 
> *Tier 3.5**



There are definitely some weird things going on in the screenshots that look highly unusual for a modern film.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Prometheus*

A handful of shots seem heavily sharpened and I don't recall that in the theater. They're mostly exteriors of planet surfaces. Some noise and aliasing are hardly intrusive. Generally, it's a looker, but in a different sense than this thread is meant for. Colors don't pop but they have great, chilled density. Black levels are strong, and detail is definitely prominent, just not consistently.

*Tier 1.5**


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hillcrest6*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19680#post_22508914
> 
> *Madagascar 3 - Best 3D content to date for depth, pop out effects, and consistency.*
> 
> I think it is better than Avatar, Hugo, and any other 3D movie out there.
> 
> Viewed on Epson 6010 on 120" matte white screen with Darbee Darblet processor.



Better 3d than Sammys Adventure which many consider the top 3d disc right now?


I watched the 2d version of Madagascar 3 last week and man was it gorgeous!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19710#post_22526745
> 
> 
> Better 3d than Sammys Adventure which many consider the top 3d disc right now?
> 
> I watched the 2d version of Madagascar 3 last week and man was it gorgeous!



Good to have you dropping in occasionally Toe! So, would you vote for _Madagascar 3_ being put on the top of Tier 0 or lower?


PS I've enjoyed visiting the "Master List for Bass in Movies" thread, though I do find it hard recommending movies there without any criteria listed for one's recommendation.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The 10th Victim


recommendation: Tier 3.5**

_The 10th Victim_ is an unusual Sci-Fi tale from 1965. Blue Underground's Blu-ray looks decent despite the moderate use of DNR applied to the transfer. The film elements are in excellent shape, only featuring a tiny patch of black debris along the edge of the frame in a few select moments. Otherwise the film is remarkably free of damage, until a minor scratch late in the final act barely cuts across the screen. The vivid colors and strong contrast show off the very nice on-location photography in Italy. Black levels are uniformly deep and inky. A wisp of ringing briefly intrudes during the scene where Marcello returns to his former home with Ursula Andress.


There is still some grain left to the image, but DNR has been used which makes the actors' skins a little too smooth and clean for film stock of this vintage. It doesn't affect the clarity or the cinematography to any significant degree, but a slightly more faithful filmic transfer would have been preferable.


----------



## djoberg

*Red Lights*


I had NOT heard of this rather small indie film but the premise sounded promising (investigating paranormal activity and exposing fraudulent claims of psychics, faith healers, etc.) and it offered a stellar cast (Cillian Murphy, Sigourney Weaver, Robert De Niro and Joely Richardson), so I gave it a rent. Let me just say that the first hour had me glued to my set and then it started unraveling a bit. Ironically I had the same experience with the PQ; the first half fared much better than the latter half.


In the first half you had more daytime scenes with better lighting indoors, which resulted in some fantastic close-ups of clothing (you could see every fiber in sweaters and suit coats) and faces (especially of the leads....De Niro, Weaver, and Murphy). Scenes with blacks were deep and inky, though shadow details were somewhat lacking. In the last half dark scenes dominated and though they seemed to be fairly deep I found myself squinting when looking for details and for the most part they weren't there. Perhaps this was the director's intent but I found it frustrating and my mind concluded there was some definite crush going on.


I'm not going to pick this one apart, but for brevity's sake I'll say that the first half could easily be ranked as "demo-worthy" (Tier 1) and the second half was only "average" (Tier 3) or a wee bit better in scenes with better lighting. In trying to "average things out" I'm opting for the following recommendation....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25**


Viewed from 6' with the equipment listed below....


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19710#post_22527073
> 
> 
> Good to have you dropping in occasionally Toe! So, would you vote for _Madagascar 3_ being put on the top of Tier 0 or lower?
> 
> PS I've enjoyed visiting the "Master List for Bass in Movies" thread, though I do find it hard recommending movies there without any criteria listed for one's recommendation.



Thanks for letting me stop in! I read this thread quite a bit as I love the reviews you guys put out over here.







The attention to detail is fantastic and this is truly one of the best threads at AVS IMO.


I would certainly not argue against Top of Tier 0 for Madagascar 3 as far as my 2.5 cents go. I think the thing that gives it some separation from the other amazing looking animated titles is just how detailed some of those scenes are. When you combine the detail with the eye popping color and clarity, it really does feel like its in a class of its own at times. That city shot that gamereviewgod posted in his review is a great example. When this scene popped up when I watched it, I had to pause it and just take it all in.







I paused this movie quite a bit doing that though.


I agree with you on the bass thread and this is in part why we had those few weeks of drama when the Avengers hit and why some of the threads biggest contributors have left. That thread is WAY to loose as far as voting criteria goes. You can vote all subjectively, all by graphs or some combo of both. You are not required to even know what type of frequency response your sub is putting out in your room which is a big problem!







for starters, everyone should be required who votes IMO to know and state their response curve for their room/subs(s) so those reviews have a frame of reference to follow. Some dont know their curve at all, so if they have a 30hz peak lets say, a bass track that has a 30hz focus is going to be more impressive. Some people run completely flat, some run house curves, some like me have a type of shelf curve (I am pretty much flat down to about 50hz and then let a room induced hump take over which peaks at about 40hz and maintains this same basic level all the way until my subs run out of gas at ~14hz), some like me use Buttkickers which has some sort of bearing on subjective impression, etc........WAY to many variables with the way that thread is setup which leads to frustration for people I think. All this is why I rarely vote there anymore either


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19710#post_22532091
> 
> 
> Thanks for letting me stop in! I read this thread quite a bit as I love the reviews you guys put out over here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The attention to detail is fantastic and this is truly one of the best threads at AVS IMO.
> 
> I would certainly not argue against Top of Tier 0 for Madagascar 3 as far as my 2.5 cents go. I think the thing that gives it some separation from the other amazing looking animated titles is just how detailed some of those scenes are. When you combine the detail with the eye popping color and clarity, it really does feel like its in a class of its own at times. That city shot that gamereviewgod posted in his review is a great example. When this scene popped up when I watched it, I had to pause it and just take it all in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I paused this movie quite a bit doing that though.
> 
> I agree with you on the bass thread and this is in part why we had those few weeks of drama when the Avengers hit and why some of the threads biggest contributors have left. That thread is WAY to loose as far as voting criteria goes. You can vote all subjectively, all by graphs or some combo of both. You are not required to even know what type of frequency response your sub is putting out in your room which is a big problem!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> for starters, everyone should be required who votes IMO to know and state their response curve for their room/subs(s) so those reviews have a frame of reference to follow. Some dont know their curve at all, so if they have a 30hz peak lets say, a bass track that has a 30hz focus is going to be more impressive. Some people run completely flat, some run house curves, some like me have a type of shelf curve (I am pretty much flat down to about 50hz and then let a room induced hump take over which peaks at about 40hz and maintains this same basic level all the way until my subs run out of gas at ~14hz), some like me use Buttkickers which has some sort of bearing on subjective impression, etc........WAY to many variables with the way that thread is setup which leads to frustration for people I think. All this is why I rarely vote there anymore either



As you must know Toe, we have encouraged you before to not only "stop in," but to take part consistently in this thread. Your opinion is welcomed, whether you give a long, detailed review or not. I'm sure you have seen my recommendations on the "Bass in Movies" thread and know that they are quite short (due to my lack of experience and lack of criteria).


I agree with all that you say about the need for more precise criteria on the bass thread. I especially like the idea of giving the frequency response for your sub (in your room). That is why this thread asks participants to state their screen size and resolution, along with your viewing distance, so one has, as you say, "a frame of reference to follow." (I will say that many do NOT follow this request on this thread and this makes it hard to judge if your viewing experience is comparable at all to theirs).


Edit: I should have mentioned Toe that my SVS PC12-NSD sub has been measured as relatively flat down to 20 Hz and then it rolls off. It's rated down to 18 Hz but I believe I've heard appreciable bass down to at least 16 Hz. I do hope to have a sub (or preferably two) someday that will go into "subsonic" levels (where you can FEEL bass even though it's not HEARD); in other words, into the single digits!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*[REC] (region-free Canadian edition, as part of the REC/REC 2 box set )


recommendation: Tier 4.0**

_[REC]_ was never going to be a prime candidate for the upper tiers, and this release from Entertainment One in Canada does nothing to change my mind on the matter. The horror thriller from 2007 has yet to be released on Blu-ray in America and that is unlikely to change, so this edition is it for Region A fans. Entertainment One has taken the movie, originally filmed at 25 fps as seen by all the European Blu-ray editions that are in 1080i/50Hz resolution, and converted it to 1080p/24fps for the Canadian BD. However most European versions are locked to Region B.


The main feature runs a trim 78 minutes and has been given a BD-50. Unfortunately an area of concern is the AVC video encode, which tends to run at very conservative parameters for this type of video content and introduces a number of artifacts into the picture. While it occasionally jumps over 30 Mbps, the compression is erratic and has a tough time dealing with the poor lighting inside the corridors of the apartment complex. I wouldn't characterize it as macroblocking, but a better video encode would have more refined levels of shadow detail. At least clipping poses no problems, as there isn't much, if any, black crush except in the darkest scenes possible. There is only one moment of noticeable banding in the background, but a number of instances where minor chroma noise is evident.


The first-person camcorder perspective and fast camera movement produces a shaky image that tends to blur in motion. Quieter moments show the most clarity and definition. There is never really a moment where the image pops, due to the muted color palette and dull contrast, though when there is no action going on it's of acceptable quality that most would classify in tier three. The slightly soft image remains in that twilight area between substantial HD-quality detail and upscaled SD. That might be due to the choice in video cameras used on this production.


Aside from the frame conversion, Entertainment One has not manipulated this transfer one iota. There is not a single halo present and there are no signs any filtering at all has taken place in the mastering chain. A digital intermediate was created for _[REC]_ and its use here produces a clean image with no print damage or video anomalies. There is some video noise present in the darkest scenes, endemic to the source material as the movie was shot on a high-end professional camcorder.


Aside from the relatively minor compression issues I noted, this Canadian edition is a solid release and presents the challenging source material in the best possible light. I suspect absolute purists will want to import one of the European Blu-rays, if they can play region-locked discs in 1080i/50Hz. The frame-rate conversion did not bother me upon viewing and if I hadn't read about it beforehand, I would not have known about the issue. It's largely undetectable.



BDInfo scan for the Region B version released by Entertainment One. It's not the same video encode at all, but likely utilizes the same HD master:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1155731/new-unofficial-blu-ray-audio-and-video-specifications-thread/2100#post_19259527


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19710#post_22533045
> 
> 
> As you must know Toe, we have encouraged you before to not only "stop in," but to take part consistently in this thread. Your opinion is welcomed, whether you give a long, detailed review or not. I'm sure you have seen my recommendations on the "Bass in Movies" thread and know that they are quite short (due to my lack of experience and lack of criteria).
> 
> I agree with all that you say about the need for more precise criteria on the bass thread. I especially like the idea of giving the frequency response for your sub (in your room). That is why this thread asks participants to state their screen size and resolution, along with your viewing distance, so one has, as you say, "a frame of reference to follow." (I will say that many do NOT follow this request on this thread and this makes it hard to judge if your viewing experience is comparable at all to theirs).
> 
> Edit: I should have mentioned Toe that my SVS PC12-NSD sub has been measured as relatively flat down to 20 Hz and then it rolls off. It's rated down to 18 Hz but I believe I've heard appreciable bass down to at least 16 Hz. I do hope to have a sub (or preferably two) someday that will go into "subsonic" levels (where you can FEEL bass even though it's not HEARD); in other words, into the single digits!



Much appreciated djoberg!







At some point I will get motivated and start participating more.


I would love to have single digit sub response as well one day. The upgrade path is never ending in this hobby!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19710#post_22533400
> 
> 
> Much appreciated djoberg!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *At some point I will get motivated and start participating more*.



I'll be waiting to hear more from you!







I realize your main passion and expertise deals more with the audio end of things, but I also know you appreciate good PQ and have an eye for it Toe, so I sincerely hope you will become more "motivated."


----------



## djoberg

Tomorrow my wife and I plan to watch _Rock of Ages_. I'm surprised no one has chimed in yet with a review. Has anyone out there in AVS Land seen it?


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19680_60#post_22533566
> 
> 
> Tomorrow my wife and I plan to watch _Rock of Ages_. I'm surprised no one has chimed in yet with a review. Has anyone out there in AVS Land seen it?


No I haven't, that is a musical of some sort? The one movie I'm surprised hasn't been reviewed yet is E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial. No one picked that up to rent or purchase?


----------



## gnolivos

Watched ROA last night. 35% musical , 20% humor. Rest was filler.


I did not enjoy it, but I generally dislike musicals. It was all rather corny.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19710#post_22533835
> 
> 
> No I haven't, that is a musical of some sort? The one movie I'm surprised hasn't been reviewed yet is E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial. No one picked that up to rent or purchase?



Congratulations on having skipped commercials for the last two months!







The movie trailer must have been on a hundred times over that period....it is a musical/comedy featuring rock music from the '80s. My wife wants to hear Tom Cruise sing (word has it he does a fairly good job) and I want to see Alec Baldwin revealing what he was really into in that decade.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19710#post_22533835
> 
> 
> No I haven't, that is a musical of some sort? The one movie I'm surprised hasn't been reviewed yet is E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial. No one picked that up to rent or purchase?



I'll be getting to E.T. next week probably. Too much stuff in front of it first.


----------



## johncourt




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19710#post_22533835
> 
> 
> No I haven't, that is a musical of some sort? The one movie I'm surprised hasn't been reviewed yet is E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial. No one picked that up to rent or purchase?



I'll have to check on sales figures for the ET blu ray. I wouldn't be surprised if sales were not as impressive as some had anticipated. I've watched the first 10 or 15 minutes or so. Detail is very impressive. And the transfer is very clean. It's a bit too clean as the matte work and optical effects are badly exposed.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19680_60#post_22534151
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19710#post_22533835
> 
> 
> No I haven't, that is a musical of some sort? The one movie I'm surprised hasn't been reviewed yet is E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial. No one picked that up to rent or purchase?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congratulations on having skipped commercials for the last two months!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The movie trailer must have been on a hundred times over that period....it is a musical/comedy featuring rock music from the '80s. My wife wants to hear Tom Cruise sing (word has it he does a fairly good job) and I want to see Alec Baldwin revealing what he was really into in that decade.
Click to expand...

I miss most commercials these days, as practically all my television watching is done through a DVR. Outside of live sports, I don't come across many commercials. I was vaguely aware of the film but had only heard it was a disappointment at the box office.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19710#post_22534901
> 
> 
> I miss most commercials these days, as practically all my television watching is done through a DVR. Outside of live sports, I don't come across many commercials. I was vaguely aware of the film but had only heard it was a disappointment at the box office.



I DVR most series/movies as well, but I don't have Dish's new "commercial skip" DVR so I still have to Fast Forward through the commercials and sometimes I end up watching a commercial or two.


I had NOT heard that _Rock of Ages_ was a flop at the box office, but I'm not surprised. We'll be watching it tonight and we may end up Fast Forwarding through some of it (just like the commercials mentioned above







).


----------



## djoberg

*Rock of Ages*


Movie: Raunchy & Cheesy (I did indeed Fast Forward through a few scenes). PQ: Excellent, in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this found its way into Tier Blu!


I had not read any reviews prior to our viewing of _Rock of Ages_, so I had no idea what I was in for. From the opening two scenes I knew this was a WINNER. From beginning to end (I did view the majority of the title) we were treated to rich, saturated COLORS.....incredible DEEP BLACKS.....exquisite SHADOW DETAILS.....spot on FLESH TONES.....dazzling CLARITY....superb SHARPNESS.....and amazing DEPTH. I'm trying to remember if I noticed any glaring anomalies and I honestly can't recall seeing any.


You know I love good black levels and just to illustrate how good they were there were two standout scenes (one earlier on and one towards the end) that both took place on a hill above Hollywood on the famous "Hollywood sign"....the nighttime sky and city lights were breathtaking, along with eye-popping shadow details. If my wife had not been watching this with me I would have paused those scenes just to feast on the gorgeous clarity/resolution. There were MANY other outstanding scenes highlighting black levels and shadow details, but those two were the best, IMHO.


I mention saturated colors, which can be a bit too much in some movies, but not so in this title. Hollywood's "Sunset Strip" was a beauty to behold in this regard.


I could go on describing the sharpness and depth, which were as good as I've seen at times, but I'll end on by bragging up the phenomenal FACIAL DETAILS, were consistently Tier 0 or Tier 1. I just love it when you can see the texture in even the younger female leads (where the temptation is to either avoid close-ups or, even worse, give them a smoothing over) and this one does not disappoint AT ALL!


If I were to resort to some minor nit-picking, it would be that a few of the scenes where rock songs were being performed on stage had *some* softness due to the lighting. The lighting also resulted in a loss of clarity and detail.


All things considered this is EASILY demo-material, if not reference. As you all know, I have been getting a bit jaded (and thus harder on my judgments) lately, so I'm going to opt for the top of Tier Gold...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**


Viewed from 7.5' with the equipment listed below.....


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Wall Street: Filmmaker's Signature Series*


Grain, grain, grain everywhere. Awesome for purists, not so much for this thread. Compression can only hold up to so much punishment, and this one is a battle. Still, it pulls together some fine detail of note, clean close-ups, and some great city shots. Palette is strong, bold, and hidden at times by black crush.

*Tier 3.25**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

* Hoffa *


recommendation: Tier 2.25*


Fox really went all out on _Hoffa_, striking a new master and creating a fresh transfer for the Blu-ray. DeVito possibly imitated Scorsese a little too much from the cinematography of Goodfellas, but the results are suitably impressive for a 1992 film. The new scan of the original film elements produce a tremendous amount of high-frequency content and visible resolution. The age make-up worn by Nicholson holds up remarkably well under the scrutiny of 1080p. The film-like transfer reproduces the pure cinematic texture of the 35mm film stock to a tee without the problems of digital processing.

_Hoffa_ is a vivid, sharp picture with excellent clarity. This disc receives my highest recommendation for its fans.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19710#post_22537874
> 
> * Hoffa *
> 
> recommendation: Tier 2.25*
> 
> Fox really went all out on _Hoffa_, striking a new master and creating a fresh transfer for the Blu-ray. DeVito possibly imitated Scorsese a little too much from the cinematography of Goodfellas, but the results are suitably impressive for a 1992 film. The new scan of the original film elements produce a tremendous amount of high-frequency content and visible resolution. The age make-up worn by Nicholson holds up remarkably well under the scrutiny of 1080p. The film-like transfer reproduces the pure cinematic texture of the 35mm film stock to a tee without the problems of digital processing.
> _Hoffa_ is a vivid, sharp picture with excellent clarity. This disc receives my highest recommendation for its fans.



I read your full review on DoBlu.com and it was excellent (as usual). You have certainly whetted my appetite for seeing this film (not only with your articulate review, but with the well-selected still shots you posted), one that, for whatever reason (I really don't know), I have never seen.


For those who want to read Phantom's review, simply click on the word "Hoffa" (in blue) on his review above.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*People Like Us*


Jumpy color timing and rough grain don't add up to much until you take in the fine detail. There's plenty of it. Texture is high, and black crush isn't a concern, mostly because black levels don't have consistency either.

*Tier 2.0**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Fire with Fire*


Rough digital production that dives into the video market. Harsh ringing dominates medium shots, although close-ups are strong. Not-so-hot color palette is a killer, and black levels can't do much to make it shine.

*Tier 3.25**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter*


Edge enhancement time, much like it was in theaters. It kills the medium/long shots, so the saviors are purely the close-ups. The whole thing still looks rough, almost unfinished in a way. Color is pale.

*Tier 3.25**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I had intended for a couple of horror reviews for Halloween, but Sandy cost me about 36 hours of electricity. Instead, AVS has a new article highlighting 20 awesome horror movies and here are their current placements in the Picture Quality Tiers. Eye candy has no sugary content and is not harmful to your health.


*Halloween* - 2.25

*The Shining* - 2.75

*Alien* - 2.25

*The Exorcist (director's cut)* - 3.5

*A Nightmare On Elm Street* - 2.0

*The Thing* - 2.25

*An American Werewolf In London* - unlisted

*Black Christmas* - unlisted, though I will try to rectify its absence since I own the BD, once I get the time

*Fright Night* - unlisted

*Pet Sematary* - currently unranked, though Deltasun has a pending score of 3.25

*Re-Animator* - unlisted

*The Mist* - 3.25

*Hostel* - 3.0

*The Hills Have Eyes (2006)* - unlisted, though the sequel is ranked 1.25

*The Descent* - 2.0

*Triangle* - 1.25

*Cabin In The Woods* - too new to be ranked yet.


----------



## lgans316

Thanks Phantom. I hope the folks based in NY/NJ are alright.

*Men in Black 3*


A great looking disc that excels in color reproduction and sharpness. Contrast runs slightly hot but black level is mostly kept in check. The daylight scenes are well detailed with a nice sense of depth and 3D-pop. Having said that, some dark scenes prior to the time travel looks a bit flat and dull.

*Recommendation: Tier 1.5*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Mr. Magoo's Christmas Carol


recommendation: Tier 1.5**

_Mr. Magoo's Christmas Carol_ was television's first animated Christmas special, premiering on NBC in December of 1962. The character has declined in popularity since then and the heartfelt telling of Dickens' tale it presents does not get the perennial broadcast airings each Christmas season that other classic specials receive. Classic Media has given the 52-minute feature the best transfer I've seen from vintage animation on the format, since Disney's unparalleled efforts on Sleeping Beauty. The master is literally flawless and the exciting color palette looks fresher than ever. The animation is a bit cruder and less complex than the best theatrical releases of its era, but the animation studio behind it was well-versed in producing theatrical-quality shorts for Mr. Magoo. It's far superior in quality to later animated specials solely meant for broadcast television, as the budgets hadn't yet been pared down.


The main feature is encoded in AVC at solid video bitrates well in the twenties, confined to a BD-25. It's completely transparent to the original animation and replicates the fine grain to a tee. The transfer has been untouched by digital noise reduction or sharpening. The source elements are in such fabulous condition that if someone told me they had been locked up in a hermetically sealed vault since 1962, until this disc's release in 2010, I might believe them. The clarity and overall presentation of the 4:3 framed special is so perfect that it strongly competes with the visual properties of modern animation. For those that haven't seen this yet, imagine the _Flintstone's_ animation but vastly sharper with a richer palette.


The opening scene until the first commercial break is even cleaner and more colorful than the rest of the special. That twenty minutes is good enough for Tier 1.25, though the picture quality dips to a slightly lower plateau afterwards. It can be said no one has seen _Mr. Magoo's Christmas Carol_ look like this since the original animators finished their work on it.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19740#post_22543291
> 
> *Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter*
> 
> Edge enhancement time, much like it was in theaters. It kills the medium/long shots, so the saviors are purely the close-ups. The whole thing still looks rough, almost unfinished in a way. Color is pale.
> *Tier 3.25**



How was the movie?


----------



## johncourt

Alien is NOT a 2.25 tier blu ray. It looks absolutely gorgeous from beginning to end. The color in particular is spectacular. It's been a few months since I've watched this film on blu ray, but I recall it looking absolutely amazing. It far exceeded my expectations.


edit: to clarify, I would rate it a full point higher: *1.25 at least.* Again, it's been a few months, but this transfer will make your jaw drop.


The Shining looked pretty mediocre on blu ray. A 2.75 is generous. Again, it's been months since I've seen it, but it was not an impressive transfer in any way.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19740#post_22545442
> 
> 
> I had intended for a couple of horror reviews for Halloween, but Sandy cost me about 36 hours of electricity. Instead, AVS has a new article highlighting 20 awesome horror movies and here are their current placements in the Picture Quality Tiers. Eye candy has no sugary content and is not harmful to your health.
> *Halloween* - 2.25
> *The Shining* - 2.75
> *Alien* - 2.25
> *The Exorcist (director's cut)* - 3.5
> *A Nightmare On Elm Street* - 2.0
> *The Thing* - 2.25
> *An American Werewolf In London* - unlisted
> *Black Christmas* - unlisted, though I will try to rectify its absence since I own the BD, once I get the time
> *Fright Night* - unlisted
> *Pet Sematary* - currently unranked, though Deltasun has a pending score of 3.25
> *Re-Animator* - unlisted
> *The Mist* - 3.25
> *Hostel* - 3.0
> *The Hills Have Eyes (2006)* - unlisted, though the sequel is ranked 1.25
> *The Descent* - 2.0
> *Triangle* - 1.25
> *Cabin In The Woods* - too new to be ranked yet.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *johncourt*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19740#post_22556571
> 
> 
> Alien is NOT a 2.25 tier blu ray. It looks absolutely gorgeous from beginning to end. The color in particular is spectacular. It's been a few months since I've watched this film on blu ray, but I recall it looking absolutely amazing. It far exceeded my expectations.
> 
> edit: to clarify, I would rate it a full point higher: *1.25 at least.*



I agree with you; _Alien_ is NOT a 2.25. I also don't believe it's good enough to be 1.25, but having rated it at 1.75 I hope your vote will bring it down to Tier Gold where it belongs. It was a fantastic restoration for its age (and the best-looking one in the Anthology set) and deserves to be on one's demo shelf.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *johncourt*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19740_60#post_22556571
> 
> 
> Alien is NOT a 2.25 tier blu ray. It looks absolutely gorgeous from beginning to end. The color in particular is spectacular. It's been a few months since I've watched this film on blu ray, but I recall it looking absolutely amazing. It far exceeded my expectations.
> 
> 
> edit: to clarify, I would rate it a full point higher: *1.25 at least.* Again, it's been a few months, but this transfer will make your jaw drop.
> 
> 
> The Shining looked pretty mediocre on blu ray. A 2.75 is generous. Again, it's been months since I've seen it, but it was not an impressive transfer in any way.


Here were the current scores for _Alien_ that determined its placement in Tier 2.25. I haven't gotten around yet to watching the box set, so my voice is silent on _Alien_.


2.25 Cinema Squid, 1.75 djoberg, 2.25 patrick99, 2.25 Gamereviewgod

_The Shining_ is a totally different matter. The votes for it precede even my time in the thread and the only contributor left of note from the time of its original scores in the Fall of 2007 is lgans316. Using the scattered search function on the thread, it appears there were several voices for its placement in Tier 2. Reading the original comments, it seems many were simply happy that another film by Kubrick had shown up on Blu-ray. I haven't watched the BD in several years, so I will defer to your more recent viewing. I am not averse to lowering its score, a disc that qualified for Tier 2.75 in 2007 may not be up to par in 2012.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Freezing: The Complete Series


recommendation: 2.75*
*

A very soft presentation for a modern anime show produced in HD. There is a lot of blooming around the characters and it tends to only go away in the action sequences. It wouldn't surprise me to find out the budget for the animation was extremely limited. Freezing looks somewhat better than the DVD, but the animation is simply not up to snuff considering its recent origins.


----------



## johncourt




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19740#post_22556871
> 
> 
> I agree with you; _Alien_ is NOT a 2.25. I also don't believe it's good enough to be 1.25, but having rated it at 1.75 I hope your vote will bring it down to Tier Gold where it belongs. It was a fantastic restoration for its age (and the best-looking one in the Anthology set) and deserves to be on one's demo shelf.



Thanks for the clarification.


I won't post scores for either film until I watch them again. Current scores stand.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19740#post_22555987
> 
> 
> How was the movie?



I loved it. Very kitschy without being overly obvious about it.

http://www.doblu.com/2012/10/31/abraham-lincoln-vampire-hunter-review/ 

*Planes, Trains, and Automobiles*


Paramount... Seriously? What the hell did you do? This is one of the worst DNR and edge enhancement hack jobs of 2012, and of course it's for one of the best comedies ever. A muddy disasterbacle that doesn't deserve the time of day, there is ONE shot that exhibits any real definition. The rest either turns to mud, flickers, or displays halos on every shot. Hideous.

*Tier 4.5**


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19740#post_22557160
> 
> 
> Here were the current scores for _Alien_ that determined its placement in Tier 2.25. I haven't gotten around yet to watching the box set, so my voice is silent on _Alien_.
> 
> 2.25 Cinema Squid, 1.75 djoberg, 2.25 patrick99, 2.25 Gamereviewgod



Those rankings look pretty consistent to me.


----------



## djoberg

*Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn: Part 1*


The GOOD NEWS: The PQ was quite good; in fact, the best in the series thus far. The BAD NEWS: This was, by far, the sappiest and most underwhelming movie in the series so far.


I have always admired the outdoor scenes in this series and this one really shines, with lush green forests around Edward's home and amazing shots of Rio De Janeiro and an island off the coast of South America.


Colors were mesmerizing; they were saturated and vivid and against the green foliage they were true EYE CANDY! Contrast was super strong, though blacks could be inconsistent (having said that, there were several night scenes with stellar shadow details, especially the "honeymoon" scenes outside of Edward and Bella's bungalow, with the sea, moon, palm trees, and wispy clouds joining to give us a high definition feast). Details were spectacular at times, including midrange and long shots. One inconsistency though was facial details....close-ups were usually reference/demo material, but midrange shots looked smoothed over. Depth was also a virtue throughout, with some scenes begging the question: Do we really need 3D?


I'm anxious to get on to my next Blu (_The Raven_), so I'm going to cut to the chase and recommending the following...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Batman: The Dark Knight Returns Part 1


recommendation: Tier 0* below Immortals*


DC's animated films have made a steady progression up the tiers as they have been released over the years. The animation for each successive one has largely shown a movement towards higher quality and a more polished art style. Part 1 of _Batman: The Dark Knight Returns_ is the first animated DC movie from Warner Bros. that truly belongs in Tier 0. Warner does partially get away with a somewhat suspect AVC video encode, but the sparkling picture is too clean to really make visible demands on the compression. Before someone points it out, there is one shot of banding that should have been eliminated.


The main feature has a slick, exciting presentation that will wake up jaded Blu-ray watchers with its inky black levels and saturated color palette. Something has to have been done to the budget, as this is the first movie from the DC line to be split over two separate releases (Part 2 is due in early 2013). From the very first moments, there is a noticeable jump in quality from the prior DC features. It doesn't hurt this is also possibly the best animated adaptation of a graphic novel released on the format to date, with a tight script and cinematic direction. It looks good enough to merit a theatrical release and I am surprised Warner hasn't gone in that direction with the popularity of Batman.


----------



## djoberg

*The Raven*


I'm going for three Blus tonight, so I'm going to make this short. In short, this was a MIXED BAG. 90% of the running time was shot in the dark (night time or dark interiors) and I wasn't all that impressed most of the time. As I compared the blacks to my bezel it came across as a dark gray in MANY scenes. Having said that there were shots where the blacks were deep and inky, which led me to think, "Where did those come from?"


With so many dark scenes there was one redeeming feature that was fairly consistent...FLESH TONES! I was very pleased to see natural-looking faces, necks, arms, etc. against the various dark backgrounds. And along with them were a good number of facial close-ups that were, for the most part, demo quality (albeit a low Tier 1).


The color palette was very disappointing, but what can you expect with the horror genre? Most scenes were muted and even when primaries bloomed they weren't very impressive.


Softness reigned in a number of scenes, though I noticed the PQ became better towards the end (which seems to be typical in many films).


I believe this may make its way into Tier 2 and I'm inclined to put it here....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.5**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## djoberg

*Silent House*


This one started out *okay* but quickly went downhill once the "lights went out" (and the camera resorted to light from candles, flashlights, and lanterns for the majority of the 80 minute running time). The first few scenes weren't stellar, but at least you had some decent details, depth, and clarity. But after that point the PQ consisted of murky blacks, noise, banding, and some very severe *jittery* camerawork. If not for the first 10-15 minutes I'd consign this to Tier 4. All things considered it's still only worth a low Tier 3....

*Tier Recommendation: 3.75**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*E.T.*


Aside from two shots, Universal nails this one. It's remarkable how quickly they've turned themselves around. Colors are pure, grain is resolved (and intact), definition is clean, blacks are great, and sharpness is consistent across the board.

*Tier 1.75**


----------



## djoberg

*The Darkest Hour*


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19290#post_21893776
> 
> *The Darkest Hour*
> 
> 
> 
> Some great black levels highlight a bright, sharp presentation. Colors are dulled yet still peppy. Fine detail is lacking in close, but it can be dazzling at a distance.
> 
> *Tier 2.0**



What he said! I even agree with his placement (will marvels ever cease?).....


PS The movie sucked, BIG TIME! The audio was really enveloping, but I think they limited the bass extension or it could have really rocked.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## djoberg

*Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter*


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19740#post_22543291
> 
> *Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter*
> 
> Edge enhancement time, much like it was in theaters. It kills the medium/long shots, so the saviors are purely the close-ups. The whole thing still looks rough, almost unfinished in a way. Color is pale.
> *Tier 3.25**



I want to preface my review by saying that I was unable to load this title in my Pioneer Blu-ray player (perhaps I am in need of a Firmware Update.) I resorted to using my Panasonic Blu-ray player in our living room and even there it took forever to load.


I was impressed with the move itself and the PQ was quite impressive in facial details. In fact, if I were to rate this based solely on those I would recommend a low Tier 0 or high Tier 1. But one must judge the title according to all the criteria and thus my opinion will necessarily go down a tier or two due to the glaring *sharpening" that permeated much the movie. Rob Tomlin (an AVS member who used to frequent this thread regularly) used to say it looked too *digital*. To be fair, there were some scenes where the sharpness was spot on and was definitely demo quality, but these were the exception and not the rule. Details in general could be quite good, especially in scenes highlighting landscapes. Colors were, as GRG intimated, muted throughout, but when primaries were on display it was true EYE CANDY. Flesh tones were accurate....contrast was generally good (though at times it was hot, resulting in overblown whites)...black levels were a mixed bag.


I'm inclined to be a bit more generous than my esteemed colleague (so what else is new?







), so I'm opting for.....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75**


Viewed from 4' on a Samsung LN40B750 with a Panasonic BD30 Blu-ray Player


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Day*


So muted it might as well be black & white. Shot digitally but given a false grain structure that layers some pleasing texture. Facial detail is totally inconsistent, but does sprout up regularly enough. Black levels take a hit from color fading, sitting in gray, brown, or blue. Compression is fine, but too soft to really pop.

*Tier 3.0**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Campaign*


Routine comedy material in that it's never doing much visually, content to live with often flat medium shots and passable close-ups. Great color and superb exteriors can only salvage so much. Good stuff, not great.

*Tier 2.5**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Godzilla vs. Biollante*

Compression hurts this miracle release from Echo Bridge, a wanted release since the VHS era. Half of the BD-50 is left empty for reasons I'll never understand. Banding and shoddy grain structures are evident everywhere. IRE levels are off too. Still, there's something to be taken away from this one, and the resolution does help a little.

*Tier 3.5**


----------



## djoberg

I just picked up _The Amazing Spider Man_ today. I have read some stellar reviews on this title and am quite optimistic that this one will be at least a Tier Gold, if not a Tier Blu. I've also read from some that they liked it (the movie itself) BETTER than the original _Spider Man Trilogy_. I hope to view it either tomorrow or Sunday.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19740_60#post_22573921
> 
> 
> I just picked up _The Amazing Spider Man_ today. I have read some stellar reviews on this title and am quite optimistic that this one will be at least a Tier Gold, if not a Tier Blu. I've also read from some that they liked it (the movie itself) BETTER than the original _Spider Man Trilogy_. I hope to view it either tomorrow or Sunday.


I am eager to hear your impressions, I will likely get it this weekend at some point. We shall see how the CGI and FX look in 1080P.


----------



## lgans316

It should look dark and the 3D should absolutely suck.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Amazing Spider-Man


recommendation: Tier 1.5**


It's a darker transfer than most modern superhero flicks, but I really did not see any significant issues with the black levels on the KURO plasma or one of my other displays, a 3-D Panasonic plasma. This score strictly reflects the 2-D version of the movie. There may be a hint of ringing at times, but my main concern was the slight loss of high-frequency information in select scenes. It has been low-pass filtered at several different moments, most noticeably reducing facial detail on some of the older actors. The tools to manipulate the image have gotten increasingly sophisticated and thankfully leaves no other trace artifacts behind but a clean image. The picture has razor-sharp definition and projects a pleasing sense of depth, though I expected more pop and wow moments from Spider-Man slinging his way across the city.


Sony really didn't do anything special with the AVC video encode, applying their standard middle-of-the-road parameters. You would think a major blockbuster and one of their most important franchises would merit more attention, but there you have it. Overall, _The Amazing Spider-Man_ simply does not belong in Tier 0 outside of a few nice interior scenes. The Lizard seems to have received a better CGI treatment than Spider-Man himself, as the VFX for the Lizard look completely polished. There are a couple of dodgy action shots of Spider-Man that almost look unfinished if examined closely, where his fluid motion and actual detail appear to dip. Any element of the picture quality that drops the sharp-eyed viewer out of the movie's reality has to be a consideration.


----------



## djoberg

*The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19740#post_22578221
> 
> *The Amazing Spider-Man
> 
> recommendation: Tier 1.5**
> 
> It's a darker transfer than most modern superhero flicks, but I really did not see any significant issues with the black levels on the KURO plasma or one of my other displays, a 3-D Panasonic plasma. This score strictly reflects the 2-D version of the movie. There may be a hint of ringing at times, but my main concern was the slight loss of high-frequency information in select scenes. It has been low-pass filtered at several different moments, most noticeably reducing facial detail on some of the older actors. The tools to manipulate the image have gotten increasingly sophisticated and thankfully leaves no other trace artifacts behind but a clean image. The picture has razor-sharp definition and projects a pleasing sense of depth, though I expected more pop and wow moments from Spider-Man slinging his way across the city.
> 
> Sony really didn't do anything special with the AVC video encode, applying their standard middle-of-the-road parameters. You would think a major blockbuster and one of their most important franchises would merit more attention, but there you have it. Overall, _The Amazing Spider-Man_ simply does not belong in Tier 0 outside of a few nice interior scenes. The Lizard seems to have received a better CGI treatment than Spider-Man himself, as the VFX for the Lizard look completely polished. There are a couple of dodgy action shots of Spider-Man that almost look unfinished if examined closely, where his fluid motion and actual detail appear to dip. Any element of the picture quality that drops the sharp-eyed viewer out of the movie's reality has to be a consideration.



I'm going to say it right out front....*THE BLACK LEVELS & SHADOW DETAILS WERE ABSOLUTELY MESMERIZING!!* I, for one, am GLAD there were numerous nighttime scenes, for they had, along with the amazing BLACKS/SHADOW DETAILS, excellent CLARITY and SHARPNESS. I didn't detect one instance of crushed blacks or any other anomaly. The first shot of New York City at night (a panoramic view, I might add) was breathtaking; in fact, I have never seen any better (though some shots in _The Dark Knight_ and a few other titles were just as good).


Quite a few daytime scenes were on the *dim* side, but I was impressed with how natural the colors were. Flesh tones were equally impressive due to their "natural" look. Depth was astounding in many scenes (Daytime & Nighttime).


I would take issue with one observation made by Phantom. He said "I expected more pop and wow moments from Spider-Man slinging his way across the city." I actually was more than satisfied with them, especially the scene where he's slinging from crane to crane on his way to do battle with the Lizard at the Tower. The CGI was very impressive in these scenes, including the majority of the shots of the Lizard. Some reviewers thought the Lizard looked fake, but I was struck by the realism.


My only real complaint was that there were a number of soft shots sprinkled throughout. I would also agree with Phantom that *some* facial details suffered, but this was the exception and not the rule. I would say that most facial shots fell into Tier 1, though a few close-ups of Emma Stone and others veered into Tier Blu. If not for these *complaints* I'd be very tempted to give this a low Tier 0 placement, but to fair I'm giving it a.....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25**


Viewed from 6' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Phantom Stranger

It was only until I realized there was a touch of low-pass filtering (completely unnecessary for a modern Hollywood production with a huge budget) in select moments, that I dropped the disc as low as tier 1.5. My first gut feeling was probably around 1.25. What is interesting about the DNR, it is only explicitly used in this case when one of the older "name" actors appear, and is dropped the minute a shot cuts to someone else. Someone at Sony really wanted to protect Sally Field and Martin Sheen from the utter clarity of the Red Epic camera.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19740#post_22579152
> 
> 
> It was only until I realized there was a touch of low-pass filtering (completely unnecessary for a modern Hollywood production with a huge budget) in select moments, that I dropped the disc as low as tier 1.5. My first gut feeling was probably around 1.25. What is interesting about the DNR, it is only explicitly used in this case when one of the older "name" actors appear, and is dropped the minute a shot cuts to someone else. *Someone at Sony really wanted to protect Sally Field and Martin Sheen from the utter clarity of the Red Epic camera*.



I agree Phantom. When I mentioned that "some facial details suffered," those are the ones I had in mind. It's too bad that older actors can't "grow old gracefully" and thus allow the world to see them for who they truly are.


----------



## djoberg

I just received an e-mail from Amazon informing me that my copy of _Lawrence of Arabia_ has shipped. I've been waiting for a very long time for this title to be released. If you're a fan of this classic (a true _epic_ in every sense of the word) I would encourage you to order one (Amazon is selling it for under $19). Robert Harris helped in the Blu-ray production and all reviews, including Mr. Harris's, are singing its praises.

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/t/324904/a-few-words-about-lawrence-of-arabia-in-blu-ray#post_3996781


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19740#post_22578221
> 
> *The Amazing Spider-Man
> 
> recommendation: Tier 1.5**
> 
> It's a darker transfer than most modern superhero flicks, but I really did not see any significant issues with the black levels on the KURO plasma or one of my other displays, a 3-D Panasonic plasma. This score strictly reflects the 2-D version of the movie. There may be a hint of ringing at times, but my main concern was the slight loss of high-frequency information in select scenes. It has been low-pass filtered at several different moments, most noticeably reducing facial detail on some of the older actors. The tools to manipulate the image have gotten increasingly sophisticated and thankfully leaves no other trace artifacts behind but a clean image. The picture has razor-sharp definition and projects a pleasing sense of depth, though I expected more pop and wow moments from Spider-Man slinging his way across the city.
> 
> Sony really didn't do anything special with the AVC video encode, applying their standard middle-of-the-road parameters. You would think a major blockbuster and one of their most important franchises would merit more attention, but there you have it. Overall, _The Amazing Spider-Man_ simply does not belong in Tier 0 outside of a few nice interior scenes. The Lizard seems to have received a better CGI treatment than Spider-Man himself, as the VFX for the Lizard look completely polished. There are a couple of dodgy action shots of Spider-Man that almost look unfinished if examined closely, where his fluid motion and actual detail appear to dip. Any element of the picture quality that drops the sharp-eyed viewer out of the movie's reality has to be a consideration.



He nailed it. Nothing to add.

*Tier 1.5**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Witchfinder General (region-free UK)


recommendation: Tier 3.75**

_Witchfinder General_ is a sadistic tale set in Cromwell's England, starring Vincent Price. First released in 1968, British distributor Odeon Entertainment gave the film its only Blu-ray version, back in June of 2011 in a region-free edition where the movie will play anywhere in the world. Running 86:42, the main feature is encoded in AVC on a BD-50 at generally high bitrates, often exceeding 30 Mbps. Presented at 1080p in an aspect ratio of 1.85:1, which preserves the intended theatrical presentation.


Make no mistake, the film elements are in variable condition and typically look okay despite some problems. The transfer shows trace amounts of sharpening, though the biggest culprit is the presence of analog noise in the movie's grain. While I can't be positive, it suspiciously resembles the noise produced by transfers made on older CRT telecine machines. Anyone that has seen a number of Blue Underground's releases would recognize it immediately.


The sharpness is moderate at best and there are occasional focus issues, though much of the cinematography is purposely diffuse at times. A strong magenta push has been added to the color palette, making the red sleeves of the soldiers overly saturated and frankly a little garish. It also extends to the flesh-tones, adding a rosy tint to almost all of the actors' faces.


The scenes filmed day-for-night are not affected by it, but some of the interior shots have slightly clipped black levels with crushed shadow detail. Taking everything into consideration, this BD's picture quality is limited by the dated film elements. Some moments are quite nice, but they are too brief to produce the consistency of better transfers. It is apparent that Witchfinder General will not see another release on Blu-ray, so its satisfactory appearance on this BD will have to satisfy fans for now.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Brave*


Pixar's latest won't win any of the super top tiers based on its darkness and general warmth due to candlelight, but it does have some superb properties. Red hair is stunning on Brave, and greens prove striking. Grass and hair looks incredibly sharp. Characters don't have the eye-popping texture to their skin, although their clothing is impressive.

*Tier .75**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Black Magic Rites


recommendation: Tier 4.5*
*

The 1973 Italian production claims to have been mastered from the 35mm film negative on the back of the case, in this rather weak effort by Kino Lorber and Redemption Films. That claim may be true, but the picture itself shows heavy signs of speckling that practically overwhelms the 1.78:1 frame during the film's opening scene. The debris and damage does lighten up deeper into the movie, but the lack of clarity and softness are constant reminders of its low-budget origins. An unprocessed transfer from mediocre film elements doesn't turn out that well on this BD for _Black Magic Rites_.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Savages*


Were it not for the focus, we'd be discussing a top tier title. It would be a challenge with off-hue black levels and some definite light sharpening, but the facial detail absolutely soars. Stunning definition is everywhere, and helped along by a color palette that couldn't be more powerful.

*Tier 1.75**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I remember someone here recommending Boss: Season One for the highest spot in Tier 0.







It also happens to be a fine show regardless of A/V quality. An elf has informed me that it will be on sale at Best Buy for Black Friday next week, at the very low price of $9.99. I imagine it might show up for that price on Amazon, if they match Best Buy.


----------



## djoberg

*Chariots of Fire*


Ah, what a treat to finally have the privilege to watch one of my all-time favorites on Blu-ray! Our family viewed this together countless times (especially before cross-country track meets that several of our daughters ran in







) and we were always inspired by the priceless story-line and the hauntingly beautiful musical score by the famed Vangelis. I had heard that the restoration was a marvel and I was pleased with the results. It was a VAST improvement over its DVD counterpart.


Having said that, it was not without its flaws. There were inconsistencies in blacks levels (some were deep and inky, others were a dark gray, and then some were too dark resulting in crushed blacks) and in details (close-ups fared well, but midrange shots were lacking). The most remarkable details were to be seen in clothing (suits, dresses, hats, etc.). Facial details were also a mixed bag, though most close-ups of Eric Liddell (with his pitted complexion) and Abraham were demo-worthy.


Colors were muted throughout, though when primaries did break out they were vibrant (this was especially true in some of the outdoor shots of Scotland and England's countryside where greens were nice and lush). Grain structure was exemplary in most of the film...very FILM-LIKE!


Where the age of the film betrayed itself the most was in clarity or sharpness, with most indoor scenes suffering where the lighting was dim. In outdoor shots with plenty of light there was ample clarity and a good deal of depth to boot.


All the *expert* reviewers on Cinema Squid's site are giving rave reviews of the PQ with scores averaging in the 90s, but this thread is much more demanding with minute criteria to judge it by. As much as I love this film and would love to call it "demo," my conscience tells me it's not deserving of anything higher than Tier Silver, and even there it should be consigned closer to the bottom....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.5**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19740#post_22578221
> 
> *The Amazing Spider-Man
> 
> recommendation: Tier 1.5**
> 
> It's a darker transfer than most modern superhero flicks, but I really did not see any significant issues with the black levels on the KURO plasma or one of my other displays, a 3-D Panasonic plasma. This score strictly reflects the 2-D version of the movie. There may be a hint of ringing at times, but *my main concern was the slight loss of high-frequency information in select scenes. It has been low-pass filtered at several different moments, most noticeably reducing facial detail on some of the older actors. The tools to manipulate the image have gotten increasingly sophisticated and thankfully leaves no other trace artifacts behind but a clean image.* The picture has razor-sharp definition and projects a pleasing sense of depth, though I expected more pop and wow moments from Spider-Man slinging his way across the city.
> *Sony really didn't do anything special with the AVC video encode, applying their standard middle-of-the-road parameters. You would think a major blockbuster and one of their most important franchises would merit more attention, but there you have it.* Overall, _The Amazing Spider-Man_ simply does not belong in Tier 0 outside of a few nice interior scenes. The Lizard seems to have received a better CGI treatment than Spider-Man himself, as the VFX for the Lizard look completely polished. There are a couple of dodgy action shots of Spider-Man that almost look unfinished if examined closely, where his fluid motion and actual detail appear to dip. Any element of the picture quality that drops the sharp-eyed viewer out of the movie's reality has to be a consideration.



I had the sense that there may have been filtering on Garfield and Stone as well at times to make it seem more plausible that they were the right age to be in high school. Definitely agree about Sony's standard middle-of-the-road parameters. Nevertheless, I agree on the bottom line.

*Tier 1.5**


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19740_60#post_22596608
> 
> *Chariots of Fire*
> 
> 
> Ah, what a treat to finally have the privilege to watch one of my all-time favorites on Blu-ray! Our family viewed this together countless times (especially before cross-country track meets that several of our daughters ran in
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) and we were always inspired by the priceless story-line and the hauntingly beautiful musical score by the famed Vangelis. I had heard that the restoration was a marvel and I was pleased with the results. It was a VAST improvement over its DVD counterpart.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.5**


You beat me to the punch, I had been meaning to review _Chariots of Fire_ for awhile now in the thread. I concur with everything you said about the movie and the disc itself. A pleasing film-like transfer at an unusually high 29.88 Mbps for the AVC video encode. Warner definitely treated this film with more care than their average catalog property.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray/movies/releases/chariots-of-fire/336b46db-e52a-40cd-90f6-d28c50b8d1ad 

*Chariots Of Fire


Recommendation: Tier 2.5**


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19740_60#post_22597399
> 
> 
> 
> I had the sense that there may have been filtering on Garfield and Stone as well at times to make it seem more plausible that they were the right age to be in high school. Definitely agree about Sony's standard middle-of-the-road parameters. Nevertheless, I agree on the bottom line.
> 
> *Tier 1.5**


That is a very plausible reason for the filtering I had not considered, both Garfield and Stone are a bit too old to pass for high school students without a little digital help.



This is not directly related to Blu-rays but I thought some readers here might like to know about the following service. The following link is a webpage that lists practically all holiday-themed television episodes and specials for each day through Christmas. It's quite thorough and this year they have added Thanksgiving-related specials to the mix.

http://christmastvschedule.blogspot.com/ 


Here is today's schedule as an example:


Saturday, November 17

6:00am - November Christmas (2010, Sam Elliott, John Corbett) (Hallmark)

8:00am - Karroll's Christmas (2004) (FMC)

8:00am - Fallen Angel (Gary Sinise) (Hallmark)

9:00am - Holly & Hal Moose: Our Uplifting Christmas Adventure (HUB)

9:00am - Saved by the Bell (Christmas) (MTV2)

10:00am - A Dog Named Christmas (2009) (Hallmark)

11:00am - Rawhide (Christmas) (Encore Western)

12:00pm - Deen Brothers Thanksgiving (FOOD)

12:00pm - The Christmas Secret (2000, Richard Thomas, Beau Bridges) (Hallmark)

12:00pm - A Different Kind of Christmas (1996, Shelly Long) (Lifetime)

1:30pm - Boy Meets World (Thanksgiving) (MTV2)

2:00pm - Unwrapped (Thanksgiving) (FOOD)

2:00pm - The Wishing Tree (2012) (Hallmark)

2:00pm - All She Wants for Christmas (2006) (Lifetime)

2:00pm - A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas: Max Final Cut (MOMAX)

3:00pm - Dear Food Network: Thanksgiving Disasters (GAC)

4:00pm - The Parkers (Christmas) (BET)

4:00pm - Annie Claus is Coming to Town (Vivica A. Fox) (Hallmark)

4:30pm - Dan Vs. (Thanksgiving) (HUB)

6:00pm - All I Want For Christmas (2007) (Hallmark)

6:00pm - A Boyfriend for Christmas (2004) (Lifetime)

8:00pm - Matchmaker Santa (2012, Florence Henderson, Lacey Chabert) (Hallmark)

8:00pm - Holiday High School Reunion (2012, Marilu Henner, Harry Hamlin) (Lifetime)

9:30pm - Everybody Loves Raymond (Thanksgiving) (TV Land)

10:00pm - A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas (2011) (Cinemax)

10:00pm - Love at the Thanksgiving Day Parade (2012) (Hallmark)

10:00pm - George Lopez (Thanksgiving) (Nick)

11:33pm - Friends (Thanksgiving) (Nick)

12:00am - Santa Jr (2002, Lauren Holly, Judd Nelson) (Hallmark)

12:00am - Holiday High School Reunion (2012, Marilu Henner, Harry Hamlin) (Lifetime)

2:00am - Eve's Christmas (2004) (Hallmark)

2:20am - A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas (2011) (Cinemax)

4:00am - Thomas Kinkade's Christmas Cottage (2008, Peter O'Toole) (Hallmark)


We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Man From Nowhere


recommendation: Tier 2.5
*

A slick Korean thriller in the mold of _The Professional_, the Blu-ray for it has one of the wider variances in picture quality seen on the format. The disc is currently ranked in Tier 2.75 and that is a very equitable ranking for it, due to the disparity between its best moments and worst scenes. A reviewer could easily cherry-pick the best screenshots, which possess the clarity and detail of a disc in Tier 0. The digital video cinematography is very inconsistent and many of its worst traits manifest in the darker scenes, from slightly crushed black levels to video noise and ringing. There are several scenes where the action is obscured on the screen due to the teal color grading and overall darkness.


Well Go USA unfortunately crammed a 119-minute movie on a BD-25, resulting in a video encode that averages a paltry 18.44 Mbps. It doesn't significantly impact the visual quality, though a hint of compression noise does pop up at times. No, the main problems with the picture seem to have occurred during the original photography and production. In that regard, I think this BD is probably as good as the movie will ever look in 1080p. A pity that the video quality of the stylish action scenes don't carry over into the rest of the movie.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray/movies/releases/the-man-from-nowhere/e441359b-aed2-4abb-a7e4-5dc0672b72e0#specs


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Deep Rising*


Mostly up to date master that loses out from compression. Grain is coarse and unnatural. Black levels are fine but play host to some additional noise. Damage is high, and color don't pop, but they look natural to the source. Facial detail isn't always there, but when it is, touchdown.
*Tier 3.0**


----------



## djoberg

I have wanted (desperately) to watch _Lawrence of Arabia_, but with it having a running time of nearly 4 hours I simply haven't had the time. I did manage to watch the first two scenes this evening and after being thoroughly impressed with them I did jump ahead to catch a few more snippets. Let me make this preliminary judgment...if the whole film is consistent with what I've seen, this will easily be the BEST CATALOG TITLE to make its way to Blu-ray! This would be quite the feat, for outstanding works have already come forth, such as _Ben Hur_ and _How the West Was Won_ (the latter being the better of the two). I'm leaving early tomorrow for at least 4-5 days in Minneapolis (to enjoy Thanksgiving with our daughters and their families), so I may have to wait until next week to view the whole film.


I'd like to wish all my friends at AVS a blessed Thanksgiving! In spite of a floundering economy (and other areas of concern) we still live in the best country in the world and we should count our blessings, which are MANY.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

As always, have a safe trip and enjoy the holiday. _Lawrence of Arabia_ should look great, Sony has only been talking about it on Blu-ray since 2007 and promised the moon. With the recent deals for the upcoming Black Friday, I should have some interesting movies to review very soon for the PQ thread, including _Cabin In The Woods_ and _Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter_, among others.


If anyone was wondering, there should be an update to the tiers in the next week or so.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Expendables 2*


This will be interesting. I'm calling this the worst brand new release of the year. Despicable noise, compression,and filtering to such extremes, this is barely watchable. The few sharp moments stand out because they're the exception. Fine detail is alarmingly poor. The color scheme is ugly. Nothing looks like film.


Here's the kicker: I had a rental copy. It also cuts the DTS-HD tracks. However, the video bitrate is quite high, and I don't think there would be two different encodes.


Regardless, this should never happen:

 

*Tier 4.0**


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19770#post_22610666
> 
> *The Expendables 2*
> 
> This will be interesting. I'm calling this the worst brand new release of the year. Despicable noise, compression,and filtering to such extremes, this is barely watchable. The few sharp moments stand out because they're the exception. Fine detail is alarmingly poor. The color scheme is ugly. Nothing looks like film.
> 
> Here's the kicker: I had a rental copy. It also cuts the DTS-HD tracks. However, the video bitrate is quite high, and I don't think there would be two different encodes.
> 
> Regardless, this should never happen:
> 
> *Tier 4.0**



That screenshot is positively horrible! If that is typical of the whole film I may be recommending the garbage bin (Tier 5).


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19770#post_22610666
> 
> *The Expendables 2*
> 
> This will be interesting. I'm calling this the worst brand new release of the year. Despicable noise, compression,and filtering to such extremes, this is barely watchable. The few sharp moments stand out because they're the exception. Fine detail is alarmingly poor. The color scheme is ugly. Nothing looks like film.
> 
> Here's the kicker: I had a rental copy. It also cuts the DTS-HD tracks. However, the video bitrate is quite high, and I don't think there would be two different encodes.
> 
> Regardless, this should never happen:
> 
> *Tier 4.0**



I watched this last night and was surprised how ugly it was for a newer release. There were a few scenes like when Stallone and the kid are outside the bar talking near the beginning of the film that were WAY out of focus.










Like you mention, lossy audio as well which seems to be a new trend for Lionsgate for the rental version going off the last 3 releases (Cabin in the Woods and forget the other one) which is a bummer.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19770#post_22610917
> 
> 
> That screenshot is positively horrible! If that is typical of the whole film I may be recommending the garbage bin (Tier 5).



That's not even the worst shot. I couldn't get it because the playlist mess Lionsgate creates on their titles, so grabbed what I could out of sequence.


There are a handful of impressive moments. Exteriors can look great. It's enough to salvage it from the bottom, if just barely.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

That screenshot looks positively awful, I am stunned a new Hollywood film with major stars could look that poor in 2012. I hope everyone has a happy Thanksgiving and saves room for dessert.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

A Blu-ray with fantastic picture quality, the first season of _Boss_ (a political drama starring Kelsey Grammar) has been dropped in price as a Black Friday special on Amazon, to $9.99.

http://www.amazon.com/Boss-Season-Blu-ray-Kelsey-Grammer/dp/B005S97UY2/ref=sr_1_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1353630202&sr=1-1&keywords=boss


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19620_60#post_22465096
> 
> *The Cabin in the Woods*
> 
> 
> Okay, let's get the WORST out of the way....BLACK LEVELS! They were, as Hugh and GRG said, HORRENDOUS, and with a good deal of the running time taking place at night, or in dimly-lit interior rooms, one must dock this title significantly. There was only one nighttime scene where the blacks were quite good with very acceptable shadow details too....I found myself thinking, "Where in the world did these come from?"
> 
> 
> Now for the BEST....DETAILS! Facial details *could* be phenomenal, a case in point being at around the 12 minute mark when the 5 teens stop for gas and the owner, with a wrinkled, unshaven face appears. The close-up of him was one of the best I've ever seen, and even a mid-range shot of him revealed excellent texture. Other facial shots were a mixed bag. Scenes of the lush mountains/forests on their drive to the cabin were also EYE CANDY.
> 
> 
> Flesh tones were accurate and the colors were pleasing. Other than these, I wouldn't boast of any sharpness or strong clarity. Depth too was lacking in most scenes, but there were a few exceptions.
> 
> 
> All things considered, this will NOT find its way to anyone's "demo shelf," though I wouldn't relegate it to the "average bin" either. My thinking is Tier Silver, albeit at the bottom....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.75**
> 
> 
> PS The audio was rock-solid! There was PLENTY of action in the surrounds and some THUNDEROUS LFE moments (my wife is gone so I indulged myself by turning it up to near reference volumes) where I was looking around to see if pictures were still hanging on my walls.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19620_60#post_22473432
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19650#post_22465096
> 
> *The Cabin in the Woods*
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.75**
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I concur. Nothing more to add to what was said aside from some light sharpening noticeable from the get go. Nothing to get worked up over.
> 
> *Tier 2.75**
Click to expand...




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Mr.G*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19620_60#post_22473800
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19650#post_22465096
> 
> *The Cabin in the Woods*
> 
> Okay, let's get the WORST out of the way....BLACK LEVELS! They were, as Hugh and GRG said, HORRENDOUS, and with a good deal of the running time taking place at night, or in dimly-lit interior rooms, one must dock this title significantly. There was only one nighttime scene where the blacks were quite good with very acceptable shadow details too....I found myself thinking, "Where in the world did these come from?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I got this as a gift and watched it last night. I agree the black levels are atrocious.
Click to expand...

*The Cabin In The Woods


recommendation: Tier 2.5*
*

I thought the Blu-ray was a shade better than prior reviews in the thread, though I agree the black levels in the film's second half are a problem. It looks less like a black level problem and more a situation with the overall contrast, as the action settles into night. There is a moderate amount of ringing but it also looks like some minor filtering has been applied to the digital intermediate. While the picture is razor-sharp and pristine, I would not agree that high-frequency content is all that great for a modern movie. What pushed me to place this a little higher is the excellent depth and dimensionality, particularly in its first half. A serious sense of depth and pop are present before the main characters get to the cabin.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*I Spit On Your Grave (2010)


recommendation: Tier 0 (below Rushmore)*


Abhorrent subject matter presented in perfect and graphic detail. From the opening minutes, the stunning consistency of the digital cinematography provided by the RED ONE camera is picture perfect. One of the best-shot digital movies on the format, the transfer has practically no superfluous processing and regularly produces the looking-out-a-window effect so prized by the average person for HD. It's amazing that a relatively low-budget film from Starz such as this could produce better picture quality than many of the Hollywood blockbusters. I suspect the lack of CGI and FX helped make a contribution to that result.


The AVC video encode, which averages 27.64 Mbps, is a strong effort that preserves whatever detail can be found on the digital intermediate. The digital color grading does tend toward cool blues and a restrained color palette, though it is not drained of all warmth like so many other modern thrillers.The blemish-free picture is almost clinical in its gaze, as it is hard for me to cite any negatives among the video's many virtues.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of CinemaSquid):
http://www.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray/movies/releases/i-spit-on-your-grave/328a4ff9-8cac-48d5-8996-6fcf4037a25d#specs


----------



## djoberg

*U-571*


Yeah, I know, I'm about 3 years too late with this review!







For whatever reason, I never watched this, but I couldn't resist grabbing one out of the Best Buy "bucket of cheap Blu-rays" the other day. I had heard the audio was awesome so I especially wanted to see it for that reason.


I'm simply going to agree with its current placement, which, I assume, was determined a few years ago. Let me just say that I still believe it deserves that ranking, so that's quite a statement 3 years later. The details, clarity, and depth won the day!

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


PS The audio was superb, most notably the last two "depth charges" scenes!


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Puppet Masters*


Surprisingly strong Mill Creek catalog effort considering it's crammed into a two-pack. Nice detail and grain with few moments of compression. Light edge enhancement is visible early and then carries no effects into the rest of the film. Blacks are solid, but color is dry.
*Tier 2.75**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*eXistenZ


recommendation: Tier 3.25**


Echo Bridge has released this 1999 Miramax film in a solo edition on a BD-25. The movie is presented at 1080i resolution, indicating the source for the transfer was originally intended for broadcast distribution. The lack of print damage and generally decent high-frequency content in close-ups makes for a solid viewing experience, though the AVC compression is oddly inferior to the multi-pack version of the film also released by Echo Bridge. That version also features a darker transfer, probably closer to the intended appearance by Cronenberg. Unfortunately Echo Bridge failed to include lossless audio on the multi-pack edition, so fans will have to pick which fault they can tolerate more. This version of _eXistenZ_ doesn't look horrible, but it will bite some that it could have been easily improved.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*ParaNorman*


One of my surprises of the year in terms of movie quality ends up a looker too. Perfectly sharp and intensely detailed, the stop motion puppets looks outstanding in HD. There's a ton of detail to appreciate. Darker scenes lost a little oomph in the blacks and the tone can be muted overall, the only detriments.

*Tier 1.25**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Frankenstein


recommendation: Tier 3.75**


In some respects, this transfer possibly merits a higher placement. Universal's _Frankenstein_ has superb black levels and the actual amount of detail for a 1931 movie with parts of the original negative missing are quite impressive. The increase in clarity and definition over SD is truly a marvel to behold at times. More of the famous make-up work and set design is visible than ever before in the velvety shadows. The studio has also given the video encode a top-notch compression effort, averaging 32.32 Mbps over the course of its 70 minutes.


The level of print damage and age-related wear is kept to such minimum levels that I have to believe some degree of filtering has been used on _Frankenstein's_ transfer. The grain might actually be too consistent in appearance for such a vintage film and it bears the hallmarks of digital grain having been artificially added back into the film, after the full grain has been cleaned up by the digital processing. That process is not uncommon on older film transfers, though its use here can be questioned. There is also the presence of slight ringing as some scenes actually become too sharp.


For a Universal Blu-ray, _Frankenstein_ exhibits a fairly strong restoration and transfer, even given my reservations.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of CinemaSquid's website):
http://www.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray/movies/releases/universal-classic-monsters-the-essential-collection/e6e2a8ef-8cd2-4c63-9725-a4e1c768048a#specs


----------



## daveshouse

All I want for Christmas is for the rating list to be updated. But seriously, anyone know when the next update might be coming? Thanks!


----------



## djoberg

My pre-orders of _Finding Nemo_ and _The Dark Knight Rises_ will be released next Tuesday and I can hardly wait. I still believe _Finding Nemo_ will find its way close to the top of Tier 0 (it may even rival _Madagascar 3_) and from what I've read about TDKR it could easily be Tier 1 material, and it may even have a shot at Tier Blu. For those interested in the audio end, both of these titles have very active material in the surrounds and the LFE, so that's the "icing on the cake."


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19770#post_22640259
> 
> 
> My pre-orders of _Finding Nemo_ and _The Dark Knight Rises_ will be released next Tuesday and I can hardly wait. I still believe _Finding Nemo_ will find its way close to the top of Tier 0 (it may even rival _Madagascar 3_) and from what I've read about TDKR it could easily be Tier 1 material, and it may even have a shot at Tier Blu. For those interested in the audio end, both of these titles have very active material in the surrounds and the LFE, so that's the "icing on the cake."



+1!!! Looking forward to both of these! To finally see/hear Nemo in high def.............










Watched The Adventures of Tin Tin last night and was extremely impressed with the PQ! One of the better looking discs I have seen lately.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19770#post_22640733
> 
> 
> +1!!! Looking forward to both of these! To finally see/hear Nemo in high def.............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Watched The Adventures of Tin Tin last night and was extremely impressed with the PQ! One of the better looking discs I have seen lately.



I have been wanting to *see* _Finding Nemo_ in HD ever since the Blu-ray format "won the war." And then I purchased my SVS sub last year and read about the amazing LFE (I believe many were talking about the amazing *thuds* in the "aquarium" scene







) and so I'm just as psyched to *hear* it! I can't imagine what you'll experience Toe with your FOUR SVS Ultra subs plus your two buttkickers...I'm extremely jealous!!










Yes, TAOTT was a great-looking title. I tried a Search to see what I had written on my review, but for some reason the Search turned up empty.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19770#post_22640788
> 
> 
> I have been wanting to *see* _Finding Nemo_ in HD ever since the Blu-ray format "won the war." And then I purchased my SVS sub last year and read about the amazing LFE (I believe many were talking about the amazing *thuds* in the "aquarium" scene
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) and so I'm just as psyched to *hear* it! I can't imagine what you'll experience Toe with your FOUR SVS Ultra subs plus your two buttkickers...I'm extremely jealous!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, TAOTT was a great-looking title. I tried a Search to see what I had written on my review, but for some reason the Search turned up empty.



We are all in for a treat with Nemo from the sounds of it.







Have you never heard the infamous "Darla tapping the glass" scene with your new sub?







You are going to love it! Very good LFE movie in general, but that Darla scene is one of the greats! Looking forward to your thoughts after you watch this for both audio and video.


I searched for TAOTT and could not find anything either.


I am going to watch some Pixar movies in celebration of the Nemo release. Starting off today with the 3 Toy Story Movies in 2d. I remember Toy Story 3 being a mind blower for PQ and probably the overall best looking title I had seen at the time (maybe Madagascar 3 has overtaken it for me, but not sure).


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19800#post_22640932
> 
> 
> We are all in for a treat with Nemo from the sounds of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Have you never heard the infamous "Darla tapping the glass" scene with your new sub?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * You are going to love it! Very good LFE movie in general, but that Darla scene is one of the greats! Looking forward to your thoughts after you watch this for both audio and video.



That's the scene I was referring to when I mentioned "thuds" in the aquarium! No, I haven't seen _Finding Nemo_ since I purchased the SVS PC12. I do have the DVD, but I'm so spoiled with Blu-ray I NEVER watch DVDs anymore.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19800#post_22640971
> 
> 
> That's the scene I was referring to when I mentioned "thuds" in the aquarium! No, I haven't seen _Finding Nemo_ since I purchased the SVS PC12. I do have the DVD, but I'm so spoiled with Blu-ray I NEVER watch DVDs anymore.



I am the same way. The ONLY time I will watch DVD is if it is something like a concert that I cant get on blu ray. I am totally spoiled as well. My GFs kids would commonly pick out a DVD to watch and I would be like "hey, are you guys sure you dont want to watch something from this (blu ray) side over here?"

















Now that you have that beautiful SVS sub, Nemo will be taken to the next level!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Ritual: Tales From The Crypt Presents

recommendation: Tier 3.0**


All in all, a solid offering from Echo Bridge. Ritual was a 2002 release with a decent budget and looks better filmed than many niche studio pictures that tend to end up on Blu-ray. Probably sourced from a broadcast master, but the scan is good enough to indicate a more recent origin than many other transfers used by Echo Bridge. If Echo Bridge had access to better masters, their Blu-rays wouldn't be that bad since they never really attempt any degree of digital tinkering with the transfer.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *daveshouse*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19740_60#post_22639908
> 
> 
> All I want for Christmas is for the rating list to be updated. But seriously, anyone know when the next update might be coming? Thanks!


Within a few hours if nothing goes wrong.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

A few snags along the way and some grunt work, but the Picture Quality Tiers are current as of the last post. My thanks go out to forum member *wajo* and his work, who correctly pointed me in the right direction in fixing the anchor points within each sub-tier. If anyone plays around clicking the various tiers now, the page is resolved much, much quicker. You can jump from Tier 1.25 to Tier 4.5 by clicking the links above each sub-Tier in a blink now, when before it was hanging for a few seconds. We still don't have the placement holdings anymore, but I continue to look for solutions. As always, pointing out any errors or discrepancies is appreciated.


The Hunger Games* - 2.25 Gamereviewgod, 1.5 djoberg, 1.25 patrick99


Jaws* - 2.5 Gamereviewgod, 2.5 lgans316


The Tigger Movie* 1.25 Phantom Stranger


The Dictator* 2.75 Gamereviewgod


Piranha 3DD* 2.75 Gamereviewgod


This Means War 2.5 rusky_g


Hellraiser: Revelations* 1.25 Phantom Stranger


Red State* 1.0 Phantom Stranger


The Prophecy(multi-pack)* 5 Phantom Stranger


Lock Up* 3.5 Gamereviewgod


Battleship* 1.5 Gamereviewgod, 1.5 djoberg, 1.75 patrick99


High School* 2.0 Gamereviewgod


Chaos; Head* 1.5 Phantom Stranger


Pirates! Band of Misfits* 1.75 Gamereviewgod


Five-year Engagement* 1.75 Gamereviewgod


Snow White and the Huntsman* 1.75 Gamereviewgod, 2.0 djoberg, 2.5 patrick99, 2.0 lgans316


Titanic* 1.25 Gamereviewgod, 1.0 djoberg, 1.0 emgesp, 1.0 johnny vertigo


Cop Land* 3.0 Gamereviewgod


Moneyball 2.0 Phantom Stranger


Raiders Of The Lost Ark* 2.25 Gamereviewgod, 2.75/3 tfoltz, 2.25 mweflen


Thor 1.5 Phantom Stranger


Indiana Jones And The Temple Of Doom* 2.5 Gamereviewgod


Indiana Jones And The Last Crusade* 2.25 Gamereviewgod, 1.5 mweflen


Indiana Jones And The Crystal Skull 1.75 Gamereviewgod


Rescuers* 1.75 tfoltz


Rescuers Down Under* 2.0 tfoltz


30 Days Of Night: Dark Days 1.75 Phantom Stranger


Halloween II (2009) 4.0 Phantom Stranger


Dylan Dog* 3.5 Phantom Stranger


The Avengers* 0(.75) lgans316, 1.25 Phantom Stranger, 1.75 Gamereviewgod, 1.5 Patrick99, 1.25 djoberg, 1.75 johncourt, 1.0 tfoltz


Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)* 3.75


Bait 0(.5) rusky_g, 1.0 GameReview


Drive 2.0 Phantom Stranger


Game Of Thrones: Season One* 1.25 TitusTroy


Daimajin Trilogy* 2.75 Gamereview


Season Of The Witch 2.0 Phantom Stranger


The Terminator (remastered)* 2.25 lgans316


Bored To Death: Third Season* 1.0 Phantom Stranger


Porky’s* 4.5 deltasun


Pet Sematary - 3.25 deltasun, 3.0 Phantom Stranger


The Cabin In the Woods* 2.75 djoberg, 2.75 gamereview, 2.5 Phantom


American Horror Story: Season 1* 2.75 Phantom Stranger


Quantum Of Solace - lower than 1 gthornley


Madagascar 3* top 0 Gamereviewgod, top of 0 djoberg, 0 hillcrest6, top 0 Toe


Safe* 2.25 Game


The Raven* 2.5 Gamer, 2.5 djoberg


Prometheus* 1.25 djoberg, 1.5 lgans316, 1.75 Patrick99, 1.25 johncourt, 1.5 Gamereviewgod


The Beyond (UK)* 3.25 Phantom Stranger


The Hole (2009)* 4.0 Game


Rescue 2d/3D* .25 Gamer


The Human Centipede* 1.5 Phantom Stranger


That’s My Boy 1.25 rusky_g


Spirits Of The Dead: Histoires Extraordinaires(UK)* 2.25 Phantom Stranger


Cinderella* 2.0 GamereviewGod


Dreamworks' Spooky Stories* 1.5 Gamer


Everybody’s Fine* 3.5 Game


The 10th Victim* 3.5 Phantom Stranger


Red Lights* 2.25 djoberg


[REC](Canada)* 4.0 Phantom Stranger


Rock Of Ages* 1.0 djoberg


Mr. Magoo's Christmas Carol* 1.5 Phantom Stranger


Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter* 3.25 Gamer, 2.75 djoberg


Wall Street: Filmmaker's Signature Series* 3.25 Gamer


Hoffa* 2.25 Phantom Stranger


People Like Us* 2.0 Gamer


Fire With Fire* 3.25 Gamer


Men in Black 3* 1.5 lgans316


Alien 1.25 johncourt


The SHining 3.25 johncourt


Freezing* 3.0 Phantom Stranger


Planes, Trains, and Automobiles* 4.5 Gamer


Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn: Part 1* 1.25 djoberg


Batman: The Dark Knight Returns Part 1* 0 below Immortals Phantom Stranger


Silent House* 3.75 djoberg


E.T.* 1.75 Gamereviewgod


The Darkest Hour* 2.0 djoberg, gamer


The Day* 3.0 Gamer


The Campaign* 2.5 Gamer


Godzilla vs. Biollante* 3.5 Gamer


The Amazing Spider-Man* 1.5 Phantom Stranger, Gamereviewgod, 1.25 djoberg, 1.5 patrick99


Witchfinder General (UK)* 3.75 Phantom


Brave* .75 Gamereviewgod


Black Magic Rites* 4.5 Phantom


Savages* 1.75 Gamer


Chariots of Fire* 2.5 djoberg


man From Nowhere 2.5 Phantom


Deep Rising* 3.0 Gamer


Expendables 2* 4.0 Gamer


I SPit on Your Grave (2010)* 0 below Rushmore Phantom


U-571 - 1.75 djoberg


Puppet Masters* 2.75 Gamer


existenz* (solo release) 3.25 Phantom


Paranorman* 1.25 Gamer


Frankenstein* 3.75 Phantom


Ritual: Tales From The Crypt* 3.0 Phantom Stranger


----------



## djoberg

Thanks again Phantom....YOU'RE THE MAN!!


Well, I'm hoping to get to _Lawrence of Arabia_ later this afternoon, but it's so nice out for this time of year that I'm tempted to "go outside and play."


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Some might be interested to know there is a new movie that is king of the hill and the best of the best. *Toy Story 3* has been dethroned from its spot atop the Tiers.


----------



## Kool-aid23

Thank you for your work sir.


----------



## Hughmc

Thanks Phantom!


COnfused on the top ranking as I looked and toy story 3 is still on top.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19800_60#post_22650282
> 
> 
> Thanks Phantom!
> 
> 
> COnfused on the top ranking as I looked and toy story 3 is still on top.


Do you perhaps have the older PQ Tier list saved in your bookmarks? Click on the link in my signature, or the sticky thread for the PQ Tiers at the top of the Blu-ray Software forum, to see the current version. In the last update three months ago, we had to abandon the original list in an older thread because of AVS switching software platforms. The new update is showing up in all of my browsers, including the mobile version on my cellphone. A little tip, the master list loads up much faster if you switch to the mobile version of this website, which can be found at the bottom of every page. The Picture Quality Tiers list loads up quite nicely on a cellphone and I think it makes a nice reference point for interested consumers as they shop this Christmas.


----------



## djoberg

*Lawrence of Arabia*


I can state emphatically that this is the BEST CATALOG TITLE TO DATE, bar none! I kept pausing scenes to take in the marvel of this phenomenal restoration. I even found myself saying out loud, "How can this be a 50 year old movie?" KUDOs to Sony for achieving this "marvel of marvels."


I really don't know where to begin, for everything was superb.....DETAILS were exquisite....DEPTH was amazing....COLORS were vibrant....CONTRAST was strong....FLESH TONES were spot on....BLACKS were deep & inky....SHADOW DETAILS were excellent. Add to this list a true, film-like look (thanks to a fine layer of grain throughout) and you simply couldn't ask for anything more. This gets my highest recommendation, especially for fans of this classic epic!


I suppose I have to mention the few fleeting flaws that I noticed, though I feel I'm being a nitpick in doing so in light of its nearly 4 hour running time. During some of the desert scenes softness crept in (usually during sand storms) and I thought I observed a few seconds of banding in the desert sky. I also thought I saw what might have been a fake background or two (i.e. matte paintings), but this was off in the distance and didn't really distract from the exceptional details in the foreground.


I would be shocked if this didn't end up in the coveted top Tier. If not for the few anomalies just alluded to I might have nominated this for a place near the top, or at least in the middle, but all things considered I'm voting for....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (Right above Domino)**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## hernanu

*Lawrence of Arabia*


Completely agree with above. Watched it twice, first for just enjoyment, the second for flaws, etc. It is a demo disk for me.

*Tier 0 Recommendation.*


Watched it on... Vizio LED SV472XVT, Pioneer VSX-33, Oppo BDP-83 bluray player, Energy RC50, RCL-LCR, RC10 surrounds, RC-mini backs, two S10.3 subs at 8 foot distance.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19800#post_22650427
> 
> 
> Do you perhaps have the older PQ Tier list saved in your bookmarks? Click on the link in my signature, or the sticky thread for the PQ Tiers at the top of the Blu-ray Software forum, to see the current version. In the last update three months ago, we had to abandon the original list in an older thread because of AVS switching software platforms. The new update is showing up in all of my browsers, including the mobile version on my cellphone. A little tip, the master list loads up much faster if you switch to the mobile version of this website, which can be found at the bottom of every page. The Picture Quality Tiers list loads up quite nicely on a cellphone and I think it makes a nice reference point for interested consumers as they shop this Christmas.



Thanks Phantom. What I did was click on the link on the first page of this thread, but when I click on the sticky or the link in your sig they are good. What is a bit ironic is that I am back in school after 30 years pursuing a Computer Science degree...it was a business degree back in the 80's I was pursuing and I dropped out because of computers...it was punch cards then...penciling in 0's and 1's on hundreds of cards to get the computer to spit out one sentence. It was ugly. FF...we have mice and keyboards today. My rambling point is in time Ill have a much better knowledge than I do now, though it is a basic issue like bookmarks. Even though like most of us I have spent the last 20 years on PC's, I made a decision years ago to not get too into what a pc does, i.e. software, registers, etc. due to overloading my hard drive, my brain. I pursued home theatre/media and movies instead,







among others hobbies. Thanks for the heads up. I suppose I revealed my hand as I haven't checked the actual list in a while. And great news on mobile!! Now one doesn't have to print out a list and walk thru the aisles like I did before!


Hugh


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19800#post_22650913
> 
> *Lawrence of Arabia*
> 
> I can state emphatically that this is the BEST CATALOG TITLE TO DATE, bar none! I kept pausing scenes to take in the marvel of this phenomenal restoration. I even found myself saying out loud, "How can this be a 50 year old movie?" KUDOs to Sony for achieving this "marvel of marvels."
> 
> I really don't know where to begin, for everything was superb.....DETAILS were exquisite....DEPTH was amazing....COLORS were vibrant....CONTRAST was strong....FLESH TONES were spot on....BLACKS were deep & inky....SHADOW DETAILS were excellent. Add to this list a true, film-like look (thanks to a fine layer of grain throughout) and you simply couldn't ask for anything more. This gets my highest recommendation, especially for fans of this classic epic!
> 
> I suppose I have to mention the few fleeting flaws that I noticed, though I feel I'm being a nitpick in doing so in light of its nearly 4 hour running time. During some of the desert scenes softness crept in (usually during sand storms) and I thought I observed a few seconds of banding in the desert sky. I also thought I saw what might have been a fake background or two (i.e. matte paintings), but this was off in the distance and didn't really distract from the exceptional details in the foreground.
> 
> I would be shocked if this didn't end up in the coveted top Tier. If not for the few anomalies just alluded to I might have nominated this for a place near the top, or at least in the middle, but all things considered I'm voting for....
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (Right above Domino)**
> 
> Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....



Denny, I take it then that your viewing experience did not include compression noise? I have the UK release but I can't imagine there is a difference between US and UK.


Or perhaps what you see as "a fine layer of grain throughout" is what I see as compression noise.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19800#post_22651776
> 
> 
> Denny, I take it then that your viewing experience did not include compression noise? I have the UK release but I can't imagine there is a difference between US and UK.
> 
> Or perhaps what you see as "a fine layer of grain throughout" is what I see as compression noise.



Here is what Robert Harris has to say:


"As to specifics, image quality in terms of overall resolution is other-worldly. Color is dead-on perfect. Shadow detail, superb, along with image steadiness. *Grain structure properly represents the film elements*."


As you must know, Mr. Harris worked (years) on this amazing restoration and he had zero to say about "compression noise." Nor did I hear this from anyone else. So, I can't speak for the UK release, but my US release had a beautiful layer of _grain_, not _compression noise_.


----------



## Johnny Vertigo

*The Bodyguard*


Large part of the movie was shot with limited light, so these scenes aren't great when it comes to details or resolution, but rest of the movie, especially scenes shot in daylight, looks very pleasing, sometimes even very good in closeups. Sharpness and dimensionality isn't impressive, but overall it's a clear, filmic image with fine layer of grain.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.25**


---

*Silent Hill* (French 2-disc edition from Metropolitan)


Shot digitally and on Super 35, Silent Hill looks stunning, especially those parts of movie shot on film. Fantastic shadow details, sharpness, clarity and beautiful grain. Digital scenes are a little bit weaker, but they're still great.

*Tier Recommendation: 1**


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19800#post_22651934
> 
> 
> Here is what Robert Harris has to say:
> 
> "As to specifics, image quality in terms of overall resolution is other-worldly. Color is dead-on perfect. Shadow detail, superb, along with image steadiness. *Grain structure properly represents the film elements*."
> 
> As you must know, Mr. Harris worked (years) on this amazing restoration and he had zero to say about "compression noise." Nor did I hear this from anyone else. So, I can't speak for the UK release, but my US release had a beautiful layer of _grain_, not _compression noise_.



Denny, with all due respect to both you and him, RAH is an interested party precisely because of his involvement with the earlier restoration. He has also said that the Blu-ray version is just a "reminder" of what the movie actually looks like. I have no doubt that the 4K version of this new restoration looks superb, but we are not seeing the 4K version on the Blu-ray.


I would be interested in further comments from others on whether we are seeing film grain or compresssion noise associated with presenting this very long movie on a single disc.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19800#post_22647595
> 
> 
> Madagascar 3* top 0 Gamereviewgod, top of 0 djoberg, 0 hillcrest6, top 0 Toe



Hey Phantom,


Thanks for updating the list and all the work you do here. Very cool!










I dont know if it is too late to change my vote on Madagascar 3, but I just watched Toy Story 3 again the other night and then threw on Madagascar 3 afterwards to compare and overall I still would give TS3 the edge. Madagascar is a close 2nd IMO, but I still find TS3 to be overall more impressive. If it is not to late to change my vote, that is how I would rank those 2.


Thanks!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19800#post_22652183
> 
> 
> Denny, with all due respect to both you and him, RAH is an interested party precisely because of his involvement with the earlier restoration. He has also said that the Blu-ray version is just a "reminder" of what the movie actually looks like. I have no doubt that the 4K version of this new restoration looks superb, but we are not seeing the 4K version on the Blu-ray.
> 
> I would be interested in further comments from others on whether we are seeing film grain or compresssion noise associated with presenting this very long movie on a single disc.



Whenever I have seen compression noise it could only be compared to heavy grain, where the grain is not intact. In LOA, you have a _fine layer of grain_ and the clarity/details are phenomenal.


I too look forward to others chiming in on this subject; I believe their impressions will mirror my own.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19800#post_22652356
> 
> 
> Hey Phantom,
> 
> Thanks for updating the list and all the work you do here. Very cool!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont know if it is too late to change my vote on Madagascar 3, but I just watched Toy Story 3 again the other night and then threw on Madagascar 3 afterwards to compare and overall I still would give TS3 the edge. Madagascar is a close 2nd IMO, but I still find TS3 to be overall more impressive. If it is not to late to change my vote, that is how I would rank those 2.
> 
> Thanks!



Thanks Toe for your honest opinion. I don't believe your change of vote would alter the outcome though, for three votes for _Madagascar 3_ still puts it on the top.


Having said that, it may be a very short-lived reign for _Madagascar 3_ with _Finding Nemo_ coming out next week.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19800#post_22652416
> 
> 
> Thanks Toe for your honest opinion. I don't believe your change of vote would alter the outcome though, for three votes for _Madagascar 3_ still puts it on the top.
> 
> Having said that, it may be a very short-lived reign for _Madagascar 3_ with _Finding Nemo_ coming out next week.



Nemo could very well take the cake.







If not, it should still be some major eye candy!


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19800_60#post_22650913
> 
> *Lawrence of Arabia*
> 
> 
> I would be shocked if this didn't end up in the coveted top Tier. If not for the few anomalies just alluded to I might have nominated this for a place near the top, or at least in the middle, but all things considered I'm voting for....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (Right above Domino)**
> 
> 
> Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hernanu*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19800_60#post_22650925
> 
> *Lawrence of Arabia*
> 
> 
> Completely agree with above. Watched it twice, first for just enjoyment, the second for flaws, etc. It is a demo disk for me.
> 
> *Tier 0 Recommendation.*
> 
> 
> Watched it on... Vizio LED SV472XVT, Pioneer VSX-33, Oppo BDP-83 bluray player, Energy RC50, RCL-LCR, RC10 surrounds, RC-mini backs, two S10.3 subs at 8 foot distance.


The enthusiasm for Lawrence Of Arabia is making me excited to watch the disc. Its jaw-dropping cinematography is perfect subject matter for Tier 0.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19800_60#post_22651113
> 
> 
> I pursued home theatre/media and movies instead,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> among others hobbies. Thanks for the heads up. I suppose I revealed my hand as I haven't checked the actual list in a while. And great news on mobile!! Now one doesn't have to print out a list and walk thru the aisles like I did before!
> 
> 
> Hugh


For shame, Hugh, I thought everyone's world revolved around the Tiers getting updated.










> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19800_60#post_22652356
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19800#post_22647595
> 
> 
> Madagascar 3* top 0 Gamereviewgod, top of 0 djoberg, 0 hillcrest6, top 0 Toe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Phantom,
> 
> 
> Thanks for updating the list and all the work you do here. Very cool!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont know if it is too late to change my vote on Madagascar 3, but I just watched Toy Story 3 again the other night and then threw on Madagascar 3 afterwards to compare and overall I still would give TS3 the edge. Madagascar is a close 2nd IMO, but I still find TS3 to be overall more impressive. If it is not to late to change my vote, that is how I would rank those 2.
Click to expand...

It's never too late to change a vote in the thread, it simply won't be reflected until the next update. Your change in ranking will be noted in the next update.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Men in Black 3*


Wowzers. A stunner for sure with an instantly pleasing contrast, superior color, and sharpness that hits the top tiers and doesn't come down. No compression issues here, and the super limited grain structure is barely notable. This one survives on thick texture and consistent detail. The color is remarkable too. Shots of the carnival or the rocket launch are just brilliant.

*Tier 0.25**


----------



## Rob Tomlin

*Lawrence of Arabia*


Stunning. Amazing. Phenomenal! And without question, worth the long wait!


Digital restoration has come a long way! I am completely blown away by how tremendous this looks on BD. The large format 70mm transfer is simply superb. I did have fairly high expectations given how much time and effort Sony put into this, and if anything, those high expectations were actually exceeded. All aspects of PQ excel here, including depth, color, contrast, sharpness, details, and clarity. Clarity and details were simply breathtaking at times.


This gets my highest possible recommendation. It is, after all, the best movie ever made, and it warms my heart to see that Sony treated it as such.










The box set is also superb. You get an original 70mm film print cut from the movie! The presentation is stunning.


*Tier Recommendation: 0!*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^


How absolutely fitting Rob for you to be visiting this thread with that review! Ever since I first met you (via your posts on various threads) it was more than obvious that you loved _Lawrence of Arabia_ (hmmm, what was my first clue?







) and that you longed for its release on Blu-ray. Now your dream has come true and I'm happy for you (and me!) and thrilled that it more than meets the expectations that you had. I look forward to MANY repeated viewings of this "classic of classics."


Did you have an opinion regarding Patrick's claim that it had compression noise and not a fine layer of grain?


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Rob Tomlin*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19800_60#post_22658354
> 
> *Lawrence of Arabia*
> 
> 
> Stunning. Amazing. Phenomenal! And without question, worth the long wait!
> *Tier Recommendation: 0!*


I will echo Denny and say I was wondering when our resident Lawrence devotee would throw in his two cents on the new Blu-ray.







Remember the transfer was done at 4K (8K?), so now you can anxiously wait for that version to eventually be released by Sony.


----------



## Rob Tomlin

[/quote]


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19800#post_22658635
> 
> 
> ^^^^^^^
> 
> How absolutely fitting Rob for you to be visiting this thread with that review! Ever since I first met you (via your posts on various threads) it was more than obvious that you loved _Lawrence of Arabia_ (hmmm, what was my first clue?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) and that you longed for its release on Blu-ray. Now your dream has come true and I'm happy for you (and me!) and thrilled that it more than meets the expectations that you had. I look forward to MANY repeated viewings of this "classic of classics."
> 
> Did you have an opinion regarding Patrick's claim that it had compression noise and not a fine layer of grain?



Thanks Denny. There was no film that had me more excited with regard to seeing what Blu could do than Lawrence!


I definitely did not see any compression artifacts. There is grain that is more noticeable in certain scenes than other, but grain is very different than what compression artifacts are. This is reference material in my opinion.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19800#post_22659090
> 
> 
> I will echo Denny and say I was wondering when our resident Lawrence devotee would throw in his two cents on the new Blu-ray.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember the transfer was done at 4K (8K?), so now you can anxiously wait for that version to eventually be released by Sony



Heh. I'm pretty darn happy with what I have now!


I watched Prometheus a few weeks back. Of course I got a huge kick out of the references and quotes re Lawrence. Good to know that Lawrence will still be considered a great film well into the future.








And with this most recent digital restoration, it is now preserved in a format that will last for a *very* long time!


----------



## TitusTroy

how does Lawrence of Arabia compare to Thin Red Line in terms of overall PQ?


----------



## Johnny Vertigo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19800#post_22659090
> 
> 
> Remember the transfer was done at 4K (8K?), so now you can anxiously wait for that version to eventually be released by Sony.


8K scan, 4K master.


It's gonna be released with a new Sony 4K TV: http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=10023


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TitusTroy*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19800#post_22659549
> 
> 
> how does Lawrence of Arabia compare to Thin Red Line in terms of overall PQ?



I don't believe it is as sharp as TTRL and the color palette is a bit more drab (with all of the desert scenes).


----------



## TitusTroy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19830#post_22660394
> 
> 
> I don't believe it is as sharp as TTRL and the color palette is a bit more drab (with all of the desert scenes).



that's what I thought as well but since I saw a few people calling Lawrence of Arabia the best catalog title ever released I wasn't sure


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TitusTroy*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19830#post_22662140
> 
> 
> that's what I thought as well but since I saw a few people calling Lawrence of Arabia the best catalog title ever released I wasn't sure


_The Thin Red Line_ was made in 1998, which isn't that old. I am probably guilty of using the phrase "catalog title" out of context, because in my mind it speaks of a much older film than that. But that would beg the the question, How old does it have to be to be called a "catalog title?" Is a catalog title any movie that was originally released on DVD/VHS? If it is the latter, then I would retract my statement about LOA being the best, for I still think TTRL is better, albeit marginally.


----------



## dvdmike007

Thin was 35mm way less info there compared to 70mm


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dvdmike007*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19830#post_22662513
> 
> 
> Thin was 35mm way less info there compared to 70mm



So, are implying something by giving us that statistic?


Have you seen TTRL on Blu-ray? If so, what are your impressions?


----------



## dvdmike007




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19830#post_22662536
> 
> 
> So, are implying something by giving us that statistic?
> 
> Have you seen TTRL on Blu-ray? If so, what are your impressions?



I have both, and TTRL is outstanding, but LoA trumps it for shear detail


----------



## Phantom Stranger

70mm film does have more visible resolution than 35mm film. The larger area produces finer grain and greater resolution, all things else being equal. If the studios were still shooting 70mm movies today, almost all of them would be instant Tier 0 Blu-rays. Hollywood abandoned the format due to costs.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Dark Knight Rises*


Tier 0? For the IMAX shots, no question. For the rest of it, not so much. Definite fuzzy and imprecise quality to the 35mm material that represents a drastic downgrade in quality. While not smeared or sharpened like the previous flick, there are still similarities. Some ringing is evident, and medium shots struggle to retain definition.

*Tier 1.75**


Borderline 2.0 BTW. I'll see what the rest of this crew thinks.


----------



## djoberg

I just finished watching _Finding Nemo_, but I only have my iPad right now (a new computer is being built for me) so I'm going to wait until I get the new computer to write a review. I will say that my anticipation was greater than the event this time, for even though it had brilliant colors and details, they weren't always on display. Add to that a definite lack of texture in many of the fish and many soft shots. This will still be Tier 0 but no where near the top.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

A $5 DisneyStore.com Gift Code is up for grabs to the first person that names their favorite Disney/Pixar movie found in the Picture Quality Tiers List and correctly identifies which tier it is in.


To redeem, visit DisneyStore.com, add items to your cart, and insert your unique promotional code upon checkout. Restrictions apply: Offer expires 11:59 pm PT, December 31, 2012. $5 off applies to any order of $5 or more. Offer cannot be combined with other offers. Qualifying purchase based on pre-tax, post-discount amount. Offer excludes Shipping & Handling charges, Gift Cards, CDs, Books, DVDs, Blu-ray Discs, Video Games, Electronics, Club Penguin, D23 Memberships, Limited Edition dolls, Dooney & Bourke, Duffy – The Disney Bear Collection, Create-Your-Own Merchandise, Personalization, Gift Wrap and Gift Boxes and items not in stock. No adjustments to prior purchases. Merchandise must be exchanged for identical item or returned at discounted price with valid packing slip. Offer valid on phone orders and orders placed online at DisneyStore.com. Not valid on purchases from Disney Store retail or outlet locations. Promotion Code may not be redeemed for cash. Limit one Promotional Offer per Household. Promotion Code may not be sold, altered, duplicated or copied and will not be replaced if lost, stolen or corrupted. Use of Promotion Code is acceptance of its terms. Disney E-Commerce reserves the right to cancel or modify this offer at any time. Void where prohibited.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19830#post_22663260
> 
> *The Dark Knight Rises*
> 
> Tier 0? For the IMAX shots, no question. For the rest of it, not so much. Definite fuzzy and imprecise quality to the 35mm material that represents a drastic downgrade in quality. While not smeared or sharpened like the previous flick, there are still similarities. Some ringing is evident, and medium shots struggle to retain definition.
> *Tier 1.75**
> 
> Borderline 2.0 BTW. I'll see what the rest of this crew thinks.



I hope to watch this either tonight or on Friday. I'll be satisfied if this is "demo-worthy" (i.e. Tier 1) and has the excellent overall audio quality that I've been reading about. I hope to get my new computer tomorrow, which makes it a lot easier for writing full reviews.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dvdmike007*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19830#post_22662695
> 
> 
> I have both, and TTRL is outstanding, but LoA trumps it for shear detail



It's been awhile since I watched TTRL so I may have to check it out for comparison with LOA. What I do remember about TTRL was amazing sharpness, clarity, and details (with the exception of some of the battle scenes where smoke was quite pervasive). I also remember the lush green colors, which would be in contrast to some of the rather drab desert scenes in LOA.


I realized what you were implying when you referred to TTRL being shot in 35mm versus LOA being shot in 70mm, but there are other variables that determine PQ that enter into the mix. But in the end they are both stellar Blu-rays that are of reference quality.


----------



## djoberg



I want to retract a statement made in a previous post. I had said that _Finding Nemo_ will still make it into Tier 0, but *nowhere near the top*. I was rash in saying that, for although it may not dethrone _Madagascar 3_, it may still find its way into the top ten. One *negative* that I cited was softness in numerous scenes, but the more I think about those deep ocean scenes (where they appeared to be soft) the more I'm convinced of the realism of those images. For me the greatest difference between this title and recent Pixar works, is TEXTURE. There isn't a whole lot of texture in some of the sea creatures, though there is plenty of texture in other areas (most notably in the Sidney Harbor docks, buildings, and the resident pelicans.....be prepared for astounding detail and texture in those shots).


One could argue that what one loses in texture is more than made up for in COLORS, for they are awesome in every scene. Black levels are VERY GOOD too with amazing shadow details.


I just realized how much I have already said about this title, so the next time I chime in I will simply give my placement recommendation.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Dark Knight Rises


recommendation: Tier 1.25/1.5**


A somewhat disappointing release by Warner Bros. for video quality considering expectations, but that is nothing new for Nolan's Batman trilogy on Blu-ray. The IMAX footage looks spectacular and amazing in its scope and depth. The city-wide vistas possess an incredible sense of pop for a 2-D presentation and clearly deserve Tier 0 consideration on their own. Absolutely perfect black levels allow Batman to jump in and out of the shadows.


Not all is well in Gotham, however. Practically the entire film has been low-pass filtered, removing a layer of high-frequency detail and content while leaving behind a relatively constant level of ringing to the picture. If it weren't for the incredible cinematography on display and the amount of money behind the film's production, the transfer might be labeled a disaster. Some scenes are affected more than others, but it's tough picking out a truly extraordinary close-up. Yes, the image is razor-sharp and clarity is never less than excellent.


The AVC video encode is adequate for a movie that runs nearly three hours, but the obvious filtering applied in post-production was totally unnecessary. _The Dark Knight Rises_ simply lacks the absolute fine-detail necessary for a disc to be ranked in Tier 0 and it was definitely there in the film's principal photography before digital processing got to it. There is also an unhealthy orange glow to flesh-tones that becomes noticeable in a few of the warmer scenes.


If the IMAX footage and a few of the best moments are taken out of play, _The Dark Knight Rises_ probably merits a Tier 1.5 ranking. In totality for the entire movie, giving a bit of extra credit for the IMAX footage, I will recommend Tier 1.25.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Halo 4: Forward Unto Dawn*


This one looks better than expected for what amounts to an adver-film. Detail is high, and sharpness is consistent. Black levels are deep. Color steers towards yellows and browns which are not terribly appealing. Noise is light, and the encode is transparent to the source.

*Tier 1.75**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Catch Me If You Can*


Pleasing catalog master that looks up to date. A few grain spikes are handled well considering their severity. Foggy atmosphere doesn't dim the outstanding level of fine detail. Color saturation is scene dependent. Excellent black levels.

*Tier 1.75**


----------



## djoberg

*The Dark Knight Rises*


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19830#post_22663260
> 
> *The Dark Knight Rises*
> 
> Tier 0? For the IMAX shots, no question. For the rest of it, not so much. Definite fuzzy and imprecise quality to the 35mm material that represents a drastic downgrade in quality. While not smeared or sharpened like the previous flick, there are still similarities. Some ringing is evident, and medium shots struggle to retain definition.
> *Tier 1.75**
> 
> Borderline 2.0 BTW. I'll see what the rest of this crew thinks.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19830#post_22667873
> 
> *The Dark Knight Rises
> 
> recommendation: Tier 1.25/1.5**
> 
> A somewhat disappointing release by Warner Bros. for video quality considering expectations, but that is nothing new for Nolan's Batman trilogy on Blu-ray. The IMAX footage looks spectacular and amazing in its scope and depth. The city-wide vistas possess an incredible sense of pop for a 2-D presentation and clearly deserve Tier 0 consideration on their own. Absolutely perfect black levels allow Batman to jump in and out of the shadows.
> 
> Not all is well in Gotham, however. Practically the entire film has been low-pass filtered, removing a layer of high-frequency detail and content while leaving behind a relatively constant level of ringing to the picture. If it weren't for the incredible cinematography on display and the amount of money behind the film's production, the transfer might be labeled a disaster. Some scenes are affected more than others, but it's tough picking out a truly extraordinary close-up. Yes, the image is razor-sharp and clarity is never less than excellent.
> 
> The AVC video encode is adequate for a movie that runs nearly three hours, but the obvious filtering applied in post-production was totally unnecessary. _The Dark Knight Rises_ simply lacks the absolute fine-detail necessary for a disc to be ranked in Tier 0 and it was definitely there in the film's principal photography before digital processing got to it. There is also an unhealthy orange glow to flesh-tones that becomes noticeable in a few of the warmer scenes.
> 
> If the IMAX footage and a few of the best moments are taken out of play, _The Dark Knight Rises_ probably merits a Tier 1.5 ranking. In totality for the entire movie, giving a bit of extra credit for the IMAX footage, I will recommend Tier 1.25.



As to the IMAX footage...WOW!! As to the non-IMAX footge...INCONSISTENT! I absolutely, positively agree with GRG that the IMAX footage is clearly reference quality and would have easily fallen into the top of that coveted Tier. But the cropped 35mm footage was so inconsistent I would rate that, as a whole, near the "borderline 2.0" that GRG mentioned (though I totally disagree with his conclusion that the whole title falls into that category.


I LOVE BLACKS!! And this title had some of the best blacks in the format (not just the nighttime, cityscape scenes, but even indoors....in IMAX scenes, that is). Flesh tones did suffer with the "orange glow" that Phantom alluded to, but this was only the case in several scenes, not throughout the whole movie. Depth, clarity, and details were astounding in the IMAX scenes and even in *some* of the non-IMAX scenes. Thankfully I didn't see the ringing that the sharper eyes of my peers noticed. I could go on with a more detailed analysis, but I think I'll "cut to the chase" and nominate this for the following placement....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*


PS The audio was excellent, with plenty of accurate and precise action in the surrounds, good low to midbass for LFE, and exceptional dialogue (I could finally understand everything Bane was saying).


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment used below....*


----------



## djoberg

*Finding Nemo*


Well, I'm finally prepared to offer a placement recommendation for one of my all-time favorites, _Finding Nemo_. I've already given enough commentary on the PQ in previous reviews, but let me just say that I longed for this title to make it into the Top Ten, but I simply can't put it there with a good conscience. Even though it has a fair amount of texture and details in some scenes (most notably the first couple of scenes when Nemo is leaving for school and then all the scenes taking place in the Sidney Harbour), there are too many deep ocean scenes where you have Dora and Marlin and a somewhat soft, blue ocean background. Yes, they look incredible against that background, but there is little detail/texture to speak of. Add to this the lack of detail and texture in many of the sea creatures and one can't assign this to a place at or near the top of Tier Blu. Make no mistake about this though....the colors and blacks are incredible, and when there are texture/details they are stupendous, so this is still a candidate for the top Tier and one that can make the Top Twenty. My vote goes for....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (between Tangled and Avatar)**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment used below....


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Ninja Scroll


recommendation: Tier 2.25**


One of the most famous anime movies to Western audiences outside of Miyazaki's body of work, _Ninja Scroll_ was released on Tuesday by Sentai FilmWorks. The 92-minute film from 1993 is encoded in AVC, on a BD-25. One of the signature creations from the animation studio, Madhouse, _Ninja Scroll_ looks better than ever and wisely has been presented in its original production ratio of 4:3. This is a fine transfer of hand-drawn cel animation from the original film elements, made before the days of polished digital animation tools turned the process simpler and cleaner. There is a distinct lack of processing to the image, leaving the animation completely unmarred by sharpening or digital noise reduction. While a tiny amount of dirt and debris is visible, it's relatively minor and not worth mentioning to veteran viewers of classic animation. In all regards the condition of the print is excellent.


The increase in clarity and sharpness from the jump to 1080P makes the various DVD versions obsolete for picture quality. Black levels are sturdy without a hint of clipping, though the color palette lacks the vibrancy and immediacy of more recently created animation. A reference transfer for _Ninja Scroll_ and the final word for the film on Blu-ray.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19830#post_22663260
> 
> *The Dark Knight Rises*
> 
> Tier 0? For the IMAX shots, no question. For the rest of it, not so much. *Definite fuzzy and imprecise quality to the 35mm material that represents a drastic downgrade in quality. While not smeared or sharpened like the previous flick, there are still similarities.* Some ringing is evident, and medium shots struggle to retain definition.
> *Tier 1.75**
> 
> Borderline 2.0 BTW. I'll see what the rest of this crew thinks.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19830#post_22667873
> 
> *The Dark Knight Rises
> 
> recommendation: Tier 1.25/1.5**
> 
> A somewhat disappointing release by Warner Bros. for video quality considering expectations, but that is nothing new for Nolan's Batman trilogy on Blu-ray. The IMAX footage looks spectacular and amazing in its scope and depth. The city-wide vistas possess an incredible sense of pop for a 2-D presentation and clearly deserve Tier 0 consideration on their own. Absolutely perfect black levels allow Batman to jump in and out of the shadows.
> 
> Not all is well in Gotham, however. *Practically the entire film has been low-pass filtered, removing a layer of high-frequency detail and content while leaving behind a relatively constant level of ringing to the picture. If it weren't for the incredible cinematography on display and the amount of money behind the film's production, the transfer might be labeled a disaster. Some scenes are affected more than others, but it's tough picking out a truly extraordinary close-up.* Yes, the image is razor-sharp and clarity is never less than excellent.
> 
> The AVC video encode is adequate for a movie that runs nearly three hours, but the obvious filtering applied in post-production was totally unnecessary. _The Dark Knight Rises_ simply lacks the absolute fine-detail necessary for a disc to be ranked in Tier 0 and it was definitely there in the film's principal photography before digital processing got to it. There is also an unhealthy orange glow to flesh-tones that becomes noticeable in a few of the warmer scenes.
> 
> If the IMAX footage and a few of the best moments are taken out of play, _The Dark Knight Rises_ probably merits a Tier 1.5 ranking. In totality for the entire movie, giving a bit of extra credit for the IMAX footage, I will recommend Tier 1.25.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19830#post_22676217
> 
> *The Dark Knight Rises*
> 
> As to the IMAX footage...WOW!! As to the non-IMAX footge...INCONSISTENT! I absolutely, positively agree with GRG that the IMAX footage is clearly reference quality and would have easily fallen into the top of that coveted Tier. But the cropped 35mm footage was so inconsistent I would rate that, as a whole, near the "borderline 2.0" that GRG mentioned (though I totally disagree with his conclusion that the whole title falls into that category.
> 
> I LOVE BLACKS!! And this title had some of the best blacks in the format (not just the nighttime, cityscape scenes, but even indoors....in IMAX scenes, that is). Flesh tones did suffer with the "orange glow" that Phantom alluded to, but this was only the case in several scenes, not throughout the whole movie. Depth, clarity, and details were astounding in the IMAX scenes and even in *some* of the non-IMAX scenes. Thankfully I didn't see the ringing that the sharper eyes of my peers noticed. I could go on with a more detailed analysis, but I think I'll "cut to the chase" and nominate this for the following placement....
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.5*
> 
> PS The audio was excellent, with plenty of accurate and precise action in the surrounds, good low to midbass for LFE, and exceptional dialogue (I could finally understand everything Bane was saying).
> 
> Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment used below....*



I agree with the general praise for the IMAX shots and the general complaints about the 35mm shots. The 35mm shots did not look as bad as those in TDK, or at least they did not look bad in the same way. The 35mm shots in TDK looked horribly processed with ringing so bad that I simply cannot imagine watching that movie again. TDKR did not have that look, but instead, as Phantom noted, looked filtered, some shots much more than others. The party scene near the beginning was particularly bad, but was by no means alone. Because of the problems with the 35mm shots, my recommendation is

*Tier 1.75**


----------



## lgans316

Welcome back Rob.










I agree that Lawrence is possibly the cream of the crop amongst the restored catalog titles. Man, some of the scenes looked stunning.







Well worth the wait and kudos to SPHE










Looks like I was a bit harsh with MIB-3. Revised recommendation: *Tier 1.0.*


----------



## Toe

Hey guys, was wondering if you could tell me what I am seeing in the Batman movies which I will cut and paste an explanation of from a post I made in the Dark Knight Rises thread here in the software forum..............I watched all 3 of these films on blu ray Fri night back to back to back and ALL 3 show this symptom at various times with BB being the worse of the 3 and most obvious.......


_By FAR my biggest complaint with these films (besides the horrible variable aspect) from a technical perspective is what appears to be some sort of image stability issue with both the IMAX and non IMAX footage *with mainly background type footage*. There is this almost faint strobing and flickering type characteristic to many parts of these films either with the way they were filmed or the equip/techniques used which I have not seen mentioned anywhere but I find distracting. I first noticed this last week when I popped in BB on HD-DVD for the first time in years as I was going to watch it and DK before DKR came out last Tues. This strobing caught my eye in both dark and brighter type scenes at times to the point that I turned off the movie thinking there might be something wrong with either my disc, HD-DVD player, projector or receiver. I then popped in Chronicles of Riddick and Beowulf as both have some great dark material where this would show up if it was an equip issue and Riddick has both great dark and bright scenes to test with. Both titles were rock solid. I then tested some blu rays and further ruled out my equip as they were rock solid as well. I chalked it up to maybe a faulty disc somehow and left it at that. I then went and bought DKR on Tues and they had BB on blu ray on sale so I decided to buy it to see if my disc was in fact the culprit. Turns out the blu ray has the exact same issue, so I now knew it was the transfer. To further prove it was just something with the transfer, I then went and played the disc on my upstairs plasma/PS3 and could see the EXACT same thing. It was something in the transfer.


When we watched DKR for the first time Thurs night I thought I was going crazy as I could see this same thing, although not as intense, in both the IMAX and non IMAX portions of the film! At this point I started to question my setup again, but once again I could see the exact same thing testing on the upstairs setup and I even tested it on a 3rd bedroom setup which has just a little 20" tube TV and I could even see it on that. Fri night I watched all 3 films like I mentioned and while BB was clearly the most severe as far as this issue, I could see it in all 3 films off/on at various times.


So that is my biggest issue as far as all 3 of these films from a technical perspective. What is this exactly? To see what I am talking about, a great scene to see it with is on the Batman Begins blu ray or HD-DVD starting at the 54:38 mark through the rest of this scene in Gordans office. You should be able to see this kind of sporadic faint strobing of the picture in general, but if you look at the dark part on the right side starting at this time stamp it should be easy to see. Is this due to the type of camera used? Or maybe the technique? Again, I can see it even with the IMAX footage at times. Is this something to do with the way Nolan films? I find whatever this is very annoying to the point that it detracts from a lot of the otherwise amazing IMAX footage.


My other complaint about the video is just the mixture of IMAX and non IMAX in general and the lack of consistency this causes in both DK and DKR. There are many jarring examples of switching from one to the other, but a great example is right in the beginning of DKR right after the plane jack scene when it switches to the scene in Gotham during the Harvy Dent event. It is like going from some of the best blu ray I have seen to DVD quality! I personally hate this technique as it is just way to inconsistent between shots and really pulls me out of the film to some degree._


This strange off beat strobing type effect I have replicated on 4 different HD players in my house (Oppo 93, Panasonic BD30, PS3 and a Toshiba A-35 HD-DVD player) and on 3 different displays (JVC RS45, Panasonic 46" plasma and a 20" tube TV) so I have completely ruled out any sort of equip issue. Not to mention I have spot checked and/or fully watched ~10 titles since and all are rock solid. What am I seeing here? This must be something to do with the way it was shot, the cameras used, etc.........










Thanks


EDIT: One other thing I thought I would mention is that I can see how this could be missed pretty easily on smaller sets. While I can see the exact same thing on all 3 of my displays, it is most obvious on my 9' wide 2.35 screen in my pitch black HT where everything good and bad with a transfer stands out more vs my 46" set in my lighted living room. Point is I can see how this could be missed and at the same time I am surprised this has not been brought up as I know there are plenty on this forum that are at least as discriminating as me if not more so.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19800_60#post_22684854
> 
> 
> Hey guys, was wondering if you could tell me what I am seeing in the Batman movies which I will cut and paste an explanation of from a post I made in the Dark Knight Rises thread here in the software forum..............I watched all 3 of these films on blu ray Fri night back to back to back and ALL 3 show this symptom at various times with BB being the worse of the 3 and most obvious.......
> 
> 
> This strange off beat strobing type effect I have replicated on 4 different HD players in my house (Oppo 93, Panasonic BD30, PS3 and a Toshiba A-35 HD-DVD player) and on 3 different displays (JVC RS45, Panasonic 46" plasma and a 20" tube TV) so I have completely ruled out any sort of equip issue. Not to mention I have spot checked and/or fully watched ~10 titles since and all are rock solid. What am I seeing here? This must be something to do with the way it was shot, the cameras used, etc.........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> EDIT: One other thing I thought I would mention is that I can see how this could be missed pretty easily on smaller sets. While I can see the exact same thing on all 3 of my displays, it is most obvious on my 9' wide 2.35 screen in my pitch black HT where everything good and bad with a transfer stands out more vs my 46" set in my lighted living room. Point is I can see how this could be missed and at the same time I am surprised this has not been brought up as I know there are plenty on this forum that are at least as discriminating as me if not more so.


I can't say that I noticed it, but it has been years since I watched _Batman Begins_ on Blu-ray. Nolan does seem to have very specific requirements when filming his movies and it's possibly a result of his direction or the particular cinematography of the Batman trilogy.

*42nd Street Forever

recommendation: Tier 4.5**


Synapse Films released this compilation of exploitation and grindhouse trailers that runs a total of 226 minutes. Thankfully the unprocessed vintage material is fitted on a BD-50 and its AVC video encode averages 23 Mbps, perfectly reproducing without error whatever resolution the transfer could extract from the trailers' sources. Print quality varies a great deal from movie to movie, though I would guess the vast majority of them are from unrestored 16mm and 35mm elements. There is not a trace of edge enhancement or filtering, so grain structure is untouched and a swath of film debris and age-related wear is visible.

BDInfo scan (courtesy of CinemaSquid's website)


----------



## tfoltz

I noticed some flicker in the IMAX shots in the previous movies, but always attributed it to the way it was filmed. I've only seen Batman Rises once, so I may notice it again in future viewings.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The World God Only Knows: Season One


recommendation: Tier 1.25**
"The game design of real life is incredibly flawed."


Natively produced animation in 1080P, the 2010 series from Japan looks mighty great in this 2-disc set of the first season. It might have deserved a bump even further up the tiers, if some infrequent banding had not shown up in a few instances on the AVC video encode. The color palette is bright and cheery as brilliant hues of red dominate the art design. Clean line-art finishes off the suite of virtues that justifies the high ranking. Gamereviewgod might like this one, the main character is obsessed with playing videogames.

* Color Of Night *

*recommendation: Tier 5.0**


One of the poorer transfers churned out by Mill Creek on Blu-ray, as the detail merely reveals a slight increase in actual resolution over a high-quality upscaled DVD. This movie was only released as a double-feature disc, sharing a sole BD-50 with _Playing God_, which happens to be from a much better HD transfer. Whatever transfer Mill Creek dug up for Color Of Night, it's positively ancient and should not have been used for a Blu-ray release.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19830#post_22684854
> 
> 
> Hey guys, was wondering if you could tell me what I am seeing in the Batman movies which I will cut and paste an explanation of from a post I made in the Dark Knight Rises thread here in the software forum..............I watched all 3 of these films on blu ray Fri night back to back to back and ALL 3 show this symptom at various times with BB being the worse of the 3 and most obvious.......
> 
> Thanks



I'll definitely check this out Toe the next time I slip in TDKR. I will probably watch this again soon, for we have company staying with us this weekend and I'm hoping they'll want to see it. Even if they don't, I'll make it a point to check out the time stamp you gave us from _Batman Begins_ (I have the HD-DVD copy).


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19830#post_22691684
> 
> 
> I'll definitely check this out Toe the next time I slip in TDKR. I will probably watch this again soon, for we have company staying with us this weekend and I'm hoping they'll want to see it. Even if they don't, I'll make it a point to check out the time stamp you gave us from _Batman Begins_ (I have the HD-DVD copy).



Sounds good, thanks!


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19830#post_22679177
> 
> *Finding Nemo*
> 
> Well, I'm finally prepared to offer a placement recommendation for one of my all-time favorites, _Finding Nemo_. I've already given enough commentary on the PQ in previous reviews, but let me just say that I longed for this title to make it into the Top Ten, but I simply can't put it there with a good conscience. Even though it has a fair amount of texture and details in some scenes (most notably the first couple of scenes when Nemo is leaving for school and then all the scenes taking place in the Sidney Harbour), there are too many deep ocean scenes where you have Dora and Marlin and a somewhat soft, blue ocean background. Yes, they look incredible against that background, but there is little detail/texture to speak of. Add to this the lack of detail and texture in many of the sea creatures and one can't assign this to a place at or near the top of Tier Blu. Make no mistake about this though....the colors and blacks are incredible, and when there are texture/details they are stupendous, so this is still a candidate for the top Tier and one that can make the Top Twenty. My vote goes for....
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (between Tangled and Avatar)**
> 
> Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment used below....



I don't know that the lack of texture is that detrimental. Having watched a bit of this in 3D at a friends house and then coming home, the depth was outstanding enough to still make it seem like the fish were popping out. I've never seen depth like this. I'll bump it a bit.

*Tier 0* (above Tangled)*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Ice Age: Continental Drift*


Awesome. Remarkable depth aided by a great contrast and then pouring detail over every frame. Amazing shots of crumbling landscapes are matched by the enormity of the close-ups with stunning fur. Definition is simply perfect. Medium or close-ups don't matter; they're all equal. I didn't find much of anything to complain about.

*Tier 0* (Above Incredibles)*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19830#post_22698155
> 
> *Ice Age: Continental Drift*
> 
> Awesome. Remarkable depth aided by a great contrast and then pouring detail over every frame. Amazing shots of crumbling landscapes are matched by the enormity of the close-ups with stunning fur. Definition is simply perfect. Medium or close-ups don't matter; they're all equal. I didn't find much of anything to complain about.
> *Tier 0* (Above Incredibles)*



I just picked this up today based on your review (and because I know my grandchildren will love it







).


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Asphyx (theatrical version)


recommendation: Tier 1.25**


One sometimes wonders why certain movies get the call to be released on Blu-ray out of the thousands that deserve it. _The Asphyx_, a 1972 horror movie that probably felt a bit dated even upon its initial release as a Gothic Victorian thriller without the edge of the Hammer oeuvre, has shockingly received a magnificent restoration from the original 35mm camera negatives by Kino Lorber / Redemption. The BD's video quality is nearly impeccable.


One of the primary reasons this Blu-ray looks incredible is the cinematography for _The Asphyx_ was handled by one Mr. Freddie Young. Rob Tomlin probably knows of him but for those unaware, Freddie Young was a three-time Academy Award winner for cinematography. His claims to fame are little-known prestige movies he worked on like _Doctor Zhivago_ and _Lawrence of Arabia_, not to mention 130 other films of varying importance. The Asphyx was a Todd-AO 35 film and they simply don't shoot movies like this anymore, if they ever did.


The theatrical version of the movie (an extended version intercuts VHS-quality material) offers up stunning clarity in the carefully lit interior sets. Kino Lorber has found pristine film elements for the theatrical cut and given them a transfer that extracts every possible pixel of resolution from the 35mm negative. Contrast is pitch-perfect, while the image is much sharper and clearer than films shot later in the decade, as a grittier and softer aesthetic started dominating Hollywood's films. It was with some restraint that I did not give this disc a higher recommended ranking.


Watching on a 60" Pioneer KURO at 1080p, from a distance of six feet.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19830#post_22684854
> 
> 
> So that is my biggest issue as far as all 3 of these films from a technical perspective. What is this exactly? To see what I am talking about, a great scene to see it with is on the Batman Begins blu ray or HD-DVD starting at the 54:38 mark through the rest of this scene in Gordans office. You should be able to see this kind of sporadic faint strobing of the picture in general, but if you look at the dark part on the right side starting at this time stamp it should be easy to see. Is this due to the type of camera used? Or maybe the technique? Again, I can see it even with the IMAX footage at times. Is this something to do with the way Nolan films? I find whatever this is very annoying to the point that it detracts from a lot of the otherwise amazing IMAX footage.



Toe,


I just got done watching the scene of Gordon and Batman in his office (on my HD DVD) and I couldn't see the *strobing* that you speak of. I watched it three times just to make sure. I thought for sure I would see it during the shot of Batman on Gordon's right side with his black ski mask covering most of the right side of the screen, but it wasn't there. I was watching from about 5' on my 60" KURO Elite. Sorry I can't help you out on this one.


Denny


----------



## lgans316

Except for few scenes, Batman Begins looks underwhelming. Partially due to Nolan's filming style and the rest due to Warner's p**s poor encoding.










TDK is a nice example of how not to apply EE on a high profile new release. I noticed moire patterns on both my tellies in the opening sequence.










TDKR is the best looking amongst the trilogy but the non-IMAX scenes are still average looking. I thought it was a bit too dark with details lost in the shadows.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Barbarella


recommendation: Tier 3.0**


A product of its era, 1968's kitschy _Barbarella_ looks merely satisfactory in this Blu-ray edition from Paramount. The transfer is filmic and reveals a moderate level of detail, as Paramount has avoided using any notable filtering or sharpening on it. Optical shots show increased grain from the extra generations of film and the focus wanders from amazingly sharp to very soft at times. The top-notch AVC video encode averages 32.00 Mbps for the 98-minute main feature. There are no immediate contrast issues and the color palette hasn't been significantly altered for modern tastes.


There are some moments when the film easily deserves Tier 2, but the inconsistent photography often degrades the picture quality. Paramount's master is free of blemishes and produces results on the Blu-ray resembling a recent scan of the film elements. Ultimately my recommendation reflects problems inherent to the movie's original production, as this disc is likely as good as _Barbarella_ will ever look at 1080P.

BDInfo scan (courtesy of CinemaSquid)


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Crew (2000)*


Muddy, edge enhanced, and damaged suit this mundane comedy. The master is ancient and noise reduction doesn't help. Colors fail to keep any sense of naturalness, while black crush ruins additional detail. The encode is suffocating too. A handful of well resolved close-ups are the only saving grace.

*Tier 4.25**


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19860#post_22711347
> 
> 
> Toe,
> 
> I just got done watching the scene of Gordon and Batman in his office (on my HD DVD) and I couldn't see the *strobing* that you speak of. I watched it three times just to make sure. I thought for sure I would see it during the shot of Batman on Gordon's right side with his black ski mask covering most of the right side of the screen, but it wasn't there. I was watching from about 5' on my 60" KURO Elite. Sorry I can't help you out on this one.
> 
> Denny



Thanks for checking Denny and reporting back.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Toe, have you seen this strobing effect on a display other than your own? It possibly sounds like something your display chain is doing to the black levels.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Dog Days*


In line with the series. Thick grain, bright colors, great contrast, and superb detail. The encode fights it out and wins. Sharpness never dips, and the simple animation when used works great.

*Tier 1.5**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Big Easy Express

recommendation: Tier 4.5**


A music documentary that follows three folk acts as they tour on a train across the South. Shot on 16mm film, the footage contains a large amount of naturalistic grain which resembles rough and unprocessed 16mm film. The concert footage is occasionally shot in an arty black-and-white style, but the other scenes are lit by sunny daylight. The AVC video encode is very strong and handles the rough material without error. This release is much more about the music itself than the visuals.

*A Nightmare On Elm Street (2010)


recommendation: 2.25*


This has already been reviewed by several people and currently resides in Tier 2.25. Once again I will agree with the consensus, as this BD is underwhelming for a big-budget 2010 release. An erratic presentation marred by a mediocre VC-1 video encode from Warner, with a contrast that crushes shadow depth.




Do you like free stuff? There are some Blu-rays like _Happy Feet Two_ and various DVD sets like _The Simpsons_ being given away in a contest for the Christmas holiday. The chances of winning look pretty high at the moment with so few entries.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19860#post_22714841
> 
> 
> Toe, have you seen this strobing effect on a display other than your own? It possibly sounds like something your display chain is doing to the black levels.



Hi Phantom,


I can replicate this on all 3 displays in my house and on 3 different blu ray players with all 3 of these movies (BB is the most distracting of the 3). I also see the same thing on my HD DVD copy. I have no idea what is going on.







I think it is just a transfer issue that I am very sensitive to, but I question that when others like Denny cant replicate the issue. I dont see this with other movies which also makes me think it is a transfer issue. Who knows....


I am getting ready in the next week or so to install a new A/V setup for a family member that will have a 65" Panasonic (thanks Denny







) plasma and I am going to see if I can see it on that.


Also, if it is some sort of calibration issue I will soon have that ironed out as I have a lumagen mini, display 3 pro and ChromaPure on the way so I can auto cal my displays.







I will revisit this title after I calibrate and see if that changes things by chance. I will report back on both tests.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Total Recall (2012)*


Definitely a winner. Superb black levels and stunning sharpness make this image leap from the frame. Digital cityscapes are breathtaking. Facial detail is available in almost every frame, and there are few signs of smoothing (mostly on Beckinsale). Color is down but still a highlight.

*Tier 1.5**


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19860#post_22725067
> 
> 
> Hi Phantom,
> 
> I can replicate this on all 3 displays in my house and on 3 different blu ray players with all 3 of these movies (BB is the most distracting of the 3). I also see the same thing on my HD DVD copy. I have no idea what is going on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is just a transfer issue that I am very sensitive to, but I question that when others like Denny cant replicate the issue. I dont see this with other movies which also makes me think it is a transfer issue. Who knows....
> 
> I am getting ready in the next week or so to install a new A/V setup for a family member that will have a 65" Panasonic (thanks Denny
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) plasma and I am going to see if I can see it on that.
> 
> Also, if it is some sort of calibration issue I will soon have that ironed out as I have a lumagen mini, display 3 pro and ChromaPure on the way so I can auto cal my displays.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will revisit this title after I calibrate and see if that changes things by chance. I will report back on both tests.



You've really aroused my curiosty now Toe, so I'm going to check this out with my Samsung LCD and Panasonic Blu-ray player. Are any of your 3 displays a plasma?


I hope all goes well with the installation of the A/V setup. I am sure they will LOVE the Panasonic. As I told you before, I had read nothing but good reviews on that whole line (and Panasonic's other models as well, I might add). It has exceptional blacks levels, colors, and contrast, and that's saying quite a bit considering the price range it's in.


----------



## djoberg

Toe,


I just watched the scene in Gordon's office twice on my Samsung LCD (using a Panasonic BD30 Blu-ray player) and I still didn't notice any flickering/strobing. I saw no artifacts or anomalies whatsoever. And again, if I was going to see it it would have been more noticeable when Batman is behind Gordon and to his right....his black ski mask and suit covers most of the right side of the screen and it looked very good, with deep, penetrating blacks. When Batman was standing behind him there were shots showing the window where it looked a bit fuzzy/hazy, but to me it was just the lighting causing that effect.


Now I'm even more curious than ever. I know you haven't gotten back to me yet regarding your 3 displays and if one of them was a plasma, but I was thinking perhaps this just doesn't show up on plasma displays. But with my LCD showing no bad effects, and with the probability that one of your 3 displays is a LCD, I'm baffled. Unless, this is a case where you are seeing things that I don't see (and I'm not talking about Dead People







)...for I still don't see ringing/halos when others see them, unless it is so pronounced that ALL can see them.


Denny


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Lawless*


Pristine digital doesn't necessarily fit the time period but it looks great on Blu. Very sharp, with excellent facial detail, nice color focus, and superb landscapes. Black levels are perfect. A bit of noise, aliasing, and flicker aside, this is one is a looker.
*Tier 1.75**


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19860#post_22727979
> 
> 
> Toe,
> 
> I just watched the scene in Gordon's office twice on my Samsung LCD (using a Panasonic BD30 Blu-ray player) and I still didn't notice any flickering/strobing. I saw no artifacts or anomalies whatsoever. And again, if I was going to see it it would have been more noticeable when Batman is behind Gordon and to his right....his black ski mask and suit covers most of the right side of the screen and it looked very good, with deep, penetrating blacks. When Batman was standing behind him there were shots showing the window where it looked a bit fuzzy/hazy, but to me it was just the lighting causing that effect.
> 
> Now I'm even more curious than ever. I know you haven't gotten back to me yet regarding your 3 displays and if one of them was a plasma, but I was thinking perhaps this just doesn't show up on plasma displays. But with my LCD showing no bad effects, and with the probability that one of your 3 displays is a LCD, I'm baffled. Unless, this is a case where you are seeing things that I don't see (and I'm not talking about Dead People
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )...for I still don't see ringing/halos when others see them, unless it is so pronounced that ALL can see them.
> 
> Denny



Actually my upstairs 46" set is a Panasonic plasma. It is 3 years old now, but I am still happy with it. I am still very curious to try this on another display (in a different house) and should be able to here pretty soon. So far I have tested it on my RS45, Panny plasma and a crappy little 20" tube tv and could see it on all 3 and with 3 different blu players (Oppo 93, Panasonic BD30 and a PS3) I had a BenQ W7000 DLP projector here up until today and I should have thought to try it on that machine as well which I did not.







I have another W7000 coming though either this week or next so I will try it out on a DLP as well just to see if it pops up there also. Who knows. This just might be something I am extremely sensitive to all of the sudden as far as transfer issues go. I noticed GRG mentioned "flicker" in his Lawless review above and this is the exact same thing I am seeing in BB, and I also noticed the flicker in Lawless which I think I mentioned, so I really think it is just a transfer issue that I have become very sensitive to all of a sudden (lucky me!







). Thanks for checking though.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Mad Monster Party


recommendation: Tier 3.5**


There is nothing overtly wrong about Lionsgate's presentation of the 1967 Rankin-Bass film. The Blu-ray's transfer has been given a fairly recent scan by the looks of things from secondary film elements, possibly even a film print as its source. That leaves a few cue marks and some minor wear-n-tear evident on the print. The AVC video encode is satisfactory for the slow-moving Animagic production. There is not a tremendous level of resolution to this material but the clarity is substantially better than the DVD's presentation.

* 6 Degrees Of Hell *


recommendation: *Tier 1.25**


A horrible movie on a shoestring budget, which just so happened to be shot quite carefully with the RED Scarlet X digital camera. Some minor inconsistencies to the overall brightness and the color timing is off in a few scenes, but generally a top-notch image. Independent filmmakers can really produce excellent picture quality now if they are judicious in the type of scenes they film and avoid CGI if possible.


----------



## djoberg

Okay, so I just tried loading _Ice Age: Continental Drift_ into my Pioneer Blu-ray player...it took forever for anything to happen, which wasn't much. It showed "20th Century Fox" and then went black. I tried reloading it three times, but to no avail. I then tried it in my Panasonic player upstairs and it worked, but it took forever to load, like 4 minutes!! (My Panny usually loads in under a minute.) I then tried again in the Pioneer allowing almost 8 minutes for it to load and then I gave up. Did you have any trouble loading your copy GRG?


So, I really don't feel like watching a Blu on the *small* screen, so I remembered that I have the new _Indiana Jones_ set so I'm about to hit play on _Raiders of the Lost Ark_. See you in a few hours!


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19860_60#post_22736032
> 
> 
> Okay, so I just tried loading _Ice Age: Continental Drift_ into my Pioneer Blu-ray player...it took forever for anything to happen, which wasn't much. It showed "20th Century Fox" and then went black. I tried reloading it three times, but to no avail. I then tried it in my Panasonic player upstairs and it worked, but it took forever to load, like 4 minutes!! (My Panny usually loads in under a minute.) I then tried again in the Pioneer allowing almost 8 minutes for it to load and then I gave up. Did you have any trouble loading your copy GRG?
> 
> 
> So, I really don't feel like watching a Blu on the *small* screen, so I remembered that I have the new _Indiana Jones_ set so I'm about to hit play on _Raiders of the Lost Ark_. See you in a few hours!


It's a new Fox Blu-ray, that is your problem. By far the most paranoid studio when it comes to changing their encryption keys on new releases, you'll likely need the absolute latest firmware for your players.

*Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter

recommendation: 2.25
*

Why didn't anyone warn me about the sheer stupidity of this movie? Stunning projection and depth to the image, nearly on par with anything in Tier 0, but some of the most erratic color grading ever seen in a major Hollywood production. The color timing will literally change within a scene, depending on the camera angle. There is something very off about the white levels, you have glowing-hot whites in the first act of the film on almost everything. It makes the fleshtones resemble porcelain dolls on occasion. Some scenes are completely filtered while others are left untouched with a high degree of high-frequency content. The lack of ringing in the transfer was very impressive. I do think it's a tad better than the current placement in Tier 3.


----------



## djoberg

*Raiders of the Lost Ark*


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19590#post_22404187
> 
> *Raiders of the Lost Ark*
> 
> Color timing has definitely been turned warm, an odd motion artifact is visible early, and some chroma noise is visible in spots, but overall, Raiders is impressive. Textural detail is high, and the source photography is maintained. That means some softness from the lens, but not enough to mar this into oblivion. Dense blacks keep a tight image, and the image is free of source damage.
> *Tier 2.25**



Well, I believe GRG nailed this one, though I could see some recommendations coming in at 2.5. The outstanding virtues from my vantage point were DETAILS and DEPTH. Simply amazing for the majority of the nearly 2 Hr. running time. The early scene in Nepal (in the bar) was by far the worst, with murky blacks, gobs of noise, and super soft. That lasted about 5-10 minutes and then it sharpened up and manifested those eye-pleasing details. There were sporadic shots of softness throughout, but overall the clarity and sharpness were demo-worthy (i.e. Tier 1 quality).

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25**


PS The audio was surprisely good for a title dating back to 1981.


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment used below....


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19860#post_22736347
> 
> 
> It's a new Fox Blu-ray, that is your problem. By far the most paranoid studio when it comes to changing their encryption keys on new releases, you'll likely need the absolute latest firmware for your players.



That's what I suspected Phantom. I love my Pioneer Elite player but the downside is its age and having to download the latest firmware on a disc (instead of having them done automatically via Wi-Fi). I'll check into this tomorrow.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19860#post_22736347
> 
> 
> *Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter
> 
> recommendation: 2.25
> *
> 
> Why didn't anyone warn me about the sheer stupidity of this movie?.



It's called Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. You needed a stupid warning?


That said, I loved it.


----------



## lgans316

*The Dark Knight Rises*


This is how TDK should have looked like. Some Non-IMAX sequences are touch too soft but I think it is due to Nolan's filming style. I have no complaints whatsoever with the IMAX scenes that runs for about 70~72 minutes except for a bit of banding that appears on the top left hand corner of the screen in the hospital shootout scene. Despite being long I couldn't find anything dragging as enough time is spent on character study and background details that is important to understanding the story. This is easily the best movie in the trilogy and amongst my top 25 movies of all time as it has some terrific and terrifying performances by both hero and the villain that we seldom get to see in superhero movies nowadays.

*Recommendation: Tier 1.5*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19860#post_22737076
> 
> *The Dark Knight Rises*
> *This is how TDK should have looked like*. Some Non-IMAX sequences are touch too soft but I think it is due to Nolan's filming style. I have no complaints whatsoever with the IMAX scenes that runs for about 70~72 minutes except for a bit of banding that appears on the top left hand corner of the screen in the hospital shootout scene. Despite being long I couldn't find anything dragging as enough time is spent on character study and background details that is important to understanding the story. This is easily the best movie in the trilogy and amongst my top 25 movies of all time as it has some terrific and terrifying performances by both hero and the villain that we seldom get to see in superhero movies nowadays.
> *Recommendation: Tier 1.5*



I agree wholeheartedly with your placement! Where we part company is with what you say in your first line. TDK looked just as good in the IMAX scenes and the non-IMAX scenes were better. I've watched TDK at least six times and as recently as this last summer, and I still believe it is worthy of at least Tier 1.0. Even some who were plagued by the ringing in TDK had lofty words of praise for it and voted for a high Tier 1 placement (I voted for Tier 0).


It's interesting that you thought this was "easily the best movie in the trilogy." I can't say that at this point, but I must confess that it has really grown on me. My first viewing was in a local cinema and I was disappointed, mainly because the villian was not nearly as effective as the Joker, and because it seemed so disjointed (kind of like three movies wrapped up into one). Since I've purchased the Blu-ray and watched it at home, I've come to really appreciate Bane's character and instead of the story being disjointed, I now see a cohesiveness that is amazing (due to the brilliancy of director Nolan).


----------



## Superman2

Best movie in the trilogy!!!



Hahahahahahahahahaha


I respectfully disagree.









IMHO


----------



## raoul_duke

I'm glad someone found some enjoyment in it.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19860_60#post_22737076
> 
> *The Dark Knight Rises*
> 
> 
> This is how TDK should have looked like. Some Non-IMAX sequences are touch too soft but I think it is due to Nolan's filming style. I have no complaints whatsoever with the IMAX scenes that runs for about 70~72 minutes except for a bit of banding that appears on the top left hand corner of the screen in the hospital shootout scene. Despite being long I couldn't find anything dragging as enough time is spent on character study and background details that is important to understanding the story. This is easily the best movie in the trilogy and amongst my top 25 movies of all time as it has some terrific and terrifying performances by both hero and the villain that we seldom get to see in superhero movies nowadays.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 1.5*


I think Nolan was too ambitious if anything, on *The Dark Knight Rises*. His trilogy of Batman films really needed another entry, to allow Bane's story more room to breathe in TDKR. We had to be introduced to Catwoman, Bane, and several other major characters in too short a timespan. If I was Warner Bros., I would make him an offer he couldn't refuse for another Batman movie.


----------



## raoul_duke

Indeed.


He should have stuck to creating a decent adventure for the character, as opposed to putting a definitive ending on to his interpretation.


As it stands, it's yet another trilogy, with a duff 3rd parter.


IMO.


----------



## wxman

The Dark Knight Rises. Not impressed with video quality at all. Tier 2.0 at best.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wxman*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19860#post_22738703
> 
> 
> The Dark Knight Rises. Not impressed with video quality at all. Tier 2.0 at best.



Not even the IMAX footage?!


----------



## Fanboyz

It's just a teal and orange mess, but it looked like that at the IMAX so what ever...


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Fanboyz*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19860#post_22739239
> 
> 
> It's just a teal and orange mess, but it looked like that at the IMAX so what ever...



Was there *some* teal and orange in the movie? Yes! Was it a teal and orange mess? No!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

The only time where I thought the color timing was a mess in TDKR, is the formal party at Wayne Manor and some interior shots. I had flashbacks to Godfather III with those scenes.


----------



## lgans316

Looks like you guys watched Prince of Persia










Orange mess - Have a look at Ocean's 13.









*This Means War*


Color grading to the max. Want Orange? You Buy 1 and get 10 for free.









*Recommendation: Tier 2*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Since it is Christmas already in some parts of the world, I will wish everyone a very merry Christmas and happy holidays!







May Santa leave you all the Blu-rays you want, hopefully from the better tiers.










Every movie or special in the Tiers list with "Christmas" in its name:


*A Christmas Carol* (2009) Tier 0

*Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale* Tier 1.25

*Mr. Magoo's Christmas Carol* Tier 1.5

*Nightmare Before Christmas, The* Tier 1.5

*White Christmas* Tier 1.75

*Four Christmases* Tier 2.5

*How The Grinch Stole Christmas!* (1966) Tier 2.5

*A Very Harold And Kumar Christmas* Tier 2.75

*A Christmas Story* Tier 4.0

*'Twas The Night Before Christmas* Tier 4.5

*A Charlie Brown Christmas* Tier 4.5

*National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation* Tier 4.5


----------



## djoberg

*Ice Age: Continental Drift*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19830#post_22698155
> 
> *Ice Age: Continental Drift*
> 
> Awesome. Remarkable depth aided by a great contrast and then pouring detail over every frame. Amazing shots of crumbling landscapes are matched by the enormity of the close-ups with stunning fur. Definition is simply perfect. Medium or close-ups don't matter; they're all equal. I didn't find much of anything to complain about.
> *Tier 0* (Above Incredibles)*



Once again GRG expressed my EXACT sentiments! I must confess though that as far placement goes, it's getting virtually impossible to make a precise placement recommendation for current animated titles. Having said that, this was definitely better than my last animated viewing (_Finding Nemo_) in that the details, texture, contrast, and sharpness were simply incredible from beginning to end. I'm not going to pick my brain for placement; I'm going to use GRG's brain instead....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (Above Incredibles)*


PS The audio was NOT impressive, especially in the LFE department.


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Denny, it does seem to be getting tougher to differentiate the discs at the very top of the list. For the CGI films I tend to prefer placing the newer ones higher on the list, as the computer animation is only getting more and more sophisticated by the year. I would say there are differences between the studios producing the animation and that is one way to narrow the placement down.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19890#post_22748051
> 
> 
> Denny, it does seem to be getting tougher to differentiate the discs at the very top of the list. For the CGI films I tend to prefer placing the newer ones higher on the list, as the computer animation is only getting more and more sophisticated by the year. I would say there are differences between the studios producing the animation and that is one way to narrow the placement down.



Good points Phantom; I concur!


To illustrate what you say about newer releases being more sophisticated, the differences between the first release of the Ice Age series and the last are really quite remarkable. There is so much more texture, detail, depth, and even better contrast and color. I was really blown away by _Ice Age: Continental Drift_. Fox Studios has come a very long way and their animation is now giving Pixar a run for their money.


----------



## djoberg

*Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19590#post_22406389
> 
> *Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom*
> 
> Weakest of the four by means of a digital coating. It's the least film-like. Edgy ridges, mild halos, and the slightest hints of aliasing are noticeable, and it effects the entire image whether those are visible or not. That said, the tremendous level of fine detail, solid black levels, and lack of drastic color timing changes means it's not all bad. It looks too good to hate.
> *Tier 2.5**



Well, our love-fest is over, for I can't agree in all points with GRG on this one. I thought this fared just as well the first installment and IMHO it was very film-like, with a consistent layer of grain from beginning to end. Having said that the grain looked, on occasion, a bit heavy (or was it noise?), especially in some of the interior scenes (most notably the opening scene in the night club and then several scenes inside the temple). It was also noticeably soft in numerous interior scenes.


Details were just as impressive with many facial close-ups rivalling those of most contemporary titles sitting in Tier 0. Details in general were just as good, whether we're talking about clothing, furniture, foliage, rocks, and, lest I forget, ELEPHANTS (you could see every hair on the top of their heads) and the texture in their leathery hides was exemplary. Colors too were really a treat when the primaries were on display. Check out the last scene when Indy returns to the village....the bright red, blue, and orange clothing worn by the villagers was dazzling!


All things considered, there were drawbacks in TOD that weren't in ROTLA, but the pluses just mentioned balanced the scales, sooooo.....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## djoberg

*Total Recall*


Sharpness and details win the day with this title, though I was put off, in measure, by the drab color palette. Some of the CGI scenes were less than stellar. Facial details were simply amazing with the exception of the two female leads (especially Kate Beckinsale). Blacks were good, but not amazing. All in all a very good transfer and one that I would put on my "demo" shelf (not "reference," mind you, but "demo"). I'm going with....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Bird with the Crystal Plumage

recommendation: Tier 3.0*
*

Argento's first giallo is lovingly presented in a very pleasing and largely filmic transfer, on Blue Underground's sadly out-of-print Blu-ray. The 1970 film's transfer is bestowed a high-bitrate video encode in AVC, from what appears to be film elements in very solid shape that have been given an excellent scan. Brief bouts of ringing and possible DNR in one or two scenes do not take away from the overall quality on display. A rich color palette highlights the deep reds and lush greens of the Italian production. Clearly the best extant version of Argento's shocker for picture quality. In earlier times I might have recommended this disc for a place in tier two, but I am not sure it really qualifies anymore as we near 2013.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinemasquid):
http://www.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray/movies/releases/the-bird-with-the-crystal-plumage/4b06882e-e87b-4d1d-b0da-6ece5e44d1b2#specs


----------



## djoberg

*Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19590#post_22408914
> 
> *Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade*
> 
> While suffering from the same issues as Temple, including the sharpening, it's not as impactful on the overall imagery. Exteriors are clean and natural as opposed to a bunch of digital fuzz. Tight photography is beneficial to the piece with remarkable fine detail. Color has a balance that feels '80s vintage yet impressive.
> *2.25**





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19620#post_22447872
> 
> *Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade*
> 
> Really spectacular. Easily the best of the first 3 movies in the set, and probably the best movie of 1989 vintage that i can think of on the format. Facial closeups (of which there are a plethora) are superb, with great cloth and background texture detail. depth of field is apparent in many scenes. Film grain is very light but stable. No obtrusive filtering, EE, or DNR seems evident. There is no doubt that you're watching top tier HD at basically any point during the runtime, and the optical shots look nowhere near as bad as the previous two movies. I was wowed by this transfer from start to finish.
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.5*
> 
> Sony KDL52EX700, 7 foot viewing distance, Panasonic DMP-BD65 player



To a point I can agree with GRG (regarding *some* sharpening), yet I agree much more with mweflen in the observations that he highlighted. This was most definitely the best of the trilogy (I don't even care to mention, at this point, the debacle that came our way in 2008). This outing was much more sharp (with the exception of some fleeting softness in the library and then in the last scene where they obtained the holy cup), with amazing clarity and details. You would think you're watching a contemporay release, including the remarkable facial details. Black levels were also a notch above the two previous releases. I was VERY PLEASED throughout and highly recommend this to all PQ lovers.


Let me add that the AQ were also superb, with enveloping action in the surrounds and some fairly good low to midbass in the LFE department.


I thought this was so much better than the first two that I was going to recommend 1.75, but I'm feeling generous tonight so I'll join my colleague and give it a....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below...


----------



## hernanu

*Midnight In Paris*


Just got around to this after seeing it on cable, decided to get it on bluray. The movie moves from the present in Paris to the past (1920's Paris) and even back to 1870's Paris. The modern times PQ is very good, the scenes of Paris both day and night are striking and detailed. The scenes back in time are more hazy, but still have plenty of good definition. All of the older scenes are at night (hence the title) and mostly indoors. The palette is tinted with yellow throughout, I think more pronounced in the scenes in the past (purposely, I believe) - especially the 1870's.


No signs of any processing, just a clear presentation of the movie, again - a lot of use of indoor light, with plenty of candles, 1920's lighting, etc. I thought the modern scenes, especially outdoors were about 1.75, but the older scenes were not as sharp, using a lot of indoor lighting and more of a gauzy effect to evoke a mood, they seem to me at about 3.0 if you look at sharpness of the scene.


Soo...

*Tier Recommendation 2.25*


I know the math doesn't work out, but there it is. I thought it was a great looking movie. With a very good 3.0 audio track that focused on dialogue, it was actually very enjoyable.


Viewed at 9' using a Vizio 47" LED screen, Pioneer Elite VSX-33 receiver, Energy RC-LCR, RC-50's, RC-10's side, RC-mini backs, 2 Energy S10.3 subs, Oppo BDP-83 bluray player.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

As 2012 nears its end, I would like to thank everyone here that continues to spend the time to give their reviews and opinions which constitute the Blu-ray Picture Quality Tiers. Without new recommendations, the list would quickly become a relic of the past. I recently realized as the universe of available Blu-ray selections increases beyond the scope of a single person to keep up with, that fewer and fewer discs will get multiple votes beyond the extremely popular catalog classics and the hottest new releases.


Have a happy New Year!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19890#post_22766586
> 
> 
> As 2012 nears its end, I would like to thank everyone here that continues to spend the time to give their reviews and opinions which constitute the Blu-ray Picture Quality Tiers. Without new recommendations, the list would quickly become a relic of the past. I recently realized as the universe of available Blu-ray selections increases beyond the scope of a single person to keep up with, that fewer and fewer discs will get multiple votes beyond the extremely popular catalog classics and the hottest new releases.
> 
> Have a happy New Year!



I want to thank you again Phantom for all the time and energy invested in making this thread possible in 2012 and I trust you'll carry on the good work in the year to come. I also echo your wish to everyone, "Have a Happy New Year."


My wife and I just received the Blu-ray _Newsies_, one that we watched multiple times with our daughters when they were quite young. Christian Bale was only about 17 years hold in this movie but his acting was spot on and I knew he would rise to higher heights after that role. I had no idea though that his "RISE to higher heights" would be as the Dark Knight







. We may watch it tonight as we see the old year out.


----------



## djoberg

*Newsies*


Well, my wife and I took a trip down memory lane tonight by watching this...we must have watched this at least a half dozen times with our five daughters when they were really young and being we couldn't be with them tonight we thought we'd watch one of their favorite *musicals*.


By today's standards this Blu doesn't fare too well. It's quite soft in a majority of scenes with heavy grain sprinkled in occasionally. Add to that some murky blacks in a few night time scenes and a drab color palette and it's not exactly eye candy. But compared to its VHS and DVD release (which were deplorable), it's a looker, so I'm a happy camper. It had its moments where there was appreciable depth and some nice details (especially in clothing), and towards the end there were even some shots you could call sharp. Being a definite improvement over the DVD, I'm inclined to nominate it for....

*Tier Recommendation: 3.5**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## lgans316

Wishing everyone a Very Happy and Prosperous 2013.


----------



## Hughmc

Happy New Year!....



Thanks Phantom and all who keep this thread going.


Hugh


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19860_60#post_22766708
> 
> 
> I want to thank you again Phantom for all the time and energy invested in making this thread possible in 2012 and I trust you'll carry on the good work in the year to come.
> 
> My wife and I just received the Blu-ray _Newsies_, one that we watched multiple times with our daughters when they were quite young.


There is no need to thank me, we are all part of the same team.







No one ever truly knows what the future will bring, but no one should worry about me suddenly orphaning the PQ Tiers in 2013. I remain as committed as ever to keeping it up and going for the present moment.


It's funny you bring up _Newsies_, a film I have unfortunately seen one too many times. A former girlfriend, years past, believed it was the greatest thing ever committed to celluloid...


*Being John Malkovich

recommendation: Tier 2.5**


Criterion licensed this movie from Universal and released it in May of 2012. Originally made before the era of digital workflows took over in Hollywood, it looks satisfactory in 1080P. Some soft photography and a flat color palette dominate a sizable portion of the running time, preventing a much higher placement. The cramped cinematography lends some purpose to the film itself but does nothing for the picture quality ranking.


The transfer is a solid effort for a property from Universal's library, with only a few hints of ringing early in the film that stuck out in any way. Criterion has bestowed upon the AVC video encode a very generous bitrate, which leads to an artifact-free presentation of the stable and clean film print. If someone put forth a score for a slightly lower placement, you would get no argument.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Branded*


One of the most incomprehensible movies ever released theatrically is erratic looking on Blu-ray. Weird color timing choices, wiped out blue contrast, pale flesh tones, off and on detail, compression problems, 4x3 framing. Ugh. Points for the definition at times, that's looking for something positive.

*Tier 3.5**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Now that is 2012 is over, anyone have a best-of list for the year on Blu-ray? I would guess that the transfer for _Lawrence of Arabia_ would be high on everyone's list.


----------



## hernanu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19890#post_22778217
> 
> 
> Now that is 2012 is over, anyone have a best-of list for the year on Blu-ray? I would guess that the transfer for _Lawrence of Arabia_ would be high on everyone's list.



In PQ order (IMO):


Madagascar 3

Lawrence of Arabia

The Amazing Spiderman.

Patton (remastered) - or Fox makes amends.

The Avengers

Samurai Trilogy - Typically great Criterion effort - the best that could be done with the material is still excellent.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hernanu*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19860_60#post_22778616
> 
> 
> In PQ order (IMO):
> 
> 
> Madagascar 3
> 
> Lawrence of Arabia
> 
> The Amazing Spiderman.
> 
> Patton (remastered) - or Fox makes amends.
> 
> The Avengers
> 
> Samurai Trilogy - Typically great Criterion effort - the best that could be done with the material is still excellent.


I had mostly forgotten about the new transfer and disc for _Patton_, that is a good choice. I don't remember if anyone has ranked it yet or not. Pixar's releases are always solid candidates, such as _Brave_ and _Finding Nemo_.


----------



## hernanu

Yeah, waiting for a good transfer for that and Gladiator was worth it. The Samurai Trilogy was a treat, had caught it at several Artsy Theaters with horrible projection quality and very old speakers.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Looper*


Slightly out of focus at times, but always clean, bright, and easy to watch. Detail can soar, and definition is crisp. Color palette is a bit dry for a high ranking, although a handful of hues will bring this one out significantly.
*Tier 1.75**


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hernanu*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19890#post_22778616
> 
> 
> In PQ order (IMO):
> 
> Madagascar 3
> 
> Lawrence of Arabia
> 
> The Amazing Spiderman.
> 
> Patton (remastered) - or Fox makes amends.
> 
> The Avengers
> 
> Samurai Trilogy - Typically great Criterion effort - the best that could be done with the material is still excellent.



I would agree with your first three picks and _The Avengers_. I haven't seen the others but I'm elated that they remastered _Patton_; I'll have to check that out.


I would add to the list:


Finding Nemo

Chariots of Fire

The Dark Knight Rises (this may not be the best movie, but it had exceptional PQ in the IMAX scenes and the audio rocked)


----------



## hernanu

There is a significant difference with Patton vs. the first release. All of the blurriness is gone, great battle and outdoor scenes. Even the indoor scenes shine.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hernanu*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19890#post_22781958
> 
> 
> There is a significant difference with Patton vs. the first release. All of the blurriness is gone, great battle and outdoor scenes. Even the indoor scenes shine.



I saw snippets of the first release and the DNR was horrendous. I'm not usually that sensitive to DNR post-processing, but it was so bad that George C. Scott's face looked like a wax museum figure. So, I'm assuming you can now see details (wrinkles, pores, etc.) in his face, right?


BTW, where did you buy your copy? I ask this because on Amazon some are warning people to make sure they are ordering the remastered version; it sounds like some sites may be calling it the remastered version when it's not.


----------



## hernanu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19890#post_22782543
> 
> 
> I saw snippets of the first release and the DNR was horrendous. I'm not usually that sensitive to DNR post-processing, but it was so bad that George C. Scott's face looked like a wax museum figure. So, I'm assuming you can now see details (wrinkles, pores, etc.) in his face, right?
> 
> BTW, where did you buy your copy? I ask this because on Amazon some are warning people to make sure they are ordering the remastered version; it sounds like some sites may be calling it the remastered version when it's not.



I got it from Amazon. Thanks to the Patton thread here, I was able to pick out the right version to order, since both are for sale at Amazon, and it's easy to get the wrong one.


The right one has a Nov. 6, 2012 release date and has this cover:

 


The wrong one has a June 3, 2008 release date and has this cover:

 


Like I said, it's easy to order the wrong one if you're not aware of this. Yes, you do see good details. The beginning scene is really good.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hernanu*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19890#post_22782672
> 
> 
> I got it from Amazon. Thanks to the Patton thread here, I was able to pick out the right version to order, since both are for sale at Amazon, and it's easy to get the wrong one.
> 
> The right one has a Nov. 6, 2012 release date and has this cover:
> 
> 
> The wrong one has a June 3, 2008 release date and has this cover:
> 
> 
> Like I said, it's easy to order the wrong one if you're not aware of this. Yes, you do see good details. The beginning scene is really good.



Thanks hernanu....I appreciate it!


----------



## djoberg

Amazon has the new Remastered _Patton_ at an amazingly low price. I ordered it thru Amazon Prime and it will be here Monday.


----------



## chadsdsmith




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19890#post_22781865
> 
> 
> I would agree with your first three picks and _The Avengers_. I haven't seen the others but I'm elated that they remastered _Patton_; I'll have to check that out.
> 
> I would add to the list:
> 
> Finding Nemo
> 
> Chariots of Fire
> 
> The Dark Knight Rises (this may not be the best movie, but it had exceptional PQ in the IMAX scenes and the audio rocked)




I thought that The Lorax was more impressive than nemo, from an overall wow factor cgi movie, but I like these choices.


----------



## WRX_Rocky




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hernanu*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19890#post_22782672
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19890#post_22782543
> 
> 
> I saw snippets of the first release and the DNR was horrendous. I'm not usually that sensitive to DNR post-processing, but it was so bad that George C. Scott's face looked like a wax museum figure. So, I'm assuming you can now see details (wrinkles, pores, etc.) in his face, right?
> 
> BTW, where did you buy your copy? I ask this because on Amazon some are warning people to make sure they are ordering the remastered version; it sounds like some sites may be calling it the remastered version when it's not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I got it from Amazon. Thanks to the Patton thread here, I was able to pick out the right version to order, since both are for sale at Amazon, and it's easy to get the wrong one.
> 
> 
> The right one has a Nov. 6, 2012 release date and has this cover:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The wrong one has a June 3, 2008 release date and has this cover:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, it's easy to order the wrong one if you're not aware of this. Yes, you do see good details. The beginning scene is really good.
Click to expand...


Would've been nice, if they offered a swap, or upgrade to those of us who bought the older one! I remember one studio did that some time ago with another movie. I think it was Fifth Element? You just needed to send in your original disc (only), and they sent you the newer one back. All you paid was the postage to send your disc to them. Would be a nice gesture, and great PR!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WRX_Rocky*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19920#post_22786386
> 
> 
> Would've been nice, if they offered a swap, or upgrade to those of us who bought the older one! I remember one studio did that some time ago with another movie. I think it was Fifth Element? You just needed to send in your original disc (only), and they sent you the newer one back. All you paid was the postage to send your disc to them. Would be a nice gesture, and great PR!



I agree! Thankfully I never bought the first release of this title. If memory serves me, I did buy the first release of _Gladiator_ and then the Remastered version and I believe it was a swap.


----------



## moviewatcher123

Was thinking of getting 'The Grey' on Blu ray cus I wasn't happy with the quality on the DVD version, any idea of the PQ and if its worth a look?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *moviewatcher123*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19920#post_22790937
> 
> 
> Was thinking of getting 'The Grey' on Blu ray cus I wasn't happy with the quality on the DVD version, any idea of the PQ and if its worth a look?



I'm not sure you'd be much happier with the Blu-ray, for the color palette is drab and there's a lot of heavy GRAIN throughout. Here's the review I wrote on it:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19380#post_22039892


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Chronicle


recommendation: Tier 2.25*


This movie has actually received several scores and is currently ranked in Tier 2.5. A pleasing image that does nothing outstanding except for a small handful of moments in the great outdoors. The first-person perspective of the first act wobbles and shakes a little too much for my tastes, but only the doctored footage really looks terrible. A hint of ringing in some of the FX and a possible dose of DNR are noticeable in a few spots.


----------



## djoberg

*Men in Black 3*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19740#post_22554376
> 
> 
> Thanks Phantom. I hope the folks based in NY/NJ are alright.
> *Men in Black 3*
> 
> A great looking disc that excels in color reproduction and sharpness. Contrast runs slightly hot but black level is mostly kept in check. The daylight scenes are well detailed with a nice sense of depth and 3D-pop. Having said that, some dark scenes prior to the time travel looks a bit flat and dull.
> *Recommendation: Tier 1.5*





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19800#post_22655751
> 
> *Men in Black 3*
> 
> Wowzers. A stunner for sure with an instantly pleasing contrast, superior color, and sharpness that hits the top tiers and doesn't come down. No compression issues here, and the super limited grain structure is barely notable. This one survives on thick texture and consistent detail. The color is remarkable too. Shots of the carnival or the rocket launch are just brilliant.
> *Tier 0.25**



This was "a stunner for sure!!" I LOVED the colors, contrast, blacks, details, depth and inky blacks. If not for a few scenes early on this would have easily fallen into Tier Blu. I'm still tempted to drop this into the bottom of Tier 0, but I believe I'll split the difference between the two placements above and put it right here....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**


PS The audio was superb!


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## djoberg

*The Bourne Legacy*


Another very impressive viewing! I especially love the DETAILS...facial and otherwise. CONTRAST was also strong, with excellent BLACKS and dazzling WHITES. COLORS were also eye candy when primaries were on display. This had decent SHARPNESS, CLARITY and DEPTH from beginning to end. There may have been a few fleeting moments of softness, but they were so rare I shouldn't even mention them. One more thing...very FILM-LIKE with a nice layer of grain. I believe this is just as good as my previous review, so logic dictates I give it the same score....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**


Well, it's TRIPLE FEATURE NIGHT, so I'm slipping in _Lawless_ next!


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19920_60#post_22803519
> 
> 
> Well, it's TRIPLE FEATURE NIGHT, so I'm slipping in _Lawless_ next!


You are on a roll, keep it up. I would imagine three reviews in one day might be a record of some kind for the thread, if we discount the long laundry lists that some have posted.

*Tosh.0: Deep V's* 

*recommendation: Tier 1.75**


A staple on Comedy Central, the BD for _Tosh.0_ looks taken directly from the 1080i broadcast master. There are no surprises if you have watched it on cable in HD, Paramount has given the studio segments and whatever YouTube clips the show digs up, the best treatment possible. The Internet clips are rarely better than standard-definition video, but the pristine studio skits and interviews shot in digital HD partially make up for them.


----------



## djoberg

*Lawless*


WOW!! I can't remember the last time I saw three demo-worthy Blus back-to-back, so this has been quite the night! Without resorting to hyperbole, I can honestly say that if I were to judge this title solely on the daytime, outdoor scenes, with the lush cinematography that was sharp as a tack and as detailed as I've ever seen, I would be nominating this for top honors in Tier Blu...right up there with _The Thin Red Line_. But there were some dark interior scenes, along with a few outdoor nighttime shots, that fell a wee bit flat with less-than-stellar blacks (though the majority of the nighttime scenes were amazing, with exquisite shadow details).


Like the last viewing, when the primary colors were on display they were a sight to behold. Facial details were either reference or demo throughout. Flesh tones were spot on. Need I go on? I think GRG used the word "pristine" in his review of this movie and I concur. Again, I'm really tempted to assign this to low Tier 0, but I'm getting more and more jaded as time goes on so I'm going to settle for....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19920#post_22803570
> 
> 
> You are on a roll, keep it up. I would imagine three reviews in one day might be a record of some kind for the thread, if we discount the long laundry lists that some have posted.



Actually Phantom, I recall a couple of *marathons* where I viewed 4 or 5 titles in one day (with reviews). Like the old adage goes, "When the cat's away, the mice do play," which, being interpreted, means, "when my wife's away, I get to play (multiple Blu-rays)." She's visiting some of our daughters in the Twin Cities as I type, so I'm taking advantage. And this includes listening at reference levels too, which is quite the treat!


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Jazz Singer (1927)*


For being 85 years old, the high points are spectacular. A lot of it is comprised of a lesser film stock, patching scenes in to complete the film. That's a shame, but at its peak, the great contrast, super gray scale, resolved grain, and more make this a winner from Warner. Maybe not for purposes here, but if you're a fan, this one scores.

*Tier 4.5**


----------



## djoberg

*Brave*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19770#post_22587472
> 
> *Brave*
> 
> Pixar's latest won't win any of the super top tiers based on its darkness and general warmth due to candlelight, but it does have some superb properties. Red hair is stunning on Brave, and greens prove striking. Grass and hair looks incredibly sharp. Characters don't have the eye-popping texture to their skin, although their clothing is impressive.
> *Tier .75**



Well, it's look like I'm back to agreeing with GRG....I can't argue with anything he said. I will add that in a few of the darker scenes the bars on my Pioneer appeared to be a very dark gray compared to my bezel, so I was disappointed in those instances. Generally though the blacks were very good with some exceptional shadow details in some scenes. What had me scratching my head was why Pixar chose to give several of their characters a bit of texture and leave the majority with the smooth look. I want to add that if this were an audio thread I'd put this near the very top of Tier 0, but it's a PQ thread so I'm siding with GRG on his placement too...

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (closer to the bottom than the top)*


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Dredd*

Super ugly mess of noise, over active color, banding, and more noise. Sure detail is high, but it can't compensate for the low quality, gritty look everywhere else. Black levels are on the low end, spiraling into blues and purple based on the color timing. Contrast can be intense and bleach the image in spots.

*Tier 3.0**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

 *The Possession* 

*recommendation: Tier 1.5**


Lionsgate's newest horror movie acquits itself very nicely for picture quality, if one can overlook some harsh ringing in select scenes. While it has a touch more color than many other modern horror films, it still favors a limited palette. The nearly perfect clarity helps reveal a high level of actual detail in close-ups.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19920#post_22818649
> 
> *The Possession*
> 
> *recommendation: Tier 1.5**
> 
> 
> Lionsgate's newest horror movie acquits itself very nicely for picture quality, if one can overlook some harsh ringing in select scenes. While it has a touch more color than many other modern horror films, it still favors a limited palette. The nearly perfect clarity helps reveal a high level of actual detail in close-ups.



How was the movie? I'm a sucker for this genre, but I've been disappointed (too) many times.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19920_60#post_22821638
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19920#post_22818649
> 
> *The Possession*
> 
> *recommendation: Tier 1.5**
> 
> 
> Lionsgate's newest horror movie acquits itself very nicely for picture quality, if one can overlook some harsh ringing in select scenes. While it has a touch more color than many other modern horror films, it still favors a limited palette. The nearly perfect clarity helps reveal a high level of actual detail in close-ups.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How was the movie? I'm a sucker for this genre, but I've been disappointed (too) many times.
Click to expand...

You might have missed my complete review of the movie, which is only a click away.







Genre fans will definitely find it worth giving the movie a chance, it takes the basic concept of _The Exorcist_ but substitutes Judaism for Catholicism. The only other caveat is that like all other PG-13 horror films released today, the intended target audience is clearly teenage girls. But it's a very polished Hollywood production that is a cut above the standard tripe of today.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19920#post_22821681
> 
> 
> You might have missed my complete review of the movie, which is only a click away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Genre fans will definitely find it worth giving the movie a chance, it takes the basic concept of _The Exorcist_ but substitutes Judaism for Catholicism. The only other caveat is that like all other PG-13 horror films released today, the intended target audience is clearly teenage girls. But it's a very polished Hollywood production that is a cut above the standard tripe of today.



I read the whole review Phantom and I'll definitely be giving this one a rent!


----------



## tenia54

I allow myself to re post here this question :


I'm doing scans for reviews I post on French forums, but convert myself the average video bitrate from kbps to Mbps. However, I have a doubt right now : should I divide the xx kbps by 1000 or 1024 to get the xx Mpbs bitrate ? I'm used to divide by 1024, but am suddenly not sure anymore.


----------



## tenia54




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19830#post_22666524
> 
> 
> I hope to watch this either tonight or on Friday. I'll be satisfied if this is "demo-worthy" (i.e. Tier 1) and has the excellent overall audio quality that I've been reading about.



I would have to disagree on this one. As said by GRG, the 35mm are shockingly soft, with the cinematography giving crushed blacks absorbing the details.

As for the sound, the design is such that the sub is over-used, completely ruining any balance in the mix, and forcing me to reduce my LFE in order not to be annoyed by all this rumble. It is over agressive, and overall messy, in opposition of a very agressive but impressive track as Tron Legacy.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tenia54*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19920#post_22822723
> 
> 
> I would have to disagree on this one. As said by GRG, the 35mm are shockingly soft, with the cinematography giving crushed blacks absorbing the details.
> 
> As for the sound, the design is such that the sub is over-used, completely ruining any balance in the mix, and forcing me to reduce my LFE in order not to be annoyed by all this rumble. It is over agressive, and overall messy, in opposition of a very agressive but impressive track as Tron Legacy.



We'll have to "agree to disagree," for not all the 35mm footage was soft (in fact, the majority was quite good) and on my system the audio was very impressive, including the LFE.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19860_60#post_22781520
> 
> *Looper*
> 
> 
> Slightly out of focus at times, but always clean, bright, and easy to watch. Detail can soar, and definition is crisp. Color palette is a bit dry for a high ranking, although a handful of hues will bring this one out significantly.
> *Tier 1.75**


*Looper


recommendation: Tier 1.75**


Sony has given _Looper_ a largely unprocessed transfer that doesn't appear to have been heavily tinkered with in post-production, though I do feel it has somewhat middling cinematography for a big-time, new release starring Bruce Willis. The transfer is largely cinematic and I agree with Gamereviewgod's points, but I still feel I am being generous with its placement in Tier One.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19860_60#post_22786101
> 
> 
> Amazon has the new Remastered _Patton_ at an amazingly low price. I ordered it thru Amazon Prime and it will be here Monday.


I finally ordered this new version, so I can see for myself the improvement from the prior edition.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tenia54*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19920_60#post_22822719
> 
> 
> I allow myself to re post here this question :
> 
> 
> I'm doing scans for reviews I post on French forums, but convert myself the average video bitrate from kbps to Mbps. However, I have a doubt right now : should I divide the xx kbps by 1000 or 1024 to get the xx Mpbs bitrate ? I'm used to divide by 1024, but am suddenly not sure anymore.


I believe you divide by 1024 to get the correct rate. Contacting forum member CinemaSquid directly would probably get you the surest answer.


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19920#post_22824273
> 
> 
> I believe you divide by 1024 to get the correct rate. Contacting forum member CinemaSquid directly would probably get you the surest answer.



Bit and bytes are definitely confusing issues, but conveniently for bits they are supposed be treated to normal metric rules - i.e. 1 megabit / Mbps = 1,000 kilobits / kbps = 1,000,000 bits / bps.


Way easier on the brain since you can just slide the decimal point around when comparing Mbps and kbps.


----------



## jrnewquist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19920#post_22825173
> 
> 
> Bit and bytes are definitely confusing issues, but conveniently for bits they are supposed be treated to normal metric rules - i.e. 1 megabit / Mbps = 1,000 kilobits / kbps = 1,000,000 bits / bps.
> 
> 
> Way easier on the brain since you can just slide the decimal point around when comparing Mbps and kbps.



This is not true of most professionals, who observe the decimal and binary power distinction, and almost always use the binary values.


----------



## hernanu

Nomenclature is a problem here. 1 Kbit is 1024 bits, so 1000 bits is not 1 kbit.


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jrnewquist*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19920#post_22825601
> 
> 
> This is not true of most professionals, who observe the decimal and binary power distinction, and almost always use the binary values.



I think I probably confused the issue by choosing my words poorly, since you are correct and bits for storage and capacity measurement do typically use binary power. For bit *rate*, however, it is traditional in telecommunications to use decimal power for specifying transmission speeds and bandwidth in bits per second, so:


1 Mbps = 1,000 kbps = 1,000,000 bps


I was under the impression that this also holds for media encoding bit rate measurements, but I could be wrong. Apologies for the derail...


----------



## Gamereviewgod

Gamera the Brave


Older, softer master that does not impress even with splashes of detail. Definition isn't there, and IRE levels are off as is common with Japanese imports. Still, some winning moments and the warmer color palette makes the visuals inviting with or without the detail.

*Tier 2.75**


----------



## tenia54

Thank you all for your answers for bitrate calculation !


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*In Time


recommendation: Tier 0 (around Real Steel)*


If _In Time_ doesn't qualify for the top tier, few films should ever qualify for it. A beautiful transfer that is totally free of filtering or sharpening, the crystal-clear picture quality is impeccable. I could run through the check list of areas where the video can fail on Blu-ray, but this disc passes every test with perfect color rendition and stunning photography. The consistently excellent depth graces the image with pop and clarity, producing one of the best-looking releases I've seen in a while. There are simply no criticisms that can be seriously leveled against this Blu-ray's picture quality from Fox. Now the movie itself, that might be a different matter...


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19920#post_22834915
> 
> *In Time
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 0 (around Real Steel)*
> 
> 
> If _In Time_ doesn't qualify for the top tier, few films should ever qualify for it. A beautiful transfer that is totally free of filtering or sharpening, the crystal-clear picture quality is impeccable. I could run through the check list of areas where the video can fail on Blu-ray, but this disc passes every test with perfect color rendition and stunning photography. The consistently excellent depth graces the image with pop and clarity, producing one of the best-looking releases I've seen in a while. There are simply no criticisms that can be seriously leveled against this Blu-ray's picture quality from Fox. Now the movie itself, that might be a different matter...



I know I've seen this and reviewed it (back when it first came out), so your review prompted me to do a Search to see what my impressions were. But the Search came up empty (as at other times). Your glowing praise has me wanting to rent it again, though I do remember the movie itself was, as you intimated, less-than-stellar, so perhaps I'll pass. Any ideas as to why nothing came up on the Search?


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Won't Back Down*


Murky with a thick grain structure... at the start. As things improve in the film, saturation jumps in. It's late when that happens. Detail is jumpy, but imagery is always sharp. Black crush is a dominating problem.
*Tier 2.0**


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19920_60#post_22835514
> 
> 
> I know I've seen this and reviewed it (back when it first came out), so your review prompted me to do a Search to see what my impressions were. But the Search came up empty (as at other times). Your glowing praise has me wanting to rent it again, though I do remember the movie itself was, as you intimated, less-than-stellar, so perhaps I'll pass. Any ideas as to why nothing came up on the Search?


Your inquiry prompted me to go back into the private records I have for the Tiers. Here is the current tally for _In Time_:


Gamereviewgod 2.0

djoberg 1.25

lgans316 1.75


Many search engines have a problem limiting returns when you use two-letter words, which is why I didn't even bother searching this thread for the recommendations. To pull up your review, you might try some combination of your name and "time." The disc's video quality holds up upon close inspection. It's easier to pay attention to those things when the plot holes start mounting.


----------



## jrnewquist

A little Google finessing, and I found djoberg's original review: http://www.avsforum.com/t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19110#post_21666212


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jrnewquist*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19950#post_22837295
> 
> 
> A little Google finessing, and I found djoberg's original review: http://www.avsforum.com/t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19110#post_21666212



Thank you kind Sir!


I see that I had two complaints (though most of what I said was praiseworthy):


1) Some overblown whites in shots with spiked contrast.


2) Dominating ORANGE and BLUE hues, at times.


----------



## Sheriff Woody

Why in the blue blazes is Days of Heaven in the Bronze category? That movie looks outstanding! The close-ups, in particular, are filled with such detail, they look as if they were shot 2 hours ago, not 35 years.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sheriff Woody*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19920_60#post_22839959
> 
> 
> Why in the blue blazes is Days of Heaven in the Bronze category? That movie looks outstanding! The close-ups, in particular, are filled with such detail, they look as if they were shot 2 hours ago, not 35 years.


Tier 3 does seem low for one of Terrence Malick's seminal works on face value. I can't really comment on the merits of the ranking, as I do not own the Criterion Blu-ray. If you've seen the disc and disagree, feel free to put forward your ranking. There are three current scores which led to its current spot, all from regular contributors.


mweflen Tier 2.75

deltasun 3.5

OldCodger73 2.75


Another Tier 2 score from someone else would definitely push _Days Of Heaven_ into that tier.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Taken 2*


ABUSIVE orange and teal. Anyone who doubts the sheer ugliness of the color combo can look at Taken 2. Facial detail comes and goes but reaches some nice peaks. Black levels are solid, and contrast is thick. A nice encode mostly keeps up. Sharpness, especially of cities and such, is quite remarkable. A winner were it not for the putrid color timing.

*Tier 1.75**


----------



## Greg_R_STL




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19950#post_22841172
> 
> 
> ABUSIVE orange and teal. Anyone who doubts the sheer ugliness of the color combo can look at Taken 2. Facial detail comes and goes but reaches some nice peaks. Black levels are solid, and contrast is thick. A nice encode mostly keeps up. Sharpness, especially of cities and such, is quite remarkable. A winner were it not for the putrid color timing.



Goin' down to teal town: http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Taken-2-Blu-ray/48670/#Screenshots


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Silent Night


recommendation: Tier 2.25**


One of the poorer new releases shot on the high-end RED EPIC digital camera, _Silent Night's_ stunning definition and sharpness is marred by a couple of significant problems. The AVC video encode averages 21.93 Mbps, but it's evident no one closely checked if there were visible artifacts. One of the movie's most critical moments near its conclusion is bathed in macroblocking, one of the most horrific compression problems seen since the days when low-bitrate VC-1 encodes were common on BD. Another major area of concern is the digital color-timing. The first half of the film has had its palette drained of the brighter colors, leaving a stark blue tint during what is supposed to be daylight. It negatively impacts flesh-tones but more noticeably it turns the well-known Santa suit, a central motif in the movie, into a very darkish red that looks awful. I have to call into question the skills of the digital colorist on this movie. Low-light interiors have little shadow delineation, though I wouldn't necessarily call the black levels crushed.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of CinemaSquid):

http://www.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray/movies/releases/silent-night/9b7cf594-26fd-4658-9cd4-fd26feee8aaf#specs


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Crime Story (1993)*


Jackie Chan feature that ranks down there with some of the lowest resolution source material I've ever see on Blu-ray. Short of some passable (barely) close-ups, there is nothing here to recommend. Medium shots almost always look like this:

 


And, that's without much in the way of visible sharpening. Know what's worse? The co-feature I peeked at (The Protector) is miles lower on the quality scale.
*Tier 4.5**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Watch*


Really lacking in the super fine detail, but solid everywhere else. Colors are super hot, and exteriors and such are stunning. Black levels die out a bit when needed most, but it's minor. Great sharpness overall, with a clean digital appearance.

*Tier 2.0**


----------



## djoberg

I just have to "whet your appetite" for the newly released _Samsara_:

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/57267/samsara/ 


Reviewers are saying the producers of _Baraka_ have outdone themselves this time, so I am pumped to see this. DVDtalk has some excellent pics for you to feast your eyes upon. My copy from Amazon comes tomorrow...YES!!


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19950#post_22864936
> 
> 
> I just have to "whet your appetite" for the newly released _Samsara_:
> 
> http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/57267/samsara/
> 
> 
> Reviewers are saying the producers of _Baraka_ have outdone themselves this time, so I am pumped to see this. DVDtalk has some excellent pics for you to feast your eyes upon. My copy from Amazon comes tomorrow...YES!!



This one blew me away the other night. It might be the best I have ever seen my RS45 look.







Curious what you guys think of it though.


----------



## Sheriff Woody




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19950#post_22840092
> 
> 
> Tier 3 does seem low for one of Terrence Malick's seminal works on face value. I can't really comment on the merits of the ranking, as I do not own the Criterion Blu-ray. If you've seen the disc and disagree, feel free to put forward your ranking. There are three current scores which led to its current spot, all from regular contributors.
> 
> 
> mweflen Tier 2.75
> 
> deltasun 3.5
> 
> OldCodger73 2.75
> 
> 
> Another Tier 2 score from someone else would definitely push _Days Of Heaven_ into that tier.



Cool. Thanks for the info. I was never certain how the films were rated and ranked. Perhaps I will review a few after I get my new TV this weekend (after a proper calibration, of course).


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Protector (1985)*


Second only to another Jackie Chan outing (Project A 2), so Protector becomes the second worst live action film I've ever seen on the format. Abysmal resolution, punishing blacks, some noise reduction, judder, print damage, and a weird interlacing effect I've never seen before on bright backgrounds makes this a loser on all counts.

*Tier 5.0**


----------



## hernanu

Realized I hadn't rated this...

*Patton (remastered)*


Great detail from the cloth on the uniforms to tanks and planes, good facial detail, nice color on both outdoors and indoors. No processing to be noted, no noticeable black crush. Excellent redo and they are forgiven

*Tier 0.75 (behind Red Cliff).*


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sheriff Woody*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19920_60#post_22866290
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19950#post_22840092
> 
> 
> Tier 3 does seem low for one of Terrence Malick's seminal works on face value. I can't really comment on the merits of the ranking, as I do not own the Criterion Blu-ray. If you've seen the disc and disagree, feel free to put forward your ranking. There are three current scores which led to its current spot, all from regular contributors.
> 
> 
> mweflen Tier 2.75
> 
> deltasun 3.5
> 
> OldCodger73 2.75
> 
> 
> Another Tier 2 score from someone else would definitely push _Days Of Heaven_ into that tier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cool. Thanks for the info. I was never certain how the films were rated and ranked. Perhaps I will review a few after I get my new TV this weekend (after a proper calibration, of course).
Click to expand...

To recap for newer users of the Picture Quality Tiers , it is entirely determined by the rankings and scores for each title put forth in this very thread. Every single title in the PQ Tiers has been given at least one proper score in this discussion and review thread by a forum member. There are no real qualifications for an opinion or score to be included, though we used to require posters mention what display they were watching the BD on and viewing distance. That has largely gone by the wayside over the years, as we have lost some of the original contributors to the list. Any input you could provide on interesting movies to you, is welcomed.


For the most accuracy possible I try to incorporate as many opinions from the discussion as possible now, even if a poster doesn't recommend a formal score. Giving a single numerical rank to a disc does help decide matters much more quickly, particularly when I am determining the consensus for contentious placements. Speaking of contentious placements...


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Total Recall (2012)


recommendation: Tier 0* (near Man On Fire)
*

Prior reviews indicated the remake of _Total Recall_ should end up somewhere in Tier One, an assessment I simply can't agree with. As I watch a Blu-ray and cannot think of any serious charge to level against the image, that disc automatically deserves consideration for the highest tier in my opinion. The exceptional video quality of _Total Recall_ is nearly relentless from the first frames, producing jaw-dropping imagery for a film that relies so heavily on CGI backgrounds. It's obvious that Sony was attempting to emulate the visual appeal of its _I, Robot_, one of the highest-ranked films on our list since it first began. _Total Recall_ was actually shot with a mixture of both film and digital cameras, but both are seamlessly mixed together without drawing too much attention to the fact. This is easily one of the best live-action films I've recently watched, a tick above BDs like the futuristic _In Time_, while slightly below the absolute best like _Avatar_ which convey more convincing depth and realism. The pop-out effect for _Total Recall_ is toned down in comparison, though it still provides an amazing demonstration of picture quality on the format.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hernanu*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19950#post_22868512
> 
> 
> Realized I hadn't rated this...
> 
> *Patton (remastered)*
> 
> 
> Great detail from the cloth on the uniforms to tanks and planes, good facial detail, nice color on both outdoors and indoors. No processing to be noted, no noticeable black crush. Excellent redo and they are forgiven
> 
> *Tier 0.75 (behind Red Cliff).*



You just reminded me that I have the newly Remastered version of _Patton_ and your recommendation for Tier 0 serves as a real catalyst for me to "get my act together" (and watch it)!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*First Squad: The Moment Of Truth


recommendation: Tier 2.75**


A 2009 anime feature, the raw animation is soft and hazy for a movie produced in high-definition. The washed-out color palette does no favors and there are minor instances of banding in the AVC video encode, despite the main feature lasting only 72 minutes on a BD-50. From an aesthetic point of view, the animation is mostly second-rate for a movie.


----------



## JoeBloggz

Just noticed that Spartacus season one is tier 0. A friend of mine has been telling me the show is amazing. I'm definitely picking this up now


----------



## xrispy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19950#post_22866033
> 
> 
> This one blew me away the other night. It might be the best I have ever seen my RS45 look.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Curious what you guys think of it though.



I just got it last week. WOW. It is fantastic. I think the best PQ I've seen on BluRay. Will have to watch it a few more times with a more critical eye. Its not too common to have my jaw drop just looking at the menu screen though.







Kind of makes me feel I'm watching "superbit" BluRay.


----------



## Sheriff Woody




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19950#post_22868940
> 
> 
> To recap for newer users of the Picture Quality Tiers , it is entirely determined by the rankings and scores for each title put forth in this very thread. Every single title in the PQ Tiers has been given at least one proper score in this discussion and review thread by a forum member. There are no real qualifications for an opinion or score to be included, though we used to require posters mention what display they were watching the BD on and viewing distance. That has largely gone by the wayside over the years, as we have lost some of the original contributors to the list. Any input you could provide on interesting movies to you, is welcomed.
> 
> 
> For the most accuracy possible I try to incorporate as many opinions from the discussion as possible now, even if a poster doesn't recommend a formal score. Giving a single numerical rank to a disc does help decide matters much more quickly, particularly when I am determining the consensus for contentious placements. Speaking of contentious placements...



Cool. I'll be sure to find the time to make a few of my own contributions.


As for viewing distance, what would you say is optimal for a 55" Plasma?


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JoeBloggz*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19950#post_22869737
> 
> 
> Just noticed that Spartacus season one is tier 0. A friend of mine has been telling me the show is amazing. I'm definitely picking this up now



I'm nearly finished with Season 1, and I will say for certain that it is a great show with excellent PQ. Lower section of Tier 0 sounds about right.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *xrispy*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19950#post_22871333
> 
> 
> I just got it last week. WOW. It is fantastic. I think the best PQ I've seen on BluRay. Will have to watch it a few more times with a more critical eye. Its not too common to have my jaw drop just looking at the menu screen though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of makes me feel I'm watching "superbit" BluRay.



I will be purchasing Samsara on blu this Friday. More like cashing in a few gift cards rather than purchasing, really. Dang, that movie is expensive.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Sheriff Woody*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19920_60#post_22871613
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19950#post_22868940
> 
> 
> To recap for newer users of the Picture Quality Tiers , it is entirely determined by the rankings and scores for each title put forth in this very thread. Every single title in the PQ Tiers has been given at least one proper score in this discussion and review thread by a forum member. There are no real qualifications for an opinion or score to be included, though we used to require posters mention what display they were watching the BD on and viewing distance. That has largely gone by the wayside over the years, as we have lost some of the original contributors to the list. Any input you could provide on interesting movies to you, is welcomed.
> 
> 
> For the most accuracy possible I try to incorporate as many opinions from the discussion as possible now, even if a poster doesn't recommend a formal score. Giving a single numerical rank to a disc does help decide matters much more quickly, particularly when I am determining the consensus for contentious placements. Speaking of contentious placements...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cool. I'll be sure to find the time to make a few of my own contributions.
> 
> 
> As for viewing distance, what would you say is optimal for a 55" Plasma?
Click to expand...

There are several different viewing-distance calculators found on the Internet for personal home theaters. This one using THX guidelines says a 55" plasma at 1080P should be viewed from:

http://www.engineeringcalculator.net/HomeTheaterCalculator.html 


THX Max Allowable Viewing Distance: 103.8 in (8.7 ft)

THX Max Recommended Viewing Distance: 73.8 in (6.1 ft)

Visual Acuity Viewing Distance (20/20 vision): 128.7 in (10.7 ft)


I've found there is usually a small level of additional detail and resolution to be gained from sitting slightly closer to the display than the standard recommendations. Some forms of compression artifacts and the tell-tale signs of DNR are much easier to determine at closer viewing distances.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Mummy (1932)*


Richly textured classic horror with resolved grain and superb gray scale. A shot or two appears to have been filtered, but they are quick to pass. Great depth and bright contrast with almost no print damage.

*Tier 3.5**


----------



## Sheriff Woody




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19950#post_22873640
> 
> 
> There are several different viewing-distance calculators found on the Internet for personal home theaters. This one using THX guidelines says a 55" plasma at 1080P should be viewed from:
> 
> http://www.engineeringcalculator.net/HomeTheaterCalculator.html
> 
> 
> THX Max Allowable Viewing Distance: 103.8 in (8.7 ft)
> 
> THX Max Recommended Viewing Distance: 73.8 in (6.1 ft)
> 
> Visual Acuity Viewing Distance (20/20 vision): 128.7 in (10.7 ft)
> 
> 
> I've found there is usually a small level of additional detail and resolution to be gained from sitting slightly closer to the display than the standard recommendations. Some forms of compression artifacts and the tell-tale signs of DNR are much easier to determine at closer viewing distances.



Thanks for the info!


I'm about 7' away with 20/15 vision.


----------



## djoberg

*Samsara*


My initial impression of this visual/audio wonder....it's NOT *quite* as good as _Baraka_! I kept thinking to myself, "This looks exactly like _Baraka_ so I'm going to nominate it for the exact same placement. But the more I thought about it the more I realized that it was lacking in a couple of areas; namely, in 1) facial closeups, and 2) closeups of animals. If you recall _Baraka_ had some of the best (if not THE BEST) facial closeups ever! And it also featured multiple shots of animals close up revealing every detail imaginable. These were lacking in _Samsara_ so I'm inclined to knock it down a notch for that. It did have *some* facial closeups but not nearly what we were treated to in _Baraka_, and those that are featured aren't as impressive, with many of them being either younger children, young females, or tribal people with tons of paint on their faces.


Don't for one minute think I'm slamming this marvel of a Blu-ray, for it still has some phenomenal details and colors throughout, and some excellent blacks levels and shadow details (come to think of it, the black levels were so amazing they easily trumped the black levels in _Baraka_). There was one nighttime scene where we are treated to a panaramic view of a large city for what seemed like a solid minute....the blacks levels, colors, lights, and details will BLOW YOU AWAY!!


I had recommended a high Tier 0 for _Baraka_ when it was released in 2008, but I'm not sure it would hold up to that placement today. It currently sits close to the midway position in Tier 0 and in view of my observations noted above I would put _Samsara_ below that mark. In view of the impossible task of finding an EXACT spot, I'm simply going to recommend....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (right BELOW Baraka)*


PS The audio was incredible!


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19920_60#post_22880822
> 
> *Samsara*
> 
> 
> My initial impression of this visual/audio wonder....it's NOT *quite* as good as _Baraka_! I kept thinking to myself, "This looks exactly like _Baraka_ so I'm going to nominate it for the exact same placement. But the more I thought about it the more I realized that it was lacking in a couple of areas; namely, in 1) facial closeups, and 2) closeups of animals. If you recall _Baraka_ had some of the best (if not THE BEST) facial closeups ever! And it also featured multiple shots of animals close up revealing every detail imaginable. These were lacking in _Samsara_ so I'm inclined to knock it down a notch for that. It did have *some* facial closeups but not nearly what we were treated to in _Baraka_, and those that are featured aren't as impressive, with many of them being either younger children, young females, or tribal people with tons of paint on their faces.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (right BELOW Baraka)*


That is a really nice summary, Denny. Thanks for getting around to _Samsara_, I was hoping someone would give it a thorough look. I haven't watched _Baraka_ in a very long time and it might make sense for me to go over it once again, to check if the current placement is still justified. Often when I go back and watch an older Blu-ray now, I tend to be a little disappointed in the picture quality compared against newer releases.

*Battle For Terra


recommendation: Tier 1.5**


Battle For Terra was a 2007 CGI-animated film, released by Lionsgate back in 2009. Technically, there is not much wrong with the presentation except for a sub-par video encode that looks a tad dated these days. No, the thrust of my score reflects the very average CGI imagery inherent to the movie. A grade below the big-time Pixar movies in every single visual criteria. The image lacks that extraordinary level of animated detail common to the best CGI and there is maddeningly inconsistent depth of field issues.

*Deadgirl


recommendation: Tier 4.0*
*

At times this BD looks worthy of Tier Three, but all too often the washed-out contrast and less than inky black levels drag the final score to Tier Four. A solid release by MPI, the low-budget horror movie was simply intended to look pale and sickly, which this BD reproduces quite well.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19950#post_22880976
> 
> 
> That is a really nice summary, Denny. Thanks for getting around to _Samsara_, I was hoping someone would give it a thorough look. I haven't watched _Baraka_ in a very long time and it might make sense for me to go over it once again, to check if the current placement is still justified. Often when I go back and watch an older Blu-ray now, I tend to be a little disappointed in the picture quality compared against newer releases.



Thanks Phantom!


I do believe _Baraka_ and _Samsara_ belong in Tier 0; no question about that, but there are current titles that best them. For example, my "Go To" Demo disk is still _The Art of Flight_. It has more and better cinematography and a wee bit more clarity and sharpness throughout. All three titles have amazing soundtracks. I guess if I were to recommend a new placement for _Baraka_ it would be at about the .66 mark in Tier 0 and _Samsara_ closer to the .75 mark.


I should warn anyone thinking of purchasing _Samsara_ that it is not your average documentary. There may be those who are put off by some of the imagery, especially those showing the slaughtering of chickens and cattle. Some may also walk away depressed by observing the poverty seen in various third-world countries. Personally, I was fascinated by the mosaic of the human condition and the contrast of cultures. Add to that a haunting (and sometimes uplifting) soundtrack and you have yourself a grand, cinematic experience.


----------



## jrnewquist

Has there been any discussion about moving the fully animated features into a different list?


Especially as the Pixar and similar releases mount up, year after year, it seems like Tier 0 will be a showcase of (very excellent) "cartoons", and crowd out "real movies". Strikes me as increasingly counter-intuitive, and makes the list a little less useful than it could otherwise be.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jrnewquist*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19950#post_22882413
> 
> 
> Has there been any discussion about moving the fully animated features into a different list?
> 
> 
> Especially as the Pixar and similar releases mount up, year after year, it seems like Tier 0 will be a showcase of (very excellent) "cartoons", and crowd out "real movies". Strikes me as increasingly counter-intuitive, and makes the list a little less useful than it could otherwise be.



Actually, this subject has been discussed (at length) several times since the inception of this thread, but the idea of "two different lists" has always been rejected. It's been so long since the last *debate* that I can't remember the main reasons why it was voted down. I've had mixed feelings but would not mind if there were two separate lists. Of course, the real burden of maintaining two lists would fall on Phantom (the PQ Tiers Custodian). Any thoughts on this Phantom?


----------



## Toe

Great Samsara review djoberg!







I am going to revisit Baraka after reading your thoughts. Art of Flight is also a favorite of mine not only for PQ (which is incredible as you mention), but audio and the actual material...........LOVE that disc all around.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19980#post_22883197
> 
> 
> Great Samsara review djoberg!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am going to revisit Baraka after reading your thoughts. Art of Flight is also a favorite of mine not only for PQ (which is incredible as you mention), but audio and the actual material...........LOVE that disc all around.



Thanks Toe...even though I thought it was rushed and much more could have been said about its many redeeming qualities.


Regarding facial closeups in _Baraka_, there are two amazing standouts but the one that is the "best facial closeup ever" is the one with the man with the very long dreadlocks sitting in meditation. His FACE (and HAIR) exude details that defy description.


What did you think of the audio in _Samsara_? I thought it was awesome; I loved the diversity of sound ranging from New Age to Trance (I was taken aback by the Dance music and the "inmate" dancers in that one scene







).


When I said that _The Art of Flight_ was still my "Go To" demo disc I can't help but envision the huge smiles I've seen on the faces of relatives and friends when it starts out with that incredible "Dolby Introduction." You know you're in for an aural experience when you are enveloped in pure, unadulterated sound coming from every direction. Then it follows with some of the best cinematography I've ever seen, rivaling the best scenes in the _Planet Earth_ series.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19980#post_22883681
> 
> 
> Thanks Toe...even though I thought it was rushed and much more could have been said about its many redeeming qualities.
> 
> 
> Regarding facial closeups in _Baraka_, there are two amazing standouts but the one that is the "best facial closeup ever" is the one with the man with the very long dreadlocks sitting in meditation. His FACE (and HAIR) exude details that defy description.
> 
> 
> What did you think of the audio in _Samsara_? I thought it was awesome; I loved the diversity of sound ranging from New Age to Trance (I was taken aback by the Dance music and the "inmate" dancers in that one scene
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ).
> 
> 
> When I said that _The Art of Flight_ was still my "Go To" demo disc I can't help but envision the huge smiles I've seen on the faces of relatives and friends when it starts out with that incredible "Dolby Introduction." You know you're in for an aural experience when you are enveloped in pure, unadulterated sound coming from every direction. Then it follows with some of the best cinematography I've ever seen, rivaling the best scenes in the _Planet Earth_ series.



Loved the audio in Samsara. I thought it did an excellent job of really capturing and supporting what was happening on the screen and for me it just all came together and truly took me on an adventure. I found the whole experience incredibly powerful actually. Just one of those all too rare discs that hits on all cylinders and makes all the time, money, effort, etc.....that we put into this hobby worth it.










So many great scenes like the one you mention as far as audio. I thought one of the most disturbing, but powerful moments of the film which the audio really played a part in as far as capturing the dark, but frighteningly honest nature of the moment was the scene where
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) the guy is covering himself with I believe clay (?) and just having what appears to be a type of breaking down moment as if all of lifes pressures have caught up with him.
This scene to me was incredibly powerful and the audio really played a big part in capturing what was going on I thought.


The Art of Flight had a similar effect on me. It first captured me from the angle that snowboarding is something I was very passionate about at one point in my life, so the fact that the disc captured the spirit of a sport I love was an immediate recipe for success. Throw in the amazing visuals and the absolutely jaw dropping audio that just engulfs the listening position as you mention, both of which captures the spirit of the film so incredibly well and I get truly entranced and captivated by the whole experience on a level that is all too rare.


Both discs for me truly hold a unique and top spot in my collection and are the experiences I live for as far as this hobby goes.


----------



## djoberg

*Patton (Remastered)*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hernanu*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19950#post_22868512
> 
> 
> Realized I hadn't rated this...
> 
> *Patton (remastered)*
> 
> 
> Great detail from the cloth on the uniforms to tanks and planes, good facial detail, nice color on both outdoors and indoors. No processing to be noted, no noticeable black crush. Excellent redo and they are forgiven
> 
> *Tier 0.75 (behind Red Cliff).*



I kept comparing this to _Lawrence of Arabia_ throughout my viewing of this exceptional film. Both are "epic" catalog titles that were worthy of the attention given to them in their Blu-ray productions (though let's face it, the *initial* version of _Patton_ was a DNR disaster!!) and both have achieved the desired result (IMHO and speaking as a prophet







).....to make their way into the coveted Tier 0. In saying this I must confess that _Lawrence of Arabia_ deserves higher honors for greater facial details, but in the grand scheme of things that's somewhat of a minor point.


Like LOA, _Patton_ had a few soft shots in desert scenes, but once Patton's army moved into Sicily and then later to the European front, sharpness, clarity, vibrant colors, and magnificent details ruled the day!! I forgot to mention DEPTH, which was absolutely breathtaking at times...talk about 3D, this delivered in spades, especially as the movie progressed closer to the end! I should also mention black levels, for the night scenes were as deep and inky as they come, with superb shadow details for a film nearly 44 years old. I agree wholeheartedly with hernanu's analysis AND his recommendation, soooo......

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (right under Red Cliff 2)*


PS After "sleeping on it," I could see some docking this title for the overall *drabness* in many of the North African scenes and putting it in at *1.0* instead of Tier Blu. I could go either way.


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below.....


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19980#post_22883999
> 
> 
> Loved the audio in Samsara. I thought it did an excellent job of really capturing and supporting what was happening on the screen and for me it just all came together and truly took me on an adventure. I found the whole experience incredibly powerful actually. Just one of those all too rare discs that hits on all cylinders and makes all the time, money, effort, etc.....that we put into this hobby worth it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So many great scenes like the one you mention as far as audio. I thought one of the most disturbing, but powerful moments of the film which the audio really played a part in as far as capturing the dark, but frighteningly honest nature of the moment was the scene where
> *Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) the guy is covering himself with I believe clay (?) and just having what appears to be a type of breaking down moment as if all of lifes pressures have caught up with him.
> This scene to me was incredibly powerful and the audio really played a big part in capturing what was going on I thought.
> 
> 
> The Art of Flight had a similar effect on me. It first captured me from the angle that snowboarding is something I was very passionate about at one point in my life, so the fact that the disc captured the spirit of a sport I love was an immediate recipe for success. Throw in the amazing visuals and the absolutely jaw dropping audio that just engulfs the listening position as you mention, both of which captures the spirit of the film so incredibly well and I get truly entranced and captivated by the whole experience on a level that is all too rare.
> 
> *Both discs for me truly hold a unique and top spot in my collection and are the experiences I live for as far as this hobby goes.*



I couldn't agree with you more Toe; these two Blus are worthy of repeated viewings and justify the passion (and expense) we put into this hobby we call "Home Theater."


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jrnewquist*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19920_60#post_22882413
> 
> 
> Has there been any discussion about moving the fully animated features into a different list?
> 
> 
> Especially as the Pixar and similar releases mount up, year after year, it seems like Tier 0 will be a showcase of (very excellent) "cartoons", and crowd out "real movies". Strikes me as increasingly counter-intuitive, and makes the list a little less useful than it could otherwise be.


I understand the reasoning and desire by some to separate the tiers, broken down into animation and live-action film categories. I suspect most adults without youngish children or relatives, have little interest in the animated family features which tend to now get ranked at the very top. As djoberg replied, this has been an issue before that was very vigorously argued over and debated. If one goes back a couple of years through this very thread, you'll see the previous discussion on the matter.


I would strongly prefer to keep the categories together, as it stands now. Partially since a change would affect how the tiers are currently run and administered, greatly affecting its operation, but also because I believe we'd get less input in the long run from contributors. While it wouldn't really affect the outcome of any placement, I could post separate lists in this thread for Tier Zero, at least in the near future. I'll see how much extra work that might be and determine if it's doable on a regular basis. There is zero chance all five tiers could be broken down this way, without a significant re-engineering of the list's database.


----------



## jrnewquist

Thanks, Phantom. I'll go back and read.


----------



## tenia54




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19950#post_22880822
> 
> 
> If you recall _Baraka_ had some of the best (if not THE BEST) facial closeups ever! And it also featured multiple shots of animals close up revealing every detail imaginable.



Just remembering the discussion about Baraka's BD on its dedicated topic here, and it's still funny, since I agree with Xylon, that Baraka is far from the visual treat everybody's speaking about. And I'm saying this having watched it on a Panny 50G20, and having been able to spot the EE and softness Xylon writes about, which is what made me search the internet to see if I was going nuts with my sight or not (and it seemed not). If I had to rank it, it would certainly not fare better than 1.25 or 1.5.


I've just watched Koyaanisqatsi this weekend and part of it, though shot in 35mm in opposition to Baraka 65mm, blew me much more than Baraka.


It seems to me (but I have yet to import Samsara) that Samsara looks much better than Baraka on BD.


However, Baraka's 5.1 track was and still is one of the best I've ever experienced.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tenia54*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19980#post_22887600
> 
> 
> Just remembering the discussion about Baraka's BD on its dedicated topic here, and it's still funny, since I agree with Xylon, that Baraka is far from the visual treat everybody's speaking about. And I'm saying this having watched it on a Panny 50G20, and having been able to spot the EE and softness Xylon writes about, which is what made me search the internet to see if I was going nuts with my sight or not (and it seemed not).



Oh how well I remember the hotly contested debates over _Baraka_, including those on this thread. But the vast majority of contributors here felt that the EE issue was grossly overblown by a small minority who condemned much of the Blu-ray because of their obsession with the EE. I believe the Tier 0 rating it received was fully justified and that it is still one of the best-looking Blu-rays ever made.


Having said that, I respect your opinion and your sensitivity to the EE in that film. I have never been sensitive to it, though some titles have been so glaringly DNRed (such as the initial release of _Patton_) that even I have spoken out against it.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Invisible Man*


Despite some high points, there is some definite filtering going on within this one. It is very obvious behind the grain structure. Impeccable sharpness on the high end though, and the print is immaculate. Universal put in some work, and I'd bet the lesser shots were taken from different elements. The filtering is an attempt to match the materials.

*Tier 3.5**


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19980#post_22887980
> 
> 
> Oh how well I remember the hotly contested debates over _Baraka_, including those on this thread. But the vast majority of contributors here felt that the EE issue was grossly overblown by a small minority who condemned much of the Blu-ray because of their obsession with the EE. I believe the Tier 0 rating it received was fully justified and that it is still one of the best-looking Blu-rays ever made.
> 
> 
> Having said that, I respect your opinion and your sensitivity to the EE in that film. I have never been sensitive to it, though some titles have been so glaringly DNRed (such as the initial release of _Patton_) that even I have spoken out against it.



I think most people would agree that EE is a PQ flaw. I don't think that those of us who felt the EE in Baraka was impossible to ignore and a serious problem are "obsessed" with EE any more than those who were bothered by the DNR in the first Patton were "obsessed" with DNR. What we are obsessed with is great PQ, and the level of EE in Baraka is definitely not great PQ.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19980#post_22891929
> 
> 
> I think most people would agree that EE is a PQ flaw. I don't think that those of us who felt the EE in Baraka was impossible to ignore and a serious problem are "obsessed" with EE any more than those who were bothered by the DNR in the first Patton were "obsessed" with DNR. What we are obsessed with is great PQ, and the level of EE in Baraka is definitely not great PQ.



Good to hear from you again patrick! I should have known my post about EE could potentially create a response from you.










Yes, EE is a PQ flaw, brought about by post-processing. But even those who are sensitive to EE (and it's clear that a good number of people don't even see it while others do) refused to penalize _Baraka_ enough to drop it down to Tier 1. Phantom, who admits he is highly sensitive to EE, wrote in his review of _Baraka_ that it wasn't bad enough to keep it out of Tier 0. There were MANY others that said the same thing and voted for Tier 0, which, as you know, was where it was eventually placed. The debate was quite intense, but the MAJORITY won out and it was given its rightful place in the top tier.


One more thing. Even though the DNR in _Patton_ was terrible at times, it still had its redeeming qualities (as in other titles with DNR, such as _Gladiator_). Those who were so upset by the EE in _Baraka_ would not even admit there were good elements that were worthy to be praised (Xylon led the pack with this mindset) and that's why I referred to them as being *obsessed* with the EE. When one can't bring themselves to even consider the virtues of a Blu-ray because of the flaws, it's clearly a case of *obsession*.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

* The Duellists 


recommendation: Tier 3.5*
*

Ridley Scott's directorial debut has recently been released to Blu-ray by Shout Factory. The master/transfer was likely licensed from Paramount, as they actually own the film. There is nothing wrong with the picture quality, the softer '70s cinematography has been well-preserved without any real indication of digital tinkering. If I had to guess, the transfer was not made incredibly recently, some of the details and overall resolution are slightly lacking when you consider recent film scans. All things considered for a minor catalog effort from the 1970s, it is a very strong release.


----------



## djoberg

*House at the End of the Street*


This title caught my eye today at a local video store. Being a *sucker* for the thriller/horror genre and with Jennifer Lawrence as the female lead, I thought, "I can't go wrong." WRONG! This was truly a BOMB and if I could take back the last 95 minutes of my life, I would never have slipped this into my Pioneer Elite Blu-ray player. I guess this is one of those times I should have done some research before heading for the video store.










If only the PQ had been good, I might have been justified in my $3 rental and 95 minutes out of my life, but that too was less-than-stellar. It wasn't terrible, but still left much to be desired. Details were the highlight of the movie, when they weren't being obscured by a hot contrast (resulting in overblown whites and a washed out look in many of the daytime scenes) or murky blacks (though to be fair some of the blacks weren't half bad). Flesh tones also suffered because of the hot contrast. Colors were, for the most part, dull (though on rare occasions primaries would bloom). Grain seemed a bit heavy at times and the overall look of many scenes could be summed up the word GRITTY. I kept asking myself, "Is this even worthy of the 'average bin?'," and in the end I concluded it was, but towards the bottom of that tier....

*Tier Recommendation: 3.5**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## djoberg

*Rosewood Lane*


You know the old saying, "Three strikes and you're out." Well, I've got "two strikes" now and I'm going to play it safe and avoid the "third strike" by NOT renting another thriller/horror movie for awhile!







This was actually worse than the last viewing as far as the movie goes, but thankfully the PQ was MUCH BETTER!


The sharpness and clarity were evident from the outset and it never let up, with vibrant colors, strong contrast, excellent blacks and shadow details (these were probably the most impressive features of the film), spot on flesh tones, and appreciable depth. The only thing lacking were facial details, though at times the director (who directed _Jeepers Creepers_) chose to zoom in and we are treated to some fairly good texture, even on some of the female actors (with the exception of the female lead; her face looked "smoothed over" in every shot). All in all a decent looking Blu and one that *could* easily make its way onto one's demo shelf. Personally, I'd put it on mine (if the movie wasn't such a BOMB)....specifically right here....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Flight*


While it carries some high-end moments, most of Flight is just sort of there. Clarity can only go so far if detail isn't there. Black levels are meager too. Sharpness is high enough to compensate for the lack of really fine detail but not enough to push it higher into the tiers.,

*Tier 1.75**


----------



## djoberg

*Looper*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19890#post_22781520
> 
> *Looper*
> 
> 
> Slightly out of focus at times, but always clean, bright, and easy to watch. Detail can soar, and definition is crisp. Color palette is a bit dry for a high ranking, although a handful of hues will bring this one out significantly.
> *Tier 1.75**



Well, it's happened yet again...GRG and I are on the same page! The only thing I would add is that some interior shots were a tad soft and some facial shots were disappointing. But in the end, before I even saw GRG's review and placement recommendation, I was saying, "This one can go on my demo shelf too, albeit at the bottom"....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**


PS I LOVED the audio! You'll be enveloped with sound during many scenes, with lots of action in the surrounds, and some VERY DECENT LFE!!


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## djoberg

*Taken 2*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19950#post_22841172
> 
> *Taken 2*
> 
> 
> ABUSIVE orange and teal. Anyone who doubts the sheer ugliness of the color combo can look at Taken 2. Facial detail comes and goes but reaches some nice peaks. Black levels are solid, and contrast is thick. A nice encode mostly keeps up. Sharpness, especially of cities and such, is quite remarkable. A winner were it not for the putrid color timing.
> 
> *Tier 1.75**



Okay, this downright uncanny....two Blus in a row where I agree 100% with GRG!! Will wonders never cease?


Again, I echo GRG's sentiments, but will add a few of my own. In regards to his comments on "facial details," I must say they WOWed me in nearly every scene....low Tier 0 quality, to be sure. Details in general were quite good, in spite of the orange/teal abuse. I say this because normally I can be easily distracted when the hues are this glaring, but the details were able to "rise above their circumstances." The real *negatives* appeared later in the film during the long car chase (I just LOVED how the "daughter" had flunked two driving tests in the beginning of the movie and now she's at the helm of the getaway car evading an army of commited terrorists seeking their demise!







) where details broke down along with sharpness, and in the many interior scenes where the "wife" was being held by her captives (they were quite FLAT and MURKY). But the *positives* ruled the day and so this too is a worthy contender for one's demo shelf. I'm siding with my "colleague" GRG in his placement as well....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19980#post_22903719
> 
> *Taken 2*
> 
> Okay, this downright uncanny....two Blus in a row where I agree 100% with GRG!! Will wonders never cease?



See, you're finally learning. My opinions are always right.










*Bride of Frankenstein*


Beautiful effort with superb detail, perfect blacks, dense and resolved grain, plus detail that comes from excellent resolution. Minimal print damage is nothing to be worked up over. Sharpness at a focal peak is stunning. Amazing job by Universal.

*Tier 2.5**


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19980#post_22904828
> 
> 
> See, you're finally learning. My opinions are always right.



I know your opinions are right at times...when they are in agreement with me.










So, I see you went the Panny plasma route! Good for you and I trust you're enjoying it. They're getting very close to the KURO in blacks and their colors and contrast are just as good, if not better.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19980#post_22904828
> 
> 
> See, you're finally learning. My opinions are always right.



I was just checking out your site.............did you really put Underworld Awakening on the "worst audio" list of 2012? I know audio is very subjective, but come on.........among the worst of 2012....really?







To each his own and all that, but I definitely wont be looking to you for reliable audio reviews I dont think in all due respect.







I do enjoy reading your video reviews though.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Batman: The Dark Knight Returns Part 2


recommendation: Tier 0 (the very bottom)**


The first part easily deserved the highest tier, but this second part doesn't have quite the same level of eye candy. I actually contemplated a Tier One placement, as the visual subject matter is a little hazier. The animation is still bright and vibrant, but the layering effects and fluidity are not quite as strong in this release.


----------



## tenia54




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19980#post_22887980
> 
> 
> Oh how well I remember the hotly contested debates over _Baraka_, including those on this thread. But the vast majority of contributors here felt that the EE issue was grossly overblown by a small minority who condemned much of the Blu-ray because of their obsession with the EE. I believe the Tier 0 rating it received was fully justified and that it is still one of the best-looking Blu-rays ever made.
> 
> 
> Having said that, I respect your opinion and your sensitivity to the EE in that film. I have never been sensitive to it, though some titles have been so glaringly DNRed (such as the initial release of _Patton_) that even I have spoken out against it.



I fully agree on this, and there clearly is a gap between the PQ of Baraka and something like Patton. However, as patrick99 wrote, I do believe that this thread should always emphasize that type of intrusive post processing, because that's, normally, what you should be waiting of a review on AVS. This a flaw, one to which one can indeed be more or less sensitive, but a flaw nonetheless, and I do believe that such flaws, which does not come from the source but has been uslessly incorporated during the restoration, is one that should be left unsaid. Otherwise, it would be glorifying a result which has been created by filters which are creating flaws.


There are indeed wonderful shots in Baraka, which are very well rendered. IMO, in fact, most of the BD is excellent, only close ups (due to DNR) and shots containing buildings (due to EE) are faulty. But as I wrote, I sincerely believe that it should have been left unfiltered, and that's what I'm defending here.


I will never say that Baraka is an awful BD, far from this. Just that, as it has flaws, I think it doesn't belong to Tier 0, but maybe more 1.5.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19980#post_22905606
> 
> 
> I was just checking out your site.............did you really put Underworld Awakening on the "worst audio" list of 2012? I know audio is very subjective, but come on.........among the worst of 2012....really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To each his own and all that, but I definitely wont be looking to you for reliable audio reviews I dont think in all due respect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do enjoy reading your video reviews though.



I have never hated an audio mix more than Underworld Awakening. It's the only disc that ever forced me to recalibrate all of my audio settings and then put the disc back in just to be positive something wasn't going wrong on my end.


Believe me, I took my licks for that one when the review went live from multiple sites (this one included). It was worse than the thrashing I got after giving a low video score to one of the Harry Potters (video quality) a few years ago. I've simply never heard an LFE mix completely devour every other element. I can only report back on what I hear.


I hope my other audio reviews are more in tune with your own experiences and you don't ignore them all.










> Quote:
> So, I see you went the Panny plasma route! Good for you and I trust you're enjoying it. They're getting very close to the KURO in blacks and their colors and contrast are just as good, if not better.



Despite some quibbles with certain content (30fps games), this is easily one of the best screens I've ever seen. It is truly amazing in motion. The size increase (47" to 55") is also a difference maker.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Hotel Transylvania*


Generous contrast and pleasing color aids to bring out what the animation does not. The look is pretty flat with limited texture, the sharpness helping this one along. Black levels are superb, and the few castle exteriors are really something.

*Tier 0.5**


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tenia54*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19980#post_22906656
> 
> 
> I fully agree on this, and there clearly is a gap between the PQ of Baraka and something like Patton. However, as patrick99 wrote, I do believe that this thread should always emphasize that type of intrusive post processing, because that's, normally, what you should be waiting of a review on AVS. This a flaw, one to which one can indeed be more or less sensitive, but a flaw nonetheless, and I do believe that such flaws, which does not come from the source but has been uslessly incorporated during the restoration, is one that should be left unsaid. Otherwise, it would be glorifying a result which has been created by filters which are creating flaws.
> 
> 
> There are indeed wonderful shots in Baraka, which are very well rendered. IMO, in fact, most of the BD is excellent, only close ups (due to DNR) and shots containing buildings (due to EE) are faulty. But as I wrote, I sincerely believe that it should have been left unfiltered, and that's what I'm defending here.
> 
> 
> I will never say that Baraka is an awful BD, far from this. Just that, *as it has flaws, I think it doesn't belong to Tier 0*, but maybe more 1.5.



Your opinion is MUCH more level-headed than those who were *railing* against _Baraka_ "back in the day." Members like Xylon could not, as I said before, bring themselves to praise it for its virtues. There was a wholesale condemnation of _Baraka_ based solely on EE, which some members, including myself, couldn't even see, and other members who did see it, still felt it was a minimal flaw and thus their penalization of it was slight and they still voted to place it in Tier 0. Phantom, who is obviously highly respected on this thread, is very sensitive to EE yet he recommended Tier 0 and even tried to reason with those who were condemning it for EE by saying, "Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater."


I do agree with you that one has every right to report EE if they see it, and even to penalize the title because of it, for the criteria set forth for judging PQ clearly states that we should. But the problem came in with the various reactions to the EE: some saw it and were so distracted they couldn't concentrate on the virtues; others saw it but it didn't bother them very much; and then some, like myself, couldn't even see it (unless some one produced a still shot of a scene with it). Each one had to report WHAT THEY SAW and with so many diverse opinions an intense debate ensued. In the end the overwhelming majority still deemed it worthy of Tier 0 and thus it was placed in that Tier. This bothered those who had such a strong reaction to the EE, but when that happens one just has to "agree to disagree" and submit to the democratic process that this thread is based upon.


----------



## 42041

I don't think anyone ever said Baraka looked bad. It would take extraordinary effort to make a 70mm film of this sort look bad. It is a great looking film, but for my money, it is not a great _transfer_ of a 70mm film, even if that isn't enough to knock it out of tier 0 according to the criteria of this thread.

There's a reason they apply EE to transfers, after all. It makes things appear sharper... in certain viewing conditions. In others, it makes the image look electronic and quite unlike 70mm film, which is what Baraka looks like to me.

I've stopped contributing to this list for the above reason, but my "unofficial" review is that Samsara is a far better transfer, and what Baraka's should've been.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19980#post_22912071
> 
> *I don't think anyone ever said Baraka looked bad*. It would take extraordinary effort to make a 70mm film of this sort look bad. It is a great looking film, but for my money, it is not a great _transfer_ of a 70mm film, even if that isn't enough to knock it out of tier 0 according to the criteria of this thread.
> 
> There's a reason they apply EE to transfers, after all. It makes things appear sharper... in certain viewing conditions. In others, it makes the image look electronic and quite unlike 70mm film, which is what Baraka looks like to me.
> 
> I've stopped contributing to this list for the above reason, but my "unofficial" review is that Samsara is a far better transfer, and what Baraka's should've been.



If memory serves me 42041, you contributed posts to the _Baraka_ Comparison PIX Thread and thus I'm a bit surprised by your comment highlighted above. Perhaps the word "bad" is not mentioned, but there are a host of other superlatives that suggest that it did look bad. For anyone that's interested, here's the link to that thread:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1082785/baraka-comparison-pix#post_15029071 


Xylon's opening remarks about the PQ of _Baraka_ speak for themselves; he even states in the last paragraph of his opening remarks that the only thing that deserves praise is the audio track. As you follow the whole thread you see MANY OTHERS jumping on his bandwagon and their *obsession* with the EE (or "ringing") is quite obvious. Of course there were others who debated that issue with them and were willing to speak more of its virtues than the ONE FLAW found in the transfer.


BTW, you said you "stopped contributing to this list for the above reason"....I'm not sure what you mean by "the above reason." Could you clarify that point? Thanks!


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19980#post_22912246
> 
> 
> BTW, you said you "stopped contributing to this list for the above reason"....I'm not sure what you mean by "the above reason." Could you clarify that point? Thanks!


What I mean is that excellent transfers of films shot a certain way can get placed very low, and very average transfers of beautifully shot films, or transfers that are very sharp by virtue of excessive electronic sharpening like The Dark Knight can get ranked very high. I don't have anything against people ranking blurays by their "eye candy" factor but the only thing I'm personally interested in is how accurately a blu-ray replicates a movie's original photography, for better or worse.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Baraka


recommendation: Tier 0 (nearly identical to the current placement in the middle)
*

This is a new placement for 2013 meant to supersede my prior recommendation, made all those years ago. Yes, the transfer still has traces of visible edge enhancement. That still does not move it out of consideration for Tier Zero, at least from my perspective. The 70mm photography was consciously made for eye candy, much more so than a normal Hollywood film.


Baraka's captivating subject matter simply produces more arresting imagery than the typical movie considered for the Picture Quality Tiers. That aspect alone gives Baraka a significant advantage over the rest of the field. This is not a list for the best transfers, but the absolute best picture quality.


Looking at it today, the Blu-ray from MPI would probably turn out a little differently if made in 2013. The following critique is reaching for the tiniest nit-picks to the film, in what is almost entirely reference-level video. Getting the compression issue out of the way, it is almost a certainty that one of the newest AVC encoders would be used now instead of the VC-1 video encode the disc currently possesses.


While the VC-1 encode runs at moderately high bitrates, the newest AVC encodes are a tad more refined and reproduce the master with greater transparency than this particular VC-1 encode. Smoke and fire once again prove to be a nemesis for the VC-1 codec in Baraka, as it does for most film-based features. As I watched from three feet away this time, there are two or three instances where the color gradients slightly degrade and the faintest hint of posterization enters the scene. The vast majority of the time there are no artifacts and the picture would largely duplicate the results of a new AVC encode, but we are striving for perfection here and I felt it needed to be mentioned.


If one is hunting for problems, the jet-black Asian hair featured in a couple of brief shots could be construed as a slight clipping of overall black levels. The contrast is usually pitch-perfect except for the tiniest loss in shadow structure, as the strands of hair partially meld into one cohesive wall of black. The wide variety of flesh-tones, presented in a completely realistic manner, are still among the best ever seen in 1080P.


The main source of controversy is obviously the ringing and apparent sharpening. Baraka's transfer definitely contains visible sharpening, though it is far more apparent in some scenes than others. If one is specifically looking for the ringing, it can be found scattered throughout certain locales in the movie. The brief clips of the Wailing Wall seems to it have worse than most, though I could list any number of scenes where the sharpening is evident. Would it have been better to see a completely unprocessed 8K master, unburdened with unnecessary ringing? Yes, but this sharpening is not egregious enough for me to condemn Baraka to Tier One. When push comes to shove, Baraka still looks better than almost all other Blu-rays I have seen. There is a visual excitement that has to be accounted for that goes beyond a simple checklist of videophile categories. Baraka still makes new Blu-ray owners sit up and marvel at the visuals.


If I were on some crusade against halos, the lowest I would even consider dropping the disc is Tier 1.0. Having seen many more Blu-rays since I first watched Baraka on the format, it still holds up as a spectacular example of the video quality possible in 1080P. Actual film doesn't get much better on Blu-ray. Is everything perfect with the disc? No, but we must deal in practical reality and not some vague platonic ideal that does not exist at the moment. People are holding some imagined version of Baraka against the actual disc, when it still outshines nearly all other films on the format.


Le mieux est l’ennemi du bien.


BDInfo scan (courtesy of CinemaSquid):
http://www.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray/movies/releases/baraka/25df7009-fa8a-419e-af1f-0e9a650d9643#specs


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^


Thanks Phantom for the review of _Baraka_. It will be interesting to get your take on _Samsara_. I'm sure you will find it quite similar to _Baraka_ and I'm really curious to see if you notice any EE and evidence of sharpening. If so, I'm certain any penalization will be, as in the case of _Baraka_, very minimal.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19980_60#post_22912368
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19980#post_22912246
> 
> 
> BTW, you said you "stopped contributing to this list for the above reason"....I'm not sure what you mean by "the above reason." Could you clarify that point? Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> What I mean is that excellent transfers of films shot a certain way can get placed very low, and very average transfers of beautifully shot films, or transfers that are very sharp by virtue of excessive electronic sharpening like The Dark Knight can get ranked very high. I don't have anything against people ranking blurays by their "eye candy" factor but the only thing I'm personally interested in is how accurately a blu-ray replicates a movie's original photography, for better or worse.
Click to expand...

I would hope you reconsider in the future, you gave very accurate placements for a number of films that do not tend to get a lot of coverage from other contributors. Your scores were always fairly accurate and reliable.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19980_60#post_22912997
> 
> 
> ^^^^^
> 
> 
> Thanks Phantom for the review of _Baraka_. It will be interesting to get your take on _Samsara_. I'm sure you will find it quite similar to _Baraka_ and I'm really curious to see if you notice any EE and evidence of sharpening. If so, I'm certain any penalization will be, as in the case of _Baraka_, very minimal.


I will attempt to get a look at Samsara down the road, but it's not at the top of my current priorities.


----------



## HTNUT1975

Within the last month, I am now using a 9G Kuro Elite, professionally calibrated television to watch my flicks on. Prior to this, I had an ST30, which was a fine television for viewing movies. There are, however, some movies that I have now observed on a near-reference screen, which stand out much more than I realized, before. One movie that I'm shocked at not seeing in the Blu category of PQ is Braveheart. It is a stunning picture on the Kuro, and I'm not sure if I've seen anything better, yet.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HTNUT1975*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19980_60#post_22916669
> 
> 
> Within the last month, I am now using a 9G Kuro Elite, professionally calibrated television to watch my flicks on. Prior to this, I had an ST30, which was a fine television for viewing movies. There are, however, some movies that I have now observed on a near-reference screen, which stand out much more than I realized, before. One movie that I'm shocked at not seeing in the Blu category of PQ is Braveheart. It is a stunning picture on the Kuro, and I'm not sure if I've seen anything better, yet.


It is currently placed very high on the list in Tier 1.0, which is the highest rank outside of Tier Zero / Tier Blu. Your feedback might very well push _Braveheart_ up into the Blu Tier with the next update.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Thompsons


recommendation: Tier 1.75**

_The Thompsons_ is a 2012 independent horror production, distributed by XLrator. I've never heard of the distributor before this recent release. While not utilizing the Red One camera to its full extent, the video quality on this BD-25 still exudes depth and dimensionality. If not for an egregious amount of sharpening present in all exterior shots, producing glowing halos at certain camera angles, the disc likely would have been ranked in Tier 1.25. The ringing is that bad, for what is otherwise a very fine transfer with a normal color-timing. Sharpness and overall resolution shine throughout the movie, though outdoor scenery has slightly blown-out highlights.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HTNUT1975*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20010#post_22916669
> 
> 
> Within the last month, I am now using a 9G Kuro Elite, professionally calibrated television to watch my flicks on. Prior to this, I had an ST30, which was a fine television for viewing movies. There are, however, some movies that I have now observed on a near-reference screen, which stand out much more than I realized, before. One movie that I'm shocked at not seeing in the Blu category of PQ is Braveheart. It is a stunning picture on the Kuro, and I'm not sure if I've seen anything better, yet.



I'm with you! I voted for Tier 0 but the majority decided on Tier 1. I would join Phantom in encouraging you to give a review with your vote for Tier 0.


BTW, excellent choice on the Pioneer KURO Elite. I've had mine for three years and I still stand in awe of the PQ, whether I'm watching Blu-rays or satellite tv.


----------



## JoeBloggz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HTNUT1975*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20010#post_22916669
> 
> 
> Within the last month, I am now using a 9G Kuro Elite, professionally calibrated television to watch my flicks on. Prior to this, I had an ST30, which was a fine television for viewing movies. There are, however, some movies that I have now observed on a near-reference screen, which stand out much more than I realized, before. One movie that I'm shocked at not seeing in the Blu category of PQ is Braveheart. It is a stunning picture on the Kuro, and I'm not sure if I've seen anything better, yet.



Congrats on the kuro! They are few and far between and a very rare find as they're not made anymore. I've had mine since 2009 with a pro cal by umr(Jeff Meier). Like dj said, I'm still in awe of the picture at times and I cringe thinking about the day it'll need to be replaced.


Sent from the Nodes of Ranvier


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Wolf Man (1941)*


The only transfer in the Universal box riddled with edge enhancement, some noise reduction, and other filters for the entire movie. What a shame. Halos are frequent, and brightening of the contrast means some blown out highlights. Some crushing blacks are no fun either. Points for grain management and not much else.

*Tier 3.5**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

* Senseless 


recommendation: Tier 2.75**


Amazingly enough, Echo Bridge has finally found a high-quality master for one of their BDs from the Miramax catalog. A significant upgrade in visual quality over the DVD version, _Senseless_ looks better than average for a 90's comedy in 1080P. Minor ringing and slightly reddish flesh-tones are the only real negatives to be found in the image. _Senseless_ is a Best Buy retail exclusive until the end of March.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Tai Chi Zero


recommendation: Tier 0* (above I, Robot)
*
_Tai Chi Zero_ came out a couple of weeks ago and I had not really heard any buzz about it in Blu-ray circles, much less videophile mentions. Well Go USA has been a spotty Blu-ray distributor in the past but I picked the disc up on a whim, mostly because I was yearning to see a modern kung fu movie. Shot on the RED Epic digital camera at 5K resolution (yes, you read that number correctly), _Tai Chi Zero_ produces what is possibly the most staggering dimensionality and clarity of any live-action film on Blu-ray, non-Avatar division. The first 45 minutes are an extended demo reel for incredible pop and fine detail, highlighting the kinetic visual style of the wire-fu action.


There is some mild aliasing evident for the CGI elements that pepper the various digital sets, but the image is easily as pristine as any other live-action film on home video. Pitch-perfect black levels are matched with a fairly neutral color palette.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Here Comes the Boom*


The first half of this movie is completely muted, near black and white. Things start picking up near the halfway mark, as does the detail. What was initially a smeary, filtered mess turns into something with nice sharpness and perky definition. Flesh tones bronze a little, and black levels never quite reach their full potential, but it remains a looker... for half of it.

*Tier 2.75**


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JoeBloggz*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20010#post_22917493
> 
> 
> Congrats on the kuro! They are few and far between and a very rare find as they're not made anymore. I've had mine since 2009 with a pro cal by umr(Jeff Meier). Like dj said, I'm still in awe of the picture at times and I cringe thinking about the day it'll need to be replaced.
> 
> 
> Sent from the Nodes of Ranvier



I hope my KURO lasts at least another 5 years, but if it died today I would replace it with the Panasonic 65VT50. That won the "Flat Panel Shootout" last year for its outstanding colors and contrast. The blacks were excellent too....just shy of what our KURO produces.


----------



## tcramer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20010#post_22930591
> 
> 
> I hope my KURO lasts at least another 5 years, but if it died today I would replace it with the Panasonic 65VT50. That won the "Flat Panel Shootout" last year for its outstanding colors and contrast. The blacks were excellent too....just shy of what our KURO produces.



I have a Kuro 5020 and for a couple months now, the 65VT50. While most sets are still leaps and bounds behind the Kuro, I'd still say the VT50 is maybe a half step behind. Those near perfect blacks make such a difference and even though the VT50 is close, it's just not quite there.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tcramer*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20010#post_22930654
> 
> 
> I have a Kuro 5020 and for a couple months now, the 65VT50. While most sets are still leaps and bounds behind the Kuro, I'd still say the VT50 is maybe a half step behind. Those near perfect blacks make such a difference and even though the VT50 is close, it's just not quite there.



Yes, I had heard that the blacks "weren't quite there." The Sharp Elite supposedly has BETTER blacks, and its contrast is much higher, but being an LCD is has the characteristic "off-axis viewing problem."


I apologize to those not interested in this subject and for going "off topic." So, to bring it back to topic, I want to rent a couple of current titles this weekend. Anyone have a suggestion for something with good PQ AND at least a halfway decent movie?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Secret World Of Arrietty
*

recommendation: *Tier 0* (above Alice In Wonderland)*


Studio Ghibli has done it again, producing stunning hand-drawn animation in this 2010 film that looks fabulous on Blu-ray. Disney has provided the video encode with sufficient parameters, though purists will likely want to seek out the Japanese editions for its much higher video bitrates. The lush color palette is highlighted in the painted backgrounds, brimming with artistic details. As Hollywood moves increasingly towards CGI animation, there is really no other entity in the world producing traditional animation of this quality other than Studio Ghibli. _The Secret World Of Arrietty_ is the type of movie that Walt Disney would be producing today. My highest personal recommendation to those looking for family entertainment.


----------



## jh901

Didn't read the rules for posting here, but....


....where is *Lawrence of Arabia*?


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Alex Cross*


Often detailed and sharp, this one is quite consistent. Grain is well managed and clean without any compression issues. It's the black levels that down Cross though, muddying and turning blue-ish far too often even though they can have bite. A pleasing contrast can't save it.

*Tier 1.75**


----------



## hernanu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jh901*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20010#post_22934319
> 
> 
> Didn't read the rules for posting here, but....
> 
> 
> ....where is *Lawrence of Arabia*?



It has been reviewed, but since it is a recent bluray title, has not been put in the rankings thread yet. If you use the search function for this thread, you'll see the rankings given.


If you'd like to post a review, that will add to the rankings already posted and will log your opinion of whether it's good or bad.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jh901*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20010#post_22934319
> 
> 
> Didn't read the rules for posting here, but....
> 
> 
> ....where is *Lawrence of Arabia*?



It hasn't been placed yet, but several reviews have been written, including one by yours truly:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19800#post_22650913


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jh901*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19980_60#post_22934319
> 
> 
> Didn't read the rules for posting here, but....
> 
> 
> ....where is *Lawrence of Arabia*?


The actual guidelines for a formal recommendation can be found in the first post of the Picture Quality Tiers list:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1425519/the-official-picture-quality-tiers-for-blu-ray-rankings-updated-through-december-1-2012#post_22325128 


The last update to the Tiers was on December 1 and we hadn't received any scoring for it by that date, so it was unlisted. Since then we've had several different posters assign it a placement, so expect to see _Lawrence Of Arabia_ listed in the Tiers upon the next update. That next update should occur by the end of February at the latest.


It's never too late to contribute feedback or comments on _Lawrence of Arabia_, or any other Blu-ray. I try to incorporate the entire discussion thread's opinion on a disc when assigning its final placement. Newer members are welcomed at any time to give their opinion, their recommendations will be equally considered in the final estimation alongside the other reviews.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Barbarian and the Geisha
*

recommendation: *Tier 4.5**


A strange entry in the career of John Wayne, this 1958 CinemaScope film by Fox hasn't made a very good transition to Blu-ray. Immediately apparent from one viewing is that little attempt has been made at a restoration of the film elements. The original photography wasn't likely razor-sharp to begin with, but Fox pulled whatever dated master they had laying around for this Blu-ray release. It was originally an exclusive for Wal-mart stores. If anyone saw the transfer on Twilight Time's _Demetrius and the Gladiators_ BD, the general condition of TBATG is very similar to that master.


The first reel of the film is in the worst shape, they must have had to pull protection elements for it when making the transfer. The overall condition does seem to improve after that point, but the dated transfer has artificial sharpening on top of the optical ringing inherent to the film's photography. The score seems to have survived in much better condition by comparison. It's not an unwatchable Blu-ray, but hopeful viewers should hold back their expectations for a dramatic visual improvement.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*End of Watch*


All over the place as sources shift from dash cams to handheld to high-end. No real consistency aside from dull blacks. Detail comes and goes although it peaks nicely. Contrast is brutal in spots. Not much here overall though for the Tiers.

*Tier 4.0**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Placebo: We Come In Pieces


recommendation: Tier 4.5**


Concert footage doesn't get much more raw this one, a 2008 performance by Placebo. The 1080i video is barely decent enough to deserve a Blu-ray release. It's apparent this concert came to Blu-ray for its audio capabilities.


*The Violent Kind


recommendation: Tier 4.5*
*

One of the more erratic presentations I've seen from a fictional movie, the picture quality ranges from Tier One to Tier Five for extended scenes. It was a low-budget, independent production and exterior scenes look quite good, marred only by an abundance of aliasing from digital cameras. Most of the actual movie takes place inside a house, which creates inconsistent contrast and a flat color palette. Most of the last act has serious exposure problems inside the house, leading to a picture replete with video noise.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Top Gun 3D*


We never decided on the how/when/where of 3D placement, did we? I remember the thread had some posts on the subject and not much else.


From a 2D standpoint, there are some positives. The DNR and EE of the old release is gone. So is some of the black crush. Hooray! On the other hand, this is a drastic departure from the previous edition in color timing. It is now a faded teal/orange palette that robs the movie of its punch. While detail is spectacular at times, the loss of a natural palette is a real shame.

*Tier 3.0**


----------



## tenia54

Hi all,


For the people using BD Info, what hides behind the Total Bitrate calculation ? Is it the sum of the video + audio + subs avreage bitrates, or does it takes in account peaks of bitrates ?


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19980_60#post_22945372
> 
> *Top Gun 3D*
> 
> 
> We never decided on the how/when/where of 3D placement, did we? I remember the thread had some posts on the subject and not much else.
> 
> 
> From a 2D standpoint, there are some positives. The DNR and EE of the old release is gone. So is some of the black crush. Hooray! On the other hand, this is a drastic departure from the previous edition in color timing. It is now a faded teal/orange palette that robs the movie of its punch. While detail is spectacular at times, the loss of a natural palette is a real shame.
> 
> *Tier 3.0**


There is some consternation about Paramount leaving the DNRed transfer of the 2D release alone and confining the fresh transfer to the 3D version of the film.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tenia54*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19980_60#post_22946011
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> 
> For the people using BD Info, what hides behind the Total Bitrate calculation ? Is it the sum of the video + audio + subs avreage bitrates, or does it takes in account peaks of bitrates ?


The program's creator, AVSforum's very own CinemaSquid, would be the man to ask about that question. I've never been that concerned with total bitrate on Blu-ray. The audio does not begin to impact the video's bandwidth that greatly unless there are multiple lossless soundtracks on a film. I have seen it become a problem on certain Blu-ray music titles. The audio does start to become a significant factor on the overall bandwidth for options like a 5.1 TrueHD soundtrack at 24-bit/96kHz.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20010#post_22947371
> 
> 
> There is some consternation about Paramount leaving the DNRed transfer of the 2D release alone and confining the fresh transfer to the 3D version of the film.



Looks like the Jurassic Park 3D release will have a similar problem if that thread is to be believed.


----------



## HTNUT1975




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JoeBloggz*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20010#post_22917493
> 
> 
> Congrats on the kuro! They are few and far between and a very rare find as they're not made anymore. I've had mine since 2009 with a pro cal by umr(Jeff Meier). Like dj said, I'm still in awe of the picture at times and I cringe thinking about the day it'll need to be replaced.
> 
> 
> Sent from the Nodes of Ranvier



Thanks! My TV was actually calibrated by Jeff Meier as well! He was here for hours and I really had a blast just talking to him and picking his brain. I did not realize the unique capabilities he has due to his customized equipment. What a joy this TV now is. I actually think I may be a little addicted. I haven't gotten used to it, yet. It continually and predictably, without fail, impresses and mesmerizes me. I think the longer I've been watching it, the more impressed I've become. I don't mean to hijack the thread too much, but it was from viewing Braveheart on a calibrated Kuro that I had to voice my opinion.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Frankenweenie*


Gorgeous B&W effort with stunning levels of fine detail. Great gray scale keeps plenty of depth in the image and clarity is unsurpassed. Texture work on the puppets is really something, and the environments are gloriously rendered. No compression, aliasing, or other anomalies ruin the fun.

*Tier 0.75**


----------



## JoeBloggz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HTNUT1975*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20010#post_22949137
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JoeBloggz*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20010#post_22917493
> 
> 
> Congrats on the kuro! They are few and far between and a very rare find as they're not made anymore. I've had mine since 2009 with a pro cal by umr(Jeff Meier). Like dj said, I'm still in awe of the picture at times and I cringe thinking about the day it'll need to be replaced.
> 
> 
> Sent from the Nodes of Ranvier
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks! My TV was actually calibrated by Jeff Meier as well! He was here for hours and I really had a blast just talking to him and picking his brain. I did not realize the unique capabilities he has due to his customized equipment. What a joy this TV now is. I actually think I may be a little addicted. I haven't gotten used to it, yet. It continually and predictably, without fail, impresses and mesmerizes me. I think the longer I've been watching it, the more impressed I've become. I don't mean to hijack the thread too much, but it was from viewing Braveheart on a calibrated Kuro that I had to voice my opinion.
Click to expand...


My feelings exactly. I would not recommend anyone but Jeff just based on my amazing experience with him.










Anyway, who's picking up skyfall today?










Sent from the Nodes of Ranvier


----------



## rusky_g

I anticipate Skyfall will be a Tier 0 disc


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20040#post_22955598
> 
> 
> I anticipate Skyfall will be a Tier 0 disc



I ordered _Skyfall_ through Amazon Prime and it arrives on Thursday. We're having a daugther and her husband for the weekend and we'll watch it together Friday night.


----------



## djoberg

*Paranormal Activity 4*


Same old, same old. Same old storyline with nothing new to cause you to jump....same old boring PQ with some decent daytime shots (albeit with smoothed over faces) on home video and some very lousy, gritty, grainy, murky, nighttime scenes.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.75**


*Safe*


Same old, same old. Same old Jason Statham shootem up, car-chasing, and martial arts fiasco...same old teal/orange mess yet redeemed by excellent facial details and fairly good black levels.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20040_60#post_22956852
> 
> *Safe*
> 
> 
> Same old, same old. Same old Jason Statham shootem up, car-chasing, and martial arts fiasco...same old teal/orange mess yet redeemed by excellent facial details and fairly good black levels.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75**


I thought it was one of the more enjoyable Statham movies, myself. I haven't watched it yet on Blu-ray to give my two cents on the picture quality.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20040#post_22957651
> 
> 
> I thought it was one of the more enjoyable Statham movies, myself. I haven't watched it yet on Blu-ray to give my two cents on the picture quality.



Really! I kept thinking to myself, "If you've seen one Jason Statham movie, you've seen them all."


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20040_60#post_22957704
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20040#post_22957651
> 
> 
> I thought it was one of the more enjoyable Statham movies, myself. I haven't watched it yet on Blu-ray to give my two cents on the picture quality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really! I kept thinking to myself, "If you've seen one Jason Statham movie, you've seen them all."
Click to expand...

His films all largely follow the same formula, but I thought some of the wrinkles they added to the story nicely fleshed out _Safe_. They clearly ripped off some of the vibe from _The Professional_, but it's better to rip off great movies than middle-of-the-road action flicks.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20040#post_22957746
> 
> 
> His films all largely follow the same formula, but I thought some of the wrinkles they added to the story nicely fleshed out _Safe_. *They clearly ripped off some of the vibe from The Professional*, but it's better to rip off great movies than middle-of-the-road action flicks.



And some of the vibe from _Mercury Rising_ as well.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20040#post_22955598
> 
> 
> I anticipate Skyfall will be a Tier 0 disc



Nope.

*Skyfall*


Black levels when they're needed the most are the downer here, unable to capture the depth they need. Elsewhere the disc is fine if a little too glossy. Facial close-ups are strong if a hair inconsistent and establishing shots are often mesmerizing in their detail. Sharpness is outstanding all around. All around good disc, not one of the best.
*Tier 1.0**


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20040#post_22959524
> 
> 
> Nope.
> 
> *Skyfall*
> 
> 
> Black levels when they're needed the most are the downer here, unable to capture the depth they need. Elsewhere the disc is fine if a little too glossy. Facial close-ups are strong if a hair inconsistent and establishing shots are often mesmerizing in their detail. Sharpness is outstanding all around. All around good disc, not one of the best.
> *Tier 1.0**



I'm surprised that there's only three reviews in on Cinema's site. They all gave it a perfect score of 100 for PQ and not a word about faltering black levels. The only one who did comment on the blacks was Daniel from HiDefDigest and he said they were DEEP. The irony is he also watched it on a new Panny plasma. So, I'm curious to see who I will agree with on that point, with us all having plasmas.


----------



## Johnny Vertigo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20040#post_22959894
> 
> 
> The irony is he also watched it on a new Panny plasma. So, I'm curious to see who I will agree with on that point, with us all having plasmas.


I guess if you lower your brightness setting too much you will always get DEEP blacks


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20040#post_22959894
> 
> 
> I'm surprised that there's only three reviews in on Cinema's site. They all gave it a perfect score of 100 for PQ and not a word about faltering black levels. The only one who did comment on the blacks was Daniel from HiDefDigest and he said they were DEEP. The irony is he also watched it on a new Panny plasma. So, I'm curious to see who I will agree with on that point, with us all having plasmas.



Fox usually only sends screeners on release day so it takes some time. I just rent them and avoid the delay.


My screens show the dimness of the blacks in crucial scenes. They're great elsewhere though.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20040#post_22962332
> 
> 
> Fox usually only sends screeners on release day so it takes some time. I just rent them and avoid the delay.
> 
> 
> My screens show the dimness of the blacks in crucial scenes. *They're great elsewhere though*.



Good to hear the blacks are "great elsewhere though." I'll be more than satisfied if it's good enough to have your recommendation of 1.0. You are a very critical reviewer (and that's "a good thing"







) and I know you don't toss out Tier 1.0 recommendations very often.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Arn: The Knight Templar


recommendation: Tier 1.0*
*
_Arn: The Knight Templar_ has a strange production history. It originated as a 2007 European mini-series that was then formulated into two movies. This was a very expensive production for television, with the budget topping $30 million. For the benefit of American audiences that prefer their historical epics a tad shorter in length, the two movies were then edited together and hacked up into the cut presented on this Blu-ray.


This particular version of Arn runs 113 minutes, though its distributor EONE did the video encode no favors by barely utilizing the BD-50 capacity. While this BD does possess phenomenal picture quality for the Tiers, interested people should likely explore the reissued, complete-series version on Blu-ray. I have not seen that newer disc to date, but do plan on picking it up. It gives you some idea as to my back log of unwatched discs. Arn was first issued on Blu-ray back in 2010 and the case had gathered a fair amount of dust until I watched the movie yesterday.


The AVC video averages a paltry 19.82 Mbps for the main feature. It doesn't significantly impact the video quality aside from one scene with heavy fog, but one wonders about the possible benefit to transparency from the master with much higher compression parameters. Thankfully the razor-sharp definition remains intact with crystal-clear clarity.


Arn is a Swedish historical epic set in the time of the Crusades and its sweeping scope cinematography is absolutely breathtaking. Shot on location in places like Morocco and Scotland, Arn has been masterfully filmed. It possibly has the best principal photography and composition I've seen from a film in the past decade. The fabulous depth of focus is nearly uniform over the various locales in the movie, a rare thing from today's cinema. Contrast is pitch-perfect with exquisitely rendered black levels. The basically-neutral color palette is fully saturated, though the unmanipulated flesh-tones will spook those who've grown accustomed to Hollywood's current fetish for teal and orange.


Some incidental ringing, very fine in amplitude and possibly a scaling remnant, is the only weakness of an unfailingly pristine transfer. That was the determining factor for my placement outside of Tier 0, though outside of obsessed videophiles I suspect it will go unobserved. I have a feeling that Arn's 2K digital intermediate has a strong chance of producing a Tier 0 disc with the right care and proper handling. I wonder about foreign editions of the movie on Blu-ray...


Anyone into historical drama and action epics should check it out on Blu-ray.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20040#post_22962332
> 
> 
> Fox usually only sends screeners on release day so it takes some time. I just rent them and avoid the delay.
> 
> *My screens show the dimness of the blacks in crucial scenes*. They're great elsewhere though.



Our company may not be coming this weekend so I may be watching this tonight. The reviews (on Cinema's site) are really coming in now and EVERYONE is singing its praises, which includes comments on are good the blacks are. You are truly the "Lone Ranger" on this one on that site...but I guess that's nothing new.


----------



## rusky_g

*Skyfall*


My recollection of Skyfall at the Cinema was that it was quite dim and murky and I pondered how good it would look on Bluray.


I am therefore delighted that it looks exceptional - everything good about Hi Definition is captured in this release and that's all you need to know.

*Tier 0.5*


----------



## HD-Master

*Skyfall*


Roger Deakins. Amazing work, yet again. This is a beautiful film with glorious use of various elements, including shadows. It hits all the high notes and deserves its visual accolades. This is the work of a master.

*Tier Recommendation: 0.5*


----------



## djoberg

*Skyfall*


It is with some reservation that I begin this review, for I was quite persuaded that I would be joining fellow-members rusky_g and HD-Master in their hearty recommendations for Tier Blu. As stated in a previous post, EVERYONE that has posted reviews on Cinema Squid's site had unabashedly assigned it a perfect score of 100 for PQ, with the sole exception of our resident reviewer, GRG, who gave it a score of 80 there and a Tier 1.0 placement here. Now I find myself with mixed emotions as to what I just saw, though in my heart of hearts I know what I must do.


Let me state emphatically that this was indeed a beautiful film (in many ways). As HD-Master intimated Mr. Roger Deakins is to be applauded for his eclectic filming style, especially his use of shadows. Truly they had the touch the "master's hand." Speaking of shadows, I must disagree unequivocally with GRG regarding black levels, for I found them to be exquisite in every scene with mesmerizing shadow details. When the scene shifts to Shanghai, China we are treated to a panoramic, aerial view of Shanghai at night and it's one of the most beautiful shots in recent memory. Later we are blessed with yet another nighttime, aerial view of Macau and there too the black levels are superb and the lights and details of the city are simply gorgeous.


There is a happy consensus in the DETAIL department, and I might add the DEPTH department to that virtue. Details in clothing, the cobblestone streets and buildings of London, facial close-ups (though I agree with GRG that they were inconsistent), the closing scene in Scotland (where Skyfall gets its name), etc. all constitute, as we love to call it, pure EYE CANDY. And as has been stated by GRG, "SHARPNESS is outstanding all around." CONTRAST is stable, COLORS are natural and vibrant, and in *most* scenes CLARITY rules the day.


I'm sure you're wondering where I'm headed with this, given my opening paragraph where I, for all practical purposes, implied I was disappointed and may be parting company with the vast majority of all who have weighed in with a REFERENCE QUALITY assessment. There is one little area that still must be addressed, one that doesn't always sway me as it did this time around. I'm speaking of those dreaded ORANGE/BLUE hues that were found in many of the opening scenes. I found them to be very distracting at times AND in several instances FLESH TONES were most definitely affected by them, leaving Mr. Craig and others looking rather ORANGE instead of FLESH-COLORED. Thankfully they weren't pervasive; in fact, about midway into the film I can't say that I even noticed them anymore. At any rate, they were bad enough, IMHO, to cause me to penalize the title. I desperately wanted to give this a low Tier 0 placement based on all the *positives* listed above, but now I must, in good conscience, join our lonely GRG (though I'm joining him for a different reason than what he stated) and opt for the following....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**


PS I just have to shout out a word of praise for the amazing audio track! This was one of the most *precise* tracks I've ever heard, with amazing action in the surrounds, remarkable dialogue in the center, and several excellent doses of LFE thrown in for good measure. In every area it sounded PERFECT! Well-balanced comes to mind when I think of the audio track as a whole.


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Now we need a tiebreaker vote for _Skyfall_.







Someone else should step up and give their opinion on the BD. It won't be myself anytime soon, it's not at the top of my viewing list.

*Chernobyl Diaries


recommendation: Tier 2.25**


Crisp digital video courtesy of the Arri Alexa camera, the first act in broad daylight is both razor-sharp and pristine. Disregarding some possible filtering which smooths out finer detail, the first act by itself has upper Tier One-potential. The movie from that point plunges into darkness, where the video cinematography falls flat against the best film-based cinema. Digitally-shot video has a tendency to lack proper shadow depth and loses a touch of texture compared to film in its delineation. _Chernobyl Diaries_ also doesn't project much sense of dimensionality to the picture, even in exterior shots.


----------



## rusky_g

Nice review, Dj


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20040#post_22971982
> 
> 
> Nice review, Dj



Thanks!


So, did the ORANGE/TEAL hues bother you at all? Before I wrote the review I went back to several scenes to see if I had the same impression of the "orange flesh tones" and I most certainly did. One of the worst examples of it was the scene in the nightclub where Bond first meets the beautiful brunette...YUK! But again, the overall disc is so good I really don't want to dwell on its one flaw.


I also really liked the movie itself. I never did like the older Bond movies where Bond was portrayed as invincible. It's refreshing to see him being vulnerable, especially due to his age and the limitations that go along with it. And of course the villain in this outing was phenomenal! He was as good, IMO, as the Joker was in _The Dark Knight_.


----------



## HD-Master




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20040#post_22972413
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20040#post_22971982
> 
> 
> Nice review, Dj
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> So, did the ORANGE/TEAL hues bother you at all? Before I wrote the review I went back to several scenes to see if I had the same impression of the "orange flesh tones" and I most certainly did. One of the worst examples of it was the scene in the nightclub where Bond first meets the beautiful brunette...YUK! But again, the overall disc is so good I really don't want to dwell on its one flaw.
> 
> 
> I also really liked the movie itself. I never did like the older Bond movies where Bond was portrayed as invincible. It's refreshing to see him being vulnerable, especially due to his age and the limitations that go along with it. And of course the villain in this outing was phenomenal! He was as good, IMO, as the Joker was in _The Dark Knight_.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't call it a flaw if it was a choice however.


----------



## Toe

Awesome review djoberg and I agree with most of what you said.


While I noticed the orange/teal that you mention, it did not bother me personally since I assumed it was an artistic decision (and I know artistic decision has little relevance as far as this thread goes and the rating scale since it is more about eye candy, or do I have that wrong?).


Black levels, shadow detail, color, clarity, facial detail were all top notch IMO and I was floored with the PQ on this disc! I honestly cant think of anything, including maybe even Samsara (which I actually watched right before Skyfall along with Tree of Life) that has impressed me as much overall as Skyfall the other night did as far as live action blu ray goes. I have been running through a variety of "reference" blu rays since doing a full calibration on my RS45 a week ago and Skyfall tops all of them as far as the live action titles go including the ones I already mentioned and even one of my favorites, The Art of Flight. The image was ROCK solid as well as far as any flickering, or background pulsing goes which is a huge plus for me as I am very sensitive to this for some reason. I dont feel the need to vote here much, but I do for this title since I felt so strongly about it.

*Skyfall


Recommendation TIER 0*


By the way, if I did the format for my review wrong let me know as I am new to this here.







*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HD-Master*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20040#post_22972896
> 
> 
> I wouldn't call it a flaw if it was a choice however.



Okay, here's the thing. We do NOT take into consideration "Director's intent." So, if a director decides to make a scene *soft*, we will still dock the PQ for being soft. If the director decides to add *heavy grain*, we will still dock it for heavy grain. I call it a *flaw* because it hinders the PQ in some way. It's not a "flaw" from the director's vantage point; he himself made the choice to include it and so from his perspective it's perfect. But from our vantage point if it in anyway detracts from the PQ, it's a flaw or an anomaly. In _Skyfall_ I found a few brief instances, where the orange hue was on display, where there was such an orange push it detracted from the PQ by giving Mr. Craig an "orange fleshtone." He didn't look natural because of that and fleshtones are included in the criteria that we base our judgment on for placement.


----------



## HD-Master




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20040#post_22973092
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HD-Master*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20040#post_22972896
> 
> 
> I wouldn't call it a flaw if it was a choice however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, here's the thing. We do NOT take into consideration "Director's intent." So, if a director decides to make a scene *soft*, we will still dock the PQ for being soft. If the director decides to add *heavy grain*, we will still dock it for heavy grain. I call it a *flaw* because it hinders the PQ in some way. It's not a "flaw" from the director's vantage point; he himself made the choice to include it and so from his perspective it's perfect. But from our vantage point if it in anyway detracts from the PQ, it's a flaw or an anomaly. In _Skyfall_ I found a few brief instances, where the orange hue was on display, where there was such an orange push it detracted from the PQ by giving Mr. Craig an "orange fleshtone." He didn't look natural because of that and fleshtones are included in the criteria that we base our judgment on for placement.
Click to expand...


Understood.


So far, it would appear we have one vote for Tier 0, two votes for Tier 0.5, and two votes for Tier 1.0.


----------



## HD-Master




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20040#post_22973092
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HD-Master*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20040#post_22972896
> 
> 
> I wouldn't call it a flaw if it was a choice however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, here's the thing. We do NOT take into consideration "Director's intent." So, if a director decides to make a scene *soft*, we will still dock the PQ for being soft. If the director decides to add *heavy grain*, we will still dock it for heavy grain. I call it a *flaw* because it hinders the PQ in some way. It's not a "flaw" from the director's vantage point; he himself made the choice to include it and so from his perspective it's perfect. But from our vantage point if it in anyway detracts from the PQ, it's a flaw or an anomaly. In _Skyfall_ I found a few brief instances, where the orange hue was on display, where there was such an orange push it detracted from the PQ by giving Mr. Craig an "orange fleshtone." He didn't look natural because of that and fleshtones are included in the criteria that we base our judgment on for placement.
Click to expand...


Double post...for some odd reason.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20040#post_22973002
> 
> 
> Awesome review djoberg and I agree with most of what you said.
> 
> 
> While I noticed the orange/teal that you mention, it did not bother me personally since I assumed it was an artistic decision (and I know artistic decision has little relevance as far as this thread goes and the rating scale since it is more about eye candy, or do I have that wrong?).
> 
> 
> Black levels, shadow detail, color, clarity, facial detail were all top notch IMO and I was floored with the PQ on this disc! I honestly cant think of anything, including maybe even Samsara (which I actually watched right before Skyfall along with Tree of Life) that has impressed me as much overall as Skyfall the other night did as far as live action blu ray goes. I have been running through a variety of "reference" blu rays since doing a full calibration on my RS45 a week ago and Skyfall tops all of them as far as the live action titles go including the ones I already mentioned and even one of my favorites, The Art of Flight. The image was ROCK solid as well as far as any flickering, or background pulsing goes which is a huge plus for me as I am very sensitive to this for some reason. I dont feel the need to vote here much, but I do for this title since I felt so strongly about it.
> 
> *Skyfall
> 
> 
> Recommendation TIER 0*
> 
> 
> By the way, if I did the format for my review wrong let me know as I am new to this here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *



Congratulations Toe on being the tiebreaker!!


Regarding your comments on the orange/teal being an "artistic decision," you'll have to read my last post to get my take on that.


I'm really glad to read of the success you're having after doing a full calibration on your RS45. And I really am glad that you took the time the "visit us" with your review. I have ALWAYS valued your opinion, not just on audio (which, I believe, is your "first love"), but for video too.


As far as _Skyfall_ trumping other live action Blu-rays, I obviously don't agree. Even if there were no orange/teal hues involved, I was still only considering a low Tier Blu placement. I don't think it compares with titles such as _The Thin Red Line_, where the details literally jumped off the screen from the opening scene to the rolling of the credits. Add to that the amazing lush colors (especially the continual lush green forests) in TTRL, compared to _Skyfall's_ rather drab color palette in some of the scenes. I could go on comparing the two, but enough has been said to make my point. You should check out TTRL now after doing your calibration.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20040#post_22973149
> 
> 
> Congratulations Toe on being the tiebreaker!!
> 
> 
> Regarding your comments on the orange/teal being an "artistic decision," you'll have to read my last post to get my take on that.
> 
> 
> I'm really glad to read of the success you're having after doing a full calibration on your RS45. And I really am glad that you took the time the "visit us" with your review. I have ALWAYS valued your opinion, not just on audio (which, I believe, is your "first love"), but for video too.
> 
> 
> As far as _Skyfall_ trumping other live action Blu-rays, I obviously don't agree. Even if there were no orange/teal hues involved, I was still only considering a low Tier Blu placement. I don't think it compares with titles such as _The Thin Red Line_, where the details literally jumped off the screen from the opening scene to the rolling of the credits. Add to that the amazing lush colors (especially the continual lush green forests) in TTRL, compared to _Skyfall's_ rather drab color palette in some of the scenes. I could go on comparing the two, but enough has been said to make my point. You should check out TTRL now after doing your calibration.




Thanks for the welcome here and the kind words. You guys have such fantastic attention to detail as far as video goes that I cant hang with you so to speak as far as my reviews go.







You guys have definitely helped me become a more critical viewer which I appreciate. I will do my best though and try to start offering up my humble opinion a bit more often.


I will definitely revisit The Thin Red Line again and I just put it in my que. I have seen it before and remember being VERY impressed, so I am curious to see it again with my display in its current state which should make it even better. I thought it was a great movie as well, so happy to rent and rewatch. Any other suggestions? I mentioned my favorite live action titles above, so any you think that can give those a run for their money I need to check out again.


Thanks!


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20040#post_22973092
> 
> 
> Okay, here's the thing. We do NOT take into consideration "Director's intent." So, if a director decides to make a scene *soft*, we will still dock the PQ for being soft. If the director decides to add *heavy grain*, we will still dock it for heavy grain. I call it a *flaw* because it hinders the PQ in some way. It's not a "flaw" from the director's vantage point; he himself made the choice to include it and so from his perspective it's perfect. But from our vantage point if it in anyway detracts from the PQ, it's a flaw or an anomaly. In _Skyfall_ I found a few brief instances, where the orange hue was on display, where there was such an orange push it detracted from the PQ by giving Mr. Craig an "orange fleshtone." He didn't look natural because of that and fleshtones are included in the criteria that we base our judgment on for placement.




Great to know and thanks for confirming and clearing this up.


----------



## rusky_g




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20040#post_22959524
> 
> 
> Nope.
> 
> 
> *Tier 1.0**



Looking up for that Tier 0 prediction


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HD-Master*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20040#post_22973142
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So far, it would appear we have one vote for Tier 0, two votes for Tier 0.5, and two votes for Tier 1.0.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20040#post_22973326
> 
> 
> Looking up for that Tier 0 prediction



As it stands currently, _Skyfall_ would be placed in Tier 0, with Phantom having the final say as to exactly *where* in that tier. I say this because Toe's vote simply said, "Tier 0," without specifying where in that tier.


I want to go on record as stating that I will NOT lose sleep if it ends up in Tier 0; it has exceptional PQ and there is not much difference between the lower half of Tier 0 and Tier 1.0. Where I would offer a protest is if it somehow ended up at the top of Tier 0, which is virtually impossible unless tons of reviews poured in with recommendations for the top of Tier Blu.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20040_60#post_22973002
> 
> *Skyfall
> 
> 
> Recommendation TIER 0*
> 
> 
> By the way, if I did the format for my review wrong let me know as I am new to this here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *


Your recommendation will surely be counted in the final tally, Toe. I am not a stickler by any means for posters adhering to a specific review format as long their intent is clear somewhere in the post, in regards to the score. For newer readers, the asterisk is merely a helpful guide indicating to me the disc has not been ranked on the main list (the latest update is always found in my signature) and helps speed up the accounting process. A simple Tier 0 placement is fine, though giving a more exact placement as to where it belongs in Tier 0 is always helpful.


To address other concerns, I purposefully left out language concerning color-timing in the definition for the Tiers. Reasonable people may disagree on whether a specific color-timing can impact the overall picture quality of a Blu-ray, so we've left that up to the individual in determining their own Tiers' score for a disc. I will say this on the matter...I have come across movies where I thought the color-timing significantly impacted my assessment, in both the positive and negative direction. The digital colorists in Hollywood have a tough job but there have been times where I was watching a movie and wondered who decided on this color scheme, it looks hideous. Everyone knows about the teal-and-orange mania, but each genre now seems to have their own de facto tint. Both horror and comedy have drastically different standard presentations now than in past generations. What is really bothersome to me is when older films are re-colored to appease modern tastes for Blu-ray.


At the end of the day, we are simply looking for the best of the best visuals and pure eye candy on the format. That is often a gut reaction as much as a clinical assessment and should be easily explainable to newer Blu-ray viewers. What will shock and awe someone that hasn't ever watched a top-notch Blu-ray presentation before, after familiarizing themselves with HD?





For the newer readers, I will repost the guidance provided for the top tier:

*Tier Zero - Blu (Reference)


Blu-ray titles in this tier consistently offer reference level high-definition picture quality that continues to impress both at viewing distances approximately 1.5 screen widths from the display and on larger projection screens over 100”.


A Blu-ray in Tier Zero will generally exhibit the following characteristics:


A sharp image with a palpable sense of depth, clarity, and presence that will often appear nearly three-dimensional in nature.


Excellent contrast, superb shadow detail, and the deepest black levels without macroblocking or clipping.


Exquisite resolution of ultra-fine detail, fabric and surface textures, individual strands of hair, and human faces down to the imperfections and pores. Animated material will often exhibit photo-realistic qualities and will feature beautifully rendered environments.


Sophisticated color palettes will be completely resolved down to the most subtle gradations of each hue. Primary colors will appear striking and dynamic. Black-and-white material will exhibit top-notch and accurate grayscale reproduction.


A film-based title will exhibit natural grain structure free of excessive digital noise reduction (DNR) or filtering that results in a noticeable impact on the image, including waxy looking faces and missing high-frequency detail in general.


Halos and ringing artifacts are either absent or not visible enough to be distracting from standard viewing distances.


No alteration from the originally intended aspect ratio or viewable image area.


An artifact-free video compression encoding that shows virtually no signs of chroma noise, banding, posterization, aliasing, macroblocking, compression noise, and other encoding deficiencies.


The transfer of the Blu-ray will be sourced from a master with virtually no visible flaws. This entails an image free of print damage, dirt, specks, cue marks, and other flaws that should be absent from a new and pristine transfer of source material in excellent condition.*


----------



## Toe

Thanks for all the info Phantom. I just re-read through some of the first post along with the first post in the actual tier thread as well so I have a better understanding of how to judge titles.


As far as placement of Skyfall, I am really torn about where to put it in Tier 0 for a few reasons. I just looked at the Tier 0 list and not sure what to do and here is why. I agree with djoberg that it definitely does not belong at or near the top of Tier 0, no doubt about that. I think _nearly_ all the animated titles in that tier in particular should rate higher vs any of the live action, but there are a few live action titles right near the top. One of the titles near the top is Tree of Life which I literally watched the same day as Skyfall and overall I definitely feel Skyfall was more impressive from my perspective (not a huge difference overall, but I would give a slight edge to Skyfall). I did a triple feature on Thurs starting with Tree of Life, Samsara and then Skyfall and if pushed, I would give Skyfall a slight edge over either of the other 2, but all 3 I think should be ranked VERY close to each other in Tier 0. I also noticed Man On Fire is fairly high up in Tier 0 and I also just watched that last week and again Skyfall bests that title IMO as well. Having said that, I dont think any of them should be right near the top, so how should I place Skyfall? I think it should go above Tree of Life, but not above a lot of other titles below it. Is it best to just compromise in this situation and just place it where I feel it should go in Tier 0 even if some of the Tier 0 list above it does not really fall in line with my opinion on those titles? Would appreciate some opinions on the best way to place a title in this situation.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Toe, place Skyfall where you feel it best represents its picture quality, regardless of other relative rankings you may currently disagree with in the Tiers. That is actually valuable feedback you've given on those other Blu-rays, if you disagree with their current placement. Nothing ranked in the Tiers is immune to being re-examined and moved to a different placement, if necessary. One of the tiebreakers I've not really discussed for a disc's ultimate placement in Tier 0, is how recent was the transfer or disc actually made. If two Blu-rays end up in the same spot from the votes, I tend to place the newer transfer/video encode/mastering higher.


----------



## Toe

I am going to say *mid Tier 0* in that case for Skyfall.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20070#post_22973779
> 
> 
> Thanks for all the info Phantom. I just re-read through some of the first post along with the first post in the actual tier thread as well so I have a better understanding of how to judge titles.
> 
> 
> As far as placement of Skyfall, I am really torn about where to put it in Tier 0 for a few reasons. I just looked at the Tier 0 list and not sure what to do and here is why. I agree with djoberg that it definitely does not belong at or near the top of Tier 0, no doubt about that. I think _nearly_ all the animated titles in that tier in particular should rate higher vs any of the live action, but there are a few live action titles right near the top. One of the titles near the top is Tree of Life which I literally watched the same day as Skyfall and overall I definitely feel Skyfall was more impressive from my perspective (not a huge difference overall, but I would give a slight edge to Skyfall). I did a triple feature on Thurs starting with Tree of Life, Samsara and then Skyfall and if pushed, I would give Skyfall a slight edge over either of the other 2, but all 3 I think should be ranked VERY close to each other in Tier 0. I also noticed Man On Fire is fairly high up in Tier 0 and I also just watched that last week and again Skyfall bests that title IMO as well. Having said that, I dont think any of them should be right near the top, so how should I place Skyfall? I think it should go above Tree of Life, but not above a lot of other titles below it. Is it best to just compromise in this situation and just place it where I feel it should go in Tier 0 even if some of the Tier 0 list above it does not really fall in line with my opinion on those titles? Would appreciate some opinions on the best way to place a title in this situation.



You must judge this title by comparing it with other live action movies in Tier 0 and if you believe _Skyfall_ has better PQ than anything you've seen, then you should definitely put it above those, even though you stated that "it definitely does not belong at or near the top of Tier 0." In other words, if you really believe it's the best-looking live action Blu-ray you've ever seen, it must, of necessity, be placed "at or near the top." You can only judge a title against those that you've seen.


As far as _Tree of Life_ goes, don't worry about its current placement (which may be off in your opinion). In fact, if it turns out you believe _Skyfall_ should be in the middle of Tier 0, but you don't want it placed way below _Tree of Life_, then simply express that in your review. In essence you'd be giving us two reviews with two placement recommendations, and that is quite acceptable.


Hope this helps and that I didn't "muddy the waters" by what I have said.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^


Whoa, I just made my last post and then I saw Phantom's and Toe's posts. I trust my words serve to complement what Phantom said even though they may appear, in measure, to contradict what he said.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20070#post_22973950
> 
> 
> You must judge this title by comparing it with other live action movies in Tier 0 and if you believe _Skyfall_ has better PQ than anything you've seen, then you should definitely put it above those, even though you stated that "it definitely does not belong at or near the top of Tier 0." In other words, if you really believe it's the best-looking live action Blu-ray you've ever seen, it must, of necessity, be placed "at or near the top." You can only judge a title against those that you've seen.
> 
> 
> As far as _Tree of Life_ goes, don't worry about its current placement (which may be off in your opinion). In fact, if it turns out you believe _Skyfall_ should be in the middle of Tier 0, but you don't want it placed way below _Tree of Life_, then simply express that in your review. In essence you'd be giving us two reviews with two placement recommendations, and that is quite acceptable.
> 
> 
> Hope this helps and that I didn't "muddy the waters" by what I have said.



Mid Tier 0 feels right from my perspective/opinion for Skyfall. When I said not at or near the top, I just dont think it belongs above the vast majority of animated titles in Tier 0 so mid Tier 0 seems best looking at the entire list, most of which I have seen.


As far as Tree of Life goes....

*Tree of Life*

*Recommendation Tier 0: Lower Half*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20070#post_22973986
> 
> 
> Mid Tier 0 feels right from my perspective/opinion for Skyfall. When I said not at or near the top, I just dont think it belongs above the vast majority of animated titles in Tier 0 so mid Tier 0 seems best looking at the entire list, most of which I have seen.
> 
> 
> As far as Tree of Life goes....
> 
> *Tree of Life*
> 
> *Recommendation Tier 0: Lower Half*



There you go Toe! That's exactly how this thread works and thanks for BOTH reviews.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20040_60#post_22973967
> 
> 
> ^^^^^^
> 
> 
> Whoa, I just made my last post and then I saw Phantom's and Toe's posts. I trust my words serve to complement what Phantom said even though they may appear, in measure, to contradict what he said.


Don't worry about it, these issues aren't as black and white as one may think. Toe's explanation of how he arrived at its placement provides me context for the vote and will be incorporated when I ultimately decide _Skyfall's_ score. That might be more important than the exact score in helping me decide the matter. It puts in the back of my mind some idea that there are questions about the current rankings of other high-profile Tier 0 titles, like _Man On Fire_.


People are always welcome to go back over older releases that are highly ranked in the Tiers and see if they stand up to more recent scrutiny. Relative rankings are important for the Tiers to be an accurate reference.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20070#post_22974017
> 
> 
> Don't worry about it, these issues aren't as black and white as one may think. Toe's explanation of how he arrived at its placement provides me context for the vote and will be incorporated when I ultimately decide _Skyfall's_ score. That might be more important than the exact score in helping me decide the matter. *It puts in the back of my mind some idea that there are questions about the current rankings of other high-profile Tier 0 titles, like Man On Fire.
> 
> 
> People are always welcome to go back over older releases that are highly ranked in the Tiers and see if they stand up to more recent scrutiny.* Relative rankings are important for the Tiers to be an accurate reference.



I agree Phantom. In fact, I would encourage Toe, or anyone else, to post a review of ANY title they believe is too high (or too low) and give their placement recommendation.


----------



## Johnny Vertigo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20070#post_22974017
> 
> 
> People are always welcome to go back over older releases that are highly ranked in the Tiers and see if they stand up to more recent scrutiny. Relative rankings are important for the Tiers to be an accurate reference.


You just reminded me that I wanted to write about few titles. Here we go:

*The International* (Currently: Tier 0)


This is the best looking live action movie I've seen on Blu-ray.

*Tier Recommendation: 0*, above Dead Men's Chest


---

*Avatar* (Currently: Tier 0)


It's a little bit tough movie to judge PQ, because on one hand, we got absolutely amazing, jaw dropping animated scenes, and on the other, live action scenes, and the latter aren't so amazing. There's great clarity and resolution, they've got a real hi def feel, but for me eyes they're not enough sharp and impressive as other live action titles from Tier 0.


I would say it's Tier 0 for CGI sequences and 1-1.25, sometimes 1.5 for live action. Overall I would go with
*Tier Recommendation: 1*


---

*Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl* (Currently: Tier 0)


Pirates... look definitely great on Blu-ray, but it's not Tier 0. While I was amazed by dimensionality, clarity and sharpness of Dead Men's Chest (especially when it comes to daylight scenes) and also At World's End, I can't say the same about Black Pearl. It's just that there's no this "Wow!" factor here. It's very pleasing, high definition film-like image, but it's not the same league as the sequels.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*


---

*In Time* (Currently: Tier 1.5)


Before Roger Deakins and Alexa amazed us in Skyfall, there was In Time. I can't believe it's only Tier 1.5! Close ups are stunning here, but even medium shots are so full of facial details and sharpness, that they're almost too good. It's incredibly clear and sharp image, with amazing textures, depth and resolution.

*Tier Recommendation: 0.5*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Johnny Vertigo*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20070#post_22974319
> 
> 
> You just reminded me that I wanted to write about few titles. Here we go:
> 
> 
> 
> Before Roger Deakins and Alexa amazed us in Skyfall, there was In Time. I can't believe it's only Tier 1.5! Close ups are stunning here, but even medium shots are so full of facial details and sharpness, that they're almost too good. It's incredibly clear and sharp image, with amazing textures, depth and resolution.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 0.5*



I too was VERY IMPRESSED by this Blu-ray and no doubt would have given it a Tier 0 placement, except for one thing.....check out my review:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19110#post_21666212 


Ah, even back then those lovely ORANGE/TEAL hues were wreaking havoc! It's such a tragedy that many directors today are, for whatever reason, infactuated with "color-timing" when the vast majority of viewers could easily live without them!


----------



## Johnny Vertigo

I think you're misjudging this whole teal & orange thing. Usually we are talking about this when it comes to movies like, for example, Transformers, when you got teal AND orange in one scene (or "one", it's just entire damn movie), for "better" contrast and color pop. Blue hues, like in some scenes in Skyfall and In Time, are nothing new and offensive. The same for orange. Casino scene in Skyfall has this very heavy orange hue, but it's not only for skin tones. Entire scene looks that way and it has nothing to do do with orange & teal madness.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Johnny Vertigo*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20070#post_22975534
> 
> 
> I think you're misjudging this whole teal & orange thing. Usually we are talking about this when it comes to movies like, for example, Transformers, when you got teal AND orange in one scene (or "one", it's just entire damn movie), for "better" contrast and color pop. Blue hues, like in some scenes in Skyfall and In Time, are nothing new and offensive. The same for orange. Casino scene in Skyfall has this very heavy orange hue, but it's not only for skin tones. Entire scene looks that way and it has nothing to do do with orange & teal madness.



If you'll read Phantom's comments in an earlier post (where he addresses the issue of color-timing), you'll see that this is one area that is purposely not mentioned in the criteria set forth for judging PQ and that each member will have to determine whether or not it was offensive to them in any particular movie. If you read this thread consistently you know that GRG often docks titles for its orange/teal hues. I don't always penalize a title for this, but the casino scene you referred to was beyond the pale, IMO, and so I docked it for that. Others won't and that's fine. To each their own, as we sometimes say.


----------



## Johnny Vertigo

OK, I understand, but to clarify heavy orange in Skyfall I suggest you to read Roger Deakins forum where he explains a lot of things about shooting his movies. As he said many times, he does very little in terms of color timing at the DI and for the most part his movies looks just like they were shot, because he likes to do color and lighting on set.


If you look at the photos from the set of casino in Skyfall, you'll notice the same thing as in the movie - very heavy orange hue, which is effect of the lighting on this set. Besides, in my opinion, it fits the scene and location perfectly.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Black Christmas (1974)


recommendation: Tier 4.5**

_Black Christmas_ was a low-budget and brilliant slasher for its time, but time has not been kind to the film elements used for this Blu-ray. Critical Mass gave the grainy and underexposed-at-times print a sub-standard AVC-encode that averages 15 Mbps, simply far too low for a film of this vintage. The transfer is largely film-like with few indicators of serious digital processing, though expect a very soft image with little visible detail. With the camera negative apparently lost or in unusable condition, the secondary film elements used for the master reveal modest improvements to the video at best. The BD is probably the best _Black Christmas_ will ever look in 1080P without a major restoration or a new archival find.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Johnny Vertigo*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20070#post_22975897
> 
> 
> OK, I understand, but to clarify heavy orange in Skyfall I suggest you to read Roger Deakins forum where he explains a lot of things about shooting his movies. As he said many times, he does very little in terms of color timing at the DI and for the most part his movies looks just like they were shot, because he likes to do color and lighting on set.
> 
> *If you look at the photos from the set of casino in Skyfall, you'll notice the same thing as in the movie - very heavy orange hue, which is effect of the lighting on this set. Besides, in my opinion, it fits the scene and location perfectly*.



I decided to watch _Skyfall_ again this afternoon and I just finished the "casino" scene (it was much longer than I had remembered). Whether it's a case of color-timing or the effect of the lighting on the set, I did NOT care for it one bit. Not only did it make Mr. Craig and others look unnatural, but it most definitely served to obscure detail in faces...they looked smoothed over on every face. Add to that a rather *soft* look in most shots in the casino and you have several reasons for penalizing the PQ of this otherwise magnificent-looking title. Again, I realize how all of this was the "director's (and photographer's) intent," but that means nothing to us on this thread; our job is to judge the PQ....to look for EYE CANDY, and in that one rather long scene you have three reasons for docking the score: 1) unnatural fleshtones; 2) lack of detail; and 3) softness. I am more convinced than ever that I made the right call in my recommended placement.


----------



## Johnny Vertigo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20070#post_22977225
> 
> 
> I am more convinced than ever that I made the right call in my recommended placement.


djoberg, but I never questioned your tier recommendation of Skyfall (which I haven't seen on Blu-ray yet). I just wanted to explain, apart from the PQ, that orange hue in casino scene is not the same category as typical orange & teal grading that is the result of post production. That's all










But I disagree with judging fleshtones that way. Would you say they are are unnatural in Cube , when most of the movie takes place in this type of lighting? Come on, that's ridiculous.


----------



## Johnny Vertigo

EDIT: double post


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Johnny Vertigo*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20070#post_22977253
> 
> 
> djoberg, but I never questioned your tier recommendation of Skyfall (which I haven't seen on Blu-ray yet). I just wanted to explain, apart from the PQ, that orange hue in casino scene is not the same category as typical orange & teal grading that is the result of post production. That's all
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I disagree with judging fleshtones that way. Would you say they are are unnatural in Cube , when most of the movie takes place in this type of lighting?



First of all, I realize that you were trying to enlighten me as to the casino scene being a case of "lighting" and not "color-timing." I get that and I, in measure, conceded that point. But as I said in my response it really doesn't matter which is the case; what matters is HOW DOES THE PQ LOOK? I cited three reasons for docking the title (unnatural fleshtones, lack of detail, and softness), thinking that in the case of the fleshtones and lack of detail they can be attributed to the "orange hue." So, even if I were to agree with you that I was wrong in the way I'm judging fleshtones (BTW, I don't agree with you), the orange hue would still be hindering good PQ by obscuring details and possibly being the cause for the softness.


I really don't know how to address your question about judging fleshtones, other than to say that with some Blu-rays with orange/teal hues they still look natural, and on other titles they don't. In _Skyfall_ the orange push was so bad in the casino scene Mr. Craig's face did NOT look natural to _my eyes_. I will say this though, that there is a much greater danger of unnatural fleshtones with ORANGE than there is with TEAL, IMHO.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Johnny Vertigo*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20040_60#post_22975897
> 
> 
> OK, I understand, but to clarify heavy orange in Skyfall I suggest you to read Roger Deakins forum where he explains a lot of things about shooting his movies. As he said many times, he does very little in terms of color timing at the DI and for the most part his movies looks just like they were shot, because he likes to do color and lighting on set.
> 
> 
> If you look at the photos from the set of casino in Skyfall, you'll notice the same thing as in the movie - very heavy orange hue, which is effect of the lighting on this set. Besides, in my opinion, it fits the scene and location perfectly.


It's certainly an interesting point I will keep in mind, when I eventually get around to watching _Skyfall_ on Blu-ray. In a total coincidence, earlier today I came across this very interesting discussion by Roger Deakins when performing some research for an unrelated review. He sits down and talks at great length about his new-found respect for the ARRI ALEXA, the digital camera he used for _Skyfall_. Interesting stuff for those into the finer aspects of modern cinematography. Deakins goes into great detail about filming _In Time_, a Blu-ray that I thought was a stunner and easily Tier 0.

http://nofilmschool.com/2012/09/roger-deakins-talking-about-the-arri-alexa-at-ibc/


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^


Thanks for the link Phantom....a VERY interesting read! I have mixed feelings about the great controversy between FILM and DIGITAL. I have seen spectacular films from both cameras so I would fall into the camp of those who say, "if it looks good, use it." I believe Mr. Deakins subscribes to that philosophy, though it's quite obvious his leanings are now towards digital.


Did you read the long discussion after the video clips? I had to chuckle after reading the first post by someone who shares my *concern* about the "orange/teal mania." His plea for the "natural look" mirrors my own sentiments and I have to believe those of MANY film viewers.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20070#post_22977225
> 
> 
> I decided to watch _Skyfall_ again this afternoon and I just finished the "casino" scene (it was much longer than I had remembered). Whether it's a case of color-timing or the effect of the lighting on the set, I did NOT care for it one bit. Not only did it make Mr. Craig and others look unnatural, but it most definitely served to obscure detail in faces...they looked smoothed over on every face. Add to that a rather *soft* look in most shots in the casino and you have several reasons for penalizing the PQ of this otherwise magnificent-looking title. Again, I realize how all of this was the "director's (and photographer's) intent," but that means nothing to us on this thread; our job is to judge the PQ....to look for EYE CANDY, and in that one rather long scene you have three reasons for docking the score: 1) unnatural fleshtones; 2) lack of detail; and 3) softness. I am more convinced than ever that I made the right call in my recommended placement.



Denny, I am not yet ready to decide on a recommendation for this title but I expect I will come in lower than you. (Surprise, surprise!!) Too many softish scenes and shots, including all the scenes where Fiennes and Dench appear together.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20070#post_22980003
> 
> 
> Denny, I am not yet ready to decide on a recommendation for this title but I expect I will come in lower than you. (Surprise, surprise!!) Too many softish scenes and shots, including all the scenes where Fiennes and Dench appear together.



I'll look forward to your review Patrick (and to another placement recommendation other than Tier 0







). I would also like your take on the "casino scene" with the heavy "orange hues." Do you think the orange push affected flesh tones and hindered facial details (and possibly contributed to the softness throughout that scene)?


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20070#post_22978376
> 
> 
> It's certainly an interesting point I will keep in mind, when I eventually get around to watching _Skyfall_ on Blu-ray. In a total coincidence, earlier today I came across this very interesting discussion by Roger Deakins when performing some research for an unrelated review. He sits down and talks at great length about his new-found respect for the ARRI ALEXA, the digital camera he used for _Skyfall_. Interesting stuff for those into the finer aspects of modern cinematography. Deakins goes into great detail about filming _In Time_, a Blu-ray that I thought was a stunner and easily Tier 0.
> 
> http://nofilmschool.com/2012/09/roger-deakins-talking-about-the-arri-alexa-at-ibc/



Thanks for the info. After the eyegasm that was Skyfall, I am curious to revisit other films shot with the same camera which looks to be the case with In Time which I have coming Wed from Netflix.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20070#post_22980090
> 
> 
> I'll look forward to your review Patrick (and to another placement recommendation other than Tier 0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ). I would also like your take on the "casino scene" with the heavy "orange hues." Do you think the orange push affected flesh tones and hindered facial details (and possibly contributed to the softness throughout that scene)?



I need to watch that scene again to be sure, but I suspect you are right based on my recollection of the scene.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20040_60#post_22980155
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20070#post_22978376
> 
> 
> It's certainly an interesting point I will keep in mind, when I eventually get around to watching _Skyfall_ on Blu-ray. In a total coincidence, earlier today I came across this very interesting discussion by Roger Deakins when performing some research for an unrelated review. He sits down and talks at great length about his new-found respect for the ARRI ALEXA, the digital camera he used for _Skyfall_. Interesting stuff for those into the finer aspects of modern cinematography. Deakins goes into great detail about filming _In Time_, a Blu-ray that I thought was a stunner and easily Tier 0.
> 
> http://nofilmschool.com/2012/09/roger-deakins-talking-about-the-arri-alexa-at-ibc/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the info. After the eyegasm that was Skyfall, I am curious to revisit other films shot with the same camera which looks to be the case with In Time which I have coming Wed from Netflix.
Click to expand...

Not everything being filmed with the Arri Alexa camera will necessarily end up in Tier 0, as witnessed below...

*A Late Quartet


recommendation: Tier 1.75**

_A Late Quartet_ would likely have garnered a nod for Tier 1.25, if not for some very questionable ringing that sticks out from the rest of the nearly-reference image. Some minor loss in shadow delineation at times doesn't help either, but the sporadic aliasing is quite noticeable on the stringed instruments of the musicians. I would imagine the aliasing is the result of a scaling error, from the raw digital cinematography of the Arri Alexa being converted to the 2K digital intermediate. I usually don't dock a Blu-ray this much for one problem but with everything else looking so crisp, the sharp ringing is unfortunate.


It happens to be an excellent drama, particularly if one has any interest in chamber music or especially Beethoven's Opus 131.


----------



## Toe

I hear ya. I definitely dont anticipate all the titles filmed with this camera to hit tier 0 as there are obviously more factors involved than just the camera. Still curious to check out the other titles I have not seen that have used this camera though considering how impressed I was with Skyfall. From what I have gathered so far this list includes Hugo, In time, Avengers, Game of Thrones, Drive, Rock of Ages, Chronicle, and whatever else I missed (?). Out of those I have seen Hugo, Avengers, Drive and Chronicle. Hugo and Avengers I thought looked excellent overall. Cant recall exactly how I felt about the other two, but apparently they were not memorable enough to remember. Will check out RoA and GoT at some point as both are in my que. Any others I may have missed (put A Late Quartet in there, thanks!)?


----------



## Johnny Vertigo

Differences between movies shot with the same camera are sometimes more than dramatic, so it's more about DP that equipment.


----------



## subavision212

From Roger Deakins himself:

"The scene in the Casino was lit to the colour you see it. I was using bulbs that were dimmed down to about 30% and therefore quite warm but I might have adjusted the camera as well. Maybe we looked at the scene at 4,000K but I don't remember using that setting for the scene. I tend to do as much as I can with lighting but the ability to adjust the colour temperature in the camera is useful, though more so on exterior work. Bear in mind that when you make such an on set 'correction' the RAW file is not changed at all. The 'correction' is recorded in the metadata that travels with the RAW file and can be used or not later."


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *subavision212*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20070#post_22984110
> 
> 
> From Roger Deakins himself:
> 
> "The scene in the Casino was lit to the colour you see it. I was using bulbs that were dimmed down to about 30% and therefore quite warm but I might have adjusted the camera as well. Maybe we looked at the scene at 4,000K but I don't remember using that setting for the scene. I tend to do as much as I can with lighting but the ability to adjust the colour temperature in the camera is useful, though more so on exterior work. Bear in mind that when you make such an on set 'correction' the RAW file is not changed at all. The 'correction' is recorded in the metadata that travels with the RAW file and can be used or not later."



I was fairly convinced before your post that it was indeed "lighting" and not "color-timing" in the casino scene. But that does NOT change my opinion of the PQ....detail was lacking and much of that scene was very soft. The lighting obviously was the goal in the director's and cinematographer's mind, but for the purpose of this thread it resulted in a loss of good PQ.


Let me add that even though we are seeing an orange hue due to lighting and not color-timing, the effect is the same, for you have this terrible orange push that wreaks havoc on flesh tones. Again, this (the "orange hue") was no doubt the intent of Mr. Deakins, but we are not judging the accuracy of the transfer on this thread, but the merits of the PQ; in other words, EYE CANDY!


----------



## jrnewquist

Why is the "color choice" of black and white movies acceptable but the lighting in the Skyfall casino scene not? I understand the loathing some of us carry about orange and teal, but in this case it seems like less a PQ complaint than a dislike of an overplayed color.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jrnewquist*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20100_60#post_22984562
> 
> 
> Why is the "color choice" of black and white movies acceptable but the lighting in the Skyfall casino scene not? I understand the loathing some of us carry about orange and teal, but in this case it seems like less a PQ complaint than a dislike of an overplayed color.


That is certainly a legitimate point, though you'll notice there isn't a single black-and-white film in either Tier 0 or Tier 1. I believe the highest-ranked b&w movie is somewhere in Tier 2. There are certain criteria that end up being subjective judgment calls in the end, which is why we've allowed some latitude on the issue. Decades' worth of films in black-and-white have made us accustomed to viewing it without thinking anything is unusual.


Where I think lighting and color-timing play the biggest part in picture quality results are their impact on flesh-tones. We all have an intrinsic reference for what skin should look like and it definitely bothers me when a non-fantasy movie pulls me out of the experience with odd tinting. I understand how a cinematographer wants to set a certain mood or tone with light and color for a specific scene, but in my mind that can negatively impact the overall picture quality. I still think the ultimate reference for picture quality in HD should be that prized "window" effect, where the screen approximates looking outside a clean window on a sunny day. I don't see orange-colored people outside my window.







That changes a bit for the animation but you get my drift.


----------



## jrnewquist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20100#post_22984836
> 
> 
> Where I think lighting and color-timing play the biggest part in picture quality results are their impact on flesh-tones. We all have an intrinsic reference for what skin should look like and it definitely bothers me when a non-fantasy movie pulls me out of the experience with odd tinting. I understand how a cinematographer wants to set a certain mood or tone with light and color for a specific scene, but in my mind that can negatively impact the overall picture quality. I still think the ultimate reference for picture quality in HD should be that prized "window" effect, where the screen approximates looking outside a clean window on a sunny day. I don't see orange-colored people outside my window.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That changes a bit for the animation but you get my drift.



Yes, but there's a difference between feeling like the blu-ray offers a window to another place, and not liking what the lighting is like on the other side. Considering only Tier 0 for a moment, we're ok with Avatar's flesh tones ( example ), various orange and teal-lit scenes in Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest ( example ), Sin City's black and white tones ( example ), or Live Free or Die Hard's orange and teal affect on fleshtones ( examples )?


I am not a Skyfall apologist by any means, and I do not intend to nitpick something that's clearly subjective. But we have plenty of evidence that flesh tones in Skyfall were excellent _in scenes where it is appropriate to judge them_ (e.g. fairly normal lighting). Not all scenes have lighting which is suitable for us to judge flesh tone accuracy, however. There are exceptions, and the presence of those exceptions by itself does not doom a film to live below Tier 0, as current rankings indicate quite clearly.


----------



## deltasun

Hey Guys, has anybody here seen the lower-encoded Target-exclusive Argo BD? I'm hesitating to open mine.


----------



## markmathers

I just picked up the Target version. Do you think that version is noticeably different?


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20100#post_22985588
> 
> 
> Hey Guys, has anybody here seen the lower-encoded Target-exclusive Argo BD? I'm hesitating to open mine.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *markmathers*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20100#post_22985651
> 
> 
> I just picked up the Target version. Do you think that version is noticeably different?



That's what I'm hoping to find out from someone here who's watched it. It's never the type of film that would be demo material, but I heard the extra compression is creating problems for the encode.


----------



## markmathers




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20100#post_22985701
> 
> 
> That's what I'm hoping to find out from someone here who's watched it. It's never the type of film that would be demo material, but I heard the extra compression is creating problems for the encode.



Hmm, I guess I never really thought about that. I just saw that the Target version had more features for the same price so I got that one. I'm also curious now.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jrnewquist*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20100_60#post_22985207
> 
> 
> Yes, but there's a difference between feeling like the blu-ray offers a window to another place, and not liking what the lighting is like on the other side. Considering only Tier 0 for a moment, we're ok with Avatar's flesh tones ( example ), various orange and teal-lit scenes in Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest ( example ), Sin City's black and white tones ( example ), or Live Free or Die Hard's orange and teal affect on fleshtones ( examples )?
> 
> 
> I am not a Skyfall apologist by any means, and I do not intend to nitpick something that's clearly subjective. But we have plenty of evidence that flesh tones in Skyfall were excellent _in scenes where it is appropriate to judge them_ (e.g. fairly normal lighting). Not all scenes have lighting which is suitable for us to judge flesh tone accuracy, however. There are exceptions, and the presence of those exceptions by itself does not doom a film to live below Tier 0, as current rankings indicate quite clearly.


My comments were not specifically aimed at _Skyfall_, which I have not seen in any venue or form. I was speaking in generalities regarding color-timings, mostly my own philosophy on the subject. As it stands now, I am greatly inclined to place _Skyfall_ in Tier 0 if no further input is put forth in the thread.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20100_60#post_22985588
> 
> 
> Hey Guys, has anybody here seen the lower-encoded Target-exclusive Argo BD? I'm hesitating to open mine.


That is an interesting situation. I would wait to see the BDInfo scans for both versions.


*Painted Skin II: The Resurrection


recommendation: Tier 1.0*
*

Rampant CGI FX and occasional green-screen composites are the only things keeping this disc out of Tier 0. According to the cover, the New York Times called _Painted Skin II_ “blindingly gorgeous.” If you can't trust the New York Times, who can you trust? Impeccable focal depth and perfect clarity, backed by pure black levels and a stellar video encode. Well Go USA used to be a spotty distributor in turning out proper Blu-rays, but the caliber of their recent releases indicate a new commitment to technical excellence.


----------



## Cinema Squid




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20100#post_22984836
> 
> 
> That is certainly a legitimate point, though you'll notice there isn't a single black-and-white film in either Tier 0 or Tier 1. I believe the highest-ranked b&w movie is somewhere in Tier 2.



Not that it matters much to the discussion, but I believe the highest ranked B&W film is The White Ribbon in Tier 1.5, followed by Persepolis in Tier 1.75.


----------



## subavision212

I think you have to be careful when you say something doesn't look good to YOU. People who read this thread start to think "something must be wrong with this film if people are saying these things." Obviously, the way Skyfall was lit and shot was done exactly the way Deakins and anyone else involved in the production's look wanted it to turn out. The film was put together, released and made millions of dollars looking exactly how they wanted it to look. I'm not I agree with people who had absolutely nothing to do with how this film was constructed, or little or any experience at with film, lighting etc. should say this doesn't look good to ME. If that's the case, take the movie back and buy something else that you think looks right to you. It like saying wow that outfielder just made a great one handed catch but to ME it would have been better if used TWO hands. I'm just saying that when you are the creative force behind something, even if it's something simple like painting your home, you would probably be pissed if your neighbor came by and said "That blue paint you chose looks nice, but to me the better choice would have been this shade."


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *subavision212*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20100#post_22986035
> 
> 
> I think you have to be careful when you say something doesn't look good to YOU. People who read this thread start to think "something must be wrong with this film if people are saying these things."


That is what this thread has always been about... Some of the best transfers on the format are halfway down Tier 3.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jrnewquist*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20100#post_22984562
> 
> 
> Why is the "color choice" of black and white movies acceptable but the lighting in the Skyfall casino scene not? I understand the loathing some of us carry about orange and teal, but *in this case it seems like less a PQ complaint than a dislike of an overplayed color*.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jrnewquist*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20100#post_22985207
> 
> 
> Yes, but there's a difference between feeling like the blu-ray offers a window to another place, and not liking what the lighting is like on the other side. Considering only Tier 0 for a moment, we're ok with Avatar's flesh tones ( example ), various orange and teal-lit scenes in Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest ( example ), Sin City's black and white tones ( example ), or Live Free or Die Hard's orange and teal affect on fleshtones ( examples )?
> 
> 
> I am not a Skyfall apologist by any means, and I do not intend to nitpick something that's clearly subjective. But we have plenty of evidence that flesh tones in Skyfall were excellent _in scenes where it is appropriate to judge them_ (e.g. fairly normal lighting). Not all scenes have lighting which is suitable for us to judge flesh tone accuracy, however. There are exceptions, and the presence of those exceptions by itself does not doom a film to live below Tier 0, as current rankings indicate quite clearly.



Well, I guess we finally have an intense debate on our hands!


I simply want to address the highlighted words above. When I read them, I thought to myself, "Did he even read my last few posts?" If you had, you would have seen that IT IS A PQ COMPLAINT!!! I stated over and over again that the "orange hue" affected the PQ...in three possible ways. It most surely affected the fleshtones on Mr. Craig; he looked more like a pumpkin than a man! It also obscured facial details and throughout that scene there is a definite softness in the casino (whether that can be attibuted directly to the orange hue, I can't state definitively). So, it is not so much a case of "a dislike of an overplayed color" than it is the negative effects on the PQ.


I was thankful for you producing some still shots from other movies that had color-timing. They served to illustrate what I said in a previous post....that I'm not always bothered by orange/teal hues if they don't affect fleshtones or detail, and in the majority of those still shots there were no negative effects. I can state this dogmatically, "None of those shots even compare to the effects of the orange hue on Mr. Craig's face."


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *subavision212*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20100#post_22986035
> 
> 
> I think you have to be careful when you say something doesn't look good to YOU. People who read this thread start to think "something must be wrong with this film if people are saying these things." *Obviously, the way Skyfall was lit and shot was done exactly the way Deakins and anyone else involved in the production's look wanted it to turn out. The film was put together, released and made millions of dollars looking exactly how they wanted it to look.* I'm not I agree with people who had absolutely nothing to do with how this film was constructed, or little or any experience at with film, lighting etc. should say this doesn't look good to ME. If that's the case, take the movie back and buy something else that you think looks right to you. It like saying wow that outfielder just made a great one handed catch but to ME it would have been better if used TWO hands. I'm just saying that when you are the creative force behind something, even if it's something simple like painting your home, you would probably be pissed if your neighbor came by and said "That blue paint you chose looks nice, but to me the better choice would have been this shade."





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20100#post_22986068
> 
> 
> That is what this thread has always been about... *Some of the best transfers* on the format are halfway down Tier 3.



I have to say again that I'm surprised you two read my last few posts and still don't get it! This thread is NOT about the "director's/cinematographer' intent," or about "the accuracy of the transfer," it's about EYE CANDY! If you want to hear reviews from people who will rate a Blu-ray based on transfer accuracy, you will have to visit other threads that deal with that subject. I'm really surprised with you 42041, for you have always known that this thread has nothing to do with how good the *transfer* is; it's about how good the *PQ* is.


Let's take, as an example, the movie _28 Days Later_. I never saw this in the theater, but it *may* be that the Blu-ray transfer of this movie is perfect; that is, it looks exactly like it did in the theaters. If that were the case, that Blu-ray might be given top honors and voted into Tier 0 on a thread that deals specifically with accurate Blu-ray transfers. But here it was voted into the bottom tier (Tier 5). Why? Because it's UGLY, with some the worst heavy grain/noise seen on a Blu-ray, along with murky blacks and a lack of details. We judge Blu-rays solely on HOW THEY LOOK, not on HOW THEY LOOK IN COMPARISON TO WHAT THEY LOOKED LIKE IN THE THEATER.


Those who contribute regularly on this thread understand this basic principle and we get along just fine. Those who don't understand this basic principle seem to think that we should change the way we judge Blu-rays by taking into consideration the "director's intent" and the "accuracy of the transfer." To do so would actually cause confusion and would be misleading. It would cause confusion because then you would have two totally different sets of principles for judging PQ that *could* easily contradict one another. It would be misleading because you would have people coming to this thread looking for the very best Blu-rays to feast their eyes on and to show off their displays, and they may find themselves very disappointed at times by buying/renting a title that is perhaps in the two top tiers that is anything but EYE CANDY (like _28 Days Later_, if it were judged to be worthy of Tier 0 or Tier 1 based on it's accuracy to the theatrical version). I rest my case.


----------



## jrnewquist

djoberg, thank you for the replies. I had indeed read your previous posts about PQ. I just fail to see (perhaps for lack of technical or scientific understanding) how the scene lighting and/or color temperature of the scene can have the affects and PQ interactions you assert. We've all seen lots of content with challenging lighting and color temperature changes and color timing changes which did not have similar detrimental affects. So I'm quite puzzled why you think they're related.


In some sense, the causal chain doesn't matter, as you and Phantom have indicated. The only thing that matters, according to the criteria we have here, is what's actually on the screen - for whatever reason, and whatever intent. If there's softness in the scene, that's likely to be judged a technical flaw by the rubric that the PQ Tiers have established. Completely fair!


...But the "Mr. Pumpkinhead" complaint that you issue is one part subjective (that you don't like the lighting of that scene), and another part assertion that it's the cause for your other criticisms -- which I do not at present see as justified.


Whatever the case, I'm now very interested to go back and watch the film again, particularly this scene!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20100#post_22985588
> 
> 
> Hey Guys, has anybody here seen the lower-encoded Target-exclusive Argo BD? I'm hesitating to open mine.



I can't help you out there buddy, but I just had to reply by saying "it's good to see you posting again; we have missed you!"


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jrnewquist*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20100#post_22986264
> 
> 
> djoberg, thank you for the replies. I had indeed read your previous posts about PQ. I just fail to see (perhaps for lack of technical or scientific understanding) how the scene lighting and/or color temperature of the scene can have the affects and PQ interactions you assert. We've all seen lots of content with challenging lighting and color temperature changes and color timing changes which did not have similar detrimental affects. So I'm quite puzzled why you think they're related.
> 
> 
> In some sense, the causal chain doesn't matter, as you and Phantom have indicated. The only thing that matters, according to the criteria we have here, is what's actually on the screen - for whatever reason, and whatever intent. If there's softness in the scene, that's likely to be judged a technical flaw by the rubric that the PQ Tiers have established. Completely fair!
> 
> 
> ...But the "Mr. Pumpkinhead" complaint that you issue is one part subjective (that you don't like the lighting of that scene), and another part assertion that it's the cause for your other criticisms -- which I do not at present see as justified.
> 
> 
> Whatever the case, I'm now very interested to go back and watch the film again, particularly this scene!



First of all, lighting/color-timing can indeed affect details by obscuring them. When you do revisit that scene, look closely at Mr. Craig's face and tell me if facial details look as good as in previous scenes where he was in natural light? In scenes with natural light one can detect fine lines and texture in his face, but not so in the casino.


Regarding my reference to him looking more like a pumpkin, I confess I resorted to a bit of hyperbole, for he surely isn't as orange as a pumpkin. But I can say he looked more orange than flesh-colored.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Cinema Squid*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20100_60#post_22985857
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20100#post_22984836
> 
> 
> That is certainly a legitimate point, though you'll notice there isn't a single black-and-white film in either Tier 0 or Tier 1. I believe the highest-ranked b&w movie is somewhere in Tier 2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not that it matters much to the discussion, but I believe the highest ranked B&W film is The White Ribbon in Tier 1.5, followed by Persepolis in Tier 1.75.
Click to expand...

Thank you for that correction. I thought I was opening myself up to being corrected when I so categorically made that proclamation. There are now well over 2000 individual entries in the entire Tiers.


----------



## Johnny Vertigo

But isn't lighting affecting detail level, like, always? That's obvious you're not gonna have the same detail level in a night scene as in daylight scene. And night scenes are, well, in every movie, so does it automatically mean none of them deserves to be in Tier 0?


I know we suppose to rate the image quality just as it is, regardless of the age of the movie, how it was shot (film or digital), etc., but it's impossible to have the same quality from the first to last second, also because of the lighting.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *subavision212*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20070#post_22984110
> 
> 
> From Roger Deakins himself:
> 
> "The scene in the Casino was lit to the colour you see it. I was using bulbs that were dimmed down to about 30% and therefore quite warm but I might have adjusted the camera as well. Maybe we looked at the scene at 4,000K but I don't remember using that setting for the scene. I tend to do as much as I can with lighting but the ability to adjust the colour temperature in the camera is useful, though more so on exterior work. Bear in mind that when you make such an on set 'correction' the RAW file is not changed at all. The 'correction' is recorded in the metadata that travels with the RAW file and can be used or not later."



if a perfectionist like Deakins says "might have adjusted, Maybe we looked at...I don't remember"


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20100#post_22986717
> 
> 
> if a perfectionist like Deakins says "might have adjusted, Maybe we looked at...I don't remember"



Whoa, first deltasun comes out of the woodwork...now Hugh! This has been a memorable day, in many ways!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Hannah And Her Sisters


recommendation: Tier 4.5**


I gave this one serious consideration for the bottom tier, it is that bad at times. Plainly a dated transfer from MGM's vaults, it has possibly been tweaked in certain scenes. One of Woody Allen's better movies deserves more than this effort from Fox. The best one can say for the image is that Fox decided not to run any serious DNR on the wildly exaggerated and sharpened grain structure.


----------



## jrnewquist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20100#post_22986399
> 
> 
> Thank you for that correction. I thought I was opening myself up to being corrected when I so categorically made that proclamation. There are now well over 2000 individual entries in the entire Tiers.



Sin City is in Tier Zero and is black and white with occasional forced colors, as I'm sure you know. You're not counting that?


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20100#post_22986777
> 
> 
> Whoa, first deltasun comes out of the woodwork...now Hugh! This has been a memorable day, in many ways!



Hi Denny! love you guys and the hobby...I check in several times a day. Seems you are all doing well.







Best to all!


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Johnny Vertigo*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20100_60#post_22986440
> 
> 
> But isn't lighting affecting detail level, like, always? That's obvious you're not gonna have the same detail level in a night scene as in daylight scene. And night scenes are, well, in every movie, so does it automatically mean none of them deserves to be in Tier 0?
> 
> 
> I know we suppose to rate the image quality just as it is, regardless of the age of the movie, how it was shot (film or digital), etc., but it's impossible to have the same quality from the first to last second, also because of the lighting.


It's definitely a difficult standard to meet. Typically we focus on aspects like black levels and shadow delineation for night photography. When I give a personal recommendation, I don't tend to heavily penalize a disc if a negatory attribute appears for a limited duration. Only when something is continually a problem throughout a movie or widespread in its effects, do I lower my ranking. That is what amazed me about the first season of _Boss_ and why I ranked it near Avatar. Its picture quality has stunning consistency, as a drama mostly shot with precision and the utmost care on controlled studio sets.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jrnewquist*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20100_60#post_22986937
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20100#post_22986399
> 
> 
> Thank you for that correction. I thought I was opening myself up to being corrected when I so categorically made that proclamation. There are now well over 2000 individual entries in the entire Tiers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sin City is in Tier Zero and is black and white with occasional forced colors, as I'm sure you know. You're not counting that?
Click to expand...

That is another one I forgot to mention, thank you. Now that you've cited _Sin City_, I've always thought it should be ranked higher than its current lofty placement. Anyone else agree?


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20100_60#post_22987109
> 
> 
> Hi Denny! love you guys and the hobby...I check in several times a day. Seems you are all doing well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Best to all!


Don't be a stranger around these parts, Hugh.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20100#post_22987109
> 
> 
> Hi Denny! love you guys and the hobby...I check in several times a day. Seems you are all doing well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Best to all!





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20100#post_22987335
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be a stranger around these parts, Hugh.



Thanks Hugh...and I hope you take Phantom's words to heart. I really do miss your reviews (and NOT just because you and I were in a special club known as "The Generous Raters' Club"







). It would be nice to see something from you before the weather turns nice and the call goes out for good landscapers (assuming you're still in that line of work), which I know takes up a lot of your time.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Argo*


Shot on a little bit of everything from 8mm to high res digital, Argo actually has quite a bit of consistency. A thick, weighted grain structure caused by an intentional blow up of the frame is handled beautifully by the encode without any real trouble spots. Black levels are here and there, but never so off as to be distracting. Colors are dense without being saturated and detail, if inconsistent, is plentiful. This one is probably high, but I liked the look.

*Tier 1.75**


On orange and teal: I don't care what the color combo is. It could be green and purple for all I care. All the scheme does is flatten the image's potential. Which looks better in terms of eye candy? A screen full of bursting primaries or one that uses all of two colors out of, what, 16 million? That's why such draining and limited palettes should be docked.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Phantom of the Opera (1943)*


Slightly amiss grain structure does show some smearing if light. Universal did something wrong here although what is anyone's guess. Still, pretty minor for such a Technicolor beauty, bursting with color and impressive sharpness. Analog fades have the usual dip in quality including halos, although temporary. Some facial detail is evident, and overall, this is a winner despite the problems.

*Tier 2.75**


----------



## djoberg

*Argo*


Excellent movie with so-so PQ!


First of all, the grain was absolutely lovely for perhaps two-thirds of the 2 Hr. running time with exemplary details (especially in clothing and facial close-ups), but at times it became quite heavy (i.e. Gritty). Colors were on the bland side. Black levels were quite good. Contrast was decent. Flesh tones were accurate at times, but faltered occasionally. Sharpness and clarity came and went, with softness taking their place. Stock footage from news coverage of the Iranian Hostage Crisis was sprinkled throughout the movie, and of course the PQ suffered greatly in each occurrence.


GRG intimated his recommendation of 1.75 may be high...and I agree with him...IT IS HIGH. The highest I can go is....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## comperic2003




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/18960#post_21392135
> 
> *The Rocky Horror Picture Show*
> 
> 
> 
> ASTONISHING. This absolutely shattered my expectations, given the age of the movie and the "Z-movie" cult status of it. Colors are vivid and lush but not overblown. Blacks are strong. Fine detail is superb, film grain is consistent, pleasing, and revealing of good detail at all focal lengths. Facial close-ups show pores, make-up textures, small hairs, fine wrinkles. There is absolute;y no DNR or EE evident. Apparently this was a fresh 4k scan from the original negative, with little to no digital monkeying after the fact. It shows.
> 
> 
> 
> There are only a few soft scenes (of the narrator), comprising perhaps 5 minutes of the run-time. These are soft in the film itself, I think due to optically composited wipes and dissolves, and it is clearly no fault of the transfer. The grain structure remains consistent through these scenes, and the softness clearly starts and ends around each wipe.
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly, I'm looking at Tier 1, running down the list of one's I've seen, and I keep saying "better, better, better." So (and don't knock me until you see it for yourself), I have to go with Tier Zero on this. Seriously, get this from Netflix or Redbox or something. It's simply the finest 1970s material BD I've seen.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 0 (Right below Hot Fuzz)*
> 
> 
> 
> Sony KDL-52EX700, 8 foot viewing distance (though it easily stands up to scrutiny at half that)


*Rocky Horror Picture Show*


It must be said, Rocky Horror Picture Show is a stunning blu-ray transfer of a catalog title, one of the best I have seen. But does it deserve Tier 0 ranking?


Is it better than Ben-Hur or Gladiator?


I say no.


Fine detail is strong, film grain is intact, colors are well-saturated and blacks are inky. This transfer does everything well but most others ranked below in Tier 0 and Tier 1 do just about everything better.

*Tier Recommendation 1.75-2.0*


Samsung PN60E7000, CinemaQuest Ideal-Lume Standard Bias Light employed, 8.5 ft viewing distance.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *comperic2003*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20100#post_23001633
> 
> *Rocky Horror Picture Show*
> 
> 
> It must be said, Rocky Horror Picture Show is a stunning blu-ray transfer of a catalog title, one of the best I have seen. But does it deserve Tier 0 ranking?
> 
> 
> Is it better than Ben-Hur or Gladiator?
> 
> 
> I say no.
> 
> 
> Fine detail is strong, film grain is intact, colors are well-saturated and blacks are inky. This transfer does everything well but most others ranked below in Tier 0 and Tier 1 do just about everything better.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation 1.75-2.0*
> 
> 
> Samsung PN60E7000, CinemaQuest Ideal-Lume Standard Bias Light employed, 8.5 ft viewing distance.



Welcome to AVS and especially to the PQ Thread!


Thanks for the review and we'll be looking for more reviews from you.










PS I use the Ideal-Lume bias light as well, though not always.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Terminator (Remastered)*


Outstanding detail and fantastically sharp source from what is certainly a recent master. Damage has been removed and grain is resolved. Black levels come and go. What's new? Orange and teal! Hooray! While the film has always shifted blue, this is certainly a push towards lighter tones and warmer flesh tones.

*Tier 2.75**


----------



## Johnny Vertigo

*The Terminator (Remastered)*


Apart from a few weaker, soft shots (most of them are FX ones, from the flashbacks/flashforwards), this is fantastically looking, sharp and highly detailed image, with consistent grain. There are shots when I felt like I was watching modern movie, not low budget production from 1984.


Maybe I'm the only one, but I don't care - I think the new color timing looks great and fits the film.

*Tier 2.25**


----------



## tenia54




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20040#post_22973092
> 
> 
> Okay, here's the thing. We do NOT take into consideration "Director's intent." So, if a director decides to make a scene *soft*, we will still dock the PQ for being soft. If the director decides to add *heavy grain*, we will still dock it for heavy grain. I call it a *flaw* because it hinders the PQ in some way. It's not a "flaw" from the director's vantage point; he himself made the choice to include it and so from his perspective it's perfect. But from our vantage point if it in anyway detracts from the PQ, it's a flaw or an anomaly. In _Skyfall_ I found a few brief instances, where the orange hue was on display, where there was such an orange push it detracted from the PQ by giving Mr. Craig an "orange fleshtone." He didn't look natural because of that and fleshtones are included in the criteria that we base our judgment on for placement.



Though I totally agree with the softness causing the PQ ranking to decrease, I heartfully disagree on the orange / teal discussion. Nobody is going to say that, for instance, Tron Legacy is not wonderful on BD because the characters skin levels looks unnatural. It also means that extremely good BDs of very stylised on colors movies might get lower grades just because of this. Let's imagine that a movie as Ashes of Time or Fallen Angels get one day an extremely sharp and beautiful master. Will you then lower the grade just due to this stylisation ? It also means that potentially lower quality BDs might get better grades than Skyfall, due to their more natural photography.


Don't get me wrong : I totally understand your point and am sure it has been discussed already in the past. I just find it to bias the ranking in the end, since finding orange / teal photography distracting is totally subjective, on the contrary of soft photography where the resulting softness is totally objective. I thus agree with Johnny Vertigo and jrnewquist about judging fleshtones this way, especially since I'm quite sure that the casino scene does not render Craig as a pumpkin.










Also, since I'm now reviewing the BDs I watch for French forums, I know how complicated it can get to have the same scale for so many different looks. However, except if, as you suggest, the photography is capping the level of detail, I strongly believe it should not be taken into account in the ranking.


However, since you also found occurences of softness and lack of detail, your tier placement makes more sense to me.



I should get Skyfall in about a week and will pay extra attention to the Casino scene, anyway.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tenia54*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20130#post_23002836
> 
> 
> Nobody is going to say that, for instance, Tron Legacy is not wonderful on BD because the characters skin levels looks unnatural. .



I did.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^


I believe I've said enough on this subject of color-timing. Good for you if it doesn't bother you and I can honestly say some orange/teal hues aren't too bad in that they don't wreak havoc on flesh tones or obscure details. But when they do, they should, as GRG stated emphatically, be docked.


Am I guessing right in thinking you liked the orange hues in _CSI: Miami_?


----------



## tenia54




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20130#post_23003123
> 
> 
> ^^^^^^
> 
> 
> I believe I've said enough on this subject of color-timing. Good for you if it doesn't bother you and I can honestly say some orange/teal hues aren't too bad in that they don't wreak havoc on flesh tones or obscure details. But when they do, they should, as GRG stated emphatically, be docked.
> 
> 
> Am I guessing right in thinking you liked the orange hues in _CSI: Miami_?



I've never watched CSI Miami. I understand your point but can't answer about any loss of details due to this.


However, this photography is a choice which can be seen as problematic. But again, it is part of a style which should only be ranked as part of the aesthetic grade, not the technical, except if this affect the details and sharpness of the BD. That's also why it is not stated in the Tier 0 rules, and that exemples which has a strong photography choice but are in Tier 0 have been given. Otherwise, lots of Tier 0 placements would fall on Tier 1, like Avatar, Man On Fire, Live Free or Die Hard, Hot Fuzz, Watchmen, A Woman, A Gun and A Noodle Shop, Transformers 2 and 3 or Crank 2.










Again, I agree that photography choices impact the HD rendering, because it can impact many visual effects. However, I don't agree with a color palette, if not hampering details or contrast etc, being taken in account into the technical grade.


However, it seems to hamper details and it has been explained that the Casino scene has a softness which is a reason enough to place the disc into a lower Tier, and this is something I more understand.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tenia54*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20100_60#post_23004363
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20130#post_23003123
> 
> 
> ^^^^^^
> 
> 
> I believe I've said enough on this subject of color-timing. Good for you if it doesn't bother you and I can honestly say some orange/teal hues aren't too bad in that they don't wreak havoc on flesh tones or obscure details. But when they do, they should, as GRG stated emphatically, be docked.
> 
> 
> Am I guessing right in thinking you liked the orange hues in _CSI: Miami_?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never watched CSI Miami. I understand your point but can't answer about any loss of details due to this.
> 
> 
> However, this photography is a choice which can be seen as problematic. But again, it is part of a style which should only be ranked as part of the aesthetic grade, not the technical, except if this affect the details and sharpness of the BD. That's also why it is not stated in the Tier 0 rules, and that exemples which has a strong photography choice but are in Tier 0 have been given. Otherwise, lots of Tier 0 placements would fall on Tier 1, like Avatar, Man On Fire, Live Free or Die Hard, Hot Fuzz, Watchmen, A Woman, A Gun and A Noodle Shop, Transformers 2 and 3 or Crank 2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I agree that photography choices impact the HD rendering, because it can impact many visual effects. However, I don't agree with a color palette, if not hampering details or contrast etc, being taken in account into the technical grade.
> 
> 
> However, it seems to hamper details and it has been explained that the Casino scene has a softness which is a reason enough to place the disc into a lower Tier, and this is something I more understand.
Click to expand...

Your viewpoint definitely has some validity. One's preference for a specific color-timing is more subjective than most of the other criteria we use to determine the rankings. Personally, I believe accurate color rendition to be an essential trait of the best HD material. It's particularly relevant for subject matter that purports to be set in the real world, which is why I tend to soften my personal view for animated or fantasy/sci-fi material such as _Avatar_. As much as Hollywood has led us to believe otherwise, we simply have too many real-world references for human flesh-tones built into our genetic codes. The only orange-tinted people I have ever seen in my life are the people that receive those horrible spray-on tans. It's not solely confined to that one color, the current rage for modern horror tales and thrillers is a predominance of blue tint. _The Silence Of The Lambs_ would look much different today if it went into production now.


This is driven by several different concerns, only some of which have to do with true cinematography. Some of it is wrapped in marketing and the ability for Hollywood to distinguish their movies from ordinary television fare for audiences. The situation is not that far removed from when Hollywood decided they needed to go to widescreen presentations in the 1950s, to differentiate their movies from television.


----------



## tenia54

Again, I totally understand Djoberg's point when he explains that he thinks that this type of photography limits the HD-quality of a movie. I aslo understand your point in that it's can be pretty disturbing to see a movie set in a realistic tone having flesh tones so unreal. However, I think that, as long as the BD is true to the cinematography, given that this cinematography doesn't generate limiting counter-effects (which, in Skyfall's case, might be generated), it should not be an issue of "thinking" but an issue of "seeing".


Also, it's that I don't recall Skyfall being orange to the point described ahead, except for the climax, which might explain my perplexity around this discussion.


I don't want to sound writting "you don't know what you're talking about" or "this is not how you rank a BD, damnit !!" I'm just perplex about how this can be incorporated into the final placement in an objective way.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tenia54*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20100_60#post_23005837
> 
> 
> I don't want to sound writting "you don't know what you're talking about" or "this is not how you rank a BD, damnit !!" I'm just perplex about how this can be incorporated into the final placement in an objective way.


No worries, the clash of ideas is healthy for the thread and the tiers themselves. I certainly don't take any of the vigorous discussion personally and it can only help to illuminate the finer points of understanding picture quality. While I don't speak for Denny (djoberg), I imagine he feels the same way. Your score for _Skyfall_ and the ensuing discussion will certainly be a part of the calculus when I make my initial decision on its placement.


----------



## rusky_g

I watched Skyfall again tonight (3rd time overall, 2nd time on my Projector)


Ohhhhh it is soooooo good. Just such a nice film to watch. The ariel night shots are easily, EASILY the best I have seen. I could see a person crossing the road in one of the latter London ones.....there is just so much detail to soak up.


I've read the comments about the Casino scene being a weak point and my thoughts are this: it is the least 'eye candy' part of the film for sure and I am glad it's relatively brief. We have a saying in the UK - 'you can't polish a turd' - sometimes a scene, by virtue of its setting, mood, theme, just won't appeal in the eye candy sense no matter who's at the helm. But for me, because the rest of the film is so stellar, it retains my Tier 0 placement as I'm left feeling like for 90% of the film I've had a mesmerising, delicious, HD experience.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20130#post_23006184
> 
> 
> While I don't speak for Denny (djoberg), I imagine he feels the same way.



I do indeed "feel the same way." I'd like to think I have a fairly thick layer of skin (







) and thus I'm not taking any of this personally.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20130#post_23006289
> 
> 
> I watched Skyfall again tonight (3rd time overall, 2nd time on my Projector)
> 
> 
> Ohhhhh it is soooooo good. Just such a nice film to watch. The ariel night shots are easily, EASILY the best I have seen. I could see a person crossing the road in one of the latter London ones.....there is just so much detail to soak up.
> 
> 
> I've read the comments about the Casino scene being a weak point and my thoughts are this: it is the least 'eye candy' part of the film for sure and I am glad it's relatively brief. We have a saying in the UK - 'you can't polish a turd' - sometimes a scene, by virtue of its setting, mood, theme, just won't appeal in the eye candy sense no matter who's at the helm. But for me, because the rest of the film is so stellar, it retains my Tier 0 placement as I'm left feeling like for 90% of the film I've had a mesmerising, delicious, HD experience.



I've seen _Skyfall_ twice and we'll be watching it again tonight with one of our daughters and her husband who are visiting us. I just love this movie, and the exceptional PQ is just the "frosting on the cake."


There is one other scene (in addition to the casino scene) that had quite the orange hue. I'm referring to the scene where he's having a drinking contest in a bar on the beach. That too had a definite softness and affected the fleshtones. If not for those two scenes, I'd be joining you rusky_g with your Tier Blu recommendation.


----------



## rusky_g

It is a fantastic film Denny and I was conscious not to let that fact influence my rating. Although it is a treat to have the rare combo of Good Movie + Great PQ.


It's also got a repeat view factor and is selling very well over here. I'd agree on the drink scene - for me it had a Mexcian feel to it, if that makes sense.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20130#post_23006507
> 
> 
> It is a fantastic film Denny and I was conscious not to let that fact influence my rating. Although it is a treat to have the rare combo of Good Movie + Great PQ.
> 
> 
> It's also got a repeat view factor and is selling very well over here. I'd agree on the drink scene - for me it had a Mexcian feel to it, if that makes sense.



Our company LOVED the movie, including the PQ and the amazing audio track. This most definitely has the "repeat view factor."


I agree with you wholeheartedly regarding the nighttime aerial shots of Shanghai and Macau; I don't think I've seen anything better than these, though there are shots in _The Dark Knight_ that come close.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Sessions


recommendation: Tier 0* (bottom 1/4)*


Another product of the Red One camera, _The Sessions_ looks clean as a whistle with laser-like focus. Helen Hunt lost her expected Oscar last night for this role, after winning the Golden Globe for it. It does appear they digitally smoothed out her face in a couple of scenes. It only sticks out because the rest of the movie has extraordinary levels of high-frequency content in close-ups.


----------



## tenia54




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20130#post_23008538
> 
> 
> Our company LOVED the movie, including the PQ and the amazing audio track. This most definitely has the "repeat view factor."
> 
> 
> I agree with you wholeheartedly regarding the nighttime aerial shots of Shanghai and Macau; I don't think I've seen anything better than these, though there are shots in _The Dark Knight_ that come close.



Speaking of TDK, and to give an exemple of my set of mind on the photography, I think that TDKR and its orange + what I saw as crushed black 35mm scenes are problematic on BD.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20130#post_23006325
> 
> 
> I've seen _Skyfall_ twice and we'll be watching it again tonight with one of our daughters and her husband who are visiting us. I just love this movie, and the exceptional PQ is just the "frosting on the cake."
> 
> 
> There is one other scene (in addition to the casino scene) that had quite the orange hue. I'm referring to the scene where he's having a drinking contest in a bar on the beach. That too had a definite softness and affected the fleshtones. If not for those two scenes, I'd be joining you rusky_g with your Tier Blu recommendation.



I have now watched *Skyfall* twice as well and I am ready to weigh in. The casino scene really does not play a part in my evaluation. Instead, what makes me go lower than Denny and others is the fact that there were far too many scenes where the detail was just a bit off. Virtually all the interior scenes fall in this category. All the interior scenes at both MI6 locations, for example. The first scene between Bardem and Dench is a good example. The really outstanding close-ups were just too rare. The shots where Craig and Dench were in a car together in daylight (the first car, not the second one) were among the few really excellent ones. An example of a disappointing exterior shot was the scene near the end where Craig is on a rooftop overlooking London. So this is clearly not in or near tier zero for me.

*Recommendation: Tier 1.5**


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20130#post_23009662
> 
> 
> I have now watched *Skyfall* twice as well and I am ready to weigh in. The casino scene really does not play a part in my evaluation. Instead, what makes me go lower than Denny and others is the fact that there were far too many scenes where the detail was just a bit off. Virtually all the interior scenes fall in this category. All the interior scenes at both MI6 locations, for example. The first scene between Bardem and Dench is a good example. The really outstanding close-ups were just too rare. The shots where Craig and Dench were in a car together in daylight (the first car, not the second one) were among the few really excellent ones. An example of a disappointing exterior shot was the scene near the end where Craig is on a rooftop overlooking London. So this is clearly not in or near tier zero for me.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 1.5**



Thanks for the review Patrick!


I can't say that I agree with your assessments regarding the detail being off, but the next time I view it I'll be sure to take a closer look at the scene with Bardem and Dench and the scene at the end with Craig on the roof. I am surprised you weren't put off by the orange push in the casino scene, but as I said to others we obviously have different degrees of sensitivity when it comes to color-timing or lighting with orange hues.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Wreck-it Ralph*


Gorgeous, as expected. Even the interiors of a chocolate underground where light is limited turns out pretty incredible. Stunning sharpness and outstanding texture on shirts, environments, and candy is everywhere. Brilliant color and plenty of different palettes to choose from. Depth is perfect.

*Tier 0.25**


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20100_60#post_23017327
> 
> *Wreck-it Ralph*
> 
> 
> Gorgeous, as expected. Even the interiors of a chocolate underground where light is limited turns out pretty incredible. Stunning sharpness and outstanding texture on shirts, environments, and candy is everywhere. Brilliant color and plenty of different palettes to choose from. Depth is perfect.
> 
> *Tier 0.25**



So how does it compare to the two best animated CGI movies at the top, _Madagascar 3_ and _Toy Story 3_? Is Ralph a clear step below those discs? I only ask because the placements at the very top are very tricky for me to adjudicate with limited information and I think those are the most critical spots in the tiers for its fans.


*Death Note (Disc 1 of the Death Note Collection)


recommendation: Tier 1.5*
*
The human whose name is written in this note shall die.


Viz Pictures brought over the live-action adaptation of the Japanese manga series. Giving the first film in the franchise its own BD-50, the digitally-shot movie has been given an extreme high-bitrate AVC video encode that highlights flawless detail and razor-sharp clarity. It possesses a clean image that never quite pops off the screen, as the flat depth and slightly dull black levels have that video sheen common to early digital cinematography. The pristine video quality wavers in sharpness when the only featured VFX element from the movie is on screen, a character completely rendered in CGI.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20130#post_23018570
> 
> 
> So how does it compare to the two best animated CGI movies at the top, _Madagascar 3_ and _Toy Story 3_? Is Ralph a clear step below those discs? I only ask because the placements at the very top are very tricky for me to adjudicate with limited information and I think those are the most critical spots in the tiers for its fans..



I was kinda hoping for others to step in before making a definitive call. It looks fantastic, but no Madagascar or Toy Story. Just a hair below them.


----------



## mweflen

Hi guys, it's been a while, very busy with kids and work and not getting BDs from Netflix any more. But I did get three new titles from Amazon today, and I've watched two of them.


*Samsara*


I don't know if it is possible to get more "eye candy" than this. Fine detail is phenomenal. Color is lush but not cartoonish. Blacks are inky, whites are pure. Some scenes just blow the mind both technically and aesthetically - the mandala scene in which buddhist monks drop colored sand onto an intricate design is just mesmerizing, and really shows off both fine detail and brilliant color. Overall, the effect is like 3D, inasmuch as whatever lies at the focal point of the shot is in perfect clarity, while the backdrop shows depth of field focus effects while maintaining perfect color. There are no aberrations, DNR, or undue noise that I can detect. It is basically flawless.


So as far as rating goes, this is better than Baraka, we may as well get that out of the way first. I also think it's better than "The Tree of Life" and "The Thin Red Line," since both of those disc had a few slight aberrations caused by film stock or CGI. I haven't seen any of the discs above "Tree," so that's where I'll suggest this one goes, right above it.

*Recommendation: Tier 0, above Tree of Life*

Sony KDL 52EX700, 8 foot viewing distance


----------



## mweflen

*Lawrence of Arabia*


Wow. This is the new gold standard for 65mm film transfers on Blu-Ray. "Lawrence" bests both Ben-Hur and Ten Commandments (and it easily crushes Bridge on the River Kwai and Doctor Zhivago, if you're interested in other David Lean movies) in terms of overall detail, color fidelity, and overall filmic look. Plus, I mean, yikes, what beautiful images. What is especially admirable is the tight, consistent grain, and the never-wavering black levels on display. Only some "night" shots (i.e. daytime shots with an ugly dark filter over the frame) diminish this disc as eye candy.


This looks better than many (90%+) modern BD transfers, if you ask me. Fine detail is that good. It really is a triumph of a restoration.

*Recommendation: Tier 1.25*


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20100_60#post_23021051
> 
> *Lawrence of Arabia*
> 
> 
> Wow. This is the new gold standard for 65mm film transfers on Blu-Ray. "Lawrence" bests both Ben-Hur and Ten Commandments (and it easily crushes Bridge on the River Kwai and Doctor Zhivago, if you're interested in other David Lean movies) in terms of overall detail, color fidelity, and overall filmic look. Plus, I mean, yikes, what beautiful images. What is especially admirable is the tight, consistent grain, and the never-wavering black levels on display. Only some "night" shots (i.e. daytime shots with an ugly dark filter over the frame) diminish this disc as eye candy.
> 
> 
> This looks better than many (90%+) modern BD transfers, if you ask me. Fine detail is that good. It really is a triumph of a restoration.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 1.25*


_Lawrence of Arabia_ was the best 65mm transfer on Blu-ray until two days ago...more details will be coming soon.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Master


recommendation: Tier 0* (upper half near Man On Fire)*


From the same cinematographer that filmed _Youth Without Youth_, one of the more outstanding discs currently in Tier 0, comes a new 65mm production that absolutely sparkles in 1080P. _The Master's_ stunning picture quality has possibly the best depth of field from a live-action film on Blu-ray, on par with _Avatar_ at times. This is a must-watch disc for videophiles. Gorgeous shadow detail is matched with superb black levels and a rich color palette evocative of its period setting. The transfer is impeccable with a healthy AVC video encode and an avoidance of digital processing.


Hollywood needs to start shooting films in 65mm again.







The detail and visual possibilities inherent to it are so much better than 35mm film, in theaters or on home video.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^


Sounds good Phantom! I wanted to see this film anyway so the excellent PQ will be an added bonus.


----------



## mweflen

Coincidentally enough, The Master was my third Amazon purchase and will be my very next review. Looking forward to it!


----------



## someone else

Lawrence has visible processing which stops it from being truly amazing. It still looks awesome however, especially when I remember how much talk there has been in the old days here when people were worried how it will look based on the HD broadcasts.


The Master I'd rate it somewhere very good, but not in the same league with, for example, Hugo. Fine detail is somewhat lacking, but the cinematography makes up for it. Using 65mm you get a smaller depth of field which makes the details in the focused parts pop out. Manipulation is suspected on this one.


Skyfall has great resolution, I'd say Arri Alexa is much better in that respect than the RED camera. It does have a slight digital look to it however, like some aliasing here and there. The compression on this one is a bit of a let down, especially since I was considering Sony to be the best there in that respect. First indoor scene has shimmering blocks in the background, visible banding during the intro and the mansion/explosion/night scene is not problemless. The first train/chase scene is almost perfect, which makes me wonder why the inconsistency in encoding quality. For the compression fault I couldn't rate it tier 0.


So I don't sound too negative I could rate a tier 0 for me: Braveheart. Great detail completed with no visible manipulation and perfect encoding. Great fine grain, it's just how many more movies could look, considering it's 'only' 35 mm.


----------



## Johnny Vertigo

Life of Pi screenshots looks amazing. Tier 0 maybe?


----------



## someone else

Quite solid. A bit of banding here and there, which seems to be the plague of most digital shot movies. Nothing terrible though. Not like girl with the dragon tattoo. I thought at first it's red camera, it looks quite different than skyfall, in texture and sharpness.

Actually I can think of at least one full digital movie that hasn't got a hint of banding, one of the most flawless discs in terms of 'artefacts'. It's the taiwanese movie 'you are the apple of my eye', shot with red camera. There might be others of course, I haven't seen them all.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Ted


recommendation: Tier 2.0**


Has no one scored _Ted_ yet? The search doesn't pull up anything relevant in the thread, but it is a difficult term to search. Shot with the Genesis digital camera, something seemed slightly off about the contrast for the entire film. It looks like the image's gamma or contrast was manipulated in post-production, as it is darker than you would expect for a comedy. That is an old trick when attempting to meld CGI with the actual world. There is something slightly soft about the picture for a digital production, my guess is that the entire appearance was designed to effectively blend in the CGI of the teddy bear without it looking too fake.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Moonrise Kingdom


recommendation: Tier 2.25**

_Moonrise Kingdom_ was shot on 16mm film, though its lovely color palette and warm amber glow mark it as a film by Wes Anderson. A fine transfer is backed by a flawless AVC video encode, which produces an image that is merely constrained by the choice of film stock.


----------



## Johnny Vertigo

*Lethal Weapon Collection*


I'm gonna make one review for all four parts. As you can see, I disagree with the placement of three movies from the series in Tier and I think every sequel looks better than the previous one. All of them have more or less moments of inconsistence (all due to original photography, especially LW2 - there are some extremely soft, ugly out of focus close ups in it, but the shots with subtitles in LW4 are also softer that the rest). But other than that, all of them looks great. Grain is mostly visible in the first one, but it's nicely resolved and never distracting. All four movies have really great close ups (some of them are Tier 0 worthy!), but the best ones are, which is not surprising, daytime scenes, when the resolution, depth and clarity really shines. LW4 is most impressive and for the most time looks like a modern production, but with less obnoxious, natural color timing.

*Lethal Weapon (remastered)* (currently Tier 2.0)
*Tier 2.25*

*Lethal Weapon 2 (remastered)* (currently Tier 2.0)
*Tier 2.0*

*Lethal Weapon 3 (remastered)* (currently Tier 2.75)
*Tier 1.75*

*Lethal Weapon 4 (remastered)* (currently Tier 1.75)
*Tier 1.5*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Paul*


recommendation: *Tier 1.75*


I really can't see anything wrong with the existing placement for this Blu-ray. There is likely some digital noise reduction applied, as the actors have an abundance of the waxy skin-look with a commensurate loss in high-frequency detail. The picture does have a little more depth than the typical big-budget comedy.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Chasing Mavericks*


Outstanding detail here. Close-ups are some of the most consistent I've seen in sometime. Beautiful contrast and deep black levels are spot on too. It's general photography that keeps the disc down a notch, softening up during many of the surfing scenes, and underwater shots introduce banding. Very close to perfect.
*Tier 1.25**


----------



## rusky_g

*Ted*


It's OK, didn't blow my socks off. Standard new film with clean transfer affair.

*Tier 2.0*


----------



## djoberg

*Arbitrage*


How about a one-word review: INCONSISTENT! I recall the days (not all that long ago, perhaps as recent as 2-3 years) when a good number of Blu-ray transfers abounded in inconsistency, but thankfully those days have come and gone (for the most part). But this film was sharp one minute, soft the next. It had very good blacks in one scene, and then lo and behold, murky blacks reared their ugly head. Contrast could be exceptional at times; at other times it was hot, with some daytime and interior scenes appearing washed out.


I'm very happy to say there was one redeeming quality that held up from beginning to end...and it just happened to be my favorite one: FACIAL DETAILS! There were numerous close-ups, especially of Mr. Gere, and his increasing wrinkles (I believe he's about 60 now) were on display in all their High Definition glory. Details in general were quite good in daytime scenes of Manhatton, but suffered during nighttime scenes when black levels faltered.


I kept thinking, "This is most definitely a candidate for the average bin," but with such good facial details and a fair amount of scenes with sharpness and clarity, I'm going to be generous and place it right here....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Phantom Stranger

To give people a head's up, there will be an update to the Tiers within the next few days. If you want a ranking included and posted in this update, make it in the next 48 hours.


----------



## rusky_g

Good work Phantom


----------



## rusky_g

*Total Recall 2012*


Total Recall 2012 impressed me visually on the big screen. It's very clean and contrast and detail & dimensionality is striking in parts, particularly the sweeping cityscape visuals which had my eyes darting around the screen in awe as did the first main chase scene.


Facials were a weaker point as were a handful of softer looking shots but overall the good outweighed the bad so an appropriate rating for me is:

*Tier 1.5*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

Low on time this week. Rushing through.
*
Red Dawn (2012)


1.75**
*The Marine 3

2.25**



*Creature from the Black Lagoon
3.5**


----------



## Johnny Vertigo

*Breakfast at Tiffany's*


Breakfast at Tiffany's looks gorgeous. This is crisp, clean transfer based on great restoration with few stunning exterior shots at New York streets. Some shots seems to be a little bit soft, but all the details, the textures, the fabrics, it's all there. The real softness comes to stage in close ups of Audrey Hepburn and most of them has this hazy, almost heavenly look. Other than that it's beautiful.

*Tier 2**


*Misery*


This is very consistent, natural looking transfer, with fine layer of grain. This is small movie, most of the action takes place in one room and for the most time we only see Kathy Bates and James Caan, so there are a LOT of close ups, and this is where this transfer show it's real quality.

*Tier 2.5**


*Speed*


Some not so impressive shots, few ugly, out of focus close ups and a lot of black and white specs (but not on distracting level), but for a transfer based on older master it looks surprisingly good. City shots shows plenty of details in the distance, and close ups can show nice level of facial details. Overall Speed looks good enough to satisfy fans of this movie, but still the proper restoration/remaster would be nice.

*Tier 3*


----------



## rusky_g

*The Watch*


Bright, clean and sharp, facials aren't great but overall it's pretty most of the way through.

*Tier 1.5*


----------



## Bill C.

*Schindler's List*


About the only thing I can think of that might be an issue is/was what I thought was some random and fleeting softness at various points, but that could be the player and set combo messing with my head; the rest of the transfer is so pitch-perfect--excellent fine detail, no or very little DNR, and perhaps most importantly no black crush whatsoever that I could pick out--I'm not going to worry about it too much without corroboration. That said, as an amateur eye I'm loath to lavish _too_ high a tier level on this...so perhaps we can start at

*Tier 1.5*


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Bill C.*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20160_60#post_23054423
> 
> *Schindler's List*
> 
> 
> About the only thing I can think of that might be an issue is/was what I thought was some random and fleeting softness at various points, but that could be the player and set combo messing with my head; the rest of the transfer is so pitch-perfect--excellent fine detail, no or very little DNR, and perhaps most importantly no black crush whatsoever that I could pick out--I'm not going to worry about it too much without corroboration. That said, as an amateur eye I'm loath to lavish _too_ high a tier level on this...so perhaps we can start at
> 
> *Tier 1.5*


I'm sure you've already seen a number of discs from Tier one, on the same display that you watched _Schindler's List_. That is the easiest way to figure out where a disc should be ranked, by comparing it to several existing benchmarks from the Tiers. I haven't watched _Schindler's List_ on Blu-ray yet, but I imagine that Universal gave it a first-class treatment. Spielberg's films are just about the only catalog titles that Universal treats with respect.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Superman: Brainiac Attacks


recommendation: Tier 1.75**

_Superman: Brainiac Attacks_ does not technically get released until next week, courtesy of Warner Bros. The 76-minute feature is encoded at very modest bitrates for the AVC-video encode, though it's hard to find any notable compression errors in the sparkling clean animation. Natively produced in HD, the direct-to-video movie is presented in the proper 1:78:1 aspect ratio for the first time since its creation in 2006. The only thing holding the disc back from a higher placement is the animation itself, which displays less fluidity and detail than more recent digital ink and paint content. There is a slight touch of aliasing around the black line-art of the characters' outlines. Nevertheless, black levels are outstanding and the comic book color palette shines in 1080P.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Once again the *Picture Quality Tiers List* is up to date and ready for your perusal here:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1425519/official-picture-quality-rankings-for-blu-ray-the-tiers-list-updated-through-march-9-2013#user_anchor0 


Always make sure to check the most recent update to the Tiers, some of you with older links are seeing obsolete lists. Let me know if there are any forum skins that make the Tiers hard to read with the colors, I haven't really investigated that problem since the forum's change in software.





The following recommendations were in this update:


Lawrence Of Arabia* 0(right above Domino) djoberg, 0 hernanu, 0! Rob Tomlin, 1.25 mweflen


The Bodyguard* 3.25 Johnny Vertigo


Silent Hill* (French 2-disc Metropolitan) 1.0 Johnny Vertigo


Toy Story 3 top 0(above Madagascar 3) Toe


Men in Black 3* .25 Gamereviewgod, 1.0 lgans316, 1.0 djoberg


The Dark Knight Rises* 1.75/2.0 Gamereviewgod, 1.25/1.5 Phantom Stranger, 1.5 djoberg, 1.75 Patrick99, 1.5 lgans316, 2.0 wxman


Halo 4: Forward Unto Dawn* 1.75 Gamereviewgod


Catch Me If You Can* 1.75 Gamereviewgod


Finding Nemo* 0(between Tangled and Avatar) djoberg, 0 above Tangled Gamereviewgod


Ninja Scroll* Tier 2.5 Phantom Stranger


42nd Street Forever* 4.5 Phantom Stranger


The World God Only Knows season 1* 1.25 Phantom Stranger


Color Of Night* 5.0 Phantom Stranger


Ice Age: Continental Drift* 0 above Incredibles Gamereviewgod, djoberg


The Asphyx (theatrical cut)* 1.25 Phantom Stranger


Barbarella* 3.0 Phantom Stranger


The Crew* 4.25 Gamereviewgod


Dairy Of a Wimpy Kid: Dog Days* 1.5 Gamereviewgod


Big Easy Express* 4.5 Phantom Stranger


A Nightmare On Elm Street(2010) 2.25 Phantom Stranger


Total Recall* (remake) 1.5 Gamereviewgod, 1.75 djoberg, 0 near Man On Fire Phantom Stranger, 1.5 rusky_g


Lawless* 1.75 Gamereviewgod, 1.0 djoberg


Mad Monster Party* 3.5 Phantom Stranger


6 Degrees Of Hell* 1.5 Phantom Stranger


Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter 2.25 Phantom Stranger


Raiders Of The Lost Ark 2.25 djoberg


This Means War 2.0 lgans316


indiana Jones and the temple of doom 2.25 djoberg


The Bird With the crystal plumage* 3.0 Phantom Stranger


Indiana Jones And the Last crusade 1.5 djoberg


Midnight In Paris* 2.25 hernanu


Newsies* 3.5 djoberg


Being John Malkovich* 2.5 Phantom Stranger


Branded* 3.5 Gamerreviewgod


Looper* 1.75 Gamereviewgod, Phantom Stranger, djoberg


Chronicle 2.25 Phantom Stranger


The Bourne Legacy* 1.0 djoberg


Tosh Deep V’s* 2.0 Phantom Stranger


The Jazz Singer* 4.5 Gamereviewgod


Brave 0(bottom half) djoberg


Dredd* 3.0 Gamerreviewgod


The Possession* 1.5 Phantom Stranger


Gamera the Brave* 2.75 Gamereviewgod


In Time 0(above Real Steel) Phantom Stranger, .5 Johnny Vertigo


Won’t Back Down* 2.0 Gamer


Days Of Heaven 2.75


Taken 2* 1.75 Gamer, djoberg


Silent Night* 2.25 Phantom Stranger


Crime Story* 4.5 Gamer


The Watch* 2.0 Gamer, 1.5 rusky_g


The Protector* 5.0 Gamer


Patton (remastered) .75 behind Red Cliff hernanu, 0 under Red Cliff 2 djoberg


First Squad: Moment Of truth* 2.75 Phantom Stranger


Baka & Test: Season 2* 2.25 Phantom Stranger


Tiger & Bunny: Volume 1* 1.25 Phantom Stranger


The Mummy (1932)* 3.5 Gamer


Samsara* 0.75 below Baraka djoberg, 0 above Tree Of Life


Battle for terra* 1.5 Phantom Stranger


Deadgirl* 4.0 Phantom Stranger


Baraka 1.5 tenia54, 0 Phantom Stranger


The Invisible Man* 3.5 Gamereviewgod


The Duellists* 3.5 Phantom Stranger


House At The End Of the street* 3.5 djoberg


Rosewood Lane* 1.5 djoberg


Flight* 1.75 Gamereviewgod


Bride Of Frankenstein* 2.5 Gamer


Dark Knight Returns Part 2* 0 (bottom) Phantom Stranger


Hotel Transylvania* .5 Gamer


Braveheart 0 HTNUT1975, 0 someone else


The Thompsons* 1.75 Phantom Stranger


The Wolf Man* 3.5 Gamer


Senseless* 2.75 Phantom Stranger


Tai Chi Zero* 0 above I, Robot Phantom Stranger


Here Comes The Boom* 2.75 Gamer


Secret World Of Arrietty* 0 above Alice In Wonderland Phantom Stranger


Alex Cross* 1.75 Gamereviewgod


Barbarian and the Geisha* 4.5 Phantom Stranger


End Of Watch* 4.0 Gamer


Placebo: We Come In Pieces* 4.5 Phantom Stranger


The Violent Kind* 4.5 Phantom Stranger


Top Gun 3D* 3.0 Gamer


Frankenweenie* .75 Gamer


Paranormal Activity 4* 3.75 djoberg


Safe* 1.75 djoberg


Skyfall* 1.0 Gamereviewgod, .5 rusky_g, .5 HD-Master, 1.0 djoberg, .5 Toe, 1.5 Patrick99, 1.0 someone else


Arn: Knight Templar (cut version)* 1.0 Phantom Stranger


Chernobyl Diaries* 2.25 Phantom Stranger


Tree Of Life 0 (lower half) Toe


The International 0(above Dead Man’s Chest) Johnny Vertigo


Avatar 1.0 Johnny Vertigo


Pirates Of the caribbean: Curse Of The Black Pearl 1.5 Johnny Vertigo


Black Christmas* 4.5 Phantom Stranger


A Late Quartet* 1.75 Phantom Stranger


Painted Skin II: The Resurrection* 1.0 Phantom Stranger


Hannah and her sisters* 4.5 Phantom Stranger


Argo* 1.75 Gamereviewgod, 2.25 djoberg


Phantom Of the Opera* 2.75 Gamer


Rocky Horror Picture Show 1.75/2.0 comperic2003


The Terminator(remastered)* 2.75 Gamereviewgod, 2.25 Johnny Vertigo


The Sessions* .75 Phantom Stranger


Wreck-It Ralph* .25 Gamereviewgod


Death Note* (disc 1 of the Death Note collection) 1.5 Phantom Stranger


The Master* 0 above Man On Fire Phantom Stranger, lower 0 someone else


Ted* 2.0 Phantom Stranger, rusky_g


Moonrise Kingdom* Phantom Stranger


lethal Weapon 2.25 Johnny Vertigo


Lethal Weapon 2: 2.0 Johnny Vertigo


lethal weapon 3 1.75 Johnny Vertigo


lethal weapon 4 1.5 Johnny Vertigo


Paul 1.75 Phantom Stranger


Chasing Mavericks* 1.25 Gamereviewgod


Arbitrage* 2.75 djoberg


Red Dawn (2013)* 1.75 Gamereviewgod


The Marine 3* 2.25 Gamer


Creature From The Black Lagoon* 3.5 Gamer


Breakfast At Tiffany’s* 2.0 Johnny Vertigo


Misery* 2.5 Johnny Vertigo


Speed 3 Johnny Vertigo


Schindler’s List* 1.5 Bill C.


Superman: brainiac attacks* 1.75 Phantom Stranger


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^


You're the man Phantom! Thanks!


----------



## SuprSlow


Some were clamoring to separate the Tiers between animation and non-animation. Here is how Tier Zero (Blu) would currently look if you removed the non-animated productions. If this makes it easier for someone to process, bookmark this post. To retain the proper format and links for each disc, I (the Phantom Stranger) had to post using SuprSlow's account.

 

 

bb nf *Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted* Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD 7.1 | AR: 1.78:1 | DreamWorks
bb nf *Toy Story 3* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 1.85:1 | Disney

bb nf *Legend Of The Guardians: The Owls Of Ga'Hoole* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Warner
bb nf *A Christmas Carol (2009)* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Disney
bb nf *A Bug's Life*

bb nf *Adventures Of Tintin, The* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 2.35:1 | Paramount

bb nf *The Incredibles* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Disney
bb nf *Cars 2* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 2.40:1 | Disney
bb nf *Up* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Disney
bb nf *Finding Nemo* Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD 7.1 | AR: 1.78:1 | Disney
bb nf *Astro Boy* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.39:1 | Summit Entertainment

bb nf *Kung Fu Panda 2* Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD 7.1 | AR: 2.35:1 | DreamWorks
bb nf *Kung Fu Panda* Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.35:1 | DreamWorks
bb nf *Ratatouille* Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Disney
bb nf *Ice Age: Continental Drift* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 2.40:1 | Fox
bb nf *Coraline* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Universal
bb nf *Cars* Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Disney
bb nf *Tangled* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 1.78:1 | Disney | _2-D Version_

bb nf *Monsters, Inc.* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Disney
bb nf *Toy Story 2* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Disney

bb nf *Meet the Robinsons* Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.78:1 | Disney
bb nf *Rango* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Paramount
bb nf *Rio* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Fox
bb nf *Tinker Bell And The Great Fairy Rescue* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Disney
bb nf *Dr. Seuss' The Lorax (2012)* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Universal
bb nf *Despicable Me* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Universal

bb nf *Wreck-It Ralph* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 2.40:1 | Disney

bb nf *Chicken Little* Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.78:1 | Disney

bb nf *Fantastic Mr. Fox* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Fox
bb nf *Open Season* Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.85:1 | Sony

bb nf *Puss In Boots* Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD 7.1 | AR: 2.35:1 | DreamWorks
bb nf *The Wild* Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.85:1 | Disney

bb nf *Bee Movie* Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 1.85:1 | Dreamworks

bb nf *Tinker Bell* Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.78:1 | Disney
bb nf *Tinker Bell And The Lost Treasure* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78 | Disney

bb nf *Monsters Vs. Aliens* Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.39:1 | DreamWorks

bb nf *Mary And Max* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | MPI Media

bb nf *Secret World Of Arrietty, The* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Disney

bb nf *Shrek Forever After* Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD 7.1 | AR: 2.35:1 | DreamWorks
bb nf *The Tale of Despereaux* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Universal
bb nf *TMNT* Video: VC-1 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner

bb nf *Planet 51* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Sony

bb nf *Alice In Wonderland (1951)* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.33:1 | Disney

bb nf *Redline (2009)* Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 1.78:1 | Starz / Anchor Bay

bb nf *Corpse Bride* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 1.85:1 | Warner
bb nf *Winnie The Pooh* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Disney
bb nf *Wall-E* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Disney
bb nf *Bolt* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Disney

bb nf *Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Sony
bb nf *Hotel Transylvania* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Sony

bb nf *Brave* Video: AVC | Audio: Dolby TrueHD 7.1 | AR: 2.40:1 | Disney

bb nf *Dragon Hunters* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Phase 4 Films
bb nf *Gnomeo & Juliet* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 1.85:1 | Disney
bb nf *Happy Feet* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD EX | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner
bb nf *Toy Story* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA ES | AR: 1.78:1 | Disney

bb nf *How To Train Your Dragon* Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.35:1 | DreamWorks

bb nf *Wallace & Gromit: A Matter of Loaf and Death (UK Import)* Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 1.78:1 | 2 Entertain | _1080i / 50Hz_
bb nf *9* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Universal
bb nf *Horton Hears A Who!* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Fox
bb nf *Mars Needs Moms* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 2.40:1 | Disney

bb nf *Lion King, The* Video: avc | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 1.78:1 | Disney
bb nf *Sword Of The Stranger* Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 1.78:1 | Bandai

bb nf *Sleeping Beauty* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.55:1 | Disney

bb nf *Batman: The Dark Knight Returns Part 1* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Warner | _animated movie_
bb nf *The Smurfs* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Sony

bb nf *Hop* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Universal

bb nf *Beauty And The Beast* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 1.78:1 | Disney
bb nf *Frankenweenie* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 1.85:1 | Disney
bb nf *Batman: The Dark Knight Returns Part 2* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Warner


----------



## SuprSlow


This is what Tier Zero (Blu) would look like without animated fare. Bookmark this post if you want it as a reference. Hopefully this will shine a spotlight on some of these rankings, as a few of them were ranked as long as six years ago and possibly need an adjustment. Remember, these discs are ranked in exacting order with the theatrical edition of *Avatar* at the top of the mountain.

 

bb nf *Avatar* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Fox

bb nf *The Thin Red Line* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Criterion

bb nf *Avatar (Extended Collector's Edition)* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Fox

bb nf *Tai Chi Zero* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Well Go USA

bb nf *I, Robot* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Fox

bb nf *Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest* Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Disney
bb nf *Rescue 3D* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Image Entertainment | _IMAX_
bb nf *A Serious Man* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Universal
bb nf *Art Of Flight, The* Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD 7.1 | AR: 1.78:1 | Red Bull Media House
bb nf *Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End* Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Disney

bb nf *Boss: Season One* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 1.78:1 | Lionsgate

bb nf *Samsara* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 2.40:1 | MPI

bb nf *Tree Of Life, The* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 1.85:1 | Fox

bb nf *Hugo* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 1.78:1 | Paramount
bb nf *Man on Fire* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Fox

bb nf *The International* Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony

bb nf *Arabia 3D (IMAX)* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Image Entertainment

bb nf *The Host* Video: VC-1 | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.85:1 | Magnolia

bb nf *Live Free or Die Hard* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Fox
bb nf *Tell No One* Video: VC-1 | Audio: PCM 2.0 | AR: 2.35:1 | MPI Media
bb nf *Sin City* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Disney
bb nf *Company Men, The* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Starz / Anchor Bay

bb nf *Three Musketeers, The (2011)* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Summit Entertainment
bb nf *Youth Without Youth* Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.35:1 | Sony

bb nf *Hot Fuzz* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Universal

bb nf *Becoming Jane* Video: VC-1 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Disney
bb nf *Pina (French Import)* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | France Télévisions Dis. | _Region B only?_

bb nf *Red Cliff: The Special Edition (UK Import)* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Entertainment In Video | _Parts I & II_
bb nf *Bait* Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD 7.1 | AR: 1.78:1 | Starz / Anchor Bay

bb nf *Watchmen: Director's Cut (UK Import)* Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Paramount
bb nf *Grand Canyon Adventure: River At Risk (IMAX 3-D Edition)* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Image Entertainment

bb nf *Transporter 2 (Japan Import)* Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.35:1 | Sony
bb nf *The Help* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Disney

bb nf *Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Disney

bb nf *In Time* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Fox
bb nf *Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Fox

bb nf *The Ultimate Wave: Tahiti (IMAX)* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Image Entertainment

bb nf *Grand Canyon Adventure: River At Risk (IMAX)* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Image Entertainment
bb nf *Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen (IMAX)* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: mixed | Paramount
bb nf *Transporter 3* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Lionsgate
bb nf *Agora (French Import)* Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.35:1 | Warner
bb nf *Born To Be Wild* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Warner

bb nf *Baraka* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.20:1 | MPI Media
bb nf *A Woman, A Gun and A Noodle Shop* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony
bb nf *Lonely Hearts (Japan Import)* Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.35:1 | Sony
bb nf *Tokyo Motor Show* Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: DD 2.0 | AR: 1.78:1 | Topics Entertainment

bb nf *Real Steel* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 2.35:1 | Disney

bb nf *Braveheart* Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.35:1 | Paramount
bb nf *Crank 2: High Voltage* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 1.85:1 | Lionsgate
bb nf *Ides Of March, The* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony

bb nf *Skyfall* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Fox
bb nf *Fighting* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Universal

bb nf *Transformers: Dark of the Moon* Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD 7.1 | AR: 2.40:1 | Paramount

bb nf *Watchmen: Theatrical Version (UK Import)* Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.39:1 | Paramount
bb nf *Gamer* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 1.85:1 | Lionsgate
bb nf *I Spit On Your Grave (2010)* Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.35:1 | Starz / Anchor Bay
bb nf *Lawrence of Arabia* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2:19:1 | Sony
bb nf *Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl* Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Disney
bb nf *The Island* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Paramount
bb nf *Red Cliff: Part I* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Magnolia
bb nf *Red Cliff: Part II* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Magnolia
bb nf *Patton (remaster)* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2:19:1 | Fox | _2012 version with new transfer_
bb nf *Immortals* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Fox
bb nf *King Kong (2005)* Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Universal
bb nf *Sex Drive* Video: AVC | Audio: DD 5.1 | AR: 1.78:1 | Summit Entertainment
bb nf *Sessions, The* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Fox
bb nf *Domino* Video: VC-1 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner

bb nf *Rushmore* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Criterion
bb nf *Spartacus: Blood And Sand - Season 1* Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 1.78:1 | Starz / Anchor Bay


----------



## Kool-aid23

Phantom Stranger, Thank you sir!


----------



## Kool-aid23

SuprSlow, thanks for the break down. It is most welcome.


----------



## djoberg

*Flight*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19980#post_22900364
> 
> *Flight*
> 
> 
> While it carries some high-end moments, most of Flight is just sort of there. Clarity can only go so far if detail isn't there. Black levels are meager too. Sharpness is high enough to compensate for the lack of really fine detail but not enough to push it higher into the tiers.,
> 
> *Tier 1.75**



I was quite pleased with this release! Very sharp picture in most scenes with amazing depth and clarity. Facial details were also demo-worthy all the way through. Blacks were inconsistent, but they still had their moments where your eyes were being treated to "deep and inky with finely-rendered shadow details." Flesh tones were spot on...contrast was strong...colors were fair. Let me wrap this up by saying I'd put this on my demo shelf.....and my feeling is it deserves to be bumped up a notch from GRG's placement....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Philip47

Any chance of the film's year of release being added to the list?


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Philip47*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20160_60#post_23063709
> 
> 
> Any chance of the film's year of release being added to the list?


If there was an easy and automatic way for me to add it, I think the year of production would already be included in each line. At the moment I only signify the year when a movie has had a remake. If we were starting the list from scratch today, it would be included. But there really isn't a field for it in the database that K-Spaz and SuprSlow came up with for the Tiers.


bb nf The Thin Red Line Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Criterion


In the example above, if you click on the movie's name you get taken to Cinemasquid's excellent listing for that specific movie. His site lists the movie's year and much more, including screenshots, links to Blu-ray reviews, and BDInfo reports if they are available.


I have been thinking of ways to make it easier on everyone to catalogue all the votes and placements. Possibly a web-based entry form that anyone could use here. Eighty percent of the work I do in maintaining the Tiers ends up being manual data entry most of the time. Streamlining the process might also encourage more participation by some of the lurkers.


----------



## JoeBloggz

I just want to express my gratitude to the people that contribute/update this thread on a continual basis. I'm a long time lurker here(occasionally I'll throw in a review here and there). I really appreciate Phantom for putting in the time/effort to make this a "go-to" place for solid information regarding blu ray quality titles. A sincere, thank you


----------



## vpn75




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20150_50#post_23022687
> 
> *The Master
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 0* (upper half near Man On Fire)*
> 
> 
> From the same cinematographer that filmed _Youth Without Youth_, one of the more outstanding discs currently in Tier 0, comes a new 65mm production that absolutely sparkles in 1080P. _The Master's_ stunning picture quality has possibly the best depth of field from a live-action film on Blu-ray, on par with _Avatar_ at times. This is a must-watch disc for videophiles. Gorgeous shadow detail is matched with superb black levels and a rich color palette evocative of its period setting. The transfer is impeccable with a healthy AVC video encode and an avoidance of digital processing.
> 
> 
> Hollywood needs to start shooting films in 65mm again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The detail and visual possibilities inherent to it are so much better than 35mm film, in theaters or on home video.



I saw the film this weekend and agree wholeheartedly! Really wish we would see more films shot in 65mm.


As far as placement, I would put it just below "A Serious Man".


----------



## djoberg

*The Master*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20130#post_23022687
> 
> *The Master
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 0* (upper half near Man On Fire)*
> 
> 
> From the same cinematographer that filmed _Youth Without Youth_, one of the more outstanding discs currently in Tier 0, comes a new 65mm production that absolutely sparkles in 1080P. _The Master's_ stunning picture quality has possibly the best depth of field from a live-action film on Blu-ray, on par with _Avatar_ at times. This is a must-watch disc for videophiles. Gorgeous shadow detail is matched with superb black levels and a rich color palette evocative of its period setting. The transfer is impeccable with a healthy AVC video encode and an avoidance of digital processing.
> 
> 
> Hollywood needs to start shooting films in 65mm again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The detail and visual possibilities inherent to it are so much better than 35mm film, in theaters or on home video.



I couldn't agree more with Phantom's analysis of this film. I thought it was comparable to _Youth Without Youth_ and even better in some respects. The only thing I would add to Phantom's comments were the phenomenal FACIAL DETAILS! Check out the interview between Hoffman and Phoenix starting at the 37 min. mark and lasting approximately 20 minutes (with flashbacks sprinkled in throughout that time). The camera zooms in multiples times on both actors and they are incredible; in fact, those of Mr. Hoffman easily rival ANYTHING you could point to in any Tier 0 titles.


I'm tempted to go higher than Phantom....so, I will succumb to that temptation and nominate it for...

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (right above I, Robot)*


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Rise of the Guardians*


Wowzers. Enormous depth here. At its peak, this one is definitely pushing for that top spot. It's so close. The only thing holding it back is the general darkness. Most of the movie takes place in the dark or at night, so the colors come off as ever so slightly muted. It doesn't have the enormous pop of the dayliight scenes. Still, crazy texture to soak up.
*Tier 0** Above Meet the Robinsons.

*Twilight Breaking Dawn 2*


The last few movies have been using more and more digital smoothing, and this one brings it all to a head. Despite being absolutely abhorrent films, they were at least lookers. This one isn't. Very little fine detail to go around and it is the most muted. Black levels are sub-par far too often as well.

*Tier 2.75**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Bachelorette*


Mediocre black levels are a killer to an detailed/not so detailed presentation. Shot digital with no signs of technology visible anywhere, flesh tones are pleasing and primaries bright. Unfortunately, with most of the most taking place at night, blacks are critical, and end up costing the film all of its depth.

*Tier 3.25**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*King Of Thorn


recommendation: Tier 1.5**


Funimation's Blu-ray of this 2009 animated film from Japan looks mildly impressive, particularly the shots that use CGI elements. The AVC video encode is surprising solid considering it's a Funimation release, as they spread the 109-minute main feature over a BD-50. Interesting character designs and intricate, colorful backgrounds make up for the slightly sub-par motion and fluidity. Not the best animation one will see in 1080P, but certainly representative of tier one.


----------



## audiomagnate

*Dredd Tier 3.0*


It's been a while since I posted here but this one is so bad it reminded me of the existence of this thread. Was this shot on a cell phone? All dark scenes (95% of the movie) have ridiculous amounts of noise. Black levels are horrible. There are three colors, green (noise during dark scenes), red (blood) and yellow. If this is the future of cinema, I want no part of it. This was a Redbox rental that was apparently 3D, although there was nothing on the disc to indicate that. Is that why it looked so bad? I don't have a 3D setup (as the disc informed me).


EDIT: I have read some reviews after posting this review that state the 3d version, which is on the same disc I viewed, looks pretty good, and that the 2D version is seriously flawed. I agree.

*Tale Heart Tier 2.5*


Lousy detail, really bad black levels. The whole thing looked washed out.

*The Master Tier 0*


Wow. It reminded me a lot of the Thin Red Line.


BTW, the advertising on this site is completely over the top now. Ridiculous.Can I pay to get rid of it?


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Life of Pi*


Yep. Yep. Perfect. Stunning. Beautiful. Gorgeous. About the only thing that you can take away from this are a few effect shots that smooth out the actors. Perfect saturation in a variety of hues, dense black levels, brilliant color, exquisite sharpness. This is one for the record books.

*Tier 0*,* top 10.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *audiomagnate*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20160_60#post_23074917
> 
> 
> BTW, the advertising on this site is completely over the top now. Ridiculous.Can I pay to get rid of it?


Adblock will solve most of your problems.







Some sites necessitate its use.


----------



## djoberg

*Wreck-it Ralph*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20130#post_23017327
> 
> *Wreck-it Ralph*
> 
> 
> Gorgeous, as expected. Even the interiors of a chocolate underground where light is limited turns out pretty incredible. Stunning sharpness and outstanding texture on shirts, environments, and candy is everywhere. Brilliant color and plenty of different palettes to choose from. Depth is perfect.
> 
> *Tier 0.25**



Due to time constraints I'm going to echo the sentiments of my colleague GRG. The only thing I would add is that I would have gone higher in my placement recommendation had there been more details in the characters. Most of them were very simplistic with smooth faces (there were a couple of rare exceptions).

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0.25**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below...


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20190#post_23076059
> 
> 
> Adblock will solve most of your problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some sites necessitate its use.



NO! AdBlock is the scourge of the online publishing industry. If you use it, only do so for the worst offenders. #offtopic


----------



## djoberg

*Life of Pi*


MESMERIZING!!


If there were such a thing as "diabetes of the eyes," I would be flat-lining right now after consuming the incredible amounts of EYE CANDY that this film provides. I believe I can say this one is better than any live action Blu-ray I've seen to date, including _Avatar_ and _The Thin Red Line_. I found myself pausing scenes time and time again just to absorb all the definition. You really have to see it to believe it!


I LOVED the colors throughout....rich, warm and vibrant (especially in earlier scenes in India and later on the "floating island"). Black levels were to die for with some of the best shadow details this pair of eyes have ever seen. Details, depth, and dimensionality were simple amazing. (Details were superb in ALL shots, not just close-ups, but midrange and background shots as well.)


I watched a couple of scenes of _Avatar_ not long ago and if I had my say the three top live action movies would be _Life of Pi_, _The Thin Red Line_, and then _Avatar_. So, my vote goes for putting this one above where _The Thin Red Line_ is currently and then _Avatar_ underneath it. There were some soft focus shots in _Life of Pi_, but this could be said of each one of these.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (right above The Thin Red Line)*


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## djoberg

*Rise of the Guardians*


Yet another STUNNER!!


This one had it ALL, including FACIAL DETAILS on humans with texture, peach fuzz, etc. Every single category was amazing (Deep BLACKS, Exquisite SHADOW DETAILS, Bright & Vibrant COLORS, Amazing DEPTH, and Phenomenal SHARPNESS & CLARITY). Yes, there were quite a few "dark scenes," but with exceptional black levels and finely rendered shadow details, who cares?! I am very tempted to nominate this for King of the Blu-ray Hill, but I'm going to play it safe (for now) and put it at number 4, right above _Legend of the Guardians_ (that title also had many dark scenes and we still deemed it worthy of being in the top 5)....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (right above Legend of the Guardians)*


PS The audio was also reference quality!


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20100#post_22986291
> 
> 
> I can't help you out there buddy, but I just had to reply by saying "it's good to see you posting again; we have missed you!"



hey denny and gang, miss you guys and this thread as well. just too busy these days to actively participate, but like hugh, i do stop in once in a while and am glad you guys are keeping it up. hope to join you guys again someday or every once in a while.


thanks to ps for all the updates too!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20190#post_23086777
> 
> 
> hey denny and gang, miss you guys and this thread as well. just too busy these days to actively participate, but like hugh, i do stop in once in a while and am glad you guys are keeping it up. hope to join you guys again someday or every once in a while.
> 
> 
> thanks to ps for all the updates too!



We were spoiled when you were a regular contributor delta, for you not only offered MANY reviews, but they were always honest and well-done. Chime in whenever you can (though I surely understand how life's demands can hinder us from enjoying this *hobby*).


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Seeking a Friend for the End of the World


recommendation: Tier 1.25*
*

The image has exceptional detail for a dark comedy such as this movie. The transfer has not been filtered or processed at the digital intermediate stage, retaining the full potential of 1080P resolution. Shot using the Arri Alexa, the naturally sharp picture is nearly perfect in all attributes such as contrast and black levels. The color palette is fairly neutral, rendering flesh-tones without excessive coloration. What keeps the Universal Blu-ray out of the top tier is the lack of projection and depth, missing some of the deep focus that the best demo discs should display. The AVC video encode is flawless in its transparency to the film's master.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20160_60#post_23086777
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20100#post_22986291
> 
> 
> I can't help you out there buddy, but I just had to reply by saying "it's good to see you posting again; we have missed you!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hey denny and gang, miss you guys and this thread as well. just too busy these days to actively participate, but like hugh, i do stop in once in a while and am glad you guys are keeping it up. hope to join you guys again someday or every once in a while.
Click to expand...

I had been kicking this idea around before, but your mention of being too busy to participate (which is completely understandable) has given me the impetus to hopefully usher in a new era for the Tiers. This is going to be open to anyone that wants to participate as usual here, but scores for the Tiers can now be entered into the following form on Google Docs. It is valued contributors like yourself that I had in mind when making this simplified scoring process, though lurkers and others are always welcome to give their two cents on a disc.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1GEVDmUrTzHYNHBZpN_8mMZvCzmYEQiUJqCNyRQAadGU/viewform 


I've already made the first entry, from my last recommendation. Here is the link to the spreadsheet of results, which hopefully will grow as users get more comfortable with the form.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AoQ5HYzIbPQldDIxVlZTeWs1dDlOQkZRbFN2SzZneXc&usp=sharing 


This does not supersede entries from this Tiers discussion thread in any way, but I am hoping its ease of use will encourage more users to participate. It will also greatly speed up the manual process needed to maintain the Tiers.


I look forward to any feedback or comments about this idea and possible improvements to the form.


----------



## Philip47




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20160#post_23064021
> 
> 
> If there was an easy and automatic way for me to add it, I think the year of production would already be included in each line. At the moment I only signify the year when a movie has had a remake. If we were starting the list from scratch today, it would be included. But there really isn't a field for it in the database that K-Spaz and SuprSlow came up with for the Tiers.
> 
> 
> bb nf The Thin Red Line Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Criterion
> 
> 
> In the example above, if you click on the movie's name you get taken to Cinemasquid's excellent listing for that specific movie. His site lists the movie's year and much more, including screenshots, links to Blu-ray reviews, and BDInfo reports if they are available.
> 
> 
> I have been thinking of ways to make it easier on everyone to catalogue all the votes and placements. Possibly a web-based entry form that anyone could use here. Eighty percent of the work I do in maintaining the Tiers ends up being manual data entry most of the time. Streamlining the process might also encourage more participation by some of the lurkers.




Ok, cheers anyway. Was really just looking for a way to skim through the list and pick out some of the older classics.


----------



## JoeBloggz

*Life Of Pi*


I'll start with one word: "reference"! Truly in every sense of the word. For me, this is the best live action film I've seen on bluray to date. I didn't really think that it could get better than TTRL. One area this film has the definite edge is COLOR. They pop and are absolutely accurate. The animals look almost surreal albeit some are CG. Facial close ups are very detailed with no noise whatsoever. Blacks are inky. I could not see any black crush, no EE, overall very sharp with reference clarity. I'm almost tempted to put this at the very top of tier 0 but I haven't seen Tree of Life yet. For live action films this is the BEST.

*Recommendation: Tier 0 (above TTRL)*


----------



## someone else

Yes, I would agree the 3D disc of pi to be one of the best looking movies to date. Arri alexa seems to be the way to go, it's clearly better than red camera, at least considering what movies I've seen with both cameras (a decent amount).

I would rate the 2D disc however somewhere tier 1+, maybe 2 for blatant banding. In case you're wondering why, read the separate Pi thread.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JoeBloggz*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20190#post_23091249
> 
> *Life Of Pi*
> 
> 
> I'll start with one word: "reference"! Truly in every sense of the word. For me, this is the best live action film I've seen on bluray to date. I didn't really think that it could get better than TTRL. One area this film has the definite edge is COLOR. They pop and are absolutely accurate. The animals look almost surreal albeit some are CG. Facial close ups are very detailed with no noise whatsoever. Blacks are inky. I could not see any black crush, no EE, overall very sharp with reference clarity. I'm almost tempted to put this at the very top of tier 0 but I haven't seen Tree of Life yet. For live action films this is the BEST.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 0 (above TTRL)*



Of course I completely agree with you Joe! Regarding TTOL, it lacks color even more than TTRL, so _Life of Pi_ is the obvious champion.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *someone else*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20190#post_23091279
> 
> 
> Yes, I would agree the 3D disc of pi to be one of the best looking movies to date. Arri alexa seems to be the way to go, it's clearly better than red camera, at least considering what movies I've seen with both cameras (a decent amount).
> 
> I would rate the 2D disc however somewhere tier 1+, maybe 2 for blatant banding. In case you're wondering why, read the separate Pi thread.



I checked out the thread you referred us to and you're the only one that mentions banding. Regarding the still shots you posted, I saw no evidence of banding in any of them. Even if there was, there is no way this Blu should be in Tier 1 or worse; the amazing PQ, in every area by which we judge PQ, demands a Tier 0 placement....and near the very top, IMHO!


----------



## someone else

Well, what can I say, that first pic I posted is a typical case of banding, I don't think I can find much worse in live action movies, only some older anime blurays, in which case the masters they get is faulty, they don't apparently use proper dithering in final stages, or even before that. To me, it's quite obvious, and banding is the only 'artefact' that shows better in motion. And second picture shows not only some banding but clear blocking in the dark areas, instead of the well encoded noise.

And if, taking into account comparison nr. 3, 2D Pi is tier 0, than what is 3D disc Pi? Tier -2? I remember in the old days when people used bluray>resize720>resize1080 to see just how much resolution a disc has. Almost all discs showed much closer resolution than comparing those 2 screens.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *someone else*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20190#post_23091821
> 
> 
> Well, what can I say, that first pic I posted is a typical case of banding, I don't think I can find much worse in live action movies, only some older anime blurays, in which case the masters they get is faulty, they don't apparently use proper dithering in final stages, or even before that. To me, it's quite obvious, and banding is the only 'artefact' that shows better in motion. And second picture shows not only some banding but clear blocking in the dark areas, instead of the well encoded noise.
> 
> And if, taking into account comparison nr. 3, 2D Pi is tier 0, than what is 3D disc Pi? Tier -2? I remember in the old days when people used bluray>resize720>resize1080 to see just how much resolution a disc has. Almost all discs showed much closer resolution than comparing those 2 screens.



Here's your post so others can take a look at your still shots:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1462883/life-of-pi-blu-ray-2d-and-3d-comments#post_23085344 


Again, even if there was a case of banding in those two shots, that would NOT be enough to drop this title down from a high Tier 0 placement (remember, three of us have weighed in already with a high Tier 0 recommendation) to Tier 1. Regarding banding, if there is one artefact that is usually seen in some of the high Tier 0 animated movies, it is banding. Yet we do not penalize them a whole tier because of that; in fact, we usually give them a pass because of the phenomenal PQ throughout 99.9% of their running time.


I should add that the other still shots that you posted looked *somewhat* flat and lacking detail (for whatever reason). When I watched the Blu-ray "in motion" they were exceptionally sharp and detailed. Those reminded me of why we can NOT make too much of still shots.


----------



## someone else

Just to be clear, only the first 2 shots are the ones with banding, the others show the difference in resolution between the 2d disc and the proper 3d disc.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *someone else*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20190#post_23092080
> 
> 
> Just to be clear, only the first 2 shots are the ones with banding, the others show the difference in resolution between the 2d disc and the proper 3d disc.



Understood. I made that distinction in my last post. Again, the shots you posted for resolution didn't look as sharp and detailed as what I saw "in motion."


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *someone else*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20190#post_23091279
> 
> 
> Yes, I would agree the 3D disc of pi to be one of the best looking movies to date. Arri alexa seems to be the way to go, it's clearly better than red camera, at least considering what movies I've seen with both cameras (a decent amount).
> 
> I would rate the 2D disc however somewhere tier 1+, maybe 2 for blatant banding. In case you're wondering why, read the separate Pi thread.



What kind of display do you have?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Don't all rush to praise this idea at once.







I was hoping a very simplified entry process for a Tiers recommendation using this form, would encourage more participation in the thread and ease the workload on myself. The following link does not require a Google account and can be opened in any browser. Anything entered into it will be counted alongside the votes from this discussion thread, though I was hoping regular contributors would also use the form in addition to posting their scores in this thread. Anyone is welcome to use this form. It might make sense to bookmark it, for future entries.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1GEVDmUrTzHYNHBZpN_8mMZvCzmYEQiUJqCNyRQAadGU/viewform 


I've already made the first entry, from my last recommendation, and personally added JoeBloggz's recent recommendation for Life of Pi as examples. Here is the link to the spreadsheet of current results, which hopefully will grow as users here get more comfortable with the form and begin entering their own scores.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AoQ5HYzIbPQldDIxVlZTeWs1dDlOQkZRbFN2SzZneXc&usp=sharing


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20190#post_23092436
> 
> 
> Don't all rush to praise this idea at once.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was hoping a very simplified entry process for a Tiers recommendation using this form, would encourage more participation in the thread and ease the workload on myself. The following link does not require a Google account and can be opened in any browser. Anything entered into it will be counted alongside the votes from this discussion thread, though I was hoping regular contributors would also use the form in addition to posting their scores in this thread. Anyone is welcome to use this form. It might make sense to bookmark it, for future entries.
> 
> https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1GEVDmUrTzHYNHBZpN_8mMZvCzmYEQiUJqCNyRQAadGU/viewform
> 
> 
> I've already made the first entry, from my last recommendation, and personally added JoeBloggz's recent recommendation for Life of Pi as examples. Here is the link to the spreadsheet of current results, which hopefully will grow as users here get more comfortable with the form and begin entering their own scores.
> 
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AoQ5HYzIbPQldDIxVlZTeWs1dDlOQkZRbFN2SzZneXc&usp=sharing



I have mixed feelings about it Phantom, so I wasn't going to respond until I gave it more thought.


Question: You say one can "bookmark it for future entries." Do you think it would also make sense for you to include the link in your "Signature" under your link for "Picture Quality Rankings?" I'm also thinking of the spreadsheet of results too in asking this question.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20160_60#post_23092587
> 
> 
> I have mixed feelings about it Phantom, so I wasn't going to respond until I gave it more thought.
> 
> 
> Question: You say one can "bookmark it for future entries." Do you think it would also make sense for you to include the link in your "Signature" under your link for "Picture Quality Rankings?" I'm also thinking of the spreadsheet of results too in asking this question.


Does my new signature satisfy your requirements? I understand the trepidation changing systems like this for a thread that has worked largely the same since 2009. It's really more a matter of data entry and not a material change to how this thread will operate. But it is something that has been on my mind for over a year now, in producing more orderly data that can be managed in an easier process behind the scenes. I hope the simplified recommendation process might also entice some of the regular contributors back that we've lost over the past two years.


The primary business of this discussion thread would work largely the same as it has for its long history. Contributors would still write up their recommendations as usual in the thread, but I merely would ask they also enter their placement in the entry form. It's really nothing more than a few seconds per placement, as the form asks for little more than your screen name and score. All votes from the thread would still be tallied by myself, even if they are not entered in the linked form.


If there are any concerns you may have with the form or this new potential nomination method, go ahead and list them. I have no intention of changing the tone or character of how the thread has operated, and merely seek a more efficient solution in keeping track of the votes. If there is too much resistance to this idea by members, I will simply use the new spreadsheet for my own purposes and manually enter the data myself.




I think someone may have previously mentioned this, but the Picture Quality Tiers got referenced by CNet in their Top-40 must-have Blu-rays list, from January of this year.

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-18438_7-10207170-82/top-40-must-have-blu-ray-discs/ 


Of course, they linked to the out-of-date Tiers list, last updated in 2012.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^


I have no more concerns Phantom and I'm glad this will simplify the process of tallying votes. Thanks again for all the work you do.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *audiomagnate*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20160_60#post_23074917
> 
> *Tale Heart Tier 2.5*
> 
> 
> Lousy detail, really bad black levels. The whole thing looked washed out.


Audiomagnate, is "Tale Heart" the actual name for the Blu-ray you watched? I can't seem to find any record of a movie with that name or any variation on the format.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Willow*


Excellent master, sharpness, and detail, soured a bit by color timing that pushes the entire film into orange. Grain is occasionally a bit suspect as well, with a smearing quality noticeable on many close-ups.

*Tier 2.5**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Day


recommendation: Tier 4.0*


A film from WWE studios, _The Day_ is a nihilistic film set in a post-apocalyptic world. The entire color palette has been bleached and drained of saturation, for all intents and purposes turning the raw color photography into a black-and-white experience. Starz / Anchor Bay has given _The Day_ a fine technical presentation, with only some hints of noise and minor banding to mar the image. The picture is sharp with an average level of micro-detail, though the unusual color grading turns black into a light gray at times. Clarity is less than ideal during the interior scenes inside the farmhouse at night. This is a clear case where the extreme monochromatic color palette negatively affects my score.


BDInfo scan:

http://www.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray/movies/releases/the-day/b0f7dd3a-3009-471d-a163-80935c2f4aa6#specs


----------



## audiomagnate

Sorry, "Tell Tale", loosely based on Poe's Tell Tale Heart. I chose the wrong two out of three words. Sorry.


----------



## djoberg

*Zero Dark Thirty*


Another striking Blu-ray!


Sony has done it again with a real stunner of a film featuring amazing DETAILS, DEPTH, and CLARITY. Facal details were the real highlight with dozens of close-ups, with a few of them being as close as a cameraman can get. Flest tones were accurate, contrast was perfect, colors were pleasing (though somewhat bland at times), blacks were nice and inky, and shadow details were finely rendered (except for some of the shots in the long, closing scene with the raid on Osama Bin Laden's compound).


If not for the muted colors in a variety of scenes and the less-than-stellar shots during the raid (seen through nightvision goggles), I would have nominated this for the bottom of Tier 0, but my conscience dictates dropping it a notch to....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**


PS The raid scene, starting with the helicopter flight from Afghanastan to Pakistan, had phenomenal audio; a real workout for one's sub!


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19860_60#post_22728065
> 
> *Lawless*
> 
> 
> Pristine digital doesn't necessarily fit the time period but it looks great on Blu. Very sharp, with excellent facial detail, nice color focus, and superb landscapes. Black levels are perfect. A bit of noise, aliasing, and flicker aside, this is one is a looker.
> *Tier 1.75**


*Lawless


recommendation: Tier 1.75*


I was a little disappointed with the picture quality. The video does have some excellent attributes and it is a razor-sharp experience, but I also noticed some of the noise and aliasing too frequently. While black levels are perfect, I thought shadow delineation could have been more refined.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Hobbit: Unexpected Journey*


Stunning visuals marred by... nothing really. Stupendous color given a bit of a warm bath, sharpness off the charts, definition soars, and resolution is remarkable. The only thing missing is consistent facial detail and some early instances of black levels fading out.

*Tier .5*

*Gorgo* 


From VCI come this MPEG-2 (!) encode of a notoriously shaky source. Lots of stock footage, jumps in film stock, super early blue screens, black crush, unnaturally bright color, and jumpy mattes that are more obvious with the resolution. Compression exists over grain, but in reality, this is the best it has ever looked.

*Tier 4.0**


----------



## edlittle

djo, how would you compare the helicopters in 0 dark 30 to Black Hawk Down's F'in Irene scene?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *edlittle*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20220#post_23111733
> 
> 
> djo, how would you compare the helicopters in 0 dark 30 to Black Hawk Down's F'in Irene scene?



It's been a very long time since I've watched _Black Hawk Down_ (before I purchased my SVS sub), so I'll have to check it out soon. I'll get back to you on this, but methinks it will be comparable to the scene you referred to. The raid scene not only excels with the helicopter sounds, but it also has multiple explosions.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Tekkonkinkreet


recommendation: Tier 1.75*

_Tekkonkinkreet_ has long been ranked in Tier 1.0, though only recently did I get a chance to watch it myself. First off, it has to be one of the older Blu-rays listed in the Picture Quality Tiers. It first was released by Sony back in 2007, though it appears to have received one of the earliest AVC video encodes on a BD-50. _Tekkonkinkreet_ is theatrical animation done in an anime style, from the man behind _The Animatrix_. The beautifully-detailed backgrounds, bursting with design and complex patterns, are set off by some of the ugliest and simplistic character designs I've seen in animation. It's an incongruity that I personally could not get over and the principle reason why my ranking is at the bottom of Tier One. _Tekkonkinkreet_ also has a somewhat restrained color palette, which does not help its demo potential. There is little to fault the straight digital transfer from the original animation files, though a touch of aliasing creeps into the frame on occasion.


One unusual thing about this film is that it has been animated in a scope aspect ratio at 2:35:1.


BDInfo scan:

http://www.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray/movies/releases/tekkonkinkreet/4bb020f7-af22-4bea-9fe3-8f996dbafd0b#specs


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Wicker Tree

recommendation: Tier 2.0**

_The Wicker Tree_ has primarily been shot with the Red One camera, so its picture quality is perfectly fine for a 2012 release with no significant problems. The digital cinematography does not possess a huge amount of depth or dimension to the image. Focus and contrast are quite steady, though black levels are not the best. I think the subject matter, an unconnected sequel to _The Wicker Man_, may have been better served if shot on film. A few secondary shots appear to have used inferior cameras and there is a concomitant loss in overall resolution and clarity.


BDInfo scan:

http://www.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray/movies/releases/the-wicker-tree/d2f1f49c-bf68-4ab1-93b3-31f76a588b09#specs


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20220#post_23111182
> 
> *Hobbit: Unexpected Journey*
> 
> 
> Stunning visuals marred by... nothing really. Stupendous color given a bit of a warm bath, *sharpness off the charts, definition soars, and resolution is remarkable*. The only thing missing is consistent facial detail and some early instances of black levels fading out.
> 
> *Tier .5*



To my eyes, the bolded comments were not applicable to most of the movie. However, I watched the 2D version. Perhaps 3D would be different. In any event, I didn't think we were reviewing 3D versions in this thread. Am I wrong about that?

*Tier recommendation: Tier 1.5**


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20220_60#post_23115379
> 
> 
> To my eyes, the bolded comments were not applicable to most of the movie. However, I watched the 2D version. Perhaps 3D would be different. In any event, I didn't think we were reviewing 3D versions in this thread. Am I wrong about that?
> 
> *Tier recommendation: Tier 1.5**


No, only the normal 2-D version of movies are applicable to the PQ Tiers. Though in some cases, the 2-D version found on the 3-D edition will be a different video encode from the one found on barebones version. There have been cases popping up where the studio included much higher compression parameters for the 2-D edition included with the 3-D set.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20220#post_23115379
> 
> 
> To my eyes, the bolded comments were not applicable to most of the movie. However, I watched the 2D version. Perhaps 3D would be different. In any event, I didn't think we were reviewing 3D versions in this thread. Am I wrong about that?
> 
> *Tier recommendation: Tier 1.5**



I scanned through the first hour or so of the 2d version (watched the 3d version in its entirety the night before) and there were some soft parts to my eyes. Looked great in general, but a bit soft at times and facial detail not always the best. This is one movie that looks and works better in 3d IMO after checking out both.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20220#post_23115539
> 
> 
> I scanned through the first hour or so of the 2d version (watched the 3d version in its entirety the night before) and there were some soft parts to my eyes. Looked great in general, but a bit soft at times and facial detail not always the best. This is one movie that looks and works better in 3d IMO after checking out both.



Toe...are you implying the 3D version didn't have soft shots and that facial details were better? If so, how can that be? How would 3D add sharpness and details to a film (I thought it strictly added the obvious DEPTH)?


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20220#post_23116306
> 
> 
> Toe...are you implying the 3D version didn't have soft shots and that facial details were better? If so, how can that be? How would 3D add sharpness and details to a film (I thought it strictly added the obvious DEPTH)?



Sorry djoberg, I should have been more clear with that passing comment. There was no difference as far as the softness and facial detail between the two versions, but you could tell a lot of thought and care went into how things were shot considering it being shot in 3d and it shows when comparing the two versions IMO. Some films I dont have a preference one way or the other as far as 2d/3d and some films look and work better one way or the other and The Hobbit is one film IMO that clearly is more impressive in 3d as the added depth/ dimensionality really help pull you into the film and truly feels like the way the film is meant to be seen (which it is going off director intent). This is obviously a subjective comment/observation though and some might not agree obviously.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20220#post_23116760
> 
> 
> Sorry djoberg, I should have been more clear with that passing comment. There was no difference as far as the softness and facial detail between the two versions, but you could tell a lot of thought and care went into how things were shot considering it being shot in 3d and it shows when comparing the two versions IMO. Some films I dont have a preference one way or the other as far as 2d/3d and some films look and work better one way or the other and The Hobbit is one film IMO that clearly is more impressive in 3d as the added depth/ dimensionality really help pull you into the film and truly feels like the way the film is meant to be seen (which it is going off director intent). This is obviously a subjective comment/observation though and some might not agree obviously.



Thanks for the clarification Toe; that makes a lot of sense.


----------



## djoberg

*The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20220#post_23111182
> 
> *Hobbit: Unexpected Journey*
> 
> 
> Stunning visuals marred by... nothing really. Stupendous color given a bit of a warm bath, sharpness off the charts, definition soars, and resolution is remarkable. The only thing missing is consistent facial detail and some early instances of black levels fading out.
> 
> *Tier .5*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20220#post_23115379
> 
> 
> To my eyes, the bolded comments were not applicable to most of the movie. However, I watched the 2D version. Perhaps 3D would be different. In any event, I didn't think we were reviewing 3D versions in this thread. Am I wrong about that?
> 
> *Tier recommendation: Tier 1.5**
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20220#post_23115539
> 
> 
> I scanned through the first hour or so of the 2d version (watched the 3d version in its entirety the night before) and there were some soft parts to my eyes. Looked great in general, but a bit soft at times and facial detail not always the best. This is one movie that looks and works better in 3d IMO after checking out both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am most definitely siding with GRG on this one....with the exception of some inconsistent facial details and a few soft shots (in the opening scene inside the Hobbit home), this is EYE CANDY worthy of a Tier Blu status.
> 
> 
> When I mentioned "inconsistent facial details," I'm referring especially to Bilbo Baggins who had very little texture and defining marks in his face. The majority of actors' faces (Gandalf and the Dwarfs and others) were well-defined, revealing every mole and wrinkle, and the hair on their heads was remarkable. Details throughout the mountains, forests, caves, etc. were exceptional. Sharpness abounded in every scene after they left Bilbo Baggins' home. Colors were very pleasing to behold. Contrast was super strong. Blacks were amazing with razor-sharp shadow details in numerous shots. I kept thinking of how much greater this looked than any of the three installments in _The Lord of the Rings_ trilogy.
> 
> 
> The only area I would disagree with GRG would be the exact placement within Tier 0; I would drop it down from .5 to about the .66 mark, right about here....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (right above Braveheart)*
> 
> 
> Viewd from 7.5' using the equipment listed below...
Click to expand...


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20220_60#post_23109403
> 
> *Zero Dark Thirty*
> 
> 
> Another striking Blu-ray!
> 
> 
> Sony has done it again with a real stunner of a film featuring amazing DETAILS, DEPTH, and CLARITY. Facal details were the real highlight with dozens of close-ups, with a few of them being as close as a cameraman can get. Flest tones were accurate, contrast was perfect, colors were pleasing (though somewhat bland at times), blacks were nice and inky, and shadow details were finely rendered (except for some of the shots in the long, closing scene with the raid on Osama Bin Laden's compound).
> 
> 
> If not for the muted colors in a variety of scenes and the less-than-stellar shots during the raid (seen through nightvision goggles), I would have nominated this for the bottom of Tier 0, but my conscience dictates dropping it a notch to....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.0**


Anyone interested in how _Zero Dark Thirty_ was shot and handled in post-production should read the following article:

http://www.definitionmagazine.com/journal/2013/3/15/dark-forces-the-story-of-shooting-zero-dark-thirty.html 


It explains why they used the Arri Alexa Plus digital camera and the DP on the film is pretty candid in his comments. Sony was pressuring them to use a RED camera, which is of course a Sony product.


“I wanted to make sure that my lab was close and that where the digital lab comes in to it – they earned their money in a big way. When you got back to the hotel at the end of the day you can sit down with a colourist, verify the footage and say ‘Hey we were in the sun today and I’m not really comfortable because the actresses’ white blouse was in the sun.’ Meanwhile we would have shadow detail and I wasn’t really sure that I’d got it and kept the highlights.”


----------



## 42041




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20220#post_23121652
> 
> 
> It explains why they used the Arri Alexa Plus digital camera and the DP on the film is pretty candid in his comments. Sony was pressuring them to use a RED camera, which is of course a Sony product.


The Red camera has nothing to do with Sony actually, it's made by the Red company. They were talking about the Sony F65, which is Sony's newfangled 4K camera.... which should also produce some pretty spectacular footage once movies shot on it start coming out, given that it produces full-res 4K from an 8K sensor. I believe the Evil Dead reboot will be the first movie shot with it in theaters.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *42041*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20220_60#post_23121730
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20220#post_23121652
> 
> 
> It explains why they used the Arri Alexa Plus digital camera and the DP on the film is pretty candid in his comments. Sony was pressuring them to use a RED camera, which is of course a Sony product.
> 
> 
> 
> The Red camera has nothing to do with Sony actually, it's made by the Red company. They were talking about the Sony F65, which is Sony's newfangled 4K camera.... which should also produce some pretty spectacular footage once movies shot on it start coming out, given that it produces full-res 4K from an 8K sensor. I believe the Evil Dead reboot will be the first movie shot with it in theaters.
Click to expand...

I guess I automatically assumed Sony had a stake in RED cameras, since I remember them hyping its use at one point in the past. That F65 sounds like it should eventually produce several new, top-tier Blu-rays.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

* Veep: The Complete First Season 


recommendation: Tier 1.5**


This doesn't officially get released until tomorrow, but HBO continues their streak of releases with excellent A/V quality. _Veep's_ video does not aspire to be much more than a brightly-lit sitcom, but aside from possible tweaks to smooth out star Julia Louis-Dreyfus' face, has a crisp presentation free of notable problems.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Prep & Landing / Prep & Landing: Naughty & Nice


recommendation: Tier 1.25*
*

Disney put out these two animated Christmas specials on one disc, a BD-50. Both are short programs meant to fit a 30-minute television slot, so the AVC video encode is given especially high standards for a Disney-authored Blu-ray. A flawless digital transfer from a technical perspective, the CGI does not possess the vitality of better theatrical CGI. Character models show less realistic detail upon close observation, aside from a few splashy items like Santa's thick beard. My placement might be lower than some others for CGI of this quality, but there was a surprising lack of flashy colors in the image.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20220#post_23109403
> 
> *Zero Dark Thirty*
> 
> 
> Another striking Blu-ray!
> 
> 
> Sony has done it again with a real stunner of a film featuring amazing DETAILS, DEPTH, and CLARITY. Facal details were the real highlight with dozens of close-ups, with a few of them being as close as a cameraman can get. Flest tones were accurate, contrast was perfect, colors were pleasing (though somewhat bland at times), blacks were nice and inky, and shadow details were finely rendered (except for some of the shots in the long, closing scene with the raid on Osama Bin Laden's compound).
> 
> 
> If not for the muted colors in a variety of scenes and the less-than-stellar shots during the raid (seen through nightvision goggles), I would have nominated this for the bottom of Tier 0, but my conscience dictates dropping it a notch to....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.0**



What he said.
*
Tier 1.0**


----------



## djoberg

I can hardly believe no one has offered a review yet of _Lincoln_. I'll be watching it tonight and I'm looking forward to both the movie (the historical account and the acting of Daniel Day Lewis) and the PQ. I've read enough reviews already to know it's going to be a *dark* movie, but everyone has been singing the praises of the black levels and shadow details so I'm anticipating a good viewing on my KURO (KURO means "BLACK"







).


----------



## rusky_g

I'll await your thoughts, DJ 


In the meantime, Happy Easter all, have a good one,


Russ


----------



## djoberg

*Lincoln*


The BLACK LEVELS lived up to all the hype....the SHADOW DETAILS were simply amazing (check out a scene around the 1 Hr. 43 Min. mark where Lincoln visits a Representative in his carriage....unbelieveable clarity and details for a nighttime scene!)....FACIAL DETAILS up close delivered big time....DETAILS in general, especially in clothing and in the few outdoor, daytime scenes featuring foliage, were demo-worthy, to be sure....DEPTH could be astounding at times....and COLORS, when primaries manifested themselves, were warm and natural.


But not all was worthy of praise, for there were quite a few scenes where softness crept in (most notably in the many indoor scenes with low lighting and smoke). Add to this a lack of detail in midrange shots, some washed out flesh tones in several scenes, a few faces lacking detail (Sally Field is a case in point), and a very drab color palette with the exception of the primaries mentioned above (they were "few and far between").


Again, black levels and shadow details rose to the occasion and caused me to hit the Pause Button more than a few times, but they weren't enough to elevate this film to the coveted "reference" tier. But don't think for a minute that I wouldn't use this for "demo material," for I could envision me playing the scene alluded to above to show my friends just how clear and detailed a nighttime scene can be.


It will be interesting to see what others have to say about this, but for my first viewing I wasn't as impressed as I thought I might be (rave reviews had me hoping for a Tier Blu contender), yet I'm still more than willing to assign this to Tier Gold. My gut says it should go right here....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## mailiang

^^^ I have to agree that the black levels lived up to all the hype, unfortunately the screen play, which was drawn out and a bit laborious at times, didn't.




Ian


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mailiang*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20220#post_23143090
> 
> ^^^ I have to agree that the black levels lived up to all the hype, unfortunately the screen play, which was drawn out and a bit laborious at times, didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ian



I agree! In fact, I'm experiencing "buyer's remorse" at the moment. My wife didn't last 30 minutes...as she walked out of the room she exclaimed, "BORING!"


Edit: After "sleeping on it," I do want to say that Daniel Day-Lewis's portrayal of Lincoln was the biggest redeeming feature of this film. I especially loved watching him "tell stories" (which Lincoln was famous for). Tommy Lee Jones also put in a very good performance and added some humor to the otherwise sober and boring (to use my wife's description) storyline. Sally Field and others were so-so.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Batman: Mystery of the Batwoman


recommendation: Tier 2.25**


Warner Bros. sat on this release for almost two years, as the disc was authored back in 2011 and had already seen a release in Mexico. _Mystery of the Batwoman_ is one of their older direct-to-video animated features, both produced and initially hitting DVD in 2003. Their animation department was forward thinking and the animation was natively produced in HD, which receives an adequate presentation on this BD-25. There does appear to be a few deficiencies in the raw animation, it gets quite sloppy at times compared to more recent examples created using the digital ink and paint process. Aside from that problem and mundane art design, the perfect black levels help the animation pop off the screen. A minor amount of banding is apparent in some of the backgrounds, though it is hard to tell if that is due to the low-bitrate AVC compression or endemic to the original animation.


I might have been unduly harsh on this movie, considering this is about as low as I have previously ranked a Blu-ray from WB Animation in the tiers. A lack of polish and some questionable shots that look almost SD in origin, dragged it down into the second tier.


Have a happy Easter!


----------



## lgans316

Hi Guys,


Here are some lazy recommendations after a long hiatus.









*Battleship - Tier 1.25*


Dumb flick but I really liked it.









*Taken 2 - Tier 2*


Disappointing but yet entertaining sequel.

*Pulp Fiction - Tier 2.75*


Been ages since I last watched this. Samuel Jackson at his best.







Reason for the low rating is a due to some EE and Noise reduction which made the skin tones look a bit soft and the edges oversharp.

*Les Miserables - Tier 2*


Strong acting and couple of emotional scenes. Thanking God for blessing me with loads of patience. Doubt if I will ever watch this again.

*Zero Dark Thirty- Tier 1.75*


I was tempted to lower my ranking but this was slightly better than Les Miserables which looked a bit soft.

*Skyfall - Tier 0 above Avatar*


Looks stunning and razor sharp. Everything was rock solid .







Damn good movie but you might not still not get that old Bond feeling but hats off to Sam Mendes for mixing emotional elements and some raw old school type action.

*The Grey - Tier 1.75*


Interesting film but could have featured a different ending.

*Total Recall (2012) - Tier 1.75*


Another dumb non-stop action flick. Been a long time since watching a movie filled with so much action. Lower rating due to many indoor scenes looking a touch too soft.

*Amazing Spiderman - Tier 1.25*


Unnecessary reboot but nice time pass. Damn good picture quality.

*Lawless (UK) - Tier 2.25*


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20220_60#post_23148773
> 
> 
> Hi Guys,
> 
> 
> Here are some lazy recommendations after a long hiatus.


Lazy recommendations are always welcome here.







If you haven't been keeping up on a daily basis, I also ask that people now enter their PQ Tiers scores in the very easy entry form found in my signature or the following link:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1GEVDmUrTzHYNHBZpN_8mMZvCzmYEQiUJqCNyRQAadGU/viewform 


It takes literally a few seconds for each placement. It's not mandatory for your scores to count, but will greatly help me manage the Tier data and smooth the accounting process.


----------



## lgans316

I see. Will do the same as requested Phantom tomorrow.


Seldom see human beings with loads of patience like you.


----------



## djoberg

*The Notebook (2010)*


No, your eyes aren't deceiving you....I'm actually writing a review of _The Notebook_! First of all, I want you to know this is one of my wife's favorite "chick flicks" so I picked up a copy in the Bargain Bin at Best Buy the other day. Secondly, this is, as I wrote above, the "2010" Blu-ray version. The first version came out in 2009 and it had terrible reviews for being way too SOFT. It is currently sitting in Tier 3.5 for that reason. Regardless of what you (men) may think, this is a very popular movie with the ladies and thus I'm assuming that the bad reviews prompted the "powers that be" to produce another version. I'm hear to tell you that it looks incredible (for the most part)!! There are still a few soft shots, but the majority of the movie has clarity and sharpness rivaling many titles in Tier Blu and Tier Gold. I was truly impressed!


There are countless outdoor, daytime shots with stellar cinematography...the colors are gorgeous, the details are exquisite, and the contrast is super strong. Nighttime scenes are flawless with some of the deepest blacks I've encountered in a film dating back to 2004. Shadow details hold up just as well. Flesh tones are spot-on in 95% of the running time; the other 5% falters a bit with some redness/paleness. Facial close-ups fare quite well, though there are some shots where they appear smoothed over. Depth is simply amazing at times. One of my favorite scenes is when Gosling takes McAdams in a row boat through a forested swamp/marsh with hundreds of snow geese....everything about that scene is pure, 100% EYE CANDY (phenomenal colors, detail, depth, clarity and sharpness). Again, there are still a few soft shots sprinkled throughout, but it is no where near the mess I've read about in the 2009 version.


If you guys have gals that love _The Notebook_, I suggest you pick up the 2010 copy. She'll be happy that you're willing to cuddle up with her (and a box of kleenix







) for a night of romance, and you'll be happy for giving your eyes a good sugar rush!










I got so carried away there I was going to click "Submit" without giving my placement. This one is demo-quality, without a doubt, and I'm confident it belongs, at the very least, right here....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*


PS I could easily be persuaded to go with 1.25.


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Johnny Vertigo

*X-Men: First Class* (currently Tier 2,5)


Stunning! It looks absolutely amazing for me eyes. Great sharpness, plenty, plenty of details and nice depth. Grain looks beautiful and natural. The only weak part are blacks; shadow details are fine, but blacks itself are not as deep and inky as they should, there's more very dark grey than black here.


I was extremely surprised it's only @ Tier 2,5, so I put the disc to my PS3 one more time and watched some scenes almost with my nose in the TV, and it was still amazing.


If blacks were perfect, I think I would even go for bottom of Tier 0.

*Tier 1*


*Lady Gaga Presents: The Monster Ball Tour at Madison Square Garden*


Crisp, clear, sharp and wonderfully colorful. The only problem here is caused by extremely strong lights. Some banding and posterization is visible more than few times, but in my opinion it's not distracting.

*Tier 1.25**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Parental Guidance*


Eww. A simply inexcusable new release that toys with fine detail and sharpness, but then dips into muddy filters and horrendous noise. I thought this was a bad encode of a film source, but it was actually shot digitally if the 'net is correct. Whatever the case, it's ugly.

*Tier 3.25**


----------



## raoul_duke

Weird. I saw it theatrically and it looked gorgeous, for a load of mediocre crap.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Hudson Hawk*


Recent master with some problems, but overall pleasing. Plenty of detail and impressive definition on display. Black crush is a bother and a few halos will sprout up. Compression is rough too in spots. Still, overall this is a winner considering it was a flop and shoved onto a single disc with another movie.

*Tier 2.75**


----------



## djoberg

*Deadfall*


I had never heard of this title prior to my visit at a local video store, but with actors such as Eric Bana, Sissy Spacek, Olivia Wilde, and Kris Kristofferson in it, I thought it couldn't be too bad. I was wrong, for it wasn't that good.







And to make matters worse, the PQ was one of the most inconsistent messes that I've seen recently.


The BAD:


1) Numerous soft scenes (indoor and nighttime scenes)

2) Crushed blacks

3) Washed out flesh tones

4) Grainy

5) Smoothed over faces

6) Orange hues that hindered detail


The GOOD:


1) Sharp and detailed scenes in daytime, outdoor scenes

2) Good facial close-ups (at times)

3) Excellent blacks in selected scenes


Obviously the BAD outweighed the GOOD and thus my placement recommendation is....

*Tier Recommendation: 3.5**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20220_60#post_23157732
> 
> *Deadfall*
> 
> 
> I had never heard of this title prior to my visit at a local video store, but with actors such as Eric Bana, Sissy Spacek, Olivia Wilde, and Kris Kristofferson in it, I thought it couldn't be too bad. I was wrong, for it wasn't that good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And to make matters worse, the PQ was one of the most inconsistent messes that I've seen recently.


I haven't seen the Blu-ray, but I am familiar with _Deadfall_. It has a strong first act but Eric Bana was either woefully miscast in it or the role was simply beyond his talents.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20250#post_23157765
> 
> 
> I haven't seen the Blu-ray, but I am familiar with _Deadfall_. It has a strong first act but Eric Bana was either woefully miscast in it or the role was simply beyond his talents.



You are right Phantom, the first scene was good (and promising) but it quickly evolved into a cesspool of gratuitous violence and family dysfunction. Bana's acting was good (at times) in spite of the role he had as a criminal nearly void of a moral compass.


----------



## djoberg

*The Man With the Iron Fists*


I'm going to keep this short, for in all honestly I rented this solely for the audio track which was CRAZY LOUD with INSANE BASS and INCREDIBLE ACTION IN THE SURROUNDS throughout the majority of the 90 minute running time. If you have a decent surround sound system and a sub that is capable of least 20 Hz (or better yet one that can dip into the teens or single digits) this is one amazing Blu-ray.


I was also impressed with the PQ (though often distracted by the wall-shaking/chest-thumping bass), which was razor-sharp in many scenes and filled with rich, saturated colors and deep blacks. (Having said that, there were scenes where softness reared its ugly head and brought this down from a *reference* Blu to Tier Gold.) Flesh tones suffered occasionally by the "orange push." Details were somewhat inconsistent, but when they were on display they definitely had the WOW factor.


I still have one more rental (if I can stay awake) so I'm going to cut to the chase and nominate this for....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## djoberg

*Alex Cross*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20010#post_22934773
> 
> *Alex Cross*
> 
> 
> Often detailed and sharp, this one is quite consistent. Grain is well managed and clean without any compression issues. It's the black levels that down Cross though, muddying and turning blue-ish far too often even though they can have bite. A pleasing contrast can't save it.
> 
> *Tier 1.75**



I can hardly keep my eyes open so I'm taking the easy way out and posting GRG's review. For the most part I agree with it though I thought the grain became a bit too *gritty* at times. I also thought the facial details were inconsistent, though when they were good....they were REALLY GOOD (especially close-ups of Matthew Fox). I wasn't very impressed in the "depth" department; many shots just came across as flat to _my eyes_ (though they are, admittedly, quite weary and perhaps not on their game







). Long range shots of Detroit weren't too impressive either...lacking detail. I'm inclined to drop it a notch....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20250#post_23157765
> 
> 
> I haven't seen the Blu-ray, but I am familiar with _Deadfall_. It has a strong first act but Eric Bana was either woefully miscast in it or the role was simply beyond his talents.


 *Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) The more I think about Eric Bana's role in _Deadfall_, the more I'm convinced that actors like Bana, who most always portray the "hero," still come across as nice at times even when they're playing a psychopathic killer. Thus in _Deadfall_ you have Bana killing the stepfather in the hunting cabin followed by a friendly conversation with the little girl. Later he speaks nicely to Sissy Spacek's character (he even says, "I like you") followed by the crazy, maniacal conversation where he holds the whole family hostage. I often wonder if actors like Bana would even sign on to a role where their character would be nothing but evil through and through.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20220_60#post_23159949
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20250#post_23157765
> 
> 
> I haven't seen the Blu-ray, but I am familiar with _Deadfall_. It has a strong first act but Eric Bana was either woefully miscast in it or the role was simply beyond his talents.
> 
> 
> 
> *Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) The more I think about Eric Bana's role in _Deadfall_, the more I'm convinced that actors like Bana, who most always portray the "hero," still come across as nice at times even when they're playing a psychopathic killer. Thus in _Deadfall_ you have Bana killing the stepfather in the hunting cabin followed by a friendly conversation with the little girl. Later he speaks nicely to Sissy Spacek's character (he even says, "I like you") followed by the crazy, maniacal conversation where he holds the whole family hostage. I often wonder if actors like Bana would even sign on to a role where their character would be nothing but evil through and through.
Click to expand...

I think some actors are in fear of being typecast in certain roles, so they take roles in films that sometimes don't suit their particular talents. You see it all the time with comedians that try to transition into serious dramatic work. If I remember correctly, one of my bigger complaints with Bana in the role was his ever-changing American accent. Hollywood loves casting British and Australian actors in American roles. It doesn't always work out that well. Djoberg, you should probably spoiler text your post on Deadfall's plot. Highlight the text and click the little black box in the edit window to put a spoiler wrap on it.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20250#post_23160162
> 
> 
> I think some actors are in fear of being typecast in certain roles, so they take roles in films that sometimes don't suit their particular talents. You see it all the time with comedians that try to transition into serious dramatic work. If I remember correctly, one of my bigger complaints with Bana in the role was his ever-changing American accent. Hollywood loves casting British and Australian actors in American roles. It doesn't always work out that well. Djoberg, you should probably spoiler text your post on Deadfall's plot. Highlight the text and click the little black box in the edit window to put a spoiler wrap on it.



Thanks for the heads up on "Spoiler" wrap!


I do believe actors do as you say; they take roles in order to avoid being typecast. But there may be those that would shrink from accepting a role where their character has no conscience or redeeming qualities, especially if they are used to being portrayed as the hero/nice guy. It's refreshing to see an actor that feels comfortable enough in his/her own skin to take on any role.
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Take, for example, Matthew Fox in _Alex Cross_. There was absolutely nothing likeable about his character and he did an excellent job in portraying the villian. In fact, he was downright creepy.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Hemingway & Gellhorn


recommendation: Tier 1.75*
*

HBO's epic romance starring Nicole Kidman is a little uneven in picture quality, largely attributable to the inconsistent color correction done to the digital cinematography in post-production. Shot using the Arri Alexa, the digital video has excellent detail but rarely projects the type of depth and deep focus that the better demo material should display. The compression is relatively strong as the main feature has been put out on a BD-50 at high bitrates. Exterior and daylight scenes show a mild magenta push to the fleshtones. If someone argued for _Hemingway & Gellhorn_ in Tier Two, I wouldn't put up much of a defense.


If you click through to the actual review, the screenshots give an accurate impression of the general picture quality.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Straightheads (region-free UK import in 1080i / 50 Hz)

recommendation: Tier 4.5**

_Straightheads_ is a very intense British thriller starring Gillian Anderson. The 2007 film was first released to Blu-ray in 2010 by Verve Pictures. Unfortunately it appears they took the broadcast master made for European television and presented it on this disc in an unappetizing 1080i / 50 Hz resolution, which looks decidedly poor. The AVC video encode is mediocre, producing frequent and overt macroblocking from the Super 16mm production. Some scenes exhibit overly aggressive black levels and a serious amount of black crush. This is the type of movie on Blu-ray where the benefits of high-definition are not so apparent over DVD.


Since this Blu-ray had the dreaded 50 Hz video unique to Europe, I had to employ the substandard Seiki SR212S player to handle it. The PS3 of course won't play this disc at all.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Bible: The Epic Miniseries


recommendation: Tier 1.25**


If it weren't for a few lighting problems in the night scenes, I might have been tempted to push this mini-series into Tier 0. Another digital video production using the Arri Alexa camera, the picture quality of exterior shots exude a crisp dimensionality and stellar resolution. The Bible looked vastly better in 1080P on the Blu-ray than the History channel's presentation in broadcast HD. Fox has graced the Blu-ray with a top-notch video encode. What prevents a higher placement are the questionable lighting choices for a few of the interior scenes, particularly those set at night. Some soft CGI elements are the only things which aren't razor sharp.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Dragon Lord*


Worst Blu-ray I have seen in 2013, and close to the worst ever. Likely DVD upscale with miserable compression, abhorrent damage, and impossibly awful black crush. Any appreciable detail has been wiped with DNR, and grain is so poorly managed it goes from frozen to a compressed mess.

*Tier 5.0**


----------



## edlittle

Wow, that almost makes me want to get it!


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Ship of Fools*


So-so master of a '60s era best picture nominee, reasonably sharp and clean, although hit with some DNR. It's the compression that kills it, forced onto a double feature cramming almost 300-minutes between the two on a single disc. Grain runs loose, and robs fidelity that is clearly there if the encode would have the room.

*Tier 3.5**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

 *Jersey Girl* 


Decent master ruined by compression. Messy and all over the place, grain swarms the image and flattens out all appreciable detail. Sharpening raises the grain slightly, and simply causes more trouble despite few visible halos. Artificial or not, sharpness is passable and the print is clean, so you have those positives, along with some nicely resolved black levels.

*Tier 3.5**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I know this doesn't directly impact the Tiers but I thought the news might be of some interest. Disney has just fired most of their hand-drawn animation staff, so it looks like they are moving away from traditional non-CGI animation.









http://thedisneyblog.com/2013/04/12/walt-disney-animation-studios-lets-most-of-hand-drawn-team-go/ 


Outside of Asia, hand-drawn animation appears to be on its death bed for theatrical features.


----------



## djoberg

*People Like Us*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19710#post_22540114
> 
> *People Like Us*
> 
> 
> Jumpy color timing and rough grain don't add up to much until you take in the fine detail. There's plenty of it. Texture is high, and black crush isn't a concern, mostly because black levels don't have consistency either.
> 
> *Tier 2.0**



The only thing I have to add to GRG's review is that this had a washed out look at times (too hot of a contrast, methinks) and quite a few scenes had the deplorable "orange hues" wreaking havoc on skin tones (and everything else). But as noted details were good, including facial close-ups. Before I even checked to see if anyone else had already reviewed this, I concluded that this was NOT demo material, but was still deserving of 2.0, so I was pleased to see we were on the same page in its placement.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0**


PS This is "chick flick weekend," so expect two more entries before Monday morning.


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## audiomagnate

Here are some quickies as I watch the Masters (golf, not the movie)in stunning HD:


Wreck it Ralph: This one didn't do it for me for some reason. *Tier 1.5*


Skyfall: I rarely watch a movie more than once. I've seen this one three times so far. This is the definition of eye candy for me: *Tier 0* Some where in the middle.


0 dark 30: This one looked great and the sound was perfect. *Tier 0* Below Skyfall


Back to golf!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Horror of Dracula (also known as "Dracula" in the UK) (region-locked UK import)


recommendation: Tier 4.0*
*

Lionsgate just released this 1958 Hammer classic last month in the UK. It has yet to see release on Blu-ray in America, where it would be a Warner title. It features two separate cuts, one which restores footage found in Japan that hadn't been seen in decades. The main transfer works off the 2007 BFI film restoration, while the version with the lost footage is called the 2012 Hammer restoration. Both versions have been encoded in AVC on a BD-50. The 1:66:1 aspect ratio is presented in 1080P. Be warned this import is locked to Region B.


The new color correction has been met with mild controversy, though it's not egregiously poor or anything. I would consider it largely restrained from making radical changes, though it does have differences from prior color timings on home video. It's not the sharpest film experience, though the picture shows no overt ringing or halos. If I had to guess, some mild digital noise reduction has been applied and then the transfer technicians have inserted a minimal amount of faux grain structure to compensate. The moderate grain structure looks entirely too uniform to the trained eye. Overall resolution and detail are better than DVD could hope to produce, but don't expect oodles and oodles of high-frequency content in close-ups or anywhere else. I would consider this particular transfer a success given the currently known elements, though I believe there is some room for improvement.


The film print is clean and has a stable contrast. Select scenes might qualify for Tier Three on their own accord, displaying improved clarity and less softness.


----------



## djoberg

*Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn: Part 2*


Ah, the Saga FINALLY ends!!! "Good riddance," as they say.










I checked my review on _Breaking Dawn: Part 1_ before viewing the final installment and saw that I had some glowing remarks about the PQ, with a Tier Recommendation of 1.25. So, I assumed I would be treated to the same, or even better. NOT! For whatever reason _Part 2_ was much more inconsistent (especially in the first half), most notably in black levels, details, and sharpness. The black levels were good at times, but then, out of nowhere, they would become murky. Details were generally quite good, but they faltered occasionally. Softness crept in way too many times, though the latter half of the film fared much better, with excellent sharpness and clarity in every outdoor/daytime scene.


Colors were pleasing...contrast was superb (with rare exceptions)...flesh tones were good...and a fine layer of grain gave it the coveted "film-like" look.


Again, I was surprised (and disappointed) at the inconsistency compared with _Part 1_ and I feel I must dock this nearly a whole tier as a result. So, I'm thinking it should be right about here....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I always thought the new transfers for the original Superman films were excellent on the Anthology set. There is a fantastic interview with the mastering colorist over at MPI (WB's own shop) that directly handled the Superman transfers, as he details the exact process it took to get the films ready for Blu-ray. It even goes over the process for the Donner cut of _Superman II_ and how that transfer came about. The interview is easily the most detailed account I've seen of a new transfer made for Blu-ray.

http://www.capedwonder.com/mpi/


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Collection


recommendation: Tier 1.75**

_The Collection_ looks positively nice for a new horror release. The transfer is largely immune from questionable color grading and Lionsgate's presentation on the BD is free of significant problems, though higher parameters for the AVC video encode would have been nice. The 81-minute main feature is on a BD-25, framed in a 2:35:1 aspect ratio. Unlike a lot of other recent horror films, the clarity remains high in the dark interiors of the maze the protagonists find themselves in. The cinematography is surprisingly crisp and clean for the grisly subject matter. Solid black levels round out the above-average picture quality.


----------



## wuther




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20250#post_23208446
> 
> 
> I always thought the new transfers for the original Superman films were excellent on the Anthology set. There is a fantastic interview with the mastering colorist over at MPI (WB's own shop) that directly handled the Superman transfers, as he details the exact process it took to get the films ready for Blu-ray. It even goes over the process for the Donner cut of _Superman II_ and how that transfer came about. The interview is easily the most detailed account I've seen of a new transfer made for Blu-ray.
> 
> http://www.capedwonder.com/mpi/



I do not where you get 'new masters' from, the article states the newest is 2006 and parts are from 2001.


I guess a person could pick and choose what they do and/or do not like but I struck by how the monitors they used for remastering were talked as inadequate until three years ago and how they used video tape back and forth as the master, I have a hard time believing that is acceptable now, plus I find Miller's 'The Home Video People' reference rather disturbing.


As far as I can tell the article says the IPs were used and not the ON.


> Quote:
> But we tend to, as colorists, all of us here in America, and all the guys I know in all the years, we tend to make people a lot warmer in our movies than they do in other countries. And I hear that all the time.


Well that certainly explains Westworld.


The interviewer at times seems confused, the TE LOTR is not green tinted, at times he congratulates on getting rid of film grain and then in others proclaims they do not use dnr which Miller himself states otherwise, does he even know what dnr is?


I have several of the Superman BDs and the best they can be described as is ok and now I know why.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Reprinted verbatim from the article:

_Pat mastered these five movies in the Superman The Motion Picture Anthology Blu-ray box set in the following order, each of which took many weeks to complete:

Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut – completed in 2006 (no additional work was done to the 2006 master for the Anthology)

Superman-The Movie theatrical – completed September 2010

Superman II theatrical – completed October 2010

Superman III – completed November 2010

Superman IV – completed January 2011_


It does get confusing, because Mr. Miller discusses different cuts and various transfers for prior home video releases in the interview. What took most of the work was fixing all of the optical shots and matching up the color corrections. We knew the Donner cut was the oldest transfer, it does look pretty wretched in comparison to the theatrical version of Superman II.


The Superman transfers, particularly the last three on the list above, will be hard to top at Blu-ray resolution. There is only so much quality you can squeeze out of the film elements for FX-heavy movies like the Superman franchise.


----------



## djoberg

*The Odd Life of Timothy Green*


Another WINNER from Disney! I should clarify that statement by saying I'm referring to the PQ; the movie was....well, ODD!


What captivated me the most were the warm and vibrant colors. There are numerous outdoor scenes with lush greens and gorgeous reds, oranges, and yellows. All of the forest scenes were mesmerizing (especially the first time Timothy and his female friend ride into it on her bike). There were a few times where a golden hue started to dominate, but these were short-lived.


Blacks were also EYE CANDY, with some splendid night scenes. When it rained at night the shadow details were exquisite.


Details were spectacular, whether you are viewing the beautiful outdoor landscapes, clothing, or facial close-ups (though these were "few and far between").


Another virtue worthy of mention was the outstanding depth. Again, check out the forest scenes and you would think you were viewing a 3D picture without the cumbersome 3D glasses.


Flesh tones were extremely accurate, contrast was generally strong, and you are rewarded with sharpness and clarity as well in a majority of scenes.


This may fall a tad short of reference quality, but it would easily find a place on my demo shelf....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Django Unchained*


Great detail, resolved grain, and color palettes. There are some flashbacks that toy with vintage looks and blown out contrast, too short for a movie of this length to be of any detriment. Black levels are (mostly) great and consistent, while sharpness is superior to just about everything, Some focal tricks aside, this one is a definition master.

*Tier 1.0**


----------



## comperic2003

*21 Jump Street (2012)


recommendation: Tier 2.5*
*

A solid and well-detailed image made to look flat and dull due to an overall dim lighting quality. The movie is hilarious and highly recommended, though.


Samsung PN60E7000, CinemaQuest Ideal-Lume Standard Bias Light employed, 8.5 ft viewing distance


----------



## comperic2003

*The Other Guys


recommendation: Tier 2.5*
*

Teal and Orange abound, shadow detail and black levels are great and resolution ranges from crisp to soft.


Similar in tone and pacing to 21 Jump Street (2012), this was an enjoyable one to watch.

Samsung PN60E7000, CinemaQuest Ideal-Lume Standard Bias Light employed, 8.5 ft viewing distance


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I will repeat this information for the edification of newer readers to the Picture Quality Tiers. The official current version of the Tiers can always be found in my forum signature, reproduced here:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1425519/official-picture-quality-rankings-for-blu-ray-the-tiers-list-updated-through-march-9-2013/0_60 


That link currently has the latest database updates for the PQ Tiers, at least through March 9, 2013. If you see an older date than that at the top of the first post, you are viewing an obsolete version. The sticky thread at the top of the Blu-ray software forum is properly linked to the latest version, though the August date in the sticky thread's title is erroneous (sticky thread titles can't be changed).


Many people apparently haven't migrated yet from the older thread of 2012 that was rendered dead by the forum software's switchover last year.


----------



## edlittle

I know that you posted the separated by animation/live Tier 0 list when you updated, but could you possibly also have that in the Tier 0 post itself?


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *edlittle*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20280_60#post_23219764
> 
> 
> I know that you posted the separated by animation/live Tier 0 list when you updated, but could you possibly also have that in the Tier 0 post itself?


I didn't like the layout of that change but if you check the bottom two posts of the main Picture Quality Tiers thread, I think you will be happy.

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1425519/official-picture-quality-rankings-for-blu-ray-the-tiers-list-updated-through-march-9-2013 


So anyone else pick up *Django Unchained*? I expect to see more scores and placements for it this weekend.


----------



## Kool-aid23

A big shout out to Phantom and SuprSlow for the Picture Quality Tiers. Tremendous work gentlemen!


----------



## edlittle

Thanks Phantom! I wish I could start reviewing things, but unfortunately the terrible clouding and abysmal black levels on my Sony EX640 prevents me. One day I will have a Panny plasma...


----------



## djoberg

*Hitchcock*


Having been an avid fan of _Psycho_ for many years, and more recently a weekly follower of A & E's excellent drama _Bates Motel_, I couldn't resist the temptation to rent _Hitchcock_ this afternoon (in spite of a less-than-stellar reception at the Box Office accompanied by corresponding reviews by movie critics). I found the movie to be *acceptable* (with no regrets at having spent $3 and 90 minutes of my life on it) and the PQ was superb.


Once again I find myself being the first reviewer (on this thread), so I trust I won't lead anyone astray with my comments. I stated above that I found "the PQ was superb"....and it was!! Every category in this thread's criteria held up well to the closest scrutiny. COLORS were rich, warm, and vibrant! DETAILS were finely rendered! CONTRAST was perfect! FLESH TONES were spot on! DEPTH was astounding (at times)! BLACKS were deep and inky! SHADOW DETAILS were exemplary! SHARPNESS and CLARITY were present in almost every scene! One of the recurring scenes that highlighted most of these virtues was in Hitchcock's backyard, with its dazzling flowers, lush green lawn, and sparkling blue swimming pool. Even the patio furniture excelled in details.


My only complaints, and they are few, would be an occasional soft shot, a few scenes where details faltered a bit, and one or two fleeting instances of black crush. Were it not for these, I would most definitely vote for Tier Blu, but being the first reviewer of this film I'm going to take the conservative approach and assign it to Tier Gold, though it would be a travesty to place it anywhere lower than right here....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20280_60#post_23224362
> 
> *Hitchcock*
> 
> 
> Having been an avid fan of _Psycho_ for many years, and more recently a weekly follower of A & E's excellent drama _Bates Motel_, I couldn't resist the temptation to rent _Hitchcock_ this afternoon (in spite of a less-than-stellar reception at the Box Office accompanied by corresponding reviews by movie critics). I found the movie to be *acceptable* (with no regrets at having spent $3 and 90 minutes of my life on it) and the PQ was superb.
> 
> 
> Once again I find myself being the first reviewer (on this thread), so I trust I won't lead anyone astray with my comments. I stated above that I found "the PQ was superb"....and it was!! Every category in this thread's criteria held up well to the closest scrutiny. COLORS were rich, warm, and vibrant! DETAILS were finely rendered! CONTRAST was perfect! FLESH TONES were spot on! DEPTH was astounding (at times)! BLACKS were deep and inky! SHADOW DETAILS were exemplary! SHARPNESS and CLARITY were present in almost every scene! One of the recurring scenes that highlighted most of these virtues was in Hitchcock's backyard, with its dazzling flowers, lush green lawn, and sparkling blue swimming pool. Even the patio furniture excelled in details.
> 
> 
> My only complaints, and they are few, would be an occasional soft shot, a few scenes where details faltered a bit, and one or two fleeting instances of black crush. Were it not for these, I would most definitely vote for Tier Blu, but being the first reviewer of this film I'm going to take the conservative approach and assign it to Tier Gold, though it would be a travesty to place it anywhere lower than right here....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.0**


You beat me to the punch on a disc I reviewed almost a month ago.







My thoughts on _Hitchcock_ and accurate Blu-ray screenshots can be found over at DoBlu . It must have slipped my mind and I forgot to give my two cents here. I can't really disagree with your assessment of its excellent picture quality. I will go a step lower, simply due to _Hitchcock_ lacking the necessary dimensionality for the highest Tier.

*Hitchcock


recommendation: Tier 1.25**


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20280#post_23224587
> 
> 
> You beat me to the punch on a disc I reviewed almost a month ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My thoughts on _Hitchcock_ and accurate Blu-ray screenshots can be found over at DoBlu . It must have slipped my mind and I forgot to give my two cents here. I can't really disagree with your assessment of its excellent picture quality. I will go a step lower, simply due to _Hitchcock_ lacking the necessary dimensionality for the highest Tier.
> 
> *Hitchcock
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 1.25**



I read your review on doblu.com Phantom and it was excellent as usual. I agree with you wholeheartedly that Helen Mirren's performance outshone all of her peers. There was one scene she had with Hopkins that had me saying...Oscar, Oscar, Oscar!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Greystone Park


recommendation: Tier 4.5**


Another tedious found-footage horror film, this time mostly inside an abandoned mental hospital at night. The low-budget digital production has the fake digital glitches and shaky cinematography so common to the genre these days. Avoid at all costs...


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20280#post_23226170
> 
> *Greystone Park
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 4.5**
> 
> 
> Another tedious found-footage horror film, this time mostly inside an abandoned mental hospital at night. The low-budget digital production has the fake digital glitches and shaky cinematography so common to the genre these days. Avoid at all costs...



Speaking of horror films, we had a huge film crew here where I live (Fergus Falls, MN) last August filming the upcoming movie _The Control Group_ starring Brad Dourif. The location of the film is an old, creepy-looking State Mental Hospital that had to shut their doors a couple of years ago. I'm obviously anticipating its release sometime this year, but I'm not hopeful regarding the PQ, for as you intimate Phantom this genre is known for its poor digital productions.


----------



## djoberg

I just found a good website for the movie _The Control Group_ and in reading one of the links on the production the director stated he wanted to avoid the typical camerawork found in many horror films today, including the jittery camera. So, maybe the PQ won't be too bad.









http://thecontrolgroupmovie.com/about/


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I'll definitely try and check for that movie when it comes out, Denny. Digital cameras have affected the horror genre more than any other genre I can think of, mostly in the negative. It seems to be much tougher to develop rich black levels and appropriate shadow depth with digital cameras.


Since the Tiers thread is ultimately about the best-looking Blu-rays, what better to display them on but the absolute best consumer display panels. The 9th annual Flat Panel Shootout is being held in May to once again determine the best, most accurate displays to showcase the best material Blu-ray has to offer. It appears they may actually stream this year's event on the web. Further information can be found here:

http://www.residentialsystems.com/news/0022/value-electronics-holds-9th-annual-flat-panel-shootout/84529 


People are already wondering how the Panasonic TC-P65ZT60 will fare, since some have already said it surpasses last year's models by a solid margin in picture quality. I wonder if they are going to use any of the discs found at the top of the Tiers for demo purposes?


----------



## djoberg

Thanks for the heads up on the upcoming Flat Panel Shootout Phantom! I'm encouraged by the possibility of it being streamed; I will definitely tune in if they do.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Miss Fisher's Murder Mysteries Series 1


recommendation: Tier 2.25**


Acorn Media has given this Australian show a solid Blu-ray release. The video quality is pretty typical for a recent television production these days, being presented in 1080i. Smartly shot with a crisp contrast and excellent color saturation, there are no major problems to the image. If you saw the show on PBS in the past year in broadcast HD, you should know what to expect.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Thale


recommendation: Tier 3.5*
*

Independent distributor XLRator Media picked up this slick 2012 Norwegian fantasy/horror film and released it on Blu-ray. The digital cinematography is inconsistent at best and a little amateurish at times, but solid enough to qualify for Tier Three. The screenshots highlight the occasional glimpses of fine detail but there are lapses in both sharpness and focus. Independent horror fans will like the smart script and unique concept.


----------



## hernanu

*Hello Dolly*

*recommendation: Tier 0*


This is one that I was waiting for and did not disappoint. The colors are incredibly vibrant, no visible black crush, detail very good. All scenes from bright outdoor to twilight to nightime were showcase material. Lots of dancing and quick motion, no problems seen.


The source was a 65 mm negative, so I expected excellence and this delivered.


One of my favorite musicals, a real eye candy fest. I'd rate it just above 'Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest".



Viewed on a Vizio XVT 472, Oppo BDP-83, Pioneer Elite VSX-33, 7.2 Energy RC/LCR, RC-50, RC-10, RC-mini, 2 S10.3. At a distance of 9 feet.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hernanu*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20280_60#post_23241350
> 
> *Hello Dolly*
> 
> *recommendation: Tier 0*
> 
> 
> This is one that I was waiting for and did not disappoint. The colors are incredibly vibrant, no visible black crush, detail very good. All scenes from bright outdoor to twilight to nightime were showcase material. Lots of dancing and quick motion, no problems seen.
> 
> 
> The source was a 65 mm negative, so I expected excellence and this delivered.


I wonder if Fox did an 8K scan of the negative for the Blu-ray transfer. After the events in Boston last week, I hope you and your family were not impacted by the tragedy.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Fresh*


One of the better efforts I've seen from Echo Bridge. Nice, natural color, sharpness is high, and detail is constant. Damage is heavy, but not to a point where the images are ruined. Nice contrast and black levels, plus Echo Bridge's compression is stable.

*Tier 2.5**


----------



## hernanu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20280#post_23241451
> 
> 
> I wonder if Fox did an 8K scan of the negative for the Blu-ray transfer. After the events in Boston last week, I hope you and your family were not impacted by the tragedy.



I believe it was an 8K scan. I've also got South Pacific, which was treated alike, will give a review in time, but I have watched it a couple of times and feel like it's also a high quality bluray.


Thanks for the thoughts. We were impacted in different ways, one cousin and her family were a mile from the blast on the route, another was running and a niece and friends were supposed to be at the finish line, but she stayed home thankfully. Her friends were across the street from the first blast, but were physically unharmed. Several relatives were in Cambridge, Newton and my daughter in Brighton, which were shut down during the chase.


The good thing is that they were caught and dealt with, things have returned to normal.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20280_60#post_23242382
> 
> *Fresh*
> 
> 
> One of the better efforts I've seen from Echo Bridge. Nice, natural color, sharpness is high, and detail is constant. Damage is heavy, but not to a point where the images are ruined. Nice contrast and black levels, plus Echo Bridge's compression is stable.
> 
> *Tier 2.5**


I would strongly recommend _Fresh_ as a movie. One of the smarter and more unheralded crime dramas of the 1990s. The young child actor in it gives an amazing performance. It's nice to hear that Echo Bridge dug up a serviceable HD master.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hernanu*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20280_60#post_23244128
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20280#post_23241451
> 
> 
> I wonder if Fox did an 8K scan of the negative for the Blu-ray transfer. After the events in Boston last week, I hope you and your family were not impacted by the tragedy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe it was an 8K scan. I've also got South Pacific, which was treated alike, will give a review in time, but I have watched it a couple of times and feel like it's also a high quality bluray.
> 
> 
> Thanks for the thoughts. We were impacted in different ways, one cousin and her family were a mile from the blast on the route, another was running and a niece and friends were supposed to be at the finish line, but she stayed home thankfully. Her friends were across the street from the first blast, but were physically unharmed. Several relatives were in Cambridge, Newton and my daughter in Brighton, which were shut down during the chase.
> 
> 
> The good thing is that they were caught and dealt with, things have returned to normal.
Click to expand...

That is good to hear, hernanu. Hopefully things have quickly returned to normal in Boston.


*Silent Hill: Revelation


recommendation: Tier 1.75**


Aside from a few scenes purposely constructed for 3-D projection (the opening scene for instance), this sequel lacks the type of depth and dimension for a higher placement. Universal did add a touch of edge enhancement in a few scenes, though the transfer looks softer than normal for a recent production. There is so much CGI that it is hard separating what is real and what is a digital creation like _Avatar_, but without the mega-budget of that movie. Black levels remain strong, though some video noise does creep into select scenes staged in dark interiors.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

 *Jurassic Park 3D* 


Universal's DNR slams this one too, although the edge enhancement from the previous disc is lifted. The new master is significantly warmer than before, flesh tones dipping into burnt tones, and plant life robbed of its brilliant greens. Fidelity is here, although in close only. Grain has been wiped clean. Black levels are fine.

*Tier 2.75**


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20280#post_23247880
> 
> *Jurassic Park 3D*
> 
> 
> Universal's DNR slams this one too, although the edge enhancement from the previous disc is lifted. The new master is significantly warmer than before, flesh tones dipping into burnt tones, and plant life robbed of its brilliant greens. Fidelity is here, although in close only. Grain has been wiped clean. Black levels are fine.
> 
> *Tier 2.75**



Thanks for the report. I was curious to see this in 3d, but I am going to save my money in light of the other issues.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20280#post_23248155
> 
> 
> Thanks for the report. I was curious to see this in 3d, but I am going to save my money in light of the other issues.



The reason to see this, aside from the surprisingly strong 3D, is the audio mix. Some will still tout the bass of the Laserdisc, but the surrounds and spacing have never been richer than this 7.1 mix.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*A Haunted House


recommendation: Tier 2.25**


A low-budget spoof, _A Haunted House_ looks decent in 1080P. The video aesthetic is apparent from the beginning but is better shot than the movie it tries to spoof, _Paranormal Activity_. There is very little eye candy but overall clarity and sharpness remain quite high much of the time. Screenshots are included as always in the review.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20280#post_23248831
> 
> 
> The reason to see this, aside from the surprisingly strong 3D, is the audio mix. Some will still tout the bass of the Laserdisc, but the surrounds and spacing have never been richer than this 7.1 mix.




Good info, thanks. Do you know if this is the same mix from the 2011 blu ray release? I was actually very impressed with that mix as well and was not expecting it to be so good considering its age.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20280#post_23249381
> 
> 
> Good info, thanks. Do you know if this is the same mix from the 2011 blu ray release? I was actually very impressed with that mix as well and was not expecting it to be so good considering its age.



It is an all new mix made from original elements.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20280#post_23249422
> 
> 
> It is an all new mix made from original elements.



Thanks for the info. In that case, I will definitely track it down!


----------



## djoberg

*The Impossible*


A nice-looking Blu that should make its way easily into Tier Silver. Sporadic soft shots and many daytime scenes with a washed-out look will keep it out of the reference/demo tiers.


This title is all about DETAILS (its most redeeming feature), with tons of shots revealing wounds, blood, dirt, grime, and sweat on dozens of tsunami victims, and beautiful cinematography (especially during the first 20 minutes) of Thailand's gorgeous landscapes. DEPTH too could be outstanding, along with accurate FLESH-TONES, decent BLACK LEVELS, and appreciable SHADOW DETAILS. But again, there were too many soft and washed-out shots to elevate this to one of the top two tiers. I should add there was nagging yellow hue at times (but not as bad as some of the orange/teal debacles I've seen of late).


This is, IMHO, destined for Tier Silver, and with the amazing details I'm inclined to put it at or near the top....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0* or 2.25**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^


After watching a few of the scenes again today I realized I neglected to speak of the amazing facial close-ups. There is a shot of Naomi Watts laying on a hospital bed that is simply incredible....you could not see more detail even if you were "up close and personal." The make-up artists are to be commended for the realistic wounds. The texture of her skin is one of the best I've seen in a female lead and you could even see very fine hairs on her forehead.


There is also one or two shots of Ewan McGregor that came close to the texture displayed in that of Miss Watts and the depth and dimensionality in those shots were also remarkable.


Again, if not for some scenes that looked way too bright (and washed-out) this would have been a Tier Gold contender.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Star Driver: Part 1


recommendation: Tier 1.5**

_Star Driver_ was released a couple of years ago by the now-defunct Bandai Entertainment. It's a modern anime series that combines both hand-drawn and CGI elements in its animation. Bandai gave the two-disc set a stellar AVC video encode with nary a flaw, fully replicating whatever was digitally produced by the show's creators. The animation quality is a cut above many other similar series, produced by noted animation house BONES.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Gangster Squad*


Superb black levels highlight this messy encode from Warner that often struggles with banding, messy grain, and other compression concerns. Colors are a bit held back, countered by superb facial definition.

*Tier 2.0**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Broken City*


Miserable black levels are damning to this piece no matter how much detail it pushes out. There is some noise and smoothing at work too. Sharpness is generally high and the compression work is good, but lacks the dead on quality of most new releases.

*Tier 2.25**


----------



## djoberg

*Gangster Squad*


I recall the days when reference/demo material was somewhat the exception and not the rule, but I would say out of the last 20 Blu-rays I've viewed, at least a dozen of them have fallen into the top two tiers. I'm happy to say that's the case with this viewing as well.


Let me get a few *negatives* out of the way. There was some inconsistency in the PQ throughout the first half, with most scenes offering exceptional clarity and sharpness, but then out of nowhere it would lose definition and become flat. This seemed to be limited to interior shots with low lighting. There was also inconsistency in facial definition, for even though the majority of facial close-ups revealed excellent texture, there were some shots that were less-than-stellar, and in the case of Emma Stone there had to have been some *smoothing* in play. The only other "minor gripe" would be a couple of outdoor, daytime shots featuring the infamous "orange hues."


Thankfully the majority of the nearly two hour running time was filled with superb CLARITY & SHARPNESS, finely-rendered DETAILS, beautiful primary COLORS (at times), deep and inky BLACK LEVELS, and exquisite SHADOW DETAILS.


I know that my esteemed colleague (GRG) felt compelled to drop this into Tier Silver due to "banding, messy grain, and other compression concerns," but IMHO these were almost non-existent and thus I feel quite comfortable relegating this to....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20280_60#post_23276840
> 
> 
> I recall the days when reference/demo material was somewhat the exception and not the rule, but I would say out of the last 20 Blu-rays I've viewed, at least a dozen of them have fallen into the top two tiers. I'm happy to say that's the case with this viewing as well.


I think big-budget Hollywood films are looking better than ever, on the average. It is mostly due to the shift towards a completely digital production chain in recent years, from shooting to post-production. I still see disappointingly few Hollywood films (outside of CGI animation) that qualify for the top rung, Tier 0, but the major studios seemingly churn out Tier 1-caliber BDs these days with little effort.



*The Disappearance of Haruhi Suzumiya


recommendation: Tier 1.25*
*

Another Blu-ray that is now out of print from the late Bandai, the film was first released to the format in 2011. The art design by Kyoto Animation is a little flashier in this feature than it was for the television show, using improved modeling and integrating CGI elements into the more traditional hand-drawn animation. The AVC video encode is pretty good once you make it past some very early shots of minor banding. The all-digital transfer does not display any irregularities and as I said before, this is more polished animation than the original show. The color palette is a little more subtle than animation aimed at children, though the film still utilizes vivid primary colors.

_I'm Haruhi Suzumiya, from East Junior High. First off, I'm not interested in ordinary people. But, if any of you are aliens, time-travelers, or espers, please come see me. That is all!_


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20310#post_23276894
> 
> 
> I think big-budget Hollywood films are looking better than ever, on the average. It is mostly due to the shift towards a completely digital production chain in recent years, from shooting to post-production. I still see disappointingly few Hollywood films (outside of CGI animation) that qualify for the top rung, Tier 0, but the major studios seemingly churn out Tier 1-caliber BDs these days with little effort.



I agree on both counts!


----------



## djoberg

*The Guilt Trip*


Let me say from the outset that I was at a disadvantage in my viewing experience, for I succumbed to my wife's desire (with Mother's Day right around the corner







) and watched this on our rather small 40" Samsung LCD in our living room with a viewing distance of at least 8'. If the movie wasn't so bad I'd slip it into my Pioneer player in the "Man Cave" and watch some of the scenes over again, but I really don't think I could tolerate two viewings in a row (even if my main objective was to focus on the PQ).


What I did see was *okay*, but nothing to get excited about. The colors were solid; contrast was good; black levels and shadow details were acceptable; flesh tones were so-so; and there was a fair amount of sharpness and clarity in many scenes. Where I was somewhat disappointed was in the details and depth departments. It just didn't WOW me; in fact, in those two areas I would have to rate this as simply average (Tier 3).


All things considered I would nominate this for....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25**


PS Again, it may have fared better in my Man Cave on a larger and better display at a closer distance which would have resulted in a higher rating. Perhaps I'll give it another rent someday and check it out (but I highly doubt it).


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Anyone keeping up with the 4K news? Sony is redoing some of their Blu-rays with newer 4K transfers and the results appear to improve on the older Blu-rays. The new Blu-ray for _Ghostbusters_ has better contrast and a more refined filmic transfer. Read about the developments in this AVS thread:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1470744/avs-cant-wait-special-mastered-in-4k-blu-ray-releases 


The prices are a little ridiculous for reissues of discs most of us already own, but the process does seem to have improved the picture quality.



I would also like to point out a Blu-ray A/V demo disc being constructed for private home use by an AVS forum member, superleo. It's a disc that people would have to burn for themselves but the files are being provided for free by download.

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1469192/reference-2-blu-ray-demo-disc-bd9s-bd50/0_60


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^


Regarding your question, I am not allowing myself to get too acquainted with anything related to 4K until I have a 4K display and a Blu-ray player with 4K (I do have a compatible A/V receiver). As far as purchasing 4K Blu-rays that look better than their 1080P counterparts, I most definitely will NOT be double-dipping. To me the difference would have to be overwhelming to justify that. I may pick up a new release though if I don't currently own it, as long as the price difference isn't too great.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Man With The Iron Fists


recommendation: Tier 0* (above The Lion King)
*

This might be the best picture quality I've seen yet from a movie shot primarily using the Red One camera. _The Man With The Iron Fists_ is a very recent release by Universal, encoded in AVC on a BD-50. Its striking dimensionality and precise detail epitomize the qualities necessary for the highest level of the PQ Tiers. Aside from a somewhat cheap-looking opening credits sequence, this film is obvious demo material. Lush visuals are bolstered by vivid primary colors and stunning sharpness. This is a reference transfer with little extraneous processing and perfect transparency to the principal photography. The color palette shows no obvious bias or push, except a tendency for brilliant hues of saturated red inside the opulent Pink Blossom setting.


I would have likely ranked this BD even higher, if not for a few exaggerated moments of poorly-done CGI.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Look for a number of fixes to the Tiers in the next update, since forum member K-Spaz (who also graciously hosts the data on his own server) is back to coding on the back-end database. The dead HDDB.com links, which I've promised to eliminate for sometime, are now gone from the database entries! There is some possibility that the holdings area for new placements might make a comeback.


I am also looking for feedback from anyone on the current formatting of each Tier placement:

bb nf Juno Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Fox


The *bb* link, if active, has always been the link to Blockbuster's online service page for that movie. Do people still use the Blockbuster rental service or should those links be completely removed? Keep in mind that over half the entries in the Tiers don't have active BB links, so it wouldn't be a huge loss anyway. The nf link is for Netflix of course and we don't have any intention of removing the Netflix links.


Does anyone have problems with the colors of the Tiers in the various forum skins? I believe someone has said it is hard to read on a black background.


----------



## K-Spaz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20310#post_23281515
> 
> 
> Anyone keeping up with the 4K news? Sony is redoing some of their Blu-rays with newer 4K transfers and the results appear to improve on the older Blu-rays.
> 
> 
> The prices are a little ridiculous for reissues of discs most of us already own, but the process does seem to have improved the picture quality.


Howdy Guys, been a while.


Just looking on amazon, I thought they appear to be pretty cheap. Ranging from 14.99 to 34.99, and only one I saw was at 34.99. At 15 bucks, I'd double dip on one just so I could see for myself. But, I JUST bought a new projector and it ain't 4K. Not much sense in buying then. If any, I might try total recall. But, I'd better make sure my player will play it. I've not even looked at this stuff. For that matter, I'm not sure the playback is any different than any other blu.


Watched the special features for the 3D Hobbit last night and Peter J says that was filmed in 5K. The movie itself is some very nice 3D. Far superior to some I've seen, like Avatar, which is a bit over the top. There might have been 10 seconds with anything in the negative space in the whole movie. I prefer that to all that crap popping out. I just want to watch the movie. It seems more immersive to me when it's all positive space and realistic.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20280_60#post_23288009
> 
> 
> Just looking on amazon, I thought they appear to be pretty cheap. Ranging from 14.99 to 34.99, and only one I saw was at 34.99. At 15 bucks, I'd double dip on one just so I could see for myself. But, I JUST bought a new projector and it ain't 4K. Not much sense in buying then. If any, I might try total recall. But, I'd better make sure my player will play it. I've not even looked at this stuff. For that matter, I'm not sure the playback is any different than any other blu.


It's good seeing you back in the thread, K-Spaz! Looking around Amazon now, I guess someone misinformed me on the pricing for the 4K-mastered Blu-rays from Sony. Both the new Ghostbusters and Spider-Man BDs are on pre-order for $14.99, which seems reasonable. Sony actually gave these films new 4K scans and transfers, so you don't need anything but an ordinary Blu-ray player to derive some visual benefit from the BDs. Going off the screenshots, I think many here will prefer the new Ghostbusters transfer. The contrast has been changed back with more accurate color rendition.

*Delhi Safari


recommendation: Tier 1.25**


Another family movie animated in razor-sharp CGI, the unusual thing here is that it was produced and made in India. The budget was $15 million, so the animation is not quite as polished or lavish as say a recent DreamWorks movie. The Blu-ray itself by Arc Entertainment represents a solid transfer of purely digital animation, so any flaws can mostly be attributed to the source material. The small budget does show up in some of the sparse backgrounds with reduced texture and the modelling of the secondary characters.

_Delhi Safari_ is currently an exclusive at Walmart.


----------



## K-Spaz

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I bet nothing will be different about these 4k mastered discs. Take the Hobbit for instance. They don't have a choice as to which master to use, they only have one. So, even though my 5 disc set I got doesn't say it's from 4K, it's from a 4K. (well, 5K).


Movies like Total Recall, it's new enough that it most likely was shot with high res cameras as well. Could you imagine them making an encode from a lower res "master" just so they could market another from a higher res "master"? I can't. I'd say that unless these are a totally different resolution, then it's just more of the same with a new label and fancy marketing. But I could be mistaken.


They are right proud of 4K displays yet too, so, it'll take some time before they can produce any content en masse.


Fact is, I think this stuff may be hitting a wall (resolution / sharpness wise). I had a conversation with a casual viewer (but avid moviegoer) who'd seen my new system and mentioned that I think the movies have taken on a new dimension, as if the display quality is so good it makes it look like the production quality is less. They immediately agreed and went on to make many of the observations I have. His take on it was, "The movies now look more like the making-of-specials than they do a movie". It's like you're sitting there while they're recording. My verbiage was, "It's like you're watching a high-school production rather than Hollywood". I did increase the screen size in my room, and I've got a lot more image brightness and contrast. But, the entire viewing experience now has a different feel to it.


Considering what my new projector did to the movie experience (not always for the better), I can only imagine what 4K content will do. It's hard to say it's all bad, I mean the images are incredible. But, they are so big and so incredible, they take me away from the movie itself and I find myself watching images, not movies. Does that make sense?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20310#post_23288807
> 
> 
> Considering what my new projector did to the movie experience (not always for the better), I can only imagine what 4K content will do. It's hard to say it's all bad, I mean the images are incredible. But, they are so big and so incredible, they take me away from the movie itself and *I find myself watching images, not movies*. Does that make sense?



Hey K-Spaz...where in the world have you been?! I'll echo Phantom's sentiments by saying we have missed you!


I only copied the last part of your last post because I wanted to offer a short comment on the words highlighted above, and that is, "Even my somewhat modest 60" flat panel is big enough to result in me 'watching images, not movies'."







Of course, part of the reason may be that I'm purposely focused on the PQ so I can offer a review on this thread. Sometimes I'll watch the movie again so I can focus solely on the movie, though if the PQ is excellent I still get drawn into the images.


----------



## K-Spaz

Hey Denny, glad to see you're still around too! As to where I've been, trying to keep the bills paid and a few bucks left over, so working plenty. Got the itch to update my projector and finally bit the bullet 2 weeks ago. New screen and all.


Something that has surprised me is that I'm beginning to enjoy 3D. For the most part, I've had no interest in it previously. But as long as a movie is filmed that way, I think they are excellent entertainment. I won't deny I've got some fatigue issues to work out but I'm getting my eyes used to it. I'm quite impressed with the image quality with glasses on. The stuff I'm watching is full res HD 3D and it's impressive. I have a DLP so I use the DLP-Link glasses. So far, I like it, though there isn't much content to watch. I'm going to say that it helps me with the complaint above about the image being almost too perfect. Movies become movies again and I just watch them for the experience. I find it's difficult to take in the entire screen at once so, if anything, that helps me to really watch the movie.


I took a cursory glance at the rankings and I have to say, I agree with about everything. You guys do a great job. And, there should be a big thanks go out to Phantom for all the work keeping the list up to date. Should anyone think that's an easy job, it isn't. It's a good bit of work and it consumes time.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

 *The Guilt Trip* 


Smoothing is an issue here as Streisand is digitally washed over with DNR to hide her age. It's an ugly effect. Everything else is just blah, from colors to blacks. Limited fidelity all around, and some abhorrent green screen work.
*Tier 3.0**


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20310#post_23291673
> 
> *The Guilt Trip*
> 
> 
> Smoothing is an issue here as Streisand is digitally washed over with DNR to hide her age. It's an ugly effect. Everything else is just blah, from colors to blacks. Limited fidelity all around, and some abhorrent green screen work.
> *Tier 3.0**



After seeing your review, I might have been wrong in thinking this title would look better on my KURO with a closer viewing. I think the LCD may have fooled me because of its small size and with me sitting back so far. So, if I did see it on a 60' sitting up fairly close it may just magnify the flaws instead of enhancing the virtues.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Superman Unbound


placement: Tier 1.0**


WB has encoded the 75-minute main feature in AVC at moderate bitrates, on a BD-25. Banding was once a serious problem for Warner Bros. Animation's direct-to-video features, but they've completely eliminated the annoyance on _Superman Unbound_. This BD could qualify for Tier 0, my placement is on the conservative side. The color palette is "softer" than some of their prior DC Universe movies, so the reds and blues don't pop in quite the same rich style. Black levels are fantastic as always with the Digital Ink & Paint-created animation, producing stellar contrast and inky levels of darkness in the space locales. The animation budgets must have grown in recent years, because these features from WB continue to look more and more polished by objective measures. Artistically, the art design for Superman's head looks slightly askew.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Silver Linings Playbook*


An inconsistent looker with substantial detail when it wants, but often veers soft via shots with Jennifer Lawrence. Warmly tinted with yellows and oranges saps some of the energy. Nice grain reproduction, and black levels are great.

*Tier 1.75**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I forgot to post this earlier today, but the 9th annual HDTV shootout from V alue Electronics was streamed at 6 PM today, here:

http://new.livestream.com/accounts/632436/hdtvshootout/archives 


I believe there might be another live stream of the event at 6 P.M. EST on Saturday night. The results so far are being discussed on this forum and elsewhere. I don't believe a definitive winner has been announced yet.

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1472028/which-display-wins-the-shootout-lets-have-some-fun-make-your-predictions-here/0_60


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^


Thanks Phantom! I got home from Minneapolis last night and ended up reading the whole thread and watching some of the live stream as well. Judging by the comments on the thread, it's going to be hard choosing a winner, with the top three all being plasmas (two Pannys...ZT60 and VT60...and Samsung 8500). They are saying the ZT was underwhelming as far as besting the VT in black levels. I plan to watch more of the live stream tonight.


----------



## djoberg

WOW!! The results are in and the Samsung F8500 was declared the champion of the Shootout (by a very small margin). Panasonic is going to have to eat some "humble pie" after touting their new ZT60 as the new "reference" Flat Panel. They even bragged it would be the "KURO Killer," which was proved wrong by the measurements of the calibrationists at the show.


Even though the KURO was not bested by any of the three top contenders, they came very close and any one would be a fine choice for a plasma lover. I was surprised that Samsung stepped up to the plate and won and it was reported by ALL that it had the best "brightness" level which means it would do well in a living room environment where light (from windows) is an issue. The ZT60 and VT60 would do better in a darker room and their blacks levels were a tad better than the Samsung.


One final thought. The LCDs fared poorly at the Shootout (in comparison to the plasmas) and with OLED being at least 3-5 years from being marketable and affordable, it looks like plasma is here to stay in the foreseeable future. As a plasma lover I'm elated, for if my KURO meets its demise, I want to know that there will be an excellent plasma to replace it with, and right now there's at least three that would fit the bill.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I wasn't aware before this shootout that esteemed video calibrator, D-Nice, has applied some sort of custom software that enhances the KURO even further than is possible with factory controls. It's a real shame that Pioneer got out of the plasma market when they did, considering several-year-old technology is still successfully competing against the newest premium displays. I figured if the new Panasonic plasmas had any weak point, it would be light output in a lit environment.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Puella Magi Madoka Magica: Complete Series Collection (region-locked UK Import)


recommendation: Tier 1.5**


Manga Home Entertainment spread the 300-minute animated series over three BD-25s. This series deserves a higher Tier 1 placement for its innovative visual design and amazingly unique animation style in the battle scenes, but there is simply too much banding for that to happen. The source used for the transfer is possibly an HDCAM master, which might explain some of the banding and other minor artifacts. The picture quality looks great for the most part and has a very rich color palette, full of brilliant primary colors. This is the type of animation that was meant to be seen in a high-quality presentation that only Blu-ray can offer, combining hand-drawn elements with CGI. Like most other anime productions originally from Japan, this UK set is locked to Region B.

"If you ever feel like dying to help the universe, just let me know. I'll be waiting."


----------



## Gamereviewgod

 *Ghostbusters - Mastered in 4K* 


The first disc is listed in Tier 3. This can rise up a notch. Most of the changes revolve around encoding and brightness. Black crush is a bit persistent, but also hides many of the spaces where compression liked to seep in before. Tighter resolution creates more detail opportunities, and color has been left alone for the most part (some minor tweaks).

*Tier 2.5**

*The Oranges*


Small indie comedy shot digitally with mostly appealing results. Detail can be a little dry but is nicely done. Clarity is striking, and sharpness consistent. Black levels could be a shred heavier, and some early footage is meant to come from a vintage, low-res cell phone.

*Tier 2.0**


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20310#post_23314897
> 
> 
> I wasn't aware before this shootout that esteemed video calibrator, D-Nice, has applied some sort of custom software that enhances the KURO even further than is possible with factory controls. It's a real shame that Pioneer got out of the plasma market when they did, considering several-year-old technology is still successfully competing against the newest premium displays. I figured if the new Panasonic plasmas had any weak point, it would be light output in a lit environment.



I'm a BIG fan of D-Nice and was glad to see that he was one of the three main calibrators at the Shootout. Did you know he has numerous KUROs throughout his house? He still believes it's THE REFERENCE DISPLAY to beat. If he did tours in my area I would most certainly hire him to do a calibration on mine. Until he does, I have to be content to use the multiple settings he has listed for the 9G KUROs. I saw a noticeable improvement after implementing those settings, though I must say the KURO Elite looked amazingly good "right-out-of-the-box" with it set on Pure Mode.


----------



## JoeBloggz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20310#post_23316290
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20310#post_23314897
> 
> 
> I wasn't aware before this shootout that esteemed video calibrator, D-Nice, has applied some sort of custom software that enhances the KURO even further than is possible with factory controls. It's a real shame that Pioneer got out of the plasma market when they did, considering several-year-old technology is still successfully competing against the newest premium displays. I figured if the new Panasonic plasmas had any weak point, it would be light output in a lit environment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a BIG fan of D-Nice and was glad to see that he was one of the three main calibrators at the Shootout. Did you know he has numerous KUROs throughout his house? He still believes it's THE REFERENCE DISPLAY to beat. If he did tours in my area I would most certainly hire him to do a calibration on mine. Until he does, I have to be content to use the multiple settings he has listed for the 9G KUROs. I saw a noticeable improvement after implementing those settings, though I must say the KURO Elite looked amazingly good "right-out-of-the-box" with it set on Pure Mode.
Click to expand...


Custom software? You guys talking about controlcal and the like or something different? This software is readily available to any trained ISF calibrator in the country. I don't think its solely the work of one individual. Personally I've had my Kuro calibrated by Jeff Meier, better know as umr here on avs. He does travel tours and has a vast in depth knowledge regarding Pioneer plasmas, kuro included.


Sent from the Nodes of Ranvier


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JoeBloggz*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20280_60#post_23318077
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20310#post_23316290
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20310#post_23314897
> 
> 
> I wasn't aware before this shootout that esteemed video calibrator, D-Nice, has applied some sort of custom software that enhances the KURO even further than is possible with factory controls. It's a real shame that Pioneer got out of the plasma market when they did, considering several-year-old technology is still successfully competing against the newest premium displays. I figured if the new Panasonic plasmas had any weak point, it would be light output in a lit environment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a BIG fan of D-Nice and was glad to see that he was one of the three main calibrators at the Shootout. Did you know he has numerous KUROs throughout his house? He still believes it's THE REFERENCE DISPLAY to beat. If he did tours in my area I would most certainly hire him to do a calibration on mine. Until he does, I have to be content to use the multiple settings he has listed for the 9G KUROs. I saw a noticeable improvement after implementing those settings, though I must say the KURO Elite looked amazingly good "right-out-of-the-box" with it set on Pure Mode.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Custom software? You guys talking about controlcal and the like or something different? This software is readily available to any trained ISF calibrator in the country. I don't think its solely the work of one individual. Personally I've had my Kuro calibrated by Jeff Meier, better know as umr here on avs. He does travel tours and has a vast in depth knowledge regarding Pioneer plasmas, kuro included.
> 
> 
> Sent from the Nodes of Ranvier
Click to expand...

No, what D-Nice has done with the KURO goes beyond a regular ISF calibration. Read the threads about the shootout, some were calling it a cheat since D-Nice has come up with a custom firmware (for lack of a better word) for the KURO that goes beyond its intended limitations. It's a software hack of the KURO's image processor.


*Safety Not Guaranteed


recommendation: Tier 2.75**


A charming little indie dramedy from Sony, the picture quality is fairly uninspired for a newish release. While the clarity is normally consistent, something went horribly wrong in a handful of shots. I can't tell if the scenes were botched in post or shot on an inferior camera, but the poor scenes look like video from a cheap, handheld DV camera. The color palette has been left untouched by any obvious push towards one particular color.


----------



## JoeBloggz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20340#post_23319210
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JoeBloggz*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20280_60#post_23318077
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20310#post_23316290
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20310#post_23314897
> 
> 
> I wasn't aware before this shootout that esteemed video calibrator, D-Nice, has applied some sort of custom software that enhances the KURO even further than is possible with factory controls. It's a real shame that Pioneer got out of the plasma market when they did, considering several-year-old technology is still successfully competing against the newest premium displays. I figured if the new Panasonic plasmas had any weak point, it would be light output in a lit environment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a BIG fan of D-Nice and was glad to see that he was one of the three main calibrators at the Shootout. Did you know he has numerous KUROs throughout his house? He still believes it's THE REFERENCE DISPLAY to beat. If he did tours in my area I would most certainly hire him to do a calibration on mine. Until he does, I have to be content to use the multiple settings he has listed for the 9G KUROs. I saw a noticeable improvement after implementing those settings, though I must say the KURO Elite looked amazingly good "right-out-of-the-box" with it set on Pure Mode.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Custom software? You guys talking about controlcal and the like or something different? This software is readily available to any trained ISF calibrator in the country. I don't think its solely the work of one individual. Personally I've had my Kuro calibrated by Jeff Meier, better know as umr here on avs. He does travel tours and has a vast in depth knowledge regarding Pioneer plasmas, kuro included.
> 
> 
> Sent from the Nodes of Ranvier
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, what D-Nice has done with the KURO goes beyond a regular ISF calibration. Read the threads about the shootout, some were calling it a cheat since D-Nice has come up with a custom firmware (for lack of a better word) for the KURO that goes beyond its intended limitations. It's a software hack of the KURO's image processor.
> 
> 
> *Safety Not Guaranteed
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 2.75**
> 
> 
> A charming little indie dramedy from Sony, the picture quality is fairly uninspired for a newish release. While the clarity is normally consistent, something went horribly wrong in a handful of shots. I can't tell if the scenes were botched in post or shot on an inferior camera, but the poor scenes look like video from a cheap, handheld DV camera. The color palette has been left untouched by any obvious push towards one particular color.
Click to expand...


Link?


Sent from the Nodes of Ranvier


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20280_60#post_23302330
> 
> 
> I forgot to post this earlier today, but the 9th annual HDTV shootout from V alue Electronics was streamed at 6 PM today, here:
> 
> http://new.livestream.com/accounts/632436/hdtvshootout/archives
> 
> 
> I believe there might be another live stream of the event at 6 P.M. EST on Saturday night. The results so far are being discussed on this forum and elsewhere. I don't believe a definitive winner has been announced yet.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/t/1472028/which-display-wins-the-shootout-lets-have-some-fun-make-your-predictions-here/0_60





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JoeBloggz*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20340_60#post_23319482
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> Sent from the Nodes of Ranvier



You really have to follow multiple forums for a complete picture of the Shootout, some of which are not allowed to be linked on AVS. Try the link in the quoted post. I don't really know too many of the details about D-Nice's method, but it goes far beyond a program like ControlCal. I suspect it's driving the KURO panel beyond its intended limits, which is why Pioneer wouldn't have made it available for the public.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JoeBloggz*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20340_60#post_23319482
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> Sent from the Nodes of Ranvier


Here is another long thread on the 9th Annual Display Shootout.

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=216626


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JoeBloggz*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20310#post_23318077
> 
> 
> Custom software? You guys talking about controlcal and the like or something different? This software is readily available to any trained ISF calibrator in the country. I don't think its solely the work of one individual. Personally I've had my Kuro calibrated by Jeff Meier, better know as umr here on avs. He does travel tours and has a vast in depth knowledge regarding Pioneer plasmas, kuro included.
> 
> 
> Sent from the Nodes of Ranvier



Phantom is right; D-Nice uses software that no one else uses.


Having said that, none of the displays in the Shootout were able to best the black levels in the 9G KUROs that were calibrated with software other than that used by D-Nice. In other words, Kevin Miller and David from CNET were also there and and they compared the measurements from the three top displays with measurements they have taken on 9G KUROs calibrated by them. If memory serves me the two Panasonic plasmas were EQUAL to the 9G KURO measurements. So, forget about D-Nice and his special software resulting in even better black levels than those measured in the Shootout. The bottom line is measurements don't lie and Panasonic had proudly proclaimed that their new ZT60 would be the "KURO Killer"....and it wasn't.


But as I stated before, I was very impressed with the outcome of the top three displays and I would, without hesitation, buy either the Panny VT60 or the ZT60 if my KURO died tomorrow (I would more than likely get the VT60 and save some bucks, for it performs just as well as the ZT in a dark room).


----------



## JWhip

The software that D-Nice uses, as I understand it, comes from PIoneer engineers. Furthermore, it does not drive the panel further than the specs allow. Apparently, the Kuros had a bit of headroom built into them in regards to black levels. The 9.5G 500M will get the darkest, but I have been assured that a 151 and a 141 can be made considerably blacker using the software but not as dark as a 500m. We will see. Also, the 500M was not set as blacks as D-Nice could make it for the shootout as he clearly stated Friday night when I attended. He took it half way from the factory preset to where he could actually take it. I just wish that Pioneer released the 10G model I saw at CES all those years ago, which still put today's models to shame. There is 1 real lucky Pioneer employee somewhere with an incredible 60" display.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JWhip*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20340#post_23320382
> 
> 
> The software that D-Nice uses, as I understand it, comes from PIoneer engineers. Furthermore, it does not drive the panel further than the specs allow. Apparently, the Kuros had a bit of headroom built into them in regards to black levels. The 9.5G 500M will get the darkest, but I have been assured that a 151 and a 141 can be made considerably blacker using the software but not as dark as a 500m. We will see. Also, the 500M was not set as blacks as D-Nice could make it for the shootout as he clearly stated Friday night when I attended. He took it half way from the factory preset to where he could actually take it. I just wish that Pioneer released the 10G model I saw at CES all those years ago, which still put today's models to shame. There is 1 real lucky Pioneer employee somewhere with an incredible 60" display.



Your post makes me desire, all the more, a calibration by D-Nice. Perhaps *someday* he will venture into my little corner of the world (160 miles northwest of Minneapolis, MN).


I too wish that Pioneer had continued making plasmas and in addition to a 10G model, I was hoping they would eventually make a 70" or larger. I'm not the biggest fan of projectors and in time I'd be willing to pay a pretty price for an 80" plasma/OLED.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Hellsing Ultimate: Collection Volumes I - IV


recommendation: Tier 2.25**


The animation was first produced back in 2006, so it is starting to show its age in 1080P. Fantastic character designs and fluidity, but like a lot of cheaper animation from that period, has a number of questionable lighting effects from the comparatively primitive digital paint tools of the time. Some moderate banding and posterization in the image, though not as much as I expected. Funimation gave this set a credible effort on Blu-ray and the ranking is more a reflection of the source material than anything else.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Shanghai Noon*


Some tough grain caused by some very slight sharpening is a bother, and color saturation is overdone, back to the DVD era. Great black levels are truly awesome facial detail save the flick from visual mediocrity.

*Tier 2.0**

*Shanghai Knights*


Now, the sharpening is a bother. Edges are coarse, and contrast is blown out. Grain is a bother again, and colors carry the same hyper saturation. Some vintage-styled cinematography creates fuzzy edits that rob definition. Still great facial detail.

*Tier 2.75**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

* Brubaker 


recommendation: Tier 3.75**


Fox serves up a satisfactory effort for 1980's _Brubaker_, starring Robert Redford. The transfer looks a tad dated in terms of fine detail and resolution, though the video encode handles the coarse grain structure with ease. If someone argued for a placement in Tier 4, I wouldn't really protest it.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Resident Evil Retribution 3D*


Detail disappointment aside, this one is pleasing with a lot of variety. Black levels are strong and overall sharpness is tight. Great contrast too.

*Tier 2.0**


----------



## chupra

My apologies, see below until I learn how to delete a post.


----------



## chupra




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20310#post_23314164
> 
> 
> WOW!! The results are in and the Samsung F8500 was declared the champion of the Shootout (by a very small margin). Panasonic is going to have to eat some "humble pie" after touting their new ZT60 as the new "reference" Flat Panel. They even bragged it would be the "KURO Killer," which was proved wrong by the measurements of the calibrationists at the show.
> 
> 
> Even though the KURO was not bested by any of the three top contenders, they came very close and any one would be a fine choice for a plasma lover. I was surprised that Samsung stepped up to the plate and won and it was reported by ALL that it had the best "brightness" level which means it would do well in a living room environment where light (from windows) is an issue. The ZT60 and VT60 would do better in a darker room and their blacks levels were a tad better than the Samsung.
> 
> 
> One final thought. The LCDs fared poorly at the Shootout (in comparison to the plasmas) and with OLED being at least 3-5 years from being marketable and affordable, it looks like plasma is here to stay in the foreseeable future. As a plasma lover I'm elated, for if my KURO meets its demise, I want to know that there will be an excellent plasma to replace it with, and right now there's at least three that would fit the bill.



I looked at the scores for both the audience vote and expert vote and it looks to me that the final average score is faulty. The Panny ZTand VT models come out ahead or close in most attributes.

It's the high ambient light score, or day mode, where Samsung wins by a large margin and this results in a higher score.

Based on these results , this is one more reason why I'll be buying the Panny ZT ASAP.


----------



## djoberg

*Jack Reacher*


This one is most definitely a LOOKER! It's dripping with details from beginning to end (including facial close-ups which were always in the top two tiers). The many night scenes featured exemplary shadow details. Depth was also amazing in many scenes. Sharpness and clarity abound. Flesh tones are spot on. Black levels were superb. The only gripes I would note were in a few of the opening scenes where outdoor daytime scenes were a bit too bright (overblown contrast, I suspect) and some nasty orange/yellow hues reared their ugly head. But these were rare so I won't be penalizing this too much on their account. I guess I could also mention the color scheme wasn't anything to write home about, though at times primaries rose to the occasion and made you appreciate their appearance.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *chupra*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20340#post_23327498
> 
> 
> I looked at the scores for both the audience vote and expert vote and it looks to me that the final average score is faulty. The Panny ZTand VT models come out ahead or close in most attributes.
> 
> It's the high ambient light score, or day mode, where Samsung wins by a large margin and this results in a higher score.
> 
> Based on these results , this is one more reason why I'll be buying the Panny ZT ASAP.



The three moderators (Kevin, David, and D-Nice) all chose the Samsung as the winner (by a very slim margin), though they all said they would personally choose one of the Pannys for their own viewing environment. They emphasized how close this Shootout was and thus there was, in essence, three winners. Your choice would be based solely on your particular environment. If I were buying one for my living room and I was prone to watch programming/movies during the day, the clear choice would be the Samsung F8500 where the brightness levels are unparalleled for a plasma. But in a dark room, where you don't need that much brightness, either Panny would fit the bill (though I'd save myself some money and get the VT60).


----------



## Famouss




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20340#post_23328833
> 
> 
> The three moderators (Kevin, David, and D-Nice) all chose the Samsung as the winner (by a very slim margin), though they all said they would personally choose one of the Pannys for their own viewing environment. They emphasized how close this Shootout was and thus there was, in essence, three winners. Your choice would be based solely on your particular environment. If I were buying one for my living room and I was prone to watch programming/movies during the day, the clear choice would be the Samsung F8500 where the brightness levels are unparalleled for a plasma. But in a dark room, where you don't need that much brightness, either Panny would fit the bill (though I'd save myself some money and get the VT60).



From the results listed, the Samsung won the audience vote while the Panasonic won the expert vote(D-Nice, Kevin, David)by a small margin, 8.9 to 8.8. I only saw the shootout from the live stream.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Famouss*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20340#post_23330442
> 
> 
> From the results listed, the Samsung won the audience vote while the Panasonic won the expert vote(D-Nice, Kevin, David)by a small margin, 8.9 to 8.8. I only saw the shootout from the live stream.



I stand corrected! I had thought the calibrators selected the Samsung as the winner based on their scores and that after it was selected they made it known that personally they would choose either of the Pannys for their own viewing environment. But the following article makes it clear that their scores ended up favoring the Panasonic by, as you say, the smallest of margins.

http://www.twice.com/articletype/news/samsung%E2%80%99s-f8500-series-pdp-wins-2013-shootout/106912


----------



## hungro

*In The Name of The King*


Very detailed and crisp resolution. Great close up detail of pores and skin texture, clothing and hair and fine details in the soldiers armor. Shadow detail is good, Black levels seems elevated and greyish not very deep. Grain is abundant in dark scenes. I am going to place it in Tier 1.75. Anybody else review this one?

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**


Viewed from 6.5' using the equipment listed below...


Samsung PN51D6500, Samsung BPD 2550 blu-ray player


Sorry first time posting here and I didn't do it in the proper format


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hungro*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20340#post_23336044
> 
> *In The Name of The King*
> 
> 
> Very detailed and crisp resolution. Great close up detail of pores and skin texture, clothing and hair and fine details in the soldiers armor. Shadow detail is good, Black levels seems elevated and greyish not very deep. Grain is abundant in dark scenes. I am going to place it in Tier 1.75. Anybody else review this one?
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75**
> 
> 
> Viewed from 6.5' using the equipment listed below...
> 
> 
> Samsung PN51D6500, Samsung BPD 2550 blu-ray player
> 
> 
> Sorry first time posting here and I didn't do it in the proper format



Welcome to the PQ Thread Hungro! This was an excellent post, especially for your first time. I'll be looking for "more to come" from you.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hungro*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20340_60#post_23336044
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry first time posting here and I didn't do it in the proper format


Welcome and don't worry so much about the format of each recommendation, if you want to post your opinions here. We are always looking for Tier scores of discs that have not been ranked. Even with 2500 entries and growing, there are literally thousands of unranked Blu-rays in the Tiers. The suggested format was mostly intended as a way to make actual recommendations stand out from the regular discussion that goes on in the thread. You seem to have figured the format out pretty quickly. I actually own that Blu-ray and intend to watch it sooner or later.










If I get the time, I hope to have another update to the Picture Quality Tiers within another week or two. Users can look forward to all the dead HDDB links finally being pruned.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Viva Zapata!


recommendation: Tier 3.25**


Fox has given the 1952 black & white film starring Marlon Brando a refreshingly strong video treatment for what is likely a very marginal seller these days. The film-like transfer does not have the benefits of a lavish restoration, but it has been left untouched by significant digital processing. My score might be a tad high, but it is comparatively much better looking than a lot of the other vintage, catalog film transfers that Fox has recently dug up for Blu-ray. The review's screenshots tell the story as well as words can.


----------



## djoberg

*Broken City*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20310#post_23270238
> 
> *Broken City*
> 
> 
> Miserable black levels are damning to this piece no matter how much detail it pushes out. There is some noise and smoothing at work too. Sharpness is generally high and the compression work is good, but lacks the dead on quality of most new releases.
> 
> *Tier 2.25**



What he said....and MORE! Flesh tones were pushing towards orange in way too many scenes (due, no doubt, to the "orange hues"







). Facial details were average, at best. This lacked depth with the exception of a few rare scenes. Yes, there was sharpness at times, but softness reared its ugly head all too often. I'm going lower than my colleague on this one....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20340_60#post_23346564
> 
> *Broken City*
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.75**


Did you like the movie itself? Most Blu-ray purchases these days for me are blind on new releases, so it helps to know if something is decent. In a completely different genre...

*Beautiful Creatures


recommendation: Tier 2.75**


Slipshod cinematography for a new release. The _Twilight_ crowd must be very accepting of gimmicky and cheap-looking CG elements in their movies. Shot on actual 35mm film, the movie lacks the visual polish of other major Hollywood productions. The budget must have all gone to the veteran stars like Jeremy Irons and Emma Thompson. Inconsistent levels of facial detail and a somewhat smooth appearance, though I can't really determine if DNR has been applied in this case. Digital color grading goes wild in a few scenes, altering the color palette. Some aliasing is evident in the bigger set pieces using digital composites.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20340#post_23348455
> 
> 
> Did you like the movie itself? Most Blu-ray purchases these days for me are blind on new releases, so it helps to know if something is decent.



I *usually* like most movies starring Mark Wahlberg, but this was bad....really bad! Even Russell Crowe couldn't save this one. The plot was SO predictable and it came across as very disjointed.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

That is disappointing to hear about the plot, though I find Wahlberg's movie career very hit or miss.


----------



## djoberg

*The Words*


Ah, back to "demo" territory!


CLEAN, NATURAL, and DETAILED are the three words that kept coming to mind throughout this film. By CLEAN, I mean it was void of anomalies as well as post-processing effects, including color-timing. By NATURAL, I mean there was no trumped-up contrast or saturated colors. By DETAILED....well, by "detailed" I mean what I always mean, the definition of clothing, foliage, facial close-ups, etc. was phenomenal. Every close-up of Jerermy Irons was especially rewarding, revealing every pore, facial hair, and wrinkle. Mr. Irons has aged gracefully and the "leathery" texture of his face/neck is the epitome of High Definition EYE CANDY! Blacks were also pleasing, though quite limited. Sharpness was evident during outdoor, daytime scenes, but interior shots faltered occasionally.


There were a few drawbacks, namely a lackluster color scheme and several *flashbacks* that were rather "flat" and lacked detail. Overall this was a LOOKER that deserves a place on one's "demo" shelf, though personally I would consign it near the bottom of Tier 1......

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## djoberg

*Sinister*


Okay, this is obviously in the "horror" genre which is known for "blacks" and I'm happy to say the black levels are, for the most part, stellar (i.e. deep and inky). Details during those dark scenes are also very good, especially facial close-ups. Daytime scenes, though limited, exhibit excellent clarity, sharpness, and details. The real *downside* is there is a lot of "stock footage" of films depicting the murders of various families and as expected they contain heavy grain, limited detail, and muted colors. All things considered this would still rank up there with Blu-rays in Tier Silver and the excellent black levels are good enough to put it at the top of that tier....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Verdict


recommendation: Tier 4.0**

_The Verdict_ is a great movie that has been graced with a lousy transfer by Fox. The dated transfer has all the signs of being an older, processed master intended for DVD, and not the higher clarity of Blu-ray. Both edge enhancement and DNR make their presence visible, though _The Verdict_ was never meant as eye candy. As someone laughingly said in the included extras, the courtroom was intended to have 500 different shades of brown.










Tier 4.0 might actually end up being a generous placement for this disc. It's definitely not poor enough to land in Tier 5, but it's not far from the bottom.


----------



## OldCodger73




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20340#post_23352432
> 
> *The Verdict
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 4.0**
> 
> _The Verdict_ is a great movie that has been graced with a lousy transfer by Fox. The dated transfer has all the signs of being an older, processed master intended for DVD, and not the higher clarity of Blu-ray. Both edge enhancement and DNR make their presence visible, though _The Verdict_ was never meant as eye candy. As someone laughingly said in the included extras, the courtroom was intended to have 500 different shades of brown.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tier 4.0 might actually end up being a generous placement for this disc. It's definitely not poor enough to land in Tier 5, but it's not far from the bottom.



Phantom, thanks for reviewing this. It seems that older catalog titles usually don't get reviewed often. I agree about it being a great movie. If I remember correctly it revived Paul Newman's career. I may end up buying this when it's bargain basement priced as I only have it on LD.


Fox isn't the only studio giving short-shift to older catalog titles. I was really disappointed with Warner's release of Little Shop of Horrors and Cabaret.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20310#post_23251041
> 
> *The Impossible*
> 
> 
> A nice-looking Blu that should make its way easily into Tier Silver. Sporadic soft shots and many daytime scenes with a washed-out look will keep it out of the reference/demo tiers.
> 
> 
> This is, IMHO, destined for Tier Silver, and with the amazing details I'm inclined to put it at or near the top....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.0* or 2.25**



To the PQ Tier thread court, I present this review that clearly shows my colleague is out of his gord.










The color palette _is_ yellowed, but a stunning contrast doesn't wash anything out. In fact, it is some of the most brilliant contrast I have ever seen. And the level of detail? Absolutely exquisite. Beautiful grain structure and deep blacks where needed. Tier Blu.

*Tier 0.75*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20340#post_23363388
> 
> *To the PQ Tier thread court, I present this review that clearly shows my colleague is out of his gord.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> The color palette _is_ yellowed, but a stunning contrast doesn't wash anything out. In fact, it is some of the most brilliant contrast I have ever seen. And the level of detail? Absolutely exquisite. Beautiful grain structure and deep blacks where needed. Tier Blu.
> 
> *Tier 0.75*



Whoa, man! Them are fightin' words!










I would welcome a "jury of my peers" regarding this title. If you look back on my "whole review" and another post that I added to the review, you will see that I highly praise this title for its details, depth, flesh tones, etc. In fact, I stated that there is a facial shot of Naomi Watts "up close and personal" that is the best I've ever seen.


But if one looks critically at the first few scenes you can't help but notice shots that appear "washed out" due to it being too bright. Add to that some soft shots (in the plane and especially some scenes at the resort before the tsunami hits) and one simply can't assign this to Tier Blu. Maybe, and I stress the word "maybe," one could justify putting it in Tier 1, but I personally couldn't go any higher than 1.5 or 1.75.


So fellow-AVS members, we need some help in settling this matter. I wish we could settle it "out of court," but GRG has appealed to the PQ Thread court and I'm willing to comply.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OldCodger73*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20340_60#post_23352564
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20340#post_23352432
> 
> *The Verdict
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 4.0**
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phantom, thanks for reviewing this. It seems that older catalog titles usually don't get reviewed often. I agree about it being a great movie. If I remember correctly it revived Paul Newman's career. I may end up buying this when it's bargain basement priced as I only have it on LD.
> 
> 
> Fox isn't the only studio giving short-shift to older catalog titles. I was really disappointed with Warner's release of Little Shop of Horrors and Cabaret.
Click to expand...

Fox does fine work when they put any effort into their catalog releases, but all too often they scrounge up an HD transfer made before the time of the Blu-ray format. It is becoming more and more apparent to me that the studios have already cherry-picked the decent-looking transfers. What we are getting now on Blu-ray shows little consideration for what the existing transfer looks like. My next review should be right up your alley, if you are into older catalog gems.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20340_60#post_23364165
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20340#post_23363388
> 
> *To the PQ Tier thread court, I present this review that clearly shows my colleague is out of his gord.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> The color palette _is_ yellowed, but a stunning contrast doesn't wash anything out. In fact, it is some of the most brilliant contrast I have ever seen. And the level of detail? Absolutely exquisite. Beautiful grain structure and deep blacks where needed. Tier Blu.
> 
> *Tier 0.75*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa, man! Them are fightin' words!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would welcome a "jury of my peers" regarding this title. If you look back on my "whole review" and another post that I added to the review, you will see that I highly praise this title for its details, depth, flesh tones, etc. In fact, I stated that there is a facial shot of Naomi Watts "up close and personal" that is the best I've ever seen.
> 
> 
> But if one looks critically at the first few scenes you can't help but notice shots that appear "washed out" due to it being too bright. Add to that some soft shots (in the plane and especially some scenes at the resort before the tsunami hits) and one simply can't assign this to Tier Blu. Maybe, and I stress the word "maybe," one could justify putting it in Tier 1, but I personally couldn't go any higher than 1.5 or 1.75.
> 
> 
> So fellow-AVS members, we need some help in settling this matter. I wish we could settle it "out of court," but GRG has appealed to the PQ Thread court and I'm willing to comply.
Click to expand...

I probably won't get around to watching _The Impossible_, at least on Blu-ray. Hopefully someone else will step in and throw in their two cents on the matter. We could always settle this dispute like gentlemen. Who is up to see Gamereviewgod and Djoberg go three rounds in the ring? I can referee.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (1979)


recommendation: Tier 5**


The brilliant BBC adaptation of _Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy_ was filmed on 16mm stock. Acorn Media did the best they could with the dated master, but even seriously high bitrates can't create detail when it is missing from the original scan. The 1080i resolution indicates this was possibly sourced from a PAL broadcast master, obviously not the best solution for a film-based production. The transfer is not heavily processed, but the elements used for the transfer are second-rate. The Blu-ray is certainly watchable enough, but don't expect much more detail than a DVD.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20370#post_23366697
> 
> 
> I probably won't get around to watching _The Impossible_, at least on Blu-ray. Hopefully someone else will step in and throw in their two cents on the matter. We could always settle this dispute like gentlemen. Who is up to see Gamereviewgod and Djoberg go three rounds in the ring? I can referee.



I would be willing to go three rounds with GRG and I'm quite confident I could achieve a TKO by using two of my best punches:


1) My "uppercut" would make him see BRIGHT LIGHTS and give him a WASHED-OUT feeling.


2) My "jabs" would really SOFTEN him up and he would feel anything but SHARP.


After three rounds he'd have to own up to the fact that _The Impossible_ is just too BRIGHT and WASHED-OUT at times, along with bouts of SOFTNESS, to justify a Tier Blu ranking. Granted, this may not be a clear knock-out, but *technically* it would be!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Brotherhood of Satan


recommendation: Tier 3.25**


A surprisingly strong print that Mill Creek has dug up for this 1971 horror film, encoded at better standards in AVC than prior efforts from the company. Largely film-like in appearance, detail is sporadic but that can be attributed to the spotty '70s cinematography. _The Brotherhood of Satan_ shares a BD-50 with another film, _Mr. Sardonicus_. It's very possible that Mill Creek licensed this transfer from Sony, so that should give some indication as to its quality.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20370#post_23368141
> 
> 
> I would be willing to go three rounds with GRG and I'm quite confident I could achieve a TKO by using two of my best punches:
> 
> 
> 1) My "uppercut" would make him see BRIGHT LIGHTS and give him a WASHED-OUT feeling.
> 
> 
> 2) My "jabs" would really SOFTEN him up and he would feel anything but SHARP.
> 
> 
> After three rounds he'd have to own up to the fact that _The Impossible_ is just too BRIGHT and WASHED-OUT at times, along with bouts of SOFTNESS, to justify a Tier Blu ranking. Granted, this may not be a clear knock-out, but *technically* it would be!



My superior vision skills and detail detection will be able to adequately dodge any incoming blows.

*The Numbers Station*


Far from The Impossible, this dark and dreary black crush-a-thon is rather ugly. Nasty bouts of random noise and compression along with egregious orange and teal palette are boring to view. Hints of detail are there, a couple of great close-ups, but the rest is a mess.

*Tier 4.0**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters*


Wildly fun movie with visuals to match, sans the orange and teal color palette. Detail is strong, sharpness is consistent, and the image is free of noise. Blacks could be denser, and contrast can be a tad over aggressive in spots.
*Tier 1.75**


----------



## Partyslammer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20370#post_23375659
> 
> *Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters*
> 
> 
> Wildly fun movie with visuals to match, sans the orange and teal color palette. Detail is strong, sharpness is consistent, and the image is free of noise. Blacks could be denser, and contrast can be a tad over aggressive in spots.
> *Tier 1.75**



I had a chance to check out the Blu-ray release a few days ago and passed having the impression it was basically the usual by-the-numbers fantasy CGI fest. I think I'll give it a chance and check it out this weekend.


----------



## djoberg

*The Numbers Station*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20370#post_23371694
> 
> *The Numbers Station*
> 
> 
> Far from The Impossible, this dark and dreary black crush-a-thon is rather ugly. Nasty bouts of random noise and compression along with egregious orange and teal palette are boring to view. Hints of detail are there, a couple of great close-ups, but the rest is a mess.
> 
> *Tier 4.0**



Well, there's no need to go into "court" or into "the ring" for this one. I absolutely agree with every word of your review, as well as your placement.

*Tier Recommendation: 4.0**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## djoberg

*Dark Skies*


After watching the "dark and dreary" _The Numbers Station_ this was a blessed and refreshing contrast. BLACK LEVELS (which were plentiful) ranged from GOOD to VERY GOOD....SHADOW DETAILS were also pleasing....DEPTH was outstanding at times....FLESH TONES were spot-on....COLORS (during daytimes scenes) were warm and vibrant....DETAILS were demo-worthy....CONTRAST was strong....and SHARPNESS/CLARITY characterized numerous scenes. For the "horror genre," this was better than expected and will easily find its way into Tier Gold.


Before making a placement recommendation, I just want to say I enjoyed this film very much. So-called "expert" reviewers were quite critical but "average" movie-goers (on Amazon's site) gave it nearly 4 Stars and I concur with their general consensus. Keri Russell has become one of my favorite actresses and she gives yet another stellar performance. If I were to describe her acting in one word it would be "believable."

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## djoberg

*Mama*


Another phenomenal-looking title from the horror genre! Incredible black levels/shadow details along with amazing details and depth serve to dispel any disappointments due to the muted color palette. I was captivated from beginning to end by the PQ and were it not for the EYE CANDY I would have been tempted to call it quits due to the rather slow-paced, boring storyline. Teal hues dominated throughout but thankfully they did NOT hinder finely-rendered definition in clothing, foliage, facial close-ups, etc. This was definitely worth a rental in spite of the lackluster plot, with superb PQ and another good performance by Jessica Chastain.


This was a notch above my lasting viewing so this one weighs in at.....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Great Escape


recommendation: Tier 3.75**


The quintessence of Steve McQueen cool, _The Great Escape_ arrives on Blu-ray in a passable transfer. MGM/Fox did spread the nearly three-hour film over a BD-50, but the listed average bitrate of 18 Mbps produces artifacts at times that will be noticed by viewers on displays over 50". There is also some mild sharpening and what appears to be filtering on some level in the older transfer. It's not an unwatchable disaster like the first Patton Blu-ray, but I suspect _The Great Escape_ will look much better when it gets released on the next home video format. Subtle tweaks to the color timing and contrast levels have greatly improved those aspects.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20340_60#post_23377638
> 
> *Dark Skies*
> 
> Before making a placement recommendation, I just want to say I enjoyed this film very much. So-called "expert" reviewers were quite critical but "average" movie-goers (on Amazon's site) gave it nearly 4 Stars and I concur with their general consensus. Keri Russell has become one of my favorite actresses and she gives yet another stellar performance. If I were to describe her acting in one word it would be "believable."
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.5**
> 
> 
> Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


I've really been meaning to see this movie, hopefully soon.


----------



## djoberg

*Django Unchained*


A highly stylized film that could have easily made its way into Tier Blu if not for 4 areas of concern:


1) Bouts of ugly "orange hues" wreaking havoc on flesh tones.


2) Sporadic soft shots, especially in earlier scenes.


3) Heavy grain (or noise) at times.


4) Overblown whites in several daytime, outdoor scenes.


Thankfully these were the exception and not the rule (though they happened often enough for me to dock this a half of a tier). The vast majority of the nearly 3 hour running time displayed amazing details and depth, along with fantastic black levels and shadow details, some of which ranked right up there with the best in Tier Blu. All things considered I'm inclined to assign this to....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## djoberg

*The Impossible*


I'm hungry for some "humble pie!" (Not really, but I to maintain a good conscience I feel I must eat a piece or two.) I have my sister visiting for the weekend and she wanted to watch _The Impossible_. After viewing this again I must confess I was dead wrong with my initial placement recommendation. I have no idea how I arrived at a 2.0 or 2.25 ranking the first time around (perhaps someone had changed my Mode from the excellent Pure Mode to Standard Mode, which comes across as way too bright), but this is clearly a high Tier 1 Blu-ray. This did NOT have the SOFT shots that I thought I had seen before, though there were still a fair amount of scenes where it was too bright, resulting in a bit of a washed out look. Surprisingly, I had said those scenes were prior to the tsunami, but I took special notice tonight and they happened AFTER the tsunami hit, starting at around the 32 Min. mark. They occurred a good half dozen times after that.


I want to officially change my placement recommendation to....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

That's quite big of you, Denny, changing your score after a second viewing and admitting it. I can't think of any recent examples, but I've definitely re-evaluated a placement after a second viewing. When I go back and read some of my recommendations in this thread from a few years ago, I cringe.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20370#post_23381002
> 
> *The Impossible*
> 
> 
> I'm hungry for some "humble pie!" .... I want to officially change my placement recommendation to....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.25**



I *could* make some noise of this. I *could* dance around and yell, "Nah nah" all day. I *could* bring this up at regular intervals and use it to my advantage...

*The Great Escape*


One of those where Phantom and me represent the community split. Outstanding contrast and rich color feels natural, miles ahead of previous releases. Grain *is* suspect, and some scenes are clearly pulled from a different source. However, image fidelity is outright fantastic. I'm just not seeing signs of filtering or digital alteration. I'm far more concerned with the space given to the encode, which is nowhere near enough to handle a movie of this length.

*Tier 2.75**


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20370#post_23385020
> 
> 
> I *could* make some noise of this. I *could* dance around and yell, "Nah nah" all day. I *could* bring this up at regular intervals and use it to my advantage...



Yes, you *could*, but if you *did*, I'd have to fall back on the fact that even though I changed my recommendation by quite a bit, I still didn't deem it worthy of Tier Blu. You and I are still a half of a tier apart, due to my still seeing some shots where it was too bright.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Shoot First, Die Later

*recommendation: Tier 3.75**


The 1974 Italian crime drama was very recently released by Raro Video. A completely new transfer was struck from the original camera negative, though a touch of digital noise reduction has been used on it. Technically it is a strong Blu-ray release, with appropriate color timing choices for the period and solid black levels. The film elements are in pristine condition. Limitations in the original photography limit its Tier ranking.


----------



## tenia54




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *K-Spaz*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20310#post_23288807
> 
> 
> Movies like Total Recall, it's new enough that it most likely was shot with high res cameras as well.



Funnily enough, Total Recall 2012 was post-produced in 2K.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Mr. Sardonicus


recommendation: Tier 2.75*
*

Part of a cheapie double-feature released by Mill Creek, William Castle's 1961 ghoulish frightfest looks positively fantastic. Mill Creek licensed the film from Sony and the stunning quality of the black-and-white transfer indicates Sony was likely behind it. The completely film-like picture has no unnecessary digital processing and nicely reproduced by the solid compression parameters. Practically a throwaway release salvaged by Mill Creek for Blu-ray, _Mr. Sardonicus_ receives one of the better vintage film transfers in recent memory.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Jack the Giant Slayer*


Well detailed at its peak, but suffers either from Warner's encode or source camera jitters. Quite filtered and compressed in spots. Color veers warm. Black levels are absolutely spectacular and hold even under challenging conditions.

*Tier 2.0**


----------



## hungro

Based on the flowery words being used for the OZ the Great and Power , not to mention the score of 100. The review done by AVS it seems like it's a real winner, blu tier territory. Looking forward to an actual review done by one of the members on here .


----------



## Phantom Stranger

We are current once again. The official PQ Tiers list is entirely up to date, with the following placements. Thanks to K-Spaz's database wizardry, the HDDB links have all been eliminated. If you now click on a movie in the Tiers, it will either return the direct Cinema Squid page with multiple Blu-ray reviews or a generic Cinema Squid page. Feel free to point out errors, omissions, etc. in the Tiers to me by pm. Tier 0 is getting quite big, we should probably discuss if it needs to be split up.


People entering their placements from this thread into the Google spreadsheet saved me a decent amount of time, thank you. I would ask everyone to continue using it, entries can easily be made at the link in my forum signature.


21 Jump Street* Tier 2.5 comperic2003

Alex Cross Tier 2.0 (Silver) djoberg

Amazing Spider-Man, The Tier 1.25 lgans316

Bachelorette* Tier 3.25 Gamereviewgod

Batman: Mystery of the Batwoman* Tier 2.25 Phantom Stranger

Battleship Tier 1.25 lgans316

Beautiful Creatures* Tier 2.75 Phantom Stranger

Bible, The: The Epic Miniseries* Tier 1.25 Phantom Stranger

Broken City* Tier 2.25 Gamereviewgod

Broken City* Tier 2.75 djoberg

Brotherhood of Satan, The* Tier 3.25 Phantom Stranger

Brubaker* Tier 3.75 Phantom Stranger

Collection, The* Tier 1.75 Phantom Stranger

Dark Skies* Tier 1.5 djoberg

Day, The Tier 4.0 (Copper) Phantom Stranger

Deadfall* Tier 3.5 djoberg

Delhi Safari* Tier 1.25 Phantom Stranger

Disappearance of Haruhi Suzumiya, The* Tier 1.25 Phantom Stranger

Django Unchained* Tier 1.0 (Gold) Gamereviewgod

Django Unchained* Tier 1.5 djoberg

Dragon Lord* Tier 5 (Coal) Gamereviewgod

Dredd Tier 3.0 (Bronze) audiomagnate

Flight Tier 1.5 djoberg

Fresh* Tier 2.5 Gamereviewgod

Gangster Squad* Tier 2.0 (Silver) Gamereviewgod

Gangster Squad* Tier 1.5 djoberg

Ghostbusters* (4K remaster) Tier 2.5 Gamereviewgod

Gorgo* Tier 4.0 (Copper) Gamereviewgod

Great Escape, The* Tier 2.75 Gamereviewgod

Great Escape, The* Tier 3.75 Phantom Stranger

Grey, The Tier 1.75 lgans316

Greystone Park* Tier 4.5 Phantom Stranger

Guilt Trip, The* Tier 2.25 djoberg

Guilt Trip, The* Tier 3.0 (Bronze) Gamereviewgod

Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters* Tier 1.75 Gamereviewgod

Haunted House, A* Tier 2.25 Phantom Stranger

Hello, Dolly!* Tier 0 (Blu) hernanu

Hellsing Ultimate: Collection Volumes I - IV* Tier 2.25 Phantom Stranger

Hemingway & Gellhorn* Tier 1.75 Phantom Stranger

Hitchcock* Tier 1.0 (Gold) djoberg

Hitchcock* Tier 1.25 Phantom Stranger

Hobbit, The: An Unexpected Journey* Tier 0 (Blu) Gamereviewgod

Hobbit, The: An Unexpected Journey* Tier 1.5 patrick99

Hobbit, The: An Unexpected Journey* Tier 0 (Blu) djoberg

Horror of Dracula (region-locked UK import)* Tier 4.0 (Copper) Phantom Stranger

Hudson Hawk* Tier 2.75 Gamereviewgod

Impossible, The* Tier 0 (Blu) Gamereviewgod

Impossible, The* Tier 1.25 djoberg

In The Name Of The King* Tier 1.75 hungro

Jack Reacher* Tier 1.25 djoberg

Jack the Giant Slayer* Tier 2.0 (Silver) gamereviewgod

Jersey Girl* Tier 3.5 Gamereviewgod

Jurassic Park 3D* Tier 2.75 Gamereviewgod

King of Thorn* Tier 1.5 Phantom Stranger

Lady Gaga Presents: The Monster Ball Tour at Madison Square Garden* Tier 1.25 Johnny Vertigo

Lawless Tier 1.75 Phantom Stranger

Lawless (UK import)* Tier 2.25 lgans316

Les Misérables (2012)* Tier 2.0 (Silver) lgans316

Life of Pi* Tier 0 (Blu) JoeBloggz

Life of Pi* Tier 0 (Blu) Gamereviewgod

Life of Pi* Tier 0 (Blu) djoberg

Life of Pi* Tier 0 (Blu) hungro

Lincoln Tier 1.5 djoberg

Mama* Tier 1.25 djoberg

Man With the Iron Fists, The* Tier 1.75 djoberg

Man With The Iron Fists, The* Tier 0 (Blu) Phantom Stranger

Master, The Tier 0 (Blu) vpn75

Master, The Tier 0 (Blu) djoberg

Master, The Tier 0 (Blu) audiomagnate

Miss Fisher's Murder Mysteries Series 1* Tier 2.25 Phantom Stranger

Mr. Sardonicus* Tier 2.75 Phantom Stranger

Notebook, The Tier 1.5 djoberg

Numbers Station, The* Tier 4.0 (Copper) Gamereviewgod

Numbers Station, The* Tier 4.0 (Copper) djoberg

Odd Life of Timothy Green, The* Tier 1.25 djoberg

Oranges, The* Tier 2.0 (Silver) Gamereviewgod

Other Guys, The Tier 2.5 Comperic2003

Parental Guidance* Tier 3.25 Gamereviewgod

People Like Us Tier 2.0 (Silver) djoberg

Prep & Landing / Prep & Landing: Naughty & Nice* Tier 1.25 Phantom Stranger

Puella Magi Madoka Magica: Complete Series Collection (UK Import)* Tier 1.5 Phantom Stranger

Pulp Fiction* Tier 2.75 lgans316

Resident Evil: Retribution* Tier 2.0 (Silver) Gamereviewgod

Rise of the Guardians* Tier 0 (Blu) Gamereviewgod

Rise of the Guardians* Tier 0 (Blu) djoberg

Safety Not Guaranteed* Tier 2.75 Phantom Stranger

Seeking a Friend for the End of the World* Tier 1.25 Phantom Stranger

Shangahi Knights* Tier 2.75 Gamereviewgod

Shanghai Noon* Tier 2.0 (Silver) Gamereviewgod

Ship of Fools* Tier 3.5 Gamereviewgod

Shoot First, Die Later* Tier 3.75 Phantom Stranger

Silent Hill: Revelation* Tier 1.75 Phantom Stranger

Silver Linings Playbook* Tier 1.75 Gamereviewgod

Sinister* Tier 2.0 (Silver) djoberg

Skyfall Tier 0 (Blu) lgans316

Skyfall Tier 0 (Blu) audiomagnate

Star Driver: Part 1* Tier 1.5 Phantom Stranger

Star Driver: Part 2* Tier 1.5 Phantom Stranger

Straitheads (UK)* Tier 4.5 Phantom Stranger

Superman Unbound* Tier 1.0 (Gold) Phantom Stranger

Taken 2 Tier 2.0 (Silver) lgans316

Tekkonkinkreet Tier 1.75 Phantom Stranger

Tell Tale* Tier 2.5 audiomagnate

Thale* Tier 3.5 Phantom Stranger

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (1979) Tier 5 (Coal) Phantom Stranger

Total Recall (2012) Tier 1.75 lgans316

Twilight Saga, The: Breaking Dawn - Part 2* Tier 2.75 Gamereviewgod

Twilight Saga, The: Breaking Dawn - Part 2* Tier 2.0 (Silver) djoberg

VEEP: The Complete First Season* Tier 1.5 Phantom Stranger

Verdict, The* Tier 4.0 (Copper) Phantom Stranger

Viva Zapata!* Tier 3.25 Phantom Stranger

Wicker Tree, The* Tier 2.0 (Silver) Phantom Stranger

Willow* Tier 2.5 Gamereviewgod

Words, The* Tier 1.75 djoberg

Wreck-It Ralph Tier 0 (Blu) djoberg

Wreck-It Ralph Tier 1.5 audiomagnate

X-Men: First Class Tier 1.0 (Gold) Johnny Vertigo

Zero Dark Thirty* Tier 1.0 (Gold) djoberg

Zero Dark Thirty* Tier 1.0 (Gold) Gamereviewgod

Zero Dark Thirty* Tier 1.75 lgans316

Zero Dark Thirty* Tier 0 (Blu) audiomagnate


----------



## jrnewquist

Phantom - thank you for your stalwart curatorship!


----------



## Kool-aid23




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jrnewquist*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20370#post_23408607
> 
> 
> Phantom - thank you for your stalwart curatorship!



+1 Thank you for your time and effort with this data base.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jrnewquist*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20370#post_23408607
> 
> 
> Phantom - thank you for your stalwart curatorship!





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kool-aid23*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20370#post_23408686
> 
> 
> +1 Thank you for your time and effort with this data base.



Ditto!


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*A Good Day to Die Hard*


The worst orange and teal offender to date. Never thought it would get this bad. Grain, which is thick, generally resolves nicely. Facial detail is outstanding, blacks are awesome, and sharpness great. A bit of ringing doesn't harm anything.

*Tier 2.0**


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20340_60#post_23410487
> 
> *A Good Day to Die Hard*
> 
> 
> The worst orange and teal offender to date. Never thought it would get this bad. Grain, which is thick, generally resolves nicely. Facial detail is outstanding, blacks are awesome, and sharpness great. A bit of ringing doesn't harm anything.
> 
> *Tier 2.0**


Holy teal, Batman!







Those screenshots come with 100% of your recommended daily allowance of teal. Avert your eyes, children. 'Tis a shame, since I still consider _Live Free or Die Hard_ a valuable reference disc.


----------



## djoberg

*Red Dawn (2012)*


Lousy movie....excellent PQ!


Details, depth, and clarity rule the day in yet another winner from 20th Century Fox. Black levels were also quite good, except for a few instances of black crush. Good shadow details accompanied them. Flesh tones were accurate and contrast was strong. The only downside was some jerky camera work and during fast, action scenes it didn't retain its clarity and sharpness.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## djoberg

*A Good Day to Die Hard*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20370#post_23410487
> 
> *A Good Day to Die Hard*
> 
> 
> The worst orange and teal offender to date. Never thought it would get this bad. Grain, which is thick, generally resolves nicely. Facial detail is outstanding, blacks are awesome, and sharpness great. A bit of ringing doesn't harm anything.
> 
> *Tier 2.0**



I pretty much agree with this review, though I must say the first half of the movie had me figuring a high Tier 1 placement. Then the "real teal" kicked in (especially at the Chernobyl plant), along with some nasty noise and soft shots that came and went. Again, the first half featured some of the most amazing details (including facial close-ups) on Blu-ray and some nice primary colors sprinkled in too. Black levels were excellent as well. But the last half hour was underwhelming and dropped it from a high Tier 1 to the top of Tier 2.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Cleopatra


recommendation: Tier 2.25*
*

If one searches back through the thread, one will find I gave _Cleopatra's_ UK Blu-ray a slightly lower placement. My initial criticism of the transfer has recently softened after watching the virtually-identical 50th Anniversary edition released a couple of weeks ago in the U.S. The picture quality is at its best highlighting the expansive set design and lavish costumes. I still consider the cinematography a shade below certain other classic 65mm productions in quality, but it is more an issue of consistency than anything else. The sprawling movie was made for eye candy and largely succeeds in that regard. Fox has done a commendable restoration effort which should be applied to more films from their back catalog.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Dead Mine


recommendation: Tier 1.25**


Zombie samurai warriors, need I say more? This BD has been released by niche distributor Xlrator Media, though the international film was a production by a division of HBO. Shot using the Arri Alexa digital camera, the crisp picture quality is sharp and vivid. The surprisingly fun horror film was filmed in the jungles of Indonesia and uses that setting to its fullest. Only a few shots of poorly-rendered CGI affect the visual consistency.


----------



## hungro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20370#post_23410487
> 
> *A Good Day to Die Hard*
> 
> 
> The worst orange and teal offender to date. Never thought it would get this bad. Grain, which is thick, generally resolves nicely. Facial detail is outstanding, blacks are awesome, and sharpness great. A bit of ringing doesn't harm anything.
> 
> *Tier 2.0**



Sorry but I am having a bit of trouble with your review webpage. I get errors on certain pictures and on other's I get them to pop up but then can't view the original size. Other reviews don't seem to load. Using latest version of firefox. Man hollywood has got too change the color grading. It's not realistic but then again , was it ever meant to be? I think not. It's the artistic intention, director's intent. That's what it's all about isn't it, calibrate your tv to get it as close as possible to what the director saw on his calibrated monitor. Even if it's all teal and orange.


----------



## hungro

 http://www.doblu.com/2013/06/13/dead-mine-bluray-review/deadmine501/ this is one example of the picture with a discription below it that won't load, all it show's is a blank white page with error in the top left hand corner. Other reviews behave the same way, the first picture for this review however does load properly. The pictures with time stamps and a brief discription some load and some don't . It's random.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hungro*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20400#post_23425202
> 
> 
> Sorry but I am having a bit of trouble with your review webpage. I get errors on certain pictures and on other's I get them to pop up but then can't view the original size. Other reviews don't seem to load. Using latest version of firefox. Man hollywood has got too change the color grading. It's not realistic but then again , was it ever meant to be? I think not. It's the artistic intention, director's intent. That's what it's all about isn't it, calibrate your tv to get it as close as possible to what the director saw on his calibrated monitor. Even if it's all teal and orange.



We've had issues since the site was redesigned. Need to find someone who can get into the guts of it and fix. Thanks for letting me know.


I'm all for director's intent, but this current wave shows no creativity. Everything looks identical. No attention is being paid to the visual palette or choices. It's all two tone because it's popular. I have a feeling there's a generation growing up now who would be flabbergasted by their first Technicolor viewing.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Warm Bodies*


Rather dull encode from Summit that won't keep up with a simple grain structure. But, color slowly seeps in and impresses. Fine detail rises too. Black levels are enough to work through the tough spots.

*Tier 2.25**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Identity Thief*


With some wavering in fidelity for a few reasons, this one isn't perfect, but it does have an outstanding level of fine detail to play with. Facial detail is awesome. Blacks are strong, and color pushes warm without taking over flesh tones.

*Tier 1.5**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Vampire Lovers


recommendation: Tier 4.0**


Scream Factory recently released this 1970 Hammer film. Aside from the lack of restoration to the aged film elements, _The Vampire Lovers_ looks quite good at times. The amount of film debris and wear to the print is a little more excessive than usual, though to Scream Factory's credit the transfer has largely been left untouched by digital processing. Once you get past the opening reel, which contains a running gate scratch and a faint vertical band on the right side of the screen, the print is fairly solid in terms of stability and saturated color. The Vampire Lovers will certainly be one of the better-looking discs in Tier 4, it's mildly sharper and has more actual resolution than what is commonly found in that tier.


On the bright side, the scan of the film elements looks to have been made relatively recently. This is not an older telecine transfer, but a newer one made on a pin-registered film scanner. The best extant film source is not in perfect shape but still produces pleasing results over the older DVD, on this new Blu-ray. While not the best Blu-ray I've seen for a Hammer movie, _The Vampire Lovers_ is a solid visual upgrade over prior versions.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Incredible Burt Wonderstone*


Terrible Warner encode with starved bitrates. Compression is evident everywhere, limiting detail and causing grain to spike. Smearing is spotted too. Some detail remains, black levels are nice, and color saturated, but that grain... Eww.

*Tier 3.0**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I thought it appropriate to dig this post out of the grave unaltered, now that Disney has announced they will be re-releasing _Sleeping Beauty_ on Blu-ray in Fall of 2014. It was first posted to the thread as a little in-joke, back in January of 2009!



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/8670#post_15460103
> 
> 
> We now interrupt our regularly scheduled broadcast for something a little different...
> 
> *Sleeping Beauty*
> 
> 
> 
> tier recommendation: *Tier 6.31749*
> 
> 
> 
> Released at some point in the distant past, I was totally underwhelmed by what I saw in this transfer and am mystified how it achieved a tier zero placement. The 75-minute (which seems awfully short to me) main feature is encoded in AVC on a BD-50 with an average video bitrate of 24.06 Mbps. I really have to question the hacks at Disney for not using the superior MPEG-2 video codec on this transfer. The total lack of artifacts was troubling to me. Where is the chroma noise and color banding when you need it? I also think they could have saved the use of a BD-50 for a more important movie, like Dark Water or Gone In Sixty Seconds.
> 
> 
> 
> The original source master looks suspiciously pristine with no visible grain. It must have been DNRed to oblivion. Facial detail looks very weak. I realize Aurora is supposed to be 16 years old, but her face shows no acme or blemishes at all! Hair looks like one solid color with little texture at times. This seems to be another shoddy Disney Blu-ray. Have those jokers ever gotten it right? On a side note I think Miley Cyrus would have been a better choice to play Aurora. The studio really lost its head on that by not casting a well-known actress. I also have to question the flesh tones. Some of the actors do not even look like real humans with the exaggerated color timing. Aurora turns green in the face at one point!
> 
> 
> 
> Another disappointment was the total lack of any sharpening or edge enhancement, though I corrected that by turning up the sharpness setting as high as I could on my display. I will warn prospective buyers that black bars dominate the picture here. It is sad a studio would release a Blu-ray that doesn't fill up the screen in this day and age. I pay good money to see more than a black wall on my screen.
> 
> 
> 
> Overall I would place this Blu-ray in tier 6.31749 with a caveat that I could and probably will change my mind at any time. I only watched the first 3 minutes of the movie but I made sure to pay attention very carefully. Anyone that disagrees with this ranking will be shot on sight.
> 
> 
> 
> Watching on a 20” 1992 Sanyo CRT television set at 480i from an approximate viewing distance of twenty feet. I even think I was sober during this period.


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20400#post_23419797
> 
> *Cleopatra
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 2.25*
> *
> 
> If one searches back through the thread, one will find I gave _Cleopatra's_ UK Blu-ray a slightly lower placement. My initial criticism of the transfer has recently softened after watching the virtually-identical 50th Anniversary edition released a couple of weeks ago in the U.S. The picture quality is at its best highlighting the expansive set design and lavish costumes. I still consider the cinematography a shade below certain other classic 65mm productions in quality, but it is more an issue of consistency than anything else. The sprawling movie was made for eye candy and largely succeeds in that regard. Fox has done a commendable restoration effort which should be applied to more films from their back catalog.



It's been a while, but I just got a new spate of Blus and have had the time finally to watch and review them.

*Cleopatra*


There are times when this rivals the best Todd-AO based discs. But there are other times that cinematography gets in the way. Focus issues sometimes detract from faces and characters in general. When the original photography is on point, detail is excellent. When it's off, it's merely average. A good illustration of this is the scene in which Antony and Cleopatra first kiss. Antony's armor is really colorful and detailed, as is Cleopatra's necklace. But only during some shots can each be seen in their full glory. Colors and blacks are rock solid and vibrant. There is a certain wavering quality to the image that makes me think the print is a bit warped. It's pretty subtle, but I can see it if I want to.


This is somewhere close to (but below) King of Kings. I think that flick should be rated a bit higher, but I think the following is fair:

*Recommendation: Tier 2.5*


----------



## mweflen

*Lincoln*


Superb black levels that only waver for about ten seconds of run time (a scene of Lincoln in his coach). Colors are very realistic, not over-saturated, but not dull by any means. Terrific detail near black, which is good because this film is lit in a naturalistic manner. I was surprised to read this was shot on 35mm Kodak Vision film stock, because initially I thought this had to be from a Arri Alexa digital camera, detail is so strong, and grain is so minimal.


In scanning the list, the movie this reminds me most of in terms of quality is another Spielberg flick, Crystal Skull. Coincidentally enough, they were shot on the same stock by the same cinematographer. As such, I think the same rating is fair:

*Recommendation: Tier 1.0*


----------



## mweflen

*Chitty Chitty Bang Bang*


Shot on Super PanaVision 70, my expectations were high. They were mostly met. There are of course some effects process shots that betray their 1968 origins, but when there is no visual effect on screen, this is pretty strong. Cloth textures are very tweedy and tight, foliage is crisp and defined, facial close ups are good (but not best of format), and overall everything is quite colorful. This is a very brightly lit movie generally, but a lot of shots are medium to long shots. So it's not a close-up festival.


Not surprisingly, this reminds me a lot of The Sound of Music. I think this is slightly less appealing, and so I think it deserves...

*Recommendation: Tier 1.5*


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20400#post_23447528
> 
> *Lincoln*
> 
> 
> In scanning the list, the movie this reminds me most of in terms of quality is another Spielberg flick, Crystal Skull. Coincidentally enough, *they were shot on the same stock by the same cinematographer*. As such, I think the same rating is fair:
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 1.0*


That is a strong argument, I've always thought that Indy sequel looked particularly good. They need to make one more Indiana Jones film with Harrison Ford, before he gets too old.


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20400#post_23447686
> 
> 
> That is a strong argument, I've always thought that Indy sequel looked particularly good. They need to make one more Indiana Jones film with Harrison Ford, before he gets too old.



FWIW, The Reader was shot on the same stock. It looks substantially similar.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20400#post_23447696
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20400#post_23447686
> 
> 
> That is a strong argument, I've always thought that Indy sequel looked particularly good. They need to make one more Indiana Jones film with Harrison Ford, before he gets too old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FWIW, The Reader was shot on the same stock. It looks substantially similar.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure _The Reader_ is ranked high somewhere in Tier 1.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Upside Down*


A visually imaginative marvel, burdened by orange & teal, messy encoding, some sharpening, and no sense of the film stock it was captured on. Black levels and contrast purposefully blow up and blotch out fine detail. Sharpness is rare, and aliasing is consistent. As an aside, it also carries some of the worst 3D I've seen to date.

*Tier 3.75**


Note: Despite the issues, this movie MUST be seen for its scope and visual prowess. Sights are breathtaking.


----------



## hernanu

*Glory (2103 release / mastered in 4K)*

*recommendation: Tier 0.75**


Excellent rendition of a great movie, softness in some spots when very dark marred an otherwise great transfer. It may have been the director's intent but...


Otherwise, most scenes sparkled, both inside and out. No extra processing I could see and the detail was impressive.


----------



## djoberg

*Border Run*


INCONSISTENT! There, that about sums up this low-budget, lackluster movie (Sharon Stone has been going downhill for quite some time and I suspect the only reason she signed on to this mess of a movie was to push her political agenda in favor of illegal aliens from Mexico).


If one were to take the "good scenes" which featured decent blacks, excellent details (especially facial close-ups), and appreciable depth, you could easily assign this to your "demo" shelf. But frequent anomalies rear their ugly head, such as banding, aliasing, and numerous bursts of noise in nighttime scenes or low-lit interior shots. Black levels also turned murky at times resulting in a definite loss of shadow details. The "bad scenes" veered into low Tier 3 or high Tier 4 territory. In seeking to balance the scales, I figure this one is slightly above average, but only by a notch....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*American Mary


recommendation: Tier 1.5**


Independent horror productions have come a long way since the days of poorly exposed 16mm film. Having watched a number of Blu-rays now from XLrator Media, they tend to leave the movie alone from processing while giving the main feature decent encoding specs within the confines of a BD-25. This time they had it easy with _American Mary_, as the movie was digitally shot and looks up to the standards of a major Hollywood feature.

_American Mary_ does not have an overly colorful palette, but its crisp video is highlighted by a sharp image with excellent high-frequency content in the close-ups. The picture quality will likely be too vivid and pristine for the squeamish in a few of the more graphic surgical shots.


----------



## djoberg

*Stoker*


WOW! What a gorgeous Blu! Amazing clarity, sharpness and depth are on display from the opening credits to the final shot. I was simply mesmerized at times and kept saying to myself, "Ah, finally, a live action movie that's worthy of Tier Blu!"


Besides the exceptional clarity, sharpness and depth, we have accurate flesh tones (including Nicole Kidman's pale complexion), superb details, strong contrast, vibrant colors, and very good black levels/shadow details. The only minor nitpick I would mention would be a couple of shots in the cellar where the black levels faltered, but other than those this is pure EYE CANDY. Another treat are numerous shots of the countryside and woods featuring extremely lush greens and phenomenal details. If I were a betting man I would put my money on this falling into Tier Blu. If not for the two shots in the cellar I'd say it belong in the middle of that coveted tier, but to be fair I'll vote for....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (at about .75)*


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*LEGO Batman: The Movie


recommendation: Tier 0* (middle of 0)*

_LEGO Batman_ is utterly fantastic demo material and easily qualifies for the highest tier of them all. The animated feature has been entirely rendered in realistic-looking CG with an incredible eye towards detail and precision. LEGO versions of your favorite superheroes such as Batman and Superman walk around with actual wear and smudges to their costumes, as they team-up to fight their arch-villains, Lex Luthor and the Joker. I certainly was not expecting this level of animated detail from an animation house I've not heard much about, Tt Animation. The brilliant color palette pops off the screen in eye-melting clarity.


The 70-minute main feature is fitted on a BD-25, encoded at very modest bitrates below 20 Mbps which are typical for an animated feature released by Warner Bros. Thankfully the style of animation precludes the possibility of real artifacts, though a touch of aliasing native to the production can be seen in a handful of frames. Eye candy of this sort is more aimed at children than adults, but the visual quality and design are largely on par with a theatrical CG film.


----------



## nathanddrews

Traveller's Tales (Tt Games) has been making videogames since the 90s with quite a few hits, but once they scored the rights to the Lego franchise, they've been on fire. The cinematics from the Lego games are just like this Blu-ray (only with greater compression). Tt Animation is their cinematic section. Warner bought them a few years back and hasn't ruined them yet. All the Lego games are great kids games from a content perspective, but also offer plenty of fun challenges and secrets for adult gamers while being a solid platformer. It's inherently funny to see the drama and subject matter of films like Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Lord of the Rings, etc. juxtaposed against the silly and imaginative Lego universe.


----------



## Supermans

I am glad to see this is still going on. Has the chart been updated recently?


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *nathanddrews*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20400#post_23464442
> 
> 
> Traveller's Tales (Tt Games) has been making videogames since the 90s with quite a few hits, but once they scored the rights to the Lego franchise, they've been on fire. The cinematics from the Lego games are just like this Blu-ray (only with greater compression). Tt Animation is their cinematic section. Warner bought them a few years back and hasn't ruined them yet. All the Lego games are great kids games from a content perspective, but also offer plenty of fun challenges and secrets for adult gamers while being a solid platformer. It's inherently funny to see the drama and subject matter of films like Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Lord of the Rings, etc. juxtaposed against the silly and imaginative Lego universe.


_LEGO Batman: The Movie_ ended up being a great deal of fun. Children will absolutely love it.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Supermans*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20400#post_23466436
> 
> 
> I am glad to see this is still going on. Has the chart been updated recently?


The Tiers were updated as recently as two weeks ago, which can be found in my signature or at the following link:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1425519/official-blu-ray-picture-quality-rankings-the-tiers-list-updated-through-june-9-2013/0_60 


Regular updates to the Tiers typically occur every three months or so. We have also recently added a new system for people that simply want to enter their own picture quality scores, without the extra work of writing up a recommendation. Anyone can enter their own scores into this entry form and the score will be counted in the next update:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1GEVDmUrTzHYNHBZpN_8mMZvCzmYEQiUJqCNyRQAadGU/viewform


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Movie 43


recommendation: Tier 2.75**

_Movie 43_ is a series of comedic skits filmed over a number of years and tied together for theatrical release. Filmed on a variety of equipment, predominantly digital cameras, the finished product is inconsistent in picture quality. Obvious filtering and some tinkering at the Digital Intermediate level is apparent, as some shots are softened or graded for certain effects.


The color grading practically changes from sketch to sketch, resulting in a wide range of tinted flesh-tones and contrast levels. I probably would find this problem harder to tolerate if _Movie 43_ were anything but a crude comedy.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Oz the Great and Powerful*


No one did this yet? Could've sworn I saw it come up... anyway, a decent looker with source problems. Smoothing on Mila Kunis is frustrating. It introduces noise and smearing which is entirely unnecessary. Opening B&W looks quite digital too, artificial and plastic. The rest is pretty solid work, with awesome sharpness and precision definition. Color blossoms and pours from the screen. It's sharp enough to show off some abysmal green screen work.

*Tier 1.75**


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20400#post_23475839
> 
> *Oz the Great and Powerful*
> 
> 
> No one did this yet? Could've sworn I saw it come up... anyway, a decent looker with source problems. Smoothing on Mila Kunis is frustrating. It introduces noise and smearing which is entirely unnecessary. Opening B&W looks quite digital too, artificial and plastic. The rest is pretty solid work, with awesome sharpness and precision definition. Color blossoms and pours from the screen. It's sharp enough to show off some abysmal green screen work.
> 
> *Tier 1.75**



I purchased this on its release date but I've been waiting for a grandchild to visit and beg to see it.










I do have a trio of Blus from my local video store that I'll be watching throughout the day. You guessed it; I'm a bachelor for the day!


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20400#post_23457143
> 
> *Stoker*
> 
> 
> WOW! What a gorgeous Blu! Amazing clarity, sharpness and depth are on display from the opening credits to the final shot. I was simply mesmerized at times and kept saying to myself, "Ah, finally, a live action movie that's worthy of Tier Blu!"
> 
> 
> Besides the exceptional clarity, sharpness and depth, we have accurate flesh tones (including Nicole Kidman's pale complexion), superb details, strong contrast, vibrant colors, and very good black levels/shadow details. The only minor nitpick I would mention would be a couple of shots in the cellar where the black levels faltered, but other than those this is pure EYE CANDY. Another treat are numerous shots of the countryside and woods featuring extremely lush greens and phenomenal details. If I were a betting man I would put my money on this falling into Tier Blu. If not for the two shots in the cellar I'd say it belong in the middle of that coveted tier, but to be fair I'll vote for....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (at about .75)*


The review hasn't been published yet so I'll refrain from final judgment for the moment, but _Stoker_ didn't look like a top tier disc to me.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20400#post_23476567
> 
> 
> The review hasn't been published yet so I'll refrain from final judgment for the moment, but _Stoker_ didn't look like a top tier disc to me.



Well, like the old adage goes, "Different strokes (or is it "stokes?") for different folks."


----------



## djoberg

*Phantom*


Okay, so the first of today's "trio" is history. As I sat down to my computer to type out a review, I kept thinking to myself, "For some reason _Phantom_ Stranger should be the first one to write a review on this title.










As with most submarine flicks, this one is DARK (due to the interior of the sub). The black levels were only mediocre and in numerous shots were quite soft with sporadic bursts of noise. And of course the color palette was very drab. Prior to the sub scenes black levels were better and there was appreciable sharpness and some primary colors to enjoy as well.


The biggest redeeming feature, by far, was excellent facial close-ups, with definition ranging from low Tier 0 to high Tier 1. Details in general could also be good, though in many sub interior shots they were obscured due to softness, murky blacks, and bursts of noise. Due to this "mixed bag" I'm finding it hard to reach a placement recommendation. I'm feeling somewhat generous today so I'm going with....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## djoberg

*Side Effects*


Blu-ray #2 fared much better, though it is not without its faults. At times it's sharp as a tack; at other times softness creeps in. Orange hues plague several scenes and as a result they wreak havoc on flesh tones. Details are normally very good, including facial close-ups. Colors were generally warm and vibrant, though in the scenes with orange hues they faltered. Clarity and depth could be absolutely astounding at times, but this too was not consistent. All things considered this is a nice-looking title that will easily find its way onto one's demo shelf. Having said that, I'm going to be conservative here and put it at the bottom of the tier....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## djoberg

*The Call*


I have two descriptions for this underwhelming Blu-ray: Super SOFT and horrendous BLACKS!! I can't recall a movie this soft and the black levels were almost as bad as in _28 Days Later_. The worst scenes were in the car trunks and the underground room, but even many scenes in the 911 station were terribly soft. I was curious what others might be saying about this title and in checking out Cinema Squid's site I see almost all reviewers praising this title for being so sharp and detailed and most of them even called the black levels "deep and inky." We must have seen two altogether different versions of this title, for again what I just saw was way below average; in fact, it was hardly better than a DVD version.


To be fair there were a few fleeting shots of facial close-ups (in broad daylight) that revealed plenty of texture (most notably that of the abductor) and the scene in the Mall was sharp with some vivid colors, but we're only talking about 10 minutes running time out of 90 minutes. In good conscience the best I can do for this mess of a Blu is......

*Tier Recommendation: 3.75**


PS I would NOT argue with a 4.0 ranking!


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## djoberg

*Warm Bodies*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20400#post_23436174
> 
> *Warm Bodies*
> 
> 
> Rather dull encode from Summit that won't keep up with a simple grain structure. But, color slowly seeps in and impresses. Fine detail rises too. Black levels are enough to work through the tough spots.
> 
> *Tier 2.25**



While returning the "trio of Blus" earlier tonight, this title caught my eye and I decided to make it "four" for the day! I pretty much agree with GRG's assessment. I really enjoyed the flashbacks that featured lots of vivid colors and exquisite details. Details were actually quite good throughout, though the subdued color palette was, as my colleague intimated, rather dull. This one may not reach "demo-worthy" status, but it comes very close. My vote goes for....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0**


PS I thoroughly enjoyed the movie!


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## djoberg

*Oz the Great and Powerful*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20400#post_23475839
> 
> *Oz the Great and Powerful*
> 
> 
> No one did this yet? Could've sworn I saw it come up... anyway, a decent looker with source problems. Smoothing on Mila Kunis is frustrating. It introduces noise and smearing which is entirely unnecessary. Opening B&W looks quite digital too, artificial and plastic. The rest is pretty solid work, with awesome sharpness and precision definition. Color blossoms and pours from the screen. It's sharp enough to show off some abysmal green screen work.
> 
> *Tier 1.75**



My esteemed colleague recently challenged my placement of the movie _The Impossible_ and stated that I was "out of my gourd" for giving it such a low score. After viewing it again I did see my folly and changed my recommendation by more than a whole tier. Now I would ask him to reconsider his placement of _Oz the Great and Powerful_ lest I (and others) resort to the same slander and designate him as being "out of his gourd." This Blu-ray is what EYE CANDY is all about and is most definitely worthy of the top Tier, and I would ask all PQ lovers to at least rent this title and see for yourself the marvel that Disney has created. It is a "feast for the eyes," and you deserve to treat yourself to this visual nirvana.


Prepare to be mesmerized by some of the most BRILLIANT COLORS ever seen in a live action movie, along with UNBELIEVABLE BLACKS & SHADOW DETAILS, along with AMAZING DEPTH, SHARPNESS, CLARITY, DETAILS and STRONG CONTRAST. GRG spoke out against "smoothing" on the face of Mila Kunis (I failed to see the noise he referred to), but some scenes with the witches (who all had smoothed faces) also featured the tinkers who had incredible detail in their faces and beards (thus revealing that the smoothing was merely to portray the witches as young and beautiful, so it is not a flaw resulting from post-processing). Facial close-ups on James Franco revealed significant texture at times, though in midrange shots he too lacked definition.


Before giving a placement recommendation, I want to give a huge shout out for the superb audio; the action in the surrounds was stellar and there were plenty of BIG LFE moments! If you have a decent 5.1 or 7.1 speaker system you will be WOWED!


If not for a few instances of orange flesh tones, a lack of definition in the male lead in midrange shots, and the opening B&W scene (its aspect ratio is so small it's hard to appreciate any fine details), I would be tempted to place this in the middle of Tier Blu. As it is, I believe it should be right here....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (somewhere between .5 and .75)*


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## djoberg

I forgot to add in my comments on the audio of _Oz the Great and Powerful_ that it defaults to Dolby 2.0 Surround so you have to go into the Setup Menu to change it to DTS-HD Master Audio 7.1. Believe me you will be richly rewarded for your efforts!


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20430#post_23476897
> 
> *Phantom*
> 
> 
> Okay, so the first of today's "trio" is history. As I sat down to my computer to type out a review, I kept thinking to myself, "For some reason _Phantom_ Stranger should be the first one to write a review on this title.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.75**
> 
> 
> Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


A review for _Phantom_ is forthcoming in the next week. My team of lawyers are on the matter with its name. They owe me royalties at the very least.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20430#post_23480980
> 
> 
> A review for _Phantom_ is forthcoming in the next week. My team of lawyers are on the matter with its name. They owe me royalties at the very least.



Imagine if they had been foolish and daring enough to go the full distance and titled the movie _Phantom Stranger_?


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20430#post_23479930
> 
> *Oz the Great and Powerful*
> 
> My esteemed colleague recently challenged my placement of the movie _The Impossible_ and stated that I was "out of my gourd" for giving it such a low score. After viewing it again I did see my folly and changed my recommendation by more than a whole tier....
> 
> 
> Now I would ask him to reconsider his placement of _Oz the Great and Powerful_ lest I (and others) resort to the same slander and designate him as being "out of his gourd."
> 
> Prepare to be mesmerized by some of the most BRILLIANT COLORS ever seen in a live action movie, along with UNBELIEVABLE BLACKS & SHADOW DETAILS, along with AMAZING DEPTH, SHARPNESS, CLARITY, DETAILS and STRONG CONTRAST.



Way too much smoothing, not enough fidelity. Best stuff are the reveals of new locations, where all of the above applies. The rest? Not so much. I remain stubbornly unimpressed. Now, onto something impressive:
*

Escape from Planet Earth*


Reference 2D and 3D work here. While alien design lacks fine detail, the world is full of sharpness and grand color choices. Contrast is strong and things like fur are rendered beautifully. Almost the entire movie is bathed in brightness letting these images breathe.

*Tier 0.5**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Queen's Blade 2: The Evil Eye


recommendation: Tier 1.5**

_Queen's Blade 2_ was an anime series first broadcast in 2009. This Blu-ray release finally saw the light of day in 2011 to fine quality. The fluid animation is nicely reproduced by the strong AVC video encode, without any untoward sign of banding or macroblocking. The polished art and character designs are rendered in a bright color palette with inky black levels.


I had thought I had already covered the first _Queen's Blade_ BD, but it appears to be absent from the PQ Tiers.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20430#post_23484678
> 
> 
> Way too much smoothing, not enough fidelity. Best stuff are the reveals of new locations, where all of the above applies. The rest? Not so much. I remain stubbornly unimpressed.



So, when was your last "eye exam?" Maybe it's time!


Seriously, I can't wait for others to chime for I have to believe there will be reviews extolling the virtues of this Tier Blu-worthy disc. You say the "best stuff are the reveals of new locations." Yes, those are great, but I would argue that just about every scene is stellar. Take, for example, the MANY scenes with the two evil witches. The detail on their clothing is simply amazing, especially the black dress worn by Rachel Weisz. I don't recall ever seeing black levels so pristine on an article of clothing before, which served to enhance the intricate details of the dress. I could on and on citing examples like this but I will rest my case and wait for other *discerning* members to weigh in after they have seen this title. Again, I can't encourage you all enough to give this a rent and give your eyes the treat they deserve. I believe this will impress you just as much as the first time you saw _Avatar_. Some reviewers on other sites are boldly declaring this is the best Blu-ray (as far as color, depth, clarity, details, and black levels go) they have seen this year; one said it was the best Blu-ray he had ever seen.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

Smoothing!

  
  


And that's most of the disc. For the record, I was pretty unimpressed with a chunk of Avatar too. Same issues really, an overtly digital look that dampened image fidelity.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20430#post_23486962
> 
> 
> Smoothing!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that's most of the disc. For the record, I was pretty unimpressed with a chunk of Avatar too. Same issues really, an overtly digital look that dampened image fidelity.



Not to beat a dead horse, but I choose to focus on the amazing details in some of the stills you gave to us and NOT the smoothing of faces. Again, they no doubt smoothed the faces of the three actresses (I don't believe they smoothed the face of James Franco...the pic you sent of him is the result of "orange hues" and not smoothing) to make them look as "young" and "beautiful" as they could, but it didn't hinder details. Every shot of Mrs. Weisz has amazing details of her dress, hair, etc. so the smoothing didn't "dampen image fidelity" regarding details (or color).


And let me repeat there are several shots with the "tinkers" in them and facial detail is exemplary, so it just proves that the smoothing of faces was limited to the actresses. Of course you and I want to see their flaws (i.e. signs of aging) but the director wanted us to see youth and beauty.


----------



## jrnewquist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20430#post_23488584
> 
> 
> And let me repeat there are several shots with the "tinkers" in them and facial detail is exemplary, so it just proves that the smoothing of faces was limited to the actresses. Of course you and I want to see their flaws (i.e. signs of aging) but the director wanted us to see youth and beauty.



You seem to use the argument from directorial intent somewhat selectively. Why do you appeal to it to privilege qualities like facial smoothing (in Oz), but not scene lighting (as in Skyfall's casino), for example? I think in the latter case, you mentioned loss of detail as an issue... but isn't that precisely what facial smoothing does?


IIRC, we also discussed certain grainy scenes in Argo, shot with (or meant to invoke) era-appropriate film -- which was obviously also the director's intent, but some here (and I think you included) considered a knock against it.


This is quite puzzling.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Stoker


recommendation: Tier 1.5**


I was not as impressed with _Stoker's_ picture as Djoberg. There is nothing wrong with the overall picture quality, the Super 35 film has an interesting visual aesthetic to it. But I did not think Stoker met all the requirements needed for Tier 0. The depth and its sense of projection are lacking for demo material.


I think I have been spoiled by some of the extreme clarity I've seen from the latest digitally-shot movies. Unprocessed digital productions are beginning to exceed the pixel quality possible from film-based transfers on Blu-ray.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Mortal Kombat Legacy


recommendation: Tier 1.5**


I am surprised Gamereviewgod hasn't covered this BD yet for the Tiers. Released by Warner Bros. back in 2011, _Mortal Kombat Legacy_ was a series of live-action webisodes based off the mythology seen in the Mortal Kombat videogame franchise. The video is surprisingly crisp and vivid, with a slightly desaturated color palette. It probably would have garnered a higher ranking if not for some poor flash animation inserted into one of the webisodes and WB's sub-par AVC encode. Video bitrates stubbornly remain in the teens and compression artifacts are not an uncommon sight, especially for those watching on the largest displays and screens.


Its primary strength is an incredible amount of detail in tighter shots, down to the level of facial pores and stubble.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jrnewquist*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20430#post_23489129
> 
> 
> You seem to use the argument from directorial intent somewhat selectively. Why do you appeal to it to privilege qualities like facial smoothing (in Oz), but not scene lighting (as in Skyfall's casino), for example? I think in the latter case, you mentioned loss of detail as an issue... but isn't that precisely what facial smoothing does?
> 
> 
> IIRC, we also discussed certain grainy scenes in Argo, shot with (or meant to invoke) era-appropriate film -- which was obviously also the director's intent, but some here (and I think you included) considered a knock against it.
> 
> 
> This is quite puzzling.



I'll try to solve the apparent enigma, though my reply may not satisfy you. Regarding the "lighting" in _Skyfall_ and the "grain" in _Argo_, these are conditions the director has chosen that affects the WHOLE PICTURE, not just an actor's face, and thus its effect can indeed be a loss of detail in the whole picture. But in the smoothing of a face it is limited, obviously, to the actor's face, and thus the rest of the picture will remain unaffected, leaving you to enjoy the details. Your response to that may be, "But if the detail in an actor's face is being obscured, shouldn't we penalize the PQ score accordingly?" That would be a fair question, but IMHO it doesn't if the face is being smoothed for a definite purpose. In the case of _Oz_ (where the smoothing was no doubt applied to make them appear more youthful and beautiful), I thought the actresses looked quite good without revealing any texture, so to _my eyes_ I wasn't being robbed of any EYE CANDY. What if a director chose to have an actress smothered in makeup in order to play a sleazy "woman of the streets," would we penalize the PQ score because the makeup was covering up texture (such as wrinkles, moles, etc.)? I think not. So why should we penalize the PQ score when a director chooses to make the face of an actress look young and beautiful?


----------



## HD-Master

Personally, I don't believe we should penalize for that. Of course I also don't think we should penalize for the issues mentioned with Skyfall or Argo either. We should penalize for unintentional issues, not deliberate choices. That's why I have only voted once in this thread and take the ratings with a grain of salt. The arguments against director's intent are odd. You can't have it both ways and be selective about it.


----------



## Steeb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jrnewquist*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20430#post_23489129
> 
> 
> You seem to use the argument from directorial intent somewhat selectively. Why do you appeal to it to privilege qualities like facial smoothing (in Oz), but not scene lighting (as in Skyfall's casino), for example? I think in the latter case, you mentioned loss of detail as an issue... but isn't that precisely what facial smoothing does?
> 
> 
> IIRC, we also discussed certain grainy scenes in Argo, shot with (or meant to invoke) era-appropriate film -- which was obviously also the director's intent, but some here (and I think you included) considered a knock against it.
> 
> 
> This is quite puzzling.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HD-Master*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20430#post_23490006
> 
> 
> Personally, I don't believe we should penalize for that. Of course I also don't think we should penalize for the issues mentioned with Skyfall or Argo either. We should penalize for unintentional issues, not deliberate choices. That's why I have only voted once in this thread and take the ratings with a grain of salt. The arguments against director's intent are odd. You can't have it both ways and be selective about it.



What you guys have to remember is that the criteria for this thread is completely arbitrary and subjective - there's nothing objective about it. The people who decide the placement of the titles also made up the current rules and get to decide how (and when) to apply them. And really, all they're doing is judging what looks "prettiest" to them, while completely ignoring the intent of the filmmakers (unless, apparently, "intent" bolsters their argument.)


Not only that, but I've seen them (the powers that be in this thread) attack and ridicule a poster's recommendations, for somehow simultaneously not following the criteria and following so closely that it was deemed "dogmatic." And both of those objections came from the *same poster* and were directed towards the *same reviews.*










If you're looking for consistently-applied criteria, you really should look elsewhere.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steeb*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20430#post_23490272
> 
> 
> 
> What you guys have to remember is that the criteria for this thread is completely arbitrary and subjective - there's nothing objective about it. The people who decide the placement of the titles also made up the current rules and get to decide how (and when) to apply them. And really, all they're doing is judging what looks "prettiest" to them, while completely ignoring the intent of the filmmakers (unless, apparently, "intent" bolsters their argument.)
> 
> 
> Not only that, but I've seen them (the powers that be in this thread) attack and ridicule a poster's recommendations, for somehow simultaneously not following the criteria and following so closely that it was deemed "dogmatic." And both of those objections came from the *same poster* and were directed towards the *same reviews.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're looking for consistently-applied criteria, you really should look elsewhere.



It's amazing how people who have rarely or never contributed to this thread are quick to jump in and criticize when an issue that like this comes up!










To say "the criteria for this thread is completely arbitrary and subjective" is simply ludicrous. Are there times when it becomes subjective? Most certainly (a variety of conditions lead to this, including the distance one sits from his/her display, the size of one's display, etc.). But generally speaking all contributors "abide by the rules" and I will defend that position most vigorously. I joined the AVS Forum back in February of 2006 and I can say that it has been the exception and not the rule to be charged, on this thread, with being "completely arbitrary and subjective." If you have read this thread at all through the years you MUST admit that participants often refer to how good the black levels are, or how vibrant the colors are, or how accurate the flesh tones are, etc. Why do you read such statements? Because those are a few of the criteria for judging PQ on this thread....they are OBJECTIVE and we seek to abide by those standards.


Now concerning this latest issue between GRG and myself, I believe both of us have a point. GRG is protesting against *smoothing* and the effects _he sees_ as a result (noise and smearing) of this type of processing. From my vantage point I'm not seeing any noise or smearing; I'm seeing faces void of any moles, wrinkles, pimples, scars, etc. and thus even though one might expect to see some of those things (especially on aging actors) I'm not put off by this because the "witches" looked quite good to _my eyes_ and they seemed "realistic" enough to not penalize the PQ on that account. Am I being subjective in this matter? You bet I am, but it has been stated many times on this thread (by Phantom Stranger) that there will be a fair amount of that kind of subjectivity involved in one's viewing experience.


One more thing regarding facial details/smoothing. One of the titles in the top tier is _Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian_. Most everyone was in full agreement that facial details were almost nil, even in close-ups, and that some kind of processing (or makeup) must have been in play. Yet that title still got voted into the top tier! Call that subjective if you want, but the ones who voted it into Tier Blu were so captivated by the other virtues (incredible DEPTH, strong CONTRAST, beautiful COLORS, accurate FLESH TONES, mesmerizing CLARITY & SHARPNESS, inky BLACKS LEVELS and exquisite SHADOW DETAILS) that they were willing to overlook the lack of definition in faces. That's the stand I'm taking with _Oz the Great and Powerful_. I wonder if we'd even be having this discussion if the witches had been smothered in some kind of foundation cream (and we were all aware of that fact)?!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steeb*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20430#post_23490272
> 
> 
> 
> If you're looking for consistently-applied criteria, you really should look elsewhere.



BTW, I was struck by this last statement of yours. I have visited MANY threads through the years and I have yet to visit a thread where you have a perfect example of "consistently-applied criteria." Would you care to direct me to such a thread?


I'm not trying to be offensive; I am absolutely serious in what I'm saying. When I first joined AVS I was visiting the HD-DVD thread (remember those days?) and I was disappointed in how unorganized that thread was. You simply VOTED for a placement for the HD-DVD without having any stated and usable criteria to judge them by. Then I came across the Blu-ray thread and I was delighted to see a whole list of criteria to use as standards for judgment. I often visit the Master List for Bass in Movies where members rate movies for bass, using a 5 Star system. But there again you have no stated criteria for judging the rating of movies. I could list other examples, but this should suffice. At least the Blu-ray PQ thread has an organized list of criteria to go by, and even though it's still imperfect (due to a measure of subjectivity and other variables) it works fairly well, IMHO.


----------



## Steeb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20430#post_23490428
> 
> 
> It's amazing how people who have rarely or never contributed to this thread are quick to jump in and criticize when an issue that like this comes up!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To say "the criteria for this thread is completely arbitrary and subjective" is simply ludicrous. Are there times when it becomes subjective? Most certainly (a variety of conditions lead to this, including the distance one sits from his/her display, the size of one's display, etc.). But generally speaking all contributors "abide by the rules" and I will defend that position most vigorously. I joined the AVS Forum back in February of 2006 and I can say that it has been the exception and not the rule to be charged, on this thread, with being "completely arbitrary and subjective." If you have read this thread at all through the years you MUST admit that participants often refer to *how good the black levels are, or how vibrant the colors are, or how accurate the flesh tones are, etc*. Why do you read such statements? Because those are a few of the criteria for judging PQ on this thread....they are OBJECTIVE and we seek to abide by those standards.


Everything in bold is subjective, not objective. You're voting based on your opinion, not on anything objective. Opinions vary, which is why votes vary. And of course, we know who gets to make the final decision when the votes do vary, don't we?


And what I posted above is true. I've seen you guys attack a poster's recommendations, calling them (among other things) ridiculous. I've seen that poster's recommendations be summarily dismissed for both following the rules too closely and not following the rules enough.


I stand by my post above.


Edited to add:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20430#post_23490452
> 
> 
> BTW, I was struck by this last statement of yours. I have visited MANY threads through the years and I have yet to visit a thread where you have a perfect example of "consistently-applied criteria." Would you care to direct me to such a thread?


"Elsewhere," like I said above. Some place other than this thread.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steeb*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20430#post_23490272
> 
> 
> What you guys have to remember is that the criteria for this thread is completely arbitrary and subjective - there's nothing objective about it. The people who decide the placement of the titles also made up the current rules and get to decide how (and when) to apply them. And really, all they're doing is judging what looks "prettiest" to them, while completely ignoring the intent of the filmmakers (unless, apparently, "intent" bolsters their argument.)
> 
> 
> Not only that, but I've seen them (the powers that be in this thread) attack and ridicule a poster's recommendations, for somehow simultaneously not following the criteria and following so closely that it was deemed "dogmatic." And both of those objections came from the *same poster* and were directed towards the *same reviews.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're looking for consistently-applied criteria, you really should look elsewhere.


Hundreds of people have given their input into the Picture Quality Tiers over the years, going all the way back practically to the dawning of the Blu-ray format. I take umbrage at the idea that our criteria used for evaluation in this thread is arbitrary and subjective. It took months of consideration and a back-and-forth dialogue between different forum members to agree on one unified standard, set out in the first post of the Tiers List.


I get it, some were unhappy we made few allowances for director's intent and the age of a film. Anyone that has been around the forum for years knows how well that director's intent thread turned out. While some posters have been chided in the past for not closely adhering to our guidelines, I have always taken everyone's input on this thread into consideration for the final placement of each disc.


Tier 0 has always been tougher to adjudicate properly with its ordinal rankings. That is why it has always been best when several different posters recommend a disc for Tier 0.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steeb*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20430#post_23490468
> 
> 
> Everything in bold is subjective, not objective. You're voting based on your opinion, not on anything objective. Opinions vary, which is why votes vary. And of course, we know who gets to make the final decision when the votes do vary, don't we?
> 
> 
> And what I posted above is true. I've seen you guys attack a poster's recommendations, calling them (among other things) ridiculous. I've seen that poster's recommendations be summarily dismissed for both following the rules too closely and not following the rules enough.
> 
> 
> I stand by my post above.
> 
> 
> Edited to add:
> 
> "Elsewhere," like I said above. Some place other than this thread.



Well Steeb, I had a hunch about you so I decided to invest another 10 minutes of my life in going over some of your posts in other threads. My hunch turned out to be true; you are notorious for arguing with people (including bashing various threads). You are the typical *troll*. Feel free to check out my post history and you'll see that I'm actually very easy to get along with unless I'm provoked (which is quite rare). Rest assured, you won't be seeing another response from me.


----------



## Steeb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20430#post_23490777
> 
> 
> Hundreds of people have given their input into the Picture Quality Tiers over the years, going all the way back practically to the dawning of the Blu-ray format. I take umbrage at the idea that our criteria used for evaluation in this thread is arbitrary and subjective. It took months of consideration and a back-and-forth dialogue between different forum members to agree on one unified standard, set out in the first post of the Tiers List.
> 
> 
> I get it, some were unhappy we made few allowances for director's intent and the age of a film. Anyone that has been around the forum for years knows how well that director's intent thread turned out. *While some posters have been chided in the past for not closely adhering to our guidelines, I have always taken everyone's input on this thread into consideration for the final placement of each disc.*
> 
> 
> Tier 0 has always been tougher to adjudicate properly with its ordinal rankings. That is why it has always been best when several different posters recommend a disc for Tier 0.


Yes, we've seen you "chide" posters for somehow both adhering to the guidelines to the point that you called it dogmatic, while at the same time not adhering to the guidelines enough (in the same review, of course.) You and djoberg are the two that I've personally seen openly deride and dismiss the recommendations of posters who don't agree with you. You've admitted to "attacking" recommendations you don't agree with and "chiding" those who don't fall in line with your interpretation of the guidelines, and apparently see no problem with those actions.


This eye candy thread, in virtually ever iteration, has been run/dominated by a handful of posters (the membership of this little club has changed ever so slightly over the years) who have always tended to fall back on the "when in doubt, go with the guy who's updating the thread" tactic. Needless to say, that tends to leave a bad taste in the mouths of those trying to participate. You'll notice that I responded to two people who have apparently noticed at least some of what I've mentioned here. People notice these things...


Since I probably won't post here again for a while, I'll take the time to point out, once again, that you guys should really stop calling this thread the "PQ" Tier thread, since you've never judged PQ. It should be called the "Eye Candy" thread or something similar, since that - and that alone - is all you're "judging." Ignoring intent makes this thread useless for any sort of meaningful discussion on actual "picture quality." Enough with the soap box. I only intended to post the one time, in response to the unhappy posters above.


----------



## Steeb

One last response, since my integrity has been attacked...


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20430#post_23490785
> 
> 
> Well Steeb, I had a hunch about you so I decided to invest another 10 minutes of my life in going over some of your posts in other threads. My hunch turned out to be true; you are notorious for arguing with people (including bashing various threads). You are the typical *troll*. *Feel free to check out my post history and you'll see that I'm actually very easy to get along with unless I'm provoked (which is quite rare).* Rest assured, you won't be seeing another response from me.



Here's how you responded to a poster trying to contribute for the first time in this thread:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/9510#post_15645549
> 
> 
> FoxyMulder,
> 
> 
> That's quite the list you've come up with! I don't have time this morning to respond to all the titles I'd like to, but I will say right now that you are very harsh on some titles. Take, for example, The Dark Knight and Pan's Labyrinth. These two titles were debated at length and both of them were finally placed where they currently are based on an averaging of MANY votes. Many of us thought they were placed too low, but we bowed to the voices of our fellow-members. *Your recommendations for these two are, to put it bluntly, ridiculous.*
> 
> *I don't say this to be cruel, but IMO you are too obsessed with EE and DNR and this obsession is causing you to be too critical with movies that are indeed "demo material." You have a right to your opinion, but in my opinion you are way off base.*



That post alone sort of refutes the whole "I'm very easy to get along with unless I'm provoked" nonsense, unless you consider someone posting recommendations you don't agree with as provocation.


For those interested, if you keep following the conversation at that link, you'll see that nothing's really changed from then (2009) to now. There are still only a small handful contributing (mostly the same people) and they still argue with and attack the recommendations of those who disagree with them. You'll see Phantom chastise FoxyMulder for one thing:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/9540#post_15649339
> 
> 
> To FoxyMulder and anyone else that reads this thread, I would not put so much faith and dogmatic adherence to the tier descriptions when placing titles here. They are guides and nothing more in determining placement.


and then for the exact opposite:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/9570#post_15656538
> 
> 
> You are welcome to contribute to this thread *but please respect the tenets of what this thread is based on when recommending placements.* You made a laundry listing of about ten different BDs in your post and some of your placements seemed extremely low given the generally accepted criteria and standards that most of us use here. This is not the same criteria as the artistic intent thread you maintain very well.


and then you'll see him refuse to publicly explain the apparent contradictions when called on them.


With that said, by all means - carry on...


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20430#post_23488584
> 
> 
> Not to beat a dead horse, but I choose to focus on the amazing details in some of the stills you gave to us and NOT the smoothing of faces. Again, they no doubt smoothed the faces of the three actresses (I don't believe they smoothed the face of James Franco...the pic you sent of him is the result of "orange hues" and not smoothing) to make them look as "young" and "beautiful" as they could, but it didn't hinder details. Every shot of Mrs. Weisz has amazing details of her dress, hair, etc. so the smoothing didn't "dampen image fidelity" regarding details (or color).



I'd argue the Kunis shot especially is smoothed all over. I see little fidelity in her hat or clothes. I was also rarely impressed with things like the monkey. Fur was often poorly resolved.

*Emperor's New Groove*


Spectacular sharpness and great color cannot overcome a remarkably poor compression job. Artifacts and mosquito noise can be seen everywhere, not merely isolated to a few scenes. Ringing is less common, but a bother. The movie is packed with its sequel on the same disc, but together, the film's don't even reach three hours, and there are no extras. Go figure. Fidelity is fine though, and you can still make out pencil and brush strokes. Can't go too low.

*Tier 1.25**


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/9540#post_15653534
> 
> 
> I do want to say that my initial response to your list of recommendations was a knee jerk reaction to your take on The Dark Knight and Pan's Labyrinth and *I do apologize for the lack of tact on my part in that post.* If you were to read my posts over the last year you would see that this is NOT a normal reaction by me; in fact, I usually go out of my way to encourage people to participate and I try to avoid elitism like I would the bubonic plague. So, I hope you accept this apology and would reconsider your decision to have nothing to do with this thread.



I am quoting this post more for the benefit of Steeb who quoted my original post to FoxyMulder above. As you can see, I truly was sorry for my "knee jerk reaction" to FoxyMulder's comments on two titles that had been discussed at length prior to his post (which then led to me being upset that he would issue such a strong challenge to two titles that had been debated and ranked by a majority of voters). My first post to FoxyMulder was indeed offensive and I was made to see my error and I sincerely apologized.


For those of you who are been contributing to threads for any length of time, you know that one can become emotional and react too quickly to a post that disagrees with a position you've taken. I have since learned from that post (that dates back to 2009) and I don't believe I have ever reacted like that again. Surely I have entered into serious debates with people but they have been civil. And I don't recall ever repeating myself by speaking so harshly to a newcomer to the thread; I have indeed tried to encourage them to continue to participate and have welcomed them to the thread.


Having said this Steeb, the fact still remains that I checked out your post history and I read MANY posts (recent posts, I might add) where you argued with various members in a rather rude and self-righteous manner. I don't recall seeing an apology. I also read one post where you bashed the whole thread. That is why I called you a *troll* and I am standing by that statement. I have nothing against you personally, but I do take issue with someone who visits threads with an agenda...with a desire to challenge members in an offensive manner instead of being constructive and helpful.


----------



## jrnewquist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20430#post_23489876
> 
> 
> I'll try to solve the apparent enigma, though my reply may not satisfy you. Regarding the "lighting" in _Skyfall_ and the "grain" in _Argo_, these are conditions the director has chosen that affects the WHOLE PICTURE, not just an actor's face, and thus its effect can indeed be a loss of detail in the whole picture. But in the smoothing of a face it is limited, obviously, to the actor's face, and thus the rest of the picture will remain unaffected, leaving you to enjoy the details. Your response to that may be, "But if the detail in an actor's face is being obscured, shouldn't we penalize the PQ score accordingly?" That would be a fair question, but IMHO it doesn't if the face is being smoothed for a definite purpose. In the case of _Oz_ (where the smoothing was no doubt applied to make them appear more youthful and beautiful), I thought the actresses looked quite good without revealing any texture, so to _my eyes_ I wasn't being robbed of any EYE CANDY. What if a director chose to have an actress smothered in makeup in order to play a sleazy "woman of the streets," would we penalize the PQ score because the makeup was covering up texture (such as wrinkles, moles, etc.)? I think not. So why should we penalize the PQ score when a director chooses to make the face of an actress look young and beautiful?



Thank you for the reply.


What I find strange is that you appear to think there's a difference between (1) an actress's face, where the director's intent to obscure details for "beauty" is ok, and (2) an entire scene, where the director's intent to accentuate some details and obscure others for "atmosphere" is not.


This seems like a peculiar place to draw a distinction. You ultimately take refuge in the "eye candy is subjective" defense, so I'm not sure if you have a principled reason for this distinction, or not. It would appear not, and you might be ok with that.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Steeb*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20430#post_23491826
> 
> 
> One last response, since my integrity has been attacked...
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/9540#post_15649339
> 
> 
> To FoxyMulder and anyone else that reads this thread, I would not put so much faith and dogmatic adherence to the tier descriptions when placing titles here. They are guides and nothing more in determining placement.
> 
> 
> 
> and then for the exact opposite:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/9570#post_15656538
> 
> 
> You are welcome to contribute to this thread *but please respect the tenets of what this thread is based on when recommending placements.* You made a laundry listing of about ten different BDs in your post and some of your placements seemed extremely low given the generally accepted criteria and standards that most of us use here. This is not the same criteria as the artistic intent thread you maintain very well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and then you'll see him refuse to publicly explain the apparent contradictions when called on them.
> 
> 
> With that said, by all means - carry on...
Click to expand...

Quotes taken out of context in a long-running conversation are a classic strawman tactic. This discussion thread has always had a lively and open debate about the merits of each disc being discussed and nothing has changed in that regard.


It was apparent a few posters back then wanted the PQ Tiers to be something else than for what it was intended, an ordinal ranking system of all Blu-rays by their pure visual quality. The discussion you selectively quoted my statements from led to the creation of a separate thread intended for its own purpose, initially managed by FoxyMulder.


----------



## Steeb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20430#post_23492770
> 
> 
> Quotes taken out of context in a long-running conversation are a classic strawman tactic.


I left the links to the posts intact in my quotes, while encouraging those interested to read further. It's right there - how could you have missed it?


Also, you might want to figure out what a "strawman argument" is before lobbing unfounded and ignorant accusations at others. Everything I posted is in black and white for those interested in reading the truth. I made sure to include the links to the original quotes so that anyone who wanted to could go through and read the entire exchange.


And of course, reading the entire exchange changes nothing in regards to those quotes. In any context, you contradicted yourself and to this day have yet to ever explain how you summarily dismissed his recommendations for both following the guidelines too closely (you used the word "dogmatic") and for not following the guidelines closely enough. That you would remain intellectually dishonest, and attempt to portray this contradiction as something I've concocted by taking your quotes out of context, is both sad and expected.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20430#post_23492770
> 
> 
> It was apparent a few posters back then wanted the PQ Tiers to be something else than for what it was intended, an ordinal ranking system of all Blu-rays by their pure visual quality. *The discussion you selectively quoted my statements from led to the creation of a separate thread intended for its own purpose, initially managed by FoxyMulder*.


Yeah... that's not true at all. The discussion I quoted was from Jan of 2009. The thread you're referring to was started in June of 2008.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

In this instance, discretion is truly the better part of valor and there is little point engaging in your hostilities, Steeb. As some others have pointed out, this is classic trolling by you because it is wrapped in a thin veneer of truth but still largely misrepresents the essential truth of the matter.


----------



## Steeb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20460#post_23492861
> 
> 
> In this instance, discretion is truly the better part of valor and there is little point engaging in your hostilities, Steeb. As some others have pointed out, this is classic trolling by you because it is wrapped in a thin veneer of truth but still largely misrepresents the essential truth of the matter.


"Thin veneer of truth..."










One of us is backing up his claims with links and quotes, while the other is avoiding the truth and has actually resorted to making things up in a desperate attempt to save face. Objective readers can clearly see the difference.


Since you have no intention of being intellectually honest and actually addressing the concerns brought up, there's really no reason to continue this idiotic back and forth.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *jrnewquist*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20430#post_23492719
> 
> 
> Thank you for the reply.
> 
> 
> What I find strange is that you appear to think there's a difference between (1) an actress's face, where the director's intent to obscure details for "beauty" is ok, and (2) an entire scene, where the director's intent to accentuate some details and obscure others for "atmosphere" is not.
> 
> 
> This seems like a peculiar place to draw a distinction. You ultimately take refuge in the "eye candy is subjective" defense, so I'm not sure if you have a principled reason for this distinction, or not. It would appear not, and you might be ok with that.



Thank you for being persistent in this jrnewquist, for you have actually made me rethink what I've been saying and I have to admit what I have said on this subject has been quite ambiguous and seemingly contradictory. Add to that the fact that I _seem_ to be using "director's intent" as an excuse for the obscuring of details when I have sought, throughout the history of this thread, to uphold the criteria of this thread by maintaining that we do NOT take into consideration "director's intent."


So, let forget director's intent altogether as it may or may not apply to an actor's face. I had said, in previous posts on _Oz the Great and Powerful_, that the three witches looked "good" to me and "realistic." What did I mean by that? We don't have witches in "real life" to go by, so we obviously have to fall back on how witches have been portrayed. Every witch that I've ever seen, whether it was in a play or a movie, has either been a "good" witch or a "wicked" witch. In the case of the "good" witch you have a woman with matchless beauty, with a perfect complexion free of blemishes. In the case of a "wicked" witch, you usually have a woman that looks hideous, with all kinds of facial imperfections. When I viewed Mila Kunis and Rachel Weisz in earlier scenes, they were portrayed as "good" witches (even though in the case of Rachel Weisz she was masquerading as a good witch) and thus I thought they looked "true to form," for good witches are depicted as the picture of health and beauty, void of spots and blemishes. This, and this alone, is why I was willing to forego penalizing the PQ rating due to a lack of facial details! It was NOT because I was falling back on the "director's intent" (though it surely was the director's intent to portray the three witches as young and beautiful "good" witches), but rather because this is what a "good" witch looks like. Again, details abounded in most of the scenes which the witches were in, including the exquisite details seen in the black dress worn by Rachel Weisz. Clearly there was no processing in play that obscured details in general. They were pure EYE CANDY which met the criteria for details in a top tier and I rated them accordingly.


Again, thank you for bringing this up and for your insistence on me explaining why I made a distinction between 1) and actor's face, and 2) an entire scene. I hope this explanation will help to clarify my position. I know that I myself have more clarity regarding the distinction I had made and I'm glad that I was able to give an answer that proves I'm not falling back on "director's intent" to justify the obscuring of details in the faces of the three witches.


----------



## HD-Master

It would make far more sense to treat incidents of "true to form" the same as "director's intent" for the purpose of ratings and some semblance of consistency, in my opinion. Either smoothing is bad every time or never at all. Either director's intent is always considered or never at all.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HD-Master*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20460#post_23495095
> 
> 
> It would make far more sense to treat incidents of "true to form" the same as "director's intent" for the purpose of ratings and some semblance of consistency, in my opinion. Either smoothing is bad every time or never at all. Either director's intent is always considered or never at all.



You obviously missed my point. I am simply saying that the witches look "true to form" because GOOD WITCHES ALWAYS LOOK BEAUTIFUL AND FREE OF BLEMISHES, WRINKLES, etc. So, when the three witches "looked like they should" I'm not going to penalize the PQ score. I wouldn't expect to see warts (like you would on a "wicked witch") or other anomalies on a good witch (or even signs of aging) so why would I dock the score for not seeing such facial details!


To illustrate further, let's say you were watching a Blu-ray with a clown in it. He's totally covered in face paint, so he "looks like a clown." Would I expect to see a lot of facial details on that clown? Of course not; HE'S COVERED IN FACE PAINT! Was this the director's intent to cover him in face paint? Yep! Why? So he would LOOK LIKE A CLOWN. Am I going to penalize the PQ score because I don't see facial details? NO! Why? Because HE'S SUPPOSED TO LOOK THAT WAY! So my rating of the PQ score is based on what I expect to see, and not on the director's intent.


Let's go one step further. We're watching an action movie with a scene that happens to be permeated with orange or teal hues. Let's say the orange hue is so pervasive that it makes human faces look more like a pumpkin that a natural, flesh-colored human being. Is that how people look when we see them? No! Am I going to dock the PQ score because of that? Yes! Why? Because flesh tones (which is one of the OBJECTIVE criteria we use to judge PQ) are off; they don't look natural. Was it the director's intent to bathe the scene in orange hues? Most definitely! But in this case the director's intent made something look unnatural and thus in this case the PQ score will be affected regardless of what the director wanted us to see.


I rest my case.


----------



## HD-Master

I understood your point. It's cherry picking.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HD-Master*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20460#post_23495226
> 
> 
> I understood your point. It's cherry picking.



Why do you visit this thread when you disagree with the criteria used to judge PQ?


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20460#post_23495210
> 
> 
> 
> To illustrate further, let's say you were watching a Blu-ray with a clown in it. He's totally covered in face paint, so he "looks like a clown." Would I expect to see a lot of facial details on that clown? Of course not; HE'S COVRED IN FACE PAINT! Was this the director's intent to cover him in face paint? Yep! Why? So he would LOOK LIKE A CLOWN. Am I going to penalize the PQ score because I don't see facial details? NO! Why? Because HE'S SUPPOSED TO LOOK THAT WAY! So my rating of the PQ score is based on what I expect to see, and not on the director's intent.



But you WOULD see the texture of the paint.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20460#post_23495321
> 
> 
> But you WOULD see the texture of the paint.



Not if they applied a really *smooth* paint!


----------



## HD-Master




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20460#post_23495308
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HD-Master*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20460#post_23495226
> 
> 
> I understood your point. It's cherry picking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you visit this thread when you disagree with the criteria used to judge PQ?
Click to expand...


My issue is with what appears to be a moving target in YOUR personal criteria. It's inconsistent and selective.


My initial post on this issue:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HD-Master*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20430#post_23490006
> 
> 
> Personally, I don't believe we should penalize for that. Of course I also don't think we should penalize for the issues mentioned with Skyfall or Argo either. We should penalize for unintentional issues, not deliberate choices. That's why I have only voted once in this thread and take the ratings with a grain of salt. The arguments against director's intent are odd. You can't have it both ways and be selective about it.


I take the ratings with a grain of salt. Most are great, but some fall victim to the same goofiness of Oz. Penalizing the intentional look of a scene(s), but not intentional smoothing. The official criteria are consistent, while yours apparently are not.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HD-Master*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20460#post_23495353
> 
> 
> My issue is with what appears to be a moving target in YOUR personal criteria. It's inconsistent and selective.
> 
> 
> My initial post on this issue:
> 
> I take the ratings with a grain of salt. Most are great, but some fall victim to the same goofiness of Oz. Penalizing the intentional look of a scene(s), but not intentional smoothing. The official criteria are consistent, while yours apparently are not.



So, you believe the "official criteria are consistent." That's good. Do you AGREE with the following (which is stated on the ranking thread where the criteria is listed):


"Notice: *For the purposes of this system we do not take director's intent into consideration when evaluating the visual quality of each Blu-ray*. This list represents an absolute ranking system, where every available Blu-ray's picture quality is directly compared against every other release. Those interested may want to use the thread search feature to peruse the individual reviews that contributed to these placements, for further clarification. Tier placements can change over time as feedback warrants."


I ask this because your posts over the last few days you seemed to take issue with the words in BOLD.


As far as me *personally* being inconsistent, what did I say in my response to you (or jrnewquist) that was inconsistent? I stated unequivocally that I judge the PQ by WHAT I EXPECT TO SEE, and NOT on the director's intent. If what I expect to see is the result of the director's intent (in other words, the director made the right choice and made something look like it should), that's fine and good, but I'm still not rating it because of his intent, but because IT LOOKS LIKE IT SHOULD. I don't know how I can make this any plainer and if you still think I'm being inconsistent and going by the director's intent in my judging the PQ, then you are mistaken and I'm at a loss as to how to enlighten you.


----------



## djoberg

I'm leaving shortly to be with family members for the 4th, but I feel compelled to say something on behalf of our thread moderator, Phantom Stranger. I don't always agree with him in our analysis of Blu-rays, nor do I know how he can reconcile the two seeming contradictory statements that Steeb produced from posts made a few years ago, but I do respect him and thank him for all the hard work he puts into this thread. When Steeb was attacking Phantom's character yesterday I thought to myself, "Has he ever read the countless words of praise offered to Phantom for the countless hours he puts in to keep this thread up and running?" There may only be a "handful of regular contributors" to this thread, but it is obvious that many members are reaping the benefits of this thread and every time Phantom issues an update you hear a chorus of voices chiming in to thank him for his "labor of love." To those of you who only post when you are upset and inclined to challenge this thread and its contributors, you would do well to consider that you are more than likely in the minority; there is no doubt a silent majority that are thankful to be able to come to this thread to get some idea what a certain Blu-ray looks like, and they know that they owe a debt of gratitude to the thread's "guardian," Phantom Stranger.


Happy 4th of July to everyone! Our country may be going downhill in some respects but I believe we still live in the greatest country on earth and it's always a joy to "celebrate its birthday."


----------



## HD-Master




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20460#post_23495399
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HD-Master*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20460#post_23495353
> 
> 
> My issue is with what appears to be a moving target in YOUR personal criteria. It's inconsistent and selective.
> 
> 
> My initial post on this issue:
> 
> I take the ratings with a grain of salt. Most are great, but some fall victim to the same goofiness of Oz. Penalizing the intentional look of a scene(s), but not intentional smoothing. The official criteria are consistent, while yours apparently are not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you believe the "official criteria are consistent." That's good. Do you AGREE with the following (which is stated on the ranking thread where the criteria is listed):
> 
> 
> "Notice: *For the purposes of this system we do not take director's intent into consideration when evaluating the visual quality of each Blu-ray*. This list represents an absolute ranking system, where every available Blu-ray's picture quality is directly compared against every other release. Those interested may want to use the thread search feature to peruse the individual reviews that contributed to these placements, for further clarification. Tier placements can change over time as feedback warrants."
> 
> 
> I ask this because your posts over the last few days you seemed to take issue with the words in BOLD.
> 
> 
> As far as me *personally* being inconsistent, what did I say in my response to you (or jrnewquist) that was inconsistent? I stated unequivocally that I judge the PQ by WHAT I EXPECT TO SEE, and NOT on the director's intent. If what I expect to see is the result of the director's intent (in other words, the director made the right choice and made something look like it should), that's fine and good, but I'm still not rating it because of his intent, but because IT LOOKS LIKE IT SHOULD. I don't know how I can make this any plainer and if you still think I'm being inconsistent and going by the director's intent in my judging the PQ, then you are mistaken and I'm at a loss as to how to enlighten you.
Click to expand...


First of all, you do not need to enlighten me. Don't be pompous.


Yes, the official criteria are consistent. No, I do not agree with the bolded portion...but at least it is consistent. Hence my reason for taking some of the ratings with a grain of salt. It's a minor issue. I ignore the lower ratings of titles where director's intent comes into play. Not a big deal. Not an attack. Not a condemnation. The purpose of the thread fits the preferences of the many people who enjoy it. My preferences simply happen to be slightly different (I don't hold director's intent against a title), but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate the thread for simple eye candy purposes or those who maintain it.


You did not say that you are being inconsistent, but you are. You ignore most instances of director's intent when grading a title (per the official criteria), yet make exceptions for facial smoothing (when it happens to be director's intent) when it suits what you want to see. Either smoothing is a negative or it isn't. You want to have it both ways. There isn't much point in having the official criteria if it is going to be manipulated from one title to the next.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I'm not really sure how djoberg's views on facial smoothing of certain actresses became such a huge point of contention, but he consistently applies the same standards in all of his recommendations for this thread. He has contributed dozens and dozens, if not hundreds, of thoughtful reviews for the Tiers. Djoberg has seen hundreds of Blu-rays on his KURO display and has a great handle most of the time on what tier a disc belongs in. If this is an issue tied to specific discs, please cite them so I can look into their ranking again. _Skyfall_ ended up in the upper half of the highest tier possible.


All of us when reviewing a disc for picture quality are going to have preferences for certain characteristics, no matter what is written in the guidelines or how strictly we follow them. People are missing the forest for the trees in some of these criticisms. That is why the only way someone can influence the rankings here is put forth their own scores for a disc, it sometimes take several sets of eyes to obtain a rigorous ranking which holds up to scrutiny.


I will join djoberg in wishing everyone a happy 4th of July!


----------



## Steeb




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20460#post_23495455
> 
> 
> I don't always agree with him in our analysis of Blu-rays, *nor do I know how he can reconcile the two seeming contradictory statements that Steeb produced from posts made a few years ago*, but I do respect him and thank him for all the hard work he puts into this thread.


He can't either, which is why he runs away and refuses to respond whenever it's brought up. It was because he was looking for a reason - any reason - to disregard FoxyMulder's recommendations, likely due to their past differences. That you feel the need to suck up to him because he updates the tier thread speaks volumes.


Absolute power corrupts absolutely. There shouldn't be just one person in charge of making the decisions, if you want to even appear that the thread's on the up and up.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20460#post_23495455
> 
> *When Steeb was attacking Phantom's character yesterday*


From yesterday:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20430#post_23490785
> 
> 
> Well Steeb, I had a hunch about you so I decided to invest another 10 minutes of my life in going over some of your posts in other threads. My hunch turned out to be true; you are notorious for arguing with people (including bashing various threads). *You are the typical *troll*.* Feel free to check out my post history and you'll see that I'm actually very easy to get along with unless I'm provoked (which is quite rare). Rest assured, you won't be seeing another response from me.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20430#post_23492087
> 
> 
> 
> Having said this Steeb, the fact still remains that I checked out your post history and I read MANY posts (recent posts, I might add) where you argued with various members in a rather rude and self-righteous manner. I don't recall seeing an apology. I also read one post where you bashed the whole thread. *That is why I called you a *troll* and I am standing by that statement.* I have nothing against you personally, *but I do take issue with someone who visits threads with an agenda...with a desire to challenge members in an offensive manner instead of being constructive and helpful.*



Edited to add:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20460#post_23495455
> 
> 
> To those of you who only post when you are upset and inclined to challenge this thread and its contributors, you would do well to consider that you are more than likely in the minority; *there is no doubt a silent majority that are thankful to be able to come to this thread to get some idea what a certain Blu-ray looks like, and they know that they owe a debt of gratitude to the thread's "guardian," Phantom Stranger.*


Wow - talk about delusions of grandeur. Good god, man it's a silly eye candy thread. You guys aren't curing cancer - you're (to paraphrase Cliff Stephenson) ranking the untrained EXPECTATIONS of a small group of people. That's it.


----------



## jrnewquist




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20460#post_23494920
> 
> 
> Thank you for being persistent in this jrnewquist, for you have actually made me rethink what I've been saying and I have to admit what I have said on this subject has been quite ambiguous and seemingly contradictory.



Thank you for the elucidation of your position! I better understand where you're coming from, and appreciate you taking the time to explain it.


Cheers!


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Bullet to the Head*


What is up with Warner? Are they dipping back into their low, pitiful encodes again? Encoding is just awful, with ugly grain and filtered appearance. It's not a looker type of film to begin with, but nothing done on the compression side helps. Shot on film and it looks nothing like it. The only positives are black levels and... well, black levels. Some facial detail too, but far too inconsistent.
*Tier 3.5**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

* Help! *

*recommendation: Tier 3.75**


I'd like to say this was given a perfectly film-like transfer from pristine elements, but the Beatles are covered in thick halos. It looks like the older restoration and transfer made for the 2007 DVD was used as the source for this new BD, but the level of processing in certain scenes is extremely high for a Hi-Def presentation in 2013. The transfer is not a complete disaster, a lot of care has been given to the entire movie's color grading and other attributes like its grain density.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Both Baraka and Samsara are on sale at the moment on Amazon. $12.99 apiece, as Amazon is matching a sale over at Best Buy. Each one has stunning picture quality and ranked in Tier 0.

Baraka 

Samsara


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20460#post_23503840
> 
> 
> Both Baraka and Samsara are on sale at the moment on Amazon. $12.99 apiece, as Amazon is matching a sale over at Best Buy. Each one has stunning picture quality and ranked in Tier 0.
> 
> Baraka
> 
> Samsara



Amazing price! I have my own copies already but I'm tempted tp pick some up for gifts for those who truly appreciate reference-quality PQ.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20430#post_23476897
> 
> *Phantom*
> 
> 
> Okay, so the first of today's "trio" is history. As I sat down to my computer to type out a review, I kept thinking to myself, "For some reason _Phantom_ Stranger should be the first one to write a review on this title.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As with most submarine flicks, this one is DARK (due to the interior of the sub). The black levels were only mediocre and in numerous shots were quite soft with sporadic bursts of noise. And of course the color palette was very drab. Prior to the sub scenes black levels were better and there was appreciable sharpness and some primary colors to enjoy as well.
> 
> 
> The biggest redeeming feature, by far, was excellent facial close-ups, with definition ranging from low Tier 0 to high Tier 1. Details in general could also be good, though in many sub interior shots they were obscured due to softness, murky blacks, and bursts of noise. Due to this "mixed bag" I'm finding it hard to reach a placement recommendation. I'm feeling somewhat generous today so I'm going with....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.75**


*Phantom 


recommendation: Tier 2.5*
*

I can't really dispute any of djoberg's review, most of the movie takes place inside an actual submarine and the RED Epic produces flat results in the cramped quarters. It should be pointed out that Fox confined the movie to a BD-25 and the resulting video encode is somewhat mediocre for a 2013 home video release. Obvious banding and posterization are problems in the underwater shots.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*42*


Solid presentation with no visible Warner encoding quirks. Slight sepia tints do not dampen the color appeal. Sharpness is consistently rich and fidelity is everywhere. Recreated stadiums shine, and contrast/blacks are both dense in their own right.

*Tier 1.5**


----------



## mweflen

*West Side Story*


Colors pop and blacks are deep and solid. Several wipes, dissolves and various optical effects shots degrade image quality at times (perhaps 5 minutes of the runtime). Detail can be excellent to middling, and only process shots dip below mediocre. light, stable film grain is evident. This has a somewhat "sharpened" look, but it it not as egregious as, say "Star Trek III." Overall it is a very pleasing watch, and I would say stands firmly in the middle of the pack for classic 70mm BD transfers.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.5*


----------



## mweflen

*Skyfall*


Since it was shot on the Arri Alexa, I was expecting PQ similar to Hugo. This was mostly true, but there are several sequences with funky black levels (esp. in the Macau dragon pit scenes). Detail is stellar, colors are vibrant, and the digital picture is smooth as ice.


Personally, I think this is 1.0 material. The washed out scenes are enough to knock it off of 0 for me. I also find some of the CGI distracting.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20460#post_23514036
> 
> *Skyfall*
> 
> 
> Since it was shot on the Arri Alexa, I was expecting PQ similar to Hugo. This was mostly true, but there are several sequences with funky black levels (esp. in the Macau dragon pit scenes). Detail is stellar, colors are vibrant, and the digital picture is smooth as ice.
> 
> 
> Personally, I think this is 1.0 material. The washed out scenes are enough to knock it off of 0 for me. I also find some of the CGI distracting.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.0*



I couldn't agree more with your review and placement recommendation.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Kronk's New Groove*


Oddly an improvement over the original, compression improves to be negligible at best. Merely a mild bother, the few artifacts are seen sparingly, while everything else is spot on to the typical Disney animated goodness. Sharp, clear, and clean.
*Tier 0.75**


----------



## mweflen

Just got the Alien Anthology, which has been a cinematic blind spot for me. Having fun watching them for the first time, especially since the set was $19.99 on Amazon.

*Alien*


The story of this disc is detail near black and fine detail in general. Space scenes with optical compositing are mediocre, but interior shots are truly superb. Facial detail is excellent, especially Tom Skerrit's beard and Kane's face. the sets bristle with knobs and dials, and a fine layer of stable film grain persists throughout the entire presentation. No EE or DNR seems evident. All in all a spectacular rendition of a 1979 film. Other discs this reminds me of are 2001: A Space Odyssey, and The Two Towers EE. The degraded opticals diminish it from those discs' ratings, but not by much, because the rest is so strong.

*Tier Recommendation 1.75*


----------



## djoberg

*Jack the Giant Slayer*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20370#post_23404887
> 
> *Jack the Giant Slayer*
> 
> 
> Well detailed at its peak, but suffers either from Warner's encode or source camera jitters. Quite filtered and compressed in spots. Color veers warm. Black levels are absolutely spectacular and hold even under challenging conditions.
> 
> *Tier 2.0**



Well, GRG and I are on a roll! By that I mean we simply can't seem to agree on anything these days, and this title may find us farther apart than most of the Blus we've differed on lately.


GRG's criticisms here are mind-boggling, and the fact that he only mentions two virtues is incredible! I found this title to be nearly flawless and the CLARITY, DEPTH, DETAILS, COLORS, FLESH TONES, CONTRAST and BLACK LEVELS are reference-quality. My only real "nit-pick" would be, believe it or not, that IT LOOKS TOO GOOD AT TIMES!!! In other words, it is, as another reviewer on another site puts it, so "squeaky-clean" that it comes across as too "digital." Another reviewer alluded to what might appear as the "soap-opera effect" at times, but that was not the impression I got. To _my eyes_, I was mesmerized by the consistent SHARPNESS and CLARITY, with dazzling COLORS and DETAILS that reminded me often of _Prince Caspian_ (though with better facial details).


I was expecting the CGI of the giants to be less-than-stellar, but they were quite spectacular, with facial details rivaling humans (right down to the pores).


I mentioned the word "reference" above when referring to everything we judge the PQ by and I'm convinced this deserves to be in the reference tier. If not for the "digital-look" at times, I'd be tempted to put it in the middle of Tier Blu. All things considered I believe it deserves to be somewhere near....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (around .75)*


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20460#post_23519857
> 
> 
> Just got the Alien Anthology, which has been a cinematic blind spot for me. Having fun watching them for the first time, especially since the set was $19.99 on Amazon.
> 
> *Alien*
> 
> 
> The story of this disc is detail near black and fine detail in general. Space scenes with optical compositing are mediocre, but interior shots are truly superb. Facial detail is excellent, especially Tom Skerrit's beard and Kane's face. the sets bristle with knobs and dials, and a fine layer of stable film grain persists throughout the entire presentation. No EE or DNR seems evident. All in all a spectacular rendition of a 1979 film. Other discs this reminds me of are 2001: A Space Odyssey, and The Two Towers EE. The degraded opticals diminish it from those discs' ratings, but not by much, because the rest is so strong.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation 1.75*



Well, you and I are on a roll too, except with us we're on the same page! I rated this 1.75 too and your comments are also spot on!


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20460#post_23519888
> 
> 
> Well, you and I are on a roll too, except with us we're on the same page! I rated this 1.75 too and your comments are also spot on!



I noticed this after I did a search on it!










But I swear, I chose that rating independently, by scanning the criteria and other placements, as I always do.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20490#post_23521664
> 
> 
> But I swear, I chose that rating independently, by scanning the criteria and other placements, as I always do.



I have no doubt that your rating was based exclusively on your own judgment, based on the criteria. That's what makes our "being on the same page" so cool; we don't always see "eye to eye" but lately we have.










Now if you could do me a favor....rent _Jack the Giant Slayer_ and see what you think about that title. I truly believe you'd be enamored with the PQ, for it's got that same "squeaky clean" look as _Hugo_ with exemplary CLARITY, SHARPNESS, and DETAILS. If you did see it as reference like I did, you could help set GRG straight.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20430#post_23478402
> 
> *Warm Bodies*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20400#post_23436174
> 
> *Warm Bodies*
> 
> 
> Rather dull encode from Summit that won't keep up with a simple grain structure. But, color slowly seeps in and impresses. Fine detail rises too. Black levels are enough to work through the tough spots.
> 
> *Tier 2.25**
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While returning the "trio of Blus" earlier tonight, this title caught my eye and I decided to make it "four" for the day! I pretty much agree with GRG's assessment. I really enjoyed the flashbacks that featured lots of vivid colors and exquisite details. Details were actually quite good throughout, though the subdued color palette was, as my colleague intimated, rather dull. This one may not reach "demo-worthy" status, but it comes very close. My vote goes for....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.0**
> 
> 
> PS I thoroughly enjoyed the movie!
> 
> 
> Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....
Click to expand...

*Warm Bodies


recommendation: Tier 2.5**


If Hollywood ever has any say in it, the Apocalypse will certainly be colored teal. The romantic zombie adventure has a desaturated color palette, though Lionsgate does its best with the Super 35 grain structure in the average video encode. At least the 97-minute main feature was spread over a BD-50. Close-ups show an inordinate amount of unfiltered detail and aside from the frequent usage of CGI, largely avoids the visible presence of digital artifacts.


The dour color palette and somewhat average shadow delineation in the darkest scenes prevent a higher placement. While _Warm Bodies_ looks nice enough in its better moments, too much of it is set in darkened interiors.


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20490#post_23521732
> 
> 
> I truly believe you'd be enamored with the PQ, for it's got that same "squeaky clean" look as _Hugo_ with exemplary CLARITY, SHARPNESS, and DETAILS. If you did see it as reference like I did, you could help set GRG straight.



I will consider it, though my renting days have diminished sharply since going streaming-only on Netflix. So I need to find a Redbox.


Just because it's shot on the Arri Alexa doesn't mean I automatically love it. Cinematography plays a huge role. Melancholia annoyed the heck out of me because of the use of shaky cam (a real travesty on a camera capable of capturing such detail). I am a film grain lover, too. But it can't be denied that all-digital Arri Alexa transfers, and to a lesser extent Red One transfers, lend themselves to great BDs under the right conditions (good lighting choices, stable camera moves, colorful material). Hugo, Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, and Skyfall all look tremendous. Social Network looked pretty good but was distractingly smooth and orange. But I'll take Tree of Life,Lincoln (shot on 35mm) or Samsara (70mm) over any of them, any day of the week, if someone asks me "what looks best." Something about film grain really pleases me. It may be that some day the smooth digital look will win me over completely. Right now, I want to see artful use of digital cameras, and by artful, I mean similar to film. That's why Hugo and Skyfall look so good and Melancholia looks like such crap. Hugo and Skyfall were shot by directors and DPs who know how to use a camera, and except for the absence of grain could have just as well been shot on film. Melancholia looked like a film school project on a handheld.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20490#post_23523163
> 
> 
> I will consider it, though my renting days have diminished sharply since going streaming-only on Netflix. So I need to find a Redbox.
> 
> 
> Just because it's shot on the Arri Alexa doesn't mean I automatically love it. Cinematography plays a huge role. Melancholia annoyed the heck out of me because of the use of shaky cam (a real travesty on a camera capable of capturing such detail). I am a film grain lover, too. But it can't be denied that all-digital Arri Alexa transfers, and to a lesser extent Red One transfers, lend themselves to great BDs under the right conditions (good lighting choices, stable camera moves, colorful material). Hugo, Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, and Skyfall all look tremendous. Social Network looked pretty good but was distractingly smooth and orange. But I'll take Tree of Life,Lincoln (shot on 35mm) or Samsara (70mm) over any of them, any day of the week, if someone asks me "what looks best." *Something about film grain really pleases me. It may be that some day the smooth digital look will win me over completely*. Right now, I want to see artful use of digital cameras, and by artful, I mean similar to film. That's why Hugo and Skyfall look so good and Melancholia looks like such crap. Hugo and Skyfall were shot by directors and DPs who know how to use a camera, and except for the absence of grain could have just as well been shot on film. Melancholia looked like a film school project on a handheld.



When I alluded to _Hugo_ being "squeaky clean" like what I saw in _Jack the Giant Slayer_, I was obviously thinking that _Hugo_ also had the "smooth digital look." I guess I'll have to slip that in my Blu-ray player someday and refresh my memory, for I really don't recall there being the "film grain" that you referred to.


So, in light of your words (in BOLD), there is a real possibility you won't like the look of _Jack the Giant Slayer_. But I would be surprised if you weren't impressed with the amazing DETAILS and DEPTH on display throughout most of its running time. At any rate, I hope you can view it someday, even if this means "finding a Redbox" in your area.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Hands of the Ripper


recommendation: Tier 4.0**


Synapse has recently issued another Hammer film onto Blu-ray. This time it's the 1971 Victorian slasher, _Hands of the Ripper_. The main feature runs 85 minutes and is presented in its proper theatrical aspect ratio of 1.66:1. Compression is handled by an AVC video encode which frequently tops 30 Mbps on the BD-50 disc. The compression is nearly flawless and only the faintest appearance of artifacts can be seen in scenes with the heaviest grain.


The overall transfer is perfectly adequate given the age and condition of the film elements. Synapse did not spend a fortune restoring the film but found a serviceable master that looks fairly recent in vintage. I doubt the transfer has been taken from the 35mm negative, secondary film elements look like a much stronger possibility. Actual damage to the film print is very rare, there is little actual dirt or debris in it to mar the picture. There is no indication any filtering has been applied, the lack of stellar resolution can be attributed to the soft and diffuse cinematography. _Hands of the Ripper_ is one of the softer Hammer films I've seen, the lighting adds a healthy glow to the actresses but softens their appearances as much as possible.


Given some of the radical changes to color timing in other recent BDs from Hammer's deep catalog, Synapse has left the color grading largely alone. If anything, the average level of color saturation might be slightly dull and washed out. Floating black levels pose a small hindrance in a couple of scenes, as shadow detail is practically crushed. The BD's new transfer is largely film-like without paying much heed to recent color grading trends. It is a modest improvement over a DVD presentation, but does show clear improvements in overall clarity and replication of the original film grain densities.


----------



## rusky_g

*Nims Island [2008]*


What defines a Tier 0 title.....is it a presentation that is technically flawless, or one that glistens with eye candy in every scene......


Nim's Island treads a good line between the two. Bright, clear and colourful, I found this a joy to watch. In fact it was stunning!


Most scenes are bright and beach based, whereby detail is sharp and can be plucked from every angle. Darker scenes, of which there are few, don't falter with clarity remaining consistent throughout.


I debated high Tier 1 but in the end opted for lower half of.....

*Tier 0*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Doors: Live At The Bowl '68


recommendation: 5*
*

The audio sounds better than ever in hi-rez fidelity, with a new restoration headed by Bruce Botnick. The video has been scrubbed beyond belief, in one of the least film-like transfers ever in Blu-ray history. Is this concert footage of the Doors, or their Claymation counterparts?







I think someone behind the project thought modern audiences would accept the dated footage better if they magically transformed the vintage film stock to modern video. If you ignore the all too often focus issues and crushed black levels, occasional shots of the band playing look tolerable.


Given the shoddy nature of the filming, the performance at the Bowl was never going to possess even average quality. Buy this Blu-ray for the pristine audio only...


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20490#post_23524350
> 
> 
> When I alluded to _Hugo_ being "squeaky clean" like what I saw in _Jack the Giant Slayer_, I was obviously thinking that _Hugo_ also had the "smooth digital look." I guess I'll have to slip that in my Blu-ray player someday and refresh my memory, for I really don't recall there being the "film grain" that you referred to.
> 
> 
> So, in light of your words (in BOLD), there is a real possibility you won't like the look of _Jack the Giant Slayer_. But I would be surprised if you weren't impressed with the amazing DETAILS and DEPTH on display throughout most of its running time. At any rate, I hope you can view it someday, even if this means "finding a Redbox" in your area.



No no, I wasn't saying that Hugo was grainy. Quite the opposite. It's super smooth, just like you say. I'm just saying I tend to find filmic BDs (e.g. Tree Of Life) more pleasing personally, though Hugo was such a bowl-you-over HD presentation that it's easy to forgive the lack of filmic texture.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Foxarwing42*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19050#post_21519664
> 
> *Redline*
> 
> 
> 
> An amazing direct-to-digital transfer of the highest caliber. If you seen a trailer for this movie, you know how much high-action and extreme amounts of motion is in this. This transfer by Manga Entertainment and Anchor Bay is rock solid, no signs of artifacting, macroblocking or screen-tearing. The AVC encode is extremely steady and pulls it off like a champ. The ever so slight windowbox is something your going to have to look for even on larger screens, but this a artifact of the original Japanese Blu-ray and shouldn't have it's score lowered for that. The blacks are the darkest of the dark, and the details in the hand drawn images come through brilliantly. This movie will become your new demo disc, and it's even more amazing because it's anime. This will become your new demo disc too if you're looking for something other than a live action movie, or a Pixar CG film to show for once.
> 
> *Tier 0*
> 
> 
> 
> 46', 1080p/24, 6'


*Redline


recommendation: Tier 0 (top quarter)*


For my money, _Redline_ is the unquestioned pinnacle of hand-drawn animation. It is a staggering visual extravaganza from a premier animation studio, Madhouse. Even Studio Ghibli has never produced traditional animation of this caliber, Redline was conceived by true artists without much regards for its box office potential and is crafted down to the tiniest detail.


Since Foxarwing42's initial placement, _Redline_ has been floating around the middle of tier zero. It certainly deserves a higher placement than that spot, the entire movie is reference demo material of the highest order. I am going to have to reassess what can and can't be achieved with ordinary animation after watching _Redline_.


Videophiles with a passing interest in animated movies need to hunt _Redline_ down on Blu-ray.


----------



## |Tch0rT|

^^^ Thanks. I just watched a trailer for that. Looks pretty intense. I'm gonna have to check it out.


BTW Thanks for this thread. I check for it every time I visit AVSForum. I've found a few movies on this thread I might not have known about otherwise.


----------



## HD-Master




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20490#post_23528738
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Foxarwing42*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19050#post_21519664
> 
> *Redline*
> 
> 
> 
> An amazing direct-to-digital transfer of the highest caliber. If you seen a trailer for this movie, you know how much high-action and extreme amounts of motion is in this. This transfer by Manga Entertainment and Anchor Bay is rock solid, no signs of artifacting, macroblocking or screen-tearing. The AVC encode is extremely steady and pulls it off like a champ. The ever so slight windowbox is something your going to have to look for even on larger screens, but this a artifact of the original Japanese Blu-ray and shouldn't have it's score lowered for that. The blacks are the darkest of the dark, and the details in the hand drawn images come through brilliantly. This movie will become your new demo disc, and it's even more amazing because it's anime. This will become your new demo disc too if you're looking for something other than a live action movie, or a Pixar CG film to show for once.
> 
> *Tier 0*
> 
> 
> 
> 46', 1080p/24, 6'
> 
> 
> 
> *Redline
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 0 (top quarter)*
> 
> 
> For my money, _Redline_ is the unquestioned pinnacle of hand-drawn animation. It is a staggering visual extravaganza from a premier animation studio, Madhouse. Even Studio Ghibli has never produced traditional animation of this caliber, Redline was conceived by true artists without much regards for its box office potential and is crafted down to the tiniest detail.
> 
> 
> Since Foxarwing42's initial placement, _Redline_ has been floating around the middle of tier zero. It certainly deserves a higher placement than that spot, the entire movie is reference demo material of the highest order. I am going to have to reassess what can and can't be achieved with ordinary animation after watching _Redline_.
> 
> 
> Videophiles with a passing interest in animated movies need to hunt _Redline_ down on Blu-ray.
Click to expand...


You didn't notice any issues with banding?


----------



## someone else

First of all the actual resolution of Redline doesn't compare to ghibli discs. It's simply less (around 720, maybe a bit more).

And there's plenty of banding there, mostly due to the source material, but still there, and to make matters worse, it has some visible static noise added (not dithering small noise, but a lot more visible), which is also bandy, not sure how they managed that, but it makes matters slightly worse.

I would rate the animation itself tier0, and the disc, tier 'a lot less'. All I need now is see Legend of Korra on tier0, and I'll conclude there's a reason why crap is put out with 0 effort (tier0 effort







).


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*GI Joe Retaliation*


This is the type of disc that shakes up the thread. Why? The 2D and 3D versions are different, and I'm not just speaking to depth. In 3D, grain is reduced - heavily - leading to an often out of focus, blurry mash-up. On the other hand comes a pristine, gorgeous, and hyper detailed 2D transfer that is untouched, with a graceful grain structure. Black levels are outstanding for both versions.


So, score these individually then?

*2D - 0.75*


3D - 1.75**


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HD-Master*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20490#post_23528903
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20490#post_23528738
> 
> *Redline
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 0 (top quarter)*
> 
> 
> For my money, _Redline_ is the unquestioned pinnacle of hand-drawn animation. It is a staggering visual extravaganza from a premier animation studio, Madhouse. Even Studio Ghibli has never produced traditional animation of this caliber, Redline was conceived by true artists without much regards for its box office potential and is crafted down to the tiniest detail.
> 
> 
> Since Foxarwing42's initial placement, _Redline_ has been floating around the middle of tier zero. It certainly deserves a higher placement than that spot, the entire movie is reference demo material of the highest order. I am going to have to reassess what can and can't be achieved with ordinary animation after watching _Redline_.
> 
> 
> Videophiles with a passing interest in animated movies need to hunt _Redline_ down on Blu-ray.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't notice any issues with banding?
Click to expand...

There is some very faint banding in a couple of spots, likely endemic to the original animation files. Starz / Anchor Bay gave it a high-bitrate AVC encode, the banding is virtually unnoticeable on smaller displays. If we are hunting for flaws in the animation, there is also some minor aliasing on the black line art in a few shots. _Redline_ is still some of the best eye candy on the Blu-ray format. You can take that to the bank...


----------



## HD-Master




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20490#post_23530589
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HD-Master*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20490#post_23528903
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20490#post_23528738
> 
> *Redline
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 0 (top quarter)*
> 
> 
> For my money, _Redline_ is the unquestioned pinnacle of hand-drawn animation. It is a staggering visual extravaganza from a premier animation studio, Madhouse. Even Studio Ghibli has never produced traditional animation of this caliber, Redline was conceived by true artists without much regards for its box office potential and is crafted down to the tiniest detail.
> 
> 
> Since Foxarwing42's initial placement, _Redline_ has been floating around the middle of tier zero. It certainly deserves a higher placement than that spot, the entire movie is reference demo material of the highest order. I am going to have to reassess what can and can't be achieved with ordinary animation after watching _Redline_.
> 
> 
> Videophiles with a passing interest in animated movies need to hunt _Redline_ down on Blu-ray.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't notice any issues with banding?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is some very faint banding in a couple of spots, likely endemic to the original animation files. Starz / Anchor Bay gave it a high-bitrate AVC encode, the banding is virtually unnoticeable on smaller displays. If we are hunting for flaws in the animation, there is also some minor aliasing on the black line art in a few shots. _Redline_ is still some of the best eye candy on the Blu-ray format. *You can take that to the bank...*
Click to expand...


Considering the banding, I doubt that. I'll have to view it again and give an opinion on placement. Obviously, banding is something that has to be taken into account.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20490#post_23529741
> 
> *GI Joe Retaliation*
> 
> 
> This is the type of disc that shakes up the thread. Why? The 2D and 3D versions are different, and I'm not just speaking to depth. In 3D, grain is reduced - heavily - leading to an often out of focus, blurry mash-up. On the other hand comes a pristine, gorgeous, and hyper detailed 2D transfer that is untouched, with a graceful grain structure. Black levels are outstanding for both versions.
> 
> 
> So, score these individually then?
> 
> *2D - 0.75*
> 
> 
> 3D - 1.75**


I'm happy the normal version turned out so well, I have this one on pre-order. The Tiers aren't really accounting for the differences starting to be seen in 3-D transfers, but I'll try to make a note of it in the listing.

*Savages


recommendation: Tier 1.5*

_Savages_ is currently placed in Tier 1.75. I think it looks marginally better than that score, its warm, inviting color palette shows off some beautiful locales in California. Universal put two cuts of the movie on a single BD-50, but they had to have been seamlessly branched given the solid video encode. There isn't a trace of digital noise reduction or sharpening, including extreme close-ups of co-star Blake Lively's facial features. The flat cinematography is vividly shot but does not project the type of depth needed for a higher placement.


----------



## rusky_g

*Stand Up Guys*


In case you go thinking that I'm always a 'high rater', I tend to only post reviews on films which have impressed me to the point that I need to put pen to paper, so to speak.


So it should not come as a shock that I thought Stand Up Guys was a true winner. A beautifully shot, clean, crisp presentation which will wow fans of facial details - they are brilliant.


Lovely inky blacks, almost infinite detail, depth which appears three dimensional at times, to me it had all the makings that a Blur Ray should have. The film also has a subtle, soft brown filter which gave it a really nice encapsulating cinematic warmth.

*Tier 0.75*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

* Spring Breakers *


Schizophrenic visuals use a myriad of filters and styles. It's often a mess:

  


Stuff like that should qualify this one for the dead bottom, but at its peaks, Spring Breakers is a saturated joy and generally detailed tightly. Film grain is noisy and dominant, blasted with deep blacks plus super heavy contrast.

*Tier 3.0**


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20490#post_23531438
> 
> 
> 
> In case you go thinking that I'm always a 'high rater', I tend to only post reviews on films which have impressed me to the point that I need to put pen to paper, so to speak.


Do not worry, you still have a ways to go before catching djoberg as a generous reviewer.









*Astonishing X-Men: Collection


recommendation: Tier 4.0**


This is a series of motion comics adapted from Joss Whedon's run on the X-Men comics, a somewhat rare form of content on Blu-ray. Curiously, Shout Factory spread the four volumes in the series over two BD-25s, instead of placing them on a BD-50. Motion comics are a very crude form of animation, mostly adding a limited amount of motion to largely static comic book panels.


Motion comics are the antithesis of animation quality seen in a theatrical feature and _Astonishing X-Men_ is no exception. One could possibly place this disc even lower in the Tiers, depending on how one responds to the very limited fluidity and rougher nature of the artwork. Going into technical issues, the black line art is often filled with abundant aliasing and interlacing artifacts. If you want to see clear banding in animation, check out this video encode as it mostly dwells in the single digits on the bitrate meter.


Motion comics are not quite a mature product yet and typically lack the polish of actual animation. Blu-ray's resolution reveals deficiencies in the source material that are difficult to miss as a viewer.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

* The Call *


Never seen a disc lose black levels like this. For 20 minutes, it's dead on perfect, and then out of nowhere the entire disc just loses its depth. I've never seen a disc wear too different faces like this, or to this degree. Fidelity is consistent, colors are fine, but dimensionality is gone for the entire back half. I'd even question if it were a defective transfer and IRE levels were incorrectly set.

*Tier 2.75**


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20490#post_23536504
> 
> * The Call *
> 
> 
> Never seen a disc lose black levels like this. For 20 minutes, it's dead on perfect, and then out of nowhere the entire disc just loses its depth. I've never seen a disc wear too different faces like this, or to this degree. Fidelity is consistent, colors are fine, but dimensionality is gone for the entire back half. I'd even question if it were a defective transfer and IRE levels were incorrectly set.
> 
> *Tier 2.75**



Whoa! And I thought I was the "generous reviewer." I gave this title a 3.75.


I was surprised there was no mention of the pervasive SOFTNESS. Didn't you experience that in your viewing?


----------



## mweflen

*Aliens*


As a professed grain-liker, I like the grain here, even when it veers just a bit digital looking to my eyes. Facial close-ups are excellent, mid-level detail is good, and there doesn't appear to be much in the way of undue tinkering or enhancement (digital looking grain notwithstanding). All that said, the black levels are just too funky to get the highest marks on this one. The mid-80s optical effects really show their age, here, too, and have some of the funkiest contrast levels. It doesn't look as good as Alien by any stretch of the imagination. It looks great for an 80s action movie, but that's about all. Looking at the tiers, this one seems to fit in with the discs of the 2.25 range. It is very similar to L.A. Confidential, if you ask me, with better facial detail but worse blacks.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*


PS - The musical score irritated me to no end. I couldn't stand how much Horner had cribbed from his own STII:TWOK score.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Girl Who Leapt Through Time (UK import locked to Region B)

recommendation: Tier 2.0*
*

A 2006 animated film produced by Madhouse, I had to resort to importing this one from the UK as the out-of-print American BD goes for outrageous figures. On a technical level, the BD-25 from UK distributor Manga is flawless in its presentation of the clean animation. The rank is more reflective of its simple art design and a reserved color palette than problems with the Blu-ray. It has an art style that believes less is more, with polished but sparse backgrounds.


The film has definitely been animated in HD, but the intent behind the animation seems to have been for audiences to focus on the moving story instead of impressive visuals. The only real eye candy moments are the brief scenes when the girl travels in time.


----------



## mweflen

*Alien3*


This disc is fantastically inconsistent. Facial close-ups have quite a bit of detail, rivaling some of the better discs on the format. Medium shots look blurry and smeary, not far above a DVD. Effects shots look positively terrible, with awful black levels, obvious matte lines, and sucky contrast. I can't detect any grain, which makes me think that DNR was applied to the medium and long shots. There doesn't seem to be any EE, however. Colors are, well, very brown. But that's the movie, I guess.


It looks better than a DVD most of the time. The close-ups are pleasing. That's about all that can be said for this. It's mediocre.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.5*


----------



## rusky_g

*Jack Reacher*


Jack Reacher failed to wow me as a hi-def presentation. For a box office heavy hitter I thought it would have looked better; overalI I thought it looked quite flat and lacked eye-candy pop.


Some scenes looked okay but just not enough to keep me hanging in there.
*Tier 2.25*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Looney Tunes Mouse Chronicles: The Chuck Jones Collection


recommendation: Tier 2.75**

_Mouse Chronicles_ contains vintage, animated shorts, dating back as far 1939. This is not as extensive as the normal Looney Tunes Platinum sets and Warner has trickily spread the contents of one BD-50 over two BD-25s. The transfers are relatively strong and look quite good, replicating the original cel animation without heavy processing. Primary colors pop off the screen, especially vivid reds.


The restoration work, while a step behind the finer efforts of Disney's animated legacy work , brings no serious issues to light. The earliest cartoons featuring Sniffles show more film wear and inconsistencies in the animation itself, but overall there are no problematic technical issues. I can see why Warner decided to issue these specific cartoons on Blu-ray, the vintage animation holds up very well in 1080P.


----------



## djoberg

*The Host (2013)*


WOW!! This is truly an awesome-looking Blu! The details (especially facial close-ups) are some of the best I've seen in recent viewings. Depth is equally impressive, even in darker scenes (and there are a "host" of them in the underground cave scenes). Fleshtones are spot on and again, the facial close-ups are absolutely amazing, even on the females, revealing every pore, hair, freckle, or blemish. Blacks are incredible with some of the most exquisite shadow details in nighttime shots. Daytime, outdoor scenes are razor-sharp, with beautiful cinematography of deserts and mountains. Colors were muted in some of the desert and cave scenes, but when they were on display in other shots they were spectacular.


If I had any gripe, it would be of a couple of fleeting shots where the contrast might have been a wee bit hot, which caused some overblown whites. But 98% of the movie had excellent contrast with dazzling whites, so this is a very minor nit-pick and will only affect my placement recommendation by the smallest of margins. I should also mention that some of the "cave" scenes might appear somewhat soft, but when you consider the lack of lighting they came across as quite natural. Details and depth did not suffer during those scenes, so they still had plenty of EYE CANDY for us.


This is, IMHO, reference quality, and I'm inclined to assign it a spot right here....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (at about .75)*


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20490#post_23561001
> 
> *The Host (2013)*
> 
> 
> WOW!! This is truly an awesome-looking Blu! The details (especially facial close-ups) are some of the best I've seen in recent viewings. Depth is equally impressive, even in darker scenes (and there are a "host" of them in the underground cave scenes). Fleshtones are spot on and again, the facial close-ups are absolutely amazing, even on the females, revealing every pore, hair, freckle, or blemish. Blacks are incredible with some of the most exquisite shadow details in nighttime shots. Daytime, outdoor scenes are razor-sharp, with beautiful cinematography of deserts and mountains. Colors were muted in some of the desert and cave scenes, but when they were on display in other shots they were spectacular.
> 
> 
> If I had any gripe, it would be of a couple of fleeting shots where the contrast might have been a wee bit hot, which caused some overblown whites. But 98% of the movie had excellent contrast with dazzling whites, so this is a very minor nit-pick and will only affect my placement recommendation by the smallest of margins. I should also mention that some of the "cave" scenes might appear somewhat soft, but when you consider the lack of lighting they came across as quite natural. Details and depth did not suffer during those scenes, so they still had plenty of EYE CANDY for us.
> 
> 
> This is, IMHO, reference quality, and I'm inclined to assign it a spot right here....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (at about .75)*
> 
> 
> Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....



I watched this a couple weeks ago and had a generally positive impression of the PQ but I will need to watch it again before deciding whether I agree with your placement, Denny.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20490#post_23563521
> 
> 
> I watched this a couple weeks ago and had a generally positive impression of the PQ but I will need to watch it again before deciding whether I agree with your placement, Denny.



I would love to get your input on this title Patrick! I know everyone will be blown away by most of the outdoor, daytime scenes (I forgot to mention how awesome the silver sports cars driven by the "seekers" were...dazzling and detailed!), but I'm not sure about the "cave" scenes. Personally I thought they were still very good because of the detail and depth. Chime in when you get the time (after your second viewing of it).


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Un-Go: Complete Collection


recommendation: Tier 2.25**


Uninspiring animation for the most part, with perfectly adequate quality exhibiting few actual flaws. Modern animation done entirely in the digital domain has such a leg up when it comes to transfer issues that problems almost entirely reside in the original production. The color palette is slightly washed out and overly brightened.


----------



## djoberg

*Erased*


Here is your typical spy action thriller with a heavy blue look throughout causing muted colors and wreaking havoc, at times, on flesh tones. In addition, there are instances of black crush and digital noise.


Now that the bad has been briefly covered, a few words of praise are in order. This did have a beautiful "filmic-look" that definitely enhanced details. Close-ups especially benefited in clothing, cityscapes, and most notably, facial features (Aaron Eckhart's textured face was zoomed in on MANY times, along with other male actors). Olga Kurylenko looked amazing too....no smoothing in her case, just a natural, smooth complexion (she has a few more good years left before she'll have to hide from the HD camera







). There was considerable depth in some shots and during non-action scenes we are treated to a very razor-sharp image.


This one was close to making the "demo" tier, but it fell a notch short....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Godzilla (1998) Mastered in 4K*


Sony's first release sits at 3.25. I don't see this much higher. Source photography is never much for eye candy, and no amount of remastering will change it. Visual effect shots are clearly lower resolution, and shots with previously burned in subtitles are now, oddly, sans subtitles but with the same visual flaw. Better grain reproduction and a tinge of facial detail can't save it.

*Tier 3.0**
*

Evil Dead (2013)*


Banding. That's about it. This clean looking piece has amazingly rich black levels, great contrast, and color is usually broad. No noise to speak of. A slight intrusion of overly digital medium shots aside, this one is a winner.

*Tier 1.25**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Dusk Maiden of Amnesia: Complete Collection


recommendation: Tier 1.75**


Twelve episodes have been spread over two discs, a BD-50 and a BD-25. Honestly, I was expecting this anime series with its gorgeous art design to look better than this on Blu-ray. Slight flaws or limitations in the source material possibly reveal themselves at 1080P.


The AVC encode is merely adequate for the clean animation. Sentai Filmworks is usually at the mercy of whatever transfer the Japanese producers send over for the Blu-ray release. Dusk Maiden's transfer on Blu-ray is likely from a master intended for broadcast, either an HDCAM SR or the older HDCAM. Mind you, Dusk Maiden of Amnesia is still a very good-looking series with perfect black levels and detailed backgrounds. But it is a step behind most theatrical animation in picture quality on the format.


----------



## mweflen

*Alien Resurrection*


Pleasing for the most part but lacking anything to really make it stand out. Facial close-ups are average for the format. Black levels are mostly good (better than Alien3 anyway) and there are fewer crap optical effects to drag this one down. Colors are quite drab, as per the apparent intent of the filmmakers. Grain has a bit of a digital look to it, that is, it's clear that the transfer was not particularly hi-res and that there is probably a bit of processing applied to the image. There is no aliasing or moire, though, so it's not all bad. This is one of those "clearly HD in spots, but not a demo really ever" kinds of releases.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*


----------



## deltasun

Hey Guys, I check from time to time. Thanks for keeping up the great work!


Wanted to chime in on a couple of Criterions that I recently watched...

*The Devil's Backbone*


Superb black levels on this one. Great detail and depth throughout. Colors are just vibrant (yes, vibrantly dark at times) and contrast is tack on. Excellent cinematography to go with the perfect atmospherics.


*Tier Recommendation: 1.0*


_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*


*The Ice Storm*


Criterion gets sloppy. Lots of ringing and weak contrast. Picture is relatively flat and faces are rosey.


*Tier Recommendation: 3.5*


_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Phantom Stranger

It is nice to see you pop back up, Deltasun. The Criterions don't get nearly as much coverage here in your absence. _The Ice Storm_ falls into that period right before the era of digital intermediates. Movies from the late 1990s are too new for real restorations and their transfers tend to get short shrift on Blu-ray.


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20520#post_23574568
> 
> 
> *The Ice Storm*
> 
> 
> Criterion gets sloppy. Lots of ringing and weak contrast. Picture is relatively flat and faces are rosey.
> 
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.5*
> 
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_



What a bummer. I love this movie and was considering buying the BD, even at its inflated Criterion price. Guess I won't be.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Twixt


recommendation: Tier 3.0**


Oh how the mighty have fallen. Simply watching _Twixt_, you would never know its director has directed some of the most brilliant films ever committed to celluloid. Possibly the worst movie of Francis Ford Coppola's distinguished career, _Twixt_ is a low-budget affair nominally classified as horror and was practically released straight to video.


The movie's narrative is built around very stylized dream sequences and the digital colorist went wild in attempting to establish an eerie mood.The surreal visuals look cheaply made with poor VFX, hurting the overall picture quality.


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20520#post_23574926
> 
> 
> It is nice to see you pop back up, Deltasun. The Criterions don't get nearly as much coverage here in your absence. _The Ice Storm_ falls into that period right before the era of digital intermediates. Movies from the late 1990s are too new for real restorations and their transfers tend to get short shrift on Blu-ray.



Thanks, and thanks for continuing the upkeep here. :thumbsup:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20520#post_23577477
> 
> 
> What a bummer. I love this movie and was considering buying the BD, even at its inflated Criterion price. Guess I won't be.



It is a bummer. Obviously, if you really like the film, it still has some good moments PQ-wise. That's the problem too though - it's very inconsistent. If you can get in on the current B&N sale + coupons, it might still be worth it.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20520#post_23574568
> 
> 
> Hey Guys, I check from time to time. Thanks for keeping up the great work!
> 
> 
> Wanted to chime in on a couple of Criterions that I recently watched...
> 
> 
> *The Ice Storm*
> 
> 
> Criterion gets sloppy. Lots of ringing and weak contrast. Picture is relatively flat and faces are rosey.
> 
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.5*
> 
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_



Hey Deltasun....it was nice seeing you weigh in on a couple of titles.


So, it looks like Criterion may be lowering their standards. That's sad, for I've always looked forward to anything from them. I still believe _The Thin Red Line_ is their best release to date. It spoiled us...forever!!


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Aftershock*


Super low grade digital, which while brightly colored, is a mash-up of poor definition and skittish fine detail. Black levels are amazingly tight, and images are free of noise.
*Tier 3.0**

*Rushlights* 


Brutal contrast heats up images, although the yellowed flesh tones are no fun. Black levels are great and facial detail is absolutely awesome. Some compression issues with regards to grain notwithstanding, the disc is a visual winner.

*Tier 1.5**


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20520#post_23579623
> 
> 
> Hey Deltasun....it was nice seeing you weigh in on a couple of titles.
> 
> 
> So, it looks like Criterion may be lowering their standards. That's sad, for I've always looked forward to anything from them. I still believe _The Thin Red Line_ is their best release to date. It spoiled us...forever!!



Thanks, Denny...I wouldn't quite go as far as to say they're lowering their standards. They definitely still do great work for the a majority of the titles I've seen. Some, as PS alluded to, are stuck in that no man's land of time periods; others are ported from one of the other studios, who have not given them the time due for a proper restoration. Then, there's the our grading scheme here, where older titles can't necessarily fare well. They don't necessarily thrive in these environs. Now, for titles like The Devil's Backbone, Thin Red Line, Fish Tank, etc, I expect them to have a better chance.


----------



## deltasun

*The Fog* (1980)


Another title that will reside comfortably middle of the road in our tiers. No real issues, save for how the film was shot. Mentioned many times by the DP during one of the special features, he and Carpenter used a lot of flat, dark areas within the frame to evoke their brand of scare. What you don't see will make you imagine the darkest creature lying in wait. In this regard, darker scenes are quite flat and do not bring in too many details. Grain is present throughout, though details are still hard to come by as compared to more current outings. Facial details are are on the light side - again a product of the shooting technique + what looks like excess make up.


Colors seem stable, but does add to the seemingly dated look of the era. With a healthy bit rate, it was hard to find any compression issues, particularly in the fog. I thought they resolved quite nicely. Some debris/dirt were also present throughout, but not egregious.


*Tier Recommendation: 3.25*


_ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Welcome to the Punch*


Remember when movies had color? I do. It was glorious. Now, they're orange and teal. And, when I say orange and teal, I mean ORANGE and TEAL. That's all this movie has. There are no primaries, no other hues, no deviation from what this arduous two tone debacle. Some digitally inclined black crush further mars visual splendor. A bit of detail aside, it's a mess.

*Tier 3.0**


----------



## djoberg

I'm leaving Monday for at least a week but I will be buying _Oblivion_ as soon as I return. So far the comments on the PQ, from Cinema Squid's site, have been absolutely stellar. Have you viewed this title yet GRG? If so, could you please give us your take on it?


----------



## TitusTroy

can someone enlighten me on why Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (IMAX) is ranked higher then Transformers: Dark of the Moon?...yes the IMAX shots in ROTF look fantastic but they entail such a small part of the overall movie while the non-IMAX scenes don't look as stunning...meanwhile I thought Dark of the Moon had more consistent PQ all the way through...was the ROTF IMAX version mastered from a different source?


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TitusTroy*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20520#post_23590349
> 
> 
> can someone enlighten me on why Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (IMAX) is ranked higher then Transformers: Dark of the Moon?...yes the IMAX shots in ROTF look fantastic but they entail such a small part of the overall movie while the non-IMAX scenes don't look as stunning...meanwhile I thought Dark of the Moon had more consistent PQ all the way through...was the ROTF IMAX version mastered from a different source?


If memory serves, we gave more weight to the IMAX portions on ROTF and slightly downgraded _Dark of the Moon_ due to some egregious color timing issues. They are very close in the top tier, only separated by about 15 slots. ROTF is also two years older than Dark and was a premier demo disc when it came out. By the time that Dark had been released, we had seen a number of other discs on its level.


Do you think that _Dark of the Moon_ needs to move up, or that ROTF needs to be moved down?


----------



## TitusTroy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20520#post_23590404
> 
> 
> If memory serves, we gave more weight to the IMAX portions on ROTF and slightly downgraded _Dark of the Moon_ due to some egregious color timing issues. They are very close in the top tier, only separated by about 15 slots. ROTF is also two years older than Dark and was a premier demo disc when it came out. By the time that Dark had been released, we had seen a number of other discs on its level.
> 
> 
> Do you think that _Dark of the Moon_ needs to move up, or that ROTF needs to be moved down?



I thought ROTF needed to be moved down (or even switch places)...the IMAX footage only lasts for maybe 10 minutes and it's basically 2 scenes (the forest fight and the ending in Egypt)...the forest fight was really the main one because the Egypt aspect ratio kept switching back and forth every few seconds...the fact that the non-IMAX version of ROTF was ranked in the Tier 1 Gold tier just shows that the overall PQ was not reference...I thought the color timing issues on DOTM was related to the 3D version...everything is subjective I guess so I was just wondering what went into the tier ranking...overall I agree with most of the rankings but this one just stuck out to me


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TitusTroy*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20520#post_23590349
> 
> 
> can someone enlighten me on why Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (IMAX) is ranked higher then Transformers: Dark of the Moon?...yes the IMAX shots in ROTF look fantastic but they entail such a small part of the overall movie while the non-IMAX scenes don't look as stunning...meanwhile I thought Dark of the Moon had more consistent PQ all the way through...was the ROTF IMAX version mastered from a different source?



FWIW, I agree with you that DOTM had better and more consistent PQ all the way through. I ranked it in Tier 0 while giving ROTF a Tier 1 placement.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TitusTroy*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20520#post_23590349
> 
> 
> can someone enlighten me on why Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (IMAX) is ranked higher then Transformers: Dark of the Moon?...yes the IMAX shots in ROTF look fantastic but they entail such a small part of the overall movie while the non-IMAX scenes don't look as stunning...meanwhile I thought Dark of the Moon had more consistent PQ all the way through...was the ROTF IMAX version mastered from a different source?



Okay, I just did a search to see who weighed in on this title (DOTM) with a review and placement and one guy actually gave it a 2.0 placement recommendation. That, no doubt, brought the final ranking down quite a bit with only so many people reviewing it.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Fate / stay night: Unlimited Blade Works

recommendation: 2.25**


There is nothing particularly wrong with this anime movie's PQ, though the animation itself is a step behind more polished efforts in terms of fluidity and the number of key frames. Some minor banding in what is otherwise a fine AVC encode. The color palette has been mildly washed out in some scenes, due to poor lighting effects.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Under The Bed


recommendation: Tier 1.25**


Independent films can look incredibly professional these days and on par with bigger Hollywood films, due to the rise of digital cameras. _Under The Bed_ was shot using RED cameras and is a consistent winner in video quality. The clean, sharp video provides a vivid amount of detail and depth. XLrator Media has a good eye in determining which of their films can handle the scrutiny of 1080P resolution on a calibrated display.


Technical specifications are adequate in handling the pristine master and the movie has not been greatly tinkered with in postproduction.


----------



## saprano

Nobody has any thoughts on Bye Bye Birdie? I don't have the bluray but after watching a little bit of it on HDNet today i think i'm going to order it soon.


The PQ looks so good. The color, film texture, details and depth of the image is reference quality. I didn't even mean to watch it. I turned on my TV to check something else real quick and i stumbled on HDNet and couldn't turn off the TV cause i was mesmerised by what i was seeing. I don't even like musicals.


This is all from broadcast. I have no doubts the bluray will be tier 0. I'll report back when i get it and watch it.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *saprano*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20520#post_23598519
> 
> 
> Nobody has any thoughts on Bye Bye Birdie? I don't have the bluray but after watching a little bit of it on HDNet today i think i'm going to order it soon.


I haven't watched that disc, sorry. Few have the Twilight Time BDs and fewer want to cover them in the PQ Tiers.


In other news, the finest Technicolor restoration to date was released on Blu-ray last week and fans of classic Hollywood will be mightily pleased by it. It will be in serious consideration for Tier 0.










I won't name the movie yet but watch for an upcoming review on it.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Justice League: The Flashpoint Paradox*


recommendation: *Tier 1.25**


Another fantastic-looking animated feature from WB. Aside from one or two instances of banding and a tiny amount of aliasing, the AVC encode holds up quite nicely. Strangely, it was put on a BD-50 but barely utilizes any of that extra space in the video compression. It gets docked for sloppy animation in a few spots, which is definitely not as polished as the animation found in _Batman: The Dark Knight Returns_.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Sword in the Stone*


Yeesh. What happened here? Disney's quality control plummets for this DNR/filtered mess which removes copious amounts of detail and definition. Colors may be strong, but animation is ruined and even lost to the effects of digital tampering. Yuck.

*Tier 3.5**


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20520#post_23603162
> 
> *Sword in the Stone*
> 
> 
> Yeesh. What happened here? Disney's quality control plummets for this DNR/filtered mess which removes copious amounts of detail and definition. Colors may be strong, but animation is ruined and even lost to the effects of digital tampering. Yuck.
> 
> *Tier 3.5**


The screen caps look so awful I've decided to wait and see on a purchase. The animation has simply been ruined in this transfer. One of the biggest mistakes Disney has made with their animated catalog.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Niagara*

*recommendation: Tier 1.0**


Fox has given _Niagara_ a peerless film restoration and top-notch transfer. The three-strip Technicolor film looks absolutely magnificent at 1080P. Fox makes no claim in regards to the scan's resolution, but I would bet good money this restoration was performed at 4K.


Fox must have gone back to the original negatives and then produced a state-of-the-art scan from results of a recent photochemical restoration. The screenshots hardly convey the amount of gorgeous eye candy and razor-sharp detail found in the incredibly film-like Blu-ray.


I would have no qualms with _Niagara_ placed in Tier 0, Marilyn Monroe looks stunning in Hi-Def. One of the new benchmarks for the Blu-ray format in regards to classic film. It's exciting to see results like _Niagara's_ BD and the hope that more films are treated with the same level of respect.




An excellent primer on Technicolor and how they process the three channels in modern transfers of older films:

http://www.digital-intermediate.co.uk/examples/3strip/technicolor.htm


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Killing Season*


Almost total softness and some remarkably digital aerial views hamper this flick visually. Shot on film and you've never know it, everything is dull, pale, and flat. Black levels are decent, so that's something to note.

*Tier 3.0**


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20520#post_23574568
> 
> 
> *The Ice Storm*
> 
> 
> Criterion gets sloppy. Lots of ringing and weak contrast. Picture is relatively flat and faces are rosey.
> 
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.5*
> 
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_


*The Ice Storm (Criterion)*


Well, I got the bug from hearing about this movie, plus the sale pushed me over the edge.


I did not see the edge enhancement mentioned by Deltasun. I did see a bit of moire on the Reverend's corduroy jacket. Contrast is flat and black levels fluctuate. On the plus side it is very filmic and detail can be strong when focus allows. In scanning the tiers, 3.0 seems right to me, because it is better than all of the discs I own below that. Mediocre but not offensive.

*Tier recommendation: 3.0*

52EX700, 8 foot viewing distance


----------



## rusky_g

*Under The Bed*


Agreed with Phantom, this was lovely and just how I like my films to look. Crisp, clear, detailed and grain free








*1.25*


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20520#post_23589996
> 
> 
> I'm leaving Monday for at least a week but I will be buying _Oblivion_ as soon as I return. So far the comments on the PQ, from Cinema Squid's site, have been absolutely stellar. Have you viewed this title yet GRG? If so, could you please give us your take on it?



I have now!

*Oblivion*


Pretty sterling stuff with a handful of exceptions made for softer contrast and mild mid-range filtering. Black levels slip up once or twice too, but marginally. Often dim and dusty, visual pop is limited, if still impressive. A few amazing shots of a forest area are absolutely stunning. Great visual scope doesn't hurt, but in terms of pop? It's all detail and limited saturation.

*Tier 1.75**


----------



## tenia54




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20520#post_23586634
> 
> 
> Thanks, Denny...I wouldn't quite go as far as to say they're lowering their standards. They definitely still do great work for the a majority of the titles I've seen. Some, as PS alluded to, are stuck in that no man's land of time periods; others are ported from one of the other studios, who have not given them the time due for a proper restoration. Then, there's the our grading scheme here, where older titles can't necessarily fare well. They don't necessarily thrive in these environs. Now, for titles like The Devil's Backbone, Thin Red Line, Fish Tank, etc, I expect them to have a better chance.



I admit I'm quite eager to get Seconds from them, which is said to be a stunner.

But as for The Ice Storm, it seems to me it also falls into the "too old restoration for BD, but too new to consider doing a new one" from Criterion. That's what happened with Harakiri also, and others from them. It usually shows, and it's a bit sad. There's also the sets where they chose to overload the discs, and it seems to me they are not used to working with low bitrates (below 20 Mbps). Fanny & Alexander, Carlos, Shoah, The Last Emperor, all seems to have compression issues, and all have much lower video bitrates that your current Criterion release.


I'll try and compilate a few of the reviews I wrote. I wrote them in French, so it'll probably be much shorter, because I admit being too lazy to just translate them all completely.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tenia54*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20550#post_23613432
> 
> 
> I'll try and compilate a few of the reviews I wrote. I wrote them in French, so it'll probably be much shorter, because I admit being too lazy to just translate them all completely.


Post them here in French if you want...


*Haganai: I Don't Have Many Friends


recommendation: Tier 1.5**


An animated series released this week by Funimation, the series looks quite good and very typical of recently produced animation in Hi-Def. A bright, cheery color palette is backed with perfect black levels and sparkling contrast.


Backgrounds lack the intricate layers of detail found in the best animation these days. The AVC video encode is sufficient for the pristine animation, as the series is spread over a BD-50 and a BD-25.


----------



## tenia54




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20550#post_23614093
> 
> 
> Post them here in French if you want...



In this case...









What I'll do is that I'll copy/paste my French tests, and then give a ranking for here. That should be the best because it will give a scale for the Tier ranking and a scale like a regular test (ven if it's not used here). I'll also hyperlink to the French forum where I post everything, with more details about the discs.

3:10 To Yuma - Delmer Daves


Numérisé en 4K, restauré en 2K, 3:10 To Yuma est ici présenté dans un excellent Blu Ray. Même si on pourra soupçonner un petit coup de boost du contraste, le résultat est frappant de clarté et de précision. Les seules limites du transfert HD tiennent en peu de choses : quelques petites poussières subsistent ci et là (visibles notamment à la 12e minute), une poignée de plans sont en retrait côté définition (exemple à la 67e minute) et enfin, le plus récurrent, une certaine hétérogénéité de l'image dans le cadre, avec des fluctuations de luminosité.

Hormis cela, le piqué et le niveau de détails sont exemplaires, avec en particulier des gros plans absolument frappants.


La partie sonore propose (comme souvent chez les titres de catalogue Sony édités par Criterion, comme Anatomy of a Murder) la piste mono originale, ainsi qu'un remixage 5.1.

Il faut avouer que le remixage est assez probant. Il permet une séparation des dialogues et de le musique (ainsi qu'une poignée d'effets ci et là), rendant la piste plus claire et plus ample. Pour autant, il ne faut bien évidemment par s'attendre à une débauche sonore orgiaque, mais l'ensemble s'avère particulièrement agréable à suivre. La musique de George Duning, ainsi que le thème du générique chanté par Frankie Laine, en sont les premiers bénéficiaires.


Image : 9/10

Son (VO 5.1) : 8.5/10

Film : 8.5/10

*Rank : 2.25*


----------



## tenia54

Badlands - Terrence Malick


Restauré en 4K, Badlands profite ici d'une cure de jouvence assez formidable. Supervisé par Malick lui-même, le résultat profite instantanément au rendu des couleurs, plus riches et mieux rendues que jamais. Evidemment, toute comparaison avec les précédents DVDs, vieux comme pas permis, serait complètement bancale tant le Blu Ray enterre tout ce qui s'est fait jusqu'à présent. Le niveau de détails est très bon, souvent impressionnant, parfois légèrement en retrait. La copie est très propre, très stable, et semble vierge de tout post processing, conservant un fin grain cinéma et un rendu très naturel.

A noter que contrairement aux précédents DVDs, les séquences d'archives vers le milieu du film ne sont plus teintées Sepia, mais sont en noir et blanc.


La piste mono est agréablement dynamique pour son âge. Elle est claire et propre, jamais étouffée ou saturée, et permet à la partition musicale comme aux effets sonores, plus chargés en fin de partie, de s'étendre sans problème. On pourra par contre noter plus de difficultés quand le mixage est chargé, créant une sensation de brouhaha pas très bien rendu.


Image : 8.5/10

Son : 8.5/10

Film : 8.5/10

Rank : 2.5


----------



## tenia54

Band Of Outsiders (Bande à part) - Jean-Luc Godard


La preuve que le Blu Ray sorti chez Gaumont était foireux ? La voilà.

Partant visiblement du même master généré par Gaumont lors de la restauration du film, mais non dégrainé, le Blu Ray Criterion de Bande à part fait très facilement bien mieux. On retrouve un grain d'origine absent du disque Gaumont, ce qui donne à l'image un côté bien plus naturel et précis. Il y a aussi une légère différence de balance des blancs : le Criterion est légèrement plus vert que le Gaumont, ou le Gaumont légèrement plus magenta que le Criterion.

Ces remarques mises à part, le Blu Ray Criterion propose une image intrinsèquement plutôt belle. Les plans larges sont moins impressionnants, le reste du film étant avantagé par des textures (peaux, manteaux, intérieurs) détaillées et bien définies. Cependant, la luminosité et le contraste au sein du cadre ne sont pas toujours très stables, et on remarquera facilement des vagues de pulsations chromatiques assez récurrentes, en plus de plans plus abîmés côté contrastes. Enfin, si la copie est globalement propre, quelques défauts comme cette rayure en fin de film sont facilement visibles.


Côté son, par contre, c'est moins impressionnant, la faute aux conditions de tournage. La partition musicale de Michel Legrand est bien mise en avant, avec un rendu rond très agréable. Cependant, les dialogues sonnent souvent crus et secs. Aussi, la prise de son est telle que, dans les séquences se situant dans le maison de Stoltz, ceux ci sont quasi incompréhensibles. Cependant, il est évident que cela se retrace directement jusqu'au tournage du film, et que rien ne pourra jamais améliorer cela.


Image : 8.5/10

Son : 7.5/10

Film : 9.5/10

Rank : 2.5


----------



## tenia54

Blithe Spirit - David Lean


Criterion, 2012 (US)

BD-50, Zone A

1.37, couleurs

1080p, AVC, débit vidéo moyen : 34994 kbps

English / LPCM Audio / 1.0 / 48 kHz / 1152 kbps / 24-bit

STA, amovibles


Le duo Lean / Coward est gâté chez Criterion. Ce transfert de Blithe Spirit, autre titre restauré via la BFI, possède une belle stabilité du cadre, et surtout un rendu très naturel, très propre et assez pointu. Un grain fin bien résolu parsème de manière homogène et stable l'ensemble de l'image, et le niveau de détails est très élevé pour un rendu extrêmement agréable.

Le seul problème réside dans les habituelles (pour un film Technicolor de cette époque) dans les nombreuses pulsations chromatiques, plus ou moins prononcées en fonction des plans.


La piste son est comme souvent bien inférieure au rendu visuel, avec une piste assez propre et claire, mais sans dynamique, et avec des dialogues souvent sourds ou sifflants. Aussi, un léger souffle se fait régulièrement entendre.


Image : 8.5/10

Son : 6.5/10

Film : 7/10

Rank : 2.75


----------



## tenia54

Coffret Pierre Etaix

*Rupture*


La copie est plutôt belle et très propre, mais des faiblesses ont évidemment subsisté. En particulier, le bord gauche du cadre reste souvent plus clair que le reste de l'image, au demeurant bien contrastée, et dans l'ensemble, la stabilité du cadre est variable. Cependant, la définition est dans l'ensemble très satisfaisante, malgré une mise au point pas toujours parfaite, et la restauration a été effectuée avec un beau respect du grain d'origine (ce sera le cas pour tous les films du coffret). Au vu du résultat final, il est en tout cas difficile de soupçonner des éléments d'origine quasi-irrécupérables (ce qui est, là aussi, le cas pour l'ensemble des films du coffret).


La piste sonore est ce qu'elle est et rappelle directement sa conception : les bruitages ont été enregistrés un peu à la va-vite, complètement séparément du tournage, et sonne donc assez étrange. Il y a parfois un côté très chaotique dans la piste qui lui donne un manque de clarté. Cependant, l'accompagnement musical, lui, est très clair. Enfin, de légers craquements se font entendre à 2-3 reprises mais rien de gênant.


Image : 8/10

Son : 6.5/10

*Heureux anniversaire*


Plus belle que celle de Rupture, et plus homogène aussi, l'image d'Heureux anniversaire confirme l'impression donnée par la restauration de Rupture : une restauration respectueuse et efficace, même si quelques défauts d'origine subsistent invariablement, et quelques plans restent donc en retrait d'un point de vue du piqué.


Le son s'améliore aussi légèrement, grâce à un enregistrement d'origine de meilleure facture, et la piste est ainsi plus nette et surtout plus agréable à l'oreille.


Image : 8.5/10

Son : 7/10

*Le soupirant*


Equivalente en rendu à Heureux anniversaire, la copie HD du Soupirant est d'excellente tenue. Un grain fin est, à nouveau, retenu et respecté, et le piqué et le niveau de détails sont régulièrement agréablement surprenants (on ne peut, évidemment, que regretter qu'Arte n'ait pu sortir de coffret Blu Ray de ces films en France). La copie est très stable, et immaculée, avec un contraste bien géré, permettant une belle palette chromatique.


La piste mono s'inscrit dans la continuité, avec un accompagnement musical clair et assez ample (et ne saturant jamais), mais aussi un bon rendu des dialogues, qui restent intelligibles et rarement sourds.


Image : 8.5/10

Son : 7.5/10

Film : 7.5/10

Rank : 2.5

*Yoyo*


Même rendu global que Le soupirant : copie extrêmement propre et stable, grain fin retenu, remarquable piqué et très bon niveau global de détails (certains plans, comme dans le bureau de Yoyo en fin de film, sont particulièrement beaux).


Même combat aussi pour le son, malgré une poignée de lignes de dialogues un peu moins claires que les autres. La musique est là aussi très claire et ne sature jamais.


Image : 8.5/10

Son : 7.5/10

Film : 7.5/10

Rank : 2.5


----------



## tenia54

The Gold Rush - Charles Chaplin

*1925 Cut.*


Parfois, aucun miracle n'est possible, et c'est visiblement le cas pour La ruée vers l'or. Cependant, il faut relativiser : le Blu Ray Criterion permet, pour la 1ere fois, de voir l'équivalent du montage original du film, en 1925, avant que Chaplin ne le remonte et le modernise en 1942 (de peur qu'après la transition vers le parlant, les spectateurs ne se défaussent de l'original, muet).

Utilisant à la fois la restauration faite pour le montage de 1942, une copie 35mm privée du montage de 1925, et 3 fragments trouvée à la National Film and Television Archive, la reconstruction a été restaurée et numérisée en 2011 pour un résultat forcément limité.

Tout d'abord, il faut faire fi des multiples poussières et rayures jonchant une copie à la définition évidemment variable (tous les éléments utilisés n'ayant pas la même qualité), mais toujours restreinte, même si certains plans, notamment des gros plans dans la cabane, convoient un joli niveau de détails. Aussi, certaines images sont manquantes, générant une image noire à la place. On peut supposer que cela est du à l'historique du film. Enfin, il est fort probable que certains des éléments inférieurs soient des copies 16mm, car le grain devient alors d'autant plus proéminent, ce qui relève de la gageure tant la copie est déjà très granuleuse.


Ceci étant dit, la copie possède une grande stabilité du cadre, ainsi qu'une bonne, voire très bonne, stabilité de la luminosité et du contraste, contraste plutôt bien géré et permettant une palette chromatique large. Enfin, malgré la présence de 2h40 de film + 1h30 de bonus vidéo (dont une excellente interview de Timothy Brock), l'encodage n'a pas de défaut visible, mais on notera des halos visibles ci et là, probablement du à un rehaussement de contours.


Succinctement : la copie de 1942 semble globalement supérieure à celle de 1925, puisque cette version était la préférée de Chaplin, qui en a donc pris un plus grand soin. De plus, comme elle ne contient pas d'éléments de qualité inférieure, l'aspect global parait meilleur. Cependant, le contraste semble plus intense, ce qui parait générer des pertes de détails dans les zones sombres. Les noirs ne sont peut être pas non plus bouchés, mais la différence est suffisamment visible pour être notable.


Le montage de 1925 est accompagné par une adaptation par Timothy Brock du score de 1942, composé par Chaplin. Présenté ici en 5.1, il faut bien avouer que la partition, outre le fait qu'elle soutient admirablement le film, est parfaitement rendue. L'orchestre respire amplement sur les 5 enceintes, avec une belle utilisation du caisson pour donner de la rondeur à l'ensemble. Si on ne pourra que regretter un léger manque de séparation des instruments, la piste est extrêmement dynamique et agréable à l'écoute, et les mélomanes en profiteront sans aucun doute.


Image (1925) : 6/10

Son (5.1) : 9/10

Film (1925) : 8.5/10

Rank : 3.75


----------



## tenia54

Heaven's Gate - Michael Cimino


L'image est clairement une révélation, notamment pour ceux qui sont habitués au DVD français cut de MGM (qu'il faudra visiblement conserver, car la version tronquée n'est pas incluse ici). En l'état, des défauts subsistent ci et là. On remarquera notamment une tache bleue (probablement chimique et irrécupérable) au milieu du film l'espace de quelques images, une luminosité parfois fluctuante sur certains plans, et surtout quelques plans (larges notamment) avec des hétérogénéités dans le cadre (une tache sombre en bas de l'écran, le bord gauche de l'image assombri, ce genre de défauts). Aussi, si certains plans larges (extérieurs, notamment) sont à couper le souffle, certains plans (surtout en intérieur) possèdent un piqué plus variable.


Côté son, le remixage 5.1 est plutôt efficace, avec notamment un excellent rendu enveloppant de la musique. Par contre, certains dialogues restent un peu étouffés, et leur mixage lors de scènes bruyantes est souvent tel qu'ils sont difficiles à entendre et comprendre sans sous titres. Quoiqu'il en soit, la piste reste malgré tout assez frontale, et on pourra aussi regretter que la dernière 1/2 heure et son assaut final soit assez brouillonne en terme de rendu sonore.


Image : 8.5/10

Son (VO 5.1) : 8/10

Film : 9/10

Rank : 2.75


----------



## tenia54

Koyaanisqatsi - Godfrey Reggio


Visuellement, le film est assez hétérogène du fait du matériel en amont. En effet, certains plans sont bruts, ressemblant à du 16mm, avec une finesse limitée et un grain très présent. A côté de cela, le film utilise aussi de nombreux stock shots, encore plus bruts, et certainement les parties les plus limitées du film (et aussi les moins propres). Reste que le film possède en grande partie des plans 35mm très beaux, et extrêmement bien rendus (malgré un léger doute sur l'encodage). La partie en accélérée, de la 45e minute jusqu'à la 62e, est notamment à tomber.


Côté son, c'est encore un cran au dessus, avec une formidable piste 5.1, convoyant magnifiquement le score de Philip Glass et son orchestre. La piste est, qui plus est, extrêmement active sur les enceintes arrière et très dynamique. Les cuivres profitent aussi pleinement du caisson de basses pour une meilleure reprise dans les graves.


Image : 9/10

Son : 9.5/10

Film : 9/10

Rank : 3.0


----------



## tenia54

Léon Morin, prêtre - Jean-Pierre Melville


La copie HD de Léon Morin est en grande forme. présentant un très bon niveau de détails, un contraste bien géré et un rendu très naturel. Quelques défauts d'âge subsistent, notamment une bande verticale à environ 1/3 à gauche dans le cadre, et qui apparaît sporadiquement, ainsi qu'une poignée de plans moins définis, et quelques tâches et salissures apparaissant ci et là. Hormis cela, le résultat est donc très convaincant.


On ne peut malheureusement pas en dire de même de la partie sonore. Outre un manque (habituel) de dynamique, et un rendu assez sourd et sec, la piste possède surtout une nette tendance à la saturation, mais aussi des crépitements réguliers et un souffle récurrent et facilement audible.


Image : 8.5/10

Son : 6/10

Film : 7/10

Rank : 3.0


----------



## tenia54

The Man Who Knew Too Much - Alfred Hitchcock


L'image est très agréablement surprenante pour un film plutôt mal traité en vidéo jusqu'à présent.

L'upgrade est franc et massif, avec une image très propre (voire quasi immaculée) dotée d'une belle définition, d'un contraste efficacement géré, une compression invisible (fort heureusement, vu la faible durée du film), et uniquement limitée par une poignée de plans un peu plus disgracieux comme l'introduction en ski, assez abîmée, ainsi que quelques plans relativement flous, probablement à cause d'une mise au point défaillante.


Côté son, la piste 1.0 est évidemment limitée et fait son image, mais est agréablement claire, et très propre. Aucun souffle audible n'est à déplorer, mais la piste reste incontestablement plate.


Image : 8.5/10

Son : 7.5/10

Film : 8.5/10

Rank : 3.0


----------



## tenia54

Medium Cool - Haskell Wexler


La restauration 4K présentée ici par Criterion est tout bonnement sublime. A l'exception de quelques plans à la précision plus faible (le plus souvent du aux visuels d'origine, de nombreuses séquences ayant une mise au point qui change très souvent et très rapidement), Medium Cool possède une copie HD de première main. La stabilité du cadre et des couleurs est exemplaire, avec une absence de fluctuation de luminosité ou de contraste, ainsi qu'une image d'une extrême propreté (aucune tâche / griffure / poussière n'est à déplorer). De nombreux plans possèdent une définition impressionnante, comme par exemple les séquences filmées à la convention démocrate. Un exemple type de la réussite du transfert se trouve aussi autour de la 50e minute : très haut niveau de détails sur les visages, stabilité du cadre, saturation impeccable des couleurs. En l'état, le film parait facilement 20 à 25 ans plus jeune qu'il ne l'est et on tient un des transferts Criterion les plus impressionnants de l'année.


La piste mono est tout aussi impressionnante, avec une bonne dynamique (pour une piste mono), une absence de souffle, un détachement et un rendu clairs des dialogues, permettant à la piste un excellent rendu.


Image : 9.5/10

Son : 9/10

Film : 8.5/10

Rank : 1.75


----------



## tenia54

On The Waterfront - Elia Kazan


L'image présentée par Criterion est d'excellente facture. Les noirs sont profonds, la photo de Kaufmann sublim(é)e et le tout est d'un rendu très naturel. La gain en précision et en piqué par rapport au DVD est notable, notamment de par la disparition des problèmes de compression et de réhaussement des contours qui le parasitaient.

Evidemment, comme la restauration a utilisé par endroits des éléments de qualité moindre, certains passages ont un rendu moins précis, plus flou, et doté de ce qui ressemble vraisemblablement à de la pixellisation.

Hormis cela, la très grosse majorité du transfert est d'excellent qualité.


On a le choix entre 3 formats d'image, on a aussi le choix (comme souvent pour les titres que Criterion licencie chez Sony) entre la piste mono d'origine et un remix 5.1. Après quelques alternances pour essayer, j'ai choisi de regarder la piste 5.1, que j'ai trouvé évidemment plus ample, et fort convaincante.

Les dialogues restent, bien entendu, diffusés par l'enceinte centrale, mais c'est avant tout la musique (et quelques effets sonores ci et là) qui profite de l'extension du champ sonore. Le score de Bernstein n'en est que plus puissant, notamment avec quelques jolis rendus dans les graves.


Image (1.66) : 9/10

Son (5.1) : 8.5/10

Film : 9.5/10

Rank : 2.0


----------



## tenia54

Rashomon - Akira Kurosawa


Criterion, 2012 (US)

BD-50, Zone A

1.37, N&B

1080p, AVC, débit vidéo moyen : 35000 kbps

Japanese / LPCM Audio / 1.0 / 48 kHz / 1152 kbps / 24-bit

STA, amovibles


L'image est immaculée et extrêmement stable, mais pas sans défaut, à commencer par un nombre de plans à la définition notablement plus faible (voire quasi flous), une légère pulsation de la luminosité par moments, mais surtout un contraste souvent fluctuant d'un plan à un autre. Certains auront des noirs très beaux et un contraste fort satisfaisant (la majorité du temps), alors que certains plans ont des noirs bien plus gris, ainsi qu'une sorte de moiré sur l'ensemble du cadre.

Cependant, l'upgrade HD est flagrant, et l'ensemble soutenu par un débit vidéo maximal permettant une compression invisible.


Côté son, par contre, c'est bien plus limité. La dynamique de la piste est pour ainsi dire inexistante, les dialogues sont souvent étouffés ou sourds, et la musique tend à saturer lorsqu'elle monte un peu trop haut dans les aigus. Aussi, on pourra entendre un souffle assez audible dans les moments les plus calmes.


Image : 8/10

Son : 6.5/10

Film : 8/10

Rank : 3.25


----------



## tenia54

Safety Last ! (Monte là-dessus !) - Fred C. Newmeyer & Sam Taylor


Avec 90 ans au compteur, Safety Last ! ne ressemble évidemment pas à des démos HD comme certains films N&B des années 50-60 (Vivre sa vie, 3:10 To Yuma, On The Waterfront, Sweet Smell of Success, etc) : la copie est parsemée de légères pulsations lumineuses, et les poussières et rayures sont souvent visibles, bien que souvent située en bordure de cadre (ce qui les rend moins gênantes). Aussi, le cadre est souvent réduit sur les 4 coins, ce qui est courant pour les films muets, mais un peu gênant ici car irrégulier.

Cependant, il faut avouer que l'image est d'une précision assez impressionnante, avec une définition et une profondeur de champ régulièrement surprenante. Aussi, si la luminosité est variable, le cadre, lui, est d'une stabilité à toute épreuve.


Ainsi, derrière les récurrentes poussières et les limites de la copie, certainement du à l'âge du film, la copie est très agréable, et l'apport HD immédiatement évident.

A noter que le film est encodé en 1080i afin de coller au plus près de la vitesse de défilement originale (ici environ 22 fps). Cela génère des effets de peigne intermittents, mais invisibles en mouvement.


Côté sonore, le film est proposé avec 2 partitions : une partition stéréo de Carl Davis de 1989 et une partition mono de Gaylord Carter de 1969. Le score de Carl Davis est très agréable et très dynamique. Bien encodé, il ne souffre ni de souffle, ni de distorsion, et est toujours clair et sans saturation. Le score de Carter, seulement en mono, semble bien plus timide et limité.


Image : 8.5/10

Son (Carl Davis) : 8.5/10

Film : 8.5/10

Rank : 3.0


----------



## tenia54

Sunday Bloody Sunday - John Schlesinger


L'image proposée ici par Criterion est globalement très jolie et naturelle, malgré une patine originelle assez "épaisse". Si un très bon travail a été effectué en amont, notamment si on compare aux précédentes éditions vidéo, l'image conserver ainsi malgré tout un côté assez peu détaillé. On pourra aussi être sensible à quelques pulsations chromatiques de temps à autre, mais très rares. Cependant, le tout reste foncièrement très bon et agréable, au limite du matériel près. Par ailleurs, certains plans sortent du lot par une définition et un niveau de détails supérieurs.


Côté son, la piste 1.0 possède une jolie dynamique et une clarté très agréable. Les dialogues ne sont jamais étouffés, et c'est surtout les quelques partitions de musique utilisées ci et là qui profitent de la propreté de la piste, et de son absence de distorsion.


Image : 8.5/10

Son : 8/10

Film : 9/10

Rank : 2.75


----------



## tenia54

Weekend - Jean-Luc Godard


Malgré un festival de couleurs pas aussi flashy qu'on l'aurait supposé (surtout en comparaison de Pierrot le fou), le Blu Ray de Weekend tient amplement la route et fait facilement oublier les précédents DVDs du film. La copie est immaculée, avec une stabilité sans faille du cadre et des couleurs. La compression est également invisible, mais la définition est souvent un peu en retrait, ce qui donne une impression de léger manque de netteté. Cependant, la plupart des plans convoient un excellent piqué, notamment tout ce qui est verdure (forêt, herbe, etc).


Côté son, c'est un peu compliqué, mais cela est probablement du au film et aux intentions de Godard. En effet, si la piste son possède une ouverture assez probante pour tout ce qui est musical, les dialogues, eux, sont régulièrement délicats à comprendre, au point où il pourra être recommandable d'activer les sous titres pour y comprendre quelque chose. Aussi, la piste manque logiquement, vu l'âge du film, de dynamique.


Image : 8.5/10

Son : 7/10

Film : 8.5/10

Rank : 2.75


----------



## tenia54

Wild Strawberries - Ingmar Bergman


La révélation visuelle que voilà ! On le dira jamais assez, mais le Blu Ray est fait pour des films comme celui ci. Rattrapant considérablement les contrastes foireux du DVD, le Blu Ray de Wild Strawberries ajoute à cela un gain phénoménal en précision. De très nombreux possèdent une profondeur de champ impressionnante, avec un aspect constamment naturel. L'upgrade est notamment très visible sur les textures des vêtements et sur les peaux. C'est beau à en pleurer, net, sans bavure. Bref, en un mot comme en cent : pur.


La partie sonore, elle, est plus typique des films de catalogue de ce type : très centrée sur les dialogues, la piste mono les délivre sans chichis, mais de manière souvent rêche et brute. La musique, elle, est plutôt bien retranscrite, ne saturant que très rarement. La piste est globalement très propre, avec un souffle quasi inaudible, et aucun craquement ou autre à déplorer.


Image : 9/10

Son : 7/10

Film : 9.5/10

Rank : 1.75


----------



## tenia54

The 39 Steps - Alfred Hitchcock


Le temps a malheureusement fait son oeuvre sur les éléments de départ utilisés pour le film. Le film présente régulièrement des plans peu définis, à l'aspect définitivement plat, et griffés ou constellés de points blancs. La compression est cependant invisible, et le grain, extrêmement présent, est très bien rendu sans aucun problème de bruit vidéo dans les noirs ou d'aplats de compression.

De plus, le film présente cependant de nombreuses scènes au rendu visuel défini et où l'apport HD est flagrant.

Le contraste est plutôt bien géré, et la stabilité de l'image excellente.


La piste son est relativement pauvre et mixée à faible volume. Evidemment, en montant le son pour mieux comprendre les dialogues, un léger souffle se fait audible. La musique est plate et étouffée. Là aussi, le temps a fait son oeuvre.


Image : 7/10

Son : 5.5/10

Film : 7/10

Rank : 3.5


----------



## tenia54

Bottle Rocket - Wes Anderson


L'image du film est assez étrange, probablement limitée par le faible budget du film : c'est à la fois très précis, propre et défini, mais possède un rendu faisant parfois vidéo, comme si l'image avait été manipulée à l'EE. Cependant, si EE il y a, les halos l'accompagnant habituellement sont invisibles. Côté couleurs et contraste, si une poignée de plans présentent des noirs un peu bouchés et une image pas assez contrastée (avec un rendu grisâtre), le transfert est très agréable et exploite à merveille la palette chaude et saturée du film.


La piste 5.1, pourtant indiquée comme stéréo sur la jaquette, reste extrêmement frontale, avec une utilisation très rare des surrounds et un rendu globalement un peu étouffé.


Image : 7.5/10

Son : 7/10

Film : 6.5/10

Rank : 3.5


----------



## tenia54

Brief Encounter - David Lean


Je démarre le coffret à l'envers (une hérésie diront certains, mais la durée du film correspondait à mon temps libre disponible) avec Brief Encounter, donc.

ITV avait déjà édité le film en BR en février 2009, Criterion ré-utilise leur nouvelle restauration (faite avec l'aide du BFI et de la David Lean Foundation, au sein du projet BFI de restaurer les 4 1ers films de Lean) mais en offrant un débit vidéo maximal au film, contrairement à ITV qui avait utilisé un BD-25 (uniquement utilisé à 16 Go). Ainsi, le Criterion offre un débit double au film, et le grain est le 1er à en profiter. Là où le BR ITV était limité, le Criterion permet au film de respirer et possède un aspect pellicule absolument magnifique.


La restauration en elle même est déjà formidable, avec une image extrêmement définie et très propre. A peine notera-t'on une poignée de poussières ci et là, et quelques plans un peu moins définis. Le contraste est très beau, malgré quelques plans avec une variation chromatique un peu plus importante.

Hormis ces quelques limites, c'est absolument magnifique.


Côté son, la piste mono est claire, malgré un léger souffle, mais les dialogues sont bien rendus, et la musique, bien que limitée, n'est jamais saturée ou nasillarde. Après, évidemment, ça reste une piste mono d'un mélodrame de 1945, et ne sera jamais particulièrement dynamique.


Image : 9/10

Son : 6.5/10

Film : 9/10

Rank : 2.0


----------



## tenia54

Eating Raoul - Paul Bartel


Malgré des racines clairement roots, et une patine visuelle très ancrée dans les 80s, le rendu visuel du film force le respect.

Le transfert est très plaisant, avec un rendu des couleurs tranchés et naturel, et un aspect global très propre et respectueux. Pas de dégrainage ou d'Edge Enhancement à l'horizon, une compression qui tient très bien la route, et seule une poignée de rayures et points blancs entravent la propreté du film.


A noter un ratio 1.78 alors que tout semble pointer vers un aspect original 1.85.


Par contre, c'est un cran en dessous côté son, avec une piste extrêmement plate, dotée d'un mixage comme lointain, notamment sur les bruitages, et pas toujours joli à l'oreille. Les dialogues sont clairs et la piste très propre, mais la piste est étriquée à l'extrême.


Image : 8/10

Son : 6/10

Film : 8/10

Rank : 3.0


----------



## tenia54

The Game - David Fincher


L'image n'est pas parfaite, mais n'en est vraiment pas loin.

Le niveau de détails et surtout la gestion du contraste donne un look très impressionnant au film, et élimine surtout les nombreux problèmes qu'avait le précédent disque Universal (en vrac : problèmes de compression, Edge Enhancement, banding, la totale habituelle). L'ensemble est robuste, et typique de la haute tenue des disques Criterion pour des titres récents (hormis une ou deux exceptions). Tout juste pourra-t'on trouver quelques plans clairement moins précis, mais ils se comptent sur les doigts des mains.


La partie sonore a elle aussi été gâtée, un nouveau mixage ayant été spécialement créé pour l'édition BR. Ce nouveau mixage (appelé Near Field, car prévu pour un visionnage en HC, et donc dans un volume sonore restreint) a été créé avec comme but d'avoir une dynamique plus grande, et une meilleure séparation des canaux. Ces 2 points sont assez facilement audibles lorsqu'on passe d'une piste à l'autre.


Ayant privilégié le visionnage avec le nouveau mixage, le rendu est là aussi très efficace, la piste étant très active. Que ce soit au niveau des bruits d'environnements, de la musique ou des scènes plus mouvementées, la piste rend bien tout cela sans jamais être brouillonne.


Image : 9/10

Son (VO 5.1 Near Field) : 9/10

Film : 8/10

Rank : 2.0


----------



## tenia54

Gray's Anatomy - Steven Soderbergh


Hormis une scène vers 30 min où le grain semble voltiger dans tous les sens et la luminosité fluctuer, c'est du tout bon. L'intro en N&B est notamment très impressionnante, avec une précision, un contraste, un grain impeccablement géré. Les divers éléments dans lesquels Gray est placé n'empêche jamais le transfert d'exceller, quelque soit les jeux visuels auxquels Soderbergh s'adonne pour dynamiser le monologue.


Côté son, malgré un remix 5.1 fait pour l'édition, ça reste très basique et très frontal. La toute 1ere ITW en N&B fait peur, craquant de partout, mais c'est le seul moment présentant ce problème. Tout le reste est propre, sans souffle ni craquement, mais c'est tout.


Image : 9/10

Son : 8/10

Film : 8.5/10

Rank : 2.25


----------



## tenia54

Harold And Maude - Hal Ashby


Très beau disque, malgré des noirs tirant vers le bleu (je soupçonne un choix de la photo plus qu'un problème d'étalonnage) : pas de post processing, une image au grain bien géré, pas de problème de compression, etc etc.


Côté son, on a le choix entre du LPCM 1.0 (piste originale) ou un mixage LPCM 2.0 (que j'ai choisi).

C'est extrêmement dynamique, et probablement la meilleure piste stéréo que j'ai pu entendre chez Criterion depuis Blow Out. La musique de Cat Stevens, notamment, possède une dynamique et une clarté assez impressionnante.


Image : 8.5/10

Son (VO 2.0) : 9/10

Film : 9/10

Rank : 2.5


----------



## tenia54

In The Mood For Love - Wong Kar-wai


Si l'image subit plutôt bien les nombreux effets de style du film, le transfert possède quelques limites visuelles.

Tout d'abord, la faute peut être à un disque un peu chargé et ne permettant pas au film de respirer complètement, on pourra remarquer la présence de bruit vidéo assez léger sur quelques scènes, notamment en basse luminosité. Aussi, il semble qu'un léger rehaussement des contours ait été appliqué sur une poignée de plans, générant des halos blancs (comme à la 72e et la 78e minute).


Hormis ces quelques points, ainsi que quelques plans flous (probablement d'origine), le résultat est somme toute probant, avec une définition régulièrement exemplaire, en particulier la séquence au Cambodge, absolument magnifique. La restitution des couleurs est aussi notable, surtout sur les costumes comme les robes de Maggie Cheung.


Côté son, la seule piste disponible est un remix 5.1. Si l'inclusion du caisson est probablement l'ajout le plus notable car il profite grandement à la bande originale (notamment le thème principal du film qui gagne en puissance et en ampleur), la piste reste quasi-exclusivement frontale, ressemblant plus à du 3.1 qu'à du 5.1.

Les dialogues sont évidemment les premiers éléments à rester frontaux, mais sont aussi parfois un peu étriqués / étouffés. Cependant, cela n'est pas constant et s'améliore au fil du film.

Cependant, si le rendu est très plaisant, notamment (à nouveau) pour la partie musicale, on pourra regretter que la musique n'ait pas profité d'une spatialisation qui lui aurait permise d'être complètement enveloppante.


Image : 8/10

Son : 7.5/10

Film : 8/10

Rank : 3.0


----------



## tenia54

Metropolitan - Whit Stillman


Tourné en Super 16mm, le film possède la pléthore de grain qu'on peut attendre, et est la plupart du temps assez défini et précis, mais souffle le chaud et le froid régulièrement. En effet, de nombreux plans sont régulièrement bien plus faiblement définis (faisant presque flous en comparaison), quelques tâches blanches sont décelables régulièrement au long du film, limitant la qualité du transfert. Qui plus est, une poignée de scènes (notamment la 1ere) sont tellement chargées en grain qu'on en dirait du bruit vidéo. Cependant, je dirais que 80% du film est très joliment défini, et que la copie est globalement très propre. Quoiqu'il en soit, le contraste est très bien géré, la compression invisible et je n'ai pas décelé de post processing type EE.


Côté son, la piste mono fait son boulot pour ce film extrêmement bavard, malgré un côté plat et morne tout du long.


Image : 7/10

Son : 6.5/10

Film : 7.5/10

Rank : 3.5


----------



## tenia54

The Night of the Hunter - Charles Laughton


La copie du film, si elle n'est pas évidemment pas du matériel de démonstration, possède un charme extrêmement plaisant. Globalement très détaillée, dotée d'un contraste présentant des noirs profonds et de belles nuances dans la gradation des gris, elle est aussi extrêmement granuleuse, notamment dans les scènes en extérieur. S'il parait évident que le film a été respecté en utilisant aucun outil de dégrainage (ou alors de manière invisible), le résultat pourra cependant en choquer certains.

Aussi, on notera d'autant plus facilement des plans plus doux apparaissant ci et là le long du film. Rien de gênant, mais la différence de rendu est assez flagrante.

Enfin, les plans aériens au début du film présente une instabilité assez franche.


Côté son, si la piste présente par moments quelques limitations, avec un rendu un peu plus brut (notamment les cris finaux de Mitchum), elle est dans l'ensemble très propre et claire, et ne présente aucun souffle ou distorsion. Aussi, elle présente une dynamique assez plaisante et surprenante compte tenu de l'historique du film.


Image : 8.5/10

Son : 8/10

Film : 9.5/10

Rank : 2.75


----------



## tenia54

The Organizer - Mario Monicelli


Visuellement, je m'attendais à moins beau que ça, mais force est de constater que l'image est très jolie, très définie, avec une photo tranchée signée Rotunno très bien rendue, même si je soupçonne un contraste boosté. Seule la scène de la bataille sur les rails dans le brouillard est un peu en retrait, la faute à une scène qui semble moins bien nettoyée et est entravée par quelques poussières et rayures.


Le son, lui, est un peu en retrait. Si les dialogues ne sont jamais étouffés ni agressifs à l'oreille, la piste son reste étriquée et présente un souffle constant facilement audible.


Image : 8/10

Son : 6/10

Film : 7.5/10

Rank : 3.0


----------



## tenia54

Quadrophenia - Frank Roddam


L'image est restaurée et ça se voit. La très grande majorité du film possède un niveau de détails étonnant, et la copie est d'une grande propreté, avec seulement une poignée de griffures et points blancs ci et là. Du très bon travail.


Cependant, certaines scènes de nuit ont des noirs tirant violemment sur le bleu, comme si on était face à une VHS. De plus, certaines scènes (et pas forcément que de nuit ou en basse luminosité) ont un côté étrange, avec un grain très marqué et ressemblant plus à du bruit vidéo qu'autre chose.


Côté son, Criterion a été recherché les éléments ayant servi à la ré-édition 5.1 de l'album en 2011 pour recréer la bande son du film en 5.1 (originalement tourné en 2.0).

Le résultat, s'il est un peu bancal, est fantastique, et on se voit mal conseiller la piste 2.0 d'origine. En effet, les chansons possèdent une ouverture exceptionnelle, et une dynamique fantastique. Le mixage utilise pleinement, lors de ces passages musicaux, les 6 canaux et le résultat ravira très certainement les fans des Who.

Par contre, les séquences "classiques" à dialogue, si elles sont très propres, en ressortent d'autant plus étriquées, et le contraste peut paraître violent.


Quoiqu'il en soit, Criterion conseille aux spectateurs de pousser le volume s'ils choisissent cette piste. On ne peut que leur donner raison.


Image : 8/10

Son (VO 5.1) : 9/10

Film : 8.5/10

Rank : 3.0


----------



## tenia54

Rosemary's Baby - Roman Polanski


Si la photo assez douce d'origine limite la précision de l'image, le rendu du Blu Ray est très naturel et extrêmement joli. Seul un plan est un peu en retrait, mais tout le reste du film est très bien rendu, avec un joli apport HD au niveau des nombreux gros plans, visibles facilement dans le rendu précis des vêtements.


La piste 1.0, elle, impressionne par sa clarté et son ampleur. La piste n'est jamais étouffée, y compris dans les dialogues, même si la musique reste forcément limitée par le fait que l'on soit en mono. Cependant, elle sonne extrêmement bien à l'oreille et fait franchement oublier que le film a plus de 40 ans.


Image : 8.5/10

Son : 8.5/10

Film : 9.5/10

Rank : 2.75


----------



## tenia54

The Royal Tenenbaums - Wes Anderson


La comparaison avec l'édition DVD ne laisse aucune chance à celle-ci tant elle accumulait les problèmes de compression, un rendu des couleurs complètement terne pour un aspect globalement très cru et bien trop vidéo. On oublie tout ça : l'upgrade est parmi les plus impressionnants de la collection pour un titre avec une base DVD aussi "bonne" (en opposition à un upgrade comme The Samurai Trilogy, où l'édition DVD était tout simplement in-regardable). Le rendu des couleurs est splendide, la définition excellente sans jamais fléchir, la compression est invisible, et la copie splendide de bout en bout. Tout juste pourra-t'on remarquer quelques légères vibrations colorimétriques à un moment ou deux.


La piste 5.1, elle, reste timorée, sauf lors des quelques envolées musicales, où elle devient alors plus enveloppante. Le reste du temps, le film n'étant pas vraiment propice à la démonstration de force, le rendu demeure frontal, avec un rendu très clair des dialogues, et une piste très propre (mais on en attend pas moins d'un film de 2001).


Image : 9.5/10

Son : 8.5/10

Film : 9/10

Rank : 1.5


----------



## tenia54

Samurai I : Musashi Miyamoto - Hiroshi Inagaki


La révélation !

L'image est absolument splendide et enterre sans forcer n'importe quelle précédente édition, toutes plus affreuses les unes que les autres. Ce qui choque, c'est la précision de l'ensemble, jusque dans les fondus enchaînés, d'habitude moins définis par limitation technique, mais ici tout aussi splendide que le reste du film. Les couleurs sont extrêmement bien rendues (fini le rendu verdâtre foireux), le contraste est bien géré aussi (même si certaines scènes de nuit conservent une lisibilité limitée, mais cela semble être un - mauvais - choix artistique).

Il subsiste malgré tout 3-4 plans peu définis et autant non nettoyés, présentant quelques salissures ou des cheveux en bas de l'image (ce dernier point ne concerne qu'une séquence), mais les défauts s'arrêtent là. Un excellent upgrade, donc.


Le son, lui, reste plus limité. On notera un souffle parfois facilement audible, et une amplitude globalement limitée. Si les dialogues sont clairs, la musique souffre tout de même de cette limitation.


Image : 8.5/10

Son : 7/10

Film : 7.5/10

Rank : 2.5


----------



## tenia54

Samurai II : Duel At Ichijoji Temple - Hiroshi Inagaki


Si l'apport HD est indéniable et enterre, comme pour le 1er film, n'importe quel DVD sorti jusqu'à présent (les plans en extérieur jour sont notamment fabuleux), l'image est un cran en dessous comparé au 1er opus. De nombreux plans de nuit manquent légèrement de contraste, et certains noirs virent ostensiblement sur le bleu. Contrairement au 1er film, les génériques et les fondus enchaînés sont griffés et bien moins défini que le reste du film. On peut aussi noter une chute de détails flagrante lors des retrouvailles finales entre Musashi et Otsu, l'espace d'une minute.


Pour le son, le constat est comparable au 1er film. La piste est globalement limitée, avec un souffle parfois facilement audible, et une faible amplitude. Les dialogues sont clairs, mais la musique souffre tout de même des limitations de la piste.


Image : 7.5/10

Son : 7/10

Film : 6.5/10

Rank : 3.25


----------



## tenia54

Secret Sunshine - Lee Chang-dong


Visuellement, le BR est absolument magnifique, et facilement un des meilleurs de la collection. Les couleurs et le contraste sont splendides, la compression invisible, le post processing complètement absent, et la copie est 100% propre. C'est simple : c'est beau comme tout, et sans aucun défaut.


La piste son est du même niveau, même si elle ne fera jamais déménager le canapé, le film ne s'y prêtant jamais. Seule la musique profite des surrounds, et le caisson ne sera sollicité qu'une poignée de fois.


Image : 10/10

Son : 9/10

Film : 7.5/10

Rank : 1.25


----------



## tenia54

Summer With Monika - Ingmar Bergman


Visuellement très impressionnant : un N&B très contrasté, une image très précise, très définie (hormis le passage dans la forêt où Monika s'échappe), extrêmement peu de saletés et poussières. Du tout bon.

Côté son, comme Ugetsu : c'est propre, clair, mais mixé assez bas.


Côté bonus, j'ai regardé la featurette sur l'exploitation d'une version tronquée, doublée, et avec de la musique jazzy, le tout dans un contexte de sexploitation. Après avoir vu le film, je me suis demandé comment ils avaient réussi leur coup, parce qu'on est quand même loin d'un Arnold Miller, hein.


Image : 8.5/10

Son : 7/10

Film : 8/10

Rank : 2.25


----------



## tenia54

Topsy-Turvy - Mike Leigh


Là aussi, très joli. En basse luminosité, ça montre quelques limites, mais les couleurs ultra chatoyantes et la précision globale l'emporte sur le long terme, que ce soit lors des gros plans ou lors des plans d'ensemble plus larges, mais une légère application de EE peut être décelée à cause des halos qui vont avec, souvent dans les gros plans.


Côté son, une très jolie piste 5.1, enveloppante et dynamique, que ce soit dans les dialogues comme dans les scènes musicales.


Côté bonus, faut absolument que je prenne 30 minutes pour regarder A Sense Of History, parait-il hilarant.


Image : 8/10

Son : 8.5/10

Film : 8/10

Rank : 2.75


----------



## tenia54

Umberto D - Vittorio de Sica


L'image présentée ici est globalement belle, mais clairement pas exempte de défauts : de nombreux plans ont une définition en berne, et les fondus, comme souvent pour les Blu Rays de films de cette époque, sont les plus flagrants. Aussi, la luminosité du film fluctue quasiment tout du long.

Cela étant dit, la copie est très propre, et le cadre extrêmement stable.


Le son est, de manière assez attendue, très étriqué. La piste est invariablement plate, et si elle reste propre, elle n'en reste pas moins limitée


Image : 7.5/10

Son : 6/10

Film : 7.5/10

Rank : 3.25


----------



## tenia54

Le salaire de la peur / The Wages of Fear - Henri-Georges Clouzot


L'image alterne le très bon et le beaucoup moins bon. Certains plans, notamment les gros plans, sont très beaux, très contrastés et très définis. D'autres, peu nombreux, ont un aspect vidéo et grisâtre hideux, avec une absence complète de détails et de profondeur, comme s'ils avaient été oubliés lors de la restauration du film. Enfin, la majeure partie du film se situe entre ces 2 points, avec une définition assez correcte mais sans plus, un manque global de profondeur et de définition se traduisant, en définitive, par un aspect pas assez net pour le support (en opposition avec les quelques plans très définis).


La piste son est elle aussi loin d'être la meilleure jamais proposée par Criterion, à commencer par des spécifications techniques loin d'être au maximum des capacités du support. Cependant, il faut se souvenir que Le salaire de la peur fut un des premiers BR de l'éditeur, ceci pouvant expliquer cela (et ceci les critiques très positives sur l'image, que je trouve trop élogieuses au vu du résultat, comme c'est le cas aussi pour Les 400 coups).

Quoiqu'il en soit, en pratique, la piste est très limitée, tant pour la musique, étouffée, que les dialogues, le tout pour un rendu très plat. Cependant, la piste est très propre, avec aucun dommage et un souffle très limité.


Image : 6.5/10

Son : 6.5/10

Film : 8/10

Rank : 3.75


----------



## tenia54

Another question : would it be OK for me to just post rankings ? There are some Criterions I've seen before making this kind of reviews, and I would like to suggest a ranking for them too.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tenia54*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20580#post_23616432
> 
> 
> Another question : would it be OK for me to just post rankings ? There are some Criterions I've seen before making this kind of reviews, and I would like to suggest a ranking for them too.


Sure, I'm not stopping you. I hope the forum members that subscribe to the thread have enough space in their email inbox. Your series of posts definitely filled up my inbox.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*G.I. Joe: Retaliation


recommendation: Tier 2.0**


Retaliation looks like so many other action blockbusters of today. Shot on 35mm film with a variety of cameras, there is an erratic inconsistency to both grain and noise depending on the scene. Hot flesh-tones and a preference toward teal colors gives off an exaggerated contrast, though the picture is amazingly sharp and detailed in close-ups. Paramount held off on over processing the transfer, there is little indication of edge enhancement or serious filtering. Some of the VFX are softer in nature, particularly the mountain climbing fight featuring Snake Eyes.


One score does not fairly categorize this BD very well, one could cherrypick screenshots for either Tier 0 or Tier 3 rankings. But when it is questionable, I tend to err on the side of caution and a lower placement. Paramount gave Retaliation a fine technical transfer, encoded in AVC on a BD-50 with superb parameters.


I wonder if the exclusive version found at Best Buy, featuring an extended cut and different video encode, looks any different...


BDInfo scan (courtesy of Cinema Squid):
http://www.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray/movies/releases/gi-joe-retaliation/c8de74db-4f91-4664-9165-b1057e46f353#specs


----------



## tenia54




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20580#post_23616715
> 
> 
> Sure, I'm not stopping you. I hope the forum members that subscribe to the thread have enough space in their email inbox. Your series of posts definitely filled up my inbox.













It's been a long time since I said I would try and participate here. I don't always agree with the placements system (and have already discussed this here) because of the unique scale for ranking both recent and catalog feature, but I do find the result interesting, and I admit coming regularly back here to check if this or that movie has a good PQ. But as I wrote, the translation work was quite blocking me (also becaue I'm a bit lazy







), so now, it's open bar !


----------



## hungro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20520#post_23603405
> 
> 
> The screen caps look so awful I've decided to wait and see on a purchase. The animation has simply been ruined in this transfer. One of the biggest mistakes Disney has made with their animated catalog.



Perhaps if enough video philes complain about this one it might be fixed with a new remaster, seems to be the return of the badly mastered Gladiator, that was a horror show .....but they did do a remaster. *Tell Disney this is not exceptable*. I mean , Alladin turned out a ton better, I don't actually have the blu-ray for it to truly judge it's picture quality.


----------



## hungro

Do -Blu I am glad to report all the pictures are now loading for the reviews. Just thought I 'd give you the thumbs up.


----------



## TitusTroy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hungro*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20580#post_23618478
> 
> 
> Perhaps if enough video philes complain about this one it might be fixed with a new remaster, seems to be the return of the badly mastered Gladiator, that was a horror show .....but they did do a remaster. *Tell Disney this is not exceptable*. I mean , Alladin turned out a ton better, I don't actually have the blu-ray for it to truly judge it's picture quality.



examples such as Gladiator are so rare though...I can only remember this happening with Gladiator, Gangs of New York and Fifth Element


----------



## Partyslammer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TitusTroy*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20580#post_23618807
> 
> 
> examples such as Gladiator are so rare though...I can only remember this happening with Gladiator, Gangs of New York and Fifth Element



"Full Metal Jacket" might be the earliest remaster/reissue a/v upgrade of a pretty lousy first-gen Blu-ray release.


----------



## hernanu

I think Terminator was also one...


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Pain & Gain*


Outstanding color is super saturated, while contrast and black levels both take their chunk of fidelity. Lots of inconsistent close-ups though (and plenty of amazing ones too!), enough to swell up negatives and knock this one down a few. Some handheld shots are dire.

*Tier 1.5**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Kiss of the Damned


recommendation: Tier 3.5*
*

Magnolia released Kiss of the Damned and it looks very uneven for a new release, even considering its status as a low-budget genre flick. IMDB claims it was shot on 35mm, which I don't believe is true. The digital footage is fine in spots but has a very difficult time in tougher lighting conditions, introducing an excess amount of noise. The satisfactory video encode has no serious problems, most of the Damned's problems are due to its erratic cinematography. Contrast is all over the map, often leading to crushed black levels and poor shadow detail.


Going forward, the thread needs an open discussion on the impact of digital cinematography and how it affects the grading scale for the PQ Tiers. Film is clearly going by the wayside in the near future, which is going to affect our standards in the thread.


*Love Me Tender


recommendation: Tier 4.0*
*

Elvis Presley's first film receives a fairly solid transfer from Fox. The black & white CinemaScope film lacks the pop and immediacy of better-shot films from its era. A degree of crispness and definition remain in the transfer, which does appear to have been slightly processed by filtering at some stage. I'd still give it a solid recommendation for the King's many fans.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*What Maisie Knew*


Black levels are fairly atrocious in this otherwise capable if bland presentation. Oddly, a number of specks and scratches show up for a film not even six months old. Contract blooms and fidelity DOES soar, but it's not without issues.

*Tier 2.5**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Storm Surfers 3D*


Great 3D or not, this seems to have been shot in particularly low resolution. That makes sense for all of the handheld surfing shots, but even interview segments and such are murky. Noise is constant and while black levels have some punch, they can't save everything. No real fidelity to be had anywhere on this disc.

*Tier 4.5**


----------



## djoberg

*Oblivion*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20550#post_23611802
> 
> 
> I have now!
> 
> *Oblivion*
> 
> 
> Pretty sterling stuff with a handful of exceptions made for softer contrast and mild mid-range filtering. Black levels slip up once or twice too, but marginally. Often dim and dusty, visual pop is limited, if still impressive. A few amazing shots of a forest area are absolutely stunning. Great visual scope doesn't hurt, but in terms of pop? It's all detail and limited saturation.
> 
> *Tier 1.75**



GRG is spot on in his assessment, for there were "a handful of exceptions made for softer contrast and mild mid-range filtering" and "black levels slip up once or twice too." But I just have to say that there were numerous scenes that were most definitely "reference" quality, with SHARPNESS and CLARITY off the charts, and DETAILS to die for. Every facial close-up was Tier Blu all the way (even on the two female leads!) and the aerial shots of earth and space were simply spectacular. The forest scenes (and especially the LAST forest scene) were some of the best, in terms of CLARITY and DEPTH, that I've seen in a very long time. IMHO it would be a travesty to rank this at the bottom of Tier 1, though in light of the "soft shots," some fleeting "murky blacks," and the overall "muted color palette," I do believe this falls a tad short of the coveted Tier 0. My vote goes for....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Smiley's People*

*recommendation: Tier 4.5**

_Smiley's People_ was a 16mm film production by the BBC, acting as the sequel to its brilliant adaptation of _Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy_. While the six episodes have been allotted two BD-50s, the transfer is barely recognizable as a modern film scan. Its 1080i presentation has little resolution and detail above standard definition. I don't think the master is purely upscaled from SD, but the ancient film transfer likely originated from the '90s.


One could go with Tier 5 on this set, but it does look a tad better than the Blu-ray version of _Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy_ due to improvements made in the cinematography and budget.


----------



## sbpyrat

I remember discussing this briefly quite some time back, but as I'm watching the extended version of *Avatar* again, I have to say that I really do feel it should be ranked right next to the theatrical version. It is hands down the best live action footage I've seen...and the digital stuff is top notch as well. I wish more movies looked this good on blu ray!


Cheers!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Aftershock


recommendation: Tier 1.75**

_Aftershock's_ first act practically works as a nice-looking travelogue on Chile. The low-budget release was shot fairly well on digital video cameras and produces a crisp, clean picture most of the time. Some minor problems in darker shots create contouring in the compression encode, knocking the overall score down. A twist on the conventional disaster flick, the minimal amount of color correction is fairly benign towards a balanced color palette.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Great Gatsby (2013)*


Warner's encode suffers in a few spots, but it's generally spot on working through a menagerie of filmmaking tricks. Stunning facial detail in spots and nasty smoothing in others push away from perfection, but Gatsby is full of ridiculously impressive visuals. Color and contrast are crazy awesome for most of the film. All of those green screen effects, and their artifacts, bring this one down a bit.

*Tier 1.5**


----------



## John Mason




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20580#post_23636368
> 
> *Smiley's People*
> 
> *recommendation: Tier 4.5**
> 
> _Smiley's People_ was a 16mm film production by the BBC, acting as the sequel to its brilliant adaptation of _Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy_. While the six episodes have been allotted two BD-50s, the transfer is barely recognizable as a modern film scan. Its 1080i presentation has little resolution and detail above standard definition. I don't think the master is purely upscaled from SD, but the ancient film transfer likely originated from the '90s.
> 
> 
> One could go with Tier 5 on this set, but it does look a tad better than the Blu-ray version of _Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy_ due to improvements made in the cinematography and budget.


Too bad about the PQ. It's a title I'd planned on acquiring. Wonder If there are two Blu-ray versions. PBS.org lists theirs at 1080i/4:3 (stretched?), and Amazon.com [url error] has their weird format as: Blu-ray, NTSC, Subtitled, Widescreen, with a 1.77 ratio and the same runtime (324 min.) as the PBS-marketed disc set.


Reads vastly different in PQ from another 16mm-based UK TV production, Pride and Prejudice, reviewed in the Blu-ray forums here, where they did some post-telecine restoration along with a special technique--at the time--for eliminating the distortions from splicing film cuts together. -- John. .


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Mason*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20610#post_23645219
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20580#post_23636368
> 
> *Smiley's People*
> 
> *recommendation: Tier 4.5**
> 
> _Smiley's People_ was a 16mm film production by the BBC, acting as the sequel to its brilliant adaptation of _Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy_. While the six episodes have been allotted two BD-50s, the transfer is barely recognizable as a modern film scan. Its 1080i presentation has little resolution and detail above standard definition. I don't think the master is purely upscaled from SD, but the ancient film transfer likely originated from the '90s.
> 
> 
> One could go with Tier 5 on this set, but it does look a tad better than the Blu-ray version of _Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy_ due to improvements made in the cinematography and budget.
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad about the PQ. It's a title I'd planned on acquiring. Wonder If there are two Blu-ray versions. PBS.org lists theirs at 1080i/4:3 (stretched?), and Amazon.com has their weird format as: Blu-ray, NTSC, Subtitled, Widescreen, with a 1.77 ratio and the same runtime (324 min.) as the PBS-marketed disc set.
> 
> 
> Reads vastly different in PQ from another 16mm-based UK TV production, Pride and Prejudice, reviewed in the Blu-ray forums here, where they did some post-telecine restoration along with a special technique--at the time--for eliminating the distortions from splicing film cuts together. -- John. .
Click to expand...

John, the Acorn Media release is presented at 1080i resolution in the program's broadcast aspect ratio, 1.33:1. As usual, Amazon's technical information is incorrect. _Pride and Prejudice_ did receive an excellent, new transfer from the original film elements, but that mini-series has vastly more commercial potential these days. _Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy_ and _Smiley's People_ have simply not received that sort of treatment and Acorn Media used the obsolete transfers provided to them for the Blu-rays. No restoration work has been performed on them, anywhere in the world.

_Smiley's People_ was made for the BBC and its intended aspect ratio is 1.33:1. A widescreen transfer would be a revisionist version.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Robin Hood (1973)


recommendation: 2.0*
*

One of my personal favorites from Disney finally hit Blu-ray this month. Aside from arguments regarding _Robin Hood's_ proper framing and the cropping of its 4:3 cel animation, this blemish-free transfer shines with a clarity I've never seen before from the 1973 movie. Its colors pop better than ever in hi-def, as a dull sheen has been removed by a subtle but notable level of filtering to the animation. Purists will recognize the almost entire elimination of cel dust and debris. This is an ultra-clean picture for older cel animation, nearly matching the pristine nature of modern animation made on computers.


Disney has stepped up their game for the AVC video encode, finally pumping up their average bitrates over 30 Mbps. That entirely removes the possibility of banding and visible compression noise. The animation itself is a little sloppy with its thick linework, particularly for a Disney feature. This BD represents a massive leap in detail and brilliance over the DVD. The restoration work performed by Disney on _Robin Hood_ has produced better PQ results than expected, especially coming off a string of lackluster catalog transfers for their lesser animated movies.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Epic*


Marvelous animation lacking in the slightest bit of depth to keep it from the top. Amazing sharpness and textural work. Contrast is crazy. Things like tall grass and trees are simply perfect. Color saturation is often perfect, with some scenes necessitating bland grays and blues.

*Tier 0** (Below Astro Boy)
*

Olympus Has Fallen*


Surprisingly poor new release with inexcusable levels of filtering, smoothing, and noise. Black levels turn to nothing. Grain is never properly resolved, and digital appearances creep into almost every shot with few instances of deepened, fine detail. Blech.

*Tier 3.25**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Vehicle 19*


Despite some fidelity inconsistencies and reliance on a thin color palette, Vehicle 19 kicks this film-based source into near perfection. Grain is wonderfully rendered, while black levels and contrast work into overtime to produce some insanely deep images. Good stuff.

*Tier 1.75**


----------



## djoberg

I picked up a copy of _The Ring_ in the bargain bin at Best Buy yesterday and viewed it last night. I was impressed with the details and depth, though the pervasive teal hues were disappointing, as were some of the black levels. I couldn't recall doing a review on it but in doing a Search I saw one from Phantom. He recommended a Tier 3 placement, which I think is too low. I would be inclined to rank it right around the 2.25 or 2.5 mark


----------



## djoberg

I have two young granddaughters coming today and I'm hoping they'll want to watch the copy of _Epic_ that I also purchased at Best Buy.


----------



## mweflen

*Vertigo*


About 2/3 of this is surpassingly beautiful. Exterior shots especially bristle with detail and show superb, deep color saturation. But many of the interior shots are also superb, especially Elster's office, Ernie's restaurant, Judy's hotel room, and Scottie's apartment. There is no DNR or EE I can detect, and in the good scenes, contrast values are quite strong. Even process shots look pretty good, which pleased me, because I've certainly seen many a 50s flick that has some pretty bad dips in quality when visual effects and mattes are in use (e.g. The Ten Commandments). That said, there are a fair number of scenes that suffer from weak contrast (any scene in the church, and especially the climax), foggy camera filters (the cemetery scene) and other sorts of issues that detract from a sumptuous visual experience (though not from the story, thankfully).


As such, I think 2.25 is about the right spot for this. It's so good most of the time, probably low 1 level. But the inconsistency knocks it down a few pegs. Looking at the tiers, it is better than the 2.5 stuff I've seen (e.g. Planet of the Apes, English Patient). At the end of the day, any fan of the movie should be pretty pleased. Most of the bad stuff is due either to defects in the print or artistic choices. This looks about as good as I think it can. I saw the restored 65mm print this is taken from in the theater, and this Blu-Ray looks pretty much exactly like it.

*Tier recommendation: 2.25*
Sony KDL52EX700, Panasonic BDMP65, 8 foot viewing distance (with several get up off the couch moments)


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Sushi Girl


recommendation: Tier 2.5*
*
_Sushi Girl_ was shot on the Red One digital camera and occasionally looks great, displaying striking sharpness and top-notch detail. However, the erratic digital cinematography takes a very aggressive approach with bokeh and shallow focus, often resulting in a noisy video experience.


Magnolia used a BD-50 for the 98-minute film but then gave it one of the worst-looking compression efforts in recent memory. Normally this level of compression artifacts are reserved for positively ancient 2006 MPEG-2 video encodes on Blu-ray, not a disc released in 2013 using AVC. The frequent banding and chroma noise, not to mention problems in light-restricted shots, spoil an otherwise clear-looking picture.


Aside from some incidental ringing, there are no serious concerns about untoward digital processing. Close-ups are clearly unfiltered, as there are extreme amounts of fine detail in facial surfaces.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*No One Lives*


Brutal 16mm without the technical merit to handle it on Blu. Edge enhancement and sloppy encoding make this one a mess. Smearing is evident, and black crush is everywhere. Some detail lingers around and color is dense, but it's not enough.

*Tier 3.5**


----------



## djoberg

*Epic*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20610#post_23652415
> 
> *Epic*
> 
> 
> Marvelous animation lacking in the slightest bit of depth to keep it from the top. Amazing sharpness and textural work. Contrast is crazy. Things like tall grass and trees are simply perfect. Color saturation is often perfect, with some scenes necessitating bland grays and blues.
> 
> *Tier 0** (Below Astro Boy)



I have only one thing to add to GRG's analysis. Although the colors, contrast, and details were phenomenal in the magical forest, when the scenes shifted to the evil warriors and their habitat there were not only "bland grays and blues," but an accompanying softness that really hindered "pop" and "sharpness," so much so that I'm thinking this should be considerably lower than "below _Astro Boy_." My vote goes for....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (below Toy Story 2)*


Viewed from 7.5" using the equipment listed below....


----------



## rusky_g

*The Sessions (2012)*


Fans of facial close ups will rejoice here - superb details consistently! Fantastic depth and clarity in most scenes, this really shined as a blu ray experience, earning a well deserved placement here:

*Tier 1*


----------



## rusky_g

*Stitches*


A bizarre film but boy it looked great. Pristine, grain free, plenty of pop throughout, I reached for the pause button frequently. Same as above, that being another title for.....

*Tier 1*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Blob 1958 (Criterion)*


Absolutely stunning restoration work that only loses out to a bunk reel near the third act. Contrast and black levels are great, while the vintage color palette has plenty of zest. Resolution is remarkable, and grain is fully resolved.

*Tier 2.5**

*Assault on Wall Street*


Poor encode, sloppy exteriors, and bland color do not a visually appealing film make. Some compression issues are hovering around, and while facial detail is offered, it's quickly wiped away by focal softness. Meh.

*Tier 3.0**


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/18000#post_20141709
> 
> *The Robe
> 
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 3.25*
> *
> 
> Given prior editions, the leap in picture quality is amazing to view. Under the auspices of the criteria for the Tiers, certain deficiencies do reveal the age and limitations of a film that first premiered in 1953.
> 
> 
> 
> The single-strip Technicolor movie shows only scant evidence of damage to the film. Lowry Digital really worked their magic, producing an image that looks remarkably free of speckles or other age-related debris. Digital cleanup and a touch of processing had to have been extensively used to achieve a result as clear and pristine as the original elements would allow. Without reference to an original print, I can't say how altered the grain structure is on this BD. Bearing that in mind, a deft handling of the employed filtering has left no remnants of common problems, such as smeared or swarming grain. The compression shows no overt problems, though one wonders if the tiniest amount of extra detail was removed from the newly-restored master by a video encode that is curiously low for a disc from Fox.
> 
> 
> High-frequency detail is left intact when the camera allows it. Few scenes are sharp as a tack, though several, such as when Marcellus first meets Peter, are just extraordinary in their definition. Select instances do possess a modicum of sharpening, though most of it looks optical in nature, a product of the filming.
> 
> 
> The placement in Tier 3.25 reflects the wide disparity between the best and worst scenes. A few scenes could be put into Tier 1, like the sham trial that Caligula holds for Marcellus. The resplendent colors of the gaudy robes in that scene are almost jarring they are so vibrant, while the new concept at the time of widescreen cinematography allows an enormous amount of bystanders to be shown in full detail. The image does soften at times, or lose resolution, when optical processes of the time are used for various purposes. Painted backgrounds are painfully obvious at 1080p, transitions between scenes show the added generations of film needed, and minor registration errors in color pop up on a handful of occasions.
> 
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...6#post16096336


*The Robe*


After reading some positive reviews, I had high expectations of the PQ on this disc. They were not met. For starters, a good 30% of the movie is taken up by dissolves, which are sorely degraded in both detail and color. Now, I have certainly given high-ish ratings to discs with similar problems in the past (e.g. The Ten Commandments), but these scenes are so much more pervasive in terms of run-time. Added to this, even the best scenes suffer from some issues that reduce this disc's eye candy potential. I have to disagree with Phantom on the best of these scenes rising into Tier 1 territory. I looked very closely at the best scenes, and even they suffered from funky grain behavior, warbling of the image, dithering, mosquito noise, and so on. Black levels are almost uniformly bad throughout the presentation, regardless of the type of shot. It's kind of like the image never displays deep blacks at all, which makes for a very flat, contrast-less viewing experience. Shadows are murky, and display some pretty weird digital tinkering after-effects (including some occasional macroblocking). Panning shots show some very strange motion effects, as well, even in the best scenes.


I get the impression that the film elements were severely degraded, faded, damaged, etc. The presentation put together here was heavily processed in an attempt to correct this damage. But the effects of that processing are quite evident. So when all is said and done, you have blurry images that are the effects of the limitations of 50s film editing and lenses, wan colors that show the limitations of the color process used, and some funky digital side effects that show up even in the best scenes. I watched the movie and enjoyed it, and wasn't ever really ripped out of it by the PQ, but this is below average compared against what I have come to expect as standard PQ for the format. Some scenes are "clearly HD," but I'd peg them at about 20 minutes of run time. Much of what is on display here would be bested by an above-average DVD.

*Tier Recommendation: 4*


All that said, this is apparently light years ahead of previous home video versions, and if you're a fan of biblical epics or Richard Burton, it's a very worthy purchase, especially at the cheap price it generally can be found at. I'm certainly not sorry I bought it.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Stranded*


Low end Christian Slater vehicle with weakened black levels, which is what it needs the most. Much of the film is flattened and pale visually, with little color to speak of. A handful of close-ups work. Meh.

*Tier 3.0**


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20520#post_23606303
> 
> *Niagara*
> 
> *recommendation: Tier 1.0**
> 
> 
> Fox has given _Niagara_ a peerless film restoration and top-notch transfer. The three-strip Technicolor film looks absolutely magnificent at 1080P. Fox makes no claim in regards to the scan's resolution, but I would bet good money this restoration was performed at 4K.
> 
> 
> Fox must have gone back to the original negatives and then produced a state-of-the-art scan from results of a recent photochemical restoration. The screenshots hardly convey the amount of gorgeous eye candy and razor-sharp detail found in the incredibly film-like Blu-ray.
> 
> 
> I would have no qualms with _Niagara_ placed in Tier 0, Marilyn Monroe looks stunning in Hi-Def. One of the new benchmarks for the Blu-ray format in regards to classic film. It's exciting to see results like _Niagara's_ BD and the hope that more films are treated with the same level of respect.



Frys.com is having a great sale on *Niagara* for $8.99 with free shipping. _Bus Stop_ is also on sale but that transfer is underwhelming for the most part.

http://www.frys.com/product/7720688?site=sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Emperor*


Great, resolved grain structure, deep blacks, and strong color (if digital) make this one stand out. Fidelity is superb, and despite some softer focus in camera, fine detail overrules any flubs.

*Tier 1.75**


----------



## djoberg

*The Great Gatsby (2013)*


WOW!! Talk about mesmerizing COLORS, CONTRAST, BLACK LEVELS, DETAILS, DEPTH and SHARPNESS!!! This one is pure sugar for the eyes, with the exception of some shots (as mentioned previously by GRG) with smoothing of faces and green screen effects. Also, flesh tones suffered occasionally during shots with extreme color saturation. But these were the "exception and not the rule" so one can be quite forgiving when it comes to the final placement. I just have to give a huge shout-out for the amazing shadow details during the abundant nighttime shots that took place at the Gatsby mansion (especially shots in the garden). One could see the details in the bark of trees, every leaf, every cloud, etc., etc. My wife and I were both fascinated (and my wife isn't in the habit of praising the virtues of good PQ) by these, and again by the amazing colors, details and depth that abounded throughout the nearly 135 minutes of its running time.


This would be a slam dunk for Tier 0 if not for the few anomalies alluded to above, but in fairness it must be penalized, though I'm not inclined to dock it nearly as much as my esteemed colleague has. My thinking is it still (easily) deserves a place at the very top of Tier Gold....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20580_60#post_23674740
> 
> *The Sessions (2012)*
> 
> 
> Fans of facial close ups will rejoice here - superb details consistently! Fantastic depth and clarity in most scenes, this really shined as a blu ray experience, earning a well deserved placement here:
> 
> *Tier 1*


_The Sessions_ has already been placed near the bottom of Tier 0. Is that close enough to your recommendation or do you feel it needs to be moved out?


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20580_60#post_23680179
> 
> *The Robe*
> 
> 
> After reading some positive reviews, I had high expectations of the PQ on this disc. They were not met. For starters, a good 30% of the movie is taken up by dissolves, which are sorely degraded in both detail and color. Now, I have certainly given high-ish ratings to discs with similar problems in the past (e.g. The Ten Commandments), but these scenes are so much more pervasive in terms of run-time. Added to this, even the best scenes suffer from some issues that reduce this disc's eye candy potential. I have to disagree with Phantom on the best of these scenes rising into Tier 1 territory. I looked very closely at the best scenes, and even they suffered from funky grain behavior, warbling of the image, dithering, mosquito noise, and so on. Black levels are almost uniformly bad throughout the presentation, regardless of the type of shot. It's kind of like the image never displays deep blacks at all, which makes for a very flat, contrast-less viewing experience. Shadows are murky, and display some pretty weird digital tinkering after-effects (including some occasional macroblocking). Panning shots show some very strange motion effects, as well, even in the best scenes.
> 
> 
> I get the impression that the film elements were severely degraded, faded, damaged, etc. The presentation put together here was heavily processed in an attempt to correct this damage. But the effects of that processing are quite evident. So when all is said and done, you have blurry images that are the effects of the limitations of 50s film editing and lenses, wan colors that show the limitations of the color process used, and some funky digital side effects that show up even in the best scenes. I watched the movie and enjoyed it, and wasn't ever really ripped out of it by the PQ, but this is below average compared against what I have come to expect as standard PQ for the format. Some scenes are "clearly HD," but I'd peg them at about 20 minutes of run time. Much of what is on display here would be bested by an above-average DVD.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 4*
> 
> 
> All that said, this is apparently light years ahead of previous home video versions, and if you're a fan of biblical epics or Richard Burton, it's a very worthy purchase, especially at the cheap price it generally can be found at. I'm certainly not sorry I bought it.


Have you seen its sequel on Blu-ray, _Demetrius and the Gladiators_? _The Robe_ received an extensive restoration to its film elements, while Fox simply dumped their unrestored transfer for Demetrius onto Twilight Time's edition. Demetrius is the movie that looks like standard definition on Blu-ray.


The comparison in picture quality between the two films on Blu-ray is like night and day. Demetrius is currently located in Tier 5.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

The Picture Quality Tiers are once again current with everyone's reviews. Since June there were 148 unique entries, including many completely new scores for Criterion discs by tenia54. The following list includes every new entry since March of this year.


"42"* Tier 1.5 Gamereviewgod

21 Jump Street* Tier 2.5 comperic2003

3:10 To Yuma (1957)* Tier 2.25 tenia54

39 Steps, The* Tier 3.5 tenia54

Aftershock (2012)* Tier 1.75 Phantom Stranger

Aftershock* Tier 3.0 (Bronze) Gamereviewgod

Alex Cross Tier 2.0 (Silver) djoberg

Alien Tier 1.75 mweflen

Alien 3 Tier 3.5 mweflen

Alien Resurrection Tier 3.0 (Bronze) mweflen

Aliens Tier 2.25 mweflen

Amazing Spider-Man, The Tier 1.25 lgans316

American Mary* Tier 1.5 Phantom Stranger

Assault on Wall Street* Tier 3.0 (Bronze) gamereviewgod

Astonishing X-Men: Collection Tier 4.0 (Copper) Phantom Stranger

Avatar Tier 0 (Blu) sbpyrat

Bachelorette* Tier 3.25 Gamereviewgod

Badlands* Tier 2.5 tenia54

Band of Outsiders* Tier 2.5 tenia54

Batman: Mystery of the Batwoman* Tier 2.25 Phantom Stranger

Battleship Tier 1.25 lgans316

Beautiful Creatures* Tier 2.75 Phantom Stranger

Bible, The: The Epic Miniseries* Tier 1.25 Phantom Stranger

Blithe Spirit* Tier 2.75 tenia54

Blob, The* (1958) Tier 2.5 gamereviewgod

Border Run* Tier 2.75 djoberg

Bottle Rocket Tier 3.5 tenia54

Brief Encounter* Tier 2.0 (Silver) tenia54

Broken City* Tier 2.25 Gamereviewgod

Broken City* Tier 2.75 djoberg

Brotherhood of Satan, The* Tier 3.25 Phantom Stranger

Brubaker* Tier 3.75 Phantom Stranger

Bullet to the Head* Tier 3.5 Gamereviewgod

Call, The* Tier 3.75 djoberg

Call, The* Tier 2.75 Gamereviewgod

Chitty Chitty Bang Bang* Tier 1.5 mweflen

Cleopatra* Tier 2.25 Phantom Stranger

Cleopatra* Tier 2.5 mweflen

Collection, The* Tier 1.75 Phantom Stranger

Dark Skies* Tier 1.5 djoberg

Day, The Tier 4.0 (Copper) Phantom Stranger

Dead Mine* Tier 1.25 Phantom Stranger

Deadfall* Tier 3.5 djoberg

Delhi Safari* Tier 1.25 Phantom Stranger

Devil's Backbone, The* Tier 1.0 (Gold) deltasun

Disappearance of Haruhi Suzumiya, The* Tier 1.25 Phantom Stranger

Django Unchained* Tier 1.0 (Gold) Gamereviewgod

Django Unchained* Tier 1.5 djoberg

Doors, The: Live At The Bowl '68* Tier 5 (Coal) Phantom Stranger

Dragon Lord* Tier 5 (Coal) Gamereviewgod

Dredd Tier 3.0 (Bronze) audiomagnate

Dusk Maiden of Amnesia: Complete Collection* Tier 1.75 Phantom Stranger

Eating Raoul* Tier 3.0 (Bronze) tenia54

Emperor's New Groove* Tier 1.25 Gamereviewgod

Emperor* Tier 1.75 gamereviewgod

Epic* Tier 0 (Blu) gamereviewgod

Epic* Tier 0 (Blu) djoberg

Erased* Tier 2.0 (Silver) djoberg

Escape from Planet Earth* Tier 0 (Blu) Gamereviewgod

Evil Dead (2013)* Tier 1.25 gamereviewgod

Fate / stay night: Unlimited Blade Works* Tier 2.25 Phantom Stranger

Flight Tier 1.5 djoberg

Fog, The (1980)* Tier 3.25 deltasun

Fresh* Tier 2.5 Gamereviewgod

G.I. Joe: Retaliation* Tier 0 (Blu) Gamereviewgod

G.I. Joe: Retaliation* Tier 2.0 (Silver) Phantom Stranger

Game, The* Tier 2.0 (Silver) tenia54

Gangster Squad* Tier 2.0 (Silver) Gamereviewgod

Gangster Squad* Tier 1.5 djoberg

Ghostbusters* (4K remaster) Tier 2.5 Gamereviewgod

Girl Who Leapt Through Time, The (UK)* Tier 2.0 (Silver) Phantom Stranger

Glory (4K)* Tier 0 (Blu) hernanu

Godzilla (4K)* Tier 3.0 (Bronze) gamereviewgod

Gold Rush, The* Tier 3.75 tenia54

Good Day To Die Hard, A* Tier 2.0 (Silver) Gamereviewgod

Good Day To Die Hard, A* Tier 2.0 (Silver) djoberg

Goro* Tier 4.0 (Copper) Gamereviewgod

Gray's Anatomy* Tier 2.25 tenia54

Great Escape, The* Tier 2.75 Gamereviewgod

Great Escape, The* Tier 3.75 Phantom Stranger

Great Gatsby, The (2013)* Tier 1.5 Gamereviewgod

Great Gatsby, The (2013)* Tier 1.0 (Gold) djoberg

Grey, The Tier 1.75 lgans316

Greystone Park* Tier 4.5 Phantom Stranger

Guilt Trip, The* Tier 2.25 djoberg

Guilt Trip* Tier 3.0 (Bronze) Gamereviewgod

Haganai: I Don't Have Many Friends* Tier 1.5 Phantom Stranger

Hands of the Ripper* Tier 4.0 (Copper) Phantom Stranger

Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters* Tier 1.75 Gamereviewgod

Harold And Maude* Tier 2.5 tenia54

Haunted House, A* Tier 2.25 Phantom Stranger

Heaven's Gate* Tier 2.75 tenia54

Hello, Dolly!* Tier 0 (Blu) hernanu

Hellsing Ultimate: Collection Volumes I - IV* Tier 2.25 Phantom Stranger

Help!* Tier 3.75 Phantom Stranger

Hemingway & Gellhorn* Tier 1.75 Phantom Stranger

High School DxD* Tier 2.75 Phantom Stranger

Hitchcock* Tier 1.0 (Gold) djoberg

Hitchcock* Tier 1.25 Phantom Stranger

Hobbit, The: An Unexpected Journey* Tier 0 (Blu) Gamereviewgod

Hobbit, The: An Unexpected Journey* Tier 1.5 patrick99

Hobbit, The: An Unexpected Journey* Tier 0 (Blu) djoberg

Horror of Dracula (region-locked UK import)* Tier 4.0 (Copper) Phantom Stranger

Host, The (2013)* Tier 0 (Blu) djoberg

Hudson Hawk* Tier 2.75 Gamereviewgod

Ice Storm, The* Tier 3.5 deltasun

Ice Storm, The* Tier 3.0 (Bronze) mweflen

Identity Thief* Tier 1.5 Gamereviewgod

Impossible, The* Tier 0 (Blu) Gamereviewgod

Impossible, The* Tier 1.25 djoberg

In The Mood For Love* Tier 3.0 (Bronze) tenia54

In The Name Of The King* Tier 1.75 hungro

Incredible Burt Wonderstone, The* Tier 3.0 (Bronze) Gamereviewgod

Jack Reacher* Tier 1.25 djoberg

Jack Reacher* Tier 2.25 rusky_g

Jack the Giant Slayer* Tier 2.0 (Silver) gamereviewgod

Jack the Giant Slayer* Tier 0 (Blu) djoberg

Jersey Girl* Tier 3.5 Gamereviewgod

Jurassic Park 3D* Tier 2.75 Gamereviewgod

Justice League: The Flashpoint Paradox* Tier 1.25 Phantom Stranger

Killing Season* Tier 3.0 (Bronze) Gamereviewgod

King of Thorn* Tier 1.5 Phantom Stranger

Kiss of the Damned* Tier 3.5 Phantom Stranger

Koyaanisqatsi: Life Out of Balance* Tier 3.0 (Bronze) tenia54

Kronk's New Groove* Tier 0 (Blu) Gamereviewgod

Lady Gaga Presents: The Monster Ball Tour at Madison Square Garden* Tier 1.25 Johnny Vertigo

Lawless Tier 1.75 Phantom Stranger

Lawless (UK import)* Tier 2.25 lgans316

LEGO Batman: The Movie* Tier 0 (Blu) Phantom Stranger

Léon Morin, Priest* Tier 3.0 (Bronze) tenia54

Les Misérables (2012)* Tier 2.0 (Silver) lgans316

Life of Pi* Tier 0 (Blu) JoeBloggz

Life of Pi* Tier 0 (Blu) Gamereviewgod

Life of Pi* Tier 0 (Blu) djoberg

Life of Pi* Tier 0 (Blu) hungro

Lincoln Tier 1.5 djoberg

Lincoln Tier 1.0 (Gold) mweflen

Looney Tunes Mouse Chronicles: The Chuck Jones Collection* Tier 2.75 Phantom Stranger

Love Me Tender* Tier 4.0 (Copper) Phantom Stranger

Mama* Tier 1.25 djoberg

Man Who Knew Too Much, The (1934)* Tier 3.0 (Bronze) tenia54

Man With the Iron Fists, The* Tier 1.75 djoberg

Man With The Iron Fists, The* Tier 0 (Blu) Phantom Stranger

Master, The Tier 0 (Blu) vpn75

Master, The Tier 0 (Blu) djoberg

Master, The Tier 0 (Blu) audiomagnate

Medium Cool* Tier 1.75 tenia54

Metropolitan* Tier 3.5 tenia54

Miss Fisher's Murder Mysteries Series 1* Tier 2.25 Phantom Stranger

Mortal Kombat Legacy* Tier 1.5 Phantom Stranger

Movie 43* Tier 2.75 Phantom Stranger

Mr. Sardonicus* Tier 2.75 Phantom Stranger

Niagara* Tier 1.0 (Gold) Phantom Stranger

Night of the Hunter, The* Tier 2.75 tenia54

Nim's Island Tier 0 (Blu) rusky_g

No One Lives* Tier 3.5 Gamereviewgod

Notebook, The Tier 1.5 djoberg

Numbers Station, The* Tier 4.0 (Copper) Gamereviewgod

Numbers Station, The* Tier 4.0 (Copper) djoberg

Oblivion* Tier 1.75 Gamereviewgod

Oblivion* Tier 1.0 (Gold) djoberg

Odd Life of Timothy Green, The* Tier 1.25 djoberg

Olympus Has Fallen* Tier 3.25 gamereviewgod

On The Waterfront* Tier 2.0 (Silver) tenia54

Oranges, The* Tier 2.0 (Silver) Gamereviewgod

Organizer, The* Tier 3.25 tenia54

Other Guys, The Tier 2.5 Comperic2003

Oz the Great and Powerful* Tier 1.75 Gamereviewgod

Oz the Great and Powerful* Tier 0 (Blu) djoberg

Pain & Gain* Tier 1.5 Gamereviewgod

Parental Guidance* Tier 3.25 Gamereviewgod

People Like Us Tier 2.0 (Silver) djoberg

Phantom* Tier 2.75 djoberg

Phantom* Tier 2.5 Phantom Stranger

Pierre Étaix Collector's Set* Tier 2.5 tenia54

Prep & Landing / Prep & Landing: Naughty & Nice* Tier 1.25 Phantom Stranger

Puella Magi Madoka Magica: Complete Series Collection (UK Import)* Tier 1.5 Phantom Stranger

Pulp Fiction* Tier 2.75 lgans316

Quadrophenia* Tier 3.0 (Bronze) tenia54

Queen's Blade 2: The Evil Eye* Tier 1.5 Phantom Stranger

Rashomon* Tier 3.25 tenia54

Red Dawn (2012) Tier 1.5 djoberg

Redline Tier 0 (Blu) Phantom Stranger

Resident Evil: Retribution* Tier 2.0 (Silver) Gamereviewgod

Ring, The Tier 2.25 djoberg

Rise of the Guardians* Tier 0 (Blu) Gamereviewgod

Rise of the Guardians* Tier 0 (Blu) djoberg

Robe, The Tier 4.0 (Copper) mweflen

Robin Hood (1973)* Tier 2.0 (Silver) Phantom Stranger

Rosemary's Baby* Tier 2.5 tenia54

Royal Tenenbaums, The* Tier 1.5 tenia54

Rushlights* Tier 1.5 Gamereviewgod

Safety Last* Tier 3.0 (Bronze) tenia54

Safety Not Guaranteed* Tier 2.75 Phantom Stranger

Samurai I: Musashi Miyamoto* Tier 2.5 tenia54

Samurai II: Duel At Ichijoji Temple* Tier 3.25 tenia54

Savages Tier 1.5 Phantom Stranger

Secret Sunshine* Tier 1.25 tenia54

Seeking a Friend for the End of the World* Tier 1.25 Phantom Stranger

Sessions, The Tier 1.0 (Gold) rusky_g

Shakugan no Shana: Season 1* Tier 4.0 (Copper) Phantom Stranger

Shangahi Knights* Tier 2.75 Gamereviewgod

Shanghai Noon* Tier 2.0 (Silver) Gamereviewgod

Ship of Fools* Tier 3.5 Gamereviewgod

Shoot First, Die Later* Tier 3.75 Phantom Stranger

Side Effects* Tier 1.75 djoberg

Silent Hill: Revelation* Tier 1.75 Phantom Stranger

Silver Linings Playbook* Tier 1.75 Gamereviewgod

Sinister* Tier 2.0 (Silver) djoberg

Skyfall Tier 0 (Blu) lgans316

Skyfall Tier 0 (Blu) audiomagnate

Skyfall Tier 1.0 (Gold) mweflen

Smiley's People* Tier 4.5 Phantom Stranger

Spring Breakers* Tier 3.0 (Bronze) Gamereviewgod

Stand Up Guys* Tier 0 (Blu) rusky_g

Star Driver: Part 1* Tier 1.5 Phantom Stranger

Star Driver: Part 2* Tier 1.5 Phantom Stranger

Stitches* Tier 1.0 (Gold) rusky_g

Stoker* Tier 0 (Blu) djoberg

Stoker* Tier 1.5 Phantom Stranger

Storm Surfers 3D* Tier 4.5 Gamereviewgod

Straitheads (UK)* Tier 4.5 Phantom Stranger

Stranded* Tier 3.0 (Bronze) gamereviewgod

Summer With Monika* Tier 2.5 tenia54

Sunday Bloody Sunday* Tier 2.75 tenia54

Superman Unbound* Tier 1.0 (Gold) Phantom Stranger

Sushi Girl* Tier 2.5 Phantom Stranger

Sword in the Stone, The* Tier 3.5 Gamereviewgod

Taken 2 Tier 2.0 (Silver) lgans316

Tekkonkinkreet Tier 1.75 Phantom Stranger

Tell Tale* Tier 2.5 audiomagnate

Thale* Tier 3.5 Phantom Stranger

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (1979) Tier 5 (Coal) Phantom Stranger

Topsy-Turvy* Tier 2.75 tenia54

Total Recall (2012) Tier 1.75 lgans316

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (IMAX) Tier 0 (Blu) TitusTroy

Twilight Saga, The: Breaking Dawn - Part 2* Tier 2.75 Gamereviewgod

Twilight Saga, The: Breaking Dawn - Part 2* Tier 2.0 (Silver) djoberg

Twixt* Tier 3.0 (Bronze) Phantom Stranger

Umberto D.* Tier 3.25 tenia54

Un-Go: Complete Collection* Tier 2.25 Phantom Stranger

Under the Bed* Tier 1.25 Phantom Stranger

Under the Bed* Tier 1.25 rusky_g

Upside Down* Tier 3.75 Gamereviewgod

Vampire Lovers, The* Tier 4.0 (Copper) Phantom Stranger

VEEP: The Complete First Season* Tier 1.5 Phantom Stranger

Vehicle 19* Tier 1.75 gamereviewgod

Verdict, The* Tier 4.0 (Copper) Phantom Stranger

Vertigo* Tier 2.25 mweflen

Viva Zapata!* Tier 3.25 Phantom Stranger

Wages of Fear, The* Tier 3.75 tenia54

Warm Bodies* Tier 2.25 Gamereviewgod

Warm Bodies* Tier 2.0 (Silver) djoberg

Warm Bodies* Tier 2.5 Phantom Stranger

Weekend (1967)* Tier 2.75 tenia54

Welcome to the Punch* Tier 3.0 (Bronze) Gamereviewgod

West Side Story* Tier 2.5 mweflen

What Maisie Knew* Tier 2.5 Gamereviewgod

Wicker Tree, The* Tier 2.0 (Silver) Phantom Stranger

Wild Strawberries* Tier 1.75 tenia54

Willow* Tier 2.5 Gamereviewgod

Words, The* Tier 1.75 djoberg

Wreck-It Ralph Tier 0 (Blu) djoberg

Wreck-It Ralph Tier 1.5 audiomagnate

X-Men: First Class Tier 1.0 (Gold) Johnny Vertigo

Zero Dark Thirty* Tier 1.0 (Gold) djoberg

Zero Dark Thirty* Tier 1.0 (Gold) Gamereviewgod

Zero Dark Thirty* Tier 1.75 lgans316

Zero Dark Thirty* Tier 0 (Blu) audiomagnate


----------



## rusky_g

Phantom - I am happy with the current low Tier 0 placement for The Sessions


----------



## Kool-aid23

Thank you sir for your time and effort with this list.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Kool-aid23*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20610#post_23691217
> 
> 
> Thank you sir for your time and effort with this list.



Ditto!


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Star Trek Into Darkness*


A bit pervasive with the blues and in-camera softness, but otherwise enjoyable viewing. Fine detail is frequent and grain is rarely spotted, leaving Paramount's encode to work invisibly. Black levels are outstanding, if not enough to hide some shots with appear lightly filtered.

*Tier 1.5**


----------



## djoberg

*Safe Haven*


Another nice-looking Blu with warm and natural colors (though at times the "orange hue" was a bit too much) and excellent definition throughout. This was clean and sharp for the most part, though there were fleeting moments of softness that intruded sporadically. Black levels were a treat and I was especially pleased with some of the nighttime shots of the harbor where shadow details excelled. Flesh tones were spot on except when the orange hues became too pervasive. Details were plentiful, including some very good facial close-ups (Tier 1 material, on average). I'm thinking this would find its way unto my "demo shelf," so I'm putting it right here....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Q: The Winged Serpent*


Shout remasters this one with a bit too much aggression. Contrast and black levels are far too overworked as to blot out detail. Signs of filtering and poor damage fixes leave this one, at times, in shambles. A decent grain structure and encoding save it from total failure.

*Tier 3.75**


----------



## djoberg

*The Reluctant Fundamentalist*


My last several outings have been, for the most part, EYE CANDY. This viewing was NOT. It was extremely INCONSISTENT from beginning to end; one minute it would be SHARP and DETAILED; the next minute it would be SOFT and LACKING DETAIL. COLORS were underwhelming with a few exceptions. BLACK LEVELS were murky in the majority of scenes, with disappointing SHADOW DETAILS. CONTRAST was only mediocre and FLESH TONES were so-so. One redeeming quality was FACIAL DETAILS (even in the softer scenes), especially that of Liev Schreiber where whiskers and texture were on display with both close-ups and midrange shots. To be fair, there were a handful of scenes that produced the coveted WOW factor, but they were most definitely the "exception and not the rule," so this one will more than likely land itself in the "average bin." My guess is it will be somewhere close to the top of that tier, perhaps right here....

*Tier Recommendation: 3.25**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Standing Up

recommendation: Tier 3.0*
*
_Standing Up_ is marketed as family fare and currently a retail exclusive found only at Walmart. The picture quality is distinctly average, especially for a newer production. The cinematography does not take advantage of the rural camp setting as one might expect, its eye candy was apparently not a high priority.


The video encode reveals moderate artifacts in some shots. For the most part the video is clean and fairly crisp, though ultimate resolution is lacking in finer detail. A perfectly satisfactory viewing experience lacking any true superlative qualities.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Empire State*


Yellowed to add some vintage color timing, this digital piece adds slight fidelity, but is ultimately just... okay. Black levels are spectacular, and imagery is appealing, but missing those intangibles. Sharpness is high without producing much punch.

*Tier 2.75**


----------



## mweflen

*Zero Dark Thirty*


This one was shot on the Arri Alexa. It looks it. In bright scenes, detail is superb, and facial close-ups can be stellar. This isn't as impressive as Hugo, but it stands up to Girl With the Dragon Tattoo pretty well. The only real problem area, which brings things down a tick or two is the climactic scene in the Abottobad compound. Much of it is shot in either night vision or extreme darkness, so things get kind of noisy and even a tad muddy (this is not to say it wasn't otherwise thrilling). As such, I rate it lower than Dragon Tattoo by one tick at 1.5.

*

Tier Recommendation: 1.5*


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Now You See Me*


Generally fantastic black levels and great encoding keep this one pure, sharp, and incredibly resolved. Some ringing and yes, dimming blacks do cause some irritation. A cooler color palette is appealing and flesh tones unobstructed.

*Tier 1.75**


----------



## djoberg

*Olympus Has Fallen*


This one started out positively AWFUL, with murky blacks, noise, banding and some ugly sharpening. But after a few scenes it became more sharp and detailed, especially in daytime, outdoor scenes. There were a couple of nighttime scenes where the blacks weren't bad at all, and the shadow details were well-defined as well. But most nighttime scenes, and many indoor scenes with low-lighting, were below average with blacks either being murky or reduced to black crush.


The most positive virtue, by far, were facial details. Gerald Butler and Morgan Freeman close-ups were exemplary, starting with Mr. Butler at about the 16 minute mark. The majority of these easily fell into Tier Blu territory!


Colors were quite good too in bright scenes, along with accurate flesh tones. Contrast was also strong in these same scenes.


So, we have the proverbial "mixed bag" in this Blu and thus it's a hard one to call. This may be why there is such a divergence of PQ scores among those who have weighed in on Cinema Squid's site. Because I'm so critical of poor black levels, I am inclined to penalize this one quite a bit. In trying to put everything in perspective and balance the scales, my gut tells me this one goes right here....

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Sorcerer and the White Snake


recommendation: Tier 2.0*
*

I really, really wanted to place this Jet Li fantasy flick into Tier 1. It has an amazingly unique design to the visuals, full of imagination and potential eye candy. Alas, creativity can't compensate all the time for flat VFX and a dosage of second-rate CGI. There is still a pleasing degree of clarity but the overall photography is more typical of a Hong Kong production than the Hollywood vehicles we've grown accustomed to seeing with Jet Li. Magnolia's handling of the transfer looks fine and the main feature is given a very strong AVC encode on a BD-50.


Moral of the story: Don't marry a thousand-year-old snake demon. Sage advice if I've ever heard it.


BDInfo scan:

http://www.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray/movies/releases/the-sorcerer-and-the-white-snake/f8b8ebbf-849a-47a2-a135-b5f02246c7d9#specs


----------



## hernanu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20640#post_23721240
> 
> *The Sorcerer and the White Snake
> 
> 
> Moral of the story: Don't marry a thousand-year-old snake demon. Sage advice if I've ever heard it.
> 
> *




Gotcha....


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*World War Z*


Overly orange and teal tale with some detail, although inconsistently. Softness is heavy at times and black levels are souring, more so in the 3D cut. Ugly flesh tones too. Some amazing sights though, especially cities and zombie hordes. Up close it's not the same.

*Tier 2.25**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

* Parade's End
 

recommendation: Tier 1.5*

_Parade's End_ is a lavish co-production between HBO and the BBC. Shot using Arri Alexa cameras, the two-disc set has superb picture quality. Aside from a dip in clarity and shadow detail in the darkened interior shots, _Parade's End_ has top-notch detail and beautiful cinematography. Expensive period dramas get less credit than they deserve for potential eye candy and demo potential.


----------



## fredxr2d2

*Star Trek Into Darkness


Tier 0*


Seriously. I cannot explain why you didn't have better PQ on your version, but with my W1070 on an 82in Matte White 1.0 Gain Screen from about 11-12' away, it looked perfect. In fact, we got done watching it and the person I was watching with said: this is what you should use to show off your projector setup from now on.


That was just my experience.


----------



## Syradil




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fredxr2d2*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20640#post_23727478
> 
> *Star Trek Into Darkness
> 
> 
> Tier 0*
> 
> 
> Seriously. I cannot explain why you didn't have better PQ on your version, but with my W1070 on an 82in Matte White 1.0 Gain Screen from about 11-12' away, it looked perfect. In fact, we got done watching it and the person I was watching with said: this is what you should use to show off your projector setup from now on.
> 
> 
> That was just my experience.



I spotted a few grainy shots on my watch-through the other night. I don't think I can agree with Tier 0, though I have never weighed in on a rating before so I don't know what my own tier recommendation should be. PS3 ran the blu-ray to 50" ST60.


----------



## fredxr2d2

The only grain I remember spotting was during
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) (SPOILER) Admiral Pike's death scene
. So an argument could be made for Tier 1. I still think that Tier 0 in terms of general awesomeness regarding the cinematic experience of the presentation: notably better than most blu-rays. I think the fact that Ralph (the official blu-ray review guy for the whole site) seems to agree with that assessment means something too. But perhaps this is not quite the right place for "cinematic feel" and "general awesomeness" based on some of the other PQ ratings.


----------



## fredxr2d2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Syradil*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20640#post_23728215
> 
> 
> I spotted a few grainy shots on my watch-through the other night. I don't think I can agree with Tier 0, though I have never weighed in on a rating before so I don't know what my own tier recommendation should be. PS3 ran the blu-ray to 50" ST60.



I've also never weighed in before, but this was because I disagreed with the previous poster's assessment. I'd love to have a discussion about it...I'd also love to be forced to watch it again!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fredxr2d2*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20640#post_23727478
> 
> *Star Trek Into Darkness
> 
> 
> Tier 0*
> 
> 
> Seriously. I cannot explain why you didn't have better PQ on your version, but with my W1070 on an 82in Matte White 1.0 Gain Screen from about 11-12' away, it looked perfect. In fact, we got done watching it and the person I was watching with said: this is what you should use to show off your projector setup from now on.
> 
> 
> That was just my experience.



I picked up a copy on Tuesday and hope to view it tomorrow night. I've been told (once or twice) that I'm a "generous rater," so if anyone is going to agree with you, I'm the one!


----------



## djoberg

*Now You See Me*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20640#post_23706946
> 
> *Now You See Me*
> 
> 
> Generally fantastic black levels and great encoding keep this one pure, sharp, and incredibly resolved. Some ringing and yes, dimming blacks do cause some irritation. A cooler color palette is appealing and flesh tones unobstructed.
> 
> *Tier 1.75**



What he said! Though I would add that there were some "overblown whites" in several daytime scenes where the contrast was obviously spiked. Additionally, facial details suffered in some scenes in midrange shots (though facial close-ups could be exceptional...case in point, the face "made for HD"; namely, MORGAN FREEMAN). I was very impressed with the depth and details in numerous scenes, but in fast-action scenes detail was lost as well as the depth. I'm siding with GRG all the way on this one....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Fly* (1958)


Awesome vintage color brings this one up and over modern standards, while its over vintage qualities bring it down. Grain struggles to be fully resolved, and chemical fades are nasty as usual. A small section before the third act seems pulled from a different print as well. But, overall, Fox has done an outstanding job and fidelity is there for the taking.

*Tier 3.0**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*From Up On Poppy Hill


recommendation: Tier 1.25*
*

Another animated marvel from Studio Ghibli, though Disney didn't happen to release this one on BD. The 2011 animated feature was released last week by Cinedigm. The new distributor gave the film a respectable AVC video encode, though much of its BD-50 capacity goes to extra features instead of the main feature.


Its color palette is more restrained than some of the better known Ghibli movies, which did factor into my placement. The masterful backgrounds are brimming with detail and little flourishes. Character designs are Poppy Hill's primary weakness as demo material, they are relatively simplistic and it appears the animation studio favored quantity over quality in this case.


This is not the best-looking movie from Studio Ghibli, but it's certainly a grade above most other cel animation these days.


----------



## djoberg

*Star Trek Into Darkness*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20610#post_23692663
> 
> *Star Trek Into Darkness*
> 
> 
> A bit pervasive with the blues and in-camera softness, but otherwise enjoyable viewing. Fine detail is frequent and grain is rarely spotted, leaving Paramount's encode to work invisibly. Black levels are outstanding, if not enough to hide some shots with appear lightly filtered.
> 
> *Tier 1.5**





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fredxr2d2*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20640#post_23727478
> 
> *Star Trek Into Darkness
> 
> 
> Tier 0*
> 
> 
> Seriously. I cannot explain why you didn't have better PQ on your version, but with my W1070 on an 82in Matte White 1.0 Gain Screen from about 11-12' away, it looked perfect. In fact, we got done watching it and the person I was watching with said: this is what you should use to show off your projector setup from now on.
> 
> 
> That was just my experience.



Okay, I've got an embarrassing confession to make. I watched over half of this movie before realizing that I had mistakenly SLIPPED THE DVD INTO MY BLU-RAY PLAYER!!!! Yes, that's right, I watched over an hour before I noticed the audio was on Dolby Digital instead of Dolby True-HD and that the Blu-ray was still in the slipcase. That said, the audio was VERY GOOD so I actually thought I was listening to an HD codec. But I was having problems enjoying the PQ and I even found myself thinking, in places, "this isn't much better than a DVD, so I'm going to be rating this much lower than GRG." Ah, but once I discovered my blunder and slipped the "true Blu" in, my eyes (and ears) were treated to pure EYE CANDY. What a difference, especially in facial details, details in general, colors, black levels, and, of course, sharpness & clarity. It was so good that I started the disc over from the beginning.


It's late so I'm not going to go into a lot of detail, but I do believe I'm going to side with fredxr2d2 on this one and recommend Tier Blu. There were a few fleeting soft shots and HUNDREDS of lens flares (which ARE distracting to me), so I'm opting for the bottom of the tier....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (right above Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen)*


PS The audio rocked...BIG TIME! It gave my SVS sub a real workout and really made my Cambridge Soundworks Ambiance speakers shine!


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Solomon Kane


recommendation: Tier 2.25*
*
_Solomon Kane's_ cinematography offers tremendous depth and projection. That is definitely the 2009 film's strongest point on Blu-ray, on par with nearly any Tier One-ranked disc. The teal-soaked palette is dark and dreary, lacking any of the warmer and brighter colors. Anchor Bay's handling of the transfer looks very good without any undue processing. This is just not a film that could possibly end up in Tier One, due to its dark aesthetic choices. I don't remember a single scene in which the skies of England are not overcast or raining.


Someone else previously placed the UK Blu-ray for _Solomon Kane_, released by another distributor, in Tier 1.25. I haven't directly seen the import disc but that score looks like an over-reach to me, though the picture quality is occasionally fantastic with textural detail and razor-sharp focus. The VFX-laden movie avoids most of the visual pitfalls associated with that production technique.


----------



## cmgunn

*Star Trek Into Darkness*

*Tier 1.75*

_Star Trek Into Darkness_ displayed many grainy or soft shots and seemed to have a slightly blueish tint. Overall, I think the picture quality was good, but could have been better.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cmgunn*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20640#post_23736425
> 
> *Star Trek Into Darkness*
> 
> *Tier 1.75*
> 
> _Star Trek Into Darkness_ displayed many grainy or soft shots and seemed to have a slightly blueish tint. Overall, I think the picture quality was good, but could have been better.



I like this guy...


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fredxr2d2*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20640#post_23727478
> 
> *Star Trek Into Darkness
> 
> 
> Tier 0*
> 
> 
> Seriously. I cannot explain why you didn't have better PQ on your version, but with my W1070 on an 82in Matte White 1.0 Gain Screen from about 11-12' away, it looked perfect. In fact, we got done watching it and the person I was watching with said: this is what you should use to show off your projector setup from now on.
> 
> 
> That was just my experience.



...and I like this guy!


----------



## rusky_g

:-D


----------



## jrnewquist

By the way, I also screwed up the DVD and Blu-Ray in the Star Trek case (but only momentarily, remembering djoberg). The Blu-Ray is on the left, underneath the paper tucked into the case. Bizarre.


----------



## shpankey

*Star Trek Into Darkness*

*Tier 1*

_Star Trek Into Darkness_ has many moments of reference levels, but occasionally had scenes where it had some minor issues.


*Epic*

*Tier 1*

_Epic_, for me, would be at the very tippy-top of Tier 1 and/or bottom of Tier 0. I usually use the lowest common denominator which is why I put it at 1.


*Oblivion*

*Tier 0*

_Oblivion_ is truly a stunner. Yes it does has a few scenes that I wouldn't rate as reference; but this is a movie I would use to showcase and impress friends/family, without question. Which is more of a compliment than just saying it's 100% reference imo, as a movie on the whole: audio quality, video quality and overall ability to "wow" and impress via it's cinematography, imagery, shot sequence/s, framing, etc, etc can have a much, much larger impact on a viewer than just its picture quality alone. This one can drop jaws and on a whole, and is why in my very humble opinion, I would put it on tier 0. If you want just a pure video reference rating, then I suppose I would rate it at the mid-high to high in tier 1. Sorry if my initial rating wasn't playing by the rules, but for me, I would make a few exceptions to raise and lower movies based on the je n'est sais quoi factor. But I digress. Carry on.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Shining Hearts: Complete Collection


recommendation: Tier 3.25
*
_Shining Hearts_ is an anime program with cheap animation for high-definition. The bright, cheery colors can't disguise the limited movement in the animation and its lack of polish to the line art. It is a newer show having been produced in 2012, but the digital ink and paint animation is below the average standards of new series.


Sentai Filmworks does not help matters, giving the Blu-ray a poor AVC-video encode with instances of banding and other compression problems. Overall, one of their poorer-looking releases on Blu-ray.


----------



## djoberg

*World War Z*


Yet ANOTHER inconsistent title! This one is really the tale of multiple scenes each having their own positives and negatives. First off you had the opening scene in the streets of _Philadelphia_. These were quite natural with very detailed aerial views of the city, but softness crept in sporadically along with the infamous "soap opera effect." Next came the scenes taking place on the _ship_. These were sharp, detailed (especially facial close-ups), and exhibited incredible depth, though even here there might have been a soft shot or two. If the whole movie had been of this caliber I'd be casting my vote for low Tier 0. Then there are the scenes in _Jerusalem_, with its pervasive orange hues (ugh!) and yet marvelous details. And lastly, there were the scenes in _India_, outside on the _mountain_ and then inside the _WHO (World Health Organization) Center_. The mountain scenes were detailed, but soft at times; inside the WHO Center we're treated to pervasive teal, some softness, but then some redeeming details (again, close-ups of facial details were remarkable).


As you can imagine, this is another tough call for placement. In trying to average things out, I'm prepared to be as generous as the "most generous rater" can be, but even then I can't, with a good conscience, go any higher than....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## djoberg

After watching _World War Z_, I thought of the following riddle:


What's worse than millions of crazed, flesh-eating zombies? (Hint: If this had been true in AMC's popular show _The Walking Dead_, they would have renamed the show AND the series would have ended long ago.) I'll give the answer in a *spoiler* in case no one has seen the movie or the trailer for _World War Z_.
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) Millions of crazed, flesh-eating zombies *that are also Olympic running and broad-jumping Gold Medalists*!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*.Hack//Quantum OVA


recommendation: Tier 1.25*
*

One of Funimation's better releases for picture quality, this relatively brief feature runs 77 minutes on a BD-50. The animation combines elements of both CGI and more traditional styles. Detailed backgrounds and fluid movement help demonstrate how strong the animation really looks at times. Aside from minor flashes of banding, a largely pristine experience.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cmgunn*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20640#post_23736425
> 
> *Star Trek Into Darkness*
> 
> *Tier 1.75*
> 
> _Star Trek Into Darkness_ displayed many grainy or soft shots and seemed to have a slightly blueish tint. Overall, I think the picture quality was good, but could have been better.





Only watched about three quarters so far and thus not ready for a final verdict but so far I am leaning more in this direction.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20640#post_23752353
> 
> 
> Only watched about three quarters so far and thus not ready for a final verdict but so far I am leaning more in this direction.



Why am I not surprised?


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20640#post_23752723
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised?



I am so predictable


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20640_60#post_23752930
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20640#post_23752723
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am so predictable
Click to expand...

Many years ago, I think you offered your opinion on the PQ after watching 20 minutes into a film. That is still currently the record in this thread.


----------



## patrick99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20670#post_23753018
> 
> 
> Many years ago, I think you offered your opinion on the PQ after watching 20 minutes into a film. That is still currently the record in this thread.



Might have been less than that. I have been trying to be more restrained lately. But basically I still think you can tell pretty soon.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *patrick99*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20670#post_23753169
> 
> 
> Might have been less than that. I have been trying to be more restrained lately. But basically I still think you can tell pretty soon.



In my experience I've seen many titles that start out inconsistent with some flaws and anomalies and then the PQ gets much better. It's usually about halfway through where I'm able to pass judgment for placement, but even then there may be surprises ahead that will alter one 's recommendation.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Scenic Route


recommendation: Tier 2.5**


This is an independent film released by a distributor new to Blu-ray, Vertical Entertainment. It looks better than the typical low-budget production, having been shot using a combination of new cameras like the Arri Alexa and RED Epic. _Scenic Route's_ biggest visual problems are almost entirely confined to an extended scene shot inside a truck at night. It's a pivotal moment in the story but is awash in digital noise not due to compression. The rest of the film, set in a sun-drenched desert, has much higher levels of clarity and sharpness.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Time Bandits (Region B 2013 Remaster)


recommendation: Tier 3.5*
*

Arrow Video's newly remastered release of _Time Bandits_ is now the definitive version of the British fantasy adventure. In unfortunate news, Arrow Video's restoration and new transfer is locked to Region B. It looks about as good as a 2k scan of _Time Bandits'_ camera negative can possibly look on the format, having received top-notch treatment. The new color correction and careful avoidance of significant processing looks great on the 1981 movie, leaving an authentic film-like appearance.


This is easily one of the best-handled catalog titles I've seen from the era in recent years. Hopefully someone in the U.S. decides to license this transfer for release in the states.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Last Unicorn


recommendation: Tier 2.5*
*

This 1982 Rankin-Bass production recently hit the bargain bin. Surprisingly enough, Lionsgate's 25th anniversary edition in 2011 received a new transfer and excellent treatment on Blu-ray. Aside from some minor cel dust and a few other remnants from its classic cel animation process, _The Last Unicorn_ is crisp with top-notch color rendition. The AVC video encode has been spread out over a BD-50, allowing it reproduce the movie's original grain without error. Lionsgate looks to have avoided the use of filtering the transfer, giving it a more natural film-like appearance than Disney's more aggressive changes to their cel animation.


Fans should be very happy with this transfer, Lionsgate has really brought out the detail and artwork to the fore without altering its original intent on film. This is about as good as the movie will ever look in 1080P.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

I'm way behind. Let's play catch up:
*

Iron Man 3*


Not impressed, and I wasn't impressed in theaters. Iron Man 3 looks intentionally grimed up to mimic film, and that means petering out in medium shots and losing fidelity. It looks sharpened. While low light images are as pure as they can be, post production has done a number to this one, and leaves it unimpressive despite some great detail.

*Tier 2.5**

*Disconnect*


Fantastic drama I recommend fully, if not for the orange and teal rush. Black levels are dim, and sharpness isn't always on point, but there's plenty of close-ups worthy of consideration.

*Tier 2.5**

*Java Heat*


Cruddy looking indie flick with signs of sharpening, far too much noise, and impossibly poor contrast.

*Tier 3.5**

*Blood*


Obsessed with blues, this moody thriller is decent, but shot on film with almost no evidence to that fact visually. Black levels are atrocious at times, and the savior are some decent close-ups.
*Tier 3.0**


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*Redemption*


Moody Jason Statham flick shows off some fidelity, but is ultimately handicapped by awful black levels and ugly color schemes. Some nice contrast can counteract the negatives.

*Tier 3.25**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Homeland: The Complete Second Season


recommendation: Tier 1.25*
*

This is definitely one of the strongest television releases in Blu-ray history. _Homeland_ is rendered with crystalline clarity and gorgeous detail, most of the time. Sure, some slight ISO noise might creep into the picture during the darkest scenes but the video is nearly perfect the rest of the time.


I could see a valid argument for a higher placement, even in Tier 0, but the somewhat drab color palette only comes alive during the covert mission in Beirut.


----------



## edlittle

How is it compared to say, Game of Thrones, Dexter, or Spartacus, if you've seen any of those?


----------



## Kilgore




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *edlittle*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20670#post_23779016
> 
> 
> How is it compared to say, Game of Thrones, Dexter, or Spartacus, if you've seen any of those?



I can say that it's up there with Dexter, PQ wise, but I might still give the nod to Dexter.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *edlittle*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20640_60#post_23779016
> 
> 
> How is it compared to say, Game of Thrones, Dexter, or Spartacus, if you've seen any of those?


On a direct comparison, Spartacus probably outranks it due to the flashier contrast and pumped-up visuals. I would say Homeland is a little more consistent than Game of Thrones since the latter series has many more FX shots.


----------



## djoberg

I'm very gratified to see such good PQ in some of the TV broadcasts. One more that comes to mind that is simply stellar is AMC's _Hell On Wheels_. The details, depth and black levels are equal to those of _Spartacus_ and better than those of _Game of Thrones_.


----------



## edlittle

Awesome. From what I've seen on lower quality um not so legal venues from before the seasons come out on Bluray, I would also give the nod to Spartacus just because of how consistent every shot was, along with amazing lighting. I also don't have the black levels that you guys have, nor the screen size to viewing distance ratio (40" at 9 feet), so I can't compare the detail, but I know that I'm consistal impressed with all of those shows.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*House of Wax 3D*


Warner's encode is great on this uniquely shot piece of early 3D cinema. 3D effects are monstrously aggressive, but in terms of 2D, images are quite soft. Always have been. Fidelity does seep in impressively, and colors are heavily saturated. Blacks are deep if missing their depth peak.

*Tier 3.5**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The East


recommendation: Tier 2.25*
*

Fox's _The East_ was digitally shot and looks quite good aside from some scattered problems to its black levels. It lacks the vibrant amount of detail possible with modern cinematography but for the most part presents a sharp, highly-realistic picture.


The movie itself is very, very good for an unheralded film featuring such a strong cast.


----------



## djoberg

I edited my last post above because after watching _Revolution_ this week I was reminded of how bad the black levels can be, especially during night scenes. They were horrible in this last episode. By contrast, _Hell On Wheels_ has consistent deep and inky blacks, with amazing details and depth. If you've never tuned in to this show, give it a look; you WILL be impressed!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Halloween (35th Anniversary Edition)


recommendation: Tier 2.5**


Anchor Bay's new edition for John Carpenter's _Halloween_ looks incredible, much better than the now-obsolete 2007 BD. Utilizing a completely new transfer supervised by Dean Cundey, this is one gorgeous, film-like image. The color grading has been altered once again after the inauthentic changes made to the 2007 transfer.


The 1978 low-budget film has never looked better, left unmolested by such detrimental digital processes as DNR or sharpening. The 2007 disc is currently ranked in Tier 2.25 but that is simply too high for it. This 35th Anniversary release is a huge visual improvement, given a state-of-the-art scan from the original camera negative and then a reference video encode topping 36 Mbps on average. It is a must-buy for the film's fans.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World*


1.75? Seriously? This might be in the top 5 film based discs I've ever seen. Watching this one casually tonight, I was blown away by the brilliant color saturation, intense contrast, insane amounts of fidelity in every shot, and flawless encoding. I can't even fathom how perfect a 70mm presentation of this must have been. This is my live action catalog reference disc from here on out.

*Tier 0*, above The Master


----------



## djoberg

*The Croods*

WOW!!


DreamWorks has done it again! The animation is simply INSANE, with indescribable DETAILS and DEPTH (I have never seen depth like this before in an animated movie). One has called this the "animated Avatar" and you will know why when you view the incredible world that DreamWorks and Fox have made. The COLORS couldn't be more vibrant and dazzling. There are quite a few scenes inside caves or at night, but in these the mesmerizing BLACK LEVELS and SHADOW DETAILS come into play. SHARPNESS and CLARITY abound in every scene. Let me just add that the PHOTOREALISM is off the charts in several scenes, especially those with huge explosions creating unbelievable clouds of smoke that look ever-so-real. Those who admire realistic-looking oceans will also appreciate some rare but beautiful shots.


Well, you get the picture, I'm sold on this one and I can't wait to show this one off to family and friends. I'm not sure if it's the best one out there, but it's most definitely the best I've seen in a very long time. Having said that, because I don't remember ever seeing such amazing colors, details, depth and photorealism combined in an animated feature, I'm prepared to place this at the top of the Blu-ray hill....

*Tier Recommendation: Top of Tier 0**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## edlittle

You should watch Madagascar 3 to compare and let us know!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *edlittle*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20670#post_23809217
> 
> 
> You should watch Madagascar 3 to compare and let us know!



I have watched _Madagascar 3_ and it was phenomenal! Check out my review:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19680#post_22503293 


Without actually comparing the two side by side, I would have to say they may be a match. Or, it may just be that _The Croods_ has a slight edge because of its *photorealism." I see I never mentioned this attribute in _Madagascar 3_.


I am learning that it's starting to become virtually impossible to rate some of the newer animated titles. They seem to be flawless, so it usually comes down to how much color is on display, or how much depth, or, as in the case of _The Croods_, the *photorealism* (on top of the other virtues of excellent colors, amazing depth, superb black levels, and phenomenal sharpness and clarity).


----------



## edlittle

I bet that's why it's on top! Really though, at this point, with such great black levels, big displays, and great color, I think that we have so many reference level discs that the challenge is now better displays. It's hard to put one down and one up when they both are perfect at everything they attempt.


----------



## Gamereviewgod

*The Croods*


Nope. But it's good. Croods has a lot of dark scenes, and begins with a reserved palette, more earth tones and such, before becoming a colorful, saturated visual utopia. Madagascar 3 was ludicrously gorgeous from scene one. Same with Toy Story 3. However, the amount of textural detail - especially skin - is staggering.

*Tier 0,* above Avatar


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20670#post_23810429
> 
> *The Croods*
> 
> 
> Nope. But it's good. Croods has a lot of dark scenes, and begins with a reserved palette, more earth tones and such, before becoming a colorful, saturated visual utopia. Madagascar 3 was ludicrously gorgeous from scene one. Same with Toy Story 3. However, the amount of textural detail - especially skin - is staggering.
> 
> *Tier 0,* above Avatar



You are right about the more subdued color palette in early scenes, but the black levels and details made up for the lack of color. Are you implying that an animated feature MUST have brilliant colors from beginning to end to qualify for the top of Tier 0?


What did you think of the scenes where the earth was crumbling and producing photorealistic clouds of smoke? _Madagascar 3_ lacked such scenes, if memory serves me.


Edit: I just checked and I see that your placement would still put it at #3.....that's close enough for me to quit debating the issue.


----------



## Gamereviewgod




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20670#post_23810587
> 
> 
> You are right about the more subdued color palette in early scenes, but the black levels and details made up for the lack of color. Are you implying that an animated feature MUST have brilliant colors from beginning to end to qualify for the top of Tier 0?
> 
> 
> What did you think of the scenes where the earth was crumbling and producing photorealistic clouds of smoke? _Madagascar 3_ lacked such scenes, if memory serves me.
> 
> 
> Edit: I just checked and I see that your placement would still put it at #3.....that's close enough for me to quit debating the issue.



I didn't know realism was one of the criteria.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20670#post_23812309
> 
> 
> I didn't know realism was one of the criteria.



The criteria that was adopted was not written specifically for animation, thus *photorealism* is not mentioned. But I personally think it should be added to the criteria since we review so many animated Blu-rays and if something looks close to being what we would literally see in "real life," that's quite an achievement by the animators and it should be rewarded as such.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Generally I rate animation with more realistic textures and detailed models higher in the PQ Tiers. That is why something like _Toy Story_, an older CGI feature, isn't near the top. It's also the reason why I've been hesitant to place cel animation much higher than the middle of Tier 0. While not explicitly listed, verisimilitude is an important criterion to think about unless there are other considerations.


CGI animation really has its own language when describing its picture quality, such as polygon count.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20670#post_23812595
> 
> 
> Generally I rate animation with more realistic textures and detailed models higher in the PQ Tiers. That is why something like _Toy Story_, an older CGI feature, isn't near the top. It's also the reason why I've been hesitant to place cel animation much higher than the middle of Tier 0. While not explicitly listed, verisimilitude is an important criterion to think about unless there are other considerations.
> 
> 
> CGI animation really has its own language when describing its picture quality, such as polygon count.



I heartily concur!


In case any of you are reaching for your dictionary, Phantom was simply avoiding redundancy by employing the word *verisimilitude*. It means "realism; literalism."


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Dead & Buried


recommendation: Tier 4.5**


Not unexpectedly, no one had previously ranked Blue Underground's issue of the 1981 horror movie, _Dead & Buried_. The transfer is taken from a second-generation IP at best. The film elements are in acceptable condition, though the outdated telecine transfer introduces mild analog noise into the grain structure. The VC-1 video encode is given extremely high bitrates to deal with the heavy grain and noise, though it fails on occasion. The opening shots are awash in noise created by the scanner, though that clears up as the movie goes on.

_Dead & Buried_ was a fairly low-budget production. Its soft-focus cinematography lacks sharpness or inordinate detail. Replete with a thick, film-like grain much of the time, clarity is definitely not the film's hallmark. This transfer hasn't been processed by DNR or sharpening, but the outdated telecine transfer shows its age in other ways. This is not a terrible transfer for _Dead & Buried_, but it could likely look much better on Blu-ray given a quality scan of the original camera negative.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Shout At the Devil


recommendation: Tier 3.25*
*

Given its name, you would expect _Shout at the Devil_ to be another horror movie. But this film starring Roger Moore is actually a sweeping adventure film from the 1970s. This Blu-ray is actually the first time the film has hit home video in North America, during the DVD era. Timeless Media Group has dug up a solid film master, possibly the camera negative, only to slather it with a dose of filtering.


Skin is left in a waxy and dull state though it doesn't disturb the eye-catching cinematography, shot on location in such places as Malta. I wish the transfer hadn't been overly hit with DNR, the film scan itself looks excellent for the vintage and might have garnered a much higher ranking in the PQ Tiers.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Clue: The Movie


recommendation: Tier 3.75
*
_Clue_ is yet another dated master from Paramount, likely made during DVD's heyday. The 1985 comedy doesn't look terrible, showing noticeable upticks in clarity and filmic texture over the DVD. _Clue_ was not filmed to be eye candy, its film stock and photography are firmly pedestrian. One notable issue with this transfer are some minor problems with overly aggressive black levels that obscure detail in Tim Curry's butler's jacket. The proper saturation of the color timing does result in a definite improvement.


Starting in the second act, some sharpening has been selectively applied that strangely gets worse and worse near the end. The halos actively detract from the picture quality in this case. I would love if someone with more in-depth knowledge of _Clue_ could check whether this Paramount master has been vertically stretched like several others. There were no obvious circles on screen to check if stretching was occurring, but something about the geometry of the image looks slightly askew.


BDInfo scan:

http://www.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray/movies/releases/clue/d27c290a-f32a-421a-8ae8-8f92ba950e72#specs 


*Berserk: The Golden Age Arc I - The Egg of the King


recommendation: Tier 1.75*
*

Something about this digital animation lacks fluidity. Movements are stiff and awkward at times, especially in the opening scenes. Parts of it look really nice with gorgeous backdrops in brilliant color. At times this style of animation reminded myself of videogame cut-scenes.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea

recommendation: Tier 3.5*
*

Fox has done a fine job in bringing Irwin Allen's _Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea_ to Blu-ray. Some very minor processing to the transfer results in just a glimmer of faint edge enhancement. The transfer is film-like and captures the colorful but soft cinematography quite accurately. Voyage is not a film that revels in extraordinary detail or high-frequency content, though the model work and practical FX hold up fairly well in 1080P resolution. This is not the best effort I've seen from Fox on one of their older movies but is certainly commendable.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

* The Exorcist: 40th Anniversary Edition 


recommendation: Tier 3.0*


WB's 2010 digibook edition earned a Tier 3.5 placement, which I felt was fair at the time of its release. Warner Bros. has reused those same discs for this new edition's first two discs. I think I might have been too severe in my original placement, though I still think there is some room for visual improvement. A completely new transfer and redone video encode might eek out a Tier 2 placement. After seeing a spate of older films in poorer condition, _The Exorcist_ received a respectable transfer with mostly excellent choices in the color correction. A hint of processing is detectable but the grain structure is largely unaffected from its native, film-like grit.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20700#post_23839593
> 
> * The Exorcist: 40th Anniversary Edition
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 3.0*
> 
> 
> WB's 2010 digibook edition earned a Tier 3.5 placement, which I felt was fair at the time of its release. Warner Bros. has reused those same discs for this new edition's first two discs. I think I might have been too severe in my original placement, though I still think there is some room for visual improvement. A completely new transfer and redone video encode might eek out a Tier 2 placement. After seeing a spate of older films in poorer condition, _The Exorcist_ received a respectable transfer with mostly excellent choices in the color correction. A hint of processing is detectable but the grain structure is largely unaffected from its native, film-like grit.



When I first saw the title for review I assumed it was the 2010 "Extended Collector's Edition," which I possess. But you do say this copy (that you reviewed) "reused those same discs for this new edition's first two discs" so they are essentially the same. You and I are so very close in our placement recommendation, for I gave that release a 3.25. http://www.avsforum.com/t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/16980#post_19343238 


As I stated in my review, I was disappointed with the Extended Edition, for it clearly had some remarkable scenes one minute and then very poor shots the next. I do wish they would, as you suggest, give it a "completely new transfer and redone encode," for I would gladly do a double dip if this could find its way into one of the two top tiers.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I have a hunch we won't be getting a new transfer on _The Exorcist_ until the next format comes around.


----------



## djoberg

I just rented _Pacific Rim_ and _After Earth_ this afternoon but won't be watching them until tomorrow or Friday. Both of them are getting rave reviews for PQ (but only _Pacific Rim_ is getting accolades for the movie itself). Has anyone out there in Cyberspace seen these titles? If so, I'd love to see you chime in with your impressions.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I'm definitely going to try and watch _Pacific Rim_ by the weekend.

*Fright Night 2: New Blood


recommendation: Tier 1.5**


A handsome digital presentation is provided by _Fright Night 2: New Blood_. Fox gave it a strong technical presentation which reveals striking detail in the razor-sharp photography. Only a brief excursion into poor-looking animation and staged reality footage has less than vivid clarity. This is a case when the screenshots really are an accurate indicator of a disc's quality.


----------



## hernanu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20700#post_23844859
> 
> 
> I just rented _Pacific Rim_ and _After Earth_ this afternoon but won't be watching them until tomorrow or Friday. Both of them are getting rave reviews for PQ (but only _Pacific Rim_ is getting accolades for the movie itself). Has anyone out there in Cyberspace seen these titles? If so, I'd love to see you chime in with your impressions.



I saw Pacific Rim in the much inferior "Movie Theater" environment... Really fun movie, lots of action in nightime, should be a feast of colors and if the transfer was done right, possibility of tier 0...


or not.. you never know. Anyways, lots of fun. I plan to pick up the blu soon.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20700#post_23844859
> 
> 
> I just rented _Pacific Rim_ and _After Earth_ this afternoon but won't be watching them until tomorrow or Friday. Both of them are getting rave reviews for PQ (but only _Pacific Rim_ is getting accolades for the movie itself). Has anyone out there in Cyberspace seen these titles? If so, I'd love to see you chime in with your impressions.



I have seen both now and they both look excellent. PR I would give the edge overall, especially for this thread as there are some great colors, lights, etc...set against dark backgrounds that really popped on my JVC (and will be impressive on your Kuro as well) and served as excellent eye candy. It will be interesting to see you guys pick both apart though and to see where they land on the scale here. I cant imagine PR not hitting somewhere in tier 0, but WTH do I know!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hernanu*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20700#post_23846090
> 
> 
> I saw Pacific Rim in the much inferior "Movie Theater" environment... Really fun movie, lots of action in nightime, should be a feast of colors and if the transfer was done right, possibility of tier 0...
> 
> 
> or not.. you never know. Anyways, lots of fun. I plan to pick up the blu soon.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20700#post_23846323
> 
> 
> I have seen both now and they both look excellent. PR I would give the edge overall, especially for this thread as there are some great colors, lights, etc...set against dark backgrounds that really popped on my JVC (and will be impressive on your Kuro as well) and served as excellent eye candy. It will be interesting to see you guys pick both apart though and to see where they land on the scale here. I cant imagine PR not hitting somewhere in tier 0, but WTH do I know!



Thanks guys for "chiming in." You have both whetted my appetite even more than it was for seeing _Pacific Rim_. It would be great to see an official review and recommendation from you. History has proven you are both quite capable of writing good reviews. Go for it!!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

If anyone gets a look at _Pacific Rim_ or really any other Blu-ray they want to give a score to in the PQ Tiers list, don't feel shy about it. All it takes is someone's personal opinion on what Tier a disc belongs in and it will be counted in the final tally.


No one has a monopoly on the "correct" placement and a specific score is always a good starting point for discussion. We do reserve the right to beat you up for bad scores.









*Home Run


recommendation: Tier 1.5**


Independent movies continue to look better and better on Blu-ray due to advances in digital video production at cheaper and cheaper costs. Home Run was shot using RED ONE cameras and has moments of outrageous detail. Its clarity and sharpness are hard to surpass in 1080P, particularly as the movie is filled with unfiltered, tight close-ups which exude incredible fine detail. There is nothing technically wrong with the digital transfer or video encode. It does lack some of the pop and depth of better cinema, as the cinematography is somewhat unpolished and feels like a corporate training video at times.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20640_60#post_23806982
> 
> *It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World*
> 
> 
> 1.75? Seriously? This might be in the top 5 film based discs I've ever seen. Watching this one casually tonight, I was blown away by the brilliant color saturation, intense contrast, insane amounts of fidelity in every shot, and flawless encoding. I can't even fathom how perfect a 70mm presentation of this must have been. This is my live action catalog reference disc from here on out.
> 
> *Tier 0*, above The Master


Prepare to be blown away, _It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World_ has received a new, state-of-the-art 4K restoration handled by Robert Harris. It's due from Criterion in January. That older transfer from the first BD should be rendered obsolete.

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/topic/327135-criterion-press-release-its-a-mad-mad-mad-mad-world-dual-format/


----------



## hernanu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20700#post_23847498
> 
> 
> Prepare to be blown away, _It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World_ has received a new, state-of-the-art 4K restoration handled by Robert Harris. It's due from Criterion in January. That older transfer from the first BD should be rendered obsolete.
> 
> http://www.hometheaterforum.com/topic/327135-criterion-press-release-its-a-mad-mad-mad-mad-world-dual-format/



Maaaannnnnn..... !!!!


Hate to double dip, but definitely will for this one. Thanks for nuthin' Phantom. Love this movie.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20700#post_23847498
> 
> 
> Prepare to be blown away, _It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World_ has received a new, state-of-the-art 4K restoration handled by Robert Harris. It's due from Criterion in January. That older transfer from the first BD should be rendered obsolete.
> 
> http://www.hometheaterforum.com/topic/327135-criterion-press-release-its-a-mad-mad-mad-mad-world-dual-format/



I'm most definitely on board! It's good to see Criterion living up to their reputation with this release.


----------



## djoberg

*After Earth*


The movie was, as expected, rather ho-hum (thanks to the wooden acting of Hayden Smith), but the PQ was absolutely, positively STELLAR!!


I'll say it from the outset; this is what Tier Blu is all about. Sony has given us a real treat which is virtually flawless, with IMPECCABLE DETAILS and STUNNING DEPTH. This, along with AMAZING SHARPNESS & CLARITY, VIBRANT COLORS (I never tire of jungle/forest scenes with dazzling GREENS), and DEEP BLACKS/RAZOR-SHARP SHADOW DETAILS will give your eyes the sugar-rush they crave. The only minor gripe I could conjure up was a lack of facial close-ups. There were a few of Hayden and Will Smith (and they were excellent, especially of Will), but they left you drooling for more. FLESH TONES were also spot-on and the CONTRAST was as strong as could be, with BRILLIANT WHITES.


I should add that the cinematography was superb, with MANY panoramic views of mountains, forests, and jungles (shots of outer space were equally satisfying). The details in these shots were insane, revealing every blade of grass, craggy rock, bark on trees, etc. Details in clothing were also pure eye candy. I would never recommend buying this movie for the movie itself is quite lame, but for those who love Tier Blu quality PQ, you've at least got to give this a rent and give your eyes the fix they deserve.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.75)*


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I'll throw my hat into the ring before Djoberg beats me to the punch.

*Pacific Rim


recommendation: Tier 1.0**


Big-time mecha action hits the Silver Screen. Where is Voltron (Lion Force) when you need him? I'm not going to seriously dispute it if someone wants this disc to end up in Tier 0. It has all the hallmarks of big-budget filmmaking from Hollywood these days, heavy on VFX and digital backgrounds.


I think the quieter moments featuring actual dialogue easily deserve the top tier, those scenes are only a fraction behind the best discs like _Avatar_. _Pacific Rim_ does lack the type of consistent depth and superior projection of Avatar, but that is true for virtually every BD. The CGI models for the big mechs are top-notch, exhibiting more precise detail and authentic grit than the robots in the Transformers' franchise. But it also lacks the white-hot contrast of Transformers and its juiced-up color palette. Pacific Rim will test your display's ability to reproduce the deepest black levels.


Warner Bros. has done everything possible for presenting _Pacific Rim_ in the best light on Blu-ray. The movie basically gets its own BD-50, pushing most of the special features to a second Blu-ray. The video transfer and its presentation are literally flawless. This is an exemplary job of allowing a movie finished in the digital realm alone for 1080P.


----------



## djoberg

*Pacific Rim*


As I am about to type up a short review, I noticed that Phantom already weighed in. Interestingly enough, his impressions mirror my own to a tee. I too thought the "quieter moments featuring dialgue easily deserve the top tier," and that there was "more precise detail and authentic grit than the robots in the Transformers' franchise," but I also wholeheartedly agree that "it also lacks the white-hot contrast of Transformers and its juiced up color palette." I actually tried to go to the Blu-ray Picture Quality Rankings to see where the lowest-scoring Transformers movie was (but I kept getting a blue screen after my computer failed to dial in the webpage), for I kept thinking this title should be rated a bit lower. If memory serves me the lowest-scoring Transformers title was near the bottom of Tier 0, so Phantom's placement nails it pretty good.


I do want to comment on the black levels before giving my official recommendation. They were awesome in most shots, especially the jet-black suits worn by the *pilots*. Some of the nighttime scenes were also very impressive! But I did notice a tinge of murkiness in some of the battle scenes, such as underwater shots and a few in the Hong Kong battles. All in all though they were fantastic.


The "non-action" scenes had tremendous depth and detail, which I guess falls into the category of the "quieter moments" alluded to above. The quality of those shots fell easily into mid Tier 0. Facial details are included in this assessment, which always means a lot to _my eyes_.


I'm not sure if I would go with Phantom's placement or the bottom of Tier 0, but after seeing _After Earth_, which provided more EYE CANDY with its brilliant colors and phenomenal sharpness, clarity, details, and depth, I believe I have to drop this one at least a quarter of a tier, which then matches Phantom's ranking of....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## rusky_g

*Pacific Rim*


For me this was a reference quality disc.

*Tier 0.75*


----------



## rusky_g

With regards to After Earth, a sample clip I saw didn't wow me at all - flat and muted sprang to mind - Dj's review has whetted the appetite however so I shall review in full iver the weekend.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

This review got wiped out but here was gamereviewgod's score

*Pacific Rim


recommendation: Tier 1.25**


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20700#post_23849650
> 
> *Pacific Rim*
> 
> 
> For me this was a reference quality disc.
> 
> *Tier 0.75*



I'm close to agreeing with you, but I thought some of the CGI scenes (underwater and nighttime shots) fell short of reference quality. Also, there wasn't much color throughput the whole 2+ hour running time.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20700#post_23849659
> 
> 
> With regards to After Earth, a sample clip I saw didn't wow me at all - flat and muted sprang to mind - Dj's review has whetted the appetite however so I shall review in full iver the weekend.



I have no idea what sample clip you saw, but I was WOWED by this Blu. This one had a beautiful color palette with gorgeous cinematography throughout, with lush forests and impeccable details. Black levels were amazing too with exquisite shadow details. Reference quality from beginning to end, period!


----------



## rusky_g

Hi Dj


I went with gut feeling on Pacific Rim and how it left me feeling...which was buzzing










The clip I saw of After Earth was an internal shot, Will Smith appeared to be waking up...it looked quite bland but havin seen your review and some other screen shots on the web, Im now keen to give it a spin - will report back soon!


----------



## Toe

Has nobody reviewed Kon Tiki yet? I did a search and it came up with nothing. Another great looking transfer that you guys should check out. Killer audio track as well.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20700#post_23851455
> 
> 
> Hi Dj
> 
> 
> I went with gut feeling on Pacific Rim and how it left me feeling...which was buzzing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The clip I saw of After Earth was an internal shot, Will Smith appeared to be waking up...it looked quite bland but havin seen your review and some other screen shots on the web, Im now keen to give it a spin - will report back soon!



There were a few interior shots that fell short in the WOW department, but the majority of the film takes place outside and you will NOT be disappointed with those scenes! Sharpness and clarity reign with enough details to give your eyes the fix they long for.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20700#post_23851520
> 
> 
> Has nobody reviewed Kon Tiki yet? I did a search and it came up with nothing. Another great looking transfer that you guys should check out. Killer audio track as well.



I hadn't heard of that title before Toe. Thanks for the heads up,


Speaking of a "killer audio track," I forgot to mention in my review of _Pacific Rim_, that the last hour tested my sound system like very few other Blus. Almost non-stop bass/LFE and amazing action in the surrounds as welI. I checked out the Bass Thread and saw that quite a few bass heads are singing its praises, and rightly so!


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20700#post_23851748
> 
> 
> I hadn't heard of that title before Toe. Thanks for the heads up,
> 
> 
> Speaking of a "killer audio track," I forgot to mention in my review of _Pacific Rim_, that the last hour tested my sound system like very few other Blus. Almost non-stop bass/LFE and amazing action in the surrounds as welI. I checked out the Bass Thread and saw that quite a few bass heads are singing its praises, and rightly so!




It was a LOT of fun from an audio perspective for sure! The section from 1:10 to 1:30 is 20 minutes of fantastic HT fun!










I thought Kon Tiki was an excellent film as well FWIW. Based on a true story and just very well done all around IMO. Check it out.


----------



## fredxr2d2

I couldn't find this slightly older title in the tiers, and since it's become one of my favorite films (it's just FUN, okay?), I think it should be included:

*Pitch Perfect*

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0*


This is a stunning, nearly flawless presentation from start to finish. A few scenes lack complete detail, but it is clearly a well put-together Blu-ray transfer with bright colors and sharp details.


----------



## fredxr2d2

Also, in regards to a different kind of eye candy...Anna Kendrick, Brittany Snow, and Anna Camp make for great leads.


----------



## rusky_g

*After Earth*


Technically a really good transfer. But it's not always about just about technicality - for me this lacked the wow factor of Pacific Rim as I just found there to be too many interior shots which lacked fine detail and an often subdued contrast didn't keep me reeled in like it should have. That being said there is no doubt this will be a high ranker as the outdoor scenes were excellent with remarkable depth and detail at times.


So overall much better than I thought but just lacking that extra edge to hit the top tier sweet spot,

*Tier 1.5*


----------



## rusky_g




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fredxr2d2*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20700#post_23851963
> 
> 
> I couldn't find this slightly older title in the tiers, and since it's become one of my favorite films (it's just FUN, okay?), I think it should be included:
> 
> *Pitch Perfect*
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.0*
> 
> 
> This is a stunning, nearly flawless presentation from start to finish. A few scenes lack complete detail, but it is clearly a well put-together Blu-ray transfer with bright colors and sharp details.



Inspired by your rating I checked this out today and agree with your placing, really nice disc.

*Pitch Perfect


Tier 1*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Brides of Dracula (region-free UK Import)


recommendation: Tier 4.5**


A little secret about this UK disc released by Final Cut is that it's region-free. Considering the Hammer movies are taking forever to reach the States on Blu-ray, that is its best trait.


Sadly, the film transfer is not much to write home about. This BD only shows modest improvements in actual resolution and clarity over DVD. The most improvement is shown in color fidelity and saturation, though fleshtones are a tad warm. Licensed from Universal, the film elements are mostly free of damage aside from a couple of scratches and a small amount of dirt that pops up on the left edge of the frame, late in the movie. My biggest complaint is the evident sharpening applied to the transfer. The source elements do not appear to be from the negative but an inferior source such as an Interpositive or possibly a film print.


The print's heavy grain structure has mild problems with analog noise, likely due to the dated telecine. This release has been mildly controversial because the film is presented in a 2:1 aspect ratio. I'm not an expert on this particular film's true framing but the weight of the evidence indicates one closer to 1.85:1 at the very minimum.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Conjuring


recommendation: Tier 1.75**


Cross _The Amityville Horror_ with _The Exorcist_, and you get _The Conjuring_. Warner's big-budget scarefest arrives on Blu-ray right in time for Halloween.


The Arri Alexa digital camera handles the brunt of the photography, producing clean video with excellent clarity. Some minor ringing and aliasing, possibly due to VFX, pop up in a few select shots. Inky black levels permit fantastic shadow delineation and detail, a critical requirement for director James Wan's intended scares.


This is not quite demo quality, the presentation is largely flat and has limited tonality to its color palette.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20730#post_23864392
> 
> *The Conjuring
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 1.75**
> 
> 
> Cross _The Amityville Horror_ with _The Exorcist_, and you get _The Conjuring_. Warner's big-budget scarefest arrives on Blu-ray right in time for Halloween.
> 
> 
> The Arri Alexa digital camera handles the brunt of the photography, producing clean video with excellent clarity. Some minor ringing and aliasing, possibly due to VFX, pop up in a few select shots. Inky black levels permit fantastic shadow delineation and detail, a critical requirement for director James Wan's intended scares.
> 
> 
> This is not quite demo quality, the presentation is largely flat and has limited tonality to its color palette.



I just picked up a copy at Best Buy this afternoon. Reviews for the movie itself have been very good, so how did you like it? If it's as good as they say, with excellent PQ to boot, I won't have to be concerned about buyer's remorse.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20700_60#post_23865140
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20730#post_23864392
> 
> *The Conjuring
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 1.75**
> 
> 
> Cross _The Amityville Horror_ with _The Exorcist_, and you get _The Conjuring_. Warner's big-budget scarefest arrives on Blu-ray right in time for Halloween.
> 
> 
> The Arri Alexa digital camera handles the brunt of the photography, producing clean video with excellent clarity. Some minor ringing and aliasing, possibly due to VFX, pop up in a few select shots. Inky black levels permit fantastic shadow delineation and detail, a critical requirement for director James Wan's intended scares.
> 
> 
> This is not quite demo quality, the presentation is largely flat and has limited tonality to its color palette.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just picked up a copy at Best Buy this afternoon. Reviews for the movie itself have been very good, so how did you like it? If it's as good as they say, with excellent PQ to boot, I won't have to be concerned about buyer's remorse.
Click to expand...

I believe I've given more in-depth answers to your question elsewhere.







It's eminently watchable, particularly if one were previously unaware of Ed and Lorraine Warren's various exploits over the decades. There are some good frights in it like the opening setpiece. It does become a tad hokey at the climax. In a deviation from the norm, Hollywood didn't change many of the actual details from the historic case.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20730#post_23865332
> 
> *I believe I've given more in-depth answers to your question elsewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * It's eminently watchable, particularly if one were previously unaware of Ed and Lorraine Warren's various exploits over the decades. There are some good frights in it like the opening setpiece. It does become a tad hokey at the climax. In a deviation from the norm, Hollywood didn't change many of the actual details from the historic case.



Yes, I actually realized, after I posed the question to you, that you had written a full review on Do.Blu so I went and read it. Very good review, as always, and glad to read that it's very *watchable* (in my case I was NOT aware of Ed & Lorraine Warren's exploits).


From all that I've read, this movie doesn't resort to gratuitous violence, for which I am glad. Give me a good, psychological scare over the slasher trash any day and I'm a happy camper.


----------



## edlittle

Just got back from a viewing of Escape Plan. If what I saw in the theater translates to Bluray, this could be a Tier 0, especially with the facial detail from Arnold and Syl. Muted color palette, but very well executed.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *edlittle*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20700_60#post_23865454
> 
> 
> Just got back from a viewing of Escape Plan. If what I saw in the theater translates to Bluray, this could be a Tier 0, especially with the facial detail from Arnold and Syl. Muted color palette, but very well executed.


I'd guess that one hits Blu-ray sometime in January.

*Dead Souls


recommendation: Tier 4.5**


This was an original movie made for the Chiller cable channel. For a new production released to Blu-ray in 2012, this is one ugly, cheap-looking film.


The 16mm film is erratically shot and lit, indicating a rushed shoot made on the very cheap. It appears they've tried to correct those mistakes in post by tinkering with the color timing of various scenes. The color correction is one of the most inconsistent and poorest jobs I've seen on the format, resulting in crushed black levels, washed-out contrast and a flat, dull appearance.


----------



## Aetherhole

*Hannibal: Season 1*

*Recommendation: Tier 1*


This is one of the most detailed and richly contrasted TV series I've seen to date on Blu-ray. Incredibly fine detail resolution consistently throughout. Clothing texture is discernible. Black levels are fantastic 99% of the time, resolving detail even in the darkest sequences. Almost every shot in the show has jaw-dropping qualities. Not sure if the show was shot on film or hd cams, but the show has a constant amount of film grain, also.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Aetherhole*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20700_60#post_23874948
> 
> *Hannibal: Season 1*
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 1*
> 
> 
> This is one of the most detailed and richly contrasted TV series I've seen to date on Blu-ray. Incredibly fine detail resolution consistently throughout. Clothing texture is discernible. Black levels are fantastic 99% of the time, resolving detail even in the darkest sequences. Almost every shot in the show has jaw-dropping qualities. Not sure if the show was shot on film or hd cams, but the show has a constant amount of film grain, also.


I really thought it was the best new show from last season. The Blu-ray set also contains an episode which NBC refused to air. It has very stylish production design.

*Bring Me The Head of the Machine Gun Woman (Region-locked UK Import)


recommendation: Tier 3.0*
*

A funny, violent exploitation film from South America, this digitally-shot production has serviceable video quality for a new release. British distributor Clear Vision has given it a solid presentation from a technical standpoint, though the digital cinematography's gamma is overly bright and washed out.


----------



## Aetherhole




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20730#post_23875214
> 
> 
> I really thought it was the best new show from last season. The Blu-ray set also contains an episode which NBC refused to air. It has very stylish production design.



Most definitely. Mads Mikkelsen's portrayal of Hannibal thus far is chilling. I'd dare say even as good as Anthony Hopkins' Dr. Lecter. Pretty cool they included the unedited episodes also.


----------



## Johnny Vertigo

*Se7en*


Razor sharp (_almost_ always), swallowed by deep, inky blacks, with an amazing shadow details at the same time. It's hard to believe Se7en is almost twenty years old.

*Tier 1*


---

*Man of Steel*


I believe _some_ poeple will not be happy how grainy Man of Steel is. It's sometimes less, and sometimes more intensive, but still pretty thick, which is pretty unusual for this type of big budget film. I think it could be resolved just a little bit better, since bitrate, as usual for Warner, is not impressive (it's pretty constant for most of the time, somewhere around 22Mbp/s), but it still looks amazing. Blacks are exactly as they should, and facial details simply screams from the screen. Beautiful.

*Tier 0.75*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Johnny Vertigo*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20730#post_23878523
> 
> 
> ---
> 
> *Man of Steel*
> 
> 
> I believe _some_ poeple will not be happy how grainy Man of Steel is. It's sometimes less, and sometimes more intensive, but still pretty thick, which is pretty unusual for this type of big budget film. I think it could be resolved just a little bit better, since bitrate, as usual for Warner, is not impressive (it's pretty constant for most of the time, somewhere around 22Mbp/s), but it still looks amazing. Blacks are exactly as they should, and facial details simply screams from the screen. Beautiful.
> 
> *Tier 0.75*



So, I'm assuming you were able to watch a UK version, for the U.S. release of _Man of Steel_ is on November 12.


Regarding grain, I LOVE it if it doesn't become noisy or obscure detail. The ideal for grain is to give it the look of film and to actually enhance details.


----------



## Johnny Vertigo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20730#post_23879926
> 
> 
> So, I'm assuming you were able to watch a UK version, for the U.S. release of _Man of Steel_ is on November 12.


I'm from Poland, and it was released here almost a week before official release set for October 25.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Johnny Vertigo*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20730#post_23880477
> 
> 
> I'm from Poland, and it was released here almost a week before official release set for October 25.



I had no idea you lived "across the pond." Lucky you for being able to get Blu-ray releases 2-3 weeks before we do!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Excision


recommendation: Tier 1.0*
*

Absolutely flawless video, presented in a technically perfect manner. Some would likely classify this disc from Anchor Bay as being worthy of Tier 0. I can't go there but the detail is magnificent, revealing an incredible level of high-frequency content. Close-ups are jarring in how much they reveal of the actors' imperfections and wrinkles. Some of the more gruesome shots are probably too revealing, if you get my meaning.

*Blood-C: The Complete Series


recommendation: Tier 1.75**


Funimation serves up this anime series produced by well-known animation house CLAMP. Some stray compression artifacts occasionally rear their head but the picture quality has clean line-art and a mildly flat color palette. However, black levels are quite nice and help the fluid animation pop on occasion.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

No one else is watching horror BDs for Halloween?

*Prince of Darkness


recommendation: Tier 3.25**


Easily one of Scream Factory's nicer transfers, the film elements appear to have survived in excellent condition. I am completely satisfied with the mostly film-like transfer, though some mild halos are visible. There is a touch of softness to certain shots, entirely due to the 1987 movie's original photography. The new color grading retains the deep black levels while allowing better color saturation and contrast. Its proper grain structure is retained and superbly handled by the AVC video encode.


I can't in good conscience place this higher due to limitations in its cinematography.


----------



## edlittle

Just finished Fellowship of the Ring. What do you guys think of the color grading issue? I only noticed one scene that looked too green, and that was just a brief shot. I guess I'll add in my vote the it was, for me, with my 7 foot viewing distance on a 40" TV easily *Tier 1.00*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^


In regard to Phantom's question, I will be watching _The Conjuring_ on Halloween night (by myself, with all the lights out in my man cave). I may just rent another one from the horror genre if time allows me to.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *edlittle*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20730#post_23889633
> 
> 
> Just finished Fellowship of the Ring. What do you guys think of the color grading issue? I only noticed one scene that looked too green, and that was just a brief shot. I guess I'll add in my vote the it was, for me, with my 7 foot viewing distance on a 40" TV easily *Tier 1.00*


Well, they definitely changed the color grading for the extended edition's transfer. I really don't have a dog in this fight, as it's a fantasy world and I think they had more leeway in meddling with it after the fact. The current rank for _Fellowship of the Ring's_ theatrical cut is Tier 4! The newer extended edition is in Tier 1.75 at the moment. I could dig the individual scores up but I think some advocated for a higher placement. Your vote will probably bump it up a notch.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20730#post_23889708
> 
> 
> ^^^^^
> 
> 
> In regard to Phantom's question, I will be watching _The Conjuring_ on Halloween night (by myself, with all the lights out in my man cave). I may just rent another one from the horror genre if time allows me to.


It has the best audio mix I've heard in 2013. The surround mix is an integral part of watching it.


----------



## edlittle

Yeah I watched the extended bluray from the amazing gold and black box set. From what I saw, colors were great, detail was preserved in all range of shots, facial detail was excellent, and blacks seemed to be excellent. An uncalibrated mid level LED set is obviously not the best to judge black levels, but from I saw they were there. There was not that much color overall, but what was there I thought was excellently represented. Also, this is the first time watching it on with an actual sound system, and boy is it a whole new movie! Every step of the troll, the balrog, when Frodo puts on the ring, all the oomph that I want is perfectly transcribed to the sound.


Just finished Two Towers as well, and I have the same opinion at Tier 1.00.


----------



## fredxr2d2

*Monster's University


Tier Recommendation: Tier 0*


You might not be surprised that this blu-ray is basically one of the best ones I've ever seen in my life. I immediately added this to my Amazon wish list (I got the blu from Netflix) because it left me speechless the entire movie with HOW GOOD IT LOOKS.


Seriously. This is what blu-ray is all about. The surround sound isn't too shabby either.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fredxr2d2*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20730#post_23895042
> 
> *Monster's University
> 
> 
> Tier Recommendation: Tier 0*
> 
> 
> You might not be surprised that this blu-ray is basically one of the best ones I've ever seen in my life. I immediately added this to my Amazon wish list (I got the blu from Netflix) because it left me speechless the entire movie with HOW GOOD IT LOOKS.
> 
> 
> Seriously. This is what blu-ray is all about. The surround sound isn't too shabby either.



Your words echo the sentiments of everyone else who has reviewed this on Cinema Squid's site. I get my copy tomorrow and I can hardly wait to see it!

http://www.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray/movies/reviews?release-key=ed0ad9d3-dcb3-44a6-b322-4a8a3b8ccb83&view=table


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fredxr2d2*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20730#post_23895042
> 
> *Monster's University
> 
> 
> Tier Recommendation: Tier 0*
> 
> 
> You might not be surprised that this blu-ray is basically one of the best ones I've ever seen in my life. I immediately added this to my Amazon wish list (I got the blu from Netflix) because it left me speechless the entire movie with HOW GOOD IT LOOKS.
> 
> 
> Seriously. This is what blu-ray is all about. The surround sound isn't too shabby either.



Great to hear!







I have this coming today and am going to watch it this afternoon.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I might get around to Monsters University this weekend. As always, one can more closely scrutinize these transfers in the 1080P screenshots linked below.

*Embrace of the Vampire (1995)


recommendation: Tier 5**


Alyssa Milano's classic remains in standard definition. Anchor Bay has used a SD source and upscaled it to 1080P for this transfer. There is no reason to upgrade from your DVD of this masterpiece.


*Embrace of the Vampire (2013)


recommendation: Tier 1.5**


A remake that has nothing to do with the original film, this movie has a vivid digital sheen with superior clarity. It would have been entirely pristine if not for one suspect scene.


----------



## djoberg

*The Last Exorcism Part 2*


Terrible movie...good PQ!


Let me start out by praising the various scenes in New Orleans. There is one aerial view (in an early scene) of the city that is simply mesmerizing, with amazing details, color, and clarity. There are also many close-up shots of New Orleans streets and shops that offer up some excellent details, appreciable depth, vibrant colors, and very strong contrast. I would say what I'm describing in this short paragraph came close to Tier 0.


Much of the movie takes place indoors (in the Group Home and several other buildings) and these are somewhat inconsistent. Most shots treat us to fine details in general, along with excellent black levels and shadow details, but there are sporadic shots where softness creeps in and details suffer. Facial close-ups are demo-worthy all the way through, even those of the young female actresses. Flesh tones are also spot on.


Besides scenes with softness, there are a couple of shots where the black levels falter. They aren't gray, or crushed, but they are a bit flat. And with that lack of depth in black levels shadow details aren't what they should be.


All in all, this one was a looker, not reference quality mind you, but good enough to be afforded a place in Tier 1, albeit at the bottom.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## djoberg

*The Conjuring*


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20730#post_23864392
> 
> *The Conjuring
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 1.75**
> 
> 
> Cross _The Amityville Horror_ with _The Exorcist_, and you get _The Conjuring_. Warner's big-budget scarefest arrives on Blu-ray right in time for Halloween.
> 
> 
> The Arri Alexa digital camera handles the brunt of the photography, producing clean video with excellent clarity. Some minor ringing and aliasing, possibly due to VFX, pop up in a few select shots. Inky black levels permit fantastic shadow delineation and detail, a critical requirement for director James Wan's intended scares.
> 
> 
> This is not quite demo quality, the presentation is largely flat and has limited tonality to its color palette.



I'm going to "agree" and "disagree" with my colleague Phantom on this one. I agree with him that this produces "clean video with excellent clarity" and that there is "some minor ringing and aliasing." I also agree that there are "inky black levels" [that permit] "fantastic shadow delineation and detail." I also agree, to a certain extent, that this "is largely flat and has limited tonality to its color palette." So far, so good. But I do NOT agree that "this is not quite demo quality," for even though this clearly falls short of "reference quality," its virtues are strong enough to call it "demo quality." I say this because Tier 0 is reserved for "reference quality," whereas Tier 1 has "demo quality" material (see Page One of the Tier Rankings thread).


I will add that I was REALLY impressed with all of the outdoor scenes. You could see every detail in tree bark, leaves, foliage, etc. outside of the house of the Perron's family Rhode Island home. I was elated that the director chose to include MANY of these shots.


I was going to write more, but I'm tired, so let me end this short review by saying that Phantom and I are almost in total agreement, and this includes the placement recommendation...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## djoberg

I forgot to mention that I really enjoyed _The Conjuring_. Compared to _The Last Exorcism Part 2_ it was Oscar-worthy!


----------



## djoberg

*Monsters University*


Ladies and Gentlemen, I believe we have A NEW WINNER (i.e. New KING of the BLU-RAY HILL)!!!!


I've stated, countless times, that it's almost impossible to compare and judge some of the newer animated titles. They all seem to be flawless, with dazzling colors, impeccable details, super-strong contrast, deep & inky blacks levels, phenomenal depth, and amazing clarity. In my review of _The Croods_ it had all of these things PLUS some superb PHOTOREALISM in some scenes, and thus I opted to recommend it for the Top Spot of Tier Blu. So that begs the question, what does this title have that would dethrone _The Croods_? Answer: Unbelievable TEXTURES!!!!! Pixar has outdone themselves here and it just goes to show how they have evolved in this department. You must see it to appreciate what I'm saying, but be prepared to be WOWED, from beginning to end, by the intricate details and texture, whether it's in Sulley's fur (and the texture of many of the other characters) or the incredible campus of Monsters University (the leaves and bark on trees, streets and sidewalks, buildings, etc.).


I want to also mention DEPTH. This is equal to or greater than the depth in _The Croods_, and I gave the highest honors to that title for its depth. So, this is quite an accomplishment by Pixar in this Blu-ray. When I see depth like this I say to myself, "Who needs 3D?" Again, you'll have to see it to believe it.


One more thing. This has several nighttime scenes that will simply "knock your socks off" by its deep black levels and exquisite shadow details. Yes, the daytime scenes may offer more of the WOW factor due to their brilliant colors and razor-sharp clarity, but it's good to know that when day turns to night you can still expect the EYE CANDY you're longing for.


Okay, you already know I'm nominating this for the top of Tier Blu, but before I put it down officially, allow me to say a word or two about the AUDIO. This may not have as much thunder as some of the more action-packed animated Blus, but when the LFE does kick in you'll be more than satisfied. Sulley's roar had my walls shaking BIG TIME, and wait until you hear the dance beat at the frat party...WOW!! Regarding action in the surrounds, the word PRECISION comes to mind. The audio team at Pixar are masters here...case in point, the enveloping cries and shouts from the crowd at the university campus "Scare Games." Again, WOW!!

*Tier Recommendation: Top of Tier 0**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Johnny Vertigo

*Willow*


I was surprised how good Willow looks on Blu-ray. The are moments of a little bit lower quality (grey blacks, softness), mostly VFX shots (which are still GREAT, by the way), but for majority of the time it's very pleasant, film-like transfer with nice sharpness, beautiful colors, plenty of details, fine textures and grain.


If only Lucasfilm could restore Star Wars in the same way...

*Recommendation: Tier 2*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Encouraging news about Monsters University. Monsters Inc. had a little aliasing and other minor digital problems in its animation, that movie's CGI was starting to show its age.


Many of us watch on plasma displays and it looks like that technology is hitting the end of the road in the marketplace. Panasonic will not create another generation of its plasma panels (the latest models incorporate the vaunted KURO tech from Pioneer) and all production will cease by March of 2014. A sad day for videophiles considering the next evolution of reference displays, OLED, is a few more years off as viable technology. Most Hollywood production houses and video technicians were evaluating film transfers on plasmas.


http://www.avsforum.com/t/1494093/panasonic-to-end-plasma-panel-production-by-april-2014


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20760#post_23900900
> 
> 
> Encouraging news about Monsters University. Monsters Inc. had a little aliasing and other minor digital problems in its animation, that movie's CGI was starting to show its age.
> 
> 
> Many of us watch on plasma displays and it looks like that technology is hitting the end of the road in the marketplace. Panasonic will not create another generation of its plasma panels (the latest models incorporate the vaunted KURO tech from Pioneer) and all production will cease by March of 2014. A sad day for videophiles considering the next evolution of reference displays, OLED, is a few more years off as viable technology. Most Hollywood production houses and video technicians were evaluating film transfers on plasmas.
> 
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/t/1494093/panasonic-to-end-plasma-panel-production-by-april-2014



You will see an immediate marked improvement over Monsters Inc. No aliasing or other anomalies and an incredible advancement in detail and texture. I'll be waiting for your analysis.


Regarding the end of the plasma era, I truly hate to see this happen BEFORE the full introduction of the OLED into the market place. My only consolation right now is that if my beloved Kuro were to meet its demise in the near future, I would have the Panasonic ZT or VT plasma series to replace it with. I am NOT a fan of LCD/LED (and I own one) so I'm hoping I never have to go that route for my main viewing area.


----------



## hungro

LCD is no go for me. Just got an ST60 came from a D6500. Ones panasonic the one I have now and the other was a Samsung. FYI







I think I will be buying this Monster's University Bluray. I am convinced it's top tier according to all the reviews thus far. Dethroning Madagascar 3. Holy cow. My tv is not yet calibrated I don't have too many hours on it as of yet. Sorry for getting slightly off topic.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hungro*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20760#post_23902972
> 
> 
> LCD is no go for me. Just got an ST60 came from a D6500. Ones panasonic the one I have now and the other was a Samsung. FYI
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think I will be buying this Monster's University Bluray. I am convinced it's top tier according to all the reviews thus far. Dethroning Madagascar 3. Holy cow. My tv is not yet calibrated I don't have too many hours on it as of yet. Sorry for getting slightly off topic.



Good for you; the ST60 is an excellent plasma!


I absolutely guarantee your satisfaction with Monster's University. Again, the textures are what sets this apart from titles like Toy Story 3 or even Madagascar 3. I hope you chime in with your impressions after viewing it.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I might very well pick up an ST60 as a backup or spare. I guess Samsung will remain in the plasma business a bit longer.



Here is Gamereviewgod's score:

*Monsters University


recommendation: Top of 0**


Monsters U should be at the top, or only below Madagascar. It's gorgeous.


----------



## tenia54

I'm most likely either to replace my now quite obsolete 50G20 by a 50ST60... or directly upgrade to an video-projector.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*I Spit On Your Grave 2


recommendation: Tier 1.75**


A suitably dark, grim color palette is served up for this movie. It was shot using RED digital cameras and has typical video quality for the technology. Black levels are better than expected with few signs of crushing and virtually no noise. The thoroughly competent video encode by Anchor Bay reveals better than average detail in the razor-sharp image.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Bounty Killer


recommendation: Tier 1.50**


I had wanted to place this new release in Tier 1.0. The digitally-shot production has some interesting eye candy, set in a post-apocalyptic future eerily reminiscent of _Mad Max_. Clarity and resolution are off the charts in most of the tighter-framed shots.


Independent distributor Arc Entertainment provides an AVC video encode that falters in a couple of difficult scenes, leading to notable banding and posterization. For a movie that looks flawless and pristine much of the time, its presence is jarring. _Bounty Killer_ still looks fantastic most of the time, with eye-popping detail and an unfiltered transfer.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20760#post_23903385
> 
> 
> I might very well pick up an ST60 as a backup or spare. I guess Samsung will remain in the plasma business a bit longer.
> 
> 
> 
> Here is Gamereviewgod's score:
> 
> *Monsters University
> 
> 
> recommendation: Top of 0**
> 
> 
> Monsters U should be at the top, or only below Madagascar. It's gorgeous.



Thanks for letting us know where GRG stands on this title. Of course I agree with him, though I do believe it should definitely be on the top without the option of putting it below Madagascar 3. I'm wondering where he stands on _The Croods_.


----------



## hungro

*Monsters University*

*Recommendation: Top of 0**


This is the only Blu-ray thus far that has so much of that 3D feel and the depth is incredible. I was saying to myself many times the word Wow. Which rearly happens .How amazing it looks , that fur is unbelieveable, textures , colors that pop and are vivid. Deep inky blacks.


My tv is not even full calibrated , I just did a 2 point wb on it there are still plenty of errors in the greyscale that would be considered visible to the eye, once I get more hours on my ST60 I will do a full calibration.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Stuck In Love


recommendation: Tier 1.25*
*
_Stuck In Love_ looks quite impressive for a dramedy. The only problem with the picture quality is beyond the scope of this thread's concern. The 2.35:1 scope film has been altered to a 1.78:1 widescreen transfer on this Blu-ray.


Aside from that questionable decision, its consistently excellent clarity exudes detail and depth. This is a really nice presentation that some might rank even higher in the Tiers.


----------



## fredxr2d2

*Celeste and Jesse Forever


Tier Recommendation: Tier 1, bottom Tier 0 (possible)*


If I read the credits correctly (and if my mind isn't failing me a couple days later), this was filmed with Alexa cameras that reproduced superbly detailed scenes on my projector setup. Facial close-ups, which probably comprise the majority of this film, were detailed and sharp. While not every scene maintained 100% sharpness, you'd be hard-pressed to find specific moments where you're not drawn to how clean the photography looks.


I daresay it deserves a spot in Tier 0, but I think that with other viewers it might be near the top of Tier 1.


Either way, a good-looking blu.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^


If you think it deserves a spot in Tier 0, then that's the placement recommendation you want to give. In other words, forget about what other viewers *might* think; it's your opinion that counts in your own review!


----------



## fredxr2d2

It's pretty close by my own estimation. I think Tier 0, but I could make my own argument for Tier 1. So, I wait for multiple eyes to weigh in. I'm noncommittal like that.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Clear History


recommendation: Tier 2.5**


HBO's new comedy featuring Larry David looks fairly typical of modern films from the genre. Bright lighting and some filtering produce a clean, bland image. Some nice shots of Martha's Vineyard are about it for eye candy, as overall detail is not spectacular.


----------



## djoberg

Is anybody out there getting excited for next week's release of _Man of Steel_? I ordered a copy from Amazon through Amazon Prime so it will be here on Tuesday.


There are only three reviews so far on Cinema squid's site with two singing its praises and one somewhat negative review (I'm speaking of their comments on the PQ). And then of course we've had one weighing in already on this thread (our friend from Poland) recommending it for Tier 0. So, I'm quite excited to see it, hoping that the PQ lines up with the three positive reviews and not with the negative review.


----------



## rusky_g

I'm more looking forward to The Lone Ranger personally - hopes are high


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20760#post_23921975
> 
> 
> Is anybody out there getting excited for next week's release of _Man of Steel_? I ordered a copy from Amazon through Amazon Prime so it will be here on Tuesday.
> 
> 
> There are only three reviews so far on Cinema squid's site with two singing its praises and one somewhat negative review (I'm speaking of their comments on the PQ). And then of course we've had one weighing in already on this thread (our friend from Poland) recommending it for Tier 0. So, I'm quite excited to see it, hoping that the PQ lines up with the three positive reviews and not with the negative review.


I'll definitely be weighing in on Man of Steel when my limited edition set gets delivered.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20760#post_23922105
> 
> 
> I'm more looking forward to The Lone Ranger personally - hopes are high



When will that be released?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20760#post_23922179
> 
> 
> I'll definitely be weighing in on Man of Steel when my limited edition set gets delivered.


_Man of Steel_ is highlighted in your post and clicking on it takes us, as you know, to GRG's review. That happens to be the lone negative review on the PQ, so I would encourage others to read the positive reviews too on Cinema Squid's site. Of course, your eyes alone will tell the real story once you see it.









http://www.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray/movies/reviews?release-key=2b6361e1-14c0-4aa6-ae63-f9c6da4c9564&view=table


----------



## HD-Master




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20760#post_23922211
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20760#post_23922179
> 
> 
> I'll definitely be weighing in on Man of Steel when my limited edition set gets delivered.
> 
> 
> 
> _Man of Steel_ is highlighted in your post and clicking on it takes us, as you know, to GRG's review. That happens to the lone negative review on the PQ, so I would encourage others to read the positive reviews too on Cinema Squid's site. Of course, your eyes alone will tell the real story once you see it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.cinemasquid.com/blu-ray/movies/reviews?release-key=2b6361e1-14c0-4aa6-ae63-f9c6da4c9564&view=table
Click to expand...


What a horrible review that is. Not surprisingly, he's a bitrate watcher too. Complete nonsense. They found faults with Monsters University as well. What a joke of a site.


----------



## edlittle

What happened to GRG? Did he leave to due to the recent drama?


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *edlittle*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20760#post_23922771
> 
> 
> What happened to GRG? Did he leave to due to the recent drama?


Due to circumstances beyond his control, Gamereviewgod has left this forum and won't be returning. Matt's reviewing will continue on other sites as it has in the past.







AVS has lost many fine members over the last few years and driving away active participants is not a step in the right direction.


His presence and outstanding contributions to the Picture Quality Tiers will certainly be missed. I don't know if this thread would have stayed alive without his input over the past couple of years.


----------



## HD-Master

Circumstances beyond his control? Umm...ok. Unless he was banned (t doesn't appear he has been), then it is entirely within his control.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HD-Master*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20760#post_23922318
> 
> 
> What a horrible review that is. Not surprisingly, he's a bitrate watcher too. Complete nonsense. They found faults with Monsters University as well. What a joke of a site.



Actually, it is NOT "a joke of a site." Many highly esteemed reviewers are given a place there and I, for one, value their opinions.


Regarding bitrates, I do agree with you that some people do tend to place too much emphasis on them and in some instances their overall opinion of the PQ may be skewed because of this. I say this because there are definitely Blu-rays that have excellent PQ in spite of a low average bitrate.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20760#post_23922827
> 
> 
> Due to circumstances beyond his control, Gamereviewgod has left this forum and won't be returning. Matt's reviewing will continue on other sites as it has in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVS has lost many fine members over the last few years and driving away active participants is not a step in the right direction.
> 
> 
> His presence and outstanding contributions to the Picture Quality Tiers will certainly be missed. I don't know if this thread would have stayed alive without his input over the past couple of years.



I surely miss GRG's contributions to this thread, but I hope you're not right in saying, "I don't know if this thread would have stayed alive without his input over the past couple of years." If you are right, then this thread is on life support right now.


This prompts me to encourage all of you who are inclined to visit this thread on a regular basis to become participants. All opinions are welcome and like Phantom said in a recent post, you don't necessarily have to write a formal review in order to recommend a placement for a Blu-ray title. We would love to hear any thoughts you may have that led you to suggest a placement, but it's not mandatory (at this point).


----------



## edlittle

Awesome, I will definitely be contributing more as I can!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *edlittle*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20760#post_23923466
> 
> 
> Awesome, I will definitely be contributing more as I can!


----------



## mweflen

*The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey Extended Edition (2D)*


Predictably for a movie shot on Red Epic, detail is outstanding. Happily, black levels are more stout than some Red movies I've seen. Colors are vibrant, maybe even a bit oversaturated in spots, but this seems appropriate to the fantasy aspects of the story. I did not see the movie in the theater (newborn kid and all), so I cannot compare the faithfulness of this disc to it.


My sole problem is a very slight bit of aliasing that I can see on the Erebor interiors - the high contrast diagonal lines show a tiny bit of stair stepping. Granted, it was only obvious at viewing distances under 5 feet (for a 52 inch screen).


Anyhow, I do think this is excellent, just not at the absolute top of the class on the format. Comparing this to the existing tiers and discs I own, I say:

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20790#post_23924290
> 
> *The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey Extended Edition (2D)*
> 
> 
> Predictably for a movie shot on Red Epic, detail is outstanding. Happily, black levels are more stout than some Red movies I've seen. Colors are vibrant, maybe even a bit oversaturated in spots, but this seems appropriate to the fantasy aspects of the story. I did not see the movie in the theater (newborn kid and all), so I cannot compare the faithfulness of this disc to it.
> 
> 
> My sole problem is a very slight bit of aliasing that I can see on the Erebor interiors - the high contrast diagonal lines show a tiny bit of stair stepping. Granted, it was only obvious at viewing distances under 5 feet (for a 52 inch screen).
> 
> 
> Anyhow, I do think this is excellent, just not at the absolute top of the class on the format. Comparing this to the existing tiers and discs I own, I say:
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.0*



Thanks for the good review mweflen!


This title did indeed have outstanding details and a host of other virtues which results in a demo-worthy disc, if not "reference quality" (which some of us recommended). The sequel will be coming out soon and I trust they will have given it the same treatment if not better, so we'll be able to sing its praises too!


----------



## djoberg

*White House Down*


Yet another solid Blu-ray release from Sony! This one is sharp as a tack with the exception of a few interior shots where softness crept in. Black levels were more than satisfactory...details were plentiful...depth was outstanding...flesh tones were spot on (in 95% of the running time) ...contrast was superb...and colors were bold (in spite of a nagging teal color-grading in many scenes). You know I love facial details and I'm happy to say close-ups were exemplary, though mid-range shots were lacking. Aerial shots (and there were many) of the Capitol and surrounding area were magnificent! This one is most definitely a looker!


I'm tempted to nominate this for Tier Blu, but with some lackluster interior shots (when softness intruded) in underground tunnels and elsewhere, and a few shots where the teal hues affected flesh tones, I'm forced to drop it into Tier Gold. I do believe this should be at or near the top of that tier (either 1.0 or 1.25). I'm feeling generous tonight so I'm going for....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## mweflen

*Pee-Wee's Big Adventure*


I was really pleasantly surprised by this, given its vintage and its director. What we have here is a very pleasing disc, with bright, stable primary colors, solid black levels, no egregious EE, aliasing or moire (especially on the tight pattern of Pee-Wee's suit), and good but not great detail. Facial close-ups show some pores, and outdoor shots of foliage can be very good. Certain shots on wipes and dissolves suffer a tad in detail. Grain is visible but not as tight as I might like. The best scenes compare well to the best BDs of 80s material (e.g. Superman II, Aliens). The worst are still a good bit better than the (quite early in the format) DVD, which was dim and blurry by comparison. I can't imagine many people being disappointed.
*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*


Sony KDL-52EX700, 8 foot viewing distance


----------



## hernanu

*Pacific Rim (2D)*


A little late on this, but having seen it a third time, this is a winner.


Great outdoors and night battle shots, as was mentioned, the indoors were not as overwhelming, but since most of the focus was on the battle, it is a great example of how to do an action flick.


Black levels are good - no crush that I could see, good definition and no anomalies on neon lighting. Colors were vibrant where expected and properly muted where not.


Loved the story line, the sound, etc. A real pleasure to watch.

*Tier Recommendation: 0.5*


----------



## djoberg

*R. I. P. D.*


I had never heard of this title (R. I. P. D. stands for Rest In Peace Department) prior to my visit to a local video store yesterday. It's basically a "_Men in Black_ wannabe" starring Jeff Bridges, Ryan Reynolds, and Kevin Bacon. Saturday is good day for a mindless, action flick and I actually enjoyed it.


PQ-wise, it started out a bit gritty with sporadic soft shots but at approximately the 15 minute mark it sharpened up with decent depth and details. There was still some softness at times (especially during heavy CGI scenes), but all in all clarity was excellent. My last viewing featured tons of teal; this one was plagued with orange/yellow hues. For the most part they didn't hinder details, but flesh-tones suffered occasionally. Blacks levels were quite good in most instances. Check out the nighttime scene (at the 60 minute mark) of the Boston harbor with Roy and Nick sitting and contemplating their next move. Shadow details were superb and the lights reflecting off the water served up some juicy EYE CANDY.


I mentioned softness in CGI scenes. This was not always the case, but it held true in enough scenes for me to dock this at least a half a tier. Had it not been for this, it could have made it to the top of Tier Gold. My vote goes for....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Batman: The Brave and the Bold - The Complete First Season


recommendation: Tier 1.5**


Warner released this 2008 animated series (originally broadcast on Cartoon Network) through its Archive program this week. Almost 600 minutes of 1080P video are spread out over dual BD-50s. There are no real differences in quality between it and a normal retail BD release.


The digital animation probably deserves a slightly higher ranking in the Tiers, its vivid color palette boasts impressive color saturation and sharp definition. However, the AVC video encode has some problems with color banding. The banding occurs a couple of times per episode in solid backgrounds, as video bitrates strangely dip into the single digits at times. This much HD content should have been spread out over three BDs to allow the compression some more space.


This is an excellent-looking series with throwback character designs and crisp animation. If one can overlook the banding problems, it has stellar picture quality typical of modern animation.


----------



## mweflen

*Beetlejuice*


Color is a real strong point here, with very solid black levels as well. Detail is mediocre throughout. Perhaps it is the frequency of optical effects, maybe it is grain reduction, it's hard to say. Things easily look better than a DVD, but not as good as other movies on the format. There isn't anything in the way of EE, aliasing, or moire, though, so that's good, if grain reduction or DNR was used.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*


----------



## mweflen

*Batman (1989)*


This movie starts out looking like crap, but thankfully settles into a nice groove by the time we're done with Batman's first onscreen appearance. Detail is moderately good, with no EE or moire in evidence. Grain seems to have been reduced, but whatever algorithm was used seems to have done a pretty good job of preserving detail. The problem really is the contrast - whites never get that bright, and black levels are inconsistent. So it is all very muted and flat looking. The best scenes (especially the Axis Chemical scene where the Joker is created) are really excellent. But there are long stretches of relative mediocrity.
*Tier Recommendation: 3.25*


----------



## Johnny Vertigo

*The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey Extended Edition (2D)*


What else can I say? PERFECTION. The only thing that preserve it from being completely razor sharp is sometimes soft, stylize lighting, but all the details are still there. For me this is the best looking movie shot with Red Epic; thanks to spot on contrast and color timing, there's nice, filmic dimensionality, without flatness typical for most movies shot digitally.

*Tier 0* (above Avatar)


----------



## batutta




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20790#post_23924290
> 
> *The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey Extended Edition (2D)*
> 
> 
> 
> My sole problem is a very slight bit of aliasing that I can see on the Erebor interiors - the high contrast diagonal lines show a tiny bit of stair stepping. Granted, it was only obvious at viewing distances under 5 feet (for a 52 inch screen).



I recall seeing that in the theater as well. I think it's inherent to the source, not the encode.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20790#post_23925069
> 
> 
> Thanks for the good review mweflen!
> 
> 
> This title did indeed have outstanding details and a host of other virtues which results in a demo-worthy disc, if not "reference quality" (which some of us recommended). The sequel will be coming out soon and I trust they will have given it the same treatment if not better, so we'll be able to sing its praises too!



I realized after I sent this post that you could have responded by saying, "This is a different version than the one that was reviewed by you and others." Of course you would have been right, for we reviewed the theatrical release and you reviewed the Extended Edition. BUT, from what I have read, it is the SAME ENCODE as the theatrical release so the PQ remains unchanged (as well as the audio). I just thought I should bring that clarification to my post.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*My Name Is Nobody


recommendation: Tier 4.0**


Image Entertainment released this charming Spaghetti Western from 1973 in the past week. The HD transfer has definitely been struck from film elements but they are far removed from the original camera negative. There is some incidental wear and debris evident in the film print.


The film transfer has not been unduly filtered or heavily altered, but it's clear no amount of restoration was performed. It has a dull, soft appearance with scattered clarity and resolution. Purely going by the specs, this AVC video encode should be significantly better than the low-bitrate encodes found on the Italian and German BDs of this film.


Image's disc shows modest improvements in all aspects of picture quality from the DVD. A new film scan from better elements would surely improve on these results.


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20790#post_23936405
> 
> 
> I realized after I sent this post that you could have responded by saying, "This is a different version than the one that was reviewed by you and others." Of course you would have been right, for we reviewed the theatrical release and you reviewed the Extended Edition. BUT, from what I have read, it is the SAME ENCODE as the theatrical release so the PQ remains unchanged (as well as the audio). I just thought I should bring that clarification to my post.



I have not seen the theatrical cut, either in the theater (had a kid) or on BD (waited for EE).


I've looked at it more closely and my opinion remains the same. I think it's really good but not perfect. The black levels fluctuate from scene to scene. Not egregiously, but enough to knock it off the lofty heights of, say, Hugo or Tree of Life. Also, the lame 3D effects (the plate throwing scene for instance) just take me out of enjoying the movie.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20790#post_23938157
> 
> 
> I have not seen the theatrical cut, either in the theater (had a kid) or on BD (waited for EE).
> 
> 
> I've looked at it more closely and my opinion remains the same. I think it's really good but not perfect. The black levels fluctuate from scene to scene. Not egregiously, but enough to knock it off the lofty heights of, say, Hugo or Tree of Life. Also, the lame 3D effects (the plate throwing scene for instance) just take me out of enjoying the movie.



FTR, I wasn't really trying to change your mind regarding your rating. Tier 1.0 is still a vert respectable ranking.


You mentioned the "lame 3D effects." I have not even boarded the 3D train (I'm not about to replace my KURO just so I can watch 3D), so I can't comment on that.


----------



## hungro

So how many votes is it now for Monsters University to be ontop of Tier 0?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hungro*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20790#post_23939004
> 
> 
> So how many votes is it now for Monsters University to be ontop of Tier 0?



There are 4 votes so far, with 3 of them being for the Top of Tier 0 and the 4th review didn't specify where he would put it in Tier 0. That was fredxr2d2, but his comments *implied* that he would vote for the Top of Tier Blu. He should weigh in though to make it official.


----------



## fredxr2d2

Well, as far as the tippy-top of tier 0, I'm not sure yet. I recently bought two other tier 0 titles: Live Free or Die Hard, and Avatar and plan to watch them at some point. I also don't own Monster's University, so I can't make a direct comparison. Should it go in Tier 0? YES. Should it go at the very top? Not sure. Should it be in the top half of Tier 0? Most likely.


There is my noncommittal answer.










But I was consistently amazed at how good it looked when I watched it, so it is definitely Tier 0.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fredxr2d2*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20790#post_23939406
> 
> 
> Well, as far as the tippy-top of tier 0, I'm not sure yet. I recently bought two other tier 0 titles: Live Free or Die Hard, and Avatar and plan to watch them at some point. I also don't own Monster's University, so I can't make a direct comparison. Should it go in Tier 0? YES. Should it go at the very top? Not sure. Should it be in the top half of Tier 0? Most likely.
> 
> 
> There is my noncommittal answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I was consistently amazed at how good it looked when I watched it, so it is definitely Tier 0.



Perhaps I went too far in saying that you *implied* it was worthy being at the top of Tier Blu, but you did have some glowing remarks such as it being "one of the best Blu-rays I've ever seen" and "this is what Blu-ray is all about." If you don't write down a definite spot in Tier Blu Phantom *may* just consider the other three reviews which did give a specific placement recommendation. It's up to you, but if you do feel it's not worthy of being at the top, you should chime in with a "committed answer."


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I know everyone has been waiting with bated breath for my evaluation...









*Monsters University


recommendation: Tier 0* (Crème de la Crème)*


It was fairly evident during my viewing that Pixar has now hit a unprecedented level of photorealistic detail in _Monsters University_. This is the new pinnacle of CGI animation, setting a standard that will be hard to beat by other studios. Most astounding are the variety of unique locales that get visited during the story, including the brief excursion into the human world. The amount of sheer texture surpasses anything I've seen on the format and approaches an uncanny degree of realism in select scenes.


There are no wrong answers when choosing the best of the best for picture quality but I am inclined to favor _Monsters University_ as the latest and greatest. The animation was constructed from the ground up for maximum eye candy and has been perfectly rendered in 1080P resolution on this flawless Blu-ray presentation. Pixar went above and beyond the call of duty in polishing the background scenery. Lesser CGI animation will cut corners at times to save some money but this movie creates a living world that feels palpable and realistic. The new reference standard and a must-have demo disc.



Procrastinators have gotten a bit lucky with _Monsters University_. It will be for sale on Black Friday (which now for some reason begins on Thanksgiving night) at Walmart, for $9.96.


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20790#post_23938774
> 
> 
> FTR, I wasn't really trying to change your mind regarding your rating. Tier 1.0 is still a vert respectable ranking.
> 
> 
> You mentioned the "lame 3D effects." I have not even boarded the 3D train (I'm not about to replace my KURO just so I can watch 3D), so I can't comment on that.



I don't have or plan to buy a 3D set, either. When I say lame 3D effects, I mean clear use of CGI (like the plates being thrown around the screen) that is clearly intended for 3D effects, even when you're watching in 2D.


----------



## djoberg

*Man of Steel*


I now sit at my computer (to review _Man of Steel_) with mixed emotions. For one thing, I am usually extremely focused on the PQ of any given Blu-ray for the first viewing, but I must confess the audio mix was so overwhelming that my senses became confused (my _ears_ were so engaged that my _eyes_ forgot to focus). In other words, the soundtrack on this title was very aggressive, serving to "draw you into the aural experience" and causing you to "withdraw from the visual." This is not necessarily a bad thing (for I thoroughly enjoyed the audio track), but it is distracting to one whose mission is to evaluate PQ for a "Blu-ray PQ Thread!"


If one were to visit Cinema Squid's site and read each review from the *experts*, you would realize instantly that this title has a wide diversity of opinion. Some were inclined to give it a perfect score of 100 for PQ, while others were on the other end of the spectrum and gave it as low of a score as 40! Those who were on the high end had this in common; they stated that this was "a highly stylistic movie that was true to its theatrical version." Those on the low end were more discriminating, naming various criteria that led them to penalize the PQ for a number of reasons. I, personally, fall somewhere in the middle.


This was indeed a very stylistic movie, reminiscent of titles such as _Terminator Salvation_ or _Death Race_, with an extremely drab color palette and strong teal/blue hues. From my vantage point this was quite distracting. I kept waiting for some primary colors to jump out at me, even if for a few seconds (to be fair there were a couple of shots where colors did appear...in Superman's suit and foliage on the Kent farm, but even there they weren't bold and eye-popping.) So that alone was disappointing to me, though it apparently didn't bother the reviewers alluded to above as long as the PQ was "true to its theatrical version."


One of the chief complaints of one on the lower end of the spectrum was the contrast, for he complained of how bright the movie was as if everything was sun-drenched. I will agree with him that *some* scenes definitely had overblown contrast, resulting in a washed-out look. Another complaint was intruding softness, and again I must concede that this negative reared its ugly head all too often.


Now let's focus on the redeeming qualities. The number one virtue, by far, was unbelievable DETAILS, facial details in particular (Kevin Costner's face looked like Sitting Bull after years of extreme wind and sun







). Perhaps one could even be critical and say there were details that would never be seen in real life!! Details in general were amazing, whether one was viewing scenes on Krypton or Earth. Another positive was BLACK LEVELS, though even here I'm not prepared to say they were perfect. But they were very good and served up some good EYE CANDY at times.


Man, this is a hard one to call. Again, I must admit that I did NOT favor the steely-blue hues that dominated the movie and they took me out of the enjoyment of the PQ at times. When facial details were on display I could forgive the subdued color palette but this was still an extremely drab Blu-ray. If not for the EXCELLENT audio mix, I'm not sure that I would put this Blu on my demo shelf, thus I'm going to go against the general consensus (regarding PQ) and nominate this for...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## mweflen

*Man of Steel (2D)*


If the camera were just held still for more than two seconds in a row, this would be an easy call in Tier 0 for me. The detail is just so overwhelmingly lush and gorgeous, with very tight grain and no obvious artifacts. Unfortunately, the camera does not stay still. Even "static" shots of faces during conversation are subject to shakycam. It is distracting, and detracts from drinking in the beautiful images on display. Black levels were strong throughout. I am not as sensitive to criticisms of color palette as others. I view it as an artistic choice. Yes, things are on a decidedly cool side. It simply doesn't bug me. Nothing looked cartoonish or stupidly oversaturated.


As I think about other Blu-Rays this reminds me of, Zero Dark Thirty springs to mind. That disc had a stylized color palette, exquisite detail, and an extended scene at the end with a lot of PQ challenges (though MOS was shot on film and ZDT on the Arri Alexa). I view it as occupying a similar spot.
*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*

Sony KDL52EX700, 8 foot viewing distance


----------



## djoberg

More observations on _Man of Steel_....


After "sleeping on it," I can say I'm quite satisfied with the 2.0 rating I gave to this title last night. When I woke up a few minutes ago I realized I had forgotten to mention something that others had observed and with which I concur. I'm speaking of the heavy grain structure at times which became somewhat _noisy_. I could detect this in people's faces. At first I thought it was related to the overblown contrast (with a resulting washed-out look) that I referred to in my review, but now I believe it was grain/noise.


I so wanted to love the PQ on this Blu-ray, for I really like the movie itself and the audio is rock-solid, but it has to be one of the most drab-looking titles in recent history. I know there are some of you, like the last reviewer, who aren't bothered by color-grading and subdued color palettes, but I'm easily put off by these. I fear that this infatuation (by directors) with this type of highly stylized productions will continue, especially in action movies like _Man of Steel_.


Let me give another huge shout-out for the audio. I was simply mesmerized by it! Hans Zimmer's score is perfect. The LFE is amazing, even if it didn't reach into ULF (i.e. Ultra Low Frequency) territory (check out the Master List for Bass in Movies Thread if you want to hear the fanatical bass-heads who look down upon movies that don't produce bass in the low teens or single digits). And the action in the surrounds is fantastic. Clarity and precision are two words that come to mind that characterize the audio from beginning to end.


So, even though the PQ was less-than-stellar, i will be giving this repeated viewings for the movie itself and the audio, which means NO BUYER'S REMORSE for this dude!


----------



## MSchu18




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20800_50#post_23937950
> 
> *My Name Is Nobody
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 4.0**
> 
> 
> Image Entertainment released this charming Spaghetti Western from 1973 in the past week. The HD transfer has definitely been struck from film elements but they are far removed from the original camera negative. There is some incidental wear and debris evident in the film print.
> 
> 
> The film transfer has not been unduly filtered or heavily altered, but it's clear no amount of restoration was performed. It has a dull, soft appearance with scattered clarity and resolution. Purely going by the specs, this AVC video encode should be significantly better than the low-bitrate encodes found on the Italian and German BDs of this film.
> 
> 
> Image's disc shows modest improvements in all aspects of picture quality from the DVD. A new film scan from better elements would surely improve on these results.



i just returned my copy after having it sent out the first day this movie was available... I was completely disappointed by this copy of the movie. I have a DVD version(being upscaled by my OPPO) that looked better than this.

thankfully the eruo version BD I have is many times better and I will be watching that copy.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^


Thanks Phantom for your good review on _Monsters University_. I believe this is destined to become the new CHAMP!


I'll be looking forward to your review on _Man of Steel_. As I mentioned previously, there is a diversity of opinion on this title and I'm curious to see where you stand on it.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20790#post_23942702
> 
> 
> More observations on _Man of Steel_....
> 
> 
> After "sleeping on it," I can say I'm quite satisfied with the 2.0 rating I gave to this title last night. When I woke up a few minutes ago I realized I had forgotten to mention something that others had observed and with which I concur. I'm speaking of the heavy grain structure at times which became somewhat _noisy_. I could detect this in people's faces. At first I thought it was related to the overblown contrast (with a resulting washed-out look) that I referred to in my review, but now I believe it was grain/noise.
> 
> 
> I so wanted to love the PQ on this Blu-ray, for I really like the movie itself and the audio is rock-solid, but it has to be one of the most drab-looking titles in recent history. I know there are some of you, like the last reviewer, who aren't bothered by color-grading and subdued color palettes, but I'm easily put off by these. I fear that this infatuation (by directors) with this type of highly stylized productions will continue, especially in action movies like _Man of Steel_.
> 
> 
> Let me give another huge shout-out for the audio. I was simply mesmerized by it! Hans Zimmer's score is perfect. The LFE is amazing, even if it didn't reach into ULF (i.e. Ultra Low Frequency) territory (check out the Master List for Bass in Movies Thread if you want to hear the fanatical bass-heads who look down upon movies that don't produce bass in the low teens or single digits). And the action in the surrounds is fantastic. Clarity and precision are two words that come to mind that characterize the audio from beginning to end.
> 
> 
> So, even though the PQ was less-than-stellar, i will be giving this repeated viewings for the movie itself and the audio, which means NO BUYER'S REMORSE for this dude!



My PQ impressions were somewhat similar to yours and I was honestly not a big fan of the gritty, grainy, noisy and drab style, but the detail was fantastic at times as well. Mixed bag.


I could have got by on a rental with this, but oh well.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20790#post_23943038
> 
> 
> My PQ impressions were somewhat similar to yours and I was honestly not a big fan of the gritty, grainy, noisy and drab style, but the detail was fantastic at times as well. Mixed bag.
> 
> 
> I could have got by on a rental with this, but oh well.



We are certainly in agreement on the PQ Toe. But did I see you giving this only a 3 or 3.5 stars in the Bass Thread with remarks about how let down you were with the audio mix? If so, we aren't in agreement there, for I thought the whole audio mix (musical score, LFE, action in surrounds, and dialog) was stellar and is one of the main reasons I'll be giving this repeated viewings. My wife wasn't home last night so I had the opportunity to listen to this at near reference levels and I was smiling through the majority of the 2+ hours running time.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20790#post_23943155
> 
> 
> We are certainly in agreement on the PQ Toe. But did I see you giving this only a 3 or 3.5 stars in the Bass Thread with remarks about how let down you were with the audio mix? If so, we aren't in agreement there, for I thought the whole audio mix (musical score, LFE, action in surrounds, and dialog) was stellar and is one of the main reasons I'll be giving this repeated viewings. My wife wasn't home last night so I had the opportunity to listen to this at near reference levels and I was smiling through the majority of the 2+ hours running time.



My 3.5/5 was strictly for the low end portion of the mix which I feel is a fair score. This track drops like a rock below 30hz which is all too apparent in relation to many of the on screen events which were screaming for that extra extension to be fully convincing. Throw in some missed/lacking low end spots to one degree or another, a lot of which happened in the opening scenes and the low end was nothing special on this one relative to the better and best on blu IMO.


Having said that, I would agree with you about the rest of the track being excellent.



While I am here







, I will throw out a vote for MU since I just recently watched it and Croods. Going off memory, I cant think of a better looking title overall than MU and agree with what you guys have said here. Croods looked excellent as well and of course belongs in tier 0, but MU deserves to be at the top. Then again, trying to decide between some of the animated titles for top spot is splitting hairs to some degree as all the top tier 0 titles look incredible, but if I was forced to choose, it would be MU.

*Monsters University


Tier Recommendation Tier 0 Top*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20790#post_23943442
> 
> 
> My 3.5/5 was strictly for the low end portion of the mix which I feel is a fair score. This track drops like a rock below 30hz which is all too apparent in relation to many of the on screen events which were screaming for that extra extension to be fully convincing. Throw in some missed/lacking low end spots to one degree or another, a lot of which happened in the opening scenes and the low end was nothing special on this one relative to the better and best on blu IMO.
> 
> 
> Having said that, I would agree with you about the rest of the track being excellent.
> 
> 
> 
> While I am here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , I will throw out a vote for MU since I just recently watched it and Croods. Going off memory, I cant think of a better looking title overall than MU and agree with what you guys have said here. Croods looked excellent as well and of course belongs in tier 0, but MU deserves to be at the top. Then again, trying to decide between some of the animated titles for top spot is splitting hairs to some degree as all the top tier 0 titles look incredible, but if I was forced to choose, it would be MU.
> 
> *Monsters University
> 
> 
> Tier Recommendation Tier 0 Top*



First of all, thanks Toe for the review on _Monsters University_! Of course I agree wholeheartedly with everything you said and your placement recommendation.


Regarding the audio in _Man of Steel_, I am truly surprised that the LFE dropped off below 30 Hz throughout the movie. All I know is that I watched this at -8 and my walls were shaking in MANY scenes and I felt waves of energy rolling over me in a couple of instances. I thought for sure that there was some substantial bass going down to close to 20 Hz. BUT, you are the expert when it comes to the audio end, and no doubt you've seen Frequency Charts that verify what you're saying, so I'll take your word for it. I also agree with you that there were moments, especially during explosions, where I was hoping for more impact. Having said that, when I judge bass I also take into consideration the QUANTITY of LFE, and not just the QUALITY, and _Man of Steel_ had more bass in it than some of the titles in the 4-5 star lists of movies on the Bass Thread. Take, for example, _War of the Worlds_. I absolutely love some of the "bass moments" (like the emergence of the pod out of the street) in that Blu, but quantity-wise it leaves something to be desired. So, I've never been quite sure how to rate movies on that thread, especially without some defined standards (i.e. criteria) to go by.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20790#post_23943614
> 
> 
> First of all, thanks Toe for the review on _Monsters University_! Of course I agree wholeheartedly with everything you said and your placement recommendation.
> 
> 
> Regarding the audio in _Man of Steel_, I am truly surprised that the LFE dropped off below 30 Hz throughout the movie. All I know is that I watched this at -8 and my walls were shaking in MANY scenes and I felt waves of energy rolling over me in a couple of instances. I thought for sure that there was some substantial bass going down to close to 20 Hz. BUT, you are the expert when it comes to the audio end, and no doubt you've seen Frequency Charts that verify what you're saying, so I'll take your word for it. I also agree with you that there were moments, especially during explosions, where I was hoping for more impact. Having said that, when I judge bass I also take into consideration the QUANTITY of LFE, and not just the QUALITY, and _Man of Steel_ had more bass in it than some of the titles in the 4-5 star lists of movies on the Bass Thread. Take, for example, _War of the Worlds_. I absolutely love some of the "bass moments" (like the emergence of the pod out of the street) in that Blu, but quantity-wise it leaves something to be desired. So, I've never been quite sure how to rate movies on that thread, especially without some defined standards (i.e. criteria) to go by.



I agree with everything you said and if you have followed some of my posts in that thread, I also take quantity of LFE into consideration as it is an important aspect to the overall LFE experience in my book and I certainly took that into consideration with MoS as well. I personally loved Pacific Rim for example for bass and it also drops off below ~30hz, but for me it did everything else so right that the missing extension was relatively minor in relation to the LFE and track as a whole. I always take it on a track by track basis and never write it off just by looking at the graphs. I feel it is very important to listen to the track in relation with the on screen action even with the filtered tracks before making judgment.


There are also tons of variables to consider between users/setups which contribute greatly to the difference of opinion with audio in general including bass.


The bass thread is a mess as far as grading criteria goes which I know we have talked about since it is so loosely organized and VERY open to interpretation as far as how to judge. Some judge strictly by the objective, some strictly subjective and some like me a combination of both........far from perfect and no doubt the core issue with a lot of the arguments and conflicts there over the years. I still enjoy it, but I am getting more turned off with that thread as time goes on due to all this.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20820#post_23943683
> 
> 
> I agree with everything you said and if you have followed some of my posts in that thread, I also take quantity of LFE into consideration as it is an important aspect to the overall LFE experience in my book and I certainly took that into consideration with MoS as well. I personally loved Pacific Rim for example for bass and it also drops off below ~30hz, but for me it did everything else so right that the missing extension was relatively minor in relation to the LFE and track as a whole. I always take it on a track by track basis and never write it off just by looking at the graphs. I feel it is very important to listen to the track in relation with the on screen action even with the filtered tracks before making judgment.
> 
> 
> There are also tons of variables to consider between users/setups which contribute greatly to the difference of opinion with audio in general including bass.
> 
> 
> The bass thread is a mess as far as grading criteria goes which I know we have talked about since it is so loosely organized and VERY open to interpretation as far as how to judge. Some judge strictly by the objective, some strictly subjective and some like me a combination of both........far from perfect and no doubt the core issue with a lot of the arguments and conflicts there over the years. I still enjoy it, but I am getting more turned off with that thread as time goes on due to all this.



I don't always visit the Bass Thread but when I do, I am always impressed with your posts. I respect the fact that you take all variables into consideration before giving out a rating for a movie. I tend to skip over the posts by members who only judge "objectively" or "subjectively," for their final analysis is always going to be skewed.


BTW, how is your dad enjoying his Panny plasma? This year's Panasonic VT and ZT series took high honors at the Flat Display Shootout. If my Kuro dies before OLED is marketable, I'm going with one of them!


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20820#post_23943753
> 
> 
> I don't always visit the Bass Thread but when I do, I am always impressed with your posts. I respect the fact that you take all variables into consideration before giving out a rating for a movie. I tend to skip over the posts by members who only judge "objectively" or "subjectively," for their final analysis is always going to be skewed.
> 
> 
> BTW, how is your dad enjoying his Panny plasma? This year's Panasonic VT and ZT series took high honors at the Flat Display Shootout. If my Kuro dies before OLED is marketable, I'm going with one of them!




Thanks djoberg. You know I have the utmost respect for your PQ reviews as well.







The attention to detail as far as the things you guys catch is very impressive and has helped me become a more critical viewer.



He is LOVING his VT65 still.







I am not over there much, but the few times I have been there since setting all that up for him, I am always amazed at the PQ that set is putting out! It does everything well from my perspective and does not seem to have any significant weaknesses unlike my projectors. I have to run 2 projectors to get everything I want for both 2d and 3d and that Panny does both well IMO. His biggest use is sports followed by blu ray and both look inredible. Motion is absolutely fantastic on that set as well as contrast, color, etc.........


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20790#post_23942702
> 
> 
> More observations on _Man of Steel_....
> 
> 
> After "sleeping on it," I can say I'm quite satisfied with the 2.0 rating I gave to this title last night. When I woke up a few minutes ago I realized I had forgotten to mention something that others had observed and with which I concur. I'm speaking of the heavy grain structure at times which became somewhat _noisy_. I could detect this in people's faces. At first I thought it was related to the overblown contrast (with a resulting washed-out look) that I referred to in my review, but now I believe it was grain/noise.
> 
> 
> I so wanted to love the PQ on this Blu-ray, for I really like the movie itself and the audio is rock-solid, but it has to be one of the most drab-looking titles in recent history. I know there are some of you, like the last reviewer, who aren't bothered by color-grading and subdued color palettes, but I'm easily put off by these. I fear that this infatuation (by directors) with this type of highly stylized productions will continue, especially in action movies like _Man of Steel_.
> 
> 
> So, even though the PQ was less-than-stellar, i will be giving this repeated viewings for the movie itself and the audio, which means NO BUYER'S REMORSE for this dude!



I agree on the occasional noisiness of the grain. It reminds me of Moneyball in some respects.


I think the evaluation of color grading with respect to "eye candy" is always going to be subjective. I view it in the same way as black and white. Will I knock a movie down as eye candy because it is B&W? Not me, personally. Aviator has very distinctive color grading, too. But it fits Scorsese's purpose (to mimic the film color processes of each era depicted). But that's just me. Some people don't like "orange and teal" or "muted" or whatever, they want everything to look like reality. And then others want it to look like Speed Racer or something, super oversaturated. To each their own. I think your 2 is perfectly reasonable. We just arrived at our similar ratings for different reasons. I can't stand shakycam, even though it is also an artistic intention. I just can't see as much detail when the frame is shaking all over the place, so it is less "eye candy" for me.


Either way, I also have no buyer's remorse. I'm happy I got it and it's definitely a worthy movie and blu-ray, regardless of its real deficits.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^


Good and valid points mweflen!


I want you to know I appreciate your reviews. You're honest and consistent in the way you analyze Blu- rays and more often than not your placement recommendations are pretty accurate (IMHO). Keep them coming!


----------



## djoberg

*The Company You Keep*


An enjoyable character/dialogue driven political thriller headed up by director/actor Robert Redford. The PQ wasn't bad either!










After watching _Man of Steel_, with its highly stylized color-grading and orange/teal hues, it was refreshing to see such a natural-looking film. EVERYTHING looked natural, from the warm and rich colors, to the breathtaking panoramic views of California, Michigan, New York, and other American locations. There was a fine layer of grain which gave it the coveted *filmic* look. Details were in abundance, from lush forests and mountains to city streets, buildings, neighborhoods, etc. Facial close-ups revealed much in the way of details (you have to love the fine textures in aging actors such as Robert Redford, Julie Christie, Sam Elliot, and Nick Nolte). Depth was appreciable in many scenes, with accompanying sharpness and clarity. Flesh tones were spot on, contrast was strong, and black levels were good.


If I were to offer any words of censure, it would be fleeting shots of softness that would creep in unawares. Also, *some* nighttime scenes offered less favorable black levels, with a hint of crush here and there.


This one would work on my demo shelf, so I'm opting for....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *MSchu18*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20790#post_23942912
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20800_50#post_23937950
> 
> *My Name Is Nobody
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 4.0**
> 
> 
> Image Entertainment released this charming Spaghetti Western from 1973 in the past week. The HD transfer has definitely been struck from film elements but they are far removed from the original camera negative. There is some incidental wear and debris evident in the film print.
> 
> 
> The film transfer has not been unduly filtered or heavily altered, but it's clear no amount of restoration was performed. It has a dull, soft appearance with scattered clarity and resolution. Purely going by the specs, this AVC video encode should be significantly better than the low-bitrate encodes found on the Italian and German BDs of this film.
> 
> 
> Image's disc shows modest improvements in all aspects of picture quality from the DVD. A new film scan from better elements would surely improve on these results.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i just returned my copy after having it sent out the first day this movie was available... I was completely disappointed by this copy of the movie. I have a DVD version(being upscaled by my OPPO) that looked better than this.
> 
> thankfully the eruo version BD I have is many times better and I will be watching that copy.
Click to expand...

The transfer was disappointing to say the least. I hear the Italian Blu-ray has a better transfer from a much stronger film source.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20790#post_23942936
> 
> 
> ^^^^^
> 
> 
> Thanks Phantom for your good review on _Monsters University_. I believe this is destined to become the new CHAMP!
> 
> 
> I'll be looking forward to your review on _Man of Steel_. As I mentioned previously, there is a diversity of opinion on this title and I'm curious to see where you stand on it.


Your Man of Steel review was excellent.







I wish I could give a window on when I'll get to see it but my pre-order hasn't been delivered yet and I am swamped with a number of other BDs to review.


----------



## MSchu18




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20800_50#post_23945492
> 
> 
> The transfer was disappointing to say the least. I hear the Italian Blu-ray has a better transfer from a much stronger film source.



extremely disappointing.


It's a fun little movie and deserves respect despite it's flaws. Terrence Hill has always been a great character in his cowboy movies and to ignore the Morricone soundtrack is a huge mistake.


----------



## fredxr2d2

*Man of Steel*

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


While I was hoping for the kind of lovely quality that Star Trek: Into Darkness had on it's blu (Superman and Star Trek are two favorites of mine since childhood), Man of Steel was, unfortunately, not that pristine. In fact, I don't know if it was the obvious color timing manipulations or something else, but Man of Steel displayed an obvious "we shot this on film" feeling through most of the film--that is to say that noise was present in nearly every scene. This isn't to say that the blu-ray was not spectacular in it's domain (the DVD would obviously be worse), but that compared to some more recent better looking transfers *cough* Monster's University *cough*, Man of Steel just fell short. There were a few scenes as it neared the end of the film that I thought looked downright Tier 0 quality (especially close-ups on Laurence Fishburne, Henry Cavill, and Michael Shannon, plus the wonderful texture on Supes' suit), but overall, the whole presentation was backdropped with film noise.


The reason that I went with Tier 2, was the fact that but for the noise, the majority of the film was clearly of good blu-ray quality and is par for the course on what I'd expect from a blu-ray. It did not demonstrate demo quality picture, but was what I expect a blu-ray to look like (as opposed to the loss of resolution in DVD). The ending scenes with beautiful close-ups and well-done special effects shots put it into the top of that tier for me.


I will agree that the soundtrack is wonderfully mixed and I found myself noticing subtle changes in music and mood setting that I think really exposed the care and time that the filmmakers put into it.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fredxr2d2*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20820#post_23947669
> 
> *Man of Steel*
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.0*
> 
> 
> While I was hoping for the kind of lovely quality that Star Trek: Into Darkness had on it's blu (Superman and Star Trek are two favorites of mine since childhood), Man of Steel was, unfortunately, not that pristine. In fact, I don't know if it was the obvious color timing manipulations or something else, but Man of Steel displayed an obvious "we shot this on film" feeling through most of the film--that is to say that noise was present in nearly every scene. This isn't to say that the blu-ray was not spectacular in it's domain (the DVD would obviously be worse), but that compared to some more recent better looking transfers *cough* Monster's University *cough*, Man of Steel just fell short. There were a few scenes as it neared the end of the film that I thought looked downright Tier 0 quality (especially close-ups on Laurence Fishburne, Henry Cavill, and Michael Shannon, plus the wonderful texture on Supes' suit), but overall, the whole presentation was backdropped with film noise.
> 
> 
> The reason that I went with Tier 2, was the fact that but for the noise, the majority of the film was clearly of good blu-ray quality and is par for the course on what I'd expect from a blu-ray. It did not demonstrate demo quality picture, but was what I expect a blu-ray to look like (as opposed to the loss of resolution in DVD). The ending scenes with beautiful close-ups and well-done special effects shots put it into the top of that tier for me.
> 
> 
> I will agree that the soundtrack is wonderfully mixed and I found myself noticing subtle changes in music and mood setting that I think really exposed the care and time that the filmmakers put into it.



Good review fredxr2d2!


I obviously concur with you, in measure, regarding the *noise*, though I didn't think it was as pervasive as you describe. Much of the film's "grain" was acceptable, though at times it became a bit too "gritty," and at other times it evolved into definite "noise." As I stated in my review, two of my biggest gripes were the drab color palette and the color-grading. Frankly, I'm getting sick of TEAL (and ORANGE), for it robs you of realism, whether you're talking about realistic flesh tones, or whatever. GRG has always "called a spade a spade" when it comes to color-grading and its adverse effects on what we should expect to see (I miss his honest reviews, especially in this context). I know the directors have made this stylistic choice, for their own reasons, but IMHO it takes away from what we should expect to see in real life and needs to penalized for it (if it does indeed affect flesh tones, details, etc.).


Just to be fair, there are occasions where it may be entirely appropriate to display teal hues. For example, we can't say what would be realistic on Planet Krypton, so if the director wants to create a planet that is robbed of our color-scheme on Planet Earth, so be it. The same holds true for other fictional movies, such as _Lord of the Rings_ with its Middle Earth. Who am I to say that Middle Earth shouldn't come across as having "orange hues?" But when it comes to our planet Earth, with conditions comparable to what we experience today, we should expect to see what we would normally see, period!


There, I got that off my chest (again). I'll get off my soap box now and we can resume regular broadcasting.


----------



## djoberg

I just returned home from the video store with three rentals. I'm wondering if anyone has seen any of these titles yet (as far as I know, they were not highly advertised movies). They are _The Frozen Ground_ (with Nicolas Cage and John Cusack), _The Place Beyond the Pines_ (with Ryan Gosling, Bradley Cooper and Ray Liotta), and _Parkland_ (with Billy Bob Thornton, Paul Giamatti, Zac Efron and Marcia Gray Harden). They may not have been hailed as great by the masses, but in reading the short piece on the back of each Blu my interest was peaked.


----------



## Toe

I know I have mentioned this about a month ago, but I am surprised nobody has reviewed Kon Tiki here. You guys really should track this down as I would love to see it go through the paces here as I was personally very impressed with this title from a PQ perspective (audio as well actually), but I am not the most critical viewer and would love to hear your guys take on it at some point as there could very well be some issues I missed.


----------



## fredxr2d2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20820#post_23948125
> 
> 
> 
> Just to be fair, there are occasions where it may be entirely appropriate to display teal hues. For example, we can't say what would be realistic on Planet Krypton, so if the director wants to create a planet that is robbed of our color-scheme on Planet Earth, so be it. The same holds true for other fictional movies, such as _Lord of the Rings_ with its Middle Earth. Who am I to say that Middle Earth shouldn't come across as having "orange hues?" But when it comes to our planet Earth, with conditions comparable to what we experience today, we should expect to see what we would normally see, period!



I agree with you here on those teal and orange tones. I don't think they bother me as much as they bother some others on this thread. However, I will say that the drab color palette doesn't bother me as much as just focus issues or the film grain. I think I noticed some of it more because I was trying to focus on the overall picture instead of faces (which were usually clear), and got distracted by the "noise" in the background.


That said, I think there is a certain amount of "grain" that can be actually pleasing to the eye and wouldn't necessarily take off points for it. Man of Steel was not pleasant in that sense (though some scenes were better than others) and maybe my problem is that I was so looking forward to awesomeness that I got lost in the fact that it was just pretty OK.


----------



## fredxr2d2

All of this also doesn't mean that I won't watch it another time (or three). Just wanted to chime in.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20820#post_23948549
> 
> 
> I know I have mentioned this about a month ago, but I am surprised nobody has reviewed Kon Tiki here. You guys really should track this down as I would love to see it go through the paces here as I was personally very impressed with this title from a PQ perspective (audio as well actually), but I am not the most critical viewer and would love to hear your guys take on it at some point as there could very well be some issues I missed.



I did make a note of that Toe when you referred to that title, but my local video store doesn't have a Blu-ray copy and I'm not sure I would want to purchase it. You did whet my appetite to see it though, so I will check out other video stores in nearby cities when I get the chance to.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fredxr2d2*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20820#post_23948563
> 
> 
> I agree with you here on those teal and orange tones. I don't think they bother me as much as they bother some others on this thread. However, I will say that the drab color palette doesn't bother me as much as just focus issues or the film grain. I think I noticed some of it more because I was trying to focus on the overall picture instead of faces (which were usually clear), and got distracted by the "noise" in the background.
> 
> 
> That said, *I think there is a certain amount of "grain" that can be actually pleasing to the eye and wouldn't necessarily take off points for it.* Man of Steel was not pleasant in that sense (though some scenes were better than others) and maybe my problem is that I was so looking forward to awesomeness that I got lost in the fact that it was just pretty OK.



I think I can echo your sentiments when you say, "the drab color palette doesn't bother me as much as focus issues or the film grain." Focus issues are VERY distracting, resulting in a loss of clarity. Grain, if too heavy, is just as distracting and also robs the PQ of clarity (and, in some cases, of details). There have been some Blu-rays with drab color palettes that I have rated quite high, simply because there was so much detail, depth, and clarity. This was NOT the case though with _Man of Steel_, for with the grain issues and periods of softness, there wasn't always a lot of details and clarity.


Regarding my highlighted words above, I agree with you 100%! I have often noted in reviews that there was a nice layer of fine grain that gave it a "filmic" look (some call it a "cinematic" look) and that actually served to enhance details. It's when it robs the PQ of details/clarity that one must "take off points."


----------



## djoberg

*The Frozen Ground*


Not so good movie...so-so PQ!


Even though this was filmed using the Arri Alexa camera and had an average bitrate of 35 (I don't usually check the bitrate during the movie but with a recent poster mentioning people being "bitrate watchers" I thought I would give it a try







), I was underwhelmed by the PQ. Much of the 90 minute running time features either outdoor nighttime scenes or indoor low-lit lighting and in quite a few instance black levels suffered (with murkiness or crushed blacks) and details were all but lost. In fairness though there were some stellar black levels at times with finely-rendered shadow details. Go figure!


Someone who wrote a review for _Man of Steel_ penalized the PQ rating due to the infamous "shaky cam." Well, this director couldn't keep his hands still either and I found myself distracted by it.


Flesh tones were okay one minute, pale the next. Depth was satisfactory during daytime scenes; not so much at night. Contrast was inconsistent too, with stronger contrast during daytime shots and low in many nighttime scenes. You get the picture...this was one inconsistent flick!


What about color-grading? Oh yeah, it was there big-time, with oodles of TEAL. No doubt the director chose this for multiple reasons...it was a period piece (early 80s I believe)....it was in Alaska (where it's cold!)...and it was a very sober and solemn movie about one of Alaska's most notorious serial killers (so steely blue sets the mood). Be that as it may, I still didn't like it and I thought it affected both flesh tones and details at times.


This did have some redeeming qualities though; namely, plenty of details at times, especially in facial close-ups. Ironically some of the best facial close-ups with superb texture took place at night...in cars, bars, and ah....other places (sorry I didn't have a third word that rhymed with cars and bars







). Also, there was some AMAZING CINEMATOGRAPHY, with generous amounts of panoramic views of Alaska's mountains and wildernesses. They were accompanied by decent details and depth.


Time to wrap this up with a placement recommendation. It's not the easiest call (as is often the case when there is such inconsistency), but I surely wouldn't call this "reference" or "demo" material. Yet I do believe it deserves a place in Tier Silver and close to the top too. How about....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Only God Forgives


recommendation: Tier 3.0**


I think Ryan Gosling's many female admirers are going to see his face on the cover and rent this movie without reading too much about it. That would be a mistake by them.










Getting to more relevant analysis for this thread, _Only God Forgives_ has some of most heavily-stylized digital cinematography seen yet on Blu-ray. Entire scenes are creatively lit in different colored lighting, which poses difficulty for overall clarity and shadow depth. Anchor Bay did what they could with the transfer but the movie was shot on the cheap in Bangkok, producing some visual limitations in the gritty cinematography. This is from the same director that made Drive with Ryan Gosling, but that film's visual style had more polish and Hollywood pedigree.


----------



## djoberg

*The Place Beyond the Pines*


How about that...two reviews back-to-back with Ryan Gosling as the one of the male leads! I must say he has veered into "bad boy" territory as of late and being the accomplished actor that he is, he can pretty much fill any role.


I'm happy to report that this was another "natural-looking" Blu! There were tons of scenes featuring beautiful, lush cinematography and the details were quite good (not excellent, but very good). Colors were warm. Flesh tones were accurate. Facial details up close were Tier 1 quality. Blacks levels in early scenes didn't fare too well at night, with heavy grain/noise rearing their ugly head. Thankfully they became better as the movie progressed. There was a fine layer of grain that looked pleasing to the eyes, with the exception of the early nighttime scenes just mentioned. There was *some* color-grading....shots with orange hues in earlier scenes...shots with teal hues after that. But they weren't dominating and had no effect on details.


During the first 30 minutes I was thinking "this won't make it into either of the two top tiers," but when the PQ picked up on all levels I changed my mind and at the end I figured it may be worthy of a Tier 1 ranking, albeit at the bottom....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## fredxr2d2

EDIT: Wow. Ignore that post from me. (I deleted it.) Sorry guys, especially djoberg.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Three Faces of Eve


recommendation: Tier 3.25*
*

Joanne Woodward's classic portrayal of a woman suffering from Multiple Personality Disorder has never looked better on home video. The excellent Cinemascope transfer has been handled with the utmost care by Fox and brought to life in vivid 1080P resolution. Inky black levels and superior shadow delineation provide the necessary support for the black-and-white cinematography.


Some mild softness occasionally creeps into the picture but on the whole it has strong definition and pleasing levels of clarity. The technical specs for the AVC video encode are exemplary, nearing an average of 40 Mbps! This is a film-like transfer that pays great respect to the 1957 classic.


----------



## mweflen

*Batman Returns*


Well, the contrast is more pleasing than the previous Tim Burton Batman, if it is perhaps a tad crushed close to black. Mid-range detail is fine, but film grain and fine detail are not particularly good. I think some DNR was applied here. Some optical shots reduce mid-range detail. Overall it is pleasing in the way that, say, good cable TV HD is. The best scenes really pop with color and contrast. It just doesn't look much like a film.
*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*


----------



## mweflen

*Rear Window*


There is definitely something digital going on with the grain here. But that said, at least there is grain, so at normal viewing distances this does look like film. Color is excellent, especially for a film of this vintage. Mid level detail is quite nice, but fine detail is soft. Contrast is very good with no real crushing of blacks. All in all, a respectful transfer of a classic film, which ought to please Hitchcock fans who have been suffering with DVDs for a decade.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.5*


----------



## djoberg

*Parkland*


With the 50th anniversary of President John F. Kennedy's assassination a week from today, I thought it would be appropriate to see this movie which presents it from a different vantage point than that of other films. Parkland was the hospital where Mr. Kennedy was taken to and where he died. It is also the hospital where Lee Harvey Oswald was taken to and died. What a stark contrast between the two, in almost every way!


This was obviously a "period piece" and very "solemn," so the director chose to feature TEAL hues throughout the movie, but I'm thankful to say they weren't so dominating as to affect details or flesh-tones. In fact, even though colors were somewhat subdued, primaries still appeared here and there with a warmth and vibrancy that was pleasing to the eyes.


For the majority of the 90 minute running time we are treated to a clean and sharp transfer, teeming with details. The director chose to zoom in on faces many, many times and in each case there was rich texture, revealing every mole, wrinkle, stubble, etc. A good example of this starts at the 47 minute mark where Lee Harvey Oswald's mother is in a room conversing with her son and a Secret Service Agent. Her features (face and hair) and her clothes are exemplary, showcasing the merits of this wonderful technology we call High Definition. I paused it a couple of times to allow my eyes to to absorb what was before me: EYE CANDY to the nth degree! There were also many shots with appreciable depth.


Black levels weren't reference, but they were acceptable, I noticed no instances of crush and they never faltered to the point of murkiness. Contrast during bright, daytime scenes was excellent.


This is easily "demo" material, but NOT "reference." I would put it somewhere in the middle of Tier 1. I'm thinking it may end up here....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Man of Steel


recommendation: Tier 2.25**

_Man of Steel's_ distinct aesthetic has to be acknowledged before delving into the finer points of its video quality. Earlier film versions of Superman were rendered in bright comic book colors. Snyder and Christopher Nolan have grounded the world's first superhero in a much grittier tone, more in line with the big Sci-Fi blockbusters of today. The color timing eschews bright bursts of the primary colors, preferring a darker tonality in a desaturated color palette.

_Man of Steel's_ world is built on the back of digital composites and heavy usage of VFX to give us a new imagining of the familiar character. While the CGI and green screen work look fairly great, there is a price to be paid in terms of blending that much artifice with live action. The resulting picture quality is a mesh of film texture and some filtering to seamlessly blend the action together. While it has some interesting design elements to the visuals, _Man of Steel_ rarely struck me as demo material.


I think some of the concerns with the AVC video encode were correct. This film has a heavy texture and weight to it. Sometimes it produces less refined shadow delineation or poorly focused cinematography. Occasionally, Warner's encoding has small problems dealing with the gritty texture and fast-paced action. Most of the prior comments in this thread were dead on the target.


Most of the movie still provides a sharp experience with fine detail. I simply don't think it belongs in Tier 1.


----------



## comperic2003

*Monsters University


recommendation: Tier 0* (The Tippy Top)*


The sheer variety of beautifully saturated color, inky blacks and near microscopic level of detail, all framed by stunningly photo realistic environments, makes for the finest visual experience available. I have watched Madagascar 3 and Toy Story 3 and their current placement is well deserved but Monsters University has easily surpassed both.


The accompany Pixar short, The Blu Umbrella, has _the_ most photo-realistic visuals I have ever seen.

Samsung PN60E7000, CinemaQuest Ideal-Lume Standard Bias Light employed, 8.5 ft viewing distance


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Lion of the Desert


recommendation: Tier 4.5**


The 1981 historical epic arrives on Blu-ray courtesy of Starz/Anchor Bay. The interlaced film transfer is a cropped mess. Anchor Bay obviously secured a HD master originally intended for broadcast, presenting it on Blu-ray at a poor 1080i resolution. The movie should have been in its correct 2.35:1 aspect ratio but instead we get a heavily cropped 1.78:1 widescreen transfer. The opening reel is in very rough shape with significant telecine wobble and jitter.


The picture quality itself lies in that twilight realm above upscaled standard definition but clearly not up to the standards of a modern Hi-Def film scan.







This transfer appears to be a very old telecine transfer made before the advent of Blu-ray, possibly from third-rate film elements. It is definitely not from the original camera negative, possessing poor color fidelity and overall detail. A disappointment in almost every respect.


----------



## hungro

Just a question , everyone remembers the debouchery that was Gladiator before cries from fans sent Paramount into doing a remaster, I am sure you all remember that day . Will or is there a thread that mentions how bad of a transfer Meet the Fockers is. DNR, EE, Aliasing, Noisy, Shimmering and so on. It is terrible, I am just curious if there has been a hallabaloo about this bluray disk which in my opinion is begging for a better transfer I know it's a much older movie, but it's a shame studio's are putting out this type of quality. While I am at it, lol, we should so the studios lobby never use teal and blue , just getting tired of that color combo in movies, come on. Really, that's the best a colorist can do. Oh well, what do I know. Back to your regular sheduled bluray reviews


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hungro*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20820#post_23974950
> 
> 
> Just a question , everyone remembers the debouchery that was Gladiator before cries from fans sent Paramount into doing a remaster, I am sure you all remember that day . Will or is there a thread that mentions how bad of a transfer Meet the Fockers is. DNR, EE, Aliasing, Noisy, Shimmering and so on. It is terrible, I am just curious if there has been a hallabaloo about this bluray disk which in my opinion is begging for a better transfer I know it's a much older movie, but it's a shame studio's are putting out this type of quality. While I am at it, lol, we should so the studios lobby never use teal and blue , just getting tired of that color combo in movies, come on. Really, that's the best a colorist can do. Oh well, what do I know. Back to your regular sheduled bluray reviews


I don't remember a specific thread for Meet the Fockers. People's expectations for a catalog studio comedy from Universal aren't very high to begin with, so I don't think a mediocre transfer would be much of a shock. Picture quality seems to be of minimal concern when prepping these Hollywood comedies for home video.


Given that it was a 2004 film, my hunch is that Universal went to their vault and re-used their HD transfer originally prepped for the initial DVD release. That is why it's filled with the problems you cited. Outside of Spielberg's films, Universal is not to be trusted with catalog releases.

*Tank Girl


recommendation: Tier 2.75**


This is a very solid film transfer and Hi-Def presentation for the 1995 flop. Shout Factory licensed the film from MGM. It's a film-like transfer from high-quality elements, showcasing excellent color rendition and decent resolution.


I don't think a case could be made for a Tier One placement but it definitely deserves placement somewhere in Tier 2. _Tank Girl_ is not demo material but ranks highly amongst other catalog releases from its era on Blu-ray.


----------



## Taake




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20820#post_23950264
> 
> *Only God Forgives
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 3.0**
> 
> 
> I think Ryan Gosling's many female admirers are going to see his face on the cover and rent this movie without reading too much about it. That would be a mistake by them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Getting to more relevant analysis for this thread, _Only God Forgives_ has some of most heavily-stylized digital cinematography seen yet on Blu-ray. Entire scenes are creatively lit in different colored lighting, which poses difficulty for overall clarity and shadow depth. Anchor Bay did what they could with the transfer but the movie was shot on the cheap in Bangkok, producing some visual limitations in the gritty cinematography. This is from the same director that made Drive with Ryan Gosling, but that film's visual style had more polish and Hollywood pedigree.



That's surprising. When I saw the film at the cinema it had hands down the best picture quality I had ever seen. It looked utterly stunning.


----------



## tenia54




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20820#post_23975100
> 
> 
> Outside of Spielberg's films, Universal is not to be trusted with catalog releases.



To be fair to them, they did a pretty good job on Harvey and on half of their Monsters titles.


----------



## HD-Master




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tenia54*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20850#post_23979442
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20820#post_23975100
> 
> 
> Outside of Spielberg's films, Universal is not to be trusted with catalog releases.
> 
> 
> 
> To be fair to them, they did a pretty good job on Harvey and on half of their Monsters titles.
Click to expand...

As well as many, many other catalog releases. It's a rediculous claim that they cannot be trusted outside of Spielberg's films.


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hungro*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20820#post_23974950
> 
> 
> Just a question , everyone remembers the debouchery that was Gladiator before cries from fans sent Paramount into doing a remaster, I am sure you all remember that day . Will or is there a thread that mentions how bad of a transfer Meet the Fockers is. DNR, EE, Aliasing, Noisy, Shimmering and so on. It is terrible, I am just curious if there has been a hallabaloo about this bluray disk which in my opinion is begging for a better transfer I know it's a much older movie, but it's a shame studio's are putting out this type of quality. While I am at it, lol, we should so the studios lobby never use teal and blue , just getting tired of that color combo in movies, come on. Really, that's the best a colorist can do. Oh well, what do I know. Back to your regular sheduled bluray reviews



If we're going to have a new transfer hullabaloo, it _needs_ to be about Spartacus.


----------



## foxamigo


*Redline (Anchor Bay/Manga)*

 

​Anchor Bay and Manga Entertainment deliver the goods on this one! Inky blacks and sharp defined lines in this presentation look great in this fast and colorful movie. There's no aliasing, no banding, no anomalies to speak of what-so-ever with such fluid and fast motion occurring in almost every scene. The first 10 minutes is one of the best home theater demos with how crazy the visuals are in the film. 


This is clearly a direct to digital transfer with a high bitrate that represents the stunning visuals in the highest possible quality and for that, it really does deserve to be in the highest tier.


*Tier Recommendation: 0*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^


Thanks for the good review foxamigo and welcome to AVS!


----------



## djoberg

*Paranoia*


If you can put up with the rather disappointing plot/story-line and underwhelming acting (from some BIG NAME actors, mind you), you will at least be rewarded with some very pleasing EYE CANDY!


I'm going to keep this short. This one was SHARP from the opening scene to the rolling credits, with outstanding BLACK LEVELS & SHADOW DETAILS, spot-on FLESH TONES, warm & vibrant COLORS, appreciable DEPTH, and spectacular DETAILS. It also featured many gorgeous aerial views of the Big Apple and some lush scenery in the Hamptons. The only censure would be the "to-be-expected" orange and teal hues, but in reality they were quite minimal and did NOT affect details or flesh tones. If the facial details had been consistently good, I might have opted for low Tier 0, but they weren't reference quality and even veered into Tier 2 at times, so my vote goes for....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## mweflen

*Strangers on a Train*


This 1.37:1 AR black & white BD looks pretty great most of the time. Film grain is tight and consistent, and the whole presentation enjoys a lovely filmic look. Fine detail is pretty good, mid-level detail is excellent. Certain close-ups show good facial detail, cloth texture almost always pops. The gradations in gray look quote lovely, with deep shadows and bright highlights. The only thing holding this back are some shots where softness creeps in, usually from a wipe or a dissolve (though there is one conspicuous sequence in a record store listening booth that is way soft for pretty much no discernible reason), There were a few instances of very light print damage, too (a vertical line through the frame on the initial train conversation). Outside of these flaws, this looks quite similar overall in quality to some of the better Twilight Zone episodes on BD (though TZ has greater fine detail). It is consistently quite a bit better than DVD. This is a pretty easy recommendation to any Hitchcock fan.
*
Tier Recommendation: 2.75*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Winnie the Pooh: A Very Merry Pooh Year

recommendation: Tier 2.5*
*

Disney actually cobbled together two separate Winnie The Pooh programs to create this one, seamless feature. The first is an older Christmas episode intended for television from 1992 and animated using normal cel animation. It is presented in fine form if you disregard some incidental cel dust and debris that occasionally rears its head on the left edge of the 4:3 framing. The second part is a new special from 2002, animated using a now-antiquated Digital Ink and Paint process. The newer part has a slightly brighter color palette and cleaner lines, but also contains a noticeable amount of aliasing along the edges of each character.


Combined the main feature runs 63 minutes, encoded at excellent parameters in AVC. Disney did just about everything they could to bring these older, cheaper television specials to life on Blu-ray in 1080P. Any visual flaws are due to limitations in the original productions and not a result of rogue processing. The differences here with theatrical animation are the duller colors and occasional softness in shots when the camera digitally zooms in on the animation. This is a solid release that has its source material looking as good as it possibly could at 1080P.


Ta ta for now...


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Elfen Lied: Complete Collection


recommendation: Tier 3.75*
*

This two-disc set collects the entire series. _Elfen Lied_ was an anime program originally released back in 2004, before that industry had fully moved to producing native HD content. It is presented in 1080P resolution on BD but the animation was almost certainly created at a lower resolution. If I had to guess it was originally done at 540P or 720P, as the picture quality has several attributes that SD lacks when presented at 1080P.


I normally wouldn't rank an upscaled program this high but I believe animation upscales much more cleanly than regular content, leading to an image decent enough for the bottom of Tier Three. ADV Films has handled the video encode with care and technically the transfer is unhampered by erroneous processing.


----------



## mweflen

*To Catch A Thief*


Consistently splendid. The best shots (especially facial close-ups and foliage) get into high tier 1 territory in terms of detail. The worst (a few soft scenes, helicopter shots, and process shots) dip into the 3's. But it's almost all good. Film grain is present throughout but is quite minimal. The colors are spectacular. Flowers and scarves leap off the screen. Rich browns and wood grains populate the set design. Clothing textures and colors feel touchable. There is a three dimensional quality that pervades most of the film, with depth of field, rich blacks and plenty of detail in shadows. All told, this is the best looking Hitchcock movie I've seen on the format, better than both North by Northwest and Vertigo.
*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


----------



## hungro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20820#post_23948141
> 
> 
> I just returned home from the video store with three rentals. I'm wondering if anyone has seen any of these titles yet (as far as I know, they were not highly advertised movies). They are _The Frozen Ground_ (with Nicolas Cage and John Cusack), _The Place Beyond the Pines_ (with Ryan Gosling, Bradley Cooper and Ray Liotta), and _Parkland_ (with Billy Bob Thornton, Paul Giamatti, Zac Efron and Marcia Gray Harden). They may not have been hailed as great by the masses, but in reading the short piece on the back of each Blu my interest was peaked.


I have seen The Place Beyond the Pines .I liked it, it has Eva Mendez and I am sold just there, she is hot. The story and acting is great. I haven't seen this on bluray, just a h264 blu rip on my computer. The other movies you mentioned I haven't seen.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hungro*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20850#post_23990128
> 
> 
> I have seen The Place Beyond the Pines .I liked it, it has Eva Mendez and I am sold just there, she is hot. The story and acting is great. I haven't seen this on bluray, just a h264 blu rip on my computer. The other movies you mentioned I haven't seen.


 *Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) I liked the first half. After Ryan Gosling died it went downhill.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*RWBY


recommendation: Tier 2.25**


This is a new anime production from the same team responsible for the web series _Red vs. Blue_. It is entirely animated using computer tools such as MAYA 3D software, so it looks quite different from normal cartoon animation. The screenshots provide a better guide than anything I could say on the video quality.


The 1080i presentation has some slight flaws, though most of it is seemingly due to the lack of refinement in the animation. Banding and aliasing are problems in the first couple of episodes which go away as the series finds its footing. _RWBY's_ brilliant color palette is rendered in perfect clarity and sharpness. This might have been Tier 1.0 if the animation had been more polished in its backgrounds. All of the detail is reserved for the character models, leaving sparse background imagery.


----------



## djoberg

*Turbo*


DreamWorks has clearly refined their animation in recent titles, and IMHO they are now rivaling Pixar! Turbo is a visual feast, with amazing colors and details, along with inky blacks and super-strong contrast. Wait til you see the texture on the pavement at the Indy 500, or the minute detail on the jet-black crows. We're getting company shortly for the night, so I'm going to simply weigh in with my placement recommendation. Happy Thanksgiving to all my fellow AVS members.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (Right below Toy Story 3)*


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## djoberg

I should mention tomorrow we leave for Minneapolis where our whole clan will be together for the day in the new home of "daughter #3" and her family. Her husband had a professional Home Theater built in their bonus room above the garage (with a really cool secret entrance to the bonus room....through a hall bookcase!!), so I'm bringing an armful of Blus to watch for the next few days....some animated titles for all the "young at heart," and then some good action Blus for after the kiddies go to bed.


Again, have a good Thanksgiving! Drive safe if you're on the road, and when you're at the table eating the feast remember to "push away from the table before you can't!"


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20850#post_24005188
> 
> *Turbo*
> 
> 
> DreamWorks has clearly refined their animation in recent titles, and IMHO they are now rivaling Pixar! Turbo is a visual feast, with amazing colors and details, along with inky blacks and super-strong contrast. Wait til you see the texture on the pavement at the Indy 500, or the minute detail on the jet-black crows. We're getting company shortly for the night, so I'm going to simply weigh in with my placement recommendation. Happy Thanksgiving to all my fellow AVS members.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (Right below Toy Story 3)*
> 
> 
> Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


Gobble, gobble...A happy Thanksgiving to you and everyone else reading the thread! _Turbo_ sounds like a clear-cut demo disc. Everyone can pick up the cheap BDs on Black Friday and give us a report on their picture quality.


*Necessary Evil: Super-Villains of DC Comics


recommendation: Tier 1.75**


This is a 99-minute documentary of talking heads, mostly speaking over various clips from movies such as _Superman_ and _The Dark Knight Rises_, not to mention a copious selection of comic book art. If you've seen the featurettes found on WB's line of animated superhero films, one should get a good idea of the general picture quality. Some of the clips are taken from SD sources but generally the new interviews have been shot in pristine HD.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Message


recommendation: Tier 4.0**


Anchor Bay has delivered another film transfer of questionable origins on Blu-ray for this release of _The Message_. The 1976 film is a throwback in terms of style to older biblical epics from Hollywood, this time devoted to the origins of the Islamic faith. The film has been heavily cropped from its native scope presentation to a 1.78:1 aspect ratio. It also has an interlaced presentation at 1080i resolution.


The film print is in much better shape than the similar source used on Anchor Bay's other recent catalog release from Moustapha Akkad, _Lion of the Desert_. This disc actually looks derived from an authentic film source, even if the older telecine is showing its age in terms of clarity and ultimate resolution.


----------



## Neil Joseph

I would like to nominate another top tier title. "Secret Of The Wings"


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Neil Joseph*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20850#post_24017221
> 
> 
> I would like to nominate another top tier title. "Secret Of The Wings"


Definitely, I think some of the prior Tinker Bell CGI movies are already in the top tier. I hope everyone had a happy Thanksgiving and then picked up many cheap Blu-rays this weekend from Black Friday sales.










*Treme: The Complete Third Season


recommendation: Tier 2.0*
*

HBO's series set in New Orleans looks quite fine in Hi-Def. HBO always treats their Blu-ray releases with the utmost care and _Treme_ continues that standard. The pristine video does lack the kind of ultra-refinement in close-up detail that I've come to expect from Tier One-level BDs, which is the primary reason why _Treme_ gets dropped to the second tier.


There is still nothing inherently wrong and the clean image will surely please _Treme's_ small base of fans.


----------



## rusky_g

The Lone Ranger


All good, little bad, no ugly


Tier 0.5


----------



## hungro

Hey , Phantom, isn't it time for another update? It's December.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Yes, the Picture Quality Tiers will soon be updated once again. I will remind posters here that using the Google entry form for Tier recommendations is encouraged:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1GEVDmUrTzHYNHBZpN_8mMZvCzmYEQiUJqCNyRQAadGU/viewform 


Djoberg uses it to input his scores and I would hope others do it as well. If you are logged into AVS, the entry form link is always in my signature below every single post of mine.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Dr. Seuss' The Cat in the Hat (1971)


recommendation: Tier 3.5*
*

Warner is peddling this 24-minute CBS television special on its own BD-25.







The picture quality looks decent enough but the cel animation looks too clean given its vintage and background. It almost certainly has been processed by DNR on some level. Other than that possible bugaboo, there is nothing really noteworthy about this rough-around-the-edges animation intended for broadcast. The flat colors don't appear to have been pumped up for modern audiences. It does appear the HD transfer was struck relatively recently.


I had intended to make an elaborate Dr. Seuss parody for this placement but that is easier said than done.











The Cat in the Hat is in Tier Three.


After watching it, I hope you agree.


It's not Tier One or Tier Two of that you can be sure,


But make no mistake, this is not premature.


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20850#post_24027582
> 
> 
> Yes, the Picture Quality Tiers will soon be updated once again. I will remind posters here that using the Google entry form for Tier recommendations is encouraged:
> 
> https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1GEVDmUrTzHYNHBZpN_8mMZvCzmYEQiUJqCNyRQAadGU/viewform
> 
> 
> Djoberg uses it to input his scores and I would hope others do it as well. If you are logged into AVS, the entry form link is always in my signature below every single post of mine.



I will try to get to it tonight. What date does this update extend back to?


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20850#post_24031251
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20850#post_24027582
> 
> 
> Yes, the Picture Quality Tiers will soon be updated once again. I will remind posters here that using the Google entry form for Tier recommendations is encouraged:
> 
> https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1GEVDmUrTzHYNHBZpN_8mMZvCzmYEQiUJqCNyRQAadGU/viewform
> 
> 
> Djoberg uses it to input his scores and I would hope others do it as well. If you are logged into AVS, the entry form link is always in my signature below every single post of mine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will try to get to it tonight. What date does this update extend back to?
Click to expand...


Don't worry about inputting past entries, the spreadsheet goes back to March of this year. Though it would be quite helpful if forum members did one for each new recommendation / placement going forward. I've been manually entering in past scores for everyone in the thread since its creation in March.


Here is the current spreadsheet which anyone can view:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AoQ5HYzIbPQldDIxVlZTeWs1dDlOQkZRbFN2SzZneXc#gid=0


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Wolverine: Unleashed Extended Edition (containing both the 2-D and 3-D versions)


recommendation: Tier 0 (bottom quarter)
*

I am passing along Gamereviewgod's score for this week's big release. The only way to get the extended cut in 2-D is by purchasing this 3-D set. Apparently he was quite impressed by its depth and clarity in normal 2-D, though he did mention the 3-D's lesser black levels would drop that unique transfer down to Tier 1.75.


----------



## teachsac

Off topic posts removed.


S~


----------



## HD-Master

*The Wolverine: Unleashed Extended Edition (containing both the 2-D and 3-D versions)


recommendation: Tier 5
*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh


recommendation: Tier 1.25/1.5*
*

An absolutely stunning restoration from Disney. The 1977 animated feature has never looked better. This is a world-class restoration that few films from Disney's animated catalog are truly getting anymore. These are the best results achieved by Disney since their _Sleeping Beauty_ transfer.


Winnie the Pooh and his friends are presented in pristine clarity from an immaculate source. The cel animation practically comes to life in brilliant 1080P resolution with vibrant color fidelity.


----------



## sbpyrat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HD-Master*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20850#post_24037912
> 
> *The Wolverine: Unleashed Extended Edition (containing both the 2-D and 3-D versions)
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 5
> *



Just checking if you really are ranking this Tier 5, or if maybe it's supposed to be .5. Just wondering since Phantom Stranger ranked it tier 0 just above.


----------



## sbpyrat




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HD-Master*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20880#post_24040138
> 
> 
> Tier 5. My reasons why have been posted elsewhere.



Thanks, I'll have to look around.


----------



## fredxr2d2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20850#post_24031358
> 
> 
> Don't worry about inputting past entries, the spreadsheet goes back to March of this year. Though it would be quite helpful if forum members did one for each new recommendation / placement going forward. I've been manually entering in past scores for everyone in the thread since its creation in March.
> 
> 
> Here is the current spreadsheet which anyone can view:
> 
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AoQ5HYzIbPQldDIxVlZTeWs1dDlOQkZRbFN2SzZneXc#gid=0



Hey Phantom Stranger, I don't see all of my reviews entered here. I'm at work right now, so I can't exactly go through and fill out some forms. Just thought I'd mention that I can't find all of my entries on the spreadsheet.


Thanks for your hard work in compiling these.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fredxr2d2*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20880#post_24040288
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20850#post_24031358
> 
> 
> Don't worry about inputting past entries, the spreadsheet goes back to March of this year. Though it would be quite helpful if forum members did one for each new recommendation / placement going forward. I've been manually entering in past scores for everyone in the thread since its creation in March.
> 
> 
> Here is the current spreadsheet which anyone can view:
> 
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AoQ5HYzIbPQldDIxVlZTeWs1dDlOQkZRbFN2SzZneXc#gid=0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Phantom Stranger, I don't see all of my reviews entered here. I'm at work right now, so I can't exactly go through and fill out some forms. Just thought I'd mention that I can't find all of my entries on the spreadsheet.
> 
> 
> Thanks for your hard work in compiling these.
Click to expand...

Entries for the last month or two haven't been entered yet. I'll do that right before the next Tiers update. Every placement from March of this year to around October should be in the spreadsheet. I double-check everything before I run the final tally anyway, so I wouldn't sweat it too much at the moment. The only list that matters at the end of the day is when I make the final update to the main AVS PQ Tiers .


The spreadsheet is intended as a more transparent record of the actual votes and to facilitate easier record-keeping for the Tiers. We are now well over 3000 individual entries and I have individual placements going back to 2009.


----------



## fredxr2d2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20880#post_24040786
> 
> 
> Entries for the last month or two haven't been entered yet. I'll do that right before the next Tiers update. Every placement from March of this year to around October should be in the spreadsheet. I double-check everything before I run the final tally anyway, so I wouldn't sweat it too much at the moment. The only list that matters at the end of the day is when I make the final update to the main AVS PQ Tiers .
> 
> 
> The spreadsheet is intended as a more transparent record of the actual votes and to facilitate easier record-keeping for the Tiers. We are now well over 3000 individual entries and I have individual placements going back to 2009.



No worries on that. Like I said, I appreciate the work that it takes to go into compiling stuff like that (in some ways, it's what I'm [supposed to be] doing at work).


Thanks for your efforts.


----------



## mweflen

*Prometheus*

Looks substantially similar to Hobbit EE, which makes sense, since it was also shot on the Red Epic. Detail is generally outstanding, contrast can be good but sometimes isn't, color palette is muted but consistent. No banding or moire or DNR intrudes on the image, though a few shots look to have been sharpened (perhaps 1 minute total). Watching this after having watched Alien is an interesting study in filming techniques. If it weren't for the 1979 movie's optical effects, I would prefer it as "eye candy" due to the superior contrast and filmic look. But the overall level of detail and technical brilliance of the CGI and set designs here can't be denied.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*


FYI, this score was added to the spreadsheet via the google doc.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HD-Master*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20880#post_24040138
> 
> 
> Tier 5. My reasons why have been posted elsewhere.




Where? Would you be kind enough to copy and paste or at least give a link? It's an odd score to say the least, so I would love to here why you feel this is tier 5.


Thanks.


----------



## rusky_g

*The Wolverine*


I thought this looked much better than the previous Wolverine movie, not perfect but still very pleasing to the eye.

*Tier 1*


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20880#post_24041879
> 
> *The Wolverine*
> 
> 
> I thought this looked much better than the previous Wolverine movie, not perfect but still very pleasing to the eye.
> 
> *Tier 1*


I would have to agree on _X-Men Origins: Wolverine_, that film had very poor CGI and it ruined the video quality.


----------



## rusky_g

My thoughts exactly, Phantom.


----------



## sbpyrat

Thanks everyone, I appreciate all the replies about Wolverine. I do keep up with the list, but missed the inflammatory posts (probably a good thing, as they rarely yield much that is productive). I was surprised to see a Tier 5 rating of a movie that Phantom rated Tier 0, who I am at least ballpark in agreement with...hence, why I thought initially it might have been a typo. I missed seeing the movie in the theater. I'll likely get the blu ray for Christmas or my birthday (right after) or if not, I'll pick it up myself.


HD-Master, I did check your posts on this site to see if I could find mention of your thoughts on the title, but didn't find anything and figured it was maybe on another site and didn't give it much further thought. Without any corresponding reasons, I will take the Tier 5 review with a grain of salt.


I'll end up judging for myself when I get it.


Thanks again to all those who replied!


----------



## djoberg

*Planes*


During the first scene I was underwhelmed by the lack of details and depth, but 10 minutes in and things changed for the better. Colors weren't nearly as plentiful as many of the recent animated wonders, but the colors that were on display were as vibrant and bright as one could hope for. Blacks levels were really, really good, especially during flight scenes over major cities like NYC....finely rendered shadow details accompanied them. Contrast was strong and details abounded in several scenes. Where this one fell short in comparison to champions like _Monster University_ and _Croods_ was in the texture department, as well as depth. Many are comparing this to _Cars and Cars 2_; my thinking is it falls somewhere in the middle of those two placements. To be safe I'd place it right here....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (right above Cars)*


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Mike Lang


Off topic posts removed. Post about movies or DO NOT post in this thread at all. If you post about another member, it will be your last. There will be no other warnings...


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Doors: R-Evolution

recommendation: Tier 4.5*
*

This is an exclusive sneak peek into a release that won't make it out in America until January. _R-Evolution_ is a collection of various television appearances and some concert footage of the Doors. Eagle Rock Entertainment does the honors once again as distributor, like they have for prior Doors' Blu-rays.


The footage itself is almost entirely in a 4:3 aspect ratio. The sources are rarely from the best elements and some appear to be sourced from kinescopes. As good as the audio sounds in DTS-HD MA fidelity, the video quality is poor at best. I guess we should be lucky that these musical performances were captured at all on tape or film. I think they've done the best they can with the extant elements, but it looks quite rough at times in 1080i resolution. One should buy this release for the rare footage and lossless audio, not for its underwhelming increase in clarity and detail.



On another note, I would like to thank AVSforum's swift action in dealing with any problematic posts made here in the past few days.


----------



## mweflen

*Star Trek Into Darkness*


Although I hate this movie with a passion bordering on mania, it can't be denied that it's a heck of a BD. Detail is very strong throughout, though facial close-ups rarely reach into the absolute highest levels the format has shown. Black levels are solid and consistent. I did not notice any EE or DNR (any softness was due to the incompetence of the director/DP). Essentially, it's basically a flawless replication of the visual theater experience.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0*


Extra notes:


I added this to the google doc spreadsheet.


If anyone wants to know my thoughts on the movie, we covered it extensively on my Trek blog .


----------



## fredxr2d2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20880#post_24046964
> 
> *Star Trek Into Darkness*
> 
> 
> Although I hate this movie with a passion bordering on mania, it can't be denied that it's a heck of a BD. Detail is very strong throughout, though facial close-ups rarely reach into the absolute highest levels the format has shown. Black levels are solid and consistent. I did not notice any EE or DNR (any softness was due to the incompetence of the director/DP). Essentially, it's basically a flawless replication of the visual theater experience.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.0*
> 
> 
> Extra notes:
> 
> 
> I added this to the google doc spreadsheet.
> 
> 
> If anyone wants to know my thoughts on the movie, we covered it extensively on my Trek blog .



Thanks for chiming in. I will admit I went to your blog and read the whole thing (I am one of the neanderthals who liked STID--but I like it on the basis that I've separated 2009 and STID from the rest of "Trekdom" and therefore judge them as the sci-fi (ish) action movies they are and not as pieces of a giant franchise that spends its time delving into heartier matters than boom pow pow). Either way, this blu-ray is really top notch and showcases what blus are all about.


Also, in regards to the specific movies: 2009 is a super-fun bad science space action movie that I hated and hated and hated the more I watched it until I watched it again on my projector with better surround sound and was like "This is a fun movie." STID is a better version of 2009, which is why I like it more (slightly less bad science, methinks--though, as you rightly pointed out, filled with its fair share of issues). Thanks for linking to your blog so that I could better incorporate my own thoughts regarding the films.


----------



## mweflen

Yeah, I don't fault anyone for liking it. But Prometheus is far, far superior in terms of plot, characterization, science fiction, and frankly visual style as well.


----------



## mweflen

*North By Northwest*


Quite pleasing overall, with no artifacts, EE, or DNR. Color is lush, detail is strong when photography allows - Hitchcock employs some soft filters on Grant and Saint's close-ups. This is not as good as Hitchcock's other VistaVision films on BD, but it is quite nice nonetheless. In scanning the tiers, this is better to my eyes than those discs around it. So I'll place it a bit higher at:

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*


BTW, there seems to be a large missing portion of the tiers - 2.25 after "The Condemned" through the beginning of 2.75.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20880#post_24055162
> 
> 
> BTW, there seems to be a large missing portion of the tiers - 2.25 after "The Condemned" through the beginning of 2.75.


Are you possibly checking an older version of the Tiers? It seems fine to me, here is a direct link to the current Tier 2.5:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1425519/official-blu-ray-picture-quality-rankings-the-tiers-list-updated-through-september-1-2013#post_22325461 


The sticky at the top of the Blu-ray Software forum is always the latest, most current version of the PQ Tiers:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1425519/official-blu-ray-picture-quality-rankings-the-tiers-list-updated-through-september-1-2013#user_anchor25


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Undefeated


recommendation: Tier 2.75*
*

This is a really nice film transfer by Fox for the classic pairing of John Wayne and Rock Hudson. Typical high-end specs on Fox's part for the video encode and what looks like a new film scan produce a very pleasing image. Most importantly, the Panavision film's color palette is rendered with excellent saturation and balance.


Moderate depth and some focal issues prevent a higher placement but this is still a high-quality film transfer that has been left untouched by DNR or sharpening.


----------



## Neil Joseph




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Neil Joseph*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20850#post_24017221
> 
> 
> I would like to nominate another top tier title. "Secret Of The Wings"



I forgot to mention my equipment, the details of which you can find in my signature link, but I basically view my films on a 106" screen in full HD from a distance of 11ft.


Thanks...


----------



## djoberg

*Despicable Me 2*


Very impressive! Another fine Blu-ray courtesy of Universal Pictures with bold and vibrant colors, super-strong contrast with bright whites and deep/inky blacks, razor-sharp definition, and incredible 3D pop (even though this is the 2D version). It also features amazing textures and some stellar photo-realism in some shots, notably those with ocean scenes. Again, I'm finding it nearly impossible to judge this against other recent animated titles without doing countless A/B testings. I did look at the current list of rankings and the first outing (_Despicable Me_) was somewhat lower than what I would have imagined. This MUST be an improvement over that, for it is clearly better than a number of Blus above that spot. A clear example is _Finding Nemo_, so I'll place this right above that....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (right above Finding Nemo)*


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20880#post_24059414
> 
> *Despicable Me 2*
> 
> 
> Very impressive! Another fine Blu-ray courtesy of Universal Pictures with bold and vibrant colors, super-strong contrast with bright whites and deep/inky blacks, razor-sharp definition, and incredible 3D pop (even though this is the 2D version). It also features amazing textures and some stellar photo-realism in some shots, notably those with ocean scenes). Again, I'm finding nearly impossible to judge these against other recent animated titles without doing countless A/B testings. I did look at the current list of rankings and the first outing (_Despicable Me_) was somewhat lower than what I would have imagined. This MUST be an improvement over that, for it is clearly better than a number of Blus above that spot. A clear example is _Finding Nemo_, so I'll place this right above that....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (right above Finding Nemo)*
> 
> 
> Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


For the latest CGI animation I try to directly compare them to the most recent ones I've seen. You just scored _Planes_ last week, that should provide some frame of reference. I'm currently using Monsters University as a point of comparison when evaluating the best CGI films, as it is still relatively fresh in my mind from last month.


*In The Mouth of Madness


recommendation: Tier 2.5*
*

This is a perfectly decent transfer from solid film elements. The main problem to its picture quality is the presence of too many halos, a common trait of former New Line films released now by Warner Bros. on Blu-ray. The scene which bookends the movie is a touch softer with heavier black levels than the rest of the film.


Warner did not go overboard by any stretch on the AVC video encode, which has minor issues in the opening minutes with grain integrity. This was definitely one of their set-it-and-forget-it compression efforts. Despite these issues, the overall picture quality has its moments with moderate sharpness and strong definition. There are no serious problems with contrast or black levels, though shadow delineation takes a hit in the previously mentioned opening scene.


----------



## mweflen

*Mary Poppins*


At its best, this is a very filmic transfer with stable, pronounced grain, and very nice fine detail. Color is pleasing and not too hot. Facial close-ups can be very good. Foliage pops. Indoor scenes seem to be shot with short angle lenses that blur detail out of the focal point. Black levels are not terrific, but by no means are bad. Were it not for the plethora of optical effects shots that degrade PQ, this would be somewhere in the 1 range. As it is, it is "clearly HD" and absolutely crushes the previous DVD transfer of the movie, which was pretty bad, even for its day. I think this is about as good as this could possibly look, short of recompositing the film elements as was done on Star Trek TNG (probably impossible/unavailable given the vintage).

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20880#post_24055328
> 
> 
> Are you possibly checking an older version of the Tiers? It seems fine to me, here is a direct link to the current Tier 2.5:



I was indeed using an old bookmark.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20880#post_24059560
> 
> 
> For the latest CGI animation I try to directly compare them to the most recent ones I've seen. You just scored _Planes_ last week, that should provide some frame of reference. I'm currently using Monsters University as a point of comparison when evaluating the best CGI films, as it is still relatively fresh in my mind from last month.



Yes, and I believe I was [subconsciously] doing this. It was most definitely better than _Planes_ and thus I rated it higher. _Finding Nemo_ was my point of reference, though I could actually bump it up two more notches and put it above _Cars 2_. But that's such a marginal bump that I'll just leave it as is and then see where others place it (assuming that others will weigh in on this stellar release...the movie itself was also very good).


----------



## DarthDoxie


*Man of Steel*


Only a few scenes are worthy of a higher tier ranking and when they cropped up I couldn't help but wonder why the rest of the film didn't look as sharp and pleasing.  The drab color palette and extensive use of shake-cam, while distracting at times (ie. shake-cam in outer space scenes), did not affect my overall enjoyment of the story and I understand the overall look of the film is the intent of the director.  But the video quality is disappointing when compared to recent big budget releases and when evaluated against the tier ranking descriptions.  To my layman's eye it looks like film grain was attempted to be applied in post production but the result just looks like video noise often seen in lower quality video transfers.  I didn't see the film in the theater so I can't make a direct comparison to what it looked like on the big screen.

 

The sound however is top-notch and immersive, really gave my system a workout.

*Tier Recommendation*: Tier 2.0


Viewed on a 55" screen from 8'


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DarthDoxie*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20880#post_24070182
> 
> *Man of Steel*
> 
> 
> 
> Only a few scenes are worthy of a higher tier ranking and when they cropped up I couldn't help but wonder why the rest of the film didn't look as sharp and pleasing.  The drab color palette and extensive use of shake-cam, while distracting at times (ie. shake-cam in outer space scenes), did not affect my overall enjoyment of the story and I understand the overall look of the film is the intent of the director.  But the video quality is disappointing when compared to recent big budget releases and when evaluated against the tier ranking descriptions.  To my layman's eye it looks like film grain was attempted to be applied in post production but the result just looks like video noise often seen in lower quality video transfers.  I didn't see the film in the theater so I can't make a direct comparison to what it looked like on the big screen.
> 
> 
> The sound however is top-notch and immersive, really gave my system a workout.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation*: Tier 2.0
> 
> 
> 
> Viewed on a 55" screen from 8'



Thanks for the good review DarthDoxie and welcome to AVS! Keep them coming!!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *comperic2003*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20820#post_23962999
> 
> *Monsters University
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 0* (The Tippy Top)*
> 
> 
> The sheer variety of beautifully saturated color, inky blacks and near microscopic level of detail, all framed by stunningly photo realistic environments, makes for the finest visual experience available. I have watched Madagascar 3 and Toy Story 3 and their current placement is well deserved but Monsters University has easily surpassed both.
> 
> 
> The accompany Pixar short, The Blu Umbrella, has _the_ most photo-realistic visuals I have ever seen.
> 
> Samsung PN60E7000, CinemaQuest Ideal-Lume Standard Bias Light employed, 8.5 ft viewing distance



In perusing posts from the last month, I stumbled upon your review, which, for whatever reason, escaped my notice. Let me say that your remarks are spot-on, and that you have the ability to say quite a bit in just a few words. Thanks for the excellent post. And of course I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment and placement.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Black Swan (1942)


recommendation: Tier 4.5**


Fox brings their classic, three-strip Technicolor swashbuckler to Blu-ray in a somewhat inconsistent transfer. I believe this transfer was probably derived from the 2006 film restoration originally released on DVD. Even making allowances for the film's age and possibly missing film elements, Shamroy's award-winning cinematography ends up looking erratic and patchy in 1080P. It is simply not demo material given the odd flesh-tones, soft focus, and mild color blooming.


Aside from some incidental sharpening, _The Black Swan_ has not been a victim of zealous filtering. It is not a sharp picture, rarely using close-ups for better detail. Questions have been raised elsewhere about the choices made for its color-timing, though one should remember that Shamroy attempted to use very exotic lighting for the day while filming. Certain scenes do show a pronounced teal push but there are just as many scenes that show other dramatic tints.


----------



## DarthDoxie


*Family Guy: Blue Harvest**

 

The first installment in the Family Guy Star Wars parodies just doesn't stand up to the other two.  It's been up-converted from SD and the result is far from acceptable.  Fuzzy lines and jaggies abound anytime there is motion, stars smear in outer space scenes and scene transition swipes are often blurry.  No need to upgrade if you already have the DVD.

 

*Recommendation: 4.0*


----------



## djoberg

*The Wolverine*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20880#post_24041879
> 
> *The Wolverine*
> 
> 
> I thought this looked much better than the previous Wolverine movie, not perfect but still very pleasing to the eye.
> 
> *Tier 1*



I think rusky_g nailed the placement of this title. I know GRG had recommended the bottom of Tier 0, but there were a few areas of concern that preclude elevating this to the Top Tier.


Let's get those out of the way pronto! I can think of three:

*1)* During scenes with orange hues flesh tones were robbed of their natural look.

*2)* A couple of nighttime scenes, early in the movie, were a wee bit on the murky side. This was most evident by the *black* bars, which were actually a very "dark gray."

*3)* In a couple of nighttime scenes the blacks were so dark that shadow details suffered.


Now for the positive:

*1)* This was one very SHARP Blu with tons of CLARITY.

*2)* BLACK LEVELS and SHADOW DETAILS were phenomenal in most nighttime and dark scenes (and let me tell you this describes a majority of the movie).

*3)* COLORS were really punchy. Many scenes in Tokyo featured over-saturated colors, but they didn't rob us of realism (for the Japanese do LOVE strong & vibrant colors).

*4)* FLESH TONES were quite pleasing in all scenes without color-grading.

*5)* DEPTH was, on occasion, amazing!

*6)* FACIAL DETAILS were exemplary!


This will certainly make its way to many "demo shelves," including mine!

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## rusky_g

Lovely review Dj and one that is supported by specific reference which backs up your ranking; always nice to see that.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Kokoro Connect: OVA Complete Collection


recommendation: Tier 2.5*
*

This anime program has shabby animation for something created in the past year. Its picture quality is also washed out for the most part, lacking the type of saturation one has come to expect from new animation. These might possible issues due to incorrect IRE levels. Sentai's AVC compression has some minor incidents with banding.


The show itself is quite good, so the flat and unimpressive presentation was a disappointment.


----------



## DarthDoxie


*Blues Brothers, The (Theatrical Version)**

 

The picture quality lacks consistency in sharpness and clarity, outside shots of the prison are a clear example of this.  However, the majority of the film is sharp and pleasing to watch.  Colors during musical scenes are vibrant and look correct throughout the film, blacks are not crushed and shadow details look good.  The film could really benefit from a good cleaning and a fresh transfer as specks of dust on the print and what looks like dust on the camera lens are present at various times.

 

The sound in DTS is good but could use an update to a lossless format.  An isolated soundtrack as a bonus on a future release would be nice as well.

 

*Recommendation: 4.0*

 

Viewed on a 55" screen from 8'


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Consider this an early Christmas gift. The one and only Blu-ray Picture Quality Tiers have been updated and cleaned-up with all the latest recommendations since September.







It seems to take longer and longer in getting the forum's software to cooperate with these lengthy updates.


Let me know if there are problems. I also wouldn't mind feedback on the exact placements found at the top of Tier Zero. Those end up being a tad messy in their ordinal ranking when trying to weigh all the different scores at once. Here are the 148 contributing scores since September:


.hack//Quantum* Tier 1.25 Phantom Stranger

After Earth* Tier 0 (Blu) djoberg

After Earth* Tier 1.5 rusky_g

Batman (1989) Tier 3.25 mweflen

Batman Returns Tier 3.0 (Bronze) mweflen

Batman: The Brave and the Bold - Season One* Tier 1.5 Phantom Stranger

Beetlejuice Tier 3.0 (Bronze) mweflen

Berserk: The Golden Age Arc I - The Egg of the King* Tier 1.75 Phantom Stranger

Black Swan, The* Tier 4.5 Phantom Stranger

Blood (2012)* Tier 3.0 (Bronze) gamereviewgod

Blood-C: The Complete Series* Tier 1.75 Phantom Stranger

Blues Brothers, The (theatrical)* Tier 4.0 (Copper) DarthDoxie

Bounty Killer* Tier 1.5 Phantom Stranger

Brides of Dracula, The (UK Import)* Tier 4.5 Phantom Stranger

Bring Me The Head of the Machine Gun Woman (UK Import)* Tier 3.0 (Bronze) Phantom Stranger

Celeste and Jesse Forever* Tier 1.0 (Gold) fredxr2d2

Clear History* Tier 2.75 Phantom Stranger

Clue: The Movie Tier 3.75 Phantom Stranger

Company You Keep, The* Tier 1.5 djoberg

Conjuring, The* Tier 1.75 Phantom Stranger

Conjuring, The* Tier 1.75 djoberg

Croods, The* Tier 0 (Blu) Toe

Croods, The* Tier 0 (Blu) gamereviewgod

Croods, The* Tier 0 (Blu) djoberg

Dead and Buried* Tier 4.5 Phantom Stranger

Dead Souls* Tier 4.5 Phantom Stranger

Despicable Me 2* Tier 0 (Blu) djoberg

Disconnect * Tier 2.5 gamereviewgod

Doors, The: R-Evolution* Tier 4.5 Phantom Stranger

Dr. Seuss' The Cat in the Hat (1972)* Tier 3.75 Phantom Stranger

East, The* Tier 2.25 Phantom Stranger

Elfen Lied: Complete Collection* Tier 3.75 Phantom Stranger

Embrace of the Vampire (1995)* Tier 5 (Coal) Phantom Stranger

Embrace of the Vampire (2013)* Tier 1.5 Phantom Stranger

Empire State (2013)* Tier 2.75 Gamereviewgod

Epic Tier 1.0 (Gold) shpankey

Excision* Tier 1.0 (Gold) Phantom Stranger

Exorcist, The: 40th Anniversary Edition Tier 3.0 (Bronze) Phantom Stranger

Family Guy: Blue Harvest* Tier 4.0 (Copper) DarthDoxie

Fly, The (1958)* Tier 3.0 (Bronze) gamereviewgod

Fright Night 2: New Blood* Tier 1.5 Phantom Stranger

From Up On Poppy Hill* Tier 1.25 Phantom Stranger

Frozen Ground, The* Tier 2.25 djoberg

Halloween: 35th Anniversary Edition* Tier 2.5 Phantom Stranger

Hannibal: Season One* Tier 1.0 (Gold) Aetherhole

Hobbit, The: An Unexpected Journey (Extended Edition)* Tier 0 (Blu) Johnny Vertigo

Hobbit, The: An Unexpected Journey (Extended Edition)* Tier 1.0 (Gold) mweflen

Home Run* Tier 1.5 Phantom Stranger

Homeland: The Complete Second Season* Tier 1.25 Phantom Stranger

House of Wax 3D (1953)* Tier 3.5 Gamereviewgod

I Spit On Your Grave 2* Tier 2.0 (Silver) Phantom Stranger

In The Mouth of Madness* Tier 2.5 Phantom Stranger

Iron Man 3* Tier 2.5 gamereviewgod

It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World Tier 0 (Blu) gamereviewgod

Java Heat* Tier 3.5 gamereviewgod

Kokoro Connect: OVA Collection* Tier 2.5 Phantom Stranger

Last Exorcism Part II, The* Tier 1.75 djoberg

Last Unicorn, The* Tier 2.5 Phantom Stranger

Lion of the Desert* Tier 4.5 Phantom Stranger

Lone Ranger, The* Tier 0 (Blu) rusky_g

Lord of the Rings, The: The Fellowship of the Ring (EE) Tier 1.0 (Gold) edlittle

Lord of the Rings, The: The Two Towers (EE) Tier 1.0 (Gold) edlittle

Man of Steel* Tier 0 (Blu) Johnny Vertigo

Man of Steel* Tier 2.0 (Silver) djoberg

Man of Steel* Tier 1.5 mweflen

Man of Steel* Tier 2.0 (Silver) fredxr2d2

Man of Steel* Tier 2.25 Phantom Stranger

Man of Steel* Tier 2.0 (Silver) DarthDoxie

Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, The* Tier 1.25 Phantom Stranger

Mary Poppins* Tier 2.0 (Silver) mweflen

Message, The* Tier 4.0 (Copper) Phantom Stranger

Monsters University* Tier 0 (Blu) djoberg

Monsters University* Tier 0 (Blu) fredxr2d2

Monsters University* Tier 0 (Blu) Gamereviewgod

Monsters University* Tier 0 (Blu) hungro

Monsters University* Tier 0 (Blu) Phantom Stranger

Monsters University* Tier 0 (Blu) Toe

Monsters University* Tier 0 (Blu) comperic2003

My Name is Nobody* Tier 4.0 (Copper) Phantom Stranger

Necessary Evil: Super-Villains of DC Comics* Tier 1.5 Phantom Stranger

North By Northwest Tier 2.25 mweflen

Now You See Me* Tier 1.75 gamereviewgod

Now You See Me* Tier 1.75 djoberg

Oblivion Tier 0 (Blu) shpankey

Olympus Has Fallen* Tier 3.0 (Bronze) djoberg

Only God Forgives* Tier 3.0 (Bronze) Phantom Stranger

Pacific Rim* Tier 1.25 gamereviewgod

Pacific Rim* Tier 1.0 (Gold) djoberg

Pacific Rim* Tier 1.0 (Gold) Phantom Stranger

Pacific Rim* Tier 0 (Blu) rusky_g

Pacific Rim* Tier 0 (Blu) hernanu

Parade's End* Tier 1.5 Phantom Stranger

Paranoia* Tier 1.25 djoberg

Parkland* Tier 1.5 djoberg

Pee-wee's Big Adventure* Tier 2.25 mweflen

Penguindrum: Collection 1* Tier 1.75 Phantom Stranger

Pitch Perfect* Tier 1.0 (Gold) fredxr2d2

Pitch Perfect* Tier 1.0 (Gold) rusky_g

Place Beyond the Pines, The* Tier 1.75 djoberg

Planes* Tier 0 (Blu) djoberg

Prince of Darkness* Tier 3.25 Phantom Stranger

Prometheus Tier 1.5 mweflen

Q: The Winged Serpent* Tier 3.75 gamereviewgod

R. I. P. D.* Tier 1.75 djoberg

Rear Window* Tier 2.5 mweflen

Redemption* Tier 3.25 gamereviewgod

Redline Tier 0 (Blu) foxamigo

Reluctant Fundamentalist, The* Tier 3.25 djoberg

RWBY: Volume 1* Tier 2.25 Phantom Stranger

Safe Haven* Tier 1.5 djoberg

Scenic Route* Tier 2.5 Phantom Stranger

Se7en Tier 1.0 (Gold) Johnny Vertigo

Shining Hearts: Complete Collection* Tier 3.25 Phantom Stranger

Shout at the Devil* Tier 3.25 Phantom Stranger

Solomon Kane* Tier 2.25 Phantom Stranger

Sorceror and the White Snake, The* Tier 2.25 Phantom Stranger

Standing Up* Tier 3.0 (Bronze) Phantom Stranger

Star Trek Into Darkness* Tier 1.5 Gamereviewgod

Star Trek Into Darkness* Tier 0 (Blu) djoberg

Star Trek Into Darkness* Tier 0 (Blu) fredxr2d2

Star Trek Into Darkness* Tier 1.25 Syradil

Star Trek Into Darkness* Tier 1.75 cmgunn

Star Trek Into Darkness* Tier 1.0 (Gold) shpankey

Star Trek Into Darkness* Tier 1.75 patrick99

Star Trek Into Darkness* Tier 1.0 (Gold) mweflen

Star Trek Into Darkness* Tier 1.0 (Gold) DarthDoxie

Strangers On A Train* Tier 2.75 mweflen

Stuck In Love* Tier 1.25 Phantom Stranger

Tank Girl* Tier 2.75 Phantom Stranger

Three Faces of Eve, The* Tier 3.25 Phantom Stranger

Time Bandits (Arrow's 2013 UK remaster)* Tier 3.5 Phantom Stranger

Tinker Bell: Secret of the Wings* Tier 0 (Blu) Neil Joseph

To Catch A Thief* Tier 1.75 mweflen

Treme: The Complete Third Season* Tier 2.0 (Silver) Phantom Stranger

Turbo* Tier 0 (Blu) djoberg

Undefeated, The* Tier 2.75 Phantom Stranger

Violet & Daisy* Tier 2.75 Phantom Stranger

Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea* Tier 3.5 Phantom Stranger

White House Down* Tier 1.0 (Gold) djoberg

Willow Tier 2.0 (Silver) Johnny Vertigo

Winnie the Pooh: A Very Merry Pooh Year* Tier 2.75 Phantom Stranger

Wolverine, The: Unleashed Extended Edition* Tier 0 (Blu) Gamereviewgod

Wolverine, The: Unleashed Extended Edition* Tier 1.0 (Gold) rusky_g

Wolverine, The* Tier 1.0 (Gold) djoberg

World War Z* Tier 2.25 gamereviewgod

World War Z* Tier 2.0 (Silver) djoberg

Zero Dark Thirty Tier 1.5 mweflen


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/17760#post_19879602
> 
> *Psycho (1960)*
> 
> 
> 
> There's a great master here probably, but light layers of DNR and edge enhancement are enough to bring it down. There are some scenes of great detail, the extreme close-up of the cop for example, while the rest is just too muddy to accept. Nice grayscale and black levels.
> 
> *Tier 4.0*


*Psycho (1960)*


Well. I was pretty shocked by the placement on the tiers here, but it seems that it is the result of just the one rating above. Here's what I saw:


Some close-ups show exceptional detail. The average medium shot shows good mid-level detail but nothing particularly fine. There are some nice cloth textures in the first and last thirds of the movie. The middle third, in which Janet Leigh is in the hotel (alive that is) is a bit softer, unfortunately. There is film grain present throughout but it is not particularly finely resolved. As such, it does appear as though some light DNR is in play. EE does not seem apparent, though. Contrast is excellent throughout, with good black levels and no apparent crushing or blooming. Exterior scenes look vibrant and punchy. Certain shots, such as the Bates mansion against the cloudy sky, look fuzzy, probably due to the optical process shots used to create the image. Overall, this is a pleasing watch that is superior to DVD in every way, but is not mind-blowing in terms of HD. Although there are scenes that look sublime, for the most part it's a mediocre Blu-Ray, in the most technical sense of the word.

*Tier recommendation: 2.75*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^


Thanks......once again, for your labor of love Phantom!


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20910#post_24082135
> 
> 
> ^^^^^^^
> 
> 
> Thanks......once again, for your labor of love Phantom!


This time, thank you. A tip of my hat to you, Djoberg.


Without your critical assistance behind the scenes, this update would not have been executed in a timely manner. As always, I would also like to acknowledge AVS member K-Spaz. He generously provides hosting and programming services for the Tiers.


----------



## SeLfMaDe111985

New to the thread but looking for an answer.


I have Rambo First Blood and there is no aspect ratio (like 1:85:1 or 1:78:1) it just says 16x9 widescreen version but when I play it thinking it will be my full screen (65VT60) it still shows black bars on top and bottom. I'm not one who does not like black bars cause personally I think they provide an excellent picture but need full screen at the moment during my break in period of the TV.


Also playing Chain Reaction it states it is 2:35:1 Widescreen and I expected to see letterbox but to my surprise it is full screen. Now understanding is that 2:35:1 is almost always letterbox material. And 1:85:1 and 1:78:1 is full screen content.


Could this be do to my settings on the ps3? I have put it other 2:35:1 and 2:40:1 blu rays and they project letterbox as they should. So how do you tell if it would be letterbox or full screen when at the store?


----------



## edlittle

Ah can I add in a tier 1.0 for Return of the King extended? I forgot to submit that post.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SeLfMaDe111985*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20910#post_24082446
> 
> 
> New to the thread but looking for an answer.
> 
> 
> I have Rambo First Blood and there is no aspect ratio (like 1:85:1 or 1:78:1) it just says 16x9 widescreen version but when I play it thinking it will be my full screen (65VT60) it still shows black bars on top and bottom. I'm not one who does not like black bars cause personally I think they provide an excellent picture but need full screen at the moment during my break in period of the TV.
> 
> 
> Also playing Chain Reaction it states it is 2:35:1 Widescreen and I expected to see letterbox but to my surprise it is full screen. Now understanding is that 2:35:1 is almost always letterbox material. And 1:85:1 and 1:78:1 is full screen content.
> 
> 
> Could this be do to my settings on the ps3? I have put it other 2:35:1 and 2:40:1 blu rays and they project letterbox as they should. So how do you tell if it would be letterbox or full screen when at the store?


_Rambo: First Blood_ is properly in a 2.35:1 aspect ratio on Lionsgate's BD. It should have black bars if your player and display are set correctly.

http://cinemasquid.com/?r=12524 


Fox's Chain Reaction has an aspect ratio of 1.85:1 and that is what is included on the only Blu-ray edition. Don't pay much attention to the specs provided on the back of packages, it is usually done by marketing types.

http://cinemasquid.com/?r=2790 


I would not use _Rambo: First Blood_ during the break-in period for a new plasma. You want 16x9 material that completely fills the screen in 1.78:1.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *edlittle*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20910#post_24082463
> 
> 
> Ah can I add in a tier 1.0 for Return of the King extended? I forgot to submit that post.


Due to the nature of structuring the Tiers and the amount of work involved, that score will get included in the next update. It's too late to change anything with the current Tiers.


----------



## DarthDoxie


A big thanks to Phantom and all his minions for the update!  I'm looking forward to reviewing some of my movies not yet on the list and seeing them in the next update.


----------



## Kool-aid23




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20910#post_24082195
> 
> 
> This time, thank you. A tip of my hat to you, Djoberg.
> 
> 
> Without your critical assistance behind the scenes, this update would not have been executed in a timely manner. As always, I would also like to acknowledge AVS member K-Spaz. He generously provides hosting and programming services for the Tiers.




Thank you gentlemen for keeping this thread a live and well. I greatly appreciate it.


Happy Holidays


----------



## SeLfMaDe111985

Anywhere to find a nice list of blu rays? 698 pages is a lot to read lol


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SeLfMaDe111985*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20910#post_24083549
> 
> 
> Anywhere to find a nice list of blu rays? 698 pages is a lot to read lol



Try clicking the "Blu-Ray Picture Quality Rankings" link in Phantom Stranger's signature. That's a nice list.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *SeLfMaDe111985*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20910#post_24083549
> 
> 
> Anywhere to find a nice list of blu rays? 698 pages is a lot to read lol


More pointedly, I'd recommend perusing the very best Blu-ray has to offer in Tier 0:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1425519/official-blu-ray-picture-quality-rankings-the-tiers-updated-through-december-16-2013#post_22325148 


Every disc in it looks phenomenal and stretches the limits of 1080P resolution. Top-notch video quality in almost every way possible.


Tier 1 discs are no slouch, simply a step behind the unquestioned beauties in Tier 0:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1425519/official-blu-ray-picture-quality-rankings-the-tiers-updated-through-december-16-2013#user_anchor1


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*We're The Millers


recommendation: Tier 1.5**


I was surprised no one had covered this comedy for the Tiers. This is definitely one of the best-looking comedies on Blu-ray. The pristine video has excellent clarity and a completely normal color palette, producing fairly natural flesh-tones.


Its sharpness is bolstered by moderately strong detail, though the transfer appears to have had some slight filtering applied to it. This has better depth and a deeper focus compared to most other Hollywood comedies of recent vintage. The AVC video encode provided by Warner Bros. is flawless. I could see an argument being made for an even higher placement.


*Ghost Team One


recommendation: Tier 4.0**


This low-budget spoof comedy fares much, much worse due to how it was shot. Newly released today by Paramount, the video's many faults were done on purpose by its directors. Almost the entire movie is shot from the first-person camera perspective with a cheap digital camcorder. Glitches and fake artifacts in the digital video, focus issues, a wobbly cam operator, and washed-out shots are merely the beginning for what is meant to be amateur video.


Given the intended problems, determining an exact placement is more difficult than usual. The raw video cinematography doesn't look too bad at times and it does improve as the film progresses. I would expect a wide variance in rankings for _Ghost Team One_.


----------



## SeLfMaDe111985

Thanks guys


----------



## DarthDoxie


*Spaceballs*

 

The picture suffers from a general softness and at times is hard to discern from DVD quality.  Colors are also washed at various times and wires are visible in at least two special effects scenes (something probably not seen in SD).  An overall disappointment in the Blu-ray format.

 

*Recommendation: Tier 4.5**

 

Viewed on a 55" screen from 8'


----------



## mweflen

*The Birds*


Wildly inconsistent. The best shots show very nice detail and color. Effects shots look terrible. Other non-effects show random softness and muddy colors. So I'd call is 1/3 way better than DVD, 1/3 far worse, 1/3 about as good as 480p SD. A real disappointment, especially since the best stuff looks about as good as anything from this period on the format.

*Tier Recommendation: 4.0*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^


That's a shame mweflen, for I have always loved this Hitchcock classic and would have purchased a copy if it had decent PQ. Other Hitchcock classics have fared much better in their Blu-ray transfer (such as your recent review of _North By Northwest_), so I wonder why this one turned out so bad.


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20910#post_24091277
> 
> 
> ^^^^^^^
> 
> 
> That's a shame mweflen, for I have always loved this Hitchcock classic and would have purchased a copy if it had decent PQ. Other Hitchcock classics have fared much better in their Blu-ray transfer (such as your recent review of _North By Northwest_), so I wonder why this one turned out so bad.



DJ, I'm reviewing the Hitchcock Essentials collection (finished with Birds). It's something like $32 on Amazon right now. Considering the 5 movies you get (Rear Window, Vertigo, N by NW, Psycho, Birds), they could have put a DVD transfer on the disc and it would still be more than worth it. This is substantially better than DVD. It has "decent" PQ. It's just kind of a crap Blu-Ray considering all the movies I own.


I think this may look nearly as good as it can. According to the special features, these were fresh scans of negatives at 4k or higher resolution. I do think Universal has proven itself too aggressive with post production tinkering, though (there is a really disturbing example of computerized grain reduction on "To Kill A Mockingbird," in which they declare that the enlarged grain structure on that movie's optically roto-scoped close-ups is objectionable, and so it is removed by computer). Anyway, the period opticals are just really bad and detrimental to the things we look for here. They muddy detail, contrast, and color significantly, and they take up a good third of the run time.


Buy the set. Just do it. I bought it even already having owned N by NW, because the price was still worth it for the 4 movies I didn't own.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I own the entire Hitchcock set but have never really had the time yet to go through it. Hopefully in 2014 I'll get around to covering some of the lesser Hitchcocks for the thread.

*Wizards


recommendation: Tier 4.5**


Fox did everything they could for Ralph Bakshi's 1977 animated film but it simply does not look like eye candy in 2013. The cel animation looks as nice as it probably ever has and does represent an improvement over prior versions in terms of film-like fidelity and saturation. This BD is certainly watchable and a fine effort to capture the rough-looking cel animation and other unusual elements in the movie, such as faded World War II-era footage.

*The Hot Spot


recommendation: Tier 4.0*
*

Shout Factory released this back in August with _Killing Me Softly_ as a double feature, confining both movies to a single BD-50. This is a disappointing transfer. Shout Factory had to license the movie from MGM and it's anyone's guess where they dug up this dim transfer with contrast issues. The first hour needs a different color timing. It does reach a better contrast in the second hour, but detail and overall resolution are questionable.


This transfer is almost certainly from a dull internegative or interpositive. The film elements aren't in bad shape but the lack of top-notch detail is troubling. The transfer does not look overprocessed, so I have to believe it is from a dated telecine.



Does anyone know how to turn off the auto-save draft feature in the process of making a new post on AVS? It is rather annoying when writing a post of any serious length.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20910#post_24092604
> 
> 
> DJ, I'm reviewing the Hitchcock Essentials collection (finished with Birds). It's something like $32 on Amazon right now. Considering the 5 movies you get (Rear Window, Vertigo, N by NW, Psycho, Birds), they could have put a DVD transfer on the disc and it would still be more than worth it. This is substantially better than DVD. It has "decent" PQ. It's just kind of a crap Blu-Ray considering all the movies I own.
> 
> 
> I think this may look nearly as good as it can. According to the special features, these were fresh scans of negatives at 4k or higher resolution. I do think Universal has proven itself too aggressive with post production tinkering, though (there is a really disturbing example of computerized grain reduction on "To Kill A Mockingbird," in which they declare that the enlarged grain structure on that movie's optically roto-scoped close-ups is objectionable, and so it is removed by computer). Anyway, the period opticals are just really bad and detrimental to the things we look for here. They muddy detail, contrast, and color significantly, and they take up a good third of the run time.
> 
> 
> Buy the set. Just do it. I bought it even already having owned N by NW, because the price was still worth it for the 4 movies I didn't own.



Thanks for the heads up on this set at Amazon. I may very well pick it up at that price! If so, I will be chiming in as I watch them "one by one," but like Phantom I more than likely wouldn't get to them before sometime next year.


----------



## djoberg

mweflen,


Thanks again for informing me of that spectacular price on the Hitchcock Essentials collection on Amazon. I just couldn't pass up a deal like this and it is scheduled to arrive on Saturday. I also read your review on the collection on Amazon's site. It was EXCELLENT and it really whetted my appetite to see these old classics again. It's been many years since I've seen most of them.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Ghost And Mrs. Muir

recommendation: Tier 3.75**


A beautiful, black-and-white film transfer, though lacking a tiny bit in ultimate resolution and sharpness. The film scan uses high-quality film elements but appears to have been completed at 2K. This disc represents an immense improvement over DVD for the 1947 movie, clearly rendering the careful shadow structure with precision.


The only thing holding its placement back is some softness inherent to the cinematography but its picture quality still has some stellar moments. An easy recommendation with no serious signs of post-manipulation and very fine black levels. The movie continues to justify its status as one of the supreme romantic fantasies of all time.


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20910#post_24094084
> 
> 
> mweflen,
> 
> 
> Thanks again for informing me of that spectacular price on the Hitchcock Essentials collection on Amazon. I just couldn't pass up a deal like this and it is scheduled to arrive on Saturday. I also read your review on the collection on Amazon's site. It was EXCELLENT and it really whetted my appetite to see these old classics again. It's been many years since I've seen most of them.



I expect PQ reviews!


----------



## DarthDoxie


*A Fistful of Dollars*

 

Aside from some minor flesh tone color issues, the drab color palette is presented as originally intended and looks good.  Sharpness and clarity are generally good and closeups really shine, a definite improvement over the DVD.  Sound is presented well with intelligible dialogue and no audible pops or hiss; the iconic music has never sounded better.  Definitely worth a pick-up for western and Clint Eastwood fans.

 

*Recommendation: Tier 3.75**

 

Viewed on a 55" screen from 8'


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20910#post_24096973
> 
> 
> I expect PQ reviews!




I expect to give them!










Again, I *may* not be getting to them until AFTER the holidays, but I *may* be able to squeeze a couple in before then. I can't recall the last time I saw these 5 classics, though I seem to remember watching _The Birds_ on one of the Movie Channels within the last few years.


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20910#post_24098794
> 
> 
> I expect to give them!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I *may* not be getting to them until AFTER the holidays, but I *may* be able to squeeze a couple in before then. I can't recall the last time I saw these 5 classics, though I seem to remember watching _The Birds_ on one of the Movie Channels within the last few years.



Be sure to crank up the volume on the Bernard Hermann-scored movies. The soundtracks are divine-sounding.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20940#post_24099465
> 
> 
> Be sure to crank up the volume on the Bernard Hermann-scored movies. The soundtracks are divine-sounding.



Would you believe Amazon Prime delivered the set in ONE DAY?! I'm looking at the set now and I can't tell which movies feature a musical score by Bernard Hermann. But that okay because I crank up the volume on EVERY MOVIE!







That's one of the advantages of having a dedicated "man-cave" in the basement (our house is also a long Rambler and it's on the other end of the house from the bedroom wing on the main level).


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*A Christmas Carol: 60th Anniversary Diamond Edition (1951)


recommendation: Tier 4.5**


VCI Entertainment has issued a couple of different iterations for this black-and-white Christmas classic starring Alastair Sim. This attempt sported a new film transfer from the 35mm negative and other various film elements. In that one regard the presentation was an unqualified success, displaying fine detail and improved clarity. The film source is in sound shape for the most part, though it certainly has not undergone the extensive restoration afforded to some other vintage movies.


What most hurts the picture quality is a thoroughly mediocre VC-1 video encode at sub-par bitrates. It struggles to faithfully capture the film's grain structure and often breaks into blatant banding. The scene in which Scrooge meets Jacob Marley's ghost is awash in macroblocking and other compression artifacts. This disc was first released at the tail-end of 2011 and VC-1 had already been passed at that point by better AVC encoders. Why strike a new, unfiltered film transfer, only to cripple it with a mediocre video encode?


A few scenes show traces of halos and black levels occasionally fluctuate. I think a newer video encode might actually land this film transfer in Tier Three. Its appreciable level of detail does bring out a quality image with some sharpness and depth.


----------



## mweflen

*Rebecca*


Grain lovers will be in a state of rapture over this. Rebecca is a 1.33:1 black and white film from 1940, and was Hitchcock's first US film. There is a bit of print damage here and there and some contrast pulsing. Keeping in mind the age of the print, I can't imagine it looking a whole lot better without a serious years-long restoration to eliminate all signs of aging. But the overall impression is that you have threaded a piece of film through one end of your television and had it spool to the other. I have not seen a more filmic transfer on BD. Grain is lush and stable, and NEVER digital looking. The grain reveals good detail in facial closeups. Detail generally is good but not excellent. There is no edge enhancement or DNR. It's just rapturous to watch for a cinephile. Black levels in the best scenes are strong, but the age of the print does diminish these somewhat. There is a fair amount of dimensionality in the best scenes.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*


----------



## djoberg

*The Edge*


On Black Friday I picked up this Blu from a "bargain bin" at Target (sadly, I used a credit card and found out this week about the hacking job at Target, which resulted in having to get a replacement credit card and all the hassles that go along with that







). I've always liked this "wilderness thriller" with Anthony Hopkins and Alec Baldwin (and Bart the Bear) and having never owned the DVD I bought this Blu for $5, which was a steal.


PQ-wise it's really a mixed bag. It could be incredibly sharp and detailed one minute with appreciable depth, then, out of nowhere, it turned soft and flat. This would have been forgivable if not for the fact that it happened numerous times throughout the nearly 2-hour running time. Facial details were very good, bordering on low Tier 0 and high Tier 1 in nearly every scene. This Blu featured countless panoramic views of the gorgeous Alaskan wilderness/mountains/lakes, but half of them, sad to say, came across as soft and flat. Contrast could be really good but at times there was a washed out look. Again, this was one inconsistent flick!


I see this 2010 release is placed in Tier 3.75. I believe that's a bit harsh, given the excellent facial details and the many scenes that did offer amazing clarity, depth, and details. Even black levels were good at times. So, I'm inclined to bump this up a whole tier.....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75*


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below...


----------



## djoberg

*Nim's Island*


Here's another "bargain bin" Blu (a Black Friday special from Amazon). I did a Search after viewing this and I see that I rented this back in January of 2009. Surprisingly, I recommended a 1.25 placement at that time (it's currently ranked at 1.0), but I had a very different viewing experience this time around. Most reviewers, here and elsewhere, sang its praises for its vibrant colors, exquisite details, inky blacks, and exceptional sharpness/clarity. Admittedly, there were some of these virtues on display at times, but there were also several flaws that plagued this title, especially during the first half of the movie.


What bothered me the most was the HOT CONTRAST in most daytime scenes, resulting in a washed out look, over-saturated colors, and a lack of details. There were also sporadic shots with noise, some murky blacks (though in fairness I must say some scenes had deep blacks with very good shadow details), and inaccurate fleshtones (due to pervasive golden/orange hues). I can't account for the different viewing experience I had. I do have my Pioneer KURO now, back then I had a Samsung DLP, so that my be one factor involved. Another reason may simply be that Blu-rays that *appeared* to be "reference" or "demo" quality fours years ago do not hold up to that standard today. Whatever the reason(s), my recommendation today for this title is now just a tad better than average....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75*


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20940#post_24107396
> 
> 
> Here's another "bargain bin" Blu (a Black Friday special from Amazon). I did a Search after viewing this and I see that I rented this back in January of 2009. Surprisingly, I recommended a 1.25 placement at that time (it's currently ranked at 1.0), but I had a very different viewing experience this time around. Most reviewers, here and elsewhere, sang its praises for its vibrant colors, exquisite details, inky blacks, and exceptional sharpness/clarity. Admittedly, there were some of these virtues on display at times, but there were also several flaws that plagued this title, especially during the first half of the movie.
> 
> 
> What bothered me the most was the HOT CONTRAST in most daytime scenes, resulting in a washed out look, over-saturated colors, and a lack of details. There were also sporadic shots with noise, some murky blacks (though in fairness I must say some scenes had deep blacks with very good shadow details), and inaccurate fleshtones (due to pervasive golden/orange hues). I can't account for the different viewing experience I had. I do have my Pioneer KURO now, back then I had a Samsung DLP, so that my be one factor involved. Another reason may simply be that Blu-rays that *appeared* to be "reference" or "demo" quality fours years ago do not hold up to that standard today. Whatever the reason(s), my recommendation today for this title is now just a tad better than average....


That is a fair point. Some of the highly-ranked releases from four or five years ago do not always hold up that well. Posters should not be afraid to re-evaluate a disc, even if it has been in a top position for many years. Compression standards have improved by leaps and bounds from the major studios, while newer film scans are rendering older scans obsolete. Even dreaded software tools like DNR and EE have improved considerably, producing less obvious effects.

*Desk Set


recommendation: Tier 3.75**


I really can't place this 1957 CinemaScope movie any higher in the Tiers, though Fox has done a credible job in transferring it to Blu-ray. It shows evidence of CinemaScope mumps, a film problem inherent to many early Fox movies using that technology. There appears to have been some correction to compensate for the problem, which normally produces widened faces with distortion. Focal issues and occasional softness can be attributed to the film source itself.


A solid film transfer that can't be characterized as eye candy.


----------



## Johnny Vertigo

*Prometheus*


It could be easily Tier 0,5, maybe even 0,25; it's sharp and consistent image, with some breathtaking details, especially the facial ones. But there's one huge problem - contrast, which is a reason why Prometheus looks like most of digitally shot movies: it's somewhat flat, lifeless and dull. Without inky blacks it looks worse that it might and should look.

*Tier 1,5*


*Alien*


Like most of the older movies, it has some out of focus, soft shots, and with so many optical effects, matte paintings and miniatures it's almost impossible for a movie to look consistent for the whole time. But apart from weaker parts, Alien restoration looks simply great, giving justice to its masterful cinematography, precise lighting and stunning production design. Blacks are as deep as the space itself, and facial details can be on par with the best modern titles.

*Tier 1,25*


----------



## djoberg

*Fast & Furious 6*


Another good-looking Blu from the F&F franchise!!


This may not be *reference* quality (Tier 0), but it will easily be lauded as *demo* material (Tier 1). My greatest praise would have to be in its black levels, with some mesmerizing night scenes, including several aerial shots of major cities. Shadow details were crisp. Colors could be a bit over-saturated at times, but all in all, they were very pleasing to the eyes. Speaking of "colors," there was a plethora of various hues throughout due to color-grading, but this is one of those gems where it didn't hinder flesh tones or details. Facial close-ups featured good textures, revealing every pore, wrinkle, smear of dirt or grime, etc. (though in a few shots they were only mediocre). This also had the coveted look of film, thanks to a consistent layer of fine grain.


My biggest gripe would be that in some of the action scenes details were lost. And in some shots there seemed to be focus issues so a bit of softness crept in and it became flat. I'm going to take a rather conservative approach on this one and yet still award this with the following placement....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Johnny Vertigo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20940#post_24111435
> 
> 
> My biggest gripe would be that in some of the action scenes details were lost. And in some shots there seemed to be focus issues so a bit of softness crept in and it became flat.


I received my copy yesterday and I haven't seen the whole movie on Blu yet, but watching a few scenes I've noticed the flat image you're talking about, it looked almost like some parts of action scenes were shot digitally.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I thought some here would like to know that Amazon.co.uk is running the 8-disc *Universal Classic Monsters* box set for under $30 shipped to the United States:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B008H45YSO 


It's an incredible bargain at this price and the transfers have been reviewed well, both in this thread and elsewhere. This set is practically identical in content to the more expensive American box and is region-free, meaning it will play on any American BD player. Ordering from Amazon.co.uk is a cinch, since you can re-use your normal Amazon account on the site. I wouldn't hesitate at this price, it likely won't last long. There is really little difference than ordering from any other Internet retailer.


I wish everyone a merry Christmas and happy holidays!







Enjoy the festivities.


----------



## Johnny Vertigo

*Aliens*


Just as Alien, there are some problems here, for example the whole conversation between Ripley and Burke on LV-426 (_I thought you'd be smarter than this._) is completely out of focus, and of course some FX shots are also soft, but there's also one pretty big problem that wasn't on Alien - flat, closer to gray blacks. Apart from that Aliens looks better than I expected it would ever do, and when it comes to close ups it can be simply amazing.

*Tier 2*


----------



## djoberg

*The Family*


Have you ever bathed in *amber*? I haven't either, but believe me this movie was bathed in an "amber glow" in nearly every scene!! I finally got used to it but it did wreak havoc on flesh tones, giving them...well, an "amber tone." (In fairness there were several scenes that were normal and flesh tones were amazingly accurate in them.)


Okay, I got that out of my system. Now I can get to the "good stuff." I simply LOVED the facial details in this title; they were some of the best I've seen in a very long time. You've heard me state before that Tommy Lee Jones has a face that was absolutely, positively "made for High Definition"....well, this was the most detailed and textured he's ever looked. Even shots of the young female actor (who plays the daughter of Robert De Niro and Michelle Pfeiffer) revealed texture and peach fuzz that you normally wouldn't see. Details in general were superb in most scenes. Colors were spectacular as well, along with some very strong contrast. Black levels were, for the most part, deep and inky with corresponding shadow details. Depth also abounded in MANY scenes.


I simply must penalize this for the horrendous amber bath given to the majority of this Blu, but being it didn't hinder the fantastic details on display I won't be too harsh. My eyes were very pleased in nearly every scene and if I were inclined to buy this movie (which I'm not, for the movie itself was quite lame), I would most definitely put it on my "demo shelf." Specifically, I believe it belongs right here....,

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## djoberg

Stay tuned for reviews on _The Lone Ranger_ and _Elysium_. Reviews thus far on other sites have been stellar regarding the PQ of these titles, so I'm anticipating another "sugar rush" for my eyes!


----------



## mweflen

*Spellbound*


Another 1.33:1 B&W Hitchcock film from the early 40s. Like Rebecca in the same set, this has a marvelous filmic appearance with lush grain for the most part. Unfortunately, a few close-ups, particularly bright ones, show some digital looking grain. 80% of the run time looks really nice here, but wonky contrast, digital grain, and print damage weigh down the other 20%. It's a pleasing watch generally, but the inconsistency can't be avoided or forgiven.
*Tier Recommendation: 3.5*


----------



## mweflen

*Torn Curtain*


Shot in 35mm by Hitchcock in 1966, this is a pleasing rendition. It is clear that soft filters were used for a majority of the film, and that hampers detail somewhat. Plenty of rear projection and optical shots also diminish detail. Nevertheless, stable grain is evident, no DNR or EE seems present, and fine detail can be very nice on close-up shots. Color is stable and realistic, and black levels are pretty good. I was consistently pleased by the visuals, and was never pulled out of them by anything that seemed a defect of the transfer. This reminds me a lot of Superman: The Movie (1978), but with a better rendition of film grain.
*Tier Recommendation: 2.75*


----------



## rusky_g

Happy Christmas to (almost) All PQ Tier Thread contributors


Having a great time here - decided to sell my projector until such time that I get a property with a room which I can dedicate one to


So, in its place, took delivery of a shiny new Samsung 55" LED TV yesterday - a lovely 'gift to self' between me and my GF


So far, blown away - popped Hugo BR on and was smiling from ear to ear - cemented my opinion that it's THE best BR I have yet to see


Looking forward to your Lone Ranger review, DJ.


----------



## djoberg

*Elysium*


Well, I'm going to go against the "conventional wisdom" on this one, for everyone who chimed in on Cinema Squid's site were drooling over the PQ while I was underwhelmed!!


The GOOD:


1) Excellent black levels, especially of outer space near Elysium.


2) Very pleasing colors on Elysium.


3) Amazing sharpness/clarity on Elysium


The BAD:


1) A very DRAB color palette on earth.


2) Often quite gritty on earth


3) CGI scenes were soft at times, especially on earth


4) Terrible shaky cam during most of the first half of movie...again, mostly on earth.


You get the picture. This was NOT eye candy in most of the scenes on earth. Some will say, "But weren't there amazing details on earth?" Yes and no. In some scenes yes, but in all shots with the "shaky cam" they were limited. Even facial details were underwhelming to _my eyes_ (after viewing the impeccable facial details in last night's viewing of _The Family_ this was very disappointing). This is NOT a Blu that I would take off my shelf to show off my system and the virtues of HD, so I'm going against the grain and consigning this to....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20940#post_24116449
> 
> 
> So, in its place, took delivery of a shiny new Samsung 55" LED TV yesterday - a lovely 'gift to self' between me and my GF
> 
> 
> So far, blown away - popped Hugo BR on and was smiling from ear to ear - cemented my opinion that it's THE best BR I have yet to see
> 
> 
> Looking forward to your Lone Ranger review, DJ.



Congrats on the new Sammy! I have a 4-year old Sammy LCD that was high-end back when I bought it and it still is quite impressive, especially with black levels (with Picture Mode set at Natural) and colors. Even the off-axis viewing isn't too bad. I can well imagine your new LED beats mine by a long shot.


My wife and I will be watching _The Lone Ranger_ after supper. Methinks I'm going to be much more impressed with the PQ on this one compared to _Elysium_. I don't think I'll run into all the issues enumerated in my review of _Elysium's_ scenes that took place on a post-apocalyptic earth.


----------



## Johnny Vertigo

*Alien 3*


Too bad David Fincher hates this movie so much (personally I LOVE the extended cut), so sadly we will never see it restored as beautiful as Alien and Aliens. Obviously this Blu-ray is based on the same master as 2003 DVD, and the result is underwhelming, especially for a movie with such an amazing cinematography. Clearly all the details are there, but they just can't find their way from under the overwhelming layer of softness. But there are moments when Alien 3 looks more than good; some close ups (almost every of Charles S. Dutton) are sharp and richly detailed and these are good examples of how it could look.

*Tier 3.5*


---

*The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift*


Spot on contrast, great blacks, beautiful colors and sharpness. Gorgeous, pleasantly filmic image.

*Tier 1.25**


---

*Fast Five*


Wow! Clarity, sharpness and contrast are just amazing, and with action set mostly in a full daylight results can be stunning at times.

*Tier 1*


---

*Fast & Furious 6*


This is a step back from the amazing quality of Fast Five; it's still sharp, very detailed image, but the wow factor present on the previous movie is missing. Also almost all of the close ups of actors in cars (set mostly at night, or "night") were clearly darkened in post, and they doesn't look as good as the rest of the movie; they're weirdly flat, less detailed, very digital in a bad way.

*Tier 1.5**


----------



## djoberg

*The Lone Ranger*


Ah, FINALLY, a true, REFERENCE-QUALITY live-action Blu-ray!!


I have three words to describe this marvel from Disney: SHARPNESS...DETAILS...DEPTH! From beginning to end we are treated to unbelievable SHARPNESS (perhaps there were a few fleeting instances of softness, but arguing this point would be, in the grand scheme of things, "straining at a gnat"). And along with the incredible sharpness we have DETAILS galore....details in clothing, details in gorgeous southwestern vistas, details in close-ups of mountains & deserts, details in buildings & furniture, and details in Johnny Depp's painted face (and in the face of every actor that the director chose to zoom in on). Without exception all details were high Tier 0 all the way!! DEPTH was so grand that my wife turned to me and said, "Is this in 3D?" Just so you know my wife is oblivious to the fact that my Pioneer KURO is NOT a 3D tv, or that my Pioneer Elite Blu-ray player is NOT 3D capable, but to _her eyes_ the depth was so mesmerizing that she really thought it was in 3D!!


Though these 3 virtues were on display more than anything else, that's not to say they were the only things worthy of praise. Blacks levels were also to-die-for in several nighttime scenes and shadow details were equally praiseworthy. Add to that spot-on flesh tones, strong contrast, and beautiful primary colors that were manifested from time to time (against a background of mainly different shades of brown). These all join together to give you pure, unadulterated EYE CANDY!! I can't say this deserves a place at the top of the coveted Tier, or even close to that, but I'm convinced it shouldn't be near the bottom either. My vote goes for....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (Right above Braveheart)*


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## John Mason




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20940#post_24118194
> 
> *The Lone Ranger*
> 
> 
> Ah, FINALLY, a true, REFERENCE-QUALITY live-action Blu-ray!!
> 
> 
> I have three words to describe this marvel from Disney: SHARPNESS...DETAILS...DEPTH! From beginning to end we are treated to unbelievable SHARPNESS (perhaps there were a few fleeting instances of softness, but arguing this point would be, in the grand scheme of things, "straining at a gnat"). And along with the incredible sharpness we have DETAILS galore....details in clothing, details in gorgeous southwestern vistas, details in close-ups of mountains & deserts, details in buildings & furniture, and details in Johnny Depp's painted face (and in the face of every actor that the director chose to zoom in on). Without exception all details were high Tier 0 all the way!! DEPTH was so grand that my wife turned to me and said, "Is this in 3D?" Just so you know my wife is oblivious to the fact that my Pioneer KURO is NOT a 3D tv, or that my Pioneer Elite Blu-ray player is NOT 3D capable, but to _her eyes_ the depth was so mesmerizing that she really thought it was in 3D!!
> 
> 
> Though these 3 virtues were on display more than anything else, that's not to say they were the only things worthy of praise. Blacks levels were also to-die-for in several nighttime scenes and shadow details were equally praiseworthy. Add to that spot-on flesh tones, strong contrast, and beautiful primary colors that were manifested from time to time (against a background of mainly different shades of brown). These all join together to give you pure, unadulterated EYE CANDY!! I can't say this deserves a place at the top of the coveted Tier, or even close to that, but I'm convinced it shouldn't be near the bottom either. My vote goes for....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (Right above Braveheart)*
> 
> 
> Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


Intriguing! Appreciate the review. I've been trying to picture the 'look' of this film outlined by the production principals in The Masked Man , a trade-magazine article. "We didn't want all the clichéd bright blue skies and orange landscapes—the postcard look," the DP said. They touted the advantages of using the bleach-bypass technique for the mostly filmed production. This process did boost contrast--and apparently the sharpness you stress. They also liked the 'creamy tone' for the selected 30% bypass. Alexa digital cameras were also used. -- John

*EDIT: Watched The Lone Ranger via FLEXview Dec.26 (free 1st use) to see how film bleaching diminished outdoor color saturation. Noticeable for sure but vista shots seem minimal. BR bit rate difference likely negates comparisons so I'll consider waiting for disc price drops.*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Mason*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20940#post_24119186
> 
> 
> Intriguing! Appreciate the review. I've been trying to picture the 'look' of this film outlined by the production principals in The Masked Man , a trade-magazine article. "We didn't want all the clichéd bright blue skies and orange landscapes—the postcard look," the DP said. They touted the advantages of using the bleach-bypass technique for the mostly filmed production. This process did boost contrast--and apparently the sharpness you stress. They also liked the 'creamy tone' for the selected 30% bypass. Alexa digital cameras were also used. -- John



Thanks John!


I read that article and found it very interesting. Regarding the color palette they wanted, there was indeed an emphasis on blacks/whites/grays, but many of the panoramic views of southwestern vistas featured different shades of browns. Primary colors were limited, but when they did appear they were striking (case in point: the red dress worn by the saloon owner).


Again, sharpness, details, and depth join together to give us a reference-quality film. I will look forward to your analysis after you view it.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Kick-Ass 2


recommendation: Tier 1.25*
*
_Kick-Ass 2_ has reference video and really should reside in Tier 0. Its pristine 1080P picture has beautiful clarity, marked by excellent depth and nigh-perfect colors. However, too much of it has been selectively filtered. Some close-ups exhibit very waxy facial features. The DNR is less obvious than usual, since apparently some scenes escaped the post-processing. In better news, it lacks any hint of sharpening or halos.


Universal's AVC video encode handles the crystal-clear film with ease. This could have been a real contender for the upper half of Tier 0, if they had eased up on the DNR in tighter shots.


----------



## Johnny Vertigo

*Coraline*


Sharpness! Details! Textures! Coraline looks PERFECT, and without doubt this is one of the best (if not THE best) Blu-rays I've seen. No matter how beautiful and detailed CGI-animated movies are, there are things computer simply cannot do and for me Coraline is the most visually and artistically impressive of them all.


Marvelous.

*Tier 0* (above Avatar)


----------



## djoberg

*North By Northwest*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20880#post_24055162
> 
> *North By Northwest*
> 
> 
> Quite pleasing overall, with no artifacts, EE, or DNR. Color is lush, detail is strong when photography allows - Hitchcock employs some soft filters on Grant and Saint's close-ups. This is not as good as Hitchcock's other VistaVision films on BD, but it is quite nice nonetheless. In scanning the tiers, this is better to my eyes than those discs around it. So I'll place it a bit higher at:
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.25*



What he said! Though I would add that there was one bad case of "mosquito noise" in a shot of Martin Landau's face (I believe it was a scene in an airport). Facial details in general were good, considering the age of the movie, though Eva Marie Saint's lacked texture and almost looked like it had been smoothed over.


I was really impressed with nighttime scenes, with very good black levels accompanied by decent shadow details. This set is most definitely worth the price of under $33 and one that loves these Hitchcock classics would be a fool to pass this up.


I believe mweflen got the placement right....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Colorful: The Motion Picture

recommendation: Tier 2.5**


Sentai Filmworks has been known in the anime community to release Blu-rays of varying quality. _Colorful_ lies at the poorer end of that spectrum, as the 2010 movie consists of relatively simple, unpolished animation.


Technically, the Blu-ray has some problems. The transfer appears to have been improperly deinterlaced to 1080P, most noticeable on the horrible stuttering during an opening pan. Another problem is the deficient AVC video encode, which runs at DVD levels for extended periods and leads to rampant banding and chroma noise. This disc received some level of criticism upon release and I would have to say it was justified.


The animation itself is definitely true hi-definition but won't impress jaded Blu-ray users.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Mason*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20940#post_24119186
> 
> 
> *EDIT: Watched The Lone Ranger via FLEXview Dec.26 (free 1st use) to see how film bleaching diminished outdoor color saturation. Noticeable for sure but vista shots seem minimal. BR bit rate difference likely negates comparisons so I'll consider waiting for disc price drops.*



Hey John,


I want to emphasize that I recommended a Tier Blu ranking for _The Lone Ranger_ based mainly on SHARPNESS, DETAILS and DEPTH and NOT because of the color palette. Admittedly the colors are *desaturated* or *bleached* (which ever term you choose to use) throughout the majority of the movie. But the "bleaching" is "minimal" in many cases and when primaries are seen they are praiseworthy, so one can not fault this title for the color palette. I just looked over most of the titles that are currently residing in Tier Blu and there were several that have very little color at all. _Tree of Life_ and _Sin City_ are two good examples that illustrate this point. So, I firmly believe _The Lone Ranger_ is deserving of the "reference Tier" and I trust others will feel the same after they view it.


I'm not, in any way, shape, matter, or form, implying that you would refuse to recommend Tier Blu for this title because of the "bleaching" employed, but I wanted to stress, for anyone reading our exchanges, that a title doesn't require a beautiful and explosive color palette to qualify for Tie Blu. Sometimes I complain, in my reviews, of a "drab" color palette, but that is *usually* associated with other negatives, like "softness" or "heavy grain." If a title has remarkable sharpness and is highly detailed, I can usually overlook the lack of colors.


----------



## John Mason




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20940#post_24123587
> 
> 
> Hey John,
> 
> 
> I want to emphasize that I recommended a Tier Blu ranking for _The Lone Ranger_ based mainly on SHARPNESS, DETAILS and DEPTH and NOT because of the color palette. Admittedly the colors are *desaturated* or *bleached* (which ever term you choose to use) throughout the majority of the movie. But the "bleaching" is "minimal" in many cases and when primaries are seen they are praiseworthy, so one can not fault this title for the color palette. I just looked over most of the titles that are currently residing in Tier Blu and there were several that have very little color at all. _Tree of Life_ and _Sin City_ are two good examples that illustrate this point. So, I firmly believe _The Lone Ranger_ is deserving of the "reference Tier" and I trust others will feel the same after they view it.
> 
> 
> I'm not, in any way, shape, matter, or form, implying that you would refuse to recommend Tier Blu for this title because of the "bleaching" employed, but I wanted to stress, for anyone reading our exchanges, that a title doesn't require a beautiful and explosive color palette to qualify for Tie Blu. Sometimes I complain, in my reviews, of a "drab" color palette, but that is *usually* associated with other negatives, like "softness" or "heavy grain." If a title has remarkable sharpness and is highly detailed, I can usually overlook the lack of colors.



Yes, agree. I just wanted to see for myself, after finding that linked article detailing production and your review, if I could better comprehend what the bleaching did. Didn't think it was valid here to suggest a tier ranking based on my FIOS viewing, not Blu-ray. Buy very few Blu-rays here, mainly because I'm on FIOS's highest-cost premium channel plan, and eventually films will appear there. (sans BR advantages). Did buy Tree of Life based on its tier ranking here and a similar production article I linked in the separate Tree of Life thread. Surprised about your color palette comment for TOL, though, since I thought it aimed for a normal balanced palette--and tried to maximize PQ throughout. -- John


----------



## DarthDoxie


*For a Few Dollars More*

 

Overall a very good transfer.  Facial details on close-up shots are exquisite and the actors' eyes really shine.  Vistas and long shots are equally as good.  The color palette is drab but when there is color such as vegetation, it pops.  Softness only creeps in on a few shots but what drags down PQ is print damage in a few scenes, most notably in vertical scratches but they are minor.

 

*Recommendation: Tier 2.75**

 

Viewed on a 55" screen from 8'


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Mason*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20940#post_24124139
> 
> 
> Did buy Tree of Life based on its tier ranking here and a similar production article I linked in the separate Tree of Life thread. *Surprised about your color palette comment for TOL*, though, since I thought it aimed for a normal balanced palette--and tried to maximize PQ throughout. -- John



There were *some* scenes in _Tree of Life_ that had a "drab color palette." Here is my review of the film with comments on those scenes:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/18870#post_21262676 


But I was wrong to imply that it had very little color throughout the whole film, so I would simply say that one could complain about the selected scenes that had a rather drab color palette, yet the sharpness and details are so exemplary that one can overlook the subdued color palette of those scenes. Of course I mentioned _Sin City_ and that truly is void of color through the majority of its running time, yet there too the details, sharpness and depth more than made up for the lack of color.


----------



## rusky_g

*Kick Ass 2*


With the advent of the new TV, my viewings and ratings here will increase.


So as the year draws to a close it was nice to enjoy Kick Ass 2 on Blu-Ray. The first Kick Ass didn't really wow me, I thought it looked decent but nothing special. In the sequel however EYE CANDY PQ has been kicked up a notch or two! Shiny, resplendent, clean, inky blacks are a few words to best sum up this transfer. Dimensionality and pop is prevalent!


In conclusion, I will happliy rate this as.....
*

Tier 1.0*


55" Samsung F6500 LED @ 9'


----------



## upstate-avfan-da




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20970#post_24127557
> 
> *Kick Ass 2*
> 
> 
> With the advent of the new TV, my viewings and ratings here will increase.
> 
> 
> So as the year draws to a close it was nice to enjoy Kick Ass 2 on Blu-Ray. The first Kick Ass didn't really wow me, I thought it looked decent but nothing special. In the sequel however EYE CANDY PQ has been kicked up a notch or two! Shiny, resplendent, clean, inky blacks are a few words to best sum up this transfer. Dimensionality and pop is prevalent!
> 
> 
> In conclusion, I will happliy rate this as.....
> *
> 
> Tier 1.0*
> 
> 
> 55" Samsung F6500 LED @ 9'



I cant wait to pick this one up, glad to see someone who liked it more than the first. I think that movies like this deserve a little pop to the colors, gives it more of that comic book feel. Hoping it looks great on my 55" F9000 @ 7'.


----------



## rusky_g

On a 9000, I am sure it will!


Turned my backlight and contrast down a bit for this one, just as a heads up.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*30 Nights of Paranormal Activity with the Devil Inside the Girl With the Dragon Tattoo*


recommendation: *Tier 2.0**


This BD's picture quality might actually deserve Tier One, it looks better than most of the films it attempts to spoof. The clean video has a very sterile image, free of noise and other minor problems. Its greatest sin is the complete lack of depth and dimensionality, though it is razor-sharp in its clarity. The flat color palette and restrained contrast holds back what is otherwise a detailed picture.


Given generous technical parameters, the video encode is entirely free of artifacts. A fine presentation that likely replicates the filmmaker's intentions without fault.


----------



## rusky_g

*Oblivion*


A different beast to Kick Ass 2, Oblivion does not offer a 'leap off the screen' colour palette, here its all a bit more subdued. That being said, the transfer is clear, detailed and with a good sense of depth occupying most scenes. Not one that I would grab for demo purpouses but good enough to rank in.....

*Tier 1.5*


----------



## Johnny Vertigo

*The Dark Knight Rises*


Holy mess, Batman!


At least it's not as awful case as The Dark Knight, but it's pretty hard to judge. On the one hand there are IMAX scenes and they're spectacular. Perfect contrast with inky blacks, amazing sharpness and clarity. This is definitely demo material, obviously at the top of Tier 0 (at least above every other live action movie I've seen).

But on the other hand the 35mm scenes... Let me say just one word: SOFTNESS! There are _some_ details, but not facial ones and actually sometimes it looks like some DNR was used (shots of Christian Bale around 58 minutes mark are just awful). I would go for Tier 2.75.


My overall score is...

*Tier 2*


----------



## DarthDoxie


*You Only Live Twice*

 

This Bond film has good picture quality that compares favorably with the other Sean Connery Bond films.  Closeups show nice detail but some longer shots, such as in the sumo stadium, can be a bit soft.  Black levels show good separation in night scenes and space scenes look good as well.  Vertical lines show up in a few scenes so there is some print damage but overall pleasing to watch.

 

*Recommendation: Tier 2.5**

 

Viewed on a 55" screen from 8'


----------



## DarthDoxie


*Infernal Affairs*

 

Martin Scorsese's The Departed is a remake of the Infernal Affairs trilogy and this first film in particular.  It's a really powerful movie and I highly recommend it.

 

The picture quality on this BD is disappointing considering the film was released in 2002.  Lots of night scenes and in a few of these blacks can be crushed but overall these scenes are OK.  Colors are drab but not in a distracting way and are consistent throughout.  Sharpness is decent overall and a few scenes really stand out like when Sam is being driven to the meeting with the Thais.  The PQ overall is just OK but definitely worth an add to your library if you like the mafia genre.

 

The DTS-HD MA sound is superb but I recommend selecting the Cantonese dialogue track with English subtitles as the English dialogue track is horrible.  The voice actors for the English track show no emotion and are quite wooden in their delivery; it really distracts from the film.

 

*Recommendation: Tier 3.5**

 

Viewed on a 55" screen from 8'


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Sweetwater


recommendation: Tier 3.5**

_Sweetwater_ is an independent production with big names such as Ed Harris and January Jones. The Western was apparently shot on relatively new 35mm film stock intended for tighter budgets, Kodak 500T 5230. This is rougher 35mm cinematography than normal with a slightly bleached palette. The gritty aesthetic was likely never intended to be evaluated under our terms, which forces it into Tier 3.


Distributor Arc Entertainment handles the disc in a fine manner with no serious technical problems. Some ringing does intrude into the picture on occasion. Screenshots are available at everyone's favorite review site.


----------



## mweflen

*Quiz Show (AU Region 0)*


This was purchased as a gift for me, and I didn't know what to expect given its Australian origin. Well, I'll be darned if it didn't surpass my expectations. Especially from a 1994 movie, this was very filmic and nicely detailed, with even contrast values, good color, and a nice stable rendition of film grain. The best close-ups look very nice with stubble, pores and cloth textures, but overall I would call detail average for the format. There doesn't appear to be much in the way of digital tinkering with DNR or EE. Overall, an extremely solid upgrade over prior formats.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

They need to release Quiz Show in the U.S.

*The Purge


recommendation: Tier 3.25**


Utter dreck (easily one of the dumbest scripts I've seen in years) from Universal that starts off in Tier One and quickly goes downhill from there, as the last two acts are predominantly set in a house without electricity.


The transfer is completely unfiltered, leaving a tremendous amount of high-frequency detail in tighter shots. There are some early shots of Lena Headey in which you can see every line and imperfection visible in her facial features. There is way too much banding for a modern AVC video encode. I don't know what happened, Universal put the relatively short film on a BD-50 and gave it very generous compression parameters. Points of light band all over the place as the action shifts to darkened rooms. Some aliasing and a strange softening in the final act are evident. Everything about the cinematography feels rushed and that definitely impacts the picture quality.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Corruption

recommendation: Tier 2.25**


Grindhouse Releasing licensed this 1968 film from Sony and the 2k Digital Restoration touted on the back cover was likely performed by Sony's own team. It is a brilliant, film-like transfer of imposing quality, almost certainly struck from the original camera negative. The film elements are in great condition, aside from minor jitter and flickering in the opening credits. The original grain structure is completely intact and only a few remnants of sharpening look anything less than perfectly analog.


Actual depth is outstanding, highlighting a tremendous amount of natural detail found in the picture. Sharp and presented in a properly-saturated color palette, contrast rarely strays from perfection. It is truly a remarkable-looking film transfer and one of the bigger surprises on the format. Definitely an image harvest produced with the very latest scanning technology, the disc itself was only released in October. My hat is off to Grindhouse Releasing for getting _Corruption_ out on BD.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

The review hasn't been published yet, but *Ninja II: Shadow of a Tear* has the best live-action picture quality I've seen in the past year. It's easily going to end up in the upper half of Tier 0, shot with the RED Epic digital camera. Old-school ninja fans finally have the movie they've wanted for years.


----------



## DarthDoxie


*Diamonds Are Forever*

 
Overall a good PQ is presented but nothing spectacular in this last of the early Connery Bond films.

 

*Recommendation: Tier 2.75**

 

Viewed on a 55" screen from 8'


----------



## lgans316

Hello friends,


Wishing all a very happy and another eye candy New Year










Been a long time since posting. Never had the mood to type as my son wouldn't let me sit near my laptop for more than 5 minutes. Sometimes I became so absent minded that I forgot to respond to PMs and delete some precious PMs.










Anyways, I recently bought a Panasonic 3D Plasma and a home cinema system. Managed to find some time to watch few movies. Hopefully will be resume contributing to this wonderful thread.


Special thanks to Phantom and the usual suspects for keeping this active.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20970#post_24165660
> 
> 
> Hello friends,
> 
> 
> Wishing all a very happy and another eye candy New Year
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Been a long time since posting. Never had the mood to type as my son wouldn't let me sit near my laptop for more than 5 minutes. Sometimes I became so absent minded that I forgot to respond to PMs and delete some precious PMs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyways, I recently bought a Panasonic 3D Plasma and a home cinema system. Managed to find some time to watch few movies. Hopefully will be resume contributing to this wonderful thread.
> 
> 
> Special thanks to Phantom and the usual suspects for keeping this active.



Good hearing from you Igans316!


Glad to see you've jumped on the "plasma bandwagon." It still has the best-looking picture out of all flat-panel displays, so ENJOY!!


----------



## mweflen

*Rope*


Hitchcock's first color film, this is a 1.33:1 three-strip Technicolor print that seems to have many of the inherent flaws of this film stock, namely some haloing around bright areas of the picture, and misalignments of the red and cyan strips. This looks quite similar to "Gone With the Wind," "The Wizard of Oz," and "The Red Shoes," all of which were shot on similar stock.


Anyway, all that said, even despite the inherent flaws, this is a pretty enjoyable watch. Fine detail is pretty good throughout, especially in the cloth of the characters' suits. Some facial close-ups are nice, too. Film grain is present and steady. Colors remain stable and there is little to no print damage, excepting the alignment issues, which create a bit of a small red halo above highlights. Blacks are not ultra deep, but they are solid and also stable. There is no apparent DNR or EE. All in all, this is a really nice looking 40's-vintage Blu-Ray transfer, and looks every bit as good as the previously mentioned movies, perhaps better, since there are no optical effects to degrade PQ. The color alignment knocks it down a tad, but not too much IMHO because I expect it of a film shot this way.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75*


----------



## mweflen

*The Trouble With Harry*


Wow. I was blown away by this one. It is a 1955 Hitchcock film shot on VistaVision. The colors are absolutely spectacular, as this is set in a hilly small town with oodles of autumn foliage. But foliage isn't where it stops - detail all around is superb. Faces, cloth, leaves and grass, film grain, it's just wondrous throughout. Black levels are deep and solid, too, lending themselves to a punchy image. No undue tinkering seems evident, given this stable film grain. This is perhaps the best Blu-Ray transfer of a VistaVision film I've seen. Easily the crown jewel (visually, anyway) of the Hitchcock Masterpiece collection.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0*


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *lgans316*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20970#post_24165660
> 
> 
> Hello friends,
> 
> 
> Wishing all a very happy and another eye candy New Year
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Been a long time since posting. Never had the mood to type as my son wouldn't let me sit near my laptop for more than 5 minutes. Sometimes I became so absent minded that I forgot to respond to PMs and delete some precious PMs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyways, I recently bought a Panasonic 3D Plasma and a home cinema system. Managed to find some time to watch few movies. Hopefully will be resume contributing to this wonderful thread.


Welcome, old friend. Maybe your son likes the latest CGI movies and you could pull double-duty by introducing him to such BDs as Monsters University. It's never too early to start training the next generation of videophiles.











*Last Love


recommendation: Tier 2.75*
*

Some of the rougher 35mm cinematography I've seen from a newish release. Low-light scenes have some problems, displaying a crush of noise and poor detail. On the other hand, some nice outdoor photography makes up for it. Fine resolution is a bit spotty at times and barely average in some shots. There are no serious problems, just an unpolished image with some inconsistencies.

*CBGB


recommendation: Tier 1.75**


Largely pristine video, mixed with stylistic excesses such as the occasional 16mm shot or comic book art. Colors are bold and vibrant for the most part, a strange aesthetic for a movie set in the gritty ethos of '70s Punk music. Nothing too weird seems to be going on with the Digital Intermediate, aside from some very minor aliasing.


----------



## DarthDoxie


*Spy Who Loved Me, The*

 
Not a bad looking film.  With few exceptions, sharpness is consistent with both Egypt vistas and interior shots.  Colors and black levels look good as well.

 

*Recommendation: Tier 2.75**


----------



## rusky_g

*The Hunger Games*


Grain. Some like it, I don't. I found that in a few scenes it obscured depth and detail. Colours were strong, sometimes too much. Some scenes looked stunning, others fell flat with weakened black levels and contrast. Good but not enough to hang with the cool kids.

*Tier 2*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Robot Chicken: Season Five


recommendation: Tier 1.75**


This Warner Bros. release came out a couple of years ago and represents a mild improvement over the broadcast version, though the BD retains its 1080i presentation. WB also decided to spread over four hours of Hi-Def material on a single BD-50, using low-bitrate VC-1 for the compression duties. That introduces touches of banding and mosquito noise on occasion, though the stop-motion photography's sheer visual strength overcomes the limited artifacting. The picture quality has a high degree of clarity and its mildly impressive sharpness does look better than average. Some scenes could certainly be placed closer to Tier 1.0, given the clean video print and nearly-perfect digital cinematography.

*Baseball's Greatest Games: 2011 World Series Game 6 (Cardinals vs. Rangers)


recommendation: Tier 3.25**


If you saw Fox's high-definition broadcast of this game, you've basically seen this BD. It takes the Fox feed for that game and presents it on a BD-50, logos and all. It's from A&E and distributed by New Video, which does a solid job at delivering an accurate replication of the broadcast experience. The live game-footage is fairly standard and will be familiar to most sports' viewers, though the AVC video encode renders a picture with less notable artifacts than the broadcast.


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20970#post_24187478
> 
> 
> *Baseball's Greatest Games: 2011 World Series Game 6 (Cardinals vs. Rangers)
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 3.25**
> 
> 
> If you saw Fox's high-definition broadcast of this game, you've basically seen this BD. It takes the Fox feed for that game and presents it on a BD-50, logos and all. It's from A&E and distributed by New Video, which does a solid job at delivering an accurate replication of the broadcast experience. The live game-footage is fairly standard and will be familiar to most sports' viewers, though the AVC video encode renders a picture with less notable artifacts than the broadcast.



Guh, I hate the way baseball looks on Fox. It's like seeing back in time to the days of pixellated video on CD-ROM PC games.


----------



## mweflen

*The Man Who Knew Too Much*


A manifest disappointment for a VistaVision release. On the plus side, detail can be pretty good in close-ups, and generally it's at least average. But the color is just atrocious. Faces look ashen, there is a green cast (unintentional) to many scenes, and colors pulse on and off (mostly yellow) throughout the movie. Print damage is also evident, with lots of popping white dots, especially in the final reel. I'm really surprised at how bad this is, given the terrific transfers of VistaVision films we got in the Hitchcock Masterpiece Collection set, of Vertigo, The Trouble With Harry, and N by NW. If not for the colors, this would be in the mid to upper 2 range. As it stands, it's a 4.
*Tier Recommendation: 4.0*


----------



## rusky_g

So with 2103 now behind us what was everyone's favorite PQ disc of the year? Im torn between Pacific Rim and Kick Ass 2....


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20970#post_24188415
> 
> 
> So with 2103 now behind us what was everyone's favorite PQ disc of the year? Im torn between Pacific Rim and Kick Ass 2....



That's a no-brainer for me..._Life of Pi_ is the best I saw in 2013.

http://www.avsforum.com/t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20190#post_23082505


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20970#post_24188415
> 
> 
> So with 2103 now behind us what was everyone's favorite PQ disc of the year? Im torn between Pacific Rim and Kick Ass 2....



I was assuming you were speaking of live-action Blus, but if you are including animated titles then the clear winner is _Monsters University_.


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20970#post_24188415
> 
> 
> So with 2103 now behind us what was everyone's favorite PQ disc of the year? Im torn between Pacific Rim and Kick Ass 2....



Released in 2013? I'd probably have to go with Samsara.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20970#post_24188415
> 
> 
> So with 2103 now behind us what was everyone's favorite PQ disc of the year? Im torn between Pacific Rim and Kick Ass 2....


It came out on the very last day of 2013...

*Ninja II: Shadow of a Tear* 

*recommendation: Tier 0* (top quarter)*


Filmed on the RED Epic camera and given a completely unfiltered, unprocessed digital grading, _Ninja II_ is the best live-action picture quality I saw on Blu-ray in 2013. Insane levels of detail, presented in a razor-sharp presentation that exudes depth and dimensionality. I do think _Monsters University_ is the undisputed champion of 2013, but it can't get much better than _Ninja II_. A really fun movie that looked like it had a much bigger budget than it actually did in reality. I thought it easily bested both _Pacific Rim_ and _Kick-Ass 2_, which both show heavy amounts of CGI and digital composites, softening the picture at times.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20970#post_24189358
> 
> 
> It came out on the very last day of 2013...
> 
> *Ninja II: Shadow of a Tear*
> 
> *recommendation: Tier 0* (top quarter)*
> 
> 
> Filmed on the RED Epic camera and given a completely unfiltered, unprocessed digital grading, _Ninja II_ is the best live-action picture quality I saw on Blu-ray in 2013. Insane levels of detail, presented in a razor-sharp presentation that exudes depth and dimensionality. I do think _Monsters University_ is the undisputed champion of 2013, but it can't get much better than _Ninja II_. A really fun movie that looked like it had a much bigger budget than it actually did in reality. I thought it easily bested both _Pacific Rim_ and _Kick-Ass 2_, which both show heavy amounts of CGI and digital composites, softening the picture at times.



I need to rent this, for I may be changing my view regarding _Life of Pi_, though I must say it will be hard to beat. Did you see _Life of Pi_ Phantom?


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21000#post_24189397
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20970#post_24189358
> 
> 
> It came out on the very last day of 2013...
> 
> *Ninja II: Shadow of a Tear*
> 
> *recommendation: Tier 0* (top quarter)*
> 
> 
> Filmed on the RED Epic camera and given a completely unfiltered, unprocessed digital grading, _Ninja II_ is the best live-action picture quality I saw on Blu-ray in 2013. Insane levels of detail, presented in a razor-sharp presentation that exudes depth and dimensionality. I do think _Monsters University_ is the undisputed champion of 2013, but it can't get much better than _Ninja II_. A really fun movie that looked like it had a much bigger budget than it actually did in reality. I thought it easily bested both _Pacific Rim_ and _Kick-Ass 2_, which both show heavy amounts of CGI and digital composites, softening the picture at times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I need to rent this, for I may be changing my view regarding _Life of Pi_, though I must say it will be hard to beat. Did you see _Life of Pi_ Phantom?
Click to expand...

I saw it much earlier this year, though my memory of it is a little hazy other than its sterling picture quality.


----------



## edlittle

I think that maybe a little snippet could be posted on the top of the Tiers thread with people's favorite live action and animated PQ release?


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *edlittle*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21000#post_24189823
> 
> 
> I think that maybe a little snippet could be posted on the top of the Tiers thread with people's favorite live action and animated PQ release?


That's not a bad idea at all. This will be open to anyone (newbie or regular contributor here) and I will temporarily include each person's best 2013 release for the PQ Tiers. It'll be a separate post but near the top on the main list:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1425519/the-official-picture-quality-tiers-for-blu-ray-rankings-updated-through-august-21-2012/0_60 


Each person can name their best animated/CGI disc and best live-action film/video on Blu-ray. For example, mine would be...


Animated category: _Monsters University_


Live-action category: _Ninja II: Shadow of a Tear_


No ties, please. Name one and only one disc for each category. Other fabulous-looking films like _The Master_ and _Tai Chi Zero_ got edged out by Ninja II in my view. Anything released on Blu-ray in 2013 is fair game, though keep it to discs you personally watched.


----------



## hungro

It get's under my skin how much detail is "smoothed" out even with some big studio releases, new releases when you compare to say Ninja 2 , which I have not watched yet. Checking out the screenshots and reading Do Blu's review it does look amazing. DNR can go to hell , lol. Unfilitered and untouched bluray is the way to go. So many disks, filter out the fine details. I know that the camera being used can be a limit. However most of the cameras being used can capture so much detail considering film reolution is much greater then blu-ray but where does all that detail go. I want to see all the imperfections in actors faces as an example . My rant for the day. Enjoy watching those blus.


----------



## djoberg

*The Birds*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20910#post_24090251
> 
> *The Birds*
> 
> 
> Wildly inconsistent. The best shots show very nice detail and color. Effects shots look terrible. Other non-effects show random softness and muddy colors. So I'd call is 1/3 way better than DVD, 1/3 far worse, 1/3 about as good as 480p SD. A real disappointment, especially since the best stuff looks about as good as anything from this period on the format.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 4.0*



I agreed wholeheartedly with my colleague when it came to his review on _North By Northwest_, but we are going to be far apart on this one.


I do agree with him regarding there being some inconsistency, but "wildly inconsistent," I think not. For the most part this Blu looked very good, with sharpness, depth and plenty of details (especially in clothing and hair). There were sporadic soft shots, but overall they were minimal. The worst offender was, as mwerflen pointed out, effects shots. There were several "bird attacks" outside that were pretty bad, resulting in a lack of details and a loss of depth as well. But in the two hour running time they took up only 10 minutes or so. The majority of the film looked fantastic. I would say those scenes fell into Tier 1 and 2. The "bird attacks" scenes were worse than DVD, so they could be labeled low Tier 4 or high Tier 5. Other shots that weren't sharp and detailed veered into Tier 3. This may be a hard one to "average out," but in my thinking this is still deserving of Tier Silver, though I'll take a conservative approach and put it right here....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.5**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21000#post_24191983
> 
> *The Birds*
> 
> I agreed wholeheartedly with my colleague when it came to his review on _North By Northwest_, but we are going to be far apart on this one.
> 
> 
> I do agree with him regarding there being some inconsistency, but "wildly inconsistent," I think not. For the most part this Blu looked very good, with sharpness, depth and plenty of details (especially in clothing and hair). There were sporadic soft shots, but overall they were minimal. The worst offender was, as mwerflen pointed out, effects shots. There were several "bird attacks" outside that were pretty bad, resulting in a lack of details and a loss of depth as well. But in the two hour running time they took up only 10 minutes or so. The majority of the film looked fantastic. I would say those scenes fell into Tier 1 and 2. The "bird attacks" scenes were worse than DVD, so they could be labeled low Tier 4 or high Tier 5. Other shots that weren't sharp and detailed veered into Tier 3. This may be a hard one to "average out," but in my thinking this is still deserving of Tier Silver, though I'll take a conservative approach and put it right here....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.5**
> 
> 
> Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....



Coincidentally enough, I am in the midst of "Marnie" right now, the Hitchcock/Hedren movie right after The Birds. It looks quite similar to the best of The Birds, minus the effects shots and inconsistency, and I think it will be a high 2. TERRIFIC movie, btw.

*Marnie*

After reading Aaron Peck's takedown of the video transfer on highdefdigest, I was expecting the worst. I'm happy to report that he is way off. This looks gorgeous. Yes, this is not one for grain-haters. But grain-likers will find lots to like here. Film grain is lush and consistent, getting heavy in a few shots but never looking artificial. There is about a 3 minute stretch of the climax of the film that suffers from severe softness, but it looks as if it's intentional, not a product of tinkering. Detail tends towards the excellent almost throughout, with good faces, nice cloth and foliage, and no moire/ee/dnr to speak of. Color is stout and pleasing. Blacks are consistent but not ultra-deep. All in all, solidly above average for a 35mm transfer from the mid-60s.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.5*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Grass Is Greener


recommendation: Tier 3.0**


A solid release by Olive Films, the 1960 Technirama film on Blu-ray shows marked improvement in terms of sharpness, color saturation and definition over DVD. The rich hues of Technicolor are slightly washed out, though it is a matter of degree more than serious problem. The transfer appears to be a relatively recent telecine struck from stable film elements, though hints of film damage pop up now and then. Olive Films licensed this movie from Paramount's vault, though I've heard that Olive has done many of their own transfers for licensed releases.


Olive Films encoded the 104-minute movie in AVC at moderate bitrates on a BD-25. The one exception to its general clarity and clean presentation is some strange black noise apparent around the 44 minute mark. I've never seen anything like it before on Blu-ray and it's hard to determine if the brief problem is due to analog film or digital error.


The transfer is mostly film-like, with small hints of halos and slight DNR in a couple of spots. Nothing to be too concerned with, though discerning videophiles will likely notice them. All in all, a very solid BD in terms of picture quality that provides a true upgrade over DVD.

*Redemption


recommendation: Tier 2.25*


The latest bore from Jason Statham looks mildly impressive but not outstanding in any one measure. It has already been ranked in Tier 3.25, which I will have to disagree with for the very recent movie. Lionsgate delivers a satisfactory presentation of the digitally-shot video, preserving the teal-heavy color-correction and strong clarity. High-frequency content is better than average, leaving a generous amount of fine detail in close-ups. The cinematography is lacking, this looks like a cheap effort for a Jason Statham vehicle.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21000#post_24192127
> 
> 
> *Marnie*
> 
> After reading Aaron Peck's takedown of the video transfer on highdefdigest, I was expecting the worst. I'm happy to report that he is way off. This looks gorgeous. Yes, this is not one for grain-haters. But grain-likers will find lots to like here. Film grain is lush and consistent, getting heavy in a few shots but never looking artificial. There is about a 3 minute stretch of the climax of the film that suffers from severe softness, but it looks as if it's intentional, not a product of tinkering. Detail tends towards the excellent almost throughout, with good faces, nice cloth and foliage, and no moire/ee/dnr to speak of. Color is stout and pleasing. Blacks are consistent but not ultra-deep. All in all, solidly above average for a 35mm transfer from the mid-60s.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.5*



It looks like *most* of the Hitchcock classics will be falling into Tier 2, which is not bad at all for their age. I wish I had purchased the whole collection instead of merely the Essentials. Later today I plan to watch _Vertigo_, which was a favorite of many Hitchcock fans. It's been so long since my last viewing that I can't recall any of it except for a few select scenes.


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21000#post_24195360
> 
> 
> It looks like *most* of the Hitchcock classics will be falling into Tier 2, which is not bad at all for their age. I wish I had purchased the whole collection instead of merely the Essentials. Later today I plan to watch _Vertigo_, which was a favorite of many Hitchcock fans. It's been so long since my last viewing that I can't recall any of it except for a few select scenes.



I know exactly how you feel - I was so excited by the Essentials set that I gave it to my parents and bought the Masterpiece set with gift card money.


I will say, the Essentials set truly is the cream of the crop, but Rope, Marnie, Trouble With Harry and Torn Curtain are definitely nice to have. Man Who Knew Too much is really disappointing, but is a great movie.


Remember to turn Vertigo up! The title sequence is rapturous.


----------



## djoberg

*Vertigo*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20610#post_23665724
> 
> *Vertigo*
> 
> 
> About 2/3 of this is surpassingly beautiful. Exterior shots especially bristle with detail and show superb, deep color saturation. But many of the interior shots are also superb, especially Elster's office, Ernie's restaurant, Judy's hotel room, and Scottie's apartment. There is no DNR or EE I can detect, and in the good scenes, contrast values are quite strong. Even process shots look pretty good, which pleased me, because I've certainly seen many a 50s flick that has some pretty bad dips in quality when visual effects and mattes are in use (e.g. The Ten Commandments). That said, there are a fair number of scenes that suffer from weak contrast (any scene in the church, and especially the climax), foggy camera filters (the cemetery scene) and other sorts of issues that detract from a sumptuous visual experience (though not from the story, thankfully).
> 
> 
> As such, I think 2.25 is about the right spot for this. It's so good most of the time, probably low 1 level. But the inconsistency knocks it down a few pegs. Looking at the tiers, it is better than the 2.5 stuff I've seen (e.g. Planet of the Apes, English Patient). At the end of the day, any fan of the movie should be pretty pleased. Most of the bad stuff is due either to defects in the print or artistic choices. This looks about as good as I think it can. I saw the restored 65mm print this is taken from in the theater, and this Blu-Ray looks pretty much exactly like it.
> 
> *Tier recommendation: 2.25*
> Sony KDL52EX700, Panasonic BDMP65, 8 foot viewing distance (with several get up off the couch moments)



I can easily echo every sentiment expressed above. I'm in TOTAL agreement with his assessment!


I did indeed love the exterior shots of San Francisco with its fine architecture teeming with details. Shots of the Pacific Coast were also EYE CANDY. And as mweflen stated, interior shots excelled as well in the places he enumerated. He mentioned the "foggy camera filter" in the cemetery scene. This was at about the 24 minute mark and it lasted nearly 3 minutes. Up to that point every shot was razor-sharp so it was a jarring note to see such SOFTNESS appear. Another scene that didn't impress me took place in the Sequoia National Park; I thought it fell a bit flat and lacked definition. There were also some murky blacks at times, most notably the last scene in the tower. Mweflen didn't mention this, but in that scene, as they were climbing the stairs, there was a strange light streak (of light, I presume) right in the middle of the frame, It was quite distracting, to say the least. It was sad that the PQ of the movie had to end on such a sorry note, but one can be forgiving considering the pleasing colors, the strong contrast, the accurate flesh tones, the appreciable depth, the plethora of details, and the amazing sharpness and clarity that characterized the majority of the 2+ hour running time prior to that last scene.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## rusky_g

Riddick gets released here tomorrow, early reports sound promising


----------



## tenia54




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21000#post_24192127
> 
> 
> 
> Coincidentally enough, I am in the midst of "Marnie" right now, the Hitchcock/Hedren movie right after The Birds. It looks quite similar to the best of The Birds, minus the effects shots and inconsistency, and I think it will be a high 2. TERRIFIC movie, btw.
> 
> *Marnie*
> 
> After reading Aaron Peck's takedown of the video transfer on highdefdigest, I was expecting the worst. I'm happy to report that he is way off. This looks gorgeous. Yes, this is not one for grain-haters. But grain-likers will find lots to like here. Film grain is lush and consistent, getting heavy in a few shots but never looking artificial. There is about a 3 minute stretch of the climax of the film that suffers from severe softness, but it looks as if it's intentional, not a product of tinkering. Detail tends towards the excellent almost throughout, with good faces, nice cloth and foliage, and no moire/ee/dnr to speak of. Color is stout and pleasing. Blacks are consistent but not ultra-deep. All in all, solidly above average for a 35mm transfer from the mid-60s.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.5*



I'm still wildly unsure that what we see on the screen is normal film grain, especially because this thick grain stops just in a snap for the last 15 minutes or so, right at a scene change, at a chapter change.

I know the movie has most likely been shot using filters, but the look of the BD does not look right at all, and comparing the biggest chunk of the movie VS the last 15 minutes doesn't help the feeling that something is very wrong here. I would, IMO, have lots of issues giving it a high rank, though it's not Frenzy (aka "The DNR Frenzy"), nor Family "SD" Plot.


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tenia54*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21000#post_24200609
> 
> 
> I'm still wildly unsure that what we see on the screen is normal film grain, especially because this thick grain stops just in a snap for the last 15 minutes or so, right at a scene change, at a chapter change.
> 
> I know the movie has most likely been shot using filters, but the look of the BD does not look right at all, and comparing the biggest chunk of the movie VS the last 15 minutes doesn't help the feeling that something is very wrong here. I would, IMO, have lots of issues giving it a high rank, though it's not Frenzy (aka "The DNR Frenzy"), nor Family "SD" Plot.



I'm going to give it another look very soon, since almost everyone but me seems to hate it. I watched it from normal distance and got up 2 or 3 times for close inspection. Maybe I got up at the wrong times, but with a few exceptions, the grain looked natural to me.


UPDATE


Yeah, I still feel the same way about it. The grain is heavy to be sure, and it looks a tad digital in spots. But the detail is strong and the colors are nice. This isn't top shelf, but it is a pleasing watch in my book.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

This doesn't apply directly to Blu-ray but murmurings of the next 4K format at the CES show are circulating. David Susilo, a member of this forum, is reporting on seeing DarbeeVision running their patented visual processing on true 4K material. Supposedly the results are out of this world. While it sounds like the tech won't be immediately coming out, the bleeding-edge is starting to leave Blu-ray behind.

http://davidsusilouncensored.wordpress.com/2014/01/13/darbee-shows-4k-process-at-ces2014/


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21000#post_24204081
> 
> 
> This doesn't apply directly to Blu-ray but murmurings of the next 4K format at the CES show are circulating. David Susilo, a member of this forum, is reporting on seeing DarbeeVision running their patented visual processing on true 4K material. Supposedly the results are out of this world. While it sounds like the tech won't be immediately coming out, the bleeding-edge is starting to leave Blu-ray behind.
> 
> http://davidsusilouncensored.wordpress.com/2014/01/13/darbee-shows-4k-process-at-ces2014/



I read about this on one of the CES 2014 Threads. I believe they were running it on the new Vizio Reference Series 120" LED UHD tv. Scott Wilkinson and others are praising both Vizio's new Reference Series and the DarbeeVision. Vizio also has a 65" set in the Reference Series and both sets should be in the market place in the latter half of this year. Personally, I wish Vizio had made an 84" instead of the 120". That would have been much more "consumer-friendly," both in size and price, and with Vizio being so competitive it would have given LG, Samsung, Sony, and Toshiba some stiff competition with their 84" UHD sets.


----------



## djoberg

Here's a link to Scott Wilkinson's thread on the new Vizio Reference Series UHD tvs:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1511154/vizio-reference-series-uhdtvs-at-ces-2014#post_24193658 


As you can see, Scott is really excited. I've followed Scott's observations on new technology for quite some time and I enjoy his *objective* findings. He had a lot of good input at the latest Flat Panel Shootout. What makes me really curious about Vizio's new Reference Series is the technology they have put into this. For a company that's been known for low to mid quality tvs this is a tremendous LEAP for them. You know I'm a BIG plasma fan, but from the sounds of it these tvs may compete very well with plasmas. The only area that hasn't been addressed though is the off-axis viewing. It still sounds like that may be an issue, though some are saying it's not nearly as bad as in previous LED sets.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20970#post_24189358
> 
> 
> It came out on the very last day of 2013...
> 
> *Ninja II: Shadow of a Tear*
> 
> *recommendation: Tier 0* (top quarter)*
> 
> 
> Filmed on the RED Epic camera and given a completely unfiltered, unprocessed digital grading, _Ninja II_ is the best live-action picture quality I saw on Blu-ray in 2013. Insane levels of detail, presented in a razor-sharp presentation that exudes depth and dimensionality. I do think _Monsters University_ is the undisputed champion of 2013, but it can't get much better than _Ninja II_. A really fun movie that looked like it had a much bigger budget than it actually did in reality. I thought it easily bested both _Pacific Rim_ and _Kick-Ass 2_, which both show heavy amounts of CGI and digital composites, softening the picture at times.




Excellent!







I actually bought this title earlier today from Amazon based off a STRONG rec in the bass thread. Seeing your review that the PQ is stellar as well has me even more excited to check this out.







Thanks for the review.


----------



## audiofan1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21000_40#post_24205877
> 
> 
> Excellent!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually bought this title earlier today from Amazon based off a STRONG rec in the bass thread. Seeing your review that the PQ is stellar as well has me even more excited to check this out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the review.



Now I have to get it







post back Toe a.s.a.p if possible, so I can get an order in for the weekend


----------



## audiofan1




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21000_40#post_24205877
> 
> 
> Excellent!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually bought this title earlier today from Amazon based off a STRONG rec in the bass thread. Seeing your review that the PQ is stellar as well has me even more excited to check this out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the review.



I just tried to put Ninja in the Netflix que and did a search on Ninja 2 and noticed its available for streaming I may give it a go since Netflix SuperHD looks impressive via my Oppo105, I'll post the results


----------



## Toe

Hey Audiofan, curious to hear your thoughts on the A/V once you watch this.







I will post what I think later this week on both these movies when I get them.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^


I just succumbed to all the peer pressure and ordered _Ninja 2_ through Amazon Prime. I'm not the biggest fan of Ninja flicks but I just can't pass up a good demo disc and this sounds like it may fit nicely near the top of my demo shelf.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21000#post_24207128
> 
> 
> ^^^^^^
> 
> 
> I just succumbed to all the peer pressure and ordered _Ninja 2_ through Amazon Prime. I'm not the biggest fan of Ninja flicks but I just can't pass up a good demo disc and this sounds like it may fit nicely near the top of my demo shelf.













Peer pressure got the best of me as well!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

It's a pure, old-school ninja flick. It might be the most fun I had from a new movie in 2013. The great A/V quality doesn't hurt, either.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21000#post_24207318
> 
> 
> It's a pure, old-school ninja flick. It might be the most fun I had from a new movie in 2013. The great A/V quality doesn't hurt, either.



I am really looking forward to seeing it Phantom. It arrives on Friday.


In an earlier post you had alluded to "DarbeeVision" and then I responded by saying that Scott Wilkinson and others were praising this technology. I was actually confusing "DarbeeVision" with "Dolby Vision," for it was Dolby Vision processing that was used at CES on the new Vizio Reference Series tvs. I'm wondering now what the difference is between these two technologies, for they are both a form processing resulting in enhanced PQ in contrast, colors, black levels, etc. it would seem that one difference is that with Dolby Vision the processing in built into the Vizio Reference tvs, whereas with DarbeeVision you have an external component that plugs into your tv. Are you aware of the differences between these two technologies?


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21000#post_24209571
> 
> 
> In an earlier post you had alluded to "DarbeeVision" and then I responded by saying that Scott Wilkinson and others were praising this technology. I was actually confusing "DarbeeVision" with "Dolby Vision," for it was Dolby Vision processing that was used at CES on the new Vizio Reference Series tvs. I'm wondering now what the difference is between these two technologies, for they are both a form processing resulting in enhanced PQ in contrast, colors, black levels, etc. it would seem that one difference is that with Dolby Vision the processing in built into the Vizio Reference tvs, whereas with DarbeeVision you have an external component that plugs into your tv. Are you aware of the differences between these two technologies?


I am no expert on the field, but I believe they are competing technologies. My understanding is that these companies are taking image-processing algorithms developed for satellite imagery and applying those techniques to video content. I would assume entities like the NSA or U.S. military have spent millions on the technology. Some people swear by the results produced by the DarbeeVision tech, though I imagine all of the display manufacturers will rush to add something like it to their lines.


----------



## rusky_g

*Elysium*


Tonight I had the chance to buy either Elysium or Riddick at my local Supermarket.


Intrigued by the Mastered in 4K phenomenon whilst being simultaneously aware that its not the full '4K' experience, I chose Elysium.


Upon my return home I popped the disc in with the intention of a quick spin. I would note that my expectation had been lowered by Djobergs Tier 2 rating, however the quick spin ended up being a lot more for I was immediately floored and continually sucked in by this high def experience.


From the opening scene the level of depth and both near and far distant detail was astounding. Contrast is vibrant and I devoured the colour palette used in both Earth and Elysium contexts. I was glued to the screen with delight.


I can only go with the gut feeling that I was left with and as such, for me, Elysium deserves to be up in orbit and among the stars.....

*Tier 0.5*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21000#post_24211078
> 
> *Elysium*
> 
> 
> Tonight I had the chance to buy either Elysium or Riddick at my local Supermarket.
> 
> 
> Intrigued by the Mastered in 4K phenomenon whilst being simultaneously aware that its not the full '4K' experience, I chose Elysium.
> 
> 
> Upon my return home I popped the disc in with the intention of a quick spin. I would note that my expectation had been lowered by Djobergs Tier 2 rating, however the quick spin ended up being a lot more for I was immediately floored and continually sucked in by this high def experience.
> 
> 
> From the opening scene the level of depth and both near and far distant detail was astounding. Contrast is vibrant and I devoured the colour palette used in both Earth and Elysium contexts. I was glued to the screen with delight.
> 
> 
> I can only go with the gut feeling that I was left with and as such, for me, Elysium deserves to be up in orbit and among the stars.....
> 
> *Tier 0.5*



I guess my "Most Generous Rater" days are over.....officially!!










Seriously though, I was really letdown by the drab color palette (on Earth) and the other *negatives* that I mentioned in my review. All the more power to you though for having the opposite viewing experience.







Now I'm really curious to see what others have to say about this Blu.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Pillow Talk (digibook)


recommendation: Tier 2.5**


Universal needs to learn to lay off the edge enhancement. If not for a film transfer laden with copious ringing and halos, this would be a stunning Cinemascope BD. The raw film scan looks incredible, revealing the natural sharpness of the cinematography in perfect clarity. What compensates for the extra processing is one of the best color-timed prints I've seen on Blu-ray for a movie shot in Cinemascope. The color saturation is exquisite, backed by inky black levels and a great contrast. We are talking attributes that touch Tier One in quality.


A touch of DNR is added for good measure, though it's hardly noticeable past the opening reel and doesn't significantly alter the film's inherent grain structure. The original film elements are in immaculate condition, completely free of wear and tear. The picture really looks quite good if one ignores the thick halos.


Universal gave the AVC video encode very healthy compression parameters, rendering the entire movie without artifacts and replicating everything from the film source in perfect detail. The movie really does look good in Hi-Def with added detail and definition. An easy recommendation for fans of Doris Day or Rock Hudson.


----------



## rusky_g




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21000#post_24211641
> 
> 
> I guess my "Most Generous Rater" days are over.....officially!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously though, I was really letdown by the drab color palette (on Earth) and the other *negatives* that I mentioned in my review. All the more power to you though for having the opposite viewing experience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now I'm really curious to see what others have to say about this Blu.



The colours may have been drab but the image remained dimensional to me. Couldn't be nothing less than top tier.


I have Spiderman 2 Mastered in 4K on the way so we shall see how that fares......reviews are mixed


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21000#post_24213083
> 
> 
> The colours may have been drab but the image remained dimensional to me. Couldn't be nothing less than top tier.
> 
> 
> I have Spiderman 2 Mastered in 4K on the way so we shall see how that fares......reviews are mixed



Besides drab colors, there were some soft shots, shaky camera work, and gritty scenes (all of these negative issues took place in the Earth scenes). I would respectfully disagree with you regarding this being "nothing less than top tier," for IMHO this is easily a "non-demo disc."


----------



## rusky_g

I


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21030#post_24213555
> 
> 
> Besides drab colors, there were some soft shots, shaky camera work, and gritty scenes (all of these negative issues took place in the Earth scenes). I have respectfully disagree with yo regarding this being "nothing less than top tier," for IMHO this is easily a "non-demo disc."



Would you say The Lone Ranger had a drab palette?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21030#post_24213919
> 
> 
> I
> 
> Would you say The Lone Ranger had a drab palette?



No. It had a "bleached" look, which means the colors weren't as vibrant as they might have been. But at least there were some defining colors in contrast to the "black/white/gray" color palette in the Earth scenes in _Elysium_. Again, if not for the SOFTNESS and GRITTINESS and SHAKY CAM I would have been able to overlook the drab color palette.


----------



## fredxr2d2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21030#post_24214242
> 
> 
> No. It had a "bleached" look, which means the colors weren't as vibrant as they might have been. But at least there were some defining colors in contrast to the "black/white/gray" color palette in the Earth scenes in _Elysium_. Again, if not for the SOFTNESS and GRITTINESS and SHAKY CAM I would have been able to overlook the drab color palette.



I think that Elysium deserves a bottom of Tier 1 rating. You're right about the colors being drab, but not overly more than most films these days (and on purpose...by that measure Sin City should be Tier 4: if you know what I mean). However, shots were consistently sharp to my eyes and the movie delivered a strong "recent sci-fi film" presence for looks.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fredxr2d2*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21030#post_24214989
> 
> 
> I think that Elysium deserves a bottom of Tier 1 rating. You're right about the colors being drab, but not overly more than most films these days (and on purpose...by that measure Sin City should be Tier 4: if you know what I mean). However, shots were consistently sharp to my eyes and the movie delivered a strong "recent sci-fi film" presence for looks.



I recommended Tier 2.0, so we are VERY CLOSE in our final judgment.


You mentioned that "shots were consistently sharp." Did you think all the CGI shots were sharp? That's where I saw SOFTNESS creeping in. Also,I thought some shots were quite *gritty*. And how about the infamous "shaky cam" during parts of the first half...didn't they bother you?


It's been awhile since we have *debated* the merits (or lack thereof) of a particular Blu-ray and I personally think this is very healthy. It serves to cause us to really analyze the PQ in light of the criteria set forth for this thread instead of simply saying, "Wow, that looked good" (or, conversely, "Whoa, that looked bad"). This is what sets this thread apart from other threads where one simply "votes" or "gives their opinion" without stating any reasons for their vote/ opinion.


----------



## fredxr2d2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21030#post_24215522
> 
> 
> I recommended Tier 2.0, so we are VERY CLOSE in our final judgment.
> 
> 
> You mentioned that "shots were consistently sharp." Did you think all the CGI shots were sharp? That's where I saw SOFTNESS creeping in. Also,I thought some shots were quite *gritty*. And how about the infamous "shaky cam" during parts of the first half...didn't they bother you?
> 
> 
> It's been awhile since we have *debated* the merits (or lack thereof) of a particular Blu-ray and I personally think this is very healthy. It serves to cause us to really analyze the PQ in light of the criteria set forth for this thread instead of simply saying, "Wow, that looked good" (or, conversely, "Whoa, that looked bad"). This is what sets this thread apart from other threads where one simply "votes" or "gives their opinion" without stating any reasons for their vote/ opinion.



Unfortunately I watched it over Christmas via rental from Netflix, so I'm going by my memory. I don't remember being bothered by anything really. I wouldn't say it was top tier, but it displayed better-than-average picture quality overall for the medium, which is why I would place it in the bottom of Tier 1. I liked District 9 and this film for the same reason: the CGI shots are blended fairly well into the rest of the film and don't overly show their CGI-ness. (Forgive this slightly-off-topic anecdote) I remember when I watched the first GI Joe right after seeing District 9 and was amazed by the fact that GI Joe looked totally fake while District 9 looked gritty and more real -- and I was also amazed that District 9 did that with a tenth of the budget (or less). So Elysium maintained that high-quality of integration in a fairly over-saturated field of CGI movies and I appreciated that and don't think that the picture quality suffered from it. If PQ is a matter of comparison, then we must take into account how often things look overly-fake when they are CGI and those times when films do a good job of integration.


----------



## rusky_g

*Riddick*


Technically not much wrong. Strong detail and blacks sit amongst a highly stylised colour scheme, that being the dominant golden hues of Riddicks barren landscape. Other colours seldom got to shine outside of the internal shots which I much preferred.


Decent but not quite my cup of tea...

*Tier 1.75*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21030#post_24217785
> 
> *Riddick*
> 
> 
> Technically not much wrong. Strong detail and blacks sit amongst a highly stylised colour scheme, that being the dominant golden hues of Riddicks barren landscape. Other colours seldom got to shine outside of the internal shots which I much preferred.
> 
> 
> Decent but not quite my cup of tea...
> 
> *Tier 1.75*



We are in a blizzard right now or I'd go and rent this. I've heard the blacks and shadow details are insanely good and that's my favorite EYE CANDY! Sorry to read about those pesky golden hues though; will directors ever get over their love affair with color-grading?


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21030#post_24221196
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21030#post_24217785
> 
> *Riddick*
> 
> 
> Technically not much wrong. Strong detail and blacks sit amongst a highly stylised colour scheme, that being the dominant golden hues of Riddicks barren landscape. Other colours seldom got to shine outside of the internal shots which I much preferred.
> 
> 
> Decent but not quite my cup of tea...
> 
> *Tier 1.75*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are in a blizzard right now or I'd go and rent this. I've heard the blacks and shadow details are insanely good and that's my favorite EYE CANDY! Sorry to read about those pesky golden hues though; will directors ever get over their love affair with color-grading?
Click to expand...

I'll wait for the review to go up, but the remake of _Carrie_ has some of the ugliest color-correction I've seen from a new studio release in some time. I guess the director was aiming for more atmosphere, but the picture quality greatly suffers due to the color grading.

*Twenty Feet From Stardom


recommendation: Tier 1.75**


This is a new documentary about legendary back-up singers from the Classic Rock era. The interviews and talking heads are all shot in pristine digital clarity, easily the caliber of Tier One. The vintage footage and archival concert material is in less than perfect shape, dragging the overall score down a bit. Featuring classic television appearances by such acts as Ray Charles and David Bowie, the dated footage likely looks about as good as it can.


It's always difficult assigning one score to represent a feature of this type, but most of it clearly deserves Tier One. In fact, the interviews look as good as anything I've seen from modern video of this type.


----------



## rusky_g

Hey Denny


I was aware that Riddick had a specific colour scheme but 5 chapters in the golden hues were getting tiresome! Things started to perk up for me during the scenes inside which looked great and yes you will enjoy the blacks! As a film I found Riddick annoying and some of the special effects were laughable.


Definitely let me know your thoughts....


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21030#post_24221711
> 
> 
> Hey Denny
> 
> 
> I was aware that Riddick had a specific colour scheme but 5 chapters in the golden hues were getting tiresome! Things started to perk up for me during the scenes inside which looked great and yes you will enjoy the blacks! As a film I found Riddick annoying and some of the special effects were laughable.
> 
> 
> Definitely let me know your thoughts....



Again, I'm just looking forward to the "dark" scenes and to the interior scenes you referred to. My copy of _Ninja 2_ was just dropped off by UPS (I could hardly believe they were out for delivery in this raging blizzard!) so I'll be watching that before I go rent _Riddick_, which may not be until Saturday...or later.


----------



## fredxr2d2

*The Lone Ranger


Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.0*


While the colors are muted, "bleached," or whatever you may want to call them, the overall picture clarity and refinement seemed to indicate to me that this was a superlative offering from Disney and deserves to be recognized as such (I'd argue that taking this movie further down the list would warrant other moves, i.e. Sin City, for similar digital color correction sins). Facial details are there in spades, as well as wonderful textures in vistas and trains (gotta love some good train action). Johnny Depp's facial makeup made good use of the extra detail and tried to hide the blatant white-washing of the Tonto role.


Overall, this was a wonderful-looking blu-ray that deserves respect for it's visual sharpness, even if the movie wasn't the best you've ever seen (though, not as bad as critics might make it seem).


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fredxr2d2*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21030#post_24225588
> 
> *The Lone Ranger
> 
> 
> Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.0*
> 
> 
> While the colors are muted, "bleached," or whatever you may want to call them, the overall picture clarity and refinement seemed to indicate to me that this was a superlative offering from Disney and deserves to be recognized as such (I'd argue that taking this movie further down the list would warrant other moves, i.e. Sin City, for similar digital color correction sins). Facial details are there in spades, as well as wonderful textures in vistas and trains (gotta love some good train action). Johnny Depp's facial makeup made good use of the extra detail and tried to hide the blatant white-washing of the Tonto role.
> 
> 
> Overall, this was a wonderful-looking blu-ray that deserves respect for it's visual sharpness, even if the movie wasn't the best you've ever seen (though, not as bad as critics might make it seem).



Thanks for the good review! I concur with your thoughts wholeheartedly!!


----------



## rusky_g

Great review I agree!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

How is _Riddick_ as a movie? Is it worth a blind buy for someone that mildly liked prior entries in the series?


----------



## rusky_g




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21030#post_24226467
> 
> 
> How is _Riddick_ as a movie? Is it worth a blind buy for someone that mildly liked prior entries in the series?



First Riddick film I have seen (which probably doesn't help) - at some points I wondered if it was a comedy? Pretty awful IMO.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21030#post_24226597
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21030#post_24226467
> 
> 
> How is _Riddick_ as a movie? Is it worth a blind buy for someone that mildly liked prior entries in the series?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First Riddick film I have seen (which probably doesn't help) - at some points I wondered if it was a comedy? Pretty awful IMO.
Click to expand...

A comedy? _Pitch Black_, the movie that kicked the franchise off, was a fairly serious action-horror vehicle.







I think I might wait until it drops in price a bit.


----------



## LexInVA

If you want another Riddick movie, buy the latest on Blu or buy the collection package with all three movies, now. Otherwise, it ends with Riddick.


----------



## |Tch0rT|

It's not a comedy but if you can't get into the suspension of disbelief with it I suppose one could say that... I liked Riddick (saw it in the theaters, not the extended cut... yet), it's not quite as good as the first one though it's more like that one than Chronicles of Riddick. It's better than CoR IMO.


----------



## djoberg

*Ninja 2: Shadow of a Tear*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20970#post_24189358
> 
> 
> *Ninja II: Shadow of a Tear*
> 
> *recommendation: Tier 0* (top quarter)*
> 
> 
> Filmed on the RED Epic camera and given a completely unfiltered, unprocessed digital grading, _Ninja II_ is the best live-action picture quality I saw on Blu-ray in 2013. Insane levels of detail, presented in a razor-sharp presentation that exudes depth and dimensionality. I do think _Monsters University_ is the undisputed champion of 2013, but it can't get much better than _Ninja II_. A really fun movie that looked like it had a much bigger budget than it actually did in reality. I thought it easily bested both _Pacific Rim_ and _Kick-Ass 2_, which both show heavy amounts of CGI and digital composites, softening the picture at times.



Oh yeah, this was a stunner, to be sure!! I like Phantom's description, "Insane levels of details, presented in a razor-sharp presentation that exudes depth and dimensionality." Truer words were never spoken!







Let me add that the black levels and shadow details were mesmerizing, as were the colors and flesh tones.


If I had anything negative to say, it would be two scenes where it was a tad soft (I believe the first one was at approximately the 28 minute mark and the last during the final fight scene. But this is nitpicking considering the stellar sharpness and clarity that abounded through 98% of its 90 minute running time. Before I give this a precise placement recommendation, I want to view _Life of Pi_ and _The Thin Red Line_ again, but I can easily nominate this right now for the "top quarter" of Tier Blu (as Phantom did).

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (Top Quarter)*


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^^


I forgot to add in my review on _Ninja 2_ that the Audio was ROCK SOLID. It really gave my SVS sub a workout, but it held up well and shook my walls off and on for over an hour!! The action in the surrounds was stellar too and the dialogue in the center channel was crisp.


----------



## mweflen

*Shadow of a Doubt*


A 1.33:1 black and white transfer of Hitchcock's "favorite" of his own films, from 1943. It is a good movie, but it's a mediocre Blu-Ray. The strongest feature of the image is nice contrast and grayscale. Blacks are pretty good. Detail is just so-so, better than DVD but not by enough to consistently "wow" the viewer. Print damage abounds, basically persisting throughout the movie, whenever you look for it. There were vertical lines, what looked like mold foxing or maybe some light decay of the film stock, and some white pops in the image. Film grain is there, but is not finely resolved. DNR and EE don't seem to be a problem, on the plus side. Basically, this one is not worth much as demo material.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.75*


----------



## MSchu18

^ hey... it's the best version we have


----------



## rusky_g

*Fast and Furious (2009)*


The 4th in the series just to clarify. Pretty much a standard affair: clean and with reasonable detail you'd expect from a modern release. Punchy contrast and with some deep blacks during the night scenes which added to the films gritty edge. Candy colour cars popped nicely also in the night scenes, giving a real flavour of petrol head nightlife. Felt sad seeing Paul Walker and knowing he's no longer here.

*Tier 1.75*


----------



## DarthDoxie


*Platoon* (25th Anniversary Edition)

 

The picture quality on this one is hit-or-miss.  Some of the night scenes are really stunning and others are terrible with washed out blacks and just a general grayness like watching through a veil.  I'm not sure but my guess is the better looking night scenes were done on a sound stage but I thought the whole movie was shot on location.  Most close-ups show nice detail but softness creeps in on a few of those.  Colors generally pop especially in the well lit jungle scenes.

 

Due to the budget limitations of the production, this is probably as good as it's ever going to look.

 

I'm going to put this one just a tick below another mid-80's Vietnam War movie (Full Metal Jacket) because of the wildly inconsistent night scenes.

 

*Recommendation: Tier 3.5**


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21030#post_24228231
> 
> *Ninja 2: Shadow of a Tear*
> 
> Oh yeah, this was a stunner, to be sure!! I like Phantom's description, "Insane levels of details, presented in a razor-sharp presentation that exudes depth and dimensionality." Truer words were never spoken!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me add that the black levels and shadow details were mesmerizing, as were the colors and flesh tones.
> 
> 
> If I had anything negative to say, it would be two scenes where it was a tad soft (I believe the first one was at approximately the 28 minute mark and the last during the final fight scene. But this is nitpicking considering the stellar sharpness and clarity that abounded through 98% of its 90 minute running time. Before I give this a precise placement recommendation, I want to view _Life of Pi_ and _The Thin Red Line_ again, but I can easily nominate this right now for the "top quarter" of Tier Blu (as Phantom did).
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (Top Quarter)*
> 
> 
> Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


*Ninja 2: Shadow of a Tear*



I also watched Ninja 2 (and Ninja 1) last night and very much agree with you and Phantom. WOW. Not often do I view a title that makes it seem like I have upgraded my projector, but this transfer gave me that feeling. The clarity, detail, black levels, etc......was fantastic and one of the best live action titles I have seen on blu ray. Some of those neon light city shots set against the night sky looked incredible on my JVC and really showed off it's awesome native contrast (I am setup near max throw for 1.78 material and iris clamped almost all the way down at -13 which is giving me near max contrast).


I did notice one brief and fleeting moment of softness toward the end as well, but it was hardly worth mentioning in the grand scheme of things and certainly not enough of an issue to dock the score.


Audio was killer on BOTH Ninja 1 and Ninja 2 as well (if anything, Ninja 1 had a bit more LFE as far as quantity and dug slightly deeper, but both were awesome and the same animal basically in this area) and if you are looking for a nice bass fest night, this one/two punch will do the trick.










Thanks for the rec though Phantom and you guys nailed it from my perspective as well.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (Top Quarter)*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21030#post_24230560
> 
> *Ninja 2: Shadow of a Tear*
> 
> 
> Audio was killer on BOTH Ninja 1 and Ninja 2 as well (if anything, Ninja 1 had a bit more LFE as far as quantity and dug slightly deeper, but both were awesome and the same animal basically in this area) and if you are looking for a nice bass fest night, this one/two punch will do the trick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (Top Quarter)*



Thanks for the excellent review Toe! Your comments about the audio of both installments of "Ninja" makes me want to go out and rent _Ninja 1_, which I've never seen. It's hard to imagine the audio having even more LFE and digging deeper. I'm curious as to what you had your volume set at. I had mine on -15 for most of the movie (I did crank it up to -10 for the explosions







) and it was REALLY LOUD! Normally I would have to set it much closer to reference to get that much volume.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21030#post_24230802
> 
> 
> Thanks for the excellent review Toe! Your comments about the audio of both installments of "Ninja" makes me want to go out and rent _Ninja 1_, which I've never seen. It's hard to imagine the audio having even more LFE and digging deeper. I'm curious as to what you had your volume set at. I had mine on -15 for most of the movie (I did crank it up to -10 for the explosions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) and it was REALLY LOUD! Normally I would have to set it much closer to reference to get that much volume.




I was at -1 for both films and it was wild!







I am just guessing there is slightly more extension on part 1 going off what my Buttkickers were doing in particular, and if anything, they went a bit overboard (I still enjoyed it) with how much bass they used in the first film. The second film is basically focused in the 15-40hz range for those bigger moments going off the graphs, so if there is a bit better extension in the first, it is not all that much and not something I would have even noticed with just my subs (my BKs dig a bit deeper than my subs down into the single digits). Otherwise, they are the same animal sound and bass wise to my ears and I would bet the same sound design team and mix guy did both films which is always great to hear (I hate when this changes hands like going from Attack of the Clones to Revenge of the Sith where you can clearly hear a difference in general from one track to the next).


The first film IMO was not as good as the 2nd film, but is worth a rent as a fun HT experience and hell, I even bought a copy off Amazon after watching last night just so I could to both together in the future.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21030#post_24230927
> 
> 
> I was at -1 for both films and it was wild!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am just guessing there is slightly more extension on part 1 going off what my Buttkickers were doing in particular, and if anything, they went a bit overboard (I still enjoyed it) with how much bass they used in the first film. The second film is basically focused in the 15-40hz range for those bigger moments going off the graphs, so if there is a bit better extension in the first, it is not all that much and not something I would have even noticed with just my subs (my BKs dig a bit deeper than my subs down into the single digits). Otherwise, they are the same animal sound and bass wise to my ears and I would bet the same sound design team and mix guy did both films which is always great to hear (I hate when this changes hands like going from Attack of the Clones to Revenge of the Sith where you can clearly hear a difference in general from one track to the next).
> 
> 
> The first film IMO was not as good as the 2nd film, but is worth a rent as a fun HT experience and hell, I even bought a copy off Amazon after watching last night just so I could to both together in the future.



Whoa! -1 for both films!!! I can't imagine how awesome that must have sounded, especially with you having several BIG SVS subs coupled with your Buttkickers! My wife was at home or I may have turned it up to near reference, though again it was REALLY, REALLY LOUD when I cranked it up to -10. My walls and everything on them were shaking so much I don't know that I would have dared to set it at -1.


I have been considering running two subs and my thinking is to buy the SVS PC13 Ultra and keeping the three ports open to match the tuning (of 20 Hz) of my PC12,. But after listening to _Ninja 2_ last night I found myself asking, "Do I really need another sub, and that with more amplification/output than what I have now?" Of course the answer is NO...I don't "need" it, but do I "want" it? The answer to that is YES!! I would love to have even more output and more headroom, which would also help to "smooth things out" across my 13.5' x 27' room.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Bonjour Tristesse


recommendation: Tier 3.25**


Twilight Time licensed _Bonjour Tristesse_ from Sony for release, presumably Sony's team handled the actual transfer of this Cinemascope movie. The film-like transfer is solid, producing a clear improvement in terms of detail and fidelity over SD. I found the black-and-white sections to have cleaner, sharper cinematography than the color material, though the color scenes have some Technicolor pop to them that is quite nice.


The first reel has some unneeded processing, most notably minor EE. On the whole, the film elements are in pleasing condition. Few signs of detritus or film damage mar the stable source, most likely the original camera negative. I wouldn't call it Sony's absolute best catalog work, but it's still a strong effort that preserves the film in fine condition. Some softness is apparent but certain scenes have tremendous focus and definition.


----------



## Inseconds99

When these movies get ranked in the main thread is it only the ones that are linked or if I bought different editions or the 3d based titles would they still be the reference PQ I'm looking for?


For instance Rise of the guardians as 3 different editions. Reg blu-Ray, holiday edition blu-ray and 3d edition blu-ray if I bought the 3d edition and watched it in 2d would i still be watching tier 0 quality or do I only purchased the specific edition linked in the post to get that quality?


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Inseconds99*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21060#post_24237446
> 
> 
> When these movies get ranked in the main thread is it only the ones that are linked or if I bought different editions or the 3d based titles would they still be the reference PQ I'm looking for?
> 
> 
> For instance Rise of the guardians as 3 different editions. Reg blu-Ray, holiday edition blu-ray and 3d edition blu-ray if I bought the 3d edition and watched it in 2d would i still be watching tier 0 quality or do I only purchased the specific edition linked in the post to get that quality?


It's a good question we haven't covered in a long time. I try to include the correctly linked edition for every single disc listed in the Tiers. When you click on _Rise of The Guardians_ in the Picture Quality Tiers, the reviews brought up on CinemaSquid's website will be for the actual edition listed in the Tiers. The good news is that the studios are lazy and rarely create multiple editions with different transfers/video encodes, so most of the time the regular Blu-ray will look identical to the 2-D version found on the 3-D set. We do have a number of alternate editions listed in the Tiers of the same movie. The default assumption for the Tiers is that each disc is the standard American edition. Anything else is specifically listed (foreign country, remasters, box sets, unique, etc).


Unless there are known issues, I wouldn't expect substantial differences between different iterations of a movie. The situation does change a bit for older catalog product, which occasionally receive newly remastered editions. The recent Robocop BD blows away the old one in terms of picture quality. I don't believe it has been ranked yet. Robocop, ranked in Tier 3.75 at the moment, is the original version. When someone ranks the new disc, I'll make sure it's properly notated as the 4K remaster.


When there are qualitative differences between different editions, I try to be specific as possible when naming them. _The Fifth Element_ is a perfect example of this phenomenon. The original BD was from a bad transfer and ranked near the bottom of the list. The remastered edition has a separate entry, noted as the remastered version.


----------



## mweflen

*Saboteur*


1.33:1 black and white transfer of the 1942 Hitchcock movie. Pretty pleasing throughout, with inky blacks, nice contrast generally, and a clean print. Detail is just okay, with only a few standout scenes, and grain isn't terribly impressive (looking a tad digital in spots). It's better than DVD consistently, though, and the lack of print damage sets this above "Shadow of a Doubt" in the same set.
*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*


----------



## fredxr2d2

*Prisoners


Tier Recommendation: Tier 1*


Wow. I wasn't expecting the PQ I got from this movie. It's definitely not the genre I would expect to have such wonderful scenes of beautiful textures and deep blacks. Basically, this only enhanced the great suspense and the amazing acting job done by the two main leads. I'd heartily recommend this movie to anyone who liked suspense (and if you liked Zodiac with Jake Gyllenhaal, you'd like Prisoners with Jake Gyllenhaal because that is what I kept comparing it to while watching it). Also of note: bark. Wow tree bark. I could swear I didn't put trees in the basement, but, low and behold, there they were (plus, without the sappy smell). I recommend this based upon the solid movie and acting, and also based upon the great PQ featured.


EDIT (for clarification): Some softness in middle-range shots made me not place this in Tier 0, though I could see how someone might want to put it there.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*From Beyond


recommendation: Tier 2.25**


Scream Factory licensed this movie from MGM. Apparently the film elements are in flawless condition, the film is in immaculate condition for a catalog release. The best thing about the picture quality is the pitch-perfect color correction, which has not been tampered with to heighten contrast or exaggerate colors. Some moderate DNR has been applied, the high-frequency content is less than one would expect from a film of this vintage. The DNR does not leave any notable artifacts and might actually improve the overall picture quality in this one particular case.


The transfer is entirely free of sharpening. The AVC video encode handles the clean print with ease, replicating the film source without a problem. Definitely one of the better looking BDs that Scream Factory has released in the past year, likely sourced from a high-quality telecine of the original negative.


----------



## Inseconds99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21060#post_24237611
> 
> 
> 
> It's a good question we haven't covered in a long time. I try to include the correctly linked edition for every single disc listed in the Tiers. When you click on *Rise of The Guardians* in the Picture Quality Tiers, the reviews brought up on CinemaSquid's website will be for the actual edition listed in the Tiers. The good news is that the studios are lazy and rarely create multiple editions with different transfers/video encodes, so most of the time the regular Blu-ray will look identical to the 2-D version found on the 3-D set. We do have a number of alternate editions listed in the Tiers of the same movie. The default assumption for the Tiers is that each disc is the standard American edition. Anything else is specifically listed (foreign country, remasters, box sets, unique, etc).
> 
> 
> Unless there are known issues, I wouldn't expect substantial differences between different iterations of a movie. The situation does change a bit for older catalog product, which occasionally receive newly remastered editions. The recent Robocop BD blows away the old one in terms of picture quality. I don't believe it has been ranked yet. Robocop, ranked in Tier 3.75 at the moment, is the original version. When someone ranks the new disc, I'll make sure it's properly notated as the 4K remaster.
> 
> 
> When there are qualitative differences between different editions, I try to be specific as possible when naming them. *The Fifth Element* is a perfect example of this phenomenon. The original BD was from a bad transfer and ranked near the bottom of the list. The remastered edition has a separate entry, noted as the remastered version.


To achieve these levels in picture excellence does one require a specific blu-ray player? I personally own a 65ZT60 and have a PS3/PS4/Xboxone that can all play blu-rays. Which of those players would give me the best PQ on my tv with those tier 0 blu-ray movies? If none of them are good, which blu-ray player would your recommend?

 

I would rather not go with OPPO (I know they're the best), because I have the ability to get any other blu-ray player near cost (Sony, Samsung, LG, Denon, Pioneer Elite, Marantz etc. etc.). I'd like to keep the cost down as I don't watch blu-rays all to often. Normally I am streaming content from Netflix, Apple TV, Vudu.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Inseconds99*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21060#post_24241797
> 
> 
> To achieve these levels in picture excellence does one require a specific blu-ray player? I personally own a 65ZT60 and have a PS3/PS4/Xboxone to play blu-rays on. Which of those would represent those blu-rays on my tv the best? If none of them are good, which blu-ray player would your recommend? I would rather not go with OPPO (I know they're the best), because I have the ability to get any other blu-ray player near cost. (Sony, Samsung, LG, Denon, Pioneer Elite, Marantz). I'd like to keep the cost down as I don't watch blu-rays all to often. Normally I am streaming content from Netflix, Apple TV, Vudu.


No, there is little need to hunt down a specific Blu-ray player in 2014 if all you care about is watching 1080P content from BDs. For practical purposes, every Blu-ray player produces just about the same picture quality for 1080P video content. There are differences for video content at lower resolutions, due to some players having advantages in upscaling SD video.


All of the discs listed in Tier 0 look phenomenal on all brands of machines.


----------



## Inseconds99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21060#post_24241830
> 
> 
> 
> No, there is little need to hunt down a specific Blu-ray player in 2014 if all you care about is watching 1080P content from BDs. For practical purposes, every Blu-ray player produces just about the same picture quality for 1080P video content. There are differences for video content at lower resolutions, due to some players having advantages in upscaling SD video.
> 
> 
> All of the discs listed in Tier 0 look phenomenal on all brands of machines.


Thanks, I appreciate the quick response. I was just reading that some players seem to mess with the picture before it even gets to the tv and therefore you never get the exact picture you were intended to see from the blu-ray disc. The colors are wrong, the picture gets compressed, black get crushed, all things I've read. I don't know how true these things are but they do come from reliable sources. (Cnet, Sound and Vision, HDGuru)


----------



## Phantom Stranger

There are caveats, but most machines with the proper settings work about as well as any other Blu-ray player with sending 1080P video to your display. The wrong settings will affect the picture, often clipping black levels and not passing the PLUGE signal. The Sony PS3 still works wonderfully as a videophile BD player for example, if the proper video settings on it are enabled.


----------



## Inseconds99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21060#post_24241878
> 
> 
> There are caveats, but most machines with the proper settings work about as well as any other Blu-ray player with sending 1080P video to your display. The wrong settings will affect the picture, often clipping black levels and not passing the PLUGE signal. The Sony PS3 still works wonderfully as a videophile BD player for example, if the proper video settings on it are enabled.


Excellent, anyway you can direct me to what settings those should be? Also, my 65ZT60 only has 3 HDMI inputs and the player will be running through a hdmi switcher. Any reason why I should hook up the blu-ray directly to the tv? Will the switcher affect PQ, Input Lag, 3D Crosstalk ect ect? This is the switch I have  http://www.bestbuy.com/site/4-port-hdmi-selector/2947005.p?id=1218365975397&skuId=2947005&st=rocketfish%20hdmi&cp=1&lp=9


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Inseconds99*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21060#post_24241933
> 
> 
> Excellent, anyway you can direct me to what settings those should be? Also, my 65ZT60 only has 3 HDMI inputs and the player will be running through a hdmi switcher. Any reason why I should hook up the blu-ray directly to the tv? Will the switcher affect PQ, Input Lag, 3D Crosstalk ect ect? This is the switch I have  http://www.bestbuy.com/site/4-port-hdmi-selector/2947005.p?id=1218365975397&skuId=2947005&st=rocketfish%20hdmi&cp=1&lp=9



Look for anything your player labels as an "enhancement" and turn it OFF. For instance, I have a Sony A/V receiver that also plays discs (I don't use it, I use my Panasonic DMP-BD60 instead, primarily because it lacks such "features"...). It has a bunch of settings enabled by default that "smooth grain" and "enhance contrast" and other such nonsense. Basically, all these sorts of routines do is introduce artifacts or crush blacks by manipulating an image that doesn't need to be manipulated.


What you want is an untouched signal from your BD player to your TV with no scaling, smoothing, manipulation, whatever. You want to see exactly the 2,073,600 pixels that are encoded on the disc displayed on the 2,073,600 pixels of your display.


I cannot speak to the switcher question.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Inseconds99*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21060#post_24241933
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21060#post_24241878
> 
> 
> There are caveats, but most machines with the proper settings work about as well as any other Blu-ray player with sending 1080P video to your display. The wrong settings will affect the picture, often clipping black levels and not passing the PLUGE signal. The Sony PS3 still works wonderfully as a videophile BD player for example, if the proper video settings on it are enabled.
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent, anyway you can direct me to what settings those should be? Also, my 65ZT60 only has 3 HDMI inputs and the player will be running through a hdmi switcher. Any reason why I should hook up the blu-ray directly to the tv? Will the switcher affect PQ, Input Lag, 3D Crosstalk ect ect? This is the switch I have  http://www.bestbuy.com/site/4-port-hdmi-selector/2947005.p?id=1218365975397&skuId=2947005&st=rocketfish%20hdmi&cp=1&lp=9
Click to expand...

Mweflen offers excellent advice, turning off the enhancements offered by most players is a great first step towards ensuring quality Blu-ray playback. You might want to look into calibrating your player and display, using a disc like this:

http://amzn.com/B00CKWI13O 


That type of disc works very well in getting the most out of Blu-rays and other video content.


I don't think the switcher will affect picture quality if it works properly. It might affect lag, but that would be an issue more important to videogamers than Blu-ray watchers. Someone with more experience in using switchers will have to help you there.


----------



## djoberg

*Captain Phillips*


Another *decent* outing from Sony, but not the EYE CANDY that other recent releases from them have offered. Where this Blu really stands out is in the many facial close-ups, with finely-rendered texture across the board. The last shot of Hanks is perhaps the best example of this; in fact, that scene was the best all the way around. Colors were very "natural-looking," not punchy, but warm (in some scenes they came across as muted, though not due to color-grading). Flesh tones were excellent. Contrast was good, but at times it was too strong in daytime scenes (giving it a "washed-out" look) and definitely too weak in many dark interior scenes (most notably, the majority of shots in the engine room after it was powered down and those in the lifeboat). These shots were the most disappointing of all, with very murky blacks and a heavy grain structure that resulted in a lack of details and softness. Depth could be very good, with the exception of the dark interior shots just alluded to. Daytime shots of the ships and boats, along with the ocean and clear blue sky, were very pleasing to the eyes.


In trying to reach a placement recommendation, one has to "average things out," (which is always the case when you have such inconsistency in PQ). Most daytime shots, especially those filmed outside, were good enough to call "demo" (not "reference," mind you), but the MANY dark interior shots (and even nighttime shots outside in the last few scenes) ranged from Tier 2 through Tier 4. The *experts* that have weighed in on Cinema Squid's site are singing its praises and giving it scores of 80-100 for PQ, with no one referring to or commenting on the poor black levels in the dark interior shots. I'm most definitely going against that Conventional Wisdom, for my vote goes for....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.5**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## rusky_g

Excellent review Dj! I suspect my thoughts will be similar when I review this..


----------



## djoberg

*Riddick*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21030#post_24217785
> 
> *Riddick*
> 
> 
> Technically not much wrong. Strong detail and blacks sit amongst a highly stylised colour scheme, that being the dominant golden hues of Riddicks barren landscape. Other colours seldom got to shine outside of the internal shots which I much preferred.
> 
> 
> Decent but not quite my cup of tea...
> 
> *Tier 1.75*



I can't argue with anything rusky_g said in his review (it's "spot-on"). Strong details and blacks won the day! But let me add that DEPTH was also outstanding. And in addition to the excellent black levels the shadow details were phenomenal (some of the best I've seen in a very long time). Yes, this did indeed have "a highly stylized color scheme," but my logic has always dictated that if it's taking place on ANOTHER PLANET who can argue the point that "it shouldn't look that way." Maybe on Riddick's planet the sun does bathe the landscape with pure gold!!







And I've also said that I'm not bothered by color-grading that much if it doesn't hinder details, and believe me when I say, "They did NOT hinder details!!"


All things considered, this one is most definitely worthy of my colleague's recommendation (that is, Tier 1), but I would bump it up a few notches.....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## rusky_g

Another sterling summary there. I agree that the golden hues didn't hinder details, I think that after a few chapters into the film I was getting impatient and wanted to see other colours in the mix! I was glad that the internal scenes gave a bit more variety to keep my eyes entertained







certainly not a bad film overall for PQ.


----------



## djoberg

*Prisoners*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fredxr2d2*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21060#post_24238819
> 
> *Prisoners
> 
> 
> Tier Recommendation: Tier 1*
> 
> 
> Wow. I wasn't expecting the PQ I got from this movie. It's definitely not the genre I would expect to have such wonderful scenes of beautiful textures and deep blacks. Basically, this only enhanced the great suspense and the amazing acting job done by the two main leads. I'd heartily recommend this movie to anyone who liked suspense (and if you liked Zodiac with Jake Gyllenhaal, you'd like Prisoners with Jake Gyllenhaal because that is what I kept comparing it to while watching it). Also of note: bark. Wow tree bark. I could swear I didn't put trees in the basement, but, low and behold, there they were (plus, without the sappy smell). I recommend this based upon the solid movie and acting, and also based upon the great PQ featured.
> 
> 
> EDIT (for clarification): Some softness in middle-range shots made me not place this in Tier 0, though I could see how someone might want to put it there.



I pretty much agree with fredxr2d2's assessment. The sharpness/clarity coupled with exquisite details throughout make this an easy contender for the "demo shelf." Facial close-ups were rewarding...even "partial facials" will serve to WOW you (I'm speaking of several shots of one of the "prisoners" where you only get a glimpse of the face which is surrounded by blackness....and the blacks were amazing too). And then there's the BARK (referred to by my colleague)...oh yeah, the director had a fetish for bark in this film and we're treated to several close-ups that may not reveal the age of the tree, but it does reveal the "face of the tree." This had a good deal of depth in certain shots as well, along with good contrast, so-so flesh tones, and a muted color palette (it was really on the cool side, which was fitting for the mood of the film). There were also fleeting soft shots that must figure into the final analysis.


I don't think I can go as high as my peer on this one, but I do see this meriting demo status. I'm inclined to drop it a notch or two....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21060#post_24246756
> 
> 
> Another sterling summary there. I agree that the golden hues didn't hinder details, I think that after a few chapters into the film *I was getting impatient and wanted to see other colours in the mix!* I was glad that the internal scenes gave a bit more variety to keep my eyes entertained
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> certainly not a bad film overall for PQ.



I hear you (see highlighted words)! I too was getting tired of the golden hues, even if was *normal* for Riddick's planet.










I forgot to mention that I did NOT enjoy the movie. I'm with you...it was NOT "my cup of tea."


----------



## LexInVA




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21030#post_24230802
> 
> 
> Thanks for the excellent review Toe! Your comments about the audio of both installments of "Ninja" makes me want to go out and rent _Ninja 1_, which I've never seen. It's hard to imagine the audio having even more LFE and digging deeper. I'm curious as to what you had your volume set at. I had mine on -15 for most of the movie (I did crank it up to -10 for the explosions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) and it was REALLY LOUD! Normally I would have to set it much closer to reference to get that much volume.



Ninja is in the discount Blu-Ray/DVD bins at Walmart for $8. Solid Blu-Ray buy!


----------



## LexInVA




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Inseconds99*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21060#post_24241845
> 
> 
> Thanks, I appreciate the quick response. I was just reading that some players seem to mess with the picture before it even gets to the tv and therefore you never get the exact picture you were intended to see from the blu-ray disc. The colors are wrong, the picture gets compressed, black get crushed, all things I've read. I don't know how true these things are but they do come from reliable sources. (Cnet, Sound and Vision, HDGuru)



Just go into the setup menus and disable any processing setting like noise reduction. Many players also have visual modes for different lighting setups like dark room, living room, etc. Also do the same with your TV.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LexInVA*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21060#post_24248399
> 
> 
> Ninja is in the discount Blu-Ray/DVD bins at Walmart for $8. Solid Blu-Ray buy!



Thanks! I may just pick that up today.


----------



## rusky_g

*Spiderman 2 Mastered in 4K*


Reeling from the Mi4K spectacle that was Elysium, I was keen to explore other titles which heralded this new found badge.


Perhaps I should have should have dug deeper than the initial 5 star review of Spiderman 2 Mi4K, which alluded to it being the pinnacle hi definition experience. After placing my order my heart sank at finding other reviews which were far less favourable.


Nonetheless my copy arrived today and in a nutshell it was met with disappointment. Shocked at the quality of the firts two chapters - blown whites on every facial shot, unbalanced contrast and detail, this took some serious tweaking to get a half decent picture. Things got better by chapter 20/25 (50 in total) and there were some moments of glory to behold - mainly centered around the action scenes, but that early underwhelming sense was hard to shake. As a positive I would say that blacks were well rendered particularly in night scenes but as an Mi4K release I felt underchanged in the fidelity and fine detail department.


Perhaps the remarkable clarity of Elysium had set an unrealistic president, perhaps I had been naively lured into the Mastered in 4K web that Sony has spun...


Tier 2.25


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LexInVA*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21060#post_24248399
> 
> 
> Ninja is in the discount Blu-Ray/DVD bins at Walmart for $8. Solid Blu-Ray buy!





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *LexInVA*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21060#post_24248399
> 
> 
> Ninja is in the discount Blu-Ray/DVD bins at Walmart for $8. Solid Blu-Ray buy!



I just returned home from our local Super Walmart where I spent at least 30 minutes going through the $7.88 Blu-ray bargain bin (I must have looked like a starving homeless man going through a food dumpster







) but my search for _Ninja 1_ was in vain. There must have been at least 100 different titles in there and I ended up getting a good deal on a "double-feature" and the complete collection of _The Prophecy_....not bad....5 discs for only $8! (I must confess that I've never seen any of that collection so it may not be the *steal* that I'm thinking it is.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21060#post_24250873
> 
> 
> I just returned home from our local Super Walmart where I spent at least 30 minutes going through the $7.88 Blu-ray bargain bin (I must have looked like a starving homeless man going through a food dumpster
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) but my search for _Ninja 1_ was in vain. There must have been at least 100 different titles in there and I ended up getting a good deal on a "double-feature" and the complete collection of _The Prophecy_....not bad....5 discs for only $8! (I must confess that I've never seen any of that collection so it may not be the *steal* that I'm thinking it is.


You might want to reconsider on that Prophecy collection and return it. There are a lot of issues with that set, some of the transfers are not much better than upscaled DVD. I like the franchise a great deal but it's a very cheap set for a reason.

The Prophecy with screenshots.

The Prophecy: Forsaken review with screenshots.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21060#post_24250905
> 
> 
> You might want to reconsider on that Prophecy collection and return it. There are a lot of issues with that set, some of the transfers are not much better than upscaled DVD. I like the franchise a great deal but it's a very cheap set for a reason.
> 
> The Prophecy with screenshots.
> 
> The Prophecy: Forsaken review with screenshots.



Thanks Phantom....I will return the set.


----------



## djoberg

*Psycho*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20910#post_24081706
> 
> *Psycho (1960)*
> 
> 
> Well. I was pretty shocked by the placement on the tiers here, but it seems that it is the result of just the one rating above. Here's what I saw:
> 
> 
> Some close-ups show exceptional detail. The average medium shot shows good mid-level detail but nothing particularly fine. There are some nice cloth textures in the first and last thirds of the movie. The middle third, in which Janet Leigh is in the hotel (alive that is) is a bit softer, unfortunately. There is film grain present throughout but it is not particularly finely resolved. As such, it does appear as though some light DNR is in play. EE does not seem apparent, though. Contrast is excellent throughout, with good black levels and no apparent crushing or blooming. Exterior scenes look vibrant and punchy. Certain shots, such as the Bates mansion against the cloudy sky, look fuzzy, probably due to the optical process shots used to create the image. Overall, this is a pleasing watch that is superior to DVD in every way, but is not mind-blowing in terms of HD. Although there are scenes that look sublime, for the most part it's a mediocre Blu-Ray, in the most technical sense of the word.
> 
> *Tier recommendation: 2.75*



He nailed it!! Every point made is right on the mark. I would only add a few remarks to elaborate. I'm not one to easily spot "halos," but I did see a couple instances of these in shots of Janet Leigh. There were also a few fleeting instances of *specks* in earlier scenes, which isn't surprising considering the source. To add a word of praise, I was pleasantly surprised to see the level of detail that I did in some of the facial close-ups...the texture was amazing for a title dating back to 1960. Mweflen was right in drawing attention to the "fuzziness" of the Bates mansion against the cloudy sky, but man was it a joy to see considerable sharpness and clarity in close and midrange shots. I also thought the gray scale was very good. Kudos to all who had a part in the restoration of these classics!!

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## mweflen

^^^^^

Glad we're in agreement










To add something else to the "settings" discussion, AVS has its own free HD calibration disc that can be downloaded and burned onto a regular DVD-R. I've done it myself, and found it useful.

http://www.avsforum.com/t/948496/avs-hd-709-blu-ray-mp4-calibration


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Carrie (2013)


recommendation: Tier 2.5*
*
_Carrie_ looks like a rushed production with obvious digital seams from composites and CGI. The bleached, deadened color palette has some odd color grading issues going on with it, resulting in unusual flesh-tones and a distinct lack of pop. Shot on the Arri Alexa digital camera system, its moderate sharpness appears flat and dull. I think they tried to make Chloe Moretz's hair a more reddish hue in post, which ends up looking completely unnatural.


There are no problems in terms of over processing from DNR, though close-ups are less impressive in fine detail and impact than I've seen from other movies using the Arri Alexa. For a new release in 2013, it's a fairly underwhelming video presentation.


The MGM movie is distributed by Fox, whom does their usual superb effort in minimizing compression problems.


----------



## mweflen

*Notorious*


A 1.37:1 B&W film from 1946, directed by Alfred Hitchcock. Some close-ups shows exquisite detail, particularly one near the end of Ingrid Bergman and Cary Grant embracing. Film grain is present and stable throughout. The black levels mostly stay stable and overall contrast of the image is pleasing with no crushing. All that said, the nature of the way Hitchcock filmed this leads to many image degrading features - lots of optical process shots and rear projection work. So overall there is an inconsistency that plagues the image.The best of this looks tier 2, the worst like DVD. It's quite pleasant about 2/3 of the time. Overall, I think it's in the 3s.
*Tier Recommendation: 3.5*


Overall, the Fox (MGM) Hitchcock Blu-Rays are quite nice, now that I've seen all of them. The lack of overt digital monkeying is quite encouraging, especially when compared to some of Universal's transfers of their Hitchcock catalog. I think they look quite good - full restorations might correct some of the print damage and light blacks, but these probably look about 90% as good as they can, which given the price of the discs is good enough for me.


Also, Ingrid Bergman is beautiful. Just saying.


----------



## mweflen

*Topaz*


A lovely transfer of a 1.85:1 35mm print from 1969. On the bad side, things tend towards slightly edge-enhanced, and some of the whites are given to blooming (especially on crisp white shirts). There are about 2 minutes of substandard-looking scenes, and some documentary footage doesn't look as nice as the stuff shot for the movie. All that said, the strengths of this disc are numerous. Detail is exceptionally good for a movie of this vintage, with wonderful cloth textures, facial detail, bright colors, deep blacks, and just overall a very HD appearance. Film grain is a bit on the chunky side but is stable and not terribly obtrusive (As some felt with Marnie). Overall, this is a truly excellent looking disc and comes in behind only Trouble With Harry, North By NW, and Vertigo in this Hitchcock Masterpiece set.
*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21060#post_24262667
> 
> *Topaz*
> 
> 
> A lovely transfer of a 1.85:1 35mm print from 1969. On the bad side, things tend towards slightly edge-enhanced, and some of the whites are given to blooming (especially on crisp white shirts). There are about 2 minutes of substandard-looking scenes, and some documentary footage doesn't look as nice as the stuff shot for the movie. All that said, the strengths of this disc are numerous. Detail is exceptionally good for a movie of this vintage, with wonderful cloth textures, facial detail, bright colors, deep blacks, and just overall a very HD appearance. Film grain is a bit on the chunky side but is stable and not terribly obtrusive (As some felt with Marnie). Overall, this is a truly excellent looking disc and comes in behind only Trouble With Harry, North By NW, and Vertigo in this Hitchcock Masterpiece set.
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


That's good to hear, Topaz is one of my favorite "lesser" Hitchcock movies. I really need to sit down and take a look at how the transfer turned out.


----------



## mweflen

*Frenzy*


DNR has reduced this to a waxy blob, for the most part. Grain has been mostly washed away, with only a few chunky bits floating around. Colors are fine, black levels are stout, but the overall contrast ratio of the image is rather flat, dull and drab. Whites tend to bloom, and dark scenes show a bit of banding in the shadows. Occasionally, a nice close-up breaks up the smooth monotony of it all.


Mediocre. A real shame, given that the print appears to be in fine shape otherwise. Better than a DVD but not by a whole lot. Definitely in the lower fifth of the Hitchcock Masterpiece set. On to "Family Plot," which is supposed to be the worst of the bunch...

*Tier Recommendation: 3.75*


----------



## rusky_g

Decided to have a go at making a top ten list of my favourite PQ discs:


1 Hugo

2 Pirates of The Caribbean Dead Mans Chest

3 Chronicles of Narnia Prince Caspian

4 The Great Gatsby

5 Hellboy 2

6 Knowing

7 Ghost Rider

8 Hot Fuzz

9 Elysium

10 Pacific Rim


This list may change as I have a bunch of discs on order this week including The Thin Red Line which previously I didnt view in ideal conditions so may review again.


Honourable mentions go to:


Rush Hour 3

Skyfall

National Treausre 2

Inkheart

Tron Legacy

The other POTCs


----------



## DarthDoxie


*Papillon*

 
The film is inconsistent in the first 15 minutes or so with soft and flat shots but after that it settles into a nice viewing.  Blacks and contrast are nice and consistent with sharpness and focus rarely wavering from from a solid 2.0.  Colors show up dull only in a few scenes but overall a nice presentation especially in jungle scenes and Steve McQueen's blue eyes.  Close-ups show nice detail and flesh tones as well.  It's not demo material but is an overall nice presentation.

 

*Recommendation: Tier 2.5**


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21090#post_24267044
> 
> 
> Decided to have a go at making a top ten list of my favourite PQ discs:
> 
> 
> 1 Hugo
> 
> 2 Pirates of The Caribbean Dead Mans Chest
> 
> 3 Chronicles of Narnia Prince Caspian
> 
> 4 The Great Gatsby
> 
> 5 Hellboy 2
> 
> 6 Knowing
> 
> 7 Ghost Rider
> 
> 8 Hot Fuzz
> 
> 9 Elysium
> 
> 10 Pacific Rim
> 
> 
> This list may change as I have a bunch of discs on order this week including The Thin Red Line which previously I didnt view in ideal conditions so may review again.
> 
> 
> Honourable mentions go to:
> 
> 
> Rush Hour 3
> 
> Skyfall
> 
> National Treausre 2
> 
> Inkheart
> 
> Tron Legacy
> 
> The other POTCs


Interesting list with a lot of the usual suspects. Prince Caspian really does look phenomenal at times. I'll have to give Ghost Rider a shot, I don't remember seeing that one on Blu-ray.


Did you see Avatar? That feels like the one serious omission from your list.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21090#post_24268630
> 
> 
> Interesting list with a lot of the usual suspects. Prince Caspian really does look phenomenal at times. I'll have to give Ghost Rider a shot, I don't remember seeing that one on Blu-ray.
> 
> *Did you see Avatar? That feels like the one serious omission from your list.*



And...._Life of Pi_!!


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21090#post_24268738
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21090#post_24268630
> 
> 
> Interesting list with a lot of the usual suspects. Prince Caspian really does look phenomenal at times. I'll have to give Ghost Rider a shot, I don't remember seeing that one on Blu-ray.
> 
> *Did you see Avatar? That feels like the one serious omission from your list.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And...._Life of Pi_!!
Click to expand...

Did you get a chance to watch Discovery Channel's new mini-series this past week, _Klondike_? It starred the guy that plays Robb Stark on _Game of Thrones_ and _Hell on Wheels'_ viewers would probably enjoy it.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21090#post_24268765
> 
> 
> Did you get a chance to watch Discovery Channel's new mini-series this past week, _Klondike_? It starred the guy that plays Robb Stark on _Game of Thrones_ and _Hell on Wheels'_ viewers would probably enjoy it.



No, I missed it! I had meant to DVR it but I forgot to. If they are playing the first episodes over again I will DVR them. Thanks for the heads up though!


----------



## rusky_g

Avatar is fantastic - definitely deserves its place in tier zero but there's other discs I like more - maybe I prefer a certain look


Not seen Life of Pi yet but its on the list


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21090#post_24269170
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21090#post_24268765
> 
> 
> Did you get a chance to watch Discovery Channel's new mini-series this past week, _Klondike_? It starred the guy that plays Robb Stark on _Game of Thrones_ and _Hell on Wheels'_ viewers would probably enjoy it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I missed it! I had meant to DVR it but I forgot to. If they are playing the first episodes over again I will DVR them. Thanks for the heads up though!
Click to expand...

I think it is getting re-aired later this week around Friday, it's probably worth catching on the DVR.


----------



## Inseconds99


Looking to watch the Pirates of the Caribbean movies as I have never saw any of the films. Was looking at some of the Blu-Ray's in the rankings thread and it seems that most of the films are considered to have very good picture quality. I was looking to buy this Pirates box set which seems to give all the films for $34, but it seems like this box set is an import from the UK. Do you think the film quality will be up to par with the American releases or if I want the tier0-1 quality of the films that I should buy the american versions?


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Inseconds99*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21090#post_24269784
> 
> 
> Looking to watch the Pirates of the Caribbean movies as I have never saw any of the films. Was looking at some of the Blu-Ray's in the rankings thread and it seems that most of the films are considered to have very good picture quality. I was looking to buy this  http://www.amazon.com/Pirates-Caribbean-1-4-Box-Blu-ray/dp/B0058H9LZU/ref=tmm_blu_title_0 box set which seems to give all the films for $34, but it seems like this box set is an import from the UK. Do you think the film quality will be up to par with the American releases or if I want the tier0-1 quality of the films that I should buy the american versions?


The video quality should be identical to the American discs, Disney owns the property worldwide. PQ differences usually enter the equation when different distributors own a film's rights in another country.


----------



## Inseconds99


What about this Matrix Trilogy  http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Trilogy-Reloaded-Revolutions-Blu-ray/dp/B001CEE1YE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1390784366&sr=8-1&keywords=the+matrix+trilogy for 19.99 vs the American version  http://www.amazon.com/The-Ultimate-Matrix-Collection-Blu-ray/dp/B000OPPBEQ/ref=pd_cp_mov_0 ?


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Inseconds99*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21090#post_24269818
> 
> 
> What about this Matrix  Trilogy for 19.99 vs the American version?


Once again, the video encodes are 100% identical in that case. Warner Bros. owns _The Matrix_ franchise on a global basis. There are exceptions, but most of the bigger Hollywood blockbusters are owned by one studio across the world and usually share similar video encodes across the globe. There are movies like _Gladiator_ that have a different studio as the international distributor, so there can be differences in that type of situation.


----------



## Inseconds99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21090#post_24269844
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, the video encodes are 100% identical in that case. Warner Bros. owns *The Matrix* franchise on a global basis. There are exceptions, but most of the bigger Hollywood blockbusters are owned by one studio across the world and usually share similar video encodes across the globe. There are movies like *Gladiator* that have a different studio as the international distributor, so there can be differences in that type of situation.


TY so much for your quick responses. These sets are so much cheaper then the american versions so I don't know why anyone wouldn't buy these sets. They are very bare bones but I am only looking for great movies with great picture. Bonus content is not something I put forth any attention to.


----------



## djoberg

*Rear Window*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20820#post_23953881
> 
> *Rear Window*
> 
> 
> There is definitely something digital going on with the grain here. But that said, at least there is grain, so at normal viewing distances this does look like film. Color is excellent, especially for a film of this vintage. Mid level detail is quite nice, but fine detail is soft. Contrast is very good with no real crushing of blacks. All in all, a respectful transfer of a classic film, which ought to please Hitchcock fans who have been suffering with DVDs for a decade.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.5*



For the most part mweflen and I are on the same page, especially regarding colors and mid level details. Close-ups were exemplary in most cases, but long-range shots (around the courtyard) fell a bit flat in some shots with a lack of details. Flesh-tones were one of the greatest offenders and black levels were just so-so. The last scene, with Jimmy Stewart falling off the balcony, was atrocious. Considering the age of the film, I am satisfied, but I felt it wasn't quite as good as a few of the other titles in the "Essentials" collection. All thing considered it still falls into Tier 2, but in the bottom (IMHO)....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21090#post_24269748
> 
> 
> I think it is getting re-aired later this week around Friday, it's probably worth catching on the DVR.



Thanks again Phantom; I will indeed DVR it.


----------



## mweflen

*Family Plot*

Well, it's not good. But I think some of the hyperbole in various internet reviews is a bit overwrought. This is definitely a subpar rush job, created from inferior elements and slathered with DNR/EE in an attempt to make it look presentable. And actually, if you maintain a normal viewing distance, it mostly does. Color is pretty poppy and things appear somewhat detailed. But if you get any closer, you will see clearly artificial.... well, not grain really, because all the grain is gone. It's sort of like a filter on the image, like the "watercolor" effect on a PC image editor. Things are quite inconsistent, and the various standard Hitchcock optical effects come off VERY poorly. Occasionally the weird DNR/EE routine shifts into super-overdrive, creating an image almost comically awful. But realistically, this disc is doing things resolution-wise that a DVD can't.
*Tier Recommendation: 4.0*


So the final tally on the Hitchcock Masterpiece Collection is as follows:


Saboteur *3.0*

Shadow of a Doubt *3.75*

Rope *2.75*

Rear Window *2.5*

The Trouble With Harry *1.0*

The Man Who Knew Too Much *4.0*

Vertigo *2.25*

North By Northwest *2.25*

Psycho *2.75*

The Birds *4.0*

Marnie *2.5*

Torn Curtain *2.75*

Topaz *2.0*

Frenzy *3.75*

Family Plot *4.0*


3 wretched looking movies, 3 mediocre (but likely as good as they can be) ones, 8 quite nice transfers, and 1 stunner. All in all not a terrible batting average for a catalog release set, compared to, say Bond 50 or Star Wars.


----------



## rusky_g

I have the UK Box Set for Pirates of the Caribbean and the picture quality is fantastic


----------



## DarthDoxie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21050_50#post_24246387
> 
> *Captain Phillips*
> 
> 
> Another *decent* outing from Sony, but not the EYE CANDY that other recent releases from them have offered. Where this Blu really stands out is in the many facial close-ups, with finely-rendered texture across the board. The last shot of Hanks is perhaps the best example of this; in fact, that scene was the best all the way around. Colors were very "natural-looking," not punchy, but warm (in some scenes they came across as muted, though not due to color-grading). Flesh tones were excellent. Contrast was good, but at times it was too strong in daytime scenes (giving it a "washed-out" look) and definitely too weak in many dark interior scenes (most notably, the majority of shots in the engine room after it was powered down and those in the lifeboat). These shots were the most disappointing of all, with very murky blacks and a heavy grain structure that resulted in a lack of details and softness. Depth could be very good, with the exception of the dark interior shots just alluded to. Daytime shots of the ships and boats, along with the ocean and clear blue sky, were very pleasing to the eyes.
> 
> 
> In trying to reach a placement recommendation, one has to "average things out," (which is always the case when you have such inconsistency in PQ). Most daytime shots, especially those filmed outside, were good enough to call "demo" (not "reference," mind you), but the MANY dark interior shots (and even nighttime shots outside in the last few scenes) ranged from Tier 2 through Tier 4. The *experts* that have weighed in on Cinema Squid's site are singing its praises and giving it scores of 80-100 for PQ, with no one referring to or commenting on the poor black levels in the dark interior shots. I'm most definitely going against that Conventional Wisdom, for my vote goes for....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.5**


*Captain Phillips*

 
Agreed on all points, most notably the black levels and heavy grain in some of the engine room and lifeboat scenes, pretty disappointing.  Some of the dark shots are very nice so the inconsistency is puzzling.  All other aspects of color, flesh tones, sharpness and contrast are excellent.  Sharpness stands out in my mind as I really can't remember any soft shots in the well lit scenes.  I'm not going to knock it as hard on the dark scenes so I'm putting it at 2.0. 

 

*Recommendation: Tier 2.0**


----------



## rusky_g

*The Great Gatsby*


A mesmerising fairy tale painted in resplendent colour and contrast. More than a few times I gasped at how beatifully crafted some shots were, namely most of those around Gatsby's residence, the party scenes being a particular high point. Blacks and shadow contrast were exquisite. I could only fault a handful of softer facial shots but that would be like buying a Rolls Royce and criticising the tyre tread.


Utterly fabulous and the sugar rush that Djoberg promised.

*Tier 0.75*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21090#post_24274077
> 
> *The Great Gatsby*
> 
> 
> A mesmerising fairy tale painted in resplendent colour and contrast. More than a few times I gasped at how beatifully crafted some shots were, namely most of those around Gatsby's residence, the party scenes being a particular high point. Blacks and shadow contrast were exquisite. I could only fault a handful of softer facial shots but that would be like buying a Rolls Royce and criticising the tyre tread.
> 
> 
> Utterly fabulous and the sugar rush that Djoberg promised.
> 
> *Tier 0.75*



Ditto!


How did you like the movie? I thought it was good. I also thought Leo's acting was "par for the course," which means I thought it was "excellent." He's underrated by many today...I personally think he's one of the best male actors of our day...not the BEST, but VERY GOOD.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Leave Her To Heaven


recommendation: Tier 1.75*
*

Shazam! Gene Tierney in beautiful Technicolor, need I say more? I honestly wonder how Twilight Time ended up licensing this stunning film transfer from Twentieth Century Fox. Twilight Time's BD looks better than most of the older movies put out by Fox itself. This disc represents one of the few films from the 1940s I've seen on Blu-ray to actually merit Tier One. The film elements are in excellent condition, though a touch inconsistent in maximum color fidelity and sharpness.


The transfer is definitely film-like and an immense improvement over DVD in every possible way. It is almost certainly derived from a recent film scan made in the Blu-ray era, producing excellent detail and resounding clarity. The 1945 movie appears to have received some level of film restoration, including a dynamite opening reel that looks as good as any vintage Technicolor movie has looked on the format. The faintest hint of edge enhancement in a few select scenes are the only noticeable moments of undue processing, Fox has left the film's natural cinematography and grain structure completely intact.


If not for some mild softness in a few scenes and traces of chroma noise in the otherwise sparkling AVC video encode, I was sorely tempted to rank it higher. There are certainly entire scenes in the film which could be placed higher in the PQ Tiers. Twilight Time has delivered a real winner in this limited edition and gets an unqualified endorsement. I don't think all of their releases have justified Twilight Time's higher pricing, but _Leave Her To Heaven_ on Blu-ray is worth every penny. A magnificent Technicolor transfer with rich colors, properly presented in its original 4:3 aspect ratio.


Get it now before the limited edition sells out.


----------



## rusky_g

Denny we thought the film was great, very sad at the end. Agree that Leo nailed the role, perfect casting and yes one of the best around.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21090#post_24274253
> 
> 
> Ditto!
> 
> 
> How did you like the movie? I thought it was good. I also thought Leo's acting was "par for the course," which means I thought it was "excellent." He's underrated by many today...I personally think he's one of the best male actors of our day...not the BEST, but VERY GOOD.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DarthDoxie*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21090#post_24271614
> 
> 
> 
> *Captain Phillips*
> 
> 
> Agreed on all points, most notably the black levels and heavy grain in some of the engine room and lifeboat scenes, pretty disappointing.  Some of the dark shots are very nice so the inconsistency is puzzling.  All other aspects of color, flesh tones, sharpness and contrast are excellent.  Sharpness stands out in my mind as I really can't remember any soft shots in the well lit scenes.  I'm not going to knock it as hard on the dark scenes so I'm putting it at 2.0.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 2.0**



I *may* have been a little harsh by recommending 2.5, but some of those dark, interior scenes (in the engine room and lifeboat) and nighttime scenes at the end were pretty bad. I won't be disappointed though if it ends up at 2.0, just as long as it doesn't end up in one of the two top tiers.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21090#post_24276044
> 
> 
> Denny we thought the film was great, very sad at the end. Agree that Leo nailed the role, perfect casting and yes one of the best around.



Hey Russ...it was indeed a sad ending.


In thinking more on Leo's roles in various films, one has to admit he has come a very long way since _What's Eating Gilbert Grape_, though when I first saw that I predicted he was going to be great.


----------



## mweflen

*The Great Gatsby*


Your tolerance for this will be dictated by how tolerant you are of clearly digital backdrops and highly stylized color palettes. This is sort of like "Speed Racer" but with a period romance. Color is riotous, detail is consistently superb. No aliasing, mosquito noise, or posterization is evident. Alas, like every Red Epic production I've seen, black levels don't reach the tremendous depths of the Arri Alexa or of good film stock. As such, I do think this is tier 0, but somewhere near the bottom.

*Tier Recommendation: 0, right above "The Hobbit"*


I enjoyed the movie and thought the actors were quite good, DiCaprio included. I do think Carey Mulligan wasn't photographed or made up very well. I've found her much more physically alluring in other movies, such as "Drive" or "An Education."


----------



## rusky_g

Great review M!


In other news.....


I mentioned previously that I would be giving The Thin Red Line a re-review (my initial viewing was at a friends and not in ideal conditions)


My copy turned up in the week and I put the disc on last night - I was underwhelmed to say the least.


Yes the picture was clear and free of issues but I wasn't seeing the spectacular detail, depth and contrast which almost all reviews have praised.


It then occurred that I have the UK Fox version whereas much of the info on here relates to the US Criterion version which has accompanying notes about a 4K re-scan etc


Having consulted the TTRL BD thread on here, there has been mention of the Fox / UK version being noticably softer with a more subtle contrast - so I suspect that's why I wasn't feeling it so much


But can it really be that much worse? The case on my disc notes it as a BD-50, there is no mention of the 4K re-scan / director appoval etc


From my viewing last night I would rank 1.5 at best…..


----------



## Phantom Stranger

That is interesting to hear about the Fox version of _The Thin Red Line_, it's very possible the two discs are from different film scans. I've not investigated that comparison too much, as I only own the Criterion Blu-ray. I have seen different versions of the same movie end up looking quite different.


I'll make sure to note it's the UK edition when that entry gets made in the Tiers.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21090#post_24281152
> 
> 
> 
> Having consulted the TTRL BD thread on here, there has been mention of the Fox / UK version being *noticably softer with a more subtle contrast* - so I suspect that's why I wasn't feeling it so much
> 
> 
> …..



That (the highlighted words above) was clearly NOT the case with the US version. The only "soft" shot I can recall is in the opening scene...after that point I only remember dazzling sharpness, clarity, and details with a very strong contrast. Even in scenes with rainfall you could make out every drop on a blade of grass or a soldiers uniform/face. The only thing that was really lacking was a lot of color, though I was mesmerized by the lush greens throughout the film.


----------



## djoberg

I watched _Life of Pi_ again the other night. It's always interesting to evaluate the PQ the "second time around," for in some cases your opinion changes. I was still very impressed with most of the film, but there were scenes that weren't as spectacular as I had remembered, such as the scenes in the ship (in the dining room and sleeping quarters) and during the storm. They were actually less-than-stellar. Having said that, there are still some very unique and mesmerizing shots in the film, most notably some of the night scenes while Pi was lost at sea and when he reached the island with all the meerkats. And then there were the awesome colors during the first quarter of the movie (in India) with amazing details and depth! All things considered it's still a high Tier 0 contender, though I'm not sure it's as good as _Ninja 2_.


----------



## rusky_g

Thank you both Denny and Phantom


I trust the eyes we have on here so I am concluding us European folk may have a different / inferior transfer to the Criterion.


To put things into perspective my copy of The Hobbit turned up today and in a quick 2 minute skip through I saw more eye candy than in the whole of TTRL....

*The Thin Red Line (UK)*


I wanted to be blown away but wasn't. There were many dim shots which I found it hard to get excited about. Things looked so much better in brighter scenes and in these instances I could see the Tier 0 potential. As it stands though those moments were too far between. Im disappointed I can't share in what others have seen, which, seemingly, I haven't. Good, not great.


TIER 1.5


----------



## rusky_g

I must look into Ninja 2. And yes it's a shame when things don't look as good the second time around.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21120#post_24282990
> 
> 
> I watched _Life of Pi_ again the other night. It's always interesting to evaluate the PQ the "second time around," for in some cases your opinion changes. I was still very impressed with most of the film, but there were scenes that weren't as spectacular as I had remembered, such as the scenes in the ship (in the dining room and sleeping quarters) and during the storm. They were actually less-than-stellar. Having said that, there are still some very unique and mesmerizing shots in the film, most notably some of the night scenes while Pi was lost at sea and when he reached the island with all the meerkats. And then there were the awesome colors during the first quarter of the movie (in India) with amazing details and depth! All things considered it's still a high Tier 0 contender, though I'm not sure it's as good as _Ninja 2_.


----------



## rusky_g

*The International*


Currently lurking in the top Tier, this looked solid for one of the earlier releases to the format. That being said more recent releases have nudged the bar higher and as such I'm more comfortable with sitting this one in the Gold bracket. Some glossy locations made for visually appealing backdrops and a handful of excellent facial shots kept me reeled in. A fine layer of grain kept things in check with just the odd weaker scene (such as the big shoot out ) lacking that HD punch.


Tier 1.5


----------



## Johnny Vertigo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21120#post_24284874
> 
> *The International*
> 
> 
> (...)
> 
> 
> Tier 1.5


You gotta be kidding me.


----------



## rusky_g

Absolutely not. 1.5 is still very respectable! A good looking disc but not one that I can put in the same league as Hugo, Gatsby, Hobbit....c'mon man the game has changed!


----------



## djoberg

FWIW, _The International_ was debated on quite a bit before its placement, with most reviews coming in at Tier 0 and a few recommending Tier 1 (with at least 2 members voting for 1.5). I personally recommended low Tier 0. That was a few years ago so it would be interesting to see if I still had the same view. As Russ said the bar has certainly been raised with many recent Blus offering stellar PQ, so there's a chance I'd change my mind.


Having said that, there are times when I haven't changed my mind on older titles, such as _The Dark Knight_, which is still worthy of Tier 0, IMHO.


----------



## Johnny Vertigo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21120#post_24288240
> 
> 
> Having said that, there are times when I haven't changed my mind on older titles, such as _The Dark Knight_, which is still worthy of Tier 0, IMHO.


For IMAX scenes? Obviously. But the rest is more like Tier 3.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Johnny Vertigo*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21120#post_24289134
> 
> 
> For IMAX scenes? Obviously. But the rest is more like Tier 3.



You are obviously one that is very sensitive to *halos*. I say this because the only members who did NOT believe _The Dark Knight_ was demo-worthy (and I'm talking about the non-IMAX scenes too) were those who condemned the PQ because of halos caused by EE. Most of us who praised the PQ were either not seeing the halos at all, or if we did we thought they weren't that bad.


At any rate, I have zero desire to revisit this debate. I simply wanted to cite an example of an older title that still, in my mind, competes quite well with newer releases. In your mind _The International_ is one such example. Yet, Russ disagreed with you, just as you disagreed with me regarding _The Dark Knight_. As Russ said, "To each their own." All opinions are welcomed and of value, even though there isn't always a true consensus.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Anyone have a preference for what Van Damme classic I score tonight for the PQ Tiers? I've got the region-free UK editions for _Sudden Death_ and _Hard Target_.


----------



## rusky_g

Some good debate going on guys 


Keep it rolling, opinions differ and I enjoy hearing different views!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Hard Target (region-free UK edition)


recommendation: Tier 3.5**


Universal has deemed this John Woo film worthy for release in the UK but not the States. It's a passable transfer with some minor problems. The unrated cut is included on a BD-50, encoded in high-bitrate VC-1. The VC-1 encode isn't bad, though it lacks the transparency of a new AVC video encode.


The cinematography is mildly inconsistent, switching between striking sharpness and mildly soft shots on occasion. I think some of that can be laid at the feet of John Woo, _Hard Target_ was his first Hollywood feature and there are some weird edits in it. Woo seems to love tight close-ups of Van Damme's face, they look sharper and cleaner than any other type of shot in the movie.


The film transfer was likely state of the art when it was struck...in 2006 when Universal was flush with cash from Toshiba. The HD transfer is derived from decent-looking film elements, though it's hard to suss out if the camera negative was used for this transfer. Traces of edge enhancement and minor halos are barely noticeable. You'll be hard-pressed to see them in most shots and only stick out in a few obvious scenes. Others will take umbrage with the persistent filtering at a very moderate level. Skin and facial textures are a bit soft in detail, lacking the proper high-frequency content of an unfiltered film transfer. A new color-timing today would likely increase the contrast just a bit and saturate the picture a little more, the colors are flat in a number of scenes. The print is presented with no obvious film wear, though it lacks the pop and depth of newer scans.


Despite some filtering that is fairly unobtrusive, this is a watchable BD with appreciable definition and resolution worthy of the format. A 4K scan would bump the overall detail and grain structure up to more realistic levels, but I doubt there are huge gains left in picture quality improvements from this film in 1080P. Universal has properly framed the transfer in 1.85:1 and provides a dynamic 5.1 DTS-HD MA soundtrack.


----------



## mweflen

FWIW, when I rewatched TDK recently, I was a little let down by some aliasing and compression artifacts in the 2.35:1 scenes. I think they drag the average down into tier 1, while fully acknowledging that the IMAX footage is tier 0.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21120#post_24291098
> 
> 
> FWIW, when I rewatched TDK recently, I was a little let down by some aliasing and compression artifacts in the 2.35:1 scenes. I think they drag the average down into tier 1, while fully acknowledging that the IMAX footage is tier 0.



I will admit that the IMAX scenes were better than the 2.35:1 scenes, but I would still, in the end, put it in either low Tier 0 or high Tier 1. At least your assessment is still giving it a respectable rating...Tier 1 is still "demo" material. The poster above thought the 2.35:1 scenes fell into Tier 3, which is way too low, IMO. Now if we were talking _The Dark Knight Rises_ I might be willing to concede that *some* of the 2.35:1 scenes were Tier 3 quality.


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21120#post_24291144
> 
> 
> I will admit that the IMAX scenes were better than the 2.35:1 scenes, but I would still, in the end, put it in either low Tier 0 or high Tier 1. At least your assessment is still giving it a respectable rating...Tier 1 is still "demo" material. The poster above thought the 2.35:1 scenes fell into Tier 3, which is way too low, IMO. Now if we were talking _The Dark Knight Rises_ I might be willing to concede that *some* of the 2.35:1 scenes were Tier 3 quality.



Agreed. Overall, it's still a disc that you could very easily pop in to impress a visitor. But I guess I've become an even bigger stickler for PQ than I used to be, so those weaknesses stick out. I think its current placement is pretty fair at 1.25.


On the other hand, I'm watching Schindler's List presently, and it is too low at 1.5 IMHO. I think it is near the top of Tier 1, possibly higher. The detail is overwhelming, the grayscale and shadow detail is superb.


----------



## rusky_g

Any notable Blu's on the radar which we are looking forward to? I see that Enders Game was reviewed on BluRay.com


----------



## Johnny Vertigo




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21120#post_24289204
> 
> 
> You are obviously one that is very sensitive to *halos*.


It's less about halos and more about sharpening. If I would like to have sharpened mess like this I could've easily do this by increasing sharpness in the menu of my TV. I think at this point of Blu-ray life, with so many stunning releases, we all should know how 35mm movie suppose to look on the format. I'm not saying it looks bad and I understand why this can be impressive demo disc, but judging simply by the technical aspects and comparing with other Blu-rays, than it's a no no for me










> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21120#post_24291520
> 
> 
> Any notable Blu's on the radar which we are looking forward to? I see that Enders Game was reviewed on BluRay.com


Gravity!


----------



## rusky_g

Whilst it was only a trailer on a recent disc I watched, Gravity looks like it could have some awesome black levels....so, yep looking forward to that too!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21120#post_24291520
> 
> 
> Any notable Blu's on the radar which we are looking forward to? I see that Enders Game was reviewed on BluRay.com


_Gravity_ should be stunning if one has a set with good black levels. I'm not sure when it comes out, but _Frozen_ should be another animated marvel. I'm hoping _I, Frankenstein_ will be a looker too.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Archer: The Complete Season Four

recommendation: Tier 0* (near the bottom)*


No one will confuse this newer style of animation with the beautiful fluidity of a Disney movie, but it sparkles in 1080P with brilliant clarity and digitally rendered backgrounds. A huge improvement over the broadcast version, the razor-sharp line art highlights an impressive array of vibrant colors and utterly perfect black levels.


Most impressive for Archer as a television production is the level of polish applied to its animation style, lacking the aliasing and other problems so common to modern animation intended for a weekly series. This exact placement near the bottom of Tier 0 is somewhat subjective and based on the impact generated by its picture quality, as the reaction to this art style will likely be varied. Its limited movement and somewhat raw character designs don't quite match-up with the best theatrical animation. But this is a case where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.


----------



## tenia54




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21120#post_24293110
> 
> *Archer: The Complete Season Four
> 
> recommendation: Tier 0* (near the bottom)*
> 
> 
> No one will confuse this newer style of animation with the beautiful fluidity of a Disney movie, but it sparkles in 1080P with brilliant clarity and digitally rendered backgrounds. A huge improvement over the broadcast version, the razor-sharp line art highlights an impressive array of vibrant colors and utterly perfect black levels.
> 
> 
> Most impressive for Archer as a television production is the level of polish applied to its animation style, lacking the aliasing and other problems so common to modern animation intended for a weekly series. This exact placement near the bottom of Tier 0 is somewhat subjective and based on the impact generated by its picture quality, as the reaction to this art style will likely be varied. Its limited movement and somewhat raw character designs don't quite match-up with the best theatrical animation. But this is a case where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.



What always impresses me with Archer on BD is all the details in the photo-realist backgrounds and overall objects. Carpets, wood desks, deserts, everything is spot on.


----------



## JoeBloggz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21120#post_24292190
> 
> _Gravity_ should be stunning if one has a set with good black levels. I'm not sure when it comes out, but _Frozen_ should be another animated marvel. I'm hoping _I, Frankenstein_ will be a looker too.



I agree. I saw Gravity in the theater(a lot of black scenes in space







). A set with good/great blacks should really make this title pop. Also, I haven't been around much(grad school is kicking my ass) but I'm finally getting a new AVR and some decent speakers so I can properly enjoy these blu-rays. Looking forward to posting some reviews


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JoeBloggz*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21120#post_24294153
> 
> 
> I agree. I saw Gravity in the theater(a lot of black scenes in space
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ). A set with good/great blacks should really make this title pop. Also, I haven't been around much(grad school is kicking my ass) but I'm finally getting a new AVR and some decent speakers so I can properly enjoy these blu-rays. Looking forward to posting some reviews



Ah yes, a new AVR and some good speakers to go along with your KURO....now you'll be all set for video AND audio!


I've always enjoyed your reviews Joe, so I'll be looking forward to you participating more.


----------



## JWhip

I have watched The International in the last 3 months and it is still one of my favorite looking releases. Excellent audio fidelity as well. It has held up extremely well.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

The enemy has only images and illusions behind which he hides his true motives. Destroy the image and you will break the enemy.

*Enter The Dragon: 40th Anniversary edition

recommendation: Tier 4.0**


Soft, softer, softest. Warner Bros. "remastered" _Enter The Dragon_ and released this new edition last summer. I use scare quotes because the remaster produces middling results, demonstrating marginal improvements in terms of picture fidelity over the original Blu-ray release. That original BD is ranked for the moment in Tier 3.5, though I don't think that is a very representative placement of its true value in 2014. The older disc would have to be ranked much, much lower today, given the improvements seen in Blu-ray transfers since its initial release.


I struggled with whether the remastered BD deserved Tier 4 or Tier 4.5, the original cinematography is suspect and reflects the questionable film stock of that era. The remaster has a solidly film-like appearance if you make allowances for some slight halos in a few scenes. The newer AVC video encode does increase the underlying transparency and accuracy of the film's grain structure, though this is still a very dull-looking film lacking high levels of detail and fine resolution. I was grateful the color grading wasn't radically altered to fit today's audiences demands for pumped up contrast and oversaturated colors.

_Enter The Dragon_ is one of those movies that will never be pin-tack sharp and bursting with color. I wonder if better PQ results could be achieved if Warner threw serious money at a photochemical restoration.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JWhip*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21120#post_24298326
> 
> 
> I have watched The International in the last 3 months and it is still one of my favorite looking releases. Excellent audio fidelity as well. It has held up extremely well.



That doesn't surprise me one bit. I haven't seen _The International_ in at least two years but I remember it being extremely sharp and detailed. I'm going to have to rent it one of these fine days and check it out....the movie too was pretty good if memory serves me.


----------



## djoberg

*Red 2*


A nice-looking transfer with very little to complain about! My only complaints would be some fleeting soft shots, some inconsistent black levels, and a few instances where flesh tones took on a REDdish look (no pun intended). For the majority of the film we are treated to sharpness & clarity, with abundant details, punchy colors, considerable depth, and excellent facial close-ups (high Tier 1, I'd say). It also looked very "filmic"; I was impressed! I mentioned blacks levels being inconsistent but when they were good they were nice and inky with corresponding shadow details (at times they were on the murky side). I'm opting for....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## rusky_g

I watched Elysium again last night......just as good as the first time! Amazing


----------



## rusky_g

*About Time*


All said and done, About Time is a handsome looking Blu Ray. The transfer is pristine with generally excellent detail bar a handful of softer shots mid way through. Colours are slightly subdued, the Cornwall based scenes offering a cooler, crisper palette than the golden night time hues of London. Foliage is exceptionally well resolved. There was no visible grain structure. Blacks could have been stronger but I felt the film had a deliberately off set contrast.


Impressed overall


Tier 1.5


----------



## Inseconds99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21090#post_24282667
> 
> 
> That is interesting to hear about the Fox version of *The Thin Red Line*, it's very possible the two discs are from different film scans. I've not investigated that comparison too much, as I only own the Criterion Blu-ray. I have seen different versions of the same movie end up looking quite different.
> 
> 
> I'll make sure to note it's the UK edition when that entry gets made in the Tiers.


How often do you update the full rankings? Been about 2 months and am curious about some of those releases. Love the list.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Inseconds99*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21120#post_24307097
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21090#post_24282667
> 
> 
> That is interesting to hear about the Fox version of _The Thin Red Line_, it's very possible the two discs are from different film scans. I've not investigated that comparison too much, as I only own the Criterion Blu-ray. I have seen different versions of the same movie end up looking quite different.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll make sure to note it's the UK edition when that entry gets made in the Tiers.
> 
> 
> 
> How often do you update the full rankings? Been about 2 months and am curious about some of those releases. Love the list.
Click to expand...


The master list for the PQ Tiers gets officially updated every three months or so, depending on the volume of posting in this thread. That is how it has been since around 2009. I'd do it more frequently but each update takes a daunting amount of time and effort these days. It is nearing close to 4000 entries.


----------



## djoberg

*Jayne Mansfield's Car*


This title grabbed my attention the other day while perusing Blu-ray releases in our local video store. I've been an avid fan for years of both Robert Duvall and Billy Bob Thorton, so I figured at least the acting would be topnotch. It didn't hurt that it had a few excellent co-stars (Kevin Bacon, Robert Patrick and John Hurt). Being a "child of the 60's" I was drawn to the fact that this took place in 1969.


PQ-wise, this was somewhat inconsistent. The first half of the film was not nearly as sharp and detailed as the latter half, and with many of the scenes being indoors (with poor lighting) or nighttime outdoor scenes they came across as a bit flat and soft. The last several scenes were all demo-worthy, starting with an outdoor scene with Duvall and Hurt out hunting in the woods. The details and depth were phenomenal!! Colors were also vibrant, contrast was strong, and flesh tones were spot on. Facial details throughout the movie ranged from good to excellent, with the "excellent" shots being in the latter half. Black levels were good at times, so-so at other times. There was a nice layer of film grain giving it the coveted "filmic" look. I'm struggling in reaching a placement recommendation. If I were to judge by the latter half of the movie I would easily consign this to Tier 1. The first half fell somewhere into Tier 3. In reaching a compromise I'd have to go for....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*We Are What We Are


recommendation: Tier 3.75**


I really don't know what went wrong on this 2014 release from Entertainment One. It was clearly shot on some type of lower grade digital camera. Some of the running time easily resides in Tier One for picture quality, despite the drab color palette.


The digital cinematography looks quite good in the exterior shots. It looks terrible in scenes with little available light, producing significant banding and noise that appears intrinsic to the raw digital footage. Some of the darkest scenes are bathed in ISO noise, as if from a poor DSLR. If it was done for atmosphere, the final product turned out very poorly in 1080P. EOne even threw a high-bitrate AVC encode at the master, which doesn't do a thing in preventing the various problems from manifesting in the video.


This is the type of thriller that would have been better served being shot on film, even 16mm film. Despite some startling sharp and dimensional early scenes, _We Are What We Are_ is the antithesis of eye candy.


----------



## Inseconds99


I ended up buying this  Pirates of the Caribbean  box set and was watching the first movie on my 65zt60 and the picture didn't seem reference quality to me. I noticed this movie was rated as a tier 0 on the list and my viewing experience was poor. I am not sure if it is the box set that I purchased or if this movie is just grainy. During the opening seen of the first movie, the sky seems to have tons of graininess and artifacting. I have never noticed this on any other movie I have watched on the set. Maybe this is a bad port of the movie?


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Inseconds99*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21150#post_24317679
> 
> 
> I ended up buying this  Pirates of the Caribbean  box set and was watching the first movie on my 65zt60 and the picture didn't seem reference quality to me. I noticed this movie was rated as a tier 0 on the list and my viewing experience was poor. I am not sure if it is the box set that I purchased or if this movie is just grainy. During the opening seen the background sky while they are on the boat seems to have tons of graininess and artifact. I have never noticed this on any other movie I have watched on the set. Maybe this is a bad port of the movie?


Does the set look like an official Disney product, or possibly a bootleg? I am assuming you bought it from a third-party seller on Amazon. I haven't seen those BDs in years, but I don't remember the problems you describe.


----------



## Inseconds99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21150#post_24317702
> 
> 
> 
> Does the set look like an official Disney product, or possibly a bootleg? I am assuming you bought it from a third-party seller on Amazon. I haven't seen those BDs in years, but I don't remember the problems you describe.


It's a legitimate Disney film, fulfilled by Amazon. It is a region free UK edition of the movie. I am about to purchase this Toy Story Trilogy and am concerned about its picture quality. Once again it is a UK region free film.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Inseconds99*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21150#post_24317713
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21150#post_24317702
> 
> 
> Does the set look like an official Disney product, or possibly a bootleg? I am assuming you bought it from a third-party seller on Amazon. I haven't seen those BDs in years, but I don't remember the problems you describe.
> 
> 
> 
> It's a legitimate Disney film, fulfilled by Amazon. It is a region free UK edition of the movie. I am about to purchase this Toy Story Trilogy and am concerned about its picture quality. Once again it is a UK region free film.
Click to expand...

The studios will occasionally use alternate compression encodes to squeeze in more dubs for the European market, but the discs should be more or less identical in terms of picture quality.


----------



## Inseconds99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21150#post_24317724
> 
> 
> 
> The studios will occasionally use alternate compression encodes to squeeze in more dubs for the European market, but the discs should be more or less identical in terms of picture quality.


Definitely not impressed with the PQ of the pirates movie, maybe its the discs I purchased, maybe not. I have purchased and watched many other movies on the tier 0 list including Corpse Bride, which I watched today, and boy did it look amazing.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Oliver & Company


recommendation: Tier 1.5*
*

It can't be denied this is one impressive-looking presentation of Disney's _Oliver & Company_, the 1988 animated film. While it does contain a few CGI elements, this was a movie made with traditional cel animation. Purists will decry the auto-scrubbing that has definitely been applied on some level to the transfer, but the work done by Disney produces a dramatic improvement in terms of color saturation, print condition and consistency.


The inky black levels are perfect. Oliver's color palette is given new life with excellent density and saturation, polishing the older animation into something new and bolder than ever seen before in any format. The DNR has been used more stringently in certain scenes, particularly the musical numbers early in the movie. There are few signs left in the transfer this movie ever saw celluloid, practically eliminating evidence of film grain or wear. Disney has gone as far back as they possibly could to the raw cel animation, likely in a push to clean it up for younger viewers.


I believe casual viewers will really like this version of _Oliver & Company_ in 1080P. The colors are vivid and the animation itself is quite nice for one of Disney's lesser animated features. It does continue the trend of Disney's very aggressive attitudes in re-imagining the look of their animated films. The Blu-ray does not replicate the original theatrical exhibition very well.


----------



## mweflen




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Inseconds99*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21150#post_24317713
> 
> 
> It's a legitimate Disney film, fulfilled by Amazon. It is a region free UK edition of the movie. I am about to purchase this Toy Story Trilogy and am concerned about its picture quality. Once again it is a UK region free film.



I have the UK Toy Story box set (because, you know, I'd rather pay $35 than the highway robbery they charge us here). You definitely do not need to worry about a subpar encode. It is just as good as the US version, has all the extras, etc. The only think you're missing is the DVD and Ultraviolet crapola.


----------



## rusky_g

I gave After Earth a 2nd viewing tonight on my TV and it was a much better experience than my initial viewing on my now retired projector.


If possible I'd like to revise my rating to Tier 0.75


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21150#post_24322108
> 
> 
> I gave After Earth a 2nd viewing tonight on my TV and it was a much better experience than my initial viewing on my now retired projector.
> 
> 
> If possible I'd like to revise my rating to Tier 0.75


Changing your recommendation is always possible, it will be noted in the next update.


----------



## rusky_g

*Total Recall 2012 Mastered in 4K*


Clean and with exceptional detail in scenes which scour the neon-esque cityscape. But this isnt a film with consistently pretty backdrops; eye candy subsides with the more gloomy scenes later on in the film, broken apart by the hover car scene which ups the ante again. I didnt feel that facial detail was correspondent to a release heralding a 4K resource. Blacks and contrast were stronger points.


Dont get me wrong it was a very good HD experience but for the weaker aspects I can at best rate this as....

*Tier 1*


----------



## Inseconds99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21150#post_24318758
> 
> 
> 
> I have the UK Toy Story box set (because, you know, I'd rather pay $35 than the highway robbery they charge us here). You definitely do not need to worry about a subpar encode. It is just as good as the US version, has all the extras, etc. The only think you're missing is the DVD and Ultraviolet crapola.


TY I just ordered it, should be here next week. I hope it is tier 0 quality like the american versions are.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Inseconds99*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21150#post_24327084
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mweflen*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21150#post_24318758
> 
> 
> I have the UK Toy Story box set (because, you know, I'd rather pay $35 than the highway robbery they charge us here). You definitely do not need to worry about a subpar encode. It is just as good as the US version, has all the extras, etc. The only think you're missing is the DVD and Ultraviolet crapola.
> 
> 
> 
> TY I just ordered it, should be here next week. I hope it is tier 0 quality like the american versions are.
Click to expand...

If you get one of the codes floating around, the cheapest way to acquire many of Disney's Blu-rays are from the official Disney Movie Club .







It's cheaper that way than buying them on a retail level.

*Justice League: War


recommendation: Tier 1.5**


This new release from Warner Bros. looks fairly similar to past animated DC features on BD. The adequate AVC video encode has a touch of banding and posterization, though nothing really out of the ordinary for this kind of animation. The animators had a tough time duplicating Jim Lee's original art, using more simplified character designs with less lines.

_Justice League: War_ is a little less crisp than the most recent DC features, the colors are a bit softer and more washed out than normal. It still has a bold, vivid color palette that pops on screen. While it wasn't enough by itself to merit a higher ranking, the graceful fluidity of the hectic battles is notable.


----------



## djoberg

*Rush*


I'm in a hurry so I'll keep this short. In short, a nice-looking Blu with plenty of details, depth and clarity. Having said that, there were moments where softness crept in and it became a bit flat. Colors were a mixed bag, with some scenes featuring saturated colors (to fit the time piece) and others a bit subdued. My biggest gripe would be some of the daytime scenes at racetracks; the director chose to give it a *bleached* look with pumped up contrast and they really came across as washed out in a few instances. Black levels were decent and flesh tones were fairly good. I believe this is demo-worthy, but just barely....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**


I just have to add that the audio was FANTASTIC!! All the race scenes showed them revving up their engines and the bass was so deep in one of those scenes that my pants were literally vibrating and I could feel air going up my leg!! The action in the surrounds were well done too.


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Quest


recommendation: Tier 2.75**


This 1996 Van Damme movie came out a couple of years back on Blu-ray, courtesy of Universal. The high-definition transfer is likely nearing a decade old and has a trace amount of filtering, but all things considered looks positively decent for a catalog title these days. The source appears to be an uncorrected Interpositive, leaving the color saturation slightly too red. Universal has given _The Quest_ an impressive AVC video encode, spread out over the entirety of a BD-50.


The film print is clean and free of defects. Telecine wobble does pop up for a minute during the opening credits but promptly fades away. Some limited DNR looks to have been lightly used, skin is occasionally waxy and overly smooth. The scope cinematography looks quite good, employing a lot of panoramic shots and sharp focus. This BD definitely looks better than the _Hard Target_ disc I recently scored a 3.5 rating. Halos are not a significant problem outside of one or two softer shots in the last third of the movie.


I've always had a soft spot for this movie and Universal has given it a relatively solid presentation. A newer film scan would likely net better PQ results, but _The Quest_ looks much better than other Universal transfers of similar vintage.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Adventurer: The Curse of the Midas Box

recommendation: Tier 2.25*
*
_The Adventurer_ is an independent production from overseas, released today by Image Entertainment in the States. The Victorian production design owes a heavy nod to digital composites and the Arri digital camera, producing a decent HD experience lacking some of the polish and and refinement of bigger budgeted movies. This is the first in a planned series of movies hoping to fill the niche created by the Harry Potter franchise.


Deficiencies in the AVC video encode pop up in the most difficult scenes, especially a couple of shots enshrouded in fog. Exterior scenes in daytime produce startling clarity and nearly pristine video. It is the darker scenes that tend to significantly drop in overall depth and resolution. Minor aliasing and occasionally dull-looking surfaces pepper the movie at times, likely due to the amount of composites used as sets.


----------



## rusky_g

*We're The Millers*


This disc has received favourable PQ praise across the web so we settled down to watch it this evening. I have to say that it was solid overall although a bit less spectacular than I hoped. Colours and contrast are vibrant throughout with some scenes offering gratifying 'pop'. Blacks were generally excellent, lesser so were facial details and that 'super fine' fidelity offered by some of the more recent releases. Much of the film featured brightly lit outdoor scenes and I found these the most pleasing, bar a couple of shots in the hospital which were fantastic.


Tier 1.75


----------



## djoberg

*Ender's Game*


WOW!!! My KURO just thanked me for renting this Blu and informed me that he/she was designed and made for movies just like this!! What can I say? How about....the BLACKS were OFF THE CHARTS....the SHADOW DETAILS were EXEMPLARY....the FLESH TONES were AMAZING....the DETAILS were PERFECT....and the DEPTH was OUTSTANDING! The movie itself was nothing to write home to mama about, but if you want to see some mesmerizing EYE CANDY...and hear some tantalizing AUDIO, then at least give this a rent. You will NOT be disappointed...I promise you!

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (right above Transformers: Dark of the Moon)*


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21150#post_24345774
> 
> *Ender's Game*
> 
> 
> WOW!!! My KURO just thanked me for renting this Blu and informed me that he/she was designed and made for movies just like this!! What can I say? How about....the BLACKS were OFF THE CHARTS....the SHADOW DETAILS were EXEMPLARY....the FLESH TONES were AMAZING....the DETAILS were PERFECT....and the DEPTH was OUTSTANDING! The movie itself was nothing to write home to mama about, but if you want to see some mesmerizing EYE CANDY...and hear some tantalizing AUDIO, then at least give this a rent. You will NOT be disappointed...I promise you!
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (right above Transformers: Dark of the Moon)*
> 
> 
> Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....



Good to hear. I will get to this either tonight or tom. Sucks the rental disc only has lossy DD.


Just watched Riddick which had some fantastic dark scenes and just an excellent transfer in general.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

That's great to hear about Ender's Game.

*Taisho Baseball Girls: The Complete Collection


recommendation: Tier 3.0**


This is a 2009 anime series, so the animation remains more firmly grounded in a style suited to standard definition in terms of style. The video is at 1080i resolution, it appears that Section 23 took the original HDCAM SR master intended for HD broadcast and directly replicated it for Blu-ray.


This is not a bad-looking series but the colors lack that vibrant edge we've come to expect from better animation. The transfer itself is technically strong, indicating no misstep in that arena. Most would consider this level of picture quality a step behind most animated material on Blu-ray.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21150#post_24345816
> 
> 
> Good to hear. I will get to this either tonight or tom. Sucks the rental disc only has lossy DD.
> 
> 
> Just watched Riddick which had some fantastic dark scenes and just an excellent transfer in general.



To be honest with you Toe, I didn't realize the audio was DD 5.1 until about 20 minutes in when I glanced at my AVR. When I saw that I said to myself, "Is this a DVD?" But I quickly answered myself, "No way would the PQ be this amazing if it was simply SD!" After that I kept thinking, "Whoa, if it sounds this good in lossy DD, what will the DTS Master HD track sound like?!"


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21150#post_24345970
> 
> 
> To be honest with you Toe, I didn't realize the audio was DD 5.1 until about 20 minutes in when I glanced at my AVR. When I saw that I said to myself, "Is this a DVD?" But I quickly answered myself, "No way would the PQ be this amazing if it was simply SD!" After that I kept thinking, "Whoa, if it sounds this good in lossy DD, what will the DTS Master HD track sound like?!"




Good to hear. I am sure it still sounds excellent and is most likely the same mix as the lossless. It's more the principal that bothers me. Oh well, no biggie. Looking forward to checking it out.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21150#post_24346077
> 
> 
> Good to hear. I am sure it still sounds excellent and is most likely the same mix as the lossless. It's more the principal that bothers me. Oh well, no biggie. Looking forward to checking it out.



Hey Toe...I see (from the Bass Thread) that you watched _Ender's Game_ and that you were really impressed with the PQ. I would encourage you to chime in with your impressions and a recommended placement.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21150#post_24352710
> 
> 
> Hey Toe...I see (from the Bass Thread) that you watched _Ender's Game_ and that you were really impressed with the PQ. I would encourage you to chime in with your impressions and a recommended placement.




I can only echo what you mentioned for both audio and video which I fully agree with. First thing I noticed is how amazing flesh tones were in general. Flesh tones ever since calibrating my projector a year ago is something I have really grown to appreciate when done well and this film they really stood out to me. Black levels were fantastic as you mention which is always a treat with my JVC. Detail which again was really evident in facial close ups among other things was excellent. Probably the thing that stood out most to me was the amazing clarity to the image and I have to say this is one of the most 3d looking 2d transfers I have seen. I felt like I could just fall into the screen at times.







I actually kept thinking what a shame it was that the originally planned 3d version never saw the light of day as this film was screaming for a 3d option IMO. All the CGI and HUD type stuff really works well in 3d usually and this film was FULL of potential for the third dimension which would have taken the amazing depth to an entirely different level that only 3d can do. As it stands though, this is one of the deepest 2d presentations that I have seen.


It was just pure eye and ear candy basically from start to finish.










So I would say....

*Enders Game*

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (bottom 1/4 somewhere........do I need to get more specific than that?)


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^


Excellent review Toe! I obviously concur with every point made. Regarding the placement, it is not necessary to give it an exact placement. I did in this case, but at times I will do as you did and just recommend a certain quarter of the Tier.


I may just buy this Blu-ray even though the movie itself wasn't great (it wasn't bad; I just thought it kind of dragged during the first hour)....the video/audio was that good!!


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21150#post_24353153
> 
> 
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> 
> Excellent review Toe! I obviously concur with every point made. Regarding the placement, it is not necessary to give it an exact placement. I did in this case, but at times I will do as you did and just recommend a certain quarter of the Tier.
> 
> 
> I may just buy this Blu-ray even though the movie itself wasn't great (it wasn't bad; I just thought it kind of dragged during the first hour)....the video/audio was that good!!



I am actually considering the same thing! Movie was just OK, but when you factor in the A/V factor, it was so much fun that I would like to have it in my collection.


----------



## rusky_g

Looking forward to Enders Game....shame we gotta wait longer here in the UK


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21150#post_24353835
> 
> 
> Looking forward to Enders Game....shame we gotta wait longer here in the UK



You'll be impressed Russ! Your shiny new Samsung should do fine on the black levels and they alone are worth the time invested in watching this movie. But there's so much more....


----------



## rusky_g

Can't wait Denny, 14th March roll on....


----------



## fredxr2d2

Another vote for *Ender's Game* in *Tier 0*. Very pretty. Movie didn't quite have the emotional impact I was looking for (in relation to the book), but everything else was gorgeous.


----------



## OppoMrSocko




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21150#post_24307521
> 
> 
> 
> The master list for the PQ Tiers gets officially updated every three months or so, depending on the volume of posting in this thread. That is how it has been since around 2009. I'd do it more frequently but each update takes a daunting amount of time and effort these days. It is nearing close to 4000 entries.


 

Newbie here.  Just wanted to thank The Phantom Stranger for his great Blu Ray reviews.  I entered very late into the Blu Ray community, but me and my (initially skeptical of Blu Ray) Dad have been enjoying Tier 0 listed live-action films for the past month. We had no idea what we were missing!  Thanks to you and the other Strangers for your time with the expert reviews.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OppoMrSocko*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21180#post_24360930
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21150#post_24307521
> 
> 
> The master list for the PQ Tiers gets officially updated every three months or so, depending on the volume of posting in this thread. That is how it has been since around 2009. I'd do it more frequently but each update takes a daunting amount of time and effort these days. It is nearing close to 4000 entries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Newbie here.  Just wanted to thank The Phantom Stranger for his great Blu Ray reviews.  I entered very late into the Blu Ray community, but me and my (initially skeptical of Blu Ray) Dad have been enjoying Tier 0 listed live-action films for the past month. We had no idea what we were missing!  Thanks to you and the other Strangers for your time with the expert reviews.
Click to expand...

I'm glad the PQ Tiers can be of some utility to you. While the best discs are found in Tier 0 (Blu), there are many gems in Tier 1 as well. Speaking of sparkling things...


*The Smurfs 2


recommendation: Tier 0* (behind only Monsters University)*


Could the smurfs land in anywhere but Tier Blu?







Someone gave me a tip that this late 2013 Blu-ray from Sony might be a possible contender for the ultimate crown in the Tiers, so I went and gave it an honest look. I had known the first one was already a top-shelf disc, having resided in Tier 0 for a while.


The 1080P video is jaw-dropping eye candy, nothing short of brilliant. Mastered in 4K by Sony's special process that expands the color gamut on select hardware, _The Smurfs 2_ contains the most consistently stunning live-action footage seen on the format to date. While the smurfs are pure CGI characters, they inhabit real-world locales in absolute shining clarity. I guess the closest comparison has to be _Avatar_, but the aesthetic achieved by _The Smurfs 2_ feels completely different. The picture-perfect video is utterly flawless. We are talking about picture quality that does not diminish at closer viewing distances. I kept inching closer to verify what I was seeing and realized it was easily holding up at two and three-feet viewing distances, which is incredible on a display as large as mine. Few Blu-rays can hold up to that level of scrutiny.


Even interior shots inside a hotel pop with palpable depth, creating a visually immersive experience that feels three-dimensional in sharpness and focus. Sony has treated the transfer with kid gloves, this is easily their best technical effort. The video and CGI blend completely seamlessly at new levels of excellence. Its real-world resolution is hitting the limits of our current technology.


I wrestled with the thought of actually placing it above _Monsters University_, the current champion of the PQ Tiers. It's a top-five contender for Tier 0 without a doubt. Your exact placement will likely depend on one's preferences for certain attributes, though _The Smurfs 2_ simply has no weaknesses.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


I'll definitely be checking it out Phantom!


We are surely being treated to a lot of Tier Blu EYE CANDY as of late! And I suspect it's only going to get better!!










I just ordered _Gravity_ this afternoon. I suspect that will be a contender for at least Tier 1, if not Tier 0. I also ordered _All Is Lost_, a "man versus sea" flick starring Robert Redford. Out of the nine reviewers who have weighed in on this title on Cinema Squid's site thus far, all of them are speaking highly of the PQ AND all of them have given the audio a score of 100, saying it's unquestionably one of the best audio tracks to date, with unbelievable LFE, stellar action in the surrounds, and crystal-clear dialogue in the center channel.


----------



## GPBURNS

Enders Game – few questions for

the video geeks here ( I am more of audio guy)

And was not sure where to best post this

I was really impressed with the black levels on this disc

Probably best I have experience post CRT age in my HT

Stunning – I run JVC RS-25 in complete pitch black room ( velvet walls etc)

Was just curious does this quality relate to better tech in the cameras?

Filming technique – post calibration work ? probably bit of each but interested in your comments

hopefully a sign of future releases


----------



## John Mason




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GPBURNS*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21180#post_24364485
> 
> 
> Enders Game – few questions for
> 
> the video geeks here ( I am more of audio guy)
> 
> And was not sure where to best post this
> 
> I was really impressed with the black levels on this disc
> 
> Probably best I have experience post CRT age in my HT
> 
> Stunning – I run JVC RS-25 in complete pitch black room ( velvet walls etc)
> 
> Was just curious does this quality relate to better tech in the cameras?
> 
> Filming technique – post calibration work ? probably bit of each but interested in your comments
> 
> hopefully a sign of future releases



Could be mostly the camera tech as you suggest. Shot with the Red Epic ( specs ), according to IMDB.COM . RED claims a remarkable 18 stops dynamic range is possible. They reduced the 5k resolution shot down to 2k for the master digital intermediate. -- John


----------



## GPBURNS




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Mason*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21180#post_24365043
> 
> 
> Could be mostly the camera tech as you suggest. Shot with the Red Epic ( specs ), according to IMDB.COM . RED claims a remarkable 18 stops dynamic range is possible. They reduced the 5k resolution shot down to 2k for the master digital intermediate. -- John



interesting - I use IMDB a lot but never thought to expand the Tech stuff- was thinking reminded me of oblivion - same camera


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *GPBURNS*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21180#post_24365586
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *John Mason*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21180#post_24365043
> 
> 
> Could be mostly the camera tech as you suggest. Shot with the Red Epic ( specs ), according to IMDB.COM . RED claims a remarkable 18 stops dynamic range is possible. They reduced the 5k resolution shot down to 2k for the master digital intermediate. -- John
> 
> 
> 
> 
> interesting - I use IMDB a lot but never thought to expand the Tech stuff- was thinking reminded me of oblivion - same camera
Click to expand...

The company behind the VFX in Oblivion, Digital Domain, were also responsible for Ender's Game. Ender's Game had a budget over $100 million dollars, the newer digital cameras can produce astounding results with the right amount of time and money. I think it also helped that the movie got pushed back from its initial release date, that usually allows the VFX and digital wizardry to be more finely polished before release.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Hell Comes To Frogtown (UK Region B-locked)


recommendation: Tier 4.0**


In the past month, Arrow Video has released this extremely limited Blu-ray (only 1000 copies are being pressed) in the UK. They licensed the transfer from Lakeshore Entertainment, so it's not quite up to the picture quality of Arrow's more recent discs. The 1988 B-movie is presented at 1080P resolution from an older telecine, though it is a true Hi-Def transfer from acceptable film elements. This is not spectacular by any stretch but demonstrates appreciable gains in color saturation, sharpness, and fine detail over prior home video versions.


The review has many screenshots for closer perusal. Some minor halos are occasionally evident but the transfer has not been overly processed or stripped of its natural grain density. Micro-detail is a bit erratic, though that is mainly due to the original cinematography.


It is locked to Region B, I strongly doubt we see a release of it in other regions.

http://www.arrowfilms.co.uk/shop/index.php?route=product/product&filter_name=frogtown&product_id=269


----------



## OppoMrSocko




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21180#post_24365694
> 
> *Hell Comes To Frogtown (UK Region B-locked)
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 4.0**
> 
> 
> In the past month, Arrow Video has released this extremely limited Blu-ray (only 1000 copies are being pressed) in the UK. They licensed the transfer from Lakeshore Entertainment, so it's not quite up to the picture quality of Arrow's more recent discs. The 1988 B-movie is presented at 1080P resolution from an older telecine, though it is a true Hi-Def transfer from acceptable film elements. This is not spectacular by any stretch but demonstrates appreciable gains in color saturation, sharpness, and fine detail over prior home video versions.
> 
> 
> The review has many screenshots for closer perusal. Some minor halos are occasionally evident but the transfer has not been overly processed or stripped of its natural grain density. Micro-detail is a bit erratic, though that is mainly due to the original cinematography.
> 
> 
> It is locked to Region B, I strongly doubt we see a release of it in other regions.
> 
> http://www.arrowfilms.co.uk/shop/index.php?route=product/product&filter_name=frogtown&product_id=269


 

As a big "Rowdy" Roddy Piper fan, I appreciate the review of this Blu-Ray, Phantom Stranger. 

 

Keeping with Piper, anyone have any insight as to the best Blu-Ray version of "They Live?"  Hope there is one better than Tier 4.0.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OppoMrSocko*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21180#post_24365743
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21180#post_24365694
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a big "Rowdy" Roddy Piper fan, I appreciate the review of this Blu-Ray, Phantom Stranger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keeping with Piper, anyone have any insight as to the best Blu-Ray version of "They Live?"  Hope there is one better than Tier 4.0.
Click to expand...

I haven't picked up yet the Scream Factory Blu-ray for _They Live_. Personally, I've found their transfers very hit-or-miss. There is only so much one can do with some of these older films. Even a pristine transfer from a new film scan would have only pushed _Hell Comes To Frogtown_ into high Tier 3 territory. Saying that, it's a fun B-movie that has never looked better since release.


----------



## OppoMrSocko




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21180#post_24365776
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't picked up yet the Scream Factory Blu-ray for *They Live*. Personally, I've found their transfers very hit-or-miss. There is only so much one can do with some of these older films. Even a pristine transfer from a new film scan would have only pushed *Hell Comes To Frogtown* into high Tier 3 territory. Saying that, it's a fun B-movie that has never looked better since release.


 

Thank you, Phantom Stranger!  Will keep that in mind when tracking it down.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

The measure of love is what one is willing to give up for it.

*Pandora and the Flying Dutchman


recommendation: Tier 2.5**


This magical 1951 film received an extensive Technicolor restoration from the 35mm negative in 2009. Filmed by legendary cinematographer Jack Cardiff, the impressive cinematography is constructed entirely around showing off Ava Gardner in the best possible light. Okay, some wonderful seaside landscapes are also highlighted.







Kino released the film's restoration in this magnificent-looking Blu-ray, originally in 2010. A massive visual upgrade over the prior DVD that words can't accurately convey.


The film restoration went back to the best possible film elements for an incredibly detailed scan with stunning texture and resolution. Cardiff's cinematography ends up looking razor-sharp and oozing with high-frequency content, especially in the tighter shots. There are few soft shots included, even in the close-ups of Gardner. In terms of raw detail and film structure, the transfer is perfect. Its color accuracy and rendition are superb. Only a few, brief bursts of changing color temperature noticeably affect the video.


What the restoration doesn't remove are some of the minor specks and scratches left on the negative, a contrarian approach to transfers intended for Blu-ray. The major studios would have applied extensive manual clean-up and dust removal. It is not a terrible distraction but a few unintended color splotches rear their head in the center of the 1.37:1 frame. A forgivable presence of some halos, though fairly natural and analog, fill the last 45 minutes.


I was mightily impressed by the results of this Technicolor film restoration, bringing back the inherent vibrancy of Pandora's cinematography. The film certainly looks better than ever on Blu-ray.


----------



## djoberg

Whoa! I just went to Amazon to order _Ender's Game_ and it went up in price by $5!! They must have heard about the amazing video/audio and they're taking advantage of us. I'll wait for a price drop...no way will I pay that kind of money for it with the movie itself being somewhat underwhelming.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21180#post_24370283
> 
> 
> Whoa! I just went to Amazon to order _Ender's Game_ and it went up in price by $5!! They must have heard about the amazing video/audio and they're taking advantage of us. I'll wait for a price drop...no way will I pay that kind of money for it with the movie itself being somewhat underwhelming.


If you wait a little while, I imagine it will be available for much cheaper than Amazon in the next month on eBay. I've heard the poor showing at the box office has killed any chance of a sequel.


----------



## rusky_g

*Oblivion*


Recently I decided to re-rank a few titles following my transition from projector to HDTV viewing which I feel has provided a different view point on some titles, Oblivion being the latest candidate.


Previously I ranked at 1.5, this time around however I was reeled in a bit more by how beautiful this film looked. Standout moments: the clarity of Jacks forest hideaway, simply stunning in detail be it the needle dropping on his vinyl records, his gun being lifted off the table or the blades of grass on which he lays. The close ups particularly when captured by the scabs, bright spotlights hitting every facial pore and sweat bead. The textures of clothing, notably Jacks body armour, Julia's grey knitted cardigan. So much goodness to soak up...I was grinning.


As noted by others there are a couple of soft shots, the odd black which doesn't quite hit the sweet spot. But I cant let the resounding beauty of 99% of the film be overlooked as a Top Tier title. Sorry guys this just has to be upgraded....


Tier 0.75


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21180#post_24371504
> 
> *Oblivion*
> 
> 
> Recently I decided to re-rank a few titles following my transition from projector to HDTV viewing which I feel has provided a different view point on some titles, Oblivion being the latest candidate.
> 
> 
> Tier 0.75


That's interesting you changed your evaluation with a different display. I've heard it bandied about that projectors are better for film-based Blu-rays, and that more modern fare with digital FX and CGI work better on fixed pixel displays such as LCD and Plasma. I don't think projectors provide quite the same amount of pop and depth for the animated CGI movies.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21180#post_24370674
> 
> 
> If you wait a little while, I imagine it will be available for much cheaper than Amazon in the next month on eBay. I've heard the poor showing at the box office has killed any chance of a sequel.



Believe me...I can wait!


I suspect it will even go down on Amazon and other sites in time. I was hoping to watch it again soon, or to use it as a demo. Oh well....patience is a virtue!


----------



## OppoMrSocko




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21180#post_24367496
> 
> 
> The measure of love is what one is willing to give up for it.
> 
> *Pandora and the Flying Dutchman
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 2.5**
> 
> 
> This magical 1951 film received an extensive Technicolor restoration from the 35mm negative in 2009. Filmed by legendary cinematographer Jack Cardiff, the impressive cinematography is constructed entirely around showing off Ava Gardner in the best possible light. Okay, some wonderful seaside landscapes are also highlighted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kino released the film's restoration in this magnificent-looking Blu-ray, originally in 2010. A massive visual upgrade over the prior DVD that words can't accurately convey.
> 
> 
> The film restoration went back to the best possible film elements for an incredibly detailed scan with stunning texture and resolution. Cardiff's cinematography ends up looking razor-sharp and oozing with high-frequency content, especially in the tighter shots. There are few soft shots included, even in the close-ups of Gardner. In terms of raw detail and film structure, the transfer is perfect. Its color accuracy and rendition are superb. Only a few, brief bursts of changing color temperature noticeably affect the video.
> 
> 
> What the restoration doesn't remove are some of the minor specks and scratches left on the negative, a contrarian approach to transfers intended for Blu-ray. The major studios would have applied extensive manual clean-up and dust removal. It is not a terrible distraction but a few unintended color splotches rear their head in the center of the 1.37:1 frame. A forgivable presence of some halos, though fairly natural and analog, fill the last 45 minutes.
> 
> 
> I was mightily impressed by the results of this Technicolor film restoration, bringing back the inherent vibrancy of Pandora's cinematography. The film certainly looks better than ever on Blu-ray.


 

Amazing review!  I have not seen this film, but plan to now.  Thanks for reviewing the older titles and B movies: I know this forum leans towards new & mainstream, so your work with other genres is greatly appreciated.

 

I hope they release my favorite film of Ava Gardner's in Blu-Ray one day, *Bhowani Junction*.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21180#post_24370283
> 
> 
> Whoa! I just went to Amazon to order _Ender's Game_ and it went up in price by $5!! They must have heard about the amazing video/audio and they're taking advantage of us. I'll wait for a price drop...no way will I pay that kind of money for it with the movie itself being somewhat underwhelming.



If you do find a good price, let me know as I want to grab it as well. I even checked ebay for used and prices are high. We might have to wait a bit still.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21180#post_24372971
> 
> 
> If you do find a good price, let me know as I want to grab it as well. I even checked ebay for used and prices are high. We might have to wait a bit still.



I'll definitely let you know.


----------



## wesslan1

See some imports on the list but missing some that is pretty well known to have better PQ over US version. Maybe they haven't got enough votes to be on the list?


Some examples:

Black Hawk Down, German or Nordic disc AVC 26974/31062 kbps

Book of Eli, Australian disc from sony VC-1 26.32 Mbps

Domino, UK or ES disc VC-1 26320 kbps


----------



## DarthDoxie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wesslan1*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21200_50#post_24378561
> 
> 
> See some imports on the list but missing some that is pretty well known to have better PQ over US version. Maybe they haven't got enough votes to be on the list?
> 
> 
> Some examples:
> 
> Black Hawk Down, German or Nordic disc AVC 26974/31062 kbps
> 
> Book of Eli, Australian disc from sony VC-1 26.32 Mbps
> 
> Domino, UK or ES disc VC-1 26320 kbps


It only takes one vote for a Blu-ray to get a placement on the list.  If you have these, please review and make a recommendation for placement.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wesslan1*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21180#post_24378561
> 
> 
> See some imports on the list but missing some that is pretty well known to have better PQ over US version. Maybe they haven't got enough votes to be on the list?
> 
> 
> Some examples:
> 
> Black Hawk Down, German or Nordic disc AVC 26974/31062 kbps
> 
> Book of Eli, Australian disc from sony VC-1 26.32 Mbps
> 
> Domino, UK or ES disc VC-1 26320 kbps


I'd love to add them to the PQ Tiers but no one has scored them to date. Someone with those BDs needs to watch them and give them a formal score under our grading system.

*Hellgate (UK Region B-locked)
*
*recommendation: Tier 4.5**


This low-budget horror film from the late 1980s has fairly rough picture quality. It is another film transfer that Arrow Video has licensed from Lakeshore Entertainment, but the results are middling at best. _Hell Comes To Frogtown_ from Arrow Video turned out comparatively much better, _Hellgate_ lacks the type of detail found in recent film scans on Blu-ray. The film is also quite ambitious in its attempts at FX, failing spectacularly in the cheesy graphics.


----------



## djoberg

*All Is Lost*


A Discovery Channel series that I really miss is "Man Versus Wild" (which starred Bear Grylls). Well, tonight's "outing" was literally "Man Versus Sea." What a harrowing account this was of one man's attempt to survive while lost at sea. Before I get into a breakdown of the PQ, I want to give a huge shout-out for the amazing AQ on this Blu. The first "storm at sea" lasted a good 10-15 minutes and it was so LOUD, with thunderous LFE, that I almost got sea-sick!! No really, the audio was simply superb on every level and if for nothing else, give this a rent just to experience what it's like to "ride out the storm" in a 35' sailboat.


The PQ varied, but all in all it was very good. The most obvious highlight throughout the 100 minute running time was Robert Redford. We are treated to numerous close-ups of his face...and hands...and I'm hear to tell you his leathery and weathered face never looked so good on HD!! And his HANDS...WOW, you could see every freckle and age spot, along with his gray hairs. Fine details in clothing were also on display and in most daytime scenes there was a rich sharpness/clarity displaying Redford, his sailboat, and the deep blue sea! Flesh tones were also accurate, which is good being there were so many facial close-ups.


There were a few issues. Black levels at times either crushed or were murky, and in a few instances inside the hull of the boat and in underwater scenes some noise reared its ugly head. Contrast spiked at times during bright, daytime scenes, giving it a washed-out look. And then were a few instances of banding, most notably in the clouds.


Colors were somewhat subdued, but they appeared quite natural given the setting, so I wouldn't dock the placement due to them. Having said that, this won't receive any accolades for them either.


All things considered this one falls on the border of Tier Gold and Silver, but my love for facial details is compelling me to be generous, thus I'm opting for....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Phantom Stranger

All Is Lost looks interesting as a movie. Redford is one of Hollywood's few stars to let himself age naturally on the screen.


A peek at IMDB indicates the movie was filmed on the Arri Alexa camera. Almost every movie made on that camera seems to end up between Tier 1.5 to Tier 2.5.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21180#post_24382841
> 
> 
> All Is Lost looks interesting as a movie. Redford is one of Hollywood's few stars to let himself age naturally on the screen.
> 
> 
> A peek at IMDB indicates the movie was filmed on the Arri Alexa camera. Almost every movie made on that camera seems to end up between Tier 1.5 to Tier 2.5.



I agree with your sentiments regarding Redford aging naturally. To use an old adage, he's "comfortable in his own skin." Would that we all grew old gracefully!


Some may not enjoy the movie as much as I did. I've heard complaints about the "slow pace" and "lack of dialogue," but IMHO it was very good, and you didn't need to *hear* what Redford was thinking throughout his gripping ordeal; his facial expressions told us all we needed to know!


----------



## OppoMrSocko


All set to enjoy "The Lone Ranger" on Blu-Ray this weekend, thanks to everyone's reviews (I am a late entrant to Blu-Ray, having just upgraded my home viewing system; totally in awe of the image quality difference).

 

Sort of off-topic question (not sure which forum I should chime in on): I can't afford to buy all of these Blu-Rays, and use Netflix to rent them.   I wanted to rent "Ninja 2" and "Niagara," but Netflix Blu-Ray rental only has the DVDs of both.  Does Netflix take a while before adding non-mainstream Blu-Rays to their inventory?  Or do they never add them?  FYI: I received "The Americans" tv series Blu-Ray from them overnight, which is newer than either of the above films.


----------



## teachsac

Netflix disc rental thread.

http://www.avsforum.com/t/969946/netflix-bd-disc-rental-discussion-thread 


S~


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Jungle Book (1967)


recommendation: Tier 1.25**


Anyone that has been around the Picture Quality Tiers since its formation knows that Disney's transfer of _Sleeping Beauty_ has been the gold (or in this case, Blu?) standard for classic cel animation, since it debuted in 2008. My sources tell me Disney spent a fortune on that restoration, as much as six times the money they have spent on other restorations. It was a beautiful film transfer that brought new life to the original cel animation. Some became disappointed when it became apparent that level of restoration and care wasn't going to be used for all of their classic films. For the first time since _Sleeping Beauty_, Disney has unleashed a Blu-ray worthy enough to be mentioned in the same breath. This is easily their best work on classic animation since 2008.

_The Jungle Book_ was the last animated feature that Walt Disney had an active role in and has always been a personal favorite of mine since childhood. Disney has cleaned up the film elements to pristine condition, resulting in a lush animated experience that retains the earthy color palette. A judicious application of skillful DNR has been used to revitalize the picture, leaving no traces other than the pure cel animation in a presentation never seen before this BD. The video looks better on Blu-ray today than it likely did upon theatrical release in 1967.


The technical attributes of this Blu-ray are beyond reproach and the fluid animation holds up nearly as well as anything Disney has released on the format. I was very tempted to place this BD in Tier 1.0 but the animation doesn't offer as much of a multi-plane effect and depth as other films.


----------



## teachsac

Just watched this last weekend. Looked terrific. I don't remember what it looked like when it came out. I did see it, though.


S~


----------



## wuther




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *teachsac*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21210#post_24399011
> 
> 
> Just watched this last weekend. Looked terrific. I don't remember what it looked like when it came out. I did see it, though.
> 
> 
> S~



None of the disney (all) cartoon BDs look like what was original released and not limited to film grain removal either.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Disney's animation transfers have definitely been hit or miss, depending on their perceived level of marketability. They produce great results when the necessary money and time are brought to the matter. There have been drastic mistakes, as well.
*
The Song of Bernadette


recommendation: Tier 4.5**


Twilight Time presumably licensed the 2002 film restoration and transfer by Fox for the 1943 Academy Award winner in cinematography. Twilight Time included a brief comparison featurette that references it.


For an older film scan, Fox pulled more detail and resolution out of it than I thought possible for a 2002 transfer originally intended for DVD. The film elements are in fine condition making allowances for its age, if a bit nicked with the occasional scratch or film imperfection. Decent black levels and fine shadow delineation greatly help the black-and-white cinematography become realized in 1080P resolution. A newer film scan at 4K would likely pull slightly more detail out of the movie but as-is this Blu-ray still presents _The Song of Bernadette_ pretty well. There are definite improvements in definition and clarity to be had over the DVD's picture.


The most obvious problem with the older transfer is its thick-amplitude ringing, fairly persistent in most of the film. It seems to have affected the grain structure in a few scenes, despite an AVC video encode that hovers near 30 Mbps. Bouts of banding and mild compression noise occasionally interfere with the film's natural grain, though a few specific scenes produce most of the artifacts. While it can't be named as a perfectly film-like transfer, it's not a complete disgrace to film purists.


I could not in good conscience place this disc above Tier 4.5, the touching 1943 movie needs further restoration for a higher placement in the PQ Tiers. The audio restoration boasts far more impressive results than the video, including an isolated soundtrack featuring Alfred Newman's Oscar-winning score in clean fidelity.


----------



## djoberg

My copy of _Gravity_ arrives tomorrow and I'm really anticipating another "Demo Blu!" My KURO is looking forward to doing what she does best....displaying amazing black levels and shadow details!


----------



## djoberg

I forgot to mention, I'm also getting _Smurfs 2_ in the same shipment.


----------



## rusky_g




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21210#post_24403436
> 
> 
> My copy of _Gravity_ arrives tomorrow and I'm really anticipating another "Demo Blu!" My KURO is looking forward to doing what she does best....displaying amazing black levels and shadow details!



Tier 0 or Tier 1 Denny, thats all we need to know ;-)


----------



## fredxr2d2

*Gravity (3D)


Tier 0*


Want to talk about inky blacks and shadow detail? Want to talk about both feeling alone and claustrophobic at the same time? Holy crap. Not only is this movie great, the blu was a great experience. I've only seen the 3D version so far, so djoberg may have a different opinion than me, but this easily qualifies for Tier 0 placement IMO.


Also: hopefully you have some surrounds that are worth their weight because the dialog floats around the room and is placed very precisely to experience.


Looking forward to hearing from others.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fredxr2d2*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21210#post_24410875
> 
> *Gravity (3D)
> 
> 
> Tier 0*
> 
> 
> Want to talk about inky blacks and shadow detail? Want to talk about both feeling alone and claustrophobic at the same time? Holy crap. Not only is this movie great, the blu was a great experience. I've only seen the 3D version so far, so djoberg may have a different opinion than me, but this easily qualifies for Tier 0 placement IMO.
> 
> 
> Also: hopefully you have some surrounds that are worth their weight because the dialog floats around the room and is placed very precisely to experience.
> 
> 
> Looking forward to hearing from others.



You have really whetted my appetite!! I *may* be able to watch it tonight or tomorrow night! Friday at the latest. I have every reason to believe that I will be agreeing with you regarding Tier 0. Do you have a specific place in Tier 0 that you could recommend? It could be a certain "quarter" of the tier.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21210#post_24410088
> 
> 
> Tier 0 or Tier 1 Denny, thats all we need to know ;-)



This will, undoubtedly, land in one of those two tiers. The consensus in all the reviews I've read so far is that it's a Reference Blu!


----------



## fredxr2d2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21210#post_24411014
> 
> 
> You have really whetted my appetite!! I *may* be able to watch it tonight or tomorrow night! Friday at the latest. I have every reason to believe that I will be agreeing with you regarding Tier 0. Do you have a specific place in Tier 0 that you could recommend? It could be a certain "quarter" of the tier.



Like I said, I watched the 3D version, so I'd place that one around 0.75. I never know when looking at a blu like this if my display isn't up to delivering on all the goods (I'm sure your Kuro will have plenty of fun). You may very well place this film higher (I have no doubt that it deserves high praise for visual quality either way). Enjoy your viewing (it's only 93 minutes, so easier to make time for than something like The Hobbit).


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21210#post_24411024
> 
> 
> This will, undoubtedly, land in one of those two tiers. The consensus in all the reviews I've read so far is that it's a Reference Blu!



I am curious to hear your thoughts. As good as it sounds, quite a few comments have talked about a general softness to the image that might knock this down a bit (or not) as far as this thread goes.


Fredxr2d2,


How was the 3d in general? Is the depth 3d aggressive or more on the subtle side?


----------



## fredxr2d2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21210#post_24411084
> 
> 
> I am curious to hear your thoughts. As good as it sounds, quite a few comments have talked about a general softness to the image that might knock this down a bit (or not) as far as this thread goes.
> 
> 
> Fredxr2d2,
> 
> 
> How was the 3d in general? Is the depth 3d aggressive or more on the subtle side?



The 3D was fairly subtle, though there were moments of very unique depth and some few moments where I swear some debris was going to hit me in the face. There's also a few moments where water droplets are floating around and it looks stunning. The idea (from what I've read elsewhere) with Gravity was to make the 3D give a realistic sense of depth to the film, more than a gimmick to display what computer generation can do. As far as I could tell, the movie stuck to that with great wide expanses showing depth and objects seeming to place themselves naturally in the viewing area.
*Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) There are a few moments in the ISS that made me feel like I could tell exactly the sizes of the spaces that Ryan was moving around and they gave a great sense of realism to the film.
I'd say this one is a definite must-buy for 3D fans, but I'm hardly one to fault someone for buying the 2D version.


----------



## rusky_g

Exce


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21210#post_24411024
> 
> 
> This will, undoubtedly, land in one of those two tiers. The consensus in all the reviews I've read so far is that it's a Reference Blu!



Looking forward to reviews in here as the dedicated Gravity thread has quite a debate going on, most of which seems pre release speculation rather than a full BD viewing experience.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21210#post_24411221
> 
> 
> Exce
> 
> Looking forward to reviews in here as the dedicated Gravity thread has quite a debate going on, most of which seems pre release speculation rather than a full BD viewing experience.



Are you referring to the Official AVS Thread by Ralph Potts? If not, could you give us the link to the one you're referring to? Thanks!


In reading the first page of the thread by Ralph Potts, I see there is a lot of complaining about how boring the movie is! but I haven't read any negatives comments yet on the PQ.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21210#post_24411084
> 
> 
> I am curious to hear your thoughts. As good as it sounds, quite a few comments have talked about a general softness to the image that might knock this down a bit (or not) as far as this thread goes.



I guess we've read different reviews, for I haven't read anything yet about a "general softness"; in fact, I've read just the opposite with remarks such as "amazing clarity throughout" and "very sharp with striking details." But I will be honest in my assessment and if I see softness, I'll call "a spade a spade."


I was reading on the Bass Thread stellar comments on the LFE, so I'm just as pumped to "hear" this as I am to "see" it!!


----------



## rusky_g

Denny
http://www.avsforum.com/t/1510560/gravity-2d-3d-feb-25/150#post_24410494


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21210#post_24411318
> 
> 
> I guess we've read different reviews, for I haven't read anything yet about a "general softness"; in fact, I've read just the opposite with remarks such as "amazing clarity throughout" and "very sharp with striking details." But I will be honest in my assessment and if I see softness, I'll call "a spade a spade."
> 
> 
> I was reading on the Bass Thread stellar comments on the LFE, so I'm just as pumped to "hear" this as I am to "see" it!!



Agreed on the audio and really looking forward to it!



Don't get me wrong, as the general consensus has been very complimentary as far as the PQ goes, but I have read more than a few "softness" type comments about the general PQ (both in 2d and 3d) at times. Here is one from the Gravity thread in this forum by Rich.....


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *R Harkness*  /t/1510560/gravity-2d-3d-feb-25/150#post_24410658
> 
> 
> I sneek-previewed Gravity last night, first in 3D. My system: JVC RS57 projector, Stewart ST-130 screen (1.3 gain), I vary my image sizes via masking/zooming/anamorphic lens.
> 
> (I started off watching at 105" wide).
> 
> 
> 
> One thing I noticed right off the bat was it wasn't quite as sharp and hi-res as I might have expected. There was just a slightly fuzzy character to the image, especially the opening shot of the earth and approaching shuttle. Generally the closer actors and objects were to the screen the sharper things looked, and there was certainly tons of detail in terms of texture on suits, equipment etc. But it didn't have that absolute clarity and sharpness we see on other titles like Oblivion (and plenty others in my collection). This keeps it from "reference quality" IMO (where reference in this sense meaning showing the amount of detail and clarity possible from a movie on blu-ray). This combination of very slight softness/fuzziness I can see being perceived differently by people, some noticing the slight softness, others noting all the actual detail in the image and the great contrast. So it makes sense we have some people saying "disappointed" and others "what are you talking about? It looks great!" And it does look great. Even in 2D sometimes it just feels like you're right there in terms of the dimensionality and richness and sheer realism of the scenes.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fredxr2d2*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21210#post_24411172
> 
> 
> The 3D was fairly subtle, though there were moments of very unique depth and some few moments where I swear some debris was going to hit me in the face. There's also a few moments where water droplets are floating around and it looks stunning. The idea (from what I've read elsewhere) with Gravity was to make the 3D give a realistic sense of depth to the film, more than a gimmick to display what computer generation can do. As far as I could tell, the movie stuck to that with great wide expanses showing depth and objects seeming to place themselves naturally in the viewing area.
> *Warning: Spoiler!* (Click to show) There are a few moments in the ISS that made me feel like I could tell exactly the sizes of the spaces that Ryan was moving around and they gave a great sense of realism to the film.
> I'd say this one is a definite must-buy for 3D fans, but I'm hardly one to fault someone for buying the 2D version.





Thanks for your thoughts. Subtle 3d is usually a downer for me which is why I decided to rent this first (should have it next week in 3d) so I am curious to see this as I have read the "subtle" description quite a few times now for this one.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21210#post_24411350
> 
> 
> Denny
> http://www.avsforum.com/t/1510560/gravity-2d-3d-feb-25/150#post_24410494



Thanks Russ!


----------



## djoberg

*Gravity*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fredxr2d2*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21210#post_24410875
> 
> *Gravity (3D)
> 
> 
> Tier 0*
> 
> 
> Want to talk about inky blacks and shadow detail? Want to talk about both feeling alone and claustrophobic at the same time? Holy crap. Not only is this movie great, the blu was a great experience. I've only seen the 3D version so far, so djoberg may have a different opinion than me, but this easily qualifies for Tier 0 placement IMO.
> 
> 
> Also: hopefully you have some surrounds that are worth their weight because the dialog floats around the room and is placed very precisely to experience.
> 
> 
> Looking forward to hearing from others.



Does it live up to all the hype? On most levels I would answer with a resounding YES! This should easily land in Tier Blu, though I could see some members possibly finding fault with the transfer in a couple of areas and assigning it to Tier Gold.


Let's get any negative issues out of the way. A couple of reviewers (on other sites) had commented on compression issues resulting in noise in some of the dark scenes. I did NOT notice any such instances. Others complained of a "general softness" (or at least a few scenes that came across as soft). Here is the only area where I *might* be inclined to agree. I say "might," because the few shots that *seemed* a tad on the soft side also had streams of light (from sunrises, mostly) introduced which took away from the "general sharpness" of the film. Light *can* indeed cause issues with PQ, giving it a "soft focus" look. But believe me, these were "few and far between" and I would only penalize the PQ score marginally for them.


The positive issues were plentiful!! Of course as my copy was loading I knew full well that I was most likely in for a treat when it came to black levels and I was NOT disappointed one iota! They were as inky as inky could be...and consistently so!! Throw bright white spacesuits & stars, along with beautiful scenes of earth (with deep blue seas and fiery oranges and reds) into the mix and we are treated to some of the best contrast in recent outings on Blu-ray. Details of space stations were exemplary. Facial close-ups, though rare, revealed excellent texture (the best example being one of Sandra Bullock at around the 20 minute mark while she is drifting in space). How about depth in this 2D version? Many are raving about the 3D version being a must because of the almost limitless depth and dimensionality, but I'm here to tell you that the 2D version, at times, makes you question the need for 3D....it's that good in multiple scenes.


If not for the "soft focus" look in a few shots and a lack of facial details in mid-range shots (one shot of Bullock in a space station looked like there might have been some *smoothing* going on), I would be tempted to put this smack dab in the middle of Tier 0, but if I'm going to be true to my conscience I have to dock it a notch or two. When I asked fredxr2d2 where he would place it in Tier 0 he responded with ".75" and I'm inclined to give it the same placement....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.75)*


PS In case you're wondering what I thought of the audio, the LFE and action in the surrounds were so GOOD (the sound constantly put you right in the action; it was so PRECISE)....and it had a PERFECT musical score. I would most definitely rate the audio as REFERENCE.


Viewed from 6' (I sat in closer for this one!) using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Iain-




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21150#post_24340121
> 
> *Rush*
> 
> 
> I'm in a hurry so I'll keep this short. In short, a nice-looking Blu with plenty of details, depth and clarity. Having said that, there were moments where softness crept in and it became a bit flat. Colors were a mixed bag, with some scenes featuring saturated colors (to fit the time piece) and others a bit subdued. My biggest gripe would be some of the daytime scenes at racetracks; the director chose to give it a *bleached* look with pumped up contrast and they really came across as washed out in a few instances. Black levels were decent and flesh tones were fairly good. I believe this is demo-worthy, but just barely....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75**
> 
> 
> I just have to add that the audio was FANTASTIC!! All the race scenes showed them revving up their engines and the bass was so deep in one of those scenes that my pants were literally vibrating and I could feel air going up my leg!! The action in the surrounds were well done too.
> 
> 
> Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....



This is the American release, right?


Reason I'm asking, is because there's an issue in the UK forums at blu-ray.com of the Studio Canal release. I personally haven't noticed it but others have.


It looks fine using my Sony BDP-S790/Panasonic 50GT50 display. Could be kit related, however.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Iain-*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21210#post_24421112
> 
> 
> This is the American release, right?
> 
> 
> Reason I'm asking, is because there's an issue in the UK forums at blu-ray.com of the Studio Canal release. I personally haven't noticed it but others have.
> 
> 
> It looks fine using my Sony BDP-S790/Panasonic 50GT50 display. Could be kit related, however.



I would assume it was the US release that I viewed. I rented it from a local video store and I've never known them to have copies from the UK.


----------



## djoberg

*Runner, Runner*


I recall the day, not long ago (within two years), when *reference* or *demo* Blu-rays were hard to come by. Nowadays, it seems that the *average* Blu falls into one of the top two tiers. Good for us!!


As the first scene ran its course, I hardly expected this to be what I just described. Interior scenes were flat, with murky blacks and terrible flesh tones. But within 15-20 minutes the PQ came to life, with deep blacks, appreciable depth, amazing details, warm/vibrant colors and solid sharpness/clarity . The change in scenery from the northeastern U. S. to Costa Rica might have played a part in this, but I suspect there were other factors involved. Whatever the case, from that point on it was "demo" material all the way, with a few exceptions of some fleeting soft shots, a couple of nighttime scenes where the black levels faltered a bit, and several instances where "orange hues" became pervasive, resulting in the typical "bronze flesh-tones."


The most pleasing EYE CANDY, by far, were the countless facial close-ups revealing texture galore (Ben Affleck and Justin Timberlake were both sporting a 2-3 three day growth and you could see every whisker, even as the camera started withdrawing from them). There was also a nice grain structure which served to enhance details rather than hindering them. Aerial shots of Costa Rica were beautiful, teeming with details in the city and offering lush coastal and mountain views.


If not for the scenes in America and the anomalies alluded to above in some scenes in Costa Rica, this *might* have made its way into the bottom of Tier Blu. With this having a relatively short running time of less than 90 minutes, I'm forced to dock this a whole tier, so my vote goes for the bottom of Tier Gold....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Inn of the Sixth Happiness

recommendation: Tier 4.0*
*

This is an adequate transfer for the 1958 movie starring Ingrid Berman. The CinemaScope production looks like it has been mildly processed by grain management tools, though the lack of dramatic improvement in fine texture could be due to an older film telecine. There are no deficiencies in the video encode, compression is handled well for a movie that runs a tad shy of three hours.


Fox has given _The Inn of the Sixth Happiness_ an acceptable 1080P presentation that lacks the crispness and authentic freshness of better film restorations. One can't help but wonder how much better it might have turned out if a new transfer had been struck from a restored negative. The results are somewhat disappointing considering some of the other work by Fox we've seen from their CinemaScope films on Blu-ray, including the just-released _The 300 Spartans_.


----------



## Dbuudo07

Did anyone else notice the noise in the clouds of earth at the beginning of Gravity? On my Elite 150fd, fed by an Oppo BDP-95, it was quite clear.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dbuudo07*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21210#post_24426135
> 
> 
> Did anyone else notice the noise in the clouds of earth at the beginning? On my Elite 150fd, fed by an Oppo BDP-95, it was quite clear.


To which movie are you referring? Gravity?


----------



## Dbuudo07




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21210#post_24426156
> 
> 
> To which movie are you referring? Gravity?



Whoops! Yes, Gravity. I corrected my post.


I found the noise in any bright white clouds.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dbuudo07*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21210#post_24426173
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21210#post_24426156
> 
> 
> To which movie are you referring? Gravity?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whoops! Yes, Gravity. I corrected my post.
> 
> 
> I found the noise in any bright white clouds.
Click to expand...

I have not seen Gravity yet on Blu-ray but Warner Bros. is not known for their reference compression specs. The artifacts you mention sound like compression noise.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dbuudo07*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21210#post_24426173
> 
> 
> Whoops! Yes, Gravity. I corrected my post.
> 
> 
> I found the noise in any bright white clouds.



I watched in 3d last night and saw a little noise here and there, but nothing major. Going to watch in 2d right now and will look for this specifically.


----------



## Dbuudo07




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21210#post_24426198
> 
> 
> I have not seen Gravity yet on Blu-ray but Warner Bros. is not known for their reference compression specs. The artifacts you mention sound like compression noise.



That's what I was thinking that's what it is. I thought this would be an immaculate transfer. For the most part it was, but this noise was distracting. I wouldn't place this in tier 0.


----------



## rusky_g

*Sherlock Holmes - A Game of Shadows*


The first 10 minutes had me thinking Tier 1, after that came a mix of softness, flat scenes and some ugly grain rearing its head. Some close up objects looked good, medium distance shots just lost clarity far too often. I was left disappointed.


Tier 2.75


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dbuudo07*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21210#post_24426135
> 
> 
> Did anyone else notice the noise in the clouds of earth at the beginning of Gravity? On my Elite 150fd, fed by an Oppo BDP-95, it was quite clear.



As I mentioned in my review, some (actually it was only ONE reviewer from Cinema Squid's site) did mention that he saw noise, and he definitely referred to it as a "compression issue." But as I also said in my review, I did NOT see the noise in my viewing. Ironically I have a KURO Elite just like you and I was looking for it because I had been alerted to it. Having said that, I wasn't expecting to see it in the clouds, but rather in the darkness of space (noise is often seen in a black background such as the nighttime sky or some other dark scene). I will take a much closer look in my next viewing.


Let me just add a word here about placement. You said in a subsequent post that you were thinking this would be an immaculate transfer and thus you didn't believe it merited a place in Tier 0 because, in your experience, it wasn't. I have yet to have seen an "immaculate transfer." Honestly, take any of the titles listed currently in Tier 0 and I will be able to find some fault with it, be it ever so small (unless we're talking about ANIMATED Blu-rays). So, even though there may be instances of softness (as was the case in _Avatar_) or inaccurate flesh-tones (as seen in the _Transformers Trilogy_) or a host of other anomalies observed in other titles, that doesn't automatically disqualify it from a Tier Blu placement. Of course I see you were actually *distracted* by the noise, so in your case it may be serious enough for you to disqualify it from a Tier Blu placement. That's where the "subjective" element enters into the equation, for Toe responded to your post by saying that he saw "a little noise here and there, but nothing major." In his case it didn't sound too serious!


----------



## Dbuudo07

^


I understand what you're saying and I agree.


Also, I said I expected an immaculate transfer. Immaculate in the sense of it being 0 tier with utter ease. But if only a few are experiencing it, it's probably not a serious issue.


----------



## James Meckley




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dbuudo07*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21210#post_24426135
> 
> 
> Did anyone else notice the noise in the clouds of earth at the beginning of Gravity? On my Elite 150fd, fed by an Oppo BDP-95, it was quite clear.



I'm a long-time lurker just popping in to offer an additional data point. I just watched the opening of the 2D version of _Gravity_ on my Panasonic ZT60, fed by an OPPO 83. I see the noise you describe in the clouds, but only in parts of the darker cloud layers on the left side of the screen--those that could be described as occupying Zones VI and VII in the Ansel Adams zone system. The brighter clouds were pure and free of any artifacts. I consider this a very minor annoyance in an otherwise beautiful presentation.


Thanks to all the regulars here for maintaining this thread--I find it very helpful.


James


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *James Meckley*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21240#post_24427405
> 
> 
> I'm a long-time lurker just popping in to offer an additional data point. I just watched the opening of the 2D version of _Gravity_ on my Panasonic ZT60, fed by an OPPO 83. I see the noise you describe in the clouds, but only in parts of the darker cloud layers on the left side of the screen--those that could be described as occupying Zones VI and VII in the Ansel Adams zone system. The brighter clouds were pure and free of any artifacts. I consider this a very minor annoyance in an otherwise beautiful presentation.
> 
> 
> Thanks to all the regulars here for maintaining this thread--I find it very helpful.
> 
> 
> James



Thanks for chiming in James! You offered a very relevant and helpful post.


I trust you're enjoying your Panny ZT60! At this point in time that would be my replacement (if I could locate one, that is) if my KURO would meet with an early demise.


----------



## rusky_g

If a title consistently 'Wow's' me from start to finish, that's my Tier 0 criteria. As Dj said, you'd be hard pressed to find a 100% faultless disc.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dbuudo07*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21210#post_24426173
> 
> 
> Whoops! Yes, Gravity. I corrected my post.
> 
> 
> I found the noise in any bright white clouds.



I have watched this title 2.5 times now. Watched twice in 3d and got through half in 2d, but shut it off as it was so flat compared to the 3d version. IMO, this film is clearly meant to be seen in 3d and you just don't get the full depth/effect in 2d which looks great overall otherwise. So for me, the film was MUCH more captivating in 3d.


I noticed the noise you mention in both versions at times. For me, this was not a runaway tier 0 title and not sure if I would go low tier 0 or high tier 1 if I end up voting. Either way, overall it is very impressive for all the reasons mentioned so far.


Having said all that, from a technical perspective, the audio to me is the star of this disc. Fantastic use of both LFE and surrounds and I cant find anything to complain about here.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21240#post_24428602
> 
> 
> I have watched this title 2.5 times now. Watched twice in 3d and got through half in 2d, but shut it off as *it was so flat compared to the 3d version*. IMO, this film is clearly meant to be seen in 3d and you just don't get the full depth/effect in 2d which looks great overall otherwise. So for me, the film was MUCH more captivating in 3d.
> 
> 
> Having said all that, from a technical perspective, the audio to me is the star of this disc. Fantastic use of both LFE and surrounds and I cant find anything to complain about here.



You know what I think Toe...I think you are spoiled by having a 3D projector!!










Seriously, if this title was "flat compared to the 3D version," I've just got to see this it in 3D. I had said there were scenes with incredible depth in the 2D version. A case in point would be in the first scene when Sandra Bullock is working on the Hubble telescope and she drops a bolt and it floats away from her and towards us. In the 2D version the depth was awesome and the bolt looked like it was going to come through my screen!!


I'm with you 100% when it comes to the audio!


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21240#post_24429492
> 
> 
> You know what I think Toe...I think you are spoiled by having a 3D projector!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, if this title was "flat compared to the 3D version," I've just got to see this it in 3D. I had said there were scenes with incredible depth in the 2D version. A case in point would be in the first scene when Sandra Bullock is working on the Hubble telescope and she drops a bolt and it floats away from her and towards us. In the 2D version the depth was awesome and the bolt looked like it was going to come through my screen!!
> 
> 
> I'm with you 100% when it comes to the audio!




That bolt scene is a good example. In 3d, there is a much greater sense of depth as the bolt actually does slightly break the screen surface and same with GCs hand as he reaches out for it.







Another example of the much greater depth in the 3d version is the very opening shot of the earth as the shuttle slowly comes in from space.......this shot goes relatively flat in 2d, but in 3d it feels like you are really looking into the scene/screen.







This is all just comparing the two though and if you don't have the 3d for a frame of reference, the 2d on it's own does show great depth as you mention. This is all just my experience and some like Kris Deering did not feel the 3d added much to this film and he did not seem to have a clear preference either way. My friend 5mark here on the forum for an even more contrasting opinion actually prefers the 2d overall! So this is certainly a matter of perspective/opinion due to all the variables between setups and viewers. 3d is a strange thing.......Avatar for example to me is the most overrated 3d title on blu and I actually probably prefer the 2d version overall, but many still hold this disc as the reference standard.







3d is very subjective for lots of reasons it seems.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21240#post_24426652
> 
> *Sherlock Holmes - A Game of Shadows*
> 
> 
> The first 10 minutes had me thinking Tier 1, after that came a mix of softness, flat scenes and some ugly grain rearing its head. Some close up objects looked good, medium distance shots just lost clarity far too often. I was left disappointed.
> 
> 
> Tier 2.75



This was most definitely an "underwhelming" title. Everyone that has weighed in has assigned it to Tier 2. This is unacceptable in a day when *most* new transfers are finding their way into the two top tiers.


----------



## rusky_g




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21240#post_24431021
> 
> 
> This was most definitely an "underwhelming" title. Everyone that has weighed in has assigned it to Tier 2. This is unacceptable in a day when *most* new transfers are finding their way into the two top tiers.



I quite agree, especially for a big budget movie, there's no excuse. At some points I felt like I was watching a DVD, really disappointed as the first street fight scene / restaurant poisoning scene looked really nice. From there it went downhill!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21240#post_24432046
> 
> 
> I quite agree, especially for a big budget movie, there's no excuse. At some points I felt like I was watching a DVD, really disappointed as the first street fight scene / restaurant poisoning scene looked really nice. From there it went downhill!



I'm glad you mentioned the fact that this was a "big budget movie," which is all the more reason to condemn the rather poor PQ throughout much of this title. The first installment fared a little better than this outing so one has to question the "powers that be" that had a part in filming this movie.


----------



## rusky_g




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21240#post_24432279
> 
> 
> I'm glad you mentioned the fact that this was a "big budget movie," which is all the more reason to condemn the rather poor PQ throughout much of this title. The first installment fared a little better than this outing so one has to question the "powers that be" that had a part in filming this movie.



I skimmed through Intersections recently and it had better PQ and a much lower budget!


Tonight after work a am buying Gravity so keep an eye on here for my review


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21240#post_24432293
> 
> 
> I skimmed through Intersections recently and it had better PQ and a much lower budget!
> 
> 
> Tonight after work a am buying Gravity so keep an eye on here for my review



Looking forward to it Russ! I think I read that your Sammy handles blacks and shadow details well, so you're in for a treat in that department. It will be interesting to see if you see and are bothered by "noise" in the clouds that others have mentioned.


----------



## rusky_g




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21240#post_24433064
> 
> 
> Looking forward to it Russ! I think I read that your Sammy handles blacks and shadow details well, so you're in for a treat in that department. It will be interesting to see if you see and are bothered by "noise" in the clouds that others have mentioned.



I think my Sammy does 'OK' in terms of blacks. I gave Gravity a quick flick through; on the plus side I saw good blacks, moments of excellent dimensionality and depth, but also some softness and a few instances of noise(?) blocking(?) specifically on the space suits and Sandra Bullock's face at 41 minutes in when she is talking about the Mardi Gras. I also don't favour grain.....


I'll give a formal placement later but for now I can see why some have felt disappointment with this disc.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21240#post_24434252
> 
> 
> I think my Sammy does 'OK' in terms of blacks. I gave Gravity a quick flick through; on the plus side I saw good blacks, moments of excellent dimensionality and depth, but also some softness and a few instances of noise(?) blocking(?) specifically on the space suits and Sandra Bullock's face at 41 minutes in when she is talking about the Mardi Gras. I also don't favour grain.....
> 
> 
> I'll give a formal placement later but for now I can see why some have felt disappointment with this disc.



Whoa, Russ, are you sure you're seeing *noise* on the space suits and on Sandra Bullock's face? I ask this for two reasons: 1) No one else has seen it in either of those two places. They specifically said they saw it "in the clouds." 2) I really looked closely at the space suits, pausing the disc several times to check out the details of the space stations, telescope and space suits. I think I would have observed any artifacts if they had been there.


----------



## rusky_g




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21240#post_24434785
> 
> 
> Whoa, Russ, are you sure you're seeing *noise* on the space suits and on Sandra Bullock's face? I ask this for two reasons: 1) No one else has seen it in either of those two places. They specifically said they saw it "in the clouds." 2) I really looked closely at the space suits, pausing the disc several times to check out the details of the space stations, telescope and space suits. I think I would have observed any artifacts if they had been there.



Denny, I'll brush any terms aside and describe what my eyes and that of my partner (Steph)could see: on SBs cheek, a patch of moving texture which looked like dot crawl. What would that be?! 41 minute was the approx time stamp....


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21240#post_24434863
> 
> 
> Denny, I'll brush any terms aside and describe what my eyes and that of my partner (Steph)could see: on SBs cheek, a patch of moving texture which looked like dot crawl. What would that be?! 41 minute was the approx time stamp....



Thanks for the time stamp Russ; I'll try to check that out soon and then I'll report any findings. When I see what you're describing on someone's face I do refer to it as either "mosquito noise" or ""video noise," so it may very well indeed be *noise*. I would be surprised though if it was a case of noise on the space suits.


----------



## rusky_g

Please do Denny. I'm wondering if it's something which is more visible with a non professional calibration such as my set up? Certainly I didnt witness anything like it with recent 'heavy hitters' such as Elysium and Oblivion.


Have you seen Thor - The Dark World yet? I was going to buy that also this week then I saw 5 star PQ review of Enders Game over on DoBlu....


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21240#post_24435018
> 
> 
> Please do Denny. I'm wondering if it's something which is more visible with a non professional calibration such as my set up? Certainly I didnt witness anything like it with recent 'heavy hitters' such as Elysium and Oblivion.
> 
> 
> Have you seen Thor - The Dark World yet? I was going to buy that also this week then I saw 5 star PQ review of Enders Game over on DoBlu....



I don't believe your set would be at fault, even with it lacking a professional calibration.


I went into our local video store last Friday to rent _Thor: The Dark World_ and they were out of the Blu-ray copies. Hopefully it will be back in stock later this week.


----------



## rusky_g




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21240#post_24434963
> 
> 
> Thanks for the time stamp Russ; I'll try to check that out soon and then I'll report any findings. When I see what you're describing on someone's face I do refer to it as either "mosquito noise" or ""video noise," so it may very well indeed be *noise*. I would be surprised though if it was a case of noise on the space suits.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21240#post_24435064
> 
> 
> I don't believe your set would be at fault, even with it lacking a professional calibration.
> 
> 
> I went into our local video store last Friday to rent _Thor: The Dark World_ and they were out of the Blu-ray copies. Hopefully it will be back in stock later this week.



Great, hope to see a review soon. Another film on my PQ radar is The Book Thief, not sure when or indeed if it will be granted a UK release though.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21240#post_24435105
> 
> 
> 
> Great, hope to see a review soon. *Another film on my PQ radar is The Book Thief,* not sure when or indeed if it will be granted a UK release though.



It's on my radar too Russ!







Regarding it being "granted a UK release," check this out:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Book-Thief-Blu-ray-Copy/dp/B00DHJT5Q6


----------



## rusky_g




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21240#post_24435158
> 
> 
> It's on my radar too Russ!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding it being "granted a UK release," check this out:
> 
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Book-Thief-Blu-ray-Copy/dp/B00DHJT5Q6



Awesome! There is a review on Bluray.com....4.5 for Video


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*To Catch A Thief


recommendation: Tier 1.25*


Mere words cannot possibly do justice to this exquisite film transfer. Every videophile needs this disc in their collection, it's a first-rate example of vintage film on Blu-ray. The overall definition in the film-like image begs to be seen on a huge projection screen.


Paramount must have spent a fortune on the film restoration, more resolution and detail have been pulled out of the camera negative than I thought possible in 1080P. The 1955 Oscar winner for Best Cinematography was a VistaVision film production, crafted by a Hollywood studio system with professionals that knew what they were doing and had a large budget to work with. Uncannily sharp with a laser-like focus, its pure shadow delineation and pleasing depth are a sight to behold and true eye candy.


Impeccable black levels and absolutely magnificent color rendition produce moments of amazing clarity. Check out the scene when Cary Grant's character visits the flower market, it's pure Technicolor saturation at its finest degree. This is a reference transfer of vintage film, flawlessly handled from pristine elements. There is not any margin left for possible improvement in 1080P, this is the definitive version of _To Catch A Thief_. It looks ready and raring to go whenever the 4K format comes around.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^


Thanks for the excellent review Phantom! After reading it how could I possibly resist ordering a copy? I couldn't! It's on its way from Amazon Prime!


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21240#post_24440784
> 
> 
> ^^^^^^^^
> 
> 
> Thanks for the excellent review Phantom! After reading it how could I possibly resist ordering a copy? I couldn't! It's on its way from Amazon Prime!


It's a real treat and comes loaded with bonus features. It's an easy recommendation to make for purchase.

*Beware the Batman: Season One Part One


recommendation: Tier 1.5**


A fine digital transfer of the CGI animation with no noteworthy defects. This one came out a couple of weeks back courtesy of Warner Archive and represents the first 13 episodes of _Beware the Batman_, a cartoon series animated with pure CGI. If you saw it on television, you'll know what to expect. The CGI is a step behind theatrical features and some of the more polished direct-to-video features, but typically has all the hallmarks that make digital animation so appealing on Blu-ray in 1080P.


They probably attempted to cram a little too much Hi-Def content on a single BD-50, the AVC video encode has hints of banding and posterization in the more dynamic scenes. This one might deserve a slightly higher placement but the character designs look a bit wonky to me, none of the jaws of the characters look normal.


----------



## matthewa




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21200_50#post_24382841
> 
> 
> All Is Lost looks interesting as a movie. Redford is one of Hollywood's few stars to let himself age naturally on the screen.
> 
> 
> A peek at IMDB indicates the movie was filmed on the Arri Alexa camera. Almost every movie made on that camera seems to end up between Tier 1.5 to Tier 2.5.



Homefront is another new release on Arri Alexa, I don't really understand the ratings, but to me it's got a very nice picture that would sit with your hypothesis


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *matthewa*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21240#post_24441381
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21200_50#post_24382841
> 
> 
> All Is Lost looks interesting as a movie. Redford is one of Hollywood's few stars to let himself age naturally on the screen.
> 
> 
> A peek at IMDB indicates the movie was filmed on the Arri Alexa camera. Almost every movie made on that camera seems to end up between Tier 1.5 to Tier 2.5.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Homefront is another new release on Arri Alexa, I don't really understand the ratings, but to me it's got a very nice picture that would sit with your hypothesis
Click to expand...

I think the best way for newbies to acclimate themselves to the scores in the Blu-ray Picture Quality Tiers is check BDs they've personally seen and how they score in the system. We have thousands of Blu-rays listed so most people will have seen examples of each Tier and what they look like. For example, here is Tier 1.5 (Gold). Most of the BDs ranked this high make for solid demo material, just a notch below the purest eye candy.

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1425519/official-blu-ray-picture-quality-rankings-the-tiers-updated-through-december-16-2013#user_anchor15 


Just a reminder, the absolute best discs are in Tier 0.


A certain Todd-AO film came out this week which will likely garner a Tier 0 nomination.







More to come later...


----------



## JoeBloggz

*Dallas Buyers Club*


Firstly, if you're a movie buff, you owe it to yourself to see this film. It's a very moving and powerful film with great characters, which are acted beautifully. If any of the actors in Gravity won the Oscar for best/supporting actor it would have been an injustice. Taking nothing away from Gravity but the plot and characters do not come close to the breadth/character development like Dallas Buyers Club(DBC).


In terms of the quality of this transfer, its hit or miss, but more hit than miss. The negatives are minimal and don't take away to much from my overall Tier recommendation. Overall its clear, clean, and facial closeups are good, but not Tier 0 quality, in fact, in some case not Tier 1 either. Blacks are inky but not reference. Some scenes do suffer from softness and could have been more sharp. Colors are good but not great(although there isn't a huge palette overall in the film).


Some of the scenes when Hudson(McConaughey) travels to Mexico, China, and Japan are all great looking scenes. Very sharp with accurate colors( these are some of the most colorful scenes in the film).


Shadow detail in some of the dark scenes, when McConaughey is behind the gate watching the rodeo are average. I could not make out the distinct details in these dark scenes as everything sort of mixed/blurred together.


Overall, this is a quality transfer from Universal. A few of the negatives knock it down a bit, but its still a great upgrade from DVD.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


----------



## fredxr2d2

*Snitch


Tier Recommendation: 1.0*


I've been impressed with Red's commitment to quality digital cinematography, and this feature shot with the Red Epic is no exception. Wow, details galore in ALL facial shots. Deep blacks, crisp textures, this is a phenomenal presentation that is a great blu-ray.


The movie itself leaves a little to be desired (and can be preachy at times), and there is far less beating the crap out of people than I expected from Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson. All that said, this is a great rental for some amazing digital photography work (and how far we've come with digital cinema in recent years). Some softer shots leave it from being all the way in Tier Blu (possibly those shots done with the Canon-per IMDB info), so I recommend the top of Tier 1.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JoeBloggz*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21240#post_24446661
> 
> *Dallas Buyers Club*
> 
> 
> Firstly, if you're a movie buff, you owe it to yourself to see this film. It's a very moving and powerful film with great characters, which are acted beautifully. If any of the actors in Gravity won the Oscar for best/supporting actor it would have been an injustice. Taking nothing away from Gravity but the plot and characters do not come close to the breadth/character development like Dallas Buyers Club(DBC).
> 
> 
> In terms of the quality of this transfer, its hit or miss, but more hit than miss. The negatives are minimal and don't take away to much from my overall Tier recommendation. Overall its clear, clean, and facial closeups are good, but not Tier 0 quality, in fact, in some case not Tier 1 either. Blacks are inky but not reference. Some scenes do suffer from softness and could have been more sharp. Colors are good but not great(although there isn't a huge palette overall in the film).
> 
> 
> Some of the scenes when Hudson(McConaughey) travels to Mexico, China, and Japan are all great looking scenes. Very sharp with accurate colors( these are some of the most colorful scenes in the film).
> 
> 
> Shadow detail in some of the dark scenes, when McConaughey is behind the gate watching the rodeo are average. I could not make out the distinct details in these dark scenes as everything sort of mixed/blurred together.
> 
> 
> Overall, this is a quality transfer from Universal. A few of the negatives knock it down a bit, but its still a great upgrade from DVD.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75*



Thanks Joe for the detailed review! I'm busy all weekend or I would go rent this immediately, but early next week should work for me.


I'm not surprised by your comment about the actors in _Gravity_, for although I liked the acting by Sandra Bullock, I was taken aback when she was nominated for Best Actor in a major role. Just from the trailers I've seen on _Dallas Buyers Club_ it's obvious that the acting is superb with more depth and character development involved.


----------



## OppoMrSocko




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fredxr2d2*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21240#post_24446776
> 
> *Snitch
> 
> 
> Tier Recommendation: 1.0*
> 
> 
> I've been impressed with Red's commitment to quality digital cinematography, and this feature shot with the Red Epic is no exception. Wow, details galore in ALL facial shots. Deep blacks, crisp textures, this is a phenomenal presentation that is a great blu-ray.
> 
> 
> The movie itself leaves a little to be desired (and can be preachy at times), and there is far less beating the crap out of people than I expected from Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson. All that said, this is a great rental for some amazing digital photography work (and how far we've come with digital cinema in recent years). Some softer shots leave it from being all the way in Tier Blu (possibly those shots done with the Canon-per IMDB info), so I recommend the top of Tier 1.


 

Sweet, was looking for a minimum 1.0 Tier live-action Blu Ray to rent from Netflix.  Not into mainstream stuff myself:  I'm a fan of Rowdy Roddy Piper and Rock films, so thank you for the tip.


----------



## edlittle

Snitch is definitely a "good" movie. Nothing to make it to a top 10 of all time, but nice to throw on, get absorbed in the plot, and shut your brain off.


----------



## djoberg

*12 Years a Slave*


It's late and I'm tired, so this will be short. Putting it quite simply, this film's PQ can be broken down into two categories: DAY and NIGHT. DAY-time scenes, especially those filmed outside, were amazingly beautiful, with lush scenes of woods, swamps, cotton fields, etc. Colors were warm and vibrant in these scenes, flesh tones were spot-on, details were to-die-for (details of whipping and scourgings, resulting in welts and scars, looked incredibly real!!), contrast was strong, depth was outstanding, and clarity reigned supreme. NIGHT-time scenes were another matter altogether, for the majority of them featured either murky blacks or crushed blacks (that all but eliminated shadow details), or in low-lit interior scenes a general softness prevailed. To be fair there were a few scenes with very good-looking black levels (a case in point would be an early scene with Solomon chained in a railroad box car), but these were "few and far between." So, the difference between DAY-time and NIGHT-time scenes were, to use an old cliche, like DAY and NIGHT!


I want to go on record by saying that due to the majority of the 2+ hour running time taking place during the day and outdoors, this film is deserving of demo status. I'm not resorting to hyperbole when I say that there were shots in some scenes that rivaled anything I've ever seen on Blu-ray. If the whole film had been characterized as such, this would be the new "King of the Blu-ray Hill." And when I say that I mean I'd even be tempted to dethrone the best of the animated titles in favor of such an exquisite live-action movie. But for whatever reason it had its issues with dark scenes and for that it MUST be penalized accordingly. In seeking to "average things out," my conscience dictates the following placement....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The 300 Spartans


recommendation: Tier 2.0*
*

A beautiful transfer preserves the original CinemaScope film in a very strong Blu-ray presentation. The 1962 movie from Twentieth Century-Fox arrived a couple of weeks ago on Blu-ray with a startling clean appearance. The film elements are in excellent condition and the vivid clarity is quite telling, indicating a high-quality image harvest with a minimum of overt digital processing. The crisp presentation has gorgeous color rendition across the spectrum, highlighted by a pleasing contrast and nearly perfect black levels. The panoramic shots have good depth and surprising sharpness.


The extremely film-like transfer has few signs of processing and includes loads of fine detail. Certainly one of the stronger looking efforts turned out by Fox, from their stable of CinemaScope movies released in 1080P. The original inspiration for the recent FX-heavy hit, _300_ starring Gerard Butler, _The 300 Spartans_ deserves a solid placement in Tier 2.


----------



## wattheF

Just stumbled upon this thread.

Can I ask why Oblivion isn't top tier? That bluray looks absolutely impeccable from beginning to end on my 60" ST60 plasma, at least to my eyes. Mind you I am no pro here but I do think of myself as a videophile in the making.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wattheF*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21270#post_24456961
> 
> 
> Just stumbled upon this thread.
> 
> Can I ask why Oblivion isn't top tier? That bluray looks absolutely impeccable from beginning to end on my 60" ST60 plasma, at least to my eyes. Mind you I am no pro here but I do think of myself as a videophile in the making.



For the most part, _Oblivion_ is "impeccable" and thus "reference" quality. But it had a few issues (see the link to my review below) that dropped it down a notch to the top of Tier 1. A placement at the top of Tier Gold is still considered "demo-worthy" and it's as close to "reference" as it gets, so don't feel bad that it missed the top tier by the smallest of margins.

http://www.avsforum.com/t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/20580#post_23634261


----------



## rusky_g




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wattheF*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21270#post_24456961
> 
> 
> Just stumbled upon this thread.
> 
> Can I ask why Oblivion isn't top tier? That bluray looks absolutely impeccable from beginning to end on my 60" ST60 plasma, at least to my eyes. Mind you I am no pro here but I do think of myself as a videophile in the making.



I rated it Tier 0. Awesome PQ


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wattheF*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21270#post_24456961
> 
> 
> Just stumbled upon this thread.
> 
> Can I ask why Oblivion isn't top tier? That bluray looks absolutely impeccable from beginning to end on my 60" ST60 plasma, at least to my eyes. Mind you I am no pro here but I do think of myself as a videophile in the making.


Sure, I can answer that question. The current placement in Tier 1.25 was the result of averaging out three different scores from various contributors to this discussion thread:


Gamereviewgod Tier 1.75

Djoberg Tier 1.0

Shpankey Tier 0


The PQ Tiers merely reflect the will and popular consensus of users to this thread. The results are constantly being remodeled with each quarterly update (coming very soon), nothing is set in stone. I assume you think _Oblivion_ should be in Tier 0, containing the absolute best BDs for video quality? With your feedback, Oblivion will get bumped up in the next update to the PQ Tiers. Feel free to cite any other discs you feel have been improperly judged in placement.


----------



## rusky_g

I was surprised to see GRG give Oblivion and Vehicle 19 the same score.


----------



## DarthDoxie


*The Croods


Recommendation: Tier 0*


Can't really add to the superlatives already written about this film.  It's just a solid presentation on all levels of PQ.

 

Viewed from 8' on equipment below.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21270#post_24461177
> 
> 
> Sure, I can answer that question. The current placement in Tier 1.25 was the result of averaging out three different scores from various contributors to this discussion thread:
> 
> 
> Gamereviewgod Tier 1.75
> 
> Djoberg Tier 1.0
> 
> Shpankey Tier 0
> 
> 
> The PQ Tiers merely reflect the will and popular consensus of users to this thread. The results are constantly being remodeled with each quarterly update (coming very soon), nothing is set in stone. I assume you think _Oblivion_ should be in Tier 0, containing the absolute best BDs for video quality? With your feedback, Oblivion will get bumped up in the next update to the PQ Tiers. Feel free to cite any other discs you feel have been improperly judged in placement.



I was glad to see this response giving him the process employed for placement so he knows that it can indeed be changed when members challenge the current status of a title. I felt constrained to respond the way I did because it seemed he couldn't t believe it wasn't in Tier Blu because in his viewing experience it was *impeccable*. I wanted him to see that others may have had a different viewing experience. In this case I did see a few anamolies that forced me to penalize the PQ score, though overall it had stellar PQ. This is where the "subjective" element of Tier Placement comes into play.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DarthDoxie*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21270#post_24462769
> 
> *The Croods
> 
> 
> 
> Recommendation: Tier 0*
> 
> 
> 
> Can't really add to the superlatives already written about this film.  It's just a solid presentation on all levels of PQ.
> 
> 
> Viewed from 8' on equipment below.



Thanks for weighing in on this title; I agree wholeheartedly with you. This most definitely deserves a spot in the Top Five where it currently resides.


----------



## fredxr2d2

*The Hunger Games: Catching Fire


Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.5*


While some issues (did I see banding or am I going crazy?) with the otherwise stellar presentation leaves it from being Tier 0 quality, I think this new Blu is a spectacular presentation that accurately reflects the intended presentation of the film. The final act being shot in IMAX leaves few details hidden (see if you duck when the camera pans through and hits a leaf on the top edge--I almost did) and we again (like TDK and TDKR) see the advantages of using IMAX cameras to film modern day blockbusters for high definition displays. I was stunned at the greens and blues in the arena and the dazzling displays of Caesar Flickerman's studio sets showed off the right "panache" that a Capitol production should. I will say that the muted colors in the outlying districts contrasted quite nicely with the almost garish attire of the Capitol and set the tone of the different set pieces quite nicely, though I could understand if someone thought the placement should be lower because we spend some time with the muted grays of District 11 and 12.


I look forward to seeing other people's thoughts on this new release.


----------



## rusky_g




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21150#post_24345774
> 
> *Ender's Game*
> 
> 
> WOW!!! My KURO just thanked me for renting this Blu and informed me that he/she was designed and made for movies just like this!! What can I say? How about....the BLACKS were OFF THE CHARTS....the SHADOW DETAILS were EXEMPLARY....the FLESH TONES were AMAZING....the DETAILS were PERFECT....and the DEPTH was OUTSTANDING! The movie itself was nothing to write home to mama about, but if you want to see some mesmerizing EYE CANDY...and hear some tantalizing AUDIO, then at least give this a rent. You will NOT be disappointed...I promise you!
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (right above Transformers: Dark of the Moon)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ender's Game
> 
> 
> Bar a couple of soft facial shots I agree this looked largely fantastic. It had that absolute clarity in many scenes which I compare to Elysium and Oblivion, both of which also have those super detailed space craft shots. When the other facial shots were good they were very good! Awesome blacks throughout, depth and dimension in aces.
> 
> 
> Tier 0.75


----------



## wattheF




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21270#post_24461177
> 
> 
> Sure, I can answer that question. The current placement in Tier 1.25 was the result of averaging out three different scores from various contributors to this discussion thread:
> 
> 
> Gamereviewgod Tier 1.75
> 
> Djoberg Tier 1.0
> 
> Shpankey Tier 0
> 
> 
> The PQ Tiers merely reflect the will and popular consensus of users to this thread. The results are constantly being remodeled with each quarterly update (coming very soon), nothing is set in stone. I assume you think _Oblivion_ should be in Tier 0, containing the absolute best BDs for video quality? With your feedback, Oblivion will get bumped up in the next update to the PQ Tiers. Feel free to cite any other discs you feel have been improperly judged in placement.


Thanks for Breaking this down for me. And yes I do feel Oblivion belongs in tier 0. I didn't notice any of the anomalies that have been mentioned. In fact I find the black level top notch. The movie is made up many bright (yet muted) scenes, but when called upon, like the scene He goes into the cave, the blacks are pitch yet shadow detail is still perfect.

I also don't recall any softness at all. I am using a Darbee as well so maybe that helps.

The muted color pallet in the movie is based on the setting and also is a stylistic choice. I did read how you judge the blurays based only on pure PQ on the first page, but I don't think a movie should be docked SOLELY based on an artistic decision. At the very least it shouldn't preclude it from a top tier rank. In the case of Oblivion, again, when called upon the colors really pop. Scenes like the small flower in the pot against the stark background and the valley/lake scenes are good examples.

Thanks for taking the time to consider my input and I look forward to taking a crack at submitting a review for a new title soon.


----------



## wattheF




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21270#post_24465966
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21150#post_24345774
> 
> *Ender's Game*
> 
> 
> WOW!!! My KURO just thanked me for renting this Blu and informed me that he/she was designed and made for movies just like this!! What can I say? How about....the BLACKS were OFF THE CHARTS....the SHADOW DETAILS were EXEMPLARY....the FLESH TONES were AMAZING....the DETAILS were PERFECT....and the DEPTH was OUTSTANDING! The movie itself was nothing to write home to mama about, but if you want to see some mesmerizing EYE CANDY...and hear some tantalizing AUDIO, then at least give this a rent. You will NOT be disappointed...I promise you!
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (right above Transformers: Dark of the Moon)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ender's Game
> 
> 
> Bar a couple of soft facial shots I agree this looked largely fantastic. It had that absolute clarity in many scenes which I compare to Elysium and Oblivion, both of which also have those super detailed space craft shots. When the other facial shots were good they were very good! Awesome blacks throughout, depth and dimension in aces.
> 
> 
> Tier 0.75
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with a tier 0 ranking for Enders Game. Wow! Just crazy good PQ all around. I think the movie itself was rather poor up until the end, which salvaged it a bit.
Click to expand...


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Grandmaster

recommendation: Tier 3.75*
*

The Weinstein Company gives us the 108-minute cut of Wong Kar Wai's ode to Chinese martial arts. The cinematography is unquestionably fantastic, nominated for an Oscar it probably should have won. The movie does a lot of tricky editing with visual FX and unusual camera techniques, leading to the occasional stuttering frame in super-slow-mo. It's dense photography with dark lighting, leading to very heavy black levels and visible noise in the darkest shots. There is also the insertion of what appears to be content sourced from inferior cameras in a couple of scenes, leading to a visibly degraded image with reduced resolution and softer detail.


I'm unsure if some of the noted problems were a part of this cut or Starz/Anchor Bay were handed an inferior master to begin with, there is a Hong Kong BD with a different cut. Given Wong Kar Wai's masterful direction, this BD is a bit disappointing in the picture quality department. Some of it looks quite beautiful as pure eye candy, as when Gong Er practices in the courtyard with the snow falling. The problems are too noticeable to overlook in assigning a placement.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Thirteenth Floor


recommendation: Tier 3.5
*

This Blu-ray from Sony came out in April of 2009, though the transfer looks much older than that release date. Currently placed in Tier 3.0, _The Thirteenth Floor_ was made right before the era of Digital Intermediates for film and it shows in this perfectly ordinary film transfer. The HD master was likely struck before Blu-ray was around, from an older telecine.


There are no legitimate concerns about DNR, the light grain structure retains its analog appearance. I would say the AVC video encode has slight problems, from chroma noise in a few scenes to light macroblocking in the more grainy moments. Sony's early AVC video encodes had an odd look to them, rarely handling grain in a completely unblemished manner. This one is no exception, though for the most part it does replicate the film master in normal fidelity. The print has no overt signs of grit or wear, it's a clean-looking source from recent film elements in nice condition.


The color palette lacks any brilliant color rendition and much of the movie is set in a sepia-toned L.A. of 1937, flattening out the contrast and black levels. There isn't much eye candy to speak of but in all other respects fits my personal definition of completely average PQ in 1080P.


I considered not posting this score since the current placement in Tier 3.0 isn't far off, but I felt the lack of pop and flat colors pushed it down a bit further than that mark. I've always had a soft spot for this film noir mystery crossed with _The Matrix_.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21240#post_24435105
> 
> 
> 
> Great, hope to see a review soon. Another film on my PQ radar is The Book Thief, not sure when or indeed if it will be granted a UK release though.



Did you end up ordering _The Book Thief_? I read a few reviews on it and was especially impressed with what Aaron Peck (from HighDefDigest) had to say about it. He gave it a PQ score of 100 and said it was worth a blind buy just for that. I succumbed to his glowing remarks and ordered it from Amazon Prime a half hour ago.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21270#post_24483115
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21240#post_24435105
> 
> 
> 
> Great, hope to see a review soon. Another film on my PQ radar is The Book Thief, not sure when or indeed if it will be granted a UK release though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you end up ordering _The Book Thief_? I read a few reviews on it and was especially impressed with what Aaron Peck (from HighDefDigest) had to say about it. He gave it a PQ score of 100 and said it was worth a blind buy just for that. I succumbed to his glowing remarks and ordered it from Amazon Prime a half hour ago.
Click to expand...

If I weren't so swamped with other BDs to cover, I think I would have made a blind buy on The Book Thief.


----------



## rusky_g




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21270#post_24483115
> 
> 
> Did you end up ordering _The Book Thief_? I read a few reviews on it and was especially impressed with what Aaron Peck (from HighDefDigest) had to say about it. He gave it a PQ score of 100 and said it was worth a blind buy just for that. I succumbed to his glowing remarks and ordered it from Amazon Prime a half hour ago.




Will be ordering soon Denny, that review sure has whetted the appetite! Let us know what you think.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21270#post_24483131
> 
> 
> If I weren't so swamped with other BDs to cover, I think I would have made a blind buy on The Book Thief.



Have you read the book? I haven't, but many of those who have are very impressed with the movie (going by reviews on Amazon), saying it was a good representation of the book. The story-line sounds good, the acting is supposedly superb, and they are boasting top-notch cinematography. Add to that stellar PQ and how can one go wrong (with a blind buy)?


Well, I'll be watching the newest outing of _The Hunger Games_ tonight...I'll chime in with a review after the credits roll.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21270#post_24483415
> 
> 
> Will be ordering soon Denny, that review sure has whetted the appetite! Let us know what you think.



Mr. Peck's review of the movie itself was also very good (as were MANY customer reviews on Amazon, as just mentioned in my response to Phantom), so it's really a no-brainer for me.


----------



## rusky_g




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21270#post_24483431
> 
> 
> Mr. Peck's review of the movie itself was also very good (as were MANY customer reviews on Amazon, as just mentioned in my response to Phantom), so it's really a no-brainer for me.



Good man! Although the colour palette is subdued there's something about its look that really appeals to me....different from the punchy colour films I normally gravitate to..


----------



## DarthDoxie


*The Hunger Games: Catching Fire*


Overall good PQ throughout with the IMAX scenes in the area for the last half truly standing out.  I didn't notice any banding like fredxr2d2 mentioned but some scenes in the districts were a little soft.  Colors popped in the capital and jungle scenes and contrast and shadow detail were nice.  Also nice color in Jennifer Lawrence's eyes throughout the film.

 

I got it from Redbox and was disappointed the sound was only in DD.  Is this a trend for rentals?

*Tier Recommendation*: 1.25*


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21270#post_24483441
> 
> 
> Good man! Although the colour palette is subdued there's something about its look that really appeals to me....different from the punchy colour films I normally gravitate to..



I'll take a subdued color palette any day over a film with extreme color-grading (i.e. orange/teal hues). As long as the PQ still features good details, depths, black levels, and clarity/sharpness, I'm a happy camper! A recent example of this was _The Lone Ranger_.


----------



## fredxr2d2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DarthDoxie*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21270#post_24483456
> 
> *The Hunger Games: Catching Fire*
> 
> 
> 
> Overall good PQ throughout with the IMAX scenes in the area for the last half truly standing out.  I didn't notice any banding like fredxr2d2 mentioned but some scenes in the districts were a little soft.  Colors popped in the capital and jungle scenes and contrast and shadow detail were nice.  Also nice color in Jennifer Lawrence's eyes throughout the film.
> 
> 
> I got it from Redbox and was disappointed the sound was only in DD.  Is this a trend for rentals?
> 
> *Tier Recommendation*: 1.25*



I think it is a trend as my rental from Netflix was only DD as well. I'm also not sure if I actually saw banding or my eyes were playing tricks on me: watching with the GF didn't allow rewinding to check.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DarthDoxie*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21270#post_24483456
> 
> *The Hunger Games: Catching Fire*
> 
> 
> 
> Overall good PQ throughout with the IMAX scenes in the area for the last half truly standing out.  I didn't notice any banding like fredxr2d2 mentioned but some scenes in the districts were a little soft.  Colors popped in the capital and jungle scenes and contrast and shadow detail were nice.  Also nice color in Jennifer Lawrence's eyes throughout the film.
> 
> 
> I got it from Redbox and was disappointed the sound was only in DD.  Is this a trend for rentals?
> 
> *Tier Recommendation*: 1.25*



Thanks for the review! I'm even more pumped to watch this after seeing your review.


Regarding the audio being in DD, I fear it is indeed becoming "a trend for rentals," at least in some cases. Having said that, some DD5.1 audio tracks can sound quite impressive, as was the case with _Enders Game_.


----------



## rusky_g




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21270#post_24483462
> 
> 
> I'll take a subdued color palette any day over a film with extreme color-grading (i.e. orange/teal hues). As long as the PQ still features good details, depths, black levels, and clarity/sharpness, I'm a happy camper! A recent example of this was _The Lone Ranger_.



Denny, I quite agree.


In other news I purchased a Yamaha YSP2200 last weekend so can now enjoy 7.1 audio rather than TV speakers. We have folk over tomorrow, another viewing of Oblivion or Enders Game awaits. Apologies for no Gravity review yet, Steph isnt keen on watching it so I need to find a spare moment for a solo viewing.


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DarthDoxie*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21270#post_24483456
> 
> *The Hunger Games: Catching Fire*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I got it from Redbox and was disappointed the sound was only in DD.  Is this a trend for rentals?
> 
> *Tier Recommendation*: 1.25*



Just Lionsgate and one of their subsidiary companies (cant remember which) do DD for rentals. All other studios will give you lossless for rentals from RB/NF.


EDIT: I think the subsidiary is Summit Entertainment.


----------



## DarthDoxie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fredxr2d2*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21250_50#post_24483477
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is a trend as my rental from Netflix was only DD as well.


I think an earlier review of Ender's Game from Redbox mentioned it was only in DD as well.  They're from different studios so I wonder if Redbox is requesting discs with lossy tracks to get them cheaper?  Anyone know what they do with their old discs?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21300#post_24483492
> 
> 
> Just Lionsgate and one of their subsidiary companies (cant remember which) do DD for rentals. All other studios will give you lossless for rentals from RB/NF.
> 
> 
> EDIT: I think the subsidiary is Summit Entertainment.



I hope you're right Toe. I just mentioned a few minutes ago in a post that the _Enders Game_ rental was in DD5.1, but it was also produced jointly by Lionsgate/Summit Inc., so you may be right on the mark.


----------



## DarthDoxie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21300_50#post_24483492
> 
> 
> 
> Just Lionsgate and one of their subsidiary companies (cant remember which) do DD for rentals. All other studios will give you lossless for rentals from RB/NF.
> 
> 
> EDIT: I think the subsidiary is Summit Entertainment.


Looks like you're right on the money with Hunger Games/Lionsgate and Ender's Game/Summit.  I've rented many times with Redbox and this was the first one with a lossy track.


----------



## djoberg

*Hunger Games: Catching Fire*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fredxr2d2*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21270#post_24463897
> 
> *The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
> 
> 
> Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.5*
> 
> 
> While some issues (did I see banding or am I going crazy?) with the otherwise stellar presentation leaves it from being Tier 0 quality, I think this new Blu is a spectacular presentation that accurately reflects the intended presentation of the film. The final act being shot in IMAX leaves few details hidden (see if you duck when the camera pans through and hits a leaf on the top edge--I almost did) and we again (like TDK and TDKR) see the advantages of using IMAX cameras to film modern day blockbusters for high definition displays. I was stunned at the greens and blues in the arena and the dazzling displays of Caesar Flickerman's studio sets showed off the right "panache" that a Capitol production should. I will say that the muted colors in the outlying districts contrasted quite nicely with the almost garish attire of the Capitol and set the tone of the different set pieces quite nicely, though I could understand if someone thought the placement should be lower because we spend some time with the muted grays of District 11 and 12.
> 
> 
> I look forward to seeing other people's thoughts on this new release.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DarthDoxie*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21270#post_24483456
> 
> *The Hunger Games: Catching Fire*
> 
> 
> 
> Overall good PQ throughout with the IMAX scenes in the area for the last half truly standing out.  I didn't notice any banding like fredxr2d2 mentioned but some scenes in the districts were a little soft.  Colors popped in the capital and jungle scenes and contrast and shadow detail were nice.  Also nice color in Jennifer Lawrence's eyes throughout the film.
> 
> 
> I got it from Redbox and was disappointed the sound was only in DD.  Is this a trend for rentals?
> 
> *Tier Recommendation*: 1.25*



I don't have much to add to what my colleagues have said. They didn't comment on facial details...they were amazing in many shots, particularly those of the lead, Jennifer Lawrence, and every shot of Donald Sutherland. Black levels were very good and shadow details were excellent, with the exception of one shot where they veered into the "dark gray" arena. Flesh tones were spot-on.


This is most definitely "demo-worthy," but there were enough soft shots (as mentioned) to keep it out of the Top Tier. The IMAX scenes really did pop, but I wasn't sure if it was the added real estate that made it appear better than their 2.35:1 aspect counterparts or not. This could easily end up in either of the placements above. I'll be conservative tonight and go for....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^


I meant to comment on the audio track. I purchased this title so it had a DTS HD MA 7.1 mix and it was FANTASTIC!!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*High Noon


recommendation: Tier 2.75*
*

Olive Films licensed the 1952 Western from Paramount and released it on Blu-ray in 2012. The 85-minute film is encoded in AVC on a BD-25, at somewhat constrained bitrates. The movie probably should have been placed on a BD-50. The apparent detail and clarity are drastically improved over prior DVD versions, the sharpness of the black-and-white cinematography is immediately noticeable. _High Noon_ does not look soft and has a decent amount of fine detail, particularly in the tighter shots.


The black levels are impeccable and shadow detail is exemplary, rendering each frame in occasionally stunning black and white.


Some edge enhancement is evident, though it's not stark enough for uninformed viewers to recognize it. The halos are limited to thin outlines, most of the time. It's most obvious on the parson's black suit in church. The sharpening does seem to have had a mild effect on the grain structure, possibly exaggerating it during clear shots of the sky. You can see some unusual artifacts in those glimpses of analog grain. Robert Harris soundly criticized the artificial nature of this transfer, though his comments indicate a somewhat unrealistic expectation of a 4K scan. It's not a perfect film transfer but whatever film elements were used are in very good condition with almost no visible blemishes. The scan looks fairly recent and pulls out a lot of natural detail from the source material.


It's very probable there is a little bit more resolution and a more natural film-like presentation possible for _High Noon_, even in 1080P. Olive Films has done a decent job on this transfer given the scope of their operation and the disc still presents a drastic improvement over previous versions. I found it a fairly satisfying experience in terms of picture quality with a few caveats.


----------



## djoberg

*To Catch a Thief*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21240#post_24439885
> 
> *To Catch A Thief
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 1.25*
> 
> 
> Mere words cannot possibly do justice to this exquisite film transfer. Every videophile needs this disc in their collection, it's a first-rate example of vintage film on Blu-ray. The overall definition in the film-like image begs to be seen on a huge projection screen.
> 
> 
> Paramount must have spent a fortune on the film restoration, more resolution and detail have been pulled out of the camera negative than I thought possible in 1080P. The 1955 Oscar winner for Best Cinematography was a VistaVision film production, crafted by a Hollywood studio system with professionals that knew what they were doing and had a large budget to work with. Uncannily sharp with a laser-like focus, its pure shadow delineation and pleasing depth are a sight to behold and true eye candy.
> 
> 
> Impeccable black levels and absolutely magnificent color rendition produce moments of amazing clarity. Check out the scene when Cary Grant's character visits the flower market, it's pure Technicolor saturation at its finest degree. This is a reference transfer of vintage film, flawlessly handled from pristine elements. There is not any margin left for possible improvement in 1080P, this is the definitive version of _To Catch A Thief_. It looks ready and raring to go whenever the 4K format comes around.



STUNNING! GORGEOUS!! MESMERIZING!!!


I could go on and on with superlatives seeking to describe the beauty of this film, but words cannot do justice to how good this 1955 film transfer to Blu-ray is (as Phantom stated in his opening remarks). You MUST see this for yourself to believe it! I quoted Phantom's review because I agree 100% with every word he said. He alludes to "pure Technicolor saturation at its finest degree" in the flower market scene, but I would add that they are even more pronounced in the costume party scene at the end of the film. In that scene we are immersed in every color imaginable and the DEPTH and DETAILS are just as remarkable. It is truly a FEAST FOR THE EYES and isn't that what this thread is all about?!










Can I say a word about FACIAL DETAILS? They were as good as I've seen, rivaling contemporary films of any genre. Even mid-range shots of Cary Grant (and others) revealed glorious texture.


How about a word regarding FLESH TONES? They were as accurate as one could hope for. There were multiple scenes with Cary Grant and Grace Kelly next to each other and it was amazing to see their perfect tans (Cary with his strong, BRONZE tan...and Grace with her delicate, LIGHT tan).


DETAILS in general abounded in every scene. The lush French Riviera was pure EYE CANDY, as was the ornate architecture of villas and countless other buildings. Every stitch could be seen in clothing, every age spot and freckle on actors' hands and faces.


BLACK LEVELS, though somewhat rare, were exquisite (with the exception of one or two fleeting shots where they faltered a wee bit). SHADOW DETAILS accompanied them in stride!


The only nitpicks I would have (which would keep this from a Tier Blu placement) would be a few fleeting soft shots, some possible aliasing in Mr. Grant's striped shirt in the first few scenes, and some less-than-stellar background shots during a car chase through the winding mountain roads (and in a few other scenes as well). If not for these I would, without hesitation, recommend this for a .75 placement in Tier Blu. I will gladly join Phantom (and mweflen) in assigning this to Tier Gold. They opted for 1.25 and 1.75 respectively; my vote goes for....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I was very close myself to ranking _To Catch A Thief_ in Tier 1.0, it's definitely in the ballpark.









*The Agony and the Ecstasy


recommendation: Tier 0* (the bottom)
*
_The Agony and the Ecstasy_ was one of the few films produced in the 70mm Todd-AO format. Twentieth Century-Fox has given it an absolutely exquisite film transfer, pulling an incredible amount of detail from the negative and preserving the epic cinematography in all its original glory. This is easily one of the best-looking transfers we've ever seen in 1080P from a large-format film, handled with supreme care and technical excellence. The movie was constructed for eye candy and the camera gazes lovingly over Michelango's most famous artistic works, in exacting detail.


The incredible clarity possesses extraordinary depth in the carefully composed shots. The fully saturated color palette has lush textures and perfect contrast, with no obvious changes to the proper color timing. Fox didn't skimp, the film receives an entire BD-50 to itself and its AVC video encode is of reference quality. The grain structure is completely consistent with a 4K scan of a 65mm negative, resulting in ultra-fine grain.


This Blu-ray is pure demo material and the type of movie begging to be demoed on the largest projection screens, an absolute picture quality winner that makes few compromises.


----------



## djoberg

The popular and highly anticipated _Frozen_ arrives via Amazon Prime tomorrow afternoon! My children and grandchildren have played the world-renowned song _Let It Go_ DOZENS of times while visiting us so I feel that I am acquainted with part of the movie already.







Reviews of the PQ are very good so I'm quite excited to see it.


----------



## Famouss




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21300#post_24494197
> 
> 
> The popular and highly anticipated _Frozen_ arrives via Amazon Prime tomorrow afternoon! My children and grandchildren have played the world-renowned song _Let It Go_ DOZENS of times while visiting us so I feel that I am acquainted with part of the movie already.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reviews of the PQ are very good so I'm quite excited to see it.


Obligatory trailer for Frozen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zb5IH57SorQ







I hope no one minds the link.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Famouss*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21300#post_24497119
> 
> 
> Obligatory trailer for Frozen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zb5IH57SorQ
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope no one minds the link.



I'm just curious....I see that "Honest Trailers" rips on MANY of today's current films. So, why did you choose to pick on this particular title?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Some of the Honest Trailers are pretty funny. I have the Frozen Blu-ray in my hands but likely will not watch it for a few days.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Now You See Me


recommendation: Tier 1.75*


I am astounded how often this thread's consensus gets it right in scoring each Blu-ray. This BD got a number of votes from users back when it was released in the Fall and landed in Tier 1.75. After watching it recently, I would have to concur with the current placement. Some of the video dwells in Tier 2 but overall the picture quality ends up deserving of Tier 1.


*Love, Election and Chocolate: Complete Collection


recommendation: Tier 1.5*
*

A recently released anime series that looks fairly typical of the genre in 1080P. There are no serious problems in the AVC video encode and its animation has clean aesthetics.


----------



## djoberg

*The Book Thief*


DETAILS....SHARPNESS....CLARITY....DEPTH!! I just pulled this Blu from my Pioneer Blu-ray player and filed it away in my storage cabinet and as I did I made a mental note that this has achieved "demo status" thanks to these four virtues. All daytime, outdoor scenes feature these virtues constantly and even many indoor scenes. The only real *negative* that kept appearing sporadically was SOFTNESS. This was true in every scene where townspeople hunkered down in the common bomb shelter during nighttime air raids, as well as in a few other instances (in indoor scenes, such as the basement where Max was kept). Some may be inclined (including "yours truly") to dock this a wee bit for the muted color palette. This was, no doubt, a stylistic choice by the director in view of the time period and subject matter. It was very *fitting*, but not exactly the EYE CANDY that we look for on this thread. But what this lacked in color was more than made up for by the amazing details (in clothing, facial close-ups, cobblestone streets, buildings, trees, etc., etc.), the razor-sharp clarity, and astounding depth. This is a LOOKER for sure....not "reference," but clearly "demo-worthy"....I believe it merits the following:

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Vegaz

I haven't voted for anything in a long time and I haven't seen Toy Story 3 outside of TVs in a store but after watching Frozen I wouldn't be suprised if it was the new #1.

Also I thought it was about the snowman. It is not about the snowman.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Vegaz*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21300#post_24510278
> 
> 
> I haven't voted for anything in a long time and I haven't seen Toy Story 3 outside of TVs in a store but after watching Frozen I wouldn't be suprised if it was the new #1.
> 
> Also I thought it was about the snowman. It is not about the snowman.


_Frozen_ is next in line for me to watch and I'm anticipating a high Tier 0 placement. I'm not sure if it will become the new "King of the Blu-ray Hill" though, especially when all the reviews I've read speak of the lack of colors compared to Blus like _Monsters University_ and _Toy Story 3_. But hey, I hope you're right!!










I would encourage you to write a review, even if it's really short or just a placement recommendation.


----------



## JoeBloggz

*Frozen*


I watched this two nights ago with my wife and I can safely say its incredible. Firstly, my wife and I typically watch movies together and she could care less about Tier 0, etc(frankly she considers it one of my "geek" qualities). On VERY few occasions she will comment on picture/audio characteristics of a film. Frozen was one of those films. She usually says nothing, but very early on in the film, she looked over at me and said, "wow, this looks pretty amazing". For me, that's worth something. Later in the film, when Elsa(the one with magic ice power) builds an ice palace on top of a mountain, my wife commented, "wow, brilliant". Not exactly technical terms but worth mentioning IMHO.


This, like most Disney release is very sharp with beautifully rendered colors. Its bright(a lot of snow) and white(not yellowish looking like some lesser movies). There are a few scenes of the island from afar that are quite spectacular. There is plenty of detail throughout with any hint of EE. Some of the closeup shots(yeah I know its animation) are extremely detailed and look almost life like. It TRULY was eye candy from start to finish.


The only negative thing I can say is the shadow detail did not WOW me. There are not a lot of dark scenes but for some reason I don't remember INKY blacks like some of the other Tier 0 titles. I know a lot of us have high expectations for this movie(my self included). For me its worthy of Tier 0 but not in the top 10. I struggled a little with this. Consider the scene in Tangled where the "mother know best" song takes place. Its entirely dark(black) then a spotlight comes on highlighting the characters, etc. Honestly those are some of the best blacks and shadow detail I've seen(possibly ever). As a comparison there is nothing in Frozen that I saw that can compete with that, IMO.


*Recommendation: Tier 0* (just below Tangled)


----------



## hernanu

*The Quiet Man*


A ridiculously colorful release by Olive Films. This 1952 John Ford / John Wayne / Maureen O'Hara classic got excellent handling, including a new 4K scan. The only thing that prevents it going higher for me is some slight ringing. A great movie and the Technicolor scenes, indoor and out in this are outstanding.


The DTS-HD mono sound was also very good.

*recommendation: Tier 0 (Behind Rio)*


Watched on a Vizio SV472XVT, Pioneer Elite VSX-33 receiver, Oppo BDP-103D, Energy RC50, RC-LCR, RC10, RC-mini, dual S10.3 subs.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hernanu*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21300#post_24511555
> 
> *The Quiet Man*
> 
> 
> A ridiculously colorful release by Olive Films. This 1952 John Ford / John Wayne / Maureen O'Hara classic got excellent handling, including a new 4K scan. The only thing that prevents it going higher for me is some slight ringing. A great movie and the Technicolor scenes, indoor and out in this are outstanding.
> 
> 
> The DTS-HD mono sound was also very good.
> 
> *recommendation: Tier 0 (Behind Rio)*
> 
> 
> Watched on a Vizio SV472XVT, Pioneer Elite VSX-33 receiver, Oppo BDP-103D, Energy RC50, RC-LCR, RC10, RC-mini, dual S10.3 subs.


I just got this one in the mail the other day, mostly for the news it had received a 4K scan of the film elements.


----------



## rusky_g




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21300#post_24509902
> 
> *The Book Thief*
> 
> 
> DETAILS....SHARPNESS....CLARITY....DEPTH!! I just pulled this Blu from my Pioneer Blu-ray player and filed it away in my storage cabinet and as I did I made a mental note that this has achieved "demo status" thanks to these four virtues. All daytime, outdoor scenes feature these virtues constantly and even many indoor scenes. The only real *negative* that kept appearing sporadically was SOFTNESS. This was true in every scene where townspeople hunkered down in the common bomb shelter during nighttime air raids, as well as in a few other instances (in indoor scenes, such as the basement where Max was kept). Some may be inclined (including "yours truly") to dock this a wee bit for the muted color palette. This was, no doubt, a stylistic choice by the director in view of the time period and subject matter. It was very *fitting*, but not exactly the EYE CANDY that we look for on this thread. But what this lacked in color was more than made up for by the amazing details (in clothing, facial close-ups, cobblestone streets, buildings, trees, etc., etc.), the razor-sharp clarity, and astounding depth. This is a LOOKER for sure....not "reference," but clearly "demo-worthy"....I believe it merits the following:
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.5**
> 
> 
> Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....



Awesome, looking forward to this, shame about the softness but still excited


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21300#post_24513409
> 
> 
> Awesome, looking forward to this, shame about the softness but still excited



I believe you'll be impressed Russ! Regarding the "soft shots," I just checked out some of the "bunker" and "basement" scenes again and they're not soft all the time; in fact, some of the shots in the basement were quite sharp.


I forgot to mention that during the air raids of the village you can expect your walls to shake (if you have a sub, that is). Even at lower volumes with my Dynamic EQ on I was impressed!


----------



## djoberg

*Frozen*


Yet ANOTHER animated marvel!!


Okay, this did NOT have the texture of some of the latest outings, so that, in and of itself, will keep it out of the Top Ten. Nor did it have a wide variety of colors on display, so one can drop it a notch or two for that as well. What it did have was BRILLIANT WHITES that will dazzle your eyes (and test the ability of your display to produce them)! I simply loved them, especially with vibrant colors sprinkled in (the super-vibrant green trees are a sight to behold). The primaries that were on display throughout the movie were as punchy and bold as imaginable. I can't recall too many black levels, but when the credits were rolling the screen was mainly black and it was extremely inky (as were the black bars). I'm inclined to put it a few notches above the recommendation earlier today by JoeBloggz....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (right above Ice Age: Continental Drift)*


The audio was stellar!! The musical score was quite beautiful, the action in the surrounds was accurate and enveloping, and the LFE, at times, was room-shaking (courtesy of the "Snow Monster").


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## wattheF

Another tier 0 vote for FROZEN. I would say right behind PLANES.

It looked great and I actually enjoyed the animation more than some others ranked above it, but it didn't quite have the same pin point clarity of some other animated blurays of late. It may have more to do with the stylistic quality of the animation but it also didn't have that amazing tactile quality of some others (UP comes to mind).

The movie itself and sound is fantastic.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wattheF*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21300#post_24516413
> 
> 
> Another tier 0 vote for FROZEN. I would say right behind PLANES.
> 
> It looked great and I actually enjoyed the animation more than some others ranked above it, but it didn't quite have the same pin point clarity of some other animated blurays of late. It may have more to do with the stylistic quality of the animation but it also didn't have that amazing tactile quality of some others (UP comes to mind).
> 
> The movie itself and sound is fantastic.



I agree with your observations, including your comment on the movie itself. I can see why this has such a broad appeal, in spite of what "Honest Trailers" had to say about it.


----------



## wattheF

Watching Monster's University again with my son. Even from a distance of just a few feet away from my 60" ST60, (with the Darbee cranked up to 70%) it looks perfect!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wattheF*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21300#post_24517019
> 
> 
> Watching Monster's University again with my son. Even from a distance of just a few feet away from my 60" ST60, (with the Darbee cranked up to 70%) it looks perfect!



That's because IT IS PERFECT!!


----------



## djoberg

*Smurfs 2*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21180#post_24363250
> 
> 
> *The Smurfs 2
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 0* (behind only Monsters University)*
> 
> 
> Could the smurfs land in anywhere but Tier Blu?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone gave me a tip that this late 2013 Blu-ray from Sony might be a possible contender for the ultimate crown in the Tiers, so I went and gave it an honest look. I had known the first one was already a top-shelf disc, having resided in Tier 0 for a while.
> 
> 
> The 1080P video is jaw-dropping eye candy, nothing short of brilliant. Mastered in 4K by Sony's special process that expands the color gamut on select hardware, _The Smurfs 2_ contains the most consistently stunning live-action footage seen on the format to date. While the smurfs are pure CGI characters, they inhabit real-world locales in absolute shining clarity. I guess the closest comparison has to be _Avatar_, but the aesthetic achieved by _The Smurfs 2_ feels completely different. The picture-perfect video is utterly flawless. We are talking about picture quality that does not diminish at closer viewing distances. I kept inching closer to verify what I was seeing and realized it was easily holding up at two and three-feet viewing distances, which is incredible on a display as large as mine. Few Blu-rays can hold up to that level of scrutiny.
> 
> 
> Even interior shots inside a hotel pop with palpable depth, creating a visually immersive experience that feels three-dimensional in sharpness and focus. Sony has treated the transfer with kid gloves, this is easily their best technical effort. The video and CGI blend completely seamlessly at new levels of excellence. Its real-world resolution is hitting the limits of our current technology.
> 
> 
> I wrestled with the thought of actually placing it above _Monsters University_, the current champion of the PQ Tiers. It's a top-five contender for Tier 0 without a doubt. Your exact placement will likely depend on one's preferences for certain attributes, though _The Smurfs 2_ simply has no weaknesses.



This is, without a doubt, the champion of animation/live action movies!!! _Avatar_ doesn't compare, IMHO, for there were sporadic soft shots in that film, both in animated segments and most certainly in some of the live action shots. I won't repeat everything Phantom said, but he hit the proverbial "nail on the head" in every point he made. He didn't comment on black levels or shadow details, so I'm here to tell you that they were mesmerizing! In closing scenes in Paris there are panoramic views of Paris with the inkiest nighttime sky you could hope for and the details of the city were phenomenal....simply incredible!! Close-ups were even better, if that's possible. You could make out every detail in concrete buildings and the many cobble streets and sidewalks of Paris. The depth was also amazing, defying description! I had never seen _Smurfs 1_ so I had no idea how good the blending of CGI and live action could be. Like Phantom said, it was "completely seamless." I too found myself sitting 2-3 feet from my 60" screen and as with Phantom I was dumbfounded by how the PQ held up perfectly.


I too wrestle with Tier placement. If this had been all animation I believe it would easily top _Monsters University_. With it being mostly live action I can honestly say it (the live action) is the best (especially in terms of consistency) I've ever seen. But I don't know that I can say that the live action PQ was as stellar as an all-animation title like _Monsters University_. So, for now, I'm inclined to go with Phantom on this one and give it the number 2 spot....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (right below Monsters University)*


Viewed from 7.5' (and sometimes 2-3') using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21300#post_24517758
> 
> *Smurfs 2*
> 
> 
> I too wrestle with Tier placement. If this had been all animation I believe it would easily top _Monsters University_. With it being mostly live action I can honestly say it (the live action) is the best (especially in terms of consistency) I've ever seen. But I don't know that I can say that the live action PQ was as stellar as an all-animation title like _Monsters University_. So, for now, I'm inclined to go with Phantom on this one and give it the number 2 spot....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (right below Monsters University)*
> 
> 
> Viewed from 7.5' (and sometimes 2-3') using the equipment listed below....


I'm glad another veteran ended up giving their opinion on _Smurfs 2_. The property does not have the cache of a Pixar feature but Sony really outdid themselves on the 4K mastering.

*In Fear


recommendation: Tier 3.25**


This UK thriller was a bit tougher to accurately place in the PQ Tiers than an undisputed beauty like _Smurfs 2_. Primarily shot on the Arri Alexa with a handful of lesser digital cameras for back-up coverage, _In Fear_ largely is set in the dark of night with few sources of artificial light. The opening scene in broad daylight looks nearly pristine, while noise and limited clarity sets in as the couple circle around endlessly on a pitch-black Irish road. The independent movie, distributed by Starz/Anchor Bay, ends up a bit lacking in the PQ department at times due to common problems inherent to digital cinematography in light-starved scenes.


----------



## JoeBloggz




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21300#post_24517758
> 
> *Smurfs 2*
> 
> This is, without a doubt, the champion of animation/live action movies!!! _Avatar_ doesn't compare, IMHO, for there were sporadic soft shots in that film, both in animated segments and most certainly in some of the live action shots. I won't repeat everything Phantom said, but he hit the proverbial "nail on the head" in every point he made. He didn't comment on black levels or shadow details, so I'm here to tell you that they were mesmerizing! In closing scenes in Paris there are panoramic views of Paris with the inkiest nighttime sky you could hope for and the details of the city were phenomenal....simply incredible!! Close-ups were even better, if that's possible. You could make out every detail in concrete buildings and the many cobble streets and sidewalks of Paris. The depth was also amazing, defying description! I had never seen _Smurfs 1_ so I had no idea how good the blending of CGI and live action could be. Like Phantom said, it was "completely seamless." I too found myself sitting 2-3 feet from my 60" screen and as with Phantom I was dumbfounded by how the PQ held up perfectly.
> 
> 
> I too wrestle with Tier placement. If this had been all animation I believe it would easily top _Monsters University_. With it being mostly live action I can honestly say it (the live action) is the best (especially in terms of consistency) I've ever seen. But I don't know that I can say that the live action PQ was as stellar as an all-animation title like _Monsters University_. So, for now, I'm inclined to go with Phantom on this one and give it the number 2 spot....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (right below Monsters University)*
> 
> 
> Viewed from 7.5' (and sometimes 2-3') using the equipment listed below....



Never thought I'd be interested in a "Smurfs" movie, but you guys may have changed my mind


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *JoeBloggz*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21300#post_24518405
> 
> 
> Never thought I'd be interested in a "Smurfs" movie, but you guys may have changed my mind



Believe me Joe, I never thought I would ever watch a _Smurfs_ movie either, but after reading Phantom's glowing review I felt compelled to. The movie itself was as corny as they come, but I was so fixated on the PQ that I didn't mind the story that was being told. One thing that Phantom intimated and I want to emphasize....the CLARITY is insane and consistently so from beginning to end, with mesmerizing details. The only slight nitpick I would have is that facial details weren't as "textured" as movies like the _Transporter_ series or _Avatar_.


----------



## wattheF

Oh man, I might have to buy Smurfs 2!? At least my kids might like it too.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wattheF*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21330#post_24518609
> 
> 
> Oh man, I might have to buy Smurfs 2!? At least my kids might like it too.



Kids are LOVING this movie!! When I said it was "as corny as they come," I was implying that it wasn't as "adult friendly" as other animated titles. But my small grandchildren absolutely love this movie and will watch it over and over again. I myself will give it repeated viewings because of the PQ!


----------



## rusky_g

So many films I need to buy! My appetite is again whetted


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*City of the Living Dead


recommendation: Tier 3.75**


Blue Underground releases an adequate film transfer of the 1980 horror film by Lucio Fulci. The film transfer does have a mild amount of analog scanner noise in the grain structure, previously found on a few of Blue Underground's Blu-rays. The film elements are in solid condition, showing no obvious signs of debris.


Its detail is middling except in the tighter close-ups. The color palette is ordinary and occasionally washed out, though the contrast holds up and black levels are perfectly fine. The high-bitrate video encode replicates the film-like grain with no problems, though its noisy appearance is almost certainly accentuated by the poor film scan.


This is definitely a hi-definition transfer from original film elements, which is more than can be said for many niche BDs I've seen lately. It's not a particularly eye-popping video presentation for 1080P resolution but provides modest PQ improvements.


----------



## Inseconds99


Watched Gravity in 3D using a D-Nice Calibrated 65ZT60 and a BDT330 Blu-Ray player. The picture was phenomenal in 3D, the blacks were great, motion was great, colors seem to be spot on. I was so pleased with the experience, by and far the best 3D Blu-Ray I have ever viewed (Better then Coraline, Avatar and Up). I watched the film again in 2D and was less then pleased, the overall experience of the movie was destroyed. The movie seemed more grainy, and less sharp to the eye and really flat. I had no sense of the emptiness of space, I should have watched the 2D version before the 3D because the excellence of the 3D has now ruined me watching it in 2D forever.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Inseconds99*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21330#post_24522838
> 
> 
> Watched Gravity in 3D using a D-Nice Calibrated 65ZT60 and a BDT330 Blu-Ray player. The picture was phenomenal in 3D, the blacks were great, motion was great, colors seem to be spot on. I was so pleased with the experience, by and far the best 3D Blu-Ray I have ever viewed (Better then Coraline, Avatar and Up). I watched the film again in 2D and was less then pleased, the overall experience of the movie was destroyed. The movie seemed more grainy, and less sharp to the eye and really flat. I had no sense of the emptiness of space, I should have watched the 2D version before the 3D because the excellence of the 3D has now ruined me watching it in 2D forever.



Others have chimed in on other sites with the same viewing experience as yours. I do wish I had a 3D set when I read something like this, but all things considered I would never replace my Pioneer KURO just to have 3D. Personally I believe 3D is almost "dead in the water," for companies like Vizio are not selling 3D tvs in 2014 and I believe other companies will soon follow. I subscribe to "Sound & Vision" magazine and the Chief Editor believes the same, as do other columnists that write for that magazine.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I don't think 3-D is dead in the water but it will always remain a niche of a niche in home video until they develop it without the use of glasses. It will stick around because Hollywood loves the extra stream of box office revenue at theaters. There does seem to be wide variances between the PQ of 2-D and 3-D versions in some movies.


----------



## Wryker

djoberg: I disagree. Reviews for Gravity are coming in saying watching it in 3D is better then 2D. When 3D is done properly it's amazing. I have a 3D Sony projector and love me some 3D. While some speculate that 3D is going away I disagree: 3D w/UHTV's will bring 3D into more (mainstream) homes since it'll allow full HD in each eye using the same glasses used in the theaters.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wryker*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21330#post_24523623
> 
> 
> djoberg: I disagree. Reviews for Gravity are coming in saying watching it in 3D is better then 2D. When 3D is done properly it's amazing. I have a 3D Sony projector and love me some 3D. While some speculate that 3D is going away I disagree: 3D w/UHTV's will bring 3D into more (mainstream) homes since it'll allow full HD in each eye using the same glasses used in the theaters.



I hear what you're saying about _Gravity_ in 3D and that's why I said I wish I had a 3D set so I could watch a title like that in 3D. But the FACT remains that those who are in the know say that 3D is never going to go mainstream. From what I have read from those who attended the CES show this year in Las Vegas, not one company was displaying 3D in their upcoming sets. Again, Vizio, which is one the most "mainstream" producers of tvs, has said that not one of their HD or UHD sets will have 3D. Facts speak for themselves and these are the facts.


Having said that, Phantom may have a legitimate point when he implied that 3D will not really take off "until they develop it without the use of glasses."


----------



## DarthDoxie


*American Hustle*


Great levels of clarity and detail, I can't recall one soft scene.  Flesh tones were nice too in this character driven film with lots of close-ups.  Colors and black levels were were good without any noise in dark scenes like I saw in Captain Phillips.  I think there were a few instances where the contrast my have been off so colors didn't pop or blacks weren't inky in those few select scenes but not not enough to knock my ranking down.  Overall a great looking film especially on clarity levels.

 

Sound was good in DTS-HD MA except I heard pops and cracks a few times, something I've not heard from a recent release.

*Tier Recommendation*: 1.0*


----------



## Inseconds99


Can we expect the master list to be updated this month? I am looking forward to seeing where some of these recent blu-ray's place on the list.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Inseconds99*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21330#post_24523976
> 
> 
> Can we expect the master list to be updated this month? I am looking forward to seeing where some of these recent blu-ray's place on the list.


Yes, the master PQ Tiers List is getting an update. Sooner rather than later...


----------



## Inseconds99




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21330#post_24524002
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the master PQ Tiers List is getting an update. Sooner rather than later...


Awesome, will you post that information on this thread when it gets updates this month?


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21330#post_24523683
> 
> 
> I hear what you're saying about _Gravity_ in 3D and that's why I said I wish I had a 3D set so I could watch a title like that in 3D. But the FACT remains that those who are in the know say that 3D is never going to go mainstream. From what I have read from those who attended the CES show this year in Las Vegas, not one company was displaying 3D in their upcoming sets. Again, Vizio, which is one the most "mainstream" producers of tvs, has said that not one of their HD or UHD sets will have 3D. Facts speak for themselves and these are the facts.
> 
> 
> Having said that, Phantom may have a legitimate point when he implied that 3D will not really take off "until they develop it without the use of glasses."




Tell tale signs at Cedia this year when I went were similar as there was not much 3d exposure. I personally don't think 3d is dying, I think it is just settled and 4k is the new buzz word. Time will tell, but I hope it sticks around as it is a great contrast to 2d when the mood strikes and really brings some titles into a whole different light like Gravity.


Watched American Hustle yesterday and thought it looked good, but I did not watch it on my normal display so cant really give a totally fair critique.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Inseconds99*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21330#post_24522838
> 
> 
> Watched Gravity in 3D using a D-Nice Calibrated 65ZT60 and a BDT330 Blu-Ray player. The picture was phenomenal in 3D, the blacks were great, motion was great, colors seem to be spot on. I was so pleased with the experience, by and far the best 3D Blu-Ray I have ever viewed (Better then Coraline, Avatar and Up). I watched the film again in 2D and was less then pleased, the overall experience of the movie was destroyed. The movie seemed more grainy, and less sharp to the eye and really flat. I had no sense of the emptiness of space, I should have watched the 2D version before the 3D because the excellence of the 3D has now ruined me watching it in 2D forever.



I felt the same way about Gravity. Trying to watch in 2d after watching in 3d (for my first watch) was just not the same experience! I only made it half way through in 2d before shutting it off and then re-watching the whole thing later that night in 3d again.


----------



## rusky_g

Good to see the PQ thread lively with conversation!


I just ordered a couple of Blu's that were going cheap: Hereafter with Matt Damon and Drive with Ryan Gosling


On my pening list are The Book Thief and after reading a glowing 5 star PQ review on Bluray.com......Anchorman 2!


Oh and Frozen, Smurfs 2......need more hours in the day to watch these!


----------



## wattheF




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Inseconds99*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21330#post_24522838
> 
> 
> Watched Gravity in 3D using a D-Nice Calibrated 65ZT60 and a BDT330 Blu-Ray player. The picture was phenomenal in 3D, the blacks were great, motion was great, colors seem to be spot on. I was so pleased with the experience, by and far the best 3D Blu-Ray I have ever viewed (Better then Coraline, Avatar and Up). I watched the film again in 2D and was less then pleased, the overall experience of the movie was destroyed. The movie seemed more grainy, and less sharp to the eye and really flat. I had no sense of the emptiness of space, I should have watched the 2D version before the 3D because the excellence of the 3D has now ruined me watching it in 2D forever.


I agree completely. I watched Gravity in 3D on my ST60 first and it blew me away. I then went back to watch it in 2D a day later and I had to shut it off within 20 mins. Just not the same.

Many will Say 3D is dead but when done right I love it. Also, glasses free 3D technology is already being applied to tvs and should be widely available in the not too distant future.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Toe*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21330#post_24524405
> 
> 
> Tell tale signs at Cedia this year when I went were similar as there was not much 3d exposure. I personally don't think 3d is dying, I think it is just settled and 4k is the new buzz word. Time will tell, but I hope it sticks around as it is a great contrast to 2d when the mood strikes and really brings some titles into a whole different light like Gravity.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wattheF*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21330#post_24524455
> 
> 
> I agree completely. I watched it in 3D on my ST60 first and it blew me away. I then went back to watch it in 2D a day later and I had to shut it off within 20 mins. Just not the same.
> 
> Many will Say 3D is dead but when done right I love it. Also, glasses free 3D technology is already being applied to tvs and should be widely available in the not too distant future.



I actually hope you guys are right about 3D, though as I said in an earlier post I would NOT replace my beloved KURO with another set just for the benefit of 3D. One has to question why the *experts* from "Sound & Vision" and tv manufacturers like Vizio are speaking of 3D as being on life support when there are a fair number of consumers, like yourselves, who love it. Is it perhaps because of the somewhat limited GOOD 3D CONTENT (with _Gravity_ being an exception to the rule) available today? I don't know the answer, but if 3D does end up triumphing (with UHD sets and projectors leading the way to success) and good content becomes readily available, I'll be sure to embrace the technology with my next tv purchase.


----------



## OppoMrSocko




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21330#post_24520113
> 
> *City of the Living Dead
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 3.75**
> 
> 
> Blue Underground releases an adequate film transfer of the 1980 horror film by Lucio Fulci. The film transfer does have a mild amount of analog scanner noise in the grain structure, previously found on a few of Blue Underground's Blu-rays. The film elements are in solid condition, showing no obvious signs of debris.
> 
> 
> Its detail is middling except in the tighter close-ups. The color palette is ordinary and occasionally washed out, though the contrast holds up and black levels are perfectly fine. The high-bitrate video encode replicates the film-like grain with no problems, though its noisy appearance is almost certainly accentuated by the poor film scan.
> 
> 
> This is definitely a hi-definition transfer from original film elements, which is more than can be said for many niche BDs I've seen lately. It's not a particularly eye-popping video presentation for 1080P resolution but provides modest PQ improvements.


 

Thank you for this review, Phantom Stranger.  Lucio Fulci is one of my faves.  I'm glad you are here for us non-mainstream viewers, too.  Not even Fangoria has a PQ expert like you!  

 

What is the best PQ Fulci Blu Ray out there, in your opinion?

 

p.s.: Speaking of non-mainstream, has anyone heard about the PQ of "The Big Gundown," put out by Grindhouse Releasing?


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OppoMrSocko*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21330#post_24525946
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21330#post_24520113
> 
> *City of the Living Dead
> 
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 3.75**
> 
> 
> 
> Blue Underground releases an adequate film transfer of the 1980 horror film by Lucio Fulci. The film transfer does have a mild amount of analog scanner noise in the grain structure, previously found on a few of Blue Underground's Blu-rays. The film elements are in solid condition, showing no obvious signs of debris.
> 
> 
> 
> Its detail is middling except in the tighter close-ups. The color palette is ordinary and occasionally washed out, though the contrast holds up and black levels are perfectly fine. The high-bitrate video encode replicates the film-like grain with no problems, though its noisy appearance is almost certainly accentuated by the poor film scan.
> 
> 
> 
> This is definitely a hi-definition transfer from original film elements, which is more than can be said for many niche BDs I've seen lately. It's not a particularly eye-popping video presentation for 1080P resolution but provides modest PQ improvements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for this review, Phantom Stranger.  Lucio Fulci is one of my faves.  I'm glad you are here for us non-mainstream viewers, too.  Not even Fangoria has a PQ expert like you!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the best PQ Fulci Blu Ray out there, in your opinion?
Click to expand...

Probably _The Beyond_ or _Zombie_. For _The Beyond_, I'm referring to Arrow's corrected UK release. Check the PQ Tiers, I'm pretty sure they are in there, somewhere.


Anyone can search this thread for older reviews in it.


----------



## DarthDoxie


*The Town (Extended Cut)*


I've read the reviews of when this film first came out and to my eye it looks better (just a bit) than it's current placement of 1.75.  Despite the low bit rate (12 or so) the level of detail and clarity is outstanding.  The aerial shots of Boston are sharp, rich, and mesmerizing; I can't think of any other aerial city shots that made me say wow like this movie.  Facial details, hair, and clothing fabric were sharp in all but one particular shot (see below).  I thought black levels and contrast were excellent as well and with lots of night shots, crushed blacks were nowhere to be found.  Colors popped as well when present but the film has a limited color palette to begin with.

 

The one scene that dropped below the rest of the film was the Affleck/Renner scene outside the cemetery where the shots of Renner were washed out and on the soft side.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*


----------



## Hughmc

Hey I know long time...Im here daily in spirit and viewing.







I wanted to comment on Gravity....PQ seemed to be tier 0. I agree with other tier 0 Placements. A lot of blacks and whites in space that looked stellar on my set. I was blown away by Gravity. I haven't had a movie impact me like Gravity in a long time. I was so tense the entire movie..very tense, I had to talk myself down... and the realism!! I still watch BD's weekly, but I'm in school full time and other life adventures, but as always this is my first stop on AVS and in fact the only AVS tab on my browser. Thanks to all the regs for doing diligence and keeping it going...yeah you too Phantom.







Now I think I have to buy it in 3D based on comments.


----------



## Hughmc




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dbuudo07*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21210#post_24426135
> 
> 
> Did anyone else notice the noise in the clouds of earth at the beginning of Gravity? On my Elite 150fd, fed by an Oppo BDP-95, it was quite clear.



I got a chuckle out of this. " noise in the clouds.... was quite clear." No one but HT enthusiasts would get that comment.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21330#post_24530669
> 
> 
> Hey I know long time...Im here daily in spirit and viewing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wanted to comment on Gravity....PQ seemed to be tier 0. I agree with other tier 0 Placements. A lot of blacks and whites in space that looked stellar on my set. I was blown away by Gravity. I haven't had a movie impact me like Gravity in a long time. I was so tense the entire movie..very tense, I had to talk myself down... and the realism!! I still watch BD's weekly, but I'm in school full time and other life adventures, but as always this is my first stop on AVS and in fact the only AVS tab on my browser. Thanks to all the regs for doing diligence and keeping it going...yeah you too Phantom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now I think I have to buy it in 3D based on comments.



Thanks for "dropping in" Hugh!


I can relate to you feeling *tense* during _Gravity_; I felt the same way. I experienced the same feeling during my viewing of _All is Lost_ where again you have one soul seeking to survive against the forces of nature.


You sound really busy. I can't imagine going back to school as you have done....you're a brave soul! I'm going to be extremely busy traveling starting in two weeks; I may be gone for up to three weeks so no Blu-ray watching for me. Maybe you could fill in for me during that time?


----------



## wattheF




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21330#post_24530669
> 
> 
> Hey I know long time...Im here daily in spirit and viewing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wanted to comment on Gravity....PQ seemed to be tier 0. I agree with other tier 0 Placements. A lot of blacks and whites in space that looked stellar on my set. I was blown away by Gravity. I haven't had a movie impact me like Gravity in a long time. I was so tense the entire movie..very tense, I had to talk myself down... and the realism!! I still watch BD's weekly, but I'm in school full time and other life adventures, but as always this is my first stop on AVS and in fact the only AVS tab on my browser. Thanks to all the regs for doing diligence and keeping it going...yeah you too Phantom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now I think I have to buy it in 3D based on comments.


If you liked it that much In 2D, just wait til you see it in 3D! Talk about realism!


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Hughmc*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21330#post_24530669
> 
> 
> Hey I know long time...Im here daily in spirit and viewing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wanted to comment on Gravity....PQ seemed to be tier 0. I agree with other tier 0 Placements. A lot of blacks and whites in space that looked stellar on my set. I was blown away by Gravity. I haven't had a movie impact me like Gravity in a long time. I was so tense the entire movie..very tense, I had to talk myself down... and the realism!! I still watch BD's weekly, but I'm in school full time and other life adventures, but as always this is my first stop on AVS and in fact the only AVS tab on my browser. Thanks to all the regs for doing diligence and keeping it going...yeah you too Phantom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now I think I have to buy it in 3D based on comments.


Don't be a stranger, Hugh.







We are going to need all hands on deck if Djoberg is threatening to go dark for a few weeks in the thread.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Every recommendation or placement preceding this post will be included in the upcoming update. Don't worry, the master list has not yet been updated with these new scores. If you think there is a grievous error, speak now.


This is the next update:


12 Years a Slave* Tier 1.5 djoberg

30 Nights of Paranormal Activity with the Devil Inside the Girl With the Dragon Tattoo* Tier 2.0 (Silver) Phantom Stranger

300 Spartans, The* Tier 2.0 (Silver) Phantom Stranger

About Time* Tier 1.5 rusky_g

Adjustment Bureau, The Tier 2.0 (Silver) Johnny Vertigo

Adventurer, The: Curse Of The Midas Box* Tier 2.25 Phantom Stranger

After Earth Tier 0 (Blu) rusky_g

Alien Tier 1.25 Johnny Vertigo

Alien 3 Tier 3.5 Johnny Vertigo

Aliens Tier 2.0 (Silver) Johnny Vertigo

All Is Lost* Tier 1.75 djoberg

American Hustle* Tier 1.0 (Gold) DarthDoxie

Archer: The Complete Season Four* Tier 0 (Blu) Phantom Stranger

Baseball's Greatest Games: 2011 World Series Game 6 (Cardinals vs. Rangers)* Tier 3.25 Phantom Stranger

Beware the Batman: Season One Part One* Tier 1.5 Phantom Stranger

Birds, The* Tier 4.0 (Copper) mweflen

Birds, The* Tier 2.5 djoberg

Bonjour Tristesse* Tier 3.25 Phantom Stranger

Book Thief, The* Tier 1.5 djoberg

Captain Phillips* Tier 2.5 djoberg

Captain Phillips* Tier 2.0 (Silver) DarthDoxie

Carrie (2013)* Tier 2.5 Phantom Stranger

CBGB* Tier 1.75 Phantom Stranger

Christmas Carol, A: 60th Anniversary Edition* Tier 4.5 Phantom Stranger

City of the Living Dead* Tier 3.75 Phantom Stranger

Colorful: The Motion Picture Tier 2.5 Phantom Stranger

Coraline Tier 0 (Blu) Johnny Vertigo

Corruption* Tier 2.25 Phantom Stranger

Croods, The Tier 0 (Blu) DarthDoxie

Dallas Buyers Club* Tier 1.75 JoeBloggz

Dark Knight Rises, The Tier 2.0 (Silver) Johnny Vertigo

Desk Set* Tier 3.75 Phantom Stranger

Diamonds Are Forever* Tier 2.75 DarthDoxie

Edge, The Tier 2.75 djoberg

Elysium Tier 0 (Blu) rusky_g

Elysium* Tier 2.0 (Silver) djoberg

Elysium* Tier 1.75 fredxr2d2

Ender's Game* Tier 0 (Blu) djoberg

Ender's Game* Tier 0 (Blu) Toe

Ender's Game* Tier 0 (Blu) fredxr2d2

Ender's Game* Tier 0 (Blu) rusky_g

Enter The Dragon: 40th Anniversary edition* Tier 4.0 (Copper) Phantom Stranger

Family Plot* Tier 4.0 (Copper) mweflen

Family, The* Tier 1.25 djoberg

Fast & Furious 6* Tier 1.75 djoberg

Fast & Furious 6* Tier 1.5 Johnny Vertigo

Fast and Furious (2009)* Tier 1.75 rusky_g

Fast and the Furious, The: Tokyo Drift* Tier 1.25 Johnny Vertigo

Fast Five Tier 1.0 (Gold) Johnny Vertigo

Fistful of Dollars, A* Tier 3.75 DarthDoxie

For a Few Dollars More* Tier 2.75 DarthDoxie

Frenzy* Tier 3.75 mweflen

From Beyond* Tier 2.25 Phantom Stranger

Frozen (2013)* Tier 0 (Blu) Vegaz

Frozen (2013)* Tier 0 (Blu) JoeBloggz

Frozen (2013)* Tier 0 (Blu) djoberg

Frozen (2013)* Tier 0 (Blu) wattheF

Ghost and Mrs. Muir, The* Tier 3.75 Phantom Stranger

Ghost Team One* Tier 4.0 (Copper) Phantom Stranger

Grandmaster, The* Tier 4.0 (Copper) Phantom Stranger

Grass Is Greener, The* Tier 3.25 Phantom Stranger

Gravity* Tier 0 (Blu) djoberg

Gravity* Tier 0 (Blu) fredxr2d2

Great Gatsby, The Tier 0 (Blu) rusky_g

Great Gatsby, The Tier 0 (Blu) mweflen

Hard Target (UK)* Tier 3.5 Phantom Stranger

Hell Comes To Frogtown (UK)* Tier 4.0 (Copper) Phantom Stranger

Hellgate (UK)* Tier 5 (Coal) Phantom Stranger

High Noon* Tier 2.75 Phantom Stranger

Hot Spot, The* Tier 4.0 (Copper) Phantom Stranger

Hunger Games, The: Catching Fire* Tier 1.5 djoberg

Hunger Games, The: Catching Fire* Tier 1.25 DarthDoxie

Hunger Games, The: Catching Fire* Tier 1.5 fredxr2d2

Hunger Games, The: Catching Fire* Tier 1.5 djoberg

Hunger Games, The* Tier 2.0 (Silver) rusky_g

In Fear* Tier 3.25 Phantom Stranger

Infernal Affairs* Tier 3.5 DarthDoxie

Inn of the Sixth Happiness, The* Tier 4.0 (Copper) Phantom Stranger

International, The Tier 1.5 rusky_g

Jayne Mansfield's Car* Tier 2.0 (Silver) djoberg

Jungle Book, The* Tier 1.25 Phantom Stranger

Justice League: War* Tier 1.5 Phantom Stranger

Kick-Ass 2* Tier 1.25 Phantom Stranger

Kick-Ass 2* Tier 1.0 (Gold) rusky_g

Last Love* Tier 2.75 Phantom Stranger

Leave Her To Heaven* Tier 1.75 Phantom Stranger

Lone Ranger, The* Tier 0 (Blu) djoberg

Lone Ranger, The* Tier 1.0 (Gold) fredxr2d2

Lord of the Rings, The: The Return of the King Tier 1.0 (Gold) edlittle

Love, Election and Chocolate: Complete Collection* Tier 1.5 Phantom Stranger

Man Who Knew Too Much, The (1956)* Tier 4.0 (Copper) mweflen

Marnie* Tier 2.5 mweflen

Nim's Island Tier 2.75 djoberg

Ninja 2: Shadow of a Tear Tier 0 (Blu) djoberg

Ninja II: Shadow of a Tear* Tier 0 (Blu) Phantom Stranger

Ninja II: Shadow of a Tear* Tier 0 (Blu) Toe

North By Northwest Tier 2.25 djoberg

Notorious (1946)* Tier 3.5 mweflen

Now You See Me Tier 1.75 Phantom Stranger

Oblivion Tier 0 (Blu) rusky_g

Oblivion Tier 0 (Blu) wattheF

Oliver & Company* Tier 1.5 Phantom Stranger

Pandora and the Flying Dutchman* Tier 2.5 Phantom Stranger

Papillon* Tier 2.5 DarthDoxie

Pillow Talk* Tier 2.5 Phantom Stranger

Platoon (25th Anniversary)* Tier 3.5 DarthDoxie

Prisoners* Tier 1.0 (Gold) fredxr2d2

Prisoners* Tier 1.5 djoberg

Prometheus Tier 1.5 Johnny Vertigo

Psycho Tier 2.75 djoberg

Psycho (1960) Tier 2.75 mweflen

Purge, The* Tier 3.25 Phantom Stranger

Quest, The* Tier 2.75 Phantom Stranger

Quiet Man, The* Tier 0 (Blu) hernanu

Quiz Show (AU)* Tier 2.0 (Silver) mweflen

Rear Window* Tier 2.75 djoberg

Rebecca* Tier 3.0 (Bronze) mweflen

Red 2* Tier 1.5 djoberg

Redemption Tier 2.25 Phantom Stranger

Riddick* Tier 1.75 rusky_g

Riddick* Tier 1.0 (Gold) djoberg

Robot Chicken: Season Five* Tier 1.75 Phantom Stranger

Rope* Tier 2.75 mweflen

Runner, Runner* Tier 1.75 djoberg

Rush* Tier 1.75 djoberg

Saboteur Tier 3.0 (Bronze) mweflen

Shadow of a Doubt* Tier 3.75 mweflen

Sherlock Holmes - A Game of Shadows Tier 2.75 rusky_g

Snitch* Tier 1.0 (Gold) fredxr2d2

Social Network, The Tier 3.0 (Bronze) Johnny Vertigo

Song of Bernadette, The* Tier 4.5 Phantom Stranger

Spaceballs* Tier 4.5 DarthDoxie

Spellbound* Tier 3.5 mweflen

Spider-Man 2 (4K)* Tier 2.25 rusky_g

Spy Who Loved Me, The* Tier 2.75 DarthDoxie

Sweetwater* Tier 3.5 Phantom Stranger

Taisho Baseball Girls: The Complete Collection* Tier 3.25 Phantom Stranger

The Agony and the Ecstasy* Tier 0 (Blu) Phantom Stranger

The Smurfs 2 Tier 0 (Blu) djoberg

The Smurfs 2* Tier 0 (Blu) Phantom Stranger

Thin Red Line, The (UK Fox)* Tier 1.5 rusky_g

Thirteenth Floor, The Tier 3.5 Phantom Stranger

To Catch A Thief Tier 1.25 Phantom Stranger

To Catch a Thief Tier 1.0 (Gold) djoberg

Topaz* Tier 2.0 (Silver) mweflen

Torn Curtain* Tier 2.75 mweflen

Total Recall (2012) (4K)* Tier 1.0 (Gold) rusky_g

Town, The (Extended Cut) Tier 1.25 DarthDoxie

Transformers: Dark of the Moon Tier 1.0 (Gold) Johnny Vertigo

Trouble With Harry, The* Tier 1.0 (Gold) mweflen

Twenty Feet From Stardom* Tier 1.75 Phantom Stranger

Vertigo Tier 2.25 djoberg

We Are What We Are* Tier 3.75 Phantom Stranger

We're The Millers* Tier 1.5 Phantom Stranger

We're The Millers* Tier 1.75 rusky_g

Wizards* Tier 4.5 Phantom Stranger

Wolverine, The: Unleashed Extended Edition Tier 1.0 (Gold) DarthDoxie

You Only Live Twice* Tier 2.5 DarthDoxie


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


You're STILL "the Man" Phantom!! Thanks a bunch for the upcoming update!


----------



## rusky_g

*Drive*


Wow, how did this beauty pass under my radar?! Absolutely gorgeous in all respects, every scene is so well resolved in detail. Crisp, clean, free of noise and grain. Night time shots sweeping the cityscape were stunning as were facial details, moreso the pore revelation on the elder actors. The colours, whilst subdued, still provided satisfying pop and a layered golden hue in some scenes really echoed the films 80's feel.


Absolutely loved it and could not find fault.


Tier 0.75


----------



## DarthDoxie


Just saw the updated Tier Thread.  Great job as always Phantom!


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DarthDoxie*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21330#post_24540026
> 
> 
> Just saw the updated Tier Thread.  Great job as always Phantom!



People can check the fully updated Picture Quality Tiers here:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1425519/official-blu-ray-picture-quality-rankings-the-pq-tiers-updated-through-march-27-2014 


Bookmark that link if you want the latest and greatest list. If _Monsters University_ is not at the top, you are seeing an older, obsolete version. I know Google returns the older list as the first result when you search for the PQ Tiers list.

*Return To Nuke 'Em High Volume 1

recommendation: Tier 1.25**


Lloyd Kaufman and his Troma crazies used a professional Hollywood crew and an Arri Alexa digital camera to film this new movie. The outstanding picture quality of these independent movies fail to surprise me anymore. Its 1080P presentation is replete with outstanding detail in pristine clarity, including the gross-out, practical make-up effects. The white balance might be a tad bright, but Anchor Bay/Starz has transferred the digital intermediate without a lick of over-processing.


My only complaint is the video-like sheen intrinsic to digital cinematography, most now are very familiar with this type of aesthetic and one can get jaded seeing immaculate, clean images.


----------



## Kool-aid23




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21330#post_24537212
> 
> 
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> 
> You're STILL "the Man" Phantom!! Thanks a bunch for the upcoming update!



Cosign!


Regards,


----------



## djoberg

*Thor: The Dark World*


I checked to see my review on the first installment of this franchise and I see I recommended a Tier 2.0 placement. I'm happy to report that this sequel fared much better. In both films the BLACKS and SHADOW DETAILS were stellar, as were COLORS and FLESH TONES. But there were two issues with the first film; namely, SOFTNESS and a lack of DETAILS in quite a few shots. In the sequel DETAILS were never lacking and I only noticed a couple of fleeting soft shots. CLARITY/SHARPNESS ruled, for the most part, in both outings, and DEPTH was appreciable as well. This is definitely a looker, whether one is viewing the world of Asgard (with its phenomenal CGI) or the city of London (that teemed with details...both from aerial views and many "up close and personal" views).


I'm wavering between 1.25 and 1.5 for placement, but when I think of how much better it looked to me than _Thor_ I just have to be generous and opt for....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25**


PS The audio didn't disappoint either...action in the surrounds was amazing and my SVS sub was given many opportunities to shake my walls (and everything else in my theater room)!


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Wolf of Wall Street


recommendation: Tier 0* (middle)*


Paramount's presentation of Martin Scorsese's new film is spectacular in 1080P. It's big-budget, Hollywood filmmaking done by a master of the craft. Supposedly from a 4K mastering chain, the cinematography exudes generous detail and outstanding depth. Black levels are perfect, rendering velvety shadows and a rich contrast. Flesh-tones are skewed a bit by the digital color grading but it's not serious enough to affect the placement in Tier 0.


Truly, a first-rate example of a movie on Blu-ray in 2014.

*Murder Obsession


recommendation: Tier 2.5**


One of Raro Video's stronger film transfers. A negligible amount of processing produces slight aliasing and halos in this 1981 giallo. There is still a slight edge added to the mostly film-like grain, but the print is in nice condition with a pleasing degree of clarity. There is one moment with jumpy frames, for lack of a better description.

*Robotics; Notes: Part 1


recommendation: Tier 1.75*
*

Funimation's video encode has the usual amount of minor banding, the only real flaws in a digital transfer taken directly from the original animation files. The art design and detail are fairly ordinary for new animation. A bright palette bursting with saturated colors help to make up for it.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Chris Isaak: Beyond The Sun Live!

recommendation: Tier 2.5*
*

This is mostly from a concert performance taped in February, 2012. Released by independent distributor Vanguard, the AVC presentation looks fairly good when the camera is trained on the band. Noisy black crush and limited contrast impact the much poorer shots of the audience. I would not characterize this as an ultra-clean picture for digital video, hints of aliasing are evident.


It's very likely I would have assigned this a higher placement a few years ago, but this type of glossy aesthetic has been done better in recent years.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Killer Nun


recommendation: Tier 3.0*
*

A solid effort by Blue Underground for this Italian movie. The telecine shows pleasing levels of detail and general clarity for its vintage. The print is free of significant wear and maintains solid levels of contrast and color saturation. This 1080P presentation is not going to wow anybody but looks a bit better than some of Blue Underground's prior releases. The unusual scanner noise found in some of their transfers is missing here, thankfully.


----------



## wattheF

The Wolf of Wall Street


The Wolf of Wall Street bluray is a great presentation and its also a great movie. Detail, clarity and depth were excellent but not quite as good as some other top end blurays. Black levels and shadow detail were spot on. Overall it was a clean transfer free of any artifacts. I would not say it was "pristine" because I saw grain on some scenes. Colors really popped but this leads me to my only real complaint, flesh tones. They seemed unnatural and actors looked like they spent too much time in a tanning bed.

Overall impressive, but IMO not quite tier 0.


Ranking- 1.0


----------



## hungro

According to Doblu's review Desolation of Smaug picture quality is 3 out of 5 stars, this seems a bit shocking. Apparently the blame is on the compression cramming too much into too little LOL. Will see what other reviewers have to say.


----------



## hernanu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hungro*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21360#post_24553646
> 
> 
> According to Doblu's review Desolation of Smaug picture quality is 3 out of 5 stars, this seems a bit shocking. Apparently the blame is on the compression cramming too much into too little LOL. Will see what other reviewers have to say.


 Ralph Potts gives it 94 / 100 . He's usually on target for me, so...


----------



## DarthDoxie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hungro*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21350_50#post_24553646
> 
> 
> According to Doblu's review Desolation of Smaug picture quality is 3 out of 5 stars, this seems a bit shocking. Apparently the blame is on the compression cramming too much into too little LOL. Will see what other reviewers have to say.


That review is way out of whack compared to all the others, 29 points below average at this point. I wouldn't put too much stock in it.


----------



## WayneJoy




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hernanu*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21360#post_24553911
> 
> Ralph Potts gives it 94 / 100 . He's usually on target for me, so...



Ralph's 2D rating is 100/100.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *hungro*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21360#post_24553646
> 
> 
> According to Doblu's review Desolation of Smaug picture quality is 3 out of 5 stars, this seems a bit shocking. Apparently the blame is on the compression cramming too much into too little LOL. Will see what other reviewers have to say.



Matt's reviews on Doblu are usually more *analytical* than other reviews and because of this he may focus on issues that others either don't experience in their viewing or, if they do, they avoid making a big deal out of them. I appreciate Matt's forthrightness. I'm sure he realizes that others may disagree and that he'll receive some flack at times, but he's willing to "call a spade a spade" and for that I admire him.


I see that Matt gave _The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey_ a score of 100, so he obviously isn't biased against the franchise. He clearly sees flaws and anomalies in the second installment and is giving his honest opinion of what he saw.


Having said this, I don't always agree with Matt. Sometimes I think he's rating a Blu too high; at other times he's too low. I'm hoping I disagree with him this time around, for I have preordered it from Amazon and was hoping the PQ would be as good or better than the first installment.


----------



## hernanu




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *WayneJoy*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21360#post_24554363
> 
> 
> Ralph's 2D rating is 100/100.



True - I quoted the 3D rating...


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Wonderwall


recommendation: Tier 4.0**


Shout Factory brings us the George Harrison-scored psychedelic film, 1968's _Wonderwall_. Pinewood Studios restored this film a number of years ago from erratic elements. The transfer is somewhat dated by modern standards. Some of the scenes in the longer theatrical cut are hazy and lack true 1080P resolution. This is not razor-sharp cinematography and the secondary film elements used for the older Hi-Def telecine are in average condition, at best.


There are bursts of clarity and sharper detail, especially in the better exterior shots. I was hoping for better color fidelity and saturation, though its black levels are up to snuff. This is not a terrible looking disc but the soft visuals are not demo material.


----------



## djoberg

*Grace Unplugged*


One of my daughters encouraged me to see this good "family" film (a Christian production) put out by Lionsgate/Orion. Lionsgate films are nearly always "lookers" and this one was no exception. I was most pleased with every night scene, for black levels were amazingly deep and inky and shadow details were exquisite. Most daytime scenes featured a razor-sharp image with complementary details...facial details were especially rewarding! There was appreciable depth in many scenes, spot-on flesh tones, and warm colors. My *only* real complaint were sporadic daytime scenes where the contrast seemed spiked creating a washed out look. In some of those shots facial details faltered, making them look like some smoothing had taken place. If not for these I would be inclined to put this on the top of Tier 1. It's still demo-worthy in my book, but conscience dictates that I drop it a few notches to....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*An American Tail


recommendation: Tier 3.25**


Another animated film by Don Bluth has made it on Blu-ray. The 1986 movie appears at 1080P resolution in what looks like a fairly recent film scan, though the rougher animation that characterized most of Bluth's films has not been restored in any serious effort.


Universal has given _An American Tail_ a stellar AVC video encode, putting an 80-minute film on a BD-50 and maxing out the encode. It's completely transparent to the HD master and flawlessly replicates the older cel animation. I've never seen this movie in a theater so I don't have a real frame of reference, but there does appear to have been selective filtering and crude digital processing applied on some level. Unrestored cel animation of this budget and vintage is not serious eye candy, even the colors lack the pop and brilliance we've come to expect from animation on Blu-ray. Several shots go completely soft and take on the consistency of watercolors.


It's not a garbage transfer and the picture does have its nice moments. The troubling inconsistencies deduct from its final grade, though I would still consider it a watchable effort.


*MM! Complete Collection


recommendation: Tier 1.75**


Sentai Filmworks just released this 2010 anime series last month. This is closer to what people expect these days from animated fare, its colorful palette is bolstered by a perfect contrast and excellent black levels. Having been familiar with the program on DVD, this Blu-ray represents an immense leap in resolution and definition.


The overall aesthetic to its video is fairly typical for a recent anime series in 1080P. It is very close to Tier 1.5 but slightly washed-out colors in the first episode (improperly mastered gamma levels?) drag it down a bit.


----------



## CunningOrb


This is my new master list which I will refer to first when looking for blu rays, thanks for putting it together!

 

Phantom Stranger: Your spreadsheet is just what I needed. Now I can have my wife refer to that when buying movies, and as long as she's in tier 0-1 I'll know she's buying good PQ blu rays without me having to figure it out for her. AWESOME


----------



## rusky_g

Hereafter


GRG was right! This BR did not do my set up justice, i thought it looked pretty awful in parts to be honest - blacks did look deep but I experienced crush and loss of shadow detail. I didnt feel the depth and clarity that others did.


Tier 2.5


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Frozen


recommendation: 0 (under Kung Fu Panda)
*

I think the collective has already nailed this Tier 0 placement. We have to make the finest of distinctions in picture quality if the rankings in Tier 0 are to mean anything. Disney's transfer and Blu-ray presentation are technically flawless, more so than a few discs currently ranked above it. _Frozen_ does have a couple of truly showstopping moments of magnificent depth and beauty, unfortunately its palette lacks the gorgeous saturation and variety of entries such as _Monsters University_ and _Toy Story 3_. I imagine it looked beautiful in 3-D.


I've not been a big fan of Disney's character designs for humans since CGI became the predominant animated style. They continue all the bad trends we've grown accustomed to in the past decade, including overly chubby faces. I also thought they cut a few corners in _Frozen's_ animation, very few characters get animated with extensive detail and texture. Even the talking snowman, one of the movie's key supporting characters, could have been crafted with more care.


*Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale

recommendation: 2.25*


Independent distributor Oscilloscope Pictures delivers a fine presentation of this European film, though its current placement in Tier 1.25 is too high. It does have a very pleasing and consistently nice clarity, though the final scene is replete with soft CGI elements.

_Rare Exports_ is a Christmas story of a different kind but one worth renting.


----------



## DarthDoxie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21250_50#post_24450107
> 
> *12 Years a Slave*
> 
> 
> It's late and I'm tired, so this will be short. Putting it quite simply, this film's PQ can be broken down into two categories: DAY and NIGHT. DAY-time scenes, especially those filmed outside, were amazingly beautiful, with lush scenes of woods, swamps, cotton fields, etc. Colors were warm and vibrant in these scenes, flesh tones were spot-on, details were to-die-for (details of whipping and scourgings, resulting in welts and scars, looked incredibly real!!), contrast was strong, depth was outstanding, and clarity reigned supreme. NIGHT-time scenes were another matter altogether, for the majority of them featured either murky blacks or crushed blacks (that all but eliminated shadow details), or in low-lit interior scenes a general softness prevailed. To be fair there were a few scenes with very good-looking black levels (a case in point would be an early scene with Solomon chained in a railroad box car), but these were "few and far between." So, the difference between DAY-time and NIGHT-time scenes were, to use an old cliche, like DAY and NIGHT!
> 
> 
> I want to go on record by saying that due to the majority of the 2+ hour running time taking place during the day and outdoors, this film is deserving of demo status. I'm not resorting to hyperbole when I say that there were shots in some scenes that rivaled anything I've ever seen on Blu-ray. If the whole film had been characterized as such, this would be the new "King of the Blu-ray Hill." And when I say that I mean I'd even be tempted to dethrone the best of the animated titles in favor of such an exquisite live-action movie. But for whatever reason it had its issues with dark scenes and for that it MUST be penalized accordingly. In seeking to "average things out," my conscience dictates the following placement....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.5**
> 
> 
> Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


Got this from the Box last night and ditto on the night scenes with murky and inconsistent blacks. It also had some day and night scenes where flesh tones were off and showed a little too yellow. A nice presentation overall and most daytime scenes are tier 0 but the night scenes bring it down.  I think djoberg nailed it.

 

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*


----------



## tenia54




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21330#post_24519065
> 
> 
> I myself will give it repeated viewings because of the PQ!



You're lucky. That's something which I'll never be able to do. A bad movie will remain a bad movie for me, even if it's the best technical demo ever.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wryker*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21330#post_24523623
> 
> 
> djoberg: I disagree. Reviews for Gravity are coming in saying watching it in 3D is better then 2D. When 3D is done properly it's amazing. I have a 3D Sony projector and love me some 3D. While some speculate that 3D is going away I disagree: 3D w/UHTV's will bring 3D into more (mainstream) homes since it'll allow full HD in each eye using the same glasses used in the theaters.



Looking at what is the current market shares of 3D diffusion material, I have a hard time thinking that people who don't want to buy Full HD diffusers at now affordable prices will be willing to buy UHD ones in 3 years at a high price or in 8-10 years at the same affordable prices.


It just doesn't seem to be of much interest for lots of consumers, I don't see why UHD will change this in the future.

Furthermore, it's also a question of content. If 3D BDs don't interest people now, same than above : why the future 3D format will interest them ?


----------



## Wryker




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tenia54*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21360#post_24571735
> 
> 
> 
> Looking at what is the current market shares of 3D diffusion material, I have a hard time thinking that people who don't want to buy Full HD diffusers at now affordable prices will be willing to buy UHD ones in 3 years at a high price or in 8-10 years at the same affordable prices.
> 
> 
> It just doesn't seem to be of much interest for lots of consumers, I don't see why UHD will change this in the future.
> 
> Furthermore, it's also a question of content. If 3D BDs don't interest people now, same than above : why the future 3D format will interest them ?



Not sure what technical article's you've been reading ("3D diffusion material?") but 3D is either active or passive. Active is full HD to both eyes while passive cuts the resolution in half. Passive uses the same lightweight glasses you use at the theater while the active shutter ones are 'powered', heavier and have a darker tint.

UHD TVs will enable passive 3D at full HD to both eyes. Thus making it easier on for more people to watch 3D and more affordable (passive glasses can be purchased for @$5 or less a pair and/or take them home with you after watching a 3D movie at a theater).


I agree about your comment regarding a bad movie IS a bad movie: no matter how good the effects, etc are.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tenia54*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21360#post_24571735
> 
> 
> You're lucky. That's something which I'll never be able to do. A bad movie will remain a bad movie for me, even if it's the best technical demo ever.



You are referring, no doubt, to my comments on _The Smurfs 2_. I did NOT say it was a BAD movie, but a CORNY movie, which could be interpreted, I suppose, as being synonymous with BAD. What I meant by "corny" was that there was really nothing for adults to "chew on" (no innuendos or references to things that only adults could understand). It was like the old Donald Duck, Goofy, or Road Runner cartoons (to name a few) in that it was mindless entertainment. I can live with that as long as 1) the PQ is spectacular, and 2) I get to see my grandchildren enjoying it.


----------



## tenia54




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wryker*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21360#post_24572041
> 
> 
> Not sure what technical article's you've been reading ("3D diffusion material?") but 3D is either active or passive.



I wanted to use a generic term to refer either to TV or videoprojector.










> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wryker*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21360#post_24572041
> 
> 
> UHD TVs will enable passive 3D at full HD to both eyes. Thus making it easier on for more people to watch 3D and more affordable (passive glasses can be purchased for @$5 or less a pair and/or take them home with you after watching a 3D movie at a theater).



I do believe the prices won't reflect the technology making this more affordable. Plus, I don't think the price of the glasses or the technology are the issue, but more the interest of the audience (and possibly the price of the screens / videoprojectors).


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21360#post_24572463
> 
> 
> You are referring, no doubt, to my comments on _The Smurfs 2_. I did NOT say it was a BAD movie, but a CORNY movie, which could be interpreted, I suppose, as being synonymous with BAD. What I meant by "corny" was that there was really nothing for adults to "chew on" (no innuendos or references to things that only adults could understand). It was like the old Donald Duck, Goofy, or Road Runner cartoons (to name a few) in that it was mindless entertainment. I can live with that as long as 1) the PQ is spectacular, and 2) I get to see my grandchildren enjoying it.



From what I've seen of the movie, I do believe to be a wild gap between The Smurfs (being the 1st or the 2nd movie) and the Looney Tunes. There is indeed what you call "mindless entertainment", where light comedy prevails (and that's fine even for adults) and dumb things like these 2 seemed to be.

I don't mind some movies not having a subtext, or multiple levels of reading. But I do believe in children movies not being dumbed down just because childrent don't care. But if The Smurfs 1 & 2 would just be mindless, I doubt they would have the feedbacks they had (15% at RT, 5.5 at IMDB, these are not really reassuring).


Anyway. That was just my 2 cents.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Winnie the Pooh: Springtime With Roo


recommendation: Tier 1.25**


This 65-minute Easter special soundly beat my PQ expectations for a 2004 animated feature. It appears that a new mindset has sunk in at Disney regarding video compression. This is definitely the first time I can recall by Disney when the AVC video encode averages close to 40 Mbps. Finally someone figured out their sub-optimal video encodes were leading to occasional artifacts.


The animation itself holds up surprisingly well, though it lacks the sophisticated lighting and shading of more recent fare. The clean line art is bolstered by a bold, bright palette with traditional Easter colors. Hi-Def animation from this period usually has minor aliasing and other inconsistencies, but _Springtime With Roo_ is completely missing the usual defects. This is pleasant demo material for the young ones.


----------



## Wryker




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tenia54*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21360#post_24572675
> 
> 
> 
> I do believe the prices won't reflect the technology making this more affordable. Plus, I don't think the price of the glasses or the technology are the issue, but more the interest of the audience (and possibly the price of the screens / videoprojectors).



Most UHD TVs are coming already with 3D built-in and that doesn't impact the price of one. Projectors have a longer way to go to become affordable to most people (myself included). In any event, I just realized this is the PQ thread that my post was quoted from a different thread so I'll drop this issue in this thread!


----------



## tenia54




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Wryker*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21360#post_24572909
> 
> 
> Most UHD TVs are coming already with 3D built-in and that doesn't impact the price of one.



I'll stop there before being reminded this is the PQ topic







but I was speaking about the prices of UHD TV themselves. Currently, the price of a good one is, I think, not affordable for people who already don't want to pay for a 3D Full HD TV set.


----------



## deltasun

Hey Fellas, thought of you guys while watching the special features for The Counselor and Ridley talking about using the Red One and his new-found "love" for no-grain filming. Anyway, pretty interesting set of comments. Great film too, imho, with pretty decent PQ. Some problem areas exist in some of the low-light facial close-up's, but the cinematography's great otherwise.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21360#post_24581483
> 
> 
> Hey Fellas, thought of you guys while watching the special features for The Counselor and Ridley talking about using the Red One and his new-found "love" for no-grain filming. Anyway, pretty interesting set of comments. Great film too, imho, with pretty decent PQ. Some problem areas exist in some of the low-light facial close-up's, but the cinematography's great otherwise.



We had the privilege of having Hugh "drop in" the other day and now you grace our thread with your encouraging post!










I'm leaving at the crack of dawn tomorrow on a 18-day trip so I am making a mental note to rent _The Counselor_ after I return. I had asked Hugh if he could fill in for me while I'm gone and there was no response.....so, maybe you'd be willing to receive the baton and run with it for 2-3 weeks. Better yet, we'd love to see you resume your excellent reviews on a full-time basis!


----------



## djoberg

My copy of _The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug_ arrives later today. I've read so much good about the PQ (with the exception of Matt's review on DoBlu) that I may take a look at it, even if I only have time for watching a few scenes. I will be checking the thread while I'm gone so I'lll be looking forward to reading some reviews on this title.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21360#post_24581483
> 
> 
> Hey Fellas, thought of you guys while watching the special features for The Counselor and Ridley talking about using the Red One and his new-found "love" for no-grain filming. Anyway, pretty interesting set of comments. Great film too, imho, with pretty decent PQ. Some problem areas exist in some of the low-light facial close-up's, but the cinematography's great otherwise.


It looks like film is nearing its end in Hollywood. Cameras like the RED One and Arri Alexa constitute the bulk of new movies I see these days. I think they can produce fantastic PQ results if the color grading doesn't go wrong.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21360#post_24582503
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *deltasun*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21360#post_24581483
> 
> 
> Hey Fellas, thought of you guys while watching the special features for The Counselor and Ridley talking about using the Red One and his new-found "love" for no-grain filming. Anyway, pretty interesting set of comments. Great film too, imho, with pretty decent PQ. Some problem areas exist in some of the low-light facial close-up's, but the cinematography's great otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We had the privilege of having Hugh "drop in" the other day and now you grace our thread with your encouraging post!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm leaving at the crack of dawn tomorrow on a 18-day trip so I am making a mental note to rent _The Counselor_ after I return. I had asked Hugh if he could fill in for me while I'm gone and there was no response.....so, maybe you'd be willing to receive the baton and run with it for 2-3 weeks. Better yet, we'd love to see you resume your excellent reviews on a full-time basis!
Click to expand...

Good luck on your trip, Djoberg. I do know that many of the older regulars from this thread still like to lurk here, though posting is another matter.


----------



## hungro




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21390#post_24583867
> 
> 
> can produce fantastic PQ results if the color grading doesn't go wrong.



It's that damn teal and orange killig fleshtones and whatnot. Just imagine the rec 2020 color gamut how much more teal and orange they can display, colors true to real life. LOL


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*K: The Complete Series


recommendation: Tier 1.0**


A relatively new anime series, having been produced in 2012 and released over here in the States just over a month ago by Viz Media. This is a splashy affair loaded with great detail in the highly polished backgrounds. The animation is a cut above most of the television fare coming out of Japan these days, it was definitely intended to shine in HD. There are a number of CGI elements included to spruce up the hand-drawn art.


Warner actually ended up distributing this one, the quality of the AVC video encode is definitely better than the typical ones I see from Funimation or Sentai Filmworks.


----------



## fredxr2d2

I don't know if this is going to be totally out of bounds since we're talking about BD picture quality, but I thought I would mention the fact that I saw Captain America: The Winter Soldier in a commercial theater last night and the weirdest thing was noticeable: NO film grain. Shot with the Arri Alexa and Red Epic, and displayed on a Sony SRX-R320 4K Digital Projector, there was no grain at all and, to be honest, it actually made the film look more "fake" than I expected. I'm wondering if the BD (when it comes out) will hold onto the pristine look of the cinema experience. Just thought I'd mention it.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fredxr2d2*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21390#post_24587631
> 
> 
> I don't know if this is going to be totally out of bounds since we're talking about BD picture quality, but I thought I would mention the fact that I saw Captain America: The Winter Soldier in a commercial theater last night and the weirdest thing was noticeable: NO film grain. Shot with the Arri Alexa and Red Epic, and displayed on a Sony SRX-R320 4K Digital Projector, there was no grain at all and, to be honest, it actually made the film look more "fake" than I expected. I'm wondering if the BD (when it comes out) will hold onto the pristine look of the cinema experience. Just thought I'd mention it.


I think we'll be seeing more of that grainless trend as the next generation of filmmakers take over. The economics of film don't make sense these days and the entire production chain for Hollywood movies is shifting towards digital cameras. I do believe that digital film has different strengths and weaknesses than 35mm film. It's a different visual medium in some regards.


I wish 70mm productions were more in vogue but it's such an unwieldy format to produce.


----------



## wuther




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fredxr2d2*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21390#post_24587631
> 
> 
> I don't know if this is going to be totally out of bounds since we're talking about BD picture quality, but I thought I would mention the fact that I saw Captain America: The Winter Soldier in a commercial theater last night and the weirdest thing was noticeable: NO film grain. Shot with the Arri Alexa and Red Epic, and displayed on a Sony SRX-R320 4K Digital Projector, there was no grain at all and, to be honest, it actually made the film look more "fake" than I expected. I'm wondering if the BD (when it comes out) will hold onto the pristine look of the cinema experience. Just thought I'd mention it.



It was shot on digital camera solely to record stereographic images and since thankfully the stereovision format is dying, this unnatural and sterile look will go on the way out as well although TV shows which go for the lowest common denominator will probably continue to use digital cameras.


----------



## wattheF




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21270#post_24475449
> 
> *The Grandmaster
> 
> recommendation: Tier 3.75*
> *
> 
> The Weinstein Company gives us the 108-minute cut of Wong Kar Wai's ode to Chinese martial arts. The cinematography is unquestionably fantastic, nominated for an Oscar it probably should have won. The movie does a lot of tricky editing with visual FX and unusual camera techniques, leading to the occasional stuttering frame in super-slow-mo. It's dense photography with dark lighting, leading to very heavy black levels and visible noise in the darkest shots. There is also the insertion of what appears to be content sourced from inferior cameras in a couple of scenes, leading to a visibly degraded image with reduced resolution and softer detail.
> 
> 
> I'm unsure if some of the noted problems were a part of this cut or Starz/Anchor Bay were handed an inferior master to begin with, there is a Hong Kong BD with a different cut. Given Wong Kar Wai's masterful direction, this BD is a bit disappointing in the picture quality department. Some of it looks quite beautiful as pure eye candy, as when Gong Er practices in the courtyard with the snow falling. The problems are too noticeable to overlook in assigning a placement.



Just watched. I love Wong Kar Wai. I agree with much of what you said but to be honest, for the most part, the PQ didn't distract me other than one thing...Did you find that the shadow details were often crushed in the darker scenes? Much of the details in the dark areas were lost or nonexistent. No matter what adjustments I made to my display it was the case.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wattheF*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21390#post_24590201
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21270#post_24475449
> 
> *The Grandmaster
> 
> recommendation: Tier 3.75*
> *
> 
> The Weinstein Company gives us the 108-minute cut of Wong Kar Wai's ode to Chinese martial arts. The cinematography is unquestionably fantastic, nominated for an Oscar it probably should have won. The movie does a lot of tricky editing with visual FX and unusual camera techniques, leading to the occasional stuttering frame in super-slow-mo. It's dense photography with dark lighting, leading to very heavy black levels and visible noise in the darkest shots. There is also the insertion of what appears to be content sourced from inferior cameras in a couple of scenes, leading to a visibly degraded image with reduced resolution and softer detail.
> 
> 
> I'm unsure if some of the noted problems were a part of this cut or Starz/Anchor Bay were handed an inferior master to begin with, there is a Hong Kong BD with a different cut. Given Wong Kar Wai's masterful direction, this BD is a bit disappointing in the picture quality department. Some of it looks quite beautiful as pure eye candy, as when Gong Er practices in the courtyard with the snow falling. The problems are too noticeable to overlook in assigning a placement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just watched. I love Wong Kar Wai. I agree with much of what you said but to be honest, for the most part, the PQ didn't distract me other than one thing...Did you find that the shadow details were often crushed in the darker scenes? Much of the details in the dark areas were lost or nonexistent. No matter what adjustments I made to my display it was the case.
Click to expand...

Yes, that unfortunately appears endemic to the original cinematography in select shots. Mostly I remember it being a problem in the first act with some of the darkest interiors. There are definite instances of crushing for those interior scenes. It's one of the reasons why I gave it a ranking close to Tier 4. The Grandmaster is certainly a moody-looking film, especially before it switches to Gong Er's story in more depth.


----------



## tenthplanet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21390#post_24590278
> 
> 
> Yes, that unfortunately appears endemic to the original cinematography in select shots. Mostly I remember it being a problem in the first act with some of the darkest interiors. There are definite instances of crushing for those interior scenes. It's one of the reasons why I gave it a ranking close to Tier 4. The Grandmaster is certainly a moody-looking film, especially before it switches to Gong Er's story in more depth.


That's what it looked like in the theater.


----------



## tenthplanet




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fredxr2d2*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21390#post_24587631
> 
> 
> I don't know if this is going to be totally out of bounds since we're talking about BD picture quality, but I thought I would mention the fact that I saw Captain America: The Winter Soldier in a commercial theater last night and the weirdest thing was noticeable: NO film grain. Shot with the Arri Alexa and Red Epic, and displayed on a Sony SRX-R320 4K Digital Projector, there was no grain at all and, to be honest, it actually made the film look more "fake" than I expected. I'm wondering if the BD (when it comes out) will hold onto the pristine look of the cinema experience. Just thought I'd mention it.


Some of that is the 4k projector scaling on the 2K source, I saw this on a 2k projector and it doesn't look as fake. Sony 4k machines have a consistent lack of oompf when fed 2K and I put the blame on the scaling (upscaling) if you will. As been mentioned elsewhere, modern film stock can be used to have almost no grain also.


----------



## wattheF




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21390#post_24590278
> 
> 
> Yes, that unfortunately appears endemic to the original cinematography in select shots. Mostly I remember it being a problem in the first act with some of the darkest interiors. There are definite instances of crushing for those interior scenes. It's one of the reasons why I gave it a ranking close to Tier 4. The Grandmaster is certainly a moody-looking film, especially before it switches to Gong Er's story in more depth.


Too bad because otherwise this film honestly has some of the most beautiful cinematography I have ever seen. I can definitely still appreciate it, but it's just that if the technical aspects were on par with the artistic, it could have been a true gem.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wattheF*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21390#post_24593889
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21390#post_24590278
> 
> 
> Yes, that unfortunately appears endemic to the original cinematography in select shots. Mostly I remember it being a problem in the first act with some of the darkest interiors. There are definite instances of crushing for those interior scenes. It's one of the reasons why I gave it a ranking close to Tier 4. The Grandmaster is certainly a moody-looking film, especially before it switches to Gong Er's story in more depth.
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad because otherwise this film honestly has some of the most beautiful cinematography I have ever seen. I can definitely still appreciate it, but it's just that if the technical aspects were on par with the artistic, it could have been a true gem.
Click to expand...

Truly, the fight sequences are some of the most poetic ever committed to film. Its Oscar nomination for cinematography was not a fluke.

*The Devil's Rock (Canadian)


recommendation: Tier 1.0**


I didn't expect much from the video going in, all I knew about this movie beforehand were its storyline of demonic Nazi sorcery and that it came from New Zealand.







Well, the extremely sharp RED cinematography blew me away for a horror movie. This is possibly the best results I've consistently seen from a RED production. I'm fairly sure this movie was finished at 2K by the same company in New Zealand handling Peter Jackson's films.


Released by Entertainment One in Canada, the 86-minute main feature is encoded in AVC on a BD-25. It is the video encode that keeps it knocking on the door of Tier Zero, posterization and banding are the video's only serious flaws. In every other way, The Devil's Rock is a real beauty. This is reference quality definition with incredible detail, highlighted by close-ups etched with brilliant clarity. The opening scene on the beaches of Normandy has that drained, tonally flat appearance so favored these days. Then the color palette and contrast open up nicely with jaw-dropping sharpness, as the main story gets under way inside the Nazi bunker.


If one were intent on looking for weaknesses outside of the suspect compression in certain shots, one might zero-in on the shadow depth. Black levels are nearly perfect but they lack that true, inky blackness common in Tier Zero. Everything about the transfer is flawless, we are seeing everything replicated to an uncanny degree from the presumed digital Intermediate.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^


Thanks for that review Phantom! I'll definitely be checking that out when I get home.


My wife and I are CRUISIN down I-75 South and we're a few miles from the FLORIDA-GEORGIA LINE (all country music fans should appreciate that)!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Wolverine (Extended Cut)


recommendation: Tier 0 (lower half)*


This one ended up in Tier 1.0 by the votes but I think it deserves a placement in the lower half of Tier 0. Wolverine is the best there is at what he does and apparently that extends to Blu-ray.








Inky black levels and consistently amazing depth produce a real stunner, one that almost never wavers in video quality.


Aside from a couple of momentary color grading decisions that go wrong in the fleshtones, spectacular color rendition and perfect contrast combine to create a movie with extraordinary, unfiltered detail. The only filtering in the movie? Famke Janssen's face in her brief cameo appearances. Those moments only stick out because everything else is dripping with raw resolution and clarity.


This is the type of picture quality I expect from the big superhero blockbusters, though they rarely seem to reach these heights.


----------



## wattheF

Anchorman 2


I went into watching this BD with low expectations as far as PQ goes. I was pleasantly surprised by how good in looks.

Most shots exhibited razor sharp clarity. Some close ups were particularly impressive with facial details and texture as good as I can remember seeing. There was a bit of inconsistency though. A few shots looked a bit soft. I think it was a camera focal issue more than anything else. Contrast was very strong and gave great depth to the image. Black levels were not challenged very often but looked good with plenty of shadow detail. Color was rich and saturated although the pallet was a bit limited. Skin tones sometimes seemed a bit unnatural and ruddy. Overall the transfer seemed good. I didn't see any obvious artifacts although I'm not sure what it is but there seemed to be some sort of added processing going on (sharpening?).


Overall pretty impressive particularly for a movie of this nature. I'm going out on a limb a bit here with my ranking, but I don't feel the negatives of the PQ out weigh it's positives enough to rank it any lower than....


TIER 1.0

*UPDATE* Just popped it in again for another quick viewing. I am going to alter my ranking slightly to...


TIER 1.25


----------



## fredxr2d2

Just FYI: Ender's Game and Frozen both went on sale on Amazon today. Some recent eye candy for cheap(er)!


----------



## DarthDoxie


*Gravity*

 

Just finished watching this stunner in 3D. Sharpness never wavered or was in question with space station surfaces and textures really standing out. 3D presentation was excellent, lots of depth and really immersive, forgot I was watching a 3D movie. There are some pop-outs which are nicely done and not heavy handed but the depth of the 3D is off the chart. Black levels are inky and never crushed; contrast is never in question. Color palette is not broad but colors are vibrant when present, it is a space move after all.  Flesh tones are nice and natural as well. It's easy to see why it one Oscars for Cinematography and Visual Effects.

 

Sound is also excellent (again Oscars for Sound Editing and Mixing)...best workout my sub and surrounds have had in awhile. The low end through the sub had the dog crawling in my lap, that usually doesn't happen!

*Tier Recommendation: 0*


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21120#post_24299037
> 
> *Red 2*
> 
> 
> A nice-looking transfer with very little to complain about! My only complaints would be some fleeting soft shots, some inconsistent black levels, and a few instances where flesh tones took on a REDdish look (no pun intended). For the majority of the film we are treated to sharpness & clarity, with abundant details, punchy colors, considerable depth, and excellent facial close-ups (high Tier 1, I'd say). It also looked very "filmic"; I was impressed! I mentioned blacks levels being inconsistent but when they were good they were nice and inky with corresponding shadow details (at times they were on the murky side). I'm opting for....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.5**
> 
> 
> Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....



Just saw this and would concur! Contrast is pretty much perfect too. But yeah, some inexplicable inconsistencies in darker scenes. Some softness that even come from what appears to be lazy focusing, but that's just speculation. Anyway, definitely in Tier 1 territory and probably right at home right smack in the middle of it.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*


----------



## deltasun




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21360#post_24582503
> 
> 
> We had the privilege of having Hugh "drop in" the other day and now you grace our thread with your encouraging post!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm leaving at the crack of dawn tomorrow on a 18-day trip so I am making a mental note to rent _The Counselor_ after I return. I had asked Hugh if he could fill in for me while I'm gone and there was no response.....so, maybe you'd be willing to receive the baton and run with it for 2-3 weeks. Better yet, we'd love to see you resume your excellent reviews on a full-time basis!



Thanks Denny, sounds like a great trip. Got busy and did not even get to respond till now.











> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21390#post_24583867
> 
> 
> It looks like film is nearing its end in Hollywood. Cameras like the RED One and Arri Alexa constitute the bulk of new movies I see these days. I think they can produce fantastic PQ results if the color grading doesn't go wrong.
> 
> Good luck on your trip, Djoberg. I do know that many of the older regulars from this thread still like to lurk here, though posting is another matter.



Yeah, it's a sad day when, at some point, film is used as a nostalgic tool for certain niche movies. I never got a chance to post the quote from Ridley. Hope to do that sometime soon, just interest's sake.


As always, keep up the good work, guys!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I guess all good things must come to an end. Forum member Cinema Squid's excellent website, the main repository for Blu-ray review links and his BDInfo scans, is shifting its focus primarily towards screenshots in the future. I can't blame him, I imagine the work and expense of continuing with it were quite onerous. A tip of my hat to Squid's many years of service. I was amazed at how thorough the site was at cataloging BDs from across the globe.

http://www.cinemasquid.com/news/2014-04-21 


The changes affect our PQ Tiers, since most entries are linked to the review links found on his site. I'm open to suggestions about a possible substitute for future entries in the Tiers' official list . Currently each link brings up a page of linked reviews from across the Internet.


We've already gone through this once before in the Tiers, when HDDB.com dropped its review links a few years back. I'd liked to hear if people found the links a valuable feature of the Tiers, or could they live without them going forward? If anyone has a creative solution, feel free to discuss it.


*Zeta One


recommendation: Tier 3.25**


Kino serves up a satisfying, if not quite perfect, transfer of this 1969 British film. The 85-minute main feature is presented in an adequate AVC video encode with a fair amount of speckling found in the print. Kino claims the transfer is from the 35mm negative, though portions of it have not been restored to any great degree. The telecine scan does have the hallmarks of a more recent image harvest but one might be inclined to think they are fibbing about the use of the original camera negative.


Some added processing and filtering have been used, the film-like texture and detail is mildly smeared at times. There is film grain, but the cinematography is soft and lacks the sharp definition found in better film scans. Its best features are a smooth contrast and very solid black levels, bringing out a pleasing consistency to the Pop Art color palette.


For an obscure spoof from the 60s, the picture quality turned out better than I expected on Blu-ray. A decent film transfer of secondary elements can still produce results and this appears to be the case for _Zeta One_.


----------



## fredxr2d2

Phantom,


Sorry to hear about the site changing focus.


One of the things that I thought would be nice (though, possibly impossible), would be to link the listing on the tiers to the discussion about it in the forum. That way, one could say "Oblivion shouldn't be tier 1, it should be tier 5...why did they do that?" and just click the link to see the discussion on it--or, barring the full discussion: simply a link to the first rating given to that film from a member.


Either way, I'm glad the tiers exist at all: they've been useful and fairly accurate in my estimation.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fredxr2d2*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21390#post_24647257
> 
> 
> Phantom,
> 
> 
> Sorry to hear about the site changing focus.
> 
> 
> One of the things that I thought would be nice (though, possibly impossible), would be to link the listing on the tiers to the discussion about it in the forum. That way, one could say "Oblivion shouldn't be tier 1, it should be tier 5...why did they do that?" and just click the link to see the discussion on it--or, barring the full discussion: simply a link to the first rating given to that film from a member.
> 
> 
> Either way, I'm glad the tiers exist at all: they've been useful and fairly accurate in my estimation.


The good news after much pleading is that Cinema Squid plans to keep some form of the current links up. That means all current entries in the PQ Tiers will continue to work as they have worked in the past.







It still means future entries won't link to anything.


I had thought of your idea in the past, occasionally linking a couple of specific posts in the thread to their entry in the Tiers. If you look hard enough, a few entries now have that feature. If I could come up with a workable system that was manageable I might do it, but most entries have multiple scores in this thread for them. I was thinking more along the lines of one-stop shopping in a single link. The Cinema Squid links had a lot of detailed info for each BD, including links to multiple professional reviews.


There is always this site as a possibility:

http://www.blu-raystats.com/index.php 


They used to have a lot more specific info for each BD, though that has faded in recent years. IMDB is another possibility. We could always move in the direction of pure movie review sites like Rotten Tomatoes.


----------



## fredxr2d2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21390#post_24647925
> 
> 
> The good news after much pleading is that Cinema Squid plans to keep some form of the current links up. That means all current entries in the PQ Tiers will continue to work as they have worked in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It still means future entries won't link to anything.
> 
> 
> I had thought of your idea in the past, occasionally linking a couple of specific posts in the thread to their entry in the Tiers. If you look hard enough, a few entries now have that feature. If I could come up with a workable system that was manageable I might do it, but most entries have multiple scores in this thread for them. I was thinking more along the lines of one-stop shopping in a single link. The Cinema Squid links had a lot of detailed info for each BD, including links to multiple professional reviews.
> 
> 
> There is always this site as a possibility:
> 
> http://www.blu-raystats.com/index.php
> 
> 
> They used to have a lot more specific info for each BD, though that has faded in recent years. IMDB is another possibility. We could always move in the direction of pure movie review sites like Rotten Tomatoes.



Personally, I think IMDB would make sense. Though some argument could be made for blu-ray.com or rottentomatoes. I'm not sure about that stats site as some of their links seem outdated, but, as always, I think the person doing the hard work should get final say.


----------



## wattheF

I use the IMDB app often


----------



## edlittle

The only problem I could see with linking to imdb is that it is more about movie content as opposed to quality of the bluray.


----------



## NJPete

How about linking to DVD-Basen's review links? It compiles multiple reviews and even has separate entries for other regions. Here's their page for Sorcerer:

http://www.dvd-basen.dk/uk/home.php3?mvis=ok&ok=go&idhop=150827


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I had forgotten about DVD Basen but it's definitely the strongest contender so far in my mind. I wish it was a little more thorough in its database but Basen has been around for a very long time. Cinema Squid was exhaustive in the amount of review sites it linked to and often gave detailed info for each BD.


One of the considerations is how much utility a casual user would get from the link to how much time it takes for me to enter them into the Tiers.







The entries in the top tier will always get a link to somewhere useful, as those generate the most attention.


----------



## djoberg

I just returned home and read the sad news about Cinema Squid's site. I will miss it for sure!










I'm busy "catching up" on things but hope to get to the copy of _The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug_ (that our neighbor had taken into our house for us) soon. I'm surprised no one has chimed it yet with a review of this movie.


I did check out DVD Basen and that does look like the best alternative to Cinema Squid's site right now. It is not nearly as exhaustive or efficient, but it's better than nothing.


----------



## rusky_g

Popped in my copy of Smaug in the week for a quick spin and I was smiling - initial thoughts are Tier 0 for me despite grumblings that it's not as pretty as the first


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21390#post_24653713
> 
> 
> Popped in my copy of Smaug in the week for a quick spin and I was smiling - initial thoughts are Tier 0 for me despite grumblings that it's not as pretty as the first



Thanks Russ! I may be watching it later this afternoon.


----------



## rusky_g

Excellent!


Okay so a setup question has arisen today


Do you guys opt for Ycbcr or RGB as your Blu-ray colour space?


I picked up White House Down today and it looked too dark and crushed.


My TV has an option for HDMI Black Level which I could only change by first changing my Blu-ray player to output RGB rather than Auto. This lifted the darkness to reveal much better shadow detail and a more enjoyable picture at a sacrifice of less inky blacks.


Any thoughts? Hi Def Digest did comment that WHD did have some crush...


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21420#post_24654540
> 
> 
> Excellent!
> 
> 
> Okay so a setup question has arisen today
> 
> 
> Do you guys opt for Ycbcr or RGB as your Blu-ray colour space?
> 
> 
> I picked up White House Down today and it looked too dark and crushed.
> 
> 
> My TV has an option for HDMI Black Level which I could only change by first changing my Blu-ray player to output RGB rather than Auto. This lifted the darkness to reveal much better shadow detail and a more enjoyable picture at a sacrifice of less inky blacks.
> 
> 
> Any thoughts? Hi Def Digest did comment that WHD did have some crush...


It depends on the BD player but RGB is usually not the correct choice. I know for the PS3 it's the Ycbcr option. There might be other settings you need to change if it's not properly passing black levels.

*Medaka Box Abnormal


recommendation: Tier 1.75**


This fairly recent anime series arrives courtesy of Sentai Filmworks on Blu-ray. _Medaka Box Abnormal's_ animation is less polished than some other series of comparable vintage, lacking in key frames and motion smoothness. The 1080p video has very clean lines and perfect black levels.


I wouldn't characterize this release as particularly noteworthy but modern, hand-drawn animation has a decided advantage for picture quality when properly animated. This one is firmly grounded in comic book art with typical character designs.


----------



## rusky_g

Thanks Phantom I wonder if my Ysp2200 in manipulating the signal in anyway.


Other films dont need me to tweak anything however.....hmmmmm.


----------



## djoberg

*The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug*


STUNNING!!


As with its predecessor, this Blu draws you into the film with exquisite DETAILS, DEPTH, and CLARITY. The details are simply mesmerizing, with details of close-ups displaying fine texture in nearly every scene. Facial details were every bit as good as in _An Unexpected Journey_, if not better (Bilbo Baggins definitely fared better in this one). Details in general were off the charts in most scenes, even in mid to long range shots of mountains, forests, castles, etc. The sharpness and clarity was as good as I've ever seen, though in a couple of scenes it came across as a bit too *digital* (a case in point would be the scene with the dwarfs riding down the river in barrels). Depth was phenomenal in some shots.


You're going to love Peter Jackson's cinematography in this sequel and as mentioned above every scene teems with details making for some of the sweetest EYE CANDY you'll ever feast your eyes upon!


If I had any complaints, it would be with some soft shots and a couple of instances where black levels faltered resulting in murkiness in one shot and crush in another. But these were clearly the exception and not the rule so any penalization would have to be marginal.


I voted for Tier 0 (right above _Braveheart_) for the first installment and this was a hair better....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (right above The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey)*


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## rusky_g

The Hobbit - Desolation of Smaug


This disc is why I can't rate Gravity as Tier 0. Smaug has that super resolution I crave, gobsmacking detail throughout wrapped up in a world that was destined for hi definition greatness! As DJ said in his review it's mesmerising in its glory, quenching any thirst that fans could have as a home theatre experience. This is a disc that I wouldn't hesitate to reach for to show off to friends.


Tier 0, third of the way down please.


----------



## rusky_g

American Hustle


I did not see the 'amazing' levels of clarity that others did. The golden hues and retro grain was just too much for me to really enjoy this presentation. Some scenes looked decent but more too often I felt like I was watching a DVD. Not cool, bro.


Tier 2.75


----------



## rusky_g

Elfie Hopkins


You have to laugh, this cost me £1.99 including delivery and despite some deliberate soft focus effects I found it really pleasing to watch! A clear, not overly sharp picture which was absent of any intrusive grain, Elfie takes place mostly in daylight. This gave rise to some brilliantly rendered foliage and fabric textures looked superb. Elfie's rainbow coloured serves as a good example. Some very minor crush was noted in one instance, a couple of hot contrast moments but nothing to spoil the show.


I really enjoyed this small budget flick so will score it....


Tier 1.75


----------



## comperic2003

*The Spectacular Spider-Man: The Complete Series


recommendation: Tier 2.5**


In the areas the matter most--plot, character development, dialogue, and pacing--this series soars above every iteration of the Spider-Man story and arguably, above any other animated superhero television show, Batman: The Animated Series included.


As for the video fidelity, it is good. Outside of occasional aliasing, no other artifacts were noted. The animation is simple and clean, lending itself to highly intricate and fluid action sequences but also to an overall lack of detail and vibrancy.

Samsung PN60E7000, CinemaQuest Ideal-Lume Standard Bias Light employed, 8.5 ft viewing distance


----------



## Phantom Stranger

That really is a great Spider-Man series, a must-see cartoon. In related news...

*Superheroes: A Never-ending Battle


recommendation: Tier 2.0**


This 2013 documentary aired on PBS, exploring the history of superheroes in various mediums. Distributed by PBS on Blu-ray, the 1080i presentation looks startling crisp and vivid. A combination of talking-head interviews and archival footage from different mediums, the modern video portions are pristine with excellent clarity and razor-sharp detail. Take away some of the dated television and film footage, this is a disc that would have easily landed in Tier One.


----------



## rusky_g

White House Down



My issue with this film was how dark it looked inside The White House. Whether intentional or not, I felt compelled to adjust my set-up so I could see more mid range detail. Facial and other textures are only momentarily unconvered by shards of light that adorn the White House, otherwise there's not too much going on. Externally things are much better but this only comes into play two thirds through the film; the image is crisp and grain free, with superb dimensionality contrast and depth.


 


Because the darkness issue bugged be, I looked around for other reviews. I was relieved to read that….


 


Hi-Def Digest commented:


 


'Having seen 'White House Down' in the theater over the summer, I can say that the picture seems both a bit darker and a bit more over-saturated than what I remember the movie looking on the big screen. Now if the opposite were true – if the movie looked brighter on Blu-ray, I'd just mark that down to my movie theater dimming their bulb (as most theaters do), but since the opposite is true, I suspect that Sony dialed it down a bit for Blu-ray – quite possibly to try and better mask some of the less-than-stellar F/X in the film (the green screen shots involving actors are particularly noticeable throughout).'


 


Home Theatre Forum.com noted:


 


'This is a solid video presentation, but I have a few complaints. First, it's a tad too dark and I had to boost the brightness a couple of clicks on my projector to bring out some shadow detail. Second, the flesh tones are much too orange, which was most likely done in post processing to make the picture have a little more "pop," but I didn't care for the look. Everything else is fine though with excellent detail in clothing and in the sets.'


 


All things considered, I felt I shouldn't have had to tweak my set up to get the film to look better. Increasing my TV's Gamma to +1 served as a compromised cure to lift the shadows a bit.


 


Tier 1.75


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Whip and The Body

recommendation: Tier 3.75**


Kino mastered this 1963 film by Mario Bava from a fairly solid print. The 1080p presentation is better than expected in its film-like fidelity, displaying no signs of deleterious video processing. What keeps the moody Italian film in Tier Three territory is the dense, original cinematography.


The Gothic thriller is heavy on shadows. Black levels are decent in their weight and density, but a dull contrast and somewhat faded colors limit the amount of depth and clarity possible. The print is largely free of debris and still retains a pleasing level of resolution over its DVD counterpart.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21420#post_24666474
> 
> 
> White House Down
> 
> 
> My issue with this film was how dark it looked inside The White House.
> 
> 
> Tier 1.75



Hey Russ,


I checked my review on this title and I see that i docked it for SOFT SHOTS within the White House. I can't remember if those same shots were too dark but perhaps they were. At any rate, we both agree that the PQ suffered in some of the White House interior shots. I do remember ALL OUTDOOR SHOTS being stellar and that's why I recommended a high Tier 1 placement.


Denny


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Labor Day


recommendation: Tier 1.0**


Paramount serves up a nearly immaculate presentation of _Labor Day_, the newly-released romance starring Kate Winslet and Josh Brolin. Filmed on the RED Epic digital camera, the digital cinematography is shockingly lush and warm, bathed in a fairly neutral color palette.


The technical compression parameters are flawless and the transfer is free of detrimental video processing. Fine detail is rendered in exquisite precision, pristine resolution suitable for the largest displays and screens. Kate Winslet plays a harried mother in this film and does nothing to hide her aging in close-ups. The noiseless video has outstanding depth and shadow delineation, somewhat atypical for its genre. They didn't shirk or short-change the picture, _Labor Day_ makes for excellent demo material outside the usual action and animated genres.


The razor-sharp video is nearly deserving of Tier 0 due to its consistency and lack of serious flaws.


----------



## rusky_g




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21420#post_24670831
> 
> 
> Hey Russ,
> 
> 
> I checked my review on this title and I see that i docked it for SOFT SHOTS within the White House. I can't remember if those same shots were too dark but perhaps they were. At any rate, we both agree that the PQ suffered in some of the White House interior shots. I do remember ALL OUTDOOR SHOTS being stellar and that's why I recommended a high Tier 1 placement.
> 
> 
> Denny



Hey Denny


Yes the outdoor shots were fantastic, really clear and well executed. I did read your review, I often do like to check what others thought before I make a purchase!


Hope you're keeping well, not long now until 'I Frankenstein'


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*My Neighbor Totoro


recommendation: Tier 2.5**


This Disney Blu-ray has been out for almost a year by now, I was a little surprised no one had yet reviewed Miyazaki's _My Neighbor Totoro_. The 1988 animated film is not quite the visual tour de force of more recent Studio Ghibli efforts, but harkens backs to a simpler era of cel animation. Disney uses a very credible, film-like transfer that is likely a step behind the native Japanese BD, due to a weaker video encode.

_My Neighbor Totoro_ retains a fine sheen of authentic film grain, lacking any notable filtering. The color palette is softer and less saturated than modern animation, missing the extraordinary sharpness and pop of richer cel animation. It has to be mentioned the print condition is in excellent shape, hardly a speck of debris can be found.


The transfer is very fine and Disney has properly treated the fantasy film, it's simply not as much eye candy as other Studio Ghibli films.


----------



## OppoMrSocko




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21420#post_24666788
> 
> *The Whip and The Body
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 3.75**
> 
> 
> Kino mastered this 1963 film by Mario Bava from a fairly solid print. The 1080p presentation is better than expected in its film-like fidelity, displaying no signs of deleterious video processing. What keeps the moody Italian film in Tier Three territory is the dense, original cinematography.
> 
> 
> The Gothic thriller is heavy on shadows. Black levels are decent in their weight and density, but a dull contrast and somewhat faded colors limit the amount of depth and clarity possible. The print is largely free of debris and still retains a pleasing level of resolution over its DVD counterpart.


 

Thank you for your continued attention to great Italian horror, Phantom Stranger.  I'm glad you make sure this thread isn't all just mainstream.  Appreciate it.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *OppoMrSocko*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21420#post_24679274
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21420#post_24666788
> 
> *The Whip and The Body
> 
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 3.75**
> 
> 
> 
> Kino mastered this 1963 film by Mario Bava from a fairly solid print. The 1080p presentation is better than expected in its film-like fidelity, displaying no signs of deleterious video processing. What keeps the moody Italian film in Tier Three territory is the dense, original cinematography.
> 
> 
> 
> The Gothic thriller is heavy on shadows. Black levels are decent in their weight and density, but a dull contrast and somewhat faded colors limit the amount of depth and clarity possible. The print is largely free of debris and still retains a pleasing level of resolution over its DVD counterpart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for your continued attention to great Italian horror, Phantom Stranger.  I'm glad you make sure this thread isn't all just mainstream.  Appreciate it.
Click to expand...

When I first started contributing, it was mostly movies outside the usual fare here such as vintage horror and foreign animation.The top tiers wouldn't mean much if we had no frame of reference, which the lower-ranked films help establish. I was first interested in _The Whip and The Body_ because it starred Christopher Lee.


Regarding the history of film, an excellent new article by Bob Furmanek details the complete transition to widescreen filmmaking in Hollywood during 1953:

http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/the-first-year-of-widescreen


----------



## fredxr2d2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21420#post_24683209
> 
> 
> When I first started contributing, it was mostly movies outside the usual fare here such as vintage horror and foreign animation.The top tiers wouldn't mean much if we had no frame of reference, which the lower-ranked films help establish. I was first interested in _The Whip and The Body_ because it starred Christopher Lee.
> 
> 
> Regarding the history of film, an excellent new article by Bob Furmanek details the complete transition to widescreen filmmaking in Hollywood during 1953:
> 
> http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/the-first-year-of-widescreen



Great article! Thanks for sharing Phantom!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Veronica Mars


recommendation: Tier 1.5*
*

The snarky detective gets her own feature film. Shot using the Arri Alexa digital camera, the picture quality has a polished, clean appearance typical of that tech. The unwavering sharpness is very good and detail is fairly high, the transfer from the digital intermediate has been left untouched by filtering.


I think the overall definition and clarity strongly represent a mid-Tier One scoring at the moment. There are no obvious problems in the transfer and the image is close enough to pristine status for that grading. The mostly neutral color palette doesn't heavily bias flesh-tones one way or the other. I would have liked to seen stronger shadow delineation for a higher placement.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Great Expectations (2012)


recommendation: Tier 3.5*
*

Fox issued this recent BBC adaptation on Blu-ray in April. It has some of the most erratic cinematography seen in a recent feature starring big-name talent. I'd like to say it was a conscious choice, but the natural lighting ruins a number of critical scenes in terms of picture attributes. A hazy picture with occasional lapses into poor resolution and weak contrast, some of the black levels end up being crushed. There are also issues with the inconsistent and wild grain structure.


Given my prior complaints, Great Expectations has its moments with stronger detail and better clarity. No filtering or edge enhancement has been overtly applied to the transfer, though this is one case where some judicial digital grading might have brought out a better quality image.


----------



## rusky_g

True Grit (2010)


True Grit is a solid looking Blu Ray with a generally consistent level of PQ. Whilst depth and dimensionality were good, I didn't feel it had quite had the absolute clarity and sharpness of Tier 0 titles so need to rank it a bit lower due to slight but occasional softness. Fabric textures for example could have had more detail, specifically on some closer shots of Rooster Cogburn. Shadow detail was excellent although black levels wavered in a couple of places.


Tier 1.5


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Still Mine


recommendation: Tier 0* (lower half)
*
_Still Mine_ was a small Canadian film made a couple of years ago, finally hitting Blu-ray from Fox in the past week. The drama might as well be a travelogue for St. Martins, New Brunswick. Shot in jaw-dropping clarity on ARRI Alexa cameras, the amount of stunning landscapes and scenic vistas turn the movie into undisputed demo material. The cinematography has a much greater sense of depth than some other productions I've seen with the same cameras, vividly rendering extreme levels of detail.


I really can't fault anything in the 1080p presentation, its picture-perfect quality is quite remarkable. It certainly belongs in the top tier.


----------



## wattheF

The Hobbit- The Desolation of Smaug


This Bluray looks great no doubt. There has been much said about it here on this thread. The movie itself was nothing stellar and maybe my expectations for PQ were too high, but I was not as impressed as many here were. The clarity was very good but I just did not see that ultra crisp and textured detail as in some other zero tier titles. Contrast looked just about spot on. Black levels were very good in most scenes but shadow details seemed murky to me at times. Overall feel of depth was good. The color pallet is very limited in this movie so it was hard to judge. Something about the movement really bothered me. Not sure if it was filmed using HFR or if that has anything to do with it...? I did not see any issues or anomalies with transfer. Btw, I was not overly impressed with the audio.


Overall great PQ, but just barely outside tier 0.


1.0 ranking


----------



## fredxr2d2




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wattheF*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21420#post_24721555
> 
> 
> The Hobbit- The Desolation of Smaug
> 
> 
> This Bluray looks great no doubt. There has been much said about it here on this thread. The movie itself was nothing stellar and maybe my expectations for PQ were too high, but I was not as impressed as many here were. The clarity was very good but I just did not see that ultra crisp and textured detail as in some other zero tier titles. Contrast looked just about spot on. Black levels were very good in most scenes but shadow details seemed murky to me at times. Overall feel of depth was good. The color pallet is very limited in this movie so it was hard to judge. Something about the movement really bothered me. Not sure if it was filmed using HFR or if that has anything to do with it...? I did not see any issues or anomalies with transfer. Btw, I was not overly impressed with the audio.
> 
> 
> Overall great PQ, but just barely outside tier 0.
> 
> 
> 1.0 ranking



I think the movement thing is that it was filmed in 48fps and when translated to 24fps for the BD release we didn't get some of the same motion blur that normal 24fps photography introduces, which, to my eyes, actually made the film look less "real." My favorite part of the film was the dragon, other than that I could really care less (which is sad because I loved the LOTR trilogy of films).


----------



## wattheF




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *fredxr2d2*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21420#post_24721667
> 
> 
> I think the movement thing is that it was filmed in 48fps and when translated to 24fps for the BD release we didn't get some of the same motion blur that normal 24fps photography introduces, which, to my eyes, actually made the film look less "real." My favorite part of the film was the dragon, other than that I could really care less (which is sad because I loved the LOTR trilogy of films).



That's what I figured. I don't think I am a fan of HFR. It doesn't look natural to me.


----------



## wattheF

The Nut Job


This is a strikingly good looking animation on bluray. Crisp and clean with a very polished look. It exhibited some extremely high levels of detail particularly in the animation of characters and items in the foreground and closeups. The animated backgrounds lack the level of detail found in some of the top animated titles.

Colors are brilliant and pop with a wide range to offer. Overall its a fairly bright movie so black levels were not often tested but looked very dark when called upon with great shadow detail. The thing that impressed me the most was the amazing depth that objects on screen appeared to have. There were times that almost seemed as if I was watching the 3D version as objects appeared to jump off the screen! Even while veiwing from just a few feet away from my 60" ST60, the PQ was almost flawless.

The movie and story itself was not one of my favorites but the excellent video and audio quality made for an enjoyable experience.


Ranking...TIER 0


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Godzilla Vs. King Ghidorah


recommendation: Tier 4.5**


An immensely satisfying presentation for...DVD. Sony licensed the 1991 movie from Toho, likely having to use their provided transfer. The source is in very clean condition, I will give it that much. Part of a double feature set, Godzilla Vs. King Ghidorah gets its own BD-25 disc.


Sony was handicapped by Toho's antiquated transfer, which has marginally more detail and enhanced clarity over a quality upscaled DVD. The transfer appears to be an older telecine or very early high-definition transfer, lacking the type of sharpness and authenticity found in better, more recent efforts. Don't expect a huge improvement if one owns this movie on DVD.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Son of Batman

recommendation: Tier 1.75**


The animation in this new, direct-to-video animated movie from Warner Bros. is a tad underwhelming compared to prior efforts by them. The overt banding has been eliminated in the AVC video encode. What prevents a higher placement are less than fully saturated colors and less than fluid animation design. Character designs are sloppy with inconsistent geometry and erratic line art.

_Son Of Batman_ still looks fairly good, though WB's other animated DC projects have largely turned out better in recent years.


----------



## Iain-

Lawrence of Arabia

*Recommendation: Tier 0*


I was watching this film last night for the first time and frankly, nothing I've ever seen could come close to this film. It's simply the most visually stunning work of art I've ever seen.


However, I went looking for this film in the tier thread and it's not listed at all. What am I missing here?


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Iain-*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21420#post_24731087
> 
> Lawrence of Arabia
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 0*
> 
> 
> I was watching this film last night for the first time and frankly, nothing I've ever seen could come close to this film. It's simply the most visually stunning work of art I've ever seen.
> 
> 
> However, I went looking for this film in the tier thread and it's not listed at all. What am I missing here?


 http://www.avsforum.com/t/1425519/official-blu-ray-picture-quality-rankings-the-pq-tiers-updated-through-march-27-2014#user_anchor0 


It's already in there, check again.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Iain-*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21420#post_24731087
> 
> Lawrence of Arabia
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 0*
> 
> 
> I was watching this film last night for the first time and frankly, nothing I've ever seen could come close to this film. It's simply the most visually stunning work of art I've ever seen.
> 
> 
> However, I went looking for this film in the tier thread and it's not listed at all. What am I missing here?



Your review prompted me to check out the review I had given of this exceptional Blu-ray release. I can't say it's the absolute best that I've ever seen, but it is the BEST CATALOG TITLE, bar none. Here's my review if you care to read it:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19800#post_22650913


----------



## Iain-




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21450#post_24732344
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Iain-*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21420#post_24731087
> 
> Lawrence of Arabia
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 0*
> 
> 
> I was watching this film last night for the first time and frankly, nothing I've ever seen could come close to this film. It's simply the most visually stunning work of art I've ever seen.
> 
> 
> However, I went looking for this film in the tier thread and it's not listed at all. What am I missing here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your review prompted me to check out the review I had given of this exceptional Blu-ray release. I can't say it's the absolute best that I've ever seen, but it is the BEST CATALOG TITLE, bar none. Here's my review if you care to read it:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19800#post_22650913
Click to expand...


Thanks for the link.


I used to have the R4 DVD of LOA back in the early naughties, but I wasn't able to appreciate and completely watch it all the way through, due to limitations in technology at the time. Now that I have system capable of providing the best presentation BD has to offer, kit listed below, I'm now able to view it as it is intended to be seen.


I'm still only part way through the UK release of the film; stopped where Lawrence exits Prince Faisal's tent and walks into the desert on Friday night. My intent though, is to view it completely the first time for PQ, and for a second time for plot content.


More comments of this later, when I'm more familiar with qualities of this title.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *TitusTroy*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19800#post_22659549
> 
> 
> how does Lawrence of Arabia compare to Thin Red Line in terms of overall PQ?





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *dvdmike007*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19830#post_22662695
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19830#post_22662536
> 
> 
> So, are implying something by giving us that statistic?
> 
> Have you seen TTRL on Blu-ray? If so, what are your impressions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have both, and TTRL is outstanding, but LoA trumps it for shear detail
Click to expand...


I also have both films now, and I completely agree with your assessment of TTRL v LOA.


My kit, as relevant to video:
Sony BDP-S790
Denon AVR-3313
Panasonic TX-P50GT50B plasma display


BDP is configured for 'Original Resolution" mode (1080/24P) and sends YCbCr4:4:4 signal to display with AVR configured for BD 'Pass-through' mode.


Display is configured for '1080P Pure Direct' mode and was calibrated in summer 2013 using Spears and Munsil v2 calibration disk.


----------



## rusky_g

Anyone picking up Stalingrad?


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21450#post_24733659
> 
> 
> Anyone picking up Stalingrad?



Hey Russ, thanks for the heads up on this release; I had never heard of it. If my local video store has it in Blu I will most definitely rent it. I'm not sure I would want to buy it.


On a side note, I have been (and am still) extremely busy and that's why I haven't been watching and reviewing Blus lately. I should be caught up soon and then I'll resume my favorite hobby!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Flying Tigers


recommendation: Tier 4.0**

_Flying Tigers'_ vintage black-and-white cinematography survives reasonably well in this decent presentation from Olive Films. The John Wayne war movie employs an unusual amount of special effects and stock footage for a World War II-era film, hindering the maximum grade it could score under the PQ Tiers. The scan looks relatively modern from a film element with moderate damage to some of the reels. Its contrast and black levels are better than expected, some of it has a pleasing sense of detail and sharpness.


The film elements have had no serious restoration, though the transfer has not been overly processed, leaving an authentic film-like presentation.

*The Women (1939)


recommendation: Tier 3.5*
*

Warner Bros. went the extra mile restoring this film for its 75th anniversary. The brief Technicolor sequence looks incredible with dazzling colors. This is a top-notch restoration, the comedy will never look much better. I am fairly sure it underwent a 4K scan, the 1080p video pulls out as much fine detail as possible from film stock of this age. There has been slight grain management tools used in the transfer, though it is barely perceptible.


----------



## Iain-




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/19800#post_22650913
> 
> *Lawrence of Arabia*
> 
> 
> I can state emphatically that this is the BEST CATALOG TITLE TO DATE, bar none! I kept pausing scenes to take in the marvel of this phenomenal restoration. I even found myself saying out loud, "How can this be a 50 year old movie?" KUDOs to Sony for achieving this "marvel of marvels."
> 
> 
> I really don't know where to begin, for everything was superb.....DETAILS were exquisite....DEPTH was amazing....COLORS were vibrant....CONTRAST was strong....FLESH TONES were spot on....BLACKS were deep & inky....SHADOW DETAILS were excellent. Add to this list a true, film-like look (thanks to a fine layer of grain throughout) and you simply couldn't ask for anything more. This gets my highest recommendation, especially for fans of this classic epic!
> 
> 
> I suppose I have to mention the few fleeting flaws that I noticed, though I feel I'm being a nitpick in doing so in light of its nearly 4 hour running time. During some of the desert scenes softness crept in (usually during sand storms) and I thought I observed a few seconds of banding in the desert sky. I also thought I saw what might have been a fake background or two (i.e. matte paintings), but this was off in the distance and didn't really distract from the exceptional details in the foreground.
> 
> 
> I would be shocked if this didn't end up in the coveted top Tier. If not for the few anomalies just alluded to I might have nominated this for a place near the top, or at least in the middle, but all things considered I'm voting for....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (Right above Domino)**
> 
> 
> Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....



Actually with the exception of the banding you mention, I saw none of those "flaws".


I've read several reviews of this film, and they all consistently say the banding is in the actual film and is a result of desert heat during the shooting of LOA. Possibly the film stock wasn't stored correctly or was mishandled in some way immediately after shooting the scenes.


Other than that, I completely agree with your assessment of LOA. Good review and thanks for taking the time to do so.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Hannie Caulder


recommendation: Tier 2.25**


Aside from a touch of sharpening this is a beautiful film transfer from high-quality elements, including possibly the camera negative. Olive Films has graced it with a competent AVC video encode, though hints of compression noise peek through the clouds during the opening act. There is a drop in clarity for the optical F/X, though the short film doesn't contain more a handful of them.

_Hannie Caulder's_ widescreen cinematography turns out great in 1080p with a number of gorgeous panoramic shots. The film print is almost entirely free of debris and wear while retaining a pleasing level of grain structure. The color palette possesses a nice level of saturation and has a very crisp contrast for 1971 film stock. This Blu-ray definitely delivers an authentic film experience begging to be seen on a large projection screen. A real nice job by Olive Films on this overlooked Western starring Raquel Welch.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Haganai: Next


recommendation: Tier 1.5**


A new anime release from Funimation, _Haganai's_ second season makes suitable Tier One material. Matching up quite well in the same style of animation as the first season, the sharp character designs and lush color palette are rendered in nearly perfect clarity. A few stray compression artifacts don't significantly drop the overall rating.


The animation lacks some of the fluidity and detail seen in better theatrical animation ranked closer to Tier Zero.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*In Like Flint

recommendation: Tier 2.0*
*

A beautiful film print rendered in faithful glory on Blu-ray. The 1967 spy spoof is rich with color, its 1080p presentation has striking contrast and sharp detail. The eye-catching color palette is real eye candy.


Twilight Time licensed this movie from Twentieth Century-Fox, I'm not sure how Fox let this transfer slip from their clutches. The high-quality film transfer has almost certainly been struck from the original camera negative. Aside from some minor ringing, the Cinemascope film looks as good or better as it ever has since theatrical release. The level of top-notch detail indicates a very recent film scan, a huge positive. A strong AVC video encode at top parameters rounds out the list of attributes, carefully preserving the original film grain and more difficult visual subject matter, such as a steam room scene enshrouded with fine mist.


This is easily among the best-looking discs put out by Twilight Time, especially from their Fox-licensed assortment. Mild ringing, noticeable on bigger displays, is the only problem keeping _In Like Flint_ out of Tier One.


----------



## DarthDoxie


*Anchorman 2*

 

All aspects of PQ are solidly in tier 1. Closeups especially looked good with facial details and flesh tones rendered beautifully. The PQ never drops below tier 1 but also never seems to rise above it either, just a good consistent presentation.

 

The soundtrack was excellent mixed in 5.1, lots of great songs from the late '70s.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*"Crocodile" Dundee


recommendation: Tier 2.5**


There are no major problems with this catalog title from Paramount, given its own disc in a two-disc set with the sequel. I wouldn't characterize it as the newest film transfer, aspects of it look somewhat dated with vague hints of video processing. The 1986 film has its picturesque moments, certainly some of the shots in the Australian Outback are very nice.


Finally given its due on Blu-ray years after the format was released, Paramount has done a credible job in this 1080p presentation with a fairly authentic film experience. There are no serious problems that bar it from the second Tier and the film elements are in very good shape. A mushy opening scene is its worst failing, which appears to have been filmed on inferior stock.
*
"Crocodile" Dundee II


recommendation: Tier 2.75**


Strangely, the more recent sequel probably deserves a lower score with more overt processing, including some halos in a number of scenes. The two film transfers have much in common, however. It looks like both experienced very similar workflows when their film transfers were struck. A newer film scan might have produced a little more clarity and resolution but this is definitely a huge improvement over DVD. Paramount did a fine job with them considering no one would have blinked if they had simply dumped a terrible film master on the format for these older catalog movies.




I hope everyone is enjoying Memorial Day weekend.


----------



## wuther




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21450#post_24759348
> 
> 
> Strangely, the more recent sequel probably deserves a lower score with more overt processing, including some halos in a number of scenes.



Hmmm your scores for both seem to indicate below average.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wuther*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21450#post_24762131
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21450#post_24759348
> 
> 
> Strangely, the more recent sequel probably deserves a lower score with more overt processing, including some halos in a number of scenes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm your scores for both seem to indicate below average.
Click to expand...

In practice, Tier Two has mostly ended up including fairly average-looking material. Most of them have more depth and clarity than the discs that end up in Tier Three, the realm of poorer transfers and worse film stocks. We have to make very fine distinctions in the Tiers, it is always how a disc looks against all other ranked discs. Both Dundees look better than Tier Three material. For catalog transfers from the Eighties, they exceeded my expectations.


I was merely pointing out some evident sharpening in the sequel's transfer, which has more noticeable halos. If I had to guess, the transfers were likely struck a few years ago when Blu-ray was a new format.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Way of the Wicked


recommendation: Tier 0* (near the bottom)*


Image's disposable horror fodder turns in a nearly reference-looking BD, largely thanks to excellent use of the RED digital camera. The crisp video has a startlingly clean quality with better depth than one associates with most all-digital productions. Avoiding a lot of heavy VFX doesn't hurt either for the direct-to-video production.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21450#post_24753629
> 
> *In Like Flint
> 
> recommendation: Tier 2.0*
> *
> 
> A beautiful film print rendered in faithful glory on Blu-ray. The 1967 spy spoof is rich with color, its 1080p presentation has striking contrast and sharp detail. The eye-catching color palette is real eye candy.
> 
> 
> Twilight Time licensed this movie from Twentieth Century-Fox, I'm not sure how Fox let this transfer slip from their clutches. The high-quality film transfer has almost certainly been struck from the original camera negative. Aside from some minor ringing, the Cinemascope film looks as good or better as it ever has since theatrical release. The level of top-notch detail indicates a very recent film scan, a huge positive. A strong AVC video encode at top parameters rounds out the list of attributes, carefully preserving the original film grain and more difficult visual subject matter, such as a steam room scene enshrouded with fine mist.
> 
> 
> This is easily among the best-looking discs put out by Twilight Time, especially from their Fox-licensed assortment. Mild ringing, noticeable on bigger displays, is the only problem keeping _In Like Flint_ out of Tier One.



I'm tempted to get this Blu after reading your excellent review Phantom; I've always been a fan of this movie. We 're out of town (again!) but I really do hope to get back into the swing of things.


I was in a Best Buy today and found myself buying the first season of _House of Cards_. One of my sons-in-law has encouraged me to see it, knowing that I love good, political thrillers. I read on Hi-Def Digest that the PQ is stellar! Has anyone seen the Blu-ray release?


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21450#post_24766014
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21450#post_24753629
> 
> *In Like Flint
> 
> recommendation: Tier 2.0*
> *
> 
> A beautiful film print rendered in faithful glory on Blu-ray. The 1967 spy spoof is rich with color, its 1080p presentation has striking contrast and sharp detail. The eye-catching color palette is real eye candy.
> 
> 
> Twilight Time licensed this movie from Twentieth Century-Fox, I'm not sure how Fox let this transfer slip from their clutches. The high-quality film transfer has almost certainly been struck from the original camera negative. Aside from some minor ringing, the Cinemascope film looks as good or better as it ever has since theatrical release. The level of top-notch detail indicates a very recent film scan, a huge positive. A strong AVC video encode at top parameters rounds out the list of attributes, carefully preserving the original film grain and more difficult visual subject matter, such as a steam room scene enshrouded with fine mist.
> 
> 
> This is easily among the best-looking discs put out by Twilight Time, especially from their Fox-licensed assortment. Mild ringing, noticeable on bigger displays, is the only problem keeping _In Like Flint_ out of Tier One.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm tempted to get this Blu after reading your excellent review Phantom; I've always been a fan of this movie. We 're out of town (again!) but I really do hope to get back into the swing of things.
> 
> 
> I was in a Best Buy today and found myself buying the first season of _House of Cards_. One of my sons-in-law has encouraged me to see it, knowing that I love good, political thrillers. I read on Hi-Def Digest that the PQ is stellar! Has anyone seen the Blu-ray release?
Click to expand...

After seeing _Our Man Flint_ and _In Like Flint_, one realizes where Austin Powers got his mojo. Personally, I'm waiting for Twilight Time to release _Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison_ in June. I do happen to have House of Cards on my deep pile of unwatched Blu-rays. I've also heard great things about it.


Anyone into films from the 1960s and 1970s should check out Cinema Retro Magazine:

http://www.cinemaretro.com/index.php


----------



## djoberg

*I, Frankenstein*


I'm not quite sure if this will qualify as a review, for I could only stomach about half of this HORRIBLE film and I had to shut it down. What I did see was "okay," but nothing spectacular. It had its moments where detail abounded, especially close-ups of the lead actor (and others). Black levels could really shine, but there were instances where the black bars looked more like a really dark gray, and there were several instances of murkiness. This may be attributed to dimly-lit scenes, which were numerous. The color palette was intentionally drab, which didn't help matters any. To be sure there were scenes/shots that veered into low Tier 0/high Tier 1, but these were the exception and not the rule. Depth could be astounding, but again these were few and far between.


I'm thinking this falls short of demo-quality, but it still deserves a place in Tier Silver. I'm opting for the top of that tier.....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## djoberg

*3 Days to Kill*


This one fared much better (though the film itself has zero-repeat value). It was shot exclusively in Paris (I believe) and aerials and close-ups were superb, teeming with details of brick streets, ornate buildings (including the Eiffel Tower), trees, cars, etc., etc. Facial close-ups of Kevin Costner were exemplary and the director zoomed in on him quite often. Colors were pure EYE CANDY....contrast was super-strong (with rich, dark blacks and brilliant whites)...depth was appreciable...flesh tones were spot-on...and there was a consistent sharp picture throughout with plenty of clarity. Again, the film is nothing to write home about, but those who love eye candy may want to give this a rent for the eye candy factor.


This demo material, to be sure, but it's NOT reference. It will find itself easily in Tier 1 and my feeling is it deserves a place near the top....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## djoberg

I also rented _Pompeii_, which is supposedly another DUD as far as the film itself goes. But I'm hoping the cinematography will be rewarding and I'll be able to give some promising remarks regarding the PQ. I have company coming in a few hours so maybe I'll slip that in momentarily.


----------



## djoberg

This is a first. I'm watching the Blu load on my screen and all of a sudden a window pops up informing me that my TV is NOT 3D compatible (which it isn't). I instantly checked the slipcase for the 2D copy and lo and behold, IT WAS EMPTY! It said on the slipcase that it contained both the 2D and 3D versions so I drove downtown to our local video store and the clerk, giving the proverbial "deer in the headlights" look said, "Gosh, I don't know what to say." She ended up letting me exchange it for another Blu and I chose _The Monuments Men_. I haven't seen any reviews on the PQ of this title, but I do believe the movie itself should be vastly superior to what _Pompeii_ would have been. I called the company that's arriving later tonight and they said they'd like to see it. I'll chime in later!


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21450#post_24772648
> 
> *I, Frankenstein*
> 
> 
> I'm not quite sure if this will qualify as a review, for I could only stomach about half of this HORRIBLE film and I had to shut it down. What I did see was "okay," but nothing spectacular. It had its moments where detail abounded, especially close-ups of the lead actor (and others). Black levels could really shine, but there were instances where the black bars looked more like a really dark gray, and there were several instances of murkiness. This may be attributed to dimly-lit scenes, which were numerous. The color palette was intentionally drab, which didn't help matters any. To be sure there were scenes/shots that veered into low Tier 0/high Tier 1, but these were the exception and not the rule. Depth could be astounding, but again these were few and far between.
> 
> 
> I'm thinking this falls short of demo-quality, but it still deserves a place in Tier Silver. I'm opting for the top of that tier.....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.0**


It was that bad, huh? I'm sure you saw enough of it to evaluate the video quality. We'll call it the patrick99 exception in this case.


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21450#post_24772979
> 
> 
> This is a first. I'm watching the Blu load on my screen and all of a sudden a window pops up informing me that my TV is NOT 3D compatible (which it isn't). I instantly checked the slipcase for the 2D copy and lo and behold, IT WAS EMPTY! It said on the slipcase that it contained both the 2D and 3D versions so I drove downtown to our local video store and the clerk, giving the proverbial "deer in the headlights" look said, "Gosh, I don't know what to say." She ended up letting me exchange it for another Blu and I chose _The Monuments Men_. I haven't seen any reviews on the PQ of this title, but I do believe the movie itself should be vastly superior to what _Pompeii_ would have been. I called the company that's arriving later tonight and they said they'd like to see it. I'll chime in later!


Something similar happened to me when I ordered a used BD from some online retailer. The store had split up the 2-D and 3-D discs in the set and I guess had intended to sell them separately.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Transformers: The Movie (1986) (region-free UK edition)

recommendation: Tier 1.75*
*
Aside from unusual blurring in a couple of short scenes, this long out-of-print BD from the UK looks quite impressive. I had intended to purchase this one a few years ago but only recently acquired it, as its rarity on the used market has driven up prices for it. Decades before Michael Bay would mess with Decepticons waging war on the Autobots, the cartoon series had its own animated theatrical release in 1986. The classic cel animation holds up quite well, an argument could be made this is easily one of the stronger animated film transfers from the Eighties. There is very little room left for visual improvement, this BD preserves the original integrity of the animation to a very high degree. A couple of small errors could be fixed but we are seeing vintage animation brimming with vitality. It's a shame no one has bothered releasing this film in the United States on Blu-ray.

Released by British distributor Metrodome as a region-free BD in the UK, the 85-minute main feature is showcased in a 1080p presentation that really pops with nice colors and fantastic clarity. There are clear remnants of a few debris particles, reminding us this is cel animation made before the advent of digital scanning. The transfer is completely unprocessed, we are getting a high-quality image harvest without filtering or halos. First released in 2007, I suppose the transfer had been recently struck at the time from the camera negative.

The video encode is in the older MPEG-2 technology at moderate bitrates in the twenties. Transformers' bold animation must compress very well since there aren't a trace of artifacts. The video encode perfectly replicates the fine grain structure and nuances of the animation.

I was a little leery of this older Blu-ray's quality before seeing it, especially considering how quickly it went out of print. After enjoying the video quality immensely, this is one BD that definitely qualifies for Tier One. I wish I could rank it higher but there are some limitations inherent to the animation.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21450#post_24773555
> 
> 
> It was that bad, huh? I'm sure you saw enough of it to evaluate the video quality. We'll call it the patrick99 exception in this case.



Yes, it was that bad Phantom. It was so disjointed with terrible acting, and it was obvious the director relied heavily on CGI action scenes to carry the show. The trouble is, one tired easily of so much CGI: I was longing for some character development but alas, it never happened (during the first half, that is). I chuckled at your remark about patrick99, for I too thought of him as I was calling it quits halfway through.










I should mention that after our company arrived the weather cooled down to a very pleasant 70 degrees and we found ourselves going for a long walk in our country development, followed by a long discussion over various topics on the patio. So, we never got around to viewing _The Monument Men_.


----------



## cinema13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21450#post_24772979
> 
> 
> This is a first. I'm watching the Blu load on my screen and all of a sudden a window pops up informing me that my TV is NOT 3D compatible (which it isn't). I instantly checked the slipcase for the 2D copy and lo and behold, IT WAS EMPTY! It said on the slipcase that it contained both the 2D and 3D versions so I drove downtown to our local video store and the clerk, giving the proverbial "deer in the headlights" look said, "Gosh, I don't know what to say." She ended up letting me exchange it for another Blu and I chose _The Monuments Men_. I haven't seen any reviews on the PQ of this title, but I do believe the movie itself should be vastly superior to what _Pompeii_ would have been. I called the company that's arriving later tonight and they said they'd like to see it. I'll chime in later!



There is NO missing disc...I, FRANKENSTEIN has both the 2D and 3D on ONE disc. You probably did not select the 2D version.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cinema13*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21450#post_24774981
> 
> 
> There is NO missing disc...I, FRANKENSTEIN has both the 2D and 3D on ONE disc. You probably did not select the 2D version.



Not according to the video store manager. I was just there and he apologized to me for forgetting to put the 2D version in the slipcase. Besides, if both versions would have been on one disc they should have given me the option, while it was loading, to pick which version I wanted to view. Instead, a window came up informing me that my TV was not compatible with this 3D disc.


If you do have a copy with both versions on one disc, then you must have purchased it and they decided to NOT include both versions on the rental disc.


----------



## cinema13




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21450#post_24775454
> 
> 
> Not according to the video store manager. I was just there and he apologized to me for forgetting to put the 2D version in the slipcase. Besides, if both versions would have been on one disc they should have given me the option, while it was loading, to pick which version I wanted to view. Instead, a window came up informing me that my TV was not compatible with this 3D disc.
> 
> 
> If you do have a copy with both versions on one disc, then you must have purchased it and they decided to NOT include both versions on the rental disc.



Nope. I rented it via Redbox.. Both on a single disc..

http://www.redbox.com/movies/i-frankenstein-blu-ray 




Store managers are generally ignorant of discs and fornats. (just as many Target/Best Buy/ employees know little about home video.) He probably just assumed the 2D version was missing because some other studios do use a two-disc format. Believe me, if I, FRANKENSTEIN really was on 2 discs, I bet your store would only have stocked the 2D version.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *cinema13*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21450#post_24776923
> 
> 
> Nope. I rented it via Redbox.. Both on a single disc..
> 
> http://www.redbox.com/movies/i-frankenstein-blu-ray
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Store managers are generally ignorant of discs and fornats. (just as many Target/Best Buy/ employees know little about home video.) He probably just assumed the 2D version was missing because some other studios do use a two-disc format. Believe me, if I, FRANKENSTEIN really was on 2 discs, I bet your store would only have stocked the 2D version.



Just to clarify, I made two trips to the video store. The first time I was there I encountered the clueless clerk who didn't know anything about what discs should be in what slipcases. The second trip was when the store manager was there and he actually showed me the SEPARATE 2D version and then apologized for the slipcase only containing the 3D version. So I can't understand how Redbox is able to rent Blu-rays with only disc. For the record, I have NEVER rented a Blu-ray that contained one disc with both versions on it.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Some studios include 2-D and 3-D on the same disc. Rental discs can and will often be different from retail configurations. It's possible that Netflix simply got the retail disc instead of a rental version on this particular movie.


Best Buy has a large number of catalog BDs at the moment on sale for $4.99, presumably for the upcoming Father's Day holiday. A lot of war and John Wayne movies.


----------



## DarthDoxie




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21450_50#post_24777120
> 
> 
> Best Buy has a large number of catalog BDs at the moment on sale for $4.99, presumably for the upcoming Father's Day holiday. A lot of war and John Wayne movies.


Yes, it's for Father's Day. My BB has had a display up for some time and I picked up the new Steve McQueen Collection for $20; The Sand Pebbles, The Magnificent Seven, The Great Escape, The Thomas Crown Affair. I hope to view TCA soon as it has not been reviewed, the one in the rankings list is the remake.


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *DarthDoxie*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21450#post_24777159
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21450_50#post_24777120
> 
> 
> Best Buy has a large number of catalog BDs at the moment on sale for $4.99, presumably for the upcoming Father's Day holiday. A lot of war and John Wayne movies.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it's for Father's Day. My BB has had a display up for some time and I picked up the new Steve McQueen Collection for $20; The Sand Pebbles, The Magnificent Seven, The Great Escape, The Thomas Crown Affair. I hope to view TCA soon as it has not been reviewed, the one in the rankings list is the remake.
Click to expand...

I saw a high-definition print of The Thomas Crown Affair a couple of years ago on one of the premium broadcast channels. I have no idea if the Blu-ray will share that transfer but the optical FX work in it, especially in the splitscreens, were a bit rough.


----------



## wattheF

The Secret Life of Walter Mitty


This is excellent movie with a great soundtrack. Highly recommended. As far as BD PQ is concerned, overall it's very good.

The movie offers plenty of scenes that are visually spectacular. Partially shot in Iceland, the landscapes are beautiful. Many outdoor scenes offer great clarity and depth. Color and contrast is strong. Black levels/shadow details were not often tested but overall fared well enough. The whole movie has a light, yet fairly noticeable amount of grain.

The biggest problem with this movie was it was inconsistent from shot to shot, with some (closeups) looking sharp as a tack and others looking fairly soft and even murky. Not reference quality but the majority of the movie looks very good, so I think it belongs somewhere in tier 1.


Ranking...1.75


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wattheF*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21480#post_24778581
> 
> 
> The Secret Life of Walter Mitty
> 
> 
> This is excellent movie with a great soundtrack. Highly recommended. As far as BD PQ is concerned, overall it's very good.
> 
> The movie offers plenty of scenes that are visually spectacular. Partially shot in Iceland, the landscapes are beautiful. Many outdoor scenes offer great clarity and depth. Color and contrast is strong. Black levels/shadow details were not often tested but overall fared well enough. The whole movie has a light, yet fairly noticeable amount of grain.
> 
> The biggest problem with this movie was it was inconsistent from shot to shot, with some (closeups) looking sharp as a tack and others looking fairly soft and even murky. Not reference quality but the majority of the movie looks very good, so I think it belongs somewhere in tier 1.
> 
> 
> Ranking...1.75



Thanks for the excellent review! I almost rented this the other day and you have surely given me the desire to rent it on my next trip to the video store.


I have about 40 minutes left of _The Monuments Men_. The PQ has been consistently good.


----------



## wattheF




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21480#post_24779275
> 
> 
> Thanks for the excellent review! I almost rented this the other day and you have surely given me the desire to rent it on my next trip to the video store.
> 
> 
> I have about 40 minutes left of _The Monuments Men_. The PQ has been consistently good.


Thanks. I didn't write a review for The Monuments Men but I agree the PQ was very good through out.


----------



## djoberg

*The Monuments Men*


To "cut to the chase," this was yet another "demo-worthy" Blu....NOT reference, mind you, but one that you could still grab off the shelf to show off the virtues of High Definition on Blu-ray.


DETAILS and DEPTH stood out in this one, especially in any of the daytime, outdoor scenes. You'll be WOWED by some of spectacular cinematography, with lush views of France and Germany (I'm assuming these were actual shots in those countries). One shot in particular that caused me to be riveted to my KURO screen took place on a winding mountain road as several jeeps made their way to an ancient castle in the distance. The details of the road, surrounding foliage, and distant mountains were mesmerizing and the outstanding depth made the castle look as if you were actually in the jeep, drawing closer with each acceleration of the pedal. They also showed many cities that had been reduced to ruins through multiple bombings and there again details and depth were amazing. Facial details (up close) were very good, but not at reference level.


Colors, when on display, were magnificent. Contrast was generally strong. Flesh tones were, in the main, spot-on (there were a few indoor scenes where they seemed a bit off). Black levels were good to very good, but I must confess that they faltered at times. In *some* very dark scenes my "black" bars took on a dark gray look, which always results in taking me out of the movie for a moment or two. I did end up skimming various dark scenes a second time around and these were the only area of inconsistency in the movie. Blacks could be deep and inky with stellar shadow details...and the next dark scene could be less-than-stellar resulting in a loss of shadow details and depth.


All things considered this was still very pleasing to the eyes. Initially I was thinking of the bottom of Tier 1, but after skimming through various scenes again I've decided to bump it up a notch....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Was the color-timing particularly skewed one way for _The Monuments Men_? It's good to see you back from your hiatus, Djoberg.


What I want is the original _The Secret Life of Walter Mitty_ on Blu-ray.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21480#post_24779899
> 
> 
> Was the color-timing particularly skewed one way for _The Monuments Men_? It's good to see you back from your hiatus, Djoberg.



Thankfully this title was, for the most part, free of the typical ORANGE or TEAL color-timing that characterizes many period pieces (and especially "war" movies). Having said that, some of the interior scenes had saturated colors, with a few shots leaning toward a golden hue (but nothing that I would call bothersome). My understanding is that all of the daytime, outdoor scenes were shot on film and all of the nighttime or indoor scenes were shot using the Arri ALEXA digital camera. Those scenes shot on film were actually sharper, more detailed, and came across with a pleasing "natural-look." I don't know all the variables that played into the color saturation in the interior shots, but I found those shots to be quite acceptable. You know I'm not a fan of egregious color-timing, so be assured that I most definitely would have sounded an alarm had this been another ORANGE or TEAL mess.


----------



## rusky_g

R.I.P.D (2D)


Okay so it wasn't top tier but for the most part R.I.P.D had me handfuffed to my seat in terms of PQ. Sporting a golden hue, we are treated to a clean, detailed picture which is free of noise and grain. Strong colours with good facials, notably those of Kevin Bacon which stood out the most. One night time scene in the harbour was memorable as an eye candy feast, albeit brief. Occasional softer shots were witnessed but not to any major detriment.


Tier 1.5


----------



## wattheF




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21480#post_24779599
> 
> *The Monuments Men*
> 
> 
> To "cut to the chase," this was yet another "demo-worthy" Blu....NOT reference, mind you, but one that you could still grab off the shelf to show off the virtues of High Definition on Blu-ray.
> 
> 
> DETAILS and DEPTH stood out in this one, especially in any of the daytime, outdoor scenes. You'll be WOWED by some of spectacular cinematography, with lush views of France and Germany (I'm assuming these were actual shots in those countries). One shot in particular that caused me to be riveted to my KURO screen took place on a winding mountain road as several jeeps made their way to an ancient castle in the distance. The details of the road, surrounding foliage, and distant mountains were mesmerizing and the outstanding depth made the castle look as if you were actually in the jeep, drawing closer with each acceleration of the pedal. They also showed many cities that had been reduced to ruins through multiple bombings and there again details and depth were amazing. Facial details (up close) were very good, but not at reference level.
> 
> 
> Colors, when on display, were magnificent. Contrast was generally strong. Flesh tones were, in the main, spot-on (there were a few indoor scenes where they seemed a bit off). Black levels were good to very good, but I must confess that they faltered at times. In *some* very dark scenes my "black" bars took on a dark gray look, which always results in taking me out of the movie for a moment or two. I did end up skimming various dark scenes a second time around and these were the only area of inconsistency in the movie. Blacks could be deep and inky with stellar shadow details...and the next dark scene could be less-than-stellar resulting in a loss of shadow details and depth.
> 
> 
> All things considered this was still very pleasing to the eyes. Initially I was thinking of the bottom of Tier 1, but after skimming through various scenes again I've decided to bump it up a notch....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.5**


Great review and I agree completely with your assessment and ranking.


----------



## ScottJ

The Red Violin (CA import)


PQ is horrible, easily the worst out of hundreds of Blu-rays I've watched. While encoded as 1080p24, it appears to be upconverted from 480i60, and it's a terribly-done upconversion at that. Picture is soft, but worst are the motion artifacts, a result of either poor deinterlacing or bad frame rate conversion. Often after a scene switch, it takes a few frames before the picture clears up. Those first frames are full of ghosting (double image). It had me digging through my projector's menus trying to figure out what frame interpolation I'd accidentally turned on, before realizing that the problem was with the source itself. Colors are muted and details are soft or nonexistent. Atrocious.


On the plus side, AQ is decent.


Tier Recommendation: 5.0 (Coal)


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ScottJ*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21480#post_24781910
> 
> 
> The Red Violin (CA import)
> 
> 
> PQ is horrible, easily the worst out of hundreds of Blu-rays I've watched. While encoded as 1080p24, it appears to be upconverted from 480i60, and it's a terribly-done upconversion at that. Picture is soft, but worst are the motion artifacts, a result of either poor deinterlacing or bad frame rate conversion. Often after a scene switch, it takes a few frames before the picture clears up. Those first frames are full of ghosting (double image). It had me digging through my projector's menus trying to figure out what frame interpolation I'd accidentally turned on, before realizing that the problem was with the source itself. Colors are muted and details are soft or nonexistent. Atrocious.
> 
> 
> On the plus side, AQ is decent.
> 
> 
> Tier Recommendation: 5.0 (Coal)


That is one of those Alliance BDs probably featuring a HD transfer intended for syndication or broadcast. They likely had to deinterlace it from 1080i video made from an ancient telecine. It was a New Line release in the States, I doubt Warner Bros. ever gets around to releasing it here.


There is a huge hole in the Blu-ray market for films made between the early 1990s to around 2004, before studios switched to higher standards for their initial high-definition transfers. Older catalog titles from the period are probably not worth investing in a new film scan from the camera negative for a home video release, which is why we see so many films from the period arriving on Blu-ray looking very suspect in picture quality. The recent release of Ravenous (1999) by Scream Factory appears to have fallen victim to this trend.


----------



## djoberg

*The Secret Life of Walter Mitty*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wattheF*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21480#post_24778581
> 
> 
> The Secret Life of Walter Mitty
> 
> 
> This is excellent movie with a great soundtrack. Highly recommended. As far as BD PQ is concerned, overall it's very good.
> 
> The movie offers plenty of scenes that are visually spectacular. Partially shot in Iceland, the landscapes are beautiful. Many outdoor scenes offer great clarity and depth. Color and contrast is strong. Black levels/shadow details were not often tested but overall fared well enough. The whole movie has a light, yet fairly noticeable amount of grain.
> 
> The biggest problem with this movie was it was inconsistent from shot to shot, with some (closeups) looking sharp as a tack and others looking fairly soft and even murky. Not reference quality but the majority of the movie looks very good, so I think it belongs somewhere in tier 1.
> 
> 
> Ranking...1.75



What he said....and MORE!


The first half of the movie left me thinking, "What's so great about this movie?" (including the PQ), but then the second half kicked in and I was instantly drawn in. The first half takes place mainly in San Francisco and I was turned off by the color-grading (here we go Phantom!), which had WAY TOO MUCH *TEAL!* There were some very good shots though, especially facial-closeups of Shirley MacLaine (her aging face was chock full of texture, as were her neck & hands, which were filled with wrinkles and age spots) and some very detailed shots of San Francisco's buildings, streets, and foliage. It seemed that the majority of this half took place where Mitty worked (at _Life Magazine_), and again it was almost all TEAL. The movie moved VERY SLOWLY and seemed awkward to me.


Then the ACTION began, where Mitty's adventures in Greenland, Iceland, and Afghanistan unfolded. The scenery was breathtaking in Iceland and Afghanistan and the PQ couldn't have been more SHARP and DETAILED. I was mesmerized by many of the scenes, and by the amazing soundtrack that went along with them. I had noted previously that the texture in Shirley MacLaine's face was fantastic....well, wait until you see Sean Penn "up close and personal." There were a couple of scenes where ORANGE hues came into play (most notably when Penn and Stiller are playing soccer in Afghanistan) and flesh tones suffered as a result.


I did enjoy the grain structure. As my colleague noted, it was "light" and thus it featured a very nice "filmic" look!


Black levels were, for the most part, excellent. Daytime shots with sunshine and snow/oceans displayed brilliant whites. In other words, the CONTRAST was indeed STRONG.


Okay, you get the picture...this is somewhat of a mixed bag, with, as wattheF intimated, many inconsistencies. But when shots were good, they were really, really, good...REFERENCE material!! So, in trying to "balance things out," I believe this is indeed demo-worthy and I'm going to echo the recommendation of my peer and go with...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## ScottJ




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21480_10#post_24781961
> 
> 
> That is one of those Alliance BDs probably featuring a HD transfer intended for syndication or broadcast. They likely had to deinterlace it from 1080i video made from an ancient telecine. It was a New Line release in the States, I doubt Warner Bros. ever gets around to releasing it here.



It would have been far better to release the Blu-ray with that 1080i transfer than this mess. But I guess then they couldn't check the marketing checkbox of "1080p video!"


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*AnoHana: The Flower We Saw That Day (complete collection)


recommendation: Tier 1.0*
*

The 2011 anime series features vibrant animation in a top-notch set released by NIS America. Spread over two 2 BDs, the AVC video encode perfectly encapsulates the 1080p video without banding in a flawless manner. Rendered in bold, splashy colors with crystal clarity, the animation is indistinguishable from theatrical fare.


This is definitely a cut above in terms of picture quality, it bypasses the various technical problems associated with a number of the other anime distributors. More importantly, a lot of care has been exercised with the animation itself.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*McLintock!: Authentic Collector's Edition


recommendation: Tier 1.75*
*

Paramount finally releases their version of this John Wayne film from 1963, featuring a 4K film transfer from the original camera negative. It has slipped into the public domain, allowing Olive Films to release their own Blu-ray about a year ago. While I don't have direct access to Olive Films' version, Paramount's edition from the original film elements has a stunning transfer and almost certainly looks better. I would be calling this an impeccable film transfer if some ringing hadn't been added to the video. The amount of detail packed into each frame is excellent.


Saturated colors pop off the screen in this comedic Western, the cinematography has all the traits desired by picky videophiles. Extremely faithful grain reproduction, a lack of filtering, perfect black levels- the scattered halos visible at times are the only things keeping this out of a much higher placement in Tier One. It's a very nice effort by Paramount with a high-caliber restoration, encoded to maximum technical specifications.


An interesting bit of trivia...McLintock! was first released to theaters on November 22, 1963.


----------



## wattheF

The Legend of Hercules


Oh boy, where do i begin? This one is just a mess in every way possible. The movie itself has one of the worst plots with some of the worst acting I have seen in a long time. Seriously, its bad. As far as BD PQ goes, I believe that too is a mess. I will admit that at times the movie is visually impressive but it is riddled with inconsistency and technical issues. The very first shot of the opening scene exhibited easily the worst color banding I have ever seen on bluray. Btw, many other scenes had color banding as well. Unacceptable! In some scenes the Director seemed to be going for a highly stylized look with the color pushed heavily towards a golden orange hue and contrast pushed to the point where it looked blown out. This was the case in most of the battle scenes. The movie has some really poor use of CGI as well. On the other hand there were scenes that looked fantastic, dare I say almost reference. Some of the bright outdoor shots were real eye candy showing excellent detail, depth, color and contrast. But these were few and far between. Many other shots were soft and even noisy. Black levels varied from very good to washed out and murky depending on scene.

I would not be surprised if there were other technical issues that i didnt pick up on as well. It seems as though many corners were cut on all levels of production. Im having a hard time coming up with a ranking because of the inconsistencies and issues but I did find myself saying wow that looks great a few times. Overall the negatives outweighed the positives so for now I will go with...


Ranking 3.75


----------



## Phantom Stranger

_The Legend of Hercules_ was directed by Renny Harlin, a spotty director at best.


----------



## wattheF




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Phantom Stranger*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21480#post_24790693
> 
> _The Legend of Hercules_ was directed by Renny Harlin, a spotty director at best.


Yeah spotty is how I would describe the PQ in this movie as well. The good parts seem to be related to getting lucky more than anything else!


----------



## djoberg

I just picked up _Lone Survivor_ this morning but won't be viewing it until late tonight or tomorrow. The reviews I've read so far are all very good...for both the movie and the PQ. Has anyone reading this seen it?


----------



## tcramer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21480#post_24792180
> 
> 
> I just picked up _Lone Survivor_ this morning but won't be viewing it until late tonight or tomorrow. The reviews I've read so far are all very good...for both the movie and the PQ. Has anyone reading this seen it?



I picked it up last night as an impulse buy. Sadly I'll be lucky to even get to it by the end of the weekend, but will look forward to your feedback!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tcramer*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21480#post_24792502
> 
> 
> I picked it up last night as an impulse buy. Sadly I'll be lucky to even get to it by the end of the weekend, but will look forward to your feedback!



And I'll be looking forward to a review from you!


----------



## wattheF

I watched a downloaded copy of it. Movie was excellent and PQ was quite good. I can't wait to see it on a real blu.


----------



## |Tch0rT|




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21480#post_24792180
> 
> 
> I just picked up _Lone Survivor_ this morning but won't be viewing it until late tonight or tomorrow. The reviews I've read so far are all very good...for both the movie and the PQ. Has anyone reading this seen it?



It's good. I don't do ratings like you guys do but I wouldn't be surprised if it's up there on PQ rating. It's great all around with PQ and SQ, I'd say it would be a good demo disc. There's some good bass too if your sub is up to the task.


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *|Tch0rT|*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21480#post_24793986
> 
> 
> It's good. I don't do ratings like you guys do but I wouldn't be surprised if it's up there on PQ rating. It's great all around with PQ and SQ, I'd say it would be a good demo disc. There's some good bass too if your sub is up to the task.



Sounds good! I'm just about to slip the disc into my Pioneer Blu-ray player.


Glad to hear the AQ is great too, with some good bass. I believe my "sub is up to the task." It's a SVS ported cylinder sub that has a flat frequency response down to 20 Hz...it start's rolling off at 18 Hz. It is extremely accurate, with DEEP & TIGHT bass!


----------



## |Tch0rT|




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21480#post_24794270
> 
> 
> Sounds good! I'm just about to slip the disc into my Pioneer Blu-ray player.
> 
> 
> Glad to hear the AQ is great too, with some good bass. I believe my "sub is up to the task." It's a SVS ported cylinder sub that has a flat frequency response down to 20 Hz...it start's rolling off at 18 Hz. It is extremely accurate, with DEEP & TIGHT bass!



I have a feeling you'll like it.







Helicopters and RPG's... hehe. I only said "up to the task" cuz I think in the Movies with Bass thread that a lot of the bass is ~25hz and below.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*About Time


recommendation: Tier 1.0*


I feel its current placement in Tier 1.5 could be higher. _About Time_ has very impressive video quality, especially when its setting moves to the panoramic seascapes of Cornwall. The extreme clarity and pristine definition had me thinking of Tier 0 outside of the London scenes.


Universal's presentation is technically perfect with a strong AVC video encode, lacking noteworthy processing. A wisp of aliasing briefly appears that is almost certainly endemic to the digital photography. For a sentimental film that veers on romance, the color timing is rather neutral with an even color palette and realistic flesh-tones.


A lack of serious depth and pop to the cinematography are probably the only factors keeping this one from Tier Zero.


----------



## djoberg

*Lone Survivor*


SWEET!! We can finally add another live action movie to the REFERENCE TIER!


I'm tired so I'll make this short. DETAILS abound in nearly every shot of its 2-hour running time, whether it's the Afghanistan terrain (though it was actually filmed in New Mexico) with its gorgeous mountains, forests, and deserts, or the MANY facial close-ups revealing every bit of blood, sweat and tears (and also pores, snot, cuts, dirt, grime, etc.). I hadn't seen texture in faces like this since the _Transporter_ trilogy. Details in clothing was also amazing. DEPTH was also phenomenal with scenes so real that you felt you could reach out and touch a tree or a soldier. FLESH TONES were as good as they get. COLORS were vivid. SHARPNESS & CLARITY were off the charts!


About the only gripe were blacks levels that became a bit murky with a smidgen of noise, but these were limited to a couple of fleeting shots. In all other cases blacks were deep and inky with finely-rendered shadow details.


I would say this is most definitely one of the best live action Blus to date and I'd place it at about the .33 mark in Tier 0. To be more precise, I'd put it right here....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (right above Live Free or Die Hard*)


PS The audio was stellar with plenty of action in the surrounds during gunfights and helicopter flights, and some very impressive bass in multiple scenes. The movie was also excellent!


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## wattheF

47 Ronin


If you can look past the mediocre (at best) acting, this is an entertaining movie with overall very good PQ on bluray.


Strengths include top notch clarity/sharpness with facial details on closeups looking as good as it gets. Color was well balanced and seemed fairly neutral to my eyes. Brightly colored character costumes popped with great texture. Bright outdoor scenes and landscapes at times looked brilliant. Overall it was a very clean presentation without any obvious issues.


The one area that PQ faltered was black levels. They were consistently below average. There seemed to be a conscious effort to preserve shadow details, which BTW were excellent, but this was at the cost of a truly deep black. Even in the darkest areas of any shot, at no point during the movie did it come even close to matching the pitch black letter bars on my ST60 plasma. It was most notable during dark scenes which looked murky. It became obvious that the lack of a good black level was holding back all areas of PQ as some moderately lit scenes had a slightly washed out look. I couldn't help but wonder how much better even the already great looking brightly lit scenes could have looked. It's too bad because it is the only thing keeping this movie from being reference level.


Although its not consistent, this BD could still be considered borderline demo-worthy because it has some very impressive scenes. I am debating where to rank it but right now I am feeling a bit generous.


Ranking...1.75


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^


Good review wattheF!


Just so you know, it's alright to be "feeling a bit generous." We need more "generous raters" on this thread!


----------



## wattheF

Thanks!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Steins; Gate: Part 1


recommendation: Tier 1.75**


I was looking for reasons to rank this 2011 anime higher as it's a brilliant series with interesting animation and thoughtful character design. Alas, Funimation's AVC video encode contains obvious banding that can't be overlooked. The Japanese program was released by Funimation in the Fall of 2012 and looks fairly similar to their other releases, including compression standards with a few deficiencies for modern animation.


The picture quality itself has a subtle palette with complex shading. Perfect black levels produce nice pop to the characters in front of the detailed background art.


----------



## tcramer




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21480#post_24794691
> 
> *Lone Survivor*
> 
> 
> SWEET!! We can finally add another live action movie to the REFERENCE TIER!
> 
> 
> I'm tired so I'll make this short. DETAILS abound in nearly every shot of its 2-hour running time, whether it's the Afghanistan terrain (though it was actually filmed in New Mexico) with its gorgeous mountains, forests, and deserts, or the MANY facial close-ups revealing every bit of blood, sweat and tears (and also pores, snot, cuts, dirt, grime, etc.). I hadn't seen texture in faces like this since the _Transporter_ trilogy. Details in clothing was also amazing. DEPTH was also phenomenal with scenes so real that you felt you could reach out and touch a tree or a soldier. FLESH TONES were as good as they get. COLORS were vivid. SHARPNESS & CLARITY were off the charts!
> 
> 
> About the only gripe were blacks levels that became a bit murky with a smidgen of noise, but these were limited to a couple of fleeting shots. In all other cases blacks were deep and inky with finely-rendered shadow details.
> 
> 
> I would say this is most definitely one of the best live action Blus to date and I'd place it at about the .33 mark in Tier 0. To be more precise, I'd put it right here....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (right above Live Free or Die Hard*)
> 
> 
> PS The audio was stellar with plenty of action in the surrounds during gunfights and helicopter flights, and some very impressive bass in multiple scenes. The movie was also excellent!
> 
> 
> Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....



Sounds like I made a good buy. Hopefully I'll get a chance to check it out this weekend and come back and agree with your rating!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tcramer*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21510#post_24799962
> 
> 
> Sounds like I made a good buy. Hopefully I'll get a chance to check it out this weekend and come back and agree with your rating!



I trust you will agree with a Tier 0 rating...maybe not the exact location I chose, but that it's still a worthy contender for Tier Blu. Enjoy!


----------



## wattheF

I'm starting to wonder if it's my display (ST60 plasma) that it's having issues with color banding...? Two out of the last three blurays I've watched have had bad gradients.


Last night it was "All is Lost". Color banding was quite bad in the sky during the opening shot. There were also scenes like the one during the big storm that the noise in the rainy background was so bad it was almost unwatchable. Almost a smearing oil paint affect. Otherwise the PQ of the movie was pretty good.


Has anyone else had a chance to check out this movie? If so please comment on if you noticed any off these issues.


Thanks


----------



## Toe




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wattheF*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21510#post_24803121
> 
> 
> I'm starting to wonder if it's my display (ST60 plasma) that it's having issues with color banding...? Two out of the last three blurays I've watched have had bad gradients.
> 
> 
> Last night it was "All is Lost". Color banding was quite bad in the sky during the opening shot. There were also scenes like the one during the big storm that the noise in the rainy background was so bad it was almost unwatchable. Almost a smearing oil paint affect. Otherwise the PQ of the movie was pretty good.
> 
> 
> Had anyone less had a chance to check out this movie? If so please comment on if you noticed any off these issues.
> 
> 
> Thanks




Quite a few people commented on the banding in All is Lost in the AiL thread including me and I agree, it was horrible at times.


----------



## wattheF

Thanks! I just did some digging and found that thread as well.


Should have known it wasn't my display ;-)


----------



## Phantom Stranger




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wattheF*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21510#post_24803121
> 
> 
> I'm starting to wonder if it's my display (ST60 plasma) that it's having issues with color banding...? Two out of the last three blurays I've watched have had bad gradients.
> 
> 
> Last night it was "All is Lost". Color banding was quite bad in the sky during the opening shot. There were also scenes like the one during the big storm that the noise in the rainy background was so bad it was almost unwatchable. Almost a smearing oil paint affect. Otherwise the PQ of the movie was pretty good.
> 
> 
> Has anyone else had a chance to check out this movie? If so please comment on if you noticed any off these issues.
> 
> 
> Thanks


It's a movie distributed by Lionsgate on Blu-ray. Their video encodes occasionally contain posterization and chroma banding. If the video is not picture-perfect, it is not uncommon to find the occasional compression problem in them. To my eyes it does not appear they are using the latest hardware encoders or even using the correct settings.


----------



## rusky_g

*The Secret Life Of Walter Mitty*


This is a very colourful looking Blu Ray. Generally the picture is sharp with only a few soft shots spoiling the fun. Elsewhere detail soars, notably in the Greenland and Iceland scenes which show off some fantastic location shots. Greens in particular were very vivid in this film! I did witness a couple of murky moments specifically a panning shot on Mitty's first plane journey. Scenes featuring Mitty's Mother also tended to act as a cue for contrast and colour to drop, resulting in those being the flatter looking scenes in the film.


Overall though I was pleased enough to rank this....


*Tier 1.5*


----------



## rusky_g

By the way anyone seen Robocop yet? (Remake)


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21510#post_24804370
> 
> *The Secret Life Of Walter Mitty*
> 
> 
> This is a very colourful looking Blu Ray. Generally the picture is sharp with only a few soft shots spoiling the fun. Elsewhere detail soars, notably in the Greenland and Iceland scenes which show off some fantastic location shots. Greens in particular were very vivid in this film! I did witness a couple of murky moments specifically a panning shot on Mitty's first plane journey. Scenes featuring Mitty's Mother also tended to act as a cue for contrast and colour to drop, resulting in those being the flatter looking scenes in the film.
> 
> 
> Overall though I was pleased enough to rank this....
> 
> 
> *Tier 1.5*



Good review Russ! You and I pretty much ended up with the same Tier Recommendation, though in my mind it was the Iceland/Afghanistan scenes that blew me away. Also, I didn't even recognize a drop in contrast or color in the scenes with Shirley MacLaine....the details in her face, neck and hands captivated my attention and I wasn't even dwelling on anything else.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21510#post_24804488
> 
> 
> By the way anyone seen Robocop yet? (Remake)



I have been to the video store three times to rent _Robocop_ and their Blu shelf for this release has been empty each time. I even asked the clerk to contact me when one comes back, which she usually does, but she hasn't called me. I'm offended!


----------



## rusky_g




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *djoberg*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21510#post_24804578
> 
> 
> Good review Russ! You and I pretty much ended up with the same Tier Recommendation, though in my mind it was the Iceland/Afghanistan scenes that blew me away. Also, I didn't even recognize a drop in contrast or color in the scenes with Shirley MacLaine....the details in her face, neck and hands captivated my attention and I wasn't even dwelling on anything else.
> 
> I have been to the video store three times to rent _Robocop_ and their Blu shelf for this release has been empty each time. I even asked the clerk to contact me when one comes back, which she usually does, but she hasn't called me. I'm offended!



Hi Denny!

With regards to the Greenland thing, I basically felt that PQ was ramped up upon Mittys travels but I should have added that it peaks at Afgahnistan as I agree those chapters were superb. With reference to Mittys Mother I did note some excellent detail facially but her residence was drab compared to the other locations we are treated to.


Unlucky with Robocop, I saw a snippet and it looks promising, Tier 1 at least


----------



## tmavs

*Oblivion*


After being amazed by the PQ of Oblivion, I wanted to see what my favourite ranking thread thought of it










I've watched these titles from Tier 0:

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End

Man on Fire

Sin City

Transformers


and I recommend a ranking in *Tier 0* above Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End.


Facial details were very good and Vicca's face showed excessive use of make-up. Jack(s) clothing showed fine details in the leather.

The aerial shots over the lush green mountains had great depth.


----------



## rusky_g

*Robocop 2014*


I'll get to the point - Robocop 2014 looks fantastic on BluRay!


This is one exceptionally sharp and clear disc with stunning levels of clarity throughout. Contrast and black levels are all on the right side of the law here, as Robocop wipes out villainous anomalies such as grain and artifacts. It has that 'Elysium' resolution that I enjoy so much with just a couple of scenes being softer but only in the context of their crisp and shiny peers.


Throughout, only one question resonated: low tier zero or very high tier one? I think the thread consensus will edge towards the latter as some may note the odd softness and facial shot which falls short of the best...but I'm going to plump for my final gut reaction here...


Just too much good stuff going on...

*Tier 0.75*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Steins; Gate: Part 2


recommendation: Tier 2.25**


This Funimation release covers the second half of _Steins; Gate_, which I recently covered in an earlier post. If you notice, its placement is a half-Tier lower than the first set. Funimation has been criticized for mediocre compression standards in the past but this is possibly the worst example I've personally viewed. There were a few instances of moderate banding in the first set, though it was a mostly acceptable level of banding. This release sees dramatically worse banding, a couple of episodes in the series are awash in posterization. It drops the raw modern animation a whole Tier down from its rightful place in Tier 1.25.


It's a shame as the anime is brilliant and looks great for the most part. Its video encode's banding, more typical of streaming Hi-Def video, should never be seen on a Blu-ray.


----------



## wattheF




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *tmavs*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21510#post_24808624
> 
> *Oblivion*
> 
> 
> After being amazed by the PQ of Oblivion, I wanted to see what my favourite ranking thread thought of it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've watched these titles from Tier 0:
> 
> Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End
> 
> Man on Fire
> 
> Sin City
> 
> Transformers
> 
> 
> and I recommend a ranking in *Tier 0* above Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End.
> 
> 
> Facial details were very good and Vicca's face showed excessive use of make-up. Jack(s) clothing showed fine details in the leather.
> 
> The aerial shots over the lush green mountains had great depth.



I couldn't agree more!!!! Its one of my favorites and I still have beef with the fact that Oblivion isn't currently ranked in tier 0. Another review or two like this and it will be in its rightful place.


----------



## djoberg

*Robocop 2014*



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21510#post_24811240
> 
> *Robocop 2014*
> 
> 
> I'll get to the point - Robocop 2014 looks fantastic on BluRay!
> 
> 
> This is one exceptionally sharp and clear disc with stunning levels of clarity throughout. Contrast and black levels are all on the right side of the law here, as Robocop wipes out villainous anomalies such as grain and artifacts. It has that 'Elysium' resolution that I enjoy so much with just a couple of scenes being softer but only in the context of their crisp and shiny peers.
> 
> 
> Throughout, only one question resonated: low tier zero or very high tier one? I think the thread consensus will edge towards the latter as some may note the odd softness and facial shot which falls short of the best...but I'm going to plump for my final gut reaction here...
> 
> 
> Just too much good stuff going on...
> 
> *Tier 0.75*



I agree with just about every point that Russ has made in his excellent review. I did notice the black levels falter somewhat in really dark scenes (my black bars weren't as black as I like them), but they were quite good in all of the brighter scenes. It started out with a scene in Tehran where the director chose to employ some color-grading with an orange hue, but it wasn't oppressive...there were also some teal hues sprinkled throughout the movie, but again, they weren't bothersome like some current action Blu-rays. He was also right about softness in some scenes, but they were pretty much limited to CGI shots. The only other "nitpick" would be the scenes with Samuel Jackson; I was NOT impressed with the detail in them, especially the facial shots of Mr. Jackson.


Aside from the censuring above, this was indeed a SHARP and DETAILED film, with really nice saturated colors. Add to that some phenomenal DEPTH in several scenes. Some of my favorite shots in the movie were aerial views of Detroit at night...the black levels were absolutely stellar in them.


Russ intimated that there may be those who would "edge towards the latter (i.e. a high tier one rating)" and I'm afraid I'll have to be the first one to lead down that road. My vote goes for....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**


Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## rusky_g

Denny, great review and I agree the aerial shots looked great!! I am now torn betweern buying Lone Survivor and Monuments Men....


----------



## wattheF

Lone Survivor would easily be my pick!


----------



## djoberg




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wattheF*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21510#post_24813231
> 
> 
> Lone Survivor would easily be my pick!



+2


Not only was the PQ a lot better in _Lone Survivor_, but the movie was vastly superior. I thought _Monuments Men_ was quite boring (slow-paced and lacking action).


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*13 Sins


recommendation: Tier 2.25**


There is nothing significantly wrong with _13 Sins_, a new direct-to-video thriller that hits Blu-ray next week. Deftly filmed using the Arri Alexa camera, the 1080p video is somewhat flat and uninvolving. Anchor Bay provides it an adequate AVC video encode, preserving the digital intermediate's clarity and sharp picture. Fine detail could be stronger in its longer shots, close-ups contain more resolution than the softer, medium-range angles.


A satisfactory presentation that doesn't scream demo material but turns in a very consistent visual experience.


----------



## teachsac




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *rusky_g*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21510#post_24813094
> 
> 
> Denny, great review and I agree the aerial shots looked great!! I am now torn betweern buying Lone Survivor and Monuments Men....





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *wattheF*  /t/858316/the-new-pq-tier-thread-for-blu-ray-discussion/21510#post_24813231
> 
> 
> Lone Survivor would easily be my pick!



I concur.


S~


----------



## mweflen

*Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey*

Consistently splendid. Footage of Tyson shows every little wrinkle and hair, and exterior location shoots rival the best HD (e.g. BBC Earth shows). CGI is top-level feature film quality. Black levels are dark and solid 98% of the time, detail near black is very good. No posterization, EE, or DNR seems evident. I saw banding in one bright "sun in sjy" scene out of 13 episodes, so not a bad ratio. This is easily the best space science documentary from an A/V standpoint I've seen on the format.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0*


----------



## mweflen

*The World's End*

Though detail is strong, black levels fluctuate throughout the feature, to a distracting degree (at least for me). Color is solid, no undue digital tinkering is in evidence. CGI fistfights have a distracting blurriness.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

The PQ Tiers have survived the change in forum software, intact this time! I like this cleaner forum look for them, it's close to what they originally looked like:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...pq-tiers-updated-through-march-27-2014-a.html

It does appear that stickies in the Blu-ray software forum are somewhat hidden away. The most current version of the PQ Tiers can always be found in my signature at the bottom of my posts.

Let me know if anyone comes across a broken link or mistake. Cinema Squid changed his mind and has kept up the archived portion of his site, so clicking on the older links in the Tiers still takes you to a page with numerous review and other pertinent links for each BD.

If one subscribes to this thread, the change in forum software did stop it for some reason. I had to unsubscribe and then re-subscribe to this thread for updates again.


----------



## wattheF

Like the new look but where is the thumbs up?


----------



## djoberg

wattheF said:


> Like the new look but where is the thumbs up?


I assume you hit the word "like" that shows up in blue on the right side (above the "Quote" options).


----------



## rusky_g

No 'like' or 'quote' options whilst logged in on iphone.

Upgrade fail!


----------



## tboe77

rusky_g said:


> No 'like' or 'quote' options whilst logged in on iphone.
> 
> Upgrade fail!




Agreed. The change is a big downgrade for users of the mobile version of the site.


----------



## wattheF

Yeah Mobile version is a mess! On my android I have no thumbs up and I keep needing to sign myself back in. 

Real bummer because I ONLY use the mobile version. 

AVS needs to fix asap!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Secret Life of Walter Mitty

recommendation: Tier 2.0**

I was a little disappointed by this big-budget feature's video quality. Expecting near-reference resolution and a perfect picture, the cinematography is more typical of a youth comedy with over-driven contrast and a teal push on its color timing. The picture is sharp and has seemingly nice clarity, but minor aliasing and remnants of the digital composites used to create Walter Mitty's secret world are noticeable throughout the movie's VFX shots.

The video likely has been filtered on some level, stripping the finest layer of micro-detail from close-ups and longer shots. Fox bestows it a solid technical presentation with an AVC video encode that does not call attention to itself.


----------



## djoberg

*Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit*

Orange/Teal (especially Orange!) anyone? This Blu could have possibly found its way into the Reference Tier if not for the pervasive color-grading, some intermittent soft shots, and several instances where faces appeared blurry/fuzzy. The color-grading was the worst culprit, for the orange hues affected flesh tones in numerous shots.

Other than these anomalies, we are treated to a rather sharp and detailed film. Facial close-ups were the highlights to _these eyes_, most notably EVERY shot of Kevin Costner. His aging is most apparent in HD; I've said this about him in previous Blu-ray releases and this was no exception. His wrinkles are surely mounting up!!

Black levels were, for the most part, very good, but I wouldn't call them reference. The same can be said for shadow details.

Colors were good, but again with a generous amount of color-grading they weren't as impressive as they might have been.

Another "redeeming quality" was a light layer of grain, giving it that "cinematic-look."

All things considered this may be worth of Tier 1, but just barely...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**

Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## djoberg

*Non-Stop*

Teal anyone?! Okay, so I was fortunate enough to watch 2 Blus back-to-back with pervasive color-grading, but guess what? This one wasn't nearly as distracting as the last viewing. Flesh tones were intact and it didn't hinder details so any penalization will be minimal.

I was very impressed with the clarity, details and depth through the majority of the movie. Most definitely demo-worthy! During the last 20-30 minutes, when the action kicked in, softness reared its ugly head in various shots and details suffered.

Colors were limited due to a muted color palette (with the exception of some colorful clothes on a few of the airline passengers and one of the flight attendants). Contrast was generally good. Blacks levels were almost non-existent, but when they did appear they were good (not great, but good).

In comparing this with my last viewing I'm inclined to bump it up one notch....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.50**

Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## rusky_g

djoberg said:


> *Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit*
> 
> Orange/Teal (especially Orange!) anyone? This Blu could have possibly found its way into the Reference Tier if not for the pervasive color-grading, some intermittent soft shots, and several instances where faces appeared blurry/fuzzy. The color-grading was the worst culprit, for the orange hues affected flesh tones in numerous shots.
> 
> Other than these anomalies, we are treated to a rather sharp and detailed film. Facial close-ups were the highlights to _these eyes_, most notably EVERY shot of Kevin Costner. His aging is most apparent in HD; I've said this about him in previous Blu-ray releases and this was no exception. His wrinkles are surely mounting up!!
> 
> Black levels were, for the most part, very good, but I wouldn't call them reference. The same can be said for shadow details.
> 
> Colors were good, but again with a generous amount of color-grading they weren't as impressive as they might have been.
> 
> Another "redeeming quality" was a light layer of grain, giving it that "cinematic-look."
> 
> All things considered this may be worth of Tier 1, but just barely...
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75**
> 
> Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


I was keen to pick this up but not so sure now, especially with the mention of grain...


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Serial Experiments Lain: Complete Series

recommendation: Tier 3.0*
*
This is an older anime series made with classic cel animation. This was another one of Funimation's earlier releases with adventures in banding, stirring up criticism. Honestly, the older cel animation in _Serial Experiments Lain_ always had a unique aesthetic, one that I am not sure was fully realized by its creators. Even a perfect video encode wouldn't look that hot, though it does appear that Funimation mucked with the black levels.

This flawed release belongs somewhere in Tier Three.


----------



## djoberg

*House of Cards*

WOW...WOW...WOW!!

We have ANOTHER serious contender for Tier Blu. I have only viewed the first three episodes of Season One, but I was in awe of the razor-sharp image, immaculate details, and depth that comes as close to 3D as you'll ever see on a 2D disc. To be honest, the first episode wasn't quite as dazzling; there were some instances of softness and the teal color-grading took away from the colors on display. But episodes two and three are simply stellar. (I just watched a scene where Kevin Spacey is speaking to a congregation in a church and I can't remember the last time I saw such amazing definition, with phenomenal depth, details, and colors.) If the rest of the series holds up to this standard (set forth in episodes 2 & 3) I will easily recommend this for, at the very least, the middle of Tier Blu. FWIW, reviewers have said the Blu-ray is MUCH BETTER than the PQ seen while streaming on Netflix.

In averaging out the first three episodes, I can, with a good conscience, recommend the following placement....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.66)*

Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## djoberg

*House of Cards*

Well, I just finished episodes 4 and 5 and they are STELLAR. Most definitely mid to high Tier 0!! 

Okay, time to quit *binging*.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> Well, I just finished episodes 4 and 5 and they are STELLAR. Most definitely mid to high Tier 0!!
> 
> Okay, time to quit *binging*.


You have a ways to go, in three days the second season is released on Blu-ray.


*Harvey

recommendation: Tier 2.0**

A brilliant film transfer by Universal (I don't believe I have ever written those words before) with striking definition, newly struck from the original camera negative. The 1950 film looks better than ever, derived from an immaculate source and lightly handled by a stellar AVC video encode. The excellent black-and-white cinematography is flawlessly reproduced with perfect contrast and sumptuous shadow delineation.

The film-like transfer has not been filtered, allowing an authentic film experience with top-notch detail and clarity. Easier graders than I might place _Harvey_ in Tier One, there are certainly many scenes in it that qualify. Easily one of the best-looking catalog Blu-rays handled by Universal, _Harvey_ surpasses most of their output in terms of faithfulness and fidelity to the original film elements.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> djoberg said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I just finished episodes 4 and 5 and they are STELLAR. Most definitely mid to high Tier 0!!
> 
> Okay, time to quit *binging*.
> 
> 
> 
> You have a ways to go, in three days the second season is released on Blu-ray.
Click to expand...

I think I'll wait for the price to drop on the 2nd Season before buying. The 1st Season is half the price (obviously WELL WORTH IT!) and that's about all I want to pay for this series. It is a really good political drama/thriller with topnotch PQ, but I can't see myself viewing it again for a very long time due to the length of each season (13 episodes a piece).


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Anyone seen or heard anything about _TimeScapes_, a movie shot at 4K? I bring it up because it's only available on Blu-ray through this website and someone keyed me in on its pure demo quality. It sounds very similar to a project like Baraka or Chronos.

http://timescapes.org/

Here is the brief synopsis from their website:

TimeScapes is the debut film from award-winning cinematographer and director Tom Lowe. The film features stunning slow-motion and timelapse cinematography of the landscapes, people, and wildlife of the American South West. Lowe spent 2 years roaming the Southwest in his Toyota pickup truck shooting the film.

TimeScapes was shot, edited and color-graded at 4K resolution (4096 x 2304 pixels).


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> Anyone seen or heard anything about _TimeScapes_, a movie shot at 4K? I bring it up because it's only available on Blu-ray through this website and someone keyed me in on its pure demo quality. It sounds very similar to a project like Baraka or Chronos.
> 
> http://timescapes.org/
> 
> Here is the brief synopsis from their website:
> 
> TimeScapes is the debut film from award-winning cinematographer and director Tom Lowe. The film features stunning slow-motion and timelapse cinematography of the landscapes, people, and wildlife of the American South West. Lowe spent 2 years roaming the Southwest in his Toyota pickup truck shooting the film.
> 
> TimeScapes was shot, edited and color-graded at 4K resolution (4096 x 2304 pixels).


I just watched both trailers and it already looks demo-worthy!  The soundtrack sounds amazing, especially on the 2nd trailer.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*C-Control: The Money and Soul of Possibility*

recommendation: *Tier 1.25**

This 2011 anime series was clearly animated with a focus on its visuals. The elaborate character designs and backgrounds are intricately detailed in splendid color. Highlighting perfect contrast and a fully-saturated color palette, the 1080p presentation is impressive. _C-Control_ is a release by Funimation, an inconsistent BD distributor in regards to picture quality. Released in October of 2012, this two-disc set escapes the more serious banding problems seen in a handful of their other Blu-rays.

Depending on how one feels about the occasional compression artifact, _C-Control_ could have ended up with a higher placement. It definitely remains a fantastic example of newer hand-drawn animation.


----------



## wattheF

At this point it is a very rare occasion that a movie is so good that I completely get lost in it to the point where I don't even think about the picture quality. But this is exactly what happened when I watched "Her". It is written and directed by Spike Jonze. I highly recommend checking out this truly special movie. I can't wait to watch again so i can focus on the PQ a bit more. 

Its not a visually dynamic movie but from what i saw it looked good. Hope to purchase soon and I will post a review then. Btw it's shot in a 16 x 9 aspect ratio.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

wattheF said:


> At this point it is a very rare occasion that a movie is so good that I completely get lost in it to the point where I don't even think about the picture quality. But this is exactly what happened when I watched "Her". It is written and directed by Spike Jones. I highly recommend checking out this truly special movie. I can't wait to watch again so i can focus on the PQ a bit more.
> 
> Its not a visually dynamic movie but from what i saw it looked good. Hope to purchase soon and I will post a review then. Btw it's shot in a 16 x 9 aspect ratio.


I've heard great things about it, I want to see it at some point. Spike Jonze was also responsible for _Being John Malkovich_, another innovative and unique movie. The Criterion edition of _Being John Malkovich_ looked pretty average, I don't remember its placement off the top of my head.


----------



## fredxr2d2

wattheF said:


> At this point it is a very rare occasion that a movie is so good that I completely get lost in it to the point where I don't even think about the picture quality. But this is exactly what happened when I watched "Her". It is written and directed by Spike Jonze. I highly recommend checking out this truly special movie. I can't wait to watch again so i can focus on the PQ a bit more.
> 
> Its not a visually dynamic movie but from what i saw it looked good. Hope to purchase soon and I will post a review then. Btw it's shot in a 16 x 9 aspect ratio.


I was going to chime in with my review of *Her* today anyway, so I'm glad you brought it up.

Firstly, you should see the film: it is quite interesting and good.

Then, the PQ is amazing. Again, the Arri Alexa shows off it's stuff. Everything is bright, clear, crisp, colorful, and a pleasure to behold.

My only gripe would be the black levels. There aren't very many moments of dark scenes (which may have been an intentional push by the DP to account for the all-digital photography) and those few moments where darker elements are available, none of them truly reach down into black, more of a dark gray (and I say this in comparison to the "black" of the bars on the 1.85:1 image). However, one cannot fault this movie for truly bad black levels because the story didn't need deep black levels (there were no armies attacking Helm's Deep or Voldemort's legions on a dark hillside).

I'd place it in *Tier 0*, probably around the middle or near the bottom, depending on how you feel about dark grays.

Looking forward to hearing from others.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

If there were enough scenes that tested the black levels, I'd have trouble myself putting a disc with less than inky black levels in Tier 0. I haven't seen the BD and can't really say about _Her_. If the Arri Alexa has one weakness, it is the occasionally milky black levels.

We passed today over 3.5 million page views for this discussion thread since it started. It's been a long, strange journey.

3,500,266


----------



## wattheF

The Lego Movie

Just got done watching this great BD with my kids. The movie was enjoyable and entertaining on all levels. 

Overall the PQ is outstanding and the animation looks incredible! Contrast is very strong with great black levels and shadow detail. Colors are abundant and pop off the screen. Clarity and sharpness leave nothing to be desired. The image is very clean and polished, *all the while maintaining a natural and almost "handmade" feel. The lighting and motion is animated in such a way to make it look and feel like a stop motion film.

All these factors combined with an amazing amount of detail and texture rendered in the animated characters makes for depth and realism that is almost palpable. They even animated fingerprints and other "flaws" into the Lego parts. Even in 2D images seemed to jump off the screen. I can't wait to see the 3D version. 

There are some live action scenes at the end that also look great. 

About the only negative I noticed was some very slight color banding a few times but it was minimal so I don't feel the need to dock the movie too much for this. *The issue may also be endemic to the animation itself. 

Btw, the dynamic DTS audio is also excellent.

Ranking...TIER 0 (in the middle)

(*) EDIT-6/18


----------



## fredxr2d2

wattheF said:


> The Lego Movie
> 
> Just got done watching this great BD with my kids. The movie was enjoyable and entertaining on all levels.
> 
> Overall the PQ is outstanding and the animation looks incredible! Contrast is very strong with great black levels and shadow detail. Colors are abundant and pop off the screen. Clarity and sharpness leave nothing to be desired. The image is very clean and polished, *all the while maintaining a natural and almost "handmade" feel. The lighting and motion is animated in such a way to make it look and feel like a stop motion film.
> 
> All these factors combined with an amazing amount of detail and texture rendered in the animated characters makes for depth and realism that is almost palpable. They even animated fingerprints and other "flaws" into the Lego parts. Even in 2D images seemed to jump off the screen. I can't wait to see the 3D version.
> 
> There are some live action scenes at the end that also look great.
> 
> About the only negative I noticed was some very slight color banding a few times but it was minimal so I don't feel the need to dock the movie too much for this. *The issue may also be endemic to the animation itself.
> 
> Btw, the dynamic DTS audio is also excellent.
> 
> Ranking...TIER 0 (in the middle)
> 
> (*) EDIT-6/18


Agree 100%. Tier 0 for the Lego Movie. I also can't wait to get time to watch it in 3D.


----------



## rusky_g

Gangster Squad

An excellent movie with PQ to do it justice!

This slid under my radar and I'm pleased to report it exceeded my expectation. 

From start to finish the picture is very clear. Sharpness is generally on point although softness did occasionally rear its head, most notably during the 'tin can' target practice scene. Inky blacks were a strong point; a good thing given that most of the film takes place at night. Black cars shimmered, as did the wet sidewalks of the city streets. I have to say the lighting was fantastic throughout and really captured the mood of the era. 

Whilst not a film overflowing with colour, they did sparkle when called upon, be it the brightly lit neons of or the cabaret shows. Contrast was consistently strong, at times almost monochrome, yet fitting to the context. Facial details were average to good but definitely short of reference level.

This was not a top tier title but certainly good enough to rub shoulders with Tier Gold..

1.5


----------



## mweflen

*Gravity (2D)*

Excellent black levels and detail near black. No aliasing, banding or posterization. Good color. Exterior space shots bristle with detail. Faces are more of a mixed bag detail-wise, probably due to the compositing of real and CG elements. I agree with the current placement near The Hobbit An Unexpected Journey EE in Tier 0.
*
Tier Recommendation 0 (above Hobbit EE)*


----------



## mweflen

djoberg said:


> I think I'll wait for the price to drop on the 2nd Season before buying. The 1st Season is half the price (obviously WELL WORTH IT!) and that's about all I want to pay for this series. It is a really good political drama/thriller with topnotch PQ, but I can't see myself viewing it again for a very long time due to the length of each season (13 episodes a piece).


I was impressed by the PQ on Netflix, and thought to myself frequently "I wonder how much better this will look on BD." They shot with high quality digital cameras and had professional cinematographers and DPs all the way, so it's not a surprise.

Having watched through S2, I agree with the recommendation to wait for a discount. It's fine and all, but not worth paying a premium over S1 for.


----------



## djoberg

Amazon has a great price on _The Lego Movie_!

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00I6JOBTI/ref=pe_385040_30332200_TE_item


----------



## patrick99

Phantom Stranger said:


> Quote:Originally Posted by *djoberg*
> 
> 
> It was that bad, huh? I'm sure you saw enough of it to evaluate the video quality. We'll call it the patrick99 exception in this case.
> Quote:Originally Posted by *djoberg*


 Nice to know that I am still remembered here


----------



## Phantom Stranger

patrick99 said:


> Nice to know that I am still remembered here


I was hoping the comment would get noticed. You might be the last of the original contributors to still occasionally post in this discussion thread, unless I am missing someone. Your input is always welcomed here. It's the same criteria we've been using in the thread for the PQ Tiers these many years.

Now tell us what you think of _The Lego Movie_.

Here is a sneak preview of an upcoming release next week...

*Winter's Tale
*
recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

Beautifully lensed by cinematographer Caleb Deschanel using the Arri Alexa and other cameras, this big-budget wreck's transfer has been filtered on some level. That does affect the actual quantity and scope of its fine detail, especially in tighter close-ups. It appears they valiantly failed through the magic of Hollywood to pass Colin Farrell off as a 21-year-old.

Aside from the notable filtering, this is a great-looking movie that is consistently sharp. The picture really pops with an appreciable amount of depth, though hints of aliasing creep in due to the regular usage of digitally composited sets. Warner Bros. nails the AVC video encode, the nearly pristine video is free of artifacts.


----------



## patrick99

Phantom Stranger said:


> I was hoping the comment would get noticed. You might be the last of the original contributors to still occasionally post in this discussion thread, unless I am missing someone. Your input is always welcomed here. It's the same criteria we've been using in the thread for the PQ Tiers these many years.
> 
> Now tell us what you think of _The Lego Movie_.


 

Totally coincidentally just happened to be checking for the first time in a long time. Thank you very much. My life has changed a lot in the last year. Just ordered several discs though.  Don't think I will have anything to say on Lego Movie.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

patrick99 said:


> Totally coincidentally just happened to be checking for the first time in a long time. Thank you very much. My life has changed a lot in the last year. Just ordered several discs though.  Don't think I will have anything to say on Lego Movie.


I hope everything is going well with you. Keep the newer version of the Tiers handy at this link, it still gets updated on a regular basis:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...pq-tiers-updated-through-march-27-2014-a.html


----------



## patrick99

Phantom Stranger said:


> I hope everything is going well with you. Keep the newer version of the Tiers handy at this link, it still gets updated on a regular basis:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...pq-tiers-updated-through-march-27-2014-a.html


 

Thank you. I have always been more interested in the discussions than the results but thank you very much for your hard work on the results.


----------



## |Tch0rT|

Phantom Stranger said:


> Anyone seen or heard anything about _TimeScapes_, a movie shot at 4K? I bring it up because it's only available on Blu-ray through this website and someone keyed me in on its pure demo quality. It sounds very similar to a project like Baraka or Chronos.
> 
> http://timescapes.org/


I watched the blu-ray of that this morning. It's similar to Baraka, Samsara, and Chronos but the scenes are much shorter. It's beautiful for sure, especially the daytime shots. It alternates between daytime scenes (some are slowed down a tad and other look real time) and nighttime scenes of a timelapsed sky which is quite neat. The daytime scenes look flawless to me, almost like you're right there. Some of the nighttime scenes had banding issues, blurry edges, and one scene had some weird video noise but they were few and far between. I don't like to give tier ratings since I have a hard time quantifying black levels and such like some of you guys can and I tend not to notice edge enhancement unless pointed out (lets just say I think the Back to the Future blu-rays look decent  LOL). But for the most part it's demo material. The music was ok but it bored me from time to time but the film is only about 40 min long (8 min of credits) so it wasn't too bad. Not bad but considering they want $20 for it I find the price a bit steep.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Thanks for that report on TimeScapes. The price does seem a bit steep but I guess it's a niche product.


----------



## edlittle

I'd pay $10 for a 50 minute blu ray, but I agree that it is very steep.


----------



## rusky_g

With the forum 'upgrade' have we also now lost the feature to search within a thread topic?


----------



## edlittle

No it's up at the top right, Search this Thread. We have lost most post links though.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Dial M For Murder 3D*

recommendation: *Tier 3.0**

Do not be alarmed, this is merely a score reflecting the normal 2-D version found on this BD from Warner Bros. It represents the best _Dial M For Murder_ has looked in many years, though due to some problems inherent to the original film elements is not the jaw-dropping eye candy of other mega-buck restorations. WB did their very best with Hitchcock's 1954 film but a number of problems arise, including optical fringing and strange chroma registration errors.

Optical shots and transitions are quite soft with a noticeable drop in resolution. The rest of the 105-minute film is sharper and has a vividly rendered color palette. Decent black levels and an even contrast are both fairly good for this era's film stock. I do think there has been some artificial grain added to the film transfer, its utter uniformity raises mild suspicion on my part. The clarity and resolution are noticeable improvements, this is definitely a newer film scan.

WB went out and actually spent good money on this restoration. It's not the best classic film transfer I've seen but its qualities are immediately apparent in 1080p video. The AVC video encode is a stout affair spread out over a BD-50. This is a relatively grainy film that never breaks into overt compression noise.


----------



## rusky_g

edlittle said:


> No it's up at the top right, Search this Thread. We have lost most post links though.


Thanks Ed, using Android tablet and found the search thread function but when you go to type in the box it then disappears. Awesome...


----------



## rusky_g

*Snow White and the Huntsman*

Snow White and the Huntsman has a visual appeal fitting to its genre. There are MANY scenes that are beautiful and enchanting, namely when we are introduced to the Dwarves and the spellbinding moments that follow when they enter the 'nice' woods. Elsewhere we are treated to excellent clarity and colours which, whilst sometimes muted, begin to flourish with the storyline.

But it's not a disc without flaws....around Chapter 3 sharpness waivers between too soft and too sharp, with edges becoming ringed, specifically on the jewelry worn by Charlize Theron. Things also become less appealing during the 'eerie' parts of the film, although to be fair they are still done well, showing good shadow detail in the darkest moments. Blacks are mostly awesome, bar a couple of murky exceptions. Facial details are solid although not the benchmark, bar a couple of close ups of Snow White which showed excellent pore definition.

So where does that leave me? GRG pulled rank at 1.75, Djoberg scoring down a notch further at 2.0.....I think because the generally quality was very good, I'll opt for...

*1.75*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Wolf Creek 2*

recommendation: *Tier 0** (near the middle around _Skyfall_)

Barring unforeseen circumstances, _Wolf Creek 2_ will end up as the highest ranked horror film in the PQ Tiers. Hitting home video this coming Tuesday, the Blu-ray release by Image Entertainment has reference quality video. Cleanly presented in an immaculate transfer direct from the digital intermediate, the fun horror film can thank the Arri Alexa Plus 4:3 digital camera with a variety of Hawk lenses. Other films to use those lenses include top-shelf demo discs like _The Wolf of Wall Street_ and _Upside Down_. Using the camera's full resolution of 2880×2160, every shot oozes incredible detail and razor-sharp depth, from close-ups to longer range distances. Its unrelenting consistency makes it an easy nomination for Tier Zero.

The AVC video encode averages 24.99 Mbps for the main feature, handling 99.9% of the expertly-shot cinematography in crystal-clarity. There are a couple of seconds with very minor banding, in what is otherwise a perfect video encode. Absolutely smooth black levels render intricate shadow delineation, this is not a film where the action ends up being obscured in darkness. You won't miss a single bloody moment.

Is this a slasher or a travelogue for Australia's wilderness? Panoramic landscapes and sun-drenched vistas make for a large amount of scenic eye candy. Cinematographer Toby Oliver really exploited the natural beauty of Australia's landscape for maximum effect in _Wolf Creek 2_. It is practically a character unto itself in the film.


----------



## rusky_g

Great review Phant! Will hope this gets a UK rls...


----------



## John Mason

Phantom Stranger said:


> *Wolf Creek 2*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 0** (near the middle around _Skyfall_)
> 
> Barring unforeseen circumstances, _Wolf Creek 2_ will end up as the highest ranked horror film in the PQ Tiers. Hitting home video this coming Tuesday, the Blu-ray release by Image Entertainment has reference quality video. Cleanly presented in an immaculate transfer direct from the digital intermediate, the fun horror film can thank the Arri Alexa Plus 4:3 digital camera with a variety of Hawk lenses. Other films to use those lenses include top-shelf demo discs like _The Wolf of Wall Street_ and _Upside Down_. Using the camera's full resolution of 2880×2160, every shot oozes incredible detail and razor-sharp depth, from close-ups to longer range distances. Its unrelenting consistency makes it an easy nomination for Tier Zero.
> 
> The AVC video encode averages 24.99 Mbps for the main feature, handling 99.9% of the expertly-shot cinematography in crystal-clarity. There are a couple of seconds with very minor banding, in what is otherwise a perfect video encode. Absolutely smooth black levels render intricate shadow delineation, this is not a film where the action ends up being obscured in darkness. You won't miss a single bloody moment.
> 
> Is this a slasher or a travelogue for Australia's wilderness? Panoramic landscapes and sun-drenched vistas make for a large amount of scenic eye candy. Cinematographer Toby Oliver really exploited the natural beauty of Australia's landscape for maximum effect in _Wolf Creek 2_. It is practically a character unto itself in the film.


Sure sounds crispy. I've only acquired/viewed one 0-tier disc so far, _The Tree of Life_. But noticed the great PQ of many Alexa-shot productions on various PBS Masterpiece series via Verizon's FIOS. Just noticed a  video ,  at SchubinCafe.com, where he seems to speculate it's the Alexa's superior contrast that helps so much.


Also, with all the recent hoopla about 4k derivation, Schubin points out Alexa digital-cinema cameras aren't even 3k. Perhaps someone will undertake actually measuring the maximum effective resolution boost that results from downconversion of >1920X1080 resolutions; that seems feasible with the test patterns on the S-M Blu-ray or other sources (this  technique ) . -- John


----------



## wattheF

Yeah, lots of conversation and debate on the 4K vs. 1080p. 

For me, at least at this point with my current screen size of 60", I see no need for 4k as long as we continue to see reference quality (tier 0) titles roll out more frequently.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

_Wolf Creek 2_ was modestly budgeted at seven million dollars. Filmmakers are getting a much better grasp of the newer digital production chain and cameras like the Arri Alexa. If a new movie made with professional equipment ends up below Tier One, either the filmmakers didn't know what they were doing or didn't plan the shoot very well. It's a fun slasher for those into that kind of thing, though I don't think the tourism board for Australia will like it very much.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

rusky_g said:


> Great review Phant! Will hope this gets a UK rls...


I can check if it is region-free on my Region B player, if you want.


----------



## rusky_g

If you don't mind that would be great, thanks Phantom


----------



## Phantom Stranger

rusky_g said:


> If you don't mind that would be great, thanks Phantom


Image Entertainment's _Wolf Creek 2_ Blu-ray is locked to Region A. I figured as much since Image has regional licenses for most of their movies, but I tested the disc on a Region B player and it would not play. In a bit of irony, the first _Wolf Creek_ has never been released on Blu-ray in North America.


----------



## rusky_g

The Lone Ranger

I felt certain TLR would be a no brainer Tier 0 disc - Disney, the 'Team' that brought you Pirates of the Caribbean?....But sadly that hasn't been the case.

The majority looks fantastic but, as noted in the review on Blu Ray.com, I too saw repeated instances of ringing.

I felt these were most prominent in the brighest of the early outdoor scenes, gravel and stones in particular falling foul of an oversharpened image.

It's a shame, as elsewhere the HD goods were abundant: clarity, contrast, fidelity in aces in MANY scenes, my favorite being the darker / night time ones, particularly when we are introduced to Helena Bonham Carter. Blacks, whilst mostly inky, did occasionaly grey out a bit. Shadow detail was consistently great however.

Facial details were best on William Fitchner - check the shot where he awakes from the 'dynamite cart' explosion. Superb!

Because of the ringing issue though, the odd murky black, this more became The Good, The Bad and The Ugly so is docked as such…

Tier1.25


----------



## John Mason

rusky_g said:


> The Lone Ranger
> 
> I felt certain TLR would be a no brainer Tier 0 disc - Disney, the 'Team' that brought you Pirates of the Caribbean?....But sadly that hasn't been the case.
> 
> The majority looks fantastic but, as noted in the review on Blu Ray.com, I too saw repeated instances of ringing.
> 
> I felt these were most prominent in the brighest of the early outdoor scenes, gravel and stones in particular falling foul of an oversharpened image.
> 
> It's a shame, as elsewhere the HD goods were abundant: clarity, contrast, fidelity in aces in MANY scenes, my favorite being the darker / night time ones, particularly when we are introduced to Helena Bonham Carter. Blacks, whilst mostly inky, did occasionaly grey out a bit. Shadow detail was consistently great however.
> 
> Facial details were best on William Fitchner - check the shot where he awakes from the 'dynamite cart' explosion. Superb!
> 
> Because of the ringing issue though, the odd murky black, this more became The Good, The Bad and The Ugly so is docked as such…
> 
> Tier1.25


Reads like, with the ringing, someone attempted restoring some of the "postcard look" for outdoor scenes they tried to avoid by using bleach-bypass processing for the filmed portion. An  article  linked above outlines the overall 'look' planned for this costly production. Believe most of the shots were with the Alexa digital-cinema camera discussed a few post above. -- John


----------



## rusky_g

John Mason said:


> Reads like, with the ringing, someone attempted restoring some of the "postcard look" for outdoor scenes they tried to avoid by using bleach-bypass processing for the filmed portion. An  article  linked above outlines the overall 'look' planned for this costly production. Believe most of the shots were with the Alexa digital-cinema camera discussed a few post above. -- John


John, many thanks. Interesting insight to the achieved look.


----------



## djoberg

rusky_g said:


> John, many thanks. Interesting insight to the achieved look.


So Russ, if you had not observed any ringing, what would you have recommended for a placement? I rarely see ringing (for which I am thankful) and this is yet another example where I saw no anomalies of any kind, so I voted for Tier Blu.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Denny, this link is still the most lucid and concise explanation on ringing as it pertains to home video. It's an easy guide to follow for the layman.

http://www.videophile.info/Guide_EE/Page_01.htm

We used to include this link in a little section at the top of Tiers but it got eliminated in one of the redesigns.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> Denny, this link is still the most lucid and concise explanation on ringing as it pertains to home video. It's an easy guide to follow for the layman.
> 
> http://www.videophile.info/Guide_EE/Page_01.htm
> 
> We used to include this link in a little section at the top of Tiers but it got eliminated in one of the redesigns.


Thanks for the link Phantom.

I recall there being an in-depth discussion on ringing when members were passionately disagreeing about where to place _Baraka_ and _The Dark Knight_. Interestingly you had three groups chiming in: 1) Those who saw little or no ringing and were voting for Tier 0; 2) Those who were so disgusted with the ringing in a number of scenes that they couldn't bring themselves to offer any words of praise for any of the PQ and thus they thought they belonged in either Tier 2 or 3; and 3) Those who did indeed see ringing in various shots, but it was somewhat minimal and didn't distract them to the point of dropping it down below Tier 0. I, of course, fell into the first camp. If memory serves me, you fell into group number three.

To be honest, others have tried, in vain, to "educate me" so that I would be able to easily detect ringing, but as I've said in the past, DON'T BOTHER!! Why in the world would I want to become an expert in detecting an anomaly that can (and DOES in many cases with certain people) virtually ruin the viewing experience for you? I am content to be oblivious to ringing (unless it's egregious, as in titles like _Patton_). Like the old adage goes, "Ignorance is bliss!"


----------



## wattheF

djoberg said:


> Thanks for the link Phantom.
> 
> I recall there being an in-depth discussion on ringing when members were passionately disagreeing about where to place _Baraka_ and _The Dark Knight_. Interestingly you had three groups chiming in: 1) Those who saw little or no ringing and were voting for Tier 0; 2) Those who were so disgusted with the ringing in a number of scenes that they couldn't bring themselves to offer any words of praise for any of the PQ and thus they thought they belonged in either Tier 2 or 3; and 3) Those who did indeed see ringing in various shots, but it was somewhat minimal and didn't distract them to the point of dropping it down below Tier 0. I, of course, fell into the first camp. If memory serves me, you fell into group number three.
> 
> To be honest, others have tried, in vain, to "educate me" so that I would be able to easily detect ringing, but as I've said in the past, DON'T BOTHER!! Why in the world would I want to become an expert in detecting an anomaly that can (and DOES in many cases with certain people) virtually ruin the viewing experience for you? I am content to be oblivious to ringing (unless it's egregious, as in titles like _Patton_). Like the old adage goes, "Ignorance is bliss!"


I am totally with ya on this one! I too very rarely pick up on ringing and I don't want to learn how to "see" it.

It's funny because generally I have a thirst for knowledge when it comes to audio/video but this is one area i prefer to stay ignorant to. 

Another example is phosphor trailing on my plasma. I don't go looking for it, and almost never find it.


----------



## rusky_g

Denny 

That post did make me chuckle.

I feel I would have voted TLR as Tier 0 if it wasn't for the ringing. The effect was lessened to an extent by reducing the contrast down a bit. Maybe its not noticable so much if you have a professional calibration on the Kuro.

Russ


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I find ringing less objectionable on smaller displays below 32", which is why many DVD masters were slathered in the edge enhancement process. The resolution was low enough that most people overlooked its artifacts. The false detail it added to the video gave the illusion of more sharpness. It was a much more serious problem on Blu-ray when everyone upgraded to larger displays. There isn't much justification for it on a new high-definition film transfer, the artifacts are hard to miss once you know what to look for in the picture. A problem more common today on new transfers is more of a scaling artifact than pure ringing. The frequent integration of digital composites done at varying resolutions causes aliasing and other artifacts when everything has to be output at one resolution.

*The Pit And The Pendulum (UK Region B-locked)*

recommendation: *Tier 3.25**

Arrow Video delivers a very satisfying, film-like transfer for Roger Corman's Gothic chiller. Using MGM's Hi-Def transfer of the original film elements, this is a fairly solid presentation of less-than-sharp cinematography. The AVC video encode practically maxes out its technical parameters, transparently replicating the original grain structure. The low-budget movie has a nicely saturated color palette with excellent flesh-tones, this is not a revisionist color-timing done by modern hands.


----------



## djoberg

wattheF said:


> I am totally with ya on this one! I too very rarely pick up on ringing and I don't want to learn how to "see" it.
> 
> It's funny because generally I have a thirst for knowledge when it comes to audio/video but this is one area i prefer to stay ignorant to.
> 
> Another example is phosphor trailing on my plasma. I don't go looking for it, and almost never find it.


I do believe we are in the *majority* when it comes to rarely seeing ringing and that's why I don't feel it's that important to "learn how to see it." If most were seeing it I would feel quite the responsibility, as one who writes reviews on a Blu-ray's PQ, to learn to identify and then report this anomaly. There are enough anomalies and artifacts that are more noticeable (such as banding. aliasing, black crush, video noise, etc.) by the general population and I make it a point to look closely, with a very critical eye, for these.

I can't ever recall seeing "phosphor trailing" on my Kuro. Russ had wondered if perhaps ringing is not as noticeable on a professionally calibrated Kuro, but the fact is I've never had it professionally calibrated. After a long "break-in" period after I purchased it, I used a well-respected calibrator's suggested settings (his name is D-Nice) and then I did a bit more *tweaking* with some help from David at CNET. Add to this the fact that the Kuro Elites have one of the best "out of the box" modes with their Pure Mode and I have never felt a deep need to have it done professionally. I did, at one point in time, line up a calibration with David Abrams but then I had to cancel it due to a move to Minnesota. Since then he has not toured in our area.


----------



## wattheF

djoberg said:


> I do believe we are in the *majority* when it comes to rarely seeing ringing and that's why I don't feel it's that important to "learn how to see it." If most were seeing it I would feel quite the responsibility, as one who writes reviews on a Blu-ray's PQ, to learn to identify and then report this anomaly. There are enough anomalies and artifacts that are more noticeable (such as banding. aliasing, black crush, video noise, etc.) by the general population and I make it a point to look closely, with a very critical eye, for these.
> 
> I can't ever recall seeing "phosphor trailing" on my Kuro. Russ had wondered if perhaps ringing is not as noticeable on a professionally calibrated Kuro, but the fact is I've never had it professionally calibrated. After a long "break-in" period after I purchased it, I used a well-respected calibrator's suggested settings (his name is D-Nice) and then I did a bit more *tweaking* with some help from David at CNET. Add to this the fact that the Kuro Elites have one of the best "out of the box" modes with their Pure Mode and I have never felt a deep need to have it done professionally. I did, at one point in time, line up a calibration with David Abrams but then I had to cancel it due to a move to Minnesota. Since then he has not toured in our area.


I'm sure the phosphor trailing on high end plasma's like your Kuro and even my ST60 is minimal to the point where it's almost unnoticeable anyways.

My 60" ST60 is also not calibrated. I still want to get it calibrated but I have a strange banding issue that Panasonic (of course) won't take care of. It is minimal and doesn't often bother because its on the far right edge of the screen. I am trying to assess the situation a bit more and give it some time to see if it worsens or levels out before sinking money into a cal.


----------



## rusky_g

Hey guys, picked up Stalingrad at lunch time.....will report back later


----------



## rusky_g

Stalingrad

HiDef Digest, DvdTalk and Blu-ray.com each gave this disc full marks for PQ.

Exploding onto Blu Ray, Stalingrad is packed with clean, noise free detail yet captures the gritty, ashy feel befitting to its wartime theme. Colours are limited to steely blue and silver hues, punctuated occasionally by the golden orange glow of fire and bullet spray. Blacks and contrast are equally strong, rendering the majority of scenes with reachable depth and dimensionality. Fine detail and fabric textures were consistently good.

This was an almost perfect presentation although I didnt feel it quite hit the tier 0 sweet spot. Still, not bad though....

Tier 1.25


----------



## djoberg

rusky_g said:


> Stalingrad
> 
> HiDef Digest, DvdTalk and Blu-ray.com each gave this disc full marks for PQ.
> 
> Exploding onto Blu Ray, Stalingrad is packed with clean, noise free detail yet captures the gritty, ashy feel befitting to its wartime theme. Colours are limited to steely blue and silver hues, punctuated occasionally by the golden orange glow of fire and bullet spray. Blacks and contrast are equally strong, rendering the majority of scenes with reachable depth and dimensionality. Fine detail and fabric textures were consistently good.
> 
> This was an almost perfect presentation although I didnt feel it quite hit the tier 0 sweet spot. Still, not bad though....
> 
> Tier 1.25


Thanks for the good review Russ!

I see that it has a running time of over 3 hours, so I must ask, "How is the movie itself?" Was the acting decent?


----------



## rusky_g

djoberg said:


> Thanks for the good review Russ!
> 
> I see that it has a running time of over 3 hours, so I must ask, "How is the movie itself?" Was the acting decent?



Erm not a film I'd watch if it wasn't for the Picture and Audio to be honest Denny.

What's next on your list to watch?


----------



## edlittle

Finally upgraded my family's 7 year old entry level Sony to a Vizio M602i-B3. Looking forward to watching great PQ movies with an actually great screen! I'll be chiming in more now.


----------



## djoberg

edlittle said:


> Finally upgraded my family's 7 year old entry level Sony to a Vizio M602i-B3. Looking forward to watching great PQ movies with an actually great screen! I'll be chiming in more now.


Sounds good! We'll be looking for those reviews!


----------



## djoberg

edlittle said:


> Finally upgraded my family's 7 year old entry level Sony to a Vizio M602i-B3. Looking forward to watching great PQ movies with an actually great screen! I'll be chiming in more now.


I should have commented on your new Flat Panel. I didn't realize the new M-Series had been released. You are going to love the rich black levels with the Full Array Local Dimming (FALD). Those, along with some exceptional colors and contrast, will be a feast for your eyes!


----------



## rusky_g

Nice work Ed, post some reviews and keep this thread THE # 1 resource for PQ fans


----------



## djoberg

*Pompeii (2014)*

Once again Sony doesn't disappoint, giving us yet another DETAILED and SHARP Blu-ray release. All outdoor, daytime scenes, as well as interior scenes with good lighting, are demo-worthy, and in some cases reference quality. Every close-up was pure EYE CANDY, with spectacular texture in faces, intricate details in clothing and armor, and mesmerizing details in many of the aerial views of Pompeii and the surrounding countryside. Depth was also a highlight in many shots. Black levels were excellent in a majority of nighttime scenes (with the exception of the last half hour once Mt. Vesuvius starts exploding). Primary colors, though limited, were bold and vivid. Flesh tones were normally spot-on, but a good deal of color-grading with orange hues did wreak havoc at times.

My biggest gripe, by far, would be with the heavy CGI scenes during the last half hour. Black levels suffered occasionally...softness reared it ugly head in numerous shots...and depth and details all but disappeared during really fast action shots. 

As you can imagine, this is a hard one to call with such pristine resolution during most of the first hour. If I could rate the Blu based solely on that part, it may have warranted a low Tier 0 placement, but when trying to average things out I'm forced to drop this at least a whole tier. So, to be fair, and consistent with the criteria set forth for this thread, I'm going with the following....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**

Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> *Pompeii (2014)*
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75**


Was the movie an enjoyable watch? Is it just another mindless, FX-driven spectacle?


----------



## djoberg

I actually enjoyed it and was glad I rented it. It was NOT on the same level as _Gladiator_ or _Braveheart_, but the acting was good and there was enough character development to become somewhat connected with a few of the characters. Having said that, I believe the history of Pompeii would have justified a longer version with even more character development and more emphasis on the politics and corruption of Pompeii.

I mentioned the acting was good...it was weird watching Keifer Sutherland in the role as an evil Roman Senator (he was downright ruthless). I've been watching the new _24_ series on FOX so I'm used to seeing Super Jack save the day!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Jack Bauer versus a volcano. I think you have just pitched the next season of 24.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> Jack Bauer versus a volcano. I think you have just pitched the next season of 24.


_Pompeii's_ "Jack" failed miserably in his duo with Mt. Vesuvius! 

I should issue a disclaimer. I responded to your question about the movie itself by saying I enjoyed it. I'm in the minority with only 28% of reviewers on _Rotten Tomatoes_ giving it a Thumbs Up and reviewers from HiDef Digest, Blu-ray.com, DVD Talk, etc. trashed it. Again, it was a *decent* rent in my opinion, though it's certain I'll never give it a second viewing. The CGI may not have been reference quality in the PQ department, but it was enjoyable to watch and IMO it was just as *believable* as the CGI in movies such as _2012_. So, I'm NOT shouting from the rooftops, "Go out and rent _Pompeii_; you won't be disappointed!" The truth is most here may not like it!


----------



## djoberg

*The Lego Movie*



wattheF said:


> The Lego Movie
> 
> Overall the PQ is outstanding and the animation looks incredible! Contrast is very strong with great black levels and shadow detail. Colors are abundant and pop off the screen. Clarity and sharpness leave nothing to be desired. The image is very clean and polished, *all the while maintaining a natural and almost "handmade" feel. The lighting and motion is animated in such a way to make it look and feel like a stop motion film.
> 
> All these factors combined with an amazing amount of detail and texture rendered in the animated characters makes for depth and realism that is almost palpable. They even animated fingerprints and other "flaws" into the Lego parts. Even in 2D images seemed to jump off the screen. I can't wait to see the 3D version.
> 
> There are some live action scenes at the end that also look great.
> 
> About the only negative I noticed was some very slight color banding a few times but it was minimal so I don't feel the need to dock the movie too much for this. *The issue may also be endemic to the animation itself.
> 
> Btw, the dynamic DTS audio is also excellent.
> 
> Ranking...TIER 0 (in the middle)
> 
> (*) EDIT-6/18


I agree with 98% of this excellent review! I won't try to add anything except to say that I did NOT see any banding AND I have to disagree with his comment that there is "an amazing amount of detail and *texture* rendered in the animated characters." Detail...YES...texture...not so much. That's not to say there isn't any texture, it's just that it falls short of other animated titles where you have texture in faces (most faces are as smooth as butter and their hair is equally unimpressive), and there is a lack of texture in other areas as well. Take any of the top 15 animated titles in Tier 0 and compare them with this and you'll see what I mean. But this is only one area and it excels in every other area, so it's still a reference Blu-ray by those standards.

Because of the lack of texture in faces, hair, and many other areas (such as foliage, buildings, etc.), I can't assign it a place in the top third of Tier Blu, but I have no argument putting it where my fellow-reviewer has suggested....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.5)*

Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## wattheF

djoberg said:


> *The Lego Movie*
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with 98% of this excellent review! I won't try to add anything except to say that I did NOT see any banding AND I have to disagree with his comment that there is "an amazing amount of detail and *texture* rendered in the animated characters." Detail...YES...texture...not so much. That's not to say there isn't any texture, it's just that it falls short of other animated titles where you have texture in faces (most faces are as smooth as butter and their hair is equally unimpressive), and there is a lack of texture in other areas as well. Take any of the top 15 animated titles in Tier 0 and compare them with this and you'll see what I mean. But this is only one area and it excels in every other area, so it's still a reference Blu-ray by those standards.
> 
> Because of the lack of texture in faces, hair, and many other areas (such as foliage, buildings, etc.), I can't assign it a place in the top third of Tier Blu, but I have no argument putting it where my fellow-reviewer has suggested....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.5)*
> 
> Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


Thanks djoberg. The Banding I saw was so fleeting that it was almost unnoticeable. Also I wonder if different displays do a better job than others with fine gradations. What display did you use?

Also, I suppose I should qualify my statement about texture and add the term "relatively speaking" to it. Since the subject matter and characters Are made up of a plain smooth toy blocK it's naturally not going to present the same opportunity to too possess the same high level of texture that some other animated characters may. SO you are right about the fact that this movie doesn't have the same level of diverse textures as some of the other top end animated titles. Having said that I was very impressed at how much texture they were able to add to these figures. The dust, fingerprints, nicks and scratches, etc all added to a lifelike realism. There were times when I said to myself...are those real Legos they are using? 

I agree that it belongs no higher than the middle of Tier 0.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Akira*

recommendation: *Tier 1.75*

Someone had previously ranked Bandai's release of _Akira_ in Tier 1.75. Bandai withdrew from video distribution in North America and the rights to _Akira_ went to Funimation. I am covering the Funimation version's picture quality, which features a solid AVC video encode and a clean, film-like transfer of the movie's 1980s cel animation.

This one has been restored to some degree, the elements are in very good condition and retain a vibrant crispness that other animated films of the period occasionally lack.


----------



## djoberg

wattheF said:


> Thanks djoberg. The Banding I saw was so fleeting that it was almost unnoticeable. Also I wonder if different displays do a better job than others with fine gradations. What display did you use?
> 
> Also, I suppose I should qualify my statement about texture and add the term "relatively speaking" to it. Since the subject matter and characters Are made up of a plain smooth toy blocK it's naturally not going to present the same opportunity to too possess the same high level of texture that some other animated characters may. SO you are right about the fact that this movie doesn't have the same level of diverse textures as some of the other top end animated titles. Having said that I was very impressed at how much texture they were able to add to these figures. The dust, fingerprints, nicks and scratches, etc all added to a lifelike realism. There were times when I said to myself...are those real Legos they are using?
> 
> I agree that it belongs no higher than the middle of Tier 0.


I used my Pioneer KURO. I do see banding occasionally but I didn't any on that title.

You are right about the "dust, fingerprints, nicks and scratches" adding to the realism? I would add that the lighting also added to the photorealism. Very impressive indeed! But the texture was still limited compared to other animated titles that featured fur, hair, grass, and more prominent facial texture. I believe we gave it the proper placement, all things considered.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

If you see banding on a calibrated plasma, it's almost certainly endemic to the video encode found on the Blu-ray. It means they didn't properly dither the video and colors. Without having seen _The LEGO Movie_ yet, I placed the _LEGO Batman_ disc in largely the same area of Tier 0. You get the flashy color range and perfect black levels, but I agree the level of textural detail is below the latest CGI offerings.


----------



## rusky_g

Tower Heist

Directed by Brett Ratner, TH has a visual appeal similar to his earlier crime caper Rush Hour 3....which also happened to be one of my initial PQ favourites.

The image is sleek and glossy throughout. Blacks are nice and deep, contrast sharp, helping colours to really pop and shine. A couple of nighttime city scape shops really impressed; dark black skies contrasting with the glittering lights of NYC. Equally pretty, the climatic carnival parade showcased primaries at their best.

I recall Rush Hour 3 showing better facial detail but otherwise I was pretty impressed. 

Tier 1.5


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Abominable Dr. Phibes (Arrow Video's Region B)*

recommendation: *Tier 3.5**

*Dr. Phibes Rises Again (Arrow Video's Region B)*

recommendation: *Tier 4.0**

British distributor Arrow Video released these films together in a region-locked set as _The Complete Dr. Phibes_. They licensed both transfers from MGM, the same source for Scream Factory's edition of _The Abominable Dr. Phibes_. These aren't the most brilliant film transfers, they resemble telecine scans intended for MGM's DVD releases. While not on par with a newer film scan, they are from the original film negatives and provide mild improvements in clarity and detail over standard-definition resolution. The transfer for the first movie looks to be from film elements in better condition, it is sharper with a more stable color palette.

There are no real indicators of heavy processing aside from a touch of ringing. The grain structure is handled by a top-notch AVC video encode that fills a BD-50 for each movie. The sequel does have a heavier grain pattern, possibly exacerbated by sharpening.

This type of older transfer doesn't provide the wow factor of a newer 4K film scan from the original negatives but satisfactorily gets it done in terms of video improvement, especially for _The Abominable Dr. Phibes_. The less-heralded sequel is less impressive for our standards.


Enjoy the fireworks for the Fourth of July holiday.


----------



## djoberg

Thanks Phantom for wishing us a Happy 4th! 

I echo your sentiments to the whole AVS family! We live on one of the highest hills overlooking Fergus Falls, MN and thus we have quite the vantage point for watching ALL of the Fireworks displays throughout the city. Last night the city had its BIG display and it was awesome, with vibrant colors, strong contrast, and it featured a very deep and inky black sky....I'd put it in Tier 0, near the bottom!  Tonight there is a Speedway Racetrack that has races every Friday night and they're having a big display after the races are over. Again, we have an excellent vantage point for watching it so I'll chime in later with a review and placement recommendation.


----------



## jsnyder82

I just got my UK Blu-Ray Hitchcock Collection in the mail. (much, much cheaper than the US version)

Oh my, I don't think I've ever seen a transfer quite as bad as Family Plot. Crushed blacks, colors that change DURING a scene, haloing, bad noise reduction. It really isn't much better than the DVD, if at all.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

jsnyder82 said:


> I just got my UK Blu-Ray Hitchcock Collection in the mail. (much, much cheaper than the US version)
> 
> Oh my, I don't think I've ever seen a transfer quite as bad as Family Plot. Crushed blacks, colors that change DURING a scene, haloing, bad noise reduction. It really isn't much better than the DVD, if at all.


Universal didn't do much of anything for some of the lesser films in that box set. Generally speaking, a Blu-ray that looks little better than DVD usually ends up in Tier 4.5 or the dreaded Tier 5. I own the same set but I've been holding off on watching some of the later ones.


----------



## Inseconds99

When can we expect to see the updated tier list? I can't wait to see where all these new movies fall.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Inseconds99 said:


> When can we expect to see the updated tier list? I can't wait to see where all these new movies fall.


The last update was at the end of March. As some have probably noticed, the discussion thread tends to get less activity in the middle of summer and I like to wait for as many reviews as possible. I would figure on another update in the next two or three weeks. So if someone is burning with desire to review a disc, they should post it soon to make the July update.

This will be the first update for the PQ Tiers back on the new old system of Vbulletin. I have to hope the forum software hasn't changed enough to make problems when I format the new listings. It was a huge problem a couple of years back when AVS switched from Vbulletin to Huddler and this appears to be a newer version of Vbulletin.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Big Gundown*

recommendation: *Tier 2.25**

I pushed this excellent Spaghetti Western to the top of my queue after a member of AVS privately contacted me about it for the PQ Tiers with their own review. It's not the first time someone has sent me a private rating about a disc, some readers want to contribute rankings outside the glare of a public discussion in this thread. Which is fine by me, my inbox is always open for reviews or other concerns.

I had been wanting to pick up the collector's edition for _The Big Gundown_ anyway, so this gave me a good excuse to go out and finally buy it. Put out in a lavish four-disc set by Grindhouse Releasing this past December, the 1966 Technicolor film looks absolutely great in 1080p. The new 2K film scan from the original negative has utterly film-like fidelity, perfectly replicating its natural grain structure in crisp detail. A solid AVC video encode runs at decent parameters without compression artifacts. Grindhouse Releasing made the wise decision to put the English-language version on its own BD, allowing the longer director's cut seen in Europe to breathe on another BD. Both versions are given wonderful presentations.

The film elements are in excellent condition, almost completely free of debris and damage. The 2.39:1-framed composition retains its proper presentation with very good sharpness and full color saturation. It resembles a beautiful film print of the era that has avoided filtering or other detrimental video processes. Simply a high-quality film scan that shows _The Big Gundown's_ cinematography in its best possible light.

While it occasionally reaches a level of aptitude worthy of Tier One, its picture quality more comfortably resides in Tier Two. That is not a knock, this perfect transfer of vintage film would merit a much higher score under a normal reviewing system. An easy recommendation if you want to see this movie in all its glory.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^

Thanks for the good review and for whetting my appetite for this release Phantom. I absolutely love "Spaghetti Westerns" with _The Good, the Bad, and The Ugly_ being my all-time favorite. I must confess I have never seen _The Big Gundown_, but reviews on Amazon are singing its praises. The only downside is the price...almost $30, which is too much IMO.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

It's an unheralded but excellent Spaghetti Western. I don't want to get your hopes up, it's not as entertaining as _The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly_. The 4-disc set occasionally goes down on Amazon around $23. You get two Blu-rays, a DVD, and Morricone's soundtrack on CD in it. In a bit of irony it probably received a better film transfer than that iconic Westerner.


----------



## TahoeDust

I love this thread. You guys are doing a great service for those looking for truly beautiful Blu Rays. When is the last time the list was actually updated?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I answered this a couple of posts back but the last update was near the end of March, 2014. We don't get as many Blu-ray scores and reviews for it during the summer months.

The date of the last update is always listed at the very top of the PQ Tiers:

*Blu-Ray Picture Quality Rankings*

*"Oculi plus vident quam oculus" - "Several eyes see more than only one"*

_Last Update: March 27, 2014 by the Phantom Stranger_​ 





 

You can tell your friends, you can tell your co-workers, the Tiers are alive and well.

*Maria Holic: Complete Collection*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

The 2009 anime series looks okay in Hi-Def. The palette is awash in bright, bold colors but the animation is not as polished as the best in its genre. Sentai Filmworks uses a satisfactory video encode for the clean material.


----------



## djoberg

I just purchased _The Man from Snowy River_ from Amazon. Our family must have watched this Australian Western classic a dozen times as our daughters were growing up. We loved the story line, the action, the acting (you gotta love the "duel role" of Kirk Douglas in this movie!), and the amazing cinematography. I have no idea how it's going to look on Blu-ray, but I'm excited to find out. I may not get to it for awhile but when I do I'll check in with a review (I see it hasn't been reviewed/placed yet). Are there any other members out there who love this film?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I've heard good things about it but never actually seen it. I might have to give it a closer look sometime after your recommendation.

*Operation Petticoat
*
recommendation: *Tier 4.0**

Olive Films licensed this comedy starring Cary Grant and Tony Curtis from Paramount. On the whole its picture quality is better than a Tier 4 ranking, but many will be turned off by the frequent print damage evident on the unrestored film print. The actual color saturation and contrast are fairly nice, providing suitable detail and clarity. This is definitely an unfiltered 2K film transfer with substantial benefits over any DVD version. 

It would have been nice if a little manual scratch removal had been applied to the film transfer. Olive Films gives it an adequate AVC video encode that preserves the inherent grain structure and fine detail. While I am not sure I would pay full price for this Blu-ray, it certainly provides a decent Hi-Def experience for the 1959 comedy.


----------



## mweflen

*Total Recall (1990) (Mind Bending Edition)*

Thoroughly mediocre from start to finish. Detail is strong but black levels are flat and fluctuate throughout the feature. Grain is present but not highly resolved. An upgrade from DVD for the resolution bump, but not much more. No demo potential.

Pretty much the definition of...

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*


----------



## mweflen

*The Terminator (From Terminator Anthology Box set)*

Not a great encode, but not nearly as bad as some have made it out to be. Detail is middling. Black levels are strong and stable. Whites are a bit blown out. The picture evinces some digital noise and macroblocking. But overall, I like this better than T2 Skynet (A DNR'ed mess) because, despite its flaws, it doesn't try to compensate with any picture destroying computer trickery. This disc certainly does things a DVD can't. Perhaps I went in with low expectations and had them surpassed, here.
*
Tier Recommendation: 3.5*


----------



## mweflen

*Terminator 2: Skynet Edition*

DNR has wiped away all fine detail, leaving us with a clean, shiny, but ultimately dull Blu-Ray. Black levels stay pretty strong, whites are blown out. Given how much money they've made on this, and how many times they've dipped, this release is a slap in the face. Also, as an aside, I'd like to travel back in time and assassinate whoever designed this menu system.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.75*


----------



## mweflen

*The Wolf of Wall Street*

As other have indicated, flesh tones are hot. Otherwise, basically flawless. Scorsese has struck again with a combo of the Arri Alexa and Kodak Vision film stock. Fine detail is splendid, with pores, cloth textures, and so on easily in evidence. Black levels are stout and shadow detail is exceptional. The red push puts it near the bottom of Zero IMHO.

*Tier Recommendation: 0 (Between Gatsby and Hobbit EE)*


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> I've heard good things about it but never actually seen it. I might have to give it a closer look sometime after your recommendation.


I had called _The Man from Snowy River_ an Australian "Western" but technically it's a "Cowboy" flick with one of the most amazing scenes ever with the lead actor riding a horse down a mountain. Again, this was one of our favorites and I can't imagine anyone not liking it. It has a sequel called _Return to Snowy River_ but so far it's not out on Blu.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

mweflen said:


> *Terminator 2: Skynet Edition*
> 
> DNR has wiped away all fine detail, leaving us with a clean, shiny, but ultimately dull Blu-Ray. Black levels stay pretty strong, whites are blown out. Given how much money they've made on this, and how many times they've dipped, this release is a slap in the face. Also, as an aside, *I'd like to travel back in time and assassinate whoever designed this menu system.*
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.75*


:laugh: It probably cost a lot of money as well.


----------



## djoberg

For anyone that's interested:

http://www.amazon.com/Man-From-Snow...&sr=8-1&keywords=man+from+snowy+river+blu+ray

Check out those reviews....over 400 and almost 5 Stars!!


----------



## rusky_g

Noah has got a 5 star glowing PQ review on Blu-ray.com 

On my radar


----------



## Phantom Stranger

rusky_g said:


> Noah has got a 5 star glowing PQ review on Blu-ray.com
> 
> On my radar


It's on my radar as well, since Paramount sent me a review copy.


----------



## djoberg

rusky_g said:


> Noah has got a 5 star glowing PQ review on Blu-ray.com
> 
> On my radar


Cool! This thread should be "flooded" with reviews soon!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Ground Control to Psychoelectric Girl: Complete Series
*
recommendation: *Tier 1.25**

Now out of print, this NIS America set presents the 2011 anime's fluid animation in perfect clarity. The thirteen episodes are spread over two BDs. Beautifully animated by animation house SHAFT, the show easily qualifies for the upper bounds of Tier One.

Given the occasional problems with banding noted on other anime productions, this set is free of that concern with a solid AVC video encode that transparently reproduces the digitally scanned animation. A real visual treat in 1080p resolution with vibrant colors and intricate background designs.


----------



## OppoMrSocko

Phantom Stranger said:


> It's an unheralded but excellent Spaghetti Western. I don't want to get your hopes up, it's not as entertaining as _The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly_. The 4-disc set occasionally goes down on Amazon around $23. You get two Blu-rays, a DVD, and Morricone's soundtrack on CD in it. In a bit of irony it probably received a better film transfer than that iconic Westerner.


Newbie here -- been learning (not lurking) over the past few months. It has been a delight learning about the Tiers and experiencing HD viewing for only about 6 months. 

After half a year of training, I will be so bold as to venture my first Tier recommendation: I second The Phantom Stranger's fantastic review of "The Big Gundown." *2.25.*

I'd also like to add that it is among the most beautiful soundtracks you will ever hear. Morricone went for a whole new direction with this film, compared to the music he created for the Leone films. Morricone's music, combined with the "Hunt in the Cane Fields" sequence in "The Big Gundown," just has to be seen and heard to be believed. Epic.

Thanks to everyone in the Forum for your reviews and helping me to make the most of my HD investment.


----------



## mweflen

rusky_g said:


> Noah has got a 5 star glowing PQ review on Blu-ray.com
> 
> On my radar


 On my radar now as well, but I'll be waiting until it hits $15 or so.

FYI, a great way to track BD price drops is thetracktor.com. Type in any product, see its lifetime price history on Amazon, set email alerts when it drops below a specified threshold. It's revolutionized my buying.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^

Thanks for the heads up on that link to Amazon pricing!!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*All Cheerleaders Die*

recommendation: *Tier 2.75**

This one from Image does not get released for a couple more weeks. The production quality seems a little rushed with somewhat softer detail for a new film. The day-lit exteriors contain much more impressive clarity and sharpness than the murkier night scenes. It has fairly mundane, average picture quality for 2014. The experience is flat and uninvolving for videophiles.

The transfer by Image has not been filtered and shows no traces of other video processing, including ringing. The cinematography's black levels are indistinct and muddy in the weakest scenes.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Revenge of the Nerds*

recommendation: Tier 3.75*

The 1984 comedy finally saw the light of day on Blu-ray in May of this year, receiving a decent new edition that exhibits modest improvements in picture quality. Fox did not spend a huge amount of money to restore the movie but has given it a relatively new film scan from untarnished elements. The heavy grain structure is perfectly preserved by a maxed-out AVC video encode.

The main problem with _Revenge of the Nerds'_ picture quality is the flat cinematography and dull definition. That was the intended aesthetic and it is kept intact in this 1080p presentation. Fox has avoided filtering out the grain or adding unnecessary sharpening. Fox did their best not to repurpose an older Hi-Def transfer struck for DVD, which does bring out incremental improvements in fine detail and overall clarity. I believe this is likely the best the comedy classic can look on Blu-ray without drastic changes to the color grading that would fundamentally alter its natural color balance.


----------



## rusky_g

*Jack The Giant Slayer*

'Ooooh that looks clear' said my girlfriend as she glanced up from her tablet PC.

And yeah she's right, JTGS is a very clear looking disc! From beginning to end this was a majestic presentation with lush colours, perfectly balanced contrast and SUPERB black levels and shadow detail. The image quality rarely dipped, if at all really. Not the best CGI but then I'm kinda putting that aside for my review. If you crave depth and detail and enjoy PQ which free of grain, noise and banding, this disc comes highly recommended.

I have to agree with my Peer, Djoberg, that this is a Tier 0 title.

*Tier 0.75*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^

Good review Russ!

Since you knew my rating on this, then you also know I quoted another "peer" of ours who only recommended Tier 2. Can you believe that!  Unless enough members weigh in with a Tier 0 recommendation, his score is going to bring it down quite a bit. That is, unless Phantom realizes his score has to be skewed and doesn't count it!!


----------



## rusky_g

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^
> 
> Good review Russ!
> 
> Since you knew my rating on this, then you also know I quoted another "peer" of ours who only recommended Tier 2. Can you believe that!  Unless enough members weigh in with a Tier 0 recommendation, his score is going to bring it down quite a bit. That is, unless Phantom realizes his score has to be skewed and doesn't count it!!



Hi Denny

Glad you liked the review. I was debating tier 0 or tier 1 for the first few chapters but the latter ones got even better which confirmed my final placement. I was suprised to see a tier 2 vote, it's amazing how taste differs vastly. I think the only discs I really didn't enjoy as much as others were Hereafter and American Hustle.

Russ


----------



## edlittle

*Blazing Saddles

*My first review coming in from my new Vizio M-series. Overall, great facial details, but distance and mid range shots were cloudy. Also, the video was somewhat weird because there were either large white lights or weird reflectors that made people shine the wrong color for the scenery. Slightly too much grain for my liking, but it did look very filmic.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

There is nothing quite like breaking in a new display with Tier 0 discs. I think Warner Bros. did give _Blazing Saddles_ a 4K restoration.

*The Grand Budapest Hotel*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

Wes Anderson's stylish _The Grand Budapest Hotel_ arrives on Blu-ray with very interesting cinematography utilizing a variety of aspect ratios. The bulk of the film is framed at 1.33:1, capturing the elaborate art and production design quite well. It has one of the more varied and interesting color palettes seen in recent cinematic history, changing with the time period and locale.

A rich contrast produces heavy black levels and fully saturated colors in pristine clarity. The picture has outstanding depth and dimension, despite the occasional digital composite inserted into the background. Fox bestows on it a superb video encode at top-notch parameters, unfiltered and unadorned.

If you have seen any of Anderson's recent films, you should know what to expect from _The Grand Budapest Hotel's_ visuals. Many of the director's signature motifs and tricks can be found once again.


----------



## edlittle

Will be watching the first Planet of the Apes reboot to get ready for the new one later in theaters!


----------



## djoberg

edlittle said:


> Will be watching the first Planet of the Apes reboot to get ready for the new one later in theaters!


I just watched that a week ago (for the third time) with one of my grandchildren who had not seen it. I really enjoyed it and can't wait to see the sequel.

PQ-wise it was very good, but not reference. If you care to see my review here's the link:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-632.html#post21353083


----------



## djoberg

*300: Rise of an Empire (2014)*

If you're craving to see a Blu with mesmerizing DETAILS, you can't get much better than this! Whether it's facial details, hair, coats of armor, rocky coasts, ships, etc. the details are simply amazing! Add to that some incredible DEPTH, accurate FLESH TONES, superb CONTRAST, beautiful PRIMARY COLORS (though limited, they really shine against a rather muted background), and insane SHARPNESS/CLARITY in the majority of scenes.

That's not to say it's perfect, for the CGI was soft in some shots and it made splattering blood (which is plentiful!) look fake. Some of the background shots in scenes with a panoramic view looked a tad soft as well.

Man, I'm tempted to assign this to low Tier 0 for its spectacular sharpness and details, but the aforementioned flaws forbid me from doing so. Still, this is a shoe-in for Tier 1, and the top of the heap at that...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**

Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## rusky_g

djoberg said:


> *300: Rise of an Empire (2014)*
> 
> If you're craving to see a Blu with mesmerizing DETAILS, you can't get much better than this! Whether it's facial details, hair, coats of armor, rocky coasts, ships, etc. the details are simply amazing! Add to that some incredible DEPTH, accurate FLESH TONES, superb CONTRAST, beautiful PRIMARY COLORS (though limited, they really shine against a rather muted background), and insane SHARPNESS/CLARITY in the majority of scenes.
> 
> That's not to say it's perfect, for the CGI was soft in some shots and it made splattering blood (which is plentiful!) look fake. Some of the background shots in scenes with a panoramic view looked a tad soft as well.
> 
> Man, I'm tempted to assign this to low Tier 0 for its spectacular sharpness and details, but the aforementioned flaws forbid me from doing so. Still, this is a shoe-in for Tier 1, and the top of the heap at that...
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.0**
> 
> Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


Great review Denny! This is on my list for sure. I picked up I Frankenstein yesterday, had a quick look and was more impressed than I anticipated......


----------



## djoberg

rusky_g said:


> Great review Denny! This is on my list for sure. I picked up I Frankenstein yesterday, had a quick look and was more impressed than I anticipated......


I KNOW that you'll be impressed with PQ Russ!

I forgot to mention in my review BLACK LEVELS...they're GORGEOUS!! Regarding the details that I bragged about, wait until you see several scenes with either dust particles floating in the air or fire embers.

I also should have brought out how stylized the colors were (I had mentioned a rather muted look with *some* primaries breaking out); golden hues dominate some scenes but quite frankly I was so preoccupied with the DETAILS and TEXTURE that I hardly noticed.


----------



## rusky_g

djoberg said:


> I KNOW that you'll be impressed with PQ Russ!
> 
> I forgot to mention in my review BLACK LEVELS...they're GORGEOUS!! Regarding the details that I bragged about, wait until you see several scenes with either dust particles floating in the air or fire embers.
> 
> I also should have brought out how stylized the colors were (I had mentioned a rather muted look with *some* primaries breaking out); golden hues dominate some scenes but quite frankly I was so preoccupied with the DETAILS and TEXTURE that I hardly noticed.


I saw the screen caps on Blu-ray.com Denny and I could see the PQ potential even from there, plus it also got top marks by the reviewer. I'm pleased to see a review on here as I feel they are more 'the real deal' to me. Thanks for chiming in.


----------



## mweflen

*Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines* (1080p, box set)

Somewhat inconsistent with facial detail, CGI has that early 2000s "blurry" look. Most scenes offer good detail levels, though. Good black levels, contrast and color. DNR and EE are not obvious. Overall a pleasing watch, much better than a DVD, but nothing to write home about.

*Tier Recommendation 2.25*


----------



## rusky_g

Out of interest is anyone on here running a 4K display?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

mweflen said:


> *Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines*
> 
> Somewhat inconsistent with facial detail, CGI has that early 2000s "blurry" look. Most scenes offer good detail levels, though. Good black levels, contrast and color. DNR and EE are not obvious. Overall a pleasing watch, much better than a DVD, but nothing to write home about.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation 2.25*


You also have to be careful with _Terminator 3_ since Warner first incorrectly issued it with interlaced 1080i resolution. They did issue a corrected version in 1080p video.


*Ray Donovan: Season One*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

Released last month by Paramount, this premium cable series has incredible production values on par or better than most theatrical features. The picture quality is extremely sharp and vivid, aiming for a neutral color balance and naturalistic reality. The high-frequency content has been left intact and unfiltered in the pristine video transfer, leaving exacting amounts of fine detail.

The picture has outstanding depth and a palpable dimensionality, rare for a drama. This is the type of full-resolution experience that some might rank in Tier 0, it is that good. There are no major problems with the AVC video encode, four episodes are included per BD-50 in the set.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

rusky_g said:


> Out of interest is anyone on here running a 4K display?


I'm not sure when I will make the jump, especially with the impending death of plasma technology. Panasonic and now Samsung have announced they are leaving plasma behind since 4K technology is poised to take over the market.

Technically we are supposed to list what display and the viewing distance when we are evaluating a BD for a score in the Tiers. My scores are still derived from my 60" Pioneer KURO and a couple of the latest Panasonic plasmas.


----------



## mweflen

Phantom Stranger said:


> You also have to be careful with _Terminator 3_ since Warner first incorrectly issued it with interlaced 1080i resolution. They did issue a corrected version in 1080p video.


 Amended to indicate edition.


----------



## rusky_g

Phantom Stranger said:


> I'm not sure when I will make the jump, especially with the impending death of plasma technology. Panasonic and now Samsung have announced they are leaving plasma behind since 4K technology is poised to take over the market.
> 
> Technically we are supposed to list what display and the viewing distance when we are evaluating a BD for a score in the Tiers. My scores are still derived from my 60" Pioneer KURO and a couple of the latest Panasonic plasmas.


Thanks Phantom. I need to add my viewing setup to my reviews. Note to self.

I've only had my Samsung LED a short while but love it. We are in the process of moving property so with some equity may treat myself to either an Oppo 103d or....something else. I was curious how regular blurays will look on a 4K set (?)


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> *Ray Donovan: Season One*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 1.0**
> 
> Released last month by Paramount, this premium cable series has incredible production values on par or better than most theatrical features. The picture quality is extremely sharp and vivid, aiming for a neutral color balance and naturalistic reality. The high-frequency content has been left intact and unfiltered in the pristine video transfer, leaving exacting amounts of fine detail.
> 
> The picture has outstanding depth and a palpable dimensionality, rare for a drama. This is the type of full-resolution experience that some might rank in Tier 0, it is that good. There are no major problems with the AVC video encode, four episodes are included per BD-50 in the set.


I've been binging on _House of Cards_ today and your description of _Ray Donavan_ mirrors what I see with every episode of HOC. I had only rated the first few episodes when I chimed in a few weeks ago with a Tier 0 (.66) rating. After seeing many more episodes I'd give it a .5 placement....it's that good!


----------



## djoberg

*House of Cards*

Okay, after watching the whole first series (13 episodes) of _House of Cards_ I've decided to stick with my original placement recommendation of *Tier 0 (.66)*. For whatever reason, the last couple of episodes had some very obvious soft scenes sprinkled throughout their 49 minute running time. One example of this took place in a garage with Underwood and Russo sitting in a car. It was a prolonged scene which was incredibly soft and the blacks were below average on top of that. The other soft scenes were normally interior shots with low lighting. If not for these, I would easily elevate this to .5, as mentioned yesterday (after watching episodes 1-10).

If you've never seen this political drama I highly recommend it. The acting is superb and the writing achieves what very few cable shows even come close to. This and _The Americans_ are both in a class of their own, though I confess time did not allow me to watch other highly recommended series like _Breaking Bad_, _Justified_, _Game of Thrones_, et al. I've also enjoyed watching _Fargo_, _The Walking Dead_, _The Bates Motel_, and _Hell on Wheels_. All of them, with the exception of _The Walking Dead_, also feature excellent PQ.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Countess Dracula*

recommendation: *Tier 4.5**

The 1970 Hammer film starring Ingrid Pitt was released onto Blu-ray a couple of months ago by Synapse. _Countess Dracula's_ transfer appears to be an older telecine master, possibly the same one MGM struck for the older DVD release. It is definitely a legitimate high-definition film transfer but one that provides marginal visual improvement over a high-quality DVD. It is great to see these older horror properties finally licensed for Blu-ray but I am beginning to dread the MGM logo at the beginning of a film. Most of their older catalog transfers from the DVD era aren't up to snuff for the picture quality demands needed in 2014.

The video itself is watchable but there is persistent softness in the film's cinematography. Its mushy detail is more indicative of an older film scan from unrestored elements than filtering. There are occasional white specks and the rare appearance of film damage in the print. This is not from pristine film elements, though the film is presented in its intended 1.66:1 aspect ratio common to British films of the period.


----------



## edlittle

I agree with your assessment on The Walking Dead. Breaking Bad is also very lacking in PQ department. It seems AMC is not very consistent.


----------



## saprano

Phantom Stranger said:


> I'm not sure when I will make the jump, especially with the impending death of plasma technology. Panasonic and now Samsung have announced they are leaving plasma behind since 4K technology is poised to take over the market.
> 
> Technically we are supposed to list what display and the viewing distance when we are evaluating a BD for a score in the Tiers. My scores are still derived from my 60" Pioneer KURO and a couple of the latest Panasonic plasmas.


 No need to buy a 4K TV until better standards than what we currently have for bluray are available. And it definitely has to be OLED. No way am i buying a 4K LCD. I don't get people buying 4K LCD's right now. You're basically just buying more pixels. There is no improved color, chroma, 10 bit, and other PQ attributes. I'm fine with my 60 kuro until a superior standard is made for 4K and OLED displays are made in 70" sizes.


----------



## djoberg

edlittle said:


> I agree with your assessment on The Walking Dead. Breaking Bad is also very lacking in PQ department. It seems AMC is not very consistent.


I will say this...the PQ on _The Walking Dead_ has improved, though even now black levels are usually a mess during night scenes or in poorly-lit interiors. You are right about AMC being inconsistent, for _Hell on Wheels_ is usually sharp as a tack with tons of detail. Even black levels are pretty good in that series.


----------



## djoberg

saprano said:


> No need to buy a 4K TV until better standards than what we currently have for bluray are available. And it definitely has to be OLED. No way am i buying a 4K LCD. I don't get people buying 4K LCD's right now. You're basically just buying more pixels. There is no improved color, chroma, 10 bit, and other PQ attributes. I'm fine with my 60 kuro until a superior standard is made for 4K and OLED displays are made in 70" sizes.


For the most part I agree with you, though there are exceptions to the rule. I'm speaking especially of the new line of Vizio, and in particular their Reference Series which blew away the competition at the CES in Vegas this year. It does have 10 bit and just as important it has Full Array Local Dimming (FALD) with 364 zones. That makes for reference quality black levels and superb contrast. But even there it does have one negative common to all LCD/LEDs....the brightness washes out when you watch it from a wide angle (i.e. off-axis).

Like you I'm perfectly content with my KURO and hope it lasts until the OLED display is perfected and marketable (in size and price).


----------



## saprano

djoberg said:


> For the most part I agree with you, though there are exceptions to the rule. I'm speaking especially of the new line of Vizio, and in particular their Reference Series which blew away the competition at the CES in Vegas this year. It does have 10 bit and just as important it has Full Array Local Dimming (FALD) with 364 zones. That makes for reference quality black levels and superb contrast. But even there it does have one negative common to all LCD/LEDs....the brightness washes out when you watch it from a wide angle (i.e. off-axis).
> 
> Like you I'm perfectly content with my KURO and hope it lasts until the OLED display is perfected and marketable (in size and price).


 Yeah i heard about that Vizio TV but i would rather wait for reviews to see if it actually holds up to what it claims. CES is a place for show and tell. Half the stuff that's shown doesn't even get released. Remember Vizio's 72 display they showed years ago at CES? It was vaporware. The TV sounds very promising but i want see it in person myself at a store. The panel is 10 bit yes but the point is 4K doesn't have a set standard yet. I want a full set of new specifications before i even think about buying anything 4K. By the way, i'm currently bidding on ebay for 300 ROTE thanks to your PQ review. I told you i like reading them.


----------



## wattheF

Phantom Stranger said:


> I'm not sure when I will make the jump, especially with the impending death of plasma technology. Panasonic and now Samsung have announced they are leaving plasma behind since 4K technology is poised to take over the market.
> 
> Technically we are supposed to list what display and the viewing distance when we are evaluating a BD for a score in the Tiers. My scores are still derived from my 60" Pioneer KURO and a couple of the latest Panasonic plasmas.


I personally am in no rush to jump to 4K. It doesn't interest me at all at this point and there is almost zero content still.

I am a die hard plasma fan. I use my Panasonic ST60 for all reviewing.


----------



## saprano

Oh yes how could i forget 4K content! There's basically none.


----------



## wattheF

saprano said:


> No need to buy a 4K TV until better standards than what we currently have for bluray are available. And it definitely has to be OLED. No way am i buying a 4K LCD. I don't get people buying 4K LCD's right now. You're basically just buying more pixels. There is no improved color, chroma, 10 bit, and other PQ attributes. I'm fine with my 60 kuro until a superior standard is made for 4K and OLED displays are made in 70" sizes.


Amen!

Resolution/pixel count is only one of many factors that contribute to PQ, and its not even the most important IMO


----------



## wattheF

saprano said:


> Oh yes how could i forget 4K content! There's basically none.


Yeah it makes me laugh when I think of the fact that we can now stream "4K" content. What a joke! Netflix can't even stream 1080p properly let alone 4k. And the audio... forget about it.

Sorry... let's get back on topic.


----------



## edlittle

Back on topic! 

Rise of the Planet of the Apes

First off, the movie. I have seen this once before, on my 40" Sony EX640, which has significant flashlighting and overall worse PQ. I loved this movie, especially the focus on the apes and the amazing amount of emotion that can be felt from them. The two climaxes - in the refuge and in San Francisco were beautifully done. I highly recommend the movie.

For PQ, I was most astonished by the facial details. Up close, mid range, and even distance shots of faces were very crisp. I didn't notice any soft shots at all. Outdoor shots were stunning, especially in the redwoods and on the bridge. Hair was amazing. The way that the apes moved was so organic and lifelike that I thought at times they used real apes. This is truly a reference disc, although I wouldn't say demo level. I would recommend:

Tier 1.0

Edit: thanks wattheF, it is the opposite, demo level, but not reference.


----------



## wattheF

edlittle said:


> Back on topic!
> 
> Rise of the Planet of the Apes
> 
> First off, the movie. I have seen this once before, on my 40" Sony EX640, which has significant flashlighting and overall worse PQ. I loved this movie, especially the focus on the apes and the amazing amount of emotion that can be felt from them. The two climaxes - in the refuge and in San Francisco were beautifully done. I highly recommend the movie.
> 
> For PQ, I was most astonished by the facial details. Up close, mid range, and even distance shots of faces were very crisp. I didn't notice any soft shots at all. Outdoor shots were stunning, especially in the redwoods and on the bridge. Hair was amazing. The way that the apes moved was so organic and lifelike that I thought at times they used real apes. This is truly a reference disc, although I wouldn't say demo level. I would recommend:
> 
> Tier 1.0


Strike that...reverse it? I think you mean, this is a demo disc, although not reference level...???

Thanks for the review. I will have to check this one out.


----------



## edlittle

Ah of course! Added an edit. Apparently the sequel that just came out is even better than this one.


----------



## rusky_g

Nice review Ed! Keep them coming

Just ordered Veronica Mars blu-ray from dvdworldusa.com

Not released here in the UK so import it is....worth it for Kristen Bell ;-)


----------



## djoberg

edlittle said:


> Ah of course! Added an edit. *Apparently the sequel that just came out is even better than this one.*


I just read a number of rave reviews on Amazon. 4 1/2 stars for an average...not bad for a sequel!


----------



## wattheF

rusky_g said:


> Nice review Ed! Keep them coming
> 
> Just ordered Veronica Mars blu-ray from dvdworldusa.com
> 
> Not released here in the UK so import it is....worth it for Kristen Bell ;-)


It was a surprisingly good movie with surprisingly good PQ.


----------



## wattheF

edlittle said:


> I agree with your assessment on The Walking Dead. Breaking Bad is also very lacking in PQ department. It seems AMC is not very consistent.


neither is great but BB is a bit better than WD.


----------



## mweflen

*Terminator Salvation*

Really nice black levels and colors (keeping in mind the post-apocalyptic brown on brown palette). Strong detail except on CGI heavy sequences. Some shaky cam photography also reduced the viewer experience of detail. Without these detriments, I think it's upper 1 territory. As it is, I'd peg it at 1.75.
*
Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


----------



## djoberg

mweflen said:


> *Terminator Salvation*
> 
> Really nice black levels and colors (keeping in mind the post-apocalyptic brown on brown palette). Strong detail except on CGI heavy sequences. Some shaky cam photography also reduced the viewer experience of detail. Without these detriments, I think it's upper 1 territory. As it is, I'd peg it at 1.75.
> *
> Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


I agree with each point. I assume this the "Director's Cut" that you saw....if so we're in same ballpark with my placement being at 1.5.


----------



## djoberg

*The Man from Snowy River*

Okay, so it's obvious this 1982 Australian Western will never win any beauty contests (PQ-wise, that is), but I'm here to tell you that it's light-years ahead of its DVD counterpart! I had doubts of this in the opening scene, for inside the Craig mountain home (at night with low-lighting) we are immediately treated to less-than-stellar blacks levels, a bit of noise, and unflattering depth and details. But my doubts were short-lived as the next scene shifted to a daytime scene in the woods where details leaped off the screen along with a good measure of sharpness and clarity. As scene after scene unfolded it became apparent that inconsistency would reign supreme but thankfully the majority of the scenes were, as stated above, huge improvements over the DVD.

Do you like grain? Let's hope so, for grain was left unchecked, perhaps to a fault in some shots (they appeared somewhat *gritty* and in a couple of nighttime shots came across as *noise*). In other shots it took on a very pleasing "film-like" look.

Colors were bland, so this won't help in the final analysis. Black levels could be very good during night scenes (and the black bars could rarely be detected next to the surrounding bezel), but at times they faltered or crushed. Contrast was *okay*, though it did spike in one or two daytime, outdoor scenes, leaving us with a washed-out look.

Not much more can be said. Am I glad I made the purchase? Oh yeah! The movie still holds a charm for our family (though some will find it too slow-paced and simple compared to "modern-day" westerns) and the obvious improvements over the DVD preclude any idea of "buyer's remorse." As I stated, there were a lot of inconsistencies from scene to scene (with some veering towards Tier Gold and others dropping ever-so-close to the dreaded bottom tiers), but I'm inclined to put it smack-dab in the middle of the tiers....

*Tier Recommendation: 3.25*

Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## rusky_g

PQ disc of 2014 so far guys?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

rusky_g said:


> PQ disc of 2014 so far guys?


I cheated a little and went back through my written reviews to come up with a short list to begin the discussion. Working backward from today, the discs that jumped out at me include Wolf Creek 2, Still Mine, Veronica Mars, The Wolf of Wall Street, The Agony & The Ecstasy, Archer: Season 4, and Ninja II: Shadow of a Tear if you want to count a BD released on December 31st of last year. Other ones under consideration are animated films like The Lego Movie. I'll be getting to Noah later this week, so I can't discuss its merits. I am sure there are other films that I have missed or forgotten in the conversation.

It's probably not the absolute-best looking Blu-ray of 2014 but I was mightily impressed by _The Agony and The Ecstasy's_ transfer.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^

Russ, I'm assuming you are asking for the BEST PQ in a movie in 2014. I cheated too by looking at Phantom's Spreadsheet (though I quit filling out the Entry Form for New Scores back in April, so I couldn't check all my reviews). 

I put 6 Blus in Tier 0 as of April:

Ninja 2: Shadow of a Tear
Ender's Game
Gravity
The Smurfs 2
Frozen
Lego Movie

I can't recall which one "blew me away," but perhaps it was _Ender's Game_ for live action and _The Smurfs 2_ for the animated category.


----------



## wattheF

Yup, Ender's Game and Smurfs 2 are tops for the year so far for me.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Transcendence*

recommendation: *Tier 1.75**

The picture quality is a little disappointing for noted cinematographer Wally Pfister's first film as director. There is nothing grossly wrong with the BD from Warner Bros, this is simply a step behind the extraordinary video seen in big-budget Hollywood films currently released. I think Johnny Depp is getting filtered to mask his true age.


----------



## djoberg

I just remembered that I put _House of Cards_ in Tier Blu recently, but it still didn't beat out _Enders Game_ in the live action category.


----------



## djoberg

*The Big Gundown*




Phantom Stranger said:


> *The Big Gundown*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 2.25**
> 
> I pushed this excellent Spaghetti Western to the top of my queue after a member of AVS privately contacted me about it for the PQ Tiers with their own review. It's not the first time someone has sent me a private rating about a disc, some readers want to contribute rankings outside the glare of a public discussion in this thread. Which is fine by me, my inbox is always open for reviews or other concerns.
> 
> I had been wanting to pick up the collector's edition for _The Big Gundown_ anyway, so this gave me a good excuse to go out and finally buy it. Put out in a lavish four-disc set by Grindhouse Releasing this past December, the 1966 Technicolor film looks absolutely great in 1080p. The new 2K film scan from the original negative has utterly film-like fidelity, perfectly replicating its natural grain structure in crisp detail. A solid AVC video encode runs at decent parameters without compression artifacts. Grindhouse Releasing made the wise decision to put the English-language version on its own BD, allowing the longer director's cut seen in Europe to breathe on another BD. Both versions are given wonderful presentations.
> 
> The film elements are in excellent condition, almost completely free of debris and damage. The 2.39:1-framed composition retains its proper presentation with very good sharpness and full color saturation. It resembles a beautiful film print of the era that has avoided filtering or other detrimental video processes. Simply a high-quality film scan that shows _The Big Gundown's_ cinematography in its best possible light.
> 
> While it occasionally reaches a level of aptitude worthy of Tier One, its picture quality more comfortably resides in Tier Two. That is not a knock, this perfect transfer of vintage film would merit a much higher score under a normal reviewing system. An easy recommendation if you want to see this movie in all its glory.


I have nothing to add to Phantom's spot-on review, except to say that I did notice one scene where it looked like it was out of focus for a few seconds. This "Spaghetti Western" was definitely better than the "Australian Western" I viewed last night, though I must say that some of the scenes in the last night's film had better details in some of the close-ups (and yet it had a lot more flaws than this one). I'm inclined to put it here....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75**

Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below...


----------



## wattheF

LONE SURVIVOR

Just re-watched, this time on BD. 

Excellent PQ! Great clarity and sharpness. Textures and details, most notably in closeups were top notch. I only caught 2 shots in one indoor scene that looked a bit softer. Contrast seemed spot on. Black levels overall were great but faltered a bit on a few scenes. Shadow detail was consistently very good. Color seemed nicely balanced. 

Overall I liked how clean the presentation was. There were no signs of artifacts and zero noticeable grain. 

There were a couple scenes towards the end that were stunning and made me say WOW!

I know the PQ is not quite up there with the best reference BD's, but it's not far behind. For me it is straddling the line of Tier Blu and Gold, but based on the couple minor "flaws" I mentioned I will go with...

EDIT** I changed my mind. I decided the few "flaws" are so minor that they should not and cannot knock this BD out of Tier 0. It's positives are simply too strong and easily outweigh these nitpicks.

RANKING- TIER 0 (towards the bottom)

Viewed on 60" Panasonic ST60 from 6.5 feet, using PS3 slim and Darbee Darblet.


----------



## rusky_g

Yep, I did mean your favorite PQ releases of 2014, thanks for the feedback guys!

*I Frankenstein

*I have to say I really liked how this film looked. I loved the dark feel, the cool golds and blues. In some places it looked very pretty, the sweeping shots of the Cathedral and Gargolyes being my favorites. Many scenes provided excellent detail, dimension and clarity, the picture in general appearing clear and nicely refined. I did however struggle with black levels which, too often, appeared grey and murky. Adjusting the gamma level on my TV set served to remedy this a little but it's not something you should have to do and will reflect in my ranking. 

In summary, this disc offered some brilliant Tier 0 moments, murky blacks aside, and overall it really appealed to my visiual bias.

*Tier 1.5*


----------



## edlittle

Pacific Rim

Finally got around to rewatching this on the new M-Series. I went through some other reviews and I agree with most points. The blacks were beautiful and I didn't see any black crush. Colors were definitely astounding and bright. Facial details weren't the sharpest, but they were overall very good. Clarity and details in outdoor scenes otherwise were fantastic, specifically during the Hong Kong fight, showing the full possibilities of a night + rain battle. CGI was fantastic and realistic, and it really showed with the fantastic PQ. Overall, one of the better releases I've seen on the new TV. 

Movie wise - I loved it. The cheesy lines, the corny action, the huge scale fights, everything was amazing. The sound quality was fantastic as well and would have given the sub a workout if I had turned it on. I think it definitely could go in Tier 0, but towards the bottom.

Recommendation: Tier 0 (near Ender's Game)


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Famouss said:


> Phantom, quite a bit off topic, but since you seem to watch your fair share of anime, have you had any chance to catch the new series "Zankyou no Terror"? It's the most hyped new anime of the summer and it's truly a beauty so far.


I have not seen it yet but I am usually a couple of months behind on my anime watching. For the better shows I will usually wait until I can watch it on Blu-ray unless there is massive hype for it. Are there any particular anime BDs you'd like me to score for the PQ Tiers?


----------



## Famouss

Phantom Stranger said:


> I have not seen it yet but I am usually a couple of months behind on my anime watching. For the better shows I will usually wait until I can watch it on Blu-ray unless there is massive hype for it. Are there any particular anime BDs you'd like me to score for the PQ Tiers?


If you could review Attack on Titan that would be great.  I believe the first 12 episodes or so are out on blu ray and the other half of the first season will be released this year, a few months I think. I follow the manga and really appreciated the artwork and animation from the anime via Netflix.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Famouss said:


> If you could review Attack on Titan that would be great.  I believe the first 12 episodes or so are out on blu ray and the other half of the first season will be released this year, a few months I think. I follow the manga and really appreciated the artwork and animation from the anime via Netflix.


Alas, you named one series I don't like very much. I had a tough time making it through _Attack on Titan_, it's not my cup of tea. I'm about to finish watching _Robotics; Notes_ on Blu-ray at the current moment.


----------



## Famouss

Phantom Stranger said:


> Alas, you named one series I don't like very much. I had a tough time making it through _Attack on Titan_, it's not my cup of tea. I'm about to finish watching _Robotics; Notes_ on Blu-ray at the current moment.


Ah ok, I've seen Steins;Gate and Chaos;Head but not this one.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Famouss said:


> Ah ok, I've seen Steins;Gate and Chaos;Head but not this one.


It's not related to those series aside from appropriating their naming convention. _Steins; Gate_ of course is one of the best programs of all time, Hollywood should really attempt to turn it into a movie. Getting back to the topic of picture quality, there is some unfortunate banding in Funimation's release of Steins; Gate. I think I previously covered that one for the Tiers.


----------



## djoberg

*Rio 2*

*WOW!!!!*

That about sums it up! No really, this "Blu" just "blew" me away! The COLORS are positively, absolutely GORGEOUS and they don't really ever let up. SHARPNESS & CLARITY are OFF THE CHARTS! Wait until you see what the producers of this animated marvel came up with to showcase these amazing virtues...a case in point would be Gabi, a small poison dart frog which literally pops off the screen in every scene she's in with insane clarity and dazzling colors!

DETAILS and TEXTURE are MESMERIZING...you simply have to see this to appreciate what I'm trying to describe. Whether it's bird feathers (and beaks), animal fur, jungle foliage including bark on trees, hair and facial texture on a few of the humans, etc., etc, this one really can't be beat for the volume of objects, animals, and humans that were created with stellar details and texture.

DEPTH is perhaps the best I've seen in animation, especially when the various jungle birds are in flight soaring through the trees (but it's most definitely not limited to those scenes).

There isn't much in the way of BLACK LEVELS but there are a couple of night scenes with amazing SHADOW DETAILS.

Well, you get the picture (hopefully!)....this is without a doubt a contender for one of the Top Five in Tier Blu, perhaps even a contender for the "King of the Hill." I looked up my review on _Rio_ and I was pushing for the number 6 spot (right below _Avatar_), along with fellow-member GRG. It ended up being assigned a much lower spot, which was a travesty, IMHO. This one has the first installment beat, so my thinking right now is this should be somewhere in the Top Three. Until I'm able to really compare this with _Monster University_ and _The Smurfs 2_, I'll opt for number 3....

*Tier Recomendation: Tier 0* (right below The Smurfs 2)*

Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^

I forgot to mention another glowing virtue in _Rio 2_...there are several scenes where the PHOTO-REALISM is simply amazing. In one of the jungle scenes trucks are racing along a road and the trucks and the jungle look SO REAL!!

I should also say a word about the movie itself which has been getting a bum rap by critics (and by some movie-goers as well). I found it quite enjoyable! It was well-paced with plenty of action and laughs. Add to that a fairly good soundtrack and you have a Blu-ray that you'll watch again and again. Even if you don't find the story as enjoyable as I did, you'll want repeated viewing just to give your eyeballs the sugar rush they deserve!!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

_Rio 2_ sounds like a true contender for the top spot. I probably won't get around to watching it, so someone else will have to chime-in on its merits. I can imagine the color palette being truly spectacular.


----------



## edlittle

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^
> 
> I forgot to mention another glowing virtue in _Rio 2_...there are several scenes where the PHOTO-REALISM is simply amazing. In one of the jungle scenes trucks are racing along a road and the trucks and the jungle look SO REAL!!
> 
> I should also say a word about the movie itself which has been getting a bum rap by critics (and by some movie-goers as well). I found it quite enjoyable! It was well-paced with plenty of action and laughs. Add to that a fairly good soundtrack and you have a Blu-ray that you'll watch again and again. Even if you don't find the story as enjoyable as I did, you'll want repeated viewing just to give your eyeballs the sugar rush they deserve!!


Is it necessary to watch the first before the second? I am thinking about going out and renting it just to get a glimpse of this eye candy!


----------



## djoberg

edlittle said:


> Is it necessary to watch the first before the second? I am thinking about going out and renting it just to get a glimpse of this eye candy!


By all means go out and rent it! The ideal would be to see _Rio_ first, but it certainly isn't necessary. In fact, I had forgotten much of what happened in the first installment but I was able to "figure things out" (i.e. make connections between the two).

Prepare to be WOWED!


----------



## rusky_g

djoberg said:


> By all means go out and rent it! The ideal would be to see _Rio_ first, but it certainly isn't necessary. In fact, I had forgotten much of what happened in the first installment but I was able to "figure things out" (i.e. make connections between the two).
> 
> Prepare to be WOWED!


Sounds like a winner! 

I picked up Need for Speed today.....ooooh it looks nice


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> _Rio 2_ sounds like a true contender for the top spot. I probably won't get around to watching it, so someone else will have to chime-in on its merits. I can imagine the color palette being truly spectacular.


_Rio_ (the first installment) was also a true contender for a place near the top. As I stated previously, GRG and I were making the case for it being placed right below _Avatar_, but others obviously weighed in with a different opinion and it was assigned a place well below the Top Ten. _Rio 2_ ups the ante with even greater details and texture, and more glorious colors as well. I'm hoping there will be many willing to at least rent this and that a consensus will be formed giving it a place that it deserves. IMO, that place would be in the Top Three, but I'll be happy if it makes it into the Top Five.


----------



## rusky_g

*Need for Speed
*
It's seldom we get a UK release before the USA do, so I picked this up today.

Firstly, Need for Speed should be applauded for its awesome black levels (night time petrol station scene is a MUST) and crystal clear picture which in parts is genuinely mesmerizing! Contrast is strong throughout and colours, especially greens, appear vivid and shiny. 

Part of me wants to say this is tier 0 but I need to step back and give a level headed, valued opinion to the thread followers. I'd say there was a few moments of weakness, shots which looked a bit dim and starved of depth. Albeit they were the minority, I felt they were significant enough to knock the ranking down a couple of pegs.

So I'm gonna go with...

*Tier 0.65*

EDIT - RANKING UPDATED AS ABOVE (From Tier 1.0 to 0.65)

Hi Guys

I went to work today and something was weighing on my mind - I felt bugged about giving Need for Speed a Tier 1.0 recommendation. Something was gnawing away at me, a feeling like I had done it an injustice somehow....was it those amazing blacks? was it those moments of AMAZING clarity?

So I done something odd, and quite amusing too.....I booked this afternoon off work to enjoy an (uninterrupted) re-run, to gauge if my original placement was right. After the viewing and also during, I felt compelled to call a re-rank...hey, a few of us have done this right? Maybe we see things a little different the next time round? 

I'd say a couple of scenes made me change my judgement - the night time ones when they first arrive at the Hotel and shortly after when Anita re-appears and talks to Tobey on the harbour side. There is terrific detail to be had here and the darkness of the nigh sky just catapults the PQ into orbit.

As for those weaker moments I spoke of previously? They perhaps account for 2 minutes of a film that's not far off 2 hours long. Be the judge when you view it, which I do recommend strongly, but for now I am putting this in Tier 0.....0.65 to be precise.

Russ


----------



## rusky_g

PS, I have to add that the audio mix was superb! Even though we get 5.1 here and bluray.com suggests the US disc has 7.1....


----------



## Phantom Stranger

rusky_g said:


> PS, I have to add that the audio mix was superb! Even though we get 5.1 here and bluray.com suggests the US disc has 7.1....


Which distributor released it in the UK?


----------



## rusky_g

Phantom Stranger said:


> Which distributor released it in the UK?


Entertainment One (eOne)


----------



## rusky_g

Guys, I have re-ranked *Need for Speed* to *Tier 0.65* - explanation given in main review post.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

The next update to the Tiers has not been published but the following scores are included in it. These are all the ones I have since the last official update. Speak now if you see an error. Going forward, there is no further need to use the spreadsheet entry form if you post the score in this discussion thread. I will keep the entry form and spreadsheet available in my signature but feel free to ignore them. It's easier at the end of the day when I do them all myself.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AoQ5HYzIbPQldGV3a25NNnFuTWxTX2NpTEpscThkOEE&usp=sharing

12 Years a Slave Tier 1.5 DarthDoxie
13 Sins* Tier 2.25 Phantom Stranger
3 Days To Kill* Tier 1.25 djoberg
300: Rise of an Empire* Tier 1.0 (Gold) djoberg
47 Ronin* Tier 1.75 wattheF
Abominable Dr. Phibes, The (UK)* Tier 3.5 Phantom Stranger
About Time Tier 1.0 (Gold) Phantom Stranger
Akira (Funimation)* Tier 1.75 Phantom Stranger
All Cheerleaders Die* Tier 2.75 Phantom Stranger
American Hustle Tier 2.75 rusky_g
An American Tail* Tier 3.25 Phantom Stranger
Anchorman 2* Tier 1.5 DarthDoxie
Anchorman 2* Tier 1.25 wattheF
AnoHana: The Flower We Saw That Day (complete collection)* Tier 1.0 (Gold) Phantom Stranger
Big Gundown, The* Tier 2.25 Phantom Stranger
Big Gundown, The* Tier 2.25 OppoMrSocko
Big Gundown, The* Tier 2.75 djoberg
Blazing Saddles (40th Ann.)* Tier 1.75 edlittle
C-Control: The Money and Soul of Possibility* Tier 1.0 (Gold) Phantom Stranger
Chris Isaak: Beyond The Sun Live!* Tier 2.75 Phantom Stranger
Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey* Tier 1.0 (Gold) mweflen
Countess Dracula* Tier 4.5 Phantom Stranger
Crocodile Dundee II* Tier 3.0 (Bronze) Phantom Stranger
Crocodile Dundee* Tier 2.5 Phantom Stranger
Dial M For Murder 3D Tier 3.0 (Bronze) Phantom Stranger
Dr. Phibes Rises Again* Tier 4.0 (Copper) Phantom Stranger
Drive Tier 0 (Blu) rusky_g
Elfie Hopkins* Tier 1.75 rusky_g
Family Plot Tier 4.5 jsnyder82
Flavia The Heretic* Tier 2.5 Phantom Stranger
Flying Tigers* Tier 4.5 Phantom Stranger
Frozen Tier 0 (Blu) Phantom Stranger
Gangster Squad Tier 1.5 rusky_g
Godzilla Vs. King Ghidorah* Tier 4.5 Phantom Stranger
Grace Unplugged* Tier 1.75 djoberg
Grand Budapest Hotel, The* Tier 1.5 Phantom Stranger
Gravity Tier 0 (Blu) DarthDoxie
Gravity Tier 0 (Blu) mweflen
Great Expectations (2012)* Tier 3.5 Phantom Stranger
Ground Control to Psychoelectric Girl: Complete Series* Tier 1.25 Phantom Stranger
Haganai: Next* Tier 1.25 Phantom Stranger
Hannie Caulder* Tier 2.25 Phantom Stranger
Harvey* Tier 2.0 (Silver) Phantom Stranger
Her* Tier 0 (Blu) fredxr2d2
Hereafter Tier 2.5 rusky_g
Hobbit, The: The Desolation of Smaug* Tier 0 (Blu) djoberg
Hobbit, The: The Desolation of Smaug* Tier 0 (Blu) rusky_g
Hobbit, The: The Desolation of Smaug* Tier 1.0 (Gold) wattheF
House of Cards: Season One* Tier 0 (Blu) djoberg
I, Frankenstein* Tier 2.0 (Silver) djoberg
I, Frankenstein* Tier 1.5 rusky_g
In Like Flint* Tier 2.0 (Silver) Phantom Stranger
Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit* Tier 1.75 djoberg
Jack The Giant Slayer Tier 0 (Blu) rusky_g
K: The Complete Series* Tier 1.0 (Gold) Phantom Stranger
Killer Nun* Tier 3.0 (Bronze) Phantom Stranger
Labor Day* Tier 1.25 Phantom Stranger
Lawrence of Arabia Tier 0 (Blu) Iain-
Legend of Hercules, The* Tier 3.75 wattheF
LEGO Movie, The* Tier 0 (Blu) wattheF
LEGO Movie, The* Tier 0 (Blu) fredxr2d2
LEGO Movie, The* Tier 0 (Blu) djoberg
Lone Ranger, The Tier 1.25 rusky_g
Lone Survivor* Tier 0 (Blu) djoberg
Lone Survivor* Tier 0 (Blu) wattheF
Man from Snowy River, The* Tier 3.25 djoberg
Maria Holic: Complete Collection* Tier 2.0 (Silver) Phantom Stranger
McLintock!: Authentic Collector's Edition* Tier 1.75 Phantom Stranger
Medaka Box Abnormal* Tier 1.75 Phantom Stranger
MM! Complete Collection* Tier 1.75 Phantom Stranger
Monuments Men, The* Tier 1.5 djoberg
Monuments Men, The* Tier 1.5 wattheF
Murder Obsession* Tier 2.5 Phantom Stranger
My Neighbor Totoro* Tier 2.5 Phantom Stranger
Need for Speed (UK)* Tier 0 (Blu) rusky_g
Non-Stop* Tier 1.5 djoberg
Oblivion Tier 0 (Blu)  tmavs
Oblivion Tier 0 (Blu) Johnny Vertigo
Operation Petticoat Tier 4.0 (Copper) Phantom Stranger
Pacific Rim Tier 0 (Blu) edlittle
Pit And The Pendulum, The (UK)* Tier 3.25 Phantom Stranger
Pompeii Tier 1.75 djoberg
R.I.P.D. Tier 1.5 rusky_g
Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale Tier 2.25 Phantom Stranger
Ray Donovan: Season One* Tier 1.0 (Gold) Phantom Stranger
Red 2 Tier 1.5 deltasun
Red Violin, The* (CA import) Tier 5 (Coal) ScottJ
Return To Nuke 'Em High Volume 1* Tier 1.25 Phantom Stranger
Revenge of the Nerds* Tier 3.75 Phantom Stranger
Rio 2* Tier 0 (Blu) djoberg
Rise of the Planet of the Apes Tier 1.0 (Gold) Johnny Vertigo
Rise of the Planet of the Apes Tier 1.0 (Gold) edlittle
Robocop (2014)* Tier 0 (Blu) rusky_g
Robocop (2014)* Tier 1.0 (Gold) djoberg
Robotics; Notes: Part 1* Tier 1.75 Phantom Stranger
Secret Life of Walter Mitty, The* Tier 1.75 wattheF
Secret Life of Walter Mitty, The* Tier 1.75 djoberg
Secret Life of Walter Mitty, The* Tier 1.5 rusky_g
Secret Life of Walter Mitty, The* Tier 2.0 (Silver) Phantom Stranger
Serial Experiments Lain: Complete Series* Tier 3.25 Phantom Stranger
Snow White and the Huntsman Tier 1.75 rusky_g
Son of Batman* Tier 1.75 Phantom Stranger
Spectacular Spider-Man, The: The Complete Series Tier 2.5 comperic2003
Stalingrad* Tier 1.25 rusky_g
Steins; Gate: Part 1* Tier 2.0 (Silver) Phantom Stranger
Steins; Gate: Part 2* Tier 2.25 Phantom Stranger
Still Mine* Tier 0 (Blu) Phantom Stranger
Superheroes: A Never-ending Battle* Tier 2.0 (Silver) Phantom Stranger
Terminator 2 Skynet Ed. Tier 3.75 mweflen
Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines Tier 2.25 mweflen
Terminator Salvation Tier 1.75 mweflen
The Devil's Rock (Canadian)* Tier 1.0 (Gold) Phantom Stranger
The Nut Job* Tier 0 (Blu) wattheF
The Terminator (Terminator Anthology Set) Tier 3.5 mweflen
The Wolf of Wall Street* Tier 0 (Blu) mweflen
The World's End* Tier 1.75 mweflen
Thor: The Dark World* Tier 1.25 djoberg
TimeScapes* Tier 0 (Blu) Tch0rT
Total Recall 1990 Mind Bending Edition Tier 3.0 (Bronze) mweflen
Tower Heist* Tier 1.5 rusky_g
Transcendence* Tier 1.75 Phantom Stranger
Transformers: The Movie (1986)* Tier 1.75 Phantom Stranger
True Grit (2010) Tier 1.5 rusky_g
Veronica Mars* Tier 1.5 Phantom Stranger
Way of the Wicked* Tier 0 (Blu) Phantom Stranger
Whip and The Body, The* Tier 3.75 Phantom Stranger
White House Down Tier 1.75 rusky_g
Winnie the Pooh: Springtime With Roo* Tier 1.25 Phantom Stranger
Winter's Tale* Tier 1.5 Phantom Stranger
Wolf Creek 2* Tier 0 (Blu) Phantom Stranger
Wolf of Wall Street, The Tier 0 (Blu) Phantom Stranger
Wolf of Wall Street, The* Tier 1.0 (Gold) wattheF
Wolverine, The (EE) Tier 0 (Blu) Phantom Stranger
Women, The (1939)* Tier 3.5 Phantom Stranger
Wonderwall* Tier 4.5 Phantom Stranger
Zeta One* Tier 3.25 Phantom Stranger


----------



## wattheF

rusky_g said:


> *Need for Speed
> *
> It's seldom we get a UK release before the USA do, so I picked this up today.
> 
> Firstly, Need for Speed should be applauded for its awesome black levels (night time petrol station scene is a MUST) and crystal clear picture which in parts is genuinely mesmerizing! Contrast is strong throughout and colours, especially greens, appear vivid and shiny.
> 
> Part of me wants to say this is tier 0 but I need to step back and give a level headed, valued opinion to the thread followers. I'd say there was a few moments of weakness, shots which looked a bit dim and starved of depth. Albeit they were the minority, I felt they were significant enough to knock the ranking down a couple of pegs.
> 
> So I'm gonna go with...
> 
> *Tier 0.65*
> 
> EDIT - RANKING UPDATED AS ABOVE (From Tier 1.0 to 0.65)
> 
> Hi Guys
> 
> I went to work today and something was weighing on my mind - I felt bugged about giving Need for Speed a Tier 1.0 recommendation. Something was gnawing away at me, a feeling like I had done it an injustice somehow....was it those amazing blacks? was it those moments of AMAZING clarity?
> 
> So I done something odd, and quite amusing too.....I booked this afternoon off work to enjoy an (uninterrupted) re-run, to gauge if my original placement was right. After the viewing and also during, I felt compelled to call a re-rank...hey, a few of us have done this right? Maybe we see things a little different the next time round?
> 
> I'd say a couple of scenes made me change my judgement - the night time ones when they first arrive at the Hotel and shortly after when Anita re-appears and talks to Tobey on the harbour side. There is terrific detail to be had here and the darkness of the nigh sky just catapults the PQ into orbit.
> 
> As for those weaker moments I spoke of previously? They perhaps account for 2 minutes of a film that's not far off 2 hours long. Be the judge when you view it, which I do recommend strongly, but for now I am putting this in Tier 0.....0.65 to be precise.
> 
> Russ


Ha! No worries and I hear ya. I did the same the other day with Lone Survivor. Originally ranked it 1.0 but just didn't feel right about that ranking so changed it to Tier 0.


----------



## edlittle

Seeing the 4 rankings of Walter Mitty reminds me that I ordered it and need to watch it again at home! Looking forward to checking it out.


----------



## rusky_g

Great work Phantom!

Now about that Noah review ;-)....


----------



## Phantom Stranger

rusky_g said:


> Great work Phantom!
> 
> Now about that Noah review ;-)....


Noah is coming soon.

*Blue Ruin
*
recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

An independent film distributed by Anchor Bay via The Weinstein Company, the thriller surpassed my picture quality expectations. This is well-shot cinematography framed in an expansive 2.39:1 aspect ratio. The technical compression parameters are passable for the clean-looking film, as seen in the BDInfo scan data below.



Code:


                                                                                                                 Total   Video                                             
Title                                                           Codec    Length  Movie Size      Disc Size       Bitrate Bitrate Main Audio  Track                          Secondary Audio Track
-----                                                            ------  ------- --------------  --------------  ------- -------  ------------------                        ---------------------
00009.MPLS                                                      AVC      1:30:24 18,319,970,304  22,720,838,588  27.02   21.69   DTS-HD Master  5.1 3619Kbps (48kHz/24-bit)

_Blue Ruin_ has superb contrast and excellent clarity. It lacks the kind of razor-sharp detail found in the best demo discs but the picture is sharp, detailed and vibrant. The digital intermediate has been left unfiltered and exhibits a very natural color palette. Shadow delineation often falls apart on independent films but _Blue Ruin_ has solid black levels with plenty of depth in its darker moments.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Garden State*

recommendation: *Tier 3.0**

A perfectly ordinary film transfer. I consider this BD the epitome of average picture quality and a classic example of Tier Three. The 2004 film was released a few months back by Fox with their normally high technical standards. This is an older film scan, indicating a somewhat dated transfer with dull color rendition and flat depth. A bit of minor filtering has gone on, most visible in the form of very tiny halos and ringing. The grain structure has not been greatly altered, leaving intact moderate gains in definition and clarity. The film master is in good condition, free of obvious damage in a mostly transparent image. It looks better than the upscaled DVD but lacks the type of superior resolution and pop of better cinematography.

It never really got off the ground but I was hoping to establish benchmark titles for each Tier category. If one wants to understand my idea of Tier Three, _Garden State's_ very average presentation is a perfect place to start.


----------



## edlittle

*The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (2013)
*
I agree with everyone that said the travel scenes were spectacular, but the scenes before were Tier 2 material. There was a significant amount of black crush in some scenes, but not in other scenes. This may have been a filmic look it was going for, however I noticed it in several scenes throughout the movie. The scenes in Iceland, the traveling through Afghanistan, and during his zoning out all had fantastic details, color, clarity, and for the most part, black levels, with some of the best distance scenes I have viewed. It was almost like they used a different camera in America and internationally. The international scenes were for sure reference, but because of the American scenes, I must dock it points.

The movie was spectacular, and I recommend everyone see it at least once. It is light hearted and reminds me of why I do what I do. The music, mostly sung by Jose Gonzalez, really fits the tone. The humor, for the most part, was spot on and had me laughing throughout.
*
Recommendation: Tier 1.5*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Noah*

recommendation: *Tier 0* (around In Time or 0.6)*

Paramount's new blockbuster delivers an amazing visual experience perfectly fit for the highest Tier. Some of the time-lapse imagery is truly stunning. The transfer is beautifully unfiltered, exhibiting incredible levels of razor-sharp detail in tighter shots. Reportedly costing $130 million, this is one film where every penny ends up on screen. Given the amount of CGI and digital composites to create Noah's world, there are virtually no seams hanging out in this demo-quality picture.

Noah's immense depth and dimensionality in the cinematography produces outstanding definition which leaps off the screen. Its digital color-grading walks the line of restraint, preferring a less vibrant palette drained of the brighter primary colors. There might be a little unnecessary teal but flesh-tones remain decidedly neutral. Black levels are impressive, layered with fantastic shadow detail.

I've seen better-looking films but rarely with this much CGI on the screen.


----------



## djoberg

*Transcendence*

This is a striking Blu-ray title....in outdoor, daytime scenes or in indoor scenes with good lighting. But outdoor, nighttime scenes and indoor shots with poor lighting suffer from some of the worst BLACK CRUSH that I've seen in recent transfers.

That about sums up the PQ. If I were rating this solely on the "good scenes," I'd be tempted to put it either into low Tier 0 or high Tier 1. The colors were a feast for the eyes, details were exemplary (especially facial texture and clothing), flesh tones were natural, sharpness and clarity reigned supreme, and the black bars disappeared completely into the surrounding bezel. Conversely, if I were rating this on most of the nighttime scenes or scenes indoors with poor lighting, I would be forced to consign this to low Tier 3 or even high Tier 4, for again, the black crush was horrendous. I know Phantom didn't say a word about this in his review, but other reviewers (online reviews such as DVDTalk) did and I had the same viewing experience as them.

A mixed bag, to be sure, so it's another hard one to call. I can't, with a good conscience, join Phantom in giving this a Tier 1 ranking, but I am willing to go with Tier Silver and I'll even be generous and put it on the top....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0**

Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> *Noah*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 0* (around In Time or 0.6)*
> 
> Paramount's new blockbuster delivers an amazing visual experience perfectly fit for the highest Tier. Some of the time-lapse imagery is truly stunning. The transfer is beautifully unfiltered, exhibiting incredible levels of razor-sharp detail in tighter shots. Reportedly costing $130 million, this is one film where every penny ends up on screen. Given the amount of CGI and digital composites to create Noah's world, there are virtually no seams hanging out in this demo-quality picture.
> 
> Noah's immense depth and dimensionality in the cinematography produces outstanding definition which leaps off the screen. Its digital color-grading walks the line of restraint, preferring a less vibrant palette drained of the brighter primary colors. There might be a little unnecessary teal but flesh-tones remain decidedly neutral. Black levels are impressive, layered with fantastic shadow detail.
> 
> I've seen better-looking films but rarely with this much CGI on the screen.


I hope to rent this before I leave on a business trip in early August. Thanks for whetting my appetite Phantom. I don't think I'm going to like the movie itself from all that I've read, but I can't pass up a Blu that may be reference quality in the PQ department.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> I hope to rent this before I leave on a business trip in early August. Thanks for whetting my appetite Phantom. I don't think I'm going to like the movie itself from all that I've read, but I can't pass up a Blu that may be reference quality in the PQ department.


I enjoyed it more than I expected, though it does have its problems.


----------



## rusky_g

*The Wolf of Wall Street*

Scorcese's latest hits Blu Ray with a dazzling transfer that's as flamboyant as the 'Wolf' himself.

Intentionally contrast heavy, the image is striking and detailed. Colours pop like Champagnes bottles and a syrupy warm glow adds to the over indulgent feel of the movie. Skin tones, particularly DiCaprio, appear disturbingly orangey but that's intentional. I generally find that 'office' scenes can be a weak point in terms of PQ but here they still looked pretty good. 

These days my PQ taste leans towards the more subtle look, however I have to say that here I was impressed beyond my expectation.

*Tier 0.75*


----------



## rusky_g

I see Hi-Def Digest has now reviewed Need for Speed - 5/5 for both PQ and Audio 

They also confirm 7.1 DTS which is kinda annoying for us UK folk who got 5.1!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Samurai Bride*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

The sequel to _Samurai Girls_ lands in the same spot as its predecessor. The two-disc set features a satisfactory AVC video encode. This anime is known for its very distinctive animation style with a very exotic multi-plane effect, adding a better sense of depth to the hand-drawn animation.

This is certainly one of the better looking anime programs on Blu-ray. The unusually thick line-art works very well in Hi-Def.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...pq-tiers-updated-through-march-27-2014-a.html

AVS Forum's Blu-ray Picture Quality Tiers are now current through the last post, found at the link above. One can ignore the March 27th date, I haven't figured out how to edit an existing thread's title with the new software. It can always be found as a sticky in the Blu-ray Software sub-forum. We are now very close to 4000 total entries, ranked for best video quality appeal. We could not have gotten to this point without all of the past and present contributors in this thread.

*Tier 0 - Blu Tier 1 - Gold Tier 2.0 - Silver Tier 3.0 - Bronze Tier 4.0 - Copper Tier 5.0 - Coal*
*0 - 1 - 1.25 - 1.5 - 1.75 - 2 - 2.25 - 2.5 - 2.75 - 3 - 3.25 - 3.5 - 3.75 - 4 - 4.5 - 5 -

*At the moment the above links are broken with the change in forum software. I'll look for a solution though if anyone knows if anchors still work on this new forum code, contact me.


Going over a few things that aren't explicitly laid out on the main page for newbies, feel free to report a mistake or broken link in the PQ Tiers in this discussion thread. The highest level of video quality, Tier Zero, is absolutely ordered from best to worst. _Monsters University_ remains the #1 ranked disc for the moment. Nothing in the Tiers is immutable, an entry can still be changed by community input or a re-evaluation in each update. I do not foresee the next update happening until October or November.

As I mentioned a few days ago, no one needs to use the Google spreadsheet entry form anymore. It will be kept open but there is no need to enter your own scores if you don't have the time. All scores posted in this discussion thread will get counted like always. I would like to thank all the regulars that used it but the form never gained the traction needed to make it worthwhile. It will now be an internal accounting system for the Tiers.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^


Thanks again Phantom for the countless hours you spend keeping this thread updated. I believe few, including me, have any idea the work that is involved.

I watched _Noah_ last night but I plan to go over a few scenes again before writing up a review. I was thoroughly impressed with the details and depth displayed from beginning to end. But there were a a couple of scenes at night (most notably the scene where Noah goes looking for wives for his two youngest sons) and then some shots in the Ark during the flood where the black levels didn't seem to be reference quality.


----------



## Nodscene

Not sure if I can make recommendations as I honestly don't know enough to properly judge. That being said I see that Dragon Hunters made it to Tier 0 and that is one of my favourites with what I thought was excellent PQ. Another I would love to see is The Secret of Kells. Not only is the story astounding (once you get into it) but the "animation" is absolutely gorgeous and well worth reviewing.


----------



## fredxr2d2

I watched *Noah* last night and I agree with what djoberg said.

I would put it in *Tier 0* near the middle.

The biggest thing I can say about it is textures Textures TEXTURES! Every single piece of homemade, handspun (or was made to look this way) clothing was absolutely mind-bogglingly clear. Like individual threads clear. And facial pores? EVERY SINGLE ONE. 

The only issue with the disc is occasional black levels, and even then, the rest of the film just looks so darn good.

I definitely recommend a rental on this one, just for the PQ and AQ (some nice deep booms and swishes as the floods come in).


----------



## djoberg

*Noah*

I haven't got time to revisit the movie, so after seeing fredxr2d2's review (where he confirmed what I saw in some of the black levels) I think I'm ready to commit to a recommendation. I really have nothing to add to the former reviews, for the DETAILS and TEXTURES were phenomenal, not only on facial close-ups and clothing, but in landscapes and in the *Watchers*. The color palette was quite dull, but I loved it every time they showed Adam and Eve, the serpent, and the apple....amazing colors, clarity, and details!!

The black levels simply were not the best I've seen, especially for a Tier Blu title, but I'm willing to overlook the few instances where they faltered...to a degree. If they had been reference quality I would be tempted to assign this to the middle of Tier 0, but I'm forced to drop it down a quarter of a tier....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.75)*

Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## djoberg

I meant to add a comment about the movie itself. Being a lover of the Bible, I found this movie, which is *supposed* to be based on the Biblical account of Noah and the flood, to be a travesty. It misrepresents the scriptures on so many levels that it's ridiculous.

Having said that, this IS Hollywood, and they're out to make money, not to retain Biblical accuracy when making a move based on the Bible. So it doesn't surprise me at all that the greatest liberties were taken in order to *entertain* the masses. I knew this before I rented it. I simply wanted to see a reference-quality Blu-ray, in spite of the gross misrepresentation of the Bible reflected in various characters and events. Some may not be willing to do so, and I would empathize with them in that sentiment and not blame them at all for passing this one by.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

There are definitely a couple of scenes inside the Ark where _Noah's_ black levels are sketchy at best. Considering the reference shadow detail and superior delineation in the rest of the film, I didn't really hold that segment against _Noah's_ ranking.

As for the film itself, it's definitely not aimed at religious audiences. Like most Hollywood blockbusters these days, it mostly uses the name recognition of its source material to help sell the movie. It does offer one of Russell Crowe's better performances in recent memory.


----------



## fredxr2d2

My understanding on Noah was that it was a midrash -- that is, a story told about and with the Biblical elements intended to discuss deeper (or different) philosophical or theological concepts. In this case, a discussion on whether or not human beings are worthy to be saved (or that is what I took away from it).

I think, in particular for this film, that some Christian audiences missed some of the point on what is, more or less, a way of telling a Jewish story--using a Jewish method of talking about Scripture. That said, I agree with Stranger and djoberg that the Hollywood aspects of any film often overlay the literary or other source material.

Still, PQ on Noah is very good and I think worth a watch for that alone, though I personally wouldn't buy it and probably don't plan on re-watching it anytime soon.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Noah does have a beautifully designed sequence retelling the creation story from Genesis, though I felt it a little out of place in the middle of the narrative.


----------



## rusky_g

Saving Mr Banks

Nice colours here echoing the films retro feel. I felt mid range shots looked prettier than close ups bar a few of Emma Thompson which revealed nice detail. Black levels were pleasing as was contrast. The flash back scenes were colour starved but that didn't stop them looking great! The worst scene in PQ terms was when Disney arrived at the home of PL Travers.

This wasn't the absolute cream of the crop but good enough to rank in Gold.

Tier 1.25


----------



## Kool-aid23

*Update*

Thank you for all you do.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Speaking of the new update, if anyone has strong feelings about the exact order at the very top of the PQ Tiers, bring them up. Given djoberg's score for _Rio 2_, it might have deserved a higher placement but I tend to err on the side of caution when it comes to entries with single votes at the very top.


----------



## wattheF

Phantom Stranger said:


> Speaking of the new update, if anyone has strong feelings about the exact order at the very top of the PQ Tiers, bring them up. Given djoberg's score for _Rio 2_, it might have deserved a higher placement but I tend to err on the side of caution when it comes to entries with single votes at the very top.


Everything looks good to me, mind you I haven't had a chance to watch Rio 2 yet. 

I was just glad to see Oblivion in tier 0 where it belongs! 

Good work Phantom.


----------



## HD-Master

djoberg said:


> I meant to add a comment about the movie itself. Being a lover of the Bible, I found this movie, which is *supposed* to be based on the Biblical account of Noah and the flood, to be a travesty. It misrepresents the scriptures on so many levels that it's ridiculous.
> 
> Having said that, this IS Hollywood, and they're out to make money, not to retain Biblical accuracy when making a move based on the Bible. So it doesn't surprise me at all that the greatest liberties were taken in order to *entertain* the masses. I knew this before I rented it. I simply wanted to see a reference-quality Blu-ray, in spite of the gross misrepresentation of the Bible reflected in various characters and events. Some may not be willing to do so, and I would empathize with them in that sentiment and not blame them at all for passing this one by.


I'm more upset that the Bible got it wrong.


----------



## hernanu

HD-Master said:


> I'm more upset that the Bible got it wrong.


----------



## djoberg

HD-Master said:


> I'm more upset that the Bible got it wrong.


It's funny you should say that (but not for the same reason that hernanu found it funny!), for I once tried to prove the Bible wrong. Guess what happened...IT PROVED ME WRONG! I was sitting as a judge upon the Word of God with the intention of proving it was filled with contradictions, myths, and fables, but as I continued to read it it became my judge and convicted me
of all the wrongs I had done. See Hebrews 4:12.

If men reject the Word, they will ultimately be judged by the very Word they reject. See John 12:47, 48.

I know the Forum is not the place for these kinds of discussions, but I had simply commented on the "movie" _Noah_ (and how it compared historically with the Bible), which we are allowed to do. Your reply to my post compelled me to respond to you.


----------



## |Tch0rT|

Religious views aside I found Noah to be boring... good sound and video but boring. I judge how boring a movie is by how often I get the feeling to grab my iPad. It was often... The battle scene was nice though.


----------



## djoberg

|Tch0rT| said:


> Religious views aside I found Noah to be boring... good sound and video but boring. I judge how boring a movie is by how often I get the feeling to grab my iPad. It was often... The battle scene was nice though.


I agree; it was boring. And aside from good performances by Emily Watson and Russell Crowe, the acting was poor to mediocre. But the Video/Audio was stellar and that kept me from reaching for my iPad.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Killer Joe*

recommendation: *Tier 1.25**

For some reason I thought _Killer Joe_ had already been ranked in the Tiers. The 2012 Blu-ray release by Lionsgate is a strong Tier One candidate, I'd be hard-pressed to argue if someone wanted it placed higher than this ranking. This is quality digital cinematography, courtesy of the ARRI ALEXA camera and great production values. It possesses exquisite levels of fine detail in a completely unfiltered digital transfer.

Its clarity is on par with many selections from Tier 0. Some blown-out fleshtones in a couple interior scenes take something away from the mostly impeccable video quality. A slightly flatter presentation is the main component keeping this out of a much higher ranking. In all other regards it's a clear winner.


----------



## fredxr2d2

*We're the Millers

Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.0*

Watching this comedy last night didn't have me distracted by any bad portions of the picture. While it can be argued that the black levels never go down very far, other than a few night sky scenes near the end, the main argument is that they don't need to.

This recent release is everything that you'd expect from a recent film and that puts it in Tier 1 for me. Not exemplary because it didn't stand out as being exceptional (like Noah), but nothing overwhelmingly displeasing either, so I couldn't justify rating it lower. Bright and colorful and right on the mark.

As far as the movie goes: I'd recommend it to fans of raunchy comedies, but with the stipulation that it is merely fun, and not a genre-breaker by any means (it doesn't stand out the way that The Hangover did, when I remember all my friends quoting endlessly after seeing it). That said, it is definitely worth a rent if you're a fan and don't mind a few f-bombs (or more than a few, depending on who you regularly spend time around).


----------



## djoberg

I'll be leaving early tomorrow for at least a week, but I'll be checking in from time to time to see any reviews that come in. I'm anxious to see how well _Divergent_ does and I believe it is released this Tuesday.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Thomas Crown Affair, The (1968)

*Recommendation: Tier 3.75*

Part of the Steve McQueen Collection, it's inconsistent. I was worried as the first scene unfolded as I would put it in the tier 5 quality but it picked up from there. Some shots reach into tier 1 such as the closeups during the chess match between McQueen and Fay Dunaway. Colors and flesh tones are good most of the time but blacks are washed out in many of the scenes. There are lots of split/multi screen shots which were cutting edge at the time. A few of these look pretty good but most show washed out colors and lots of dirt or print damage. They were all done optically so that's probably where the damage occurred with all the handling. The biggest thing that holds it back is the softness in many of the shots. Some troubling scenes but taken on the whole I'm satisfied with my placement.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Grand Budapest Hotel, The*

Recommendation: Tier 1.25

First off, this is a really fun watch and Wes Anderson makes some really great movies. Sharpness never waivers, colors are vibrant, and black levels are inky and never crushed. There are a variety of flesh tones and they all look natural. Just a nice overall presentation.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I thought the changing aspect ratios in _The Grand Budapest Hotel_ were going to end up being a gimmick but they pulled it off quite well.


----------



## wattheF

DarthDoxie said:


> *Grand Budapest Hotel, The*
> 
> Recommendation: Tier 1.25
> 
> First off, this is a really fun watch and Wes Anderson makes some really great movies. Sharpness never waivers, colors are vibrant, and black levels are inky and never crushed. There are a variety of flesh tones and they all look natural. Just a nice overall presentation.


That movie is incredible!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Accel World: Set 1*

recommendation: *Tier 1.75**

This anime release is noteworthy for the reference compression specs. Unlike other anime distributors on Blu-ray, Viz Media actually split the twelve episodes on Set 1 between two BD-50s. The AVC video encode has much higher parameters as a result, leading to a perfect video encode of what is presumably the Japanese broadcast master. The animation however is not quite as impressive, leading to a rock-solid presentation that doesn't sparkle with brilliance like better animated fare in 1080P resolution.

Accel World provides nice video quality with a wide-ranging palette of bright colors. The traditional hand-drawn animation does incorporate a few CGI elements.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Ironclad: Battle For Blood*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

A medieval siege flick hitting straight to video, Ironclad's sequel is usually sharp and has the occasional burst of outstanding resolution. However, this is one of the weaker looking ARRI ALEXA productions on Blu-ray. The sub-par AVC video encode on a BD-25 lacks complete and faithful transparency to the original Digital Intermediate, softening detail and introducing a handful of compression artifacts.

This was a movie made on the cheap in Serbia with a mostly Serbian crew. The digital grading lacks a vivid color palette, leaving a flat, lifeless quality for a new production. The transfer has been left unfiltered but there are minor lapses in high-frequency content, likely due to slipshod editing and questionable CGI.

While this review sounds overly harsh, the disc manages Tier Two standards with relative ease. More polish in the digital cinematography and less handheld work might have made this a Tier One contender.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Swimmer*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

I have no idea how Grindhouse Releasing does it but they've delivered another fantastic film transfer in _The Swimmer_. The PQ Tiers methodology can't quite capture how utterly film-like and authentic the 1080P video is on this disc. The ad copy on the back claims a "spectacular new digital restoration created from 4K scans for optimal picture quality." This is one case where the advertising does not lie, it's an utterly flawless reproduction of what the film should look like in beautiful clarity and detail. You really can't handle a film transfer with better practices, there is nothing in it except pure film reproduction in immaculate quality.

This is the same distributor that did a great job on _The Big Gundown's_ presentation. It appears they are cherry-picking the newest archival film scans by Sony and bestowing them with top-notch technical presentations. This Burt Lancaster film is profoundly interesting, a unique reflection of America in a different time.


----------



## rusky_g

Gambit (2012)

Daytime scenes looked excellent - see the park bench scene around the 1.00hr mark as the best example. In dimmer scenes however, shadow detail suffered with back crush swallowing up the picture. Any instance of a black dinner jacket, of which there were a few, fell foul to this downfall. Elsewhere, bar a couple of good facial close ups of Alan Rickman, the rest were forgetable. Fabric textures were most rewarding on the Major's tweed jacket.

Gambit had some high moments but just not enough to leave me buzzing.

Tier 2.0


----------



## wattheF

Phantom Stranger said:


> *The Swimmer*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 1.5**
> 
> I have no idea how Grindhouse Releasing does it but they've delivered another fantastic film transfer in _The Swimmer_. The PQ Tiers methodology can't quite capture how utterly film-like and authentic the 1080P video is on this disc. The ad copy on the back claims a "spectacular new digital restoration created from 4K scans for optimal picture quality." This is one case where the advertising does not lie, it's an utterly flawless reproduction of what the film should look like in beautiful clarity and detail. You really can't handle a film transfer with better practices, there is nothing in it except pure film reproduction in immaculate quality.
> 
> This is the same distributor that did a great job on _The Big Gundown's_ presentation. It appears they are cherry-picking the newest archival film scans by Sony and bestowing them with top-notch technical presentations. This Burt Lancaster film is profoundly interesting, a unique reflection of America in a different time.


With such a glowing review I was a bit surprised to see a rank of 1.5. May I ask what held you back from ranking it any higher?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

wattheF said:


> With such a glowing review I was a bit surprised to see a rank of 1.5. May I ask what held you back from ranking it any higher?


It's still a 1968 Technicolor film despite the fantastic transfer. _The Swimmer_ lacks the kind of depth and delineation seen in better ranked discs. A couple of scenes use soft-focus lenses for stylistic purposes and one extended shot near the end has exposure problems, likely inherent to the original cinematography. 

In terms of getting the most from a film's innate visual appeal, this is the absolute best catalog transfer I've seen in 2014. However, it's not the best-looking when you consider more expensive and professional productions. That honor would go to _The Agony & The Ecstasy_ since that film always looked better to begin with and received a nearly as great film transfer. I believe Sony's archival team prepped _The Swimmer's_ 4K master. They have gotten better and better in the past few years at getting everything possible out of a film scan and transparently replicating it in 1080P. 

It's truly stupendous work when everything comes together, like on _The Swimmer's_ Blu-ray. The film elements are in pristine condition with no apparent degradation, I don't believe the camera negative was getting handled much over the intervening years. Ironically, less popular movies tend to remain in better condition since the negatives are hardly ever touched.


----------



## wattheF

Phantom Stranger said:


> It's still a 1968 Technicolor film despite the fantastic transfer. _The Swimmer_ lacks the kind of depth and delineation seen in better ranked discs. A couple of scenes use soft-focus lenses for stylistic purposes and one extended shot near the end has exposure problems, likely inherent to the original cinematography.
> 
> In terms of getting the most from a film's innate visual appeal, this is the absolute best catalog transfer I've seen in 2014. However, it's not the best-looking when you consider more expensive and professional productions. That honor would go to _The Agony & The Ecstasy_ since that film always looked better to begin with and received a nearly as great film transfer. I believe Sony's archival team prepped _The Swimmer's_ 4K master. They have gotten better and better in the past few years at getting everything possible out of a film scan and transparently replicating it in 1080P.
> 
> It's truly stupendous work when everything comes together, like on _The Swimmer's_ Blu-ray. The film elements are in pristine condition with no apparent degradation, I don't believe the camera negative was getting handled much over the intervening years. Ironically, less popular movies tend to remain in better condition since the negatives are hardly ever touched.


Good stuff! Thanks for the info Phantom.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Before Midnight
*
recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

I could have sworn someone had already ranked this in the PQ Tiers but nothing turned up. Its picturesque setting in the Greek Isles makes for perfect demo material, despite it being a dialogue-laden film. _Before Midnight_ was filmed in crystal-clear definition with Arri cameras. Since there are no digital sets involved, you get pristine 1080P video practically untouched in post-production.

The transfer is flawless and has that type of window effect found in the best visual material. This Blu-ray presentation by Sony could definitely be ranked higher than the Tier 1.0 score I gave it. I thought the lack of extreme depth and pop were the only factors keeping it out of the highest level. A technically perfect BD with extremely appealing visuals from beginning to end. Now when are _Before Sunrise_ and _Before Sunset_ going to hit Blu-ray?


----------



## djoberg

*God's Not Dead*

I arrived home from our trip and found a copy of this movie in my mail, a gift from my oldest daughter. The PQ is quite good, with excellent DETAILS (in clothing, campus buildings, foliage, and especially in facial close-ups), appreciable DEPTH, warm and vibrant COLORS, satisfying BLACK LEVELS and SHADOW DETAILS, accurate FLESH TONES, and, in most scenes, above average SHARPNESS & CLARITY.

The only negatives that I noticed were some soft focus shots, a bit of noise in a couple of shots, and a few instances of banding.

If not for the rare anomalies just mentioned, I would be tempted to go with a low Tier 0 or a high Tier 1. It's still a definite Tier Gold contender and I'm in favor of....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**

Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....

Oh yeah, and for the record...GOD'S NOT DEAD!!


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^

Also, FTR, I'm not actually endorsing the movie itself, for I was disappointed in the approach the Christian filmakers took in *defending* the existence of God. They resorted to human reasoning and logic in debating the issue instead of simply using Scripture coupled with scientific facts to make their case.

The acting was also quite bad except for the two male leads and one really has to "suspend disbelief" on several occasions.

On a postive note, if you like the Christain Rock group _The Newsboys_ you'll like the ending!


----------



## HD-Master

djoberg said:


> ...and one really has to "suspend disbelief" on several occasions.


No kidding...


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Rage*

recommendation: *Tier 1.75**

Nicholas Cage's hairpiece shines in clear definition in his latest, direct-to-video film. Filmed using RED Epic cameras, the digital video is razor-sharp but lacks the kind of dramatic detail found in reference-caliber BDs. Some early scenes have a noticeable yellow push in their digital color-timing, turning flesh-tones into a slightly unnatural experience.

Aside from possible filtering on a few lead actors, this is clean video given a solid presentation in 1080P. There are no serious problems marring the transfer and this BD likely replicates _Rage's_ digital intermediate pretty well. Minor compression artifacts are introduced in a handful of the darkest scenes.


----------



## rusky_g

The Amazing Spiderman (2012)

I recall this disc getting lukewarm reviews upon release so I held off buying.

Picked it up this week for £6 and was not disappointed!

As noted, it's slightly darker than previous outings but that doesnt stop the Red Epic doing its thing as there is fantastic clarity and depth to be had here.

Much of the action takes place at night but thats a good thing - black levels are excellent and work in web spun harmony with perfectly pitched contrast.

Daytime scenes are slightly muted and restrained but still looked good. I could only count a few moments where the picture looked softer and less attractive.

Regardless, I remained impressed enough to rank this....

Tier 1.0


----------



## djoberg

rusky_g said:


> The Amazing Spiderman (2012)
> 
> I recall this disc getting lukewarm reviews upon release so I held off buying.
> 
> Picked it up this week for £6 and was not disappointed!
> 
> As noted, it's slightly darker than previous outings but that doesnt stop the Red Epic doing its thing as there is fantastic clarity and depth to be had here.
> 
> Much of the action takes place at night but thats a good thing - black levels are excellent and work in web spun harmony with perfectly pitched contrast.
> 
> Daytime scenes are slightly muted and restrained but still looked good. I could only count a few moments where the picture looked softer and less attractive.
> 
> Regardless, I remained impressed enough to rank this....
> 
> Tier 1.0


I did a Thread Search on this title and came up with nothing! I thought my placement recommendation was close to yours but I could be wrong. What is the exact title of this Blu?


----------



## rusky_g

djoberg said:


> I did a Thread Search on this title and came up with nothing! I thought my placement recommendation was close to yours but I could be wrong. What is the exact title of this Blu?


Im sure there was a review in this thread Denny. The disc is The Amazing Spiderman


----------



## rusky_g

Ps - I dont think the thread search facility is as good with the forum 'upgrade' so maybe thats the issue.


----------



## fredxr2d2

The name is actually "The Amazing Spider-man"

It's the hyphen vs. not-hyphened phrase that makes the difference to the search.


----------



## rusky_g

fredxr2d2 said:


> The name is actually "The Amazing Spider-man"
> 
> It's the hyphen vs. not-hyphened phrase that makes the difference to the search.


Thanks!


----------



## rusky_g

Phantom scored 1.5, Djoberg 1.25

Reviews on p659


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I keep a private master list of all scores, off this site. Here are the previous scores in the Tier thread for _The Amazing Spider-Man_:

1.5 The Phantom Stranger
1.5 Gamereviewgod
1.25 djoberg
1.5 patrick99

If I remember correctly, I thought _Amazing Spider-Man_ straddled the line between 1.25 and 1.5.


----------



## rusky_g

Thanks Phantom

At least we all agreed it wasn't tier 0

;-)


----------



## djoberg

I had forgotten it was hyphenated so hats off to fredxr2d2!


----------



## djoberg

rusky_g said:


> Thanks Phantom
> 
> At least we all agreed it wasn't tier 0
> 
> ;-)


But it came ever so close!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Joy Ride 3: Road Kill*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

This transfer looks to have been digitally smoothed on some level, despite its impressive clarity and contrast. The 2014 release is fairly sharp with inky black levels. On the surface level you would think this kind of picture quality might deserve a better ranking. Something is off about its high-frequency content and robotic-like consistency.

The less said about this movie, the better.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Devil Dog: Hound of Hell*

recommendation: *Tier 2.75**

This is a television film from the late Seventies, starring Richard Crenna. The now-defunct Blu-ray distributor Media Blasters put this out on BD back in 2011 through their Shriek Show imprint. I picked it up on a whim since new copies can be had for a song on eBay. Expecting a garbage transfer from a faded print, Media Blasters struck a fresh film transfer direct from the camera negative for this release. It packs a surprising amount of definition and detail, as the 35mm negative looks in nearly pristine condition as evidenced by the 1080P presentation.

These types of small independent distributors will often skimp and cut corners when they can but that is not the case with _Devil Dog_. Media Blasters gives it a BD-50 with a superb AVC encode. Properly retaining its original broadcast ratio of 1.37, the 95-minute main feature retains an unadulterated grain structure in mostly film-like fidelity. I say mostly, only because the transfer is a little too clean. There is possibly some minor filtering done to the transfer, though it does not interfere with the film's grain structure or significantly impacts its level of fine detail.

This is a cleanly-shot, brightly-lit film, common to television productions of the era. There is the occasional soft shot, intended to help out the female lead. The biggest visual problem is the bright picture, occasionally washing out the contrast. The color palette represents an average improvement in saturation over DVD resolution. Black levels are on the light side, not quite reaching inky levels of darkness.

It should be mentioned that two brief FX scenes, involving the actual form of the titular dog, are included in what appear to be from videotape sources. My guess is that the hokey FX were not included on their film source and Media Blasters had to utilize a videotape source for those scenes to be complete. They don't alter my grading, one lasts less than forty seconds and the second scene is a couple of minutes near the end.


----------



## wattheF

rusky_g said:


> Ps - I dont think the thread search facility is as good with the forum 'upgrade' so maybe thats the issue.


The upgrade was aweful and they still haven't fixed the issues. I can't even use the thread search on the mobile version.


----------



## rusky_g

Likewise Wtf :-(


----------



## wattheF

Rio 2

I was excited to see my son got this Blu as a birthday gift. The movie itself was fun and entertaining. 

As far as PQ goes...INCREDIBLE is how I would describe it! Rio looked excellent but the second installment takes it to another level.

Clarity and sharpness are as good as I have seen. I did a bit of pixel peeping and noticed that even from about 2 feet away from the screen the picture still looks perfect. That is the kind of PQ that reminds me of Monsters University! Textures and details of the animated characters is top notch. The detail in the backgrounds is also a clear level or 2 above most. There are some scenes with some very impressive photo realism. What really sets this Blu apart is the colors. Vibrant and punchy with a wide pallet. Black levels and contrast are also excellent. The onscreen depth was amazing with an almost 3D feel.
The picture is flawless all around.

I almost immediately realized that this disc would contend for a spot on the very top of the Tier 0 list. I can honestly say it should rank no lower than 2nd overall, right behind Monsters U. At this level it comes down such minute differences that without a side by side comparison it may be tough to pick one over the the other (that still may be inconclusive). Needless to say, this one is a real gem. Another viewing of each movie could lead to a different result but for now...

Ranking- Tier 0 (right behind Monsters U)

Viewed on Panasonic 60ST60 from a distance 6 feet.


----------



## wattheF

Divergent

Overall this is a good yet inconsistent offering from Lionsgate. I found the movie itself to be entertaining.

Aside from a couple fleeting soft shots, Divergent offers up a picture with very good detail and clarity with almost zero "film grain". There were some nice looking long distance landscape shots. Most closeups are sharp with a satisfying and realistic texture. This was also helped by the overall neutral, however limited, color pallet that lead to natural looking skin tones. Contrast was subtle yet satisfying. 

This was the case for most of the outdoor and indoor daylight scenes, which leads me to the negatives. There are two major issues holding back the PQ of this Blu.
Firstly, black levels. They range from mediocre to below average. On all dark scences blacks looked murky and washed out with lost shadow details. This also lead to a picture lacking in depth and punch at times.

The other issue is color banding! It's severe in a few scenes. This is unacceptable in my opinion. I also thought I may have seen some minor artifacting of some kind in a couple dark scenes.

I found these issues to be distracting and they can't be overlooked. They knock what could have been a solid mid tier Tier 1 blu down a notch (at least).

Ranking- 2.75


----------



## djoberg

wattheF said:


> Rio 2
> 
> I was excited to see my son got this Blu as a birthday gift. The movie itself was fun and entertaining.
> 
> As far as PQ goes...INCREDIBLE is how I would describe it! Rio looked excellent but the second installment takes it to another level.
> 
> Clarity and sharpness are as good as I have seen. I did a bit of pixel peeping and noticed that even from about 2 feet away from the screen the picture still looks perfect. That is the kind of PQ that reminds me of Monsters University! Textures and details of the animated characters is top notch. The detail in the backgrounds is also a clear level or 2 above most. There are some scenes with some very impressive photo realism. What really sets this Blu apart is the colors. Vibrant and punchy with a wide pallet. Black levels and contrast are also excellent. The onscreen depth was amazing with an almost 3D feel.
> The picture is flawless all around.
> 
> I almost immediately realized that this disc would contend for a spot on the very top of the Tier 0 list. I can honestly say it should rank no lower than 2nd overall, right behind Monsters U. At this level it comes down such minute differences that without a side by side comparison it may be tough to pick one over the the other. Needless to say, this one is a real gem. Another viewing of each movie could lead to a different result but for now...
> 
> Ranking- Tier 0 (right behind Monsters U)
> 
> Viewed on Panasonic 60ST60 from a distance 6 feet.


Excellent review! I agree 100% with your analysis. So, the next time Phantom does an update he can bump it up from #5 to #2 where it deserves to be placed!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Batman: Assault On Arkham*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

The new animated release from WB has somewhat ordinary animation and a video encode that falters with banding. They actually included the short main feature, running at 75 minutes, on a BD-50. That could have led to a better video encode with higher parameters, but the extra space largely goes to waste on a suspect AVC average common to WB's animated BDs.

As for the animation itself, _Batman: Assault On Arkham_ is darker than normal. The black levels are a little milky at times, surprising for pristine digital animation. Aside from the two-part Dark Knight Returns, WB's recent animated films hitting straight to video are the product of standard character designs and less-than-perfect fluidity.


----------



## rusky_g

Anyone seen The Railway Man yet? Looks like a high tier contender...


----------



## wattheF

djoberg said:


> Excellent review! I agree 100% with your analysis. So, the next time Phantom does an update he can bump it up from #5 to #2 where it deserves to be placed!


Thanks. Yes I think it's clearly a bit better than Smurfs 2.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

rusky_g said:


> Anyone seen The Railway Man yet? Looks like a high tier contender...


I know we were sent it for review but I think Gamereviewgod took it.



wattheF said:


> Thanks. Yes I think it's clearly a bit better than Smurfs 2.


Speaking of _Smurfs 2_, it's part of a 3 for $20 deal this week at Best Buy.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Knights of Badassdom*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

A rather newish release, coming out in April of this year. The Indie comedy/horror is courtesy Entertainment One, providing Knights with very solid technical parameters. The only scenes that truly falter are the ones set at night. The rest looks very good, probably deserving Tier One. 

It does lack top-notch detail, a result of the digital cinematography. The transfer has not been grossly tinkered with, this is crystal-clear imagery which is fairly sharp. Black levels could be better in the darkest shots but the consistent exteriors provide a pleasing contrast.


----------



## wattheF

Transcendence

I found this movie and bluray to be forgettable on all levels. Aside from maybe one or two interesting shots there is nothing all that visually compelling here. 

By today's standards the PQ overall is average at best. Shot on film rather than digital, the subtle yet always present level of film grain provided a pleasant overall feel. Generally speaking the majority of shots showed good clarity and sharpness but there was also plenty of softness in some shots, particularly darker scenes. The color pallet was limited but overall tended towards blue. I didn't see any abnormalities with the transfer.

The big problem with this Blu is black crush. The deepest black levels are very good but to fault. Shadow detail is poor and in some dark scenes almost non existent. Dark areas of the screen became an indistinguishable blob of blackness. The movie also was rather dim overall. Brightly lit day scenes looked good but for me this issue was bad enough to be distracting through much of the movie. 

I may be ranking it a tad generously here but...

Ranking- 2.75

Viewed on Panasonic 60" ST60 from a distance of 6.5 feet.


----------



## wattheF

wattheF said:


> Divergent
> 
> Overall this is a good yet inconsistent offering from Lionsgate. I found the movie itself to be entertaining.
> 
> Aside from a couple fleeting soft shots, Divergent offers up a picture with very good detail and clarity with almost zero "film grain". There were some nice looking long distance landscape shots. Most closeups are sharp with a satisfying and realistic texture. This was also helped by the overall neutral, however limited, color pallet that lead to natural looking skin tones. Contrast was subtle yet satisfying.
> 
> This was the case for most of the outdoor and indoor daylight scenes, which leads me to the negatives. There are two major issues holding back the PQ of this Blu.
> Firstly, black levels. They range from mediocre to below average. On all dark scences blacks looked murky and washed out with lost shadow details. This also lead to a picture lacking in depth and punch at times.
> 
> The other issue is color banding! It's severe in a few scenes. This is unacceptable in my opinion. I also thought I may have seen some minor artifacting of some kind in a couple dark scenes.
> 
> I found these issues to be distracting and they can't be overlooked. They knock what could have been a solid mid tier Tier 1 blu down a notch (at least).


EDIT* I am changing my original ranking of 2.75 and upping it a bit to 2.50. This is based on the fact that although black levels are not good at least shadow details Were retained in most scenes.(In contrast to a recent viewing of Transcendence, which had very deep black levels but at the cost off lost shadow detail). I have decided that if I really had to sacrifice one for the other I would prefer raised black levels with maintained shadow details over black crush.

Ranking- 2.50


----------



## fredxr2d2

wattheF said:


> I have decided that if I really had to sacrifice one for the other I would prefer raised black levels with maintained shadow details over black crush.


I totally agree on this. My BenQ doesn't have the deepest blacks, so I'd far prefer seeing things in shadows than for everything to be crushed (which just exacerbates the grayish blacks of the projector).


----------



## djoberg

wattheF said:


> Transcendence
> 
> I found this movie and bluray to be forgettable on all levels. Aside from maybe one or two interesting shots there is nothing all that visually compelling here.
> 
> By today's standards the PQ overall is average at best. Shot on film rather than digital, the subtle yet always present level of film grain provided a pleasant overall feel. Generally speaking the majority of shots showed good clarity and sharpness but there was also plenty of softness in some shots, particularly darker scenes. The color pallet was limited but overall tended towards blue. I didn't see any abnormalities with the transfer.
> 
> The big problem with this Blu is black crush. The deepest black levels are very good but to fault. Shadow detail is poor and in some dark scenes almost non existent. Dark areas of the screen became an indistinguishable blob of blackness. The movie also was rather dim overall. Brightly lit day scenes looked good but for me this issue was bad enough to be distracting through much of the movie.
> 
> I may be ranking it a tad generously here but...
> 
> Ranking- 2.75
> 
> Viewed on Panasonic 60" ST60 from a distance of 6.5 feet.


Whoa! 2.75 seems a bit harsh, but I do concur with you regarding the black crush. I emphasized the same thing in my review. But I also thought (and said) that the daytime, outdoor scenes, which were plentiful, were very good and bordered the two top tiers. I went with a 2.0 rating and Phantom gave it a 1.75. It will be interesting to see what others have to say; that is, if others are inclined to see this movie and then chime in.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

There were definite issues in several scenes of _Transcendence_. As I said in my review, it was a visual disappointment for noted cinematographer Wally Pfister's first movie as a director. I thought its best bits were cribbed from _The Lawnmower Man_.


----------



## wattheF

djoberg said:


> Whoa! 2.75 seems a bit harsh, but I do concur with you regarding the black crush. I emphasized the same thing in my review. But I also thought (and said) that the daytime, outdoor scenes, which were plentiful, were very good and bordered the two top tiers. I went with a 2.0 rating and Phantom gave it a 1.75. It will be interesting to see what others have to say; that is, if others are inclined to see this movie and then chime in.


You are probably right that I am being a bit harsh. Maybe I am too focused on the negatives and that overwhelmed it's positives for me, but I really just didn't find anything about its PQ excellent or even great. It's top ranking aside from its issues would have been a 1.75. I docked a full point for the aweful black crush. you could say that is a bit harsh but if I am feeling nice it would still be a 2.50.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^

I guess you weren't as impressed as I was with the daytime scenes. That's okay, for there will always be a *subjective* nature (based on several factors, including one's display, seating position, distance from display, and even the viewer's own set of EYES) involved in placing these Blu-rays, which will inevitably cause divergent opinions. I have noticed that you are very consistent in your reviews, as well as honest. I respect that and couldn't ask for anything more. 

Using the word "divergent" reminds me of how I've been trying, in vain, to rent _Divergence_ at our local video store. They purchased several Blu-rays to rent out, but they have all been gone the three times that I've visited the store.


----------



## wattheF

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^
> 
> I guess you weren't as impressed as I was with the daytime scenes. That's okay, for there will always be a *subjective* nature (based on several factors, including one's display, seating position, distance from display, and even the viewer's own set of EYES) involved in placing these Blu-rays, which will inevitably cause divergent opinions. I have noticed that you are very consistent in your reviews, as well as honest. I respect that and couldn't ask for anything more.
> 
> Using the word "divergent" reminds me of how I've been trying, in vain, to rent _Divergence_ at our local video store. They purchased several Blu-rays to rent out, but they have all been gone the three times that I've visited the store.


Thanks. I do try to be consistent and balanced in my reviews. I don't often sugarcoat things in anything I do. Sometimes differences in opinion do come into play though.


----------



## rusky_g

What this thread needs is another Need for Speed review ;-)


----------



## djoberg

rusky_g said:


> What this thread needs is another Need for Speed review ;-)


I just rented a copy this afternoon Russ. I'll be watching it later today or sometime tomorrow.


----------



## rusky_g

djoberg said:


> I just rented a copy this afternoon Russ. I'll be watching it later today or sometime tomorrow.


Excellent - Kuro will enjoy the blacks and the SVS will enjoy the cars


----------



## djoberg

*A Serious Man*

Just call me a "Johnny-Come-Lately," for I wasn't able to rent this when it came out a few years ago but thanks to a real *friend* (who lent me a copy) I was able to view it this afternoon. I'm an avid fan of anything by the Coen Brothers so I've wanted to see this for a very long time, and especially with the rave reviews this received in the PQ department.

I was a bit letdown with the movie itself, though it was still quite "watchable." But I was not at all disappointed in the PQ department. It was a very CLEAN, SHARP and DETAILED Blu-ray with excellent BLACK LEVELS and SHADOW DETAILS. It currently resides in Tier 0 at approximately .33. It holds up very well for being a few years old, but I would be inclined to drop it a smidgen (due to a less-than-stellar start, where the first 6-7 minutes had well below average PQ) to the following ranking....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (.66)* 

Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## djoberg

rusky_g said:


> Excellent - Kuro will enjoy the blacks and the SVS will enjoy the cars


Sounds good Russ! I'm pumped to watch it and hope to see it later tonight.


----------



## wattheF

300:Rise of an Empire

Regardless of the fact that this movie is not without its issues (namely lack of plot and character development), I was thoroughly entertained, and enjoyed every minute of it.

300:Rise of an Empire bluray is a highly stylized visual feast. There are some really impressive scenes/shots in this movie with good use of CGI and creative cinematography. Most shots are sharp with very good clarity, but softness does pop up from time to time. The stark gray/black color scheme with splashes of gold hue and other color (often blood red), and cranked up contrast (that make some of the whites look blown out) may not be everyone's cup of tea. Although shadow detail is only average, the black levels are excellent. 
When done right (as is the case in many scenes) the combination of these elements provides a very dynamic, even captivating image. Too bad the PQ wasn't a bit more consistent. 

The picture isn't without its technical issues. Partially due to the "look" that is achieved, it certainly isn't the cleanest picture. There seemed to be a higher than normal "noise" level. Based on the fact that I noticed this most in the brightest areas, I am thinking this may have something to do with the exaggerated contrast levels. There also may be some other processing going on, but I couldn't seem to pinpoint what it was. 

In my opinion, these issues were not excessive and didn't detract much from the overall viewing experience. 

Ranking: 1.50

Viewed on Panasonic 60" ST60 from a viewing distance of 6.5 feet.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*That's My Man*

recommendation: *Tier 4.0**

Olive Films has dug deep into Paramount's vaults for this black-and-white film from 1947, starring a young Don Ameche. The press material indicates the film transfer was mastered from "archival film elements." It sports decent grain reproduction and preserves the intended 1.37 aspect ratio, though there are the occasional rough spots. This is not a pristine negative free of gate scratches and nicks. The archival film elements are largely unrestored, including a handful of scenes in fairly poor condition. The rest of the transfer is rather decent with fine clarity and a steady contrast. Some minor fluctuations in the black levels lead to early crushing, limiting shadow delineation.

Most interesting about this disc is that it restores _That's My Man_ to its original length of 99 minutes. A much shorter version has circulated for decades. This is not an award-winning presentation by Olive Films but one that should satisfy interested film-lovers. There are no technical deficiencies with the 1080P presentation, Olive Films follows their standard practices with a competent AVC video encode that does not interfere with the film's fidelity.


----------



## djoberg

*Need For Speed*

The credits are rolling and my heart is still pumping wildly after that adrenaline rush of a movie!! It may not win any Oscars, but it sure was a FUN RIDE!!! 

And then add to that some of the best PQ I've seen this year and you most definitely have a winner! Russ said I was going to love the KURO levels....uh, I mean the "BLACK levels" (wait a minute, KURO means BLACK so I was right the first time ), and he wasn't kidding. They were phenomenal! Wait until you see the nighttime scenes of San Francisco...simply AMAZING (and the panoramic views of New York City at night weren't too shabby either!).

The CONTRAST was slightly spiked, giving the COLORS just the right boost, rivaling those in the _Fast & Furious_ series! FLESH TONES were spot-on perfect! DEPTH was infinite in many scenes! SHARPNESS & CLARITY were off the charts in most scenes!!

Did I forget anything? Oh yeah, DETAILS were unbelievably mesmerizing...facial features, clothing, cars, foliage, city streets, and last, but not least, the panoramic views of the Pacific Coast Highway during the "race of races!"

My colleague Russ gave this a 1.0 and then, after some reflection, came to his senses and boosted it to Tier 0 (.65). I'm inclined to go even higher....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.5)*

PS The audio ROCKED, especially the revving of engines as the races started. The surround action was stellar throughout!

Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Phantom Stranger

It sounds like reference material. I did not have much interest in _Need For Speed_ but now I might have to check it out.


----------



## rusky_g

djoberg said:


> *Need For Speed*
> 
> The credits are rolling and my heart is still pumping wildly after that adrenaline rush of a movie!! It may not win any Oscars, but it sure was a FUN RIDE!!!
> 
> And then add to that some of the best PQ I've seen this year and you most definitely have a winner! Russ said I was going to love the KURO levels....uh, I mean the "BLACK levels" (wait a minute, KURO means BLACK so I was right the first time ), and he wasn't kidding. They were phenomenal! Wait until you see the nighttime scenes of San Francisco...simply AMAZING (and the panoramic views of New York City at night weren't too shabby either!).
> 
> The CONTRAST was slightly spiked, giving the COLORS just the right boost, rivaling those in the _Fast & Furious_ series! FLESH TONES were spot-on perfect! DEPTH was infinite in many scenes! SHARPNESS & CLARITY were off the charts in most scenes!!
> 
> Did I forget anything? Oh yeah, DETAILS were unbelievably mesmerizing...facial features, clothing, cars, foliage, city streets, and last, but not least, the panoramic views of the Pacific Coast Highway during the "race of races!"
> 
> My colleague Russ gave this a 1.0 and then, after some reflection, came to his senses and boosted it to Tier 0 (.65). I'm inclined to go even higher....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.5)*
> 
> PS The audio ROCKED, especially the revving of engines as the races started. The surround action was stellar throughout!
> 
> Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


Denny - your review has made my day - couldn't agree more with all what you said!


----------



## djoberg

*Divergent*




wattheF said:


> Divergent
> 
> Overall this is a good yet inconsistent offering from Lionsgate. I found the movie itself to be entertaining.
> 
> Aside from a couple fleeting soft shots, Divergent offers up a picture with very good detail and clarity with almost zero "film grain". There were some nice looking long distance landscape shots. Most closeups are sharp with a satisfying and realistic texture. This was also helped by the overall neutral, however limited, color pallet that lead to natural looking skin tones. Contrast was subtle yet satisfying.
> 
> This was the case for most of the outdoor and indoor daylight scenes, which leads me to the negatives. There are two major issues holding back the PQ of this Blu.
> Firstly, black levels. They range from mediocre to below average. On all dark scences blacks looked murky and washed out with lost shadow details. This also lead to a picture lacking in depth and punch at times.
> 
> The other issue is color banding! It's severe in a few scenes. This is unacceptable in my opinion. I also thought I may have seen some minor artifacting of some kind in a couple dark scenes.
> 
> I found these issues to be distracting and they can't be overlooked. They knock what could have been a solid mid tier Tier 1 blu down a notch (at least).
> 
> Ranking- 2.75


I agree with much of this review (especially his comments about the inconsistency of this offering and the lackluster black levels), with two exceptions. He makes mention of "a couple of fleeting soft shots," where I saw MANY soft shots/blurry shots sprinkled throughout the 2+ hour running time. The other difference was his issue with "color banding" being "severe in a few scenes," for even though I noticed a couple of instances of banding they were NOT severe.

Again, we agree on most points, for at times there is "very good detail and clarity" with "some nice-looking long distance landscape shots." Close-ups were indeed "satisfying" with "realistic texture." The color palette was, for the most part, muted, though when primaries appeared one is rewarded with pleasing EYE CANDY. Most of these *virtues* could be seen in either bright, daytime shots or, if indoors, with plenty of light. A majority of nighttime shots or indoor shots with dim lighting resulted in the bad black levels referred to earlier, as well as the soft/blurry shots.

This is NOT a disc that I would use to convince one of the virtues of HD technology. That's not to say it's bad, or even one fit for one of the three lower tiers. But I must agree with my colleague that this is destined for Tier 2, though I would bump it up a notch or two....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25**

Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^

I realized after I sent this that wattheF had changed his placement from 2.75 to 2.50, so we are really close in our assessment. I must say that this was a rare outing for Lionsgate, which typically has excellent PQ. What surprised me the most was the inconsistency of this transfer; one minute it was sharp, detailed and offering appreciable depth; and the next minute it was soft and flat (though some detail was still to be seen in those shots). Again, this is NOT normal for a company like Lionsgate.


----------



## fredxr2d2

Djoberg and wattheF -- do you think the soft shots etc. are a result of the compression and encode on the disc or are they inherent to the photography? I'm thinking that that distinction will make it clear whether or not Lionsgate is to blame or if it was the DP to begin with.

P.S. Not all that personally interested in Divergent in particular, but thought it would be interesting to get your thoughts on the causes of poor performance for this very recent release.


----------



## djoberg

fredxr2d2 said:


> Djoberg and wattheF -- do you think the soft shots etc. are a result of the compression and encode on the disc or are they inherent to the photography? I'm thinking that that distinction will make it clear whether or not Lionsgate is to blame or if it was the DP to begin with.
> 
> P.S. Not all that personally interested in Divergent in particular, but thought it would be interesting to get your thoughts on the causes of poor performance for this very recent release.


I would lean towards the encode itself. If it were simply the photography (and thus the Director's choice), there wouldn't be such inconsistency. It can go from sharp with considerable depth to soft and flat in seconds and in the same scene. This speaks to the encode and not the photography. The more I think about the softness, flatness and underwhelming black levels, the more I think I may have been too generous in my rating of 2.25.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

fredxr2d2 said:


> Djoberg and wattheF -- do you think the soft shots etc. are a result of the compression and encode on the disc or are they inherent to the photography? I'm thinking that that distinction will make it clear whether or not Lionsgate is to blame or if it was the DP to begin with.
> 
> P.S. Not all that personally interested in Divergent in particular, but thought it would be interesting to get your thoughts on the causes of poor performance for this very recent release.


The softness is likely endemic to the principal photography, most modern video encoders don't purposely soften the transfer unless it is a conscious decision by the filmmakers in post. I've mentioned it in the past, but the banding is almost certainly a fault of Lionsgate's older AVC encoders. Their Blu-ray video encodes show a consistent pattern of undithered banding, common to the AVC hardware of a few years ago. Their authoring firm is using outdated software settings or older hardware. You don't see that type of banding anymore from the other major studios on new releases with sufficient compression parameters.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^

Thanks Phantom for the info posted above. So, your thought about the "principal photography" being the cause for the softness begs the question, "Why would a camera, in this case the Arri Alexa, produce a sharp picture one second and a soft picture the next?"


----------



## djoberg

I purchased a copy of _The Amazing Spider-Man 2_ yesterday and plan to watch it tonight or tomorrow. Many reviewers are calling it reference material and are giving it 5 Stars for both Video and Audio. Needless to say, I'm excited to see (and hear) it!!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> I purchased a copy of _The Amazing Spider-Man 2_ yesterday and plan to watch it tonight or tomorrow. Many reviewers are calling it reference material and are giving it 5 Stars for both Video and Audio. Needless to say, I'm excited to see (and hear) it!!


I would love to see someone rank the new Disney catalog releases, including _Hercules_ and _Tarzan_. Their secondary Blu-rays have received maddeningly inconsistent transfers, running the gamut from embarrassing to stellar work.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> I would love to see someone rank the new Disney catalog releases, including _Hercules_ and _Tarzan_. Their secondary Blu-rays have received maddeningly inconsistent transfers, running the gamut from embarrassing to stellar work.


Those titles don't exactly appeal to me, but if I get a string of rainy days and my other half goes to visit our daughters in Minneapolis, I may just give them a rent.


----------



## wattheF

djoberg said:


> fredxr2d2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Djoberg and wattheF -- do you think the soft shots etc. are a result of the compression and encode on the disc or are they inherent to the photography? I'm thinking that that distinction will make it clear whether or not Lionsgate is to blame or if it was the DP to begin with.
> 
> P.S. Not all that personally interested in Divergent in particular, but thought it would be interesting to get your thoughts on the causes of poor performance for this very recent release.
> 
> 
> 
> I would lean towards the encode itself. If it were simply the photography (and thus the Director's choice), there wouldn't be such inconsistency. It can go from sharp with considerable depth to soft and flat in seconds and in the same scene. This speaks to the encode and not the photography. The more I think about the softness, flatness and underwhelming black levels, the more I think I may have been too generous in my rating of 2.25.
Click to expand...

I would agree with Phantom on this. It seemed to me that the issue was inherent in the photography itself.


----------



## wattheF

djoberg said:


> *Need For Speed*
> 
> The credits are rolling and my heart is still pumping wildly after that adrenaline rush of a movie!! It may not win any Oscars, but it sure was a FUN RIDE!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then add to that some of the best PQ I've seen this year and you most definitely have a winner! Russ said I was going to love the KURO levels....uh, I mean the "BLACK levels" (wait a minute, KURO means BLACK so I was right the first time
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ), and he wasn't kidding. They were phenomenal! Wait until you see the nighttime scenes of San Francisco...simply AMAZING (and the panoramic views of New York City at night weren't too shabby either!).
> 
> The CONTRAST was slightly spiked, giving the COLORS just the right boost, rivaling those in the _Fast & Furious_ series! FLESH TONES were spot-on perfect! DEPTH was infinite in many scenes! SHARPNESS & CLARITY were off the charts in most scenes!!
> 
> Did I forget anything? Oh yeah, DETAILS were unbelievably mesmerizing...facial features, clothing, cars, foliage, city streets, and last, but not least, the panoramic views of the Pacific Coast Highway during the "race of races!"
> 
> My colleague Russ gave this a 1.0 and then, after some reflection, came to his senses and boosted it to Tier 0 (.65). I'm inclined to go even higher....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.5)*
> 
> PS The audio ROCKED, especially the revving of engines as the races started. The surround action was stellar throughout!
> 
> Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


I totally agree. Need for Speed Audio and video= WOW! I would be inclined to rank it even a tick higher.

In fact the surround action may have been a bit too good. Think I blew out my tweeters


----------



## wattheF

This new update (not sure if it's mobile version only) is so 
S L O W...Also is anyone else have trouble getting the master list page to open?


----------



## rusky_g

wattheF said:


> This new update (not sure if it's mobile version only) is so
> S L O W...Also is anyone else have trouble getting the master list page to open?


Another awful upgrade for mobile users!

Sorry to hear about your tweeter 

But glad you liked Need for Speed!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

wattheF said:


> I totally agree. Need for Speed Audio and video= WOW! I would be inclined to rank it even a tick higher.
> 
> In fact the surround action may have been a bit too good. Think I blew out my tweeters


I tend to dial action soundtracks back for fear of damaging something. Some of these surround monsters run very hot. The woofers can usually take it.


----------



## djoberg

wattheF said:


> I totally agree. Need for Speed Audio and video= WOW! I would be inclined to rank it even a tick higher.
> 
> In fact the surround action may have been a bit too good. Think I blew out my tweeters


Sorry to read about your tweeters! That was a loud soundtrack, so I lowered my volume to -12. I will normally listen much closer to reference, usually around -5 or -6. Perhaps this saved some of my tweeters!


----------



## djoberg

wattheF said:


> I would agree with Phantom on this. It seemed to me that the issue was inherent in the photography itself.


You and Phantom may very well be right, but I'm still not understanding how that's possible. Is it a misuse of the camera by the cameraman while shooting a scene? Or is it due to other factors involved in the photography? I know they used the Arri Alexa throughout the shooting and normally this results in a very consistent picture. Again, in several scenes it would be sharp with good depth and then, all-of-a-sudden, it would turn soft and flat. There wasn't a change of scenery or lighting involved, so what factor(s), involved in the photography, could cause this to happen?


----------



## djoberg

We have company tonight and hope to view _The Amazing Spider-Man 2_. But we're all die-hard Vikings fans so we will be watching at least the first half of the Vikings game first. We're obviously in for a long night and I may not get to reviewing it until sometime tomorrow.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

There are so many possible complicating factors it's hard to say with any certainty.


----------



## djoberg

rusky_g said:


> Another awful upgrade for mobile users!
> 
> But glad you liked Need for Speed!


Yes Russ, it is indeed an "awful upgrade for mobile users!" In fact, I avoid checking the Forum with my iPhone 5 due to this.

I'm so impressed with _Need For Speed_ that I'm going to buy it; that is, after they lower the price a bit. It's almost $25 on Amazon and I refuse to pay for $20 for a Blu-ray these days unless it's an exceptional title.


----------



## djoberg

Here are the comments on the Video on _Divergent_ from Hi-Def Digest:

*The Video: Sizing Up the Picture


Shot entirely on the Arri Alexa series of digital HD cameras, 'Divergent' debuts on Blu-ray with a flat and boring 1080p/AVC MPEG-4 encode that deviates from expectations.

On the whole, the presentation is pretty good with plenty of sharp detailing in the clothes, buildings and surrounding foliage. Facial complexions appear natural and warm with strong lifelike textures during close-ups. The overall palette seems deliberately limited, but primaries remain true and full-bodied. Sadly, the freshly-minted transfer is also a bit inconsistent with many noticeably blurry scenes, likely thanks to poor CGI effects, and contrast that wavers often from spot-on to bland. Blacks are generally murky and grayish, though there a few sequences which appear accurate. At times, the 2.40:1 image comes with a good deal of depth but will suddenly turn lackluster and dull within the same conversation. Most problematic is the many instances of glaringly obvious banding*. (End of Quote)

Notice that his viewing experience mirrors my own in that he too saw an image with good depth but then it suddenly turned "lackluster and dull within the same conversation."


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Rushed CGI is always a possible cause in those kind of films.


----------



## rusky_g

djoberg said:


> Yes Russ, it is indeed an "awful upgrade for mobile users!" In fact, I avoid checking the Forum with my iPhone 5 due to this.
> 
> I'm so impressed with _Need For Speed_ that I'm going to buy it; that is, after they lower the price a bit. It's almost $25 on Amazon and I refuse to pay for $20 for a Blu-ray these days unless it's an exceptional title.


I support your decision to purchase NfS. Not an oscar winner like you say, but definitely a watchable AV experience!


----------



## wattheF

Phantom Stranger said:


> I tend to dial action soundtracks back for fear of damaging something. Some of these surround monsters run very hot. The woofers can usually take it.





djoberg said:


> Sorry to read about your tweeters! That was a loud soundtrack, so I lowered my volume to -12. I will normally listen much closer to reference, usually around -5 or -6. Perhaps this saved some of my tweeters!


Guess I will need to be more careful and dial it back a bit more. Funny thing is I always listen within the -25 to -15 db. Range, and never have gone much above -10 for any period of time.


----------



## djoberg

*The Amazing Spider-Man 2*

I am blessed! This is the 3rd Blu-ray viewing in one week that is a strong Tier 0 contender.

A Sony release which was mastered in 4K, the results are evident from the opening shot to the rolling of the credits. There are DETAILS galore in every area, including my all-time favorite...FACIAL CLOSE-UPS. SHARPNESS abounds...CONTRAST is strong...COLORS are vivid...FLESH TONES are accurate...BLACK LEVELS are deep...SHADOW DETAILS are mesmerizing...and DEPTH is stellar in many scenes. The only censure I could possibly give would be a couple of soft shots in a few of the CGI scenes.

I believe I gave the first installment a 1.25 ranking; this is clearly an improvement worthy of the top Tier. My vote goes for....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (.75)*

Viewed from 6' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## fredxr2d2

*Lone Survivor*

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (bottom quarter)*

After waiting months for this title from Netflix, it finally came this week and I was able to watch it.

Wow. Not only did this film exhibit wonderful textures and beautiful black levels and shadow details, but I am tempted to place it higher in the _visual_ tiers for how good it_ sounded_. What a sub workout and wonderful surround experience.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I know this doesn't need to be mentioned but one's enjoyment of a film's mix or soundtrack should not be a consideration in ranking discs for the PQ Tiers. It's not called the AQ/PQ Tiers. There is a separate thread for ranking audio quality on Blu-ray.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^

That was a good reminder for everyone Phantom.

I comment occasionally on the Audio Mix when it is exceptionally good so that those who have a 5.1/7.1 surround system can also look forward to *hearing* the Blu-ray they'll be watching.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Muppets Most Wanted

Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (bottom quarter)*

Details, clarity, sharpness! From beginning to end, this is a nice presentation that never dipped in quality. The fur and texture in all the Muppets was nice and clear. Colors really popped and flesh tones were natural. Black levels were deep and never murky. This is what all new release Blu-rays should look like.

Side note: the sound track was in DTS-HD HR 7.1, a lossy format not seen very often. Sorry Phantom


----------



## tmavs

I couldn't handle more than 45 minutes of Need for Speed, it was mind numbingly boring. I only watched it due to the good PQ ratings and even that could not keep me hooked. I'll have to watch this over multiple viewings.


----------



## djoberg

tmavs said:


> I couldn't handle more than 45 minutes of Need for Speed, it was mind numbingly boring. I only watched it due to the good PQ ratings and even that could not keep me hooked. I'll have to watch this over multiple viewings.


You're kidding, right? I found it to be somewhat *cheesy* throughout, but definitely NOT boring (especially during any of the race scenes). I also really liked every scene with Michael Keaton; he was an AWESOME DJ (or whatever you would call him as he broadcasted the race that he sponsored).

Regarding the fact that the good PQ couldn't keep you hooked, you're obviously not the Video/Audio junkie that I am!


----------



## rusky_g

+1


----------



## fredxr2d2

*Bad Words

Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.75*

Mainly, the low recommendation (IMO for a new release) is due to the significant color timing issues on this piece -- the majority of the film has been done in the almost-sepia orange/teal arrangement that seems to be more noticeable because it actually doesn't have any teal moments. All of the skin tones were colored and bronzed, except in a few moments where the film shows the "televised" spelling bee. That said, textures and black levels were spot on and led me to not reduce the rating further. In fact, other than the color timing and some of the weird "looks like public TV" effects, I'd say this was a fairly well-done modern release--comparable with anything else I've seen lately. Facial details were exhibited and individual eyelashes on the child actor could be seen in nearly every scene. Even a toy car showed lots of detail in close-ups.

In comparison to Lone Survivor, which I also watched this weekend, Bad Words was a significant drop in quality for it's inability to correctly display skin tones and other colors, while maintaining similar levels of details in faces and clothing. That said, the picture quality is clearly how the Director (Jason Bateman, making his directorial debut) or the Cinematographer (Ken Seng from Quarantine and Project X) intended and so I personally don't see a need to place it further down the tiers.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

There has to be a dictate going around Hollywood that colorists must destroy natural fleshtones in comedies. Even horror films have shown better creative choices of late than the rote application of skewed timings in Hollywood's comedies. If the film schools are teaching that now, I have no idea what market it's aimed at.


----------



## djoberg

I rarely rent comedies today because of the pervasive *orange* color-timing that characterizes the vast majority of contemporary comedies. They are generally worse than the *teal* color-timing employed in many of today's Sci-Fi or Action movies.


----------



## djoberg

Something just came up which may cause me to leave on another trip tomorrow morning, but I will be looking forward to "checking in" from time to time to see new reviews. I'd really like to see more reviews on _Need For Speed_. Don't let that post earlier today (where a member found it boring) hinder you from seeing this. There is PLENTY of action in it and superb EYE CANDY!


----------



## wattheF

DarthDoxie said:


> *Muppets Most Wanted
> 
> Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (bottom quarter)*
> 
> Details, clarity, sharpness! From beginning to end, this is a nice presentation that never dipped in quality. The fur and texture in all the Muppets was nice and clear. Colors really popped and flesh tones were natural. Black levels were deep and never murky. This is what all new release Blu-rays should look like.
> 
> Side note: the sound track was in DTS-HD HR 7.1, a lossy format not seen very often. Sorry Phantom


We have the last Muppet Movie on blu and the PQ is excellent. I'm sure this new one is even better.


----------



## tmavs

djoberg said:


> Regarding the fact that the good PQ couldn't keep you hooked, you're obviously not the Video/Audio junkie that I am!


Haha, maybe I'm not the AV junkie that I thought I was 

Maybe I was in the wrong frame of mind because I watched NFS after watching the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.


----------



## djoberg

tmavs said:


> Haha, maybe I'm not the AV junkie that I thought I was
> 
> Maybe I was in the wrong frame of mind because I watched NFS after watching the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.


I see from your Home Theater build that you are most definitely an AV junkie in some respects! 

Did you ever see any of the _Fast & Furious_ franchise? If so, did you like them? Some people simply don't enjoy flashy cars and racing and to them it would be boring.


----------



## tmavs

djoberg said:


> I see from your Home Theater build that you are most definitely an AV junkie in some respects!
> 
> Did you ever see any of the _Fast & Furious_ franchise? If so, did you like them? Some people simply don't enjoy flashy cars and racing and to them it would be boring.


The first two FF's were entertaining, I haven't watched the remaining sequels. 

To complicate things even further... I'm a huge car fan, drive a Toyota 86, been to F1 GP, watched every episode of Top Gear.

And for everyday viewing I have a Pioneer 508.

Love cars: check
Love AV: check


----------



## djoberg

tmavs said:


> The first two FF's were entertaining, I haven't watched the remaining sequels.
> 
> To complicate things even further... I'm a huge car fan, drive a Toyota 86, been to F1 GP, watched every episode of Top Gear.
> 
> And for everyday viewing I have a Pioneer 508.
> 
> Love cars: check
> Love AV: check


Now I'm really baffled! Your "loves" should have caused you to "like" _Need For Speed_. This is an enigma and may not ever be solved! 

Good to hear you're a fan of Pioneer!


----------



## djoberg

My trip was postponed until next week. I hope to squeeze one or two Blus in before I leave. Any suggestions?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> My trip was postponed until next week. I hope to squeeze one or two Blus in before I leave. Any suggestions?


Orson Welles' _Touch of Evil_? Probably not a BD you could rent at the local store. As for newer releases, _The Quiet Ones_ just came out.

*Shame*

recommendation: *Tier 3.5**

A flat, uninvolving film experience, translated perfectly in this Fox BD. _Shame_ doesn't really push the color palette too hard. There are no obvious problems in the transfer, the cinematography is restrained with heavy black levels and underwhelming contrast. A perfect AVC video encode is not tested except in one scene late in the film, choked with exposure problems.

This looked and felt a lot more like a tiny arthouse film than anything else. Fine detail and overall definition are middling for a newish movie.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> Orson Welles' _Touch of Evil_? Probably not a BD you could rent at the local store. As for newer releases, _The Quiet Ones_ just came out.


_The Quiet Ones_ sounds interesting, even though the majority of *critics* and most moviegoers are slamming it big time. Have you seen it Phantom? You know I like a good horror show and especially one that doesn't rely on gratuitous violence to satisfy, so perhaps this one will work for me.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> _The Quiet Ones_ sounds interesting, even though the majority of *critics* and most moviegoers are slamming it big time. Have you seen it Phantom? You know I like a good horror show and especially one that doesn't rely on gratuitous violence to satisfy, so perhaps this one will work for me.


Not yet but I plan on seeing it. I have seen _The Possession Of Michael King_ which came out today, it's not for the faint of heart and one of the scariest movies released in some time. It has very good A/V quality, including a soundtrack you'll need to turn down in volume. Some truly disturbing imagery and content in it, however.


----------



## fredxr2d2

*The Amazing Spider-man 2 3D

Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (middle)*

Watching this last night was a revelation in how 3D can add to a film. Honestly, the movie itself is very OK, but the 3D effects were quite good. That's not to even start to mention the textures, the little blue veins on Jamie Foxx or the inherent detailed photography. What this didn't suffer from (as opposed to some other recent 3D BD efforts -- I'm looking at Thor: The Dark World and the first The Amazing Spider-man) was darkness due to the addition of the 3D glasses. Every single scene exhibited strong detail and black levels were never or rarely crushed by the additional dimness of the glasses.

Overall there are rare times that I will say that 3D adds to a film -- this is another instance where I think the 3D effects make the film better.

If you want to know, IMO, only these 3 deserve 3D BD:

1. Gravity
2. Avatar
3. The Amazing Spider-man 2

Everything else, so far in my experience, has not been an "addition" to the film, but merely an extra gimmick. That's not to say that certain films don't also look good in 3D (animated titles, STID, and Prometheus being examples), but that overall my enjoyment of the film rarely needs 3D effects.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^

Thanks for the excellent review! I don't suppose you'd want to give the 2D version a viewing? I would love to hear your impressions on that and what your placement recommendation would be.


----------



## fredxr2d2

I'm guessing it would be in a similar position, based upon other reviews I've read.

I'll see if I have time for the 2D version, but, in all honesty, the 3D did actually seem to add to an otherwise mediocre film. I'll definitely chime in if I watch the 2D.


----------



## djoberg

fredxr2d2 said:


> I'm guessing it would be in a similar position, based upon other reviews I've read.
> 
> I'll see if I have time for the 2D version, but, in all honesty, the 3D did actually seem to add to an otherwise mediocre film. I'll definitely chime in if I watch the 2D.


Many (actually, MOST) professional reviewers will give the 2D version a HIGHER score because of a brighter picture and more vibrant colors, but in this case...maybe not (I say that because of your stellar comments on the 3D version).


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Djoberg is correct, normally 3-D editions feature less vibrant colors and contrast than their 2-D counterparts. There is a huge loss of depth in the transition as expected.


----------



## fredxr2d2

djoberg said:


> Many (actually, MOST) professional reviewers will give the 2D version a HIGHER score because of a brighter picture and more vibrant colors, but in this case...maybe not (I say that because of your stellar comments on the 3D version).


I know exactly what you mean: i.e. the first The Amazing Spider-man included quite good 2D video quality (from my recollection after seeing it multiple times), but the 3D was overly dark and obscuring--this despite the fact that the film was natively filmed in 3D and looked phenomenal at the cinema using Sony 4K projectors with RealD 3D polarizers and glasses.

This second film was mostly not filmed in 3D and I didn't see it at the cinema but did a blind buy (based on my love for Spidey) and yet it exhibited bright colors and no scenes were noticeably obscured by the added dimness of the 3D glasses. I'm willing to bet that the 2D presentation is as close to flawless as most of the films in Tier 0.

My time this week is taken up by some mundane things, as well as a "bender" on Superman, with watching the original 1978 film last night and planning on watching Richard Donner's cut on Saturday/Sunday following with Superman Returns. It's a nice little trilogy, though PQ is lacking - I'm much less confident placing things in the lower tiers than I am in pointing out strong contenders in the top 2 tiers. If I get any extra time to revisit Amazing Spider-man 2, I'll definitely let everyone know. For the meantime, I'd definitely recommend a rental for PQ alone.


----------



## Famouss

Has anyone had a chance to watch Oculus yet? There hasn't been many reviews of the BD from what I've seen.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Famouss said:


> Has anyone had a chance to watch Oculus yet? There hasn't been many reviews of the BD from what I've seen.


I'd like to see it at some point, though now I will likely wait until Halloween. Fox seemed embarrassed by it, they didn't even bother to send me a review copy. Along similar lines, I have seen _Cabin Fever: Patient Zero_ and _The Possession of Michael King_ in the past couple of weeks. The Cabin Fever sequel has no real connection to Eli Roth's original movie and is barely worth a rental. _The Possession of Michael King_ is a great scary movie for R-rated horror.

*Cabin Fever: Patient Zero*

recommendation: *Tier 2.75**

The Image BD has no major video problems, exterior shots have nice clarity and solid definition. Using the RED Epic digital camera, picture quality takes a significant dip as the action moves to night and displays poor shadow delineation. Struck from a clean Digital Intermediate, the new production has its moments. Shot on location in the Dominican Republic, there are some fantastic water vistas and sun-drenched beaches. It's not the most polished digital cinematography I've seen with the RED but is a satisfactory effort. There are some minor problems with the AVC video encode's transparency.

*The Possession of Michael King*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

This horror film looks a lot better except for the few night-vision shots. It has a very clean, video-like appearance with sharp detail and immense clarity. An even contrast and neutral colors help provide a consistent level of video quality. The transfer has not been unduly processed in post and retains its pristine nature without compression artifacts.


----------



## Famouss

Phantom Stranger said:


> I'd like to see it at some point, though now I will likely wait until Halloween. Fox seemed embarrassed by it, they didn't even bother to send me a review copy. Along similar lines, I have seen _Cabin Fever: Patient Zero_ and _The Possession of Michael King_ in the past couple of weeks. The Cabin Fever sequel has no real connection to Eli Roth's original movie and is barely worth a rental. _The Possession of Michael King_ is a great scary movie for R-rated horror.
> 
> *Cabin Fever: Patient Zero*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 2.75**
> 
> The Image BD has no major video problems, exterior shots have nice clarity and solid definition. Using the RED Epic digital camera, picture quality takes a significant dip as the action moves to night and displays poor shadow delineation. Struck from a clean Digital Intermediate, the new production has its moments. Shot on location in the Dominican Republic, there are some fantastic water vistas and sun-drenched beaches. It's not the most polished digital cinematography I've seen with the RED but is a satisfactory effort. There are some minor problems with the AVC video encode's transparency.
> 
> *The Possession of Michael King*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 1.5**
> 
> This horror film looks a lot better except for the few night-vision shots. It has a very clean, video-like appearance with sharp detail and immense clarity. An even contrast and neutral colors help provide a consistent level of video quality. The transfer has not been unduly processed in post and retains its pristine nature without compression artifacts.


Thanks for the reviews. Being a completest, I'll definitely rent Cabin Fever 3 but I'm not expecting much from this one. I enjoyed the Ti West sequel way more than the original.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Famouss said:


> Thanks for the reviews. Being a completest, I'll definitely rent Cabin Fever 3 but I'm not expecting much from this one. I enjoyed the Ti West sequel way more than the original.


Ti West unfortunately is not back for this new sequel. The new one is a Cabin Fever movie mostly in name only. The flesh-eating virus is back, however.


----------



## djoberg

*The Quiet Ones*

I'll say it from the outset...this one will be a HARD CALL due to the mixed bag of digital and stock film used.

Regarding the *digital* shots, they were, for the most part, quite good. In saying that I'm referring especially to close-ups where facial texture was excellent, along with fine detail in clothing, campus buildings, furniture in homes, etc.

Regarding the *stock film*, every shot was quite bad. You had some flashback footage that was terrible, and then you had almost one third of the movie being filmed by a student for a documentary. It was a cropped picture (that automatically *stretched* a few seconds in) and it was soft, speckled, flat, lacking detail, and had horrendous black levels.

I would put the "good" somewhere in Tier 1 (or high Tier 2) but the "bad" in Tier 4. In trying to "even things out" I would have to go with....

*Tier Recommendation: 3.5**

There was one redeeming quality in this Blu....the AUDIO!!

Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## djoberg

Famouss said:


> Has anyone had a chance to watch Oculus yet? There hasn't been many reviews of the BD from what I've seen.





Phantom Stranger said:


> I'd like to see it at some point, though now I will likely wait until Halloween. _The Possession of Michael King_ is a great scary movie for R-rated horror.
> 
> beaches. It's not the most polished digital cinematography I've seen with the RED but is a satisfactory effort. There are some minor problems with the AVC video encode's transparency.
> 
> *The Possession of Michael King*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 1.5**
> 
> This horror film looks a lot better except for the few night-vision shots. It has a very clean, video-like appearance with sharp detail and immense clarity. An even contrast and neutral colors help provide a consistent level of video quality. The transfer has not been unduly processed in post and retains its pristine nature without compression artifacts.


I wish I had more time before my trip to view both of these titles. In spite of Fox being embarrassed by _Oculus_, I've read some good reviews on it and can't wait to see it. But I'm really pumped to see _The Possession of Michael King_ after reading BOTH of your reviews Phantom. It sounds DOUBLY GOOD, with the "scare factor" AND the "PQ" being so good.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

So what did you think of the film itself, is it any good? Somewhere along the way, faux documentary footage became the style du jour seen in horror movies. I think Hollywood has taken that approach as far as it can go and it's become predictable. I didn't mention this but _The Possession of Michael King_ is centered on a guy making a...documentary. Thankfully, the director kind of drops it in the middle of the movie.


----------



## djoberg

It started out promising and it had some good acting, but as time went on the need to "suspend disbelief" became too frequent! It did have some very decent scares though, thanks to the amazing AUDIO mix.

I'm with you concerning the "documentary footage." I forgot to mention that it became somewhat *jerky* at times...true to form for documentary footage!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

A complete 5.1 surround system can do wonders for a horror film. It's probably the first genre I think of where a good audio mix and sound design can noticeably improve a movie. Horror directors, do not skimp on the audio mixing.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Hour of the Gun* (region-free Australian import)

recommendation: *Tier 3.75**

The James Garner movie has only been released on Blu-ray in Australia, by regional distributor Shock Entertainment. Little has been written about this rare BD, so I am open to answering any questions about it. Shock licensed this transfer from MGM, it was originally a United Artists release from 1967. This is a region-free Blu-ray and any player can handle it, including North American players.

The main feature runs 101 minutes on a BD-25, presented in its native widescreen aspect ratio at 1080P resolution. The AVC video encode runs at satisfactory bitrates occasionally topping 30 Mbps, though it does struggle to fully replicate the mostly-intact grain structure from the Panavision film without minor artifacts. It features classic studio cinematography of the period typical for westerns. This transfer actually exhibits quality depth and dimension for vintage film, _Hour of the Gun_ has razor-sharp imagery. Its rich contrast and deep color fidelity are nicely enhanced on Blu-ray, this is obviously a Hi-Def transfer with gains to be seen from DVD.

I know some are waiting for the reasons why I've stuck it at the bottom of Tier Three. Most of the movie has serious ringing and halos play a regular part of the mostly otherwise film-like experience. This is an older MGM film transfer after all. The Hi-Def transfer is a dated one struck from the original negative with obvious signs of processing, almost certainly intended for DVD resolution when it was struck. The print has fairly periodic speckling, a little manual clean-up would do wonders for this film's elements. Bits of positive and negative damage manifest themselves on occasion, albeit limited to specific sections.

With no domestic version in sight for _Hour of the Gun_, this Australian version is adequate but could have been improved. Removing its over-sharpened halos would immediately improve the film scan's natural picture quality, likely ending up in Tier 3.0 at worst. I still think it's a decent improvement in visual quality from DVD. The MGM DVD was not properly flagged for anamorphic playback and has severe combing.


----------



## djoberg

*Arachnophobia*

This has been a favorite of mine for years and I was able to pick it up recently at a very good price. This is the *Remastered* release (the first release was horrible on all counts from everything I've read), which came out in 2012. I was pleasantly surprised on how good it looks for a movie this old.

This is NOT perfect, for the first 12-13 minutes had a few issues, notably extreme softness as the cameraman panned the Venezuelan landscapes as a helicopter makes its way into the deep jungle. Blacks levels were also less-than-stellar in that chapter and it lacked depth.

But from the 13 minute mark it literally came alive, with warm and vibrant COLORS (and very natural-looking too!), exquisite DETAILS & DEPTH, measurable SHARPNESS & CLARITY, and spot-on FLESH TONES. BLACK LEVELS weren't the best, but at least I didn't notice any instances of crush or murkiness. There was some banding/noise in a scene towards the end in the wine cellar, but other than that it was void of anomalies.

If you're a fan of this title, by all means pick up a copy. You'll be treated to some decent EYE CANDY in most scenes. If not for the first 12 minutes, some occasional softness, and the scene alluded to earlier in the wine cellar, I would be tempted to assign this to the top of Tier 1. But in fairness it must be penalized, though a half tier drop should suffice....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**

Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I was really tired last night when I gave my *initial* review so I left out a very important observation. The film had a nice "filmic-look" to it, thanks to a fine layer of grain. I also neglected to comment on specifics when referring to the DETAILS, but I simply loved the fine details in clothing, faces, hair, foliage, etc. One of my favorite scenes is a yard party given by an elderly lady for the "new doctor in town" (Jeff Daniels). This features nearly all the virtues mentioned in my review in a scene lasting 5-10 minutes. It was so natural-looking with great depth and beautiful colors and it reminded me of the best Hitchcock movie (for PQ, that is) that I reviewed this last winter. 

I had mentioned that this Blu was "remastered." When Disney was about to give out their Blu-ray release to reviewers to weigh in prior to distributing it to the general public, they quickly realized it was a mess with horrendous black levels and terrible contrast and they withdrew the initial release and gave it a remaster. KUDOS to Disney for doing the right thing! Again, it's not perfect, but it's still demo-worthy, and for a title from 1990 that quite the feat (especially when you consider that this movie was not on the level of a Hitchcock movie or any other great catalog titles).


----------



## djoberg

I leave early tomorrow morning (for real!), so I'll be checking in to see what reviews are coming in. Some of us are still waiting to see more reviews on _Need For Speed_!


----------



## fredxr2d2

Speaking of *Need for Speed
*
Netflix sent this to me on Friday, right before the long weekend, and amongst various trips and family outings, I was able to watch it yesterday. Wow. PQ is excellent. Everything is bright, crystal clear, and well worth watching (the movie itself is about up there in Fast and Furious quality of storytelling, so as long as you're expecting the right level, you'll be pleased to feast on the eye candy).

Definitely in lower Tier 0 -- *0.75* by my reckoning.

The reason lower Tier 0 is actually because of one instance of banding that I encountered. Honestly, if I hadn't been a regular reader of this thread and a member of AVSForum in general, I don't think I would've seen it as it was in the opposite corner of the screen from where the action was taking place, so your eyes were supposed to be focused on the people on the left, while the banding happened in the upper right corner in the night sky. Other than that, everything about this film was absolutely spot-on and crisp and clear and everything that I would expect from a recent release on blu.


----------



## fredxr2d2

As far as the other movies that I watched this past week:

I don't disagree with any of the placements as they are now, though considering _Need for Speed_ and other Tier 0 quality titles, these other releases look less than stellar.

*Superman: The Movie* (1978) -- I might be tempted to place this in Tier 3, but I will say that several moments in the film were Tier 0 quality transfers, while the rest stayed in the Tier 3 range, but those several moments give you insight as to where it could be with a better transfer, so I see no need to move it in the Tiers.

*Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut* -- Wow. And not in a good way. Mostly soft, blown out contrast, just really an overall mess. Tier 4 is correct placement. While the test footage used showed softer focus and less polish, even the scenes from the theatrical cut were just mostly gross overall.

_*Superman Returns*_ (2006) -- Considering _Superman: The Movie_'s placement in the Tiers, this is obviously a better contender for PQ. However, not as much as you might think. Excessive BANDING (this looked like I watched it off of Netflix Streaming, and not on blu-ray) and an overall soft focus gives this blu a PQ not much better than the movie that came almost 30 years prior. My suspicion is that the softer focus actually makes the CGI elements blend better and that it was used intentionally. Also, it should be noticed that this movie exhibits perhaps the worst case of orange/teal that I've yet seen. The entire movie has been color timed to a muddy/dirty mess. That isn't to say that many moments of clarity in textures were evident, but too few to move it anywhere farther up and some cases may be made for moving it down (but, I'd argue that there are many moments of clarity that redeem the other shortcomings).


----------



## Phantom Stranger

_Superman Returns_ really does look like garbage for a blockbuster movie produced in the past decade. There are too many PQ problems to mention in a brief passing. I think the restoration and film scans given the original Superman films are exemplary. A few have criticized the color changes but they strike the right balance between new-age revisionism and what the filmmakers originally intended before 70's technology got in the way. If you run a search in this thread, there is a lot of good information about those film transfers.


----------



## fredxr2d2

Phantom Stranger said:


> _Superman Returns_ really does look like garbage for a blockbuster movie produced in the past decade. There are too many PQ problems to mention in a brief passing. I think the restoration and film scans given the original Superman films are exemplary. A few have criticized the color changes but they strikes the right balance between new-age revisionism and what the filmmakers originally intended before 70's technology got in the way. If you run a search in this thread, there is a lot of good information about those film transfers.


Thanks Phantom. I ran a search and read a bunch of posts (almost makes me want to go back and read from the beginning...but I'm not sure I have that kind of time on my hands). Very interesting info about the transfers and about the films. I very much enjoy the tiers -- thanks Phantom and everyone else!


----------



## tmavs

tmavs said:


> I couldn't handle more than 45 minutes of Need for Speed, it was mind numbingly boring. I only watched it due to the good PQ ratings and even that could not keep me hooked. I'll have to watch this over multiple viewings.


Seems I stopped watching just before this got more interesting  I found the second half of this movie a lot more fun. 

I have to agree with the *Tier 0* ranking recommended by others. I found issues with a few of the night scenes and will have to rewatch and compare with other Tier 0 titles to give a more accurate ranking.


----------



## rusky_g

The Book Thief

This is a very clear presentation with some of the best day time scenes I've seen. Dimensionality is almost 3D at times and fabric detail in particular was extremely good. Less appealing were some of the darker scenes where murky blacks were apparent more than once. For this reason I have to dock points accordingly. Otherwise I remained impressed.

Tier 1.25


----------



## djoberg

rusky_g said:


> The Book Thief
> 
> This is a very clear presentation with some of the best day time scenes I've seen. Dimensionality is almost 3D at times and fabric detail in particular was extremely good. Less appealing were some of the darker scenes where murky blacks were apparent more than once. For this reason I have to dock points accordingly. Otherwise I remained impressed.
> 
> Tier 1.25


Good review Russ! You and I are on the same page, for the most part. You referred to "murky blacks" and I cited "softness" in those scenes, but I'm thinking we were still seeing the same anomaly.

Well, I may be back earlier than I anticipated. Right now my wife and I are sipping on lattes at a coffee shop in Grand Marais, MN, right on the shore of beautiful Lake Superior. The harbor here looks like a postcard of a quaint fishing village on the eastern seaboard or perhaps on the coast of the Mediterranean.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

So what Tier is the Lake in?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

This is only marginally related to the PQ Tiers but the following BDs are in low supply from Twilight Time:

OUR MAN FLINT - Fewer than 250 remaining
AS GOOD AS IT GETS - Fewer than 400 remaining
THE DRIVER - Fewer than 500 remaining
LEAVE HER TO HEAVEN - Fewer than 500 remaining; *Tier 1.75*
BYE BYE BIRDIE - Fewer than 600 remaining
HARD TIMES - Fewer than 600 remaining
BELL, BOOK, AND CANDLE - Fewer than 650 remaining

Prior history has shown the prices skyrocket once they sell out.

http://www.screenarchives.com/index.cfm

I highly, highly recommend the glorious Leave Her To Heaven BD, reviewed long ago for this thread.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> So what Tier is the Lake in?


With a name like Lake SUPERIOR...and with the color often being BLUE...what Tier should it be in?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Ruby Sparks*

recommendation: *Tier 2.5**

This BD is a couple of years old by now, released by 20th Century Fox. It is a rather middle-of-the-road looking film with relatively simple cinematography. The AVC encoding is completely transparent to the digital intermediate. I was a little surprised to find it was shot using the Arri Alexa digital camera, I could have sworn it was shot on actual film. Its excellent contrast is never challenged too greatly, though some of the finer detail is limited at times.

_Ruby Sparks_ is not a flashy visual experience but comes delivered in pleasant 1080P resolution lacking the kind of depth and micro-detail necessary for the higher tiers.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Odd Thomas*

recommendation: *Tier 2.25**

By all rights this superficially impressive picture quality should land in Tier One. Despite some minor banding due to a deficient AVC video encode provided by Image Entertainment on a BD-25, this is a vivid 1080P presentation with excellent clarity and outstanding sharpness. The saturated color palette has lush colors and perfect contrast. Without the following problem, I could have seen ranking this disc near the top of Tier One.

Are you waiting for the punchline on why I assigned _Odd Thomas_ to Tier 2.25? I haven't seen a transfer on BD this completely filtered in several years. The entire movie has been filtered, leaving it devoid of high-frequency content and detail. The waxy skin and plastic faces are the most noticeable results of this filtering. It greatly devalues the inherent detail found in 1080P video.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Man of Tai Chi*

recommendation: *Tier 0* (bottom 1/3)*

A beautiful scope presentation from director Keanu Reeves. I never imagined I would need to write those words. _Man of Tai Chi_ is a visually extravagant martial arts film released last December on Blu-ray, by Starz. The picture is crystal clear, rendering everything as sharply as possible. It has superior detail in every frame and possesses superb depth.

The opening scene is a little rocky with its black levels, crushing the slightest amount of shadow delineation. Starz is distributing this film for the Weinstein Company, throwing it out on a BD-25. That does lead to sightings of macroblocking in two shots. I think another studio with better compression standards might have pushed this movie even higher in Tier 0!

This is definitely must-watch demo material for martial arts enthusiasts.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Having seen a string of recent WB television releases, I'll review them all at once.

*Supernatural: Season Nine*

recommendation: *Tier 2.5**

*The Vampire Diaries: Season Five*

recommendation: *Tier 2.5**

*The Originals: Season One*

recommendation: *Tier 2.25**

*Person of Interest: Season Three*

recommendation: *Tier 3.0**

All these sets share a lot in common, having been distributed by WB in the past two weeks. Three on them air on the CW network. They share very similar technical specifications, as WB has authored them all in AVC at fairly pedestrian bitrates. While four BD-50s sound like a lot, space can quickly get consumed by 22 hour-long episodes. There is too much banding and macroblocking to ignore, especially in the darker scenes. A fifth disc would have made a lot of sense if picture quality was an overriding concern. Television productions often lack the kind of consistency required for higher Tiers, and these programs are no exception. 

What stands out most are the black levels in Vampire Diaries and mushy detail in Person of Interest. VD has a muted palette with crushing problems to its black levels, hurting visibility and shadow detail. Person of Interest looks to have been filtered, showing mushy detail and a bit of softness for modern video. It also employs a lot of CGI, more so than even the other shows.

All the programs look rather good in better exterior and daylit scenes, highlighted by vivid definition and a startlingly clean presentation.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Pawn Shop Chronicles*

recommendation: *Tier 0* (.6)*

Pristine picture quality, terrible movie. Incredible definition and texture, highlighted by impressive depth. If I had to cite anything that was less than exemplary, the brightness is oddly flat in a couple of scenes. We are talking artifact-free digital clarity, unheard of just a few years ago. 

Starz/Anchor Bay provides a sufficient AVC video encode for the ultra-vivid video. It is simply so clean and immaculately shot that the lower compression parameters never have a chance to introduce problems. I did not expect this type of pure video quality when I popped the disc in, nothing indicated videophile status about it.


----------



## wattheF

OCULUS

Someone asked about it so here it is...

This was decent horror movie with an interesting concept that could have been done much better IMO. 

As far as PQ is concerned, I was rather surprised by how good it looked. For the most part the picture was sharp and clear with very good details. There were a few scenes that came of a bit softer. Contrast was just right and black levels were overall very good although they waivered here and there. Shadow details were just right. The color pallet seemed fairly neutral. 

Overall Oculus has very strong PQ with no glaring issues but this movie didn't quite reach reference quality levels.

Ranking- 1.0


----------



## wattheF

The Muppets: Most Wanted

Based on the first installment, which my kids own on bluray, I had pretty high expectations for the PQ in this movie. I felt the movie itself fell a bit flat, but as far as PQ goes it definitely lived up to my expectations. 

Clarity and detail, although not the best I have seen, are still top notch. I don't recall even one soft shot. Excellent black levels and shadow details combined with perfect contrast lead to great depth. Color is rich with strong primaries. The pallet is neutral with very natural skin tones.

This movie, like the first, has a very pleasant and balanced feel with lifelike realism. It is actually improved in many areas.

Ranking- Tier 0 (somewhere just below the middle)

Viewed on Panasonic 60" ST60 from a distance of 6.5'


----------



## Famouss

wattheF said:


> OCULUS
> 
> Someone asked about it so here it is...
> 
> This was decent horror movie with an interesting concept that could have been done much better IMO.
> 
> As far as PQ is concerned, I was rather surprised by how good it looked. For the most part the picture was sharp and clear with very good details. There were a few scenes that came of a bit softer. Contrast was just right and black levels were overall very good although they waivered here and there. Shadow details were just right. The color pallet seemed fairly neutral.
> 
> Overall Oculus has very strong PQ with no glaring issues but this movie didn't quite reach reference quality levels.
> 
> Ranking- 1.0


Thanks for the review!


----------



## DarthDoxie

wattheF said:


> The Muppets: Most Wanted
> 
> 
> Ranking- Tier 0 (somewhere just below the middle)


Completely agree and good to know I wasn't been too generous, it really is excellent PQ wise.


----------



## fredxr2d2

*Captain America: The Winter Soldier*

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0*

Well, like the theatrical presentation, The Winter Soldier is presented from its digital source without film grain. Every shot is clear and striking. The only issue that I saw at all was some slight digital noise during a couple of middle-light scenes. It was almost as if they knew how to get the cameras to handle dark scenes and obviously knew how to handle light scenes, but shots that were transitions (like the sunrise early in the film) just exhibited noise that seemed out of place in an otherwise spectacular presentation.

I also rarely listen at reference, but I turned things up for this one and wasn't disappointed at all.

Despite the couple minor instances of noise, the rest of the film is clear and bright and overall excellent, so I would put it in Tier 0.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Deadly Duo*

recommendation: *Tier 2.5**

I had a very long analysis written for this BD that was eaten by the forum, so I will be brief. This is possibly the best vintage film transfer struck for a Shaw Brothers' film. Released in 2009 by Tokyo Shock, it looks beautiful with lovely color saturation and vivid fidelity.

Despite some limited filtering, the result is a new film transfer (well, it was new in 2009) with perfect color timing. It smokes most of the other Shaw Brothers' Blu-rays in terms of innate picture quality and represents a substantial improvement over DVD in all the critical areas.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*My Tutor*

recommendation: *Tier 3.0**

The people behind niche label Scorpion Releasing have shown a rather good eye when choosing their Blu-ray releases, at least from the ones I have personally seen. _My Tutor_ continues that trend, featuring a brand-new film transfer from a negative in impeccable condition once you get past the credits. The 1983 movie looks better than ever in 1080P, limited only by that era's film stocks and cinematography in Hi-Def. 

There is a touch of sharpening and the transfer is overly bright for the early scenes, but overall possesses fine clarity in a pleasing, film-like presentation. This is a very solid catalog release of vintage film struck from the negative, resulting in excellent definition and granular texture. It puts to shame many of the dated transfers being released by bigger distributors from this era.


----------



## djoberg

I'm finally back and the first thing I noticed when driving up to our house was my pre-ordered copy of _Godzilla_ lying by our front door!! Has anyone seen it yet? I've read several reviews and EVERYONE is speaking highly of the PQ and speaking even higher of the AQ. Needless to say, I can't wait to see it. Perhaps I'll get to it tomorrow night.

I leave (once again!) on another trip early Monday morning so I'm hoping to at least see _Godzilla_ and, if I'm lucky, one more on Friday night (we have company coming for Saturday and most of Sunday).


----------



## Phantom Stranger

The video on _Godzilla_ is somewhat controversial from what I gather, there are complaints the picture is overly dark. It's not at the top of my priority list, so others will have to chime-in with their opinions. I have not seen it except in screencaps. Someone will have to do something about your trips, it is interfering with your reviewing duties for the thread.

*HAL The Movie*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

_HAL_ is a very recent animated feature, fairly brief at 60-minutes long. The animation is quite detailed with very fine line art, far better than most television productions. The actual picture quality lies somewhere between Tier 1.5 and Tier 1.75, color saturation is more realistically rendered than most modern animation and looks a touch flat. I went with the higher Tier since anime distributor Funimation licked their banding problems with HAL, generously encoding it at much higher parameters than their normal bit-starved discs.


----------



## audiofan1

^^^ I indeed found Godzilla a bit dark at times but will let those with better black levels than I chime in  other wise the grayscale and color pallet used were very nice.


----------



## djoberg

audiofan1 said:


> ^^^ I indeed found Godzilla a bit dark at times but will let those with better black levels than I chime in  other wise the grayscale and color pallet used were very nice.


Most of the reviews mentioned that the movie became increasingly dark, but they also mentioned that the black levels weren't murky or crushed and that shadow details were excellent. I'm hoping my KURO is up to the challenge, for the general consensus was that this movie fares much better on a very large screen (with a projector).

So, how did you like the audio? The *expert* reviewers are singing its praises, with some saying it's the best audio track this year. They also say that it will give our subs a good workout.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> The video on _Godzilla_ is somewhat controversial from what I gather, there are complaints the picture is overly dark. It's not at the top of my priority list, so others will have to chime-in with their opinions. I have not seen it except in screencaps. *Someone will have to do something about your trips, it is interfering with your reviewing duties for the thread.*


Most of the complaints about the picture being overly dark is coming from moviegoers, I believe. Reviewers on sites like DVDTalk, HiDef Digest and Blu-ray.com say that there is still very good details and texture in the dark scenes.

I've been travelling more than usual this year. Next week I'll be gone all week and then I should be at home for a good length of time, though my wife and I may make a trip out east (Philadelphia) in November, and if we do we may be gone 2-3 weeks. Starting in December though I'll be a "couch potato" with lots of time for catching up on Blu-rays. You may be wishing I would take another trip by January or February!


----------



## audiofan1

djoberg said:


> Most of the reviews mentioned that the movie became increasingly dark, but they also mentioned that the black levels weren't murky or crushed and that shadow details were excellent. I'm hoping my KURO is up to the challenge, for the general consensus was that this movie fares much better on a very large screen (with a projector).
> 
> So, how did you like the audio? The *expert* reviewers are singing its praises, with some saying it's the best audio track this year. They also say that it will give our subs a good workout.


Looking forward to your thoughts once viewed on the Kuro . as for the audio I liked it , not the best of the year but defiantly has its own strong merits (think Pacific Rim) its extremely dynamic and loud


----------



## djoberg

*Godzilla (2014)*

Okay, I'll be honest....I wish I were writing a review for an "audio thread" right now instead of a "PQ thread." But this is the Blu-ray PQ thread so I must focus on what I "saw" and not on what I "heard." What I saw wasn't all that impressive (in spite of the "experts" singing its praises). It wasn't bad, by any means, but the black levels were NOT what I was expecting. The very first dark scene was telling...with somewhat murky blacks in the film and with dark gray bars instead of the coveted deep black bars that literally disappear into the bezel. This was duplicated in many of the dark scenes, especially in the second half. Shadow details were so-so in these scenes, but again, they weren't what I expected based on glowing reviews that I had read. One could describe many of the darker scenes as "gritty" and "soft." This was, no doubt, the director's choice, but it doesn't translate into the EYE CANDY that is coveted by many that frequent this thread.

On a positive note, the first half fared much better (especially in its brighter, daytime scenes), with accurate flesh tones, demo-worthy details, pleasing colors, and strong contrast. But even in these scenes I didn't see the sharpness and clarity that I expect in current Blu-ray transfers. I truly thought I'd be watching a demo-worthy title, and perhaps even a contender for the reference tier, but in good conscience I can only go as high as...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0**

PS I feel compelled to add a word about the AUDIO. It ROCKED!! I was thoroughly impressed with the accuracy in each channel and the bass, though not as low as I would have liked, was loud and bone-chilling at times. If you have a decent 5.1/7.1 system you owe it to yourself to at least rent this for the audio track. You will NOT be disappointed (unless you are an extreme bass-head that refuses to listen to Blu-ray that are void of ULF ).

Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## edlittle

Well that is disappointing to say the least! Was hoping for Godzilla to be top 2 this year (along with HTTYD 2)


----------



## djoberg

edlittle said:


> Well that is disappointing to say the least! Was hoping for Godzilla to be top 2 this year (along with HTTYD 2)


Again, it was "disappointing" to me because of the black levels. My KURO excels in that department IF the source material for black levels is good. When the source material isn't that good, I'm easily distracted, especially when the aspect ratio is 2.40:1. When that happens I'm fixated on the "gray bars."

The redeeming feature was the audio and if you're into that YOU WILL LOVE IT!!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

The milky gray bars can definitely prove distracting on scope presentations with less than stellar black levels...unlike this BD.

*Young Justice*

recommendation: *Tier 0 (bottom quarter)**

This recent Cartoon Network series looks shockingly great, far surpassing my own expectations based off its broadcast airing. It receives a top-notch Blu-ray presentation framed at 1.78:1, taken directly from the native digital animation. Released by Warner Archive in a limited edition issue, this is how modern animation should pop in 1080P resolution. Absolutely inky black levels, a gaudy color palette rich in saturation, and vivid character designs for the various superheroes, this is a fantastic-looking set collecting the entire first season of _Young Justice_.

There are nearly ten hours of 1080P content over the two BD-50s, a very tight fit. I would be lying if I claimed all ten hours were completely barren of banding, though the AVC video encode very rarely fails with the pristine digital animation. There are no other issues in the video encode or transfer, the series was natively animated at 1080P like other recent animated DC features.

This is certainly an impressive Blu-ray in terms of A/V quality and a strong recommendation for Tier 0.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Inside Llewyn Davis*

recommendation: *Tier 3.0**

One of the stranger-looking, new films I've seen in recent memory, the Coen Brothers' _Inside Llewyn Davis_ has one of the most unusually processed transfers on Blu-ray. The cinematography attempts to make some kind of artistic statement, hoping to evoke imaginary melancholy from its Greenwich Village period setting. Its color grading has been drained of all warmth, resulting in a cold, dreary palette that can't be called anything but winter.

Sony skimps on the AVC video encode, hints of chroma noise are fairly prevalent in the earlier acts. This has a dark, nearly monochromatic aesthetic. Did the Coen Brothers want to shoot in black-and-white again and get rebuffed? There is a very uneasy sense of softness that pervades _Inside Llewyn Davis_, despite immense depth and focal projection. Also missing is any kind of superior high-frequency content, that level of detail is missing in action.


----------



## wattheF

Captain America: The Winter Soldier

I thoroughly enjoyed this movie on all levels. The picture quality on this bluray is fantastic throughout.
The picture is without major flaw and has zero grain. Clarity and details are some of the best I have seen in recent memory, particularly on midrange and close shots of people and faces. Contrast is very strong and black levels are generally excellent save for a couple indoor shots that had slightly murky blacks. Shadow detail is impressive. The color pallet is slightly subdued but still well balanced with punchy primaries when called upon. Skin tones appear natural.

There are a quite a few images in this movie that are stunning. A couple memorable shots may be some of my new faves.

As a side note the audio is also great.

If not for the black levels slipping on a couple occasions I would rank it even higher but still...

Ranking-TIER 0 (about .40)

Viewed on 60" Panasonic ST60 from a distance of 5.5 feet.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Evil Dead (2013)*

recommendation: *Tier 2.5*

I think _Evil Dead's_ current rank in Tier 1.25 is awfully generous for a sped-up film with minor crushing problems. I won't disagree that a few select scenes possess incredible dimensionality and razor-sharp definition. Before the action gets ramped up, _Evil Dead_ contains all the necessary attributes for a Tier One Blu-ray. It is later in the film that its inconsistency begins, using a variety of specialized VFX and camera tricks to heighten the atmosphere.

Everyone is welcome to their own personal formula when a movie has such a wide disparity between its best and worst-looking scenes. I tend to err on the lower side myself, which is how I came up with the middle of Tier Two.


----------



## Famouss

wattheF said:


> Captain America: The Winter Soldier
> 
> I thoroughly enjoyed this movie on all levels. The picture quality on this bluray is fantastic throughout.
> The picture is without major flaw and has zero grain. Clarity and details are some of the best I have seen in recent memory, particularly on midrange and close shots of people and faces. Contrast is very strong and black levels are generally excellent save for a couple indoor shots that had slightly murky blacks. Shadow detail is impressive. The color pallet is slightly subdued but still well balanced with punchy primaries when called upon. Skin tones appear natural.
> 
> There are a quite a few images in this movie that are stunning. A couple memorable shots may be some of my new faves.
> 
> As a side note the audio is also great.
> 
> If not for the black levels slipping on a couple occasions I would rank it even higher but still...
> 
> Ranking-TIER 0 (about .40)
> 
> Viewed on 60" Panasonic ST60 from a distance of 5.5 feet.


Nice, I just rented this movie earlier, can't wait to watch it this evening.


----------



## lgans316

Hi Guys,

Been a long time but glad to see the old friends and some new pals for keeping this thread active.  

I have now moved to Projector and looks like there is no turning back to the good old TV.  

Captain America 2: To me this is hardly Tier 1.75 as it has a digital video filtered look similar to Thor 2 and Iron Man 3. There are some outdoor action sequences that looked detailed but the indoor shots were a touch too soft with blurry backdrops and focusing all over the place. 

Please note that I am typing from a mobile phone so please pardon me for not formatting.

I will post in the required format once I replace my dead laptop.

BTW where are Patrick, Rob, deltasun etc.? Looks like they too have gone underground like me.


----------



## djoberg

lgans316 said:


> Hi Guys,I have now moved to Projector and looks like there is no turning back to the good old TV.
> 
> BTW where are Patrick, Rob, deltasun etc.? Looks like they too have gone underground like me.


I hope to _someday_ join the "projector" crowd. I have a son-in-law who just had a home theater built in his bonus room above his garage and he went with a DLP projector and a nice 110" screen. Once you experience the "immersion experience" that only a projector/big screen can give you, there surely would be "no turning back." 

As far as Patrick, Rob and deltasun go, I know that Rob felt he needed to take a break from the forum and devote more time to other more important things (I commend him for that, for if one lives and breathes participating on Forum threads, they need to take a real look at life and start *prioritizing*). I believe deltasun just got really busy, though he did chime in a few times over the last year with hopes of returning to reviewing once again. I can't speak as to Patrick, though he too posts every great once and awhile.

Good to see back Igans316; I've missed your honest and discerning reviews!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

lgans316 said:


> I will post in the required format once I replace my dead laptop.
> 
> BTW where are Patrick, Rob, deltasun etc.? Looks like they too have gone underground like me.


Hello, projection should open up a whole new Blu-ray experience for you. The larger the display, the more important Tier Zero discs become. Don't worry about re-formatting your review, as long as I can read some kind of intent or review in a post, it gets counted. I am open to accepting almost any Tier ranking these days for consideration, including ones without write-ups like Djoberg and myself include. People are busy and I would rather someone contribute scores than say nothing.

Deltasun still comes by once in a blue moon, he is more active on another Blu forum. I believe life has gotten in the way for Rob and Patrick. Gamereviewgod continues his reviewing elsewhere, for both games and movies. I know we still have a fair share of lurkers from the earlier days of this discussion thread. We have fresh blood in the thread thanks to new members, though you never know when an old veteran might pop in.

lgans316, make sure to update your bookmarks for the latest iteration of the Blu-ray PQ Tiers, it now has close to 4000 entries!

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...pq-tiers-updated-through-march-27-2014-a.html


----------



## ajvandenb

wattheF said:


> Captain America: The Winter Soldier
> 
> I thoroughly enjoyed this movie on all levels. The picture quality on this bluray is fantastic throughout.
> The picture is without major flaw and has zero grain. Clarity and details are some of the best I have seen in recent memory, particularly on midrange and close shots of people and faces. Contrast is very strong and black levels are generally excellent save for a couple indoor shots that had slightly murky blacks. Shadow detail is impressive. The color pallet is slightly subdued but still well balanced with punchy primaries when called upon. Skin tones appear natural.
> 
> There are a quite a few images in this movie that are stunning. A couple memorable shots may be some of my new faves.
> 
> As a side note the audio is also great.
> 
> *If not for the black levels slipping on a couple occasions I would rank it even higher but still...*
> 
> Ranking-TIER 0 (about .40)
> 
> Viewed on 60" Panasonic ST60 from a distance of 5.5 feet.


BIB: This is a stunning transfer. Amazing quality. HOWEVER, for some weird reason the office scene with Rogers and Fury had pitiful black levels and the image looked hopelessly flat. I actually stopped it to be sure something hadn't gone wrong with my projector. This definitely puts it out of Tier 0. But other than that incredible detail throughout.


----------



## rusky_g

Hi guys

Just moved house, Internet now up and running and will add some reviews soon!

Russ


----------



## Phantom Stranger

rusky_g said:


> Hi guys
> 
> Just moved house, Internet now up and running and will add some reviews soon!
> 
> Russ


We'll need three reviews by Saturday night. Seriously, enjoy your new digs.


----------



## wattheF

ajvandenb said:


> BIB: This is a stunning transfer. Amazing quality. HOWEVER, for some weird reason the office scene with Rogers and Fury had pitiful black levels and the image looked hopelessly flat. I actually stopped it to be sure something hadn't gone wrong with my projector. This definitely puts it out of Tier 0. But other than that incredible detail throughout.


Well I guess I will just chalk it up to different opinions and priorities. As I stated in my review, there is a scene or two where the black levels slipped but I simply can't downgrade a bluray a whole tier for ONE shot. Not when the rest of the movie looks so good. To me Tier 0 does not necessarily require absolute perfection across the board for 100% of the movie. In my mind, worst case this is a bottom of Tier 0 title.

I have also seen others comment on softness in a couple shots. I can tell you there was none of that while being viewed from a distance of 5.5 ft. on my ST60 plasma with a Darbee processor in the loop (highdef 45%).


----------



## ajvandenb

wattheF said:


> Well I guess I will just chalk it up to different opinions and priorities. As I stated in my review, there is a scene or two where the black levels slipped but I simply can't downgrade a bluray a whole tier for ONE shot. Not when the rest of the movie looks so good. To me Tier 0 does not necessarily require absolute perfection across the board for 100% of the movie. In my mind, worst case this is a bottom of Tier 0 title.
> 
> I have also seen others comment on softness in a couple shots. I can tell you there was none of that while being viewed from a distance of 5.5 ft. on my ST60 plasma with a Darbee processor in the loop (highdef 45%).


Yeah, I misspoke. I looked at it again. It wasn't the office scene, it was the scene where Rogers and Romanov find the secret S.H.I.E.L.D. bunker in New Jersey. It seems it may have been an intentional look by the directors. The black levels and shadow detail were grey at best but just for that scene. The rest was amazing and I didn't see any of the supposed softness others mentioned.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

wattheF said:


> Well I guess I will just chalk it up to different opinions and priorities. As I stated in my review, there is a scene or two where the black levels slipped but I simply can't downgrade a bluray a whole tier for ONE shot. Not when the rest of the movie looks so good. To me Tier 0 does not necessarily require absolute perfection across the board for 100% of the movie. In my mind, worst case this is a bottom of Tier 0 title.
> 
> I have also seen others comment on softness in a couple shots. I can tell you there was none of that while being viewed from a distance of 5.5 ft. on my ST60 plasma with a Darbee processor in the loop (highdef 45%).


Does the Darbee help some visual content better than others? I'm interested in hearing your opinions on the subject. 

I usually don't apply a significant penalty in my Tier assessments for brief scenes of lesser quality. That does become a factor the higher up the Tiers you reach. I wouldn't put a disc in the upper half of Tier 0 with questionable moments.


----------



## wattheF

Phantom Stranger said:


> Does the Darbee help some visual content better than others? I'm interested in hearing your opinions on the subject.
> 
> I usually don't apply a significant penalty in my Tier assessments for brief scenes of lesser quality. That does become a factor the higher up the Tiers you reach. I wouldn't put a disc in the upper half of Tier 0 with questionable moments.


A moment of sub par black levels does not have much of an impact overall to me, especially when it may have been intended to achieve a certain look by the director/production team. 

I personally would be more concerned about even the slightest hint of an anomaly such as color banding, etc.


----------



## wattheF

Phantom Stranger said:


> Does the Darbee help some visual content better than others? I'm interested in hearing your opinions on the subject.
> 
> I usually don't apply a significant penalty in my Tier assessments for brief scenes of lesser quality. That does become a factor the higher up the Tiers you reach. I wouldn't put a disc in the upper half of Tier 0 with questionable moments.


I missed the first portion of your comment the first time I read it.

The Darbee is a nice home theater addition for videophiles. When used properly it adds a subtle yet noticeable amount of sharpness to the image. It does not cause any of the negative side effects or artifacts that many other traditional processors may (such as sharpening). It uses some crazy algorithms that seem to alter contrast in a way that makes the image seem a bit more detailed and adds a dimension of "pop" to the screen.

The better the image the better the Darbee works. It will not help a low quality image look any better but with good bluray material it will bring it up another tick. In this way it basically enhances whatever is already there whether good or bad.

It has 3 settings and can be adjusted from 0-110. I find the better the quality of the image, the higher i can turn the Darbee up without the image looking unnatural. Generally I prefer the subtle effect given by setting it at a moderate level. 

My initial opinion was that it is just barely worth it's price while in use with my 60" Panasonic ST60, but now that I have it I wouldn't want to give it up. I like that it helps me in squeezing every last bit of PQ out of my already excellent display.

I have also heard from many users that it works wonders while being used with projectors.

Feel free to PM me with any other questions on specifics about the Darbee.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Stendhal Syndrome*

recommendation: *Tier 3.75**

Blue Underground put this Dario Argento movie out in 2008. Despite a fine, appropriate color grading and a relatively new film transfer at the time, _The Stendhal Syndrome_ shows unmistakeable signs of analogue scanner noise common to Blue Underground's Italian-sourced film transfers. Apparently the noise would get introduced by the older telecine machine used to process these Italian films for high-definition masters. The problem is almost solely seen in these Italian-sourced transfers, adding swaths of random noise to the natural grain structure of each film.

I would love to place this BD in Tier Two. If one could somehow ignore the extraneous noise, most evident in the opening act, it's a capable film scan at very good resolution with a pleasing film-like texture. Blue Underground presents the main feature in a 1.66:1 aspect ratio, common to European productions. I don't see any serious indicators that filtering or sharpening have been applied to the transfer, its extra noise is a defect of the older CRT telecine used to master it from the film elements. The film elements are in solid shape, though one scene inexplicably has gate hair.

This is a heavy, dark film as intended by Argento. If one wasn't told it was made in 1995, a person could easily be fooled into thinking _The Stendhal Syndrome_ was filmed in the late 1970s. There is a hint of black crush confined to a couple of scenes.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*8 Mile*

recommendation: *Tier 3.5**

This older BD mirrors _8 Mile's_ theatrical experience fairly well. The slight greenish push, gritty film texture, contrast veering on black crush- it looks exactly how it did in theaters. First released on Blu-ray in 2009, Universal employs an older VC-1 video encode possibly sourced from HD DVD. _8 Mile_ takes place in a grim, urban Detroit setting, which does not lend itself to Blu-ray eye candy. The film-like transfer is decent at preserving shadow delineation and high-frequency content, there aren't obvious signs of deleterious video processing. The older compression encode isn't that bad considering its age, though I imagine a newer AVC encode would result in finer detail and more accurate shadow structure.

If I had seen this BD when it first came out, I would have thought it a very solid 1080P reproduction of _8 Mile_. The movie's gritty cinematography and darker environs land it in Tier Three. A brand-new film scan and remastering might possibly push _8 Mile_ into Tier Two, but this is certainly one of Universal's better catalog efforts on Blu-ray.


----------



## Famouss

Phantom, I am considering picking up Psycho-pass on blu ray in preparation for the upcoming second season premiering later this month. Have you watched this anime yet on blu ray by any chance?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Famouss said:


> Phantom, I am considering picking up Psycho-pass on blu ray in preparation for the upcoming second season premiering later this month. Have you watched this anime yet on blu ray by any chance?


It's a funny coincidence you bring up _Psycho-Pass_. I recently bought the complete series in the past month and plan to watch it very soon. There is the consideration that Funimation will likely release the extended episodes of _Psycho-Pass_ in the coming year.

I'll see what I can do about pushing it to the top of my viewing list.


----------



## Famouss

Phantom Stranger said:


> It's a funny coincidence you bring up _Psycho-Pass_. I recently bought the complete series in the past month and plan to watch it very soon. There is the consideration that Funimation will likely release the extended episodes of _Psycho-Pass_ in the coming year.
> 
> I'll see what I can do about pushing it to the top of my viewing list.


That's pretty awesome and I can't wait for the review.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Night of the Comet (region-locked UK import)*

recommendation: *Tier 3.75**

British distributor Arrow Video (they announced this week they will start distributing Blu-rays in America) very recently issued this 1984 cult movie in the UK. I believe this is the same film transfer and master utilized on last year's Shout Factory BD. Arrow treats the transfer with an amazing video encode. I was seriously worried about possible chroma noise and macroblocking given the pervasive red-tinted skies in Comet. This is one of the finest AVC encodes I've seen, superbly handling the film structure in a transparent manner. Averaging 35 Mbps for the main feature on a BD-50, I would wager the compressionist went over it by hand.

_Night of the Comet_ wasn't a big production and its cinematography is softer than normal. There isn't much depth or pop to its image. The opening scene is rougher than normal, as if shot on different film stock than the rest of the movie. The detail is middling, though I do not think this film transfer has been overly filtered or processed by sharpening. Probably its greatest strengths lie in the improved clarity and better chroma resolution than DVD.

This is a solid representation of low-budget film from the 1980s. The overall resolution does smack of an older telecine struck from an interpositive, than a newer transfer from the camera negative.


----------



## djoberg

*Transformers: Age of Extinction*

After a very long hiatus I'm back, and what a blessing to begin [my Blu-ray viewing] with such a strong Tier Blu contender!! I've seen every installment in the _Transformers_ series and this is, without a doubt, the most impressive. The PQ was simply jaw-dropping, whether we're talking about DETAILS (they were RAZOR-SHARP in nearly every scene/shot....in close-ups, mid range shots and even in long distance shots), COLORS (deeply saturated that pop off the screen), BLACK LEVELS (they were some of the deepest and inkiest I've ever seen, without one instance of crush or murkiness), SHADOW DETAILS (mesmerizing from beginning to end), CONTRAST (as strong as it gets) and SHARPNESS/CLARITY (pure EYE CANDY). The only two negatives I noticed, and they were fleeting, was a brief soft shot and a few cases where flesh tones took on too much of the familiar bronze-look.

Once again I feel compelled to offer a word about the audio. I understand this was the debut of the Dolby Atmos sound design (that features speakers overhead in addition to a complete surround system), but I'm hear to tell you (as one that will have to wait a few years to have that elaborate of a speaker system) that it sounded absolutely amazing on my modest 5.1 system. It gave my SVS sub the workout of its lifetime and thankfully it held up well to the almost constant thunderous bass that reached, I'm quite sure, to levels below 20 Hz. at times. My walls and even my couch were shaking, and I wasn't even listening at reference levels.

The movie itself was WAY TOO LONG (and CHEESY!), but it is worth a rental for the visual/audio experience. I can't wait to hear others weighing in on this one. If not for the two negatives alluded to above I might have nominated this for a place near the top of Tier Blu, but as it stands I'm going with....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.5)*

Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## djoberg

I've also rented _Draft Day_ and I ordered the latest _Captain America_ from Amazon (it should arrive on Tuesday). _Transformers_ was nearly 3 hours long so I probably will wait a day or two for the next outing. 

Thanks to those who've been posting reviews while I've been gone, with Phantom really coming through with a variety of movies from nearly every genre.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

The Transformers franchise always has that crazy, three-dimensional pop on its Blu-rays. I'm just not sure I can psyche myself up to sit through another one. Our favorite reviewing site didn't give high marks to WB's _Edge of Tomorrow_, the new Tom Cruise BD. It has been Warnerized, for lack of a better term.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> The Transformers franchise always has that crazy, three-dimensional pop on its Blu-rays. I'm just not sure I can psyche myself up to sit through another one. Our favorite reviewing site didn't give high marks to WB's _Edge of Tomorrow_, the new Tom Cruise BD. It has been Warnerized, for lack of a better term.


Sorry to hear about _Edge of Tomorrow_. I just picked it up at a Costco store for a decent price. I read some good reviews on it on several sites (Blu-ray.com, Hi-Def Digest and DVDTalk) with high marks for the PQ, AQ and the movie itself.


----------



## Toe

djoberg said:


> Sorry to hear about _Edge of Tomorrow_. I just picked it up at a Costco store for a decent price. I read some good reviews on it on several sites (Blu-ray.com, Hi-Def Digest and DVDTalk) with high marks for the PQ, AQ and the movie itself.


A little off topic djoberg, but did you happen to notice if Costco had the 3d version of EoT for sale as well?


----------



## djoberg

Toe said:


> A little off topic djoberg, but did you happen to notice if Costco had the 3d version of EoT for sale as well?


Sorry Toe, but I only saw the 2D version on sale. That's not to say they didn't have the 3D version, but the rack I grabbed it from was the 2D version.

I read Ralph Pott's review on the 3D version and he actually gave it a higher score than the 2D version. That's rare, so it must be reference!!


----------



## rusky_g

*Avengers Assemble*

All things considered, I thought this looked excellent overall.

I'm not a massive follower of comic book flicks but I picked this disc up for a good price - I'd start by saying that it feels weird seeing a film these days in 1.85 ratio - Pacific Rim being one of the few recent movies that shares this quality. 

PQ wise, the picture is very clear with fantastic depth and detail for much of the movie. Colours and contrast aren't pushed too hard and this added to the appeal for me. There's some good facial detail going on....not the very best but solid enough. Textures, fabrics and fine detail are all there....blacks aren't the deepest but still satisfying as is shadow detail - Blu-ray.com knocked the PQ score down a notch due to the earlier parts of the film being too dark and sacrificing some detail - personally I didn't share this opinion.
*
Tier 1.0*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

rusky_g said:


> *Avengers Assemble*
> 
> All things considered, I thought this looked excellent overall.
> 
> I'm not a massive follower of comic book flicks but I picked this disc up for a good price - I'd start by saying that it feels weird seeing a film these days in 1.85 ratio - Pacific Rim being one of the few recent movies that shares this quality.
> 
> PQ wise, the picture is very clear with fantastic depth and detail for much of the movie. Colours and contrast aren't pushed too hard and this added to the appeal for me. There's some good facial detail going on....not the very best but solid enough. Textures, fabrics and fine detail are all there....blacks aren't the deepest but still satisfying as is shadow detail - Blu-ray.com knocked the PQ score down a notch due to the earlier parts of the film being too dark and sacrificing some detail - personally I didn't share this opinion.
> *
> Tier 1.0*


For our American readers, this is the live-action movie with Captain America and Thor known as _The Avengers_ in the States? I understand the Avengers mean something completely different for British audiences. Those Avengers with Emma Peel are coming out in November.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Here Comes The Devil*

recommendation: *Tier 2.5**

This film's visual integrity is greatly hurt by a terrible compression job. The 2012 Spanish horror film should have landed in Tier One by a wide margin, exhibiting pleasing clarity and unusually open cinematography for this genre. What drags it towards a lesser viewing experience is a very poor AVC video encode. The 97-minute main feature is presented in 1080P resolution at its intended 2.35:1 aspect ratio. 

The compression problems are mainly due to the limitations of a BD-25 by its distributor, Magnolia. The movie is replete with macroblocking, mosquito noise, banding, and other side effects of an anemic video encode. I firmly believe no human did a quality check, this appears to have been the result of a set-it-and-forget-it automated encode. This is one case where a foreign import might be a better choice.


----------



## djoberg

*Draft Day*

We are truly being spoiled these days, with many Blu-rays easily falling into the Top Tiers. This outing from Summit/Lionsgate (who consistently offer us reference or demo material) does not disappoint. Shot exclusively with Arri Alexa cameras, it features vibrant colors that pop, very good black levels, spot-on flesh tones, remarkable details, appreciable depth, and razor-sharp clarity. My one and only gripe would be with some exaggerated contrast, resulting in overly bright images in a few scenes.

I'm not going to go into a lot of detail, but I was deeply impressed with aerial views of various NFL stadiums. They exhibited the wow factor in every area....amazing depth, bold colors, exquisite details, and pleasing sharpness/clarity. There weren't a lot of facial close-ups, but when they did appear we are treated to defining textures. Kevin Costner is growing old gracefully and allows the Arri Alexa digital cameras to reveal every pore, wrinkle, stubble and age spot.

I should mention that there were a few interior scenes that didn't have the pop that we would expect from a reference/demo disc, but thankfully they were the "exception to the rule." This title is demo-material in my book, but I believe I'll take a conservative approach and assign it to....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**

Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Movies filmed on the Arri Alexa turn in remarkably consistent video quality. Tier 1.5 seems to be the default choice for that camera. I would say almost all Arri Alexa productions I've seen on Blu-ray land between Tier 1.0 through 1.75, depending on the budget and skill of the cinematographer.

Would the movie itself entertain an NFL fan that has little interest in draft day shenanigans? I enjoy NFL games but the entire hoopla surrounding its draft is my bête noire.


----------



## djoberg

I wasn't impressed with the movie Phantom. I knew very little about the "draft day shenanigans" before this viewing, but the "drama" was unbelievable. Having said that, maybe the content wasn't too far from the truth when one factors in the HUGE egos involved in the NFL.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

The one thing interesting me about Draft Day is that Costner is involved. He's usually pretty good at picking his roles.


----------



## lgans316

Godzilla (2014)

Smart reboot and a very good flick ruined by softness throughout. I think it is down to the filming style but it doesn't matter in this thread unfortunately. There was hardly any standout moment except for the fact that the action scenes looking epic in my PJ screen. I was longing for sharpness and definition but in vain. Some complained that the movie was way too dark raising fears that it is going to be like AVP2 but thankfully it wasn't an issue. I viewed this on my 50" Plasma a bit later and it didn't change my perception. In fact it looked way too small and it reminded me not to look back once viewed on a bigger screen.  

Recommendation: Tier 2.75


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Sound of My Voice*

recommendation: *Tier 3.25**

A gripping movie that features dull cinematography and a drab color palette. The relatively short film at 85 minutes is given an AVC video encode with strong parameters. Despite a video bitrate averaging in the 30s, interiors contain a little noise and minor banding. The main limitation is its intentionally flat look. This is just not eye candy material, only a few exterior shots demonstrate superior clarity and contrast.


----------



## lgans316

Divergent (UK)

Another disappointing release in terms of PQ. Greyish blacks, some banding and persistent softness for most parts.

Recommendation: Tier 2.5
@@@@@@ @@@@@@ @@@@@@

Thor 2 The Dark World

Another dark picture but reasonably detailed.

Recommendation: Tier 2


----------



## djoberg

*Edge of Tomorrow*

Here is yet another demo release, although in my first viewing I'm inclined to put it towards the bottom of Tier Gold. (I must confess that the nature of the film, with its "twists and turns" and fast-paced action scenes, demanded my attention to the point where I wasn't focusing on the PQ like I normally am. I promise to pay FULL attention to the PQ on my next viewing.)

Despite my "confession" above, I did see enough to draw some fair conclusions. DETAILS were far and away the best virtue on display, whether we're talking facial close-ups, clothing, weaponry, flying debris (in multiple explosions), etc. SHARPNESS came next, though I must say there were several instances of softness where depth also suffered. BLACK LEVELS were satisfying but there were a couple of dark scenes where they veered into the "gray zone" (in both the picture on and the top & bottom bars). FLESH TONES were good. COLORS were pleasing when primaries appeared, but the majority of the film features strong blue hues or de-saturated colors.

Having just watched _Transformers: Age of Extinction_, where EVERYTHING was nearly flawless and pure eye candy, I am compelled, in comparing the two, to drop this one a whole tier from that placement. In other words, I'm going with....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**

Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## rusky_g

Great review Denny, we got a UK release here today so I'm picking it up this week! Disappointed it didn't make it into Tier 0 but 1.5 is still a solid score 

I also have a review pending for The Railway Man so stay tuned.....


----------



## djoberg

Thanks Russ!

I'll be looking forward to your review on _The Railway Man_.

I have _Captain America_ coming up next and then the new _X-Men_.


----------



## davcole

Am I the only one who felt AMAZING SPIDERMAN 2 is soft? 

Sent from my LG-V500 using Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

davcole said:


> Am I the only one who felt AMAZING SPIDERMAN 2 is soft?
> 
> Sent from my LG-V500 using Tapatalk


I thought it was "sharp as a tack" with the exception of a couple of CGI shots where softness did appear.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I'll definitely be checking out the new X-Men this week.

*The Scribbler*

recommendation: *Tier 2.75**

This new BD from XLrator Media comes on a BD-25, encoded at decent parameters. Shot on the RED digital camera, there is some scattered noise and occasionally crushed black levels. This is a psychotic, mind-bending superhero film, so everything has a colored, almost psychedelic tint to its look. The transfer is free of processing except for Scribbler's CGI. Close-ups exhibit excellent detail and pinpoint sharpness. Wider shots are a little softer and more erratic.

Independent productions are always so hit-or-miss but I think everything on display in The Scribbler was consciously intended by its filmmakers. This is a satisfactory 1080P presentation of average quality.


----------



## Toe

djoberg said:


> *Edge of Tomorrow*
> 
> Here is yet another demo release, although in my first viewing I'm inclined to put it towards the bottom of Tier Gold. (I must confess that the nature of the film, with its "twists and turns" and fast-paced action scenes, demanded my attention to the point where I wasn't focusing on the PQ like I normally am. I promise to pay FULL attention to the PQ on my next viewing.)
> 
> Despite my "confession" above, I did see enough to draw some fair conclusions. DETAILS were far and away the best virtue on display, whether we're talking facial close-ups, clothing, weaponry, flying debris (in multiple explosions), etc. SHARPNESS came next, though I must say there were several instances of softness where depth also suffered. BLACK LEVELS were satisfying but there were a couple of dark scenes where they veered into the "gray zone" (in both the picture on and the top & bottom bars). FLESH TONES were good. COLORS were pleasing when primaries appeared, but the majority of the film features strong blue hues or de-saturated colors.
> 
> Having just watched _Transformers: Age of Extinction_, where EVERYTHING was nearly flawless and pure eye candy, I am compelled, in comparing the two, to drop this one a whole tier from that placement. In other words, I'm going with....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.5**
> 
> Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


Thanks Denny. Sorry for an off topic question, but I am curious what you thought of the audio/LFE? A lot of folks are loving this track and curious to get your take on it if you don't mind.  I have my copy sitting here, but wont get to it until probably Fri.


----------



## djoberg

Toe said:


> Thanks Denny. Sorry for an off topic question, but I am curious what you thought of the audio/LFE? A lot of folks are loving this track and curious to get your take on it if you don't mind.  I have my copy sitting here, but wont get to it until probably Fri.


Hey Toe,

I have no idea what hindered me from commenting on the audio in my review, for it was positively stellar! I had heard from various reviews (and the Master Bass Thread) about the amazing opening with some very strong LFE lasting up to 10 seconds, so I "cautiously" set my receiver at -14 (instead of my normal setting of beween reference and -10). It was indeed a "house-shaking" event (not "room-shaking," but "house-shaking"), so, with my wife one level above me I decided to keep the volume at that setting. I was satisfied on every level, with pleasing bass/LFE throughout, precise and enveloping action in the surrounds, and crystal-clear clarity in the center channel.

Having said that, I do wish I had been alone, for I would have possibly turned the volume to near reference after the first 30 seconds. My wife is leaving for Minneapolis on Friday so maybe I'll give it another viewing then and crank that baby up!!  Also, I was truly thankful for the performance of my SVS sub, for even though there was plenty of serious LFE it never distorted or seemed to be stressing. Of course it does have a limiter on it and I'm glad it does.  I can only imagine how well your multiple SVS subs are going to sound!


----------



## Toe

djoberg said:


> Hey Toe,
> 
> I have no idea what hindered me from commenting on the audio in my review, for it was positively stellar! I had heard from various reviews (and the Master Bass Thread) about the amazing opening with some very strong LFE lasting up to 10 seconds, so I "cautiously" set my receiver at -14 (instead of my normal setting of beween reference and -10). It was indeed a "house-shaking" event (not "room-shaking," but "house-shaking"), so, with my wife one level above me I decided to keep the volume at that setting. I was satisfied on every level, with pleasing bass/LFE throughout, precise and enveloping action in the surrounds, and crystal-clear clarity in the center channel.
> 
> Having said that, I do wish I had been alone, for I would have possibly turned the volume to near reference after the first 30 seconds. My wife is leaving for Minneapolis on Friday so maybe I'll give it another viewing then and crank that baby up!!  Also, I was truly thankful for the performance of my SVS sub, for even though there was plenty of serious LFE it never distorted or seemed to be stressing. Of course it does have a limiter on it and I'm glad it does.  I can only imagine how well your multiple SVS subs are going to sound!


Thanks for the great report! Looking forward to the movie and A/V.


----------



## wattheF

djoberg said:


> *Edge of Tomorrow*
> 
> Here is yet another demo release, although in my first viewing I'm inclined to put it towards the bottom of Tier Gold. (I must confess that the nature of the film, with its "twists and turns" and fast-paced action scenes, demanded my attention to the point where I wasn't focusing on the PQ like I normally am. I promise to pay FULL attention to the PQ on my next viewing.)
> 
> Despite my "confession" above, I did see enough to draw some fair conclusions. DETAILS were far and away the best virtue on display, whether we're talking facial close-ups, clothing, weaponry, flying debris (in multiple explosions), etc. SHARPNESS came next, though I must say there were several instances of softness where depth also suffered. BLACK LEVELS were satisfying but there were a couple of dark scenes where they veered into the "gray zone" (in both the picture on and the top & bottom bars). FLESH TONES were good. COLORS were pleasing when primaries appeared, but the majority of the film features strong blue hues or de-saturated colors.
> 
> Having just watched _Transformers: Age of Extinction_, where EVERYTHING was nearly flawless and pure eye candy, I am compelled, in comparing the two, to drop this one a whole tier from that placement. In other words, I'm going with....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.5**
> 
> Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


Disappointed...was hoping for tier 0 on this one.


----------



## wattheF

davcole said:


> Am I the only one who felt AMAZING SPIDERMAN 2 is soft?
> 
> Sent from my LG-V500 using Tapatalk


I wasn't overly impressed with this title either. A bit soft yes.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

This doesn't directly pertain to the Tiers but I would like everyone to know that noted British distributor Arrow Video is attempting the opening of an American branch. The first announced BDs are _Mark of The Devil_, _Day of Anger_, _Blind Woman's Curse_, and _The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Miss Osbourne_. Arrow is known in the UK as a fine purveyor of cult and genre movies.

Arrow has decided to crowdfund this venture using a Kickstarter approach:

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/arrow-video-usa

After a rocky start on Blu-ray, they have shown an increased commitment in recent years to newly-struck film transfers from the best available elements. They've also abandoned using filtering and other forms of serious processing in the transfers they control. They've turned out a number of quality-looking catalog BDs in the past year, including a new _Time Bandits_ transfer.


----------



## djoberg

wattheF said:


> Disappointed...was hoping for tier 0 on this one.


Your viewing experience may differ from mine (as it did with your take on _The Amazing Spider-Man 2_), so give it a chance and then weigh in. Having said that, I did rate it 1.5 and that's NOT a shabby placement. I have a lot of Tier 1 Blus in my Blu-ray library and I often use them for showing off the virtues of HD on Blu-ray.


----------



## rusky_g

Edge of Tommorow

Reminded me of Elysium in parts - high resolution and lots of detail, especially in the armour suits. Mid range shots sometimes flagged but they occupied a small portion of the film. Loved the slightly muted colour scheme in daytime scenes -Felt this allowed all that detail to flourish.
Not quite tier 0 but definitely not dissappointing!

Tier 1.0


----------



## djoberg

*Captain America: The Winter Soldier*

We have ANOTHER WINNER folks!! By "winner" I mean another serious contender for Tier Blu or Tier Gold. Personally I think it's a shoe-in for the one of these with its dazzling clarity/sharpness, exquisite details, vibrant colors, accurate flesh tones, and deep blacks. This was free of any artifacts or anomalies of any kind, with the exception of some soft focus shots (the first one being at approximately the 36 minute mark in the apartment of Steve Rogers) that were rare and short-lived.

In comparing this with two recent outings (_Transformers: Age of Extinction_ and _Edge of Tomorrow_), I'd say this should land somewhere in the middle of their placements. I gave the former a Tier 0 (.5) and the latter a 1.5, so I'm inclined to put this right here....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**

Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## djoberg

I hope to watch _X-Men: Days of Future Past_ tomorrow night. I have a strong feeling I'm in for "yet another" top tier Blu-ray! Of course I'm speaking of its PQ, but the AQ has also been amazing in the three Blus mentioned above and reviewers are singing the praises of the X-Men release for its stellar audio track. On top of that, the movies themselves have been very good, except for _Transformers_ (though I did find it the best out of the franchise).


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I've heard a lot about X-Men being great, so I will watch it this weekend.


----------



## djoberg

I'll look forward to your review Phantom!

I'm having second thoughts regarding my placement of _Captain America_. I might have gone too high considering the number of soft shots sprinkled throughout the movie. I recall a scene being as sharp as possible and then softness would intrude in the next shot. It was very obvious, such as the scene in the apartment of Steve Rogera (aka Captain America) that I referred to in my review.

I want to hear from others on this title, but right now I'm thinking I wouldn't be surprised if others give a it a low Tier 0 or even a 1.0.


----------



## fredxr2d2

*The Fault in Our Stars

Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.0*

Others may put this obvious tearjerker into Tier 0 and I wouldn't blame them...in fact, what I initially thought was banding turned out to be a thin layer of clouds in the night sky (which became obvious in different shots of the stars). Otherwise, the image is bright, artifact free, and sharp and textured almost to a fault - one character kept wearing this leather-type jacket that made me eye the textures the entire time instead of paying attention to this dialogue heavy film.

I watched this movie because I enjoyed the book and while the movie got both my gf and my parents (yes, my dad cried) - I didn't feel that it had the same emotional impact as the book.

Either way, if you're at all interested in the genre, I'd give this one a look because it looks really phenomenal.


----------



## fredxr2d2

*X-Men Days of Future Past 3D

Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.0*

Most of this film is beautifully shot and I'm wondering if it wouldn't be a Tier Blu contender but for the fact that 3D has a tendency to soften some shots. However, the 3D effects were quite good and I'm not sure if I'll take the time to watch the 2D version (I leave that to the more experienced hands--and eyes--of djoberg and phantom) because the 3D really added to the cinematic experience.

I'm looking forward to other people's reviews...and it should be noted that the soundtrack is a downmix from a theatrical Atmos track, so there is lots of directionality and lots of use for all channels--very similar to Gravity and the new Transformers in that regard.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Batman: The Brave and the Bold (The Complete Second Season)*

recommendation: *Tier 1.25**

Warner Archive rescues this excellent cartoon for release in a limited edition Blu-ray set. These episodes, spread over two BD-50s, were originally broadcast on Cartoon Network back in 2009. The animation is reasonably polished, producing a vibrant, crisp palette with wonderful black levels. The digital transfer is a quality one, encoded at moderate compression parameters without introducing significant artifacting. A touch of banding is endemic to the original animation's solid backgrounds, though it is a fairly rare sight.

Some animated programs don't look much better on Blu-ray in 1080P than they did during broadcast at 1080i resolution. This is not the case here, _Batman: The Brave and the Bold_ benefits quite nicely from this higher quality presentation with improved chroma resolution and better depth. I'm very glad to own it on home video in a format that perfectly preserves the digital masters for posterity.


----------



## djoberg

fredxr2d2 said:


> *X-Men Days of Future Past 3D
> 
> Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.0*
> 
> Most of this film is beautifully shot and I'm wondering if it wouldn't be a Tier Blu contender but for the fact that 3D has a tendency to soften some shots. However, the 3D effects were quite good and I'm not sure if I'll take the time to watch the 2D version (I leave that to the more experienced hands--and eyes--of djoberg and phantom) because the 3D really added to the cinematic experience.
> 
> I'm looking forward to other people's reviews...and it should be noted that the soundtrack is a downmix from a theatrical Atmos track, so there is lots of directionality and lots of use for all channels--very similar to Gravity and the new Transformers in that regard.


You've really whetted my appetite for this title! In "most" cases the 2D version will be better than the 3D, especially in the area you noted (i.e. soft shots in the 3D version vs. the 2D version).

I was glad to read that _X-Men_ had a Dolby Atmos track in the theaters, for my experience with the downmix track of _Transformers_ was great...it sounded better than any other Dolby TrueHD or DTS Master Audio track that I can recall.


----------



## djoberg

*X-Men: Days of Future Past*

I'm going to cut to the chase. This was another STUNNING Blu-ray and was equal to or greater than _Captain America: The Winter Soldier_. I say greater based on three things: 1) It didn't have distracting softness creeping in (this is the 2D version, so it looks like it is superior to its 3D counterpart); and 2) Sharpness and details were more plentiful in this title; and 3) Black levels were absolutely exemplary in every scene, and my black bars blended right into my KURO's bezel). I really loved the colors too, which seemed to a be a tad more bold (wait until you see Mystique's blue suit and red hair....WOW!!).

Okay, so I had placed _Captain America: The Winter Soldier_ at Tier 0 (.75). I'd like to change that placement to 1.0 and put this Blu in the Tier 0 (.75) spot.

The audio was phenomenal!! I had my volume at -10 and it was Audio Nirvana on every level....amazing precision in the surrounds, crystal-clear clarity in the center channel, and mind-blowing bass/LFE in my sub.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.75)*

Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## djoberg

I forgot to add, for those who are fans of the X-Men franchise, this is clearly the BEST ONE in my humble opinion! I loved every minute of it!!


----------



## rusky_g

Looks like we are being very spoilt of late!.....or is it a case of BR finally hitting its intended stride!?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*X-Men: Days of Future Past*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

I am of two minds on this disc from Fox. Roughly fifty percent of it landed in Tier 0, rendered in stunning, unfiltered detail. Given the huge amount of VFX and CGI, it surpassed my PQ expectations. The other fifty percent of the movie was closer to Tier 1.25/1.5, which still signifies it as a quality presentation. I ended up splitting the difference and ranking it in Tier 1.0, though I have no problem if the final verdict lands _X-Men: Days of Future Past_ in the highest Tier.

I also got around to watching _The LEGO Movie_ on Blu-ray, though I come here to find out its current rank in the middle of Tier 0 is very close to where I would have figured it.


----------



## davcole

What's with the weird motion artifacts in XMen? Reminds me of the early days of films shot on video. 

Sent from my LG-V500 using Tapatalk


----------



## Phantom Stranger

davcole said:


> What's with the weird motion artifacts in XMen? Reminds me of the early days of films shot on video.


To which artifacts do you speak? The scenes in the future were practically all CGI sets from what I could tell, with green-screen work.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Rats: Night of Terror*

recommendation: *Tier 4.5**

The 1983 Italian cult shocker is part of a double-feature newly released by Blue Underground. Having been released in August, I was hoping newer transfers would get utilized. Both feature films end up on a single BD-50, though compression artifacts are not the problem with this Blu-ray's video. Like seemingly many other Italian transfers, it has been heavily filtered. Frozen grain and a lack of serious high-frequency information leave an image that resides in that twilight between 1080P definition and upscaled content from a standard-definition source.

The transfer is a shame, as the original film source looks in moderately great condition for what appears to be an older telecine struck from an interpositive. It has a high degree of clarity, all things considered, and less discerning viewers will likely overlook the grain-less video and less than stellar detail. There just is not the kind of definition and superior resolution evident in a unmolested, true film transfer. The film print isn't in terrible shape, with few obvious marks or debris. The opening credits exhibit terrible telecine wobble. I got the feeling the original HD transfer was interlaced in nature and had to be converted for this 1080P presentation.

I know the preceding analysis sounds harsh, but it is a watchable effort if you don't expect film-like fidelity. I could easily see someone ranking this BD in Tier 4.0 or even Tier 3.75, if they were being extremely kind.


----------



## djoberg

*The Signal*

Care to see an amazing Sci-Fi flick with decent PQ? Look no further, for this title will exceed your expectations. I had never heard of this low-budget outing from Universal but in perusing New Releases at my local video store today it grabbed my attention and I gave it a rent. All I can say is, "I'm glad I did!"

Like I said, this had "decent PQ," with colors that popped in the early scenes, and amazing details (especially facial close-ups) throughout. Once the characters arrive in the lab/bunker colors become very subdued, but details and depth are still on display for our visual pleasure. Black levels are more than satisfying and I'm happy to say that even in the darkest scenes the black bars blended right into my bezel. Flesh tones were also spot on, and with so many facial close-ups I appreciated that fact.

To be fair, there were some soft focus shots, and depth suffered as a result. But all in all this was quite sharp with very good clarity. This will NOT find its way into the coveted Tier Blu, but IMHO it's a shoe-in for Tier Gold. Because of the soft shots and a muted color palette in a majority of the 90 minute running time, my vote goes for....

*Tier Recommendation:1.25**

Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I don't have _The Signal's_ Blu-ray but someone did give me the UltraViolet copy. I'll have to bump it towards the top of my queue after your recommendation.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> I don't have _The Signal's_ Blu-ray but someone did give me the UltraViolet copy. I'll have to bump it towards the top of my queue after your recommendation.


I'm quite sure you'll enjoy it Phantom. I liked the pace and the suspense, and the acting was superb, especially that of Brenton Thwaites (the young lead actor who looks a lot like Josh Hartnick!) who gives an excellent performance. Laurence Fishburne can always be counted on to deliver a good performance and he was true to form here. BTW, I should have mentioned in my review, when commenting on the amazing facial close-ups, that Mr. Fishburne has a face made for Hi Def, much like that of Morgan Freeman or Tommy Lee Jones (filled with pores, age marks, wrinkles, etc).


----------



## djoberg

I decided to watch _The Signal_ again before returning it to the video store and I was even more impressed with the movie, the PQ and the AQ the second time around. I'm changing my placement from 1.75 to 1.25! All Sci-Fi aficionados...this is a MUST SEE!! I forgot to mention last night the soundtrack is awesome and gives it the perfect mood all the way through.


----------



## djoberg

Well, I guess I need to put forth a "disclaimer" regarding _The Signal_. I was curious as to what others were saying about this movie so I visited Amazon.com where there were dozens of reviews. The average was only 3 Stars with many naysayers complaining about 1) the slow pace, or 2) the terrible plot, or 3) the confusing ending. For me, I found I was in good company with a fair number of 4 or 5 Star reviewers who loved the 1) suspenseful-pacing, 2) the non-conventional plot, and 3) the mind-blowing ending (which definitely left room for a sequel). I feel the vast majority of Sci-Fi fans today are jaded and have short attention spans. If they aren't treated to non-stop action and multi-million dollar CGI from start to finish (think _Transformers_ or _Avatar_), they will reject a movie without giving any serious thought to what they just watched.

Anyway, I though it best to bring this out, for if you fall into the class listed above who need tons of CGI and have short attention spans, I would advise you to skip this one. But if, like me, you like something out of the ordinary which actually makes you think (and wonder what's coming next), this one is for you!

Okay, back to our normal broadcasting.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Terror Train*

recommendation: *Tier 4.0**

Shout Factory brings this 1980 slasher to Blu-ray in adequate condition. The older transfer is fairly soft and has black levels all over the place, resulting in a moderate upgrade over standard definition versions of _Terror Train_. The film elements are marked by scratches, there was no attempt to clean them up for 1080P resolution. 

This is not a film transfer from the original negative. Its overall lack of clarity and softness indicates an older telecine struck from secondary film elements. The exaggerated grain structure is a result of an over sharpened transfer. It would not have been a bad transfer...six or seven years ago. Scream Factory does employ a very strong AVC video encode at high compression parameters, cleanly replicating the noisy grain and darker shadow delineation.

_Terror Train_ is a BD that definitely deserves Tier 4. Others may place it even lower, depending on their tolerance for dated cinematography. A new film transfer would have made for a more substantial upgrade in picture quality.


----------



## djoberg

*The Fault in our Stars*

As popular as this movie was at the Box Office, I'm surprised I couldn't find one review on any of the usual sites I frequent for reviews. As some of you may know, the female lead is Shailene Woodley, the female lead in _Divergent_. It's quite dramatic (my wife had a box of tissues between us in case we needed them) and the acting is quite good. But how's the PQ?

The PQ was VERY GOOD, with exceptional sharpness/clarity, finely-rendered details, satisfying blacks, amazing shadow details, accurate flesh tones, astounding depth, and last, but not least, warm & vivid colors. Sounds like an easy contender for Tier Blu, right? Not exactly. Why? Because in spite of the "exceptional sharpness/clarity" in _most_ scenes, there were _some_ scenes that came across as "too sharp," bordering on what you'd see on a sharp-looking cable/satellite broadcast. I'm NOT speaking about the infamous "soap opera effect" (where "motion" is also involved, as well as a "soft" look) but rather the look that results from, perhaps, post-digital processing to make it look sharper than it really is.

Overall though, this was very pleasing to the eyes and I can't imagine it ending anywhere lower than Tier Gold. I was impressed enough to assign it to the top of that tier....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**

Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## djoberg

I guess I was mistaken when I said that there were no reviews on _The Fault in our Stars_. Blu-ray.com did weigh in last month with a very positive PQ score citing many of the same virtues that I outlined in my review. There were two differences in our reviews: 1) They said nothing about any shots being "too sharp;" and 2) They referred to some shots where the contrast, in brightly-lit scenes, looked "milky" and resembled "blooming." (I didn't catch those in my first viewing.)

I should have mentioned the amazing cinematography. A few scenes took place in Amsterdam and every shot of its ornate buildings, cobblestone streets, canals, and beautiful foliage was demo/reference quality. I also should have mentioned, when referring to "details," that facial close-ups were, at times, exemplary.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I'll wait until the disc officially comes out tomorrow, but _Begin Again_ has some of the best-looking RED-shot video I've seen on the format. It likely will end up in Tier 0.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^

I'm blaming you for me renting _Begin Again_ a few minutes ago Phantom. Had you not told me about the excellent PQ I would passed on this one due to it being a "Romantic Comedy." My last viewing was a "chick flick" and here I am watching two of them back to back!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^
> 
> I'm blaming you for me renting _Begin Again_ a few minutes ago Phantom. Had you not told me about the excellent PQ I would passed on this one due to it being a "Romantic Comedy." My last viewing was a "chick flick" and here I am watching two of them back to back!


It stars Keira Knightley and is directed by John Carney, the genius behind _Once_. It is not quite as good as the magical _Once, _ which I still consider a favorite romantic movie of mine, but covers much of the same territory. I wouldn't characterize it as a romantic comedy. There is some romance, but it's more about one young woman's passion for music. The review will soon go up on everyone's favorite site.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> It stars Keira Knightley and is directed by John Carney, the genius behind _Once_. It is not quite as good as the magical _Once, _ which I still consider a favorite romantic movie of mine, but covers much of the same territory. I wouldn't characterize it as a romantic comedy. There is some romance, but it's more about one young woman's passion for music. The review will soon go up on everyone's favorite site.


I didn't have my reading glasses at the video store so I couldn't read the small write-up (on the back of the disc case) describing the content of the movie, but in rather large letters on the front of the case were the words, "FUNNY AND ROMANTIC" (written by Peter Travers of ROLLING STONE), so I assumed it was a romantic comedy. My bad! 

I also had noticed that Adam Levine is in this and I'm a fan of his, so I'm hoping it will feature some of his musical talent.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Adam Levine does sing in the movie.


----------



## rusky_g

Hitchcock

Some scenes were low tier 0, others were low Tier Silver. The majority were somewhere in between. 

Tier 2.0


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^

Hey Russ,

I had to do a Search to see where I had placed _Hitchcock_. I gave it a 1.0 and Phantom gave it a 1.25. Your viewing experience was obviously different, so could you be a bit more specific as to why you gave it a 2.0. For example, did you think it was too soft, or perhaps the blacks levels weren't demo-worthy. What say you?

Denny


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Exorcist III*

recommendation: *Tier 2.75**

"My _name_ is _Legion_: for we are many."​
This has always been one of my favorite horror sequels, so I am pleased to report it has received a very satisfying Hi-Def presentation in the new Exorcist Anthology box set. A competent AVC video encode retains this film's natural grain structure from a relatively modern, fresh HD transfer. The color timing is superb, displaying a rich contrast and stark black levels. This is most definitely one of Warner's better catalog efforts in 1080P resolution.

This newer film transfer has been acquired from the original camera negative. The film elements are in pristine form, as fresh-looking as they possibly were in 1990. An immaculate print shows precious little sign of digital tampering, it is a film-like presentation of ordinary film stock utilized in the solid cinematography of _Exorcist III_. It has a surprising sense of depth and pop. A possible wisp of edge enhancement is negligible in magnitude, only very astute viewers on 100" projection screens will even recognize the tiny halos. This recent transfer has very appreciable levels of detail and high-frequency content, there is a pleasing sense of true filmic quality in its resolution.

Given the visible grain and enhanced chroma range, the film scan was likely done at 2K resolution. I know that 4K film scans are all the rage these days, but 2K transfers can still produce excellent picture quality results with the right elements and care. _Exorcist III_ is one of them. The AVC video encode is adequate, largely hovering in the sub-20 Mbps range. It accurately replicates the shadowy interiors and fine grain structure without introducing a surfeit of artifacts. It falls short of reference quality but the 105-minute main feature is confined to a BD-25.

This quality Blu-ray presentation of _Exorcist III_ makes it an easy recommendation for fans; it is never going to look much better on the format. I only wish we had gotten more supplements than an old trailer.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^

I've never seen _The Exorcist 3_. I'll have to check it out! I'll be watching _Begin Again_ in a few hours.


----------



## rusky_g

Hi Denny

Sorry my review was so brief. I went with a gut feeling score - I felt the outside shots looked very good, darker lit scenes lacked some finesse in terms of clarity - colours were nicely done, as were blacks. Maybe I could nudge it up to 1.75 as Although not an outright stunner it was still pleasing in terms of PQ.

Hope you're keeping well
Russ


----------



## djoberg

*Begin Again*

Phantom had succeeded in whetting my appetite for this Blu-ray and I'm more than glad that he did. You may recall him saying, "It will likely end up in Tier 0." I'd like to go a step further and say, "It WILL end up in Tier 0!!" 

Besides the usual array of virtues that we look for in a Top Tier contender, I was mesmerized by how perfectly "natural" this looked. My wife and I spent three days in New York City a few years ago, walking the streets day and night for countless hours. I felt like I was back walking those same streets as I watched scene after scene in "The Big Apple" with its stellar clarity and details. I had mentioned in my last review how there were shots in _The Fault in our Stars_ that were "too sharp" and thus they came across as "unnatural." By contrast we have in this title super, sharp clarity, and yet it retains that "looking through a window" look...again, PERFECTLY NATURAL.

There were a few soft shots, most notably in an opening scene in the bar where Keira Knightley first sings (a scene that is repeated a few times in the first half). But I feel like I'm "straining at a gnat" in bringing this out, for the majority of the film was pure EYE CANDY. We are treated to a good number of daytime scenes in New York City and the depth is astounding, along with details in foliage, buildings, cars, etc. that rivals any Blu that currently resides in Tier Blu. Colors are also pleasing to the eyes...contrast is strong...flesh tones are "natural"...and black levels are to die for!

Before I give my placement, I just have to ask, "Who knew that Keira Knightley could sing?" I'm always amazed when I've seen actors for many years playing in non-musical roles and then, all of a sudden, they're playing the role of a musician and they reveal to the world that THEY CAN REALLY SING! Of course, Adam Levine also performs and is at the top of his game (though I wasn't too convinced of his acting ability).

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.75)*

Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## tcramer

djoberg said:


> *Begin Again*
> 
> Phantom had succeeded in whetting my appetite for this Blu-ray and I'm more than glad that he did. You may recall him saying, "It will likely end up in Tier 0." I'd like to go a step further and say, "It WILL end up in Tier 0!!"
> 
> Besides the usual array of virtues that we look for in a Top Tier contender, I was mesmerized by how perfectly "natural" this looked. My wife and I spent three days in New York City a few years ago, walking the streets day and night for countless hours. I felt like I was back walking those same streets as I watched scene after scene in "The Big Apple" with its stellar clarity and details. I had mentioned in my last review how there were shots in _The Fault in our Stars_ that were "too sharp" and thus they came across as "unnatural." By contrast we have in this title super, sharp clarity, and yet it retains that "looking through a window" look...again, PERFECTLY NATURAL.
> 
> There were a few soft shots, most notably in an opening scene in the bar where Keira Knightley first sings (a scene that is repeated a few times in the first half). But I feel like I'm "straining at a gnat" in bringing this out, for the majority of the film was pure EYE CANDY. We are treated to a good number of daytime scenes in New York City and the depth is astounding, along with details in foliage, buildings, cars, etc. that rivals any Blu that currently resides in Tier Blu. Colors are also pleasing to the eyes...contrast is strong...flesh tones are "natural"...and black levels are to die for!
> 
> Before I give my placement, I just have to ask, "Who knew that Keira Knightley could sing?" I'm always amazed when I've seen actors for many years playing in non-musical roles and then, all of a sudden, they're playing the role of a musician and they reveal to the world that THEY CAN REALLY SING! Of course, Adam Levine also performs and is at the top of his game (though I wasn't too convinced of his acting ability).
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.75)*
> 
> Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


I'd just like to say we got this from Netflix and watched it tonight and I can echo everything you said. Some those night scenes really showed how awesome black levels are on the Kuro, albeit I was watching it on the lowly 5020. 

Hope you don't mind, but copying your ranking...
*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.75)*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^

Good to see we're on the same page tcramer!

I'm sure your "5020" looks just as good as my PRO-151. You gotta love it when the source material features deep blacks so our KUROs can live up to their name!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I'll go along with my fellow posters and recommend largely the same placement.

*Begin Again*

recommendation: *Tier 0** (2/3rds down)

Truly exemplary digital quality shot from the RED camera for this movie. Djoberg definitely pointed out its biggest failing, that softer opening in the bar. I believe there were some VFX or digital composites in that scene. This is possibly the best-looking BD released by Starz/Anchor Bay.

The outdoor scenes are gorgeous, rendered in vivid detail with a lush, naturalistic color palette. Inky black levels and extreme resolution highlight a generous amount of fine detail.


----------



## lgans316

Maleficent

Wowser from Disney. Looks incredible with plenty of 3D pop. Even the dark scenes are detailed. Simply looks stunning on my 85" PJ screen.  

However, the movie was average as it was way too predictable.

Recommendation: Tier 0 (somewhere in the bottom quarter)


----------



## MSchu18

to bad the movie sucks


----------



## MSchu18

Spoiler



to bad the movie sucks


----------



## djoberg

lgans316 said:


> Maleficent
> 
> Wowser from Disney. Looks incredible with plenty of 3D pop. Even the dark scenes are detailed. Simply looks stunning on my 85" PJ screen.
> 
> However, the movie was average as it was way too predictable.
> 
> Recommendation: Tier 0 (somewhere in the bottom quarter)


Was that the 3D version that you saw?

I get my 2D copy next Tuesday, so I'll be weighing in then.


----------



## lgans316

2D version mate though my PJ can do 3D but I am just too afraid to buy the glasses and watch in 3D with my son running around


----------



## Josh Z

Phantom Stranger said:


> *The Exorcist III*
> 
> This newer film transfer has been acquired from the original camera negative.


I'm curious where you're getting the information that this is a new scan from the camera negative? I think the disc looks pretty good, but I don't think it looks that special. It looks to me like an older but very competent transfer.

Exorcist II, The Beginning and Dominion are all decidedly *not* new film scans. Exorcist II looks all-around atrocious, while Dominion is the wrong aspect ratio and has serious DNR and Edge Enhancement problems. 

It strikes me as very unlikely that Warner would expend the money or effort to rescan just Exorcist III but not any of the others. The movie was a box office bomb with middling reviews in its day. While it has a small cult following, it's no Blade Runner. It's simply not Warner's M.O. to give special treatment to a movie like this.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I call them as I see them, Josh. I have considerable knowledge of Warner's past history and practices. I have little interest in watching the other Exorcist sequels at this time, though I had heard about the others receiving far worse treatment. I was disappointed they didn't have Blatty add a commentary, but I guess that wasn't in the budget.

When I called it a newer film transfer, I was inferring its overall clarity and resolution indicated a modern 2K image harvest made in the past four or five years. The film elements are in superb condition.

Have a scary Halloween, everybody!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Swamp Thing*

recommendation: *Tier 3.75/4.0**

Wes Craven's _Swamp Thing_ arrives on Blu-ray courtesy of Scream Factory, in an adequate Hi-Def presentation that doesn't scream stellar resolution or clarity. Licensed from MGM, this disc utilizes an older master. It looks like a fairly soft telecine from average elements. I imagine it was struck many years ago, when DVD was the primary consideration for home video. 

Scream Factory doesn't add any unnecessary video processing and employs a very strong AVC video encode, spreading the 91-minute main feature over a BD-50 at high bitrates. I am no expert on this particular film, so I can't definitively state the grain is completely authentic. However, nothing in its structure looks untoward and the transfer has definitely not been sharpened to any serious degree. The fine detail is soft and lacks serious definition.

I rarely waver on deciding a final score but _Swamp Thing_ lies on the edge between Tiers 3 and 4. The overall transfer seems a little dark. The murky, green foliage of the swamps doesn't pop with the type of brilliance expected from a newer film scan. I imagine a top-notch film restoration could really do wonders for this movie in 1080P resolution.


----------



## rusky_g

Mission Impossible - Ghost Protocol

Too many soft moments spoilt this for me, as some scenes looked like DVD quality. Even the best scenes couldn't compete with the mega resolution that we are being treated to of late with more current releases. 2 years ago this would have been tier 1 but the competition is just too strong now.

Tier 2


----------



## Phantom Stranger

rusky_g said:


> Mission Impossible - Ghost Protocol
> 
> Too many soft moments spoilt this for me, as some scenes looked like DVD quality. Even the best scenes couldn't compete with the mega resolution that we are being treated to of late with more current releases. 2 years ago this would have been tier 1 but the competition is just too strong now.
> 
> Tier 2


It is interesting you bring _MI: Ghost Protocol_ up. Which edition did you see? Paramount actually authored two different versions of this movie on Blu-ray, one without special features that has much higher video bitrates. It was intended as a rental-only version, but landed in retail stores as part of Best Buy's exclusive 3-disc edition. All other retail editions should have a visibly inferior video encode at far lower rates.

I only recently discovered this issue, these hidden rental-only editions from Paramount often look superior to the normal retail BD. _Super 8_ is another one in this group.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^

I must have the "rental version" of _MI: Ghost Protocol_, for I don't recall it ever looking like DVD quality as Russ pointed out. I'm trying to remember if I purchased it at Best Buy; it was either there or through Amazon.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Snowpiercer*

recommendation: *Tier 2.25**

_Snowpiercer_ exhibits a wide range in video quality over its 126 minutes. The new release from distributor Starz is technically sound, as most of the special features have been moved to a second BD. Its picture has outstanding definition and sharpness, most of the time. My concerns lie with its impenetrable black levels and teal-heavy color timing. The best scenes clearly land in Tier One, exuding remarkable clarity in pristine resolution. The aesthetic changes a great deal as our heroes proceed up the train, moving from noisier grime to a futuristic sheen.

I expect there will be differences of opinion over this placement, there is enough latitude in _Snowpiercer's_ cinematography to land it almost anywhere in Tier 1 or 2.


----------



## rusky_g

Phantom, my disc is this one

http://www.play.com/DVD/Blu-ray/4-/29505302/Mission-Impossible-Ghost-Protocol-Triple-Play/Product.html?searchstring=ghost+protocol&searchsource=0&searchtype=BLU&urlrefer=search&strefer=BLU&searchfilters=s{ghost+protocol}%2bc{600}%2b

Regarding the softer scenes, the one where Paula Patton tries to seduce the Rich Indian stood out in particular.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

rusky_g said:


> Phantom, my disc is this one
> 
> http://www.play.com/DVD/Blu-ray/4-/29505302/Mission-Impossible-Ghost-Protocol-Triple-Play/Product.html?searchstring=ghost+protocol&searchsource=0&searchtype=BLU&urlrefer=search&strefer=BLU&searchfilters=s{ghost+protocol}%2bc{600}%2b
> 
> Regarding the softer scenes, the one where Paula Patton tries to seduce the Rich Indian stood out in particular.


It was also handled by Paramount across the pond. That appears to be the single Blu-ray loaded with special features version. You very likely have the bit-starved video encode.


----------



## rusky_g

Big thumbs down, Phantom!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

rusky_g said:


> Big thumbs down, Phantom!


I'm sorry to have been the bearer of bad news.


*The Visitor*

recommendation: *Tier 4.5**

_An intergalactic warrior joins a cosmic Christ figure in battle against a demonic eight-year-old and her pet hawk, while the fate of the universe hangs in the balance._​
I had to include a synopsis from the press materials for this terrible 1979 movie. Drafthouse Films "rescued" it from obscurity and dug up this HD transfer of middling quality. This placement could really be assigned for two different discs, since Arrow Video utilized the same transfer for their Region B-locked disc. Aside from an improved video encode on a BD-50 for Arrow's version, they look nearly identical.

The film elements are in sketchy condition to begin with and frequent optical effects introduce further generations of film grain into the print. That print is marked with the occasional film damage and visible deterioration. The cinematography is wildly inconsistent, ranging from acceptable to poor and diffuse. This is definitely an older transfer, there is possible filtering going on in its picture.


----------



## Kool-aid23

*Rental-only editions*



Phantom Stranger said:


> ... I only recently discovered this issue, these hidden rental-only editions from Paramount often look superior to the normal retail BD. _Super 8_ is another one in this group.


 Interesting Phantom. Do you know the other titles besides Super 8 that are apart of this hidden rental edition? Regards,


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Kool-aid23 said:


> Interesting Phantom. Do you know the other titles besides Super 8 that are apart of this hidden rental edition? Regards,


The following are all strong possibilities in this situation:

Captain America: The First Avenger
Mission: Impossible -- Ghost Protocol
Super 8
Thor
True Grit (2010)

There are probably more, Paramount seems to have authored rental-only BDs at some point that bettered retail releases.


----------



## DragonQ

Phantom Stranger said:


> The following are all strong possibilities in this situation:
> 
> Captain America: The First Avenger
> Mission: Impossible -- Ghost Protocol
> Super 8
> Thor
> True Grit (2010)
> 
> There are probably more, Paramount seems to have authored rental-only BDs at some point that bettered retail releases.


Now that is bizarre. What could possibly be the point? I can only think of the fact that including extras would take up disc space but BDs are rarely filled to capacity anyway.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

DragonQ said:


> Now that is bizarre. What could possibly be the point? I can only think of the fact that including extras would take up disc space but BDs are rarely filled to capacity anyway.


That is exactly what happened. The rental editions had no special features, so the movie got an entire BD-50 to itself.


----------



## djoberg

*Maleficent*




lgans316 said:


> Maleficent
> 
> Wowser from Disney. Looks incredible with plenty of 3D pop. Even the dark scenes are detailed. Simply looks stunning on my 85" PJ screen.
> 
> However, the movie was average as it was way too predictable.
> 
> Recommendation: Tier 0 (somewhere in the bottom quarter)


I would echo my colleague's praise and add some more!!

This is a feast for the eyes....with bold COLORS that pop off the screen....DETAILS that draw you into each scene....ultra-rich BLACK LEVELS that never waver....SHADOW DETAILS that had me drooling in several scenes....FLESH TONES that defy description (from pale complexions to every other shade)....and a dazzling SHARPNESS & CLARITY (with a few exceptions where softness intruded). The softness (which must be marginally penalized) just mentioned seemed to be intentional (i.e. Director's Intent) and thankfully each instance was brief.

This is most certainly a Tier Blu contender and I can't imagine anyone voting otherwise. I was going to go as high as .5 but after seeing Igan's recommendation I tend to agree it belongs closer to the bottom quarter. Having said that, I believe it should go at the very top of that quarter.....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.75)*

Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I was wavering on purchasing _Maleficent_, but your recommendation has pushed me over the top. I was looking for an excuse to get it and Tier 0 is usually a good enough reason.

Since it's marginally related to _Maleficent_, I'll mention that Disney used an identical video encode for their recent _Sleeping Beauty_: Diamond edition that was used on the acclaimed Platinum edition. So videophiles can stick with the older edition.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*I'm Not There (Canadian import)*

recommendation: *Tier 1.75**

A film paying homage to Bob Dylan's life, _I'm Not There_ was not released on Blu-ray in the United States. The 2007 film did hit Blu-ray in Canada, by Canadian distributor Alliance. This is a solid 1080P representation of the movie's highly stylized cinematography, shifting between a variety of film formats and crystal-clear video, as the narrative leaps from time to time. The AVC video encode does a fine job in all but the 16mm film segments.

Much of _I'm Not There's_ picture quality definitely resides in a higher plane than the bottom of Tier One. The better-looking scenes have impressive depth and clarity, they are incredibly razor sharp. If there is a problem with its look, the digital color grading is comparatively crude by 2014's standards. There is a preponderance of teal in the color palette, affecting the pristine video to some degree.

The film transfer has been left free of sharpening and shows no evidence of filtering. The film segments definitely resemble authentic celluloid.

Paramount did their own BD in the UK. It would be interesting to see if that disc would better this one's solid effort.


----------



## djoberg

*Sabotage*

I did NOT watch the whole movie (I thought it was quite bad and the pervasive profanity was sickening), but what I did see had exemplary PQ. Details abounded in every shot, especially facial texture (man, is Arnold ever showing his age!!), but not limited to them. Colors were strikingly natural, flesh tones were spot on, contrast was superb, depth was appreciable and black levels never wavered. For the most part sharpness and clarity reigned. This was, without a doubt, reference quality. To be fair, I only saw the first half, but if the second half held up (which I assume it did from what others have written about the PQ) this is deserving of....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.5)*

Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I will have to make a mental note to knock _Sabotage_ down my priority list, as it is in my ever-growing queue of unwatched BDs. How wretched could it be as to prevent you from finishing the whole movie!?


----------



## edlittle

How would you compare it to Escape Plan, the last Arnold movie?


----------



## djoberg

*The Diary of Anne Frank (1959)*

Having not seen the 2004 DVD release, I don't have the advantage of comparing it with this 2009 Blu-ray release, but I did read one review (from a "good" source) who said the Blu-ray was not much better than its DVD counterpart. I can readily believe his report, for this did not have many WOW factors that other Blu-ray releases of catalog titles have given us.

By far the most redeeming feature was clarity (and details) in close-ups. Facial texture was quite satisfying with each actor, though facial close-ups were limited (with the majority being focused on Millie Perkins). Stitching in clothing was impressive in such close-ups, as were shots of furniture, wooden walls, staircases, etc. Mid-range shots did NOT fare nearly as well.
This was strictly in B&W, so I can't offer any comments on color, but the gray-scale looked good to _my eyes_. Black levels were so-so (nothing to brag about) and shadow details were crushed at times.

The worst offender was to be seen in many of the shots from the attic, when Ann and Peter looked out the window towards the open sky. It was riddled with artifacts, from speckles to video noise. Birds almost looked artificial and I'm quite sure I saw the infamous "halos" in those shots. Conversely, when Ann and Peter were looking down on the street below there was a fair amount of clarity and details (though other street scenes from other vantage points could be really bad, with blurriness and a lack of detail and depth).

I guess for a 1959 film one can't complain too much, but as noted above we've seen other B&W restorations on Blu-ray look fantastic (such as the Hitchcock classic "Psycho"). The reviewer alluded to above did say there were a few instances where this looked better than the DVD. Taking that into consideration with what I saw, I'd assign it right here...

*Tier Recommendation: 3.75**

Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below...


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Denny, I think you meant 1959 in bold. George Stevens' film was nominated for eight Oscars and won three of them. That is the 50th anniversary edition you are reviewing.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> I will have to make a mental note to knock _Sabotage_ down my priority list, as it is in my ever-growing queue of unwatched BDs. How wretched could it be as to prevent you from finishing the whole movie!?


My biggest gripe was the pervasive language. F-bombs were spewing out of mouths every minute from nearly every actor and I, for one, am taken out of the movie when that happens. That, along with plenty of gratuitous violence, a weak story-line, and poor to fair acting, was enough for me to pull the plug at about the 40 minute mark.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> My biggest gripe was the pervasive language. F-bombs were spewing out of mouths every minute from every actor and I, for one, am taken out of the movie when that happens. That, along with plenty of gratuitous violence, a weak story-line, and poor to fair acting, was enough for me to pull the plug at about the 40 minute mark.


Understood, I was already a little leery of _Sabotage_, seeing as how it came and went so quickly at the box office. Hopefully the surround sound is nice.


----------



## djoberg

edlittle said:


> How would you compare it to Escape Plan, the last Arnold movie?


I haven't seen that one yet.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> Denny, I think you meant 1959 in bold. George Stevens' film was nominated for eight Oscars and won three of them. That is the 50th anniversary edition you are reviewing.


Yes, it was filmed in 1959 (I mentioned that in my last paragraph) but the Blu-ray release was put out in 2009.


----------



## rusky_g

*Titanic *

This looked very good for an older release. I thought the PQ looked best during the 'ship sinking' scenes, namely the external shots of people boarding the lifeboats. Deep inky blacks of the starry sky pierced by the Titanic's lights really did look great and a few instances showed very far reaching detail among the hoards of passengers. Other highlights were the facial details on the 'older' Rose Dawson where every facial line and crease could be appreciated. Weaker moments were some of the modern day scenes when Rose was regaling the crew with her story. Some of the Leornado close ups also fell short of the very best seen in Tier Blu releases.

Nonetheless this couldn't be anything other than Tier Gold.

*Tier 1.5*


----------



## rusky_g

*One Chance*

Talk about a little hidden gem....

For those unaware of this movie, it tells the success story of Britains Got Talent TV show winner Paul Potts.

I was really pleased with how this looked for a pretty low budget movie set in the UK. It always pleases me when a film has no grain - this looked very clear indeeed and I never noticed any artifcats, banding or other such nasties. Instead we are treated to a movie which depsite looking so clean and crisp, still had a 'filmic' appeal. Facial details often looked excellent and the film was adorned with a cool golden blue hue. Black and contrast were generally spot on. This was truly a pleasure to watch and I'd say in terms of PQ, the most enjoyable I have seen since Need for Speed.
*
Tier 1.25*


----------



## djoberg

rusky_g said:


> *Titanic *
> 
> This looked very good for an older release. I thought the PQ looked best during the 'ship sinking' scenes, namely the external shots of people boarding the lifeboats. Deep inky blacks of the starry sky pierced by the Titanic's lights really did look great and a few instances showed very far reaching detail among the hoards of passengers. Other highlights were the facial details on the 'older' Rose Dawson where every facial line and crease could be appreciated. Weaker moments were some of the modern day scenes when Rose was regaling the crew with her story. Some of the Leornado close ups also fell short of the very best seen in Tier Blu releases.
> 
> Nonetheless this couldn't be anything other than Tier Gold.
> 
> *Tier 1.5*


Once again we're separated by a half of a tier in our ranking (I recommended 1.0 for this one). If this keeps up Russ you're going to resurrect my old reputation as "the most generous rater" on the thread!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I haven't seen the Blu-ray, but most considered _Titanic_ the standard by which all other DVD transfers were measured.


----------



## rusky_g

Denny I think generally we are in the same ball park with our rankings ;-)

Hope you're well? Just enjoying a local bar here in Hertfordshire UK


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> I haven't seen the Blu-ray, but most considered _Titanic_ the standard by which all other DVD transfers were measured.


When I checked to see where I had placed it I saw that I had quoted GRG, for he raved about the PQ and gave it a 1.25.


----------



## djoberg

rusky_g said:


> Denny I think generally we are in the same ball park with our rankings ;-)
> 
> Hope you're well? Just enjoying a local bar here in Hertfordshire UK


Yes, we are Russ. I just thought I'd use your last two placements, which were higher than mine, to slip in a very weak joke. 

So, where is Hertfordshire in relation to London? (I could Google it but I'm lazy!)


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Lagrange: The Flower of Rin-ne: Vol. 1*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

A fairly recent anime series, _Lagrange's_ rather ordinary animation lacks the kind of punch and pulsing color required for a Tier One ranking. There is nothing inherently wrong with Viz Media's release, they bestow a technically-perfect transfer and encoding on this two-BD set. The lack of banding is commendable, which some other anime distributors have still yet to entirely correct.


----------



## rusky_g

djoberg said:


> Yes, we are Russ. I just thought I'd use your last two placements, which were higher than mine, to slip in a very weak joke.
> 
> So, where is Hertfordshire in relation to London? (I could Google it but I'm lazy!)


I'm about 1hr drive from central London ;-)


----------



## lgans316

Denny,

If you don't like Profanity I presume you didn't complete Wolf of the Wall Street either? 

The Lego Movie

Man, what a big disappointment. The visualizations are of course top class but the animation quality isn't sharp as they looked soft focussed for my tastes. Colors pop well and even the sound is good with some good LFE. However I found the movie itself irritating and testing my patience and was waiting for it to end. My 2 year old son who watches virtually every animated flick started feeling bored after 15 minutes. This pretty much sums it up.

Recommendation: Tier 1.5


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Bayonetta: Bloody Fate*

recommendation: *Tier 0** (0.5)

This new animated feature from Gonzo is an extraordinary accomplishment in hand-drawn animation history. _Bayonetta_ is a visual feast for the eyes, based off the videogame franchise. I think anime distributor Funimation realized they were handling something great, they deviated from their normally stingy encoding practices. _Bayonetta_ runs a total of 90 minutes on a BD-50, given an AVC video encode that regularly tops 30 Mbps. Funimation has finally licked their banding problems on this perfect-looking disc.

Gonzo blew out the animation budget, this has some of the finest fluidity and intricate character design seen on Blu-ray. Every lavish detail is up on the screen in clear resolution. They didn't cut one corner in producing some of the most polished hand-drawn animation seen since the halcyon days of Walt Disney. The aesthetic may not be everyone's cup of tea, but its bold colors and crisp line-art produce demo-quality clarity.

While it sounds like hyperbole, this is probably the finest non-CGI animation to hit 1080P video. It is not cel animation, so the colors are slightly less vivid in tonality. The only comparable BDs I've seen that approach it in sheer brilliance for extended stretches would be _Redline_ and _Sword of the Stranger_.


----------



## djoberg

lgans316 said:


> Denny,
> 
> If you don't like Profanity I presume you didn't complete Wolf of the Wall Street either?
> 
> The Lego Movie
> 
> Man, what a big disappointment. The visualizations are of course top class but the animation quality isn't sharp as they looked soft focussed for my tastes. Colors pop well and even the sound is good with some good LFE. However I found the movie itself irritating and testing my patience and was waiting for it to end. My 2 year old son who watches virtually every animated flick started feeling bored after 15 minutes. This pretty much sums it up.
> 
> Recommendation: Tier 1.5


I had a heads-up on _The Wolf of Wall Street_, so I didn't even rent it. I believe it set a record for the most occurrences of the F-bomb (over 200, if memory serves). I have a feeling that _Sabotage_ may easily break that record! 

Regarding _The Lego Movie_, I actually fell asleep watching it; it was that bad!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

LEGO Batman was the one redeeming part of _The LEGO Movie_. He is now getting his own movie. Like most comedies these days, almost all of the best gags were seen in commercials.


----------



## djoberg

My memory didn't serve me well, for _The Wolf of Wall Street_ had a staggering 507 F-bombs dropped in its 180 minute running time, which figures out to 2.8 per minute. _Sabotage_ had about 200 (the reviewer wasn't real sure on this amount, for some of them were spoken so fast) with a 109 minute running time, which figures out to 1.8 per minute.

I really do hate movies that are permeated with strong language, even though they add "realism" to the story. So, I choose to avoid them if possible. With some movies the strong language is confined to one or two characters, and then I can simply push the Mute button when they begin their trash-talk. With _Sabotage_, I wasn't given that choice due to nearly every character having a very "limited vocabulary."


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Forbidden World*

recommendation: *Tier 4.0**

Roger Corman's answer to _Alien_, _Forbidden World_ arrives on Blu-ray in a ho-hum transfer from secondary elements. Shout Factory apparently utilized an interpositive of the film for its master. The video is fairly soft in definition and isn't particularly detailed. The 1982 movie probably would look better in 1080P if someone could dig up the original camera negative.

Given a BD-25, the subdued compression rates introduce a small amount of chroma noise and other anomalies. This is not a terrible-looking BD, the transfer hasn't been slammed with nasty processing. The film print does include cue marks and a few other signs of its origins.


----------



## djoberg

I watched _Maleficent_ again with my granddaughter on Saturday night and I was more impressed with the second viewing. I could see members voting for a higher placement than the bottom quarter of Tier 0 (where Igans316 and I placed it). Clarity and details are STRIKING all the way through, with the exception of one of the last scenes where Maleficent turns her "bird" into a "dragon" to fight for her. It's a bit on the soft side in that scene, though it takes place inside a dark room in the castle with very low-lighting, so it probably looked as good as it could look.

I was hoping to hear from more of you on this title. If you love EYE CANDY, at least give it a rent. You won't be disappointed, I promise you!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Denny, I have received my copy, bought solely on your recommendation. We shall see if I think it belongs in Tier 0.


----------



## fredxr2d2

djoberg said:


> I watched _Maleficent_ again with my granddaughter on Saturday night and I was more impressed with the second viewing. I could see members voting for a higher placement than the bottom quarter of Tier 0 (where Igans316 and I placed it). Clarity and details are STRIKING all the way through, with the exception of one of the last scenes where Maleficent turns her "bird" into a "dragon" to fight for her. It's a bit on the soft side in that scene, though it takes place inside a dark room in the castle with very low-lighting, so it probably looked as good as it could look.
> 
> I was hoping to hear from more of you on this title. If you love EYE CANDY, at least give it a rent. You won't be disappointed, I promise you!



My gf demanded to see it, but I'm not going out of my way to procure it -- gotta wait for Netflix to get the BD for rental (12/2).


----------



## djoberg

fredxr2d2 said:


> My gf demanded to see it, but I'm not going out of my way to procure it -- gotta wait for Netflix to get the BD for rental (12/2).


FWIW, this is NOT your normal Disney "movie for kids." It takes itself more seriously and has more violence than you'd expect to see for a Disney production. I wouldn't encourage my youngest grandchildren to watch it for those reasons.

Having said that, it's not exactly "adult" friendly either, sort of in-between. Let me put it this way, I may not have purchased this if not for my grandchildren who, when they visit us, expect to see the latest movie with a PG or G rating (whether it's a Disney live title or an animated movie).

I do want to emphasize though that if you're a Video aficionado it's truly worth at least a rent to give your eyes the sugar rush they deserve!


----------



## fredxr2d2

djoberg said:


> FWIW, this is NOT your normal Disney "movie for kids." It takes itself more seriously and has more violence than you'd expect to see for a Disney production. I wouldn't encourage my youngest grandchildren to watch it for those reasons.
> 
> Having said that, it's not exactly "adult" friendly either, sort of in-between. Let me put it this way, I may not have purchased this if not for my grandchildren who, when they visit us, expect to see the latest movie with a PG or G rating (whether it's a Disney live title or an animated movie).
> 
> I do want to emphasize though that if you're a Video aficionado it's truly worth at least a rent to give your eyes the sugar rush they deserve!


I'm more excited to see it per your reviews (and others I've read) about the video quality...I was just responding that I won't be able to add in my review until Netflix gets the rental, which is due to silly studio delays more than anything else. Sadly, I don't have the budget to blind buy movies, even if I were to sell them quickly afterwards.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Style Wars*

recommendation: *Tier 4.0**

_Style Wars_, the 1983 PBS documentary introducing New York City's young graffiti artists to the world, has received a loving new 2K digital transfer from the 16mm film elements. The main feature looks about as good as it will ever look in 1080p resolution, it would be hard imagining them pulling out more detail from the fairly rough 16mm cinematography. MVD Visual does a commendable technical job authoring the disc, providing a strong AVC video encode that fully replicates the heavy grain structure. The independent distributor did a superb job issuing _Style Wars_. There is no evidence of significant processing, the transfer is definitely film-like in its picture quality.

The main feature is slightly windowboxed, capturing the entire negative's original area. I did feel its color saturation and contrast could have been tweaked for a richer, more inviting visual experience.


----------



## pisymbol

lgans316 said:


> Denny,
> 
> If you don't like Profanity I presume you didn't complete Wolf of the Wall Street either?
> 
> The Lego Movie
> 
> Man, what a big disappointment. The visualizations are of course top class but the animation quality isn't sharp as they looked soft focussed for my tastes. Colors pop well and even the sound is good with some good LFE. However I found the movie itself irritating and testing my patience and was waiting for it to end. My 2 year old son who watches virtually every animated flick started feeling bored after 15 minutes. This pretty much sums it up.
> 
> Recommendation: Tier 1.5


The Lego Movie was one of the few that actually made my wife and I laugh out loud.

The move was very smart how they took the core values of Legos and incorporated into a movie IMO.

The names for the human objects were HILARIOUS. The "Pooo-leesh Remover of Na---il" or the "Sphere of Titlelist."

Lego Batman.

The voice acting was top notch.

The double decker couch was not only funny but showed how even silly things that you create with Legos can still be useful or thought of in different ways.

The jokes and one-liners were stellar. "Are you a DJ?" "That idea is just...the worst."

Lego Batman.

This is a top tier blu-ray anyway you look at it and looks stunning on my calibrated Vizio 4k UHD. The extras on the disc were also fascinating on how they developed some of the animation and vehicles featured in the film. 

My 2 cents.

Rotten Tomatoes = 96%. Seems I'm not the only one.


----------



## rusky_g

Begin Again

Houston we have a problem. I popped this disc in today, ready for a tier 0 treat and there is a issue which halted my viewing a few minutes in!

For some reason, as the main feature starts, my TV flicks to showing blacks as greys! The result is as if you have pumped the brightness or gamma up to max?! 

This is a bizarre issue which has also reared its head on a couple of movie trailers on other discs I own. As the trailers in question start, there is a visible flick in brightness, across the whole screen and including the crop bars.

But.....I have NEVER had this happen on an actual main feature?! Any clues guys? I'm aware of a thread on here about discs which have been authored with incorrect black levels, could this be what I'm dealing with?!


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^

Hey Russ,

I had never heard of such a thing, but I would do an Advanced Search on the Forum to see if you can find others having the same problem. Perhaps you did get a bad disc that was "authored with incorrect black levels" (as you said), but there may be other threads that discuss your problem and that offer a different reason for this weird anomaly.

Denny


----------



## Phantom Stranger

rusky_g said:


> Begin Again
> 
> Houston we have a problem. I popped this disc in today, ready for a tier 0 treat and there is a issue which halted my viewing a few minutes in!
> 
> For some reason, as the main feature starts, my TV flicks to showing blacks as greys! The result is as if you have pumped the brightness or gamma up to max?!
> 
> This is a bizarre issue which has also reared its head on a couple of movie trailers on other discs I own. As the trailers in question start, there is a visible flick in brightness, across the whole screen and including the crop bars.
> 
> But.....I have NEVER had this happen on an actual main feature?! Any clues guys? I'm aware of a thread on here about discs which have been authored with incorrect black levels, could this be what I'm dealing with?!


You don't have a Panasonic, do you? They have a feature that adjusts black levels on the fly, based on how much light is given off in the picture. I had to disable the feature, it's not for calibrated viewing. I believe Samsungs might have the option as well. It is usually on by default.


----------



## djoberg

*How to Train Your Dragon 2*

Before I go into any DETAIL (and there's plenty of DETAIL in this movie ), I just checked to see where the first installment of _How to Train Your Dragon_ was and I see that it's way down the list in Tier 0...at #122 ! I have absolutely no doubt that this second installment is going to fare infinitely better...by a long shot!!

This outing has incredible DETAILS, TEXTURE, DEPTH, and CLARITY. I just spent quite a bit of time comparing the two and DreamWorks has really upped their game here. Details in almost every area are better, especially in beards (wait until you see the details in Stoick's beard...WOW!!), clothing, skin (and not just facial skin, but wherever skin is shown up close), rocks, foliage, etc. The texture in all of the dragons is also superior. Depth is astounding in most scenes; in fact, I'm going on record in saying this is one of the best animated movies in this department. Clarity and sharpness are off the charts. In the first installment there were so many dark scenes with soft shots, a lack of detail and depth, and less than stellar black levels, but everything has been corrected in the sequel with mostly daytime scenes and exceptional blacks and shadow details in the limited nighttime scenes.

I want to mention something else that deserves praise and that's the PHOTO-REALISM in many shots of the ocean and in a scene with snow in it. I was blown away by how real the water and snow looked! 

The only area that I know of that will more than likely be criticized is in the color palette. This can't compare to Blus like _Toy Story 3_ or the _Madagascar 3_ where nearly every scene dazzles the eyes with every color under the sun. But when colors are on display they are quite vibrant and very pleasing to the eyes.

Because of the amazing virtues highlighted above I'm really tempted to put this in the bottom of the Top Ten, but due to the lack of colors I may meet with a fair amount of opposition. So, I'm going to settle on putting it in the Top 20. My vote goes for the #16 spot, which would be right here....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (right below The Thin Red Line)*

PS The audio on this one really took a hit. The first installment was amazing with topnotch LFE and amazing/precise action in the surrounds. This was much quieter and I wasn't impressed at all with the LFE.

Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## DarthDoxie

Phantom Stranger said:


> You don't have a Panasonic, do you? They have a feature that adjusts black levels on the fly, based on how much light is given off in the picture. I had to disable the feature, it's not for calibrated viewing. I believe Samsungs might have the option as well. It is usually on by default.


Vizio has something similar called smart dimming that is on by default and makes most movie content look like garbage. Strange that this problem is happening on one particular movie though.


----------



## wattheF

Planes:Fire and Rescue

This movie was great! Much improved over the first in all aspects including PQ. The first installment looked great but this one is on a whole new level.

Clarity, details and textures are all top notch. The colors pop off the screen and there are some moments of nice photo realism. Black levels are pitch too. All around pristine presentation. One of my top picks for animated blurays. 

BTW, the audio is stellar! There were a couple scenes that the audio (music) and video combined and made for some true excitement. 

Ranking- Tier 0 -just below Rio 2 

Viewed on my Panasonic 60" ST60 from a distance of 6.5'


----------



## fredxr2d2

*Mr. Peabody and Sherman*

Tier 0, probably near the bottom

The main problem this tier 0 contender has going against it is the very simple animation style. Otherwise, everything is top notch - inky blacks, bright brilliant colors, great sweeping vistas and harrowing plane rides, puns.

Simple animation still leaves a few moments of interesting styles (check out the raging water in the sewers of Versailles, or the sand on the beach in Troy), yet ultimately leaves an impression that this movie (as decent as it was) was simply a filler movie for Dreamworks to get out before they could do the next How to Train Your Dragon or Madagascar.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

While I haven't seen _Mr. Peabody and Sherman_ myself, someone very familiar with the PQ Tiers told me in private it's definitely a lesser Tier 0 candidate.


----------



## audiofan1

Mr. Peabody and Sherman

A definite *Tier 0* this was a visually striking disc with excellent blacks,colors ,shadow detail and superb image depth! I can't wait to see what else Dreamworks has coming down the pipe and from what I'm hearing about HTTYD2 we should be in for a treat


----------



## lgans316

Rio 2

Agree with the current placement. Picture was better than the prequel due to improved animation quality but found the songs and the movie itself a bit boring than the prequel. Nothing much to comment here as the picture was pretty much flawless. 


I am surprised about how the animation quality has improved over the past few years.


----------



## OppoMrSocko

Phantom Stranger said:


> *Rats: Night of Terror*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 4.5**
> 
> The 1983 Italian cult shocker is part of a double-feature newly released by Blue Underground. Having been released in August, I was hoping newer transfers would get utilized. Both feature films end up on a single BD-50, though compression artifacts are not the problem with this Blu-ray's video. Like seemingly many other Italian transfers, it has been heavily filtered. Frozen grain and a lack of serious high-frequency information leave an image that resides in that twilight between 1080P definition and upscaled content from a standard-definition source.
> 
> The transfer is a shame, as the original film source looks in moderately great condition for what appears to be an older telecine struck from an interpositive. It has a high degree of clarity, all things considered, and less discerning viewers will likely overlook the grain-less video and less than stellar detail. There just is not the kind of definition and superior resolution evident in a unmolested, true film transfer. The film print isn't in terrible shape, with few obvious marks or debris. The opening credits exhibit terrible telecine wobble. I got the feeling the original HD transfer was interlaced in nature and had to be converted for this 1080P presentation.
> 
> I know the preceding analysis sounds harsh, but it is a watchable effort if you don't expect film-like fidelity. I could easily see someone ranking this BD in Tier 4.0 or even Tier 3.75, if they were being extremely kind.



A belated thank you for this and other Italian horror/giallo reviews, Phantom Stranger. I'm sad to see that they did not do this film justice, since I've always wanted to see it. 

And a thank you to everyone on the forum for all of your hard work: it's been about a year since I switched to Blu Ray and a proper television to go with it. Everyone's tier placement reviews have saved me from disappointing viewing, in terms of PQ, and taught me a lot.

I saw "Her" recently based on the tier placements, and it was just as everyone said. I never would have rented it, otherwise, since I'm more into horror and ultra-violent films. Beautiful film. Definitely Tier 0, as others have voted. I want to rent it again both for the PQ and the film itself. 

And I agree completely with another poster about "Sabotage:" great picture quality, but terrible film. Tier 0.5. 

I disliked it from the other side of the spectrum: the violence was cheesy/not graphic enough for me, and the swearing was too inoffensive for my ears (my swearing 0 tier = "Full Metal Jacket," especially the lines of Gunnery Sgt. Hartman).  

"Sabotoge" (the film) makes "Crank 2" seem like "Citizen Kane."


----------



## Phantom Stranger

When I first got involved with the PQ Tiers, it was mainly to cover horror films and other niche genres I felt were getting overlooked. Much like now, most participants were mainly adding feedback on the latest blockbusters and such.

I attempt to cover the broadest possible spectrum, or the Tiers would mostly consist of eye-popping CGI and big-ticket films. If only there were more hours in the day. In the next month, I hope to polish off the remastered _Rain Man_, _White Christmas_, and _Pleasantville_ for the Tiers, amongst others.

I've been wondering if anyone plans on ranking the new 50th anniversary _Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer_ disc? The original BD is currently ranked in Tier 3.5. I hear they've fixed some minor color aberrations and possibly gave it a better video encode, but I have not seen it.


----------



## djoberg

*Good People*

I wish I had a dollar for every movie that I've seen where naive (in this case "good" and "naive") people find a large amount of money hidden and they're stupid enough to keep it! If I did (have a dollar in each case) I'd be richer than most of them turn out to be!! 

Okay, back to what I'm really here for: the PQ! It started out with some thugs in a car and the director chose to zoom in on their faces right away and guess what? We are treated to some very good facial texture and excellent flesh tones. I'm happy to say that every close-up throughout the movie provided the same EYE CANDY.

Details in general were fairly good, especially in outdoor daytime scenes. Clothing, brick buildings, cars, and a host of other objects featured ample details. Mid-range and long distance shots were also pleasing to the eyes. Depth was quite appreciable at times. In bright outdoor and interior shots sharpness and clarity reigned supreme. So far, so good....but that's actually the best I can say about this Blu.

It had a very drab color palette with teal/gray color grading. Thankfully this didn't really affect flesh tones or details, but it did get a little annoying. Black levels weren't anything to write home to Mama about and shadow details were just as mediocre. There were numerous soft focus shots, especially in low-lit interior shots. 

I think you're getting the picture (pun intended )...this was a very inconsistent offering from MILLENNIUM Films. If not for the negatives outlined above, I'd easily put this in the top of Tier 1, but as it is I'm going to dock it a whole tier, which, in effect, knocks it out off from the "demo shelf." Here's my score....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0**

Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## DarthDoxie

Phantom Stranger said:


> I've been wondering if anyone plans on ranking the new 50th anniversary _Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer_ disc? The original BD is currently ranked in Tier 3.5. I hear they've fixed some minor color aberrations and possibly gave it a better video encode, but I have not seen it.


I'm considering buying it sometime around Black Friday and will definitely rank it if I do...one of my favorite Christmas specials.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Short Peace*

recommendation: *Tier 0* (top half) *

I didn't know much about _Short Peace_ before this viewing, outside of it being an anthology of animated short features. The five shorts only run a little over an hour in combined length.

The unique animation styles utilized in _Short Peace_ are simply jaw-dropping, blessed with some of the more intricate drawing found on Blu-ray. One was nominated for an Academy Award, if that provides a frame of reference. The stylized animation is closer to fine art than what we've come to expect from CGI and hand-drawn animation. Technically, the presentation by anime distributor Sentai Filmworks is flawless despite questionable compression parameters.

I got the distinct impression _Short Peace_ was intended all along as A/V demo material. It also features one of the most robust surround mixes I've heard in recent memory. This has few peers as beautiful looking in its unique category and serves as a wonderful home theater showcase.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^

_Short Peace_ sounds interesting Phantom. The trouble is I highly doubt that our local video store will have a Blu-ray copy to rent and I'm not sure I would want to buy it. But I am close to larger cities so I may check out their video stores.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I doubt it would be available for rental outside of New York or L.A. Each short feature has a different Japanese director. The pristine animation is certainly its most striking feature. Its stories are entertaining in their brevity but a passing knowledge of Japanese culture helps a great deal.

Old chum, keep your eyes on this Bat-channel for my next intended placement coming soon. Holy Tier One, Batman!


----------



## DarthDoxie

You've got me interested in Short Peace as well Phantom. I've gotten interested in Japanese cinema lately and will be expanding my collection in that direction with The Hidden Fortress, Throne of Blood, Rashomon, et al. in the near future.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Batman: The Complete Television Series*

Good citizens of Gotham, put your fears to rest. After decades of licensing hurdles between Fox and WB over the home video rights to this camp classic, Adam West's Batman has finally arrived on Blu-ray. Issued by WB, all 120 broadcast episodes from its three-season run have been included in this set.

The most important factor in transferring vintage film stock of this nature is a new film scan taken directly from the original camera negative. Batman's resolution and clarity at 1080P, not to mention the excellent color saturation and chromatic range from the colorful production design, could only be possible from a state-of-the-art film transfer. It is remarkable to see the Joker and the dastardly Penguin in such striking detail, not to mention that saucy minx, Catwoman. 

Some minor digital touch-up has been manually applied to remove dirt and debris, the print is nearly pristine. A mistake was made that wiped out one element, a pebble, that should have been left intact. This is not a case where processing has altered the native grain structure of the original cinematography, fine detail is relatively abundant in scope. Warner has shown more restraint this time using the digital tools at their disposal, their technicians have wonderfully preserved Batman's adventures for posterity.

The interior shots exhibit better contrast and superior sharpness, shot on carefully controlled television sets under extremely bright lighting. Black levels are nearly perfect, rendered in inky darkness with fantastic shadow delineation. The color palette is far richer than I've ever seen it for this show, the new color-timing is slightly revisionist in nature but done with a skillful hand. While a purist might quibble with the slight changes in tonality and pop, I found it an invigorating experience. The flesh-tones are possibly too accurate, revealing the overly tanned flesh of Batman's sun-drenched, Californian cast.

Framed in its original broadcast ratio at 1.33:1, there have been complaints on some level regarding the anemic AVC video encode. I cannot lie, Warner Bros. foolishly pinched pennies by shaving off as many discs as they possibly could from the box set. All 120 episodes and bonus features are included on 13 BDs. That leaves very tight margins for the compression, aiming for target video encoding rates frequently below 15 Mbps. Adding two or three BD-50s for more space could have done wonders for the decidedly average encoding.

It is does leave the video encode open to rather minor compression artifacts. Batman's villains would often use smoke bombs or gases to trap the Dynamic Duo. On larger displays, you'll notice the encode struggling to accurately replicate their appearance without light noise. It is also inevitable that target rates that low will soften high-frequency detail. While my critique is pointed, the compression issues are rather minor and one can mostly ignore their impact.

Warner definitely spent the money and took its time on the most important element, a high-quality film scan handled by skilled technicians. The negative looks to have been in superb shape, lightly handled over the decades. The color correction helps bring new life to the show, showcasing the wide variety of colorful villains faced by Batman each episode. I wavered between Tiers 1.5 and 1.75 for placement, but extended viewing helped me settle on the higher score.

Tune in next week — same Bat-time, same Bat-channel!

*recommendation: Tier 1.5*









*


----------



## wattheF

Anyone else planning on checking out Planes:Fire and Rescue anytime soon? I am curious to see what others options are and if they think it is as strong as I do.


----------



## rusky_g

Vendetta

Not to be confused with 'V' for Vendetta, this is a small budget UK film featuring Danny Dyer.

And the small budget shows in the quality of the BR disc, for this was fraught with some anomalies, particularly in the first segment which featured some bizarre 'breaking face' effects in darker scenes, along with banding and blocking. Blacks were either crushed or greyed - there was little to enjoy from a PQ perspective - the best moments were some of the city night shots which showed a decent level of detail.

Tier 3.0


----------



## Phantom Stranger

wattheF said:


> Anyone else planning on checking out Planes:Fire and Rescue anytime soon? I am curious to see what others options are and if they think it is as strong as I do.


As an aside, Hollywood is pondering right now whether to make the huge leap to native 4K CGI animation. It would make all prior CGI films pale in comparison. As for the Planes spin-off, I haven't seen it. We all would love to hear a report on it.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Mickey's Once Upon A Christmas
*
recommendation: *Tier 1.25**

*Mickey's Twice Upon A Christmas*

recommendation: *Tier 0* (bottom quarter)*

Disney decided to release these two animated movies in one set, including both of them on a BD-50. The packaging includes terms which have been abused by ad copy, stating they have been digitally remastered. In this particular case, it is entirely correct. Both of them look incredible on Blu-ray, representing a massive upgrade over their DVD counterparts. There really isn't one thing I would have done differently to improve this BD's picture quality. It is perfect.

_Mickey's Once Upon A Christmas_ is an animated movie from 1999, done before the House of Mouse had begun switching to CGI animation. It is flawlessly presented, one of the best digital transfers possible for this kind of traditional animation. While its backgrounds are a little simplistic and this is not overly flashy art, it firmly deserves the high end of Tier One.

_Mickey's Twice Upon A Christmas_ hails originally from 2004. This movie is completely animated in CGI animation with a far bolder color palette and richer saturation. One can tell the CGI is a little dated when held against today's CGI wonders from Pixar and DreamWorks. A couple of its shorts look truly brilliant, including a spectacular opening scene with deep black levels.


----------



## rusky_g

Thor: The Dark World

Whilst the film was a snoozefest the PQ was excellent. Black levels, clarity and contrast were all noteworthy - a sprinkling of softer shots just keeps it from Tier 0 but otherwise this disc looked great. 

Tier 1.0


----------



## djoberg

rusky_g said:


> Thor: The Dark World
> 
> Whilst the film was a snoozefest the PQ was excellent. Black levels, clarity and contrast were all noteworthy - a sprinkling of softer shots just keeps it from Tier 0 but otherwise this disc looked great.
> 
> Tier 1.0


I concur with each point Russ! I placed it at 1.25 so we're basically on the same page.


----------



## rusky_g

Yet again Denny we are not far apart. I still haven't solved the issue I had with Begin Again but suspect its something to do with my set up running through my receiver as prior to that the issue was absent. This could be resolved once I get my new dual hdmi player which will just run a direct picture signal to my Sammy.


----------



## fredxr2d2

Divergent (US Rental)

Tier Recommendation 3 or lower

Wow. Oh wow. I spent some time on the phone complaining to Netflix about the rental BD because not only did they include a lossy Dolby Digital soundtrack, it almost seems like they didn't use the full bitrate transfer. So hidefdigest complained about banding, but Ralph saw no problems in his review and bluray.com saw no problems either. So why was my rental disc playing at about 10mbps and full of glaringly obvious banding and compression noise? I have no idea. It was perhaps the worst blu-ray in terms of compression I've seen since Superman Returns. It was gross and entirely pulled me out of the already "very OK" movie. In fact, the banding was so bad that my gf noticed it. I cannot complain enough about what a lousy BD experience this rental disc is. Otherwise, close-ups and facial shots were extremely well defined and high lighting shots were also free of issues (for the most part). If you can get your hands on a retail copy, the problems might not exist.

From the Bluray.com forums:

*Divergent Blu-ray Netflix rental information *​

A family member I know rented Divergent on Blu-ray from Netflix. The rental version of Divergent is lower quality compared to the retail version since the studio wants consumers to purchase the movie on Blu-ray instead of renting it. Instead of a dual layer 50GB Blu-ray disc being used, the Divergent rental version uses 23.2GB out of 25GB on the single layer Blu-ray disc. The Netflix rental version of Divergent on Blu-ray contains some previews as the special features, however the previews are the only special features on the disc. To make things worse, there is no lossless 7.1 DTS-HD Master audio soundtrack, instead a lossy 5.1 Dolby Digital 640kbps soundtrack was created for the rental version. The funny thing is when the Blu-ray disc is inserted there is a brief Lionsgate logo that is in 5.1 DTS-HD Master audio.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I avoid rental BDs whenever possible. Given the state of Blu-ray sales, there are economic pressures for distributors of all stripes to cut each release down to a BD-25. Almost all forms of content that hit Blu-ray require a BD-50 for maximum transparency to the underlying HD master, especially anything over 90 minutes. I know that studios cut sweetheart deals for Netflix on certain popular releases, likely leading to the compression problems. I wonder if the studios even bother to fine-tune their video encodes for rental-only releases. I would doubt it.

*A Certain Magical Index: Season One*

recommendation: *Tier 3.0**

This series was first produced in 2008, despite being issued on Blu-ray for the first time this past month. The source material was likely not animated at pure 1080P resolution, a common method of production for anime originating around that period. Funimation has done a very respectable job, fixing any possible interlacing issues and retaining its proper black levels. While the animation itself is fairly fluid and colorful, the palette seems slightly washed out.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Housebound*

recommendation: *Tier 2.75**

The New Zealand horror comedy is a digitally-shot feature. This is not a colorful movie, the palette is suitably dark and menacing. Aside from very minior incidental banding, its AVC video encode cleanly handles the digital cinematography. Like some digital video, shadow delineation has a tendency to fall flat in the darkest scenes. Interiors tend to lack depth, the resolution and clarity are far better in exterior shots.

The low-budget Indie film is slightly above average in picture quality. Nothing particularly stands out about its attributes, but delivers a solid video presentation in 1080p resolution.


----------



## djoberg

*The Giver*

This Sci-Fi futuristic drama features a very stylistic color palette from the first to the last scene, starting with black and white...then splashes of color...then black and white mingled with colors...then doses of richly saturated colors...and finally a full-blown display of bold, vibrant colors. I rather enjoyed this approach to the color scheme, though at times color grading reared its ugly head resulting in the all-too-familiar gold hues.

Details were phenomenal in close-ups, especially facial texture (in every actor, but especially in Meryl Streep and Jeff Bridges). There were also some excellent aerial views of the "community" that had mesmerizing details of houses, foliage, people, etc. Flesh tones were natural, contrast was strong and black levels were good to excellent (they became better as the colors increased).

There was a jungle scene with an intense war scene that became very "gritty" with some "noise." Otherwise it was sharp with a good deal of clarity.

My biggest gripe would have to be a lack of depth in many scenes (though to be sure there were some scenes that really drew you in with incredible 3D pop). The first half of the movie, with a mostly black and white color palette, was fairly "flat."

Because of the diversity of visuals this is a really hard call. This was shot with the Arri Alexa camera which usually falls somewhere in Tier 1. This one is no exception....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**

PS I liked the movie, though some will no doubt find its pace too slow and lacking action. I'm a sucker for just about any movie that Jeff Bridges is in (he was also a co-producer in this outing) and he was "true to form" in this one. Also, this is the second movie I've watched in the last month that featured newcomer Brenton Thwaites (who still looks a lot like Josh Hartnick) and he's a rising star, IMHO.


----------



## djoberg

I forgot to add, "Happy Thanksgiving" to every one! Drive safely if you're traveling, and remember to pull away from the Thanksgiving meal before you can't!!!

My wife and I leave for the Twin Cites (Minneapolis/St. Paul) early tomorrow morning for 4 glorious days with our lovely daughters and their families. When I return I do have a rented copy of _A Most Wanted Man_ to watch. This is a "political/spy thriller" which happens to feature the last starring role of another one of my favorite actors, Philip Seymour Hoffman.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Enjoy the holiday, Denny!


----------



## John Mason

djoberg said:


> I forgot to add, "Happy Thanksgiving" to every one! Drive safely if you're traveling, and remember to pull away from the Thanksgiving meal before you can't!!!
> 
> My wife and I leave for the Twin Cites (Minneapolis/St. Paul) early tomorrow morning for 4 glorious days with our lovely daughters and their families. When I return I do have a rented copy of _A Most Wanted Man_ to watch. This is a "political/spy thriller" which happens to feature the last starring role of another one of my favorite actors, Philip Seymour Hoffman.


Looking forward to your Wanted Man review. Noticed it's on FIOS pay per view, so soon on one of the premium channels. Le Carre's  recent article  on Hoffman makes this production intriguing.


Interested in the tech aspects here, and noticed at  IMDB  that it's shot with Alexas at 2.35:1 (1.85:1 at Amazon) and a 2k D.I. Since measuring some on-screen details from the film-shot 4k-DI "The Tree of Life" Blu-ray  recently , comparing details with test-disc frequency bursts, I've been looking for methods of comparing Blu-rays with FIOS-delivered movies to measure maximum effective resolutions. -- John


----------



## Phantom Stranger

When FIOS first hit the market, they were delivering excellent HD quality. Those days are long gone now...


----------



## djoberg

John Mason said:


> Looking forward to your Wanted Man review. Noticed it's on FIOS pay per view, so soon on one of the premium channels. Le Carre's  recent article  on Hoffman makes this production intriguing.
> 
> 
> Interested in the tech aspects here, and noticed at  IMDB  that it's shot with Alexas at 2.35:1 (1.85:1 at Amazon) and a 2k D.I. Since measuring some on-screen details from the film-shot 4k-DI "The Tree of Life" Blu-ray  recently , comparing details with test-disc frequency bursts, I've been looking for methods of comparing Blu-rays with FIOS-delivered movies to measure maximum effective resolutions. -- John


Thanks John for the links, especially Le Carre's article on Hoffman. It makes me all the more excited to watch it when I return home on Saturday or Sunday.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Let me wish all friends of the Picture Quality Tiers a happy Thanksgiving tomorrow! Drive safely and eat well!

*The Doors: Feast of Friends*

recommendation: *Tier 4.5**

I can't really place this rough 16mm film project much higher than Tier 4.5, despite its exclusive and candid look into the Doors circa 1968. Their music has survived the intervening decades far better than this rare archival film, though it has been newly color-corrected in a new transfer from the film elements. The audio has been remastered and gets a lavish 5.1 DTS-HD MA soundtrack at 24bit/96kHz!


----------



## lgans316

X-Men Days of the Future Past

The present day scenes looked a bit soft. The past days scenes especially the outdoor ones and the ones with good lighting looked great.

Movie was a disappointment when compared to First Class. 

Recommendation: Tier 1.25


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Though good, I thought _Days of Future Past_ ran a bit long. It's a dense story that needed to cut possibly one sub-plot. So much of the end result is the product of CGI and VFX, some minor softness is almost unavoidable in certain shots.


----------



## lgans316

Agree, I fell asleep towards the end and the wife did some storytelling the day after. The sound was quite weak too especially the LFE and the dialogs a bit. Also found the rear was running a bit too hot.


----------



## wattheF

Sin City: A Dame To Kill For

This highly stylized film looks very good on bluray and makes a real impact when viewed on a display that can do it justice. The film itself was not even close to as good as the first but In SOME ways I would say it looks better than the first. Details and textures are more prevalent. Contrast, Black level and shadow detail is again excellent. The only negatives were there seemed to be sporadic moments of softness. Even some shots seemed to go from soft to sharp from one second to the next. My guess is it has to do with all the CGI used. Overall it didn't ruin the experience but was a bit distracting. If not for that issue it is a clear Tier 0 title. I am contemplating how much to dock it but for now I will go with...

Ranking-1.0

Viewed on my 60 ST60 from a distance of 6'.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*It's A Very Merry Muppet Christmas Movie*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

This was originally an NBC television movie, so some of its television pedigree seeps through the cinematography. Universal typically takes a lot of grief, mostly deserved, for how its catalog properties look on Blu-ray. This Muppet movie is a clear exception, the 88-minute main feature is given a generous AVC video encode on a BD-50. The rather impressive clarity, all things considered, is the result of a fresh HD transfer. A few scenes possess blown-out white levels. The best picture quality in this film invariably involves the Muppet characters, it appears those scenes received extra care and attention when shooting them.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*AnoHana: The Flower We Saw That Day: The Movie*

recommendation: *Tier 0** (bottom 1/4)

I had previously ranked _AnoHana's_ complete series in Tier 1.0. It is customary for popular anime to transition from television to a theatrical version in Japan, often with new material inserted and the animation touched up for better quality. That is most certainly the case with this movie. The animation has been made more vibrant, with an even lusher palette and dynamic fluidity. I found the improvement enough to nudge it from Tier 1 to Tier 0, albeit near the bottom of Tier 0.


----------



## rusky_g

Battle Los Angeles (mastered in 4K)

There's so much annoying 'shakey cam' footage in this movie - a shame because the few still and (less shakey) shots look great, showing excellent detail and pore revelation. Colours are muted, blacks are sometimes deep but there was a few murky moments here and there. Slightly disappointed overall.

Tier 2.0


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Generally, I've been very impressed by Sony's line of 4K remasters. The Ghostbusters one represents a clear improvement.


----------



## djoberg

*A Most Wanted Man*

Visually, this is STUNNING during the majority of its 2 Hour running time, with razor-like sharpness and clarity, and details to-die-for!! I kept thinking to myself, "This is going to land in Tier Blu, for sure!" But, it was not meant to be (IMHO), for eventually the color-grading, with its teal/orange hues, compromised some of the PQ. Toss in a couple of soft shots (in restaurant scenes) on top of that along with a muted color palette and one is forced to penalize this and knock it off the Top Tier.

To be fair, I really wanted to give this a place in the reference tier, for the sharpness and details were simply mesmerizing at times; in fact, most of the time. Details in buildings throughout Hamburg (Germany) were outstanding, as were city streets, sidewalks, automobiles, etc. Details in clothing were plentiful and facial close-ups were reference quality (Hoffman was sporting a two-day growth throughout the movie and you could make out every whisker, even in mid-range shots). Black levels were exemplary in EVERY SCENE, and there were numerous nighttime scenes to highlight them. Shadow details were equally strong, without a hint of black crush. Flesh tones were near perfect...in one scene you had Hoffman, Robin Wright and another agent standing together and they all had very different complexions that truly showcased the spot on skin tones. I can't end this review without also mentioning DEPTH. There were a couple of daytime scenes where the depth of field was as good as I've ever seen...absolutely STUNNING (I can't help using that word again ).

May I offer a short word on the movie itself? If the story line is good and it features an excellent cast, I can easily sit through a slow-paced movie with little action. This one had both and I never once found myself checking the time to see when it would end. I had said in a prior post that this was Philip Seymour Hoffman's last starring role and he was most definitely at the top of his game...he WILL be missed! I also enjoyed Rachel McAdams, Willem Dafoe and Robin Wright as well, but the real star was Hoffman.

Okay, so you know this is going in Tier Gold, but how far up or down that tier? If you end up seeing this you will agree with me that it needs to be at the top....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**

Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Killing Them Softly*

Recommendation: Tier 2.0

One of the most drab color palettes I've seen in awhile; lots of blacks, grays, and browns so not much to report on the color scale. A few night scenes with crushed blacks and a few day scenes with blown out contrast marred the otherwise nice presentation. Details in closeups and mid-range shots were nicely done; facial pores abound in closeups of Brad Pitt.

I was ready to be disappointed when the opening shot of looking through a dark tunnel into the daylight showed some bad color banding in the dark areas but that was the only time it happened. After this scene the film settled into a steady state of mostly tier 2 range material with only fleeting runs into tier 1.


----------



## fredxr2d2

*Maleficent

Tier Recommendation: Tier 0*

This is a perfect transfer if ever I've seen one. I'm not sure I have the words to describe the clarity, the unabashed way that this transfer holds the picture far and above most of the rest of the movies I've ever seen. Would you think that dense fog and low light conditions might introduce banding or other unsightly curses of compression? Not so here. Would you think that nearly constant CGI (as distracting as it can be sometimes) would introduce softness? Not so here. Even if some of the elements are more childlike and kid-friendly in their representation, the CGI elements all hold up quite well when mixed with live action. Textures abound. Crisp. Clear. Brilliant. Depth. I could go on.

I'd argue it has it's place near Avatar in terms of clarity and overall blemish-free presentation of the encode.

Worth a rent for us PQ folks just to check out. Probably worth a blind buy for some of you plasma owners - black levels


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Rain Man (2014 remaster)*

recommendation: *Tier 3.5**

The original _Rain Man_ BD was never ranked in the Tiers. I haven't seen that disc, though this September 2014 edition prominently advertised its inclusion of a remastered transfer from MGM. The remastering process seems to have included a tweaking to _Rain Man's_ contrast and some filtering. All things considered, this is not an extraordinary restoration or lavish, new transfer. It ekes out mild improvements in clarity and definition, though one has to wonder how much can be gained from the 1988 film stock. This is not eye-popping cinematography that is razor-sharp.

I would guess that _Rain Man_ received a fairly new 2K film transfer. The film print is in such immaculate shape, I have to believe extensive dustbusting was performed to clean up the transfer. Was it done after the film transfer, via digital tools? The uniformly consistent grain structure gives some clues it is not authentic. The transfer has likely been filtered and then had artificial grain added for consistency. This is a case where a casual viewer will simply overlook how uniform it looks.

The filtering does impact high-frequency content. This is not 1080P video brimming with vital detail, though it contains far more information than the comparatively crude filtered transfers struck before 2010. There are minor remnants of sharpening in the form of halos, most notable in the earliest scenes. That kind of filtering becomes less obvious as one delves deeper into _Rain Man_.

Some care has been applied to the color timing. I imagine that much of the remastering's efforts went into meticulously handling black levels and contrast. I've seen other transfers of _Rain Man_ that looked far too warm, bursting with a magenta push. That has been dialed back in this remastered transfer, more properly rendering flesh-tones and color tonality.

I had not seen _Rain Man_ in a few years, so I had forgotten what an excellent movie it is. This "remastered" BD is probably the final word for _Rain Man_ on Blu-ray. I have not been particularly happy with how film stocks used in the 1980s have turned out on Blu-ray, they have not aged particularly well. This is not a disastrous film transfer, but I was expecting a more film-like viewing experience with better actual detail. I did appreciate the subtle tweaks to its color and contrast.


----------



## djoberg

*Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014)*

Let me start out by saying in spite of some sporadic soft shots in low-lit scenes and a less-than-stellar color palette, this fared better than _Rise of the Planet of the Apes_. Why? In one word: DETAILS!! I can't tell you how amazing the apes looked this time around....phenomenal CGI! They looked good in the _RotPotA_ too, but they weren't nearly as detailed or consistent. Even fast-motion shots of apes running or jumping from branch to branch gave high level of detail. Facial close-ups in humans were also pleasing to the eyes. In just about every scene there was a high level of detail in buildings, foliage, trees, weapons, clothing, etc., etc. Even several scenes with pouring rain didn't obscure details.

A word of praise is due for the BLACK LEVELS as well, for in *most* scenes (not *all* scenes, for some were a bit murky) they were deep and inky with incredible shadow details to boot. This outing had many more nighttime scenes so I was extremely thankful for the excellent contrast that lent itself to these rich blacks.

As I said in the first line, the colors were lacking. But what can one expect in an apocalyptic setting? Having said that, there were a few scenes in bright daylight in San Francisco where primaries were on display and they were quite vibrant and really popped. Also, in bright forest scenes we are treated to lush greens.

Again, there were some soft shots and murky blacks that will, of necessity, bring this down a notch or two (and will definitely keep it out of the Top Tier). I went with 1.75 in the first installment but with the superior details, sharpness, and black levels I feel this sequel deserves a bump up to....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25**

Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## fredxr2d2

Hopefully watching this one ^ ^ ^ tonight in 3D. I will update tomorrow if time allows.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^

Sounds good! I'll look forward to your review, even though you're watching the 3D version.

Here is Blu-ray.com's take on it:

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Dawn-of-the-Planet-of-the-Apes-3D-Blu-ray/108433/


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*I Am Bruce Lee*

recommendation: *Tier 2.5**

This was a documentary about Bruce Lee that aired a few years on Spike TV. It includes a lot of archival television and home movie footage, making its Tier score problematic. Released by Shout Factory on a BD-25, the modern interviews feature crisp digital video in excellent quality.

Documentaries are some of the toughest films to judge by Tier standards. There is some upscaled standard-definition content in _I Am Bruce Lee_, including what looks to be DVD-resolution clips taken from _Enter The Dragon_ and other movies. I split the score down the middle, somewhere in the lower half of Tier Two felt correct.


----------



## fredxr2d2

*Dawn of the Planet of the Apes 3D*

I pretty much agree across the board with djoberg on this. Solid Tier 1 material, a few moments of softness or strange black levels (sometimes due to the 3D glasses and other times it seemed inherent to the photography).

3D effects were mostly about depth...I'd recommend it as being similar to Prometheus in terms of 3D effect. A few moments were quite good: looking up at treetops or down from the Golden Gate bridge., but overall the general feeling was more like looking into the wall of my room, rather than anything flying out at you.

Textures and CGI apes were amazing. Wonderfully done. The sharpness of my DLP's 3D was fully on display.

Exact placement in *1.25* as per djoberg.

Personally, I'm fairly ambivalent about 3D, but I think this is another offering where the 3D is the intended way to watch this film. That being said, it looks good enough either way that I'd just happily recommend it.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

This is a question for the regular 3-D viewers, but which version do you usually watch first? On a first viewing, the normal way or the film in 3-D? I don't watch enough 3-D content to give an answer. Has the 3-D version become the primary option?


----------



## fredxr2d2

Phantom Stranger said:


> This is a question for the regular 3-D viewers, but which version do you usually watch first? On a first viewing, the normal way or the film in 3-D? I don't watch enough 3-D content to give an answer. Has the 3-D version become the primary option?


My new default (if buying) has been to watch the 3D first because I paid the premium for that option. For rentals I go with 2D because that's all that Netflix offers. The only time I didn't do 3D first when I had the option was when I had a massive headache but wanted to watch The Lego Movie anyway (3D was not going to help my head in that situation).


----------



## Phantom Stranger

There is only about one hour left in this deal, but the _Maleficent_ 3-D Blu-ray is on sale from Amazon.co.uk for around $21 shipped.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00KL779CY

This is the best way to get _Maleficent_ 3-D since Disney decided not to release it in the States.


----------



## rusky_g

Phantom Stranger said:


> There is only about one hour left in this deal, but the _Maleficent_ 3-D Blu-ray is on sale from Amazon.co.uk for around $21 shipped.
> 
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00KL779CY
> 
> This is the best way to get _Maleficent_ 3-D since Disney decided not to release it in the States.


Have put Maleficent on my Xmas lists after some glowing reviews on here!


----------



## djoberg

rusky_g said:


> Have put Maleficent on my Xmas lists after some glowing reviews on here!


You will absolutely LOVE the PQ Russ! Everything about it is reference quality, but the Black Levels stand out above them all.


----------



## rusky_g

Can't wait Denny! Anything currently on your PQ radar?


----------



## djoberg

I picked up the 2nd season of _House of Cards_ on Black Friday, along with the _Frozen Planet_ series. I've watched 2 episodes of _Frozen Planet_ so far, but I don't expect to watch _House of Cards_ anytime soon (will most likely wait for a weekend where I can do a good "binge"). Regarding _Frozen Planet_, the PQ is very similar to _Planet Earth_ and _Life_, with many Tier Blu shots but also some soft focus shots mixed in. I've always thought these series fell squarely into Tier 1 somewhere.

Can you think of a release coming out soon that would be good for everyone to watch?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I'll be interested to see how _Guardians of the Galaxy_ turns out next week.


----------



## rusky_g

Phantom Stranger said:


> I'll be interested to see how _Guardians of the Galaxy_ turns out next week.


Sounds good Denny. My next purchase will likely be either Pompeii when it comes down in price or The Winter Soldier.

Phantom I thought Guardians would be an outright 5 star PQ disc but bluray.com gave 4.5....


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I won't be surprised if Guardians lands in Tier One.


----------



## Toe

Phantom Stranger said:


> This is a question for the regular 3-D viewers, but which version do you usually watch first? On a first viewing, the normal way or the film in 3-D? I don't watch enough 3-D content to give an answer. Has the 3-D version become the primary option?


 
I always watch the 2d first or it wont get watched since I usually prefer the 3d. 2d just looks so flat if you try to go back to it after 3d. Having said that, there are a few discs that have not added anything significant in 3d like Winter Soldier which I actually prefer in 2d because of it. If 3d is SO subtle that you are raising your glasses at times to see just how much separation there is, what's the point? Winter Soldier was so conservative with it's 3d usage (just one example) that I will watch in 2d on future viewings.



djoberg said:


> You will absolutely LOVE the PQ Russ! Everything about it is reference quality, but the Black Levels stand out above them all.


+1! Watched this on Fri night and was blown away with the PQ! One of the best I have seen for PQ on my setup.  One of the best overall audio tracks this year as well! Once was plenty as far as the movie itself goes for me, but technically this disc kicks ass!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Maleficent*

recommendation: *Tier 0* (.66)*

Disney's _Maleficent_ is a fairly convincing entrant in Tier 0. Excellent compression, superior depth, and outstanding CGI for the VFX produces fine demo material. After the first couple of scenes I was ready to place it far higher, though as the movie got darker and darker that felt tougher to swallow. One thing I did notice was the lack of tighter shots in its cinematography, which helps to cover up some of the smoothness seen in textures.

_Maleficent's_ crystal-clarity and utter sharpness are extraordinary in certain scenes. Perfect black levels and fantastic shadow delineation help create its consistently flawless video quality.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^

_Maleficent_ is a beauty! I've watched it a few times now and it looks better with each viewing. I would have no problem with it finding its way into Tier 0 at the .66 mark. I was ready to go with .5 and then decided to join Igans with his placement of .75, but since then I've been so impressed that I've had second thoughts.

I read my review again and I see I had alluded to some soft shots. You didn't mention any but I'm thinking especially of the scene in the end when Maleficent is trapped by a net and turns her "bird" into a dragon. That whole scene from that point on lacked the sharpness that prevailed throughout the rest of the movie, due, no doubt, to the low-lighting and the fire being spewed by the dragon.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Some of the long shots involving the castle lack detail, the computer animators didn't fill-in a lot of extra detail and texture in those shots. There was likely some digital smoothing done around Jolie's face for her prosthetic make-up. Care was taken to avoid any extraneous seams, this CGI was not as rushed as I have seen with some other blockbusters. The digital composite efforts blended very well.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I rarely browse AVSforum without being logged in my account. The PQ Tiers list looks as it always has when browsing from a user account, since the ads are disabled:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...pq-tiers-updated-through-march-27-2014-a.html

Earlier today and when I check now from a different browser, the list goes to an all-white background and destroys the carefully planned formatting. I had not realized that ads were now being inserted under multiple posts on a page for visitors. Are others seeing the same things I am seeing when checking the list without being logged in to AVS?


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> I rarely browse AVSforum without being logged in my account. The PQ Tiers list looks as it always has when browsing from a user account, since the ads are disabled:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...pq-tiers-updated-through-march-27-2014-a.html
> 
> Earlier today and when I check now from a different browser, the list goes to an all-white background and destroys the carefully planned formatting. I had not realized that ads were now being inserted under multiple posts on a page for visitors. Are others seeing the same things I am seeing when checking the list without being logged in to AVS?


I just checked Phantom after logging out and sure enough, the list went to an all-white background with multiple ads inserted after posts. I was using the same browser that I always use.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> I just checked Phantom after logging out and sure enough, the list went to an all-white background with multiple ads inserted after posts. I was using the same browser that I always use.


Thank you for the quick response. I will see if there is anything I can do about it.


----------



## fredxr2d2

*Guardians of the Galaxy 3D

Tier Recommendation: 1.25*

I want to put this higher, but I think a few scenes (especially earlier on) suffered from a lack of shadow detail and overall black crush due to the 3D glasses.

However, that aside, I think people who want the "definitive" version of this film should check out the 3D with the IMAX AR changes (similar to TDK and TDKR). Wow, details are crystal clear and colors jump out (especially the Nova's bright yellows, and everyone with their different colors of skin). Nicely enough, the AR changes are precisely planned and rarely felt forced--they never seemed to interrupt the flow. Everyone else I was watching with didn't notice the changes.

I'm sure the 2D version looks great (I may find the time to watch it this weekend as my gf has requested a second viewing, this time in 2D), because the textures and colors on the 3D popped and looked amazing even in the letterboxed scenes and even with the glasses making things darker.

Overall, the 3D from Dawn of the Planet of the Apes was better (as it was natively filmed), but I still think the shifting aspect ratios and interesting effects make Guardians in 3D the way to watch. That said, this is a phenomenal movie (IMO) and worth a watch no matter how you can.


----------



## fredxr2d2

*Arthur Christmas

Tier Recommendation: Tier 0*

I was surprised to not see this one on the tiers as it has been added to my family's holiday viewing schedule.

Crisp clean CGI with some impressive textures (check out Arthur's fuzzy sweater or the sand on the beach later on). Some more cartoon-y moments lend some less than stellar impressions of realism, but overall, this is an impressive outing from Sony and Aardman. Definitely worth a viewing for PQ alone, and I think you all will enjoy the more original ideas (and Bill Nighy as Grandsanta).


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Garden of Words*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

This is a relatively short animated feature, clocking in at under 48 minutes. The very impressive animation is a cut above standard fare, the animators had clear ambitions to make its visuals pop in vivid clarity. A couple of years ago I would have been more inclined to place in this Tier 0, but the bar has been getting higher with a glut of impressive demos of late.

Anime distributor Sentai Filmworks delivers a technically perfect AVC video encode at very substantial parameters, even going so far as to use a BD-50. You've never seen rain animated in this quality before, the backgrounds are photorealistic in their detail. Modeled after an actual Japanese garden, _The Garden of Words_ was made to serve as visually appealing demo material.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

fredxr2d2 said:


> *Arthur Christmas
> 
> Tier Recommendation: Tier 0*
> 
> I was surprised to not see this one on the tiers as it has been added to my family's holiday viewing schedule.


You are right, it's not in the Tiers. That is surprising, I would have thought that movie was on it.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Robot Chicken: DC Comics Special*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

Despite being released by Warner Bros. in July of 2013, this _Robot Chicken_ short is encoded in VC-1! Considering the studio abandoned using VC-1 for new encodes several years ago, it is a curious choice. You would think a 22-minute main feature would feature stellar bitrates, but the VC-1 encode introduces banding in several scenes.

I had previously ranked _Robot Chicken's_ season five BD set in Tier 1.75. This special has a bolder, more vibrant color palette and better overall texture. It probably deserves being closer to Tier 1.0 with its deep focus and impressive depth, banding is the only thing holding it back. I guess this didn't sell very well, its sequel did not see a Blu-ray release.


----------



## rusky_g

The Railway Man

Do-Blu scored the maximum 5 stars PQ for this disc.

It is indeed a robust HD presentation and throughout I was debating lower tier 0 against upper tier 1 - on the plus side: pin sharp focus and resolution with far reaching detail in many scenes. Skin tones appear natural and facial close ups were often first class. Less flaterring were some of the darker scenes- more than once, black levels seemed to drift off the mark causing contrast to suffer and slightly wash the image out. Because of this, I don't feel I can go with top tier, so will drop down to....

Tier 1.0


----------



## fredxr2d2

*How to Train Your Dragon 2

Tier Recommendation: Tier 0, top third (obviously)*

Wonderful details, great visuals, overall a pleasing image. Djoberg pretty much said everything that I would say, so his review for Tier 0 stands, just wanted to put in my impressions as well.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Ed Wood*

recommendation: *Tier 3.5**

Tim Burton's _Ed Wood_ (1994) receives an adequate transfer for Blu-ray that doesn't provide a dramatic increase in resolution. The older film transfer definitely shows improvements in definition and clarity over DVD. The black-and-white film has sharp contrast and decent black levels in Hi-Def.

High-frequency detail is a bit middling, possibly a result of some light filtering. The mild grain structure looks fairly film-like, helped out by an AVC video encode beyond reproach. What isn't film-like by any stretch is the obvious ringing. This is a transfer riddled with halos of varying amplitude. I didn't expect Disney to do much with Ed Wood's transfer as a catalog title, and I was right. There is nice depth and the occasional sighting of solid dimensionality at 1080p resolution.

If one can live with its halos due to zealous sharpening, I think most fans will be satisfied by this very average presentation.


----------



## NorthSky

Phantom Stranger said:


> This is a question for the regular 3-D viewers, but which version do you usually watch first? On a first viewing, the normal way or the film in 3-D? I don't watch enough 3-D content to give an answer. Has the 3-D version become the primary option?


Of course; 3D always takes precedence over 2D.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Rudolph The Red-Nosed Reindeer (50th Anniversary)*

Recommendation: *Tier 3.25**

This is a marginal improvement if any over the previous Rudolph in tier 3.5. Clarity and color abound in the presentation, fuzz and hair on the figures is on great display in every shot and colors pop. Not many scenes take place at night or in dark conditions but black levels are good and contrast is also well on display.

Unfortunately, PQ greatly suffers in the number of scratches and other surface imperfections seen throughout the presentation. The packaging touts this release as being "Digitally Remastered" but a little digital restoration to remove the surface damage would have probably raised Rudolph into the tier 2.0 range.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Thanks for the Rudolph review, Darth. I've heard they made minor color corrections, most notably to Yukon Cornelius' coat. I am very surprised no one has attempted to remake _Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer_ in CGI. Given the recent leaks, it looks like Sony needs movie ideas.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Nightbreed: Director's Cut*

recommendation: *Tier 3.0**

Another cherished Christmas classic gets its proper treatment. Merely checking if everyone is still paying attention. Shout Factory released Clive Barker's new director's cut this October. Long thought lost, years of searching rescued the film elements necessary to construct this fully-realized version of the film. The new film transfer from the original camera negative is very strong, a highly satisfying presentation for such an overlooked film. Shout Factory had to license the film from Warner Bros. This is certainly one of the better-looking film transfers handled by Shout Factory of late.

I was ready to place this BD in Tier Two after its first hour, it has excellent reproduction of the natural grain structure and is loaded with texture. The newish film scan has strong detail and definition, boasting appreciable Hi-Def clarity. The color grading is tasteful, fully saturating primary colors without unnaturally skewing flesh-tones. Keeping its placement in Tier Three is occasionally soft cinematography, particularly the female lead. Another factor is the less impressive second hour, as the movie's setting shifts to the bowels of Midian.

Shout Factory has employed a very strong AVC video encode, fully transparent to the new film transfer and faithfully replicating its heavy grain structure. There is a touch of sharpening in a couple of scenes but this transfer has not been filtered to any serious degree. The camera negative is in relatively good condition, the 1990 film is slightly less than immaculate. A couple of odd marks here and there, mostly attached to the scattered FX shots.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Raw Force a.k.a. Kung Fu Cannibals*

recommendation: *Tier 3.75**

Niche distributor Vinegar Syndrome released _Raw Force_ in October. Claiming a 2K restoration from the original camera negative for this BD, the 1982 low-budget film looks as good as it ever will at 1080p resolution. It is a very competent film transfer, mostly limited by the native cinematography and some deterioration evident in the negative.

Technically, the transfer sports a nice level of detail without extraneous video processing. The night scenes pose more challenges to the picture quality, exhibiting less clarity.


----------



## DarthDoxie

Phantom Stranger said:


> Thanks for the Rudolph review, Darth. I've heard they made minor color corrections, most notably to Yukon Cornelius' coat. I am very surprised no one has attempted to remake _Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer_ in CGI. Given the recent leaks, it looks like Sony needs movie ideas.


Cornelius' coat is blue throughout which, according to previous discussions on this board, is not the green color it is in the original elements.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

DarthDoxie said:


> Cornelius' coat is blue throughout which, according to previous discussions on this board, is not the green color it is in the original elements.


The production team behind that first Blu-ray claimed Yukon's coat was green in the original film elements. It's hard to determine if they were being entirely truthful on that matter. It looks more like an overly modern teal tweak pushed the blue in his coat, as seen in the broadcasts and prior home video versions, towards turquoise. I think most Rudolph purists would want Yukon's coat looking blue, as on the new transfer.

The merchandise for Yukon over the decades has pointed to a blue coat...


----------



## DarthDoxie

Phantom Stranger said:


> I think most Rudolph purists would want Yukon's coat looking blue, as on the new transfer.


Wouldn't call myself a Rudolph purist but I too prefer the blue coat.


----------



## djoberg

*House of Cards (Season 2)*

After a three-day "binge" of 13 episodes, my opinion remains unchanged. This is, most definitely, Tier 0 material. During the first 5 minutes of the 1st episode there was a scene with terrible black levels, which had me thinking they had lowered the standards for Season 2. But as outdoor scenes appeared, along with well-lit interior shots, incredible depth, details and clarity reigned supreme. Black levels and shadow details were also exemplary. I had given the 1st Season a .66 placement and the 2nd Season gets the same vote. With the exception of some rare soft shots, this is a killer series that deserves a place on everyone's "demo shelf."

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.66)*

Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I am never very good at those kind of binges, Denny. I don't like watching more than a handful of episodes from the same show in a week.

*Aria the Scarlet Ammo: Complete Series
*
recommendation: *Tier 3.0**

Funimation did their best with this release, the animation itself is simply flat and less than impressive for the 2011 anime. The line-art is fairly simple and lacking detail, it reeks of being done on the cheap.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> I am never very good at those kind of binges, Denny. I don't like watching more than a handful of episodes from the same show in a week.


If a series is really good (as is the case with _House of Cards_), I have no problem watching several episodes in one sitting. I had three evenings free (my wife is babysitting grandchildren in the Twin Cities) and it was perfect for getting through the whole season.


----------



## tmavs

djoberg said:


> *Edge of Tomorrow*
> 
> Here is yet another demo release, although in my first viewing I'm inclined to put it towards the bottom of Tier Gold. (I must confess that the nature of the film, with its "twists and turns" and fast-paced action scenes, demanded my attention to the point where I wasn't focusing on the PQ like I normally am. I promise to pay FULL attention to the PQ on my next viewing.)
> 
> Despite my "confession" above, I did see enough to draw some fair conclusions. DETAILS were far and away the best virtue on display, whether we're talking facial close-ups, clothing, weaponry, flying debris (in multiple explosions), etc. SHARPNESS came next, though I must say there were several instances of softness where depth also suffered. BLACK LEVELS were satisfying but there were a couple of dark scenes where they veered into the "gray zone" (in both the picture on and the top & bottom bars). FLESH TONES were good. COLORS were pleasing when primaries appeared, but the majority of the film features strong blue hues or de-saturated colors.
> 
> Having just watched _Transformers: Age of Extinction_, where EVERYTHING was nearly flawless and pure eye candy, I am compelled, in comparing the two, to drop this one a whole tier from that placement. In other words, I'm going with....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.5**
> 
> Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


I agree with this ranking. I was hoping for Oblivion-like PQ but this falls short of that by a long way.


----------



## rusky_g

The Conjuring

The Conjuring creeps onto Blu-Ray with a solid, great looking HD presentation.

Sporting a grainless, digital yet filmic look, detail is lovely and crisp, showing excellent dimensionality, particularly in the brighter outdoor scenes. Fine object detail was often startling when called upon, one could make out every strand of 'Annabel's silvered hair, every leaf in foliage surrounding 'the' house.

That's not to say things looked worse during the film's many darker moments - they in fact look great, blacks seldom straying from being dark and inky, whilst not being of detriment to shadow detail. There was a couple of moments of crush, but nothing that rocked the boat too much. Contrast was often spot on, key to giving plenty of impact to the basement scenes which called for moody corners to remain darkened amongst the isolated glow of freshly struck matches.

All said and done, I have no issues ranking The Conjuring in upper Tier Gold. Recommended.

1.25


----------



## fredxr2d2

*Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014)

Tier Recommendation: Tier 0*

This film, while not quite the nostalgia fest I was hoping it would be, was strikingly presented with a bold, beautiful encode that showed no flaws. Deep blacks, crisp textures, and wonderful colors (when they were presented) all pleasantly transported me to the world of the turtles. Not the best film by any means, it's entirely not flawed enough to truly dislike it - mostly it gave off a "blah" feeling afterwards. I didn't hate it and some of the action pieces held up quite nicely, and as an A/V presentation it was top notch, so I recommend a rental at the least. Certain scenes may become demo material for those inclined to demo your systems.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Penny Dreadful: The Complete First Season*

recommendation: *Tier 1.25**

_Penny Dreadful_ has razor-sharp picture quality, held back by its muted color palette and sinister shadows. There is more variance in its black levels than I normally see, ranging from inky perfection to a lighter shade of black. The Paramount Blu-ray set faithfully reproduces Showtime's broadcast version, rendering it with even more clarity and detail. It's a high-bitrate AVC video encode that should be spotless, though hints of minor banding creep into a few darker shots.

The overall video greatly reminded me of another Paramount BD, Showtime's _Ray Donovan_. That show has better contrast and a healthier color temperature, netting it a higher placement.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

If users were wondering about the next update, look for it to go up by New Year's Day. This will likely be the only update before Spring, so post any reviews or scores over the next ten days if you want them included in this update of the Picture Tiers.

*Stonehearst Asylum*

recommendation: *Tier 2.25**

Millennium Entertainment's new release on Blu-ray starring Kate Beckinsale and Ben Kingsley is a solid entrant in Tier Two. Its respectable picture quality has better-than-average detail and a fair amount of sharpness. The brighter scenes exhibit outstanding depth and dimension, faltering only slightly in dimmer shots.

The transfer has been handled without extraneous processing, lacking overt ringing and filtering. The period piece does employ digital composite work for much of its foreboding locale, introducing a slightly digital sheen into the picture. The AVC video encode could have had better parameters, there are some hints of minor banding.


----------



## djoberg

*Guardians of the Galaxy*

Another LOOKER from Marvel! There were quite a few dark scenes early on where the black levels faltered slightly and the PQ came across as a bit flat and lacked details. But as the movie progressed blacks levels were stunning, especially shots of the galaxy. Colors REALLY popped in these scenes and depth/dimensionality was phenomenal. Daytime scenes on Xander were spectacular, with unbelievable clarity, depth, details, and colors. 

There were most definitely a good number of Tier Blu scenes, but the early scenes alluded to above, along with a handful of scenes throughout where the CGI produced some softness, drops this down into Tier Gold. Our colleague fredxr2d2 had recommended 1.25 for the 3D version and my thinking is that the 2D version (which I watched) deserves a notch higher. So.....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**

Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> *Guardians of the Galaxy*
> 
> Another LOOKER from Marvel! There were quite a few dark scenes early on where the black levels faltered slightly and the PQ came across as a bit flat and lacked details. But as the movie progressed blacks levels were stunning, especially shots of the galaxy. Colors REALLY popped in these scenes and depth/dimensionality was phenomenal. Daytime scenes on Xander were spectacular, with unbelievable clarity, depth, details, and colors.
> 
> There were most definitely a good number of Tier Blu scenes, but the early scenes alluded to above, along with a handful of scenes throughout where the CGI produced some softness, drops this down into Tier Gold. Our colleague fredxr2d2 had recommended 1.25 for the 3D version and my thinking is that the 2D version (which I watched) deserves a notch higher. So.....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.0**
> 
> Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


You beat me by a couple of hours, I completely agree with your placement.

*Guardians of the Galaxy*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

I would say its picture quality was stunningly consistent. The transfer itself is flawless, easily one of the better efforts seen on a recent blockbuster. What kept it out of Tier 0 was the lack of superior projection and dimensionality I tend to prefer in the best demo pieces. It was very close to earning the higher tier, I would not quibble with anyone placing Guardians in Tier 0's lower half.

I did think Guardians looked better than The Avengers.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*On Her Majesty's Secret Service
*
recommendation: *Tier 2.25**

This one-off appearance by George Lazenby as 007 upholds the quality of the other James Bond entries of the era. Consistently sharp and colorful, it only falters a little in the black levels. Details abound in fabrics, textures and hair. Closeups of the primary actors show facial details and pores in spades and flesh tones are naturally rendered. Diana Rigg is especially beautifully filmed, anyone who is a fan of hers should definitely own this one. Colors really pop too as there are a lot of ski jackets in the mountain scenes and they really stand out against the snow. Contrast and black levels are generally good but just not as consistent as the film's other qualities.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Monty Python and the Holy Grail*

recommendation: *Tier 3.5**

A few sharp scenes are spread throughout the film but disappointing on the whole as it had a general flatness. Colors were dull until the last scene and black levels neither impressed nor disappointed. Probably not worth an upgrade if you have the DVD.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

DarthDoxie said:


> *Monty Python and the Holy Grail*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 3.5**


For those AVS users that haven't been around as long some of us, I'd like to use DarthDoxie's placement to point out what the asterisk placed next to 3.5 means. An asterisk simply indicates the BD has never been previously ranked in the current PQ Tiers. Despite a database with over 4000 Blu-rays, there are still some unranked discs.

It's a small favor I ask since it makes recordkeeping a little easier when I make the periodic updates. We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.


----------



## fredxr2d2

Phantom Stranger said:


> For those AVS users that haven't been around as long some of us, I'd like to use DarthDoxie's placement to point out what the asterisk placed next to 3.5 means. An asterisk simply indicates the BD has never been previously ranked in the current PQ Tiers. Despite a database with over 4000 Blu-rays, there are still some unranked discs.
> 
> It's a small favor I ask since it makes recordkeeping a little easier when I make the periodic updates. We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.



Totally didn't know that! Thanks Phantom!

(I thought Darth was just using extra emphasis or something...)


----------



## rusky_g

As 2014 draws to a close, what has been your top PQ disc of the year?


----------



## djoberg

Best Animated for 2014...._Rio 2_

Best Live Action for 2014..._Ninja 2: Shadow of a Tear_


----------



## Phantom Stranger

rusky_g said:


> As 2014 draws to a close, what has been your top PQ disc of the year?


It's not Tier 0 material but _The Swimmer_ received the best film transfer amongst 2014 releases. The grading and scan are perfect, the film looks better today than it likely did in 1968.

AVS's own Blu-ray reviewer, Ralph Potts, came up with this 2014 list:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-o.../1796425-avs-forum-s-top-blu-rays-2014-a.html

Anyone here seen *Sin City: A Dame To Kill For* yet? That is one BD I am interested in learning how the PQ turned out.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Throne of Blood*

recommendation: *Tier 3.25**

From the Criterion Collection, this is a great looking transfer and the best it will ever look. Contrast and black levels are consistently good throughout but scenes with fog present a dip in the quality. Clarity is generally good with only a few instances of out of focus shots, usually when the camera can't keep up with the actors moving around. The print has been cleaned up nicely with very little visible damage, most notable a few stray hairs/threads at the bottom of a few shots.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Criterion usually does pretty good manual work at removing print damage from their older films.


----------



## OldCodger73

Speaking of Criterion, their release of Tootsie came out last week. Has anyone watched it yet?

BTW, thanks everyone for your reviews.


----------



## djoberg

rusky_g said:


> As 2014 draws to a close, what has been your top PQ disc of the year?


In addition to _Ninja 2_, a close second would be _Lone Survivor_ or _Transformers 4: Age of Extinction_.


----------



## rusky_g

Phantom Stranger said:


> It's not Tier 0 material but _The Swimmer_ received the best film transfer amongst 2014 releases. The grading and scan are perfect, the film looks better today than it likely did in 1968.
> 
> AVS's own Blu-ray reviewer, Ralph Potts, came up with this 2014 list:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-o.../1796425-avs-forum-s-top-blu-rays-2014-a.html
> 
> Anyone here seen *Sin City: A Dame To Kill For* yet? That is one BD I am interested in learning how the PQ turned out.


Thanks for the replies all and also for the link Phantom! 

I have to say Need for Speed definitely resonated with me this year! Honourable mention to Robocop 2014 also...


----------



## Phantom Stranger

A very interesting discussion between some of today's top cinematographers on their craft. There is discussion of reviewers and how they sometimes confuse cinematography with pretty picture quality.






The cinematographers behind some of the year's most visually striking movies - Roger Deakins (Unbroken), Dion Beebe (Into the Woods), Jeff Cronenweth (Gone Girl), Benoit Delhomme (The Theory of Everything) Matthew Libatique (Noah) and Dick Pope (Mr. Turner) - discuss film vs. digital, how to develop a relationship with a director & high-dynamic-range technologies.


----------



## djoberg

rusky_g said:


> Thanks for the replies all and also for the link Phantom!
> 
> I have to say Need for Speed definitely resonated with me this year! Honourable mention to Robocop 2014 also...


How could I have forgotten about _Need for Speed_? I had rated that Tier 0 (.5) so yes, that one is right up there with the other three live action movies I had mentioned.


----------



## rusky_g

Hey Denny!

Yes I really enjoyed NFS! Admittedly I loved the cars too so maybe that sways things a bit ;-)

What are your Christmas plans? Just enjoying a beer at a family friends house who happens to have a very nice dedicated Sony projector room set up....


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I'll wish everyone a big Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays! May Santa bring all the Tier 0 Blu-rays your heart desires. I may have caught a peek, some of the presents under the tree look suspiciously like Blu-rays. Something about apes taking over the planet or something...


----------



## djoberg

Hey Russ,

My wife and I are just chilling today, with a nice big, home-cooked meal planned for tonight (with CANDLES!!) and possibly a movie afterwards. Thanksgiving is our BIG HOLIDAY where we get together with our 5 daugthers and their familes for a few days. They go to their in-laws for Christmas.

Happy New Year to all! 

Denny


----------



## rusky_g

That sounds excellent Denny! Enjoy

Merry Xmas to you and all the PQ thread regulars, have a safe and enjoyable break!

Special kudos to Phantom for all his hard work!


----------



## rusky_g

Prisoners

Overall it's a thumbs up for this disc, although I prefer letterbox ratio movies to 16:9 ratio, mainly because I think they feel more cinematic.

Sharp, detailed throughout. It's a bleak colour scheme but suiting to the cold, rainswept context. High points were some excellent night shots with deep (ish) blacks spliced with shards of exterior lights. Facial details were decent but not remarkable. 

Loved the plot and found the film itself engaging.

Tier 1.75


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Edge of Tomorrow (Live.Die.Repeat)*

recommendation: *Tier 1.75**

This Tom Cruise action film didn't have quite the brilliance needed to attain a loftier score. Its solid consistency was a little soft in better detail, lacking the extreme resolution often seen in new blockbusters. The crisp video is a solid Tier One contender, I also considered a higher placement. The subdued contrast and tonality was another factor.

I will throw out that it's one of the best action movies I've recently seen, certainly in 2014.

*Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014)*

recommendation: *Tier 2.25**

I guess I should not have expected as much from a movie starring CGI apes. This is very average picture quality for a movie with this kind of budget. I don't believe Fox did anything wrong in the transfer, a movie blending this much CGI and digital composites will almost always result in relatively soft video. Filtering and other digital tricks were employed to smooth the actual human actors interacting with their simian counterparts.

Much of the film takes place in the dark of night. Black levels aren't terrible but shadow delineation is definitely less than exemplary.


----------



## fredxr2d2

Phantom Stranger said:


> *Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014)*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 2.25**
> 
> I guess I should not have expected as much from a movie starring CGI apes. This is very average picture quality for a movie with this kind of budget. I don't believe Fox did anything wrong in the transfer, a movie blending this much CGI and digital composites will almost always result in relatively soft video. Filtering and other digital tricks were employed to smooth the actual human actors interacting with their simian counterparts.
> 
> Much of the film takes place in the dark of night. Black levels aren't terrible but shadow delineation is definitely less than exemplary.


I'm really surprised at your low score on this one...both djoberg for 2D and myself for 3D put this in Tier 1.25.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I was underwhelmed, especially considering that newer releases have been setting very high standards lately. Some of the movie looked great at times, as high as Tier One.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^

We'll have to "agree" to "disagree" on this one Phantom!


----------



## rusky_g

Maleficent

Disney delivers yet another spellbinding winner! Exquisite detail, black levels and contrast bound together with top notch shadow detail. Maybe a couple of instances which felt like the image was a touch 'too sharp' but in all honesty this couldn't be anything less than top tier.

Tier 0.65


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^



FWIW, my wife and I are leaving tomorrow for a 4-day retreat. I will be "checking in" to see if some of you are making the most out of the few days left in 2014 (by watching and reviewing Blus ).


----------



## rusky_g

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> 
> 
> FWIW, my wife and I are leaving tomorrow for a 4-day retreat. I will be "checking in" to see if some of you are making the most out of the few days left in 2014 (by watching and reviewing Blus ).



Safe travels, Denny...

Yesterday I ordered Non Stop, Her, Cuban Fury


Sitting next to me to watch are Oculus, Oz The Great and Powerful...the latter I recalled you favoring better than GrG did ;-)


----------



## djoberg

Thanks Russ!

I'll be looking forward to reviews on the titles you mentioned. I almost rented _Oculus_ last week but I hadn't read any reviews on it so I passed on it. Let me know how the movie itself is in addition to the PQ.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Masters of Sex: Season One*

recommendation: *Tier 3.25**

I am used to better-looking video from this type of premium cable television show. The information I have found indicates _Masters of Sex_ was filmed on the Sony F65, a very capable digital unit. I got the impression a little noise was intentionally left in the picture, possibly for the more evocative period setting. This is not the pristine, crystal-clear clarity of most television on Blu-ray.

The video itself is soft in detail, which varies based on available lighting in each scene. _Masters of Sex_ has adequate sharpness and decent black levels.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*The Hidden Fortress*

recommendation: *Tier 2.25**

Wow, what an improvement in PQ over Throne of Blood. Released just a year after Throne, Akira Kurosawa filmed this masterpiece in TohoScope which is an anamorphic lens system that was identical to CinemaScope at the time. Another Criterion release, the restoration is stunning with sharpness, contrast, and black levels looking great for a black and white film of this era. The consistency from shot to shot really stands out as there are no great dips in quality to distract you from the story.

This is the film that inspired George Lucas to write Star Wars and just a great all around action/adventure film.


----------



## rusky_g

Oz The Great And Powerful

Ok, so a third way in and I'm thinking mid Tier 1....two thirds in and I'm thinking higher Tier 1....by the end I'm thinking low Tier 0! 

On the whole this was a stunner with many pause button moments. Similar to The Great Gatsby, bold primary colours allow the image to really pop! Many scenes flourishing with details that felt like you could really reach in and grab at the land of Oz. Black levels and shadow detail excelled. If there was a weak point I'd say facial close ups were lacking and colours in earlier scenes were a touch over saturated. The final chapters of the film though were reference all the way.

This is a tricky one but I think I'll rank at the balancing point in my opening statement.

Tier 1


----------



## rusky_g

djoberg said:


> Quote:Originally Posted by *Gamereviewgod*
> 
> Way too much smoothing, not enough fidelity. Best stuff are the reveals of new locations, where all of the above applies. The rest? Not so much. I remain stubbornly unimpressed.
> 
> 
> So, when was your last "eye exam?" Maybe it's time!
> 
> Seriously, I can't wait for others to chime for I have to believe there will be reviews extolling the virtues of this Tier Blu-worthy disc. You say the "best stuff are the reveals of new locations." Yes, those are great, but I would argue that just about every scene is stellar. Take, for example, the MANY scenes with the two evil witches. The detail on their clothing is simply amazing, especially the black dress worn by Rachel Weisz. I don't recall ever seeing black levels so pristine on an article of clothing before, which served to enhance the intricate details of the dress. I could on and on citing examples like this but I will rest my case and wait for other *discerning* members to weigh in after they have seen this title. Again, I can't encourage you all enough to give this a rent and give your eyes the treat they deserve. I believe this will impress you just as much as the first time you saw _Avatar_. Some reviewers on other sites are boldly declaring this is the best Blu-ray (as far as color, depth, clarity, details, and black levels go) they have seen this year; one said it was the best Blu-ray he had ever seen.


Further to my review Denny, I absolutely concur on the costumes, notably the black sparkling dress. 1080p Doesn't get much better...


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*This Is Where I Leave You*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

A fairly solid-looking new release with a slightly muted color scheme, for a movie that pretends to be comedy. Filmed on the Arri Alexa XT, the picture quality results are on that camera's low end for this WB production. WB is blameless, they provide an untouched transfer with decent technical parameters.

The dramedy does not aspire to be eye candy but looks reasonably good enough to almost make Tier One.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

If someone sees something wrong or has had a change of heart, speak very soon. I imagine the final update will go up within seven days.

All the scores posted in this thread since July that will contribute to the next update:


https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pBo57VMiC_O9likmA90LJ8fF5INV-mIJAls-cLaBN4E/edit?usp=sharing


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Time Bandits*

recommendation: *Tier 3.0*

*Recently released by Criterion and touting a new 2K scan, Time Bandits looks good but not great. Sharpness occasionally raises into tier 2 but is pretty consistently tier 3. Colors, while rarely stunning, are not a distraction and black levels are generally good.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Horns*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

I am beginning to see a new wave of films shot with Arri Alexa cameras that are smoother and less-detailed on Blu-ray than their predecessors. _Horns_ does employ some CGI and VFX, the resulting digital intermediate has possibly been filtered on some level. It is far tougher with the newer, more refined video processing algorithms to immediately notice their after-effects in the picture quality. There are no overt traits that grossly stick out in the video identifying their usage, except a keen understanding of the resolution possible in 1080P video with modern film cameras. While the presentation is cleaner, there is some loss in inherent fine detail and definition.

This is definitely a trend worth mentioning, as it appears to be gaining widespread application in post houses. The BD itself has standard technical parameters for a new release, though it does find itself on a BD-50. Which is getting rarer and rarer as distributors cut corners whenever they can. The pale flesh-tones err on the cold side.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Enemy* 

recommendation: *Tier 2.75**

_Enemy_ has very distinctive cinematography. Its entire world is suffused with a yellowish amber tint, this is not a very colorful film. Better close-ups exhibit excellent levels of unfiltered detail, the picture is razor-sharp. The palette is closer to monochrome than anything else. Very tiny aliasing occasionally creeps into the pristine video.

The Canadian production was released by Lionsgate. What might be a Tier One entry gets dragged downwards by a very unimpressive AVC video encode. The problems lie during darker scenes, manifesting rather noticeable banding and chroma noise. It is some of the worst I have seen this year, producing murky interiors with reduced clarity and lackluster shadow delineation. Which is a pity because exterior scenes have strong definition and fantastic contrast.


----------



## John Mason

Phantom Stranger said:


> *Horns*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 2.0**
> 
> I am beginning to see a new wave of films shot with Arri Alexa cameras that are smoother and less-detailed on Blu-ray than their predecessors. _Horns_ does employ some CGI and VFX, the resulting digital intermediate has possibly been filtered on some level. It is far tougher with the newer, more refined video processing algorithms to immediately notice their after-effects in the picture quality. There are no overt traits that grossly stick out in the video identifying their usage, except a keen understanding of the resolution possible in 1080P video with modern film cameras. While the presentation is cleaner, there is some loss in inherent fine detail and definition.
> 
> This is definitely a trend worth mentioning, as it appears to be gaining widespread application in post houses. The BD itself has standard technical parameters for a new release, though it does find itself on a BD-50. Which is getting rarer and rarer as distributors cut corners whenever they can. The pale flesh-tones err on the cold side.


Haven't seen a Blu-ray yet of Starz's 8-part miniseries,  "The Missing" , for comparison, but noticed this lack of detail even though the series--just winding up--was shot with newer RED digital cameras capable of true-4k masters. Only spotted one outdoor scene, which I mentioned in the linked programming- forum thread, revealing some exceptional detail. Overall, whether it was direct camera filtering or tinkering too much with the master D.I., I decided not to try measuring the actual resolution of fine details (as noted in the thread) because it was tough finding suitable higher resolutions. Believe Starz still has the entire series on video on demand--which may lack still more details. -- John


----------



## rusky_g

Non Stop

Close ups looked best, best examples being when Neeson looks at his watch. Longer range shots lacked detail and fidelity that the best PQ discs can offer. Blacks and contrast were very solid. The film sports a cool blue mood which suited the plot.

Decent overall, just not one to label as a stunner.

Tier 2.0


----------



## Phantom Stranger

John Mason said:


> Haven't seen a Blu-ray yet of Starz's 8-part miniseries,  "The Missing" , for comparison, but noticed this lack of detail even though the series--just winding up--was shot with newer RED digital cameras capable of true-4k masters. Only spotted one outdoor scene, which I mentioned in the linked programming- forum thread, revealing some exceptional detail. Overall, whether it was direct camera filtering or tinkering too much with the master D.I., I decided not to try measuring the actual resolution of fine details (as noted in the thread) because it was tough finding suitable higher resolutions. Believe Starz still has the entire series on video on demand--which may lack still more details. -- John


I am seeing it more and more on bigger Hollywood productions. It doesn't seem to have hit smaller independent productions, which often finish their video outside the few large post houses.

I believe the intention is to make digitally-shot movies more closely resemble actual film. It has been bandied about that many stars are horrified to see the kind of ultra-resolution available on home video.

*Let me wish everyone a Happy New Year!*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

Classic Disney animation- check. Inky black levels, flawless compression transparency, wonderful Technicolor saturation- check, check, and check. New film restoration- check.

Sharing a double-feature on BD-50 with _Fun & Fancy Free_, the classic cel animation comes to life in nearly pristine 1080P video. The film elements have definitely been cleaned up a bit, though the filtering does not significantly affect its film-like authenticity. Surprisingly enough, _The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad_ receives a fairly substantial restoration. A grade behind masterpieces like _Sleeping Beauty_, but certainly ahead of their less popular animated films.


----------



## rusky_g

Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues

This is a clean, bright and colourful disc with strong contrast and black levels.

The picture is mostly sharp and the image definitely 'popped' for the majority, but there were also some moments of softness which has reflected in my ranking.

Tier 1.75


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Listen To Me, Girls. I Am Your Father!*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

This very recent anime from Sentai FilmWorks looks fairly good on Blu-ray. The entire season of thirteen episodes have been split over two BDs, allowing better compression integrity. Not the best hand-drawn animation I've seen of late but it is consistent.

Animators are getting a better grasp of what is needed now when producing HD-quality animation, the average quality has improved for what would be considered a television production. This BD set certainly falls in Tier One somewhere, an exact placement likely follows personal subjectivity.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I've seen not one, but two different live-action Blu-rays this weekend which will almost assuredly enter the top third of Tier Zero. 

One of them is the first disc I believe that will seriously challenge _Avatar's_ hallowed position in the Tiers! Both BDs don't officially come out until Tuesday, so I will let this information properly marinate with you.


----------



## Toe

Phantom Stranger said:


> I've seen not one, but two different live-action Blu-rays this weekend which will almost assuredly enter the top third of Tier Zero.
> 
> One of them is the first disc I believe that will seriously challenge _Avatar's_ hollowed position in the Tiers! Both BDs don't officially come out until Tuesday, so I will let this information properly marinate with you.


Can you tell us what they are Phantom? Shoot me a PM if you want to keep it a surprise for the thread.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Toe said:


> Can you tell us what they are Phantom? Shoot me a PM if you want to keep it a surprise for the thread.


One involves pirates, while the other brings the funk. Papa definitely has a brand new bag.


----------



## Toe

Phantom Stranger said:


> One involves pirates, while the other brings the funk. Papa definitely has a brand new bag.


Ha! Great hints


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I figured some in this thread would be interested to know the Darbee Darblet 5000, a video processor that has gained popularity in some videophile circles, is on sale at its lowest known price for $199:

http://darbeevision.com/darblet

We've had a couple of Darbee users discuss it, the product is meant to enhance visible definition and sharpness without the associated ringing artifacts when connected to your video display. Check some of the endorsements on its product page, the names will be familiar to AVS users like Kris Deering and Joshua Zyber.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I would post it but the forum kept garbling the 190 new recommendations that were included in this latest update. You will just have to believe me that every score in this thread since August has been included. The master list is current as of this post.

While I plan to continue updating the PQ Tiers, I wouldn't expect to see updates to the master list more than every five or six months. This is a time-consuming process that works better all at once.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...pq-tiers-updated-through-march-27-2014-a.html


----------



## Phantom Stranger

If casual users were wondering if the update had gone through, it was posted last night. Checking it this morning, something unusual is going on. To see the latest January 5th update of the PQ Tiers, you need to be logged-in at AVS with your forum account. If you visit the forum on a different browser, you will only see the July 30th update from last year. I am not sure what is causing that, I will have to investigate further.

The forum did fix the formatting issues caused by ads that were disrupting the master PQ list for casual browsers.

The new update has a couple of surprise additions near the top of Tier 0.


----------



## Kool-aid23

*Shout Out*



Phantom Stranger said:


> I would post it but the forum kept garbling the 190 new recommendations that were included in this latest update. You will just have to believe me that every score in this thread since August has been included. The master list is current as of this post.
> 
> While I plan to continue updating the PQ Tiers, I wouldn't expect to see updates to the master list more than every five or six months. This is a time-consuming process that works better all at once.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...pq-tiers-updated-through-march-27-2014-a.html


Again, I would like to thank you for all your time and energy to the list. 

Regards,


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Here is the reason we are all here, this following set will eventually garner wide acclaim from videophiles. It's crazy that it was only the second best-looking Blu-ray I saw this weekend. 

*Black Sails: The Complete First Season*

recommendation: *Tier 0* (Top Ten)*


_Black Sails: The Complete First Season_ is gorgeous, a simply outstanding video presentation with incredible location cinematography. Distributor Starz has given it a top-notch treatment that preserves every pixel of its glorious resolution in an unprocessed transfer. The eight episodes are spread over three BD-50s, allowing a generous AVC video encode with flawless transparency. It is easily some of the most astonishing live-action footage to ever hit Blu-ray. Since there is far less cgi and VFX used than on _Avatar_, it looks more natural than James Cameron's movie.

Framed in a 1.78:1 widescreen transfer at 1080P resolution, this video is pure demo material of the highest caliber. Featuring a pristine digital capture, the high-contrast, high-resolution video has impeccable depth and dimensionality. I have rarely seen its equal on Blu-ray, the action practically leaps off the screen with its inky black levels and stellar projection. The eye candy is so intense that it almost proves distracting at times from understanding the story! I practically felt I was at the beach in my home theater.

The unfiltered, razor-sharp detail exudes constant precision throughout _Black Sails_, the laser-like focus produces incredible close-ups. This is the epitome of unprocessed digital footage, one with as much resolution as there is possible on Blu-ray. This set could be the new reference standard for video quality. Few productions are capable of matching its inherent perfection.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^

FWIW, this looks pristine via Dish satellite tv as well! So, it doesn't surprise me at all that the Blu-Ray release has garnered your praise and I'm sure it looks even better than what I have seen.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I think we are beginning to see the effects of a 4K production chain in Hollywood begin to produce substantially better video quality, even downrezzed on 1080P Blu-rays. This bit of information probably escaped many but 4K media has been officially dubbed Ultra HD Blu-ray. The following article details exact specifications for the next generation home video format.

https://davidsusilouncensored.wordp...ly-called-ultra-hd-blu-ray-with-hdr-rec-2020/


----------



## rusky_g

Thanks for the link Phantom !

Been keeping an eye on the new UHD BR format and its good to see that it's going to happen. 

Will be interested in the pricing structure not only of the new format but also how it will affect 'regular' BR pricing......the most immediate / convenient outlets for Blu Ray here in the UK are our food supermarkets - Plain old DVD still dominates shelf space over BR so I'd really hope to see that start changing!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I think the newer ULTRA HD format will be very niche for the foreseeable future upon its release, especially at retail. Speaking honestly, even Blu-ray seems to be shrinking at retail in the United States. 2014's sales were slightly behind 2013's total. I don't see this 4K format much of a retail threat towards Blu-ray, it will take several years of 4K display sales for that to happen with any great impact. The looming threat now is streaming video.

*Get On Up*

recommendation: *Tier 0* (top 3!)*

Ladies and gentlemen, this is the best-looking Blu-ray you will see this year or possibly any year. This is transcendent video for live action, as remarkable as anything previously seen on the format. _Get On Up_ has more raw depth and dimensionality in its pristine picture than I have seen since _Avatar_, widely considered the best video quality ever released on Blu-ray. This is raw, unfiltered resolution of unmatched quality in 1080P video. I am knocked out by its perfection, razor sharp does not begin to describe how awesome _Get On Up_ appears. This is absolutely one of the best videophile demo discs ever manufactured.

The secret to _Get On Up’s_ intense, award-winning demo quality is that some of it has been filmed at 4K resolution on Canon digital cameras. The rest was shot on very capable Arri Alexa digital cameras, still in great 2K resolution. I was utterly blown away by the dense foliage and its shocking clarity as a young James Brown watches his parents fight in rural Georgia. These scenes literally pop like 3-D film. On a calibrated display I’ve never seen anything like it. The lovely color saturation reveals a lush palette with perfect contrast. There isn’t a single complaint I can lodge against its video, the digital transfer by Universal is perfect. The AVC video encode has flawless compression transparency in a high-bitrate effort. Everything about this video screams untouchable quality.

I don’t say it lightly when calling this BD the best picture quality of 2015. I am fairly confident this will end up the best demo material of the year and we are only a few days into 2015. Cinematographer Stephen Goldblatt should be applauded for a sparkling presentation of astonishing beauty. He skillfully fills the 1.85:1 widescreen aspect ratio with carefully composed imagery and thoughtful composition, beautifully lit for dramatic impact.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Oblivion*

recommendation: *Tier 1.25/1.5*

_Oblivion_ has already seen much discussion of its merits. I had not seen the Tom Cruise pic until this week and figured I would give my two cents. A couple of late reviews pushed _Oblivion_ into the lower end of Tier 0. The Universal BD has also seen scores in Tier 1.75, so there is no clear consensus.

I think both viewpoints are right to some degree. The first act has brilliant, razor-sharp clarity. Maybe a touch of ringing and good but not flawless compression, the picture quality is quite arresting early in the film. Deeper into the film, the video loses some of that brilliant clarity as its setting shifts. Much of the film also has to rely on cgi, flattening the image and affecting ultimate detail on occasion.

In my opinion _Oblivion_ does not belong in Tier 0. It's not an egregiously poor ranking but this looks closer to a disc deserving Tier One. _Oblivion_ does look better than _Edge of Tomorrow_, another recent sci-fi blockbuster starring Cruise. After seeing a few recent examples of live-action BDs knocking on the ceiling of Tier 0, _Oblivion_ looks less impressive by contrast.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

wattheF said:


> 47 Ronin
> 
> If you can look past the mediocre (at best) acting, this is an entertaining movie with overall very good PQ on bluray.
> 
> Strengths include top notch clarity/sharpness with facial details on closeups looking as good as it gets. Color was well balanced and seemed fairly neutral to my eyes. Brightly colored character costumes popped with great texture. Bright outdoor scenes and landscapes at times looked brilliant. Overall it was a very clean presentation without any obvious issues.
> 
> The one area that PQ faltered was black levels. They were consistently below average. There seemed to be a conscious effort to preserve shadow details, which BTW were excellent, but this was at the cost of a truly deep black. Even in the darkest areas of any shot, at no point during the movie did it come even close to matching the pitch black letter bars on my ST60 plasma. It was most notable during dark scenes which looked murky. It became obvious that the lack of a good black level was holding back all areas of PQ as some moderately lit scenes had a slightly washed out look. I couldn't help but wonder how much better even the already great looking brightly lit scenes could have looked. It's too bad because it is the only thing keeping this movie from being reference level.
> 
> Although its not consistent, this BD could still be considered borderline demo-worthy because it has some very impressive scenes. I am debating where to rank it but right now I am feeling a bit generous.
> 
> Ranking...1.75


*47 Ronin*

recommendation: *Tier 1.75*

I will agree with everything said above about _47 Ronin_. The fantasy adventure in feudal Japan would have ranked much higher if everything had taken place in the day, night scenes possess reduced clarity and murkier texture. The better exterior shots are beautiful, easily classified as upper Tier 1 material. This scope film has some very thoughtful composition to its cinematography, a panoramic delight at times.

What keeps it near the bottom of Tier 1 are frustrating black levels and poor shadow delineation. The video occasionally gets soft due to extensive VFX and digital composites.


----------



## Iggy SLO

This is the first time I'm doing this, that's why I used Avatar from Tier 0 as reference quality, with which I agree, it's probably the best picture quality I've seen so far. I'm not an expert on technicalities, but I do think I have a good eye and feel for picture quality. 

So, based on that, here's my humble take on the recently watched Star Wars Saga:

The Phantom Menace: *2* 
Attack of the Clones: *1.75*
Revenge of the Sith: *1* 
A New Hope: *2.5* 
The Empire Strikes Back: *2.25*
Return of the Jedi: *2.25*

Episode III is the stunner of the lot. It's crystal clear, visible especially on clothes and close-ups of faces, but not 100% throughout the movie. The only visible fault I could spot was some aliasing on Anakin's hair when he was obviously standing in front of a green screen. Episodes I and II are kinda washed out and waxy. Especially Episode II, where there are a lot of scenes where there wasn't any CGI and it still looks like as if there was. I would guess that is the result of digital noise reduction. 
The Originals look brilliant for their age, but picture clarity falls short of newer episodes. _A New Hope_ has some out of focus patches close to the edges of certain scenes, that's why I placed in lower tier than Episodes V and VI where I couldn't really tell any major difference. _Empire_ is a bit darker overall, but that's it. 

TV is Sony KDL-46W4500.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Welcome, your rankings look perfectly reasonable. Since I've seen the Star Wars saga so many times I rarely pull it out for viewing, even on Blu-ray. _Avatar_ is a good standard since it has some of the best picture quality and has been widely seen by many people.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Wind Rises*

recommendation: *Tier 0* (top quarter)*

A breathtaking masterpiece, celebrated director Hayao Miyazaki's swan song looks unmistakably beautiful in 1080P resolution on Blu-ray. The 2013 animated theatrical feature has stunning animation work from Studio Ghibli, almost certainly their best-looking film. Knowing this was Miyazaki's final film, the animators went above and beyond the call of duty for the legendary icon in animation. It is almost certainly the most polished and crafted hand-drawn animation seen on Blu-ray, easily deserving a very high placement near the top.

Disney has handled the transfer with kid gloves, it is a gorgeous presentation. The color palette is radiant, bathed in fully saturated primary colors. Lush attention to detail and intricately painted backgrounds separate _The Wind Rises_ from lesser animated features.

This film was nominated for an Oscar as best animated feature and swept most other major animated awards. Miyazaki was inspired to make the film after reading this quote: "All I wanted to do was to make something beautiful".


----------



## djoberg

Welcome to AVS Iggy SLO!

I enjoyed your review and would encourage you to "keep them coming." Giving us no less than SIX placements in your first review has to be a record!


----------



## rusky_g

Final Destination 5

This looked better than expected! Good clarity and black levels, contrast was solid. Some close ups revealed excellent fine detail and fabric textures were another high point.

Good enough for Gold....

Tier 1.75


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*By The Gun*

recommendation: *Tier 2.5**

This new disc comes out next week, courtesy of Millennium Entertainment. The mafia drama looks perfectly ordinary for a new production, slightly limited by its restrained color timing. There are no problems in the digital transfer, this is just not worthy of being demo material.

Fine clarity reveals average resolution, though the picture is suitably sharp.


----------



## rusky_g

*Lucy**

Typing from mobile so brief review.

Having watched this initially I scored a lowly 2.75. It appeared very contrast heavy at detriment to detail and overall PQ. I watched a second time however in Film mode setting on my TV and was much more impressed! Very crisp and colourful with some excellent facial close ups!

*Tier 1.5*


----------



## sbpyrat

djoberg said:


> Welcome to AVS Iggy SLO!
> 
> I enjoyed your review and would encourage you to "keep them coming." Giving us no less than SIX placements in your first review has to be a record!


Hey now, I think I had about 40 in my first haha. But haven't posted in a long time...I do keep up with the posts.

Welcome Iggy!


----------



## djoberg

sbpyrat said:


> Hey now, I think I had about 40 in my first haha. But haven't posted in a long time...I do keep up with the posts.
> 
> Welcome Iggy!


My bad! I guess I had a "senior moment" when I told Iggy SLO that his post had set a record.


----------



## djoberg

I called my local video store and reserved _Gone Girl_. I haven't seen a Blu in a very long time so I'm looking forward to seeing this tomorrow afternoon or evening. I may rent a couple more while I'm there and take advantage of my wife being in the Twin Cities for two days.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I have _Annabelle_ in my hands, I likely will have formed an opinion about the disc by Friday. Six scores by Iggy was a lot for a first post, though we have had a couple of members in the past post lists almost too much for me to handle.*

The Purge: Anarchy*

recommendation: *Tier 3.75**

This film's gritty aesthetic works against its picture quality. Not helping matters is a sickly green push, nearly as drastic as seen in _The Matrix_. The less said about this movie, the better.

*The Familiar of Zero*

recommendation: *Tier 3.0**

This is cheaper animation quality from a few years ago, looking relatively dated and limited by today's standards on Blu-ray. There is nothing wrong with this transfer for the anime series, it faithfully reproduces the original source material without banding.


----------



## sbpyrat

djoberg said:


> My bad! I guess I had a "senior moment" when I told Iggy SLO that his post had set a record.


Haha, I was just teasing...I don't actually expect anyone to remember a post from years ago


----------



## djoberg

*Gone Girl*

If I were writing a review based solely on the daytime outdoor scenes and brightly-lit indoor scenes, I'd be more than ready to nominate this for Tier Blu. Details, depth and clarity were exceptional in every one of these scenes. Colors were also vivid, flesh tones were accurate, and contrast was pitch perfect! But there were plenty of nighttime outdoor scenes and dimly-lit indoor scenes that didn't fare quite as well. That's not to say they were bad, or even average, but they just didn't have the punch that I would have liked. Black levels could be very good, along with shadow details, but at times they became a bit murky and looked a tad soft.

I should add a word about the color-grading. Sprinkled throughout we have....no, not your typical teal, or even orange, but YELLOW hues. This took me out of the picture a few times, but in most cases there were enough details and depth to keep me engaged.

Again, there is EYE CANDY galore in some of the many daytime scenes and for that alone it's worth putting on your demo-shelf. Those scenes came close to .5 IMHO. But the "less-than-stellar" dark scenes fell a good tier in my thinking and in trying to "average things out" I believe it should be right here....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25**

Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Phantom Stranger

_Gone Girl_ sounds like a winner, hopefully I will get around to seeing it at some point.

*Tales of Vesperia: The First Strike*

recommendation: *Tier 2.5**

Fairly bland animation from this feature-length movie. I would call it uninspired design for a production originally animated in 2009. The transfer looks overly dark as well with its gamma levels askew, it's possible Funimation made a mistake somewhere along the line.


----------



## djoberg

*The Equalizer*

*WOW!!* There is absolutely, positively no doubt in my mind that this will easily get voted into Tier Blu! Sharpness and clarity are off the charts, especially in daytime scenes, but not limited to them. There are numerous nighttime scenes and except for a few scenes where blacks falter and the image softens the black levels are incredible with mesmerizing shadow details. One of McCall's (played by Denzel) favorite haunts at night is a restaurant where these virtues are highlighted, along with dazzling colors. The street shots outside the restaurant are simply amazing with some of the best shadow details you'll eve see. Thankfully this location is visited many times throughout the 2+ hour running time.

You know I love facial details and they never disappointed me. Depth was outstanding at times. Contrast was super strong, resulting in brilliant whites and vibrant colors. Flesh tones were spot on. I think you get the picture (and hopefully you'll literally see the picture!), this is a LOOKER that deserves, at the very least, a rent. BTW, I learned the whole movie was shot using Arri Alexa cameras and they are definitely climbing out of their usual Tier 1 spot into the coveted Tier. I'm tempted to nominate this for .5 but with the faltering blacks and softness in a few (short) shots I'm going with...

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.66)*

Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## sbpyrat

djoberg said:


> *The Equalizer*
> 
> *WOW!!* There is absolutely, positively no doubt in my mind that this will easily get voted into Tier Blu! Sharpness and clarity are off the charts, especially in daytime scenes, but not limited to them. There are numerous nighttime scenes and except for a few scenes where blacks falter and the image softens the black levels are incredible with mesmerizing shadow details. One of McCall's (played by Denzel) favorite haunts at night is a restaurant where these virtues are highlighted, along with dazzling colors. The street shots outside the restaurant are simply amazing with some of the best shadow details you'll eve see. Thankfully this location is visited many times throughout the 2+ hour running time.
> 
> You know I love facial details and they never disappointed me. Depth was outstanding at times. Contrast was super strong, resulting in brilliant whites and vibrant colors. Flesh tones were spot on. I think you get the picture (and hopefully you'll literally see the picture!), this is a LOOKER that deserves, at the very least, a rent. BTW, I learned the whole movie was shot using Arri Alexa cameras and they are definitely climbing out of their usual Tier 1 spot into the coveted Tier. I'm tempted to nominate this for .5 but with the faltering blacks and softness in a few (short) shots I'm going with...
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.66)*
> 
> Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


Thanks for your review...I had high hopes for this one. I saw the movie in the theater and got the blu ray for my birthday. I need to watch it soon.


----------



## djoberg

sbpyrat said:


> Thanks for your review...I had high hopes for this one. I saw the movie in the theater and got the blu ray for my birthday. I need to watch it soon.


I'll be waiting for your review! I know you'll be impressed with the PQ and I trust nothing I said will cause your anticipation to be greater than your actual viewing experience.


----------



## rusky_g

Great reviews Denny, cant wait for The Equlizer to get its UK release!


----------



## davcole

Observation:

Looking at Sony titles of late they seem a bit filtered compared to other studios. 

Or is it just me?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

davcole said:


> Observation:
> 
> Looking at Sony titles of late they seem a bit filtered compared to other studios.
> 
> Or is it just me?


Sony did have a filtering problem with their very early Blu-rays, they were often softer than a film should look. They've been meticulous in recent years when harvesting new film scans from the best film elements. Is your observation more aimed at catalog titles or new releases? 

I would put their encoding practices firmly in the middle of the pack, above studios like WB and Lionsgate but behind the more consistent Fox and Paramount.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Produced By George Martin*

recommendation: *Tier 1.75**

This is a BBC documentary from a few years ago on legendary music producer George Martin. For a feature of this type, the picture quality is quite impressive. I watch a fair number of newer music documentaries on Blu-ray and video is usually a mixed bag. This is easily the best-looking picture quality I've seen from one. Eagle Rock Entertainment flawlessly brings the 85-minute primary feature to Blu-ray, encoding the 1080i presentation in a high-quality AVC effort.

A few allowances in the final tally have been made for its archival footage and vintage photographs, though the vast majority of the documentary consists of brand-new interview footage with George Martin in studio environments. The technically pristine digital footage has a bright, appealing quality in crystal clarity. The disc probably deserves a higher placement but material of this kind is always hard to pin down in the Tiers.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Annabelle*

recommendation: *Tier 1.25**

Warner Bros. provides a superb 1080P presentation for _Annabelle_ next week on Blu-ray. Director John R. Leonetti has been working for years as a Hollywood cinematographer and his experience shows on this film. A number of tricky shots are employed, including a very effective continuous shot for the cult murder scene. He was dp on films such as _The Conjuring_ and _Insidious_ movies. _Annabelle_ definitely has better video quality than _The Conjuring_, currently ranked in tier 1.5. Framed in an eye-pleasing 2.39:1 aspect ratio, horror movies usually do not look this good or land this high in the Tiers.

Filmed with a variety of the latest high-tech digital film cameras, including the RED Epic and ARRI Alexa XT, the horror film has startlingly pristine video. The excellent picture quality is only hampered by a slight loss in high-frequency detail, most noticeable in very tight close-ups. Facial detail is solid while vaguely leaving the impression of slight filtering, especially in a couple of clear shots with actress Alfre Woodard. A couple of other scenes, shot with lesser cameras than state-of-the-art monsters like the RED Epic, appear somewhat softer as well. Most of the film exudes incredible sharpness and inky black levels, rendering superior shadow delineation in the most challenging scenes.


----------



## fredxr2d2

*The Maze Runner

Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.0*

This is a stunner of a new release.

While it isn't quite demo quality, I was overwhelmingly impressed with textures and greenery and the wonderful way that the designers changed color schemes (and audio characteristics) for the different areas of the maze. While a few moments of teal/orange creep in later in the film, it's far more subtle than most films I've seen that use the effect.

I actually found myself enjoying the film itself quite a bit - it didn't feel like a copy of Hunger Games as much as Divergent did - and the young actors seemed to do a fine job of portraying the film correctly. It actually made me want to read the book.

I'd recommend it for a rental at the very least.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Rover*

recommendation: *Tier 1.75**

When I went to check the Tiers I was surprised no one had rated this 2014 post-apocalyptic thriller set in Australia. Released by Lionsgate, _The Rover_ opens with twenty minutes of jaw-dropping video that is easily Tier 0 in caliber. The incredibly revealing clarity is sharp as glass, every pore and follicle on Guy Pierce's head is visible. This extended scene has fantastic unfiltered resolution and depth. Virtually every attribute of its early picture quality is perfect.

As the movie unfolds and switches setting from the blistering sun-drenched exteriors of Australia, both resolution and clarity slowly drop. Interior shots are far rougher in texture and black levels veer on crushing finer shadow detail, especially as day turns to night. It was a mild disappointment as I had to keep lowering its PQ rating in my head as the movie continued.

Lionsgate performs an adequate job with the Blu-ray, this isn't the strongest AVC video encode at handling the darker shots in a fully transparent effort. The transfer has not been tinkered with to achieve any softening, the razor-sharp image completely lacks ringing.


----------



## rusky_g

Her

This movie sports a very intentional look, void mostly of punchy colours and contrast, instead opting for a subdued, sometimes flat feel. Blacks often appear grey, whilst the image can at best be sharp, at other times it could be soft and lacking in pop.

Scoring in terms of transfer accuracy, Her would do well. In terms of eye candy, just not happening for me guys.

Tier 2.25


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Kamisama Kiss: The Complete Series*

recommendation: *Tier 1.75**

Funimation released this anime early last year. The animation has its unique features but lacks the dramatic picture quality seen in better theatrical fare. I wouldn't call this a perfect video encode, some minor banding slips into the 1080P video.

The most interesting thing is a pastel-shaded color palette, certainly out of the norm. The color scheme definitely sets it apart and gives a distinctive look to _Kamisama Kiss_. Its clean line art isn't overly detailed but sports vibrant character designs.


----------



## djoberg

*Left Behind (2014)*

Let me say from the outset that I was surprised at how decent *some* of this looked for a low-budget film, but then I learned that they did use Arri Alexa cameras throughout. This will not earn a place on your demo shelf (although it may come close), but there were several scenes that looked fairly good. The opening scene in the airport, the scene at the mall, and many scenes shot throughout New York during daytime scenes would fall into this category. The poorest shots were definitely in the airplane (where half of the movie was filmed) and most notably in the cockpit. Those shots came across as flat with little detail and mediocre black levels. Some shots in the cabin fared much better with brighter lighting producing more vivid colors and appreciable depth and good details. I should mention too that the black bars on my KURO were really black during daytime, outdoor scenes and indoor scenes with bright lighting.

Regarding the movie itself, this tanked at the Box Office and anyone with a bias against Christian films had a good time trashing it and Nicolas Cage for taking the lead role. I actually thought the acting was quite good from Cage and several of the other lead actors. If you don't believe in the Rapture you'll no doubt find this film "unbelievable" and find yourselves trashing it as well. For me, well....I'm a firm believer in the Rapture and I'm waiting to hear my Savior's shout summoning me to glory (see 1st Thessalonians 4:13-17).

Again, this is NOT demo material, but it's close enough to make Tier Silver....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25**

Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## mweflen

*Foreign Correspondent (Criterion Collection)
*
Criterion has done its typical respectable job transferring, and by that I mean there is no overly aggressive EE or DNR. Grain is represented throughout, though is not as tight as some of the best classic transfers. Contrast is lovely, with inky blacks and bright highlights. Detail is average to very good depending on the framing and wipes/cuts.

What drags this down for me are several instances of fuzz on the print, namely hairs/scratches in the bottom of the frame that persist for 10-20 seconds, at least 3 or 4 times during the runtime. These are the sorts of defects that creep in when a negative (or positive) is scanned for printing. The fact that Criterion left these obvious defects in when they claim to have cleaned thousands of other defects boggles my mind.

 *Tier Recommendation: 3.0*


----------



## mweflen

*Her
*
This movie was shot with a hazy, dreamy look on the Arri Alexa. Blacks are not terribly dark and highlights are not terribly high. Since we are all well aware of how detailed and punchy the Arri Alexa can be, I can only think the low-contrast look here was the choice of the Director/DP. Anyhow, since we are judging the eye candy potential and not the artistic merit, I will say that this choice drags the rating down a bit. Detail, predictably, is strong, certainly well above DVD levels.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*


----------



## djoberg

*Lucy*

Because this movie was only 82 minutes long, I too will keep this short. In short, the PQ was INCREDIBLE!! 80 minutes worth of REFERENCE quality PQ, with 2 minutes of horrendous color grading still equals: Tier Blu!! It has some of the deepest blacks, punchiest colors, strongest contrast, 3D-like depth, finely-rendered details and razor-sharp clarity ever seen in one, live-action movie. Even the CGI dazzles the sense of sight! I should mention that they chose to incorporate snippets of the very best shots from _Planet Earth_, _Life_, _Baraka_ and _Samsara_ into the film. You've probably heard that it's quite weird (and those rumors are, without a doubt, true), but the PQ is so mesmerizing that you won't even care!

For audio junkies...you are really in for a treat!

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.5)*

Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

After a second viewing this morning I'd have to say I "might" have been a tad too generous in my rating of _Lucy_....but not by much! I did notice several fleeting soft shots during CGI scenes and there was a red push in some of the flesh tones at times. I think I'll leave my recommendation as is for now, but I won't be surprised if it ends up being closer to .75 instead of .5. Some may actually take issue with the over-saturation of colors and dock it even more, but I found them to be quite pleasing to the eyes. Facial details are superb, with close-ups of Morgan Freeman being off the charts. There are even close-ups of Scarlett Johansson that reveal a lot of texture. And then wait until you see the "other Lucy"...DETAILS GALORE!!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I had no interest in seeing _Lucy_ before your review, Denny. It wouldn't shock me if it lands in the upper half of Tier 0, we are beginning to see the dawn of a new era in live-action picture quality. Hollywood now has a full grasp of digital film cameras after using them for a couple of years.


----------



## rusky_g

*Taken 2
*
A great looking disc which serves up a finely detailed picture with excellent contrast and black levels. Facial details and fabric textures in some of the opening shots were exceptional. I felt there was a bit of an eye candy dip midway through but overall I was pretty impressed. 

*Tier 1.5*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

http://filmmakermagazine.com/88971-39-movies-released-in-2014-shot-on-35mm/#.VMCasntDSpo

I'll draw others to this fine piece about 39 movies released in 2014 shot on 35mm film, including many that hit the Picture Quality Tiers like Noah, Transcendence, The Amazing Spider-Man 2, Edge of Tomorrow, Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit, The Rover, The Grand Budapest Hotel, and others.

_Trying to defeat CGI’s often-inherent alienation effect was taken to a predictable extreme by Christopher Nolan, whose use of not just celluloid but, when possible, practical spaceship effects for *Interstellar* has been widely noted and discussed. Less so his longtime DP Wally Pfister’s widely derided directorial debut *Transcendance*. Pfister is another d.p. who’s so far managed to avoid working in digital, enabled by regular collaborator Nolan and Moneyball‘s Bennett Miller. Pfister spoke of Transcendance‘s 35mm in familiar terms: “There’s nothing wrong with 35mm film; it didn’t need replacing. People simply thought that digital capture was a cheaper way of doing it. However, digital is more complicated and, in some cases, it requires a more expensive process.” Two film stocks helped him deal with extremes of light (the desert) and dark (“a completely black set”), and the resolution is preferable to his way of thinking: “To capture all the resolution of an anamorphic 35mm image, you need a scan somewhere between 8K and 12K. So while everyone brags about 4K cameras and scans, we’re shooting on, effectively, a 10K camera. Why replace that with an inferior technology?”_


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Interesting piece Phantom...LONG LIVE (35mm) FILM!!


----------



## fredxr2d2

Phantom Stranger said:


> http://filmmakermagazine.com/88971-39-movies-released-in-2014-shot-on-35mm/#.VMCasntDSpo
> 
> I'll draw others to this fine piece about 39 movies released in 2014 shot on 35mm film, including many that hit the Picture Quality Tiers like Noah, Transcendence, The Amazing Spider-Man 2, Edge of Tomorrow, Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit, The Rover, The Grand Budapest Hotel, and others.
> 
> _“To capture all the resolution of an anamorphic 35mm image, you need a scan somewhere between 8K and 12K. So while everyone brags about 4K cameras and scans, we’re shooting on, effectively, a 10K camera. Why replace that with an inferior technology?”_


I'd also like to note that the digital intermediates have gotten better as well. So that even if you're shooting on film, when you send it to your colorist and through the Intermediate process for post-processing, they've gotten way, way better at holding onto the quality that is achieved with 35mm film, and even the quality that is achieved with Digital cameras.

As an example from my recent BD viewings, if you view the Harry Potter movies in order you'll see this giant leap from HP5 to HP6 in terms of quality of color timing. Both have a bit of teal/orange push, but HP6 is subtle and can be visually pleasing at times, while I felt like HP5 just knocked me in the face and looked terrible to boot.

The entire process, either Digital or 35mm, has gotten better in recent years and I think we're finally seeing the results on Blu-ray.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

That is a very valid observation about digital color timing, there has been a distinct improvement in that area since the dawn of Blu-ray. It's still a little dicey on older catalog properties shot on actual film, but the process has basically been perfected on new films.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Baba Yaga*

recommendation: *Tier 3.5**

Blue Underground produces one of their better-looking film transfers for_ Baba Yaga_, a 1973 Italian movie. The slightly pillarboxed 1080P video does look derived from an older Italian telecine master, though it fares far better than prior Blue Underground BDs from similar sources.

The transfer was struck from the negative, producing reasonably solid levels of contrast and detail. _Baba Yaga's_ occasionally moody cinematography changes from revealing close-ups to softer moments. The AVC video encode handles the moderate grain structure without introducing artifacts, replicating the relatively dense black levels fairly well. There is mild edge enhancement, though the strong definition indicates little if any filtering has been used on this Hi-Def transfer.


----------



## DarthDoxie

mweflen said:


> *Foreign Correspondent (Criterion Collection)
> *
> What drags this down for me are several instances of fuzz on the print, namely hairs/scratches in the bottom of the frame that persist for 10-20 seconds, at least 3 or 4 times during the runtime. These are the sorts of defects that creep in when a negative (or positive) is scanned for printing. The fact that Criterion left these obvious defects in when they claim to have cleaned thousands of other defects boggles my mind.


I too have noticed a surprising amount of frame debris in the Criterion titles I've reviewed lately. It's not something I would expect to see on a recent 4k scan which some of the movie inserts tout to have.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Generally, Criterion has gotten less aggressive in recent years manually removing film debris from their masters.

*The Perks of Being A Wallflower*

recommendation: *Tier 4.5**

Is this HD? This Blu-ray only came out two years ago, it's probably the worst-looking disc I've seen this decade with recognizable Hollywood talent. I guess this movie lies a bit outside the target demo of the Tiers, having previously gone unranked.

I did not see much separation in picture quality between this BD and standard-definition (480P) video much of the time. I won't even delve into the erratic black levels and noisy grain. The Blu-ray is courtesy of Lionsgate, though it is from their subsidiary, Summit.


----------



## WayneJoy

Phantom Stranger said:


> Generally, Criterion has gotten less aggressive in recent years manually removing film debris from their masters.
> 
> *The Perks of Being A Wallflower*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 4.5**
> 
> Is this HD? This Blu-ray only came out two years ago, it's probably the worst-looking disc I've seen this decade with recognizable Hollywood talent. I guess this movie lies a bit outside the target demo of the Tiers, having previously gone unranked.
> 
> I did not see much separation in picture quality between this BD and standard-definition (480P) video much of the time. I won't even delve into the erratic black levels and noisy grain. The Blu-ray is courtesy of Lionsgate, though it is from their subsidiary, Summit.


 It looked exactly the same in cinemas. I think it is an intended unrestored film from the early 90's look.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

The movie is definitely a period piece, though I am not sure its poor picture quality helped the setting. I guess that was intentional, but I would question that creative decision.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Mule*

recommendation: *Tier 3.0**

_The Mule_ is another new release with less than impressive visuals, though this time it feels more a result of budget than an intended aesthetic choice. The Australian smuggling caper takes place in 1983, so the softer definition is possibly intentional. Its average clarity is rougher than normal for a production filmed with Arri Alexa cameras. There isn't an abundance of high-end detail and everything lies relatively flat in the scope framing.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

tenia54 said:


> The Royal Tenenbaums - Wes Anderson
> 
> La comparaison avec l'édition DVD ne laisse aucune chance à celle-ci tant elle accumulait les problèmes de compression, un rendu des couleurs complètement terne pour un aspect globalement très cru et bien trop vidéo. On oublie tout ça : l'upgrade est parmi les plus impressionnants de la collection pour un titre avec une base DVD aussi "bonne" (en opposition à un upgrade comme The Samurai Trilogy, où l'édition DVD était tout simplement in-regardable). Le rendu des couleurs est splendide, la définition excellente sans jamais fléchir, la compression est invisible, et la copie splendide de bout en bout. Tout juste pourra-t'on remarquer quelques légères vibrations colorimétriques à un moment ou deux.
> 
> La piste 5.1, elle, reste timorée, sauf lors des quelques envolées musicales, où elle devient alors plus enveloppante. Le reste du temps, le film n'étant pas vraiment propice à la démonstration de force, le rendu demeure frontal, avec un rendu très clair des dialogues, et une piste très propre (mais on en attend pas moins d'un film de 2001).
> 
> Image : 9.5/10
> Son : 8.5/10
> Film : 9/10
> 
> Rank : *1.5*


*The Royal Tenenbaums*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0*

In practice my ranking is not far off from tenia54's score. I finally caught Criterion's superb edition for _The Royal Tenenbaums_ and felt it landed in the twilight between Tiers 1 and 2. I could just have easily placed my score in 1.5 or 1.75 without much hesitation.

Criterion licensed the 2001 Wes Anderson film from Disney (Buena Vista) for a 2012 Blu-ray release. Most importantly, Criterion struck a new 2K film transfer from the original camera negative under the direct supervision of Wes Anderson. So few movies from the early 2000s have seen such a careful film transfer, _The Royal Tenenbaums_ retains its warm yellow color scheme in this impressive presentation. A very strong AVC video encode at maximum bitrates delivers flawless picture quality.

The 1080P video is an immaculate, perfectly manicured presentation, bursting with fine detail. The rich contrast feels right at home in the densely saturated warm colors, a vivid display of authentic film fidelity. This transfer properly retains the abundant film texture, enhancing the fairly sharp cinematography.

Other than some very light ringing in a couple of shots (check the funeral near the end), it's a brilliant film transfer preserving the movie's high degree of clarity and solid definition.


----------



## Kool-aid23

Anybody else feeling surprised/sad that 2014 did not produce anything to beat Monsters University (2013) in PQ?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Kool-aid23 said:


> Anybody else feeling surprised/sad that 2014 did not produce anything to beat Monsters University (2013) in PQ?


I've been tempted, _Get On Up_ is such a different kind of overwhelming quality than _Monsters University_ that I considered for a moment recommending it as the champ. Sanity then prevailed.

I wouldn't necessarily read too much into the exact placements at the very top except my reluctance to place new entries there. Unless there is a near unanimous consensus from several users, I err on the side of caution for the very highest placements.

I've contemplated having a battle royale of the very best in this thread for better, more exacting rankings in Tier Zero (Blu). Something like the top twenty square off and let members here vote on the winners. Is there any interest in that idea as a one-time deal?


----------



## rusky_g

Hi guys

I'm changing my score for Lucy to 1.5 following a second viewing tonight.

I changed my TV setting to Film mode which relaxed the contrast down and offered a much more enjoyable picture.


----------



## rusky_g

*The Equalizer *

A sterling disc from Sony which offers razor sharp PQ, fantastic blacks and shadow detail, rounded off with excellent dimensionality. I couldn't really find much fault. 

I think 2015 will be a great year for the PQ Tiers!

*Tier 0.75*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

rusky_g said:


> Hi guys
> 
> I'm changing my score for Lucy to 1.5 following a second viewing tonight.
> 
> I changed my TV setting to Film mode which relaxed the contrast down and offered a much more enjoyable picture.


That's fine, one can always change their score in this thread. Anyone get _Gone Girl_?


----------



## wattheF

Hey Ya'll! Been awhile since I've been on. Been dealing with some health issues, but anyway, I figured I would check in. 

Nice to see that there are quite a few top notch new releases for me to check out. Can't wait! 

Also I did read that Ultra HD BD format has been finalized. I'm still not down with streaming so this is good news for the future (even though I don't plan on upgrading my ST60 anytime soon).

Haven't been able to view too many lately but here is a quick rundown of a few movies I have checked out recently...

How to Train a Dragon 2- Tier 0 (around the middle) -photorealism!

The Edge of Tomorrow- 1.50 -a bit disappointing but the audio was awesome!

Maleficent- Tier 0 (bottom half) -some stunning scenes!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I think I speak for everyone in wishing you a complete recovery from your health issues. 

I definitely hope Ultra HD succeeds as a commercial format, picture quality will invariably take a hit if streaming becomes the dominant home video platform. I've gotten so spoiled by the better Blu-rays that watching a movie via streaming is often painful. The supposed HD quality delivered by the various streaming platforms is tough to stomach after one has invested so much into a home theater.


----------



## Kool-aid23

Phantom Stranger said:


> I've been tempted, _Get On Up_ is such a different kind of overwhelming quality than _Monsters University_ that I considered for a moment recommending it as the champ. Sanity then prevailed.
> 
> I wouldn't necessarily read too much into the exact placements at the very top except my reluctance to place new entries there. Unless there is a near unanimous consensus from several users, I err on the side of caution for the very highest placements.
> 
> I've contemplated having a battle royale of the very best in this thread for better, more exacting rankings in Tier Zero (Blu). Something like the top twenty square off and let members here vote on the winners. Is there any interest in that idea as a one-time deal?


That looks like an interesting idea. I would like to see what title would be king!


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^

wattheF,

Good to hear from you, but sorry to hear about your health issues. We surely do wish you well.

Yes, good news about Ultra HD! I'm also VERY EXCITED about OLED 4K, with LG leading the pack. Their 55" OLED 4K is down to $3500 now and I expect they'll continue to go down. Once there is a 75-85" on the market with a reasonable price, I'm going to buy that for my Home Theater and put my KURO in another room in our basement. There's nothing wrong with the KURO but I've been salivating over an 80" screen for a very long time and with OLED surpassing the plasma in every way I can't go wrong.


----------



## djoberg

I should have mentioned that LG's 55" OLED is NOT 4K, but they do have a 65" OLED 4K selling currently for $9,999 at Amazon. Prices will surely drop significantly in the next year or two and I am hoping the 4k 77" they will be marketing will come down to an affordable price at some point.

Reviews, by Sound & Vision and others, are saying the LG OLED is BY FAR the best flat panel they've ever seen, with blacks that are COMPLETELY black, contrast that is off the charts, and unrivaled colors. Their 4K offerings at the recent CES were praised highly. The only "unknown" with OLED is its longevity. We know plasmas and LEDs have a very long lifespan but how long will an OLED display last? That's the $64,000 question looming on the horizon.

I should mention one more thing. We are hearing a lot these days about HDR....High Dynamic Range, with unbelievable bright displays due to unheard of contrast levels. That too is something I hope the OLED displays will incorporate into their technology, for as great as the LG OLED is in the contrast department, it pales in comparison to those with HDR.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I'll be watching to see how 4K displays handle native 1080P content.


----------



## rusky_g

Kool-aid23 said:


> That looks like an interesting idea. I would like to see what title would be king!


Hugo would get my vote for top of Tier 0

The best combination of clarity and beauty that I've seen.


----------



## John Mason

Phantom Stranger said:


> ...I've contemplated having a battle royale of the very best in this thread for better, more exacting rankings in Tier Zero (Blu). Something like the top twenty square off and let members here vote on the winners. Is there any interest in that idea as a one-time deal?


Suggest breaking the top-PQ Blu Tier (maybe others) into animated versus camera-shot movies, then. While thread has been PQ-only, I'd prefer distinguishing between (mostly) computer-crafted images and others, even though images can be a blend. -- John


----------



## Phantom Stranger

John Mason said:


> Suggest breaking the top-PQ Blu Tier (maybe others) into animated versus camera-shot movies, then. While thread has been PQ-only, I'd prefer distinguishing between (mostly) computer-crafted images and others, even though images can be a blend. -- John


This is a couple of years old by now so it doesn't contain the latest updates, but I did just that in these two posts:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-505.html#post23061068

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-505.html#post23061125

If I find the time, I could possibly update those lists and tack them on the bottom of the current Tiers. I've thought about color coding Tier Zero titles to differentiate between animation and live-action, but I am worried it would become an unreadable mess. I've always believed Tier Zero drove a lot of the traffic checking out the PQ Tiers.


For those into nostalgia, here was the last update to the PQ Tiers before it became so large we had to start alphabetizing each tier below 0. That means the entire list was ranked in absolute visual order from top to bottom! September 26, 2008:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-sept-26-2008-a.html#user_anchor0


----------



## rusky_g

Just ordered A Walk Among The Tombstones....will report back in a couple of days!


----------



## fredxr2d2

rusky_g said:


> *The Equalizer *
> 
> A sterling disc from Sony which offers razor sharp PQ, fantastic blacks and shadow detail, rounded off with excellent dimensionality. I couldn't really find much fault.
> 
> I think 2015 will be a great year for the PQ Tiers!
> 
> *Tier 0.75*


I agree with this placement.


----------



## rusky_g

Glad to hear it


----------



## Phantom Stranger

fredxr2d2 said:


> I agree with this placement.


Letting everyone know that posts like this one still get counted in the final tally. I presume fredxr2d2 feels _The Equalizer_ belongs around three-quarters of the way down in Tier Zero, which is why I count them.

*Justice League: Throne of Atlantis*

recommendation: *Tier 2.5**

After briefly flirting with better compression parameters once they fully committed to AVC as their codec of choice, Warner Bros. in the past year continues their downward path back to the gutter. If people don't understand the process, most video encodes outside of the biggest new blockbusters released by the studios are left unchecked by human operators. That is fine when compression bitrates average in the 30s, as Paramount and Fox decided a few years ago. Likely due to cost cutting, they decided by fiat to lower compression rates on their Blu-rays. This disc went terribly wrong, the animation's generally shoddy quality is not helped by mediocre compression full of banding and even chroma noise. 

_Throne of Atlantis'_ animation itself is the worst-looking direct-to-video DC film yet. It is fairly clear to me either the animation budget has been slashed or they need to switch animation houses. For movies that were once touching on Tier Zero, the declining video quality is disappointing.


----------



## fredxr2d2

Thanks Phantom! That is exactly what I meant and what I hoped you would count.


----------



## rusky_g

djoberg said:


> *Paranoia*
> 
> If you can put up with the rather disappointing plot/story-line and underwhelming acting (from some BIG NAME actors, mind you), you will at least be rewarded with some very pleasing EYE CANDY!
> 
> I'm going to keep this short. This one was SHARP from the opening scene to the rolling credits, with outstanding BLACK LEVELS & SHADOW DETAILS, spot-on FLESH TONES, warm & vibrant COLORS, appreciable DEPTH, and spectacular DETAILS. It also featured many gorgeous aerial views of the Big Apple and some lush scenery in the Hamptons. The only censure would be the "to-be-expected" orange and teal hues, but in reality they were quite minimal and did NOT affect details or flesh tones. If the facial details had been consistently good, I might have opted for low Tier 0, but they weren't reference quality and even veered into Tier 2 at times, so my vote goes for....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.25**
> 
> Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


Really enjoyed the PQ here

Tier 1.5


----------



## wattheF

Thanks everyone for the well wishes!

As far as TV tech goes I agree with much that has been said, and I too am excited about the prospects of 4k OLED as I am still not impressed with LED/LCD.

I will squeeze plenty more out of my Panny Plasma before prices on a 80 plus inch OLED drop to affordable prices. I think its silly to buy a 4k LED right now and I would confidently put my ST60 up against any of them for pure PQ.

I also am not in any rush to upgrade to 4k until the ultra hd blurays are available and the displays can take FULL advantage of the format including increased color space and HDR, etc. Although HFR (high frame rate) does not interest me much.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

That sounds very sensible, wattheF. I will likely stall on the 4K transition until everything is worked out.
*

The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby (Them Version)*

recommendation: *Tier 1.75**

This new release features very mature, sophisticated cinematography. It is definitely Oscar bait in terms of craft, including a very precise color timing that subtly changes depending on the character. The scope composition is elegantly shot with excellent definition and depth.

Distributed by Starz for the Weinstein Company, the two-hour film is given most of a BD-50 in a nearly flawless AVC video encode. The transfer is perfect, lacking deleterious video processing such as edge enhancement. This is crisp picture quality with a darker contrast.


----------



## edlittle

Everyone should check out Book of Life, just came out in the US this week. Very cute Day of the Dead story that pops! Tier 1.0!


----------



## djoberg

wattheF said:


> Thanks everyone for the well wishes!
> 
> As far as TV tech goes I agree with much that has been said, and I too am excited about the prospects of 4k OLED as I am still not impressed with LED/LCD.
> 
> I will squeeze plenty more out of my Panny Plasma before prices on a 80 plus inch OLED drop to affordable prices. I think its silly to buy a 4k LED right now and I would confidently put my ST60 up against any of them for pure PQ.
> 
> I also am not in any rush to upgrade to 4k until the ultra hd blurays are available and the displays can take FULL advantage of the format including increased color space and HDR, etc. Although HFR (high frame rate) does not interest me much.


I too am not that impressed with LED/LCD and I have two of them. We have a 4-year old Samsung LCD that was "high-end" back then with fairly good black levels and a really good "Natural Mode" that looks good "out of the box." But it still has the same "off-axis" issue as most LCDs. We just bought a Vizio M-Series that has FALD (Full Array Local Dimming) and we are truly impressed with the deep blacks, but again, one can't watch it "off-axis" without suffering a huge loss of brightness. I was just in Best Buy yesterday and viewed the newest 4K LEDs from Sony and Samsung and even with a "curved" screen you still have that same issue.

I trust I will "squeeze plenty more out of my Pioneer KURO plasma" too before an 80" 4K OLED drops to affordable prices. I just hope LG will continue to develop and make OLEDs and I'm even hoping Sony and Samsung (and others) will reconsider their decision to drop that technology. If they don't, LG may be much slower in dropping their prices without any competition in that field.

And lastly, I sure hope Ultrad HD Blu-rays see the light of day (as opposed to being limited to streaming everything we view) and that they will include the increased color space and HDR.


----------



## djoberg

Has anyone seen _Fury_ yet?


----------



## tcramer

djoberg said:


> Has anyone seen _Fury_ yet?


I saw Fury and it's a darn good movie. I watched it on my projector setup which is makes a bit hard to grade the PQ, but overall it was pretty good. Has a bit of that Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers look to it, only a bit better overall.


----------



## djoberg

tcramer said:


> I saw Fury and it's a darn good movie. I watched it on my projector setup which is makes a bit hard to grade the PQ, but overall it was pretty good. Has a bit of that Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers look to it, only a bit better overall.


Thanks! I can't wait to see it but I'm waiting for a copy to be made available to rent in our local video store. I've heard "mixed" reviews regarding the PQ, mostly "good" reviews regarding the movie, and "excellent" reviews regarding the AQ.


----------



## tcramer

djoberg said:


> Thanks! I can't wait to see it but I'm waiting for a copy to be made available to rent in our local video store. I've heard "mixed" reviews regarding the PQ, mostly "good" reviews regarding the movie, and "excellent" reviews regarding the AQ.


I'd concur with those reviews you've heard. AQ is good throughout, there are some very nice outdoor shots but some very poor shots from inside the tank.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

John Mason said:


> Suggest breaking the top-PQ Blu Tier (maybe others) into animated versus camera-shot movies, then. While thread has been PQ-only, I'd prefer distinguishing between (mostly) computer-crafted images and others, even though images can be a blend. -- John


Something like this you mean...

bb  nf * Get On Up * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Universal
 bb  nf * The Smurfs 2 * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Sony
bb  nf * Avatar * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Fox
 bb  nf * Avatar (Extended Collector's Edition) * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Fox
bb  nf * A Christmas Carol (2009) * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Disney
bb  nf * Black Sails: The Complete First Season * Video: AVC | Audio: Dolby TrueHD 7.1 | AR: 1.78:1 | Starz / Anchor Bay
bb  nf * Life Of Pi * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Fox
bb  nf * The Thin Red Line * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Criterion
bb  nf * Ninja II: Shadow of a Tear * Video: AVC | Audio: Dolby TrueHD 5.1 | AR: 1.78:1 | Millennium Media
 bb  nf * Tai Chi Zero * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Well Go USA
bb  nf * I, Robot * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Fox
bb  nf * Master, The (2012) * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Weinstein
bb  nf * Hello, Dolly! * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.20:1 | Fox
 bb  nf * Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest * Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Disney
 bb  nf * Rescue 3D * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Image Entertainment | _IMAX_
 bb  nf * A Serious Man * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Universal
bb  nf * Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End * Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Disney
bb  nf * Samsara * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 2.40:1 | MPI
 bb  nf * Boss: Season One * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 1.78:1 | Lionsgate
bb  nf * Tree Of Life, The * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 1.85:1 | Fox
bb  nf * Hugo * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 1.78:1 | Paramount
 bb  nf * Man on Fire * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Fox
bb  nf * Arabia 3D (IMAX) * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Image Entertainment
 bb  nf * Lone Survivor * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Universal
bb  nf * The Art Of Flight * Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD 7.1 | AR: 1.78:1 | Red Bull Media House
 bb  nf * The Host * Video: VC-1 | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.85:1 | Magnolia
 bb  nf * Live Free or Die Hard * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Fox
 bb  nf * Tell No One * Video: VC-1 | Audio: PCM 2.0 | AR: 2.35:1 | MPI Media
bb  nf * Sin City * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Disney
bb  nf * Company Men, The * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Starz / Anchor Bay
 bb  nf * Mary And Max * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | MPI Media
 bb  nf * The Three Musketeers (2011) * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Summit Entertainment
bb  nf * Youth Without Youth * Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.35:1 | Sony
bb  nf * Hot Fuzz * Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Universal
bb  nf * The International * Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony
bb  nf * Becoming Jane * Video: VC-1 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Disney
 bb  nf * Pina (French Import) * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | France Télévisions Dis. | _Region B only?_
bb  nf * Red Cliff: The Special Edition (UK Import) * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Entertainment In Video | _Parts I & II_
 bb  nf * Bait * Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD 7.1 | AR: 1.78:1 | Starz / Anchor Bay
 bb  nf * Skyfall * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Fox
bb  nf * Watchmen: Director's Cut (UK Import) * Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Paramount
 bb  nf * Grand Canyon Adventure: River At Risk (IMAX 3-D Edition) * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Image Entertainment
 bb  nf * Transporter 2 (Japan Import) * Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.35:1 | Sony
 bb  nf * The Help * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Disney
 bb  nf * Corpse Bride * Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 1.85:1 | Warner
bb  nf * Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Disney
bb  nf * In Time * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Fox
bb  nf * The Ultimate Wave: Tahiti (IMAX) * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Image Entertainment
bb  nf * Grand Canyon Adventure: River At Risk (IMAX) * Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Image Entertainment
 bb  nf * Noah * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 1.85:1 | Paramount
bb  nf * Wolf Creek 2 * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Image Entertainment
 bb  nf * Transporter 3 * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Lionsgate
 bb  nf * Agora (French Import) * Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.35:1 | Warner | _locked to Region B_
 bb  nf * Born To Be Wild (IMAX) * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Warner
bb  nf * Baraka * Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.20:1 | MPI Media
 bb  nf * A Woman, A Gun and A Noodle Shop * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony
 bb  nf * Lonely Hearts (Japan Import) * Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.35:1 | Sony
 bb  nf * Tokyo Motor Show * Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: DD 2.0 | AR: 1.78:1 | Topics Entertainment | _1080i_
bb  nf * Real Steel * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 2.35:1 | Disney
bb  nf * Transformers: Age of Extinction * Video: AVC | Audio: Dolby Atmos | AR: 2.40:1 | Paramount
 bb  nf * Braveheart * Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.35:1 | Paramount
bb  nf * Crank 2: High Voltage * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 1.85:1 | Lionsgate
bb  nf * The Ides Of March * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony
 bb  nf * Fighting * Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Universal
bb  nf * Hobbit, The: An Unexpected Journey * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner
 bb  nf * The Smurfs * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Sony
bb  nf * Watchmen: Theatrical Version (UK Import) * Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.39:1 | Paramount
 bb  nf * Gamer * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 1.85:1 | Lionsgate
 bb  nf * I Spit On Your Grave (2010) * Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.35:1 | Starz / Anchor Bay
 bb  nf * Lawrence of Arabia * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2:19:1 | Sony
 bb  nf * Sabotage * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Universal
bb  nf * Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl * Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Disney
bb  nf * The Island * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Paramount
 bb  nf * Red Cliff: Part I * Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Magnolia
 bb  nf * Red Cliff: Part II * Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Magnolia
 bb  nf * Patton (remaster) * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2:19:1 | Fox | _2012 version with new transfer_
 bb  nf * Immortals * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Fox
 bb  nf * King Kong (2005) * Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Universal
 bb  nf * Sex Drive * Video: AVC | Audio: DD 5.1 | AR: 1.78:1 | Summit Entertainment
 bb  nf * Domino * Video: VC-1 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner
bb  nf * Rushmore * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Criterion
 bb  nf * Spartacus: Blood And Sand - Season 1 * Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 1.78:1 | Starz / Anchor Bay
bb  nf * Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen (IMAX) * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: mixed | Paramount
 bb  nf * Gravity * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner
 bb  nf * Transformers: Dark of the Moon * Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD 7.1 | AR: 2.40:1 | Paramount
 bb  nf * Need for Speed * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 2.40:1 | Disney
 bb  nf * The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner
 bb  nf * Hobbit, The: An Unexpected Journey (Extended Edition) * Video: AVC | Audio: 7.1 DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner
 bb  nf * The Impossible * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Summit Entertainment
 bb  nf * After Earth * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony
 bb  nf * Great Gatsby, The (2013) * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner
 bb  nf * Host, The (2013) * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Universal
 bb  nf * Stand Up Guys * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Lionsgate
 bb  nf * The Quiet Man * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA mono | AR: 1.37:1 | Olive Films
bb  nf * Maleficent * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 2.40:1 | Disney
 bb  nf * Ender's Game * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 2.40:1 | Summit
bb  nf * TimeScapes * Video: ? | Audio: ? | AR: ? | TimeScapes.org
 bb  nf * House of Cards: Season One * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.00:1 | Sony
 bb  nf * The Sessions * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Fox
 bb  nf * Begin Again * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Starz/Anchor Bay
 bb  nf * The Agony and the Ecstasy * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.20:1 | Fox
 bb  nf * Wolverine 3-D, The: Unleashed Extended Edition * Video: AVC | Audio: 7.1 DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Fox
bb  nf * Need for Speed (UK) * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Entertainment One | _UK Region B release_
 bb  nf * Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014) * Video: AVC | Audio: Dolby Atmos | AR: | Paramount
 bb  nf * Still Mine * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Fox
bb  nf * The Wolf of Wall Street * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Paramount
 bb  nf * House of Cards: Season Two * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.00:1 | Sony
 bb  nf * Lone Ranger, The (2013) * Video: AVC | Audio: 7.1 DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Disney
 bb  nf * Oblivion * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 2.40:1 | Universal
 bb  nf * Amazing Spider-Man 2, The * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony
 bb  nf * Her * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Warner
bb  nf * Man of Tai Chi * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Starz/Anchor Bay
 bb  nf * Glory (4K) * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Sony
bb  nf * Pawn Shop Chronicles * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Starz/Anchor Bay


----------



## John Mason

^^^Yes. Thanks, Phantom. Titles, like Non-Animated or Camera-Shot, and Animated, for any tier separated like this, might help, too. -- John


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Candyman (Region-free UK Import)*

recommendation: *Tier 3.25**

While Sony continues to neglect _Candyman_ in the United States, Universal released this 1992 film on Blu-ray in the United Kingdom. The late 2011 disc sports a high-bitrate VC-1 encode that could only fit on Blu-ray, indicating this effort was mastered after HD DVD's collapse. Many have criticized Universal's uneven catalog efforts but this particular one is ordinary in most respects. The average film-like fidelity exhibits less processing than veteran reviewers would expect, the Hi-Def transfer appears to have been made with only a modicum of ringing and a hint of filtering.

_Candyman_ features surprisingly capable cinematography. I would not call this BD's 1080P video a masterful replication of the negative, some minor tweaking could have produced better-looking contrast and color saturation. Close-ups are fairly detailed in high-frequency content for early Nineties' film stock, _Candyman_ is reasonably sharp. There are softer moments of course, some of the optical FX flatten the picture out. This disc does preserve the intended 1.85:1 widescreen aspect ratio.

Adequate grain reproduction from a mildly dated film transfer produces decent but unspectacular results. While I believe there is probably room for improvement with a newer 4K scan and restoration, this is definitely a solid catalog effort.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Let's Be Cops*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

Fantastic picture quality for a comedy. This very recent film has impeccable resolution in crystal-clear cinematography. The excellent AVC video encode from Fox follows reference standards.

I would not put up much of a fight if others wanted _Let's Be Cops_ in Tier Zero. The razor-sharp video has superior depth and dimensionality, very unusual for a comedy coming out of Hollywood.


----------



## djoberg

*Fury*

Dirt...mud...blood...sweat...tears...grime...pores...stubble...scars...pocks...metal...foliage...grass...and the list goes on!! You will see all of these in all of their High Definition glory, along with razor-sharp clarity and unbelievable depth. Blacks levels were also very good in most scenes, though there were a few instances of crush inside the tank. Having said that, I was mostly impressed with daytime shots inside the tank, for there was enough light to offer generous amounts of facial details and details in other objects as well.

To be fair, the color palette was extremely muted (in keeping with the context of the movie), so there was very little eye candy in that department. But when green grass, trees, and bushes were on display they stood out nicely. There were several battle scenes where smoke filled the whole screen and this obviously offered little in the way of details, clarity, depth, etc. And then there were several shots where softness crept in.

The shots highlighting the virtues mentioned in my first paragraph fell easily into low Tier 0, whereas the negatives in my second paragraph ranged from low Tier 2 to low Tier 3. But out of the 2+ hours running time this probably consisted of 20 minutes tops. If I had purchased this I would place this on my "demo shelf," but not my "reference shelf" (which is reserved solely for Tier Blu material). I'm thinking this earns a place near the top of Tier Gold....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25**

Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## djoberg

rusky_g said:


> Hi guys
> 
> I'm changing my score for Lucy to 1.5 following a second viewing tonight.
> 
> I changed my TV setting to Film mode which relaxed the contrast down and offered a much more enjoyable picture.


Whoa! I can hardly believe you are giving this a 1.5 (and that you had originally placed it even lower)! I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one Russ, for this clearly deserves a Tier Bu rating, IMHO.


----------



## fredxr2d2

*Get On Up

Tier Recommendation: Tier 0, but not at the very top.*

This is a spectacular presentation that really shines on blu-ray, but, unfortunately I'd have to take a few minor points off for a couple scenes where contrast faltered (either it was a strange lighting situation or...I'm not exactly sure). Two scenes in particular stood out to me: one with Octavia Spencer talking to the young James Brown where her hair didn't have the deep blacks that the young James Brown had (it was obvious to me because they were doing the "over-the-shoulder" dialog trick and his face, hair, and general environment had a great pop to it -- like 99% of the rest of the film -- and her face, hair, and general environment didn't quite get the contrast dialed all the way down to the same levels). The other scene was one where James was performing on stage and it could've been the lighting, but again, contrast took a slightly flatter look than preceding shots before and after.

All that said, this is a spectacular looking blu-ray and deserves a rental at the very least for how wonderful wonderful wonderful it looks.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> *Another Earth*
> 
> I was at a video store yesterday and after discovering that all the *popular* new releases were already rented, I opted to rent this low-budget, independent film put out by Fox. I found it quite enjoyable, though like my recent viewing of _The Tree of Life_ it was definitely NOT mainstream. The pace was sometimes annoyingly slow, but I still found myself being drawn in by the drama and the thought-provoking Sci-Fi plot.
> 
> There is NO EYE CANDY here, with the exception of a few facial close-ups (of the Indian janitor and Rhoda) that veered into Tier 0 territory. Daytime scenes also yielded numerous shots with appreciable detail and depth.
> 
> Colors were bland....contrast was often too strong, with overblown whites...blacks in most night time scenes were quite murky and often accompanied with video noise... and there was a bit of aliasing as well.
> 
> I'm inclined to put this at the top of Tier 4, but my "generosity gene" is kicking in tonight and thus it's going right here....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.75**
> 
> Pioneer 60" KURO Elilte (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'





mweflen said:


> I didn't find this as objectionable as DJ. I was entertained and pleased overall by the video presentation, knowing going in that it was shot on digital. Who knows, maybe I was entranced by Brit Marling's beauty...
> 
> Anyway, detail was solid, and I'd put a few close-ups in tier 1 (not 0) range. Predictably, dark scenes were quite lackluster, with a lot of digital noise. But I rarely found myself being annoyed by things, with the exception of some banding around the "Earth 2" effect in the sky. Cloth textures were strong, as were environmental textures. The color was washed out, presumably as the director intended, and I thus won't knock the disc too much for this (while agreeing that it probably cannot go too high as a result.
> 
> Long story short, you shouldn't buy this for PQ, as it is merely average compared to other titles on the format. You should rent or buy for the thought provoking SF/psychological thriller tale, and for Brit Marling, who may or may not be the next big thing.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.0*


*Another Earth
*
recommendation: *Tier 3.25**

There isn't much left to be said after these earlier scores from long ago, both are in the same, general ballpark. My impression leans closer to mweflen's final assessment, though I see where djoberg is coming from with his score. This is an indie drama that occasionally goes soft with limited detail, but some of the better close-ups exhibit razor-sharp detail. What keeps it mired in Tier Three is the overly gritty cinematography and its murky interiors.


----------



## quake1028

Disregard, was looking at the wrong thing.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

quake1028 said:


> Copy/paste error on the master list? Monsters University seems to have disappeared.


Which browser are you using? I see it on the list at the top:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...ted-through-march-27-2014-a.html#post22325148

There was a problem when the latest update first occurred with visitors to AVS seeing an older revision, but I believe that has been corrected.

If anyone does spot an error, I am always up to correct them. The revisions occasionally introduce double entries.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Jacket (Japan Import)*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

The 2005 time-travel thriller starring Adrien Brody never made it out on Blu-ray from Warner Bros. in the United States. In fact, it has only hit Blu-ray in France and Japan as far as I know. A Japanese distributor put this BD out in 2011, featuring a very fine film transfer that looks very good.

The main feature runs 102:55 minutes on a BD-25. The video is presented in 1080P resolution in an eye-pleasing 2.35:1 aspect ratio. I was mildly disappointed _The Jacket_ didn't receive a larger BD-50 with a gigantic AVC video encode. Japanese distributors usually do not play games with compression on Blu-ray, often maxing out a BD-50 at the highest allowed parameters. This AVC video encode averages slightly more than 20 Mbps, a respectable figure but not the stuff of legend. It is a transparent encode, fully retaining the complete resolution and detail found on the film. Outside of one very black shot inside a morgue, there are few visible artifacts.

What surprised me was _The Jacket's_ overall sharpness and revealing detail. Close-ups contain immense definition and definite high-frequency information, unfiltered in their clarity. A modicum of halos arise in the first act, then disappear. It seems to have received a fairly new film transfer, possibly one specifically prepared for this BD. The film's palette is not overly colorful, preferring a darker tonality. This is likely the best _The Jacket_ can look on Blu-ray. It represents a huge upgrade over DVD, the enhanced picture quality is worth the cost of importation.

http://www.cdjapan.co.jp/product/SHBR-30


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*A-Channel - The Animation*

recommendation: *Tier 1.25**

This 2011 anime was released last month on Blu-ray by Sentai Filmworks. Having never seen it before, the animation quality is quite good. The show contains a smattering of CGI combined with mostly hand-drawn elements. 

The picture has a vibrant color scheme filled with saturated primaries and rich contrast. They did load up nearly 300 minutes of 1080P content on a single BD-50, though it doesn't materially affect the AVC video encode's transparency or quality.


----------



## rusky_g

The Family

This sometimes looked over sharp which flattened out the picture. I felt like I wanted to dial down the sharpness setting on my TV to minus 10! Otherwise we were treated to some very good facial close ups and solid blacks. A few scenes offered some pause button moments to admire the detail, eg DeNiro at his typewriter but there was inconsistency and sometimes things would dip.

I've seen a lot worse but a lot better too.

Tier 2.0


----------



## DarthDoxie

djoberg said:


> *Fury*
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.25**


Saw Fury last night and completely agree with this ranking. A few of the interior shots showed black crush like djoberg mentioned.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Zombie Killers: Elephant's Graveyard*

recommendation: *Tier 2.75*
*
An uninspired-looking independent film shot with the RED Epic camera. Currently an exclusive found at Best Buy, the direct-to-video zombie fodder features hasty, low-budget cinematography. Like many other films made on the cheap these days, exterior scenes have far better definition and clarity. Interiors are flat and generally lack detail.

On a special note, this has some of the tightest, most cramped scope compositions I've seen on Blu-ray.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Poker Night*

recommendation: *Tier 2.5**​
This new release from XLrator Media looks pretty average in all honesty. Cramped on a BD-25, the AVC video encode isn't flawless in handling the rough, gritty cinematography. Darker shots suffer the most, slightly crushing black levels and limiting shadow delineation.

A lack of halos and other filtering artifacts produces fairly strong definition in close-ups. Longer shots are less sharp, or at least have shallower depth.



Code:


                                                                                                                 Total   Video                                             
Title                                                            Codec   Length  Movie Size      Disc Size       Bitrate Bitrate Main  Audio Track                          Secondary Audio Track
-----                                                            ------  ------- --------------  --------------  ------- -------  ------------------                        ---------------------
00800.MPLS                                                       AVC     1:45:02 22,104,059,904  23,466,363,723  28.06   22.50   DTS-HD  Master 5.1 4038Kbps (48kHz/24-bit)




Code:


DISC INFO:

Disc Title:     POKER_NIGHT
Disc Size:      23,466,363,723 bytes
Protection:     AACS
BD-Java:        Yes
BDInfo:         0.5.8

PLAYLIST REPORT:

Name:                   00800.MPLS
Length:                 1:45:02.546 (h:m:[URL="http://s.ms"]s.ms[/URL])
Size:                   22,104,059,904 bytes
Total Bitrate:          28.06 Mbps

VIDEO:

Codec                   Bitrate             Description     
-----                   -------             -----------     
MPEG-4 AVC Video        22500 kbps          1080p / 23.976 fps / 16:9 / High Profile 4.1

AUDIO:

Codec                           Language        Bitrate         Description     
-----                           --------        -------         -----------     
DTS-HD  Master Audio             English         4038 kbps       5.1 / 48 kHz /  4038 kbps / 24-bit (DTS Core: 5.1 / 48 kHz / 1509 kbps / 24-bit)

SUBTITLES:

Codec                           Language        Bitrate         Description     
-----                           --------        -------         -----------     
Presentation Graphics           English         49.450 kbps                     

FILES:

Name            Time In         Length          Size            Total Bitrate   
----            -------         ------          ----            -------------   
00274.M2TS      0:00:00.000     1:45:02.546     22,104,059,904  28,057          

CHAPTERS:

Number           Time In         Length          Avg Video Rate  Max 1-Sec Rate  Max  1-Sec Time  Max 5-Sec Rate  Max 5-Sec Time  Max 10Sec Rate  Max 10Sec  Time  Avg Frame Size  Max Frame Size  Max Frame Time  
------           -------         ------          --------------  --------------   --------------  --------------  --------------  --------------   --------------  --------------  --------------  --------------  
1                0:00:00.000     0:04:51.666     17,959 kbps     35,798 kbps      00:02:24.811    32,914 kbps     00:02:23.309    31,093 kbps      00:01:08.026    93,616 bytes    486,699 bytes   00:04:49.998    
2                0:04:51.666     0:06:29.639     21,162 kbps     36,830 kbps      00:05:42.842    36,160 kbps     00:05:42.842    34,457 kbps      00:05:37.837    110,330 bytes   331,871 bytes   00:09:09.423    
3                0:11:21.305     0:08:04.150     21,032 kbps     36,967 kbps      00:16:08.050    35,575 kbps     00:16:29.071    34,782 kbps      00:16:24.066    109,649 bytes   271,222 bytes   00:16:10.886    
4                0:19:25.455     0:07:11.514     22,062 kbps     36,681 kbps      00:20:47.788    35,479 kbps     00:20:43.700    34,704 kbps      00:20:39.780    115,023 bytes   294,401 bytes   00:21:25.325    
5                0:26:36.970     0:04:19.550     27,695 kbps     38,036 kbps      00:27:57.133    36,200 kbps     00:28:18.905    35,982 kbps      00:27:38.490    144,391 bytes   323,370 bytes   00:30:46.219    
6                0:30:56.521     0:04:33.439     25,440 kbps     38,921 kbps      00:33:28.381    36,523 kbps     00:33:24.460    36,032 kbps      00:32:50.259    132,635 bytes   354,273 bytes   00:32:06.841    
7                0:35:29.961     0:06:41.776     23,927 kbps     38,143 kbps      00:36:17.175    35,442 kbps     00:36:08.833    35,206 kbps      00:36:08.207    124,745 bytes   273,729 bytes   00:35:56.737    
8                0:42:11.737     0:07:03.297     30,173 kbps     39,152 kbps      00:47:30.389    36,688 kbps     00:47:26.385    36,168 kbps      00:46:20.944    157,307 bytes   367,202 bytes   00:47:31.265    
9                0:49:15.035     0:05:59.984     23,976 kbps     34,147 kbps      00:49:15.035    33,541 kbps     00:49:15.035    30,528 kbps      00:54:09.037    125,001 bytes   416,006 bytes   00:53:25.911    
10               0:55:15.020     0:05:46.554     25,825 kbps     36,777 kbps      01:00:32.378    36,180 kbps     00:56:01.691    35,896 kbps      00:55:23.820    134,638 bytes   300,195 bytes   01:00:43.389    
11               1:01:01.574     0:07:00.420     25,948 kbps     37,708 kbps      01:03:39.357    36,198 kbps     01:01:03.034    36,076 kbps      01:01:32.438    135,281 bytes   288,114 bytes   01:05:15.828    
12               1:08:01.994     0:05:15.565     24,378 kbps     37,155 kbps      01:08:56.882    36,203 kbps     01:08:52.920    36,124 kbps      01:08:47.873    127,094 bytes   446,131 bytes   01:08:42.618    
13               1:13:17.559     0:05:32.749     18,706 kbps     36,231 kbps      01:17:42.532    33,985 kbps     01:17:41.365    30,084 kbps      01:17:41.365    97,526 bytes    390,488 bytes   01:15:20.891    
14               1:18:50.308     0:09:40.621     20,728 kbps     37,318 kbps      01:26:34.689    36,270 kbps     01:26:30.810    35,699 kbps      01:26:28.808    108,066 bytes   420,809 bytes   01:23:27.419    
15               1:28:30.930     0:08:16.787     22,311 kbps     44,087 kbps      01:34:38.381    36,171 kbps     01:30:21.833    35,816 kbps      01:30:21.707    116,319 bytes   486,699 bytes   01:36:41.629    
16               1:36:47.718     0:08:14.827     13,265 kbps     36,777 kbps      01:37:09.240    32,142 kbps     01:37:08.697    29,693 kbps      01:37:08.697    69,168 bytes    486,699 bytes   01:40:38.532    

STREAM DIAGNOSTICS:

File             PID             Type            Codec           Language                 Seconds                 Bitrate                 Bytes            Packets         
----            ---             ----             -----           --------                --------------           --------------          -------------   -----           
00274.M2TS       4113 (0x1011)   0x1B            AVC                                      6302.379                22,500                  17,725,757,461   96,423,338      
00274.M2TS      4352 (0x1100)   0x86             DTS-HD MA       eng (English)           6302.379                 4,038                   3,180,918,512   18,268,563      
00274.M2TS       4608 (0x1200)   0x90            PGS             eng (English)            6302.379                49                      38,957,853       222,243


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*LEGO Justice League Vs. Bizarro League*

recommendation: *Tier 0* (middle)*

WB Animation delivers very polished CG animation for _LEGO Justice League Vs. Bizarro League_. The direct-to-video movie runs under fifty minutes, so a BD-25 provides more than enough space for the professionally clean AVC video encode. There isn't a hint of banding in this short feature.

The textures are not quite as realistic as depicted in the theatrical LEGO Movie, but there is enough detail to qualify for the highest tier. The animation quality seems to have been cleaned up and polished quite well, I hardly noticed any technical distractions. The colorful picture quality has a wide array of brilliant primary colors and deep black levels.


----------



## rusky_g

djoberg said:


> Whoa! I can hardly believe you are giving this a 1.5 (and that you had originally placed it even lower)! I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one Russ, for this clearly deserves a Tier Bu rating, IMHO.


Hey at least we agreed on The Equlizer ;-)


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^

I'm thankful for that Russ!


----------



## djoberg

*The Maze Runner*

Well, we have yet another "demo-disc" for displaying the virtues of HD! Mind you this is NOT "reference quality" (i.e. Tier Blu), but it will easily land in Tier Gold. I was thoroughly impressed with the DETAILS and DEPTH in daytime scenes. Foliage, wood huts, clothing and especially facial texture were all superb. The color palette was on the drab side for a good portion of the movie (at night and inside the maze), but daytime shots inside the glade yielded some nice green foliage! Black levels during bright scenes were very good (the black bars blended right into my KURO's bezel) but at night they were a mixed bag (at times they became quite murky with the black bars being more gray than black). Shadow details were also inconsistent, with some nighttime shots inside the glade looking good and most dark shots inside the maze looking fuzzy or crushed. Flesh tones were spot on, contrast was mostly excellent and clarity (again, during daytime shots or well-lit nighttime scenes) was razor-sharp.

One might think that with all the "negatives" listed above this could never make its way into Tier Gold but all the good shots (and there were MANY) fell into low Tier 0 or high Tier 1.

Two more quick comments before I place this. The audio was STELLAR, with thunderous bass and enveloping action in the surrounds. And the movie itself was surprisingly satisfying (better than _Hunger Games_ or _Divergent_ IMO).

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

After seeing the trailer for _The Maze Runner_, it looked like a strong potential candidate for Tier Blu. I guess that wasn't the case.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^

I can't recall seeing the trailer but I would imagine they purposely left out scenes in the maze itself, for that would have been somewhat of a *spoiler*. As I said in my review Phantom, there are plenty of scenes that dip into Tier Blu and that's most likely what you saw in the trailer.

I could see some members voting for 1.25 or even 1.0, but I highly doubt there will be nominations for Tier Blu.


----------



## wattheF

fredxr2d2 said:


> *Get On Up
> 
> Tier Recommendation: Tier 0, but not at the very top.*
> 
> This is a spectacular presentation that really shines on blu-ray, but, unfortunately I'd have to take a few minor points off for a couple scenes where contrast faltered (either it was a strange lighting situation or...I'm not exactly sure). Two scenes in particular stood out to me: one with Octavia Spencer talking to the young James Brown where her hair didn't have the deep blacks that the young James Brown had (it was obvious to me because they were doing the "over-the-shoulder" dialog trick and his face, hair, and general environment had a great pop to it -- like 99% of the rest of the film -- and her face, hair, and general environment didn't quite get the contrast dialed all the way down to the same levels). The other scene was one where James was performing on stage and it could've been the lighting, but again, contrast took a slightly flatter look than preceding shots before and after.
> 
> All that said, this is a spectacular looking blu-ray and deserves a rental at the very least for how wonderful wonderful wonderful it looks.


I agree with all that you said. I recently watched Get On Up and although I do think it belongs in the upper portion of Tier 0, it is just a hair below the very best. I still think Smurfs 2 has the best live action footage I have seen to date. Mostly because it is just a tad "cleaner" looking.


----------



## wattheF

Box Trolls

I just watched for the first time with my kids. This movie has some incredible animation and on bluray the PQ is great! Blacklevels, contrast, details were great. Color palette is muted. It's not quite on par with the best in the area of sharpness. A few scenes seemed a tad soft but still overall demo worthy and borderline tier 0. I will have to watch it again with a more critical eye to feel good about a rating but for now...

Ranking-1.0 

Viewed on my Panasonic 60 " ST60 from a viewing distance of 7.5'.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

wattheF said:


> I agree with all that you said. I recently watched Get On Up and although I do think it belongs in the upper portion of Tier 0, it is just a hair below the very best. I still think Smurfs 2 has the best live action footage I have seen to date. Mostly because it is just a tad "cleaner" looking.


What led me to rate _Get On U_p so highly is some of the most spectacular depth I've seen from live material. That early scene with a young James Brown living in a rural shack looks incredible on a large display. It has the type of projection and dimensionality that is completely jaw-dropping.


----------



## wattheF

Phantom Stranger said:


> What led me to rate _Get On U_p so highly is some of the most spectacular depth I've seen from live material. That early scene with a young James Brown living in a rural shack looks incredible on a large display. It has the type of projection and dimensionality that is completely jaw-dropping.


I completely agree with what you are saying as well. Probably some of the strongest contrast I have seen which leads to incredible depth. 

I think at this high a level it really just comes down to opinion and also differences in displays will have an impact.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

wattheF said:


> I completely agree with what you are saying as well. Probably some of the strongest contrast I have seen which leads to incredible depth.
> 
> I think at this high a level it really just comes down to opinion and also differences in displays will have an impact.


Check out _Black Sails: Season One_ if possible. While I rated it slightly lower than _Get On Up_, I think it's possible others will rank its video quality even higher in Tier Blu.


----------



## tcramer

I watched Lucy last night and I think this will be a tier blu contender. I watched it on my projector but plan to check a few scenes again on my VT50 to get a better feeling for just how good this one looked.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^

I obviously agree with you tcramer! As soon as you check it out on Panny plasma be sure to write in with an official placement.


----------



## djoberg

*John Wick*

In spite of some of the most egregious color grading I've ever had to put up with, this is most definitely a contender for Tier Gold. This was a very dark movie, filmed mostly at night in either the streets of New York City or in various low-lit rooms (in discos, hotels, Mr. Wick's home, etc.). The black levels were SUPERB in 98% of those scenes with exquisite shadow details to boot! Sharpness and clarity were also on display in nearly every shot, along with strong contrast, accurate flesh tones, excellent depth and good colors (in the relatively few scenes where primaries blossomed).

Regarding the color grading, this one featured scenes with no less than three hues....blue, yellow and green! They didn't detract from the sharpness but details suffered in some shots, especially facial details (but not limited to them). Another real "distraction" were horizontal "lens flares." There were so many I just had to find out if J. J. Abrams had a hand in this film, which, it turns out, he didn't (must be a J. J. Abrams "wannabe"). They really took me out of the movie at times (PQ-wise, but not AQ-wise, for the audio in this OFF THE CHARTS).

This might have been worthy of the Top Tier if not for the aforementioned "negatives," but due to them I'm thinking....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25**

Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I've heard good things about _John Wick's_ Atmos sound as well.


----------



## tcramer

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^
> 
> I obviously agree with you tcramer! As soon as you check it out on Panny plasma be sure to write in with an official placement.


Here I thought I was the first to mention it. I must have missed those couple days there where a few of you guys commented on it.

Anyways I went back and found your review and I agree with that. I'd place it somewhere in the .5 - .75 tier....pending further review of course


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Poltergeist III (Japanese Import)*

recommendation: *Tier 4.0**

The vitals: 1.85:1, 97:34 minutes, 1080P, BD-50, AVC around 30 Mbps. _Poltergeist III_ has always been owned by MGM in the United States but has never been released here on Blu-ray. In fact, this Japanese BD from Twentieth-Century Fox possibly represents the only known Hi-Def release of this movie on a worldwide basis.

Fox clearly prepared this Blu-ray with full access to _Poltergeist III's_ original negative. The 1988 sequel definitely showcases a film transfer struck during the Blu-ray era, possibly around 2009 at 2K resolution. The film elements are in nearly perfect shape, the picture quality exhibits strong contrast, solid black levels, balanced color saturation, and relatively pleasing definition. Everything so far sounds great, right?

So what went wrong, landing a superficially impressive-looking BD practically in Tier Four? All of its positive attributes are overwhelmed by a heavily filtered transfer, leaving a picture very soft on finer detail. Occasionally filtering can be hard to spot, even by trained eyes. This is not one of those cases, the entire movie has been wiped of high-frequency content. Flesh-tones look as smooth as plastic.

_Poltergeist II_ did hit Blu-ray in North America. I guess Fox realized the transfer for this sequel wasn't particularly good and shelved it before release.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*101 Dalmatians*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

Another Disney classic receives a breathtaking restoration. Preserved on Blu-ray in pristine glory, the 1961 film has never looked better. Perfect black levels, a fully transparent video encode, beautiful color reproduction, fairly vibrant animation- _101 Dalmatians_ has it all.

The 1.37:1 aspect ratio can be watched with or without a feature called DisneyView, adding painted mattes to cover up the black bars on widescreen televisions. I am undecided on the added mattes in DisneyView. This time I found them a little distracting, though the feature hasn't bothered me in the past.

This restoration breathes new life into the animation. Some very mild filtering has been used to digitally clean up the animation, though on the whole the process has dramatically improved _101 Dalmatians_' video quality.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Barry Lyndon*

recommendation: *Tier 3.5**

Checking the PQ Tiers, I was surprised to find this Stanley Kubrick film had yet to make it. After recently watching it I can see why no one was in a clamor to rank this BD. I am possibly going too easy on this disc's relative merits, some may place it even lower in Tier 4.

_Barry Lyndon_ is a lengthy epic over three hours. WB did see fit to include the film on a BD-50 with virtually no special features, so the AVC video encode turns out respectably decent. While I wouldn't call this flawless grain reproduction, overt artifacts like macroblocking are confined to a couple of the dimmest shots in darker lighting. The picture quality is not substantially affected by the encode's average parameters.

The more troubling problem is a very soft transfer. There are indications that WB renewed Barry Lyndon's copyright in 2003, it's very possible this transfer was first struck around that time. Kubrick's film has always been naturally soft, a token of the softer cinematography popular in 1975. The elements are in solid shape, though they only reveal definition and clarity here that is the hallmark of an older telecine transfer. There is very little outstanding resolution, the transfer lacks most high-frequency content such as finer detail. Close-ups rarely generate the level of definition we have grown accustomed to seeing in good 1080P video.

I really don't know what is going on with this transfer without insider access. It's definitely a Hi-Def film transfer, though it's possibly not from the original camera negatives. The 1080P experience is watchable but could definitely be improved. _Barry Lyndon_ would benefit more than most films from a new 4K film scan.


----------



## rusky_g

*Gone Girl*

This is a pristine transfer. The picture is very clear and detailed with no visible grain or noise. Daytime scenes showed far reaching depth with naturally saturated colours. Elsewhere the darker scenes were shrouded in an olive green tint, with no detriment to shadow detail. Only occasionally would black levels waiver slightly but mostly they were solid.

Really enjoyed the film itself....the very good PQ was a bonus.

*Tier 1.0*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^

Alright! We're on the same page again Russ!


----------



## rusky_g

*A Walk Among The Tombstones**

Pretty sharp and clean though it seems like some elements of the picture have a surrounding softness which draws the eye to the the centre of the frame. Colours are muted for much of the film, blacks are mostly inky, close ups reveal lifelike textures. Overall this holds up well for a new release, though not quite Tier Zero it's good enough for lower Gold I feel. 

*Tier 1.75*


----------



## rusky_g

^ I should add that shadow detail was very good!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Here is a very good piece explaining color gamut and how exactly human perception of color maps to various standards like NTSC. It is more geared toward monitors but newer display technologies like 4K should finally start closing the gap. 

https://davidsusilouncensored.wordpress.com/2015/02/20/what-is-colour-gamut/


----------



## fredxr2d2

*Lucy

Tier Recommendation: Tier 0*

This is a stunner. Wow! Bright, vivid colors. Details. Black levels.

Great PQ and great AQ, story is a little off, especially as they drive home the really bad science that they start with.

Anyway, worth a rental for sure!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I will have to look for a deal on _Lucy_ with your recommendation of its PQ. I wasn't intending to see it but Tier 0 placements are far too tempting to pass on.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

No one else is snowed under and viewing movies this weekend?

*Oldboy (2013)*

recommendation: *Tier 3.25**

Director Spike Lee remade the Korean thriller a couple of years ago, released on Blu-ray from Sony. For those wondering, the original _Oldboy_ was already ranked last decade!? in Tier 3.5. Lee's remake was shot on actual 35mm, it receives a very perfunctory transfer by Sony. Showing evidence of crushed shadow delineation and moderate grain, _Oldboy_ isn't a picture-perfect Hollywood thriller.

The main feature receives an adequate AVC video encode on a BD-50. Coarser film texture and grain abounds in a picture with slightly clipped black levels. Clarity is mildly disappointing for a newer movie, lacking extremely fine high-frequency detail most of the time. A trace of ringing seems added to the film grain. Definition is fine but underwhelming.

Hints of teal and orange pepper certain scenes, though the overall palette is markedly reserved most of the time. This is a desaturated film imitating many other action movies. Much of its picture quality alternates between Tier 2 and Tier 3, depending on ambient lighting and other factors.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Flowers of Evil: The Complete Collection
*
recommendation: *Tier 1.25**

The most striking thing that sets _Flowers of Evil_ apart is its usage of rotoscoping. All human characters are rotoscoped designs set against more traditionally animated backgrounds. The smooth animation is flawless. Exhibiting perfect black levels, stellar contrast, and excellent chroma resolution, the 13 episodes are spread over two Blu-rays. The AVC video encode is technically sound, there are no visible compression defects.

_Flowers of Evil_ has carefully conceived visuals, using rotoscoping almost necessitates that level of preparation. The distinctive animated look is certainly unique and didn't take me long to get comfortable with it. The color scheme heavily incorporates the color black.


----------



## rusky_g

Godzilla 2014

Godzilla wades onto bluray with a beautifully refined transfer which I found hard to fault. Despite its overcast feel I felt this was a stunner, albeit in a less conventional sense. Void of bright primaries, colours are slightly washed. The beauty is in the detail, which reaches deep into the picture - shadow detail excels which is key in many of the dark scenes which need to hint at what's going on without going overboard. When called upon, facial close ups reveal minute detail. The picture is consistently sharp but never to the point of ringing, instead edges appear warmly defined and inviting.

Good stuff....

Tier 0.65


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Godzilla's transfer has been mildly controversial with its darkness. I haven't seen the BD so I can't add anything beyond that nugget.


----------



## rusky_g

Phantom Stranger said:


> Godzilla's transfer has been mildly controversial with its darkness. I haven't seen the BD so I can't add anything beyond that nugget.


That's true, Phantom. The darkness is handled in such a way however that it kept me reeled in.


----------



## fredxr2d2

rusky_g said:


> Godzilla 2014
> 
> Godzilla wades onto bluray with a beautifully refined transfer which I found hard to fault. Despite its overcast feel I felt this was a stunner, albeit in a less conventional sense. Void of bright primaries, colours are slightly washed. The beauty is in the detail, which reaches deep into the picture - shadow detail excels which is key in many of the dark scenes which need to hint at what's going on without going overboard. When called upon, facial close ups reveal minute detail. The picture is consistently sharp but never to the point of ringing, instead edges appear warmly defined and inviting.
> 
> Good stuff....
> 
> Tier 0.65


I watched the 2D of this the other day and found that I was much more pleased with the PQ in 2D than in 3D - 3D obscured all the shadow detail that was gorgeous in 2D. Also: love the bass!


----------



## rusky_g

Oh yes, the bass 

........


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Charlie and the Chocolate Factory*

recommendation: *Tier 2.75**



Code:


                                                                                                                 Total   Video                                             
Title                                                            Codec   Length  Movie Size      Disc Size       Bitrate Bitrate Main  Audio Track                          Secondary Audio Track
-----                                                            ------  ------- --------------  --------------  ------- -------  ------------------                        ---------------------
00000.MPLS                                                       VC-1    1:55:23 24,115,187,712  44,757,768,585  27.86   16.98   DD AC3  5.1-EX 640Kbps                     Dolby TrueHD 5.1 1675Kbps  (48kHz/16-bit)

This WB Blu-ray was actually a holdover from the days when that company favored HD DVD over the eventual format war winner. The older VC-1 video encode above speaks for itself, though to be fair it's a hand-tuned effort that got far more attention than most video encodes get these days.

The real problem is that 2K high-definition transfers were in their infancy in 2006 when this was struck. What was once dazzling eye candy barely registers today against current Tier 0 contenders. The CGI has aged a bit in ten years, making it fairly soft by today's standards. What most will point to are the filtered children's faces. Someone made a conscious decision to actively filter out all high-frequency content from their faces, leaving a very waxy and smooth appearance. Having never seen this remake before, I actually thought the first child to win a Golden Ticket was pure CG on first glance.

This is not terrible-looking video, the film itself was designed to be eye candy in the first place. It contains excellent depth in its cinematography, though contrast and saturation are slightly more limited than I expected.


----------



## djoberg

I just returned home from a 5-day trip and decided to "check in" to see any new reviews. I am saddened crying to see that Russ and I are NOT on the same page (once again) in his latest review. I was really surprised to see him recommend .65 for _Godzilla 2014_; I voted for 2.0. I see that Igans316 opted for 2.75, so there is quite a bit of difference in our assessments of this title.

One thing we all agree on though: The BASS was "off the charts," so if you have a decent sound system with a good sub, it's worth viewing it for the audio alone.


----------



## fredxr2d2

I would be inclined to put Godzilla 2014 in Tier 1 for 2D and Tier 2 for 3D, based upon my experiences watching it. I'd need to go back and rewatch for more specific placement than that.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Three Outlaw Samurai*

recommendation: *Tier 2.25*

*From Criterion, this has very good PQ for a Japanese black and white film of 1964. Black levels and contrast are well delineated with no crush, the many night scenes look great. Clarity and details also are well presented in the many closeups and mid-range shots.

This is one of the better looking samurai films from Criterion that I've seen.


----------



## tcramer

I recall not being overly impressed with Godzilla 2014 either and would have to give it a 2.0 rating as well.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I will do my level-best to fit Godzilla in over the next week.


----------



## oleus

tcramer said:


> I recall not being overly impressed with Godzilla 2014 either and would have to give it a 2.0 rating as well.


it's one of the murkiest 3d discs i've ever seen, and the 2d (while a little better) wouldn't be anywhere near the top tiers imho


----------



## rusky_g

djoberg said:


> I just returned home from a 5-day trip and decided to "check in" to see any new reviews. I am saddened crying to see that Russ and I are NOT on the same page (once again) in his latest review. I was really surprised to see him recommend .65 for _Godzilla 2014_; I voted for 2.0. I see that Igans316 opted for 2.75, so there is quite a bit of difference in our assessments of this title.
> 
> One thing we all agree on though: The BASS was "off the charts," so if you have a decent sound system with a good sub, it's worth viewing it for the audio alone.


Wow Denny that is a big gap! Hopefully Phantom can weigh in and balance things out.

Hi def digest gave 4.5 / 5
Blu-ray .com 5 / 5
Do Blu 4 / 5


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I know it's not _Godzilla_...

*The Funhouse*

recommendation: *Tier 4.5**

Scream Factory licensed this 1981 horror film from Universal. The film transfer is very probably from the pre-Blu-ray era, a telecine struck from an Interpositive. The resulting picture quality is not very good, leading to resolution that wavers with soft definition for 1080P video. 

While it looks a little better than DVD picture quality, this is a fairly sloppy and dated transfer. Pervasive ringing and limited detail are regular characteristics of this presentation. It does receive a quality AVC video encode that smoothly handles the rougher scenes. The print is in solid shape, there are few obvious signs of visible damage.

One thing that should be mentioned is the terribly distorted anamorphic cinematography. I am not fully sure if the optical distortion was baked into this transfer's elements or the movie was poorly shot. There are far too many optical aberrations in the upper half of the frame at times.


----------



## wattheF

Lucy

This bluray looks incredible! From the opening scene it had me saying WOW! Some have said they didn't like the movie but I found it thoroughly entertaining and enjoyed it.

This is the BEST live action PQ I have seen! It isn't perfect in every single shot but overall IMO it is better than Get on Up and Smurfs 2. It is absolutely pristine on all but a couple fleeting shots that I can easily overlook. The transfer is flawless from what I can see. There is absolutely zero noise. Sharpness and detail are tops without looking overly sharp. Black levels and contrast are perfect and shadow detail is spot on. One area that seems to be a problem with many titles is color. That is not the case here as the color in this movie is neutral yet bright, vibrant and saturated. Skin tones are natural. Facial closeups show every little minute pore and flaw. 

I started watching the movie from 6-6.5 feet away from my 60" ST60 but found myself creeping closer and closer to the point I was about 4-4.5 feet away from the screen and it still looked perfect so that's where I watched it from!

I'm sure sticklers will look at the one or two shots that were not on par with the rest of the movie and feel inclined to drop it a notch, but not me, it just looks too good otherwise...

Ranking - Tier 0 (right behind Rio 2)


----------



## fredxr2d2

*Big Hero 6

Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 top. tippy top. wow.*

I think we have a new winner. This easily rivals and IMO beats Monster's University for textures and overall wonderful, saturated, clean, sharp, beautiful images.

I was drawn out of the movie so many times because things just looked so good...I'm going to have to rewatch this to try and pay attention to the plot.

Highly recommended.


----------



## wattheF

fredxr2d2 said:


> *Big Hero 6
> 
> Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 top. tippy top. wow.*
> 
> I think we have a new winner. This easily rivals and IMO beats Monster's University for textures and overall wonderful, saturated, clean, sharp, beautiful images.
> 
> I was drawn out of the movie so many times because things just looked so good...I'm going to have to rewatch this to try and pay attention to the plot.
> 
> Highly recommended.


I agree that Big Hero 6 is one of the tops. It's a real stunner but I just can't place it over Monsters U.


----------



## fredxr2d2

wattheF said:


> I agree that Big Hero 6 is one of the tops. It's a real stunner but I just can't place it over Monsters U.


I'm wondering right now if I shouldn't watch them back-to-back to see which one would take the cake. I might have a slight preference for Monster's University because of it's framing (just love seeing things fill up my screen--as long as they are OAR), but I would argue that some of the minute textures in Big Hero 6 would surpass those in MU. Although, some argument could be made for Sully's hair being a better technical achievement.

We'll see if I have time for something like that.


----------



## wattheF

fredxr2d2 said:


> I'm wondering right now if I shouldn't watch them back-to-back to see which one would take the cake. I might have a slight preference for Monster's University because of it's framing (just love seeing things fill up my screen--as long as they are OAR), but I would argue that some of the minute textures in Big Hero 6 would surpass those in MU. Although, some argument could be made for Sully's hair being a better technical achievement.
> 
> We'll see if I have time for something like that.


I agree with everything you have said. Although I wasn't quite as impressed with BH6 as MU I think I need to pick up BH6 and give it another viewing or two. 

I too think the full screen presentation helps make MU look more impressive. 

I do think from an animation standpoint the detail and texture of the monsters hair is even more impressive but for me what sets MU apart from every other animated title is the detail they have worked into the backgrounds. IMO these things make MU a bigger achievement from a artistic standpoint even if BH6 may (need to confirm) technically show even better detail.


----------



## fredxr2d2

wattheF said:


> I agree with everything you have said. Although I wasn't quite as impressed with BH6 as MU I think I need to pick up BH6 and give it another viewing or two.
> 
> I too think the full screen presentation helps make MU look more impressive.
> 
> I do think from an animation standpoint the detail and texture of the monsters hair is even more impressive but for me what sets MU apart from every other animated title is the detail they have worked into the backgrounds. IMO these things make MU a bigger achievement from a artistic standpoint even if BH6 may technically show even better detail.


The texture in the backgrounds is what really excited me about BH6 - metal on the commuter train tracks, chips in paint, the texture of concrete on sidewalks/curbs.

I think these two need a showdown, IMO. I'll have to find the time...


----------



## wattheF

fredxr2d2 said:


> The texture in the backgrounds is what really excited me about BH6 - metal on the commuter train tracks, chips in paint, the texture of concrete on sidewalks/curbs.
> 
> I think these two need a showdown, IMO. I'll have to find the time...


Ha! Yes indeed, time for a showdown! Great stuff either way.


----------



## djoberg

I just had to order _Big Hero 6_ after all the glowing remarks! Amazon has a great, low price if anyone is thinking of buying it.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Big Hero 6* is definitely the disc I expect to be a legitimate contender for the crown. Hopefully I can snag the steelbook edition if I come across it.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Godzilla (2014)*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5/1.75*

First, give me a man in a rubber suit any day of the week over CGI. Secondly, this Blu-ray has stupendous audio quality and an incredible surround mix. I fully understand why some here gave Hollywood's newest Godzilla a Tier 2 placement. The entire final act has issues with its brightness whenever Godzilla is battling another monster. The battles are flat, dim, and have limited clarity- likely a conscious decision to hide the CGI. Black levels aren't crushed in them but it is apparent gamma levels were held down to keep a check on overall brightness.

It's a matter of how much you want to weigh each different setting in Godzilla. Before we actually get Godzilla, the video is fairly high quality and almost certainly in Tier One. It is razor-sharp with strong definition and impeccable clarity. Like many other modern blockbusters, it's not the most detailed 1080P presentation due to careful noise management and post-processing. Around Tier 1.5 sounds about right, there is enough depth and delineation for the first two-thirds of the film to balance that last act, which I would rank in the middle of Tier 2 without much remorse.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Deathtrap*

recommendation: *Tier 3.0**

An adequate, filtered film transfer. Distributed by Warner Archive on a BD-25, the 1982 movie is the epitome of average Blu-ray picture quality. Better color saturation and clarity than DVD but filtering does turn skin fairly waxy in _Deathtrap_.

Flesh-tones are a little warm. A hint of ringing and aliasing shows up in the first act. This transfer looks like an older telecine taken from something other than the camera negative, I don't believe it was struck with Blu-ray resolution in mind.


----------



## tcramer

*St. Vincent*

Recommendation: Tier *1.0*


This is a very good looking Blu that is overall very solid throughout. Facial and other textures show very good detail throughout the film, in both light and dark scenes. All color appears very natural and skintones are for the most part good with the occasional warm push. There is just a hint of grain that stays consistent through the entire film. Black levels are not top notch, but they certainly are not bad.

Overall, this is a very good quality disc that I would have no issue putting in the top quarter of tier 1. I also found it to be an excellent movie, almost a more comedic version of Gran Torino. Bill Murray gives an outstanding performance as usual in a bit of a different role. It was also nice to see Melissa McCarthy not have the usual over-the-top comedic attempt, but giving a good performance with comedic moments mixed in.


----------



## djoberg

*Big Hero 6*

*TIME FOR THE SHOWDOWN!!!* BIG HERO 6 vs. MONSTERS UNIVERSITY!!!

In this corner, weighing....Ah, wait a minute, both discs weigh the same, so weight is NOT a factor! So, are there any defining differences to start out with? Well, as it's already been mentioned, _Big Hero 6_ LOOKS smaller, because the Aspect Ratio is 2.39:1 versus a whopping 1.78:1 Aspect Ratio for _Monsters University_. But should that even be factored in? I suppose it could make a difference...for SIZE DOES MATTER...but one can always MOVE YOUR CHAIR/COUCH CLOSER for viewing _Big Hero 6_ and the playing field is, for all practical purposes, made equal!

The real differences lie elsewhere. Where, you ask? I watched snippets from every chapter of _Monsters University_ immediately after watching _Big Hero 6_ and there were several obvious differences. To "cut to the quick," you have more *VIBRANT COLORS* and *TEXTURES* in _Monsters University_. But are they enough to win? Is there a "Knock Out" victory, or perhaps, at the very least, a "TKO"? No way! Why? Because you had better *CLARITY* and *DEPTH* in _Big Hero 6_. I must confess I've never seen such razor-sharp clarity and 3D pop in an animated title...I was BLOWN AWAY by them!! But again, you just can't match the amazing colors and textures found in _Monsters University_, so perhaps we have a "draw" in these areas.

As far as DETAILS go, both films are STUNNING. One might argue that _Big Hero 6_ had more details with its many, sweeping aerials of San Fransokyo, but I give a ton of credit to the geniuses at Pixar for the breathtaking details of the University Campus that graces nearly every scene in _Monsters University_. Both titles have phenomenal details in buildings, foliage, streets, clothes, etc. How about BLACK LEVELS? _Monsters University_ may have an edge here, simply because there are more scenes that take place at night. I recall one "moonlit" scene that is off the charts with black levels and shadow details. Does one trump the other in the PHOTOREALISM department? I think they're a match there, for both have several scenes that look as close to "live action" as you can get. CONTRAST is another area we could talk about, but I would have to say they are both excellent, though with _Big Hero 6_ having such brilliant, razor-sharp clarity it may take the honors in this category.

We could go down the "anomaly road" for comparison, but again you would be hard-pressed to find a difference, for they are both FLAWLESS. 

If you've been "keeping score" you will see that they both have their STRENGTHS that outdoes the other, but in the end I simply can't raise the arm of one and say, "And the winner is..."
I look forward to hearing from others but right now I'm forced to call it a tie. And yet....in fairness to the "reigning champ," I'm going to suggest keeping it on the TOP until others, who perhaps have more discerning eyes than I, weigh in with stronger opinions and with the willingness to place the "champion belt" on one or the other.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (#2 spot, under Monsters University)*

Viewed from 6' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Great review, Denny. I plan weighing in on _Big Hero 6_ in the next week or two. _Monsters University_ has such terrific color saturation, the only thing I have seen like it is _Toy Story 3_.


----------



## rusky_g

That's definitely a Tier 0 review Denny


----------



## fredxr2d2

djoberg said:


> *Fury*
> 
> Dirt...mud...blood...sweat...tears...grime...pores...stubble...scars...pocks...metal...foliage...grass...and the list goes on!! You will see all of these in all of their High Definition glory, along with razor-sharp clarity and unbelievable depth. Blacks levels were also very good in most scenes, though there were a few instances of crush inside the tank. Having said that, I was mostly impressed with daytime shots inside the tank, for there was enough light to offer generous amounts of facial details and details in other objects as well.
> 
> To be fair, the color palette was extremely muted (in keeping with the context of the movie), so there was very little eye candy in that department. But when green grass, trees, and bushes were on display they stood out nicely. There were several battle scenes where smoke filled the whole screen and this obviously offered little in the way of details, clarity, depth, etc. And then there were several shots where softness crept in.
> 
> The shots highlighting the virtues mentioned in my first paragraph fell easily into low Tier 0, whereas the negatives in my second paragraph ranged from low Tier 2 to low Tier 3. But out of the 2+ hours running time this probably consisted of 20 minutes tops. If I had purchased this I would place this on my "demo shelf," but not my "reference shelf" (which is reserved solely for Tier Blu material). I'm thinking this earns a place near the top of Tier Gold....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.25**
> 
> Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


I agree 100% with this review and am glad I searched the thread before writing my own (which would have sounded similar, though not with djoberg's signature style).

Seconded for *1.25*.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> Great review, Denny. I plan weighing in on _Big Hero 6_ in the next week or two. _Monsters University_ has such terrific color saturation, the only thing I have seen like it is _Toy Story 3_.


I look forward to reading your review Phantom. Your mention of the "terrific color saturation" in _Monsters University_ emphasizes how important COLORS are when it comes to animation. It may only be one of many factors to consider, but it is often the virtue that stands out and causes a title to beat out their competitors. Having said that, the colors in _Big Hero 6_, though not as plentiful as in MU, are still bold and vibrant when on display.


----------



## djoberg

rusky_g said:


> That's definitely a Tier 0 review Denny


Thanks Russ! I'm hoping you'll weigh in too on this one. I always admire your honesty; you call it like you see it and that's admirable.


----------



## djoberg

fredxr2d2 said:


> I agree 100% with this review and am glad I searched the thread before writing my own (which would have sounded similar, though not with djoberg's signature style).
> 
> Seconded for *1.25*.


I'm glad we're on the same page fredxr2d2! How did you like the movie? I thought it was good...not as good as _Saving Private Ryan_, but definitely worth a rent, if not a purchase.


----------



## fredxr2d2

djoberg said:


> I'm glad we're on the same page fredxr2d2! How did you like the movie? I thought it was good...not as good as _Saving Private Ryan_, but definitely worth a rent, if not a purchase.


I quite enjoyed it and placed it on my Amazon wish list immediately after viewing. If I feel like watching it again soon, then I'll definitely buy it.

Also, the LFE was great, IMO.


----------



## djoberg

fredxr2d2 said:


> I quite enjoyed it and placed it on my Amazon wish list immediately after viewing. If I feel like watching it again soon, then I'll definitely buy it.
> 
> Also, the LFE was great, IMO.


I LOVED the LFE too! It gave my SVS sub a good workout...and tested the hangings on my wall! 

The only thing I didn't like about _Fury_ was the pervasive language. I do realize that this is "true to life" in the military, so it didn't come as a surprise to me.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Mr. Nobody*

recommendation: *Tier 1.25**

_Mr. Nobody_ is a visually impressive film with intricate cinematography. Released last year by Magnolia Pictures, the striking 1080P presentation oozes clarity and fine detail. The Blu-ray transfer has been rendered from the digital intermediate in a solid AVC video encode.

Having inky black levels, a rich contrast and splendid color balance, this is a prime Tier One applicant. The lack of notable flaws aside from a few softer CGI shots possibly means I may be underrating its true PQ Tiers ranking. A few years ago I would have almost certainly wanted _Mr. Nobody_ in Tier Zero. While the cinematography has both depth and dimension, it's less impressive than the best-ranked discs.


----------



## Toe

Phantom Stranger said:


> *Godzilla (2014)*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 1.5/1.75*
> Secondly, this Blu-ray has stupendous audio quality and an incredible surround mix. .


I certainly enjoyed this audio track for the aggressive use of LFE and surrounds, but the quality of the audio has some significant issues due mainly to the terrible clipping. I am usually not sensitive to this, but it was so blatant in Godzilla on a number of occasions that it became distracting and pulled down the overall experience which is a shame. So I would have to disagree about "stupendous audio quality" as the levels are jacked up so high in places that there is audible clipping. It is by far the worst I have heard as far as this goes as far as movie tracks are concerned. This certainly is not quality audio from a technical (subjective as well from my 3 watches) standpoint. 

I would have liked a bit more LFE extension as well, but that for me was a very minor complaint compared to the clipped messed up audio.


----------



## oleus

Toe said:


> I certainly enjoyed this audio track for the aggressive use of LFE and surrounds, but the quality of the audio has some significant issues due mainly to the terrible clipping. I am usually not sensitive to this, but it was so blatant in Godzilla on a number of occasions that it became distracting and pulled down the overall experience which is a shame. So I would have to disagree about "stupendous audio quality" as the levels are jacked up so high in places that there is audible clipping. It is by far the worst I have heard as far as this goes as far as movie tracks are concerned. This certainly is not quality audio from a technical (subjective as well from my 3 watches) standpoint.
> 
> I would have liked a bit more LFE extension as well, but that for me was a very minor complaint compared to the clipped messed up audio.


it definitely has clipping i think that's been proven.

i'm more shocked that people think the picture quality is good. it's as murky a presentation of a "dark film" as i've ever seen. especially in 3d but that's another discussion (i've now seen the 2d BD and it isn't horrible but nowhere close to impressive)


----------



## djoberg

oleus said:


> it definitely has clipping i think that's been proven.
> 
> i'm more shocked that people think the picture quality is good. it's as murky a presentation of a "dark film" as i've ever seen. especially in 3d but that's another discussion (i've now seen the 2d BD and it isn't horrible but nowhere close to impressive)


I agree with you; it's not that impressive!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Ernest Hemingway's The Killers (1946) (Region B UK Import)*

recommendation: *Tier 2.5**

Arrow Video utilizes a very strong black-and-white transfer for this noir film, almost certainly from the camera negative. Featuring beautiful vintage cinematography, the contrast and black levels are nearly perfect. Shadow delineation is quite good, the level of visible detail is exemplary for film of this age.

The film elements are in solid shape. A few scratches pop up, but they are the exception and not the rule. A fine AVC video encode handles the excellent grain reproduction without a hitch. This is a film-like transfer that features no serious video processing, other than some very mild sharpening at times.

Definition and clarity are both better than expected, this is not a soft-looking movie by any means. 

*Amagami SS: Complete Collection*

recommendation: *Tier 1.75**

This animated show from 2010 looks very typical for recently made anime. Released in November by Sentai Filmworks, their recent Blu-rays have shown more transparent video encodes with less artifacts.

I wouldn't call the video quality extraordinary but it's technically sound.


----------



## burnfout

In your opinion guys, how much will I benefit PQ wise if I purchase a separate bluray player. I've been on a PQ / AQ trip the last year, purchasing a new TV, about to purchase 5 new speakers, about to order my 400th bluray, and am wondering if my PS3 is holding me back from even better PQ/AQ. 

Looking at the new Pioneer LX58 by the way, have a Pioneer receiver too. Worth the 600?


----------



## oleus

burnfout said:


> In your opinion guys, how much will I benefit PQ wise if I purchase a separate bluray player. I've been on a PQ / AQ trip the last year, purchasing a new TV, about to purchase 5 new speakers, about to order my 400th bluray, and am wondering if my PS3 is holding me back from even better PQ/AQ.
> 
> Looking at the new Pioneer LX58 by the way, have a Pioneer receiver too. Worth the 600?


you would be wasting your money. as long as you have the settings correct, the ps3 is giving you as much PQ/AQ as you can get from blurays.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

burnfout said:


> In your opinion guys, how much will I benefit PQ wise if I purchase a separate bluray player. I've been on a PQ / AQ trip the last year, purchasing a new TV, about to purchase 5 new speakers, about to order my 400th bluray, and am wondering if my PS3 is holding me back from even better PQ/AQ.
> 
> Looking at the new Pioneer LX58 by the way, have a Pioneer receiver too. Worth the 600?


If you are using the correct settings on your PS3 player, it's not hurting the picture quality of your Blu-rays at all. It passes 1080P content from Blu-ray perfectly. There are players with better scaling solutions for SD video such as 480P material. The proper PS3 settings can be found in the thread below. Audio improvements may be a different matter depending on your requirements.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/149-blu-ray-players/931796-official-ps3-faq-master-thread.html


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^

Good answer Phantom!

I have heard nothing but good from those who use the PS3 for Blu-ray viewing. Having said that, I love my Pioneer Elite Blu-ray player and would never try to dissuade one from purchasing a Pioneer player. If I had to replace my Pioneer player I would, most definitely, purchase an Oppo player.

I hope my remarks don't end up "muddying the waters."  The bottom line, in my thinking, is the PS3 is a very good Blu-Ray player for PQ. If one is wanting one with 4K Ultra HD capabilities, then he would want another player.


----------



## Toe

oleus said:


> it definitely has clipping i think that's been proven.
> 
> i'm more shocked that people think the picture quality is good. it's as murky a presentation of a "dark film" as i've ever seen. especially in 3d but that's another discussion (i've now seen the 2d BD and it isn't horrible but nowhere close to impressive)


Yep, clipping was measured and verified at data-bass.

The PQ did not do much for me one way or the other on Godzilla on my calibrated RS45. It was fine and got the job done, but nothing to get excited about IMO.


----------



## djoberg

Toe said:


> Yep, clipping was measured and verified at data-bass.
> 
> The PQ on Godzilla did not do much for me one way or the other on Godzilla on my calibrated RS45. It was fine and got the job done, but nothing to get excited about IMO.


Toe,

As you know, I highly respect your "expertise" when it come to the audio end of things. I will have to revisit _Godzilla_ and pay more attention to the "clipping" that you refer to. In my first viewing I was so taken up with the overall bass/LFE and action in the surrounds that I didn't notice the clipping. Perhaps I was so focused on the PQ (for the review I'd be writing) and the overall audio experience that I "turned a deaf ear" to this anomaly.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I only watched Godzilla for the purposes of this thread, so my focus on the audio was not completely there regarding my comments on the surround mix. I was disappointed Godzilla disappears for much of the film. I did think the final act could have been brighter, it was an aesthetic choice I would not have gone with as director. The studio must have been very worried about the audience accepting Godzilla's VFX and CGI. CGI blends much better shrouded in darkness.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I wanted to correct one thing about _Ernest Hemingway's The Killers_ mentioned in my placement above. I have learned the HD transfer was taken from a 35mm interpositive instead of the negative. My score remains the same but I wanted to pass that information along. The film elements are in very good condition with only a handful of notable scratches.


----------



## Toe

djoberg said:


> Toe,
> 
> As you know, I highly respect your "expertise" when it come to the audio end of things. I will have to revisit _Godzilla_ and pay more attention to the "clipping" that you refer to. In my first viewing I was so taken up with the overall bass/LFE and action in the surrounds that I didn't notice the clipping. Perhaps I was so focused on the PQ (for the review I'd be writing) and the overall audio experience that I "turned a deaf ear" to this anomaly.


 
Thanks djoberg! If you didn't catch all the clipping issues, I would suggest NOT trying to find it because once you do, you wont be able to not hear it.  Tron Legacy is another that has clipping, but that one has never caught my ear for some reason and I have purposely not listened for it because I love that track and am choosing the ignorance is bliss route!  I say just enjoy it.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Starcrash*

recommendation: *Tier 4.0**

Roger Corman's _Starcrash_ receives a soft, passable film transfer. The Shout Factory Blu-ray has adequate definition, this is not the most striking Hi-Def presentation. The transfer has not been overly processed but its analog softness smacks of an older telecine done from an older, secondary film source.

The video encode includes minor bouts of chroma noise, largely handling the native grain structure. _Starcrash_ is a blatant rip-off of _Star Wars_ with far cheaper optical effects than that beloved film. That includes a number of very soft shots in some frequency. Despite a mildly bland and dull color palette, the contrast is acceptable. There isn't a significant amount of super-fine detail, the film print is not particularly sharp in that area.

I guess one reading this score would think the BD looks terrible but it's really not that bad. Is this the best the cheap film could look? Probably not, but I sincerely doubt we'll ever get anything better.


----------



## djoberg

Toe said:


> Thanks djoberg! If you didn't catch all the clipping issues, I would suggest NOT trying to find it because once you do, you wont be able to not hear it.  Tron Legacy is another that has clipping, but that one has never caught my ear for some reason and I have purposely not listened for it because I love that track and am choosing the ignorance is bliss route!  I say just enjoy it.


Ah, good advice, my friend! It reminds me of advice I've given to some on this thread regarding "ringing" or "halos"....I've told them if they have a hard time seeing them, DON'T LOOK FOR THEM!! I said this for the exact same reason you advised me not to listen for "clipping"....if they see the ringing and halos, they'll always see them! I will take your advice and choose the "ignorance is bliss route."


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Humbling*

recommendation: *Tier 3.0**

Al Pacino's latest film has been released courtesy of Millennium Entertainment. _The Humbling_ was shot on the Arri Alexa but it's one of the weaker efforts from that camera I've watched on Blu-ray. The picture quality is fairly sharp and even dimensional at times with depth, but has bland contrast. Blown-out white levels and murky shadow delineation are features of the very average video quality.

The Blu-ray transfer itself doesn't appear to have been the cause for this disappointing looking independent film. The erratic cinematography and soft detail in the picture look inherent to the movie.


----------



## Toe

*Big Hero 6*

Recommendation: *Tier 0- bottom 1/4* 

In general I agree with most of the praise for this title and was excited to see it going off the comments here, but one thing dropped this one down for me which is the addition of fake grain which was certainly artistic intent, but a bad decision for this film IMO (and not something I like in general with animation most of the time) and I felt the need to vote because of it as I strongly feel this does NOT belong at or near the top. I prefer my animation squeaky clean in general and there were a number of scenes where this added grain took me out of the picture. Otherwise, it looked excellent, but no way this belongs at or near the top IMO, but the other virtues/strengths are enough to keep it in tier 0 for me even with this significant negative.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^

I never saw any "added grain" Toe. Can you give me a time stamp so I can check it out?


----------



## Toe

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^
> 
> I never saw any "added grain" Toe. Can you give me a time stamp so I can check it out?


Sorry, I can't as the disc is back at redbox. I noticed this artistic choice (I would assume) a number of times in both dark and day scenes.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Da Vinci's Demons: The Complete Second Season*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

Much of this series is filmed on RED cameras in fairly high quality, though it does have a few limitations to its black levels. The video quality is a notch behind other shows from premium cable channel Starz on Blu-ray. Few shows could look as great as _Black Sails_ or _Spartacus_, anyway.

This season's overall presentation is a little like a tale of two halves. Stuck in the darkened interiors of Florence, the first half's picture exhibits very slight crushing and less spectacular depth. Everything looks bigger and brighter in scope once the main locale shifts to the New World. The lower half of Tier One sounds about right for _Da Vinci's Demons_.

*Unbreakable Machine Doll: The Complete Series*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

The animation has dull lighting most of the time, its colors are less than vibrant at times. Funimation does utilize a proper video encode that minimizes banding and other artifacts.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

djoberg said:


> Toe,
> 
> As you know, I highly respect your "expertise" when it come to the audio end of things. I will have to revisit _Godzilla_ and pay more attention to the "clipping" that you refer to. In my first viewing I was so taken up with the overall bass/LFE and action in the surrounds that I didn't notice the clipping. Perhaps I was so focused on the PQ (for the review I'd be writing) and the overall audio experience that I "turned a deaf ear" to this anomaly.


In the Blu-ray spec thread they show info created by the BDInfo program. Wouldn't it be possible for a program like that to read the audio data off the disc to automatically detect clipping?


----------



## fredxr2d2

I agree with Phantom on Rio 2 (or the first one, either), they just didn't "blow me away" the way that Big Hero 6, Monster's University, and Toy Story 3 did.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*V/H/S 2
*
recommendation: *Tier 5**

We haven't seen a Tier 5 disc hit the thread in a while, that streak is now over. This movie is really a compilation of four short features, supposedly found on VHS tapes. It is all found-footage type horror, the digitally shot video has been heavily doctored for maximum irritation. The digital footage has been purposely degraded, the filmmakers are probably happy _V/H/S 2_ ended up this low. Pretty much every picture quality sin you can think of for this thread appears at one time or another during its 95 minutes.

Magnolia didn't do the video any favors. The terribly low compression parameters led to intense bouts of banding in the AVC video encode.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Gamereviewgod said:


> *Sword in the Stone*
> 
> Yeesh. What happened here? Disney's quality control plummets for this DNR/filtered mess which removes copious amounts of detail and definition. Colors may be strong, but animation is ruined and even lost to the effects of digital tampering. Yuck.
> 
> *Tier 3.5**





Phantom Stranger said:


> 
> The screen caps look so awful I've decided to wait and see on a purchase. The animation has simply been ruined in this transfer. One of the biggest mistakes Disney has made with their animated catalog.


*The Sword In The Stone
*
recommendation: *Tier 5*

I had consciously held off from viewing this Blu-ray until this weekend, despite this 1963 animated classic being one of my favorite Disney movies from childhood. Released nearly two years ago for its 50th anniversary, the Blu-ray looks far worse than even I imagined. This is a case in which the screenshots tell the full story. It is a videophile travesty of the highest order and easily the worst animated transfer handled by Disney on Blu-ray. I am stunned Disney wasn't embarrassed as a corporation and for their legacy, releasing one of their beloved animated films in this condition. 

The Technicolor animation has been crudely filtered to oblivion. Possibly worse for the picture quality is the most amateurish digital cloning I have ever seen used on animation. _The Sword In The Stone_ never had the tightest line-art compared to other Disney classics but everything here is a smeared mess. From its first moments, the animation's brighter colors have been butchered as a modern technician attempted digital color fills. The result looks like a child hastily used watercolors to erratically "color inside the lines."

It is an abomination to animation purists and the cloning process has been so poorly implemented the film looks like garbage. This BD is to be avoided at all costs.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

The secret of Michael Bay's financial success? The following YouTube video provides the best explanation I've seen for Michael Bay's "unique" style utilizing depth and parallax in creating the dynamic visual look his blockbusters possess. This is a big reason why his Transformers' franchise films are perennially in Tier Zero. Definitely some very interesting and cogent filmmaking analysis.


----------



## |Tch0rT|

Phantom Stranger said:


> *The Sword In The Stone
> *
> recommendation: *Tier 5*
> 
> I had consciously held off from viewing this Blu-ray until this weekend, despite this 1963 animated classic being one of my favorite Disney movies from childhood. Released nearly two years ago for its 50th anniversary, the Blu-ray looks far worse than even I imagined. This is a case in which the screenshots tell the full story. It is a videophile travesty of the highest order and easily the worst animated transfer handled by Disney on Blu-ray. I am stunned Disney wasn't embarrassed as a corporation and for their legacy, releasing one of their beloved animated films in this condition.
> 
> The Technicolor animation has been crudely filtered to oblivion. Possibly worse for the picture quality is the most amateurish digital cloning I have ever seen used on animation. _The Sword In The Stone_ never had the tightest line-art compared to other Disney classics but everything here is a smeared mess. From its first moments, the animation's brighter colors have been butchered as a modern technician attempted digital color fills. The result looks like a child hastily used watercolors to erratically "color inside the lines."
> 
> It is an abomination to animation purists and the cloning process has been so poorly implemented the film looks like garbage. This BD is to be avoided at all costs.


When that Blu-Ray came out I gave it the lowest ratings on Best Buy, Amazon, and Walmart and explained my rating on how horrible the picture quality is and how it was ruined by Disney. Other reviewers attacked me and told me that something was wrong with my eyes or I should buy a new HDTV because I must own a crappy one to trash the PQ.  I also posted a lot on the official Sword in the Stone Facebook page but they deleted every post complaining (I was not the only one) about it or links to screen caps comparing the Blu-Ray "remaster" to the iTunes unmolested version, though I suppose that version could be replaced by now on iTunes. It's a tragedy what they did to that movie to make it look more modern or cleaned up and it's sad that most people won't notice, care (dismiss it as a kids movie), or even prefer the f'd up version.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I think many cannot separate their fondness for the movie, a certified classic, from the critical analysis directed at the transfer. I will admit I have gone slightly easier on transfers of beloved films once in a while, that is simply human nature. _The Sword In The Stone_ is so egregiously bad the Blu-ray has to be condemned by anyone with an understanding of classic animation. Most shocking is that Disney has also done most of the best work when it comes to animation on Blu-ray, it's a real anomaly in their Blu-ray catalog. I have no idea how Disney's very qualified personnel gave their approval to this disc, it should have never seen the light of day in this condition.


----------



## |Tch0rT|

If you have a way of getting a hold of the iTunes HD version I recommend it. It looks pretty good though it does have some dirt and scratches but even then it still looks better than the 50th Anniversary version.


----------



## fredxr2d2

Phantom Stranger said:


> The secret of Michael Bay's financial success? The following YouTube video provides the best explanation I've seen for Michael Bay's "unique" style utilizing depth and parallax in creating the dynamic visual look his blockbusters possess. This is a big reason why his Transformers' franchise films are perennially in Tier Zero. Definitely some very interesting and cogent filmmaking analysis.
> 
> https://youtu.be/2THVvshvq0Q


I really like "Every Frame a Painting" for the analysis on film. One of my favorite YouTube channels and one of the few that I'll watch when new content comes out.


----------



## Sibuna

Phantom Stranger said:


> Did anyone catch this very simple test determining one's perceptual limits at color nuances? I have heard different monitors and even surrounding light affect the results, so don't get discouraged if you only see 15 distinct colors the first time. I did it a couple of different times over the day, my results ranged from 28 to 34.
> 
> Fifty percent of the population should see somewhere between 20 and 32 distinct colors. There are actually 39 colors. It's interesting that not everyone may be seeing the same colors when watching Blu-rays. We must have some tetrachromats reading the thread.
> 
> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/25-people-have-4th-cone-see-colors-p-prof-diana-derval


Interesting

I see 38


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Okamikakushi - Masque of the Wolf: Complete Collection*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

The traditionally animated series has fairly standard picture quality for this genre on Blu-ray. It has crisp colors rendered with inky black levels. I wish I could say more but you have probably already heard it from me before.

I will mention that Sentai has licked their banding problems on recent releases. The series is spread over two Blu-rays, a BD-50 and BD-25. The bitrates aren't substantially higher than before but it looks like they switched AVC encoders at some point in the last year for the better.


----------



## burnfout

A general question about PQ if you don't mind. 

I picked up a local copy (Netherlands) of the John Wick blu-ray this week and watched it yesterday. I wasn't really impressed with the overal PQ (a lot of soft/out of focus shots in my opinion). 

Now I'm wondering if that has anything to do with the origin of the disc. Is the Dutch blu-ray differrent than the UK/US blu-ray? 

Also the Criterion blu-rays have different PQ than the (amazon.co.uk) blu-rays I normally buy right?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

burnfout said:


> A general question about PQ if you don't mind.
> 
> I picked up a local copy (Netherlands) of the John Wick blu-ray this week and watched it yesterday. I wasn't really impressed with the overal PQ (a lot of soft/out of focus shots in my opinion).
> 
> Now I'm wondering if that has anything to do with the origin of the disc. Is the Dutch blu-ray differrent than the UK/US blu-ray?
> 
> Also the Criterion blu-rays have different PQ than the (amazon.co.uk) blu-rays I normally buy right?


Speaking specifically about John Wick on Blu-ray, Caps-A-Holic has direct screencap comparisons between the American Blu-ray, the Hong Kong Blu-ray, and what I believe is the Dutch Blu-ray. Apparently John Wick's distribution rights were sold to different companies all over the world. For a modern release like John Wick, the Blu-ray is almost always taken from the film's Digital Intermediate. That only leaves compression differences and possible tinkering with its color correction. Lionsgate is not particularly known for being a stellar Blu-ray label, the American rights owner.

http://caps-a-holic.com/hd_vergleiche/multi_list.php?hd_multiID=2283

Addressing Criterion, they often perform their own transfers or tweak existing masters. For many of their licensed discs from Hollywood, they are at the mercy of what the studio provides in terms of film masters. Generally they will have different transfers than most UK Blu-rays, though there are exceptions. Several European films that Criterion has released have superior versions by their native owner.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

burnfout said:


> I picked up a local copy (Netherlands) of the John Wick blu-ray this week and watched it yesterday. I wasn't really impressed with the overal PQ (a lot of soft/out of focus shots in my opinion).
> 
> Now I'm wondering if that has anything to do with the origin of the disc. Is the Dutch blu-ray differrent than the UK/US blu-ray?


I looked further into your specific inquiry about John Wick. I don't know the veracity of this information but another place has this to say about the various international versions of John Wick. Notice it doesn't even list the Hong Kong BD in the comparison.

US - AVC 33233 kbps, Dolby TrueHD 7.1 5205 kbps 24-bit/Dolby Atmos, English subs Best AQ
NO/SE/FI/DK - AVC 36234 kbps, DTS-HD MA 5.1 3883 kbps 24-bit, no English subs *Best PQ*


----------



## burnfout

Note that I haven't seen any other version of this bluray, so I cannot compare at all. It does have an Atmos track on the disc though. Wondering what that means in that comparision? They licensed the US version? It also has English subs apparently: http://www.a-film.nl/dvd/00036389/John-Wick


----------



## Phantom Stranger

burnfout said:


> Note that I haven't seen any other version of this bluray, so I cannot compare at all. It does have an Atmos track on the disc though. Wondering what that means in that comparision? They licensed the US version? It also has English subs apparently: http://www.a-film.nl/dvd/00036389/John-Wick


Like I said, I can't guarantee the veracity of that information. It was taken from elsewhere. I haven't seen John Wick.


----------



## |Tch0rT|

burnfout said:


> I picked up a local copy (Netherlands) of the John Wick blu-ray this week and watched it yesterday. I wasn't really impressed with the overal PQ (a lot of soft/out of focus shots in my opinion).


I saw John Wick in the theaters and watched the Blu-Ray about a week and a half ago. While I wouldn't say there was a lot but there were definitely soft shots in the film.


----------



## djoberg

I did NOT see the soft shots others saw in their viewing of _John Wick_.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I spotted something interesting in this piece from Filmmaker magazine. It's mostly about new, large format digital camera lenses. I excerpted the most relevant question for the PQ Tiers. Aliasing was a serious issue for early digitally-shot movies, even from Hollywood. The aliasing was often still visible on Blu-ray despite the low-pass filtering.

http://filmmakermagazine.com/93508-...eir-large-format-digital-lenses-the-primo-70/

*Filmmaker: *Is there an optical difference from camera to camera?


*Sasaki:* A digital camera has different pixel pitches. For instance, the ARRI ALEXA have a fairly large pixel pitch of 8 microns and the Sony F55 has a 6 micron pixel. The smaller pixel pitch means that you’re going to have a different frequency at which that lens is going to alias, so therefore the larger the pixel pitch the more aggressive your low pass filter. Generally the more aggressive your low pass filter, the thicker your optical low pass solution becomes. You’re going to see a variation in low pass filter thicknesses.The fortunate thing is most of the manufacturers have realized that we don’t want to make too drastic a change, so there are differences between cameras, but they’re not so substantial where if you have a lens that’s for ARRI you can’t put it on a RED without major impact. They’re a pretty good balance between each other, but there are differences between cameras.


----------



## djoberg

*The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies*



djoberg said:


> *The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug*
> 
> STUNNING!!
> 
> As with its predecessor, this Blu draws you into the film with exquisite DETAILS, DEPTH, and CLARITY. The details are simply mesmerizing, with details of close-ups displaying fine texture in nearly every scene. Facial details were every bit as good as in _An Unexpected Journey_, if not better (Bilbo Baggins definitely fared better in this one). Details in general were off the charts in most scenes, even in mid to long range shots of mountains, forests, castles, etc. The sharpness and clarity was as good as I've ever seen, though in a couple of scenes it came across as a bit too *digital* (a case in point would be the scene with the dwarfs riding down the river in barrels). Depth was phenomenal in some shots.
> 
> You're going to love Peter Jackson's cinematography in this sequel and as mentioned above every scene teems with details making for some of the sweetest EYE CANDY you'll ever feast your eyes upon!
> 
> If I had any complaints, it would be with some soft shots and a couple of instances where black levels faltered resulting in murkiness in one shot and crush in another. But these were clearly the exception and not the rule so any penalization would have to be marginal.
> 
> I voted for Tier 0 (right above _Braveheart_) for the first installment and this was a hair better....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (right above The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey)*
> 
> Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....


I have taken the liberty of quoting my review of _The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug_, for MOST of my comments are identical to those that I would make if I were to write up a review of the current title. There is a difference though, for which I will add a few remarks. I am happy to say that the BLACK LEVELS never faltered in the least in this one; I never saw any soft shots; and there wasn't any scenes that came across as too "digital." In a word, this release was flawless...PURE REFERENCE quality from the opening battle scene to the closing scene in the countryside and home of Bilbo Baggins. 

I gave the first two outings a Tier 0 (.75) rating; this won deserves a spike of at least a quarter of a tier....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.5)*

Viewed from 6.5' using the equipment listed below....


----------



## |Tch0rT|

djoberg said:


> I did NOT see the soft shots others saw in their viewing of _John Wick_.


I'll have to see if I can get a screen shot of one if I can find it. I just remember it was an outside shot during the day. Some bushes or foliage were out of focus. I don't think it's a very long scene so it might be easily missed.


----------



## kiwipeter

djoberg said:


> *The Imitation Game*
> 
> This LOOKER most definitely deserves "reference quality status" and my vote goes for....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.75)*




Totally agree with this score, it is a fantastic transfer with superb detail - everything from fibres and fluff on woollen jumpers to markings on the dials of 'Christopher' is shown with impressive clarity. Black levels are spot-on and the overall image quality is incredible.

As a film it comes thoroughly recommended and is a wonderful testament to Turing's work. It is at times exciting, moving and joyous - what more could one want from an evening's entertainment.


----------



## kiwipeter

As an aside I went to see the new Avengers film over the weekend and although the film itself was really enjoyable I was very disappointed by the general poor quality of the projected image. It appeared a bit 'flat' and had numerous examples of crushed blacks and poor contrast. Maybe I got unlucky and the projector needed a new bulb or something but it ended up cementing my view that you can't beat a home cinema (preferably with a big screen!) for the sheer 'wow factor'. This thread (and the tier lists) is a fabulous resource and one I hope to participate in on a regular basis.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

kiwipeter said:


> As an aside I went to see the new Avengers film over the weekend and although the film itself was really enjoyable I was very disappointed by the general poor quality of the projected image. It appeared a bit 'flat' and had numerous examples of crushed blacks and poor contrast. Maybe I got unlucky and the projector needed a new bulb or something but it ended up cementing my view that you can't beat a home cinema (preferably with a big screen!) for the sheer 'wow factor'. This thread (and the tier lists) is a fabulous resource and one I hope to participate in on a regular basis.


We aim to please. Throw in whatever recommendations you want, it's always good hearing from the perspective of someone with a projection system and large screen.


----------



## djoberg

kiwipeter said:


> As an aside I went to see the new Avengers film over the weekend and although the film itself was really enjoyable I was very disappointed by the general poor quality of the projected image. It appeared a bit 'flat' and had numerous examples of crushed blacks and poor contrast. Maybe I got unlucky and the projector needed a new bulb or something but it ended up cementing my view that you can't beat a home cinema (preferably with a big screen!) for the sheer 'wow factor'. This thread (and the tier lists) is a fabulous resource and one I hope to participate in on a regular basis.


I appreciated your comments above as well as your review on _The Imitation Game_. Of course I agree 100% with your analysis of that movie and your placement recommendation. 

I also want to welcome you to this thread and I look forward to reading more reviews from you.


----------



## kiwipeter

*Big Hero 6*

It is amazing to see how the CGI animated film genre has developed over the past 20 years. From humble beginnings came Pixar's legendary "Toy Story" (in 1995!) and "A Bug's Life" a few years later.


Today we are blessed with animated films of incredible complexity and detail, requiring supercomputer scale hardware for their creation. One such marvel is Disney Animation Studio's "Big Hero 6", their 54th animated film.


And boy this is top-notch stuff and the pinnacle of the animator's art. Every smallest detail is present, the first few minutes alone as the bots battle away in the arena is jaw-dropping (especially on a large screen). Throughout the film, details such as surface marks and scratches, dents and other imperfections are clearly visible and highly intricate. Textures on clothes, walls, skin, and other items are incredibly accurate and breath-taking. Colours pop, contrast is spot-on, black levels are deep and perfect. There are zero image imperfections - this is a true reference quality disc.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (0.0 above 'Monsters University')*


----------



## djoberg

kiwipeter said:


> *Big Hero 6*
> 
> It is amazing to see how the CGI animated film genre has developed over the past 20 years. From humble beginnings came Pixar's legendary "Toy Story" (in 1995!) and "A Bug's Life" a few years later.
> 
> 
> Today we are blessed with animated films of incredible complexity and detail, requiring supercomputer scale hardware for their creation. One such marvel is Disney Animation Studio's "Big Hero 6", their 54th animated film.
> 
> 
> And boy this is top-notch stuff and the pinnacle of the animator's art. Every smallest detail is present, the first few minutes alone as the bots battle away in the arena is jaw-dropping (especially on a large screen). Throughout the film, details such as surface marks and scratches, dents and other imperfections are clearly visible and highly intricate. Textures on clothes, walls, skin, and other items are incredibly accurate and breath-taking. Colours pop, contrast is spot-on, black levels are deep and perfect. There are zero image imperfections - this is a true reference quality disc.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (0.0 above 'Monsters University')*


Once again I concur with your assessment and your placement! This title is the "cream of the crop" in the animated category and I'm delighted to see another recommendation giving it its proper placement!!


----------



## kiwipeter

*Paddington*

This is a lovely family film (based on the original children's books) and is presented with a very detailed and dynamic image. Paddington himself is a CGI marvel with each strand of fur visible and free from jagged edges (it is just so realistic I was floored). The scenes of London are colourful and texture-rich - from the grimy brickwork of Paddington train station to the various rooms of the Brown family home. The Peruvian jungle scenes are equally as impressive and serve as a fantastic introduction to the film. There are no issues at all with the image quality; black levels are deep and contrast is excellent. It really is as good as it gets.

There is much to admire here, Paddington is a superb reference quality transfer - and comes with my highest recommendation.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (somewhere around Smurfs 2).*


----------



## rusky_g

Welcom Kiwipeter and thanks for your reviews - I can't wait to see Paddington and will report back with my placement


----------



## rippmaster13

*Interstellar tier (0.6)*

As mentioned above. Since the 70mm scenes is so damn great it would be a shame having it sub 1.0 ranking. 

Tier 0.6 is my vote!


----------



## kiwipeter

rippmaster13 said:


> Tier 0.6 is my vote!


Question re the tier number - I guess the '0' is for Tier 0, does the '.6' mean 6th from the top or a position just beyond half-way down the list. Or something else?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

kiwipeter said:


> Question re the tier number - I guess the '0' is for Tier 0, does the '.6' mean 6th from the top or a position just beyond half-way down the list. Or something else?


I don't read minds (coming soon!) but the standard nomenclature used in this thread is that 0.6 means the disc is ranked about two-thirds of the way down from the very top of Tier 0 (Blu). So 0.5 would mean a disc ranked in the middle of Tier 0.


----------



## kiwipeter

*The Book of Life 2D (2014)*

Based (a little cheekily) around Mexico's _dia de Muertos_ ("the Day of the Dead"), this animated film offers an incredible-looking and mesmerising presentation. Taking the form of a pop-up book, it is an eclectic, delirious and wonderfully created world full of some amazing characters, scenery and a wealth of imagined genius.

Once the film moves into the main story, we are greeted with a multitude of bright, gorgeous, vivid colours and a unique animation style. The foreground (and background) are full of weird and wonderful shapes (for example, check out the hilarious inhabitants of the "Land of the Remembered") whilst some characters and other items are modelled from wood, with close-ups that show detail such as "tree-rings" and other wood-type nuances. Other textures are equally as impressive too and offer pin-sharp detail and definition. The various background imagery has an almost three dimensional appearance and is highly detailed and intricate and shows deep and solid black levels (whilst at the same time some impressive shadow detail). Colours are very vibrant and used well in the different 'worlds' of the film - this disc will bring out the best of your display. Great demo material here folks!

I heartily recommend this film - it offers up a great story, top-notch animation and fantastic imagery.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (0.1)*


----------



## kiwipeter

djoberg said:


> *The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies*
> 
> I gave the first two outings a Tier 0 (.75) rating; this won deserves a spike of at least a quarter of a tier....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.5)*
> 
> Viewed from 6.5' using the equipment listed below....



Totally agree with the above, a mighty fine release and worthy of a mid Tier 0 position.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

kiwipeter said:


> *The Book of Life 2D (2014)*
> 
> I heartily recommend this film - it offers up a great story, top-notch animation and fantastic imagery.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (0.1)*


I've been meaning to watch this movie at some point, it looks like fantastic demo material.


----------



## CJackson

Where would you rank Tora Tora Tora on the tiers?


----------



## kiwipeter

*King Kong (Extended Edition, 2005)*

Get a large spill-proof travel mug of coffee ready - you'll need it as you sit through the 3 hour rollercoaster ride that is King Kong. Full of twists and turns, ups and downs, this journey begins a little slowly (with no primate in sight) but gets far more exciting once our heroic party land on the foreboding Skull Island. From there they find themselves knee-deep in drama; everything from hostile natives, leggy creepy-crawlies, hungry carnivorous fish and of course, the famous ape (with a few dinosaurs thrown in for good measure). 

The visuals are superb and yet again NZ's Weta Workshop have created a realistic world full of the most intricate detail. From the bright lights of New York's theatre-land to the dark caves of Skull Island, this disc offers a sharp, detailed image with seemingly endless black levels along with great shadow detail and contrast . Colours are vibrant and accurate, never washed or dull and there is a huge sense of depth to the image. For the CGI, we are treated with some amazing creations; just look at Kong's facial expressions (it's all in the eyes, folks) and the sheer amount of work gone into his hair. Every strand is visible, as is every skin crease and fold. Human skin tones are spot-on and surface detail is outstanding. 

This title ranks as one of the very best on Blu-ray, and so gets my highest recommendation. 

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (0.5)*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

CJackson said:


> Where would you rank Tora Tora Tora on the tiers?


I haven't seen that movie on Blu-ray. Hopefully someone else can chime in on its video quality.


----------



## CJackson

Out of the following, where would Interstellar rank?

Wall-E Tier 0 - Blu
Lawrence of Arabia Tier 0 - Blu
Patton Tier 0 - Blu
The Dark Knight Tier 1.25 - Gold


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I haven't done the tally yet on Interstellar but I can give my opinion. I think it clearly should rank below Wall-E, I don't think you'll find many arguing Interstellar looks better than the Pixar movie. The other easy choice from your list is The Dark Knight. Interstellar looks far better than The Dark Knight to my eyes. The Dark Knight might even be ranked a little high, I don't remember the scores off-hand that got it Tier 1.25.

The other two films are a more subjective comparison. Interstellar will have an official placement in the next update.


----------



## Toe

kiwipeter said:


> *The Book of Life 2D (2014)*
> 
> Based (a little cheekily) around Mexico's _dia de Muertos_ ("the Day of the Dead"), this animated film offers an incredible-looking and mesmerising presentation. Taking the form of a pop-up book, it is an eclectic, delirious and wonderfully created world full of some amazing characters, scenery and a wealth of imagined genius.
> 
> Once the film moves into the main story, we are greeted with a multitude of bright, gorgeous, vivid colours and a unique animation style. The foreground (and background) are full of weird and wonderful shapes (for example, check out the hilarious inhabitants of the "Land of the Remembered") whilst some characters and other items are modelled from wood, with close-ups that show detail such as "tree-rings" and other wood-type nuances. Other textures are equally as impressive too and offer pin-sharp detail and definition. The various background imagery has an almost three dimensional appearance and is highly detailed and intricate and shows deep and solid black levels (whilst at the same time some impressive shadow detail). Colours are very vibrant and used well in the different 'worlds' of the film - this disc will bring out the best of your display. Great demo material here folks!
> 
> I heartily recommend this film - it offers up a great story, top-notch animation and fantastic imagery.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (0.1)*


Agreed! I was considerably more impressed with the PQ of this film vs Big Hero 6 as I watched them both within a few days of each other.


----------



## djoberg

*San Andreas*

This was a LOOKER, but not quite "Reference" material. The CGI was impressive, with solid definition, clarity and details in the midst of collapsing buildings, a tsunami, and tons of debris being swept along the streets of San Francisco. There were dozens of aerial shots of Los Angeles and San Francisco that showcased the amazing DETAILS and DEPTH of this Blockbuster. Close-ups did NOT disappoint, especially facial texture. Contrast was strong, though at times BLACK LEVELS weakened (most notably in interior and underwater scenes). FLESH TONES were pleasing. COLORS were somewhat muted, but when primaries rose to the occasion they were excellent. Finally, there was a very nice "film-like" look throughout. This should easily land in Tier 1...towards the top....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25**


----------



## mweflen

djoberg said:


> Thanks for the link! I just ordered a copy. I haven't seen _Spartacus_ for many years so I'm elated that they did a good Restoration on it.


This is one to play loud. The 7.1 mix is exceptional for a film of this vintage.


----------



## djoberg

mweflen said:


> This is one to play loud. The 7.1 mix is exceptional for a film of this vintage.


Thanks for the heads up!

Speaking of "one to play loud," I should have mentioned that the Dolby TrueHD audio track on _San Andreas_ was VERY GOOD! It wasn't even close to reference (-16) and my walls were rattling throughout!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Following Season Three*

recommendation: *Tier 2.75*
*
If you have seen the prior two seasons on Blu-ray you will know what to expect from this set. The fifteen episodes of season three are included on three BD-50s. _The Following_ has always had a gritty aesthetic for network television, softer and less colorful than most TV fare. WB replicates the broadcast presentation with a flawless transfer, retaining the native 1.78:1 aspect ratio in 1080P video. Some might complain about the AVC video encode, averaging under 15 Mbps per episode. That compromise doesn’t significantly impact the video quality outside of a few moments. Some stray compression artifacts are introduced and detail is generally underwhelming for a new production.

The gritty texture is maddeningly inconsistent from scene to scene. Most exteriors and some interiors have solid definition and fine detail. The color palette always remains somewhat limited but isn’t overly darkened. The night scenes are cloaked in much rougher clarity with their reduced shadow delineation and heavier grain. It is a rough aesthetic that reduces picture quality. This inconsistency usually doesn’t interfere with the video’s steady contrast and black levels.

_The Following_ has never really looked like anything else on network television. That conscious aesthetic choice reduces its video quality on Blu-ray. This is ordinary Hi-Def video with average definition and sparing moments of better clarity.

BDInfo scan:



Code:


                                                                                                                 Total   Video                                             
Title                                                            Codec   Length  Movie Size      Disc Size       Bitrate Bitrate Main  Audio Track                          Secondary Audio Track
-----                                                            ------  ------- --------------  --------------  ------- -------  ------------------                        ---------------------
00060.MPLS                                                       AVC     0:44:02 6,235,195,392   32,191,546,207  18.88   14.89   DTS-HD  Master 5.1 2186Kbps (48kHz/16-bit)


----------



## monomial

*Puella Magi Madoka Magica the Movie Part 1: Beginnings*

recommendation: *Tier 0.9** (bottom 10% of tier 0)

Anime is usually made up of crisp lines and solid colors. _Puella Magi Madoka Magica_ throws this notion out the window. Even when the characters are made of crisp, simple lines, their colors usually employ some grain or gradient rather than being a solid color. Although I was surprised at the 2h10m Blu-Ray's 40 GB file size, by the end of the movie I realized it was necessary. _Madoka_ makes extensive use of gradients, bloom filters, and complicated backgrounds. Random noise is by definition, uncompressible, and some of the backgrounds are intentionally busy to give scenes a chaotic, random feeling. You could compress Madoka, but some of the intricate detail would be lost. Gradients are just incredible in this movie. Even a shot of a character which is 90% white is not _pure_ white: some minor gradient is at work to perhaps make the character more visually appealing. One character's pupils are drawn as rows of straight lines, which would all blur together with too much compression. The technical details of the movie back up its artistic excellence. It radically changes art styles multiple times in dreamlike sequences. The real world is orderly, and the dream world is crazy, and both look perfect in _Madoka_.

I would be eager to see what the experts think of this movie's technical quality. It may even be better than tier 0.9. I made a screenshot gallery here. Here is a cropping of an uncompressed shot:










The movie is essentially a re-release of a TV show with some very minor changes made. This is the AVS review for the show:



Phantom Stranger said:


> *Puella Magi Madoka Magica: Complete Series Collection (region-locked UK Import)
> 
> recommendation: Tier 1.5**
> 
> Manga Home Entertainment spread the 300-minute animated series over three BD-25s. This series deserves a higher Tier 1 placement for its innovative visual design and amazingly unique animation style in the battle scenes, but there is simply too much banding for that to happen. The source used for the transfer is possibly an HDCAM master, which might explain some of the banding and other minor artifacts. The picture quality looks great for the most part and has a very rich color palette, full of brilliant primary colors. This is the type of animation that was meant to be seen in a high-quality presentation that only Blu-ray can offer, combining hand-drawn elements with CGI. Like most other anime productions originally from Japan, this UK set is locked to Region B.


I can happily report that I see no evidence of banding. I'm guessing that the UK encodes of the series were given less file size than the movie was. The two movies cover the same story as the 300-minute animated series, on two BD-50s (=100 GB vs. 75 GB for the series). They are also trimmed for time, giving even more space to each frame. The movie looks extremely digital. I would be surprised if it was downsampled to a 1440x1080 HDCAM at any point in the process. But I've been shown to be wrong before, thinking that "The Legend of Korra" looked great when actually it was de-interlaced before its Blu-Ray release.

I think for reasons of consistency and fairness, this movie ("Part 1: Beginnings") and the show ("Complete Series Collection") should be listed separately on the AVS PQ Tier list. They're not the same release, and the movie just doesn't exhibit the errors that the "Series" has.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I completely agree about _Puella Magi Madoka Magica_, monomial. I sought out the Region B series solely because it was much cheaper than the expensive Japanese releases and various American editions. If people aren't familiar with anime, movie versions often take the existing animation from the series and "polish" it for video release, often adding all-new material. Most animation houses consider the movie versions the definitive edition of their shows. Your review for the movie version will get its own entry separate from the series I reviewed in the PQ Tiers.

The show is filled with spectacular imagery, it is a real treat from an animation standpoint. I've been meaning to hunt down the movie versions for some time. I know it's been a while since the PQ Tiers have had an update but I've been swamped of late with other obligations. I wouldn't count on the update happening before November.


----------



## monomial

Phantom Stranger said:


> I completely agree about _Puella Magi Madoka Magica_, monomial. I sought out the Region B series solely because it was much cheaper than the expensive Japanese releases and various American editions. If people aren't familiar with anime, movie versions often take the existing animation from the series and "polish" it for video release, often adding all-new material. Most animation houses consider the movie versions the definitive edition of their shows. Your review for the movie version will get its own entry separate from the series I reviewed in the PQ Tiers.
> 
> The show is filled with spectacular imagery, it is a real treat from an animation standpoint. I've been meaning to hunt down the movie versions for some time. I know it's been a while since the PQ Tiers have had an update but I've been swamped of late with other obligations. I wouldn't count on the update happening before November.


I didn't think to search in the list for other AVS reviews of the series/movie. I was glad that my writing wasn't wasted, since I wrote about a different release. It was an even nicer surprise that you were the one who wrote it. Visually, _Madoka_ is an AVS user kind of movie. Great to look at.

What takes up time when you generate a list update? Taking the top-ranked item:

bb nf Big Hero 6 Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 2.40:1 | Disney

I'm guessing that Blockbuster and Netflix links are no longer generated. Then there's the title, which comes from posts but isn't always posted in a consistent format (takes extra human time to process). Plus a link to Blu-Ray.com for the disc. Then there's the video and audio codecs, and the number of audio channels. Finally the aspect ratio and distributor. It looks like Blu-Ray.com (which you link to) contains that information, but do you manually copy it or have a script to gather the data?

I found this while searching for an unrelated post (review of Fantastic Mr. Fox):


Phantom Stranger said:


> 
> I have been thinking of ways to make it easier on everyone to catalogue all the votes and placements. Possibly a web-based entry form that anyone could use here. Eighty percent of the work I do in maintaining the Tiers ends up being manual data entry most of the time. Streamlining the process might also encourage more participation by some of the lurkers.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

The PQ Tiers have always been manually done by hand, no scripts. The formatting is the only auto-generated portion. We tried the web-based entry form for over a year but some used it, some did not. In the end it wasn't saving me much time, so I scrapped it.

When only one review exists for a particular disc, its a relatively simple affair adding it to the PQ Tiers. Things become more problematic on popular releases when several commentators rank the same disc.


----------



## mweflen

Phantom Stranger said:


> The PQ Tiers have always been manually done by hand, no scripts. The formatting is the only auto-generated portion. We tried the web-based entry form for over a year but some used it, some did not. In the end it wasn't saving me much time, so I scrapped it.
> 
> When only one review exists for a particular disc, its a relatively simple affair adding it to the PQ Tiers. Things become more problematic on popular releases when several commentators rank the same disc.


You're doing the lord's work, Phantom. It is appreciated.


----------



## NorthSky

*'Tomorrowland'*

Right there on top.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Dope*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

This is a conservative placement for _Dope_, a new comedy released last week. I could have gone higher with its score. Universal delivers a superb presentation for _Dope_ on Blu-ray. This is a high-quality transfer done to maximum specifications, taken from a pristine Digital Intermediate filmed at gorgeous resolution. 

Only reference-caliber BDs surpass this type of pure picture quality. The 103-minute main features receives an outstanding AVC video encode on a BD-50, averaging nearly 32 Mbps. The original 2.40:1 aspect ratio has been preserved in stellar clarity.

_Dope_ has fantastic depth and dimensionality, rendered in a pleasing color palette with lovely saturation. A perfect contrast and deep black levels help produce razor-sharp video with impressive fine detail. Universal has given the film a perfect transfer without filtering or other video processing. The flesh-tones show no obvious color grading tilt, leaving a perfectly neutral image in vivid color.

BDInfo scan:



Code:


                                                                                                                 Total   Video                                             
Title                                                            Codec   Length  Movie Size      Disc Size       Bitrate Bitrate Main  Audio Track                          Secondary Audio Track
-----                                                            ------  ------- --------------  --------------  ------- -------  ------------------                        ---------------------
00800.MPLS                                                       AVC     1:43:18 29,131,677,696  33,768,556,466  37.60   31.99   DTS-HD  Master 5.1 3568Kbps (48kHz/24-bit)


----------



## Kool-aid23

NorthSky said:


> *'Tomorrowland'*
> 
> Right there on top.



I do not know about that, but what's the over/under that Pixar's Inside Out will be the new #1 ?


----------



## djoberg

*Tomorrowland*

STUNNING!! Is this THE BEST LIVE ACTION BLU-RAY to date? I can't say, but I can say IT'S THE BEST I'VE SEEN. I just checked the actual Tier Rankings and I see that _Paddington_ (which is "live action") is at #6 and _Black Sails_ is at #12 . I have NOT seen these two on Blu-ray so I'm in no position to really rank _Tomorrowland_.

What is so amazing about this Blu is the absolute RAZOR-SHARP CLARITY in 98% of its scenes, with IMPECCABLE DETAILS. DEPTH can be PHENOMENAL as well. BLACK LEVELS were EXTRAORDINARY except in a couple of really dark scenes (in those cases my "black bars" were visible and even the "black sky" wasn't completely "black"). COLORS were simply delightful, BOLD and PUNCHY throughout! FLESH TONES were definitely SPOT-ON.

In spite of the fact that I haven't seen the aforementioned live action Blus occupying the #6 and #12 slots, I'm going to attempt a ranking and place this above _Paddington_ at.....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (#6)*

PS This is one of those times that I wish we did have separate lists for "live action" and "animated" titles. If we did, this would be on THE TOP! Perhaps it should still be on the top, but it's hard to tell when you're not comparing "apples with apples."


----------



## NorthSky

Kool-aid23 said:


> I do not know about that, but what's the over/under that Pixar's Inside Out will be the new #1 ?


In 3D?


----------



## NorthSky

djoberg said:


> *Tomorrowland*
> 
> STUNNING!! Is this THE BEST LIVE ACTION BLU-RAY to date? I can't say, but I can say IT'S THE BEST I'VE SEEN. I just checked the actual Tier Rankings and I see that _Paddington_ (which is "live action") is at #6 and _Black Sails_ is at #12 . I have NOT seen these two on Blu-ray so I'm in no position to really rank _Tomorrowland_.
> 
> What is so amazing about this Blu is the absolute RAZOR-SHARP CLARITY in 98% of its scenes, with IMPECCABLE DETAILS. DEPTH can be PHENOMENAL as well. BLACK LEVELS were EXTRAORDINARY except in a couple of really dark scenes (in those cases my "black bars" were visible and even the "black sky" wasn't completely "black"). COLORS were simply delightful, BOLD and PUNCHY throughout! FLESH TONES were definitely SPOT-ON.
> 
> In spite of the fact that I haven't seen the aforementioned live action Blus occupying the #6 and #12 slots, I'm going to attempt a ranking and place this above _Paddington_ at.....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (#6)*
> 
> PS This is one of those times that I wish we did have separate lists for "live action" and "animated" titles. If we did, this would be on THE TOP! Perhaps it should still be on the top, but it's hard to tell when you're not comparing "apples with apples."


I agree, and I do have 'Paddington' on Blu-ray.


----------



## mweflen

djoberg said:


> *Tomorrowland*
> 
> STUNNING!! Is this THE BEST LIVE ACTION BLU-RAY to date? I can't say, but I can say IT'S THE BEST I'VE SEEN. I just checked the actual Tier Rankings and I see that _Paddington_ (which is "live action") is at #6 and _Black Sails_ is at #12 . I have NOT seen these two on Blu-ray so I'm in no position to really rank _Tomorrowland_.
> 
> What is so amazing about this Blu is the absolute RAZOR-SHARP CLARITY in 98% of its scenes, with IMPECCABLE DETAILS. DEPTH can be PHENOMENAL as well. BLACK LEVELS were EXTRAORDINARY except in a couple of really dark scenes (in those cases my "black bars" were visible and even the "black sky" wasn't completely "black"). COLORS were simply delightful, BOLD and PUNCHY throughout! FLESH TONES were definitely SPOT-ON.
> 
> In spite of the fact that I haven't seen the aforementioned live action Blus occupying the #6 and #12 slots, I'm going to attempt a ranking and place this above _Paddington_ at.....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (#6)*
> 
> PS This is one of those times that I wish we did have separate lists for "live action" and "animated" titles. If we did, this would be on THE TOP! Perhaps it should still be on the top, but it's hard to tell when you're not comparing "apples with apples."


Doggone it, I guess I'm going to have to buy this.


----------



## NorthSky

The newest remastered *'Spartacus'*

Somewhere between 1 and 1.5 ... Pretty good for a 1960 flick with a long history of controversial "love/hate" affairs ... till it hit us again on UHD Blu-ray.


----------



## djoberg

mweflen said:


> Doggone it, I guess I'm going to have to buy this.


I should warn you that the movie itself leaves "much to be desired" (though it did have its moments), at least IMHO! It was extremely disjointed and about 30 minutes longer than it should have been. Having said that, the PQ/AQ made it quite bearable.


----------



## djoberg

NorthSky said:


> I agree, and I do have 'Paddington' on Blu-ray.


So, you agree that it would be on Top if the "live action" and "animated" titles were put in two separate lists?



NorthSky said:


> The newest remastered *'Spartacus'*
> 
> Somewhere between 1 and 1.5 ... Pretty good for a 1960 flick with a long history of controversial "love/hate" affairs ... till it hit us again on UHD Blu-ray.


I was going to watch this instead of _Tomorrowland_ but I was anxious to watch a Top Tier Blu contender. Tonight I'm either watching _Mad Max: Fury Road_ (which some are calling the best overall Blu-ray of 2015) or _Jurassic World_.


----------



## John Mason

Find myself jumping to IMDB's tech-spec pages whenever there's a very favorable PQ review similar to that of "Tomorrowland." After recently searching all of IMDB for  2k, 4k, 8k movies  (master DI), recall Tomorrowland appeared in the 4k-DI search. Also, notice the 8k-capable Sony F65 digital-cinema camera (using 4k RAW) often appears. A Google search with: (imdb "technical specifications" Sony F65 -facebook) shows 240 hits.


See that "Lucy" is on that F65 list, too, but a 2k DI. And while I haven't seen the Blu-ray, did catch a recent showing on a Verizon FIOS premium channel. Despite the likely vast difference in bit rates, noticed lots of shots that seemingly matched or exceeded the higher maximum effective resolutions I measured for on a listed 4k-DI 35mm film, "The Tree of Life," acquired in BRD form. Guess a 4k-DI and F65 search is also needed.(see edit} -- John


EDIT: "Tomorrowland" is both F65 (and F55) and 4k-DI based. A combined IMDB search:
(imdb "Digital Intermediate (4K) (master format)" Sony F65)
gets 106 hits today (10/20/15), but definitely not all combined-format separate-movie hits.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Yep, I've started looking for new films finished at 4K resolution. Even today it is fairly rare.


----------



## NorthSky

djoberg said:


> So, you agree that it would be on Top if the "live action" and "animated" titles were put in two separate lists?


'Paddington' is CGI and 'Tomorrowland' is also CGI adventure/fantasy/sci-fi flick.

* Animation feature films like 'Ratatouille' and 'Big Hero 6' for example should be in a different artistic picture class, than live action with CGI effects IMO.

And 'Tomorrowland' ... I recommend its picture quality to be on top...among the very best...IMO. ...Tiers 0



> I was going to watch this instead of _Tomorrowland_ but I was anxious to watch a Top Tier Blu contender. Tonight I'm either watching _Mad Max: Fury Road_ (which some are calling the best overall Blu-ray of 2015) or _Jurassic World_.


'Spartacus' latest remastered Blu-ray is a very pleasant revelation...gone the ugly orange sunburn skins and decors of the past...instead here we finally have a natural color palette with true-to-film real details...not enhanced or digitally fabricated from a poor artistic decision of the past.
Universal studios is one of the worst movie studios in giving us mediocre Blu-ray (and DVD) transfers in history of our video mediums.
This time around they did right by 'Spartacus' ...finally. ...Tiers 1.25

Disney/PIXAR is one of the best...along Criterion Collections of Classic films. But Disney/Buena Vista had their fair share of inferior transfers, in particular @ the beginning of the DVD era (non-anamorphic).
And Dreamworks studios are pretty good with their films too, including animations...generally.

I also like Warner Bros and Newline Cinema. 

* 'Mad Max: Fury Road' is truly awesome...all across the picture and sound spectrum...plus the adventure itself. ...And in (((3D))) ...Tiers 0

** 'Jurassic World' (((3D))) ... tonight baby...most likely...or unless a last minute change.


----------



## djoberg

NorthSky said:


> 'Spartacus' latest remastered Blu-ray is a very pleasant revelation...gone the ugly orange sunburn skins and decors of the past...instead here we finally have a natural color palette with true-to-film real details...not enhanced or digitally fabricated from a poor artistic decision of the past.
> Universal studios is one of the worst movie studios in giving us mediocre Blu-ray (and DVD) transfers in history of our video mediums.
> This time around they did right by 'Spartacus' ...finally. ...Tiers 1.25
> 
> Disney/PIXAR is one of the best...along Criterion Collections of Classic films. But Disney/Buena Vista had their fair share of inferior transfers, in particular @ the beginning of the DVD era (non-anamorphic).
> And Dreamworks studios are pretty good with their films too, including animations...generally.
> 
> I also like Warner Bros and Newline Cinema.
> 
> * 'Mad Max: Fury Road' is truly awesome...all across the picture and sound spectrum...plus the adventure itself. ...And in (((3D))) ...Tiers 0
> 
> ** 'Jurassic World' (((3D))) ... tonight baby...most likely...or unless a last minute change.


You have "whetted my appetite" all the more for seeing _Spartacus_! In case you haven't seen it, my favorite "Remastered Blu-ray," by far, is _Lawrence of Arabia_. They outdid themselves on that one!

Yes, Criterion Collections are "normally" excellent. I still believe _The Thin Red Line_ is their best work.

I'm more than excited to see _Mad Max: Fury Road_. Have you read the review for that on Do.Blu.com? His review is GLOWING, even though he usually despises color grading (he used to write reviews on this website all the time so I got to know what he liked and didn't like fairly well). He pretty much says it's worthy of a Top Tier Blu ranking.

My copy of _Jurassic World_ arrived 10 minutes ago via UPS. Does that mean I should watch that tonight instead of MM:FR? Not necessarily, but I'm going to anyway.


----------



## NorthSky

Lol, go for the real ride...Max. 

Then 'Jurassic World' tomorrow. ...And besides...by then you'll have some feedback...from me.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^

Too late...I had already slipped _Jurassic World_ into my blu-ray player before you made your post!


----------



## djoberg

*Jurassic World*

Let me start off by saying the PQ on this outing easily trumped the _Jurassic Park Trilogy_. I was impressed from beginning to end in every PQ department. The only minor gripe I had was with a few CGI shots where softness intruded, especially in background shots. Other than that, this was pretty much a flawless release with zero anomalies and plenty of EYE CANDY!

I won't go into detail....but speaking of DETAIL, there was plenty of it! Details in every dinosaur was incredible...details in clothing, buildings, foliage, weapons, vehicles, etc., etc....it was all good! Facial texture really excelled (in all the lead actors but not limited to them). Flesh tones were, for the most part, spot-on. Contrast was exceptional. Black levels and shadow details were exemplary! Colors were vibrant! And to add a bit of icing on the cake, there was even a thin layer of grain that gave it the look of film in many shots.

In comparing this with _Tomorrowland_, I would say this one lacked the razor-sharp clarity that dazzled my eyes last night. It also didn't have the depth. But this still is a worthy contender for Tier Blu and I'm feeling like it belongs right here....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.75)*


----------



## djoberg

I forgot to add three items of interest:

1) The audio ROCKED!!!!
2) The aspect ratio was STRANGE....2.00:1
3) The movie was ENJOYABLE!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

It will probably be a while before I get to score releases like Jurassic World and Tomorrowland myself.


----------



## NorthSky

*'Jurassic World'*



djoberg said:


> 2) The aspect ratio was STRANGE....2.00:1


That's...unusually different. ...Artistic decision? ...Helps @ making the dinosaurs...larger...and the long shots more...dramatic? 



Phantom Stranger said:


> It will probably be a while before I get to score releases like Jurassic World and Tomorrowland myself.


Are you running behind...or simply short of time right now? ...It's ok...we're here...and time is on our side.


----------



## WayneJoy

Apparently Spielberg wanted 1.85:1 and Trevarow wanted 2.35:1. So they compromised.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

WayneJoy said:


> Apparently Spielberg wanted 1.85:1 and Trevarow wanted 2.35:1. So they compromised.


That sounds like an unusual decision between them.


----------



## djoberg

WayneJoy said:


> Apparently Spielberg wanted 1.85:1 and Trevarow wanted 2.35:1. So they compromised.


A true compromise would have been 2.10:1.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Phantom Stranger said:


> If I wasn't swamped with official reviewing duties, It Follows would be at the top of my viewing list.


Three months later, right in time for Halloween...

*It Follows
*
recommendation: *Tier 1.75**

This new horror movie has very solid, crisp picture quality. Fine colors, decent definition, an adequate AVC video encode- there aren't many things wrong with its presentation on Blu-ray. Some minor aliasing and major judder in one very long panning scene are the notable problems.

What prevents this from a higher placement is the relatively flat cinematography. The video never truly pops with clarity and dimensionality found in the higher rankings. All in all a pleasing Blu-ray presentation that is not superlative demo material most of the time.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Murdoch Mysteries: Season Eight*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

Acorn Media gives _Murdoch Mysteries: Season Eight_ a superb presentation on Blu-ray. Filmed on the high-end Arri Alexa digital camera, the show has consistently excellent definition and clarity. This is nearly flawless video with perfect studio lighting, revealing razor-sharp definition and rich black levels. Close-ups reveal a wealth of detail in the 1080P picture, while more distant shots are not quite as revealing in fine detail.

The eighteen episodes of season eight are spread over four separate BD-50s. Five episodes apiece are slotted on the first two discs. The AVC video encode on them averages a satisfactory 16.83 Mbps for the 1.78:1 video. The slightly reduced compression parameters don’t seriously impact the video’s standard picture quality. Digital video this cleanly shot rarely stress modern AVC video encodes. If anything, some slight softness is introduced by the lower compression standards that regular viewers won’t recognize. There are no overt artifacts in the pristine image.

Jim Jeffreys lenses the entire season, producing remarkably consistent video for a television show. A perfect contrast, lovely color saturation, crisp flesh-tones, lush definition- this show has it all in Hi-Def. Acorn Media does a great job by leaving the video alone. Fans that have seen the show before on Blu-ray should expect similar picture quality to prior seasons.

BDInfo scan:



Code:


                                                                                                                 Total   Video                                             
Title                                                            Codec   Length  Movie Size      Disc Size       Bitrate Bitrate Main  Audio Track                          Secondary Audio Track
-----                                                            ------  ------- --------------  --------------  ------- -------  ------------------                        ---------------------
00014.MPLS                                                       AVC     3:40:56 32,856,821,760  38,212,743,404  19.83   16.83   DTS-HD  Master 5.1 1799Kbps (48kHz/16-bit)


----------



## John Mason

Phantom Stranger said:


> *Murdoch Mysteries: Season Eight*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 1.5**
> 
> Acorn Media gives _Murdoch Mysteries: Season Eight_ a superb presentation on Blu-ray. Filmed on the high-end Arri Alexa digital camera, the show has consistently excellent definition and clarity. This is nearly flawless video with perfect studio lighting, revealing razor-sharp definition and rich black levels. Close-ups reveal a wealth of detail in the 1080P picture, while more distant shots are not quite as revealing in fine detail....


Hadn't ever tuned this series in. Notice it's on ABC, so that's an interesting contrast; 720p delivery resolution vs Arri-captured 1080p from the discs. Maybe any comparisons would be hard to see on most setups, with 720p typically up-converted to 1080p, although I usually see the format resolution difference with sports. -- John


----------



## Phantom Stranger

_Murdoch Mysteries_ is a long-running show in Canada. Most Americans can see it on Ovation, the obscure cable channel. 720P tends to look softer to me than 1080P resolution.


----------



## John Mason

Phantom Stranger said:


> _Murdoch Mysteries_ is a long-running show in Canada. Most Americans can see it on Ovation, the obscure cable channel. 720P tends to look softer to me than 1080P resolution.


Thanks. Another mystery now though. Found it listed on my Verizon FIOS guide earlier today as a very late night ABC series. But now it can't found anywhere on FIOS. Maybe I'll check Ovation's site later. -- John


EDIT: Partially solved. FIOS lookup, after ovation.com visit, lists the series under "The Artful Detective." A BING search shows an ABC shop in Australia selling the series on DVDs. Hmm.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

John Mason said:


> Thanks. Another mystery now though. Found it listed on my Verizon FIOS guide earlier today as a very late night ABC series. But now it can't found anywhere on FIOS. Maybe I'll check Ovation's site later. -- John


I believe some channels may pick up the show in syndication. That is probably why you are seeing it on ABC.

*Hollow Triumph*

recommendation: *Tier 4.5**

New Blu-ray label The Film Detective presents _Hollow Triumph_ in its native 1.33:1 aspect ratio at 1080P resolution. The 1948 movie has possibly slipped into the public domain, allowing anyone with suitable materials to release it on home video. Casual customers won’t notice the difference but The Film Detective releases _Hollow Triumph_ as a BD-R with a slick label. _Hollow Triumph_ runs a touch over 82 minutes on this release.

The overall picture quality is uneven, having been sourced from secondary film elements showing noticeable wear in some spots. A couple of the reels show more damage than others, with faint scratches crisscrossing the film. The last reel becomes extremely soft, especially when Joan Bennett appears. Female leads were often shot in this era with romantic, glamorous lighting that possessed very soft focus. 
Unfortunately, some ghosting/ringing appears to have been optically introduced on the last reel.

The AVC video encode averages 32.39 Mbps. That type of parameter typically wipes out any hint of banding and posterization, but _Hollow Triumph_ does have the occasional spot of banding with its point light sources. The fine light gradients must have been too much for an automated AVC video encode, a human hand could have eliminated the minor compression problems. The transfer is decently film-like in other regards, if a bit rough in condition.

This transfer appears to be a softer telecine struck from an older, mostly serviceable film print, possibly from different elements. The resolution and definition won’t wow anyone with its clarity, though a moderate amount of the original grain structure is preserved. It is definitely not revelatory picture quality on par with newer scans of classic film negatives.
The contrast fluctuates around a fairly stable range with satisfactory black levels. There isn’t the extraordinary shadow delineation we’ve come to expect from Blu-ray video but it’s definitely presentable. Minor fluctuations in the print cause the occasional flicker in luminosity and brightness.

I guess you would call this a serviceable presentation lacking true HD detail. The film has little shot at getting remastered, so its fans will have to make do with this ordinary release.


----------



## djoberg

*Mad Max: Fury Road*

Yet ANOTHER live action Blu worthy of the Top Tier!

The DETAILS win the day, no matter if it's facial texture, desert landscapes, souped-up cars (and other unbelievable dune buggies), mud, dirt, debris, guns, lizards, dust storms, tree leaves, scars, blood, hair, clothing, and everything else that I may have missed! COLORS were crazy-good too when primaries were on display. BLACK LEVELS were to die for! FLESH TONES were spot-on accurate! CONTRAST was over-the-top! CLARITY was topnotch!

The only gripe (and you could expect this from me!) was the egregious color-grading (ORANGES & REDS, most of the time, with splashes of BLUE in nighttime scenes) during many scenes. They did NOT interfere with the above-mentioned details, but they did take me out of the movie occasionally.

This is no real rival for _Tomorrowland_, but it will easily find its way into the bottom half of Tier Blu. My vote goes for....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.66)*

PS I had the audio at -10 and didn't dare turn it up! This is LOUD and unbelievably PRECISE! It should make the Top Tier in any "Audio Thread!"


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Vampire Hunter D
*
recommendation: *Tier 2.75*
*
The venerable anime classic was finally released on Blu-ray by Sentai Filmworks a couple of months ago. The new transfer is a solid effort without apparent problems, preserving the original cel animation in a high-quality 1080P presentation.

The 81-minute main feature receives an adequate AVC video encode on a BD-25. The bitrates aren't very impressive but _Vampire Hunter D's_ animation is fairly static. That allows for video uncompromised by compression problems. If you have seen any of Studio Ghibli's very early films, the animation style vaguely resembles those efforts done in a cheaper method.

While the new transfer makes a serious improvement over prior DVDs, _Vampire Hunter D_ offers dated, cheap cel animation with a flat color palette. It is ripe for a remake like _Hellsing_ with newer animation techniques.


----------



## djoberg

I just got from the local video store. I rented _Furious 7_ and _Poltergeist_ and hope to watch both of them today. I tried renting _It Follows_, but the one Blu-ray copy they have was already rented. The manager of the store said "most" customers thought the movie stunk so I shouldn't feel bad. What was your opinion of the movie Phantom?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> I just got from the local video store. I rented _Furious 7_ and _Poltergeist_ and hope to watch both of them today. I tried renting _It Follows_, but the one Blu-ray copy they have was already rented. The manager of the store said "most" customers thought the movie stunk so I shouldn't feel bad. What was your opinion of the movie Phantom?


I think it's one of the best and most original horror movies I've seen this decade. Definitely a movie I wouldn't miss. Without impugning the manager's tastes, maybe he confused it with another movie.


----------



## djoberg

*Furious 7*

DAZZLING!! How blessed am I to have watched no less than THREE REFERENCE BLU-RAYS IN A ROW!!! 

From the get-go, I was reminded of the _Transporter Trilogy_, for the facial textures on this Blu were just as good....simply amazing in every close-up, even with the female leads! This had the look of "film" to it, which only enhanced the remarkable details in nearly every shot. Depth was astounding at times. Blacks were stellar (as were shadow details), except for a long warehouse scene towards the end. Colors were punchy (as usual). Contrast was excellent, though spiked at times. A few of the CGI scenes turned a tad soft, but I may guilty of nit-picking if I press this issue too much. Overall, a very respectable PQ showing, which I found fitting for the last episode of this classic series.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.75)*

PS The audio was VERY GOOD, but it didn't compare to the spectacular audio in _Mad Max_.

PPS You would be hard-pressed to pick out the scenes where Paul Walker's brothers served as his double.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> I think it's one of the best and most original horror movies I've seen this decade. Definitely a movie I wouldn't miss. Without impugning the manager's tastes, maybe he confused it with another movie.


Sounds good Phantom! I will definitely be renting it when time allows. The video store manager was going by what "others" had said, so I did take it "with a grain of salt." Now if he had seen it, and said the same thing, I would have paid more attention, for he's quite discerning and shares my tastes in most genres.


----------



## djoberg

*Poltergeist (Extended Cut) (2015)*

I continue to be amazed by the PQ in today's "Horror" genre. There was a time when you could count on a horror show producing terrible black levels, noise, and soft images, but now we are spoiled by phenomenal black levels and sharp images, which are virtually free of anomalies. The present viewing featured excellent clarity and sharpness as well, along with decent depth, strong contrast, accurate flesh tones, and pleasing colors.

My wife is in the Twin Cities visiting one of our daughters so I took the liberty of cranking this one to -2 and the sound was even more exceptional than the PQ! I even spiked it to "0" at one point (during a scene with plenty of action) and I was afraid my speakers or walls would be compromised! The audio is another reason I love watching a well-produced movie in the horror genre.

I'm wavering between low Tier 0 or high Tier 1 on this one. Wait a minute....I feel my "generous-rating gene" being activated...yes, it is indeed...so I'm opting for....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.85)*


----------



## |Tch0rT|

Phantom Stranger said:


> *Vampire Hunter D
> *
> recommendation: *Tier 2.75**


That's sooooooooooooooo much better than the DVD. VH D: Bloodlust remastered blu-ray looks pretty good (though not quite as sharp as I would've hoped) but the blacks are wrong. Overall it does look better than the DVD especially with just getting rid of jaggy edges and compression artifacts.

Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust blu-ray vs DVD screenshot comparison:

http://www.caps-a-holic.com/hd_verg...&hd_multiID=2598&action=1&lossless=#vergleich


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Inari Kon Kon: Complete Series + OVA*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

This cute anime series from Kadokawa looks quite good on Blu-ray. Funimation spreads the complete series unevenly over two discs. It's a sound technical presentation that uncannily replicates the show's 1080P masters.

Character designs lie in that middle ground between expressive detail and cartoonish minimalism. The fluid hand-drawn animation doesn't pop like better theatrical fare but comes off very nicely for this kind of anime.


----------



## djoberg

*Jurassic World*

I just finished watching _Jurassic World_ with my sister and after this SECOND VIEWING I believe I need to raise my original score from *.75* to *.5*. I had said in my review that it was lacking in clarity and sharpness in many scenes...NOT SO!! I think I was so caught up with comparing it with _Tomorrowland_ but on its own JW is definitely worthy of mid Tier Blu!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> *Jurassic World*
> 
> I just finished watching _Jurassic World_ with my sister and after this SECOND VIEWING I believe I need to raise my original score from *.75* to *.5*. I had said in my review that it was lacking in clarity and sharpness in many scenes...NOT SO!! I think I was so caught up with comparing it with _Tomorrowland_ but on its own JW is definitely worthy of mid Tier Blu!


Now you don't get two votes in the PQ Tiers for Jurassic World.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> Now you don't get two votes in the PQ Tiers for Jurassic World.


But I did watch it TWICE, so I should get TWO votes!

All kidding aside, I really did want to change my placement to .5. It is THAT GOOD!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Before We Go*

recommendation: *Tier 2.5**

Consistent but fairly middling picture quality for this new indie romance. Shot on location in New York City, the entire film takes place over the course of one night set in the Big Apple. There is nothing overly wrong with the transfer or encode from Starz/Anchor Bay, this score simply reflects the average cinematography looking for an independent ethos despite starring Chris Evans.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Marquise of O...*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

Film Movement Classics give _The Marquise of O…_ a fantastic, faithful Blu-ray presentation. The film-like transfer arrives in impressive quality from strong film elements with no obvious wear. Given the evident level of fine detail and minimal processing, the 1080P video resembles a newish 2K scan from the camera negative. Featuring the tasteful cinematography of Nestor Almendros, it is masterfully composed in a stately 4:3 aspect ratio preserving its original composition. This is sharp cinematography for its era rich in contrast and a nice treat to see on a big display with its lavish costume design.

The main feature runs over 102 minutes on a BD-50. The AVC video encode averages 32 Mbps, perfectly capturing the fine grain structure and shadow delineation in transparent fashion. High-frequency detail is abundant in this nicely filmed movie, shot slightly softer than modern period movies but sharper than the films of its own era. The light, organic grain reminds us this is vintage film shot to perfection.

The transfer keeps an appropriate color grading for the “romantic” period drama, rich in color saturation and proper flesh-tones. A trace of edge enhancement leaves ringing in a handful of shots. The film elements are in strong, unblemished condition. They retain proper color tonality and hold up remarkably well until a curious drop in quality during the final scene, which comes out darker and softer in detail. It’s a small problem in what is otherwise a magnificent Blu-ray presentation.

A less stringent grader may lean towards Tier One for this BD.

BDInfo scan:



Code:


                                                                                                                 Total   Video                                             
Title                                                            Codec   Length  Movie Size      Disc Size       Bitrate Bitrate Main  Audio Track                          Secondary Audio Track
-----                                                            ------  ------- --------------  --------------  ------- -------  ------------------                        ---------------------
00005.MPLS                                                       AVC     1:42:38 27,774,388,224  32,990,675,911  36.08   32.00   LPCM  2.0 2304Kbps (48kHz/24-bit)


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Voices*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

Lionsgate's Blu-ray renders _The Voices _in fine, nearly pristine quality. A couple of opposing aesthetics dominate _The Voices_, reflecting the main character's mental state. One aesthetic is bright and colorful, delivered in vivid sharpness. The other aesthetic is much darker and flatter, a more mundane "reality" approach.

Some very minor aliasing is evident but this is largely an artifact-free transfer with a solid video encode. The razor-sharp clarity has ample depth. A strong contrast is backed with inky black levels.


----------



## wattheF

I realized I never officially ranked Tommorowland so here it is...

TIER 0- #4 overall (right before Smurfs 2)

I own or have viewed all other titles in the top of the rankings and I can say this is more impressive than all but a few. I own Smurfs 2 and until I saw Tomorrowland that was my reference for live action. Tommorowland beats it!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Pay the Ghost*

recommendation: *tier 3.0**

Image Entertainment presents _Pay The Ghost_ in satisfactory Hi-Def on this Blu-ray. This is not eye candy to any special degree but solid, clean 1080P video befitting a new production. The 94-minute main feature is encoded in AVC on a BD-25. The AVC encode averages 25 Mbps, though a surprising amount of posterization creeps into one of the most pivotal moments in _Pay The Ghost_.

The rather pedestrian cinematography includes the movie’s scope aspect ratio at 2.35:1. The mildly flat color palette leads to dull, uninspired imagery and I was constantly wishing for richer black levels.

Fine detail is fairly average aside from the occasional extreme  close-up. While the transfer from a digital intermediate shows no signs of stringent video processing, this isn’t extremely sharp, revealing clarity. Flesh-tones err on the pale side, leaving everyone slightly pasty. There isn’t anything overly wrong with _Pay The Ghost_ on Blu-ray but this is average picture quality for a new release in 2015.

BDInfo scan: 



Code:


                                                                                                                 Total   Video                                             
Title                                                            Codec   Length  Movie Size      Disc Size       Bitrate Bitrate Main  Audio Track                          Secondary Audio Track
-----                                                            ------  ------- --------------  --------------  ------- -------  ------------------                        ---------------------
00002.MPLS                                                       AVC     1:34:06 21,369,182,208  22,457,431,103  30.28   24.99   DTS-HD  Master 5.1 3641Kbps (48kHz/24-bit)


----------



## djoberg

*Terminator: Genisys*

We have another WINNER folks! It is rare, these days, when a Blu doesn't find its way into the two top tiers, and for this we should be extremely thankful. This one had exceptional CLARITY in a majority of scenes, though with some of the heavy CGI shots it didn't maintain a razor-sharp picture. In addition to the clarity, the DETAILS were mesmerizing at times. Of course this includes "facial details" as well. BLACK LEVELS were phenomenal, and SHADOW DETAILS exquisite (especially in numerous nighttime, aerial views of San Francisco). Speaking of San Francisco, wait until you see the long, battle scene that takes place there. It was shot in the "daytime," and it is pure EYE CANDY in every department! Colors were muted in opening scenes, but once they traveled back in time (BEFORE the apocalypse), primaries were bold and vibrant. DEPTH wasn't consistently good, but it had its moments where you would swear you were watching it in 3D.

I can't give my placement until I say something about the AUDIO. Without resorting to superlative after superlative, let me just say that this one had it all! For those with even a halfway decent subwoofer, you are in for quite the treat in the very first scene. The surrounds will also have you smiling from "ear to ear," with precise, enveloping sound. I don't have Dolby Atmos speakers YET, but I can hardly imagine it sounding any better! Sometimes with so much action and dynamic sound, the dialogue will suffer. But not here....it is crystal-clear in every scene!

I am tempted to give this a low Tier 0 placement, but there were enough CGI shots where clarity and details dropped off a notch or two, so my vote goes for...

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.0**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Tier One is practically becoming the new normal for recent Hollywood blockbusters. I get disappointed when they don't hit Tier Zero. I do have _Inside Out_ on my docket but will probably not get to it this weekend.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*A Bucket of Blood*

recommendation: *Tier 5**

It's not completely unwatchable but this black-and-white Roger Corman film has been "rescued" from the public domain by new label The Film Detective. To their credit, it is a widescreen transfer from actual film elements. This is an extremely soft transfer with rolled-off detail and resolution. While some grain makes the journey, actual definition and clarity are far closer to DVD levels than what we've come to expect from Blu-ray. 

The film print is fairly stable without significant wear but lacks the crisp contrast seen in solid film scans made from better elements. I would wager this is a telecine struck from a heavily-viewed film reel.

BDInfo scan:



Code:


                                                                                                                 Total   Video                                             
Title                                                            Codec   Length  Movie Size      Disc Size       Bitrate Bitrate Main  Audio Track                          Secondary Audio Track
-----                                                            ------  ------- --------------  --------------  ------- -------  ------------------                        ---------------------
01003.MPLS                                                       AVC     1:05:25 18,899,048,448  19,201,442,411  38.52   34.99   DTS-HD  Master 2.0 1560Kbps (48kHz/24-bit)


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I know some have been waiting with bated breath for the next *PQ Tiers update*. It has been since May when they were last updated. 

Worry no more, the PQ Tiers are fully current now with every recommendation and review through today. If people see something they believe is in error or out of wack, please let me know.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...s-pq-tiers-updated-through-may-25-2015-a.html

I can't promise when the next update will occur. I always plan to update the PQ Tiers every few months if I can help it, but each update still takes up a substantial chunk of my time.

If you want to see which recommendations made up this update, visit this page:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1nP3JIcFe1QRhNBo0ogPL_1mKFlyuHcJKNdJIpr-9HCg/pubhtml


----------



## Kool-aid23

Phantom Stranger said:


> I know some have been waiting with bated breath for the next *PQ Tiers update*. It has been since May when they were last updated.
> 
> Worry no more, the PQ Tiers are fully current now with every recommendation and review through today. If people see something they believe is in error or out of wack, please let me know...


As always, thank you Sir for your time and effort on keeping this thread going strong.

Respect given!


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Killing, The*

recommendation: *Tier 3.0**

One of Stanley Kubrick's first major films, this is a decent transfer from Criterion. No complaints in the areas of black levels and contrast. Faint lines from print damage crop up in a few scenes but only under scrutiny. The only major concern that knocks it down a bit is the bar scenes at the race track at the beginning. There is what looks like slight light bleed on the left and right of the frame like the negative is damaged or there was an issue during filming. The liner notes state the transfer is from a scan of the original camera negative so the negative is damaged in some way but that is the only instance of it.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Harakiri*

recommendation: *Tier 2.75**

Contrast, black levels, and clarity are good. Nothing much else to say, a good transfer from Criterion.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Full Moon in Paris*

recommendation: *Tier 3.0**

Film Movement Classics brings yet another classic Eric Rohmer film to Blu-ray. The packaging claims a new "digital restoration" for the 1984 French film. This is an adequate transfer from serviceable film elements, though its definition and fine resolution are somewhat lacking. They present the film's original 1.33:1 aspect ratio in decent quality with no serious problems. The elements have a few minor bits of positive debris but are otherwise in fine shape. A steady contrast includes acceptable black levels and a slightly reserved color palette. 

BDInfo scan:



Code:


                                                                                                                 Total   Video                                             
Title                                                            Codec   Length  Movie Size      Disc Size       Bitrate Bitrate Main  Audio Track                          Secondary Audio Track
-----                                                            ------  ------- --------------  --------------  ------- -------  ------------------                        ---------------------
00005.MPLS                                                       AVC     1:41:53 27,564,607,488  31,829,958,654  36.07   32.00   LPCM  2.0 2304Kbps (48kHz/24-bit)


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Man From U.N.C.L.E.*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

Guy Ritchie’s films have always had a distinctive aesthetic due to their exotic cinematography and innovative visual style. Ritchie has finally moved to all-digital filmmaking by employing the Arri Alexa Plus for _The Man From U.N.C.L.E._ and a variety of lesser cameras. This is sharp, modern video definition with rather detailed resolution. Largely pristine in quality and struck from a Digital Intermediate, it does tend to favor the amber and teal school of color grading so popular in modern blockbusters. The main feature is presented at 1080P resolution in its intended 2.40:1 aspect ratio.

The movie averages a solid 25.94 Mbps in its adequate AVC video encode on a BD-50. While the parameters could have been pushed higher, there are no evident compression artifacts for the clean digital video. Respectable black levels and outstanding contrast produce a high degree of clarity, especially once the setting shifts from the darker East Germany to the brighter Italian setting. The clarity loves reveling in the period fashions and production design of its settings. One could call the Italian scenes picturesque, shot quite dramatically.

Warner has done a solid effort with this Blu-ray transfer, closely replicating the film’s intended appearance. Some minor aliasing due to digital composites are the only weakness in this capable Hi-Def video.

BDInfo scan:



Code:


                                                                                                                 Total   Video                                             
Title                                                            Codec   Length  Movie Size      Disc Size       Bitrate Bitrate Main  Audio Track                          Secondary Audio Track
-----                                                            ------  ------- --------------  --------------  ------- -------  ------------------                        ---------------------
00100.MPLS                                                       AVC     1:56:29 31,155,972,096  37,330,203,195  35.66   25.94   Dolby  TrueHD 7.1 4737Kbps (48kHz/24-bit)  DD AC3 5.1 448Kbps


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^^

Thanks for the good review Phantom! Sorry to read about the amber/teal color-grading, but the rest of the PQ sounds great!

I JUST rented this today, along with _SELF/LESS_ and will be watching both of them tonight. Stay tuned....


----------



## djoberg

*The Man From U.N.C.L.E.*

I agree, for the most part, with each point made in Phantom's review. I would add that I was underwhelmed by _some_ of the black levels in night time scenes. They veered towards a dark gray, which was especially noticeable on the "black" bars next to my bezel. Also, I felt softness intruded on numerous occasions. Thankfully they were "short-lived." This Blu really stood out in bright, daytime scenes with stellar contrast and vibrant colors. Facial textures were also a highlight in most close-ups.

I was going to echo Phantom's placement, but I think I'll go a notch lower due to the aforementioned "negatives."

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**

PS I have to give a huge SHOUT OUT for the amazing SOUNDTRACK. It was both UNIQUE and SPOT ON in every channel!




Phantom Stranger said:


> *The Man From U.N.C.L.E.*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 1.5**
> 
> Guy Ritchie’s films have always had a distinctive aesthetic due to their exotic cinematography and innovative visual style. Ritchie has finally moved to all-digital filmmaking by employing the Arri Alexa Plus for _The Man From U.N.C.L.E._ and a variety of lesser cameras. This is sharp, modern video definition with rather detailed resolution. Largely pristine in quality and struck from a Digital Intermediate, it does tend to favor the amber and teal school of color grading so popular in modern blockbusters. The main feature is presented at 1080P resolution in its intended 2.40:1 aspect ratio.
> 
> The movie averages a solid 25.94 Mbps in its adequate AVC video encode on a BD-50. While the parameters could have been pushed higher, there are no evident compression artifacts for the clean digital video. Respectable black levels and outstanding contrast produce a high degree of clarity, especially once the setting shifts from the darker East Germany to the brighter Italian setting. The clarity loves reveling in the period fashions and production design of its settings. One could call the Italian scenes picturesque, shot quite dramatically.
> 
> Warner has done a solid effort with this Blu-ray transfer, closely replicating the film’s intended appearance. Some minor aliasing due to digital composites are the only weakness in this capable Hi-Def video.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

We aren't that far off on _The Man From U.N.C.L.E._, djoberg. I was thinking it was closer to a 1.75/2.0 score until a better second half. I came very close to assigning it your 1.75 score but I try to be internally consistent with all the PQ Tier scores I've handed out. That pretty much forced me to place it in 1.5.

I agree the Dolby Atmos soundtrack was fantastic.

*Gatchaman Crowds: Complete Collection*

recommendation: *Tier 2.25**

This 2013 anime series has decent video quality but I found its animation fairly pedestrian. Sentai Filmworks spreads the complete series over two discs, so compression artifacts are less of a problem.


----------



## djoberg

*SELF/LESS*

Yet another LOOKER from Universal. Let me state from the very outset that this came ever-so-close to being worthy of the "Reference Tier." Daytime scenes, inside and out, were dazzling, with crisp clarity and plenty of intricate details. One of my favorite shots was in the beginning when they showed Ben Kingsley's "GOLD apartment" overlooking Central Park in New York City. It reminded me of a scene of a temple in Baraka, with all the sparkling glass and gold, and teeming with details. Colors were EYE CANDY, for sure, especially in outdoor scenes and well-lit interior shots. There's lots of lush, green foliage to feast your eyes upon too! And then there are beautiful aerial views of NYC...the "icing on the cake!!

If I were to resort to nitpicking, I would call attention to a few soft shots in poorly-lit interior shots, and in a couple of instances black levels faltered (but in fairness most black levels were as deep and inky as you could ask for). Like I said, this misses the coveted Tier, but only by a smidgen....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**


----------



## djoberg

*Chappie*

The RED EPIC shines in this STUNNER!! Shot from beginning to end with the Red Epic Digital camera, this Blu holds Reference potential in every scene! CLARITY, DEPTH, and DETAILS are simply mesmerizing, even in night time scenes and in the "gang's" lair. COLORS are nicely saturated, and with a super-strong CONTRAST they really pop! BLACK LEVELS/SHADOW DETAILS are off the charts! FACIAL TEXTURE is superb! FLESH TONES are "spot-on accurate." The robotic CGI shots are unbelievably good in this, with razor-sharp images that bristle with detail. If not for some fleeting soft shots at times I'd be tempted to put this in the middle of the Reference Tier. All things considered it should land right about here....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.75)*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Atelier, Escha & Logy - Alchemists Of The Dusk Sky: Complete Collection*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

Perfectly fine animation quality for this 2014 anime from Sentai Filmworks. I was tempted to place this higher, the background art is more artistic with an unusual matte painting finish to it. Despite cramming 300 minutes of HD video on a BD-50, the slow moving animation doesn't push the encode into macroblocking. This is colorful, vivid animation with crisp line art.

*Blood and Lace*

recommendation: *Tier 4.0**

The cult 1971 thriller has been issued on Blu-ray by Scream Factory. Using a transfer found in MGM's vaults likely struck from secondary elements, the video has high clarity but reveals an extremely soft film transfer with filtered detail and grain structure. 

In absolute terms this is a very weak-looking transfer by our videophile standards, but very acceptable given the obscure rarity of this film on home video. It apparently skipped a DVD release all these years.

BDinfo scan:



Code:


                                                                                                                 Total   Video                                             
Title                                                            Codec   Length  Movie Size      Disc Size       Bitrate Bitrate Main  Audio Track                          Secondary Audio Track
-----                                                            ------  ------- --------------  --------------  ------- -------  ------------------                        ---------------------
00003.MPLS                                                       AVC     1:26:48 21,700,657,152  22,087,288,901  33.33   28.00   DTS-HD  Master 2.0 1632Kbps (48kHz/24-bit) DTS-HD Master 2.0 1764Kbps  (48kHz/24-bit)


----------



## DarthDoxie

djoberg said:


> *Chappie*
> 
> The RED EPIC shines in this STUNNER!! Shot from beginning to end with the Red Epic Digital camera, this Blu holds Reference potential in every scene! CLARITY, DEPTH, and DETAILS are simply mesmerizing, even in night time scenes and in the "gang's" lair. COLORS are nicely saturated, and with a super-strong CONTRAST they really pop! BLACK LEVELS/SHADOW DETAILS are off the charts! FACIAL TEXTURE is superb! FLESH TONES are "spot-on accurate." The robotic CGI shots are unbelievably good in this, with razor-sharp images that bristle with detail. If not for some fleeting soft shots at times I'd be tempted to put this in the middle of the Reference Tier. All things considered it should land right about here....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.75)*


Great movie PQ wise and good to finally have a second ranking; it's also where I put it. The CGI of the robots was amazing.


----------



## djoberg

DarthDoxie said:


> Great movie PQ wise and good to finally have a second ranking; it's also where I put it. The CGI of the robots was amazing.


I had forgotten that you had reviewed this, so I obviously wrote my review based solely on my experience and not on having read what you wrote. Your review AND placement serves to confirm that my assessment was accurate. 

Yes, the CGI of the robots was amazing! In fact, I still stand in awe of movies such as this where you can't even tell it is CGI (for it blends into the "real world" seamlessly).


----------



## djoberg

*Happy Thanksgiving to all my fellow AVS members!*

I should add that one could easily focus on the "negative" things all around them...Terrorism, the Nation's 19 Trillion Dollar Debt, Riots in our streets, etc. etc. But we can CHOOSE to dwell on the "positive" things. So, *COUNT YOUR BLESSINGS* and *Give Thanks* for them!!


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Breaker Morant*

recommendation: *Tier 2.75**

Released by Criterion this year, the OAR of 1.85:1 and mono sound mix has been restored vs. the previous release from Image. On starting the movie I thought Criterion had made a gross mistake in the encoding as there appeared to be much nasty video noise but it turned out to be operator error as I had my TV set to the "Game" picture setting . After changing it to the correct setting, everything was right in the world.

Colors are well saturated but not overly so and black levels and contrast are also well presented. Details are mostly sharp with fabric, facial pores, and individual hairs abundantly on display. There are however several scenes of lower levels of focus which affect the overall score. I have not seen the previous release from Image but I feel confident in my placement of one full tier ranking above the previous 3.75.


----------



## DarthDoxie

djoberg said:


> Your review AND placement serves to confirm that my assessment was accurate.


That's exactly what I said when I read your review!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I'll wish everyone a happy Thanksgiving! Based on the raves I've heard here about Tomorrowland, I'll probably pick it up on Black Friday.

*A Christmas Horror Story*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

Image Entertainment releases _A Christmas Horror Story_ in vivid picture quality on Blu-ray. The Canadian film runs 99 minutes on a BD-25. Encoded in AVC, the video averages a respectable 20.99 Mbps with no apparent compression artifacts. This is sharp, modern definition with unfiltered detail. Struck from a Digital Intermediate finished at 2K resolution, the source is practically flawless.

Despite multiple directors, one cinematographer shot the entire film using modern digital cameras. That leads to a consistent, seamless appearance for the entire movie if you make allowances for slight color palette changes due to setting. This is a film with dark contrast and slightly muted primary colors. Hints of crushing hurt shadow detail and delineation in a few scenes. A couple of dark scenes get a little noisy due to exposure problems.

_A Christmas Horror Story_ isn’t quite reference caliber but is certainly a sharp-looking movie on Blu-ray worth the extra expense. Image has done a fine job from a technical standpoint, leaving the transfer alone. Framed at 1.85:1, the movie’s cinematography is effective at incorporating its myriad VFX.

BDInfo scan:



Code:


                                                                                                                 Total   Video                                             
Title                                                            Codec   Length  Movie Size      Disc Size       Bitrate Bitrate Main  Audio Track                          Secondary Audio Track
-----                                                            ------  ------- --------------  --------------  ------- -------  ------------------                        ---------------------
00002.MPLS                                                       AVC     1:39:28 19,540,586,496  23,015,001,813  26.19   20.99   DTS-HD  Master 5.1 3759Kbps (48kHz/24-bit)


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Final Girl*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

After a completely pristine first act, _Final Girl_ was nudging toward Tier Zero status. Its extremely sharp definition and vivid sense of depth were contenders for the highest tier. The Cinedigm Blu-ray falters a bit as the setting shifts to the outdoors, introducing a little banding in the limited AVC video encode. A pronounced change in available lighting affects the crisp black levels. There is still a high degree of digital clarity but the video quality definitely falls out of Tier Zero in _Final Girl's_ third act.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Raising Arizona*

recommendation: *Tier 4.0**

Not totally unwatchable, it's a good thing the actual movie is a classic 80's comedy. This one is definitely ripe for a remaster like Fargo got last year. The biggest issue is contrast as in it's blown out much of the time making for washed out colors and skin tones. Of course the contrast issues also affect black levels but for the most part the clarity is good.


----------



## mweflen

*Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies EE
*
The best of the three, by a pretty fair margin. Detail is exceptional. Black levels are strong and unwavering, and detail near black is also quite good. Facial close-ups show tons of pores and fine hairs. The color scheme is a bit more rich than previous movies, especially in the fiery dragon scenes. I did not notice more than a tiny, fleeting bit of aliasing in the mountain treasure rooms, which had plagued previous releases to a greater extent.

All in all, I'd put this near the bottom of Tier 0, right below Great Gatsby (which, not coincidentally, was also shot on the Red Epic). 

*Tier Recommendation: 0 (below Great Gatsby)


*LG PF1500 LED projector, 99 inch screen, 10 foot viewing distance


----------



## mweflen

*Inside Out*

Although I am not a big fan of rating animated stuff alongside live action, I cannot deny the sheer eye candy value of this Pixar flick. I think it surpasses the rest of their catalog in terms of fine detail, color scheme, and a bevy of incredibly detailed "set" designs. This is one of those movies that really showed off my projector. It is essentially perfect, with no flaws I can discern (e.g. wavering blacks, aliasing, posterization), so it all comes down to your liking or disliking of the aesthetic presentation. I liked it.

*Tier Recommendation: 0 (above Incredibles)
*
LG PF1500 LED projector, 99 inch screen, 10 foot viewing distance


----------



## djoberg

mweflen said:


> *Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies EE
> *
> The best of the three, by a pretty fair margin. Detail is exceptional. Black levels are strong and unwavering, and detail near black is also quite good. Facial close-ups show tons of pores and fine hairs. The color scheme is a bit more rich than previous movies, especially in the fiery dragon scenes. I did not notice more than a tiny, fleeting bit of aliasing in the mountain treasure rooms, which had plagued previous releases to a greater extent.
> 
> All in all, I'd put this near the bottom of Tier 0, right below Great Gatsby (which, not coincidentally, was also shot on the Red Epic).
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 0 (below Great Gatsby)
> 
> 
> *


Thanks for the good review. I'm glad to see you place it in Tier 0, but IMHO it deserves "mid-tier" and NOT on the bottom.


----------



## mweflen

djoberg said:


> Thanks for the good review. I'm glad to see you place it in Tier 0, but IMHO it deserves "mid-tier" and NOT on the bottom.


I could certainly see that placement. I just find these movies to be a bit dark for my tastes, and some of the artificiality created by CGI and 3D staging is a little off putting for me.

Everybody's taste in (eye) candy is different. I'd take "A Serious Man" or "The Tree of Life" over this for visual sumptuousness any day,


----------



## djoberg

Agreed. The element of "subjectivity" can definitely enter into the equation when determining placement.

You should check out _Tomorrowland_. I can guarantee you it would look fantastic on your 99" screen!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Your Vice Is A Locked Room and Only I Have the Key*

recommendation: *Tier 2.75**

Arrow Video delivers another fantastic vintage film transfer on Blu-ray for this movie directed by Sergio Martino. The film-like transfer is a new 2K restoration from the original camera negative for the 1972 Italian production. Beautiful levels of details and fine grain mark the crisp 1080P video’s 1.85:1 presentation. The 96-minute main feature is encoded in a high-quality AVC video encode on a BD-50.

The unfiltered transfer reveals an incredible amount of resolution. The camera negative is in immaculate condition from beginning to end. The excellent cinematography has extraordinary depth and focus, becoming slightly softer in the last act.

Arrow Video’s new 2K scans continue to produce fabulous image harvests of vintage film, flawlessly replicating the original grain structure. The film has remarkable contrast and color saturation in razor-sharp glory. The black levels are solid with nice shadow delineation.


----------



## djoberg

*The Flash (The First Season)*

I can't compare this with the cable broadcast (having never seen it), but I read from several reviewers that the Blu-ray release is a respectable improvement. I've only watched the first four episodes, but so far...SO GOOD!

First, the NEGATIVES. Thankfully there isn't much to say here. There was _some_ SOFTNESS, especially in interior, low-lit shots and in a few night scenes. BLACK LEVELS faltered in those same scenes, with a bit of murkiness.

There were plenty of POSITIVES, with excellent DETAILS, DEPTH and SHARPNESS. CONTRAST was strong, FLESH TONES were spot-on, COLORS were pleasing, and BLACK LEVELS were generally very good, with corresponding SHADOW DETAILS.

If all 22 episodes look this good I'm thinking it will land either in low Tier 0 or high Tier 1. Right now I'm leaning towards....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I haven't seen the Blu-ray set yet but it's a very fun show. Expect it to get better as the season develops. The Flash is one of the better looking shows on a weekly basis than other shows on the CW Network. It's definitely brighter and better lit than its companion show, Arrow.


----------



## djoberg

One of my sons-in-law has been encouraging me to buy this Series, saying it is his favorite cable show to watch. After the first two episodes I was having doubts, but the 3rd and 4th episodes were definitely better. I texted Joe and told him that and he said what you said...it's going to get much better!

I have never seen _Arrow_ either, but in trailers it was definitely darker and lacked the sharpness/clarity that I'm seeing in _The Flash_. I'm also impressed with the CGI and the overall production. They didn't skimp on this one.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Moonrise Kingdom* (Criterion release)

recommendation: *Tier 2.25**

The liner notes state this is a new 2K digital transfer from the OCN but it doesn't appear to have improved on the PQ which was already pretty good. This is very much a stylistic choice for the time period (1965) and it works great. I'm going to put this in the same ranking as the Universal release at 2.25 as ranked by Phantom.



Phantom Stranger said:


> _Moonrise Kingdom_ was shot on 16mm film, though its lovely color palette and warm amber glow mark it as a film by Wes Anderson. A fine transfer is backed by a flawless AVC video encode, which produces an image that is merely constrained by the choice of film stock.


----------



## djoberg

*Update on The Flash*

I just watched the 5th episode of _The Flash_. All I can say is: *STUNNING!!* It was FLAWLESS, with perfect black levels, flesh tones, contrast, colors, clarity, and sharpness. Facial textures were also amazing! Depth was astounding!! If every episode was like this it would be worthy of at least *Tier 0 (.5)*, if not higher.

I'll also mention that the content itself is getting better. I thought the first episode was too much on the comical/cheesy side...the second was somewhat better...the third & fourth were definitely better...and now with the fifth it's getting much more serious, dark, and thought-provoking!


----------



## djoberg

*Another update on The Flash*

I just watched episodes 6 & 7, which were not nearly as impressive as #5 ! I'd rate them Tier 1.25 and 1.75 respectively. So, it looks like we have some inconsistency in this Series. But hey, if every episode is worthy of one of the two top tiers, I won't complain! I'll get off my soapbox now and we can return to "regular broadcasting."


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Passage to Marseille
*
recommendation: *Tier 2.5**

Reuniting director Michael Curtiz and much of the cast of Casablanca, the PQ is every bit as good as it's predecessor. Contrast, black levels, and nice grain levels are present in spades. Sharp photography is only occasionally marred by out of focus shots. A recent release from the Warner Archive Collection, this is a definite buy for Bogart fans.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Tokyo Tribe*

recommendation: *Tier 2.75**

XLRator Media provides a solid video presentation for Sono’s wildly colorful film limited by the film’s actual source. _Tokyo Tribe_ runs the gamut of the full spectrum, featuring scenes bathed in red, amber and other atypical lighting patterns. There is so much visually going on in each frame that it pays to watch the background.

The main feature runs 116 minutes on a BD-25. It is presented in its original scope aspect ratio at 2.40:1. The AVC video encode does a surprisingly capable job averaging only 19.50 Mbps. Possibly fine-tuned by hand, it easily handles the wide color palette without noticeable chroma noise or banding.
_
Tokyo Tribe_ features solid definition and clarity without being the sharpest possible video. The intensely lit scenes are bright but slightly dull in ultimate resolution, fairly common to other Japanese films brought over to the States.

The glossy music video cinematography looks nice but doesn’t hold up particularly well under videophile inspection. Its contrast is slightly inconsistent with faintly blooming white levels. Like some other Japanese films, the IRE levels are possibly off in specific scenes. Shadow delineation is mostly decent but black levels occasionally turn milky.

Strictly going by its aesthetics, _Tokyo Tribe_ is a visual stunner made to look like an old school music video. But the actual video quality is fairly average for Blu-ray, limited by budgetary considerations.

BDInfo scan:




Code:


                                                                                                                 Total   Video                                             
Title                                                            Codec   Length  Movie Size      Disc Size       Bitrate Bitrate Main  Audio Track                          Secondary Audio Track
-----                                                            ------  ------- --------------  --------------  ------- -------  ------------------                        ---------------------
00800.MPLS                                                       AVC     1:56:39 21,860,782,080  22,962,056,475  24.98   19.50   DTS-HD  Master 5.1 4137Kbps (48kHz/24-bit)


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Ace in the Hole*

recommendation: *Tier 3.25**

Not able to be restored from the OCN, the quality visibly suffers. Varying film elements were used for the restoration and the differences are noticeable between shots. Sometimes the clarity and black levels shine and in a reverse shot of the same scene it's in the basement.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Marco Polo: The Complete First Season*

recommendation: *Tier 0* (bottom third)*

This lavish historical drama from Netflix comes in resounding, unblemished video quality. Spread over three BD-50s, this is nearly 600 minutes of razor-sharp, detailed imagery. The production values are outstanding, on par with any premium cable series on television today.

This score may prove too conservative for some tastes, I could see others placing it even higher. _Marco Polo_ has a technically perfect transfer with no quality diminishing characteristics. Some of the best eye candy I've seen recently on Blu-ray. It comes out this Tuesday from Starz/Anchor Bay.

BDInfo scan:



Code:


                                                                                                                 Total   Video                                             
Title                                                            Codec   Length  Movie Size      Disc Size       Bitrate Bitrate Main  Audio Track                          Secondary Audio Track
-----                                                            ------  ------- --------------  --------------  ------- -------  ------------------                        ---------------------
00015.MPLS                                                       AVC     3:44:46 46,173,917,184  46,377,698,033  27.39   21.99   DTS-HD  Master 5.1 3454Kbps (48kHz/24-bit)


----------



## mweflen

*Ex Machina*

This one was as disappointing a Blu-Ray as it was enthralling a film. Soft, soft, soft. Several instances of pixellation reared their ugly heads. Black levels are lackluster. Detail is so-so, better than a DVD, but nowhere near the heights of this medium. Basically, this is limited by its cameras - why the director chose to use GoPro cameras for significant stretches is completely beyond me.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75
*
Viewed on an LG PF1500 projector, 99", 10 foot viewing distance


----------



## John Mason

^^^Thanks for the review. Wondered why it hadn't appeared here a few months back. Some background articles back then implied it was a fairly remote production location. But most articles mentioned they also used Sony F65s/55s, capable of up to 8k production (theoretically), although they apparently weren't used enough and effectively. Eye-grabbing TV ads seem to have been misleading. -- John


----------



## mweflen

John Mason said:


> ^^^Thanks for the review. Wondered why it hadn't appeared here a few months back. Some background articles back then implied it was a fairly remote production location. But most articles mentioned they also used Sony F65s/55s, capable of up to 8k production (theoretically), although they apparently weren't used enough and effectively. Eye-grabbing TV ads seem to have been misleading. -- John


Some of the outdoor shots are tier 1 quality, which is why this doesn't rate even lower. But the indoor shots are all various shades of "meh."

As far as cameras go, it seems like the gold standard in digital cinema is either the Red Epic or the Arri Alexa (my personal favorite).


----------



## djoberg

John Mason said:


> ^^^Thanks for the review. *Wondered why it hadn't appeared here a few months back*. Some background articles back then implied it was a fairly remote production location. But most articles mentioned they also used Sony F65s/55s, capable of up to 8k production (theoretically), although they apparently weren't used enough and effectively. Eye-grabbing TV ads seem to have been misleading. -- John


Actually, I did review this "a few months back." Here is the link:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-759.html#post36685610

mweflen and my placement are fairly close.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

_Ex Machina_ currently resides in Tier 2.25.


----------



## John Mason

^^^Appreciate the corrections re "Ex Machina," guys. Next time I'll search the ratings list directly. -- John


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Dungeonmaster
*
recommendation: Tier 3.25*

*Eliminators*

recommendation: Tier 4.0*

These wonderfully cheesy sci-fi films from the 1980s come as a double feature from Scream Factory. Licensed from MGM, both receive fairly satisfactory transfers all things considered. Both are low-budget films from producer Charles Band.

Eliminators suffers slightly worse in comparison. Scream Factory had to utilize a film print as the primary source for its transfer. Both receive adequate AVC video encodes, though Eliminators shows more obvious artifacting due to its heavier grain. The Dungeonmaster has rather crisp definition for such fare. Its film elements are in stable condition with solid color accuracy.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Dracula Has Risen From the Grave*

recommendation: *Tier 2.25**

I am very, very happy with how Warner Bros. has handled this Hammer film. The 1968 film finally hit Blu-ray back in October and the wait was worth it. The transfer is clearly a new film scan from quality elements kept in fine condition.

The 92-main feature is encoded in flawless AVC video, averaging around 30 Mbps on a BD-25. This is a film-like presentation with rich contrast, excellent shadow delineation and fairly faithful reproduction of the Technicolor film stock. WB has presented the film at a 1.78:1 aspect ratio. A few process shots occasionally go soft but for the most part this is sharp definition with very good detail.

Kudos to WB for preserving the earthy color palette with more of an autumn bent than normal. There is a pronounced tendency for modern Hammer transfers to go overboard with garish reds to bring out the visible blood.

One scene has what looks like gate weave and/or some slight telecine wobble. It's barely noticeable unless you are looking for it. There is very little damage at all in this print. WB has spent the money and given it a restoration of some kind, producing crisp depth and lost detail that hasn't been seen in many years. 

The grain structure is so smooth and perfect that I have a hunch some very moderate digital finessing has been applied. It still looks perfectly like vintage film stock, but too perfect if you catch my drift. It doesn't really matter since the picture quality results are astounding. A couple of scenes have slight halos of very modest amplitude.

The Hammer catalog has been treated haphazardly on Blu-ray, having seen a number of international releases from Europe and elsewhere. WB's _Dracula Has Risen From the Grave_ vaults near the top of the heap in terms of transfer quality and presentation.


----------



## djoberg

*Mission Impossible 5: Rogue Nation*

This was reminiscent of _Mission Impossible 4: Ghost Protocol_, with the same stylized color palette and color-grading that resulted in amber flesh tones in quite a few scenes. Thankfully, it had amazing details (in most every scene), outstanding facial texture, very good black levels in shots of London and other locations (with the exception of a few instances of black crush AND a couple instances of "mild murkiness"), and razor-sharp clarity in all daytime, outdoor scenes. I would be remiss if I didn't also mention it had that coveted look of _film_ (which we like to call _filmic_), which always gives the details and texture a much more realistic look. Like its recent predecessor, it also had its share of softness, but they were short-lived and should only affect the final score _marginally_. I gave MI:GP a rating of 1.25 and I'm inclined to nominate this for the same spot....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Did you enjoy Mission Impossible? It's up in the air if I watch it.


----------



## djoberg

Yes, I enjoyed it as much as _Ghost Protocol_, if not more. Say what you will about Tom Cruise and his BIZARRE "off-the-screen" life, he's a decent actor who "usually" signs on to good movies. The _Mission Impossible_ franchise is still going strong and there is no doubt they have no plans of ending it (wait till you see who joins the team).


----------



## DarthDoxie

*High Plains Drifter*

recommendation: *Tier 3.0**

Good but not great sums up this release from Universal. Colors and clarity are good as well as flesh tones. Black levels falter in places and is inconsistent. The thing that stands out and in a glaring way is the almost complete lack of grain, the image is squeaky clean. I could understand if this was released at the dawn of the Blu-ray format when de-graining via DNR was en vogue but this was released in 2013, but then again it is Universal.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Two Westerns in a row...

*Bone Tomahawk*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

Image Entertainment provides a very nice presentation for _Bone Tomahawk_. Filmed with RED digital cameras, the 1080P video has fairly strong definition in sharp detail. The 132-minute main feature is encoded in AVC on a BD-50. The AVC encode averages a satisfactory 21 Mbps, which is sufficient for the cleanly-shot film. There is some very minor banding that really doesn't amount to much. A muted color palette adds a touch of amber to the Western, skillfully done for the period piece. It is presented in a scenic 2.40:1 aspect ratio.

The independent production looks rather average in darker shots with uneven black levels being a problem. There isn't crushing per se but minor macroblocking and noisy exposure problems can be seen in the dimmest scenes. Hints of aliasing creep into a few moments. This is not absolutely perfect, pristine digital cinematography seen on the biggest Hollywood productions. It's sharp, mostly flawless resolution with solid detail and fine contrast.

Nothing indicates the Blu-ray transfer isn't a perfect representation of the movie's digital intermediate. Image does a solid job handling the transfer without filtering or harming the picture.

BDInfo scan:



Code:


                                                                                                                 Total   Video                                             
Title                                                            Codec   Length  Movie Size      Disc Size       Bitrate Bitrate Main  Audio Track                          Secondary Audio Track
-----                                                            ------  ------- --------------  --------------  ------- -------  ------------------                        ---------------------
00002.MPLS                                                       AVC     2:12:04 25,914,562,560  34,724,411,893  26.16   21.00   DTS-HD  Master 5.1 3684Kbps (48kHz/24-bit)


----------



## djoberg

*Maze Runner: The Scorched Trials*

I was a bit disappointed with the 2nd installment in this series. I had rated _The Maze Runner_ 1.5 but I do believe this warrants at least a notch lower. Like its predecessor, it had plenty of fine detail in clothing, landscapes, facial texture, etc. and there was a fair amount of depth in daytime scenes and interior shots with good lighting, but many of its darker scenes were quite murky and shadow details suffered. In these areas it was nearly a carbon copy of _The Maze Runner_, but this sequel had more softness, especially in CGI shots and in scenes with faltering black levels. Whenever this occurred, you could expect a lack of depth, details, and, of course, clarity. I suppose I could be very critical and opt for Tier Silver, but it did have enough "demo material" to justify keeping it in Tier Gold, although to maintain a good conscience I must put it in the bottom of that tier.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**

PS I must say that I was taken aback by some reviews by the "experts" who unabashedly called this "Reference Quality."


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^

I forgot to add that the egregious color-grading and drab color palette didn't help in the final placement of _Maze Runner: The Scorched Trials_.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^
> 
> I forgot to add that the egregious color-grading and drab color palette didn't help in the final placement of _Maze Runner: The Scorched Trials_.


It was shot with Arri Alexa cameras. I came across this interesting piece by a cinematographer discussing the Arri Alexa and how color saturation plays a big role in determining the final aesthetic.

http://www.theblackandblue.com/2014/02/06/art-adams-alexa-color/


----------



## djoberg

Very interesting read, Phantom! Thanks for the link.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Merry Christmas to all Tier users everywhere!! May Santa bring you tomorrow the top tier Blu-rays you most want.

*Blood Rage*

recommendation: *Tier 3.25**

Arrow Video gives this 1983 slasher a lavish restoration from the 35mm camera negative. It has been filtered to some degree but still retains a decent sense of film-like grain. Given top-notch specifications, it's another strong restorative effort on an obscure film by the British company.

The new film scan pulls out surprising definition and clarity from the low-budget movie. This is a fairly sharp experience presented in a high-quality manner.


----------



## CJackson

What do you think of _The Fall of the Roman Empire_ (1964)?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

CJackson said:


> What do you think of _The Fall of the Roman Empire_ (1964)?


I've been meaning to see that on Blu-ray but it was only released in the UK as a Region B disc. I don't think it's popular enough to see an American release.

I do know someone that owns it, I'll see about borrowing it but I can't promise anything.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel, The*

recommendation: *Tier 0 (bottom quarter)**

Not the genre normally in my wheel house but happy wife, happy life! It was a fun and well acted movie with big stars like Bill Nighy, Judi Dench, and Maggie Smith (Richard Gere shows up too).

First off, the colors are brilliant and stunning without being garish; they are rendered beautifully. Flesh tones are also reproduced naturally. There are many night scenes and black levels are deep; not a single instance of black crush. Details are always sharp with many textures, fabrics, and facial features are on display.

Shot with Sony F65 cameras, this is great demo material.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Mad Max: Fury Road*

recommendation: *Tier 1.25*

I see this disc is currently ranked near the bottom of Tier 0 and I think that is a fairly accurate assessment. Almost two hours of non-stop action, _Mad Max: Fury Road_ looks incredible in those few brief moments when the narrative slows down. 

The stylized color timing with orange and yellow hues didn't bother me and wasn't a consideration in my score. Close-ups are ultra-sharp and project immense depth. I did see the prevalent green screen and other VFX as somewhat of a negative on picture quality. That was my chief complaint for lowering _Mad Max: Fury Road_ out of Tier Zero. Since much of the action is softer CGI with less detail, I couldn't really place it in our highest tier.

This score is more of a personal opinion on _Mad Max: Fury Road_, I probably won't take it out of Tier 0 in the next update since there were several votes for it there.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Rififi*

recommendation: *Tier 2.5**

A jewel heist masterpiece from the French cinema! A nice restoration and transfer from Criterion; detail and contrast are steady but it suffers from sporadic black crush.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> *Mad Max: Fury Road*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 1.25*
> 
> I see this disc is currently ranked near the bottom of Tier 0 and I think that is a fairly accurate assessment. Almost two hours of non-stop action, _Mad Max: Fury Road_ looks incredible in those few brief moments when the narrative slows down.
> 
> The stylized color timing with orange and yellow hues didn't bother me and wasn't a consideration in my score. Close-ups are ultra-sharp and project immense depth. I did see the prevalent green screen and other VFX as somewhat of a negative on picture quality. That was my chief complaint for lowering _Mad Max: Fury Road_ out of Tier Zero. Since much of the action is softer CGI with less detail, I couldn't really place it in our highest tier.
> 
> This score is more of a personal opinion on _Mad Max: Fury Road_, I probably won't take it out of Tier 0 in the next update since there were several votes for it there.


Good review Phantom! I voted for .66 but your remark on the "prevalent green screen" is valid, so I can see why you opted for Tier 1. I still think it deserves Tier 0 but perhaps closer to the bottom instead of .66. The DETAILS were insane, as were the BLACK LEVELS and DEPTH.

Jenny and I are leaving Monday for Florida to visit my brother and his wife for 9 days, so I'll miss the Thread (but I may "drop in" to see how things are going). I just received a copy from Amazon of _Ant-Man_. I hope to watch that or _Spartacus_ tonight or tomorrow afternoon.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Enjoy your stay in Florida, Denny.

*Salmon Fishing In the Yemen*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

A Sony Blu-ray that flirts very heavily with Tier One. This British movie boasts a fine technical transfer with excellent picture quality. The second half set in Yemen itself has better outdoor scenery and a more vivid color palette, nearly raising the score by itself into the next tier.

There are no severe flaws to point out, everything in Salmon Fishing hits the mark. A more subdued first hour lacks the impressive depth and dimensionality needed for a higher score. That doesn't affect the consistently steady contrast or impeccable black levels.


----------



## djoberg

*Ant-Man*

It's time to add another Blu to the Top Tier!! From the very first scene this Blu screamed EYE CANDY! It's got it all, my friends...it's SHARP as a tack, it has DETAILS galore, its DEPTH is astounding, the COLORS are spectacular, FLESH TONES are perfect (with some exceptions due to you know what...color-grading), BLACK LEVELS & SHADOW DETAILS are exemplary, and aside from a few scenes with occasional softness, CLARITY reigned supreme! I was pleased that it featured a 1.85:1 aspect ratio which really let all that PURE SUGAR for the eyes jump out at you.

I just have to give a HUGE shout out for the incredible CGI...perhaps the best I've ever seen, bar none. The PQ in CGI shots never faltered, which is a feat in itself. And then for the icing on the cake....the movie was FUN. I never once found myself checking my watch to see how much time was left. There was a perfect blend of action, humor, and drama. I would be remiss if I didn't add that the AUDIO was rock-solid as well!

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.75)*


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Anatomy of a Murder*

recommendation: *Tier 2.25*

A great transfer from Criterion. Clarity, black levels, and contrast are all rendered beautifully; I can't really remember any softness of focus even in panning shots.


----------



## seanbryan

Phantom Stranger said:


> Since much of the action is softer CGI with less detail, I couldn't really place it in our highest tier.


Over 80% of the effects seen in Mad Max: Fury Road are real practical effects, stunts, make-up and sets. CGI was used sparingly mainly to enhance the Nambian landscape, remove stunt rigging and for Charlize Theron's left hand which in the film is a prosthetic arm.

It was actually very refreshing seeing them do a big action film (with amazing, crazy action) with most of it being real, practical effects and stunts instead of CGI.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Justice League Unlimited: The Complete Series*

recommendation:* Tier 1.5**

The successor to Bruce Timm's _Justice League_, this animated series ran for three seasons from 2004 to 2006. WB's Warner Archive division finally released it on Blu-ray back in November. The three-disc set presents nearly 900 minutes of HD video over 3 BD-50s. Originally animated in 1080P resolution, this is a perfect digital transfer of then state-of-the-art animation. Looking virtually identical to its predecessor in picture quality, _Justice League Unlimited_ lands in the same category, tier 1.5.

Keeping some form of production continuity with the older Timmverse animated programs, the relatively crude digital ink-and-paint process from that time shows mild limitations during pans and zooms. Some minor aliasing is evident during those more dramatic camera movements on the characters' line-art. It still represents crisp, vivid picture quality with striking colors. The impeccable black levels and rich superhero color palette provide very nice animated imagery. It doesn't quite compare to newer animated programs in terms of detail or fluidity.

Encoded in AVC, this set definitely pushes the limits of acceptably transparent compression quality. It is a testament to the power of newer and better AVC encoders that very few overt artifacts rear their head over 900 minutes. Chroma noise and macroblocking are surprisingly rare in _Justice League Unlimited_ given this type of animation. It appears some judicious fine tuning was applied to achieve better compression results despite the occasionally meager video bitrates.

Featuring a pristine presentation of this beloved series that pops in splendid HD video, this Blu-ray set should be a welcome addition to any true superhero's collection.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Happy New Year!

*Count Dracula (1970)*

recommendation: *Tier 4.5**

This is a very disappointing Blu-ray from genre distributor Severin Films. Videophiles will be aghast when they view this disc for themselves. Issued in HD for the first time two weeks ago by the cult label, Jess Franco's _Count Dracula_ receives a completely filtered, sharpened film transfer. A sub-par AVC video encode has a difficult time dealing with the dense fog surrounding Dracula's castle, leading to noticeable posterization.

The grain structure looks completely artificial in nature. Thin halos ring most of the film's outer edges and there is precious little true film detail left in the 1080P presentation. The film is uncut from elements that are in reasonably strong condition for a low-budget horror movie filmed in 1969. A solitary remnant of gate hair stands out in the movie's 97 minutes. Some telecine wobble and gate weave are evident for a few scenes. The relatively heavy filtering is a shame considering the perfectly appropriate vintage color timing and contrast levels.

Speaking plainly, movies like _Count Dracula_ don't get two chances at getting it right on Blu-ray. I hope Severin Films realizes what they've done wrong on this terrible transfer.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Ikiru*

recommendation: *Tier 4.0**

An unfortunate ranking for a Criterion release but this is severely constrained by the source elements. Fluctuating contrast on one side of the frame and sporadic black levels abound. The most distracting aspect is the constant presence of vertical scratches, there is not one scene absent of them. Detail is generally good but it can't make up for the physical damage of the print.


----------



## DarthDoxie

42041 said:


> *It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World*
> 
> The 1963 film, shot using the Ultra Panavision 70mm format, tends to look very nice. The picture is mostly very sharp and detailed, though the extremely wide 2.75:1 aspect ratio means there isn't much of it, with the black bars encroaching on half of the screen. Very fine details, like distant street signs, are clearly resolved. Quality dips in a few places, as one might expect from a 50 year old film, but generally the image is solid. Contrast is a bit overcooked and there are mild edge halos in many scenes, but colors are nice and bright.
> 
> *Tier 1.75**





Gamereviewgod said:


> *It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World*
> 
> 1.75? Seriously? This might be in the top 5 film based discs I've ever seen. Watching this one casually tonight, I was blown away by the brilliant color saturation, intense contrast, insane amounts of fidelity in every shot, and flawless encoding. I can't even fathom how perfect a 70mm presentation of this must have been. This is my live action catalog reference disc from here on out.
> 
> *Tier 0*, above The Master


*It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World*

recommendation: *Tier 0* (below Hugo)

I certainly can't knock a film for being filmed in 2.76:1 which it seems 42041 has but I thought Tier 0 right off the bat from the first scene. The colors are spectacular and beautifully reproduced with out being blown out. Contrast is pleasant and not overcooked as I've seen mentioned a couple of reviews. Details are sharp as I would expect from a film shot on a 65mm negative. The restoration and scan is perfect, no sharpening or halos here. I put it just below Hugo because that's a film I've seen; I can't speak to The Master but it's a wash on exact placement anyway


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Which edition of the movie are we talking about? Criterion sports a different transfer than the earlier MGM edition.


----------



## DarthDoxie

Phantom Stranger said:


> Which edition of the movie are we talking about? Criterion sports a different transfer than the earlier MGM edition.


The Criterion release, general theatrical version.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Diabolique*

recommendation: *Tier 3.5**

From Criterion, a nice transfer that retains a nice grain structure. Details and black levels are accurate and presented well here. The transfer does suffer at times with fleeting print damage that was not digitally restored and some contrast issues, mostly during transitions and the scenes at the mistress's house.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Mad Max*

recommendation: *Tier 3.25**

This is the 35th Anniversary release in the red case but appears to be a Blu-ray only repackage of the 2010 Blu-ray/DVD release; all the extras and trailers of other movies are the same.

A well presented transfer and it looks stunning framed at 2.35: 1. Clarity and details are generally good and only suffer from source material softness. Largely devoid of bright colors except the police cars in the first half of the film, but they do pop when presented against the stark Australian countryside. Black levels falter in the few night scenes but otherwise are deep and accurate in day scenes such as the MFP officer's leather uniforms. Stray print damage and a hair/thread shows up from time to time in the image.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

fredxr2d2 said:


> A note about Age of Ultron in theaters: I found the color grading to be the orange/teal that we're all so used (tired? annoyed?) to seeing and it was disappointing. I'm now very wary about the BD, but have pre-ordered it anyway because the movie is highly enjoyable.


*Avengers: Age of Ultron*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

This disc feels like it came out very long ago. I was surprised to find it hadn't been ranked yet in the Tiers. The first Avengers film sits in Tier 1.25, which is pretty fair from what I recall. I felt this sequel looked better, scoring it as Tier 1.0 is a conservative placement on my part. Some people will find this very worthy of Tier Zero with its consistently pristine video quality.

The color grading definitely favors a darker, desaturated palette at times. Some teal creeps into the imagery but gets better past the opening act. This is not the hot orange tint of the Iron Man franchise, which does suffer in my estimation from over grading.

This is probably the best-looking film released by Marvel under Disney management. The VFX are integrated very smoothly without significantly impacting finer detail. Colors could probably pop more and the cinematography could show more depth, my reasons for keeping it just outside Tier Zero. In terms of clarity, this BD deserves the highest tier.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*How I Live Now*

recommendation: *Tier 1.75*
*
This is a nicely shot film with outstanding definition and clarity in exterior scenes. It is the darker nighttime scenes that pose more of a problem for ranking this disc in the tiers. A couple of scenes are very rough, almost inexplicably gritty.

Magnolia provides a fine transfer with limited instances of banding in the AVC video encode. Averaging between this film's two extremes, the bottom of Tier One sounds about right.


----------



## fredxr2d2

Phantom Stranger said:


> *Avengers: Age of Ultron*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 1.0**
> 
> This disc feels like it came out very long ago. I was surprised to find it hadn't been ranked yet in the Tiers. The first Avengers film sits in Tier 1.25, which is pretty fair from what I recall. I felt this sequel looked better, scoring it as Tier 1.0 is a conservative placement on my part. Some people will find this very worthy of Tier Zero with its consistently pristine video quality.
> 
> The color grading definitely favors a darker, desaturated palette at times. Some teal creeps into the imagery but gets better past the opening act. This is not the hot orange tint of the Iron Man franchise, which does suffer in my estimation from over grading.
> 
> This is probably the best-looking film released by Marvel under Disney management. The VFX are integrated very smoothly without significantly impacting finer detail. Colors could probably pop more and the cinematography could show more depth, my reasons for keeping it just outside Tier Zero. In terms of clarity, this BD deserves the highest tier.


I agree with you Phantom. I found the Blu-ray to be decidedly less teal/orange than what I remembered from the theatrical presentation. Overall a good job with a "desaturated" look.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Samurai III: Duel at Ganryu Island*

recommendation: *Tier 2.5**

The third in the Samurai Trilogy from Criterion and also the best looking. Clarity and details are well rendered. Black levels, contrast and colors all look good as well.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Samurai I: Musashi Miyamoto*

recommendation: *Tier 3.25*

*Samurai II: Duel at Ichijoji Temple*

recommendation: *Tier 2.75*

The picture quality got better at the series went on with diminishing stray gate hairs and fuzz. At one point in Samurai I it looked like a lawn of grass had grown at the bottom of the frame there was so much fuzz.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

monomial said:


> *Puella Magi Madoka Magica the Movie Part 1: Beginnings*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 0.9** (bottom 10% of tier 0)
> 
> Anime is usually made up of crisp lines and solid colors. _Puella Magi Madoka Magica_ throws this notion out the window. Even when the characters are made of crisp, simple lines, their colors usually employ some grain or gradient rather than being a solid color. Although I was surprised at the 2h10m Blu-Ray's 40 GB file size, by the end of the movie I realized it was necessary. _Madoka_ makes extensive use of gradients, bloom filters, and complicated backgrounds. Random noise is by definition, uncompressible, and some of the backgrounds are intentionally busy to give scenes a chaotic, random feeling. You could compress Madoka, but some of the intricate detail would be lost. Gradients are just incredible in this movie. Even a shot of a character which is 90% white is not _pure_ white: some minor gradient is at work to perhaps make the character more visually appealing. One character's pupils are drawn as rows of straight lines, which would all blur together with too much compression. The technical details of the movie back up its artistic excellence. It radically changes art styles multiple times in dreamlike sequences. The real world is orderly, and the dream world is crazy, and both look perfect in _Madoka_.
> 
> I would be eager to see what the experts think of this movie's technical quality. It may even be better than tier 0.9. I made a screenshot gallery here. Here is a cropping of an uncompressed shot:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The movie is essentially a re-release of a TV show with some very minor changes made. This is the AVS review for the show:
> 
> 
> I can happily report that I see no evidence of banding. I'm guessing that the UK encodes of the series were given less file size than the movie was. The two movies cover the same story as the 300-minute animated series, on two BD-50s (=100 GB vs. 75 GB for the series). They are also trimmed for time, giving even more space to each frame. The movie looks extremely digital. I would be surprised if it was downsampled to a 1440x1080 HDCAM at any point in the process. But I've been shown to be wrong before, thinking that "The Legend of Korra" looked great when actually it was de-interlaced before its Blu-Ray release.
> 
> I think for reasons of consistency and fairness, this movie ("Part 1: Beginnings") and the show ("Complete Series Collection") should be listed separately on the AVS PQ Tier list. They're not the same release, and the movie just doesn't exhibit the errors that the "Series" has.


*Puella Magi Madoka Magica: The Movie - Rebellion
*
recommendation: *Tier 0* (.5)*

Rebellion is the sequel to the animated film monomial reviewed above, made with all new material. This is animation crafted as pure eye candy and doesn't disappoint in this stellar release from Aniplex of America. Pushing the limits of traditional animation, backgrounds are filled with a kaleidoscope of changing color combinations. The video quality shows a huge leap in improvement over the collected series. 

One hundred and sixteen minutes of beautiful animation are presented in splendid 1080P resolution at a 1.78:1 aspect ratio. The main feature has been encoded in AVC at extremely high bitrates on a BD-50, as is the custom for Japanese-authored Blu-rays. It represents technical perfection and I believe an identical video encode seen on the Japanese Blu-ray. The flawless animation displays fantastic detail with perfect black levels.

It is discs like this one that remind me why I started following the PQ Tiers in the first place and have stayed with it now for nearly a decade. The brilliant animation style looks dazzling on larger displays. Anime fans certainly shouldn't pass up a chance to see this BD, but its delights will also impress videophiles.


----------



## djoberg

*Spartacus (Restored Edition 2015)*




mweflen said:


> *Spartacus (2015 Remaster)*
> 
> Universal has rightfully earned a reputation for mediocrity in their treatment of their historical properties (See: Hitchcock Collection). Their previous Spartacus edition from 2010 was an absolute piece of garbage. Blurry, edge enhanced, scrubbed free of detail with DNR, wan colors, just horrendous.
> 
> Well, the new Blu-Ray edition atones for all of those sins. It may well be the best disc of a mid-century widescreen epic in my collection, and I have quite a few (including the fabulous Ten Commandments, Ben-Hur, and Lawrence of Arabia discs).
> 
> Detail is superb. Individual grains of sand, facial pores (which were almost entirely absent in the 2010 craporama), skin creases, very light film grain, it's all here. And it's blissfully free of any evident DNR or edge enhancement. Colors pop but not unnaturally so. Black levels are strong and stable but not crushed. In a word, superlative. In more than one word, ravishing, transporting, reminds the viewer of how magical watching a movie can be.
> 
> Universal owes its customers an apology, if not a refund for the travesty they foisted upon them in 2010. I doubt we'll see any of it (they have not replied to my customer service query about a refund or disc exchange). But this disc is at least a good start.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.0
> *




I concur with each and every point that my colleague said in his honest and excellent review! I was blown away by this "restored marvel" that rivals the restoration of _Lawrence of Arabia_. From the opening desert scene, where you are treated to 3D (Dazzling...Dizzying...Details!!), you knew that this was going to be a jaw-dropping work of art! I won't bore you by being redundant, but let me appeal to the fans of this classic by urging you to purchase this ASAP and then sit back, for 3 hours, and give your eyes the SUGAR RUSH they deserve!

The only minor difference between my opinion and that of mweflen would be with the placement. I do believe it deserves a place in the Top Tier. My vote goes for....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.75)*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Place To Place: Complete Collection
*
recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

Sentai Filmworks does spread this series out over two BDs, which alleviates any potential compression issues. The ranking is mostly due to the less than flashy traditional animation. Its color palette is flatter and doesn't have the pop of brighter, more vivid fare.

There is nothing wrong in the presentation or transfer, this anime features simple animation and softer colors, reducing its tier score.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Life and Death of Colonel Blimp, The*

recommendation: *Tier 2.5**

Scanned from the original three-strip Technicolor negatives, the colors, black levels, and contrast are beautiful. Details in faces, fabrics, and other textures are also nicely presented but there are some out of focus shots that affect the rating downward. Overall it's a nice presentation from Criterion.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Bolero*

recommendation: *Tier 3.75**

Bo Derek's starring turn in _Bolero_ receives a double-feature from Shout Factory. The two movies share a single BD-50, which hasn't impacted either presentation. Licensed from MGM, Shout Factory has given this 1984 Cannon Films production an adequate presentation. This isn't the sharpest or most detailed film scan, it resembles an older telecine job struck a few years ago. A few rough patches are hurt by fairly soft cinematography. 

The film print is in respectable condition with no significant damage. Its resolution is questionable, tier four almost called for _Bolero_. A film like it only gets one crack at a Blu-ray edition. While this isn't a new transfer with stunning depth and clarity, it's good enough.


BDInfo scan:



Code:


                                                                                                                 Total   Video                                             
Title                                                            Codec   Length  Movie Size      Disc Size       Bitrate Bitrate Main  Audio Track                          Secondary Audio Track
-----                                                            ------  ------- --------------  --------------  ------- -------  ------------------                        ---------------------
00003.MPLS                                                       AVC     1:44:52 23,367,923,712  45,769,484,211  29.71   26.00   DTS-HD  Master 2.0 2115Kbps (48kHz/24-bit)


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Gamereviewgod said:


> *Limitless*
> 
> You will rarely see a film use more filters, extreme saturation, black crush, noise, or visual flair than this one. Colors are either extraordinary saturated or settled into a deep blue, the saturation pushing flesh tones yellow. Detail is limiting, many medium shots pushing detail out of the frame.
> 
> *Tier 2.75**





djoberg said:


> *Limitless*
> 
> Okay, I may (or may not) be getting a bit burnt out from watching too many Blus, so I have decided to keep this relatively short. Let me just say that I was even more impressed with this title than the last two (which I rated 1.5). The THREE OUTSTANDING QUALITIES were DETAILS, DEPTH, and SHARPNESS. Details in clothing, buildings, sidewalks, and faces were phenomenal. Depth was simply incredible. And a majority of scenes were "sharp as a tack."
> 
> To be fair, there were a couple instances of black crush. And the contrast was jacked too high once or twice, resulting in very bright whites. But these were the exception and not the rule.
> 
> I'm tempted to put this on the top of Tier Gold, but I'll be conservative and recommend....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.25**
> 
> Pioneer 60" KURO Elite (1080p/24)....Pioneer Elite 05....Viewed from 7.5'
> 
> PS This was one unique movie...a very enjoyable rental!





lgans316 said:


> *Limitless*
> 
> Already been reviewed enough. Nothing much to add. Excellent and a very different movie.
> 
> *Recommendation: Tier 1.75*


*Limitless
*
recommendation: *Tier 2.5*

Keep in mind the preceding placements were written back in 2011. _Limitless_ has hung around Tier 2.0 since that time without much complaint. I was underwhelmed with its picture quality for a film made this decade. I became interested in watching this movie after catching the television version this year on CBS.

I think my placement for this disc would have been higher if I had caught it back in 2011. This movie is the poster child for extreme color grading. One of the film's signature aspects is an abrupt shift from teal to warm orange whenever the main character played by Bradley Cooper takes a drug that gives him super intelligence.

Fox gives it a nearly perfect technical transfer with a high-bitrate AVC video encode. The average-looking video looks to have been intentional on some level by the filmmakers.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^

When I read over the reviews you posted I was amazed that I never said one thing about the extreme "color-grading' in that film in my review. Perhaps I was much more _tolerant_ in 2011!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

The thing with the color temperature in _Limitless_ is that the transition is so in your face when the entire palette instantaneously changes from teal to warmer orange and red. It is a clever cinematographic trick since it works so well as a story cue. I've seen more serious examples of both extremes but rarely in the same scene.


----------



## mweflen

*The Martian*

I am watching on my PF1500 DLP projector at 100 inches. This is an astonishing Blu-Ray. Facial and cloth detail is superb, as is all of the machinery and terrain. Blacks are inky and stable (an improvement over prior RED Epic camera material I've seen). No aliasing, posterization, EE, DNR. Absolutely superb. Total demo material.

*Tier Recommendation: 0 (above Hugo)*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*All Superheroes Must Die*

recommendation: *Tier 3.0**

This is a grim, gritty independent film from a few years back. Released by Image Entertainment on BD, the digitally shot movie has a dark, uneven aesthetic. Its video is razor-sharp at times with bursts of excellent fine detail but consistency is a major issue. The overly ambitious direction shifts between doctored footage and lesser quality video, leading to an erratic presentation.

Some banding is evident in the AVC video encode. Aliasing is common in the FX shots. Like many low-budget films, the lack of polish to its digital cinematography severely lowers its placement.


----------



## djoberg

mweflen said:


> *The Martian*
> 
> I am watching on my PF1500 DLP projector at 100 inches. This is an astonishing Blu-Ray. Facial and cloth detail is superb, as is all of the machinery and terrain. Blacks are inky and stable (an improvement over prior RED Epic camera material I've seen). No aliasing, posterization, EE, DNR. Absolutely superb. Total demo material.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 0 (above Hugo)*


Thanks for reviewing this mweflen. I had been debating on whether or not to purchase this, but after seeing your review and then checking out other reviews I felt compelled to order it. It sounds like the movie itself is just as good as the PQ!


----------



## monomial

*This is not a ranking.* I'll rank it when I watch the entire film.

Has anyone seen Timescapes? It's currently tier 0 and I'm really unimpressed with its technical quality. Artistically it's beautiful (at least initially). I said "wow" while watching the first 5 minutes. The compression is so bad I'm almost definitely going to wait to see the whole thing until I clear enough space for a higher-quality version than the ~10 GB Blu-Ray. The other versions are sold digitally on the Timescapes website. The disc copy may have been fine if it was released in 2007, in the same way Planet Earth was fine, but in retrospect, Planet Earth was not the best that Blu-Ray has to offer.

Banding all over the place. Even in the daytime the rocks lack definition; on close examination one finds that compression has made them almost a solid color. Look at the rock in the foreground at the bottom-middle. Night stars are always hard to compress; the bitrate here makes it a laughable endeavor. The disc is single-layer and with the special features they almost reach 25 GB - so clearly size was an issue. They should've made the special features a free download or something and let the movie file size breathe. It's not any one example of poor picture quality, the problem is the muddiness and grime you get when you compress videos down this much. The images would be right at home as a Windows wallpaper or an Internet slideshow. The compression is not bad for computer standards. But for Blu-Rays it's quite subpar.

Lossless crop:









Lossy:


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Severe compression issues have knocked rankings down before, they are especially common on discs authored before 2010. I've never seen Timescapes myself but have heard good things about it.


----------



## mweflen

djoberg said:


> Thanks for reviewing this mweflen. I had been debating on whether or not to purchase this, but after seeing your review and then checking out other reviews I felt compelled to order it. It sounds like the movie itself is just as good as the PQ!


Glad to be of service, and that my review carries weight 

You know I'm not given to hyperbole (I might dispense 1 and 2 ratings a bit easily, but not 0), and my new display really shows the weaknesses of a disc. So when I say this is my go-to demo disc for science fiction, you'll know I mean business. 

I was giving it some thought, and thinking about my "PQ best of" by film type.

Red Epic - The Martian
Arri Alexa - Hugo
35mm - The Tree of Life (I expect Star Wars VII to take this spot)
VistaVision - The Ten Commandments
65mm - Ben-Hur
Technirama - Spartacus
Imax - Tron Legacy (close call with Interstellar)


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Battle of Algiers, The*

recommendation: *Tier 4.0**

First off this is a powerful film and should be required viewing for anyone in the military and the civilian leadership that is charged with sending the military into harm's way.

Far from unwatchable, the PQ is only limited by the source elements as the transfer itself is free from EE, DNR or compression artifacts. Clarity is rarely above average and black levels frequently falter in low-lit scenes such as in the terrorists' hiding place. The inconsistent image quality from scene to scene is the biggest detractor to the final ranking.


----------



## djoberg

I'm sure you spent some time before giving us that list mweflen! 

There is one on the list that I would probably challenge. Though _Ben-Hur_ is amazing, I do believe the Remastered Edition of _Lawrence of Arabia_ (also shot on 65mm) is better.


----------



## djoberg

I was curious so I just checked out the reviews of both _Ben-Hur_ and _Lawrence of Arabia_. You gave the former a 1.5 rating and the latter a 1.25 rating. This is your review on LOA and it was written almost two years later than _Ben-Hur_. You stated specifically that it was BETTER than _Ben-Hur_. (But don't feel bad, for my memory ain't what it used to be either!)

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-672.html#post23021051


----------



## mweflen

djoberg said:


> I was curious so I just checked out the reviews of both _Ben-Hur_ and _Lawrence of Arabia_. You gave the former a 1.5 rating and the latter a 1.25 rating. This is your review on LOA and it was written almost two years later than _Ben-Hur_. You stated specifically that it was BETTER than _Ben-Hur_. (But don't feel bad, for my memory ain't what it used to be either!)
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-672.html#post23021051



Just like a favorite movies list, I'm sure it switches according to mood. LOA is more detailed than Ben-Hur. But it doesn't have a chariot race


----------



## djoberg

I've been doing a bit of "surfing" through the thread and I found yet another 65mm marvel that we voted higher than _Lawrence of Arabia_. Can anyone guess what it is?



Spoiler



_The Master_


----------



## Phantom Stranger

It will be interesting to see how _The Hateful Eight_ looks on Blu-ray.


----------



## djoberg

So Phantom, have you guessed the title yet? Clue: You are the first one who said it was THE BEST 65mm title ever! (I"m quite sure you knew the answer right away and didn't want to give it away.)


----------



## mweflen

djoberg said:


> So Phantom, have you guessed the title yet? Clue: You are the first one who said it was THE BEST 65mm title ever! (I"m quite sure you knew the answer right away and didn't want to give it away.)


I remember, he said it was The Master. It is indeed gorgeous, but I prefer LOA and Ben-Hur due to subject matter.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> So Phantom, have you guessed the title yet? Clue: You are the first one who said it was THE BEST 65mm title ever! (I"m quite sure you knew the answer right away and didn't want to give it away.)


My first thought was _Patton_. I cheated a bit and looked up the correct answer. The answer would not have been my first guess.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Confession, The *(Criterion)

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

A very consistent level of quality throughout this film. Sharpness, color, black levels, and contrast just don't falter.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

DarthDoxie said:


> *Confession, The *(Criterion)
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 2.0**
> 
> A very consistent level of quality throughout this film. Sharpness, color, black levels, and contrast just don't falter.


Darth, you must have a very large Criterion collection.


----------



## djoberg

*Sicario*

This was another good-looking Blu, but IMHO it isn't quite "reference quality" (though this flies in the face of many "expert" reviewers online). I had several _gripes_ with the PQ; a very drab-looking color palette, faltering black levels (in a couple of night time scenes and especially the one where you were seeing things through night vision goggles), and in several scenes softness intruded resulting in a loss of the otherwise excellent sharpness. This was also quite "gritty-looking" in many scenes.

To be fair, most of the two-hour running time exhibited incredible sharpness, exquisite details (including numerous facial close-ups with exemplary texture), spot-on flesh tones, and pleasing black levels at times.

During the first half I thought this might be worthy of the top of Tier Gold, but as time went on my "generous rating gene" became inactive so I'm opting for....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**


----------



## DarthDoxie

Phantom Stranger said:


> Darth, you must have a very large Criterion collection.


Criterion definitely puts out some interesting films and I just finished watching all I currently have in my collection. Now, on to other classic catalogue releases!


----------



## djoberg

You have to check out _Spartacus_ Darth! I guarantee you it will be one of the best "classic catalog releases" you've ever seen (in the PQ department, that is)!


----------



## tcramer

djoberg said:


> *Sicario*
> 
> This was another good-looking Blu, but IMHO it isn't quite "reference quality" (though this flies in the face of many "expert" reviewers online). I had several _gripes_ with the PQ; a very drab-looking color palette, faltering black levels (in a couple of night time scenes and especially the one where you were seeing things through night vision goggles), and in several scenes softness intruded resulting in a loss of the otherwise excellent sharpness. This was also quite "gritty-looking" in many scenes.
> 
> To be fair, most of the two-hour running time exhibited incredible sharpness, exquisite details (including numerous facial close-ups with exemplary texture), spot-on flesh tones, and pleasing black levels at times.
> 
> During the first half I thought this might be worthy of the top of Tier Gold, but as time went on my "generous rating gene" became inactive so I'm opting for....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.5**


I agree with everything said here.

Chalk down another 1.5* vote for Sicario!


----------



## DarthDoxie

djoberg said:


> You have to check out _Spartacus_ Darth! I guarantee you it will be one of the best "classic catalog releases" you've ever seen (in the PQ department, that is)!


I have both _Spartacus_ and_ My Fair Lady_ but haven't gotten around to them yet but plan to in the next month!


----------



## monomial

*Run Lola Run*

recommendation: *Tier 4.0*

Back in 2008 this was considered tier 3. Movies have gotten better on BR and Lola looks even worse by comparison. I don't know if the tiers themselves have changed since 2008 but this is the classic candidate for 4.0. In fact I'd say it's a 4.00000000000 - does not belong anywhere on tier 3 or 5 or 4.5. Besides the flaws in the source, the transfer is standard or substandard depending on what Blu-Rays you watch. It has the typical "film grain slightly muddied" look you get when you have a catalog movie not given the A-grade restoration a film like Lawrence of Arabia. There are specks and dirt, and the grain itself runs together because it's a 23 GB movie. It could've looked a little better - it comes on a BD50 and there's around 23 GB of empty space. I noticed a similar compressed-grain look on the first Fast and the Furious (2001) movie. It's a very common look; most people seem to simply accept it and move on, but Criterion and other companies know how to preserve grain without just compressing the hell out of it and making it look like moving JPEGs.

Parts are on film and parts are on video. The video portions tank the PQ, the film portions are a 3/5 for PQ. Video maybe a 2/5 if you're generous. At least 5 minutes of the movie is video; it felt like more but I don't know how much.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...hread-blu-ray-discussion-92.html#post13217483
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...hread-blu-ray-discussion-97.html#post13287362


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Older placements are always up for review. There are probably a few Tier 0/1 titles hanging around from the early days that probably don't belong that high anymore.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead*

recommendation: *Tier 4.0**

Image Entertainment must have found this older HD transfer in the vaults from the original DVD version they issued years ago. It's a dated transfer with ringing and dull resolution likely intended for DVD. The absurd comedy was never much for eye candy, coming off quite flat and ordinary in this 1080P video.

A barely passable presentation that could have been released on Blu-ray many years ago.

BDinfo scan:



Code:


                                                                                                                 Total   Video                                             
Title                                                            Codec   Length  Movie Size      Disc Size       Bitrate Bitrate Main  Audio Track                          Secondary Audio Track
-----                                                            ------  ------- --------------  --------------  ------- -------  ------------------                        ---------------------
00002.MPLS                                                       AVC     1:57:43 24,906,369,024  39,899,163,647  28.21   24.89   DTS-HD  Master 2.0 1794Kbps (48kHz/24-bit)


----------



## djoberg

I am quite excited, for tonight I will finally be watching _The Martian_! I'll weigh in as soon as the credits start rolling. 

I ordered _Inside Out_ a few moments ago. Has anyone out there seen this Pixar film yet? Reviewers are "singing its praises" and touting it was one of Pixar's best, if not the very best (in the PQ department).


----------



## djoberg

*The Martian*

Okay guys & girls....mweflen was absolutely, positively SPOT-ON in recommending this for a high Tier Blu placement! The CLARITY, SHARPNESS & DETAILS were mesmerizing!! During the first scene I became a wee bit skeptical due to my "black bars" being more like "dark gray bars," but that shot lasted less than a minute and from that point on BLACK LEVELS and SHADOW DETAILS were phenomenal. DEPTH was also astounding in most every scene. FLESH TONES were as accurate as they come. CONTRAST was super strong. COLORS were pleasingly vibrant (with the exception of some NASA scenes where they were intentionally muted).

I noticed that our colleague had nominated this for right above _Hugo_, which would make it #47 on the list in Tier 0. I actually took the time to count each entry and there are currently 137 Blu-rays in the tier, which would make his placement at approximately .33. i was going to nominate it for .25 but to keep things simple for Phantom (and because the difference would be marginal) I have decided to go along with him and opt for....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (right above Hugo)*

PS The audio was rock-solid and the movie itself was very well done, with excellent acting and a heart-warming story-line (definitely better than _Gravity_, IMHO).


----------



## mweflen

djoberg said:


> I am quite excited, for tonight I will finally be watching _The Martian_! I'll weigh in as soon as the credits start rolling.
> 
> I ordered _Inside Out_ a few moments ago. Has anyone out there seen this Pixar film yet? Reviewers are "singing its praises" and touting it was one of Pixar's best, if not the very best (in the PQ department).


I would definitely place _Inside Out_ up with Pixar's absolute best. PQ is stellar. As movies go, it's certainly in the upper third of their oeuvre as well.


----------



## monomial

Does anyone have any ideas for a potential 4K tier list? It'd be a big commitment. Early releases will swindle people: you'd be lucky to get something that uses a 4K source at all. Most releases in the first two years will end up being 4K live action with 2K effects. We saw that same kind of upscale-swindle early on in the Blu-Ray era.


djoberg said:


> I ordered _Inside Out_ a few moments ago. Has anyone out there seen this Pixar film yet? Reviewers are "singing its praises" and touting it was one of Pixar's best, if not the very best (in the PQ department).


I saw clips of the Blu-Ray on my computer monitor. It looks good but I can't give a meaningful comparison to other Pixar movies which I've seen on my 60-inch TV. Some of those are my favorite movies so I'd be biased anyway. It has a lot of fine detail, along with bloom / glow effects. I don't particularly care for its art style, but technically it will probably do very well in the tiers. It is a refinement of everything Pixar has done previously, so it's probably one of the best-looking movies they've made. Artistically I much prefer the underwater beauty of Finding Nemo, the stone streets of Paris in Ratatouille, and the brief space interlude in WALL-E.

The Good Dinosaur, also a 2015 Pixar movie, blows Inside Out out of the water for picture quality. I can't wait for TGD to come to Blu-Ray. If they do it right it may be my choice for best-looking Blu-Ray. Visually, it's like a CGI nature documentary.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I've been meaning to see Inside Out, I have no doubt as to its stellar picture quality. Pixar has never really let us down before.

I believe in the need for a Tier list, which is why I have hung around so long supporting it. I definitely see a need for a 4K companion to the Blu-ray Tiers. Saying that, I don't foresee myself personally jumping into 4K tech this year. Someone else would have to maintain any potential 4K Tiers. 

I suspect it will become a bigger and bigger part of the discussion here as time marches on. Hopefully the studios have learned their mistakes from prior formats and release visually suitable material for UHD.


----------



## djoberg

monomial said:


> Does anyone have any ideas for a potential 4K tier list? It'd be a big commitment. Early releases will swindle people: you'd be lucky to get something that uses a 4K source at all. Most releases in the first two years will end up being 4K live action with 2K effects. We saw that same kind of upscale-swindle early on in the Blu-Ray era.
> 
> I saw clips of the Blu-Ray on my computer monitor. It looks good but I can't give a meaningful comparison to other Pixar movies which I've seen on my 60-inch TV. Some of those are my favorite movies so I'd be biased anyway. It has a lot of fine detail, along with bloom / glow effects. I don't particularly care for its art style, but technically it will probably do very well in the tiers. It is a refinement of everything Pixar has done previously, so it's probably one of the best-looking movies they've made. Artistically I much prefer the underwater beauty of Finding Nemo, the stone streets of Paris in Ratatouille, and the brief space interlude in WALL-E.
> 
> The Good Dinosaur, also a 2015 Pixar movie, blows Inside Out out of the water for picture quality. I can't wait for TGD to come to Blu-Ray. If they do it right it may be my choice for best-looking Blu-Ray. Visually, it's like a CGI nature documentary.


Yes, I had heard of the stellar PQ in _The Good Dinosaur_. In fact, I was hoping to see a preview of it when we were at Epcot in Florida 10 days ago. We went to the "Disney & Pixar Animated Shorts" at Epcot's "Magic Eye Theater." We did see 3 very well-done shorts in 3D while there.

Regarding a 4K tier, I have to echo Phantom's sentiments. I will NOT be jumping into the 4K tech in the foreseeable future. I would absolutely LOVE to go out and buy a 65-75" 4K tv (preferably an OLED), but at present my KURO Elite is still a pleasure to watch. Also, I'm waiting for standard formats to be set in 4K tvs before I spend a lot of money on a display that may not be "future-proof." I know that Samsung, Sony, LG and others are _saying_ their displays are future-proof, but with different formats still competing (the biggest one being the HDR format) I'm going to wait awhile before boarding the 4K train. Of course, one will need to upgrade their receiver and blu-ray player too, so again I'm waiting for things to get settled and for bugs to be worked out too before I take the plunge.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*88*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

_88_ represents the number of minutes I can never get back from watching this movie. In better news, Millennium Entertainment's Blu-ray presentation has appreciably pleasing video quality. Someone more inclined to be favorable towards _88_ could easily place this disc in the lower quarters of Tier One with its clear, sharp definition.

*Your Sister's Sister*

recommendation: *Tier 2.75**

This charming indie romance features very standard indie cinematography with limited depth and a flat color palette, which limits its picture quality ceiling. IFC Films provides a technically sound Blu-ray presentation that perfectly replicates the filmmaker's intentions.

Years ago I tried to popularize the idea of benchmarks or common reference points in the PQ Tiers, though it never caught on to any substantial degree. The perfectly ordinary video of _Your Sister's Sister_ would have been a great example of what I consider average-looking picture quality for the Tiers.


----------



## djoberg

*Inside Out*

Yep, we have another WINNER!!

Every time I watch a Pixar animated film I try to find something that sets it apart from its brothers, sisters and cousins (i.e. other Pixar films), for they all have topnotch PQ. This one had one characteristic throughout the movie that was quite rare...there was a GLOW around each "emotion" (especially JOY) that was like an "aura of light." I know words will fall short in describing it, but I was mesmerized by the animator's ability to make it look so REAL. There were also remarkable SHADOWS and LOW LIGHTS in several scenes that were reminiscent of the first half of _WALL-E_ (scenes depicting an apocalyptic earth), treating the viewer to impressive PHOTO-REALISM.

Of course another obvious highlight in this film are the eye-popping COLORS. Richly saturated and vibrant, they never disappoint. BLACK LEVELS, though rare, were deep and inky, and thanks to the lack of black crush, there were amazing SHADOW DETAILS. DEPTH was off the charts at times (I guess the 3D version of this is "reference" all the way through).

When it comes to rating this, it is a given that this will find its way into the Top Tier. But where, exactly?! I've seen so many animated marvels from Pixar now that I'm becoming a bit jaded, yet with the highlights mentioned above this should easily be placed in the Top Ten! I won't say it's deserving of the very top, for it didn't have the DETAILS that you saw in some of the other Pixar films. (That's NOT to say there weren't details, for there were, but there were also quite a few characters and objects that were rather flat and lacking texture.) My vote goes for....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (Somewhere in the Top Ten)*

PS I'll leave it to others to be more specific!


----------



## tcramer

djoberg said:


> *Inside Out*
> 
> Yep, we have another WINNER!!
> 
> Every time I watch a Pixar animated film I try to find something that sets it apart from its brothers, sisters and cousins (i.e. other Pixar films), for they all have topnotch PQ. This one had one characteristic throughout the movie that was quite rare...there was a GLOW around each "emotion" (especially JOY) that was like an "aura of light." I know words will fall short in describing it, but I was mesmerized by the animator's ability to make it look so REAL. There were also remarkable SHADOWS and LOW LIGHTS in several scenes that were reminiscent of the first half of _WALL-E_ (scenes depicting an apocalyptic earth), treating the viewer to impressive PHOTO-REALISM.
> 
> Of course another obvious highlight in this film are the eye-popping COLORS. Richly saturated and vibrant, they never disappoint. BLACK LEVELS, though rare, were deep and inky, and thanks to the lack of black crush, there were amazing SHADOW DETAILS. DEPTH was off the charts at times (I guess the 3D version of this is "reference" all the way through).
> 
> When it comes to rating this, it is a given that this will find its way into the Top Tier. But where, exactly?! I've seen so many animated marvels from Pixar now that I'm becoming a bit jaded, yet with the highlights mentioned above this should easily be placed in the Top Ten! I won't say it's deserving of the very top, for it didn't have the DETAILS that you saw in some of the other Pixar films. (That's NOT to say there weren't details, for there were, but there were also quite a few characters and objects that were rather flat and lacking texture.) My vote goes for....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (Somewhere in the Top Ten)*
> 
> PS I'll leave it to others to be more specific!



I can chime in on this one, having just watched it this past weekend. I of course agree with your assessment for right around the top 10, but like you said it just didn't have some of those details and contrasty scenes of the top films. I would slot Inside Out right at the ten spot , between Legend of the Guardians and A Christmas Carol.

*Inside Out Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 - # 10 between Legend of the Guardians and A Christmas Carol*


----------



## djoberg

tcramer said:


> I can chime in on this one, having just watched it this past weekend. I of course agree with your assessment for right around the top 10, but like you said it just didn't have some of those details and contrasty scenes of the top films. I would slot Inside Out right at the ten spot , between Legend of the Guardians and A Christmas Carol.
> 
> *Inside Out Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 - # 10 between Legend of the Guardians and A Christmas Carol*


Sounds good to me!


----------



## mweflen

I've had "Inside Out" in my collection for a good while now (you know, two kids and all) and it is definitely superb. Both of the above reviews are accurate. But I don't like evaluating animated movies against live action, so I'll leave the tier rating to others.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Wild Card*

recommendation: *Tier 2.5**

This 2014 Jason Statham film from Lionsgate offers fairly average picture quality for a recent release. There are no overtly poor moments but its mostly sharp video doesn't pop. The color palette is surprisingly untweaked. A neutral grading in an action thriller of this type is exceedingly rare these days.

Lionsgate appears to have tossed this out on home video in a rush, probably costing the disc a quarter tier or more.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Bishop's Wife*

recommendation: *Tier 3.75**

I had been meaning to review this disc for some time and regret not covering it for this past Christmas. It has been out a couple of years and remains one of my favorite seasonal movies.

This 1947 Cary Grant film is brought to Blu-ray in a perfectly sound presentation by WB. It appears a 2K scan of the camera negative works as the source for this fairly new film transfer. I wouldn't call it a complete restoration but some unobtrusive processing gives it a consistent, sharp-for-the-era video. A couple of the effect shots are softer than normal but overall resembles a film-like replication of the original elements.

As expected, the film is shown in its original 1.37:1 aspect ratio. The main feature runs 109 minutes, encoded in a fine AVC video encode on a BD-25. The negative is in good shape with virtually no significant wear.

I think a score in the lower sections of Tier 3 is correct. This is not tack-sharp cinematography and includes the diffuse lighting so common to films of the period. Black levels hold up quite well with a steady contrast. Current fans will likely think this disc looks marvelous. New viewers may not be so taken with its picture quality.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Golden Time: Collection 1*

recommendation: *Tier 1.75**

The 2013 anime looks very good in this two-disc set from Sentai Filmworks. The animation features solid character designs and a vibrant color palette.

It does lack the polish and sophistication of theatrical animation, representing very typical picture quality for anime produced for Japanese television.


----------



## djoberg

I plan on watching _Everest_ tonight with my son-in-law. Has anyone seen it yet? The PQ reviews I've read have really "whetted my appetite!"


----------



## tcramer

djoberg said:


> I plan on watching _Everest_ tonight with my son-in-law. Has anyone seen it yet? The PQ reviews I've read have really "whetted my appetite!"


I haven't seen it yet but it's on my list. I actually just signed up for the 3D Blu-Ray rental site so I can see the 3D version, which I heard was pretty good on this one.


----------



## djoberg

tcramer said:


> I haven't seen it yet but it's on my list. I actually just signed up for the 3D Blu-Ray rental site so I can see the 3D version, which I heard was pretty good on this one.


Our resident AVS reviewer, Ralph Potts, prefers the 3D version over the 2D version (even though it wasn't shot natively in 3D). Here is his stellar review:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-o...2-everest-3d-blu-ray-review.html#post40276338


----------



## tcramer

djoberg said:


> Our resident AVS reviewer, Ralph Potts, prefers the 3D version over the 2D version (even though it wasn't shot natively in 3D). Here is his stellar review:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-o...2-everest-3d-blu-ray-review.html#post40276338


Yep, that is exactly what gave me the idea! I'm an avid reader of Ralph's reviews.


----------



## djoberg

*Everest*

How thankful we can be for all the "reference" and "demo" material that is coming down the pike these days! This one is most definitely "reference" (Tier Blu)!!

From the very outset you knew that clarity, details, depth and colors were going to be topnotch. Many scenes featured a brilliant snow-covered terrain with bright blue skies and the colors (in tents and parkas) POPPED against this dazzling background. Details in rocks, clothing, tents, etc. was phenomenal, and skin texture was what you would expect in a reference title (when frostbite occurred on faces and hands it looked positively REAL). Flesh tones were exemplary, contrast was off the charts, and black levels were excellent (with the exception of a couple of dark scenes where my "black bars" became "dark gray").

I kept comparing this to _The Art of Flight_ because of similar terrain and colors, but this one lacked the green foliage that was found in many shots in AOF. Also, this one featured several blinding snow storms that naturally served to hinder details. _Art of Flight_ is sitting at approximately the .33 mark and I would place this one here....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.66)*

PS The movie itself was very engaging, with an excellent cast and story-line. The audio was REFERENCE in most instances, but we did find the dialogue hard to understand during the storms (the wind was unbelievably loud, so much so that I told my son-in-law that if I had been there it would have driven me crazy long before lapsing into hypothermia).


----------



## tcramer

Awesome to hear about Everest...I can't wait to check it out.

On another note, went and saw The Revenant last night. Sadly the local theater is not great quality with unmasked bars and washed out blacks, even though it's less than a year old. But I will say, this disc will have some amazing potential when it comes out with the dark scenes and great nature footage. I'm sure 1080p will be good, but man if they release this film on UHD it could be a top demo. We will see!


----------



## djoberg

tcramer said:


> Awesome to hear about Everest...I can't wait to check it out.
> 
> On another note, went and saw The Revenant last night. Sadly the local theater is not great quality with unmasked bars and washed out blacks, even though it's less than a year old. But I will say, this disc will have some amazing potential when it comes out with the dark scenes and great nature footage. I'm sure 1080p will be good, but man if they release this film on UHD it could be a top demo. We will see!


I'm excited to see _The Revenant_ on Blu-ray too! Regarding its "dark scenes," I have seen the LG OLED 65EF9500 "up close and personal" and the black levels leave you drooling. LG is having problems with the OLED though (i.e. near black and uniformity issues) but once those are corrected there won't be a panel on earth that is able to compare with it. Having said that, the PRICE of OLED is ridiculous for those who want a 65" or larger. Their upcoming G6 77" may have a MSRP of over 20K! I definitely want at least a 70" so I may have to wait a couple of years for the price to be competitive. Here's hoping my KURO will last that long!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Serial*

recommendation: *Tier 3.25**

Olive Films licensed this 1980 comedy from Paramount. This is an adequate transfer from decent, if unspectacular, film elements. The AVC video encode fully renders the moderate grain structure without error. Its resolution is on the softer side but clarity remains fairly strong. This is not a striking, new transfer oozing with depth and dimensionality, but a very serviceable effort. 


BDInfo scan:



Code:


                                                                                                                 Total   Video                                             
Title                                                            Codec   Length  Movie Size      Disc Size       Bitrate Bitrate Main  Audio Track                          Secondary Audio Track
-----                                                            ------  ------- --------------  --------------  ------- -------  ------------------                        ---------------------
00003.MPLS                                                       AVC     1:32:20 23,397,150,720  23,549,703,013  33.78   30.18   DTS-HD  Master 2.0 1886Kbps (48kHz/24-bit)


----------



## rusky_g

Thanks for so many great reviews guys!

The other night I watched...

*The Maze Runner*

This started off strong with some early scenes showing excellent dimensionlaity. 

They were the best moments and whilst the remainder had good PQ it wasn't the cream of the crop. Competition from new titles is so strong now!

*Tier 1.5*

Edited ranking from 1.25 to 1.5


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Nice to see you back, Russ.

*Hana-Dama: The Origin*

recommendation: *Tier 4.5**

Olive Films releases this 2013 Japanese horror movie in fairly middling quality through no fault of their own. The low-budget movie was filmed with cheap digital cameras and looks it, bearing all the trademarks of unpolished digital video from a few years ago. Independent Japanese filmmakers are simply a few years behind in camera technology. 

The 1080i presentation features regular bouts of aliasing and heavy banding endemic to the original production. This is a native HD production but the rather shoddy video barely takes advantage of the format's full potential.

BDInfo scan:



Code:


                                                                                                                 Total   Video                                             
Title                                                            Codec   Length  Movie Size      Disc Size       Bitrate Bitrate Main  Audio Track                          Secondary Audio Track
-----                                                            ------  ------- --------------  --------------  ------- -------  ------------------                        ---------------------
00002.MPLS                                                       AVC     1:46:56 18,679,308,288  24,642,642,513  23.29   20.00   DTS-HD  Master 2.0 1978Kbps (48kHz/24-bit)


----------



## djoberg

rusky_g said:


> Thanks for so many great reviews guys!
> 
> The other night I watched...
> 
> *The Maze Runner*
> 
> This started off strong with some early scenes showing excellent dimensionlaity.
> 
> They were the best moments and whilst the remainder had good PQ it wasn't the cream of the crop. Competition from new titles is so strong now!
> 
> *Tier 1.25*


Hey Russ...good to see you're still breathing AND watching Blus!!

Thanks for the review. If this is the "first installment," then we are very close (I rated it 1.5). If this is the "second installment," we're still close (I rated that 1.75).


----------



## rusky_g

djoberg said:


> Hey Russ...good to see you're still breathing AND watching Blus!!
> 
> Thanks for the review. If this is the "first installment," then we are very close (I rated it 1.5). If this is the "second installment," we're still close (I rated that 1.75).


Hey Denny

Yep still here! Pretty much settled in to our new house now so back on the Blu's!

To clarify that score was for part 1....I was very tempted to go 1.5 to be honest!


----------



## rusky_g

By the way check out these screens from Legend

http://blushots.weebly.com/legend---2015.html#PhotoSwipe1454616082834

Looks like a winner!


----------



## djoberg

^^^^

Those screen shots look VERY GOOD Russ! When will it come out on Blu-ray?


----------



## rusky_g

It's out here in the UK, Denny....I'm sure US should get a release soon, if not already.


----------



## rusky_g

*Stage Fright (2014)*

I love slasher flicks but musicals aren't so much my thing so this was an interesting choice!

As a film it was ok but for PQ I was really impressed. The only thing that held this back from a higher pegging was a few murky moments where blacks and contrast didn't hit the spot. Elsewhere however they were splendid and more importantly during the moments which really counted. Other highlights were hair strands on the female lead which could be picked apart in most scenes. Overall fidelity was excellent and colours were crisp and inviting. I felt this had more 'pause button moments' than Maze Runner so I may drop my score for that down slightly...

*Tier 1.25*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Batman: Bad Blood*

recommendation: *Tier 1.75**

Please check my preceding twenty-something recommendations for WB Animation's direct-to-video output if you would like my views on this disc. These animated movies from Warner for DC Comics have hit a wall in terms of polish and development.


----------



## monomial

*Way of the Dragon*

recommendation: *Tier 4.5**

This 1972 Bruce Lee movie got a low-budget transfer in Hong Kong. I imported it and it's watchable, but far below most Blu-Rays. Better than upscaled DVD in some spots (maybe 50-75% of the film). In the rest I wonder if all they did was upscale an old transfer. At its worst it's fuzzy and out of focus. You can barely see what's going on in some of the long-distance shots.

The worst shot of the whole film:









Cropped and inverted:









Thankfully the rest isn't as terrible, but this shows kind of effort put into this.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Hong Kong Blu-rays for films from the Seventies usually suffer from poor transfers and erratic film elements. I think many of those films will forever be "trapped" at nearly DVD resolution. The Korean market occasionally gets a hold of them and gives a better effort.


----------



## djoberg

rusky_g said:


> It's out here in the UK, Denny....I'm sure US should get a release soon, if not already.


The release date for _Legend_ in the U.S. is March 1st. I've read a number of reviews on Amazon regarding the PQ and all that have the Blu-ray are singing its praises! I can believe this based on those stellar screen shots you linked us to.


----------



## djoberg

*Momentum*

This low-budget, action/thriller was underwhelming as a movie and simply "okay" in the PQ department. Most of the scenes took place outdoors at night or in low-lit interiors. Black levels were so-so, but on occasion there were splashes of "noise." Details were pleasing, especially in facial texture, hair, and clothing. Depth was lacking, for the most part, but at times it jumped out at you. Colors were drab, due to a muted color palette and the infamous "teal" color-grading. Skin tones were accurate though, in spite of the lack of color and blue hues.

As I said, the PQ was just okay, but it fell short of the standards that we are growing accustomed to today. This is not to say it didn't have its moments; in fact, at times it was "demo-worthy," but all things considered it may find itself in Tier 2. As I contemplate my final placement recommendation, I'm waiting for my "generous rater gene" to kick in......well. it's not kicking in....so, I'll go with....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0**

PS The audio was LOUD!!! Had I been home alone I might have turned it up to -10 or so, but with my wife one floor above me I opted for no more than -18.
PPS I could see others wanting to place this at 1.75 because of the excellent facial texture and details in general.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> *Momentum*
> 
> This low-budget, action/thriller was underwhelming as a movie and simply "okay" in the PQ department. Most of the scenes took place outdoors at night or in low-lit interiors. Black levels were so-so, but on occasion there were splashes of "noise." Details were pleasing, especially in facial texture, hair, and clothing. Depth was lacking, for the most part, but at times it jumped out at you. Colors were drab, due to a muted color palette and the infamous "teal" color-grading. Skin tones were accurate though, in spite of the lack of color and blue hues.
> 
> As I said, the PQ was just okay, but it fell short of the standards that we are growing accustomed to today. This is not to say it didn't have its moments; in fact, at times it was "demo-worthy," but all things considered it may find itself itself in Tier 2. As I contemplate my final placement recommendation, I'm waiting for my "generous rater gene" to kick in......well. it's not kicking in....so, I'll go with....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.0**
> 
> PS The audio was LOUD!!! Had I been home alone I might have turned it up to -10 or so, but with my wife one floor above me I opted for no more than -18.
> PPS I could see others wanting to place this at 1.75 because of the excellent facial texture and details in general.


I completely concur with your assessment of _Momentum_. I thought I had made a post about _Momentum_ for the PQ Tiers but a search reveals nothing. I reviewed it for DoBlu.com and like you, found its middling picture quality acceptable but not outstanding in any measure. It's been a couple of months since I watched it but _Momentum_ would have earned a ranking somewhere around Tier 2.5 if I had bothered writing up a recommendation.

Here is _Momentum's_ BDInfo scan:



Code:


                                                                                                                 Total   Video                                             
Title                                                            Codec   Length  Movie Size      Disc Size       Bitrate Bitrate Main  Audio Track                          Secondary Audio Track
-----                                                            ------  ------- --------------  --------------  ------- -------  ------------------                        ---------------------
00200.MPLS                                                       AVC     1:36:00 18,815,250,432  23,628,200,754  26.13   22.00   Dolby  TrueHD 5.1 1344Kbps (48kHz/16-bit)


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> I completely concur with your assessment of _Momentum_. I thought I had made a post about _Momentum_ for the PQ Tiers but a search reveals nothing. I reviewed it for DoBlu.com and like you, found its middling picture quality acceptable but not outstanding in any measure. It's been a couple of months since *I watched it but Momentum would have earned a ranking somewhere around Tier 2.5 if I had bothered writing up a recommendation.*


I voted for 2.0 so _perhaps_ my "generous rater gene" did kick in after-all!


----------



## djoberg

Has anyone seen _Bridge of Spies_ yet? I've been trying to rent it all week but the copies in our local Video Store aren't being returned when they should be. I've read that both the movie and the PQ are quite good.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Hopefully another Tier user can chime in, Denny.

*Beyond the Valley of the Dolls (UK Region B)*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

Arrow Video licensed this movie for release from Twentieth-Century Fox in the UK. I've seen no indications Fox plans to do anything with this film in Region A. This is simply a magnificent film transfer oozing with perfect saturation and fine detail. Featuring a relatively new scan from the negative, the elements are in immaculate shape.

The 1970 film has wonderful depth in its razor-sharp presentation, some of the most consistent seen for this vintage on Blu-ray. I am shocked no one has tried to license this movie in North America considering the quality of this master. I would wager that Arrow Video did attempt to license it for an American version and were thwarted by Fox themselves.


----------



## tcramer

djoberg said:


> Has anyone seen _Bridge of Spies_ yet? I've been trying to rent it all week but the copies in our local Video Store aren't being returned when they should be. I've read that both the movie and the PQ are quite good.


I've heard the same and can't wait to see it. I thought about purchasing, but it seems to be pricey at $27 most places. It's at the top of my Netflix queue, but sadly isn't available until 3/1 so I more than likely won't see it before then.


----------



## djoberg

tcramer said:


> I've heard the same and can't wait to see it. I thought about purchasing, but it seems to be pricey at $27 most places. It's at the top of my Netflix queue, but sadly isn't available until 3/1 so I more than likely won't see it before then.


I was able to rent a copy an hour ago and will be watching it tonight!


----------



## CCsoftball7

djoberg said:


> I was able to rent a copy an hour ago and will be watching it tonight!


You need to watch this too:






The movie itself is phenomenally done.


----------



## djoberg

CCsoftball7 said:


> You need to watch this too:
> 
> https://youtu.be/0p1Iv9z8bOY
> 
> The movie itself is phenomenally done.


I actually saw this the night it aired. Hilarious!

Your assessment (that the movie was "phenomenally done") echoes that of others. My appetite is whetted!


----------



## djoberg

*Bridge of Spies*

I will say from the outset that this will never make its way into Tier Blu, but I have high hopes that it "may" make it into Tier Gold. This is a tale of "two halves." The first half of the movie had more clarity, details, depth and color (though primaries were still lacking). The second half, which took place in Berlin, featured a very drab and gritty look, with softness intruding in many scenes.

I was hoping to see rich black levels based on several reviews I had read, but they weren't nearly as impressive as I was led to believe. At times my "black bars" were "gray bars," though thankfully there was not one instance of black crush. Shadow details were "okay." Flesh tones were excellent. A thin layer of grain was present throughout and it yielded enhanced details. Colors were, as intimated above, muted and drab, but there was one shot that really caught my eye...it was at the 60 minute mark where the wife of Tom Hanks was shown with a rather bright yellow sweater. That one shot had it all....vibrant color, amazing depth, mesmerizing details and crystal-clear clarity (too bad it only lasted a few seconds)! 

Before I sign off, the movie was very slow-paced, but with exceptional acting and remarkable character development, I didn't mind at all. This was a very good movie, IMHO. As CCsoftball7 said, it was "phenomenally done."

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**


----------



## tcramer

djoberg said:


> *Bridge of Spies*
> 
> I will say from the outset that this will never make its way into Tier Blu, but I have high hopes that it "may" make it into Tier Gold. This is a tale of "two halves." The first half of the movie had more clarity, details, depth and color (though primaries were still lacking). The second half, which took place in Berlin, featured a very drab and gritty look, with softness intruding in many scenes.
> 
> I was hoping to see rich black levels based on several reviews I had read, but there weren't nearly as impressive as I was led to believe. At times my "black bars" were "gray bars," though thankfully there was not once instance of black crush. Shadow details were "okay." Flesh tones were excellent. A thin layer of grain was present throughout and it yielded enhanced details. Colors were, as intimated above, muted and drab, but there was one shot that really caught my eye...it was at the 60 minute mark where the wife of Tom Hanks was shown with a rather bright yellow sweater. That one shot had it all....vibrant color, amazing depth, mesmerizing details and crystal-clear clarity (too bad it only lasted a few seconds)!
> 
> Before I sign off, the movie was very slow-paced, but with exceptional acting and remarkable character development, I didn't mind at all. This was a very good movie, IMHO. As CCsoftball7 said, it was "phenomenally done."
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75**


I gotta say that is a bit disappointing to hear. At least the movie was good, although given the less than stellar PQ, I may decide to use some of my Vudu credits and view the HDX version instead of waiting for Netflix.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

tcramer said:


> I gotta say that is a bit disappointing to hear. At least the movie was good, although given the less than stellar PQ, I may decide to use some of my Vudu credits and view the HDX version instead of waiting for Netflix.


Sadly, the HDX version probably equals Tier 4.5 with epic banding and loss of detail.


----------



## tcramer

Phantom Stranger said:


> Sadly, the HDX version probably equals Tier 4.5 with epic banding and loss of detail.


Valid point - that's why I never use it. What to do with my $20 of Vudu credits I've been sitting on for years now...


----------



## Phantom Stranger

tcramer said:


> Valid point - that's why I never use it. What to do with my $20 of Vudu credits I've been sitting on for years now...


I usually go with television content that will never make it out on Blu-ray or another superior format.


----------



## djoberg

tcramer said:


> I gotta say that is a bit disappointing to hear. At least the movie was good, although given the less than stellar PQ, I may decide to use some of my Vudu credits and view the HDX version instead of waiting for Netflix.


It was definitely worth a rent and I did recommend 1.75, which is not too shabby! Besides, your viewing experience may turn out to be better than mine.


----------



## djoberg

*Spectre*

I just read my rather lengthy review of _Skyfall_. I wanted to refresh my memory to see if it mirrored my reflections of _Spectre_ and IT DID! The same awesome details, clarity and depth in daytime scenes (especially any of the outdoor, daytime shots). The same amazing cinematography. The same phenomenal blacks levels and shadow details in night time scenes (they were a real treat in nighttime aerial views of London, Rome and other cities....I believe Bond did more "globe-trotting" in this outing then in his previous 3 films). The same eclectic color-grading (a different hue was featured for each location). The color-grading DID AFFECT flesh tones again, but not quite as bad as in the casino scene in _Skyfall_. I noticed more SOFTNESS this time around.

I gave _Skyfall_ a 1.0 rating and I believe this one deserves the same, though I could see others opting for low Tier 0 or even a bit higher.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**

PS The audio was INCREDIBLE!! The first scene featured a huge explosion that ROCKED MY WALLS and waves of energy could be felt sweeping over me. There was another fantastic explosion later in the movie. The action in the surrounds was precise and enveloping.

PPS The movie wasn't as good as _Skyfall_ but it was definitely better than _Quantum of Solace_.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Hangman*

recommendation: *Tier 3.0**

A decent presentation limited by the film's concept. Most of the movie is viewed through spy cameras surreptitiously placed throughout a home. That entails the familiar night-vision aesthetic for many night shots and ordinary video during the day.

_Hangman_ is one of those presentations that doesn't really fit very well into our neat Tier categories. It can move from sharp to fuzzy in the blink of an eye, covering a wide range of Tiers.

BDInfo scan:



Code:


                                                                                                                 Total   Video                                             
Title                                                            Codec   Length  Movie Size      Disc Size       Bitrate Bitrate Main  Audio Track                          Secondary Audio Track
-----                                                            ------  ------- --------------  --------------  ------- -------  ------------------                        ---------------------
00008.MPLS                                                       AVC     1:24:38 20,237,623,296  21,488,207,531  31.88   26.97   Dolby  TrueHD 5.1 1789Kbps (48kHz/24-bit)


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Agent 8 3/4*

recommendation: *Tier 2.75**

VCI Entertainment put out this lighter Cold War spy movie from 1964 a few years ago. This is a pleasant film transfer with solid color saturation and crisp definition for its vintage. The 96-minute main feature is encoded in VC-1, likely one of the last Blu-rays to receive that codec. The encode transparently renders the film's grain structure and detail with ease, it's a quality compression effort.

I would guess possibly two different film elements were utilized for the transfer. Some of the picture shows remarkable detail and sharpness, almost certainly taken directly from the negative. The rest of the picture is a softer experience from secondary elements. Other than a small bit of sharpening, the film-like transfer shows little processing. I can see why VCI Entertainment picked this transfer out to release on Blu-ray.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Wolf Children*

recommendation: *Tier 1.25**

The 2012 anime movie receives a stellar presentation on Blu-ray. This is mature, refined animation with a gentle grace. Funimation bestows the main feature with a perfect AVC video encode. 

The animation doesn't have quite the pop and depth of the best theatrical animation but makes up for that with polished, smoothly-drawn detail.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Martyrs (2015)*

recommendation: *Tier 1.25**

Before I proceed further I wanted to clarify this is the new American remake of the French-Canadian horror film. The digital production looks exemplary on Blu-ray with razor-sharp detail. This is one of the better looking horror films recently released on Blu-ray, superbly handled by Starz/Anchor Bay in this winning presentation.

The color grading does lean towards a slightly desaturated palette but it's not the exaggerated schema so often employed in these dark thrillers. 1080P resolution screenshots are available in the usual place.

BDInfo scan:



Code:


                                                                                                                 Total   Video                                             
Title                                                            Codec   Length  Movie Size      Disc Size       Bitrate Bitrate Main  Audio Track                          Secondary Audio Track
-----                                                            ------  ------- --------------  --------------  ------- -------  ------------------                        ---------------------
00200.MPLS                                                       AVC     1:26:25 20,177,713,152  21,821,208,421  31.13   26.96   Dolby  TrueHD 5.1 1282Kbps (48kHz/16-bit)


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Enter The Ninja*

recommendation: *Tier 4.0**

Despite my fondness for this movie, I am not feeling charitable today with its scoring. Released by Kino Lorber, the transfer looks licensed from MGM's vault of terribly dated transfers. This is a very ordinary presentation with dull resolution and overall softness.

I am glad to see these older MGM catalog properties hit Blu-ray but it's clear by now that the nearly bankrupt studio hasn't done new film transfers since DVD was the only format around.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You're on a roll Phantom! Keep it up!!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> You're on a roll Phantom! Keep it up!!


I squeeze in a review here and there, Denny.

*Pray For Death*

recommendation: *Tier 3.5**

_Pray For Death_ is another ninja movie starring Sho Kosugi with a fairly similar pedigree to _Enter the Ninja_. The key difference on Blu-ray being that Arrow Video licensed Pray For Death from MGM instead of Kino Lorber. Neither sport incredible new film transfers but _Pray For Death _has a slightly more film-like appearance.

Arrow Video does a very credible job with the ninja flick, doing what they can with the pedestrian cinematography and older transfer.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Coppelion: The Complete Series*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

The 2013 anime looks beautiful on Blu-ray. Released by Viz Media in a two-disc set, there are many stunning moments of eye candy. This might be the best-looking anime I've seen on Blu-ray that wasn't made for the theaters.

_Coppelion's_ fluid animation features wonderfully detailed and elaborate background art. The character designs are refreshingly eccentric with thick line-art and subtle cel shading. There is absolutely nothing wrong in this striking presentation.

Tempted to place this in the highest tier, _Coppelion_ settles back into a consistently excellent title for Tier One after a gorgeous opening episode.


----------



## wattheF

It's been awhile since i have stopped by but I just recently picked up The Good Dinosaur 3D BD combo set and I believe we may have a new king folks!
Only watched it in 2D once so far but from what I could tell I think it may de-throne MU. Another more critical viewing is needed to do a real review but I can tell you for sure it is spectacular.


----------



## wattheF

Phantom Stranger said:


> It will be interesting to see how _The Hateful Eight_ looks on Blu-ray.


Can't wait...best theater PQ I have seen yet. Saw it in 70mm!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

wattheF said:


> It's been awhile since i have stopped by but I just recently picked up The Good Dinosaur 3D BD combo set and I believe we may have a new king folks!
> Only watched it in 2D once so far but from what I could tell I think it may de-throne MU. Another more critical viewing is needed to do a real review but I can tell you for sure it is spectacular.


That is great news to hear about _The Good Dinosaur_, I expect it to be a very serious contender for the top spot. Alas, I haven't gotten a chance to watch it. It's good to hear from you, watt.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Vampire Academy*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

How has this masterpiece gone unranked so far on the Tiers!? I had to fill the gaping hole left by this 2014 film's absence, so I answered the call.

Starz/Anchor Bay provides a cleanly proficient presentation for a movie filmed with ARRI Alexa cameras. Its sharp video exudes clarity and dimensionality. There is little pandering to film-like textures, the cinematography embraces a purely digital aesthetic.


----------



## djoberg

*Spotlight*

This was a "mixed bag" with many "reference scenes" mixed in with "Tier 2 or tier 3" scenes. The obvious "highlights" were DETAILS, DEPTH & CLARITY in most of the daytime, outdoor scenes and in some of indoor scenes (inside the Boston Globe) where there was good lighting. But there were numerous scenes inside cafes, offices, homes, etc. where SOFTNESS was in play, leaving you with a lack of depth and details. Colors were muted throughout the film; in fact, in a majority of the Boston Globe scenes there was the typical "teal hues" leaving you with a very "sterile look."

In regard to details, I must say that facial textures were superb, and this wasn't limited to close-ups...even some mid-range shots were quite impressive. Black levels (when present) were acceptable, but nothing to rave about. When I started out by saying, "This was a mixed bag," I thought of the many, many times you were treated to exceptional sharpness, clarity and depth, and then in an instant softness reared its ugly head and it fell flat and was void of details.

In "averaging things out" I decided on voting for....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**


----------



## djoberg

wattheF said:


> It's been awhile since i have stopped by but I just recently picked up The Good Dinosaur 3D BD combo set and I believe we may have a new king folks!
> Only watched it in 2D once so far but from what I could tell I think it may de-throne MU. Another more critical viewing is needed to do a real review but I can tell you for sure it is spectacular.


Thanks for "dropping in" wattheF! I'll have to get my hands on _The Good Dinosaur_ (2D version) and give it a look!


----------



## djoberg

I just picked up a copy of _The Good Dinosaur_ at Target, but I probably won't be viewing it for a few days (unless I can't wait that long).


----------



## Legairre

wattheF said:


> It's been awhile since i have stopped by but I just recently picked up The Good Dinosaur 3D BD combo set and I believe we may have a new king folks!
> Only watched it in 2D once so far but from what I could tell I think it may de-throne MU. Another more critical viewing is needed to do a real review but I can tell you for sure it is spectacular.


I haven't posted been here in a long time, but I always lurk. We watched The Good Dinosaur 2D over the weekend with our Sony VPL-HW40ES projector and 120" screen, and the movie is just jaw dropping. Absolutely the best PQ I've ever seen. I agree, I think we have a new king.


----------



## tcramer

I love Pixar movies but heard the Good Dinosaur was not in the same league story/movie-wise so I was just going to rent it. But, the glowing PQ reviews I've heard thus far are to much to handle so I think I'll need to pick this one up!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*LEGO DC Comics Superheroes: Justice League Cosmic Clash*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

A mildly disappointing release considering I placed DC's last LEGO animated movie in Tier 0. I can't tell if the budget got squeezed or there was a time crunch in production, there seems to be less pop and vibrancy to Cosmic Clash's animation.

This animated feature was definitely written with more of an eye towards the children's market. That audience will find no problem with the visuals, but videophiles should look elsewhere for flashy animation quality.


----------



## Legairre

tcramer said:


> I love Pixar movies but heard the Good Dinosaur was not in the same league story/movie-wise so I was just going to rent it. But, the glowing PQ reviews I've heard thus far are to much to handle so I think I'll need to pick this one up!


Yup story wise it's not up to par with other Pixar movies. The digital animation is so good that trees, plants, rocks, water, clouds, etc... don't even look like animation, they look they filmed real outdoor scenes and placed animated dinosaurs and animals with them, if that makes sense. It's really impressive.

What separates this from MU is that the MU world is designed to look animated while in this movie the animated world is designed to look real, so you can say that rock really looks like a rock. I often found myself saying wow that tree blowing in the wind looks like a real tree blowing. There's just so many scenes of real world objects that look real I thought maybe they did film real world objects and put them in with digital animation.


----------



## djoberg

tcramer said:


> I love Pixar movies but heard the Good Dinosaur was not in the same league story/movie-wise so I was just going to rent it. But, the glowing PQ reviews I've heard thus far are to much to handle so I think I'll need to pick this one up!


I too had heard that _The Good Dinosaur_ was not on the same level as other Pixar films, so I was ready to dismiss it altogether (I wasn't even going to rent it). But I simply can't resist purchasing a title that has such rave reviews and may even end up being the "King of the Blu-ray hill." I probably will use it to show excerpts to adults so they can see just how good an animated movie can look in HD. And I know I'll still end up watching the whole thing multiple times with my grandchildren.


----------



## djoberg

Legairre said:


> Yup story wise it's not up to par with other Pixar movies. The digital animation is so good that trees, plants, rocks, water, clouds, etc... don't even look like animation, they look they filmed real outdoor scenes and placed animated dinosaurs and animals with them, if that makes sense. It's really impressive.
> 
> What separates this from MU is that the MU world is designed to look animated while in this movie the animated world is designed to look real, so you can say that rock really looks like a rock. I often found myself saying wow that tree blowing in the wind looks like a real tree blowing. There's just so many scenes of real world objects that look real I thought maybe they did film real world objects and put them in with digital animation.


You are surely "whetting my appetite" for this movie!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

My expectations for _The Good Dinosaur_ are very, very high.


----------



## |Tch0rT|

Legairre said:


> The digital animation is so good that trees, plants, rocks, water, clouds, etc... don't even look like animation, they look they filmed real outdoor scenes and placed animated dinosaurs and animals with them, if that makes sense. It's really impressive.


This morning I skimmed to a part just to check out the PQ and that's the first thing I noticed is the backgrounds look photo realistic. Gonna have to sit down and watch this with my kid.


----------



## Legairre

|Tch0rT| said:


> This morning I skimmed to a part just to check out the PQ and that's the first thing I noticed is the backgrounds look photo realistic. Gonna have to sit down and watch this with my kid.


Found this short on how they made the environment in The Good Dinosaur look so real

*Spoiler alert for anyone who hasn't seen it yet. It gives a brief explanation of the plot of the movie and shows scenes from the movie.* http://www.wired.com/2015/12/design-fx-good-dinosaur/


----------



## djoberg

Legairre said:


> Found this short on how they made the environment in The Good Dinosaur look so real
> 
> *Spoiler alert for anyone who hasn't seen it yet. It gives a brief explanation of the plot of the movie and shows scenes from the movie.* http://www.wired.com/2015/12/design-fx-good-dinosaur/


Very impressive!

I have a granddaughter coming to stay with us and the first thing she will ask me is, "Do you have any new movies for us to watch Grandpa?" We'll be sliding this in before the day is over if she has her way AND if I have my way (we do have her mother and my wife to answer to).


----------



## Legairre

djoberg said:


> Very impressive!
> 
> I have a granddaughter coming to stay with us and the first thing she will ask me is, "Do you have any new movies for us to watch Grandpa?" We'll be sliding this in before the day is over if she has her way AND if I have my way (we do have her mother and my wife to answer to).


Be careful if she is very young. It's a bit of a dark movie and things do get eaten and stuff.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> Very impressive!
> 
> I have a granddaughter coming to stay with us and the first thing she will ask me is, "Do you have any new movies for us to watch Grandpa?" We'll be sliding this in before the day is over if she has her way AND if I have my way (we do have her mother and my wife to answer to).


I wonder if your wife has any idea why you have so much interest in seeing an animated dinosaur movie.

*We Are Still Here*

recommendation: *Tier 2.5**

I would have been more impressed by this Blu-ray a few years ago, possibly even put it in Tier One. The video is sharp but no attribute truly excels. There is some nice winter scenery in the establishing shots. 

Aside from one or two soft effect shots, this independent production has a professional aesthetic with slightly dour color saturation. I didn't notice compression artifacts.


----------



## djoberg

Legairre said:


> Be careful if she is very young. It's a bit of a dark movie and things do get eaten and stuff.


Duly noted! 

She is 6 years old going on 15 so I "think" she can handle it. (I believe she has even seen some of the _Jurassic Park_ movies.)

Would you believe she walked in our house carrying a nearly 5 year old Blu-ray (_Gnomeo & Juliet_) and she exclaimed, "Grandpa, you gotta see this, it's really good! I tried to convince her that I've seen it before and that we should watch a new release called _The Good Dinosaur_ but her mind was made up so we watched G&J. As the credits were rolling she said, "Now we can watch _The Good Dinosaur_, but I told her "One is enough."


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> I wonder if your wife has any idea why you have so much interest in seeing an animated dinosaur movie.


She knows full well that I'm still "a kid at heart." 

And even more so, she knows I'm obsessed with Picture Quality (and I informed her that this may be "THE ONE"!) and that I "spend too much time on the forums" because of it!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I had forgotten that _Gnomeo & Juliet_ was ranked in Tier Zero/Blu. I think I may have caught that one on cable at some point.


----------



## djoberg

My wife and I were gone most of the day with our granddaughter but when we got home we watched the first half of _The Good Dinosaur_. I will wait until we watch the rest to write a formal review but right now I can say that it has, without a doubt, the best photo-realism EVER in an animated movie. There's simply no comparison! Having said that, it doe NOT have the "in-your-face" COLORS that we are used to seeing in a Top Tier Blu animated title (that's not to say there aren't amazing colors, but they are not as plentiful as in the Top Five animated marvels). I'm NOT saying or implying that I won't recommend a Top Tier Blu placement, but the lack of bright, bold colors may factor into a decision to keep it from trumping _Monsters University_.


----------



## meli

djoberg said:


> ...._The Good Dinosaur_...has, without a doubt, the best photo-realism EVER in an animated movie...


I haven't seen the movie yet, but I remember some critics saying they were distracted by the discrepancy between the photo-realistic backgrounds and the more cartoon-like characters. Maybe you can address that in your review.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Pixar has seemingly made the decision to "soften" their primary characters in terms of animation, they have gone for an increasingly rounded, cartoonish aesthetic with them in recent years. I have a feeling that is for the children in the audience more than it is for adults. The characters end up being merchandised to death.


----------



## wattheF

The Good Dinosaur

This is an all around incredible bluray experience! Although it isn't their deepest and or most refined story line I enjoyed the simplicity of the story and it's message. 

The PQ is absolutely pristine with some of the best clarity and detail I have ever seen. Pixel perfect from a distance of about 2 feet! Depth was great with an almost 3D feel at times. Black levels were perfect and contrast always spot on. The color was saturated but not quite as vibrant as some other animated titles but I believe this was an artistic decision (see below) 

This movie has by far the best photorealism I have ever seen. The backgrounds and landscapes are so lifelike you basically can't tell they are animated. All the characters are animated in a very cartoon like fashion that stands in a contrast to the realistic settings. What is impressive IMO is how well they integrated these two elements. At no point was I distracted by the contrast of characters in thier settings. They just seem to perfectly live in this world. I believe this was one of the reasons why the colors are a bit more subdued. I'm not sure the characters would have blended with the natural colored environments as well if they were colored with super vibrant tones (like in MU).*Edit*- There are occasions when vibrant colors are applied and they really pop off the screen. I have always maintained that I don't believe in necessarily docking points for an artistic decision like this. *Edit*- In fact, in some ways the DYNAMIC use of color in this movie makes for an even more impressive overall presentation than movie titles similar to MU that feature vibrant color constantly throughout. 

There were many times throughout the movie that I literally said "WOW look at that!" The lighting in some of the dark scenes made for some of the most beautiful imagery ever seen on a display. 

To me this at least is a clear top 2 title. In the end it comes down to Monster's University and this. I can see how others might not rank it above MU but in my opinion the PQ perfection combined with the amazing artistic imagery makes The Good Dinosaur the new King of Blu. 

*Edit*-Btw, the audio is excellent in this one as well. Those of you with a good audio system will appreciate the dynamics. 

RANKING- Tier 0 (number 1)

Viewed on my 60" Panasonic ST60 from a viewing distance of 5.5 feet.


----------



## Legairre

wattheF said:


> The Good Dinosaur
> 
> This is an all around incredible bluray experience! Although it isn't thier deepest and or most refined story line I enjoyed the simplicity of the story and it's message.
> 
> The PQ is absolutely pristine with some of the best clarity and detail I have ever seen. Pixel perfect from a distance of about 2 feet! Depth was great with an almost 3D feel at times. Black levels were perfect and contrast always spot on. The color was saturated but not quite as vibrant as some other animated titles but I believe this was an artistic decision (see below)
> 
> This movie has by far the best photorealism I have ever seen. The backgrounds and landscapes are so lifelike you basically can't tell they are animated. All the characters are animated in a very cartoon like fashion that stands in a contrast to the realistic settings. What is impressive IMO is how well they integrated these two elements. At no point was I distracted by the contrast of characters in thier settings. They just seem to perfectly live in this world. I believe this was one of the reasons why the colors are a bit more subdued. I'm not sure the characters would have blended with the natural colored environments as well if they were colored with super vibrant tones (like in MU).
> I have always maintained that I don't believe in necessarily docking points for an artistic decision like this.
> 
> There were many times throughout the movie that I literally said "WOW look at that!" The lighting in some of the dark scenes made for some of the most beautiful imagery ever seen on a display.
> 
> To me this at least is a clear top 2 title. In the end it comes down to Monster's University and this. I can see how others might not rank it above MU but in my opinion the PQ perfection combined with the amazing artistic imagery makes The Good Dinosaur the new King of Blu.
> 
> RANKING- Tier 0 (number 1)
> 
> Viewed on my 60" Panasonic ST60 from a viewing distance of 5.5 feet.


Excellent review. You described exactly whay i saw watching it. It's an absolutely stunning presentation.

I Agree the new king. Tier 0 (number 1).


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Thanks for the reviews guys! I may very well end up agreeing with your placement, for the photo-realism is so breathtaking that it may be enough to put it on top of the Blu-ray Hill! I will be watching the second half this afternoon and will weigh in immediately afterwards.


----------



## wattheF

Legairre said:


> Excellent review. You described exactly whay i saw watching it. It's an absolutely stunning presentation.
> 
> I Agree the new king. Tier 0 (number 1).


Thanks Legairre. Will be viewing the 3D version next.


----------



## djoberg

*The Good Dinosaur*

I have to echo the sentiments of wattheF, for his review was spot-on. This is indeed "absolutely pristine with some of the best clarity and detail I have ever seen." Add to this the most incredible photo-realism and we have ourselves a new "King of the Blu-ray Hill!" I kept expecting some softness to appear or perhaps some banding in the numerous scenes with fast-moving clouds (which truly looked like clouds!!) across rich blue skies, but it remained steadfast in its sharpness and clarity to the very end. And as my colleague mentioned, depth was also phenomenal.

I had alluded to the fact that colors were lacking in comparison to other Top Tier animated movies, but when they were on display, there were rich and vibrant. Whoever designed the various "creatures" were quite clever, giving them exemplary detail and lush colors (wait until you see the "snake" and the "beetle").

I also agree with wattheF when he said that the characters (i.e. dinosaurs, birds, etc.) were integrated into the settings flawlessly; I had no problem with this as some critics who were alluded to.

I kept thinking of another animated gem that I nominated years ago for a place in the Top Five...I'm speaking of _Legend of the Guardians_, which is currently sitting at the #9 spot. That too lacked color but was rich in clarity, detail, depth, and some very good photo-realism. But this one has that beat in that the sharpness, depth and clarity NEVER let up, so I'm going to join my two peers in nominating this for....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (#1)*

PS I hope you have a decent surround system, especially a good sub...if so, you will love the audio!


----------



## wattheF

djoberg said:


> *The Good Dinosaur*
> 
> I have to echo the sentiments of wattheF, for his review was spot-on. This is indeed "absolutely pristine with some of the best clarity and detail I have ever seen." Add to this the most incredible photo-realism and we have ourselves a new "King of the Blu-ray Hill!" I kept expecting some softness to appear or perhaps some banding in the numerous scenes with fast-moving clouds (which truly looked like clouds!!) across rich blue skies, but it remained steadfast in its sharpness and clarity to the very end. And as my colleague mentioned, depth was also phenomenal.
> 
> I had alluded to the fact that colors were lacking in comparison to other Top Tier animated movies, but when they were on display, there were rich and vibrant. Whoever designed the various "creatures" were quite clever, giving them exemplary detail and lush colors (wait until you see the "snake" and the "beetle").
> 
> I also agree with wattheF when he said that the characters (i.e. dinosaurs, birds, etc.) were integrated into the settings flawlessly; I had no problem with this as some critics who were alluded to.
> 
> I kept thinking of another animated gem that I nominated years ago for a place in the Top Five...I'm speaking of _Legend of the Guardians_, which is currently sitting at the #9 spot. That too lacked color but was rich in clarity, detail, depth, and some very good photo-realism. But this one has that beat in that the sharpness, depth and clarity NEVER let up, so I'm going to join my two peers in nominating this for....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (#1)*
> 
> PS I hope you have a decent surround system, especially a good sub...if so, you will love the audio!


Thanks djoberg. And yes I agree the audio is also superb.

Good job pointing out details like the snake and the beetle. Those were two examples of when the color absolutely pops off the screen. In some ways I think the use of color in this movie is even more impressive than in a title like MU because it is so DYNAMIC.

I edited my original review to include these points. 

Just talking about it makes me want to watch it again (will be the 4th time). This one is special.


----------



## tcramer

Well, looks like I'll be forced to purchase The Good Dinosaur now.


----------



## djoberg

wattheF said:


> Thanks djoberg. And yes I agree the audio is also superb.
> 
> Good job pointing out details like the snake and the beetle. Those were two examples of when the color absolutely pops off the screen. In some ways I think the use of color in this movie is even more impressive than in a title like MU because it is so DYNAMIC.
> 
> I edited my original review to include these points.
> 
> Just talking about it makes me want to watch it again (will be the 4th time). This one is special.


I like your thought about "the use of color in this movie is even more impressive than in a title like MU because it is so DYNAMIC." Just as you said in your review, in _Monsters University_ vibrant colors are featured constantly, so the tendency is there to "take it for granted," but in _The Good Dinosaur_ it really does jump out at you because of its limited use.


----------



## djoberg

tcramer said:


> Well, looks like I'll be forced to purchase The Good Dinosaur now.


Believe me tcramer, you will thank us for the COERCION!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I was actually hoping it would get slightly less glowing reviews here so I wouldn't have to buy it.


----------



## wattheF

djoberg said:


> I like your thought about "the use of color in this movie is even more impressive than in a title like MU because it is so DYNAMIC." Just as you said in your review, in _Monsters University_ vibrant colors are featured constantly, so the tendency is there to "take it for granted," but in _The Good Dinosaur_ it really does jump out at you because of its limited use.


Exactly. 

With all the hype around this title I can't help but wonder if we are setting up those that haven't yet watched it for a slight disappointment...? I have found that often things have a tendency to not live up to the hype if one is to experience it after the fact. Sometimes expectations can be blown out of proportion to unrealistic levels.


----------



## djoberg

wattheF said:


> Exactly.
> 
> With all the hype around this title I can't help but wonder if we are setting up those that haven't yet watched it for a slight disappointment...? I have found that often things have a tendency to not live up to the hype if one is to experience it after the fact. Sometimes expectations can be blown out of proportion to unrealistic levels.


Well, your post should put that fear to rest...in other words, it should serve to lower their expectations a bit!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Another trusted source has also told me of the amazing video seen in The Good Dinosaur. I bet the 3-D experience is incredibly vivid.

If you want as concise a summary of modern color grading and all its hairy details on Blu-ray, look no further than this excellent article.

http://notonbluray.com/blog/orange-and-teal/


----------



## wattheF

Phantom Stranger said:


> Another trusted source has also told me of the amazing video seen in The Good Dinosaur. I bet the 3-D experience is incredibly vivid.
> 
> If you want as concise a summary of modern color grading and all its hairy details on Blu-ray, look no further than this excellent article.
> 
> http://notonbluray.com/blog/orange-and-teal/


Thanks for sharing Phantom. Good read and another example of how advances in technology are only as good as those who are using it. Greed and $ can ruin anything. 

It's a shame how not only new releases, but also the classics are being negatively affected, in particular by directors themselves. How can they think that new color grading looks better?! I personally have always been drawn to a natural and balanced color signature. That's probably why I never thought Transformers looked good.


----------



## quake1028

I guess I will be the dissenting voice, for now at least. We watched The Good Dinosaur about 10 days ago with my daughter. Granted, it wasn't the best critical viewing environment, but I don't ever recall being struck that I was looking at the best looking Blu-ray on the market. I have the 3D to view when I get some time alone, and then I will take another look at the 2D in a better frame of mind for thinking about the picture quality.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Fall: Series 1 / Series 2*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

Gorgeous, immaculate video quality is seen from this BBC thriller. Acorn Media serves up a technically perfect, pristine presentation, spreading the eleven episodes over two different sets. Easily the best-looking release I've seen from the niche Blu-ray purveyor of licensed international programs.

Filmed with Arri Alexa digital cameras, _The Fall's_ production quality is top-notch stuff that exudes clarity and razor-sharp detail. The extremely consistent tone and cinematography nearly touch Tier Zero's standards.


----------



## djoberg

quake1028 said:


> I guess I will be the dissenting voice, for now at least. We watched The Good Dinosaur about 10 days ago with my daughter. Granted, it wasn't the best critical viewing environment, but I don't ever recall being struck that I was looking at the best looking Blu-ray on the market. I have the 3D to view when I get some time alone, and then I will take another look at the 2D in a better frame of mind for thinking about the picture quality.


We value your opinion and it would be good for you to write up a review (it can be very, very short) giving us your placement recommendation after you view it again.

In my review, I stressed how impressed I was with the photo-realism. Animation has come a LONG WAY in this area, and this is what sets _The Good Dinosaur_ apart from other contenders for the #1 spot in Tier Blu. Of course, it also has phenomenal clarity, depth and details too, and the colors are amazing when they are on display. 

I just watched _Toy Story 3_ with my granddaughter yesterday and I still believe it deserves the place it currently occupies (#6, I believe), but it simply doesn't compare with _The Good Dinosaur_ because of the photo-realism that truly makes you believe they placed animated characters into a real, live set (like they did in _The Smurfs_). I found myself focusing on the landscapes more than I did on the dinosaurs and other creatures!

I'm not trying to persuade you to rank TGD higher; I'm just giving you the main reason for my opinion (and this obviously holds true for the other two who recommended it be placed on the very top of Tier Blu).


----------



## wattheF

Anyone review Spectre yet? I watched the BD last night and was not at all impressed with the video. I know it was shot in 35mm to maintain an old school look and feel but it just doesn't hold up when compared to top Blurays today. It has been getting excellent reviews from pro reviewers and posters alike but I just don't see it. 

Now the audio, that was very impressive.


----------



## djoberg

wattheF said:


> Anyone review Spectre yet? I watched the BD last night and was not at all impressed with the video. I know it was shot in 35mm to maintain an old school look and feel but it just doesn't hold up when compared to top Blurays today. It has been getting excellent reviews from pro reviewers and posters alike but I just don't see it.
> 
> Now the audio, that was very impressive.


I did review _Spectre_ and here is the link:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-769.html#post41482161

As you will see, I was impressed with it. So, though we certainly agreed on _The Good Dinosaur_, we obviously don't agree on this one.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^

I almost gave it a 1.25 instead of 1.0 due to the intruding SOFTNESS in various scenes.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I have not seen _Spectre_.

Hoyte Van Hoytema (_Her, Interstellar_) was _Spectre's_ director of photography.

More than you ever wanted to know about lighting _Spectre_.

http://www.theasc.com/site/blog/thefilmbook/lighting-spectre/


----------



## wattheF

Oh i like this cinematographer but I just don't get it. It was soft and the biggest issue was blacklevels. Washed out and grey all over... I wonder if my rented version was not on par with the regular? The only other post that agreed that it was not good mentioned they too watched a rented version...?


----------



## tenia54

wattheF said:


> Oh i like this cinematographer but I just don't get it. It was soft and the biggest issue was black levels. Washed out and grey all over... I wonder if my rented version was not on par with the regular? The only other post that agreed that it was not good mentioned they too watched a rented version...?


That's how the film was looking in theaters, so I guess you can try whatever version you can, it will still have shallow black levels since otherwise, it would be revisionnist.



Phantom Stranger said:


> If you want as concise a summary of modern color grading and all its hairy details on Blu-ray, look no further than this excellent article.
> 
> http://notonbluray.com/blog/orange-and-teal/


I strongly advise readers to just read the first 5 paragraphes of this article because the rest of it isn't, well, very precise at all (or also simply doesn't represent accurately what can be found on the market).
This is particularly laughable :

"It would be trivial to include ‘original’ cinema soundtracks on Blu-rays, since a compressed mono soundtrack recorded at a generous 128 kilobits per second would only occupy about 120 megabytes"

128 kbps isn't generous at all. It's awful. It's worst than anything. But it's also not at all how mono tracks are mostly presented on a BD. They're usually presented as LPCM tracks (Criterion, MoC, Arrow, BFI), or DTS HD MA (Fox, Warner, Sony, Gaumont, Carlotta, Wild Side). In some cases, you'll find them as DTS (768 kbps) or DD (being the worst case). I don't have precise figures to draw a representative average bitrate (it would take me weeks to compile everything) but I'd say at worst, a mono track is usually given 640 kbps to breath with, up to 1152 kbps.

I also know that there are cases where remixes are done in a very bad way but remixes with sound effects being "replaced or forgotten" or dialogue "disappears or alternative takes are used" aren't common at all. I'd love to know how many movies have surround mixes using alternative takes for dialogs and how much they represent on the overall market.

It's also fascinating to see they would advise getting the UK BD of The Game instead of the new Criterion one which has a better PQ, has been thoroughly supervised by Harry Savides and approved by Fincher.

Don't get me wrong : I understand how some can be bothered with what is perceived as unwanted color-correction. But as a whole, I think some need to understand what is faithful and what isn't.


----------



## djoberg

wattheF said:


> Oh i like this cinematographer but I just don't get it. It was soft and* the biggest issue was blacklevels. Washed out and grey all over*... I wonder if my rented version was not on par with the regular? The only other post that agreed that it was not good mentioned they too watched a rented version...?


I highlighted your words regarding black levels because this is where I would strongly disagree with you. Aside from some less-than-stellar black levels in one of the opening scenes, I found them to be consistently "deep and inky" with corresponding shadow details.


----------



## wattheF

"That's how the film was looking in theaters, so I guess you can try whatever version you can, it will still have shallow black levels since otherwise, it would be revisionnist" .... 



So I guess it's a case of cinematographer/directors artistic choice or improper use/limitations of equipment used (or a combination). 

For arguments sake... Lets assume this was an artistic decision more than improper technical settings. If that is the case, should I overlook the bad blacklevels and not hold it against the ranking of the BD? Afterall I often say I don't necessarily hold artistic decisions against a ranking...
Well,in this case I think that's a bit of a stretch. Even if you can convince me that the director/DP wanted washed out blacks (unlikely), this is a case of where I believe it SHOULD be held against them. I find it hard to believe they couldn't achieve the asthetic they wished AND still have good blacklevels/contrast. 

So the transfer of the movie to BD may be as good as it possibly can be but in my eyes the source has major flaws and this is going to reflect in the technical rankings of the BD...or at least it should.


----------



## wattheF

djoberg said:


> I highlighted your words regarding black levels because this is where I would strongly disagree with you. Aside from some less-than-stellar black levels in one of the opening scenes, I found them to be consistently "deep and inky" with corresponding shadow details.


Well I guess I better go check my settings then! I dont have the movie to watch again but I seem to recall many times throughout the movie where the BLACK bars on my Panasonic ST60 stood out in contrast to the gray blacks of the movie.

At least there was something in the contrast that didn't agree with my setup and or personal preference.


----------



## djoberg

wattheF said:


> Well I guess I better go check my settings then! I dont have the movie to watch again but I seem to recall many times throughout the movie where the BLACK bars on my Panasonic ST60 stood out in contrast to the gray blacks of the movie.
> 
> At least there was something in the contrast that didn't agree with my setup and or personal preference.


I own the movie so I will check that out. You may be right; I may have been focusing on other things instead of the black bars and didn't notice (though usually I am VERY sensitive to that and it actually takes me out of the movie). Was it during night scenes only that you noticed this?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Not everyone sees the same image in identical terms. It's not impossible the rental version is different, though I don't know if that is the case with Spectre. Tier 1.0 is lofty heights for any disc, it should be nearly flawless.


----------



## djoberg

Regarding _Spectre_ and the director's "artistic intent," there's no doubt that he chose to use several different "hues" for each location in the movie, and that his choice of "color-grading" definitely resulted in a SOFTER look. And perhaps this also lent itself to some faltering black levels (though I still want to check that out to verify it). But regardless of the "director's intent," we judge the PQ in this thread based on certain criteria that was drawn up years ago and "director's intent" is not included in this criteria. To illustrate, one of the features we look for in a top tier Blu-ray is SHARPNESS, so if we see SOFTNESS we must penalize our placement to some degree, even though the director intended there to be softness in a particular scene. Black levels are another good example to comment on, for a top tier Blu must exhibit dark and inky blacks for the majority of the movie. If a director purposely chooses to have "gray" blacks, and perhaps "noise" along with it (as was the case of many of the older "horror" movies), we are bound to dock it for bad black levels.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Get Hard*

recommendation: *Tier 0* (bottom 1/3)*

We've been getting a few more of these in recent years, a comedy with truly dazzling video. _Get Hard_ shines with a rich, wonderfully balanced palette. Gone are the days of baked orange flesh-tones seen in Hollywood's big-budget comedies.

Close-ups show tremendous levels of fine detail, possibly too much in Will Ferrell's case. I could have sworn someone had already covered this movie in the thread but a search turned up nothing.


----------



## tenia54

wattheF said:


> So I guess it's a case of cinematographer/directors artistic choice or improper use/limitations of equipment used (or a combination).
> 
> For arguments sake... Lets assume this was an artistic decision more than improper technical settings. If that is the case, should I overlook the bad blacklevels and not hold it against the ranking of the BD? Afterall I often say I don't necessarily hold artistic decisions against a ranking...
> 
> Well,in this case I think that's a bit of a stretch. Even if you can convince me that the director/DP wanted washed out blacks (unlikely), this is a case of where I believe it SHOULD be held against them. I find it hard to believe they couldn't achieve the asthetic they wished AND still have good blacklevels/contrast.


I think that one should always keep in mind that an aesthetic might imply having a low contrast washed out picture. A perfect picture, artistically wise, doesn't imply deep inky blacks. In France, Henri Alekan was famous for his foggy greyish photography with shallow black levels for instance.

I understand your point though, as if one think of a perfect PQ as having proper deep black levels (meaning deep but not crushed), it can be hard to overlook some aesthetic choices. However, while I strongly believe this is a very subjective matter, I don't want to weigh in this debate but just wanted to share what I saw in theaters. 

In my case, I would for instance rank very highly Spectre's BD PQ because I do believe it is very good, but despite me not wanting it, I would hold it very slightly against the PQ rank and would lower my grade because of it (so, in the end...).


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I've come to think of the PQ Tiers' objective as quantifying what material truly pushes the limits of the format and our current displays. The deepest black levels, the most lush color saturation, the finest detail possible in 1080P resolution, those sort of things. There are always other considerations, but those rank high in my mind. 

Visual impact is another important factor in my estimation, I want casual viewers to go "Wow" when they see the best-ranked discs on a calibrated display. It's why I lobbied hard for _Black Sails_ in Tier Zero.


----------



## wattheF

tenia54 said:


> I think that one should always keep in mind that an aesthetic might imply having a low contrast washed out picture. A perfect picture, artistically wise, doesn't imply deep inky blacks. In France, Henri Alekan was famous for his foggy greyish photography with shallow black levels for instance.
> 
> I understand your point though, as if one think of a perfect PQ as having proper deep black levels (meaning deep but not crushed), it can be hard to overlook some aesthetic choices. However, while I strongly believe this is a very subjective matter, I don't want to weigh in this debate but just wanted to share what I saw in theaters.
> 
> In my case, I would for instance rank very highly Spectre's BD PQ because I do believe it is very good, but despite me not wanting it, I would hold it very slightly against the PQ rank and would lower my grade because of it (so, in the end...).


I agree with you and fully appreciate artistic freedom of expression. I myself am a photographer. I can appreciate that low contrast aesthetic even if it's never been what I gravitate towards. 

Regardless of my love for different forms and styles of art, it looks like I am just starting to fall more in line with Phantoms philosophy that the top tier should represent the VERY best in all areas of PQ regardless of artistic/aesthetic choice. Stylistically some things can be overlooked but technically they should still be top notch. To me that doesn't mean even a highly stylized movie can't still achieve top tier status. 

I think I am going to have to move on from the subject for now as I seem to be alone in my assessment of Spectre. Also, I admit I may be off a bit with my assessment because I only watched it once. I need to watch it again before passing any more judgement because I am starting to wonder if I let my biases (and a few bad scenes) sway my opinion of the PQ a bit too much...I feel I normally don't do this as I always try to be objective with my reviews but maybe this one got away from me a bit...notice that I haven't posted an official review.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

If your first reaction to _Spectre's_ picture quality was underwhelming and one of disappointment, stick with that gut feeling. I've been alone on an island many times in this thread when it comes to these discussions and know the feeling quite well. Most new releases have pushed the envelope so much that I naturally apply tougher standards today when grading a disc for the Tiers.

The discussion has made me curious enough to watch _Spectre_ down the line.

*Disturbing Behavior*

recommendation: *Tier 3.0**

A perfectly ordinary presentation for the 1998 horror movie. Clearly taken from an older HD transfer, this is a serviceable effort with slightly rolled-off fine detail and softer definition.

It is certainly watchable for an older MGM property that hasn't received a new transfer for years.


----------



## wattheF

Phantom Stranger said:


> If your first reaction to _Spectre's_ picture quality was underwhelming and one of disappointment, stick with that gut feeling. I've been alone on an island many times in this thread when it comes to these discussions and know the feeling quite well. Most new releases have pushed the envelope so much that I naturally apply tougher standards today when grading a disc for the Tiers.
> 
> The discussion has made me curious enough to watch _Spectre_ down the line.
> 
> *Disturbing Behavior*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 3.0**
> 
> A perfectly ordinary presentation for the 1998 horror movie. Clearly taken from an older HD transfer, this is a serviceable effort with slightly rolled-off fine detail and softer definition.
> 
> It is certainly watchable for an older MGM property that hasn't received a new transfer for years.


Thanks Phantom. I agree there is so much great PQ with more and more titles lately is raising the bar. 

I would like to hear your opinion on Spectre.


----------



## wattheF

Speaking of all the great PQ as of late...I think it's interesting that the 1080p format continues to see improvement. At the same time UHD/HDR is being introduced I feel that this format is just now reaching its full potential. Its only taken about 13 years... Haha

Maybe I shouldn't ask this here but are there plans for a similar thread for UHD disks? (or does it already exist?)


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I haven't seen a similiar thread to this one for UHD...yet. Discussion about UHD seems to be all over AVS, from this Blu-ray forum to the high-end projector forum.

For those interested and already UHD owners, feel free to emulate the Tiers' basic methodology in a thread dedicated to picture quality for UHDs. It won't be me for a while, I haven't bought into the format but a purchase is eventually in my plans.


----------



## wattheF

Phantom Stranger said:


> I haven't seen a similiar thread to this one for UHD...yet. Discussion about UHD seems to be all over AVS, from this Blu-ray forum to the high-end projector forum.
> 
> For those interested and already UHD owners, feel free to emulate the Tiers' basic methodology in a thread dedicated to picture quality for UHDs. It won't be me for a while, I haven't bought into the format but a purchase is eventually in my plans.


I am waiting myself. I am still very happy with my 1080p Panny plasma. My brother has a "top of the line" Sony 75" XBR940. I have only watched one UHD/HDR title on it and although it was impressive and made a difference i wasn't totally blown away to the point where I can't go home and watch my TV anymore. In fact I think pound for pound the plasma still has better PQ it just can't punch in the UHD/HDR weight class. 
HDR certainly helps with shadow detail and the wider color gamut will be nice but the technology and format is still unrefined at this stage. I will be holding out until a flat 75" + UHD OLED is affordable. By then the kinks will be worked out and more content will be available.


----------



## djoberg

wattheF said:


> I am waiting myself. I am still very happy with my 1080p Panny plasma. My brother has a "top of the line" Sony 75" XBR940. I have only watched one UHD/HDR title on it and although it was impressive and made a difference i wasn't totally blown away to the point where I can't go home and watch my TV anymore. In fact I think pound for pound the plasma still has better PQ it just can't punch in the UHD/HDR weight class.
> HDR certainly helps with shadow detail and the wider color gamut will be nice but the technology and format is still unrefined at this stage. I will be holding out until a flat 75" + UHD OLED is affordable. By then the kinks will be worked out and more content will be available.


Your thoughts (and comments) mirror my own perfectly. I am still very happy with my 1080p KURO but eventually I want to get exactly what you're hoping for...a flat 75" or larger OLED, once they become more affordable. That may be 2 years out or so, for until LG has some competition in the OLED market I highly doubt that they will be dropping their prices significantly.

I can see why members are chiming in inquiring about the possibility of a UHD Blu-ray thread, for there are plenty of affordable LCD/LED 4K sets and with the launch of UHD Blu-ray players AND UHD Blu-rays, it's time for such a thread to be started. But like Phantom, I'm simply not ready to jump on the UHD wagon (for the reasons cited above and more).


----------



## tenia54

Between the lack of a full 4K workflow for movies (which end up mostly finished at 2K), the norms which are only now being finalised, the close-to-revisionism HDRed masters and the expected-to-be-a-nightmare HDCP 2.2, I'm currently waiting to see how the UHD BD will turn out. As it is today, it fails lamentably to make me dream even a notch.
And I can't even think of the improvement brought by HDR... on a non-calibrated screen.


----------



## wattheF

tenia54 said:


> Between the lack of a full 4K workflow for movies (which end up mostly finished at 2K), the norms which are only now being finalised, the close-to-revisionism HDRed masters and the expected-to-be-a-nightmare HDCP 2.2, I'm currently waiting to see how the UHD BD will turn out. As it is today, it fails lamentably to make me dream even a notch.
> And I can't even think of the improvement brought by HDR... on a non-calibrated screen.


Lots of good points here. For those of us that are sticklers for quality the UHD road is a pretty rocky ride right now. There are still so many questionsto be answered and calibration is certainly one of the big ones. This is going to take some time to sort out and until then I'm sitting pretty with my ST60.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

As a videophile, I am still very excited about UHD's potential and firmly believe it's the future. But my days of being a bleeding edge early adopter are over, I will allow others to signal when the format is ready for prime time.

It took the studios nearly four years before I think they hit their stride with Blu-ray's full video potential. I hope they maximize UHD's quality as quickly as possible.


----------



## JoeBloggz

djoberg said:


> Your thoughts (and comments) mirror my own perfectly. I am still very happy with my 1080p KURO but eventually I want to get exactly what you're hoping for...a flat 75" or larger OLED, once they become more affordable. That may be 2 years out or so, for until LG has some competition in the OLED market I highly doubt that they will be dropping their prices significantly.
> 
> I can see why members are chiming in inquiring about the possibility of a UHD Blu-ray thread, for there are plenty of affordable LCD/LED 4K sets and with the launch of UHD Blu-ray players AND UHD Blu-rays, it's time for such a thread to be started. But like Phantom, I'm simply not ready to jump on the UHD wagon (for the reasons cited above and more).


I have to completely agree here. My Kuro still delivers one of the best(if not the best) PQ around. I've owned this set since 2009 and I'm still blown away buy the utter brilliance sometimes, especially after having a true ISF calibration. I can't see being an early adopter at this point, I'll let OLED become more affordable and wait for my Kuro to expire. 

I haven't been around much lately(finishing up grad school) but I pop in from time to time to read the thoughts of the mainstay contributors here. I picked up the good dinosaur on release day. I had seen it in the theater with my two boys. After viewing it twice on Blu ray, I can unequivocally agree with the ratings so far, and put it atop Tier 0. It's absolutely stunning. If I find time I may write a formal review 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

JoeBloggz said:


> I have to completely agree here. My Kuro still delivers one of the best(if not the best) PQ around. I've owned this set since 2009 and I'm still blown away buy the utter brilliance sometimes, especially after having a true ISF calibration. I can't see being an early adopter at this point, I'll let OLED become more affordable and wait for my Kuro to expire.
> 
> I haven't been around much lately(finishing up grad school) but I pop in from time to time to read the thoughts of the mainstay contributors here. I picked up the good dinosaur on release day. I had seen it in the theater with my two boys. After viewing it twice on Blu ray, I can unequivocally agree with the ratings so far, and put it atop Tier 0. It's absolutely stunning. If I find time I may write a formal review
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


Good to hear from you Joe!

After reading your thoughts on "having a true ISF calibration" done, it reminded me that I came ever-so-close to having David Abrams (a highly respected calibrator who does tours around the country) calibrate my PRO-151, but then I moved from North Dakota to Minnesota and I had to cancel it because my KURO was in storage during the time of the scheduled calibration. I do use the excellent "Pure Mode" and I use the settings given to Forum members by D-Nice (another famed calibrator). I can hardly imagine that it would look any better than it does, but I'm sure it would so I may have it done at some point.

Thanks for confirming our placement for _The Good Dinosaur_! It is indeed STUNNING and deserves to be the "King of the Blu-ray Hill." I'm sure Phantom will be considering your placement recommendation, even without a "formal review."


----------



## Phantom Stranger

JoeBloggz' opinion counts, we take everyone's contributions into consideration when formulating the rankings.


----------



## wattheF

Pan

This wasn't the greatest movie but did offer some great visuals. Much of the movie featured CG effects that due to their nature looked ever so slightly "soft". I find this is fairly common for CG effects and I didn't find it distracting while watching the movie. As far a PQ is concerned it was a mixed bag...

The opening sequence was dark and looked very soft. The black levels were very good but contrast still looked a bit washed out. As the movie progressed and themes changed the PQ improved drastically. Colors were natural with lots of pop. Contrast was impressive with great blacklevels/shadow detail and for the most part clarity and sharpness was great particularly with closeups. The most impressive aspect was the depth. It often had an almost 3D feel. But there were a few fleeting shots throughout the movie that again looked very soft. 

It's too bad this BD is so inconsistent because when it's good, it's really good. There were parts that are definitely demo worthy and maybe even reference quality but the inconsistencies will clearly affect the overall ranking. I am going to be a bit lenient because for the most part I was impressed. 

Ranking- 1.25

Watched on my 60" ST60 from a viewing distance of 6.5 feet.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^

Thanks for the very good review wattheF!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Consistency is a trait I definitely look for in the highest ranked discs. That is why I think low-key dramas sometimes have an advantage with their perfect lighting and controlled, studio-shot interiors. Many action movies and thrillers involve weaker moments of clarity and other problems.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Bandits*

recommendation: *Tier 2.25**

The 2001 MGM movie turns out fairly well in this release from Olive Films. Some minor halos and a smidge of filtering, but the sharp presentation comes from pristine film elements with nice definition and clarity.

An easy recommendation for some place in Tier 2. A competent AVC video encode cleanly renders the light grain structure and fine detail. The transfer was definitely first struck in the Blu-ray era, this is not some ancient MGM transfer over a decade old that has been gathering dust.


----------



## JoeBloggz

djoberg said:


> Good to hear from you Joe!
> 
> After reading your thoughts on "having a true ISF calibration" done, it reminded me that I came ever-so-close to having David Abrams (a highly respected calibrator who does tours around the country) calibrate my PRO-151, but then I moved from North Dakota to Minnesota and I had to cancel it because my KURO was in storage during the time of the scheduled calibration. I do use the excellent "Pure Mode" and I use the settings given to Forum members by D-Nice (another famed calibrator). I can hardly imagine that it would look any better than it does, but I'm sure it would so I may have it done at some point.
> 
> Thanks for confirming our placement for _The Good Dinosaur_! It is indeed STUNNING and deserves to be the "King of the Blu-ray Hill." I'm sure Phantom will be considering your placement recommendation, even without a "formal review."


You will not be disappointed if you do have a calibration done. Especially since you never had one, even with Pure mode settings and D-Nice (which I also used prior to calibration), as you may know picture settings can, with time "drift. IMHO, pure mode and D-Nice recommended settings cannot compare to an ISF calibration. On paper, and more importantly, to my eyes its flat out better. Trust me, I couldn't believe the PQ could get better, but it absolutely can. I had mine done by umr (Jeff Meier) another well respected calibrator who does tours as well. If I remember correctly, I think I've shared my calibration report with you in the past.


----------



## |Tch0rT|

How many people who contribute to this list have their displays calibrated? I went the DIY route myself. I love my i1 Display Pro and eeColorbox, I just wish my Mits DLP didn't drift so much. :/


----------



## Phantom Stranger

|Tch0rT| said:


> How many people who contribute to this list have their displays calibrated? I went the DIY route myself. I love my i1 Display Pro and eeColorbox, I just wish my Mits DLP didn't drift so much. :/


So you have calibration hardware? How often do you calibrate your display?

*The Final Girls*

recommendation: *Tier 1.75**

A sterile, over-driven digital production with razor-sharp video. Some inconsistencies and dramatic swings in its cinematography mark this movie released by Sony.

Detail and definition are quite high, likely deserving a higher placement. Other factors weigh its rank downwards, including some very soft special effects. The oddly unpolished image quality appears to result from a quick and cheap production.


----------



## |Tch0rT|

Phantom Stranger said:


> So you have calibration hardware? How often do you calibrate your display?


Yeah. I actually just got done touching up an LG 37LD450 HDTV I use as a PC monitor since it supports 4:4:4. I use an i1 Display Pro colorimeter, one of these days I'll pick up a spectro to compliment it. I have a eeColor 3DLUT box for my Mits DLP. I use HCFR for manual measurements and validation and ArgyllCMS + dispcalGUI for auto calibration.

My displays:

Mitsubishi WD73640 RP DLP, this needs madVR or eeColor 3DLUT correction. Due to the aging of the lamp and it's brightness slowly dims, about the time I notice the dimming is when I recalibrate but about every 3 months on average. I use HCFR to manually tune it as best I can and ArgyllCMS + dispcalGUI generates the correction I upload to the eeColor box or madVR when I used that. This is my main movie watching display. It has about 98% gamut range of REC709.

LG 37LD450, used as a PC display. I manually tune this one since it doesn't really need 3DLUT correction. Last time I calibrated it was over a year ago and it drifted some. I should probably check it every 6 months or so. It has somewhere in the upper 90's% gamut range of REC709.

Dell Inspiron N5050 Laptop, no manual control outside of brightness so I use ArgyllCMS + dispcalGUI. I tune about every year or 6 months. It has about 83% gamut range of REC709.

Surface Pro 1, same as the Dell laptop as far as control and what I use to tune it. I've only had this for about a year and I've calibrated it twice, I should do it about every 6 months. Worst display out of all the ones I use with a 68% gamut range of REC709. It kinda ticks me off cuz I use it for digital painting but oh well, I either trade accurate colors or more accurate pen tech with these style of devices. :/

All of them are tuned to ~35ft-L/120 cd/m2 and the BT1886 gamma curve which makes a huge difference in shadow detail/black clipping.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Fascinating to hear how often the displays need a new calibration to really dial in the picture.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> Fascinating to hear how often the displays need a new calibration to really dial in the picture.


It's that very fact that has given me pause, for a good calibrator will charge around $400 and if you need it done every few years that's quite the investment. Having said that, I would love to have one done just to see the difference and Joe's comments surely has me thinking about it.


----------



## Toe

|Tch0rT| said:


> How many people who contribute to this list have their displays calibrated? I went the DIY route myself. I love my i1 Display Pro and eeColorbox, I just wish my Mits DLP didn't drift so much. :/


I'm very surprised to read that some of the regulars like Phantom and djoberg don't have their displays calibrated.  As much as you guys are into PQ, this would seem like an automatic to me. 

I invested in a meter, Chromapure and a Lumagen Mini VP almost 4 years ago and it was well worth it IMO. Even if you go the pro route, and as much as you guys enjoy good PQ, this investment would seem like a no brainer for any regular contributor to this thread and would certainly give your reviews more value to know we are reading reviews from those who have their displays correctly calibrated. I just assumed you guys were fully calibrated.


----------



## djoberg

Toe said:


> I'm very surprised to read that some of the regulars like Phantom and djoberg don't have their displays calibrated.  As much as you guys are into PQ, this would seem like an automatic to me.
> 
> I invested in a meter, Chromapure and a Lumagen Mini VP almost 4 years ago and it was well worth it IMO. Even if you go the pro route, and as much as you guys enjoy good PQ, this investment would seem like a no brainer for any regular contributor to this thread and would certainly give your reviews more value to know we are reading reviews from those who have their displays correctly calibrated. I just assumed you guys were fully calibrated.


Not to take away from your (valid) thoughts Toe, but one "plus" for NOT having our displays calibrated is that our reviews should prove to be more realistic to what the reader can expect to see on his/her display, for I suspect that the vast majority of our readers will have not invested $400 (or more) in a calibration on their display. This is NOT an excuse for not having a calibration, for I would really like to have one done (as mentioned in my post above), but it does mean that the reviewer and the reader are on more of an "equal footing" under those circumstances.

Also, even though I believe what Joe said above about the benefits of a professional calibration on a Pioneer Kuro Elite, it is a known fact that with the "Pure Mode" that the Pioneer Elite offers, you get a VERY GOOD PICTURE "out of the box." The greyscale, for example, is quite exceptional....not perfect, but better than with most displays. And then if one "tweaks" the set with D-Nice's settings, it is an EVEN BETTER PICTURE.

One may challenge what I said above (about the majority of AVS members not investing in a professional calibration), but most members that I have corresponded with over the years (and I've corresponded with hundreds of people), have told me they have not had one done, nor have they invested in equipment to calibrate it themselves.


----------



## Toe

djoberg said:


> Not to take away from your (valid) thoughts Toe, but one "plus" for NOT having our displays calibrated is that our reviews should prove to be more realistic to what the reader can expect to see on his/her display, for I suspect that the vast majority of our readers will have not invested $400 (or more) in a calibration on their display. This is NOT an excuse for not having a calibration, for I would really like to have one (as mentioned in my post above), but it does mean that the reviewer and the reader on an "equal footing" under those circumstances.
> 
> Also, even though I believe what Joe said above about the benefits of a professional calibration on a Pioneer Kuro Elite, it is a known fact that with the "Pure Mode" that the Pioneer Elite offers, you get a VERY GOOD PICTURE "out of the box." The greyscale, for example, is quite exceptional....not perfect, but better than with most displays. And then if one "tweaks" the set with D-Nice's settings, it is an EVEN BETTER PICTURE.
> 
> One may challenge what I said above (about the majority of AVS members not investing in a professional calibration), but from most members that I have corresponded with over the years (and I've corresponded with hundreds of people), they have not had one done, nor have they invested in equipment to calibrate it themselves.


I don't doubt that most don't have their displays calibrated, but you guys are extremists (I don't say that in any sort of negative way ) when it comes to evaluating PQ and it just surprises me that you are not properly calibrated considering how much you enjoy the PQ aspect of HT. Good out of the box settings are no substitute for a real calibration where you know exactly what is going on with YOUR gamma, greyscale, etc....since no two displays are exactly the same (which is why suggested tweaks and ootb settings are a crap shoot even with two samples of the exact same model #). I also had what were supposedly "good" ootb settings on my RS45, but measuring and calibrating showed me that things were more off than I thought.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

My display was calibrated years ago, though I haven't had it done in a few years. I've seen hundreds of Blu-rays on both calibrated and uncalibrated displays.


----------



## djoberg

Toe said:


> I don't doubt that most don't have their displays calibrated, but you guys are extremists (I don't say that in any sort of negative way ) when it comes to evaluating PQ and it just surprises me that you are not properly calibrated considering how much you enjoy the PQ aspect of HT. Good out of the box settings are no substitute for a real calibration where you know exactly what is going on with YOUR gamma, greyscale, etc....since no two displays are exactly the same (which is why suggested tweaks and ootb settings are a crap shoot). I also had what were supposedly "good" ootb settings on my RS45, but measuring and calibrating showed me that things were more off than I thought.


I hear you Toe, but at the same time we are living in the "real world" and most members, including myself, may not able to afford a $400 calibration every 2-3 years. And let's not even broach the subject of the WAF!! 

Your words "no two displays are exactly the same" jumped out at me, for we have often said on this thread that there is a significant "subjective" element to viewing Blu-ray PQs and this (everyone having a different display) is one factor that figures into that. So, even if I have the "perfect" display (one that is dialed in "perfectly" after a professional calibration), my viewing experience and assessment may prove to be quite different from another member who has a different display (projector, dlp, lcd/led, etc.). I guess what I'm contending for is that I'm not sure that a professional calibration (or one done by the owner with his own equipment) is going to make a huge difference when it comes to giving my impressions of the PQ of a Blu-ray due to all the variables involved in one's viewing experience. The variables I'm referring to would include, besides that of a calibration: 1) The DISPLAY (a plasma DOES look differently, in most cases, than an LCD/LED or Projector); 2) The DISTANCE it's viewed from; 3) The ANGLE it's viewed from if you're watching an LCD/LED; 4) the MODE you're viewing (some people will take their set home and leave it on TORCH MODE ); 5) the LIGHTING in the room; etc., etc.

One may be thinking right now, "Then why even have a thread for evaluating the PQ of Blu-ray with all of these variables?" To that I would say, "To give one _some idea_ of what they can expect to see. If they read my review and have the same type of display, same distance, same lighting, etc., they can expect to see, for the most part, what I saw. But even if their conditions are different, they should still able to look for the same SHARPNESS, DETAILS, DEPTH and other "positive" features that I saw (unless their display is indeed in TORCH MODE and other settings, which should be turned OFF, are left on) to _some degree_.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

A pro calibration typically dials in that last 10-15% difference between generally recommended settings and a display's particular optimal settings. I guess the technology plays a factor here, as there are responsive differences between projection, plasma and LCD technologies. 

I know the phosphers in each plasma panel have their own aging characteristics, affecting black levels and other issues over time.


----------



## |Tch0rT|

djoberg said:


> I hear you Toe, but at the same time we are living in the "real world" and most members, including myself, may not able to afford a $400 calibration every 2-3 years. And let's not even broach the subject of the WAF!!


Those are both reasons why I bought a colorimeter and decided to do it myself despite the learning curve. I couldn't rationalize spending $400 every few years (though I hear some guys give discounts if they've worked on it before or just needs some touching up). I also don't think my wife would take well to paying someone that kind of cash to essentially play around with the TV settings as that's how I know she'd look at it and not paying for accuracy. It's a Pandora's box though and has made me only want to buy displays with CMS controls and large enough gamuts to cover the entire spectrum to be tuned correctly which has given me the love/hate relationship with my Surface Pro 1.


----------



## djoberg

|Tch0rT| said:


> Those are both reasons why I bought a colorimeter and decided to do it myself despite the learning curve. I couldn't rationalize spending $400 every few years (though I hear some guys give discounts if they've worked on it before or just needs some touching up). I also don't think my wife would take well to paying someone that kind of cash to essentially play around with the TV settings as that's how I know she'd look at it and not paying for accuracy. It's a Pandora's box though and has made me only want to buy displays with CMS controls and large enough gamuts to cover the entire spectrum to be tuned correctly which has given me the love/hate relationship with my Surface Pro 1.


The option you chose would actually be the best option for me. My wife would "possibly" go along with one professional calibration, but if I told her about how settings "drift" and that periodical calibrations are necessary, she would never give me the green light. Also, because of where I live in Minnesota (200 miles northwest of Minneapolis) David Abrams was going to charge me another $100 for traveling expenses. That would make the price for a calibration $500. Yikes! 

Right now I'm hoping to invest shortly (in the next year or two) in an OLED, so I really don't believe it would be practical for me to invest in equipment for doing a self-calibration for my KURO. And besides that, I wouldn't look forward to the "learning curve" that you mentioned.


----------



## djoberg

*The Visit*

Before I get into the PQ review, I want to say I was pleasantly surprised by this M. Night Shyamalan release. Most would agree that he has been going downhill for several years with very poor writing and directing, but this movie may be the "shot in the arm" he needs to draw the public back. It may not be as notable as _The Sixth Sense_ or _Signs_, but it kept me riveted to the screen and I never once checked my watch to see how much time was left.

The movie was done "documentary style" by the two young leads in the movie. I was a bit worried initially, with a few "jerky" scenes, but it calmed down quickly and was done well. I was very impressed with the PQ overall, for it had bold and vibrant colors when primaries were on display, along with excellent details (there was finely rendered texture in jackets and sweaters, and reference quality textures in facial close-ups, especially those of the "grand parents"). Details in outdoor scenes were also noteworthy. Clarity and sharpness were featured throughout, with the exception of some of the low-lit scenes where occasional softness intruded and fleeting instances of noise and banding.

I truly believe this will land somewhere in Tier 1. There were actually shots that were worthy of Tier 0. All things considered I'm going to opt for....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.25**

PS The acting was exceptional too. Kudos to the two young leads. (Where do they find these kids anyway?)


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Trip*

recommendation: *Tier 2.25**

The psychedelic 1967 movie turns out quite well in this impressive licensed release by Olive Films. The colorful transfer represents a stable, unprocessed scan from elements in excellent condition.

Short of a 4K film restoration, this is an exemplary presentation for _The Trip_ on Blu-ray. This cult film is probably better known for its soundtrack by The Electric Flag.


----------



## wattheF

My wife just picked up the Peanuts movie BD for the kids. Looking forward to a viewing. I have heard that the PQ is excellent. I will post a review when I get chance.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

wattheF said:


> My wife just picked up the Peanuts movie BD for the kids. Looking forward to a viewing. I have heard that the PQ is excellent. I will post a review when I get chance.


I picked up Spectre and The Peanuts Movie this week. Though it's doubtful I get to see them this Easter weekend. I hope to have some thoughts on them in the next week.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I hope I am not stealing wattheF's thunder...

*The Peanuts Movie*

recommendation: *Tier 0** (top quarter)

_The Peanuts Movie_ has been made by Blue Sky Studios, the animation house behind the Ice Age franchise. Released by Fox, this is absolutely flawless video from a technical standpoint. I imagine it would hold up perfectly on screens larger than 100 inches. A pristine AVC video encode averages 31 Mbps. More importantly, the CGI has been smoothly polished to remove any hint of aliasing or stray banding. Every detail is perfectly placed in order.

I am sure some are looking for my reasoning behind the relatively tame score for this kind of CGI fare. _The Peanuts Movie_ always had the difficult artistic challenge of translating the simple cartoon style of Charles Schulz' beloved series into an updated version for the 21st Century. The studio has chosen a mixture of 2-D and 3-D CGI animation, retaining an intrinsic simplicity that honors the spirit of these beloved characters. That simplicity does manifest in reduced texture and less sophisticated shading than the best-ranked animated movies found at the very, very top of Tier Zero. I didn't experience the wow factor seen in the top ten discs.

I get the feeling the response to _The Peanuts Movie's_ placement will vary a great deal in Tier Zero based on individual preferences. The bright, simple, vivid palette is splashy and there is enough eye candy to satisfy most any child or adult. I have merely seen more advanced, more impressive picture quality too often from the discs ranked at the very top.

The soundtrack has excellent split-surround directionality. The 7.1 mix is fantastic without blowing the doors off your home theater. The movie is very sweet and honors everything that Peanuts has been about for decades. Older fans should enjoy it as well as young ones.


----------



## djoberg

*The Walk*

This one was a mixed bag, with most daytime scenes yielding exceptional clarity, detail and depth. Scenes in Paris were a delight, but it was the streets of New York, whether on level ground or from the wire between the Twin Towers, that really brought the EYE CANDY! Facial close-ups were, for the most part, very good, and in one scene (towards the very end) there was a shot of Ben Kingsley that caused me to hit the Pause Button without even realizing what I was doing...the texture on his face was phenomenal!!

The "bad" came in the form of intruding SOFTNESS and poor BLACK LEVELS. To be fair there were a couple of shots where black levels (and shadow details) were good, but there were also a couple of night-time scenes where they were far too "gray" and "murky" (my bars were so visible that I was completely distracted).  Colors were also underwhelming, with a blue tint prevailing through most of the New York scenes. Having said that, when primaries "rose to the occasion" they were quite pleasant.

It's always a "hard call" when a Blu lacks consistency. Some shots were close to "reference" quality, but a majority of the film was somewhere in Tier 1 and the poor shots easily fell into Tier 2 or even Tier 3. All things considered I do believe this brought enough "demo material" to the table to earn a Tier 1 ranking, so I'm voting for....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**


----------



## djoberg

*MI-5*

So-so movie...better than So-so PQ!

SHARPNESS and DETAILS reign supreme for the majority of its 100 minute running time. I was thoroughly impressed with all the lovely shots of London, especially the aerials (DETAILS were simply incredible in a host of these shots). DEPTH in numerous daytime scenes was impressive. FLESH TONES were spot-on accurate. FACIAL TEXTURE was exemplary in close-ups and even in some mid-range shots. The only gripe I would have, and it's going to cost in the final analysis, was in BLACK LEVELS. They never were deep & inky, and it several cases they faltered to the point where depth really suffered. A couple of CGI shots also had fleeting softness. COLORS were okay, but with a fair amount of color-grading (i.e. steely-blue hues) I wasn't expecting much in the way of primaries. This will most definitely fall short of Tier 0 and, IMHO, it will barely make its way into Tier 1. I see I gave my last viewing a 1.75 and this one should fare a notch higher....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**

PS This is NOT the 5th installment of the Mission Impossible franchise.


----------



## ElevatorHappyFun

djoberg said:


> *MI-5*
> 
> So-so movie...better than So-so PQ!


Attention Public... this is *not* Mission Impossible 5 (Rogue Nation), don't make the same drunken mistake I did when ordering online. This is a generic action movie starring everyones favorite Game of Thrones heartthrob Kit Herrington.


----------



## djoberg

ElevatorHappyFun said:


> Attention Public... this is *not* Mission Impossible 5 (Rogue Nation), don't make the same drunken mistake I did when ordering online. This is a generic action movie starring everyones favorite Game of Thrones heartthrob Kit Herrington.


It's funny you thought of this...I thought of the very same thing at midnight last night but I was too tired to write in. Thanks for the post!

In case someone IS interested in a review of _Mission Impossible 5: Rogue Nation_, here it is:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-765.html#post39867098


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Happy Easter, everyone!

*Forsaken*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

This new Western starring Donald and Kiefer Sutherland together contains very nice scenery in attractive picture quality. Shot on location in Alberta, Canada with excellent production values and careful cinematography, this is consistently sharp, detailed video.

The palette does smack at times of slightly over tweaked teal-and-orange colors. It doesn't really affect the picture quality but I thought it was worth mentioning. Nice depth and dimensionality help _Forsaken_ hit Tier One.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^

Thanks for the review Phantom! I have always like Donald & Kiefer Sutherland and I'm really glad to see they made a movie together. Canada is their "homeland" so I'm wondering if they are from Alberta.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^
> 
> Thanks for the review Phantom! I have always like Donald & Kiefer Sutherland and I'm really glad to see they made a movie together. Canada is their "homeland" so I'm wondering if they are from Alberta.


_Forsaken_ is a strong Western in the traditional mold, Denny. I'm not saying it will be his last role but _Forsaken_ would be a nice capper to Donald Sutherland's long career in movies. It explores the dynamics of a strained father-son relationship very well within a Western framework.

If you know where to look, my official review will go up in the next week.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> _Forsaken_ is a strong Western in the traditional mold, Denny. I'm not saying it will be his last role but _Forsaken_ would be a nice capper to Donald Sutherland's long career in movies. It explores the dynamics of a strained father-son relationship very well within a Western framework.
> 
> If you know where to look, my official review will go up in the next week.


You know I LOVE Westerns Phantom, so I will definitely be checking this one out. 

Regarding this title exploring "the dynamics of a strained father-son relationship," I believe I may have read somewhere that Donald and Kiefer did have a "strained relationship" at one time. I do remember reading that Kiefer was always looking for his father's approval in his acting career.


----------



## djoberg

My copy of _Forsaken_ just arrived! I hope to watch it yet this week.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I think they were looking for a project together and Kiefer Sutherland is apparently a big fan of Westerns.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> I think they were looking for a project together and Kiefer Sutherland is apparently a big fan of Westerns.


Wasn't he in _Young Guns_?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> Wasn't he in _Young Guns_?


Yep, he was in Young Guns. I haven't seen that movie since the 1990s.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> Yep, he was in Young Guns. I haven't seen that movie since the 1990s.


I will be watching my copy of _Forsaken_ tonight.

I read your excellent review earlier today on doblu.com, and then I read several other reviews where they were quite harsh on both the movie and the PQ. This included Hi-Def Digest and Blu-ray.com. I will be writing in with a review as soon as the closing credits roll and I'm hoping my analysis will be closer to yours than to theirs.


----------



## djoberg

*Forsaken*

First of all, I REALLY enjoyed the movie...excellent acting all the way around, but especially from the Sutherlands. Many will say it was too "predictable," but one never knew what circumstances it would take to bring about the obvious. Others will say it was too "slow-paced," but this Blu was both a "character-driven" and an "action" movie and I was impressed, from beginning to end, with the balance between the two.

I agree with Phantom's assessment of the film; it was indeed "consistently sharp, detailed video"...with nice "depth and dimensionality." Having said that, there were a few instances of "fleeting softness that lacked depth" and one scene where the camera was panning across open fields and trees with some obvious "aliasing" (in the trees). Phantom gave it a 1.5, but due to the two "negatives" just mentioned I'm going to drop it one notch....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

It's a movie made for pure Western fans. I enjoyed it a great deal.

*Tumbledown*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

_Tumbledown's_ video quality epitomizes Tier 2 to me. It very well could be that tier's archetype. This is nice, solid Hi-Def video that isn't particularly flashy. There is nothing truly exemplary in its picture quality pushing it higher.

Starz/Anchor Bay does a perfectly fine job with the transfer and presentation. Clarity is high, especially in exterior scenes set in the backwoods of Maine.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Humans: Uncut UK Season One*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

Some may remember _Humans_ from its broadcast on AMC. The British co-production was finely shot using Arri Alexa cameras, resulting in nigh perfect clarity and stunningly consistent video.

Acorn Media gives us _Humans_ as the show was meant to be seen, in a much higher resolution format than what was delivered on cable. The entire first season is spread over two BD-50s in a satisfactory AVC video encode.


----------



## tcramer

*Daddy's Home

Recommendation: Tier 1.25**

I'll keep this short but I was very pleasantly surprised with this! It seems that the days of teal and orange are gone for comedies as this had very natural and rich color, including skin tones. Detail and texture is very good throughout and the few scenes that are dark have solid black levels, with a lack of shadow detail and black crush on just a few scenes. Overall a very sold film with some excellent detail puts it high in tier 1.

I was happy with the movie itself. It didn't fare well on RT but it was in a sense was classic Will Ferrell - not the Step Brothers/Old School type but more along the Kicking and Screaming type.


----------



## chupra

Phantom Stranger said:


> Happy Easter, everyone!
> 
> *Forsaken*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 1.5**
> 
> This new Western starring Donald and Kiefer Sutherland together contains very nice scenery in attractive picture quality. Shot on location in Alberta, Canada with excellent production values and careful cinematography, this is consistently sharp, detailed video.
> 
> The palette does smack at times of slightly over tweaked teal-and-orange colors. It doesn't really affect the picture quality but I thought it was worth mentioning. Nice depth and dimensionality help _Forsaken_ hit Tier One.


I agree 100%. I've grown accustomed to BDs after thousands of movies but this one really stuck out. Add the fact that this somewhat under the radar low budget movie was simply fantastic and it made for one great night at the movies.


----------



## mweflen

*Star Wars The Force Awakens*

This is a high bitrate encode. It shows a very nice color palette, no banding, posterization, DNR, aliasing, or EE. Detail ranges from good to excellent. Although this was shot on film, no film grain is evident, but this is consistent with the Kodak Vision 3 film stock. It looks very similar to the digital projection presentation I saw in the theater. There is no aspect ratio switching, which is too bad, because some shots were done in IMAX. There are some shots, in which a character is, say, a foot away from frame, where detail is softer than I would expect for a top tier release. Some close-ups dazzle, though, and the general detail level in effects shots is excellent. Detail near black occasionally seems a bit crushed, so you'd better have your display tuned well for brightness, contrast, and gamma. But overall, the impression this gives is very strong. Certainly this is the best Star Wars movie on Blu. As such, it's above Ep. 3's 1.25 rating.

*Tier Recommendation: 0, right above Interstellar
*
Viewed on Sony 52EX700 from 5 feet, LG-PF1500 on a 99" screen from 10 feet.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Good review, I expect to watch the Star Wars BD sometime this week when I can find the time.


----------



## fredxr2d2

mweflen said:


> *Star Wars The Force Awakens*
> 
> This is a high bitrate encode. It shows a very nice color palette, no banding, posterization, DNR, aliasing, or EE. Detail ranges from good to excellent. Although this was shot on film, no film grain is evident, but this is consistent with the Kodak Vision 3 film stock. It looks very similar to the digital projection presentation I saw in the theater. There is no aspect ratio switching, which is too bad, because some shots were done in IMAX. There are some shots, in which a character is, say, a foot away from frame, where detail is softer than I would expect for a top tier release. Some close-ups dazzle, though, and the general detail level in effects shots is excellent. Detail near black occasionally seems a bit crushed, so you'd better have your display tuned well for brightness, contrast, and gamma. But overall, the impression this gives is very strong. Certainly this is the best Star Wars movie on Blu. As such, it's above Ep. 3's 1.25 rating.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 0, right above Interstellar
> *
> Viewed on Sony 52EX700 from 5 feet, LG-PF1500 on a 99" screen from 10 feet.


I concur with this review. Excellent blu (as expected).


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^

Glad to hear the good reports on _Star Wars_! I just picked up a copy today at Best Buy, along with the last installment of _The Hunger Games_.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Star Wars: The Force Awakens*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

Anyone else find it weird not seeing Fox's fanfare preceding a Star Wars movie? I missed it. Disney has done a superb job bringing this new Stars Wars installment to Blu-ray, I can't fault them for anything in the video itself.

I would guess people will wonder why I am not scoring it for tier zero. I didn't see the deep, deep detail and extreme definition found in our best discs consistently enough to merit that honor. _Star Wars: The Force Awakens_ is a very pleasant, polished presentation. I was very close to placing it in tier 1.25, there are enough softer moments from myriad CGI effects that one could penalize this film. 

There seems to have been a conscious aesthetic choice to keep a completely balanced, neutral color timing, making me very happy. It's rare to see a Hollywood blockbuster in today's digitally color-timed world to completely eschew significant color pushes. That does help keep a sense of continuity with the original Star Wars Trilogy.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Dragonar Academy: The Complete Series*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

Fairly standard picture quality for this relatively new anime series. Funimation does an adequate effort, spreading the twelve episodes over two discs. Its colors are nicely saturated, though no one will think its artwork is anything but unremarkable.

*From the New World: Collection 1*

recommendation: *Tier 3.25**

I usually don't rate modern animation this low but Sentai gives us one of the poorest video encodes seen in years. It is replete with banding. The 2012 anime series looks rather muted in its palette with rather pedestrian animation. I wonder if this show was even natively animated at 1080P resolution.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Forest*

recommendation: *Tier 2.5**

The new horror film from Universal tends towards darker colors with satisfactory detail. Shot with the Arri Alexa XT Plus camera, its video holds up fairly well in dim light. This isn't the sharpest new production, the atmospheric cinematography has a decidedly old-school feel as characters get lost in the forest. There are no significant artifacts advertising this as a digital production. In fact, I was fooled into believing this had been shot on actual film stock.

The Forest takes place in dark woods, often in the dark. Shadow delineation and fine detail are adequate, though a shade behind the best most Hollywood productions have to offer these days.


----------



## djoberg

*Star Wars: The Force Awakens*

The reviews of my colleagues below are all commendable...and VERY CLOSE in their recommendations. I will avoid redundancy by not giving you a detailed review, but in the main I have to agree with mweflen and fredrx2d2; this is a topnotch, "reference quality" release that I am happy to nominate for the Top Tier. Having said that, Phantom's remarks about it lacking "deep detail and extreme definition"...with "softer moments from CGI effects" are not without merit. But in the end, it had enough EYE CANDY to warrant a Tier Blu placement.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (right above Interstellar)*

PS If you check out the actual Tier Rankings Thread, you will see that this places it towards the VERY BOTTOM of the Tier. This is justified, for it did NOT have the consistent CLARITY, DETAILS and DEPTH that would have elevated it to a mid Tier or higher placement. Again, this means that all of the reviews thus far are EXTREMELY CLOSE (within a quarter of a tier).




mweflen said:


> *Star Wars The Force Awakens*
> 
> This is a high bitrate encode. It shows a very nice color palette, no banding, posterization, DNR, aliasing, or EE. Detail ranges from good to excellent. Although this was shot on film, no film grain is evident, but this is consistent with the Kodak Vision 3 film stock. It looks very similar to the digital projection presentation I saw in the theater. There is no aspect ratio switching, which is too bad, because some shots were done in IMAX. There are some shots, in which a character is, say, a foot away from frame, where detail is softer than I would expect for a top tier release. Some close-ups dazzle, though, and the general detail level in effects shots is excellent. Detail near black occasionally seems a bit crushed, so you'd better have your display tuned well for brightness, contrast, and gamma. But overall, the impression this gives is very strong. Certainly this is the best Star Wars movie on Blu. As such, it's above Ep. 3's 1.25 rating.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 0, right above Interstellar*
> 
> Viewed on Sony 52EX700 from 5 feet, LG-PF1500 on a 99" screen from 10 feet.





fredxr2d2 said:


> I concur with this review. Excellent blu (as expected).





Phantom Stranger said:


> *Star Wars: The Force Awakens*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 1.0**
> 
> I would guess people will wonder why I am not scoring it for tier zero. I didn't see the deep, deep detail and extreme definition found in our best discs consistently enough to merit that honor. _Star Wars: The Force Awakens_ is a very pleasant, polished presentation. I was very close to placing it in tier 1.25, there are enough softer moments from myriad CGI effects that one could penalize this film.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Ex Machina*

recommendation: *Tier 2.25*

_Ex Machina_ is already ranked in this spot by others but I'll throw in my two cents, having just seen it this weekend. I noticed what appears to be very mild lens distortion in some scenes. The very consistent picture quality superficially looks better than its true level of definition and clarity thanks to impressive set design and simple, crisp cinematography.

It's a touch softer than what is possible today and doesn't show the finest high-frequency detail possible with modern cameras.


----------



## tmavs

*Spectre - Tier Ranking 2.0*



wattheF said:


> Anyone review Spectre yet? I watched the BD last night and was not at all impressed with the video. I know it was shot in 35mm to maintain an old school look and feel but it just doesn't hold up when compared to top Blurays today. It has been getting excellent reviews from pro reviewers and posters alike but I just don't see it.
> 
> Now the audio, that was very impressive.


I was also disappointed. The colour grading I can understand but I found the _deliberate_ lack of focus/sharpness distracting. For a brief moment I wondered if my projector lens focus was at fault. For example, the "Bond in M's office scene", the lion on the desk is a blur. [I will update with a timestamp]

*Tier Ranking: 2.0 *(PQ is above average and a significant upgrade over SD)


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^

We will have to "agree to disagree" on this one. I thought this was easily "demo-worthy" as you will see from review (I copied the link below):

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-769.html#post41482161


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Justice League Vs. Teen Titans*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

The latest animated DC feature from Warner Bros. shows a more fluid animation style with better frame rates. This is definitely more ambitous traditional animation than they've attempted in the past. In that regard, they succeed with stronger and more detailed character designs. Without the following problem listed below, it may very well have ended up in Tier 1.0.

My sole complaint is the presence of what appears to be undithered solid backgrounds in some shots. It leads to the type of banding that may very well be endemic to the original animation's 1080P digital master. The effect is similiar but not quite the same as banding seen from poor compression. The AVC video encode isn't challenged to any significant degree.

In all other ways this is an unblemished, sparkling presentation with gorgeous color depth.


----------



## reisb

Is the list being updated? I'm seeing 2009 at original posting.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-blu-ray-software/1168342-new-pq-tier-thread-blu-ray-rankings.html

Specifically looking for these 4
Boyz N the Hood
Friday
Straight Outta Compton
Star Wars The Force Awakens

I see 2 SWTFA reviews above.


----------



## Joe Bloggs

reisb said:


> Is the list being updated? I'm seeing 2009 at original posting.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-blu-ray-software/1168342-new-pq-tier-thread-blu-ray-rankings.html


That thread says "Notice: This is the older, out-of-date version of the list".
Maybe the latest is http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...ings-pq-tiers-through-november-15-2015-a.html (last edited 15th nov 2015).


----------



## reisb

Got it. Thanks. Didn't notice that link.

Looks like none of those 4 movies have been added.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

reisb said:


> Is the list being updated? I'm seeing 2009 at original posting.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-blu-ray-software/1168342-new-pq-tier-thread-blu-ray-rankings.html
> 
> Specifically looking for these 4
> Boyz N the Hood
> Friday
> Straight Outta Compton
> Star Wars The Force Awakens
> 
> I see 2 SWTFA reviews above.


I do own Friday but have never gotten around to reviewing the disc for this thread. Maybe soon, keep checking back in a couple of months. Joe Bloggs is correct, the latest update was in November. Searching for the PQ Tiers by Google tends to return our older, out of date list. My forum signature should always contain a link to the latest PQ Tiers.

I expect to update the Tiers again this month. *Star Wars: The Force Awakens* will be in that update. I have heard good things about Straight Outta Compton's picture quality.


----------



## reisb

Sounds great! Thanks.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Knock Knock*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

This disc from Lionsgate would have almost certainly ended up in Tier One if not for a lazy video encode that inexplicably falls apart for one scene. _Knock Knock_ is not an older movie, it was released this past December on Blu-ray. Lionsgate has had issues in the past with its AVC video encodes, despite fairly high parameters. 

The banding and posterization come out of nowhere, since most of the movie's 99 minutes has strong definition and a high degree of pristine clarity. A problem like this may have been forgivable a few years ago since the visual evidence is mostly confined to one extended scene, but other Hollywood studios have eliminated these kind of compression problems years ago. I'm guessing Lionsgate has no human checking the final video for problems before Blu-ray production.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*And Then There Were None*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

This BBC co-production of the Agatha Christie novel aired on Lifetime in the United States. The scenic cinematography looks beautiful in this Blu-ray edition from Acorn Media. The three-part mini-series has been spread over two discs.

Exteriors have jaw-dropping clarity and definition. Interiors have a darker, more textured appearance. Each scene is packed with fine detail in razor-sharp fashion. As its mystery deepens in the narrative, the video's contrast and palette does become more muted.


----------



## djoberg

*Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2*

My computer is being repaired so you'll be spared a long review (I detest writing these on my iPad).

In short, this title had either REFERENCE QUALITY scenes or SUBPAR scenes that ventured into low Tier 2 or high Tier 3. They were like DAY and NIGHT...and guess what? The "reference quality" scenes were the DAYTIME scenes and the "subpar" scenes were the NIGHTTIME scenes and the many INTERIOR or UNDERGROUND scenes with low-lighting. 

The REFERENCE scenes featured amazing clarity, details, depth, and vibrant colors (when primaries were on display). The SUBPAR scenes had terrible black levels which were murky, flat, soft and lacking detail. The movie is about 125 minutes long and I'd say at least half of it fell into the SUBPAR category. Because of this breakdown, I'm opting for...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0**


----------



## monomial

Phantom Stranger said:


> *Wolf Children*
> 
> The 2012 anime movie receives a stellar presentation on Blu-ray. This is mature, refined animation with a gentle grace. Funimation bestows the main feature with a perfect AVC video encode.
> 
> The animation doesn't have quite the pop and depth of the best theatrical animation but makes up for that with polished, smoothly-drawn detail.


I'm surprised Wolf Children didn't make the list until now. I would've made a review. I don't have my nice TV with me, but when I saw it on there, it looked very good. Tier 1.25 sounds about right. The winter transformation scene and the scene where Ame learns from Sensei are visually beautiful. Overall, the visuals are missing something that the best animated movies have.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

monomial said:


> I'm surprised Wolf Children didn't make the list until now. I would've made a review. I don't have my nice TV with me, but when I saw it on there, it looked very good. Tier 1.25 sounds about right. The winter transformation scene and the scene where Ame learns from Sensei are visually beautiful. Overall, the visuals are missing something that the best animated movies have.


Ah yes, those specific scenes are great examples of sakuga. There are more anime films I wish I had the time to contribute here, feel free to help me out when you can. If you are interested in hearing the whole process behind key frames and other esoteric steps in creating anime, this is an excellent guide:

https://washiblog.wordpress.com/201...o-how-anime-is-made-and-the-talent-behind-it/

*Time Lapse*

recommendation: *Tier 2.5**

_Time Lapse_ is an independent film with solid video quality, if unremarkable in either detail or overall cinematography. XLrator Media gives the movie a fine digital transfer with no obvious technical problems.

Others possibly would place it higher, clarity is on the upper end for Tier 2. A decade ago I may have felt this was strong enough definition and consistency for Tier One, but newer waves of releases have raised that bar.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Jane Got A Gun*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

A new Western with a fully desaturated palette. The precise cinematography has a sweeping quality to it with nice composition and consistently sharp definition. The digital grading keeps the contrast muted but doesn't affect its strong black levels.

The filmmakers were going for a conscious aesthetic set in a distinct period and fully realized that vision. Clarity and sharpness are fairly high for a Western. Close-ups reveal an unfiltered film transfer with pleasing depth.


----------



## djoberg

I just rented _The Revenant_ and plan to view it tonight. Has anyone seen it on Blu-ray yet? If so, what do you think? I'm hearing awesome things about the cinematography and the PQ in general.


----------



## CCsoftball7

djoberg said:


> I just rented _The Revenant_ and plan to view it tonight. Has anyone seen it on Blu-ray yet? If so, what do you think? I'm hearing awesome things about the cinematography and the PQ in general.


The UHD is reference quality. I would expect the same for the 1080p Blu-ray.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

It should be a winner on Blu-ray.


----------



## djoberg

*The Revenant*

Simply STUNNING!!

It was said two posts back by CCsoftball7 that the UHD version was "reference quality"...well, the Blu-ray version is also "reference quality." In fact, I can't imagine this looking any better than this (though perhaps it could on the new LG G6 77" OLED). I'm going to avoid many of my usual SUPERLATIVES. Let me just say that this was mesmerizing, jaw-dropping, pure EYE CANDY....oh, sorry about that, I couldn't help myself. 

The only real "gripe" I would have with this were a couple of fleeting instances of softness (inside the fort's saloon) and one shot where the black levels faltered. Other than those, this was as CRISP, SHARP and as DETAILED as they come. When I say DETAILED, I'm thinking of close-ups, mid-range and long shots. In close-ups you may want to close your eyes when they're zooming in on gaping flesh wounds...they are that REALISTIC and GRAPHIC! The numerous panoramic shots of some of the most incredible scenery ever filmed never disappointed...you could make out fine details in forests, mountains, rivers, etc. like you were right there. 

This was a very STYLIZED film, with a muted color palette featuring steely "blue hues" in most scenes. But there were also some beautiful "orange hues" courtesy of camp fires and spectacular sunsets. Normally I would tend to be distracted with color-grading, but it never interfered with details or depth and thus it was NOT egregious. Flesh tones were spot-on accurate and again, there are plenty of shots with very graphic wounds and the realism is bone-chilling. There were times when primaries were on display (thanks to the slaughtering of animals and the entrails that were forthcoming) and they really POPPED!

It's time to bring this to its necessary conclusion: the PLACEMENT RECOMMENDATION. This is EASILY a Top Tier release; there will be no argument there, even from the most critical of viewers. But where shall it reside in that tier? If not for the few small "gripes" listed above I would be very tempted to place this somewhere in the Top Half, but to be fair I'm going to put it smack-dab in the middle... 

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.5)*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Sorceress (1982)*

recommendatio: *Tier 2.25**

It's crazy how such an obscure Roger Corman flick receives a perfect transfer from pristine film elements, while much bigger and more important films languish with dated transfers. Scorpion Releasing worked some magic on this new transfer struck from an interpositive, completely uncut. Striking clarity for this era of film stock, Corman's films seem to have all mostly aged better than similar releases by Hollywood studios. I was very impressed with how sharp it is and the overall clarity. The film elements are in flawless condition.

Expecting a faded and dirty presentation, _Sorceress_ looks better than it likely did in 1982. The contrast could be punchier but there is little room to complain, this is stellar video quality for this kind of niche fare. The technical presentation offer a fine AVC video encode on a BD-25, shown at a 1.78:1 aspect ratio.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Dolemite*

recommendation: *Tier 2.75**

This is a really nice catalog presentation by genre distributor Vinegar Syndrome for the Blaxploitation hit. They actually include the movie in full HD for both its theatrical 1.85:1 aspect ratio and an alternate full-screen version with more visible screen area. The widescreen version is the version to watch first.

The 1975 film has received a new restoration and transfer at 2K resolution from very solid elements. Its contrast and color saturation provide a rich visual experience with warm flesh-tones. The top-notch AVC video encode cleanly replicates the film stock's natural grain structure. Some minor filtering may have been used but generally this is fine definition with palpable texture.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*When Marnie Was There*

recommendation: *Tier 1.75**

Renowned animation house Studio Ghibli released this theatrical feature in 2015 through Universal. The quality of this animation is a step back from other recent efforts by Studio Ghibli on Blu-ray. It's very pleasantly drawn for traditional animation, but lacks the more intricate character design and backgrounds of recent efforts seen from them and other fine animation studios.

Universal gives it a finely tuned technical presentation. The 103-main feature comes on a BD-50 encoded with a flawless AVC video encode. Primary color saturation could be richer, this isn't quite the lush palette we've regularly now seen. 

A few spectacular moments of increased fluidity and better line-art than normal, but not enough for the PQ Tiers' purposes.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Tonari no Seki-kun: The Master of Killing Time - Complete Collection*

recommendation: *Tier 1.75**

I cannot in good faith place this BD higher than Tier 2 despite my fondness for the material. While beautifully presented by Sentai Filmworks in pristine fashion, the show's limited, traditional animation style isn't particularly sophisticated. Beyond its attractively clean, simple design, the line art is solidly boring. A smattering of three-dimensional animation is included for effect.

For modern anime originating from television, the palette does seem richer and purer than normal.

*Dillinger*

recommendation: *Tier 4.0**

Arrow Video's upcoming _Dillinger_ is sourced from merely adequate film elements in ordinary shape. The raw film scan turns out okay but hints of over processing possibly creep into the video. Something seems a bit off in the color timing. I don't know if the film elements had exposure problems or not, the color palette is washed out at times.

This is a serviceable presentation for the 1973 movie but a transfer that hasn't received serious restoration.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You're on another roll Phantom!!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I keep fighting the good fight, djoberg. With the explosive increase in licensed catalog properties strewn across myriad distributors, some common frame of reference like the PQ Tiers is needed more than ever.

It also helps that the Braves are likely to lose well over 100 games this year. That frees up time for other things.


----------



## tmavs

djoberg said:


> *Everest*
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.66)*


I was reading this news article https://weather.com/news/news/bodies-climber-cameraman-found-after-16-years-frozen-in-glacier which reminded me of "Everest" the movie.

I watched it recently but forgot to update this thread. I really enjoyed the cinema experience that Everest provided. This is a rare find (for me) where video, audio and storyline come together to transport you away into another world.

Thanks for the review djoberg, I don't have much to add to it  I have the Art of Flight in my "to be watched" queue and I feel it would be wise to rank Everest after watching it. But for now, I agree with the Tier 0 recommendation.


----------



## djoberg

tmavs said:


> I was reading this news article https://weather.com/news/news/bodies-climber-cameraman-found-after-16-years-frozen-in-glacier which reminded me of "Everest" the movie.
> 
> I watched it recently but forgot to update this thread. I really enjoyed the cinema experience that Everest provided. This is a rare find (for me) where video, audio and storyline come together to transport you away into another world.
> 
> Thanks for the review djoberg, I don't have much to add to it  I have the Art of Flight in my "to be watched" queue and I feel it would be wise to rank Everest after watching it. But for now, I agree with the Tier 0 recommendation.


I guarantee you that you will LOVE the PQ on _Art of Flight_. You should also watch _The Revenant_, for the PQ was even better than in _Everest_.

I can only imagine how stunning all three of these titles must be on your 144" screen!!


----------



## CCsoftball7

djoberg said:


> I guarantee you that you will LOVE the PQ on _Art of Flight_. You should also watch _The Revenant_, for the PQ was even better than in _Everest_.
> 
> I can only imagine how stunning all three of these titles must be on your 144" screen!!


_The Revenant_ is absolutely stunning for sure.


----------



## djoberg

*The 5th Wave*

Yet ANOTHER "demo-worthy" Blu for PQ fanatics to feast their eyes on!

I'm going to keep this short. For the majority of its 100+ minutes running time we are treated to superb clarity and fine details (wait till you see the texture in Liev Schreiber's face). Daytime scenes were exemplary in these areas. Nighttime scenes were somewhat of a mixed bag, with "some" very good black levels and shadow details, but with "some" faltering blacks as well (my "black bars" turned into "gray bars" and that turned me off). There were also some interior low-lit shots and nighttime shots that softened to the point where clarity, details and depth suffered. But these were, by far, the exception and not the rule, so this one is still worthy of Tier Gold. IMHO it should find its way towards the top of that tier and my vote is going for....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Terror In Resonance: Complete Series*

recommendation: *Tier 2.25**

A nigh perfect presentation of the intense anime series by Funimation in clean 1080P video, held back by the animation's underwhelming color palette. It is done in a more realistic style closer to drama than the brightly-colored world of most animation. _Terror In Resonance_ features a finely rendered, if somber, world.

The AVC video encode doesn't show compression problems, spreading the entire series over two discs.


----------



## Jeremy Wadian

Any recommendations for classic black and white films with excellent transfers?

Thanks


----------



## wmcclain

Jeremy Wadian said:


> Any recommendations for classic black and white films with excellent transfers?
> 
> Thanks


Most classics will be on boutique labels these days and not enough people see them to contribute tier ratings. I don't because I don't have the eye or the time or gear.

Searching my reviews for "superb", "excellent" and "rather fine", I find that I enjoyed these enough to mention the transfer quality:



Inherit the Wind (1960) (Twilight Time)
Anatomy of a Murder (1959) (Criterion)
A Hard Day's Night (1964) (Criterion)
The Hidden Fortress (1958) (Criterion) (tier 2.25)
Repulsion (1965) (Criterion) (tier 2.25)
Odd Man Out (1947) (Criterion)
How Green Was My Valley (1941)
Experiment in Terror (1962) (Twilight Time)
To Kill a Mockingbird (1962)
The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951)
A Night to Remember (1958) (Criterion)

See the "Strange Picture Scroll" link in my signature for an index of capsule reviews with thumbnails.

-Bill


----------



## Phantom Stranger

There are a number of striking black-and-white transfers found in the upper sections of the PQ Tiers. Here are a few that I can remember off the top of my head. Searching this thread for black and/or white should net more results.

Sweet Smell of Success (Tier 1.75) - This is the first transfer that came to mind when the question was posed. The 1957 noir looks absolutely stunning.

The Razor's Edge (Tier 3)

The Three Faces of Eve (Tier 3.25)

The White Ribbon (Tier 1.5) - Somewhat of a cheat since it's a modern film.

Good Night, and Good Luck (Tier 2.5)

The Killers (1946) Tier 2.5

The Bishop's Wife

The Ghost and Mrs. Muir

I know there are many more I am forgetting beyond the obvious Hollywood classics which have received expensive 4K restorations.


----------



## CJackson

I'm excited to see where The Martian and The Force Awakens rank in the updated tiers.


----------



## mweflen

Jeremy Wadian said:


> Any recommendations for classic black and white films with excellent transfers?
> 
> Thanks


I'm quite partial to Hitchcock's "Strangers on a Train," myself.


----------



## djoberg

*Point Break (2015)*

Orange and Teal hues ruined what could have been a Tier Blu contender! It's been awhile since you've seen me overly criticize a release for egregious color-grading, but this one was definitely over-the-top. To put it bluntly, it made nearly every shot look UNNATURAL...the sky, the sea, the forest, flesh-tones, you name it, all were spoiled by the director's choice to redefine the colors that we would have expected to see in most everything in the film.

Having said that, the DETAILS in this Blu were OFF THE CHARTS!! Facial texture was exemplary on every actor/actress.. The cinematography was phenomenal (as they hop-scotched around the world performing their unbelievable extreme sports stunts) and details were so mesmerizing you could see every nuance in trees, mountains, cities, etc. One of the favorites was in a scene of Angel Falls where for several minutes climbers were scaling the 3,000 foot waterfall...it bristled with detail and the depth was as "3D-like" as I've ever seen. COLORS too were amazing, when the color-grading didn't interfere with the bold primaries. Perhaps its greatest feature were some of the best black levels and shadow details that have graced the screen in a very long time. My "black bars" remained BLACK throughout and the blacks in the actual picture were stunning.

Again, if not for the terrible color-grading, and some blurry CGI shots in a couple of scenes, this would have easily made its way into the top Tier. I believe some would be tempted to drop this into Tier 2 or 3 (if all they could see was how UNNATURAL it looked in much of the movie), but the positives were so exceptional that I was able to overlook the negatives and thus I'm inclined to put it right here....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**

PS The movie itself was just as bad as the color-grading!!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Regression*

recommendation: *Tier 1.25**

_Regression_ is a real looker considering it's a deeply psychological thriller steeped in a dreary palette with few saturated primary colors. Some very minor banding is the only notable detriment in its impressive scope presentation. 

The video is razor-sharp and unfiltered, resulting in fantastic clarity and definition.

*RWBY: Volume 3*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

_RWBY_ has the complete opposite aesthetic of Regression. This is computer-modeled 3D animation in a brightly-colored world. It also blows away the prior volumes in picture quality, the apparent increase in the animation budget is obvious in this progressive presentation. The American anime still has a few issues with digital seams sticking out in its models but its distinct visuals are clear tier one material.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Deadpool*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

The new Fox release presents sharp video without the depth or dimensionality needed for a higher ranking. Its nearly flawless video has nice texture and definition despite a less than blazing color palette.

Deadpool also came out on UHD and has supposedly been finished at 4K resolution. The 2K special effects introduce slightly softer attributes. This is still very pleasing video on Blu-ray that should satisfy even demanding videophiles.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The King and Four Queens*

recommendation: *Tier 2.75**

The Clark Gable flick receives a beautiful, new CinemaScope transfer from elements in fantastic quality. Olive Films has licensed this film from MGM's vaults and given it an impressive looking showing. 

Minor optical ringing and slight softness barely affect the lush, vivid color saturation and perfect black levels. This is a beautifully tuned film transfer with faithful grain reproduction from the negative. The definition and detail are quite extraordinary considering this was made when CinemaScope was relatively young as a technology.

Definitely check out this charming Fifties vehicle for you classic film lovers.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Bad Influence*

recommendation: *Tier 3.25**

The 1990 thriller from director Curtis Hanson receives a newish scan from secondary elements. This is an adequate transfer with suitable definition but lacking the crystal-clear, fine detail found on more impressive catalog releases.

Shout Factory gives it a solid, respectable presentation. This isn't the sharpest cinematography but its overall clarity is on the higher side.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^

Glad to see you're still watching Blus Phantom! Thanks for the reviews. I rented _Boy_ and _The Choice_ and hope to watch them in the next few days.


----------



## djoberg

*The Boy*

I couldn't resist renting this new release from the Horror Genre, especially with Lauren Cohan (Maggie in _The Walking Dead_) in the lead role. Sadly, I was underwhelmed by the movie, but thankfully the topnotch PQ made up for the painfully slow-paced story-line and less-than-stellar scares.

This film had many dark scenes in it and for the most part the black levels held up quite well. There were instances where I witnessed some noise and a bit of murkiness intruded in very low-lit shots. But overall, black levels were deep and inky, with finely rendered shadow details. 

Details abounded throughout in clothing, furniture, stone walls on the mansion, foliage and in facial texture. Outdoor/daytime scenes were exemplary, with numerous "reference quality" shots. In those scenes, depth was incredible!

Colors were limited to the daytime scenes outdoors and in well-lit interiors. They were warm and natural-looking. Flesh tones were spot-on accurate.

This release is typical of what we've come to expect in this genre...with plenty of sharpness and clarity, along with excellent black levels. They usually find their way into Tier 1 and this one is no exception.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I've been meaning to catch _The Boy_ at some point.

*Blood and Black Lace*

recommendation: *Tier 2.5**

Arrow Video brings over their stunning new restoration of Mario Bava's giallo classic that was seen on their previously issued UK edition. Properly framed at Bava's requested 1.66:1 aspect ratio, the 1080P video shines with amazing color saturation and lush detail. Genre fans should go crazy for this fantastic presentation.

The 1964 Italian thriller receives a completely film-like transfer from the negative, handled with an eye towards authenticity and fidelity. It represents some of Arrow Video's finest remastering work on deep catalog fare. This is the best _Blood and Black Lace_ could possibly look on Blu-ray.


----------



## djoberg

*The Choice*

Well, it was "chick-flick" night at our house and this one certainly qualified! The same author who brought us _The Notebook_ created this film and it had the same amazing cinematography, with the coastal areas of North Carolina serving up some very pleasing EYE CANDY. The level of detail in panoramic shots was crazy-good! Colors were bold and vibrant. Flesh tones were excellent (with the exception of a couple of shots where there seemed to be a "red push"). Black levels and shadow details were amazing, though there was one night scene where they really faltered. Sharpness and clarity were off the charts in a majority of the movie, but there were a few fleeting shots where softness crept in. I kept comparing the PQ to _The Notebook_ and I would say they are a tie.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Private Affairs of Bel Ami*

recommendation: *Tier 4.0**

Olive Films gives us this fine presentation of the 1946 George Sanders and Angela Lansbury drama. Featuring a film restoration partially funded by Martin Scorsese and Paramount from ordinary elements in UCLA's Film & TV Archive, this is crisp black-and-white cinematography. There are no serious print issues besides minor flaws and clarity is rather high for this kind of vintage fare.

The transfer shows no undue processing but remains on the soft side, showing decent definition and fine detail. The AVC video encode plainly handles the grain structure without interference. One brief burst of color comes through in shining clarity when Max Ernst's painting _The Temptation of Saint Anthony_ is shown.

Olive Films certainly is capable of turning out excellent catalog presentations when given the right transfer to work with and this disc is one such effort. Don't confuse this tier 4 score as a negative review, classic movie fans should enjoy this Blu-ray presentation a great deal.


----------



## monomial

*Polar Bear's Cafe (Shirokuma Cafe) 1*

recommendation: *Tier 4.5**

An unsurprising, yet still disappointing anime Blu-Ray. As is typical for anime, the show clearly has been rendered in a sub-1080p format. Almost everyone online says it is 720p; I don't have the expertise to say for sure, but downscaling the video on this disc to 720p, then upscaling it back to 1080p results in a nearly identical image, with no loss in detail.

Only the opening and closing credits text is rendered at 1080p. That alone puts this disc below almost all other animation or live-action on Blu-Ray. On top of that, the bitrate is unsatisfying. On paper, it's great (around 30 Mbps). My only conclusion is it must have been compressed once before making this encode. It is unclear whether the transfer was lazy (took a render intended for TV and used it for the Blu-Ray) or if the source material is *that bad*, but there is enough subtle banding to annoy you if you're a huge videophile. The ending credits sequence(s) use live action, often stop motion. They were filmed either with very poor cameras, or with heavy JPEG-style compression, or maybe multiple rounds of compression (first JPEG in the camera, then h.264 for the Blu-Ray). Digital camera noise and subtle artifacting is present. And for some reason, even the live-action scenes seem to be sub-1080p. Again, I don't know if there is better source material or if this was a bargain-basement show from start to finish (anime in Japan is almost always made on a tight budget), but this Blu-Ray is nothing too special.

It's a shame, because the show is great and the art style is pretty good (yet basic) as well. This review technically applies to all 13 of the Polar Bear's Cafe discs, but to avoid cluttering up the list, and because I haven't watched every single episode in my spot-checking of the discs, I'll just let this officially be a review of disc 1. They were sold individually and in two box sets.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Banding is often baked-in with cheaper animation productions, monomial. They likely didn't properly dither the solid colors when creating the show. In that case, the artifacts are impossible to eliminate no matter what compression encoding you throw at the raw video.

Get a chance to check out *Rage of Bahamut: Genesis* if you can on Blu-ray. While I haven't seen it yet myself in full Blu-ray splendor, I have a hunch the anime looks spectacular. Some of the most fluid, theatrical animation quality I've seen from a regular anime series in a long time.


----------



## djoberg

*Bone Tomahawk*

This is NOT your typical Western, but I enjoyed the "Star Power" (Kurt Russell, Patrick Wilson, Matthew Fox, and Richard Jenkins). The "dialogue" was the main feature (you'll love the better-than-average character development), with some rather grotesque splashes of violence thrown into the mix.

PQ-wise, daytime scenes were stellar, with crisp detail and sharp clarity. The color palette was drab, but when primaries emerged they were very good. Flesh tone were spot-on. Nighttime scenes were another matter, with several scenes with faltering blacks, noise, softness and a lack of depth. In fairness, there were also some dark scenes where the black levels held their own, resulting in good detail and depth.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**


----------



## CJackson

Forgive me if this has been asked, but when do you think you will update the tiers? 

Thank you for your hard work.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

CJackson said:


> Forgive me if this has been asked, but when do you think you will update the tiers?
> 
> Thank you for your hard work.


I should find the time over this long weekend. I've been swamped lately with actual work. It's good to know someone is awaiting the PQ Tiers update.


----------



## Kool-aid23

Phantom Stranger said:


> I should find the time over this long weekend. I've been swamped lately with actual work. It's good to know someone is awaiting the PQ Tiers update.


Always anticipating for I arrange my blu-ray collection by the tier listing. Further, I rarely purchase any blu-ray that is not in the top two tier ratings. So, I'm truly grateful for your work and all who rate.

Regards,


----------



## djoberg

Kool-aid23 said:


> Always anticipating for I arrange my blu-ray collection by the tier listing. Further, I rarely purchase any blu-ray that is not in the top two tier ratings. So, I'm truly grateful for your work and all who rate.
> 
> Regards,


We are encouraged that you use the Tier Ranking thread as a guide for Blu-ray purchases and that you enjoy reading the reviews on this thread. I, like you, will rarely buy a Blu that is in the lower tiers.

Though I frequently write reviews, I too am grateful for the work that Phantom does. I don't believe anyone realizes the time and effort involved in keeping the Tier Listing updated. So, to my colleague and friend, I say THANK YOU!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Night Evelyn Came Out of the Grave*

recommendation: *Tier 3.25**

This 1971 Italian giallo is part of Arrow Video's Killer Dames collection. Filmed in the relatively cheap Techniscope format, Arrow Video still gives it a new 2K scan from the original camera negative. Some occasionally erratic cinematography introduces softness at times but this is crisp, vibrant definition for this kind of stock.

Clarity is on the high side for a vintage catalog property and a few stray strands of gate hair are just about the only visible debris on the print. Relatively inky black levels display excellent shadow delineation. The unprocessed transfer contains fantastic grain reproduction in a high-bitrate AVC encode.


----------



## djoberg

*Joy*

Shot on 35mm film, this is a LOOKER! Details and depth shine throughout the majority of its 120 minute running time. You'll see every stitch in clothing, every nuance in furniture, every crack in city streets...and every wrinkle, pore, stubble, peach fuzz, pimple, mole and more in every actor's face (and the director felt free to "zoom in" many times).

Colors and flesh-tones were another matter. Teal/orange color-grading ping pongs back and forth from scene to scene. Thankfully details weren't affected, but when the orange hues were prominent there was a "red push" in faces. Teal hues served to limit the color palette. But in scenes that took place in the studios of QVC, primary colors exploded and they were a sight to behold...BOLD & VIBRANT...pure EYE CANDY!

Black levels were excellent (in the few scenes where they were featured). On the other end of the spectrum, there was a scene at QVC where very BRIGHT WHITES were on display and they never wavered for an instant. I kept waiting for the PQ to become "washout out" but the contrast was super strong and remained stable. (I can only imagine what that scene must look like on a 4K Blu-ray with High Dynamic Range! )

Besides the rather drab color palette in many interior shots in Joy's home and the strong color-grading, there were fleeting instances of softness, but I don't feel this should be penalized too severely in light of the outstanding details, depth, clarity, black levels, and contrast.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25**

PS I could see others opting for a 1.0 ranking and it wouldn't bother me one iota if it ends up there.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Please let me know if you think I've made any mistakes, the PQ Tiers are fully updated through this post with every score from the past six months. Please let me apologize for not doing this sooner, but other obligations and priorities got in the way of late. I don't have a good idea of when the next update will occur, the summer months tend to be slow around here on AVS.

Everyone that follows this thread knows djoberg's fine work here is a great asset. I just wanted to point out he's almost single-handedly covering the majority of major movie releases by this point and the Tiers would greatly suffer without his contributions.


----------



## garyoNC

Phantom,

Thanks for the update, I know it's a handful to manage, we all appreciate your time in doing so.

A big thanks to djoberg for his time also.

garyoNC


----------



## tenia54

Jeremy Wadian said:


> Any recommendations for classic black and white films with excellent transfers?
> 
> Thanks


Brief Encounter
Bride of Frankenstein
Harvey
On The Waterfront
3.10 To Yuma
Wild Strawberries
Seconds
Ivan's Childhood
Salvatore Giuliano
Foreign Correspondent
Hands Over The City
Persona
Wooden Crosses
Night & The City
Pickup On South Street


I second Anatomy of a Murder, Strangers on a Train and Sweet Smell of Success.
I'd tend not to promote To Kill A Mockingbird because of Universal usual hands-on filtering approach.


----------



## tenia54

djoberg said:


> *Joy*
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.25**


I was surprised by an interior shot around the end of the movie which seemed much smoother than the rest of the movie, to the point it felt heavily filtered. It surprised me all the more because the rest of the movie has a distinct filmic aspect, with a very fine grain which is becoming rare with all the digital shootings. But suddenly, boom, this very smooth stuff.

I re-checked, the time code is 1h 27 min 14 sec to 1h 27 19. Same again from 1h 28 min 44 to 1h 29 min 18. It also shows some ringing which I'm not sure might come from the photography but doesn't look natural to me.


----------



## CJackson

I want to get The Thin Red Line, The Tree of Life and The Quiet Man. Could you tell me more about these Blu Tier discs?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

tenia54 said:


> I was surprised by an interior shot around the end of the movie which seemed much smoother than the rest of the movie, to the point it felt heavily filtered. It surprised me all the more because the rest of the movie has a distinct filmic aspect, with a very fine grain which is becoming rare with all the digital shootings. But suddenly, boom, this very smooth stuff.
> 
> I re-checked, the time code is 1h 27 min 14 sec to 1h 27 19. Same again from 1h 28 min 44 to 1h 29 min 18. It also shows some ringing which I'm not sure might come from the photography but doesn't look natural to me.


_Joy_ stars Jennifer Lawrence, it wouldn't shock me if certain shots have been selectively defocused and "massaged" for her benefit. This is often done on a scene-by-scene basis, which is why it will pop up and then disappear. Most female stars in Hollywood at her level have it written into their contracts. They literally have more power over this than even the director.



CJackson said:


> I want to get The Thin Red Line, The Tree of Life and The Quiet Man. Could you tell me more about these Blu Tier discs?


A good idea is searching this thread for prior recommendations made for the Picture Quality Tiers. The Thin Red Line and The Tree of Life are both stellar videophile Blu-rays. Both feature outstanding cinematography made with precision and care. I haven't personally seen The Quiet Man but I am sure it's fantastic as well.


----------



## djoberg

tenia54 said:


> I was surprised by an interior shot around the end of the movie which seemed much smoother than the rest of the movie, to the point it felt heavily filtered. It surprised me all the more because the rest of the movie has a distinct filmic aspect, with a very fine grain which is becoming rare with all the digital shootings. But suddenly, boom, this very smooth stuff.
> 
> I re-checked, the time code is 1h 27 min 14 sec to 1h 27 19. Same again from 1h 28 min 44 to 1h 29 min 18. It also shows some ringing which I'm not sure might come from the photography but doesn't look natural to me.


I didn't catch those! It was a rental and I was not impressed with the movie...so, I will more-than-likely never see them.



CJackson said:


> I want to get The Thin Red Line, The Tree of Life and The Quiet Man. Could you tell me more about these Blu Tier discs?


Just to add to Phantom's post...I did see _The Quiet Man_ and the PQ is EXCELLENT!


----------



## reisb

Phantom Stranger said:


> Please let me know if you think I've made any mistakes, the PQ Tiers are fully updated through this post with every score from the past six months. Please let me apologize for not doing this sooner, but other obligations and priorities got in the way of late. I don't have a good idea of when the next update will occur, the summer months tend to be slow around here on AVS.
> 
> Everyone that follows this thread knows djoberg's fine work here is a great asset. I just wanted to point out he's almost single-handedly covering the majority of major movie releases by this point and the Tiers would greatly suffer without his contributions.


Did we have a rating for Straight Outta Compton?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

reisb said:


> Did we have a rating for Straight Outta Compton?


My records indicate no one has yet reviewed Straight Outta Compton for the PQ Tiers. It's a perfect time if you've seen it to give your own impressions.

I've been meaning to watch it but my official reviewing duties take precedence, so I can't promise when I'll get to see it.


----------



## reisb

Phantom Stranger said:


> reisb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did we have a rating for Straight Outta Compton?
> 
> 
> 
> My records indicate no one has yet reviewed Straight Outta Compton for the PQ Tiers. It's a perfect time if you've seen it to give your own impressions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been meaning to watch it but my official reviewing duties take precedence, so I can't promise when I'll get to see it.
Click to expand...

I own it, but haven't watched it yet either. Saw it streamed before getting BD in. 

I will review if I watch it soon. Thanks.


----------



## djoberg

*Gods of Egypt*

I had seen the trailer for this film many times and it looked promising in the PQ department. Let me just say that it had moments that were truly JAW-DROPPING, with BOLD COLORS that would rival the most dazzling colors in a Top Tier Pixar film, and DETAILS that defy description. Most every scene in the Royal Palace or Courtyard featured this EYE CANDY (especially in the fascinating COSTUMES, including an army of soldiers with shiny red armor). FACIAL TEXTURES were exemplary. DEPTH was off-the-charts. CONTRAST was unbelievably strong (BLACKS were deep and inky...WHITES were brilliant). FLESH-TONES were spot-on (except for examples listed below). CLARITY/SHARPNESS were second-to-none.

Now for the "negatives." For the most part the main culprit was in the CGI. During numerous battle scenes SOFTNESS reared it ugly head and many backgrounds were also soft and lacked detail (I believe they used "green screens" in a majority of scenes). I must also cite the typical "color-grading"; in this case it was "golden hues" that became pervasive and wreaked havoc on flesh-tones.

If I had stopped with the first paragraph I would most definitely be nominating this for the Top Tier. But the issues outlined in the second paragraph will drop it down a tier. I would probably have gone with the middle of Tier Blu...so my vote goes for....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**


----------



## DistractedJohn

Has anyone viewed the original Honeymooners on Blu Ray? BTW i enjoyed Ed Wood on blu ray...


----------



## mweflen

*E.T. The Extra Terrestrial*

Scratch everything I said below. I watched it again (you know kids and repeating movies over and over) and I was accentuating the negative before. In fact, detail is quite strong. I still think some highlights are blown out, and shots with optical effects look pretty atrocious. But when it looks good, it is quite good. Lots of good detail, nice shadows and inky blacks, a very poppy image overall. If it didn't have the ragged 80's opticals, it would be near the top of tier 1.
*
Tier Recommendation: 1.75

*viewed from 10 feet on a 106" screen, using a Viewsonic PRO7827HD DLP projector



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
I am mystified by the high ranking this one currently enjoys. This seems like a perfect case study for the limitations of 80s films with heavy optical effect usage. Dark scenes are mushy. Bright scenes have nice detail but are a bit blown out in the highlights. Scenes with composited effects shots look pretty bad (my wife, not one to mention picture quality, actually asked "is this a Blu-Ray?").

It is better than a DVD. It was an enjoyable watch. But it is nowhere near demo material.
Tier Recommendation: 2.75 
%%%%%%%%%%%%


----------



## tenia54

Phantom Stranger said:


> _Joy_ stars Jennifer Lawrence, it wouldn't shock me if certain shots have been selectively defocused and "massaged" for her benefit. This is often done on a scene-by-scene basis, which is why it will pop up and then disappear. Most female stars in Hollywood at her level have it written into their contracts. They literally have more power over this than even the director.


That's what I thought at first, but these represents a handful of minutes out of a 130 min movie. These shots are not close up on her face but mid shots with her in the background, while there are _many_ close ups on her face in the movie, so it doesn't seem to be a factor here.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> *Gods of Egypt*
> 
> I had seen the trailer for this film many times and it looked promising in the PQ department. Let me just say that it had moments that were truly JAW-DROPPING, with BOLD COLORS that would rival the most dazzling colors in a Top Tier Pizar film, and DETAILS that defy description. Most every scene in the Royal Palace or Courtyard featured this EYE CANDY (especially in the fascinating COSTUMES, including an army of soldiers with shiny red armor). FACIAL TEXTURES were exemplary. DEPTH was off-the-charst. CONTRAST was unbelievably strong (BLACKS were deep and inky...WHITES were brilliant). FLESH-TONES were spot-on (except for examples listed below). CLARITY/SHARPNESS were second-to-none.
> 
> Now for the "negatives." For the most part the main culprit was in the CGI. During numerous battle scenes SOFTNESS reared it ugly head and many backgrounds were also soft and lacked detail (I believe they used "green screens" in a majority of scenes). I must also cite the typical "color-grading"; in this case it was "golden hues" that became pervasive and wreaked havoc on flesh-tones.
> 
> If I had stopped with the first paragraph I would most definitely be nominating this for the Top Tier. But the issues outlined in the second paragraph will drop it down a tier. I would probably have gone with the middle of Tier Blu...so my vote goes for....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.5**


A trusted source has also told me this Lionsgate disc has terrible banding for a major new release.



tenia54 said:


> That's what I thought at first, but these represents a handful of minutes out of a 130 min movie. These shots are not close up on her face but mid shots with her in the background, while there are _many_ close ups on her face in the movie, so it doesn't seem to be a factor here.


I haven't seen _Joy_ and don't plan on watching it unless outside forces intervene. Hopefully another person here can check what is going on with it.


Another site I find handy at times is Caps-a-holic for comparing Blu-ray editions of the same movie, or against the DVD version. It's been around for years but seems to be one of the last direct comparison sites left standing. Many others have been pulled off-line or fallen by the wayside from neglect.

http://www.caps-a-holic.com/

For whatever reason, they recently decided to pull the ability to post comments.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Red Queen Kills Seven Times*

recommendation: *Tier 3.5**

This is the second movie found in Arrow Video's Killer Dames box set, a second-rate giallo that offers a weaker presentation than its companion in the set, _The Night Evelyn Came Out Of The Grave_. Supposedly a new transfer struck from the camera negative, the 2K scan replicates the fairly limited Techniscope film elements. This is soft video with unfiltered grain. The color saturation is flat and dull for a giallo filled with bloody murders.

Arrow Video does give it a perfect technical presentation, featuring an immaculate AVC video encode that superbly handles the gritty film texture. This is adequate definition in a serviceable transfer, but the rather pedestrian cinematography limits its wow factor. I've seen better transfers of vintage Italian movies but the 1972 movie receives a faithful presentation from decent elements. Blame the picture quality's limitations on the movie's seemingly cheap production.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> A trusted source has also told me this Lionsgate disc has terrible banding for a major new release.


I never saw any banding, but I thought I observed some aliasing during a couple of the CGI scenes. Again, this title is all about CGI and in battle scenes especially everything was so fast-moving that it was hard to detect flaws in the actual real-world.


----------



## tenia54

Phantom Stranger said:


> Another site I find handy at times is Caps-a-holic for comparing Blu-ray editions of the same movie, or against the DVD version. It's been around for years but seems to be one of the last direct comparison sites left standing. Many others have been pulled off-line or fallen by the wayside from neglect.
> 
> http://www.caps-a-holic.com/
> 
> For whatever reason, they recently decided to pull the ability to post comments.


The site became more and more famous overtime and their comments section got thus more and more filled by discussions between various people. Because it was supposed to remain a small comments section, and not a full-time discussion board, caps-a-holic staff seems not to had allocated enough resources to moderate this. It became too much for them to support, and thus closed it down.

Their FAQ says :
Q: Where did the comments go?
A: We are just tired of browsing through tons of comments every morning.


----------



## mweflen

*The Grand Budapest Hotel*

This is nice looking, filmic to be sure, but lacks a few things to be considered reference. First is fine detail - everything has just a bit of softness and or lens effect, which I'm sure reflects the film itself, but brings the video score down a notch or two. Colors are rich throughout. Black levels fluctuate from very good to somewhat weak, especially in a sequence during the prison break. 

*Tier Recommendation 2.0*

viewed from 10 feet on a 106" screen, using a Viewsonic PRO7827HD DLP projector


----------



## Phantom Stranger

mweflen said:


> *The Grand Budapest Hotel*
> 
> This is nice looking, filmic to be sure, but lacks a few things to be considered reference. First is fine detail - everything has just a bit of softness and or lens effect, which I'm sure reflects the film itself, but brings the video score down a notch or two. Colors are rich throughout. Black levels fluctuate from very good to somewhat weak, especially in a sequence during the prison break.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation 2.0*
> 
> viewed from 10 feet on a 106" screen, using a Viewsonic PRO7827HD DLP projector


That film has such a delightfully rich color palette and careful composition that Tier 2 seems awfully low for it. It would instantly become the best-looking Tier 2 disc.


----------



## mweflen

Phantom Stranger said:


> That film has such a delightfully rich color palette and careful composition that Tier 2 seems awfully low for it. It would instantly become the best-looking Tier 2 disc.


I calls 'em likes I sees 'em. I agree that the colors were beautiful. But the detail was just too soft for me to go any higher. I even checked the focus on my projector to be sure.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

mweflen said:


> I calls 'em likes I sees 'em. I agree that the colors were beautiful. But the detail was just too soft for me to go any higher. I even checked the focus on my projector to be sure.


Understood, it's interesting to see what attributes our users prioritize when ranking discs in the Tiers. I would suggest watching Moonrise Kingdom on Blu-ray, for a comparison with another recent Wes Anderson film. You will likely see a marked separation in clarity and definition between its video and The Grand Budapest Hotel. Moonrise Kingdom is closer to my idea of what Tier 2 quality represents.

I guess beauty is always in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Pit and the Pendulum (1991)*

recommendation: *Tier 4.0**

I'll make clear this is Stuart Gordon's 1991 film, not the earlier Corman adaptation. This film transfer appears to be an ordinary, dated telecine job struck from secondary elements. Niche distributor Full Moon doesn't have a good reputation when it comes to video quality with their home video releases. This 1080P video framed at 1.78:1 is a serviceable presentation for a movie with less than stellar cinematography. The elements are in solid, largely unmarked condition. A few bits of debris are it.

On the bright side, this transfer shows no trace of sharpening and clarity is fairly high in exterior shots. Some interior scenes have minor issues, the limited shadow delineation has modest definition at best. If I had watched this disc five years ago, I might have put it in Tier 3. Newer catalog releases from horror distributors like Arrow Video have shown the benefits of a new 2K or higher resolution film scan, which makes this older effort look inadequate by comparison.

The video is certainly watchable but this is very ordinary by today's Blu-ray standards.


----------



## mweflen

I updated my E.T. review above upon rewatch.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Point Blank*

recommendation: *Tier 3.5**

This Lee Marvin crime thriller receives a fine, if ordinary, film transfer from decent elements. The 1967 MGM film must have been acquired by Warner through its Ted Turner connection. They do a reasonably solid effort in this adequate vintage presentation. The color-grading retains a period-accurate contrast and saturation, though this is not the sharpest cinematography.

The film elements are in clean condition with little wear. There is no undue video processing in the soft, film-like presentation. The AVC video encode is on the low side, slightly reducing the grain structure's complete reproduction.

A fine catalog release for _Point Blank's_ fans but a less than stellar punch for videophiles.


----------



## djoberg

*Goosebumps*

This was a rather "forgettable" release, both in terms of movie quality and PQ. That's not to say the PQ disappoints, for it was good enough to qualify for one's "demo shelf," albeit at the very bottom!

The main highlights were black levels and shadow details, and thankfully there were many scenes showcasing these virtues. Colors in daytime scenes were also very good, especially in outdoor shots. 

Where it fell "flat" was in the "depth" department, with the exception of some of the more stellar nighttime scenes where the deep black levels produced adequate depth. I was also underwhelmed by the details, for even close-ups of actors failed to yield the facial texture that we have become accustomed to.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**


----------



## djoberg

I just returned home from the video store with _13 Hours_ and _The Hateful Eight_, which I hope to watch this evening and tomorrow afternoon.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I haven't seen 13 Hours yet but it's directed by Michael Bay. His movies end up in Tier Blu/Zero more often than not.


----------



## djoberg

*13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi*

This Michael Bay release is "par for the course" (as Phantom indicated it might be), for this is surely a Tier Blu contender if I ever saw one!

Bay utilized his trademark stylized color-scheme, with tons of "orange hues" and "over-saturated colors." But guess what? They didn't bother me, for the CLARITY and DETAILS were so mesmerizing that MY EYES were focused on them...and believe me, they delivered the CANDY to those eyes!! There were numerous aerial views of Benghazi (thought it was actually shot in another location) and you could make out texture in buildings, passing vehicles, and the myriads of locals walking down the city streets. Close-ups of soldiers revealed unbelievable details, including every pore, stubble, beads of sweat, grime and blood. Flesh tones were very good except for some instances where the color-grading resulted in the infamous "orange tans."

At least half of the 2+ hour running time took place at night and I'm happy to report excellent black levels and shadow details. My "black bars" remained "black bars" throughout, and details of invading Libyans were remarkable. I read one review where the reviewer spotted "noise" in some of these scenes, but this was not the case in my viewing experience. Contrast was also strong (which is another "true-to-form" trademark of Mr. Bay).

Again, this will undoubtedly be placed in Tier Blu, but the question is: where? I believe it deserves a spot in the top half somewhere but I'll be conservative and go for....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.5)*

PS The movie was quite good, with some decent character development before the shooting started. The action was done extremely well. It was also disturbing to realize that the lives that were lost "could" have been prevented. That's all I'll say...Mr. Bay avoided the "political" missteps involved in this true story, so I will too.


----------



## djoberg

*The Hateful Eight*

This was shot on 65mm (courtesy of Ultra Panavision) and it is STUNNING! From the very first moment we are treated to stellar DETAILS and CLARITY and for the most part, it's non-stop. Close-ups were especially rewarding (with tons of texture on all the actors' faces, hands, hair, necks, etc.) and Tarantino is known for "zooming in" often! Perhaps 75-80% of the film was shot in the stagecoach depot (i.e. restaurant/bar) with somewhat low-lighting, but shadow details were excellent showing every nuance in furniture, clothing, walls, guns...you name it, nothing was hidden under a cloak of darkness. Colors were limited due to this, but I never tired of seeing Samuel Jackson's flamboyant suit with a vibrant red tie and a yellow coat lining. Depth was amazing. Contrast was pitch-perfect.

The only censure would be one very brief shot that seemed a bit out-of-focus and several soft shots. But again, with a film lasting 160+ minutes one would be guilty of "straining at a gnat" if they penalized the whole for these. This is YET ANOTHER reference quality disc; my vote goes for....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.66)*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Nice, two possible additions to Tier 0 in one day.

*Crimson Peak*

recommendation: *Tier 1.75**

Richly gothic in atmosphere, this supernatural period thriller receives an immaculately manicured presentation. Its inky black levels and perfect contrast make for striking clarity and definition, held back somewhat by a softer lighting scheme.

Universal gives it one of the best AVC video encodes I've seen in the past year, superbly handling a number of difficult scenes involving steam and snow. A lesser effort by certain other Blu-ray distributors would have almost certainly failed at the challenge.

While I definitely believe it belongs in Tier One, _Crimson Peak_ lacks the necessary pop and dimensionality for a much higher ranking. Its unfiltered video possesses abundant texture and detail. However, the movie is more concerned with showing off its CGI spirits than videophile-pleasing close-ups.


----------



## bcec

mweflen said:


> *Star Wars The Force Awakens*
> 
> This is a high bitrate encode. It shows a very nice color palette, no banding, posterization, DNR, aliasing, or EE. Detail ranges from good to excellent. Although this was shot on film, no film grain is evident, but this is consistent with the Kodak Vision 3 film stock. It looks very similar to the digital projection presentation I saw in the theater. There is no aspect ratio switching, which is too bad, because some shots were done in IMAX. There are some shots, in which a character is, say, a foot away from frame, where detail is softer than I would expect for a top tier release. Some close-ups dazzle, though, and the general detail level in effects shots is excellent. Detail near black occasionally seems a bit crushed, so you'd better have your display tuned well for brightness, contrast, and gamma. But overall, the impression this gives is very strong. Certainly this is the best Star Wars movie on Blu. As such, it's above Ep. 3's 1.25 rating.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 0, right above Interstellar
> *
> Viewed on Sony 52EX700 from 5 feet, LG-PF1500 on a 99" screen from 10 feet.


You are absolutely wrong when it comes to DNR in Force Awakens. The bluray suffers from DNR, and that's the reason you are not really seeing film grain. In some closeup scenes, it is just awful, making skin look like plastic. There are plenty of out-of-focus shots throughout the movie (I love the DP Dan Mindel, but his previous films, especially Star Treks also suffered from many out of focus shots) and heavy DNR/EE is making those out of focus shots even worse. There's also quite a bit of ringing throughout, but mostly apparent in certain shots (especially the out-of-focus ones), where studio apparently felt the need to apply heavy sharpening after the DNR process. I loved the movie, but am very disappointed by the bluray visual quality. I have some hope for a future clean UHD release without DNR/EE but that's a bit of a wishful thinking at this point.


----------



## mweflen

bcec said:


> You are absolutely wrong when it comes to DNR in Force Awakens. The bluray suffers from DNR, and that's the reason you are not really seeing film grain. In some closeup scenes, it is just awful, making skin look like plastic. There are plenty of out-of-focus shots throughout the movie (I love the DP Dan Mindel, but his previous films, especially Star Treks also suffered from many out of focus shots) and heavy DNR/EE is making those out of focus shots even worse. There's also quite a bit of ringing throughout, but mostly apparent in certain shots (especially the out-of-focus ones), where studio apparently felt the need to apply heavy sharpening after the DNR process. I loved the movie, but am very disappointed by the bluray visual quality. I have some hope for a future clean UHD release without DNR/EE but that's a bit of a wishful thinking at this point.



We're going to have to agree to disagree, I guess. I've been using this (along with Ben-Hur) as a test disc on my projection screen, as I review projectors I'm sent by Amazon through their Vine program (so far, ViewSonic PJD7836HDL, PJD7720HD, and PRO7827HD, LG PF1500, PW1500, PW1000, and Epson Home Cinema 1040). I'm quite familiar with DNR/EE (recently watched Star Trek First Contact, ugh), ringing, smearing, and the like. I run each of my projectors through a DIY (Disney WOW) calibration to eliminate undue sharpness. I view it at 106". And in my opinion, SWE7 is not riddled with EE, nor does it suffer from DNR. I agree that the photography softens some faces here and there. I also watched it in the theater, and it was not a grainy film in the theater, at all. The film stock used (Kodak Vision 3, formulated specifically for lack of grain) supports this.

I also did a cursory scan of "professional" reviews just now to see if anyone, even a single one, mentioned DNR/EE. No one did. All praised the level of detail and the lack of apparent monkeying with the image. A few mentioned a smattering of softer scenes.

I would specifically point to the Starkiller base scene. If the disc suffered from a DNR/EE cocktail, this scene would show it like gangbusters (lots of high contrast blacks, whites and reds, close-ups on General Hux). It doesn't.

Is there a shot or shots that you would point to as bad instances of ringing, EE, or DNR?


----------



## bcec

mweflen said:


> We're going to have to agree to disagree, I guess. I've been using this (along with Ben-Hur) as a test disc on my projection screen, as I review projectors I'm sent by Amazon through their Vine program (so far, ViewSonic PJD7836HDL, PJD7720HD, and PRO7827HD, LG PF1500, PW1500, PW1000, and Epson Home Cinema 1040). I'm quite familiar with DNR/EE (recently watched Star Trek First Contact, ugh), ringing, smearing, and the like. I run each of my projectors through a DIY (Disney WOW) calibration to eliminate undue sharpness. I view it at 106". And in my opinion, SWE7 is not riddled with EE, nor does it suffer from DNR. I agree that the photography softens some faces here and there. I also watched it in the theater, and it was not a grainy film in the theater, at all. The film stock used (Kodak Vision 3, formulated specifically for lack of grain) supports this.
> 
> I also did a cursory scan of "professional" reviews just now to see if anyone, even a single one, mentioned DNR/EE. No one did. All praised the level of detail and the lack of apparent monkeying with the image. A few mentioned a smattering of softer scenes.
> 
> I would specifically point to the Starkiller base scene. If the disc suffered from a DNR/EE cocktail, this scene would show it like gangbusters (lots of high contrast blacks, whites and reds, close-ups on General Hux). It doesn't.


I highly recommend against using projected media for judging video quality. Even though they provide great viewing experience, they usually do so by hiding the artifacts. If you want to be accurate in your reviews, you should judge video quality preferably through a computer monitor and view the media at 1:1 scale (not even a TV where image is likely processed thru your bray disk player and the TV itself).

Not sure what you are referring to as the Starkiller base scene, but in general, studios apply DNR+EE unevenly these days. And DNR+EE shouldn't really change the contrast or colors either when done correctly. It is essentially noise reduction combined with smart sharpening on edges that observe higher contrast. But end result is almost always the same, loss of detail and texture, and artificially sharpened areas, and ringing at extremes.

Here are completely unprocessed clean screenshots from the Force Awakens bluray. 
ringing.jpg is plagued by DNR and EE. The ringing (look at her chin) is just terrible.
plastic-face.jpg shows Ford's plastic skin combined with his artificially sharp hair. Again a bad artifact of DNR + EE process.


----------



## mweflen

bcec said:


> I highly recommend against using projected media for judging video quality. Even though they provide great viewing experience, they usually do so by hiding the artifacts. If you want to be accurate in your reviews, you should judge video quality preferably through a computer monitor and view the media at 1:1 scale (not even a TV where image is likely processed thru your bray disk player and the TV itself).
> 
> Not sure what you are referring to as the Starkiller base scene, but in general, studios apply DNR+EE unevenly these days. And DNR+EE shouldn't really change the contrast or colors either when done correctly. It is essentially noise reduction combined with smart sharpening on edges that observe higher contrast. But end result is almost always the same, loss of detail and texture, and artificially sharpened areas, and ringing at extremes.
> 
> Here are completely unprocessed clean screenshots from the Force Awakens bluray.
> ringing.jpg is plagued by DNR and EE. The ringing (look at her chin) is just terrible.
> plastic-face.jpg shows Ford's plastic skin combined with his artificially sharp hair. Again a bad artifact of DNR + EE process.


Perhaps my computer monitor is not properly calibrated, but I'm just not seeing the "terrible" and "bad" things you're referring to. We're going to have to agree to disagree. I see no problems with the Rey image. I see no ringing, no halos, no edge enhancement. I looked very closely at her chin, as suggested, on a PC monitor. I also have 20/20 vision. The Han Solo shot does show some softness (of the kind I mentioned in my review), but it's also worth noting that the Han Solo shot is being viewed through an optical effect (the blue hologram) which may be degrading facial detail just a bit.

Perhaps viewing a home theater product on a home theater display is not the appropriate _modus operandi_ for "accurate" reviewing (though I don't see any "accurate" reviews from you on this page, FWIW). Nonetheless, it is what practically everybody who reviews these home theater products online actually does, not to mention the vast, vast, _vast _majority of home users. It is certainly true that some people try to tune their home theater equipment to reduce or eliminate the processing done on the image, while some don't (I do). I am sure pixel-level viewing of any source material will inspire derision here and there. All Blu-Ray discs feature compression of one sort or another, whether it is compression of a 4k or 8k image down to 1080p, color information, video bitrates, or whatnot, to fit special features and language/commentary tracks. To be frank, I have better things to do with my time than to rip screengrabs and look for halos that are not evident on either my television or my projector (which as mentioned, have been tuned to eliminate any undue processing artifacts). If, however, you do have the time and the wherewithal to do so, feel free to, and then actually review these discs on this forum, where all voices are welcome. 

The "Starkiller base scene" is called "Starkiller" in the chapter menu. It features General Hux addressing an army of stormtroopers on the surface of Starkiller base before firing the Starkiller cannon for the first time. It's a pretty apt chapter title and description.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Whatever caused it, I didn't find Star Wars: The Force Awakens a super-detailed Blu-ray for a high-end, new release. I wouldn't necessarily call it "smooth" but Abrams has never shown much affinity for videophile traits in his films. Would it shock me to discover selective filtering and defocusing was employed on the digital intermediate? No, not really. That is standard practice these days on almost every large Hollywood blockbuster on some level.

It does look better than the sterile and lifeless picture found on the Prequel Blu-rays, which had a completely different and now antiquated production chain.

Watching on a projector versus a plasma or other flat panel display tends to highlight different aspects of the picture quality. Both are viable options depending on screen size.


----------



## mweflen

You want to see EE halos? Here are EE halos...

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film3/blu-...us_blu-ray/large/large_spartacus_blu-ray6.jpg


----------



## bcec

mweflen said:


> Perhaps my computer monitor is not properly calibrated, but I'm just not seeing the "terrible" and "bad" things you're referring to. We're going to have to agree to disagree. I see no problems with the Rey image. I see no ringing, no halos, no edge enhancement. I looked very closely at her chin, as suggested, on a PC monitor. I also have 20/20 vision. The Han Solo shot does show some softness (of the kind I mentioned in my review), but it's also worth noting that the Han Solo shot is being viewed through an optical effect (the blue hologram) which may be degrading facial detail just a bit.


If you are not seeing rigging in the image I've posted, or the texture-less but also sharp image, I am happy for you. It is either it doesn't bother you, or your equipment counters it. Either case, you are having a good viewing experience and that's great. (btw, just nitpicking but 20/20 vision is irrelevant, unless you are evaluating the rigging at 20 feet).



mweflen said:


> Perhaps viewing a home theater product on a home theater display is not the appropriate _modus operandi_ for "accurate" reviewing (though I don't see any "accurate" reviews from you on this page, FWIW). Nonetheless, it is what practically everybody who reviews these home theater products online actually does, not to mention the vast, vast, _vast _majority of home users. It is certainly true that some people try to tune their home theater equipment to reduce or eliminate the processing done on the image, while some don't (I do). I am sure pixel-level viewing of any source material will inspire derision here and there. All Blu-Ray discs feature compression of one sort or another, whether it is compression of a 4k or 8k image down to 1080p, color information, video bitrates, or whatnot, to fit special features and language/commentary tracks.


Compression artifacts is one thing (which we are not talking about), source manipulation is another. Your review explicitly called out for no apparent DNR/EE. I am saying if you actually look at the source and do a review in a more controlled environment, it is quite there and unfortunate. There are lots of disks out there with no processing and full of film grain (which I love), so it is unfortunate that they felt the need to do anything here for Force Awakens. Then again, this is LucasFilm, and their DNR on prior StarWars releases were also at times quite terrible (Phantom Menace).



mweflen said:


> To be frank, I have better things to do with my time than to rip screengrabs and look for halos that are not evident on either my television or my projector (which as mentioned, have been tuned to eliminate any undue processing artifacts). If, however, you do have the time and the wherewithal to do so, feel free to, and then actually review these discs on this forum, where all voices are welcome.


Pretty sure that's exactly what I did, by pointing out the DNR, ringing in the Force Awakens.



mweflen said:


> The "Starkiller base scene" is called "Starkiller" in the chapter menu. It features General Hux addressing an army of stormtroopers on the surface of Starkiller base before firing the Starkiller cannon for the first time. It's a pretty apt chapter title and description.


Scenes made up of complete CGI usually don't get any DNR treatment, there is no need, source is clean. Similar, but same is true for hyprid disks with IMAX scenes from the disks I have seen. Dark Knight for instance is filled with horrendous DNR+EE, but its IMAX scenes are quite clean.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Nikkatsu Diamond Guys: Volume 2*

recommendation: *Tier 3.75**

Arrow Video puts out three more films from Nikkatsu's seemingly deep vault in serviceable condition. Tokyo Mighty Guy, Danger Pays, and Murder Unincorporated are all color films from the early Sixties, shot in a variation of CinemaScope. Each movie receives a legitimate HD transfer from decent film elements, though their softer definition and minor processing indicate less than state-of-the-art, new scans. They are shown in their proper scope ratio at 1080P resolution.

The three films share a single BD-50. It's a tight fit that didn't apparently affect compression transparency. I don't believe that Arrow Video actually supervised the film transfers, these were performed by Nikkatsu themselves in Japan. This is more colorful fare than Arrow's prior Nikkatsu releases, done with fairly appealing contrast and black levels.


----------



## mweflen

bcec said:


> Your review explicitly called out for no apparent DNR/EE.


Which I stand by. It is not _apparent _to me on any display, from any source, at any resolution, at any level of zoom. Nor, apparently, is it apparent to anyone else but you (and I don't mean that glibly - I literally have found no mention of it on the first several pages of Google search results for "Star Wars The Force Awakens Blu-Ray Review").

There are discs where DNR/EE is apparent and intrusive. Universal's 2010 Spartacus disc (linked above). Dark City. Most of the Star Trek movies. The Truman Show. Even allowing for the sake of argument that it contains some DNR/EE (as many, perhaps even most, discs do to some degree) SWE7 is nowhere near the same ballpark as these discs, so calling it out as a terrible example seems hyperbolic at best.

Keep fighting that good fight. Someday perhaps you will convince the internet that the SWE7 Blu-Ray contains egregious DNR and EE. Good luck to you.

This discussion isn't going anywhere. I suggest we end it.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Playing devil's advocate, the studios have gotten far more sophisticated at filtering in the past three or four years. Especially on new productions, where it's difficult for me to see at times, even when I know something has been doctored in post.


----------



## mweflen

Phantom Stranger said:


> Playing devil's advocate, the studios have gotten far more sophisticated at filtering in the past three or four years. Especially on new productions, where it's difficult for me to see at times, even when I know something has been doctored in post.


I totally agree. Recent DNR/EE is light years ahead of DNR/EE from early in the format. I am willing to believe that SWE7 has been run through a computer filter or two. What I am saying is that it isn't evident or obtrusive. The results look very similar to what I saw in the theater.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

mweflen said:


> I totally agree. Recent DNR/EE is light years ahead of DNR/EE from early in the format. I am willing to believe that SWE7 has been run through a computer filter or two. What I am saying is that it isn't evident or obtrusive. The results look very similar to what I saw in the theater.


I'm sure the Blu-ray is a nigh perfect replication of how Star Wars: The Force Awakens appeared in movie theaters.

While I don't remember one way or the other about seeing edge enhancement on the Blu-ray, aliasing may have been introduced into some shots by extensive digital composites. It depends on what resolution everything was animated and created in, blended in with the raw principal shooting.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Fruit of Grisaia: Complete Collection*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

This is one of those rare anime programs animated in 2.35:1. Considering the amount of dull backgrounds typically found at this production level, it's a smart move. Its direction takes full advantage of the scope frame, some thought has been applied to composition.

Released by Sentai Filmworks, there aren't noticeable compression issues. The 12 episodes are spread over two discs. There is enough eye candy in the saturated palette to mark it as Tier One.


----------



## rusky_g

*Everest*

Everest descends onto blu ray with an exquisite transfer worthy of the top tier due to its standout clarity and contrast, the latter being at its peak in the many base location shots. Elsewhere white landscapes are punctuated with the bright primaries of the crews 'snow wear' and close ups are abound with frost bitten stubble revealing minute detail. All of this wedged between an emotive storyline and engulfing soundtrack!

*Tier 0.5*


----------



## djoberg

*Misconduct*

This one had "Star Power" (Anthony Hopkins, Al Pacino & Josh Duhamel) but that's about it! I was underwhelmed by the movie AND the PQ!!

This is not your typical release shot with the Arri Alexa, for it was FLAT and LACKED DETAIL in numerous scenes. I should add that SOFTNESS reared its ugly head intermittently, along with orange hues that wreaked havoc on flesh tones. Perhaps the only redeeming qualities were black levels and shadow details, but even there it was inconsistent resulting in some MURKINESS with accompanying LACK OF DEPTH.

Just to be fair, it did have its moments (in well-lit scenes and outdoor daytime scenes) where clarity rose to the occasion, along with solid primary colors, a fair amount of depth, and pleasing details.

I'm going with the bottom of Tier 2 and that may even be generous....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75**


----------



## djoberg

*The Forest*

I'm happy to say this Blu fared much better than my last viewing! Daytime scenes were especially delightful, with excellent clarity and detail. Early on we are treated to shots of Tokyo at night and it bristles with details and awesome colors. Most of the film took place in the forest (duh!) below Mt. Fuji and it served up some mesmerizing texture in trees, foliage, a cave, a river, etc. Facial close-ups were also exemplary, with dozens of shots of the two leads (Natalie Dormer and Taylor Kinney). 

There were quite a few instances of softness with murky blacks in some of the really dark, nighttime scenes. These were my only complaint, but enough to penalize the placement by a quarter of a tier or more.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Go back a couple of months for my take on _The Forest_. I remember placing it somewhere in Tier 2. However, the video definitely had its stronger moments.

I actually enjoyed the movie, horror made for adults today is so tricky to pull off.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> Go back a couple of months for my take on _The Forest_. I remember placing it somewhere in Tier 2. However, the video definitely had its stronger moments.
> 
> I actually enjoyed the movie, horror made for adults today is so tricky to pull off.


I just read your review. You placed it at 2.5 so we were a whole tier apart. I remember thinking throughout the first half (before most of the nighttime scenes in the forest began) that this is most definitely top Tier 1 material and then the dark, atmospheric scenes started up and I decided to drop it to 1.5, thinking it should probably go to 1.75. That's the lowest I would go.

I too enjoyed the movie (until the last 20 minutes or so). It was well done with some decent acting and it left enough to the imagination to satisfy me (again, until the last 20 minutes or so).


----------



## Phantom Stranger

reisb said:


> Did we have a rating for Straight Outta Compton?


*Straight Outta Compton*

recommendation: *Tier 1.75**

Universal gives the lengthy unrated director's cut (running nearly three hours) a BD-50 in this steady presentation. Shot with the RED Epic Dragon camera, the video has crisp clarity in fairly sharp definition. Excellent black levels produce fine texture and shadow delineation. The scope cinematography isn't stunningly dramatic but opens up nicely in some shots. Depth and projection could be better for a new production.

This is a polished, technically sound transfer without intrusive processing, one that likely replicates the 2K digital intermediate with full immediacy. Fine detail is better than average but lacks the razor-sharp quality of better Tier One discs.

I simply couldn't go any higher with _Staight Outta Compton's_ ranking despite the slick visuals. The picture quality has a nice, clean consistency but nothing in it that makes an extraordinary impact.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Stagecoach (1986)*

recommendation: *Tier 3.0**

The 1986 television movie starring the Highwaymen receives a fine presentation respecting its original broadcast. Presented at 1080P resolution in a 1.33:1 aspect ratio, _Stagecoach_ offers moderately crisp clarity with adequate definition. The 95-minute main feature is encoded in AVC with sufficient parameters on a barebones BD-25. It has a solid contrast, average black levels, and better than expected sharpness from an unprocessed film transfer.

Olive Films has licensed _Stagecoach_ from MGM for this release and the television production offers solid, steady cinematography. The level of detail and improvement in color reproduction indicate this is an authentic HD transfer struck from mostly clean film elements. It resembles a slightly older telecine job given the softer interiors with rougher grain structure.

The video offers decent grain reproduction with excellent color saturation. Aside from incidental dirt and debris, the elements are presented in nearly perfect shape. This is a nice, solid print with little wear or noticeable aging. A few darker interiors have been shot with rougher patches of spotty black levels.


----------



## djoberg

*London Has Fallen*

The opening scene had my "jaw dropping to the floor" with razor-sharp clarity and mesmerizing details. Had this continued non-stop I can safely say I'd be nominating this for a place near the top quarter of Tier 0. I would say that the first half (of its 90 minute running time) was of this caliber, with the exception of some egregious color-grading in a couple of scenes where orange hues left everyone looking like they had just left the tanning salon (the kind with the orange spray). Facial close-ups were incredible with amazing texture in every actor, including the face that was "made for HD" (of course I'm referring to Morgan Freeman). Aerial shots of London revealed tons of details in city streets, buildings, cars, etc.

Now a word about the "last half." It took place at NIGHT with many shots taking place in very low-lit interiors. The PQ was truly a mixed bag. Some shots had fairly good black levels and shadow details but an equal number of shots became quite murky that resulted in a lack of details and depth. Digital noise also reared its ugly head at times.

I always find these hard to rate. I would love to at least give this a high placement in Tier 1, but conscience dictates a lower ranking due to the negatives just enumerated. My vote goes for...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*If It's Tuesday, This Must Be Belgium*

recommendation: *Tier 3.75**

Olive Films offers a serviceable presentation for the 1969 comedy starring Suzanne Pleshette with a mildly satisfying film transfer. Licensed from MGM and likely using their provided HD master, the 98-minute main feature is shown at its intended 1.85:1 aspect ratio. Included on a BD-25, the video is encoded in adequate AVC compression with few overt artifacts. While some may find the video fairly dull and soft by current Blu-ray standards, this is a legitimate film transfer struck in Hi-Def resolution from stable elements.

The 1080P video has decent clarity and definition for an older catalog presentation. The dated telecine transfer leans toward the soft side with hints of halos, though ringing is kept to a minimum. The film elements are in solid, if dull, shape. There isn’t much to complain about in terms of print defects, though color saturation would be improved in a new film scan of the same elements. Was this master for MGM struck during the DVD era? That is possible.


----------



## djoberg

*10 Cloverfield Lane*

This was a well-acted film that kept my attention throughout...and the excellent PQ was the "frosting on the cake!"

This will NOT be found on anyone's "reference shelf" (Tier 0), but I would easily find a spot for it on my "demo shelf" (Tier 1). Superb clarity (especially in well-lit scenes)...finely-rendered details (in facial close-ups, furniture, the walls of the bunker, clothing, etc.)...spot-on flesh tones...appreciable depth (again, especially in well-lit scenes)...stellar black levels (check out the shot of a lit up gas station enveloped by the nighttime sky)...and pleasing, natural colors. All outdoor, daytime shots were pure eye candy.

There were a few hiccups...fleeting instances of noise in dimly-lit scenes...some obvious judder during a scene where the camera was panning the female lead's bunker bedroom...and a couple of shots where blacks faltered a tad and bordered on murkiness.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**

PS The audio ROCKED!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Bodyguards and Assassins*

recommendation: *Tier 1.75**

Distributor Shout Factory provides a consistent, polished presentation for _Bodyguards and Assassins_. Clarity and definition make this 1080P video a stand-out on Blu-ray for film-based Hong Kong movies. Fine detail is excellent in close-ups, showing a completely unfiltered transfer with razor-sharp definition.

The sharp, solid 2.35:1 presentation falls short of reference quality video.


----------



## TitusTroy

anybody seen Kung Fu Panda 3 yet?...looking forward to people's opinions on the video quality...DreamWorks best titles (How to Train your Dragon, Kung Fu Panda etc) are right up there with Pixar as far as reference image quality


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I haven't seen Kung Fu Panda 3 but hopefully someone else on the thread has seen it. I'm sure it's near the top, the Kung Fu Panda series always has brilliant colors.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Crimson Cult (a.k.a. Curse of the Crimson Altar)*

recommendation: *Tier 2.25**

This Blu-ray is a strong catalog presentation of the Christopher Lee movie. Kino Lorber has licensed the MGM film and secured a film-like transfer with excellent definition and crisp colors. The elements are in superb condition with no significant wear.

The film is presented in its intended 1.66:1 theatrical aspect ratio. The adequate AVC encode has a few stray artifacts but nothing that impacts the video's integrity. All in all, a pleasing vintage presentation with solid detail. This disc is definitely recommended for fans.


----------



## djoberg

TitusTroy said:


> anybody seen Kung Fu Panda 3 yet?...looking forward to people's opinions on the video quality...DreamWorks best titles (How to Train your Dragon, Kung Fu Panda etc) are right up there with Pixar as far as reference image quality


I bought it three days ago but my wife and I were gone until an hour ago....we leave for another trip in few days until next Tuesday so I'm not sure if I'll get to it or not.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Glasslip: The Complete Collection*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

I often come across sloppy, rushed animation viewing anime on Blu-ray. This is not the case with _Glasslip's_ refined backgrounds. Some care has been taken with its art design to render a more realistic environment. The actual video offers myriad colors in full saturation and a number of splashy scenes with demo potential.

Sentai Filmworks spreads the entire season across two discs in a perfect technical transfer. Gone are the days when anime of this caliber was crudely presented at 1080P resolution. It's a cut above the standard fare we get with the recent deluge of anime Blu-rays.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Christmas In Connecticut*

recommendation: *Tier 3.75**

Do not let the Tier 3 score fool you, the 1945 comedy receives a fine black-and-white film transfer from restored elements. 

WB offers up an excellent presentation from superb elements, newly scanned to bring out as much detail and definition possible. Black levels are crisp with fairly standard shadow delineation for the period's cinematography. While some softness is unavoidable and possible optical ringing comes into play, the 1080P video has its moments of sparkling clarity and sharpness.

As expected, the movie is properly shown at its native full-screen aspect ratio. The AVC video encode transparently replicates the movie's unfiltered grain structure.

And yes, I have been known to watch Christmas movies in July.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Vigilante Diaries*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

This is a new action movie shot on the 6K RED Dragon. The video has state-of-the-art detail and image density. I am being very conservative by placing it in Tier 1, this is probably Tier Zero material.

The only notable exceptions are a few action sequences.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Lazarus Effect*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

A little surprised no one had covered this disc already for the PQ Tiers. Fox bestows a blemish-free presentation for this relatively recent horror movie in strong clarity. The video quality falls a tad short of demo material but offers impressive definition with unfiltered detail in most every scene. The close-ups with Olivia Wilde are astonishingly unfiltered with mesmerizing high-frequency content. She must not be as vain as some other A-list Hollywood actresses.

Just a few years ago this would have earned a Tier 1.0 score from me without blinking. It has utterly sharp dimensionality with near perfect black levels and contrast. Its lower score is merely a reflection of the increased videophile-quality competition being released on Blu-ray these days. Needless to say, the digital transfer is flawless and immaculate.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Bad Moon*

recommendation: *Tier 2.5**

The 1996 werewolf movie arrives on Blu-ray with a newish film transfer from pristine elements. This is a strong, film-like catalog presentation by Scream Factory. Licensed from Morgan Creek Productions, the film master appears to have been done by WB at some point.

The lighting on this film isn't the grim, dark affair most werewolf movies skew towards. This is bright, lively video with excellent clarity. I would certainly place it as one of the better looking transfers I've seen from a 90's production.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Krampus*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

During the first act of this subversive Christmas movie, I was having to make up excuses for why _Krampus_ shouldn't belong to Tier Zero. Its warm, rich, inviting picture quality sparkled in brilliant Christmas clarity. Some minor scrubbing applied to close-ups of Toni Collette was its only negative. Swimming in vibrant red and green colors, this was picture-perfect filmmaking.

As you can see by my final score, _Krampus_ changes greatly in setting and tone after a glorious looking first act. Universal does an adequate technical job with the transfer and encode, though some minor compression artifacts appear as Krampus makes his presence felt in the movie. The video swiftly changes from vivid color saturation to a darker aesthetic fairly quickly. That results in reduced definition and softened detail.

There isn't anything wrong per se with _Krampus'_ picture quality. Events within the movie force a drastic change in tonality and visual quality. There is even a brief animated scene of average quality included.


----------



## djoberg

I thought I should chime in to let you know I'm still alive! I purchased Sony's Flagship LCD/LED (see my Signature below) and I've been so busy streaming 4K UHD movies and watching some of my Blu-ray collection (the Sony's up-scaler is probably the best on the market and so I'm seeing things I never saw before). I was playing around with "seating distance." I used to sit at 7.5' from my 60" KURO; I have settled on 8.5' for the 75" Sony. It really gives me a nice "cinematic" experience and also the ability to appreciate 4K (though it may be too close for some of the satellite broadcasts via Dish Network). I am determined to watch my copy of _Kung Fu Panda 3_ this afternoon or tonight, so I'll be writing a review shortly after.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Congrats on the purchase, djoberg! 75 inches sounds huge and truly cinematic in scope. The displays seem to get bigger and thinner every year.

It will be interesting to hear from you how the best looking BDs turn out on your Sony. Its state-of-the-art 4K tech should make them look incredible.


----------



## djoberg

*Kung Fu Panda 3*

WOW!!!!!!

I just checked the ranking for _Kung Fu Panda_ and _Kung Fu Panda 2_. They are ranked at #31 and #32. We've come a long way in animation technology since those two releases and I can safely say that _Kung Fu Panda 3_ will EASILY fall into the Top Ten in Tier Blu. The animation is STUNNING!!

This is my first review in almost a month so I plan to keep this very short. In short, the DETAILS/TEXTURE in this title are mesmerizing, especially, but not limited to, the FUR in the Pandas. Besides mesmerizing details, the SHARPNESS & CLARITY are striking, the COLORS are eye-popping, and the BLACKS are off-the-charts. As you may have heard, this 3rd installment doesn't live up to its two predecessors as far as the story goes, but those of us who like to have our jaws dropping to the floor won't care....rent this, or perhaps buy this (as I did) for the stellar PQ and give your eyes the sugar rush they crave!

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (easily somewhere in the Top Ten)*


----------



## djoberg

I believe a word is in order about my new display. I have been writing reviews on this thread for many years using a Pioneer KURO Elite 60" plasma. I have always extolled its many virtues, including excellent black levels, amazing colors, and a very "natural-looking" picture. When I considered purchasing an LCD/LED display, I was quite skeptical, wondering if I would be sacrificing some or all of these virtues, for an LED has not been known (typically speaking) for its blacks or a natural-look. But I am thankful to say that the Sony 940D has exceeded my expectations, with deeper blacks (thanks to its Full Array Local Dimming), eye-popping colors, and a very pleasing natural-look much like that of a plasma. 

I am NOT making this post to BOAST, but to assure you that any review that I submit will not be compromised by my new display. I should also say that with the Sony's competent up-scaler, it may even look better than my kURO did with some Blu-ray releases. And last, but not least, if there is someone out there that is looking for a larger display for a more "cinematic" experience with an affordable price (to be sure, it's not CHEAP, but it is much more competitive than any other high-end 75" tv), I highly recommend the Sony XBR75X940D. Its blacks will amaze you (especially when watching letter-boxed movies...the bars remain PITCH BLACK in every scene) and its off-axis-viewing is the best I've seen in the LCD/LED technology.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

That KURO of yours admirably served the PQ Tiers with many years of fine service. May it now enjoy retirement. The Sony you've chosen sounds like the perfect replacement.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> That KURO of yours admirably served the PQ Tiers with many years of fine service. May it now enjoy retirement. The Sony you've chosen sounds like the perfect replacement.


Yes, the KURO was indeed an admirable "servant." As far as "retirement," I am glad my daughter and her family will be able to enjoy its excellent PQ for (hopefully) years to come.

Regarding the Sony being the perfect replacement, as you know I had my eye on the OLED technology for the last few years. But in the end I craved a big screen and LG's 77" OLED is priced somewhere in the stratosphere (at over 20k) and there was no way I would ever consider such a price (the Sony cost about 75% less). The OLED definitely has better black levels (for with it being a self-emissive display, the pixels turn completely black when called upon to do so) than the Sony, but they aren't without problems. There are still some uniformity issues and at times the blacks are too strong and crush detail. They also don't have as good an up-scaler as the Sony, so "all things considered," the Sony was the most practical choice. Plus, it was good enough to win 2nd place in the Flat Panel Shootout this year. I'm satisfied with "second best!"


----------



## djoberg

I just got back from the Video store with _Criminal_ and _Allegiant_. I hope to see both of them today. Has anyone seen either or both of these?


----------



## djoberg

*The Divergent Series: Allegiant*

We have another WINNER here!

My jaw was dropping to the floor throughout this release, thanks to the incredible DETAILS, DEPTH, CLARITY and some of the best BLACK LEVELS/SHADOW DETAILS I've ever seen. Early on there is some annoying color-grading that affected other colors (and flesh tones), but it didn't disrupt in the least the 4 things just mentioned. I should also mention CONTRAST, for there are a lot of bright scenes and the WHITES are simply brilliant. I was so impressed with this release that I immediately ordered the UHD version of it (but be assured the 1080p version is excellent and will give your eyes a true visual feast).

This is a "PQ thread," but I feel constrained to say that the audio (which was "only" Dolby Digital) was reference quality from beginning to end. Dialogue was crisp, action in the surrounds was enveloping and precise, and everything coming from my SVS sub was awesome!

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.5)*


----------



## djoberg

*Criminal*

I am blessed! Two WINNERS in a row!!

I did some research before viewing this title and discovered it was shot using the Arri Alexa XT camera AND the Red Epic Dragon. Though there were FLEETING SOFT SHOTS at times (primarily in the first 30 minutes), the vast majority of its 110 minutes running time was SHARP as a tack! The DETAILS were exemplary, whether we're talking facial close-ups (the texture was unbelievable in both Kevin Costner and Tommy Lee Jones), clothing, buildings, foliage, etc., etc. FLESH TONES were spot-on accurate. DEPTH was astounding in many shots. COLORS were vibrant when primaries were on display. CONTRAST was bold and strong, with STELLAR BLACKS and AMAZING WHITES. There were many night time scenes to showcase the inky blacks, and they never crushed details. During the very last shot taken on a beach, the PQ was so hypnotizing that I truly thought I was watching a reference 4K release.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.66)*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I've seen some stunning video from the RED Epic Dragon camera, so I can imagine. 

*Croupier*

recommendation: *Tier 2.75**

Hen's Tooth Video put this little seen but excellent Clive Owens' film from 1997 out on Blu-ray. _Croupier_ receives a decent film transfer with solid definition and improved clarity over DVD. It's a newish effort that is pleasantly sharp. Some light high-frequency filtering may have been applied, detail is seemingly rolled off a tiny bit. It remains a film-like presentation without notable artifacts.

My main complaint resides in the somewhat blown-out contrast. A richer, darker contrast is probably more accurate for this film. Don't get me wrong, this is a very serviceable presentation.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Belladonna of Sadness*

recommendation: *Tier 3.0**

Los Angeles-based digital restoration and post-production studio Cinelicious restored this lost Japanese masterpiece of animation. _Belladonna of Sadness_ is an experimental 1973 animated film helmed by Eiichi Yamamoto (_Astro Boy_, _Kimba the White Lion)_. The original 35mm camera negative has been scanned at 4K resolution and beautifully restored in a proper, high-quality transfer.

An in-depth article discussing Belladonna's restoration can be found here:

http://www.moviemaker.com/archives/...ion-lost-anime-classic-belladonna-of-sadness/

This is not traditional cel animation. Its animation is closer to a series of highly refined still watercolors, which gives it a unique aesthetic. Colors don't pop off the screen as much as they bleed and twist together. A picture is worth more than a thousand words. The best way to grasp _Belladonna of Sadness's_ thoroughly unique animation is checking out screenshots, found below at the link. 

http://doblu.com/2016/07/26/belladonna-of-sadness-blu-ray-review/


----------



## Corderious

djoberg said:


> *The Divergent Series: Allegiant*
> 
> We have another WINNER here!
> 
> My jaw was dropping to the floor throughout this release, thanks to the incredible DETAILS, DEPTH, CLARITY and some of the best BLACK LEVELS/SHADOW DETAILS I've ever seen. Early on there is some annoying color-grading that affected other colors (and flesh tones), but it didn't disrupt in the least the 4 things just mentioned. I should also mention CONTRAST, for there are a lot of bright scenes and the WHITES are simply brilliant. I was so impressed with this release that I immediately ordered the UHD version of it (but be assured the 1080p version is excellent and will give your eyes a true visual feast).
> 
> This is a "PQ thread," but I feel constrained to say that the audio (which was "only" Dolby Digital) was reference quality from beginning to end. Dialogue was crisp, action in the surrounds was enveloping and precise, and everything coming from my SVS sub was awesome!
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.5)*



Going to have to check it out myself. Thanks or the review!


----------



## djoberg

*I Am Wrath*

This is another decent-looking outing courtesy of Lionsgate. Daytime shots had excellent clarity, depth and details, with a heavy dose of vibrant colors thrown in for good measure. Nighttime shots were a mixed bag, with numerous scenes on the murky side resulting in a lack of details and depth. To be fair, some nighttime shots were very good...the blacks may not have been real deep and inky, but they were good enough to showcase some very pleasing shadow detail. Speaking of "details," every close-up of John Travolta (and every other actor) revealed finely-rendered facial texture...some of those shots were reference quality, others were still in demo-territory.

This one is getting a bad rap from most "professional" reviewers due to the black levels and they consistently complain of heavy "noise." I only saw a couple instances of this and they were fleeting, so any penalization for that should be marginal. I believe this is good enough for one's demo shelf, albeit at the bottom....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.75**


----------



## djoberg

*Eye in the Sky*

It was "Double Feature" night (the Mrs. is away visiting daughters and grandchildren) and I was treated to another "demo-worthy" release. I ended the viewing about 20 minutes ago and I've been debating, in my mind, exactly where to place this title. Its main strengths were excellent black levels and good details, but it had its weaknesses as well. Softness crept in intermittently and when it did details and depth suffered. Colors were also less-than-stellar, though primaries did rise to the occasion from time to time with bold vibrancy. I should mention that daytime, outdoor scenes were also strong, with brilliant clarity and details. As you can imagine from the title of this film, there were many, many aerial shots from drones and they were quite pleasing to the eye!

A hard one to call, but I believe it deserves the same placement as my last viewing (though for different reasons, overall).

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.75**


----------



## djoberg

I forgot to add that I really enjoyed this film; it was suspenseful (a "political" and "military" thriller) with good acting (this movie was one of Alan Rickman's last two movies before his death in January of this year...he was a talented actor and WILL be missed).


----------



## Phantom Stranger

The rare double feature night. Both discs sound like solid releases from your reviews.

Notice any differences yet watching Blu-rays on your new 4K display?


----------



## djoberg

I'm glad you asked about the new 4K display Phantom. I've purposely watched snippets from various Blu-rays that I'm familiar with and I can safely say that THEY LOOK BETTER, which I attribute to the excellent up-scaling ability with Sony's 4K Processor X1. Colors are more vibrant; there seems to be more depth; and of course the BLACKS are most definitely superior to the KURO. I can't get over how pitch black the bars are on letter-boxed movies. It makes for a much more enjoyable viewing, for as you know I was easily distracted when the bars turned "dark GRAY." And last, but not least, I'm really appreciating the SIZE, especially with letter-boxed movies with a 2.40:1 aspect ratio.

I still believe the KURO is one of the best Flat Panel displays ever made, but the advances made in LED technology is beyond what I could have imagined.


----------



## djoberg

*Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice*

A "Visual Feast," to be sure!!

Okay, some will dock this 3-hour long film for being too "dark" and "gritty," and for its "muted color palette." But guess what? Although all these things are true, they would be guilty of ignoring the amazing virtues that permeate this movie. I'm speaking of the incredible....VELVETY BLACKS....MESMERIZING SHADOW DETAILS....ASTOUNDING DEPTH.....SPOT-ON FLESHTONES....and FACIAL DETAILS to-die-for. I could add the STELLAR CONTRAST that featured BRILLIANT WHITES....the DAZZLING CLARITY in daytime scenes (indoors & outdoors)...and a fantastic FILMIC-LOOK that added to the details and texture of every object.

The only actual "gripes" I had was some egregious color-grading at times (but this didn't hinder details or depth), some fleeting shots of softness, and heavy CGI that made it all but impossible to discern details. In spite of these, I am inclined to nominate this for the Top Tier. My vote goes for....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.75)*


----------



## djoberg

*The Finest Hours*

I knew this film would have a lot of "dark scenes" in it and thus I was concerned about the black levels. Would they hold up or would they falter, resulting in murkiness or black crush? I am thankful to say they remained stable throughout and produced excellent shadow details!

Colors were mostly muted, but they had their moments, especially in the first third of the movie (before the BIG STORM hit). When primaries were on display they were quite pleasing (Miriam's "red lipstick" was really bold and vibrant against the drab background). Flesh/skin tones were accurate. Facial texture was revealing. Depth was also appreciable in some scenes.

This one will not win any beauty contests, but I still thought it was "demo-worthy," though it may land at the bottom of the tier.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> *Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice*
> 
> A "Visual Feast," to be sure!!
> 
> Okay, some will dock this 3-hour long film for being too "dark" and "gritty," and for its "muted color palette." But guess what? Although all these things are true, they would be guilty of ignoring the amazing virtues that permeate this movie. I'm speaking of the incredible....VELVETY BLACKS....MESMERIZING SHADOW DETAILS....ASTOUNDING DEPTH.....SPOT-ON FLESHTONES....and FACIAL DETAILS to-die-for. I could add the STELLAR CONTRAST that featured BRILLIANT WHITES....the DAZZLING CLARITY in daytime scenes (indoors & outdoors)...and a fantastic FILMIC-LOOK that added to the details and texture of every object.
> 
> The only actual "gripes" I had was some egregious color-grading at times (but this didn't hinder details or depth), some fleeting shots of softness, and heavy CGI that made it all but impossible to discern details. In spite of these, I am inclined to nominate this for the Top Tier. My vote goes for....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.75)*


Denny, I'm surprised _Batman v Superman_ deserved Tier 0. I have yet to see it on Blu-ray but I caught it in theaters. 

My theatrical experience with it was less than impressive in terms of sheer picture quality. There is a lot of CGI and it's a dark film.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> Denny, I'm surprised _Batman v Superman_ deserved Tier 0. I have yet to see it on Blu-ray but I caught it in theaters.
> 
> My theatrical experience with it was less than impressive in terms of sheer picture quality. There is a lot of CGI and it's a dark film.


Well, I DID say that some would dock it because it was "dark," "gritty," and had a "muted color palette." Perhaps that, along with your take on the CGI, is what you focused on in the theater. I personally was drawn into the "dripping details" (in faces, clothing, buildings, etc, etc.), the rock-solid black levels with amazing shadow details, the strong contrast, accurate flesh tones, and, in many scenes, razor-sharp clarity. I know some will not appreciate the grain (and mistake it for noise), but I thought it looked like film and enhanced details.

After reading your post I checked out four "professional" reviews. All but one gave glowing remarks akin to mine. I don't always agree with the "formed consensus" but I do this time.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I'm not questioning your judgment, I'm sure it looks fantastic on Blu-ray. I plan to watch Batman v Superman on BD when I get the chance, but that could be a while. I guess you didn't happen to see it in a movie theater.

*A Lizard In A Woman's Skin*

recommendation: *Tier 3.0**

Independent label Mondo Macabro offers up this 1971 Italian production in a new film transfer from the negative. I really wanted to place this disc in Tier 2 with its striking close-ups and impressive clarity. Some inconsistencies in the cinematography prevent a score that high.

The solid AVC video encode handles the film grain and high-frequency content with ease. The transfer blooms with lovely fleshtones and excellent color saturation. The red blood practically jumps off the screen.

I think this is about the best Lucio Fulci's thriller could look in 1080P resolution. The negative is in fine condition with little overt wear or visible damage.


----------



## djoberg

*Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice...Revisited*

After reading Phantom's post questioning my Tier 0 rating for _Batman v Superman_, I decided to "sleep on it" and take a fresh look at the "positives" and "negatives" this morning. I thought back to three titles that have a lot in common with this title: _Man of Steel_, _Terminator Salvation_, and _Death Race_. All of those Blu-rays had, for the most part, the very same look...very dark and gritty at times with a drab color palette (the negatives)...very good black levels, details, and flesh tones at other times (the positives). They had something else that I failed to mention in last night's review: color-grading (for whatever reason the color-grading didn't bother me as much in viewing BvS). I actually took the time to go back and read my reviews on those three titles and here's what I found: I gave _Man of Steel_ a 2.0 ranking because of the muted color palette, terrible color-grading and heavy grain that became noisy (and it would have been worse had there not been such excellent black levels and details). I gave both _Terminator Salvation_ and _Death Race_ a 1.5, for the negatives weren't as pronounced and the positives were about the same.

Okay, after much deliberation, I DO want to change my score from Tier 0 (.75) to 1.0. Others will probably go even lower than that (I couldn't go any lower than 1.25). I will say two things in defense of what I wrote last night. First of all, I have no doubt that the overall PQ was BETTER than the three afore-mentioned titles because it was shot using much better cameras. Secondly (and I alluded to this in my review), I knew of the three "negatives" throughout the film but I "chose" to really concentrate on the amazing details and black levels instead and quite frankly I was blown away by them. My new display also figures into the equation, for it definitely does blacks better than my KURO did (especially in the black bars, but not limited to them) and thus I wasn't taken out of the movie at all due to gray bars or murkiness. I do believe the grain became a bit heavy though at times and could easily see someone calling it "noisy."

So, I officially change my placement to....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

It wouldn't surprise me if we get several scores on Batman v Superman. The bigger movies of the summer tend to receive more attention here in the PQ Tiers. Director Zack Snyder is one of the more impressive minds for constructing film visuals and his films usually look outrageously great on Blu-ray.

*The Girlfriend Experience (2016)*

recommendation: *Tier 2.5**

I'm covering the Starz show, not the 2009 movie of the same name. Talking about dark, this series offers a uniformly desaturated palette. It's an interesting aesthetic for a television program but one that doesn't pop with the vivid clarity we've come to expect from new productions. 

The show has actually been shot with the RED Dragon. Definition is fairly standard, limited by the choices in contrast and color palette. It's somewhat disappointing if you're expecting razor-sharp delineation and perfect black levels. The cinematography emphasizes shadows and dim lighting.

The presentation is free of artifacts and the transfer is solid.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Batman: The Killing Joke*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

Some very slight banding doesn't keep this animated feature out of Tier One. WB provides a polished presentation of animation natively made at 1080P resolution, which makes the digital transfer a smooth process.

This particular direct-to-video DC effort seems to have had a larger budget. The linework is steadier with tighter character designs. The animation isn't completely flawless but certainly looks great on Blu-ray.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Blindspot: The Complete First Season*

recommendation: *Tier 1.25**

*Supergirl: The Complete First Season*

recommendation: *Tier 1.75**

Warner Bros. released both of these shows in the past couple of weeks. Blindspot offers very sharp, highly dimensional picture quality on par with the best television productions. Supergirl has a bright, vivid aesthetic mildly dinged by its softer focus. The softer definition is most noticeable whenever Calista Flockhart's character is in a scene. 

Blindspot seems to have received the stronger compression effort given its extra BD-50. I believe that WB is now using a more advanced AVC encoder than previously. While the fairly low bitrates aren't substantially different from prior television releases, clarity and detail show far less artifacting.


----------



## monomial

*Goldeneye*

recommendation: *Tier 3.75**

Super disappointing Blu-Ray for a great movie. I did some reading and apparently this is one of the worst James Bond transfers. There's no excuse for why a 1995 movie whose negative presumably still exists should look this bad. The opening and ending titles / credits look blurry, perhaps a result of overzealous edge enhancement. 

Other reviewers blame DNR for the overall unnatural look of the movie, and I can definitely believe it. Instead of unobtrusive film grain which is familiar to any frequent viewer of pre-digital-era movies, the grain is digitally reduced, leaving weird dancing digital artifacts in the sky and once, on a windowsill. This was visible to a much lesser extent on "2 Fast 2 Furious", and it wasn't nearly as bothersome in that movie. I didn't have a problem with the faces (people often complain of "wax faces"), but rather the rest of the visual look. To be fair, the cars at the beginning looked sweet.

The sparing use of what I assume is CGI (parts of the title sequence, plus a shot of the Earth and a surrounding satellite) has held up well. No complaints about how it meshes with the live-action parts.

I'm not asking for a Lawrence of Arabia top-shelf restoration here. Bond is a major franchise that gets re-released over and over. This movie is not that old. Just scan the best element(s) you have and leave the grain as-is if you don't have the budget to make it look great with less grain. Your eyes can at least adjust to film grain throughout the course of a movie. Because some parts of Goldeneye look great, it makes the bad parts and the artifacts more jarring.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Goldeneye is one of my favorite Bonds and it looks like MGM is using a dated, badly done transfer. Many of the catalog releases from the 90s were mastered in the DVD era and those masters simply don't hold up under the refined resolution of Blu-ray.


----------



## mweflen

*Batman V. Superman: Dawn of Justice
*
Excellent detail in 90% of the run-time, with some dips depending on changing film stock/digital camera choices. Some CGI effects shots tend towards the blurry (especially the Batmobile chase scene). Solid inky black levels never waver. Color matches the theatrical presentation, for what it's worth. My major beef here is with shaky-cam - just as it was with Man of Steel. 

Overall, a very pleasing watch, but not as consistently good (or steady) as the very best material.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25

*Viewed on a Viewsonic PRO7827HD projector from 10 feet at 106 inches.

On the movie itself, this definitely improved upon rewatch, and the additional material adds to the movie. Characters are better fleshed out and some questions are answered (especially the nature of Luthor's machinations). I think this also benefits from home viewing. Expectations are now tamped down, and you can break it up into a few sessions.

If you hated the tone of the theatrical presentation, you won't be won over. It's just as dour and dark and self-important and colorless as before. But if you can stomach the tone and just thought the theatrical cut was just a bit on the dumb side, this edition will ameliorate some of your concerns.


----------



## mweflen

djoberg said:


> I believe a word is in order about my new display. I have been writing reviews on this thread for many years using a Pioneer KURO Elite 60" plasma. I have always extolled its many virtues, including excellent black levels, amazing colors, and a very "natural-looking" picture. When I considered purchasing an LCD/LED display, I was quite skeptical, wondering if I would be sacrificing some or all of these virtues, for an LED has not been known (typically speaking) for its blacks or a natural-look. But I am thankful to say that the Sony 940D has exceeded my expectations, with deeper blacks (thanks to its Full Array Local Dimming), eye-popping colors, and a very pleasing natural-look much like that of a plasma.
> 
> I am NOT making this post to BOAST, but to assure you that any review that I submit will not be compromised by my new display. I should also say that with the Sony's competent up-scaler, it may even look better than my kURO did with some Blu-ray releases. And last, but not least, if there is someone out there that is looking for a larger display for a more "cinematic" experience with an affordable price (to be sure, it's not CHEAP, but it is much more competitive than any other high-end 75" tv), I highly recommend the Sony XBR75X940D. Its blacks will amaze you (especially when watching letter-boxed movies...the bars remain PITCH BLACK in every scene) and its off-axis-viewing is the best I've seen in the LCD/LED technology.


Pics or it didn't happen, DJ! I want to ogle.


----------



## djoberg

mweflen said:


> Pics or it didn't happen, DJ! I want to ogle.


Check out my Avatar!

I actually have taken a few pics from _Star Wars: The Force Awakens_ to show off the amazing black levels on letter-boxed movies. I may post them tomorrow.


----------



## djoberg

Again, I mainly took these pics to show the excellent black levels on letter-boxed movies. Also, as you may know, LEDs are known for "light-bleed" (where light may BLEED into the black bars, especially when there is a bright object right next to it), so I wanted to show prospective buyers that were visiting the Sony 940D Owners Thread that the 940D does exceptionally well in handling light-bleed. This is due to the superb FALD (Full Array Local Dimming) and other factors as well that Sony has implemented to eliminate not only light-bleed, but blooming and halos.


----------



## mweflen

djoberg said:


> Again, I mainly took these pics to show the excellent black levels on letter-boxed movies. Also, as you may know, LEDs are known for "light-bleed" (where light may BLEED into the black bars, especially when there is a bright object right next to it), so I wanted to show prospective buyers that were visiting the Sony 940D Owners Thread that the 940D does exceptionally well in handling light-bleed. This is due to the superb FALD (Full Array Local Dimming) and other factors as well that Sony has implemented to eliminate not only light-bleed, but blooming and halos.


It's funny you chose the pic of the energy beam. That's a scene I've been using to test projectors (I've been getting them from Amazon Vine) for color banding and posterization 

((If anyone wants to take one of several barely-used projectors off my hands at a deep discount, send me a PM.))

Looks great, DJ! I'm envious!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Secret Admirer*

recommendation: *Tier 4.0**

_Secret Admirer_ receives a muddy, older telecine transfer struck by MGM in the dim past. This Olive Films' disc offers a fairly mediocre upgrade in resolution and clarity over clean standard-definition video. The primary benefits seen in 1080P are slightly more refined grain and better color reproduction.

Kudos to Olive Films for putting out catalog films no one else will touch but this Eighties flick should look better. A new film scan would have markedly improved this disc's picture quality.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Justice League: Gotham City Breakout*

recommendation: *Tier 1.25**

WB Animation serves up another direct-to-video LEGO movie. I've generally been impressed by their animated LEGO features' picture quality and this one is no different. Crisp black levels, strong color saturation and perfectly rendered 3-D CGI animation easily qualifies for Tier One.


----------



## mweflen

Phantom Stranger said:


> *Justice League: Gotham City Breakout*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 1.25**
> 
> WB Animation serves up another direct-to-video LEGO movie. I've generally been impressed by their animated LEGO features' picture quality and this one is no different. Crisp black levels, strong color saturation and perfectly rendered 3-D CGI animation easily qualifies for Tier One.


How is the movie? I've been considering this one for my son (turning 5 soon).


----------



## Phantom Stranger

mweflen said:


> How is the movie? I've been considering this one for my son (turning 5 soon).


He'll love the Nightwing LEGO figure that comes with it.

_JL: Gotham City Breakout_ is definitely all-ages fun mostly written for children under 10 with a lot of recognizable DC superheroes. The plot is silly despite involving Deathstroke and the Joker. Joker takes over Gotham...with a spoon. Most children will enjoy it. I'd actually recommend an earlier LEGO movie before it as more entertaining, _LEGO Justice League: Attack of the Legion of Doom!

http://doblu.com/2015/08/25/lego-justice-league-attack-of-the-legion-of-doom-blu-ray-review/

_The one DC LEGO movie I'd avoid is _Justice League: Cosmic Clash_. That one is less entertaining and the humor falls flat.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

mweflen said:


> How is the movie? I've been considering this one for my son (turning 5 soon).


Are you setup for streaming off VUDU or another UltraViolet provider? You can have my UV code for _JL: Gotham City Breakout. _It's not the Blu-ray but I don't think your son will notice the difference.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Clown*

recommendation: *Tier 2.5**

_Clown_, a new horror movie coming out next week from Starz, isn't demo material. This is a horror movie with unfiltered detail and without a drastic color grading. This Blu-ray showcases the movie's solid picture quality in fine form.

I probably would have ranked this disc higher in the past. The video's sharp, detailed definition doesn't really pop like most Tier One discs.


----------



## mweflen

Phantom Stranger said:


> Are you setup for streaming off VUDU or another UltraViolet provider? You can have my UV code for _JL: Gotham City Breakout. _It's not the Blu-ray but I don't think your son will notice the difference.


I'd appreciate it. PM me if you like and we'll definitely give it a watch.


----------



## djoberg

I have been on a business trip recently or I would have written earlier to let you know I have somewhat of a dilemma. I purchased a UHD Blu-ray player to go along with my Sony 4K display and now the only Blu-rays I'm buying are UHD Blu-rays. So, unless I am renting a Blu-ray release, I'm not in a position to review what I'm watching. (Having said that, there will still be a fair number of releases that won't be released on 4k or that I won't want to buy, so I should still be chiming in with reviews, but not as often as in the past.)

While I'm on here, I thought I would ask Phantom if he has heard anything about the new horror show _Clown_. Does it sound interesting and who will be starring in it?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> I have been on a business trip recently or I would have written earlier to let you know I have somewhat of a dilemma. I purchased a UHD Blu-ray player to go along with my Sony 4K display and now the only Blu-rays I'm buying are UHD Blu-rays. So, unless I am renting a Blu-ray release, I'm not in a position to review what I'm watching. (Having said that, there will still be a fair number of releases that won't be released on 4k or that I won't want to buy, so I should still be chiming in with reviews, but not as often as in the past.)
> 
> While I'm on here, I thought I would ask Phantom if he has heard anything about the new horror show _Clown_. Does it sound interesting and who will be starring in it?


I figured with a new 4K display that a UHD player wouldn't be far behind for you, Djoberg. Though I believe most UHDs also come with a regular Blu-ray, maybe you could take a quick peek at them for comparison if you get the time. Others will have to pick up the slack on new releases as I tend to focus more heavily on older catalog titles for the PQ Tiers. You've been great at reviewing new movies on Blu-ray here for a long time.

I am aware of the new horror movie _Clown_, it's coming out this week on Blu-ray. If there is a show by the same name, I haven't heard about it. The movie is decent indie horror fare, if a bit tedious with too much character development. There may or may not be a full review for it that will soon be posted elsewhere.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> I figured with a new 4K display that a UHD player wouldn't be far behind for you, Djoberg. Though I believe most UHDs also come with a regular Blu-ray, maybe you could take a quick peek at them for comparison if you get the time. Others will have to pick up the slack on new releases as I tend to focus more heavily on older catalog titles for the PQ Tiers. You've been great at reviewing new movies on Blu-ray here for a long time.
> 
> I am aware of the new horror movie _Clown_, it's coming out this week on Blu-ray. If there is a show by the same name, I haven't heard about it. The movie is decent indie horror fare, if a bit tedious with too much character development. There may or may not be a full review for it that will soon be posted elsewhere.


Yes, I could "take a quick peek" at the regular Blu-ray which, as you say, is included with the UHD version. That is most likely what I will do, if time permits me to.

I will look forward to seeing a review from you on _Clown_.


----------



## mweflen

Has there already been a discussion of whether 4k stuff will be included here?


----------



## djoberg

mweflen said:


> Has there already been a discussion of whether 4k stuff will be included here?


Phantom can give you the definitive answer to your question, but if memory serves me he decided that we would limit this thread to 1080P material. I know that when I read "professional" reviews online they will always distinguish between 1080P and 4K releases. Our "resident AVS reviewer," Mr. Ralph Potts, usually gives TWO separate reviews of PQ, one for 4K and the other for 1080P.

I can well imagine that in the future (near or not-so-near), MOST members will indeed own a 4K display AND a 4K UHD Blu-ray player and that MOST Blu-ray releases will indeed be in 4K. At that time the "PQ Thread" will no doubt transition into 4K reviews EXCLUSIVELY.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

mweflen said:


> Has there already been a discussion of whether 4k stuff will be included here?


For the moment 4K UHD discs aren't being included in the PQ Tiers. Feel free to discuss them here since they are the next step in picture quality but we really don't have a mechanism for ranking them...yet. I am interested in hearing the qualitative differences between UHD and highly ranked BDs.

It wouldn't bother me if someone wanted to step forward and run their own independent UHD PQ Tiers. At the moment this thread will continue to rank Blu-rays by picture quality, I don't plan on abandoning it.

This is not to say UHDs won't be addressed at some future date in the PQ Tiers. They are the new reference standard by which video quality available to consumers is measured, so they should begin influencing the PQ Tiers sooner or later.

Unlike Djoberg, I haven't taken the 4K plunge at the moment. I'm sure many AVS users are weighing the same decision with UHD's introduction.


----------



## djoberg

I broke down and rented the Blu-ray release of _The Huntsman: Winter's War_ (I miss not writing reviews on this thread). I've heard that the PQ is quite good, though the story is quite bad. I hope to watch it tonight so I'll be chiming in later.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Microwave Massacre*

recommendation: *Tier 2.5**

This is one of Arrow Video's best-looking transfers, especially as an Eighties film. The film-like presentation offers crisp colors and a strong contrast in this 2K film restoration. Excellent definition and detail come through in complete fidelity. 

The low-budget independent film starring comedian Jackie Vernon has never looked better.


----------



## djoberg

*The Huntsman: Winter's War*

*DAZZLING!!*

This was IMPRESSIVE, indeed! I could go on and on with superlatives describing this amazing work of art, but I'll keep this short by saying I was awed by the razor-sharp clarity, vibrant colors (n spite of its cool and muted colors that dominated a majority of its nearly 2 hour running time), and mesmerizing details. The only "flaw" that was evident was during the first 6-7 minutes, where black levels within the screen became a bit murky and my black bars (which are normally "pitch black") turned dark gray. There was also a scene towards the end where I noticed some black crush. But there were MANY dark scenes where the black levels were topnotch with excellent shadow details. Flesh tones were spot-on accurate, contrast was pitch-perfect, and depth was (at times) off the charts!

I must say if not for the less-than-stellar blacks in the those two scenes, I would have voted for a mid Tier 0 placement. To be fair I'll vote for....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.75)*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Magicians: Season One*

recommendation: *Tier 2.25**

Universal put this television set out last month after the show had aired earlier in the year on Syfy. They've spread the entire first season of thirteen episodes over three BD-50s. Made on a cable budget, _The Magicians_ offers fairly average picture quality by current television standards. Universal does an excellent job with its transfer, this is a solid set that gets everything right.

Having seen it aired on Syfy, the Blu-ray set presents a slightly darker tonality and color temperature. The 1080P video is a slightly off-putting combination of razor-sharp definition in close-ups, mixed with wider shots that include less impressive clarity. There are no serious lapses in black levels, though shadow delineation could be improved in some scenes. Some variance should be expected given the wide range in lighting conditions.

This first season of _The Magicians_ remains the most imaginative and compelling storytelling I've seen on television in 2016.


----------



## djoberg

*Concussion*

This is another fine release from Sony that should find its way onto many "demo" shelves. I can't say that's it's "reference" quality (i.e. Tier Blu), but I would be happy to put it right on the top of Tier Gold.

The highlights of this film are, by far, the remarkable CLARITY and DETAILS. The director choose to "zoom in" often, revealing facial texture on par with many of the best releases in thhe top tiers (though the 4K version fared even better in this area). But even panoramic, aerial views of Pittsburgh resulted in exquisite details, to say nothing of the finely rendered details in clothing, city streets, furniture, etc. in mid-range shots. BLACK LEVELS were, for the majority of the movie, lusciously deep and inky (in both the 1080P and 4K versions), though I was surprised to see a "graying of the bars" in a few scenes, most notably the opening courtroom scene. SHADOW DETAILS were a real treat, and there were plenty of night time scenes to showcase their splendid delineation. FLESH TONES were very good, CONTRAST was strong, and DEPTH was appreciable in many scenes.

As I stated at the outset, this is "demo-worthy" and should end up on the top of Tier 1. (The 4K version would be a notch higher due to richer facial details and brighter contrast...thanks to the High Dynamic Range.)

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.0**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

So you did compare the regular Blu-ray with the UHD's video? Sony has been on the 4K bandwagon since the beginning, so their UHDs should look pretty nice. Are there any real differences in black levels between the two formats visible in _Concussion_?


----------



## djoberg

Hey Phantom,

If you read my review again you will see that I allude to the 4K version twice. The 4K was definitely better in details (especially facial details) and contrast. I would put it a notch higher than the 1080P version.

Denny


----------



## Kool-aid23

Speaking to,

Has anyone seen Zootopia? With it being a big hit (and Disney animated), I'm hoping there might be a new #1. :grin:


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Kool-aid23 said:


> Speaking to,
> 
> Has anyone seen Zootopia? With it being a big hit (and Disney animated), I'm hoping there might be a new #1. :grin:


I hope someone reviews it for the Tiers. It's looking unlikely I see it anytime soon.


----------



## mweflen

Phantom Stranger said:


> I hope someone reviews it for the Tiers. It's looking unlikely I see it anytime soon.


I hadn't realized it was missing, I've seen it several times already but didn't review it because I've been out of town and generally prefer to review live action discs - they're just more interesting to me, since most animated stuff is predictably clean and detailed, meaning a glut of Tier 0 reviews.

It's definitely Tier 0 material. Probably somewhere around "Inside Out." I will update with a more formal evaluation soon.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

The summer months tend to produce fewer PQ Tiers reviews, so a gap in coverage does become a problem for certain popular releases. We tend to see more reviews in the fall and winter.


----------



## djoberg

And here I am leaving tomorrow for another week to vacation in Canada. Then I leave on a business trip from September 12-21. I'm clearly not doing my part!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> And here I am leaving tomorrow for another week to vacation in Canada. Then I leave on a business trip from September 12-21. I'm clearly not doing my part!


Enjoy the vacation up north! Rest up for all the Fall releases coming out.

*DC's Legends of Tomorrow*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

Warner Bros. properly presents _DC’s Legends of Tomorrow_ in bright, glossy 1080P video that surpasses its original CW broadcast. Sixteen episodes are spread over two BD-50s, squeezing the AVC compression rate typically below the teens. This is clean, crisp picture quality shot for clarity and pop. While some softness is introduced due to various CGI effects, this is a sharp 1.78:1 presentation.

The digital cinematography is definitely made for network television. The contrast and color saturation are outstanding, highlighting strong detail. Aside from a few of the darkest scenes, shadow delineation and black levels are impressive.

The only nagging flaws in the pristine video are minor compression artifacts, when the hectic action and CGI become too much for the low-bitrate AVC video. They aren't completely obvious for casual viewers.


----------



## mweflen

*Zootopia

*As might be expected, this is basically flawless. One especially notable aspect of the picture quality is the total lack of color banding, which might have been an issue given the number of pastel sunset shots and so on. Detail is top notch but perhaps a tad subtle compared to some other animated flicks that try to beat your head with detail. But when you really look closely things are quite excellent, hairs, cloth textures, just loads and loads of detail in nearly every frame. Focus effects are also wonderful to look at. The color is riotous, and in fact this is where I think things might be ever so slightly criticized - in daylight scenes, there is a sort of HDR style look in which blacks aren't as deep as they might be. But I'm really reaching for a criticism, there.

Overall this is at least as good as Frozen, and probably right up there with Inside Out. So that's where I recommend placement, right above Inside Out.

*Tier Recommendation 0 (above Inside Out)
*

viewed on a ViewSonic PRO7828HD 1080p DLP projector on a 106" screen from 10 feet


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Zootopia sounds like a great BD.

*Ash vs. Evil Dead: The Complete First Season*

recommendation: *Tier 1.75**

Fairly crisp picture quality for the horror comedy show which aired on Starz. If there are problems on the two-disc set, they all come down to minor banding issues. 

This is driven video with a pumped-up contrast and strong definition. It doesn't really offer the most extreme detail possible, though the new production offers an immaculate visual experience.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Arrow: The Complete Fourth Season*

recommendation: *Tier 2.5**

_Arrow's_ darker aesthetic has never made it pristine television. Budgetary factors may also play a role in its fairly average picture quality. Exteriors are softer than most new productions. Reduced shadow delineation in interior scenes earns it a tier 2 scoring.

The video doesn't favorably compare against the brighter cinematography of sister shows like _Supergirl_ or _The Flash_. Gritty is the most apt description.


----------



## djoberg

*Creed*

I just finished watching this "looker" and now it's sitting my "demo shelf!" 

I found out this was shot digitally, but you would swear it was shot on film. It has that special "filmic-look" that enhances details; I loved it! It was also quite sharp (though again, it has the look of film so it doesn't come across as if it had undergone some form of digital-sharpening). I was equally impressed with the flesh tones...for a boxing film, with MANY close-ups of boxers in the ring, their flesh tones were spot-on accurate. Speaking of "close-ups," facial texture was also very good (my is Rocky Balboa ever aging!!) in every shot. Black levels and shadow details were amazing....wait until you see the shot towards the end when Creed is making his way down a dark hallway into the arena at Liverpool; it gets darker and darker and for a moment it turns COMPLETELY BLACK...I loved it! I would be remiss if I didn't mention the strong contrast in most scenes and appreciable depth.

There were quite a few low-lit shots (in apartments, night clubs and gyms) where it could have been sharper; it wasn't soft, but it didn't have the punch that was seen in brightly-lit scenes. Also, my "black bars" turned a little gray on several occasions.

My vote goes for the top of the "demo shelf," or, at the very least, 1.25. I also watched the UHD copy and that fared a wee bit better with "brighter whites" and even "blacker blacks," along with more pronounced details on several occasions.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Conjuring 2*

recommendation: *Tier 2.75**

I completely forgot about rating this one for the PQ Tiers. Director James Wan's sequel fares a bit worse in the PQ department than the original. Its video still offers fairly crisp definition, but the darker, retro setting of a dreary London home in the 70s limits eye candy potential. It is an underwhelming visual experience much of the time.

Some minor compression artifacts are apparent over its 2 hours plus running time. Black levels are decent, shadow delineation plays a critical role in several frightening scenes. Aliasing shows up in several shots. I suspect that is a result of poorly staged digital composites.

I'm guessing the digital intermediate was selectively filtered. This ultimately limits Conjuring 2's top detail. I can't say Warner ruined the transfer, this appears to be a reflection of the filmmaker's desires.


----------



## djoberg

*Money Monster*

Sony keeps rolling out the "lookers," with _Money Monster_ featuring exquisite details and depth with exceptional clarity. Flesh tones and contrast are also spot-on, along with velvety blacks and finely-rendered shadow details. If I had any nitpicks, it would be with a few fleeting soft shots and a less-than-stellar color palette. Facial texture was excellent "at times," but not up there with the reference quality titles. This is easily demo material though, and IMHO it should be near the top of Tier Gold...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> *Money Monster*
> 
> Sony keeps rolling out the "lookers," with _Money Monster_ featuring exquisite details and depth with exceptional clarity. Flesh tones and contrast are also spot-on, along with velvety blacks and finely-rendered shadow details. If I had any nitpicks, it would be with a few fleeting soft shots and a less-than-stellar color palette. Facial texture was excellent "at times," but not up there with the reference quality titles. This is easily demo material though, and IMHO it should be near the top of Tier Gold...
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.25**


What did you think of Money Monster as a movie, is it worth a look?

We haven't gotten one of these in a while...

*Atroz*

recommendaton: *Tier 5**

_Atroz_ is an extreme Mexican horror film that got American distribution. The PQ Tiers doesn't see too many scores this low. I guess people are too busy watching high-caliber discs that rank higher. Atroz is a low-budget, independent film from Mexico. 

More importantly for its picture quality, most of its 79-minute running time is shown as rough, found-footage video of two killers filming themselves on a camcorder. That translates into wildly erratic, inconsistent results. A few sharp scenes can't make up for blurry shots with limited resolution and clarity.


----------



## tcramer

djoberg said:


> *Money Monster*
> 
> Sony keeps rolling out the "lookers," with _Money Monster_ featuring exquisite details and depth with exceptional clarity. Flesh tones and contrast are also spot-on, along with velvety blacks and finely-rendered shadow details. If I had any nitpicks, it would be with a few fleeting soft shots and a less-than-stellar color palette. Facial texture was excellent "at times," but not up there with the reference quality titles. This is easily demo material though, and IMHO it should be near the top of Tier Gold...
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.25**





Phantom Stranger said:


> What did you think of Money Monster as a movie, is it worth a look?



I actually just saw Money Monster last night as well. I'd have to agree with djoberg on the ranking, some very good scenes but overall enough softness to keep it in the gold tier.

It was an interesting movie, I'd say definitely worth a look. For what it's worth, I gave it 4 stars on Netflix.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom,

I agree with tcramer; it is an interesting movie. It's definitely worth renting. I will say that I could have done without the pervasive language.


----------



## djoberg

*Miracles from Heaven*

I hope this isn't a problem, but I'm starting to EXPECT reference or demo material (for my last 15-20 viewings have been worthy of the top two tiers)!

My last outing lacked in the COLOR category....not this one! Colors were vibrant and punchy....they were "natural-looking" most of the time, but there were shots where they appeared to be over-saturated. Whatever the case...they looked mighty fine! DETAILS were exemplary, especially facial texture. There was a shot of Jennifer Garner from the side and you could see every fine hair on her chin (I call it "peach fuzz"), and there were plenty of close-ups of her to show off her beautiful (albeit aging) skin. DEPTH was limitless at times. BLACKS were very impressive when they were on display...I recall at least two nighttime scenes "on the farm" where the sky was jet-black and it only made everything else around the farmyard stand out and yell...EYE CANDY! This one was quite SHARP as well, though there were a couple of soft shots that crept in out of nowhere; thankfully they were short-lived. FLESH TONES were, for the most part, spot-on accurate, though when the color palette looked saturated they had somewhat of a red push.

During most of the film I kept saying to myself, "I'm voting for Tier 0 (.75) on this release," but as I sat down to write my "conservative side" nudged me and said, "Be safe, and vote for the top of Tier 1." So, that's what I'm doing....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I hear you, Denny. I almost expect Tier One these days for any new production from Hollywood. I remember the days when the majority of my viewing would have not graded out higher than Tier 3. We've come a long way on the format's potential.

*Selector Infected WIXOSS: The Complete First Season*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

This anime series was put out by Funimation in a two-disc set. Like many American releases of licensed anime content, some minor compression issues arise. The AVC video encode is fully transparent most of the time but occasionally introduces faint posterization.

On the positive side of the ledger, black levels are perfect and colors pop with deep saturation. The actual animation offers nicely polished character designs and detailed backgrounds.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Horrible Dr. Hichcock*

recommendation: *Tier 4.5**

Olive Films puts out this 1962 Italian production starring Barbara Steele on a BD-25. Alas, they dig up a fairly antiquated telecine transfer from Paramount's vaults. The Technicolor film as seen here has limited color saturation and murky shadow delineation. Merely adequate levels of definition and detail smear the film's native grain structure.

Some edge enhancement with halos are noticeable. The picture is soft and muddy, though the film elements are largely undamaged. I've seen worse vintage catalog transfers but a new HD transfer would have turned out much better.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Mankillers*

recommendation: *Tier 5**

_Mankillers_ has possibly the worst picture quality seen on the Blu-ray format. Olive Films is upfront about their source for this "HD" transfer on the packaging. Licensed from Slasher Video, the only available working materials for Mankillers is a PAL Beta SP videotape. Yes, you read that right. They took a rough, analog videotape with resolution far below 1080P and put it out on Blu-ray.

The 1987 low-budget movie was made for the VHS rental market of its day. Originally filmed in 35mm, those negatives are apparently long gone. What is left is a PAL videotape misframed at 1.33:1.

Is this unwatchable? No, there is a fuzzy sense of nostalgia seeing a film in this quality. It's the type of movie one would have seen on the UHF broadcast channels back in the day. There is enough clarity for a serviceable, if very limited, presentation.


----------



## djoberg

*Now You See Me 2*

It's time to "balance the scales" after Phantom's last two viewings that landed in the bottom of the barrel! 

This release is yet another Blu that will easily land on your demo shelf. It has incredible details throughout, whether we're talking closeups of actors' faces (I've said it before, and I'll say it again...Morgan Freeman's face was made for HD!!), clothing, city streets, or the many aerial views of Manhattan, Macau, or London (night time views were especially a visual feast). Depth was also a highlight in numerous scenes. Colors were a mixed bag, with some "muted" and others "bold and vibrant" (most notably those in Macau). Black levels were, in the majority of its many night time scenes, deep and inky. Shadow details were also pure EYE CANDY. Contrast was strong...flesh tones were very good...clarity was topnotch.

Okay, I would be remiss if I didn't mention what I didn't like. In the first few scenes I was underwhelmed with some low-lit interior scenes that became rather "murky" and "soft." There was also a couple of short night time shots where the blacks faltered, resulting in a lack of detail and depth. But thankfully these were limited to those first scenes, for after those I was completely satisfied until the "credits starting to roll." Again, this is demo-material, for sure...and my vote goes for the top of the demo tier....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Johnny Guitar: Olive Signature Edition*

recommendation: *Tier 1.75**

Olive Films releases their finest transfer yet in _Johnny Guitar’s_ new Signature edition and it’s a beauty. A new 4K film scan from the original negatives has produced gorgeous results in this wonderful restoration. This is some of the most colorful, stunning picture quality seen from a Western made before the 1960s.

The 110-minute main feature is presented at 1.66:1. The extremely high AVC video encode is perfectly transparent without artifacts, included on a BD-50. Olive Films and Paramount deserve kudos for giving us this transfer on Blu-ray. It makes the original Blu-ray of _Johnny Guitar_ look obsolete by comparison.

The film elements have been carefully restored to immaculate condition. Crisp texture, strong detail, and sharp definition give _Johnny Guitar_ an extremely faithful presentation. This new transfer also boasts some of the finest color timing work I’ve seen on vintage film. _Johnny Guitar_ was filmed in Trucolor. Trucolor was a color motion picture process used and owned by _Consolidated_ Film Industries mostly for its Westerns, a division of Republic Pictures. Its vivid color saturation and accurate flesh-tones come to life in this 1080P video.

The cinematography offers masterful composition. Ray had a background in architecture and his work has a strong sense of geometry and space. Lit in that clean Hollywood style of the classic studio era, the Western was consciously made brighter than normal with a deeper palette. The consistent contrast and superb black levels are pitch-perfect for this material. Colors are crisply rendered.

This signature edition boasts one of the stronger 4K transfers on the market. A small touch of processing doesn’t affect the video’s inherent detail, leaving a beautifully film-like presentation loaded with high-frequency content. Some scenes project outstanding depth and dimension for any era, much less a 1954 production. This is must-see quality for vintage film lovers and a new reference standard for older Westerns.

Long-time readers of this thread should know where to find screenshots that help show how Johnny Guitar has turned out in this new 4K restoration.


----------



## CCsoftball7

I have a feeling _The Shallows_ is going to be a winner. The UHD version is absolutely stunning.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

CCsoftball7 said:


> I have a feeling _The Shallows_ is going to be a winner. The UHD version is absolutely stunning.


The Shallows is on my radar now, thanks.


----------



## CCsoftball7

Phantom Stranger said:


> The Shallows is on my radar now, thanks.


It evidently uses a lot of natural light. I think it will rival _The Revenant_ in many respects. I only watched the first 15 minutes or so, but there blues in the water, the bright colors on her wetsuit (under water), the rainbow colors in the waves were all able to be seen in the UHD. I could not see the same the the 1080p version.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

CCsoftball7 said:


> It evidently uses a lot of natural light. I think it will rival _The Revenant_ in many respects. I only watched the first 15 minutes or so, but there blues in the water, the bright colors on her wetsuit (under water), the rainbow colors in the waves were all able to be seen in the UHD. I could not see the same the the 1080p version.


Sony has been working with 4K masters longer than the other studios. It wouldn't surprise me if their UHDs turn out better in these initial waves.


----------



## djoberg

CCsoftball7 said:


> I have a feeling _The Shallows_ is going to be a winner. The UHD version is absolutely stunning.


You have surely "whetted my appetite" for this UHD release. FYI, AVS's "resident reviewer" (Ralph Potts) has given the UHD version a perfect score of 100 for Picture Quality. Here is his review:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-o...ows-ultra-hd-blu-ray-review.html#post46950625


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Phantom Stranger said:


> *Transformers: The Movie (1986) (region-free UK edition)
> 
> recommendation: Tier 1.75*
> *
> Aside from unusual blurring in a couple of short scenes, this long out-of-print BD from the UK looks quite impressive. I had intended to purchase this one a few years ago but only recently acquired it, as its rarity on the used market has driven up prices for it. Decades before Michael Bay would mess with Decepticons waging war on the Autobots, the cartoon series had its own animated theatrical release in 1986. The classic cel animation holds up quite well, an argument could be made this is easily one of the stronger animated film transfers from the Eighties. There is very little room left for visual improvement, this BD preserves the original integrity of the animation to a very high degree. A couple of small errors could be fixed but we are seeing vintage animation brimming with vitality. It's a shame no one has bothered releasing this film in the United States on Blu-ray.
> 
> Released by British distributor Metrodome as a region-free BD in the UK, the 85-minute main feature is showcased in a 1080p presentation that really pops with nice colors and fantastic clarity. There are clear remnants of a few debris particles, reminding us this is cel animation made before the advent of digital scanning. The transfer is completely unprocessed, we are getting a high-quality image harvest without filtering or halos. First released in 2007, I suppose the transfer had been recently struck at the time from the camera negative.
> 
> The video encode is in the older MPEG-2 technology at moderate bitrates in the twenties. Transformers' bold animation must compress very well since there aren't a trace of artifacts. The video encode perfectly replicates the fine grain structure and nuances of the animation.
> 
> I was a little leery of this older Blu-ray's quality before seeing it, especially considering how quickly it went out of print. After enjoying the video quality immensely, this is one BD that definitely qualifies for Tier One. I wish I could rank it higher but there are some limitations inherent to the animation.


Unfortunately I am one of those restless sorts always looking for better video quality, so I have purchased this movie once again.

*The Transformers: The Movie (animated)*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

Shout Factory recently put out this 30th anniversary edition of the animated film. They struck a new transfer and have given it an excellent presentation. Originally released in 1986, the cel animation holds up remarkably well in this improved transfer done at 4K resolution. Shout Factory took a quality interpositive and scanned it at 6K resolution, ultimately mastering this new transfer at 4K with more realistic color correction.

Shout Factory applied their own manual fixes to animation errors and cleaned up the final print from minor debris. This is excellent work, revealing a tighter visual experience with more refinement than we've ever seen this movie.

There are slight differences in the color timing between this transfer and the one seen on the older UK Blu-ray. Shout's transfer has a less punchy contrast and favors darker colors. Primary colors are less saturated. I make no claims as to which grading is better. Supposedly research has gone into the Shout grading taken from outside reference materials, such as original animation cels.

One more critical difference is that Shout Factory actually offers the movie in two different aspect ratios. There is the theatrical widescreen 1.85:1 transfer on one BD-50 and a 1.33:1 transfer on another BD. It's a nice touch that makes this set the definitive Transformers edition on Blu-ray. Though there are rumors we might see this 4K transfer on UHD...


----------



## djoberg

_The Shallows_ arrives tomorrow on both UHD and 1080P Blu-ray. Needless to say, I'm excited to watch this after the glowing review by Ralph Potts (and the encouraging words by CCsoftball7 too). I will chime in with a review "as the credits roll!"


----------



## tcramer

djoberg said:


> _The Shallows_ arrives tomorrow on both UHD and 1080P Blu-ray. Needless to say, I'm excited to watch this after the glowing review by Ralph Potts (and the encouraging words by CCsoftball7 too). I will chime in with a review "as the credits roll!"


I ordered the same and I don't even have an UHD player at the moment.  I've heard this is a prime example of what the format can do, utilizing both HDR and especially the WCG with the deep blues and greens you normally wouldn't see.


----------



## djoberg

tcramer said:


> I ordered the same and I don't even have an UHD player at the moment. I've heard this is a prime example of what the format can do, utilizing both HDR and especially the WCG with the deep blues and greens you normally wouldn't see.


Oh man, you just have to go out and get yourself a UHD Blu-ray player! After watching several back in the beginning of August (I started with _Star Trek: Into the Darkness_) I began building my UHD/HDR Blu-ray library. So far I have a couple dozen now; I'm being somewhat choosy though; they have to be 1) highly-rated for PQ; and 2) good enough for repeated viewings. I will caution you though by saying there are _some_ 4K UHD titles that offer little improvement over their 1080P counterpart, so do your homework before you shell out that extra $10-20.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Speaking of UHD players, here is a review of Oppo's upcoming UHD player.

http://www.trustedreviews.com/oppo-udp-203-review


----------



## tcramer

djoberg said:


> Oh man, you just have to go out and get yourself a UHD Blu-ray player! After watching several back in the beginning of August (I started with _Star Trek: Into the Darkness_) I began building my UHD/HDR Blu-ray library. So far I have a couple dozen now; I'm being somewhat choosy though; they have to be 1) highly-rated for PQ; and 2) good enough for repeated viewings. I will caution you though by saying there are _some_ 4K UHD titles that offer little improvement over their 1080P counterpart, so do your homework before you shell out that extra $10-20.


Oh I know. My only UHD capable display is my JVC "faux-K" projector (still rocking my VT50 plasma for my other display like you did with your Pio for so many years). I had the Samsung player back shortly after it came out, but simply wasn't happy so I sold it.

Guys have had some great results with the Panny player combined with an HDFury Integral and I was on the fence, then Oppo went ahead and said they should have one by the end of the year. The wait is killing me, but I'm planning to go with the Oppo as it's sounding more and more likely it will not also require the HDFury to get a great UHD image on a projector. I'll be missing out on HDR, but it sounds like the WCG makes things all worth it. 

I've closely been monitoring the UHD threads so I'm well aware of those that are worth and those that aren't, but that's a great tip for anyone who hasn't been!


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> Speaking of UHD players, here is a review of Oppo's upcoming UHD player.
> 
> http://www.trustedreviews.com/oppo-udp-203-review


The review sounds very good! If I end up getting another 4K display I will be getting this for the Sony in my Man Cave and I'll keep the Philips for the newer set (which would likely be a smaller and less expensive set for our living room).

I was surprised that the reviewer only referred to the Panasonic and Samsung when mentioning Oppo's competition. The irony here is that many believe the Philips is just as good or better than the Samsung.


----------



## CCsoftball7

UHD Viewing:

1. _The Shallows_
2. _The Revenant/Lucy_

Of course there are many other factors, but you can't go wrong with any of the three titles listed above. Definitely reference quality.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^

Let me add to that list (from ones that I've seen):

1) _Chappie_
2) _Life of Pi_
3) _Divergent Series: Allegiant_
4) _Smurfs 2_

These titles may not be your "cup of tea" movie-wise, but they all excel in PQ.

Out of the ones I recently acquired, I'm really anticipating (for the excellent PQ):

1) _The Shallows_
2) _Risen_
3) _The Last Witch Hunter_
4) _The Huntsman: Winters War_

I've also seen others that were "almost" as good as the ones in the first list. They are _Concussion_, _Batman & Superman: Dawn of Justice_, _Star Trek: Into the Darkness_, and _Flight of the Butterflies_.


----------



## djoberg

*The Shallows*

I'm going to keep this short, for I'm playing the bachelor this weekend and I have a lot of Blus to watch! (I may not be reviewing many though, because most of them will be in 4K.) 

In short, we have ANOTHER WINNER here! The PQ was stunning, with exemplary details (most notably facial details, but certainly not limited to them). I was so impressed with the details in rocks, sand, underwater coral, the "shark" and the "whale," the foliage along the beach, and the hair, swim suit, and wet suit of Blake Lively. Colors were mesmerizing, especially the GREENS and BLUES of the sea (having said that, the UHD version is even more compelling). Flesh tones were spot-on accurate...contrast was phenomenal...shadow details were off-the-charts.

I'm putting this on my TOP SHELF; in other words...it's REFERENCE QUALITY.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.75)* 

PS If there were such a thing as thread for UHD Blu-rays I would go a notch higher and recommend it for (.66).


----------



## djoberg

*The Last Witch Hunter*

I'll put this on the "Second to the Top Shelf" (i.e. Demo Shelf). This one wasn't quite as impressive as _The Shallows_, but it was close. In a sense though, they're hard to compare, for this outing was chock full of very dark scenes with deep and inky black levels, where _The Shallows_ was permeated with sunlight and blue skies/seas for the majority of its rather short 80+ running minutes.

The very first scene started out with brilliant white snow (which was dazzling) but that changed quickly as a group of witch hunters entered the lair of the queen witch. It was filled with darkness on one hand, and fiery torches on the other, making for some fine contrast. And I must add...the shadow details in that scene, and in many others throughout the nearly 2 hour running time, were off-the-charts. There were a few very bright daytime scenes (most notably the "dream scenes") and again the whites were excellent and fine details were mesmerizing.

This one had some definite color-grading, but with sufficient details and depth, I wasn't distracted one iota. Flesh tones remained remarkably stable from beginning to end. Clarity/sharpness reigned supreme, with the exception of a few fleeting soft shots. You already know which tier I'm opting for, and IMHO it deserves a spot right here....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**

PS Three concluding observations...the movie was terrible, the audio was reference, and the 4K version was a notch better (as usual, the difference was seen in contrast and details).


----------



## djoberg

*Risen*

Okay, I don't have much time so I'll just say it....I just watched both versions of this title (UHD/HDR and the 1080P version) and this is the first time I've seen such a remarkable difference between the two. Details in the UHD version were INSANE, as was the contrast (whites were brilliantly white and black levels were crazy good). Details in the 1080P were VERY GOOD, but not "reference quality" (except for in some scenes). Every close-up of Joseph Fiennes in the 4K version has texture rivaling those in the _Transporter_ series or better); in the 1080P version they were impressive, but again, not worthy of the top tier.

The color palette was quite drab except the red uniforms worn by Roman soldiers and an occasional flash of other primaries from time to time. That was the only real downside on the UHD version. Flesh tones on both were as accurate as possible. Depth in the 4k version defied description at times, it was not as pronounced in the 1080P version.

I'm sorry if this "comparison" between the two is bothering someone, but I was so surprised to finally see a clear distinction between the two versions from beginning to end. Perhaps this will prompt those with a 4K display to rent or purchase this release.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**

PS I would bump the UHD/HDR a WHOLE TIER to Tier 0 (.75).


----------



## Phantom Stranger

It's actually comforting to know there are significant differences and that some UHDs truly look better. What would be the point of an expensive, new format if the improved resolution wasn't noticeable?

*Dead End Drive-In*

recommendation: *Tier 2.75**

Arrow Video put out this 1986 Australian film with a fairly striking transfer. The low-budget exploitation flick offers solid cinematography with decent black levels and a steady contrast. The elements have been cleaned up of debris and dirt, leaving a consistently film-like presentation that looks fresh.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> It's actually comforting to know there are significant differences and that some UHDs truly look better. What would be the point of an expensive, new format if the improved resolution wasn't noticeable?


Exactly!


----------



## TitusTroy

nobody has reviewed The Jungle Book (2016)?...I just rented the Blu-ray from Netflix and was blown away by the picture quality...stunning...the skin tones were spot on...great use of color as well...DTS audio was also excellent with great use of the surround channels


----------



## djoberg

TitusTroy said:


> nobody has reviewed The Jungle Book (2016)?...I just rented the Blu-ray from Netflix and was blown away by the picture quality...stunning...the skin tones were spot on...great use of color as well...DTS audio was also excellent with great use of the surround channels


I'll be more than happy to watch and review it after I get back from a short trip this week. I just checked to see if there was a UHD release and sadly there isn't. So, I'll rent the 1080P version or maybe even buy it when I return. Thanks for the heads up on this one (the reviews on the movie itself are also great)!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

TitusTroy said:


> nobody has reviewed The Jungle Book (2016)?...I just rented the Blu-ray from Netflix and was blown away by the picture quality...stunning...the skin tones were spot on...great use of color as well...DTS audio was also excellent with great use of the surround channels


Everyone's input is welcomed in the PQ Tiers, feel free to give us your score. It sounds like a fantastic, possibly Tier 0 ranking.

I actually have the new Jungle Book Blu-ray in my hands but my official reviewing duties take precedence. I am always swamped with a heavy load of discs that need viewing. It gets particularly trying in the Fall months with the new television season and an onslaught of new releases.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> Everyone's input is welcomed in the PQ Tiers, feel free to give us your score. It sounds like a fantastic, possibly Tier 0 ranking.
> 
> I actually have the new Jungle Book Blu-ray in my hands but my official reviewing duties take precedence. I am always swamped with a heavy load of discs that need viewing. It gets particularly trying in the Fall months with the new television season and an onslaught of new releases.


Yes, TitusTroy, we would surely enjoy seeing a review from you!

Phantom, I simply can't imagine the "heavy load" that you have when it comes to "official reviewing duties." Perhaps there are newcomers to this thread that don't realize that you are a regular reviewer for doblu.com (I would encourage everyone to visit that site on a regular basis, for they have many more reviews that you see on this thread). Just click on this link:

www.DoBlu.com


----------



## tcramer

TitusTroy said:


> nobody has reviewed The Jungle Book (2016)?...I just rented the Blu-ray from Netflix and was blown away by the picture quality...stunning...the skin tones were spot on...great use of color as well...DTS audio was also excellent with great use of the surround channels


For what it's worth, Ralph Potts gave it a perfect 100 for video. 

I also heard the 3D disc is amazing, but sadly the only way to get it is via import from a site such as Amazon UK.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*At The Devil's Door*

recommendation: *Tier 2.75**

Since Halloween is right around the corner I checked out this horror movie. A couple of years old by now, the release from MPI Media Group and IFC Films has average video quality hampered by some compression issues.

The 93-minute main feature is encoded in a poor AVC video encode that introduces significant banding in a few darker scenes. Video bitrates are fairly low for this type of dark, moody fare. The video is clean with inky black levels. Shadow delineation is mildly limited in the final act.

This BD has fine video quality in brighter interiors with sharp definition and strong clarity. A darker aesthetic with a subdued palette becomes more and more prevalent as the movie proceeds, ultimately undercutting its raw picture quality.


----------



## djoberg

*The Jungle Book*

Okay....I just finished slipping this Blu back inside its package....then I put it on my "Reference Shelf"....so it's time for a short review!

As you can see, I've already assigned this release to the Top Tier, and for good reason(s). The majority of its 1 Hr. 40 Min. running time features exquisite DETAILS, astounding DEPTH and razor-sharp CLARITY. Add to these virtues some of the best SHADOW DETAILS I've seen all summer (and there are several long night time scenes for showcasing them). COLORS are also pure EYE CANDY, especially the luscious green jungle foliage and vibrant primaries courtesy of exotic birds and animals. Last, but never least, BLACK LEVELS are inky deep (and never crushed, as intimated earlier in my remark about the shadow details).

To be fair, this was NOT perfect. There were several scenes where SOFTNESS crept in...and actually persisted for awhile. Also, there were some shots of animals and a few long distance shots where DETAILS FALTERED. I believe I also spotted a few instances with NOISE, due, no doubt, to CGI.

I kept thinking to myself, "If they had come out with a UHD/HDR version, what improvements would there have been?" Having watched multiple 4K Blu-rays over the last couple of months, I believe I can say that this one could have had even better CONTRAST. There were several scenes with rising or setting suns and with HDR there would have been more realism and I would have found my eyes squinting. DETAILS also would have been more pronounced and COLORS would have had more pop. 

But enough of the "what if it was in HDR?" It's time to place this Blu. We already know it's worthy of Tier Blu, but where shall it go? I can't overlook the few negatives mentioned, so I'm thinking it should find itself close to....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.75)*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Sounds good, Denny. I'm guessing some of the animals were CGI.

*Suddenly (The Film Detective Restoration)
*
recommendation: *Tier 3.75**

The 1954 Frank Sinatra thriller about a presidential assassin comes out in a new transfer from niche label The Film Detective. This is set to be released near the end of the month but I'm giving everyone here a preview. 

The biggest difference with this release is its aspect ratio. For the first time on Blu-ray, _Suddenly_ is shown at its 1.75:1 theatrical aspect ratio. Prior BDs from Image Entertainment and another label used open-matte transfers at 1.33:1. The film has received multiple releases from different companies since it is in the public domain.

It's a respectable, film-like HD transfer from solid, secondary film elements. There is appreciable depth and texture, backed by a firm contrast and crisp black levels. The black-and-white film looks rather nice, albeit soft.

Recommended for classic cinema lovers, this is likely the best release we are going to get for _Suddenly_ on Blu-ray.


----------



## TitusTroy

djoberg said:


> *The Jungle Book*
> 
> As you can see, I've already assigned this release to the Top Tier, and for good reason(s). The majority of its 1 Hr. 40 Min. running time features exquisite DETAILS, astounding DEPTH and razor-sharp CLARITY. Add to these virtues some of the best SHADOW DETAILS I've seen all summer (and there are several long night time scenes for showcasing them). COLORS are also pure EYE CANDY, especially the luscious green jungle foliage and vibrant primaries courtesy of exotic birds and animals. Last, but never least, BLACK LEVELS are inky deep (and never crushed, as intimated earlier in my remark about the shadow details).
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.75)*



agree on all counts...the detail is what really blew me away...almost every daytime scene had so much detail...skin tones were so spot on for Mowgli and the animals also looked photo-realistic (all the animals were CGI)...I don't know if this is considered live action or animated but it's a reference title all the way


----------



## djoberg

TitusTroy said:


> agree on all counts...the detail is what really blew me away...almost every daytime scene had so much detail...skin tones were so spot on for Mowgli and the animals also looked photo-realistic (all the animals were CGI)...I don't know if this is considered live action or animated but it's a reference title all the way


This would be labeled live action AND animated because of the CGI animals. With some of the animals it was obvious, but with others they looked remarkably realistic. 

I should mention that I enjoyed the movie. The plot was good... the pacing was superb...the acting was decent...the cinematography was excellent...and Bill Murray's character (the "bear") added enough "comic relief" to satisfy my need for humor in this type of genre.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Bill Murray must have liked the script because he rarely does anything these days.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom, it was "uncanny," but the mannerisms and facial expressions of the bear were uniquely those of Bill Murray. I suspect he had a say in this!


----------



## fredxr2d2

TitusTroy said:


> agree on all counts...the detail is what really blew me away...almost every daytime scene had so much detail...skin tones were so spot on for Mowgli and the animals also looked photo-realistic (all the animals were CGI)...I don't know if this is considered live action or animated but it's a reference title all the way





djoberg said:


> This would be labeled live action AND animated because of the CGI animals. With some of the animals it was obvious, but with others they looked remarkably realistic.
> 
> I should mention that I enjoyed the movie. The plot was good... the pacing was superb...the acting was decent...the cinematography was excellent...and Bill Murray's character (the "bear") added enough "comic relief" to satisfy my need for humor in this type of genre.


Almost everything in the movie is CGI except for the kid. Easily one of the most impressive CGI movies I've seen and I agree with the Tier 0 recommendation.

My gf's response after watching was "that was really pretty!"


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Ministry of Fear *(Criterion)

recommendation: *Tier 3.25**

Nice even presentation from Criterion for this 1944 film. Black levels and contrast are steady with good grain levels; details are well preserved as well.

*It's been awhile since I've had an opportunity to view some films so hopefully I'll be around the forum more often in the next few months, I've got a bunch of films to watch that aren't ranked...


----------



## Phantom Stranger

DarthDoxie said:


> *Ministry of Fear *(Criterion)
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 3.25**
> 
> Nice even presentation from Criterion for this 1944 film. Black levels and contrast are steady with good grain levels; details are well preserved as well.
> 
> *It's been awhile since I've had an opportunity to view some films so hopefully I'll be around the forum more often in the next few months, I've got a bunch of films to watch that aren't ranked...


I'm excited to see the _McCabe & Mrs. Miller_ BD from Criterion. I hope to get around watching the newly-issued _Glengarry Glen Ross_ this week. If people aren't aware, Target is carrying it for $5 at most locations.


----------



## djoberg

fredxr2d2 said:


> Almost everything in the movie is CGI except for the kid. Easily one of the most impressive CGI movies I've seen and I agree with the Tier 0 recommendation.


Your post sent me "Searching" and I learned that EVERYTHING was indeed CGI except for the kid. Here is a real interesting read on the subject:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...78767/&usg=AFQjCNHfRdZlmKKmQX9RiGgFvy9IKaotWQ


----------



## fredxr2d2

djoberg said:


> Your post sent me "Searching" and I learned that EVERYTHING was indeed CGI except for the kid. Here is a real interesting read on the subject:
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...78767/&usg=AFQjCNHfRdZlmKKmQX9RiGgFvy9IKaotWQ


That was a good piece on the movie.

The fact that everything was CGI probably contributed to the softness that you noted in your review (as you have noted in many reviews: sometimes CGI just gets soft). That said, this was definitely a defining moment for CGI in cinema.


----------



## djoberg

fredxr2d2 said:


> That was a good piece on the movie.
> 
> The fact that everything was CGI probably contributed to the softness that you noted in your review (as you have noted in many reviews: sometimes CGI just gets soft). That said, this was definitely a defining moment for CGI in cinema.


Agreed on all counts!

As the article brought out, it may still take some time and ingenuity to perfect "CGI humans," but we have come a very long way in all other areas.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Francesca*

recommendation: *Tier 4.5**

Unearthed Films (a sub-label of MVDvisual) puts out this incredible simulation of a classic giallo print from the Seventies. It's a rough print with simulated wear and edge enhancement, done up as leftover elements from the grindhouse era. It's very convincing in its retro vibe and look. 

I tend to avoid press materials for the movies I end up reviewing. The Onetti brothers from Argentina made this loving homage to giallo filmmaking, even faking a 1975 copyright date on the print. It was only when the credits rolled that I realized this wasn't made in the Seventies at all. Francesca saw its debut in 2013. What looks like faded, overexposed elements have been mocked up by the director in the hopes of recreating that classic giallo experience.

I presume that MVDvisual's presentation is a faithful replication of the Onetti brothers' intended aesthetic. The AVC video encode looks great.

This is one time in which the Tier 4.5 mark isn't a negative. Francesca would be a far less convincing film for giallo fans done in modern video.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Key Largo*

recommendation: *Tier 2.75**

From Warner Archive Collection, this restoration shines. Black levels and contrast are even throughout and that is the key element in black and white films. Details are good, only limited by the original photography. Only one scene is questionable when one of the camera shots of Edward G. Robinson turns to sepia; it's only for about 5 seconds and the only time it happens in the film.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*The Breakfast Club (30th Anniversary Edition)*

recommendation: *Tier 2.75**

I'm happy to report all the things that plagued the previous edition have been corrected: desaturated colors, wavering picture, and print debris. A new scan and AVC encode have improved on it's previous placement of tier 3.5. Overall detail level is about the same but the corrections to the above issues make this a much better PQ.


----------



## djoberg

*The Legend of Tarzan*

This one started out a bit soft but after about 20 minutes it had exceptional clarity, sharpness, details and depth. Add to that some amazing black levels with scads of night scenes to showcase them and their equally good shadow details. The only real downside (besides some softness in the beginning) was some egregious color-grading at times (most notably "orange" during some daytime scenes in open prairies and "teal" in jungle scenes). If not for that, I would be tempted to go with Tier 0. My vote goes for....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**

PS FWIW, I also watched the 4K version and the only real difference that I saw were the shots of rising or setting suns and a campfire scene....you have to LOVE HDR when those occur, for the rise in contrast is spectacular!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Strategic Air Command*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

Olive Films delivers a nearly perfect film transfer in this immaculate 1.66:1 presentation. _Strategic Air Command_ has never looked better, the 1080P video contains lush color saturation and crisp definition. The 114-minute main feature is encoded in high-bitrate AVC on a BD-25. Licensed from Paramount, I have no idea how that studio passed on releasing this wonderfully film-like transfer with striking clarity. It’s a marvelous-looking Blu-ray and captures the film’s aerial shots in glorious quality. The 1954 movie starring Jimmy Stewart is a perfect fit for Tier One.

Shot in beautiful VistaVision by William Daniels with a clear goal of impressing audiences, the aerial cinematography is breathtaking. This was intended as eye candy and made a huge impression on fans when it was first released. The vintage film possesses razor-sharp definition in unfiltered clarity. The vivid Technicolor palette is brilliantly reproduced with perfect contrast and even saturation. Inky black levels round out its technical excellence.

The film elements reside in a state of fabulous preservation. Few visible signs of wear or deterioration intrude on the nearly pristine, film-like video. Close-ups are flush with generous detail. If digital processing has been used on this new HD transfer, it is undetectable on larger displays. Grain and color reproduction rank with other high-quality restorations from the era.

Olive Films deserves kudos for this excellent technical presentation of _Strategic Air Command_. This Blu-ray is an immense upgrade over DVD in every dimension. Screenshots are available elsewhere if you catch my drift.


----------



## DarthDoxie

Phantom Stranger said:


> *Strategic Air Command*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 1.5**


Thanks for the review and it's definitely on my Christmas list! Another film in the same genre I'd like to see restored is Fail-Safe.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

DarthDoxie said:


> Thanks for the review and it's definitely on my Christmas list! Another film in the same genre I'd like to see restored is Fail-Safe.


That would be a good choice. I'm not sure which distributor has Fail-Safe.


----------



## djoberg

DarthDoxie said:


> Thanks for the review and it's definitely on my Christmas list! Another film in the same genre I'd like to see restored is Fail-Safe.


https://www.amazon.com/Fail-Safe-Bl...=1477178764&sr=8-1&keywords=fail-safe+blu+ray

I see this was released in September but would it qualify as a "restoration?" If so, then it is a BAD restoration according to 2/3 of those who weighed in.

I also see that it "may" not play in North America (it's a "Region B/2" disc).


----------



## djoberg

I just picked up a copy of _The Angry Birds Movie_ (the package included a 4k version, along with a Blu-ray AND a 3D Blu-ray version). I had been watching it on a 4K display in Best Buy and it was SO colorful and detailed I simply couldn't resist the purchase. I may not get to it for awhile, though I wish I had time tomorrow to view it (but I don't...because I plan to watch the Vikings beat the Eagles instead ).


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> https://www.amazon.com/Fail-Safe-Bl...=1477178764&sr=8-1&keywords=fail-safe+blu+ray
> 
> I see this was released in September but would it qualify as a "restoration?" If so, then it is a BAD restoration according to 2/3 of those who weighed in.
> 
> I also see that it "may" not play in North America (it's a "Region B/2" disc).


That's a region-free Australian release. I have no idea on its quality, I haven't looked for any reviews of that disc. It's a black-and-white movie if that matters to anyone.

*Brothers Conflict: The Complete Series*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

A modern anime release from Funimation showcasing colorful animation. This is clean animation with polished line-work. On the simple side but the detail work isn't bad.

The 2013 series was released earlier this year. Funimation gives it a proficient video encode that minimizes potential banding and chroma errors.


----------



## djoberg

*The Angry Birds Movie*

Due to time constraints, I'm going to keep this very short and simple. In short, this is YET ANOTHER "animated marvel" that will give your eyes the visual feast they crave! I can't say that I've ever seen more colors (and they are BOLD and VIBRANT, to be sure) and the details also rival or exceed those of any other animated Blu to date. This one didn't have the "photo-realism" of _The Good Dinosaur_ or _WALL-E_, so it's not going to check every box on your "Virtue List." But it will still earn a spot in Tier Blu and IMHO it most certainly deserves a place near the very top of the heap, if not on the very top. My guess is it will land in the Top Five, but I'm not prepared to be more specific than that.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (Top Five)*

PS The movie left much to be desired, but maybe a second viewing will yield more satisfaction (since I won't be concentrating on the EYE CANDY like I was this time around).


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I have the Angry Birds disc somewhere around here waiting to be seen, someday.


----------



## tcramer

djoberg said:


> *The Angry Birds Movie*
> 
> Due to time constraints, I'm going to keep this very short and simple. In short, this is YET ANOTHER "animated marvel" that will give your eyes the visual feast they crave! I can't say that I've ever seen more colors (and they are BOLD and VIBRANT, to be sure) and the details also rival or exceed those of any other animated Blu to date. This one didn't have the "photo-realism" of _The Good Dinosaur_ or _WALL-E_, so it's not going to check every box on your "Virtue List." But it will still earn a spot in Tier Blu and IMHO it most certainly deserves a place near the very top of the heap, if not on the very top. My guess is it will land in the Top Five, but I'm not prepared to be more specific than that.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (Top Five)*
> 
> PS The movie left much to be desired, but maybe a second viewing will yield more satisfaction (since I won't be concentrating on the EYE CANDY like I was this time around).





Phantom Stranger said:


> I have the Angry Birds disc somewhere around here waiting to be seen, someday.


I have the UHD/BR pack laying around here somewhere as well.

You get a chance to check out the UHD version to see how it compares, or do you have just regular version?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I just have the regular Blu-ray.


----------



## CCsoftball7

djoberg said:


> *The Angry Birds Movie*
> 
> Due to time constraints, I'm going to keep this very short and simple. In short, this is YET ANOTHER "animated marvel" that will give your eyes the visual feast they crave! I can't say that I've ever seen more colors (and they are BOLD and VIBRANT, to be sure) and the details also rival or exceed those of any other animated Blu to date. This one didn't have the "photo-realism" of _The Good Dinosaur_ or _WALL-E_, so it's not going to check every box on your "Virtue List." But it will still earn a spot in Tier Blu and IMHO it most certainly deserves a place near the very top of the heap, if not on the very top. My guess is it will land in the Top Five, but I'm not prepared to be more specific than that.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (Top Five)*
> 
> PS The movie left much to be desired, but maybe a second viewing will yield more satisfaction (since I won't be concentrating on the EYE CANDY like I was this time around).


Have you compared it to the newest Ice Age?


----------



## djoberg

tcramer said:


> I have the UHD/BR pack laying around here somewhere as well.
> 
> You get a chance to check out the UHD version to see how it compares, or do you have just regular version?


I also watched the UHD version. It had noticeable improvements in that the colors were a bit more vibrant and details had more nuances. Other than those, the differences were negligible.



CCsoftball7 said:


> Have you compared it to the newest Ice Age?


No, I have NOT seen the newest _Ice Age_. They had the 4K UHD version at Best Buy, but I decided no to get it due to the less-than-stellar reviews on the movie itself. But if I were told that the PQ was absolutely stunning I would get it.


----------



## CCsoftball7

djoberg said:


> I also watched the UHD version. It had noticeable improvements in that the colors were a bit more vibrant and details had more nuances. Other than those, the differences were negligible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I have NOT seen the newest _Ice Age_. They had the 4K UHD version at Best Buy, but I decided no to get it due to the less-than-stellar reviews on the movie itself. But if I were told that the PQ was absolutely stunning I would get it.




You need to go pick it up then. Amazing colors and use of HDR.


----------



## djoberg

CCsoftball7 said:


> You need to go pick it up then. Amazing colors and use of HDR.


Will do! I have quite a few Best Buy Reward Certificates that I am using exclusively for 4K UHD Blu-rays, so you have convinced me to purchase it. 

Now you need to make a path to your local B&M store and get _The Angry Birds Movie_ (that is, if you want to be awed by "amazing colors").


----------



## CCsoftball7

djoberg said:


> Will do! I have quite a few Best Buy Reward Certificates that I am using exclusively for 4K UHD Blu-rays, so you have convinced me to purchase it.
> 
> Now you need to make a path to your local B&M store and get _The Angry Birds Movie_ (that is, if you want to be awed by "amazing colors").


I've bought SO MANY already.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> No, I have NOT seen the newest _Ice Age_. They had the 4K UHD version at Best Buy, but I decided no to get it due to the less-than-stellar reviews on the movie itself. But if I were told that the PQ was absolutely stunning I would get it.


Spoken like a true videophile. I won't admit how many times that flimsy reasoning has pushed me into buying discs.


----------



## djoberg

I just made the following post on the Sony 940D Thread. I'm posting the link here because if there's anyone reading this with a 4K display but you haven't seen this title yet, you need to do yourself a favor and buy a copy of _The Great Gatsby_. Or perhaps there is someone with a 4K display, but you haven't even purchased a 4K Blu-ray player yet. I'm here to tell you that the benefits of 4K are real (with a good display, that is), for I've seen this on a 1080P Blu-ray and this one kicks it up at least a couple of notches.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/166-l...rs-thread-no-price-talk-178.html#post47724209


----------



## Phantom Stranger

For everyone's frame of reference, _The Great Gatsby _on Blu-ray is ranked in the lower half of Tier 0. So it didn't look poor in 1080P resolution.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> For everyone's frame of reference, _The Great Gatsby _on Blu-ray is ranked in the lower half of Tier 0. So it didn't look poor in 1080P resolution.


I'm thankful for your post Phantom, for indeed it looked fantastic on 1080P, so much so that even my wife had commented on the excellent PQ. I had given it a rating of 1.0 but the 4K version takes it up to the middle of Tier 0. In my review of the 1080P version I mentioned the "smoothing" of faces; I did NOT see that on the 4K UHD version. And I don't recall the facial texture being so refined, even the texture on the female leads is incredible.

I should note that in the beginning there were some flesh tones that had a "red push" on both versions.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Villa Rides!*

recommendation: *Tier 3.0**

I just lost a lengthy write-up for this disc so I will merely say this is an adequate catalog presentation. The transfer has fine clarity, albeit on the softer side. 

Olive Films uses an older HD transfer with decent grain reproduction and a nice contrast.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^

I've experienced that too Phantom and it is very FRUSTRATING! Like you I end up giving the "one or two lines" review.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

This time it was my fault. I recently added a plug-in on my browser that blocks most scripts on a web page and didn't realize it would gobble up my written recommendation inside the reply window. 

The vast majority of the time when I am writing up anything longer than a sentence or two here for AVSforum, it is written outside the browser on word software. That way nothing ever gets lost.

*Violent Cop*

recommendation: *Tier 3.25**

Film Movement Classics put this 1989 Japanese film out a couple of weeks ago. Japanese auteur Takeshi Kitano's movie wasn't consciously made as eye candy with its unusual cinematography. This is a perfectly fine film transfer from pristine elements. Shadow delineation could be improved in a few scenes but overall it's a relatively sharp presentation.

The 102-minute main feature is encoded in AVC averaging nearly 35 Mbps. It's a transparent encoding that replicates the grain structure without fault. Exteriors have stronger contrast with better clarity. Interiors are grittier, exhibiting softer video and less detail.


----------



## djoberg

*God's Not Dead 2*

I have decided to give you a link to my review of the first installment..._God's Not Dead_. The PQ was virtually the same in most scenes. The only differences would be...on the POSITIVE side this title had no "noise" or "banding"...on the NEGATIVE side it wasn't quite as sharp. So, my placement recommendation will remain the same.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-726.html#post26519177

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**


----------



## DSTOFEL1

I have a very simple question that I'm hoping someone can help me with. I've done some research but can't seem to find the answer.

I just bought Samsung KS8000 SUHD TV. This TV is compatible with HDR10 (ie not Dolby Vision). I'm going to buy an XBox One S this week for games and but also for the UHD Blu Ray player. The XBox is also compatible with HDR10 (ie not Dolby Vision).

My question is: When looking at UHD Blu Ray's discs how do I know which version of HDR they have been encoded with (ie HDR10 vs Dolby Vision). I'm assuming that all UHD Blu Ray discs are encoded with either one or the other version of HDR. I don't see this listed on the packaging anywhere....nor is it mentioned on sites like Amazon. 

Am I correct that if I buy a UHD Blu Ray disc that is encoded with HDR Dolby Vision (but not HDR10) that I won't get the HDR effect (i.e. with the setup I've listed above)?


----------



## teachsac

DSTOFEL1 said:


> I have a very simple question that I'm hoping someone can help me with. I've done some research but can't seem to find the answer.
> 
> I just bought Samsung KS8000 SUHD TV. This TV is compatible with HDR10 (ie not Dolby Vision). I'm going to buy an XBox One S this week for games and but also for the UHD Blu Ray player. The XBox is also compatible with HDR10 (ie not Dolby Vision).
> 
> My question is: When looking at UHD Blu Ray's discs how do I know which version of HDR they have been encoded with (ie HDR10 vs Dolby Vision). I'm assuming that all UHD Blu Ray discs are encoded with either one or the other version of HDR. I don't see this listed on the packaging anywhere....nor is it mentioned on sites like Amazon.
> 
> Am I correct that if I buy a UHD Blu Ray disc that is encoded with HDR Dolby Vision (but not HDR10) that I won't get the HDR effect (i.e. with the setup I've listed above)?


HDR is mandatory. Dolby Vision is optional. You cannot have a DV disc without HDR10.


----------



## DSTOFEL1

teachsac said:


> HDR is mandatory. Dolby Vision is optional. You cannot have a DV disc without HDR10.


Ah....thanks!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Boiling Point*

recommendation: *Tier 3.5**

Director Takeshi Kitano's second film was recently put out by Film Movement Classics in this adequate HD offering. The 1990 Japanese film receives a fairly ordinary film transfer. It contains palpable texture and better detail than DVD, but overall resolution is serviceable at best. 

Like most Japanese catalog releases, the elements are in impeccable condition with virtually no visible wear. Film Movement gives it excellent technical specifications on a BD-50, ensuring a clean presentation free of processing.


----------



## djoberg

DSTOFEL1 said:


> I have a very simple question that I'm hoping someone can help me with. I've done some research but can't seem to find the answer.
> 
> I just bought Samsung KS8000 SUHD TV. This TV is compatible with HDR10 (ie not Dolby Vision). I'm going to buy an XBox One S this week for games and but also for the UHD Blu Ray player. The XBox is also compatible with HDR10 (ie not Dolby Vision).
> 
> My question is: When looking at UHD Blu Ray's discs how do I know which version of HDR they have been encoded with (ie HDR10 vs Dolby Vision). I'm assuming that all UHD Blu Ray discs are encoded with either one or the other version of HDR. I don't see this listed on the packaging anywhere....nor is it mentioned on sites like Amazon.
> 
> Am I correct that if I buy a UHD Blu Ray disc that is encoded with HDR Dolby Vision (but not HDR10) that I won't get the HDR effect (i.e. with the setup I've listed above)?





teachsac said:


> HDR is mandatory. Dolby Vision is optional. You cannot have a DV disc without HDR10.


I would just add that as of right now, ALL UHD Blu-ray discs have only HDR10 and NOT Dolby Vision (Dolby Vision is limited to streaming services only). But that is going to change in the very near future, for quite a few Hollywood Studios have said they will indeed be producing movies using Dolby Vision. Surprisingly, Sony is among the studios who have come on-board. I say this because all of Sony's 4K UHD/HDR displays (and Samsung displays!) are only capable of showing HDR10 movies and that can't be fixed with a Firm Ware Update (there has to be a physical "chip" in the display for showing Dolby Vision High Dynamic Range).


----------



## djoberg

*Lights Out*

I continue to be impressed with the majority of releases in the "Horror" genre, present release included! This is a strong Tier Gold contender with consistent clarity/sharpness all the way through its short 77 minute running time. Resolution and contrast were strong in both daytime and nighttime scenes. Of course this served up plenty of dark scenes and I'm here to tell you the black levels were superb! Thankfully there was ZERO black crush, so we are treated to finely rendered shadow details...you will not miss a thing (including "Diana" )! Daytime shots featured razor-sharp clarity with amazing details in furniture, rugs, clothing, buildings, streets, foliage, and last, but not least, facial texture (especially in the two female leads....Teresa Palmer and Maria Bello). There was also considerable depth in numerous shots.

The only teeny-weeny flaw that I observed was some fleeting noise in the darkest scenes, but I feel as if I'm "straining at a gnat" in bringing this up when the rest of Blu-ray was pure "demo material." I've already given away my "Tier Placement"....now I'll be more specific by saying it should go right here....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**

PS I thought the movie itself was a decent "rental" with good acting and some good scares that actually caused me to jump!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I want to catch _Lights Out_ after seeing its trailer. It looks good in the preview.

*The Night of the Grizzly: Olive Signature Edition*

recommendation: *Tier 2.5**

This Western starring Clint Walker has never looked this good before in Olive Films' new Signature edition. The 1966 Paramount film receives a new restoration and a much healthier video encode this time around. Definition, clarity and detail are all vastly improved by varying degrees.

This is a top-flight film transfer from the Techniscope camera negative. It's an easy recommendation for Tier 2 with vibrant color fidelity. The 1080P video is also fairly sharp with a well-defined grain structure. There has been no significant filtering, its finer detail is left intact.

Remember this disc next time if you are looking for an excellent presentation of vintage film.


----------



## djoberg

*Independence Day: Resurgence*

Ladies & Gentlemen, we have...One MIXED BAG! I suppose you thought I was going to say, "We have a WINNER," but this one was way too inconsistent to be deemed worthy of being a serious contender for the Top Tier.

To keep this simple, let me just say that all the "real" sets, whether they were shot indoors or outdoors, were incredible. Details were off the charts, as were clarity, depth, and contrast. But once the scenes shifted to CGI and blue/green screens, softness reared its ugly head resulting in a lack of detail and depth. Add to this some very egregious color-grading (you guessed it... TEAL & ORANGE), and it wasn't pretty. There was one thing that was consistent; I'm speaking of black levels. Those, along with corresponding shadow details, will go along way in upping the placement of this title.

For years I've said that when you have a "mixed bag" it's a "hard call." This is no exception to that rule. In trying to "balance things out" I will say that overall it was visually pleasing. It will never come close to Tier Blu, but it would be a travesty to put it any lower than Tier Gold. My vote goes for.....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**

PS The movie itself was just plain BAD! No repeat value with this one.


----------



## djoberg

*Star Trek Beyond*

Here is another release that misses the "reference quality" boat, but will easily land in the boat (ah, I mean "tier") right behind it. In other words, make room for another Blu on your "demo" shelf. 

Details really shine when the director zoomed in...facial texture, fabric stitching in uniforms, rocky terrain, lush foliage, and many other items all served up some nice EYE CANDY. Black levels and shadow detail were, for the most part, excellent, though in some of the heavier CGI shots softness crept in and hinder blacks (and details). Colors were very good (the crew of the Enterprise looked quite "stylish" and the greens on the planet they were marooned on was really a treat), but again during CGI shots they weren't as vibrant. In daytime outdoor shots everything came together, clarity was razor-sharp along with satisfying depth, strong contrast, and accurate flesh tones. All in all, a very pleasing visual experience.

Before I place this title, the 4K UHD/HDR version kicked it up a couple of notches (to the "reference tier"), with brighter colors, better details (you could see texture in faces in mid-range shots...not so on the 1080P version), blacker blacks and more refined shadow details (especially the "space scenes" and really dark interiors), and whiter whites.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25**


----------



## djoberg

*Ice Age: Collision Course*

STUNNING!! 

Need I say more? Okay, so I guess I can offer a few more words. Details are lights years ahead of the first installments of the "Ice Age Franchise," especially in the "fur department" on every creature. Colors are in abundance (especially when you reach the 57 minute mark) and man do they POP! Depth is astounding at times. Black levels are velvety rich, with shadow details to die for (the sporadic space scenes showcase these in all their splendor). Contrast is super strong, with very bright whites!

I also saw the 4K UHD/HDR version and I just have to say it....if you've on the fence about getting a 4K display and a 4K Blu-ray player, you would say it's a no-brainer after seeing at title like this. It most definitely takes the PQ to another level, with more texture and details in fur, landscapes, etc., more vibrancy in colors, deeper blacks, and brighter whites. I watched these back to back so I'm not exaggerating one iota.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (in the Top Ten!)*

PS The 4K version would land this in the Top Three!!


----------



## djoberg

CCsoftball7 said:


> Have you compared it to the newest Ice Age?


WOW! You were so right about the 4K version of _Ice Age: Collision Course_. As I just said in my review, the colors are taken to a higher level with HDR and the various explosions of light throughout are also enhanced, as were the black levels. 

In comparing it to _The Angry Birds Movie_, the colors are more plentiful in _Angry Birds_ and they are "in your face" from the opening scene to the rolling of the credits. But where _Ice Age_ excelled was in the "detail department." So perhaps those two are in a virtual tie!

BTW, I actually enjoyed the movie. I was ready to be sorely disappointed but there was enough ACTION and HUMOR to keep me from checking the clock to see when it would end. And of course the PQ kept me riveted to the display as well!


----------



## CCsoftball7

djoberg said:


> WOW! You were so right about the 4K version of _Ice Age: Collision Course_. As I just said in my review, the colors are taken to a higher level with HDR and the various explosions of light throughout are also enhanced, as were the black levels.
> 
> In comparing it to _The Angry Birds Movie_, the colors are more plentiful in _Angry Birds_ and they are "in your face" from the opening scene to the rolling of the credits. But where _Ice Age_ excelled was in the "detail department." So perhaps those two are in a virtual tie!
> 
> BTW, the actually enjoyed the movie. I was ready to be sorely disappointed but there was enough ACTION and HUMOR to keep me from checking the clock to see when it would end. And of course the PQ kept me riveted to the display as well!


----------



## djoberg

*Marauders*

Lionsgate offers up another DEMO release in this action thriller!

Shall we get "the bad" out of the way first? This genre usually serves up some egregious color-grading and this one was no exception. There are numerous scenes that are "teal-coated" and it wreaked havoc on flesh tones at times. There were MANY dark scenes throughout its 100 minute running time and in a few instances softness crept in, resulting in a lack of details and depth. In those same scenes there was some fleeting "noise" as well. One more thing....this had a very DRAB color palette, which wasn't helped at all by the fact that 98% of outdoor scenes featured RAIN (and in over half of them it was POURING RAIN).

Now for "the good." DETAILS, details, and more details!!! All close-ups were pure EYE CANDY, with facial texture on par with the very best titles in Tier Blu. The director was pleased to zoom in dozens and dozens of times on all actors and none of them disappointed. This really showed how much Bruce Willis is aging...and I had no idea that Christopher Meloni had some POCKS right above his chin. Details were not limited to facial close-ups; stitching in clothing, fabric in furniture, foliage, and many other objects were teeming with details. BLACK LEVELS were absolutely excellent! My letter-boxed bars remained PITCH BLACK from beginning to end. SHADOW DETAILS were also spot on. CONTRAST was strong and CLARITY was razor-sharp in indoor scenes with good lighting and in the 2 or 3 scenes where the rain let up.

As you look over my first paragraph you might be asking, "How could he start off by calling this a "DEMO release?" This is "demo quality" because "the bad" really didn't hinder the amazing details except for the few instances of softness that I mentioned. My vote goes for...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25**


----------



## djoberg

*The Conjuring 2*

I have to ask...Did we see the same release of this title Phantom? I ask this in all sincerity for my viewing experience did NOT mirror yours at all. We will end up a whole tier apart on this one!!

I found the overall PQ to be "demo worthy," with excellent clarity, especially in all daytime scenes outdoors and indoors. Even nighttime scenes had very good definition when there was good lighting. I also found the black levels to be very satisfying with the exception of some very dark scenes where the director (James Wan) purposely softened the image to hinder details. But most dark scenes were INKY BLACK with finely-refined shadow details. Colors, in American scenes, were rich and warm; they were muted in the majority of scenes that took place in England. But thankfully that didn't obscure details, which were very pleasing to the eyes in 90% of the movie. Facial texture may not have been reference quality (as in my last viewing), but they were certainly demo-quality (a case in point is a scene in the beginning where Vera Farmiga has just waken up and Mr. Wan zooms in our one side of her face, revealing every nuance of her fair complexion). Details in homes, furniture, English streets and walks, trees, etc. were pure eye candy.

I stated at the beginning that Phantom and I were a whole tier apart and I stand by that. My placement also happens to be the exact same score that I gave the original outing of _The Conjuring_ franchise.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**

PS I wouldn't argue with anyone if they chose to nominate this for 1.5!




Phantom Stranger said:


> *The Conjuring 2*[/URL]
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 2.75**
> 
> I completely forgot about rating this one for the PQ Tiers. Director James Wan's sequel fares a bit worse in the PQ department than the original. Its video still offers fairly crisp definition, but the darker, retro setting of a dreary London home in the 70s limits eye candy potential. It is an underwhelming visual experience much of the time.
> 
> Some minor compression artifacts are apparent over its 2 hours plus running time. Black levels are decent, shadow delineation plays a critical role in several frightening scenes. Aliasing shows up in several shots. I suspect that is a result of poorly staged digital composites.
> 
> I'm guessing the digital intermediate was selectively filtered. This ultimately limits Conjuring 2's top detail. I can't say Warner ruined the transfer, this appears to be a reflection of the filmmaker's desires.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^

After I chose my placement recommendation I decided to check out what other reviewers were saying about this title. The three that I saw, including AVS reviewer Ralph Potts, gave this a very high score (even higher than mine).


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I just didn't think it was consistently excellent enough in PQ to merit a Tier 1 score. Some of it may very well have moments worthy of Tier 1 from what I remember. The color grading and dour setting doesn't scream eye candy.

Fine detail is also quite suspect for a modern production shot on a studio set. Some filtering or digital tinkering has likely been used to soften the image. I suspect this was intentional to give it a retro Seventies' aesthetic.

So many quality presentations are coming out on Blu-ray these days with the 4K production pipeline that I have less tolerance for problems. It may have been an over-correction on my part but I don't think The Conjuring 2 deserves much higher than 2.25.


----------



## djoberg

I respectively disagree with you on this one Phantom. I'm not sure what you mean when you say, "Fine detail is also quite suspect," for IMHO details were excellent except for a few scenes where darkness obscured them. I also missed all the anomalies that you mentioned in your review on doblu.com...for the only thing I saw was one instance of aliasing. 

We'll just "agree to disagree." It doesn't happen very often with us, but when it does I'm glad we can discuss our differences in a civil manner (like we are). One of the things that drew me to this thread years ago was the option we had (and the encouragement we received) to actually discuss WHY we chose a certain placement, even though it meant debating with others of a different opinion.


----------



## djoberg

*X-Men: Apocalypse*

It's very late...I'm tired...so you get the really short version on this one!

In short, this was a MARVEL (Pun Intended), though it didn't start out that way. The opening scene starts out in ancient Egypt and it is bathed in ORANGE hues, but it quickly goes underground with a rather murky darkness that yielded little in the way of details or depth. But once the second scene opened up the "MARVEL" began (even though there was still plenty of color-grading to go around), with bold primaries (wait till you see the rich blue body and orange hair on Mystique), super-strong contrast (resulting in BRIGHT WHITES and DEEP-INKY BLACKS), mesmerizing details, accurate flesh tones, and razor-sharp clarity. 

In fairness I should say that there was plenty of CGI that created a bit of softness and noise at times, but I can be quite forgiving when the vast majority of the time we're treated to pure EYE CANDY. This one may be hard to call...I'm thinking either low Tier Blu or the top of Tier Gold. I'm feeling generous so I'm going for....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.75)*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Monday at 11:01 AM*

recommendation: *Tier 2.5**

New distributors to Blu-ray tend to hit some expected bumps in their authoring and encoding. K Street Pictures' _Monday at 11:01 AM_ is no exception. The independent production looks fairly decent in 1080P resolution with its excellent contrast and sharp clarity. This is their first release and a few issues prevent the video's likely Tier 1 quality from truly coming out.

Problems arise in the sub-par AVC video encode, introducing nagging artifacts that could have been eliminated with a second pass through the encoder. Exteriors shine with definition, showcasing fine depth and dimensionality. The video becomes rougher in darker scenes with less lighting.


----------



## djoberg

*Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon*

I was quite surprised to see that this title has never been reviewed (and thus it is not listed in the Rankings Thread). I do recall seeing this before, so for whatever reason I failed to review it (it's possible I saw it on a satellite broadcast and that's why I didn't write a review).

I loved the "natural-look" that this release offered. It had a lot of natural light and colors were natural (not MUTED or SATURATED). It also had a lot of film grain and this usually lends itself to a more natural look. I will say though, regarding the grain, that it became heavy at times and I could see some thinking it was "noise" and not grain. This look appeared in quite a few long distance and panoramic shots of deserts, mountains and forests, with the sky suffering the most.

Black levels were superb and nothing was lost in the shadows! This is good news because there were many night time scenes or interior scenes with either low light or no light at all. Contrast overall was excellent. Flesh tones were also "natural" and thus spot on accurate. The color palette was on the drab side, though there were a fair amount of bold primaries (especially "reds") that really stuck out against the earth tones surrounding them. Details were good to very good, not excellent (some were high tier 1, others fell into tier 2). Depth could be astounding at times, but generally speaking there was nothing to write home to Mama about in this department.

Before I place this, I watched the 4K version and it really didn't look that much better for most of its 120 minute running time. There were subtle differences though that would probably bring it up a notch in placement.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

People would be surprised how many popular movies, especially catalog titles from before the Blu-ray era, have not been covered yet for the PQ Tiers. We have 5000-some listings but there are still tens of thousands unranked films.

Which is why I encourage newcomers and oldtimers to throw their hat in the ring and chime in after seeing a disc. We don't expect a complete review for a recommendation to be included. A mere score is good enough to be included in the PQ Tiers.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Kickboxer: Vengeance*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

Scenic location photography in Thailand and stunning clarity stand out in this new release from RLJ Entertainment (formerly Image Entertainment). Like many other Tier 1 placements, this _Kickboxer_ reboot offers razor-sharp definition with outstanding detail. It receives a perfect digital transfer without technical problems.

Filmed with the RED camera, _Kickboxer: Vengeance_ definitely knocks on Tier Zero. In prior years I may have even placed it there.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Private Property*

recommendation: *Tier 3.75**

Director Leslie Stevens' _Private Property_ receives a new 4K restoration from lost film elements preserved by the UCLA Film and Television Archive. Niche distributor Cinelicious Pics gives the long-missing thriller a beautiful black-and-white presentation in nicely rendered 1080P video. The 1960 film's stunning cinematography by Ted McCord (_The Treasure Of The Sierra Madre_) includes gorgeous black levels and a crisp contrast. 

This is a film transfer that transparently captures _Private Property's_ soft grain structure and gritty texture in loving detail. The 80-minute main feature is shown in a flawless AVC encode on a BD-25. It preserves the movie's original 1.66:1 aspect ratio.

Encoded with top-notch parameters, every ounce of texture and fine detail found in the restored elements is completely replicated. There are no compression artifacts, even in the darker and messier scenes. This is an unprocessed, unfiltered transfer with excellent depth and definition. Utterly film-like and convincing in its raw grain, Private Property has never looked better.

Cinelicious has shown a commitment to high-quality transfers that exude perfectionism. _Private Property_ is another feather in their cap with a faithful presentation that epitomizes classic filmmaking from another era.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Quiet Man (Olive Signature edition)*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

A breathtaking 4K scan of the original camera negative turns out wonderfully in this new Signature edition from Olive Films. Director John Ford's romantic film receives an evenly saturated color grading that brings out the lush greens of its bucolic Irish setting. This is a nigh perfect film transfer that substantially improves on the prior Blu-ray edition's picture quality from Olive Films. There is better depth and a more faithful film texture, including tremendous new detail.

This is easily worth buying over again on Blu-ray for videophiles. No one knows when, or even if, Paramount Pictures will ever get around to issuing this film classic on UHD. Vintage catalog doesn't seem to be a priority for Paramount these days.


----------



## djoberg

*Finding Dory*

Pixar has done it again!! This is a drop-dead gorgeous animated marvel that is easily a contender for the Top Ten in Tier Blu. I didn't take the time to compare it with its predecessor (_Finding Nemo_ which is currently at #27) , but this is most definitely more detailed (some of the texture on fish, birds, coral, etc. is simply amazing), with more depth and brighter colors (my favorite is Carl, the octopus, whose vibrant red stands out above all others). It also has deeper blacks (and more scenes to show them off). 

This can't compete with something like _The Good Dinosaur_ in the photo-realism department, but there are some shots where objects look like they were taken out of a live-action film (a case in point would be the truck used for fish that were in quarantine).

My vote goes for...

*Tier Recommendation: **Tier 0* (#10, between Inside Out and The Croods)*

PS I enjoyed the movie! It is a worthy successor to _Finding Nemo_.

PPS I can't wait to show this to my grandchildren! I also have the 3D version and they'll probably beg to see that instead of the 2D copy.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I have to admit I was a little disappointed when I saw you hadn't ranked _Finding Dory_ closer to the very top.

I guess Pixar can't push the envelope on every movie. I'm not sure when I will get a chance to catch it.


----------



## djoberg

Perhaps others will put it closer, but IMHO it still didn't have enough texture on display in creatures underwater compared to the texture in characters and objects in the releases that are currently in the Top Five. There were also quite a few deep underground water scenes that lacked detail and even softened a bit. If not for those I probably would have nominated it for a spot in the Top Five.

Don't get me wrong, this was REFERENCE quality all the way, and being #10 is quite respectable. The scenes that really impressed were the "above water" shots in the harbor...the razor-sharp clarity and brilliant colors were insane!


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Goodfellas (25th anniversary restoration)*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

Scorsese's masterpiece has finally received the transfer it deserves. Scanned in 4k from the OCN, the presentation is beautiful and detailed. Clarity in fabrics, faces and building textures are shown in all their glory. Colors and flesh tones are well presented and black details are deep without being crushed. The movie is given it's own BD-50 so it has plenty of room to breath, no worries of compression artifacts or playback limitations.

Overall a very nice upgrade from the previous ranking of 4.0 for the original Blu-ray.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Initiation*

recommendation: *Tier 3.75**

Arrow Video's new film transfer from the camera negative reveal this slasher's soft, mildly diffuse cinematography. The 1984 movie offers decent contrast but its relatively flat depth limits its visual appeal. The presentation includes outstanding texture reproduction, down to the grain structure.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (75th anniversary restoration)*

recommendation: *Tier 2.5**

Spectacular restoration from Sony, the picture is sharp and detailed except for some of the transitions and the typical soft focus shots of the leading lady (Jean Arthur). Black levels and contrast are nicely presented, an overall nice looking film.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*The Hustler*

recommendation: *Tier 2.5**

Beautifully shot in 2.35:1, it won the Oscar for cinematography. Sharp transfer and nary a speck of dust or print damage, details really pop. The rich fabrics and gritty textures of New York really shine. Black levels and shadow detail are fine but I think the contrast was a little on the light side.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Wishing everyone a happy Thanksgiving tomorrow! 

We should all be thankful for the many excellent Blu-rays released in 2016, from classic catalog titles like _The Quiet Man_ to the latest blockbusters such as _Finding Dory_. The format is still hanging in there and delivering better picture quality than ever before.

Here's a fairly comprehensive spreadsheet of Blu-rays available for Black Friday shopping. It's not mine but the list makes for handy comparison between stores. UHD fans as well will find it addresses their needs.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...vhHRiAsu-gL_xvH8TXmjU/htmlview?sle=true#gid=0


----------



## Kool-aid23

Phantom Stranger said:


> Wishing everyone a happy Thanksgiving tomorrow!
> 
> We should all be thankful for the many excellent Blu-rays released in 2016, from classic catalog titles like _The Quiet Man_ to the latest blockbusters such as _Finding Dory_. The format is still hanging in there and delivering better picture quality than ever before.
> 
> Here's a fairly comprehensive spreadsheet of Blu-rays available for Black Friday shopping. It's not mine but the list makes for handy comparison between stores. UHD fans as well will find it addresses their needs.
> 
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...vhHRiAsu-gL_xvH8TXmjU/htmlview?sle=true#gid=0


A Happy Thanksgiving to you as well. Thanks for your continued commitment to this thread.


----------



## monomial

*Tomorrowland*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

I cannot understand the praise for this movie's PQ. Technically it seems flawless (though I did not pause or go frame-by-frame) but visually I can't imagine anyone being wowed by the art style, except in perhaps a wonderful 10 minute scene with some nice CGI.


Spoiler



The continuous shot of Tomorrowland near the beginning of the movie.


 Technically is far ahead of Avatar but the color palette in Avatar (especially the nature scenes) are much more interesting. I thought of Furious 7 while watching, keeping in mind that this film had a very high PQ rating here. Furious 7 is another live-action movie with a wonderful color palette and multiple demo-worthy scenes. Two scenes I can think of (minor spoilers):


Spoiler



A car crashing through a skyscraper against the Dubai sunset, and dropping cars out of a plane onto a snowy mountain area below


. Top of tier 1 makes sense for this movie: it's technically good but there are other live action and especially animated movies that have a less drab visual style.

*Fantastic Mr. Fox (Criterion Edition)*

recommendation: *Tier 0* / Tier 0.3** (directly above the Fox release of the same movie)

Delightful visuals with a warm palette for the nature and a cool palette for the human-made buildings. The fur is a stunner through the whole movie. The scene that most sticks out is:


Spoiler



towards the end, when Mrs. Fox talks to Mr. Fox against a shiny, reflective waterfall.


 The detail on


Spoiler



the smoke explosion near the Plan B at the end (some kind of cotton I think)


 was also amazing. The Criterion release has around double the bitrate of the Fox release (which I have not seen), which should make it as good as or better than the Fox release.



Phantom Stranger said:


> I have to admit I was a little disappointed when I saw you hadn't ranked _Finding Dory_ closer to the very top.
> 
> I guess Pixar can't push the envelope on every movie. I'm not sure when I will get a chance to catch it.


It was underwhelming in theaters. The Good Dinosaur was much better visually. Luckily, Disney's Moana should be demo worthy once it comes to home video. Especially if you like water at all.


----------



## djoberg

*Hell or high water*

Okay, it must be said from the outset...this is NOT a contender for Tier 0. Having said that, it's CLOSE!

Aside from some "orange/yellow" color-grading at times, I simply loved the "natural-look" of this release. it features a lot of daytime scenes with sunny weather and whether we're looking at panoramic views of Texan vistas, close-ups of actors, or anything in-between, we are treated to excellent details and a very good depth of field. Add to this some excellent black levels and shadow details and you know you've got to make room for this on your demo shelf.

My votes goes for....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25**

PS I could see others dropping it a notch to 1.5...I wouldn't argue with them...but any lower and you'd have yourself a debate!


----------



## djoberg

*Mechanic: Resurrection*

Yet another "Jason Statham" movie with STUNNING PQ!!!

This was perhaps his best outing "PQ-wise," thanks to his globe-trotting to exotic beaches in Thailand, Malaysia and Australia (and a very short scene in Cambodia at the very end). These all featured superb, razor-sharp clarity with tons of details, excellent depth, and vibrant colors. I also love a good beach scene that includes stellar blue skies/waters along with lush green palm trees and these were also on display in all their glory. Statham and Jessica Alba were both sporting a new tan and skin textures and tones were exemplary. Night time scenes in these locations were also eye candy...blacks were deep and nothing was lost in the shadows!

Once the scene shifted to Bulgaria the highlights mentioned above were diminished considerably, but clarity and details were still satisfactory. Thankfully this was short-lived.

The only anomaly I noticed was early on; there was an explosion and I saw obvious banding in the sky overhead. I guess I should mention some fleeting softness that occurred a couple of time, but this was so minimal that it doesn't justify penalization.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.75)*


----------



## CCsoftball7

The Secret Life of Pets will be a top tier release to review as well. The UHD is simply amazing. The movie was more than watchable. I actually laughed out loud in several spots. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

*Our Kind of Traitor*

Mixed bag, anyone? That about sums it up, for one minute you had striking clarity teeming with details, vibrant colors and accurate flesh tones, and the next minute softness reared its ugly head resulting in a lack of details and depth. And of course, there's also the "color-grading" factor...the first half featured egregious "orange" and the latter half some not-so-egregious "teal." The orange hues really wreaked havoc on flesh tones!

Black levels were very good most of the time, but even there you had some inconsistency where murkiness intruded along with what looked like either "noise" or "heavy grain." When blacks were good though we're treated to excellent shadow details. My favorite PLUS throughout was the superb FACIAL CLOSE-UPS, where every fine nuance in texture was seen, even on the female actors. I should also mention that some of the daytime, outdoor shots were spectacular, especially the scenes at the "safe house in the Swiss Alps."

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0**

PS I "almost" went with 1.75, for the scenes that highlighted the virtues listed above bordered on reference quality.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Houdini (1953)*

recommendation: *Tier 3.75**

Olive Films issues the 1953 Technicolor production with an adequate, mildly dated film transfer. Some natural aging is evident in the elements, leaving an exaggerated magenta push to its color saturation. The 1080P video receives a fine AVC encode that handles the light grain structure without difficulty.

Texture and detail are less than ideal, revealing an older scan of the elements. This presentation is quite serviceable and offers nice enough clarity, but a new 4K restoration could bring this Technicolor film to life with better sharpness and stronger color fidelity.


----------



## djoberg

*Don't Breathe*

I had just spent 20 minutes writing out a review and I "accidentally" deleted it! So, I'm too frustrated to attempt a carbon-copy, thus I'm giving you the extreme "short version."

The first 14 minutes took place in either bright sunlight or indoors with very good lighting. The PQ had excellent clarity with bold colors, eye-pleasing details, appreciable depth, and accurate flesh tones.

The next hour took place inside "the house" with either "very dark scenes" or "low-lit shots." Blacks were vital here and for the most part they didn't disappoint. In fairness though there were some "graying of the letter-boxed bars" at times that were bad enough to take me out of the movie. There were also a couple instances of "noise," but no other artifacts. Shadow details were exemplary, so don't be "afraid" that you'll miss any of the "scary details."

The last act took place outside and it was even better than the first 14 minutes, with razor-sharp clarity and eye-popping details & colors.

This one may not quite reach your "reference quality shelf," but I'd easily assign it to my "demo shelf."

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.25**

PS This one held my attention all the way through!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Phantom Stranger said:


> *Hannie Caulder
> 
> recommendation: Tier 2.25**
> 
> Aside from a touch of sharpening this is a beautiful film transfer from high-quality elements, including possibly the camera negative. Olive Films has graced it with a competent AVC video encode, though hints of compression noise peek through the clouds during the opening act. There is a drop in clarity for the optical F/X, though the short film doesn't contain more a handful of them.
> 
> _Hannie Caulder's_ widescreen cinematography turns out great in 1080p with a number of gorgeous panoramic shots. The film print is almost entirely free of debris and wear while retaining a pleasing level of grain structure. The color palette possesses a nice level of saturation and has a very crisp contrast for 1971 film stock. This Blu-ray definitely delivers an authentic film experience begging to be seen on a large projection screen. A real nice job by Olive Films on this overlooked Western starring Raquel Welch.


With the recent release of Olive Films' Signature edition, I am modifying my original placement for the first BD covered nearly three years ago.

*Hannie Caulder (Olive Signature edition)*

recommendation: *Tier 2.25**

*Hannie Caulder*

recommendation: *Tier 3.0*

The new Signature edition demonstrates completely improved compression fidelity, more faithfully rendering texture and detail from the Panavision film. Some tweaks to the color grading have mildly improved its contrast and black levels. This film transfer has better definition, offering sharper 1080P video. 

I found the original version perfectly adequate and would have been happy with it. The Signature edition's newer transfer subtly improves the picture quality in several areas. The only thing left for _Hannie Caulder_ is a new 4K restoration. I am not holding my breath waiting on it.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*American Guinea Pig: Bloodshock*

recommendation: *Tier 5**

This release from Unearthed Films and MVD Visual is mostly in digitally shot, black-and-white video. There are clear limitations in the source material. While it's true high-definition, this is gritty and rough footage meant to be taken as disturbing.

Bloodshock is the antithesis of eye candy and hence deserves our lowest tier possible.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Shannara Chronicles: Season One*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

It's amazing a show from MTV has made it out on Blu-ray, but its strong production values are unusual for cable. Shot in scenic New Zealand, the fantasy adventure series has been made with eye candy in mind. This is Hi-Def video with excellent definition and depth, especially in the wider exteriors.

The production design is heavily influenced by Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy, closely following its color palette. The digital grading isn't obnoxious in this case. This is a nice presentation of quality video, shot in nigh pristine clarity.


----------



## djoberg

*Jason Bourne*

Okay, I just watched the 4K and 1080P versions "back to back" and this is another example of the difference a 4K UHD/HDR Blu-ray can make. Don't get me wrong, the 1080P version was "good-looking," with very good details (especially in facial textures), appreciable depth, and satisfying blacks/shadow details. But the High Dynamic Range took the details, colors and contrast up to another level, with amazing blacks and sparkling whites. There were numerous night time scenes or interior shots with low-lighting and with HDR I could see every little detail against a pitch-black background.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**

PS The 4K gets a 1.0!!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Re-Kan!: Complete Collection*

recommendation: *Tier 3.25**

A fairly recent anime release from Sentai Filmworks with bland animation. The relatively flat color palette looks somewhat washed out. The animation looks like it was made on the cheap with limited key frames.

This series definitely doesn't impress in the eye candy department. The entire set is spread over two discs.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Lady Snowblood* (Criterion)

recommendation: *Tier 2.75**

The inspiration for Tarantino's Kill Bill films, this is the ultimate story of revenge. Except for a few soft shots it has good clarity throughout, nice details in environmental textures and fabrics. Lots of blood and it really pops against the pure white of the snow in many scenes, other colors shine as well. The transfer is nice except for stray gate debris in one shot and it's odd that Criterion didn't digitally remove it.

Review of the sequel, Love Song of Vengeance, coming soon...


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Lady Snowblood: Love Song of Vengeance* (Criterion)

recommendation: *Tier 2.75**

Not as good story wise as the original but just as visually stunning. Colors are really vibrant, especially in the opening forest scenes and when Lady Snowblood is in the Chief of the Secret Police's lair. Black levels and contrast are also strong along with details and clarity. Both of the Lady Snowblood films from Criterion are a major upgrade from the Arrow versions.


----------



## djoberg

DarthDoxie said:


> *Lady Snowblood* (Criterion)
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 2.75**
> 
> The inspiration for Tarantino's Kill Bill films, this is the ultimate story of revenge. Except for a few soft shots it has *good clarity throughout, nice details in environmental textures and fabrics.* Lots of blood and *it really pops *against the pure white of the snow in many scenes, other *colors shine as well.* The transfer is nice except for stray gate debris in one shot and it's odd that Criterion didn't digitally remove it.
> 
> Review of the sequel, Love Song of Vengeance, coming soon...





DarthDoxie said:


> *Lady Snowblood: Love Song of Vengeance* (Criterion)
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 2.75**
> 
> Not as good story wise as the original but *just as visually stunning. Colors are really vibrant*, especially in the opening forest scenes and when Lady Snowblood is in the Chief of the Secret Police's lair.* Black levels and contrast are also strong along with details and clarity.* Both of the Lady Snowblood films from Criterion are a major upgrade from the Arrow versions.


First of all, thanks for the two reviews!

Okay, I've got a simple question for you. Based on the words in BOLD above, these both sound like "visually stunning" (to use your words) releases. You do mention a "few soft shots" and the "stray gate debris" in the first, but other than those two censures, these sound like "demo material" to me. So, why are you ranking them so low? 2.75 isn't even close to the two demo tiers, so I'm puzzled. What say you? 

I should add that Criterion is known for their excellent Remasters, so I'm really baffled by your tier recommendation.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Denny, those are Japanese films from the early 1970s. While I haven't seen those Criterions in question, I suspect DarthDoxie is qualifying his rankings for their age.


----------



## DarthDoxie

djoberg said:


> First of all, thanks for the two reviews!
> 
> Okay, I've got a simple question for you. Based on the words in BOLD above, these both sound like "visually stunning" (to use your words) releases. You do mention a "few soft shots" and the "stray gate debris" in the first, but other than those two censures, these sound like "demo material" to me. So, why are you ranking them so low? 2.75 isn't even close to the two demo tiers, so I'm puzzled. What say you?
> 
> I should add that Criterion is known for their excellent Remasters, so I'm really baffled by your tier recommendation.


Purely semantics I suppose but I always rank against the tier descriptions as set forth in the tiers thread. I could nit-pic the film to come up with other examples for my placement but I'm confident in my recommendation and like to keep things short. These aren't demo material and I think 2.75 is still respectable for any film, very enjoyable to watch from a PQ perspective.

Criterion does do an amazing job but sometimes the source material is greatly deteriorated and even they can only polish a turd so much. Browse the tiers and you'll find plenty of Criterion releases in the bronze tiers.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> Denny, those are Japanese films from the early 1970s. While I haven't seen those Criterions in question, I suspect DarthDoxie is qualifying his rankings for their age.


I suspected as much Phantom, but when I read his "glowing words of praise" for the PQ, I thought it would have deserved better than a 2.75.



DarthDoxie said:


> Purely semantics I suppose but I always rank against the tier descriptions as set forth in the tiers thread. I could nit-pic the film to come up with other examples for my placement but I'm confident in my recommendation and like to keep things short. These aren't demo material and I think 2.75 is still respectable for any film, very enjoyable to watch from a PQ perspective.
> 
> Criterion does do an amazing job but sometimes the source material is greatly deteriorated and even they can only polish a turd so much. Browse the tiers and you'll find plenty of Criterion releases in the bronze tiers.


I have always respected your honest reviews DarthDoxie, so I trust you won't think I'm calling into question your integrity. Yes, 2.75 is still "respectable for any film," especially for catalog titles like those you reviews. Again, it was your "superlatives" in your review (in contrast to your "negatives") that threw me off.


----------



## DarthDoxie

djoberg said:


> I suspected as much Phantom, but when I read his "glowing words of praise" for the PQ, I thought it would have deserved better than a 2.75.
> 
> 
> 
> I have always respected your honest reviews DarthDoxie, so I trust you won't think I'm calling into question your integrity. Yes, 2.75 is still "respectable for any film," especially for catalog titles like those you reviews. Again, it was your "superlatives" in your review (in contrast to your "negatives") that threw me off.


No worries, civil discussion is always a good thing. December is my slow time in other areas of my life and I have a lot of Criterion and other catalogue titles to catch up on.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Don't think I've forgotten about updating the PQ Tiers master list. It's been a few months but the master PQ Tiers page should be finalized before 2017 comes around.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*My Darling Clementine* (Criterion)

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

Nice presentation all around from Criterion with good black levels and shadow detail. Clarity and a fine film grain are also pleasing to the eye.

Extras are sometimes lacking in Criterion releases but not this one, it's loaded with both old and new extra features.


----------



## SnellTHX

*Black Sails* 

recommendation: *Tier 0*(.25)*



Absolutely amazing picture quality in this TV series. The amount of details in the faces of characters Flint, Charles Vaine Et. Al is outstanding. Every grain, pore, drop of sweat, black head, beard stubble.. Its all there and its razor sharp. Arguably the best of any TV series. Great dynamic range, the bright sunlit scenes of the beaches of Nassau produce great detail and vividness, and we are often greeted with inky black backgrounds (Looks very good on my 9G Kuro!  ) with characters almost popping out of the screen.


----------



## SnellTHX

X-men: Tier 1.25


----------



## Phantom Stranger

SnellTHX said:


> *X-men: Apocolypse*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 1.25**
> 
> Finally got to see this movie, and on BD. Can't say I was super impressed with the picture quality (I had really high hopes though.) but it was an absolutely fantastic experience, great CGI effect and best of all was the sound. PQ, while excellent just wasn't as good as other super hero movies of reference quality.


Welcome to the PQ Tiers, SnellTHX!

I've been meaning to catch this X-Men sequel since it came out. Thanks for the review.


----------



## SnellTHX

Thanks my friend  


Love this thread! Really interesting concept of ranking movies. I have long searched for such a list, now I know exactly which movies I need to rent/buy. Got enough movies to last me for the next 10 years if I watch 1 movie every Saturday haha.


But I certainly disagree with the list on several points. The Dark Knight series in Gold???? Really? the IMAX 1.85:1 scenes of TDK and TDK:R are, on a PQ scale of 1-10; easily an 11. 45 mins of IMAX on TDK and 60 mins in TDK:R if I remember correctly... And thats close to an hour of the best picture quality in the world. 


the 2.35:1 35mm standard scenes look much duller by comparison, but still both should be high up there on the reference list.


My personal top 20 best looking BDs: 

1. Life of Pi
2. Interstellar
3. Avatar
4. The Dark Knight Rises
5. Mad Max: Fury Road
6. The Avengers I 
7. The Dark Knight
8. Oblivion
9. Tomorrowland
10. Transformers: Age of Extinction 
11. Big Hero 6
12. Finding Dory
13. Zootopia
14. Gravity
15. Black Sails
16. The Hobbit: War of the five armies
17. Marco Polo
18. Skyfall
19. Megamind
20. Ant-Man
21. Avengers: Age of Ultron
22. Wall-E
23. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
24. Batman Vs Superman
25. The Revenant 


2017 will definitely bring a few new entries into that list.. I think the Life of Pi from 2012 will finally be dethroned by Nolan's new upcoming war film Dunkirk... I can only imagine those Normandy beach scenes in IMAX 15/70mm  If not we'll probably have to wait for Avatar 2....


Then there's Transformers: The Last Knight, which will most likely occupy a top 10 spot 


Edit:

If there's anything this thread has taught me, its that I need to catch on Disney/Pixar movies!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

_The Dark Knight_ was the subject of heated debate in this thread when it was first released. There were some technical issues in WB's film transfer that many thought prevented a higher placement. But many felt like yourself on the movie, so you aren't alone.

Rankings in the PQ Tiers are always subject to new input from users like yourself. The list isn't set in stone, some placements have changed over the years. It's been running continuously since 2007, so our conception of pure picture quality on Blu-ray has changed with the times.

Your list has many strong contenders on it. I would largely agree that all those discs have superlative video.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*M* (Criterion)

recommendation: *Tier 4.0**

Limited by the condition of the source material, Criterion did a stellar job with the restoration. The restoration extra on the disc showed how the surviving elements were in atrocious condition. Clarity and focus are fairly even throughout and contrast is acceptable as well, not washed out or crushed. The major issue is faint vertical scratches virtually through out the transfer. They are very faint but didn't take me out of the film, just added to the atmosphere of the look. Additionally, a fine layer of grain is present.

PS. This is a masterpiece of early sound films and certainly of German cinema from Fritz Lang.


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> *X-men: Apocolypse*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 1.25**
> 
> 
> 
> Finally got to see this movie, and on BD. Can't say I was super impressed with the picture quality (I had really high hopes though.) but it was an absolutely fantastic experience, great CGI effect and best of all was the sound. PQ, while excellent just wasn't as good as other super hero movies of reference quality.


Welcome to the thread!

You and I weren't far off on this one, for in my review I stated that I was leaning towards the top of Tier Gold but felt generous that night and gave it a .75 spot in Tier Blu.

I see you have a 9G Kuro....that's what I had for seven years (the KURO Elite PRO-151) until I craved a bigger screen so I went with the Sony 940D which more than meets the expectations that I had.

I went over your list and they are all excellent titles for PQ. But you're missing one of the best animated marvels out there; I'm speaking of _The Good Dinosaur_. You just have to see this and once you do you'll be adding it to your list. It has some of the best "photo-realism" ever...even better than _Wall-E_.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Led Zeppelin: The Song Remains the Same*

recommendation: *Tier 4.5**

Uneven presentation throughout. According to background information, not enough usable footage of the band's Madison Square Garden 1973 appearance was filmed so in order to stretch the length to make it a feature, fantasy sequences were shot and inserted. The fantasy sequences star each band member and also one of the manager and were supposed to reflect that band member's personality. Most of these sequences have sub par PQ with washed out colors, contrast and and overall poor transfer. The best one PQ wise I think is of John Bonham which shows him with some of his hot rods and futzing around on his farm. Also interspersed throughout is backstage footage and a sequence of the band arriving at the airport; this footage looks like it was shot on 8mm and does not scale up to HD quality at all.

In contrast, the footage of the actual concert that was deemed usable isn't bad (isn't good either). Some shots show clarity and detail such as hair, clothing and beads of sweat. Color is fairly good but hard to judge sometimes with the colored lights of a typical concert production. The best footage for clarity and color is that of Jimmy Page, maybe one of the better cameramen was assigned to him.

Some of the concert footage rises into the 3.0 range but overall it's dragged down by all the filler material.

PS. Sound quality is excellent, you really feel like you are at the concert. The best song presentation is Stairway to Heaven and fortunately the concert footage is presented in it's entirety, no fantasy splicing here.


----------



## SnellTHX

Phantom Stranger said:


> _The Dark Knight_ was the subject of heated debate in this thread when it was first released. There were some technical issues in WB's film transfer that many thought prevented a higher placement. But many felt like yourself on the movie, so you aren't alone.
> 
> Rankings in the PQ Tiers are always subject to new input from users like yourself. The list isn't set in stone, some placements have changed over the years. It's been running continuously since 2007, so our conception of pure picture quality on Blu-ray has changed with the times.
> 
> Your list has many strong contenders on it. I would largely agree that all those discs have superlative video.


Well The Dark Knight happens to be my favourite film of all time (I've been a fan of batman since I was two years old) so a very touchy subject for me, to not have it in the reference list!  

Then again, I guess under the guidelines / definitions of the rankings I can fully understand why they didn't make the cut. Neither The Dark Knight nor Dark Knight Rises were reference quality from start to finish. the 35mm 2.35:1 scenes are very average by blockbuster superhero movie standards. but here's the thing. whenever I have friends over to show them just how good my little "studio theatre" is I also put in TDK and show the opening (IMAX 15/70mm 1.78:1) bank robbery and the bat mobile/bike chase. Then I show off the opening of TDK:R, with the IMAX footage of the plane heist. Those scenes demonstrate PQ glories more than any other disk in my opinion, even if other movies have better overall / sum picture quality, its those IMAX scenes from TDK/R that get shown in a ≈ 20-30 minute demonstration 

But other than not having TDK/TDK:R and Avengers 1 in the reference list (I thought it was absolutely reference) Avengers 2: Age of Ultron however was slightly disappointing in picture quality IMO and was inferior to its prequel (Gold/Tier 1) This PQ list is pretty much spot-on. 

Glad to here you liked my list


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> Welcome to the thread!
> 
> You and I weren't far off on this one, for in my review I stated that I was leaning towards the top of Tier Gold but felt generous that night and gave it a .75 spot in Tier Blu.
> 
> I see you have a 9G Kuro....that's what I had for seven years (the KURO Elite PRO-151) until I craved a bigger screen so I went with the Sony 940D which more than meets the expectations that I had.
> 
> I went over your list and they are all excellent titles for PQ. But you're missing one of the best animated marvels out there; I'm speaking of _The Good Dinosaur_. You just have to see this and once you do you'll be adding it to your list. It has some of the best "photo-realism" ever...even better than _Wall-E_.



Thanks mate! We seemed to have similar opinion here. The PQ was fantastic, but lacked any wow factor to give it that reference edge IMO. I actually rewatched some scenes after reading your view.. Maybe I was a little harsh and could move it up to a pure 1. But Gold sounds right for me... Maybe it could have been reference a few years ago but nowadays there's so many reference disks to look at. 


As an former owner of a 9G Kuro... What are you thoughts on its PQ compared to that of a 2016 LED TV with FALD, like for instance your 940D? Obviously 75" is much bigger than 50/60", better design, thinner, Smart TV etc, but for pure image quality which did you prefer? The Kuro measures much deeper blacks levels, higher ANSI contrast, superior motion resolution etc. but hard to compare vs HDR, WCG, FALD etc. 

As for the Good Dinosaur, I saw it topped the list here, so it must be amazing. I'll definitely get this Blu-ray! 

If you've seen Life of Pi / Avatar, do you consider The Good Dinosaur to be superior PQ wise?


----------



## SnellTHX

Figure I'd throw two reviews into one post as they relate:

*Spectre* 

recommendation: *Tier 1.75**



Just recently watched this BD and I realised it hasn't yet made it to this list. I'd like to see it placed in the Gold category, but boy was I disappointed. Not only because Skyfall was one of my favourite films and this was a mere 7/10 but the PQ seems to be a downgrade too. I watched it in the best cinema in the country and remember thinking its PQ was barely above blockbuster average. I thought it was the poor contrast of the DCI projector, perhaps I was sitting to close that time. (I reserve my seats anywhere from row 3 to row 7 out of 22 rows). Who knows... as huge James Bond fan I still bought it on BD and while picture still being excellent, it just wasn't as good as Skyfall, which I cannot understand. How can a 2015 movie look worse than a 2012 movie? I thought technology moved forward... not backwards. The intro looked stunning and the best visual effect for me was the explosion in the desert. Anyways, overall its low tier 1 for me 


*Skyfall* 

recommendation: *Tier 0**



SKYFALL - reference quality disk from start to finish. I remember I watched this in my local cinema back in the day. It was this moment I realised my small town cinema had upgraded its old 35mm projector to a brand spanking new Sony 4K projector (I even asked the cinema owner after to confirm my suspicion of the upgrade). the image presented on the 4K screen four years ago blew my mind away, it was ridiculously crisp and so sharp I felt the image was cutting my eyes. 

Needless to say, I bought it on BD not long after and have seen the movie several time since... the 1080p BD on my 50" Kuro KRP 500 1080p plasma is every bit and sharp, crisp and detailed as I remember! True reference that I hoped Spectre would have surpassed 


Anyone here seen Spectre and Skyfall and agree/disagree?


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> Thanks mate! We seemed to have similar opinion here. The PQ was fantastic, but lacked any wow factor to give it that reference edge IMO. I actually rewatched some scenes after reading your view.. Maybe I was a little harsh and could move it up to a pure 1. But Gold sounds right for me... Maybe it could have been reference a few years ago but nowadays there's so many reference disks to look at.
> 
> 
> As an former owner of a 9G Kuro... What are you thoughts on its PQ compared to that of a 2016 LED TV with FALD, like for instance your 940D? Obviously 75" is much bigger than 50/60", better design, thinner, Smart TV etc, but for pure image quality which did you prefer? The Kuro measures much deeper blacks levels, higher ANSI contrast, superior motion resolution etc. but hard to compare vs HDR, WCG, FALD etc.
> 
> As for the Good Dinosaur, I saw it topped the list here, so it must be amazing. I'll definitely get this Blu-ray!
> 
> If you've seen Life of Pi / Avatar, do you consider The Good Dinosaur to be superior PQ wise?


I was pleasantly surprised to find the PQ on the 940D to be BETTER, in almost every way, than the PQ on my KURO (with the exception of satellite broadcasts that don't offer stellar PQ; they will always look better on the Kuro with its native 1080p signal). It is much BRIGHTER, with punchier COLORS, and its BLACKS are equal to the KURO in some respects and better in others. I think I would question your statement that "the Kuro measures much deeper black levels and higher ANSI contrast" (though you are right about the Kuro having "superior motion resolution"). From reviews that I have read the blacks measured on the 940D are as good or better than the Kuro and the contrast was higher. And from what I've experienced I believe it! On my Kuro the black bars would often turn a very "dark gray" in really dark scenes (such as scenes in the _Harry Potter Franchise_). But on the 940D they remain "pitch black" in those same scenes. Also, when one scene cuts out (before anothe scene begins) my 940D turns completely black (the LEDs SHUT OFF), but with the Kuro it was never completely black. Don't get me wrong, the blacks on the Kuro were sensational, but they have been bested by later plasmas by Panasonic (the ZT series), LG's OLED displays, and several high-end LED displays, including Sony's 940D and its new Flagship, the Z9D. I believe last year's Sony Flagship, the 940C, also bested the Kuro in black levels.

Regarding contrast, the Kuro doesn't hold a candle in the "BRIGHTNESS arena." Whites are simply dazzling, especially when viewing UHD/HDR material. But even on 1080p material the 940D is better, due to it fantastic processor that upconverts the 1080p signal to its native 4k resolution.

As far as a comparison between _Life of Pi/Avatar_ with _The Good Dinosaur_, it's hard to compare "live action" movies with "animated" films. But the thing about animation is: you don't have the anomalies that are inherent in many live action movies so you're really not comparing "apples with apples."


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> Figure I'd throw two reviews into one post as they relate:
> 
> *Spectre*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 1.75**
> 
> 
> 
> Just recently watched this BD and I realised it hasn't yet made it to this list. I'd like to see it placed in the Gold category, but boy was I disappointed. Not only because Skyfall was one of my favourite films and this was a mere 7/10 but the PQ seems to be a downgrade too. I watched it in the best cinema in the country and remember thinking its PQ was barely above blockbuster average. I thought it was the poor contrast of the DCI projector, perhaps I was sitting to close that time. (I reserve my seats anywhere from row 3 to row 7 out of 22 rows). Who knows... as huge James Bond fan I still bought it on BD and while picture still being excellent, it just wasn't as good as Skyfall, which I cannot understand. How can a 2015 movie look worse than a 2012 movie? I thought technology moved forward... not backwards. The intro looked stunning and the best visual effect for me was the explosion in the desert. Anyways, overall its low tier 1 for me
> 
> 
> *Skyfall*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 0**
> 
> 
> 
> SKYFALL - reference quality disk from start to finish. I remember I watched this in my local cinema back in the day. It was this moment I realised my small town cinema had upgraded its old 35mm projector to a brand spanking new Sony 4K projector (I even asked the cinema owner after to confirm my suspicion of the upgrade). the image presented on the 4K screen four years ago blew my mind away, it was ridiculously crisp and so sharp I felt the image was cutting my eyes.
> 
> Needless to say, I bought it on BD not long after and have seen the movie several time since... the 1080p BD on my 50" Kuro KRP 500 1080p plasma is every bit and sharp, crisp and detailed as I remember! True reference that I hoped Spectre would have surpassed
> 
> 
> Anyone here seen Spectre and Skyfall and agree/disagree?


Well, you and I were are close regarding _Skyfall_, but we are 3/4 of a tier apart on _Spectre_. Here is what I said in my review on _Spectre_:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-769.html#post41482161

In fairness to you, another member who posts here at times agreed with you and said that he was disappointed in its PQ.


----------



## DarthDoxie

SnellTHX said:


> Figure I'd throw two reviews into one post as they relate:
> 
> *Spectre*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 1.75**
> 
> 
> 
> Just recently watched this BD and I realised it hasn't yet made it to this list. I'd like to see it placed in the Gold category, but boy was I disappointed. Not only because Skyfall was one of my favourite films and this was a mere 7/10 but the PQ seems to be a downgrade too. I watched it in the best cinema in the country and remember thinking its PQ was barely above blockbuster average. I thought it was the poor contrast of the DCI projector, perhaps I was sitting to close that time. (I reserve my seats anywhere from row 3 to row 7 out of 22 rows). Who knows... as huge James Bond fan I still bought it on BD and while picture still being excellent, it just wasn't as good as Skyfall, which I cannot understand. How can a 2015 movie look worse than a 2012 movie? I thought technology moved forward... not backwards. The intro looked stunning and the best visual effect for me was the explosion in the desert. Anyways, overall its low tier 1 for me
> 
> 
> *Skyfall*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 0**
> 
> 
> 
> SKYFALL - reference quality disk from start to finish. I remember I watched this in my local cinema back in the day. It was this moment I realised my small town cinema had upgraded its old 35mm projector to a brand spanking new Sony 4K projector (I even asked the cinema owner after to confirm my suspicion of the upgrade). the image presented on the 4K screen four years ago blew my mind away, it was ridiculously crisp and so sharp I felt the image was cutting my eyes.
> 
> Needless to say, I bought it on BD not long after and have seen the movie several time since... the 1080p BD on my 50" Kuro KRP 500 1080p plasma is every bit and sharp, crisp and detailed as I remember! True reference that I hoped Spectre would have surpassed
> 
> 
> Anyone here seen Spectre and Skyfall and agree/disagree?


Welcome to the thread! Spectre is already in Tier 1.5 but I haven't seen it on BD. Wasn't impressed with the movie in theater so I'm waiting for it to be dirt cheap before I purchase. Skyfall is great though and well deserving in Tier 0.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

SnellTHX said:


> Well The Dark Knight happens to be my favourite film of all time (I've been a fan of batman since I was two years old) so a very touchy subject for me, to not have it in the reference list!
> 
> Then again, I guess under the guidelines / definitions of the rankings I can fully understand why they didn't make the cut. Neither The Dark Knight nor Dark Knight Rises were reference quality from start to finish. the 35mm 2.35:1 scenes are very average by blockbuster superhero movie standards. but here's the thing. whenever I have friends over to show them just how good my little "studio theatre" is I also put in TDK and show the opening (IMAX 15/70mm 1.78:1) bank robbery and the bat mobile/bike chase. Then I show off the opening of TDK:R, with the IMAX footage of the plane heist. Those scenes demonstrate PQ glories more than any other disk in my opinion, even if other movies have better overall / sum picture quality, its those IMAX scenes from TDK/R that get shown in a ≈ 20-30 minute demonstration
> 
> But other than not having TDK/TDK:R and Avengers 1 in the reference list (I thought it was absolutely reference) Avengers 2: Age of Ultron however was slightly disappointing in picture quality IMO and was inferior to its prequel (Gold/Tier 1) This PQ list is pretty much spot-on.
> 
> Glad to here you liked my list


Those IMAX scenes are amazing and great demo material. You should check out _Black Sails: Season One_ on Blu-ray if you haven't seen it. It's one of the most unheralded spectacles in eye candy on the format. An unsung gem that doesn't see much discussion for its nearly unrivaled definition and pop.

Soundbreaking: Stories From the Cutting Edge of Recorded Music

recommendation: *Tier 3.0**

A brilliant documentary loaded with some of the biggest hits from the past six decades, there is simply too much archival video footage included to earn a score much higher than Tier 3. From grainy black-and-white footage of luminaries such as Les Paul and Elvis Presley to modern recording sessions with Adele, a wide swath of music history is covered.

My biggest quibble with the series is that all footage is zoomed to a 1.78:1 aspect ratio, aside from splitscreen montages. That works out perfectly for the newly recorded, talking head interviews in pristine clarity, not so well for the older, unrestored vintage video.

This Tier 2.75 score reflects an average of the two differing levels of picture quality interspersed throughout the documentary. The archival footage is Tier 4 and below, while the new interviews easily land in Tier 1.


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> Well, you and I were are close regarding _Skyfall_, but we are 3/4 of a tier apart on _Spectre_. Here is what I said in my review on _Spectre_:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-769.html#post41482161
> 
> In fairness to you, another member who posts here at times agreed with you and said that he was disappointed in its PQ.


Interesting review on Spectre.. As for the Kuro vs 940D debate... I haven't been able to view a top end 2015/2016 LED in a proper dark environment and I know I can't judge a display based on how good it looks in a bright store on torch mode. 

But I'm always updated on technical analysis, and looking at Rtings.com, the best LEDs they've tested only reach contrast ratios of 7000:1 :

http://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/picture-quality/contrast-ratio

the deepest blacks they measured with the Samsung KS8000 and that was 0.014 nits. Which is good, but my KRP 500-A measures 0.003 nits which is five times lower giving a contrast that is roughly five times higher at 38,000:1

I've even adjusted the voltages using RS232 to remove red tint and give me OLED blacks so my black levels are probably in around 0.001 nits which would give me a contrast ratio of 100,000:1 which is 15 times higher than the number one spot on ratings!

the Sony ZD9 according to HDTVTest has pretty average blacks of 0.029 nits, which is 10 times higher than a stock Kuro, and probably 30 times higher than a modified Kuro like mine. 

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/kd65zd9-201610164372.htm


But then there's the question of FALD, obviously Local dimming turns full black screens completely off giving an OLED-esque infinite contrast, but how much does FALD help with ANSI contrast? clearly the 0.029 nit figure cannot represent the FALD ANSI contrast performance if it is that much worse than a Kuro? There's just no way I can imagine any serious videophile being satisfied if the blacks are genuinely perceived as .03 nits


Like I said, I haven't been able to view the Dx900/KS9500/ZD9 in a dark room so I don't know. but looking at them in the stores often leaves my jaw dropped, and wondering how people can prefer the Kuro over them (perhaps its the 4K source material advantage they have  ) but then I read reviews and statistical information alongside certain opinions on the internet tell me I'm much better off keeping my Kuro.


Sorry for the off-topic debate, I've kinda been looking for some one who moved from 9G Kuro to FALD flagship LED as I might to do the same (will probably go OLED though)


----------



## SnellTHX

DarthDoxie said:


> Welcome to the thread! Spectre is already in Tier 1.5 but I haven't seen it on BD. Wasn't impressed with the movie in theater so I'm waiting for it to be dirt cheap before I purchase. Skyfall is great though and well deserving in Tier 0.


Thanks! I guess I missed it. but 1.5-1.75 tier range sounds about right. Nothing impressive in the theatre and the BD isn't magically any better. I only bought it because I'm a huge fan of 007 so I'll buy every disk regardless of quality. Definitely not a must-have.


----------



## DarthDoxie

SnellTHX said:


> Thanks! I guess I missed it. but 1.5-1.75 tier range sounds about right. Nothing impressive in the theatre and the BD isn't magically any better. I only bought it because I'm a huge fan of 007 so I'll buy every disk regardless of quality. Definitely not a must-have.


Story wise I didn't like Spectre... I reviewed all the Sean Connery 007s a few years back because they were never reviewed so my score is the only one on record for many of them, would love to see your rankings if you have time to revisit them.


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> But I'm always updated on technical analysis, and looking at Rtings.com, the best LEDs they've tested only reach contrast ratios of 7000:1 :
> 
> the deepest blacks they measured with the Samsung KS8000 and that was 0.014 nits. Which is good, but my KRP 500-A measures 0.003 nits which is five times lower giving a contrast that is roughly five times higher at 38,000:1
> 
> Sorry for the off-topic debate, I've kinda been looking for some one who moved from 9G Kuro to FALD flagship LED as I might to do the same (will probably go OLED though)


This will be my last response on this subject, for it is indeed "off-topic." I've read conflicting Test Bench results from different reviewers. When doing a full-on/full off Contrast Ratio test on the Sony xbr-65x930d, which is an EDGE-LIT display, _Sound & Vision_ reviewer Thomas Norton had a black screen with a white dot in the middle and the meter readings toggled between 0.001 and 0.002 ft.L, which gave it a full-on/full off contrast ratio of 23,267:1. Again, that is an edge-lit model; a FALD display will do BETTER. There are other factors too. With HDR the white level can now read 1600 nits with the Sony ZD9, and that will obviously up the contrast level by quite a bit. An OLED can reach, at the most, between 500-600 nits and a plasma much lower than that.

The "bottom line" for me is "what my own eyes see." I see blacks that are comparable to my Kuro and sometimes better, especially in very dark scenes. I used to be taken out of the movie frequently when the Kuro's letter-boxed bars turned "gray," but that RARELY happens with my 940D; they remain pitch black 99% of the time in dark scenes. Add to that the superior BRIGHTNESS, punchier colors, and the same "natural-look" that my Kuro gave me, and I'm a Happy Camper!


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Bicycle Thieves* (Criterion)

recommendation: *Tier 3.0**

Good restoration and transfer except for some uneven contrast.


----------



## SnellTHX

* War Dogs* 

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**



Well damn. Watched this a couple of weeks ago and thought I'd post it here. Colour me impressed... Did not expect this level of crispness from a movie like this. Watched it with a friend and he was equally mesmerised by the sharpness of the picture as I was. Another one of those "makes 1080p look like 4K" discs for me. Had zero expectations so was positively surprised to see good picture. Gold stuff


----------



## DarthDoxie

*The Big Red One* (Theatrical Version)

recommendation: *Tier 4.5**

Framed at 1.78:1 vice the OAR of 1.85:1 is only the first of the atrocities foisted on this great war film, it's also been wiped clean of any film grain and looks like it was shot digitally. Details are at least even in the day scenes without looking processed. Colors run the gamut of being washed out to looking natural and bright. Certainly not unwatchable, but disappointing the lack of care that went into this presentation.

*The Big Red One* (Reconstructed Version)

recommendation: *Tier 5.0**

This is the way the movie was intended to be released by the director, Sam Fuller, before the studio hacked it up. Unfortunately it's only presented in SD at 480i, enough said and the score reflects the quality. Oddly, a 5.1 DD remix was made for this version and sounds better than the dts-HD MA 2.0 mix on the theatrical cut.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Night Train to Munich* (Criterion)

recommendation: *Tier 3.0**

Typical even restoration from Criterion, good black levels and contrast.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*The Executioner* (Criterion)

recommendation: *Tier 1.75**

One of the greatest Spanish films has received a great restoration and transfer from Criterion. Intact fine grain and even contrast are present throughout. Blacks are deep and gray levels shine.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*My Fair Lady* (50th Anniversary Restoration)

recommendation: *Tier 0* *(right below Patton)

Brilliant restoration of a musical masterpiece. Details and clarity are superb throughout; tweed fabrics, intricate wall coverings and facial features are presented flawlessly. Colors are lush and vibrant, especially reds and violets and flesh tones also look natural. Black levels are deep with out being crushed. Something I don't usually notice on films but did on this one is the white levels. Whites are bright but not blown out, some of the tuxedo shirts during the ball and the ladies dresses during the Ascot Racecourse scene really shine.

This large format film looks every bit as good as Patton, thus my placement in Tier 0.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Interesting insight into 4K and UHD in this piece from David Susilo.

https://davidsusilouncensored.wordpress.com/2016/12/16/debunking-the-misconceptions-of-4k/


----------



## DarthDoxie

*High and Low* (Criterion)

recommendation: *Tier 3.25**

The transfer is good, fine grain and no compression artifacts. However, I was concerned when I started watching it as the contrast was overblown a bit in Gondo's home where the first third of the movie takes place. Once the action moves outside to location shots, it's like a whole different movie. From this point on details are sharp and contrast is very pleasing even when the action moves back into Gondo's home.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Florence Foster Jenkins*

recommendation: *Tier 0** (middle third)

This Meryl Streep period comedy has phenomenal picture quality. The lavish production and costume design are shown in exquisite detail. Paramount's new release receives a pristine transfer with nary a problem. Its crisp, exciting video quality possesses pleasing depth and dimensionality. Certainly more than you would expect from a comedy. The color grading is tastefully restrained.

A movie made as Oscar bait, _Florence Foster Jenkins_ is a classy production with sparkling clarity. Easily one of the best live-action discs I've seen in the past year. The black levels are gorgeous.


----------



## djoberg

*Pan*

If not for the first 18 minutes (in the orphanage), which were very dark and featured some murkiness and dark gray letter-boxed bars, this would be an easy contender for Tier Blu. So, what happens at the 19 minute mark? Ah, we enter "Neverland," with its glorious colors, exquisite details, 3D-like depth, razor-sharp clarity, spot-on flesh tones, and deep, velvety blacks accompanied by finely rendered shadow details. Need I say more?!

I should mention, for those with LCD/LED displays, this had a lot of scenes with bright lights (like "torches") adjacent to the letter-boxed bars and I was quite annoyed with sporadic light-bleed. (This is where I truly miss my Pioneer KURO plasma, for you'll never see light-bleed on a plasma!)

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**


----------



## SnellTHX

Thanks for the review on Pan  I literally just cmd+F'd Pan in the PQ list to see where it was placed... I thought it would be in the reference section as it is often used by professional TV reviews like HDTVTest in their ZD9 review for instance.


Will have to check it out


----------



## SnellTHX

*Jason Bourne (2016) *

Just saw this movie. Nothing impressive here in my opinion and the image looked rather grainy. No spectacular contrast scenes either.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.5**


----------



## hungro

Phantom Stranger said:


> Interesting insight into 4K and UHD in this piece from David Susilo.
> 
> https://davidsusilouncensored.wordpress.com/2016/12/16/debunking-the-misconceptions-of-4k/


The link doesn't work.


----------



## DarthDoxie

djoberg said:


> *Pan*
> 
> If not for the first 18 minutes (in the orphanage), which were very dark and featured some murkiness and dark gray letter-boxed bars, this would be an easy contender for Tier Blu. So, what happens at the 19 mark? Ah, enter "Neverland," with its glorious colors, exquisite details, 3D-like depth, razor-sharp clarity, spot-on flesh tones, and deep, velvety blacks accompanied by finely rendered shadow details. Need I say more?!
> 
> I should mention, for those with LCD/LED displays, this had a lot of scenes with bright lights (like "torches") adjacent to the letter-boxed bars and I was quite annoyed with sporadic light-bleed. (This is where I truly miss my Pioneer KURO plasma, for you'll never see light-bleed on a plasma!)
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.0**


Aren't the gray letter-boxed bars vice black more a reflection on the limitations of your display rather than a knock on the film? I know you have a "high-end" display so I'm wondering if you think your display is at fault or if the film (encode perhaps) is problematic.


----------



## DarthDoxie

hungro said:


> The link doesn't work.


Just worked for me, do you have some kind of blocker for Wordpress?


----------



## hungro

I read the Skyfall review on DoBlu.com He wasn't impressed with the blacks. Though other reviews I read did not mention anything about the depth of the blacks being grayish. I do tend to trust more DoBlu.com and it's very technical reviews, this guy will see the artifacts that no one else catches and that's likely why he rates it as he sees it.

"If anything is persistently doomed to fail in _Skyfall_, it is black level. Miserable depth is established by dwindling shades of pale gray or muted browns thanks to the color correction. Even when a peak is reached, the blacks have the tinge of being artificial, with a reflective glow that sticks out amongst the other elements. Shot entirely on digital, this all falls on the source photography, yet sticks out dramatically in the home.
Of course, with such a healthy contrast at its daylight peak, blacks become a secondary concern."

Gravity was also not rated highly due to having a lot of noise according to DoBlu.com. 


"Warner issues a limp AVC encode for _Gravity’s_ homeward appearance, one which finds itself amidst technical struggles. The overwhelming majority of this feature was captured digitally. In theaters, this resulted in immeasurable clarity. On Blu-ray, the disc appears bitten by a compression bug. Noise is consistent and even a touch invasive. While the level of visual effects remains staggering in their scope, something feels off in terms of home video transferring. Watching Earth leisurely pan around brings a mild exhibition of smearing into the visual stream. It’s subtle, if no less evident."

I guess what I am trying to say is perhaps these are not Tier 0 enough but still demo worthy. Just like SnellTHX guy mentioned about The Dark Knight, he seems to be challenging the placement, so am I about Gravity and Skyfall based on the DoBlu.com reviews.


----------



## DarthDoxie

hungro said:


> I read the Skyfall review on DoBlu.com He wasn't impressed with the blacks. Though other reviews I read did not mention anything about the depth of the blacks being grayish. I do tend to trust more DoBlu.com and it's very technical reviews, this guy will see the artifacts that no one else catches and that's likely why he rates it as he sees it.
> 
> "If anything is persistently doomed to fail in _Skyfall_, it is black level. Miserable depth is established by dwindling shades of pale gray or muted browns thanks to the color correction. Even when a peak is reached, the blacks have the tinge of being artificial, with a reflective glow that sticks out amongst the other elements. Shot entirely on digital, this all falls on the source photography, yet sticks out dramatically in the home.
> Of course, with such a healthy contrast at its daylight peak, blacks become a secondary concern."
> 
> Gravity was also not rated highly due to having a lot of noise according to DoBlu.com.
> 
> 
> "Warner issues a limp AVC encode for _Gravity’s_ homeward appearance, one which finds itself amidst technical struggles. The overwhelming majority of this feature was captured digitally. In theaters, this resulted in immeasurable clarity. On Blu-ray, the disc appears bitten by a compression bug. Noise is consistent and even a touch invasive. While the level of visual effects remains staggering in their scope, something feels off in terms of home video transferring. Watching Earth leisurely pan around brings a mild exhibition of smearing into the visual stream. It’s subtle, if no less evident."
> 
> I guess what I am trying to say is perhaps these are not Tier 0 enough but still demo worthy. Just like THX guy mentioned about The Dark Knight, he seems to be challenging the placement, so am I about Gravity and Skyfall based on the DoBlu.com reviews.


But the placement here isn't about an aggregate of what "professional" review sites say about the film. All reviews are welcome here...so what is your recommendation for the said films?

BTW...DoBlu and this thread might have more in common than you think


----------



## hungro

DarthDoxie said:


> Just worked for me, do you have some kind of blocker for Wordpress?


Yes, ABP is installed.


----------



## hungro

DarthDoxie said:


> But the placement here isn't about an aggregate of what "professional" review sites say about the film. All reviews are welcome here...so what is your recommendation for the said films?
> 
> BTW...DoBlu and this thread might have more in common than you think


 I know, isn't Phantom Stranger one of the main critics for DoBlu.com? Maybe moving the titles to the bottom of Tier 0.


----------



## djoberg

DarthDoxie said:


> Aren't the gray letter-boxed bars vice black more a reflection on the limitations of your display rather than a knock on the film? I know you have a "high-end" display so I'm wondering if you think your display is at fault or if the film (encode perhaps) is problematic.


I'm not sure which it is, the display or the film, but I tend to lean towards the latter. Why? Because later on in the film there are numerous very dark scenes, much like the orphanage scenes, and there is no murkiness or gray letter-boxed bars in them.

You do raise a good and valid point though, for I often wondered why my former display, the renowned Pioneer Kuro Elite, would display "gray bars" at times when it was known for its superior black levels. I always thought it was inherent in the film, so I would dock it accordingly. But right after I purchased the Sony 940D, I checked out some "torture test" scenes in the _Harry Potter_ films and where the Kuro displayed gray bars the Sony remained pitch black. So, maybe I was wrong and it was indeed a limitation of the Kuro display...and that "may" be the case here as well.


----------



## DarthDoxie

djoberg said:


> I'm not sure which it is, the display or the film, but I tend to lean towards the latter. Why? Because later on in the film there are numerous very dark scenes, much like the orphanage scenes, and there is no murkiness or gray letter-boxed bars in them.
> 
> You do raise a good and valid point though, for I often wondered why my former display, the renowned Pioneer Kuro Elite, would display "gray bars" at times when it was known for its superior black levels. I always thought it was inherent in the film, so I would dock it accordingly. But right after I purchased the Sony 940D, I checked out some "torture test" scenes in the _Harry Potter_ films and where the Kuro displayed gray bars the Sony remained pitch black. So, maybe I was wrong and it was indeed a limitation of the Kuro display...and that "may" be the case here as well.


Thanks for the insight as I'll be upgrading my display in the next two years. I'm interested in OLED and encouraged by Sony's entry into the segment next year, but all options are still on the table.


----------



## djoberg

DarthDoxie said:


> Thanks for the insight as I'll be upgrading my display in the next two years. I'm interested in OLED and encouraged by Sony's entry into the segment next year, but all options are still on the table.


OLED was always my choice for an upgrade, but I also wanted (very badly!) a 75" or larger display, and as you may know the LG 77" OLED costs nearly 20K!!

If not for the light-bleeding issues I have with some Blu-rays (and mostly on 4K UHD/HDR Blu-rays) and the not-so-stellar off-axis viewing, I would highly recommend the Sony LED over LG's OLED. OLED is still having some serious motion issues (going by many members who have exchanged theirs for an LED) and also some problems with "black crush." I absolutely LOVE their black levels but they have a tendency, in really dark scenes, to crush the details.


----------



## djoberg

DarthDoxie said:


> Thanks for the insight as I'll be upgrading my display in the next two years. I'm interested in OLED and encouraged by Sony's entry into the segment next year, but all options are still on the table.


I see you also have a FALD display (the Vizio M Series....I have the Vizio M-B1 Series upstairs in our family room). Do your letter-boxed bars ever turn gray during dark scenes, and if so, do you attribute it to the display or the film?


----------



## DarthDoxie

djoberg said:


> I see you also have a FALD display (the Vizio M Series....I have the Vizio M-B1 Series upstairs in our family room). Do your letter-boxed bars ever turn gray during dark scenes, and if so, do you attribute it to the display or the film?


I have the edge-lit 2013 model so usually fault the display.


----------



## djoberg

DarthDoxie said:


> I have the edge-lit 2013 model so usually fault the display.


My bad! I assumed it was a current M-Series, which are all FALD. Did you, by any chance, read the review on Sony's best edge-lit model (the 930D) in _Sound & Vision_ two months ago? They did an A/B comparison test alongside the high-end Samsung 9800 FALD display and the Sony was "almost" its equal in every category, including black levels and shadow details. So, technology today is achieving great heights which is great for we...the consumers!

Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

hungro said:


> I read the Skyfall review on DoBlu.com He wasn't impressed with the blacks. Though other reviews I read did not mention anything about the depth of the blacks being grayish. I do tend to trust more DoBlu.com and it's very technical reviews, this guy will see the artifacts that no one else catches and that's likely why he rates it as he sees it.
> 
> I guess what I am trying to say is perhaps these are not Tier 0 enough but still demo worthy. Just like SnellTHX guy mentioned about The Dark Knight, he seems to be challenging the placement, so am I about Gravity and Skyfall based on the DoBlu.com reviews.


Those aren't my reviews in this case. I just want to make that clear. Many movies have demo moments without necessarily landing in Tier 0/Blu. They often end up in Tier One in that case.



hungro said:


> I know, isn't Phantom Stranger one of the main critics for DoBlu.com? Maybe moving the titles to the bottom of Tier 0.


I have been known to write a review or two in my day. It's also perfectly reasonable to cite external reviews, like the ones at DoBlu, if you agree with them. I could check the records but Skyfall and Gravity had a fair amount of different votes in this thread.

It's always a good idea to search this very thread on a movie's title, if you are interested in the discussion and reviews that led to its current placement.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Apollo 13* (20th Anniversary Edition)

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

Thankfully everything wrong with the original release has been corrected, just beautiful now. Colors and contrast look true, black levels in the space scenes are deep, and details such as hair and fabrics are presented sharp without the previous horrendous EE. This is what all movies of the 90s should look like. 



Gamereviewgod said:


> *Apollo 13*
> 
> Universal, seriously? You can't even use the same HD DVD encode which, while dated, would be tolerable? Noooo, you had to go and DNR the hell out of the movie, amp up the colors to where they bleed, blow out the contrast, and sharpen everything. Way to go. At least space looks good, with deep blacks that never fail. A few sporadic scenes show okay levels of detail, but these are few. Truly disappointing.
> *
> Tier 4.0*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Pride and Prejudice and Zombies*

recommendation: *Tier 0* (bottom quarter)*

The most picturesque film ever made about zombies. This Sony production also saw release on UHD, so it was mastered from a 4K transfer. This Blu-ray edition is reference quality all the way, I am sure the UHD is even more imposing.

_Pride and Prejudice and Zombies_ has flawless picture quality. Its video exudes dimensionality more appropriate for action movies than a mere costume drama. The very subtle color palette is awash in teal, though it is carefully calibrated. Flesh-tones aren't affected in the slightest.

This is one of the stronger, videophile releases of 2016 I can remember.


----------



## SnellTHX

Skyfall is reference quality for me. Blew my mind in the cinema with DCI 4K Sony projector and blew it again on blu-ray 1080p with my Kuro. 

HDTVTest called Skyfall one of the best blu-ray transfers of all time. There's many movies in Tier 0, Skyfall isn't one that should be removed  

As for Gravity, I don't have it on BD, but saw it in the cinema. It seems every professional review uses this disk when they do technical analysis of TVs, for that reason alone I think its tier 0 material.


----------



## SnellTHX

*The Thin Red Line (1998)*

recommendation: *Tier 1 (top quarter)*

Wow!! Amazing picture quality. I had to get this solely because it is placed so high on this list. I couldn't believe how a 90s movie would be placed along side modern marvels like Avatar and Life of Pi so I thought I'd have a look myself (I'll make sure I see every movie in blu, possibly gold too haha)


The image quality was pristine, great contrast scenes, highly detailed images with really sharp resolution. But have been filmed on 70mm? Not the best PQ I've seen though so not quite tier 0, but I was positively surprised a movie from 1998 can look THIS GOOD.


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> *The Thin Red Line (1998)*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 1* (top quarter)*
> 
> Wow!! Amazing picture quality. I had to get this solely because it is placed so high on this list. I couldn't believe how a 90s movie would be placed along side modern marvels like Avatar and Life of Pi so I thought I'd have a look myself (I'll make sure I see every movie in blu, possibly gold too haha)
> 
> 
> The image quality was pristine, great contrast scenes, highly detailed images with really sharp resolution. But have been filmed on 70mm? Not the best PQ I've seen though so not quite tier 0, but I was positively surprised a movie from 1998 can look THIS GOOD.


Two things...

1) That movie was placed a long time ago, and thus if it were to be reviewed again by those who reviewed it then, it would most likely be lowered.

2) I doubt that it would be dropped down as far as you have placed it. I say that because I recall watching it a few times and I was so impressed with the amazing clarity, details and depth (except for the opening scene which was on the soft side). I still believe it would be worthy of Tier Blu. I do have the movie so I may just slip it in and watch some of it.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Ip Man*

recommendation: *Tier 2.5*

Agree on every point. The contrast is not quite right and is actually distracting at times. Great fight scenes though and hopefully the other two in the series have better PQ. I have the steelbook trilogy and will be getting to them shortly. 



Phantom Stranger said:


> *Ip Man
> 
> recommendation: Tier 2.5**
> 
> _Ip Man_ is widely considered one of the best, if not the best, martial arts films of recent vintage. Unfortunately the transfer exposes severe limitations in the filmed source's cinematography and has its own problems to boot on this disc. Some moments are razor-sharp and pristine in their clarity, easily qualifying for the upper level of tier one.
> 
> That pulchritude does not hold up, especially in the darker scenes. A significant portion of General Miura's “tournaments” are shown in dim light and the picture quality becomes severely degraded with noise and constant underexposure.
> 
> Those problems do not even begin to account for the sporadic ringing seen throughout several different scenes. Ip Man's production standards are not quite up to the caliber of a Hollywood movie and the entire transfer's contrast looks slightly off here. I was surprised to see this film had a digital intermediate, that usually translates to a higher level of picture quality for the BD than what we got here.


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> Two things...
> 
> 1) That movie was placed a long time ago, and thus if it were to be reviewed again by those who reviewed it then, it would most likely be lowered.
> 
> 2) I doubt that it would be dropped down as far as you have placed it. I say that because I recall watching it a few times and I was so impressed with the amazing clarity, details and depth (except for the opening scene which was on the soft side). I still believe it would be worthy of Tier Blu. I do have the movie so I may just slip it in and watch some of it.




Well in my defence I only dropped it down one notch  simply because I don't think it should be in the same category as Oblivion for instance. But a 1998 marvel indeed It is


----------



## SnellTHX

* Ex Machina* 

recommendation: *Tier 2.75*



Wow I just made a big mistake haha! I thought Ex: Machine was on the Reference "blu" list so that's why I thought I'd give it a try. Its been available on Netflix for ages (One of those movies that go straight to Netflix) wondering how it possibly could have reference picture quality like Tomorrowland. As I thought it was a Tier 0 movie obviously I couldn't watch it compromised Netflix quality. I watched the entire movie trying to find the good picture, wondering how anyone could consider this reference. Noisy image that wasn't detailed or sharp. Then I came here and re-checked at its current ranking is 2.5, Silver. Dope! Where did I get the idea to get this blu-ray???


----------



## Phantom Stranger

SnellTHX said:


> * Ex Machina*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 2.75**
> 
> 
> 
> Wow I just made a big mistake haha! I thought Ex: Machine was on the Reference "blu" list so that's why I thought I'd give it a try. Its been available on Netflix for ages (One of those movies that go straight to Netflix) wondering how it possibly could have reference picture quality like Tomorrowland. As I thought it was a Tier 0 movie obviously I couldn't watch it compromised Netflix quality. I watched the entire movie trying to find the good picture, wondering how anyone could consider this reference. Noisy image that wasn't detailed or sharp. Then I came here and re-checked at its current ranking is 2.5, Silver. Dope! Where did I get the idea to get this blu-ray???


I remember liking Ex Machina as a movie. It was a little more thoughtful than most Hollywood films on AI.

You don't need to include the asterisk (*) if the disc is already listed in the PQ Tiers. I asked contributors to place asterisks on their scores to signal me if a disc hadn't been previously reviewed for the Tiers. It was a bit of housekeeping to make my task easier when each update was made.


----------



## SnellTHX

Oh, I didn't realise that. I came very late into this thread and thought that was normal practice, I literally copied the format of other users. Thanks for clarifying.

As for Ex Machina, it won the Oscar for best visual effects, that's why I got it (I had to look it up and remind myself why I decided to get it lol)


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Batman: Return of the Caped Crusaders*

recommendation: *Tier 1.25**

This animated return of the Adam West Batman television series looks picture-perfect in colorful 1080P video. The 78-minute main feature offers slick animation for direct-to-video productions. The amount of polish to it indicates a higher budget than normal for WB's animated DC fare.

The AVC video encode smoothly handles the pristine animation. Natively animated at 1080P, this is a flawless digital transfer. It could have easily landed in Tier 1.0 or even higher.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Ip Man 2*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

Sharp photography and plenty of depth. Colors are bright and primaries stand out. Black levels and contrast are also well presented.


----------



## djoberg

I'm about to slide my new copy of _The Magnificent Seven_ into my Blu-ray player. I'm a little surprised no one has weighed in on this yet...I'l be reviewing it within the next 2-3 hours....


----------



## CCsoftball7

djoberg said:


> I'm about to slide my new copy of _The Magnificent Seven_ into my Blu-ray player. I'm a little surprised no one has weighed in on this yet...I'l be reviewing it within the next 2-3 hours....


I thought it was superbly done. It has a bit of grain applied so there is the "vintage" look. A few dark scenes were disappointing, but over all, I really liked it.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> I'm about to slide my new copy of _The Magnificent Seven_ into my Blu-ray player. I'm a little surprised no one has weighed in on this yet...I'l be reviewing it within the next 2-3 hours....


Early reports indicate it's a very strong Tier 0 candidate. I'm a big fan of the original film, I may have even reviewed it for the PQ Tiers long ago. I'm not keen on seeing a remake but I should get to it down the road.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to everyone! May your stockings be filled with the best Blu-rays and UHDs possible.


----------



## djoberg

*The Magnificent Seven*

Okay, I hope you don't mind but I will be comparing the 4K UHD and 1080p versions in this review. I actually watched the 4K UHD/HDR version first and then watched about 45 minutes of the 1080p version. In some ways, there was no comparison, for there was an obvious spike in details, contrast, colors and black levels and thus if you have a UHD display and Blu-ray player this copy is an absolute must for your collection. It would be in my Top Five, for sure. The only "gripe" I would have with the 4k copy is that during those dark scenes that disappointed CCsoftball7 (and me too!) the blacks were even worse (this is one of the downsides of HDR, for it will accentuate both the positives and the negatives). I turned to those same scenes in the 1080p copy and the blacks held up much better.

CCsoftball7 alluded to the grain structure; I enjoyed the "filmic-look" (I believe he said "vintage look") very much. Details throughout were fantastic, especially facial texture (but certainly not limited to them). On the 4K version it took them (facial details) to another level altogether and I would label them "High Tier Blu Reference Quality" as opposed to "Low Tier Blu Reference Quality" on the 1080p version.

Another outstanding virtue was depth of field; it was simply amazing in almost every daytime, outdoor scene (and they were plentiful). The cinematography was gorgeous, with many panoramic shots sprinkled throughout its 120 minute running time. Flesh tones were accurate...contrast was superb...and clarity was razor-sharp in these same scenes.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.85)*

PS The UHD/HDR would be near the very top if not for the poor blacks in several scenes. It would easily land in the middle of Tier Blu.


----------



## John Mason

djoberg said:


> *The Magnificent Seven*
> 
> Okay, I hope you don't mind but I will be comparing the 4K UHD and 1080p versions in this review. I actually watched the 4K UHD/HDR version first and then watched about 45 minutes of the 1080p version. In some ways, there was no comparison, for there was an obvious spike in details, contrast, colors and black levels and thus if you have a UHD display and Blu-ray player this copy is an absolute must for your collection. It would be in my Top Five, for sure. The only "gripe" I would have with the 4k copy is that during those dark scenes that disappointed CCsoftball7 (and me too!) the blacks were even worse (this is one of the downsides of HDR, for it will accentuate both the positives and the negatives). I turned to those same scenes in the 1080p copy and the blacks held up much better.
> 
> CCsoftball7 alluded to the grain structure; I enjoyed the "filmic-look" (I believe he said "vintage look") very much. Details throughout were fantastic, especially facial texture (but certainly not limited to them). On the 4K version it took them (facial details) to another level altogether and I would label them "High Tier Blu Reference Quality" as opposed to "Low Tier Blu Reference Quality" on the 1080p version.
> 
> Another outstanding virtue was depth of field; it was simply amazing in almost every daytime, outdoor scene (and they were plentiful). The cinematography was gorgeous, with many panoramic shots sprinkled throughout its 120 minute running time. Flesh tones were accurate...contrast was superb...and clarity was razor-sharp in these same scenes.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.85)*
> 
> PS The UHD/HDR would be near the very top if not for the poor blacks in several scenes. It would easily land in the middle of Tier Blu.


Wonder how 4k D.I. UHD discs compare with 2k 1080p discs of the same movie, on 4k displays, as far as measured visible details? IMDB.com calls this movie a 2k DI--unless they used a 4k DI master for the 4k UHD disc. Not sure if it's practical to measure the delivered effective resolutions. UHD displays would be upscaling 1080p Blu-ray formats to 4k. Comparing some of the finest vertically oriented details to multiburst patterns should make it possible to measure the actual resolutions between the two formats (true 4k UHD discs versus 2k DI upscaled discs). Perhaps anyone would need a magnifying lens to measure the finest-detail (and multiburst-line) widths. Also, guess you'd need a different conversion number than the one a co-developer of a 1080p test disc provided a few years back for 1080p-only discs/displays.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Ip Man 3*

recommendation: *Tier 2.75**

Hard to believe this is the worst of the Ip Man trilogy (both PQ and story) considering it was in theaters just last Christmas. Inconsistent color grading whether intentional or not really pulls the quality down. Many scenes have a yellow push that seems unnecessary and is jarring when it shows up. Like the original Ip Man, contrast is weak causing washed out colors and less than stellar black levels. Details are pleasant though with facial features and fabrics nicely rendered.

I'm not sure of the bit-rate but the encode is suspect as there is obvious color banding in at least two scenes, most notably when Ip Man is in the hospital with his wife; unacceptable for a 2016 release.


----------



## djoberg

John Mason said:


> Wonder how 4k D.I. UHD discs compare with 2k 1080p discs of the same movie, on 4k displays, as far as measured visible details? IMDB.com calls this movie a 2k DI--unless they used a 4k DI master for the 4k UHD disc. Not sure if it's practical to measure the delivered effective resolutions. UHD displays would be upscaling 1080p Blu-ray formats to 4k. Comparing some of the finest vertically oriented details to multiburst patterns should make it possible to measure the actual resolutions between the two formats (true 4k UHD discs versus 2k DI upscaled discs). Perhaps anyone would need a magnifying lens to measure the finest-detail (and multiburst-line) widths. Also, guess you'd need a different conversion number than the one a co-developer of a 1080p test disc provided a few years back for 1080p-only discs/displays; (one of my earlier posts here has a sublink to the 2014 thread).


John,

This was indeed a 2K DI master upgraded to 4K UHD. As far as "measured visible details," all I know is having watched the 2 versions back to back, the spike in details was remarkable on the 4K UHD version. Details were more finely rendered and tight in almost every scene, and in every object, perhaps most notable though in facial texture (where it was one the VERY BEST I've ever seen, bar none).


----------



## djoberg

Happy New Year to everyone! I echo Phantom's sentiments by hoping you all received "the best Blu-rays and UHDs possible!"


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Jason Bourne*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

This film is all over the place with scenes shot on everything from 16mm to Arri ALEXA XT cameras. Most of the film has average details and color, the first two thirds is rather forgettable with weak contrast as the most glaring culprit. The final third takes place in Las Vegas and this is where the picture gets much better. Color and details raise far above the earlier scenes that took place in Europe. Contrast and black levels are much stronger in this final part of the movie as well.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*GoldenEye*

recommendation: *Tier 2.5**

Beautifully shot like all James Bond films. Colors are vibrant with lots of greens, reds and blues. Black levels are deep and contrast is nice and even. Some of the 90s effects shots are obviously dated but are spectacular when accounting for the time period. Unfortunately the transfer has been almost wiped clean of any film grain. I didn't notice any other signs of enhancement such as undo sharpening or ringing so it's puzzling why it's been wiped of grain. If not for the issue with lack of grain, this would be a tier 1 film.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Keanu*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

This 2016 comedy release from Warner Bros. offers nice definition in fairly sharp clarity. For a comedy, there is extensive usage of bokeh in its cinematography. Sunny exteriors demonstrate superior depth and impressive detail.

The transfer has been left unfiltered without the typical grading palette for Hollywood comedies. It's almost strange to see a Hollywood production without a searing hot contrast and pumped-up colors.

_Keanu_ is a steady visual experience lacking the eye-popping moments of Tier Zero. This is a fine example of a Tier One disc.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Consumer Reports picks the best displays of 2016:

http://www.consumerreports.org/tvs/consumer-reports-tv-lab-deep-dive-best-flagship-tvs-of-2016/


----------



## SnellTHX

DarthDoxie said:


> *Jason Bourne*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 2.0**
> 
> This film is all over the place with scenes shot on everything from 16mm to Arri ALEXA XT cameras. Most of the film has average details and color, the first two thirds is rather forgettable with weak contrast as the most glaring culprit. The final third takes place in Las Vegas and this is where the picture gets much better. Color and details raise far above the earlier scenes that took place in Europe. Contrast and black levels are much stronger in this final part of the movie as well.




I agree.. PQ all over the place and generally underwhelming for such a block buster.


----------



## SnellTHX

*The Good Dinosaur*

Top of the PQ list so what choice did I have but to see it? ABSOLUTELY PHENOMENAL!!! Mind blowing picture quality, razor sharp and probably the best animation I've ever seen. Photorealism is an understatement. Wonder how powerful their supercomputers had to be to render all of that CGI. picture was high res, detailed and contrast displayed perfectly.

I still think Life of Pi, Avatar, and the 15/70mm IMAX scenes of Nolan movies reign on top, but this is definitely a top blu tier 0 reference disk  


*Tier Recommendation 0*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Session 9*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

I am floored how impressive this 2001 production has turned out on Blu-ray. This is easily one of the best catalog transfers released on the format from a movie of the early 2000s. Scream Factory has licensed _Session 9_ from Universal for this BD. It's a fantastic job that shows a dramatic improvement over the original DVD edition. The pristine video and sharp definition indicate this is a recently made HD transfer.

Aside from some slight filtering, this is an impeccable presentation. The elements are in superb condition. The former DVD was a murky mess that emphasized _Session 9's_ moody atmosphere. The 1080P video reveals far more detail and clarity, especially in sunny exteriors. Many scenes likely qualify for Tier One. This is a disc knocking on the door of the next tier.

Darker scenes fare less well, though shadow delineation and contrast consistently hold up. A few hints of aliasing creep into the video, though I suspect they naturally crept into the low-budget production estimated at 1.5 million dollars.

I wasn't expecting much from this BD considering Session 9's pedigree. I am surprised that Universal licensed this transfer out without issuing the BD themselves. Scream Factory reaps the benefits with this excellent catalog presentation.


----------



## SnellTHX

This kind of has me thinking. What are your top upcoming BD movies that you think will dethrone what ever your PQ-king is?

For me my top3 is Avatar/Life of Pi/Interstellar. but I genuinely believe Dunkirk will be the ultimate reference disk when it releases. especially if Nolan continues his trend of constantly increasing IMAX 15/70mm film footage (TDK: 28 minutes, TDKR: 60 minutes, Interstellar: 70 minutes? think I read 1 hour+) With large open WWII scenes in that glorious film resolution equal to possibly hundreds of MPs ? 

I just hope due to all the large battlefield scenes we might get 90 minutes or so of true IMAX film footage. 

If not I'll just have to wait for Avatar 2 haha 


What do you guys think will be the new PQ king?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

_Dunkirk_ should be a serious contender in the PQ Tiers, though a projected home release likely doesn't happen until October/November. Large-format filmmaking is always such a tricky process in today's budget-conscious Hollywood. Frankly, I don't think there are enough experienced professionals working in the business with 70mm backgrounds like it was in the film format's golden age. Read about the problems Nolan had first filming with large formats in _The Dark Knight_.

I always keep an eye on Pixar's projects, though I wonder if they are as committed to pushing the cgi technology as much as they once did. _Cars 3_ hits theaters in June and a new project called _Coco_ doesn't hit until November. _Coco_ is from the same director behind _Toy Story 3_, which remains one of the finest video experiences on Blu-ray.

Another source to look out for is any production from Sony with a true 4K digital intermediate. The technicians at Sony have a better grasp of working in 4K resolution than just about all the other studios combined. That produces significant benefits for the down-rezzed 1080P video found on Blu-rays.

In terms of new Hollywood releases, Sony and Universal are a step ahead of everyone else at the moment. They are consistently getting more actual resolution and transparency out of 1080P Blu-ray video than other studios. Then comes Fox and Paramount after them, with Warner and Lionsgate lagging behind. This is strictly referring to the production chain and picture quality for new theatrical releases as seen on Blu-ray. I'd actually recommend Lionsgate outsource their Blu-ray authoring to another studio, it's that poor at times.


----------



## Kool-aid23

SnellTHX said:


> What do you guys think will be the new PQ king?


 Considering that The Good Dinosaur is tops at the moment, I think there may be a chance for Disney's Moana to be king when it drops. (For it has vibrant colors like Monster's University and some of the photo realism like the Good Dinosaur).


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*A Boy Named Charlie Brown*

recommendation: *Tier 2.75**

The 1969 theatrical feature receives a satisfying Hi-Def presentation limited by the admittedly crude cel animation. The animation is certainly of higher quality than the _Peanuts'_ television specials, though obviously antiquated by today's standards. CBS Home Entertainment distributes the 86-minute film through Paramount. Encoded in AVC at bitrates averaging over 30 Mbps, the 1080P video accurately captures the cel animation in fairly high detail.

The one issue some have had with this film transfer is that it includes the full open-matte experience at 1.33:1. The movie was theatrically framed at 1.85:1. Having seen _A Boy Named Charlie Brown_ both ways, it's hard picking one or the other. Personally, I favor open-matte transfers for animated films in general and this one in particular. There is extra head room in certain open-matte scenes, but just as often the wider frame severely cramps its musical segments. There is also the matter that most children growing up on the _Peanuts'_ animated television specials watched them in their native 1.33:1 aspect ratio. That particular composition just feels correct for Charlie Brown and his friends.

The film elements seem to have received a fairly recent scan in this transfer, though likely only at 2K resolution. It doesn't suffer from severe degradation, though it doesn't appear to have been extensively restored. That leaves it largely unprocessed with the cel animation looking nice. A couple of random, running gate scratches briefly appear. Its color range is better than expected, far better than the companion television specials.


----------



## CCsoftball7

Kool-aid23 said:


> Considering that The Good Dinosaur is tops at the moment, I think there may be a chance for Disney's Moana to be king when it drops. (For it has vibrant colors like Monster's University and some of the photo realism like the Good Dinosaur).


_The Secret Life of Pets_ might also be at the top (at least in UHD/HDR).


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Ralph Potts, AVS Forum's own reviewer, lists the top Blu-rays of 2016.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-forums-...um.com_weekly&utm_source=AVSForum.com20170103


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Dog Day Afternoon*

recommendation: *Tier 3.0*

This is the 40th anniversary edition but the exact same VC-1 encode as the previous edition.


----------



## SnellTHX

Phantom Stranger said:


> _Dunkirk_ should be a serious contender in the PQ Tiers, though a projected home release likely doesn't happen until October/November. Large-format filmmaking is always such a tricky process in today's budget-conscious Hollywood. Frankly, I don't think there are enough experienced professionals working in the business with 70mm backgrounds like it was in the film format's golden age. Read about the problems Nolan had first filming with large formats in _The Dark Knight_.
> 
> I always keep an eye on Pixar's projects, though I wonder if they are as committed to pushing the cgi technology as much as they once did. _Cars 3_ hits theaters in June and a new project called _Coco_ doesn't hit until November. _Coco_ is from the same director behind _Toy Story 3_, which remains one of the finest video experiences on Blu-ray.
> 
> Another source to look out for is any production from Sony with a true 4K digital intermediate. The technicians at Sony have a better grasp of working in 4K resolution than just about all the other studios combined. That produces significant benefits for the down-rezzed 1080P video found on Blu-rays.
> 
> In terms of new Hollywood releases, Sony and Universal are a step ahead of everyone else at the moment. They are consistently getting more actual resolution and transparency out of 1080P Blu-ray video than other studios. Then comes Fox and Paramount after them, with Warner and Lionsgate lagging behind. This is strictly referring to the production chain and picture quality for new theatrical releases as seen on Blu-ray. I'd actually recommend Lionsgate outsource their Blu-ray authoring to another studio, it's that poor at times.



Cars 3 will most definitely be a top contender! Pixar movies always are haha 

First two Cars movies had AMAZING sound, so high hopes for them.

I'm a huge fan of Nolan and IMO his IMAX scenes are the best of any movie. the level of detail and sharpness is on another level compared to digital (even 4K). I heard IMAX film cameras have way more F-stops and are capable of capturing light better than digital.. that might be why


----------



## djoberg

My 4K/1080p Blu-ray of _Sully_ just arrived via UPS. I plan on watching it right after supper; I've been wanting to see this ever since it came out on the big screen. The movie AND the PQ are receiving glowing reviews!


----------



## djoberg

*Sully*

This may not qualify for the Top Tier, but it should easily land towards the top of Tier Gold. It had striking clarity throughout the majority of its 90+ minute running time, along with reference quality facial details and amazing depth in many scenes. Contrast was strong, black levels (though limited) were deep, and flesh tones were spot-on accurate. On the minus side, its color palette was woefully lacking in primaries, and there was a fair amount of color-grading (i.e. steely blue) that added to the drab look.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.25**

PS The 4K version brought it up one notch (to 1.0) with even better facial texture and contrast was off the charts.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Close To The Enemy*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

This BBC co-production has been issued by Acorn Media in a satisfying presentation that should remind viewers of other wartime period dramas. Its seven, hour-long episodes are spread over three discs in competent AVC. Clarity is fairly high but lacks the extra definition usually found in Tier One. Nothing pops off screen with much depth outside of a few exteriors. 

Shadow delineation could be improved in some of the darkest interiors. This is very solid picture quality that just misses out on Tier One.

*Rail Wars: Complete Collection*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

From anime distributor Sentai Filmworks comes this visually pleasing anime series. The animation itself is more polished than most anime made for television, from smoother motion to its wide range of character designs. The entire series is placed on a single BD-50. There are no substantial compression problems.


----------



## djoberg

*Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children*

WOW! I just watched a rental copy of the 1080p version and the PQ was so mesmerizing at times that I will definitely be buying the 4k/UHD version (which brings it up a notch or two in details, colors, and contrast...according to every review I've read). Let me say from the outset...this is REFERENCE QUALITY, so make room on your Top Shelf for this one!

This is a tale of three settings. It starts out in 2016 in sunny Florida with striking clarity and depth, with tons of finely rendered details. The second scene takes us to Cairnholm Island Wales where we meet with a characteristic "Tim Burton" color-grading; namely, TEAL! Colors are muted throughout on the Island, but details hold up well so even here there is _some_ candy for the eyes! Then we are transported to Miss Peregrine's Victorian home (in 1943) where the visual feast really begins (and thankfully the majority of the film takes place there). Bold, saturated colors abound in all daytime scenes (indoors and outdoors)...details are amazing (in facial close-ups, clothing, furniture, foliage, the sandy seashore, rocky topography, etc., etc., and black levels/shadow details are stunning. 

I was very pleased the director chose to shoot this in the 1.85:1 aspect ratio so I could see all of this delicious EYE CANDY on my 75" screen from 8' away! And just to whet your appetite further, he used the highly acclaimed Arri Alexa XT Plus camera!

I would be remiss if I didn't bring out a couple of "negatives." There were occasions of softness during some of the CGI shots and depth was lacking in those same scenes. And again, the scenes on Cairnholm Island were quite drab. But honestly, I feel like I'm nitpicking when I consider the overwhelming "positives" that permeated the screen for the majority of its 2 hour running time.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.75)*

PS From what I've read, the 4K version is going to bump this up to at least the middle of the Top Tier.

PPS You may not love (or even like) the film, but if you're into Picture Quality as much as I am, you'll still want to rent this just to give your eyes the sugar rush they deserve!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Your Tier 0 recommendation definitely has me more interested in seeing Miss Peregrine's Home For Peculiar Children. Even the trailers I've seen have fantastic depth and dimensionality.

*Aura: Koga Maryuin's Last War*

recommendation: *Tier 1.75**

I wanted to place this anime film higher but minor issues hold me back. The 86-minute main feature is included on a BD-25. The AVC encoding has its problems, mostly in the form of limited banding. While the animation is pristine, this isn't the most polished or dynamic animation.

If the contrast and color palette had a little more punch, it may have landed higher. It would be interesting to know if they properly converted IRE black levels from the Japanese master. That is one issue that crops up time and again on certain anime releases in the United States.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Dark Passage*

recommendation: *Tier 3.25**

A solid presentation from the Warner Archive Collection.


----------



## SnellTHX

Wooah, anyone see the pictures for Rock Dog? Looks absolutely stunning. that CGI  Reference disk incoming!!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

SnellTHX said:


> Wooah, anyone see the pictures for Rock Dog? Looks absolutely stunning. that CGI  Reference disk incoming!!


It comes out in February for those wondering. _Rock Dog_ has a strange pedigree by movie standards. It's a Chinese-financed production in English. The budget is $60 million.

For comparison's sake, _Finding Dory's_ budget was nearing $200 million.


----------



## djoberg

*Ben-Hur (2016)*

Okay, this remake did NOT live up to the original (by a long shot), but the PQ was magnificent!

I was thoroughly impressed with the details (in clothing, landscapes, horses, ships, and especially facial texture) and depth. Colors, though quite drab in general, were bold and vibrant in costumes (most notably the Roman uniforms but not limited to them). Black levels were exemplary in most night time scenes (and my letter-boxed bars remained pitch black throughout) with finely-rendered shadow details. Contrast was superb (with one exception in an opening daytime scene where the bright sun gave it a washed out look). Flesh tones were accurate. Clarity was normally razor-sharp (though softness did rear its ugly head on a couple of occasions).

This one "barely" misses the Top Tier.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**


----------



## djoberg

*Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows*

It may go without saying, but I rented this simply for the EYE CANDY (knowing full-well the movie is mindless drivel). Was I disappointed? Nope, not in the least, for this was REFERENCE QUALITY all the way!!

I'll spare you a hundred superlatives by narrowing this down to a few remarks...the COLORS were eye-popping, the DETAILS were mesmerizing, and the BLACK LEVELS were insane. There, I said it. Now for my placement...

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.5)*

PS The audio was a KILLER!! I was tempted to play it at reference level, but my ears could only withstand -10. Even at that level, there were numerous times where my walls were shaking and I could feel waves of energy sweeping over me!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Phantasm: Ravager*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

This new Phantasm sequel arrives on Blu-ray courtesy of Well Go USA. The 85-minute main feature is encoded in adequate AVC on a BD-25. It's not what I would call a technically flawless presentation. Despite fairly convincing clarity in the 1.85:1 video, some concerns arise in its darkest interior shots.

The independent production has glossy but unpolished video. Ravager's exteriors in the desert and elsewhere offer strong clarity in razor-sharp definition. It includes a bright, punchy contrast more commonly associated with nature productions on cable than theatrical movies. Weaknesses in shadow delineation and minor crushing appear in the darker interiors and some of the alternative cgi environments. That includes minor noise and less startling definition.

Like many independent productions, picture quality varies from great to rather average. Some of Ravager clearly lands in Tier One, showcasing an aesthetic typical of new digital video. The color grading appears to have been left untouched in post, something you rarely see anymore.


----------



## djoberg

Just a footnote to my review of _Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children_. I watched it yesterday on a 4K UHD/HDR Blu-ray and it definitely brought the PQ up a notch or two. The details were more pronounced; the colors had even more punch; and the contrast (BLACKS and WHITES) was stronger. I would say this is worthy of at least *.5* in Tier Blu, but I would be inclined to go with *.25*.

For those with 4K displays, if you've been holding off on purchasing a 4K Blu-ray player because of lack of material, the 4K library is growing every day. Add to this the fact that in most cases it truly does deliver superior contrast, colors, details and black levels, and it's really a no-brainer....go get a 4K player!!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

4K UHDs are definitely getting more interesting. Hopefully Disney comes around by the end of summer.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Indiscreet*

recommendation: *Tier 3.25**

Despite my personal fondness for this Cary Grant movie, this fine Technicolor transfer doesn't deserve much better than Tier 3. Olive Films has licensed the 1958 production from Paramount and issued it on a BD-25. The 100-minute main feature receives a steady AVC encode. Its 1080P video adequately replicates the original elements in film-like fidelity. A touch of sharpening introduces occasional halos.

The visible detail and clarity indicate a fairly recently struck HD transfer from the original film elements, likely done at 2K resolution. The Technicolor movie offers decent clarity, if some occasional softness. While the transfer isn't the best Technicolor presentation I've seen on Blu-ray, it's a solid effort with stable colors. A new restoration would likely tweak the contrast and mildly improve definition.

I highly recommend Olive Films give _Indiscreet_ consideration for their new Signature Line with a new 4K restoration.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Driller Killer*

recommendation: *Tier 4.5**

Abel Ferrara's 1979 low-budget splatter film arrives on Blu-ray from Arrow Video with a 4K film transfer from the negatives. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Despite the film-like presentation, there are limitations inherent to the 16mm negative. Some fading to the color palette and some contrast issues limit the overall video quality.

The film transfer itself is a fine effort hampered by poor source material and low-budget cinematography.


----------



## djoberg

*Storks*

I was definitely impressed with Warner Brother's latest animated marvel...but NOT overly-impressed. In other words, this is NOT going to find its way into the "Top Five" on the coveted Tier Blu Mountain.

This had the usual eye-popping colors that we've come to expect from current animation, along with dazzling details and depth. And there was a real treat for me in this one...the BLACKS and SHADOW DETAILS were abnormally plentiful and they were absolutely, positively SUPERB! I really can't recall the last time I saw an animated film with this many dark scenes (perhaps it was _Legend of the Guardians_ back in 2010), and I surely can't remember seeing one with blacks that were this DARK & INKY. My letter-boxed bars remained PITCH BLACK as well throughout the 80 minute running time.

I also watched the 4K UHD/HDR version and the differences were subtle in many instances, but there were a few times where they were quite noticeable (especially with long-range details and some of the colors).

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (somewhere between #10 and #15)*

PS The UHD version would bump it up to about #10.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^

I neglected to mention that the WHITES were also exemplary, so this one is Top-Notch in the CONTRAST department. Also, there was another unusual feature for an animated film...a slight layer of GRAIN. You heard me right, I could swear I was seeing a thin layer of grain in many scenes. That's not a bad thing, for details weren't obscured in the least.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^
> 
> I neglected to mention that the WHITES were also exemplary, so this one is Top-Notch in the CONTRAST department. Also, there was another unusual feature for an animated film...a slight layer of GRAIN. You heard me right, I could swear I was seeing a thin layer of grain in many scenes. That's not a bad thing, for details weren't obscured in the least.


I could easily believe that happening. A few filmmakers have liked adding artificial texture to their animated features for that celluloid appearance.

I'm not a big fan of the practice but so many viewers are accustomed to seeing some semblance of grain in their movies.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> I could easily believe that happening. A few filmmakers have liked adding artificial texture to their animated features for that celluloid appearance.
> 
> I'm not a big fan of the practice but so many viewers are accustomed to seeing some semblance of grain in their movies.


I had said that it didn't hinder details, but like you I would rather not see grain in animated films. So, I really should have qualified my statement by saying that.


----------



## djoberg

I just picked up a 1080p Blu-ray copy of _The Secret Life of Pets_ today at Best Buy (they had a $10 off special!). I have read several "expert" reviews on it and from what they say this "may" be a contender for the Top Spot in Tier Blu. Needless to day, I'm quite excited to see it! I'm not sure when that will happen, but I might even have time tonight to watch it. If so, you'll hear from me while the end credits roll!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

_The Secret Life of Pets _definitely looks like a top-shelf contender from reports.

*Black Butler: Book of Murder*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

This Funimation release collects the two Black Butler OVA's together on a single BD-50. Its standard animation quality offers decent clarity though I have a hunch that Funimation once again didn't properly adjust the Japanese master's IRE levels when licensing it.

The AVC encode is adequate at its compression duties. It is fairly apparent that whomever Funimation has encoding their Blu-rays is using an older AVC encoder.


----------



## djoberg

*The Secret Life of Pets*

Stunning...stunning...stunning!!

Okay, I'll say it right out front...WE HAVE A NEW WINNER! This is (IMHO), hands down, the most detailed and colorful animated marvel I've ever seen. The details in animal fur (and there are all kinds of animals on display!) is phenomenal, but so are the details in clothing, buildings, city streets, trees, cars, scaffolding, etc., etc. The colors are deeply saturated and are incredibly EYE-POPPING. Depth is also astounding, with a true "3D-look" at times. Contrast is also spiked with BRILLIANT WHITES (the blacks are also deep but are limited to a couple of scenes). There is also some amazing photo-realism in scenes with water (in an underground sewer system and either the Hudson or East River in NYC). Last, but not least, the clarity is sharp as a tack, which serves to enhance all the other virtues.

All PQ-lovers owe it to yourselves to see this and after you do be sure to chime in and give your assessment and placement recommendation.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (#1...Top Dog...King of the Blu-ray Hill)*


----------



## CCsoftball7

djoberg said:


> *The Secret Life of Pets*
> 
> 
> 
> Stunning...stunning...stunning!!
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I'll say it right out front...WE HAVE A NEW WINNER! This is (IMHO), hands down, the most detailed and colorful animated marvel I've ever seen. The details in animal fur (and there are all kinds of animals on display!) is phenomenal, but so are the details in clothing, buildings, city streets, trees, cars, scaffolding, etc., etc. The colors are deeply saturated and are incredibly EYE-POPPING. Depth is also astounding, with a true "3D-look" at times. Contrast is also spiked with BRILLIANT WHITES (the blacks are also deep but are limited to a couple of scenes). There is also some amazing photo-realism in scenes with water (in an underground sewer system and either the Hudson or East River in NYC). Last, but not least, the clarity is sharp as a tack, which serves to enhance all the other virtues.
> 
> 
> 
> All PQ-lovers owe it to yourselves to see this and after you do be sure to chime in and give your assessment and placement recommendation.
> 
> 
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (#1...Top Dog...King of the Blu-ray Hill)*



I can't believe it's taken you this long.  The UHD version is stunning as well.


----------



## djoberg

CCsoftball7 said:


> I can't believe it's taken you this long.  The UHD version is stunning as well.


So, what placement recommendation would you give this?

Also, is the UHD version worth the price? I bought the 1080p version for only $15 (on special) but I would pay the extra cash if there was even more POP and TEXTURE.


----------



## CCsoftball7

djoberg said:


> So, what placement recommendation would you give this?
> 
> Also, is the UHD version worth the price? I bought the 1080p version for only $15 (on special) but I would pay the extra cash if there was even more POP and TEXTURE.


It is the best disc I have seen. Yes, it's worth the price. I stated after I watched it the first time it should be placed at the top of the heap.


----------



## djoberg

CCsoftball7 said:


> It is the best disc I have seen. Yes, it's worth the price. I stated after I watched it the first time it should be placed at the top of the heap.


That's awesome CCsoftball7; with two votes in for this being the #1 Blu-ray it's official!!

You have talked me into getting the 4K version (others have said that the differences between the 4K version and the 1080p are "appreciable." I'll give the 1080p version to one of my daughters.


----------



## CCsoftball7

djoberg said:


> That's awesome CCsoftball7; with two votes in for this being the #1 Blu-ray it's official!!
> 
> You have talked me into getting the 4K version (others have said that the differences between the 4K version and the 1080p are "appreciable." I'll give the 1080p version to one of my daughters.


It's the most detailed, and quite honestly the *BEST* HDR I've seen. If you don't appreciate it, let me know and I'll buy your disc. I know I can give it to my daughter and granddaughter.


----------



## djoberg

CCsoftball7 said:


> The Secret Life of Pets will be a top tier release to review as well. The UHD is simply amazing. The movie was more than watchable. I actually laughed out loud in several spots.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk





CCsoftball7 said:


> _The Secret Life of Pets_ might also be at the top (at least in UHD/HDR).


I just found your two posts on _The Secret Life of Pets_. I too laughed out loud several times, especially during the first half.

I can't wait to see the UHD version, for I can hardly imagine it looking any better than what I saw last night, yet I believe you and others when you say it is better.


----------



## CCsoftball7

djoberg said:


> I just found your two posts on _The Secret Life of Pets_. I too laughed out loud several times, especially during the first half.
> 
> I can't wait to see the UHD version, for I can hardly imagine it looking any better than what I saw last night, yet I believe you and others when you say it is better.


The intro really shines with HDR. Specifically, watch the detail and brilliance of the Empire State Building. Compare that to the 2K version.


----------



## djoberg

CCsoftball7 said:


> The intro really shines with HDR. Specifically, watch the detail and brilliance of the Empire State Building. Compare that to the 2K version.


I'll be sure to check that out. I have some credit at Best Buy so I'll use that to purchase the UHD version. It may take awhile for me to get it, but as soon as I do I'm going to watch it. I also read that the colors are noticeably better. I have noticed that difference many times when comparing the UHD and 1080p versions and of course we can attribute that to the "wider color gamut" that HDR brings to the table.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Don't Breathe*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

This Sony release starts with striking picture quality in nearly Tier 0 quality. Outstanding depth and texture in stark exteriors set in Detroit. A razor-sharp focus with unusually detailed clarity.

Then the plot shifts and its action shifts into darkly lit interiors. The darker scenes simply lasted too long for me to place _Don't Breathe_ in Tier 1.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> *Don't Breathe*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 2.0**
> 
> This Sony release starts with striking picture quality in nearly Tier 0 quality. Outstanding depth and texture in stark exteriors set in Detroit. A razor-sharp focus with unusually detailed clarity.
> 
> Then the plot shifts and its action shifts into darkly lit interiors. The darker scenes simply lasted too long for me to place _Don't Breathe_ in Tier 1.


Whoa, you and I are almost a tier apart on this one Phantom! You are correct in saying the "darker scenes...lasted...long," but in fairness I would say that the blacks were "pretty good," with shadow details that didn't falter. So, even though they "lasted...long," the length of those scenes didn't cause me to dock the final placement.

Here's my review in case anyone wants to see it...

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-783.html#post48657273


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I did come upon your review when making my own, I always check for prior scores. I believe we are the only two that have covered it for the PQ Tiers.

Don't Breathe is basically low Tier 0 for its opening act. I just wasn't impressed with the PQ when the thriller becomes enshrouded in darkness for long stretches. There are even a couple of scenes when it goes into nightvision mode.

I was very close to placing it in 1.75. The transfer itself is flawless and reflects the filmmakers' intentions.


----------



## djoberg

I was glad you mentioned the scenes that went into "night-vision mode." Of course, those were terrible, which is expected. The more I reflect on the many dark scenes, the more willing I would be to lower my score, but it wouldn't be by much. I would say 1.75 would be the absolute lowest IMO.

Again, there were a lot of very dark scenes, but the blacks held up quite well in the majority of them and nothing was lost in the shadows in those same scenes. So, I wouldn't dock these at all for simply being "dark."


----------



## Legairre

I watched The Secret Life of Pets a few weeks ago on our 120" screen with Sony VPL-HW40ES project stacked with an DVDO iScan Mini 4K. While it was sharp and detailed and colors popped I went back and watched part_s _of The Good Dinosaur and I still think the The Good Dinosaur is tops. Colors pop more in The Secret Life of Pets but the photo realism in The Good Dinosaur beats out every movie I've seen.


----------



## djoberg

Legairre said:


> I watched The Secret Life of Pets a few weeks ago on our 120" screen with Sony VPL-HW40ES project stacked with an DVDO iScan Mini 4K. While it was sharp and detailed and colors popped I went back and watched part_s _of The Good Dinosaur and I still think the The Good Dinosaur is tops. Colors pop more in The Secret Life of Pets but the photo realism in The Good Dinosaur beats out every movie I've seen.


This is a good example of the "subjective" nature of this thread. Even though I LOVED the photo realism of _The Good Dinosaur_ and nominated it for #1 , I still thought that _The Secret Life of Pets_ trumped it because of its AMAZING COLORS and SUPERB DEPTH! You obviously thought that the "photo realism" of _The Good Dinosaur_ was the dominating factor. In a sense, there is no "right or wrong" here, for "subjectivity" is allowed and no one can argue that point. Having said that, _The Secret Life of Pets_ had me transfixed from beginning to end and deserves, IMHO, the "King of the Blu-ray Hill" spot!


----------



## Legairre

djoberg said:


> This is a good example of the "subjective" nature of this thread. Even though I LOVED the photo realism of _The Good Dinosaur_ and nominated it for #1 , I still thought that _The Secret Life of Pets_ trumped it because of its AMAZING COLORS and SUPERB DEPTH! You obviously thought that the "photo realism" of _The Good Dinosaur_ was the dominating factor. In a sense, there is no "right or wrong" here, for "subjectivity" is allowed and no one can argue that point. Having said that, _The Secret Life of Pets_ had me transfixed from beginning to end and deserves, IMHO, the "King of the Blu-ray Hill" spot!


Yeah I can’t argue about the colors and depth of The Secret Life of Pets. It’s just stunning the way the colors pop and how it has a kind of 3D due to the depth. I guess it could also be said the using photo realism like in The Good Dinosaur is kind of cheating, because that short video that shows how it was made, shows they actually did use real landscapes and crafted them to movie so, it’s kind of cheating.


----------



## CCsoftball7

Legairre said:


> Yeah I can’t argue about the colors and depth of The Secret Life of Pets. It’s just stunning the way the colors pop and how it has a kind of 3D due to the depth. I guess it could also be said the using photo realism like in The Good Dinosaur is kind of cheating, because that short video that shows how it was made, shows they actually did use real landscapes and crafted them to movie so, it’s kind of cheating.


If you were able to watch _The Secret Life of Pets_ in UHD/HDR, I have a feeling you would concur that it is the best disc out there (UHD/HDR).


----------



## Legairre

CCsoftball7 said:


> If you were able to watch _The Secret Life of Pets_ in UHD/HDR, I have a feeling you would concur that it is the best disc out there (UHD/HDR).


I have no doubt you a right. I'm sure it's even more stunning in UHD. since I run a projector in my theater I'll have to wait until those true 4K projectors come down to around 3K before I swap mine out.


----------



## djoberg

CCsoftball7 said:


> If you were able to watch _The Secret Life of Pets_ in UHD/HDR, I have a feeling you would concur that it is the best disc out there (UHD/HDR).


I just placed my order for the UHD/HDR version from Best Buy. They had a good special ($10 off)!


----------



## nohjy

I can't believe everyone is talking about how great Secret Life of Pets is without mentioning the 3D picture. I think it it is one of the best 3D presentations I have seen - for the same reason you all seem to love the 2D - the depth is off the charts. The clarity and layered 3D effects are as good as they get. If you like 3D it is a must own.


----------



## djoberg

nohjy said:


> I cant believe everyone is talking about how great Secret Life of Pets is with mentioning the 3D picture. I think it it is one of the best 3D presentations I have seen for the same reason you all seem to love the 2D - the depth is off the charts. The clarity and layered 3D effects are as good as they get. If you like 3D it is a must own.


Okay, this has got to stop! First I go and buy the Blu-ray version of this title. Then CCsoftball7 talks me into ordering the 4K version. Now I'm being tempted to get the 3D version (which I would love to get, for I do enjoy 3D when it's done right). But a guy has to draw the line somewhere...I can get away with a "Double-dip," but there's no way I can justify a "Triple-dip." 

This subject begs the question, "When are they going to start offering 4K, 3D, and Blu-ray together in one package?" Probably never, when they can get away with offering them in 3 separate packages!!

EDIT: I decided to add a "WINK" so no one would take me too seriously in this post.


----------



## Legairre

I gave up buying just the blu-ray version of any movie that is offered in 4K and blu-ray. Most of the 4K now come with the blu-ray version included, so even though I can't do 4K now I figured what's a few bucks more to get both versions. Then when I go 4K I won't have to double dip.


----------



## djoberg

Legairre said:


> I gave up buying just the blu-ray version of any movie that is offered in 4K and blu-ray. Most of the 4K now come with the blu-ray version included, so even though I can't do 4K now I figured what's a few bucks more to get both versions. Then when I go 4K I won't have to double dip.


I normally do the same thing, but I was able to get the Blu-ray version of _The Secret Life of Pets_ for only $15 so I grabbed it. At the time I wasn't even sure if there was a 4K release.

I'll just give my Blu-ray version to one of my daughters with small children.


----------



## Legairre

Yeah at $15 I would have grabbed it too. I can't pass up a bargain.


----------



## djoberg

I just received a Blu-ray copy of _Kubo and the Two Strings_ and plan to watch it sometime today (we are leaving early tomorrow on a 6-day trip). The reviews have been excellent regarding the PQ, so I'm excited to see how close this will come to my last animated marvel (_The Secret Life of Pets_.


----------



## EddyKnights

Where do. I see the tier list.. The compete. List.. Here's one Lucy


----------



## djoberg

EddyKnights said:


> Where do. I see the tier list.. The compete. List.. Here's one Lucy


Here you go:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...ings-pq-tiers-through-november-15-2015-a.html


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I'll also point out the PQ Tiers are fully updated with all reviews and scores through June of 2016. The thread's title unfortunately can't be modified. Google search still returns the original PQ Tiers list as the first result that hasn't been updated since 2012. Bookmark the link posted by Djoberg if you want to keep the list handy.

Kubo and the Two Strings should prove fantastic on Blu-ray.


----------



## djoberg

*Kubo and the Two Strings*

It has been a very long time since I watched a "Stop Motion" animated film. The two that come to mind are _9_ and _Coraline_ and I was fascinated by both of them. I did a Search for them to refresh my memory on the reviews that I wrote and I could only find the one I wrote on _Coraline_. I have given the link below so you could see what I wrote back then (in August of 2007) because I would probably write much of the same for this current title. As you will see, I nominated it for the Top Spot in Tier Blu, but I will NOT be doing the same for _Kubo and the Two Strings_.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-438.html#post16963838

As with _Coraline_, it is the intricate DETAILS and amazing DEPTH that rule in this animated marvel. Texture on clothing, armor, wooden ships, foliage, etc. is simply stunning at times. Yet there has been such an advancement in details and texture in CGI animation that details in Stop Motion animation don't put you in a state of awe like they did "back in the day." There is little to no facial detail, which has always been a negative when it comes to Stop Motion animation. COLORS can be striking, but for the most part they aren't anything to brag about. Since you can read my review on _Coraline_, I'm not going to say anymore, except for the fact that I highly doubt that _Kubo_ is that much better than _Coraline_ (I do have a copy of _Coraline_ so I really should compare the two, especially with the animators claiming they've made great strides in Stop Motion animation in the last 10 years).

_Coraline_ is currently sitting at #24 , so my vote for this one is....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (#23)*


----------



## djoberg

I just returned home today and my 4K copy of _The Secret Life of Pets_ was there waiting for me! I slipped it in about 15 minutes ago and watched the first scene...WOW. It really does have more DETAILS in the Empire State Building, but it's not limited to that. I found the bridges, streets and other buildings more nuanced as well, along with the trees in Central Park.

Again, if someone out there is "sitting on the fence" and debating on whether or not to take the "4K Blu-ray player plunge," I would highly recommend that you GO FOR IT! New 4K releases are coming out quite rapidly (compared to its initial launch) and in most cases there IS an appreciable difference between it and its 1080p counterpart.


----------



## CCsoftball7

djoberg said:


> I just returned home today and my 4K copy of _The Secret Life of Pets_ was there waiting for me! I slipped it in about 15 minutes ago and watched the first scene...WOW. It really does have more DETAILS in the Empire State Building, but it's not limited to that. I found the bridges, streets and other buildings more nuanced as well, along with the trees in Central Park.
> 
> Again, if someone out there is "sitting on the fence" and debating on whether or not to take the "4K Blu-ray player plunge," I would highly recommend that you GO FOR IT! New 4K releases are coming out quite rapidly (compared to its initial launch) and in most cases there IS an appreciable difference between it and its 1080p counterpart.


I hate to say "I told you so," but...  It is the best UHD/HDR disc I have seen.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Justice League Dark*

recommendation: *Tier 1.25**

Another fine release in the animated DCU from WB Animation. Given its themes, the palette is darker than their normal superhero fare. The 75-minute main feature is encoded in AVC on a BD-25. They've gotten past the banding issues that once plagued this line.

The animation itself has nice polish for a direct-to-video production. _Justice League Dark_ features clean, crisp line-art in fluid detail.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*World Break - Aria of Curse for a Holy Swordsman: The Complete Series*

recommendation: *Tier 1.25**

Yes, that is the anime's actual title. I didn't make it up. This 2016 Funimation release includes the entire season over two discs, broken down in their standard 8-to-4 episode split between two BDs.

The smooth animation boasts a vibrant palette splashed with vivid colors. Crisp line detail and fluid motion make for fairly impressive traditional animation. One usually has to go over Funimation's video quality with a wary eye but _World Break_ appears nearly perfect. Its AVC encode lacks banding issues, occasionally a problem for anime.


----------



## djoberg

Thanks for the recent reviews Phantom!

I just picked up the new _Jack Reacher_ movie and reserved a copy of _The Arrival_ that comes out tomorrow. I'm not expecting much in the way of PQ in _The Arrival_, but I am quite excited to see the movie (a true "thinking man's Sci Fi movie"). Conversely, _Jack Reacher_ is not getting good reviews on the movie itself, but the PQ scores it's receiving are stellar!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Once my review has been up long enough, I'll score _Loving_ from last week. It's an actual 35mm film production from Hollywood.


----------



## javanpohl

nohjy said:


> I can't believe everyone is talking about how great Secret Life of Pets is without mentioning the 3D picture. I think it it is one of the best 3D presentations I have seen - for the same reason you all seem to love the 2D - the depth is off the charts. The clarity and layered 3D effects are as good as they get. If you like 3D it is a must own.


really? Damn, I opted to watch it in 2d.


----------



## javanpohl

Anybody watch Train to Busan? Aside from being the Mad Max Fury Road of zombie movies, I was extremely impressed by the video quality. The review over at bluray dot com didn't seem to agree but I don't trust their a/v ratings so much


----------



## djoberg

*Jack Reacher: Never Go Back*

Like the first installment, this one is a LOOKER! Here's a link to my review on that, for I really don't have anything to add to what I said there.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-679.html#post23328808

I said I don't have anything to ADD, but thankfully I have something to SUBTRACT!! That one had a few "negatives" that lowered the score....overblown contrast in opening scenes, bad color-grading, and drab color palette. This one was void of all three.

Guess what! I did think of something to ADD...This sequel had a fine layer of GRAIN sprinkled throughout and it gave it a beautiful "filmic-look."

I gave the original a 1.25; this one gets bumped up two notches...

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.75)*

PS The movie wasn't as good as the first, but it was an "okay" rental.


----------



## CCsoftball7

@djoberg did you get your copy of The Secret Life of Pets yet?


----------



## djoberg

CCsoftball7 said:


> @djoberg did you get your copy of The Secret Life of Pets yet?


Just look back 10 posts on this page where I mentioned getting it and the difference I saw between that and the 1080p version. Then look at the very next post where *YOU* commented on my post!!!!!


----------



## CCsoftball7

djoberg said:


> Just look back 10 posts on this page where I mentioned getting it and the difference I saw between that and the 1080p version. Then look at the very next post where *YOU* commented on my post!!!!!




That's what happens when I view on an app.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Loving*

recommendation: *Tier 2.25**

Right in time for Valentine's Day comes _Loving_, Universal's period drama set in the late 1950s. While lacking the extreme contrast and vivid color palette of impact demo material, _Loving_ is clean picture quality with consistency and depth. The quiet drama is a 35mm film production, which is getting increasingly rarer these days. Universal has done a fine job with the film transfer without introducing technical problems.

It’s a film-like presentation without evident processing, if mildly muted in overall color palette. Its shadow delineation is strong with excellent black levels. Exteriors exhibit fine depth and dimensionality. The 1080P video lacks the pop and immediacy of blockbuster video quality.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Speaking of UHD, I am seriously keeping an eye on Sony's UBP-X800 player coming out in March. It also plays Super Audio CDs, which dovetails nicely with my music collection.

https://davidsusilouncensored.wordpress.com/2017/02/10/sony-uhd-bd-player-ubp-x800-for-us300/


----------



## djoberg

*Arrival*

This was an "unusual" movie, visually and in its plot. First, let's consider the VISUAL (for this IS a PQ-thread).

We often talk about "director's intent" and how it affects the Picture Quality and, ultimately, our Recommended Placement. In the thread's "criteria" it is stated emphatically that the "director's intent" should NOT influence our assessment of the film's PQ. So, let me say from the outset that this film will never find its way into either of the two Top Tiers (i.e. Reference and Demo tiers). That's not to say there isn't any redeeming qualities PQ-wise, for there were plenty of scenes with striking clarity, finely-rendered details, and appreciable depth. But there are also plenty of scenes where the director purposely chose to soften the image, lower the contrast, and strip all dark scenes of true black, resulting in murky grays and poorly-rendered shadow details. So, it is truly a "mixed bag" with _some_ shots fitting squarely into either Tier Blu or Tier Gold, and other shots plummeting into the lower tiers.

Before I give a placement (which is rather difficult in light of my analysis above), I want to give a shout out to the creator of this "thinking man's Sci Fi movie." It literally held my attention during every minute of its nearly two-hour running time and in the end I found myself "thinking" I had everything figured out, only to realize that there are still some "holes" that need filling. In the main I believe I did "arrive" at some conclusions that seem to fit the purpose of the film's creator. I won't go into any details, for I learned my lesson a long time ago when it comes to SPOILERS!!

After some consideration (and weighing all the "pros" and "cons" of its PQ), my vote goes for....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.5**

PS I "could" be convinced to raise my score to as high as 2.0, for the redeeming qualities alluded to above were QUITE GOOD!


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^

I neglected to add that even though the black levels were "purposely" compromised by the director, the "black bars" remained absolutely PITCH BLACK throughout the whole film. If they had been "gray" I would have been taken out of the movie and my final score would have easily been in Tier 3 (towards the bottom) or even at the top of Tier 4.

One can't emphasize enough how wonderful it is to have totally black letter-boxed bars. When you're watching a movie with a Wide Aspect Ratio it really makes you think you're watching it on a screen with that exact aspect ratio. If you are watching it in a light-controlled room with all lights off the bars, the bezel and the darkness of the room become one and all you see is the screen. This is what you see in a good Cinema and it's an even more satisfying experience in the comfort of your own home.


----------



## fredxr2d2

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^
> 
> I neglected to add that even though the black levels were "purposely" compromised by the director, the "black bars" remained absolutely PITCH BLACK throughout the whole film. If they had been "gray" I would have been taken out of the movie and my final score would have easily been in Tier 3 (towards the bottom) or even at the top of Tier 4.
> 
> One can't emphasize enough how wonderful it is to have totally black letter-boxed bars. When you're watching a movie with a Wide Aspect Ratio it really makes you think you're watching it on a screen with that exact aspect ratio. If you are watching it in a light-controlled room with all lights off the bars, the bezel and the darkness of the room become one and all you see is the screen. This is what you see in a good Cinema and it's an even more satisfying experience in the comfort of your own home.


This is why I bought a screen with a masking system for my projector. https://www.monoprice.com/Product?c_id=108&cp_id=10829&cs_id=1082910&p_id=7970&seq=1&format=2

It works wonders. Not as fancy as a $3000 carada system, but I'm really happy with it for the price. In my previous home, I had DIY some masking and this professionally made system is way better.


----------



## mweflen

*Arrival*

As Djoberg has quite correctly stated, the director and cinematographer have made a lot of stark choices here, and they reduce the "eye candy" potential of the image on display here. Contrast is generally weak, and though the detail is there in many scenes, it is so obscured by the contrast and color palette that it is hard to see. Using the Arri Alexa to shoot your movie and then doing this to the image is kind of like buying a Ferrari and putting temporary "50 miles only" spare tires on it.

With that said, it is a pleasing, consistent watch without significant problems of banding, aliasing, or moire.

As such, I deem it right in the mediocre part of the bell curve.
*
Tier Recommendation 3.0

*

I also heartily agree with all of the movie-specific comments DJ has made. This will make you think and make you feel. It's easily up there with, and perhaps superior to most of, the best sci-fi movies of the century thus far (Interstellar, Her, Ex Machina, Inception, The Prestige, The Martian, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind)


----------



## anthonymoody

I'm new to this thread and am hoping you guys can point me to some thinking on the best live-action UHD-BR PQ. I saw the posts about Kubo and Secret Life of Pets, and am not surprised to hear they look stunning. But what about live action? What are the new reference discs? (I checked the List/Tier post, but there doesn't seem to be any indication of whether the title is BR or UHD-BR unless I'm missing something).

TIA


----------



## Phantom Stranger

anthonymoody said:


> I'm new to this thread and am hoping you guys can point me to some thinking on the best live-action UHD-BR PQ. I saw the posts about Kubo and Secret Life of Pets, and am not surprised to hear they look stunning. But what about live action? What are the new reference discs? (I checked the List/Tier post, but there doesn't seem to be any indication of whether the title is BR or UHD-BR unless I'm missing something).
> 
> TIA


At the current moment only BDs are ranked in the PQ Tiers. So everything you see listed is the Blu-ray. The UHD discussion in this thread is largely meant for comparative reasons at this stage.

I think it's wise to let the UHD platform mature a little more before we start ranking them in order by picture quality. Once the studios get a complete handle on the 4K production pipeline for filmmaking I have a hunch future UHDs will look even better than they do now.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Suicide Squad*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

WB's latest superhero blockbuster looks fairly impressive, if limited in some scenes by its dour palette. The good news is that the studio hasn't cut any corners, putting the extended cut on a second BD. 

It's a stronger technical presentation than usual from WB for one of their blockbusters. Like most action spectacles, the movie is chock full of CGI. That introduces mild softness on occasion. The video resonates with texture and depth, offering fairly strong dimensionality.

_Suicide Squad_ offers crisp picture quality that dials down the visual sizzle often found in recent superhero movies. Darker in tone than others of its ilk, _Suicide Squad_ makes up for it with consistently excellent black levels and superb shadow delineation.


----------



## djoberg

anthonymoody said:


> I'm new to this thread and am hoping you guys can point me to some thinking on the best live-action UHD-BR PQ. I saw the posts about Kubo and Secret Life of Pets, and am not surprised to hear they look stunning. But what about live action? What are the new reference discs? (I checked the List/Tier post, but there doesn't seem to be any indication of whether the title is BR or UHD-BR unless I'm missing something).
> 
> TIA


As Phantom said, this is a "Blu-ray (1080p) Thread," so any mention of UHD titles are only for comparison. Having said that, there are many excellent UHD titles out there (in addition to the two you cited). Here is a list of good Sci-Fi UHD Blu-rays:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/166-l...rs-thread-no-price-talk-220.html#post49183865

Two of my favorite "non-Sci Fi" UHD movies for pure EYE CANDY are _The Revenant_ and _The Great Gatsby_.


----------



## SnellTHX

Just saw KUNG FU PANDA 3. Absolutely amazing picture quality that is indeed some of the finest I have ever seen. Possibly top 5 material for me. The colours have the most amazing vibrancy and 3D pop imaginable. The details and sharpness is ludicrous, like seeing every individual straw of fur on the Pandas or Tigress in close ups. Mind blowing.

Reference disc.


*Tier recommendation: 0 *


----------



## SnellTHX

anthonymoody said:


> I'm new to this thread and am hoping you guys can point me to some thinking on the best live-action UHD-BR PQ. I saw the posts about Kubo and Secret Life of Pets, and am not surprised to hear they look stunning. But what about live action? What are the new reference discs? (I checked the List/Tier post, but there doesn't seem to be any indication of whether the title is BR or UHD-BR unless I'm missing something).
> 
> TIA


My favourites are: Avatar, Life of Pi, Interstellar, Oblivion, TDK and TDK:R, First Avengers (not the second!!) and Chappie.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

SnellTHX said:


> Just saw KUNG FU PANDA 3. Absolutely amazing picture quality that is indeed some of the finest I have ever seen. Possibly top 5 material for me.
> 
> Reference disc.
> 
> 
> *Tier recommendation: 0 *


I've always liked the CGI animation seen in the Kung Fu Panda series. It's shinier and sharper than what we've been getting from Pixar of late. Pixar tends to go for softer edges and more texture.

*Beauty and the Beast (2014)*

recommendation: *Tier 1.25**

This recent French adaptation of the fairytale romance from director Christophe Gans (_The Brotherhood of the Wolf_) is put out just in time by Shout Factory to compete with Disney's own live-action version hitting theaters. The distinctive visuals and lavish production design mark it as a Gans' film right away. It's a film made for eye candy with extravagant CGI and breathtaking scenery. This Hi-Def presentation from Shout Factory doesn't disappoint.

I'd love to place this disc higher in the Tiers, there is an artistry to the movie's aesthetic not often found in Hollywood blockbusters. Make no mistake, the French production is indistinguishable from Hollywood product in terms of craft. 

The finely tuned cinematography changes color palette dependent on time and place in the plot. Belle pops off the screen inside the Beast’s dimly lit castle, dressed in brilliantly colored dresses provided by the brusque monster. It offers a warm, inviting contrast with outstanding depth and dimensionality. Gans carefully selects which moments need the most focus, providing several eye-catching displays of pristine video quality.

Darker in spirit than the more familiar animated Disney film, Gans has constructed an intricate fairytale world in splendid realization. This is great-looking video, mildly limited by excessive CGI.


----------



## video_analysis

djoberg said:


> As Phantom said, this is a "Blu-ray (1080p) Thread," so any mention of UHD titles are only for comparison. Having said that, there are many excellent UHD titles out there (in addition to the two you cited). Here is a list of good Sci-Fi UHD Blu-rays:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/166-l...rs-thread-no-price-talk-220.html#post49183865
> 
> Two of my favorite "non-Sci Fi" UHD movies for pure EYE CANDY are _The Revenant_ and _The Great Gatsby_.


Guess I'm becoming more jaded, but I can't be bothered with most of that sci-fi, already have Great Gatsby in 3D, and am also worn out on animation, so it seems like Revenant would be the best bet...maybe X-Men Apocalypse (but I'm seeking out the 3D for that) based on what I've heard. Basically, I have no UHD disc yet, so aside from The Secret Life of Pets, what's the next best in people's estimation? I've also heard about Lucy, but I'm boycotting Scarlet (though most of outspoken Hollywood has turned me right off), so feel free to keep the recommendations coming.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

This goes for everyone participating in the PQ Tiers, feel free to offer UHD placements in this discussion thread. Djoberg has offered his comments on various UHDs and others at times have chimed in on them.

I am not exactly sure how we'll incorporate the UHD scores into this thread and the PQ Tiers, but we'll cross that Rubicon when we come to it. Don't hold back if you see something exciting on UHD.


----------



## video_analysis

As tired as I am of superheroes, I went ahead and grabbed the latest Xmen, my first UHD HDR disc, and found it pretty phenomenal predominately thanks to the newfound color vibrancy. I still think I prefer 3D (which means I have to double dip on this film, which, from the looks of it, will seriously benefit from added dimensionality).


----------



## djoberg

video_analysis said:


> Guess I'm becoming more jaded, but I can't be bothered with most of that sci-fi, already have Great Gatsby in 3D, and am also worn out on animation, so it seems like Revenant would be the best bet...maybe X-Men Apocalypse (but I'm seeking out the 3D for that) based on what I've heard. Basically, I have no UHD disc yet, so aside from The Secret Life of Pets, what's the next best in people's estimation? I've also heard about Lucy, but I'm boycotting Scarlet (though most of outspoken Hollywood has turned me right off), so feel free to keep the recommendations coming.





video_analysis said:


> As tired as I am of superheroes, I went ahead and grabbed the latest Xmen, my first UHD HDR disc, and found it pretty phenomenal predominately thanks to the newfound color vibrancy. I still think I prefer 3D (which means I have to double dip on this film, which, from the looks of it, will seriously benefit from added dimensionality).


I hear you when it comes to Superhero movies! Regarding "recommendations," here are some of my favorites (for PQ) in UHD (besides the ones I already mentioned):

Concussion
Exodus: Gods and Kings
The Huntsman: Winter's War
Life of Pi
The Magnificent Seven
Risen
The Shallows
Sully
The Legend of Tarzan
The Last Witch Hunter
Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children

For animated marvels (besides The Secret Life of Pets), you can't beat:

The Smurfs 2
Storks
The Angry Birds Movie


----------



## video_analysis

Thanks, besides the few 3Ds already acquired, I see several I could grab from that list. Oh well, next time!


----------



## SnellTHX

Phantom Stranger said:


> I've always liked the CGI animation seen in the Kung Fu Panda series. It's shinier and sharper than what we've been getting from Pixar of late. Pixar tends to go for softer edges and more texture.


Well Kung Fu Panda 3 is a huge step up from the already great prequels 


Just saw that KFP-3 hasn't been added to the list yet. When the time comes it should definitely be at the very top !! 10/10 picture


----------



## SnellTHX

CCsoftball7 said:


> It's the most detailed, and quite honestly the *BEST* HDR I've seen. If you don't appreciate it, let me know and I'll buy your disc. I know I can give it to my daughter and granddaughter.


Well dang. After your (and Djoberg's) comments on the Secret life of Pets looks like I'll have to get it as well 

Both of you have it as your #1 blu-ray???? Mine is still the Life of Pi... Even though The Good Dinosaur, Kung Fu Panda 3 etc come very close. Hope it becomes my number one too


----------



## djoberg

I just received two new Blu-rays: 1)_ Do You Believe_ (a Christian film that is supposed to be quite good, both in the PLOT and in the ACTING); and 2) _Hacksaw Ridge_. I may watch the first one tonight, but i'm not sure when I'll get to the second one (hopefully before this weekend).


----------



## SnellTHX

*Batman vs Superman *


I remember watching this movie in one of the best cinemas in the country. A fantastic A/V experience but the most amazing part was the absolutely stunning surround sound track. 

Got the Blu ray of this movie and I certainly think its a reference disk, but that is due to the superb sound quality. Some of the deepest bass out there and there's lots of it! Unfortunately the picture quality doesn't live up the quality of the surround sound. Still excellent, but not Tier 0 material. I also noticed how loud this movie was. I usually watch my films around -15dB to -18dB, but with this movie I felt I got the same sound levels while on -25dB... I pushed the system up to -20dB but terrified to get another neighbour complaint. Those action scenes were amazing! I remember how it rumbled and shook the room in the cinema, I can't remember seeing any other movie ever with that amount of bass in a commercial cinema.


Good picture, but no where near the IMAX 15/70mm scenes of The Dark Knight Rises from 2012... or even The Dark Knight from 2008! 
*
Tier recommendation: 1.75* *


----------



## djoberg

*Do You Believe?*

I must say that for a low-budget Christian film, I was very impressed with the PQ! It had striking clarity in "most" scenes, vibrant colors (with the exception of some shots with heavy color-grading) throughout, details to-die-for (especially facial texture in all of the lead actors...the opening scene has a close-up of Delroy Lindo that defies description), and very good black levels in a number of scenes. Flesh tones were also accurate...contrast was strong...and at times it had astounding depth.

In the "minus column," softness did creep into a few shots...black levels wavered in a couple of night time scenes...and the scenes with color-grading (i.e. orange hues) affected flesh tones. If not for these few negatives, which only occupied about ten minutes out of a running time of nearly two hours, I would be tempted to place this in Tier Blu. As it is I'm going with....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.0**


----------



## djoberg

*Hacksaw Ridge*

Ah, another "feast for the eyes" from Lionsgate! 

Make room on your "Reference Shelf," for this one is stunning from beginning to end (with the exception of some banding in a scene where the sun is coming up on the battlefield...yet this is eliminated if you have the 4K version). Details are the biggest feature here (and let me tell you you will see details on the battlefield that may cause you to turn your head!), but this excels in all other areas as well. In daytime scenes the contrast is spectacular with blinding whites; at night the same contrast treats you to inky blacks with no loss of detail (except for one brief scene in the barracks). Primary colors are also very pleasing to the eye, though during all the battle scenes on Hacksaw Ridge they are necessarily muted. Clarity is phenomenal...flesh tones are spot-on...and depth is superb in many scenes.

Before I give my recommendation, I will say that the major difference between the 1080p version and its 4k counterpart (besides the banding issue alluded to above) was in the contrast. In daytime scenes with plenty of light (outdoors or indoors with good lighting) the whites were even brighter, and during night time scenes (outdoors and indoors) the blacks were deeper and the shadow details more refined.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.75)*

PS The 4K version gets bumped up to .5!

PPS The movie is EXCELLENT!!


----------



## SnellTHX

*Deepwater Horizon* gets a tier recommendation of *Gold - 1** from me. Great movie along with excellent picture quality. Gotta love Marky Mark.


----------



## SnellTHX

Ahh Hacksaw Ridge... Really wanted to see that in the cinema! Didn't realise the BD was already out. Supposed to be one of the best films of the year and I absolutely love WWII themed films. Probably can't compare to impression Saving Private Ryan back in '98 gave though! haha.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Psychomania*

recommendation: *Tier 4.0**

Arrow put out this curious motorcycle-themed occult flick from the early 1970s. The British Film Institute luckily found 35mm black-and-white separation masters as the negative has been missing for years. Their transfer reconstructs the film into decent picture quality. The British movie isn't loaded with depth and its color remains somewhat washed out.

The 1080p presentation is fairly watchable and film-like. This isn't the best restoration but turns out nice enough on Blu-ray.


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> Ahh Hacksaw Ridge... Really wanted to see that in the cinema! Didn't realise the BD was already out. Supposed to be one of the best films of the year and I absolutely love WWII themed films. Probably can't compare to impression Saving Private Ryan back in '98 gave though! haha.


I actually liked it just as much, or more, than _Saving Private Ryan_.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^^

EDIT: In light of the fact that _Saving Private Ryan_ was such a "crowd-pleaser," I thought I should add why I liked _Hacksaw Ridge_ just as much or better. I know some did NOT like the slow-paced first half leading up to the battle scenes in the second half, but I am one who LOVES character development and this film did an excellent job at doing just that. The fact that this was done "sequentially" instead of in "flashbacks" was another positive.

Another benefit of _Hacksaw Ridge_ was that it was "Based on a True Story" instead of being "Partially Based on a True Story."


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> I actually liked it just as much, or more, than _Saving Private Ryan_.


Wow that's great to hear! I was hoping this movie would finally be a sort of "spiritual successor" to Saving Private Ryan, in sense of quality of acting, storyline and of course the visual and auditory impact SPR gave back in '98.


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> Wow that's great to hear! I was hoping this movie would finally be a sort of "spiritual successor" to Saving Private Ryan, in sense of quality of acting, storyline and of course the visual and auditory impact SPR gave back in '98.


It is indeed a "spiritual" successor, for the "theme" of this movie is the spiritual message it conveys. As you may know, it is a true story about one man's absolute conviction to "not bear arms" because he believed the commandment "Thou Shalt Not Kill" included killing one's enemy in war or in self-defense.

Besides "some" people not liking the slow build-up to the battle scenes, they also didn't like the "romance" that occupied a good part of the first half. What they failed to see, IMHO, is that Desmond's love for this woman was an essential ingredient in his story, for it tested his conviction about not killing another human being more than any other thing (as you will see when you watch the movie). I hope you enjoy the film as much as I did, including the amazing PQ!

Okay, back to our "regular broadcasting" material!


----------



## DarthDoxie

Phantom Stranger said:


> Speaking of UHD, I am seriously keeping an eye on Sony's UBP-X800 player coming out in March. It also plays Super Audio CDs, which dovetails nicely with my music collection.
> 
> https://davidsusilouncensored.wordpress.com/2017/02/10/sony-uhd-bd-player-ubp-x800-for-us300/


I just ordered the OPPO UDP-203, arrives on Thursday. I don't have a 4K display yet but I'm upgrading in stages and this is what I can afford right now. The wife got a new Apple Watch so I'm getting the OPPO...seems like a nice trade , a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush kind of deal!


----------



## JNayAV

Curious to hear what people have to say about Hacksaw Ridge. Wife and I watched the Blu-ray disk out of the Ultra HD Combo Pack (haven't switched my 103D in for a 203 yet) and Wife actually asked if something was wrong with the TV when noticed some banding. I don't want to give official score judgement yet as want to watch some other disks to see if something may have been messed with in my AV chain.


Issues were noticed in the seemingly frequent shots over someones shoulder focusing on the main character. The back of the person's head looked banded. I'm sure was stylistic intent to make camera focus on main character with the over shoulder person blurred but didn't seem handled well to me. Maybe one other shot with the sun showed banding, but issue was that once mentioned I looked for it in every shot that was similar.


Besides those few scenes, details and contrast overall looked superb to me.


The disk overall seemed to handle night scenes of the battle with dust extremely well, which usually is the areas I would assume would have issues.


----------



## djoberg

JNayAV said:


> Curious to hear what people have to say about Hacksaw Ridge. Wife and I watched the Blu-ray disk out of the Ultra HD Combo Pack (haven't switched my 103D in for a 203 yet) and Wife actually asked if something was wrong with the TV when noticed some banding. I don't want to give official score judgement yet as want to watch some other disks to see if something may have been messed with in my AV chain.
> 
> 
> Issues were noticed in the seemingly frequent shots over someones shoulder focusing on the main character. The back of the person's head looked banded. I'm sure was stylistic intent to make camera focus on main character with the over shoulder person blurred but didn't seem handled well to me. Maybe one other shot with the sun showed banding, but issue was that once mentioned I looked for it in every shot that was similar.
> 
> 
> Besides those few scenes, details and contrast overall looked superb to me.
> 
> 
> The disk overall seemed to handle night scenes of the battle with dust extremely well, which usually is the areas I would assume would have issues.


I am going to assume you didn't read my review so here is the link to it:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-789.html#post51040761

As you will see, I did notice one instance of banding on the 1080p version, but it was eliminated on the UHD version.


----------



## JNayAV

Sorry should have mentioned, I did read your review Djoberg. Noticed you didn't mention banding in other scenes like I did on my set, only the sun coming up. I know different sets can deal with banding differently so curious to see what consensus ends up being.


Due to the extra banding I saw I was leaning towards Tier 1.0, so wouldn't be far off from your recommendation regardless.


Overall, I agree PQ was superb and movie in general was very good.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Celestial Method: Complete Collection*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

This anime release from Sentai Filmworks has been out for around a year. The entire series is spread out over two discs. Banding and other compression problems don't crop up in the AVC encode.

The animation itself is better than average for this kind of niche fare. Lighting effects and saturated colors give it a pop often lacking from regular anime.


----------



## djoberg

Just rented _Allied_ today and will watch it tomorrow before leaving for the weekend. I also bought _Dr. Strange_ and _Trolls_ and hope to watch them early next week. Reviews on all 3 are good (for PQ, that is).


----------



## deltasun

JNayAV said:


> Curious to hear what people have to say about Hacksaw Ridge. Wife and I watched the Blu-ray disk out of the Ultra HD Combo Pack (haven't switched my 103D in for a 203 yet) and Wife actually asked if something was wrong with the TV when noticed some banding. I don't want to give official score judgement yet as want to watch some other disks to see if something may have been messed with in my AV chain.
> 
> 
> Issues were noticed in the seemingly frequent shots over someones shoulder focusing on the main character. The back of the person's head looked banded. I'm sure was stylistic intent to make camera focus on main character with the over shoulder person blurred but didn't seem handled well to me. Maybe one other shot with the sun showed banding, but issue was that once mentioned I looked for it in every shot that was similar.
> 
> 
> Besides those few scenes, details and contrast overall looked superb to me.
> 
> 
> The disk overall seemed to handle night scenes of the battle with dust extremely well, which usually is the areas I would assume would have issues.





djoberg said:


> I am going to assume you didn't read my review so here is the link to it:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-789.html#post51040761
> 
> As you will see, I did notice one instance of banding on the 1080p version, but it was eliminated on the UHD version.


Hey fellas! Great to see everyone! Hiya Denny.  Anyway, popped in my Hacksaw Ridge tonight (1080p) and was so shocked and take aback by the persistent banding (in faces mostly, shadowed skin areas, etc.) that I had to come in here, reset my password, and chime in. I don't know if this can possibly be allowed above Tier 1. Granted, I'm only 20 minutes in, but it was jaw-dropping for a new film of this calibre.


----------



## djoberg

deltasun said:


> Hey fellas! Great to see everyone! Hiya Denny.  Anyway, popped in my Hacksaw Ridge tonight (1080p) and was so shocked and take aback by the persistent banding (in faces mostly, shadowed skin areas, etc.) that I had to come in here, reset my password, and chime in. I don't know if this can possibly be allowed above Tier 1. Granted, I'm only 20 minutes in, but it was jaw-dropping for a new film of this calibre.


Whoa! What a surprise to wake up this morning and to see your post! Hope this isn't just a casual "drop-in."

I don't know what to say about your experience with banding. You got me curious though so I read some "expert" reviews and there are a couple of reviewers who cite one or two instances of banding, and one who seemed to share your view (Matt from Do.Blu), but the majority either saw NONE or the one instance that I did on the 1080p version. It would be interesting to get your take after seeing the 4K version.

Our own "resident AVS reviewer" Ralph Potts saw no artifacts or anomalies on either disc. Here's his review (on both discs):

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-o...dge-ultra-hd-blu-ray-review.html#post50675889


----------



## Phantom Stranger

deltasun said:


> Hey fellas! Great to see everyone! Hiya Denny.  Anyway, popped in my Hacksaw Ridge tonight (1080p) and was so shocked and take aback by the persistent banding (in faces mostly, shadowed skin areas, etc.) that I had to come in here, reset my password, and chime in. I don't know if this can possibly be allowed above Tier 1. Granted, I'm only 20 minutes in, but it was jaw-dropping for a new film of this calibre.


It's good to see you drop by, Deltasun! You are always welcome around here.

Anyone know what Hacksaw Ridge was shot on?


----------



## djoberg

Here is an excerpt from Bluray.com:

"Hacksaw Ridge is presented on Blu-ray courtesy of Lionsgate Films with an AVC encoded 1080p transfer in 2.39:1. Shot with a variety of digital cameras and finished at a 2K DI, this is a largely flawless looking transfer that offers consistently (and often pretty gruesomely) high levels of detail and fine detail."

Here is a line from Hi-Def Digest:

"Originally shot on the Arri Alexa and Red Epic Dragon cameras at near 4K resolution, the digital photography displays sharp definition in every scene."


----------



## djoberg

*Allied*

I recall the days when we longed to see a "Reference Quality" Blu-ray; they were "few and far between," to be sure. Those "days" seem to be over; in fact, now it is rare to be placing a film anywhere but the top Two Tiers!

This one was PRISTINE (for the most part), with dazzling CLARITY (especially in outdoor, daytime scenes, which were plentiful) and astounding DEPTH (again, mostly in outdoor, daytime scenes). Night time scenes, or indoor scenes with low-lighting, featured rich BLACKS and finely-rendered SHADOW DETAILS.

DETAILS in general were superb! You could see every stitch in clothing; every nuance in foliage; every crack and stone in city streets; and the list goes on and on. The only disappointment was in "some" facial details, where there seemed to be a bit of smoothing on the female lead's creamy white face. But in fairness there were also some facial close-ups with excellent texture, including the female lead.

COLORS were bold and vibrant, especially (you know what I'm going to say) in outdoor, daytime scenes, but not limited to them. These were on display during the majority of the first half. Once the scene shifted to London, with its rather gloomy atmosphere and night time bombing, primaries were less frequent, though on occasion they did blossom, yielding sufficient EYE CANDY.

In considering the placement for this film, the first half would easily be a contender for .5 in the Top Tier. The second half may not have fared as well, but it still had many "reference shots" and the less-than-stellar scenes were still worthy of the top of Tier Gold. My vote goes for....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.75)*

PS I've heard the 4K version boosts the details, colors and depth up a notch, so I would imagine that would land in the middle of Tier Blu.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I completely agree that Blu-ray's average picture quality for new productions has gotten better. Demo-level discs come out more and more often in the upper Tiers. Some of it is selection bias as studios figure out what looks great at 1080P resolution. But there have been legitimate areas of improvement. We are regularly getting more refined, less processed video all the time in stunning clarity. The drastic color timings that seemed to be a regular occurrence a decade ago are now more tempered.

*Panther Girl of the Kongo*

recommendation: *Tier 4.5**

Olive Films licensed this 1955 Republic Pictures serial from Paramount's library. The black-and-white serial comes in a nice enough HD transfer from stable, consistent elements. Panther Girl of the Kongo offers a solid contrast and adequate black levels, if slightly blown out.

The good news is that the elements are in fine shape with virtually no obvious film damage. Its 1080P presentation is appropriately framed at 1.37:1 and doesn't exhibit significant digital processing.


----------



## SnellTHX

Well another way of phrasing it would be: IF _*everything*_ is a reference disk then _*nothing*_ is a reference 


Might have to raise the bar a little


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> Well another way of phrasing it would be: IF _*everything*_ is a reference disk then _*nothing*_ is a reference
> 
> 
> Might have to raise the bar a little


IF, and that would be a BIG IF, everything was "reference," they would still be reference if they meet the criteria for reference as outlined on the Tier Rankings Thread. 

Like I said in my post, "many" titles coming out are either Tier 0 (reference-quality) or Tier 1 (demo-quality).


----------



## DarthDoxie

*The Martian*

recommendation: *Tier 0 *(current location)

Great clarity, color, contrast, and black levels; quality was solid for the whole run-time.


----------



## djoberg

*Doctor Strange*

Before viewing this Disney release, I read several reviews from respected reviewers (AVS Forum reviewer Ralph Potts, Hi-Def Digest and Blu-ray.com) and they all sang its praises. Well, don't add me to that list, for I was UNIMPRESSED, to say the least.

Except for several scenes where you are treated to some very good details and depth, the majority of this film has lackluster blacks (with very little depth and poor shadow details), consistent softness, and mediocre details. Much of what I've just stated is in every scene featuring excessive CGI, and a good percentage of the movie consists of CGI.

The scenes that were good (as alluded to above) were mostly in the first few scenes that took place in the hospital and on the streets of New York City. If this continued throughout the movie I would have definitely felt this was "demo-worthy" and would have opted for a 1.5 recommendation. Things being what they are, I'm forced to drop this into Tier Silver (and to think I had just commented on how most current titles are easily falling into the top two tiers). But I will be generous and vote for...

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 2.0**

PS I didn't care that much for the movie either. Again, the reviewers I referred to liked both the movie AND the PQ. Just goes to prove the old adage, "Different strokes for different folks."


----------



## JNayAV

Moana
Tier Recommendation: 0.5
Very consistent throughout with beautiful colors and no issues that were seen. Blacks were rare though looked to be good when present. 

Haven't watched enough of the top of tier 0 to give explicit placement but feel this one will end up near the top.

P.S. Also watched Doctor Strange in 3D. From the 3D don't expect it to rate to highly several scenes appeared to have blacks that appeared grey and lacking in fine details, but colors in magic sequences were strong. Definitely suggest the title as a 3D demo for the space scenes but not so much for PQ


----------



## djoberg

*Cell*

This was a STRANGE (Stephen King) movie with VERY GOOD PQ!

In short, this film featured excellent DETAILS from beginning to apocalyptic end! I had read that the black levels left "something to be desired," but I found them more than acceptable, and the shadow details were also quite good. Speaking of details, facial texture was excellent and the director chose to zoom in often on the two male leads (Samuel Jackson and John Cusack) who are both aging and "showing their age!"

There were numerous "dark scenes," and as intimated above most of them fared well, but "some" of them faltered a bit resulting in a lack of detail and depth. Contrast was superb...flesh tones were spot-on...and clarity was impressive in every daytime scene. On occasion colors were very good, but in many scenes they were either muted or "blue/teal" (color-graded).

Thankfully this one was "back on track," meaning I'm able to assign this one to one of "top two tiers." Methinks it will land right here...

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.5**


----------



## djoberg

*The Accountant*

We have another Blu for the "Demo Shelf!"

It was obvious from the outset that this was shot on film, for a light layer of grain made its presence known and for the most part it never let up during this film's 2 hour running time. Thankfully it served to enhance detail except for a few instances where the sky looked quite "noisy."

What caught my attention over everything else was the level of DETAIL and this was especially true in well-lit interiors and daytime shots outdoors. Facial texture was generally superb, though there were a couple of shots where faces looked a bit "smoothed over."

Black levels were somewhat of a mixed bag; at times they were rich and velvety, and at other times they became a bit grayish. Having said that, the letter-boxed bars remained "pitch black" throughout.

My main "gripe" would be with the egregious color-grading in numerous scenes. It featured mainly "orange hues" with splashes of "teal" thrown in for good measure. This did not hinder detail, but the orange hues resulted in "orange flesh tones."

Clarity was topnotch, though there were a few shots where softness intruded and at those times depth suffered.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**

PS I enjoyed the movie! I went into it not knowing anything about it except for a few glances at a trailer about 3-4 weeks ago. The pace may be too slow for some but this allowed a fair amount of character development, which I am a big fan of. There was "enough" action for my tastes.


----------



## djoberg

*Moana*

Disney hit a HOME-RUN with this one; in fact, this is going to be stiff competition for the current #1 (_The Good Dinosaur_). Of course, I nominated _The Secret Life of Pets_ for that spot a few weeks ago, so what I'm really saying is "this one will easily tie either of those two!!"

This one has it all...bold & vibrant COLORS...exquisite DETAILS...razor-sharp CLARITY...3D DEPTH...and uber-inky BLACKS. Speaking of BLACKS, JNayAV weighed in on this one a few days ago and said there wasn't much for blacks, but in truth this one has more blacks than the average animated film. We are treated to DEEP BLACKS in numerous night-time skies (while Moana & Maui are navigating the seas by the stars), and then there's a deep-sea scene with a huge crab who turns black and I'm here to tell you he was "OLED BLACK!!!" I should mention the letter-boxed bars were invisible from beginning to end; in other words, they were PITCH BLACK.

The first half of the movie featured "the home island" of Moana and it truly looked like a tropical paradise. What impressed me the most was the ultra-green foliage of palm trees (and other vegetation) and the turquoise blue waters of the beautiful sea. We used to have an AVS member visiting this site with the username of GeekyGlassesGirl who LOVED movies with OCEAN WATERS in them; she would be absolutely mesmerized by this animated marvel!

Another thing that blew me away was the use of lighting, whether it was a moon-lit night, or a fire, or rays of sunshine, they were so realistic. We talk about "photo-realism" and this one was chock-full of that feature, not just with the use of light, but with finely-rendered texture in rocks, hair, trees, etc, etc.

I'll stop here and get to my nomination. Actually, I've already given that away....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (tied with the current #1 and The Secret Life of Pets)*


----------



## JNayAV

Also helps that Moana is a generally good movie. Don't have to try to stay awake to get to the good PQ.
Had a feeling other's might chime in and rank it #1 , it would be my top choice as well, just haven't seen the other top rated animated movies to judge. Wife is a huge fan of Disney animated films, so when reviews said this one was good, we had to see it.


I was most impressed by the overall contrast. The tropical scenes looked like a bright tropical island but not overblown which seems the norm these days. Like Djoberg said the crab scene was a lesson in deep black with bright color contrast is a sight to behold, very nice on my E6. Also agree with the comment on the water, those are some really nice blues.


If Disney ever gets around to releasing 4K with HDR may have to double dip, but I'm not sure what could be improved here.


----------



## SnellTHX

I haven't seen the whole film on BD yet, but the quick glimse I've seen Moana looks like one of the very best reference tier 0 discs ever made. Insane clarity, detail and sharpness to the image.


----------



## djoberg

JNayAV said:


> Also helps that Moana is a generally good movie. Don't have to try to stay awake to get to the good PQ.
> Had a feeling other's might chime in and rank it #1 , it would be my top choice as well, just haven't seen the other top rated animated movies to judge. Wife is a huge fan of Disney animated films, so when reviews said this one was good, we had to see it.
> 
> 
> I was most impressed by the overall contrast. The tropical scenes looked like a bright tropical island but not overblown which seems the norm these days. Like Djoberg said the crab scene was a lesson in deep black with bright color contrast is a sight to behold, very nice on my E6. Also agree with the comment on the water, those are some really nice blues.
> 
> 
> If Disney ever gets around to releasing 4K with HDR may have to double dip, but I'm not sure what could be improved here.


I agree 110% with every point made, including the fact that it's a good movie. This is saying something, for it's unusually long for an animated movie (107 minutes). I too would be tempted to double-dip if this was released on 4K, but like you said, "I'm not sure what could be improved here." Having said that, there are other excellent animated titles in 1080p that WERE improved upon in its 4K counterpart. A good example of that would be _The Secret Life of Pets_, where the colors had a little more POP, the texture in animals was more refined, and there were better details in objects as well.

On a side note, glad to read that you've got the LG OLED E6. That's a great choice for a Flat Panel display which I considered (along with the B6) but in the end I went with the Sony 940D because I wanted at least a 70" screen. Of course there was the G6 77" but then I would have had to sell my house to get it and then I wouldn't have any place to put and view my tv!


----------



## SnellTHX

Doctor Strange did appear to have greyish / brownish blacks in the cinema, even for being a DCI 4K projector. Loved the visual effects though, will have to wait and see what it looks like on my Kuro to judge though


----------



## SnellTHX

*Pirates of the Carribean: On Stranger Tides*

Fantastic picture quality that is razor sharp, great detail and inky blacks all over the place  I think I remember PotC 2 3 having better picture (reference quality) but I suppose that was because back in 2007 there weren't that many great discs like there are today.


Gold quality for sure

*Tier recommendation: 1.25*


----------



## SnellTHX

*Gone Girl*


Hmm didn't fancy this picture too much. One of the few discs where my Kuro didn't render complete blacks... I could tell the difference from black bars and black areas in the movie which is new for me. Not bad PQ, but I was annoyed my the minor instances if imperfect blacks. Silver sounds right to me.


*Tier recommendation: 2.5*


----------



## djoberg

*Trolls*

Would you believe.....we have ANOTHER contender for "King of the Blu-ray Hill?!"

I'm not kidding, this one has the most AMAZING COLORS I've seen in an animated movie...they are DAZZLING, and they're on display for nearly every minute of its 85 minute running time. At times they literally SPARKLE.

And then there's the TEXTURE! Again, I can't recall seeing this much texture in the animated genre...texture in the skin and hair of the "Trolls" and the "Bergens," and texture in everything else!

Finally, there's DEPTH. This one POPS with near 3D DIMENSIONALITY. 

This one doesn't have the photo-realism that is found in _The Good Dinosaur_ or _Moana_, but then those titles don't have the colors or texture of _Trolls_. _The Secret Life of Pets_ had "some" of the colors and texture, but not to the same degree.

I think you are seeing the "dilemma" that I'm facing here, for methinks we might have a real battle between these four (I say this, even after giving the nod to _The Secret Life of Pets_ a couple of weeks ago). I'm going to play it safe (for now)....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (tied with Moana, The Secret Life of Pets & The Good Dinosaur)*


----------



## fredxr2d2

djoberg said:


> *Trolls*
> 
> Would you believe.....we have ANOTHER contender for "King of the Blu-ray Hill?!"
> 
> I'm not kidding, this one has the most AMAZING COLORS I've seen in an animated movie...they are DAZZLING, and they're on display for nearly every minute of its 85 minute running time. At times they literally SPARKLE.
> 
> And then there's the TEXTURE! Again, I can't recall seeing this much texture in the animated genre...texture in the skin and hair of the "Trolls" and the "Bergens," and texture in everything else!
> 
> Finally, there's DEPTH. This one POPS with near 3D DIMENSIONALITY.
> 
> This one doesn't have the photo-realism that is found in _The Good Dinosaur_ or _Moana_, but then those titles doesn't have the colors or texture of _Trolls_. _The Secret Life of Pets_ had "some" of the colors and texture, but not to the same degree.
> 
> I think you are seeing the "dilemma" that I'm facing here, for methinks we might have a real battle between these 4 four (I say this, even after giving the nod to _The Secret Life of Pets_ a couple of weeks ago). I'm going to play it safe (for now)....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (tied with Moana, The Secret Life of Pets & The Good Dinosaur)*


Having just watched Moana and Trolls almost back to back, I'd put Moana above it in terms of PQ. But I did like the fact that Trolls has nearly everything made out of "felt."


----------



## djoberg

fredxr2d2 said:


> Having just watched Moana and Trolls almost back to back, I'd put Moana above it in terms of PQ. But I did like the fact that Trolls has nearly everything made out of "felt."


You need to make a post stating that and it can be as short as you want to make it. I have no problem with _Moana_ being on the top, for all four that I mentioned are simply amazing. I think we "may" be reaching the point where animation can't get any better.


----------



## fredxr2d2

Moana

Tier 0 (probably in the top 5 at the very least)


----------



## fredxr2d2

djoberg said:


> You need to make a post stating that and it can be as short as you want to make it. I have no problem with _Moana_ being on the top, for all four that I mentioned are simply amazing. I think we "may" be reaching the point where animation can't get any better.


I was also blown away by the "Piper" short on Finding Dory. If you have that blu, take a look at the PQ on that short. WOW.


----------



## djoberg

fredxr2d2 said:


> I was also blown away by the "Piper" short on Finding Dory. If you have that blu, take a look at the PQ on that short. WOW.


I do have it; in fact my wife and I watched the 3D version of it and it was fantastic! But I never watched the "Piper" short. I'll check that out later today.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I step away for a couple of days to find not one, but two strong candidates for the top spot! Wow.


----------



## djoberg

I watched the "Piper" short about an hour ago. It was indeed impressive, especially the photo-realism.

I've been wanting to slip in _Avatar_ ever since I purchased my new Sony 75" LCD/LED, so after watching "Piper" I gave it a whirl. It sure is nice having the extra "screen real estate" for a movie like this! But in fairness I was NOT as impressed as I was 7 years ago when it first came out on Blu-ray. Back then I nominated it for the #1 spot in Tier Blu; today it would probably end up somewhere near the middle of that tier, if not the bottom. This speaks greatly of the advancements they've made in PQ (both in filming and then transferring it to the Blu-ray format).


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^

I'm continuing to watch _Avatar_ and make no mistake about it, there are still MANY "Reference Quality" shots in this Blu! Facial close-ups are right at the top, and so are many daytime, outdoor shots (like when they're climbing up the floating mountains). The shots that suffer at times are those at night with a lot of CGI...they can be soft and lacking detail (but they can also be sharp and teeming with details). Bottom line: This is still a Tier Blu Blu-ray!!


----------



## djoberg

*Avatar*

Okay, I just watched it all the way through and I swear the PQ just kept getting better and better! When I first weighed in (2-3 hours ago), I had been seeing softness creep in and a lack of details, but they literally disappeared in the last 2/3 of the movie. This one is still easily....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (.33)*

PS I know we don't "revisit" titles very often (in fact, it's a rarity), but after seeing this again I may have to revisit some other titles that were placed in Tier 0 years ago.

PPS I just read today that _Avatar 2_, which was supposed to come out in theaters on Christmas of 2018, has had a set back. The trouble is they are making ALL the sequels (2-5) before they release #2. BTW, they're all being filmed in 4K UHD!!!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I think everyone here is anticipating Avatar 2. Cameron will have the budget and opportunity with it to redefine our conception of picture quality.


----------



## djoberg

I had no idea that he was doing FOUR SEQUELS. That is quite the undertaking. They will have several of the same cast members and when they interviewed Sigourney Weaver she said the script for _Avatar 2_ was very compelling and that it will amaze those who liked the first installment.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^

I said "four sequels" but an article on AVS says there's only THREE.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Ghost in the Shell (1995)*

recommendation: *Tier 3.75**

The disc I'm covering is the new Mondo Steelbook release but I can confirm it's identical to Starz/Anchor Bay's 25th Anniversary edition. That was put out back in 2014. This is the original theatrical version of the renowned anime classic. Someone else has already ranked the Japanese Blu-ray in Tier 4. I have not seen that disc so this is a blind comparison. With the upcoming Scarlett Johansson-led _Ghost in the Shell_ blockbuster, Mondo saw fit to reissue the original anime film in a steelbook edition.

_Ghost in the Shell_ receives an adequate film transfer, if lacking a bit of life. It resembles an older, softer telecine effort from decent elements. The animation is beginning to look dated even by traditional animation's standards. 

The film itself received a "remixed" version back in 2008 with new CG effects, known as _Ghost in the Shell 2.0_. That has been ranked separately in the PQ Tiers and isn't included in this edition.


----------



## djoberg

*Passengers*

This one "would" easily land on one's "Demo Shelf" for PQ, but the movie fails big time in the second half (I haven't suspended disbelief like this for a very long time, plus it was kinda SAPPY) so I doubt that most would buy it.

The PQ serves up razor-sharp clarity, vibrant colors, strong contrast and plenty of details. Facial details were especially a treat but the eye candy spreads to clothing, computer monitors, beards and head hair, a robot, gym equipment, a pool and just about every object throughout the monstrous space ship. Outdoors (in space) the details continue with beautiful star fields, the space ship, space suits, galaxies, suns, etc., etc. Black levels were very deep in most scenes, though there were a couple of instances where a star field turned a wee bit gray. Blacks and shadow details were excellent in the ship. Flesh tones were accurate except during periods of color-grading. Depth could also be very pleasing to the eyes.

Again, this is most definitely "demo worthy," it should land near the top of that tier. I'm feeling generous....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**


----------



## djoberg

*Blood Father*

I'm keeping this short...in short, this is yet another "demo-worthy" release with tons of details throughout. The director zoomed in often on Mel Gibson and his aging face, revealing unbelievable texture.

Colors were good, but there was a fair amount of color-grading (buttery yellow, anyone?). Flesh tones were accurate except when the "yellow hues" were exceptionally bad. Black levels were also good, though not reference by any means. Contrast was also very good.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25**


----------



## SnellTHX

On the debate of whether Avatar would land on the top third, half or bottom of reference tier...


I still think AVATAR is a picture quality king... 
Its CGI is up there with the best of the best like Kung fu Panda 3, Monster's University, Moana, Good Dinosaur etc, even though it came out 8 years ago! Avatar to me is the Pioneer Kuro of movies.

Then the actual live action scenes are ridiculously good with razor-sharp highly detailed images that match exceed other reference live action movies like Chappie, Oblivion, Pacific Rim etc. 

the only time I universally concurred that a movie surpassed Avatar was after watching The Life of Pi, and even then only by 1% at best. 

Comparing it to the best animation movies like Moana is Apple vs Oranges, and in this case I might personally prefer apples over oranges. 

then there's the IMAX 15/70mm scenes in Nolan's movies that in my opinion are the very best showcase of image quality ever produced... Led by Interstellar and followed closely by TDK:R and TDK. 

But those IMAX scenes only made up roughly 1 hour of Interstellar and TDK:R and roughly half an hour of TDK, with the regular 2.35:1 35mm scenes being "average" in comparison.

Avatar and the Life of Pi look 98-99% as good as these IMAX scenes but they consistently keep that quality throughout the entirety of the movie. 


I didn't watch the Life of Pi until 2016, so I had to wait 7 years until I found a movie that finally exceeded Avatar, however slight. Then I found this thread and to be honest I still haven't found anything better than those two. 

My personal top 5:

1. Life of Pi
2. Avatar
3. Interstellar
4. Kung Fu Panda 3
5. Mad Max: Fury Road or maybe The Dark Knight Rises

*have not seen Secret Life of Pets or Moana, but I have seen The Good Dinosaur, Tomorrowland, etc.


----------



## SnellTHX

*Monster's University*


WOW!!! Amazing, state-of-the-art CGI. Breath taking animation that is crystal clear down to each and every individual strain of fur or fuzz or feather on all of the monsters. colours have so much punch and pop it almost hurts my face. Great contrast too.

Another one of those moments where I'm watching a 1080p blu-ray on a 2k TV (Kuro) and almost cannot fathom how 4K or 8K or HDR can make the image better.

*
Tier recommendation 0 (top 5-10 somewhere)*


Moana will be my next animation film


----------



## Phantom Stranger

_Avatar_ is definitely more unique than the slew of animated titles that fill the top of the PQ Tiers. There are very thin differences between the absolute best animated discs and it often comes down to fairly subjective aesthetic preferences. Nothing else really resembles _Avatar_. Its stark combination of stunning live-action video and sophisticated cgi stands alone. I think that is the reason why it gets ranked so highly.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^

Which means the upcoming sequels are going to blow us away like nothing we've ever experienced before. Too bad we may have to wait up to two years for sequel #1.


----------



## deltasun

djoberg said:


> Whoa! What a surprise to wake up this morning and to see your post! Hope this isn't just a casual "drop-in."
> 
> I don't know what to say about your experience with banding. You got me curious though so I read some "expert" reviews and there are a couple of reviewers who cite one or two instances of banding, and one who seemed to share your view (Matt from Do.Blu), but the majority either saw NONE or the one instance that I did on the 1080p version. It would be interesting to get your take after seeing the 4K version.
> 
> Our own "resident AVS reviewer" Ralph Potts saw no artifacts or anomalies on either disc. Here's his review (on both discs):
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-o...dge-ultra-hd-blu-ray-review.html#post50675889





Phantom Stranger said:


> It's good to see you drop by, Deltasun! You are always welcome around here.
> 
> Anyone know what Hacksaw Ridge was shot on?


Sorry for the delay, guys...I was having password malfunction issues (or could just be user error ). I remember having this banding discussion a while back where half the folks saw it and the other half...didn't know what they were talking about. I jest, I jest. I really think the type of TV behaves differently when it comes to banding. I know most of us have calibrated sets, so it doesn't seem to be that. Then, it was the plasma vs. LCD/LED groups.

I've not been paying as much attention when watching, but Hacksaw Ridge was really perpetual for me. I might even take a pic (if I can make it look how it looks with the naked eyes). Anyway, I don't have a 4K set yet, so can't compare the 1080p to the 4K. I find that interesting though in terms of how if you take a high quality photograph and reduce it substantially (to turn it to a thumbnail, say), you get a lot of compression issues. I wonder if the same thing would happen if you start with 4K and reduce it down to 1080p. I'm not familiar with the mechanics, but just an interesting comment above the discussion.

Anyway, I'm looking into getting one of those LG OLEDs, just waiting for a price drop. Can't wait to start watching in 4K!


----------



## deltasun

By the way, I watched The Yakuza (1974) from Warner Archives Collection (WAC) the other night and wow, was I impressed. Just from a gut feel, I'd say Tier 1 material. Facial close-ups were phenomenal, blacks superb and rich. About the only thing I would tick mark it on is depth. Could be the way it was filmed too. Anyway, really excited about this WAC line. So much so that I ordered 3 more titles and wishlisted about 8. Check them out, guys, if you haven't already!


----------



## djoberg

deltasun said:


> Anyway, I'm looking into getting one of those LG OLEDs, just waiting for a price drop. Can't wait to start watching in 4K!


The prices have actually dropped considerably over the last year, unless you're interested in the G6 77", which is still well over 15K. I've said this over and over, I would be sitting with an LG OLED in my Man Cave right now if not for the fact that I was NOT going to upgrade by a mere 5". But hey, I don't always need the best and I'm quite satisfied with my Sony 940D.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> *Doctor Strange*
> 
> Before viewing this Disney release, I read several reviews from respected reviewers (AVS Forum reviewer Ralph Potts, Hi-Def Digest and Blu-ray.com) and they all sang its praises. Well, don't add me to that list, for I was UNIMPRESSED, to say the least.
> 
> Except for several scenes where you are treated to some very good details and depth, the majority of this film has lackluster blacks (with very little depth and poor shadow details), consistent softness, and mediocre details. Much of what I've just stated is in every scene featuring excessive CGI, and a good percentage of the movie consists of CGI.
> 
> The scenes that were good (as alluded to above) were mostly in the first few scenes that took place in the hospital and on the streets of New York City. If this continued throughout the movie I would have definitely felt this was "demo-worthy" and would have opted for a 1.5 recommendation. Things being what they are, I'm forced to drop this into Tier Silver (and to think I had just commented on how most current titles are easily falling into the top two tiers). But I will be generous and vote for...
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 2.0**
> 
> PS I didn't care that much for the movie either. Again, the reviewers I referred to liked both the movie AND the PQ. Just goes to prove the old adage, "Different strokes for different folks."


*Doctor Strange*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

I completely agree with Denny's assessment of _Doctor Strange's_ picture quality. It's a flat cinematic experience that has been heavily filtered. On top of that is the abundant CGI and digitally constructed production design, softening most of the movie. It is one of the weaker blockbusters we've gotten recently in terms of visual fidelity and demo material.

Select scenes land in Tier One but this is a dull, dismal video experience. They went overboard emulating _Inception's_ reality-bending special effects.

The movie itself is a straightforward telling of Doctor Strange's origin story from the Marvel comics, with a few characters changed around for typical Hollywood reasons. If you are looking for that it's a decent superhero movie.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

deltasun said:


> By the way, I watched The Yakuza (1974) from Warner Archives Collection (WAC) the other night and wow, was I impressed. Just from a gut feel, I'd say Tier 1 material. Facial close-ups were phenomenal, blacks superb and rich. About the only thing I would tick mark it on is depth. Could be the way it was filmed too. Anyway, really excited about this WAC line. So much so that I ordered 3 more titles and wishlisted about 8. Check them out, guys, if you haven't already!


I have picked up a few discs from the Warner Archives label. They usually feature solid film transfers in very acceptable condition. I think the poorer transfers don't make it out on Blu-ray from them.


----------



## SnellTHX

Phantom Stranger said:


> _Avatar_ is definitely more unique than the slew of animated titles that fill the top of the PQ Tiers. There are very thin differences between the absolute best animated discs and it often comes down to fairly subjective aesthetic preferences. Nothing else really resembles _Avatar_. Its stark combination of stunning live-action video and sophisticated cgi stands alone. I think that is the reason why it gets ranked so highly.


I sort of agree, except I firmly believe it is rated so highly because well, there's just nothing that can beat its picture quality (except arguably Life of Pi imo), not the mere merit of being "unique".


Every year that went by I thought we'd have an "Avatar-killer", Like Pirates of the Caribbean 4, Hobbit 1,2 & 3, Terminator Genysis, these were all movies I anticipated to visually surpass Avatar, but like every other film they failed to do so, despite incorporating new technologies (like HFR, 4K res (Avatar is 2K DI?), HDR, and Moore's Law of technology speed/power doubling every two years for more advanced CGI, more megapixels on the cameras, etc)


My most visually anticipated movies for 2017, which I expect could be potential "avatar-killers" are:

1. Dunkirk - filmed with the IMAX MSM9802 so we can expect gorgeous 16:9 15/70mm IMAX scenes, Interstellar and TDK:R have 60 minutes of them (compared to TDK's 28 minutes), hopefully Nolan will give us 90 minutes of this unparalleled film quality!


And that's about it. Maybe the Avengers: Infinity Wars if it is filmed/mastered in a similar way to the original Avengers in 2012, which was 16:9 and not 2.35:1 like Age of Ultron, which imo had inferior picture quality.


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^
> 
> Which means the upcoming sequels are going to blow us away like nothing we've ever experienced before. Too bad we may have to wait up to two years for sequel #1.




Indeed. if it is anything like its prequel, Avatar 2 will represent a QUANTUM leap in animation, CGI and visual fidelity that will surpass anything seen previously and still be top 5 PQ reference even a decade from now. That alone is worth the cinema ticket price AND 4K UHDR disk.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I never expect much from the Disney/Marvel superhero movies in terms of picture quality. They've never really pushed the envelope and the sets are largely digital creations.


----------



## SnellTHX

Phantom Stranger said:


> I never expect much from the Disney/Marvel superhero movies in terms of picture quality. They've never really pushed the envelope and the sets are largely digital creations.


Fair point, but The Dark Knight was my previous #1 reference picture for a whole year 2008-2009 before Avatar came out and The Dark Knight Rises top 5 to this date (five years on), and Avengers I top 10 in my book. So the best superhero movies tend to be really good IMO. Plus they always have high budgets ($200+ million).

But then we have cases like Doctor Strange which are tier 2.


----------



## SnellTHX

*Hacksaw Ridge*


First of all, WOW what a movie. I'm utterly fascinated by WWII and this is definitely one of the better stories told. 9/10 movie that I'd say is actually on par with Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers. 

The picture quality is clear and sharp, with some of the best close up facial details I've seen in a movie. The contrast never disappoints and the colours are accurately muted. explosions and fires spewed by the flamethrowers are crispy and pack a punch. Did notice some banding as mentioned by Djoberg... but still a near perfect picture. The sound was even more impressive than the picture quality. The whistling of bullets, the deep impact and low-bass rumble of explosions really placed me right in the battlefield. Five star picture, seven star sound 


And my god, speaking of good sound quality... the scene when they call in naval support shook not only my apartment but my left, bottom, top and right neighbours apartments too! 

Literally had to flip a coin to decide if this was Tier 0 or Tier 1 material, but since the sound is definitely more blu than gold and the fact that I really like the movie I think it belongs somewhere near the bottom of the reference list.

*
Tier recommendation 0 (.9  )*


----------



## JNayAV

*The Legend of Tarzan (2016)*


Serious mixed bag. Daytime fully lit scenes there are several instances I would rank into mid of Tier 0. Really these are some great jungle/wilderness shots with details in trees, grass, and backgrounds easily seen. Overall contrast is also very good in the daytime scenes. CGI animals hold up as well.


Then nighttime hits and everything goes soft. There's significant loss in overall contrast and all colors become muted. Different shades of blue and grey.... really a let down.


The orange/teal color grading is going on, but wasn't terribly distracting to me on this one.


Since the movie is almost 50/50 day and night, really have to put up with a lot of not so good here....


*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*

Movie is only average so wouldn't recommend anyone to go out and buy as demo material. But if already have it, pop it in to take a look at some of the wilderness daytime scenes.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Green Room*

recommendation: *Tier 3.25**

This gritty thriller from Lionsgate offers fairly tepid picture quality. Its gloomy palette offers little saturation and poor shadow delineation. The technical parameters capably handle the darker aesthetic but _Green Room_ was not shot with eye candy in mind. 

Its filmmakers were looking for a softer experience and got it. Definition is middling for a 2016 video release.


----------



## SnellTHX

JNayAV said:


> *The Legend of Tarzan (2016)*
> 
> 
> Serious mixed bag. Daytime fully lit scenes there are several instances I would rank into mid of Tier 0. Really these are some great jungle/wilderness shots with details in trees, grass, and backgrounds easily seen. Overall contrast is also very good in the daytime scenes. CGI animals hold up as well.
> 
> 
> Then nighttime hits and everything goes soft. There's significant loss in overall contrast and all colors become muted. Different shades of blue and grey.... really a let down.
> 
> 
> The orange/teal color grading is going on, but wasn't terribly distracting to me on this one.
> 
> 
> Since the movie is almost 50/50 day and night, really have to put up with a lot of not so good here....
> 
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.5*
> 
> Movie is only average so wouldn't recommend anyone to go out and buy as demo material. But if already have it, pop it in to take a look at some of the wilderness daytime scenes.



*Tier 1.5* for Legend of Tarzan sounds about right to me! Watched a while ago but didn't review. It was excellent in some areas but not so great in others (the the colour grading you mentioned)


----------



## Hughmc

deltasun said:


> Sorry for the delay, guys...I was having password malfunction issues (or could just be user error ). I remember having this banding discussion a while back where half the folks saw it and the other half...didn't know what they were talking about. I jest, I jest. I really think the type of TV behaves differently when it comes to banding. I know most of us have calibrated sets, so it doesn't seem to be that. Then, it was the plasma vs. LCD/LED groups.
> 
> I've not been paying as much attention when watching, but Hacksaw Ridge was really perpetual for me. I might even take a pic (if I can make it look how it looks with the naked eyes). Anyway, I don't have a 4K set yet, so can't compare the 1080p to the 4K. I find that interesting though in terms of how if you take a high quality photograph and reduce it substantially (to turn it to a thumbnail, say), you get a lot of compression issues. I wonder if the same thing would happen if you start with 4K and reduce it down to 1080p. I'm not familiar with the mechanics, but just an interesting comment above the discussion.
> 
> Anyway, I'm looking into getting one of those LG OLEDs, just waiting for a price drop. Can't wait to start watching in 4K!


I definitely noticed the banding as well.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Tanna*

recommendation: *Tier 2.75**

This 2017 Academy Award Nominee for Best Foreign Language Film offers scenic cinematography entirely filmed on a remote South Pacific island with an active volcano. Indie distributor Lightyear Entertainment does a solid job with this disc, cleanly presenting the movie as it was filmed. The movie itself is fictional but has been made by filmmakers with a background in documentaries, adding a touch of realism.

This isn’t picture-perfect digital video all the time. A few limitations of shooting on a remote island creep into the video on occasion. Its definition and clarity are both acceptable, a step below such nature videography as _Planet Earth_.

*Bloodrunners*

recommendation: *Tier 2.25**

_Bloodrunners_ is a low-budget, b-movie production about vampires in the Prohibition era. The digitally-shot video features consistent sharpness and appreciable detail. Its unfiltered transfer exhibits fine depth and fairly rich saturation.

The Blu-ray looks better than my low expectations going in, some care was taken to ensure _Bloodrunners_ had competent video quality.


----------



## djoberg

I've been trying to rent _Patriot's Day_ but the Blu-ray copies are always gone.  Has anyone seen this yet!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Silence*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

This new movie from director Martin Scorsese offers starkly clean visuals of Japan in vividly crisp quality. The 1080P video exudes beautiful definition in top-notch clarity. The transfer by Paramount is absolutely perfect, _Silence_ was carefully crafted with its cinematography taking central stage.

This may be a disc worthy of the top tier, my score is fairly conservative. It's one of the more consistent presentations seen lately on Blu-ray. _Silence's_ resolution and sharpness remains outstanding throughout its nearly three hours. The movie itself is quite moving about two Christian missionaries in feudal Japan.

*Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust*

recommendation: *Tier 3.75**

This is a fine presentation of the 2000 animated feature. Far more ambitious in scope than the original _Vampire Hunter D_, the animation doesn't pop with oversaturated primary colors. The color palette is fairly muted and even drab.

Discotek Media gives Bloodlust a serviceable transfer, though it appears somewhat dated from a CRT scanner. I'd love to see a new restoration with improved transparency and fidelity.


----------



## rusky_g

The Fast and Furious 7

Fans can't really be disappointed with this one. Generally as much detail as you could hope for in most scenes; a handful of moments which really did pop off the screen. 

Colours were nicely saturated, contrast exceptional at times. 

Weaker points were some murky moments in the earlier scenes, notably when the Rock and Statham have their first fight; blacks faltered a bit here.

Favourite moments? Definitely some of the aerial city scape shots.

Solid disc: Tier 1.25


----------



## djoberg

*Patriots Day*

Jerky camera, anyone? At least half of its 2 hours running time was characterized by jerkiness, leaving "much-to-be-desired" in the PQ department. Add to that intruding softness in many scenes, along with a flat look lacking detail. There was a layer of grain throughout but I'm sorry to report it didn't do the PQ any favors.

On the positive side, during the last few acts the cameraman "settled down" and we are treated to some excellent clarity with reference-quality details (especially in "facial texture"). There was also appreciable depth, accurate skin tones, and decent blacks.

With a "mixed bag," it's always hard to make the final call and give it a placement. I kept telling myself, "This is NOT a Blu that I would I use to show off the virtues of HD." In other words, it's not even "demo-worthy" (Tier Gold material). But I'm feeling slightly generous tonight so my vote goes for....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0**


----------



## rusky_g

The Drop

Great blacks, they really stood out as the best thing about this disc. PQ was generally good but not great; didn't have that hyper resolution detail of the best discs. Some lovely contrast in a few outdoor scenes although much of the film itself is set around darker moments. Technically all good but just didn't blow me away.

Tier 1.75


----------



## fredxr2d2

djoberg said:


> *Patriots Day*
> 
> Jerky camera, anyone? At least half of its 2 hours running time was characterized by jerkiness, leaving "much-to-be-desired" in the PQ department. Add to that intruding softness in many scenes, along with a flat look lacking detail. There was a layer of grain throughout but I'm sorry to report it didn't do the PQ any favors.
> 
> On the positive side, during the last few acts the cameraman "settled down" and we are treated to some excellent clarity with reference-quality details (especially in "facial texture"). There was also appreciable depth, accurate skin tones, and decent blacks.
> 
> With a "mixed bag," it's always hard to make the final call and give it a placement. I kept telling myself, "This is NOT a Blu that I would I use to show off the virtues of HD." In other words, it's not even "demo-worthy" (Tier Gold material). But I'm feeling slightly generous tonight so my vote goes for....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.0**


I have a question about this one from you: did you get the rental version or the retail version. It has been talked about that Lionsgate uses a BD-25 with lossy audio for their rental versions and a BD-50 with lossless for their retail versions, possibly meaning that the rental version has a video encode with a lower bitrate.

I watched the rental version and didn't notice anything totally untoward - I'd put it right about at 2.0 as well. But I thought I would make the distinction.


----------



## djoberg

fredxr2d2 said:


> I have a question about this one from you: did you get the rental version or the retail version. It has been talked about that Lionsgate uses a BD-25 with lossy audio for their rental versions and a BD-50 with lossless for their retail versions, possibly meaning that the rental version has a video encode with a lower bitrate.
> 
> I watched the rental version and didn't notice anything totally untoward - I'd put it right about at 2.0 as well. But I thought I would make the distinction.


Hey Fred....

I rented it and on the slip case the audio is listed as DTS-X; in other words, it IS lossless sound.

Another observation i forgot to mention is that the colors were quite drab (I believe you would agree with this assessment). Thankfully there was no egregious color-grading, but the colors were muted.

On a positive note, I should have also noted that there were many excellent aerial views of Boston. But this was not enough to redeem the title to the point of calling it "demo-worthy."


----------



## fredxr2d2

djoberg said:


> Hey Fred....
> 
> I rented it and on the slip case the audio is listed as DTS-X; in other words, it IS lossless sound.
> 
> Another observation i forgot to mention is that the colors were quite drab (I believe you would agree with this assessment). Thankfully there was no egregious color-grading, but the colors were muted.
> 
> On a positive note, I should have also noted that there were many excellent aerial views of Boston. But this was not enough to redeem the title to the point of calling it "demo-worthy."


Denny, I should note that it might depend on where you rent from. Redbox and Netflix both get the Lionsgate rental versions, which have Dolby Digital 5.1 instead of lossless (in this case DTS:X, as you noted). I rented from Netflix, and I checked the setup options on the disc when I played it: the only option for English was Dolby Digital 5.1 - no DTS:X for me.


----------



## djoberg

fredxr2d2 said:


> Denny, I should note that it might depend on where you rent from. Redbox and Netflix both get the Lionsgate rental versions, which have Dolby Digital 5.1 instead of lossless (in this case DTS:X, as you noted). I rented from Netflix, and I checked the setup options on the disc when I played it: the only option for English was Dolby Digital 5.1 - no DTS:X for me.


I rent my Blu-rays from a local video store (Movie Gallery).

I don't have the DTS-X option with my receiver, so I'm quite sure it defaulted to Dolby Digital 5.1. But the video should have been the BD-50 version.


----------



## fredxr2d2

djoberg said:


> I rent my Blu-rays from a local video store (Movie Gallery).
> 
> I don't have the DTS-X option with my receiver, so I'm quite sure it defaulted to Dolby Digital 5.1. But the video should have been the BD-50 version.


I swear that I'm not trying to be mean spirited in correcting you - I hope that you know that I appreciate all your reviews on here and I read this thread regularly.

That said, if you had the DTS:X version of the disc your receiver would have defaulted to the DTS-MA lossless core. I sincerely hope that you got to listen to lossless sound and had the full retail experience of the disc from your local store.

Either way, back to reviewing picture quality...


----------



## djoberg

fredxr2d2 said:


> I swear that I'm not trying to be mean spirited in correcting you - I hope that you know that I appreciate all your reviews on here and I read this thread regularly.
> 
> That said, if you had the DTS:X version of the disc your receiver would have defaulted to the DTS-MA lossless core. I sincerely hope that you got to listen to lossless sound and had the full retail experience of the disc from your local store.
> 
> Either way, back to reviewing picture quality...


You are right Fred, for I DO REMEMBER (now that you "jarred my memory") glancing at the receiver during the movie and seeing "DTS-MA" in the LED window. Plus, the sound was indeed awesome!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Amagi Brilliant Park: Complete Collection*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

One of the more colorful anime releases I've seen lately. Sentai Filmworks put this series out back in late February. The animation really pops on Blu-ray with vivid clarity. Its fourteen episodes are spread over two BD-50s.

I was this close to suggesting Tier 0. The bright, colorful design is very open with more animation detail than normal for this kind of fare. The technically proficient presentation smoothly handles the 1080P video. Crisp black levels and subtle lighting create excellent eye candy.


----------



## djoberg

*Planet Earth 2: Episode 1 (Islands)*

Okay, I had to decision to make when I ordered this series: the 1080p Blu-ray or the UHD/HDR Blu-ray. I opted for the UHD version based on the review by Ralph Potts (our AVS resident reviewer). He had given it a perfect score of 100 for the PQ and I couldn't resist buying it even though I had already recorded the whole series from my Dish Network 4K channel. This was definitely better than that, especially in details, colors and contrast. Here is what I just wrote on Ralph's thread:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-o...i-ultra-hd-blu-ray-review-3.html#post52021249

I know this isn't the norm on this thread, but I'm going to give this a placement here. Perhaps it will be the catalyst for some of you with 4K displays and Blu-ray players to purchase this unbelievable series.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (#1...King of the Blu-ray Hill!!!)*


----------



## |Tch0rT|

Phantom Stranger said:


> *Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 3.75**
> 
> This is a fine presentation of the 2000 animated feature. Far more ambitious in scope than the original _Vampire Hunter D_, the animation doesn't pop with oversaturated primary colors. The color palette is fairly muted and even drab.
> 
> Discotek Media gives Bloodlust a serviceable transfer, though it appears somewhat dated from a CRT scanner. I'd love to see a new restoration with improved transparency and fidelity.


Isn't there a problem with incorrect black levels with this? Or was the original D on blu-ray? I think I remember one had blacks that weren't black. :/


----------



## fredxr2d2

*Rogue One

Recommendation: Tier 1.0*

I think others might want to go higher on this one (the Arri 65 imagery is top notch), but I think it had a few soft scenes and occasionally faltering black levels.

I could see low tier 0, but I think tier 1.0 is more appropriate. Overall a great looking blu and, IMO a good Star Wars movie.


----------



## djoberg

fredxr2d2 said:


> *Rogue One
> 
> Recommendation: Tier 1.0*
> 
> I think others might want to go higher on this one (the Arri 65 imagery is top notch), but I think it had a few soft scenes and occasionally faltering black levels.
> 
> I could see low tier 0, but I think tier 1.0 is more appropriate. Overall a great looking blu and, IMO a good Star Wars movie.


You beat me to it Fred! I picked this up yesterday but didn't have time to watch it last night. I hope to see it on either Thursday or Friday night.

Reviews have been very good on this one (regarding PQ). Tier 1.0 is a very good placement so if it's at least that good I will be justified in my purchase. Of course, I'm also hoping the movie itself is good. How did you like it?


----------



## fredxr2d2

djoberg said:


> You beat me to it Fred! I picked this up yesterday but didn't have time to watch it last night. I hope to see it on either Thursday or Friday night.
> 
> Reviews have been very good on this one (regarding PQ). Tier 1.0 is a very good placement so if it's at least that good I will be justified in my purchase. Of course, I'm also hoping the movie itself is good. How did you like it?


Personally, I think it is a better movie than Force Awakens, but some of the characters could use some work - not quite enough development for them and not as instantly memorable like Finn and Rey. I enjoyed it in the theater in December, so I've had it preordered for a while.

Actually, the thing that is most bothersome about the movie is the fact that John Williams didn't do the Score. You might not think it would be that big of a deal, but it is definitely noticeable that the main themes are just a bit off from what you expect. That said, I think that Michael Giacchino did a good job with the limited time he had (4.5 weeks!).

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...s-shoes-pleasing-marvel-franchise-fans-956179

I'm also a big Star Wars fan, so I might be more gracious with the series than others.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> *Planet Earth 2: Episode 1 (Islands)*
> 
> Okay, I had to decision to make when I ordered this series: the 1080p Blu-ray or the UHD/HDR Blu-ray. I opted for the UHD version based on the review by Ralph Potts (our AVS resident reviewer). He had given it a perfect score of 100 for the PQ and I couldn't resist buying it even though I had already recorded the whole series from my Dish Network 4K channel. This was definitely better than that, especially in details, colors and contrast. Here is what I just wrote on Ralph's thread:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-o...i-ultra-hd-blu-ray-review-3.html#post52021249
> 
> I know this isn't the norm on this thread, but I'm going to give this a placement here. Perhaps it will be the catalyst for some of you with 4K displays and Blu-ray players to purchase this unbelievable series.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (#1...King of the Blu-ray Hill!!!)*


I was waiting for someone to mention _Planet Earth II_ after its release. I caught a few episodes of it on television and instantly knew it would be a contender for the top spot. The UHD must look incredible.



|Tch0rT| said:


> Isn't there a problem with incorrect black levels with this? Or was the original D on blu-ray? I think I remember one had blacks that weren't black. :/


You may be right, I am not sure either way. American releases of Japanese productions often have incorrect black levels because they use a different IRE video standard. It's fairly common for licensed anime like _Vampire Hunter D_. It wouldn't change my score, regardless. The transfer could use some sprucing up in any case.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> I was waiting for someone to mention _Planet Earth II_ after its release. I caught a few episodes of it on television and instantly knew it would be a contender for the top spot. The UHD must look incredible.


I'll just say this Phantom, there are numerous scenes where I was literally going "WOW!" I kept thinking, "I don't believe this could look any better." Perhaps I'll be eating my words once we are introduced to true "Virtual Reality."


----------



## brawlman

fredxr2d2 said:


> Personally, I think it is a better movie than Force Awakens, but some of the characters could use some work - not quite enough development for them and not as instantly memorable like Finn and Rey. I enjoyed it in the theater in December, so I've had it preordered for a while.
> 
> Actually, the thing that is most bothersome about the movie is the fact that John Williams didn't do the Score. You might not think it would be that big of a deal, but it is definitely noticeable that the main themes are just a bit off from what you expect. That said, I think that Michael Giacchino did a good job with the limited time he had (4.5 weeks!).
> 
> http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...s-shoes-pleasing-marvel-franchise-fans-956179
> 
> I'm also a big Star Wars fan, so I might be more gracious with the series than others.


From what I've seen so far the PQ does look good. What I'm disappointed in Disney about is how they can have a Theater release with Dolby Atmos but not the Bluray?

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk


----------



## |Tch0rT|

Phantom Stranger said:


> You may be right, I am not sure either way. American releases of Japanese productions often have incorrect black levels because they use a different IRE video standard. It's fairly common for licensed anime like _Vampire Hunter D_. It wouldn't change my score, regardless. The transfer could use some sprucing up in any case.


Yeah I had found some talk on the Blu-ray.com forum that the black levels and contrast were off. I've heard that about US releases of Japanese productions. Regardless it still looks better overall than the DVD version.


----------



## fredxr2d2

brawlman said:


> From what I've seen so far the PQ does look good. What I'm disappointed in Disney about is how they can have a Theater release with Dolby Atmos but not the Bluray?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk


DTS: Neural X did a great job with upmixing Rogue One, but I agree - should be Atmos/DTS:X native.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Freaks of Nature*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

This Sony horror comedy arrives on Blu-ray with fairly crisp video quality. It's a solid, consistent presentation with even contrast and fine black levels.

*Loups=Garous*

recommendation: *Tier 2.5**

The animation is rather pedestrian for this anime movie. There is noticeable banding. A 2010 film, _Loups=Garous_ is showing its age.

*The Kawai Complex Guide To Manors & Hostel Behavior: Complete Collection*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

A Sentai Filmworks' two-disc set that looks superb in 1080P video. The clean AVC encode handles the subtle color palette. This is pleasing, eye-friendly animation made with HD in mind.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

WOW! Triple feature!!

I'll be watching _Rogue One_ tonight, which is quite long. If not for that I would probably do a "double feature," especially considering I leave early next week for an "out-of-the-country" Missionary trip for 9 days.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> WOW! Triple feature!!
> 
> I'll be watching _Rogue One_ tonight, which is quite long. If not for that I would probably do a "double feature," especially considering I leave early next week for an "out-of-the-country" Missionary trip for 9 days.


I don't have that much free time at once. The latter set was watched over a couple of weeks. It's tough squeezing in much personal viewing these days.

I want to get around to finally watching Rogue One this weekend.


----------



## djoberg

*Rogue One*

I agree with Fred's assessment below. There were several soft scenes, especially in the first half. But once they disappeared...there was striking clarity, along with amazing details, depth and contrast.

I was also impressed with the black levels. During the long battle in the last couple of scenes the shots of star fields were spectacular. Fred had mentioned "faltering black levels." These occurred in the very beginning; they were very brief. From that point on they were deep and inky, including the letter-boxed bars.

Because of the rather long scenes with softness, which also resulted in a rather flat look void of good details, I'm going to drop it one notch from Fred's placement.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25**




fredxr2d2 said:


> *Rogue One
> 
> Recommendation: Tier 1.0*
> 
> I think others might want to go higher on this one (the Arri 65 imagery is top notch), but I think it had a few soft scenes and occasionally faltering black levels.
> 
> I could see low tier 0, but I think tier 1.0 is more appropriate. Overall a great looking blu and, IMO a good Star Wars movie.


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> *Planet Earth 2: Episode 1 (Islands)*
> 
> Okay, I had to decision to make when I ordered this series: the 1080p Blu-ray or the UHD/HDR Blu-ray. I opted for the UHD version based on the review by Ralph Potts (our AVS resident reviewer). He had given it a perfect score of 100 for the PQ and I couldn't resist buying it even though I had already recorded the whole series from my Dish Network 4K channel. This was definitely better than that, especially in details, colors and contrast. Here is what I just wrote on Ralph's thread:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-o...i-ultra-hd-blu-ray-review-3.html#post52021249
> 
> I know this isn't the norm on this thread, but I'm going to give this a placement here. Perhaps it will be the catalyst for some of you with 4K displays and Blu-ray players to purchase this unbelievable series.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (#1...King of the Blu-ray Hill!!!)*


Better than Moana and The Secret Life of Pets?


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> Better than Moana and The Secret Life of Pets?


Good question!

We have often discussed how hard it is to compare an animated movie with a live action film/documentary. The truth is it's like comparing "apples and oranges." Because of this some have wanted there to be a thread for each genre. I have actually leaned towards that idea myself, but in the end we decided to keep the thread "as is."

Let me say this. I definitely believe that _Planet Earth 2_ is the best live action title, period. It certainly beats the other three top titles (_Tomorrowland_, _Black Sails_, and _Avatar_) that are currently sitting in the top 15. But in fairness I'm talking about the UHD/HDR Blu-ray for _Planet Earth 2_, so once again we are trying to compare "apples and oranges."

_Moana_ and _The Secret Life of Pets_ are indeed pure EYE CANDY, but so is _Planet Earth 2_. It's just that they are considered eye candy for different reasons. Animated movies are about at the point where they are PERFECT in colors, clarity, contrast, texture and black levels. _Planet Earth 2_ is quite simply the best when it comes to details, colors, depth, and black levels in REAL LIFE footage! That is quite the feat, for this isn't CGI but live content being filmed with live cameras. 

There is something these titles don't have that most Blu-rays do....I'm speaking of FLESH TONES (which is one of the criteria we use in assessing picture quality with titles that have "real people" in them). So, once again, there are differences to be considered, no matter what type of material we are judging.

Bottom line: I was so blown away by the amazing PQ in _Planet Earth 2_ that I figured it was high time to give a Blu-ray with "real live content" its due, so I nominated it for #1.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Rogue One: A Star Wars Story*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

It's nice the movie gets a disc all to itself. As prior reviewers have noted, certain scenes are soft. _Rogue One_ has strong interiors with excellent sharpness and crisp definition. I wasn't as impressed with its exterior scenes, often softened by heavy FX and digital trickery. It's a technically smooth presentation without sufficient flaws hurting the entire vibe.

A few scenes are truly spectacular and deserve a higher ranking, but there are enough moments of lesser picture quality to limit its placement.


----------



## SnellTHX

*Last of the Mohicans*


I listened to this soundtrack so many times on my Velodyne Vpulses with Dragonfly Black USB while I sit at school and study... such an epic soundtrack forced me to actually watch this old movie. unfortunately the picture quality was not so good at all lol. Looks more like a DVD than a blu-ray, blurry and soft images with too much grain at times, however some scenes actually look quite sharp and relatively crisp. 


*Tier 3: Bronze*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

SnellTHX said:


> *Last of the Mohicans*
> 
> 
> I listened to this soundtrack so many times on my Velodyne Vpulses with Dragonfly Black USB while I sit at school and study... such an epic soundtrack forced me to actually watch this old movie. unfortunately the picture quality was not so good at all lol. Looks more like a DVD than a blu-ray, blurry and soft images with too much grain at times, however some scenes actually look quite sharp and relatively crisp.
> 
> 
> *Tier 3: Bronze*


If I remember correctly when it came out back in 2010, the video quality was mildly controversial. Some were unhappy with how murky the entire transfer appeared. I suspect it hasn't held up very well this many years later.

Happy Easter!


----------



## SnellTHX

Phantom Stranger said:


> If I remember correctly when it came out back in 2010, the video quality was mildly controversial. Some were unhappy with how murky the entire transfer appeared. I suspect it hasn't held up very well this many years later.
> 
> Happy Easter!


Indeed. At best it was low silver but at worst I'd even say copper.


----------



## SnellTHX

*Passengers *


Holy moley what a disc! Saw this first in the shop I work in... We had the new Sony XE93 on display running this movie and I thought it looked jaw dropping. Very punchy 3-D like image quality with extremely deep colours (if not a bit unrealistic/over the top) 


Had to get the BD and judge it on my own setup and WOW! Finally another reference disk for me. picture quality is razor sharp, a true 4K-DI that oozes details (those skin tones and facial textures!) Also a superb disk for showing off your set's black levels. Outer space is inky black as it should be, and great contrast is show throughout the ship. Scenes with the space suit outside of the ship are phenomenal as the extremely bright white LEDs of the suits stick out and almost burn your eyes due to the contrast of the absolute black blacks of space. interiors look fine and crisp, the water looks amazing!! 

sound quality superb too. One of my favourite 2.35:1 movies for sure (I am a huge fan of taller formats like 1.85:1 and 1.78:1) as all my top reference PQ disks have


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Teen Titans: The Judas Contract*

recommendation: *Tier 1.75**

_Teen Titans: The Judas Contract_ is technically the 28th feature film from the DC Universe made by WB Animation over the past decade. If you have seen one of these animated features, you have a good sense of what its animation looks like in 1080P video on Blu-ray. Natively animated in 1080P resolution, the 1.78:1 presentation offers bold colors and decent character designs in vivid quality. 

Running slightly longer than 84 minutes on a BD-50, the AVC encode does a satisfactory job of handling the clean animation. Its bright design is bolstered by perfect black levels and strong line art made with a program called DigiPaint.


----------



## djoberg

*Split*

After nearly two weeks of "Blu-ray fasting," (due to a Missionary Trip out-of-country), I opted to rent M. Night Shyamalan's new thriller. The acting was superb (especially the male lead played by James McAvoy), with excellent pacing, character development, and on-the-edge-of-your-seat suspense.

The PQ was also topnotch, especially outdoor daytime scenes and interior scenes with good lighting. These scenes featured razor-sharp clarity that rivaled anything I've seen in 4K UHD (and this was a 1080p Blu-ray, mind you). Colors in those scenes were somewhat saturated and really popped. Details and depth were off-the-charts! Flesh tones were spot-on accurate. And last, but not least, black levels were exemplary.

Now for a few comments on the darker, interior scenes inside Kevin's lair. For the most part everything I noted above held up inside as well, but when there was poor lighting there was a loss of depth/details and fleeting instances of noise. Also, the black levels faltered at times (a case in point would be when one of the girls was trying to escape in a duct).

This is a hard call, for all the scenes with excellent lighting (see 2nd paragraph) were "Reference Quality." In fact, if the whole movie looked like those I would be nominating this for a place near the top of Tier 0. But most of the film took place inside Kevin's lair and at times the PQ dropped to low Tier 1 or even the top of Tier 2. In averaging things out I'm inclined to vote for...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**


----------



## hungro

*Moana *
*Tier recommendation: *0*, amazing, I was blown away by the colors, contrast and detail. That water was incredible. It looks so real. This disk is reference through and through. What could be improved in 4K UHD, well in the Theaters this used DCI P3 color space, so the Greens would be even more saturated and the reds would also be more saturated. Not sure why Disney is holding out on UHD, but I am sure one day, they will make the transition.


----------



## rusky_g

*Jurassic World*

A lovely looking disc, it had a polished cinematic feel which you'd hope and expect for a modern, high budget release. Beautiful colours, depth and contrast helped the image to pop consistently. I wasn't disappointed!

*Tier 0.75*


----------



## rusky_g

*The Woman in Black*

Bit of an older title but picked it up for a bargain hence the review.

Having flicked back through this thread two scores for this title both landed in Tier 3. I didn't think it was that bad although my recent viewing of Jurassic World reminded me of how good 'things can be'.

TWIB is a stark film with muted colours but that's fitting to the eerie theme. A bigger gripe is that it just lacked detail. Blacks could be good (night time swamp / car scene noted) but not always. Some indoor moments had excellent contrast and shadow detail but again it wasn't consistent.

*Tier 2.5*


----------



## djoberg

*La La Land*

CHICK FLICK NIGHT!

My wife has been wanting to see this film ever since she saw the first trailer! I succumbed to her desires tonight. We will NOT be experiencing a "repeated viewing!"

The PQ was quite good, especially in any outdoor, daytime scenes or interior scenes with good lighting. COLORS were saturated and gorgeous. DETAILS were also a highlight in the same scenes, along with accurate FLESH TONES, strong CONTRAST, striking CLARITY, and appreciable DEPTH.

You may have noticed I said nothing about BLACK LEVELS. There were many night time scenes of L. A. and a good number of them were very good with pleasing SHADOW DETAILS. But there were also some dimly-lit scenes in jazz lounges where they faltered and the picture softened. Also, my "black bars" turned into "dark GRAY bars" in a several scenes and this always takes me out of the movie. My wife and I also noticed a scene at the 1 hour 31 minutes mark (in broad daylight at a yard party) where the picture was obviously out-of-focus as the cameraman panned the back yard.

I know the "experts" are calling this "reference material" and none seemed to notice the aforementioned anomalies, but I saw what I saw and thus I'm opting for a spot in Tier 1. Methinks it should end up right here....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25**


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^

I forgot to give a "shout out" for the audio track. I knew it was going to be good when Lionsgate introduced the "Dolby Atmos" soundtrack just before the movie started. WOW! That was one of the best "audio intros" I've ever heard (and I don't have Dolby Atmos yet but the Dolby TrueHD was incredible).


----------



## fredxr2d2

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> I forgot to give a "shout out" for the audio track. I knew it was going to be good when Lionsgate introduced the "Dolby Atmos" soundtrack just before the movie started. WOW! That was one of the best "audio intros" I've ever heard (and I don't have Dolby Atmos yet but the Dolby TrueHD was incredible).


I got the rental of this which only had a Dolby Digital 5.1 mix, but it was quite good even for lossy, so I imagine the lossless was impressive.

I also agree with the placement, I might even put La La Land at 1.5 because it was not up in tier 0 range at all. The colors were magnificent most of the time, but it was not a true looker like we've seen elsewhere. I'm also not sure if the rental had a lower bitrate video encode as Lionsgate is known for that as well, depending on disc/movie size.


----------



## djoberg

fredxr2d2 said:


> I got the rental of this which only had a Dolby Digital 5.1 mix, but it was quite good even for lossy, so I imagine the lossless was impressive.
> 
> I also agree with the placement, I might even put La La Land at 1.5 because it was not up in tier 0 range at all. The colors were magnificent most of the time, but it was not a true looker like we've seen elsewhere. I'm also not sure if the rental had a lower bitrate video encode as Lionsgate is known for that as well, depending on disc/movie size.


Mine was also a rental Fred (from our local video store), but it played the Dolby TrueHD sound track. Again, it was AWESOME...I can't even imagine it sounding better, but then I don't have overhead ceiling speakers or I would probably be "singing a different song."


----------



## fredxr2d2

djoberg said:


> Mine was also a rental Fred (from our local video store), but it played the Dolby TrueHD sound track. Again, it was AWESOME...I can't even imagine it sounding better, but then I don't have overhead ceiling speakers or I would probably be "singing a different song."


You should thank your local video store for getting the retail copies of films - it sounds like they are doing you quite the service!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Animal Kingdom: The Complete First Season*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

This criminal drama series looks fantastic on Blu-ray. Set in Southern California, its quality video has impressive definition and clarity. 

Warner spreads the ten episodes of season one over two discs in a superb presentation that easily improves on the original cable broadcast. Close-ups exude razor-sharp detail.

Animal Kingdom is a nicely shot program very close to the more exacting production standards of premium cable. Its picture quality is a clear winner that touches Tier 0 on occasion.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Leonard Cohen: I'm Your Man*

recommendation: *Tier 2.75**

I overlooked this 2005 tribute concert and documentary when it came out in February. Lionsgate has done a fine job bringing it to Blu-ray. The 103-minute presentation is encoded in transparent, artifact-free AVC on a BD-25. It's certainly an improvement over the original DVD version.

Some softer interview segments and older archival footage keep the picture quality firmly in Tier 2. The concert has fairly typical video for its kind of fare. This isn't glossy, over-driven cinematography with a white-hot contrast. Shadow delineation and black levels are average, at best.

I assume this was put out in response to Leonard Cohen's passing in the Fall.


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> *Arrival*
> 
> 
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.5**
> 
> PS I "could" be convinced to raise my score to as high as 2.0, for the redeeming qualities alluded to above were QUITE GOOD!


Noooo I had hopes for this movie.


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> Noooo I had hopes for this movie.


So did I, but it wasn't meant to be!


----------



## djoberg

I just went down to my local video store to see what new titles were being released tomorrow and on the front door was a big sign reading, "Store closing, DVDs and Blu-rays for sale only." 

I went in and talked to the owner (whom I've known for years) and he was somewhat blindsided by this. He knew the day would eventually come, but he figured he had a few years left.

Now this leaves me scratching my head and wondering, "Where am I going to rent Blu-rays from now on?" Do I resort to "Red-box" or do I bite the bullet and sign up for a Netflix account?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> I just went down to my local video store to see what new titles were being released tomorrow and on the front door was a big sign reading, "Store closing, DVDs and Blu-rays for sale only."
> 
> I went in and talked to the owner (whom I've known for years) and he was somewhat blindsided by this. He knew the day would eventually come, but he figured he had a few years left.
> 
> Now this leaves me scratching my head and wondering, "Where am I going to rent Blu-rays from now on?" Do I resort to "Red-box" or do I bite the bullet and sign up for a Netflix account?


That is a tough break for you, the retail market continues to get hammered. Netflix has driven most of its rental competition out of business, they are practically the only ones left. Redbox doesn't tend to carry everything. I know the site below rents out UHDs, you might want to give them a look.

https://www.store-3d-blurayrental.com/


----------



## Legairre

djoberg said:


> I just went down to my local video store to see what new titles were being released tomorrow and on the front door was a big sign reading, "Store closing, DVDs and Blu-rays for sale only."
> 
> I went in and talked to the owner (whom I've known for years) and he was somewhat blindsided by this. He knew the day would eventually come, but he figured he had a few years left.
> I
> Now this leaves me scratching my head and wondering, "Where am I going to rent Blu-rays from now on?" Do I resort to "Red-box" or do I bite the bullet and sign up for a Netflix account?


It really stinks. All the video rental stores in my town went out of business many years ago. I'm surprised you actually had one left in your town. I thought they had all gone out of business a long long time ago. Now I rent from Redbox or online. I miss being able to go down to a store and walk the isles looking for a movie.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> That is a tough break for you, the retail market continues to get hammered. Netflix has driven most of its rental competition out of business, they are practically the only ones left. Redbox doesn't tend to carry everything. I know the site below rents out UHDs, you might want to give them a look.
> 
> https://www.store-3d-blurayrental.com/


Thanks for the link Phantom. Their prices are really high for renting (compared to Netflix), so I doubt that I will go that route. 



Legairre said:


> It really stinks. All the video rental stores in my town went out of business many years ago. I'm surprised you actually had one left in your town. I thought they had all gone out of business a long long time ago. Now I rent from Redbox or online. I miss being able to go down to a store and walk the isles looking for a movie.


I hear you! I would sometimes spend a half hour in the store reading up on movies before deciding which one (or two or three) to rent. I have never rented from Red-box, but will check them out (we have two in our town of 15,000 people). Netflix will require at least a $10 monthly fee, but that may be the route I end up going.


----------



## fredxr2d2

djoberg said:


> Thanks for the link Phantom. Their prices are really high for renting (compared to Netflix), so I doubt that I will go that route.
> 
> *The only thing about that rental outlet is that they carry full retail versions of discs, as well as 3D and UHD blu-rays. Netflix will only carry the rental version of the 2D blu-ray. This is only really important for Lionsgate films, which have lossy Dolby Digital instead of lossless audio.*
> 
> I hear you! I would sometimes spend a half hour in the store reading up on movies before deciding which one (or two or three) to rent. I have never rented from Red-box, but will check them out (we have two in our town of 15,000 people). Netflix will require at least a $10 monthly fee, but that may be the route I end up going.


My only other caution about Netflix (as a longtime user) is that they have recently closed distribution centers in my area, making the delivery times 2 days each way (doubling the time it used to take): this means that I can only get 1 a week when it used to be 2. Otherwise I like the service and having them delivered to my door is very convenient (the closest Redbox is about 15 minutes out of the way for me in my town).


----------



## djoberg

fredxr2d2 said:


> My only other caution about Netflix (as a longtime user) is that they have recently closed distribution centers in my area, making the delivery times 2 days each way (doubling the time it used to take): this means that I can only get 1 a week when it used to be 2. Otherwise I like the service and having them delivered to my door is very convenient (the closest Redbox is about 15 minutes out of the way for me in my town).


Thanks for the heads-up Fred!

I just returned home from our nearest Red-box (at a Wal-Mart 10 minutes from our house). What a joke! Just about everything I wanted to rent was either "Out of Stock" or they only had the DVD version. I ended up getting the Blu-ray version of _Fantastic Beasts_ which I will be watching tonight (of course I'll be watching it tonight, for they only allow you ONE DAY to view it). The upside is that it only costs $2.15.

I think I will still be going with Netflix, but with summer coming up I may wait until next fall when I do more of my Blu-ray viewing.


----------



## DarthDoxie

djoberg said:


> Thanks for the heads-up Fred!
> 
> I just returned home from our nearest Red-box (at a Wal-Mart 10 minutes from our house). What a joke! Just about everything I wanted to rent was either "Out of Stock" or they only had the DVD version. I ended up getting the Blu-ray version of _Fantastic Beasts_ which I will be watching tonight (of course I'll be watching it tonight, for they only allow you ONE DAY to view it). The upside is that it only costs $2.15.
> 
> I think I will still be going with Netflix, but with summer coming up I may wait until next fall when I do more of my Blu-ray viewing.


I don't use Redbox much any more but I always used the app or website to browse individual boxes, also a good idea to rent it online to reserve it before you make a wasted trip.

On a different note I got the remastered release of *Heat* today and plan on watching it tomorrow.


----------



## djoberg

*Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them*

If I were judging this film based on the first two scenes and the last two scenes, I would most definitely be nominating this for a place in Tier Blu, for they were clearly "Reference Quality." But in between those four scenes it was a mixed bag, with _some_ scenes finding their way into the top two tiers and others in levels of Tier 2 or even Tier 3.

Again, the scenes that were deemed worthy of the top tier were magnificent, with striking clarity, details and depth. But once the CGI kicked into high gear, softness reared its ugly head at times accompanied by a lack of details and depth. Then there was the "color factor," which in this case can be broken down into two descriptions....MUTED throughout the vast majority of the film and COLOR-GRADED during the rest with "orange/yellow hues" dominating and splashes of "teal hues."

Before I offer a placement recommendation, a word about the "black levels" is in order. Overall they were excellent, with corresponding shadow details. During some of the soft scenes, they did falter, but thankfully the "black bars" remained "black" at all times.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75 or 2.0**

PS The DTS-HD Master Audio track was spectacular!!!


----------



## fredxr2d2

djoberg said:


> *Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them*
> 
> If I were judging this film based on the first two scenes and the last two scenes, I would most definitely be nominating this for a place in Tier Blu, for they were clearly "Reference Quality." But in between those four scenes it was a mixed bag, with _some_ scenes finding their way into the top two tiers and others in levels of Tier 2 or even Tier 3.
> 
> Again, the scenes that were deemed worthy of the top tier were magnificent, with striking clarity, details and depth. But once the CGI kicked into high gear, softness reared its ugly head at times accompanied by a lack of details and depth. Then there was the "color factor," which in this case can be broken down into two descriptions....MUTED throughout the vast majority of the film and COLOR-GRADED during the rest with "orange/yellow hues" dominating and splashes of "teal hues."
> 
> Before I offer a placement recommendation, a word about the "black levels" is in order. Overall they were excellent, with corresponding shadow details. During some of the soft scenes, they did falter, but thankfully the "black bars" remained "black" at all times.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75 or 2.0**
> 
> PS The DTS-HD Master Audio track was spectacular!!!


For anyone else, if you have Atmos, this disc is reference quality Atmos presentation with wonderful overhead effects. I also agree with Djoberg's placement at 2.0 - not quite as shiny and polished as one might like, especially with the copious amounts of CGI.


----------



## djoberg

fredxr2d2 said:


> For anyone else, if you have Atmos, this disc is reference quality Atmos presentation with wonderful overhead effects. I also agree with Djoberg's placement at 2.0 - not quite as shiny and polished as one might like, especially with the copious amounts of CGI.


There you go again Fred...whetting my appetite for Dolby Atmos speakers!!


----------



## fredxr2d2

djoberg said:


> There you go again Fred...whetting my appetite for Dolby Atmos speakers!!


There is a moment in Fantastic Beasts where they are in the American magic congress place and there are memos that are going through tubes. One memo distinctly moves from behind you on the left to above you and then across to the front of the room and then shoots upward from the front - it is a really "wow" moment for Atmos.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Heat, Director's Definitive Edition (Remastered)*

recommendation: *Tier 1.75**

I haven't seen the first Blu-ray release so I can't compare it to that. The color palate is somewhat muted but they are not washed out. Details are good with fabrics and faces well rendered. Contrast is good but black levels occasionally falter. The soundtrack really shines especially during the bank robbery and the final scene at the airport.


----------



## fredxr2d2

DarthDoxie said:


> *Heat, Director's Definitive Edition (Remastered)*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 1.75**
> 
> I haven't seen the first Blu-ray release so I can't compare it to that. The color palate is somewhat muted but they are not washed out. Details are good with fabrics and faces well rendered. Contrast is good but black levels occasionally falter. The soundtrack really shines especially during the bank robbery and the final scene at the airport.


Thanks for weighing in on this - I'm hoping I'll have time for it on the weekend.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Burnt Offerings*

recommendation: *Tier 4.0**

The classic 1976 horror film receives a lackluster presentation. Licensed from MGM and put out by Kino Lorber, _Burnt Offerings'_ soft lighting and gauzy cinematography turns out poorly in this pedestrian transfer. I would have loved to seen Arrow Video get this license and see what they could have done with a better 2K film scan.

The elements have incidental wear, their condition is perfectly acceptable. Some processing is evident, including halos in scattered moments. Definition is a minor improvement over earlier DVD attempts. Some fine detail seems to have been lost somewhere along the way. On the bright side, the AVC encode smoothly handles grain and rougher moments without artifacts. It's manifestly evident this was an older transfer that had been hanging around on a shelf.

*Agatha Christie's The Witness For The Prosecution*

recommendation: *Tier 3.5**

Acorn Media put out this gripping mystery a couple of weeks back. Set in a bleak, post-war London drenched in atmosphere, this is an ugly movie. Originally airing on BBC just a few months ago, one could mistake it for having been filmed in the 1970s. 

The drab palette and soft picture quality are unusual for a new production. This seems to have been a conscious creative choice by the director and cinematographer. The AVC encode has problems with the movie's darker moments, introducing banding and other compression issues.


----------



## CJackson

Any word on when the tiers will be updated?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

CJackson said:


> Any word on when the tiers will be updated?


It's time I finally address this issue since many use and rely on the PQ Tiers. I'm not sure how many have noticed but the main sticky thread hasn't been updated to reflect newer rankings since May 30th of last year. That means almost an entire year's worth of recommendations are in limbo at the moment.

Responsibility for the PQ Tiers has solely been mine since 2009, usually updating it 2-3 times per year. All recommendations from this thread are reflected in the PQ Tiers. Since traffic to this discussion thread has been less active the past year, I had planned a full update back in January for the first time since last May. It was around that time in January when I discovered the custom PQ Tiers database hosted by fellow forum member K-Spaz went offline sometime last summer. 

He had hosted it for years on one of his servers when the site went down without notice. This represented thousands and thousands of entries in the PQ Tiers, all manually edited over the years by myself. It was what allowed me to generate the necessary "code" to post the PQ Tiers here on AVSforum in its familiar format.

As it stands now, there are few good options for me considering the time investment. Having been unable to reach K-Spaz, it appears that the entire PQ Tiers database is gone. The good news is that the sticky thread is still here with all past data. So some record of the data still exists, it just is in a much tougher form to edit and update.

But without the missing database and its custom script, the only solution for another update would be manually adding each entry directly on the forum. It's an arduous task, one that I haven't decided yet if I plan to go forward with more updates. One possible compromise would be manual updates to Tier 0, ignoring lower tiers. There are no easy answers to these problems.

I've been pushing off this decision for a few weeks and haven't made up my mind. I would like to do at least one more update for the past year's recommendations.

I am open to suggestions and input from others on these issues.


----------



## tcramer

Phantom Stranger said:


> But without the missing database and its custom script, the only solution for another update would be manually adding each entry directly on the forum. It's an arduous task, one that I haven't decided yet if I plan to go forward with more updates. One possible compromise would be manual updates to Tier 0, ignoring lower tiers. There are no easy answers to these problems.
> 
> I've been pushing off this decision for a few weeks and haven't made up my mind. I would like to do at least one more update for the past year's recommendations.
> 
> I am open to suggestions and input from others on these issues.


I think only updating Tier 0 would not upset any one. Let's face it, most are interested in the reference quality discs and there are still sites like blu-ray.com where everyone can go to get a rough idea of where a disc would place.

The work you put in is already time consuming and greatly appreciated, but I can't imagine you wasting time with those manual counts for all. That would be a bit ridiculous.


----------



## Kool-aid23

tcramer said:


> I think only updating Tier 0 would not upset any one. Let's face it, most are interested in the reference quality discs and there are still sites like blu-ray.com where everyone can go to get a rough idea of where a disc would place.
> 
> The work you put in is already time consuming and greatly appreciated, but I can't imagine you wasting time with those manual counts for all. That would be a bit ridiculous.


 Well said! +1


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Clarifying things a little further for everyone, I'd probably move to full updates for future recommendations in both Tiers 0 and 1 going forward. Those tiers get the most attention.

I still hope to update every Tier for the past year's worth of recommendations at some point.


----------



## djoberg

tcramer said:


> I think only updating Tier 0 would not upset any one. Let's face it, most are interested in the reference quality discs and there are still sites like blu-ray.com where everyone can go to get a rough idea of where a disc would place.
> 
> The work you put in is already time consuming and greatly appreciated, but I can't imagine you wasting time with those manual counts for all. That would be a bit ridiculous.





Phantom Stranger said:


> Clarifying things a little further for everyone, I'd probably move to full updates for future recommendations in both Tiers 0 and 1 going forward. Those tiers get the most attention.
> 
> I still hope to update every Tier for the past year's worth of recommendations at some point.


I like your idea Phantom to include both Tiers 0 and 1! And I agree with tcramer that the work you do is "greatly appreciated."


----------



## djoberg

*Rings*

We have yet another LOOKER here in the "horror genre." Now if they could only do something about the horrible CONTENT! 

I'll keep this short. By far the most outstanding virtues were DETAILS and BLACK LEVELS. Close-ups of anything revealed fine details and texture, especially in faces and clothing. Clarity was also topnotch in daytime scenes and in most nighttime shots. There was a layer of grain (heavy at times) that might be taken as "noise" by some, but for the most part grain was light and pleasing. 

The downside of this film was its color scheme. You've heard me complain often about color-grading with "orange/teal hues." Well, this one has "green hues." Yep, you heard me right...GREEN. Thankfully it didn't obscure details but it was bothersome at times. There were also a handful of shots where softness crept in.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Get On Up*

recommendation: *Tier 0 *(current placement)

PQ is excellent on all levels except for one or two fleeting shots where the contrast falters; concur with the placement and previous reviews.


----------



## sbpyrat

I concur...the top tiers are most important and really all I reference at this point. I do still like seeing everyone's posts on any releases here on this thread, but when I go to the Tiers post, I can't remember the last time I looked below Gold.

I've been really busy and very rarely post, but I try to at least skim this thread every week or so to keep up.

Thanks *Phantom *for all the work you do...and to all of the the contributors here! 



Phantom Stranger said:


> Clarifying things a little further for everyone, I'd probably move to full updates for future recommendations in both Tiers 0 and 1 going forward. Those tiers get the most attention.
> 
> I still hope to update every Tier for the past year's worth of recommendations at some point.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Thanks everyone for the support. 

*A Street Cat Named Bob*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

This uplifting British movie is set in the cold, dreary streets of London for the most part. Shot on modern digital cameras, the fairly sharp picture offers a steady contrast and fine depth. This isn't flashy video quality but certainly looks nice enough for a new BD.

MVD Visual distributed this movie and their presentation is technically sound, receiving a solid AVC encode.


----------



## rusky_g

djoberg said:


> *San Andreas*
> 
> This was a LOOKER, but not quite "Reference" material. The CGI was impressive, with solid definition, clarity and details in the midst of collapsing buildings, a tsunami, and tons of debris being swept along the streets of San Francisco. There were dozens of aerial shots of Los Angeles and San Francisco that showcased the amazing DETAILS and DEPTH of this Blockbuster. Close-ups did NOT disappoint, especially facial texture. Contrast was strong, though at times BLACK LEVELS weakened (most notably in interior and underwater scenes). FLESH TONES were pleasing. COLORS were somewhat muted, but when primaries rose to the occasion they were excellent. Finally, there was a very nice "film-like" look throughout. This should easily land in Tier 1...towards the top....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.25**


Pretty much my thoughts Dj.
A very good disc which doesn't quite eclipse the Top Tier. Any aerial/cityscape shots looked great with some excellent detail but blacks were the weak link too often. That aside the good outweighed the bad by far and a Tier 1 placement is well deserved!

1.25


----------



## djoberg

rusky_g said:


> Pretty much my thoughts Dj.
> A very good disc which doesn't quite eclipse the Top Tier. Any aerial/cityscape shots looked great with some excellent detail but blacks were the weak link too often. That aside the good outweighed the bad by far and a Tier 1 placement is well deserved!
> 
> 1.25


Good thoughts Russ AND good to hear from you!


----------



## djoberg

*Sing*

Once again I will start out with the line...."Yet ANOTHER animated marvel!!" I believe I'm at the point where I can't really determine an exact spot in the Top Twenty, but this one surely deserves one. Colors....clarity....depth....inky blacks.....this one has them all!

One observation I can make...the UHD/HDR version took it up a notch, due to their elevated colors (courtesy of the Wide Color Gamut). Details were more finely-rendered as well and contrast was definitely stronger.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (somewhere in the Top 20)*

PS The audio was spectacular!!


----------



## fredxr2d2

djoberg said:


> *Sing*
> 
> Once again I will start out with the line...."Yet ANOTHER animated marvel!!" I believe I'm at the point where I can't really determine an exact spot in the Top Twenty, but this one surely deserves one. Colors....clarity....depth....inky blacks.....this one has them all!
> 
> One observation I can make...the UHD/HDR version took it up a notch, due to their elevated colors (courtesy of the Wide Color Gamut). Details were more finely-rendered as well and contrast was definitely stronger.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (somewhere in the Top 20)*
> 
> PS The audio was spectacular!!


I agree with this placement. It's been a little while since I watched it, but it is pretty standard for good animated video quality. The Atmos track on this one was also decent, but not much was sent to the overheads - there was a moment early in the film where a bunch of papers fly around the screen and they fly above you and around you quite nicely, however, the rest of the film keeps most of the singing in the base channels (so I don't think you missed much by not having Atmos, djoberg)


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Vixen: The Movie*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

This new animated feature has a slightly different pedigree from other DC Comics' adaptations. Acting as a prequel of sorts for the Vixen character when she appeared on The CW's Arrow, this movie has been adapted from two seasons' worth of animated shorts that ran on CW Seed, the network's online platform.

The animation isn't that different from other DC releases by WB, though it's not quite as polished. The only problem here is banding, noticeable in the clean animation. Otherwise _Vixen: The Movie_ looks fine with bright colors and sharp clarity.


----------



## djoberg

*The Great Wall*

This "underwhelming" Blockbuster (the movie was REALLY bad) had some "overwhelming" PQ!

I had heard nothing but praise on the PQ-front, so I wasn't surprised by the dazzling details, the vibrant colors, the inky blacks, and the razor-sharp clarity. On the negative side, there were some soft shots and a lack of depth during scenes with heavy CGI. Oh, and the color-grading (orange hues!) was over-the-top at times and wreaked havoc on flesh tones. But all things considered this was still "reference material," though I'm inclined to put it in the bottom of the bin.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (towards the bottom...let's say .90)*

PS If your audio system has real guts, you will be OVERWHELMED by the amazing bass (drum rolls, anyone?...and plenty of explosions), enveloping action in the surrounds (including MANY overhead), and crystal-clear dialogue in the center channel. All courtesy of a fantastic Dolby TrueHD soundtrack (I heard that the Dolby Amos track takes it up another notch).


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Corpse Party: Tortured Souls OVA*

recommendation: *Tier 2.5**

_Corpse Party_ offers standard traditional animation with a rather ordinary presentation. It lacks the vibrancy of better anime, muted in palette by its ghost themes. 

This is the first anime BD I've seen from Maiden Japan and they seem to have done a fair job with this video. Nothing sticks out as inherently flawed in the transfer and the AVC encode holds up during darker scenes. I'm guessing the Blu-ray accurately represents the original source material fairly closely.


----------



## rusky_g

*Last Vegas*

This disc got some glowing PQ scores upon its release in 2014.

I couldn't see any reviews on here however.

It looked alright although to be honest this type of movie isn't my cup of tea when it comes to PQ as I tend to favour more subtle colour schemes.

In some places the PQ was good, namely most outdoor shots, in other places however it felt average. Colours were bright and punchy as you'd expect from the theme. Blacks were solid. Some interior shots felt a bit flat and in some places poor lighting robbed the image of any life. Detail was decent but not mind blowing. 

Watching Jurassic World a few weeks ago reminded me of how good modern films could look. Sadly this just felt short for me.

*Tier 2.25*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Starlight*

recommendation: *Tier 1.75**

_Starlight_ is a 2012 French movie recently put out by new label Cleopatra. Its nicely crisp picture quality resides comfortably in tier one with excellent texture and focused clarity. The technical transfer is flawless, this is a fine presentation of solid cinematography.

I hope everyone is enjoying this Memorial Day weekend.


----------



## djoberg

rusky_g said:


> Pretty much my thoughts Dj.
> A very good disc which doesn't quite eclipse the Top Tier. Any aerial/cityscape shots looked great with some excellent detail but blacks were the weak link too often. That aside the good outweighed the bad by far and a Tier 1 placement is well deserved!
> 
> 1.25


I felt like watching a good "disaster" movie, so I slipped this in almost two hours ago. I still feel it easily deserves the 1.25 rating we gave to it. I noticed more "soft shots" than I had remembered, but in my experience the blacks were quite good. Even the letter-boxed bars remained "pitch black" which means I wasn't distracted.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^

I forgot how AWESOME the soundtrack was on this! It was so loud I didn't dare turn any louder than -10!! This one would especially be good with a Dolby Atmos track for there are tons of helicopters and planes flying overhead, along with buildings falling straight down on people.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Kiki's Delivery Service*

recommendation: *Tier 1.75**

Classic cel animation from Studio Ghibli looks excellent on this Blu-ray from Disney. The animation looks as fresh if it was made yesterday. A saturated color palette and nice black levels help its texture pop.

This is about as good as the film can look in 1080P resolution.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Triage X: Complete Collection*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

Impressive anime visuals highlight this two-disc set. Extra effort has been put into the animation to make it more fluid and energetic. Minor banding is about the only visible weakness in what is otherwise an outstanding presentation.

Anyone else having problems posting to this site? I had to reset my password and now every post requires a captcha. It's a step backward in my opinion.


----------



## fredxr2d2

Phantom Stranger said:


> Anyone else having problems posting to this site? I had to reset my password and now every post requires a captcha. It's a step backward in my opinion.


I haven't had any problems recently.


----------



## fredxr2d2

Phantom Stranger said:


> Anyone else having problems posting to this site? I had to reset my password and now every post requires a captcha. It's a step backward in my opinion.





fredxr2d2 said:


> I haven't had any problems recently.


Maybe because you're a ghost?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Thanks for the quick responses. The site is still acting odd for me, requiring me to answer a captcha for every post.

More troublesome is that I was in the middle of updating the PQ Tiers and have been locked out of SuprSlow's account, which happens to have control over them. If a site moderator happens to read this, I'm going to need help resetting SuprSlow's password.


----------



## fredxr2d2

Phantom Stranger said:


> Thanks for the quick responses. The site is still acting odd for me, requiring me to answer a captcha for every post.
> 
> More troublesome is that I was in the middle of updating the PQ Tiers and have been locked out of SuprSlow's account, which happens to have control over them. If a site moderator happens to read this, I'm going to need help resetting SuprSlow's password.


Yikes! Sorry to hear that...hopefully a mod will swing by and help.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

fredxr2d2 said:


> Yikes! Sorry to hear that...hopefully a mod will swing by and help.


I've reached out to Brandon (SuprSlow) to help reset the account, though it's been a couple of years since we last talked. I'll figure something out.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Juice*

recommendation: *Tier 2.25**

Paramount is back in the business of issuing their own catalog properties and one of the first efforts is this 25th anniversary edition for _Juice_. This is a nearly perfect film transfer for the 1992 production, receiving some of the best color correction I've seen lately. The film was never super-sharp but everything in the film elements have been brought out in crisp clarity. Improved contrast, solid black levels, appropriate saturation and fleshtones, _Juice_ looks relatively great for its material.

Some things will be changing when the next PQ Tiers' update comes. Some issues have arisen using SuprSlow's account, so I will be re-creating the entire master list in a new thread. It shouldn't affect the content of them at all but everyone will have to change their bookmarks and links.


----------



## Kool-aid23

Phantom Stranger said:


> *Juice*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 2.25**
> 
> ...Some things will be changing when the next PQ Tiers' update comes. Some issues have arisen using SuprSlow's account, so I will be re-creating the entire master list in a new thread. It shouldn't affect the content of them at all but everyone will have to change their bookmarks and links.



Thanks for all the work you do. Have you decided on which tiers you will update?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Kool-aid23 said:


> Thanks for all the work you do. Have you decided on which tiers you will update?


Depending on my schedule, I still have hope everything gets updated.:wink:


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them*

recommendation: *Tier 1.75**

Agree with everything *djoberg* said about this film...opening and closing scenes are excellent with the middle part a little softer.

As for the sound... I only have a 5.1 setup and I swear there were sounds coming from the ceiling and even originating from the middle of the room, just spectacular and no other soundtrack has given my system such a workout. The LFE in the final action scene was reference and even better than *Gravity*.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Man of La Mancha*

recommendation: *Tier 3.0**

Shout Factory licensed this from MGM and put it out a little over a month ago. The 1972 Arthur Hiller-directed musical gets an older HD transfer from serviceable film elements. Murky shadow delineation and soft grain reproduction mark this 1.85:1 presentation.

Its definition and clarity are what we've come to expect from an older MGM film that hasn't seen the benefit of a new restoration. Shout Factory encodes it in perfect AVC on a BD-50. A trace of sharpening is visible. The video is free of overt damage and wear, though better fine detail is limited to close-ups.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Steins; Gate: The Movie*

recommendation: *Tier 2.25**

Funimation finally got to put out this 2013 movie sequel to the beloved anime series earlier this year. The animation sticks very closely to the original series' look and aesthetic. Having previously ranked that series in Tier 2.0 some years ago, Tier 2.25 feels more correct for the movie. I suspect if I re-watched the original series it would fall a bit in the rankings.

There are some technical improvements. Banding was an issue on the original series. This is a much stronger AVC encode this time, averaging over 21 Mbps. It's a much smoother, slightly punchier presentation.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Son of Frankenstein*

recommendation: *Tier 3.0**

Good all around black and white film, the scene transitions are a little soft.


----------



## JNayAV

John Wick Chapter 2 - UHD w/HDR


Recommendation: Tier 0.75


The subject matter doesn't lend itself to scoring very highly in my opinion. The movie is ~75% low lit scenes with muted color palette. However, what is there is pristine. In the occasions where the additional color and brightness comes into play, this movie contains some of the best scenes I've ever seen. Black levels are solid through out, and details are solid being a 4k release.


About 3/4 thru the movie John Wick is fighting thru an art gallery with bright signs, lights, and a mirror room. During this approximately 15-20 minute scene, contrast of color and light skyrockets and would easily be one of my top 5 demos to show off.


If you happen to have a 4K tv and HDR capable, you won't be disappointed. I really hope this is how HDR is handled in more movies. Don't need searing brightness, give bright highlights with very deep blacks against multiple colors to show massive contrast. But on the other side, if the scene doesn't call for it, don't blow it out for no reason.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Little Witch Academia: The Enchanted Parade*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

_Little Witch Academia_ has absolutely gorgeous animation inspired by classic French and Disney animators. This flawless import set from Japan is a stunning showcase of traditional hand-drawn animation, particularly the first OVA. Theatrical animation would usually have 2000-3000 key frames for a movie of this length. The first _Little Witch Academia_ OVA has around 17,000 key frames. That translates to some of the most fluid animation seen since the halcyon days of Walt Disney's early classics.

This is not a cheap Blu-ray set but it captures some of the finest hand-drawn animation to ever hit 1080P video.


----------



## djoberg

Just a note to inform you that I'm still in the land of the living!

I rented _John Wick 2_ and _Logan_ from Redbox today and plan to watch them tonight. Stay tuned!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I was wondering if you had gone on one of your extended trips again. It's always good hearing you have more discs in the queue lined up for viewing.

*Trespass*

recommendation: *Tier 2.75**

Shout Factory licensed this Bill Paxton and Ice-T actioner. This is a solid, no-frills presentation of the 1992 movie. It doesn't have stunning video quality but represents an adequate improvement in detail and definition over DVD.

The film elements are in great condition. The steady contrast is fine, if a bit lacking in extraordinary pop and warmth. Some mild filtering is possible. Grain reproduction is fairly average. The high-frequency content lacks that razor-sharp clarity and detail often seen in brand-new HD transfers.


----------



## Kool-aid23

Quick question Phantom, currently (without having to update the entire list) looking at the votes, what are the top three PQ titles?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Kool-aid23 said:


> Quick question Phantom, currently (without having to update the entire list) looking at the votes, what are the top three PQ titles?


That's a good question that I really don't have a quick answer for.

I've been currently grinding my way through the upcoming update but it's not even half done. There is progress being made, slowly but surely. Everyone will know once it's posted.


----------



## djoberg

*John Wick 2*

The review below (of the UHD/HDR version) mirrors what I saw in the 1080p version. In fact, I kept saying to myself, "I've got to get the 4K version if it actually looks better than this." In reading several "expert" reviews online, they all, without exception, said the 4K UHD version resulted in even finer details, blacker blacks, and more vibrant colors. Again, this is hard to envision, for the 1080p version was PURE EYE CANDY.

The only thing I would add is that facial details were as good as they can get. I've seen dozens of UHD/HDR titles (my current library consists of over 30 releases) and nothing will top what I just saw (though they do may indeed be "equal" to it). Shadow details were also topnotch. As JNayAV said, the "black levels and details were solid" with a majority of its 2 hour running time to showcase them. I was simply mesmerized by them all the way through!

As with the 1st installment, there was a lot of color-grading sprinkled throughout, but thankfully it didn't hinder details, depth, clarity or even flesh tones (except in a couple of instances with glowing "orange hues"). There was also some "black crush" at times (most notable in black suits), but the action was so fast that I didn't find myself distracted by it.

Okay, he nominated the UHD title for Tier 0 (.75) and I'm inclined to vote for the very same spot. Mind you, this is the 1080p version so I suspect I would be opting for at least .5 if this were the UHD version.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.75)*



JNayAV said:


> John Wick Chapter 2 - UHD w/HDR
> 
> 
> Recommendation: Tier 0.75
> 
> 
> The subject matter doesn't lend itself to scoring very highly in my opinion. The movie is ~75% low lit scenes with muted color palette. However, what is there is pristine. In the occasions where the additional color and brightness comes into play, this movie contains some of the best scenes I've ever seen. Black levels are solid through out, and details are solid being a 4k release.
> 
> 
> About 3/4 thru the movie John Wick is fighting thru an art gallery with bright signs, lights, and a mirror room. During this approximately 15-20 minute scene, contrast of color and light skyrockets and would easily be one of my top 5 demos to show off.
> 
> 
> If you happen to have a 4K tv and HDR capable, you won't be disappointed. I really hope this is how HDR is handled in more movies. Don't need searing brightness, give bright highlights with very deep blacks against multiple colors to show massive contrast. But on the other side, if the scene doesn't call for it, don't blow it out for no reason.


----------



## djoberg

*Logan*

After just viewing _John Wick 2_ (with its amazing PQ!) I was somewhat disappointed with this title. This one lacked the overall clarity and exceptional details that were on display throughout JW2. The black levels weren't as good either and there was some softness, especially in the opening scenes.

On the plus side, there were a number of daytime scenes that really POPPED with tons of details, superb depth, good colors, accurate flesh tones, and striking depth.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**

PS I never really got into the movie. I was somewhat shocked at the gratuitous violence and pervasive language...not your typical _X-Men_ film!


----------



## djoberg

*xXx: Return of Xander Cage*

For those who are familiar with this Franchise, you know that this is a highly "stylized" film which employs heavy doses of over-saturated colors as well as extreme color-grading. I didn't mind the over-saturated colors, but the color-grading wreaked havoc on flesh-tones and hindered details. There was a night scene starting at the 41 minute mark that lasted 14 minutes that had "orange hues" resulting in the aforementioned problems. That scene also featured poor to average black levels, some instances of noise, and recurring softness. It was UGLY!

Okay, now that I've dealt with the "negatives" I would be remiss if I didn't bring out some "positives." Details were insane at times, especially in all of the outdoor, daytime scenes. Facial details were topnotch, but so were details in foliage, furniture, clothing, tattoos, etc., etc. Depth was "3D-like" at times. Colors were dazzling. Blacks were great. Clarity was razor-sharp.

This is another "hard call," but I'm inclined to put it right here...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**

PS I know some will take exception with my rating; in fact, some may be wanting this in Tier 0 or, at the very least, in the top of Tier 1. But IMHO when you have a 14 minute scene like the one I described above, it deserves to be docked a whole tier.

PPS Next up..._Get Out_.


----------



## djoberg

*Get Out*

Okay, so everyone (that writes professional reviews) is singing its praises for PQ, with more or less a PERFECT SCORE. I'm with them, sort of. To be sure this release has superb clarity, warm and vibrant colors, deep blacks with corresponding shadow details, accurate flesh tones, appreciable depth, and amazing details....MOST OF THE TIME! Those last four words will keep me back from nominating this for Tier 0.

So, what's NOT PERFECT? In a few of the opening scenes there were shots that looked like "soap opera video," with its characteristic softness. This was especially true (at times) in the home of Dean & Missy Armitage, and at times Rose's face and hair looked really soft and bland. I would also add that there was a good deal of color-grading at the home of the Armitage's, both in the house and outside during their party. What color you ask? Ah, the typical "orange" is served up in this one and it DID result in some less-than-perfect flesh tones. Again, the majority of the film showcased the virtues listed in my first paragraph, but in fairness I will be docking this for the "negatives" outlined in this paragraph.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**

PS I should mention that every reviewer who praised it alluded to the opening scene which takes place outside at night in a beautiful suburb and they all speak of the perfect black levels, shadow details and almost limitless depth with impeccable details. I'm here to tell you that I did NOT experience the same viewing, for even though the blacks and details were very good, they weren't perfect and there surely wasn't limitless depth and impeccable details.

PPS I DID enjoy the movie immensely. It was a "breath of fresh air" in the horror genre in almost every way.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I see Djoberg's home theater has been seeing a lot of action lately. Keep up the good work.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> I see Djoberg's home theater has been seeing a lot of action lately. Keep up the good work.


Again, my travels have necessitated a "Blu-ray Fast" so it's about time for a "Blu-ray Feast." Plus, my wife has been gone the last two days and thus "When the wife's AWAY, the husband must PLAY"...play Blu-rays, that is!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> *Logan*
> 
> After just viewing _John Wick 2_ (with its amazing PQ!) I was somewhat disappointed with this title. This one lacked the overall clarity and exceptional details that were on display throughout JW2. The black levels weren't as good either and there was some softness, especially in the opening scenes.
> 
> On the plus side, there were a number of daytime scenes that really POPPED with tons of details, superb depth, good colors, accurate flesh tones, and striking depth.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.5**
> 
> PS I never really got into the movie. I was somewhat shocked at the gratuitous violence and pervasive language...not your typical _X-Men_ film!


*Logan*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

I completely agree with Djoberg's scoring for _Logan_. Having finally gotten around to watching Fox's latest mutant movie this weekend, _Logan_ has even, consistent picture quality that just lacks the superior dimensionality of better Tier 1 discs.

It's not a gritty aesthetic by any stretch. There is nice clarity without the intensely detailed, razor-sharp moments we've come to expect from brand-new action blockbusters. On the positive side, special effects are kept to a minimum outside of fight scenes.

Logan is certainly a strange movie for the superhero genre. It feels more like one of the first post-superhero movies that just happens to have a few X-Men characters.


----------



## djoberg

*Life*

In the very opening scene (an open "space" scene) I was horrified by the terrible blacks (my letter-boxed bars were a murky "gray" and the darkness of space was less-than-stellar as well), but as soon as the scene shifted to inside the space station ALL WAS WELL. Thankfully, the black levels were MUCH BETTER after the first scene, though there were a couple of instances where they faltered.

Details were topnotch in all areas, especially in close-ups (and they were plentiful) of faces which were some of the best I've ever seen. That being said, flesh tones were not that accurate at times. Contrast was truly pleasing, for there are many shots of outside the space station which featured bright (and I mean BRIGHT) whites of the ship, next to a pitch black background of open space and spectacular stars. Shots of Earth from space also featured this dazzling contrast. Depth was so-so, and clarity was excellent one minute, not so much the next.

This one won't be found on anyone's "Reference Shelf," but it should find its way to your "Demo Shelf" and I'd put it near the top.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25**

PS In reading reviews, everyone that saw both the 1080p and 4K version said the UHD version was one of the greatest upgrades in PQ they had ever seen. Our own AVS reviewer (Ralph Potts) gave the UHD release a perfect score of 100, while he only gave the 1080p version an 88. If the movie had been better I'd more than likely be on Amazon purchasing it right now. (The movie wasn't BAD, it just didn't have "repeat value" in my estimation.)


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Ghost of Frankenstein, The*

recommendation: *Tier 2.75**

Nice presentation from Universal, they really took care of the Frankenstein titles. Good black levels and shadow details, clarity is nice with fabrics and other textures well defined.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man*

recommendation: *Tier 2.75**

Another good restoration, everything from black levels to clarity and grain are rendered nicely.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*House of Frankenstein*

recommendation: *Tier 3.25**

Uneven on clarity, looks like some scenes were restored from lesser film elements.


----------



## djoberg

*Collide*

Universal has given us another STUNNING release that may indeed land in the coveted Tier Blu!

I'm tired so I'll get right to the point. Details are exemplary throughout in every area, including the numerous facial close-ups that reveal every pore, pock, stubble, nick, peach fuzz, wrinkle...you get the point! Depth is also topnotch in a number of scenes, especially in scenes without racing cars (down the Autobahn and elsewhere!) or when the lead actor is getting chased on foot. Colors are pure EYE CANDY, whether we're talking about Anthony Hopkins "baby blue suit," or the lead actor's "ocean blue eyes," or "shiny cars." Flesh tones are spot-on accurate with the exception of a few shots where some "orange hues" reared their ugly head. Clarity is razor-sharp...again, most notable in the scenes where the camera isn't tracking fast-moving objects (this is one ACTION-PACKER film). I should also mention that there was a nice "filmic-look" that served to enhance details.

I'm on the border with this one...should I place it in the "bottom of Tier 0" or at the "top of Tier 1." Okay, the "conservative side" of me just kicked in so my vote goes for....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.0**

PS I could see others placing this in Tier 0 around .75 and quite frankly they wouldn't get an argument from me!


----------



## DarthDoxie

*House of Dracula*

recommendation: *Tier 3.25**

Uneven on clarity just like *House of Frankenstein*. The quality of Universal's monster films dropped off after *Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man*.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein*

recommendation: *Tier 2.5**

Good restoration, clarity is nice and even with only a few short shots faltering below the level of the rest. Black levels and contract are also steady.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Django, Prepare a Coffin*

recommendation: *Tier 3.0**

The 1968 spaghetti western receives a solid film transfer from a nicely pristine interpositive. There is a preponderance of yellow in the color palette, skewing flesh-tones. The clarity is excellent, if slightly rolled off in superior detail levels.

Arrow Video gives the 1.66:1 presentation a perfect AVC encoding. Django looks fairly good for a vintage b-movie made in Italy.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Star Wars Rebels: Season One*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

This is my first shot at reviewing animation. Recent animated series from Disney aimed at the younger crowd (6-14) but as a Star Wars fan I found it to be entertaining. The CGI animation is excellent with sharp lines, colors that pop when needed, and deep black levels. The encode looks solid as I saw no banding or macro-blocking. Quality of the animation ranges from kind of flat on some surfaces such as hair to 3D-like in shots of Storm Troopers marching through the passageway of a Star Destroyer. Reflections and other highlights are nicely done and really add to the realism of the presentation.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Tale of Tales*

recommendation: *0* (.5)*

Shout Factory distributes this visually enticing 2015 fantasy film in stunning picture quality. _Tale of Tales_ was seemingly constructed with Tier 0 in mind. Its dimensional pop and razor-sharp definition perfectly fit our highest tier.

The inspired composition and lavish set design create picturesque scenes of remarkable clarity. This is a movie that beautifully defines eye candy on Blu-ray. It reminds me of why I started following this thread.


----------



## anthonymoody

djoberg said:


> *The Great Wall*
> 
> This "underwhelming" Blockbuster (the movie was REALLY bad) had some "overwhelming" PQ!
> 
> I had heard nothing but praise on the PQ-front, so I wasn't surprised by the dazzling details, the vibrant colors, the inky blacks, and the razor-sharp clarity. On the negative side, there were some soft shots and a lack of depth during scenes with heavy CGI. Oh, and the color-grading (orange hues!) was over-the-top at times and wreaked havoc on flesh tones. But all things considered this was still "reference material," though I'm inclined to put it in the bottom of the bin.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (towards the bottom...let's say .90)*
> 
> PS If your audio system has real guts, you will be OVERWHELMED by the amazing bass (drum rolls, anyone?...and plenty of explosions), enveloping action in the surrounds (including MANY overhead), and crystal-clear dialogue in the center channel. All courtesy of a fantastic Dolby TrueHD soundtrack (I heard that the Dolby Amos track takes it up another notch).


I couldn't find a thread dedicated to this title - no surprise given how, uhh, shallow the film was. That said, I enjoyed it for what it is: a good bad movie that looked and sounded amazing.

That said, I ran into a weird issue. I'll check in the various equipment threads (Oppo 203, Samsung KS98 FALD TV) but at least 6-8 times throughout the film it slowed to a pause or nearly a pause, then slowly caught up. Almost like buffering a stream. I've not experienced it on any other film. 

The Oppo's f/w updated after the movie, and we were a large group so I couldn't fuss around to replay in order to see if it replicated in the same place each time, etc. but figured I'd check in here to see if anyone else has had a similar issue?


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> *Tale of Tales*
> 
> recommendation: *0* (.5)*
> 
> Shout Factory distributes this visually enticing 2015 fantasy film in stunning picture quality. _Tale of Tales_ was seemingly constructed with Tier 0 in mind. Its dimensional pop and razor-sharp definition perfectly fit our highest tier.
> 
> The inspired composition and lavish set design create picturesque scenes of remarkable clarity. This is a movie that beautifully defines eye candy on Blu-ray. It reminds me of why I started following this thread.


I am putting this on my "Must Watch" list. The problem is "will Redbox have the Blu-ray rental?" If not, is the movie itself good enough to buy it?


----------



## djoberg

anthonymoody said:


> I ran into a weird issue....at least 6-8 times throughout the film it slowed to a pause or nearly a pause, then slowly caught up. Almost like buffering a stream. I've not experienced it on any other film.


I have this title so if you can give me some "time stamps" (so I can go right to them) I'll check it out. If memory serves me, I don't recall this happening and I would think I would if it occurred 6-8 times.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom,

I just read Hi-Def Digest's review of _Tale of tales_ and they said that EXTERIOR scenes were drop-dead gorgeous but the INTERIOR scenes were horrendous, especially the "whites." Did you see any anomalies in interior scenes?


----------



## anthonymoody

djoberg said:


> I have this title so if you can give me some "time stamps" (so I can go right to them) I'll check it out. If memory serves me, I don't recall this happening and I would think I would if it occurred 6-8 times.


You definitely would've noticed and remembered - it wasn't at all subtle. I will try to re-watch and get some time codes assuming it happens. Thanks!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> Phantom,
> 
> I just read Hi-Def Digest's review of _Tale of tales_ and they said that EXTERIOR scenes were drop-dead gorgeous but the INTERIOR scenes were horrendous, especially the "whites." Did you see any anomalies in interior scenes?


It's a fantasy movie built off twisted fairytales made for adults. If you've seen Tarsem Singh's films such as _The Fall_, that is a good comparison for _Tale of Tales' _general style. I went into the movie mostly blind outside of an interesting trailer I caught on another disc. 

I wouldn't give the movie an unequivocal recommendation. Three different tales are told together, which dulls its pacing. The characters are interesting and its fable-like storytelling mostly works. But _Tale of Tales_ is really for fantasy lovers. It's a decent rental, probably not worth a purchase unless the price is right.

As for the picture quality, any complaints about _Tale of Tales'_ interiors are vastly overstated. The disc is Tier 0 without a doubt. A couple of scenes have purposely reduced shadow delineation since the plot demands it. An old hag tricks her way into the king's bed, demanding they make love in the dark. One character is the half-human child of a sea monster. His skin is alabaster white. That isn't a defect of incorrect white levels. The interiors have a hotter color temperature earlier in the movie.

*Private Lessons*

recommendation: *Tier 2.5**

The 1981 movie looks great in HD despite some minor technical problems that could have been easily corrected. Put out by an unfamiliar label calling itself Cinema Epoch, the sub-par AVC encode introduces minor banding. The film elements appear in great condition, discounting a few random scratches. They pop with clarity and pleasing definition.


----------



## djoberg

*The Zookeeper's Wife*

When I heard of this title I knew I had to see it, for I'm an avid fan of movies that depict the plight of the Jews during the Nazi takeover of Europe (and this was based on a true story that took place in Warsaw, Poland). The film may be too slow-paced and not have enough action for most people, but the cast was superb (delivering excellent performances) and so was the drama. It easily kept my attention for the whole 2 hour running time.

But this is a PQ Thread so I must give you my take on what I saw that brought pleasure to my eyes. In short, it was a "mixed bag," with many shots (with good clarity, excellent details, warm & vibrant colors, accurate flesh tones, appreciable depth, and very good black levels) that were worthy of Tier 1. Most of these took place in daytime scenes and they were especially pleasing when shot outdoors. Then there were many shots (with a very soft focus, poor details, and less-than-stellar black levels) that would land in Tier 3 towards the bottom. They actually "saved the best for last," for in the closing scenes there were shots that would easily be considered "Reference-quality" (Tier 0).

So, after careful consideration of the "good" and the "bad" I'm forced to keep this out of the Top Tiers, though I'm inclined to put in on the top of the next tier.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Fantastic 4 (2015)*

recommendation: *Tier 1.75**

I was under the mistaken impression someone had already reviewed _Fantastic 4_ for the PQ Tiers. Both of the older movies are listed but not this one. This disastrous 2015 reboot of the superhero franchise was practically disowned by Fox soon after release and it's easy to see why after watching it. I had a very difficult time sticking around for its nearly 100-minute length.

As someone that grew up reading the Fantastic 4's tales, this reboot is utter dreck littered with plot holes. Worse is its complete disregard for the Fantastic 4 characters and mythos. This is the worst blockbuster superhero movie I've ever seen, including garbage such as _Catwoman_.

As for _Fantastic 4's_ picture quality, the video offers a fairly standard Tier One experience. There aren't significant or notable problems in the transfer or presentation.


----------



## SnellTHX

Well guys I am finally an owner of an LG B6 OLED. I accidentally broke my beloved Kuro and my insurance company gladly replaced my Kuro with the B6 OLED (the expense was covered by them, I pay like $15/month for full home insurance (theft, natural disasters, coffee spills, phone drops and idiots like me who manage to crack their plasma displays..) 


AND WOW what a TV. First movie I watched on this magnificent display is the Tier 0 (top 5) Dark Knight Rises blu-ray. the 16:9 IMAX scenes completely blew my mind, and the extra screen size vs 50" Kuro was much appreciated. I find it difficult to believe there is better and more accurate picture quality out there... Well obviously 7 series OLED, but still.


Can't wait to rewatch my other top 10 favourite PQ movies; Life of Pi, Avatar, The Dark Knight (2008), Interstellar, The Good Dinosaur and so on.I haven't had an upgrade to my display in over half a decade so I have plenty of re-watching to do


----------



## Phantom Stranger

SnellTHX said:


> Well guys I am finally an owner of an LG B6 OLED. I accidentally broke my beloved Kuro and my insurance company gladly replaced my Kuro with the B6 OLED (the expense was covered by them, I pay like $15/month for full home insurance (theft, natural disasters, coffee spills, phone drops and idiots like me who manage to crack their plasma displays..)
> 
> 
> AND WOW what a TV. First movie I watched on this magnificent display is the Tier 0 (top 5) Dark Knight Rises blu-ray. the 16:9 IMAX scenes completely blew my mind, and the extra screen size vs 50" Kuro was much appreciated. I find it difficult to believe there is better and more accurate picture quality out there... Well obviously 7 series OLED, but still.
> 
> 
> Can't wait to rewatch my other top 10 favourite PQ movies; Life of Pi, Avatar, The Dark Knight (2008), Interstellar, The Good Dinosaur and so on.I haven't had an upgrade to my display in over half a decade so I have plenty of re-watching to do


Congrats on the new display, SnellTHX! It's always fun putting a new one through its paces with familiar material.

I know thread watchers have been patient but this week looks very good for the long promised PQ Tiers update.


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> Well guys I am finally an owner of an LG B6 OLED. I accidentally broke my beloved Kuro and my insurance company gladly replaced my Kuro with the B6 OLED (the expense was covered by them, I pay like $15/month for full home insurance (theft, natural disasters, coffee spills, phone drops and idiots like me who manage to crack their plasma displays..)
> 
> 
> AND WOW what a TV. First movie I watched on this magnificent display is the Tier 0 (top 5) Dark Knight Rises blu-ray. the 16:9 IMAX scenes completely blew my mind, and the extra screen size vs 50" Kuro was much appreciated. I find it difficult to believe there is better and more accurate picture quality out there... Well obviously 7 series OLED, but still.
> 
> 
> Can't wait to rewatch my other top 10 favourite PQ movies; Life of Pi, Avatar, The Dark Knight (2008), Interstellar, The Good Dinosaur and so on.I haven't had an upgrade to my display in over half a decade so I have plenty of re-watching to do


The LG OLED would have been my "first choice" too...but I truly wanted a 70" or larger and when I bought the Sony 940D their (the LG) 77" was a whopping 20K!!

Enjoy the new set and we'll look forward to you writing reviews on what you've already reviewed...with EVEN HIGHER SCORES because of them looking better on your new OLED!!!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Demon Seed*

recommendation: *Tier 3.5**

The 1977 horror film receives an adequate presentation, albeit from an unrestored master. Warner Archive put _Demon Seed_ out instead of WB itself. Some sharpening is evident in the otherwise average film transfer.

There's nothing wrong per se but _Demon Seed_ has that soft aesthetic with optical distortion that seemed to be all the rage in the 1970s. The contrast is fairly consistent with serviceable black levels.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Bitter Rice *(Criterion)

recommendation: *Tier 3.0**

Black levels, clarity, and contrast are only limited by the original elements. Good even presentation.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I imagine some of you never thought we'd get another update to the PQ Tiers. 

The long wait is over. For the first time in 13 months, the PQ Tiers are completely up to date to the best of my ability, through the last recommendation posted by DarthDoxie. This includes basically all reviews posted here since the last update, including the lower Tiers.

Please update your Blu-ray PQ Tiers bookmarks to this thread, it has been made the new sticky:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...re-quality-rankings-pq-tiers-july-2017-a.html

AVSforum's new spam prevention software wouldn't allow me to use SuprSlow's account anymore, so I had to recreate the PQ Tiers in a new thread. This new thread completely supersedes all prior PQ Tiers, though they can still be accessed for viewing.

A few things should be mentioned. Having lost the database and software that used to power the PQ Tiers, it is once again a completely manual process updating them. The work load maintaining new updates is problematic. So I can't guarantee future recommendations and reviews posted here going forward will necessarily get included. I pushed through this update mostly because I felt I owed it to everyone here on AVS that has contributed over the years. It's been an honor working with everyone, including the troublemakers.

I don't plan on walking away from maintaining the PQ Tiers but we shall see how things develop in the coming months. When I find the time I hope to tidy up a lot of the dead links. Both the Blockbuster and Netflix links have stopped working, not to mention the many Cinemasquid review links when you click on a title.

I also have a warning about the links seen below that allow one to quickly jump between tiers. For the time being, they don't work correctly and resolve to the wrong thread. Don't use them in the PQ Tiers until I figure out a fix.

* Tier 0 - Blu   Tier 1 - Gold   Tier 2.0 - Silver   Tier 3.0 - Bronze   Tier 4.0 - Copper   Tier 5.0 - Coal  *
 *0 - 1 - 1.25 - 1.5 - 1.75 - 2 - 2.25 - 2.5 - 2.75 - 3 - 3.25 - 3.5 - 3.75 - 4 - 4.5 - 5 - *


----------



## Kool-aid23

*Respect*

As always sir, I thank you for your time and effort. I use this thread as a resource to purchase my blu-rays. (and arrangement)


----------



## djoberg

Once again I salute you Phantom for your valuable labors on this thread. The fact is "there would be no PQ Thread" if you weren't keeping it alive with your "work behind the scenes" in updating all the reviews coming in.

Having said that, I am also thankful for those who do participate by submitting your reviews. There also wouldn't be a PQ Thread if no one contributed! I would encourage everyone reading this to think about adding your own voice to the thread if you have never done so. WE NEED YOU! I must confess I have NOT done my part recently, especially with the closing of our local video stores. But I am thankful there is still the Redbox chain for renting titles (I only wish they stocked more "Blu-ray" titles).


----------



## djoberg

*The Mask*

This has always been my favorite Jim Carrey movie so I decided to grab the "Two-Pack" (along with _Dumb and Dumber_) from a bargain bin. I was "underwhelmed" by the PQ, but I wasn't expecting much for a 1994 title that would never have been given the "Royal Treatment" (i.e. by being Remastered).

It was quite SOFT throughout most of its 95 minute running time, with a lack of DETAILS and DEPTH. When it did sharpen up the COLORS were punchy and FACIAL CLOSE-UPS were Tier 1-2 quality. I used to have the DVD and if memory serves me this wasn't much better. I'm going to be generous and keep it out of Tier 4, but it's going right into the bottom of Tier 3.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.75**

PS I was surprised to see that this title had never been placed in the tiers. I assume this means it wasn't even reviewed.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

The Mask was originally a New Line production. After Warner Bros. basically wiped out New Line, they've never treated the former New Line properties with much respect on home video outside of the Rings trilogy.

Most of the New Line movies that have made it out on Blu-ray have received underwhelming transfers.


----------



## hungro

Thank you to the update on the Picture Quality Tiers. I hope that even with your busy schedule and the work load that you will find some way to continue to have the Tiers updated with new additions as the days, months, and years go by.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I merely don't want to mislead anyone, particularly contributors here that have supported the PQ Tiers with their time and thoughtful reviews. Future updates to the PQ Tiers will likely happen in some form, but I can't guarantee anything.

My intention is for the discussion in this thread to continue smoothly without interruption. I am not walking away or disappearing from the PQ Tiers.

*Wakefield*

recommendation: *Tier 2.25**

Shout Factory gives us this new movie in a matter of weeks. Made with A-list talent like Jennifer Garner and Bryan Cranston, the steady cinematography offers excellent definition in a subdued palette. The 2.35:1 presentation has excellent clarity, if mildly filtered on some level.

This is perfectly fine video quality befitting a new film. Lacking the hotter contrast and dimensionality of Tier One discs, Wakefield's strange drama resides safely in Tier 2.


----------



## SnellTHX

Phantom Stranger said:


> Congrats on the new display, SnellTHX! It's always fun putting a new one through its paces with familiar material.
> 
> I know thread watchers have been patient but this week looks very good for the long promised PQ Tiers update.



Thanks buddy! I probably have 20-30 reference disks to go through, I've watched some but not all. Need to get a good reference to be able to review upcoming videos so that they aren't all .25 better due to me switching from Kuro to 6 series OLED.


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> The LG OLED would have been my "first choice" too...but I truly wanted a 70" or larger and when I bought the Sony 940D their (the LG) 77" was a whopping 20K!!
> 
> Enjoy the new set and we'll look forward to you writing reviews on what you've already reviewed...with EVEN HIGHER SCORES because of them looking better on your new OLED!!!



Thanks! And I totally get your choice. I'll be extra tough on upcoming reviews to make up for better display. 

But to be honest... the difference between the Kuro and 6 series OLED isn't that big at all. the biggest upgrade was the extra 5 inches of screen real estate. Of course watching Avatar and IMAX shots of my favourite Nolan movies is pretty much the best picture quality ever but after watching a few "non-reference" movies (in SDR, 1080p mind you...) the difference is remarkably small! Just boggles my mind how they managed to make the Kuro so amazingly accurate all the way back in 2008. Nine years ago!


----------



## SnellTHX

*John Wick: Chapter 2 *


I watched the first movie on Netflix because I thought it was an average low budget straight-to-DVD movie with Tier 2-3 picture quality. Obviously the picture quality was so-so on Netflix but it was the kind of movie I didn't care if it looked good or not. 

Then I read recommendations here and other sites that John Wick was reference material. I didn't bother rewatching but I decided to get the blu ray of John Wick 2 and my god what a movie! 5 star action movie with 5 star picture quality. Crystal clear, razor sharp image that could have fooled me for being 4K, especially with the ridiculous amount of detail in close ups of actors' faces. Literally zero flaws with image but not quite the best I've seen and not exactly what I would use to show off my new display or brag about my home cinema. Still I'd give it a 5* rating for image quality or on a scale from 1-10 perhaps 9/10 for its consistently amazing picture.


*Tier recommendation: 1 - Gold*


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> Thanks! And I totally get your choice. I'll be extra tough on upcoming reviews to make up for better display.
> 
> But to be honest... the difference between the Kuro and 6 series OLED isn't that big at all. the biggest upgrade was the extra 5 inches of screen real estate. Of course watching Avatar and IMAX shots of my favourite Nolan movies is pretty much the best picture quality ever but after watching a few "non-reference" movies (in SDR, 1080p mind you...) the difference is remarkably small! Just boggles my mind how they managed to make the Kuro so amazingly accurate all the way back in 2008. Nine years ago!


You may have read on this thread that I too was the owner of a Kuro (the 60" PRO-151 Elite). I ended up selling it to one of my daughters (at a "STEAL") so I still get to watch it when I visit her and her family.

I must say that from "what I've seen" and from "what I've heard (from OLED owners)" you should be seeing a definite difference in black levels on your new OLED. My Kuro was incredible with blacks but they did falter when a scene went to completely black...with OLEDs they go completely black during those same scenes. Even the measurements done in controlled tests bear this out.

As I said earlier, if not for the fact that a 77" OLED is still $15,000+, I would have one in my Man Cave right now. But I needed a bigger jump in size than a mere 5" so I chose the Sony 940D (75") which has amazing blacks for an LCD/LED. It does go "completely black" when called upon to do, yet it does have the inherent weaknesses of light bleed (especially with HDR content), halos and blooming. You will never see those on an OLED or a Kuro.


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> You may have read on this thread that I too was the owner of a Kuro (the 60" PRO-151 Elite). I ended up selling it to one of my daughters (at a "STEAL") so I still get to watch it when I visit her and her family.
> 
> I must say that from "what I've seen" and from "what I've heard (from OLED owners)" you should be seeing a definite difference in black levels on your new OLED. My Kuro was incredible with blacks but they did falter when a scene went to completely black...with OLEDs they go completely black during those same scenes. Even the measurements done in controlled tests bear this out.
> 
> As I said earlier, if not for the fact that a 77" OLED is still $15,000+, I would have one in my Man Cave right now. But I needed a bigger jump in size than a mere 5" so I chose the Sony 940D (75") which has amazing blacks for an LCD/LED. It does go "completely black" when called upon to do, yet it does have the inherent weaknesses of light bleed (especially with HDR content), halos and blooming. You will never see those on an OLED or a Kuro.



Well I modified my Kuro voltages to go even deeper than stock black levels which are 0.003 nits. (with 120 nit brightness for a contrast ratio of 40,000:1) 

I haven't measured my blacks but since they are significantly deeper than stock I assume they are around the 0.001 nit mark which gives 120,000:1 contrast ratio which to me is really close to infinite and 0.001cd/m2 black is pretty much absolute black in any scene.


In real world content I actually can't tell a difference, but I do remember that 100% black screen wasn't completely black (0 nit) on my modded Kuro, so whenever the entire screen went black I could clearly tell the TV was on and that black wasn't 100% black. 

On my new OLED however its completely impossible. Black is always exactly 0 nit. Love it!!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Ladyhawke*

recommendation: *Tier 3.25**

I thought someone may have covered _Ladyhawke_ already but I guess not. Director Richard Donner's 1985 film was put out a couple of years ago by Warner Archive. It receives a serviceable film transfer with some latent processing. Minor sharpening subtly affects the largely film-like grain structure. The film elements are in excellent shape.

In some irony, Warner Archive employs much higher rates of AVC compression when encoding their discs as opposed to their larger sibling Warner Home Video._ Ladyhawke's_ flawless compression is the result of an encode averaging 35 Mbps on a BD-50.

The soft cinematography has its rough patches. Some detail is evident but _Ladyhawke_ doesn't ooze high-frequency content. The exterior scenery has _Ladyhawke's_ strongest visuals, offering rich colors in a ripe contrast.

*Punch Line: Complete Collection*

recommendation: *Tier 1.25**

The 2015 anime series has a vibrant ethos to its traditional animation. This is bold picture quality with crisp colors. Everything pops off the screen. The two-disc set from Sentai Filmworks avoids the pitfalls of banding often seen in these kind of releases.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

The annual display shootout by tv dealer Robert Zohn was held recently.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-ol...on-event-will-nyc-july-12-july-13-2017-a.html

I believe these were some of the displays covered: 

LG E7
Sony A1
Sony Z9
Samsung
Vizio
Westinghouse

Now some are talking about MicroLED tech being the next big thing for ultimate picture quality...


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^

I read the whole thread dealing with the Shootout. The LG E7 took home GOLD, winning in the 3 major categories that were being tested.

I REALLY wish I could afford the G7 77", for I could never go back to a 65" after living with my Sony 940D 75" for one whole year. But I will say the OLED technology is most definitely superior to everything else on the market.

Regarding MicroLED, that may be "a long time coming" (with a big enough display to satisfy us Home Theater buffs, that is).


----------



## djoberg

*Kong: Skull Island*

This review is on the UHD/HDR version. This one belongs on your "Reference" shelf...no doubt about it. The DETAILS were insane in all the jungle scenes and especially in close-ups of all the MONSTERS (and of course, Kong was King in the details category). The color scheme wasn't great (there was too much "color-grading" and some muted colors as well), but when primaries rose to the occasion they were pleasing to the eyes. Black levels were very good...there was one night scene toward the end that was one of the best I've seen for SHADOW DETAILS...simply astounding! There was also a fine layer of grain throughout resulting in a very nice "filmic-look." DEPTH could also be outstanding...FLESH TONES suffered some during the worst shots with color-grading, but those were limited mostly to early scenes.

Okay, I've already let the proverbial "cat out of the bag" regarding which Tier this should be placed in. But it's time to be more specific...

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.75)*

PS I suspect the 1080p version would land in the very bottom of the Tier or possibly in the top of Tier Gold.


----------



## SnellTHX

Phantom Stranger said:


> *Logan*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 1.5**
> 
> I completely agree with Djoberg's scoring for _Logan_. Having finally gotten around to watching Fox's latest mutant movie this weekend, _Logan_ has even, consistent picture quality that just lacks the superior dimensionality of better Tier 1 discs.
> 
> It's not a gritty aesthetic by any stretch. There is nice clarity without the intensely detailed, razor-sharp moments we've come to expect from brand-new action blockbusters. On the positive side, special effects are kept to a minimum outside of fight scenes.
> 
> Logan is certainly a strange movie for the superhero genre. It feels more like one of the first post-superhero movies that just happens to have a few X-Men characters.




Quoting this again haha. Not much more to say.. Logan is Tier 1.5 Gold


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The LEGO Batman Movie*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

One of the year's bigger animated movies was put out on Blu-ray about a month ago. This is one of the first blockbuster CGI movies I've seen recently where I wondered if the Blu-ray's picture quality was an afterthought to its UHD sibling. The all-digital transfer looks great but LEGO Batman's animation doesn't pop off the screen with the same depth and dimension as the best Tier Blu discs.

There are no problems with the outstanding presentation from Warner Bros. The AVC encode is perfect and fluidly renders the 1080P video's detailed animation. Assigning it to Tier One is a judgment call. I simply wasn't overwhelmed by this animation on Blu-ray like most new CGI blockbusters. I'm not sure it's the lighting or the fairly dull color palette for this kind of animation.

I don't believe anyone else has ranked this movie yet. The current LEGO Batman listing in Tier 0 is for the older, direct-to-video movie from a couple of years ago.


----------



## SnellTHX

*Kong: Skull Island*


Slightly disappointed with this movie... overall its still very, very good but the colours are muted with too much of an orange tint throughout the picture. A bit too much film grain too in my humble opinion but the CGI is really good and Kong himself looks amazing. 
Watched this movie with my best friend whom I've enjoyed probably 100 movies together with on my Kuro and he says there wasn't any difference. He didn't think black were blacker, contrast higher, colours more accurate or picture sharper, but the movie looked freaking awesome still. I was convinced it was the source material at fault and after a few IMAX 15/70 shots of Interstellar my friend was swayed. In conclusion definitely not reference material on blu-ray as the movie made by OLED fail to impress my close friend. But still on the lower end of Tier 1.



*Tier recommendation: 1.75*


----------



## SnellTHX

*Arrival*


Sheeehs! Can you say "brown levels" ?! I've just spent the last couple of weeks enjoying inky absolute black levels that look black holes or venta black material, then I put this on and the black levels look like a pit of mud. unacceptable brownish black levels in most, if not all of the mll scenes.

Picture was quite grainy and didn't look sharp either. I'd call this tier 3, but the flash back scenes looked really good, much better than the present timeline scenes.

*Tier recommendation: 2.75*


----------



## SnellTHX

*The Great Wall*

WOOW! What a movie. Finally a movie truly worthy of my new display  I've been watching a **** load of content lately and this is definitely one of the best discs I've fed my TV. The picture is ridiculously sharp with huge amounts of detail in every shot. the CGI is world class and second to none in realism and animation... Perhaps only Life of Pi and AVATAR has more realistic "better" looking CGI. The explosions with smoke and fire popped out of the screen (I'm amazed by the SDR version, I wonder how much the orangey/red flames stuck out in HDR?) not to mention the superb colours of red archers, blue female soldiers, and the purple + yellow warriors. Loads of 3D-esque pop to the wonderful colours that left me wondering just how much better it could look in HDR with 10 bit colours, DCI-P3 gamut and HDR peak highlights of 600++ nits. Skin tones, colour grading, facial details, image clarity all top notch.

My best buddy watched this with me and fully approved picture quality... "mind blowing"


Even in measly old 1080p/8 bit/rec.709/SDR this movie is by all means reference quality.


Not all parts of the movie were equally good.. some of the outdoor landscape scenes had some really blocky looking CGI / soft spots that didn't look as good as i.e. the monsters did. its Tier Blu, but somewhere in the bottom quarter, while I'm sure the 4K/HDR disc is somewhere in the top quarter.


*TIER recommendation: 0 (.75) *


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX,

Thanks for the three reviews!

I agree wholeheartedly with you on your placement of _Arrival_ and _The Great Wall_, but I respectfully disagree with your 1.75 placement of _Kong: Skull Island_. Having said that, in fairness I did NOT see the 1080p version, but I would be very surprised if it was a whole tier apart from the 4K version (I gave the 4K version a .75 ranking in Tier 0). The "orange hues," though somewhat "distracting," had no effect on details or depth, so I decided not to penalize it at all for the color-grading. As far as the "grain" goes, IMHO it only served to "enhance details" and give it a beautiful "filmic-look," so there again there was no penalization factored into my final score.

Denny


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Iron Giant, The* (Signature Edition)

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

A combination of hand-drawn and CGI, this film shines in all aspects. Clean lines and well presented colors are in all scenes. This was given a strong encode as I saw no color bands or macro-blocking.


----------



## SnellTHX

@ Denny Anytime buddy. 

I guess Kong came down to personal preferences. I don't like film grain in my movies, well at least not most of the time. Looks too much like compression artefacts in most cases so I've always preferred "clean" and crystal sharp images. i.e. John Wick 2, Great Wall. 


and the orange hue / colour grading was obviously a director's choice but one I didn't like too much. I don't know maybe 1.75 a little bit harsh could be 1.5 

but its all down to personal preference as we subjectively review image quality. 

And thanks for reminding me.. I need to get a 4K disc player soon... I've been living in the 1080p world for the past 9 years so I'm going to have to swap out my entire ecosystem!


----------



## John Mason

*Life*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

Nothing PQ-wise jumps out. Alien-like (the movie) terror does. Colors, including flesh tones, are muted throughout, presumably from the dim lighting on the International Space Staion (ISS) set. It's a 2.35:1 1080p Blu-ray (there's a 4k too), and black bars on my 65" plasma almost vanished in the deep-black opening star field as the Martian sample satellite approaches the ISS. Image detail appears modest. Arri digital cameras, including the Alexa 65, were used, providing both 6.4k and 3.4k Arriraw formats, boiled down to a 3.2K DI master for the 1080p. Buy or rent few discs here but this is a nice addition, content-wise, to my SF collection. Viewed at 8' on a pro Panny VX100.-- John


----------



## sickkent

So I have not yet bought an HDR-capable display. However, I will be considering it for some time in the next 6-12 months. What I was going to do in preparation was to start buying all of my movies as the UHD versions of movies that also come with a BR copy (kinda like how a lot of BRs come with a DVD copy as well). Then I can enjoy the BR until I do upgrade and since I'll be keeping my current displays anyways, I'll be able to continue using them afterwards. 

If I buy a '4K UHD' disc, is it for sure going to have HDR and/or DV? From what I'm gathering from reading around, DV was only newly released last month with DM2, so any released before then will not have it? However, will they at least have "basic" HDR?

For instance, this one clearly says HDR on the cover: https://smile.amazon.com/Batman-Sup...0829694&sr=8-1&keywords=batman+vs+superman+4k

Others, like this one, mention HDR in the 'Special Features' section: https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B01JAQES02?psc=1

The reason I ask is that I do *NOT* care to buy a UHD disc simply for the "upgrade" in resolution as my viewing distances do not benefit from the resolution aspect and HDR is the sole reason for my desire to get a new display. The HDR/DV aspect is where I would like the added benefit, so I don't want to buy the 4K UHD version unless it has some form of HDR along with it.

Thanks


----------



## djoberg

John Mason said:


> *Life*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 2.0**
> 
> Nothing PQ-wise jumps out. Alien-like (the movie) terror does. Colors, including flesh tones, are muted throughout, presumably from the dim lighting on the International Space Staion (ISS) set. It's a 2.35:1 1080p Blu-ray (there's a 4k too), and black bars on my 65" plasma almost vanished in the deep-black opening star field as the Martian sample satellite approaches the ISS. Image detail appears modest. Arri digital cameras, including the Alexa 65, were used, providing both 6.4k and 3.4k Arriraw formats, boiled down to a 3.2K DI master for the 1080p. Buy or rent few discs here but this is a nice addition, content-wise, to my SF collection. Viewed at 8' on a pro Panny VX100.-- John


Hey John,

I was somewhat surprised by you saying that "nothing PQ-wise jumps out," for as you may have read in my review I thought the facial texture was exemplary (some of the best I've seen), blacks were quite good (after the opening scene), and whites were brilliant (in other words, it had excellent contrast). I did see some definite "inconsistency" when it came to details and depth, but overall it was at least worthy of Tier 1. I gave it a 1.25 but I would be willing to go as low as 1.75. It was be a travesty to put it any lower than that. Just my 2 cents worth!

Denny


----------



## djoberg

sickkent said:


> If I buy a '4K UHD' disc, is it for sure going to have HDR and/or DV? From what I'm gathering from reading around, DV was only newly released last month with DM2, so any released before then will not have it? However, will they at least have "basic" HDR?
> 
> For instance, this one clearly says HDR on the cover: https://smile.amazon.com/Batman-Sup...0829694&sr=8-1&keywords=batman+vs+superman+4k
> 
> Others, like this one, mention HDR in the 'Special Features' section: https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B01JAQES02?psc=1
> 
> The reason I ask is that I do *NOT* care to buy a UHD disc simply for the "upgrade" in resolution as my viewing distances do not benefit from the resolution aspect and HDR is the sole reason for my desire to get a new display. The HDR/DV aspect is where I would like the added benefit, so I don't want to buy the 4K UHD version unless it has some form of HDR along with it.
> 
> Thanks


I currently own 30 4K UHD titles and all of them have HDR. It is called "HDR10" in contrast to the "Dolby Vision" version of HDR. I would NOT refer to it as "basic," for it really does a good job of boosting contrast levels (brilliant whites and deep blacks) and adding more punch to colors (because of its deeper color gamut). Some that have compared the two HDR formats in an A/B testing environment have stated they see little to no difference in many titles; others say that Dolby Vision has a definite edge. The bottom line: You will be pleased with either format and any 4K blu-rays that you purchase will have one or the other.

I should add one more thing. There are some Blu-ray releases where there is no apparent difference between the UHD/HDR version and its 1080p counterpart. This is rare, but it does happen. I also add that if you end up getting an LCD/LED display, you can count on there being "some" light-bleeding into the letter-boxed bars when there are bright objects next to them, and there will also be some blooming/halos within the picture. It's just the "nature of the beast" when it comes to that technology. If you only want a 65" display (or smaller) I would go with an OLED, for you will have none of those problems with that technology because each pixel is self-illuminating (self-emissive).


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^

I should not have been so dogmatic when I stated that every 4K Blu-ray will have HDR, for in the early days of 4K UHD Blu-rays, there were releases without HDR content. That may still be the case today, but I would think it would be quite rare.


----------



## sickkent

djoberg said:


> I currently own 30 4K UHD titles and all of them have HDR. It is called "HDR10" in contrast to the "Dolby Vision" version of HDR. I would NOT refer to it as "basic," for it really does a good job of boosting contrast levels (brilliant whites and deep blacks) and adding more punch to colors (because of its deeper color gamut). Some that have compared the two HDR formats in an A/B testing environment have stated they see little to no difference in many titles; others say that Dolby Vision has a definite edge. The bottom line: You will be pleased with either format and any 4K blu-rays that you purchase will have one or the other.
> 
> I should add one more thing. There are some Blu-ray releases where there is no apparent difference between the UHD/HDR version and its 1080p counterpart. This is rare, but it does happen. I also add that if you end up getting an LCD/LED display, you can count on there being "some" light-bleeding into the letter-boxed bars when there are bright objects next to them, and there will also be some blooming/halos within the picture. It's just the "nature of the beast" when it comes to that technology. If you only want a 65" display (or smaller) I would go with an OLED, for you will have none of those problems with that technology because each pixel is self-illuminating (self-emissive).


Yeah, I did not mean basic in a derogatory way (I used quotes to try to denote that, lol), but DV is supposed to be at least as good from what I have read. 

Yeah, I will likely be going with OLED. After having plasmas for several years now, I don't think I could go back to LCD, lol. I'm too used to the perfect viewing angles and I take advantage of them a lot, so it would be quite the adjustment going back to LCD. Plus, my 8500s are more than bright enough (for me), even in my bright living room (I have 6 windows), so the extra brightness that the LCDs can deliver aren't really something I want/need. Honestly, I'm still quite wowed by watching content on my plasma (just got them cal'd by D-Nice too) and felt no need to upgrade due to 4K, but HDR has definitely had me curious for a little while now and the prices that these OLEDs are going for now and probably lower as the year goes on makes it quite tempting, haha. I wish there was a way to get the expanded color gamut on my plasmas, but oh well.

I appreciate your helpful response! Looks like I will go ahead with my plan of buying the UHD movies now and enjoy them once I get a HDR-capable display!


----------



## djoberg

sickkent said:


> Yeah, I did not mean basic in a derogatory way (I used quotes to try to denote that, lol), but DV is supposed to be at least as good from what I have read.
> 
> Yeah, I will likely be going with OLED. After having plasmas for several years now, I don't think I could go back to LCD, lol. I'm too used to the perfect viewing angles and I take advantage of them a lot, so it would be quite the adjustment going back to LCD. Plus, my 8500s are more than bright enough (for me), even in my bright living room (I have 6 windows), so the extra brightness that the LCDs can deliver aren't really something I want/need. Honestly, I'm still quite wowed by watching content on my plasma (just got them cal'd by D-Nice too) and felt no need to upgrade due to 4K, but HDR has definitely had me curious for a little while now and the prices that these OLEDs are going for now and probably lower as the year goes on makes it quite tempting, haha. I wish there was a way to get the expanded color gamut on my plasmas, but oh well.
> 
> I appreciate your helpful response! Looks like I will go ahead with my plan of buying the UHD movies now and enjoy them once I get a HDR-capable display!


I too had a plasma (the Pioneer 60" Kuro Elite PRO-151) and was spoiled by the almost-perfect-blacks and the excellent viewing angles. I wanted to buy an OLED but I wanted at least a 70" display so I went with the Sony 940D LCD/LED 75" display. For the most part I'm more than satisfied, for the blacks are normally as good or better than my Kuro (except for the light bleed, halos & blooming). Of course the viewing angle is bad (after you go 25-30% off axis the contrast starts to wash out), but 95% of the time it's just me watching it so I'm always in the "sweet spot" where the contrast is perfect. 

Again, if a 65" display is acceptable to you, you will be more-than-satisfied with an OLED. And then you can have D-Nice calibrate it, for I know he's replaced some of his Kuros with LG OLEDs.

Okay, it's time for our "regular broadcasting" to resume.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Stormy Monday*

recommendation: *Tier 3.5**

Arrow Video licensed _Stormy Monday_ from MGM and apparently utilized MGM's existing 2010 HD master. If you have seen older MGM catalog transfers, they weren't great back then and time has only made them look more dated in picture quality. _Stormy Monday's_ older telecine transfer is soft with occasional processing. The elements are in fine condition but a new image harvest from the same elements would pull far more detail and clarity out of them.

The cinematography by Roger Deakins is best described as gritty for the noirish thriller. Colors are mildly blown out. The grain structure is fuzzy in appearance. A few scenes have crushed black levels, obscuring shadow delineation.

_Stormy Monday_ is a movie in need of a new once-over by a colorist. This is a serviceable HD presentation that probably doesn't represent _Stormy Monday_ perfectly well on Blu-ray.


----------



## John Mason

djoberg said:


> Hey John,
> 
> I was somewhat surprised by you saying that "nothing PQ-wise jumps out," for as you may have read in my review I thought the facial texture was exemplary (some of the best I've seen), blacks were quite good (after the opening scene), and whites were brilliant (in other words, it had excellent contrast). I did see some definite "inconsistency" when it came to details and depth, but overall it was at least worthy of Tier 1. I gave it a 1.25 but I would be willing to go as low as 1.75. It was be a travesty to put it any lower than that. Just my 2 cents worth!
> 
> Denny


Appreciate your comments. I'd certainly accede to your expertise comparing BR picture qualities, especially trying to provide decimal breakdowns of the main devisons. Couldn't see putting _Life_ in the top two PQ brackets. Searched for another review but yours didn't appear, so stuck in the asterisk. I did recall one of your recent reviews citing poor contrast of a star field but thought it may have been another SF production since mine was excellent contrast-wise for, presumably, a CGI sequence. -- John


----------



## djoberg

John Mason said:


> Appreciate your comments. I'd certainly accede to your expertise comparing BR picture qualities, especially trying to provide decimal breakdowns of the main devisons. Couldn't see putting _Life_ in the top two PQ brackets. Searched for another review but yours didn't appear, so stuck in the asterisk. I did recall one of your recent reviews citing poor contrast of a star field but thought it may have been another SF production since mine was excellent contrast-wise for, presumably, a CGI sequence. -- John


Here's my review John:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-795.html#post53878865


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^

Here is the review by our own resident reviewer Ralph Potts:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-o...ife-ultra-hd-blu-ray-review.html#post53682737

I would LOVE to see the UHD version for he gives it a perfect score of 100. He gave the 1080p a score of 88 but his review of it is quite positive, with the exception of "flesh tones" and some "softness" in various scenes.


----------



## John Mason

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^
> 
> Here is the review by our own resident reviewer Ralph Potts:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-o...ife-ultra-hd-blu-ray-review.html#post53682737
> 
> I would LOVE to see the UHD version for he gives it a perfect score of 100. He gave the 1080p a score of 88 but his review of it is quite positive, with the exception of "flesh tones" and some "softness" in various scenes.


Here is the review by our own resident reviewer Ralph Potts:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-o...ife-ultra-hd-blu-ray-review.html#post53682737

I would LOVE to see the UHD version for he gives it a perfect score of 100. He gave the 1080p a score of 88 but his review of it is quite positive, with the exception of "flesh tones" and some "softness" in various scenes.[/Quote]
*********************

Thanks. Hadn't read Ralph's review until just now. The 1080p and UHD PQ comparison is what I imagined as I wrote my 1080p viewing. Hope someone starts providing measured-resolution comparisons between noticeable 1080p and UHD image detail differences. Apparently it would require both 1080p and 4k UHD displays for accuracy, although measured-detail upconversions to 4k versus 'true' 4k (non-3.2k DIs) would be interesting, too (one UHD set for both). Haven't scrutinized UHD fine details closely for measurements yet but, compared to my 2014 1080p-only measurements, a magnifying lens and UHD test disc with suitable multiburst patterns (or a signal generator) would be needed. -- John


----------



## djoberg

John Mason said:


> Thanks. Hadn't read Ralph's review until just now. The 1080p and UHD PQ comparison is what I imagined as I wrote my 1080p viewing. Hope someone starts providing measured-resolution comparisons between noticeable 1080p and UHD image detail differences. Apparently it would require both 1080p and 4k UHD displays for accuracy, although measured-detail upconversions to 4k versus 'true' 4k (non-3.2k DIs) would be interesting, too (one UHD set for both). Haven't scrutinized UHD fine details closely for measurements yet but, compared to my 2014 1080p-only measurements, a magnifying lens and UHD test disc with suitable multiburst patterns (or a signal generator) would be needed. -- John


I have found that it is extremely "tricky" in trying to compare a 1080p release with its UHD/HDR counterpart, especially if you don't watch one right after the other. If you had the thought of using two different displays it even more of a problem, for MOST people would not have those resources at their disposal. I am thankful for reviews like Ralph Potts and Matt Paprocki (at Do.Blu.com) for comparing the two, as well as some at Hi-Def Digest and Blu-ray.com. I don't believe they are using two different displays, but it seems they are watching them close together.

I have stated before that it is a mixed bag when comparing the two, for "some" UHD releases have a marked improvement, while "others" look almost identical to the 1080p version.


----------



## John Mason

^^^Yes, Ralph's review suggest a marked difference in this case. A UHD test disc and lens shouldn't be difficult. But picking the right adjectives to describe significant differences seems inadequate. Measured effective resolutions would help for either 1080p/UHD two-set setups or UHD only. Sean McCarthy's tech paper details problems with upconversions, but his computer-analysis solution isn't avaiiable AFAIK--and even geekier.-- John


----------



## SnellTHX

Has anyone seen the Magnificent Seven? I saw 40 minutes of it at a friends house (not on physical disc) and the black levels were god awful! they appeared very muddy and brownish but overall image looked pretty good... judging by what I saw its not a disc I would buy, but then again it was streamed version I saw those first 40 minutes of.


----------



## SnellTHX

sickkent said:


> Yeah, I did not mean basic in a derogatory way (I used quotes to try to denote that, lol), but DV is supposed to be at least as good from what I have read.
> 
> Yeah, I will likely be going with OLED. After having plasmas for several years now, I don't think I could go back to LCD, lol. I'm too used to the perfect viewing angles and I take advantage of them a lot, so it would be quite the adjustment going back to LCD. Plus, my 8500s are more than bright enough (for me), even in my bright living room (I have 6 windows), so the extra brightness that the LCDs can deliver aren't really something I want/need. Honestly, I'm still quite wowed by watching content on my plasma (just got them cal'd by D-Nice too) and felt no need to upgrade due to 4K, but HDR has definitely had me curious for a little while now and the prices that these OLEDs are going for now and probably lower as the year goes on makes it quite tempting, haha. I wish there was a way to get the expanded color gamut on my plasmas, but oh well.
> 
> I appreciate your helpful response! Looks like I will go ahead with my plan of buying the UHD movies now and enjoy them once I get a HDR-capable display!



if you have a last generation Panasonic, Samsung or Kuro plasma then I generally an upgrade not necessary if you are primarily watching 1080p SDR content (which most of us are). Those last plasmas were really, really great and it annoys me so much that plasma died. I mean just imagine how good 2017 plasmas would have been if manufacturers just splashed all their R&D money into the technology with no regard for profits, environment regulations etc etc.

In my opinion the LG X6 OLEDs are the first displays to 'dethrone' the Kuro KRP 500 and Panasonic VT60/ZT60. (perhaps maybe the 2015 CZ950 OLED, but that thing cost €11,000 in this country...)


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> Has anyone seen the Magnificent Seven? I saw 40 minutes of it at a friends house (not on physical disc) and the black levels were god awful! they appeared very muddy and brownish but overall image looked pretty good... judging by what I saw its not a disc I would buy, but then again it was streamed version I saw those first 40 minutes of.


I not only SAW IT, but I also REVIEWED IT. And guess what, I agree with you concerning "some" of the black levels, especially on the UHD/HDR version. Here is my review:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-786.html#post49249089


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> if you have a last generation Panasonic, Samsung or Kuro plasma then I generally an upgrade not necessary if you are primarily watching 1080p SDR content (which most of us are). Those last plasmas were really, really great and it annoys me so much that plasma died. I mean just imagine how good 2017 plasmas would have been if manufacturers just splashed all their R&D money into the technology with no regard for profits, environment regulations etc etc.


I agree with you 120%!!

At one time I cried from the rooftop..."Long live Plasma!" But it was doomed to fail because if its superior technology, its high manufacturing cost, and a failing market that refused to support it. I longed for the day when they would make a really large plasma display (i.e. 75" or larger) with 4K technology and a wide color gamut (now I would also add "High Dynamic Range" to that list). But it wasn't meant to be and we must be content with the current crop of OLEDs and some of the "high end LCD/LEDs." Perhaps, with MicroLEDs on the horizon, we may eventually reach "Video Nirvana." In saying that, I'm sure that even that technology would disappoint us in some way and thus we would be echoing the same nine words we hear all the time, "There is no such thing as a PERFECT display." (Yet in its day, plasma came pretty close!!!)


----------



## sickkent

SnellTHX said:


> if you have a last generation Panasonic, Samsung or Kuro plasma then I generally an upgrade not necessary if you are primarily watching 1080p SDR content (which most of us are). Those last plasmas were really, really great and it annoys me so much that plasma died. I mean just imagine how good 2017 plasmas would have been if manufacturers just splashed all their R&D money into the technology with no regard for profits, environment regulations etc etc.
> 
> In my opinion the LG X6 OLEDs are the first displays to 'dethrone' the Kuro KRP 500 and Panasonic VT60/ZT60. (perhaps maybe the 2015 CZ950 OLED, but that thing cost €11,000 in this country...)


Yeah, I agree with that. I am perfectly happy with the 8500 and it's performance in SDR. If I could upgrade it to have WCG/HDR, then I would happily do that and not care. I am interested in WCG/HDR, though. However, I'm definitely not in a rush to buy a new display. But it seems like this year or next year would be a decent year to buy. I've started buying HDR movies and I'm probably going to look at getting an Oppo 203 at some point too in preparation for the HDR TV. Might wait for Black Friday, not sure yet. I too wish that plasma had continued on. Part of the reason, aside from the obvious drawbacks and my preference for the benefits of emissive tech, that I probably won't buy an LCD again is because I hate how it basically ended plasma despite being the largely inferior tech (IMO) and I'd rather support what I view as the superior tech in OLED/emissive, lol.


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> I not only SAW IT, but I also REVIEWED IT. And guess what, I agree with you concerning "some" of the black levels, especially on the UHD/HDR version. Here is my review:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-786.html#post49249089


Thanks for the review. So it looks like we sort of agree then. I thought those blacks were terrible, but

A ) I did not view it on my own display
B ) it was not a physical disc and we all know UHD-BD > BD > 4K streaming > 2K streaming etc...


Such a shame the black levels are poor even with the UHD version. 

But how could you still give it reference with those blacks!! Are there only a few dark scenes in the movie? I only watched the first 40 minutes and couldn't bear to watch the rest, I felt like I was slaughtering the experience.


----------



## SnellTHX

sickkent said:


> Yeah, I agree with that. I am perfectly happy with the 8500 and it's performance in SDR. If I could upgrade it to have WCG/HDR, then I would happily do that and not care. I am interested in WCG/HDR, though. However, I'm definitely not in a rush to buy a new display. But it seems like this year or next year would be a decent year to buy. I've started buying HDR movies and I'm probably going to look at getting an Oppo 203 at some point too in preparation for the HDR TV. Might wait for Black Friday, not sure yet. I too wish that plasma had continued on. Part of the reason, aside from the obvious drawbacks and my preference for the benefits of emissive tech, that I probably won't buy an LCD again is because I hate how it basically ended plasma despite being the largely inferior tech (IMO) and I'd rather support what I view as the superior tech in OLED/emissive, lol.




Yeah I imagine a 12 bit HDR/DV compatible 100% DCI-P3 4K 65" Samsung M8500 plasma or VT100 plasma would totally kick ass with flawless motion resolution/handling and probably infinite contrast / 0 nit blacks like OLED! Its amazing how plasmas from 2013 (and 2008 in the legendary Kuro's case) can hold up so well compared LCD-LED.


I mean try looking at 2013 LED-LCDs and see how far the technology has improved by 2017.

Better yet, look at a 2008 LCD like the Sony XBR-8 and compare it to the Sony ZD9 FALD-LCD... two entire worlds apart in terms of picture.


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> Thanks for the review. So it looks like we sort of agree then. I thought those blacks were terrible, but how could you still give it reference with those blacks!! Are there only a few dark scenes in the movie? I only watched the first 40 minutes and couldn't bear to watch the rest, I felt like I was slaughtering the experience.


I never would have even considered a Tier 0 placement if the blacks had been consistently bad all the way through. If memory serves me it was only a few brief shots where the blacks were murky. The rest of the title was amazingly good and thus this is one of those rare times where you choose to ignore the isolated flaws. I obviously did not see what you saw, for if there had been numerous scenes in the first 40 minutes with terrible blacks I would have penalized the title quite a bit.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*If....* (Criterion)

recommendation: *Tier 3.5**

Another film that looks to be locked into a ranking based on the limitations of the original photography. Filmed using mostly natural lighting, high speed film had to be used and even in some cases color film didn't perform so those scenes are black and white. The makers liked the look of the early black and white scenes so they interspersed others throughout the film. Colors are muted for the most part but pop here and there and contrast is generally good. Details are soft throughout owing to the aforementioned filming techniques, black and white scenes are equally soft. The transfer is good, no limitations noted.

Stars Malcolm McDowell as the original British boarding school bad boy before landing his iconic part in *A Clockwork Orange*.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Actually, I Am...*

recommendation: *Tier 1.75**

Discotek Media, a fairly small anime distributor on Blu-ray, did a rather nice job with this 2015 television production. All twelve episodes of the complete series did land on a single BD-50, though there aren't any deleterious consequences for the smooth AVC video. This is rather simple, clean animation without a lot of motion, albeit in a colorful palette.

The presentation is technically flawless. There isn't an extraordinary amount of detail in the solidly colored backgrounds but character designs are given extra attention for consistency.

Newer anime productions on Blu-ray have a punchier contrast and more vibrant colors these days. 1080P resolution is often the intended production target for material of this nature. Their production budgets seem to be the limiting factor in where many of them end up ranked on the PQ Tiers.


----------



## SnellTHX

*Pacific Rim*

Oh dear lord what a movie!!! Absolutely one of the finest visual spectacles of the movie industry. A new 'beyond reference' title in my library. Easily among the cleanest and sharpest, pristine looking digital images I've seen. Filmed with Red Epic in 5K (2K DI and its on blu-ray 1080p anyway) but you could have actually fooled me into believing I was watching an 8K render of a movie. The CGI is world class, both the monsters and machines are really polished and well made, on par with something like Avatar. Also worthy of note; this movie is filmed in the 'correct' aspect ratio of 1.85:1. If you see my previous rankings of movies you'll see that I clearly favour movies shot in 1.85:1 over 2.35 or 2.39. I mean look at what I consider my previous top 5... Avatar (1.85), Life of Pi (1.85), Interstellar (IMAX 1.44, 1.85 BD), TDK:R (IMAX 1.44, 1.85) + a couple of disney movies in there. I don't know why but I've always preferred the picture quality with movies filmed in taller aspect ratios than the standard 21:9

best in class special effects, top of the line CGI, punchy infinite contrast images that give it a pseudo 3D 'pop' and 8K-esque sharpness to the image makes this not only blu tier, but also a top 5 reference disk. Maybe even top 3 for me personally. 


Not just me who loves the look of this movie... Even though I merely experienced the 2K/SDR version I still think its tier 0(.10) material and I've heard other professionals claim that Pacific Rim on 4K/HDR-UHD is one of the best examples of best of the best picture quality to show off your new display.


*Tier recommendation: 0 (top 3-5)*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^^

I could have sworn that I reviewed the 4K version of _Pacific Rim_ and that I placed it around the middle of Tier 0. But I just did a Search and it didn't show up. At any rate, I agree with everything you said about this title. It's most definitely one of the best 4K titles that I own (out of 32 titles). 

On second thought, I purchased it a year ago so perhaps I didn't review it since I hadn't seen the 1080p release. Back then I thought it was "out of bounds" to include UHD/HDR releases.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I included UHD recommendations and scores when possible in the last update, placing them separately from the normal Blu-ray edition.

*Devil's Domain*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

This recent indie horror production was filmed with RED cameras. Exteriors have that crisp definition and clarity we've come to expect, though interiors are softer in appearance. Some minor crushing in the deepest black levels keep this disc from Tier One.


----------



## djoberg

*The Circle*

This was one of the most "natural-looking" movies I've seen in a very long time and I absolutely LOVED the PQ because of it! Of course in saying this I'm giving away the fact that it was VOID OF COLOR-GRADING, leaving the viewer with warm and vibrant colors and accurate flesh tones. Again, I loved it!

There was exceptional clarity and depth in many scenes, especially exterior shots. Indoor shots were very good too, but softness did intrude at times and along with it a loss of depth and details. Speaking of details, they were topnotch, including many facial close-ups of leading actors, but not limited to them (foliage, clothing, furniture, etc. also benefited from finely-rendered details).

Black levels were exquisite in 95% of its 100 minute running time, along with beautiful shadow details. There was also a fine layer of grain in many shots and with the exception of one scene (where it was quite heavy and could be mistaken for "noise"), it gave the viewer the coveted "filmic-look" with enhanced details.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25**

PS I could see others dropping this down closer to the bottom of Tier Gold, but again it was such a welcome relief to see a natural picture that "looked extremely good" without boosted contrast or some other form post-processing, that I felt it deserved a spot near the top.


----------



## John Mason

djoberg said:


> *The Circle*
> 
> This was one of the most "natural-looking" movies I've seen in a very long time and I absolutely LOVED the PQ because of it! Of course in saying this I'm giving away the fact that it was VOID OF COLOR-GRADING, leaving the viewer with warm and vibrant colors and accurate flesh tones. Again, I loved it!
> 
> There was exceptional clarity and depth in many scenes, especially exterior shots. Indoor shots were very good too, but softness did intrude at times and along with it a loss of depth and details. Speaking of details, they were topnotch, including many facial close-ups of leading actors, but not limited to them (foliage, clothing, furniture, etc. also benefited from finely-rendered details).
> 
> Black levels were exquisite in 95% of its 100 minute running time, along with beautiful shadow details. There was also a fine layer of grain in many shots and with the exception of one scene (where it was quite heavy and could be mistaken for "noise"), it gave the viewer the coveted "filmic-look" with enhanced details.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.25**
> 
> PS I could see others dropping this down closer to the bottom of Tier Gold, but again it was such a welcome relief to see a natural picture that "looked extremely good" without boosted contrast or some other form post-processing, that I felt it deserved a spot near the top.


Intriguing. Can't help but wonder what influence the 4k master DI, assuming IMDB is accurate, using 6k and 5k REDraw recordings contributed to the PQ. Assume you're detailing a 1080P Blu-ray, viewed on your 4k Sony set. Looks like a comparison with a true-4k disc, start to home screen, should be better yet--and supposedly measurable to compare the actual resolution between similar fine detals from the two disc formats when using a test disc with multiburst patterns. Reads like the woman protagonist shouldn't have participated in the "experiment."-- John


----------



## djoberg

John Mason said:


> Intriguing. Can't help but wonder what influence the 4k master DI, assuming IMDB is accurate, using 6k and 5k REDraw recordings contributed to the PQ. Assume you're detailing a 1080P Blu-ray, viewed on your 4k Sony set. Looks like a comparison with a true-4k disc, start to home screen, should be better yet--and supposedly measurable to compare the actual resolution between similar fine detals from the two disc formats when using a test disc with multiburst patterns. Reads like the woman protagonist shouldn't have participated in the "experiment."-- John


John, this was indeed a 1080p Blu-ray (which I rented from Redbox). I actually looked it up on Amazon and so far there is NO 4K version. I read the same about the cameras they used and I do believe that does contribute to the final (down-scaled) resolution.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Hippopotamus*

recommendation: *Tier 1.25**

You are forgiven if you think this movie is a nature documentary. Independent distributor Lightyear Entertainment released this acerbic English comedy in a Blu-ray edition with very strong picture quality. Filmed at a swanky English estate in the countryside with the Arri Alexa camera, there is a lot of gorgeous outdoor scenery in lush detail.

The technical aspects of this presentation are nigh perfect, completely replicating the digital intermediate in splendid fashion. If I had been feeling more generous it's not impossible that _The Hippopotamus_ could have placed in Tier 0.


----------



## djoberg

*Ghost in the Shell (4K version)*

Overall, I was impressed with this UHD/HDR release, but I highly doubt it will ever be nominated for Tier 0. It was a "mixed bag," with very good primary colors (when they rose to the occasion, that is), accurate flesh tones, and finely-rendered details. But it lacked in depth, softness crept in from time to time (especially during heavy CGI shots), and black levels were somewhat disappointing (though they had their moments in some night scenes with some satisfying shadow details). I was hoping, after seeing the trailer, that I would be mesmerized by the "neon lights" (which were plentiful!), but they ended up being quite soft and distracting.

The highlight of this movie, in terms of PQ, was Scarlet Johansson. Whether they zoomed in on her face, her hair, or her various outfits, they never lacked for detail or brilliant colors (I really loved her jet-black suit....that's where the black levels really came alive). Thankfully she was in almost every scene so I can still recommend a Tier Gold placement, albeit one towards the bottom.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^^

When I mentioned in my review above that softness crept in during CGI shots, I should have also added that there was also a slight "haze" in many scenes, which also gave it a soft look. No doubt the director intended it to be that way, but as far as PQ goes it robs the viewer of "sharpness" and "clarity." Yet even with these "gripes," there were still very good details of the female (and male) leads, and aerial views of "Hong Kong" were surprisingly good.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Bad Day at Black Rock*

recommendation: *Tier 3.0**

Good restoration from Warner Archive; scanned at 2k, color corrected, and given a high bit-rate. Clarity is generally good but leaning on the soft side, film grain is nice and even throughout. The color palette is muted as you would expect from film set in a desert town but punches of color are sprinkled throughout. Black levels and contrast are consistent.


----------



## djoberg

*Dumb & Dumber*

If you recall, I had picked this title up along with _The Mask_ a few weeks ago. I was expecting this to have similar PQ as _The Mask_, but I was pleasantly surprised that it was noticeably sharper and more detailed. The colors were also more PUNCHY. Having said that, the first two minutes of the opening scene (when he drives his limousine alongside a beautiful girl) were UGLY, with very heavy grain/noise and incredible softness. But after that scene it sharpened up considerably, though there were times when softness and heavy grain reared their ugly heads for brief moments. If you're a fan of Jim Carrey's earlier films, you would be happy with this one. It's not "reference" or "demo" material, but it should be deserving of a spot on the top of Tier Bronze.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0 or 3.25**

PS I had given _The Mask_ a 3.75 placement.

PPS I have ordered another Jim Carrey DOUBLE FEATURE (the Ace Ventura releases) and will watch them sometime after I return home in the middle of August.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Black Room*

recommendation: *Tier 2.5**

This independent horror film from Cleopatra Films has average picture quality at best for a new release. There is nothing terribly wrong with the flat presentation but this is not superior HD in 2017. A few scattered scenes have sub-par definition and contain some noise in darker interiors.

In better news, the transfer is unfiltered like most independent productions with generous detail in close-ups.


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> I could have sworn that I reviewed the 4K version of _Pacific Rim_ and that I placed it around the middle of Tier 0. But I just did a Search and it didn't show up. At any rate, I agree with everything you said about this title. It's most definitely one of the best 4K titles that I own (out of 32 titles).
> 
> On second thought, I purchased it a year ago so perhaps I didn't review it since I hadn't seen the 1080p release. Back then I thought it was "out of bounds" to include UHD/HDR releases.




Yes absolutely! I'll definitely get the UHDR disc once I've upgraded my entire ecosystem (UHDR player, HDMI cables, receiver etc... Everything but my TV is stone age tech now  )

I rewatched AVATAR on my new OLED which of course is tier 0 reference material and while the CGI still blows my mind and the image is top 10 quality... Pacific Rim was just better. Top 5 for sure, even in the blu-ray version. so 4K res, 10 bit colour, P3 gamut and HDRto be added??? Woow


----------



## SnellTHX

*Sully*

Didn't really expect much of this movie at all but I was pleasantly surprised with its image quality. Filmed with Arri 65 cameras with 6.5K raw / 4K DI the 1080p picture looked gorgeous and very sharp. Crystal clear image with lots of detail, especially the facial close ups.

Nothing really stands out or 'wows' me but it was overall very pleasant and no real flaws. Perhaps its biggest downfall is the cold/stale colour palette. That alone doesn't take away its gold status as this is another one of those '1080p that looks like 4K' movies.
*
Tier recommendation: 1.25**

Edit: Well looks like it wasn't a new entry after all, the movie has already been reviewed and is (correctly!) placed in the tier 1.25 section


----------



## burnfout

Watched *Allied* yesterday, thought it looked very very good. 

I especially liked the details in the uniforms / clothing with some excellent black levels / shadow details. 

Overall also a very consistent sharp looking movie, *Tier recommendation: 0*


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Third Man, The *(StudioCanal)

recommendation: *Tier 3.25**

Some of the close-up shots look really good but most everything else is rather bland. Black levels and contrast are even throughout but just nothing spectacular. Print damage is scant in a few shots and the transfer has a nice layer of fine grain.


----------



## fredxr2d2

*Going in Style

Tier Recommendation Tier 1.0*

The thing that helps Going in Style is all of the daylight shots. There doesn't appear to be any unnatural color grading and the primaries pop quite nicely (check out the blue in the bank and yellow of the tshirts later in the movie). Not too many darker shots, and most of those are indoors with yellow light (as you would expect). Can't quite say if the black levels are good - but I suspect they are as everything else looked right. Not a stunner to show off your system, but a solid great looking recent movie.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Effects*

recommendation: *Tier 5**

_Effects_ supposedly has a 4K transfer. Looking closer, it's a 4K transfer of the only surviving print in existence of this forgotten 1980 horror production. That is a badly damaged 35mm blow-up print of a movie originally shot in 16mm. Think a poorly filmed grindhouse print with obvious film wear.

I didn't review _Effects_ to slam it but everyone should understand what a bottom-of-the barrel Tier 5 disc looks like. _Effects_ is it.


----------



## SnellTHX

Phantom Stranger said:


> *Effects*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 5**
> 
> _Effects_ supposedly has a 4K transfer. Looking closer, it's a 4K transfer of the only surviving print in existence of this forgotten 1980 horror production. That is a badly damaged 35mm blow-up print of a movie originally shot in 16mm. Think a poorly filmed grindhouse print with obvious film wear.
> 
> I didn't review _Effects_ to slam it but everyone should understand what a bottom-of-the barrel Tier 5 disc looks like. _Effects_ is it.


Hahah, makes me want to see it just to see how bad a movie can be


----------



## Phantom Stranger

SnellTHX said:


> Hahah, makes me want to see it just to see how bad a movie can be


_Effects_ was a little known horror film made by associates of George Romero for an estimated budget below $60,000. Tom Savini is probably the most recognizable cast member in it. Due to distribution issues it was effectively a lost movie until Synapse Films put it out on DVD in the 2000s.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Batman: Mask of the Phantasm*

recommendation: *Tier 2.25**

The greatest Batman movie of them all? This 1993 animated movie finally hit Blu-ray last month from Warner Archive and the results are quite satisfying. Both the open-matte 4:3 presentation and the widescreen theatrical version have been included on a BD-50. Each runs 76 minutes, encoded in fully transparent AVC at fairly high bitrates.

_Mask of the Phantasm_ was originally conceived as a television movie before WB decided it was good enough for a theatrical release. I recommend going with the open-matte 4:3 option when viewing the movie as I almost always do when animation is involved. The widescreen mattes add a slightly more cinematic feel but several scenes plainly operate better in the 4:3 presentation.

The black levels are great and the cel animation holds up very well in 1080P resolution, better than expected. There isn't quite the pop and depth of newer animation but the moody art deco backgrounds look better than ever in Gotham. The animation has a refreshing crispness to it I've never seen before from _Mask of the Phantasm_.

This is definitely a new HD transfer from the original elements. There are a few minor quirks leftover from the older cel animation that may have been removed in a lavish restoration, but it indicates the transfer hasn't been mindlessly filtered. The consistent clarity offers nice texture and definition for this kind of animated fare.


----------



## djoberg

*Sleepless*

This was an "okay" action thriller, but you won't be grabbing this to show off your system. Having said that, it "may" find its way into Tier Gold, albeit at the bottom of the bin!

The first scene was at night and I was underwhelmed. The blacks were "murky" resulting in a soft and flat picture with little in the way of details. Thankfully the very next scene was bright with excellent clarity, details and depth. Most of the 90 minute running time featured decent colors, flesh tones, contrast, and depth, but there were scenes that duplicated that first scene. Close-ups of faces revealed finely-rendered texture and aerial views of Las Vegas (mostly nighttime shots) were also very good...they were definitely the "redeeming qualities" of what would have been a Tier Silver contender.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**


----------



## djoberg

*Gifted*

My wife and I just finished watching this better-than-average DRAMA. In addition to being a good movie, with excellent character development and acting, it had very pleasing PQ!

You've heard me sing the praises of movies before if they offer the "natural-look" (which includes natural colors free from over-saturation, color-grading or a muted palette) and this one had it in spades! It also featured good black levels, a strong contrast, accurate flesh tones, appreciable depth, and good clarity. This is not to say it's perfect, for there were sporadic SOFT shots resulting in a lack of detail and depth. Black levels also faltered in a few brief shots. But overall this is most definitely "demo-material" and my vote goes for....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Strike the Blood: TV Series Collection*

recommendation: *Tier 1.75**

This anime release from small distributor Discotek Media receives a strong presentation on Blu-ray. A third disc would have been preferred but throwing both half-seasons together on two discs doesn't adversely impact the AVC's compression. The 1080P video has crisp, bold animation typical of recent anime series. There are no evident technical problems.

_Strike the Blood_ has detailed character designs and better than normal background art.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Manchurian Candidate, The *(Criterion)

recommendation: *Tier 2.5**

Other than a few soft close-ups, the details are pretty good. Clothing, hair, and other textures are decently sharp. Black levels and contrast are well presented. The restoration and encoding have been nicely done with the retention of a nice layer of fine grain.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*School-Live!: Complete Collection*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

Perfunctory-looking anime that doesn't really pop like most animation on BD. There is nothing especially wrong with the presentation, Sentai Filmworks represents School-Live! perfectly fine.


----------



## Blindsay08

First off i just want to say this is a really awesome list, thanks to everyone that contributes to it.

Just made the jump to 4k (although i realize my Optoma UHD60 is not true 4k it is still a nice step up for me) and I was just curious as to why there are not many UHD's on the list, is it just because not many folks have made the jump and are not reviewing them yet? I was also surprised to see the few UHD's on the list be fairly low compared to a lot of the 1080p movies on the list.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Blindsay08 said:


> First off i just want to say this is a really awesome list, thanks to everyone that contributes to it.
> 
> Just made the jump to 4k (although i realize my Optoma UHD60 is not true 4k it is still a nice step up for me) and I was just curious as to why there are not many UHD's on the list, is it just because not many folks have made the jump and are not reviewing them yet? I was also surprised to see the few UHD's on the list be fairly low compared to a lot of the 1080p movies on the list.


The original Blu-ray PQ Tiers goes back over a decade, so it covers thousands of discs. UHD is a new baby format by those standards and it will take time to comprehensively include them. At the moment we only have a couple of UHD contributors giving their opinions for the format. 

We hope to get more UHD scores going forward. The contributors here are still figuring out where UHDs figure in the picture quality continuum we've developed. That is definitely a key concern of the videophiles we respect here.

You are always welcome to give your opinion on any disc you watch for inclusion in a future PQ Tiers update.


----------



## Blindsay08

Phantom Stranger said:


> The original Blu-ray PQ Tiers goes back over a decade, so it covers thousands of discs. UHD is a new baby format by those standards and it will take time to comprehensively include them. At the moment we only have a couple of UHD contributors giving their opinions for the format.
> 
> We hope to get more UHD scores going forward. The contributors here are still figuring out where UHDs figure in the picture quality continuum we've developed. That is definitely a key concern of the videophiles we respect here.
> 
> You are always welcome to give your opinion on any disc you watch for inclusion in a future PQ Tiers update.


Thanks, it is an awesome thread, i am just getting my UHD setup going, although it is extremely modest and i'm not sure i'm qualified to review movies haha.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Blindsay08 said:


> Thanks, it is an awesome thread, i am just getting my UHD setup going, although it is extremely modest and i'm not sure i'm qualified to review movies haha.


Good eyes and a working display are really the only qualifications for giving your opinion in this thread. Once you get the hang of it, contributing here is easy as pie. Hopefully we'll get more UHD scores.

*Whale Rider*

recommendation: *Tier 2.75**

A solid effort by Shout Factory. The film transfer offers decent definition with fine clarity. A hint of ringing and a spot of noisy grain are the only real demerits to this presentation. It's probably not a brand-new film scan but everything looks in order for the 2002 movie.

The New Zealand production does have its visual moments along the coastline.


----------



## JNayAV

*The Great Wall (UHD)*

Recommendation:* Tier 0.5*
*
Movie with a stretch of a plot that seemingly had the goal of hmmm that would look good/cool on screen. Armor is of various primary and secondary colors which comes across very rich in WCG. Plot gives reason to this by saying each color is a different troop unit. Details are rich and don't appear to be smoothed over with the possible exception of the lead actress' face. Having been to Japan this also seems to somewhat fall under the popular makeup style that's pervasive for the region. Lightens the skin and really smooth's out the face. Blacks are well maintained, and CGI holds up well. A couple fleeting shots that appeared to have heightened black levels, but due to how each set handles HDR curves differently I can't say for sure if it was my set's tone curve or the source. Due to this I am not going to ding this title harshly. Need to see more titles in general to get better understanding.

If looking for a fun flick that meets our general PQ criteria this title is worth a watch, just know what you're getting into with the plot before hand. (Martial Art warriors protect The Great Wall from Alien Species) Also, something about Matt Damon's accent in this threw me off. Couldn't place if it was a accent he was going in/out of, or he was trying to talk with a certain cadence that sometimes didn't happen.


Edit: Wanted to add that as Hollywood tries to capitalize on massive sales in China and surrounding region, these movies that mix 1 major Hollywood star with a cast of (presumably) famous Asian film stars together is going to keep growing. Hope that in future they can find better ways to do it, or leave out the white Hollywood actor and not rely on a thin plot reason for why they are present. The Last Samurai with Tom Cruise molded an entire movie around the idea, and made it work IMO, this film ehhhhh...... (I'll accept Matt Damon fine, but Willem Dafoe too???)

Have Despicable Me 1 & 2 in line, but waiting to get some software updates in the A/V chain so can watch in Dolby Vision.


----------



## fredxr2d2

JNayAV said:


> *The Great Wall (UHD)*
> 
> Recommendation:* Tier 0.5*
> *
> Movie with a stretch of a plot that seemingly had the goal of hmmm that would look good/cool on screen. Armor is of various primary and secondary colors which comes across very rich in WCG. Plot gives reason to this by saying each color is a different troop unit. Details are rich and don't appear to be smoothed over with the possible exception of the lead actress' face. Having been to Japan this also seems to somewhat fall under the popular makeup style that's pervasive for the region. Lightens the skin and really smooth's out the face. Blacks are well maintained, and CGI holds up well. A couple fleeting shots that appeared to have heightened black levels, but due to how each set handles HDR curves differently I can't say for sure if it was my set's tone curve or the source. Due to this I am not going to ding this title harshly. Need to see more titles in general to get better understanding.
> 
> If looking for a fun flick that meets our general PQ criteria this title is worth a watch, just know what you're getting into with the plot before hand. (Martial Art warriors protect The Great Wall from Alien Species) Also, something about Matt Damon's accent in this threw me off. Couldn't place if it was a accent he was going in/out of, or he was trying to talk with a certain cadence that sometimes didn't happen.
> 
> 
> Edit: Wanted to add that as Hollywood tries to capitalize on massive sales in China and surrounding region, these movies that mix 1 major Hollywood star with a cast of (presumably) famous Asian film stars together is going to keep growing. Hope that in future they can find better ways to do it, or leave out the white Hollywood actor and not rely on a thin plot reason for why they are present. The Last Samurai with Tom Cruise molded an entire movie around the idea, and made it work IMO, this film ehhhhh...... (I'll accept Matt Damon fine, but Willem Dafoe too???)
> 
> Have Despicable Me 1 & 2 in line, but waiting to get some software updates in the A/V chain so can watch in Dolby Vision.


Watched the 1080p blu of this and it is a very pretty movie with none of the teal/orange color grading that many US studio films seem to employ: colors were vibrant and clear and really quite wonderful. I was explaining to my parents how pretty it was while at the same time saying that I couldn't actually recommend the movie itself.

Matt Damon was attempting an Irish accent to very poor results.

I'd put the regular blu-ray in the same range: Tier 0 for sure, probably in the middle or towards the bottom.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I thought I would post my review of _The Great Wall_ to show that a consensus is being formed giving this an easy Tier 0 placement, whether it's the UHD or 1080p version.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-794.html#post53226170

I had said in a postscript that the UHD version would take it up a notch and that's exactly what JNayAV gave it. I also said that the Dolby Atmos track would also take the audio up a notch. I can't confirm that YET, but within a few days I will have my Dolby Atmos speaker system set up and then I'll check it out.

BTW, if anyone is thinking of going the Dolby Atmos route, I just upgraded my old Onkyo AVR to a Denon 9.2 channel AVR (which is coming in via UPS or FedEx tomorrow) and purchased SVS Prime Elevation speakers for a 5.1.4 set up. The Denon WAS $1499 but Amazon is now selling it at a close-out price for $799. The Denon is getting rave reviews so this is a STEAL! The SVS speakers are also getting excellent reviews and the thing that attracted me was that you can place them high on your side walls instead of having to mount them IN your ceiling. Of course you can buy "bounce ceiling" speakers but the word is that they can't compete with direct radiating speakers so again the SVS speakers are very attractive to me.


----------



## JNayAV

Picking up Guardians 2 tonight, hoping it can combine the awesome visual spectacle of The Great Wall with a better movie.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> I thought I would post my review of _The Great Wall_ to show that a consensus is being formed giving this an easy Tier 0 placement, whether it's the UHD or 1080p version.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-794.html#post53226170
> 
> I had said in a postscript that the UHD version would take it up a notch and that's exactly what JNayAV gave it. I also said that the Dolby Atmos track would also take the audio up a notch. I can't confirm that YET, but within a few days I will have my Dolby Atmos speaker system set up and then I'll check it out.
> 
> BTW, if anyone is thinking of going the Dolby Atmos route, I just upgraded my old Onkyo AVR to a Denon 9.2 channel AVR (which is coming in via UPS or FedEx tomorrow) and purchased SVS Prime Elevation speakers for a 5.1.4 set up. The Denon WAS $1499 but Amazon is now selling it at a close-out price for $799. The Denon is getting rave reviews so this is a STEAL! The SVS speakers are also getting excellent reviews and the thing that attracted me was that you can place them high on your side walls instead of having to mount them IN your ceiling. Of course you can buy "bounce ceiling" speakers but the word is that they can't compete with direct radiating speakers so again the SVS speakers are very attractive to me.


That Denon receiver is tempting. I also saw a Marantz on sale that looked nice.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> That Denon receiver is tempting. I also saw a Marantz on sale that looked nice.


I'm assuming you are referring to the RS-6011. The back of that AVR looks identical to my Denon 4300h that just arrived two hours ago. The only difference I see is the Denon is rated at 125 watts in each of the 9 channels and the Marantz is 110 watts per channel. I believe they are both manufactured by the same company.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> I'm assuming you are referring to the RS-6011. The back of that AVR looks identical to my Denon 4300h that just arrived two hours ago. The only difference I see is the Denon is rated at 125 watts in each of the 9 channels and the Marantz is 110 watts per channel. I believe they are both manufactured by the same company.


I've tended to like Marantz's sound a little better in the past than my Denons for music, though I realize both are owned now by the same conglomerate. I wasn't even in the market for a receiver but these deals are very good.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> I've tended to like Marantz's sound a little better in the past than my Denons for music, though I realize both are owned now by the same conglomerate. I wasn't even in the market for a receiver but these deals are very good.


I'm really excited to hook up my Denon for I've been extremely limited with my non-4K Onkyo. I've had to run all of my 4K components directly to my Sony display and then run an Optical cable to the AVR, which, as you know, prevented me from listening to most of the newer audio codecs. Now I have 8 HDMI inputs that are all "Full 4K" compliant! The Denon also has Audyssey XT32 (which I've never had) so I'm looking forward to some very precise room/speaker correction. It will even balance 2 subs on top of the other 9 channels!!

I ended up buying _Deepwater Horizon_ in 4K the other day because I heard it had one of the best Dolby Atmos tracks. I suspect I'll be wanting to watch MANY of my 4K Blu-rays over again, since 98% of them are Dolby Atmos. And the icing on the cake is the ability for watching "regular" Dolby TrueHD or DTS:MA in an "up-mixed" Dolby or DTS sound-field so all of the height speakers will receive audio signals. Some say this sounds just as good as Dolby Atmos on some releases.

Okay, I'll get off my "Dolby Atmos soapbox" now so we can return to regular broadcasting.


----------



## SnellTHX

I gave the Great Wall a reference tier 0 rating as well. It looked absolutely phenomenal and I'm sure the 4K/HDR/WCG version looks (significantly) better, which is almost hard to imagine!


----------



## SnellTHX

*Band of Brothers*

One of my all time favourite series but a huge disappointment in terms of picture quality. One of those blu-ray discs that makes you double check that you didn't accidentally pop in a DVD. Looking at pretty much every new TV show from today - Game of Thrones, Black Sails, Marco Polo, House of Cards, all of which are either tier 0 or tier 1 its very disappointing going back to BoB from 2001. Heck, even Friends on Netflix which is sub-1080p looks much cleaner and sharper.

Not all shots are bad, some are actually pretty good, but others are very grainy and low-res looking, hard to believe its 1080p all the way through.

*Tier recommendation: 3.5*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I strongly recommend this article to anyone seriously into picture quality. A pro cinematographer took six different state-of-the-art cameras being used in Hollywood today and shot test footage for comparison purposes, ultimately mastering each camera's footage at 4K. This is the stuff that Tier 0 is made of today.

https://theasc.com/articles/a-clear-look-at-the-issue-of-resolution

The comments from other cinematographers at the bottom are just as relevant and illuminating.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^

Excellent article Phantom! Quite the "revelation" from someone "in the know" who isn't just in it for money.  I trust some of his peers (and those who are "in it for the money") will take this to heart.


----------



## djoberg

*Deepwater Horizon (UHD/HDR version)*

SnellTHX gave this a "Gold 1.0." I'm giving the UHD version a solid Tier Blu!!

The details (especially facial details/textures) are INSANE, but the details in general are also topnotch, as were the clarity and depth. Flesh tones were spot-on accurate...contrast was superb...blacks levels were exemplary (except for a few murky, underwater shots)...and colors were "naturally punchy." I thoroughly enjoyed the PQ, even in the dark scenes after the thunderous explosions began.

I simply MUST say a word about the Dolby Atmos track. This was my first taste of Atmos with my new system and I was OVERWHELMED. It really does add an altogether NEW DIMENSION to the sound and this release was as precise and accurate as they come!

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.75)*

PS If not for the few "murky scenes" I would have given this a .5.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

A couple of people outside this thread, including an industry professional, have told me the new _Guardians of the Galaxy 2_ UHD might have the most dazzling picture quality ever released on a home format.

I don't want to hype it up or anything.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> A couple of people outside this thread, including an industry professional, have told me the new _Guardians of the Galaxy 2_ UHD might have the most dazzling picture quality ever released on a home format.
> 
> I don't want to hype it up or anything.


Our resident reviewer (Ralph Potts) had this to say about it:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-o...alaxy-vol-2-ultra-hd-review.html#post54649580

In his review he stated that this was Disney's debut release of UHD Blu-ray and Dolby Atmos. With Disney now being on-board we can expect more dazzling UHD/HDR Blu-rays to come! I did note that Ralph gave this a 96 for the PQ score and that he has given other UHD Blu-rays a perfect score of 100, so in his humble opinion this isn't the best.


----------



## fredxr2d2

I only watched the regular 1080p blu of Guardians Vol. 2 and it was very very pretty. I would estimate top of Tier 1 or lower Tier 0. My only complaint is that the CGI effects (of which there are many) make the PQ slightly less sharp than it could be. I also find it interesting that they filmed at 8K and finished at 2K to output to 4K.


----------



## SnellTHX

Phantom Stranger said:


> I strongly recommend this article to anyone seriously into picture quality. A pro cinematographer took six different state-of-the-art cameras being used in Hollywood today and shot test footage for comparison purposes, ultimately mastering each camera's footage at 4K. This is the stuff that Tier 0 is made of today.
> 
> https://theasc.com/articles/a-clear-look-at-the-issue-of-resolution
> 
> The comments from other cinematographers at the bottom are just as relevant and illuminating.


Very interesting article thanks


----------



## SnellTHX

*Baywatch*


Another movie where I had absolutely zero expectation and thought I'd just watch it on Netflix anyway. 

I can happily say this movie has superb image quality that looks utterly flawless, razor sharp and completely noise free. The sunny beaches were beautiful and lit just right, while the darker scenes provided inky blacks and plenty of shadow detail. Lots and lots of crisp detail in close up facials. I haven't done my research but judging by how clean the picture was I can only assume this was another 4K DI that transferred perfectly to BD1080p.


It isn't quite reference material and the CGI was pretty bad. 

*Tier recommendation: 1*


----------



## TitusTroy

I don't understand the new PQ Tier ranking thread as it pertains to 4K...shouldn't there be a separate tier for 4K Blu-ray's versus standard 1080p?...for example I see Planet Earth 2 is on top now...I understand the 4K + HDR Blu-ray is stunning but is the 1080p version also good enough that it deserves to top the 1080p rankings tier?


----------



## djoberg

TitusTroy said:


> I don't understand the new PQ Tier ranking thread as it pertains to 4K...shouldn't there be a separate tier for 4K Blu-ray's versus standard 1080p?...for example I see Planet Earth 2 is on top now...I understand the 4K + HDR Blu-ray is stunning but is the 1080p version also good enough that it deserves to top the 1080p rankings tier?


I believe Phantom will be weighing in here shortly, but I'll give you my take on this now. I don't believe there are enough 4K titles or persons who contribute reviews on 4K titles to justify two separate threads...one for 1080p and one for 4K. So, until there are more 4K titles and reviews for those titles, they are being incorporated into the same Tier Ranking Thread.

Having said that, reviewers are informing everyone if they are reviewing a 4K title (in THIS thread...the DISCUSSION thread), and some (like myself) may have seen both versions and will give a ranking for both. I'm not sure if Phantom is making that distinction in all cases when he updates the Tier Ranking Thread, for I only see one title (John Wick chapter 2) where he actually lists it as an UHD release (perhaps that is the only 4K title that he has added to the list).


----------



## TitusTroy

djoberg said:


> I believe Phantom will be weighing in here shortly, but I'll give you my take on this now. I don't believe there are enough 4K titles or persons who contribute reviews on 4K titles to justify two separate threads...one for 1080p and one for 4K. So, until there are more 4K titles and reviews for those titles, they are being incorporated into the same Tier Ranking Thread.
> 
> Having said that, reviewers are informing everyone if they are reviewing a 4K title (in THIS thread...the DISCUSSION thread), and some (like myself) may have seen both versions and will give a ranking for both. I'm not sure if Phantom is making that distinction in all cases when he updates the Tier Ranking Thread, for I only see one title (John Wick chapter 2) where he actually lists it as an UHD release (perhaps that is the only 4K title that he has added to the list).



I understand about the distinction being made in the Discussion thread but for a person just looking at the Tier ranking thread it really messes everything up...Planet Earth 2 is not the best looking 1080p Blu-ray yet if you look at the list you would assume it is...the list as is makes no distinction between 4K and 1080p and it really needs to be separated out otherwise a bunch of 4K titles will dominate the Reference Tier...more people still own 1080p Blu-rays versus 4K and the Tier Rankings would be almost meaningless for them...I really hope the 4K titles can get their own separate Tier rankings...shouldn't be too hard to set it up like that


----------



## djoberg

TitusTroy said:


> I understand about the distinction being made in the Discussion thread but for a person just looking at the Tier ranking thread it really messes everything up...Planet Earth 2 is not the best looking 1080p Blu-ray yet if you look at the list you would assume it is...the list as is makes no distinction between 4K and 1080p and it really needs to be separated out otherwise a bunch of 4K titles will dominate the Reference Tier...more people still own 1080p Blu-rays versus 4K and the Tier Rankings would be almost meaningless for them...I really hope the 4K titles can get their own separate Tier rankings...shouldn't be too hard to set it up like that


I hear you! Like I said, I only saw one title (John Wick Chapter 2) that was designated as a 4K UHD title, so Phantom will have to supply the answer you need. Regarding _Planet Earth 2_, I may be the only one who reviewed that title and it was definitely the 4K release (I don't own the 1080p version) and Phantom did NOT label that "UHD" when he placed it in the #1 spot in Tier Blu. So, you make a valid point on how confusing it is for those who are only visiting the Tier Ranking Thread.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

The reality of the situation is that we have very few UHD contributors beyond djoberg himself and a couple of others in this thread. In these tentative first stages integrating UHD titles into the PQ Tiers, they are marked as such. If you search the Tiers for UHD, you'll see John Wick and Risen UHDs have already been included.

It was my mistake when entering Planet Earth II at the top that I dropped the UHD signifier. That is the UHD version and has now been corrected. It is my intention that all UHDs listed in the PQ Tiers will clearly have the UHD denoted.

*Batman and Harley Quinn*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

Easily one of the best-looking movies yet from the DCAU. The new animated production has received a perfect technical transfer in full digital splendor. Its animation quality is some of the most polished video we've gotten from WB Animation. The video is clean, simple and bold. Rendered in stark primary colors and perfect black levels, it pays homage to _Batman: The Animated Series'_ original designs.

There is a UHD release of _Batman and Harley Quinn_, though one review I've seen wasn't kind.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^

Thanks Phantom! You basically confirmed what I had written and with all that you do to keep this thread afloat it is very excusable that you forgot to add the "UHD" distinction to _Planet Earth 2_.


----------



## TitusTroy

Phantom Stranger said:


> The reality of the situation is that we have very few UHD contributors beyond djoberg himself and a couple of others in this thread. In these tentative first stages integrating UHD titles into the PQ Tiers, they are marked as such. If you search the Tiers for UHD, you'll see John Wick and Risen UHDs have already been included.
> 
> It was my mistake when entering Planet Earth II at the top that I dropped the UHD signifier. That is the UHD version and has now been corrected. It is my intention that all UHDs listed in the PQ Tiers will clearly have the UHD denoted



thanks for the info...it makes sense now that I see you added the UHD distinction in the Tier rankings...now people can differentiate between 1080p and 4K titles...as long as both versions of a movie (4K and 1080p) can be included in that list then it's all good 

has anyone seen the 1080p version of Planet Earth 2?...I'm curious where it ranks as far as PQ...Planet Earth 1 is in Tier 2.25 Silver and I'm curious if PE2 will rank higher


----------



## John Mason

Agree a 4k tier would be worthwhile. Better yet, a true-4k section separate from 4k UHDs released from 2k DI's. Seems possible to differentiate with imdb's tech-specs section, and if it's challenged someone would need valid references such as someone in the production or executive staff. -- John

Edit: Movies shot in non-24-fps, like 1080i/p documentaries, with higher motion/effective resolution, might be spelled out, too.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Our UHD plans are fluid. How we ultimately incorporate them into the existing PQ Tiers is undecided. For the moment, they'll go into the normal continuum from Tier 5 to Tier 0.

*Gate: Complete Collection*

recommendation: *Tier 1.75**

Sentai Filmworks delivers a satisfactory presentation for this recent anime production. 24 episodes are spread over three BD-50s, possibly impacting the AVC encode. Some visible banding mars the otherwise pristine animation. It was detrimental enough to actually drop my score.

This is fluid animation made with an attention to detail. Working in bright, crisp colors that go perfectly with its fantasy setting, _Gate_ definitely has its better eye candy moments.


----------



## JNayAV

Guardians of the Galaxy 2 (UHD)

Recommendation: Tier 0 Top 2 (My top is Moana or this)

Details are top of the pack whether it be facial/skin features on Drax or Gemorra or the CGI texture of Groot and Rocket. Seriously, this is top of the crop stuff.
Contrast also top of the pack, being kind of a mix of sci-fi/fantasy/superhero we have a crazy mix of colors that isn't gonna happen with purely live footage.
HDR/WCG is handled well with accentuated highlight details but nothing blinding your eyeballs. Some colors are clearly not possible 

Toward the earlier portion of the movie, Starlord's ship crashlands and there are some low light night time scenes. There's instances during this that appear softer than the rest of the movie.
Due to this I struggle to declare it clear top dog. What's good here, I say is best I've ever seen. However, my other top choice is Moana which I feel has 0 defects or as close to it as I can recall ever seeing.
So with those caveats those are my 2 top movies. If want flawless beginning to end, 1 is Moana. If want instances of the best you'll ever see with a few minutes of lesser stuff, GotG 2 is 1.

If this is what we can expect out of Marvel/Disney for their UHD titles we are in for serious PQ delights.

For reference, I don't think I rated Planet Earth II but I'd put that title a little lower. There are enough instances that are softer + the heightened black level that drops it for me. (the heightened black level is natural and intended/ 0 absolute black doesn't occur in nature really, but I still ding it for the purposes of this thread)


----------



## JNayAV

Wanted to also chime in on separate UHD thread.

I think at least for the near future there is no need to separate. This is for a few reasons:
1. Currently there are only around 3 members voting for UHD titles so don't really have the support to make an entire new list/thread. Honestly the thread in general has fewer contributors than it used to
2. Current UHD titles are not blowing away Blu-ray titles. UHD titles are coming in around mid Tier 0 high tier 1. Once UHD titles are consistently at the top we may then need to differentiate between them, but for now how the thread was originally set up still seems to be enough to differentiate between them. Give another year to get the whole HDR thing sorted and then maybe this'll happen.

As far as taking a potential UHD thread and then separating it by DI resolution, that probably couldn't exist. Any movie is going to use a DI of what ever is the lowest resolution used for parts of the movie. For movies with heavy CGI that's almost 100% certain to be 2k renderings. The only films listed would be purely non CGI films. That would be a very short list, PE II comes to mind.


----------



## SnellTHX

I've heard several people sat GOTG 2 is the best PQ ever, and here we have another raving (top 2 reference) review. I saw it in the cinema, which is a slightly inferior cinema compared to the two I usually visit. I was amazed by the PQ in that cinema, it was some of the best I had ever seen in a commercial theatre! Guess it was more down to the source than anything else. Can't wait to review it myself


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> I've heard several people sat GOTG 2 is the best PQ ever, and here we have another raving (top 2 reference) review. I saw it in the cinema, which is a slightly inferior cinema compared to the two I usually visit. I was amazed by the PQ in that cinema, it was some of the best I had ever seen in a commercial theatre! Guess it was more down to the source than anything else. Can't wait to review it myself


I'll be slipping the 4K version into my Philips Blu-ray player within an hour!


----------



## djoberg

*Guardians of the Galaxy 2 (UHD)*

*WOW!!*

This was indeed a fantastic Tier Blu contender! Is it worthy of the coveted "King of the Blu-ray Hill?" I can't say for sure, but it's definitely "Reference Quality."

I may write another "detailed review," but let me just say that I was mesmerized by the amazing COLORS, the finely-rendered DETAILS, the exceptional BLACK LEVELS (& SHADOW DETAILS), the razor-sharp CLARITY, and the astounding DEPTH. I kept comparing this with _Avatar_ because both feature "live action" and "CGI" and I'd have to say that this one was definitely better.

I'm going to "sleep on it," but as of now I'd say this is better than any "live action movie," with the possible exception of _Planet Earth 2_. Right now the other "live action titles" on the top are _Black Sails_ and _Avatar_ and this one will land somewhere between them and the current title holder (which is _Planet Earth 2: UHD version)_.


----------



## djoberg

*Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (UHD)*

Okay, so I "slept on it" and after careful consideration I do NOT think this is deserving of the #1 spot in Tier Blu. Perhaps, if the whole 2+ hours running time was "live action" without any CGI, I would nominate it for #1 . But with so much CGI, and some of it being a tad soft at times (though let me add that the vast majority of the CGI shots are remarkably sharp), I can't place it on top.

Having said that, I do believe it is worthy of a spot in the Top Ten. I can't speak for the 1080p version (I haven't seen it YET), but on the UHD version you have crazy-good COLORS thanks to HDR and WCG (Wide Color Gamut). At times primaries (of all sorts) explode on the scene giving your eyes the adrenaline rush that they crave. BLACK LEVELS and WHITES were also exemplary, due to the rise in contrast that HDR provides. And finally, HDR also renders DETAILS more exquisitely (in "some" UHD releases). Every review that I read where the reviewer had seen both versions stated strongly that there was a definite UPTICK in these three areas on the UHD version.

Before I close, I have to give a shout-out to the "Reference Quality" Dolby Atmos soundtrack. WOW is all I can say! I can't emphasize enough how amazing it is to have a "dome of sound" courtesy of the "height speakers" and to have such precision when objects are whizzing by you, or rain is falling directly overhead. If you can afford it, I would highly recommend upgrading your audio to this format.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (#5)*


----------



## djoberg

After mentioning Dolby Atmos, it occurred to me that many of you may be thinking, "My room is already finished and I wouldn't think of tearing up my ceiling to install speakers." There is always the "bounce" speakers that you can add to your fronts and surrounds, but IMHO that is a compromise, for some say there are too many variables that make them less-than-ideal for accurate placements of overhead sounds. I personally dismissed both of these options for those very reasons. As I stated in a post last week, I ended up getting SVS Prime Elevation speakers that you can place 1) On your Front and Rear walls, or 2) On your side walls near the ceiling. I went with #2. Here is a picture of my set up.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2280142&stc=1&d=1504973340


----------



## djoberg

*Alien: Covenant (1080p)*

This was a very DARK movie (PQ-wise) and for the most part, black levels held up nicely. But there were times when they faltered, resulting in a murky and somewhat soft picture where shadow details also suffered. And of course, they had to throw into the mix some color-grading (amber/teal). That, along with a mostly muted color palette, left one longing for more primary colors.

Okay, now for the good. There was a fair amount of scenes that were sharp as a tack, with good depth, excellent contrast, and finely-rendered details. A case in point would be the opening scene, where David and his "creator" are in a room discussing the nature of one's creation. Flesh tones are also accurate and facial texture in close-ups were second-to-none. 

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**


----------



## rnk21

djoberg said:


> *Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (UHD)*
> 
> Okay, so I "slept on it" and after careful consideration I do NOT think this is deserving of the #1 spot in Tier Blu. Perhaps, if the whole 2+ hours running time was "live action" without any CGI, I would nominate it for #1 . But with so much CGI, and some of it being a tad soft at times (though let me add that the vast majority of the CGI shots are remarkably sharp), I can't place it on top.
> 
> Having said that, I do believe it is worthy of a spot in the Top Ten. I can't speak for the 1080p version (I haven't seen it YET), but on the UHD version you have crazy-good COLORS thanks to HDR and WCG (Wide Color Gamut). At times primaries (of all sorts) explode on the scene giving your eyes the adrenaline rush that they crave. BLACK LEVELS and WHITES were also exemplary, due to the rise in contrast that HDR provides. And finally, HDR also renders DETAILS more exquisitely (in "some" UHD releases). Every review that I read where the reviewer had seen both versions stated strongly that there was a definite UPTICK in these three areas on the UHD version.
> 
> Before I close, I have to give a shout-out to the "Reference Quality" Dolby Atmos soundtrack. WOW is all I can say! I can't emphasize enough how amazing it is to have a "dome of sound" courtesy of the "height speakers" and to have such precision when objects are whizzing by you, or rain is falling directly overhead. If you can afford it, I would highly recommend upgrading your audio to this format.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (#5)*


What then would be your number 1 or top 10?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Guardians of the Galaxy 2 sounds like a real A/V treat. The Atmos mix must be fantastic.


----------



## djoberg

rnk21 said:


> What then would be your number 1 or top 10?


Here are the Top Ten from the Tier Ranking Thread:

Planet Earth II UHD 
The Secret Life of Pets 
The Angry Birds Movie 
Moana 
The Good Dinosaur 
Rio 2 
Kung Fu Panda 3 
Trolls 
Ice Age: Collision Course 
Monsters University 

I pretty much agree with this list, except I placed _Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2_ at number 5. If I were to take one of those out of the Top Ten it would be _Ice Age: Collision Course_.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2*

recommendation: *Tier 0** (between _Black Sails_ and _Avatar_)

I'm merely scoring the Blu-ray but it's clear why Disney chose _Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2_ as their first UHD release. This is easily one of the most impressive discs ever seen with gorgeous color saturation and dazzling sci-fi visuals purposely made as eye candy. I can only imagine what the expanded color palette in 4K resolution brings in the scenes on Ego's planet.

The Blu-ray itself definitely belongs in the top quarter of Tier 0, few films have so fluidly melded VFX with live-action video since _Avatar_. I think it clearly belongs above _Avatar_ in the Tiers, now nearing a decade old and made before the 4K revolution had hit home video.

This movie simply has state-of-the-art video quality made with a huge Hollywood budget, tailor-made to make an impression on one's senses. A couple of scenes in the narrative actually look they were included for little more reason than they wanted truly astounding demo sequences. There is brilliant use of color in some of the finest saturation possible in 1080P resolution. Every self-respecting videophile needs to see _Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2_ in a good home theater at some point, Disney has truly outdone themselves.

I concur with Djoberg's point about the CGI, it does become pervasive for extended stretches. The final act is loaded with it as the final battle commences.


----------



## CJackson

Has anyone seen the Funimation Shin Godzilla blu ray?


----------



## tmavs

*Sony X300*

Amazing review of _the_ reference display:


----------



## Phantom Stranger

CJackson said:


> Has anyone seen the Funimation Shin Godzilla blu ray?


I want to see it though I don't currently own the disc. The following review has screenshots ripped directly from the BD if you want to gauge the picture quality yourself.

http://doblu.com/2017/08/01/shin-godzilla-blu-ray-review/

*After the Storm*

recommendation: *Tier 2.5**

Film Movement puts out this dialogue-driven Japanese drama in a fine, steady presentation faithful to director Koreeda's intended aesthetic. Shot on Super 35 film, _After the Storm_ has consistently excellent clarity. It receives a film-like transfer from the 2K digital intermediate. The recent production has pristine film elements without wear and tear.

The cinematography doesn't exude the extremely sharp definition found in Tier One's discs. The color palette is mildly muted in saturation, though the contrast and flesh-tones are unaffected.


----------



## SnellTHX

tmavs said:


> Amazing review of _the_ reference display:
> 
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ESzWY0hW85Y



Best display ever! :O I wonder what it would cost at 100 inches, if the ZD9 costs $60,000 lol

Would probably cost millions.


----------



## djoberg

*Battleship (UHD)*

Whoa! We have another winner!! This is absolutely, positively "Reference Quality" in both the Video & Audio (I know...this is a "PQ-Thread," so I'll try to go light on the Audio remarks)!!!

I believe I had viewed the 1080p release many moons ago but this BEAST (the UHD version) is another MONSTER altogether. HDR brought this to another level, with increased DETAILS, CONTRAST and COLORS. The most striking feature (by far!) was the amazing CLARITY, with exemplary DETAILS and DEPTH. Facial details were especially a sight to behold! Even with tons of CGI, it never became soft or lacked details or depth. Perhaps the only "minor gripe" I can come up with were some inaccurate flesh tones (due to color-grading...teal anyone?), but everything else was so spectacular that who am I to complain?

Okay, please forgive me for my next remarks (unless you happen to have a good Dolby Atmos/DTS-X set up), but I simply must say something about the DTS-X soundtrack. Since setting up my height speakers and new 9.2 channel AVR, I've only watched a handful of Dolby Atmos mixes. This was my first DTS-X experience and I can say, without hesitation, that I've NEVER had such "audio nirvana" before! I was warned that this was a LOUD and very ACTIVE mix....that may be the UNDERSTATEMENT of the year. This was the LOUDEST and MOST ACTIVE mix I've ever heard. And talk about PRECISION and ACCURACY! I was so mesmerized by the audio I "almost" forgot my job was to focus on the PQ so I could write this review. If you have the set up, and you've never seen this title, you MUST give this a rent, or even better, shell out the $20 they're asking at Amazon and give your EYES and EARS the treat they deserve!

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (.75)*

PS I should add that the only disappointment in the audio department was the low-level bass. Don't get me wrong, there was plenty of mid-level bass that occasionally rumbled, but for all the explosions there should have been "walls shaking" and "waves of energy" rolling across my breast.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Erik the Conqueror*

recommendation: *Tier 3.0**

Mario Bava's 1961 Vikings movie receives a brand-new 2K film restoration from Arrow Video. The video results are quite good for the Italian production. The transfer is from the original camera negative in fairly sound condition. The 2.35:1 presentation is film-like and unfiltered, showcasing Bava's keen sense of color and composition.

_Erik the Conqueror_ features one of the better film transfers we've gotten from Arrow Video lately. The print damage is confined to the opening reel as a couple of running gate scratches pop up. Black levels hold up nicely and the even contrast works for the vintage celluloid. Optical effects introduce some softness on occasion. Palpable texture and strong definition easily land this disc in Tier 3. The video is good enough for Tier 2 at times.


----------



## Soccerdude

Bought the 4k disc Mummy with Tom Cruise from BB last week but been busy at work so just now I put it on & guess what the disc it won't play on my Oppo203 dvd player , the tv is LG OLED 65inch . I put on the Blade Runner 4k no problems. Does anyone else had issues with the disc?... My Oppo has the latest FW. 
Is the BB going to give me a hard time about returning ?..
By the way I tried the blue ray disc version too same thing.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Soccerdude said:


> Bought the 4k disc Mummy with Tom Cruise from BB last week but been busy at work so just now I put it on & guess what the disc it won't play on my Oppo203 dvd player , the tv is LG OLED 65inch . I put on the Blade Runner 4k no problems. Does anyone else had issues with the disc?... My Oppo has the latest FW.
> Is the BB going to give me a hard time about returning ?..
> By the way I tried the blue ray disc version too same thing.


I don't have that Oppo machine but that sounds like an issue specific to their players. I'd see if other Oppo owners are having problems with that disc.


----------



## SnellTHX

*King Arthur (2017)*

Another big budget Hollywood movie with not-so-stellar picture quality. I mean think of it like pizza, when its good, its reeeaally good and when its bad, its still pretty good. Or is that sex... I dunno. Nothing really stuck out or mesmerised me in anyway... the opening sequence with huge CGI elephants looked really cool but overall I found the movie to have muted colours and unimpressive shadow detail. Still its a modern 1080p source which looks pretty sharp and obviously good on an OLED, but watching episodes of Black Sails season 4 (Tier 0) in between this movie goes to show how far 'good' is from 'reference'

*Tier recommendation: 1.75 Gold**


----------



## daPriceIs

Soccerdude said:


> Bought the 4k disc Mummy with Tom Cruise from BB last week but been busy at work so just now I put it on & guess what the disc it won't play on my Oppo203 dvd player , the tv is LG OLED 65inch . I put on the Blade Runner 4k no problems. Does anyone else had issues with the disc?... My Oppo has_* the latest FW*_.
> Is the BB going to give me a hard time about returning ?..
> By the way I tried the blue ray disc version too same thing.


By "latest" you mean the *new firmware* just released three days ago? In any case, I got the Mummy 2017 UHD yesterday and played it today on my Oppo UDP-203 (with the aforementioned firmware) without issue. I have 20+ UHD discs so far and the Oppo has had a problem with only one of them, John Wick 2, but that turned out to be caused by a fingerprint that was easily cleaned off.


----------



## CCsoftball7

Hey guys - PQ alert. I'm interested in what others think about _Baby Driver_. I think this has a chance to hit the top 5. I only saw a 10 minute preview, but WOW, it looks phenomenal.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

CCsoftball7 said:


> Hey guys - PQ alert. I'm interested in what others think about _Baby Driver_. I think this has a chance to hit the top 5. I only saw a 10 minute preview, but WOW, it looks phenomenal.


It doesn't come out officially until October, so you probably won't see much discussion of Baby Driver here until next month. It could be a serious contender in the PQ Tiers.

*In Search of the Lost Future: Complete Series*

recommendation: *Tier 2.25**

Funimation presents this 2014 anime production in steady fashion. It's not animation that leaps off the screen with drastic colors. The two-disc set offers no obvious technical problems, cleanly rendering the simple animation in perfect contrast and pitch-perfect black levels. The character designs are fairly simple, this is not a production pushing boundaries.


----------



## Soccerdude

daPriceIs said:


> By "latest" you mean the *new firmware* just released three days ago? In any case, I got the Mummy 2017 UHD yesterday and played it today on my Oppo UDP-203 (with the aforementioned firmware) without issue. I have 20+ UHD discs so far and the Oppo has had a problem with only one of them, John Wick 2, but that turned out to be caused by a fingerprint that was easily cleaned off.


Yes the FW was upgraded Friday night , I bought two UHD discs from BB last wk the Blade Runner & the Mummy. The blade runner played no problem but Mummy refused to play I even tried the Blue Ray disc version . My friend will bring over his LG 4k player to see if the the disc is defective . Hope BB won't give me a hard time when return the disc.


----------



## SnellTHX

*Guardians of the Galaxy: Vol. 2*

Holy f*cking amazing picture quality, Batman!! *THIS* is what a 2017 blu-ray is supposed to look like. Just as I remembered it in the cinema the movie had ridiculous amount of depth, 100% flawless image quality; no grain, no pixel, no artefact, no faults to be seen anywhere. Colours popped out of the screen and the CGI looks like it was designed and run on a $100 million PC. While this is definitely some of the best picture quality out there I must say I cannot fathom their processing of creating this movie...

They film it with a Red Weapon Dragon 8K (35 megapixel) camera, then they compress the image by ± 90% to make it fit on a 2K (2 megapixel) DI... Only to upscale it by a factor of 4x to display 4K (8.8megapixel) resolution on your screen. Whyyyyyyy





Doesn't matter to me though, even without 10bit, DCI-P3 colours, HDR and 4K resolution this is still a top 10 reference disk for me. It even surpasses my previous top two reference Marvel movies; Ant-Man & Avengers. (both blu tier movies)

*Tier recommendation: 0 (REFERENCE)*


----------



## SnellTHX

rnk21 said:


> What then would be your number 1 or top 10?





djoberg said:


> Here are the Top Ten from the Tier Ranking Thread:
> 
> Planet Earth II UHD
> The Secret Life of Pets
> The Angry Birds Movie
> Moana
> The Good Dinosaur
> Rio 2
> Kung Fu Panda 3
> Trolls
> Ice Age: Collision Course
> Monsters University
> 
> I pretty much agree with this list, except I placed _Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2_ at number 5. If I were to take one of those out of the Top Ten it would be _Ice Age: Collision Course_.


Excellent lists.

my personal top 10 is as follows:

1. Life of Pi
2. Interstellar
3. Pacific Rim
4. The Dark Knight Rises
5. Kung Fu Panda 3
6. Avatar
7. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
8. Monster's University
9. The Good Dinosaur
10. Avengers


Honourable mentions: Boss Baby, Black Sails, Passengers, Marco Polo, Game of Thrones, Ant-Man, Skyfall, Transformers: Age of Extinction and Big Hero 6 are all frequently used as reference material. 
I prefer 16:9 over 21:9 movies and I haven't really watched a lot of animated movies, which I definitely need to catch up on!


----------



## CCsoftball7

SnellTHX said:


> Excellent lists.
> 
> my personal top 10 is as follows:
> 
> 1. Life of Pi
> 2. Interstellar
> 3. Pacific Rim
> 4. The Dark Knight Rises
> 5. Kung Fu Panda 3
> 6. Avatar
> 7. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
> 8. Monster's University
> 9. The Good Dinosaur
> 10. Avengers
> 
> 
> Honourable mentions: Boss Baby, Black Sails, Passengers, Marco Polo, Game of Thrones, Ant-Man, Skyfall, Transformers: Age of Extinction and Big Hero 6 are all frequently used as reference material.
> I prefer 16:9 over 21:9 movies and I haven't really watched a lot of animated movies, which I definitely need to catch up on!


You haven't seen _The Secret Life of Pets_?


----------



## SnellTHX

CCsoftball7 said:


> You haven't seen _The Secret Life of Pets_?



No I have not! And I've seen its been placed in several people's top 3 (Djoberg for example) if not #1.... 

So I definitely need to get around to seeing it. Moana and Life of Pets will most likely side right into top 10, maybe top 5 but until they've been fully viewed on my own display I won't rate as of yet


----------



## djoberg

*Wonder Woman (UHD)*

Okay, I was fully expecting this to be "Reference Quality" and hoping it might even be a contender for the "Best Live Action" 4K to date. I "think" it is worthy of "Reference" status, but it's a far cry from being the best.

The first scenes on Paradise Island were my favorites, with plenty of rich and vibrant colors (courtesy of UHD's Wide Color Gamut) and details to-die-for. Flesh tones were spot-on accurate, depth was outstanding, contrast was super-strong, and clarity was razor-sharp. It was truly a FEAST for the eyes!!

But then the scene shifted to war-torn Europe with its muted color palette and some egregious color-grading to boot (teal/orange) which wreaked havoc on flesh tones at times. There was also some fleeting soft shots (especially in the heavy CGI shots) and murky blacks. Thankfully these were the "exception and not the rule." Don't take this wrong, for there were still many scenes with incredible depth and details.

I said at the beginning that I "think" this is worthy of Reference (in spite of a few weaker moments). My "generous gene" is kicking in and my vote goes for....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.90)*

PS If someone (like Phantom ) opts for a high Tier 1 rating he'll find no argument with me. I could go either way.


----------



## dla26

*Separate ranking for UHD?*

Apologies if this has been discussed before since it's been a while since I last read this thread. I noticed in the most recent rankings, we have UHD Blu-Ray mixed in with regular Blu-Ray. Is there a way to tell which is which? I noticed that 3 of them have UHD in the actual name, but I wasn't sure if those were the only 3 that were ranked.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

dla26 said:


> Apologies if this has been discussed before since it's been a while since I last read this thread. I noticed in the most recent rankings, we have UHD Blu-Ray mixed in with regular Blu-Ray. Is there a way to tell which is which? I noticed that 3 of them have UHD in the actual name, but I wasn't sure if those were the only 3 that were ranked.


We've been including UHD placements in the PQ Tiers the past few months. As of the last update back in July, only a handful of UHD discs made it. We've had several more UHD placements since the last update that haven't been included yet. So yes, those are the only UHDs listed at the moment.

*Lethal Weapon: The Complete First Season*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

This WB television series that airs on Fox arrives on Blu-ray in a satisfactory presentation. The Blu-ray mildly enhances the picture quality seen on its network broadcast. The three-disc set crams 18 episodes in a tight AVC encode that likely could have used an extra BD for greater compression transparency. There isn't rampant macroblocking or compression noise, but overall resolution looks mildly filtered for an Arri Alexa-filmed production.

The video itself is pristine in that glossy network manner that takes full advantage of its L.A. backdrop. Interiors have crisp definition in a consistently full and pleasing contrast. The 1080P video is sharp with a high degree of clarity. Something just seems missing that pushes out the extra detail, separating _Lethal Weapon_ a smidge from Tier One. It narrowly misses the higher ranking and likely would have made it a few years ago.


----------



## SnellTHX

I think we can pretty much just keep melting UHD and HD discs into one list... otherwise the separate UHD list would be small, and for me who has HDR/4K compatible TV but not yet upgraded to the entirety of the HDR/4K realm I find it interesting how they compare to 1080p SDR. 

I guess this is living proof that 1080p/SDR --> 4K/HDR doesn't have as big of an impact as 480p --> 1080p had. I adopted to blu-ray standard the very first moment it came out back in 2006 and I never looked back. DVDs have been unwatchable for me since 2007. 

In comparison today where I am still visually pleased with regular blu-ray. Pacific Rim and GOTG:V2 i.e. look f*cking incredible and I can't imagine how they're supposed to look any better


----------



## SnellTHX

*Moana*

Okay this should not be a surprise for anyone. A Reference disk from start to finish. The blues of the ocean, the greens of the grass and the reds of the fire, every primary colour on point. Dark scenes reveal perfect black of OLED, contrast is infinite and not in anyway limited. Textures are clean and the image has that "3-D" depth that we've all come to love. I've said it before and I'll say it again; another animated movie that I swear has 3840x2140p pixels to its image as labelling it "2K" doesn't do justice to how sharp and crisp the image looks. Best animated movie I have seen so far, slightly edging out the already incredible reference; Kung Fu Panda 3. 


*Tier recommendation: 0 (top 5!)*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Renoir*

recommendation: *Tier 2.5**

This intimate French period drama is occasionally sumptuous with its photogenic locales. The cinematography is meant to evoke the renowned painter's art. Niche distributor Cinedigm put out this Blu-ray a few years back. 

The 111-minute main feature receives an excellent, high-bitrate AVC encode on a BD-50. In most respects this has fine video quality with decent definition. Some unnatural yellow does creep into the flesh-tones. The transfer offers a pristine representation in sharp detail. There is no serious processing worth mentioning in the transfer.


----------



## SnellTHX

*Transformers 5: The Last Knight*

BEST.PICTURE.QUALITY.EVER!!!! Wow I don't even know where to start... It took me 5 years to find another top reference movie, finally a successor to the Life of Pi as ultimate "PQ King". PQ looked so good it was mind blowing. Infinite contrast from start to finish, with image clarity like no other movie. 
The CGI in this movie is so good it literally puts Avatar to shame. The facial details are second to none, particularly the scene in Hopkins' mansion where the light from the window hits his face, or in the military bases where you saw close ups of officers' faces under powerful overhead lights in the foreground of a PITCH black background. 
Superb depth and colour rendering throughout the entire movie, with virtuous vistas and gorgeous landscapes that left my jaw on the floor.

I heard this movie was filmed entirely by IMAX cameras - you definitely can tell after watching this movie. 
Ultimately, even though Life of Pi, Pacific Rim, Avatar etc have been my overall top dogs, I always thought the IMAX 15/70 filmed scenes of Nolan movies were better, they appeared much sharper and life-like, as if they were super-resolution images (at 18,000 lines or ~ 200MP of celluloid 'resolution' they kind of are). 

Scenes like the opening robbery and the bat-mobile chase in TDK or the opening plane-jack, Wall Street 'robbery', Bane fight or stadium explosion of TDK:R, or any of the 15/70mm scenes from Interstellar (the Water planet, the icey planet, the space visuals or when Cooper drives around the farm) are in my opinion better reference material than any other single scene of any other movie. The problem with Nolan movies is that while the IMAX 15/70 aka 1.78:1 shots looked like 10/10 top 3 material, the rest of the movies' are subpar. TDK had 30 minutes of glory, TDK:R had 60 minutes are Interstellar had around 70. the non-IMAX scenes which made up the rest of those movies were in my opinion Tier 1.75, 1.5 and 1.25 respectively. 



Transformers: Last Knight on the other hand has that IMAX quality image for three hours straight. Its flawless. Not a grain or pixel insight. Shadow detail on point. The CGI didn't soften the razor sharp image in any way. The visual effects are exactly what you expect from a Transformers movie and more so.

Now I did notice the movie used several cameras and several formats. in my 100% lightproof pitch black room its almost impossible to see the black bars or the frame of my LG OLED, but I'm fairly certain there's three formats used: 1.85:1, 1.90:1 and 2.35:1 I'd say ±80% of the movie was filmed in the taller formats (as I have expressed previously I prefer 16:9 over 21:9) and the rest in the wider standard cinema format. I preferred the taller shots but unlike Nolan movies, the wide shots weren't heavily compromised. I feel the 1.90:1 shots were superior to the 2.35:1 shots but that could just be my bias and not actual fact. Even though I'm certain the 1.90:1 shots objectively looked better. (more crispy and detailed)

Anyway that's enough babling from me. I found this movie to have perfect picture quality and it presented what I've dreamt of since 2008, a full three hour feature filmed entirely by IMAX. Even though they supposedly used digital IMAX cameras at 'only' 6.5k (vs 18K equivalent of 15/70mm), its still the best overall I have ever seen. The only movie I can imagine will surpass this is Dunkirk (filmed 90% of its 100 min runtime with proper IMAX MSM9802 15/70mm camera), but these two I believe will remain at top for years.

*
Tier recommendation: 0 (#1!)**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Great review, Snell. I hadn't been meaning to watch Transformers 5 but your recommendation has definitely put it on my radar.


----------



## sickkent

Yeah, I've always thought that the Transformers set the bar as far as CGI goes whenever they come out and I get excited to see them. Haven't seen it on BR yet, but in the theater, yep, came to deliver exactly what I've come to expect. Fantastic. 


Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

I can't wait to see _Transformers: The Last Knight_ after reading SnellTHX's review!!! I know the movie itself may be a stinker, but I may still invest in the 4K version, especially if that's the only version with a Dolby Atmos or DTS:X mix.

I was curious to see how I had rated the last installment and I see I gave it a Tier 0 (.5). Perhaps they have "upped their game" and if so, this may indeed reach the top of the Tier Blu! Here's my review on the _Transformers 4: Age of Extinction_:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-731.html#post27980170


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^

Wally World has a very good price on the UHD version of _Transformers: The Last Knight_


----------



## SnellTHX

Phantom Stranger said:


> Great review, Snell. I hadn't been meaning to watch Transformers 5 but your recommendation has definitely put it on my radar.


Highly recommended as you read


----------



## SnellTHX

sickkent said:


> Yeah, I've always thought that the Transformers set the bar as far as CGI goes whenever they come out and I get excited to see them. Haven't seen it on BR yet, but in the theater, yep, came to deliver exactly what I've come to expect. Fantastic.
> 
> 
> Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk


Indeed Transformers movie have always pushed the limit when it comes to CGI and special effects. 

I did notice that the first movie from 2007 looks quite dated by now and even Transformers 3 which is still relatively new (2011) didn't age that well in my opinion.

Haven't seen Transformers 2 since it came out so I don't know how it looks today. Every Transformers movie has been reference at launch though.

Transformers: Age of Extinction came out three years ago and its still lower end tier 0 material in my opinion but it has A LOT of film grain and some shots look really bad. 


That's why I expected Transformers: Last Knight to be very good, most likely reference, but NO WHERE NEAR this good. I expected top 10 at best, not number 1 spot and "much better than Avatar" good. This is next generation stuff!!


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> I can't wait to see _Transformers: The Last Knight_ after reading SnellTHX's review!!! I know the movie itself may be a stinker, but I may still invest in the 4K version, especially if that's the only version with a Dolby Atmos or DTS:X mix.
> 
> I was curious to see how I had rated the last installment and I see I gave it a Tier 0 (.5). Perhaps they have "upped their game" and if so, this may indeed reach the top of the Tier Blu! Here's my review on the _Transformers 4: Age of Extinction_:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-731.html#post27980170


Just read your review of Transformers 4 and for the time it seems like a correct assessment of movie's picture. Back in 2014 it was somewhere in my top 10-15. But I rewatched it just a few months ago and its no longer a top 20 movie (or even top 50), not necessarily because it aged but more because I've watched more and more reference titles (hint: animation movies). 


Every scene with Lockdown, the one in the swamps, the one in the field, the ones in the spaceship or the icey planet all look fantastic refernce material, but if you go back and watch certain indoor scenes like when the awkward guy is talking to the president, it doesn't look good. A reference title with some inconsistencies. 

So if you enjoyed Transformers: AOE, then you can most certainly look forward to Transformers: Last Knight! 

I'm curious to how you guys will reflect on the aspect ratio swapping... I didn't mind at all but I've read some people thought it was annoying. This is the most frequent aspect changing I've ever come across. My Dad hates TDK because it changed from 16:9 to 21:9 too often, when in reality it was 30 mins of 16:9 and 2 hours of 21:9, where most of the IMAX scenes came in huge chunks...

In T5:LK, the aspect ratio changes sometimes several times back and forth within one minute!


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^

Yikes! If the Aspect Ratio is changing that quickly and that often, I may be distracted. I absolutely loved (as you did) the 1.85:1 Aspect Ratio during the IMAX scenes in _The Dark Knight_ and wished MANY TIMES that the whole film would have been filmed in that ratio.


----------



## djoberg

We leave early tomorrow on an 8 day vacation up the North Shore of Lake Superior so I won't be watching _Transformers: The Last Knight_ until I get back. I will be checking in to see what you guys are watching though.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> We leave early tomorrow on an 8 day vacation up the North Shore of Lake Superior so I won't be watching _Transformers: The Last Knight_ until I get back. I will be checking in to see what you guys are watching though.


Enjoy the trip, Denny.

*The Ghoul*

recommendation: *Tier 2.75**

This is the 2016 British thriller from Arrow Video, not the 1933 film. The indie production has some minor issues with crushing in the early going but turns out all right. The gloomy cinematography doesn't scream Hi-Def glory. There are no significant issues with the transfer. I have to believe this 1080P presentation fairly represents The Ghoul.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Megan Leavey*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

Solid presentation but nothing special. Colors, details, and skin tones are well rendered but black levels and contrast fall short in several scenes leaning towards gray. No issues with the transfer, didn't notice any banding as was mentioned in a review I saw.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Is It Wrong To Try To Pick Up Girls In A Dungeon?: Complete Collection*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

Sentai Filmworks put this goofy anime out a few months back. The two-disc set has decent but unspectacular video quality, reflecting the mildly inconsistent animation of the series. The traditional animation sporadically incorporates a few 3-D CGI elements.

I was actually expecting somewhat better picture quality. Its color saturation is mildly washed out by recent anime standards and the line-work is sloppy. Minor banding appears in the AVC encode.


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Yikes! If the Aspect Ratio is changing that quickly and that often, I may be distracted. I absolutely loved (as you did) the 1.85:1 Aspect Ratio during the IMAX scenes in _The Dark Knight_ and wished MANY TIMES that the whole film would have been filmed in that ratio.


Yeah I absolutely wish that ALL of Nolan's films were entirely filmed in 1.85:1 (Dunkirk basically is tho!! . But that's not just because of format preference, but because the IMAX MSM9802 is vastly superior to the regular 35mm camera doing the rest of the filming.

With Transformers, all 3 formats appeared to have equally reference picture quality, but as I mentioned they swapped around so frequently it felt like they went back and forth maybe 100 times or so...


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Young Frankenstein*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

Mel Brooks really captured the aesthetics of the old Universal monster flicks in this black and white movie. Contrast and black levels are excellent and there is nice fine layer of grain but it's just a bit soft.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Queen of the Desert*

recommendation: *Tier 0* (lower quarter)*

Werner Herzog's biopic of Gertrude Bell was shot on location in Morocco and Jordan in stunning clarity. It's a production that clearly pays homage to Lean's _Lawrence of Arabia_. The digital intermediate was processed at 4K resolution, shot with a variety of high-quality RED digital cameras. The picturesque cinematography is captured in pristine definition with razor-sharp detail.

A higher placement is certainly possible. Some de-focusing has been applied to Nicole Kidman as she plays a much younger character early in the film.

Released by Shout Factory a couple of years after making its theatrical debut, one wonders after seeing this BD where is the UHD.


----------



## djoberg

*The Mummy (2017)*

I decided to purchase the 1080p version due to a general consensus dictating "Poor Replay Value." I went into this with very low expectations and thus I wasn't disappointed with the weak story-line and having to suspend disbelief for its 100 minute running time.

PQ-wise, it was "okay," though not one for the "Reference Shelf" (Tier 0) and just barely fit for the "Demo Shelf" (Tier 1). Its main virtues consisted of incredible DETAILS and, at times, outstanding DEPTH. It had a rather weak color palette and, of course, the typical teal/orange color-grading. Thankfully the color-grading didn't wreak havoc on flesh tones. When primaries emerged they were quite nice!

Black levels and shadow details were also pleasing to the eye, though at times they did falter, especially during heavy CGI shots. Softness also reared its ugly head during those same scenes, accompanied by either "heavy grain" or "noise."

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**

PS This featured a Dolby Atmos mix but I was somewhat underwhelmed by the lack of discrete effects. Most of the action took place in the Fronts and sometimes in the rears. Bass was also limited, though there were a couple of scenes which "rocked the walls."


----------



## djoberg

*Power Rangers (UHD)*

Make room on your "Reference Shelf," for there's a new "Demo Disc" to grab to WOW your friends!!

This is easily one of the best UHD/HDR Blu-rays that I've seen, with a Reference Quality "Dolby Atmos" mix complementing the Reference Quality PQ! I'm going to avoid "gushing" with dozens of superlatives; let me just say that this has it all....amazing CLARITY, SHARPNESS, DETAILS, COLORS, FLESH TONES, BLACK LEVELS, SHADOW DETAILS, and DEPTH. From start to finish you'll find yourself saying "WOW," even when you're alone.

For those with Height Speakers and the proper AVR set up for Dolby Atmos, you will be awed by the plethora of discrete and panning effects. I've listened to about 15 Dolby Atmos mixes so far and this is the best. (I've yet to watch _Transformers: The Last Knight_, so that opinion may change in the next few days.) My wife was out of town so I kept turning it up...I actually watched the last 30 minutes at reference level!! I was floored by the excellent precision in ALL the speakers, and my sub was given a real workout with some scenes reaching down to below 20 Hz. (without any distortion).

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.25)*

PS The movie itself was much better than I had anticipated. There was fairly good acting, a good balance of drama and humor (though it was on the "cheesy" side), and topnotch CGI.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Loch Ness: Series 1

recommendation: Tier 1.5*
*
Acorn TV puts out this UK crime thriller (also known as _The Loch_ in some foreign markets) in a fine presentation that adroitly captures its pristine cinematography. Shot on location in Scotland, the vivid landscapes and scenic shores are practically characters in the murder mystery. Like most new UK productions, the digital video has razor-sharp clarity. The slightly muted palette favors cooler color temperatures.

Technically there isn't much wrong with either the transfer or the AVC encode. This two-disc set is largely a perfect representation of the source material and makes for dynamic visuals.


----------



## SnellTHX

Phantom Stranger said:


> *Queen of the Desert*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 0* (lower quarter)*
> 
> Werner Herzog's biopic of Gertrude Bell was shot on location in Morocco and Jordan in stunning clarity. It's a production that clearly pays homage to Lean's _Lawrence of Arabia_. The digital intermediate was processed at 4K resolution, shot with a variety of high-quality RED digital cameras. The picturesque cinematography is captured in pristine definition with razor-sharp detail.
> 
> A higher placement is certainly possible. Some de-focusing has been applied to Nicole Kidman as she plays a much younger character early in the film.
> 
> Released by Shout Factory a couple of years after making its theatrical debut, one wonders after seeing this BD where is the UHD.


Well that's most definitely a movie that would go right under my radar... but the videophile in me might want to watch it if you think its tier 0 material


----------



## Phantom Stranger

SnellTHX said:


> Well that's most definitely a movie that would go right under my radar... but the videophile in me might want to watch it if you think its tier 0 material


It's one of those flicks made for award season that didn't really hit for whatever reason. You can tell a lot of attention was paid to its cinematography for stunning results. A romanticized period drama that plays fast and loose with history. I imagine all recent productions featuring Nicole Kidman have digitally smoothed her face, she looks older these days in untouched photographs. Here are more thoughts on the disc.

http://doblu.com/2017/10/02/queen-of-the-desert-blu-ray-review/


----------



## SnellTHX

*Blade Runner (1982)* on blu-ray... Abysmal picture quality lol. Granted this movie is 35 years old but I give a fair rating to movies regardless of their age to make it a legit comparison to newer movies. Lawrence of Arabia is around 20 years older (1962-ish) and that had tier 1 picture quality, so there's no reason why this should look THIS bad.

unimpressive contrast, muddy picture, no detail, and in some cases it was blurry, not movie gain blurry, but crappy picture blurry. SO MUCH NOISE. 

I thought Band of Brothers was Tier 3 material, as it looked horrible at its worst, but at its best BoB did actually look really good. Blade Runner (in 1080p) has nothing good going for it at all. 

1080p on an OLED is supposed to look good no matter what and this really didn't satisfy me... My first tier 4 recommendation 

*Tier recommendation: 4 (copper)*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^

SnellTHX,

Which version of _Blade Runner_ are you referring to? I have the 5-Disc Complete Collector's Edition which includes the "Final Cut" (that has also been released on 4K) and I thought the PQ is excellent! I haven't seen it in awhile but your review has served to "whet my appetite" to watch it again (besides I want to refresh my memory in view of the upcoming release of _Blade Runner 2049_). I will report back later but if memory serves me the fully Remastered Final Cut was stunning, all things considered. Was it perfect? No, for there are still factors like "film grain" that will immediately turn some people off, but if it's done right the grain shouldn't hinder details and clarity. Again, I'll reserve "final judgment" after watching the "Final Cut" later today or tomorrow.

I also have _Transformers: The Last Knight_ on tap; in fact, I think I'll watch that first.


----------



## djoberg

*Blade Runner (Final Cut)*

I know I purchased this when it was released in 2007, but I can't recall the last time I viewed it. I had mentioned to SnellTHX that I remembered it being "stunning" and I stand by that opinion. But when I say "stunning," I'm comparing it with previous releases (which are many, including VHS, DVD and its first 1080p version), so I'm not really comparing it with some of today's "stunning releases." Having said that, it still looks "mighty fine" and one that I wouldn't be ashamed of showing off to friends and family.

I still don't know what version SnellTHX saw, but I'm thinking he couldn't have seen what I just saw, or he never would have given it a Tier 4 placement. Yet he may very well not place the "Final Cut" as high as I will, for I know he detests heavy grain, and there is a fair amount of that in this film (though it's not "pervasive"). Besides grain, there are many SOFT FOCUS shots that definitely deserve some penalization. In those same shots DETAILS and DEPTH suffer. There were also shots that one could call GRITTY; no doubt a "director's choice," but something that will necessarily be docked on a thread like this. I will also add that BLACK LEVELS faltered at times (thankfully this was quite rare), and when they did it either looked "murky" or it was too dark resulting in "black crush."

Now for the good! DETAILS are AMAZING in many scenes! I absolutely loved some of the aerial shots of the city at night, for you could make out minute details in walls of buildings, rain running down windows, crevices in city streets, etc., etc. FACIAL DETAILS were to-die-for in close-ups of every actors, with the Gold Medal going to a character by the name of J. F. Sebastian. He had an aging problem and his face's texture was pure EYE CANDY for those of us who love to see every wrinkle, pock, mole and stubble. BLACKS were, in most instances, beautifully rendered, with corresponding SHADOW DETAILS. These were especially good in outdoor, nighttime scenes (indoor scenes are where they faltered at times). As most of your know, this is a DARK film, so had the blacks not fared well one could hardly give it anything but Tier 4 (or lower). FLESH TONES were spot-on accurate, COLORS (though muted throughout) were pleasingly vibrant when primaries were on display, and CLARITY was SHARP when the "soft focus shots" (alluded to above) were absent.

Before I wrap this up, I have to give a shout out for the wonderful audio mix by famed Vangelis. They worked marvels on this restoration and it was a treat for my ears. This was a Dolby TrueHD mix but with my Denon set up for Dolby Atmos it automatically upmixes it to a Dolby Surround that sends sound to the Height Speakers. This really enhanced the enjoyment of this spectacular film. Now I suppose I should "Double Dip" and buy the 4K version so I can get the actual Dolby Atmos mix.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**

PS I could see some giving this a 2.0 or 2.25 and I wouldn't fault them for it. Again, it is a "dark film" with numerous "soft focus" shots and some "heavy grain" in those same shots, so some will no doubt dock it more than I was willing to. But Tier 4 would be a travesty, IMHO.


----------



## djoberg

Just in case I wasn't clear in my review, this was indeed the *1982 version* of _Blade Runner_ was Remastered on Blu-ray in 2007. There were several different "cuts," with the "Final Cut" being the best.

I should have also clarified that as good as the musical score was by Vangelis, it wasn't equal to today's exemplary audio mixes.


----------



## djoberg

*Transformers: The Last Knight*

Okay, let's cut to the chase! This is THE ONE!!!! I agree 110% with everything SnellTHX said about this amazing release. I should mention too that I'm speaking of the 1080p version. My 4K version wouldn't play in my Philip's UHD player so I stuck the 1080p version in and it played fine. I ended up doing a Firmware Update afterwards and the 4K works now, so perhaps I'll weigh in again with my impressions of the version. If there is an uptick in PQ in the UHD/HDR version I will be truly amazed, for I kept thinking, "It can't get any better than this!" I will skip my usual lengthy, in-depth review (that I usually give to one I'm recommending for the "King of the Blu-ray Hill" spot). Just rent it...or buy it...and watch it...you will join the #1 Club along with SnellTHX and me! 

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (#1 )*

PS The audio (Dolby Atmos) was INSANE!!!!!!!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Red Christmas*

recommendation: *Tier 2.75**

This new Aussie slasher receives a decent presentation. _Red Christmas_ does feature several red and green filters as the slasher action heats up in its last act. Artsploitation Films capably handles the transfer, which includes appreciable detail and definition.

Constraints in the source material lead to occasionally flat, though sharp, video. The scope presentation looks roughly similar to many new indie productions made these days.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Batman vs. Two-Face*

recommendation: *Tier 1.75**

Some banding arises in the flatly-shaded colors of this new animated movie. The 72-minute main feature is encoded in an AVC encode that could have been expanded on the BD-25 without a problem. Adam West's final role as a voice actor, the video generally exhibits fine color saturation in excellent clarity. 

Character designs and the line animation were a bit poorer than normal for DC's line of direct-to-video productions. There is enough eye candy for Tier One but one gets the feeling _Batman vs. Two-Face_ was rushed through production after Adam West's untimely passing.


----------



## TitusTroy

a bit off-topic but I'm hoping someone here can answer this...what does a standard Blu-ray with an Atmos option default to if one does not have an Atmos setup?...I don't have an Atmos setup yet, was watching Skull Island on Blu-ray and it had an Atmos as well as a DTS-HD Master Audio option...when selecting Atmos my receiver showed it as DTS-HD MA but I thought I read someplace that Atmos automatically defaults to Dolby TrueHD 7.1 for those that didn't have an Atmos setup...


----------



## SnellTHX

Blade Runne was my harshest review ever, but I detest to film grain 99% of the time and the movie is filmed in unflattering environments. This wasn't the final cut version either. I'm sure the final cut looks a lot better, this was poorly made, even for 1982 in my opinion.

I have Max Mad (1979) on Blu-ray and to me Max Max looks superior, but not by much. I'd give it a Tier 3.5 rating, which is pretty much expected from a movie that came out in the 70s.

I also must stress that I do not give any bonus points for age. I rate 20,30,40 and 50 year old movies against the best of the best from 2017. I also have Terminator (1984) on blu-ray which I'd say is around tier 3.5 somewhere, so Bladerunner is actually highly comparable to what I'd give to movies in that era (late 70s - early 80s), but slightly worse than the two aforementioned action movies.


----------



## fredxr2d2

TitusTroy said:


> a bit off-topic but I'm hoping someone here can answer this...what does a standard Blu-ray with an Atmos option default to if one does not have an Atmos setup?...I don't have an Atmos setup yet, was watching Skull Island on Blu-ray and it had an Atmos as well as a DTS-HD Master Audio option...when selecting Atmos my receiver showed it as DTS-HD MA but I thought I read someplace that Atmos automatically defaults to Dolby TrueHD 7.1 for those that didn't have an Atmos setup...


There are a couple of disks (Skull Island and Lego Batman) that default to the DTS-HD MA soundtrack instead of the Atmos. If you select Atmos in the setup menu on the disk, it should then send the Dolby TrueHD 7.1 track to your non-atmos receiver.


----------



## TitusTroy

fredxr2d2 said:


> There are a couple of disks (Skull Island and Lego Batman) that default to the DTS-HD MA soundtrack instead of the Atmos. If you select Atmos in the setup menu on the disk, it should then send the Dolby TrueHD 7.1 track to your non-atmos receiver.



I rented it from Netflix and don't have it anymore to test but I could have sworn I had selected the Atmos option in the Audio menu and it still output as DTS-HD MA...so all Atmos discs will default to Dolby TrueHD for those that don't have an Atmos receiver?


----------



## djoberg

TitusTroy said:


> I rented it from Netflix and don't have it anymore to test but I could have sworn I had selected the Atmos option in the Audio menu and it still output as DTS-HD MA...so all Atmos discs will default to Dolby TrueHD for those that don't have an Atmos receiver?


The bottom line is this: It doesn't matter if you select Atmos in the audio menu; if you don't have an Atmos capable AVR (or if you have an Atmos capable AVR but it isn't set up for Atmos), it will always default to the audio mix that your AVR can decode. It's that simple!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Pilgrimage*

recommendation: *Tier 1.75**

_Pilgrimage’s_ outstanding cinematography takes full advantage of shooting in the coastal landscapes of Ireland and Belgium. Set during the era of the Crusades, the panoramic compositions capture Ireland in excellent definition. This sharp Blu-ray presentation has a muted palette but exudes depth and dimension. The nearly perfect clarity offers appreciable levels of detail and texture in pristine imagery as the monks make their pilgrimage delivering a holy relic.

RLJ Entertainment has done fine work on this Blu-ray, fluidly translating _Pilgrimage's_ digital intermediate into a polished 1080P presentation.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

hey guys!  

Curious on any thoughts on Baby Driver? My partner and i got a new tv yesterday, it's a downgrade from my old Panny but it's what the budget could do for now. It's a 4K Samsung MU6100, but we're still in the fine tuning stage with the set. 

I've noticed a sliiiiiight bit of softness on some facial features -- we are watching the regular blu ray, as we haven't splurged on a 4k blu ray player yet, hopefully by black friday, and we did buy the 4k version of the movie. 

I was so confused by that crazy soap opera effect stuff, but i did figure out at least how to turn that off, lol. I was pretty spoilt with my Panny lasting almost 9 years! I am going to desperately miss the black levels on that tv, though. I now have soooooo much to learn again about setting things up!

Hope you all have been well!! 

~Kaye/aka g3!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

geekyglassesgirl said:


> hey guys!
> 
> Curious on any thoughts on Baby Driver? My partner and i got a new tv yesterday, it's a downgrade from my old Panny but it's what the budget could do for now. It's a 4K Samsung MU6100, but we're still in the fine tuning stage with the set.
> 
> I've noticed a sliiiiiight bit of softness on some facial features -- we are watching the regular blu ray, as we haven't splurged on a 4k blu ray player yet, hopefully by black friday, and we did buy the 4k version of the movie.
> 
> I was so confused by that crazy soap opera effect stuff, but i did figure out at least how to turn that off, lol. I was pretty spoilt with my Panny lasting almost 9 years! I am going to desperately miss the black levels on that tv, though. I now have soooooo much to learn again about setting things up!
> 
> Hope you all have been well!!
> 
> ~Kaye/aka g3!


Welcome back, we've missed seeing you around these parts. It's always good when old friends return to the PQ Tiers. Nine years is pretty good considering the build quality of modern displays has been in decline. Make sure you update your bookmark for the latest version of the PQ Tiers list, which is now starting to include UHD (4K) discs as well. 

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...re-quality-rankings-pq-tiers-july-2017-a.html

I haven't seen _Baby Driver_ yet but it's always possible a process they call defocusing in Hollywood is happening on the faces. In postproduction they will often digitally "smooth" the facial features of older stars, particularly name actresses. It's one of the secrets why Hollywood stars seem to defy the aging process on film. This is just a possibility, it could just be sloppy or rushed cinematography.

I'm sure someone here can provide more feedback after seeing Baby Driver.


----------



## JNayAV

geekyglassesgirl said:


> hey guys!
> 
> Curious on any thoughts on Baby Driver? My partner and i got a new tv yesterday, it's a downgrade from my old Panny but it's what the budget could do for now. It's a 4K Samsung MU6100, but we're still in the fine tuning stage with the set.
> 
> I've noticed a sliiiiiight bit of softness on some facial features -- we are watching the regular blu ray, as we haven't splurged on a 4k blu ray player yet, hopefully by black friday, and we did buy the 4k version of the movie.
> 
> I was so confused by that crazy soap opera effect stuff, but i did figure out at least how to turn that off, lol. I was pretty spoilt with my Panny lasting almost 9 years! I am going to desperately miss the black levels on that tv, though. I now have soooooo much to learn again about setting things up!
> 
> Hope you all have been well!!
> 
> ~Kaye/aka g3!


I watched Baby Driver UHD a little over a week ago but didn't get around to writing a review.
My initial thoughts were there wasn't any outstanding PQ features, or really any major flaws.

Being the UHD, resolution/clarity was still fairly good so my initial impression was around 1.0/1.25. If watching the regular Blu-ray I expect it'd fall in the 1.5/1.75 range.

It didn't look bad by any means, but being UHD and with how newer titles from major studios seem to be consistently falling in Tier 0 recently it was a bit disappointing. Maybe this was desired PQ direction to somewhat match tone of the film? This may have been why just didn't have the desire to put in a PQ rating. It's not exciting enough to warrant PQ demo, but no real issues that would cause someone to turn away.

Movie itself was good and has a good soundtrack as has been mentioned elsewhere. Don't know if it has re-watch potential for me, but would suggest it as a solid rental.


----------



## JNayAV

Phantom Stranger said:


> *Pilgrimage*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 1.75**
> 
> _Pilgrimage’s_ outstanding cinematography takes full advantage of shooting in the coastal landscapes of Ireland and Belgium. Set during the era of the Crusades, the panoramic compositions capture Ireland in excellent definition. This sharp Blu-ray presentation has a muted palette but exudes depth and dimension. The nearly perfect clarity offers appreciable levels of detail and texture in pristine imagery as the monks make their pilgrimage delivering a holy relic.
> 
> RLJ Entertainment has done fine work on this Blu-ray, fluidly translating _Pilgrimage's_ digital intermediate into a polished 1080P presentation.


Curious of what you thought of the movie phantom? Over on Do-Blu it got a very solid review, then reading around the webs reviews are middling.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

JNayAV said:


> Curious of what you thought of the movie phantom? Over on Do-Blu it got a very solid review, then reading around the webs reviews are middling.


It's a stark examination of faith and religious devotion, and what they mean, during the Crusades, as monks cross Ireland carrying a holy relic. They encounter treacherous soldiers and pagans along the way that derail the mission. There is enough action and potential intrigue to keep things interesting. Tom Holland of Spider-Man fame is very good in it. Pilgrimage questions the morality of Crusading within the context of Christianity without disrespecting the faith.

I don't think Pilgrimage is for everyone but it certainly offers well-developed characters in a believable historical perspective.


----------



## djoberg

geekyglassesgirl said:


> hey guys!
> 
> Curious on any thoughts on Baby Driver? My partner and i got a new tv yesterday, it's a downgrade from my old Panny but it's what the budget could do for now. It's a 4K Samsung MU6100, but we're still in the fine tuning stage with the set.
> 
> I've noticed a sliiiiiight bit of softness on some facial features -- we are watching the regular blu ray, as we haven't splurged on a 4k blu ray player yet, hopefully by black friday, and we did buy the 4k version of the movie.
> 
> I was so confused by that crazy soap opera effect stuff, but i did figure out at least how to turn that off, lol. I was pretty spoilt with my Panny lasting almost 9 years! I am going to desperately miss the black levels on that tv, though. I now have soooooo much to learn again about setting things up!
> 
> Hope you all have been well!!
> 
> ~Kaye/aka g3!


Kaye (3G),

So, where have you been for the last 6 years?! 

It is good to hear from you and that you're getting back into watching Blu-rays. As you implied, a LOT has happened since you were posting on this thread, especially with UHD/HDR Blu-rays hitting the market. I can totally relate you you missing your Panny plasma, for as you can see I know longer have my Pioneer plasma (my oldest daughter and her family have it). I too was spoiled by the Kuro's Black Levels, but it's amazing how far LCD technology has come. My Sony 940D has amazing blacks, with the exception of "light bleeding" into the black bars in some scenes when watching letter-boxed movies.

I remember you had some real trials with a child being sick "back in the day." How is he/she doing? (Feel free to correct me on this if memory isn't serving me well.)

Anyway, it was a pleasant surprise to hear from you and I hope we hear more from you.

Denny
PS I haven't seen _Baby Driver_ so I can't comment on that. It doesn't sound like one I want to invest in either and I can't rent the UHD version, but someday I may rent the 1080p release.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

djoberg said:


> Kaye (3G),
> 
> So, where have you been for the last 6 years?!
> 
> It is good to hear from you and that you're getting back into watching Blu-rays. As you implied, a LOT has happened since you were posting on this thread, especially with UHD/HDR Blu-rays hitting the market. I can totally relate you you missing your Panny plasma, for as you can see I know longer have my Pioneer plasma (my oldest daughter and her family have it). I too was spoiled by the Kuro's Black Levels, but it's amazing how far LCD technology has come. My Sony 940D has amazing blacks, with the exception of "light bleeding" into the black bars in some scenes when watching letter-boxed movies.
> 
> I remember you had some real trials with a child being sick "back in the day." How is he/she doing? (Feel free to correct me on this if memory isn't serving me well.)
> 
> Anyway, it was a pleasant surprise to hear from you and I hope we hear more from you.
> 
> Denny
> PS I haven't seen _Baby Driver_ so I can't comment on that. It doesn't sound like one I want to invest in either and I can't rent the UHD version, but someday I may rent the 1080p release.


Life got a little crazy, and I honestly craft a bit too much to do proper PQ ratings, so I fell off the planet so to speak! But I'm getting better at not looking while I craft these days so once I figure out the settings on our new set, maybe I'll toss my hat into the rankings ring again, once I get a feel for how things are!!

I haven't fully retired my Panny, for the moment i am having trouble parting with it, but the blue... gas... thing that's going on with it just was becoming unbearable. We would like to upgrade to a better set when we can afford to, but for now we settled for a mid/low range Samsung UN58MU6100. It just arrived late last week, and then yesterday we decided to splurge on an xbox one s, so we can play the UHD's that my partner has been getting. Thanks to the PQ list I really want to get a copy of Planet Earth II. I'm not sure if the set up would be Rankings-worthy but I like to think y'all appreciated my POV on some things at times! 

As for where i've been, my older son is the sick child you're remembering (I have 3 total, my daughter is the oldest at 14, my older son is 12 and my younger son is 4). He's highly special needs and has lots of medical issues, but he's a strong little guy in spite of his issues. Got divorced a couple of years ago, but importantly I got to keep the house, the kids, and the tech. LOL. Younger son is finally in school, so things are calming. I've actually popped back in to the thread a few times through the years, but didn't want to bug ya'll. 

I'd like to get some proper calibration equipment in the near future to help set up the TV but after the initial HOW DO I TURN THAT OFF??? freak out of the crazy Soap Opera Effect thing that for some reason comes on tv's these days, so far I'm pretty happy with the TV we picked for our "in between the Panny and before we can afford Something Kickass" set. 

I will mourn the black levels forever, though... oh my. I know it was not a Kuro but it was still pretty damn good. I suppose I should be thankful it lasted almost 9 full years. It's been moved for now to my bedroom dresser... now THAT is a bit insane, LOL!!

Keep up the good work, and I hope that this time I won't fall off the grid for as long. 

We started to watch Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2 on UHD for our first viewing on the xbox one s last night and wow... I'm worried that my "wow" factor, though, could be because my Panny's been failing for at least a year and I've gotten used to such a bad PQ that maybe even mediocre will impress me for the moment. I suppose I could cleanse my palate with some low tier content, though....


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

JNayAV said:


> I watched Baby Driver UHD a little over a week ago but didn't get around to writing a review.
> My initial thoughts were there wasn't any outstanding PQ features, or really any major flaws.
> 
> Being the UHD, resolution/clarity was still fairly good so my initial impression was around 1.0/1.25. If watching the regular Blu-ray I expect it'd fall in the 1.5/1.75 range.
> 
> It didn't look bad by any means, but being UHD and with how newer titles from major studios seem to be consistently falling in Tier 0 recently it was a bit disappointing. Maybe this was desired PQ direction to somewhat match tone of the film? This may have been why just didn't have the desire to put in a PQ rating. It's not exciting enough to warrant PQ demo, but no real issues that would cause someone to turn away.
> 
> Movie itself was good and has a good soundtrack as has been mentioned elsewhere. Don't know if it has re-watch potential for me, but would suggest it as a solid rental.


 I am thinking by this weekend we will likely re-watch the movie, but the UHD version. I'm really curious if I will notice any difference.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

It's not just you, _Guardians of the Galaxy 2_ has that wow factor. It includes several scenes that I don't think were made for any reason but to serve as demo material. Juggling three children probably doesn't leave a lot of free time to review discs, but bug us whenever you feel like it. The more, the merrier.

That soap opera effect is still hard for me to tolerate when I come across it.


----------



## djoberg

*Spider-Man: Homecoming (UHD)*

This wasn't stunning (like my recent viewing of _Transformers: The Last Knight_), but it had a good deal of POP, especially in daytime scenes that took place outdoors. There were also good blacks in night time scenes, but I noticed several times that the black levels became elevated in my letter-boxed bars resulting in a "dark gray" (when this occurred it took me out of the movie...that might be the result of HDR and the 1080p version my be free from this anomaly). Facial details were one of the best features, most notably in that of Michael Keaton. His facial texture is becoming quite defined...not as good as a Morgan Freeman or Tommy Lee Jones, but it's getting there! Flesh tones were spot on, contrast was excellent, depth was astounding (in daytime scenes), and colors were very pleasing to the eyes (I was happy every time Peter donned his rich BLUE and RED suit).

I gotta say something about the Atmos mix...it was incredible!! A very immersive experience with impeccable panning and discrete effects.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.90)*


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> *Transformers: The Last Knight*
> 
> Okay, let's cut to the chase! This is THE ONE!!!! I agree 110% with everything SnellTHX said about this amazing release. I should mention too that I'm speaking of the 1080p version. My 4K version wouldn't play in my Philip's UHD player so I stuck the 1080p version in and it played fine. I ended up doing a Firmware Update afterwards and the 4K works now, so perhaps I'll weigh in again with my impressions of the version. If there is an uptick in PQ in the UHD/HDR version I will be truly amazed, for I kept thinking, "It can't get any better than this!" I will skip my usual lengthy, in-depth review (that I usually give to one I'm recommending for the "King of the Blu-ray Hill" spot). Just rent it...or buy it...and watch it...you will join the [URL=http://www.avsforum.com/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=1]#1 [/URL] Club along with SnellTHX and me!
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* ([URL=http://www.avsforum.com/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=1]#1 [/URL] )*
> 
> PS The audio (Dolby Atmos) was INSANE!!!!!!!


Hell yeah!! Damn straight Transformers: LK is #1  Glad we finally agree haha!


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> *Transformers: The Last Knight*
> 
> Okay, let's cut to the chase! This is THE ONE!!!! I agree 110% with everything SnellTHX said about this amazing release. I should mention too that I'm speaking of the 1080p version. My 4K version wouldn't play in my Philip's UHD player so I stuck the 1080p version in and it played fine. I ended up doing a Firmware Update afterwards and the 4K works now, so perhaps I'll weigh in again with my impressions of the version. If there is an uptick in PQ in the UHD/HDR version I will be truly amazed, for I kept thinking, "It can't get any better than this!" I will skip my usual lengthy, in-depth review (that I usually give to one I'm recommending for the "King of the Blu-ray Hill" spot). Just rent it...or buy it...and watch it...you will join the #1 Club along with SnellTHX and me!
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (#1 )*
> 
> PS The audio (Dolby Atmos) was INSANE!!!!!!!


Hell yeah!! Damn straight Transformers: LK is #1  Glad we finally agree haha!


----------



## djoberg

geekyglassesgirl said:


> We started to watch Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2 on UHD for our first viewing on the xbox one s last night and wow... I'm worried that my "wow" factor, though, could be because my Panny's been failing for at least a year and I've gotten used to such a bad PQ that maybe even mediocre will impress me for the moment. I suppose I could cleanse my palate with some low tier content, though....


_Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2_ is one of the best UHD releases to date! I'm not surprised that you are getting the "WOW factor" on your new Samsung. Most displays manufactured by major company's like Samsung look excellent in either 1080p or UHD. In fact, I have a 42" Vizio in our small family room upstairs and it puts out one of the best pictures I've seen in an inexpensive set. It's only a 1080p display but it does have Full Array Local Dimming so the blacks are really, really good.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

Phantom Stranger said:


> It's not just you, _Guardians of the Galaxy 2_ has that wow factor. It includes several scenes that I don't think were made for any reason but to serve as demo material. Juggling three children probably doesn't leave a lot of free time to review discs, but bug us whenever you feel like it. The more, the merrier.
> 
> That soap opera effect is still hard for me to tolerate when I come across it.


when i go to other people's houses i am now tempted to sneak their remote and when they go to the bathroom or something, TURN IT OFF. i always feel like something weird is going on when it's on. I mean... i watched my fair share of soaps with my grandmother and so forth, and for some reason it's tolerable when you KNOW it's a soap opera, but when i'm watching a movie or a science fiction show and suddenly it looks like the production value of a slapped out daily soap, it really freaks me out.


----------



## geekyglassesgirl

djoberg said:


> *Spider-Man: Homecoming (UHD)*
> 
> This wasn't stunning (like my recent viewing of _Transformers: The Last Knight_), but it had a good deal of POP, especially in daytime scenes that took place outdoors. There were also good blacks in night time scenes, but I noticed several times that the black levels became elevated in my letter-boxed bars resulting in a "dark gray" (when this occurred it took me out of the movie...that might be the result of HDR and the 1080p version my be free from this anomaly). Facial details were one of the best features, most notably in that of Michael Keaton. His facial texture is becoming quite defined...not as good as a Morgan Freeman or Tommy Lee Jones, but it's getting there! Flesh tones were spot on, contrast was excellent, depth was astounding (in daytime scenes), and colors were very pleasing to the eyes (I was happy every time Peter donned his rich BLUE and RED suit).
> 
> I gotta say something about the Atmos mix...it was incredible!! A very immersive experience with impeccable panning and discrete effects.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.90)*


this sounds so promising. we did get this one on UHD as well, hoping we can get to it this weekend at some point!! and now you have me wondering about seeing 4k Edward James Olmos in something. probably when the new blade runner comes out. i'm curious about how much upscaling the tv + the xbox one s does to the PQ on a regular blu ray... maybe i should compare BSG on the ps4 vs the xbox one s. Oh, to have all the time in the world... After halloween.  i'll have more time after halloween...


----------



## djoberg

geekyglassesgirl said:


> now you have me wondering about seeing 4k Edward James Olmos in something. probably when the new blade runner comes out.


Yes, Mr. Olmos is another one whose face is MADE FOR HIGH DEFINITION!! I just watched the original _Bladerunner_ recently and you could see every POCK in his textured face! 

BTW, you had mentioned "up-scaling." I am very impressed with the up-scaling on my Sony and your Samsung may do an excellent job as well. Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between the UHD and 1080p release because of that. Having said that, it's HDR (High Dynamic Range) and the WCG (Wide Color Gamut) that usually makes the UHD version better. You get "brighter whites," "darker blacks," and "punchier colors."


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Superman: The Movie (Extended Cut)*

recommendation: *Tier 3.0**

In a release that practically came out of nowhere, Warner Archive finally put out the long-awaited extended television cut for _Superman: The Movie_. Having never hit home video before outside of fan sites and bootlegs in grainy video taken from TV broadcasts, this version briefly aired on television back in the early 1980s with footage that had been cut from Richard Donner's finished theatrical version. In a moment of serendipity, complete elements were found for this early assembly cut last year. It's amazing that we are now getting it in a complete and spectacular remaster from high-quality film elements.

Warner Archive has done a fine job preparing and transferring this version on its own BD-50. The extended cut presented here runs 188 minutes in a restored, color-corrected film transfer by MPI. The grain is slightly coarser and less refined than the Special Edition's transfer meticously taken from the original camera negatives, which you would expect from the minor generational loss. Having heard fan and professional feedback from the color tweaking found in the Special Edition's earlier remaster, they are noticeably less shifted this time around. The film's full palette as seen in theaters likely more resembled this extended cut transfer's colors and contrast. Cinematographer Geoffrey Unsworth's work remains soft to some degree, that has always been a part of the movie.

The inclusion of numerous subtitles on the disc hint that this disc was prepared for a wider release under WB's main home video division. Next year will be _Superman: The Movie's_ 40th anniversary and I have to believe this was planned to be part of a larger set or anthology. I am just happy so much effort has been placed into ensuring a quality, even presentation for this mythical lost cut of the film. The results are fantastic.


----------



## fredxr2d2

Phantom Stranger said:


> *Superman: The Movie (Extended Cut)*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 3.0**
> 
> In a release that practically came out of nowhere, Warner Archive finally put out the long-awaited extended television cut for _Superman: The Movie_. Having never hit home video before outside of fan sites and bootlegs in grainy video taken from TV broadcasts, this version briefly aired on television back in the early 1980s with footage that had been cut from Richard Donner's finished theatrical version. In a moment of serendipity, complete elements were found for this early assembly cut last year. It's amazing that we are now getting it in a complete and spectacular remaster from high-quality film elements.
> 
> Warner Archive has done a fine job preparing and transferring this version on its own BD-50. The extended cut presented here runs 188 minutes in a restored, color-corrected film transfer by MPI. The grain is slightly coarser and less refined than the Special Edition's transfer meticously taken from the original camera negatives, which you would expect from the minor generational loss. Having heard fan and professional feedback from the color tweaking found in the Special Edition's earlier remaster, they are noticeably less shifted this time around. The film's full palette as seen in theaters likely more resembled this extended cut transfer's colors and contrast. Cinematographer Geoffrey Unsworth's work remains soft to some degree, that has always been a part of the movie.
> 
> The inclusion of numerous subtitles on the disc hint that this disc was prepared for a wider release under WB's main home video division. Next year will be _Superman: The Movie's_ 40th anniversary and I have to believe this was planned to be part of a larger set or anthology. I am just happy so much effort has been placed into ensuring a quality, even presentation for this mythical lost cut of the film. The results are fantastic.


This film used to be on repeat (from VHS, I believe) when I was 5 years old (and learned a couple of new words that my parents weren't happy about). I have seen that this release was coming, but I've been seriously doubting that it is worth the extra money for this longer cut. I do like the additions that they made for the Special Edition Blu, and I am wondering if the DTS-MA soundtrack is better than the lossy DD 5.1 on my current blu. Any insights on the soundtrack? Any thoughts on the necessity of the extra footage?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

fredxr2d2 said:


> This film used to be on repeat (from VHS, I believe) when I was 5 years old (and learned a couple of new words that my parents weren't happy about). I have seen that this release was coming, but I've been seriously doubting that it is worth the extra money for this longer cut. I do like the additions that they made for the Special Edition Blu, and I am wondering if the DTS-MA soundtrack is better than the lossy DD 5.1 on my current blu. Any insights on the soundtrack? Any thoughts on the necessity of the extra footage?


They include the remastered Special Edition version from the box set as a second disc with the extended cut; it includes the 5.1 surround track in DTS-HD MA. Yes, the lossless audio is far superior to the older, lossy Dolby Digital version found on the original release. The extended cut only comes in 2.0 DTS-HD MA stereo, though they did flub a small audio edit in the opening credits. It's a worthwhile upgrade. I am a huge fan of the John Williams' score, having bought the 8-CD box set from Film Score Monthly.

The extra footage works if you think _Superman: The Movie_ wasn't long enough. Some of it was clearly cut by Donner due to pacing concerns for general audiences, but there are some fun moments that add a little more texture to Superman's world in the movie. It doesn't change the movie's tone or character. The only stuff that seems completely unnecessary involve Otis, which makes his character come off even more buffoonish than the theatrical version.

I think it's a fairly essential purchase if you love seeing Christopher Reeve play Superman.


----------



## fredxr2d2

Phantom Stranger said:


> They include the remastered Special Edition version from the box set as a second disc with the extended cut; it includes the 5.1 surround track in DTS-HD MA. Yes, the lossless audio is far superior to the older, lossy Dolby Digital version found on the original release. The extended cut only comes in 2.0 DTS-HD MA stereo, though they did flub a small audio edit in the opening credits. It's a worthwhile upgrade. I am a huge fan of the John Williams' score, having bought the 8-CD box set from Film Score Monthly.
> 
> The extra footage works if you think _Superman: The Movie_ wasn't long enough. Some of it was clearly cut by Donner due to pacing concerns for general audiences, but there are some fun moments that add a little more texture to Superman's world in the movie. It doesn't change the movie's tone or character. The only stuff that seems completely unnecessary involve Otis, which makes his character come off even more buffoonish than the theatrical version.
> 
> I think it's a fairly essential purchase if you love seeing Christopher Reeve play Superman.


Thanks Phantom!


----------



## deltasun

geekyglassesgirl said:


> ...
> I'd like to get some proper calibration equipment in the near future to help set up the TV but after the initial HOW DO I TURN THAT OFF??? freak out of the crazy Soap Opera Effect thing that for some reason comes on tv's these days, so far I'm pretty happy with the TV we picked for our "in between the Panny and before we can afford Something Kickass" set.
> ...


lol

I remember the first time I ran into the soap opera effect with my 1080p Samsung, back in 2008, 2009. I was watching I Am Legend and it was during the scene where he's walking along some grass, hunting down a deer. It took me a while to finally adjust the anti-judder setting (can't remember the marketing term for it now) to basically 0 to get the effect off.


----------



## djoberg

deltasun said:


> lol
> 
> I remember the first time I ran into the soap opera effect with my 1080p Samsung, back in 2008, 2009. I was watching I Am Legend and it was during the scene where he's walking along some grass, hunting down a deer. It took me a while to finally adjust the anti-judder setting (can't remember the marketing term for it now) to basically 0 to get the effect off.


I literally can't watch anything with the dreaded SOE! Thankfully there are three Modes on my Sony that are absolutely free of it; in fact, the PQ looks so natural in those Modes (with most material) you would think you're watching a plasma.


----------



## djoberg

*War for the Planet of the Apes (UHD)*

I was disappointed with both the PQ and the movie itself in this "finale" of the _Planet of the Apes_ Franchise. This was much darker than its predecessors and in quite a few scenes my letter-boxed bars either turned gray or there was considerable light-bleed. That could be due, in part, to my LCD display, for it doesn't always fare well with HDR. Having said that, I learned on Do-Blu.com that one needs to turn the "Brightness" setting down about 4 notches in order to achieve good black levels....I'll try that with my next viewing. Another "gripe" was the typical "teal" color-grading.

So, is there any good? Oh yeah, for during daytime scenes there were amazing details, especially in close-ups of any of the apes. Also, the cinematography was excellent and panoramic shots displayed incredible clarity, details and depth. 

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**

PS Regarding the movie, the pacing was way too slow for my taste. And that's saying something, for I don't mind a slow pace if there is good character development. There were TOO MANY characters among the apes, and NOT ENOUGH "human" character development.


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> *War for the Planet of the Apes (UHD)*
> 
> I was disappointed with both the PQ and the movie itself in this "finale" of the _Planet of the Apes_ Franchise. This was much darker than its predecessors and in quite a few scenes my letter-boxed bars either turned gray or there was considerable light-bleed. That could be due, in part, to my LCD display, for it doesn't always fare well with HDR. Having said that, I learned on Do-Blu.com that one needs to turn the "Brightness" setting down about 4 notches in order to achieve good black levels....I'll try that with my next viewing. Another "gripe" was the typical "teal" color-grading.
> 
> So, is there any good? Oh yeah, for during daytime scenes there were amazing details, especially in close-ups of any of the apes. Also, the cinematography was excellent and panoramic shots displayed incredible clarity, details and depth.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.0**
> 
> PS Regarding the movie, the pacing was way too slow for my taste. And that's saying something, for I don't mind a slow pace if there is good character development. There were TOO MANY characters among the apes, and NOT ENOUGH "human" character development.



I remember Rise of the Planet of the Apes being dangerously close to reference material... Is War worse than Rise? I'll watch War soon myself


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> I remember Rise of the Planet of the Apes being dangerously close to reference material... Is War worse than Rise? I'll watch War soon myself


I had given _Rise of the Planet of the Apes_ a score of 1.75 and the next installment (_Dawn of the Planet of the Apes_ a 1.25. _War for the Planet of the Apes_ was awarded a 1.0 score, but perhaps that is due to it being the UHD release. 

I have watched most of the 1080p version and it wasn't as detailed, nor was the contrast as striking (my score for that version would probably be 1.25). Having said that, the "light bleed" that I experienced in the UHD release was worse in WFTPOTA, but as I said in my review, I blame that on HDR and the LCD technology. I love HDR, but with its super-high contrast (brilliant whites and inky blacks) the light tends to spill over into the letterboxed bars when there is a bright object next to the bars. LCD simply can't handle that (due to backlighting); it's the "nature of the beast." That's why I wish I could have afforded the 77" OLED by LG, for as you know their blacks are PERFECT (due to their being a self-emissive display).


----------



## Yellbean

djoberg said:


> I had given _Rise of the Planet of the Apes_ a score of 1.75 and the next installment (_Dawn of the Planet of the Apes_ a 1.25. _War for the Planet of the Apes_ was awarded a 1.0 score, but perhaps that is due to it being the UHD release.
> 
> I have watched most of the 1080p version and it wasn't as detailed, nor was the contrast as striking (my score for that version would probably be 1.25). Having said that, the "light bleed" that I experienced in the UHD release was worse in WFTPOTA, but as I said in my review, I blame that on HDR and the LCD technology. I love HDR, but with its super-high contrast (brilliant whites and inky blacks) the light tends to spill over into the letterboxed bars when there is a bright object next to the bars. LCD simply can't handle that (due to backlighting); it's the "nature of the beast." That's why I wish I could have afforded the 77" OLED by LG, for as you know their blacks are PERFECT (due to their being a self-emissive display).


I agree with your scoring as I also feel Dawn looks the best. I didn't notice significant light bleed / blooming on my Sony 940D (and I came from a Panasonic ZT60 plasma) so I think I would be sensitive to it. I actually really enjoyed War (Dawn is my favorite by a hair).


----------



## djoberg

Yellbean said:


> I agree with your scoring as I also feel Dawn looks the best. I didn't notice significant light bleed / blooming on my Sony 940D (and I came from a Panasonic ZT60 plasma) so I think I would be sensitive to it. I actually really enjoyed War (Dawn is my favorite by a hair).


Did you watch the UHD version? Because as I had said, HDR (with its brilliant whites) increases the possibility of light bleed.

When I watched _War of the Planet of the Apes_ the second time (to see how the 1080p version compared) I got into the story more and I too enjoyed it.


----------



## Yellbean

djoberg said:


> Did you watch the UHD version? Because as I had said, HDR (with its brilliant whites) increases the possibility of light bleed.
> 
> When I watched _War of the Planet of the Apes_ the second time (to see how the 1080p version compared) I got into the story more and I too enjoyed it.


Yes, it was the UHD. I do tone down the backlight (not at max) so maybe that helps.


----------



## djoberg

Yellbean said:


> Yes, it was the UHD. I do tone down the backlight (not at max) so maybe that helps.


I had stated in an earlier post that a reviewer on Do.Blu.com had turned his back light down 4 notches and that alleviated the problem. And I believe he was viewing it on an OLED....so, this title obviously wreaks havoc on all displays and the only solution seems to be what you did. Again, I will be trying that the next time I watch the UHD version.


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> I had given _Rise of the Planet of the Apes_ a score of 1.75 and the next installment (_Dawn of the Planet of the Apes_ a 1.25. _War for the Planet of the Apes_ was awarded a 1.0 score, but perhaps that is due to it being the UHD release.
> 
> I have watched most of the 1080p version and it wasn't as detailed, nor was the contrast as striking (my score for that version would probably be 1.25). Having said that, the "light bleed" that I experienced in the UHD release was worse in WFTPOTA, but as I said in my review, I blame that on HDR and the LCD technology. I love HDR, but with its super-high contrast (brilliant whites and inky blacks) the light tends to spill over into the letterboxed bars when there is a bright object next to the bars. LCD simply can't handle that (due to backlighting); it's the "nature of the beast." That's why I wish I could have afforded the 77" OLED by LG, for as you know their blacks are PERFECT (due to their being a self-emissive display).


Yeah whoops. I meant Dawn, not Rise.

Dawn I'd give Tier 1. Rise I can't remember and I watched it at my dad's and not on my own display but 1.5-1.75 sounds about right.


----------



## Troy LaMont

The PQ thread is a cluster! UHD and regular Blu-ray bundled together? Come on man! That said, I didn't waste time scanning through the list as the first title Planet Earth II shows the video encode as AVC, which is wrong. It should be HEVC as is all UHD Blu-ray encodes...this list needs a major overhaul and/or update. 🙄😢


----------



## tcramer

I'm sure Phantom Stranger would very much appreciate the help to keep things updated if you want to volunteer!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

For the moment we have UHD and Blu-ray listings together because UHD is a new format with only a few entries so far in the PQ Tiers. It's possible we break UHD into its own list in the future if there are enough contributions.

The codec listed is a mistake and will be corrected. I have dropped most specifications on newer entries, as the entire PQ Tiers database was lost last year when its website host pulled the plug. I only fill them in now for Tier 0 movies. Thank you for the feedback as these errors are easy to overlook. The last update was back in July.


----------



## Legairre

Phantom Stranger said:


> For the moment we have UHD and Blu-ray listings together because UHD is a new format with only a few entries so far in the PQ Tiers. It's possible we break UHD into its own list in the future if there are enough contributions.
> 
> The codec listed is a mistake and will be corrected. I have dropped most specifications on newer entries, as the entire PQ Tiers database was lost last year when its website host pulled the plug. I only fill them in now for Tier 0 movies. Thank you for the feedback as these errors are easy to overlook. The last update was back in July.


Phantom I realize you do this on your own time and if I'm not mistaken you picked up the mantle after the original keeper of the list gave it up. 

Just wanted to say thank you.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Annabelle: Creation*

recommendation: *Tier 2.25**

A bit late for Halloween, but better late than never. _Annabelle's_ prequel follow-up has steady cinematography with an even contrast and fine color saturation. A period piece set in the early 1950s, there isn't much of the usual extreme color grading we often get from period pieces. 

The lack of a companion UHD release possibly indicates WB didn't feel the movie's picture quality was its primary attraction. If that is the case, I largely agree. This is a consistent presentation with excellent shadow delineation, but this is not demo material. Compared to earlier entries in the Conjuring franchise, it's a step behind _The Conjuring_ and _The Conjuring 2_ in video quality on Blu-ray.

The transfer itself shows no problematic processing and its technical attributes from WB are solid.


----------



## DarthDoxie

Picked up an open box LG OLED55C7P the other day and think I have it dialed in for PQ. I had my OPPO for 7 months with no UHD discs to play on it; once the 4K deals starting flying last month I had 10 discs before I knew it...but still not a proper display. I'm now all set, just need to carve out time to get to 70 unwatched discs, been putting off disc watching until I got a better display.


----------



## lgans316

Hello friends,

Just wanted to say hello and a big thanks for keeping this thread going. Simply admire your enthusiasm. Keep on rolling fellas. 

Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk


----------



## Phantom Stranger

lgans316 said:


> Hello friends,
> 
> Just wanted to say hello and a big thanks for keeping this thread going. Simply admire your enthusiasm. Keep on rolling fellas.
> 
> Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk





Legairre said:


> Phantom I realize you do this on your own time and if I'm not mistaken you picked up the mantle after the original keeper of the list gave it up.
> 
> Just wanted to say thank you.


No thanks are necessary, but thank you for the sentiments. We're all part of the same team of interested videophiles on the hunt for the best picture quality possible. Someone told me that Hollywood is working in 8K resolution for a few films, so our quest isn't quite finished. Like geekyglassesgirl earlier, it's always great hearing from old friends of the PQ Tiers.

*Dark House*

recommendation: *Tier 1.75**

Independent distributor Cinedigm put out this 2014 horror movie on a BD-25. The 2.39:1 presentation has ample detail and razor-sharp definition in closer shots. _Dark House_ is encoded in adequate AVC that doesn't introduce significant compression artifacts. This is a technically competent film transfer that has its PQ moments in 1080P resolution.

One slight problem is the black crush, possibly done to consciously submerge some shadow detail for the menacing axe men. Other than that less-than-perfect videophile quality, I was impressed with the cinematography's crispness and dimensionality. It's a refreshingly clean, bright palette in exterior shots, which does give way to a darker aesthetic when the setting shifts to night.


----------



## SnellTHX

lgans316 said:


> Hello friends,
> 
> Just wanted to say hello and a big thanks for keeping this thread going. Simply admire your enthusiasm. Keep on rolling fellas.
> 
> Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk


Well I love voicing my opinion on everything haha


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Stranger Things: Season One*

recommendation: *Tier 1.75**

Netflix's ode to Steven Spielberg circa 1983 is now about two weeks old on Blu-ray, exclusively available at Target stores. The show's entire first season is spread over two BD-50s in an adequate AVC encode. Bitrate parameters average in the twenties. Nothing in _Stranger Things'_ 2.00:1 video screams extraordinary picture quality. It comes in an even contrast with heavy black levels. This is a consistent presentation with substantial definition and clarity but its darker aesthetic isn't an easy fit for the highest tiers.

Shadow delineation is usually decent when needed but a touch of crushing and noise pop up in the heaviest scenes. The video has a clean, pristine vibe most of the time. I did struggle deciding between Tier 1.75 and 2.0 for a placement. _Stranger Things_ lacks the usual pop and bolder colors of higher ranked discs. While steadily sharp, there isn't a huge amount of depth and projection.

I was paying attention to how Netflix handled one of their first Blu-ray releases for what was one of their first critical hits with buzz. Arriving in a custom VHS-shaped package, the 1080P video certainly looks better than any VHS I have ever seen! That being said, Netflix does a fairly pedestrian job for the transfer without making any real mistakes. It's doubtful a videophile was trying to bring out every iota of detail for this Blu-ray presentation.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I know this is a bit early but it's that time of year again. Target's Black Friday ad is already out today. The _Stranger Things_ Blu-ray set will be $10 as a doorbuster. That is a great, great price.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> I know this is a bit early but it's that time of year again. Target's Black Friday ad is already out today. The _Stranger Things_ Blu-ray set will be $10 as a doorbuster. That is a great, great price.


Just got back from another trip and read this page's posts. Good to see some "old friends" chiming in! 

Thanks for the heads-up on _Stranger Things_. I'll be picking that up for sure!


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Blood Simple *(Criterion)

recommendation: *Tier 2.5**

I was a little concerned at first with the fuzzy title sequence and bad banding in black areas but once the main sequences started everything settled into a nice consistent presentation. Sharpness was good for the most part with details nicely rendered like hair and facial pores. However, some of the shots were on the soft side. No issues with black crush, black levels and shadows were nicely presented, contrast even throughout; there were many night scenes and I didn't notice any distracting issues with crush. Lots of neon signs and brightly colored clothing, all shined. Some second unit shots like the opening sequence showed heavy grain but otherwise the principal photography had a nice very fine layer of grain. 

There was a nice feature with the Coen brothers and the DP about how this was a first film for all of them and how they made mistakes in lighting and composition but somehow it just worked...stuff they would never do again but very interesting if you're into the technical aspects of cinematography.

P.S. This was the first movie I watched from Blu-ray on my new LG OLED and I was blown away by the black levels and contrast, just amazing how good it looked, very film-like..now I want to rewatch my entire library! Can't wait to spin some of my 4K discs that I've been collecting since early September, lots of good sales lately. Now if I could only find *Blade Runner 4K* without having to import...


----------



## Phantom Stranger

DarthDoxie said:


> P.S. This was the first movie I watched from Blu-ray on my new LG OLED and I was blown away by the black levels and contrast, just amazing how good it looked, very film-like..now I want to rewatch my entire library! Can't wait to spin some of my 4K discs that I've been collecting since early September, lots of good sales lately. Now if I could only find *Blade Runner 4K* without having to import...


I know that feeling well when you get new hardware. Enjoy the new display and report back your results as you see all your UHDs.


----------



## djoberg

DarthDoxie said:


> P.S. This was the first movie I watched from Blu-ray on my new LG OLED and I was blown away by the black levels and contrast, just amazing how good it looked, very film-like..now I want to rewatch my entire library! Can't wait to spin some of my 4K discs that I've been collecting since early September, lots of good sales lately. Now if I could only find *Blade Runner 4K* without having to import...


Congrats on your new OLED! I'm happy for you and as I've said many times before, if the 77" wasn't so expensive I'd have one in my Man Cave right now. Enjoy all those 4K discs.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> I know that feeling well when you get new hardware.


The "new hardware" can include audio equipment as well. I just added 4 SVS Prime Bookshelf speakers to my system along with the Prime Center and I can't believe what I have been missing all these years! My love for music listening has returned with a passion and I'm looking forward to "listening" to all of my Blu-rays again!!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> The "new hardware" can include audio equipment as well. I just added 4 SVS Prime Bookshelf speakers to my system along with the Prime Center and I can't believe what I have been missing all these years! My love for music listening has returned with a passion and I'm looking forward to "listening" to all of my Blu-rays again!!


Breaking in a new set of speakers with a favorite album is one of life's finer pleasures. I'm probably a bigger audiophile than videophile.

Black Friday has come early!

Sony's excellent UBP-x800 4K player is down to $150 today at Best Buy and Amazon. This UHD machine also plays SACD for you music lovers.

https://www.amazon.com/Sony-UBP-X800-Ultra-Blu-ray-Player/dp/B01N4RCPKO

https://www.bestbuy.com/site/sony-u...-blu-ray-player-black/5748620.p?skuId=5748620


----------



## DarthDoxie

djoberg said:


> The "new hardware" can include audio equipment as well. I just added 4 SVS Prime Bookshelf speakers to my system along with the Prime Center and I can't believe what I have been missing all these years! My love for music listening has returned with a passion and I'm looking forward to "listening" to all of my Blu-rays again!!


I have the same speakers for my LCR, you'll love them!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Don't Torture A Duckling*

recommendation: *Tier 2.75**

Arrow Video has given Lucio Fulci's 1972 giallo an impressive 2K film restoration. Shot in the inferior 2-perf Techniscope format common to Italian films of the era, some softness is visible. But the overall transfer has very convincing grain reproduction in a nicely done color grading. The film-like presentation has convincing detail and a steady contrast.

This is a magnificent restoration for giallo fans and comes highly recommended for them.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Once Upon a Time in America*

recommendation: *Tier 3.0**

Nothing spectacular but nothing distracting either. The black levels are good in all the black suites and hats but shadow details suffer with mixed results, sometimes good and sometimes gray and weak. Contrast is good in well lit scenes and for the most part in dark scenes except the aforementioned issues with shadows. Details are good with fabrics and hair well rendered but faces on the soft side. Flesh tones and colors look good.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Limehouse Golem*

recommendation: *Tier 3.0**

After careful consideration, this new Victorian period thriller deserves Tier 3. Nothing has gone awry in the transfer or technical presentation, this lies at the feet of the source material. The European film has a decidedly soft presentation for 2017 with less than stellar detail, though its clarity remains fairly high.

Set in the shadowy streets of 1880 London, shadow delineation and darker textures come off quite nicely. It's not enough to push this disc's score up, but the moody aesthetic has fine black levels. There is a hint of teal in the digital color grading.

The 1080P video has an even contrast, though occasional changes in lighting seem to affect flesh-tones. Definition is rather ordinary with a few notable exceptions.


----------



## djoberg

Besides the Blu-ray Special on _Stranger Things: Season One_ that Phantom mentioned, there are quite a few excellent deals on 4K movies from Best Buy on Black Friday. Here is a list of all their specials:

*4K HD Movies for $10*

Wonder Woman
Fate of the Furious
Transformers: The Last Knight
John Wick
Ex Machina
Furious 7
Fast & Furious 6
Cabin in the Woods
Conan the Barbarian
Kick-Ass

*4K HD Movies for $15*

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales
John Wick 2
Spider-Man: Homecoming
War for the Planet of the Apes
Kong: Skull Island
Ghost in the Shell
The Dark Tower
Alien: Covenant
Power Rangers
Batman and Harley Quinn
The Mummy
XXX: Return of Xander Cage


----------



## djoberg

BTW, I have been purposely absent from posting reviews lately because I've been consumed with either listening to some of my CD collection on my new speaker system, or watching 4K movies from my Blu-ray collection. I "may" be renting a Blu-ray later today from Redbox, but quite frankly I'm like a little kid in a candy store right now and I'm reluctant to leave. 

This morning I'm expecting a FedEx truck to deliver a new SVS PC-2000 sub. I've always wanted to run "dual subs" and so I'm finally getting my dream system. I don't take this for granted, for I know a lot of people (especially younger people with growing families) could never even consider doing what I'm able to do, but my wife and I are alone now which enables us to do this.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> BTW, I have been purposely absent from posting reviews lately because I've been consumed with either listening to some of my CD collection on my new speaker system, or watching 4K movies from my Blu-ray collection. I "may" be renting a Blu-ray later today from Redbox, but quite frankly I'm like a little kid in a candy store right now and I'm reluctant to leave.
> 
> This morning I'm expecting a FedEx truck to deliver a new SVS PC-2000 sub. I've always wanted to run "dual subs" and so I'm finally getting my dream system. I don't take this for granted, for I know a lot of people (especially younger people with growing families) could never even consider doing what I'm able to do, but my wife and I are alone now which enables us to do this.


You shouldn't have much difficulty now reaching reference volume levels and pressure with dual subs like that. You might need to buy ear plugs with them as a gift for your wife.

Speaking of _Stranger Things_, it has come out that Target is also releasing the show on UHD in two weeks. This was unannounced by them and only someone stumbling across them early at a Target discovered it.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> You shouldn't have much difficulty now reaching reference volume levels and pressure with dual subs like that. You might need to buy ear plugs with them as a gift for your wife.
> 
> Speaking of _Stranger Things_, it has come out that Target is also releasing the show on UHD in two weeks. This was unannounced by them and only someone stumbling across them early at a Target discovered it.


I was told that exact same thing Phantom from Ed Mullen at SVS. He said I will be able to easily reach and sustain reference volumes down to 16 Hz and that it will "smoothing" the bass out throughout the room (resulting in elimination of nulls at each listening spot) and giving me excellent "headroom."

Thanks for the tip on _Stranger Things_ being released on UHD. I "may" wait for that if I hear the price will be halfway decent and that the uptick in PQ will be worth the upgrade.

Well, I've got a job to do and in two hours I'll be re-calibrating my speakers with my Denon's Audyssey XT32.


----------



## djoberg

Here's a pic of the setup now:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2317722&stc=1&d=1511041182


----------



## Phantom Stranger

It would surprise me if Stranger Things was a big upgrade in PQ on UHD. The Blu-ray had so-so video quality for a new production.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Sorcerer*

recommendation: *Tier 2.75**

First off, this is an excellent remake of *The Wages of Fear*, a French film available from Criterion.

The colors in this film really shine, the green foliage in the jungle and other primaries in the opening scenes pop nicely. Flesh tones are warm and natural. No issues with the black levels and contrast. Clarity and details are sharp except in a few scenes which look to be taken from lesser film elements. The transfer is good except for one area, it looks a little too clean as if it's been wiped of grain. I didn't notice any ringing, edge sharpening, or waxy faces but it is so clean it's a little distracting for a film of this era.


----------



## DarthDoxie

djoberg said:


> Besides the Blu-ray Special on _Stranger Things: Season One_ that Phantom mentioned, there are quite a few excellent deals on 4K movies from Best Buy on Black Friday. Here is a list of all their specials:
> 
> *4K HD Movies for $10*
> 
> Wonder Woman
> Fate of the Furious
> Transformers: The Last Knight
> John Wick
> Ex Machina
> Furious 7
> Fast & Furious 6
> Cabin in the Woods
> Conan the Barbarian
> Kick-Ass
> 
> *4K HD Movies for $15*
> 
> Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
> Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales
> John Wick 2
> Spider-Man: Homecoming
> War for the Planet of the Apes
> Kong: Skull Island
> Ghost in the Shell
> The Dark Tower
> Alien: Covenant
> Power Rangers
> Batman and Harley Quinn
> The Mummy
> XXX: Return of Xander Cage


Lots more if you go to their site and expand the ad. 25 UHD titles at $9.99 and 70 at $14.99, most notably I think is *Blade Runner: The Final Cut* which has been OOS for over a month but recently restocked (still OOS at Amazon). I've got my eye on about 7 titles.


----------



## djoberg

DarthDoxie said:


> Lots more if you go to their site and expand the ad. 25 UHD titles at $9.99 and 70 at $14.99, most notably I think is *Blade Runner: The Final Cut* which has been OOS for over a month but recently restocked (still OOS at Amazon). I've got my eye on about 7 titles.


Thanks for the heads-up on the "expanded ad." I will definitely check it out. I have the Blu-ray (5-disc Complete Collector's Edition) of _Blade Runner_, but I will think seriously about getting the UHD version at that price.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Duel*

recommendation: *Tier 2.75**

My second 1070s movie about trucks after *Sorcerer* (I also recently watched *Convoy* but that was on my DVR).

The color palette is mostly earth tones with the film set in the California desert but main car is red and looks good. Flesh tones are good as well. All other aspects are average with no obvious detractors, encode looks fine.

Hard to believe this was a TV movie of the week for ABC and Spielberg had to go back and shoot 20 minutes of extra footage for the international theatrical release, it really has stood the test of time.


----------



## IronWaffle

Phantom Stranger said:


> It would surprise me if Stranger Things was a big upgrade in PQ on UHD. The Blu-ray had so-so video quality for a new production.




The UHD Is reportedly also hobbled by a lossy soundtrack and lack of HDR. For lossless audio one must purchase the Blu-ray. The mind boggles.


----------



## djoberg

*Cars 3 (UHD)*

Okay, I was all set for what I thought would be a real contender for the "King of the Blu-ray Hill," but it would be an understatement to say I was letdown. Most of the reviews I had read said that Disney's first animated UHD was a clear winner and one of the very best UHD releases this year. Not in my opinion! 

The main problem was a lack of contrast in many of the opening scenes. The fact is some of the daytime shots with clear skies were "washed out" and colors suffered as a result. Black levels weren't as impressive as I had hoped either. I should add that details (or the lack thereof) left me "scratching my head." One reviewer (on Do.Blu.com) said the 1080p version fared much better, with excellent contrast all the way through. So, I look forward to seeing that version and I'll be sure to check back with another review after I do watch it.

To be fair, after the opening scenes things really "brightened up," with increased contrast levels resulting in brilliant colors, appreciable depth, razor-sharp clarity, and demo-worthy details (though they still weren't as good as previous Pizar releases and there were still shots that turned soft and lacked details and depth). The most "redeeming quality," by far, were the rich COLORS on many of the cars, and I imagine the WCG (Wide Color Gamut) contributed largely to this.

Before I close, I was also disappointed in the Dolby Atmos mix, for there were very few overhead effects.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.33)*


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Baby Driver (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 1.25**

Ditto on all points below. The clarity was a little lacking considering this is UHD but it's not soft by any means, just not up to Tier 0 levels. What really stood out compared to the BD were the black levels, contrast, and color. The black levels were excellent with subtle gradations in night scenes in the interior of cars and the black bars were black. Excellent contrast really helped the black levels and colors shine. The red car in the opening scene was vibrant and other primaries popped. Flesh tones were accurate.

*Baby Driver*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

The BD of Baby Driver has the same clarity as the UHD but is just a tad weaker on black levels and contrast, still an excellent disc though.



JNayAV said:


> I watched Baby Driver UHD a little over a week ago but didn't get around to writing a review.
> My initial thoughts were there wasn't any outstanding PQ features, or really any major flaws.
> 
> Being the UHD, resolution/clarity was still fairly good so my initial impression was around 1.0/1.25. If watching the regular Blu-ray I expect it'd fall in the 1.5/1.75 range.
> 
> It didn't look bad by any means, but being UHD and with how newer titles from major studios seem to be consistently falling in Tier 0 recently it was a bit disappointing. Maybe this was desired PQ direction to somewhat match tone of the film? This may have been why just didn't have the desire to put in a PQ rating. It's not exciting enough to warrant PQ demo, but no real issues that would cause someone to turn away.
> 
> Movie itself was good and has a good soundtrack as has been mentioned elsewhere. Don't know if it has re-watch potential for me, but would suggest it as a solid rental.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Lone Survivor (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 0.25**

The current BD sits at about 0.33 so I would put this just a bit higher. The black levels, contrast, color, and details are pure eye candy. The green foliage, blood, and flesh tones are excellent. The slight gradations in color are really nice like the various shades of gray on all the military aircraft. Details like beards, facial pores, and fabric are intricately reproduced.

Really digging my new display


----------



## Phantom Stranger

DarthDoxie said:


> Really digging my new display


I see that, you've been very active reviewing discs since you got it.


----------



## djoberg

Hey Guys (and Gals if G3 is still checking in),

My wife and I are leaving soon for a 5-day Thanksgiving weekend to the Twin Cities (Mpls/St. Paul) and I just want to wish you all a very....

*Happy Thanksgiving!*

I trust you'll all have a good time with family and watching the Vikings beat the Lions!  I also hope you'll get in on some great Black Friday deals so you can add to your Blu-ray collection!!


----------



## djoberg

DarthDoxie said:


> Really digging my new display


I am truly happy for you!

I keep drooling over OLED displays when I visit Best Buy showrooms in our area. I see they have lowered the 77" G7 LG OLED down to 10K (it was at 15K) for this weekend. Seriously, if it had been that price a year ago I wouldn't have thought twice about buying it. But back then it was 20K!


----------



## CCsoftball7

djoberg said:


> I am truly happy for you!
> 
> I keep drooling over OLED displays when I visit Best Buy showrooms in our area. I see they have lowered the 77" G7 LG OLED down to 10K (it was at 15K) for this weekend. Seriously, if it had been that price a year ago I wouldn't have thought twice about buying it. But back then it was 20K!


Just bought the XBR65A1E for the bedroom...having it installed by Magnolia in a few minutes. It should be a great bedroom TV.


----------



## djoberg

CCsoftball7 said:


> Just bought the XBR65A1E for the bedroom...having it installed by Magnolia in a few minutes. It should be a great bedroom TV.


Nice! Let us know your impressions once you've had time to view different material on it.

I am trying to talk my wife into getting the LG 55" B7 or C7 (the B7 is only $1499 right now) for our "living room." We have a Samsung LCD (42") in there right now and we hardly ever watch tv there because it's so small and with some off-axis seating it's "washed out" when sitting there. We have another LCD (Vizio M-Series) in our upstairs "family room" (another 42") that has excellent PQ with its FALD (Full Array Local Dimming) and that's where we watch tv together (in a double love-seat that's in the "sweet spot"). Of course, 90% of my viewing is in the Man Cave!!


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Close Encounters of the Third Kind (40th Anniversary Edition) (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 2.75**

Really had to spend some time going over the tier descriptions to come up with a recommendation and if someone said tier 3.0, I wouldn't have an argument. Black levels, contrast, and color reproduction are good. Now for the bad and the ugly...Where it really falls flat is clarity because of all the optical effects required for the space ships and such. Each subsequent layer of optical affects takes away from the base layer and what we're left with is a rather bland presentation. Individual hairs, facial pores, and fabric textures are not readily discernible and sometimes, details are just absent. Even shots where there are no optical effects, the presentation is on the soft side.

*Close Encounters of the Third Kind (40th Anniversary Edition)*

recommendation: *Tier 3.0*

*The Blu-ray is only marginally less PQ wise vs. the UHD. The biggest difference is a little bit of black crush in shadow detail and of course, lack of HDR highlights.


----------



## lgans316

Hey guys,

I got a basic question. I am planning to upgrade to a 4K HDR TV from a superb Panasonic Plasma that is about 4 years old. I recently bought a Panasonic UB700 4K player that is connected to my Plasma. I am not a fan of cranking up Contrast which is set at 40 which is more than sufficient for my viewing. With a 4K HDR TV, if I set contrast at 40 or 50 and backlight at 50%, would I get identical or better picture with some level of WOW factor / noticeable upgrade or would I be greeted with a dark and dull picture that would force me to pish contrast and backlight to the maximum?

Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk


----------



## CCsoftball7

lgans316 said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> I got a basic question. I am planning to upgrade to a 4K HDR TV from a superb Panasonic Plasma that is about 4 years old. I recently bought a Panasonic UB700 4K player that is connected to my Plasma. I am not a fan of cranking up Contrast which is set at 40 which is more than sufficient for my viewing. With a 4K HDR TV, if I set contrast at 40 or 50 and backlight at 50%, would I get identical or better picture with some level of WOW factor / noticeable upgrade or would I be greeted with a dark and dull picture that would force me to pish contrast and backlight to the maximum?
> 
> Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk


The 4K TV will have an HDR mode that will max the contrast, but it's for a different reason. Otherwise, there is no need to max the contrast. If you like your plasma, and can swing it, I highly recommend an OLED. It's a great replacement.


----------



## djoberg

CCsoftball7 said:


> The 4K TV will have an HDR mode that will max the contrast, but it's for a different reason. Otherwise, there is no need to max the contrast. If you like your plasma, and can swing it, I highly recommend an OLED. It's a great replacement.


Ditto!

I was going to chime in earlier to tell him that the HDR mode has its own settings, including a 'maxed out' contrast. One does have the option of lowering the contrast, but if one does he shouldn't go too low or you'll defeat the purpose of HDR.

Of course, I also agree with your suggestion to go with an OLED if money allows him to.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Blade Runner (The Final Cut) (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

The current Blu-ray (from 2007) sits at Tier 2.0 and this new UHD improves on all the faults djoberg mentions in his excellent review. This film does have a certain look and it was never razor sharp but the city views were done in miniature and they are stunning with details galore. The details in the street scenes and vehicles are really good as well. The close ups of the J. F. Sebastian character are gorgeous, the lines and pores really stand out. The grain is still there which gives the film a rich look but it's not overpowering, it's on nice display here.

Black levels were excellent which I attribute to the application of HDR and an updated HEVC encode (the Blu-ray used an old VC-1 encode). They were neither crushed nor elevated and shadows showed plenty of detail. Flesh tones are still good but all the neon signs, vehicle lights, and other punches of color are excellent now, they really pop against all the dark backgrounds. Also, there are some nice lens flares on display throughout the film. I did not notice any banding, macro blocking, or any other encode anomalies.

The soundtrack is still excellent with some serious room shaking LFE.



djoberg said:


> *Blade Runner (Final Cut)*
> 
> I know I purchased this when it was released in 2007, but I can't recall the last time I viewed it. I had mentioned to SnellTHX that I remembered it being "stunning" and I stand by that opinion. But when I say "stunning," I'm comparing it with previous releases (which are many, including VHS, DVD and its first 1080p version), so I'm not really comparing it with some of today's "stunning releases." Having said that, it still looks "mighty fine" and one that I wouldn't be ashamed of showing off to friends and family.
> 
> I still don't know what version SnellTHX saw, but I'm thinking he couldn't have seen what I just saw, or he never would have given it a Tier 4 placement. Yet he may very well not place the "Final Cut" as high as I will, for I know he detests heavy grain, and there is a fair amount of that in this film (though it's not "pervasive"). Besides grain, there are many SOFT FOCUS shots that definitely deserve some penalization. In those same shots DETAILS and DEPTH suffer. There were also shots that one could call GRITTY; no doubt a "director's choice," but something that will necessarily be docked on a thread like this. I will also add that BLACK LEVELS faltered at times (thankfully this was quite rare), and when they did it either looked "murky" or it was too dark resulting in "black crush."
> 
> Now for the good! DETAILS are AMAZING in many scenes! I absolutely loved some of the aerial shots of the city at night, for you could make out minute details in walls of buildings, rain running down windows, crevices in city streets, etc., etc. FACIAL DETAILS were to-die-for in close-ups of every actors, with the Gold Medal going to a character by the name of J. F. Sebastian. He had an aging problem and his face's texture was pure EYE CANDY for those of us who love to see every wrinkle, pock, mole and stubble. BLACKS were, in most instances, beautifully rendered, with corresponding SHADOW DETAILS. These were especially good in outdoor, nighttime scenes (indoor scenes are where they faltered at times). As most of your know, this is a DARK film, so had the blacks not fared well one could hardly give it anything but Tier 4 (or lower). FLESH TONES were spot-on accurate, COLORS (though muted throughout) were pleasingly vibrant when primaries were on display, and CLARITY was SHARP when the "soft focus shots" (alluded to above) were absent.
> 
> Before I wrap this up, I have to give a shout out for the wonderful audio mix by famed Vangelis. They worked marvels on this restoration and it was a treat for my ears. This was a Dolby TrueHD mix but with my Denon set up for Dolby Atmos it automatically upmixes it to a Dolby Surround that sends sound to the Height Speakers. This really enhanced the enjoyment of this spectacular film. Now I suppose I should "Double Dip" and buy the 4K version so I can get the actual Dolby Atmos mix.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75**
> 
> PS I could see some giving this a 2.0 or 2.25 and I wouldn't fault them for it. Again, it is a "dark film" with numerous "soft focus" shots and some "heavy grain" in those same shots, so some will no doubt dock it more than I was willing to. But Tier 4 would be a travesty, IMHO.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

The forum ate yet another recommendation of mine, so this is the condensed version.

*Sissi*

recommendation: *Tier 2.25**

Film Movement Classics recently put out this 1955 German film as part of its Sissi collection, collecting the entire trilogy of films starring Romy Schneider as the young Austrian Empress. Shot in Agfacolor, a European technology slightly different from the more familiar Technicolor, Sissi hits Blu-ray for the first time with a new 2K film restoration. The original elements are in superb condition and that shines through in this excellent presentation with crisp definition and strong clarity.

Film Movement includes the film in both its original 1.37 Academy Ratio and a newly reformatted 1.78:1 widescreen presentation. The reformatted widescreen presentation looks surprisingly good, a layperson would be hard-pressed to know which one is right. The emergent grain structure does show occasional video processing, mostly in the opening reel.

_Sissi_ is a picturesque film, taking full advantage of the forests in Austria and the former Emperor's palatial estate. The nice colors bring the hills to life as princess Sissi rides her horse. Some softness seems endemic to the original cinematography. What stays consistently excellent are the rich black levels and pleasing contrast.

Film Movement is definitely trying to step up their game with this release when it comes to classic films. It's a rewarding new restoration that greatly improves upon prior transfers.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Strategic Air Command*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5*

Got this last year for Christmas based on Phantom's recommendation and finally got around to watching it. It's fabulous, I second all the good things said about it below! Definitely a reference disc of a 1950s film.



Phantom Stranger said:


> *Strategic Air Command*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 1.5**
> 
> Olive Films delivers a nearly perfect film transfer in this immaculate 1.66:1 presentation. _Strategic Air Command_ has never looked better, the 1080P video contains lush color saturation and crisp definition. The 114-minute main feature is encoded in high-bitrate AVC on a BD-25. Licensed from Paramount, I have no idea how that studio passed on releasing this wonderfully film-like transfer with striking clarity. It’s a marvelous-looking Blu-ray and captures the film’s aerial shots in glorious quality. The 1954 movie starring Jimmy Stewart is a perfect fit for Tier One.
> 
> Shot in beautiful VistaVision by William Daniels with a clear goal of impressing audiences, the aerial cinematography is breathtaking. This was intended as eye candy and made a huge impression on fans when it was first released. The vintage film possesses razor-sharp definition in unfiltered clarity. The vivid Technicolor palette is brilliantly reproduced with perfect contrast and even saturation. Inky black levels round out its technical excellence.
> 
> The film elements reside in a state of fabulous preservation. Few visible signs of wear or deterioration intrude on the nearly pristine, film-like video. Close-ups are flush with generous detail. If digital processing has been used on this new HD transfer, it is undetectable on larger displays. Grain and color reproduction rank with other high-quality restorations from the era.
> 
> Olive Films deserves kudos for this excellent technical presentation of _Strategic Air Command_. This Blu-ray is an immense upgrade over DVD in every dimension. Screenshots are available elsewhere if you catch my drift.


----------



## djoberg

DarthDoxie said:


> *Lone Survivor (UHD)*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 0.25**
> 
> The current BD sits at about 0.33 so I would put this just a bit higher. The black levels, contrast, color, and details are pure eye candy. The green foliage, blood, and flesh tones are excellent. The slight gradations in color are really nice like the various shades of gray on all the military aircraft. Details like beards, facial pores, and fabric are intricately reproduced.
> 
> Really digging my new display


Thanks for the review! I just purchased this UHD Blu-ray along with other Black Friday specials. Can't wait to see it!


----------



## djoberg

*The LEGO Batman Movie (1080p)*

Okay, I had read Phantom's review earlier today so I knew that his impressions were less-than-stellar for a new animated release. I guess I found myself "agreeing with his assessment" during the first 30 minutes or so (for it really did lack details and there were some soft shots as well). But as the movie progressed I was struck by three notable virtues: COLORS, CLARITY and BLACKS!! 

COLORS were really on display over the last half of the movie and they were dazzling! I know this flies in the face of Phantom's words "the fairly dull color palette," but I'm just calling it like I saw it. I heard the UHD version takes them up a notch (due to HDR and WCG), so I would love to see that release.

CLARITY could be striking at times, but in fairness I will say that there were shots that softened up a bit.

BLACK LEVELS were super-impressive in most scenes, whether it was Batman's suit, night-time shots of Gotham or my letter-boxed bars. I chalk that up to the excellent CONTRAST, for WHITES were also brilliant.

I think it would be a travesty to assign this to Tier Gold, though it surely won't find its way anywhere near the top of Tier Blu. Because of its lack of details and overall texture, I believe it deserves a spot right here...

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.66)*

PS I found myself laughing throughout the movie.

PPS The audio was very good, but it left something-to-be-desired in the height channels and it even lacked in the surrounds. Most of the action took place in the Fronts.



Phantom Stranger said:


> *The LEGO Batman Movie*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 1.0**
> 
> One of the year's bigger animated movies was put out on Blu-ray about a month ago. This is one of the first blockbuster CGI movies I've seen recently where I wondered if the Blu-ray's picture quality was an afterthought to its UHD sibling. The all-digital transfer looks great but LEGO Batman's animation doesn't pop off the screen with the same depth and dimension as the best Tier Blu discs.
> 
> There are no problems with the outstanding presentation from Warner Bros. The AVC encode is perfect and fluidly renders the 1080P video's detailed animation. Assigning it to Tier One is a judgment call. I simply wasn't overwhelmed by this animation on Blu-ray like most new CGI blockbusters. I'm not sure it's the lighting or the fairly dull color palette for this kind of animation.
> 
> I don't believe anyone else has ranked this movie yet. The current LEGO Batman listing in Tier 0 is for the older, direct-to-video movie from a couple of years ago.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> *The LEGO Batman Movie (1080p)*
> 
> Okay, I had read Phantom's review earlier today so I knew that his impressions were less-than-stellar for a new animated release. I guess I found myself "agreeing with his assessment" during the first 30 minutes or so (for it really did lack details and there were some soft shots as well). But as the movie progressed I was struck by three notable virtues: COLORS, CLARITY and BLACKS!!
> 
> COLORS were really on display over the last half of the movie and they were dazzling! I know this flies in the face of Phantom's words "the fairly dull color palette," but I'm just calling it like I saw it. I heard the UHD version takes them up a notch (due to HDR and WCG), so I would love to see that release.
> 
> CLARITY could be striking at times, but in fairness I will say that there were shots that softened up a bit.
> 
> BLACK LEVELS were super-impressive in most scenes, whether it was Batman's suit, night-time shots of Gotham or my letter-boxed bars. I chalk that up to the excellent CONTRAST, for WHITES were also brilliant.
> 
> I think it would be a travesty to assign this to Tier Gold, though it surely won't find its way anywhere near the top of Tier Blu. Because of its lack of details and overall texture, I believe it deserves a spot right here...
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.66)*
> 
> PS I found myself laughing throughout the movie.
> 
> PPS The audio was very good, but it left something-to-be-desired in the height channels and it even lacked in the surrounds. Most of the action took place in the Fronts.


Fair points, Djoberg. I remember placing it in Tier One mostly over the lackluster animation itself, which I thought was disappointing for a major Hollywood production done in CGI. I vacillated over placing it in Tier One or the bottom of Tier Zero.

It probably deserves Tier 0 but I have gotten stricter with animated discs. So many animated movies now come out on a regular basis, some studios are clearly starting to cut corners with the animation. Even Pixar isn't putting the same amount of care into their movies as they did a decade ago.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> It probably deserves Tier 0 but I have gotten stricter with animated discs. So many animated movies now come out on a regular basis, some studios are clearly starting to cut corners with the animation. Even Pixar isn't putting the same amount of care into their movies as they did a decade ago.


And I agree with you Phantom, for "some studios are clearly starting to cut corners with animation," including Pixar. I could hardly believe I just nominated _Cars 3_ for .33 instead of a place in the Top Ten...or at the least in the Top Twenty. This illustrates your point and I penalized it because it deserved it. But when it comes to _The LEGO Batman Movie_ I feel it's still worthy of a place in Tier 0 and yet a .66 placement for a new animated release reflects the fact that animated movies aren't automatically put near the top.


----------



## SnellTHX

*Wonder Woman*


To be honest I don't really have high expectations when it comes to the new DC movies. Batman V Superman had reference sound but its picture quality was far from reference in my opinion (I think I gave it 1.5 about a year ago), Suicide Squad was equally disappointing around the 1.75 tier mark. 

Which is a shame since superhero movies have always been my go to reference movies, look no further than Nolan's TDK & TDK:R Which I still hold in my top 10, plus the Avengers (2012) and Ant-man which are both somewhere in my top 15. Captain America: Civil War is also tier 0 material if I remember correctly, as with several Spiderman movies.

I heard loads of people using this particular movie to complain about the quality of iTunes 4K, but I think the problem lies more within the movie itself.

*
Tier 2.0*
*


----------



## SnellTHX

*War for the Planet of the Apes*

Going to have to fully agree with Djoberg and his depiction of this movie, the movie looked really good and crisp, CGI was superb and the apes looked great. not quite reference and I distinctively remember Rise of the planet of the apes being at least as good if not slightly better, but great disc nonetheless. 

*Tier recommendation: 1*


----------



## SnellTHX

*Power Rangers (2017)*


Another superb looking, near-reference movie. I'd place this much higher than the planet of the apes movie.

Now I'm still old fashioned with my entire ecosystem being 1080p/SDR/8bit/rec.709 so I realise I'm only utilising a fraction of my OLED's potential. 
Reason being with my part-time student job I get really good staff discount on blu-ray movies (almost free!) but for some reason I still have to pay full price for 4K/HDR movies, + I never buy standalone disk players.. only use my PS consoles (PS1,PS2,PS3,PS4 owner here!) and for some stupid reason Sony decided to exclude 4K/HDR player from the PS4 Pro... but I digress.



The movie looked superb and very filmatic, though some scenes had higher grain count that I desire, other scenes looked superb and very 'transformers' -esque; think Transformers 4 (nothing comes close to Transformers 5: TLK picture-wise). Much like The Great Wall, I can't help but feel this movie was MADE for HDR and WIDE colour gamut with all the bright colours that just punch you in the face and pop out of the screen, the colour spectrum of each power ranger is mesmerising, looks great on BD, but can only imagine how good it must be on UHD.


I'm fairly certain the UHD version of this is absolutely reference, but the BD version is still really good.

*Tier recommendation: 1* *


----------



## fredxr2d2

djoberg said:


> *The LEGO Batman Movie (1080p)*
> 
> PPS The audio was very good, but it left something-to-be-desired in the height channels and it even lacked in the surrounds. Most of the action took place in the Fronts.


Did you make sure to select the Atmos track in the disc menu? That disc defaults to DTS-HDMA 5.1 unless you select otherwise.

From bluray.com:

In what is becoming a trend with A-list titles from Warner Brothers, _The LEGO Batman Movie_ arrives on Blu-ray with a choice between Dolby Atmos and DTS-HD MA 5.1 soundtracks. The standard Blu-ray defaults to DTS-HD MA, by which I mean that, if you insert the disc and select "play" from the menu, you'll get the lossless DTS track. If you then access the audio menu, it assumes you want to select "Dolby Atmos" and offers that option already highlighted, which may give the illusion that the Atmos track is currently playing—but it isn't. You have to select it manually.


----------



## djoberg

fredxr2d2 said:


> Did you make sure to select the Atmos track in the disc menu? That disc defaults to DTS-HDMA 5.1 unless you select otherwise.
> 
> From bluray.com:
> 
> In what is becoming a trend with A-list titles from Warner Brothers, _The LEGO Batman Movie_ arrives on Blu-ray with a choice between Dolby Atmos and DTS-HD MA 5.1 soundtracks. The standard Blu-ray defaults to DTS-HD MA, by which I mean that, if you insert the disc and select "play" from the menu, you'll get the lossless DTS track. If you then access the audio menu, it assumes you want to select "Dolby Atmos" and offers that option already highlighted, which may give the illusion that the Atmos track is currently playing—but it isn't. You have to select it manually.


Yes, I did, for I had read the review by Blu-ray.com. I have now listened to a good number of either Dolby Atmos or DTS:X mixes and this one was, by comparison with others, lacking when it comes to panning and discreet effects in the Height Channels. I'm not saying there weren't any, but they were "few and far between."

In fairness though I should say that the mix was very good on the Front Stage, including the bass (though there too it lacked in real LFE; it was mostly "mid-bass" punches throughout).


----------



## fredxr2d2

djoberg said:


> Yes, I did, for I had read the review by Blu-ray.com. I have now listened to a good number of either Dolby Atmos or DTS:X mixes and this one was, by comparison with others, lacking when it comes to panning and discreet effects in the Height Channels. I'm not saying there weren't any, but they were "few and far between."
> 
> In fairness though I should say that the mix was very good on the Front Stage, including the bass (though there too it lacked in real LFE; it was mostly "mid-bass" punches throughout).


From what I remember from watching the movie, you are correct, just wanted to double check that you selected the right soundtrack.


----------



## djoberg

fredxr2d2 said:


> From what I remember from watching the movie, you are correct, just wanted to double check that you selected the right soundtrack.


And I do thank you for if I had NOT read the review on Blu-ray.com I may very well have missed it.

I see from your equipment list that you have a very nice setup. I would love to see a pic of it if you wouldn't mind posting it (you could also PM me with it if you like). I especially like the SUBS that you chose!


----------



## fredxr2d2

djoberg said:


> And I do thank you for if I had NOT read the review on Blu-ray.com I may very well have missed it.
> 
> I see from your equipment list that you have a very nice setup. I would love to see a pic of it if you wouldn't mind posting it (you could also PM me with it if you like). I especially like the SUBS that you chose!


My setup isn't super photo friendly, but here is an older pic (I have added more acoustic panels since).


----------



## djoberg

fredxr2d2 said:


> My setup isn't super photo friendly, but here is an older pic (I have added more acoustic panels since).


Thanks fredxr2d2! I love the "black walls!" It doesn't look very large so I'm sure the sound is awesome and with that big of a screen your'e surely getting the "cinema experience." I read a post from you on another thread where you said you're hoping to move to a 4K display...what do you have in mind?

I'll take this opportunity to say that I have two new Blus..._Stranger Things Season 1_ and _Boss Baby_, so I hope to view and review them soon. I also bought a handful of 4K Blus on Black Friday and will, in time, view them. I've already seen a couple of them on 1080p (like _Lone Survivor_), but I will submit another review for the UHD version.


----------



## fredxr2d2

djoberg said:


> Thanks fredxr2d2! I love the "black walls!" It doesn't look very large so I'm sure the sound is awesome and with that big of a screen your'e surely getting the "cinema experience." I read a post from you on another thread where you said you're hoping to move to a 4K display...what do you have in mind?
> 
> I'll take this opportunity to say that I have two new Blus..._Stranger Things Season 1_ and _Boss Baby_, so I hope to view and review them soon. I also bought a handful of 4K Blus on Black Friday and will, in time, view them. I've already seen a couple of them on 1080p (like _Lone Survivor_), but I will submit another review for the UHD version.


Well, I wanted to jump to a JVC RS400 when AVScience had some for closeout prices, but my fiancee has made me wait another couple years. She said that I should stick to my original plan, which was going through 2 bulbs in my W1070, which will take another 2 years or so (I get about 2 years on each bulb). At that time, I would still like to go to a JVC projector, as I've heard their contrast is close to OLED or Plasma.

The room itself isn't super large 12.5'x17', but it does have some large openings, notably into two bedrooms and the kitchen. We sit about 12' from the 106" screen and it is quite immersive - a friend came over and saw it for the first time recently and said "You have the exact right screen size for this room, it's amazing!"

I think it sounds pretty decent as is, but while I'm an audiophile compared to most of my friends, I'm not one compared to some of the people on here and other forums. As you may know, being on the forums does open you up to a bit of "something could always be better."


----------



## AmerCa

Hi, guys. This is the thread that made me register to these forums, even though I'd been a lurker for a long time. I spent A LONG time for months reading your reviews and opinions about movies and PQ, and I think I've learnt a little (I'd like to think).

By no means have I a great equipment to make proper judgements on PQ and SQ, but I'd like to comment on something that recently caught my attention. I'm sure John Wick it's been discussed before, but I watched the movie a few days ago, and I was very disappointed with the PQ. It was "soft" (?) for long stretches of time, it simply looked blurry. I just upgraded to bluray this year, but I already have a fair amount of discs, a lot of which I've picked up because this thread. So I'm no expert, but I think I can spot when something is not quite right. I've read that Lionsgate transfers on bluray are quite good since some time, so maybe my perception wasn't wrong after all. It happened also with Ex Machina, but I thought that was just that movie.

I bring this up because some specialized, well-known websites have granted these movies (and some others) great scores on PQ, but reality says otherwise. I'm starting to believe some reviewing sites are not completely honest in their reviews. I don't know, maybe it's after all my crappy equipment, but when I see other movies looking spectacular on my modest setup i.e. the new Transformers, I think there may be something indeed wrong with some transfers, i.e. John Wick.

What do you think, guys? I'm just glad there are forums like these where regular and unbiased people can share their experiences.

P.S. You guys were right, the new Transformers looks spectacular. It was just released last week here in Mexico, and I assume it's the same transfer. In any case, it looked really impressive. Technically, Michael Bay movies rarely disappoint.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

AmerCa said:


> Hi, guys. This is the thread that made me register to these forums, even though I'd been a lurker for a long time. I spent A LONG time for months reading your reviews and opinions about movies and PQ, and I think I've learnt a little (I'd like to think).
> 
> By no means have I a great equipment to make proper judgements on PQ and SQ, but I'd like to comment on something that recently caught my attention. I'm sure John Wick it's been discussed before, but I watched the movie a few days ago, and I was very disappointed with the PQ. It was "soft" (?) for long stretches of time, it simply looked blurry. I just upgraded to bluray this year, but I already have a fair amount of discs, a lot of which I've picked up because this thread. So I'm no expert, but I think I can spot when something is not quite right. I've read that Lionsgate transfers on bluray are quite good since some time, so maybe my perception wasn't wrong after all. It happened also with Ex Machina, but I thought that was just that movie.
> 
> I bring this up because some specialized, well-known websites have granted these movies (and some others) great scores on PQ, but reality says otherwise. I'm starting to believe some reviewing sites are not completely honest in their reviews. I don't know, maybe it's after all my crappy equipment, but when I see other movies looking spectacular on my modest setup i.e. the new Transformers, I think there may be something indeed wrong with some transfers, i.e. John Wick.
> 
> What do you think, guys? I'm just glad there are forums like these where regular and unbiased people can share their experiences.
> 
> P.S. You guys were right, the new Transformers looks spectacular. It was just released last week here in Mexico, and I assume it's the same transfer. In any case, it looked really impressive. Technically, Michael Bay movies rarely disappoint.


Welcome to the forum and the PQ Tiers! The more the merrier, feel free to share your opinions here on anything you see.

In a mild defense of professional reviewers, you have to remember they end up reviewing hundreds of discs. They often end up reviewing movies they aren't particularly enthusiastic about seeing in the first place. That tends to produce a jaded viewpoint after reviewing 20 straight CGI family flicks, for instance. It's where the PQ Tiers comes in to fill the gap, trying to rank all discs on a unified scale. Many reviewers aren't quite as picky about their transfers as we are here, often grading on some sort of curve. It is what it is.

It's been awhile since I watched John Wick, though I remember Ex Machina having some softer passages. Lionsgate does tend to have the worst compression of the major studios. I wonder if the UHD is any better...


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> Hi, guys. This is the thread that made me register to these forums, even though I'd been a lurker for a long time. I spent A LONG time for months reading your reviews and opinions about movies and PQ, and I think I've learnt a little (I'd like to think).
> 
> By no means have I a great equipment to make proper judgements on PQ and SQ, but I'd like to comment on something that recently caught my attention. I'm sure John Wick it's been discussed before, but I watched the movie a few days ago, and I was very disappointed with the PQ. It was "soft" (?) for long stretches of time, it simply looked blurry. I just upgraded to bluray this year, but I already have a fair amount of discs, a lot of which I've picked up because this thread. So I'm no expert, but I think I can spot when something is not quite right. I've read that Lionsgate transfers on bluray are quite good since some time, so maybe my perception wasn't wrong after all. It happened also with Ex Machina, but I thought that was just that movie.
> 
> I bring this up because some specialized, well-known websites have granted these movies (and some others) great scores on PQ, but reality says otherwise. I'm starting to believe some reviewing sites are not completely honest in their reviews. I don't know, maybe it's after all my crappy equipment, but when I see other movies looking spectacular on my modest setup i.e. the new Transformers, I think there may be something indeed wrong with some transfers, i.e. John Wick.
> 
> What do you think, guys? I'm just glad there are forums like these where regular and unbiased people can share their experiences.
> 
> P.S. You guys were right, the new Transformers looks spectacular. It was just released last week here in Mexico, and I assume it's the same transfer. In any case, it looked really impressive. Technically, Michael Bay movies rarely disappoint.


I would like to join Phantom in a hearty "Welcome to AVS and the PQ Tier Thread!" We always look forward to others contributing on this thread and we hope you will feel free to do so. Again, your review doesn't have to be long or showered with details, a simple recommendation for placement would do, though we value your opinions as to WHY you recommend a certain placement.

After reading your post, I checked two "professional reviews" that I trust, most notably our resident AVS reviewer Ralph Potts and Do.Blu.com (where Phantom is one of the two reviewers). Both of those reviews were quite praiseworthy and neither one mentioned there being any SOFTNESS. I also read over the review I had posted on it and I too did not see any soft shots, though in fairness other reviewers on this site did report seeing softness. Here is my review in case you want to read it:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-743.html#post31751329


----------



## Phantom Stranger

It's always good to list which display/tech one is using when first starting out on the PQ Tiers as a frame of reference for everyone. Some here use a projector, while others watch on flatscreen displays. In my case I still review on a plasma for Blu-rays.


----------



## AmerCa

*Phantom Stranger & Djoberg*: 

Thanks for the kind words! I was a little afraid of "coming out of the closet", because I don't have neither the equipment, expertise or library to properly cooment or place any movie against your criteria. I have a no-brand LED display that was actually a gift. I was never an A/V guy, but with my new TV I decided to upgrade to bluray, and here we are. I'm quite happy with it for the moment, although I know there must be better displays. Still, great looking movies look great, so I can still appreciate quality when there is, just not to the degree you guys can.

Regarding professional reviewers, Phantom, you have a point, and I see you're also one of them. However, at the end of the day, we look up to those sites precisely for knowing if a disc is worth buying based of specs, and sadly some of those guys are not doing a good job. That's why I personally resort to this thread when I want more honest and reliable opinions. I really appreciate the hard work you guys put into this thread (you and many others).

John Wick. I paid for ths US import version, since the Mexican version is known to be trash. So I paid twice to get that version, and the first thing I notice is subpar quality on a good chunk of the movie. Like I said, maybe it's my display, but I've read in other forums that Lionsgate is know for their not-so-good transfers. Apparently their efforts are now focused on 4k titles. I'm not saying John Wick looks like trash, it looks good, but I expected something better.

I have the feeling this post is already too long. Thanks again for the welcoming, I'll try to chime in when possible, but I'll leave the professional reviews for you.


----------



## AmerCa

*Djoberg:*

Thanks for taking the time to look for other reviews and finding yours. I think I agree with most of your review, although I don't understand all the terms you use. Maybe it's the color grading that bothers me, but I don't think the movie was as sharp as you stated (I'll have a chance of watching it again), but I think your 1.25 ranking is fine. It definitely didn't look to me like tier 0 material, but neither it felt like it belonged to the lower tier 1. So I guess it's all fine, and I feel better knowing my eyes were not fooling me. I still have a lot to learn, tho.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

It already sounds like you know a lot, AmerCa. If you see a disc in the wrong Tier, jump right in with your opinion. All it takes is an open mind and keen eyes to rate discs on the PQ Tiers. Your hardware is not a hindrance by any means.

I think most people can see the obvious merits of a Tier 0 disc instantly without knowing a lot about the technical language thrown around this thread. _Avatar_ looks great on any screen.

Anyway, feel free to ask any questions you may have about the PQ Tiers. I sometimes forget that many readers that follow it haven't been around back to the Tiers' creation in 2007. The Tiers have evolved over the years. So our methodology on the surface can be intimidating and even mysterious to newcomers. But it's fairly easy to pick up if you follow the conversation in this thread.


----------



## djoberg

*The Boss Baby*

After the last two "disappointing" animated viewings (_Cars 3_ and _The LEGO Batman Movie_), the PQ on this DreamWorks creation is a welcome relief!

The COLORS are its main feature...they are deep, rich and vibrant...and I believe I saw shades of colors I've never seen before!  There are also very good DETAILS and TEXTURE, maybe not as plentiful as some animated releases but after seeing _The LEGO Batman Movie_, which was almost detail/texture free, this one had a big WOW factor. DEPTH was also very incredible at times. One of the most spectacular features was the amazing BLACKS....they were as DEEP and INKY as can be! This is a true WINNER with pleasing EYE CANDY!

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (#9...between Trolls & Ice Age: Collision Course)*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^

I forgot to add that it was the "1080p version" that I watched. Also, the DTS-MA mix was really lacking in volume. I turned it up to Reference Level and it was satisfactory, but it didn't blow me away. I was so curious about this that I looked up some reviews and the reviewers on Hi-Def Digest and Blu-ray.com both commented on the very same thing. So, if you rent or buy this, be sure to CRANK YOUR SYSTEM UP!


----------



## AmerCa

Phantom Stranger said:


> It already sounds like you know a lot, AmerCa. If you see a disc in the wrong Tier, jump right in with your opinion. All it takes is an open mind and keen eyes to rate discs on the PQ Tiers. Your hardware is not a hindrance by any means.
> 
> I think most people can see the obvious merits of a Tier 0 disc instantly without knowing a lot about the technical language thrown around this thread. _Avatar_ looks great on any screen.
> 
> Anyway, feel free to ask any questions you may have about the PQ Tiers. I sometimes forget that many readers that follow it haven't been around back to the Tiers' creation in 2007. The Tiers have evolved over the years. So our methodology on the surface can be intimidating and even mysterious to newcomers. But it's fairly easy to pick up if you follow the conversation in this thread.


Thansk again for the encouragement, Phantom. I assure you, whatever I may know about PQ, it's because the heavy reading I've done in this thread. I certainly know what you mean when you say the terminology can be intimidating, but like Djoberg has said, we all start somewhere.


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> *Djoberg:*
> 
> Thanks for taking the time to look for other reviews and finding yours. I think I agree with most of your review, although *I don't understand all the terms you use. Maybe it's the color grading that bothers me*, but I don't think the movie was as sharp as you stated (I'll have a chance of watching it again), but I think your 1.25 ranking is fine. It definitely didn't look to me like tier 0 material, but neither it felt like it belonged to the lower tier 1. So I guess it's all fine, and I feel better knowing my eyes were not fooling me. I still have a lot to learn, tho.


Hey AmerCa,

I put in BOLD what I wanted to respond to. Regarding not "understanding all the terms," it took me a very long time to understand them. In fact, I don't use some of the terms that speak of different "anomalies" that are mentioned in our page on the CRITERIA we are supposed to go by in judging the PQ of Blu-rays.

As far as "color grading" goes, color-grading is when a director decides to use a "color filter" (which is usually TEAL or ORANGE) in certain scenes. Modern action movies are especially known for having TEAL (which also looks kind of BLUE) in them. Current comedies often have ORANGE HUES (or GOLDEN). The director has simply placed a filter over the camera lens to give it that look. I personally despise it in most cases, for it gives the PQ an "unnatural look" and sometimes it really obscures details. 

Again, welcome aboard the PQ Thread express!


----------



## DarthDoxie

AmerCa said:


> Thansk again for the encouragement, Phantom. I assure you, whatever I may know about PQ, it's because the heavy reading I've done in this thread. I certainly know what you mean when you say the terminology can be intimidating, but like Djoberg has said, we all start somewhere.


Welcome to the forum, we all look forward to your ratings! I was in your shoes a couple of years ago just starting out in this forum and with average equipment (since upgraded) so please don't be intimidated. Something that might give you a better idea of what to look for is to see where the movies you own currently rank in the tiers. When you watch a new movie, as a starting point you can compare it to something that is already ranked and then go from there. I keep my own personal spreadsheet with all my movies and one of the columns is the ranking from the master list (linked in Phantom's signature, bookmark it!). You probably have several movies in each tier so look a few up and then use the thread search function to see why someone ranked them in that tier, it helped me when I first starting giving recommendations.

Also, don't feel like you need to write a long review, your recommendation is the important part.


----------



## fredxr2d2

djoberg said:


> Hey AmerCa,
> 
> I put in BOLD what I wanted to respond to. Regarding not "understanding all the terms," it took me a very long time to understand them. In fact, I don't use some of the terms that speak of different "anomalies" that are mentioned in our page on the CRITERIA we are supposed to go by in judging the PQ of Blu-rays.
> 
> As far as "color grading" goes, color-grading is when a director decides to use a "color filter" (which is usually TEAL or ORANGE) in certain scenes. Modern action movies are especially known for having TEAL (which also looks kind of BLUE) in them. Current comedies often have ORANGE HUES (or GOLDEN). The director has simply placed a filter over the camera lens to give it that look. I personally despise it in most cases, for it gives the PQ an "unnatural look" and sometimes it really obscures details.
> 
> Again, welcome aboard the PQ Thread express!


Not trying to be too pedantic about this, but I'm not sure that they use color filters over the lens anymore: I think it is all done in the Digital Intermediate with Digital Color Timing.


----------



## djoberg

fredxr2d2 said:


> Not trying to be too pedantic about this, but I'm not sure that they use color filters over the lens anymore: I think it is all done in the Digital Intermediate with Digital Color Timing.


I'm sure you're right! What was I thinking? 

Just found this online:

*Color grading. Color grading is the process of altering and enhancing the color of a motion picture, video image, or still image electronically, photo-chemically or digitally.*


----------



## fredxr2d2

djoberg said:


> I'm sure you're right! What was I thinking?
> 
> Just found this online:
> 
> *Color grading. Color grading is the process of altering and enhancing the color of a motion picture, video image, or still image electronically, photo-chemically or digitally.*


A fascinating documentary about the move to digital cinematography, as well as the use of digital intermediates and color grading is Side by Side with Keanu Reeves. It's a couple years out of date now (doesn't include some of the newer digital cameras), but I think it is an excellent primer, especially for those of us interested in the video quality of film vs. digital.


----------



## AmerCa

*Djoberg:

*I understand you better now. There's some color grading then in John Wick, but I don't think that bothered me much then. I understand that was part of the director's intention regarding the look of the film. I've only watched the movie once, obviously I'll need a second viewing to have things clearer in my mind. Thanks for the explanation.

*DarthDoxie:*

Thanks for the welcoming and the advice. Definitely I'll be doing that. I've bought many movies because of this thread, so I've got some of the tier 0 movies. As to my recommendations, I'm not sure how reliable or valuable mine can be. For example, I can't get over the fact that *Tron Legacy *is not on tier 0 despite being a movie that blows me (and everyone else I show it to) everytime I watch it, despite being a 7 year old movie! In my humble opinion, it deserved more praise than *Oblivion* in its time, but maybe I'm can't see artifacts than others can. And then you have a tier 0 movie like *Django Unchained *that drove nuts with the crushed blacks (?) and had me me adjusting my TV settings because I couldn't stand the color saturation (do I make sense? ). It looked great, but not quite right. For me, a tier 1 movie, or towards the end of tier 0. 

PS. I need to learn how to use multi-quoting, for some reason, I can't get it to work.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Virtually everything is done digitally these days on larger Hollywood productions, even when it's not needed. Most of the newer directors wouldn't even know how to do things the older way with 35mm film.


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> *Djoberg:
> 
> *I understand you better now. There's some color grading then in John Wick, but I don't think that bothered me much then. I understand that was part of the director's intention regarding the look of the film. I've only watched the movie once, obviously I'll need a second viewing to have things clearer in my mind. Thanks for the explanation.
> 
> PS. I need to learn how to use multi-quoting, for some reason, I can't get it to work.


Yeah, color-grading doesn't bother everyone as much as it bothers me. It bothers me the most when EVERYTHING looks "unnatural," especially flesh tones. Or if it hinders details.

Regarding using the multi-quote, you simply go to a post and click on "Multi-Quote," then go to another post and do the same. After you're done clicking on all the posts you want to respond to, you go to the bottom of the last page and click on "Reply" in the lower left-hand corner. All of the posts you had clicked on should be in the window that comes up and then you can reply to them. If you want to, you can reply to each one individually by typing your response right after their post, then drop down to the next post and reply to that one (or you can simply reply to all of them at once by typing your response at the bottom of them).


----------



## AmerCa

djoberg said:


> Yeah, color-grading doesn't bother everyone as much as it bothers me. It bothers me the most when EVERYTHING looks "unnatural," especially flesh tones. Or if it hinders details.
> 
> Regarding using the multi-quote, you simply go to a post and click on "Multi-Quote," then go to another post and do the same. After you're done clicking on all the posts you want to respond to, you go to the bottom of the last page and click on "Reply" in the lower left-hand corner. All of the posts you had clicked on should be in the window that comes up and then you can reply to them. If you want to, you can reply to each one individually by typing your response right after their post, then drop down to the next post and reply to that one (or you can simply reply to all of them at once by typing your response at the bottom of them).


I think the problem is Android, it's just wonky with this site. I usually browse the forum in my tablet, and sometimes I see some weird behavior. But I think I wasn't clinking the "reply" in the left corner, so maybe next time it'll work fine (I hope).

Regarding color grading, I think I understand you. I bought Ninja II: Shadow Of A Tear because I kept reading about the amazing PQ, and since it's a movie without CGI, I was curious at how good it could look. It looked so natural and sharp, and then realized how stylized lots of movies are.

*Hacksaw Ridge*

I just watched Hacksaw Ridge, and despite some negative comments I read on Blu-ray.com, I found the movie amazing to watch despite some minimal flaws. Whoever recommended it to tier 0, I endorse that ranking. Some people said the bluray was trash compared to the 4K version. I cannot compare the two, but the criticisms are exaggerated. Lionsgate didn a pretty good job on the transfer here. And of course, the sound is amazing. Mel Gibson may get a lot of hate, but he's one hell of a director.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0*


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Deadpool (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

Clarity is excellent but falls just short of Tier 0 with lots of CGI scenes bringing the overall presentation down to Tier 1. Lots of detail in Deadpool's uniform and other fabric. Black levels are spot on with shadow details galore, contrast is also nicely presented. For a superhero movie, the color palate is rather dull, even Deadpool's uniform is the color of dark vice bright red. It's a good look overall and the colors are natural looking. HDR is nicely applied with light from lamps and such giving off a nice punch without being a blinding laser.


----------



## DarthDoxie

AmerCa said:


> *Hacksaw Ridge*
> 
> I just watched Hacksaw Ridge, and despite some negative comments I read on Blu-ray.com, I found the movie amazing to watch despite some minimal flaws. Whoever recommended it to tier 0, I endorse that ranking. Some people said the bluray was trash compared to the 4K version. I cannot compare the two, but the criticisms are exaggerated. Lionsgate didn a pretty good job on the transfer here. And of course, the sound is amazing. Mel Gibson may get a lot of hate, but he's one hell of a director.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0*


Lots of discussion on this one when it was first ranked earlier this year so you can use the search function to see what the debate was about. I picked up the UHD of this one last week and plan on watching it in December.

Oh yeah, for Tier 0 (and only Tier 0), you need to make a suggestion as to where in Tier 0 to place it. Tier 0 is the only one that is ranked absolutely from top to bottom. All other tiers are just in alphabetical order.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Phantom Stranger said:


> The forum ate yet another recommendation of mine, so this is the condensed version.
> 
> *Sissi*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 2.25**
> 
> Film Movement Classics recently put out this 1955 German film as part of its Sissi collection, collecting the entire trilogy of films starring Romy Schneider as the young Austrian Empress. Shot in Agfacolor, a European technology slightly different from the more familiar Technicolor, Sissi hits Blu-ray for the first time with a new 2K film restoration. The original elements are in superb condition and that shines through in this excellent presentation with crisp definition and strong clarity.
> 
> Film Movement includes the film in both its original 1.37 Academy Ratio and a newly reformatted 1.78:1 widescreen presentation. The reformatted widescreen presentation looks surprisingly good, a layperson would be hard-pressed to know which one is right. The emergent grain structure does show occasional video processing, mostly in the opening reel.
> 
> _Sissi_ is a picturesque film, taking full advantage of the forests in Austria and the former Emperor's palatial estate. The nice colors bring the hills to life as princess Sissi rides her horse. Some softness seems endemic to the original cinematography. What stays consistently excellent are the rich black levels and pleasing contrast.
> 
> Film Movement is definitely trying to step up their game with this release when it comes to classic films. It's a rewarding new restoration that greatly improves upon prior transfers.


*Sissi: The Young Empress*

recommendation: *Tier 3.25**

I include my earlier comments on the first _Sissi_ since the sequel doesn't seem to have received the same meticulous film transfer by comparison. This direct sequel, made by the same director and with largely the same crew, has far more visible processing to its film transfer. There is a consistent amount of ringing around the film's sharper edges in the form of dreaded halos. They weren't present in Sissi's excellent transfer. 

I wanted to impress upon everyone how much extra sharpening can drag down a disc's presentation and hence score in the PQ Tiers. This is still a decent presentation of vintage German filmmaking, but the results are marred by the unnecessary edge enhancement. Significant flaws do matter when deciding what Tier a disc should land in.


----------



## AmerCa

DarthDoxie said:


> Lots of discussion on this one when it was first ranked earlier this year so you can use the search function to see what the debate was about. I picked up the UHD of this one last week and plan on watching it in December.
> 
> Oh yeah, for Tier 0 (and only Tier 0), you need to make a suggestion as to where in Tier 0 to place it. Tier 0 is the only one that is ranked absolutely from top to bottom. All other tiers are just in alphabetical order.


I'll take a look, since I'll be rewatching that movie shortly and will be able to pick up some other details.

I was afraid that was the case with tier 0, I was simply reinforcing its placement in the category. I certainly cannot contest the ranking, because I've only seen a tiny percentage of the titles in tier 0. I'll try to do a more accurate judgement next time. Thanks for the advice.


----------



## AmerCa

SnellTHX said:


> *Hacksaw Ridge*
> 
> 
> First of all, WOW what a movie. I'm utterly fascinated by WWII and this is definitely one of the better stories told. 9/10 movie that I'd say is actually on par with Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers.
> 
> The picture quality is clear and sharp, with some of the best close up facial details I've seen in a movie. The contrast never disappoints and the colours are accurately muted. explosions and fires spewed by the flamethrowers are crispy and pack a punch. Did notice some banding as mentioned by Djoberg... but still a near perfect picture. The sound was even more impressive than the picture quality. The whistling of bullets, the deep impact and low-bass rumble of explosions really placed me right in the battlefield. Five star picture, seven star sound
> 
> 
> And my god, speaking of good sound quality... the scene when they call in naval support shook not only my apartment but my left, bottom, top and right neighbours apartments too!
> 
> Literally had to flip a coin to decide if this was Tier 0 or Tier 1 material, but since the sound is definitely more blu than gold and the fact that I really like the movie I think it belongs somewhere near the bottom of the reference list.
> 
> *
> Tier recommendation 0 (.9  )*


This is quite the review, and Snell put it better that I could. I completely agree with his words. I noticed the banding other people have mentioned, especially in scenes involving sun light, but whatever flaws the transfer may have, the good things overwhelm the bad things. This is a great looking bluray.

PS. I just found Djoberg review, and I'm glad he's of the same opinion as well!


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Spider-Man: Homecoming (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 0* (.90)*

I second this excellent review! Michael Keaton's facial features were a real plus, the first time he came on screen I said wow. I didn't notice any elevated blacks in the letter-box bars on my viewing. I've read about this anomaly on Dolby Vision discs like *Power Rangers* but I didn't notice it on this disc.

PS. The Atmos mix is indeed superb, there is a serious LFE "moment" towards the end on the beach, felt it in my gut!

*Spider-Man: Homecoming (Blu-ray)*

recommendation: *Tier 1**



djoberg said:


> *Spider-Man: Homecoming (UHD)*
> 
> This wasn't stunning (like my recent viewing of _Transformers: The Last Knight_), but it had a good deal of POP, especially in daytime scenes that took place outdoors. There were also good blacks in night time scenes, but I noticed several times that the black levels became elevated in my letter-boxed bars resulting in a "dark gray" (when this occurred it took me out of the movie...that might be the result of HDR and the 1080p version my be free from this anomaly). Facial details were one of the best features, most notably in that of Michael Keaton. His facial texture is becoming quite defined...not as good as a Morgan Freeman or Tommy Lee Jones, but it's getting there! Flesh tones were spot on, contrast was excellent, depth was astounding (in daytime scenes), and colors were very pleasing to the eyes (I was happy every time Peter donned his rich BLUE and RED suit).
> 
> I gotta say something about the Atmos mix...it was incredible!! A very immersive experience with impeccable panning and discrete effects.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.90)*


----------



## djoberg

DarthDoxie said:


> I didn't notice any elevated blacks in the letter-box bars on my viewing. I've read about this anomaly on Dolby Vision discs like *Power Rangers* but I didn't notice it on this disc.


One of the main reasons you didn't experience the elevated blacks is due to the fact that YOU HAVE A SUPERIOR DISPLAY! You have an OLED my friend and they will always do better when it comes to black levels. Having said that, I had not heard or read about this anomaly occurring on some Dolby Vision Blu-rays.


----------



## DarthDoxie

djoberg said:


> One of the main reasons you didn't experience the elevated blacks is due to the fact that YOU HAVE A SUPERIOR DISPLAY! You have an OLED my friend and they will always do better when it comes to black levels. Having said that, I had not heard or read about this anomaly occurring on some Dolby Vision Blu-rays.


Well, I didn't want to brag...

I read about the elevated black bars in the OPPO thread, some thought it was due to inferior authoring and encoding on early DV discs.


----------



## AmerCa

DarthDoxie said:


> *Spider-Man: Homecoming (Blu-ray)*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 1**


**Don't you hate when you post a long reply and then something goes wrong and then it's lost?**

If you don't mind me asking, how was the Dolby 5.1 TrueHD? Some are (rightfully) complaining for the mix "downgrade" for a still premium product. Myself, I don't have an Atmos setup, but I feel it's wrong not to feature the best quality available in the format. The industry is shooting themselves in the foot by not respecting the customers that still support the format.


----------



## DarthDoxie

AmerCa said:


> **Don't you hate when you post a long reply and then something goes wrong and then it's lost?**
> 
> If you don't mind me asking, how was the Dolby 5.1 TrueHD? Some are (rightfully) complaining for the mix "downgrade" for a still premium product. Myself, I don't have an Atmos setup, but I feel it's wrong not to feature the best quality available in the format. The industry is shooting themselves in the foot by not respecting the customers that still support the format.


My set-up is just 5.1 as well and it sounded great, no worries with the mix. Both the UHD and BR sounded good.


----------



## AmerCa

*Lone Survivor*

Surprisingly, I only encountered two explicit recommendations for this excellent movie. I'm quoting the most detailed one. I agree with this review almost word by word, but I'm just more confident in the recommendation for tier 0. It's as good as anything i have of tier 0, and much better looking than the recently-watched Hacksaw Ridge. It's really a treat to the eyes, with a very Michael-Bay-esque look.

This bluray really is the whole package: amazing movie, outstanding PQ and superb audio track. If you're a fan of war movies and great stories, there's no reason not to own this disc.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (current placement)*





wattheF said:


> LONE SURVIVOR
> 
> Just re-watched, this time on BD.
> 
> Excellent PQ! Great clarity and sharpness. Textures and details, most notably in closeups were top notch. I only caught 2 shots in one indoor scene that looked a bit softer. Contrast seemed spot on. Black levels overall were great but faltered a bit on a few scenes. Shadow detail was consistently very good. Color seemed nicely balanced.
> 
> Overall I liked how clean the presentation was. There were no signs of artifacts and zero noticeable grain.
> 
> There were a couple scenes towards the end that were stunning and made me say WOW!
> 
> I know the PQ is not quite up there with the best reference BD's, but it's not far behind. For me it is straddling the line of Tier Blu and Gold, but based on the couple minor "flaws" I mentioned I will go with...
> 
> EDIT** I changed my mind. I decided the few "flaws" are so minor that they should not and cannot knock this BD out of Tier 0. It's positives are simply too strong and easily outweigh these nitpicks.
> 
> RANKING- TIER 0 (towards the bottom)
> 
> Viewed on 60" Panasonic ST60 from 6.5 feet, using PS3 slim and Darbee Darblet.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Double (2014)*

recommendation: *Tier 2.5**

Just to clear up any confusion, I believe _The Double_ currently listed in Tier 1.75 is for the political thriller starring Richard Gere. I can't seem to find its review in this thread using the search feature, so if anyone would know better, please speak up. 

This review concerns the 2014 movie of the same name, the _Brazil_-like psychodrama starring Jesse Eisenberg. Released by Magnolia Home Entertainment, _The Double_ offers a drab palette despite its fairly crisp definition. The dark aethestic suffers a bit getting included on a BD-25, forcing minor banding in the AVC encode.

The black levels are steady, probably the transfer's strongest attribute. Close-ups contain moderate amounts of fine detail but this isn't tack-sharp filmmaking exuding dimensionality and depth. A wide range of color grading has clearly been done at the digital intermediate level. This is a digitally graded film awash in yellow and tan hues, altering the entire color balance. That being said, there is no significant evidence of filtering or edge enhancement.


----------



## djoberg

*Stranger Things (Season 1)*

Okay, I just finished watching the first 4 episodes of Season 1. The PQ seems consistent all the way through so I'm going to assume the last 4 episodes will be too. Most of the reviews that I read were very positive, especially Blu-ray.com where they gave it a perfect score of 5. I can't say that it's that good, for there's no way I'd put this in Tier Blu, but it is definitely worthy of a Tier Gold placement.

Let's get the "weaknesses" out of the way. BLACK LEVELS "can" be murky at times with fleeting instances of noise, but in fairness there are scenes where they are quite good with excellent SHADOW DETAILS as well. There are some scenes, most notably in Will's house, where it isn't too sharp; in fact, there are some definite SOFT SHOTS resulting in a lack of depth and details.

Now for the good! In outdoor daytime scenes and indoor scenes with good lighting (and they are plentiful!!), there is excellent CLARITY with finely-rendered DETAILS (in clothing fabrics, furniture, foliage, and especially facial texture). In those same scenes the COLORS do "pop" at times. The CONTRAST is strong. FLESH TONES are spot-on accurate. This was, without a doubt, "demo-worthy" EYE CANDY!

After putting all the "negatives" and "positives" on the scale (to try to ascertain the proper placement), I found there was definitely enough positives that filled up most of the running time to put this release right here....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**

PS I actually wouldn't argue with one who deems it worthy of a 1.25 placement.

PPS I'm really enjoying the series....impressive acting, creative story-line, good character development, and perfect pacing. The audio ain't half bad either (with a cool synth sound)!


----------



## DarthDoxie

djoberg said:


> *Stranger Things (Season 1)*
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.5**


Picked this up during Black Friday, probably won't be until January before I can get to it. I started watching *Planet Earth II* in UHD this morning and it looks spectacular, I can see why it's at the top of the tiers. I've only watched the first episode, Islands, so I'll make an official recommendation when I've finished the series.


----------



## djoberg

DarthDoxie said:


> Picked this up during Black Friday, probably won't be until January before I can get to it. I started watching *Planet Earth II* in UHD this morning and it looks spectacular, I can see why it's at the top of the tiers. I've only watched the first episode, Islands, so I'll make an official recommendation when I've finished the series.


I think you will really like the series AND the PQ. Looking forward to hearing your impressions. Regarding _Planet Earth 2_, I've seen some of the episodes 2 or 3 times (to show others the beauty of true 4K) and I never tire of being immersed in all of its 4K glory. I like the fact that it's filmed in the 1.85:1 Aspect Ratio too!

I see that Phantom gave it a 1.75 and almost gave it a 2.0. His comments about the PQ being disappointing for Netflix's first outing got me to thinking, for I thought the PQ was excellent in many scenes. What I concluded (right or wrong) is that Phantom still has a 1080p display and my Sony display has one of the best processors for up-scaling 1080p Blu-rays to its native 4K. Thus the Sony has an edge in that department (though Phantom's KURO still has the edge when it comes to consistent black levels).


----------



## Phantom Stranger

The synth score for Stranger Things makes the show.


----------



## AmerCa

*The Island (2005, Paramount)*

Currently, this movie ranks around the last third of tier Blu, but I couldn't find any recommendation for it in this thread with search function.

Like all Michael Bay's movies, the PQ quality is outstanding, and we're talking here of a 12 years old movie. However, in all honesty, I don't know why it's rated that high. There are recurrent instances of softness, and I could spot several "plastic" faces. There's a considerable amount of film grain present in several scenes and - while not bad in itself - it made the picture look a bit dirty and undetailed in some cases. Following Bay's visual style, there's color oversaturation, and while this make the colors "pop out", blacks tend to eat picture detail.

That said, there's a lot of good stuff to find in here. There are fantastic facial close-ups with lots of detail, the colors are vibrant and there are many scenes that feature exceptional contrast. The movie looks stunning most of its running time. However, in my opinion, the PQ is not consistent enough to guarantee a tier 0 placement. As good as it looks, the movie clearly shows it's not a recent release. Due to all of the above, The Island's proper placement seems in tier 1 at best, or tier 1.25 at worst. In short, then film features fantastic PQ, but it's not as consistent as a tier 0 should be.

Those wondering about the SQ, the DTS 5.1 MA here is fantastic with lots of presence, and great surround activity.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 1*

Ps This movie has made me reconsider if John Wick deserves its current ranking. It's most definitely not in the same league as this movie, even being a much newer release.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Michael Bay's films have a habit of landing in Tier Zero. His high-impact visuals are tailor-made for HD. I haven't seen _The Island_ in many years, but I imagine its current ranking may very well be too high as you said.

As you have discovered, the thread's search engine is starting to become useless for finding reviews in the thread older than a certain date.


----------



## djoberg

I watched the last 4 episodes of _Stranger Things (Season 1)_ last night and I am more persuaded than ever that this series deserves a strong Tier 1 placement. In my review I opted for 1.5 and said it could even merit a 1.25 ranking; I stand by that firmly.

Again, every scene in broad daylight or indoor scenes with good lighting featured remarkable clarity and details. Facial close-ups revealed finely-rendered texture. And even in night time scenes outdoors, there was amazing shadow detail. There were quite a few scenes where search parties or individuals were walking through the woods that highlighted these details. In fairness, there were shots deep inside the "lab" (where the "gate" was) and inside the "other dimension" where blacks faltered, but all things considered these are "demo-worthy" discs.

Here is what Blu-ray.com had to say about the PQ (with which I fully concur with the exception of his comments on the "lab"):

*Stranger Things was shot at a resolution of 6K, finished at 4K, and was reportedly available on Netflix at 4K, but the studio, in its first Blu-ray release, has opted to offer no UHD. Fortunately, the 1080p Blu-ray is spectacular. Though photographed on video, the show enjoys a fairly convincing filmic texturing. Details are wonderful, capturing the complex essences of various 80's-style homes, cars, clothes, and various odds and ends with ease. Clothing close-ups are perhaps the most revealing. Hopper's police shirt offers incredible fabric density and detail, with patches and pressed lines as tactile and clear as the format allows. Will's makeshift fort in the woods, seen in only a couple of key moments, is a treasure trove of mix and match textural brilliance. Even in darker places and sequences, which are many -- whether in the spartan government lab, woodland areas, lower-light basements -- the image never struggles to present a solidly detailed and tangible world. Black levels, absolutely critical to the show's viability, are fantastically deep and true with only occasional and brief pushes to mild murkiness. Colors are gorgeously saturated and intense, whether large swaths or finer, smaller, but critical colors, like the Byers family telephone that plays a key role earlier in the season. Skin tones appear natural. The opening titles show some intentional speckling, but the image proper is very clean and robust. Though a UHD would have been a most welcome release, Netflix has certainly hit a home run with its 1080p presentation. *


----------



## AmerCa

I've seen a lot of talk about Stranger Things in the last year or so, but I have yet to watch a single episode. Out of curiosity, I checked Amazon Mexico, but the box set isn't available here yet. It's been a long time since I followed a TV show, not even Games Of Thrones. I'll check Stranger Things at some point.


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> I've seen a lot of talk about Stranger Things in the last year or so, but I have yet to watch a single episode. Out of curiosity, I checked Amazon Mexico, but the box set isn't available here yet. It's been a long time since I followed a TV show, not even Games Of Thrones. I'll check Stranger Things at some point.


I'm probably in a very small minority, but I don't subscribe to Netflix, so even though I've been hearing rave reviews (like you have!) I never had the opportunity to watch it. I wasn't planning on buying Season One at the price they had it at, but when it went on sale Black Friday for $10 it was a "no-brainer." 

I wish you had some way of getting in on the deal.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> I watched the last 4 episodes of _Stranger Things (Season 1)_ last night and I am more persuaded than ever that this series deserves a strong Tier 1 placement. In my review I opted for 1.5 and said it could even merit a 1.25 ranking; I stand by that firmly.
> 
> Again, every scene in broad daylight or indoor scenes with good lighting featured remarkable clarity and details. Facial close-ups revealed finely-rendered texture. And even in night time scenes outdoors, there was amazing shadow detail. There were quite a few scenes where search parties or individuals were walking through the woods that highlighted these details. In fairness, there were shots deep inside the "lab" (where the "gate" was) and inside the "other dimension" where blacks faltered, but all things considered these are "demo-worthy" discs.
> 
> Here is what Blu-ray.com had to say about the PQ (with which I fully concur with the exception of his comments on the "lab"):
> 
> *Stranger Things was shot at a resolution of 6K, finished at 4K, and was reportedly available on Netflix at 4K, but the studio, in its first Blu-ray release, has opted to offer no UHD. Fortunately, the 1080p Blu-ray is spectacular. Though photographed on video, the show enjoys a fairly convincing filmic texturing. Details are wonderful, capturing the complex essences of various 80's-style homes, cars, clothes, and various odds and ends with ease. Clothing close-ups are perhaps the most revealing. Hopper's police shirt offers incredible fabric density and detail, with patches and pressed lines as tactile and clear as the format allows. Will's makeshift fort in the woods, seen in only a couple of key moments, is a treasure trove of mix and match textural brilliance. Even in darker places and sequences, which are many -- whether in the spartan government lab, woodland areas, lower-light basements -- the image never struggles to present a solidly detailed and tangible world. Black levels, absolutely critical to the show's viability, are fantastically deep and true with only occasional and brief pushes to mild murkiness. Colors are gorgeously saturated and intense, whether large swaths or finer, smaller, but critical colors, like the Byers family telephone that plays a key role earlier in the season. Skin tones appear natural. The opening titles show some intentional speckling, but the image proper is very clean and robust. Though a UHD would have been a most welcome release, Netflix has certainly hit a home run with its 1080p presentation. *


I dislike having to criticize a reviewer unable to defend himself here, but that paragraph's flowery description of _Stranger Things'_ PQ has little basis in reality. _Stranger Things_ doesn't even have the same level of video polish and shine that the better premium cable productions have on Blu-ray, much less top-notch theatrical films. Its aesthetic almost consciously seems designed to emulate the era it is set in, the early 1980s. Shot on digital video but possibly intended to resemble heavier film stocks used in the 1980s, I think it fails to achieve a perfect emulation.



AmerCa said:


> I've seen a lot of talk about Stranger Things in the last year or so, but I have yet to watch a single episode. Out of curiosity, I checked Amazon Mexico, but the box set isn't available here yet. It's been a long time since I followed a TV show, not even Games Of Thrones. I'll check Stranger Things at some point.


Stranger Things on Blu-ray and UHD is exclusively distributed through Target in America. It's one of Netflix's first real buzzworthy television productions, so they decided to release it on physical media outside the Netflix streaming service. I'm not sure when or if other retailers will get a crack at it.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> I dislike having to criticize a reviewer unable to defend himself here, but that paragraph's flowery description of _Stranger Things'_ PQ has little basis in reality. _Stranger Things_ doesn't even have the same level of video polish and shine that the better premium cable productions have on Blu-ray, much less top-notch theatrical films. Its aesthetic almost consciously seems designed to emulate the era it is set in, the early 1980s. Shot on digital video but possibly intended to resemble heavier film stocks used in the 1980s, I think it fails to achieve a perfect emulation.


As I had said in my review when alluding to this reviewer, I don't believe it deserves a perfect PQ score of 5 (which would be the equivalent of a Tier Blu score on this thread), but I will defend his view (since he is "unable to defend himself here") to a point. This is one that you and I will have to "agree to disagree on" Phantom, for ON MY DISPLAY and WITH MY EYES all the scenes with good lighting (outside and inside) have remarkable clarity and details, with very good colors at times, appreciable depth and excellent black levels. To that extent I agree wholeheartedly with his assessment. I will also add that you did give it a 1.75 score and that ain't too shabby! 

I would love to have others chime in after seeing it, especially those with a 4K display with a good processor.


----------



## John Mason

^^^Glowing reviews usually prompt me to jump to IMDB'S tech-spec page. The 6k raw files, cameras, and 4k DI used here seemed like a logical outcome to me. But a creative team trying to approximate a decades-old film tech is a little hard to follow--although it may well occur with some productions. I figured with that tech they had eventual UHD in mind. -- John


----------



## djoberg

John Mason said:


> ^^^Glowing reviews usually prompt me to jump to IMBD'S tech-spec page. The 6k raw files, cameras, and 4k DI used here seemed like a logical outcome to me. But a creative team trying to approximate a decades-old film tech is a little hard to follow--although it may well occur with some productions. I figured with that tech they had eventual UHD in mind. -- John


Yes John, I agree they definitely had UHD in mind and now Season One is indeed offered on UHD and Season Two will be a UHD release (not sure if they'll offer a 1080p version). The reviews of the UHD version are unanimously reporting an uptick in resolution/details with deeper blacks and brighter colors (courtesy of HDR and WCG).


----------



## AmerCa

djoberg said:


> I'm probably in a very small minority, but I don't subscribe to Netflix, so even though I've been hearing rave reviews (like you have!) I never had the opportunity to watch it. I wasn't planning on buying Season One at the price they had it at, but when it went on sale Black Friday for $10 it was a "no-brainer."
> 
> I wish you had some way of getting in on the deal.


10 bucks was a great deal! TV box sets are usually very expensive around here, sometimes there are great deal, but you gotta be on the watch. The only show I own on bluray is Hannibal, which was my favorite show when it was on air.



Phantom Stranger said:


> Stranger Things on Blu-ray and UHD is exclusively distributed through Target in America. It's one of Netflix's first real buzzworthy television productions, so they decided to release it on physical media outside the Netflix streaming service. I'm not sure when or if other retailers will get a crack at it.


Thanks for the info. It's a good thing I'm in no hurry.


----------



## toonj64

So im a bit lost with this thread and the seperate list.

Do we have an actual "top 10" or top tier especially for UHD 4K discs released from day 1 up to this week??


----------



## Phantom Stranger

toonj64 said:


> So im a bit lost with this thread and the seperate list.
> 
> Do we have an actual "top 10" or top tier especially for UHD 4K discs released from day 1 up to this week??


Right now we have UHDs included in the regular Blu-ray PQ Tiers on the same scale and list. To find them, use CTRL+F to search the list for UHD. Most of the listed 4K UHDs so far land in Tier Zero.

We might possibly pull the UHDs out in the next update for their own list, if that ever comes around. The last update was back in July. Searching this thread itself for specific UHD discs would probably give you better results at the moment, since Djoberg and others have been reviewing UHDs for the Tiers since July.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*RED (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

Nothing spectacular, a solid gold tier film. Shot on film so the grain is quite noticeable but I didn't penalize anything for it, just thought I'd mention it. Sharp for the most part, fabrics and hair show good level of detail. Black levels are good for the most part but looked crushed in a few fleeting spots.

FYI: this is Dolby Vision HDR disc.


----------



## djoberg

*3:10 to Yuma (UHD)*

If memory serves me I did see the 1080p version of this release, but I can't recall what my impressions were. The 4K release is a mixed bag, with quite striking details at times along with decent blacks levels, accurate flesh tones, and good contrast. But there were also scenes where blacks faltered resulting in a lack of details and depth. It had a muted color palette so there's nothing to say about them, good or bad. During a few of the opening scenes I spotted some noise in shots of the blue skies and mid-range shots of background foliage and mountains were less-than-stellar. All in all, it was a good viewing, but I won't be putting this on my "Reference Shelf" (Tier 0) Having said that, I think I just found a spot on my "Demo Shelf" (Tier Gold)....near the bottom.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**

PS The DTS:X audio mix was spectacular! And the movie was very good, with excellent acting and a heart-warming story-line (in spite of the violence and blood-thirsty villains on both sides of the law).


----------



## toonj64

Phantom Stranger said:


> Right now we have UHDs included in the regular Blu-ray PQ Tiers on the same scale and list. To find them, use CTRL+F to search the list for UHD. Most of the listed 4K UHDs so far land in Tier Zero.
> 
> We might possibly pull the UHDs out in the next update for their own list, if that ever comes around. The last update was back in July. Searching this thread itself for specific UHD discs would probably give you better results at the moment, since Djoberg and others have been reviewing UHDs for the Tiers since July.


I did the search in the list and not one movie has "UHD" next to it. Am I looking at the wrong list??


----------



## Phantom Stranger

toonj64 said:


> I did the search in the list and not one movie has "UHD" next to it. Am I looking at the wrong list??


Are you searching on the latest PQ Tiers?

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...re-quality-rankings-pq-tiers-july-2017-a.html

My computer reports six occurrences of "UHD" on the page, including Risen and John Wick Chapter 2 in Tier Zero. More UHDs will get added in the next update since we've seen heavier 4K reviewing in the thread over the past few months.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*2017 World Series Film: Houston Astros vs. Los Angeles Dodgers*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

This is a snappy 90-minute documentary about the recently completed World Series that saw the Astros win their first championship in franchise history. Largely comprised of game footage and highlights from all seven games, the video quality is a wee bit better than the 720P HD broadcast seen on FOX. Behind-the-scenes clips and talking head interviews with the players reflecting back on the World Series are shot with strong clarity that fits in with the glossy video production.

Released by Shout Factory on a BD-25, there isn't anything to complain about in this satisfying presentation. The action looks great with rich colors and an excellent contrast, from the green grass of Dodgers Stadium to the bright orange Astros's uniforms.


----------



## toonj64

Phantom Stranger said:


> Are you searching on the latest PQ Tiers?
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...re-quality-rankings-pq-tiers-july-2017-a.html
> 
> My computer reports six occurrences of "UHD" on the page, including Risen and John Wick Chapter 2 in Tier Zero. More UHDs will get added in the next update since we've seen heavier 4K reviewing in the thread over the past few months.


I didnt have the right link. I used the one on the 1st post of the page.
Thanks


----------



## Phantom Stranger

toonj64 said:


> I didnt have the right link. I used the one on the 1st post of the page.
> Thanks


We have had to abandon older versions of the PQ Tiers. I have always been afraid of newcomers and visitors looking at one of the older versions by mistake. If you google "PQ Tiers," the first result is an obsolete version that hasn't been updated since 2012.

The latest and most current PQ Tiers is always the sticky thread in the Blu-ray software forum and linked in my user signature, beneath every post I make.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Kong: Skull Island (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 0* (0.75)*

Couldn't have said it better. The black levels are outstanding and the HDR highlights on the weapons at night are excellent. This definitely has a period film look to it being set in 1973 with a muted color palate but it doesn't knock it's tier score in the least. The details are also excellent with facial closeups showing plenty of depth and detail. Kong's fur is also nicely presented.

*Kong: Skull Island (Blu-ray)*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0*
*
Popped in the BR and checked certain scenes to compare the PQ and it's only slightly behind the UHD with only a slight decrease in contrast knocking it down to tier 1.



djoberg said:


> *Kong: Skull Island*
> 
> This review is on the UHD/HDR version. This one belongs on your "Reference" shelf...no doubt about it. The DETAILS were insane in all the jungle scenes and especially in close-ups of all the MONSTERS (and of course, Kong was King in the details category). The color scheme wasn't great (there was too much "color-grading" and some muted colors as well), but when primaries rose to the occasion they were pleasing to the eyes. Black levels were very good...there was one night scene toward the end that was one of the best I've seen for SHADOW DETAILS...simply astounding! There was also a fine layer of grain throughout resulting in a very nice "filmic-look." DEPTH could also be outstanding...FLESH TONES suffered some during the worst shots with color-grading, but those were limited mostly to early scenes.
> 
> Okay, I've already let the proverbial "cat out of the bag" regarding which Tier this should be placed in. But it's time to be more specific...
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.75)*
> 
> PS I suspect the 1080p version would land in the very bottom of the Tier or possibly in the top of Tier Gold.


----------



## djoberg

*Oblivion (UHD)*

It's been about 4 years since I watched the 1080p version of this. It took me awhile to find my review but I'm going to give the link to it so anyone can compare it with my UHD impressions. As you will see, I gave that release a score of 1.0.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-687.html#post23634261

Overall, I'd have to say that the UHD version is only "slightly" better. The black levels were deeper and there weren't as many soft shots. The HDR also contributed much better contrast in scenes with a bright sun and the scene where Jack investigates the site after the spaceship crashes..the fires around the crash site are phenomenal!

Before I give my placement recommendation, I just have to say the Dolby Atmos mix was INSANE! It had LOTS of drones and space ships flying in all directions and making circular flights and the panning in my 4 Height Speakers was spot-on accurate and it added a fantastic new dimension to the film. I ended up listening to it at Reference Level during those panning scenes! I believe this would land in the Top Five if there was a dedicated thread for Dolby Atmos/DTS:X mixes.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.75)*


----------



## fredxr2d2

djoberg said:


> *Oblivion (UHD)*
> 
> It's been about 4 years since I watched the 1080p version of this. It took me awhile to find my review but I'm going to give the link to it so anyone can compare it with my UHD impressions. As you will see, I gave that release a score of 1.0.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-687.html#post23634261
> 
> Overall, I'd have to say that the UHD version is only "slightly" better. The black levels were deeper and there weren't as many soft shots. The HDR also contributed much better contrast in scenes with a bright sun and the scene where Jack investigates the site after the spaceship crashes..the fires around the crash site are phenomenal!
> 
> Before I give my placement recommendation, I just have to say the Dolby Atmos mix was INSANE! It had LOTS of drones and space ships flying in all directions and making circular flights and the panning in my 4 Height Speakers was spot-on accurate and it added a fantastic new dimension to the film. I ended up listening to it at Reference Level during those panning scenes! I believe this would land in the Top Five if there was a dedicated thread for Dolby Atmos/DTS:X mixes.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.75)*


The 1080p blu with DTS; Neural X did a fantastic job of making ships fly overhead, so I wonder how the atmos mix compares.


----------



## AmerCa

djoberg said:


> *Oblivion (UHD)*
> 
> I believe this would land in the Top Five if there was a dedicated thread for Dolby Atmos/DTS:X mixes.


We certainly need a thread like that. It's very surprising that it doesn't exist!! I think there was a thread dedicated for audio, but I think it died? Ranking audio mixes should be very fun.


----------



## djoberg

fredxr2d2 said:


> The 1080p blu with DTS; Neural X did a fantastic job of making ships fly overhead, so I wonder how the atmos mix compares.


I have the 1080p Blu-ray so I'll have to check it out now that I have Height Speakers. I do recall the DTS MA mix (7.1 mix I believe) being incredible. But the Atmos mix takes it to a new level altogether.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

AmerCa said:


> We certainly need a thread like that. It's very surprising that it doesn't exist!! I think there was a thread dedicated for audio, but I think it died? Ranking audio mixes should be very fun.


There was an Audio Tiers but no one wanted to keep managing it, so the thread died out.

Since there is no other venue for them, feel free to mention the audio here when it's noteworthy. I know Djoberg likes including comments on the audio when reviewing discs for the PQ Tiers.


----------



## DarthDoxie

djoberg said:


> *Oblivion (UHD)*
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.75)*


I've got this one on my list for later this month but wanted your thoughts on the color grading. There is quite the discussion on this disc over at Blu-ray.com that the BR has more of a harsh look (LED refrigerator light bulb look), that most actually prefer, and the UHD has more of a warmed-up look (incandescent light bulb look). Lots of members over there have their pitch forks out for Universal for changing the overall lighting feel on the UHD. Did you happen to look at the BR for a comparison since it's been awhile since you viewed it?


----------



## djoberg

DarthDoxie said:


> I've got this one on my list for later this month but wanted your thoughts on the color grading. There is quite the discussion on this disc over at Blu-ray.com that the BR has more of a harsh look (LED refrigerator light bulb look), that most actually prefer, and the UHD has more of a warmed-up look (incandescent light bulb look). Lots of members over there have their pitch forks out for Universal for changing the overall lighting feel on the UHD. Did you happen to look at the BR for a comparison since it's been awhile since you viewed it?


I have NOT had the time yet to compare the two releases. Truth is, I have SO MANY 4k UHD Blu-rays to watch it will take me well into 2018! Not only have I purchased quite a few since setting up my 5.2.4 audio system, but I already had nearly 50 titles with either an Atmos or a DTS:X mix. I have a real desire to watch (and LISTEN to) all of them again.

Having said that, I really do want to see the Blu-ray version, for as I said to fredxr2d2 in an earlier post that it would be nice to hear the DTS: Neural X "upmix" since he said it was fantastic. Now I can add to that "comparing the color-grading between the two." It has been nearly 4 years since I watched and reviewed the 1080p version and from what I witnessed last night I never once thought, "Man, they changed the lighting and I'm upset." Time will tell what conclusion I'll reach.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Planet Earth II (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 0 (Number 1, numero uno, The Big Kahuna) (current location)*

Rightfully deserving of the top spot. Very minor banding during the opening and closing BBC logo spots but not present in any of the 6 episodes. Clarity is excellent with 80% of the material shot in native 4K, the rest is drone footage or remote cameras but you would really have to scrutinize the picture to notice. Colors, black levels, and contrast are all off the charts.


----------



## DarthDoxie

djoberg said:


> I have NOT had the time yet to compare the two releases. Truth is, I have SO MANY 4k UHD Blu-rays to watch it will take me well into 2018! Not only have I purchased quite a few since setting up my 5.2.4 audio system, but I already had nearly 50 titles with either an Atmos or a DTS:X mix. I have a real desire to watch (and LISTEN to) all of them again.
> 
> Having said that, I really do want to see the Blu-ray version, for as I said to fredxr2d2 in an earlier post that it would be nice to hear the DTS: Neural X "upmix" since he said it was fantastic. Now I can add to that "comparing the color-grading between the two." It has been nearly 4 years since I watched and reviewed the 1080p version and from what I witnessed last night *I never once thought, "Man, they changed the lighting and I'm upset."* Time will tell what conclusion I'll reach.


Pretty much what I've read over there, unless you directly compare the two, you're not going to notice. It's an interesting discussion though and I'm curious more than anything. I upgraded from the BR as well and looking forward to viewing it as I really enjoyed the movie.


----------



## djoberg

DarthDoxie said:


> Pretty much what I've read over there, unless you directly compare the two, you're not going to notice. It's an interesting discussion though and I'm curious more than anything. I upgraded from the BR as well and looking forward to viewing it as *I really enjoyed the movie.*


_Oblivion_ is, by far, one of my favorite Tom Cruise movies. I mentioned that I hadn't seen it in nearly 4 years, but one of my daughters has it and her husband and I have seen it couple of times in his Home Theater above his garage (on a 115" Mitsubishi screen).


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Team America: World Police*

recommendation: *Tier 3.0**

Black levels and contrast are average but clarity is where it falters, it's a bit soft overall.


----------



## djoberg

*Lone Survivor (UHD)*

I won't add much to DarthDoxie's review below, for he said in all in just a few words. If memory serves me, I did rent the 1080p release, watched it, and then reviewed it, but I couldn't find it after doing a "Search" of this thread. Methinks I may have opted for .33 (where the current ranking is). If so, I'm thinking this "may" have been a tad better, but I'd wouldn't bet on it. I remember the same amazing details that Darth wrote about, especially in facial close-ups and fabrics once the Seal Team started getting wounded. The cinematography was amazing too!

One thing I can say FOR SURE...the DTS:X mix brought the "audio score" up BIG TIME. Again, once the action started with bombings, bullets flying all over the place (including bullets raining down on the Seal Team from above them), and helicopters galore, the Height Channels added so much realism to the film. 

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.33)*

PS I supposed I could have just echoed Darth's score, but I wasn't as impressed with some of the footage in the first one-third of the film, so I went with what I believe I scored the 1080p at.



DarthDoxie said:


> *Lone Survivor (UHD)*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 0.25**
> 
> The current BD sits at about 0.33 so I would put this just a bit higher. The black levels, contrast, color, and details are pure eye candy. The green foliage, blood, and flesh tones are excellent. The slight gradations in color are really nice like the various shades of gray on all the military aircraft. Details like beards, facial pores, and fabric are intricately reproduced.
> 
> Really digging my new display


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> *Lone Survivor*
> 
> SWEET!! We can finally add another live action movie to the REFERENCE TIER!
> 
> I'm tired so I'll make this short. DETAILS abound in nearly every shot of its 2-hour running time, whether it's the Afghanistan terrain (though it was actually filmed in New Mexico) with its gorgeous mountains, forests, and deserts, or the MANY facial close-ups revealing every bit of blood, sweat and tears (and also pores, snot, cuts, dirt, grime, etc.). I hadn't seen texture in faces like this since the _Transporter_ trilogy. Details in clothing was also amazing. DEPTH was also phenomenal with scenes so real that you felt you could reach out and touch a tree or a soldier. FLESH TONES were as good as they get. COLORS were vivid. SHARPNESS & CLARITY were off the charts!
> 
> About the only gripe were blacks levels that became a bit murky with a smidgen of noise, but these were limited to a couple of fleeting shots. In all other cases blacks were deep and inky with finely-rendered shadow details.
> 
> I would say this is most definitely one of the best live action Blus to date and I'd place it at about the .33 mark in Tier 0. To be more precise, I'd put it right here....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (right above Live Free or Die Hard*)
> 
> PS The audio was stellar with plenty of action in the surrounds during gunfights and helicopter flights, and some very impressive bass in multiple scenes. The movie was also excellent!
> 
> Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....





wattheF said:


> LONE SURVIVOR
> 
> Just re-watched, this time on BD.
> 
> Excellent PQ! Great clarity and sharpness. Textures and details, most notably in closeups were top notch. I only caught 2 shots in one indoor scene that looked a bit softer. Contrast seemed spot on. Black levels overall were great but faltered a bit on a few scenes. Shadow detail was consistently very good. Color seemed nicely balanced.
> 
> Overall I liked how clean the presentation was. There were no signs of artifacts and zero noticeable grain.
> 
> There were a couple scenes towards the end that were stunning and made me say WOW!
> 
> I know the PQ is not quite up there with the best reference BD's, but it's not far behind. For me it is straddling the line of Tier Blu and Gold, but based on the couple minor "flaws" I mentioned I will go with...
> 
> EDIT** I changed my mind. I decided the few "flaws" are so minor that they should not and cannot knock this BD out of Tier 0. It's positives are simply too strong and easily outweigh these nitpicks.
> 
> RANKING- TIER 0 (towards the bottom)
> 
> Viewed on 60" Panasonic ST60 from 6.5 feet, using PS3 slim and Darbee Darblet.


Your Lone Survivor Blu-ray recommendation goes all the way back to 2014, Denny. I had to dig through Google to find these reviews from the thread.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> Your Lone Survivor Blu-ray recommendation goes all the way back to 2014, Denny. I had to dig through Google to find these reviews from the thread.


Thanks Phantom!


----------



## djoberg

*Kidnap*

I rented this on a whim....glad I rented it, for had I purchased it I'd have a bad case of "buyer's remorse!"

The movie AND the PQ were disappointing. There was plenty of action but that about sums up the whole movie. There was also plenty of NOISE, fleeting SOFT SHOTS, and a lack of DETAILS and DEPTH in many scenes. The first scene looked promising, with warm and vibrant colors, a fair amount of details, and good clarity. But once the "chase" began the camera was panning too fast to capture any of those features. Black levels were just so-so. I think you get the picture....this won't be finding its way on anyone's demo shelf. It is easily "forgettable" in every way possible (with the exception of a fairly good DTS-MA audio mix that sounded really good at times with my Denon's DTS Neural X upmix).

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25**


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Kick-Ass (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 1.25**

Good all around presentation, black levels and contrast stand out.


----------



## djoberg

*13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi (Revisited)*

Since I already reviewed this in June of 2016, I don't plan to write out another full review at this time. I will simply add the link to my review and say a few words. Here is the link:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-776.html#post44632481

As you will see, I nominated it for Tier 0 (.5). Well, after tonight I believe I "short-changed it" and now I'm willing to go higher! The details are even more amazing than what I had remembered, along with incredible depth, clarity and colors. Yes, the contrast was certainly SPIKED (in keeping with Michael Bay's usual style), but as I said in my earlier review the over-saturated colors didn't bother me at all because of the amazing details. Black levels and shadow details were INSANE!!!

A short word on the Dolby Atmos audio track: STELLAR!!!!! The panning and discrete effects were spot-on accurate and put me right in the middle of the (at times) non-stop action. I found myself enjoying it so much that I eventually turned it to REFERENCE LEVEL and left it there! Thankfully my new SVS speakers were able to handle it and with dual subs the bass was IMMERSIVE. This is a must-see for anyone who has never seen (or heard) it.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (.25)*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^

I neglected to mention that this was the 1080p version. When I purchased it on Black Friday I didn't even check to see if there was a 4K release since the 1080p version had a Dolby Atmos mix. I can't imagine the 4K version looking any better (but I've said that before and been proved wrong).


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Autopsy of Jane Doe*

recommendation: *Tier 2.25**

Shout Factory's _The Autopsy of Jane Doe_ arrived earlier this year on Blu-ray. The 86-minute main feature is encoded in AVC, on a BD-25. The compression parameters are sufficient in most scenes, though minor banding and chroma noise can be spotted on larger displays. It is presented in a 2.35:1 aspect ratio, preserving its intended composition.

The horror film has its better picture quality moments early in the proceedings with crisp definition and strong clarity. Generally the video is sharp with excellent fine detail. The graphic horror film doesn't shy away from the more visceral details of an autopsy. Nothing is left to the imagination. As its plot shifts, the setting turns darker in dimly-lit interiors that hamper definition. Shadow delineation is usually decent but unspectacular, occasionally softening darker textures. Black levels are unremarkable in the horror flick.

Years ago this disc would have probably landed in Tier One, but substantial moments of lesser picture quality keep it in Tier Two.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Touch of Evil (reconstructed)*

recommendation: *Tier 2.75**

An Orson Welles film noir masterpiece and like most of his films, it was edited by the studio without his input. There are three versions on the disc, Theatrical, Preview, and Reconstructed. I watched the Reconstructed version which restored scenes cut out by the studio and based on a 58 page memo written by Welles of why the scenes should have been put back in.

The movie is known for it's long three and a half minute opening tracking shot and it's beautiful here. The black levels and contrast are nice and strong throughout the entire shot. The remainder of the theatrical release scenes are equally strong in these areas as well. Clarity is also strong with fabrics and facial features showing lots of details. There are lots of outdoor scenes in what is supposed to be a grimy Mexican/U.S. boarder town so there are lots of varying textures and grit to look at and and take in. The wind and blowing debris reminds me of the great Akira Kurosowa films. The cut and now restored scenes however are on the rough side and thus bring the score down. Contrast, black levels, and details falter in these scenes and there is also a fair amount of print damage, mostly vertical scratches. Without the restored scenes, I would put the score at 2.25.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

DarthDoxie said:


> *Touch of Evil (reconstructed)*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 2.75**
> 
> An Orson Welles film noir masterpiece and like most of his films, it was edited by the studio without his input. There are three versions on the disc, Theatrical, Preview, and Reconstructed. I watched the Reconstructed version which restored scenes cut out by the studio and based on a 58 page memo written by Welles of why the scenes should have been put back in.
> 
> The movie is known for it's long three and a half minute opening tracking shot and it's beautiful here. The black levels and contrast are nice and strong throughout the entire shot. The remainder of the theatrical release scenes are equally strong in these areas as well. Clarity is also strong with fabrics and facial features showing lots of details. There are lots of outdoor scenes in what is supposed to be a grimy Mexican/U.S. boarder town so there are lots of varying textures and grit to look at and and take in. The wind and blowing debris reminds me of the great Akira Kurosowa films. The cut and now restored scenes however are on the rough side and thus bring the score down. Contrast, black levels, and details falter in these scenes and there is also a fair amount of print damage, mostly vertical scratches. Without the restored scenes, I would put the score at 2.25.


It's been years since I've watched the _Touch of Evil_ Blu-ray. That may need to be corrected very soon.


----------



## djoberg

*Life (UHD)*

I gave the 1080p version a score of 1.25 and after reading my review a few minutes ago I'd have to say the UHD release isn't that much better. After reading ALL the other reviews by "professional reviewers" I'm somewhat taken aback, for they said the UHD version was one of the best upgrades ever. I'm even questioning whether or not something is wrong with mine, for I did NOT see what others saw.

My main gripes with this were SOFTNESS during quite a few scenes, MURKY BLACKS and NOISE at times, and a very DRAB COLOR PALETTE. I will also add that the Dolby Atmos mix wasn't as great as I had anticipated. In that department I'm on the same page as others, for they say the mixes were basically the same.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Stand Up Guys*

recommendation: *Tier 0 (current position)*

While watching this one I was reminded of *Get on Up*, the black levels are spot on and off the charts. Never murky or blown out, they are always infinitely deep in all the night scenes. Details in fabrics, wisps of hair, and other textures really stand out. The aging Al Pacino and Christopher Walken have faces made for HD, every line and pore are on gorgeous display here.


----------



## djoberg

I just realized (after reading my post above on _Life (UHD)_, that I never gave my "positive impressions." Here is my review on the 1080p version from June of this year:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-795.html#post53878865

Let me add that after "sleeping on it" I don't really believe the UHD version deserves a 1.0 placement. I'm not even sure it's worthy of a 1.25 either. Again, I am baffled at what I saw in light of all of the stellar reviews of the UHD version. I'm going to "check it out" again today and see if my eyes were playing tricks on me last night.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^

I watched about 45 minutes of _Life_ again this evening and when I concentrated on DETAILS (in faces, electronic equipment in the space station, clothing, the "lab mouse," and especially "Calvin") I remembered what caused me to give the 1080p version a score of 1.25. They truly are incredible at times. I also focused more on the specular highlights that are featured via HDR and they were also VERY GOOD!

Again, there are fleeting shots of softness sprinkled throughout and a few instances of murky blacks and noise, but I guess I'm still willing to keep my score for the UHD release at 1.0.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 0* (number 3)*

Wow, what a feast for the eyes! Easily the top-dog of live action movies, *Avatar* doesn't come close. All measures of picture quality are off the charts with the HDR highlights a real treat. The funeral scene at the end is insane with eye-popping colors and HDR highlights. Details are outstanding, Rocket's fur and Groot's texture really stand out in my mind. Black levels are excellent in the space scenes and the nighttime shots on the forest planet.

Blu-ray recommendation: *Tier 0* (0.25)*


----------



## AmerCa

* The Fast And The Furious: Tokyo Drift (2006)*

Regardless of PQ, I don't think fans of the franchise need any recommendation to pick this up. But in the case of someone is wandering how this 10+ years old movie holds up in this day and age, I must say this disc didn't dissapoint. Solid colors and contrast, I didn't notice any glaring instances of softness or intrusive film grain. The transfer isn't as spectacular as newer transfers, - that is expected-, but it undoubtedly looks great. It currently stands in tier 1.25, and I think that's a reasonable placement. I watched this long ago in DVD, but the bluray makes you forget this is relatively an old movie.

I should mention the 5.1 lossless track is fantastic, both in sound quality and music choice. As expected, the track is loud and potent, and makes you feel you're right in the middle of the action. All in all, a very fun and exciting movie that looks pretty good.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*


----------



## AmerCa

* Total Recall (2012)*

I made a search for the movie, but it returned 23 pages, so I left it at that. It currently stands at tier 1.5, which I can't believe. Granted, I wasn't actively looking for defects, but I did catch some soft shots here and there, but nothing too distracting. To my my eyes and ears, it was an absolute A/V feast. Solid black levels, great colors, contrast and detail. The CGI was weak in spots, but overall was superbly done, and served the movie very well. It wasn't the best looking movie I've seen, but it deserves, in my opinion, a spot in tier zero, right above Hacksaw Ridge (the lowest reference point I could find in the category). I wouldn't argue for a tier 1 spot, but 1.5 seems too low to me.

The lossless track deserves a special mention, since it was spectacular. Even in my modest setup the track sounded fantastic, not only in terms of depth and power, but the use of surrounds was impressive. I remember being surrounded by sounds all the time, the mix was very active, but it actually gave dimension to the visuals. I felt like I was there with Colin Farrell! My system doesn't go very low, but I'm sure the ULF must be amazing. Being a fan of electronic music, the soundtrack was a delight to me, and the songs were used really well and suited the scenes nicely. This is another complete package: visuals, sound and great movie.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 ( 0.95 - right above Hacksaw Ridge)*

**UPDATE**

I just found Phantom's review of this film, and I'm happy we're on the same page regarding the merits of this disc. Here's the link to his review: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-666.html#post22869033


----------



## DarthDoxie

*To Kill a Mockingbird*

recommendation: *Tier 2.5**

A nice presentation from Universal, I saw no print damage or encode anomalies. Except for a few shots from lesser film elements, details and contrast are strong. It also has a beautiful layer of fine grain and along with *The Hustler* are strong examples of what early 60s B&W films should look like on Blu-ray.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Prancer*

recommendation: *Tier 4.0**

It's that time of year again and I figured the Tiers needed more holiday cheer in our usual assortment of thrillers and superhero movies. The 1989 MGM movie, a heartfelt holiday movie, was recently licensed by Shout Factory. This isn't a good transfer and it depends on how you define serviceable if you want to throw that term at it. Its picture produces a mushy grain structure and soft resolution that screams a 2007 release, not a 2017 effort. I might have been more forgiving of this presentation if it had been first released back in the 2000s, but the dated film scan by MGM shows its age. Years ago I might even have placed _Prancer_ in Tier 3 due to its solid film elements and consistent contrast. Nothing has been done to digitally restore these elements.

The 103-minute main feature is encoded in AVC on a BD-25. The presentation doesn't suffer from compression artifacts. A negligible amount of sharpening is present, though hardly intrusive on the final outcome. There is no real evidence of processing, but clearly resembles a soft telecine transfer struck when DVD was in its heyday. _Prancer_ is presented in its proper theatrical 1.85:1 aspect ratio.

Shout Factory likely secured MGM's older HD transfer that had been languishing in their archives for this disc. It's not a horrific viewing experience for an obscure catalog release, but a new film scan on a pin-registered scanner would have done _Prancer_ wonders.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Dunkirk (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 0* (above Avatar)*

The detail on this one is spectacular. Much of this movie was shot on 70mm IMAX cameras and it shows, details and depth are excellent. The leather helmet/gloves and the fur on Tom Hardy's coat are deep and textured, some of the best detail presentation I've seen. Soldier's uniforms and canvas gear, hair and facial features, and natural element textures are very detailed and sharp. The only time the frames were not pin sharp were a few fleeting shots of cockpit instruments (we're talking about 2-3 seconds total over the whole film). The non-IMAX portions were also razor sharp like all the sequences on the little ship, Moonstone. The sweaters the characters wore on the Moonstone were so detailed, individual hairs and fuzz could easily be seen. Colors were muted for the most part but the many shades of green and brown were well delineated. Punches of color were bright and vibrant when they showed up. Black levels were equally deep and inky. Many of the characters had black hair and the deep blacks combined with excellent contrast really made their hair stand out and showed off what UHD can really do. The excellent black levels, contrast, and depth of field gave the whole film a rich look that you don't get with digitally shot films. The encode is flawless, no banding, macro blocking or other encode problems were noticed.

The only detractor for the whole film is that in a few night shots with the IMAX sequences, black levels at the edges of the frame seem to be a little raised. It reminded me of watching dark scenes on my old edge lit LED where blacks are raised around the edges. This UHD has alternating aspect ratios and the IMAX scenes are presented in 16x9 and fill the whole screen. On the 2.35:1 scenes, the black bars are completely black so the raised blacks at the edges (most notably on the bottom) of the IMAX scenes points back to the source, the camera (there are only so many IMAX cameras and I've read they are getting long in the tooth). These few instances were the only times black levels faltered.

Much has been said in various forums about the lack of an immersive audio track. Nolan doesn't believe in them so don't expect any of his films to have them, either theatrically or home release. Have no fear though, the dts-HD MA 5.1 track is excellent with sound properly traveling around the room when appropriate and the LFE is deep and gut rumbling.

Blu-ray recommendation: *Tier 0* (0.5)*

The BR is just a tad lower in excellence with lesser detail and contrast, still and excellent reference quality disc.


----------



## AmerCa

DarthDoxie said:


> The BR is just a tad lower in excellence with lesser detail and contrast, still and excellent reference quality disc.


Interesting review. I'm a bit disappointed the bluray wasn't as excellent as expected, some people in here thought this could be the new king of the hill. Personally, I'll buy this only when the price drops considerably, for reasons stated in your review and other threads. The sub par releases are getting annoying, since we, in a lot of cases, pay full price for new releases, only to get shafted.


----------



## DarthDoxie

AmerCa said:


> Interesting review. I'm a bit disappointed the bluray wasn't as excellent as expected, some people in here thought this could be the new king of the hill. Personally, I'll buy this only when the price drops considerably, for reasons stated in your review and other threads. The sub par releases are getting annoying, since we, in a lot of cases, pay full price for new releases, only to get shafted.


Maybe you misunderstood, of course the BR is not as good as the UHD but mid-tier 0 is no slouch and it is beautiful; not sub-par by any measure of quality. Definitely get this when it reaches your price point.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Is it worth getting the _Westworld: Season One_ UHD over the Blu-ray edition? Anyone done the visual comparison? My information indicates the show was finished at 2K resolution.


----------



## djoberg

I was going to pick up _Dunkirk (UHD)_ and then I discovered, on Ralph Potts' site (where he reviews Blu-rays), that they are now selling a _Nolan Collection (UHD)_ consisting of SEVEN titles for $150. The collection includes _Dunkirk_, _Inception_, _Interstellar_, _The Prestige_, and the _Batman Trilogy_. I do have the _Batman Trilogy_ and _Interstellar_ on 1080p, but if I hear that there is a significant UPTICK in PQ I will be getting the set.

Phantom, I don't have a clue if there is any difference between the releases of _Westworld_.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Bridge on the River Kwai, The (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

I've become the victim of the sight dumping all that I had typed up so here is a short version. This presentation in UHD is disappointing when compared to the BD if you are expecting a great improvement. I watched about an hour of the BD to compare what I just saw on the UHD and I prefer the BD. Color, contrast, and black levels are the same, the UHD only offers a slight uptick in detail. Unfortunately, the uptick in detail is at the expense of elevated and enhance presentation of the grain structure, often to the point of distraction.

Much like Ralph Potts said in his review, if you have the BD and like it, no need to upgrade to the UHD.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> I was going to pick up _Dunkirk (UHD)_ and then I discovered, on Ralph Potts' site (where he reviews Blu-rays), that they are now selling a _Nolan Collection (UHD)_ consisting of SEVEN titles for $150. The collection includes _Dunkirk_, _Inception_, _Interstellar_, _The Prestige_, and the _Batman Trilogy_. I do have the _Batman Trilogy_ and _Interstellar_ on 1080p, but if I hear that there is a significant UPTICK in PQ I will be getting the set.
> 
> Phantom, I don't have a clue if there is any difference between the releases of _Westworld_.


I would be very interested in hearing how _The Prestige_ UHD turned out. I believe _The Prestige_ BD was the first disc I ever seriously reviewed in this thread, going back a decade! It's one of my favorite movies.



DarthDoxie said:


> *Bridge on the River Kwai, The (UHD)*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 2.0**
> 
> I've become the victim of the sight dumping all that I had typed up so here is a short version. This presentation in UHD is disappointing when compared to the BD if you are expecting a great improvement. I watched about an hour of the BD to compare what I just saw on the UHD and I prefer the BD. Color, contrast, and black levels are the same, the UHD only offers a slight uptick in detail. Unfortunately, the uptick in detail is at the expense of elevated and enhance presentation of the grain structure, often to the point of distraction.
> 
> Much like Ralph Potts said in his review, if you have the BD and like it, no need to upgrade to the UHD.


I read somewhere that the technicians supervising 4K film transfers for UHD are having a tough time managing grain structure. It's a completely different ballgame than handling a transfer intended for Blu-ray. Apparently the improved resolution is forcing studios to handle transfers intended for UHD differently than Blu-ray transfers.


----------



## tcramer

djoberg said:


> I was going to pick up _Dunkirk (UHD)_ and then I discovered, on Ralph Potts' site (where he reviews Blu-rays), that they are now selling a _Nolan Collection (UHD)_ consisting of SEVEN titles for $150. The collection includes _Dunkirk_, _Inception_, _Interstellar_, _The Prestige_, and the _Batman Trilogy_. I do have the _Batman Trilogy_ and _Interstellar_ on 1080p, but if I hear that there is a significant UPTICK in PQ I will be getting the set.
> 
> Phantom, I don't have a clue if there is any difference between the releases of _Westworld_.


If it matters to you (it doesn't to me), be aware that the Nolan set comes in "jumbo" packaging and does not include digital copies. By jumbo, it means all 7 UHD disks are in one case, all 7 Blu-Rays are in one case, and the special feature discs are in 1 case. I got the set on order from WB for $126 after a few stackable coupons. I'd pass that along, but sadly those expired!

Initial reviews sound like the PQ is excellent all around, but even the UHD are still only 5.1.

Merry Christmas!


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> I would be very interested in hearing how _The Prestige_ UHD turned out. I believe _The Prestige_ BD was the first disc I ever seriously reviewed in this thread, going back a decade! It's one of my favorite movies.


I have read reviews by owners on Amazon and one reviewer gave a somewhat detailed description of the PQ of each of the seven titles (you could tell he was experienced in evaluating PQ). He ended with _The Prestige_ and said that he was not expecting it to be all that good because of its age, but he was pleasantly surprised to find the PQ was not only acceptable, but very good.



tcramer said:


> If it matters to you (it doesn't to me), be aware that the Nolan set comes in "jumbo" packaging and does not include digital copies. By jumbo, it means all 7 UHD disks are in one case, all 7 Blu-Rays are in one case, and the special feature discs are in 1 case. I got the set on order from WB for $126 after a few stackable coupons. I'd pass that along, but sadly those expired!
> 
> Initial reviews sound like the PQ is excellent all around, but even the UHD are still only 5.1.


Digital copies don't matter to me either. The only "disappointment" to me is that Nolan continually rejects using Atmos or DTS:X mixes. I guess that won't be a "deal-breaker" though, for I have found that the Dolby and DTS "upmixing" (which sends signals to the Height Channels) can be quite good; in fact, in some instances it sounds just as good as the Atmos/DTS:X mix.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Hacksaw Ridge (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 0* (0.5)*

Strong in all facets of PQ. Didn't check the BD so can't comment on the banding some have seen, the UHD had no encode issues.


----------



## djoberg

I just got back from Best Buy where I ended up buying _Dunkirk UHD_, _The Prestige UHD_, and the _Men in Black Trilogy UHD_. I decided NOT to get the Nolan Collection because I'm not a big fan of _Inception_ and I'm actually quite satisfied with the 1080p versions of _Interstellar_ and the _Dark Knight Trilogy_. Maybe, and that's a big maybe, if Mr. Nolan had upgraded the DTS-MA to a DTS:X audio mix, I would have done the "Double-dip" (on the 4 titles I already have).

I'm really excited to see _Dunkirk_, especially after reading Darth's raving review!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I'd like to wish every reader and contributor to the PQ Tiers a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays! I know it's jumping the gun a little early, but many of you will no doubt be busy this weekend. 

The Blu-ray/UHD PQ Tiers wouldn't be anything without everyone's input here, so thank you for your continued service. Now let's hope that Santa brings everyone the discs they want. Some of you may have been naughty this year and I hear those people get Tier 5 BDs in their stockings.

*The Violent Years*

recommendation: *Tier 4.5**

AGFA puts out this obscure independent movie from the 1950s, written by the infamous Ed Wood. The non-profit genre distributor has given the 56-minute movie of madcap zaniness a new 4K film transfer, from the original 35mm camera negative. The black-and-white movie, shot on a dirt-cheap budget, has surprisingly crisp definition despite some evidence of sharpening. 

It lands in Tier 4.5 not for a soft appearance or skewed color grading, but for the erratic condition of the negative. Thankfully, AGFA didn't attempt serious digital trickery "cleaning" up the dilapidated negative, leaving in various scratches and missed frames. Other than the less-than-pristine condition, the transfer has decent detail in fine clarity, all things considered. In most regards this is a strong technical transfer that gets more things right than incorrect. Limitations in the extant film elements prevent a higher ranking.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> I'd like to wish every reader and contributor to the PQ Tiers a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays! I know it's jumping the gun a little early, but many of you will no doubt be busy this weekend.
> 
> The Blu-ray/UHD PQ Tiers wouldn't be anything without everyone's input here, so thank you for your continued service. Now let's hope that Santa brings everyone the discs they want. Some of you may have been naughty this year and I hear those people get Tier 5 BDs in their stockings.


Thanks Phantom! My wife and I will be in the Twin Cities most of next week for a "Year End Retreat" for Young People. We're really in the DEEP FREEZE in the Midwest over the next week so we are praying for traveling mercies for all who come to the retreat this year. 

As far as Blu-rays in our stockings go, I STUFF MY OWN STOCKINGS just in case Santa isn't grading me on a curve!


----------



## lgans316

Heard Prestige UHD is a bit of mess due to poor HDR and softness which I believe is down to the filming style.

Check the review by You Tuber Spare Change.

Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

lgans316 said:


> Heard Prestige UHD is a bit of mess due to poor HDR and softness which I believe is down to the filming style.
> 
> Check the review by You Tuber Spare Change.
> 
> Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk


I just watched the review. Even though they only observed a slight UPTICK in details in the UHD release, I'm still keeping mine since I never owned the 1080p version.

I didn't hear them mention softness, but they sure had a lot to say about "crushed blacks" and "clipping of whites" due to the HDR. My take on this: HDR is still "a work in progress." It is truly in its infancy, whether we are speaking of the filmmaker's handling of HDR or the way one's display handles it. For example, my Sony is only capable of reaching about 800 nits of brightness and most films with HDR have scenes at 1,000 nits or higher. The Result: CLIPPING! This would be the case with most, if not all, OLED displays as well, for they too aren't capable of reaching 1,000 nits.

Regarding "black levels" and "shadow details," this is actually a case where a good LCD/LED display with FALD (Full Array Local Dimming) may trump the OLED display, for an OLED is more vulnerable to black crush. We will see! I have been amazed at how well my 940D handles scenes with deep blacks, for in comparing some well-known scenes in the _Harry Potter Series_ my 940D handles them better than my Pioneer KURO Elite plasma used to handle them. My KURO crushed many of the details in those same scenes.


----------



## Kool-aid23

Phantom Stranger said:


> I'd like to wish every reader and contributor to the PQ Tiers a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays! I know it's jumping the gun a little early, but many of you will no doubt be busy this weekend.
> 
> The Blu-ray/UHD PQ Tiers wouldn't be anything without everyone's input here, so thank you for your continued service. Now let's hope that Santa brings everyone the discs they want. Some of you may have been naughty this year and I hear those people get Tier 5 BDs in their stockings.


Merry Christmas to you and yours! Once again, thank you for all your time and energy for keeping this thread going.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Revenant, The (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 0* (0.5)*

Excellent HDR presentation with all the camp fires and sparks flying around. Banding in the sky on one shot early in the film, otherwise no encode issues. Details are excellent with all the fur, leather, and mussed up hair and beards.


----------



## AmerCa

DarthDoxie said:


> *Revenant, The (UHD)*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 0* (0.5)*
> 
> Excellent HDR presentation with all the camp fires and sparks flying around. Banding in the sky on one shot early in the film, otherwise no encode issues. Details are excellent with all the fur, leather, and mussed up hair and beards.


I had the chance to get *The Revenant *in regular blu for a bargain, but for some reason, I keep double thinking myself. Lubezki's cinematrography is usually stunning, but I'm not a fan of Iñarritu and I've read some convincing negative reviews that had kept me away from it.

I'm probably the newest member around here, and we don't "know" each other very well, but I'd also like to wish you all Happy Holidays. Sometimes I get really bored and this place has helped me to get through a day or two, and I keep learning a lot from you. It's great that a found a place where I can share my new found love for movies (and sound!!).

Thanks for all your efforts and recommendations.


----------



## djoberg

DarthDoxie said:


> *Revenant, The (UHD)*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 0* (0.5)*
> 
> Excellent HDR presentation with all the camp fires and sparks flying around. Banding in the sky on one shot early in the film, otherwise no encode issues. Details are excellent with all the fur, leather, and mussed up hair and beards.


You and I are on same page as far as placement goes! The only difference is, "I watched and reviewed the 1080p version." Here is a link to my review (where I also refer to "camp fires" along with beautiful sunsets).

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-774.html#post43502666


----------



## djoberg

*Dunkirk (UHD)*

First of all, I was expecting to be "let down" with the movie (there are quite a few "naysayers" out there!), but I thought it brought home the solemnity and brutality of war in a distinct/unique way. The absence of character development and lengthy dialogue did not hinder the message of this classic by Christopher Nolan. (Yes, I said "classic," for I believe it will be considered a classic by many.)

As DarthDoxie said, this film is rich in texture and detail, surely the two outstanding features of its 100 minute running time. I simply loved the aerial views (whether on land or sea) of Dunkirk, the beach, and especially the sea. I have never, ever seen such realistic and engaging "dogfights"; they were simply breathtaking at times. I felt like I was in Tom Hardy's cockpit and found myself "pulling the trigger" until the "enemy" was fatally hit! Depth was also fantastic throughout. Many scenes were razor-sharp.

Now for the "less-than-stellar." This was a very DRAB film, with the typical "blue hues" denoting a period piece in time of war. Black levels were also "nothing to write home to Mama about." They weren't bad; they just weren't real deep and inky. Last, but not least, there were more "soft shots" than I had anticipated. Darth had mentioned softness in the cockpit at times but I also noted quite a few more during heavy action scenes, most notably in underwater shots when men were forced to jump ship. 

Before I give my placement recommendation, I have to give a HUGE shout-out to the audio mix. Was I disappointed it wasn't a DTS:X immersive mix? Sure! But I'm here to tell you that if you have an AVR that encodes DTS:X you will be pleasantly surprised by the amazing DTS:Neural:X UPMIX. My Height Channels were activated in almost every action scene and when planes were screaming overhead and side to side the panning effects were incredible....maybe not as accurate as an actual DTS:X mix, but very satisfying. The bass/LFE was thunderous and will be one of my new Go-To Demo discs to show off what it's like to have excellent bass with a good sub (even better yet, with TWO good subs). The only downside of the audio mix was the dialogue; I couldn't make out what they were saying in LOUD scenes...due to the overpowering bass AND, on top of that, the hard-to-understand British accents.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (.75)*


----------



## DarthDoxie

djoberg said:


> You and I are on same page as far as placement goes! The only difference is, "I watched and reviewed the 1080p version." Here is a link to my review (where I also refer to "camp fires" along with beautiful sunsets).


Yup, read it. I usually do a quick search to see if there are reviews/recommendations since the last list. It's a beautiful film but couldn't justify putting it above *Hacksaw Ridge*. I also think it was about 20 minutes too long.



djoberg said:


> *Dunkirk (UHD)*
> 
> The only downside of the audio mix was the dialogue; I couldn't make out what they were saying in LOUD scenes...due to the overpowering bass AND, on top of that, the *hard-to-understand British accents*.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (.75)*


Same here, had to rewind two times to figure out what Mark Rylance's character was saying as the Moonstone was pulling away from the pier.


----------



## SnellTHX

DarthDoxie said:


> *Dunkirk (UHD)*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 0* (above Avatar)*
> 
> The detail on this one is spectacular. Much of this movie was shot on 70mm IMAX cameras and it shows, details and depth are excellent. The leather helmet/gloves and the fur on Tom Hardy's coat are deep and textured, some of the best detail presentation I've seen. Soldier's uniforms and canvas gear, hair and facial features, and natural element textures are very detailed and sharp. The only time the frames were not pin sharp were a few fleeting shots of cockpit instruments (we're talking about 2-3 seconds total over the whole film). The non-IMAX portions were also razor sharp like all the sequences on the little ship, Moonstone. The sweaters the characters wore on the Moonstone were so detailed, individual hairs and fuzz could easily be seen. Colors were muted for the most part but the many shades of green and brown were well delineated. Punches of color were bright and vibrant when they showed up. Black levels were equally deep and inky. Many of the characters had black hair and the deep blacks combined with excellent contrast really made their hair stand out and showed off what UHD can really do. The excellent black levels, contrast, and depth of field gave the whole film a rich look that you don't get with digitally shot films. The encode is flawless, no banding, macro blocking or other encode problems were noticed.
> 
> The only detractor for the whole film is that in a few night shots with the IMAX sequences, black levels at the edges of the frame seem to be a little raised. It reminded me of watching dark scenes on my old edge lit LED where blacks are raised around the edges. This UHD has alternating aspect ratios and the IMAX scenes are presented in 16x9 and fill the whole screen. On the 2.35:1 scenes, the black bars are completely black so the raised blacks at the edges (most notably on the bottom) of the IMAX scenes points back to the source, the camera (there are only so many IMAX cameras and I've read they are getting long in the tooth). These few instances were the only times black levels faltered.
> 
> Much has been said in various forums about the lack of an immersive audio track. Nolan doesn't believe in them so don't expect any of his films to have them, either theatrically or home release. Have no fear though, the dts-HD MA 5.1 track is excellent with sound properly traveling around the room when appropriate and the LFE is deep and gut rumbling.
> 
> Blu-ray recommendation: *Tier 0* (0.5)*
> 
> The BR is just a tad lower in excellence with lesser detail and contrast, still and excellent reference quality disc.


I didn't expect anything less than the top of tier 0 for Dunkirk!! I have a feeling this movie will be my top 3 reference disk


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> *Oblivion (UHD)*
> 
> It's been about 4 years since I watched the 1080p version of this. It took me awhile to find my review but I'm going to give the link to it so anyone can compare it with my UHD impressions. As you will see, I gave that release a score of 1.0.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-687.html#post23634261
> 
> Overall, I'd have to say that the UHD version is only "slightly" better. The black levels were deeper and there weren't as many soft shots. The HDR also contributed much better contrast in scenes with a bright sun and the scene where Jack investigates the site after the spaceship crashes..the fires around the crash site are phenomenal!
> 
> Before I give my placement recommendation, I just have to say the Dolby Atmos mix was INSANE! It had LOTS of drones and space ships flying in all directions and making circular flights and the panning in my 4 Height Speakers was spot-on accurate and it added a fantastic new dimension to the film. I ended up listening to it at Reference Level during those panning scenes! I believe this would land in the Top Five if there was a dedicated thread for Dolby Atmos/DTS:X mixes.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.75)*




Reference!! the 1080p DTS-HD version is already still an amazing reference disk. A slight upgrade is still amazing


----------



## djoberg

*The Prestige (UHD)*

I have quoted Igans316 below because I agree with what he heard; the UHD version is somewhat of a mess and it was very soft in many scenes. I remember I had read many reviews back in 2007 on the 1080p version and everyone was singing its praises, so I decided to watch quite a few scenes on that version right after the UHD version. Guess what? It was noticeably better....more SHARP....better CONTRAST....deeper BLACKS....richer COLORS, etc.

Perhaps the poor rendering of the UHD release can be attributed to "poor HDR." I really don't have any other explanation for it. In fairness, there were multiple scenes (especially in the latter half) where it became sharper with better contrast, blacks and colors. But it is inexcusable to pay a premium price for UHD/HDR, only to find out that the 1080p version is better. I have put a sticky note on the outside of the Blu-ray Case reminding me to watch the 1080p version when I view it again.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0**

PS I would give the 1080p version a ranking of 1.5.



lgans316 said:


> Heard Prestige UHD is a bit of mess due to poor HDR and softness which I believe is down to the filming style


----------



## lgans316

Hi Denny,

Thanks for sharing your opinion on Prestige UHD PQ. It is a shame that Nolan messed it up and it is frustrating as I had high expectations I have the US Blu-ray from BVHE which features a high bit rate AVC encode and a LPCM audio. Never was a fan of the PQ which looked way too soft. The Warner release had a low bit rate VC1 encode and just DD @640kbps. So the YouTuber SpareChange was right then. 

Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> *Dunkirk (UHD)*
> 
> First of all, I was expecting to be "let down" with the movie (there are quite a few "naysayers" out there!), but I thought it brought home the solemnity and brutality of war in a distinct/unique way. The absence of character development and lengthy dialogue did not hinder the message of this classic by Christopher Nolan. (Yes, I said "classic," for I believe it will be considered a classic by many.)
> 
> As DarthDoxie said, this film is rich in texture and detail, surely the two outstanding features of its 100 minute running time. I simply loved the aerial views (whether on land or sea) of Dunkirk, the beach, and especially the sea. I have never, ever seen such realistic and engaging "dogfights"; they were simply breathtaking at times. I felt like I was in Tom Hardy's cockpit and found myself "pulling the trigger" until the "enemy" was fatally hit! Depth was also fantastic throughout. Many scenes were razor-sharp.
> 
> Now for the "less-than-stellar." This was a very DRAB film, with the typical "blue hues" denoting a period piece in time of war. Black levels were also "nothing to write home to Mama about." They weren't bad; they just weren't real deep and inky. Last, but not least, there were more "soft shots" than I had anticipated. Darth had mentioned softness in the cockpit at times but I also noted quite a few more during heavy action scenes, most notably in underwater shots when men were forced to jump ship.
> 
> Before I give my placement recommendation, I have to give a HUGE shout-out to the audio mix. Was I disappointed it wasn't a DTS:X immersive mix? Sure! But I'm here to tell you that if you have an AVR that encodes DTS:X you will be pleasantly surprised by the amazing DTS:Neural:X UPMIX. My Height Channels were activated in almost every action scene and when planes were screaming overhead and side to side the panning effects were incredible....maybe not as accurate as an actual DTS:X mix, but very satisfying. The bass/LFE was thunderous and will be one of my new Go-To Demo discs to show off what it's like to have excellent bass with a good sub (even better yet, with TWO good subs). The only downside of the audio mix was the dialogue; I couldn't make out what they were saying in LOUD scenes...due to the overpowering bass AND, on top of that, the hard-to-understand British accents.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (.75)*



Glad you're not let down by Dunkirk and enjoyed the PQ enough to consider a blu-tier movie but... 0.75?? No top 10 at least?


----------



## SnellTHX

Can't wait to get Dunkirk on disc in my own home theater! It was my most anticipated movie in the cinema for its story, presentation, screenplay and music score and now its my most anticipated movie to view at home for its PQ and SQ 


I distinctively remember a while back saying I believed Dunkirk would be #1 (or top 3 at least) on my ultimate PQ reference list. That was at a time I considered Life of Pi, Avatar and Interstellar to be the best looking movies. Since then I've been mesmerised by Pacific Rim and especially Transformers 5: LK... so Lets see how my prediction a year or so back holds


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> Glad you're not let down by Dunkirk and enjoyed the PQ enough to consider a blu-tier movie but... 0.75?? No top 10 at least?


If not for the extremely DRAB COLOR PALETTE and scenes of SOFTNESS, it "may" have landed in the Top Ten. Of course, this is just "my opinion." Others, such as yourself, may not share my opinion. Having said that, I am bothered by some "professional reviews" who made it sound as if every (or "nearly every") scene was "sharp as a tack." That was NOT what I experienced. I wish it had been, but it was not.

I will also say that even if every scene had been extremely sharp, no one can deny that this film was very drab-looking (lacking primary colors and featuring mostly "blue and gray hues"). It is highly unlikely that a film lacking rich and vibrant colors will ever come really close to being "King of the Blu-ray Hill."

In support of this view (that a title lacking good, vibrant colors will never come close to the Top of Tier Blu), consider 4 of the titles that lack color (these are the "closest to the Top") which are in Tier Blu:

1) Thin Red Line...#62 
2) The Revenant...#132 
3) Noah...............#148 
4) Tree of Life.......#213


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^

It's possible I could have missed a title from Tier Blu that lacks color and is higher than _The Thin Red Line_, but even if I did, I know it isn't close to the Top Ten.


----------



## djoberg

*Men in Black (UHD)*

The credits are rolling in the 1st installment of my _Men in Black Trilogy (UHD)_. The PQ was a big improvement over its 1080p counterpart! The blacks were better, along with sharper detail, stronger contrast, more accurate flesh tones, and superior depth. Some may be put off by the "grain structure," but I thought it gave it a nice "filmic-look" and enhanced details most of the time. If memory serves me, I think I gave the HD Blu-ray a 1.75 or 2.0. This one deserves almost a whole tier jump in placement!

BTW, the Atmos mix was also fantastic! I really loved the launch of the spaceship in the last act; my whole Home Theater was pulsating, my chair was shaking, and last, but not least, I had an "ear to ear grin" on my face that no one could have wiped off!!

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**

PS If the "other reviewers" that I've read are right in their assessment of this Trilogy, the PQ is only going to get better, especially #3 which may go quite high in Tier Blu!


----------



## AmerCa

SnellTHX said:


> I distinctively remember a while back saying I believed Dunkirk would be #1 (or top 3 at least) on my ultimate PQ reference list. That was at a time I considered Life of Pi, Avatar and Interstellar to be the best looking movies. Since then I've been mesmerised by Pacific Rim and especially Transformers 5: LK... so Lets see how my prediction a year or so back holds


I remember that prediction, and since you weren't wrong with Transfomers 5, I also had high expectations about *Dunkirk*. Then, the audio issues, then the package, then the solid but not stellar reviews regarding PQ by Djoberg and Dixie...



djoberg said:


> In support of this view (that a title lacking good, vibrant colors will never come close to the Top of Tier Blu), consider 4 of the titles that lack color (these are the "closest to the Top") which are in Tier Blu:
> 
> 1) Thin Red Line...#62
> 2) The Revenant...#132
> 3) Noah...............#148
> 4) Tree of Life.......#213


So you actually counted the spots for each movie? Wow, I'd be really lazy to do that.


----------



## AmerCa

djoberg said:


> *The Prestige (UHD)*
> 
> I have quoted Igans316 below because I agree with what he heard; the UHD version is somewhat of a mess and it was very soft in many scenes....But it is inexcusable to pay a premium price for UHD/HDR, only to find out that the 1080p version is better.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.0**





lgans316 said:


> ...Never was a fan of the PQ which looked way too soft. The Warner release had a low bit rate VC1 encode and just DD @*640k* bps.


I'd been considering the past few day about buying the regular bluray, but I thought _"maybe I should wait for the UHD when it price drops and kill two birds with a stone"_. And then I read your comment. What a disappointment!! Almost inexcusable! And THEN, I see lgans comment that the regular blu doesn't even have lossless audio!! What the hell!!

Seriously!!


----------



## lgans316

AmerCa said:


> I'd been considering the past few day about buying the regular bluray, but I thought _"maybe I should wait for the UHD when it price drops and kill two birds with a stone"_. And then I read your comment. What a disappointment!! Almost inexcusable! And THEN, I see lgans comment that the regular blu doesn't even have lossless audio!! What the hell!!
> 
> Seriously!!


Hi Mate,

American release by BVHE featured AVC and LPCM. Nothing wrong with the PQ except that it is a bit too much on the soft side.

Warner release (Rest of the world) was VC-1 and lossy audio.

Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> So you actually counted the spots for each movie? Wow, I'd be really lazy to do that.


It was a "lazy day" leaving me lots of time on my hands, so yeah, I actually "counted the spots for each movie!"


----------



## AmerCa

lgans316 said:


> Hi Mate,
> 
> American release by BVHE featured AVC and LPCM. Nothing wrong with the PQ except that it is a bit too much on the soft side.
> 
> Warner release (Rest of the world) was VC-1 and lossy audio.
> 
> Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk


The problem is that I'm "rest of the world". But I think the version I saw from Amazon was actually the import, so maybe there won't be any problem. Thanks for the clarification.

It's just baffling people are paying good amounts of money for these long awaited re-releases, and the quality is subpar. I mean, if you pay for a better format that is actually worse, wouldn't you be in your right to ask for a refund? Djoberg payed for the UHD and he'll be watching the regular blu. Unbelievable.


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> I'd been considering the past few day about buying the regular bluray, but I thought _"maybe I should wait for the UHD when it price drops and kill two birds with a stone"_. And then I read your comment. What a disappointment!! Almost inexcusable! And THEN, I see lgans comment that the regular blu doesn't even have lossless audio!!
> 
> Seriously!!


If you like the movie as much as I do you would buy the regular (1080p) Blu-ray. As I stated earlier, the PQ is actually better than the UHD version and the audio is the same. Let me add that even though Mr. Nolan seems to be dead-set against "immersive audio" (Atmos/DTS:X), he still gives you a great mix. And if your AVR is able to do the Dolby or the DTS "upmix," you will be pleasantly surprised at how good the Height Channels are filled and there is a good degree of accuracy too when it comes to panning and discrete effects.


----------



## AmerCa

djoberg said:


> If you like the movie as much as I do you would buy the regular (1080p) Blu-ray. As I stated earlier, the PQ is actually better than the UHD version and the audio is the same. Let me add that even though Mr. Nolan seems to be dead-set against "immersive audio" (Atmos/DTS:X), he still gives you a great mix. And if your AVR is able to do the Dolby or the DTS "upmix," you will be pleasantly surprised at how good the Height Channels are filled and there is a good degree of accuracy too when it comes to panning and discrete effects.


Thanks for the reassurance, it's certainly much appreciated. For catalog releases probably there won't be much difference with the UHD, so I might settle for the regular blu. I don't have an A/V receiver yet, but I've heard the Dolby/DTS upmixer is really good. I'll have a good reason to revisit my ATMOS titles when I upgrade. It won't be happening until I upgrade my entire system to 4k, and it won't happen soon.

Your HT room is amazing, BTW, I'm jealous!


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> Thanks for the reassurance, it's certainly much appreciated. For catalog releases probably there won't be much difference with the UHD, so I might settle for the regular blu. I don't have an A/V receiver yet, but I've heard the Dolby/DTS upmixer is really good. I'll have a good reason to revisit my ATMOS titles when I upgrade. It won't be happening until I upgrade my entire system to 4k, and it won't happen soon.
> 
> Your HT room is amazing, BTW, I'm jealous!


Sounds good AmerCa! 

Regarding "upgrading your entire system to 4K," it may take awhile to save up and to plan your layout and what equipment you'll want, but in the end it will be worth the wait! So, have patience my friend!


----------



## djoberg

*Men in Black 3 (UHD)*

Since I'm leaving for the Twin Cities in one day, I thought I would skip #2 in the _Men in Black Trilogy_, especially with all the stellar reviews I've read on #3 . All I can say is I'M GLAD I DID!! The PQ was outstanding, especially the bolder COLORS, sharper CLARITY, and more refined DETAILS. Also, the "grain structure" isn't nearly as heavy on this one (for those of you who are truly bothered by film grain). The BLACKS were about the same, as were the FLESH TONES and CONTRAST. DEPTH was just as outstanding if not better.

This is truly a marvel for a 20 year old movie. I can't say it's equal to some of today's pristine releases, but IMHO it is still deserving of a place in Tier Blu. My vote goes for....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.66)*

PS The Dolby Atmos mix was ROCK SOLID!!


----------



## DarthDoxie

djoberg said:


> *Men in Black 3 (UHD)*
> *This is truly a marvel for a 20 year old movie.* I can't say it's equal to some of today's pristine releases, but IMHO it is still deserving of a place in Tier Blu. My vote goes for....


I think you mixed up this one (2012) with the first one (1997)


----------



## djoberg

DarthDoxie said:


> I think you mixed up this one (2012) with the first one (1997)


Indeed I did! Thanks Darth for the correction.

Well, even though it's only 5 years old, it is still a "marvel" PQ-wise!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

SnellTHX said:


> *Wonder Woman*
> 
> 
> To be honest I don't really have high expectations when it comes to the new DC movies. Batman V Superman had reference sound but its picture quality was far from reference in my opinion (I think I gave it 1.5 about a year ago), Suicide Squad was equally disappointing around the 1.75 tier mark.
> 
> Which is a shame since superhero movies have always been my go to reference movies, look no further than Nolan's TDK & TDK:R Which I still hold in my top 10, plus the Avengers (2012) and Ant-man which are both somewhere in my top 15. Captain America: Civil War is also tier 0 material if I remember correctly, as with several Spiderman movies.
> 
> I heard loads of people using this particular movie to complain about the quality of iTunes 4K, but I think the problem lies more within the movie itself.
> 
> * Tier 2.0*
> *





djoberg said:


> *Wonder Woman (UHD)*
> 
> Okay, I was fully expecting this to be "Reference Quality" and hoping it might even be a contender for the "Best Live Action" 4K to date. I "think" it is worthy of "Reference" status, but it's a far cry from being the best.
> 
> The first scenes on Paradise Island were my favorites, with plenty of rich and vibrant colors (courtesy of UHD's Wide Color Gamut) and details to-die-for. Flesh tones were spot-on accurate, depth was outstanding, contrast was super-strong, and clarity was razor-sharp. It was truly a FEAST for the eyes!!
> 
> But then the scene shifted to war-torn Europe with its muted color palette and some egregious color-grading to boot (teal/orange) which wreaked havoc on flesh tones at times. There was also some fleeting soft shots (especially in the heavy CGI shots) and murky blacks. Thankfully these were the "exception and not the rule." Don't take this wrong, for there were still many scenes with incredible depth and details.
> 
> I said at the beginning that I "think" this is worthy of Reference (in spite of a few weaker moments). My "generous gene" is kicking in and my vote goes for....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.90)*
> 
> PS If someone (like Phantom ) opts for a high Tier 1 rating he'll find no argument with me. I could go either way.


*Wonder Woman (2017)*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

WB's Blu-ray has the rock-solid picture quality we've come to expect from large Hollywood blockbusters. The scenes on Paradise Island have beautiful scenery in gorgeous depth and color saturation. The presentation comes from a problem-free transfer done with best practices. The action movie is what it is, a creation of CGI backgrounds smoothly blended into the digital intermediate.

I didn't have any serious concerns about the color grading when the story shifts to London, though the bleak color scheme isn't what most think of as eye candy. I wouldn't fight others suggesting a lower placement, the video rarely pops with the vibrant dimensionality and extreme resolution usually found in Tier 0. This is simply a steady video experience without significant problems.

Compared with other superhero movies, _Wonder Woman's_ visuals often lacks the glossier sheen of Marvel's output, while subtly improving upon its DC siblings like _Suicide Squad_ and _Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice_.


----------



## JNayAV

*Logan Lucky (UHD)*

Recommendation: *Tier 0.5**

From what comes to mind this is the cleanest presentation I've seen from start to finish. Really no negatives from beginning to end that stood out to me during viewing.
Clarity and Contrast are great as should be expected from UHD/HDR titles.

So why not higher? There's just no 'demo' worthy scene in the movie. There isn't the pure black underground scene of Moana, or the crazy Mirror room fight like in John Wick 2 (John Wick 2 has definite near black issues in some scenes). This movie could go to Tier 1 just off of lack of demo scenes, but I think should get some extra bump just due to the overall strength of the film and seeming lack of overtly blue/golden hues.

The film was just clear beginning to end for me and I think should be given credit for making the best from what was shot.

On a note about the movie, I liked it but wife was lukewarm to it so YMMV.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Oblivion (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 0* (0.75)*

Nice presentation with lots of detail and strong contrast, only a few instances of elevated blacks. The black levels and contrast on the Scavs' suits is eye popping, some of the best I've seen on UHD.

As for the debate about the differences on the overall look of the BD (more harsh LED light look) vs. the UHD (warmer incandescent look), I think it's moot. I compared scenes on both discs and couldn't really see a huge difference and nothing to get worked up about.


----------



## lganz316

DarthDoxie said:


> *Oblivion (UHD)*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 0* (0.75)*
> 
> Nice presentation with lots of detail and strong contrast, only a few instances of elevated blacks. The black levels and contrast on the Scavs' suits is eye popping, some of the best I've seen on UHD.
> 
> As for the debate about the differences on the overall look of the BD (more harsh LED light look) vs. the UHD (warmer incandescent look), I think it's moot. I compared scenes on both discs and couldn't really see a huge difference and nothing to get worked up about.


Interesting review as most of the folks who reviewed the UHD agreed that there is less depth in contrast to the BD and the overall presentation was soft.

King Kong UHD - Try it out. It is easily amongst the worst UHD I have seen as everything had been dialled up way too high. 

Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

DarthDoxie said:


> *Oblivion (UHD)*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 0* (0.75)*
> 
> Nice presentation with lots of detail and strong contrast, only a few instances of elevated blacks. The black levels and contrast on the Scavs' suits is eye popping, some of the best I've seen on UHD.
> 
> As for the debate about the differences on the overall look of the BD (more harsh LED light look) vs. the UHD (warmer incandescent look), I think it's moot. I compared scenes on both discs and couldn't really see a huge difference and nothing to get worked up about.





lganz316 said:


> Interesting review as most of the folks who reviewed the UHD agreed that there is less depth in contrast to the BD and the overall presentation was soft.
> 
> King Kong UHD - Try it out. It is easily amongst the worst UHD I have seen as everything had been dialled up way too high.
> 
> Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk


I agree with Darth on this one. In fact, I gave it the same ranking of Tier 0 (.75).

As far as the King Kong UHD, I believe that too is worth a Tier 0 placement. I'm not sure why you saw what you saw Iganz316, for my experience was quite different.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^

When I made the last post I was in a hurry and not able to add Ralph Potts' review of _King Kong: Skull Island_. So, here it is for Iganz316 (or is that ACTUALLY Igan*s*316?) to read.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-o...kull-island-ultra-hd-review.html#post54336465


----------



## AmerCa

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^
> 
> When I made the last post I was in a hurry and not able to add Ralph Potts' review of _King Kong: Skull Island_. So, here it is for Iganz316 (or is that ACTUALLY Igan*s*316?) to read.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-o...kull-island-ultra-hd-review.html#post54336465


I think he was referring to the Peter Jackson movie.


----------



## AmerCa

*The Counselor (Theatrical Cut - 2013 - Fox)*

This A/V presentation is simply stunning: Color, depth, detail, contrast, nice black levels; the visual presentation is practically flawless. Even when there's no CGI in here, the settings, locations, costumes, lightning among other small visual aspects are pure eye candy. I've seen many Ridley Scott movies (haven't seen his classic *Blade Runner* and haven't seen *Prometheus* in 1080p, among others) but this definitely should rank among his best-looking films. Maybe I noticed some fleeting instances of softness and the PQ faltered in some spots, but those are very minor complaints, and most people won't even notice them (I surely doubted if I had actually seen flaws, or maybe my eyes were tired. The PQ is that solid throughout.)

I remember being mystified by this movie when I first saw it, and it stayed with me for a long time. I don't think I loved it, but it certainly was interesting, so much that when I saw this at a very good price, I quickly grabbed it. I saw it TV in lower resolution than 480p, so I was completely impressed seeing this in glorious 1080p. Bottom line, you won't be disappointed in the PQ department.

There's an extended cut that I have yet to see (I wanted to watch the Theatrical cut first) but according to specs, it runs at a lower bitrate --not by much, but lower-- and I'm afraid that the PQ may suffer a bit for it. I'll update this review with it later.

Special mention to the lossless track included in here. While not bombastic and for the most part discreet, (this is not an action movie after all), the track sounded fantastic, giving to each setting/situation the ambiance, power and clarity it needed. It's a very elegant and nicely done track that will make you feel you're there, top notch stuff for a movie that doesn't rely on audio pyrotechnics.

As for the movie itself, I find it fantastic. Dark, brutal, and it will make you think. Gripping stuff, albeit it won't be for everyone's tastes as it is very dialogue driven and the movies takes a while to take off. The screenplay by Cormac McCarthy was heavily criticized by many for being unsuitable for the screen, but I don't understand those complaints.

Bottom line, The Counselor is an impressive A/V presentation that won't disappoint, and ranks among the best works in terms of visuals that Ridley Scott has done. This is undoubtedly tier zero material, although I'm not sure where to place it. I chose to put it above *Hacksaw Ridge*, the lowest tier zero blu I have that I feel comfortable putting it above. I thought for a moment to place it above *Lone Survivor*, but there's a big gap between titles I just couldn't justify.

*Tier Recommendation: 0** (0.95 just above Hacksaw Ridge)


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> I think he was referring to the Peter Jackson movie.


Well, I learned something today, for I had no idea that Peter Jackson's _King Kong_ had been released on a 4K/UHD Blu-ray.

I guess I would just say that the member who made the post should have specified which King Kong UHD Blu-ray he was referring to. I will also say that I just read a review on Blu-ray.com on the 2005 King Kong and even though he does cite some problems with the PQ, he also has some glowing remarks about the sharpness, details, and colors that are brought to the table courtesy of HDR. He stated emphatically that it is a definite UPGRADE from the 1080p version. Here is the link to the review:

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/King-Kong-4K-Blu-ray/178451/


----------



## AmerCa

*Mirror, Mirror (2012, Fox)*

Mexico is not a good place to live when it comes to movies licensed to local companies to press. The results are often butchered (not an hyperbole) releases, and for that reason it's best to import certain discs. Luckily, that is not the case with *Mirror, Mirror*, which aside from a slight change in OAR from 1.85 to 1.78, the transfer is pretty much the same, according to reports, than the US Fox edition. So what I say regarding the Mexican edition should apply to the US edition as well.

The video presentation is virtually flawless and it was hard to find anything to complain about regarding the PQ (granted, I watched the movie slightly farther than I usually do, so if there were flaws, they were most likely minimal). Problem is the film visual style is similar to Zack Snyder movies, that means a muted color palette, with a picture presentation less shiny and eye-popping than we would expect for a children/family movie. Nevertheless, this disc is beautiful to look at, with clear picture, nice detail and textures. Once your eyes are accustomed to the director's visual intention, you'll find in this a very beautiful-looking release. That said, and despite its obvious merits and solid PQ presentation, the movie fails to completely awe you, and I can't remember a particular impressive scene. The transfer may be as accurate as it can be, but I feel this movie would more appropriately fall in tier 1.5 - 1.75. 

In short, "Mirror, Mirror" has excellent PQ that at the same time feels a bit unimpressive, if that makes sense.

The audio track included is competent and gets the job done, but it's nothing to write home about. As for the movie itself, it's a very fun and lighthearted retelling of a classic story. It got slammed by the critics and got the shorter end of the stick when compared to another Snow White movie released the same year (*Snow White And The Huntsman)*. These are two completely different types of movies, but if you're looking to spend a couple of hours with the family and have some fun, you can't go wrong with this film. Personally, I enjoyed it more than the Kirsten Stewart version.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5* (But I wouldn't argue against a higher placement)*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

AmerCa said:


> *Mirror, Mirror (2012, Fox)*
> 
> Mexico is not a good place to live when it comes to movies licensed to local companies to press. The results are often butchered (not an hyperbole) releases, and for that reason it's best to import certain discs. Luckily, that is not the case with *Mirror, Mirror*, which aside from a slight change in OAR from 1.85 to 1.78, the transfer is pretty much the same, according to reports, than the US Fox edition. So what I say regarding the Mexican edition should apply to the US edition as well.


It should in fact be identical to the American Blu-ray. Fox almost always authors one encode and disc for the entire world. WB is the same way. Usually the only thing that may change are subtitle options and dubs. I picked up the complete Nightmare On Elm Street Blu-ray set from Mexico when it was cheaper, since it has the same discs.


----------



## AmerCa

Phantom Stranger said:


> It should in fact be identical to the American Blu-ray. Fox almost always authors one encode and disc for the entire world. WB is the same way. Usually the only thing that may change are subtitle options and dubs. I picked up the complete Nightmare On Elm Street Blu-ray set from Mexico when it was cheaper, since it has the same discs.


Things is Fox and other major companies sometimes licenses their movies to local companies to do their own transfers. "Mirror, Mirror" was done here by a company called Videomax, who is known to do pretty good transfers as well as very dubious ones. When Fox distributes their own movies in Latin America the discs are often the same as US, but not always. Not that you need my advice, but before importing certain discs from here, try to be sure what you're getting. Blu-ray.com usually has the specs right, tho.

You'd be disgusted if you had the chance to see how much garbage is sold in stores around here. To be fair, they're often priced accordingly.


----------



## djoberg

*The Dark Knight (Revisited)*

I just watched _The Dark Knight_ (1080p version) for perhaps the 4th time. After my first viewing (nearly 10 years ago) I nominated it for a Tier Blu placement. A few years ago I watched it again and thought it was still worthy of a Tier 1.0 ranking. Now I'd say it's probably deserving of a mid to low Tier 1 placement. Blacks were, for the most part, VERY GOOD, but inconsistent at times (with quite a few scenes resulting in BLACK CRUSH). Details were insane at times, especially in every close-up in IMAX scenes. Colors were ridiculously good all the way through. Flesh tones were accurate in a majority of scenes, but there was a definite "red push" at times. Clarity was INSANE (again, especially in the IMAX shots). 

After reading several glowing reviews of the new UHD version, I "may" opt to "Double Dip," but I'm still put off by the fact that Mr. Nolan refuses to adopt "immersive audio" (Dolby Atmos or DTS:X) so I may decide to stick with my "inferior" 1080p Blu-ray. 

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> *The Dark Knight (Revisited)*
> 
> I just watched _The Dark Knight_ (1080p version) for perhaps the 4th time. After my first viewing (nearly 10 years ago) I nominated it for a Tier Blu placement. A few years ago I watched it again and thought it was still worthy of a Tier 1.0 ranking. Now I'd say it's probably deserving of a mid to low Tier 1 placement. Blacks were, for the most part, VERY GOOD, but inconsistent at times (with quite a few scenes resulting in BLACK CRUSH). Details were insane at times, especially in every close-up in IMAX scenes. Colors were ridiculously good all the way through. Flesh tones were accurate in a majority of scenes, but there was a definite "red push" at times. Clarity was INSANE (again, especially in the IMAX shots).
> 
> After reading several glowing reviews of the new UHD version, I "may" opt to "Double Dip," but I'm still put off by the fact that Mr. Nolan refuses to adopt "immersive audio" (Dolby Atmos or DTS:X) so I may decide to stick with my "inferior" 1080p Blu-ray.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.5*


That sounds very fair. I don't often re-watch my BDs but newer releases with better compression and more advanced image harvests have occasionally made me re-assess my own judgment on a disc's score. It's not always the case, but certainly does happen once in a while.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> That sounds very fair. *I don't often re-watch my BDs* but newer releases with better compression and more advanced image harvests have occasionally made me re-assess my own judgment on a disc's score. It's not always the case, but certainly does happen once in a while.


My wife usually asks me when I purchase a Blu-ray, "Are you planning on watching that more than once?" Of course, she is somewhat justified in asking that question because of the price of a Blu-ray. When I'm reviewing a title (before a purchase) I try to get a real "flavor" for the movie to assess whether or not it has "replay value," for I do hope to watch a release more than once in order to justify my purchase.

In the case of _The Dark Knight_, I have had no problem whatsoever watching it multiple times. It has enough ACTION, an interesting PLOT and STAR POWER to warrant multiple viewings. Besides that, it really does have scenes that have jaw-dropping PQ (i.e. IMAX shots!!) and I'm always game to watch those over and over again.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^

I should have mentioned that I just re-watched _Dunkirk_ last night. The PQ on that title is spectacular (except for the DRAB color palette) and I found the story-line itself to be more captivating than my initial viewing. It's truly a UNIQUE war film. It won't be everyone's "cup of tea," but for those who are willing to forego lengthy dialogues (which enhance character development) in favor of letting "facial impressions" tell the story, you are in for a real treat.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> My wife usually asks me when I purchase a Blu-ray, "Are you planning on watching that more than once?" Of course, she is somewhat justified in asking that question because of the price of a Blu-ray. When I'm reviewing a title (before a purchase) I try to get a real "flavor" for the movie to assess whether or not it has "replay value," for I do hope to watch a release more than once in or to justify my purchase.
> 
> In the case of _The Dark Knight_, I have had no problem whatsoever watching it multiple times. It has enough ACTION and STAR POWER to warrant multiple viewings. Besides that, it really does have scenes that have jaw-dropping PQ (i.e. IMAX shots!!) and I'm always game to watch those over and over again.


_The Dark Knight_ is one of my favorite movies, so I understand where you are coming from. I still purchase movies that interest me, even as a blind buy, but often wait a couple of months after release for them to get discounted. _Wonder Woman_ is a good example. I knew it was eventually going in my collection, so I waited until I snagged it for $10. It's one of the benefits of having a very large collection, I don't feel the impulse to see every new movie the day it comes out.


----------



## AmerCa

djoberg said:


> *The Dark Knight (Revisited)*
> 
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.5*


Yes!! I recently watched it for the first time in blu and I also thought to myself _"What's up with all these reviews saying this disc is reference material?"_. Like you say the movies looks spectacular at times, and is solid for the most part, but it falters way too much (the black crush annoyed the hell out of me, to the point I thought my display was wrongly calibrated). Your assessment seems fair to me. Regarding the UHD, I'd only upgrade if I find it very cheap. I'm in no hurry.


----------



## AmerCa

Phantom Stranger said:


> That sounds very fair. I don't often re-watch my BDs...





djoberg said:


> My wife usually asks me when I purchase a Blu-ray, "Are you planning on watching that more than once?"


I was going to comment about it too. In theory I only buy BD that I plan to watch multiple times or that I like so much that I like them in my collection, but truth of the matter is, I'm buying so much stuff, that I often forget about the movies I just watched. The first time I watch my movies alone (only way to proper enjoy them the way I want, you know about it, guys!) and then I watch with my family/friends. So I watch at least two times every movie, and then I just store it. 

Like Phantom implies, once your library grows to a certain point, you realize you probably don't need all that stuff, and you think twice about buying a new movie. The irony! Of course, I keep buying stuff. 



djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^
> 
> I should have mentioned that I just re-watched _Dunkirk_ last night. The PQ on that title is spectacular (except for the DRAB color palette) and I found the story-line itself to be more captivating than my initial viewing. It's truly a UNIQUE war film. It won't be everyone's "cup of tea," but for those who are willing to forego lengthy dialogues (which enhance character development) in favor of letting "facial impressions" tell the story, you are in for a real treat.


I wholeheartedly agree with you. I watched Dunkirk three times in theaters, it was a very powerful experience on the big screen. That's probably why I'm not in a rush to buy the movie right away. I'll definitely get it at some point, I think it's my favorite film of 2017.


----------



## Shydow

Not to de-rail the thread, but just wanted to drop a note of appreciation for you fine folks in this thread. I've been coming to this thread since "before," which I'm guessing was probably over a decade ago now, and probably 90% of the time this thread is what saves me from making a bad buy.

I'll occasionally step out and buy a movie I just love regardless of the level of quality on-disc, but most of the time this thread is my final stop before buying anything. Greatly appreciative of the effort you all put in to this.

Also, side shout out to djoberg for commentary about audio in your reviews. As someone who literally will delay watching some things if I have to watch them "without my sound system," (exact words which used to be a bane of one of my past relationships haha) I'm always intrigued by a great audio mix. I probably ultimately care more about audio than PQ to a certain extent (maybe 60:40).

Anywho I'll definitely be hanging around a bit more as I preemptively start building my 4K collection. I'm ready to dive into OLED but without HDMI 2.1 it might be 2019 before I pull the trigger on one, though I'm still flirting with the idea of a temporary 4K set for the moment. But regardless, the lurking continues!

Happy New Year!


----------



## djoberg

Shydow said:


> Not to de-rail the thread, but just wanted to drop a note of appreciation for you fine folks in this thread. I've been coming to this thread since "before," which I'm guessing was probably over a decade ago now, and probably 90% of the time this thread is what saves me from making a bad buy.
> 
> I'll occasionally step out and buy a movie I just love regardless of the level of quality on-disc, but most of the time this thread is my final stop before buying anything. Greatly appreciative of the effort you all put in to this.
> 
> Also, side shout out to djoberg for commentary about audio in your reviews. As someone who literally will delay watching some things if I have to watch them "without my sound system," (exact words which used to be a bane of one of my past relationships haha) I'm always intrigued by a great audio mix. I probably ultimately care more about audio than PQ to a certain extent (maybe 60:40).
> 
> Anywho I'll definitely be hanging around a bit more as I preemptively start building my 4K collection. I'm ready to dive into OLED but without HDMI 2.1 it might be 2019 before I pull the trigger on one, though I'm still flirting with the idea of a temporary 4K set for the moment. But regardless, the lurking continues!
> 
> Happy New Year!


Thanks Shydow for your encouraging post! It's good to know that you (and no doubt many others) are availing yourself of this thread and actually using it for your buying choices. Now I would encourage you to "join us" by chiming in with your take on the Blu-rays you're watching. Again, a simple "placement recommendation" is all that is needed, though we would welcome any commentary you would offer as to why you chose the ranking you give to it.

I really relate to your LOVE FOR AUDIO! I was an "audio enthusiast" long before I ever became a "video enthusiast." I have had many audio systems through the years (and I'm talking about several DECADES when I say "years") and today I'm more satisfied than ever with my current system. Having said that, if I ever move up to a 100" screen (or larger), I would then add another row of seating and add more Surround and Height Speakers.


----------



## AmerCa

Shydow said:


> Not to de-rail the thread...
> 
> Happy New Year!


I feel you. When it comes to PQ, I trust this thread over any other site on the web, even the "professional" ones. I'd join Djoberg in his invitation to "join" us in giving your opinion on BDs. This thread benefits from the opinion of everyone.



djoberg said:


> *I really relate to your LOVE FOR AUDIO! I was an "audio enthusiast" long before I ever became a "video enthusiast.*" I have had many audio systems through the years (and I'm talking about several DECADES when I say "years") and today I'm more satisfied than ever with my current system. Having said that, if I ever move up to a 100" screen (or larger), I would then add another row of seating and add more Surround and Height Speakers.


We come from the same camp. I'd rather take a movie with decent PQ but amazing audio mix, than an excellent PQ but mediocre sound. Actually that's on of the main reasons I often import discs, since many of the BDs pressed here doesn't have lossless audio and they're poorly done.


----------



## djoberg

*The Mountain Between Us*

This was an absolutely GORGEOUS film with amazing cinematography. Every outdoor, daytime scene teemed with intricate details and the clarity was razor-sharp. Flesh tones were to-die-for...contrast was superb...depth was astounding...and where there were colors (in foliage and rocks) they were very pleasing to the eyes.

The "downside" came during some night time scenes or scenes in very low-lit interiors (in a cave or an abandoned cabin), for blacks tended more toward dark gray. There were a number of these shots; just enough to keep this out of Tier 0.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**

PS Aside from the opening scene in the airplane, there was no real "audio" to analyze. A dialogue-driven film for 98% of its running time. I should mention though that the dialogue was crystal-clear throughout.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Sword and The Claw*

recommendation: *Tier 4.5**

Cult label American Genre Film Archive (AGFA) has been putting out an obscure line-up of underground niche films on Blu-ray this past year and this movie may be the apex. The 1975 Turkish production is a bizarre mix of old Hollywood, especially 1958's _The Vikings_, filtered through the low-budget wackiness of foreign exploitation. Claiming to have the only theatrical print in existence, AGFA has struck a fine 4K film transfer from those surviving elements. It's definitely worth a look if you want to re-live the grindhouse experience in 2018.

The unprocessed transfer has a film-like quality even in this rough condition. Some defects in the print are unavoidable for the low-budget fare and its Turkish cinematography is a wee erratic. All that being said, the 1.78:1 presentation has a fairly stable contrast and decent clarity, even if its finer detail is soft in definition.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I'm glad to hear the PQ Tiers is serving its purpose and still finding an audience over a decade after it first began. People have come and gone during that time but there will always be a videophile need that I think our little thread serves. Many of you are probably dealing with the cold this week across the country, so stay warm and watch some shiny discs inside your home.

I can't guarantee a date but I hope to have the next update for the PQ Tiers finished by the end of January.


----------



## AmerCa

*The New World (Extended Cut, 2005, New Line Cinema)

*The site is wonky for me, so the best I could do is find the current placement of this title.

Technically my second Terrence Malick movie (first was *The Thin Red Line*, long time ago), but I consider this my very first exposure to this acclaimed director. Like my previous review, this is about the Mexican edition released by Videomax, which should be the same as the US edition (same video, audio and even extras).

The cinematography here is gorgeous - courtesy of some guy named Lubezki -, so sometimes is difficult to separate the gorgeous imagery from the video flaws. Picture is clean for the most movie runtime, with many scenes revealing great detail, depth and colors. Contrast is well balanced, and the movie just look very natural, you feel like you transported to that place and you're discovering this new world with them. The whole film is simply visually stunning on photography and locations alone.

But I have to say that PQ was inconsistent. Many soft shots, black levels faltered (most likely because the movie was filmed with natural light), and the picture just looked "weak" in many spots. All these are minor complaints, they don't really detract from the viewing experience, but the flaws are there. This BD currently stands in tier 1.75, which I feel is fair. The movie looks fantastic, even more so for a 10+ years movie, simply it's just not the cleanest video presentation. I've heard the Criterion release is much improved, so maybe I'd check out at some point.

The audio mix was very discrete, but complemented the imagery and surroundings effectively. It's not a potent or shiny soundtrack, but it's just what the movie needs (those natural sounds!) and I can't say a bad thing about it.

As for the movie itself, I guess more Malick films are in order. Fantastic meditative film.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75 (current place)

++UPDATE++

*I just realized I put in the same tier as "Looper", which can't be right. This film definitely looks much better. So either "Looper" is should be ranked lower or this one should be higher. I opted for the latter, so now I'd put "The New World" in tier 1.25

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^^

Very good review AmerCa! 

I would like to see your take on _The Thin Red Line_ after reading this. I may revisit that title soon to see how it holds up in light of today's top contenders. I believe it will still be deserving of a Tier Blu placement, but perhaps it will move down the list considerably.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Death Wish (1974)*

recommendation: *Tier 2.75**

Solid presentation for a 1974 film. Black levels and contrast are strong in the night shots; the color palette is rather drab but flesh tones are good.


----------



## djoberg

*The Thin Red Line (Revisited)*

My first thought, after slipping this disc in nearly 3 hours ago, was to look at a few scenes to see how the PQ had "held up" over the years. Well, you can guess what happened. I got sucked right into it due to its amazing PQ! The razor-sharp clarity and details were just as good as I had remembered. You could see every detail in trees and blades of grass, every nuance in cliffs and rocks, and every bead of sweat, pore, stubble, dirt, grime, blood, and wrinkle in the hundreds of facial close-ups throughout this film. Add to this a well-written story-line with superb acting, and I just couldn't bring myself to hit the STOP button on my Harmony Remote. 

I mentioned in a post a couple of weeks ago that this was #62 in Tier 0. IMHO it deserves to stay right there!!

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (#62 )*


----------



## AmerCa

djoberg said:


> *The Thin Red Line (Revisited)*
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (#62 )*


Wow. You just made me want to watch that movie ASAP. It's amazing that a movie six years older than "The New World" can look better! I meant to buy "The Thin Red Line" as well, but the only version I can find is the Criterion edition that's very expensive. The first time I watched it I expected a "traditional" war film, and of course I wasn't prepared for it, didn't understand it, and was bored to death.

In the meantime, I'm eyeing other Malick films, so we'll see what happens.


----------



## AmerCa

*The Hurt Locker (2008, Summit Entertainment)*

Jesus! I had to check the current placement for this movie to make sure I didn't need eye surgery. It sitting at tier 2.5, it seems my eyes are alright. This BD looked like an upscaled DVD. That may be an exaggeration, but seriously where's the depth and detail? I understand the film being almost monochromatic, but added to the previous faults, this movie is everything except a tier zero title, let alone reference. It's not complete trash, of course. You can follow the action with enough clarity and the movie's impact isn't diminished, but damn, this looks ugly. Very early in the movie I lost all hope of seeing a "pretty" shot. Maybe this was director Bigelow's intention from the get-go, a gritty movie that looks dirty and gritty as well. But obviously you wouldn't recommend this to anyone to show off their system.

The saving grace of this disc is the audio track that is demolishing when it needs to be. It's the proper companion to a movie about deactivating bombs. So, yes, you can show your audio system with this.

That said, I found this a pretty good movie, despite the innacuracies that are well documented. It deserved best movie? I don't know, but at least I don't regret my purchase. I hope this prepared me for *Dredd 3D*, which I recently ordered, because the PQ is said to be really ****ty.


*Tier Recommendation: Tier 2.5 (current placement)*


----------



## AmerCa

* Looper (2012, Sony/TriStar Pictures)*

This movie wasn't as bad as "The Hurt Locker", but it wasn't that good either. I hate movies like this, because they make me even more insecure about my modest setup. I think to myself _"maybe my TV's limitations are finally showing up", "maybe I need some recalibration?"_, etc. The movie looks good, at least there's detail and depth to be found, contrast is decent, and blacks don't completely suck. The movie is definitely viewable and PQ is good enough to guarantee being in tier 1 range, but the huge amount of softness present puts it towards the end of the spectrum. Tier 1.75, its current placement, seems fair.

Special mention to the audio track, which is amazing. I was taken aback in many instances, this track is loud and powerful when it needs to be and the overall sound design is very well done. The track is not always full-on, in other parts is very subdued and sometimes almost inexistent, but when it hits, it HITS. 

The movie is fantastic, not exactly what I was expecting, and because of that I liked it even more. I can't believe I wrote off this film for so long! This will turn into a clasic!

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75 (current placement)*


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> Wow. You just made me want to watch that movie ASAP. It's amazing that a movie six years older than "The New World" can look better! I meant to buy "The Thin Red Line" as well, but the only version I can find is the Criterion edition that's very expensive. The first time I watched it I expected a "traditional" war film, and of course I wasn't prepared for it, didn't understand it, and was bored to death.
> 
> In the meantime, I'm eyeing other Malick films, so we'll see what happens.


This is truly a "must see" for those who are fans of the Criterion Collection. It is, perhaps, their best restoration to date.

If you've never seen this, I would forewarn you that it is a long film and can, at times, be very slow-paced. But the pacing has a definite purpose, for unlike many war movies, which focus mainly on action, this classic takes you inside of the minds of many of the soldiers. It is splendidly "reflective in nature," which I absolutely loved. Just as _Dunkirk_ revealed something of the soldiers character through "facial expressions," _The Thin Red Line_ creates character development through "soul-searching thoughts." Of course, there is also a good deal of action, and you do have characters who are quite talkative, such as Nick Nolte's character who is very bombastic throughout.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Unforgiven (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 1.75**

Nice upgrade from the Blu-ray. Details stand out with lines in faces, clothing, and the rough textures of the frontier well presented. Contrast is strong in daytime scenes but falters a bit in nighttime scenes, of which there are many. It's not distracting but noticeable. The color palette is drab but all colors are displayed faithfully with lots of shades of brown. This film used lots of natural lighting so black levels in the night scenes are slightly elevated but are fine otherwise. Most of the film looks beautiful, especially the scene with Munny and The Kid towards the end, but the elevated blacks hold it back just a bit.


----------



## djoberg

*The Dark Knight Rises (Revisited)*

My, how I LOVE Mr. Nolan's IMAX scenes!! The first scene (the "Plane Heist" by Bane) is one of the most breathtaking scenes to see on a BIG screen. I had never seen it on my 75" (I sit only 8' from the screen) and I was blown away by the CLARITY and DETAILS. There were other scenes at the end (when Bane started blowing up Gotham) that came close to the opening scene, but it didn't quite have the same POP. Having said that, ALL of the IMAX scenes are easily Top Tier 0 material.

When the Aspect Ratio switched there was a definite decrease in clarity and details, but it was still "demo worthy" (perhaps a good 1.75). Black levels didn't crush as much as in _The Dark Knight_, but flesh tones had a "red push" in certain shots (especially in early scenes).

I had forgotten how incredible the DTS-MA Audio mix was and with my Denon's "up-mixing" capability it was even more remarkable. This has got to be one of the best films for showing off one's audio system. It is a LOUD track to begin with, so I usually listened at -8, but I couldn't resist turning it up all the way to "Reference Level" during some of the bombings...and again, the "opening scene."

I believe this is just as good (PQ-wise) as _The Dark Knight_; in fact, I would up it a notch and vote for....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*

PS I can't imagine the IMAX scenes looking any better, but reviews are coming in on the UHD version and they are saying it really does take it up a notch. MAYBE I will have to "double-dip."


----------



## dla26

*Best demo episode of Planet Earth II 4K?*

Planet Earth II 4K is currently the ranking PQ champion, as it should be. Since a lot of us use these lists to give demos to friends and family, I thought it'd be interesting to break it down a bit further.

For me, it could be the fact that it was the last episode I saw, but I thought the one on Cities was the best demo of HDR (neon signs, etc.) and fine detail (thousands of birds flying around) out there. There is one scene that is shown all in night vision which isn't as visually impressive (due to the obvious limitations) but overall, that one is my go to demo. Curious about other people's thoughts.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I'm not sure about it as demo material but I remember enjoying the Planet Earth II episode high up in the mountains. It had some captivating footage.


----------



## djoberg

dla26 said:


> Planet Earth II 4K is currently the ranking PQ champion, as it should be. Since a lot of us use these lists to give demos to friends and family, I thought it'd be interesting to break it down a bit further.
> 
> For me, it could be the fact that it was the last episode I saw, but I thought the one on Cities was the best demo of HDR (neon signs, etc.) and fine detail (thousands of birds flying around) out there. There is one scene that is shown all in night vision which isn't as visually impressive (due to the obvious limitations) but overall, that one is my go to demo. Curious about other people's thoughts.


I read of some preferring the "Deserts" episode above the rest as far as "demo material" goes, but IMO each episode has its own "demo shots." I still believe it deserves the place we've given to it here...#1 in Tier 0! I have used several of the episodes in showcasing the merits of true "4K" to those who want to see a noticeable difference.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^

I should have added that you are correct in saying that the benefits of HDR are seen in the neon signs in the Cities episode. Yet HDR was also seen in other episodes when there was a sunrise or sunset, or with night time sky shots. I was really impressed with the scene with the molten lava forming islands in the Pacific Ocean (I believe that was in the "Islands" episode); the virtues of HDR were really on display in that scene!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

A little birdy has told me that the upcoming _Blade Runner 2049_ UHD is reference class all the way and expect to get dazzled.


----------



## DarthDoxie

Phantom Stranger said:


> A little birdy has told me that the upcoming _Blade Runner 2049_ UHD is reference class all the way and expect to get dazzled.


I usually wait for new releases to come down in price (*Dunkirk* was a rare exception), but I have some BBY Reward Zone points burning a hole in my pocket so I'll be there on Tuesday, the steelbook looks pretty sweet. It's the only upcoming 4K release on my scope.


----------



## dla26

*Blade Runner:The Final Cut 4K/UHD*

I recently upgraded my system to 4K and have been watching eye candy non-stop. I had high hopes for Blade Runner: The Final Cut, but the restoration just wasn't up to the same level as some other older films.

There were a handful of scenes with really good detail, including skin pores, individual hairs/eyelashes, etc., but for the most part, the film grain was too heavy and obscured the detail. The film is by nature very dark, so detail in the dark areas was very important. Unfortunately, there was significant black crush throughout, with large sections of the screen just covered in darkness.

There was also a missed opportunity to showcase HDR during the nighttime city flyover scenes. The signs are all supposed to be lit up in bold color neon lights, but they didn't look any better than I've seen on any run of the mill Blu-ray disc.

I haven't seen the 1080p Blu-ray version, but I can't imagine that the 4K version is significantly different from that.

(FWIW, I'm really looking forward to Blade Runner 2049 in 4K!)

*Tier Recommendation: 2.50*


----------



## DarthDoxie

dla26 said:


> *Blade Runner:The Final Cut 4K/UHD*
> 
> I recently upgraded my system to 4K and have been watching eye candy non-stop. I had high hopes for Blade Runner: The Final Cut, but the restoration just wasn't up to the same level as some other older films.
> 
> There were a handful of scenes with really good detail, including skin pores, individual hairs/eyelashes, etc., but for the most part, the film grain was too heavy and obscured the detail. The film is by nature very dark, so detail in the dark areas was very important. Unfortunately, there was *significant black crush throughout*, with large sections of the screen just covered in darkness.
> 
> There was also a missed opportunity to showcase HDR during the nighttime city flyover scenes. *The signs are all supposed to be lit up in bold color neon lights, but they didn't look any better than I've seen on any run of the mill Blu-ray disc.*
> 
> I haven't seen the 1080p Blu-ray version, but I can't imagine that the 4K version is significantly different from that.
> 
> (FWIW, I'm really looking forward to Blade Runner 2049 in 4K!)
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.50*


Just curious what your display is because my experience was just the opposite. I saw no black crush at all, plenty of details in the shadows. HDR highlights were also on nice display and really popped against the dark backgrounds. I didn't think the UHD was a vast improvement over the BD, but I put it at 1.5 (current BD sits at 2.0).


----------



## dla26

DarthDoxie said:


> Just curious what your display is because my experience was just the opposite. I saw no black crush at all, plenty of details in the shadows. HDR highlights were also on nice display and really popped against the dark backgrounds. I didn't think the UHD was a vast improvement over the BD, but I put it at 1.5 (current BD sits at 2.0).


I'm watching on a JVC RS4500 on a Stewart Greyhawk screen. (It's been a while, so I'll need to look up the gain if I want to get super precise.) The player is an Oppo 203 which outputs the video directly to the projector. The room has some reflections (white walls - I'm planning on putting up black acoustic fabric but haven't done so yet) but no ambient light. I'm usually able to see subtle shades of gray/black in dark areas of other movies, like Oblivion for example.


----------



## DarthDoxie

dla26 said:


> I'm watching on a JVC RS4500 on a Stewart Greyhawk screen. (It's been a while, so I'll need to look up the gain if I want to get super precise.) The player is an Oppo 203 which outputs the video directly to the projector. The room has some reflections (white walls - I'm planning on putting up black acoustic fabric but haven't done so yet) but no ambient light. I'm usually able to see subtle shades of gray/black in dark areas of other movies, like Oblivion for example.


Oblivion has great black levels for sure. Just odd our impressions of Blade Runner are so different.


----------



## dla26

DarthDoxie said:


> Oblivion has great black levels for sure. Just odd our impressions of Blade Runner are so different.


It could honestly just come down to expectations. I've never seen the 1080p Blu-ray version, and in my mind, 4K/HDR should look like Guardians of the Galaxy 2. I was disappointed that it looked to me like just a regular Blu-ray, and not a particularly good one at that.

Some PQ highlights for me were the stretch marks and sags in JF Sebastian's face (he is supposed to have a degenerative illness, and I never noticed the detail in his skin) and the outside shots of Tyrell's headquarters.

I think I was also trying to judge it relative to all other Blu-rays I've seen. I looked over what was listed in the 2.0, 2.25, 2.5 categories, and this is where it seemed to fit the most.


----------



## AmerCa

*Dredd (2D - 2012 - Lionsgate)*

I held off for the longest time from buying this BD since there were a lot of criticism regarding the PQ of this title, including two tier 3 reviews from this very thread. But since the movie was said to be very good, had excellent AQ and I found it very cheap, I decided to take the plunge.

Due to the mixed reviews, I expected the worst. Alas, I found it much better than expected, and that's why I'll show some leniency to this disc. There many low quality shots in here (ok, some _terrible_ shots), that go beyond softness; the image is simply ugly. HOWEVER, and this is my personal opinion, the lo-fi quality of these shots added to the grittyness of the story and setting. Of course, that cheap look wasn't intended, but in the particular case of this movie, I didn't mind it that much. Since Lionsgate didn't care to do a proper 2D conversion, there are many inherent flaws to thr image that can't be overcome. The 3D effects don't work for me, but give the movie a very unique look that I found very interesting.

I can understand the criticism regarding the PQ, but the movie is definitely watchable, and not as terrible as you could think. There's plenty of shots in the movie with great contrast, color and detail, they just don't dominate. With that said, I'm willing to respect the initial assessment of the previous two reviews found in here, and give this BD a tier 3 placement, even when the video is not really that bad. If someone is withholding from buying this title (like I was), because of the PQ quality, there's a good chance in the end you won't mind it that much.

The AQ is as good as advertised, so even if you're not satisfied with the video, you'll definitely _love_ this track.

I try to avoid as much as possible superlatives for movies, but I think this is arguably the best _ pure_ action movie I've seen in years. There's no fat in its 90 minutes: no useless backstory, no character development, no romance, no overlong action scenes. The film is straight and to the point, bloody, loud and adrenaline-filled. I just loved the whole thing.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*


----------



## AmerCa

^^^^

Forgot to add, if someone is interested in the UltraViolet code for this movie, ask and thou shall be given!


----------



## djoberg

dla26 said:


> It could honestly just come down to expectations. I've never seen the 1080p Blu-ray version, and in my mind, 4K/HDR should look like Guardians of the Galaxy 2. I was disappointed that it looked to me like just a regular Blu-ray, and not a particularly good one at that.
> 
> Some PQ highlights for me were the stretch marks and sags in JF Sebastian's face (he is supposed to have a degenerative illness, and I never noticed the detail in his skin) and the outside shots of Tyrell's headquarters.
> 
> *I think I was also trying to judge it relative to all other Blu-rays I've seen. I looked over what was listed in the 2.0, 2.25, 2.5 categories, and this is where it seemed to fit the most.*


I haven't seen the UHD version, but I gave the 1080p version a 1.75 placement. But I said in my review that I could see members giving it a placement in Tier 2 due to its "heavy grain," which you mentioned in your review.

The bottom line is: You "judged it relative to all other Blu-rays you've see" (as you stated above) and that's exactly what one should be doing.


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> *Dredd (2D - 2012 - Lionsgate)*
> 
> I held off for the longest time from buying this BD since there were a lot of criticism regarding the PQ of this title, including *two tier 3 reviews from this very thread.* But since the movie was said to be very good, had excellent AQ and I found it very cheap, I decided to take the plunge.
> 
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.0*


Thanks for the review AmerCa! I did a Search on this thread and your review is the only one that came up. How did you find the two reviews that you alluded to above?


----------



## AmerCa

djoberg said:


> Thanks for the review AmerCa! I did a Search on this thread and your review is the only one that came up. How did you find the two reviews that you alluded to above?


Honestly, I don't know. I think I stumbled upon them when searching for other thing. I can't even find them using Google, I just can find references to the reviews by Phantom's list updates in pages 680 and 673. The reviews were done by Gamereviewgod and audiomagnate. The reviews may be a few pages back. If I find them, I'll post links. They were very short, though.

It's incredible how hard it can be to find something in this thread!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

The thread has become so long that the site's internal search database isn't "seeing" any posts made back beyond a certain date. As AmerCa hinted, using Google's search for this site is probably a better bet at this point if you are concerned with finding older (4+ years) reviews. My semi-regular updates to the thread usually pop up in the results; they can be used as a starting point. From there it's possible to manually go backward looking for a specific review.


----------



## AmerCa

^^^^^
Found them for you, Djoberg :

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-665.html#post22809541

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-674.html#post23074917

While searching for those reviews, I found many other gems, reviews for movies I'm planning to buy. It's a shame most of them can't be found, not even using Google. At first I thought the reviews couldn't be found because the title was hyperlinked (like Gamereviewgod), but audiomagnate wasn't, and there's no way I can make Google to list the result. Basically, you have to manually search for the title.

By the looks of it, every time I find a review I'm interested in, I'll have to manually save the link for further reference.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Summer '82: When Zappa Came To Sicily*

recommendation: *Tier 2.25**

This documentary is a personal remembrance from Frank Zappa's family covering the musician's European tour from 1982. It is comprised of archival concert footage with limited resolution (think VHS quality) and recently filmed talking head interviews in perfect digital clarity. The vintage behind-the-scenes footage has poor resolution and weirdly framed in a fish-eye lens effect. That is the one and only reason this documentary lands outside of Tier One, because the remaining material has fantastic picture quality.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

AmerCa said:


> ^^^^^
> Found them for you, Djoberg :
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-665.html#post22809541
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-674.html#post23074917
> 
> While searching for those reviews, I found many other gems, reviews for movies I'm planning to buy. It's a shame most of them can't be found, not even using Google. At first I thought the reviews couldn't be found because the title was hyperlinked (like Gamereviewgod), but audiomagnate wasn't, and there's no way I can make Google to list the result. Basically, you have to manually search for the title.
> 
> By the looks of it, every time I find a review I'm interested in, I'll have to manually save the link for further reference.


It might be easier searching by member. I bet if you search by Gamereviewgod on this site, dozens of reviews would pop up.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Thing, The (1982) (Shout Factory)*

recommendation: *Tier 1.75**

Very clean transfer from Shout Factory; I didn't see any scratches, specs, or encode issues. Details are well presented in facial features, stray hairs, fur, and fabrics. There are only a couple of shots that aren't sharp and then a few optical effects shots that falter on clarity. Colors are drab for the most part but blood and other primaries are bright when they do show up. Contrast and blacks are also strong, lots of dark scenes and they all looked good, no elevated or crushed blacks.


----------



## AmerCa

*Breakfast At Tiffany's (1961, Paramount)*

I remember seeing a review for this title around here, but as usual, I couldn't find it. Also, search function on page isn't working on the Master List for some reason, so neither could I check its current position (if it's there at all).

This movie looks as good as a 50+ years can look (barring a Criterion release, I guess). Picture is predominantly soft, but detailed and clean, with good colors and nice contrast. PQ is fairly consistent, so the eyes get accustomed quickly to softness, so it stops being a major issue early on. I didn't notice DNR or any other artifacts of consequence. PQ reminded me somewhat that of *The Hurt Locker*, a disc I recently reviewed, but the vivid colors and settings make for a much better viewing experience. Considering the former sits at tier 2.5, I believe thia one could be a tier above or even two. I'll be conservative, and give this title a tier 2.25 placement, but tier 2.0 would also be fair to me. Very good PQ, but not enough for tier one range.


This is not my favorite genre, but I really enjoyed the movie. Nice development, interesting characters and great screenplay. I can see why this is considered a classic. Family enjoyed it very much.

* Tier Recommendation: 2.0* *(changed from 2.25 due to review found below)*

* **UPDATE***

Found the review: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-673.html#post23052672



> Breakfast at Tiffany's
> 
> Breakfast at Tiffany's looks gorgeous. This is crisp, clean transfer based on great restoration with few stunning exterior shots at New York streets. Some shots seems to be a little bit soft, but all the details, the textures, the fabrics, it's all there. The real softness comes to stage in close ups of Audrey Hepburn and most of them has this hazy, almost heavenly look. Other than that it's beautiful.
> 
> Tier 2.0


Also found this interesting bit from a different thread: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...-film-reference-analysis-63.html#post22851609



> Well, Breakfast at Tiffany's is one the best blu-ray transfers from film that does it respectfully and with integrity to the actual film. There were only 2 quick parts in the whole entire run length of the movie where the contrast seemed a bit overly strong and weird (both of the quick parts are exterior shots and last for only a few seconds and were not enough to bother me) but other than that, this was pretty much a perfect transfer and represents film very well. Very filmic, and properly restored with integrity and respect of the FILM.


The above reminded me of an old discussion here about PQ vs transfer accuracy.


----------



## DarthDoxie

AmerCa said:


> *Breakfast At Tiffany's (1961, Paramount)*
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.0* *(changed from 2.25 due to review found below)*


Nice to see more members reviewing older films!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Did anyone catch _6 Below: Miracle On The Mountain_? It came out from Sony on Blu-ray back in November to little fanfare. I have a strong hunch it's a potential Tier 0 disc near the top. Given its pedigree, it should be close to digital perfection depending on how the cinematography turned out.

The survival thriller only made it to Blu-ray and didn't do well enough commercially to merit a UHD release. I got interested in its videophile potential when I read the article below on its editing process. It's the first movie to ever be natively edited in *6K resolution*. It was edited from the original RED 6K Dragon files (R3D) with no transcoding (read as no loss of resolution) in Adobe Premiere Pro. The framing is in a 2.76:1 aspect ratio like _The Hateful Eight_ and uses Panavision Primo 70 lenses.

http://vashivisuals.com/6-below-editing-in-6k/


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Escape from New York (Shout Factory)*

recommendation: *Tier 3.0**

Another John Carpenter film licensed and released by Shout Factory, unfortunately not as good as *The Thing*. This movie has a lot of optical effects and rear projection shots at the beginning so the PQ is limited by the original film elements. Soft focus in these and other shots is the major detractor of the presentation, details are lacking for the most part. Most of the film takes place at night and black levels are inconsistent, sometimes good and at other times elevated. Some of the scenes at night with rain soaked streets and light reflections show excellent contrast and deep blacks but others are elevated or murky. Colors are good with many computer graphics and some of the prisoners have colorful outfits; flesh tones also look accurate.


----------



## AmerCa

Phantom Stranger said:


> Did anyone catch _6 Below: Miracle On The Mountain_? It came out from Sony on Blu-ray back in November to little fanfare. I have a strong hunch it's a potential Tier 0 disc near the top. Given its pedigree, it should be close to digital perfection depending on how the cinematography turned out.
> 
> The survival thriller only made it to Blu-ray and didn't do well enough commercially to merit a UHD release. I got interested in its videophile potential when I read the article below on its editing process. It's the first movie to ever be natively edited in *6K resolution*. It was edited from the original RED 6K Dragon files (R3D) with no transcoding (read as no loss of resolution) in Adobe Premiere Pro. The framing is in a 2.76:1 aspect ratio like _The Hateful Eight_ and uses Panavision Primo 70 lenses.
> 
> http://vashivisuals.com/6-below-editing-in-6k/


I see listed at Amazon.mx, but it's a rather expensive release for a blind-buy for me. I'll keep an eye on it, because, yeah, it'd be interesting to look at that PQ.

But apparently is released by a company called Momentum, not Sony. Maybe that's why it had little fanfare?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

AmerCa said:


> I see listed at Amazon.mx, but it's a rather expensive release for a blind-buy for me. I'll keep an eye on it, because, yeah, it'd be interesting to look at that PQ.
> 
> But apparently is released by a company called Momentum, not Sony. Maybe that's why it had little fanfare?


Sony has a distribution deal with Momentum Pictures. It's possible Sony doesn't distribute the BD in Mexico and other territories.


----------



## djoberg

I know I would enjoy that movie and if the PQ is as good as you think it will be Phantom, I will definitely be getting it. But I may wait for a price drop as AmerCa implied he would be doing.


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> I see listed at Amazon.mx, but it's a rather expensive release for a blind-buy for me. I'll keep an eye on it, because, yeah, it'd be interesting to look at that PQ.
> 
> But apparently is released by a company called Momentum, not Sony. Maybe that's why it had little fanfare?


I just looked it up on Amazon to read some reviews and I was surprised at the price. I was expecting it to be more after you saying "it's a rather expensive release." Am I right in assuming it's quite a bit more on the Amazon.mx site? I am more than willing to pay $15 (the price on Amazon.com) if the movie is good and the PQ is exceptional.


----------



## AmerCa

djoberg said:


> I just looked it up on Amazon to read some reviews and I was surprised at the price. I was expecting it to be more after you saying "it's a rather expensive release." Am I right in assuming it's quite a bit more on the Amazon.mx site? I am more than willing to pay $15 (the price on Amazon.com) if the movie is good and the PQ is exceptional.


The BD is around the same price here (it's imported from the US), but 15 dollars is more money here than over there (1 dollar=19.x pesos currently). It's not _very_ expensive, but I usually buy BDs at half that price, sometimes even less. And at the rate I'm buying movies, I need to spend my money more wisely


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> The BD is around the same price here (it's imported from the US), but 15 dollars is more money here than over there (1 dollar=19.x pesos currently). It's not _very_ expensive, but I usually buy BDs at half that price, sometimes even less. And at the rate I'm buying movies, I need to spend my money more wisely


I hear ya!

I think I've got about 400 Blu-rays now and my wife keeps telling me it's time to quit!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

AmerCa said:


> The BD is around the same price here (it's imported from the US), but 15 dollars is more money here than over there (1 dollar=19.x pesos currently). It's not _very_ expensive, but I usually buy BDs at half that price, sometimes even less. And at the rate I'm buying movies, I need to spend my money more wisely


That's a smart, sensible policy. I rarely venture beyond $12 per disc unless it's something I deeply want and need immediately.

*England Is Mine*

recommendation: *Tier 2.5**

This biopic of Morrissey's early years before he joined The Smiths may be the mostly perfect average Blu-ray video I've seen, at least by new release standards. Its steady contrast, decent definition and unfiltered transfer make it a natural candidate for Tier 2. There is no obvious demo potential in the drama but the 2.39:1 presentation's consistency is appealing on some level.

Distributed by independent MVDVisual, there are no significant issues from a technical standpoint. The adequate AVC encode captures _England Is Mine's_ fine detail without a hitch. Close-ups are crisp and sharp. The cinematography lacks dimensionality and comes off as a bit flat. 

I've always viewed Tier 2 as likely the most common level of picture quality for new productions on Blu-ray. Something really has to go wrong for a recent production to land south of Tier 2 unless there are extenuating circumstances.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> That's a smart, sensible policy. I rarely venture beyond $12 per disc unless it's something I deeply want and need immediately.


You'll rarely get away with paying that price once you get a 4K display Phantom!


----------



## fredxr2d2

djoberg said:


> You'll rarely get away with paying that price once you get a 4K display Phantom!


Even without a 4K display, now that I have an Oppo 203, I'm having some sticker shock on the UHD Blus. I'm hoping that they come down in price soon - I'm especially loathe to double-dip at their current prices. Replacing old DVDs with $8 blus seems worth it. Replacing a $20 blu with a $30 or $35 4K ones doesn't seem quite worth it to me...so far.


----------



## djoberg

fredxr2d2 said:


> Even without a 4K display, now that I have an Oppo 203, I'm having some sticker shock on the UHD Blus. I'm hoping that they come down in price soon - I'm especially loathe to double-dip at their current prices. Replacing old DVDs with $8 blus seems worth it. Replacing a $20 blu with a $30 or $35 4K ones doesn't seem quite worth it to me...so far.


I agree with you Fred! I usually wait until a 4K Blu-ray goes down to $20 (or less) before buying. I won't pay more than $10 for an older 1080p Blu and no more than $15 for a newer one (unless it's a very good movie with Tier 0 PQ quality).

A case in point would be the newly released _Blade Runner 2049_. I am so excited to see it that I was going to buy it right away (at $30), but now I'm willing to wait for a good price drop, even it I have to wait a few months.


----------



## AmerCa

djoberg said:


> I hear ya!
> 
> I think I've got about 400 Blu-rays now and my wife keeps telling me it's time to quit!


I feel you! Every time I get something from Amazon (which is becoming more frequent), I get the looks around here: _"Seriously? Didn't you just bought more movies?". _I haven't counted them, but I've got near 50 BDs right now, and the problem is that when I started, I didn't think I'd be buying this much discs. Now I'm running out of space, since I don't have a dedicate shelf for movies, and I still got my CDs, which also occupy lots of space 



djoberg said:


> I agree with you Fred! I usually wait until a 4K Blu-ray goes down to $20 (or less) before buying. I won't pay more than $10 for an older 1080p Blu and no more than $15 for a newer one (unless it's a very good movie with Tier 0 PQ quality).
> 
> A case in point would be the newly released _Blade Runner 2049_. I am so excited to see it that I was going to buy it right away (at $30), but now I'm willing to wait for a good price drop, even it I have to wait a few months.


I'm willing to pay more for UHDs, but the ones I'm interested in don't drop in price, they stay between 20-30 dollars, if not more. This past Black Friday you could find UHDs at 10-12 dollars, but I had already got them in blu , so of course I wouldn't double dip. Since UHDs seem to be the future, I'm not willing to spend a lot of money on discs I might end up upgrading later.

The hype is getting me interested in the new Blade Runner, but since I haven't seen the first one, I feel I would not get or appreciate the story very well. Like you, I'll wait until there's a drop in price.



Phantom Stranger said:


> That's a smart, sensible policy. I rarely venture beyond $12 per disc unless it's something I deeply want and need immediately.


I paid almost full retail price in pre-order for the latest Transformers, only to get shafted with no extras disc and an inferior package. The real kicker? A week after I received it, the US 4K version went below 10 dollars. No more pre-orders or retail prices for me!


----------



## JNayAV

Talking bout Blade Runner... got my UHD copy yesterday. Just looking for time to sit down and watch with the wife.

Black Friday is the magic time for UHD like it has been for Blu-ray for years for me.
Several major titles were available under $15.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> You'll rarely get away with paying that price once you get a 4K display Phantom!


I have been trying to get UHD versions whenever possible for when I do make the jump.


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> I feel you! Every time I get something from Amazon (which is becoming more frequent), I get the looks around here: _"Seriously? Didn't you just bought more movies?". _I haven't counted them, but I've got near 50 BDs right now, and the problem is that when I started, I didn't think I'd be buying this much discs. Now I'm running out of space, since I don't have a dedicate shelf for movies, and I still got my CDs, which also occupy lots of space
> 
> The hype is getting me interested in the new Blade Runner, but since I haven't seen the first one, I feel I would not get or appreciate the story very well. Like you, I'll wait until there's a drop in price.


Funny you mentioning "running out of space," I AM out of space right now and have had to put over 50 Blus on a BOOKcase. So, I just ordered a new DVD/CD storage cabinet that will hold 379 DVDs. My plan is to fill that one up and then use my old cabinet for the DVDs that are left over PLUS my CDs.

Regarding _Blade Runner_, I would try to RENT and view the original on Blu-ray. It would definitely be "beneficial" (and some would even say "vital") for you to see the original first.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> I have been trying to get UHD versions whenever possible for when I do make the jump.


That's what I started doing a few months before I bought my Sony 940D. It's good to see a fellow "pragmatist."


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Blade Runner 2049 (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 0* (0.5)*

Details and depth of field are outstanding on this release, I didn't see any soft shots. The fur on K's coat and other fabrics show lots of texture and detail. Facial features like lines and pores also stand out. It's not a particularly colorful movie as the palette consists mostly of greys, browns, and one sequence has lots of orange. The different shades of these colors show strong delineation. Some of the night scenes in L.A. do have lots of neon and colorful holograms. Contrast is strong and the use of HDR is really good. An early scene has K sitting in front of a bright window, normally a killer for contrast and detail, but the rest of the scene has strong blacks and great shadow detail. Blacks are strong in things like clothes and objects and indoor scenes. Blacks in the outdoor scenes appear to be slightly elevated but are actually correct as the constant rainfall gives a greyish hue to the landscape. They must have solved global warming in the future because there is also snow at one point in the city.

So why not place it higher in Tier 0? The encode falters in the last 30 minutes with minor banding in a few scenes starting with the last shot of K in his flying machine and then one or two after that. The banding all happen during night scenes in the black areas around bright objects. I had high hopes of placing this one up with *Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2* but the minor banding in a few shots hold it back.

A short note about the sound mix: WOW! Those with an Atmos setup are going to love this one; I have a 5.1 setup and thought it was great. I see an Oscar nomination (maybe even a win) for best sound mixing this year. The LFE is also deep, deep, deep.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^

Maybe I won't have the will power to wait for a price drop on _Blade Runner 2049_!


----------



## DarthDoxie

I watched the Warner Brothers UHD release of Blade Runner 2049 for the US market. Sony released it for the overseas market and some are saying there is no banding in the scenes I mentioned and that it handles blacks a bit better.


----------



## AmerCa

DarthDoxie said:


> I watched the Warner Brothers UHD release of Blade Runner 2049 for the US market. Sony released it for the overseas market and some are saying there is no banding in the scenes I mentioned and that it handles blacks a bit better.


But Sony doesn't offer Atmos! I don't have Atmos now, but I hope to upgrade at some point . Even with the banding, I may go for the Warner version.

I'm really surprised this release, in your opinion, didn't even crack the top quarter. I mean, if a movie like this, in UHD none the less, can't get near the top, I don't know what will. Maybe yet another animated movie? Or maybe our standards are getting super high? I know the parameters in this thread are higher and more specific than your "typical" 5 stars review (and this is why I love this thread), but the fact than neither *Dunkirk *or this one even cracked the top quarter is truly something.

Maybe studios are dropping the ball in the transfer room?


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Duck, You Sucker; aka A Fistful of Dynamite*

recommendation: *Tier 4.5**

I've had this in my collection for a few years but have just now gotten around to watching it. This is an MGM release but Kino just announced they are releasing a "restoration" in March. The restoration consisted of 15 hours of debris removal but I'm not sure that alone would fix the problems from the MGM version unless they did a whole new scan.

The first tip-off of a sub-par viewing experience was the window-boxed titles and it went down hill from there. It's quite soft on details except for some extreme close-ups at the very begining that Sergio Leone is known for. These close-ups show facial pores and dental flaws in all their glory. Colors are flat and dull, even apart from all the desert scenery. Contrast and black levels are also lackluster with elevated blacks in most scenes.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

AmerCa said:


> But Sony doesn't offer Atmos! I don't have Atmos now, but I hope to upgrade at some point . Even with the banding, I may go for the Warner version.
> 
> I'm really surprised this release, in your opinion, didn't even crack the top quarter. I mean, if a movie like this, in UHD none the less, can't get near the top, I don't know what will. Maybe yet another animated movie? Or maybe our standards are getting super high? I know the parameters in this thread are higher and more specific than your "typical" 5 stars review (and this is why I love this thread), but the fact than neither *Dunkirk *or this one even cracked the top quarter is truly something.
> 
> Maybe studios are dropping the ball in the transfer room?


Climbing the mountain is tougher than ever. It's going to take something like a new Michael Bay or James Cameron movie to scale the PQ Tiers.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> Climbing the mountain is tougher than ever. It's going to take something like a new Michael Bay or James Cameron movie to scale the PQ Tiers.


I agree 110% with Phantom! Topping a movie like the latest _Transformers_ or _13 Hours_ will be no easy task. We could say of either of those titles that it's "got it all" (superb colors, razor-sharp clarity, unbelievable details, amazing depth and awesome black levels/shadow details). From what I have read about _Blade Runner 2049_ there are soft shots, a muted color palette and color-grading as well. A film with those three "negatives" will rarely, if ever, reach the summit of Tier 0.

Having said that, to its credit, there are plenty of "positives" that outweigh the "negatives" and thus it is still deemed worthy of a place in the Top Tier. (Of course, I'm saying this based on DarthDoxie's review.) We need to celebrate that. I'm always happy if a release makes it into Tier Blu; I'm not always looking for the new "King of the Blu-ray Hill."


----------



## AmerCa

I agree with you, guys. I guess not every director's goal is to deliver the most stunning video presentation, but only what's needed for the movie they're making. Villeneuve's and Nolan's goals are certainly others than "just" delivering amazing video presentation. I just found odd that despite using probably the best tools for capturing video and other technical means, for one reason or another, the movies failed to deliver the top of the top PQ. But I'm afraid at this point we may be splitting hairs, and even when the BDs are not "top of the hill", they're still pretty damn good.


----------



## AmerCa

*Tropic Thunder (Director's Cut - 2008 - Dreamworks/Paramount)

*I found the following recommendations for this movie (MIRACLE!) for tier 1.0 (one for 1.5, but watched through Netflix), which is also its current placement:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-328.html#post15703739

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-236.html#post15179013

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-453.html#post17209320

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-371.html#post15985343

They're also very old, and I don't know if it may have to do with it, but I don't agree with those opinions. Movie looks nice and solid overall, with some very nice close-ups and some great shots, but PQ is way below current standards (it didn't help that I watched it right after *Prometheus*): too many soft shots, dubious black levels, decent-but-not-great contrast, good but inconsistent video presentation. I don't think I'd use this disc for demo material, and for me, it would sit comfortably at tier 2. Still a very nice viewing experience, but I guess the bar has raised too much.

I know it's a drastic relocation, so if someone feels I'm being too drastic, feel free to share your opinion.

I've watched this movie many times, and still plenty of laughs from it. IMO, a modern classic. Ben Stiller has made three of my favorite all time comedies (*Dodgeball*, *Zoolander *and this one) and it was nice to see it for the first time in 1080p. I didn't even care that the audio was a little disappointing.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0 (Current placement Tier 1.0)*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^

I don't believe I ever saw that title so I can't comment on it. But those reviews, as you know, date back 7-8 years ago. That's a very LONG time, especially considering the improvements that have been made in cameras (both digital and film). So, I wouldn't be surprised at all if one that had reviewed it back then would, upon a viewing today, drop its placement considerably when comparing it to current Tier 1 rankings.


----------



## AmerCa

*Prometheus (2012 - Fox)

*Not that anyone needs my opinion on this one (if you liked the movie, you probably already have it), but this is what we do, right? First I only found one review for this title for tier 1.5:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-697.html#post24041400

I expected to find Djoberg's, Phantom's and some other main reviewers opinions on this one, but no luck.

I'll start by saying that if "Prometheus" isn't tier zero material, certainly it's very close. I was sure I was going to find this in tier zero, but surprisingly, it's in tier 1.5 . I couldn't find any major problem with this disc, but, for some reason I cannot explain, for some reason I wasn't 100% comfortable with it. Maybe it's color palette? Black levels, contrast? I don't know, but "WOW'ed" to the degree I was expecting. That's not so say this BD doesn't look fantastic, it does, but lacks something to reach tier blu, so kinda I can understand its current placement. BUT, to my eyes it's not that far. Tier 1.25 at worst, tier 1.0 at best seems very fair to me. Impressive CGI, great futuristic set designs, make-up, detail, great colors, very good black levels, everything contributes for an eye candy experience, although it lacks a bit "something". I'll leave to others with more knowledge and experience than me to point out its faults.

Now, the audio...this is when I realize how limited my sound system is. You can't ask a lot from a HTIB, but there were certain moments when the house was supposed to me coming down, but my system just can't get that low, or even output decent bass. It's fine for most movies, but not for this one. AQ was excellent, but I'm sure most of it it's beyond my current capabilities.

*Tier Recommendation 1.0 (But 1.25 would be acceptable)*


----------



## AmerCa

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> I don't believe I ever saw that title so I can't comment on it. But those reviews, as you know, date back 7-8 years ago. That's a very LONG time, especially considering the improvements that have been made in cameras (both digital and film). So, I wouldn't be surprised at all if one that had reviewed it back then would, upon a viewing today, drop its placement considerable when comparing it to current Tier 1 rankings.


Ben Stiller's humor isn't for everyone, and I think the movie is truly fantastic, but if not for nothing else, the movie is worth watching just for Robert Downey Jr's performance, that if I'm not mistaken, got him an Oscar nomination. Pretty wild for basically a over-the-top comedy. Tom Cruise was also unbelievable.

If you have Netflix, maybe you could spot it out.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

_Tropic Thunder_ is funny. I know I saw the Blu-ray but I can't remember what score I gave it. There should be more Prometheus scores somewhere in the thread. If I get the time I'll hunt them down.


----------



## SnellTHX

AmerCa said:


> Yes!! I recently watched it for the first time in blu and I also thought to myself _"What's up with all these reviews saying this disc is reference material?"_. Like you say the movies looks spectacular at times, and is solid for the most part, but it falters way too much (the black crush annoyed the hell out of me, to the point I thought my display was wrongly calibrated). Your assessment seems fair to me. Regarding the UHD, I'd only upgrade if I find it very cheap. I'm in no hurry.


I still think The Dark Knight is among my ultimate list of reference movies. the 35mm, 21:9 shots are pretty average looking but the 16:9 IMAX 15/70mm are absolutely gorgeous and head & shoulders above 99.99% of movies out there. And lets face it, if you have a friend or two over you're not going to show off your system by having them watch 2 hours of planet Earth II or Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2.

You'll show it off with quick scenes of the bank robbery in TDK, the batmobile/bike scene in TDK, hospital explosion etc. Then you'll pick your friends' jaws off the floor


----------



## SnellTHX

dla26 said:


> *Blade Runner:The Final Cut 4K/UHD*
> 
> I recently upgraded my system to 4K and have been watching eye candy non-stop. I had high hopes for Blade Runner: The Final Cut, but the restoration just wasn't up to the same level as some other older films.
> 
> There were a handful of scenes with really good detail, including skin pores, individual hairs/eyelashes, etc., but for the most part, the film grain was too heavy and obscured the detail. The film is by nature very dark, so detail in the dark areas was very important. Unfortunately, there was significant black crush throughout, with large sections of the screen just covered in darkness.
> 
> There was also a missed opportunity to showcase HDR during the nighttime city flyover scenes. The signs are all supposed to be lit up in bold color neon lights, but they didn't look any better than I've seen on any run of the mill Blu-ray disc.
> 
> I haven't seen the 1080p Blu-ray version, but I can't imagine that the 4K version is significantly different from that.
> 
> (FWIW, I'm really looking forward to Blade Runner 2049 in 4K!)
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.50*



I watched one of the earliest HD remakes of this movie and it looked horrible. terrible film grain, black crush etc.. awful picture quality that did not look much greater than DVD.

Not too surprised you didn't enjoy the 4K version so much either


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> I still think The Dark Knight is among my ultimate list of reference movies. the 35mm, 21:9 shots are pretty average looking but the 16:9 IMAX 15/70mm are absolutely gorgeous and head & shoulders above 99.99% of movies out there. And lets face it, if you have a friend or two over you're not going to show off your system by having them watch 2 hours of planet Earth II or Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2.
> 
> You'll show it off with quick scenes of the bank robbery in TDK, the batmobile/bike scene in TDK, hospital explosion etc. Then you'll pick your friends' jaws off the floor


I agree, and I would add _The Dark Knight Rises_, especially the opening scene (the "Plane Heist" by Bane) and later scenes where Bane starts blowing up the city (in particular the stadium scene and the bridge scene over the river). They were IMAX shots as well and were just as good as the "Bank Robbery" or "Hospital Explosion" scenes in TDK.


----------



## SnellTHX

*Kingsman: Golden Circle*


What a befitting name for this movie as I instantly recognised its picture quality to be within the "Gold-tier" category. Great amount of detail, very sharp images. Contrast handled very well and the excellent image quality held back only by a few soft shots of CGI. 

Looks more or less equal to the original Kingsman movie. So no real improvements, but still superb.

*
Tier recommendation: 1**


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> I agree, and I would add _The Dark Knight Rises_, especially the opening scene (the "Plane Heist" by Bane) and later scenes where Bane starts blowing up the city (in particular the stadium scene and the bridge scene over the river). They were IMAX shots as well and were just as good as the "Bank Robbery" or "Hospital Explosion" scenes in TDK.


Oh boy, don't get me started on TDK:R. I was just supporting TDK scenes as it was under attack. The Dark Knight Rises' IMAX scenes are of course EVEN BETTER. well marginally better, but so damn close to perfection in my opinion. The main benefit of TDK:R over TDK is the fact that there is so much more of the glorious 15/70mm IMAX scenes. TDK has 28 minutes of them, TDK:R has a whopping 65 minutes of them!!

In particular the opening scene of TDK:R is absolutely mind blowing. It was the first scene I watched on my new OLED and I had a friend over to come see "what's so special about that OLED TV anyway". Two minds blown


----------



## AmerCa

SnellTHX said:


> Oh boy, don't get me started on TDK:R.* I was just supporting TDK scenes as it was under attack*. The Dark Knight Rises' IMAX scenes are of course EVEN BETTER. :


Oh, no! I never attacked TDK Imax scenes! I'm not blind! I was talking about the overall video presentation. Of course, in your display great PQ must look even better!


----------



## AmerCa

*Final Destination 5 (2011 - Warner)*

I only found a reference for this title in an old Master List last updated in May 2012. No reviews, of course. Here this BD is at tier 2.25.

I'll make my case and propose this movie up to tier 1.75. The movie starts on the weak side, but it improves along the way. Special FX were on the cheap side, and this is where probably this disc is getting most of its deductions, but they are effective and don't detract _too much_ from the viewing experience. There are nice colors, good contrast, scenes with good detail and texture, black levels are well balanced, and overall it's a solid presentation. It's certainly not much worse than other 1.75 titles I've recently watched, like *Looper* and *John Wick*. At worst it deserves a spot in tier 2.0, but I believe there's good enough stuff to warrant tier gold range, albeit towars the end of the spectrum.

The movie was surprisingly good and entertaining. At this point the deaths are more funny than gruesome, but there was enough tension and thrills to make it a more than decent horror movie. Sonically speaking, there were some scenes that benefited from the loud mix, and will give your system a good workout.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75* *(Up from tier 2.25)*


----------



## AmerCa

* Captain America : Civil War (2016 - Marvel/Disney)*

I could find reviews for Winter Soldier, but not for Civil War. Whatever.

This one is tier zero material! I can't check its current placement right now, but I'm pretty sure this must be in the reference section. PQ is stunning, with lots of detail, depth, vivid colors and balanced contrast, textures and solid black levels. PQ is not 100% spotless all the time, but, what is? The video presentation faltered here and there, but only for instants; quality was high pretty much its entire running time. I saw this movie twice in theaters, and my home viewing was actually better. This being arguably my favorite Marvel movie, and one of my favorite superhero movies, I was a bit worried to find a less than stellar presentation. This BD didn't disappoint in the least and is worthy of tier zero, around the last quarter (at the very least). 

Who are these Russo bothers? I know they directed the previous film, but they knocked out of the park with this one. Amazing action and fight secuences. Michael Bay would be proud of this. I can't wait to see Infinity War. 

*Tier Recommendation: 0* *(0.75)*


----------



## AmerCa

*Jack Reacher (2012 - Paramount)*

Here's Djoberg's review: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-679.html#post23328808

He recommends a tier 1.25 placement, but it currently sits at tier 1.75, if my memory serves me well. I agree with his review, but I'm inclined to put this title in its current position. Solid and clean presentation, but somehow unremarkable. Despite the merits Djoberg points out, the video presentation seems "par for the course" for me. It does good what's supposed to do, but nothing more. People won't be disappointed, but neither wowed by it.

It's the third time I've watched this movie - first time in BD- and it's remarkable how well it holds up. It's intelligently written, and the way the pieces of the puzzle fit together at the end is always satisfying. I watched the beginning of the sequel a few weeks ago on TV, and the drop in quality was very apparent. Maybe it gets better, but reviews seem to agree it wasn't as good as the original.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75* *(Current placement)*


----------



## SnellTHX

AmerCa said:


> * Captain America : Civil War (2016 - Marvel/Disney)*
> 
> I could find reviews for Winter Soldier, but not for Civil War. Whatever.
> 
> This one is tier zero material! I can't check its current placement right now, but I'm pretty sure this must be in the reference section. PQ is stunning, with lots of detail, depth, vivid colors and balanced contrast, textures and solid black levels. PQ is not 100% spotless all the time, but, what is? The video presentation faltered here and there, but only for instants; quality was high pretty much its entire running time. I saw this movie twice in theaters, and my home viewing was actually better. This being arguably my favorite Marvel movie, and one of my favorite superhero movies, I was a bit worried to find a less than stellar presentation. This BD didn't disappoint in the least and is worthy of tier zero, around the last quarter (at the very least).
> 
> Who are these Russo bothers? I know they directed the previous film, but they knocked out of the park with this one. Amazing action and fight secuences. Michael Bay would be proud of this. I can't wait to see Infinity War.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 0* *(0.75)*



I actually watched this movie just before frequenting this thread and agree with the review here. somewhere in the lower level of tier 0 for me. One of the best looking marvel movies for sure, but I think Avengers (2012) and Ant-Man (2015?) look a little bit better. Maybe because they are objectively better looking, or perhaps because I subjectively prefer 16:9 movies over 21:9. Civil War certainly impressed me more than Age of Ultron did.


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> *Jack Reacher (2012 - Paramount)*
> 
> Here's Djoberg's review: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-679.html#post23328808
> 
> He recommends a tier 1.25 placement, but it currently sits at tier 1.75, if my memory serves me well. I agree with his review, but I'm inclined to put this title in its current position. Solid and clean presentation, but somehow unremarkable. Despite the merits Djoberg points out, the video presentation seems "par for the course" for me. It does good what's supposed to do, but nothing more. People won't be disappointed, but neither wowed by it.*Tier Recommendation: 1.75* *(Current placement)*


I see my review was FIVE years ago, so if I were to watch it again it's highly likely I would agree with you. Many titles don't retain their ranking after five years.

It's really good to see you reviewing so many Blus AmerCa. Keep up the good work!


----------



## SnellTHX

AmerCa said:


> Oh, no! I never attacked TDK Imax scenes! I'm not blind! I was talking about the overall video presentation. Of course, in your display great PQ must look even better!


Yeah those IMAX scenes really are something. But it must make you wonder how Nolan accepted the vastly inferior quality of the 21:9 scenes shot with regular 35mm. I mean the difference is huge. Obviously huge limitations due the size/sound/expense of IMAX 15/70mm but still. Thankfully Dunkirk is almost entirely made up of IMAX shots


----------



## AmerCa

SnellTHX said:


> One of the best looking marvel movies for sure, but I think Avengers (2012) and Ant-Man (2015?) look a little bit better. Maybe because they are objectively better looking, or perhaps because I subjectively prefer 16:9 movies over 21:9.


I'm eyeing Ant-Man for quite some time, but it's out of stock, and the few copies that show up are highly priced. Another favorite of mine that I haven't watched on Blu.

I never thought seriously about it, but I think I prefer 2.35 movies than 1.78, but I do like the opening up from 2.35 to 1.78 like Imax scenes on TDK or Tron Legacy. However, as long as it's presented in its supposed AR, it's all right to me. A curious fact, here in Mexico local blu ray companies like to change the AR of most movies, either by Pan & Scan or Open Matte (if you're lucky, sometimes they just simply chop the picture!), which drive serious movie cinephile/videophiles nuts. Most don't even notice or even care, they're just happy the image fill completely their screens.



djoberg said:


> I see my review was FIVE years ago, so if I were to watch it again it's highly likely I would agree with you. Many titles don't retain their ranking after five years.
> 
> It's really good to see you reviewing so many Blus AmerCa. Keep up the good work!


Wow, didn't notice it was five years old. Yeah, it's a long time. It's a weird thought the idea movies that dazzle us today might just satisfactory in a few years. What's even more crazy is that doesn't matter how back in time I go, I can always count on finding one of your reviews. You must have hundreds!

BTW, thanks for the encouragement, I just have some free time


----------



## AmerCa

SnellTHX said:


> Yeah those IMAX scenes really are something. But it must make you wonder how Nolan accepted the vastly inferior quality of the 21:9 scenes shot with regular 35mm. I mean the difference is huge. Obviously huge limitations due the size/sound/expense of IMAX 15/70mm but still. Thankfully Dunkirk is almost entirely made up of IMAX shots


Based on your comments is that I expected Dunkirk to be towards the top, but somehow PQ wasn't as stellar as expected. That's why I wondered if maybe the studios are dropping the ball in the transfer room. Or maybe some filmmakers aren't obsessed with pristine video quality. That's one of the reasons Michael Bay is one of my favorite directors.


----------



## AmerCa

For those interested, *Dunkirk* is at 10 bucks in Amazon US.


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> For those interested, *Dunkirk* is at 10 bucks in Amazon US.


Just so everyone knows, that's the price for the 1080p version. The 4K version is still at $30.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Hacksaw Ridge* UHD for $10 at Target.

https://www.target.com/p/hacksaw-ri...8&afid=bluray&ref=tgt_adv_xasd0002#lnk=newtab


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^

That's a STEAL!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*John Wick Chapter 2* UHD for $13

https://www.target.com/p/john-wick-...dph2|recently_viewed_r3|adaptpdph2|52411156|2


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^

I picked that up at Target on Black Friday for $10! I still haven't watched it though.


----------



## AmerCa

Phantom Stranger said:


> *Hacksaw Ridge* UHD for $10 at Target.
> 
> https://www.target.com/p/hacksaw-ri...8&afid=bluray&ref=tgt_adv_xasd0002#lnk=newtab


Same price at Amazon! I already have, not feeling like double dipping. That's the problem of "only" buying the regular blu.

@ Djoberg: 

Sorry, I never meant to imply it was the UHD version. If that were the case, I'd have to shoot myself. I just spent my bugget for movies this month.


----------



## AmerCa

On an unrelated note, and out of curiosity, how do you people feel about slipcovers? I don't think I ever cared about them, but that I've recently bought some BD that came with one, now it kinda bothers me a little when one comes without it. I wouldn't go as far as not buying a disc if it doesn't come with a slip, but I was wondering if it comes into consideration for you when you buy something. Do you care about it?


----------



## TitusTroy

has anybody here reviewed the Dunkirk Blu-ray (4K or 1080p)?...I see general comments in this thread about the movie but don't see anybody's actual review of the disc...I keep hearing about how the 4K version is truly top of the line reference but am wondering about the 1080p version...I have an LG C7 OLED but haven't upgraded my receiver or Blu-ray player to 4K yet


----------



## Phantom Stranger

AmerCa said:


> On an unrelated note, and out of curiosity, how do you people feel about slipcovers? I don't think I ever cared about them, but that I've recently bought some BD that came with one, now it kinda bothers me a little when one comes without it. I wouldn't go as far as not buying a disc if it doesn't come with a slip, but I was wondering if it comes into consideration for you when you buy something. Do you care about it?


At the store I would pick the copy with the slipcover over a copy without it, but it's never bothered me if the slip is missing. I keep the slipcover if it comes with the packaging.

I understand though that certain lines come with a specific trade dress that look better in a collection if the slipcovers are all collected. I'm thinking of the Studio Ghibli releases, but the point applies more broadly.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

TitusTroy said:


> has anybody here reviewed the Dunkirk Blu-ray (4K or 1080p)?...I see general comments in this thread about the movie but don't see anybody's actual review of the disc...I keep hearing about how the 4K version is truly top of the line reference but am wondering about the 1080p version...I have an LG C7 OLED but haven't upgraded my receiver or Blu-ray player to 4K yet


A friend of the thread reviewed the UHD over at DoBlu.



I was fairly sure Djoberg had reviewed _Dunkirk_ for the PQ Tiers but the search engine only seems to pull up a couple of off-hand comments by him on the movie's stellar PQ.


----------



## JNayAV

DarthDoxie said:


> *Blade Runner 2049 (UHD)*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 0* (0.5)*
> 
> Details and depth of field are outstanding on this release, I didn't see any soft shots. The fur on K's coat and other fabrics show lots of texture and detail. Facial features like lines and pores also stand out. It's not a particularly colorful movie as the palette consists mostly of greys, browns, and one sequence has lots of orange. The different shades of these colors show strong delineation. Some of the night scenes in L.A. do have lots of neon and colorful holograms. Contrast is strong and the use of HDR is really good. An early scene has K sitting in front of a bright window, normally a killer for contrast and detail, but the rest of the scene has strong blacks and great shadow detail. Blacks are strong in things like clothes and objects and indoor scenes. Blacks in the outdoor scenes appear to be slightly elevated but are actually correct as the constant rainfall gives a greyish hue to the landscape. They must have solved global warming in the future because there is also snow at one point in the city.
> 
> So why not place it higher in Tier 0? The encode falters in the last 30 minutes with minor banding in a few scenes starting with the last shot of K in his flying machine and then one or two after that. The banding all happen during night scenes in the black areas around bright objects. I had high hopes of placing this one up with *Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2* but the minor banding in a few shots hold it back.
> 
> A short note about the sound mix: WOW! Those with an Atmos setup are going to love this one; I have a 5.1 setup and thought it was great. I see an Oscar nomination (maybe even a win) for best sound mixing this year. The LFE is also deep, deep, deep.


Gonna be lazy and piggy back on what Darth said.

*Blade Runner 2049 (UHD)*

Tier Recommendation: *Tier 0* (0.5)*

I didn't notice the banding that Darth did, so maybe at least less noticeable than what I saw in Hacksaw Ridge (or for whatever reason my chain is masking it in this film)
The lack of more colors throughout is what holds this film back in my opinion. Scene with K sitting in snow may be best single demo scene for details that I've ever seen. The fur on his jacket and facial details are just off the charts.

The movie runs at around 2.5 hours, but I felt could have been even longer. I enjoyed the movie at this length, and would have been happy even if it went another 30 minutes to further tell its story. A long movie isn't necessarily boring as long as the story telling is done well like in this film.


----------



## DarthDoxie

TitusTroy said:


> has anybody here reviewed the Dunkirk Blu-ray (4K or 1080p)?...I see general comments in this thread about the movie but don't see anybody's actual review of the disc...I keep hearing about how the 4K version is truly top of the line reference but am wondering about the 1080p version...I have an LG C7 OLED but haven't upgraded my receiver or Blu-ray player to 4K yet





DarthDoxie said:


> *Dunkirk (UHD)*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 0* (above Avatar)*
> 
> The detail on this one is spectacular. Much of this movie was shot on 70mm IMAX cameras and it shows, details and depth are excellent. The leather helmet/gloves and the fur on Tom Hardy's coat are deep and textured, some of the best detail presentation I've seen. Soldier's uniforms and canvas gear, hair and facial features, and natural element textures are very detailed and sharp. The only time the frames were not pin sharp were a few fleeting shots of cockpit instruments (we're talking about 2-3 seconds total over the whole film). The non-IMAX portions were also razor sharp like all the sequences on the little ship, Moonstone. The sweaters the characters wore on the Moonstone were so detailed, individual hairs and fuzz could easily be seen. Colors were muted for the most part but the many shades of green and brown were well delineated. Punches of color were bright and vibrant when they showed up. Black levels were equally deep and inky. Many of the characters had black hair and the deep blacks combined with excellent contrast really made their hair stand out and showed off what UHD can really do. The excellent black levels, contrast, and depth of field gave the whole film a rich look that you don't get with digitally shot films. The encode is flawless, no banding, macro blocking or other encode problems were noticed.
> 
> The only detractor for the whole film is that in a few night shots with the IMAX sequences, black levels at the edges of the frame seem to be a little raised. It reminded me of watching dark scenes on my old edge lit LED where blacks are raised around the edges. This UHD has alternating aspect ratios and the IMAX scenes are presented in 16x9 and fill the whole screen. On the 2.35:1 scenes, the black bars are completely black so the raised blacks at the edges (most notably on the bottom) of the IMAX scenes points back to the source, the camera (there are only so many IMAX cameras and I've read they are getting long in the tooth). These few instances were the only times black levels faltered.
> 
> Much has been said in various forums about the lack of an immersive audio track. Nolan doesn't believe in them so don't expect any of his films to have them, either theatrically or home release. Have no fear though, the dts-HD MA 5.1 track is excellent with sound properly traveling around the room when appropriate and the LFE is deep and gut rumbling.
> 
> Blu-ray recommendation: *Tier 0* (0.5)*
> 
> The BR is just a tad lower in excellence with lesser detail and contrast, still and excellent reference quality disc.


Here you go. The search function has been wonky lately, I had to manually look for it, this is post 24214; *djoberg* also reviewed it a few days later.


----------



## JNayAV

*Despicable Me 3 (UHD)*

Tier Recommendation: *Tier 0* (Top 10)*

Clean, Pristine, Vibrant Colors, no noticeable issues. That about sums up this movie. This is about where I come to expect these bigger animated releases. There's plenty of vibrant colors to take advantage of the WCG and blacks where they showed up where inky dark.

Not going to expound on this review, as if you have seen any other animated films in the top ten, you know what you're getting with this film as well. There's nothing in this film that sets it above the rest however, so not gonna vote that this gets into the top 3 or anything.

I didn't have the update for my receiver at the time for DV, but now have it so will be noting that I'm reviewing DV versions in the future for titles that have it.
There is a known issue with DV on many sets where black bars are fluctuating into grey. It's a known issue for at least LG Oled sets and firmware is supposed to be in the works now. Just an FYI for anyone that may notice this while watching a DV disk. May want to hold off on dinging a release for this issue till get that update.


----------



## JNayAV

AmerCa said:


> On an unrelated note, and out of curiosity, how do you people feel about slipcovers? I don't think I ever cared about them, but that I've recently bought some BD that came with one, now it kinda bothers me a little when one comes without it. I wouldn't go as far as not buying a disc if it doesn't come with a slip, but I was wondering if it comes into consideration for you when you buy something. Do you care about it?


My Wife and I like to get the Steelbook editions of films that we particularly enjoyed in theatres. This however basically requires that we pay full price at release as they usually sell out the first day for major releases. Missed out on Blade Runner 2049 (still had some like 40 minute drive away, but not worth that to me), but got Deadpool which also seemed to sell out quick. Sometimes aren't even available in the states or are Blu-ray only (Dunkirk).

Best Buy even has a 'Steelbook' section now, and generally they just look a whole lot better.

Disney apparently does some special slip cover releases that are somewhat sought after. They're a different artwork than the normal releases. I don't know much about them, but my wife tells me when she sees them.


----------



## djoberg

TitusTroy said:


> has anybody here reviewed the Dunkirk Blu-ray (4K or 1080p)?...I see general comments in this thread about the movie but don't see anybody's actual review of the disc...I keep hearing about how the 4K version is truly top of the line reference but am wondering about the 1080p version...I have an LG C7 OLED but haven't upgraded my receiver or Blu-ray player to 4K yet


Here is my review of _Dunkirk_:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-808.html#post55372186

As you will see, I gave it a slightly lower score than DarthDoxie. If not for the very DRAB color palette and some soft shots, I would have gone much higher.


----------



## AmerCa

JNayAV said:


> My Wife and I like to get the Steelbook editions of films that we particularly enjoyed in theatres. This however basically requires that we pay full price at release as they usually sell out the first day for major releases. Missed out on Blade Runner 2049 (still had some like 40 minute drive away, but not worth that to me), but got Deadpool which also seemed to sell out quick. Sometimes aren't even available in the states or are Blu-ray only (Dunkirk).
> 
> Best Buy even has a 'Steelbook' section now, and generally they just look a whole lot better.
> 
> Disney apparently does some special slip cover releases that are somewhat sought after. They're a different artwork than the normal releases. I don't know much about them, but my wife tells me when she sees them.


For the most part, I don't like steelbooks. They should be the most bad-ass thing, except they aren't. Most of them look actually lame (Baby Driver, Atomic Blonde, Alien Covenant, Transformers 5, Fast & Furious 8, Kong:SI, among others). The only one I really, really like is the Pacific Rim one (which I bought without knowing at the time what steelbooks were). Of course, I haven't seem them all, but it's like they put very little thought on the design.

I used to collect comic books, and the golden rule used to be (apparently, no more) to have an absolute _killer _cover. You would buy it just for looking at the damn thing. I think you should get a similar feeling from owning a steelbook, but personally, I don't, at least from the ones I've seen.


----------



## fredxr2d2

The Dark Tower

Tier recommendation: Tier 0 (bottom) or maybe tier 1.0

If you want to test whether your black levels are set correctly, this is the disk to do it. Shot with the Arri 65 camera, this is a gorgeous production (if lackluster movie) that really hits a great balanced contrast look.

I read a reviewer of the cinematic version claiming some of the scenes were too dark to see what was going on, but the scenes in question, while dark, were clear to me and I know that my W1070 is not up to any contrast competitions. I am a fan of the Arri 65 and have thought the PQ from movies that have used it are consistently good. (You'd recognize a bunch of the list here: http://arrirentalgroup.com/alexa65/ like Civil War and Rogue One etc.)


----------



## dla26

*Atomic Blonde [UHD]*

Atomic Blonde is black level contrast porn.  There are many dark scenes throughout, but you can still clearly see all of the subtle details in the shadows. There were a couple scenes with a character standing in front of a brightly lit window, which really put my projector through its paces. It couldn't close the iris because of the brightness of the scene, but it still needed to show all of the contrast in the character's face. Backlighting often makes anything that's not lit up just come up all black, but there was enough subtlety in the shadow detail that you could clearly see everything.

It's also detail porn. This closeup shots of Charlize Theron's hair, John Goodman's beard, etc. were stunning as were skin pores, fabric textures, etc.

The one area where I thought it suffered was the inconsistent color palette. For most of the movie, the colors had a washed out, faded look. This was definitely a stylistic choice by the director. I get why some films want this look, but I would have preferred more natural colors. That said, the thing that seems really odd to me was that several scenes *did* have natural colors. At first I thought that it might have been a choice by the director to have natural looking colors in West Berlin and a more faded palette in East Berlin, but there didn't appear to be any rhyme or reason why one moment there would be rich color and then next not.

*Tier Recommendation: Bottom of Tier 0*


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Atomic Blonde (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

What a timely coincidence with *dla26*'s review! Just got done watching this one and I agree with all the comments about the color, black levels, and use of Dolby Vision HDR...just spectacular! There are lots of scenes with smoke filled rooms so black backgrounds aren't deep there but other times the black levels in clothes, streets, and cars are great and show lots of shadow detail. Lots of neon and bright lights really show off what DV can do.

This film definitely has a certain look and it's not 100% razor sharp, each location has a certain theme and color palette to it. The different locations are shot similarly as far as sharpness except the debriefing of the main character scenes at headquarters. These are shot in a small room with florescent lights and the focus seems to have been dialed down a notch, I thought there was a slight fuzziness to the whole sequence that is interspersed throughout the whole film (the film takes place through flashback during the debriefing). Having said that, the film looks exactly as the director and DP intended, it's not due to a poor encode. I did not see any banding and the black bars were black throughout which is an area where some DV discs have struggled in the past.

While I was watching it, I kept going back and forth between Tier 0 and 1 but it's really splitting hairs and I'm placing it in Tier 1. Now we just need someone else to review it to break the tie.


----------



## dla26

DarthDoxie said:


> While I was watching it, I kept going back and forth between Tier 0 and 1 but it's really splitting hairs and I'm placing it in Tier 1. Now we just need someone else to review it to break the tie.


Too funny. I had the exact same thought. Some people thought I was overly harsh in my review of Bladerunner, so I erred on the side of going a little bit higher. I would be equally comfortable between bottom of tier 0 and tier 1.


----------



## TitusTroy

DarthDoxie said:


> Here you go. The search function has been wonky lately, I had to manually look for it, this is post 24214; *djoberg* also reviewed it a few days later.



thanks...yeah I did a 'search within this thread' for Dunkirk and only found a few posts talking about the movie itself and not any reviews of the Blu-ray itself


----------



## Phantom Stranger

dla26 said:


> Too funny. I had the exact same thought. Some people thought I was overly harsh in my review of Bladerunner, so I erred on the side of going a little bit higher. I would be equally comfortable between bottom of tier 0 and tier 1.


This is just regarding my own opinion on a disc, so it's not PQ Tiers' official policy or anything. But whenever I think a disc is straddling the line between two levels, it always lands in the lower tier. We shouldn't want Tier 0 being polluted by iffy examples on the margin.

Each and every Tier Zero entry should be a shining example of what it means to be the best of the best picture quality. Now that Tier Zero has grown far bigger with UHDs climbing up the ranks, landing in Tier 1.0 isn't a slam against any disc's merits.


----------



## AmerCa

*Rambo (Extended Cut - 2008 - Millenium/Lionsgate)*

What a mixed bag. I kept thinking of *Dredd* while watching this, and not only for the PQ. Video is so inconsistent that I don't know where to begin. Mediocre black levels, some very noisy and/or grainy scenes, dull colors, and on and on. Much like "Dredd", there are some great shots to be found, especially in some close-ups, but for the most part, the video presentation is mediocre. Some of it surely was Stallone's intention, but most of it was simply badly shot. It's a good thing the movie kicks some major butt, so mostly you don't care. If I gave "Dredd" a 3.0 recommendation, it feels appropriate for this title as well. I didn't even bother searching the thread for reviews for this.

And, Jesus Christ! This is the loudest track I've heard so far on my system! Pural aural carnage! This is the first time I feel terrorized at home by bullets and explosions coming out of the speakers. I had to turn down the volume like five levels from my usual listening levels. People listening to _this_ at reference levels must be out of their minds!

*Forgot to add I watched the extended cut that is said to have a louder track than the original version.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*


----------



## SnellTHX

AmerCa said:


> Based on your comments is that I expected Dunkirk to be towards the top, but somehow PQ wasn't as stellar as expected. That's why I wondered if maybe the studios are dropping the ball in the transfer room. Or maybe some filmmakers aren't obsessed with pristine video quality. That's one of the reasons Michael Bay is one of my favorite directors.


Well I haven't seen Dunkirk at home yet (only in the cinema, which was breathtaking) but I still predict it will land on my #1 spot or at the very least top 3. Which is no easy feat as my current #1 is Transformers 5: Last Knight with Pacific Rim and Interstellar in the top 3.

The Dark Knight Rises is top 5 for sure and The Dark Knight probably still holds a top 10 spot for me, if I only had 10 movies to select to show off my setup to a friend there's a high chance I'd pick TDK.

Now consider this:

TDK has 28 mins of IMAX 15/70mm footage
TDK:R had about 65 minutes of IMAX 15/70mm footage
Interstellar has about 60 minutes of IMAX 15/70mm footage (but the 21:9 scenes look better than in Batman movies)
Dunkirk has a whopping 70-80 of its 90 minute runtime in IMAX 15/70mm... The rest being shot with 65mm as apposed to 35mm in his previous.


Yeah I think that's enough to be #1 , but Transformers: LK.. oh boy.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Inception (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

The contrast and black levels are excellent, lots of details in the shadows and the blacks are perfect. Colors and flesh tones all look good. Lots of details in the usual places: fabrics, faces, and environmental textures. Some of the CGI shots show lower levels of sharpness which hold it back just a bit. The encode is excellent and well worth the upgrade to UHD.


----------



## AmerCa

SnellTHX said:


> Well I haven't seen Dunkirk at home yet (only in the cinema, which was breathtaking) but I still predict it will land on my #1 spot or at the very least top 3. Which is no easy feat as my current #1 is Transformers 5: Last Knight with *Pacific Rim* and Interstellar in the top 3.


Wait! Pacific Rim top 3? Funny that you mention that movie, I just rewatched it last night (the first time I saw it I hadn't set up my system properly, among other factors), and to me the BD would rank in tier 1.5. It looks pretty damn good, but nit enough for tier zero material. I don't know, surely your display handles much better the boosted contrast, that in my TV ate up lots of detail, among other issues, but still, top 3 seems very high. Are you talking about the UHD version? I'm just curious about your parameters, not saying you're wrong, of course.

I look forward to your Dunkirk review!

**EDIT**

Scratch my question, I just found your review on the movie. For those interested, it's here: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-798.html#post54555270


----------



## AmerCa

*Pacific Rim (2013- Warner)*

In addition to Snell review, I found this one too, both recommend this title to tier zero: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-723.html#post25896410

I'm going to respectfully disagree with both of them. I don't own a high-end display, and I'm certain my TV struggles with certain levels of black, but I can only speak for what I see on my display, and I saw lots of crushing blacks. I think this is due to the boosted contrast of this film and the particular color palette Del Toro chose for it. His films always have a very distinct look, but they also look very unnatural and not for everyone's tastes. Thre best shots are deserved for the incredible CGI, in such shots the level of detail and texture is impressive, and the robots and monsters look spectacular. But when we're not seeing gigantic fights and destruction, PQ isn't as sharp and detailed. I'm sure the movie looks as the director intended, but this particular choice doesn't showcase the best qualities that can be found in the format. The best parts of it are reference material, but the film as a whole not.

Accordingly, my recommendation for this disc is tier 1.25 at best, 1.5 at worst. I'm deciding for the later.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.5* *(I wouldn't argue against a 1.25 placement)*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^^

If you check, you'll see that I made a post right after SnellTHX's review of _Pacific Rim_ and I stated that I thought it (the UHD version) belonged in the MIDDLE of Tier 0. It has amazing PQ, but IMHO it's not even close to being in the Top Three. It just so happens that I took that title out two days ago to view it again because I've never HEARD the Dolby Atmos version (since setting up my 5.2.4 audio system). I will weigh in again as soon as I see it and give my "latest" opinion on the placement I would recommend.


----------



## dla26

Not to get too off topic, but I was a bit disappointed in Pacific Rim's LFE. You'd think that giant robots fighting giant monsters would have some killer bass, but sadly no. That said, I just picked it up on Amazon's 3 UHD movies for $50 promo, so I'll try to watch it again and give my $0.02 on the PQ. It's been so long since I've watched the Blu-ray that I can't really remember how it looked.


----------



## djoberg

dla26 said:


> Not to get too off topic, but I was a bit disappointed in Pacific Rim's LFE. You'd think that giant robots fighting giant monsters would have some killer bass, but sadly no. That said, I just picked it up on Amazon's 3 UHD movies for $50 promo, so I'll try to watch it again and give my $0.02 on the PQ. It's been so long since I've watched the Blu-ray that I can't really remember how it looked.


If memory serves me, I thought the LFE was fantastic when I watched the UHD version back in June or July. I just looked up the following review by our AVS resident reviewer Ralph Potts and he too thought it "delivered in spades."

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-o...rim-ultra-hd-blu-ray-review.html#post47376249

Again, I'm going by "memory," for I guess I didn't review it on this site. If, after viewing it again in the next few days, I find that I was mistaken, I'll be sure to let you and everyone else know that I was wrong.


----------



## dla26

djoberg said:


> If memory serves me, I thought the LFE was fantastic when I watched the UHD version back in June or July. I just looked up the following review by our AVS resident reviewer Ralph Potts and he too thought it "delivered in spades."
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-o...rim-ultra-hd-blu-ray-review.html#post47376249
> 
> Again, I'm going by "memory," for I guess I didn't review it on this site. If, after viewing it again in the next few days, I find that I was mistaken, I'll be sure to let you and everyone else know that I was wrong.


To be clear, I was referring to the 1080p version.

It's also entirely possible that it was during that period when a fuse on my subwoofer blew but I just didn't realize it wasn't even on. Everything seemed kind of flat for a while there!


----------



## djoberg

dla26 said:


> To be clear, I was referring to the 1080p version.
> 
> It's also entirely possible that it was during that period when a fuse on my subwoofer blew but I just didn't realize it wasn't even on. Everything seemed kind of flat for a while there!


I would think that the LFE is going to be the same on both versions. The only real difference between a 1080p and 4K title with Dolby Atmos or DTS:X is that the sound is "object-based," meaning the sound can be sent to individual speakers, including "Height Speakers." I stand to be corrected but I don't believe that affects the bass/LFE at all.

Speaking of subwoofers, I have noticed (ever since I set up DUAL subs) that the bass is not only more UNIFORM and IMMERSIVE, but it's also CLEANER and TIGHTER. This is obviously a good thing, but at the same time I am sometimes expecting more of a "tactile feel" during explosions (like I did when I only ran one sub) and thus I feel a bit letdown. I have been told that with one sub the bass/LFE can tend to be more "boomy" (not always, but sometimes). The "feeling" that one experiences from this can, in time, be something you look forward to. When you switch to TWO subs you have to learn to adjust to the bass/LFE being more TIGHT. Initially I thought my Audyssey calibration had set my subs too low, but I have learned to appreciate tighter bass/LFE. Don't get me wrong, during certain scenes with heavy bass/LFE my walls will still shake and I can feel a wave of energy rolling over me, but it isn't quite the same as it was before.


----------



## AmerCa

djoberg said:


> I would think that the LFE is going to be the same on both versions. The only real difference between a 1080p and 4K title with Dolby Atmos or DTS:X is that the sound is "object-based," meaning the sound can be sent to individual speakers, including "Height Speakers." I stand to be corrected but I don't believe that affects the bass/LFE at all.
> 
> Speaking of subwoofers, I have noticed (ever since I set up DUAL subs) that the bass is not only more UNIFORM and IMMERSIVE, but it's also CLEANER and TIGHTER. This is obviously a good thing, but at the same time I am sometimes expecting more of a "tactile feel" during explosions (like I did when I only ran one sub) and thus I feel a bit letdown. I have been told that with one sub the bass/LFE can tend to be more "boomy" (not always, but sometimes). The "feeling" that one experiences from this can, in time, be something you look forward to. When you switch to TWO subs you have to learn to adjust to the bass/LFE being more TIGHT. Initially I thought my Audyssey calibration had set my subs too low, but I have learned to appreciate tighter bass/LFE. Don't get me wrong, during certain scenes with heavy bass/LFE my walls will still shake and I can feel a wave of energy rolling over me, but it isn't quite the same as it was before.


That's interesting info. I've read that two subs are better than one, and yes, that "booming" sensation is what I love too and I'm looking for (of course I also like clean and tight sound, but I can ask too much from my system ). I'm surprised you liked the sound of bass more when you had only one sub. I can't speak of "tactile" bass, because my system can't do ULF, but people who can do it, say the tactile sensation is what bass is all about. Maybe it's a matter of preference in the end.


----------



## dla26

AmerCa said:


> That's interesting info. I've read that two subs are better than one, and yes, that "booming" sensation is what I love too and I'm looking for (of course I also like clean and tight sound, but I can ask too much from my system ). I'm surprised you liked the sound of bass more when you had only one sub. I can't speak of "tactile" bass, because my system can't do ULF, but people who can do it, say the tactile sensation is what bass is all about. Maybe it's a matter of preference in the end.


I've had 2 subs for several years now. I can't shake the feeling that they're not set up optimally. I did the sub crawl to find the 2 best positions, but that really only works as the 2 best single-sub positions. When you have duals, there doesn't seem to be a good way to know what the optimal locations are. I used REW to get the response curve pretty flat, but I'd always like to improve. (Hoping to do a major HT remodel in the next year or so with proper acoustic treatments.)

I also have Buttkickers in my seats, which I think gives that tactile feeling to augment the clean, tight bass feeling. My HT is in the basement on a concrete slab. I visited someone's 2nd story HT recently, and the whole room shook without the need for Buttkickers. I didn't realize how much the slab deadens bass.

I'm going to be getting my 4K copy of Pacific Rim soon, so I'll give the bass another chance and report back both on that as well as the PQ. I still have my 1080p copy, so I'll try to do AB comparisons.


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> That's interesting info. I've read that two subs are better than one, and yes, that "booming" sensation is what I love too and I'm looking for (of course I also like clean and tight sound, but I can ask too much from my system ). I'm surprised you liked the sound of bass more when you had only one sub. I can't speak of "tactile" bass, because my system can't do ULF, but people who can do it, say the tactile sensation is what bass is all about. Maybe it's a matter of preference in the end.


If I had to go back to ONE sub, I would miss the more immersive and clean sound you get with TWO subs. All things considered I prefer the two subs. There are other advantages to having two, for with them being much more immersive you are never able to locate where the sound is coming from. When I had one sub there were times when I could tell the bass/LFE was coming from my front/left corner. Also, with two subs I can listen to subs at Reference Level without having to worry about my sub bottoming out and possibly causing damage to the woofer.

What is the Frequency Response of your sub? My older sub is rated down to 17 Hz and my new one down to 16 Hz. Technically that would not be classified as ULF (Ultra Low Frequency), for I think ULF goes down to the single digits. But even at 16 or 17 Hz, with the right material, I can FEEL the LFE and that's what I would call "tactile."



dla26 said:


> I've had 2 subs for several years now. I can't shake the feeling that they're not set up optimally. I did the sub crawl to find the 2 best positions, but that really only works as the 2 best single-sub positions. When you have duals, there doesn't seem to be a good way to know what the optimal locations are. I used REW to get the response curve pretty flat, but I'd always like to improve. (Hoping to do a major HT remodel in the next year or so with proper acoustic treatments.)
> 
> I also have Buttkickers in my seats, which I think gives that tactile feeling to augment the clean, tight bass feeling. My HT is in the basement on a concrete slab. I visited someone's 2nd story HT recently, and the whole room shook without the need for Buttkickers. I didn't realize how much the slab deadens bass.


I really didn't have the option to do a "sub crawl" for with my room I wanted them both upfront in the corners, not only for a better look, but because I didn't have an optimal placement along the side or back walls.

My HT is also in the basement with a concrete slab. My room still shakes quite a bit when listening to certain scenes. A good example would be the scene in _War of the Worlds_ when the alien space machines start coming out of the ground in the street intersection...WOW is all I can say to that!!


----------



## SnellTHX

AmerCa said:


> *Pacific Rim (2013- Warner)*
> 
> In addition to Snell review, I found this one too, both recommend this title to tier zero: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-723.html#post25896410
> 
> I'm going to respectfully disagree with both of them. I don't own a high-end display, and I'm certain my TV struggles with certain levels of black, but I can only speak for what I see on my display, and I saw lots of crushing blacks. I think this is due to the boosted contrast of this film and the particular color palette Del Toro chose for it. His films always have a very distinct look, but they also look very unnatural and not for everyone's tastes. Thre best shots are deserved for the incredible CGI, in such shots the level of detail and texture is impressive, and the robots and monsters look spectacular. But when we're not seeing gigantic fights and destruction, PQ isn't as sharp and detailed. I'm sure the movie looks as the director intended, but this particular choice doesn't showcase the best qualities that can be found in the format. The best parts of it are reference material, but the film as a whole not.
> 
> Accordingly, my recommendation for this disc is tier 1.25 at best, 1.5 at worst. I'm deciding for the later.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.5* *(I wouldn't argue against a 1.25 placement)*



Well I guess it goes to show how beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I thought Pacific Rim was definitely the first movie to fully surpass the picture quality / CGI quality of AVATAR, which reigned as #1 on my list for years. 

People right above just rated Atomic Blonde as Reference (even tier 0!) I certainly didn't enjoy its PQ that much, I can't remember what I reviewed it but I think its inferior to John Wick 2, which I gave tier 1.0 I believe.


----------



## SnellTHX

And people here have rated Kong: Skull Island as high as Tier 0 material, but I believe I gave it 1.5 or 1.75. Great detail and amazing overall PQ but horrible colour palette and too much grain for my liking. Its all subjective


----------



## dla26

djoberg said:


> If I had to go back to ONE sub, I would miss the more immersive and clean sound you get with TWO subs. All things considered I prefer the two subs. There are other advantages to having two, for with them being much more immersive you are never able to locate where the sound is coming from. When I had one sub there were times when I could tell the bass/LFE was coming from my front/left corner. Also, with two subs I can listen to subs at Reference Level without having to worry about my sub bottoming out and possibly causing damage to the woofer.
> 
> What is the Frequency Response of your sub? My older sub is rated down to 17 Hz and my new one down to 16 Hz. Technically that would not be classified as ULF (Ultra Low Frequency), for I think ULF goes down to the single digits. But even at 16 or 17 Hz, with the right material, I can FEEL the LFE and that's what I would call "tactile."
> 
> 
> 
> I really didn't have the option to do a "sub crawl" for with my room I wanted them both upfront in the corners, not only for a better look, but because I didn't have an optimal placement along the side or back walls.
> 
> My HT is also in the basement with a concrete slab. My room still shakes quite a bit when listening to certain scenes. A good example would be the scene in _War of the Worlds_ when the alien space machines start coming out of the ground in the street intersection...WOW is all I can say to that!!


I upgraded from dual SVS PB13 Ultras to dual JTR Cap 1400s. I know the WOTW scenes you're talking about, and it is indeed awesome. 

I used to think my room shook until I was in a room that could literally shake. Right now my windows vibrate, but the floor stays where it is - concrete being concrete, after all. But a room on the second floor can make you feel the bass in your bones in a way that a room on grade just can't. I may need to tear down my entire house and build from scratch.


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> Well I guess it goes to show how *beauty is in the eye of the beholder. * I thought Pacific Rim was definitely the first movie to fully surpass the picture quality / CGI quality of AVATAR, which reigned as #1 on my list for years.
> 
> People right above just rated Atomic Blonde as Reference (even tier 0!) I certainly didn't enjoy its PQ that much, I can't remember what I reviewed it but I think its inferior to John Wick 2, which I gave tier 1.0 I believe.





SnellTHX said:


> And people here have rated Kong: Skull Island as high as Tier 0 material, but I believe I gave it 1.5 or 1.75. Great detail and amazing overall PQ but horrible colour palette and too much grain for my liking. *Its all subjective *


You hit the proverbial "nail on the head" in saying "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Even though we have a set of criteria to guide us in our personal placement recommendation, there will always be some subjectivity involved. I know you don't like too much "grain" and that will always be a subjective choice of yours to penalize a title that has it. Others, like myself, appreciate grain if it doesn't look like "noise" and thus it gives us a the look of "film." I don't believe though that "it's all subjective" (as you said in your closing remarks), for again we have standards to go by that are "objective" in nature.

FWIW, I agree with you on _Pacific Rim_, for I believe it is one of the best Tier 0 titles to date. I'm looking forward, as I said yesterday, to viewing it again in the next few days. I LOVE the PQ and I'm also excited to HEAR the Dolby Atmos mix now that I have a 5.2.4 setup.


----------



## djoberg

dla26 said:


> I upgraded from dual SVS PB13 Ultras to dual JTR Cap 1400s. I know the WOTW scenes you're talking about, and it is indeed awesome.
> 
> I used to think my room shook until I was in a room that could literally shake. Right now my windows vibrate, but the floor stays where it is - concrete being concrete, after all. But a room on the second floor can make you feel the bass in your bones in a way that a room on grade just can't. I may need to tear down my entire house and build from scratch.


I just looked up the Frequency Response on your JTR Cap subwoofers and was surprised to see they only go down to 16 Hz (the same as my SVS PC-2000). Yet with that big of a woofer and a 1400 watt amp, the output/extension must be insane!

I have had two Home Theaters (in two different homes) and they were both in the basement. The only time I experience a "second floor...bass in your bones" experience is when I go to one of my daughter's home where her husband had a professional theater built above his garage. The bass definitely shakes the floor along with the walls!! It is also very BOOMY though, and too much of that comes across to me as DISTORTION.


----------



## AmerCa

djoberg said:


> What is the Frequency Response of your sub? My older sub is rated down to 17 Hz and my new one down to 16 Hz. Technically that would not be classified as ULF (Ultra Low Frequency), for I think ULF goes down to the single digits. But even at 16 or 17 Hz, with the right material, I can FEEL the LFE and that's what I would call "tactile."


You're right about the ULF. Although in my system, almost all low bass is ULF to me, lol. I couldn't find my sub frequency specs - I do remember reading them at some place, but can't find it now. This is my HT system: https://www.amazon.co.uk/LG-BH4030S-Channel-Blu-Ray-Cinema-Black/dp/B00CBDPTHS

It fulfills my needs for now, since I have a very small room, but obviously it doesn't compare to a proper AV receiver set-up, especially with bigger and better speakers. I don't think I can even listen properly to content below 80 hz, if I recall properly.


----------



## AmerCa

SnellTHX said:


> And people here have rated Kong: Skull Island as high as Tier 0 material, but I believe I gave it 1.5 or 1.75. Great detail and amazing overall PQ but horrible colour palette and too much grain for my liking. Its all subjective


I completely understand you. *Tron: Legacy* is one of my personal A/V experiences, but I don't think it'd qualify to tier zero these days. Speaking of which, I may have to revisit it.


----------



## djoberg

*Pacific Rim UHD*

I'll cut to the chase and say this is, without a doubt, a Tier Blu title! The DETAILS are simply incredible, including SHADOW DETAILS in most of the dark scenes (which make up 75% of the movie). DEPTH is also outstanding....CLARITY is razor-sharp (with the exception of a few fleeting soft shots)....BLACK LEVELS are to-die-for. My only real gripe is the egregious color-grading (which at times wreaked havoc on flesh tones...ORANGE, anyone?) and caused other objects to look unnatural. The color palette was also quite muted, yet when the neon lights of the city were on display they were a sight to behold (thanks to HDR and WCG). The lighted screens on the computers in the control center were also brilliant!

I said I really wanted to HEAR the Dolby Atmos mix...well, I'm here to tell you it's one of the best I've heard, probably in the Top Five of the Atmos mixes I've heard so far. Panning and discrete effects were spot-on accurate. How about the LFE? It was SO DEEP and LOUD and CONTINUOUS at times, that I had to listen to it at -8 most of its 2 hour running time. I did end up turning it all the way to Reference Level for a minute or two, but I thought my walls start peeling off so I brought it back to between -5 and -8. If this was an Audio Thread I'll be placing it in the Top Three!!

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.33)*


----------



## IAH

djoberg said:


> *Pacific Rim UHD*
> 
> I'll cut to the chase and say this is, without a doubt, a Tier Blu title! The DETAILS are simply incredible, including SHADOW DETAILS in most of the dark scenes (which make up 75% of the movie). DEPTH is also outstanding....CLARITY is razor-sharp (with the exception of a few fleeting soft shots)....BLACK LEVELS are to-die-for. My only real gripe is the egregious color-grading (which at times wreaked havoc on flesh tones...ORANGE, anyone?) and caused other objects to look unnatural. The color palette was also quite muted, yet when the neon lights of the city were on display they were a sight to behold (thanks to HDR and WCG). The lighted screens on the computers in the control center were also brilliant!
> 
> I said I really wanted to HEAR the Dolby Atmos mix...well, I'm here to tell you it's one of the best I've heard, probably in the Top Five of the Atmos mixes I've heard so far. Panning and discrete effects were spot-on accurate. How about the LFE? It was SO DEEP and LOUD and CONTINUOUS at times, that I had to listen to it at -8 most of its 2 hour running time. I did end up turning it all the way to Reference Level for a minute or two, but I thought my walls start peeling off so I brought it back to between -5 and -8. If this was an Audio Thread I'll be placing it in the Top Three!!
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.33)*


Could this possibly be the best ALL AROUND (video+audio) reference blu-ray? 

If not, I would be interested in your choice(s)!


----------



## djoberg

IAH said:


> Could this possibly be the best ALL AROUND (video+audio) reference blu-ray?
> 
> If not, I would be interested in your choice(s)!


It's good, but not the best. I wrote the following review not long ago on what I believe is the best "Reference Blu-ray" today:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-801.html#post54950506

There are others that come close, such as _13 Hours_, but it doesn't "have it all" like _Transformers: The Last Knight_. And keep in mind this is the 1080p version; I haven't seen my 4K version yet.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

In reading my "review" on _Transformers: The Last Knight_, I see I really didn't say much on the PQ and I didn't say anything on the AQ. So here is a link to a post I made on Ralph Potts' site where I go into more detail on both the PQ & AQ.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-o...st-knight-ultra-hd-review-2.html#post54951716


----------



## IAH

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> In reading my "review" on _Transformers: The Last Knight_, I see I really didn't say much on the PQ and I didn't say anything on the AQ. So here is a link to a post I made on Ralph Potts' site where I go into more detail on both the PQ & AQ.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-o...st-knight-ultra-hd-review-2.html#post54951716


Cool thanks! I guess I'm going to have to check it out!

Let's add one more factor to the discussion, just for the fun of it. You said that though it was #1 in audio/video, you wished it were a better movie content-wise. So what's the best overall Blu-ray (or 4k) including: Video, Audio, AND quality of the move itself? Your most enjoyable to watch, I guess? Best Replay Value.

Mine is probably Lord of the Rings: Fellowship EE, or The Incredibles.

BTW, thank you for all of your time and contributions to this awesome thread/resource. I've learned so much.


----------



## djoberg

IAH said:


> Cool thanks! I guess I'm going to have to check it out!
> 
> Let's add one more factor to the discussion, just for the fun of it. You said that though it was #1 in audio/video, you wished it were a better movie content-wise. So what's the best overall Blu-ray (or 4k) including: Video, Audio, AND quality of the move itself? Your most enjoyable to watch, I guess? Best Replay Value.
> 
> Mine is probably Lord of the Rings: Fellowship EE, or The Incredibles.
> 
> BTW, thank you for all of your time and contributions to this awesome thread/resource. I've learned so much.


First of all, thank you very much for your kind words of encouragement that you close with. They ARE appreciated.

Five titles come to mind instantly when considering Audio, Video and Movie Content. They are:

1) _13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi_ (IMO, this has excellent replay value and the audio/video is off the charts)

2) _Oblivion_ (This may not be the absolute best in video, but the audio is reference and I thoroughly enjoy the movie)

3) _Interstellar_ (This has it all...engaging movie, reference audio, and some of the best video I've ever seen (especially in the IMAX shots)

4) _The Secret Life of Pets _(Okay, since this is ANIMATION, the audio isn't going to knock your socks off, but the video is pure EYE CANDY and if you like pets, you will love the movie)

5) _Moana_ (Another ANIMATED MARVEL with topnotch video, very good audio, and a very fun movie)

If you don't mind me recommending one that doesn't have the "reference audio," you simply can't beat _Planet Earth 2 UHD_ for stellar video and a very captivating documentary featuring unbelievable shots of the earth and the animal kingdom. Of course it doesn't hurt that you have one of the best narrators ever (David Attenborough) guiding you through this six-episode series.

I know I am missing other standout Blu-rays, but these were the first to come to mind after reading your request.


----------



## AmerCa

IAH said:


> Cool thanks! I guess I'm going to have to check it out!
> 
> Let's add one more factor to the discussion, just for the fun of it. You said that though it was #1 in audio/video, you wished it were a better movie content-wise. So what's the best overall Blu-ray (or 4k) including: Video, Audio, AND quality of the move itself? Your most enjoyable to watch, I guess? Best Replay Value.
> 
> Mine is probably Lord of the Rings: Fellowship EE, or The Incredibles.
> 
> BTW, thank you for all of your time and contributions to this awesome thread/resource. I've learned so much.


What an interesting AND tough question to answer! Really, really tough (Of course, you didn't ask _me )_. *Tron: Legacy* and *Oblivion *(both directed by Joseph Kosinski) are two of my all-around AV experiences, and you can include here also most of Michael Bay's catalog (Djoberg's recommendation on *13 Hours *is spot on, certainly it's the most "serious" film he's done to date), but if you take into consideration the movie itself (screenplay, acting, cinematography, etc) the equation gets too complicated. Even reducing a movie's "quality" to "movies I thought they were great", things are already difficult. 

Since I can only speak for movies I own and have watched on blu (there are some I have but have yet to watch, and many others I don't have on blu), my quick, off-the-top-of-my-head list would be:

*1) Captain America: Civil War* [Excellent PQ, great AQ, great fantasy escapism. This is what I thought a comic book brought to the screen would look like. A pretty good movie on its own right.]

*2) 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi *[Excellent PQ, amazing AQ, and thrilling story. As a movie it's better than Civil War, but the latter is more fun to watch for me.]

*3) Hacksaw Ridge *[Great PQ, amazing AQ, great and inspiring story.]

Considering all your three factors, this would be my list as of now. I love *Interstellar*, but I don't have it. Damn it.


----------



## IAH

I did just get it on Blu-ray (I don't have 4k capability yet), and though its only 2k, It is AMAZING. I have noticed some banding, particularly in the opening shots from space and times when they show the sun shining, or fading in and out of scenes, but the actual content (the good stuff), particularly close-ups, is UNREAL, literally jaw-dropping! Even my dog was watching and growling at the grizzly bear segment (which she has never done before, and believe me I've tried to get her to look at dogs on tv before to get a reaction out of her, lol). BTW, I'm absolutely amazed at how they get the footage and with quite good cinematography. I guess the super slow-mo stuff helps in that regard.

I'll have to check out the other movies you mentioned as I've seen none of them.


----------



## IAH

AmerCa said:


> What an interesting AND tough question to answer! Really, really tough (Of course, you didn't ask _me )_.


Lol, apologies! The question is directed to all of course!

I really need to see 13 Hours. (Have been meaning to) and Interstellar for that matter.


----------



## djoberg

IAH said:


> Lol, apologies! The question is directed to all of course!
> 
> I really need to see 13 Hours. (Have been meaning to) and Interstellar for that matter.


Just to "whet your appetite" even more for this movie, here's my review:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-776.html#post44632481

I need to add that the audio ROCKS! I have the 1080p Blu-ray and I was delighted to see (when I bought it) that it had a Dolby Atmos mix.


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> *3) Hacksaw Ridge *[Great PQ, amazing AQ, great and inspiring story.]


Ditto! As I said, I knew there were titles that I was forgetting and this is definitely one of them.

For IAH's sake, I'm going to include a link to my review on _Hacksaw Ridge_. I noticed I neglected to say something about the Audio in that review, but let me say it was OUTSTANDING!! This is especially true in the battle scenes in the last half of the movie.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-789.html#post51040761


----------



## IAH

djoberg said:


> Ditto! As I said, I knew there were titles that I was forgetting and this is definitely one of them.
> 
> For IAH's sake, I'm going to include a link to my review on _Hacksaw Ridge_. I noticed I neglected to say something about the Audio in that review, but let me say it was OUTSTANDING!! This is especially true in the battle scenes in the last half of the movie.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-789.html#post51040761


Yea I saw over in the Bass thread that everyone was going crazy over the soundtrack on that one. 

Man, I have a lot to catch up on!


----------



## AmerCa

djoberg said:


> 4) _The Secret Life of Pets _(Okay, since this is ANIMATION, the audio isn't going to knock your socks off, but the video is pure EYE CANDY and if you like pets, you will love the movie)


Forgot to comment about this. I _really_ liked this movie (didn't watch on Blu, tho), but I don't collect animated movies, even when I do enjoy many of them (like Moana), but the high praise you give to the movie and your enthusiasm about it, make want to buy it. I remember seeing very cheap at a Walmart near me, and I _ almost_ bought it after reading your review here (and some others), but didn't. Now that you mentioned it again, I'm gonna get it as soon as I can. I'm sure family will enjoy it, even if they don't care so much about PQ


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Tiger Hunter*

recommendation: *Tier 1.25**

This 2016 Danny Pudi comedy was filmed using Arri Alexa cameras. Released this month by Shout Factory, the strong 2.35:1 presentation has crisp definition and razor-sharp detail. The indie production takes its cinematography seriously with crystal-clear clarity and vibrant colors. Made outside the studio system on a smallish budget, it resembles a full-fledged Hollywood film in video quality.

The unfiltered transfer from its pristine digital intermediate has nigh perfect black levels and a consistently excellent contrast. I can see why this obscure film got released on Blu-ray. A few years ago I may have even considered Tier 0 for this disc.


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> Forgot to comment about this. I _really_ liked this movie (didn't watch on Blu, tho), but I don't collect animated movies, even when I do enjoy many of them (like Moana), but the high praise you give to the movie and your enthusiasm about it, make want to buy it. I remember seeing very cheap at a Walmart near me, and I _ almost_ bought it after reading your review here (and some others), but didn't. Now that you mentioned it again, I'm gonna get it as soon as I can. I'm sure family will enjoy it, even if they don't care so much about PQ


I actually have over 60 animated Blu-rays (about 15 of them are UHD). I collect them especially for my grandchildren who LOVE watching them in "Grandpa's Home Theater" when they come to visit. I also collect them for the male in our home who is still a "kid at heart!"


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> I actually have over 60 animated Blu-rays (about 15 of them are UHD). I collect them especially for my grandchildren who LOVE watching them in "Grandpa's Home Theater" when they come to visit. I also collect them for the male in our home who is still a "kid at heart!"


The animated family movies are often excellent babysitters.

My personal enthusiasm for animated CGI kid flicks has waned over the years. They were a novelty 10-15 years ago and their PQ was still shocking to witness at home. Now Hollywood turns them out like clockwork every quarter.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> The animated family movies are often excellent babysitters.
> 
> My personal enthusiasm for animated CGI kid flicks has waned over the years. They were a novelty 10-15 years ago and their PQ was still shocking to witness at home. *Now Hollywood turns them out like clockwork every quarter.*


I agree Phantom, Hollywood is only concerned with the "Almighty Dollar!" And thus I have only purchased about a half dozen animated Blu-rays in the last 8-10 months. The last time I went to the animated Blu-ray section in Best Buy I could hardly believe how many titles there are and how a vast majority of them are NOT box office hits. I think I can say that most titles in my collection were big hits by Pizar, Disney, Warner Bros, DreamWorks, and Universal.


----------



## SnellTHX

IAH said:


> Could this possibly be the best ALL AROUND (video+audio) reference blu-ray?
> 
> If not, I would be interested in your choice(s)!



In my opinion it is the either the second or third best ALL AROUND A/V Reference blu-ray.


#1 is clearly Transformers 5: Last Knight
#2 and #3 is either Interstellar (mainly for its IMAX 15/70mm shots which are roughly half the movie) 
OR
Pacific Rim which I like to call 'Avatar-killer' live action mixed with lots of CGI, the sharpest live action picture quality and best looking (most advanced) CGI out there in my opinion, just a slight nudge worse than Transformers: LK, which surpassed it and took the clear #1 spot for me.

Worth noting that I am YET to watch Dunkirk at home, which I believe will be top 3 title. And possibly my new ultimate reference disk #1 but for now its still Transformers. Absolutely S T U N N I N G.


----------



## SnellTHX

Haven't watched Planet Earth II its 4K/HDR glory either so I dare not place it anywhere yet, that is what currently resides as PQ-king on this site. So there's that.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 is also one of the most visually impressive reference discs ever made too. Top 5 for me.


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> You hit the proverbial "nail on the head" in saying "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Even though we have a set of criteria to guide us in our personal placement recommendation, there will always be some subjectivity involved. I know you don't like too much "grain" and that will always be a subjective choice of yours to penalize a title that has it. Others, like myself, appreciate grain if it doesn't look like "noise" and thus it gives us a the look of "film." I don't believe though that "it's all subjective" (as you said in your closing remarks), for again we have standards to go by that are "objective" in nature.
> 
> FWIW, I agree with you on _Pacific Rim_, for I believe it is one of the best Tier 0 titles to date. I'm looking forward, as I said yesterday, to viewing it again in the next few days. I LOVE the PQ and I'm also excited to HEAR the Dolby Atmos mix now that I have a 5.2.4 setup.


Yeah you're right. There is some objective measure to it as well. 4K is more pixels than 1080p, 0 nits is a deeper black level than 0.20 nits and so on. Spot on with the grain argument, I rarely enjoy grain in my movies, I love the ultra sharp digital clear look, which is ironic as I am an AVID fan of IMAX 15/70mm ANALOG FILM shots in Nolan's movie, but they are completely, 100% grain-free. To me looking at a shot like that feels just like looking out a window which you just don't get with grainy movies. There's no grain in real life.

But I understand the filmic/cinematic experience it yields which is pleasurable to many and thus respect your difference in opinion


----------



## Phantom Stranger

SnellTHX said:


> Haven't watched Planet Earth II its 4K/HDR glory either so I dare not place it anywhere yet, that is what currently resides as PQ-king on this site. So there's that.
> 
> Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 is also one of the most visually impressive reference discs ever made too. Top 5 for me.


I'm fairly positive some of the scenes in GOTG 2 were only included to serve as demo reels.


----------



## AmerCa

*Alien: Covenant *(UHD) is at 15 bucks at Amazon, if anyone is interested. I didn't like it as much as Prometheus, but I might buy at some point, just to complete the potential trilogy. *Kingsman: The Golden Circle *(1080p) - which Snell just reviewed - is at 10 dollars.


----------



## djoberg

If anyone is looking for an excellent Blu-ray cabinet, here is the one I purchased and I love it!

https://www.amazon.com/MS-700B-Slid...002C1PV1S/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

I was pleasantly surprised to find that I can get 406 regular Blu-ray cases in it. The unit is very good-looking and well built. Here is a picture of the cabinet in my Home Theater:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2352612&stc=1&d=1517174295


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> If anyone is looking for an excellent Blu-ray cabinet, here is the one I purchased and I love it!
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/MS-700B-Slid...002C1PV1S/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8
> 
> I was pleasantly surprised to find that I can get 406 regular Blu-ray cases in it. The unit is very good-looking and well built. Here is a picture of the cabinet in my Home Theater:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2352612&stc=1&d=1517174295


I actually need something like that for CDs.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> I actually need something like that for CDs.


If you read the link from Amazon you know it will fit a whopping 700 CDs!! (I wouldn't be surprised at all if it would actually hold more than that.) I am using my old cabinet for CDs or I would get another one for my CD collection.

BTW, the pic I posted doesn't do it justice; it looks much better "up close and personal."


----------



## djoberg

I had referred a few days ago to _Planet Earth 2 UHD_. I have been re-watching the whole series this weekend and I still maintain that you won't find another Blu-ray that rivals these six episodes for impeccable details, depth, color, and clarity. I've often been asked, "Which episode is the best for demo purposes?" Since they are "fresh in my mind" right now I can boldly recommend "Episode 4: Deserts" as the best of the very best! The DETAILS are simply INSANE from beginning to end and there is enough COLOR to satisfy the most desperate video enthusiast looking for a good "sugar rush" (i.e. EYE CANDY). 

Let me add that I can't overestimate the unbelievable shots in this series. Also, even though I've "gone out on a limb" to choose a favorite episode, all six episodes are top quality "Reference Material" that deserve a place in every Video Enthusiast's library.


----------



## dla26

djoberg said:


> I had referred a few days ago to _Planet Earth 2 UHD_. I have been re-watching the whole series this weekend and I still maintain that you won't find another Blu-ray that rivals these six episodes for impeccable details, depth, color, and clarity. I've often been asked, "Which episode is the best for demo purposes?" Since they are "fresh in my mind" right now I can boldly recommend "Episode 4: Deserts" as the best of the very best! The DETAILS are simply INSANE from beginning to end and there is enough COLOR to satisfy the most desperate video enthusiast looking for a good "sugar rush" (i.e. EYE CANDY).
> 
> Let me add that I can't overestimate the unbelievable shots in this series. Also, even though I've "gone out on a limb" to choose a favorite episode, all six episodes are top quality "Reference Material" that deserve a place in every Video Enthusiast's library.


I have to go back and rewatch Deserts, but right now Cities is my go to demo episode.


----------



## djoberg

dla26 said:


> I have to go back and rewatch Deserts, but right now Cities is my go to demo episode.


Cities is fantastic as well, but with Deserts you get insane details all the way through. I just watched Cities last night and it has quite a few night time scenes where the black levels weren't all that good (think of the scene where the leopards are looking for prey in the city and it's like you're looking at everything through "night vision goggles"); it left the picture kinda of flat and void of details. I know those scenes didn't last all that long but in Deserts EVERY SCENE was spectacular.


----------



## dla26

djoberg said:


> Cities is fantastic as well, but with Deserts you get insane details all the way through. I just watched Cities last night and it has quite a few night time scenes where the black levels weren't all that good (think of the scene where the leopards are looking for prey in the city and it's like you're looking at everything through "night vision goggles"); it left the picture kinda of flat and void of details. I know those scenes didn't last all that long but in Deserts EVERY SCENE was spectacular.


Agreed that the night vision goggles scenes, while fascinating, did not have the best PQ. I was just blown away by the richness of the colors and detail in every other scene in Cities.

Now I need to go back and rewatch Deserts!


----------



## AmerCa

*Tron: Legacy (2010 - Disney)*

Ok, it was about time I reviewed one of my favorite discs. This past weekend I was alone, which meant I could turn up the volume a little higher

I'll be the first to admit that the video presentation is not the clearest or sharpest you can find compared to what you can find these days. Therefore, PQ is not reference level, but it's _close_. Kosinski is just such a master of visual design, that even when the picture isn't as sharp or detailed, he tricks you into thinking you're seeing the most stunning image ever. His use of lightning and color schemes is masterful. This is important because PQ is enhanced when the sets, costumes, lighting and CGI is designed to be clean and elegant as possible, so what the camera captures gives maximum impact. You can spot video deficiencies, but for the most part they're well "hidden" or diminished by the magnificent visual spectacle.

Colors, black levels and clarity are outstanding. Giving the digital nature of the world they're in, detail and texture are not as prominent, but this is simply an aesthetic choice. I was tempted to give this title a tier 1 placement, but tier 1.25 seems fair to me. Outstanding video presentation that just misses certain elements to qualify for tier zero. This BD still is a demo disc after seven years.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*


----------



## AmerCa

*Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (2011 - Paramount)*

This disc was released around the same time as *Jack Reacher*, and being a big bugdet film, it's certainly expected to feature a much better video presentation. Unfortunately, while MI:GP has higher peaks, it's also much more inconsistent. I like the film's visual style much more than Jack Reacher, but some scenes just looked plain ugly at times, most notably in dark scenes, where the color grading made the movie look washed up and green-ish. If all the movie looked as good as the scenes in Dubai, this would be probably in tier zero. Sadly, it's not the case, and I ended up giving this BD the same placement as Jack Reacher, although for different reasons. Attractive video presentation that lacks consistency to be in the lower spectrum of tier 1.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


----------



## AmerCa

General question:

How many of you actually listen to movies at reference level? I don't have enough firepower to reach reference levels with enough clarity and fidelity, but even at 50% of my -supposedly- 330 watts _total_, the whole thing is too much loud! With some movies I can get some higher, but at certain point my ears can't stand it. I'm sure people's systems have much more power, but I can't imagine how would you be able to listen to films at reference levels without your heads exploding. Not to mention the neighbors!


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> General question:
> 
> How many of you actually listen to movies at reference level? I don't have enough firepower to reach reference levels with enough clarity and fidelity, but even at 50% of my -supposedly- 330 watts _total_, the whole thing is too much loud! With some movies I can get some higher, but at certain point my ears can't stand it. I'm sure people's systems have much more power, but I can't imagine how would you be able to listen to films at reference levels without your heads exploding. Not to mention the neighbors!


I "normally" listen to Blu-ray films between -12 and -8. But with some scenes, with big explosions, rocket launches, etc. I can't help but turn it to Reference Level. Every great once in awhile, I will actually leave it at Reference Level for a period of time. To MY EARS, I can certainly tolerate those times. Let's remember, that "Reference Level" is the "level" that the director intended audiences to listen to his/her movie at in a Cinema Theater, so it's not like that level is "bad for your ears" or that the sound will be distorted. If you do go to a state-of-the-art Cinema with a Dolby Atmos setup, you WILL be listening to it at Reference Level DURING THE WHOLE MOVIE (unless they purposely turn it down due to poorly insulated walls that would bleed into the next theater).

One more thing. There are some audio systems that simply shouldn't be played at Reference Level. Why? Well, in most of those cases your speakers can't handle it; in other cases your AVR can't handle it. I'll use some of my former equipment to illustrate this. A few years ago I had a mid level Pioneer AVR (a 7.2 channel amplifier rated at 100 watts per channel at 8 ohms). If I tried getting even close to Reference Level during certain scenes it would simply shut down as a preventive measure so the amplifier wouldn't be damaged. With one scene (the scene in _War of the Worlds_ where the space alien machines were coming up out of the street in the intersection) it would shut down as soon as I went to -12! I simply couldn't tolerate that so I replaced it with an Onkyo AVR that never shut down no matter how loud I played it.

Speakers are another factor, for like an AVR that can't handle real high volumes a speaker may be damaged at Reference Level. Again, I'll use my system as an example. Before I started running Dual Subs, if I listened at Reference Level during a very loud scene the "Limiter" on my SVS sub would prevent my sub from producing any more bass (like a "governor" on a race car or a go-cart). Now that I have two SVS subs I can listen at Reference Level to any scene and I never see my Limiter light (on either sub) blinking (which would mean it had become active). And thankfully all of my other SVS speakers are built to be able to tolerate Reference Level listening.

Hope this helps AmerCa!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

AmerCa said:


> General question:
> 
> How many of you actually listen to movies at reference level? I don't have enough firepower to reach reference levels with enough clarity and fidelity, but even at 50% of my -supposedly- 330 watts _total_, the whole thing is too much loud! With some movies I can get some higher, but at certain point my ears can't stand it. I'm sure people's systems have much more power, but I can't imagine how would you be able to listen to films at reference levels without your heads exploding. Not to mention the neighbors!


I listen at reference levels when reviewing discs. I have in the past turned it down for viewings with family members and guests. I do think some Hollywood home mixes are mastered hot, which can cause problems at reference levels.

This is when room geometry and acoustic treatments can really come in handy.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Napping Princess*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

Director Kenji Kamiyama's latest anime movie has wonderful picture quality that sings with colorful visuals. Released tomorrow by distributor Shout Factory for GKIDS, the 1080P video nails the fluid animation in perfect clarity and vibrant colors. The Japanese production was worked on by a number of top animators, including Christophe Ferreira (_The Woman Called Fujiko Mine_) and Bahi JD (_Space Dandy_).

Traditional animation may be dead in America but it still lives on in Japan. This is not a Studio Ghibli production but _Napping Princess_ is not far removed in spirit from their great works of animation. It receives a nearly flawless AVC encode. The transfer also avoids the potential pitfalls of Japanese anime brought over to America for distribution. The black levels were mastered at the correct IRE setting with the appropriate gamma.

If you are into fantastical anime that occasionally incorporates CGI elements, _Napping Princess_ has delightful video quality.


----------



## fredxr2d2

AmerCa said:


> General question:
> 
> How many of you actually listen to movies at reference level? I don't have enough firepower to reach reference levels with enough clarity and fidelity, but even at 50% of my -supposedly- 330 watts _total_, the whole thing is too much loud! With some movies I can get some higher, but at certain point my ears can't stand it. I'm sure people's systems have much more power, but I can't imagine how would you be able to listen to films at reference levels without your heads exploding. Not to mention the neighbors!





djoberg said:


> I "normally" listen to Blu-ray films between -12 and -8. But with some scenes, with big explosions, rocket launches, etc. I can't help but turn it to Reference Level. Every great once in awhile, I will actually leave it at Reference Level for a period of time. To MY EARS, I can certainly tolerate those times. Let's remember, that "Reference Level" is the "level" that the director intended audiences to listen to his/her movie at in a Cinema Theater, so it's not like that level is "bad for your ears" or that the sound will be distorted. If you do go to a state-of-the-art Cinema with a Dolby Atmos setup, you WILL be listening to it at Reference Level DURING THE WHOLE MOVIE (unless they purposely turn it down due to poorly insulated walls that would bleed into the next theater).
> 
> One more thing. There are some audio systems that simply shouldn't be played at Reference Level. Why? Well, in most of those cases your speakers can't handle it; in other cases your AVR can't handle it. I'll use some of my former equipment to illustrate this. A few years ago I had a mid level Pioneer AVR (a 7.2 channel amplifier rated at 100 watts per channel at 8 ohms). If I tried getting even close to Reference Level during certain scenes it would simply shut down as a preventive measure so the amplifier wouldn't be damaged. With one scene (the scene in _War of the Worlds_ where the space alien machines were coming up out of the street in the intersection) it would shut down as soon as I went to -12! I simply couldn't tolerate that so I replaced it with an Onkyo AVR that never shut down no matter how loud I played it.
> 
> Speakers are another factor, for like an AVR that can't handle real high volumes a speaker may be damaged at Reference Level. Again, I'll use my system as an example. Before I started running Dual Subs, if I listened at Reference Level during a very loud scene the "Limiter" on my SVS sub would prevent my sub from producing any more bass (like a "governor" on a race car or a go-cart). Now that I have two SVS subs I can listen at Reference Level to any scene and I never see my Limiter light (on either sub) blinking (which would mean it had become active). And thankfully all of my other SVS speakers are built to be able to tolerate Reference Level listening.
> 
> Hope this helps AmerCa!





Phantom Stranger said:


> I listen at reference levels when reviewing discs. I have in the past turned it down for viewings with family members and guests. I do think some Hollywood home mixes are mastered hot, which can cause problems at reference levels.
> 
> This is when room geometry and acoustic treatments can really come in handy.


I think that it is slightly more complicated than even presented here. The ability to play reference cleanly and clearly has to do with several factors:

1. Speakers (sensitivity and capability)
2. Distance in room (how far from the speakers do you sit - also interacts with #1 )
3. Room acoustics (perhaps the most important factor in whether or not reference sounds good is how well treated your room is)
4. There is some evidence that "home" reference and "cinema" reference are not the same - according to some acoustical players (much smarter than I), home theaters (of a smaller size) tend to hit_ perceived _reference levels around -5 from reference. This is due to the smaller space amplifying the sound levels so that the perceived volume is louder (again, this also relates to #1 , 2, and 3 above).

I will also chime in to add that when I was a projectionist at a commercial cinema we almost never played at full reference (a "7" on the dolby processor, according to my training). Most movies played back around 5.5-5.8 on the dolby processor and anything above that meant that customers would complain the movie was too loud. I specifically remember going to see the first Thor and requesting that it be turned down from 5.7 to 5.5 as it was harsh sounding to me at that volume. (random thing I found from mixers: http://duc.avid.com/showthread.php?t=300904)


----------



## fredxr2d2

I'll follow that up with the fact that I watch most movies at -10 to -7.5. Any louder and my room starts to sound too harsh (more treatments needed) and my amp starts to run out of juice on my very insensitive Front L/R speakers.


----------



## djoberg

fredxr2d2 said:


> I'll follow that up with the fact that I watch most movies at -10 to -7.5. Any louder and my room starts to sound too harsh (more treatments needed) and my amp starts to run out of juice on my very insensitive Front L/R speakers.


Hey Fred,

Thanks for chiming in with all the "facts" regarding listening at "Reference Level." What surprised me the most was your statement about the Cinema you worked at NOT playing it at Reference Level. I say this because I have read over and over again that a movie director, along with the sound designer, intend for their movie to be played at Reference. But I can easily see customers crying, "It's too loud." Shoot, my wife thinks it's too loud in my Home Theater at -20! 

BTW, you listen at about the same level as I do, though as I said, I do love listening even closer to Reference during certain scenes. What is the sensitivity of your speakers? Most of my SVS speakers are rated at 87 dB which is somewhat average. I do wish they were higher than that, but with my Denon (which is rated at 125 watts RMS for 8 ohms) I have no trouble running them, even at Reference.


----------



## fredxr2d2

djoberg said:


> Hey Fred,
> 
> Thanks for chiming in with all the "facts" regarding listening at "Reference Level." What surprised me the most was your statement about the Cinema you worked at NOT playing it at Reference Level. I say this because I have read over and over again that a movie director, along with the sound designer, intend for their movie to be played at Reference. But I can easily see customers crying, "It's too loud." Shoot, my wife thinks it's too loud in my Home Theater at -20!
> 
> BTW, you listen at about the same level as I do, though as I said, I do love listening even closer to Reference during certain scenes. What is the sensitivity of your speakers? Most of my SVS speakers are rated at 87 dB which is somewhat average. I do wish they were higher than that, but with my Denon (which is rated at 125 watts RMS for 8 ohms) I have no trouble running them, even at Reference.


My front L/R are Def Tech SM65s, which are rated by Def Tech as 87, but measured by Sound & Vision as 85 (https://www.soundandvision.com/cont...nitor-sm65-and-sm45-speakers-supercube-8000-1). I sit about 12-13 ft away from them, which means that I would need 375 watts to drive them to 105 dB (peaks at reference). My 130 watt amp is obviously less than that. (http://myhometheater.homestead.com/splcalculator.html)

I can push my speakers up to reference without any seeming noticeable distortion, but it sounds too loud to me, which means that it isn't playing cleanly and/or there are too many reflections (I'm working on that one with acoustical treatments). The only time I have heard the speakers producing audible distortion was playing The Great Wall at -5 when the drums were going off and my right front speaker made some sounds I hope to never hear again.


----------



## fredxr2d2

djoberg said:


> Hey Fred,
> 
> Thanks for chiming in with all the "facts" regarding listening at "Reference Level." What surprised me the most was your statement about the Cinema you worked at NOT playing it at Reference Level. I say this because I have read over and over again that a movie director, along with the sound designer, intend for their movie to be played at Reference. But I can easily see customers crying, "It's too loud." Shoot, my wife thinks it's too loud in my Home Theater at -20!
> 
> BTW, you listen at about the same level as I do, though as I said, I do love listening even closer to Reference during certain scenes. What is the sensitivity of your speakers? Most of my SVS speakers are rated at 87 dB which is somewhat average. I do wish they were higher than that, but with my Denon (which is rated at 125 watts RMS for 8 ohms) I have no trouble running them, even at Reference.


As for the first part of your quote - yes, when I was trained, the manual very clearly stated that every movie should be played at "7" (reference). When I asked why our systems weren't playing that loud, I was told that we would receive complaints about it being too loud - and we often did, even at 5.9 (one of our auditoriums defaulted to this and had to be turned down every time until we got the local calibrator back to reset the default). The very real fact of commercial cinemas (in my experience) has been that the customer has a better sway than the original sound mixer: you'd rather have butts in the seats than refunds with a "too loud" reference playback.


----------



## djoberg

fredxr2d2 said:


> My front L/R are Def Tech SM65s, which are rated by Def Tech as 87, but measured by Sound & Vision as 85 (https://www.soundandvision.com/cont...nitor-sm65-and-sm45-speakers-supercube-8000-1). I sit about 12-13 ft away from them, which means that I would need 375 watts to drive them to 105 dB (peaks at reference). My 130 watt amp is obviously less than that. (http://myhometheater.homestead.com/splcalculator.html)
> 
> I can push my speakers up to reference without any seeming noticeable distortion, but it sounds too loud to me, which means that it isn't playing cleanly and/or there are too many reflections (I'm working on that one with acoustical treatments). The only time I have heard the speakers producing audible distortion was playing The Great Wall at -5 when the drums were going off and my right front speaker made some sounds I hope to never hear again.


My SVS speakers are rated at 87 and our own AVS Forum reviewer Mark Henninger said they measured at 87. I sit back 8' from my Sony display but I'm exactly 7.5' from 8 of my SVS speakers and 6.5' from my Center speaker (and about 9' from my Dual Subs). My Denon AVR has 9 amplifiers rated at 235 watts. All I know is when I play a movie at Reference there is zero distortion and I can certainly tolerate the loudness unless it's a movie that was mixed exceptionally HOT! I should add that my Denon has the Audyssey XT32 calibration and I believe it did a fantastic job at making the necessary "room corrections."



fredxr2d2 said:


> As for the first part of your quote - yes, when I was trained, the manual very clearly stated that every movie should be played at "7" (reference). When I asked why our systems weren't playing that loud, I was told that we would receive complaints about it being too loud - and we often did, even at 5.9 (one of our auditoriums defaulted to this and had to be turned down every time until we got the local calibrator back to reset the default). The very real fact of commercial cinemas (in my experience) has been that the customer has a better sway than the original sound mixer: you'd rather have butts in the seats than refunds with a "too loud" reference playback.


Well as the old adage goes, "The customer is always right!"  Having said that, I have read on other forums about "purists" going to a Cinema and demanding that the volume be turned up to Reference Level, arguing that they "paid 100% of the movie price" and thus they want to "enjoy 100% of the movie, including 100% of what the sound mixer had in mind."


----------



## djoberg

I want to apologize to all those who have been checking this thread for "Blu-ray reviews" during the last 24 hours. You expect to see reviews and instead you may think you accidentally went to an "Audio Thread." I can assure you we will return very soon to our "regular broadcast." What you are seeing is what can occur when reviews aren't forthcoming (though Phantom did post one last night).


----------



## fredxr2d2

djoberg said:


> My SVS speakers are rated at 87 and our own AVS Forum reviewer Mark Fleischmann said they measured at 87. I sit back 8' from my Sony display but I'm exactly 7.5' from 8 of my SVS speakers and 6.5' from my Center speaker (and about 9' from my Dual Subs). My Denon AVR has 9 amplifiers rated at 235 watts. All I know is when I play a movie at Reference there is zero distortion and I can certainly tolerate the loudness unless it's a movie that was mixed exceptionally HOT! I should add that my Denon has the Audyssey XT32 calibration and I believe it did a fantastic job at making the necessary "room corrections."


That 4-5 feet closer you sit to your speakers makes all the difference - they should be able to hit reference with only 100 watts!


----------



## AmerCa

djoberg said:


> I "normally" listen to Blu-ray films between -12 and -8. But with some scenes, with big explosions, rocket launches, etc. I can't help but turn it to Reference Level. Every great once in awhile,....
> 
> Hope this helps AmerCa!


Thanks for the detailed response, Djoberg. Since I don't use an AV receiver, my volume levels read differently than the numbers all people use in here. My volume goes to 0-40, and I usually listen at 20 average, some movies I can go to 25, the most I've got is around 29 ("Pearl Harbor" which has a quiet -or very dynamic- mix). I've never reached past 30. And even at 25, things can already get VERY loud. I can't imagine reaching reference levels without either some serious distortion, or me going deaf . 

I'm waiting for 4k/Atmos/DTS:X receivers to come down in price to start building a proper audio system. But I expect to get more quality in sound, for in terms of power, I don't think I need more than I already have. Neighbors are just too close and I'd be probably kicked out of the house. 



fredxr2d2 said:


> I think that it is slightly more complicated than even presented here. The ability to play reference cleanly and clearly has to do with several factors:
> ....
> *I specifically remember going to see the first Thor and requesting that it be turned down from 5.7 to 5.5 as it was harsh sounding to me at that volume.* (random thing I found from mixers: http://duc.avid.com/showthread.php?t=300904)


Also thank you for the detailed response. I'll keep in mind all of that when trying to upgrade. The bolded part just sounded badass to me: "_sup, fellas? I want you to turn the volume down, I know this stuff, and if I have the slightest feeling you turned it up, I'll come up and will punch you in the face".

_And..



fredxr2d2 said:


> That 4-5 feet closer you sit to your speakers makes all the difference - they should be able to hit reference with only 100 watts!


My speakers are around 4-5 feet from me. My room is small and is a mess, when watching movies everything need to be set up very close to me. Maybe that's the reason I don't need much power to get higher volumes at my listening position. 

Again thanks all of you for your responses!


----------



## AmerCa

djoberg said:


> I want to apologize to all those who have been checking this thread for "Blu-ray reviews" during the last 24 hours. You expect to see reviews and instead you may think you accidentally went to an "Audio Thread." I can assure you we will return very soon to our "regular broadcast." What you are seeing is what can occur when reviews aren't forthcoming (though Phantom did post one last night).


Oooops! You're right, lol.

In an attempt to get back to business, I just bite the bullet and paid the 15 bucks Amazon.mx is asking for the US disc of Atomic Blonde. I just watched the movie, and fell in love with it, so I can't wait to re-watch it on blu. It should be arriving next week. It was just released in Mexico, but it doesn't come with a DVD, and costs about the same. So I ordered the import, so I can give away the DVD to family members who just refuse to make the upgrade and think DVD is alright. The sad part is some of them have better TV sets than mine .

I just hope it comes with a slip. For some reason, I really want the slip for this one. :Biting nails:


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> I want to apologize to all those who have been checking this thread for "Blu-ray reviews" during the last 24 hours. You expect to see reviews and instead you may think you accidentally went to an "Audio Thread." I can assure you we will return very soon to our "regular broadcast." What you are seeing is what can occur when reviews aren't forthcoming (though Phantom did post one last night).


*It (2017)*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

"We all float down here..."

This horror blockbuster from WB looks quite impressive in 1080P resolution on Blu-ray. I'd peg it around Tier 1.25 or Tier 1.5, which isn't a slight at all against its picture quality. The film was digitally shot at over 3K, with its VFX and digital intermediate being rendered at 2K resolution. So the UHD had to be upscaled from that 2K DI, if you were wondering.

_It's_ cinematography has ample definition and clarity. The digital color grading is finely done, spotlighting deep reds without throwing the rest of the color palette out of wack. The AVC video encode is a standard effort by Warner, a serviceable job. Which results in a transparent reflection of the 2K DI with a just few stray artifacts.

Shadow delineation is above average, though not on par with the inky black levels and lush delineation usually found in Tier 0. This is a sharp film when the filmmaker wants it to be razor-sharp. It does lose focus occasionally in some of the more nightmarish scenarios.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^

Thanks for the review Phantom! Believe it or not I've never seen _It_ so I just reserved a copy at a local Redbox. I'll watch it tonight and review it (no pun intended!) while the credits roll. I see it has a Dolby Atmos mix and Ralph Potts said it was excellent.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Starship Troopers (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 1.75**

Other than some soft shots and heavy grain here and there, a pretty solid UHD. It has a nice filmic look to it.


----------



## SnellTHX

*American Made*

Orange and Teal. ORANGE. And TEAL. if there's one (or two) thing(s) to say about American Made its the blatant use of orange and teal hues throughout the entire movie. its stylistic colour palette however unrealistic did sort of appeal to me, there was a decent amount of detail throughout the movie but the contrast was GARBAGE. It made my OLED looked rather washed out, as if my LG OLED turned into an LG LCD, which means IPS panel and sub 2000:1 contrast. Now for those who watch movies on IPS displays from LG for instance or on their Macbooks/iMacs/PC monitors would probably enjoy the movies picture quality but the weak contrast was tough to swallow as an OLED owner. The movie did have a nice filmatic appeal that I think would look really good in the cinema, and those projectors display fantastic looking images at 1000:1 contrast or less. I'm sure if I watched this in a commercial cinema or on an IPS panel I would have given it a much higher score, but it is what it is.


*Tier recommendation: 2**


----------



## SnellTHX

Phantom Stranger said:


> I'm fairly positive some of the scenes in GOTG 2 were only included to serve as demo reels.


I think you are absolutely right here. Some of the 4K/HDR scenes were downright gorgeous.


----------



## djoberg

*It*

I agree 100% with Phantom's assessment below. I was very pleased with every outdoor/daytime scene which featured "ample definition and clarity." Facial details on the kids were finely-rendered, especially Beverly's "freckles." I loved the natural colors, or perhaps I should say the "lack of egregious color-grading." There was some color-grading (as Phantom had noted), but only to give us a realistic "80s look." Blacks were fantastic "most of the time," but they did become murky in the scenes alluded to below.

I also agree with my colleague's placement....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**

PS The Dolby Atmos mix was crazy-good!! The use of Height Channels was awesome. The bass/LFE was insane (with waves of energy flowing through the room at times).



Phantom Stranger said:


> *It (2017)*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 1.5**
> 
> "We all float down here..."
> 
> This horror blockbuster from WB looks quite impressive in 1080P resolution on Blu-ray. I'd peg it around Tier 1.25 or Tier 1.5, which isn't a slight at all against its picture quality. The film was digitally shot at over 3K, with its VFX and digital intermediate being rendered at 2K resolution. So the UHD had to be upscaled from that 2K DI, if you were wondering.
> 
> _It's_ cinematography has ample definition and clarity. The digital color grading is finely done, spotlighting deep reds without throwing the rest of the color palette out of wack. The AVC video encode is a standard effort by Warner, a serviceable job. Which results in a transparent reflection of the 2K DI with a just few stray artifacts.
> 
> Shadow delineation is above average, though not on par with the inky black levels and lush delineation usually found in Tier 0. This is a sharp film when the filmmaker wants it to be razor-sharp. It does lose focus occasionally in some of the more nightmarish scenarios.


----------



## SnellTHX

*Spiderman: Homecoming*


The Amazing Spiderman movie has AMAZING picture quality. A plethora of detail in every image, contrast is flawless, blacks were perfect throughout and no sacrificed shadow detail in the night time scenes. Pristine 4K digital imagery throughout the entire movie. My initial thought of the movie was Tier 1, but this looks better than my previously ranked Tier 1 (Kingsman: Golden Circle) and as the movie progressed the image quality only got better. the facial details were astounding. Day time scenes had lots of pop and crunch to the image. As great as the picture quality was its not something that goes among my top list of reference movies, it lacked an X-factor or any TRUE demo-worthy scenes or the overall reference performance (Tier 0) performance of Passengers. But alas, I haven't been so stuck between Tier 0 and 1 since perhaps Hacksaw Ridge.


*Tier recommendation: 0(.9)**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Your Name. (Kimi no Na wa.)*

recommendation: *Tier 0 (Top 30)**

_Your Name._ may not be familiar to many readers here, especially if you don't pay attention to anime. The movie is now the highest-grossing anime film of all time worldwide and the seventh-highest-grossing traditionally animated film of all time, behind familiar Disney classics like _The Lion King_ and _Aladdin_. 

Having seen literally hundreds of anime productions from Japan on Blu-ray, I can say with some confidence the critically acclaimed masterpiece is easily the best-looking anime production ever made. There's no other anime in its class, including Studio Ghibli's beloved films. Released in 2016, its gorgeous animation quality shines in videophile perfection. The dazzling color palette is a feast for the eyes, switching back and forth from the urban Tokyo environment to the tranquil landscapes of the Japanese countryside. This is stunning demo material that elevates traditional animation beyond its previous ceiling in the PQ Tiers. Flawless is often thrown around but _Your Name._ achieves a level of artistry rarely seen. The evident detail and texture in the animation is awesome.

Rare for anime, the movie was finished at 2K resolution for its master. Funimation has only put out the Blu-ray version here in America, but in Japan _Your Name._ saw a UHD release. A reliable source has told me the Japanese UHD may have the best usage of HDR's expanded colorspace available at the moment on the 4K format. I look forward to confirming that in the future...


----------



## SnellTHX

Wow, I just read DarthDoxie and Djoberg's reviews of Spiderman: Homecoming as I wanted to see if the community here was as splitted as I when deciding to place this movie in Tier 0 or Tier 1 and the resemblance is uncanny. I swear to god I had not read (or at least no proper recollection of having read) either of their reviews yet it is almost as if I copy-pasted both reviews! All of us praised facial details, you guys mentioned Michael Keaton which I too thought really stuck out; every flaw of his facial attributes; wrinkles, patches, flakes, dry skin, irritations etc all stuck out and Djoberg mentioned the brighter outdoor scenes which is what really tilted me closer to the tier 0 side.


All three of us gave it the unusual arbitrary 0.9 score


----------



## SnellTHX

DarthDoxie said:


> *Spider-Man: Homecoming (UHD)*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 0* (.90)*
> 
> I second this excellent review! Michael Keaton's facial features were a real plus, the first time he came on screen I said wow. I didn't notice any elevated blacks in the letter-box bars on my viewing. I've read about this anomaly on Dolby Vision discs like *Power Rangers* but I didn't notice it on this disc.
> 
> PS. The Atmos mix is indeed superb, there is a serious LFE "moment" towards the end on the beach, felt it in my gut!
> 
> *Spider-Man: Homecoming (Blu-ray)*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 1**





Djoberg said:


> Spider-Man: Homecoming (UHD)
> 
> This wasn't stunning (like my recent viewing of Transformers: The Last Knight), but it had a good deal of POP, especially in daytime scenes that took place outdoors. There were also good blacks in night time scenes, but I noticed several times that the black levels became elevated in my letter-boxed bars resulting in a "dark gray" (when this occurred it took me out of the movie...that might be the result of HDR and the 1080p version my be free from this anomaly). Facial details were one of the best features, most notably in that of Michael Keaton. His facial texture is becoming quite defined...not as good as a Morgan Freeman or Tommy Lee Jones, but it's getting there! Flesh tones were spot on, contrast was excellent, depth was astounding (in daytime scenes), and colors were very pleasing to the eyes (I was happy every time Peter donned his rich BLUE and RED suit).
> 
> I gotta say something about the Atmos mix...it was incredible!! A very immersive experience with impeccable panning and discrete effects.
> 
> Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.90)


so similar! I didn't notice any elevated blacks either. After being horrifically disturbed by plenty of washed out HDR series on Netflix (Stranger Things) and then AGAIN by a terribly made (contrast-wise) movie; American Made, it was relieving to return to absolute 0 nit perfect blacks as displayed in Spiderman.


I forgot to mentioned the LFE... it was sublime. My neighbour knocked on my door during that beach scene, despite my relatively modest -16dB sound setting. (-10dB is my reference)


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> so similar! I didn't notice any elevated blacks either. After being horrifically disturbed by plenty of washed out HDR series on Netflix (Stranger Things) and then AGAIN by a terribly made (contrast-wise) movie; American Made, it was relieving to return to absolute 0 nit perfect blacks as displayed in Spiderman.


Here's the reason why you and Darth did NOT see the elevated blacks:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-806.html#post55241146


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> *Your Name. (Kimi no Na wa.)*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 0 (Top 30)**
> 
> _Your Name._ may not be familiar to many readers here, especially if you don't pay attention to anime. The movie is now the highest-grossing anime film of all time worldwide and the seventh-highest-grossing traditionally animated film of all time, behind familiar Disney classics like _The Lion King_ and _Aladdin_.
> 
> Having seen literally hundreds of anime productions from Japan on Blu-ray, I can say with some confidence the critically acclaimed masterpiece is easily the best-looking anime production ever made. There's no other anime in its class, including Studio Ghibli's beloved films. Released in 2016, its gorgeous animation quality shines in videophile perfection. The dazzling color palette is a feast for the eyes, switching back and forth from the urban Tokyo environment to the tranquil landscapes of the Japanese countryside. This is stunning demo material that elevates traditional animation beyond its previous ceiling in the PQ Tiers. Flawless is often thrown around but _Your Name._ achieves a level of artistry rarely seen. The evident detail and texture in the animation is awesome.
> 
> Rare for anime, the movie was finished at 2K resolution for its master. Funimation has only put out the Blu-ray version here in America, but in Japan _Your Name._ saw a UHD release. A reliable source has told me the Japanese UHD may have the best usage of HDR's expanded colorspace available at the moment on the 4K format. I look forward to confirming that in the future...


Whoa! You have successfully "whetted my appetite" for this film Phantom. Of course, I would LOVE to get the UHD version but guess what? It is currently listed at $52 AND it is in Japanese (and dubbed in Cantonese)!! The only version dubbed in English is the 1080p version. Of course, the UHD version DOES have English subtitles, but I hate having to fix my eyes on subtitles.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> Whoa! You have successfully "whetted my appetite" for this film Phantom. Of course, I would LOVE to get the UHD version but guess what? It is currently listed at $52 AND it is in Japanese (and dubbed in Cantonese)!! The only version dubbed in English is the 1080p version. Of course, the UHD version DOES have English subtitles, but I hate having to fix my eyes on subtitles.


That must be the Hong Kong UHD you are looking at with the Cantonese dub. It's a little cheaper over at YesAsia, a site made for international customers that speak English.

https://www.yesasia.com/us/your-nam...ng-kong-version/1062092534-0-0-0-en/info.html

Though I've heard the Hong Kong UHD has different meta-data and possibly an entirely different HDR coloring from the Japanese UHD I first cited. As you can see it's a fair bit more expensive. The Japanese disc is supposed to be out-of-this-world good.

https://www.yesasia.com/us/your-nam...glish-subtitled/1058439767-0-0-0-en/info.html

The normal Funimation Blu-ray available in America is stellar and contains an English dub.


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> Here's the reason why you and Darth did NOT see the elevated blacks:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-806.html#post55241146


Oh yeah of course OLEDs will always outperform non-OLEDs in terms of blacks but believe me, I've experienced plenty of terrible black levels, especially in Netflix's horrible HDR algorithm!


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> Oh yeah of course OLEDs will always outperform non-OLEDs in terms of blacks but believe me, I've experienced plenty of terrible black levels, especially in Netflix's horrible HDR algorithm!


I agree! I never meant to imply that OLED blacks are perfect, just that they are "better" than any other technology when it comes to blacks. From all that I have read, there are two main problems the OLED may still have regarding blacks:

1) There will be BLACK CRUSH (where "details are crushed" due to the blacks being too dark) at times. This problem has been all but eliminated in the current crop of OLEDs "if" one has their settings right.

2) "Near Black" shots have been reported to be way off at times. But again with the 2018 models this too has been addressed and for the most part eliminated.

You seem to speak of another issue, where it really isn't the display's fault, but rather the source one is viewing (in this case, Netflix and their "horrible HDR algorithm").


----------



## AmerCa

^^^^^^^^

A related little anecdote: This weekend I had the chance to go to my local Best Buy (I rarely go there), and had the opportunity to witness OLED displays for the first time. A display had a sticker that read "infinite contrast" and other marketing lines. So I stare for a few minutes to the demo images displayed. But something looks a little off. A salesman comes to me and says: "beautiful, right?". 

Me: "this demo isn't in 4k, correct? I don't think image looks as crisp and detailed as it should".
Salesman "well, yeah. We don't have any 4k content to display."
Me: "Then, how am I supposed to see and appreciate the advantages of this display ( which was VERY expensive, naturally) and help me to decide to make the upgrade?"
Salesman: "You're not the first person to comment that"
Me: "Well, but this 'infinite contrast', what's that about? I think something is off with the image, the display is correctly calibrated?" (I'm not an expert, but obviously there was a default mode activated that didn't look right).
Salesman: "I'm not sure".

Shortly I left the store completely disappointed. I expected to see some HDR in action and witness some amazing UHD demo disc. On the bright side, it was easier to contain my frustration for not being able to upgrade yet. If I upgrade to 4k TV I think it'll be a LED display anyways (unless OLEDs become accesible in the future), but just wanted to know what I was missing.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^

I frequent a local Best Buy about once every 2-3 months. They ALWAYS have a 4K Demo Loop going on all of their OLED (and other) displays, so I'm surprised that they didn't when you were there. I'm NOT surprised by the exchange you had with him and his apparent ignorance. Best Buy has a fast salesmen turnover (in the U. S.) and they are usually young guys trying to work while they go to college, thus many of them are pretty much High Tech illiterate!

If I had the money, I would have a 77" LG OLED in my Man Cave right now, no doubt about it. I'm not sure why you would choose an LCD/LED over an OLED. It used to be where an LCD had higher contrast because of their ability to produce 1,000+ nits of brightness. But with current OLEDs they get almost that high and with a black level of ZERO NITS you have a contrast that can't be beat. The only thing OLEDs don't have that I want is an AFFORDABLE PRICE for their 75+ displays.


----------



## AmerCa

^^^^^^^

I'd choose a LCD display over an OLED simply due to affordability. If OLEDs can be expensive in the US, here are even more expensive. Best Buy is the only place where I've seen these displays, not even Sears or other major stores where I live. 4k still is not a "thing" here, the unavailability of 4k players and high prices of UHD discs are a great barrier for 4k to flourish. I spoke to a Walmart salesman and he told me this year they expect to start selling 4k players. Once Walmart starts selling them (and UHD discs) then you'll know 4k will star getting to the masses. 4k TV sets are selling well, but people don't have an idea what to play in them. They buy it just because it's the new thing, but as for PQ and other advantages, very few care about. Maybe that's part of the reason Best Buy doesn't even care to properly showcase 4k virtues. The average customer doesn't even know what HDR is.

Myself, I'd like a bigger display too, even 50-55" would be good, but I don't have the space right now. TV sets just keep getting bigger and bigger!


----------



## SnellTHX

OLEDs really aren't expensive any more. the B and C series from LG have from the 6th to 8th generation been priced lower than competing Samsung QLEDs and Sony FALDs.


----------



## SnellTHX

Watching Frontier on Netflix in 4K (SDR) Absolutely amazing picture quality! Especially in season 2, it seems the impressive visuals took it a step further. Reference image quality. Looks as good as any blu-ray can, which is quite the feat for an online stream service


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> That must be the Hong Kong UHD you are looking at with the Cantonese dub. It's a little cheaper over at YesAsia, a site made for international customers that speak English.
> 
> https://www.yesasia.com/us/your-nam...ng-kong-version/1062092534-0-0-0-en/info.html
> 
> Though I've heard the Hong Kong UHD has different meta-data and possibly an entirely different HDR coloring from the Japanese UHD I first cited. As you can see it's a fair bit more expensive. The Japanese disc is supposed to be out-of-this-world good.
> 
> https://www.yesasia.com/us/your-nam...glish-subtitled/1058439767-0-0-0-en/info.html
> 
> The normal Funimation Blu-ray available in America is stellar and contains an English dub.


I just ordered the 1080p Blu-ray from Amazon. It was only $20 (compared to a ridiculous price for a UHD version) and since you gave it such glowing praise I believe it will still look spectacular on my Sony 940D. The fact is MANY 1080p versions look "almost" as good as their 4K counterparts, so I trust I'll be weighing in with a similar glowing review in the next two weeks.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> I just ordered the 1080p Blu-ray from Amazon. It was only $20 (compared to a ridiculous price for a UHD version) and since you gave it such glowing praise I believe it will still look spectacular on my Sony 940D. The fact is MANY 1080p versions look "almost" as good as their 4K counterparts, so I trust I'll be weighing in with a similar glowing review in the next two weeks.


Great news, it's a fantastic movie regardless of the stunning animation. I look forward to hearing your report on it.


----------



## AmerCa

*Into The Storm (2014 - Warner)*

First, here's Djoberg's review, which gave this movie a tier 2 ranking: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-755.html#post34872457

I'll highlight the relevant portion that concern my review:



djoberg said:


> ...And let me add that the PQ was quite exceptional, with decent clarity, details, and depth. Granted, there were moments where softness intruded or it became out-of-focus, but overall it was consistently sharp and pleasing to the eyes ...and I'm here to say that most of it was at least worthy of Tier 1. The only real downside were black levels...
> I was tempted to place this in the demo tier (i.e. Tier 1)...


Basically he pretty much mirrors my thoughts about this disc. Like Djoberg says, black levels are arguably the weakest point in the movie, but they're not _terrible_ and the majority of the movie looks strong and beautiful, even when we get into the greenish tone the movie uses for the bad weather parts. I was tempted to put this disc in the lower spectrum of tier zero, but tier 1 seems pretty fair. It looks fantastic overall, but some stylistic choices prevent the movie from reaching higher echelons of the PQ rankings. I respect Djoberg's placement, I just don't feel the negatives impact the movie that much to penalize the disc a whole tier down.

I must day the audio was DEMOLISHING. Jesus, I really felt like I was in the middle of the storm and my house was going to come down. Movie was definitely fun.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0 *


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^^

Good review AmerCa! FTR, I respect your placement too!!


----------



## AmerCa

*The Accountant (2016 - Warner)*

Again, here's Djoberg's review for the BD (because he's pretty much reviewed everything already ): http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-790.html#post51349625

An excerpt:


djoberg said:


> What caught my attention over everything else was the level of DETAIL and this was especially true in well-lit interiors and daytime shots outdoors. Facial texture was generally superb, though there were a couple of shots where faces looked a bit "smoothed over."
> 
> Black levels were somewhat of a mixed bag; at times they were rich and velvety, and at other times they became a bit grayish. Having said that, the letter-boxed bars remained "pitch black" throughout.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.5**


I mostly agree with him, except the color grading didn't bother me at all, and for the most part the movie looked very natural. It has a very strong and mostly clean video presentation, but I can't remember any particularly great "demo" scene. Unlike *Into The Storm*, which managed to impress me several times, it didn't happen with this film, and for that reason I think bringing this disc down a level, in tier 1.25. Overall a demo disc that misses some "wow" factor.

Also, like Djoberg and despite the general backlash this movie received, I enjoyed it A LOT. Apparently a sequel is in the works, and I'll be surely watching it.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^

AmerCa,

If you wanted to "bring this disc down a level" you should have placed it at *1.75* and not at *1.25*. I say this assuming you meant you were going to take it down a level from my placement of *1.5*.

Denny


----------



## AmerCa

^^^^^

No, I was talking in comparison to "Into The Storm", to clear up any confusion.


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> ^^^^^
> 
> No, I was talking in comparison to "Into The Storm", to clear up any confusion.


That clears it up! 

I will be getting _Your Name_ tomorrow, but it won't be until late afternoon. I hope to watch that sometime this week.


----------



## AmerCa

^^^^^^^

Oh, yeah! The thrill of watching a movie for the first time (at least on blu). I received my copy of "Atomic Blonde" a week ago, but I haven't found the "right" moment to watch it, if you know what I mean. I know you people are DYING to hear my comments on it (lol), but I also expect to find some time this week (maybe even today!). I have three movies I really, really want to watch or re-watch on blu, but I need to be in the mood for it (and have the time, of course).

I love to be able to still get a little anxious for watching a movie out of anticipation. Sometimes I just watch a movie, because, well, I already bought it.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Whiplash*

recommendation: *Tier 1.25**

Lots of night shots and dark interiors with black clothing, all looks good. Colors, flesh tones, and clarity are all spot on.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Batman: Gotham By Gaslight*

recommendation: *Tier 1.25**

The forum ate my original post for this Tiers recommendation. Which should remind everyone to write out more complex forum posts outside the browser if you don't want to randomly lose them to the forum monster. Since no one else got to see my original review, I will just mention it was pure genius that would have changed lives.

This is another fine effort from WB Animation, released last week. The impeccable animation has strongly saturated primary colors with real depth to the line work. A minor blip of banding, barely noticeable in the scheme of things, is the only flaw in what is otherwise pristine video.

If you are familiar with this line of animated DC movies on Blu-ray, _Gotham By Gaslight_ shows subtle improvements in shading and more consistent character designs. It's easily one of the best-looking animated Batman movies.


----------



## djoberg

*Your Name (Kimi no Na wa)*

Okay, having never been a real fan of anime, Phantom's glowing review below moved me to order this title. I received it about a week ago and just finished watching it. Before I say a few words about it, let me preface any remark by saying I admire and respect my fellow colleague Phantom, but I must confess that I did NOT see what he saw in this film. I have no doubt that it is the best-looking anime ever produced, but to put it on the same level as our beloved animated marvels put out by Pizar, Dreamworks, et al. is, IMHO, a real stretch.

First of all, I absolutely LOVED the LIGHTING schemes throughout most of its 100 minute running time. To me that was the most fascinating feature, by far. When I say "lighting," I'm referring to many and varied kinds of lights, including amazing sunrays, meteor showers, city lights, etc., etc. Those scenes easily fit into Tier 0! Colors were also excellent "when they were on display" (there were several scenes with very little or no colors). Details could be exemplary, but here is where this title was lacking, for most scenes were comprised of people without any facial texture (or skin texture at all) and with trees and foliage that were, for the most part, purposely void of details. In fairness, there was fairly good detail and texture in some buildings, streets, and other objects. Depth too was lacking in many scenes and there was a good deal of SOFTNESS (though when the PQ became sharp there was ample clarity and it was very pleasing to the eyes).

In conclusion, this is NOT your usual animation and thus I wasn't very impressed. If one judges the PQ by the criteria set forth in our Tier Ranking Thread I don't see how it can be placed in Tier Blu. Due to the "negatives" listed above I feel compelled to put it right here....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**

PS The film itself was VERY UNIQUE. I was trying to pay equal attention to the PQ and the story-line so I'm not prepared to give you my final take on it. I will weigh in again after my second viewing (whenever that is).



Phantom Stranger said:


> *Your Name. (Kimi no Na wa.)*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 0 (Top 30)**
> 
> _Your Name._ may not be familiar to many readers here, especially if you don't pay attention to anime. The movie is now the highest-grossing anime film of all time worldwide and the seventh-highest-grossing traditionally animated film of all time, behind familiar Disney classics like _The Lion King_ and _Aladdin_.
> 
> Having seen literally hundreds of anime productions from Japan on Blu-ray, I can say with some confidence the critically acclaimed masterpiece is easily the best-looking anime production ever made. There's no other anime in its class, including Studio Ghibli's beloved films. Released in 2016, its gorgeous animation quality shines in videophile perfection. The dazzling color palette is a feast for the eyes, switching back and forth from the urban Tokyo environment to the tranquil landscapes of the Japanese countryside. This is stunning demo material that elevates traditional animation beyond its previous ceiling in the PQ Tiers. Flawless is often thrown around but _Your Name._ achieves a level of artistry rarely seen. The evident detail and texture in the animation is awesome.
> 
> Rare for anime, the movie was finished at 2K resolution for its master. Funimation has only put out the Blu-ray version here in America, but in Japan _Your Name._ saw a UHD release. A reliable source has told me the Japanese UHD may have the best usage of HDR's expanded colorspace available at the moment on the 4K format. I look forward to confirming that in the future...


----------



## AmerCa

^^^^^^^^

Yeah, Japanese animation is very unique and certainly very different that the usual standard and quality set by American studios. So I can understand your underwhelming impression, especially if you're not a big fan of anime to start with. Not having watched this film, I cannot give any opinion, but tier 1.5 sounds very solid to me. The movie had a limited theatrical run in my city, along with another movie I'll review soon. I missed both.


----------



## AmerCa

* Atomic Blonde (2017 - Universal)*

There are two reviews for this one, one after the other: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-813.html#post55546428

Some relevant quotes from those reviews:



> .The one area where I thought it suffered was the inconsistent color palette. For most of the movie, the colors had a washed out, faded look





> . This film definitely has a certain look and it's not 100% razor sharp, each location has a certain theme and color palette to it.


Two quick things. First, I decided a couple days ago to upgrade my display from a 26" panel to a 43" one. I found a Vizio TV on sale at a Walmart that I really liked, so I said to myself _ "what the hell. Why not?"_. It's a entry level set, nothing fancy, but an upgrade from the two TV's I currently have (I have a 32" in another room, but I rarely watch movies on that). So, I'm quite happy. I've spent some time with the settings, and I think I got it right for the time being. And the first title I decided to test it first was this one.

Second, the aforementioned reviews refer to the UHD version, so I'm not quite sure how they will compare to the "regular" bluray. Black levels were good in my modest TV, but surely they will look more spectacular on 4k and Dolby Vision. Like the previous reviewers, I noticed inconsistencies in the PQ throughout the movie, due to the highly stylized look used. The majority of the movie has a very "cold", even drab color palette, but there are also scenes that look crisp, detailed and vibrant. Softness is present in large quantities, but don't detract too much from the viewing experience (others could be more sensitive to it), as it's surely part of thr intended look for some scenes. I liked the color scheme used here but again it was not consistent. PQ should benefit from the HDR in many scenes, but the abovr reviews seem to confirm what I suspected: colors are muted by design, even in scenes that should be dripping contrast. All in all a beautiful video presentation, but ultimately too inconsistent to land in tier zero. After seeing thr placements for the UHD so far - 0 and 1- , I'm thinking tier 1.25 or even tier 1.5 would be reasonable for the bluray.

I f-loved this movie. It has high replay value, and I don't reget in the very least having paid almost full retail price. It's in my top ten movies of 2017, and top two of action movies this year. The other one I'll review soon.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5* *(it could go as high as 1.25)*


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> ^^^^^^^^
> 
> Yeah, Japanese animation is very unique and certainly very different that the usual standard and quality set by American studios. So *I can understand your underwhelming impression, especially if you're not a big fan of anime to start with. *Not having watched this film, I cannot give any opinion, but tier 1.5 sounds very solid to me. The movie had a limited theatrical run in my city, along with another movie I'll review soon. I missed both.


Again, I've never been a big fan of anime but even if I had been, I don't see how that, in and of itself, would have caused me to raise the recommended placement. The criteria we use for judging PQ calls for details, sharpness, clarity, depth, and bold colors when judging animation and this title was simply lacking (at times) in those areas, especially when it came to details and depth. I was UNDERWHELMED, to say the least.

I would really like to hear the impressions of others on this title, but I realize this may be unlikely unless you're willing to shell out $20 or more (for I doubt there will ever be the option to rent this title in the U. S.).


----------



## AmerCa

^^^^^^

What I meant was that if you're used to the standards set by Pixar/Dreamworks, and then you watch anime (after reading high praise), which is for the most part 2D oriented and with a certain aesthetic that might not "pop out" in the same way that Pixar movie can, yes, you certainly are going to be underwhelmed. I'm not saying you'd have ranked this higher if you were a fan (although it's possible), I was just saying I understand where you're coming from. Since I haven't watched the film, I can't offer further input.

Myself, I've watched my fair share of anime in the past, and while I enjoy the animation, it certainly doesn't look as "impressive" and "modern" CGI animation. I was actually surprised by Phantom's placement, he piqued my curiosity, but your assessment is more in line with what I'd expect. Looking forward to additional opinions on it as well.


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> ^^^^^^
> 
> What I meant was that if you're used to the standards set by Pixar/Dreamworks, and then you watch anime (after reading high praise), which is for the most part 2D oriented and with a certain aesthetic that might not "pop out" in the same way that Pixar movie can, yes, you certainly are going to be underwhelmed. I'm not saying you'd have ranked this higher if you were a fan (although it's possible), I was just saying I understand where you're coming from. Since I haven't watched the film, I can't offer further input.
> 
> Myself, I've watched my fair share of anime in the past, and while I enjoy the animation, it certainly doesn't look as "impressive" and "modern" CGI animation. I was actually surprised by Phantom's placement, he piqued my curiosity, but your assessment is more in line with what I'd expect. Looking forward to additional opinions on it as well.


Thanks for the clarification AmerCa! I totally agree with what you said about anime...you hit the proverbial "nail on the head."

In fairness, I should say that there were certainly moments in the film where I truly appreciated the animation. This was especially true when the clarity was sharp and the colors were bold. At those times there was an element of "POP," but still not on the level of a scene that pops in a Pixar or Dreamworks film.

Again, I want to emphasize that I truly admire Phantom and I desire his friendship, so I hope I didn't say anything that would question my opinion of him. Having said that, I too was surprised by his placement (based on our criteria for judging PQ), but I suspect he'll be chiming in to respond to what I've said.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Djoberg, I greatly respect your opinion and honesty. Hand-drawn animation rarely qualifies for Tier 0 based on the PQ Tiers' criteria and I found _Your Name_ to be the rare exception. We shall have to respectfully agree to disagree over this one placement. It's expected in the normal operation of this thread and the Tiers.

But I completely understand anime isn't for everyone. Different people will assess its picture quality differently. Its visual appeal may not translate immediately outside its intended audience, especially for Western audiences acclimated to the latest and greatest CGI extravaganzas. _Your Name_ looks nothing like _Car_s or _Sleeping Beauty_, which sometimes takes a little time to adjust expectations.

I firmly believe _Your Name_ fits in Tier 0 with its myriad colors and sophisticated animation. Could my top 30 ranking be too high? Possibly, hopefully others will chime in on this movie in the future.


----------



## AmerCa

^^^^^^

In the spirit of Djoberg's comment, I also wanted to stress I didn't "mistrust" your opinion. It's always interesting, at least to me, to read different perspectives on a topic, especially in this thread. Probably this clarification wasn't needed, but I wanted to say it nonetheless. If there were an absolute truth, this thread wouldn't exist in the first place, right?


----------



## AmerCa

*Gigi (1958 - Warner)*










This is the oldest film in my collection, and I don't usually buy that much old films, so I'm not really sure if this is as good as a 70 years old movie can look. Despite what the Blu-ray.com says, my experience with this disc was almost a completely different one. A good part of the movie looks just plain bad, while the other part is merely serviceable. Movie lacks detail, it can be extremely soft, and suffers from inconsistent color tone even in the same shot! I'm not familiar with other previously released versions in other formats, but on bluray it's merely acceptable. Ironically, in my opinion, the best scenes from the movie were in the handful of night scenes, that surprisingly showed strong black levels and some nice contrast. At some point I just get tired of trying to find some redeeming qualities for the PQ, and just concentrated on enjoying the movie, which luckily at least was a good one. 

The lowest score I've given on here is 3.0, and for this one I'm feeling like a 3.5. It's not complete garbage, but definitely is a very unsatisfying experience. Maybe it's as good as it can look today, but can't help it to give my lowest score yet.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.5*


----------



## DarthDoxie

AmerCa said:


> *Gigi (1958 - Warner)*
> 
> This is the oldest film in my collection, and I don't usually buy that much old films, so I'm not really sure if this is as good as a 70 years old movie can look. Despite what the Blu-ray.com says, my experience with this disc was almost a completely different one. A good part of the movie looks just plain bad, while the other part is merely serviceable. Movie lacks detail, it can be extremely soft, and suffers from inconsistent color tone even in the same shot! I'm not familiar with other previously released versions in other formats, but on bluray it's merely acceptable. Ironically, in my opinion, the best scenes from the movie were in the handful of night scenes, that surprisingly showed strong black levels and some nice contrast. At some point I just get tired of trying to find some redeeming qualities for the PQ, and just concentrated on enjoying the movie, which luckily at least was a good one.
> 
> The lowest score I've given on here is 3.0, and for this one I'm feeling like a 3.5. It's not complete garbage, but definitely is a very unsatisfying experience. Maybe it's as good as it can look today, but can't help it to give my lowest score yet.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.5*


I watch and own a lot of pre-1970 films and for the most part black and white films hold up better than the color ones PQ wise.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Same Kind Of Different As Me*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

Shot with the RED Epic Dragon, Paramount's inspiring new drama is a real beauty in 1080P resolution. The consistently winning picture quality has superb black levels and excellent definition. The unfiltered digital intermediate has razor-sharp clarity with revealing fine detail. Greg Kinnear doesn't look to hide his aging face.

This is a technically sound Blu-ray presentation for a production made on a Hollywood budget. That is usually a recipe for eye candy and the drama definitely provides it in several scenes. It comes out Tuesday at a store near you.


----------



## AmerCa

*Kick-Ass (2010 - Lionsgate)

*









This was one of my favorite movies back in the day (still is), and it's until now that I had the chance to watch it in bluray. For the most part it's a pleasing video experience, with several moments of clarity and detail, but like it's been the norm in the format since apparently forever, the PQ is inconsistent. Softness, faltering black levels, "cheap" looking shots, and at many points the quality was barely on par with the format. It's been a long time since I watched the DVD (might watch it just for curiosity, as it is included in this release), but I can see the BD being an improvement in some areas, but it didn't feel like a brand new experience. It's not good enough for tier 1, but is a solid tier 2.

This movie has hold up very well after all these years, and this is in no small part to a very solid script, likeable characters and an interesting and original story. It's a shame Matthew Vaughn didn't direct the sequel, which was a disappointment.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


----------



## AmerCa

*Jason Bourne (2016 - Universal)










*I'm reviewing the Universal Mexican edition, that is the same as the US one, except it doesn't come in a combo pack. 

Djoberg's review: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-783.html#post48848985




> Okay, I just watched the 4K and 1080P versions "back to back" and this is another example of the difference a 4K UHD/HDR Blu-ray can make. Don't get me wrong, the 1080P version was "good-looking," with very good details (especially in facial textures), appreciable depth, and satisfying blacks/shadow details. But the High Dynamic Range took the details, colors and contrast up to another level, with amazing blacks and sparkling whites. There were numerous night time scenes or interior shots with low-lighting and with HDR I could see every little detail against a pitch-black background.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.5**
> 
> PS The 4K gets a 1.0!!


There you have it. I agree with him. There were some amazing shots with high level of detail, clarity and sharpness, especially on some facial close-ups, and there were others that make you wonder what's the point of 4k if filmmakers still can't get the most out of the bluray format. This kind of inconsistency drives me nuts. It's like these "artistic" intentions can't get along with newer technologies. This BD has many high peaks, as well as many "average" ones. Overall, a very solid and "pretty" video presentation that borders on tier 1.25 territory, but 1.5 seems appropriate. Had this disc showed the consistency of their best shots, this disc could be in tier zero.

On another note, the audio mix was disappointing. I forgot I was watching an action movie; it has its moments, but overall it seems like a lazy effort here. Or maybe people walking around fast through the whole movie don't call for a bombastic soundtrack.  Seriously, these characters walk A LOT.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5 (tier 1.25 on a good day)*


----------



## Kool-aid23

Phantom Stranger said:


> Djoberg, I greatly respect your opinion and honesty. Hand-drawn animation rarely qualifies for Tier 0 based on the PQ Tiers' criteria and I found _Your Name_ to be the rare exception. We shall have to respectfully agree to disagree over this one placement. It's expected in the normal operation of this thread and the Tiers.
> 
> But I completely understand anime isn't for everyone. Different people will assess its picture quality differently. Its visual appeal may not translate immediately outside its intended audience, especially for Western audiences acclimated to the latest and greatest CGI extravaganzas. _Your Name_ looks nothing like _Car_s or _Sleeping Beauty_, which sometimes takes a little time to adjust expectations.
> 
> I firmly believe _Your Name_ fits in Tier 0 with its myriad colors and sophisticated animation. Could my top 30 ranking be too high? Possibly, hopefully others will chime in on this movie in the future.


Phantom I agree with your placement of _Your Name_ in the Tier 0. I'm a huge Studio Ghibli fan and with it's vivid colors and smooth style, _Your Name_ easily bests _The Wind Rises_ which is in Tier 0. Interestingly, _Your Name_ director, Makoto Shinkai, one of the criticism of his films that he spends too much time on the animation and not enough on the story. I also have _Garden of Words and 5 centimeters Per Second_ (imports from Japan) that are visually stunning as well.


----------



## AmerCa

*The Villainess [Ak-Nyeo -** 악녀] (2017 - Well Go USA)*










Ladies and Gentleman, my favorite action movie of 2017, barely edging out *Atomic Blonde*. This one (along with *Your Name*) had a limited theatrical run in my city, and I missed it. I still can't get over it. The silver lining is that when I finally could see it, it had already been released in the US, so I could immediately order it. So what was my experience watching it on bluray? Exquisite.

But I have to be honest here. This film is highly stylized, which mean a certain look and color palette are used for the majority of the movie, and the hand-held camera shots used in some scenes here necessarily diminishes the quality of the PQ. It doesn't have the peaks of, say, "Jason Bourne", but in return the video presentation is more consistent and clean. There are plenty of beautiful shots that exhibit strong colors and texture, clarity and detail, and there are others where the color palette is more pale and discrete. PQ has deficiencies here and there (black levels may not be as strong as desired, there's some banding), but overall I was impressed and satisfied with the video presentation. The "artistic" intention here doesn't get too much in the way of PQ, but definitely holds it back a little, and that's the reason all things considered, this BD gets a very respectable 1.5 placement. 

The action in this movie is INSANE, and at the risk of sounding hyperbolic, among the best I've seen. There are mixed reviews on this one, and that is probably due to the hefty dramatic arc that Asian movies deem necessary to drive the movie forward and may slow down the pace. I'm very forgiving with that aspect, so I absolutely loved this film, which for me work both as an action movie and as a drama.

If you indulge me, a final comment. The package of this movie is beautiful. The slipcover is shiny and "aluminum-ized" (I don't know the proper term), with the discs housed in a very sturdy case with beautiful and different artwork for both discs. THIS is what owning a movie should be like: a collector's item, which a "premium" feel to it. It's the first time I buy anything from Well Go USA, and it's funny that a relatively small studio can give their releases a better package than major studios, which often came with those horrible eco-cases and lame artwork.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Kool-aid23 said:


> Phantom I agree with your placement of _Your Name_ in the Tier 0. I'm a huge Studio Ghibli fan and with it's vivid colors and smooth style, _Your Name_ easily bests _The Wind Rises_ which is in Tier 0. Interestingly, _Your Name_ director, Makoto Shinkai, one of the criticism of his films that he spends too much time on the animation and not enough on the story. I also have _Garden of Words and 5 centimeters Per Second_ (imports from Japan) that are visually stunning as well.


That was similar to my line of thinking arriving at _Your Name.'s_ placment since I've seen all those Blu-rays you name dropped. Off the top of my head, the conventionally best-looking Studio Ghibli disc I can think of is _The Secret World of Arrietty_. But its animation doesn't really compare in terms of fluidity and smoothness to _Your Name.'s_ state-of-the-art craftsmanship.

I would have to delve into key frames and other esoteric animation terms to help explain what a visual accomplishment _Your Name._ is in the field.


----------



## AmerCa

Phantom Stranger said:


> I would have to delve into key frames and other esoteric animation terms to help explain what a visual accomplishment _Your Name._ is in the field.


Whenever you fel like it.

In the meantime, I'll have to resort to other "means" to watch the movie. You guys have intrigued me.


----------



## Kool-aid23

Phantom Stranger said:


> That was similar to my line of thinking arriving at _Your Name.'s_ placment since I've seen all those Blu-rays you name dropped. Off the top of my head, the conventionally best-looking Studio Ghibli disc I can think of is _The Secret World of Arrietty_. But its animation doesn't really compare in terms of fluidity and smoothness to _Your Name.'s_ state-of-the-art craftsmanship.
> 
> I would have to delve into key frames and other esoteric animation terms to help explain what a visual accomplishment _Your Name._ is in the field.


No doubt!...._The Secret World of Arrietty_, is gorgeous! Likewise, if you can view the Hayao Miyazaki Collection (Japan) version of _Howl's Moving Castle _on a Panasonic blu-ray player from Japan than will decode the MGVC encode, you may think that it is the best looking Studio Ghibli movie.


----------



## djoberg

JNayAV said:


> *Despicable Me 3 (UHD)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tier Recommendation: *Tier 0* (Top 10)*
> 
> Clean, Pristine, Vibrant Colors, no noticeable issues. That about sums up this movie. This is about where I come to expect these bigger animated releases. There's plenty of vibrant colors to take advantage of the WCG and blacks where they showed up where inky dark.
> 
> Not going to expound on this review, as if you have seen any other animated films in the top ten, you know what you're getting with this film as well. There's nothing in this film that sets it above the rest however, so not gonna vote that this gets into the top 3 or anything.
> 
> I didn't have the update for my receiver at the time for DV, but now have it so will be noting that I'm reviewing DV versions in the future for titles that have it.
> There is a known issue with DV on many sets where black bars are fluctuating into grey. It's a known issue for at least LG Oled sets and firmware is supposed to be in the works now. Just an FYI for anyone that may notice this while watching a DV disk. May want to hold off on dinging a release for this issue till get that update.


My wife and I were renting a condo earlier this week and I was able to see the 1080p Blu-ray version of this on a Samsung 42" LCD/LED display. It was GORGEOUS! As soon as I got home, I ordered the UHD version from Amazon and since we are leaving again for another 4-5 days, it's not scheduled to arrive until next Friday.

I have read from others who saw the UHD version that though it isn't "head and shoulders" above the 1080p release, there is still a definite uptick in resolution and details. The colors (courtesy of HDR and WCG) are especially more vivid. This is hard to imagine, for what we saw the other day was simply jaw-dropping in terms of bright and bold colors.


----------



## JNayAV

djoberg said:


> My wife and I were renting a condo earlier this week and I was able to see the 1080p Blu-ray version of this on a Samsung 42" LCD/LED display. It was GORGEOUS! As soon as I got home, I ordered the UHD version from Amazon and since we are leaving again for another 4-5 days, it's not scheduled to arrive until next Friday.
> 
> I have read from others who saw the UHD version that though it isn't "head and shoulders" above the 1080p release, there is still a definite uptick in resolution and details. The colors (courtesy of HDR and WCG) are especially more vivid. This is hard to imagine, for what we saw the other day was simply jaw-dropping in terms of bright and bold colors.


Certainly won't be disappointed by the UHD. It's a spectacularly crisp film.
As said in my review, only reason isn't top 3-5 for me is that I couldn't come up with 1-2 demo scenes that I would tell someone 'turn the movie to this point and get ready'.
The entire movie is UHD WCG goodness, just lacked that 1-2 scenes I could come up with in my personal top 5.

e.x. Moana - Underground pure black crab scene (LG should use this scene to sell OLEDS) and the blue of the ocean in several scenes
John Wick Chapter 2 - Mirror Room Fight Scene with WCG reds and HDR bouncing off of mirrors 

Have got Coco BB Steelbook preordered for pick up next week (Wife is sucker for Disney Steelbooks), so hopefully will be another stellar title to review. Will only by the Bluray this time around as UHD didn't come in steelbook. Disney*Pixar films fall under Wife's territory and she wants the Steelbook so that's what we're getting. From Ralph Potts' review, doesn't sound like we'll be disappointed.


----------



## AmerCa

^^^^^^^
**EDIT**
**2nd EDIT: forget about this post. My reading skills this morning suck**

There is a steelbook for UHD 3D Coco from Zavvi.com, as you can see from this post: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-s...vies-w-frequency-charts-183.html#post55728620

It's an import from the UK, but they're are said to be price-accessible. Something to consider if you really want the UHD steelbook for your collection. The 3D includes the 2D disc as well.


----------



## JNayAV

Lol no worries mate, you're gonna think there's gotta be an UHD Steelbook somewhere. Why the heck would there be a Blu-ray, but not a UHD?????

Then after much searching...... hope is lost and settle with idk what they're doing.......

If I remember correctly, Dunkirk released internationally in a UHD steel, but then only regular Blu-ray steelbook in the states. IDK how they decide. 

Luckily, Thor: R will be on UHD steel and all is right in the world. Saw they announced one for Star Wars: TLJ, but I'm still 50/50 on wanting that.


----------



## AmerCa

^^^^^^^

Lol. Well, it's Disney. Who knows what they think? *Coco* is the highest grossing movie ever here in Mexico (animated or not), and they're not even releasing a steebook in any format. Not even a combo pack. Just a single bluray.

EDIT: And just as I typed this, I find out there will be in fact a steelbook. And also a combo pack. Can't win today.


----------



## djoberg

*Miss Peregrine's Home For Peculiar Children (UHD)*

Okay, we have a real WINNER here! I had seen and reviewed the 1080p version (back in January of 2017) and I'm giving you the link to that review to save myself some time. As you read it keep in mind that the UHD version has a definite uptick in resolution and definition; in fact, I'm going to raise it a whole half tier.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-787.html#post49678241

If you've read my review at this point and have done the math, you know I'm opting for the following placement for the UHD release...

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.25)*

PS The audio was so-so....I wasn't that impressed with the Dolby Atmos mix though there were a couple of long scenes with very good panning and discrete effects across the Height Channels and some excellent bass/LFE as well.

PPS I loved the fact that this was done in the 1.85:1 Aspect Ratio, giving us a FULL SCREEN to behold the Ultra High Def in all its glory!!


----------



## DarthDoxie

*E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

The black levels are really good in all the night scenes and contrast is strong, HDR is handled well. Clarity is is good as well and the film is sharp throughout except for a few effects shots.


----------



## AmerCa

*An American In Paris (1951 - Warner)










*Wow. What a beautiful transfer! This is almost the opposite to my experience with *Gigi*. The movie has great combination of vivid and natural colors with great contrast, there's clarity and detail, and it has a very sumptuous look, with all those sets and costumes, and of course having Paris as background. I didn't notice anything close to resembling print damage, and if there was grain, it must have been a very thin layer. If DNR was applied in great quantities, it certainly didn't harm the video presentation, because I had barely any complaint, because the picture was generally detailed. Yes, the PQ isn't super sharp, but also, it's a movie from the 50s. It's already a miracle that a movie from that era can look so good. I can't understand how a movie released five years before than other (and from the same director) can look so much better. This is what eye-candy should have been in the 50s, if there was such a thing like home cinema back then.

This movie has a better PQ quality and consistency that many movies released today. That said, and despite my praise, I'd like to be fair to this movie. I'm not sure if this disc qualifies for tier 1 range (1 - 1.75), but I think a upper echelon tier 2.0 is still a very respectable placement while being conservative. Make no mistake, the movie looks fantastic.

The only "weak" point of this release is the audio, which is presented in Dolby Mono. You can't have it all.

I understand this movie is a classic that won the Oscar for Best Picture, but I find Gigi the better movie. If only Gigi looked this good...

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0 (Upper echelon)*


----------



## Kool-aid23

AmerCa said:


> ^^^^^^^
> 
> Lol. Well, it's Disney. Who knows what they think? *Coco* is the highest grossing movie ever here in Mexico (animated or not), and they're not even releasing a steebook in any format. Not even a combo pack. Just a single bluray.
> 
> EDIT: And just as I typed this, I find out there will be in fact a steelbook. And also a combo pack. Can't win today.


 It will also be interesting to see if any release worldwide will have the Spanish audio track in lossless audio. The 4k has DD+7.1.


----------



## AmerCa

*A Star Is Born (1954 - Warner)










*I'm reviewing the single disc Warner Mexican edition, which is the same transfer of the US Warner edition.

This movie has undergone a restoration/reconstruction process that is well documented, and it shows in the PQ of this disc. The studio has done their best to restore the movie to its original glory (which was heavily edited for its theatrical release), even using 6k scan for the transfer. The efforts are very commendable, but they don't "rescue" the BD from inconsistent results. Some parts of the movie are replaced with still pictures from the original print, and other scenes show a very low quality, and simply look awful. Luckily, the majority of the movie is more than watchable, with some scenes looking surprisingly good, with clarity and detail. I don't doubt this movie looks as good as it can given the circumstances. It's a decent video presentation with some serious flaws.

I gave *Gigi *a 3.5 score, and while this movie looks better than the former at its best, the worst parts are also much worse. It's a much longer movie too. So, all things considered, I'm giving it the same score, although for different reasons.

On the bright side, the audio fared much better, at least giving us a DTS-HD MA 5.1 mix that has a very decent quality for its age.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.5*


----------



## AmerCa

Kool-aid23 said:


> It will also be interesting to see if any release worldwide will have the Spanish audio track in lossless audio. The 4k has DD+7.1.


Animated movies are the only exception in which I'd listen an "alternate" audio track (in this case, I wouldn't consider it a dub, but more like a reinterpretation or a new recording). However, given the choice, I'd always listen to the original audio. That's why I'm not aware of how many releases have an alternate lossless track. In my experience, not a lot. In this case, since it's a movie many will probably watch with the family, they should be given an alternate lossless audio track for people who want the best quality possible. I don't know how much difficult that would be, I don't think disc space is an issue.

Do you also speak Spanish?


----------



## Kool-aid23

AmerCa said:


> Animated movies are the only exception in which I'd listen an "alternate" audio track (in this case, I wouldn't consider it a dub, but more like a reinterpretation or a new recording). However, given the choice, I'd always listen to the original audio. That's why I'm not aware of how many releases have an alternate lossless track. In my experience, not a lot. In this case, since it's a movie many will probably watch with the family, they should be given an alternate lossless audio track for people who want the best quality possible. I don't know how much difficult that would be, I don't think disc space is an issue.
> 
> Do you also speak Spanish?


 No I do not. However, Disney did an adequate job of getting people of color to voice the characters of an ethnic story and I believe proper representation in the sound of one's voice is just as important as the animation. I have yet to see this movie, but would like to see it with Spanish language option. From the reports I've seen, the Spanish version really adds to the story. Disc space should not be a problem.


----------



## AmerCa

^^^^^^

I appreciate that point of view. You're right, this movie being set in a foreign country with its own language, it makes sense for the characters to speak such language. In the movie *Ballerina *(aka* Leap!*)it was French; in this case, Spanish. Many well-known actors and professionals here gave their voices to the characters in this movie, and the overall consensus is that they did a pretty good job. It indeed sounds more natural. I haven't seen it in either English or Spanish, but the bits I've seen in English sound a tad...weird. But it's a minor complaint. I'd probably watch it in Spanish too.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Star*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**










Sony Pictures Animation serves up this animated telling of the Nativity in polished CGI. Tier 1 is probably underrating the razor-sharp animation in an array of bright colors and subtle textures. 

The Christmas movie came out on Blu-ray last week. While the video is a small step behind some of the juggernauts listed near the top of the PQ Tiers, it shines with clean clarity in crisp definition.

This would have been considered reference quality just a few years ago. Made fairly quickly by Hollywood standards, it's getting easier and easier to generate impressive CGI these days.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Pacific Rim (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 0* (0.5)*

Excellent review by *djoberg* so I'll keep this short. The black levels are some of the best I've seen, they are spot-on through the whole film; shadows, black suits, and the night sky are deep and show excellent gradation. Contrast and the use of HDR is excellent, bright highlights really shine. I didn't notice anything odd about the color, at least nothing that made me do a double take. This is definitely demo material.

I was surprised this modern day sci-fi blockbuster was framed at 1.85:1 though.



djoberg said:


> *Pacific Rim UHD*
> 
> I'll cut to the chase and say this is, without a doubt, a Tier Blu title! The DETAILS are simply incredible, including SHADOW DETAILS in most of the dark scenes (which make up 75% of the movie). DEPTH is also outstanding....CLARITY is razor-sharp (with the exception of a few fleeting soft shots)....BLACK LEVELS are to-die-for. My only real gripe is the egregious color-grading (which at times wreaked havoc on flesh tones...ORANGE, anyone?) and caused other objects to look unnatural. The color palette was also quite muted, yet when the neon lights of the city were on display they were a sight to behold (thanks to HDR and WCG). The lighted screens on the computers in the control center were also brilliant!
> 
> I said I really wanted to HEAR the Dolby Atmos mix...well, I'm here to tell you it's one of the best I've heard, probably in the Top Five of the Atmos mixes I've heard so far. Panning and discrete effects were spot-on accurate. How about the LFE? It was SO DEEP and LOUD and CONTINUOUS at times, that I had to listen to it at -8 most of its 2 hour running time. I did end up turning it all the way to Reference Level for a minute or two, but I thought my walls start peeling off so I brought it back to between -5 and -8. If this was an Audio Thread I'll be placing it in the Top Three!!
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.33)*


----------



## JNayAV

*Coco (Blu-ray)*

recommendation: *Tier 0* (Top 5)*

From description of Tier 0 titles, a Tier 0 title will display the following characteristics: Sharp image with depth and clarity; Excellent contrast, shadow details, and deep black levels; Exquisite detail and texture; Large color palettes; and finally be free of issues.

Coco exhibits all of these characteristics to the highest degree without a single issue that I noticed throughout the entire animated film. I recently reviewed Despicable Me 3 which made it into Tier 0, but just outside of the top dogs. The big difference is that Despicable Me 3 falls under animation where just about everything has this bright, 'happy' color tone to it. This doesn't lend itself to extensive shadow details and in some way lessens textures. Though both are animated, Despicable Me 3 obviously skews more towards the cartoonish character look.

By mostly taking place in the dark, Coco takes similar bright colors seen in other animated films but now contrasts them against pure deep inky blacks for 75-85% of the movie. The large difference in contrast when put against pure black backgrounds really pushes the overall film up for me. When not in the land of the dead, the 'living' scenes are sunset/sunrise times and we get these great shadows on the characters that we don't normally get in normally purely bright daylight animations. 

I always feel torn trying to place titles at 1, 2, 3 as I can pick scenes that I could argue best in each one and never make a decision. But I feel this definitely deserves to be in the conversation.

This time around I didn't get the UHD, but from other reviews around the webs it seems the step up from Blu-ray to UHD is slight. I'd expect the pop in colors to be slightly greater with WCG and HDR, and maybe small increase in discernible details.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Based on your excellent review I went and purchased the Blu-ray version at our local Walmart an hour ago. I have some grandchildren arriving tomorrow and they will be here two full days, so we may end up watching it. I also have _Despicable Me 3 (UHD)_ coming at anytime from Amazon so that will be our first viewing.


----------



## AmerCa

^^^^^^^

^^^^^^^^^^^

Great review, JNay. You definitely made me want to check that out. A top five title!


----------



## AmerCa

*The Grey (2012 - Universal) (Open Matte version)*










I'm reviewing the Mexican edition released by Videomax, which has the particularity of having the Open Matte version of the film. Other than that, the transfer should be the same as the US one, and most likely other international releases as well.

The first thing you'll notice with this film is that is VERY grainy. There's grain practically in every shot. If you can get past that, the picture is highly detailed and clear, and sometimes it has a good amount of depth. The movie is beautifully shot, and even when the color palette is limited due to the circumstances and location, the PQ manages to impress and delight most of the time. Night shots are solid and natural, if not perfect, and work very well in the context of the movie, which has a "raw" feel to it. Overall, and despite the heavy grain, the video presentation is consistently solid and doesn't disappoint.

This movie isn't Horror, but gave me more jump scares than many horror movie I usually watch. It was brutal to watch at some points, but the movie is very engaging and entertaining. Great movie.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*


----------



## AmerCa

*Before I Wake (2016)*










I'm reviewing the Mexican edition released by Zima Entertainment. There's also a Canadian release by Mongrel Media that some people are importing. There was supposed to be an American release for this, but it appears that Netflix acquired the rights for it. Here's a review for those potentially interested in the physical release.

It's been so long since I watched a tier zero disc that I don't remember what they look like. If this BD is doesn't belong in the category, it's very, very close. This disc has clarity, detail, textures and sharpness in spades. The video presentation is very clean, with great contrast, natural skin tones, excellent facial close-ups, and beautiful colors. Most of the movie takes place indoors in very controlled settings, but what is shown is really beautiful in terms of PQ. So why I doubt its placement in tier zero? Because of black levels, which in this movie look more like green levels. I suspect this was a director choice to maintain some visibility in dark scenes, but I must say it can be a little jarring, given the quality of the rest of the movie. One moment you have this pristine, beautiful picture, and the next moment a dark scene come in and the impression is ruined. I might be making it sound worse than it really is, but the dark scenes are not worth of the rest of the excellent video presentation, so it makes that contrast more prominent.

In the spirit of fairness, the good (which is GOOD), outweighs by far the negatives, so I decided to include this in tier zero, just towards the end. Something like tier 0.96. Depending on how much you value your black levels, you may place it a lot higher or a lot lower.

As for the movie itself, I liked it and I'd probably watch it again, but I'm not sure if I'd recommend a costly import for this. There is said to be a MONSTER bass scene per http://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-s...vies-w-frequency-charts-171.html#post55591438, which my setup, of course, can't reproduce. But other than that, you'd probably want to watch through Netflix first before to commit.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0** *(Towards the end)*


----------



## SnellTHX

DarthDoxie said:


> *Pacific Rim (UHD)*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 0* (0.5)*
> 
> Excellent review by *djoberg* so I'll keep this short. The black levels are some of the best I've seen, they are spot-on through the whole film; shadows, black suits, and the night sky are deep and show excellent gradation. Contrast and the use of HDR is excellent, bright highlights really shine. I didn't notice anything odd about the color, at least nothing that made me do a double take. This is definitely demo material.
> 
> I was surprised this modern day sci-fi blockbuster was framed at 1.85:1 though.


I actually prefer 1.85:1 over 2.35:1 so for me this was another bonus on the absolute reference grade picture quality of Pacific Rim. My personal top 5 for sure.


----------



## SnellTHX

JNayAV said:


> *Coco (Blu-ray)*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 0* (Top 5)*
> 
> From description of Tier 0 titles, a Tier 0 title will display the following characteristics: Sharp image with depth and clarity; Excellent contrast, shadow details, and deep black levels; Exquisite detail and texture; Large color palettes; and finally be free of issues.
> 
> Coco exhibits all of these characteristics to the highest degree without a single issue that I noticed throughout the entire animated film. I recently reviewed Despicable Me 3 which made it into Tier 0, but just outside of the top dogs. The big difference is that Despicable Me 3 falls under animation where just about everything has this bright, 'happy' color tone to it. This doesn't lend itself to extensive shadow details and in some way lessens textures. Though both are animated, Despicable Me 3 obviously skews more towards the cartoonish character look.
> 
> By mostly taking place in the dark, Coco takes similar bright colors seen in other animated films but now contrasts them against pure deep inky blacks for 75-85% of the movie. The large difference in contrast when put against pure black backgrounds really pushes the overall film up for me. When not in the land of the dead, the 'living' scenes are sunset/sunrise times and we get these great shadows on the characters that we don't normally get in normally purely bright daylight animations.
> 
> I always feel torn trying to place titles at 1, 2, 3 as I can pick scenes that I could argue best in each one and never make a decision. But I feel this definitely deserves to be in the conversation.
> 
> This time around I didn't get the UHD, but from other reviews around the webs it seems the step up from Blu-ray to UHD is slight. I'd expect the pop in colors to be slightly greater with WCG and HDR, and maybe small increase in discernible details.


I have heard nothing but positive things about Coco! Almost every big budget animated film is Tier 0 material but people say Coco is the ULTIMATE HDR reference movie so no surprise here that you wish to place it in the top 5!


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> I have heard nothing but positive things about Coco! Almost every big budget animated film is Tier 0 material but *people say Coco is the ULTIMATE HDR reference movie *so no surprise here that you wish to place it in the top 5!


I have read quite a few reviews from people that have seen both the 1080p and the UHD/HDR versions and the vast majority are saying there is very little (discernible) difference between the two. Based on those reviews I went with the 1080p version to save myself a few bucks.


----------



## djoberg

*Despicable Me 3 (UHD)*

I just watched this with two of my "adorable grandchildren" (no bias in saying that) and I will "second the motion" to put this in near the top in Tier 0. The COLORS were simply mesmerizing, as were the DETAILS and TEXTURE in clothing, foliage, hair, buildings, etc. CONTRAST was also impeccable, along with incredible BLACK LEVELS and SHADOW DETAILS. I agree wholeheartedly with JNayAV's placement of....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (Top 10!)*

PS The DTS:X mix was a bit "underwhelming" in the Height Channels, but in fairness I had to keep the volume at about -12 due to small and sensitive ears!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I normally visit the PQ Tiers page through a computer, once in a great while on a smartphone. I was checking it out on an Amazon Fire tablet and horrified to discover the formatting is all lost. Are there any other devices where this is a problem?


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> I have read quite a few reviews from people that have seen both the 1080p and the UHD/HDR versions and the vast majority are saying there is very little (discernible) difference between the two. Based on those reviews I went with the 1080p version to save myself a few bucks.


Well I suppose the gap between the ultimate reference blu-ray and ultimate reference UHD-ray is pretty close then.


As well know top Disney/pixar movies are almost always tier 0, and Coco has top of the line CGI and animation but I guess what sets it apart from the rest (and places it on the hill) is its frequent use of contrasting scenes with pure (absolute 0) black levels, sort of like demo material.


----------



## SnellTHX

*Thor: Ragnarok*


Finally got myself a UHD-player so at last I can enjoy the glorious 4K/HDR/10bit/WCG I've been waiting for!

First movie I'll ever pop in is Thor:Ragnarok, I missed this one out in the cinema and since Marvel has produced plenty of reference movies (Avengers, Ant-man and Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2 in particular) I thought this would be a great opportunity to dive into the next generation


And boyyyy was it great. 4K picture was as ridiculously sharp as expected, great CGI, plenty of facial detail in every shot, the primaries were excellent, especially the greens of the field in Norway and overall the punchy contrast of the image produced a lot pop. Said to discover this wasn't 'real' 4K as it came from a 2K DI. It still looked great. I might be slightly bias cause of the UHD version so maybe Tier 1 is a better placement but what the hell.
I still think the 2K/SDR versions of the three aforementioned Marvel movies are superior, but this was a great watch and IMO even better than Civil War, which was great too.


*Tier recommendation: 0.75**


----------



## SnellTHX

*The Dark Tower*


I'll admit I had zero expectations for this movie, I thought it would be another straight-to-netflix movie with average picture quality. The movie was garbage but I'm a huuge Matthew Mcconaughey fan so I had to get it anyway. The PQ was actually pretty good, crisp detailed image and good contrast throughout. 
*

Tier recommendation: 1.75 *


----------



## AmerCa

Phantom Stranger said:


> I normally visit the PQ Tiers page through a computer, once in a great while on a smartphone. I was checking it out on an Amazon Fire tablet and horrified to discover the formatting is all lost. Are there any other devices where this is a problem?


I usually browse this site through a tablet, and I can't load the PQ master list. It never finishes loading for me. I can only see a fraction of tier zero list. I thought this was maybe a browser related problem, but maybe it's the device? I don't know. For what I can see, the format is fine. I never use a smartphone for browsing, the page is too "heavy" to load.

Maybe someone else can confirm they having problems with other devices.


----------



## AmerCa

SnellTHX said:


> Well I suppose the gap between the ultimate reference blu-ray and ultimate reference UHD-ray is pretty close then.
> 
> 
> As well know top Disney/pixar movies are almost always tier 0, and Coco has top of the line CGI and animation but I guess what sets it apart from the rest (and places it on the hill) is its frequent use of contrasting scenes with pure (absolute 0) black levels, sort of like demo material.


Yeah, that sounds weird. The best of bluray can closely match the best of UHD? Well, I'd like that to be true. But it rather seems that Disney dropped the ball with the transfer on this one, if the UHD can't be be vastly superior to the bluray, better definition and HDR included.

There was ever a similar case with DVD and bluray, that the best DVD could go head-to-head with the best bluray? Or maybe animation can be improved only to a certain extent, and after that we only get marginal gains?


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> Yeah, that sounds weird. The best of bluray can closely match the best of UHD? Well, I'd like that to be true. But it rather seems that Disney dropped the ball with the transfer on this one, if the UHD can't be be vastly superior to the bluray, better definition and HDR included.


I have found, in my rather large collection of animated movies (over 75), that there is NEVER A BIG DIFFERENCE between the 1080p and UHD/HDR version. Two of the reasons for this are: 1) Animated titles (especially high quality releases from Pixar, Dreamworks, et al.) already have superb COLORS so the WCG (Wide Color Gamut) offered in UHD releases won't be a dramatic improvement over its non-WCG counterpart; and 2) Animated titles don't normally offer a lot of dark scenes, so the better CONTRAST that HDR offers won't be as apparent as in live action movies with plenty of night time scenes.

Ironically, the movie _Coco_ is rare in that it does indeed offer a lot of dark, night time scenes, yet professional reviewers are still saying the differences between the 1080p and UHD/HDR versions are minimal.


----------



## JNayAV

Just some of my thoughts on why maybe small difference between UHD and Blu-ray for Coco:
1) Most (to my knowledge all) animated titles including Coco are rendered from a 2K DI currently. So though its on an UHD at 4K, the animation only has discrete details up to 2K which means there's not as much additional info being added as you'd expect. For live action shots that are rendered down to a 2K DI the initial camera shot is still a higher resolution. Generally people agree that scaling down a higher res gives cleaner/more detailed image. i.e. though the animated film and live action film end up on a 2K DI, the live action film has some benefit in that extra information used to reach that 2K DI. (this is really in general, video games can do a similar thing where you render at a higher resolution and the downscale for output. The downscaled higher resolution will look better than the one rendered at the output resolution)

2) 0- nit black is the same in SDR and HDR. What HDR helps in is the extra steps in gradation between 0 black and max brightness (and a higher max brightness ceiling). For live action, these extra steps in between naturally occur to an infinite level. How that gradation happens in animation I don't know, but I'd assume unless it's coded in, there's fewer steps.

In those two aspects I'd give the edge to live action films. 

Now, where Animated films beat any live action is in Color, Contrast, and generally issue free. Details are somewhat a wash as it's entirely up to animation how detailed they want to be.

Animation can have colors that do not exist in the real world, and they can make contrast that just doesn't happen naturally. The entire movie of Coco happens in the dark and yet we have all these Neon lights everywhere on make believe animals and creatures that don't exist.

So to Coco, you take the biggest factors that cause UHD to be better than Blu-ray: 4K, WCG, and HDR. Based on #1 above, there's only some added detail to the UHD. For WCG, the colors are already popping off the screen against 0-nit black so appear tremendous already. And for HDR, again we're already against 0-nit black so up to content creators how high they push the max brightness of those colors. Many movies don't go up over 400 nits in highlights so it's possible there's not that much additional brightness to be had. (would need someone to pull what the max brightness off the disc)


----------



## AmerCa

*Djoberg* and *DNay*, excellent observations and explanations. Just when I raised the question, I remembered that I just saw at a store a DVD cartoon playing in a 4k TV, and surprisingly it looked very good. Generally speaking, yes, it seems to be true that animation stands much better the different "gradations" between formats. The reasons stated make complete sense, and if animated movies were the ceiling in bluray, maybe live action films will reign supreme in UHD.


----------



## AmerCa

Hey, this one looks interesting, per http://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-s...vies-w-frequency-charts-190.html#post55779968



MrGrey said:


> *Wonder Wheel (2017)
> 
> One of the best Blu-Ray transfers I've ever seen!
> It really shows that the format is capable of but several underused.
> 36 Mbps Average bit rate with high 40 Mbps just for the video alone!
> !I highly recommend dragging the images into a new tab to see the incredible detail!
> Sony CineAlta F65
> Sony CineAlta PMW-F55
> Digital Intermediate (4K) (master format)
> F55 RAW (4K) (source format)
> F65 RAW (4K) (source
> )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *


*

Has anyone heard of this movie?*


----------



## SuperFist

Proposal: *Resident Evil: Retribution* - *Tier 0 - Blu*

I rewatched Resident Evil: Retribution blu-ray after seeing it when it first came out and Wow! Just WOW!! I think the picture quality is one of the best I've ever seen and Martin Liebman at Blu-ray.com agrees...



Martin Liebman said:


> *Resident Evil: Retribution Blu-ray, Video Quality*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Resident Evil: Retribution's 1080p transfer exceeds even high expectations. This is a stunning image that boasts unbeatable clarity and visual precision across every inch of its digital construct. The image, captured on the Red Epic camera system, is remarkably crisp and incredibly well-defined right down to the slightest facial feature, clothing fabric, or digital readout, resulting in consistently striking details across the board. Colors are brilliant and many, and the palette remains accurate whether under the brightest lights in the Umbrella facility or under the cover of darkness. Black levels are perfect and flesh tones accurate. There's no sign of noise, banding, blocking, or other unwanted negatives. There's very little else to say about this one. It's perfect through and through, one of the best Blu-ray transfers of the year, if not across the format's entire history.


----------



## HD-Master

I am a bit confused. In the link found in the first post, to the actual rankings, says that the list has not been updated since May 1, 2012? Is that true? I see suggestions for the ranking of UHD releases, but haven’t found them in the rankings. 

Thanks!


----------



## djoberg

HD-Master said:


> I am a bit confused. In the link found in the first post, to the actual rankings, says that the list has not been updated since May 1, 2012? Is that true? I see suggestions for the ranking of UHD releases, but haven’t found them in the rankings.
> 
> Thanks!


Here you go:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...nkings-pq-tiers-july-2017-a.html#post54254033


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Interstellar (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 0* (right below John Wick: Chapter 2)*

Everything in this film is reference level except black levels. Some scenes have elevated blacks to the point of distraction. The first scene where Cooper wakes up from his nightmare and talks to his daughter in the doorway was especially bad. Blacks in this scene were gray for the most part and showed very little delineation. Fortunately, black levels got better from here but still were inconsistent from time to time.

As for the soundtrack, the LFE was off the charts. The several launch sequences had me feeling it in my bones for prolonged periods.

Hard to say which Nolan film is better story wise, this or *Inception*. *Interstellar* clocks in at 2:49 but it flew by, it's that good.


----------



## djoberg

SuperFist said:


> Proposal: *Resident Evil: Retribution* - *Tier 0 - Blu*
> 
> I rewatched Resident Evil: Retribution blu-ray after seeing it when it first came out and Wow! Just WOW!! I think the picture quality is one of the best I've ever seen....


I haven't seen that title for SIX YEARS (it was released in 2012), so I would be pleasantly surprised if it is still worthy of a Tier 0 ranking. I "may" have to rent this to check it out. Thanks for chiming in!


----------



## HD-Master

djoberg said:


> Here you go:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...nkings-pq-tiers-july-2017-a.html#post54254033




Ahhh thank you


----------



## djoberg

HD-Master said:


> Ahhh thank you


You're very welcome!


----------



## AmerCa

SuperFist said:


> Proposal: *Resident Evil: Retribution* - *Tier 0 - Blu*
> 
> I rewatched Resident Evil: Retribution blu-ray after seeing it when it first came out and Wow! Just WOW!! I think the picture quality is one of the best I've ever seen and Martin Liebman at Blu-ray.com agrees...


I'm a big fan of the * Resident Evil* saga, but I haven't watched yet any of the movies in bluray. I think I saw *Retribution* for cheap at my local Walmart, so I might give it a spin. I'm out of touch with the storyline, but I don't think it will matter, right?


----------



## SnellTHX

JNayAV said:


> Just some of my thoughts on why maybe small difference between UHD and Blu-ray for Coco:
> 1) Most (to my knowledge all) animated titles including Coco are rendered from a 2K DI currently. So though its on an UHD at 4K, the animation only has discrete details up to 2K which means there's not as much additional info being added as you'd expect. For live action shots that are rendered down to a 2K DI the initial camera shot is still a higher resolution. Generally people agree that scaling down a higher res gives cleaner/more detailed image. i.e. though the animated film and live action film end up on a 2K DI, the live action film has some benefit in that extra information used to reach that 2K DI. (this is really in general, video games can do a similar thing where you render at a higher resolution and the downscale for output. The downscaled higher resolution will look better than the one rendered at the output resolution)
> 
> 2) 0- nit black is the same in SDR and HDR. What HDR helps in is the extra steps in gradation between 0 black and max brightness (and a higher max brightness ceiling). For live action, these extra steps in between naturally occur to an infinite level. How that gradation happens in animation I don't know, but I'd assume unless it's coded in, there's fewer steps.
> 
> In those two aspects I'd give the edge to live action films.
> 
> Now, where Animated films beat any live action is in Color, Contrast, and generally issue free. Details are somewhat a wash as it's entirely up to animation how detailed they want to be.
> 
> Animation can have colors that do not exist in the real world, and they can make contrast that just doesn't happen naturally. The entire movie of Coco happens in the dark and yet we have all these Neon lights everywhere on make believe animals and creatures that don't exist.
> 
> So to Coco, you take the biggest factors that cause UHD to be better than Blu-ray: 4K, WCG, and HDR. Based on #1 above, there's only some added detail to the UHD. For WCG, the colors are already popping off the screen against 0-nit black so appear tremendous already. And for HDR, again we're already against 0-nit black so up to content creators how high they push the max brightness of those colors. Many movies don't go up over 400 nits in highlights so it's possible there's not that much additional brightness to be had. (would need someone to pull what the max brightness off the disc)



Well said. That is indeed the benefit of animation movies - creating unrealistic ("impossible") amounts of contrast out of anywhere. 0 nit blacks and bright yellows, reds, whites out of nowhere. Just doesn't happen in nature. 

... but then the downside is the DI's are always 2K and CGI is 2K... bout time they made some 4K animation!


----------



## SnellTHX

DarthDoxie said:


> *Interstellar (UHD)*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 0* (right below John Wick: Chapter 2)*
> 
> Everything in this film is reference level except black levels. Some scenes have elevated blacks to the point of distraction. The first scene where Cooper wakes up from his nightmare and talks to his daughter in the doorway was especially bad. Blacks in this scene were gray for the most part and showed very little delineation. Fortunately, black levels got better from here but still were inconsistent from time to time.
> 
> As for the soundtrack, the LFE was off the charts. The several launch sequences had me feeling it in my bones for prolonged periods.
> 
> Hard to say which Nolan film is better story wise, this or *Inception*. *Interstellar* clocks in at 2:49 but it flew by, it's that good.



My all time favourite movie! and still one of my top 5 ultimate reference discs, even though it sadly does contain some grayish looking blacks particularly in the opening scene as you mention.

but those 16:9 IMAX shots are drop dead gorgeous. Like looking out of a window.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

AmerCa said:


> I usually browse this site through a tablet, and I can't load the PQ master list. It never finishes loading for me. I can only see a fraction of tier zero list. I thought this was maybe a browser related problem, but maybe it's the device? I don't know. For what I can see, the format is fine. I never use a smartphone for browsing, the page is too "heavy" to load.
> 
> Maybe someone else can confirm they having problems with other devices.


The PQ Tiers page loads easier with ad blocking and if you are logged into the site. AVS Forum's advertising for random visitors makes loading the entire page a real problem on some devices. I know the Tiers load perfectly on Samsung tablets. Some browsers seem to handle it better than others. I know it loads easily on browsers like Opera and Vivaldi.



HD-Master said:


> I am a bit confused. In the link found in the first post, to the actual rankings, says that the list has not been updated since May 1, 2012? Is that true? I see suggestions for the ranking of UHD releases, but haven’t found them in the rankings.
> 
> Thanks!


The latest and greatest PQ Tiers can always be found as a sticky in the Blu-ray Software sub-forum, and also in the signature of all my posts.


----------



## SnellTHX

SuperFist said:


> Proposal: *Resident Evil: Retribution* - *Tier 0 - Blu*
> 
> I rewatched Resident Evil: Retribution blu-ray after seeing it when it first came out and Wow! Just WOW!! I think the picture quality is one of the best I've ever seen and Martin Liebman at Blu-ray.com agrees...




Wow really?  wouldn't expect that much from a Resident Evil film but now it seems like a must buy


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Conan the Destroyer*

recommendation: *Tier 3.0**

A good transfer that looks faithful to the original film elements but like a lot of films from the 1980s, it's on the soft side. Colors are good and black levels are decent but nothing spectacular.


----------



## djoberg

*Coco (1080p version)*

Let me say it right out front....this animated marvel deserves to be (as JNavAV said) in the Top 5 of Tier Blu...no doubt about it!!

Unlike my most recent viewing and review of _Despicable Me 3_ (which was superb in its own rights), this one was UNIQUE. I kept thinking throughout the film, "The animation is as special as _Secret Life of Pets_ and _The Good Dinosaur_," which are currently in the Top 5. You have to see this to believe and appreciate what I'm saying. Perhaps the three greatest features are COLORS (primaries explode on the scene in most every scene, especially in the "land of the dead"), DEPTH (let me tell you there were times I truly thought I was watching it in 3D), and DETAILS (details abound in every object imaginable, with astounding texture in humans, bones!, cobble streets, clothing, buildings, etc., etc.). 

Let me give a huge shout-out to Pizar for their excellent and unrivaled LIGHTING. The neon lights in the "land of the dead" will dazzle you; I promise! BLACK LEVELS and SHADOW DETAILS will also charm you, along with exquisite CONTRAST in the many, many dark scenes (again, in the "land of the dead").

You already know where I'm placing this, but I gotta make it official, soooo....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (Top Five along with Planet Earth 2 (UHD), Secret Life of Pets, Moana, and The Good Dinosaur)*

PS If you go to the Rankings Thread you'll see, by my placement, that I'm suggesting that _The Angry Birds Movie_ be placed down to #6.


----------



## SnellTHX

Well we knew it had to be top 5


----------



## sbpyrat

Super excited to check out Coco on blu ray. I saw it in the theater and loved the movie and knew the picture quality would be top notch, so I pre-ordered it and got it last week. I'll report in after I watch it soon, but feel like I've lost a bit of my cred. I just checked the top of the blue tier and I haven't seen any of the newer highest rated movies on blu ray. The highest I've seen (on blu ray) are Monsters University and Toy Story 3 which were/are top of my personal list. But sure glad to hear the praise for Coco. Thanks all!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Master: The Complete Series*










recommendation: *Tier 3.25**

Call me crazy but I was more psyched about seeing _The Master_ hit Blu-ray than just about anything in the past year. The 1984 television series only had one season but it has always held a special place in my mind. It came out at the perfect time to make an impression on me during my formative years, during the so-called ninja craze that struck during the 1980s. Combining the immortal Lee Van Cleef with Sho Kosugi, it crossed the popular A-Team formula with exciting ninja action.

Licensed from CBS Home Entertainment, Kino Lorber has done a very respectable job in bringing the show to Blu-ray. _The Master_ was hard to find for years on DVD, much less in solid 1080P video before two weeks ago. It receives a quite serviceable film transfer in actual HD quality with palpable depth and fine detail. The thirteen episodes are spread over three BD-50s, encoded in AVC. If the set has any real deficiencies, higher encoding parameters would have been nice for the AVC video. It's not like the 1080P video is replete with compression problems, but the AVC has numbers too low for this kind of 1980s network action drama.

_The Master_ is presented in its original 1.33:1 broadcast ratio, which looks perfectly fine. The color and contrast are adequate. Exteriors have some added dimension and texture, while interior shots possess a murkier appearance. There is nothing in the way of superfluous processing. The action is nicely filmed.

I am pleasantly surprised at how well this set looks. It's clearly not demo material or anything, but there is a satisfying crispness and texture to the video that should greatly please the show's remaining fans.


----------



## AmerCa

*Knowing (2009 - Summit Entertainment)*










Adequate presentation. There's some bothersome "orange" color gradation that usually I don't mind, but for some reason it did in here. The image is flat and soft for the most part, although there were some demo scenes that looked very nice. I noticed some contrast boosting by color saturation, and black levels were decent. I watched this disc back to back in different displays, and had slightly different impressions, which solidifies the fact that the setup can make a difference in PQ appreciation. In one I had this around tier 2.25, in the other it seemed like lower 1.75. Beauty is not only in the eye of the beholder, but also in one's TV characteristics. All things considered, this disc seems more worthy of tier 2. 

What. A. Movie. I was baffled to find all the negative perception by most critics and general audiences. I'll say no more.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


----------



## AmerCa

*The Wizard Of Oz (1939 - Warner)*










I keep going back in time, and I'm continuously surprised by the PQ of these very old films. This disc looks beautiful, and, of course, this is especially true for the colored portions of the movie. The sepia parts were clean and clear, and hold up remarkably well. The sections at Oz are a feast to the eyes, with very nice color and balanced contrast. The age of the movie shows at times, but the PQ remains consistent for most of the runtime. You really forget you're watching a movie that's close to 80 years old! This classic movie deserved the best transfer possible, and I think Warner came pretty close.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.5*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

AmerCa said:


> *Knowing (2009 - Summit Entertainment)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Adequate presentation. There's some bothersome "orange" color gradation that usually I don't mind, but for some reason it did in here. The image is flat and soft for the most part, although there were some demo scenes that looked very nice. I noticed some contrast boosting by color saturation, and black levels were decent. I watched this disc back to back in different displays, and had slightly different impressions, which solidifies the fact that the setup can make a difference in PQ appreciation. In one I had this around tier 2.25, in the other it seemed like lower 1.75. Beauty is not only in the eye of the beholder, but also in one's TV characteristics. All things considered, this disc seems more worthy of tier 2.
> 
> What. A. Movie. I was baffled to find all the negative perception by most critics and general audiences. I'll say no more.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


Considering its a latter day Nicolas Cage vehicle when he'll sign up for any script if a paycheck is involved, _Knowing_ wasn't half-bad. You just can't take his movies very seriously anymore. If you go into them expecting a b-movie, Cage can still turn out a decent flick.


----------



## AmerCa

^^^^^^

* Knowing* is one of the greatest thrillers I've ever seen. But my gushing excitement, after seeing the movie and looking for some online reviews, was met by general panning , except for Roger Ebert (who is quoted on the BD cover) and a couple of other reviews. I guess it happens sometimes. I see you're not crazy about it either, but neither was my GF and family when I played it to them. Sure, they liked it, but after they were more like "_Ok, what's next?_". 

By any chance have you seen *Drive Angry*, also with Nick Cage? Honestly, I'd buy it only for Amber Heard, but it'd be nice it was also a nice flick.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

AmerCa said:


> ^^^^^^
> 
> * Knowing* is one of the greatest thrillers I've ever seen. But my gushing excitement, after seeing the movie and looking for some online reviews, was met by general panning , except for Roger Ebert (who is quoted on the BD cover) and a couple of other reviews. I guess it happens sometimes. I see you're not crazy about it either, but neither was my GF and family when I played it to them. Sure, they liked it, but after they were more like "_Ok, what's next?_".
> 
> By any chance have you seen *Drive Angry*, also with Nick Cage? Honestly, I'd buy it only for Amber Heard, but it'd be nice it was also a nice flick.


I remember being entertained by Knowing on some level, I just honestly can't remember much from it. I didn't catch Drive Angry. You must be looking forward to the coming Aquaman movie. Amber Heard is practically a co-lead in that superhero movie.


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> *Knowing (2009 - Summit Entertainment)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Adequate presentation. There's some bothersome "orange" color gradation that usually I don't mind, but for some reason it did in here. The image is flat and soft for the most part, although there were some demo scenes that looked very nice. I noticed some contrast boosting by color saturation, and black levels were decent. I watched this disc back to back in different displays, and had slightly different impressions, which solidifies the fact that the setup can make a difference in PQ appreciation. In one I had this around tier 2.25, in the other it seemed like lower 1.75. Beauty is not only in the eye of the beholder, but also in one's TV characteristics. All things considered, this disc seems more worthy of tier 2.
> 
> What. A. Movie. I was baffled to find all the negative perception by most critics and general audiences. I'll say no more.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


I knew I had seen this film but I could hardly remember anything about it. I tried, in vain, to find this using our Search Engine. So I "Googled" it and found it. I will give you my link so you can see what I said about it back in 2009. I was very impressed with both the PQ and AQ (as you will see), but perhaps I'd be taking it down a notch or two now since the PQ in Blu-rays has evolved to a much higher degree.

One observation that I'll make concerns the black levels. You say they were "decent" whereas I thought they were amazing. Perhaps my display at that time (a Pioneer KURO Elite), which was known for its superior blacks, made the viewing better than what you experienced on your two LCD displays. Just a thought.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-433.html#post16845486


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> Considering its a latter day Nicolas Cage vehicle when he'll sign up for any script if a paycheck is involved, _Knowing_ wasn't half-bad. You just can't take his movies very seriously anymore. If you go into them expecting a b-movie, Cage can still turn out a decent flick.


I hear you Phantom! Cage is NOT exactly, as someone else said, a "heavy weight actor." The last one I saw him in was _Left Behind_ (a Christian film about the Rapture of believers to heaven). He did a decent job in it but I personally don't think his heart was in it at all (due to his NOT adhering to the belief in a Rapture).

I seriously can't remember how he did in _Knowing_ but if memory serves me I really did like the movie. I can pick it up for $8 on Blu-ray or for $18 on 4K and I may just do that since I "Know" I loved the PQ/AQ.


----------



## AmerCa

djoberg said:


> One observation that I'll make concerns the black levels. You say they were "decent" whereas I thought they were amazing. Perhaps my display at that time (a Pioneer KURO Elite), which was known for its superior blacks, made the viewing better than what you experienced on your two LCD displays. Just a thought.


I suspect you may be right, and that's why I'm thinking of refraining from speaking of black levels, because my display is, no doubt, inferior to most, if not all, the guys here. Sometimes I just can't believe how poor/merely adequate black levels are sometimes. In my 32" TV black levels were certainly stronger and I liked quiet better the PQ (without being spectacular), on my new 43" one the disc still looked strong, but color was less intense and black levers were notably weaker. The only things we seem to agree is that there's very little facial details, and the boosted contrast. But no orange color grading? I'm losing my credibility here! :nerd:

I believe the settings are close to correct, but without professional calibration there's only so much I can do. This Vizio model is said to have mediocre to poor black levels, so what I see is probably very close to what I can get. I'll need to pop in *Tron: Legacy*, my personal demo disc, to properly evaluate the display and see if I can improve it.

If you get the chance to get the disc and watch it, I'd love to hear your new impressions on it. I'm quite mystified neither you or Phantom seem to remember anything about the movie! I don't think I could forget it, not even in ten years! And I agree with you, the AQ was amazing, and totally fitting to what was happening on screen.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*John Wick (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 0* (bottom 10)*

The UHD improves on the Blu-ray in every department. Black levels are excellent in both nighttime scenes and the many black cars, suits, and hair. I was concerned at first because I thought I saw banding in some dark scenes (I'm talking large areas of nothing but a black blob devoid of any details) but after I turned my brightness setting down a few notches the delineation and shadow details returned. Colors are excellent in spite of the color grading some didn't like on the BD. HDR really makes the the colors pop in the many overhead nighttime shots of the city and the club scene.

Clarity has improved over the BD, most notable in the subtitles as they are sharp as a tack now; subtitles were a bit fuzzy on the BD. There were a few shots where I thought the clarity lacked and reading back through the forum for the BD reviews, some members saw the same thing. Those few same shots are a tick lower than the rest of the film which shows great sharpness.


----------



## DavidML3

Is there a 4k pq thread


----------



## djoberg

DavidML3 said:


> Is there a 4k pq thread


This thread includes reviews and placement recommendations for 4K/UHD Blu-rays. As you will see (when perusing recent pages on this thread), those who post reviews inform everyone if they have watched a UHD release. If they have seen the 1080p version too they will usually bring out the differences between the two (see the post just before your post as an example of this).

I know of no other threads (on AVS) that are specifically for reviewing the PQ for UHD Blu-rays


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> I suspect you may be right, and that's why *I'm thinking of refraining from speaking of black levels, because my display is, no doubt, inferior to most, if not all, the guys here*. Sometimes I just can't believe how poor/merely adequate black levels are sometimes. In my 32" TV black levels were certainly stronger and I liked quiet better the PQ (without being spectacular), on my new 43" one the disc still looked strong, but color was less intense and black levers were notably weaker. The only things we seem to agree is that there's very little facial details, and the boosted contrast. But no orange color grading? I'm losing my credibility here! :nerd:


Hey AmerCa,

I put in BOLD letters why I'm making this post. There is no way you should be "thinking of refraining from speaking of black levels" in your reviews. Black levels are a very important factor in deciding on your placement, so even though your display may not be on par with some displays (especially the OLED displays which normally have perfect blacks), you should still TELL US WHAT YOU SEE.

My display is NOT perfect when it comes to black levels, for I still encounter what is called "light bleed" when watching letter-boxed movies. This occurs when there is a very bright object next to the bars and the light bleeds into the bar. It is quite distracting to me, but it is the "nature of the beast" for an LCD/LED display.

As long as I'm writing, I will also comment on the "orange color grading" in the movie _Knowing_. I'm sure they were there, but for whatever reason they didn't bother me, at least enough to comment on them and to penalize the them in my placement. I am usually very sensitive to any form of color-grading, especially if they hinder details or wreak havoc on flesh tones. So, either I wasn't as sensitive 9 years ago or they weren't that bad to _my eyes_ in that movie.


----------



## sbpyrat

*Coco (Blu Ray)

*I watched this last night and was, as expected, blown away by the picture quality. It's my new personal #1, but take that with a slight grain of salt because I haven't seen the Top 9 currently on the Blu Tier. So really for now I can just say I'm ranking it just above Monsters University and Toy Story 3, since those are the highest I've seen. It's the first time in a while that I've really been wowed by the picture quality. I also love the movie.

*Tier Recommendation: 0* (Personal #1...but haven't seen the top 9 on the blue tier)



*


----------



## AmerCa

djoberg said:


> Hey AmerCa,
> 
> I put in BOLD letters why I'm making this post. There is no way you should be "thinking of refraining from speaking of black levels" in your reviews. Black levels are a very important factor in deciding on your placement, so even though your display may not be on par with some displays (especially the OLED displays which normally have perfect blacks), you should still TELL US WHAT YOU SEE.


Thanks for the encouragement, Djoberg. I was speaking only in terms of being actually helpful to someone looking for a fair assessment of the PQ of a movie. I'm thinking Snell or you (I don't think Phantom or others have talked about their displays, but I assume they're above average) might be more qualified to speak about the black levels of a disc. Usually discs with great black levels still manage to look very good in my TV's, but sometimes I suspect my display is at fault, and is there where I lost some of my confidence. But you're right, we can only talk about what we see, and shouldn't ask otherwise from any contributor here.

On a related question, if you could go back to your Kuro, would you do it? Or are you satisfied with your current display? I like the bigger display I have now, but I must confess I have the slight impression PQ was better in my smaller display. I've heard sometimes TV's need some time to "break in" (like headphones), and maybe PQ will improve down the road. I hear your Kuro was arguably the best display for the longest time, even by today's standards.


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> Thanks for the encouragement, Djoberg. I was speaking only in terms of being actually helpful to someone looking for a fair assessment of the PQ of a movie. I'm thinking Snell or you (I don't think Phantom or others have talked about their displays, but I assume they're above average) might be more qualified to speak about the black levels of a disc. Usually discs with great black levels still manage to look very good in my TV's, but sometimes I suspect my display is at fault, and is there where I lost some of my confidence. But you're right, we can only talk about what we see, and shouldn't ask otherwise from any contributor here.
> 
> On a related question, if you could go back to your Kuro, would you do it? Or are you satisfied with your current display? I like the bigger display I have now, but I must confess I have the slight impression PQ was better in my smaller display. I've heard sometimes TV's need some time to "break in" (like headphones), and maybe PQ will improve down the road. I hear your Kuro was arguably the best display for the longest time, even by today's standards.


Phantom has a KURO, so he is still getting the best one can get from a 1080p display. 

Regarding your question about me "going back to my KURO," I would have to say a definite NO. My black levels are as good or better than the KURO was, except for the letter-boxed bars when light bleeding occurs and when "haloing" takes place (a "glow" of light around bright objects within the screen when set against an all-black screen). I also love how much brighter my Sony is, and, of course, the ability to display true 4K resolution. Oh, I almost forgot the best feature....75" of glorious screen real estate from only 8' away!


----------



## djoberg

*Geostorm*

This was a VERY DECENT-looking film with razor-sharp clarity "most" of the time (during many heavy CGI scenes there was quite a bit of softness. Black levels were awesome, especially during the many space scenes. The space station and satellites looked fantastic against the pitch black of outer space! Details were spectacular on earth too (except during the CGI scenes). Colors were, for the most part, excellent. Contrast was superb. Flesh tones were fair, but had a slight "red push" in several scenes.

If not for the softness and lack of details in CGI scenes (and the red push in flesh tones) I would have entertained going with a low Tier 0 placement, but in fairness I must opt for...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25**


----------



## djoberg

*Wonder*

My wife and I just finished watching this "feel good" movie (about a young boy with a disfigured face from birth) that had tons of lessons for kids today (I truly wish every child could see this, especially those from rotten, spoiled homes where they learn how to "bully people" from their parents)!

The PQ was "refreshing," with a very natural-look throughout, a bright color palette, striking clarity at times (especially in all outdoor, daytime scenes and in any indoor scenes with good lighting), appreciable depth in many shots, spot-on flesh tones, and very good black levels. This one falls short of landing in Tier 0, but only by the smallest of margins....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**

PS I never cease to marvel at the level of mature acting in some child actors today.


----------



## JNayAV

AmerCa said:


> Thanks for the encouragement, Djoberg. I was speaking only in terms of being actually helpful to someone looking for a fair assessment of the PQ of a movie. I'm thinking Snell or you (I don't think Phantom or others have talked about their displays, but I assume they're above average) might be more qualified to speak about the black levels of a disc. Usually discs with great black levels still manage to look very good in my TV's, but sometimes I suspect my display is at fault, and is there where I lost some of my confidence. But you're right, we can only talk about what we see, and shouldn't ask otherwise from any contributor here.
> 
> On a related question, if you could go back to your Kuro, would you do it? Or are you satisfied with your current display? I like the bigger display I have now, but I must confess I have the slight impression PQ was better in my smaller display. I've heard sometimes TV's need some time to "break in" (like headphones), and maybe PQ will improve down the road. I hear your Kuro was arguably the best display for the longest time, even by today's standards.


Just wanted to chime in with another point of view. If you know what may cause issues for your screen, such as Djoberg mentioning that certain scenes cause light bleed into black bars on his set, I think it would be possible to judge accordingly. If there are scenes that you know cause issues with your set, maybe don't judge as harshly as obvious raised black issues. Over time as watch more on your set, you'll figure out more about which is at fault. But both instances I would say you should include in your review. Vast majority of viewers are going to be using LCD screens (more than likely of the edgelit variety) so getting information from someone that is likely closer to general public TV capabilities should be considered a great addition. Even if the disk isn't at fault, it will certainly be appreciated to know that a film may contain several scenes that a midrange TV is going to struggle with and be distracting to the viewer.

Knowing the limitations of your set, you can decide whether you want to dock the movie as a whole or not yourself, but should certainly always at least put the info out there.

I have an E6 Oled and I still feel compelled to give some leeway on blacklevels for HDR movies. With HDR being handled differently based on a set by set basis its a whole new YMMV in some aspects unfortunately. I give some leeway with that understanding, but if something is egregious I dock it (see John Wick 2 and Hacksaw Ridge, Hacksaw Ridge UHD some members saw serious banding, myself included, others didn't) It works itself out once scores are aggregated.


----------



## djoberg

sbpyrat said:


> *Coco (Blu Ray)
> 
> *I watched this last night and was, as expected, blown away by the picture quality. It's my new personal #1, but take that with a slight grain of salt because I haven't seen the Top 9 currently on the Blu Tier. So really for now I can just say I'm ranking it just above Monsters University and Toy Story 3, since those are the highest I've seen. It's the first time in a while that I've really been wowed by the picture quality. I also love the movie.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 0* (Personal #1...but haven't seen the top 9 on the blue tier)*


Thanks for the review sbpyrat! I would encourage you to watch some of the "top 9" for you would be blown away by at least a few of them (most notably _The Secret Life of Pets_, _Moana_ and _The Good Dinosaur_). If you do watch them, we'd love to hear from you.


----------



## sbpyrat

djoberg said:


> Thanks for the review sbpyrat! I would encourage you to watch some of the "top 9" for you would be blown away by at least a few of them (most notably _The Secret Life of Pets_, _Moana_ and _The Good Dinosaur_). If you do watch them, we'd love to hear from you.


Since I cancelled Netflix, I don't rent blu rays any more...so it's pretty much only movies I buy. Though might be able to check out some my family has when I visit them. I saw Moana and The Good Dinosaur in the theater and would consider buying them, especially since the PQ is so good, but I haven't seen a good deal on either of them. I haven't seen The Secret Life of Pets at all. But seeing as they are so highly ranked, I might put some effort into trying to watch them on blu ray. There's a good chance someone in my family owns at least Moana, and maybe the others. I'll definitely report in if/when I see them!

Thanks!


----------



## dla26

Apologies if I missed it, but has anyone watched Blue Planet II UHD yet? Very curious to hear how it compares to Planet Earth 2 UHD!


----------



## djoberg

dla26 said:


> Apologies if I missed it, but has anyone watched Blue Planet II UHD yet? Very curious to hear how it compares to Planet Earth 2 UHD!


I've only seen it on tv, which is NOT in 4K. But in comparing that broadcast with the Planet Earth 2 broadcast, PE2 wins hands down. A lot of the scenes in BP2 are filmed underwater and even though they can look remarkably good, they are not nearly as sharp and detailed as scenes on land, which make up the vast majority of scenes in PE2.


----------



## JNayAV

sbpyrat said:


> Since I cancelled Netflix, I don't rent blu rays any more...so it's pretty much only movies I buy. Though might be able to check out some my family has when I visit them. I saw Moana and The Good Dinosaur in the theater and would consider buying them, especially since the PQ is so good, but I haven't seen a good deal on either of them. I haven't seen The Secret Life of Pets at all. But seeing as they are so highly ranked, I might put some effort into trying to watch them on blu ray. There's a good chance someone in my family owns at least Moana, and maybe the others. I'll definitely report in if/when I see them!
> 
> Thanks!


I don't know what movies are available nowadays, but pretty much all disney movies come with a digital code. Not only can this be used for digital version of film, but you can use it for rewards points directly with Disney basically. If not normally a collector of animated films, this can be a good way to accrue them.

With how many studios Disney now owns, these rewards rack up QUICK. My wife really likes Disney movies so we had a large stack of movies to claim the rewards. Probably got 3-4 blurays for free out of it. This is also extremely good to get movies that may be 'vaulted' and very difficult to find the blu-ray out in actual stores.

Marvel movies, Newer Star Wars, Pixar, Disney animation, etc. these all fall under the Disney umbrella. If Fox ends up getting folded in I feel like every 2 outta 3 movies will be eligible.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

DavidML3 said:


> Is there a 4k pq thread


No, not at the moment. For the past year we've included UHDs as eligible for the PQ Tiers and discuss them here as well. That should be more evident in the next update, when Tier 0 includes a rash of UHDs.


----------



## HD-Master

Blade Runner 2049 (UHD)

Oh. My. Goodness. Just received my professionally calibrated C7P today and this title was my first full viewing of anything. Absolutely blew me away. Incredible detail and use of contrasting color. I had no issues with banding.

Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (middle)

The audio was incredible as well. I’m surprised my dual subs didn’t shimmy across the room from the torture they endured!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Phantom Stranger

HD-Master said:


> Blade Runner 2049 (UHD)
> 
> Oh. My. Goodness. Just received my professionally calibrated C7P today and this title was my first full viewing of anything. Absolutely blew me away. Incredible detail and use of contrasting color. I had no issues with banding.
> 
> Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (middle)
> 
> The audio was incredible as well. I’m surprised my dual subs didn’t shimmy across the room from the torture they endured!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


Nice, I think UHD may benefit even more from a pro calibration than regular BDs.


----------



## djoberg

HD-Master said:


> Blade Runner 2049 (UHD)
> 
> Oh. My. Goodness. Just received my professionally calibrated C7P today and this title was my first full viewing of anything. Absolutely blew me away. Incredible detail and use of contrasting color. I had no issues with banding.
> 
> Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (middle)
> 
> The audio was incredible as well. I’m surprised my dual subs didn’t shimmy across the room from the torture they endured!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


Thanks for the review! Keep them coming!!

Your analysis mirrors that of others, for many are saying this is the one of the best "Reference Discs" for both PQ and AQ. I have been waiting for a price drop on this title but I don't believe I can wait much longer. I'm especially excited to HEAR the Dolby Atmos mix on my new speakers!

BTW, congrats on your new C7P! I just saw that LG's 2018 lineup will include a 77" OLED for only 9K. That may sound like a lot of money, but in reality that's a very good price for a large OLED. Had it been that price two years ago I'd have the 77" (the "G" series back then, which listed for 20K) in my Man Cave right now.


----------



## AmerCa

> I just saw that LG's 2018 lineup will include a 77" OLED for *only* 9K.


Jesus! "Only" 9k? I don't even make that money in a year!  I guess I need to start saving yesterday. Lol!


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^

AmerCa,

I surely didn't mean to imply that 9K was NOT a lot of money, but COMPARED TO 20K that's a dramatic drop in price! I also realize that to many people, like yourself, spending 9K on a tv is not an option. I believe I had mentioned, when I got my new speaker system consisting of all SVS speakers, that I counted myself very blessed and realized that for many it will never happen, and for others it may take years to be able to afford such a system (like it did for me).

Having said all of that, all AVS members have this in common, we LOVE new technology, and especially technology that rises above anything we have ever experienced. The new OLED displays fall into that category; they are really the "pinnacle" of the video world at this time. So to see them (I'm speaking of the LARGE models; the SMALLER sets are already at very competitive prices) dropping in price at a pretty radical rate is encouraging. If this trend continues, it's not beyond the realm of possibility to see them reaching affordable prices for MOST PEOPLE within a few years, perhaps down as low as under 3-4K for a 77". We have seen excellent LCD/LED displays (with Full Array Local Dimming) drop dramatically (thanks to companies like Vizio), and the same thing SEEMS to be happening with OLED.


----------



## tcramer

djoberg said:


> Thanks for the review! Keep them coming!!
> 
> Your analysis mirrors that of others, for many are saying this is the one of the best "Reference Discs" for both PQ and AQ. I have been waiting for a price drop on this title but I don't believe I can wait much longer. I'm especially excited to HEAR the Dolby Atmos mix on my new speakers!


This i included in a deal at Best Buy right now, if you can find 3 you want. I personally pulled the trigger on both Blade Runners and Pacific Rim, plus $3 less for in-store pickup. Not quite Black Friday prices, but not bad at all.


----------



## dla26

*The Great Wall (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 0 (Top 10?)*

The fine detail in virtually every shot was stunning. Lots of textures, skin pores, fine hairs, etc. to focus in on. The dark scenes were also very good - no black crush that I could see. There were lots of beautiful panning landscape shots, and the use of color was great. Different soldier groups had different colored armor, and toward the end when they got to the capitol (sorry - minor spoiler) there was a huge color range on display. The colors weren't as heavily saturated as one normally sees in HDR demo movies like Guardians of the Galaxy II, but they were still very good. The only minor complaint I had about color was again toward the end, when I think they may have overdone it with lots of highly saturated rainbow colors.

Some non-PQ comments:
- If you're a bass junkie, you won't be disappointed. Your subwoofer(s) will get a good workout.
- If you're a history/science/logic buff, you'll be ridiculously disappointed.  The storyline was quite tropey and far fetched, but it was a good popcorn flick.


----------



## AmerCa

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^
> 
> AmerCa,
> 
> I surely didn't mean to imply that 9K was NOT a lot of money, but COMPARED TO 20K that's a dramatic drop in price! I also realize that to many people, like yourself, spending 9K on a tv is not an option....


My comment was very tongue-in-cheek, it's not your fault there are poor people like me I'd like a superior display, but I'm perfectly (well, maybe not _ perfectly_) happy with what I have. It doesn't get in the way of enjoying and appreciating a great BD. If I had the choice, I'd prioritize the sound system over the video system, but yes, everything is going to need some saving and planning. I understand and share the love for all new technologies, even if sometimes I can't buy most of that stuff. By the time I jump to the 4k ship, I'm sure all find great options at a very good price.


----------



## djoberg

tcramer said:


> This i included in a deal at Best Buy right now, if you can find 3 you want. I personally pulled the trigger on both Blade Runners and Pacific Rim, plus $3 less for in-store pickup. Not quite Black Friday prices, but not bad at all.


Thanks for the link! That is a great deal, for sure.

I guess the only way I'd grab Blade Runner 2049 through this deal is if I decide to double-dip on a couple of the Batman movies. I wasn't going to do that though since Nolan refuses to give us a Dolby Atmos or DTS-X mix. I do see they have Inception though and I don't have that one, so I'll sleep on it and decided tomorrow.


----------



## SnellTHX

$9000 for a 77" OLED? Finally priced below the stratosphere. TVs above 65" still have a huge premium, so the fact that you get what is essentially the best picture on the market in a huge 77" package $9000 is actually decent! That means by Black Friday its price will be closer to $5000.


----------



## SnellTHX

*Coco*


Yeah I guess its my turn to review this movie. Had to get this in 4K as I heard it was the best looking animated movie ever, and people here have placed it in a top 5 list along the likes Moana, Planet Earth II, The Good Dinosaur etc.

And I completely agree! Best rendered CGI I have ever seen, the primaries look insane, contrast/blacks are perfect, and the punchy image quality gives a pseudo-4K depth to it. As sharp and technologically advanced as an animation movie can get, I was particularly mesmorised by the scene in the cave, that photorealism was incredible.

Top 5 material for sure! my #1 animated movie, surpassing Moana, Kung Fu Panda 3, The Good Dinosaur and Monster's University which are my personal top animated movies.


*Tier recommendation: 0*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^

SnellTHX,

Have you seen _The Secret Life of Pets_ in UHD? That is one of my favorites, along with the ones you mentioned. It has some of the BRIGHTEST scenes in animation and is in the 1.85:1 Aspect Ratio your whole screen is filled with pure EYE CANDY. I also found it to be hilarious!


----------



## CCsoftball7

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^^
> 
> SnellTHX,
> 
> Have you seen _The Secret Life of Pets_ in UHD? That is one of my favorites, along with the ones you mentioned. It has some of the BRIGHTEST scenes in animation and is in the 1.85:1 Aspect Ratio your whole screen is filled with pure EYE CANDY. I also found it to be hilarious!


+1


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Man From Earth: Special Edition*

recommendation: *Tier 5**

This fairly unique 2007 movie was shot on DV. Back in November, MVDvisual released this "remastered" special edition. The picture quality is roughly on par with a serviceable DVD, despite being upscaled to 1080P resolution. There is some black crush and shadow delineation becomes quite poor, especially as the story turns to night inside a cabin lit only by a fireplace.

This is a watchable presentation framed at 1.78:1. The video is soft, though from what I've read is an improvement on the original BD released back in 2010.

I mention this disc only because the Tiers become somewhat meaningless if it doesn't have an internal frame of reference. Even the best-looking DVDs really can't be ranked any higher than Tier 5.


----------



## ajamils

Is there a separate thread just for 4K dics?


----------



## JNayAV

ajamils said:


> Is there a separate thread just for 4K dics?


Currently No, there is no separate thread. It's been discussed several times throughout this thread, but for various reasons no one has created a separate one.

If someone came along willing to do the significant amount of work necessary to maintain the list wanted to create a new separate 4K UHD list I'm sure it would be appreciated.

I don't see requesting Phantom to put even more work into maintaining separate ones.

(I'd see a separate UHD thread devolving into "Well how does UHD Title X compare to the Bluray?' At this time, I'm in the camp of UHD and Bluray belong together for this very reason until they separate themselves more than what seems to be average 1/2 a tier)


----------



## AmerCa

Phantom Stranger said:


> Even the best-looking DVDs really can't be ranked any higher than Tier 5.



That's interesting. It seems the gap between bluray and UHD isn't that drastic, at least for now. I always wondered how the best looking DVD would compare against an average bluray, or even the worst one. But I don't think anyone has tried to find out.


----------



## ajamils

JNayAV said:


> Currently No, there is no separate thread. It's been discussed several times throughout this thread, but for various reasons no one has created a separate one.
> 
> If someone came along willing to do the significant amount of work necessary to maintain the list wanted to create a new separate 4K UHD list I'm sure it would be appreciated.
> 
> I don't see requesting Phantom to put even more work into maintaining separate ones.
> 
> (I'd see a separate UHD thread devolving into "Well how does UHD Title X compare to the Bluray?' At this time, I'm in the camp of UHD and Bluray belong together for this very reason until they separate themselves more than what seems to be average 1/2 a tier)


Ya, I can see that issue creeping but at it would be great to have separate thread to have just 4K movies because I'm sure there are many others like me who are planning to get (or already own) a 4K setup and would like to show it off with the best possible PQ.


----------



## djoberg

ajamils said:


> Is there a separate thread just for 4K dics?





ajamils said:


> Ya, I can see that issue creeping but at it would be great to have separate thread to have just 4K movies because I'm sure there are many others like me who are planning to get (or already own) a 4K setup and would like to show it off with the best possible PQ.


Let me add to what's already been said that there really aren't enough members chiming in with UHD reviews to justify all the work that would go into setting up and maintaining another thread. Having said that, I am glad for those who do have 4K displays and Blu-ray players and are willing to invest extra money in purchasing UHD Blu-rays (for you can't rent them anywhere...or can you?). But let's face it, at this point in time they are in a very small minority.


----------



## dla26

djoberg said:


> you can't rent them anywhere...or can you?


You can! http://3d-blurayrental.com is a Netflix disc style service but with 4k, 3D Blu-rays, videogames, etc.

It is frustrating to put up with how poorly designed their site and service are - especially since all they had to do was copy what Netflix does, but you can make it work. I'm on the 2 discs for $8.99/month plan. Everything's on backorder and takes about 3 weeks to get, but as long as I'm within that month, it's fine. So for movies I'm only going to watch once, it's essentially $4.50 to rent vs buy.


----------



## djoberg

dla26 said:


> You can! http://3d-blurayrental.com is a Netflix disc style service but with 4k, 3D Blu-rays, videogames, etc.
> 
> It is frustrating to put up with how poorly designed their site and service are - especially since all they had to do was copy what Netflix does, but you can make it work. I'm on the 2 discs for $8.99/month plan. Everything's on backorder and takes about 3 weeks to get, but as long as I'm within that month, it's fine. So for movies I'm only going to watch once, it's essentially $4.50 to rent vs buy.


Thanks dla26! That's good to know one has that option.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^

I should have added that it would really be nice if Redbox would decide to include 4K Blu-rays, but I highly doubt that will take place any time soon.


----------



## wmcclain

https://www.soundandvision.com/content/redbox-roll-out-4k-rentals

I haven't heard any more on this since January.

-Bill


----------



## JNayAV

ajamils said:


> Ya, I can see that issue creeping but at it would be great to have separate thread to have just 4K movies because I'm sure there are many others like me who are planning to get (or already own) a 4K setup and would like to show it off with the best possible PQ.


For that purpose, this is already the perfect thread! The list shows best PQ movies regardless of UHD or Blu ray. I don't think anyone is gonna mention 'this isn't 4k' when you pop in Moana. If you want to stick to UHD's you'll see the best ones in Tier 0 and can just pick from those.

The list may be little behind so best to look thru last ~5 pages to see what may have recently been reviewed that's not listed yet (or do a search for a specific title if you have something in mind).

Side comment: Looks like the average new TV in 2016 was ~42 inches. For discernible 4k people would need to sit around 4-5 feet from their TV! Likely this is partially to why we're not seeing the huge jump from Blu-ray to UHD in ratings as we did from DVD to Bluray. My own TV is 65" at 8 ft seating distance which puts me about at the edge of discernible 4k. Unless there's a large jump in projection adoption, the biggest differentiator for UHD and Bluray is going to be HDR and WCG. But for now, TV's can only meet a fraction of the target max brightness of HDR. I'd expect after a couple years, TV's will catch up to the new SPECs and UHDs will start furthering themselves.


----------



## djoberg

tcramer said:


> This i included in a deal at Best Buy right now, if you can find 3 you want. I personally pulled the trigger on both Blade Runners and Pacific Rim, plus $3 less for in-store pickup. Not quite Black Friday prices, but not bad at all.


I ended up going with _Blade Runner 2049_, _Batman vs. Superman_ and _Fantastic Beasts_. I had all the others (that I would want) on Blu-ray (1080p) and with most of them being Christopher Nolan films I didn't want to double-dip when he refuses to upgrade the audio mix to either Dolby Atmos or DTS:X. I will be picking them up at a BB store on Thursday. Thanks again for the heads up! That was one sweet deal!!


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^^
> 
> SnellTHX,
> 
> Have you seen _The Secret Life of Pets_ in UHD? That is one of my favorites, along with the ones you mentioned. It has some of the BRIGHTEST scenes in animation and is in the 1.85:1 Aspect Ratio your whole screen is filled with pure EYE CANDY. I also found it to be hilarious!


Well you know I have a soft spot for 1.85:1 films... and now you really made me want Secret life of pets!


----------



## SnellTHX

I don't know what you guys think about streaming services, I know it's highly unorthodox to include a streaming experience in a blu-ray thread but we have after all expanded this thread to a 4K UHD thread as well...

I generally detest to streaming, I sit close enough to my 55" (approx 1.8m) to see every detail and flaw in an image and I have been unhappy with practically every streaming service out there, even the 4K ones.

While Netflix movies look garbage.. so bad that it's not even worth watching a movie even if its 'free'. I'd rather shell out en extra $25 for physical copy than to watch it for 'free' on Netflix. 

Now with that said Netflix's TV shows look AMAZING. Absolutely stunning when I watched them in 1080p on my Kuro via PS4 and absolutely phenomenal in 4K on my OLED6 via LG App. Series I watched in 1080p include: Black Sails (Reference), Marco Polo (Reference), Breaking-Bad (near-reference which is amazing consider its relatively old), House of Cards (Reference), Orange is the new Black (reference) and probably more that I'm forgetting. 

I've previously spoken about my gripe with Netflix's Dolby Vision and how the DV Movie mode looks terrible on my OLEDB6, I'm not sure if I am to blame my TV or Netflix but the HDR looks awful. I have yet to experience any peak HDR highlights, the colour is in no way expanded compared to regular 8 bit and the worst part of all is the elevated black levels that makes me feel like I'm viewing a plasma from 2006... The 'Regular' 4K however remains as stunning as ever, like The Indian Detective (absolute reference) .

So yeah. I've compared Breaking Bad and Black Sails blu-ray to the 4k Netflix stream and honestly they look equally as good (99%) If only movies could look this good on online streaming...


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> I don't know what you guys think about streaming services, I know it's highly unorthodox to include a streaming experience in a blu-ray thread but we have after all expanded this thread to a 4K UHD thread as well...


The only streaming service I use is Amazon Prime (because I'm a member), but I rarely rent movies from there. My opinion (and it's quite strong) is that this should remain a Blu-ray (only) Thread. As you admitted, streaming services vary so there's no consistency that viewers can depend on. You may watch a movie on Netflix that is very close to Blu-ray quality and write a stellar review on it. This, in turn, may prompt someone to rent it on Vudu or some other service where the quality isn't nearly as good. We don't have that problem while viewing and reviewing Blu-rays.

I will add (though this isn't the real issue that you are bringing up) that I have yet to watch a film on Amazon that gives me the SOUND that I can get from a Blu-ray disc that offers Dolby Atmos or DTS:X. They say that is coming to streaming services but "we'll see."


----------



## JNayAV

djoberg said:


> The only streaming service I use is Amazon Prime (because I'm a member), but I rarely rent movies from there. My opinion (and it's quite strong) is that this should remain a Blu-ray (only) Thread. As you admitted, streaming services vary so there's no consistency that viewers can depend on. You may watch a movie on Netflix that is very close to Blu-ray quality and write a stellar review on it. This, in turn, may prompt someone to rent it on Vudu or some other service where the quality isn't nearly as good. We don't have that problem while viewing and reviewing Blu-rays.
> 
> I will add (though this isn't the real issue that you are bringing up) that I have yet to watch a film on Amazon that gives me the SOUND that I can get from a Blu-ray disc that offers Dolby Atmos or DTS:X. They say that is coming to streaming services but "we'll see."


I agree with Djoberg, too many variables involved. ISP provider, Speed of service, which streaming service, location, what is the source being used to stream (while UHD or Blu ray players are generally bit perfect to each other nowadays, a Firestick vs Apple TV can give widely different results even while watching the same app). For this reason I don't think giving any streaming videos rankings would be feasible.

However, side comments that PQ of something streaming was very good so look forward to checking out Bluray etc. seems reasonable.
If it's something that doesn't have a disc, just giving a heads up that you saw great PQ in some title also doesn't seem against spirit of thread.
Just no official ranking/reviews as too dependent on individual's components as stated.

What's others opinions? Think thread may get cluttered? I don't really see it bringing in any extra commentators to the thread, so probably only the occasional side bar conversation between those already here.


----------



## djoberg

JNayAV said:


> However, side comments that PQ of something streaming was very good so look forward to checking out Bluray etc. seems reasonable. If it's something that doesn't have a disc, just giving a heads up that you saw great PQ in some title also doesn't seem against spirit of thread. Just no official ranking/reviews as too dependent on individual's components as stated.


Good point! This would be no different than members saying, "I saw this film in the theater and it looked great, so I'm really looking forward to seeing the Blu-ray release." Of course, sometimes the Blu-ray won't look like it did in the theater but generally speaking it should look AS GOOD or BETTER.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

SnellTHX said:


> I don't know what you guys think about streaming services, I know it's highly unorthodox to include a streaming experience in a blu-ray thread but we have after all expanded this thread to a 4K UHD thread as well...
> 
> I generally detest to streaming, I sit close enough to my 55" (approx 1.8m) to see every detail and flaw in an image and I have been unhappy with practically every streaming service out there, even the 4K ones.
> 
> While Netflix movies look garbage.. so bad that it's not even worth watching a movie even if its 'free'. I'd rather shell out en extra $25 for physical copy than to watch it for 'free' on Netflix.
> 
> Now with that said Netflix's TV shows look AMAZING. Absolutely stunning when I watched them in 1080p on my Kuro via PS4 and absolutely phenomenal in 4K on my OLED6 via LG App. Series I watched in 1080p include: Black Sails (Reference), Marco Polo (Reference), Breaking-Bad (near-reference which is amazing consider its relatively old), House of Cards (Reference), Orange is the new Black (reference) and probably more that I'm forgetting.
> 
> I've previously spoken about my gripe with Netflix's Dolby Vision and how the DV Movie mode looks terrible on my OLEDB6, I'm not sure if I am to blame my TV or Netflix but the HDR looks awful. I have yet to experience any peak HDR highlights, the colour is in no way expanded compared to regular 8 bit and the worst part of all is the elevated black levels that makes me feel like I'm viewing a plasma from 2006... The 'Regular' 4K however remains as stunning as ever, like The Indian Detective (absolute reference) .
> 
> So yeah. I've compared Breaking Bad and Black Sails blu-ray to the 4k Netflix stream and honestly they look equally as good (99%) If only movies could look this good on online streaming...


I have long championed _Black Sails_ as some of the finest live-action PQ possible on Blu-ray. It's shot for pure eye candy.

I understand the desire to reference streaming video - it is becoming a more important part every day of the average movie watcher's experience.

Feel free to share your streaming video experiences in this thread if you want. I don't see how it can harm anything. Though due to the factors already cited, it's not really an apples-to-apples comparison. If everyone understands that, the thread can only benefit. I would be interested in hearing comparisons for the same movie on Netflix versus the disc.

I don't see how streaming video can reasonably get incorporated into the PQ Tiers in the foreseeable future, but ignoring it would be foolish on our part. For good or ill, 4K streaming is likely the future of home video.


----------



## IAH

Maybe its just my system, but my streaming content just looks horrible most of the time, particularly color banding. To the point where I can't even watch anymore.

I was rewatching some episodes of Game of Thrones on HBO NOW the other day, and dark scenes in particular were so bad with banding, I just turned it off.

I get this with Netflix, Amazon, FX too. Even the Netflix shows show significant banding (Stranger Things) for me. WTH!

Does anyone else experience this?

EDIT: Some of what I'm seeing could also be pretty significant macro-blocking too. I'm not too familiar with all of the terminology.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

IAH said:


> Maybe its just my system, but my streaming content just looks horrible most of the time, particularly color banding. To the point where I can't even watch anymore.
> 
> I was rewatching some episodes of Game of Thrones on HBO NOW the other day, and dark scenes in particular were so bad with banding, I just turned it off.
> 
> I get this with Netflix, Amazon, FX too. Even the Netflix shows show significant banding (Stranger Things) for me. WTH!
> 
> Does anyone else experience this?


I'd largely agree that most streaming video has extremely suspect picture quality by our standards here. Compression problems are a major issue on most HD streaming content.

It's acceptable for disposable entertainment and video that compresses well like some animation. Most of the streaming content I've watched supposedly listed as 1080P resolution is little better than upscaled DVD video.


----------



## fredxr2d2

I've never quite understood the hate that some people give Netflix PQ. I watch on a 106" screen and while not quite up to blu-ray quality, Netflix has only gotten better and better IMO. I also look for banding and very rarely see it nowadays with Netflix's stuff.

I will say that the rule of garbage-in-garbage-out applies - for instance, you can see that Star Trek: Enterprise was clearly produced at a lower than HD resolution and upscaled.

I also make it a general habit to not watch movies on Netflix or Hulu. I usually use my streaming for less critical viewing of TV shows.


----------



## IAH

fredxr2d2 said:


> I've never quite understood the hate that some people give Netflix PQ. I watch on a 106" screen and while not quite up to blu-ray quality, Netflix has only gotten better and better IMO. I also look for banding and very rarely see it nowadays with Netflix's stuff.


That's why I feel like it might be my system/streamer that is causing the poor picture quality. I don't remember it being this bad. One factor which I've discovered thru google was that Roku devices (which is what I have) do not have the ability to change the color space, so it was not playing nice with my receiver/tv. I had to change my tv setting to full 0-255 rgb rather than the standard 16-235 (limited) just to get the picture in the ballpark of "watchable". But I feel this may have compromised the picture in other ways (i.e. the banding and macroblocking).


----------



## HD-Master

Apple TV 4K and an LG C7P here and Netflix, with quality content, can be glorious for me.


----------



## AmerCa

*Bad Boys II (2003 - Sony)*










After having some dubious experiences regarding black levels on my display, I'm happy to confirm that I can have pretty good black levels if the content has them. So far, this BD has given me best blacks I've seen on my new TV, and after the greenish and greyish black I experienced lately, the blacks of this disc looked like black ink. Beautiful. Night scenes looked like night scenes! Gorgeus blacks! I can only imagine how these are going to look on a superior display, like an OLED. Contrast was fantastic, colors were beautiful, details, textures and depth are present, and all in all, this movie is a visual fest. This movie was remastered in 4k for its bluray release, and it completely shows. Most of the film sits in tier zero territory, on par with anything that's being released today; unfortunately there are a handful of bad looking scenes that are unworthy of this disc, and bring down the overall presentation. Tier one seems fair overall, but this disc is just shy of tier zero. It's gorgeous.

If for some reason someone remaining unconvinced that watching blurays (or UHDs) for the highest PQ and AQ is really worth it as opposed to catching it on regular TV or some streaming services, and I had to pick one director's body of work, I'd pick Michael Bay without hesitation. This guy is a blessing for home teather enthusiasts. Not only he delivers among the highest audiovisual experiences you can find in cinema, he also delivers butt-kicking action that keeps you both entertained and amused the entire time. I remember someone mentioning that the closest comparison The Fast And The Furious franchise had were the Bad Boys films. We're talking 8 films vs. two, but let me tell you this: Bad Boys II is on par with any on the Furious films released until now (minus part 8, haven't seen), which is quite the accomplishment, given how over-the-top these movies have gotten and how they've set the bar for what an action film should be like. This is fantastic stuff. / End of gushing.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*


----------



## AmerCa

*Jupiter Ascending (2015 - Warner)*










Djoberg's review: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-755.html#post34901065

In the man's words:


> This was, most definitely, a dazzling CGI splendor; a true, visual feast for the eyes!


He gave the disc a tier one placement, but I'll go a step further and place this movie directly in tier zero. Yes, like he says, the presentation isn't entirely perfect, but in my case I couldn't bring myself to penalize this disc that much, for when the movie is good (which is pretty much all the time), it isn't good, it's frigging great. Despite some minor flaws, I'd certainly use this BD to demo my system, and show it good!

I was just talking about Michael Bay, but the Wachowski's deserve a special mention as well. This movie is a technical marvel and, like all their projects, a very ambitious one. Even when the movie isn't perfect, I appreciate their vision and their visual eye, for they also deliver eye and ear candy for us, home theater enthusiasts. It's a shame they don't seem to get the same recognition they once had.

*Tier Recommendation: 0* *(0.85)*


----------



## SnellTHX

Phantom Stranger said:


> I have long championed _Black Sails_ as some of the finest live-action PQ possible on Blu-ray. It's shot for pure eye candy.
> 
> I understand the desire to reference streaming video - it is becoming a more important part every day of the average movie watcher's experience.
> 
> Feel free to share your streaming video experiences in this thread if you want. I don't see how it can harm anything. Though due to the factors already cited, it's not really an apples-to-apples comparison. If everyone understands that, the thread can only benefit. I would be interested in hearing comparisons for the same movie on Netflix versus the disc.
> 
> I don't see how streaming video can reasonably get incorporated into the PQ Tiers in the foreseeable future, but ignoring it would be foolish on our part. For good or ill, 4K streaming is likely the future of home video.




I know right!! Black Sails looks AMAZING. the 4K Netflix stream is just as good (≈99%) as the BR. It looks superb. I'd actually argue it is among the very, very best of live action video as well. Certainly top 10 material. 


But I what I don't understand (and perhaps never will) is how Netflix TV series can look SO GOOD, yet movies look so bad. In movies I can see colour banding, compression artefacts, generally lower resolution and complete lack of punch in the image. but when it comes to TV shows, be it 1080p or 4K the image quality looks fantastic.


----------



## SnellTHX

I would not give it a rating (at least not officially) but I think people should check out the Netflix show 'Dark'. The 4K image quality is soooooo good. Straight from a 4K DI, the aspect ratio is a unique 2:1 that gives the perfect compromise between the ultimate film experience (2.40:1) and the screen-filling (but less cinematic) 1.78:1 ratio. I love 16:9 as I only have a 55" display which is in 16:9 of course so the more screen area the better, but much like Transformers: LK (my #1 reference blu-ray) the sort of half way in between ratios looked absolutely stunning. I think Transformers used 1.78, 1.9 and 2.4 ratios. 


The picture you see in Dark is like looking straight out of a window. It might be because I spent half of my childhood growing up in the Norwegian woods which makes me relate to landscape the movie is filmed in (small town in Germany) but the detail and sharpness is outstanding. It doesn't rely on ridiculous amounts of contrast, HDR highlights, beautiful vistas like jungles, beaches, etc but instead "plain, dull" but super realistic imaging. 


... BUT: the black levels are horrible. The show isn't even in Dolby Vision so I can't blame it this time. Which is so annoying because there's (funnily enough) a lot of dark scenes and you get grayish-brownish muddy blacks that look like they come from a commercial grade cinema projector, not an OLED.

Hopefully the show might come to blu-ray and have this problem fixed and we'll have ourselves a Tier 0 disc


----------



## SnellTHX

fredxr2d2 said:


> I've never quite understood the hate that some people give Netflix PQ. I watch on a 106" screen and while not quite up to blu-ray quality, Netflix has only gotten better and better IMO. I also look for banding and very rarely see it nowadays with Netflix's stuff.
> 
> I will say that the rule of garbage-in-garbage-out applies - for instance, you can see that Star Trek: Enterprise was clearly produced at a lower than HD resolution and upscaled.
> 
> *I also make it a general habit to not watch movies on Netflix or Hulu. I usually use my streaming for less critical viewing of TV shows*.


Well that's the thing. Netflix MOVIES look like upscaled DVDs. Netflix TV SERIES look 99% as good as their physical blu-ray copies!


----------



## TitusTroy

Phantom Stranger said:


> I'd largely agree that most streaming video has extremely suspect picture quality by our standards here. Compression problems are a major issue on most HD streaming content.
> 
> It's acceptable for disposable entertainment and video that compresses well like some animation. Most of the streaming content I've watched supposedly listed as 1080P resolution is little better than upscaled DVD video.


streaming doesn't compare to Blu-ray there's no debate on that...but I will say that since I have a C7 LG 4K OLED (but I don't currently have a 4K Blu-ray player or 4K receiver) I recently tried out Vudu and watched Dunkirk 4K with Dolby Vision and it looked stunning...I know I don't have the 4K Blu-ray to compare it to but for streaming quality it looked amazing...the detail and color boost due to DV was pretty impressive and I would highly recommend it over 1080p Blu-ray...I'm shocked Dunkirk is not listed in the official Tier rankings thread

after watching Dunkirk in 4K it actually made me interested in buying Last Jedi 4K Dolby Vision from Vudu


----------



## fredxr2d2

SnellTHX said:


> I would not give it a rating (at least not officially) but I think people should check out the Netflix show 'Dark'. The 4K image quality is soooooo good. Straight from a 4K DI, the aspect ratio is a unique 2:1 that gives the perfect compromise between the ultimate film experience (2.40:1) and the screen-filling (but less cinematic) 1.78:1 ratio. I love 16:9 as I only have a 55" display which is in 16:9 of course so the more screen area the better, but much like Transformers: LK (my #1 reference blu-ray) the sort of half way in between ratios looked absolutely stunning. I think Transformers used 1.78, 1.9 and 2.4 ratios.
> 
> 
> The picture you see in Dark is like looking straight out of a window. It might be because I spent half of my childhood growing up in the Norwegian woods which makes me relate to landscape the movie is filmed in (small town in Germany) but the detail and sharpness is outstanding. It doesn't rely on ridiculous amounts of contrast, HDR highlights, beautiful vistas like jungles, beaches, etc but instead "plain, dull" but super realistic imaging.
> 
> 
> ... BUT: the black levels are horrible. The show isn't even in Dolby Vision so I can't blame it this time. Which is so annoying because there's (funnily enough) a lot of dark scenes and you get grayish-brownish muddy blacks that look like they come from a commercial grade cinema projector, not an OLED.
> 
> Hopefully the show might come to blu-ray and have this problem fixed and we'll have ourselves a Tier 0 disc


I will second the recommendation for Dark. I didn't have any problems with the black levels on the 1080p stream and it looked gorgeous. It was filmed with my current favorite camera: the Arri Alexa 65.


----------



## TitusTroy

SnellTHX said:


> I would not give it a rating (at least not officially) but I think people should check out the Netflix show 'Dark'. The 4K image quality is soooooo good.The picture you see in Dark is like looking straight out of a window. It might be because I spent half of my childhood growing up in the Norwegian woods which makes me relate to landscape the movie is filmed in (small town in Germany) but the detail and sharpness is outstanding. It doesn't rely on ridiculous amounts of contrast, HDR highlights, beautiful vistas like jungles, beaches, etc but instead "plain, dull" but super realistic imaging
> 
> ... BUT: the black levels are horrible. The show isn't even in Dolby Vision so I can't blame it this time. Which is so annoying because there's (funnily enough) a lot of dark scenes and you get grayish-brownish muddy blacks that look like they come from a commercial grade cinema projector, not an OLED.
> 
> Hopefully the show might come to blu-ray and have this problem fixed and we'll have ourselves a Tier 0 disc


putting the 4K PQ aside everyone should watch Dark for the absolutely brilliant storytelling...best implementation of time travel I've ever seen and a very twisty, smart show...keeping everything straight requires 100% focus...I highly recommend it


----------



## djoberg

*Only the Brave*

The credits are rolling and I'm jumping on my computer to let everyone know that this is a WINNER! Not a "Tier 0 winner," but most definitely a "Tier 1 winner" that deserves to be at the top of that tier. This is a razor-sharp film with outstanding contrast, accurate flesh tones, appreciable depth, warm and inviting colors, and last, but not least, finely-rendered details (wherever you look). Oh, I almost forgot....black levels are also excellent. In fact, there is a night scene where the "hot shot fire crew" is sitting around their campfire before calling it a day and the shadow details are to die for!

My only gripe would be several instances of aliasing and a few soft shots (which, in turn, resulted in a lack of details).

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**

PS I rented this from Redbox and found out later that currently there is no UHD release. That's unfortunate, for I believe it could be improved upon with HDR and WCG.

PPS The audio mix, which was originally done in Dolby Atmos, was downgraded to a DTS-MA mix. Having said that, it was an awesome mix which was quite immersive with spot-on dialogue and amazing action in the surrounds. The LFE wasn't too shabby either!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Last Shift*

recommendation: *Tier 2.5**










The 2014 indie horror film was put out by Magnolia Home Entertainment on Blu-ray in October 2015. Set almost entirely within a police station, _Last Shift_ possesses decent clarity. Black levels are fine with an even, consistent contrast. The 1080P presentation is sharp with occasionally strong fine detail. There isn't any real depth or dimension to its video. The flat cinematography hampers the mildly grainy film.

By recent standards, _Last Shift_ is a fairly typical indie production with serviceable picture quality. The video lacks the polish of bigger Hollywood films.

If I can throw in a word on the movie itself, it's an uninspired movie that horror fans will get bored with before the end.


----------



## djoberg

I just returned _Only the Brave_ and picked up _Darkest Hour_. I'm excited to see this on several levels, among them my longtime admiration for Winston Churchill and Gary Oldman's excellent portrayal of him for which he won Best Actor at the Oscars. In reading reviews many are citing that there are MANY dark scenes, but that the black levels are very, very good. I can't wait to confirm those observations!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I should get to _Justice League_ this weekend.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Justice League*

recommendation: *Tier 1.75**










Superficially Zack Snyder's _Justice League_ mostly closely resembles his _Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice_. Much like that blockbuster, the desaturated palette once again has muted primary colors. _Justice League_ does appear brighter to a degree, revealing how visual effects and CGI have created most of its world.

The AVC encode does a fine job handling the occasionally gritty textures. The 1.78:1 presentation has an oddly limiting effect on the cinematography, compositions and lighting seemed far more haphazard in Justice League than Batman v Superman.

There is a lot visually going on in _Justice League_. Action scenes are hectic. Detail and definition both dip in them, possibly as a result of all the CGI. The more characters on screen, the softer things tend to get, almost leading to smeared fine detail. I wonder if the UHD would improve in this area.

The rest of the film is sharp and looks solid in close-ups. I've seen better black levels, _Justice League_ isn't extraordinary in that regard. Snyder's filmmaking, always so reliant on CGI and heavy digital grading, has never lent itself to greaty picture quality or spectacular reference video. _Watchmen_ may be the sole exception.

_Justice League's_ PQ gets the ranking it deserves. I'm not sure there is anything WB could have done to make this a better BD presentation.


----------



## djoberg

*Darkest Hour*

All that I had anticipated came to pass, for the PQ in this Blu-ray release (there is no UHD version to date) was solid in scenes with good lighting and a mixed bag in the poorly-lit scenes. It won't win any awards for color, with its muted color palette, but I was very impressed with the contrast which gave us brilliant whites and (generally speaking) stable blacks. The clarity and definition was superb in outdoor, daytime scenes and in daytime shots in Mr. Churchill's home. Having said that, the vast majority of its 120 minute running time took place in dark or lowly-lit interiors. They could be somewhat sharp, but softness did intrude in a fairly large number of scenes, resulting in a loss of details at times. Also, during said scenes black levels did falter.

I was pleased that this was done in the 1.85:1 Aspect Ratio, for there were shots of Buckingham Palace that were simply phenomenal and the big screen gave me a satisfying immersive experience. I had wished the many shots in the House of Parliament had fared as well, but they were quite drab and, at times, flat.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**

PS The performance by Gary Oldman was mesmerizing! He proved, once again, that he can fill any role and I will say that any success that this film has had is due, primarily, to him. I was riveted to my display and never was there a time when I was "checking my watch." After viewing it I can't wait to see_Dunkirk_ again (for you may very well know, that Churchill's initial challenge after being elected Prime Minister was to somehow rescue England's 300,000 man army that was being forced into the sea at Dunkirk by the Germans. It was Churchill who mobilized the Civilian Fleet that accomplished this feat.


----------



## AmerCa

Phantom Stranger said:


> *Justice League*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 1.75**


Great review, Phantom. It's disappointing that the PQ isn't that great, but to be honest, it wasn't that great in theaters as well. I think I'll be buying this when the price is right. Not only the package is almost barebones (at least here) without slipcover, the cover is atrocious. I cannot fathom how Warner green-lit these things.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

AmerCa said:


> Great review, Phantom. It's disappointing that the PQ isn't that great, but to be honest, it wasn't that great in theaters as well. I think I'll be buying this when the price is right. Not only the package is almost barebones (at least here) without slipcover, the cover is atrocious. I cannot fathom how Warner green-lit these things.


I've been a Superman fan for decades, which was the only real reason I picked Justice League up upon release. Others have said the UHD's color palette may be more lively with improved fidelity.


----------



## AmerCa

I'm a big fan of Znyder's *Man Of Steel*, probably my favorite movie of this new DC Cinematic Universe, even when Superman isn't among my favorite superheroes.

Regarding the UHD, and I hope not to be talking out of my butt, a muted color palette will be a muted color palette. I'm thinking in a lot of cases this HDR thing must be a gimmick. It's not like we're not getting accurate colors in bluray right now. Brighter or more intense colors with more subtle gradations will be represented more accurately, but this idea that just because something has HDR must look better is wearing off me. How much HDR and WCG do you need to represent the red in Superman's suit? I don't know.

I hope not to find when I do the upgrade that this HDR isn't just color-boosting. I'll leave it at that, since I'm certainly not authorized to talk about UHD . Maybe I'm just like the guy in the old DVD days that was saying the same about Blurays.


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> I hope not to find when I do the upgrade that* this HDR isn't just color-boosting*. I'll leave it at that, since I'm certainly not authorized to talk about UHD . Maybe I'm just like the guy in the old DVD days that was saying the same about Blurays.


HDR is NOT just about color-boosting; it's also about "contrast-boosting." I have seen some Blu-rays in 1080p that have very good WHITES and BLACKS but then the UHD/HDR version takes those up a notch or two so you have EXCELLENT WHITES and BLACKS. HDR is also about adding more DEPTH and DEFINITION, though those two virtues aren't usually as dramatic as the difference with COLORS and CONTRAST.


----------



## AmerCa

^^^^^^

Wow. I guess I'll need to see it for myself. Sounds amazing.


----------



## djoberg

*Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (UHD)*

I have included my former view of the 1080p version of this title, along with fredrx2d2's comment on the Dolby Atmos mix. Without going into a whole lot of detail, let me just say that I was very impressed with the uptick in detail, depth and contrast in the UHD version...I never expected to see this much difference! And although I was very pleased with the DTS-HD MA mix that accompanied the Blu-ray, the Dolby Atmos mix on the UHD version was noticeably better, with amazing panning and discreet effects throughout the entire 2+ hour running time. 

This one is clearly worthy of a Top Tier 1 placement or perhaps a spot in the bottom of Tier 0. I feel generous so I'm going with....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.9)* 



djoberg said:


> *Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them*
> 
> If I were judging this film based on the first two scenes and the last two scenes, I would most definitely be nominating this for a place in Tier Blu, for they were clearly "Reference Quality." But in between those four scenes it was a mixed bag, with _some_ scenes finding their way into the top two tiers and others in levels of Tier 2 or even Tier 3.
> 
> Again, the scenes that were deemed worthy of the top tier were magnificent, with striking clarity, details and depth. But once the CGI kicked into high gear, softness reared its ugly head at times accompanied by a lack of details and depth. Then there was the "color factor," which in this case can be broken down into two descriptions....MUTED throughout the vast majority of the film and COLOR-GRADED during the rest with "orange/yellow hues" dominating and splashes of "teal hues."
> 
> Before I offer a placement recommendation, a word about the "black levels" is in order. Overall they were excellent, with corresponding shadow details. During some of the soft scenes, they did falter, but thankfully the "black bars" remained "black" at all times.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75 or 2.0**
> 
> PS The DTS-HD Master Audio track was spectacular!!!





fredxr2d2 said:


> For anyone else, if you have Atmos, this disc is reference quality Atmos presentation with wonderful overhead effects. I also agree with Djoberg's placement at 2.0 - not quite as shiny and polished as one might like, especially with the copious amounts of CGI.


----------



## djoberg

*The Dark Knight (UHD)*

I'm going to keep this short. The UHD version most definitely trumps the 1080p version in every way EXCEPT for black levels. A case in point would be the "interrogation scene with the joker" (at the 1 hour 26 minute mark). On the 1080p version the blacks are PITCH BLACK...all you see is the joker's head (painted face and hair) and it looks absolutely amazing...like his head is floating in mid air. On the UHD release the blacks are so elevated that they are a dull gray; they look TERRIBLE! I have read that you can dial the settings down a few notches to correct this, but I didn't want to stop the movie to do it. 

Having said that, the IMAX scenes were JAW-DROPPING GORGEOUS on the UHD version!!! Don't get me wrong, they looked good on the 1080p version, but the details and depth are beyond description in 4K. It's just a crying shame that they didn't get the black levels right (in selected scenes), for in every other way the PQ is worth the upgrade.

I believe I had still placed the 1080p version at 1.0, but I would nominate the UHD release at....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.25 for the IMAX scenes and .75 for the letter-boxed scenes)*

PS I would also bring the UHD version down to Tier 0 (.9) if I couldn't correct the scenes with the elevated blacks.


----------



## HD-Master

djoberg said:


> *The Dark Knight (UHD)*
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to keep this short. The UHD version most definitely trumps the 1080p version in every way EXCEPT for black levels. A case in point would be the "interrogation scene with the joker" (at the 1 hour 26 minute mark). On the 1080p version the blacks are PITCH BLACK...all you see is the joker's head (painted face and hair) and it looks absolutely amazing...like his head is floating in mid air. On the UHD release the blacks are so elevated that they are a dull gray; they look TERRIBLE! I have read that you can dial the settings down a few notches to correct this, but I didn't want to stop the movie to do it.
> 
> 
> 
> Having said that, the IMAX scenes were JAW-DROPPING GORGEOUS on the UHD version!!! Don't get me wrong, they looked good on the 1080p version, but the details and depth are beyond description in 4K. It's just a crying shame that they didn't get the black levels right (in selected scenes), for in every other way the PQ is worth the upgrade.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe I had still placed the 1080p version at 1.0, but I would nominate the UHD release at....
> 
> 
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.25 for the IMAX scenes and .75 for the letter-boxed scenes)*
> 
> 
> 
> PS I would also bring the UHD version down to Tier 0 (.9) if I couldn't correct the scenes with the elevated blacks.




I have the UHD version as well, but haven’t watched the whole thing yet. Now I want to check the interrogation scene tonight to see how it looks. Thanks for the review.


----------



## djoberg

HD-Master said:


> I have the UHD version as well, but haven’t watched the whole thing yet. Now I want to check the interrogation scene tonight to see how it looks. Thanks for the review.


I would be very surprised if you don't experience the same elevated blacks that I did in that scene, for MANY members who own OLEDs have complained of this (especially on the AVS Thread where it is reviewed by Ralph Potts). As you know, I have a Sony LCD/LED, so it is not confined to OLED displays. Again, the Blu-ray version looks AMAZING in that same scene, so the elevated blacks are most definitely a result of HDR. I am glad though that one can change their settings to correct this, but then I wonder, "How will that affect the blacks throughout the movie, for there are quite a few scenes with good-looking blacks without changing the settings?"


----------



## CCsoftball7

HD-Master said:


> I have the UHD version as well, but haven’t watched the whole thing yet. Now I want to check the interrogation scene tonight to see how it looks. Thanks for the review.


I just checked the scene at 1:26 and don't see what I would term elevated black levels. What I do see is detail in The Joker's costume and not simply a floating head.


----------



## djoberg

CCsoftball7 said:


> I just checked the scene at 1:26 and don't see what I would term elevated black levels. What I do see is detail in The Joker's costume and not simply a floating head.


So, are you saying that blacks were PITCH BLACK and all you could see was the joker? That is what I see on the 1080p version. I'm surprised with your blacks are good, for your Sony is very similar to my 940D. Most people complaining about the blacks are OLED owners, though with my Sony it is just as bad as they describe it...the blacks are a dull gray...simply horrendous!


----------



## HD-Master

CCsoftball7 said:


> I just checked the scene at 1:26 and don't see what I would term elevated black levels. What I do see is detail in The Joker's costume and not simply a floating head.




Okay, that’s the time stamp? I’ll check it later tonight also.


----------



## CCsoftball7

djoberg said:


> So, are you saying that blacks were PITCH BLACK and all you could see was the joker? That is what I see on the 1080p version. I'm surprised with your blacks are good, for your Sony is very similar to my 940D. Most people complaining about the blacks are OLED owners, though with my Sony it is just as bad as they describe it...the blacks are a dull gray...simply horrendous!


I watched on both my 940C and my A1E. They aren't pitch black, but I wouldn't call them horrendous as there is definitely detail in The Joker's costume that would be missing due to black crush otherwise. Of course, I'm not in a pitch black room at the moment either (and have no way to do that until tonight). I'll check back.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Star Trek: The Animated Series*

recommendation: *Tier 3.0**

Filmation's Star Trek cartoon looks fairly nice in this three-disc set considering its pedigree. The 1973 series had rather standard television animation for its day with a limited array of colors and less than fluid movement. CBS Home Entertainment and Paramount have given the animation a decent restoration that doesn't go overboard cleaning up the original elements.

The transfer has a stable contrast and strong black levels. The color palette isn't the bright, exaggerated shades often found in children's animation. The 1080P video is presented at the show's original 1.33:1 aspect ratio.

_Star Trek: The Animated Series_ has a mostly clean, consistent presentation. Its traditional animation won't wow anyone with its lackluster palette and uneven character designs. That being said, it's a perfectly respectable transfer that is eminently watchable if you enjoy the original Star Trek series.


----------



## HD-Master

CCsoftball7 said:


> I watched on both my 940C and my A1E. They aren't pitch black, but I wouldn't call them horrendous as there is definitely detail in The Joker's costume that would be missing due to black crush otherwise. Of course, I'm not in a pitch black room at the moment either (and have no way to do that until tonight). I'll check back.




I just watched it and I honestly cannot decide if it’s elevated blacks or just increased shadow detail.


----------



## djoberg

CCsoftball7 said:


> I watched on both my 940C and my A1E. They aren't pitch black, but I wouldn't call them horrendous as there is definitely detail in The Joker's costume that would be missing due to black crush otherwise. Of course, I'm not in a pitch black room at the moment either (and have no way to do that until tonight). I'll check back.


And are you talking about the UHD version, or the 1080p version? It will be interesting to get your take when watching in a pitch black room, for as you know in a room with lights the true nature of the black levels can be masked. 

Again, I was extremely impressed with black levels on the 1080p version; it (the "interrogation scene") is one of my all-time favorite demo scenes for showing off black levels as well as colors and details!


----------



## djoberg

HD-Master said:


> I just watched it and I honestly cannot decide if it’s elevated blacks or just increased shadow detail.


If you're seeing what I'm seeing (on the 1080p version), the blacks surrounding the joker in the interrogation room are literally PITCH BLACK (you can't see them!!!) and the joker's head, face and jacket are the only things you see. It is an amazing scene, to be sure!! It looks like he's sitting in "outer space," and not in a darkened room. I'm not sure what you mean when referring to "increased shadow detail." The details in the joker's hair, face and clothing are exemplary...and again, that's all you see when the black around him turns to PITCH BLACK.


----------



## CCsoftball7

djoberg said:


> If you're seeing what I'm seeing (on the 1080p version), the blacks surrounding the joker in the interrogation room are literally PITCH BLACK (you can't see them!!!) and the joker's head, face and jacket are the only things you see. It is an amazing scene, to be sure!! It looks like he's sitting in "outer space," and not in a darkened room. I'm not sure what you mean when referring to "increased shadow detail." The details in the joker's hair, face and clothing are exemplary...and again, that's all you see when the black around him turns to PITCH BLACK.


I just watched the HD and the 4K/HDR version both on ATV4K (same source) and I can't see any difference in the black levels. The details around his jacket are there in both, the room "texture" on the right side of the screen is apparent. It may be a disc thing. Did you watch the HDR version on a disc?

BTW, I would not call the black pure black on either (watching on my A1E...so a true black floor).


----------



## djoberg

CCsoftball7 said:


> I just watched the HD and the 4K/HDR version both on ATV4K (same source) and I can't see any difference in the black levels. The details around his jacket are there in both, the room "texture" on the right side of the screen is apparent. It may be a disc thing. Did you watch the HDR version on a disc?
> 
> BTW, I would not call the black pure black on either (watching on my A1E...so a true black floor).


Yes, I watched the UHD/HDR version on a disc (I just bought it at Best Buy the other day). At one point in the interrogation scene there is ABSOLUTE BLACK surrounding the Joker (it lasts at least 10 seconds or more) on the 1080p version, with amazing colors and details on the Joker (his hair, painted face and jacket). On the UHD version the black surrounding the Joker is a dull gray, but the colors and details on the Joker are still fantastic. So, it is only the black levels that falter, and they are so obviously BAD! Again, there are quite a few others that wrote in on Ralph Potts site and said the same thing...they all were watching it on OLEDs. A few OLED owners said their black levels in that scene were very good. Others said they dialed down the settings for that scene and the blacks were excellent. I should mention that those who had bad blacks said they weren't limited to that one scene, though in my experience that was the only scene that really stood out as bad.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I should mention I'm taking a break right now from watch the 1080p version of _Jumanji_. It's really a LOOKER! I will weigh in while the credits are rolling in an hour or so.


----------



## djoberg

*Jumanji (2018....1080p version)*

Like I said earlier this evening, this is a LOOKER!! It starts and ends in the "real world" with striking clarity, amazing details, astounding depth, accurate flesh tones, and warm natural colors. Then we enter the world of "Jumanji) and it retains those virtues with a definite spike in contrast (deeper blacks and brighter whites) and saturated colors. My favorite scenes were daytime, jungle scenes with the lush foliage, beautiful cinematography, and intricate details.

There were some CGI shots that were on the soft side, resulting in a loss of depth and details, but thankfully they were "few and far between." 

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.75)*

PS From what I have read, the UHD version takes colors and definition up a notch or two. I'm thinking that might land at .5.

PPS This did NOT have the Dolby Atmos mix that comes with the UHD, but the DTS: Neural: X upmix was EXCELLENT! There were quite a few scenes with helicopters flying overhead, as well other overhead and panning objects, and I would have sworn that this was a Dolby Atmos or DTS:X mix. The LFE was FANTASTIC, along with plenty of action in the surrounds and intelligible dialogue in the center channel.


----------



## CCsoftball7

djoberg said:


> Yes, I watched the UHD/HDR version on a disc (I just bought it at Best Buy the other day). At one point in the interrogation scene there is ABSOLUTE BLACK surrounding the Joker (it lasts at least 10 seconds or more) on the 1080p version, with amazing colors and details on the Joker (his hair, painted face and jacket). On the UHD version the black surrounding the Joker is a dull gray, but the colors and details on the Joker are still fantastic. So, it is only the black levels that falter, and they are so obviously BAD! Again, there are quite a few others that wrote in on Ralph Potts site and said the same thing...they all were watching it on OLEDs. A few OLED owners said their black levels in that scene were very good. Others said they dialed down the settings for that scene and the blacks were excellent. I should mention that those who had bad blacks said they weren't limited to that one scene, though in my experience that was the only scene that really stood out as bad.


There is never a time in that scene where it is absolute black around him. I can alway see at least his jacket in that scene. Do you have a specific time frame? Also, the LG sets don't do the near black level as well as the A1E.


----------



## djoberg

CCsoftball7 said:


> There is never a time in that scene where it is absolute black around him. I can alway see at least his jacket in that scene. Do you have a specific time frame? Also, the LG sets don't do the near black level as well as the A1E.


You mentioned the right time frame several posts ago...at 1 hour and 26 minutes. During the Joker's interrogation everything turns BLACK except for him! You are right, one can see his jacket, but all I see IS HIM, period! He is cloaked in PERFECT DARKNESS and it's an awesome, demo-worthy shot! But again, this is what I see on the 1080p Blu-ray with my "Local Dimming" setting set to "Medium." It doesn't last long...perhaps up to 10 seconds, but it's long enough to "savor the moment!"

I will take a picture of it later today and post it on here.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Liquid Sky*
recommendation: *Tier 2.25**










The avant-garde sci-fi movie receives an absolutely stunning 4K restoration from the original camera negative. Filmed in the early 1980s, niche distributor Vinegar Syndrome gives the bizarre film new life on home video. The 1080P presentation has crisp textures and impressive definition. Considered visually daring for its time, the pseudo-MTV era special effects hold up surprisingly well.

It's strange how an obscure cult film from the 1980s can look this good while more popular Hollywood hits languish on Blu-ray with dilapidated film scans and dated transfers.


----------



## djoberg

CCsoftball7 said:


> There is never a time in that scene where it is absolute black around him. I can alway see at least his jacket in that scene. Do you have a specific time frame? Also, the LG sets don't do the near black level as well as the A1E.


I promised you a picture so here is the best I could do (though it actually looks even better "up close and personal"):


http://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2378606&stc=1&d=1521680071

I did take one where all you could see was his head (no part of his jacket whatsover) but there was a slight "halo" around his head. This one at least shows you how PITCH BLACK it is around the Joker. I often tell people that my Sony 940D has blacks that are sometimes as good as "OLED blacks" and this is a perfect example of that!


----------



## HD-Master

djoberg said:


> I promised you a picture so here is the best I could do (though it actually looks even better "up close and personal"):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2378606&stc=1&d=1521680071
> 
> 
> 
> I did take one where all you could see was his head (no part of his jacket whatsover) but there was a slight "halo" around his head. This one at least shows you how PITCH BLACK it is around the Joker. I often tell people that my Sony 940D has blacks that are sometimes as good as "OLED blacks" and this is a perfect example of that!




I agree that there is clearly a difference. I can see it in the 1080p and UHD versions on my calibrated OLED. I’m just not sure if one is correct and the other is not and if so...which one.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

It's my understanding that colorists are making fairly subjective decisions when it comes to HDR for UHD presentations. These are new tools for the studios and they present a new set of challenges from what had been established on digitial intermediates struck in the Blu-ray era.


----------



## djoberg

HD-Master said:


> I agree that there is clearly a difference. I can see it in the 1080p and UHD versions on my calibrated OLED. I’m just not sure if one is correct and the other is not and if so...which one.


Well, I'll take the one with PITCH BLACK "blacks" any day! 

And let's consider the fact that the picture I took did NOT crush any details on the Joker himself (and the shots right before that and after that had very detailed pics of his jacket and he was still surrounded by PITCH BLACK), so that makes me believe it's supposed to be PITCH BLACK all around him.


----------



## AmerCa

djoberg said:


> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2378606&stc=1&d=1521680071


Beautiful!


----------



## AmerCa

Phantom Stranger said:


> It's my understanding that colorists are making fairly subjective decisions when it comes to HDR for UHD presentations. These are new tools for the studios and they present a new set of challenges from what had been established on digitial intermediates struck in the Blu-ray era.


Are they _coloring _things? So, no faithful representation of what was captured on camera?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

AmerCa said:


> Are they _coloring _things? So, no faithful representation of what was captured on camera?


There are professionals working in Hollywood with the title of digital colorist. They usually work hand-in-hand with the cinematographer to achieve the filmmaker's desired aesthetic for the movie. Even the studio executives can get involved at this stage.

These are the technicians working on the 2K or 4K digital intermediate, basically the movie's intended master. They can tweak color, contrast, black levels and a whole host of other things that affect picture quality. I would say most Hollywood movies don't really resemble their raw film captures, or what are known as dailies in the business. The closest we get on home video to an untweaked state are usually nature documentaries and dramas shot on studio sets.


----------



## fredxr2d2

AmerCa said:


> Are they _coloring _things? So, no faithful representation of what was captured on camera?





Phantom Stranger said:


> There are professionals working in Hollywood with the title of digital colorist. They usually work hand-in-hand with the cinematographer to achieve the filmmaker's desired aesthetic for the movie. Even the studio executives can get involved at this stage.
> 
> These are the technicians working on the 2K or 4K digital intermediate, basically the movie's intended master. They can tweak color, contrast, black levels and a whole host of other things that affect picture quality. I would say most Hollywood movies don't really resemble their raw film captures, or what are known as dailies in the business. The closest we get on home video to an untweaked state are usually nature documentaries and dramas shot on studio sets.


To follow up, and I'm sure Phantom knows this as well, but the title of "colorist" comes from the film days when you would have to literally soak the film in fluid to develop the picture. The person in charge of doing this could change the entire look of a film by how many times and how long they dipped the film stock into the fluids.

https://nofilmschool.com/2014/09/colorist-really-films-video-takes-look


----------



## djoberg

*Transformers: The Last Knight (UHD)*

WOW...WOW...WOW!! What more can I say! As you know I had seen and reviewed the 1080p version and nominated it for the #1 spot in Tier Blu. Well, the UHD version is even better....better COLORS, better CONTRAST, and I believe it even has better DETAILS. I watched it with my son-in-law and he was blown away and had never seen anything that even comes close to this for razor-sharp CLARITY from beginning to end.

I even turned the volume to REFERENCE LEVEL for the last 30 minutes and it was so intense that we both can't sleep!!

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (still #1 ....and then some!!!!)*


----------



## AmerCa

^^^^^^

*T:TLK* was going to be my first UHD last November. It reached here the equivalent to 10 bucks, and as I was ready to make the purchase, it literally in a matter of seconds it went up to something like 30 dollars. It was crazy and depressing at the same time. It's good to know the upgrade will be worth it, although I never doubted it. Speaking of which, I should be revisiting this movie pretty soon, as I'm rewatching all the movies in order.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

That sounds greatly impressive...almost enough for me to watch another Transformers movie.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> That sounds greatly impressive...almost enough for me to watch another Transformers movie.


I am NOT the greatest fan (by a long shot) of the Transformers Franchise because of their LENGTH and MINDLESS DRIVEL! Having said that, I love how the director does a good amount of "Globe-trotting," taking us to some of the most beautiful places on earth which yields mesmerizing cinematography. Again, COLORS and DETAILS in most of these scenes are breathtaking! The bottom line for me is: The PQ and the AQ are so impressive (along with some very cool action scenes) that I can overlook the terrible story-line, weak attempts at humor, and cheesy acting.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom,

Did you enjoy _Justice League_? I plan to rent a move from Redbox today and I was thinking of that one or _Thor: Ragnarok_. They both seem to be getting "mediocre reviews," meaning they're nothing special. Having said that, most are giving _Thor_ a better score for PQ. I am leaving on Tuesday for 8 days so I am hoping to get at least 1 or 2 more viewings in before then.

Denny


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> Phantom,
> 
> Did you enjoy _Justice League_? I plan to rent a move from Redbox today and I was thinking of that one or _Thor: Ragnarok_. They both seem to be getting "mediocre reviews," meaning they're nothing special. Having said that, most are giving _Thor_ a better score for PQ. I am leaving on Tuesday for 8 days so I am hoping to get at least 1 or 2 more viewings in before then.
> 
> Denny


I found Justice League enjoyable, if a tad disposable. It's really nothing like Batman v Superman or the other movies that preceded it. There are enough fun moments included to overcome the disjointed nature of Whedon reshooting parts of the movie. The action scenes are purely Zack Snyder and turned out pretty well. While the story is flimsy, it's not far afield from any number of Hollywood superhero films.

Is it the superhero epic fans wanted? No, the villain is lame and the humor feels like an attempt to copy Marvel's formula.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> I found Justice League enjoyable, if a tad disposable. It's really nothing like Batman v Superman or the other movies that preceded it. There are enough fun moments included to overcome the disjointed nature of Whedon reshooting parts of the movie. The action scenes are purely Zack Snyder and turned out pretty well. While the story is flimsy, it's not far afield from any number of Hollywood superhero films.
> 
> Is it the superhero epic fans wanted? No, the villain is lame and the humor feels like an attempt to copy Marvel's formula.


Thanks Phantom for your analysis! It coincides with others that I've read.

I ended up getting _Thor: Ragnarok_ because EVERYONE is praising the PQ. The reviewer from High Def Digest said it was one of the best Blu-rays to date for PQ. That settled it for me! I'll be weighing in tonight and hopefully agreeing with his high praise.


----------



## AmerCa

^^^^^^^

It's very likely that Thor will have the better PQ of the two, but as a fun movie, I'd take JL any day, and AQ wise it's also superior. Thor was a very overly dumb movie, and this is coming from someone who loves Transformers' humor. JL I'd buy at some point, Ragnarok will not. Of course, that's just my opinion, you'll see it for yourself. Since you're renting them, you've got nothing to lose.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Happy Death Day*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**










Universal recently pumped this movie out and the pseudo-slasher looks very satisfying on BD. The 2.39:1 presentation has a razor-sharp sheen in close-ups. Its consistently excellent definition and ample depth easily qualify for Tier One.

The color palette is rich with a pleasing contrast. Neutral flesh-tones are part of the picture quality's well-rounded package.

Universal's AVC encode is nearly flawless and there are no appreciable errors in the transfer. This is pristine video that just doesn't pop quite enough for a much higher ranking.


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> ^^^^^^^
> 
> It's very likely that Thor will have the better PQ of the two, but as a fun movie, I'd take JL any day, and AQ wise it's also superior. Thor was a very overly dumb movie, and this is coming from someone who loves Transformers' humor. JL I'd buy at some point, Ragnarok will not. Of course, that's just my opinion, you'll see it for yourself. Since you're renting them, you've got nothing to lose.


I just took a break from this "overly dumb movie." I really don't know if I can continue, for I just checked and it's over 2 hours long and I doubt that I can take much more of this! Add to that the fact that the PQ is NOT as good as the reviews I had read....it has its moments, to be sure, but there are many heavy CGI scenes where SOFTNESS rears its ugly head and DETAILS disappear. This is one BIG disappointment "so far."


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> I just took a break from this "overly dumb movie." I really don't know if I can continue, for I just checked and it's over 2 hours long and I doubt that I can take much more of this! Add to that the fact that the PQ is NOT as good as the reviews I had read....it has its moments, to be sure, but there are many heavy CGI scenes where SOFTNESS rears its ugly head and DETAILS disappear. This is one BIG disappointment "so far."


If it is any consolation, I struggled to get through _Happy Death Day_. The first act felt like it took forever as the main character gets stuck in a time loop.


----------



## djoberg

*Thor: Ragnarok (1080p version)*

Okay, I FINALLY finished this "overly dumb movie" (as AmerCa described it and to which I concur). I must confess I did hit the Fast-Forward button several times, but I saw enough of this to evaluate it and get it an honest placement recommendation.

The GOOD: It did have many scenes with striking clarity, vibrant colors, amazing details, and astounding depth.

The BAD: Nearly every "heavy CGI" scene was soft, resulting in a loss of details and depth and the colors were not nearly as bold in those scenes.

To be fair, I couldn't help comparing this with _Transformers: The Last Knight_ (which I viewed two nights ago) and it paled in comparison to that. It lacked consistency in clarity and it also fell woefully short of the beautiful cinematography that Michael Bay gave us as we "trotted around the globe."

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**


----------



## AmerCa

^^^^^^^^

But Thor trotted around the universe and other worlds! C'mon, man! Hahaha.

Seriously, I know some people that don't mind "dumb" movies, after all we all want to have some fun, but they didn't like Ragnarok either. Which surprised me, for I thought maybe I was being a little harsh on it. But yeah, I couldn't wait for the movie to be over, but I didn't have the fast-forward button in the theater. You won't love much better the CGI in Justice League, but the action is better and funnier, and the audio stomps. Phantom is right, Warner payed too much attention to the haters and approached too much the Marvel's humor, but the movie is still more Snyder than Whedon, which is a good thing. And it has Gal Gadot and Amber Heard. Check mate.

PS: I noticed you didn't talk about the audio at all, which is not a good sign. Many people feel the audio was disappointing as well.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^

The audio was indeed a disappointment! There were times I was expecting my walls to shake and to feel waves of energy rolling over me...it never happened! There also wasn't that much happening in the surrounds, though when there was action it was very good.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

The Thor franchise has usually been Marvel's weakest movies.


----------



## djoberg

And yet they had a HUGE all-star cast for T:R! Go Figure!!


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> PS: I noticed you didn't talk about the audio at all, which is not a good sign. Many people feel the audio was disappointing as well.


I read last night, on Ralph Potts' site where he reviewed _Thor: Ragnarok_, that quite a few members were so disappointed they ended up raising the decibel level on their sub and on some of their other channels (on their AVR) by 6-10 decibels. That seemed to do the trick for most of them, though they still thought the LFE was not what it should have been during explosions and especially during the big "Dual" between Thor and The Hulk.


----------



## HD-Master

I can stomach the latest Thor movie. I only made it 15 minutes into the latest Transformers movie however.... 🤢 🤮


----------



## djoberg

HD-Master said:


> I can stomach the latest Thor movie. I only made it 15 minutes into the latest Transformers movie however.... 🤢 🤮


As stated earlier, the phenomenal PQ and AQ, along with some fantastic cinematography throughout, made it tolerable for me! Shoot, I would probably endure watching "paint dry" if it LOOKED and SOUNDED as amazing as T:TLK did. 

In addition, even though Transformers contains a lot of "mindless drivel," Thor was on another level....just saying!


----------



## AmerCa

HD-Master said:


> I can stomach the latest Thor movie. I only made it 15 minutes into the latest Transformers movie however.... 🤢 🤮


To each his own. But, to be honest, I don't know why critics and general public chastise the Transformers so much, and then they give Marvel a free pass when they do something like Ragnarok, and to a lesser extent, Spiderman and Guardians Of The Galaxy. At the very least, Transformers give you among the highest audiovisual experiences in the world, along with some phenomenal action. I'm willing to turn off my brain as a trade-off.

But in the case of Ragnarok, they managed to turn an epic and tragic event in Thor's history into a Saturday Night Live skit. It was harder to me to give them a free pass. If it was a Ninja Turtles movie, I'd expect that level of mindless drivel, like Djoberg put it, but not in this movie.


----------



## HD-Master

AmerCa said:


> To each his own. But, to be honest, I don't know why critics and general public chastise the Transformers so much, and then they give Marvel a free pass when they do something like Ragnarok, and to a lesser extent, Spiderman and Guardians Of The Galaxy. At the very least, Transformers give you among the highest audiovisual experiences in the world, along with some phenomenal action. I'm willing to turn off my brain as a trade-off.
> 
> 
> 
> But in the case of Ragnarok, they managed to turn an epic and tragic event in Thor's history into a Saturday Night Live skit. It was harder to me to give them a free pass. If it was a Ninja Turtles movie, I'd expect that level of mindless drivel, like Djoberg put it, but not in this movie.




For me it’s predominantly the incredibly poor writing. It’s just terrible and that’s not overly surprising, when you look at some of the “talent” involved in creating the screenplays. Bay himself is another issue. He hasn’t done an above average film in over 20 years, in my opinion.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

HD-Master said:


> For me it’s predominantly the incredibly poor writing. It’s just terrible and that’s not overly surprising, when you look at some of the “talent” involved in creating the screenplays. Bay himself is another issue. He hasn’t done an above average film in over 20 years, in my opinion.


_The Island_ isn't unwatchable. That is the only Bay film coming to mind from this century I felt completely satisfied with its storytelling. Your mileage may vary, of course.


----------



## AmerCa

^^^^^^^^

It's no secret that I love Bay's filmography, but I'm well aware he's not everyone's cup of tea. To my eyes he's a visuals master and an action sequence prodigy, and he cares about people watching his movies at home, from the more modest setups to the most expensive. But the writing... it's true. It's not the tightest you'll find, but what the hell. I forgive the man.


----------



## djoberg

*Murder on the Orient Express*

Ah, it is a blessing to watch a film which makes you think....with excellent acting.....a captivating storyline.....and, on top of all that, stunning PQ!

I'm quite tired so I will keep this short by simply saying the CLARITY, DETAILS and DEPTH are mesmerizing during the majority of its nearly 2 hours running time. There is incredible cinematography to boot! The only "gripes" would be a few soft shots and faltering blacks, but they will not keep this out of the coveted tier.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.75)*

PS I can't recall watching the original movie. Because of that I can't speak with any authority on whether or not this "remake of a classic" did it justice. I just know I enjoyed it.


----------



## AmerCa

Phantom Stranger said:


> _The Island_ isn't unwatchable. That is the only Bay film coming to mind from this century I felt completely satisfied with its storytelling. Your mileage may vary, of course.


Hey, Phantom. I understand you not loving the Transformers franchise, but didn't you at least enjoy either *Pain & Gain* or *13 Hours*? Especially the former caught me off guard, it's basically a comedy, a not a bad one in my opinion. I'd LOVE if he tried doing some horror. It'd be either the greatest thing ever or the worst, hahaha.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

AmerCa said:


> Hey, Phantom. I understand you not loving the Transformers franchise, but didn't you at least enjoy either *Pain & Gain* or *13 Hours*? Especially the former caught me off guard, it's basically a comedy, a not a bad one in my opinion. I'd LOVE if he tried doing some horror. It'd be either the greatest thing ever or the worst, hahaha.


I'm not sure I've even seen Pain & Gain. I don't remember watching it. I didn't even know that was a Michael Bay movie.


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> Hey, Phantom. I understand you not loving the Transformers franchise, but didn't you at least enjoy either *Pain & Gain* or *13 Hours*? Especially the former caught me off guard, it's basically a comedy, a not a bad one in my opinion. I'd LOVE if he tried doing some horror. It'd be either the greatest thing ever or the worst, hahaha.


I'll chime in to say I haven't seen _Pain & Gain_ but I've seen _13 Hours_ TWICE! To me it is the best Michael Bay film to date, with an important "true to life" message and outstanding PQ.


----------



## JNayAV

The Secret World Of Arrietty

Tier Recommendation: 1.0

This title already appears listed in Tier 0, but I was unable to find the review (I didn't go back into archives looking).
The title is exemplary for a traditionally animated film. Colors and Contrast are excellent, and I did not notice a single issue with the film.
However, being hand drawn I don't notice as much textures or details, and the overall image has a 'softer' look.
I say 'softer' as it's not soft in the traditional sense where edges and details aren't defined, but it is 'softer' in appearance.

This animation style is difficult for me to place. Like I said it was exemplary to me, but the style doesn't lend itself to some of the facet's of this thread.
Somebody reviewed it as Tier 0 and I can't necessarily argue against it. The details they put into a traditional hand drawn animation is tremendous.


My wife was not aware of Studio Ghibli, but being as she's a fan of Disney animated titles I got a couple to see what she thought.
Needless to say we are now in the process of purchasing nearly the entire Studio Ghibli catalog so more reviews will be incoming.
We watched My Neighbor Totoro a couple weeks ago, since it's a bit distant in memory I won't officially leave a review, but think if would fall closer to the Tier 2-3 range. It came out in 1988, so is a bit dated in comparison to Arrietty.


----------



## fredxr2d2

I wanted to chime in and say that Thor Ragnarok was highly entertaining and a much better film than Justice League, IMO. The humor was well done and I've enjoyed the recent, more humorous movies from Marvel more than some of the ones that take themselves too seriously (Thor The Dark World, anyone?).

I suppose I'm opening myself up to getting beat up on it, but I will handily enjoy my copy of Thor and will wait until the prices come down for Justice League before I even consider buying it.

I will also say that the key to Thor sounding good is turning up your master volume by a lot (5-10dB). Once you do that, the movie sounds pretty great. I did also watch the 4K version with Atmos sound, which is supposed to be better than the DTS track on the 1080p blu.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^^

Hey Fred,

I'm not going to "beat you up."  But your opinion, mine, and others just proves the old adage, "Different strokes for different folks."

Denny
PS I had read that people turned up the Master Volume for _Thor: Ragnarok_. I had mentioned raising the sub volume AND the AVR levels but I may have been mistaken on the AVR levels....maybe it was just the Master Volume.


----------



## JNayAV

fredxr2d2 said:


> I wanted to chime in and say that Thor Ragnarok was highly entertaining and a much better film than Justice League, IMO. The humor was well done and I've enjoyed the recent, more humorous movies from Marvel more than some of the ones that take themselves too seriously (Thor The Dark World, anyone?).
> 
> I suppose I'm opening myself up to getting beat up on it, but I will handily enjoy my copy of Thor and will wait until the prices come down for Justice League before I even consider buying it.
> 
> I will also say that the key to Thor sounding good is turning up your master volume by a lot (5-10dB). Once you do that, the movie sounds pretty great. I did also watch the 4K version with Atmos sound, which is supposed to be better than the DTS track on the 1080p blu.


I fall on your side Fred. As was mentioned, the Thor films were generally the weakest in the Marvel catalog so I think benefited from the shift in tone.
The short films/commercials that were done with Thor living in an apartment and explaining why he didn't show up in Civil War was hilarious I thought, so was glad they went that direction with the film. Humor is subjective so gets more of the Love it/Hate it spectrum, no problem with that.

Transformers I think would benefit from shifting to more of this tonality. The movies play themselves as completely serious, gotta save the world, do or die, no looking back. But the gist of it is Giant Robots fighting other giant robots. Embrace your silliness and accept what you are Transformers. Toys for kids.


----------



## fredxr2d2

djoberg said:


> PS I had read that people turned up the Master Volume for _Thor: Ragnarok_. I had mentioned raising the sub volume AND the AVR levels but I may have been mistaken on the AVR levels....maybe it was just the Master Volume.


I've read both. Some people were just happy (like me) to turn up the Master Volume by a few dBs. Others went through and turned up the sub by ~6dB and the surrounds by a few dBs, which also worked for them. Either way, I've heard that the three recent big Disney releases all deserve some "turning up" in the audio department - Coco, SW: The Last Jedi, and Thor: Ragnarok.


----------



## djoberg

JNayAV said:


> Transformers I think would benefit from shifting to more of this tonality. *The movies play themselves as completely serious, gotta save the world, do or die, no looking back. *But the gist of it is Giant Robots fighting other giant robots.


You're kidding, right? Some of the Giant Robots are CONSTANTLY telling jokes, even while they're fighting!! But perhaps you don't realize they are jokes!


----------



## JNayAV

djoberg said:


> You're kidding, right? Some of the Giant Robots are CONSTANTLY telling jokes, even while they're fighting!! But perhaps you don't realize they are jokes!


I get the jokes, it's just the inconsistency. Bumblebee and some of the other Transformers through out some random jokes, but this is exposed over Shia Lebaouf (sp?) or the new shiny Marky Marky totally serious this is the end of the world. That's what I mean that they need to embrace what they are.

The way too serious we're trying to be a serious drama here, with the random moments of humor doesn't work for me. I think Transormers should embrace the joking side that's occasionally there rather than dropping it in against the drama. It goes back to Transformers was a comic/cartoon geared towards selling toys to kids. Lean more that way. 
(A lot of the humor is also innuendo, so even the jokes don't really hit the kid demographic)
However, what I'm picturing is not Michael Bay's style so doubt it'll happen until a reboot.
If wanted to lean opposite direction, see DC direction of Batman v Superman, Wonder Woman, and Justice League (edit: Throw in the earlier Bale Batman's of purer way to do this well). Leave the jokes at home and make it a generally serious movie. But if look at how DC Universe v Marvel universe is doing commercially I think can see which hits the bigger market.

At the least, Thor: Ragnarok embraced the tonality it wanted to go with. Whether audiences liked it or not.

(Sorry for turning thread into discussion of the finer points of the Transformers franchise :grin

Edit: Wanted to add, the DC style of more seriousness is where I would put the earlier Thor movies which didn't fair as well. I imagine Marvel pushed more towards the lighter side of the spectrum based on the success of The Guardians of the Galaxy movies.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^

Gotcha JNayAV!

I really don't like the mixture of overblown humor and serious drama at all! That's why I was pleasantly surprised when Nolan gave us the Batman Trilogy where it's REALLY, REALLY serious! I love it!!! My all-time fave is most definitely _The Dark Knight_, with _Wonder Woman_ trailing behind it. The others I buy AND watch for the EYE CANDY alone (and some fairly good action shots as well).


----------



## JNayAV

Was thinking of a comparison and came up with is Transformers is like Bay wants to make Saving Private Ryan, but asks Tom Hank's to be Forrest Gump.
Tom can be great in either mode, but just wouldn't quite work when the two overlap.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

JNayAV said:


> The Secret World Of Arrietty
> 
> Tier Recommendation: 1.0
> 
> This title already appears listed in Tier 0, but I was unable to find the review (I didn't go back into archives looking).
> The title is exemplary for a traditionally animated film. Colors and Contrast are excellent, and I did not notice a single issue with the film.
> However, being hand drawn I don't notice as much textures or details, and the overall image has a 'softer' look.
> I say 'softer' as it's not soft in the traditional sense where edges and details aren't defined, but it is 'softer' in appearance.
> 
> This animation style is difficult for me to place. Like I said it was exemplary to me, but the style doesn't lend itself to some of the facet's of this thread.
> Somebody reviewed it as Tier 0 and I can't necessarily argue against it. The details they put into a traditional hand drawn animation is tremendous.
> 
> 
> My wife was not aware of Studio Ghibli, but being as she's a fan of Disney animated titles I got a couple to see what she thought.
> Needless to say we are now in the process of purchasing nearly the entire Studio Ghibli catalog so more reviews will be incoming.
> We watched My Neighbor Totoro a couple weeks ago, since it's a bit distant in memory I won't officially leave a review, but think if would fall closer to the Tier 2-3 range. It came out in 1988, so is a bit dated in comparison to Arrietty.


It would be great if we can get more Studio Ghibli films covered in the PQ Tiers. I've contributed a few but there are several holes. Anyone into classic Disney animation should really watch the Studio Ghibli films directed by Japanese animation legend Miyazaki.

On another note, this is an interesting article addressing some of Hollywood's current problems with mid-budget productions and how quickly it has changed since the 1990s. Yes, the Transformers are mentioned.

http://flavorwire.com/492985/how-th...eft-a-generation-of-iconic-filmmakers-mia/amp


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> *Transformers: The Last Knight (UHD)*
> 
> WOW...WOW...WOW!! What more can I say! As you know I had seen and reviewed the 1080p version and nominated it for the [URL=http://www.avsforum.com/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=1]#1 [/URL] spot in Tier Blu. Well, the UHD version is even better....better COLORS, better CONTRAST, and I believe it even has better DETAILS. I watched it with my son-in-law and he was blown away and had never seen anything that even comes close to this for razor-sharp CLARITY from beginning to end.
> 
> I even turned the volume to REFERENCE LEVEL for the last 30 minutes and it was so intense that we both can't sleep!!
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (still [URL=http://www.avsforum.com/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=1]#1 [/URL] ....and then some!!!!)*


LOVE the praise for Transformers: Last Knight. I only watched the 1080p version and definitely consider it the #1 ULTIMATE REFERENCE movie out there. Only show-demos and particular IMAX scenes from Nolan movies surpass the STUNNING image quality it produces, but Transformers: LK delivers 99% of this quality for the entirety of its two and a half hour running time.


----------



## SnellTHX

fredxr2d2 said:


> I've read both. Some people were just happy (like me) to turn up the Master Volume by a few dBs. Others went through and turned up the sub by ~6dB and the surrounds by a few dBs, which also worked for them. Either way, I've heard that the three recent big Disney releases all deserve some "turning up" in the audio department - Coco, SW: The Last Jedi, and Thor: Ragnarok.


Thor: Ragnarok was my first UHD movie so I thought it was perhaps the format that made the movie sound so damn quiet. I played the movie at 8dB louder than I usually do.


----------



## SnellTHX

*Justice League*

After being severely disappointed with Batman vs Superman and once again with Wonder Woman I didn't have any high expectations of this movie.
After watching the UHD version of this I can confirm my suspicions to be true, it definitely is 'yet another DC movie'. Same look. Muted colours as always, some annoying grain as always.

However this movie does look better the both the aforementioned movies and I love the 1.85:1 format, the details (especially costumes) looked fantastic and most of the movie was sharp apart form some soft looking CGI.


If I remember correctly I gave Wonder Woman 2.0 and Batman vs Superman 1.75. I think it looks a lot better than WW and slightly better than BvS.

Comparing this movie to any of Marvel's recent movie PQ-wise and you realise how Marvel utterly outclasses DC, and I'm a huuge DC fan (Batman is my all time favourite hero) 

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2, Ant-man, Avengers, Thor:Ragnarok are all a level above.

*Tier recommendation: 1.5*


----------



## AmerCa

I'm late to the party, but I did want to comment on some things, so I'll do a kind of mini-super post (what?):



djoberg said:


> I'll chime in to say I haven't seen _Pain & Gain_ but I've seen _13 Hours_ TWICE! To me it is the best Michael Bay film to date, with an important "true to life" message and outstanding PQ.


I'm with you on "13 Hours", man. Both "Pain & Gain" and "13 Hours" are outliers in Bay's filmography, and are basically opposites of each other; one is a "serious" film and the other is sort of a dark comedy, and both are based on true events. "Pain & Gain" cracks me up, and I've seen it three times, but who knows if you'd like it, especially if you're not fond of Bay's humor. The PQ is outstanding, as usual, but the AQ is considerably subdued compared to his usual stuff, but then again, this is more of a comedy. It has its moments, tho. I'd still recommend it just based on technical specs, but the movie itself not everyone is going to love it.



fredxr2d2 said:


> I suppose I'm opening myself up to getting beat up on it, but I will handily enjoy my copy of Thor and will wait until the prices come down for Justice League before I even consider buying it.


Hey, don't say that! All opinions are welcome here; I don't think I've ever seen someone attack someone else's tastes. And I actually stand by the Transformers franchise!



JNayAV said:


> Transformers I think would benefit from shifting to more of this tonality. The movies play themselves as completely serious, gotta save the world, do or die, no looking back. But the gist of it is Giant Robots fighting other giant robots. *Embrace your silliness and accept what you are Transformers. Toys for kids.*


I've never seen the Transformers in any other way! These movies are completely silly. I've never believed for one second the world is in danger. The robots themselves are very silly, and let's not talk about the humans. But within their fiction, they actually behave like they have to save the world, and there's some real sense of danger (to them). This particular type of danger/silliness duality I think Bay excels at, although I'll admit sometimes it gets _really _stupid, but it's still fun. *Pacific Rim*, on the other hand, that's a movie that takes itself too seriously. I also like it, but in that movie the humor felt much more forced.

I don't mind a pinch of humor in my superheroes movies, but Marvel lately is getting out of hand. Maybe "Infinity War" will have more dramatic weight, and will become a true milestone in the Marvel Universe. So far I think only the Captain America franchise is close to the potential the MCU can reach. I just pray to God that they won't have Thanos throwing some jokes...please, please no.


----------



## DarthDoxie

Watched *Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets* on Amazon Prime today and it's a visual stunner. The movie itself is a dud so if anyone can stomach watching it on disc it should rank pretty high, especially the UHD.


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> I'm with you on "13 Hours", man. Both "Pain & Gain" and "13 Hours" are outliers in Bay's filmography, and are basically opposites of each other; one is a "serious" film and the other is sort of a dark comedy, and both are based on true events. "Pain & Gain" cracks me up, and I've seen it three times, but who knows if you'd like it, especially if you're not fond of Bay's humor. The PQ is outstanding, as usual, but the AQ is considerably subdued compared to his usual stuff, but then again, this is more of a comedy. It has its moments, tho. I'd still recommend it just based on technical specs, but the movie itself not everyone is going to love it.





DarthDoxie said:


> Watched *Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets* on Amazon Prime today and it's a visual stunner. The movie itself is a dud so if anyone can stomach watching it on disc it should rank pretty high, especially the UHD.


Hey Guys,

My wife and I are leaving early tomorrow morning for Minneapolis. We fly "out of country" very early on Wednesday and won't be home for a week. If not for this trip I would rent both of the movies you referred to. I had never heard of _Pain & Gain_ before, but I like a good comedy, and of course, I LOVE good PQ. Regarding _Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets_, I read several reviews before yours Darth and they all the movie was, as you say, a real DUD! But they also echoed your sentiments about the PQ so...you know me, I'm willing to watch anything if it's a STUNNER.  I'll check both of them out upon our return.


----------



## AmerCa

^^^^^^^^^^

Have a nice trip and take care! You'll be missed this week for sure. I just hope you do enjoy "Pain & Gain" when you rent it.
@DarthDoxie: I've been eyeing "Valerian" for quite some time, but it hasn't reached my price point just yet. It'd be a blind buy, but I believe the AQ and PQ will be good enough to justify the purchase. I just hope the movie isn't a complete stinker...or maybe I should watch it first, lol.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> Hey Guys,
> 
> My wife and I are leaving early tomorrow morning for Minneapolis. We fly "out of country" very early on Wednesday and won't be home for a week. If not for this trip I would rent both of the movies you referred to. I had never heard of _Pain & Gain_ before, but I like a good comedy, and of course, I LOVE good PQ. Regarding _Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets_, I read several reviews before yours Darth and they all the movie was, as you say, a real DUD! But they also echoed your sentiments about the PQ so...you know me, I'm willing to watch anything if it's a STUNNER.  I'll check both of them out upon our return.


I hope to have the PQ Tiers updated by the time you get back. Valerian will be waiting. Happy Easter in advance.


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Have a nice trip and take care! You'll be missed this week for sure. I just hope you do enjoy "Pain & Gain" when you rent it.





Phantom Stranger said:


> I hope to have the PQ Tiers updated by the time you get back. Valerian will be waiting. Happy Easter in advance.


Thanks guys! We'll be in Nassau, Bahamas for an Easter Bible conference and I'll be so busy I may not even have time to check the thread while there. Have a good holiday!


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Magnificent Seven, The (2016) (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 0* (0.75)*

Solid UHD, I saw nothing distracting in any area of PQ. Details were sharp throughout with fabrics, hair, and facial features on great display. Black levels are excellent with Denzel Washington's character decked out in all black especially standing out. Shadow detail and contrast is also strong with lots of natural lighting on indoor shots. Other than the green grass and trees, there are not a lot of bright colors but all of the shades of browns and grays look natural and are faithfully reproduced.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> *The Zookeeper's Wife*
> 
> When I heard of this title I knew I had to see it, for I'm an avid fan of movies that depict the plight of the Jews during the Nazi takeover of Europe (and this was based on a true story that took place in Warsaw, Poland). The film may be too slow-paced and not have enough action for most people, but the cast was superb (delivering excellent performances) and so was the drama. It easily kept my attention for the whole 2 hour running time.
> 
> But this is a PQ Thread so I must give you my take on what I saw that brought pleasure to my eyes. In short, it was a "mixed bag," with many shots (with good clarity, excellent details, warm & vibrant colors, accurate flesh tones, appreciable depth, and very good black levels) that were worthy of Tier 1. Most of these took place in daytime scenes and they were especially pleasing when shot outdoors. Then there were many shots (with a very soft focus, poor details, and less-than-stellar black levels) that would land in Tier 3 towards the bottom. They actually "saved the best for last," for in the closing scenes there were shots that would easily be considered "Reference-quality" (Tier 0).
> 
> So, after careful consideration of the "good" and the "bad" I'm forced to keep this out of the Top Tiers, though I'm inclined to put in on the top of the next tier.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.0**


I will agree completely with Djoberg's assessment, it's right on the money. The movie is a mixed bag with varying picture quality.

*The Zookeeper's Wife*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**


----------



## rene2kx

*Best looking UHD blu ray IYO*

If you have to pick one 4k/hdr blu ray for looks, which is the best one you have seen so far?


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Sicario (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 0* (0.9)*

Black levels and contrast are excellent with many black uniforms and night scenes. The use of HDR is solid with lots of flashing red and blue police lights, street lights and other punches of color and light. Shadow details and gradations of black in the uniforms really stand out. Details overall are also good, I saw no scenes where I questioned the clarity. The color palette is mostly drab being mostly set in El Paso and Phoenix but primaries are bright and natural when presented.


----------



## SnellTHX

rene2kx said:


> If you have to pick one 4k/hdr blu ray for looks, which is the best one you have seen so far?


Think this question has been asked frequently; but I'll gladly share my opinion again.


1. Transformers: Last Knight --- the de-facto picture quality king
2. Coco
3. Interstellar 
4. Pacific Rim 
5. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2


That's my top 5 right now I think... The remaining five of my top 10, in random order:

The Dark Knight Rises, Moana, Chappie, Kung Fu Panda 3, Life of Pi


but also worth noting that I have not seen the following movies (at home, on my system) which could EASILY take a top 5 spot;

Dunkirk, Planet Earth II, Secret Life of Pets and many other animation movies

So there you have 13 movies and I can almost 100% guarantee that at least 3 or 4 of them would be in your top 5 reference list


----------



## JNayAV

SnellTHX said:


> Think this question has been asked frequently; but I'll gladly share my opinion again.
> 
> 
> 1. Transformers: Last Knight --- the de-facto picture quality king
> 2. Coco
> 3. Interstellar
> 4. Pacific Rim
> 5. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
> 
> 
> That's my top 5 right now I think... The remaining five of my top 10, in random order:
> 
> The Dark Knight Rises, Moana, Chappie, Kung Fu Panda 3, Life of Pi
> 
> 
> but also worth noting that I have not seen the following movies (at home, on my system) which could EASILY take a top 5 spot;
> 
> Dunkirk, Planet Earth II, Secret Life of Pets and many other animation movies
> 
> So there you have 13 movies and I can almost 100% guarantee that at least 3 or 4 of them would be in your top 5 reference list


^^^ Just for clarity, Moana and Kung Fu Panda 3 don't have UHD/HDR Blu ray releases as of right now. Though, as mentioned in a separate discussion, no one would likely notice with these animated titles in the top 10.

To Snell's list I would add John Wick Chapter 2. Specifically scene toward 3/4 mark where he is fighting thru a mirror room. If you accept a specific demo scene.
Other parts of the movie have issues, which keeps it out of my top 5, but that 1 extended scene would be in my top 5.

Despicable Me 3 was a good UHD release, but i'd watch either Coco or Moana on Bluray before it.


----------



## invadergir

*PADDINGTON 2 UHD UK IMPORT

TIER 0* 

It’s a real shame that we in the North American market won’t be getting a UHD release of this movie (at least upon initial release In late April) This is easily one of goto demo discs for showing off what 4K can do. It is just one stunning colourfully rich film that just won’t disappoint. Highly recommend importing the Studio Canal UK disc (bluray is Region B locked)


----------



## JNayAV

*Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind*

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 3.0**

Nothing particularly wrong with this Studio Ghibli (technically prior to Ghibli founding but seems they're releasing it as a Ghibli film now) animated film. The setting of this animation being a lot of desert doesn't lend itself to the contrasting colors found in Arrietty. Being nearly 3 decades old, also means the inherent 'softness' of hand drawn animation is more pronounced than the newer titles. Still, there were no inherit flaws and the animation holds up well for what it is so no one should be turned off to adding this film to their catalog if they like Ghibli style films.
Note there is more violence in this film than a lot of other Ghibli films, probably about the level of Princess Mononoke.


Side note: Saw Ready Player One in theatre's this past Easter Weekend. A lot of PQ aspect's lend it to ending up ranking highly here once released for home. Lots of bright highlights that should look stunning in HDR and some big pops of contrast in the VR world. But the image did appear a bit soft during my viewing. Will take home release to determine if it's just the theatre image or an effort to try and blend the CGI/Real worlds somewhat.


----------



## SnellTHX

*Shape of Water *

Amazing picture quality in this movie and filmed in my favourite 1.85:1 format  plethora of detail in every shot, sharp 4K imagery with no sign of grain or noise, but I suppose it lacks the 'punch' and 'looking-out-of-window' experience you get with other 16:9 movies (IMAX scenes from Nolan movies, Transformers:LK, Pacific Rim, Avengers... even some Netflix) What this movie does to excellently and better than 90% of movies out there is the fantastic use of perfect black! OLED owners, JVC users rejoice as this movie will constantly render absolute blacks everywhere. I especially enjoyed the scene where the main character dreams about dancing, the whites/grays stick out with the rest of the screen displaying a 0 nit black. Contrast porn!!


Other than that I guess I can comment that the movie had a distinguished aquatic colour palette, with lots and lots of teal all over with a bit of orange splurged in. But mostly teal.

*
Tier recommendation: 1**


----------



## subacabra

My 4k uhd copy of Terminator Genisys is waiting for me in my mailbox. Will report back.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I know many users here had Oppo hardware at the heart of their home theaters. In quite shocking news, they are ceasing operations. I really don't know what to say, this leaves a major hole in the hardware market aimed at videophiles.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnar...es-that-its-time-to-say-goodbye/#781206153acc

https://www.oppodigital.com/farewell.aspx


----------



## SnellTHX

Phantom Stranger said:


> I know many users here had Oppo hardware at the heart of their home theaters. In quite shocking news, they are ceasing operations. I really don't know what to say, this leaves a major hole in the hardware market aimed at videophiles.
> 
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnar...es-that-its-time-to-say-goodbye/#781206153acc
> 
> https://www.oppodigital.com/farewell.aspx


Terrible news. I would have hoped they would last one more generation.


----------



## Activefun

I have a new to me Pioneer Elite Pro 141FD system and looking for a great movie to watch with some friends this weekend. It seems that every movie listed when you Google "movies to showcase your home theater" are all SciFi, Batman/StarWars type of film. Other than La La Land, lol, can someone list a few "regular" great movies that look and sound amazing?

Thanks


----------



## djoberg

Activefun said:


> I have a new to me Pioneer Elite Pro 141FD system and looking for a great movie to watch with some friends this weekend. It seems that every movie listed when you Google "movies to showcase your home theater" are all SciFi, Batman/StarWars type of film. Other than La La Land, lol, can someone list a few "regular" great movies that look and sound amazing?
> 
> Thanks


I would highly recommend three of my all-time favorites, which were Remastered by Paramount on their "Sapphire Series"....._Braveheart_, _Gladiator_ and _Forrest Gump_. These are all stunning on a 1080p display and just so you know, I have watched them on my former Pioneer Elite PRO 151FD KURO, so I know exactly what you would be in for watching them on your 141FD.

Another "Stunner" that I would recommend, which also has phenomenal sound, is _Interstellar_. Also, if you like a lot of action, you can't beat Michael Bay's best film ever...._13 Hours_. These all look great in 1080p (and even better on UHD).


----------



## djoberg

It was nice being in the Bahamas for 8 days, but I'm glad to be home, except for the "return to winter" here in Midwestern Minnesota. There was a terrible winter storm in southern Minnesota and our flight into Minneapolis (last night) had to circle the city of an hour before we could land. It was actually a harrowing experience and we all cheered the excellent landing by the pilot who had almost sheer ice on the runway. It was just as bad driving home (200 miles) with the first 150 miles having "black ice" on Interstate 94. I heard this morning that there were over 400 accidents due to the road conditions, with some being quite serious.

Now I hope to get to _Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets_ soon, as well as a couple of others that I've had my eye on for awhile.

That was bad news Phantom about Oppo. I was thinking seriously of getting the latest 4K player but now there's no way I'm going to get it after reading the links that you gave us.


----------



## Activefun

djoberg said:


> I would highly recommend three of my all-time favorites, which were Remastered by Paramount on their "Sapphire Series"....._Braveheart_, _Gladiator_ and _Forrest Gump_. These are all stunning on a 1080p display and just so you know, I have watched them on my former Pioneer Elite PRO 151FD KURO, so I know exactly what you would be in for watching them on your 141FD.
> 
> Another "Stunner" that I would recommend, which also has phenomenal sound, is _Interstellar_. Also, if you like a lot of action, you can't beat Michael Bay's best film ever...._13 Hours_. These all look great in 1080p (and even better on UHD).


Thank you. The girls are tired of watching constant killing. Im not saying it has to be a chick flick at all, but just looking for some regular dramas that include great sound.


----------



## eljaycanuck

Movie: Passengers (2016)
Concert: Eagles: Farewell I Tour - Live from Melbourne


----------



## Activefun

Cool thanks. Regarding concerts, i hear the Rolling Stones concert is amazing.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Activefun said:


> I have a new to me Pioneer Elite Pro 141FD system and looking for a great movie to watch with some friends this weekend. It seems that every movie listed when you Google "movies to showcase your home theater" are all SciFi, Batman/StarWars type of film. Other than La La Land, lol, can someone list a few "regular" great movies that look and sound amazing?
> 
> Thanks


*The Help* has been ranked here in Tier 0 since it first came out. Obviously the sound design is a bit limited compared to an action movie.


_The Tree of Life_ could be another possibility for something out of left field.


----------



## Activefun

Thanks. Unfortunately The Host and Tree of Life are not on Redbox


----------



## AmerCa

djoberg said:


> It was nice being in the Bahamas for 8 days, but I'm glad to be home, except for the "return to winter" here in Midwestern Minnesota. There was a terrible winter storm in southern Minnesota and our flight into Minneapolis...


Glad to have you back. It's already been 8 days?! Wow. Didn't know you lived in Minnesota. Every time I think of Minnesota I think of Fargo. The winter there seems brutal!


----------



## AmerCa

Activefun said:


> Thanks. Unfortunately The Host and Tree of Life are not on Redbox


I second the *Passengers *recommendation. If you need to factor girls in the equation, it's a great option. It works like a "chick flick" but it also has plenty for us guys (starting with Jennifer Lawrence on a swimsuit ).

Now if you really need a drama that both looks and sound great, AND that girls will also enjoy...it's tough!

PS. Phantom was talking about *The Help*, not _The Host. _The Help is the movie with Emma Stone. The Host is also a cool Korean movie that actually works like a comedy, a drama, and terror, and _maybe _girls would like too.


----------



## Activefun

Ok! Thats a definite contender! Yes exactly that. "Now if you really need a drama that both looks and sound great, AND that girls will also enjoy.."


----------



## AmerCa

Ok. I just realized how little drama I watch at home. It's really not the kind of stuff I buy to watch at home. I'll give you my best shot, I'll explain my reasons and the cons, and it's up to you. Hopefully others will be of more help than me.

*The Fountain (2006 - Warner - Director: Darren Aronofsky - Starring: Hugh Jackman, Rachel Weisz)










*The movie: this is a drama in a sci-fi vessel, but for me this is simply a great love story. To me, this is an uplifting drama that will touch men and women alike, regardless if you can "follow" the story.

Pros: Great visuals, great score, solid sound design, ambitious film, very human story, it will keep you thinking long after you've seen it.

Cons: It got mixed reviews back in the day. The film has an open meaning, the story is told in three different timelines, and this can be confusing to some. Most likely you'll need to watch it more than once to fully grasp and appreciate what's going on.

Tech specs: old transfer that holds up very well, but it's not up to today standards. However the visuals are one of a kind, and they will look stunning on almost any display. The sound in the American version is only Dolby Digital 5.1, but it doesn't diminish the audio experience, the score by Clint Mansell is still beautiful and the sound design is very solid for a drama. Play it loud.

In short: The AV experience with this one will be very solid. I believe this is a great drama, but some might find it too dense or simply meaningless. It's not a "safe" movie.

That's it, hope it to be of some help, to you or someone else.


----------



## Activefun

Thanks! I dont buy these movies i mostly rent them from RedBox


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> It was nice being in the Bahamas for 8 days, but I'm glad to be home, except for the "return to winter" here in Midwestern Minnesota. There was a terrible winter storm in southern Minnesota and our flight into Minneapolis (last night) had to circle the city of an hour before we could land. It was actually a harrowing experience and we all cheered the excellent landing by the pilot who had almost sheer ice on the runway. It was just as bad driving home (200 miles) with the first 150 miles having "black ice" on Interstate 94. I heard this morning that there were over 400 accidents due to the road conditions, with some being quite serious.
> 
> Now I hope to get to _Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets_ soon, as well as a couple of others that I've had my eye on for awhile.
> 
> That was bad news Phantom about Oppo. I was thinking seriously of getting the latest 4K player but now there's no way I'm going to get it after reading the links that you gave us.


Welcome back, visiting the tropics must have been great after a long winter.

I'm not sure what to do either with the Oppo news coming out of nowhere. I had been on the verge of getting their 205 player. The other manufacturers hopefully step their game up with UHD hardware.

*Sweet Virginia*

recommendation: *Tier 3.25**

This new indie thriller starring Jon Bernthal from IFC Films and distributed by Shout Factory has serviceable PQ. There's nothing blatantly wrong with the transfer besides some minor crushing of shadow detail and black levels. The film's dark and gritty cinematography make this less-than-attractive video quality. The color palette is drab with flat depth.


----------



## Activefun

3.25? Im trying to keep it 1.75 or lower


----------



## AmerCa

Activefun said:


> Thanks! I dont buy these movies i mostly rent them from RedBox





Activefun said:


> 3.25? Im trying to keep it 1.75 or lower


I'm aware. Hopefully Redbox will have it, or you can stick to the Passenger rec. Or maybe someone else will give you a more suitable recommendation.

BTW, Phantom was not recommending that movie to you, he was simply reviewing it for the thread.  It's been a while since I watched "The Fountain", but I think it's at the very least a 2.0 movie. Not sure without rewatching it (which I should, because I love that movie) if it would qualify to tier 1 spectrum, but I assure you, the visuals are stunning.


----------



## djoberg

Activefun said:


> I have a new to me Pioneer Elite Pro 141FD system and looking for a great movie to watch with some friends this weekend. It seems that every movie listed when you Google "movies to showcase your home theater" are all SciFi, Batman/StarWars type of film. Other than La La Land, lol, can someone list a few "regular" great movies that look and sound amazing?
> 
> Thanks


I don't know why I didn't think of this before, but I'm quite sure your family would LOVE the movie _Wonder_. It has an excellent story-line, a good cast with decent acting, and the PQ is VERY GOOD too! I should mention that with this being purely a "drama" you can't expect anything special in the audio mix. Here is a link to my review:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-819.html#post55815754


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> Welcome back, visiting the tropics must have been great after a long winter.
> 
> I'm not sure what to do either with the Oppo news coming out of nowhere. I had been on the verge of getting their 205 player. The other manufacturers hopefully step their game up with UHD hardware.


It was indeed a nice getaway after being, for the most part, cooped up at home all winter. I only wish I had been able to stay another week or two, for meteorologists are predicting another 1-2 weeks of below average temps and above average snow (it's snowing right now and the temps are in the teens).

I too was thinking of the Oppo 205. I was going to put my Philips player upstairs and the Oppo in my Man Cave. I'm not sure what I'll end up getting now, but I will NOT be getting an Oppo, even though they say they will continue to give Oppo owners FW updates.


----------



## Activefun

oh great thanks! Its actually not a for a family so no kids, just couples that dont want to only watch sci fi and killing lol.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Anyone wanting an Oppo player better act fast. There has been a huge rush on them and supposedly the remaining inventory will be gone within a couple of weeks. I'll probably go with the Sony UHD player.


----------



## djoberg

I would be satisfied with the Sony UHD player; it has very good reviews.

Again, I would NOT get an Oppo for even though they say they will be giving customers FW updates in the future, they did NOT guarantee they would give them as quickly and consistently as they do now.


----------



## tcramer

I think an Oppo is a worthy purchase at this time IF it is for a projection based system, given the flexibility.

For anyone with a regular TV, other players should give what's needed.


----------



## SnellTHX

Activefun said:


> I have a new to me Pioneer Elite Pro 141FD system and looking for a great movie to watch with some friends this weekend. It seems that every movie listed when you Google "movies to showcase your home theater" are all SciFi, Batman/StarWars type of film. Other than La La Land, lol, can someone list a few "regular" great movies that look and sound amazing?
> 
> Thanks


There are plenty of non sci-fi/super hero movies that have reference picture quality.

For instance: 

- Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) : Tier 0
- The Wolf of Wall Street : Tier 0
- The Revenant : Tier 0


All Reference movies that look absolutely amazing and should show off your Kuro's excellent image quality


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^

Another visual marvel with Leonardo DiCaprio in it is _Gatsby_. This is pure Reference Quality with AMAZING COLORS, along with rich, inky BLACK LEVELS and mesmerizing DETAILS.


----------



## Activefun

SnellTHX said:


> There are plenty of non sci-fi/super hero movies that have reference picture quality.
> 
> For instance:
> 
> - Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) : Tier 0
> - The Wolf of Wall Street : Tier 0
> - The Revenant : Tier 0
> 
> 
> All Reference movies that look absolutely amazing and should show off your Kuro's excellent image quality


Id love to watch the Wolf of Wall Street...again. There is a scene with a beautiful blonde sitting on the floor that I would love to see on my new Home Theater lol.


----------



## AmerCa

^^^^^^
That'd be Margot Robbie. And no one would blame you.


----------



## Activefun

AmerCa said:


> ^^^^^^
> That'd be Margot Robbie. And no one would blame you.


She is smokin in that movie. Light years over iTonia


----------



## AmerCa

I haven't seen that movie, but from the trailers I can see she doesn't look very "hot". I think I prefer her when she's not in "serious acting" mode. I liked her in _Focus_, _The Legend of Tarzan, _and _Suicide Squad. _I think I'd probably watch anything she's on it. Even "I, Tonya", when I get the chance, because it's not the type of movie I'd buy.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Suicide Squad: Hell To Pay*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

I'm not exactly sure what went wrong with this new animated feature from WB Animation but it is loaded with banding, some of the worst I've seen on one of these animated DC movies. It's possibly endemic to the original animation and not a problem that could have been solved by throwing higher AVC rates at the encode.

On top of the banding, this lacks the lively palette of typically brighter animation. That is why I'm ranking it in Tier 2 as a visible step behind most of its brethren from Warner's direct-to-video line.

In most other ways the animation looks fine. The character designs are fluid and consistently detailed, popping off the screen.

It's also coming out on UHD. Struck from a 2K source, someone else will have to review that disc.


----------



## djoberg

I am leaving shortly to pick up a copy of _Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets_ at Redbox. I have also placed an order for the UHD version of _The Greatest Showman_ from Amazon and it will arrive next Tuesday. Ralph Potts gave them both a perfect PQ score of 100, so I have every reason to believe I will be "singing their praises" and assigning them both to Tier Blu!


----------



## djoberg

*Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (1080p version)*

Okay, I won't be giving this a perfect score like Ralph Potts did, but it's good enough to put on my Reference Shelf....if I were ever to buy it, that is. But that will never happen for the movie itself was deplorable!!

The most striking features, by far, are the VIVID COLORS, the FINELY-RENDERED DETAILS and DEEP BLACK LEVELS. Having said that, there were shots which softened resulting in less-than-stellar colors and faltering blacks. Thankfully, they were "few and far between."

I should also mention that I have seen better CGI and this was definitely a contributing factor when it came to the intrusion of SOFTNESS.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.5)*

PS I forgot to add that the Dolby Atmos mix was rock-solid! I especially liked the overhead panning effects and the IA Voice (which really sounded like it was right above me).


----------



## AmerCa

*Drive Angry (2D) (2011 - Summit)*










I just realized that blu-ray.com gave this BD a 5/5 in PQ. Even for a 2011 film that score is exaggerated, for I found the video presentation very disappointing. There are, indeed, many scenes that look terrific, especially close-ups, but for the most part the PQ is serviceable, showing just enough clarity, and, at times, some detail to remain you that you're looking to a format that was considered at the time a premium product. Clearly the movie wss on a tight budget and it can't be hidden. Black levels were good when needed, but truly there's not much to say about this disc. It's merely GOOD, and as such I feel a 2.5 placement for this title tells the story.

Now, it's a good thing the movie was such a fun ride that I didn't bother with the cheap CGI and very obvious "blue screens". This movie is so ridiculous in so many levels that it had to be, necessarily, an incredibly funny movie. It won't be for everyone - the profanity, gratuitous nudity, gore and violence will make sure of it -, but those wanting to have some fun and lost themselves in the movie's excesses won't be disappointed. And then there's Amber Heard.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.5*


----------



## AmerCa

*Hanna (2011 - Universal)*










Another rather disappointing experience, although to a lesser extent. The film has great cinematography and beautiful locations, but it was shot as to not stand out. Colors look natural but dull at the same time, if that make sense. Scenes that called for vibrant colors and contrast appear muted, and there's a good amount of softness present. At least the PQ is consistent to what is shown from the beginning, and you can tell it was the director's intent. Which is good, but I can't recall a single demo worthy scene

But what the BD lacks in eye candy, it makes up for it in SQ. I had read a lot about how good the audio mix was in here, and it did not disappoint. It's not the loudest or most thunderous mix, it just does what it has to do at the right time with a very detailed and immersive audio track. The Chemical Brothers score is very effective and potent, I just wish the score was more prominent and lasted longer on screen.

All in all, a solid film in all departments.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*


----------



## DarthDoxie

djoberg said:


> *Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (1080p version)*
> 
> Okay, I won't be giving this a perfect score like Ralph Potts did, but it's good enough to put on my Reference Shelf....if I were ever to buy it, that is. But that will never happen for *the movie itself was deplorable!!*


You were warned!


----------



## djoberg

Hey AmerCa,

You were much more generous than I was when I reviewed this over 6 years ago. Here's my review:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-620.html#post20941869



AmerCa said:


> *Hanna (2011 - Universal)*
> 
> Another rather disappointing experience, although to a lesser extent. The film has great cinematography and beautiful locations, but it was shot as to not stand out. Colors look natural but dull at the same time, if that make sense. Scenes that called for vibrant colors and contrast appear muted, and there's a good amount of softness present. At least the PQ is consistent to what is shown from the beginning, and you can tell it was the director's intent. Which is good, but I can't recall a single demo worthy scene
> 
> But what the BD lacks in eye candy, it makes up for it in SQ. I had read a lot about how good the audio mix was in here, and it did not disappoint. It's not the loudest or most thunderous mix, it just does what it has to do at the right time with a very detailed and immersive audio track. The Chemical Brothers score is very effective and potent, I just wish the score was more prominent and lasted longer on screen.
> 
> All in all, a solid film in all departments.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.25*


----------



## djoberg

DarthDoxie said:


> You were warned!


I took your warning to heart Darth, so I was not surprised that the movie was a:

*D*efinite
*U*ndeniable
*D*isaster

But you also spoke highly of the PQ, and you were spot on! That (along with a very good audio mix), my friend, made it worth watching!!


----------



## Aliens

Hans Zimmer: Live in Progue. Outstanding presentation. I can only imagine what it sounded like in Atmos. A must have for any Hans fan or movie music buff.


----------



## djoberg

Aliens said:


> Hans Zimmer: Live in Progue. Outstanding presentation. I can only imagine what it sounded like in Atmos. A must have for any Hans fan or movie music buff.


SOLD!

I couldn't resist ordering this after reading some of the reviews on Amazon. I am indeed a BIG FAN of Hans Zimmer. I'm also a HAPPY OWNER of a very good audio system (including 4 Dolby Atmos height speakers) so I am "more than excited" to HEAR this concert!! Thanks for the "heads up!"


----------



## AmerCa

djoberg said:


> Hey AmerCa,
> 
> You were much more generous than I was when I reviewed this over 6 years ago. Here's my review:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-620.html#post20941869


I think you're right. Hanna PQ was lifeless, but it was at least consistent in its presentation, but I wasn't sure how to place it. _Drive Angry_ had actually some great shots, but it also had some very bad scenes. So I rated Hanna a bit higher. But Hanna could be very well the definition of a merely adequate video presentation, so tier 3.0 sounds very reasonable. But since I really think _Drive Angry_ is a 2.5 disc, and I still think Hanna PQ is more consistent, I'll stick with 2.25. Tier 3 for me starts bordering on very deficient PQ, and I think Hanna is not that bad. I remember giving _The Hurt Locker_ a 2.5 ranking, and this one is along that line.

I'll rewatch it soon, so I'll have the chance to revaluate. It's hard to have a consistent criterion, right?


----------



## AmerCa

Aliens said:


> Hans Zimmer: Live in Progue. Outstanding presentation. I can only imagine what it sounded like in Atmos. A must have for any Hans fan or movie music buff.


Whatever you say, Amber. :kissOMG!)


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> I think you're right. Hanna PQ was lifeless, but it was at least consistent in its presentation, but I wasn't sure how to place it. _Drive Angry_ had actually some great shots, but it also had some very bad scenes. So I rated Hanna a bit higher. But Hanna could be very well the definition of a merely adequate video presentation, so tier 3.0 sounds very reasonable. But since I really think _Drive Angry_ is a 2.5 disc, and I still think Hanna PQ is more consistent, I'll stick with 2.25. Tier 3 for me starts bordering on very deficient PQ, and I think Hanna is not that bad. I remember giving _The Hurt Locker_ a 2.5 ranking, and this one is along that line.
> 
> I'll rewatch it soon, so I'll have the chance to revaluate. It's hard to have a consistent criterion, right?


FTR, I was NOT faulting you for your placement. I love honest reviews and if that's where you believe it belongs, then don't change it or even re-watch it because of what I said. Having said that, I still believe it belongs at 3.0!


----------



## AmerCa

^^^^^^

Sure, man. I don't mind changing a placement if I feel I wasn't "in my right eyes" when I first watched it. Other times, the more movies I watch gave me more and better points of reference, so naturally I'd need to revaluate previous rankings in the name of consistency and honesty. In the case of Hanna, I just need to re-listen to that score and audio mix. And I think the GF will like it as well.


----------



## Aliens

djoberg said:


> SOLD!
> 
> I couldn't resist ordering this after reading some of the reviews on Amazon. I am indeed a BIG FAN of Hans Zimmer. I'm also a HAPPY OWNER of a very good audio system (including 4 Dolby Atmos height speakers) so I am "more than excited" to HEAR this concert!! Thanks for the "heads up!"


You will not be disappointed. Worth every penny. My recliners were vibrating and the walls were shaking. 



AmerCa said:


> Whatever you say, Amber. :kissOMG!)


----------



## djoberg

Aliens said:


> You will not be disappointed. Worth every penny.


I believe you!!!

Here is a great "teaser trailer" for anyone who is interested:

http://www.hanszimmerlive.com/liveinprague/


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^

It sounds a bit "bass heavy" on my computer sub, so should I be turning down my dual SVS subs for the BIG SHOW?

BTW, it shows on that site that it is also recorded in 4K. Do you know where one can purchase that copy instead of the 1080p version?


----------



## djoberg

And here is a "teaser review":

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Hans-Zimmer-Live-in-Prague-Blu-ray/188217/


----------



## AmerCa

^^^^^^^

They've been singing the praises of that concert over at http://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-s...vies-w-frequency-charts-181.html#post55708906. It comes up regularly on conversations, and all comments are very positive.


----------



## Aliens

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^^
> 
> It sounds a bit "bass heavy" on my computer sub, so should I be turning down my dual SVS subs for the BIG SHOW?
> 
> BTW, it shows on that site that it is also recorded in 4K. Do you know where one can purchase that copy instead of the 1080p version?


It is heavy on the bass so you may want to tone it down a notch, especially with 2 subs. I left my Rythmik sub alone but may adjust it a bit the next time I give it a spin. There are some incredibly powerful sounding selections. Would love to have been there. 

No idea on the 4K.


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> ^^^^^^
> 
> * Knowing* is one of the greatest thrillers I've ever seen. But my gushing excitement, after seeing the movie and looking for some online reviews, was met by general panning , except for Roger Ebert (who is quoted on the BD cover) and a couple of other reviews. I guess it happens sometimes. I see you're not crazy about it either, but neither was my GF and family when I played it to them. Sure, they liked it, but after they were more like "_Ok, what's next?_".


I just got done reading a review by Ralph Potts on the new UHD version of _Knowing_ (it will be released on April 10th). I am going to give you the link so you can read it, for you will be pleasantly surprised to see that he has always liked this movie and has seen it several times. He says the UHD release looks excellent with an obvious uptick in PQ. After reading his review of the movie and the PQ, and seeing a very decent price for the UHD version on Amazon, I decided to order it!

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-o...ing-ultra-hd-blu-ray-review.html#post55998252


----------



## AmerCa

^^^^^^^

Much appreciated, man! Seems like something I'd have to double-dip in the future, especially for the audio upgrade. I'm glad you're getting it, and look forward to your impressions to further seal the deal.


----------



## djoberg

*The Pelican Brief*

As I was perusing my Blu-ray collection this afternoon I came across a couple of titles I had picked up months ago in a Walmart "Bargain Bin," one of them being _The Pelican Brief_. I had seen this title when it first came out on DVD (many, many years ago) but had never rented or purchased the Blu-ray copy. Being an avid fan of most anything by John Grisham, I decided to finally watch it.

Let me just say this, I recall the DVD being...shall I say...somewhat of a mess, so I was pleasantly surprised by the obvious increase in PQ. The colors were warm and inviting...very "natural-looking" yet vibrant as well. Details, in close-ups, were superb at times (worthy of Tier 1), though they fell a bit flat in mid-range and long shots. Clarity and depth were also pleasing, especially in outdoor, daytime shots or in well-lit interiors. Black levels were decent, as were shadow details. Flesh tones were spot on accurate.

There were some obvious flaws. Among them were some "out-of-focus" shots and softness (which resulted a lack of details and depth). Another notable culprit was some post-processing anomalies, no doubt due to the application of DNR.

Okay, as with all "mixed bags" I find this hard to place. It's definitely not "reference" or "demo" quality, but it would be a shame to put this any lower than Tier 2. I believe it belongs in the middle somewhere....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25 or 2.5*


----------



## AmerCa

Wow. The price for the Knowing 4k is really accesible. At this point I'd be getting it only for the slipcover, since it's gonna be a while for my 4k upgrade, and probably I could get a better deal in the future. Decisions, decisions.

On a related note, I've always said if the studios make accessible UHD discs, people are going to buy them. Right now the true barrier to upgrading is the price for the 4k discs. And to be honest, for a premium product, the presentation I've seen for some discs is very disappointing, with a very cheap look and feel.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Gone Are The Days*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

Lionsgate issues this new Western shot with an Alexa. This movie has fantastic textural detail in close-ups, evidently completely unfiltered. Which I've noticed has become more and more rare as filmmakers have begun to understand their processing options when finessing the digital intermediate. This is a technically strong transfer with strong depth and dimensionality. The razor-sharp video offers a pristine vision of the Wild Wild West.

Starring Lance Henriksen, the cinematography emphasizes panoramic compositions and a traditional Western aesthetic. The adequate AVC encode comes on a BD-25, accurately rendering the film's stark clarity. The only problem keeping this out of Tier 0 are the brightest exterior scenes, which have some mildly blown-out white levels that affect the overall contrast. Otherwise this is flawless picture quality.


----------



## djoberg

*Blade Runner 2049 (UHD)*

I have been anticipating this film for quite some time, especially after reading countless reviews on the amazing PQ & AQ. I was NOT disappointed one iota, for the PQ was fantastic, with striking DETAILS from beginning to end. As you may know, this had a drab color palette, but when primaries "rose to the occasion" they were excellent. BLACK LEVELS (and there are many) were topnotch, with some very pleasing SHADOW DETAILS as well. DEPTH was off the charts at time. FLESH TONES were spot-on accurate. And last, but not least, CLARITY was sharp as a tack (when there was good lighting).

The only real downside (besides some egregious color-grading) was the "grittiness" that was on display in numerous scenes. This was most definitely the "director's choice" and it fit the theme of the movie perfectly. Yet it did result in a lack of the "WOW factor." Having said that, I was still captivated by those scenes. I'll go as far as to say that it was "reference quality grittiness!" 

I feel compelled to comment on the phenomenal Dolby Atmos mix. From the opening scene you knew this was going to give your sub(s) a real workout, with some of the best bass/LFE that I have ever heard (thankfully my Dual SVS subs were up to the task). The soundtrack, reminiscent of the famed Vangelis (who composed the music for the original), was breathtaking. The action in the surrounds and height channel was as precise and clear as one ever could hope for. And last, but not least, the dialogue in the Center Channel was crystal-clear. This is a LOUD mix so I started out at around -8...tried it at "Reference Level" until things started falling of some of my shelves...and wound up setting it to -6 and leaving it there for the duration of the movie.

Oh...one more thing...I enjoyed this "sequel" more than the original, which I never thought would be possible.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.66)*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^

Next up...._John Wick 2_, followed by _Knowing_ and _Hans Zimmer: Live in Prague_.


----------



## djoberg

*John Wick 2 (UHD)*

Okay, I'm simply going to post my review to the 1080p version and then give my placement recommendation for the UHD version. I would say this a a tad better, not in details, depth or clarity, but in deeper blacks & brighter whites (due to HDR) and more robust colors (due to the WCG).

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-795.html#post53822249

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (.66)*

PS The Dolby Atmos mix definitely topped the Dolby TrueHD mix on the 1080p release.


----------



## djoberg

*Hans Zimmer: Live in Prague*

*WOW!!!*

I felt I needed a break from my "Movie Marathon" so I slipped in _Hans Zimmer: Live in Prague_ to see if this concert lived up to all the hype. All I can say is, "I was mesmerized by the sheer genius of Mr. Zimmer's compositions (they were definitely "tweaked" for his live performances) and the unbelievable talent of all the musicians." 

The VIDEO: I have seen quite a few concerts on Blu-ray and this one is right up there with the best. There were some shots (when panning the audience or with some of the light shows) that came across as "out-of-focus" with faltering blacks and a lack of detail. But close-ups of the musicians (which make up the bulk of the concert's 2+ hour running time) were either Reference (Tier 0) or Demo (Tier 1) quality. I was really amazed at the BLACK LEVELS, they were DEEP & INKY and gave you a sense of depth you rarely see in concert footage.

The AUDIO: The mix was stellar all the way through, though I must confess I am not the biggest fan of "some" of Mr. Zimmer's film compositions (most notably his earlier works...from _Driving Miss Daisy_ and _Rain Man_ and others). But about halfway through we are treated to several cuts from _Pirates of the Caribbean_ that were fantastic. The real gems came in the last 40-50 minutes (which were like a Grand Finale) with cuts from _The Dark Knight_ and _Interstellar_. I was truly transfixed to my screen and my ears were in "Audio Nirvana." You have to SEE and HEAR it to believe it! If you have a decent surround sound system (preferably with Atmos Height Speakers) you will be immersed in some of the best music to date...there is PRECISION and yet a SPACIOUSNESS that is second to none.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0*

PS If this was an audio thread it would be Tier 0 (Top Ten!)


----------



## djoberg

*Knowing (UHD)*

Okay, so I had posted a couple of weeks ago saying that I had seen this back in 2009 and even wrote a review on it. I'm going to save myself some time and simply post the link for that review. Basically, the UHD version looks about the same as I described the 1080p version. But I must say that with the passage of time it didn't hold up to today's standards, so even though I had given it a 1.0 placement, I would probably be dropping it down to least 1.75 today. Perhaps the UHD version is tad better, so my placement will reflect that uptick in PQ. 

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-433.html#post16845486

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**

PS The Dolby Atmos mix was awesome, especially the plane and subway crashes (two of the best scenes for audio that I've ever seen/heard).

PPS Upon further reflection, I have to say that even though the black levels were amazing during scenes in the daytime (or in interior scenes with good lighting), they did indeed falter during some nighttime scenes. This "may" have been a result of HDR, for "sometimes" blacks can be affected adversely due to HDR. I will also mention that I had considerable "light bleed" into my black bars throughout the movie and I know HDR is a definite factor, along with an inherent weakness in LCD technology. With these in mind, perhaps I should change my Tier Recommendation to 1.75.


----------



## tcramer

djoberg said:


> *Knowing (UHD)*
> 
> Okay, so I had posted a couple of weeks ago saying that I had seen this back in 2009 and even wrote a review on it. I'm going to save myself some time and simply post the link for that review. Basically, the UHD version looks about the same as I described the 1080p version. But I must say that with the passage of time it didn't hold up to today's standards, so even though I had given it a 1.0 placement, I would probably be dropping it down to least 1.75 today. Perhaps the UHD version is tad better, so my placement will reflect that uptick in PQ.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-433.html#post16845486
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.5**
> 
> PS The Dolby Atmos mix was awesome, especially the plane and subway crashes (two of the best scenes for audio that I've ever seen/heard).
> 
> PPS Upon further reflection, I have to say that even though the black levels were amazing during scenes in the daytime (or in interior scenes with good lighting), they did indeed falter during some nighttime scenes. This "may" have been a result of HDR, for "sometimes" blacks can be affected adversely due to HDR. I will also mention that I had considerable "light bleed" into my black bars throughout the movie and I know HDR is a definite factor, along with an inherent weakness in LCD technology. With these in mind, perhaps I should change my Tier Recommendation to 1.75.



Hmm, a bit disappointing given Ralph's review were he noted it easily bests the 1080p version?


----------



## djoberg

tcramer said:


> Hmm, a bit disappointing given Ralph's review were he noted it easily bests the 1080p version?


I was tempted to slip my 1080p copy in last night after watching the UHD version to compare various scenes. In my review in 2009 I said nothing of faltering blacks in nighttime scenes but I definitely observed them in the UHD release. Is this the result of HDR? I suspect it is, for as I said HDR can indeed have an adverse effect on black levels (instead of its intended purpose of enhancing them). Of course, that doesn't tell us why Ralph said that "it (the UHD version) easily bests the 1080 version." Perhaps the difference in our displays is a factor. I'm not sure but I will revisit the 1080p copy soon as I can and then report back to you.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^

I should add that perhaps I should not penalize the UHD viewing for the issue with "light bleed," for as I stated this seems to be one of the results of HDR when you have a dark scene with a bright object adjacent to the letter-boxed bars. In the 1080p version (which lacks HDR) there usually isn't the light bleeding issue, at least not to the same degree.

I'm still longing for the day when I can afford a large OLED display which has zero problems with light bleed or haloing. Or perhaps the day will come when there will be large "Micro-led" displays that are affordable...they will be superior to the both the LCD and the OLED!


----------



## AmerCa

djoberg said:


> *Knowing (UHD)*
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.5**
> 
> PS The Dolby Atmos mix was awesome, especially the plane and subway crashes (two of the best scenes for audio that I've ever seen/heard).
> 
> PPS Upon further reflection.... With these in mind, perhaps I should change my Tier Recommendation to 1.75.


Noooo!! 1.75 was the placement I gave to the FHD version! It's curious that some of your complaints for the UHD are similar to mine for the Bluray. So, basically, it looks pretty good, but fails to reach the higher levels of PQ. If not for the audio upgrade, that you've confirmed is great, I wouldn't seriously consider to upgrade. I had high hopes for this one...


----------



## DarthDoxie

*La La Land*

recommendation: *Tier 1.25*

Current placement. I expected more out of this one, maybe the UHD is better?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Phantom Thread*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

Possibly the last performance by Daniel Day-Lewis, this movie by Paul Thomas Anderson was actually shot on 35mm film unlike more and more Hollywood movies today. There is a very interesting camera test included in the extra features where he describes the thought process behind which lenses he wanted for _Phantom Thread's_ period setting. Much thought and care has been applied to the color palette, meshing with the couture fashion world of the main character's job as an exclusive dressmaker. Interestingly enough, the UHD version has been delayed and won't come out for a few weeks. If any Blu-ray can be called film-like anymore, it is _Phantom Thread_. The careful cinematography has fine definition and excellent textural detail, despite lacking the extraordinary sharpness so often seen today with newer digital productions.

Universal has done good work bringing the film transfer to 1080P resolution for the purposes of home video. The high-bitrate AVC encode is quite sufficient at capturing the subtle and visible grain structure. Shadow delineation is decent, lacking perfectly tuned black levels.

_Phantom Thread_ isn't demo material but this Blu-ray provides a very steady, consistent presentation that reminds us that 35mm film remains quite capable of delivering the goods. It's hard to imagine the meticulously crafted set design and costumes working as well via digital filmmaking.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Ex Machina (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

Not much of an improvement over the Blu-ray. It has a fairly muted color palette with Nathan's "lair" being mostly gray concrete and glass. The green foliage surrounding the house pops but not much else of note. The use of HDR for bright highlights was subtle but I think black and shadow detail is slightly improved. One thing that is not greatly improved is the sharpness and detail expected of a UHD presentation, it is remarkably unremarkable. A lack of sharpness was a knock on the Blu-ray and there really isn't anything to rave about here, this is in no way a demo disc.

If you have the Blu-ray, save your money as an upgrade to UHD is negligible.


----------



## djoberg

*The Greatest Showman*

*GORGEOUS!!*

That about sums up this wonderful musical! COLORS were as bold & vibrant as can be! DETAILS were exemplary! CLARITY was superb! BLACK LEVELS/SHADOW DETAILS were to-die-for! FLESH TONES were accurate! DEPTH was astounding! Do you get the PICTURE? If not, see it for yourself and you will!

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.25)*

PS I'm not the greatest fan of musicals, but this was infectious from the opening song to the finale!

PPS Let me add one word to my uncharacteristic "short" review. There were scenes that were simply breath-taking, even exotic!


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> *Phantom Thread*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 2.0**
> 
> Possibly the last performance by Daniel Day-Lewis, this movie by Paul Thomas Anderson was actually shot on 35mm film unlike more and more Hollywood movies today. There is a very interesting camera test included in the extra features where he describes the thought process behind which lenses he wanted for _Phantom Thread's_ period setting. Much thought and care has been applied to the color palette, meshing with the couture fashion world of the main character's job as an exclusive dressmaker. Interestingly enough, the UHD version has been delayed and won't come out for a few weeks. If any Blu-ray can be called film-like anymore, it is _Phantom Thread_. The careful cinematography has fine definition and excellent textural detail, despite lacking the extraordinary sharpness so often seen today with newer digital productions.
> 
> Universal has done good work bringing the film transfer to 1080P resolution for the purposes of home video. The high-bitrate AVC encode is quite sufficient at capturing the subtle and visible grain structure. Shadow delineation is decent, lacking perfectly tuned black levels.
> 
> _Phantom Thread_ isn't demo material but this Blu-ray provides a very steady, consistent presentation that reminds us that 35mm film remains quite capable of delivering the goods. It's hard to imagine the meticulously crafted set design and costumes working as well via digital filmmaking.


Thanks for the excellent review Phantom! How absolutely FITTING that you would review this title on the PQ Thread...or on what some might dare to call "Phantom's Thread!"


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> Thanks for the excellent review Phantom! How absolutely FITTING that you would review this title on the PQ Thread...or on what some might dare to call "Phantom's Thread!"


It's an interesting movie, if nothing else. I have found Paul Thomas Anderson's movies hit or miss, but _Phantom Thread_ feels more like a Daniel Day-Lewis movie. I believe the UHD was pushed back because of a delay in the HDR.

*Basmati Blues*

recommendation: *Tier 1.25**

One of the worst musicals I've ever seen. I was hesitant to write this recommendation since it might sucker some people into watching this lighthearted Brie Larson musical comedy set in India. But the video has pristine digital clarity, shot in vivid definition and sharpness. It easily qualifies for Tier One and has even better moments.


----------



## SnellTHX

*Star Wars: The Last Jedi*

Well this movie was... disappointing. I watched Star Wars Episode VII and Rogue One in the cinema and they looked good there, missed Episode VIII but picked it up in 4K/HDR and the picture quality just wasn't that special. I believe Episode VII is rated tier 0 material here in this thread but its sequel is anything but. There's film grain although it ranks among some of the least intrusive film grain, there's a good amount of detail in most shots but the image just isn't all that sharp. It looks like a 4K remaster of something from the 90s. Pulp Fiction from 1994 looks more detailed and sharper on Blu-ray

I'm not saying it was bad, there were some decent looking shots and the latter half of the film had much better picture quality than the first half. Ultimately let down by a few instances of poor contrast as well.


Now that's a shame, this movie has a 4K DI, and supposedly contains scenes that are filmed by the best camera in the world (!) IMAX 9802, the same camera Nolan uses to shoot his better-than-real-life BEYOND REFERENCE 15/70mm IMAX scenes in TDK, TDK:R, Interstellar and Dunkirk.

I saw no such usage or anything remotely close throughout the entire movie but as I mentioned some shots did look significantly better than others.

*
Tier recommendation: 1.5**


----------



## SnellTHX

Watching Netflixes' new series Lost in Space in 4K/HDR and WOW!! that's what good picture quality looks like. So much punch to the image and three-dimensionality that really sticks out of the TV. The colours are insane and there's so much 'pop' going. the greens of the foliage, the blue of robot/alien all primaries look amazing. The image quality is RAZOR sharp, this is what true 4K looks like! possibly even 8K for all I know, the image is so pristine it cuts my eyes. Coming from Star Wars to this is a HUGE upgrade. If only DV on my TV/Netflix app (whomever is to blame) is fixed then this would be up with titles like Pacific Rim and Avatar (perhaps a top 20 tier 0 spot)


----------



## Phantom Stranger

SnellTHX said:


> *Star Wars: The Last Jedi*
> 
> Well this movie was... disappointing. I watched Star Wars Episode VII and Rogue One in the cinema and they looked good there, missed Episode VIII but picked it up in 4K/HDR and the picture quality just wasn't that special. I believe Episode VII is rated tier 0 material here in this thread but its sequel is anything but. There's film grain although it ranks among some of the least intrusive film grain, there's a good amount of detail in most shots but the image just isn't all that sharp. It looks like a 4K remaster of something from the 90s. Pulp Fiction from 1994 looks more detailed and sharper on Blu-ray
> 
> I'm not saying it was bad, there were some decent looking shots and the latter half of the film had much better picture quality than the first half. Ultimately let down by a few instances of poor contrast as well.
> 
> 
> Now that's a shame, this movie has a 4K DI, and supposedly contains scenes that are filmed by the best camera in the world (!) IMAX 9802, the same camera Nolan uses to shoot his better-than-real-life BEYOND REFERENCE 15/70mm IMAX scenes in TDK, TDK:R, Interstellar and Dunkirk.
> 
> I saw no such usage or anything remotely close throughout the entire movie but as I mentioned some shots did look significantly better than others.
> 
> *
> Tier recommendation: 1.5**


_The Last Jedi_ is the first Star Wars movie I'm not purchasing on Blu-ray. That would have been unimaginable to me just a couple of years ago.


----------



## SnellTHX

Phantom Stranger said:


> _The Last Jedi_ is the first Star Wars movie I'm not purchasing on Blu-ray. That would have been unimaginable to me just a couple of years ago.



You're not missing out anything. I actually enjoyed the movie itself, more so than the original trilogy. (yeah, yeah I know...) 
I'm 24 years old so I have no passion for the original trilogy but I love the action of effects of the newer movies. 

So decent/good movie but the picture quality just wasn't impressive for what it was supposed to be. the sound volume was really low, but once you turned it above reference level it sounded really good, but the picture quality disappointed. I've heard other people comparing it to 4K releases of movies from the mid 90s, like Terminator 2: Judgement Day and Leon: The Professional. I haven't watched either of those movies in 4K (or even 1080p) so I wouldn't know.


----------



## vpn75

SnellTHX said:


> Watching Netflixes' new series Lost in Space in 4K/HDR and WOW!! that's what good picture quality looks like. So much punch to the image and three-dimensionality that really sticks out of the TV. The colours are insane and there's so much 'pop' going. the greens of the foliage, the blue of robot/alien all primaries look amazing. The image quality is RAZOR sharp, this is what true 4K looks like! possibly even 8K for all I know, the image is so pristine it cuts my eyes. Coming from Star Wars to this is a HUGE upgrade. If only DV on my TV/Netflix app (whomever is to blame) is fixed then this would be up with titles like Pacific Rim and Avatar (perhaps a top 20 tier 0 spot)


It's kind of sad that bit-rate starved streaming content can have better PQ than a modern blockbuster like Last Jedi! I haven't checked out Lost in Space yet but definitely will now. Will be interested to see how it compares to Altered Carbon which has been the most impressive Dolby Vision content I've seen to date!


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Martian, The (Extended) (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 0* (0.25)*

The detail is exquisite; space suits, faces, hair, Martian rocks and sand...every texture looks like you could touch it. Blacks are deep with strong shadow details and contrast is also good. Colors are excellent, flesh tones and other colors on Earth are bright and also properly subdued when needed, scenes on Mars also show nice color in all the shades of orange and brown. Use of HDR is excellent with bright highlights and deep blacks. The transfer looks flawless, I saw no problems.

For now this is the last UHD I have to review. *Saving Private Ryan* and *Fury* are on pre-order for next month.


----------



## djoberg

DarthDoxie said:


> *Martian, The (Extended) (UHD)*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 0* (0.25)*
> 
> The detail is exquisite; space suits, faces, hair, Martian rocks and sand...every texture looks like you could touch it. Blacks are deep with strong shadow details and contrast is also good. Colors are excellent, flesh tones and other colors on Earth are bright and also properly subdued when needed, scenes on Mars also show nice color in all the shades of orange and brown. Use of HDR is excellent with bright highlights and deep blacks. The transfer looks flawless, I saw no problems.
> 
> For now this is the last UHD I have to review. *Saving Private Ryan* and *Fury* are on pre-order for next month.


Thanks Darth for the review! You have successfully "whetted my appetite" for double-dipping and getting the UHD version. I have been pondering this for quite some time but I believe I will take advantage of the excellent price at Amazon and purchase it.

Speaking of "future UHD releases," perhaps you've heard that three of Paramount's titles will be released soon on UHD. I'm speaking of _Braveheart_, _Gladiator_ and _Forest Gump_. They had been previously Remastered on Paramount's most excellent "Sapphire Series" in which they look stunning. So, it will be interesting to see how much of an uptick in PQ there will be when released on UHD. I'm really not expecting much in the way of DETAIL, but thanks to HDR and WCG I think there could be an obvious improvement in CONTRAST and COLORS.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^

Darth,

I should have asked, "Do you think the 'Extended Version' in 4K is worth $5 more than the 'Original Version' in 4K?"

Denny


----------



## DarthDoxie

djoberg said:


> Thanks Darth for the review! You have successfully "whetted my appetite" for double-dipping and getting the UHD version. I have been pondering this for quite some time but I believe I will take advantage of the excellent price at Amazon and purchase it.
> 
> Speaking of "future UHD releases," perhaps you've heard that three of Paramount's titles will be released soon on UHD. I'm speaking of _Braveheart_, _Gladiator_ and _Forest Gump_. They had been previously Remastered on Paramount's most excellent "Sapphire Series" in which they look stunning. So, it will be interesting to see how much of an uptick in PQ there will be when released on UHD. I'm really not expecting much in the way of DETAIL, but thanks to HDR and WCG I think there could be an obvious improvement in CONTRAST and COLORS.


I definitely keep up on UHD releases but not chompin' at the bit for those three. I have them on BD so I'll wait to see if they can be had for a good deal on Black Friday this year.


----------



## DarthDoxie

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Darth,
> 
> I should have asked, "Do you think the 'Extended Version' in 4K is worth $5 more than the 'Original Version' in 4K?"
> 
> Denny


I watched the original on BD about a year ago and the extended UHD today and honestly couldn't tell you what was added (it's only about 8 minutes longer but I'm sure it's just fluff).


----------



## djoberg

DarthDoxie said:


> I watched the original on BD about a year ago and the extended UHD today and honestly couldn't tell you what was added (it's only about 8 minutes longer but I'm sure it's just fluff).


You're right; the Extended Version is only a few minutes longer and from what I've read (in the last 15 minutes) there is virtually no difference in PQ quality. So, I will opt for the Original 4K version that is currently going for $15.


----------



## SnellTHX

vpn75 said:


> It's kind of sad that bit-rate starved streaming content can have better PQ than a modern blockbuster like Last Jedi! I haven't checked out Lost in Space yet but definitely will now. Will be interested to see how it compares to Altered Carbon which has been the most impressive Dolby Vision content I've seen to date!


I watched Altered Carbon too. Reference image quality indeed! I think Lost in Space looks at least as good as A.C. if not slightly better !


----------



## djoberg

I just returned home from Best Buy where I was able to pick up _The Martian: Extended Edition_ and _Alien: Covenant_ (both in UHD) for $30 (on a "2 for $30" rack). What a deal! I plan to watch _The Martian_ tonight.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Humor Me*

recommendation: *Tier 1.75**

This new comedy from Shout Factory has been filmed with the Alexa in a nice, steady presentation. It's a stretch to really classify it as demo material, but _Humor Me_ provides satisfying picture quality with crisp definition. The transfer is well done with a strong AVC encode and nicely balanced colors. 

A few years ago this would have been ranked higher.


----------



## djoberg

*The Martian: Extended Edition (UHD)*

I agree 100% with Darth's review below. I had seen and reviewed the 1080p version (I gave it a .33 placement in Tier 0) and it's the HDR that gives this a slight uptick in PQ. Darth had mentioned the "bright highlights" and I was absolutely amazed at a scene with the sun passing by Damon as he sat on a Martian rock....it was SO BRIGHT and SO COLORFUL....simply beautiful! One can't always see and appreciate the difference that HDR makes, but that one shot had me mesmerized. (I believe it was around the 1 hour 22 minutes mark.)

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.25)*

PS The Dolby Atmos mix was also AWESOME!! There were a few scenes where my Atmos (overhead) speakers really came to life!!




DarthDoxie said:


> *Martian, The (Extended) (UHD)*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 0* (0.25)*
> 
> The detail is exquisite; space suits, faces, hair, Martian rocks and sand...every texture looks like you could touch it. Blacks are deep with strong shadow details and contrast is also good. Colors are excellent, flesh tones and other colors on Earth are bright and also properly subdued when needed, scenes on Mars also show nice color in all the shades of orange and brown. Use of HDR is excellent with bright highlights and deep blacks. The transfer looks flawless, I saw no problems.


----------



## SnellTHX

*Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle*


Outstanding picture quality. I just wrote one of my longer reviews on this website and of course my 'token had expired' so the message got DELETED. 

I'll keep it short; the sharpness/resolution/clarity/details of this movie is absolutely superb. The hues/primaries/colour reproduction is ON POINT. plenty of pop in the lush jungles, facial shots reveal every drop of sweat, facial hair or other impurities. pristine 4K image quality that seriously makes me wonder how this can be derived from a 2K DI. Its near-reference quality from start to finish with almost no flaws. Blacks are absolute. Contrast is infinite. details are plenty. razor sharp. It only lacks a slight 'X-factor' to be placed on my ever so high standard of tier 0 list.


*Tier recommendation: 1*


----------



## IronWaffle

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> 
> 
> Darth,
> 
> 
> 
> I should have asked, "Do you think the 'Extended Version' in 4K is worth $5 more than the 'Original Version' in 4K?"
> 
> 
> 
> Denny


Edit: I see you already made the purchase. Didn't realize I was so far behind. Leaving the post, though, in case anyone else is on that fence


The extra length is good but not essential. That said, the commentary and documentary extras are excellent and, for me, were well worth the extra few dollars. As such, I'd use your interest in supplements to decide.


----------



## AmerCa

IronWaffle said:


> Back to the extended cut itself, my only disappointment in the movie was xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.


Hey, man, thanks for the input, it's helpful information. I just hope the above isn't a kind of spoiler. Sorry, I'm very sensible to movie's specifics, especially since you're talking about a climax.


----------



## AmerCa

*Lucy (2014 -Universal)









*
I have my new demo disc. I had already watched this disc many months ago, in less than ideal conditions and I wasn't really paying too much attention to the PQ. Yesterday I decided it was time to revisit properly this title, and I have to say wow! WOW! W-O-W!! I have virtually no complaint about this disc. It basically looked perfect to me from beginning to end. I have yet to revisit *Transformers: The Last Knight*, but this is, without a doubt, the second best looking blu-ray I own. Keep in mind that I rarely watch animated movies - I don't own any yet -, so my point of reference are "live-action" movies. This one is stunning, and it has almost "everything". I say almost because very few moments in the movie took place at night or in dark places, so I couldn't judge the encode in harsher conditions, but that is just a petty complaint. Everything else just looked on point, even the CGI-heavy scenes.

Now, I have a modest display. And I watched it in SDR. I seriously cannot imagine this BD looking better! But THIS thing on an OLED and in HDR UHD should be video-experience-defining moment. I believe this disc is already on tier zero, but I don't recall it being that much higher. Personally, I can't imagine it being lower than the upper third.

But it wouldn't be a demo disco without the audio, right? Here's the thing I love about this audio track: I just can play it LOUD without getting deaf. It's not a super active mix with lots of things going on, but it has a heavy presence with an emphasis on low frequencies, which means instead of my ears getting pierced my body and room are being shaked. I listened to it at 75% of max volume (a record on my setup), and there was space for more, but there were people at my house, so I didn't want to push things beyond that.

All things considered, and this movie being relatively short at under 90 minutes, *Lucy *has just dethroned *Tron: Legacy *as my to-go disc for showing my present and future systems. It has phenomenal PQ along with excellent audio that can be played loud without murdering anyone.

*Tier Recommendation: 0 (Upper third)*


----------



## AmerCa

*Unbroken (2014 - Universal)*










I just realized how quickly impressions fade out, so I wanted to comment on this movie before I forget. The color palette used in this movie reminded me that of *Dunkirk *(from what I remember from the theater, anyways), which means a muted palette. However, the clarity and detail are striking and make for a very pleasing watching experience. It's a very clean presentation with very minor flaws. The black levels on my display were very good, there's some scenes that go completely black and they hold up surprisingly very well, they surely will look better on superior displays. The "problem" with this video presentation is that you get used to it relatively fast, and as it progresses it stops impressing. I realize this might be a strange complaint, but I watched *Lucy *right after this, and that is a disc that never fails to remind you how awesome it is. In other words, this BD has a consistent beautiful and clean PQ that, in my opinion, guarantees it a place in tier zero, it just lack the wow factor as the movie progresses.

Sadly, I was almost bored to death with this movie. I discovered at the end of the movie that the Coen brothers co-wrote the screenplay. I think Angelina Jolie did a great job, and the lead actors were very good as well. So, the film didn't lack talent and a good story, but I seriously considered turning it off and move on to the next one. But the idea of having to rewatch it from the beginning was motivation enough to finish it off once and for all. But my GF said she always wanted to watch that movie, so probably I'll have to watch it again...:crying:
*
Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (0.97)

Edit:

*I found the following reviews by Djoberg: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-748.html#post33175657 
and Doxie: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-759.html#post36584098

Excerpt from Djoberg's:



> Unbroken
> 
> A GREAT movie with EXCELLENT PQ!
> 
> ...
> 
> All in all, this deserves a place on anyone's "demo shelf," but the "negatives' listed above keeps it off from the "reference shelf." I'm guessing it will land in either 1.25 or 1.5. My vote goes for....
> 
> Tier Recommendation: 1.5*


Both of Djoberg and Doxie give this movie a 1.5 placement.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

AmerCa said:


> *Lucy (2014 -Universal)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> I have my new demo disc. I had already watched this disc many months ago, in less than ideal conditions and I wasn't really paying too much attention to the PQ. Yesterday I decided it was time to revisit properly this title, and I have to say wow! WOW! W-O-W!! I have virtually no complaint about this disc. It basically looked perfect to me from beginning to end. I have yet to revisit *Transformers: The Last Knight*, but this is, without a doubt, the second best looking blu-ray I own. Keep in mind that I rarely watch animated movies - I don't own any yet -, so my point of reference are "live-action" movies. This one is stunning, and it has almost "everything". I say almost because very few moments in the movie took place at night or in dark places, so I couldn't judge the encode in harsher conditions, but that is just a petty complaint. Everything else just looked on point, even the CGI-heavy scenes.
> 
> Now, I have a modest display. And I watched it in SDR. I seriously cannot imagine this BD looking better! But THIS thing on an OLED and in HDR UHD should be video-experience-defining moment. I believe this disc is already on tier zero, but I don't recall it being that much higher. Personally, I can't imagine it being lower than the upper third.
> 
> But it wouldn't be a demo disco without the audio, right? Here's the thing I love about this audio track: I just can play it LOUD without getting deaf. It's not a super active mix with lots of things going on, but it has a heavy presence with an emphasis on low frequencies, which means instead of my ears getting pierced my body and room are being shaked. I listened to it at 75% of max volume (a record on my setup), and there was space for more, but there were people at my house, so I didn't want to push things beyond that.
> 
> All things considered, and this movie being relatively short at under 90 minutes, *Lucy *has just dethroned *Tron: Legacy *as my to-go disc for showing my present and future systems. It has phenomenal PQ along with excellent audio that can be played loud without murdering anyone.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 0 (Upper third)*


Lucy has great demo potential because the A/V quality is fantastic and the movie is decent enough to hold a casual person's interest.


----------



## djoberg

I agree with AmerCa! Here's my review of _Lucy_:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-741.html#post31013393


----------



## SnellTHX

I saw Lucy in the cinema... Looks like I have to buy it again lol


----------



## djoberg

I just picked up _The Post_ at Redbox this afternoon and plan to watch it tonight. I've read a lot of good things about the PQ so I'm hopeful!


----------



## AmerCa

Off-topic:

I just went to watch Avengers: Infinity War. After reading some opinions in the internet, I'm in the small minority that thinks the movie was a huge disappointment. I didn't think the Russo brothers could mess this up, but they did. Of course, a huge blame is on the writers as well. On top of that, PQ and AQ were also disappointing. Here's hoping maybe it was just my theater, and the bluray or UHD will be better. But this is the same theater I saw Dunkirk, Wonder Woman, BvS and Justice League, and the audio was bone crushing in those times. In "Infinity War" it was underwhelming. If someone has a different experience at their theaters, I'd like to know.


----------



## djoberg

*The Post*

This one won't win any "beauty contests" for colors, for the majority of the nearly 2 hour running time takes place in drab newsrooms or other interior offices with a muted color palette. Softness also crept in sporadically. Thankfully this is offset by scenes within the stately home of Katharine Graham (Owner and Publisher of The Post) where primaries were allowed to flourish at times and contrast was much stronger, resulting in bright whites and decent black levels.

The real WINNER here were DETAILS and DEPTH, with outstanding facial close-ups that revealed intricate texture and spot-on flesh tones. In those same scenes CLARITY was razor-sharp. There was a light layer of grain in many shots and I found it quite pleasing to the eye.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25**

PS I tire of Hollywood's "not so subtle" political messages in most of their films. They no doubt were "beating their chest" with this one as they seek to champion the "free press" that is being criticized by our current President as "fake news" and an "enemy of the people." The irony is the "free press" was honest back then in their bold exposure of the Pentagon Papers and the government's absolute corruption throughout the Vietnam War. I hardly think one can compare today's press (with its "liberal bias"), including the Washington Post, to the press in the early '70s.


----------



## subacabra

djoberg said:


> *The Post*
> 
> This one won't win any "beauty contests" for colors, for the majority of the nearly 2 hour running time takes place in drab newsrooms or other interior offices with a muted color palette. Softness also crept in sporadically. Thankfully this is offset by scenes within the stately home of Katharine Graham (Owner and Publisher of The Post) where primaries were allowed to flourish at times and contrast was much stronger, resulting in bright whites and decent black levels.
> 
> The real WINNER here were DETAILS and DEPTH, with outstanding facial close-ups that revealed intricate texture and spot-on flesh tones. In those same scenes CLARITY was razor-sharp. There was a light layer of grain in many shots and I found it quite pleasing to the eye.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.25**
> 
> PS I tire of Hollywood's "not so subtle" political messages in most of their films. They no doubt were "beating their chest" with this one as they seek to champion the "free press" that is being criticized by our current President as "fake news" and an "enemy of the people." The irony is the "free press" was honest back then in their bold exposure of the Pentagon Papers and the government's absolute corruption throughout the Vietnam War. I hardly think one can compare today's press (with its "liberal bias"), including the Washington Post, to the press in the early '70s.


Chalk that up as one I won't buy. I too can't stand the blatantly liberal political undertones in many of these movies.


----------



## djoberg

I plan to slip in my rented copy of _Star Wars: The Last Jedi_ within the hour. I know that many members are giving negative reviews on it, but I decided, after looking over my options and not finding anything, to rent it anyway. I did check Rotten Tomatoes and they are singing its praises. I guess that's the way it goes...the "experts" like it and the "common folk" don't.


----------



## djoberg

*Star Wars: The Last Jedi*

I will have to take issue with my friend SnellTHX on this one, for to _MY EYES_ on _my Sony Display_, this is easily a Tier 0 contender. There are a few SOFT SHOTS, along with some COLOR-GRADING that wreaked havoc on FLESH TONES, but other than those rather minor complaints, this was quite stunning. Oh, I should mention too that there are a few instances where DETAILS in mid-range shots could have been better. But when one considers this is a LONG film (running time of going on 2.5 hours), these "negatives" will only receive a slight penalization.

The "positives" were many, including excellent BLACKS/SHADOW DETAILS (and this had numerous dark scenes to showcase them!). Add to that some very punchy COLORS, exquisite DETAILS (especially in facial close-ups and clothing, but not limited to them), superb CLARITY in a majority of the scenes, and some astounding DEPTH as well. Now if only the movie had been this good...though in fairness it was better than I had anticipated with so many naysayers out there.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (right above Star Wars: The Force Awakens)*




SnellTHX said:


> *Star Wars: The Last Jedi*
> 
> Well this movie was... disappointing. I watched Star Wars Episode VII and Rogue One in the cinema and they looked good there, missed Episode VIII but picked it up in 4K/HDR and the picture quality just wasn't that special. I believe Episode VII is rated tier 0 material here in this thread but its sequel is anything but. There's film grain although it ranks among some of the least intrusive film grain, there's a good amount of detail in most shots but the image just isn't all that sharp. It looks like a 4K remaster of something from the 90s. Pulp Fiction from 1994 looks more detailed and sharper on Blu-ray
> 
> I'm not saying it was bad, there were some decent looking shots and the latter half of the film had much better picture quality than the first half. Ultimately let down by a few instances of poor contrast as well.*
> Tier recommendation: 1.5**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

AmerCa said:


> Off-topic:
> 
> I just went to watch Avengers: Infinity War. After reading some opinions in the internet, I'm in the small minority that thinks the movie was a huge disappointment. I didn't think the Russo brothers could mess this up, but they did. Of course, a huge blame is on the writers as well. On top of that, PQ and AQ were also disappointing. Here's hoping maybe it was just my theater, and the bluray or UHD will be better. But this is the same theater I saw Dunkirk, Wonder Woman, BvS and Justice League, and the audio was bone crushing in those times. In "Infinity War" it was underwhelming. If someone has a different experience at their theaters, I'd like to know.


I'll see Avengers when it hits home video. I don't think any of the Avengers movies have had absolute top-shelf PQ.

*Honor Up*

recommendation: *Tier 3.5**

Damon Dash's new gangsta movie is a strange beast. The PQ isn't particularly great despite being filmed with RED cameras and the Phantom, an exotic high-speed digital camera mostly used in slow-motion sports replays. Something seems off about its relatively flat contrast and occasionally desaturated color palette. Some of this aesthetic is intentional and some seems the result of an inexperienced director.

The clarity is decent. The 1080P resolution has middling detail for a new digital production. There is far more of an indie vibe on this project and that translates to its erratic production values. I really can't fault Lionsgate, the transfer appears to be a fair representation of the unpolished source material's cinematography. Black levels are underwhelming.


----------



## SnellTHX

I can't remember seeing true black anywhere in the Star Wars Movie  I think I read on Doblu or other subjective reviews of people complaining about the lack of contrast / black levels in the movie.


No idea how you can consider this tier 0, I do admit that the movie does look better in the latter half and that details are a plenty (plus you like film grain, I do not) but opinion is an opinion. 

Have you seen Lost in Space on Netflix for instance? How do you compare that to SW. To me the 4K image quality is a generational leap ahead.


----------



## SnellTHX

I just watched Avengers: Infinity War in the new flagship IMAX Laser 3D cinema in Norway and I am left AMAZED.

Norway unfortunately does not have a true IMAX 15/70mm (or any IMAX at all prior to March 2018), nor do we have any certified Dolby Cinemas. Plenty of 'regular' cinemas are equipped with Dolby Atmos but they lack the Dolby Vision and thus do not quality for Dolby Cinema and alas we are left with Sony 4K projectors which look good, but contrast hovers around the 2000:1 mark and blacks look relatively muddy and gray.

the new IMAX Laser uses dual Barco flagship 6p laser projection and provides much higher contrast than I've seen before but the blacks are obviously not 0 nit, OLED-esque, or anywhere some JVC projectors produces. Still if normal cinemas are 2000:1 then this was probably 20,000:1


So how did I experience Avengers in this cinema? Phenomenal. Some of the sharpest looking 4K imagery I've ever witnessed and the amount of clarity and details especially in the faces was unrivalled. Some of the backdrop shots looked pretty bad, but the CGI was top notch. Blacks were inky, but nothing close to Dolby Cinema's advertised 1,000,000:1. the 3D was perfect, the sound quality was amazing, but then again it is difficult for me to assess what is due to the movie and what is due to the high end Procella system with 50,000 watts delivering up to 137dB and ridiculously good dynamic range.

So I guess this movie will be Tier 0, but we'll have to see. Its my first movie in this new IMAX, so much of the hyperbole of the Sound & Vision could be a bit skewed...


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> I can't remember seeing true black anywhere in the Star Wars Movie  I think I read on Doblu or other subjective reviews of people complaining about the lack of contrast / black levels in the movie.
> 
> 
> No idea how you can consider this tier 0, I do admit that the movie does look better in the latter half and that details are a plenty (plus you like film grain, I do not) but opinion is an opinion.


I'm not the only one that thought the PQ was amazing, for every review I read from the "experts" said the same thing (Blu-ray.com, Hi Def Digest, etc.). Here is a review from our resident AVS Forum reviewer, Ralph Potts. He gave the Blu-ray version a perfect score of 100. Read it and see what he says about the black levels.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-o...edi-ultra-hd-blu-ray-review.html#post55871056


----------



## AmerCa

SnellTHX said:


> I just watched Avengers: Infinity War in the new flagship IMAX Laser 3D cinema in Norway and I am left AMAZED.
> ....the sound quality was amazing, but then again it is difficult for me to assess what is due to the movie and what is due to the high end Procella system with 50,000 watts delivering up to 137dB and ridiculously good dynamic range.


Glad to hear the movie is capable of delivering great video and audio! But apparently others agree the audio wasn't as good as other movies. I guess we'll have to wait to the home release. Not that it really matters to me, since I didn't care much about the movie...



djoberg said:


> I'm not the only one that thought the PQ was amazing, for every review I read from the "experts" said the same thing (Blu-ray.com, Hi Def Digest, etc.)


Everyone has the right to his/her opinion, but I have _slight_, _tiny _uncomfortable feeling that a lot of those reviewers are not completely honest in their reviews. Do they even _buy _their own discs? I'm more inclined to believe someones who has shelled out their hard-earned money than someone who gets stuff for free.

BTW, I'm not questioning your assessment on the Star Wars disc, it's more of a general comment regarding professional reviews. Nor than Mr. Potts has a compromised opinion. It's just something I've noticed for quite some time.


----------



## AmerCa

Ok, guys. Allow me to stray a little bit off-topic and share an experience I had today:

My local Best Buy is having a sale on LG 55" OLED displays, which are reaching relatively very accessible prices. I could make an effort in the next few weeks/months to buy one (I mean, if I _really, really_ wanted to) so I decided to go to the store decided to look for a good demonstration of the TV. What a frustrating experience!! They didn't have native UHD material. They insisted on showing me upscaled 1080p movies/files they had got from the internet and that looked HORRIBLE on that display. They obviously had low bitrates. I didn't want to be rude, so I kindly ask them if they could just play a bluray in the display, to have a better point of reference. They said they couldn't do it! A girl had overhead our conversation, and said she had some UHD files. Granted they looked better, but I was left completely unimpressed with the demos. Sure, the transitions to black from each clip to the other were completely black (something I really liked), but the resolution and colors of the clips left me wanting.

I asked for a Dolby Vision demonstration. They freaked out, since they didn't have any. An employee remembered that the television came with a Dolby Vision demo (supposedly), so they played that. Completely unimpressive. I know the Image Mode and overall settings, and the store lightning were not ideal, but I truly expected to see something superior, like night and day difference, even in those conditions, and most certainly compared to "regular" FHD, but that wasn't the case. The cherry on the cake was when some other employee actually recommended me a 2017 Samsung QLED, stating that they were superior to the OLEDs!!! At this point my mind was beginning to warp.

Just basing my purchase on the experience I had in the store, I had no desire to upgrading to an OLED. They made the most terrible job at selling the TV to me. They meant well, and were very kind, but they didn't know what they were talking about, and wanted to sell me the display bases on inaccurate, incomplete AND false information (I could notice some strange banding on the OLED, clearly visible on blue skies and they went as far as telling me the demo was at fault, not the display ).

I'm torn, because the prices are really good, but my intention in the next few months was to start upgrading my audio system. If the OLED demonstration had been truly mind-blowing, I seriously would have considered making the sacrifice. As things went, it was easier for me to stick to the audio upgrade. I know the OLEDs are capable of much better, but sadly, I couldn't witness it.

The whole, actual experience was longer and more frustrating that what I can express on words here.


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> Everyone has the right to his/her opinion, but I have _slight_, _tiny _uncomfortable feeling that a lot of those reviewers are not completely honest in their reviews. Do they even _buy _their own discs? I'm more inclined to believe someones who has shelled out their hard-earned money than someone who gets stuff for free.
> 
> BTW, I'm not questioning your assessment on the Star Wars disc, it's more of a general comment regarding professional reviews. Nor than Mr. Potts has a compromised opinion. It's just something I've noticed for quite some time.


I hear ya Amerca! But in fairness, I have read many reviews by "professional reviewers," including Ralph Potts (and our very own Phantom on Do.Blu.com), that "tell it like it is." They will give relatively low scores if the PQ doesn't meet the criteria.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^

Sorry to hear about your experience at Best Buy! We have a "first-rate" Best Buy close by (in Fargo, ND) and the 4K loops that they run are IMPRESSIVE!! I've said it before, and I'll say it again, if the 77" LG OLEDs had cost what they do now when I purchased my Sony 940D, I would have that in my Man Cave right now. I love OLED!! (Though there have been reports of anomalies, including what you witnessed...BANDING.)

I am hearing great things about the new (2018) QLED displays. They FINALLY have FALD (Full Array Local Dimming) and some reviewers are saying the blacks are quite consistent (with minimal haloing and very little "light bleed" into the letter-boxed bars). But I'd still want an OLED.


----------



## AmerCa

^^^^^^^^^

Aaarrrgghhh!!! If I buy an OLED, I guess I'll have to take a leap of faith. I just wish I had witnessed what you've seen, it'd make my decision easier. One thing I did notice is that the image looked gret even at almost a 90' degrees. I've too read a lot of great things about the 2018 QLEDs, but not so much about the 2017 models. Granted, both looked better than my current display, but at roughly the same price, the OLED is a no brainer.


----------



## djoberg

*The Commuter*

I'm tired, so this will be short! This was a LOOKER in the opening scenes, with reference quality details (especially facial texture) and outstanding depth. Black levels were to-die-for! Flesh tones were spot-on accurate. Clarity was razor-sharp. The DOWNSIDE...most of the movie takes place, as the title suggests, inside the train. This surely limited the opportunities for eye candy (except for facial close-ups). Once the action kicked in (the last third of the film) the PQ was even more limited (with some very FAKE CGI shots and some motion blur). 

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**

PS I'm amazed at the unbounded energy of Liam Neeson! Unlike most characters in the Star Wars franchise, the "Force is still with him!"


----------



## JNayAV

AmerCa said:


> ^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Aaarrrgghhh!!! If I buy an OLED, I guess I'll have to take a leap of faith. I just wish I had witnessed what you've seen, it'd make my decision easier. One thing I did notice is that the image looked gret even at almost a 90' degrees. I've too read a lot of great things about the 2018 QLEDs, but not so much about the 2017 models. Granted, both looked better than my current display, but at roughly the same price, the OLED is a no brainer.


I love my 2016 Oled, but if I were to change sides I'd make sure it was the 2018 QLED. From early impressions it really looks like the 2018 QLEDs (atleast 8 and 9 series) are very close to what Samsung was claiming the 2017 sets to be. Seems they've even taken some consideration in pricing them closer to what 2017 should have been. However, I don't know what the pricing structure is near you.

(I wouldn't change sides, but if the 2018 QLED looks good in the store to you I don't think should be ashamed of that choice at all, and taking a leap of faith at these prices I totally understand the hesitance. If go that route be careful of naming, 2017 and 2018 have extremely similar names in different regions)


----------



## AmerCa

^^^^^^

Thanks for the input, DNay. The only reason I considered buying the 55" OLED is the price, roughly 1,500 dollars. Not very cheap, but compared to other TVs in the market and at almost 66% discount, it's certainly very attractive. The 2017 QLED was priced very similarly. The newer 2018 LG 55" OLEDs were around 3,000 dollars, and it's beyond budget. They didn't have the current 2018 QLEDs, but I'm sure the price will be even higher. Buying the OLED would be a very huge investment to me, and after the disastrous in-store demo, I think I'll stick with my audio upgrade, which won't hit my wallet as hard, and probably will be more satisfying to me. I don't have a big budget, but I believe I can build a decent entry level HT, even if I can only start with a 2.1 system.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^

I forgot to ask you AmerCa, do you watch your display in a dark (light-controlled) room? If so, all the more reason to get an OLED. You simply can't beat an OLED with its PERFECT BLACKS, especially in a dark room. You can get by with an LED or QLED in a bright room, but no LED/QLED is going to be perfect in a dark room. As good as my black levels (on my Sony LED) are, the blacks (especially on my letter-boxed bars) can still turn a dark (or even a light) gray in some dark scenes. Plus, as I have mentioned before, I still have occasional "haloing" (i.e. light glowing around a bright object if it's against a black screen) and "light-bleeding" (i.e. light seeping into the black bars when there is a bright object adjacent to the bars). I never really get used to this...thus it is distracting to me.

If I could justify selling my Sony and buying the LG 77" OLED, I would do it. But I could never justify it in my wife's mind! Someday I hope to own one, or even better yet, a "MicroLED," which will be superior to the OLED in more ways than one.


----------



## dandrewk

^^^^^^^^^

When we got our LG B7 (65 inch OLED), it was at a Magnolia HiFi embedded in our local Best Buy. Magnolia shows full resolution theatrical released 4k versions that are downloaded into a dedicated server. No compression, and not even the FBI warning at the head. IOW, as good a source as you can get. At the time, they were showing Men In Black UHD.

I could see an obvious difference in dynamic contrast, more detail in shadows/highlights, and improved color saturation and fidelity. But night and day? Not really. You just can't get the full OLED 4k DV experience in a store's showroom.

At home, though, yeah, I am very pleased. Our old screen (58" Panny Plasma) was no slouch, but this LG blows it out of the water. The level of detail, color and sharpness are other-worldly. I had hoped for this, but what I didn't expect was how much better it makes the 1080i look from DirecTV. Everything is brighter and more vivid.

So, I would say OLED is the way to go if you want real a real 4k experience. I know of virtually nobody who made the "leap" and regretted it later. It's definitely next generation display technology.


----------



## JNayAV

AmerCa said:


> ^^^^^^
> 
> Thanks for the input, DNay. The only reason I considered buying the 55" OLED is the price, roughly 1,500 dollars. Not very cheap, but compared to other TVs in the market and at almost 66% discount, it's certainly very attractive. The 2017 QLED was priced very similarly. The newer 2018 LG 55" OLEDs were around 3,000 dollars, and it's beyond budget. They didn't have the current 2018 QLEDs, but I'm sure the price will be even higher. Buying the OLED would be a very huge investment to me, and after the disastrous in-store demo, I think I'll stick with my audio upgrade, which won't hit my wallet as hard, and probably will be more satisfying to me. I don't have a big budget, but I believe I can build a decent entry level HT, even if I can only start with a 2.1 system.


Sounds like you have a good plan  I did the exact same thing when I was tighter on budget. Only advice I'd give on that path is try and pick a path that's 'upgradeable' (audio is much more possible to do this in speakers than in video). I started with semi-basic reciever and 2 speakers I knew would be good to use as surrounds later after getting more cash and could improve front 3 and subs. After a while you'll amass full 5 (or 7).1 and be able to see you're still using the same 'budget' components in some form in that system.


----------



## djoberg

Whoa, I just read the recent review on Samsung's 2018 QLED display and is sounds absolutely amazing! Before I give you the link (so you can read it), it should be giving OLED some stiff competition. How can I say that after writing what I did earlier today about LCD/LED's shortcomings? Ah, because Samsung has developed the best back-lighting technology EVER! The reviewer (Mr. John Archer) says the black bars REMAIN BLACK at all times during letter-boxed movies, with no light-bleed. He also said "clouding" was almost completely absent within the picture. He also said that the black levels remain consistent even during the most tortuous scenes with HDR!!! That is simply unheard of up until now, for I can hardly watch some UHD/HDR films due to extreme clouding, haloing and light bleed. One more thing...these displays will have a peak of over 2,000 nits and yet the blacks will still remain BLACK. 2,000 nits is TWICE AS BRIGHT as any OLED display. Quite frankly, I will have to see this to believe it!

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnar...d-bounces-back-with-a-vengeance/#229a533b22ad


----------



## AmerCa

^^^^^^

Yeah, I've been reading a lot of great things about the new 2018 Samsung QLEDs. I'd like to see it for myself as well, although I know they'll be super expensive. Well, one can dream...


----------



## AmerCa

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^^
> 
> I forgot to ask you AmerCa, do you watch your display in a dark (light-controlled) room? If
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> so, all the more reason to get an OLED. You simply can't beat an OLED with its PERFECT BLACKS, especially in a dark room. You can get by with an LED or QLED in a bright room, but no LED/QLED is going to be perfect in a dark room. As good as my black levels (on my Sony LED) are, the blacks (especially on my letter-boxed bars) can still turn a dark (or even a light) gray in some dark scenes. Plus, as I have mentioned before, I still have occasional "haloing" (i.e. light glowing around a bright object if it's against a black screen) and "light-bleeding" (i.e. light seeping into the black bars when there is a bright object adjacent to the bars). I never really get used to this...thus it is distracting to me.
> 
> If I could justify selling my Sony and buying the LG 77" OLED, I would do it. But I could never justify it in my wife's mind! Someday I hope to own one, or even better yet, a "MicroLED," which will be superior to the OLED in more ways than one
> 
> 
> .


Sorry for the late reply. Yes, I do my critical viewing at night, in a dark-as-possible room. That's why I don't even care about brightness that much. My panel isn't particularly bright, and sometimes I can't stand bright scenes or transitions. So yes, the OLED is VERY tempting. But I'm afraid I'm leaning towards the audio upgrade.

BTW, I feel your pain on getting other people to understand your desire for "better" things. My GF, for instance, is unable to understand why I would even consider paying that much for an OLED. And when I talked about her about the audio upgrade, and possibly ATMOS at some point, she simply said with square eyes: _"Do you need more power?? Why???"_. It was pointless trying to explain what I'm looking for.


----------



## AmerCa

JNayAV said:


> Sounds like you have a good plan  I did the exact same thing when I was tighter on budget. Only advice I'd give on that path is try and pick a path that's 'upgradeable' (audio is much more possible to do this in speakers than in video). I started with semi-basic reciever and 2 speakers I knew would be good to use as surrounds later after getting more cash and could improve front 3 and subs. After a while you'll amass full 5 (or 7).1 and be able to see you're still using the same 'budget' components in some form in that system.


That's good advice. I'm evaluating carefully my options because I wouldn't want to upgrade again in the near future. My intention is to buy and ATMOS receiver, and upgrade progressively whenever convenient. My other option to save a few hundred dollars in buying a 5.1 receiver with a 4K HDR passthrough, and invest a little more on a subwoofer. I'm currently eyeing a SVS PB1000 that would be a dream to me, but I'd need to sacrifice the ATMOS receiver for that (and some good money). I'm a newbie in this buying components stuff, and I don't want to mess up.:serious:


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> That's good advice. I'm evaluating carefully my options because I wouldn't want to upgrade again in the near future. My intention is to buy and ATMOS receiver, and upgrade progressively whenever convenient. My other option to save a few hundred dollars in buying a 5.1 receiver with a 4K HDR passthrough, and invest a little more on a subwoofer. I'm currently eyeing a SVS PB1000 that would be a dream to me, but I'd need to sacrifice the ATMOS receiver for that (and some good money). I'm a newbie in this buying components stuff, and I don't want to mess up.:serious:


You are being wise AmerCa in upgrading system "when you can afford to" and by making whatever you get as "future-proof as possible." I also admire your patience in all of this and it reminds me of my experience, for it took years to make the right decisions and to save up money to have what I do today. So, kudos to you and believe me, you will appreciate every upgrade you made because of the time and effort you're putting into it. And who knows, maybe...just maybe, your GF will also come to appreciate it. Having said that, my Home Theater is rightly called a "Man Cave," for my wife hardly watches anything with me (she says I sit too close to such a big screen and the AVR is turned up too loud). I do try to accommodate her by turning the volume down but I won't go so far as to move the seating back (for one movie).


----------



## AmerCa

^^^^^^^

Thanks for the support, man. Yes, I need patience, and then some more. Sometimes it's not fun. Life was easier when I just watched a small CRT TV through their crappy speakers.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

AmerCa said:


> Sorry for the late reply. Yes, I do my critical viewing at night, in a dark-as-possible room. That's why I don't even care about brightness that much. My panel isn't particularly bright, and sometimes I can't stand bright scenes or transitions. So yes, the OLED is VERY tempting. But I'm afraid I'm leaning towards the audio upgrade.
> 
> BTW, I feel your pain on getting other people to understand your desire for "better" things. My GF, for instance, is unable to understand why I would even consider paying that much for an OLED. And when I talked about her about the audio upgrade, and possibly ATMOS at some point, she simply said with square eyes: _"Do you need more power?? Why???"_. It was pointless trying to explain what I'm looking for.


Lonely is the path of the videophile. Things you'll have to explain at some point include why you must have two subwoofers, why you need absolute light control over the room, and why 5 speakers are simply not enough anymore.


----------



## JNayAV

AmerCa said:


> ^^^^^^^
> 
> Thanks for the support, man. Yes, I need patience, and then some more. Sometimes it's not fun. Life was easier when I just watched a small CRT TV through their crappy speakers.


We're on the cusp of HDMI 2.1 implementation, which seems like one of the biggest HDMI upgrades in years, so be leary of spending wad of dough on receiver right now.


----------



## JNayAV

On the original topic of the thread  saw Avenger's Infinity War over opening weekend.
If they do the transfer justice, there are several aspects that could lead to a very high ranking.
Marvel releases seem to always have some issues here or there keeping them off of the top of the roost, but based off their last couple I'd be disappointed if it wasn't at least a 0.5 when it releases.


----------



## teachsac

*Please stick to the topic at hand. This is not the place for discussing a/v components, etc.*


----------



## SnellTHX

JNayAV said:


> On the original topic of the thread  saw Avenger's Infinity War over opening weekend.
> If they do the transfer justice, there are several aspects that could lead to a very high ranking.
> Marvel releases seem to always have some issues here or there keeping them off of the top of the roost, but based off their last couple I'd be disappointed if it wasn't at least a 0.5 when it releases.


I completely agree Avengers: IW looked amazing in the new IMAX theatre, the best looking movie I've ever seen in a commercial Cinema, but I guess I have to watch more than this one movie in the same cinema before I can give any judgement. Still I'm sure this might even be a top 10 disc. the Original Avengers from 2012 shot in 1.85:1 format is still one of my ultimate reference movies, and definitely among my top 20 overall best looking blu-ray movies, maybe even top 10. Age of Ultron was a let down PQ-wise (and movie wise) but Ant-Man and Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2 particularly are also tier 0 movies IMO with the latter ranking among my personal top 10.

So maybe even top 5!!


----------



## djoberg

*Kong: Skull Island (1080p)*

Okay, I had already reviewed the UHD Version and I gave it a Tier 0 (.75) rating. Guess what? I thought the 1080p version was just as good!! So, I'm going to keep it at the same place. There may be a good reason why it looked just as good, for we were at my daughter's house in northern Minneapolis and I was privileged to see it on my former Pioneer KURO, which still has, IMHO, the best picture when it comes to a 1080p resolution. I was also reminded on how I truly miss the black levels (on a letter-boxed movie) that the KUROs were known for; they were absolutely black during the whole 2 hour running time.

BTW, here is the review that I mentioned above for it is exactly what I would have written for the 1080p version.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-796.html#post54377241

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (.75)*


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Saving Private Ryan (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 0* (0.75)*

Spectacular upgrade from the BD. I popped in the BD right after viewing the UHD to compare certain scenes and the uptick in detail and color reproduction is very noticeable. Fabrics, sand, rocks, grass, leaves...everything in the environment is deeply detailed and reproduced here exquisitely. There are a lot of facial closeups with the wrinkles, stubble, blemishes, and pores just eye watering. There are many scenes that are de-saturated of color notably the many combat scenes but there are others where the colors really pop. The scene in the pasture before the attack on the RADAR sight is notable; the green grass, trees and everything else is bright and vibrant. Explosions with orange and yellow fire are also exceptional. Black levels and contrast are also a notable improvement over the BD. I watched with the Dolby Vision flavor of HDR and it's eye watering, blacks are deep and colors reproduced with endless gradations of color. The transfer is excellent, no banding or any other encode issues. Paramount really knocked this one out of the park, the best catalogue release on UHD I've seen.

I've read nothing but excellent reviews of the Atmos soundtrack as well; it's excellent on my lowly 5.1 system.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^

Thanks Darth for the excellent review! I'm leaving shortly to see if they have it at "Wally World" and will pick it up if it's the same price they have at Amazon.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I ended up purchasing an Oppo UDP-203 UHD player on Monday and it should arrive this weekend. I always knew I was going to get one of the Oppo UHD players. Their exit from the market made the decision for me sooner than I anticipated.

Now I will have to keep a closer eye on the burgeoning 4K display market.


----------



## DarthDoxie

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^
> 
> Thanks Darth for the excellent review! I'm leaving shortly to see if they have it at "Wally World" and will pick it up if it's the same price they have at Amazon.


Amazon actually price matched WM a few weeks ago so you should be good to go if it's in stock.



Phantom Stranger said:


> I ended up purchasing an Oppo UDP-203 UHD player on Monday and it should arrive this weekend. I always knew I was going to get one of the Oppo UHD players. Their exit from the market made the decision for me sooner than I anticipated.
> 
> Now I will have to keep a closer eye on the burgeoning 4K display market.


The TCL 6 series got a rave review from Mark Henninger on this site and it has Dolby Vision, the price is also very nice. You'll love the Oppo, a wise investment


----------



## djoberg

*Saving Private Ryan (UHD)*

I really have nothing to add to Darth's excellent review on the PQ. I was mesmerized from the opening shot to the very last scene, except for an occasional shot here and there where softness crept in or contrast faltered giving it a washed-out look. 

I will add a word though on the Dolby Atmos soundtrack...AMAZING!!!! The most outstanding scenes were the opening Omaha Beach invasion and the last scene with German tanks and armored vehicles coming into the town where American troops were holding a main bridge. The action in the surrounds was simply astounding with bullets whizzing by in all directions. I turned those two scenes to Reference Level and was stunned by how I felt like I was really there...in the middle of all the action. The tanks rolling into town shook my walls and furniture more than any other scene I can recall and when American planes came to the rescue destroying the tanks I experienced some of the best "overhead" sounds in my Atmos speakers ever!!

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.5)*

PS I almost forgot to add that I am so thankful this was shot in the 1.78:1 Aspect Ratio and thus filling one's whole screen with all the glory that comes with UHD/HDR.




DarthDoxie said:


> *Saving Private Ryan (UHD)*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 0* (0.75)*
> 
> Spectacular upgrade from the BD. I popped in the BD right after viewing the UHD to compare certain scenes and the uptick in detail and color reproduction is very noticeable. Fabrics, sand, rocks, grass, leaves...everything in the environment is deeply detailed and reproduced here exquisitely. There are a lot of facial closeups with the wrinkles, stubble, blemishes, and pores just eye watering. There are many scenes that are de-saturated of color notably the many combat scenes but there are others where the colors really pop. The scene in the pasture before the attack on the RADAR sight is notable; the green grass, trees and everything else is bright and vibrant. Explosions with orange and yellow fire are also exceptional. Black levels and contrast are also a notable improvement over the BD. I watched with the Dolby Vision flavor of HDR and it's eye watering, blacks are deep and colors reproduced with endless gradations of color. The transfer is excellent, no banding or any other encode issues. Paramount really knocked this one out of the park, the best catalogue release on UHD I've seen.
> 
> I've read nothing but excellent reviews of the Atmos soundtrack as well; it's excellent on my lowly 5.1 system.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Batman Ninja*

recommendation: *Tier 1.25**

This is an animated Batman experience far removed from anything we've seen before. Produced by Warner Japan using a trio of anime talent, this is Batman completely reimagined in feudal Japan. Animation studio Kamikaze Douga handles the kinetic anime visuals using character designs by Takashi “Bob” Okazaki (_Afro Samurai_). Combining 3-D CGI models over digitally painted backgrounds, its unique animation aesthetic looks like little before it. 

If you think it looks anything like prior animated DC offerings, check out some of the screenshots. There is far more artistry and fine drawing in the animation that what we get from the standard digital Ink-and-Paint production. The level of detail is much finer, revealing more intricate line work.

WB employs a modest AVC encode for the 85-minute main feature. It doesn't struggle with the bright, crisp animation. The palette provides a rich spectrum of primary colors and more subtle hues. Some aliasing is an unfortunate side effect of this animation, from the CGI models getting composited onto the static backgrounds.

This is one anime with its colors that I think would benefit from an HDR pass. _Batman Ninja_ has awesome anime visuals made for high definition. This is a very conservative score and it's certainly eye candy.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Eaten Alive! (Italian: Mangiati Vivi!)*

recommendation: *Tier 4.0**

Little did I know this Blu-ray from Severin Films would be the first disc I watched on my new Oppo UDP-203. The 1980 film from Italian genre director Umberto Lenzi receives a rough-looking HD presentation that is a quintessential Tier 4 disc. It's a legitimate HD transfer of recent vintage, but these elements aren't in the best shape. The 1080P video does get a nice AVC encode and appears in HD for the first time in its original 1.66:1 aspect ratio.

_Eaten Alive's_ transfer has an inconsistent appearance. It's film-like but often with little fine detail. Other than magenta, most of the colors are fading and mildly washed out. You never know from scene to scene whether it's going to be nicely sharp, or disappointingly soft. Clarity is fairly high, the cinematography doesn't really push black levels and contrast past their breaking points.

All things considered, it's a serviceable HD job for the exploitation flick. I'm sure a label like Arrow Video would have pulled more resolution and consistency from the elements, but Severin Films does a decent job with the transfer.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*13 Assassins *(2010, Magnolia)

recommendation: *Tier 2.25*

This currently resides in tier 3.25 but I think it looks a little better than that; I couldn't find the original review via the forum search or Google.

Black levels and contrast are strong throughout even in the many night scenes. The color palette is rather dull but green foliage really stands out but I think flesh tones were a bit weak. I didn't see any encode issues like banding or macro-blocking. There wasn't a high level of detail in close-up shots but nothing distracting either; medium and long shots of all the action looked solid.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

DarthDoxie said:


> *13 Assassins *(2010, Magnolia)
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 2.25*
> 
> This currently resides in tier 3.25 but I think it looks a little better than that; I couldn't find the original review via the forum search or Google.
> 
> Black levels and contrast are strong throughout even in the many night scenes. The color palette is rather dull but green foliage really stands out but I think flesh tones were a bit weak. I didn't see any encode issues like banding or macro-blocking. There wasn't a high level of detail in close-up shots but nothing distracting either; medium and long shots of all the action looked solid.


It was ranked by long-time Tiers veteran *Deltasun* back in 2011 with this review. He's still around in some form on other sites these days. I enjoy _13 Assassins_ as a movie but have never actually viewed my Blu-ray copy.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-614.html#post20674749

As an aside, searching this site with Google these days is absolutely useless. It appears that Google in their infinite wisdom has decided to stop indexing the site beyond surface content.

How did I find the _13 Assassins_ review? Use Microsoft's Bing. Google continues catering to the lowest common-denominator in their search engine and the results are increasingly worthless for specific nuggets of information. I don't have any more love for Microsoft than Google, but Bing's indexing of the Internet is much closer today to how Google used to run things a decade ago. I will now get off my soapbox.


----------



## DarthDoxie

Thanks for the tip on searching for older posts in the thread, I know you have mentioned it before but couldn't remember the trick.

I went back and watched about 30 minutes of the movie in all the chapters and the black levels are strong in scenes without fog, rain, smoke, and dust kicked up by marching soldiers and horses (which there are many). I also didn't see any issues with "noise" as mentioned by *deltasun*. I'll chalk the wide difference in scores up to LCD vs. OLED display technology.

Like *deltasun* mentioned, the action really kicks up at the end; the last 45 minutes fly by.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Bent*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

This direct-to-video thriller from Lionsgate looks superb in 1080P resolution. Filmed with the Alexa XT camera, the razor-sharp picture quality offers both depth and dimension. This is unfiltered digital filmmaking with neutral tones. 

The digital transfer is nigh perfect. There just isn't much room for complaint in _Bent's_ consistently excellent cinematography. The smooth contrast, deep black levels, the fine detail, everything is dialed-in for great video.


----------



## djoberg

I just picked up _Black Panther_ at Redbox and will be watching it tonight. I'm excited, for I've read some stellar reviews on both the movie and the PQ.


----------



## djoberg

*Black Panther (1080p)*

*STUNNING!!*

I'm very tired, so I will keep this short. Aside from some less-than-stellar black levels in the opening scene, this was pure EYE CANDY all the way through. After the first scene the blacks were as deep and inky as they come, with some of the most gorgeous night time scenes ever. The shadow details were simply mesmerizing! Perhaps the colors were its greatest virtue, for they were bold and vibrant, even in night time shots. I'll also give a shout out for the breathtaking clarity as well, which featured intricate details in clothing, landscapes, aircraft, weapons, and, of course, facial close-ups. If the UHD version has an uptick in PQ, this could be a major contender for a spot in the "Top Ten!"

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.33)*

PS The audio was a letdown, with disappointing bass and panning effects in the height channels.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^

After "sleeping on it," I realized I forgot to mention that there were some SOFT SHOTS during CGI scenes. But guess what? It's still deserving of a Tier 0: .33 ranking. I also forgot to include DEPTH as one of the outstanding virtues, especially in daytime outdoor scenes (and they were plentiful).


----------



## Phantom Stranger

CGI effect shots are always going to have some flatness to them. Given the time and financial restraints of movies, even Hollywood blockbusters, the main priority is ensuring the complex CGI shots smoothly integrate into the scene itself. The only franchise I can think of where this doesn't apply are in the Transformers movies.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

CJackson said:


> Has anyone seen the Funimation Shin Godzilla blu ray?


Nine months later...

*Shin Godzilla*

recommendation: *Tier 0* (bottom quarter)*









Funimation delivers this stunning Godzilla experience in crystal-clear clarity. The two-hour film receives a flawlessly transparent AVC encode in the thirty Mbps range. Interiors have impeccable black levels in vividly sharp definition. The color palette has just a hint of teal to it. This 1080P video is a perfect translation of the movie's Digital Intermediate.

This is the first Gozilla movie I would deem picturesque. The widescreen compositions are constructed around Japan's landscapes near the shore. Godzilla itself is finely detailed and moves with real presence. The CGI is perfectly integrated into the background. Unlike the glossy, over-driven Hi-Def video common to Japanese filmmaking, _Shin Godzilla_ takes a far more balanced approach to its visuals. The superior shadow delineation reveals delicate details usually left out.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> CGI effect shots are always going to have some flatness to them. Given the time and financial restraints of movies, even Hollywood blockbusters, the main priority is ensuring the complex CGI shots smoothly integrate into the scene itself. The only franchise I can think of where this doesn't apply are in the Transformers movies.


A valid point to which I concur; integration is the priority. I also agree with your observation in the Transformers Franchise; the CGI shots are not only seamless, but they are sharp as a tack. Perhaps the owner of Jurassic Park had something to do with that and thus, "They spared no expense!"


----------



## SnellTHX

*The Commuter*


I'll just admit I did enjoy this as much as Djoberg did, but we often disagree on a lot of movies!

I didn't find anything exceptional about this picture quality. The image was pretty sharp, but didn't look like 4K to me. Looked like 1080p from a 2k DI, which isn't bad, but nothing outstanding. I'll agree there was PLENTY of facial details, particularly in the ending scene which had sunlight on their faces that lit up and highlighted every single detail of their faces. Every flaw and every imperfection became visible. 


I'm a fan of CGI, but the CGI I saw in this movie looked softer than most Hollywood block busters. 

While picture did look great it looked more like a modern "straight-to-DVD" rental that didn't impress me.

I only watched it because Liam Neeson happens to be one of my favourite actors!


*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


----------



## fredxr2d2

djoberg said:


> *Black Panther (1080p)*
> 
> PS The audio was a letdown, with disappointing bass and panning effects in the height channels.


I watched the 4K blu with the Atmos soundtrack and had to turn it up to -3.5dB to get it to sound right (normally I listen at -10). After that, it was a really good mix with plenty of surround action and bass.


----------



## djoberg

fredxr2d2 said:


> I watched the 4K blu with the Atmos soundtrack and had to turn it up to -3.5dB to get it to sound right (normally I listen at -10). After that, it was a really good mix with plenty of surround action and bass.


Of course, since I watched the 1080p version I listened to an "upmix" and though it was "good" at times, I was disappointed in scenes where you were expecting a lot of LFE but it never happened. Perhaps, if my wife had not been in our family room right above my Man Cave, I would have turned it higher. I only listened at no more than -8 dB.


----------



## SnellTHX

Tier 0 rating for Black Panther! Well I ordered it myself now. I watched it in the cinema but I really enjoyed the movie itself (8/10) and the PQ/AQ in the cinema was really good. Great Atmos track. Should be worthy a purchase for me 


How would you say this title compares to other Marvel movies ?

For me it goes:


1. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2 (top 10)
2. Avengers (Tier 0 (.33))
3. Ant-Man (Tier 0(.5))
4. Thor: Ragnarok (Tier 0(.9) or tier 1)
5. Cap: Civil War (tier 1)

The remainder of the Marvel movies go somewhere in tier 1 to 1.5; Age of Ultron (disappointing PQ wise considering the reference image of the first), GOTG1, Doctor Strange the other Thor's, Cap's, Iron Man 3 etc.


I hope Avengers: Infinity War surpasses that of the first and even exceeds GOTG2. it looked really, really good in IMAX 3D.


----------



## SnellTHX

*Life of PI (4K HDR)*


I don't remember if I ever reviewed this movie here, but I watched the blu-ray of this years ago and for a while this movie was my ultimate #1 reference disk, the first to fully surpass AVATAR as the king of picture quality. Since then however I discovered Pacific Rim, Interstellar (IMAX 15/70mm scenes), GOTG2, half a dozen of Pixar movies and Transformers 5: Last Knight (my current picture king), there's a couple more movies I've yet to see and could easily make the top of the list but I'm still curious to see how this title holds up...


and WOW. The picture quality is mesmerising. The colours pop out more than any other Live Action movie, the image is so razor sharp I don't understand how it comes from a 2K DI, filmed on a 2.8K. With amount of details and clarity present I would guess its derived from a 4K DI and shot in 8K. its pretty much flawless. 

Facial details, contrast, shadow detail, vibrant, 3D-like depth its all there. The most impressive feat has to be the CGI and in particular the tiger, every individual shade of its fur is rendered perfectly.


All-in-all its still a top reference disc. I didn't enjoy the movie that much but the eye-candy is totally worth it. Its hard to place it precisely as there are so many good reference movies out there right now, but this 2012 re-release is definitely up there with the current top 10, maybe even top 5.


*Tier recommendation: 0*


----------



## djoberg

*Alien: Covenant (UHD)*

The credits are rolling and all I can say is I saw little or no difference between this and its 1080p counterpart. In fairness, I haven't seen the 1080p version since last September but in reading my review on it (a minute ago) I believe it reflects what I just saw. Instead of writing a formal review I'll just post my link for you to read.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-800.html#post54770308

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**

PS The Dolby Atmos track was very good, but not excellent. I was expecting more in the height channels and more LFE in scenes with big explosions.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I wouldn't necessarily expect every UHD to better its Blu-ray counterpart. Many of these films are locked in at 2K resolution due to limiting factors.

*Busou Shinki: Complete Collection*


recommendation: *Tier 2.25**

This 2012 anime arrives in a perfectly respectable presentation by Sentai Filmworks. The entire series is spread over two discs. Busou Shinki doesn't possess the most cutting-edge animation but includes hints of CGI elements during the hectic battle scenes. The traditional animation has solid character designs, animated in a fairly straightforward palette common to anime productions.

There are no visible problems with the transfer and few, if any, artifacts.


----------



## AmerCa

Sup, guys? The following is off-topic, that's why I'm using the "SPOILER" tag. If you're not interested, don't click it.



Spoiler



My audio upgrade is officially started, as I just ordered my first AV receiver. It should arrive next week, I hope by then I'll have some speakers to try stuff. Next week there will be a special sale on Amazon Mexico, I hope to buy speakers and other stuff to start building my HT. Hopefully when my sub arrives in about two months () I'll have the rest of the stuff.

For the moment I'm not getting ATMOS or DTS:X (despite my receiver being 7.2 ), since I have space limitations anyways, but I'm getting 4K HDR passthrough, so I'm set when I'm ready to get the jump to 4k.

I should thank AVSForums for making me spend money I'd never thought of spending, and literally giving headaches trying to do research and learning new things in the process. My setup won't be anything fancy - it's still a budget setup -, but it'll be a significant upgrade to my current LG HTiB which got me started in this madness.

So, for the moment, no display upgrade (bye, bye, OLED).



I've been busy, so I have a good backlog of movies to watch (and review). I'll try to get back to business as soon as possible.


----------



## AmerCa

djoberg said:


> *Alien: Covenant (UHD)*
> 
> The credits are rolling and all I can say is I saw little or no difference between this and its 1080p counterpart.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.0**
> 
> PS The Dolby Atmos track was very good, but not excellent. I was expecting more...


Crossed out of my list. Thanks. If I find a good deal on the regular blu I'll take it.



Phantom Stranger said:


> I wouldn't necessarily expect every UHD to better its Blu-ray counterpart. Many of these films are locked in at 2K resolution due to limiting factors.


That's what I'm gathering from many reviews of UHD discs. Not every disc fulfills the promise of a significant upgrade, including audio. I'll still get the ones I don't currently have that may be a significant upgrade, like the Matrix UHD everyone is raving about, at some point.


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> Crossed out of my list. Thanks. If I find a good deal on the regular blu I'll take it.


Good choice! If I had it to do over again, I wouldn't buy the UHD version. Then again, I did get it on a "2 UHD Blu-rays for $30" special, so I'm not really out anything (I wasn't "double-dipping").

Congrats on your upgrade! I'm happy for you!!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

AmerCa said:


> Sup, guys? The following is off-topic, that's why I'm using the "SPOILER" tag. If you're not interested, don't click it.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> My audio upgrade is officially started, as I just ordered my first AV receiver. It should arrive next week, I hope by then I'll have some speakers to try stuff. Next week there will be a special sale on Amazon Mexico, I hope to buy speakers and other stuff to start building my HT. Hopefully when my sub arrives in about two months () I'll have the rest of the stuff.
> 
> For the moment I'm not getting ATMOS or DTS:X (despite my receiver being 7.2 ), since I have space limitations anyways, but I'm getting 4K HDR passthrough, so I'm set when I'm ready to get the jump to 4k.
> 
> I should thank AVSForums for making me spend money I'd never thought of spending, and literally giving headaches trying to do research and learning new things in the process. My setup won't be anything fancy - it's still a budget setup -, but it'll be a significant upgrade to my current LG HTiB which got me started in this madness.
> 
> So, for the moment, no display upgrade (bye, bye, OLED).
> 
> 
> 
> I've been busy, so I have a good backlog of movies to watch (and review). I'll try to get back to business as soon as possible.


Congrats on the new receiver! AVS is very good at enticing readers to buy things they didn't know they needed. Trust me, setting up a sound system these days is infinitely easier than it was before HDMI was invented. I remember the days when you had to have a separate DTS processor with all 5.1 channels needing analog cables between the processor and the receiver.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Fury (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 0* (0.9)*

First off: the black crush seen on the US Blu-ray release is fixed. Black levels aren't spectacular but that's due to the original photography and intended look, not a faulty scan or encode. There are many scenes with lots of smoke so blacks can sometimes appear grayish but they are never milky. Interior shots of Fury (the tank) show strong contrast and depth. The black bars above and below the picture are jet black throughout and black transitions between some scenes are jet black as well. It's definitely not a looker on the color scale as it's mostly drab greens and browns but they are well delineated. One shot of a line of captured Nazis shows their coats to be all different shades of drab green, HDR is really showing what it can do with close but different shades of the same color. The brightest colors in the film are the many tracers from the myriad of guns on the tanks including the main gun. Details are nice with fabrics, facial features, and grime will presented.


The sound is phenomenal, especially during the duel with the Tiger tank and the final stand at the end; the LFE really rumbled.


It's not quite the stunner that *Saving Private Ryan* on UHD is, mostly due to the inconsistent black levels, but it's still top-tier.


----------



## djoberg

*Molly's Game*

I found myself exploring titles on the Redbox online site and this one grabbed my attention when I saw that Jessica Chastain was in the lead role. Once again she did NOT let me down; her performance was superb!

The PQ was, for the most part, as superb as Miss Chastain's acting! In daytime, outdoor scenes or in well-lit interiors shots (especially in courtroom scenes and in her lawyer's office) the clarity was striking and primaries were rich and vibrant. Details (in everything, most notably facial texture but also in clothing, furniture, etc.) in those same scenes were excellent, along with accurate skin tones, strong contrast, and appreciable depth. Black levels were a mixed bag, but mostly very good.

Where the PQ faltered was in "some" of the many "poker scenes," especially in Molly's first gig. In those scenes color-grading was quite egregious (orange hues) which affected flesh tones and softened the picture. Once she moved the "Game" to a swank hotel razor-sharp clarity returned with mesmerizing details and colors.

This one had plenty of Tier 0 shots but the faltering PQ (mentioned above) will necessarily bring this down to Tier 1.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*I Kill Giants*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

Questionable CGI monsters are the only thing preventing this disc from Tier 0. Otherwise the beautifully sharp digital cinematography, filmed on location in places like Brussels and Ireland, offers refined visuals in amazingly crisp clarity. The new release by RLJ Entertainment concerns a young girl that fantasizes her town is infested by giants. The well-crafted film should have been given an HDR pass and released on UHD as well.

Filmed on an Arri Alexa camera and finished at 2K resolution, there is immense depth and dimension to _I Kill Giants'_ 2.40:1 presentation. The video has a smooth, consistent contrast with lush black levels. Minor hints of noise manifest in the darkest scenes. Shadow delineation is strong, lovingly rendering the inky depths of its darker moments.

It's refreshing to see such unfiltered, pristine video. The 1080P resolution highlights the fantastic levels of texture in nearly every scene. I was stunned to discover that the beach scenes were shot on a studio set, inside a warehouse. Everything looked so real that it fooled even me.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Here's the first review I've seen for the next generation Panasonic UHD player, the DP-UB820. Apparently it won't hit retail stores until August.

https://hdguru.com/review-panasonic-dp-ub820-ultra-hd-blu-ray-player-offers-premium-performance/


----------



## SnellTHX

*Black Panther (4k)*

WOW. Mind blowing picture quality and yet another Marvel great. The picture quality was ridiculously sharp, high-resolution 4K, no artefacts, lots of facial detail, plenty of pop, particularly the vibrant colours of each tribe, the colours really stuck out and looked amazing. (for instance the fight scene between M'Baku and T'Challa)

Contrast was on point and punchy as it gets, plenty of dark scenes to show off those perfect black levels!

Better than Thor:Ragnarok which was already amazing.

Not quite sure if I like it as much as Ant-man or the First Avengers but this is reference image quality in every way.


*Tier recommendation: 0(.5)*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*And Now The Screaming Starts!*

recommendation: *Tier 3.5**

This is the rare entry into Gothic horror for Amicus Productions, one of the few British horror rivals to Hammer during their heyday. The 1973 chiller with Peter Cushing and Herbert Lom was released earlier this year in Severin Films' The Amicus Collection box set. Severin claims it has been remastered in 4K and fully restored. By reputation, this is supposed to be the most impressive transfer found in the box set. I'll let you know when I get to those films.

Keep your expectations in check. Severin Films hasn't been known as a label that caters to videophiles and this presentation, while serviceable, is nothing to get excited about. The 90-minute main feature does receive an impressive AVC encode on a BD-50. The film elements are in modestly presentable condition. Detail is less than expected for a new 4K film scan. The strong clarity is probably the video's best trait. Filmed in that straightforward British style with excellent lighting and rich color, this isn't a film that tests the boundaries of its cinematography.

I guess you could label this presentation as film-like and fairly authentic. It's not even as strong as the better 2K restorations by Arrow Video of similar fare, so one wonders how much PQ improvements may have been left on the table by Severin Films.


----------



## subacabra

Watched A Cure for Wellness this evening. Holy moly. Easily the best picture quality blu ray I've seen. I'd venture to say better than some 4k movies.


----------



## SnellTHX

subacabra said:


> Watched A Cure for Wellness this evening. Holy moly. Easily the best picture quality blu ray I've seen. I'd venture to say better than some 4k movies.


Wow, that's an interesting statement. Added this to my Watchlist... Definitely a movie that would fly over my radar


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Satellite Girl and Milk Cow*

recommendation: *Tier 1.75**

Gkids and Shout Factory next week put out this Korean anime movie from a few years ago. The off-beat love story has some minor 3-D CGI elements but this is largely the usual traditional animation commonly found in anime. Animated by studio Now or Never and mastered at 2K resolution for its Digital Intermediate, this is a fine presentation of bright, mostly colorful video.

Given the unusually high video bitrates for the AVC encode, it appears the leftover banding and hints of posterization are possibly baked into the digital animation files. Otherwise this is a pristine presentation. The cleanly animated character designs aren't particularly detailed, favoring more simplistic drawings. Black levels are inky with real depth. The palette has nice saturation and a wide array of different colors.

_Satellite Girl and Milk Cow's_ picture quality is a step behind more expensive theatrical animation from the likes of Studio Ghibli.


----------



## djoberg

*Braveheart (UHD)*

I tried to find my review of the 1080p version using both Google and Bing, but to no avail. If memory serves me I either gave it a low Tier 0 or a 1.0 in Tier 1. The UHD version takes it up a notch or two, no doubt about it. The colors are brighter; the details are more defined; and the black levels are most definitely deeper. There were some soft shots, but they were "few and far between" and in a film lasting nearly 3 hours one would be straining at a gnat if they were to penalize the placement to any large degree.

This may be the 6th time I've viewed this and I never tire of it! It is a true classic that deserves to be on every film lover's video shelf!

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.66)*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

deltasun said:


> *Braveheart*
> 
> Fine grain present throughout. As expected, this was a pristine presentation technically. Facial details were very detailed and textured, some comparable to solid Tier 0 titles. On the flip side, there were numerous scenes where softness crept in. The introduction of young William Wallace's uncle was a perfect example. Upon closer inspection, one can see that the focus was incorrectly on the sliver of horse's head, barely visible on the bottom left corner of the screen; thereby rendering the rider's face (who was speaking) defocused. There were several more examples of softness, mostly occurring indoors.
> 
> Blacks were mostly solid and bold, but we do get some crushing in a number of scenes. Low-light details were decent, but I felt some were shallower than they should be, specially when compared to some newer titles (I would call on _The Unborn_ again for reference). I noted contrast was weak in my pre-review, but having seen the entire film, I would retract that statement. It seemed weak in relation to _Gladiator's_, which had a different look and feel altogether. _Braveheart's_ was not pushed and went for a more natural, maybe even dated look.
> 
> _Braveheart_ showcased some beautiful panoramic scenes. Depth and dimension were very good, but nothing that really stood out. The spectrum of colors also appeared natural - greens were abundant, regal blues were valiant. Another thing I must mention was the unnatural amount of white specks throughout the film, eventually getting a tad distracting.
> 
> Overall, a definite winner in terms of its blu-ray presentation. However, I cannot agree with its reference placement; at least not based on our PQ thread rules. Don't get me wrong, there were sequences so good that they've made me forget/overlook some of the negatives. But, we must uphold the quality of what we induct into Tier Blu. I feel _Braveheart_ does not belong. In fact, I don't even believe it belongs high on Tier 1...
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75*
> 
> _ln46a650 - 1080p/24 - 6'_





djoberg said:


> *Braveheart*
> 
> I decided to forget the coin toss and watch Braveheart, especially after reading two previous reviews which were a whole tier apart. After reading so many glowing reviews from "professional" reviewers (along with that of 42041) and then a somewhat dissenting opinion by our esteemed colleague deltasun, I was compelled to see what it looked like on my KURO.
> 
> In short, it was an absolutely gorgeous transfer with unbelievable CLARITY and DETAIL and thus I echo all the sentiments of 42041. Believe me when I say you are in for a treat, for this clearly blows away the last DVD edition of this remarkable film. Scotland never looked so good with lush greens and impeccable details of the picturesque highlands.
> 
> Blacks were incredible, as was the shadow detail. I had thought it might suffer in this department because of the age of the movie, but they did an amazing job in remastering this film. The only gripe I have with the blacks is that this is where the white speckles showed up the most (though in honesty it is relatively rare when you consider the running time is almost 3 hours).
> 
> Skin tones were spot on and the facial close-ups were, for the most part, Tier 0 quality. There were some that came up short, but again, this was definitely the exception and not the rule.
> 
> The color palette was quite limited (aside from the lush greens mentioned above), but when there were bright colors they were amazingly vivid and natural-looking.
> 
> One of the greatest virtues that set this worlds apart from its DVD counterpart was the depth and dimensionality. Be prepared to be WOWED by this in many scenes!
> 
> Now for the placement recommendation. It must be penalized for the white speckles, to be sure, and there were some sporadic soft shots here and there that also enter into the mix. But these were not enough to drop this wonderful transfer from reference quality, IMHO. In my mind I kept comparing it to another transfer in Tier 0, namely, Prince Caspian, and to me it should be only a notch or two below that title. If it does find its way into Tier 1, I am of the mind that it will deserve a top ranking of 1.0. But I'm hoping enough members weigh in to give it a place among the best, so my vote is for.....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Bottom third of Tier 0*
> 
> Pioneer 60" Elite KURO (1080p/24)....Panasonic BD30....Viewed from 8'


 I dug these up from early September of 2009 using sorcery. Actually, I cheated a bit and used _Braveheart's_ known Blu-ray release date to narrow the search. Djoberg, you apparently agreed back then with frequent PQ Tiers' reviewer 42041 (remember him?) on _Braveheart_. I tossed in Deltasun's review because it was so much different than your assessment. I was a little sad to discover in the course of finding your review that forum member 42041 hasn't visited the site in over four years. I pray he's out there somewhere still enjoying movies.

Djoberg, you'd recognize many familiar names from the initial Braveheart discussion in the PQ Tiers. Members such as Rob Tomlin, Patrick99, GeekyGlassesGirl and others all appear. It's hard to believe it's been nearly a decade.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> I dug these up from early September of 2009 using sorcery. Actually, I cheated a bit and used _Braveheart's_ known Blu-ray release date to narrow the search. Djoberg, you apparently agreed back then with frequent PQ Tiers' reviewer 42041 (remember him?) on _Braveheart_. I tossed in Deltasun's review because it was so much different than your assessment. I was a little sad to discover in the course of finding your review that forum member 42041 hasn't visited the site in over four years. I pray he's out there somewhere still enjoying movies.
> 
> Djoberg, you'd recognize many familiar names from the initial Braveheart discussion in the PQ Tiers. Members such as Rob Tomlin, Patrick99, GeekyGlassesGirl and others all appear. It's hard to believe it's been nearly a decade.


Thanks so much Phantom for "digging up" those reviews. It would seem that I was just as impressed with the restored Blu-ray version as I was tonight viewing the UHD version. And I'm really surprised that I gave it (virtually) the same placement as I did a half hour ago. Having said that, I did watch some snippets of my Sapphire 1080p version last night and I don't believe I would give it a Tier 0 (bottom third) placement today.

I most certainly do remember those names. I really miss them all; they were with us a very long time, especially Rob, Patrick and 42041.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^

I see that Hughmc "liked" your last post Phantom. We miss you too Hugh! Where have you been and what have you been doing? And in keeping with this thread, what Blus have you been watching lately? You have been one of the greatest contributors to this thread and it sure would be nice to have you back!


----------



## SnellTHX

I haven't even seen Braveheart yet


----------



## SnellTHX

BladeRunner 2049 just arrived in 4K/HDR  

I heard this movie has A LOT of deep bass, so I'm going to save it until the neighbours are away lol. 

I just had to have a little sneak peak and I watched the first 13 minutes. The opening fight scene where he slams the blade runners had against the wall and the scene where the car flies / lands... WOW. that BASS. tables and glasses were shaking so can't wait til I'm home alone!!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

SnellTHX said:


> I haven't even seen Braveheart yet


I saw it in theaters and have never found the time to watch my Blu-ray copy. Now it gets released on UHD.


----------



## dla26

*Hostiles (UHD)*

I was hoping for a lot more eye candy, since this was mastered in 4k from the original 35mm negatives. The best scenes were all shot close up - lots of subtle detail in the hair and skin, but not really skin pore porn. (Is that a thing? I feel like that's kind of a thing.  ) But a great deal of the story was told from a bit of a distance, and those scenes had a disappointing lack of detail. A great deal of the movie was either dark or shadowy - which produced a good effect for storytelling purposes, but it made it a lot harder to appreciate the scene's details. I didn't notice any black crush, but there's only so much black on slightly less black that I can enjoy. That said, there were several scenes with a bright light on one part of the screen and darkness on the other that I'm sure videophiles will enjoy testing the limits of their displays on. I was also hoping that since the movie is set in the frontier there would be more majestic views of nature, but that gets more into the realm of criticizing the director's intent rather than the picture quality of the film as intended.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.25*

P.S. The audio was only 5.1. That's fine for me, as that is what my setup is, but I normally expect Dolby Atmos and/or 7.1 surround to be standard on UHD.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

dla26 said:


> *Hostiles (UHD)*
> 
> I was hoping for a lot more eye candy, since this was mastered in 4k from the original 35mm negatives. The best scenes were all shot close up - lots of subtle detail in the hair and skin, but not really skin pore porn. (Is that a thing? I feel like that's kind of a thing.  ) But a great deal of the story was told from a bit of a distance, and those scenes had a disappointing lack of detail. A great deal of the movie was either dark or shadowy - which produced a good effect for storytelling purposes, but it made it a lot harder to appreciate the scene's details. I didn't notice any black crush, but there's only so much black on slightly less black that I can enjoy. That said, there were several scenes with a bright light on one part of the screen and darkness on the other that I'm sure videophiles will enjoy testing the limits of their displays on. I was also hoping that since the movie is set in the frontier there would be more majestic views of nature, but that gets more into the realm of criticizing the director's intent rather than the picture quality of the film as intended.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.25*
> 
> P.S. The audio was only 5.1. That's fine for me, as that is what my setup is, but I normally expect Dolby Atmos and/or 7.1 surround to be standard on UHD.


 Many period pieces such as Hostiles don't aim for that razor-sharp, ultra-revealing aesthetic. It's also from Lionsgate, which has never been known as a studio favorable to videophiles on home video.


Was the movie enjoyable?


----------



## dla26

Phantom Stranger said:


> Many period pieces such as Hostiles don't aim for that razor-sharp, ultra-revealing aesthetic. It's also from Lionsgate, which has never been known as a studio favorable to videophiles on home video.
> 
> 
> Was the movie enjoyable?


Yes, the movie was very good. I'd personally give it a 3/4 stars.

Spoiler synopsis:


Spoiler



The story is about a US Army Captain who had spent his career fighting Indians. He is ordered to escort an old and dying Cheyenne Chief prisoner (who was one of the leaders of the Indians in a battle that killed many of the Captain's men) as well as his family back to his native home. In the beginning, the Captain hated not only the Chief but the rest of his family. Along the way, they encounter a white woman whose family had just been massacred by a group of Comanche raiders. The woman is at first afraid of the Cheyenne family but starts to warm up to them. Over time, the Captain and the Chief develop a mutual respect.



My not-so-deep analysis:


Spoiler



Overall the story was well-told, but it missed some important notes that I think made it more forgettable than it should have been. The Captain is told he can choose a certain number of soldiers to accompany him on his mission - except one, a French speaker who the captain's boss has selected. That French-speaking soldier was one of the first to die, and they hadn't explored his character enough to make me care. Why was he chosen by the captain's boss? Did the captain dislike him deep down? Etc. Another one of the captain's staff was black. Given the setting, you'd think that this would be a major subplot, but they only address his color once, and only in passing. I believe that character was to show that the captain wasn't racist per se - he only hated the Cheyenne at the beginning because of his long period fighting with them. Another example was that the captain somehow spoke fluent Cheyenne. I don't recall there being any exposition to say how he came to learn it. If he was raised by the Cheyenne, I imagine that it'd soften his views. If he just picked it up, how and why? Was this common back then? Etc.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> I saw it in theaters and have never found the time to watch my Blu-ray copy. Now it gets released on UHD.


Whoa! I could hardly believe you haven't seen the Blu-ray of _Braveheart_! This tells me you weren't that impressed with it after seeing it in the theater, for if you did you would have "made time for it" at home. What didn't you like about it? I know it's a long movie but there are plenty of epic movies (like _Lawrence of Arabia_ which is nearly 4 hours long) that I believe you have seen. I'm not "judging you" Phantom, just genuinely surprised you didn't love the movie.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> Whoa! I could hardly believe you haven't seen the Blu-ray of _Braveheart_! This tells me you weren't that impressed with it after seeing it in the theater, for if you did you would have "made time for it" at home. What didn't you like about it? I know it's a long movie but there are plenty of epic movies (like _Lawrence of Arabia_ which is nearly 4 hours long) that I believe you have seen. I'm not "judging you" Phantom, just genuinely surprised you didn't love the movie.


I like Braveheart a lot, don't get me wrong. I mostly prefer watching a movie I haven't seen before most of the time, especially if it's a lengthy epic. I normally don't re-watch many movies except for a handful of personal favorites. There are too many good movies and not enough hours in the day. Braveheart isn't an isolated example, we would be here all day if I listed some of the titles in my collection that are favorites I haven't personally gotten around to viewing on BD.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

dla26 said:


> Yes, the movie was very good. I'd personally give it a 3/4 stars.
> 
> Spoiler synopsis:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> The story is about a US Army Captain who had spent his career fighting Indians. He is ordered to escort an old and dying Cheyenne Chief prisoner (who was one of the leaders of the Indians in a battle that killed many of the Captain's men) as well as his family back to his native home. In the beginning, the Captain hated not only the Chief but the rest of his family. Along the way, they encounter a white woman whose family had just been massacred by a group of Comanche raiders. The woman is at first afraid of the Cheyenne family but starts to warm up to them. Over time, the Captain and the Chief develop a mutual respect.
> 
> 
> 
> My not-so-deep analysis:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Overall the story was well-told, but it missed some important notes that I think made it more forgettable than it should have been. The Captain is told he can choose a certain number of soldiers to accompany him on his mission - except one, a French speaker who the captain's boss has selected. That French-speaking soldier was one of the first to die, and they hadn't explored his character enough to make me care. Why was he chosen by the captain's boss? Did the captain dislike him deep down? Etc. Another one of the captain's staff was black. Given the setting, you'd think that this would be a major subplot, but they only address his color once, and only in passing. I believe that character was to show that the captain wasn't racist per se - he only hated the Cheyenne at the beginning because of his long period fighting with them. Another example was that the captain somehow spoke fluent Cheyenne. I don't recall there being any exposition to say how he came to learn it. If he was raised by the Cheyenne, I imagine that it'd soften his views. If he just picked it up, how and why? Was this common back then? Etc.


Thanks, the movie sounds interesting. Christian Bale usually gets involved with good projects and the cast looks solid, which is what piqued my interest.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> I like Braveheart a lot, don't get me wrong. I mostly prefer watching a movie I haven't seen before most of the time, especially if it's a lengthy epic. I normally don't re-watch many movies except for a handful of personal favorites. There are too many good movies and not enough hours in the day. Braveheart isn't an isolated example, we would be here all day if I listed some of the titles in my collection that are favorites I haven't personally gotten around to viewing on BD.


I hear you!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

There's a nice sale next week at Target on certain UHDs. Both _Dunkirk_ and _Red Sparrow_ UHDs will be $13.


----------



## AmerCa

Phantom Stranger said:


> There's a nice sale next week at Target on certain UHDs. Both _Dunkirk_ and _Red Sparrow_ UHDs will be $13.


----------



## djoberg

*Hostiles (1080p)*

First of all, I enjoyed the superb acting of this "character-driven" Western. It may be too slow-paced for many today, but I was riveted to the screen for its 2+ hour running time. 

The PQ was very good _at times_, especially during daytime, outdoor scenes. The cinematography was beautiful, though with a rather muted color palette the EYE CANDY consisted mostly of intricate details in rocks, dense forests, grasslands, etc. Black levels were, for the most part, excellent. There were some campfires scenes which treated us to some great shadow details. As dla26 said, close-ups of actors/actresses revealed plenty of texture in faces and hair. They weren't quite "reference quality," but I'd proudly show them off as "demo material." Clarity could be quite striking at times...check out a scene on a street at a fort at about the 1 hour 12 minute mark...it was razor-sharp with amazing depth to boot!

On the negative side, softness crept in at time resulting in a lack of details. Flesh tones also faltered occasionally creating a "red push." Also, in keeping with dla26's comments, long range shots could be sadly disappointing.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5** 




dla26 said:


> *Hostiles (UHD)*
> 
> I was hoping for a lot more eye candy, since this was mastered in 4k from the original 35mm negatives. The best scenes were all shot close up - lots of subtle detail in the hair and skin, but not really skin pore porn. (Is that a thing? I feel like that's kind of a thing.  ) But a great deal of the story was told from a bit of a distance, and those scenes had a disappointing lack of detail. A great deal of the movie was either dark or shadowy - which produced a good effect for storytelling purposes, but it made it a lot harder to appreciate the scene's details. I didn't notice any black crush, but there's only so much black on slightly less black that I can enjoy. That said, there were several scenes with a bright light on one part of the screen and darkness on the other that I'm sure videophiles will enjoy testing the limits of their displays on. I was also hoping that since the movie is set in the frontier there would be more majestic views of nature, but that gets more into the realm of criticizing the director's intent rather than the picture quality of the film as intended.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.25*


----------



## Hughmc

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^
> 
> I see that Hughmc "liked" your last post Phantom. We miss you too Hugh! Where have you been and what have you been doing? And in keeping with this thread, what Blus have you been watching lately? You have been one of the greatest contributors to this thread and it sure would be nice to have you back!


Hi, Denny. Thanks for the mention. I appreciate all of you and the continuing reviews and related banter. I check in here almost daily to see reviews as a lurker. I'm still around and watching movies, Blu Rays on occasion but not diligently in reference to the PQ thread. I obtained my Business degree in 2016 after 30 years of self-employment. It was a personal goal I kept in my back pocket after dropping out 30 years ago. I reverse engineered it.  I did jump on the recent Oppo deal, like Phantom...although I have a PS3 and PS4, I wanted the SACD/DVD Audio capabilities as well as other features. I still love my Panny VT65 Plasma, but when I upgrade to 4K, I will have to upgrade my Denon 4308ci. It is still an excellent piece of hardware. Outstanding! The Oppo works with the current system I have for BD's, SACD/DVD Audio...again till the upgrade. I am fortunate having integrated a new piece of hardware and its compatible with my network receiver from ten or more years ago.  The other qualifier...although I remain in good health and am physically fit... I still have reasonably good eyes, 20/30 and good ears, but I am 56, and there is no doubt my view like anyone's as we age, will become more subjective


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Hughmc said:


> Hi, Denny. Thanks for the mention. I appreciate all of you and the continuing reviews and related banter. I check in here almost daily to see reviews as a lurker. I'm still around and watching movies, Blu Rays on occasion but not diligently in reference to the PQ thread. I obtained my Business degree in 2016 after 30 years of self-employment. It was a personal goal I kept in my back pocket after dropping out 30 years ago. I reverse engineered it.  I did jump on the recent Oppo deal, like Phantom...although I have a PS3 and PS4, I wanted the SACD/DVD Audio capabilities as well as other features. I still love my Panny VT65 Plasma, but when I upgrade to 4K, I will have to upgrade my Denon 4308ci. It is still an excellent piece of hardware. Outstanding! The Oppo works with the current system I have for BD's, SACD/DVD Audio...again till the upgrade. I am fortunate having integrated a new piece of hardware and its compatible with my network receiver from ten or more years ago.  The other qualifier...although I remain in good health and am physically fit... I still have reasonably good eyes, 20/30 and good ears, but I am 56, and there is no doubt my view like anyone's as we age, will become more subjective


 A belated congrats on the degree! That's impressive going back to school after 30 years. Thanks for coming out of lurking, it's great hearing from you again after all this time. It reminds everyone this thread and the PQ Tiers have been built off dozens and dozens of regular contributors, even if some of them have moved on from reviewing. Your contributions here are missed, but I understand very well how life can get busy.


*The Great Silence*

recommendation: *Tier 2.75**

Film Movement's 50th Anniversary Restoration edition for this excellent spaghetti western features a new 2K film scan from the original camera negative. The movie had already made it out on Blu-ray in Germany from a different transfer but this week's release is the first in North America. The snow-laden movie from Italian director Sergio Corbucci steadily improves in clarity and sharpness after a mildly soft opening reel. The 106-minute main feature is encoded in flawless AVC on a BD-50. It is presented at the new aspect ratio of 1.85:1, whereas prior editions of the film offered a 1.66:1 aspect ratio.
The film's grain structure remains intact, albeit faint halos are noticeable in certain scenes. The film elements are in fine condition, some dustbusting has been applied to clean up wear and debris. Generally this is a film-like, faithful presentation of low-budget Italian filmmaking from the late 1960s. It surpasses prior editions of the film with better colors and a more stable contrast. Nothing in the film's cinematography screams videophile. It is serviceable with acceptable black levels and solid definition.


----------



## Hughmc

Thank you Phantom! Thank you for keeping this thread updated and a big thank you for all the reviews you and others contribute


----------



## djoberg

Hughmc said:


> Hi, Denny. Thanks for the mention. I appreciate all of you and the continuing reviews and related banter. I check in here almost daily to see reviews as a lurker. I'm still around and watching movies, Blu Rays on occasion but not diligently in reference to the PQ thread. I obtained my Business degree in 2016 after 30 years of self-employment. It was a personal goal I kept in my back pocket after dropping out 30 years ago. I reverse engineered it.  I did jump on the recent Oppo deal, like Phantom...although I have a PS3 and PS4, I wanted the SACD/DVD Audio capabilities as well as other features. I still love my Panny VT65 Plasma, but when I upgrade to 4K, I will have to upgrade my Denon 4308ci. It is still an excellent piece of hardware. Outstanding! The Oppo works with the current system I have for BD's, SACD/DVD Audio...again till the upgrade. I am fortunate having integrated a new piece of hardware and its compatible with my network receiver from ten or more years ago.  The other qualifier...although I remain in good health and am physically fit... I still have reasonably good eyes, 20/30 and good ears, but I am 56, and there is no doubt my view like anyone's as we age, will become more subjective


Hugh,

I admire your determination and patience in getting your degree at this stage of life. Kudos to you for that! I hope this new "chapter in your life" proves to be rewarding in every way.

I "may" just jump on the Oppo deal as well (if it's still available, that is). Or, I may get a Cambridge Audio player which is based on the Oppo. It costs a bit more but at least the company should be around for future updates/repairs.

Once you get really settled and you start feeling "bored," consider jumping back on the PQ Tier Thread Wagon. We would love to have you back. If memory serves me you and I agreed at times on PQ placement, but there were times we had some good "back and forth" trying to persuade the other to change their mind.  I know I appreciated your honestly and consistency.

Denny


----------



## AmerCa

*All The Boys Love Mandy Lane (2006 - Anchor Bay)*










This is the first movie that made me question if there was something wrong with my display. Had I accidentally changed my settings? Is my display already failing me? The PQ of this movie is awful, and I think this is certainly due to its low budget. Detail is minimal, contrast is poor, picture is terribly grainy at times, there's black crush and poor shadow details, and there were many other artifacts that made this movie _ almost_ unwatchable.

Are there any redeemable qualities? This is the first movie I watch with my new audio setupcool, wich is 5.0 for now and I have yet to make full adjustments, but even the audio was disappointing. There were a couple of good moments here and there, but even the audio mix sounded "cheap". So technical values on this disc are virtually non-existent.

This is a somewhat interesting slasher film with a couple of things going for it, but for the most part is very pedestrian. This is also Amber Heard's first major role, and because of her this movie is totally worth it.

I don't want to be very harsh on this movie, but I have to go with my gut and give this movie a

*Tier Recommendation: 4* * (PQ wise, the worst movie I own)*


----------



## AmerCa

*Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters [Unrated Cut] (2013 - Paramount)*










Yes! There was nothing wrong with my display! This BD is a beautiful thing to look at, in more than one way. Maybe this is the "Mandy Lane aftermath effect", but this disc is reference to my eyes. Color, contrast, black levels, shadow details, skin tones, and details; this movie looks beautiful. It certainly has a certain visual aesthetic - this is a fantasy movie after all - but it doesn't take anything away from its visual virtues. It's a movie you'd want to demo your display with.

Like I said, I'm missing heavily a sub for now, but even with it the audio mix was powerful and immersive, and I can only imagine a sub will give it a more heavier and deeper punch. I had already watched this movie with my HTiB, but can't remember how much a difference the low end made. This is completely a popcorn flick. What's not to like? It has gorgeous women, guns, gore, and bad, ugly witches getting massacred, and beautiful visuals coupled with great audio. I already watched this movie like four times, and it doesn't get old.

*Tier Recommendation: 0* *(0.90)*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> I "may" just jump on the Oppo deal as well (if it's still available, that is). Or, I may get a Cambridge Audio player which is based on the Oppo. It costs a bit more but at least the company should be around for future updates/repairs.
> 
> Denny


Oppo has run out of the 203 and it's looking more and more likely that the last 205 production run, which is now rumored for August, will be very limited. The Oppos are already going over list price on places like eBay. You may have to look at the upcoming high-end Panasonic player coming out.

Amazon has now matched Target and the *Red Sparrow* UHD is $13.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> Oppo has run out of the 203 and it's looking more and more likely that the last 205 production run, which is now rumored for August, will be very limited. The Oppos are already going over list price on places like eBay. You may have to look at the upcoming high-end Panasonic player coming out.


Thanks for the heads up Phantom. As I stated earlier, I may just get the Cambridge Audio (CXUHD) player. Performance-wise, it was given 5 stars from Al Griffin in the last issue of _Sound & Vision_. I like the fact that it is based on the Oppo units and that it is Dolby Vision compatible. What I don't like is its $700 price tag!

I will be renting at least two 1080p Blu-rays tomorrow so I should be giving reviews on them tomorrow night or on Tuesday.


----------



## AmerCa

*Pride And Prejudice And Zombies (2016 - Sony)*










Very good and clean transfer. There's a good amount of detail, black levels and shadow detail are also great, and even when the picture is stylized, colors are easy to the eyes, and the overall PQ is quite pleasing and beautiful to look at. Inevitably, I made the comparison to the recently reviewed Hansel & Gretel, but I didn't find this BD as spectacular and eye-pleasing as the former. This disc is pretty good, but not good enough to fall into tier zero territory. Still, this is most definitely demo material.

This movie is as nuts as the title suggests, and is certainly a very fun ride. The audio mix is loud and aggressive, and will give you more than a couple of jump scares just by the audio alone. I'm a sucker for this type of films, and I blind-bought it, knowing it hid a possible instant classic. All I know is that I'll be revisiting this flick many times in the future. This is truly what Jane Austen had in mind when she wrote the book, but she didn't dare...lol.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

AmerCa said:


> *All The Boys Love Mandy Lane (2006 - Anchor Bay)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the first movie that made me question if there was something wrong with my display. Had I accidentally changed my settings? Is my display already failing me? The PQ of this movie is awful, and I think this is certainly due to its low budget. Detail is minimal, contrast is poor, picture is terribly grainy at times, there's black crush and poor shadow details, and there were many other artifacts that made this movie _ almost_ unwatchable.
> 
> Are there any redeemable qualities? This is the first movie I watch with my new audio setupcool, wich is 5.0 for now and I have yet to make full adjustments, but even the audio was disappointing. There were a couple of good moments here and there, but even the audio mix sounded "cheap". So technical values on this disc are virtually non-existent.
> 
> This is a somewhat interesting slasher film with a couple of things going for it, but for the most part is very pedestrian. This is also Amber Heard's first major role, and because of her this movie is totally worth it.
> 
> I don't want to be very harsh on this movie, but I have to go with my gut and give this movie a
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 4* * (PQ wise, the worst movie I own)*


I reviewed the UK import of this movie in the thread years and years ago. My memory wants to say it was filmed on low-budget 16mm hoping to emulate the gritty Texas Chainsaw Massacre. As I said, it's been a long time since I thought about this slasher.


----------



## AmerCa

Phantom Stranger said:


> I reviewed the UK import of this movie in the thread years and years ago. My memory wants to say it was filmed on low-budget 16mm hoping to emulate the gritty Texas Chainsaw Massacre. As I said, it's been a long time since I thought about this slasher.


Wow, the Texas Chainsaw Massacre was filmed in the 70s, were the filmmakers really going for that look? I'd say then they succeeded, because it looks like garbage, although you could also say it looks "gritty". On some scenes it really worked, but for the most part I really wanted to turn off my TV. I didn't know it was released previously in the UK, did you actually buy the import?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

AmerCa said:


> Wow, the Texas Chainsaw Massacre was filmed in the 70s, were the filmmakers really going for that look? I'd say then they succeeded, because it looks like garbage, although you could also say it looks "gritty". On some scenes it really worked, but for the most part I really wanted to turn off my TV. I didn't know it was released previously in the UK, did you actually buy the import?


 http://www.dvdcompare.net/comparisons/film.php?fid=13239


Yes, I have the UK Blu-ray somewhere around here. All The Boys Love Mandy Lane had checkered distribution in the United States because I believe the Weinstein Company? had rights to it, and they shelved the movie instead of releasing it on home video. Thus it got out in foreign territories from other companies long before it hit home video in the States. Anchor Bay finally put it out here on Blu-ray.


----------



## djoberg

*15:10 to Paris*

Lousy movie (with some of the worst acting I've ever seen)....Excellent PQ!!

If not for the razor-sharp clarity, brimming details, vibrant colors, accurate flesh tones, and some amazing cinematography all across Europe, I would have Fast-Forwarded this to the only action scene (that lasted all of 5 minutes) that grabbed my attention (and even that was pretty lame).

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**

PS I could see some giving this a low Tier 0 placement.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^

I forgot to say, "What in the world was Clint Eastwood thinking in directing this movie?" I usually LOVE his movies, but this one is a real stinker. I know Clint is very patriotic and no doubt his desire was to bring the deserved glory to the soldiers who stopped this terror attack, but in using the real persons (instead of professional actors) and giving us a long, boring background leading up to the attack, he ended up making them look quite "cheesy."


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Stranger Things: Season 1 (Blu-ray)*

recommendation: *Tier 0* (0.9)*

Shot with the RED Epic Dragon camera, it has a very clean and sharp image; there is no grain but not in a distracting way. Details in the landscape, fabrics, and faces are well represented. Colors are strong as well; lots of primaries in clothing, vegetation, and Christmas lights. The real strength of the presentation is the black levels and strong contrast. I was blown away with the deep, inky blacks in every episode but especially the last two that take place primarily at night. Black clothing, guns, the night sky, and everything else just look great and show great depth of shadow detail; the night sky disappears against the black bars (image is 2.00:1).


I enjoyed this season and hope they put out season 2 on disc because I don't subscribe to Netflix.


----------



## djoberg

*Death Wish*

Okay, what are the odds of watching two "terrible movies" with "fantastic PQ" back to back?! I just beat the odds!!

This one had all the virtues of _15:10 to Paris_...razor-sharp clarity, fantastic details, bold colors, spot-on skin tones, very good black levels/shadow details, and appreciable depth.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**


----------



## djoberg

We're not too far apart Darth....

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-806.html#post55243088




DarthDoxie said:


> *Stranger Things: Season 1 (Blu-ray)*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 0* (0.9)*
> 
> Shot with the RED Epic Dragon camera, it has a very clean and sharp image; there is no grain but not in a distracting way. Details in the landscape, fabrics, and faces are well represented. Colors are strong as well; lots of primaries in clothing, vegetation, and Christmas lights. The real strength of the presentation is the black levels and strong contrast. I was blown away with the deep, inky blacks in every episode but especially the last two that take place primarily at night. Black clothing, guns, the night sky, and everything else just look great and show great depth of shadow detail; the night sky disappears against the black bars (image is 2.00:1).
> 
> 
> I enjoyed this season and hope they put out season 2 on disc because I don't subscribe to Netflix.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> *Death Wish*
> 
> Okay, what are the odds of watching two "terrible movies" with "fantastic PQ" back to back?! I just beat the odds!!
> 
> This one had all the virtues of _15:10 to Paris_...razor-sharp clarity, fantastic details, bold colors, spot-on skin tones, very good black levels/shadow details, and appreciable depth.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.0**


I'm guessing this is the new remake with Bruce Willis? I didn't hear great things about it either on DoBlu.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> I'm guessing this is the new remake with Bruce Willis? I didn't hear great things about it either on DoBlu.


That's the one!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> That's the one!


Bruce Willis used to be picky with scripts when he was a big star. Now it appears he's emulating Nicholas Cage's career choices.


----------



## DarthDoxie

djoberg said:


> We're not too far apart Darth....
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-806.html#post55243088



Hmm, maybe my memory of the first episodes elude me and the episodes got better (there are only 8). The last two episodes definitely have reference level blacks, interior and exterior. I can see tier 1 as it is grain free and does have a bit of a "video" look to it.


----------



## djoberg

*12 Strong*

I was reluctant to rent this (due to reviews that I had read stating the movie itself was disappointing), but I'm glad I ended up going against the flow. It was actually a decent (true) story with fairly good acting.

The PQ started out less-than-stellar with some faltering blacks in night time scenes. I thought to myself, "This will barely make Tier 1." This surprised me for the reviews that spoke negatively about the movie praised the PQ. Thankfully after the first few scenes it became quite sharp with excellent details and depth. The color palette was purposely muted, so nothing to write home about in that department. All in all, an easy contender for a high Tier 1 placement. 

Before giving my recommendation I will give a huge shout-out for the rock-solid audio mix. The bass/LFE was thunderous and accurate and the action in the surrounds was active and precise. The only downside (in some scenes) was the dialogue...they could have raised it a notch or two, especially in action scenes.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**


----------



## AmerCa

*9 (2009 - Universal)*










I'm reviewing the Mexican edition released by Quality Films, which has the same specs as the US version.

This is the first animated movie I've bought, and that's because two reasons. One, it has a great reputation over the Bass forum for, well, the bass, and two, I got it very cheap. So, why not? After reading a lot of praise for animated movies, I expected something truly exceptional, and that's not the case with this movie. It has detail and depth, and the animation is really good, but it has a drab color palette, and the picture is somewhat soft. In other np words, the PQ doesn't shine. The pale look for the film has certainly something to do with its bleak theme, but nonetheless it isn't eye-poping. I believe it still could qualify for the demo tier, but towards the end.

I'm still running my system without a sub, so I couldn't evaluate how great the bass was with this one. The mix was loud and impactful, but lacked depth. It's a good thing the movie was surprisingly good and entertaining, so no doubt I'll have the chance to revisit the thing with a sub.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^

I actually own that Blu-ray and I remember having some of the same impressions as you did. I wish one could find reviews dating back that far, for I can't recall exactly where I placed it and I would like to see how it compares with yours. I suspect my placement was higher but I would no doubt drop it (perhaps significantly) in light of the progress that has been made in the last "9" years in animation.

Maybe I'll slip it in one of these fine days and give it a look!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> I actually own that Blu-ray and I remember having some of the same impressions as you did. I wish one could find reviews dating back that far, for I can't recall exactly where I placed it and I would like to see how it compares with yours. I suspect my placement was higher but I would no doubt drop it (perhaps significantly) in light of the progress that has been made in the last "9" years in animation.
> 
> Maybe I'll slip it in one of these fine days and give it a look!


Since it's named after a number, I think finding the original reviews would be nearly impossible. I do have a ledger of most PQ Tier scores from 2010 through 2013 or thereabouts, though it's not complete.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*The Shape of Water*

recommendation: *Tier 1**

Can't add anything to what SnellTHX wrote...lots of teal.


SnellTHX said:


> *Shape of Water *
> 
> Amazing picture quality in this movie and filmed in my favourite 1.85:1 format  plethora of detail in every shot, sharp 4K imagery with no sign of grain or noise, but I suppose it lacks the 'punch' and 'looking-out-of-window' experience you get with other 16:9 movies (IMAX scenes from Nolan movies, Transformers:LK, Pacific Rim, Avengers... even some Netflix) What this movie does to excellently and better than 90% of movies out there is the fantastic use of perfect black! OLED owners, JVC users rejoice as this movie will constantly render absolute blacks everywhere. I especially enjoyed the scene where the main character dreams about dancing, the whites/grays stick out with the rest of the screen displaying a 0 nit black. Contrast porn!!
> 
> 
> Other than that I guess I can comment that the movie had a distinguished aquatic colour palette, with lots and lots of teal all over with a bit of orange splurged in. But mostly teal.
> 
> *
> Tier recommendation: 1**


----------



## djoberg

*9 (Revisited)*

I concur with AmerCa 100%! This is a very drab animated movie, but it has plenty of details (in close up shots, that is), amazing depth at times, and some very good texture too. Softness reigns in almost every scene. I think what really impressed me 9 years ago when I first saw this were the details and depth, and some excellent "photo-realism" and "lighting."

The biggest feature BY FAR is the audio mix. I listened to it tonight on -10 and my walls were shaking at times and I could feel waves of energy sweeping over me during explosions. Quite the feat for a 9 year old film!

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*




AmerCa said:


> *9 (2009 - Universal)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm reviewing the Mexican edition released by Quality Films, which has the same specs as the US version.
> 
> This is the first animated movie I've bought, and that's because two reasons. One, it has a great reputation over the Bass forum for, well, the bass, and two, I got it very cheap. So, why not? After reading a lot of praise for animated movies, I expected something truly exceptional, and that's not the case with this movie. It has detail and depth, and the animation is really good, but it has a drab color palette, and the picture is somewhat soft. In other np words, the PQ doesn't shine. The pale look for the film has certainly something to do with its bleak theme, but nonetheless it isn't eye-poping. I believe it still could qualify for the demo tier, but towards the end.
> 
> I'm still running my system without a sub, so I couldn't evaluate how great the bass was with this one. The mix was loud and impactful, but lacked depth. It's a good thing the movie was surprisingly good and entertaining, so no doubt I'll have the chance to revisit the thing with a sub.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^

I should have added that when the film starts you find yourself saying, "WOW!" It shows a human hand with some mesmerizing details and texture and you're thinking, "Whoa, I'm in for a REFERENCE QUALITY disc!!" But it didn't take long for the softness, drabness and lack of details in everything but close-ups to kick into gear.


----------



## AmerCa

djoberg said:


> *9 (Revisited)*
> 
> The biggest feature BY FAR is the audio mix. I listened to it tonight on -10 and my walls were shaking at times and I could feel waves of energy sweeping over me during explosions. Quite the feat for a 9 year old film!


Damn! I _seriously_ need a subwoofer.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Phantom Stranger said:


> *Kickboxer: Vengeance*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 1.0**
> 
> Scenic location photography in Thailand and stunning clarity stand out in this new release from RLJ Entertainment (formerly Image Entertainment). Like many other Tier 1 placements, this _Kickboxer_ reboot offers razor-sharp definition with outstanding detail. It receives a perfect digital transfer without technical problems.
> 
> Filmed with the RED camera, _Kickboxer: Vengeance_ definitely knocks on Tier Zero. In prior years I may have even placed it there.



*Kickboxer: Retaliation*


recommendation: *Tier 2.0**


This direct sequel to the excellent _Kickboxer: Vengeance_ looks drab and inferior by comparison. It came out this March on a different label. This time around Well Go USA got the honors. Despite being set in the same basic setting of Thailand, the presentation isn't as sharp or vivid.

I've never thought highly of Well Go USA as a Blu-ray distributor in videophile terms. The main feature at 110 minutes is encoded in low-bitrate AVC on a BD-25. It's a poorly compressed movie with questionable shadow delineation and darker textures. Not all of this can placed on the Blu-ray's transfer. The budget for the sequel appears to have gone mostly to the cast, including "names" like Mike Tyson and a washed-up Christopher Lambert. 

The digital cinematography is still largely unblemished with fine detail in close-ups. Exteriors remain fairly impressive in depth and definition. It is the interior shots that don't immediately leap off the screen with their average dimensionality and sharpness.

There is clearly some Tier 1 material in _Kickboxer: Retaliation_. But those moments are too few and far between to make up for the rather average-looking interiors.


----------



## SnellTHX

*TOMB RAIDER*

I got the 1080p/SDR version of this movie which I thought might be a mistake since I believe it is derived from a 4K DI source, but man the picture quality in this movie was great. The contrast was absolutely phenomenal! Perfect blacks everywhere with lots of dark scenes to show those absolute blacks! OLED porn for sure. Plenty of details in every shot, the characters were well resolved, and you could make out every scratch, bead of sweat, scar, beard stubble etc. There was grain, but it was pleasant and welcome film grain. Very cinematic feel to it, it felt a lot more analog than say 'Black Panther' (which has a very clean, razor sharp digital look to it... which I slightly prefer) but a very sharp and well presented 2K image indeed. I can imagine with 4K/HDR it'll just place even higher. Ralph Potts gave this movie 100 on PQ.



*Tier recommendation 0(.9)*


----------



## SnellTHX

DarthDoxie said:


> *The Shape of Water*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 1**
> 
> Can't add anything to what SnellTHX wrote...lots of teal.




teal, teal and even more teal!


----------



## AmerCa

*The Witch [The VVitch] (2015 - Lionsgate)*










The first thing you'll notice about this disc is that it was filmed in an unusual 1.66 aspect ratio, which gives the movie a rather interesting look. The film has a drab color palette which totally fits the tone for the movie. To compensate for the palid look, the picture has remarkable clarity and a good amount of detail, which gives the movie a very clean look. For what I can see, the movie was shot with natural light. Taking place in the forest, night scenes are almost pitch black, and the dimly lit indoor scenes always allow you to follow the action without revealing too much. The picture characteristics won't allow the BD to reach reference levels, but are enough to easily place in the middle of the demo tier. I can't honestly imagine this movie looking better, and I say this as a good thing.

Horror is one of my favorite genres, but it's not the type of movies I like to collect, if that makes sense. However, I consider *The Witch* a modern horror classic, and a great movie in its own right. I find the movie fascinating and terrifying, beautifully shot and acted, with a great story. Even knowing what was going to happen, I still felt goosebumps and it's very hard for me to get goosebumps from an horror movie. Jump scares are easy. This movie virtually doesn't feature jump scares, and still manages to get deeper under your skin than most traditional horror films.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*


----------



## SnellTHX

DarthDoxie said:


> *Stranger Things: Season 1 (Blu-ray)*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 0* (0.9)*
> 
> Shot with the RED Epic Dragon camera, it has a very clean and sharp image; there is no grain but not in a distracting way. Details in the landscape, fabrics, and faces are well represented. Colors are strong as well; lots of primaries in clothing, vegetation, and Christmas lights. The real strength of the presentation is the black levels and strong contrast. I was blown away with the deep, inky blacks in every episode but especially the last two that take place primarily at night. Black clothing, guns, the night sky, and everything else just look great and show great depth of shadow detail; the night sky disappears against the black bars (image is 2.00:1).
> 
> 
> I enjoyed this season and hope they put out season 2 on disc because I don't subscribe to Netflix.


The picture quality in Stranger Things is absolutely amazing in Netflix 4K... but a total shame with Dolby Vision bug on my B6 OLED that ruined the blacks! Netflix's Dolby Vision is easily the best picture quality I've seen anywhere when it comes to bright scenes. Lost in Space, Altered Carbon in particular but also Stranger Things.


----------



## DarthDoxie

SnellTHX said:


> *TOMB RAIDER*
> 
> I got the 1080p/SDR version of this movie which I thought might be a mistake since I believe it is derived from a 4K DI source, but man the picture quality in this movie was great. The contrast was absolutely phenomenal! Perfect blacks everywhere with lots of dark scenes to show those absolute blacks! *OLED porn* for sure. Plenty of details in every shot, the characters were well resolved, and you could make out every scratch, bead of sweat, scar, beard stubble etc. There was grain, but it was pleasant and welcome film grain. Very cinematic feel to it, it felt a lot more analog than say 'Black Panther' (which has a very clean, razor sharp digital look to it... which I slightly prefer) but a very sharp and well presented 2K image indeed. I can imagine with 4K/HDR it'll just place even higher. Ralph Potts gave this movie 100 on PQ.
> 
> *Tier recommendation 0(.9)*



Now joining "eye candy" in the lexicon of the PQ tier thread...OLED porn!


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> *The Witch [The VVitch] (2015 - Lionsgate)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first thing you'll notice about this disc is that it was filmed in an unusual 1.66 aspect ratio, which gives the movie a rather interesting look. The film has a drab color palette which totally fits the tone for the movie. To compensate for the palid look, the picture has remarkable clarity and a good amount of detail, which gives the movie a very clean look. For what I can see, the movie was shot with natural light. Taking place in the forest, night scenes are almost pitch black, and the dimly lit indoor scenes always allow you to follow the action without revealing too much. The picture characteristics won't allow the BD to reach reference levels, but are enough to easily place in the middle of the demo tier. I can't honestly imagine this movie looking better, and I say this as a good thing.
> 
> Horror is one of my favorite genres, but it's not the type of movies I like to collect, if that makes sense. However, I consider *The Witch* a modern horror classic, and a great movie in its own right. I find the movie fascinating and terrifying, beautifully shot and acted, with a great story. Even knowing what was going to happen, I still felt goosebumps and it's very hard for me to get goosebumps from an horror movie. Jump scares are easy. This movie virtually doesn't feature jump scares, and still manages to get deeper under your skin than most traditional horror films.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.5*


Thanks AmerCa for the good review! I can't remember if I've seen this one or not (goes to show how many movies I watch!!), but if I haven't I'll definitely give it a rent if I can. 

Speaking of horror movies, I am greatly anticipating _A Quiet Place_, which I have pre-ordered from Amazon. It sounds like the perfect thriller/horror movie to me, for I really can't stand "slasher films" (_Scream_, _I Know What You Did Last Summer_, etc.) and this one is void of that kind of "gratuitous violence." Nearly all the "experts" AND "regular folks" who have seen it were absolutely impressed with it and said it sets a new standard for the horror genre. Here is a link to it if you want to check it out:

https://www.amazon.com/Quiet-Place-...pID=5129GMeRNyL&preST=_SY300_QL70_&dpSrc=srch


----------



## Phantom Stranger

The Witch is a very good horror movie. Some will complain about the pacing but the atmosphere is perfect. I would have reviewed it before for the PQ Tiers but I only caught the movie on one of the streaming services.


----------



## AmerCa

djoberg said:


> Thanks AmerCa for the good review! I can't remember if I've seen this one or not (goes to show how many movies I watch!!), but if I haven't I'll definitely give it a rent if I can.
> 
> Speaking of horror movies, I am greatly anticipating _A Quiet Place_, which I have pre-ordered from Amazon. It sounds like the perfect thriller/horror movie to me, for I really can't stand "slasher films" (_Scream_, _I Know What You Did Last Summer_, etc.) and this one is void of that kind of "gratuitous violence."


I don't think you'd forget something like _The Witch_. I also watch my fair share of movies, and I still haven't forget it since I saw it one or two years ago. If you have the chance to watch it, I'd like to read your impressions.

Regarding _A Quiet Place_, I've also heard a lot of good things about the movie, so I'll check it out when I have the opportunity. Thanks for the heads up, otherwise it would have been very easy to lost sight of that film. Looking forward to your review! It's great to know you're a fan of good horror.



Phantom Stranger said:


> The Witch is a very good horror movie. Some will complain about the pacing but the atmosphere is perfect. I would have reviewed it before for the PQ Tiers but I only caught the movie on one of the streaming services.


I also "streamed" it the first time, but decided it was a film worth owning. It's a very fine piece of work in several ways. I'm glad you liked it too.


----------



## AmerCa

*Jumanji: Welcome To The Jungle (2017 - Sony)*










Previous reviews:



djoberg said:


> *Jumanji (2018....1080p version)*
> 
> Like I said earlier this evening, this is a LOOKER!! It starts and ends in the "real world" with striking clarity, amazing details, astounding depth, accurate flesh tones, and warm natural colors. Then we enter the world of "Jumanji) and it retains those virtues with a definite spike in contrast (deeper blacks and brighter whites) and saturated colors. My favorite scenes were daytime, jungle scenes with the lush foliage, beautiful cinematography, and intricate details.
> 
> There were some CGI shots that were on the soft side, resulting in a loss of depth and details, but thankfully they were "few and far between."
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.75)*





SnellTHX said:


> *Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle*
> 
> Outstanding picture quality. I just wrote one of my longer reviews on this website and of course my 'token had expired' so the message got DELETED.
> 
> I'll keep it short; the sharpness/resolution/clarity/details of this movie is absolutely superb. The hues/primaries/colour reproduction is ON POINT. plenty of pop in the lush jungles, facial shots reveal every drop of sweat, facial hair or other impurities. pristine 4K image quality that seriously makes me wonder how this can be derived from a 2K DI. Its near-reference quality from start to finish with almost no flaws. Blacks are absolute. Contrast is infinite. details are plenty. razor sharp. It only lacks a slight 'X-factor' to be placed on my ever so high standard of tier 0 list.
> *Tier recommendation: 1*



I agree on a lot of things with Djoberg and Snell, but my placement is a lot lower. The PQ has many virtues, but to my eyes it can't crack reference tier. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and the picture was beautiful and satisfying, but lacked the wow factor. And the softness of the heavy CGI scenes only brought a little lower the PQ evaluation.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*


----------



## AmerCa

*Going In Style (2017 - Warner)*










I found this movie to have better PQ than *Jumanji*. This surely has to do with the lack of CGI and blue screens. All you see is "real", and the picture provides remarkable clarity, detail and depth, with very natural and balanced colors. The picture is "simple" but crystal clear. A good part of the movie qualifies for reference material, but it has less-than-stellar instances that drag the movie to a very decent and honorable tier one. Not bad at all!

This movie was a very nice surprise. It has a very human and relatable story, but at the same time is very funny, smart, entertaining and even exciting. It's certainly a "feel good" movie that'll leave a smile on your face.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0*

EDIT: I just found our fellow member Fred had already reviewed this title and gave it the same placement.



fredxr2d2 said:


> *Going in Style
> 
> Tier Recommendation Tier 1.0*
> 
> The thing that helps Going in Style is all of the daylight shots. There doesn't appear to be any unnatural color grading and the primaries pop quite nicely (check out the blue in the bank and yellow of the tshirts later in the movie). Not too many darker shots, and most of those are indoors with yellow light (as you would expect). Can't quite say if the black levels are good - but I suspect they are as everything else looked right. Not a stunner to show off your system, but a solid great looking recent movie.


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> *I agree on a lot of things with Djoberg and Snell, but my placement is a lot lower.
> Tier Recommendation: 1.25*


*

Actually....your placement is NOT a lot lower. Whenever three people differ by only a quarter of a tier this is NOT considered a big difference at all. If Phantom were to update the tiers today Jumanji would be placed at Tier 1.0, which is very, very close to what you and I recommended. When two people are 3/4 of a tier apart (or greater), that is a big difference.*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> Actually....your placement is NOT a lot lower. Whenever three people differ by only a quarter of a tier this is NOT considered a big difference at all. If Phantom were to update the tiers today _Jumanji_ would be placed at Tier 1.0, which is very, very close to what you and I recommended. When two people are 3/4 of a tier apart (or greater), that is a big difference.


The biggest differences over the years have been around two whole tiers. One movie had separate scores for Tier 0 and Tier 2.5!


----------



## SnellTHX

Phantom Stranger said:


> The biggest differences over the years have been around two whole tiers. One movie had separate scores for Tier 0 and Tier 2.5!


Haha, do you remember which movie this is?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

SnellTHX said:


> Haha, do you remember which movie this is?


Unfortunately, no. It's been many years since we've seen such a massive disparity. Sometimes it was the result of a reviewer applying their own standards to a disc, refusing to follow the PQ Tiers guidelines. Some didn't like how the Tiers were rated on video quality alone and how a disc looks compared to other discs. It was probably the biggest internal fight we had when developing the PQ Tiers' standards. One side wanted perfect film transfers, no matter if the movie was shot on Super 16mm or other inferior film stocks, ranked very highly. It was a question of aesthetics.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> Unfortunately, no. It's been many years since we've seen such a massive disparity. Sometimes it was the result of a reviewer applying their own standards to a disc, refusing to follow the PQ Tiers guidelines. Some didn't like how the Tiers were rated on video quality alone and how a disc looks compared to other discs. It was probably the biggest internal fight we had when developing the PQ Tiers' standards. One side wanted perfect film transfers, no matter if the movie was shot on Super 16mm or other inferior film stocks, ranked very highly. It was a question of aesthetics.


If memory serves me Phantom, the movie you're referring to had either EE (Edge Enhancement) or haloing and there were those who were known for docking a Blu-ray BIG TIME for such anomalies. A very good example of this was with the movie _The Dark Knight_. There were a few instances of DNR (one shot was when they had a large number of policemen standing in the street during an address by the mayor) that grieved the "DNR police" so much that some of them were recommending Tier 2 and I think one member even said it belongs in Tier 3! The majority of us were willing to overlook the rather fleeting instances of DNR and recommend either a low Tier 0 or a high Tier 1 placement. This may very well be the movie you were thinking of.


----------



## SnellTHX

I was thinking specifically of The Dark Knight. Its placed in the middle of tier 1, yet I have it at the top of tier 0! Even though I understand people looking at the whole picture and nearly 2 hours of the movie is "mediocre" looking 21:9 / 35mm scenes but its the 30 mins of 15/70mm IMAX scenes that makes me forget how unimpressive the rest is


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> If memory serves me Phantom, the movie you're referring to had either EE (Edge Enhancement) or haloing and there were those who were known for docking a Blu-ray BIG TIME for such anomalies. A very good example of this was with the movie _The Dark Knight_. There were a few instances of DNR (one shot was when they had a large number of policemen standing in the street during an address by the mayor) that grieved the "DNR police" so much that some of them were recommending Tier 2 and I think one member even said it belongs in Tier 3! The majority of us were willing to overlook the rather fleeting instances of DNR and recommend either a low Tier 0 or a high Tier 1 placement. This may very well be the movie you were thinking of.


 One of the examples that came to mind was the first _Patton_ release. There was a fairly big divide over its zealous DNR usage. 

I never really got concerned with ranking differences smaller than one tier. I always thought there was enough leeway and personal judgment in these tier recommendations that reasonable people could disagree by a single tier without causing much concern.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> One of the examples that came to mind was the first _Patton_ release. There was a fairly big divide over its zealous DNR usage.
> 
> I never really got concerned with ranking differences smaller than one tier. I always thought there was enough leeway and personal judgment in these tier recommendations that reasonable people could disagree by a single tier without causing much concern.


Ah yes, I had forgotten about _Patton_. That first release really was a DNR mess. But even there, you had some zealots who could see no good; all they saw was the DNR results and were ready to relegate the movie to the dung heap. The exact same thing happened with _The Dark Knight_. And another one that comes to mind was _Baraka_. What made things even more interesting (in our discussions) was the fact that some of us couldn't even spot some of the anomalies (like the instances of "haloing" in _Baraka_). I know you were one who could see these anomalies but you were very fair-minded and were willing to dock them "marginally" instead of taking a chainsaw to the film and shredding it to pieces. 

I agree with you that "reasonable people could disagree by a single tier without causing much concern." I think I can safely say all of our current contributors are "reasonable people."


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Jesus Film*


recommendation: *Tier 1.75**

First released in 1979, _The Jesus Film_ was given a 35th Anniversary Blu-ray edition back in 2014 from Inspirational Films. A faithful recounting of the life of Jesus as provided in the Gospel of Luke, it's a movie designed as an evangelical tool for a wide range of audiences. Its influence can be seen in more recent productions such as _The Bible: The Epic Mini-Series_. This 1080P presentation has remarkable clarity and detail given the film stock's vintage. _The Jesus Film_ receives an unfiltered, film-like transfer that transparently reproduces the underlying clean cinematography and crisp visuals. 

Often this kind of independent release gets subjected to a sub-par film transfer. I was surprised at the care and attention that must have gone into this stunning presentation on Blu-ray. The movie itself has a newer prologue obviously shot with impressive digital filmmaking. While the sharpest part of the movie, it matches up well with the original footage's rock-solid picture quality. The bulk of the movie was shot on 35mm film back in the 1970s. 

The film elements are in superb, pristine condition. This is a top-notch film restoration, on par with the best Hollywood had to offer in 2014. It's a consistent, stable presentation with excellent fine detail. The 2K film scan offers superior definition. Some scenes are softer than others. There isn't a hint of extraneous video processing, from ringing to aliasing. The lack of special effects in this case helps the picture quality.

The main feature runs 127 minutes on a BD-50. The problem-free AVC encode smoothly captures every detail possible without artifacts. Its naturally modest grain structure remains entirely intact, most often visible in establishing shots and wider views. The color palette has a rich, earthy quality that favors browns. The inky black levels and dead-on contrast help create the film's pleasing video quality.

If anything is lacking visually, the movie's classically clean cinematography lacks the depth and projection of the best Tier One discs. _The Jesus Film_ provides exceptional clarity, occasionally revealing too much detail. That is the case with some of the beards in tighter shots, which sometimes look fake upon close examination.

If you want to enjoy _The Jesus Film_ in near perfect 1080P video, this is it. The film can't look any better at this resolution.


----------



## djoberg

*Tomb Raider (2018....1080p)*

It's late...I'm tired...this will be short!

The GOOD: Striking clarity and details in ALL daytime and outdoor scenes, whether we're in London, Hong Kong or the Jungle. Contrast was amazing as well, along with appreciable depth, spot-on skin tones, and excellent black levels.

The BAD: I can't really call this "bad," but black levels did falter in some of the "cave scenes," resulting in a loss of details and a bit of softness. There was some egregious color-grading in the Hong Kong scenes, but thankfully details remained intact.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.75)*

PS The audio was spectacular during heavy action scenes!


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Peter Rabbit*

recommendation: *Tier 0* (0.5)*

Sharp CGI throughout, the fur on the animals is nicely done; live action details are not at strong but still sharp. Black levels and contrast are also strong; colors really pop.


----------



## djoberg

*Maze Runner: The Death Cure*

PQ-wise, this was a carbon copy of my last viewing (_Tomb Raider_), for it had the same amazing clarity, details, contrast, skin tones, depth and black levels (actually, the black levels were even better in this one). There was some fleeting softness in low-lit scenes but all-in-all this was a very sharp film.

I just have to say something about the audio...even though I viewed the 1080p release (with a DTS-HD Master Audio mix upmixed to DTS: Neural X) the AQ was phenomenal from beginning to end. I found myself turning it to Reference Level in every action scene and was blown away by the bass/LFE in tons of explosions. The action in the surrounds was excellent and the dialogue was crystal-clear.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.66)*


----------



## djoberg

Next up...._All the Money in the World_, followed by _Annihilation_ (both 1080p releases rented from Redbox).


----------



## djoberg

*All the Money in the World*

Let me start out by saying this. If someone had slid this disc into my Philips Blu-ray player and told me, "You've got to see this new UHD Blu-ray release; the PQ is absolutely stunning" and then come back to get my impressions two hours later I would have said, "You are absolutely right; it is a stunning piece of art!" The thing is....there is no 4k/UHD version yet! But believe me when I say, "It looks like a reference quality UHD Blu-ray from its opening scene to the rolling of the credits!!"

I will try to avoid pouring on the superlatives in describing the EYE CANDY that I just experienced, but one word that came to mind throughout its 2 hour running time was CRISP! Perhaps another word would be PRISTINE! There were simply no anomalies whatsoever, just razor-sharp clarity brimming with mesmerizing details...details in clothing, foliage, buildings, streets, and especially facial texture (Christopher Plummer's face was, like Morgan Freeman, made for High Definition!!!) in close-ups. The black levels were exemplary, as were shadow details. Flesh tones were spot-on accurate. Contrast was to-die-for. Depth was topnotch.

The only downside was a host of various hues (teal and orange, mostly) and a muted color palette (though when primaries rose to the occasion they were natural and bright).

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.25)*

PS The movie itself was (for me) a letdown, though Mr. Plummer and others gave fine performances.


----------



## djoberg

*Annihilation*

Whoa, this was one strange movie! As far as PQ goes, it was a MIXED BAG. The first 30 minutes was very SOFT which hindered details and depth. But once they entered the "Shimmer" (you'll have to see the film to see what that is!) sharpness ruled the day (and night, for the most part). Colors were vibrant too and details abounded. Contrast was strong, depth was pleasing, flesh tones were natural, and black levels were good (with a few exceptions where they faltered, resulting in a lack of details and depth).

This one is extremely hard to place. I would rate the first 30 minutes somewhere in Tier 2 and most of the scenes in the Shimmer (which made up almost 2/3 of the running time) in either low Tier 0 or high Tier 1. Putting all the variables on the "balance scale" is nearly impossible so I'm going primarily with my gut and opting for....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**

PS The audio mix was really good, with some haunting music (which came from all speakers including the Height Channels) and some very low bass/LFE in the closing scene.


----------



## AmerCa

*The 5th Wave (2016 - Sony)*












djoberg said:


> *The 5th Wave*
> 
> Yet ANOTHER "demo-worthy" Blu for PQ fanatics to feast their eyes on!
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to keep this short. For the majority of its 100+ minutes running time we are treated to superb clarity and fine details (wait till you see the texture in Liev Schreiber's face). Daytime scenes were exemplary in these areas. Nighttime scenes were somewhat of a mixed bag, with "some" very good black levels and shadow details, but with "some" faltering blacks as well (my "black bars" turned into "gray bars" and that turned me off). There were also some interior low-lit shots and nighttime shots that softened to the point where clarity, details and depth suffered. But these were, by far, the exception and not the rule, so this one is still worthy of Tier Gold. IMHO it should find its way towards the top of that tier and my vote is going for....
> 
> 
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.25**


PQ-wise, this disc is "par for the course" to me. It's more or less what you'd expect from a modern blockbuster, it had its fair share of noteworthy moments, but for the majority of its running time the picture was fairly unimpressive. I liked the black levels and shadow details, but it lacked the wow factor to escalate the higher levels of tier 1. The occasional softness and drab color palette hindered the otherwise clear and fair detailed picture.

The audio track deserves a mention. Even without a subwoofer, the action scenes showed impact and depth. I can only imagine that a subwoofer would have shaked my bones (and house).

This was a weird movie. It started interesting, then it was boring, then it got ridiculous, and finally it got interesting again. Definitely, it's a disjointed film, but the last act grants the movie some replayability value. All in all, it feels like a missed opportunity.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


----------



## djoberg

*American Assassin*

This one started out with stellar PQ...great clarity, details, depth, flesh tones and black levels. But then it started featuring dark, interior scenes (some underground) that had terrible blacks and instances of noise. There was also considerable softness sprinkled throughout. This was disappointing, for the first few scenes had me thinking either low Tier 0 or high Tier 1. But guess what? This will barely make it into Tier 1. My vote goes for....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**



Spoiler



PS The Dolby Atmos mix had a few good moments, especially the last scene with a nuclear blast! WOW...waves of energy going through my room and walls were shaking!!


----------



## dla26

I've been using realorfake4k.com for a few months now to research which 4K movies were natively 4K vs. upscaled. I only just noticed that they have a "demos" section, meaning those titles they think show off 4K the most. (Ironically, some of the ones on the list are fake 4K.) I was curious to hear everyone's thoughts about the list. I haven't seen every title on the list in 4K, but these seem in line with my experience with just a few exceptions.

The Great Wall is probably the best PQ I've seen aside from Planet Earth II, and John Wick 2 and Deadpool were also fantastic. I thought the PQ for Dunkirk was only ok. I don't remember seeing a lot of detail, and the color palette was very muted. I wasn't as impressed with Pacific Rim as everyone else was, and I'm starting to wonder if maybe I had too much ambient light in the room, since I thought there was a lot of black crush. I have Sicario (rental) and the Revenant (own) at home, and I'll be renting the Fifth Element soon, so I hope to be able to review that as well.

For people with 4K systems at home, what are your thoughts on this list?


----------



## DarthDoxie

dla26 said:


> I've been using realorfake4k.com for a few months now to research which 4K movies were natively 4K vs. upscaled. I only just noticed that they have a "demos" section, meaning those titles they think show off 4K the most. (Ironically, some of the ones on the list are fake 4K.) I was curious to hear everyone's thoughts about the list. I haven't seen every title on the list in 4K, but these seem in line with my experience with just a few exceptions.
> 
> The Great Wall is probably the best PQ I've seen aside from Planet Earth II, and John Wick 2 and Deadpool were also fantastic. I thought the PQ for Dunkirk was only ok. I don't remember seeing a lot of detail, and the color palette was very muted. I wasn't as impressed with Pacific Rim as everyone else was, and I'm starting to wonder if maybe I had too much ambient light in the room, since I thought there was a lot of black crush. I have Sicario (rental) and the Revenant (own) at home, and I'll be renting the Fifth Element soon, so I hope to be able to review that as well.
> 
> For people with 4K systems at home, what are your thoughts on this list?



I pay zero attention to that site as I think the whole "fake 4k" debate is silly. A movie either looks stunning or it doesn't and being native or up-scaled to 4k is only part of the equation.


----------



## fredxr2d2

dla26 said:


> I've been using realorfake4k.com for a few months now to research which 4K movies were natively 4K vs. upscaled. I only just noticed that they have a "demos" section, meaning those titles they think show off 4K the most. (Ironically, some of the ones on the list are fake 4K.) I was curious to hear everyone's thoughts about the list. I haven't seen every title on the list in 4K, but these seem in line with my experience with just a few exceptions.
> 
> The Great Wall is probably the best PQ I've seen aside from Planet Earth II, and John Wick 2 and Deadpool were also fantastic. I thought the PQ for Dunkirk was only ok. I don't remember seeing a lot of detail, and the color palette was very muted. I wasn't as impressed with Pacific Rim as everyone else was, and I'm starting to wonder if maybe I had too much ambient light in the room, since I thought there was a lot of black crush. I have Sicario (rental) and the Revenant (own) at home, and I'll be renting the Fifth Element soon, so I hope to be able to review that as well.
> 
> For people with 4K systems at home, what are your thoughts on this list?





DarthDoxie said:


> I pay zero attention to that site as I think the whole "fake 4k" debate is silly. A movie either looks stunning or it doesn't and being native or up-scaled to 4k is only part of the equation.


The "real or fake 4K" phenomenon doesn't accurately describe how movies are made and produced for us regular folks. If you have an extra hour and a half, watching these demos are eye opening: http://yedlin.net/ResDemo/ Steve Yedlin is the Director of Photography for a bunch of big films, The Last Jedi included, and he very simply and painstakingly takes us through several production techniques and really close pixel-peeping of 4K and 2K material and shows the differences between them are often due to processes outside of our control (they happen during production with camera choices, color timing choices, compression choices, etc.) and so we should sit back and enjoy anything that is good or not good based solely on whether it looks good, rather than whether it is true or "fake" 4K.


----------



## AmerCa

DarthDoxie said:


> I pay zero attention to that site as I think the whole "fake 4k" debate is silly.





fredxr2d2 said:


> ...and so we should sit back and enjoy anything that is good or not good based solely on whether it looks good, rather than whether it is true or "fake" 4K.


This is a bit ironic, since they're actually charging you a "premium" price for the UHD for the shiny 4k. If the disc being an upscale don't matter in itself, why not stick with a player with great upscaling software? It'd be cheaper for all of us. (Of course, we know the real selling point of 4k is not resolution, which is basically another slap in the face).

In principle, if they want me to upgrade to a new format then I expected the content to be produced in such formats. Just imagine if people found out the High-Res format for music, for which they charge a good amount, were actually a 16bit/44khz transcodes! It'd be simply unacceptable.


----------



## fredxr2d2

AmerCa said:


> This is a bit ironic, since they're actually charging you a "premium" price for the UHD for the shiny 4k. If the disc being an upscale don't matter in itself, why not stick with a player with great upscaling software? It'd be cheaper for all of us. (Of course, we know the real selling point of 4k is not resolution, which is basically another slap in the face).
> 
> In principle, if they want me to upgrade to a new format then I expected the content to be produced in such formats. Just imagine if people found out the High-Res format for music, for which they charge a good amount, were actually a 16bit/44khz transcodes! It'd be simply unacceptable.


Well, if you had watched the demo at the link, then you'd know that production houses have much better scalers than you or I could get at home. The real difference (as seen in the videos) is what type of algorithm they are using to upscale rather than whether the source was 2K or 4K. Essentially, the continuing adage of "garbage in, garbage out" still applies.

Also, it should be noted, most effects are done at 2K anyway, so if you have a movie like Star Wars, that is 90% effects, then it becomes economical to render effects at less than 4K (in TLJ case, it was 3K or so, many movies do CGI at 2K, regardless of photography).



I also think the "premium" price for UHD blu-rays is a little obnoxious, but the movie industry as a whole has never paid attention to the whole supply/demand relationship to price that any other business would be beholden to (a key example of this is that as ticket sales go down (demand decreases), they increase the prices of the tickets to make up for it, even though supply (number of movies released) has remained steady or gone up). I would, were I them, take a look at the fact that blu-ray and dvd sales are down year-over-year and reduce my starting price for a new format to encourage people to buy it, which might encourage people to buy new TVs and new sound systems etc. etc.


----------



## dla26

fredxr2d2 said:


> Well, if you had watched the demo at the link, then you'd know that production houses have much better scalers than you or I could get at home. The real difference (as seen in the videos) is what type of algorithm they are using to upscale rather than whether the source was 2K or 4K. Essentially, the continuing adage of "garbage in, garbage out" still applies.
> 
> Also, it should be noted, most effects are done at 2K anyway, so if you have a movie like Star Wars, that is 90% effects, then it becomes economical to render effects at less than 4K (in TLJ case, it was 3K or so, many movies do CGI at 2K, regardless of photography)


I need to watch the videos, but my understanding was that there's a difference between converting a 2K Blu-ray to 4K and digitizing the original analog 35mm (or 70mm) film in 4K. I agree in the former case, you're just upscaling, and that might have some benefits if done well. But when digitizing the original film, I would expect that you'd have a much better result if you scanned it at a higher resolution. (Though you make a good point that a lot of movies these days are created using 2K CGI, so a lot of it may not be originally recorded on film.)



fredxr2d2 said:


> I also think the "premium" price for UHD blu-rays is a little obnoxious, but the movie industry as a whole has never paid attention to the whole supply/demand relationship to price that any other business would be beholden to (a key example of this is that as ticket sales go down (demand decreases), they increase the prices of the tickets to make up for it, even though supply (number of movies released) has remained steady or gone up). I would, were I them, take a look at the fact that blu-ray and dvd sales are down year-over-year and reduce my starting price for a new format to encourage people to buy it, which might encourage people to buy new TVs and new sound systems etc. etc.


Not to get too pedantic on you, but as a former econ major, I'd be remiss if I didn't bring up the concept of elasticity of demand. I actually agree that lowering the barriers to adopting the new format is a good idea, but I'm guessing that their analysis is showing that the early adopters have relatively inelastic demand, meaning that raising the price will result in higher total revenue since they won't lose many unit sales. I agree with you in that I think that analysis must be flawed, especially since the PQ of 4K UHD Blu-rays is often not significantly better than the 2K Blu-ray counterparts. But still, having lower unit sales but with higher prices isn't necessarily an irrational decision.


----------



## AmerCa

fredxr2d2 said:


> Well, if you had watched the demo at the link, then you'd know that production houses have much better scalers than you or I could get at home. The real difference (as seen in the videos) is what type of algorithm they are using to upscale rather than whether the source was 2K or 4K. Essentially, the continuing adage of "garbage in, garbage out" still applies.
> 
> Also, it should be noted, most effects are done at 2K anyway, so if you have a movie like Star Wars, that is 90% effects, then it becomes economical to render effects at less than 4K (in TLJ case, it was 3K or so, many movies do CGI at 2K, regardless of photography).


I believe the original point was if it was "ok" buying upscales as opossed to native 4k content. But in practice this only concerns people who are buying the disc at the premium. When UHDs reach the same price than the regular BDs, then it's more of a moot point. As it is, in a lot of cases they're charging a premium price for essentially a very good counterfeit. Personally, I don't feel it's right, but it's everyone's decision what to do with their hard earned money, right?



dla26 said:


> Not to get too pedantic on you, but as a former econ major, I'd be remiss if I didn't bring up the concept of elasticity of demand. I actually agree that lowering the barriers to adopting the new format is a good idea, but I'm guessing that their analysis is showing that the early adopters have relatively inelastic demand, meaning that raising the price will result in higher total revenue since they won't lose many unit sales. I agree with you in that I think that analysis must be flawed, especially since the PQ of 4K UHD Blu-rays is often not significantly better than the 2K Blu-ray counterparts. But still, having lower unit sales but with higher prices isn't necessarily an irrational decision.


Yes, it would seem that industry is content with current sales. Apparently, they're doing pretty well, and are satisfied with UHD being a niche market. I had the chance to buy a 4k player recently. That would have motivated me to buy sooner than later a 4k TV. What ended stopping me was the prices of 4k discs. I guess the industry will recover revenue in the future when prices drop and people start buying unsold copies. Pretty much what happened to blu ray and still happens with DVDs.


----------



## djoberg

*The Hurricane Heist*

I feel compelled to begin with a word on the Dolby Atmos mix: WOW!!!!! I can't recall listening to anything greater than this...the bass/LFE was off the charts at times (quite a few times, especially during the last 20 minutes or so when the hurricane wall was chasing them and the storm hits its peak). Add to this some heavy action in the fronts, surrounds, and heights (with unbelievable precision as bullets whizzed around you or debris flew past you and over your head). And then last, but not least, the dialogue in the Center Channel remained intelligible throughout. If you have a decent surround system (preferably with height speakers) and a sub (or SUBS) that will dig deep and stay there, you just have to see...I mean HEAR, this movie.

PQ wasn't too shabby either, especially considering the teal color-grading throughout and the muted color palette (with a decent portion of the movie featuring heavy rain and clouds). There were many scenes inside the Federal Building though and the outstanding feature that qualifies this for your demo shelf is DETAILS. They were in abundance, but most notably in facial close-ups. Black levels were also good, flesh tones were accurate, depth was so-so, and contrast was fair.

Now if only the movie itself was good (the acting was deplorable and some of the far-fetched scenes were as unbelievable as scenes from the _Sharknado Franchise_). Oh well, you can't have everything! 

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Black Lightning: The Complete First Season*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

Of all the CW shows to make it out on Blu-ray, _Black Lightning_ probably has the cleanest video of them all with top-notch clarity. The new release has a satisfactory AVC encode, despite placing 13 one-hour episodes over two BD-50s. Some very marginal banding can be spotted but it's largely a transparent reproduction of the digital master. _Black Lightning's_ colors and contrast are superb, being largely filmed in controlled studio settings.

Unlike the murkier _Arrow_, this show has better shadow depth and real delineation in low-light scenes. The razor-sharp imagery has a pristine sheen to its cinematography. Television productions simply didn't have this level of video quality just a few years ago, even on the big networks. I wonder if the transfer has been low-pass filtered. For such remarkable clarity and definition, the finer details are smoother and sleeker than I would expect in 1080P resolution.


----------



## djoberg

*The Jesus Film*

I have quoted Phantom's whole review for I agree, for the most part, with everything said. I would only add that there were some black levels in early night time scenes that were less-than-stellar. Also, I was simply amazed at the resolution and details in some scenes (the first one that I took note of was when Abraham was about to offer up his son Isaac). They looked like some of the finest UHD shots found in Tier 0. Then there were scenes that were, as Phantom mentioned, quite soft. They also lacked details and would fall somewhere in Tier 2 or maybe even Tier 3. All in all though this was a splendid restoration and I would concur with Phantom's placement as well.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**




Phantom Stranger said:


> *The Jesus Film*
> 
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 1.75**
> 
> First released in 1979, _The Jesus Film_ was given a 35th Anniversary Blu-ray edition back in 2014 from Inspirational Films. A faithful recounting of the life of Jesus as provided in the Gospel of Luke, it's a movie designed as an evangelical tool for a wide range of audiences. Its influence can be seen in more recent productions such as _The Bible: The Epic Mini-Series_. This 1080P presentation has remarkable clarity and detail given the film stock's vintage. _The Jesus Film_ receives an unfiltered, film-like transfer that transparently reproduces the underlying clean cinematography and crisp visuals.
> 
> Often this kind of independent release gets subjected to a sub-par film transfer. I was surprised at the care and attention that must have gone into this stunning presentation on Blu-ray. The movie itself has a newer prologue obviously shot with impressive digital filmmaking. While the sharpest part of the movie, it matches up well with the original footage's rock-solid picture quality. The bulk of the movie was shot on 35mm film back in the 1970s.
> 
> The film elements are in superb, pristine condition. This is a top-notch film restoration, on par with the best Hollywood had to offer in 2014. It's a consistent, stable presentation with excellent fine detail. The 2K film scan offers superior definition. Some scenes are softer than others. There isn't a hint of extraneous video processing, from ringing to aliasing. The lack of special effects in this case helps the picture quality.
> 
> The main feature runs 127 minutes on a BD-50. The problem-free AVC encode smoothly captures every detail possible without artifacts. Its naturally modest grain structure remains entirely intact, most often visible in establishing shots and wider views. The color palette has a rich, earthy quality that favors browns. The inky black levels and dead-on contrast help create the film's pleasing video quality.
> 
> If anything is lacking visually, the movie's classically clean cinematography lacks the depth and projection of the best Tier One discs. _The Jesus Film_ provides exceptional clarity, occasionally revealing too much detail. That is the case with some of the beards in tighter shots, which sometimes look fake upon close examination.
> 
> If you want to enjoy _The Jesus Film_ in near perfect 1080P video, this is it. The film can't look any better at this resolution.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> *The Jesus Film*
> 
> I have quoted Phantom's whole review for I agree, for the most part, with everything said. I would only add that there were some black levels in early night time scenes that were less-than-stellar. Also, I was simply amazed at the resolution and details in some scenes (the first one that I took note of was when Abraham was about to offer up his son Isaac). They looked like some of the finest UHD shots found in Tier 0. Then there were scenes that were, as Phantom mentioned, quite soft. They also lacked details and would fall somewhere in Tier 2 or maybe even Tier 3. All in all though this was a splendid restoration and I would concur with Phantom's placement as well.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75**


Some of the variance I believe is due to _The Jesus Film_ being shot over a period of years, with more recent footage substituted in the longer panoramic shots. That opening coda with the quick recap of Genesis and the Old Testament looks fairly recent.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> Some of the variance I believe is due to _The Jesus Film_ being shot over a period of years, with more recent footage substituted in the longer panoramic shots. That opening coda with the quick recap of Genesis and the Old Testament looks fairly recent.


Here's what Blu-ray.com had to say about the "variance":

"The Jesus Film is presented on Blu-ray with an AVC encoded 1080p transfer in 1.78:1. A lot of this film is rather heavenly from an image perspective, while some sections are considerably more purgatorial, if not downright hellish. According to some online reportage, the film has been sliced and diced through the years into a variety of formats and editions, and that may mean that this version needed to be cobbled together from different elements. Look, for example, at the differing levels of clarity and general color saturation between screenshots 5 and 11 for just one example at some of the quality variances on display. Another reason I tend to think this has been sourced variously is a rather wide variance in grain structure. While much of the film boasts a natural grain field, there are several noticeable scenes (most of them establishing shots of outdoor locations) which look almost like they've been sourced from video. The bulk of the film looks quite good, however, even if some individual sequences are comparatively on the soft side (see screenshot 1)."


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Mothman Prophecies (Region-free Australian Import)*


recommendation: *Tier 3.0**

Some Australian label named ViaVision put this 2002 Sony film out on Blu-ray back in 2016. The transfer appears to be sourced from German elements, as a few English signs have burnt-in German subtitles. The 118-minute main feature is encoded in AVC on a BD-25. The 2.40:1 presentation is shown at 1080P resolution. There is a German Blu-ray edition that was put out by Concorde, the only competitor for this movie in the Blu-ray realm. Sony hasn't bothered with their own BD version.

I can't say this is a striking film transfer. The colors are flat and the contrast leaves some room for improvement. Despite it being a relatively recent 2016 release, every technical indicator and the visual evidence reflects an older transfer, possibly done with a telecine. Hints of processing leave minor ringing in some scenes. But what keeps this disc out of Tier 2 is the poor AVC encode. It contains macroblocking in darker areas and other common compression artifacts. 

At best, one can label this import a serviceable presentation. There is definitely an appreciable bump in definition and clarity over the original Sony DVD. Close-ups show off significant depth and dimension. The occasional F/X shots look ragged compared to current technology. The elements are in solid shape. There isn't much obvious wear present. A new film color grading in the digital realm would likely improve the movie's picture quality in 1080P resolution.

Disappointingly, the English audio is in lossy quality.


----------



## djoberg

I am simply chiming in with Darth's review to say I agree 100% with his assessment. I had placed this at 1.5 but I'm watching the series again and the first two episodes are definitely worth a Tier 0 placement. Darth's comments are spot on when he says, "it has a clean and sharp image...the real strength of the presentation is the black levels and strong contrast." In my review I mention blacks levels that became "murky" but I haven't seen that yet this time around. And even if I do, the overall presentation is SO GOOD that it would be a travesty to penalize this if the "faltering blacks" are minimal.



DarthDoxie said:


> *Stranger Things: Season 1 (Blu-ray)*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 0* (0.9)*
> 
> Shot with the RED Epic Dragon camera, it has a very clean and sharp image; there is no grain but not in a distracting way. Details in the landscape, fabrics, and faces are well represented. Colors are strong as well; lots of primaries in clothing, vegetation, and Christmas lights. The real strength of the presentation is the black levels and strong contrast. I was blown away with the deep, inky blacks in every episode but especially the last two that take place primarily at night. Black clothing, guns, the night sky, and everything else just look great and show great depth of shadow detail; the night sky disappears against the black bars (image is 2.00:1).


----------



## SnellTHX

*DUNKIRK*

BEST.PICTURE.EVER


I waited a long time to get this 4K/HDR movie as I knew it would hit somewhere around the #1 spot, and boy this movie EXCEEDED my ridiculously high expectations I set for it. The 4K image captured on the IMAX MSM 9802 (which is technically 18K or 220,000,000 pixels ≈ 25 times sharper than 4K) is absolutely stunning. Reference image quality is an understatement, its actually _*beyond*_ reference. 

Finally we are presented with a movie that is more less entirely filmed in IMAX 15/70mm. the world's best picture quality and now we get it throughout 90 or so of the 100 minute run time. Nolan's IMAX scenes have been my ultimate reference since The Dark Knight came out in 2008, unfortunately it only had 30 minutes filmed in IMAX, Interstellar had roughly 60 minutes and The Dark Knight Rises was 50/50 filmed with IMAX and "regular" 35mm film. This meant I had to cling on to the remote ready to press 'skip'. Still those 3 movies are in my top 5 / top 10 just because of those scenes. 

Now with Dunkirk being filmed in IMAX for ≈ 90% of the time, the ENTIRE movie is utterly stunning better-than-reference quality. The colours, contrast, blacks, highlights, pop, sharpness, resolution, clarity, details are all flawless. yes there is a distinctive colour tone / thematic effect going on but the artistic style brings you right into the summer of 1940, as if you are experiencing WWII in Dunkirk yourself. 

Have watched an hour and a half of Dunkirk mainly in IMAX I felt watching this movie on my OLED was BETTER and more realistic than looking out of a window! Real life visuals are disappointing to me now 

*Tier recommendation: 0 (#1 PQ-KING)*


----------



## AmerCa

^^^^^^^
Ok. This was unexpected.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^

Well Snell....we will have to "agree to disagree" on this one. It is, without a doubt, a Tier 0 film that has amazing details and depth, but the color scheme is too DRAB and COLOR-GRADED (along with some soft shots and faltering blacks) to be placed on the top of Tier Blu. I still believe that _Transformers: The Last Knight_ is the "KING of the Blu-ray Hill."

Here's my review again of _Dunkirk_. I stand by it 100%:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-808.html#post55372186


----------



## Phantom Stranger

AmerCa said:


> This is a bit ironic, since they're actually charging you a "premium" price for the UHD for the shiny 4k. If the disc being an upscale don't matter in itself, why not stick with a player with great upscaling software? It'd be cheaper for all of us. (Of course, we know the real selling point of 4k is not resolution, which is basically another slap in the face).
> 
> In principle, if they want me to upgrade to a new format then I expected the content to be produced in such formats. Just imagine if people found out the High-Res format for music, for which they charge a good amount, were actually a 16bit/44khz transcodes! It'd be simply unacceptable.


 Most of the visual benefit from the UHD format is due to HDR, not the jump in resolution. It's the improved color fidelity, better compression codecs and enhanced meta-data that really make UHD a worthwhile format for videophiles.


I would ask everyone to please list if you are reviewing the 4K UHD when making a formal recommendation. I've noticed that people have grown into the habit of reviewing UHDs and not clearly listing it as such in bold.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^

I would only add that besides the WCG (Wide Color Gamut) improving color fidelity, HDR gives the contrast a huge boost, resulting in much BRIGHTER WHITES and BLACKER BLACKS. I rarely see a marked difference in details, but the difference in COLORS and CONTRAST can be quite dramatic (or, at the very least, discernible) with High Dynamic Range.


----------



## JNayAV

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^^
> 
> I would only add that besides the WCG (Wide Color Gamut) improving color fidelity, HDR gives the contrast a huge boost, resulting in much BRIGHTER WHITES and BLACKER BLACKS. I rarely see a marked difference in details, but the difference in COLORS and CONTRAST can be quite dramatic (or, at the very least, discernible) with High Dynamic Range.


On my OLED, SDR is already the blackest black 
But not being pedantic, yeah having more stops coming out of black is nice. Certainly the brightness ceiling is much higher.

Just updated Oppo and my E6 for what are supposedly Dolby Vision fixes, so I'll be posting Dolby Vision comments here on.
The Oppo 203/205, now has an option to force HDR streams to play as DV. Supposedly this works very well for OLEDs.
Open question for group, should I mention I force DV on an HDR title if I do so? Doesn't seem out of bounds from say people using a Darblet, but my experience may differ from others. (If I knew what the Oppo was doing to achieve this, that would help me decide I think)

Edit: Just wanted to add my thoughts on my open question: It would become way too difficult to track HDR10/DV titles separately, I think just tracking UHD with those two HDR formats lumped together is fine. The aggregated score will show generally where a title lands, and someone can go thru and read reviews to see if comments bare out that one or the other is better (or in my case HDR forced into DV theoretically better)

I don't think this has really come up yet, as only a couple of us are DV ready, let alone the low number of UHD reviewers in general.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^^

I can't help you out regarding Dolby Vision, but I do have a response to you saying, "On my OLED, SDR is already the blackest black." When I had my Pioneer KURO it too had "the blackest black" WHEN THE SOURCE SUPPLIED IT! In other words, the blacks had to be perfect (or nearly perfect) in the source, whether you talking about a movie on cable or Blu-ray, or a tv series. I guess what I'm really saying is, "Not all blacks are created equal."

To illustrate, on my Sony 940D, when I'm watching anything on tv the screen goes to COMPLETELY BLACK when switching scenes (or when cutting to a commercial). All the pixels literally go to black. But when I'm watching a movie or tv series with black shots in it, the blackness varies. There are movies like _Sicario_ that have the deepest blacks ever; then there are movies where the blacks are fairly good, but not real deep.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^^
> 
> I would only add that besides the WCG (Wide Color Gamut) improving color fidelity, HDR gives the contrast a huge boost, resulting in much BRIGHTER WHITES and BLACKER BLACKS. I rarely see a marked difference in details, but the difference in COLORS and CONTRAST can be quite dramatic (or, at the very least, discernible) with High Dynamic Range.


 Oppo owners will probably recognize fellow AVS member Bob Pariseau's name. He's written a strongly detailed explanation of the different color spaces available on UHD and a more wide-ranging discussion for why UHD reigns over the standard Blu-ray format. It dives deeps into the weeds but is recommended for videophiles looking for technical explanations.

https://bobpariseau.com/blog/2018/5/2/digital-video-or-lost-in-color-space



JNayAV said:


> On my OLED, SDR is already the blackest black
> But not being pedantic, yeah having more stops coming out of black is nice. Certainly the brightness ceiling is much higher.
> 
> Just updated Oppo and my E6 for what are supposedly Dolby Vision fixes, so I'll be posting Dolby Vision comments here on.
> The Oppo 203/205, now has an option to force HDR streams to play as DV. Supposedly this works very well for OLEDs.
> *Open question for group, should I mention I force DV on an HDR title if I do so? Doesn't seem out of bounds from say people using a Darblet, but my experience may differ from others. (If I knew what the Oppo was doing to achieve this, that would help me decide I think)*
> 
> Edit: Just wanted to add my thoughts on my open question: It would become way too difficult to track HDR10/DV titles separately, I think just tracking UHD with those two HDR formats lumped together is fine. The aggregated score will show generally where a title lands, and someone can go thru and read reviews to see if comments bare out that one or the other is better (or in my case HDR forced into DV theoretically better)
> 
> I don't think this has really come up yet, as only a couple of us are DV ready, let alone the low number of UHD reviewers in general.


 It's funny you bring this up because I had been pondering the very same question since Oppo's recent firmware introduced that Dolby Vision option. Forcing Dolby Vision may very well improve a disc's HDR on certain displays. It's prudent bringing it up when evaluating a disc for the PQ Tiers because it could have a material impact on the picture quality.

Having delved far deeper recently into the underpinnings of UHD's tech and what it means for PQ results, I am starting to come to the conclusion that a UHD's 4K quality is more dependent on the display and player combination than we've seen from Blu-ray. The variation in what we each see with differing hardware set-ups introduces a few problematic issues for the PQ Tiers itself. We soon might have to go back to everyone listing which player and display they are using for each UHD recommendation in the thread. It definitely wouldn't hurt.

The situation should improve as UHD matures as a format and the hardware comes together around a core set of principles.


----------



## rnk21

Is there an updated list of the tiers?


----------



## JNayAV

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> I can't help you out regarding Dolby Vision, but I do have a response to you saying, "On my OLED, SDR is already the blackest black." When I had my Pioneer KURO it too had "the blackest black" WHEN THE SOURCE SUPPLIED IT! In other words, the blacks had to be perfect (or nearly perfect) in the source, whether you talking about a movie on cable or Blu-ray, or a tv series. I guess what I'm really saying is, "Not all blacks are created equal."
> 
> To illustrate, on my Sony 940D, when I'm watching anything on tv the screen goes to COMPLETELY BLACK when switching scenes (or when cutting to a commercial). All the pixels literally go to black. But when I'm watching a movie or tv series with black shots in it, the blackness varies. There are movies like _Sicario_ that have the deepest blacks ever; then there are movies where the blacks are fairly good, but not real deep.


No worries, I get what your saying and agree. HDR can have lots more variations in black, or have a deeper shade of black next to a brighter white.
Was just jokingly pointing out SDR allows for what TV considers 'true black' which on Oled is the pixel off. It's why some joke SDR on Oled is like HDR.


----------



## JNayAV

Phantom Stranger said:


> It's funny you bring this up because I had been pondering the very same question since Oppo's recent firmware introduced that Dolby Vision option. Forcing Dolby Vision may very well improve a disc's HDR on certain displays. It's prudent bringing it up when evaluating a disc for the PQ Tiers because it could have a material impact on the picture quality.
> 
> Having delved far deeper recently into the underpinnings of UHD's tech and what it means for PQ results, I am starting to come to the conclusion that a UHD's 4K quality is more dependent on the display and player combination than we've seen from Blu-ray. The variation in what we each see with differing hardware set-ups introduces a few problematic issues for the PQ Tiers itself. We soon might have to go back to everyone listing which player and display they are using for each UHD recommendation in the thread. It definitely wouldn't hurt.
> 
> The situation should improve as UHD matures as a format and the hardware comes together around a core set of principles.


From reading Ralph's reviews, I don't really see the DV v HDR10 really being worth more than a 0.25 tier discrepancy, but will point it out after I watch one.
Soon as think UHD is gonna mature.... HDR 10+ likely comes out next year with HDMI 2.1 and then 8k wider adoption in 2019(?)..... potential new format or expanding of UHD for that...... ouch.........

Those that want to split off UHD ready to split off whatever the 8k format is as well? Holy cow may get ridiculous with all the formats.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

rnk21 said:


> Is there an updated list of the tiers?


Soon, very soon. I never intended the Tiers to go this long without an update. But life has a habit of interfering with my free time.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*German Angst*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

Cult label Artsploitation Films distributes this 2015 German horror anthology, looking quite decent in 1080P video. All three short films in the anthology are presented at a 2.39:1 aspect ratio, shot with varied cinematography but generally eye-pleasing picture quality.

The moodiest film of the trio has a color grading drained of strong primary colors. The middle film includes some 8mm footage in flashbacks but otherwise has fairly steady picture quality. The strongest looker of the bunch is the last film with its richer contrast and pristine clarity.

The transfer has been left untouched by unnecessary processing and cleanly handled by Artsploitation Films, resulting in a technically sound Blu-ray. I don't tend to rate many discs anymore in this range, as most films these days are either strong Tier One material or land closer to Tier Three.


----------



## djoberg

I just picked up _A Quiet Place_ at Redbox and will be watching it this evening. Needless to say, I'm quite excited. For the most part people are praising this movie for its originality, excellent acting, and topnotch PQ/AQ. I hope I'll be echoing their sentiments in my review later on tonight.


----------



## djoberg

*A Quiet Place*

Okay, perhaps I was expecting more, but I wasn't blown away by the PQ. Don't get me wrong, it is still "demo-worthy," but I doubt it will make the "reference quality" tier (Tier 0). There were certainly scenes that rose to reference level, with impeccable details, depth and clarity. Colors were also natural and warm...a definite plus. But there were also a few soft shots and flesh tones were hindered by the orange color-grading that dominated many of the daytime, outdoor scenes. Black levels were pleasing and in the multiple night time scenes shadow details also came through nicely. I did appreciate the light grain that gave it the coveted "filmic look."

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**

PS I really did "like" the movie but I didn't "love" it. This may have been a case of too much hype, making my anticipation greater than the event. I reserve the right to change my mind though after a second viewing. 

PPS The Dolby Atmos mix was awesome (when it needed to be )!


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^

I hope my comments above don't result in some NOT renting (or buying) this movie. Let me add that the acting was absolutely superb (it was the BEST feature of the movie, by far). And I'm speaking especially of the "child actors," for they were so believable you would think you were watching two terrified kids actually going through the nightmare of an alien invasion. Mrs. Blunt was also on the top of her game.

Again, the Atmos mix was crazy good. For a movie with very few words, the music score and sound effects were crucial and they came through in spades!

The plot was good, but was FULL OF HOLES. I am used to seeing a Sci-Fi movie and suspending disbelief, but I was expecting more from this given all the rave reviews from the "critics." Having said that, it still was a very enjoyable movie. I just didn't LOVE it and now I'm wondering whether or not I want to buy the UHD version. It was definitely worth a "rent," but a "buy" may not be in the cards for me.


----------



## AmerCa

^^^^^^^

Thanks for the honest review. That's why when there's too much hype surrounding a movie, I get a little nervous. *A Quiet Place* sounds like something I should really like, but who knows? I like many movies who others think are trash, and sometimes is the other way around  

However, my curiosity is contained by the current high price of both the UHD and bluray. I can definitely wait for a good deal.


----------



## AmerCa

*Saban's Power Rangers [Open Matte version] (2016 - Lionsgate)*










I'm reviewing the Open Matte version released by Zima in Mexico, which, if not completely the same, should be pretty close to the American version. I'm planning to get the UHD version when the price is right to get the original AR and the ATMOS track ( Mexican edition only gets 5.1 DTS-MA.)

This was a very satisfying visual experience, if a bit inconsistent and only seldomly reaching reference levels. Black levels and shadow detail are strong, while clarity and detail are very good, but only occasionally showcasing remarkable sharpness. Colors and contrast are good, but not eye-popping. PQ gets deductions points for the frequent softness introduced by the CGI effects and blue screens. All in all, a very competent transfer.

Now, here comes the superlatives. The audio mix is I-M-P-R-E-S-S-I-V-E. Keep in mind this was only a 5.1 mix and that I still don't have a subwoofer. And yet, this track was soaring across my room. Whatever bass I was getting, I got it with authority. Immersion and directionality are remarkable, and I don't doubt people who say the ATMOS track is a treat. Despite the brutal presence the track possess, it was very balanced and dynamic, and dialogue was always clear and well prioritized. THIS is a surround mix, and it's the best audio mix I've heard since the *Transformers: The Last Knight*, all the way back last November. And for those who don't know it, the audio mix was done by and AVS fellow member. He surely knows better than anyone what people in here want from an audio mix.

Needless to say, this movie was pure mindless fun, that surely has lots of replay value just for the audio mix _alone._

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*

Here are a couple of reviews, one fof the UHD, which apparently is much superior to the bluray, and one for the regular bluray:

Djoberg's (UHD)(0.25): https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-801.html#post54926104

Snell's (1.0): https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-805.html#post55214526


----------



## AmerCa

*Life (2017 - Sony)*










This is a very color-graded movie which exhibits a particular aesthetic. There are very few chances for showing striking colors or contrast, but the clarity and detail are remarkable for most of its running time, easily reaching reference very often. There are some problematic scenes and shots, but I've gotnto say that, personally, I liked a lot the look of the film. Black levels and shadow detail were strong for me, and at no point detracted from the viewing experience. Had the movie showed more consistency, this disc would be in tier zero.

I got this movie because the bass track was recommended frequently in the Ultimate Bass thread. But I'm pleased to report that I ended enjoying the movie A LOT, and for the entirety of its running time I was sucked in to their world, and was toroughly entertained. What I got from the audio mix with my setup was fantastic, and I can't wait to rewatch the movie with a sub!

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*

A couple other reviews:

John Mason (2.0) ( What??): https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-797.html#post54473969

Djoberg's (1.25): https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-795.html#post53878865


----------



## AmerCa

*Kong: Skull Island (2017 - Warner)*










Competent transfer that gets the job done nicely, but suffers from inconsistency and some color grading that hurts the PQ potential. What's impressive about the disc is the highly detailed and textured CGI. It is a feast to the eyes, and makes the creatures to look *almost* real. Other than that, the visual presentation is often satisfying, but rarely truly impressive.

Much like *Power Rangers*, the real star here is the audio track. Fun from start to finish, with a nice selection of music, and pummeling when it needs to be. Director Jordan Vogt-Roberts is someone to look for, at least in terms of visuals and action sequences, because the visual imagery was stunning, and many of the shots involving Kong were majestic.

(I just read the the BD defaults to the 5.1 DTS-MA, instead of the ATMOS track. I just have a 5.0 setup, but the ATMOS could have additional punch).

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*

Other reviews:

Djoberg's (UHD, 0.75 - 1080, 0.75): https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-796.html#post54377241 + https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-828.html#post56146778

Snell's (1.75): https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-797.html#post54431689

Doxie's (UHD, 0.75 -1080, 1.0): https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-807.html#post55270460


----------



## AmerCa

*Point Break (2015 - Warner)*










This BD has some egregious color grading... but I absolutely loved the look of it. Despite the particular green-ish look and intentional aesthetic limitations, the picture can't help but exhibit exceptional clarity and detail, bordering in reference levels for the most part. It's certainly a disc to show off your display.

And the PQ is helped by the breathtaking cinematography and beautiful locations. The "globe - throttling" in this movie is off the charts, and coupled with the amazing stunts and action sequences, that alone is worth the price of the BD. Seriously, this movie is visually a thing of art. I know this movie received serious flak, and I expected the worst, but I think the particular spin the gave to the original story was pretty interesting, and gave the premise a new life. I'm a big fan of the original, but I can live with this remake, which I believe has higher replay value. The original may be better as a movie, but this one was a thrilling experience. The audio track was definitely on par with the visuals, when it needed to be.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*

Djoberg's review (1.5): https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-775.html#post43913058. (I just noticed we both used the word "egregious color grading" for this movie )



> Orange and Teal hues ruined what could have been a Tier Blu contender! It's been awhile since you've seen me overly criticize a release for egregious color-grading, but this one was definitely over-the-top.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I see AmerCa has been busy of late with a lot of movie watching. Hopefully I can contribute more in upcoming days.


*Mary and the Witch's Flower*

recommendation: *Tier 0* (.75)*











From the director of _When Marnie Was There_ and the key animator on Studio Ghibli's _Spirited Away_, this 2017 theatrical anime has superb animation. Bright, fluid and smoothly drawn with ornate detail, Mary and the Witch's Flower is first-rate animation made by skilled artists. This Blu-ray presentation from Universal is perfect, there just isn't anything lacking in the pristine video.

The main feature runs 102 minutes, encoded in flawless AVC on a BD-50 at excellent parameters. The 1.85:1 theatrical framing is preserved here in complete fidelity. The colorful animation deserves an HDR pass and life on UHD. Backgrounds are certainly eye-catching, capturing intense greens and other brilliant primary colors.

Traditional animation can't look much better than a wonderfully produced theatrical movie like _Mary and the Witch's Flower_. It is definitely on par with Studio Ghibli's best-looking movies.


----------



## AmerCa

*Kubo And The Two Strings (2016 - Universal)*










The animation in this movie took me by surprise. I expected the "traditional" CGI animated film that has become almost mandatory, but this movie uses the "stop-motion" technique that gives this BD a very peculiar look. However, I have yet to see a reference animated film, because as well as this movie was made, and the beautiful images and set they used, this disc left me wanting something more. What was it? I'm not sure. There were details and textured, colors were bright although not always very crisp, but something felt a little...off. Perhaps it was the techniques they used, maybe it was the models, but visually the movie seemed a bit limited.

But the above is only my reasoning to not put it in tier zero, because otherwise the PQ in here pretty solid and eye-pleasing. It's still demo material, it just doesn't belong to the upper tiers.

Movies like this and *9* are giving me compelling reasons to give more animated movies a chance. This one had a beautiful story, and is one to watch with friends or family.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*

PD: Jesus! I just read Djoberg's review and he gives it a tier zero #23 placement! I've watched this movie twice already, and I still don't think this movie belongs in tier zero. And also I just learned that "9" was also a stop-motion film. Animated films are definitely not my field.

Djoberg's review: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-788.html#post50495681



> As with Coraline, it is the intricate DETAILS and amazing DEPTH that rule in this animated marvel. Texture on clothing, armor, wooden ships, foliage, etc. is simply stunning at times.


Addendum: I actually agree with the quoted bit above.


----------



## AmerCa

*Le Chef [Comme Un Chef] (2012 - Cohen Media Group)*










_ I'm reviewing the Mexican edition released by Videomax, which was graced with a French Dolby Digital 2.0 track, which I'm willing to bet is around 192 kbps. It's not the first time they do this crap._ "But hey, why the hell did you buy it then?". _Well, I didn't. My mom did._

The movie started rather weak, but improved just as it progressed. It as a "simple" look, with limited locations, so the PQ doesn't have many opportunities to show off. Clarity is pretty good, there are plenty of great facial close-ups, and the picture is reasonably detailed is you really pay attention, but overall, the video presentation simply get the job done without particularly impressing. There's not really much more to say about it.

On the other hand this was a very funny movie, well-written and acted, and it had a heart. It you can get it for much less than the current 25 bucks (lol) that Amazon is asking for the US version - that at least has a lossless track -, it's a very fine French comedy.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

HDTVTest's 65" display shootout was held in the UK this weekend.


https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-o...ut-af8-c8-fz-oled-vs-q9fn-qled-july-15th.html


The line-up included _*LG OLED65C8PLA
Panasonic TX-65FZ802B 
Samsung QE65Q9FN
Sony KD-65AF8.*_


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> *Kubo And The Two Strings (2016 - Universal)*
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.5*
> 
> I just read Djoberg's review and he gives it a tier zero #23 placement! I've watched this movie twice already, and I still don't think this movie belongs in tier zero. And also I just learned that "9" was also a stop-motion film. Animated films are definitely not my field.
> 
> Djoberg's review: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-788.html#post50495681
> 
> 
> 
> Addendum: I actually agree with the quoted bit above.


Just so you know, in my review I state that this title had already been placed in Tier 0 at #24 when I reviewed it. So, there were OTHERS who deemed it worthy of a high Tier 0 placement. My point in saying this is that MOST who watch animated titles see their PQ as quite remarkable; in fact, an animated title rarely ever gets placed in Tier 1 (or lower). Perhaps someday you'll have a change of heart and come to value the amazing virtues of animation PQ.


----------



## djoberg

I just reserved _Winchester_ at a local Redbox and will be viewing it tonight. I'm hoping this "horror" movie will prove to be better than my recent experience with _A Quiet Place_. (Again, _A Quiet Place_ had its moments but it wasn't really different from anything I'd seen before, with the exception of it being a film with very few words.)

_Winchester_ has one of my favorite actresses in it (Helen Mirren) and the storyline sounds interesting. Reviews on it are mixed, but the positive reviews make it sound like it will be "my cup of tea."


----------



## AmerCa

@djoberg:



> Perhaps someday you'll have a change of heart and come to value the amazing virtues of animation PQ.


I don't know, man. There was a trailer for _The Secret Life Of Pets _included in the BD of Kubo, and it looked pretty awesome. Also, in other discs, I've seen trailers for _Angry Birds _and _The Emoji Movie _and both looked great. I assume the actual BDs will look even better. Maybe I just didn't like the stop-motion in this movie, or its particular aesthetic. Again, I liked the PQ, I just wasn't blown away.

In any case, I need to watch more animated movies to "develop" an "eye" for it and think of them in terms of PQ.


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> @djoberg:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, man. There was a trailer for _The Secret Life Of Pets _included in the BD of Kubo, and it looked pretty awesome. Also, in other discs, I've seen trailers for _Angry Birds _and _The Emoji Movie _and both looked great. I assume the actual BDs will look even better. Maybe I just didn't like the stop-motion in this movie, or its particular aesthetic. Again, I liked the PQ, I just wasn't blown away.
> 
> In any case, I need to watch more animated movies to "develop" an "eye" for it and think of them in terms of PQ.


So, allow me to rephrase my last statement:

"Perhaps someday you'll have a change of heart and come to value the amazing virtues of STOP-MOTION animation PQ."


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> HDTVTest's 65" display shootout was held in the UK this weekend.
> 
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-o...ut-af8-c8-fz-oled-vs-q9fn-qled-july-15th.html
> 
> 
> The line-up included _*LG OLED65C8PLA
> Panasonic TX-65FZ802B
> Samsung QE65Q9FN
> Sony KD-65AF8.*_


Well, it was no surprise to me that one of the three OLEDs came away as the BIG WINNER...that being the Panasonic OLED. I'ts a crying shame that Panasonic won't distribute their tvs to the U. S. market. 

I was surprised that the QLED only won in the "Best display for bright room viewing" category. I was thinking it might also win in the "Best display for HDR" with its ability to hit 2,000 nits (of brightness) and still retain a very impressive black level.


----------



## djoberg

*Winchester*

I was impressed, for the most part, with the fine details, appreciable depth, warm colors, pleasing blacks levels/shadow details, and accurate flesh tones. There were fleeting instances of softness, especially in low-lit interior shots, but in all outdoor daytime scenes and well-lit interior scenes, the clarity was razor-sharp. The only other "gripe" I would mention was CGI shots of the house; they looked fake and lacked details.

The movie was so-so. I long for a really good horror/thriller to makes it way to the big screen. The DTS-HD Master audio mix was well done!

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.90)*


----------



## AmerCa

djoberg said:


> The movie was so-so. I long for a really good horror/thriller to makes it way to the big screen.


I hear you. Have you tried turning your eyes into Asian horror movies? A lot of the best stuff comes from there, although not everything is releases in the States. I don't know if Redbox/Netflix carries foreign movies, but a couple recommendations if you are interested:

*The Wailing (2016 - Korea)*: http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Wailing-Blu-ray/161601/

*Train To Busan (2016 - Korea - DTS:X mix!)*: http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Train-to-Busan-Blu-ray/160541/

Plus one American movie which doesn't get much recognition:

*The Eyes Of My Mother (2016)*: http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/The-Eyes-of-My-Mother-Blu-ray/171073/

2016 was a good year, I see. These movies can get very graphic and bloody, and can be really intense. Take that into consideration if you want to watch them with other people.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^

Thanks for the heads up on those movies! I doubt that Redbox has them and as of now I don't subscribe to Netflix. But I can check them out in other venues.


----------



## SnellTHX

Phantom Stranger said:


> HDTVTest's 65" display shootout was held in the UK this weekend.
> 
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/40-o...ut-af8-c8-fz-oled-vs-q9fn-qled-july-15th.html
> 
> 
> The line-up included _*LG OLED65C8PLA
> Panasonic TX-65FZ802B
> Samsung QE65Q9FN
> Sony KD-65AF8.*_



100% as expected:

* Panasonic wins the show as king of picture quality (called it)
* Sony AF8 and LG C8 are neck-to-neck and basically comes down to personally preference.
* Samsung Q9FN will basically come in last place, even though it is a fantastically superb FALD. Oh and that this TV would win for gaming.


----------



## SnellTHX

AmerCa said:


> ^^^^^^^
> Ok. This was unexpected.


Not if you know me personally  

my top 5 favourite films of all time are:

Interstellar
The Dark Knight
Inception
The Wolf of Wallstreet
Dunkirk. 

4 out of 5 are Nolan movies


and I prefer 16:9 over 21:9 movies

and I really love the IMAX MSM9802 15/70mm camera that only Nolan uses  

So yeah I'm a Nolan fanboy


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^
> 
> Well Snell....we will have to "agree to disagree" on this one. It is, without a doubt, a Tier 0 film that has amazing details and depth, but the color scheme is too DRAB and COLOR-GRADED (along with some soft shots and faltering blacks) to be placed on the top of Tier Blu. I still believe that _Transformers: The Last Knight_ is the "KING of the Blu-ray Hill."
> 
> Here's my review again of _Dunkirk_. I stand by it 100%:
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-808.html#post55372186




That's okay. I saw this movie once again in 4K/HDR with a friend of mine. He loved the movie in the cinema. This time I was less hyperbolic and more critical of the image. I noticed two things... The were actually way more regular 21:9 / 70mm scenes than I remembered. But the difference between IMAX 15/70mm shots and the "normal 70mm" shots are no where near as big as in other Nolan movies. I think he used 35mm for his other films. My friend agreed Dunkirk in 4K/HDR is the best picture quality he's ever seen 


But I fully understand your point about black levels; I noticed the blacks are actually quite dreadful in the night time sub-marine scene; though I'm not sure how much of it is due to HDR. my OLED B6 used to have EXTREMELY bad black levels in Netflix Dolby Vision and pretty mediocre black levels with Netflix HDR, but after the new patch I think its been vastly improved, though not quite perfect as I demoed with The Last of US: Remastered and Call of Duty: WWII on PS4 in HDR, the black levels are still raised and not 0 nit. 


about the colour palette, we'll have to disagree on this one. As I stated it felt like looking out of a window, as Dunkirk was more of a portal taking you straight back to French beaches of 1940. 

So Dunkirk is #1 for me, Transformers: Last Knight gets a solid #2 spot


----------



## AmerCa

SnellTHX said:


> So yeah I'm a Nolan fanboy


I think I'm a Nolan fanboy as well. I saw *Dunkirk* three times at the theater, and I tried to convince everyone that would hear me to go see it. People were actually sick of me talking about the virtues of that movie. Nolan makes really great movies. I'm gonna buy _Dunkirk_ at some point.


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> That's okay. I saw this movie once again in 4K/HDR with a friend of mine. He loved the movie in the cinema. This time I was less hyperbolic and more critical of the image. I noticed two things... The were actually way more regular 21:9 / 70mm scenes than I remembered. But the difference between IMAX 15/70mm shots and the "normal 70mm" shots are no where near as big as in other Nolan movies. I think he used 35mm for his other films. My friend agreed Dunkirk in 4K/HDR is the best picture quality he's ever seen
> 
> 
> But I fully understand your point about black levels; I noticed the blacks are actually quite dreadful in the night time sub-marine scene; though I'm not sure how much of it is due to HDR. my OLED B6 used to have EXTREMELY bad black levels in Netflix Dolby Vision and pretty mediocre black levels with Netflix HDR, but after the new patch I think its been vastly improved, though not quite perfect as I demoed with The Last of US: Remastered and Call of Duty: WWII on PS4 in HDR, the black levels are still raised and not 0 nit.
> 
> 
> about the colour palette, we'll have to disagree on this one. As I stated it felt like looking out of a window, as Dunkirk was more of a portal taking you straight back to French beaches of 1940.
> 
> So Dunkirk is [URL=http://www.avsforum.com/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=1]#1 [/URL] for me, Transformers: Last Knight gets a solid #2 spot


Good post Snell!

So, can I jump back on my soapbox for just a second? Thanks!

To me, for a UHD Blu-ray to be "King of the Blu-ray Hill" it must be FLAWLESS. You admit that _Dunkirk_ has terrible blacks in one scene. You said, "I noticed the blacks are actually quite dreadful in the night time submarine scene." This, IMHO, disqualifies it from being the BEST Blu-ray movie, deserving of the #1 spot in Tier Blu. This is why I think _Transformers: The Last Knight_ deserves to be #1 ....it is indeed flawless from the opening shot to the rolling of the credits.

BTW, just so you know, I do love the movie. In fact, I watched it twice (two nights in a row!!) when I first bought it. My favorites scenes are the dogfights and when planes are swooping down toward the beach or towards boats in the water. They are all FULL SCREEN and with the amazing audio mix you actually FEEL like you're in the cockpit!!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I'd agree that a disc ranked near the very top of Tier 0 has to be nigh immaculate, or as close as current technological limitations possibly allow. That being said, I don't want to impede anyone's appreciation of Dunkirk or other stunners. 



It's why the discs in our top tier aren't alphabetically ordered - the ones near the top are better than the entries closer to Tier One.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Phantom Stranger said:


> *Batman: Mask of the Phantasm*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 2.25**
> 
> The greatest Batman movie of them all? This 1993 animated movie finally hit Blu-ray last month from Warner Archive and the results are quite satisfying. Both the open-matte 4:3 presentation and the widescreen theatrical version have been included on a BD-50. Each runs 76 minutes, encoded in fully transparent AVC at fairly high bitrates.
> 
> _Mask of the Phantasm_ was originally conceived as a television movie before WB decided it was good enough for a theatrical release. I recommend going with the open-matte 4:3 option when viewing the movie as I almost always do when animation is involved. The widescreen mattes add a slightly more cinematic feel but several scenes plainly operate better in the 4:3 presentation.
> 
> The black levels are great and the cel animation holds up very well in 1080P resolution, better than expected. There isn't quite the pop and depth of newer animation but the moody art deco backgrounds look better than ever in Gotham. The animation has a refreshing crispness to it I've never seen before from _Mask of the Phantasm_.
> 
> This is definitely a new HD transfer from the original elements. There are a few minor quirks leftover from the older cel animation that may have been removed in a lavish restoration, but it indicates the transfer hasn't been mindlessly filtered. The consistent clarity offers nice texture and definition for this kind of animated fare.


*Batman and Mr. Freeze: SubZero
*
recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

Coming a few years after _Batman: Mask of the Phantasm_ in 1997, _Batman and Mr. Freeze: SubZero_ was consciously made direct to video. Warner Archive once again does the honors, putting the 66-minute main feature on a BD-50. That enables the flawless AVC encode to average 35 Mbps, perfectly capturing the cel animation and preserving it in 1080P resolution. Animated in 1.37:1, there is no widescreen version of this production. It retains the character designs and atmosphere from _Batman: The Animated Series_.

This is an impressive film transfer. The animation only improved over time with Batman. The colors are a little more saturated and black levels reach pitch-black perfection. The elements are in pristine condition. The occasional cel dust and debris that appeared in Mask of the Phantasm are absent on this disc.

A few years ago, it would have been tempting to place this disc in Tier One. The picture quality has that nice, appreciable impact on Blu-ray that makes animation pop in a calibrated and darkened home theater. But times and standards have changed. The traditional animation holds up fairly well but SubZero lacked the budget of theatrical fare, placing most of it well below stunners from Disney and Studio Ghibli.


This is an easy recommendation for fans. You can give away the ancient DVD version. This Blu-ray is a substantial improvement in every possible way.


----------



## djoberg

*Dunkirk (UHD)...Revisited*

After all the talk about _Dunkirk_ I decided to watch it again tonight. I really do love this movie! Though it's not your typical war movie with character development and a bit of romance/humor, this achieved what it accomplished....to show what raw, human emotion can accomplish in the face of a relentless enemy who seemed posed to deliver a humiliating defeat to nearly 400,000 soldiers. I was simply amazed at the unbelievable rescue of those men, courtesy of dozens and dozens of nonmilitary vessels and the brave civilians who manned them.

I was also reminded at just how stunning this looks with stellar details and depth throughout its 100 minute running time. It was BETTER than what I had remembered!! Except for a couple of scenes with faltering blacks they were deep and inky with finely-rendered shadow details. The only thing keeping this from the "Top Ten" in Tier Blu was the drab color palette, the aforementioned blacks and a few fleeting soft shots. I am going to raise my former recommendation of Tier 0 (.75) to....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (.5)*

PS I kept my Denon AVR set to -7.5 and at times I almost turned it down...that's how LOUD this mix is. I do have one big beef though; you could hardly hear the dialogue in MANY scenes.


----------



## DarthDoxie

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Thanks for the heads up on those movies! I doubt that Redbox has them and as of now I don't subscribe to Netflix. But I can check them out in other venues.



I discovered my local library offers free streaming through Kanopy and Hoopla (yours may or may not) so that's an option if you want to go old school and get a library card . Lots of Criterion titles on Kanopy and Hoopla currently has *Train to Busan*.


----------



## AmerCa

DarthDoxie said:


> I discovered my local library offers free streaming through Kanopy and Hoopla (yours may or may not) so that's an option if you want to go old school and get a library card


Libraries are way much cooler over there...


----------



## AmerCa

*The Great Wall (Universal - 2016)*











This movie looked like a cartoon. It's said to be shot natively in 4k, but you wouldn't tell for the most part, and no doubt this is due to the massive amounts of CGI used in this film. I expected the real world people and scenarios to be super sharp, but this wasn't the case. I suspect this was a conscious decision by the director, otherwise I can't explain the relatively unimpressive PQ. The 4k is said to be a remarkable improvement over the BD, and I suspect it could be possible, since there were many instances in which I could imagine HDR turning the visuals into something spectacular. I don't know. This disc is good, but nowhere near close to reference.

I can understand the flak this movie received. It's an entertaining film whose strengths lie in the incredible visuals courtesy of director Zhang Yimou (who has gifted us with many others stunning visual gems like *House Of Flying Daggers*,* Hero*, and *Curse Of The Golden Flower*), the fantastic cinematography and reference audio track. Those who live and thrill by the audiovisual experience a movie can bring to their home theaters can do no wrong giving this movie a chance.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5

*I continue to put my credibility on the line by going against the general consensus. Apparently, I'm the only one who doesn't consider this disc to be reference :

*Djoberg's *review (Tier Zero, 0.9): http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-794.html#post53226170

*Snell's *(Tier zero, 0.75): http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-797.html#post54445441

*dla26 *(UHD - tier zero, top 10): http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...ray-discussion-post55838348.html#post55838348

*JNayAV *(UHD, tier zero, 0.5): http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...read-blu-ray-discussion-799.html#post54667316


----------



## AmerCa

*All Is Lost (2013 - Lionsgate)*










This disc is a mixed bag, but in this case it feels justified. Many scenes look ugly, but they fit the tone of what's presented on screen. It can also be a smart way of working around the most likely tight budget. Other scenes exhibit great clarity and remarkable detail, but the final product is inconsistent. All things considered, this is a very fine video presentation with as much virtues as it has flaws.

This is a tremendous film. If you had the chance to at least rent it, you should do it. Excellent filmmaking.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


----------



## AmerCa

*Safe House (Universal - 2012)*










I had already watched this movie like three times before purchasing it. I just had forgotten this movie was released in 2012. _Frigging 2012!! _I say this because this BD is atrocious. Of course when I first watched this movie I wasn't looking at it with a critical eye. I believe the lower score I've given to a movie was 4.0, to _All The Boys Love Mandy Lane_. But that was a 2006 movie trying to look like a cheap 70s film. I don't know what's the excuse for a 2012 movie starring Denzel Washington. Seriously, I don't even know where to begin, as I watched some artifacts I haven't seen in any other movie. I don't even have a name for them. Thanks god this is a fantastic action film, whose redeeming qualities are well beyond the PQ. No further comments.

*Tier Recommendation: 4.25*


----------



## djoberg

We will be leaving on vacation early tomorrow for a week. We'll also be gone the second week in August. But I do plan to check in from time to time to see what others are viewing and reviewing. I really appreciate those who have "joined the team" as regular contributors.


----------



## AmerCa

^^^^^^
Vacations time! Have a good time, this place won't go anywhere...I hope.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

AmerCa said:


> *The Great Wall (Universal - 2016)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.5
> 
> *I continue to put my credibility on the line by going against the general consensus. Apparently, I'm the only one who doesn't consider this disc to be reference :
> 
> *Djoberg's *review (Tier Zero, 0.9): https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-794.html#post53226170
> 
> *Snell's *(Tier zero, 0.75): https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-797.html#post54445441
> 
> *dla26 *(UHD - tier zero, top 10): https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...ray-discussion-post55838348.html#post55838348
> 
> *JNayAV *(UHD, tier zero, 0.5): https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-799.html#post54667316


 It's never wrong here to report your honest feelings on a disc - it can only help the PQ Tiers. Many of us have been out on an island so to speak about certain discs before. Everyone is viewing on a different system in a different setting. That is naturally going to produce some variance in the scores. If The Great Wall only looks Tier 1.5 to your eyes, that is your call.


You'll soon learn some reviewers are more strict or more generous grading each disc. Everyone has their own style and preferences.



djoberg said:


> We will be leaving on vacation early tomorrow for a week. We'll also be gone the second week in August. But I do plan to check in from time to time to see what others are viewing and reviewing. I really appreciate those who have "joined the team" as regular contributors.


 Enjoy the vacation, rest up for the upcoming wave of Fall releases that begin after Labor Day. 



No one knows the day or time, but soon I believe the PQ Tiers will see an update. Keep an eye out on it.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Jurassic Park (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**
I've never owned or seen this on a home disc release (theater and TV only) so I can't speak to the current BD rating of 2.75.

I was impressed from the opening scenes and knew right away I was in for a treat. Details are strong in most scenes but there are some soft shots that are I think inherent to the original elements and not due to the 4k scan. Foliage, faces, hair, and fabrics/textures are well presented. Colors really pop in most scenes especially greens, reds, and yellows; facial tones look warm and natural. Black levels and contrast are definitely "OLED porn"  . Jeff Goldblum’s coat, shirt, hair, and black eyeglass frames are deep and show great gradations of black and shadow detail; night scenes are also good.


PS: I was down to 0 unwatched movies on disc and somehow I picked up 15 movies over the last month and all but 3 need reviews . I've got the rest of the Jurassic Park UHD box, the Harry Potter UHD box, and a few Criterions. I also got the Back to the Future box but they're already reviewed so I'll just have to compare them to the current rankings (which are pretty low).


----------



## AmerCa

AmerCa said:


> *The Villainess [Ak-Nyeo -** 악녀] (2017 - Well Go USA)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.5**
> [/SIZE]


Being one of my favorite movies of 2017, I felt the need to remind people of this movie. It's currently 8.99 on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Villainess-B...TF8&qid=1532320256&sr=8-2&keywords=Villainess


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**
*
*
I compared direct scenes from the BD and it's definitely a good improvement. Details are better, colors pop (although much of the film is drab), and black levels are deep showing good shadow detail. It really benefits from HDR as the contrast and fine gradations of color really make this disc stand out.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Phantom Stranger said:


> *Batman and Mr. Freeze: SubZero
> *
> recommendation: *Tier 2.0**
> 
> Coming a few years after _Batman: Mask of the Phantasm_ in 1997, _Batman and Mr. Freeze: SubZero_ was consciously made direct to video. Warner Archive once again does the honors, putting the 66-minute main feature on a BD-50. That enables the flawless AVC encode to average 35 Mbps, perfectly capturing the cel animation and preserving it in 1080P resolution. Animated in 1.37:1, there is no widescreen version of this production. It retains the character designs and atmosphere from _Batman: The Animated Series_.
> 
> This is an impressive film transfer. The animation only improved over time with Batman. The colors are a little more saturated and black levels reach pitch-black perfection. The elements are in pristine condition. The occasional cel dust and debris that appeared in Mask of the Phantasm are absent on this disc.
> 
> A few years ago, it would have been tempting to place this disc in Tier One. The picture quality has that nice, appreciable impact on Blu-ray that makes animation pop in a calibrated and darkened home theater. But times and standards have changed. The traditional animation holds up fairly well but SubZero lacked the budget of theatrical fare, placing most of it well below stunners from Disney and Studio Ghibli.
> This is an easy recommendation for fans. You can give away the ancient DVD version. This Blu-ray is a substantial improvement in every possible way.


Wait no more friends, _Batman: The Animated Series_ is coming to Blu-ray! Get your pre-order below. Every single episode and the two movies, lovingly remastered for HD. It's why I recently reviewed SubZero for the thread.

https://www.amazon.com/Batman-The-Complete-Animated-Series-Blu-ray/dp/B07FPRXFJ1


----------



## JNayAV

Today is street date for Ready Player One in US, think it'll be a Tier 0 contender long as didn't mess anything up during transfer.
Picking up my UHD steelbook copy up after work.


----------



## DarthDoxie

JNayAV said:


> Today is street date for Ready Player One in US, think it'll be a Tier 0 contender long as didn't mess anything up during transfer.
> Picking up my UHD steelbook copy up after work.



Looking forward to this one but waiting for the price to drop a bit.


----------



## dla26

Phantom Stranger said:


> Many of us have been out on an island so to speak about certain discs before.


I'll admit it. I really didn't think the PQ for Pacific Rim UHD was very good at all. It looked like lots of black crush throughout. Maybe there was some ambient light getting into my HT? I'll need to watch it again under better conditions.


----------



## AmerCa

*300: Rise Of An Empire (Warner - 2014)*










This is a highly stylized film that follows the footprints of the original movie to the tee. If you liked the look of the original you're definitely _love _the look of the follow-up. It's been a while since I watched *300, *but it's my impression this BD looks even better. The amounts of detail are often impressive, while contrast -within the limited color palette, that is- make the picture "pop out", while depth is almost three-dimensional at times (well, there's actually a 3D version of the film, but this one has a good amount of the 3D factor). The picture is not always as pristine or sharp as I'd like, but this BD is definitely a visual spectacle, a beauty to behold, and in that respect, much superior to *The Great Wall*, a movie that is fresh in my mind and I couldn't help but to compare it to, but whose PQ was kind of a disappointment.

This disc dazzles just by its visual grandiosity alone, but let me say some hyperbolic words about the audio track. If there was a SQ Tier thread, I'd put this track at #1 of reference, and top ten at the very least for sure. 

Since upgrading my system, no audio mix has pushed my system to its limits like this one. For me, this is the track to test all audio systems. And it's all the more impressive since there are no gunshots, plane crashed, explosions, car chases, robots transforming, and other things where usually give audio mixes the chance to shine. Do you have a surround system? This track won't let you forget. Surrounds are an extension of the front stage, usually playing demanding elements on par with the fronts and center. Like you can see on my signature, I have a mismatched system that include a pair of Micca's for surrounds. 99% of the time, they're good for what they're usually asked to do, but in this case, I could hear they couldn't keep up with my fronts, as the overall sound mayhem got more cacophonous than defined, at times being simply a muddy mess. Luckily for me, most of the time they hold up reasonably well.

The Junkie XL score is bonkers, demanding a good deal from all your speakers. Containing several orchestral and exotic elements, it offers you system a wide array of sounds to reproduce in terms of pitch and instrumentation. But there's always something else. The mix is incredibly complex and rich. Thunders, sea waves, swords clashing, troops running, fire, animals, ambient noise, this audio tracks get you in the middle of the battle and world of this ancient battles, and this complexity and richness is present almost at all times, engulfing you like a tsunami. And there's dynamics too!! It's not all mayhem, as there's room for subtlety and calm, if only for short periods. This audio track is AMAZING.

If there's is truth to the expression that some discs are worthy only for the audiovisual experience, this BD would be the primary evidence.

But of course, I ABSOLUTELY LOVED THIS MOVIE!! In my humble opinion, superior to the visionary Snyder original film.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5 *
*
Tier Recommendation (Audio track): 0 (#1 )* 

*Djoberg's *review (1.0): https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-722.html#post25717937



> If you're craving to see a Blu with mesmerizing DETAILS, you can't get much better than this! Whether it's facial details, hair, coats of armor, rocky coasts, ships, etc. the details are simply amazing! Add to that some incredible DEPTH, accurate FLESH TONES, superb CONTRAST, beautiful PRIMARY COLORS (though limited, they really shine against a rather muted background), and insane SHARPNESS/CLARITY in the majority of scenes.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^

Good review AmerCa! We would probably be on the same page if I were to watch it again (it's been 4 years, which is quite long considering the remarkable advancements in PQ).


----------



## djoberg

*Ready Player One (UHD)*

We had an emergency and had to come home last night, so I was able to watch the copy of _Ready Player One_ which arrived while I was gone. The short of it is this:;

The movie was a LETDOWN.
The PQ was EXCELLENT!
The AQ was the real WINNER!!!

PQ-wise, I was very impressed with details in "The Oasis," even more so than in the real world. Colors were also topnotch "in there" but in the real world they were quite drab (thanks to some heavy-handed color-grading...in TEAL). Black levels were mesmerizing, as were shadow details. This film was, as you can imagine, filled with CGI and this was a mixed bag. It would be amazingly sharp and detailed one minute, and soft and lacking detail the next. Thankfully the majority of it was razor-sharp.

Again, the audio mix was FANTASTIC!! I couldn't resist turning it to Reference Level during action scenes and the precision of the Dolby Atmos "object-based" sound was surreal! The LFE/bass was also incredible, with explosions sending waves of energy across my room!!

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.75)*

PS I almost went with 1.0 and I would have no argument with those who opt for that placement.


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> *Dunkirk (UHD)...Revisited*
> 
> After all the talk about _Dunkirk_ I decided to watch it again tonight. I really do love this movie! Though it's not your typical war movie with character development and a bit of romance/humor, this achieved what it accomplished....to show what raw, human emotion can accomplish in the face of a relentless enemy who seemed posed to deliver a humiliating defeat to nearly 400,000 soldiers. I was simply amazed at the unbelievable rescue of those men, courtesy of dozens and dozens of nonmilitary vessels and the brave civilians who manned them.
> 
> I was also reminded at just how stunning this looks with stellar details and depth throughout its 100 minute running time. It was BETTER than what I had remembered!! Except for a couple of scenes with faltering blacks they were deep and inky with finely-rendered shadow details. The only thing keeping this from the "Top Ten" in Tier Blu was the drab color palette, the aforementioned blacks and a few fleeting soft shots. I am going to raise my former recommendation of Tier 0 (.75) to....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (.5)*
> 
> PS I kept my Denon AVR set to -7.5 and at times I almost turned it down...that's how LOUD this mix is. I do have one big beef though; you could hardly hear the dialogue in MANY scenes.



Nice of you to re-review Dunkirk! I still don't understand the 'drab colour palette' comment at all. But those blacks were awfully disappointing. Doesn't matter that much to me as they make up probably 5% of the movie, the remaining 95% we were presented with was straight out showroom demo material in my opinion! 

The sound is amazing too. the dynamic range is incredibly although the movie is very loud.


----------



## SnellTHX

Heard many good things about Ready Player One's image quality. it looked superb in the cinema. Will have to check out


----------



## Kool-aid23

djoberg said:


> *Ready Player One (UHD)*
> 
> We had an emergency and had to come home last night...


 I hope everything is well with you and your family.


Respects,


Thanks for sharing


----------



## djoberg

Kool-aid23 said:


> I hope everything is well with you and your family.
> 
> 
> Respects,
> 
> 
> Thanks for sharing


Thanks so much for your post. All is well with our family. We have learned that adversity can be a blessing in disguise.


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> Nice of you to re-review Dunkirk! *I still don't understand the 'drab colour palette' comment at all*.


Except for a few scenes (like the opening scene where men are walking through the streets and the last scene where the plane is flying over rooftops of Dunkirk), the colors were purposely MUTED (drained of primary colors). This is usually the case with war movies (such as _Fury_ and _Saving Private Ryan_).


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> *Ready Player One (UHD)*
> 
> We had an emergency and had to come home last night, so I was able to watch the copy of _Ready Player One_ which arrived while I was gone. The short of it is this:;
> 
> The movie was a LETDOWN.
> The PQ was EXCELLENT!
> The AQ was the real WINNER!!!
> 
> PQ-wise, I was very impressed with details in "The Oasis," even more so than in the real world. Colors were also topnotch "in there" but in the real world they were quite drab (thanks to some heavy-handed color-grading...in TEAL). Black levels were mesmerizing, as were shadow details. This film was, as you can imagine, filled with CGI and this was a mixed bag. It would be amazingly sharp and detailed one minute, and soft and lacking detail the next. Thankfully the majority of it was razor-sharp.
> 
> Again, the audio mix was FANTASTIC!! I couldn't resist turning it to Reference Level during action scenes and the precision of the Dolby Atmos "object-based" sound was surreal! The LFE/bass was also incredible, with explosions sending waves of energy across my room!!
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.75)*
> 
> PS I almost went with 1.0 and I would have no argument with those who opt for that placement.


 I expected a little more from Ready Player One's PQ. Don't be afraid to put a UHD in Tier One or below. I assume we will eventually see a Tier 2 UHD.


*Haruka Nogizaka's Secret*


recommendation: *Tier 3.5**


Discotek Media couldn't really do much more with this 2008 anime. The animation wasn't produced at 1080P resolution and so its limitations are quite apparent on Blu-ray. This is a serviceable presentation with a steady AVC encode, which doesn't introduce technical problems into the satisfactory HDCAM transfer.


----------



## AmerCa

*The Magnificent Seven (2016 - Sony)*










Competent transfer, in line with what you would expect from a modern blockbuster. It gets the job done, but there's nothing particularly remarkable about this disc. Decent clarity, enough detail, shadow details are fine, colors are good for what is presented on screen, that's it. I considered lowering this to tier two, but the overall video presentation is worthy of demo tier, but towards the end.

The original film is one of my mom's favorite films, so expectations were very low regarding this one. It's one of those films that are probably better left alone. The remake was surprisingly a very effective and enjoyable film, and that's probably due to two things: director Antoine Fuqua and Denzel Washington. A very good film that unfortunately doesn't leave much of a mark, despite the updated action sequences and solid audio track.
*
Tier Recommendation: 1.75

**Djoberg's *review (tier 0, 0.85): https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-786.html#post49249089

And says about the UHD:




> PS The UHD/HDR would be near the very top if not for the poor blacks in several scenes. It would easily land in the middle of Tier Blu.




*Doxies's *(UHD, tier 0, 0.75): https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...31878.html?highlight=magnificent#post55931878


----------



## AmerCa

*A Nightmare On Elm Street (2010 - New Line/Warner)









*
Another good-looking disc that gets the job done, but at least is more consistent in the PQ department. Clarity and detail are pretty good, black levels and shadow details appeared strong in my display, and colors were good for the intended visual look. A satisfying release that lacks the extra push to put it along the "big boys".

This is the second remake I watched back-to-back, and neither seemed necessary. *The Magnificent Seven* at least injected some new fresh air into a very old movie, but this Freddy Krueger re-invention feels completely redundant. However it delivers the scares thanks to a powerful audio track, and manages to keep your attention through the whole movie, even with the, in my opinion, laughable "spin" to the Krueger character.

Usually these "scary" movies doesn't scare me at all, but I'm discovering the powerful effect of an well-done, immersive and loud audio track in a home theater environment. Against my will I found myself sweating in various scenes, just because I knew the damn audio track was going to assault my senses. This also happened while watching *Anabelle*, which I need to re-watch again, because I forgot my impressions about it, PQ-wise. It's incredible how fast impressions fade away.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*


----------



## AmerCa

*Dreamcatcher (2003 - Warner)*










This is relatively an old film, but I just found out the BD was released in the US until 2014. That would explain why the movie, while old, has a relatively impressive, clean, eye-pleasing transfer. Of course, it can't keep up with modern releases, but I was surprised how "tight" the PQ was. If there were artifacts present, they weren't very distracting, and I can only think the transfer present on this disc should be a very accurate representation of the original master. Warner did an excellent job here.

Based on a Stephen King book, I've always had a soft spot for this movie. It has enough twists and turns to keep you interested and off-guard, but at the same time it's constructed around a simple, heartfelt story. It may not be one of King's most well-known stories, but this movie is a pretty good one. Scary, fun, entertaining, interesting.

As a side note, the audio tracks is very solid as well. It had more presence and weight than I expected.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> I expected a little more from Ready Player One's PQ.


I was too! I had ready many glowing reviews so I was fully expecting to be treated to perhaps a middle to top Tier Blu viewing. But as I say in my review, many of the scenes in the "real world" were so drab and details weren't always topnotch. It also came across as a bit too "grainy" at times.

I will be viewing it again later next week (we are leaving again for a wedding in Minneapolis in a few hours and won't be home until Monday). If I was a bit too harsh I will be sure to weigh in again. Regarding "not being afraid to give a UHD a Tier 1 rating"; I have become much more strict in my placements and won't hesitant for a second to do so. My "most generous rater" days ended long ago!


----------



## djoberg

I saw this on Blu-ray when it was released but I have no recollection of where I placed it. You say it was released in 2014 so I'm surprised my review didn't come up in my search. I sure wish they had not screwed up the Search Engine on this site, for we should be able to view ALL of the former reviews no matter how far back they go. If memory serves me I did like the movie.



AmerCa said:


> *Dreamcatcher (2003 - Warner)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is relatively an old film, but I just found out the BD was released in the US until 2014. That would explain why the movie, while old, has a relatively impressive, clean, eye-pleasing transfer. Of course, it can't keep up with modern releases, but I was surprised how "tight" the PQ was. If there were artifacts present, they weren't very distracting, and I can only think the transfer present on this disc should be a very accurate representation of the original master. Warner did an excellent job here.
> 
> Based on a Stephen King book, I've always had a soft spot for this movie. It has enough twists and turns to keep you interested and off-guard, but at the same time it's constructed around a simple, heartfelt story. It may not be one of King's most well-known stories, but this movie is a pretty good one. Scary, fun, entertaining, interesting.
> 
> As a side note, the audio tracks is very solid as well. It had more presence and weight than I expected.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.25*


----------



## diceburna

Hi All,
Just wondering if there is an updated PQ tier list floating around here?


----------



## hdtv316

Hi Friends,

This is Lgans316. Think I forgot both email id and password for my old login, so created a new id. In 2 weeks time I will have a 65" LG C8 OLED. I look forward to watching my huge 4K UHD collection and posting my impressions. 

Special thank to Phantom, Denny, other old timers and new comers for keeping this thread active. 

Wondering if there should be a separate tier thread for 4K UHD.

Have anyone heard from Rob Tomlin,Xylon and Patrick? 

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk


----------



## AmerCa

djoberg said:


> I saw this on Blu-ray when it was released but I have no recollection of where I placed it. You say it was released in 2014 so I'm surprised my review didn't come up in my search. I sure wish they had not screwed up the Search Engine on this site, for we should be able to view ALL of the former reviews no matter how far back they go. If memory serves me I did like the movie.


I didn't search for any reviews when I posted mine. I did a quick search now, and your review doesn't show up. I was going by the release day on blu-ray.com, but maybe there was an earlier release. A 2014 release date seems too late.

Regarding the * Ready Player One* PQ, MrGrey over at the bass thread made a comparison between the UHD and the 1080p, and stated the BD was trash, with a very low bitrate which was highly compressed and showed very visible artifacts. It's sad to read the UHD isn't really that much better.

Or maybe we're getting too much picky around here.


----------



## AmerCa

diceburna said:


> Hi All,
> Just wondering if there is an updated PQ tier list floating around here?


No, there isn't any. Phantom has already stated he's working on an update, and whenever it's ready, he'll let us know. The last update of the list is always linked in his signature.


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> I didn't search for any reviews when I posted mine. I did a quick search now, and your review doesn't show up. I was going by the release day on blu-ray.com, but maybe there was an earlier release. A 2014 release date seems too late.
> 
> Regarding the * Ready Player One* PQ, MrGrey over at the bass thread made a comparison between the UHD and the 1080p, and stated the BD was trash, with a very low bitrate which was highly compressed and showed very visible artifacts. It's sad to read the UHD isn't really that much better.
> 
> Or maybe we're getting too much picky around here.


In fairness to the UHD I did give it a respectable Tier 0 placement. So, in truth it IS that much better than the 1080p version. Again, I will be giving it another viewing when I get back from Minneapolis and I may end up bumping it up a notch.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

AmerCa said:


> Usually these "scary" movies doesn't scare me at all, but I'm discovering the powerful effect of an well-done, immersive and loud audio track in a home theater environment. Against my will I found myself sweating in various scenes, just because I knew the damn audio track was going to assault my senses. This also happened while watching *Anabelle*, which I need to re-watch again, because I forgot my impressions about it, PQ-wise. It's incredible how fast impressions fade away.


 I completely agree on _Annabelle's_ surround mix. The atmospheric sound design is great at pushing the listener where the movie wants to go for a scary good time. Check out _The Conjuring_ if you get the chance. It has a similarly effective surround mix for horror and is even more active.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

hdtv316 said:


> Hi Friends,
> 
> This is Lgans316. Think I forgot both email id and password for my old login, so created a new id. In 2 weeks time I will have a 65" LG C8 OLED. I look forward to watching my huge 4K UHD collection and posting my impressions.
> 
> Special thank to Phantom, Denny, other old timers and new comers for keeping this thread active.
> 
> Wondering if there should be a separate tier thread for 4K UHD.
> 
> Have anyone heard from Rob Tomlin,Xylon and Patrick?
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk


At the present time we are maintaining one thread and a single PQ Tiers for both UHDs and BDs. So you have come to the right place, old-timer. I'm sure you will enjoy your new LG display.
None of the members you mentioned have shown up in these parts in a long time. Some of the regular users from back in the day (geekyglassesgirl, Hugh, and others) occasionally pop into the thread and give us updates on their lives. If you click on a member's AVS page, it will tell you the last time they logged into the forum. It appears some of the older regulars have drifted away from even using AVSforum, much less this thread.


However, we have a strong bunch of new contributors keeping grizzled vets like djoberg and myself on our toes.


----------



## AmerCa

Phantom Stranger said:


> I completely agree on _Annabelle's_ surround mix. The atmospheric sound design is great at pushing the listener where the movie wants to go for a scary good time. Check out _The Conjuring_ if you get the chance. It has a similarly effective surround mix for horror and is even more active.


Oh, man. _The Conjuring _ must be brutal. I watched it through the small screen of tablet, and with headphones, and the movie managed to give me some serious jump scares. I already got part two, I'm just waiting for a good deal on the first one. Excellent recommendation.

Now that you mention _The Conjuring_, I remember an anecdote I read (probably on the bass thread) of someone who watched the movie with his GF with his newly bought shiny subs, and she got so terrified that now she refuses to watch any more horror movies in his HT. I'm probably going to suffer the same fate, and I'll be condemned to watch horror movies completely alone...forever!!

PS: _ Annabelle_ sound mix was indeed pretty spot on. I'm going to hunt the follow-up (or prequel?), which is said to be pretty good.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> I completely agree on _Annabelle's_ surround mix. The atmospheric sound design is great at pushing the listener where the movie wants to go for a scary good time. Check out _The Conjuring_ if you get the chance. It has a similarly effective surround mix for horror and is even more active.


I thought I would chime in with a link to my review on this title.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-750.html#post33731361

It's funny you mentioned _The Conjuring_, for I just ordered the Blu-ray from Amazon and it should arrive on Tuesday. It is definitely one of my favorite horror movies and the audio mix is second-to-none!


----------



## SnellTHX

*Darkest Hour*

1080p version lots of clarity and plenty detail in every shot. Filmed in 16:9 which I always have a soft spot for. Very sharp 2K image and the black levels are to die for. There's many dark scenes so you'll get to see inky black levels a lot. 



*Tier recommendation: 1.25*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^

Hey Snell,

We were "almost" on the same page, for I gave it a 1.5 rating. I did NOT have the same viewing experience with the black levels. They were phenomenal at times, but in soft shots they did falter. Perhaps our different displays made the difference, for your OLED would definitely be better in that department (unless the source was the culprit, but then you too would notice the blacks becoming a bit murky).


----------



## djoberg

hdtv316 said:


> Hi Friends,
> 
> This is Lgans316. Think I forgot both email id and password for my old login, so created a new id. In 2 weeks time I will have a 65" LG C8 OLED. I look forward to watching my huge 4K UHD collection and posting my impressions.
> 
> Special thank to Phantom, Denny, other old timers and new comers for keeping this thread active.
> 
> Wondering if there should be a separate tier thread for 4K UHD.
> 
> Have anyone heard from Rob Tomlin,Xylon and Patrick?
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk


Good to hear from you again! Just curious, but wasn't your username "*I*gans316" once upon a time? (With an "I" instead of an "L")

Rob Tomlin and I PMed each other many times through the years and at one point he simply told me he wanted to quit AVS and "enjoy other areas of life." I miss him but I completely understood his reasoning. He had spent many years as an active member here but he felt he was too consumed with AVS. He did post at least once after that but it was after the Remastering of _Lawrence of Arabia_ and he felt compelled to weigh in on what was an amazing Blu-ray. If you recall, Rob's AVATAR was the _Lawrence of Arabia_ logo (or whatever you call it) and thus I don't think a team of horses could have kept him back from making a post with high praises for its release.

I think Patrick became a bit disengaged for a number of reasons.

Hugh has dropped in occasionally; in fact he made a post recently telling us of his move to the Pacific Northwest and the new chapter in his life.

Deltasun has taken on new interests, though I know he still visits and appreciates this thread.

I truly hope you start reviewing discs again and with a new LG C8 OLED you'll have every reason to do so. It is an amazing display!


----------



## AmerCa

*Warcraft (2016 -Universal)*










_Ladies and gentleman, we're back into reference territory. Finally._

Wow. This release is spectacular! This film arguably has the most impressive CGI I've had the pleasure to witness. The amount of detail, texture, depth and realism are truly phenomenal. And taking into consideration this movie is virtually 90% CGI, this movie is closer to animation than to "live-action" movie. The vast majority of the CGI is a feast to the eye, and almost immaculate. The "real" portion of the movie that involves people and real settings are not as spectacular, but it's still consistently great, and sometimes it bedazzles with detail and textures, most notably in facial close-ups and clothing and armors. At times the level of detail and depth is so amazing that the pictures seems almost three-dimensional and "pops out" off the screen. Colors and contrast are like candy, shadow detail and back levels are almost spotless...the video presentation is almost as good as it can get.

If only the movie could maintain that level of excellence throughout its whole running time, this BD could easily be top 25, maybe top 15. There are instances where the PQ easily surpasses that of *Lucy*, but overall, I still give the nod to the later, if only because *Warcraft* finest moments are CGI-based. But that's merely nitpicking. This is a _MONSTER_ in the PQ department, not unlike the ones present in the movie.

The AQ was solid, but definitely not on the same level as the PQ. As a complete package this BD is highly recommended. This disc on an OLED or similar high level display is going to be surely quite the experience. (PS: the 4K is upscaled, but no doubt it should benefit from the HDR.)

I feel this movie didn't live up to its promise, but was nonetheless a very enjoyable film, and wouldn't mind if they did a sequel. Probably won't happen since it didn't do very well at the box office, but who knows.

*Tier Recommendation: 0* (0.5 - at the very least)*


Note:I'm surprised this disc hadn't been reviewed. At least the search function showed nothing.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 1.25**


Strong presentation all around. Colors have punch such as the floo powder scene thanks to HDR. Details are sharp with for the most part though faces don't have a wow factor (maybe it's all the young actors with smooth faces). Dumbledore and Hagrid's beards show tons of detail and look glorious. Black levels are deep and the film shows great contrast.


----------



## AmerCa

*To The Wonder (2012 -Magnolia)*










The PQ is inconsistent, and no doubt, that's what director Terrence Malick intended. I won't argue his artistic choices. The good news is that the video presentation, for the most part, is of very high quality. Clarity, detail, contrast, colors, black levels are frequently remarkable, although they lack the levels required to be truly an excellent presentation. And it's not that the movie lack the chances to display such strengths, but I doubt Malick is concerned in the slightest in delivering the best-possibly-looking BD on the market. This disc deserves to be on anyone's demo shelf, but I small part inside me wishes the PQ matched the gorgeous visuals to the fullest. I remember giving Malick's *The New World* a 1.5 placement, and this one is just a little behind.

The above comment may sound like I'm somewhat disappointed with the PQ, but it's not like that. It's more like I'm completely OVERWHELMED by the incredibly beauty of Lubezki's cinematography, which is absolute poetry. Even if the picture wasn't always as pristine as I would've liked, I was enraptured by the incredible visuals on display. I think most of Lubezki's oscars are fruit of his collaborations with Gonzalez Iñarritu, but in my opinion, Lubezki's is at his best when paired with Malick's genius. These two complement and understand each other extraordinarily, and their collaborative works are pieces of cinema of incredible beauty and depth.

This film is hard to explain and describe, but I'm sure that's not the point of it. I'm not going to even try. All I can say is that I was completely floored and moved by the time the credits started to roll off.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*

Note: Again, the search function was of no use for this disc. Apparently, "wonder" is such a common word the the engine would not bother.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Darjeeling Limited, The (Criterion)*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

I'll get right to the point: poor contrast. Blacks are elevated and much of the time colors lack punch, too bad because there are lots of colorful things to look at being set in India. Lots of quirky props and decorations being a Wes Anderson film as well so the poor contrast is disappointing. When the contrast is dialed in, oh boy, this is a real looker with lots of color and deep blacks. There is a bit of an orange and teal push though. Details are good but not great, some scenes are on the soft side.


----------



## AmerCa

*The Maze Runner (2014 - Fox)*










The usual suspects are back, color grading and muted colors. The picture doesn't shine as it should because of the unnatural, opaque color grading, which are surely to complement the dreadful surroundings, but the movie still displays a healthy amount of clarity and detail, which makes up for a very pleasant visual experience. The greenish tone of the picture resulted in irregular lack levels in my display, but they were nonetheless very solid, and displays with better black levels will surely yield more satisfactory results. I didn't notice any distracting artifacts, and the picture was grain-free. In short, this BD exhibits a pretty solid PQ, but gets midway to a truly great video presentation.

Surprise, surprise. The star of the show here is _again_, the audio track, which is truly fantastic. From the very first scene this track establishes its presence and early announces a great ride. The first time we're introduced to the Maze's entrance, it's like _"What the heeeeellllll...."_. Those having a subwoofer are sure for a serious thrill. I don't even one and my chair was shaking. Truly great stuff.

What I'm gonna say is kinda obvious, but it cannot be overstated enough. Not very long ago I watched this movie on TV thorough its speakers. The jump from SD to FHD isn't comparable to the jump from crappy audio through cheap speakers to a powerful lossless track through some decent setup. It's simply another world, it just adds another whole dimension to the experience. Like Djoberg once said, we're very lucky to have dedicated systems for this hobby, -budget or high-end.

This movie was even better than I remembered (yes, with a little push from the amazing audio). It's one of those teenager-oriented movies, but this one actually has an interesting and smart story which keeps you engaged and at the edge of your seat. 

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*

*Djoberg's* review (1.5): https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-743.html#post31696497

*fredxr* (1.0): https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...71858.html?highlight=Maze+runner#post30871858


----------



## AmerCa

*Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials (2015 - Fox)*










This disc presents quite a remarkable jump in PQ from the first installment. Gone is the forced color-grading, and the picture displays a much natural color tone that allows for much more visually appealing video presentation. Clarity is fantastic, and so are details and facial close-ups. Colors are more vibrant, even when the picture doesn't feature a wide array of colors due to the settings. Black levels are stronger and so are shadow details. Seeing these movies back-to-back only made the jump in PQ all the more impressive. This movie is totally a looker, although in my opinion it comes a bit shy of reaching reference heights. Still, this BD doesn't disappoint at all.

The AQ is still fantastic, although a little less impressive than the first one. At times it was impactful, dynamic and immersive, and at other times it left something to be desired. I surely had to bump the master volume a few DB to make this mix to come alive.

The first movie was pretty good, and this one was on the same level, and sometimes it reached higher peaks. The "downside" of the sequel is that you really need to have watched the first movie to get the most out of it. It doesn't really work as a stand-alone film. Other than that, this one was even darker than the first, and nicely surprised me with a more serious, even dangerous tone. I have yet to see the final installment, but the trilogy is heading to a very exciting conclusion. I have my doubts this series was going to be worth watching (and owning), and now I can't wait to rewatch them, especially when I get part three.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0*

*Djoberg's* review (1.75) (Wait, what??): https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-765.html#post39969826



> I was a bit disappointed with the 2nd installment in this series. I had rated The Maze Runner 1.5 but I do believe this warrants at least a notch lower.


Djoberg, noooo!


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> *Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials (2015 - Fox)*
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.0*
> 
> *Djoberg's* review (1.75) (Wait, what??): https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-765.html#post39969826
> 
> Djoberg, noooo!


I, like you, "call them the way I see them." 

You have peaked my curiosity though and I may just have to slip this disc in again and see if I have the same impressions. I actually doubt that I will change my mind, for as my review said there were a lot of SOFT SHOTS.


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> *Maze Runner: The Scorch Trials (2015 - Fox)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This disc presents quite a remarkable jump in PQ from the first installment. *Gone is the forced color-grading*, and the picture displays a much natural color tone that allows for much more visually appealing video presentation. *Colors are more vibrant*, even when the picture doesn't feature a wide array of colors due to the settings.


It almost sounds like we watched two different versions of this movie, for as I said in my review, the same egregious color-grading is present (you say that it's GONE!) and the color palette is drab (you say they are VIBRANT).


----------



## AmerCa

djoberg said:


> It almost sounds like we watched two different versions of this movie, for as I said in my review, the same egregious color-grading is present (you say that it's GONE!) and the color palette is drab (you say they are VIBRANT).


That's fair enough. There's actually indeed some color-grading, I just felt it was less intrusive and allowed the picture to have a more natural look. The color palette is limited, but I do feel the picture was vibrant. Maybe the word "vibrant" can be a little nebulous, I mean with it that clarity was striking and allowed the picture to reveal and present all its virtues cleanly to the viewer. I don't necessarily mean there were many shiny primary colors, or that the color palette was very wide. Compared to the first one, it was immediately apparent to me the PQ was superior without a doubt.

The soft shots you're referring to are probably directed to the CGI-heavy scenes, which I concede they're weren't the sharpest, but they didn't bother me that much. Like Phantom recently commented, sometimes it's a matter of valuing certain things over others.

We can agree to disagree on this one. But it's not a bad idea to pop in the disc again, and the first one while you're at it, because they're pretty good movies.  With your dual SVS subs I'm sure the audio experience should also be BRUTAL.

I see you also reviewed the last one, I need to catch up.


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> I see you also reviewed the last one, I need to catch up.


And did you see where I placed it? I went up a whole Tier to Tier 0 (.66) on this one, so you really have something to look forward to!!!

Now watch....you'll probably find the PQ WORSE than the others!


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 1.25**

Nice level of detail throughout. Black levels are strong in the many night scenes in the school and the robes. Bright highlights look excellent in HDR such as the illuminated wands and especially Harry's patronus charms. Contrast is good and flesh tones look pretty good. Colors are disappointing though with much of the movie having an intended dull look. This is where the series took a turn for the dark side both in tone and look but I remember the next one being more colorful.


----------



## djoberg

*Rampage (1080p)*

Well, I had time to watch one more Blu before leaving on our trip. In perusing titles on Redbox very few new releases were in HD, so I opted for _Rampage_. The movie itself had mixed reviews....mostly bad....but I found it to be a good popcorn flick with plenty of action and no need to put on my thinking cap! 

Overall I was impressed with the PQ, for in shots with good lighting (outdoors or interior shots) the clarity was topnotch with razor-sharp details (facial textures were especially pleasing, as were the shots of George's fur). Flesh tones were spot on, contrast was strong, depth could be close to 3D, and black levels were deep and inky. There were a couple of shots where shadow details faltered, but that was the exception to the rule. The only real downside throughout its 95 minute running time was SOFTNESS, most notably in heavy action scenes. Along with the softness details were less refined in George, the wolf and the crocodile.

Before I place this I have to give a huge shout out for the stellar Dolby Atmos mix. The surrounds were going crazy at times with excellent precision; the dialogue was always intelligible; the overhead channels were amazing; and last, but not least, the LFE/bass was INSANE. When creatures roared I could literally feel the energy passing over me...amazingly it was knocking down buildings but my chair remained intact! 

Oh, and it was cool watching the Rock and Jeffrey Dean Morgan interact initially (Morgan was reprising his role as Negan...from _The Walking Dead_, minus the baseball bat...Lucille!!). The action was over the top but I enjoyed it.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.75)*

PS I understand the UHD version fared much better in the heavy CGI scenes, so that may go up a notch or two in Tier 0.


----------



## AmerCa

^^^^^^^^^

Oh, man. Between this and *Ready Player One* I'm splitting my hairs. I'm very close to pulling the trigger with these two, especially for * Rampage*, whose steelbook looks very cool and it's at a relatively good price right now. I'd just rather wait for a price drop, but reviews like yours make the wait all the more difficult.

It doesn't help that I've been buying many movies recently, and I really need to slow down.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

AmerCa said:


> ^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Oh, man. Between this and *Ready Player One* I'm splitting my hairs. I'm very close to pulling the trigger with these two, especially for * Rampage*, whose steelbook looks very cool and it's at a relatively good price right now. I'd just rather wait for a price drop, but reviews like yours make the wait all the more difficult.
> 
> It doesn't help that I've been buying many movies recently, and I really need to slow down.


Rampage is one of those movies that will be very cheap by the Christmas shopping season.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> Rampage is one of those movies that will be very cheap by the Christmas shopping season.


If the UHD version is a steal at that time I will get it. The PQ/AQ alone is worth having it, and I for one was entertained throughout. I really do like "The Rock" in most movies I've seen him in, including this one. I wish I could say that about some of the "supporting actors" in this movie.


----------



## djoberg

My copy of _The Conjuring_ arrived this week but "guess what?" As I was putting it away in my rather large Blu-ray library I noticed I ALREADY OWN IT!! I think I'll give one to my sister who is an avid fan of the horror genre.


----------



## AmerCa

djoberg said:


> My copy of _The Conjuring_ arrived this week but "guess what?" As I was putting it away in my rather large Blu-ray library I noticed I ALREADY OWN IT!! I think I'll give one to my sister who is an avid fan of the horror genre.


Lol! That was funny and unexpected. You must have been thinking: _"Oh, man! *The Conjuring *is one of my favorite horror movies. I need to own it! But...wait. I already have it?" 

_It's a nice thing you have people you can give it as a present. My sister is too an avid horror fan, but she's stuck on DVDs, and actually she prefers Netflix-ying movies. I'm actually trying to lure her into watching a horror movie with me in my HT. I don't think she's prepared for the audio onslaught. And wait until I have a sub...


----------



## AmerCa

Phantom Stranger said:


> Rampage is one of those movies that will be very cheap by the Christmas shopping season.


Do you think the movie, really, really sucked?  Still, it's like four/five months until "great deals" season. I'm gonna wait, anyways, because there's a good number of movies I'm eyeing.

The only way I can keep up with this hobby is finding good deals. Buying movies escalate very fast .


----------



## AmerCa

*Robocop (2014 - MGM/Fox)*










Beautiful presentation. I was surprised with the clarity and detail of this release. There were a number of sequences that made a very great use of colors and contrast, and most of the movie was pure eye candy. There are many instances where black levels were put to test, and they looked beautiful on my display. For a movie about machines, the CGI was kept to the most necessary, and it was done pretty well. The Robocop design itself was spectacular and the VFX shined with detail and depth. I found this disc to be _almost_ reference material, but came a little short. Just a little.

The audio track was spectacular from beginning to end. The shootouts sounded incredibly sexy, and the actions scenes never lacked force or immersiveness.

The original Robocop is a classic, and there's no point in comparing it to this new version. I enjoyed the remake for what it is, an amazing action movie that will keep you entertained for two hours. Even if the action scenes and VFX are the stars of the show, they managed to present quite an interesting story that was made relatable and human and that can stand on its own. Smart popcorn movie.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**

Note: Surprisingly, I didn't found any reviews for it in this thread.


----------



## AmerCa

*Side Effects (2013 - Universal)









*
Framed in a 1.85 aspect ratio, there was little room for any imperfection to hide, as the picture looked usually huge compared to the regular 2.35 AR. And I found very little to complain about. The picture was spectacularly detailed and clear, to the point of, sometimes, looking as a "window" (to borrow some Snell's expression). Details and details. Texture and details. Clarity. And again, more details. The picture is beautiful to look at. The image has a "filmic" look, with a very fine layer of grain that perhaps "prevents" the picture to be super sharp and crisp, which I confess makes the PQ somewhat difficult to assess. Black levels were pretty good, although there are not many "dark-heavy" scenes. Shadow details, thanks to the amazing clarity were more than satisfying. Now, there's some color-grading that many will find, perhaps, offensive. There's a yellow-ish tone heavily present in many parts of the movie, which gives the picture a very particular look. If you have watched Denis Villeneuve's* Enemy* you'll know what I'm talking about. Personally, it didn't bother me at all.

The PQ in here is more "artistic" and "natural" (despite the color-grading) than that of *Robocop*, which in turn looks crisper and vibrant, and give the impression of a much "modern" and impactful image. Personally, I give the nod to the latter, and thus I put *Side Effects* a little lower, without implying it has an "inferior" PQ. Hope that this makes sense. Therefore, I feel this one has "better" PQ than *The Great Wall* or* Jumanji* (2017), to provide some point of reference.

At the time believed to be the last Steven Soderbergh film, this movie starts slow, and then it traps you in its web to the very last second. The movie got split reviews, some claiming the second half of the film ruined the first one. I don't follow it, because I found the movie a single story that always kept evolving and revealing its secrets as it progressed. This movie may not be for everyone, but for those looking some something "different" or "slow-burning" and yet intelligent and suspenseful, this film is for you.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*

*PS: I hadn't noticed how beautiful Rooney Mara is.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> My copy of _The Conjuring_ arrived this week but "guess what?" As I was putting it away in my rather large Blu-ray library I noticed I ALREADY OWN IT!! I think I'll give one to my sister who is an avid fan of the horror genre.


I can neither confirm, nor deny, that happening to me once in a great while.


AmerCa said:


> Do you think the movie, really, really sucked?  Still, it's like four/five months until "great deals" season. I'm gonna wait, anyways, because there's a good number of movies I'm eyeing.
> 
> The only way I can keep up with this hobby is finding good deals. Buying movies escalate very fast .


 I was speculating on _Rampage_ given the studio and its star. The Rock's movies have been quite common sellers on Black Friday the past few years. Personally, I haven't seen the movie yet. This hobby can get very expensive very quickly, especially if you enjoy niche fare.


*Life of the Party*


recommendation: *Tier 3.0**


This is the new Melissa McCarthy comedy coming out next week from Warner. Folks, if you want to see a modern transfer and what state-of-the-art filtering looks like in 2018, look no further than this disc. Directed by her husband, the entire movie has been softened to make McCarthy look a little younger. Every scene has been defocused and smoothed. 

The only thing I can say is that the filtering's side effects have improved by leaps and bounds since this thread first started. If you don't know what McCarthy looks like without the processing, you may just believe she has exceptionally young-looking skin for her age. Fine detail in close-ups is obviously diminished. Otherwise, the PQ has solid clarity in cleanly-filmed HD.


----------



## SnellTHX

AmerCa said:


> The picture was spectacularly detailed and clear, to the point of, sometimes, looking as a "window" (to borrow some Snell's expression). p


Sometimes there's just no better way of describing an awesome looking 4K, screen filling 1.85:1 scene than looking out your own window! That's the feeling only Nolan's IMAX15/70 movies and Transformers 5 / Pacific Rim have given me. (+ some Netflix 4K/HDR/Dolby Vision series like Marco Polo, Lost in Space, Altered Carbon)


----------



## SnellTHX

*Rampage*


Djoberg's first paragraph sums this review up pretty well. The amount of details in the sharp presentation is abundant; especially in the outdoor, bright scenes and in particular the facial close ups and George's fur. Unfortunately I found the interior shots / dark scenes to be very bland and almost 'generic' looking. I wasn't impressed for half the movie but the other half I thought looked really good. Very filmic like picture quality which I found slightly inferior to e.g. Jumanji (Using this as a reference since both feature Dwayne Johnson's face) which was even more razor-sharp and cleaner / more defined. 


Great action flick though

*
Tier recommendation: 1.25*


----------



## SnellTHX

Also, if Side Effects has "better picture quality" than Jumanji and The Great Wall, the former of which I gave a tier 1 rating and the latter I believe I awarded with a Tier 0 (.75 or something?) rating, then its definitely going on my list of movies to pick up! If not being compared to the reference-looking Great Wall movie it would easily have snuck under my radar.


----------



## AmerCa

SnellTHX said:


> Also, if Side Effects has "better picture quality" than Jumanji and The Great Wall, the former of which I gave a tier 1 rating and the latter I believe I awarded with a Tier 0 (.75 or something?) rating, then its definitely going on my list of movies to pick up! If not being compared to the reference-looking Great Wall movie it would easily have snuck under my radar.


Snell, that's my opinion, but I'm not sure how many people would agree with me. *Side Effects* has a very clear and detailed picture, but it looks different from the clean, digital look of _Jumanji_ or _The Great Wall_, and certainly it doesn't have the shiny and diverse color palette of the aforementioned. I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself properly.

That said, it does have a great PQ, and it's solid movie. If you watch it, please share your thoughts.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, The (Criterion)*

recommendation: *Tier 1.75**

Sharp photography, details in fabrics, hair, and faces are good. Colors are nice and bright, the many primaries pop; has orange and teal color grading though. Contrast is strong with deep blacks in the many night scenes and other black objects and textures.


----------



## SnellTHX

AmerCa said:


> Snell, that's my opinion, but I'm not sure how many people would agree with me. *Side Effects* has a very clear and detailed picture, but it looks different from the clean, digital look of _Jumanji_ or _The Great Wall_, and certainly it doesn't have the shiny and diverse color palette of the aforementioned. I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself properly.
> 
> That said, it does have a great PQ, and it's solid movie. If you watch it, please share your thoughts.


Yeah I understand. I love the comparisons with other movies! Gives a point of reference.


----------



## SnellTHX

I just saw Mission Impossible: Fallout in the cinema, which is Norway's new flagship IMAX (dual laser, 3D, 25x15m screen). I don't think I've ever seen a worse looking movie in the cinema. I don't really compare or "review" movies' picture quality in the cinema A) Because I am not in full control, B ) I have lower expectations for black levels etc and C) I find that 'everything' looks good in the cinema.

Well not this movie!! Soooo much noise, sooo much grain the image was incredibly muddy. I watched Ant-man in the same theatre last week and that looked amazing. Avengers: IW was a truly mind blowing experience and the visuals (Note: 3D) was to die for. But MI:F just plain awful.

I'm used to seeing movies with phenomenal picture quality in the cinema only to then get the blu-ray and be disappointed, but here the movie was bad from the start.



The ONLY part that looked good was the helicopter scenes and that to me looked absolutely fantastic! These scenes filled out the entire 1.90:1 25x15m screen and had fantastic picture quality.


----------



## AmerCa

SnellTHX said:


> I'm used to seeing movies with phenomenal picture quality in the cinema only to then get the blu-ray and be disappointed, but here the movie was bad from the start.


That's sad to hear. I had been reading only great things about this movie in all departments. If you had such an experience in a "premium" cinema, I don't know what to expect from a "regular" one. It's said to be one of the best MI movies, so if the audio doesn't disappoint, there may be still reasons to get this one on disc.

I remember reviewing *Ghost Protocol *not long ago, and gave it a reasonable placing, but nothing too special, with exception of some scenes in Dubai, I think.


----------



## meli

SnellTHX said:


> I just saw Mission Impossible: Fallout in the cinema.... I don't think I've ever seen a worse looking movie in the cinema...
> The ONLY part that looked good was the helicopter scenes and that to me looked absolutely fantastic! These scenes filled out the entire 1.90:1 25x15m screen and had fantastic picture quality.



I believe all of MI: Fallout was shot on 35mm, except for some of the aerial scenes. Maybe something went wrong in the film chain. Or maybe you prefer the look of digital footage to film. 

I saw “Fallout” in a Dolby Cinema and thought it didn’t look very good. There was some sort of artifacting in some of the blacks.


----------



## SnellTHX

meli said:


> I believe all of MI: Fallout was shot on 35mm, except for some of the aerial scenes. Maybe something went wrong in the film chain. Or maybe you prefer the look of digital footage to film.
> 
> I saw “Fallout” in a Dolby Cinema and thought it didn’t look very good. There was some sort of artifacting in some of the blacks.


I do have a history of preferring digital over 35mm (but IMAX 15/70mm over ANYTHING digital however) and I am against film grain in most movies.


But MI:F was really bad. some scenes were so blurred I could barely tell if I was looking at Tom Cruise's face or Tom Hardy's...


----------



## SnellTHX

AmerCa said:


> That's sad to hear. I had been reading only great things about this movie in all departments. If you had such an experience in a "premium" cinema, I don't know what to expect from a "regular" one. It's said to be one of the best MI movies, so if the audio doesn't disappoint, there may be still reasons to get this one on disc.
> 
> I remember reviewing *Ghost Protocol *not long ago, and gave it a reasonable placing, but nothing too special, with exception of some scenes in Dubai, I think.


Oh the movie was superb. Really good, but PQ meeeeh.

Audio was pretty good.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Sunset Boulevard (1950)*

recommendation: *Tier 2.5**

Excellent looking film considering it's age. Clarity was average for most of the film but some scenes I would put in tier 1. Contrast was weak at times causing blacks to struggle and looking grayish. It did however have a nice layer of fine grain throughout, just lovely.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

DarthDoxie said:


> *Sunset Boulevard (1950)*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 2.5**
> 
> Excellent looking film considering it's age. Clarity was average for most of the film but some scenes I would put in tier 1. Contrast was weak at times causing blacks to struggle and looking grayish. It did however have a nice layer of fine grain throughout, just lovely.


 I'm surprised Sunset Boulevard hasn't been reviewed before for the PQ Tiers. The disc was released years ago. Thanks for always covering more than just the latest blockbusters (not that there is anything wrong with that, either).

*Affairs of State*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

This new indie thriller from Lionsgate (technically, it doesn't get released on Blu-ray until next week) was shot with the Arri Alexa. There's some definite teal added to the palette in what is otherwise unremarkable picture quality for a new production. There is some depth and definition but the clean-looking cinematography doesn't push the boundaries of sharpness or detail.

Nothing in the transfer or presentation sticks out that would lower its ranking. Affairs of State is largely driven by dialogue and only a few exterior shots really come alive with vibrant picture quality.


----------



## SnellTHX

*Predator (1987) - 4K/HDR *

I have actually never watched this masterpiece of a movie before, which happens to be significantly older than I am. So after reading Ralph Potts' review (He gave the PQ an 88/100 score) and AVforums which gave this movie 9/10 (!) I had to check it out for myself.


First of all the movie was amazing. I do not care for older films and when I watch movies that are older than myself I don't give them a soft spot for being 'classic' or whatever, I judge them for what they are with no nostalgia.

But this movie had me at the edge of my seat from start to finish! 

On to the picture quality I really don't see what Ralph and AVforums saw in this. I believe the former stated in his review that "the film grain was an artistic choice and therefore should not be criticised for it" I wholeheartedly disagree, I found the thick grain to be way to intrusive, even during the FOX logo intro...

But apart from the horrible grain the image quality had plenty of detail to it and the most impressive feature of the IQ was the perfect blacks! They were inky and as deep as can be throughout the entire show. Some of the shots looked really good, with a very clean and high detailed frame. 

At its worse this 4K remaster looked like something that belongs in the Bronze tiers but at its best I'd say it looks like upper Gold area.


So comparing the picture quality of this 31 year old movie to what we have today in 2018;

*Tier recommendation: 2.5*


----------



## AmerCa

SnellTHX said:


> But this movie had me at the edge of my seat from start to finish!


One of the greatest action movies of all time. I think I've watched it at least seven times... that's probably why I still don't own it. It's good to know the UHD is decent. Maybe I'll buy it at some point.


----------



## SnellTHX

AmerCa said:


> One of the greatest action movies of all time. I think I've watched it at least seven times... that's probably why I still don't own it. It's good to know the UHD is decent. Maybe I'll buy it at some point.


Absolutely!! I didn't even plan on watching it because I had plans for the day it was 1pm, but I thought I'd pop it in just to check the picture quality for a few minutes... I ended up watching 1 hour and 25 minutes before realising I was supposed to do errands  I think the movie is 1 hour 45 mins. And as I stated, I have zero nostalgia or appreciation for old movies, like Star Wars or the Godfather trilogies (bleeh!)

if you appreciate film grain like others have I'm sure you'll love the movies PQ!


----------



## AmerCa

SnellTHX said:


> I had plans for the day it was 1pm....


I really hope those plans didn't involve a lady...


----------



## Phantom Stranger

SnellTHX said:


> *Predator (1987) - 4K/HDR *
> 
> I have actually never watched this masterpiece of a movie before, which happens to be significantly older than I am. So after reading Ralph Potts' review (He gave the PQ an 88/100 score) and AVforums which gave this movie 9/10 (!) I had to check it out for myself.
> 
> 
> First of all the movie was amazing. I do not care for older films and when I watch movies that are older than myself I don't give them a soft spot for being 'classic' or whatever, I judge them for what they are with no nostalgia.
> 
> But this movie had me at the edge of my seat from start to finish!
> 
> *Tier recommendation: 2.5*


They don't make movies like _Predator_ anymore. Now go watch _Aliens_ if you haven't seen it yet, the best action movie ever made.


----------



## djoberg

We got home from our trip late last night. It was really good to read the posts of various films (like _Predator_) so thanks to all who posted.

I was happy to have my new copy of _The Matrix UHD_ in my mail when we arrived! The reviews on the UHD versions have been phenomenal (Ralph Potts gave the PQ/AQ a rating of 98), so I am really excited to see it. It is one of my favorites and will be replacing the HD/DVD version that I've had for many years. I believe this film is also one of the "best action movies ever made."


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 1.75**

Details are fairly strong only faltering in some of the VFX shots. Like the last installment (Prisoner of Azkaban) I felt the colors were a bit dull, could have used more pop. The duel with Harry and He Who Must Not Be Names was excellent though with bright wand flashes, HDR was really on display. The blacks and contrast could have been better, blacks were elevated at times giving some scenes a foggy look. It sounds like a lot of negatives but overall the film looks really good.


----------



## SnellTHX

Phantom Stranger said:


> They don't make movies like _Predator_ anymore. Now go watch _Aliens_ if you haven't seen it yet, the best action movie ever made.


Will do! Haven't seen Aliens either, just the first one but I can't remember its story, so I'll probably go through the entire quadrilogy again


----------



## SnellTHX

*Predator 2*


Unfortunately this movie was no where near as good as the original Predator... Which I'd give a 9/10 and the sequel a 6/10 at best.

In terms of PQ/AQ the movie isn't an upgrade of its prequel. I thought Predator 2's worst wasn't as bad as (noisy/grainy) Predator's worst, but at the same time its best wasn't up to match either. So I guess the presentation was more consistent and in line of what you can expect from a 4k remaster of a 28 year old movie. 

*
Tier recommendation: 2.5*


----------



## AmerCa

* Assault On Precinct 13 (2005 - Universal)*










A-less-than regular transfer that disappoints for the most part. I remember very few good things about it. It's one of those movies that could benefit from a remaster (probably it'll be done for the 4k). It gets the job done, and after a while you forget that this disc sometimes barely looks better than a DVD.

I haven't seen the original, but even if it was the best film ever done, there's no denial this movie is lots of fun. It's the type of movie you put when some friends come over and ask for a solid, mindless action film with lots of guns. The shootout here are outstanding, and fortunately the audio mix is up to the task.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.75*


----------



## AmerCa

*The Bourne Identity (2002 - Universal)*










I'll try to keep this short. At this point no one needs a recommendation to buy this disc based on the PQ.

The High-Def version of this movie took eight years to be released, and Universal did a pretty good job. The transfer will not disappoint those who don't own this film and are willing to give it a shot. Healthy amounts of detail, clarity and good black levels. Really nice. I don't know how the 4k looks like, but I can imagine it will be a good upgrade.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*


----------



## AmerCa

*X-Men: First Class (2011 - Fox)*










What a disappointing release. Yes, this BD had its moments, particularly towards the end, but for the most part this was a soft, lifeless visual presentation that doesn't looks like the blockbuster it really is. The disappointing look probably has to do with the heavy amount of CGI that unfortunately wasn't the best. When a movie released eight years before like *The Bourne Identity* looks better and more satisfying, you've got a problem.

It's a good thing the movie itself is pretty good.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*


----------



## DarthDoxie

AmerCa said:


> * Assault On Precinct 13 (2005 - Universal)*
> 
> A-less-than regular transfer that disappoints for the most part. I remember very few good things about it. It's one of those movies that could benefit from a remaster (probably it'll be done for the 4k). It gets the job done, and after a while you forget that this disc sometimes barely looks better than a DVD.
> 
> I haven't seen the original, but even if it was the best film ever done, there's no denial this movie is lots of fun. It's the type of movie you put when some friends come over and ask for a solid, mindless action film with lots of guns. The shootout here are outstanding, and fortunately the audio mix is up to the task.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.75*



The original is pure John Carpenter goodness and of course the score is excellent.


----------



## AmerCa

*Warm Bodies [Open Matte version] (2013 - Summit)*










_I'm reviewing the Mexican version released by Quality Films_

"Muted look" is the phrase that define this release. At times it reminded me the visual style Zack Snyder used for his DC films, although in the case of this movie the results aren't as... charming. But then again, we can't compare their budgets. The muted look complements what's presented on screen and the tone of the story. For the most part the picture is clean and has a decent amount of detail, but it very far from impressing anyone. Blacks levels and shadow detail are competent, and overall it's a pleasing presentation.

Now, the audio track is VERY disappointing. I understand this is essentially a love story, but a little more "punch" and dynamics wouldn't have hurt anyone. There are moments, especially towards the end, in which the audio mix seem to come alive, but basically this is an "un-demo" track.

I was extremely surprised by this film. I was hesitant to get a movie labeled as a romance, but the concept involving zombies and the generally solid reviews on the net encouraged me to give it a chance. And I'm glad I did it. If you can get past the sillyness of the story set-up, you will find a fantastic script and very good acting that result in a lovely, funny and intelligent film with a heart. It's the perfect movie to watch with your better half. If you have the chance to watch this, don't pass on it. It's truly a great film on its own right, and one of the most original zombie movies you'll ever find.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*


----------



## AmerCa

DarthDoxie said:


> The original is pure John Carpenter goodness and of course the score is excellent.


Then I guess I need to get on it.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^

I also enjoyed _Warm Bodies_....it had, as you said, very good acting and an excellent storyline. Not a typical "zombie movie"....which is a good thing! I can't remember what placement I gave it. I did a Search but it didn't come up.


----------



## AmerCa

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^
> 
> I also enjoyed _Warm Bodies_....it had, as you said, very good acting and an excellent storyline. Not a typical "zombie movie"....which is a good thing! I can't remember what placement I gave it. I did a Search but it didn't come up.


Nice to know you have watched it and liked it. I too made a quick search, but nothing showed up. I'll see if I can find it later, with a little more time on my hands. My eyes are closing, need to get some good sleep.


----------



## AmerCa

*Need For Speed (2014 - Disney/Buena Vista)*










I remember reading a lot of talk on this movie in this thread, and I'm sad I'm late to the party, but I needed to join in.

This is without a doubt a reference title. After the first 10 minutes I knew what my placement was going to be. Gorgeous!! I see Djoberg already wrote a very eloquent review about it, and I only can but to echo the same sentiments. The PQ here is stunning.



djoberg said:


> And then add to that some of the best PQ I've seen this year and you most definitely have a winner! Russ said I was going to love the KURO levels....uh, I mean the "BLACK levels" (wait a minute, KURO means BLACK so I was right the first time ), and he wasn't kidding. They were phenomenal! Wait until you see the nighttime scenes of San Francisco...simply AMAZING (and the panoramic views of New York City at night weren't too shabby either!).


Rest of his review (Tier zero, 0.5): https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-727.html#post26751426

This movie is two hours of pure joy. IMO, everyone should own a copy of this film. Who doesn't love amazing, beautiful cars, or the sound of engines revving and roaring like lions? Or spectacular car races with first-class stunts? And all of the above coupled with an exhilarating audio track that can make your heart pound faster than normal? I was ectastic the whole movie. I had already catched this on TV, but rewatching it on disc was like watching it for the first time. When this movie gets released in 4k with an ATMOS track, I'll definitely double dip on this one. I can imagine this movie being SO MUCH BETTER with HDR and an even more immersive audio mix.

*Tier Recommendation: 0.75*


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Isle of Dogs*

recommendation: *Tier 0* (bottom quarter)*

Comparable to *Fantastic Mr. Fox*. Details in fur and other textures are excellent. Colors are vibrant without being garish, they just look natural. Contrast and black levels are also good with lots of shadow detail, I saw no detractors in this department.


Not as entertaining as *Fantastic Mr. Fox* but still a fun movie.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

DarthDoxie said:


> *Isle of Dogs*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 0* (bottom quarter)*
> 
> Comparable to *Fantastic Mr. Fox*. Details in fur and other textures are excellent. Colors are vibrant without being garish, they just look natural. Contrast and black levels are also good with lots of shadow detail, I saw no detractors in this department.
> 
> 
> Not as entertaining as *Fantastic Mr. Fox* but still a fun movie.


This is one movie I'll definitely get around to watching at some point.


----------



## AmerCa

*The A-Team (2010 - Fox)*










For some reason, I thought this movie was older than it really is. The PQ is good albeit inconsistent, but that's all I can say about it. I wasn't disappointed, since, for some reason, I expected some kind of B movie, but the budget for this film wasn't small by any means. It gets the job done, but very little sticks out.

I expected a crappy, unnecessary version of an old TV show, and I never took this movie seriously at all. But I got this for cheap, so why not, right?

But, oh man, I had the time of my life watching this thing! I laughed like a madman the whole movie (something I rarely do, especially when I'm alone) marveled at the ridiculousness of what I was seeing, and at the same time for the boldness and ambition of this production. Some of the things that happen on this movie have to be seen to be believed. I sometimes couldn't believe it myself! The chemistry between the cast was truly fantastic, the script is smart and hilarious in equal parts and this film turned out to be a small gem. I have yet to watch the extended, unrated cut, but I have a difficult time believing it could improve in the theatrical version, but I'm up to the task.

Now, the pressing question is, WHY THE HELL JOE CARNAHAN ISN'T DIRECTING MORE ACTION MOVIES??? At some point he was supposed to write and direct _Bad Boys III_, but apparently that won't happen. He was the right guy for the job.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.5*


----------



## AmerCa

*Trance (2013 - Fox)*










I'll keep this short. PQ was inconsistent due to the stylist choices of director Danny Boyle, but when the picture was at its best, it was reference quality. Overall, a pretty good video presentation, with many eye-candy moments, which guarantees a demo tier placement.

The audio mix was much more aggressive than expected for this type of film, and many of those moments came from the awesome soundtrack that I'm sure Boyle himself curated. The man has an a great taste in music.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*


----------



## AmerCa

*Taken (2008 - Fox)*










When the director and the studio want to make things right from the beginning, the result is something like *Taken*. For a ten year old movie, it looks pretty fantastic. We know the bar has been set pretty high the past ten years, but this one has aged gracefully and hold its own against many recent releases. Quality always stands the test of time.

The audio track here is reference. It's pretty much flawless. Dynamics, immersion, impact, depth, clarity, you name it. This mix is a joy to listen to.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*


----------



## djoberg

*The Matrix (UHD)*

*WOW!!!*

This UHD release is simply AMAZING, given its age (19 years old)! Is it perfect? No, for there is some inherent SOFTNESS in some of the CGI scenes, along with some NOISE during shots with "heavy grain" and in the scene when Neo takes the red pill and is in a room with overblown contrast/whites. But thankfully these are "few and far between." In the vast majority of scenes/shots we are treated to RAZOR-SHARP CLARITY and some of the best DETAILS in a live action movie, especially facial texture. Oh, and may I say a word about the BLACK LEVELS; they are incredibly DEEP & INKY 95% of the time (in some of the soft scenes they do become a bit murky)? SHADOW DETAILS are also pure eye candy....FLESH TONES are spot-on accurate.... and DEPTH is mesmerizing at times. COLORS are muted much of the time, but when primaries are on display they are rich and vibrant.

Before I give a placement, let me say a word about the Dolby Atmos mix.....*AWESOME*!! In the many action scenes in the latter half my ears were in "AUDIO NIRVANA!" Dialogue was always intelligible in spite of whizzing bullets, falling overhead debris and helicopters, and multiple explosions with deep LFE. Reference quality all the way!

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.5)*


----------



## djoberg

*Avengers: Affinity War (1080p)*

This was another STUNNER, featuring rich/vibrant COLORS...velvety BLACKS...exemplary DETAILS...accurate FLESH TONES...superb CONTRAST and striking CLARITY throughout most of its 2 Hr. 15 Min. running time.

The audio mix was rock-solid, though I had to raise the volume considerably (true to form for an outing from Disney) in order to achieve true dynamics, especially in the low end. I found myself raising it to Reference Level for the last half hour and was gratified immensely, though I still felt that some of the LFE should have been more "earth-shattering."

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.66)*


----------



## fredxr2d2

djoberg said:


> *Avengers: Affinity War (1080p)*
> 
> This was another STUNNER, featuring rich/vibrant COLORS...velvety BLACKS...exemplary DETAILS...accurate FLESH TONES...superb CONTRAST and striking CLARITY throughout most of its 2 Hr. 15 Min. running time.
> 
> The audio mix was rock-solid, though I had to raise the volume considerably (true to form for an outing from Disney) in order to achieve true dynamics, especially in the low end. I found myself raising it to Reference Level for the last half hour and was gratified immensely, though I still felt that some of the LFE should have been more "earth-shattering."
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.66)*


I watched the 4K on my 1080p display to get the atmos sound and I knew to up the volume (about 4dB per Ralph's review) and was gratified with the sound. Not the deepest bass, but plenty there as long as you up the volume.

I also noticed that the atmos track on the Disney 4K blus activate the dynamic range compression feature of my AVR unless I turn it off - I believe this could be some people's issues with the new disney tracks, because once they are louder than normal, they sound perfectly dynamic to me.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Death of Superman*

recommendation: *Tier 1.75**

I would love to give this a higher video score but this direct-to-video animated movie has fairly obvious banding. I didn't get the UHD for this movie to see if that would address the banding issues. I suspect the UHD largely eliminates the banding. The 80-minute main feature is encoded in low-bitrate AVC.

In all other regards, veteran animation watchers should know what to expect from _The Death of Superman_. Perfect black levels, vibrant colors, decent fluidity, the production resembles many prior animated DC films. The animation features the same New 52 character designs to maintain continuity with recent films but they are now looking a bit dated, as Superman already has his trunks back in the comics.


----------



## SnellTHX

*The Smurfs 2 [4K | HDR]*

I pledged to watch more animated movies after discovering that more than half (more like 80%!) of the top of tier 0 reference list are all animated movies.

The Smurfs 2 is gorgeously rendered movie that is stunning in every way. The colours popped more than anything I've seen before, and the 4K sharpness is amazing. I love how they mixed animation with a tiny bit of real-life action, and those bits looked absolutely amazing, on par with something you'd see in a top reference disc like Pacific Rim or perhaps Life of Pi.


Punchy contrast and unrivalled sharpness make this one of the best looking movies I've ever seen, well above Find Dory, Monster's University, The Good Dinosaur and Kung fu Panda 3. To me this 4K/HDR presentation is certainly on par with the 1080p blu-ray of Coco.


*Tier recommendation: 0 (Top 5!)*

*Disclaimer I have yet to see The Secret Life of Pets, most of the animated movies I've seen are only 1080p/SDR... But The Smurfs 2 takes reference picture quality to the next level


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^

I finally found my review for _Smurfs 2_:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-711.html#post24517758


----------



## AmerCa

*Casa de Mi Padre [House Of My Father] (2012 - Lionsgate)*










Low budget film that isn't ashamed of its budget; on the contrary, it shows it proudly to the world. Softness, artifacts and questionable shots abound, although there are also clarity and detail here and there. Overall, a very serviceable video presentation. And... that's it.

This movie will blow your mind away. This is next-level stuff. Forget about Kubrick, Aronofsky or Glazer. THIS IS IT.

*Tier Recommendation: 3.5*


----------



## AmerCa

*Man Of Steel (2013 - Warner)*










I remember reading some reviews here in this thread, but I can't find them. This is a fairly "old" film, but I never get tired of it. So, I'll give a short rundown. What the hell.

The video presentation has a muted color palette, but it's compensated with great clarity and detail. Softness is present in some CGI (ok, in A LOT of it), but the VFX are still impressive and very well done. Black levels are good, although sometimes there's something resembling black crush, but that's also part of Snyder's aesthetics for the film. The initial Krypton sequence is fantastic -muted colors and all- and should be even more terrific in HDR. Despite its flaws, the PQ is still demo material

The audio track is demo material, and is probably my favorite mix in a movie, second only to the legendary *Tron: Legacy*. I just love, love this track. I've heard the ATMOS track is even better, and I'm starting to regret not buying this movie in 4k when I had the chance. One of the very few movies I'll upgrade in time, no questions asked.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

You'll have to go far back in finding Man of Steel reviews here in this thread. That was back when a popular movie would receive as many as ten different scores for the PQ Tiers. Some combination of Steel and/or Superman in the search terms through Google would probably do it with enough leg work.


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> I finally found my review for _Smurfs 2_:
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-711.html#post24517758


Awesome! I saw you ranked this as the very top, top of reference list back in 2014. You specifically compared it to Monster's University (as did I), only you placed The Smurfs 2 slightly below and I placed it ahead.


Though not quite a fair comparison as I auditioned M.U. in 1080p SDR vs the 4K HDR version of The Smurfs 2. Which is level above all else I've seen!


----------



## djoberg

I just picked up the UHD version of _Gladiator_ at Best Buy yesterday. I hope to watch it tonight and am quite excited after reading stellar reviews from ALL of the "experts."


----------



## djoberg

*Gladiator (UHD)*

I tried to find my review of the _Gladiator (Remastered)_ 1080p version, but to no avail. So I checked the current placement ranking and see it is at 1.0. I think that is very close to what I would have rated it back then, but I'm here to tell you that the UHD release takes it up a notch or two.

The DETAILS are truly phenomenal and generally speaking the CLARITY is razor-sharp throughout. The first 40 minutes were quite dark and it featured some very good BLACKS/SHADOW DETAILS, but there was some softness that hindered details and depth. After that the PQ was simply breath-taking in the vast majority of scenes. My only major gripe is the color-grading (orange and teal), which was very egregious at times and did wreak havoc on flesh tones. 

All things considered, this is most definitely REFERENCE QUALITY though it won't find its way to the top half of the coveted Tier. My vote goes for....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.66)*

PS The DTS:X mix was spectacular!!!!


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^

I forgot to mention COLORS in my review and this is the area which distinguished it more than ever from its 1080p counterpart (thanks to HDR). Though the first 40 minutes were DRAB (with MUTED colors), primaries rose to the occasion in many of the scenes after that. They definitely had more punch, especially in clothing (the RED colors in Roman uniforms and the BLACK armor were rich and vibrant).


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> *Gladiator (UHD)*
> 
> I tried to find my review of the _Gladiator (Remastered)_ 1080p version, but to no avail. So I checked the current placement ranking and see it is at 1.0. I think that is very close to what I would have rated it back then, but I'm here to tell you that the UHD release takes it up a notch or two.
> 
> The DETAILS are truly phenomenal and generally speaking the CLARITY is razor-sharp throughout. The first 40 minutes were quite dark and it featured some very good BLACKS/SHADOW DETAILS, but there was some softness that hindered details and depth. After that the PQ was simply breath-taking in the vast majority of scenes. My only major gripe is the color-grading (orange and teal), which was very egregious at times and did wreak havoc on flesh tones.
> 
> All things considered, this is most definitely REFERENCE QUALITY though it won't find its way to the top half of the coveted Tier. My vote goes for....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.66)*
> 
> PS The DTS:X mix was spectacular!!!!


Here is your review for the _Gladiator_ Blu-ray, nearly a decade ago. The link may only work if you are logged out of the forum, as I know my personal page settings breaks the link. You gave the disc a 2.0/2.25 recommendation.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-449.html#post17164084

Going back and reading the week of PQ Tiers discussion in the wake of Gladiator's release on Blu-ray, things got heated over its picture quality. Scores were all over the map.


----------



## JNayAV

Phantom Stranger said:


> Here is your review for the _Gladiator_ Blu-ray, nearly a decade ago. The link may only work if you are logged out of the forum, as I know my personal page settings breaks the link. You gave the disc a 2.0/2.25 recommendation.
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-449.html#post17164084
> 
> Going back and reading the week of PQ Tiers discussion in the wake of Gladiator's release on Blu-ray, things got heated over its picture quality. Scores were all over the map.


If review was from a decade ago, it's very likely original reviews may have included Gladiator's original Blu-ray release. It seems it's one of the few disks that people complained so much that it was actually re-mastered and re-released later on. From the later release which I bought, the relative 1.0 rating sounds about where that would have been.

I only remember this as Gladiator ranks in my top 5 films personally, so I was quite disappointed the original release fared so poorly.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> Here is your review for the _Gladiator_ Blu-ray, nearly a decade ago. The link may only work if you are logged out of the forum, as I know my personal page settings breaks the link. You gave the disc a 2.0/2.25 recommendation.
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-449.html#post17164084
> 
> Going back and reading the week of PQ Tiers discussion in the wake of Gladiator's release on Blu-ray, things got heated over its picture quality. Scores were all over the map.


Thanks Phantom! That was the ORIGINAL Blu-ray, but I believe I also gave a review on the REMASTERED Blu-ray too which, as I stated in my review above, finally landed in 1.0. The Remastered Edition corrected a lot of the post processing that resulted in Edge Enhancement and other anomalies.


----------



## dla26

*Tampopo (Criterion Collection)*

For a movie made in 1985, Tampopo looks stunning. I never saw it in the theaters, so the only way I've ever viewed it in the past is on VHS. Of course, saying the Blu-ray looks better on my 4K projector than the VHS did on my 27" TV in 1992 doesn't give any information beyond the obvious.

Apparently, it was digitally restored in 4K resolution on a DFT Scanity film scanner from the 35mm original camera negative. Although it wasn't up to modern day 4K (or even high-end 1080p) standards, the restoration was excellent. Close up scenes had lots of subtle detail, skin tones were accurate, and I didn't notice any artifacts. The main things that kept it from a 1.0 or 0 were that a lot of the non-close up scenes had a lack of detail you'd come to expect from the higher tiers. Things like clothing fabrics and other textures weren't identifiable in the majority of scenes. Also, there were a few scenes where the audio and video were out of sync. I hadn't watched the film in about 20 years, so I can't say if that was part of the original or a flaw that crept in later. I'm going to guess it was in the original film.

That said, it's a beautiful transfer of a 30+ year old movie and a masterpiece of filmmaking. If you've never seen it, the high level version is that it's a Japanese comedy about a truck driver helping a woman improve her ramen restaurant. But that quick summary does not do it justice. It's really about the role food plays in every aspect of our lives - from birth to death, culture, sex, status, etc. Think Harold and Maude meets meets...food, I guess.

A little off topic, but the audio was just ok. It's in mono Japanese (with subtitles). It's perfectly clear, which is the primary goal of the audio, but there was no depth. Also, as I mentioned above, there were a few places that looked like the audio had been redubbed because it didn't match 1:1 with what was happening on screen.

*
Tier recommendation: 1.5-2.0*


----------



## SnellTHX

*AVENGERS: Infinity War*

Is it okay to be slightly disappointed by a movie and still give it a fantastic score? I'll start off by saying the image quality of Avengers: IW is nothing short of superb, but my expectations were sky high for this movie. the IMAX laser 3D version I saw in the cinema was probably the best 3D cinema experience I've ever had, everything looked so damn good. The blu-ray 1080p version doesn't quite match my ridiculously high standard I set for the movie but its still very sharp, highly detailed, great colours, perfect black levels throughout. My biggest gripe is that the entire movie was filmed in IMAX 6.5K in collaboration with Arri, yet they decided to cut 26% of the frame to make it 2.35:1 over the filmed 1.85:1 that we were presented in theaters. On top of that the movie comes from a 2K DI, and I may be a little spoiled by watching a lot of 4K/HDR content (Narcos Season 3, wow.) lately but I could definitely tell "yup, this isn't a 4K DI". But it's still really, really good.

Probably the 5th best looking Marvel movie (I expected it to be #1 ...)

My list goes somewhere like
#1 Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2 - Tier 0 (top 10)
#2 Avengers - Tier 0 (.33)
#3 Antman - Tier 0 (.50)
#4 Black Panther - Tier 0 (.75)
#5 Avengers: Infinity War - Tier 0 (.9)


*Tier recommendation: 0(.9)*


----------



## djoberg

*American Made*

Before I say anything about the PQ, I've just gotta say...this was one CRAZY MOVIE!! They say it was based on a true story; if just half of it is true it's unbelievable!!! And oh, say what you will about Tom Cruise, that guy can act and he makes every movie I see him in enjoyable.

PQ-wise, this was literally "all over the place." It started out with some of the softest, flattest, and void of details shots I've seen in a long time. I'd rate that somewhere in low Tier 3 or Tier 4! Then you would have some incredible razor-sharp shots with loads of over-saturated colors. This would be followed by scenes with insane color-grading (ORANGE, anyone?) that made Tom and the gang look like human pumpkins that had been DNRed to take the wrinkles out!! Throw in gobs of historical footage from the Reagan years and scads of jerky-camera work, and you have yourself a movie with every conceivable type of PQ known to man. I can truly say I saw shots that could be placed in every Tier (including the garbage Tier...Tier 5).

But there was one amazing, redeeming quality...you guessed it...the DTS:X Master Audio sound track! It was one of the best I've ever heard, bar none. There was mesmerizing precision in the surrounds; there was pitch-perfect dialogue in the center channel; there was phenomenal panning effects in the height speakers (and man there were tons of planes going every which way from the beginning to the very end); and there was rock-solid bass/LFE in multiple explosions and in the revving of engines. The music was also a rare treat (with sounds from the 70s and 80s) coming from every speaker, including the overheads.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0**


----------



## SnellTHX

Haha Djoberg, I think you mentioned some of the same things I said in my review of American Made. The orange colour grading was absolutely ridiculous. Some of the shots were extremely soft and noisy while others were sharp! Its as if the director was drunk. 

Fun movie tho


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> Haha Djoberg, I think you mentioned some of the same things I said in my review of American Made. The orange colour grading was absolutely ridiculous. Some of the shots were extremely soft and noisy while others were sharp! Its as if the director was drunk.
> 
> Fun movie tho


I JUST read your review (I had not recalled anyone writing a review so I didn't even check before writing mine). I see we were also on the same page regarding placement! You mentioned TEAL too in your review but it was the ORANGE that really stuck out in my viewing.


----------



## Jbhur212

SnellTHX said:


> Haha Djoberg, I think you mentioned some of the same things I said in my review of American Made. The orange colour grading was absolutely ridiculous. Some of the shots were extremely soft and noisy while others were sharp! Its as if the director was drunk.
> 
> Fun movie tho


Agree this was a fun movie (the real story is fascinating:http://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/american-made/) and the sound was amazing. But I gave up trying to adjust my display watching the 4K and just sat back and enjoyed the film again. Saw it in the theater and it looked pretty much the same.


----------



## SnellTHX

*Pacific RIM: Uprising*


Yet another fantastic looking movie that just doesn't live up to its prequel. Which to me doesn't make sense.

As a video gamer, we experience that sequels always have better graphics. Technology moves forward, especially digital technology like computers that grow exponentially faster every year. 

I gave Pacific rim (2013) a Tier 0 ranking and at the time I think I placed it in my top 3. Five years later and its still a top 10 reference disk for me.

Bring on 2018's Uprising and I'm slightly disappointed because it looks worse. I swear its not just the transition from 1.85:1 to 2.35:1, it just doesn't have the same 'pop' and 3D-like depth to it as the first one had. Contrast is excellent, image is punchy, colours flair and picture is razor sharp with high details in almost every shot. The interior shots looked worse than the exteriors. Special effects were world-class and I think the CGI is some of the best CGI ever made. (Transformers 5: Last Knight remains CGI king) However good P.R. 2 looks it just doesn't quite live up to the "out of a window" PQ I experienced from P.R.

*
Tier recommendation: 1**


----------



## fredxr2d2

SnellTHX said:


> *Pacific RIM: Uprising*
> 
> 
> Yet another fantastic looking movie that just doesn't live up to its prequel. Which to me doesn't make sense.
> 
> As a video gamer, we experience that sequels always have better graphics. Technology moves forward, especially digital technology like computers that grow exponentially faster every year.
> 
> I gave Pacific rim (2013) a Tier 0 ranking and at the time I think I placed it in my top 3. Five years later and its still a top 10 reference disk for me.
> 
> Bring on 2018's Uprising and I'm slightly disappointed because it looks worse. I swear its not just the transition from 1.85:1 to 2.35:1, it just doesn't have the same 'pop' and 3D-like depth to it as the first one had. Contrast is excellent, image is punchy, colours flair and picture is razor sharp with high details in almost every shot. The interior shots looked worse than the exteriors. Special effects were world-class and I think the CGI is some of the best CGI ever made. (Transformers 5: Last Knight remains CGI king) However good P.R. 2 looks it just doesn't quite live up to the "out of a window" PQ I experienced from P.R.
> 
> *
> Tier recommendation: 1**


I agree with this review for sure - it was strange that the newer movie looks worse. It doesn't help that the movie overall was worse than the first one.


----------



## djoberg

*Adrift*

This was a very satisfying Blu-ray (PQ-wise and Movie-wise). The PQ had two sides to it. In most scenes you had excellent clarity, vibrant colors, satisfying black levels/shadow details, appreciable depth, finely-rendered details, and spot-on flesh tones (with the exception of some of the opening shots where flesh tones had a "red push"). In all the flashback "storm scenes" you had (as expected) a rather soft look with hardly any depth or details. Thankfully they were short-lived, although you had the most impressive AUDIO in those scenes (I truly felt like I was being rocked to and fro with each wave of the sea). 

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

fredxr2d2 said:


> I agree with this review for sure - it was strange that the newer movie looks worse. It doesn't help that the movie overall was worse than the first one.


It wouldn't surprise me if the F/X budget was reduced for the sequel.


----------



## fredxr2d2

Phantom Stranger said:


> It wouldn't surprise me if the F/X budget was reduced for the sequel.


It also didn't help that the first one they hid some of the cgi under dark rainy scenes and this one was all bright sunlight.


----------



## djoberg

I was all set to go and pick up my reserved copy of _Upgrade_ at Redbox to watch this afternoon and then I realized my credit card is with my wife who is out of town all day! I have heard nothing but good about this movie and its PQ so I WILL rent it sooner or later.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*The Lost World: Jurassic Park (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 1.25**

Slightly better than the first one, everything is taken up a notch. Detail is good throughout with facial features and textures showing lots of fidelity. Black levels are deep and shadow much shadow detail is present. Colors are lifelike with out being too bright, the many shades of foliage look natural. The transfer and encode are excellent with a very fine layer of grain present without being distracting, it's there if you look for it but fades into the background as you watch which is what grain should do.


----------



## djoberg

As I said, I couldn't rent anything at Redbox so I ended up binging all weekend on the new _Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan Series_ on Amazon Prime. WOW!!! This was a STUNNING series, with reference quality PQ throughout (UHD/HDR) and an addictive storyline with gorgeous locations from around the world and a first-rate cast of actors. I can't see how it could look any better on the upcoming release of the UHD Blu-rays, but if it does, I'm most definitely getting it!

I almost forgot to add, it was shot in the 1.85:1 Aspect Ratio, filling the whole screen with glorious Ultra Hi-Def!! Did you hear what I just said SnellTHX?


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^

I should have added two things:

1) They really DRIFTED from the Jack Ryan and Jim Greer that we're used to...not a good thing.

2) I didn't appreciated all the "F-bombs" and the gratuitous sex scenes...had to keep my hand ready on the Fast-forward button.


----------



## hdtv316

And presented in Dolby Vision too. I sampled few scenes and yes it did look nice. 

Finally I have a LG 65C8 OLED. Still getting used to excessive brightness after owning a Plasma for years. Still missing 3D as it is a truly different experience over blinding HDR. 


djoberg said:


> As I said, I couldn't rent anything at Redbox so I ended up binging all weekend on the new _Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan Series_ on Amazon Prime. WOW!!! This was a STUNNING series, with reference quality PQ throughout (UHD/HDR) and an addictive storyline with gorgeous locations from around the world and a first-rate cast of actors. I can't see how it could look any better on the upcoming release of the UHD Blu-rays, but if it does, I'm most definitely getting it!
> 
> I almost forgot to add, it was shot in the 1.85:1 Aspect Ratio, filling the whole screen with glorious Ultra Hi-Def!! Did you hear what I just said SnellTHX?


Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk


----------



## hdtv316

Completely agree. WB did an awesome job with the Matrix. The key issue is sharpess isn't consistent but the image can at times be jaw dropping and super glossy. 

They really revisited the sound and gave the filtered LFE a huge facelift.

IMO it looks and sounds better than Infinity War. 


djoberg said:


> *The Matrix (UHD)*
> 
> *WOW!!!*
> 
> This UHD release is simply AMAZING, given its age (19 years old)! Is it perfect? No, for there is some inherent SOFTNESS in some of the CGI scenes, along with some NOISE during shots with "heavy grain" and in the scene when Neo takes the red pill and is in a room with overblown contrast/whites. But thankfully these are "few and far between." In the vast majority of scenes/shots we are treated to RAZOR-SHARP CLARITY and some of the best DETAILS in a live action movie, especially facial texture. Oh, and may I say a word about the BLACK LEVELS; they are incredibly DEEP & INKY 95% of the time (in some of the soft scenes they do become a bit murky)? SHADOW DETAILS are also pure eye candy....FLESH TONES are spot-on accurate.... and DEPTH is mesmerizing at times. COLORS are muted much of the time, but when primaries are on display they are rich and vibrant.
> 
> Before I give a placement, let me say a word about the Dolby Atmos mix.....*AWESOME*!! In the many action scenes in the latter half my ears were in "AUDIO NIRVANA!" Dialogue was always intelligible in spite of whizzing bullets, falling overhead debris and helicopters, and multiple explosions with deep LFE. Reference quality all the way!
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.5)*


Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

hdtv316 said:


> And presented in Dolby Vision too. I sampled few scenes and yes it did look nice.
> 
> Finally I have a LG 65C8 OLED. Still getting used to excessive brightness after owning a Plasma for years. Still missing 3D as it is a truly different experience over blinding HDR.
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk


Thankfully it's also in HDR10+ for my 940D is unable to do Dolby Vision. I heard that Dolby Vision takes it up a notch, especially in the COLORS. I was mesmerized by the details...in close-ups you could see every fiber in clothing and every pore/wrinkle/pock in faces....and in panoramic shots of deserts/mountains/cities the details were incredible. My next display (hopefully a 77" OLED...or bigger) will have Dolby Vision.


----------



## AmerCa

I see it's been almost a month since my last post. These last few weeks have been draining and stressful for me, but the short story is that I have finally a sub. I already feel like I've talked too much about it in other threads, despite getting it just two days ago.

So I need to do a lot of revisiting, and discover all that I've been missing out. So maybe I'll be back on track and contribute some more. Right now is difficult to concentrate on PQ when you're experiencing new things.

I see a lot of great recommendations lately!

Enviado desde mi SM-N920G mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^

I've missed seeing reviews from you AmerCa!


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> As I said, I couldn't rent anything at Redbox so I ended up binging all weekend on the new _Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan Series_ on Amazon Prime. WOW!!! This was a STUNNING series, with reference quality PQ throughout (UHD/HDR) and an addictive storyline with gorgeous locations from around the world and a first-rate cast of actors. I can't see how it could look any better on the upcoming release of the UHD Blu-rays, but if it does, I'm most definitely getting it!
> 
> I almost forgot to add, it was shot in the 1.85:1 Aspect Ratio, filling the whole screen with glorious Ultra Hi-Def!! Did you hear what I just said SnellTHX?


That sounds AMAZING! 

Plenty of Netflix 4K/HDR content remains high up in my top reference list...

Lost in Space
Altered Carbon
The Indian Detective
Marco Polo
Black Sails (just 1080p, but wow!)
House of Cards

Probably all in my top 20 next to a few Pixar movies, Nolan movies, transformers, Pacific RIM etc.

All of those shows, even though I've only seen them STREAMED, they look as good or surpass almost any other movie out there! Putting Hollywood to shame there... They fill my entire screen with clarity, even when I'm two feet away I can't see any faults in the image. Can't say the same for 99% of blockbusters...

If only Netflix MOVIES were streamed in the same resolution and BIT RATE as the aforementioned shows.


----------



## SnellTHX

Even some of the older, non-Netflix produced shows look absolutely reference in 4K (or 1080p)

Breaking Bad (2008!) and White Collar (Who expected a show like this to look anywhere near reference?) both look really good in my opinion. 


I just don't know how Netflix does it. It seems as if they get their movies from DVDs and give it a 3Mb/s bit rate while their TV shows are 4K DI with 30Mb/s.


----------



## hdtv316

3:10 to Yuma 4K UHD needs to be one Tier below current placement of its 1080p counterpart, thanks to noise reduction and poor HDR pass.

I can see noise reduction in Dredd 4K UD as well. Source Code and Expendables 4K UHD look similar or inferior to the Blu-ray counterparts.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Jurassic Park III (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 1.75**

On the bottom rung among the original trilogy, the image was overall dull and flat. Details were excellent except in the process shots like the paragliding at the opening. Both the practical and CGI dinosaurs showed good detail in all the scales and eyes. Closeups also looked good with facial pores and hair on display. Colors were on the dull side and just didn't pop. Black levels were good and contrast was just OK. It's not bad but definitely not the disc you would pop in to showcase the UHD format.


----------



## djoberg

*Ocean's 8 (1080p)*

This one is a LOOKER! This has it all...razor-sharp clarity, bold & vibrant colors, exquisite details (including excellent facial texture in close-ups), inky blacks, finely-rendered shadow details, spot-on skin tones, and appreciable depth. If I were to offer any censure, it would be some VERY BRIEF soft shots and faltering blacks in a couple of scenes (inside a warehouse and in an alley). To sum this one up in two words: Squeaky clean!!

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.75)*


----------



## SnellTHX

*The MATRIX*

Watching this movie is like watching it for the first time. *off-topic but this movie brings me down memory lane..* I was only six years old when this movie came out (7 when on DVD). Although I do not remember any of the story, this movie is particularly intriguing for me as an A/V enthusiast. Before by parents split up in 2001, I lived with my rich ******* dad, whom is single handedly responsible for making me an audiophile/videophile, back in 1995-2001 he had probably the best setup in the world; flagship Bowers & Wilkins Nautilus speakers, Pioneer Laser Disc player, Mark Levinson CD-player, a CD player that had a giant hamster /disco ball on top where you could put 50 CDs in at once and shuffle (very high tech mid 90s!), a DVD player as early as 1996 (who had DVDs back then?) imported from Japan, flagship monoblock Bryston amplifiers, Quest cables, Mark Levinson pre-amps/DAC etc. (Sorry I digress...) so there's me, age 6-7 experiencing movies like this on DVD on what I think was either (or was it both?) the first HD TV / largest HD TV... It was a Sony CRT that took 6 men to carry, I've asked my dad about this in recent years his only answer was "Oh it was no bigger than my Kuro (60")", if anyone knows what all this gear could be I'd be grateful looking back at the ultimate high end gear from my childhood! (everything from 1995-2001) 

So back to the movie; the picture quality was excellent. Its was like putting this 19 year old movie in my brand new 4K/HDR player, and displaying it on my 4K/HDR OLED and experiencing it just like I did 19 years ago. The picture was as sharp and detailed as I remembered. Imagine plugging a PS1 game in your PS4 and the graphics look just like you remembered them? Crazy. The black levels were pitch perfect from start to finish and the overall presentation was excellent. Some scenes looked flawless, others looked a bit their age (film grain you know, not always pleasant) While bringing the best of the 90s into the late 10s, I think the studio did a great job.


*Tier recommendation: 1.25*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

SnellTHX said:


> *The MATRIX*
> 
> Watching this movie is like watching it for the first time. *off-topic but this movie brings me down memory lane..* I was only six years old when this movie came out (7 when on DVD). Although I do not remember any of the story, this movie is particularly intriguing for me as an A/V enthusiast. Before by parents split up in 2001, I lived with my rich ******* dad, whom is single handedly responsible for making me an audiophile/videophile, back in 1995-2001 he had probably the best setup in the world; flagship Bowers & Wilkins Nautilus speakers, Pioneer Laser Disc player, Mark Levinson CD-player, a CD player that had a giant hamster /disco ball on top where you could put 50 CDs in at once and shuffle (very high tech mid 90s!), a DVD player as early as 1996 (who had DVDs back then?) imported from Japan, flagship monoblock Bryston amplifiers, Quest cables, Mark Levinson pre-amps/DAC etc. (Sorry I digress...) so there's me, age 6-7 experiencing movies like this on DVD on what I think was either (or was it both?) the first HD TV / largest HD TV... It was a Sony CRT that took 6 men to carry, I've asked my dad about this in recent years his only answer was "Oh it was no bigger than my Kuro (60")", if anyone knows what all this gear could be I'd be grateful looking back at the ultimate high end gear from my childhood! (everything from 1995-2001)
> 
> So back to the movie; the picture quality was excellent. Its was like putting this 19 year old movie in my brand new 4K/HDR player, and displaying it on my 4K/HDR OLED and experiencing it just like I did 19 years ago. The picture was as sharp and detailed as I remembered. Imagine plugging a PS1 game in your PS4 and the graphics look just like you remembered them? Crazy. The black levels were pitch perfect from start to finish and the overall presentation was excellent. Some scenes looked flawless, others looked a bit their age (film grain you know, not always pleasant) While bringing the best of the 90s into the late 10s, I think the studio did a great job.
> 
> 
> *Tier recommendation: 1.25*


It may have been one of Sony's FD Trinitron televisions. I finally threw one out about six months ago, it had been serving an unused bedroom the past decade. They were immensely heavy.


----------



## SnellTHX

*Ghost in the Shell*

Found it difficult paying attention to this movie (zzz) so not too much to say about the PQ either, at times it looked stunning & sharp but other times pretty average. Reminiscent of an inferior John Wick in terms of PQ. I found the scenes where the main character is carried by doctors in red to look really good, the reds of their clothing really popped out of the screen


*Tier recommendation : 1.25*


----------



## djoberg

I'm picking up _Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom_ at Redbox this afternoon, so I'll be watching it tonight. Reviews have been good for PQ, so I'm anticipating some EYE CANDY to write about as the credits roll.


----------



## djoberg

*Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (1080p)*

Okay, I just read my review of the 1st installment (back in 2015) and I initially gave it a score of Tier 0 (.75) and then I changed it to Tier 0 (.5). I actually think the sequel wasn't as impressive, but only by the smallest of margins. What made the difference? This one had more dark scenes in it and in "some" of those it was somewhat soft and murky. I say "some" because in many of the night time or dark interior scenes the blacks were awesome with finely-rendered shadow details. In both installments the details, clarity and colors were insanely good in all daytime outdoor scenes and in interior shots with good lighting.

The DTS:X mix was amazing, with enough LFE to shake my walls, exceptional action in the surrounds, precise panning and discrete effects in my height channels, and crystal-clear dialog in my center speaker.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.66)*


----------



## SnellTHX

Ralph Potts just gave the Solo movie a PQ score in the mid 70s... I don't think I've seen him give a score that low before haha.

Definitely not buying that


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> Ralph Potts just gave the Solo movie a PQ score in the mid 70s... I don't think I've seen him give a score that low before haha.
> 
> Definitely not buying that


Yikes!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

SnellTHX said:


> Ralph Potts just gave the Solo movie a PQ score in the mid 70s... I don't think I've seen him give a score that low before haha.
> 
> Definitely not buying that


I'm not sure any of the Star Wars movies have ever been videophile fare.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> I'm not sure any of the Star Wars movies have ever been videophile fare.


I would agree with you regarding many in the Stars Wars series, but here is (IMHO) an exception:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-773.html#post43148402


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Predator (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

Details are excellent except for some shots like the behind shot of Mac fireing the mini-gun into the jungle, but that's a limit of the original element and not this transfer. Colors show nice pop in the sun drenched jungle and also in the sun blocked jungle floor. Explosions and muzzle flashes are nicely presented with HDR. Black levels and shadow details are strong as well, didn't see any crush.


----------



## SnellTHX

Phantom Stranger said:


> I'm not sure any of the Star Wars movies have ever been videophile fare.


Well Last Jedi was a huge disappoint PQ-wise. so I can see that. I saw Rogue One and Episode VII in the cinema and they looked good there. Pretty sure others have rated Episode VII as Reference but I'll have ot see it on disc to judge myself.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Sony showed off a prototype 8K display capable of 10,000 nits peak brightness.


https://davidsusilouncensored.wordpress.com/2018/09/21/bow-to-your-sony-master-series/


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> Sony showed off a prototype 8K display capable of 10,000 nits peak brightness.
> 
> 
> https://davidsusilouncensored.wordpress.com/2018/09/21/bow-to-your-sony-master-series/


Regarding the "Master Series" by Sony, their OLED took FIRST PLACE in the Flat Panel Shootout yesterday. LG's OLED came in SECOND by the slimmest of margins. Sony's LCD (the Z9F) came in THIRD (not too far behind the OLEDs). And Samsung's LCD came in LAST by a country mile.

I've been following the Sony Threads on the Master Series and I was hoping the Z9F, which now gives one Wide Angle Viewing similar to an OLED, would have upped their game when it came to Local Dimming and the near elimination of BLOOMING in the Letter-boxed Bars. But they actually chose to give the Z9F a rather low zone count, resulting in some serious light bleeding into the bars at times, especially with HDR material. I guess OLED would still be my preferred replacement for my Sony 940D. One can get the 77" LG OLED C8 for 7k. Not bad!!!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> Regarding the "Master Series" by Sony, their OLED took FIRST PLACE in the Flat Panel Shootout yesterday. LG's OLED came in SECOND by the slimmest of margins. Sony's LCD (the Z9F) came in THIRD (not too far behind the OLEDs). And Samsung's LCD came in LAST by a country mile.
> 
> I've been following the Sony Threads on the Master Series and I was hoping the Z9F, which now gives one Wide Angle Viewing similar to an OLED, would have upped their game when it came to Local Dimming and the near elimination of BLOOMING in the Letter-boxed Bars. But they actually chose to give the Z9F a rather low zone count, resulting in some serious light bleeding into the bars at times, especially with HDR material. I guess OLED would still be my preferred replacement for my Sony 940D. One can get the 77" LG OLED C8 for 7k. Not bad!!!


 It was the first time in 14 years that a Sony display won the Shoot Out.

https://hdguru.com/sony-65a9f-master-series-4k-oled-wins-2018-tv-shoot-out/

The $4,499.99 Sony 65A9F took the top honor in the event by beating out the $3,499.99 LG 65E8 4K OLED TV (second), the $3,499.99 Sony Master Series 65Z9F (third) full-array 4K LED-LCD TV and the $2,999.99 (on limited-time promotion) Samsung full-array 4K QLED LED LCD (fourth).

*Grimoire of Zero: Complete Collection*

recommendation: *Tier 1.25**

Easily one of the best-looking anime I've seen recently that was made for television. The 2017 Japanese program has nicely shaded color and fluid animation. Set in a medieval fantasy land, a rich variety of browns and greens dominate the palette. This is from the producers behind the beloved _Steins; Gate_ anime.

Sentai Filmworks provides a better AVC encode than they've been known for in the past. Banding, always a concern for cheaper anime content, isn't really an issue.


----------



## SnellTHX

First time in 14 years... so Probably the 34XBR-960 that won it last in 2004


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Robocop (1987, Remastered)*

recommendation: *Tier 2.5**

Typical PQ fare from the 1980s: good but not great. Contrast is good and night scenes show good black levels. Colors are on the bland side but there are flashes of bright colors here and there. Details are pretty good but not a lot of facial pores or detailed fabric on display. The encode is excellent the the overall presentation is film-like, no EE or DNR.


----------



## djoberg

*Solo: A Star Wars Story (1080p)*

Before I slipped this into my Samsung player I was warned of its less-than-stellar PQ. Guess what? They (the vast majority of reviewers) were right! This one was a mess during most of its 2+ hour running time. It was MURKY, NOISY, FLAT, DRAB, and LACKING DETAILS. Incredibly, the PQ "came to life" during the last couple of scenes (nearly a half hour) with remarkable clarity, excellent details, appreciable depth, and pleasing colors.

I kept thinking through the first 90 minutes, "Man, I'm going to have to drop this down to the bottom of Tier 3 or even the top of Tier 4." But those last 30 minutes, which probably averaged a Tier 1 ranking, has me thinking either a 2.75 or a 3.0 placement. I feel my old "generous rating gene" kicking in, soooo.....

*Tier Recommendation: 2.75**

PS Audio-wise, you have really turn this up to appreciate the decent DTS Master Audio mix (I had mine set to -5).


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Goldstone*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

This Australian thriller, set in a remote mining town, looks absolutely stunning for much of its run time. _Goldstone_ was shot on the RED Epic in magnificent resolution with top-notch digital cinematography. The scope presentation takes full advantage of the desolate Australian setting. The crisp contrast offers a balanced palette with perfect flesh-tones.

_Goldstone_ won just about every Australian film award it could, easily one of the best movies I've seen this year. Independent distributor Lightyear Entertainment brings it here to the States in a flawless Blu-ray transfer that captures its abundant razor-sharp detail and striking imagery.


----------



## AmerCa

* Transformers: The Last Knight (2017 - Paramount)*










It was about time for me to review this title. Both *djoberg* and *Snell* have written glowing and very eloquent reviews about the PQ of this film, but now it's my turn.

The picture quality of T:TLK is absolutely ridiculous. I had already watched this movie back in last year's November, when I wasn't into "critical" viewing, and watched it on a much smaller display that I have now. I was blown away. Let's put it this way: the worst moments in this (which granted are very few) equal the best moments in 90% of the movies out there, and no, that's not hyperbole. The PQ is so good that it basically turns itself into a new tier - tier God. Or turns the tier zero category into a small group of perhaps 20-30 titles and moves all the rest into tier 1. I recently watched *Sicario* two times and it's one of the best movies PQ wise I had watched in the last few months. Even with that movie in mind as a recent reference of what a fantastic picture can look like in the BD format, T:TLK managed to easily outshine it.

Don't look for the best moments in here, it's easier to look for the less than perfect moments. And even then you'd feel that you're nitpicking. Really, it's ridiculous. I haven't watched most of the top tier animated films at the top of the list, but in terms of Live Action movies, I can't picture anything better than this. The suggested placement at the top of the PQ tier list is completely justified.

*Tier Recommendation: 0 (#1 - The Eye of Sauron)*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I've seen so much videophile hype for Transformers: The Last Knight, I've almost convinced myself to sit through another Transformers movie.


----------



## AmerCa

Phantom Stranger said:


> I've seen so much videophile hype for Transformers: The Last Knight, I've almost convinced myself to sit through another Transformers movie.


Wait!! You _ haven't_ seen it??

Well, if you were forced to pick a movie to save the human race from extinction by showing the capabilities of the Blu-ray format, you'd pick this one. It's LONG for sure, but you also have the reference audio track to make the experience even fuller and funnier. Essentially, it's a demo disc disguised as an action movie. Turn off the lights, crank up the volume, get some beer and snacks, and turn your brain off. It's therapeutic.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^

I see you watched the 1080p version AmerCa; you probably will find this hard to believe, but the UHD version actually takes it up a notch!

Here's my review where I boldly announce the superior UHD version:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-822.html#post55905058


----------



## AmerCa

^^^^^^^

I remember your review. The whole Transformers series is guaranteed the upgrade in 4k. I never get enough of it! 

Let's see what future directors do for the franchise. The upcoming Bumblebee film looks promising, but I'll always have a soft spot for Bay's movies.

Enviado desde mi SM-G318ML mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^

And here's my "glowing review" (your words) on the 1080p version:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-801.html#post54950506

One just has to wonder, how in the world can the PQ get any better than this...and still be REALISTIC! Perhaps, and I emphasize PERHAPS, an 8K UHD Blu-ray with triple the contrast of today's displays with trump this, but I will have to "see it to believe it."


----------



## AmerCa

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^^
> 
> And here's my "glowing review" (your words) on the 1080p version:
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-801.html#post54950506
> 
> One just has to wonder, how in the world can the PQ get any better than this...and still be REALISTIC! Perhaps, and I emphasize PERHAPS, an 8K UHD Blu-ray with triple the contrast of today's displays with trump this, but I will have to "see it to believe it."


Yeah, the CGI integration is nuts. I swear Cogman (the transformer butler) looked more real that Sir Anthony Hopkins, lol.

I guess some improvements could be made, although it would be extremely difficult to pull it off at the level and consistency which are seen in T:TLK. It could be said that the capabilities of the bluray format are tested to its max limits by it.

Basically, it's time to move on to 4k if you want to see further improvements in PQ _without_ cheating with HDR. I mean, it's clear that directors are not taking full advantage of the 1080p format, but the industry want to sell us 4k. And it's fine, but give us truly exceptional PQ, goddamit! 

There are A LOT of sub par releases as it is.

Enviado desde mi SM-G318ML mediante Tapatalk


----------



## SnellTHX

Phantom Stranger said:


> I've seen so much videophile hype for Transformers: The Last Knight, I've almost convinced myself to sit through another Transformers movie.



You really owe yourself to watch Transformers 5. Its arguably the best picture quality ever.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Halloween (UHD, 40th Anniversary)*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**


----------



## fredxr2d2

djoberg said:


> *Solo: A Star Wars Story (1080p)*
> 
> Before I slipped this into my Samsung player I was warned of its less-than-stellar PQ. Guess what? They (the vast majority of reviewers) were right! This one was a mess during most of its 2+ hour running time. It was MURKY, NOISY, FLAT, DRAB, and LACKING DETAILS. Incredibly, the PQ "came to life" during the last couple of scenes (nearly a half hour) with remarkable clarity, excellent details, appreciable depth, and pleasing colors.
> 
> I kept thinking through the first 90 minutes, "Man, I'm going to have to drop this down to the bottom of Tier 3 or even the top of Tier 4." But those last 30 minutes, which probably averaged a Tier 1 ranking, has me thinking either a 2.75 or a 3.0 placement. I feel my old "generous rating gene" kicking in, soooo.....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.75**
> 
> PS Audio-wise, you have really turn this up to appreciate the decent DTS Master Audio mix (I had mine set to -5).



So I watched the Solo UHD disc on my 1080p projector to get the atmos sound. I had to turn up the sound, per usual for the recent disney mixes. The video was also very dim, drab, murky. Enough so that my wife noticed! 



That said, I think Solo is one of my favorite releases of the recent Star Wars, better than Rogue One movie-wise, just not PQ- and SQ-wise.


----------



## Davird_Jr

SnellTHX said:


> You really owe yourself to watch Transformers 5. Its arguably the best picture quality ever.


I have to say when I watched this regular BD on my 65 Sony 4K set, Sony X800 UHD player, I had to check afterward to see if they had mistakenly put the UHD in the package by accident. I was completely blown away by PQ on this one more than any other regular BD I've seen. Admittedly I am not a reviewer, nor do I watch a ton of movies due to time constraints. But this one struck me. Story wise? What did you expect?


----------



## djoberg

fredxr2d2 said:


> So I watched the Solo UHD disc on my 1080p projector to get the atmos sound. I had to turn up the sound, per usual for the recent disney mixes. The video was also very dim, drab, murky. Enough so that my wife noticed!
> 
> 
> 
> That said, I think Solo is one of my favorite releases of the recent Star Wars, better than Rogue One movie-wise, just not PQ- and SQ-wise.


I agree Fred; this was definitely “one of my favorite releases of the recent Star Wars movies.”


----------



## djoberg

Davird_Jr said:


> I have to say when I watched this regular BD on my 65 Sony 4K set, Sony X800 UHD player, I had to check afterward to see if they had mistakenly put the UHD in the package by accident. I was completely blown away by PQ on this one more than any other regular BD I've seen. Admittedly I am not a reviewer, nor do I watch a ton of movies due to time constraints. But this one struck me. Story wise? What did you expect?


Thanks for chiming in with your viewing experience! I would encourage you to become “a reviewer.” We would love to have you join us!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Everyone is always invited to help out the PQ Tiers, there are no requirements here for rating a Blu-ray or UHD. Some of us have very lavish home theaters, while others review on more modest equipment.


However, working eyes are a big plus in this business.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Blood Fest*

recommendation: *Tier 1.75**

Anyone that appreciates a sly spoof of horror tropes should enjoy this good-looking horror-comedy, right in time for Halloween. Independent distributor Cinedigm presents _Blood Fest_ on BD without a hitch. This is crisp, clean 1080P video. It never quite hits demo-level sharpness, but certainly brings a high degree of clarity with excellent contrast. Outside of a few VFX shots, there is remarkably consistent picture quality.


----------



## djoberg

*Sicario: Day of the Soldado (1080p)*

Well, this is almost a carbon copy of the first installment. I'm going to give you a link to my review because I would end up giving you a "carbon copy review" anyway. Again, this flies in the face of the "experts," for they are all saying it's "Reference Quality," but I have to call it like I see it. Here's my review:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-767.html#post40687194

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**

PS The DTS MA Neural:X mix was quite good!


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^

I wouldn't argue with a 1.25 rating, for there were definitely some "Reference Quality" shots and there wasn't a real long scene (it was very short, actually) with Night Goggles this time around.

I'm taking a brief break, then I'm ready to view my Blu-ray copy of _Hereditary_. I am an avid fan of this genre and from what I've read this is going to be winner (on both the PQ and movie front). I hate slashers and this one is more of a slow build-up with good character development.


----------



## AmerCa

djoberg said:


> *Sicario: Day of the Soldado (1080p)*
> 
> Well, this is almost a carbon copy of the first installment. I'm going to give you a link to my review because I would end up giving you a "carbon copy review" anyway. Again, this flies in the face of the "experts," for they are all saying it's "Reference Quality," but I have to call it like I see it. Here's my review:
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-767.html#post40687194
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.5**
> 
> PS The DTS MA Neural:X mix was quite good!


Wow. I was almost sure you had given *Sicario* a tier zero placement! Having watched the film three times, I'd place it in tier zero without much thought. HOWEVER, the first two times it was the Mexican transfer of the film, and I'd swear it looks better than the US version, which seems to have a different color timing. Slight, but noticeable. Watching the US version I almost felt the temptation to rank it in tier one or even tier 1.25. I don't know, maybe my eyes were playing some tricks on me but I'm quite familiar with its PQ.. In any case, tier 1.5 on the first one seems a bit harsh. I have yet to watch the sequel on disc.

Btw, the ATMOS track on the 4k is superior to the 7.1. DTS-MA. It has deeper and stronger bass as the bass graph shows. Also, the DD 5.1 on disc is superior in the bass department, if you can believe that. Studios are seriously messing with different audio masters.


----------



## AmerCa

^^^^^^^

I forgot to add, I'm looking forward to your review of * Hereditary*, a film I'm keeping my eye on. I'd like to read your thoughts on the movie. Right now it's very expensive on Amazon MX. I'm becoming more hesitant to spend money on discs with poor technical specs.


----------



## djoberg

*Hereditary (1080p)*

This was definitely a LOOKER!! Clarity, details, and depth reigned supreme, with some exceptional black levels/shadow details as well. There were some soft shots, but thankfully they were "few and far between." The icing on the cake was a phenomenal audio mix. I had my Denon AVR on -3 through the whole film and it added volumes (pun intended) to the whole viewing experience!!

As far the movie goes, I'm going to give you the link to the short review I just posted on Ralph Potts' site for this movie.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-...ary-ultra-hd-blu-ray-review.html#post56931678

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.9)*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> *Hereditary (1080p)*
> 
> This was definitely a LOOKER!! Clarity, details, and depth reigned supreme, with some exceptional black levels/shadow details as well. There were some soft shots, but thankfully they were "few and far between." The icing on the cake was a phenomenal audio mix. I had my Denon AVR on -3 through the whole film and it added volumes (pun intended) to the whole viewing experience!!
> 
> As far the movie goes, I'm going to give you the link to the short review I just posted on Ralph Potts' site for this movie.
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-...ary-ultra-hd-blu-ray-review.html#post56931678
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.9)*


I haven't seen Hereditary yet, but the buzz indicates its last act is greatly disappointing. Hollywood always seems to pick out one horror movie each year to build hype around, and this year that choice was Hereditary.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Exorcist II: The Heretic (Collector's Edition)*

recommendation: *Tier 3.5**

Checking the PQ Tiers, this is our first placement for the disappointing sequel to _The Exorcist_. This new collector's edition by Scream Factory isn't even the first Blu-ray release for the movie. Warner Bros first put it out as part of the Exorcist Anthology box set. 

The WB release was widely criticized for its obvious compression problems and obsolete transfer. Scream Factory fixes those issues with a new 2018 film transfer struck from the original camera negative and a much stronger AVC encode. The 2K transfer was handled by Warner's excellent MPI facility. They deliver a stable, solid transfer that is fluidly film-like which respects the soft, diffuse cinematography of _Exorcist II_.

It's hard placing _Exorcist II: The Heretic_ above Tier Three. Released in 1977 with lavish production values and first-rate Hollywood craftsmanship, changing film stocks and aesthetic preferences had moved filmmaking away from the pin-sharp clarity of earlier Hollywood films.

All that being said, the elements are in fine condition and this new transfer brings out hidden details never seen before on home video. It's an excellent image harvest that avoids tinkering with the film's intended aesthetic. You'll see the flying locusts in all their winged glory. The grain structure has been left unmolested. If there has been some processing applied, it was done with a judicious eye.

Scream Factory's collector's edition represents a significant visual improvement over prior editions. This is about as good as the movie could possibly look in 1080P resolution.

Despite the presence of Linda Blair and Richard Burton, I still find this sequel a bad miss. Go watch _Exorcist III_ to get the taste of this movie out of your mouth.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> I haven't seen Hereditary yet, but the buzz indicates its last act is greatly disappointing. Hollywood always seems to pick out one horror movie each year to build hype around, and this year that choice was Hereditary.


Agreed! As I stated in my post on Ralph Potts' site, the ENDING was a big letdown. It not only ruined the overall consistent plot up to that point, but it was absolutely ridiculous!

My wife is in Arizona for over a week visiting one of our daughters and her family so I am having myself a "Blu-ray Feast" this week. Tonight I'll be watching _Upgrade_ followed by _Skyscraper_. This weekend I'm having my older sister stay with me and we plan to watch _The Conjuring_. I haven't seen that for awhile but it has to be one of the best films in the horror genre ever! Great acting...great story-line...great pacing...and last, but not least, great PQ and AQ!!


----------



## djoberg

*Upgrade*

Well ladies and gentlemen, we have ANOTHER WINNER!

I heard about this title from our wonderful AVS Resident Reviewer, Ralph Potts. He gave it a very high score for the movie, PQ and AQ. Guess what? I agree with him 100%. PQ-wise, the black levels were INSANE....deep and inky, resulting in infinite depth in most scenes (and most of the movie is at night or in low-lit interiors). Shadow details were just as INSANE.....in several close-ups you have martial arts fights or gun shootout, resulting in some pretty messed up and disfigured people.....shots of their wounds (in faces, hands, arms, etc.) were incredibly realistic. When there were shots with good lighting (natural or otherwise), the contrast was brilliant, the colors were bold, and overall details were mesmerizing.

AQ-wise, the movie starts out with every speaker at full throttle...from a voice-generated computer that filled my listening space with "audio nirvana!" I was so into the sound that I cranked this up to full Reference Level (remember, my wife is in Arizona ) about half-way through and left it there...pure audio bliss!! 

I'm an avid Sci-Fi fan and this was unique in a couple of ways (I won't issue any Spoilers on this one). Let me just say this; I never once checked my watch or the LED readout on my Samsung Blu-ray player to see how much time was left. If you love Sci-Fi, give it a rent...you will NOT be disappointed!

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.5)*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^

I could see some reviewers lowering this a bit....say to .75, due to some soft shots in some of the nighttime scenes (one or two of the car chase scenes). But in the vast majority of the movie there is razor-sharp clarity that yielded high details and depth.


----------



## AmerCa

djoberg said:


> *Upgrade*
> 
> Well ladies and gentlemen, we have ANOTHER WINNER!
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> I heard about this title from our wonderful AVS Resident Reviewer, Ralph Potts. He gave it a very high score for the movie, PQ and AQ. Guess what? I agree with him 100%. PQ-wise, the black levels were INSANE....deep and inky, resulting in infinite depth in most scenes (and most of the movie is at night or in low-lit interiors). Shadow details were just as INSANE.....in several close-ups you have martial arts fights or gun shootout, resulting in some pretty messed up and disfigured people.....shots of their wounds (in faces, hands, arms, etc.) were incredibly realistic. When there were shots with good lighting (natural or otherwise), the contrast was brilliant, the colors were bold, and overall details were mesmerizing.
> 
> AQ-wise, the movie starts out with every speaker at full throttle...from a voice-generated computer that filled my listening space with "audio nirvana!" I was so into the sound that I cranked this up to full Reference Level (remember, my wife is in Arizona ) about half-way through and left it there...pure audio bliss!!
> 
> I'm an avid Sci-Fi fan and this was unique in a couple of ways (I won't issue any Spoilers on this one). Let me just say this; I never once checked my watch or the LED readout on my Samsung Blu-ray player to see how much time was left. If you love Sci-Fi, give it a rent...you will NOT be disappointed!
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.5)*


Given your take on


Spoiler



*Hereditary*'s ending (which I have yet to see), I'm surprised you were more tolerant about Upgrade's ending which basically ruins the whole movie. It's a 95% fantastic sci-fi movie, until writer/director Leigh Whanell had a brain fart and decided he needed a further "twist". Except for that tiny detail, it was an excellent film, but not sure if I could watch it again with the twist in my mind. Worth a rental, for sure.




Enviado desde mi SM-G318ML mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> Given your take on
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> *Hereditary*'s ending (which I have yet to see), I'm surprised you were more tolerant about Upgrade's ending which basically ruins the whole movie. It's a 95% fantastic sci-fi movie, until writer/director Leigh Whanell had a brain fart and decided he needed a further "twist". Except for that tiny detail, it was an excellent film, but not sure if I could watch it again with the twist in my mind. Worth a rental, for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Enviado desde mi SM-G318ML mediante Tapatalk


I respectfully disagree AmerCa. With _Hereditary_ the TWIST in the last scene took the movie WAY OFF COURSE, and actually changed the genre. With _Upgrade_ the TWIST in the last scene kept the movie on course (by upping the marvel of this new technology) and didn't alter the genre, plus it actually set it up for a sequel.


----------



## AmerCa

djoberg said:


> I respectfully disagree AmerCa. With _Hereditary_ the TWIST in the last scene took the movie WAY OFF COURSE, and actually changed the genre. With _Upgrade_ the TWIST in the last scene kept the movie on course (by upping the marvel of this new technology) and didn't alter the genre, plus it actually set it up for a sequel.


I'm glad you are far less critical to *Upgrade*'s ending, and that's probably for the best.



Spoiler



I can't comment on Hereditary, but the final twist in Upgrade doesn't take the movie off course, but it negates what happened before. What's worse, the twist wasn't needed in the slightest, as up to that point Whanell had a superb script. But I realize I'm alone in my stance. Agree to disagree.



Enviado desde mi SM-G318ML mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> I'm glad you are far less critical to *Upgrade*'s ending, and that's probably for the best.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> I can't comment on Hereditary, but the final twist in Upgrade doesn't take the movie off course, but it negates what happened before. What's worse, the twist wasn't needed in the slightest, as up to that point Whanell had a superb script. But I realize I'm alone in my stance. Agree to disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> Enviado desde mi SM-G318ML mediante Tapatalk


The way I see it is the ending on _Upgrade_ sets the stage perfectly for a sequel. Here's why:



Spoiler



So, the human is in dreamland thinking "nothing's really happened; it was all a dream and I'm back with my wife." The computer is using his body for his diabolical ends. But "what if" the human is somehow able to figure out what's happened and in some way (which I haven't figured out yet) is able to do battle with the computer to foil his plans and to get back to reality. Of course, the problem with that is "Why would he want to get back to reality when he's a paraplegic and his wife is dead?" I'll leave that dilemma to the writers!!


----------



## AmerCa

djoberg said:


> The way I see it is the ending on _Upgrade_ sets the stage perfectly for a sequel. Here's why:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> So, the human is in dreamland thinking "nothing's really happened; it was all a dream and I'm back with my wife." The computer is using his body for his diabolical ends. But "what if" the human is somehow able to figure out what's happened and in some way (which I haven't figured out yet) is able to do battle with the computer to foil his plans and to get back to reality. Of course, the problem with that is "Why would he want to get back to reality when he's a paraplegic and his wife is dead?" I'll leave that dilemma to the writers!!


I see we're taking about different "twists"!!! 



Spoiler



I see Whanell was pretty clever in hiding his horrible mind slip by quickly changing focus to another "twist". I wasn't talking about Logan Marshall Green's character being mind-trapped. That was actually very interesting and cool, and sets up nicely a sequel. I was talking about something else, but maybe it's best not to think too much about it. I wouldn't want to ruin the movie for you. Save yourself, I'm already doomed! 



Enviado desde mi SM-G318ML mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

*Skyscraper (UHD)*

I'm getting spoiled, plain and simple! This is yet another "demo-worthy" release, though it may fall a bit short of "reference quality."

The GOOD: Early scenes (before the BIG FIRE gets underway) are sharp as a tack with mesmerizing details and almost limitless depth. They also feature bold and vibrant colors and I was floored by some of the panoramic, aerial views of Hong Kong. Black levels and shadow details were also to-die-for!

The BAD: Some of the CGI scenes were soft and as a result lacked in details and depth. That about it; I noticed zero anomalies, such as banding, noise, black crush, etc.

*Tier Recommendation: Either Tier 0* (.9) or 1.0**

PS The Dolby Atmos mix was ROCK SOLID. During half the film I had my AVR on -5 and it was very good but then I decided to turn it to 0 (Reference Level) and WOW!...what a difference it made in explosions that had big eruptions of fire and flying debris!!


----------



## AmerCa

djoberg said:


> As I stated in my post on Ralph Potts' site, the ENDING was a big letdown. It not only ruined the overall consistent plot up to that point, but it was absolutely ridiculous!


I just watched *Hereditary*.


Spoiler



Not sure how I feel about the movie as a whole, but I had no problem with the ending whatsoever. I don't know what "consistent" plot it ruined, it was, in my view, just a big reveal. Up into that point I didn't know what to expect, but there were many signs or clues heading into that direction. Overall I was pleased with it, and maybe I'll buy it when the price is right. It's a movie worth revisiting at some point. It's a shame you weren't satisfied with itz because I find the movie extremely creepy and disturbing, even when it doesn't have many jump scares scenes.


----------



## subacabra

Have any of you guys seen Gamer?
Got this on a whim as I heard it had wonderful aq and I must say for a regular blu ray the pq is also top notch!
Colors are vibrant and sharp, darker scenes have nice detail and great blacks. 
Definitely worth a look, non stop action pretty much start to finish.
I knew it was gonna kick butt as the opening action sequence starts with Sweet Dreams by Marilyn Manson.
https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Gamer-Blu-ray/7776/


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> I just watched *Hereditary*.
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure how I feel about the movie as a whole, but I had no problem with the ending whatsoever. I don't know what "consistent" plot it ruined, it was, in my view, just a big reveal. Up into that point I didn't know what to expect, but there were many signs or clues heading into that direction. Overall I was pleased with it, and maybe I'll buy it when the price is right. It's a movie worth revisiting at some point. It's a shame you weren't satisfied with itz because I find the movie extremely creepy and disturbing, even when it doesn't have many jump scares scenes.


Read my review on it again AmerCa. You say "It's a shame you weren't satisfied with it," but I say I like the whole movie UNTIL THE LAST SCENE. In fact, I praise the acting and the pacing (adding that the pacing of the lead's "slip into madness" was PERFECT). But the ending was, as Phantom cited others were saying, "greatly disappointing."

Your take (on the last scene) is obviously much different than mine, which is fine. Our views serve to illustrate the old adage, "Different strokes for different folks."


----------



## AmerCa

subacabra said:


> Have any of you guys seen Gamer?
> Got this on a whim as I heard it had wonderful aq and I must say for a regular blu ray the pq is also top notch!
> Colors are vibrant and sharp, darker scenes have nice detail and great blacks.
> Definitely worth a look, non stop action pretty much start to finish.
> I knew it was gonna kick butt as the opening action sequence starts with Sweet Dreams by Marilyn Manson.
> https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Gamer-Blu-ray/7776/


I haven't but it's on my list. I just have too many movies on it  .*Gamer* surely looks like lots of fun. I remember you talking about it in the bass thread.


----------



## djoberg

I just slipped in _Hotel Artemis_. I had never heard of this title until I checked out the Redbox website today. It sounds interesting so I reserved a copy, which I picked up about an hour ago. I'll check back in a couple of hours with my take on it.


----------



## djoberg

*Hotel Artemis (1080p)*

Well, it was bound to happen sooner or later. After boasting of one demo disc after another I now can speak of a less-than-stellar Blu that, quite frankly, was a MESS. Most of its 90 minute running time took place inside "Hotel Artemis" where the lighting was mostly dim, the focus was mostly soft, the black levels were mostly murky, the depth was mostly flat....need I say more? Add to these "mostly negatives" some egregious color-grading (in multiple scenes), which was "mostly orange" until the last two scenes where a rather odd "red hue" was introduced. 

There was one redeeming feature...in close-ups, and thankfully there were quite a few, the facial texture was magnificent, ranging between a low Tier 0 and a high Tier 1 ranking. Again, there were a lot of these so it may make my placement recommendation kind of tricky.

Movie-wise, it was somewhat "quirky" and I was really put off by the pervasive language (I started muting certain characters due to a constant spewing of F-bombs) throughout. Here too there was one redeeming feature...a very good performance by Jodi Foster!

The audio was nothing to write home about.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.5**


----------



## djoberg

*Breaking In (1080p)*

All right! Back to Reference/Demo territory!!

It's been a long day so I'm going to keep this short. I could add many superlatives to my review to describe how pristine the PQ looked, but I'll just say there is ZERO complaints and this one had all the EYE CANDY that one could ask for, including some very rich, deep and inky black levels with corresponding shadow details. The movie wasn't half bad either, so if I were you I'd at least give it a rent.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.66)*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

subacabra said:


> Have any of you guys seen Gamer?
> Got this on a whim as I heard it had wonderful aq and I must say for a regular blu ray the pq is also top notch!
> Colors are vibrant and sharp, darker scenes have nice detail and great blacks.
> Definitely worth a look, non stop action pretty much start to finish.
> I knew it was gonna kick butt as the opening action sequence starts with Sweet Dreams by Marilyn Manson.
> https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Gamer-Blu-ray/7776/


 Yes, _Gamer_ received a lot of attention on Blu-ray when it first came out. Especially in this thread. I'm pretty sure several different users here ranked it back in the day. You have to remember the disc is nearly a decade old by this point. Search the thread if you want to see discussion on the disc.

_Gamer_ has been ranked in Tier 0 for many years. I don't remember if I reviewed it for the PQ Tiers or not, it's been so long. I do remember being impressed. Anyone know if a UHD has been released yet? Lionsgate put it out, and they usually aren't shy about tossing out catalog titles on new formats.


----------



## djoberg

*Insidious: The Last Key*

Okay, I'm in the "horror genre mood" so I picked up this rental at Redbox today. I've never been a big fan of the _Insidious Franchise_ and this one was no different. On the plus side the PQ was quite pleasing at times, especially in all outdoor, daytime scenes and in interior scenes with good lighting. Details in general were excellent (in clothing, furniture, foliage, streets, gravel roods, wood siding on buildings, etc.) and facial details were reference quality in close-ups. Colors were very good when primaries were on display (though that was rare). Depth could also be impressive in shots with decent clarity.

On the downside, there was quite a few murky scenes (poor blacks with little shadow detail) when Elisa was in "the Further" (i.e. spiritual realm). Colors were often muted and there was considerable color-grading with a lot of "teal hues." I believe there were also cases of banding in such scenes, and a bit of video noise as well.

All things considered this is still "demo material," but it won't be very high on Tier 1 ladder. I'm opting for....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5 or 1.75**

PS The audio mix was exceptional at times, with a lot of action in the surrounds and the height speakers. Bass/LFE was thunderous in a couple of scenes, causing pictures and other articles to visibly shake on my walls and small end tables.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^

Tomorrow night I'm having my sister here and we're watching a Double Feature...._Annabelle_ and _The Conjuring_. If memory serves me these movies have much better story-lines and acting, and the PQ/AQ is just as good or better.


----------



## AmerCa

*A Cure For Wellness (2016 - Fox)*












subacabra said:


> Watched A Cure for Wellness this evening. Holy moly. Easily the best picture quality blu ray I've seen. I'd venture to say better than some 4k movies.


I'll cut right to the chase. The best compliment I can give to this movie is saying is that I put it right below * Transformers: The Last Knight* in terms of PQ. That's the nutshell version.

Super short version: WOW.

Long version: it's hard to believe has flew under everyone's radar, because the PQ in here is absolutely _insane_. Details, depth, texture and clarity are _ phenomenal_. I'll say it again. PHENOMENAL. For many stretches, the PQ easily equaled that of T:TLK _at the very least_, and at times I'd dare to say it surpassed it. My jaw was on the floor the first 30-45 minutes. After that, my eyes adjusted to the visual excellence, but I still could keep finding reasons to be amazed. It helps tremendously that the cinematography is exceptional, so what you see at times resembles more the TV demos you see at stores than a movie. This stuff is gorgeous. You'll need to see it with your own eyes.

That said, there's some color grading that gives the movie a particular aesthetic that may cause some people to lower the score. Primary colors aren't strong or present in significant quantities, but still I have absolutely no issue putting it ahead of titles like *Lucy* or * Warcraft*, movies that have a greater color dynamic range and a pop out factor. But none of them approach the pristine quality and clarity of *A Cure For Wellness*. Black levels are also fantastic (well, at least to what my display can keep up with). Framed in a 1.78 aspect ratio, this is the stuff Snell absolutely will love to see in his OLED.

So, why not number one? There are some weaker moments in there due to the CGI that didn't completely pleased me. Luckily, those moments are very few and can't weight enough to dampen my impression on the PQ. This is one of the finest live-action movies you'll see before the transition is completely done to 4k.

The cherry on the top is the fantastic audio track, especially the bass, which is powerful and is sure to give any subwoofer a complete workout. But, what about the movie itself? I can't say everyone will love it, especially for the last act, but it's worth at least one viewing. In terms of PQ, however, it's a must-own.

*Tier Recommendation: 0* (#2)*


----------



## AmerCa

* Upstream Color (2013 - Cinedigm)*










I'm rewiewing the UK version, although most of this review should apply to the original US release.

I had to make the hard decision of choosing between the beautiful packaged US release or the more "traditional" amaray Blu-ray case. I choose the later for the superior audio and video transfer, which doubles the technical specs of the US release. However, this is one of the cases in which a higher bitrate for audio and video won't make a significant difference, if you have to stick with the American version.

*Upstream Color* was filmed and released independently, and despite the best efforts from writer/director/editor/composer Shane Carruth, it shows in the PQ. Even the technical superior UK transfer has issues keeping a consistent picture quality all the way through. Clarity oftens lacks detail, and when there's detail, clarity or contrast is lacking. There are visible artifacts here and there, especially in dark scenes. Video presentation also lacks depth. It's not that the PQ is bad, I just expected the PQ to break at least demo territory. There are many moments that offer striking clarity and detail, most notably in close-ups, and Carruth certainly has a gift for video framing and composition which results in an often mesmerizing visual experience, even if the technical video qualities are not the best. The PQ reminded me a lot that of Malick's *To The Wonder*, which is not bad at all, except Carruth's film is less consistent. Despite my particular expectations, this is a very solid and admirable effort, talking into consideration the budget constraints. Don't get me wrong, _ Upstream Color_ offers a very enjoyable and (for the most part) clean presentation.

The audio track deserves a special mention. If you love sound, you'll LOVE this track. I think most, if not all audio, was recorded on location, so what you hear on screen seems to naturally "emanate" from each set piece or location, and is interwoven with the soundtrack and each scene in way you rarely see and _experience_ on movies. The audio mix is one of a kind and truly exquisite.

I mentioned _To The Wonder_ earlier, a movie released in the same year as this one, and a movie with whom shares many similarities, and yet are very different films. If you like the most recent Malick works, there's a chance you'll enjoy this one, at least from an aesthetic perspective. Or if you enjoy tryings to solve puzzles like that of Villeneuve's * Enemy*, then you may also enjoy this one. Not a film for everyone, certainly. Just take a quick look into IMDB, where many claim this is the worst movie ever released. I find this film beautiful and full of great and delicate sensibilities. A great piece of filmmaking, in my humble opinion.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> *A Cure For Wellness (2016 - Fox)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll cut right to the chase. The best compliment I can give to this movie is saying is that I put it right below * Transformers: The Last Knight* in terms of PQ. That's the nutshell version.
> 
> Super short version: WOW.
> 
> Long version: it's hard to believe has flew under everyone's radar, because the PQ in here is absolutely _insane_. Details, depth, texture and clarity are _ phenomenal_. I'll say it again. PHENOMENAL. For many stretches, the PQ easily equaled that of T:TLK _at the very least_, and at times I'd dare to say it surpassed it. My jaw was on the floor the first 30-45 minutes. After that, my eyes adjusted to the visual excellence, but I still could keep finding reasons to be amazed. It helps tremendously that the cinematography is exceptional, so what you see at times resembles more the TV demos you see at stores than a movie. This stuff is gorgeous. You'll need to see it with your own eyes.
> 
> That said, there's some color grading that gives the movie a particular aesthetic that may cause some people to lower the score.
> *Tier Recommendation: 0* (#2)*


Hey AmerCa,

As you noticed, I "Liked" your post (because of the excellent review and placement you gave on the PQ). But I will NOT be seeing this title, even though I would love to see some of the beautiful cinematography and the amazing details, depth, texture and clarity that you described. My reason for not seeing it (and I hope you don't take offense at this) is the graphic content that I've read about. I do NOT care to see a movie that is filled with Full Frontal Nudity (of males and females) throughout, along with a graphic attempted rape. It also has tons of pervasive language.

On Blu-ray.com they only gave the PQ a score of 4 out of 5 due to its color-grading. They described it as a "sickly green" that, for the most part, dominated the whole film.


----------



## subacabra

AmerCa said:


> *A Cure For Wellness (2016 - Fox)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll cut right to the chase. The best compliment I can give to this movie is saying is that I put it right below * Transformers: The Last Knight* in terms of PQ. That's the nutshell version.
> 
> Super short version: WOW.
> 
> Long version: it's hard to believe has flew under everyone's radar, because the PQ in here is absolutely _insane_. Details, depth, texture and clarity are _ phenomenal_. I'll say it again. PHENOMENAL. For many stretches, the PQ easily equaled that of T:TLK _at the very least_, and at times I'd dare to say it surpassed it. My jaw was on the floor the first 30-45 minutes. After that, my eyes adjusted to the visual excellence, but I still could keep finding reasons to be amazed. It helps tremendously that the cinematography is exceptional, so what you see at times resembles more the TV demos you see at stores than a movie. This stuff is gorgeous. You'll need to see it with your own eyes.
> 
> That said, there's some color grading that gives the movie a particular aesthetic that may cause some people to lower the score. Primary colors aren't strong or present in significant quantities, but still I have absolutely no issue putting it ahead of titles like *Lucy* or * Warcraft*, movies that have a greater color dynamic range and a pop out factor. But none of them approach the pristine quality and clarity of *A Cure For Wellness*. Black levels are also fantastic (well, at least to what my display can keep up with). Framed in a 1.78 aspect ratio, this is the stuff Snell absolutely will love to see in his OLED.
> 
> So, why not number one? There are some weaker moments in there due to the CGI that didn't completely pleased me. Luckily, those moments are very few and can't weight enough to dampen my impression on the PQ. This is one of the finest live-action movies you'll see before the transition is completely done to 4k.
> 
> The cherry on the top is the fantastic audio track, especially the bass, which is powerful and is sure to give any subwoofer a complete workout. But, what about the movie itself? I can't say everyone will love it, especially for the last act, but it's worth at least one viewing. In terms of PQ, however, it's a must-own.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 0* (#2)*


100% agree with your detailed analysis!
In fact I may give this another spin tonight!


----------



## AmerCa

djoberg said:


> Hey AmerCa,
> 
> As you noticed, I "Liked" your post (because of the excellent review and placement you gave on the PQ). But I will NOT be seeing this title, even though I would love to see some of the beautiful cinematography and the amazing details, depth, texture and clarity that you described. My reason for not seeing it (and I hope you don't take offense at this) is the graphic content that I've read about. I do NOT care to see a movie that is filled with Full Frontal Nudity (of males and females) throughout, along with a graphic attempted rape. It also has tons of pervasive language.
> 
> On Blu-ray.com they only gave the PQ a score of 4 out of 5 due to its color-grading. They described it as a "sickly green" that, for the most part, dominated the whole film.


I see you have already spoiled the film for yourself. A lot of the stuff in this movie caught me off guard, but I don't like to know many specifics about a movie. 

But this definitely is not a movie you can watch with everybody, I know for a fact that if I put this to the girlfriend, she'll refuse to watch no more horror movies with me, especially if she thought I knew the stuff that was going to happen.  Even sister would be uncomfortable with some of the stuff in there.

And yeah, the color grading is a make-it or break-it deal.

Enviado desde mi SM-G318ML mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

*Annabelle & The Conjuring*

Okay, my sister and I just watched these two "back to back." I could hardly remember _Annabelle_ and I had even forgotten parts of _The Conjuring_. I believe I had rated them 1.25 and 1.75 respectively. That was back when I still had my 1080p display (the Pioneer KURO Elite). I think I can safely say my 4K Sony took them up a notch or two! Clarity was exceptional, details were insane, colors were naturally warm and vibrant, black levels were to-die-for (especially in _The Conjuring_).

If you have never seen these two, I couldn't recommend them more highly, especially _The Conjuring_. I have to say _Annabelle_ was MILD by comparison. The last 45 minutes of _The Conjuring_ were the most intense I have ever seen in a horror movie. Adding to the intensity was the unbelievable DTS HD Master Audio Mix. I had my Denon AVR (which I've only had for less than two years) set to -4 and I literally didn't dare to set it any higher. I had plaques falling off shelves and the whole room was shaking as if there was a "malevolent spirit" in the room with us! My Denon also up-mixes non-DTS X mixes to send signals to the height channels/speakers and it was simply incredible; in fact, it was the best audio experience in a movie I have ever had aside from a few with Dolby Atmos or DTS:X. 

*Annabelle Tier Recommendation: 1.0.....The Conjuring Tier Recommendation: 1.25*


----------



## SnellTHX

*Solo: A Star Wars Story*


Wasn't actually as bad as I thought it'd be. I've seen Ralph Potts give 80+ ratings to really old movies that still look mediocre (imo) and this got slaugtered. Plus Djoberg gave probably the lowest score he's ever given a 2015-2018 movie.

The dark scenes looked awful. It was flat, noisy and muddy brownish black levels. 

Other than being dark and having horrible dark/black/near-black/shadow details I thought it looked pretty good. relatively sharp, relatively high details.

The bad was worse than most movies, but the good was actually better than average. If that makes sense...


I think I gave Episode VIII a 1.5 rating , which left me disappointed because I expected it to be Tier 0(.5)

I expect Tier 3 this time around and thus pleasantly surprised to be honest...


*Tier recommendation: 2.0*


----------



## DarthDoxie

*The Mummy (1959)*

recommendation: *Tier 4.5**

From Hammer Films, it's on par with the Universal original as far as entertainment goes. The colors are bright in the opening scenes in the tomb but once the action arrives in England it's a bit dull, the colors just don't pop. Contrast and black levels are also lackluster. The most glaring fault of the presentation is the clarity. Many closeups of Peter Cushing are SD quality, unacceptable for Blu-ray. Lots of other shots are off as well but there are times when the clarity is pretty good like some close-up shots of the Mummy's (Christopher Lee) eyes and the flash back scenes.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^

Sorry Darth, but I'm about to follow your 4.5 "in the dung heap" rating with a stellar Tier Blu rating!!

*Ant-Man and the Wasp (UHD)*

Well, once again I in-satiated my visual senses with pure EYE CANDY!! Disney did NOT disappoint at all in this new release, for we are treated to mesmerizing CLARITY and DETAILS in most every scene. The details of good old San Francisco never looked better, with rich texture in every city street, building, car, etc. COLORS were bold and vibrant...CONTRAST was super-strong...BLACK LEVELS were velvety deep...SHADOW DETAILS were to-die-for...and DEPTH was incredible in many shots.

If I had to nit-pick, I would say there were some fleeting shots of softness that fell a bit flat. Maybe a second viewing will yield more flaws (for I was a bit distracted by the excellent action and the infectious humor), but for now I'm a happy "viewing" camper.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.5)*

PS The Dolby Atmos mix was pretty solid for a Disney release. They have definitely upped their game. Once I turned it to Reference Level (my wife is still in Arizona ) my room came alive with a heavy dose of bass/LFE in several scenes and plenty of action in the surrounds and height channels.


----------



## djoberg

*The Boy*

I ended my day with the "male version" of Annabelle...a "boy doll," that is. This was quite different though....a very unique thriller starring Lauren Cohan from "The Walking Dead." The acting was excellent and the PQ was even better. It featured razor-sharp clarity in all daytime scenes (outdoors and indoors) and most of the night time scenes had very good black levels and finely-rendered shadow details. The details was insane at times (especially outdoor scenes of the house, yard and surrounding forest). Facial close-ups had amazing texture revealing every minute nuance (pores, pocks, stubble, moles, etc.) The only negative was a few instances of softness in low-lit scenes in the house. 

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.5)*

PS The audio mix didn't come alive until the closing scene, but man was it intense!


----------



## AmerCa

^^^^^^^^^^










Not sure if you're interested, but the movie *Oculus* is currently 6.99 on Amazon. Great horror film that may be right up your alley. It also features a terrific bass track. And Karen Gillian...


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^

Thanks for the heads up! I have seen it and reviewed it, but I can't even remember if I liked the movie or not. I know I LOVED the PQ:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-756.html#post35027145

I'm also going to copy another link address for you, for after I posted that review a member (Russ) responded by saying he saw most of the movie and he thought the black levels were horrible. I too missed some of the movie due to glitches where I had to Fast-Forward it to get past them, so it's possible I went past some of the shots with bad blacks.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-756.html#post35051785


----------



## djoberg

*The Foreigner*

I had been trying to rent this title from Redbox for a very long time (it was always in "nearby location" 25 miles away or so). I finally snatched it yesterday and watched it late last night. I was thoroughly impressed with the movie and the PQ! Jackie Chan and Pierce Brosnan had excellent performances, the action was incredible and well-paced, and the audio mix was surprisingly satisfying. And oh....Jackie Chan can still kick butt!!

PQ-wise, this had razor-sharp clarity throughout, with many tantalizing shots of London, including several aerial views. Scenes that took place at the country home of Brosnan featured beautiful cinematography with superb details and depth. Colors were on the muted side, but even with some marginal color-grading details and depth still abounded. There were a couple of night time scenes that showcased stellar black levels and shadow details. I will only add that flesh tones were spot on and contrast was strong.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.75)*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^

I should have mentioned (for those who may not know) that _The Foreigner_ strayed from Jackie Chan's usual fare. It was an intense political thriller and Chan's performance was dramatic and believable.

Well, my "Blu-ray Feast" has come to an end! I will be picking up my dear wife at the airport later today and with her having been gone nearly 10 days I will now be on a "Blu-ray Fast."


----------



## AmerCa

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Thanks for the heads up! I have seen it and reviewed it, but I can't even remember if I liked the movie or not. I know I LOVED the PQ:
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-756.html#post35027145
> 
> I'm also going to copy another link address for you, for after I posted that review a member (Russ) responded by saying he saw most of the movie and he thought the black levels were horrible. I too missed some of the movie due to glitches where I had to Fast-Forward it to get past them, so it's possible I went past some of the shots with bad blacks.
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-756.html#post35051785


I see you had to fast-forward some chapters to skip the glitches. I can't imagine watching this movie and skipping any of it. Everything felt so critical and intense that I almost forget to breathe at times. But, in my experience, when one can't remember liking a movie or not is because he/she didn't care for it. Over the years I can forget plot specifics or even whole scenes, but it's very rare that I forget how a movie made me feel.

I'm convinced the horror genre is the most divisive of them all, and what is a masterpiece for someone, for another is just an average movie. Hard-to-recommend stuff, unless you know someone's tastes very well.

Edit: I wanted to add I saw the local release of this movie for real cheap sometime ago, but this is the crap I have to deal with sometimes with local pressings:









and that's probably at 192kbps.


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> I can't imagine watching this movie and skipping any of it. Everything felt so critical and intense that I almost forget to breathe at times. But, in my experience, *when one can't remember liking a movie or not is because he/she didn't care for it.* Over the years I can forget plot specifics or even whole scenes, but it's very rare that I forget how a movie made me feel.


Okay, I visited Amazon to see who was in _Oculus_ and as soon as I saw her picture I remembered the main premise of the movie (with the "mirror"). I definitely LIKED the movie a lot. I know you find that hard to believe, based on the words in BOLD above, but you have to "remember" that I watch TONS of movies and it is simply impossible for me to remember all of them. Granted, when I see one like _The Conjuring_ it does STICK, though even with that film there were parts in it I had forgotten.


----------



## djoberg

*Mama*

Well, I was able to squeeze one in before I leave for the airport. Last week I had picked this up in the "bargain bin" at Wally World (for $5). I usually like any film with Jessica Chastain in it and this was no exception. This was put out by Guillermo del Toro who wrote _Pan's Labyrinth_, which I have and really like, so that gave me two reasons to "go for it." This was really creepy and I would highly recommend it, either for a rental, or if you can find one in the "bargain bin" it is quite the gem for fans of this genre.

Regarding the PQ, let me get this out of the way right away....the colors are nearly drained throughout and there is some very strong "teal" and "orange" hues in many scenes. But guess what? I didn't even care, for the DETAILS were so insane that I loved it. DEPTH was also incredible. FACIAL TEXTURES in close-ups were absolute "Reference Quality." This was done in the 1.85:1 Aspect Ratio and it was really great to see all of this EYE CANDY filling the whole screen. One more thing: BLACK LEVELS were as deep and inky as they come in many of the dark scenes. There is one shot (that lasts for only about 30 seconds) at night as the lead male is walking through a forest and thanks to some spectacular SHADOW DETAILS you could see every branch and leaf on every tree, as well as details in his clothing and face. What a treat!

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.75)*

PS The audio mix was no slouch either. I had mine on -5 most of the movie and I was thoroughly satisfied.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Hotel Transylvania 3*

recommendation: *Tier 0* *(Between Smurfs and Toy Story 3)

Excellent animation all around from Sony. Details are great, especially hair and textures. The little red-headed kids hair is phenomenal, the curls and out of place hairs are very realistic. Black levels and contrast are likewise excellent. The lighting really stood out at well, it looked so real and natural with the play of reflections and shadows.


The sound was also really good, lots of work for the sub.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Christine (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

One of John Carpenter's best! Detail is excellent with fabrics and the many gritty textures really standing out. There are some soft shots that keep it from Tier 0. Color and all the chrome highlights really pop thanks to HDR; Christine's red body and interior are vibrant. Black levels are deep with many night scenes and wet pavement. Black hair and clothing are also well presented with contrast showing great shadow detail and fine gradations in all the colors.


----------



## TitusTroy

how come there aren't more UHD titles in the rankings list (especially the Reference Tier)?...I see Planet Earth 2 in the top spot but barely any other ones...


----------



## Phantom Stranger

TitusTroy said:


> how come there aren't more UHD titles in the rankings list (especially the Reference Tier)?...I see Planet Earth 2 in the top spot but barely any other ones...


 The PQ Tiers haven't been updated since late July of last year. That is my fault and responsibility. I don't think people realized how much work went into keeping the list up to date over the past decade. Losing the Tiers database which had served us for several years has made the task much less pleasant. I still plan on another update when I have a free weekend.

*Constantine: City of Demons*

recommendation: *Tier 1.75**

The new animated movie has minor compression issues on Blu-ray like some other animated DC properties. Perfect black levels help out the darker textures and bold colors. The art direction is striking and fluid. However, the average picture quality level is a step below the best we've seen produced by WB Animation.


----------



## TitusTroy

Phantom Stranger said:


> The PQ Tiers haven't been updated since late July of last year. That is my fault and responsibility. I don't think people realized how much work went into keeping the list up to date over the past decade. Losing the Tiers database which had served us for several years has made the task much less pleasant. I still plan on another update when I have a free weekend...


maybe allow some of the most frequent posters in this thread access to that thread, giving them the ability to update it instead of relying on one person alone...this thread is great but it's hard to keep up with all the new releases...having a centralized database of PQ titles is much easier for those that don't visit this thread every day


----------



## AmerCa

TitusTroy said:


> maybe allow some of the most frequent posters in this thread access to that thread, giving them the ability to update it instead of relying on one person alone...this thread is great but it's hard to keep up with all the new releases...having a centralized database of PQ titles is much easier for those that don't visit this thread every day


It's more difficult than it sounds. By definition, the tiers are weigthed, so every time someone gives a rating, the placement of a movie can change. Some movies only have a single rating, other have several, but often there's quite some time separation between ratings. Basically, most of the time you're trusting just one member's opinion on a title, so in reality the PQ tiers are much more subjective and circumstancial than you might think. 

When we review a disc we often try to link to previous reviews in an attempt to provide additional points of reference, but keeping an up-to-date list like that of the Ultimate Bass thread -which essentially consists of merely adding graphs as people post them -, a list like that is not really viable.

What could be possible done, perhaps, is keeping a tier list from certain time frame - let's say a one/two months period- and adding a link to it in the first page. You'd still need to cross-reference with previous lists, in case a title appears again. Even then, it implies some time commitment and some work. I definitely empathize with all the hard work Phantom had had to deal with all this time. It's not easy.


----------



## AmerCa

*Den Of Thieves (2018 - Universal)*










Basically, we're taking about your "average" modern transfer: not quite reference quality, but easily "run-of-the-mill" demo material, if there's such thing. I was quite pleased with the PQ, but I can't remember anything particularly impressive about it. And that's not necessarily something bad, that's why the tier zero category is special.

Contrary to what you could expect, _Den Of Thieves_ is not full non-stop action, so the audio mix is most of the time very low profile. But when it's asked to deliver, it delivers quite possibly the best and most brutal gunshots I've heard to date, and features among the best shootouts on film. Terrific movie as well. The disc features both the theatrical and unrated cuts, and since I loved every second of it, the unrated is really the way to go for me.

* Tier Recommendation: 1.5**


----------



## AmerCa

*Oculus (2013 - Fox)*










It seems like a month ago, but actually this movie was discussed a handful of posts back in this very same page. After previously streaming it, I finally got the chance to watch my physical copy, so... let's go!

I watched this after seeing _Den Of Thieves_, and the jump in quality was instantly apparent. Djoberg gave it a tier zero placement, and it's easy to see why. There was also some discussion regarding the black levels of this movie, which I agree to some extent. While the day or "clear" scenes are often in reference territory, the night or "dark" scenes are a tad weaker, although not to the extent of ruining the whole experience. However, such inconsistency does prevent this disc from reaching true reference status. But nitpicking aside, this is pretty great stuff in terms of video... and sound.

_Oculus_ is really the whole package, both in technical and artistic merits. I don't know how was the state of the horror genre in terms of audiovisuals prior to 2014, but as Djoberg points out in by his review, the days where horror movies and low production values were synonymous are long gone. I actually enjoyed the audio mix in here more than that of _Den Of Thieves_ (and the best stuff in the latter is reference material!), something that would have been unthinkable to me a couple years back.

This movie, in more ways than one, is an underappreciated gem.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*


----------



## AmerCa

*The Conjuring 2 (2016 - Warner)*










*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*

It's that time of the year, so it's only fitting that I post a couple of reviews for movies to spend a good horror night.

The PQ of this film reminded me a lot of that of *IT*. There's some intentional color grading to give the film a certain "retro" look, which naturally gets in the way of a "shinier" or more colorful presentation. There's nothing particularly wrong with the video, but it falls short from a truly outstanding presentation, which for me starts to happen around tier 1.25. As it is, the PQ serves well what's presented on screen, which is a dark and oppressive ambiance.

It should be noted that the audio mix was pretty good, and complemented the movie very well. I've heard the first _ Conjuring_ has a reference audio track (I don't own it...yet), but this one shouldn't be far behind. Jump scares be damned, I enjoyed this one a lot. Pretty good story, acting and settings. I've read that to some the sequel is better than the original. Hard to decide, but I liked the story in this one better, although the original is probably scarier.

Some reviews:

*Phantom* (2.75) confused : https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-779.html#post46823017

*Djoberg* (1.75): https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-782.html#post48117697


----------



## AmerCa

*I Saw The Devil [ 악마를 보았다 ] (2010 - Magnolia) *










*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*

This one is the very definition of a mixed bag. It goes all the way from reference video to straight-from-DVD picture, sometimes from one shot to the next. Such movies are hard to evaluate, as they essentially lack a consistent parameter to judge from. Overall I liked the video presentation, but it can't be recommended to demo tier. Tier 2.25 seems about right to me, but I wouldn't have any issue if someone thinks this should be ranked lower...or higher.

The audio track is, for those who care, of much higher quality and delivers on all levels. This movie is one of my favorite thrillers, but is not one for the faint of the heart. Ultra violent and very explicit, this is all you would expect from a movie that involves serial killers, and psychos in general. Only in Korea.This is NOT a date movie for sure, but it can cap off a good horror session. You won't have the stomach or mood for anything else after it.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Jurassic World (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 0* (0.25)*

All facets of the UHD are excellent...details, black levels, contrast, and colors. One thing that stood out was the inconsistent film grain. When it was there it was very fine but also obviously apparent when it was absent. Both shots with grain and no grain showed the same level of detail so not sure why the inconsistency.

If the Blu-ray was a 10, the UHD would be turned up to 11  



djoberg said:


> *Jurassic World*
> 
> Let me start off by saying the PQ on this outing easily trumped the _Jurassic Park Trilogy_. I was impressed from beginning to end in every PQ department. The only minor gripe I had was with a few CGI shots where softness intruded, especially in background shots. Other than that, this was pretty much a flawless release with zero anomalies and plenty of EYE CANDY!
> 
> I won't go into detail....but speaking of DETAIL, there was plenty of it! Details in every dinosaur was incredible...details in clothing, buildings, foliage, weapons, vehicles, etc., etc....it was all good! Facial texture really excelled (in all the lead actors but not limited to them). Flesh tones were, for the most part, spot-on. Contrast was exceptional. Black levels and shadow details were exemplary! Colors were vibrant! And to add a bit of icing on the cake, there was even a thin layer of grain that gave it the look of film in many shots.
> 
> In comparing this with _Tomorrowland_, I would say this one lacked the razor-sharp clarity that dazzled my eyes last night. It also didn't have the depth. But this still is a worthy contender for Tier Blu and I'm feeling like it belongs right here....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.75)...later elevated to 0.5*


----------



## SnellTHX

AmerCa said:


> *A Cure For Wellness (2016 - Fox)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll cut right to the chase. The best compliment I can give to this movie is saying is that I put it right below * Transformers: The Last Knight* in terms of PQ. That's the nutshell version.
> Black levels are also fantastic (well, at least to what my display can keep up with). Framed in a 1.78 aspect ratio, this is the stuff Snell absolutely will love to see in his OLED.
> 
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 0* (#2 )*



Haha I missed this post, but love the reference toward my preference!  putting a movie right up there as #2 right next to Transformers 5: LK is no joke, and if its filmed in 1.78:1 and fills my screen giving the "out of window" look I'm sure it'll be a great reference disc. I'll definitely get this movie now, which completely flew under my radar


----------



## djoberg

*Mamma Mia: Here We Go Again (1080p)*

*WOW!!!*

Okay, so I'm back from a trip to Philadelphia and I decided "It's time to break my Blu-ray Fast!" But guess what? My wife wanted to join me for a movie (which is a rare occasion!), so I decided to "let her decide" on the movie....and that's why I'm reviewing this rather SAPPY "feel good movie." But again, guess what? The PQ was STUNNING!!!

This is all about VIVID COLORS....MESMERIZING DETAILS....and ASTOUNDING DEPTH. Add to that some SPECTACULAR CINEMATOGRAPHY and you have yourself a movie that you're willing to watch in spite of the poor acting and singing on the part of several cast members (but in fairness, some were quite good). 

The DTS:X mix was very good, though don't expect much from the surrounds, the height channels or the subwoofer(s).

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.5)*


----------



## djoberg

*Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (UHD)*

I've decided to give a link to my 1080p review of this title, for it pretty much mirrors what I would say of this release. Having said that, the UHD version most definitely takes the PQ up a notch (or two!!) in details, colors and contrast. Add to this an awesome Dolby Atmos mix with incredible sound in every channel, especially the surrounds and my two subs. Regarding bass/LFE, in the last scene there is a charging elephant and I can't remember the last time my room rumbled and shook like this!! I felt like I was in Los Angeles and experiencing the BIG ONE!!!

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-822.html#post55892668

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.5)*


----------



## djoberg

Tomorrow my UHD version of _Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom_ arrives. I also pre-ordered the UHD version of _Mission Impossible: Fallout_ which should be here by December 4th.


----------



## djoberg

*Incredibles 2 (1080p)*

Okay, I was somewhat disappointed with the first several scenes. They lacked the details/texture of the average Pixar animated film. But that changed after the first 30 minutes or so after colors starting exploding on the scene with the introduction of a group of other "super heroes." Contrast became absolutely brilliant....details and texture in their suits and hair were mesmerizing.....black levels and shadow details were exquisite and depth was phenomenal at times.

I should add that this IS a Disney film and thus the audio mix needs to be turned up to appreciate it. Sadly, I was unable to do this (for the majority of the film) due to my granddaughter's ear infection. I was able to crank it up a few times and it can dig pretty deep and the action in the surrounds was amazing.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (somewhere between #20 and #30)*


----------



## AmerCa

*The Legend Of Tarzan (2016 - Warner)*










*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*

I was surprised to find several reviews for this movie:

*JNayAV* (1.5): https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-791.html#post51667937

*Snell* (1.5): https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-791.html#post51689705

*Djoberg* (1.0): https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-781.html#post47509857

I err on the side of Djoberg's rating, although I pretty much agree with all points brought up in those reviews. It has an uneven video presentation, but for the most part it's very pleasant and impressive, with lots of clarity and good detail, although some dark scenes are highly dubious. Also, this part:



> I also watched the 4K version and the only real difference that I saw were the shots of rising or setting suns and a campfire scene....you have to LOVE HDR when those occur, for the rise in contrast is spectacular!


That's the first thing that crossed my mind in those scenes, that they were HDR material. Really beautiful shots.

I must mention that I was pleasantly surprised with the audio track. The first time I saw this with my previous HTiB, I found the audio mix good, but nothing noteworthy. Obviously there was some low end that was missing. This is not exactly a bass monster, but it has some really nice bass, and hits pretty hard on some spots. The overall audio mix is really well done, and does the movie justice. This one should very fun on an ATMOS setup.

I quite enjoyed this movie, and Margot Robbie is stunning.


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> Tomorrow my UHD version of _Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom_ arrives. I also pre-ordered the UHD version of _Mission Impossible: Fallout_ which should be here by December 4th.


Mission Impossible is the first and only movie of the last 10 years or so that I watched in the cinema (Laser IMAX 4K projection) and been severely disappointed. It looked like utter crap. Like much worse than the Han Solo movie. Maybe they fixed the home release I don't know. I'm usually blown away by how good movies look at the new IMAX/Dolby cinemas, but not with MI:F


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> Mission Impossible is the first and only movie of the last 10 years or so that I watched in the cinema (Laser IMAX 4K projection) and been severely disappointed. It looked like utter crap. Like much worse than the Han Solo movie. Maybe they fixed the home release I don't know. I'm usually blown away by how good movies look at the new IMAX/Dolby cinemas, but not with MI:F


Thanks for letting me know! I have the option to cancel this so I will wait to see what reviewers (like Ralph Potts, DoBlu.com, Blu-ray.com, and others) say about the PQ and if they all give it a low score I will cancel it. Then again, I've heard this is THE BEST, by far, in the whole Franchise, so I may still get it in spite of some disappointing PQ.

BTW, I was reading in a Forum and one guy, who saw it in an IMAX cinema, said the PQ was horrible. But this was met by another guy who saw it in a state-of-the-art Dolby Theatre and he said the PQ was amazing all the way through. He was wondering if the real culprit wasn't the source, but the IMAX presentation of it. Where did you see it and what do you think about that exchange between those two viewers?


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^

Snell,

After a little more "digging," I found out that the same person who thought the PQ on _Fallout_ was horrible, also had the same view of _Rogue Nation_. He kept speaking of all the digital noise, softness, muted colors, etc. I then looked up my review of _Rogue Nation_ and even though there were shots of softness, drab colors, and color-grading, the details, depth and black levels were excellent and I ended up giving it a score of 1.25. So, methinks I may actually like the PQ of _Fallout_. Here is my review:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-765.html#post39867098


----------



## SnellTHX

I live in Norway, so I watched it at the only IMAX venue in the country, which is a 700 seat dual-laser 3D digital IMAX, built and opened less than a year ago. They advertise "Flagship Barco projection", not sure if that's what they use in the flagship IMAX or the other 13 non-IMAX r (but Dolby Atmos certified) theatres. . In any case every movie I've seen there looks gorgeous, and the 3D never ceases to amaze me (I actually hate 3D because glasses annoy me). MI:F was dark, muted colours, with lots of noise and grain. A non-videophile friend of mine even commented that the PQ was pretty average. "I thought you said this IMAX theater was special!" kind of comment. 

From what you've read and I experienced it could just be the way IMAX presented the print. I don't know.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Night and the City (Criterion)*

recommendation: *Tier 2.5**

Excellent film noir starring Richard Widmark. Detail is good especially all the gritty textures of London and Widmark's striped coat. Contrast and black levels are strong, lots of varying shades of gray. A nice layer of fine grain is present throughout and the encode looks flawless.


----------



## djoberg

*Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (UHD)*

Okay, I'm just going to give a link to my review of the 1080p version and then say a few words.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-839.html#post56831018

The UHD version DEFINITELY takes it up a notch or two! Details are even more mesmerizing and depth is off the charts. Colors are more pronounced and contrast is impeccable. 

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.4)*

PS The DTS:X mix is the same; in other words, AWESOME!!


----------



## djoberg

In a few hours I will be receiving the *Jack Ryan 5 Film Collection* (in 4K). I am a BIG FAN of these, especially the first three. They are selling for a very low price right now on Amazon so if you are a fan now's the time to grab them. I can't imagine them going any lower than this in the foreseeable future.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 1.25**


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 1.75**

Details are mostly excellent with wisps of hair textures on display. The rest of the tier parameters aren't quite up to reference quality, the main detractor being almost devoid of any colors that pop. It has a very washed out look, almost drab which matches the dark tone of the film. Black levels and contrast are OK for the most part but there are crushed blacks in a few shots. The last concerning thing about the film is the encode which seems to struggle in some latter scenes, especially when Harry and Dumbledore are in the cave. Minor banding in the blacks and illuminated wands is apparent and disappointing. I tried adjusting my display to remedy the banding but the blacks either became crushed or blown out so I think it's a problem with the encode. Banding around blacks was also visible when the Weasley house gets attacked. Overall it's a good looking UHD, just a few minor issues.


----------



## teachsac

*Please do not post retail links or price talk outside of the designated deal's area.*



> No street price talk or retail links please.


----------



## djoberg

*The Hunt for Red October (UHD)*

I'll say it from the outset, for a movie dating back to 1990 with a majority of dark scenes (with low-lit environments), this UHD release is more than I expected. I recall seeing this on DVD and then on Blu-ray, and being dissatisfied with its poor PQ (terrible video noise, a lack of details, and horrendous black levels and shadow details). Now I'm a happy owner of what is more than likely the best release one will see of this excellent Tom Clancy political/military thriller.

This is NOT perfect, by any means. There is still softness periodically (as you will see in its opening chapter when Sean Connery first appears), but after a few scenes there is remarkable clarity at times. Where this really shines is in facial close-ups (and there are tons of them!!), with exemplary texture in each actor that meets the camera's gaze....definitely Reference Quality without exception!

Most of its 2+ hour running time takes place in submarines and it can be murky and flat where the lighting is bad. But in shots with good clarity I was very pleased with the intricate details in instrument panels as well with the bright red, orange and yellow colors on the same panels. Black levels were deep in many shots, yielding good depth and satisfying shadow details. 

A word about the audio mix is in order before I give my placement. The Dolby TrueHD soundtrack was absolutely amazing! Dialogue was always clear and action in the fronts and surrounds was superb (notably in scenes where subs were diving and torpedoes were whizzing by). The only real letdown was in the bass/LFE department...there were 2-3 explosions where I was bracing myself for some tactile sensations but I heard very little and felt nothing.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0**

PS I could see some giving this a 1.75, for there were handfuls of shots that fell into the Reference Tier. But there were also many shots that fell squarely in the bottom of Tier 3. All things considered a 2.0 rating, for a title this old and dark, is very good!

PPS If you are a fan of this classic movie, you will NOT be disappointed. I promise you!!


----------



## djoberg

*The Meg (1080p)*

I've never been a big fan of the absurd _Sharknado Franchise_, but I am a fan of Jason Statham...so I decided to rent this at Redbox this morning. The movie was definitely better (by leaps and bounds) than any of the _Sharknado_ movies, but that really isn't saying much. Yet this was a fairly decent "popcorn rental" with plenty of action.

PQ-wise, it was a mixed bag. For the most part there was superb CLARITY and amazing DETAILS in close-ups (especially, as is usually the case, in facial close-ups....the texture on Jason's thick stubble was excellent). BLACK LEVELS were also very good at times (and thankfully my "black bars" remained pitch black throughout with the exception of one shot). COLORS were fantastic in outdoor, daytime scenes and in all well-lit interior shots. DEPTH was also pure EYE CANDY at times.

Now for the less-than-stellar. CONTRAST was deplorable at times, most notably in a sun-drenched, beach scene in the last act (which lasted 5-10 minutes). This resulted in a "washed out look" and "depleted details." I understand the UHD version is even worse (which makes sense with HDR and its super-duper contrast). Also, there were some underwater scenes with murky blacks and video noise.

If not for the negatives just listed, this could have been a low Tier 0 title. In my opinion it's still demo-worthy and I'm inclined to put it here:

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**

PS The Dolby Atmos mix was GREAT, though I was expecting more in the bass/LFE department during collisions and explosions.


----------



## djoberg

*Patriot Games (UHD)*

This is, without a doubt, a HUGE improvement over former releases, especially in night time scenes. In the DVD outing, and even the Blu-ray release, night time scenes in the desert terrorist camp and most notably the last scene at the Ryan's sea home, were a mess. They were super soft, murky as all get out, and void of details and depth. Though there was still some shots of softness and murkiness in the last scene (which is quite long) on the UHD presentation, shadow details still came through. The grain structure in the DVD/Blu-ray was horrendous; here it was consistent and very "filmic-looking," adding to the details instead of obscuring them.

Comparing this with _The Hunt for Red October_, I felt this one was equal to it, but no better. THfRO had better facial details/texture (overall, that is), but this one had better details in general. A case in point would be outside the Ryan residence in daytime scenes, where landscaping, foliage, their house, and surrounding trees were quite good. Colors on both films were very drab, though as I pointed out in my review the other day the bright colors on the instrument panels in submarines were excellent.

Before giving a placement, a word about the audio is in order. It was TERRIBLE! Unlike the audio in THfRO, which was an exemplary mix, this one was a real dud, with most action being limited to the front speakers and no action to speak of coming from the subs.

Again, this is a nice improvement over its former release, but it will NOT be deemed worthy of either a Reference or Demo placement...though it does come close to "demo."

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0**


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> I live in Norway, so I watched it at the only IMAX venue in the country, which is a 700 seat dual-laser 3D digital IMAX, built and opened less than a year ago. They advertise "Flagship Barco projection", not sure if that's what they use in the flagship IMAX or the other 13 non-IMAX r (but Dolby Atmos certified) theatres. . In any case every movie I've seen there looks gorgeous, and the 3D never ceases to amaze me (I actually hate 3D because glasses annoy me). MI:F was dark, muted colours, with lots of noise and grain. A non-videophile friend of mine even commented that the PQ was pretty average. "I thought you said this IMAX theater was special!" kind of comment.
> 
> From what you've read and I experienced it could just be the way IMAX presented the print. I don't know.


For whatever reason Snell, I didn't see your post until today! That sounds like a true "State of the Art" IMAX theater so it's weird that every movie you've seen looks gorgeous EXCEPT for MI: Fallout. I have only been to two IMAX theaters (in Minneapolis and Duluth, MN) and "some" of the films I've seen didn't look all that great, but in fairness they are NOT nearly as great as what you've described.

Anyway, I will still be getting the UHD Blu-ray, for I've heard the movie itself is the best in the Franchise. If the PQ is halfway decent it will still be worth the investment, IMHO.


----------



## SnellTHX

Yeah of course. Ironically, even though we review movies to tell others what to BUY and what NOT to buy, but whenever I see a movie get slaughtered it makes me want to buy it  Like Han Solo... Everyone talked about how bad it was so I had to get it to see it myself. I'm also curious to see how MI:F looks at home.

I don't remember if I mentioned it in my original statement about the movie many months ago, but there was one scene that completely blew my mind. I think its the entire helicopter scene or at least parts of it. Probably only 5-10 minutes but this scene had GLORIOUS picture quality. Everything was razor sharp, highly detailed and stuck right out of the 1200" IMAX screen with lots of punch. I later check on IMDB and it appears the movie was mainly filmed with Arriflex 235/435 cameras and one particular helicopter scene was filmed with an 8K camera from RED....


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> I don't remember if I mentioned it in my original statement about the movie many months ago, but there was one scene that completely blew my mind. I think its the entire helicopter scene or at least parts of it. Probably only 5-10 minutes but this scene had GLORIOUS picture quality. Everything was razor sharp, highly detailed and stuck right out of the 1200" IMAX screen with lots of punch. I later check on IMDB and it appears the movie was mainly filmed with Arriflex 235/435 cameras and one particular helicopter scene was filmed with an 8K camera from RED....


This tells me you must be right about the movie, for if that one scene looked GLORIOUS and the rest looked BAD, it has to be the SOURCE (i.e. how it was filmed) and not the MEDIUM (i.e. the equipment it's played on).

Having said that, if memory serves me, you HATE GRAIN and perhaps I will be much less forgiving than you for I don't mind grain unless it's way too heavy and looks like video noise.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^

Me again Snell. I just visited the IMDb website to see what they had to say about MI:F. They have 1232 reviews by consumers and it is truly a mixed bag when it comes to "likability." The same thing can be said about the PQ, for a few that I read mirrored your analysis, saying it was one of the most horrible-looking films ever. Others said it was GORGEOUS. Here is a sample of one who loved the PQ:

"I really liked the visuals of the film. Much of the lighting seems to reproduce a nuclear blast, (the impending danger that has to be prevented) providing this entry of the series with a distinct visual style. There is definitely some very stunning photography that permeates most of this film's scenes."

Those who liked it all said it had (as mentioned above) "a distinct visual style," but that was really beautiful. So, this "difference of opinion" by viewers illustrates the old adage, "Different strokes for different folks." I'm thinking it's going to be a "mixed bag" for me, for I love (as I said in my last post) grain if it's done right, but I don't love "overblown contrast" that gives the PQ a "washed out" look. My review may indeed be repeating these two things. Still....I'm quite sure I'll love the movie itself!


----------



## djoberg

Sorry for "monopolizing" this page, but I just had to write in to give some "perspective" on my placement recommendations for _The Hunt for Red October_ and _Patriot Games_ on UHD. I had rated them both at 2.0 (and said that THfRO could possibly be given a 1.75 rating). Well, guess what? They (their Blu-ray counterparts) are currently rated at 2.75 and 3.25! So, the UHD releases have accomplished a great feat, for to have an uptick in resolution/definition that brings a title up a whole Tier is amazing!

Again, if you are fans of these titles you really can't go wrong buying the UHD versions. I also saw that _Clear and Present Danger_ is currently at 2.75 (the same as THfRO) and I'm expecting the UHD release to bring it up to at least 1.75 (based on reviews that I've read). We shall see.


----------



## djoberg

*Clear and Present Danger (UHD)*

I'm tired so I'll keep this short. I had hoped that I would be giving this a 1.75 ranking but guess what? It's even better than I had hoped! This fares so much better than the first two (_The Hunt for Red October_ and _Patriot Games_), with excellent clarity in a majority of its 2+ hour running time. Details were exemplary, especially in all the "jungle scenes," the "white house scenes" and some of the "drug cartel home scenes in Columbia." It was a true FEAST FOR THE EYES, featuring also a plethora of rich, primary colors. Texture in faces was superb, contrast was strong, and flesh tones were spot-on. 

There were still fleeting soft shots and a few scenes where the camera was panning seemed out of focus. These, and a few faltering blacks (though in fairness black levels were generally very good), will keep this out of the Reference Tier. At times I was thinking, "Man, this could end up at 1.0," but then my "conservative gene" came into play and thus I'm opting for.....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25**

PS The audio was also very good, on par with the mix in THfRO. Once again the bass was a bit lean but dialogue was great along with amazing action in the surrounds and height channels.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^

I forgot to mention that I was reminded how much I love this title; it is clearly the BEST ONE out of the five Jack Ryan films. The acting is second-to-none, the story-line is gripping, the pacing is perfect, and the ending is delicious!!


----------



## AmerCa

* Justice League (2017 - Warner)*










*Tier Recommendation: 1.75*

*Phantom* (1.75): https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-821.html#post55874594

*Snell* (UHD - 1.5): https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-823.html#post55924438



AmerCa said:


> I think I'll be buying this when the price is right. Not only the package is almost barebones (at least here) without slipcover, the cover is atrocious


Eight months later, the price was finally right, atrocious cover and all, and I finally got this.










There was a combo pack with the same artwork than the US version (which is not great either, but it's a bit better) and slipcover, but I wasn't paying more than twice the price for that, so I settled for the cheap looking and packaging version. It's interesting that the downgrade in packaging matches the downgrade in all respects regarding the movie itself.

Phantom is right in his overall assessment on this BD. There's some truly great stuff in here that makes the movie oscillate between tier 1.25 and 1.5 for a great portion of its running time. Most of the visual aesthetic is close to that of the previous two Snyder DC films, but _ Justice League_ is much more inconsistent. The opening scene looked like garbage in theaters, and on the actual disc doesn't look that much better. This is supposedly the most expensive DC film, but you wouldn't know by just watching the movie. The green screens and fake surroundings are much more apparent this time, giving the film a low budget vibe at moments. There's plenty of softness in the CGI as well, which stands in stark contrast to Snyder's visual grandeur. Despite its flaws, this disc manages to look pretty good, but it fairly sits toward the last quarter of tier one.

I enjoyed this movie a lot. I had a blast watching it in theaters, and I had a blast watching it at home. I just wish Warner had let Snyder do his thing instead of trying to turn this movie into a B Marvel film. This movie deserved more than that, but it's still a very enjoyable movie. The audio track was also very fun, with plenty of powerful bass, but it as well felt like a step down in overall sound quality from the two previous outings. I was satisfied with it, but I wasn't wowed like in _Man Of Steel_ or _Batman v. Superman_.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

This is a pretty dark film with lots of night scenes, the UHD handles it fairly good for most of the film, but there are a few scenes with crushed blacks. Details are excellent throughout. One thing I noticed with this film that has never happened on my OLED and OPPO setup: auto brightness limiting (ABL) was very aggressive a few times. For some reason I think some dark scenes were too dark causing colors to wash out and when followed by a bright scene I could see the brightness go back to normal about a second after the scene started. Dynamic contrast and other processing is turned off so I'm wondering if there is something in the encode of the movie causing this. Colors in daylight scenes look good but some night scenes in the forest and wilderness are a bit dull. The night scenes at the wedding and in London look spectacular, tier 0 stuff, just wish all the other dark scenes were handled better.

*Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

This film played better, no issues with aggressive ABL even though there are just as many dark to bright scene transitions. Overall it's equal to Part 1 in terms of PQ. The colors and HDR in the final battle between Harry and Voldemort looks excellent, a highlight of the film.

PS: picked up lots of UHDs and more on the way so I've got review material to keep me busy for awhile.

PSS: anyone else see the teaser for the new *Lion King*? It looks spectacular, hope it gets released on UHD.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

AmerCa said:


> * Justice League (2017 - Warner)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75*
> 
> *Phantom* (1.75): https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-821.html#post55874594
> 
> *Snell* (UHD - 1.5): https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-823.html#post55924438
> 
> 
> 
> Eight months later, the price was finally right, atrocious cover and all, and I finally got this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was a combo pack with the same artwork than the US version (which is not great either, but it's a bit better) and slipcover, but I wasn't paying more than twice the price for that, so I settled for the cheap looking and packaging version. It's interesting that the downgrade in packaging matches the downgrade in all respects regarding the movie itself.
> 
> Phantom is right in his overall assessment on this BD. There's some truly great stuff in here that makes the movie oscillate between tier 1.25 and 1.5 for a great portion of its running time. Most of the visual aesthetic is close to that of the previous two Snyder DC films, but _ Justice League_ is much more inconsistent. The opening scene looked like garbage in theaters, and on the actual disc doesn't look that much better. This is supposedly the most expensive DC film, but you wouldn't know by just watching the movie. The green screens and fake surroundings are much more apparent this time, giving the film a low budget vibe at moments. There's plenty of softness in the CGI as well, which stands in stark contrast to Snyder's visual grandeur. Despite its flaws, this disc manages to look pretty good, but it fairly sits toward the last quarter of tier one.
> 
> I enjoyed this movie a lot. I had a blast watching it in theaters, and I had a blast watching it at home. I just wish Warner had let Snyder do his thing instead of trying to turn this movie into a B Marvel film. This movie deserved more than that, but it's still a very enjoyable movie. The audio track was also very fun, with plenty of powerful bass, but it as well felt like a step down in overall sound quality from the two previous outings. I was satisfied with it, but I wasn't wowed like in _Man Of Steel_ or _Batman v. Superman_.


It's hard to know what Snyder's Justice League would have really looked like before the studio executives stepped in and brought in Whedon. There is so much rumor and conjecture out there about Snyder's planned vision that I don't think we'll ever know. I know some fans on social media have been clamoring for Snyder's cut to be released on home video, but I don't foresee Warner Bros. ever giving it a greenlight.


I just don't think that WB anticipated the less-than-overwhelming response to Batman V Superman at the box office. They went in believing it was going to match one of the Avengers' flicks in box office and were disappointed. From that point, Snyder was on a short leash and I guess early test screenings for his Justice League were lackluster.


----------



## AmerCa

^^^^^^^^^^

JL is a great popcorn flick, in a way MoS and BvS weren't, but it came at the expense of quality, and I'd dare to say, at the expense of greatness. Say what you want about those two films, they are truly auteur movies with lots of ambition, and I suspect they'll be more appreciated down the line, despite their flaws.

Now they bring in Whedon and JL is dumbed down to the average Marvel film, which are light in tone and have high quantities of cheap humor. I still like JL a lot, but watching it right after MoS and BvS (which I actually did) it's almost impossible to believe that is a continuation of those films. It's works almost like a standalone movie. In all honesty I feel a bit sad about it.

BvS didn't set the world on fire, but it did do well, all Warner had to do is stick to their guns, and trust Snyder. I dream about a pure Snyder, 3 hours Justice League film that truly culminated Snyder's vision, complete with Hans Zimmer / Junkie XL score and truly epic battles that felt like the end of the world.

But now he's gone, and I don't know, maybe Warner now will have their own Marvel-like universe, and everyone will be happy. 

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## SnellTHX

Avforums just reviewed the 4K disc of Mission Impossible: Fallout and gave it 10/10 with 9/10 on the picture quality... hmmmm


----------



## SnellTHX

*A Cure for Wellness*


Absolutely phenomenal picture quality. I only got this movie because of AmerCa's recommendation and boy this did not disappoint! Ridiculous amounts of detail in every shot, razor-sharp and the "out of window" full 1.85:1 screen filling experience that I really love. Blacks,contrast all on point, if I had one complaint it would be the colour palette as he and other professionals mentioned in their reviews. It does look a bit pale/teal/blue or 'sickly', which is obviously the creators/director's intent. 

Still reference quality, though not #2 for me as there is sooo many good movies like Transformers 5:LK, Dunkirk, Interstellar, every pixar film and Netflix series like Marco Polo, Narcos, House of Cards, Black Sails, Altered Carbon, Lost in Space etc that also happened to be filmed in the same ratio but provide more depth, detail and realism but those are 4K/HDR which is another matter.



*Tier recommendation: 0(.5)*


----------



## subacabra

SnellTHX said:


> Avforums just reviewed the 4K disc of Mission Impossible: Fallout and gave it 10/10 with 9/10 on the picture quality... hmmmm


It looked damn good thru vudu(uhd) especially those Imax shots. Very nice


----------



## Kool-aid23

Question for everyone. There seems to be a chorus of people believing Transformers TLK (UHD) is the new #1 . With that said, is The Secret Life of Pets still the top blu-ray or has it been dethroned?


Respects,


----------



## djoberg

*The Sum of All Fears (UHD)*

The FOURTH installment in the Jack Ryan Collection takes the PQ up one notch, IMHO. It is still a rather dark film with sporadic soft shots and some rather egregious color-grading at times, but it maintains excellent detail, especially in facial texture (which is off-the-charts in many close-ups). In scenes with good lighting details, depth, and contrast are superb. Black levels are, for the most part, exemplary...with corresponding shadow details. There were instances of black crush, but they were fleeting. Flesh tones were generally spot on, but in shots with heavy color-grading they had a "red push." This is a hard one to call, but as stated in my first sentence this one is a tick higher than _Clear and Present Danger_, which came in at 1.25. So......

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**

PS The Dolby TrueHD mix (with the help of a Dolby upmix) was outstanding. The nuclear blast in Baltimore (I'm assuming everyone has seen this at some point in the last 16 years so this shouldn't be a Spoiler Alert) was phenomenal, as were the many scenes with other explosions and multiple jets flying in every direction. I turned it up to -3 at one point and that was all my ears could handle.


----------



## AmerCa

Kool-aid23 said:


> Question for everyone. There seems to be a chorus of people believing Transformers TLK (UHD) is the new [URL=https://www.avsforum.com/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=1]#1 [/URL] . With that said, is The Secret Life of Pets still the top blu-ray or has it been dethroned?
> 
> 
> Respects,


Both the BD and UHD of T:TLK dethroned TSLoP, according to the ones that have watched both. I haven't seen TSLoP, but I placed the BD of T:TLK at #1 .

However, personally I like to make the distinction between animated films and live-action ones. In that respect, I consider Transformers 5 the best BD PQ of live action movies. That wouldn't change for me, so far.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## SnellTHX

Kool-aid23 said:


> Question for everyone. There seems to be a chorus of people believing Transformers TLK (UHD) is the new #1 . With that said, is The Secret Life of Pets still the top blu-ray or has it been dethroned?
> 
> 
> Respects,


well Transformers 5 is live-action and Secret life of pets is animation. I haven't seen Pets, but I've seen Coco, Finding Dory, Kung-Fu Panda 3, Monster's University, The Good Dinosaur and they all belong in the top 20 at least, if not top 10. 

Transformers 5 is my overall second best looking movie ever, behind Dunkirk.


----------



## AmerCa

^^^^^^^

BTW, I'm glad you weren't disappointed with _A Cure For Wellness_, even if it didn't crack your top 20/30. I hope that you enjoyed the film itself as well.

But you do raise an interesting point, and that's we may be reaching a point where the UHD/HDR movies/series are starting to leave behind FHD quality. In a not-so-distant future it will be necessary to keep an separate list for UHD films.


----------



## SnellTHX

There are so many good movies, I mean I've seen at least 10 really good looking Pixar movies that already fill up half the top 20!

Plus, say what you like about streaming, but watching Netflix-made shows in 4K/HDR is absolutely gorgeous, I love the 1.78:1 / 1.85:1 / 1.90:1 aspect ratios but that gives me a direct comparison to what Dolby Vision Netflix offers (Even if its "only" 25Mbit/s bit rate) and they put almost every blu-ray movie to shame.

Which frustrates me even more since Netflix uses about 1/8th of the bit rate and 1/4 (if not 1/8) of the resolution for their MOVIES which look compressed and AWFUL. I don't watch a lot of 4K/HDR physical discs because of the price, but I just ordered:

- Skyscraper (Got really high marks)
- Chappie (one of my favourit tier 0 blu-rays)
- Oblivion (top 5 - top 10 for me when it came out on blu-ray in 2013)
- Everest (never seen)

all on 4K/HDR blu-ray. Can't wait


----------



## AmerCa

^^^^^^^^

Did you order those from Amazon? They had quite a good selection UHDs for cheap this past Black Friday/Cyber Monday. I don't have 4K capability just yet, but I ordered my first couple of UHDs. My receiver does 4k, I just need the player and TV, 

I saw _Chappie _ UHD for cheap as well, I haven't seen it, (have the previous two Blomkamp movies) but, damn, didn't know it had great PQ quality. I know reviewers gave it high scores, but they usual aren't that accurate in my experience and opinion. Missed opportunity there.

Here in Mexico we still don't have, in general, the internet infrastructure to sustain 4k streaming. You still find a lot of cable programming in SD, since they want to charge good money for HD 720p streaming that's sold as the greatest thing ever, lol. I have access to a Netflix account, but I never use it. I'm still old fashioned and I like watching movies on disc,.mostly because it's simpler and easier.

But the moment 4k streaming becomes a reality, I might give it a chance. I still like buying my physical discs, but it's true it's become a more expensive hobby by the day...only to get slipless covers and cheap eco-cases. Most UHD packages I've seen in store don't look like a premium product to me.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> I don't watch a lot of 4K/HDR physical discs because of the price, but I just ordered:
> 
> - Skyscraper (Got really high marks)
> - Chappie (one of my favourit tier 0 blu-rays)
> - Oblivion (top 5 - top 10 for me when it came out on blu-ray in 2013)
> - Everest (never seen)
> 
> all on 4K/HDR blu-ray. Can't wait


Some good choices Snell!!

I just watched _Skyscraper_ in 4K (and reviewed it) a few weeks ago. It looks fantastic! I have _Oblivion_ on 1080p and that also looks great (I'll probably pick up the UHD version at some point, for it is really inexpensive). I also have _Chappie_ in 4K and love the PQ. I have _Everest_ on 1080p and it has awesome PQ. Here is my review for it:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-768.html#post41104874


----------



## djoberg

Well, reviews of _Mission: Impossible--Fallout (UHD)_ are starting to roll out and they look quite promising PQ-wise. John Archer is the only one who rails strongly against the "stylistic choices" that involve heavy grain, color-grading and lots of low-lighting in certain scenes. As we saw before, our resident reviewer, Ralph Potts, gave it a huge thumbs up for PQ.

Here is a sample of a good review:

https://bluray.highdefdigest.com/62068/missionimpossiblefallout.html


----------



## djoberg

*Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit (UHD)*

As expected, this final installment in the _Jack Ryan 5 Film Collection_ took the 4th installment up another notch! Colors were more punchy, details were just as good or better (especially in facial texture), clarity was sharp as a tack in numerous scenes, and black levels were definitely inkier with incredible shadow details in several prolonged night scenes (with one of my favorites being about 1/3 way through the film where Costner and Pine were sitting on a bench in a park). Depth was also excellent at times and contrast was very strong.

My only "gripes" would be some very short "soft shots" that obscured details and depth, along with a couple of shots with faltering blacks that came across as "noisy." I could mention some strong "color-grading" (wait, I just did), but thankfully the details were still intact.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.75)*

PS I was going to give this a .66 rating, but felt the above-mentioned negatives should be penalized as such.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^

I forgot to mention that the color-grading did affect flesh tones at time. Also, the audio mix (DTS HD Neural Upmix) was pretty solid.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Ready Player One (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 0* (0.75)*

Agree with everything djoberg said below, especially the AQ. The grain in some of the real world shots can be a bit heavy and I like grain as it's a part of film but I think it can be distracting with the Oasis scenes so sharp and clean.

The LFE in the audio is off the chart good, there's an explosion towards the end that just rumbles for a good 10 seconds, never heard anything like it.



djoberg said:


> *Ready Player One (UHD)*
> 
> We had an emergency and had to come home last night, so I was able to watch the copy of _Ready Player One_ which arrived while I was gone. The short of it is this:;
> 
> The movie was a LETDOWN.
> The PQ was EXCELLENT!
> The AQ was the real WINNER!!!
> 
> PQ-wise, I was very impressed with details in "The Oasis," even more so than in the real world. Colors were also topnotch "in there" but in the real world they were quite drab (thanks to some heavy-handed color-grading...in TEAL). Black levels were mesmerizing, as were shadow details. This film was, as you can imagine, filled with CGI and this was a mixed bag. It would be amazingly sharp and detailed one minute, and soft and lacking detail the next. Thankfully the majority of it was razor-sharp.
> 
> Again, the audio mix was FANTASTIC!! I couldn't resist turning it to Reference Level during action scenes and the precision of the Dolby Atmos "object-based" sound was surreal! The LFE/bass was also incredible, with explosions sending waves of energy across my room!!
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.75)*
> 
> PS I almost went with 1.0 and I would have no argument with those who opt for that placement.


----------



## AmerCa

^^^^^^^^

Damn, I need to get that movie. I was hoping the UHD to hit my price point this past BF, but didn't happen. I have the feeling this will be one of those titles that I know I'll want to upgrade down the road, that's why I passed on the regular BD.


----------



## SnellTHX

*John Wick*


I originally watched this movie a few years back when I found it on Netflix. I never use Netflix for movies (only the gorgeous looking 4K/Dolby Vision shows!) due to the poor quality, but three years I didn't think much of Keanu Reeves as an actor (never liked Matrix, Constantine was great though), and John Wick looked like another $5 rental DVD /'Netflix movie' that you just watch with a couple friends after playing COD/FIFA and no one is really paying attention cause they're all on their phones anyway. Since then I've seen John Wick used in plenty of $$$$ showrooms, and come across threads like these where the blu-ray has been awarded reference status. Later I watched John Wick: Chapter 2 on 1080p blu-ray, gave it tier 1 and John Wick movies are two of my all time favourites.

Having re-watched what I though was just another "Jason Statam-esque" gun-fu movie in proper (2k) quality, the movie looks absolutely excellent. While John Wick 2 looks cleaner, sharper, more 'digital', John Wick still remains razor sharp, but with fine detail, good contrast and a more 'film' look to it. There were certain close up with facial details that looked reference, but a few outdoor shots looked out of focus and very soft (Particularly the scenes in John Wick's garden, or the safe-house at the end), which brings the movie closer to tier 1.25. The final scene in the rain looked amazing and made up for the poor shots you otherwise found outside.

John Wick Chapter 2 probably leans closer to 0.75 or 0.9 , while John Wick further north to 1.25, but I'll give it the same rating I gave the Chapter 2.


*Tier recommendation: 1*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^

Snell,

Good review of _John Wick_! I tried finding my review on it but it never came up. I did find _John Wick 2_ and I rated that at Tier 0 (.66). Darth also gave it a Tier 0 ranking.


----------



## subacabra

AmerCa said:


> ^^^^^^^^
> 
> Damn, I need to get that movie. I was hoping the UHD to hit my price point this past BF, but didn't happen. I have the feeling this will be one of those titles that I know I'll want to upgrade down the road, that's why I passed on the regular BD.


It's a gorgeous movie and as mentioned the audio is bananas!


----------



## djoberg

*Trolls (1080p)*

Okay, my granddaughter went to my "Animated Blu-ray Section" (consisting of nearly 100 titles!) about 2 hours ago and she finally said,"Grandpa, let's watch _Trolls_!" I knew I had seen and reviewed it and had been impressed with it but I forgot just how amazing the PQ was, especially the COLORS, TEXTURE and DEPTH. 

After viewing it I looked up my review and back in March of 2017 I had nominated it for a spot in the TOP FIVE. I just checked Phantom's latest rankings and it appears it's sitting at #8 right now. I agree with that for I'm thinking it still deserves a place in the TOP TEN. Here is my review:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-790.html#post51450025

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (somewhere in TOP TEN)*

PS The Audio Mix (DTS:HD Neural:X) is just as incredible as the PQ! I had to keep it at -15 to protect the "little ears" of my granddaughter, but it was actually loud enough for me at that setting.


----------



## AmerCa

*Gods Of Egypt (2016 - Lionsgate} *










*Tier Recommendation: 0 (0.55)*

Other scores:

*Djoberg* (1.5):. https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-775.html#post44423017

_Gods Of Egypt_ is officially my first UHD title, although, of course, I currently don't have 4k capability. But since it actually was cheaper than the regular BD, the decision was obvious.

I totally understand the reasons why Djoberg gave this disc a 1.5 placement, which it isn't shabby at all. Those reasons are the sometimes very dubious CGI and, at times, terrible green screens. I remember first seeing this film in a low quality version, and I actually stopped watching the movie like 20-25 minutes in just because it looked so cheap. But then I caught it again on TV, and I actually enjoyed the movie.

But the 1080p version is very impressive. Yes, it makes the dubious CGI more obvious many times, but at least you see it with gorgeous clarity, and it isn't afraid to expose its flaws. But when the film is visually amazing, it looks AMAZING. Contrast was fantastic in daylight/clear scenes, but in darker scenes it keeps its composure and still offers many remarkable qualities. I agree with pretty much all the positives Djoberg talks about in his review, but I can forgive the CGI and ocassional softness, because the PQ is consistently beautiful, with great clarity, contrast, colors and detail. This is a disc that despite its flaws I'd use as a reference disc. I can totally imagine the HDR giving the PQ an extra push, and maybe one day I'll be reviewing the UHD.

This movie is very tongue-in-cheek, so it isn't to be taken seriously at all. I believe that's one of the reasons this film got so much flak. Nobody expected the director of films like _The Crow_, _Dark City_ or _ Knowing_ to make a film that feels low budget, and very campy at that. But the visuals are really great and the audio stomps. This is a movie to have fun with, and you shouldn't expect something like _300_ or _Immortals_, which have a darker tone and a take themselves a little more seriously.

But I have a soft spot for all things ridiculous that are aware of its ridiculousness and absurdity, and fully embrace it. That, I can have fun with it.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^

Hey AmerCa,

When I first saw your review, I thought you were reviewing _Exodus: Gods and Kings_, which had a very similar look in many departments (including the same "negative" areas of SOFTNESS and COLOR-GRADING). But there is a BIG difference, for IMHO opinion _Exodus: Gods and Kings_ has much better PQ. Here is my review of that title (which is the 1080p version):

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-749.html#post33399481

I should mention that was back in 2015 so I may have a slightly different opinion of it now.


----------



## AmerCa

^^^^^^

I also have that movie, but have yet to see it. I look forward to it, after reading your review.


----------



## djoberg

Today is the release date of _Mission: Impossible--Fallout_. I ordered the Mission Impossible 6 Film Collection and that won't arrive until December 12th. So, if any of you are able to view this before then, I sure would appreciate hearing your thoughts on the PQ. I head the movie itself is the BEST in the Franchise.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^

I just received an email from Amazon informing me that my Mission Impossible Collection will be arriving tomorrow!

From all the reviews I've read on the UHD Collection, each one of the six movies looks better than their 1080p counterpart. If you are a fan I would encourage you to get the 6 Movie Collection, for the price is right!!


----------



## AmerCa

^^^^^^°

That's awesome, man. I'm a fan of the franchise, but I only have the 4th entry, while the 3rd one is probably my favorite, but I've passed it because it doesn't have lossless audio. I have yet to watch the last two movies, but I'm sure I'd like them.

Looking forward to your review of all movies. Maybe I should stop looking for the individual releases and buy the UHD box set for a good price.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> ^^^^^^°
> 
> That's awesome, man. I'm a fan of the franchise, but I only have the 4th entry, while the 3rd one is probably my favorite, but I've passed it because it doesn't have lossless audio. I have yet to watch the last two movies, but I'm sure I'd like them.
> 
> Looking forward to your review of all movies. Maybe I should stop looking for the individual releases and buy the UHD box set for a good price.
> 
> Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


I already have three of the titles (_MI:3, Ghost Protocol and Rogue Nation_), with _Ghost Protocol_ and _Rogue Nation _being my favorites out of the first FIVE. I still think my upgrading to all SIX is worth it, with the PQ having a definite uptick in resolution/definition.

I can't "price talk," but if you can get them where I got them, you will be impressed and happy! Almost half the price of other places!!


----------



## SnellTHX

I thought it was a great movie, but highly overrated. its a 7/10 movie in a franchise that largely consists of 5-6/10 movies. Yes it was the best of the bunch, but that doesn't say much. I prefer Skyfall and Casino Royale to it any day of the week.


----------



## SnellTHX

I've heard nothing but gleaming reviews for its picture quality, 9/10s, 4.5 stars etc. I think I'll get this disk myself despite poor cinema experience. 

Though I find it weird some reviewers refer to IMAX shots? IMDB lists as Arriflex 235/435 for 95% shots and I think the helicopter scene is the RED 8K camera...


----------



## djoberg

*Mission: Impossible---Fallout (UHD)*

I just finished watching this and I am DRAINED!! The action in this 2+ hour film is incredible and it is exhausting to watch. I still can't figure out how Tom Cruise is able to "do what he does" with him being over 50 years old!

I just wrote a short review on Ralph Potts' site and I'm going to post it here. I'm tired or I would write more, but suffice it to say I'm perfectly satisfied with my purchase.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-...t-ultra-hd-blu-ray-review-2.html#post57225430

Before I give my placement recommendation I want to say that the IMAX scenes were TOP TIER BLU scenes all the way through! Many of the Letter-boxed scenes that took place in daytime scenes or in well-lit interiors were either Tier Blu or a high Tier Gold. The darker scenes (with a lot of softness, grittiness, and a few murky blacks) fell somewhere in Tier 2 (or even Tier 3). Without the dark scenes this would have landed in Tier Blu, to be sure. Averaging things out I'd put it right here......

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Fireworks*

recommendation: *Tier 1.25**

This new anime film follows in the footsteps of _Your Name_, which I covered earlier in the thread. Animated by SHAFT, _Fireworks'_ traditional animation is bolstered with select CGI elements and a couple of extravagant sequences more or less designed as eye candy.

Released by GKIDS and distributed by Shout Factory, _Fireworks_ has somewhat ordinary character designs but mostly stunning background details. It receives a fine technical transfer and Blu-ray presentation with deep black levels. It doesn't break the mold of recent anime films on Blu-ray but its strong picture quality fits right alongside better examples on the format.


----------



## AmerCa

*Power Rangers Revisited*



AmerCa said:


> *Saban's Power Rangers [Open Matte version] (2016 - Lionsgate)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm reviewing the Open Matte version released by Zima in Mexico, which, if not completely the same, should be pretty close to the American version. I'm planning to get the UHD version when the price is right to get the original AR and the ATMOS track ( Mexican edition only gets 5.1 DTS-MA.)
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.5*
> 
> Here are a couple of reviews, one fof the UHD, which apparently is much superior to the bluray, and one for the regular bluray:
> 
> Djoberg's (UHD)(0.25): https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-801.html#post54926104
> 
> Snell's (1.0): https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-805.html#post55214526


This past Black Friday was the time for "the right price" for getting this film in its OAR and with ATMOS mix. While I did expect an audio improvement, I was surprised by the jump in PQ I got. The US version is decidedly and definitely an improvement over the Mexican transfer in all respects. Now I can agree with the glowing reviews on PQ that put this title in the reference tier, or close to it.

The Mexican version I've seen it like five times, and the more I watched it, the more I felt it belonged closer to tier 1.75 than to tier 1.5, so when I put the US version, the jump in quality was readily apparent: better colors, better contrast, overall better clarity and detail, and superior black levels. I didn't feel it truly belonged to the reference tier -except for some scenes/shots- , but certainly the PQ was remarkable, just a bit shy of tier 1. Overall, a fantastic video presentation marred by occasional softness, grain, and small black crush at some spots.

There are been many reports recently between differences between ATMOS tracks and DTS-MA mixes, the latter mostly reserved to regular BDs (Sony, Fox, Disney). As stated in my review, the audio mix is truly reference even in the DTS-MA 5.1 version, but the ATMOS mix (Dolby TrueHD core) is even better, and I wasn't sure how that could be possible, except for the obvious addition of overhead speakers. But the ATMOS mix is more balanced and I swear there's more bass in many scenes. It's my impression that the DTS-MA got some audio elements better, but overall the ATMOS mix proved to be the superior mix. In any case, the audio mix for this movie is reference. I'm sure I'll be watching this disc many more times in the future.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25 * *(US Edition)*


----------



## djoberg

*Mission: Impossible (UHD)*

Okay, I thought it would be prudent to "start at the beginning" and go through the whole 6 Film Series chronologically. I just checked the current rating of MI:1's 1080p version and it stands at 3.0. This one will fare MUCH BETTER! How much better? Probably a whole tier and maybe a smidgen more!

The GOOD: Facial DETAILS were superb in the many close-ups throughout the movie! This was its greatest virtue, though details in general were also good in close to slightly mid-range shots. Anything beyond that tended towards softness, if not downright blurry. COLORS were also excellent when primaries rose to the occasion. BLACK LEVELS weren't too shabby with some fairly good SHADOW DETAILS to boot. DEPTH was appreciable at times.

The BAD: As mentioned above, there was considerable softness/blurriness in far off shots. But there was also a fair amount of softness in poorly-lit environments (gloomy interiors, some night time scenes, etc.). Flesh tones suffered greatly (with either a "red push" or "orange") when the color-grading became egregious. Contrast also failed on occasion. And lastly, black levels did falter several times...turning either murky or too dark causing some black crush.

This is a hard one to call, but thankfully the GOOD outweighed the BAD. I was going to raise this an exact tier above its blu-ray counterpart, but I'm feeling generous tonight soooo.....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**

PS The audio SUCKED! The Dolby TrueHD upmix held its own in the FRONT channels, but action in the SURROUNDS was rare and big explosions yielded very little fruit in my DUAL SUBS.


----------



## AmerCa

djoberg said:


> PS The audio SUCKED! The Dolby TrueHD upmix held its own in the FRONT channels, but action in the SURROUNDS was rare and big explosions yielded very little fruit in my DUAL SUBS.


Noooo. I'd have traded a lesser PQ in exchange for a better audio. But I guess that's the best they could get from the original master. At least the PQ is improved, but I expected a better placement for a UHD titles, especially for the prices they're charging for these new 4k transfers.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## DarthDoxie

*First Blood (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 1.75**

Details are nice and even throughout, lots of nuances in clothing and other textures. The color palette is muted for much of the movie in the dreary Pacific Northwest location but primaries really pop when present; oranges and yellows in explosions are spectacular. Black levels and shadows are rendered nicely in the many night and cave scenes. The forest scenes sometimes present a bit gray at times but overall black levels are good. I was concerned about the encode with all the dark scenes but I saw no banding at all. There is also a nice layer of fine grain throughout.


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> Noooo. I'd have traded a lesser PQ in exchange for a better audio. But I guess that's the best they could get from the original master. At least the PQ is improved, but I expected a better placement for a UHD titles, especially for the prices they're charging for these new 4k transfers.
> 
> Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


The PQ is definitely improved, but it still "showed its age." It's obvious they didn't do a true 4K Remaster but rather an "upscale." In reading reviews on MI:2 it sounds like the PQ is much better and the AQ is a notch better too, though still lacking in the surrounds and bass/LFE.


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> *Mission: Impossible---Fallout (UHD)*
> 
> I just finished watching this and I am DRAINED!! The action in this 2+ hour film is incredible and it is exhausting to watch. I still can't figure out how Tom Cruise is able to "do what he does" with him being over 50 years old!
> 
> I just wrote a short review on Ralph Potts' site and I'm going to post it here. I'm tired or I would write more, but suffice it to say I'm perfectly satisfied with my purchase.
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-...t-ultra-hd-blu-ray-review-2.html#post57225430
> 
> Before I give my placement recommendation I want to say that the IMAX scenes were TOP TIER BLU scenes all the way through! Many of the Letter-boxed scenes that took place in daytime scenes or in well-lit interiors were either Tier Blu or a high Tier Gold. The darker scenes (with a lot of softness, grittiness, and a few murky blacks) fell somewhere in Tier 2 (or even Tier 3). Without the dark scenes this would have landed in Tier Blu, to be sure. Averaging things out I'd put it right here......
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.0**


So some amazing reference shots, mostly good shots and a few horrible shots here and there.

Sounds reasonable! haha


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> So some amazing reference shots, mostly good shots and a few horrible shots here and there.
> 
> Sounds reasonable! haha


Yep! 

I gotta say I'm surprised by the "horrible shots," for in the last few episode of MI (3, 4, & 5) the PQ was pretty much stellar all the way through. For whatever reason the director "chose" to have not only lots of low-lighting, but also out-of-focus shots, softness, and scads of "lens flares." I guess I'm not surprised by the lens flares since it was J. J. Abrams directing, but the softness was horrendous resulting in murky blacks and hardly any depth.


----------



## SnellTHX

*Chappie [4K/HDR]*


One of my favourite reference blu-ray disks back in the day. I remember watching the 1080p/SDR version on my trusty old Kuro and had my mind blown away. 
A couple years later, I read a statement from a hi-fi/home theatre magazine where they said you haven't seen good picture quality unless you've seen Chappie in 4K HDR. 
Well now I have, and it looks PHENOMENAL. Calling this title razor-sharp and highly detailed would be an understatement. 
Everything sticks out giving in a 3D-like depth, and all the tiny minor details like puddles, rocks, debris, not to mention every cable, imperfection, paint, scratch and dent in Chappie's robotic armour. 
Colours had a whole extra level of pop, particularly the blue and orange robots or the bright yellow assault rifle fired by Ninja. 
The picture quality is not as good as what could arguably be crowned the ultimate picture quality king (Transformers 5: Last Knight) but it's certainly better than Transformers 4: Age of Extinction (which is a tier 0 blu-ray in itself)

4K/HDR is derived from a 4K DI source... and you can tell its the real deal. Demo-worthy stuff!


*Tier recommendation: 0 (.25)*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^

Good review Snell! Yes, this is most definitely Reference Quality!!

I gave it a Tier 0 (.75) rating due to some soft shots, but since my review was done in 2015 it was the 1080p version. Here's my review:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-764.html#post39119466

I just checked and the UHD version came out in February of 2016. I bought my 4K Sony display in June of that year and if memory serves me I got the _Chappie (UHD) version_ free with the Sony (along with other UHD movies). I can hardly believe I haven't seen that version but since I didn't review that release I may not have seen it. Your review has whetted my appetite for watching it so I'll do so when I get time and then do a "comparison review" between the two versions.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Crazy Rich Asians*

recommendation: *Tier 0* (0.9)*

Great picture quality on this disc. Details are sharp; clothing, hair, and facial details are just spectacular. This is a very colorful film with lots of bright primaries and subtle shades of other colors that really shine. Black levels and shadow details are excellent as well, blacks are deep and the top and bottom black bars just disappear. The sharp and colorful photography remind me of *The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel*, another good looking and entertaining romantic comedy.


----------



## subacabra

audiofan1 said:


> Mr. Peabody and Sherman
> 
> A definite *Tier 0* this was a visually striking disc with excellent blacks,colors ,shadow detail and superb image depth! I can't wait to see what else Dreamworks has coming down the pipe and from what I'm hearing about HTTYD2 we should be in for a treat


Just watched this with my son last night. Gorgeous looking movie. Deep blacks, striking colors, shadow detail and depth.
Agree with the tier 0 recommendation.
All this on my Benq ht2050. Looking forward to watching on my 900e.


----------



## AmerCa

^^^^^^



Your center channel bugs me to no end .


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> ^^^^^^
> 
> 
> 
> Your center channel bugs me to no end .


Me too! If it were me, I would definitely LOWER IT (or RAISE IT if I couldn't lower it).

As you can see by my Signature, I have a STAND that I put my Center Channel on. It is right up against my Entertainment Center and the speaker is even with the Center so I still have a full view of the screen. That is what I would do if I were him.


----------



## subacabra

AmerCa said:


> ^^^^^^
> 
> 
> 
> Your center channel bugs me to no end .





djoberg said:


> Me too! If it were me, I would definitely LOWER IT (or RAISE IT if I couldn't lower it).
> 
> As you can see by my Signature, I have a STAND that I put my Center Channel on. It is right up against my Entertainment Center and the speaker is even with the Center so I still have a full view of the screen. That is what I would do if I were him.


I know I know...Lol
Luckily it's only in the way with full 16:9 content, otherwise it blends into the bottom bars.
Also I mostly use just my tv. 
But I'm re doing it in a few months so it'll be out of sight


----------



## SnellTHX

*EVEREST*

Next up in my new shipping of 4K/HDR movies is Everest. Haven't seen this before but one of the greatest audio/visual experiences I had is when I demoed another Forum-members brand new Sony VPL-VW1000es which came out more than half a decade ago. Back then there was no such thing as Ultra-HD Blu-ray (or HDR), but the VW1000es was the first consumer-4K device and 'The Art of Flight' could be purchased in 4K on a 200-300GB HDD. Needless to say it was the best thing I had ever seen.


So what can I expect from a 4K/HDR release of a similar film? Reference picture quality. Sharpness doesn't get sharper than this (excluding a few soft shots), the abundance of white snow makes the colours pop to a pseudo 3D like depth, and there's plenty of punchy colours out there, from the tents & flags to the 90s fashion of the cast. Facial shots / close ups reveal maximum detail and the image for 90% of the movie is flawless. I think it gives The Art of Flight a run for its money. 

*Tier recommendation: 0 (.5)*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^

Hey Snell,

I liked how you compared _Everest_ with _The Art of Flight_, for I did the same in my review. I still think TAoF is superior due to having more COLORS and NO SNOWSTORMS. But they are clearly both REFERENCE quality. I say this, even though I reviewed them over two years ago.

Here is my review for _Everest_:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-768.html#post41104874

PS I should say that I haven't seen either of the two movies in 4K...so my review is only for the 1080p versions. I can hardly imagine them being much better, but if they are....WOW!


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Deepwater Horizon (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 0* (0.75)*

Agreed about the fleeting murky scenes, the rest of the film is top-notch. Seconded about the sound, pretty insane sound mix. 



djoberg said:


> *Deepwater Horizon (UHD/HDR version)*
> 
> SnellTHX gave this a "Gold 1.0." I'm giving the UHD version a solid Tier Blu!!
> 
> The details (especially facial details/textures) are INSANE, but the details in general are also topnotch, as were the clarity and depth. Flesh tones were spot-on accurate...contrast was superb...blacks levels were exemplary (except for a few murky, underwater shots)...and colors were "naturally punchy." I thoroughly enjoyed the PQ, even in the dark scenes after the thunderous explosions began.
> 
> I simply MUST say a word about the Dolby Atmos track. This was my first taste of Atmos with my new system and I was OVERWHELMED. It really does add an altogether NEW DIMENSION to the sound and this release was as precise and accurate as they come!
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.75)*
> 
> PS If not for the few "murky scenes" I would have given this a .5.


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Hey Snell,
> 
> I liked how you compared _Everest_ with _The Art of Flight_, for I did the same in my review. I still think TAoF is superior due to having more COLORS and NO SNOWSTORMS. But they are clearly both REFERENCE quality. I say this, even though I reviewed them over two years ago.
> 
> Here is my review for _Everest_:
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-768.html#post41104874
> 
> PS I should say that I haven't seen either of the two movies in 4K...so my review is only for the 1080p versions. I can hardly imagine them being much better, but if they are....WOW!


The Art of Flight is one of the best of the best video experiences I have. Then again when you watch it on a 129" screen projected by a Sony VPL-VW1000es... Back when 4K was unheard of!! Amazing.

The 4K/HDR of Everest is fantastic too. I haven't done A/B, but its reference for sure.


----------



## SnellTHX

Wow. Just look at that cover. I can tell already this movie is going to be at the very top of the Tier 0 reference list... 


This reviewer said it was even better than Planet Earth II, which has got to be top 10 material?? 

https://www.instagram.com/p/BrV8fDp...d05Sck9d3vk9EQ4Gv192bEAZ0v-AKKyf9S9-4qsoHX4aU


----------



## djoberg

*Mission: Impossible 2 (UHD)*

This one fared MUCH BETTER than the First Installment! In fact, I would say the majority of its 2 hour running time was Reference Quality. It had superb DETAILS in general, but most notably in facial close-ups....they were simply incredible!! COLORS were punchy, BLACKS were excellent, DEPTH was, at times, quite good, and CLARITY was sharp-as-a-tack in "most" scenes.

The only gripes would be some soft focus shots in early scenes and in those same scenes flesh tones pushed RED, but after the first 20 minutes or so they disappeared, never to rear their ugly heads again! If not for these I'd be calling for a good "low Tier Blu ranking," but in fairness I must penalize these so I'm opting for....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**

PS I'm happy to say the audio mix was also light years ahead of MI:1. It was somewhat lacking in the surrounds till the later action scenes, but once they kicked in it was EAR CANDY...and the Dolby Up-mix provided some nice panning and discrete effects in the Height channels as well. The bass was definitely better but it left something to be desired during big explosions.


----------



## djoberg

*Mission: Impossible 3 (UHD)*

Okay, I truly thought I would be placing this in the bottom of Tier Blu, for the first 80-90 minutes were pure EYE CANDY, with mesmerizing details, striking clarity, accurate flesh tones, deep & inky black levels, and amazing depth. But in the last scene, which took place in Shanghai, the PQ was a mixed bag, with a long night scene that featured numerous soft focus shots, some crushed blacks, compromised flesh tones, and a loss of details and depth, especially in the heavy action scenes. In fairness, the daytime scenes in Shanghai were excellent.

Before I give my placement recommendation, I have to give a HUGE shout-out to the stellar Dolby TrueHD mix AND the Dolby Upmix provided courtesy of my Denon AVR. It was pure Reference Quality all the way through!! Some of the explosions yielded fantastic bass/LFE; the action in the Surrounds and Height Speakers was pure AUDIO BLISS; and the dialogue remained intelligible from beginning to end.

I see the 1080p version is sitting at 1.75 currently. I think this deserves to be raised at least a couple of notches...to the same ranking as MI:2.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**

PS I had forgotten how much I liked this installment. Perhaps it is right up there with _Ghost Protocol_ and _Rogue Nation_.


----------



## AmerCa

^°^°^^^°°^°

Man, I'm so stoked for this after reading your review, especially for the audio. The movie deserved such high marks.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^

I believe you're going to love the PQ and especially the AQ!

I have just read various "professional reviews" and all are in agreement that _Ghost Protocol_ has the BEST PQ out of all six titles. I wasn't going to watch it until this weekend, but after reading them I may just slip it in tomorrow night!


----------



## djoberg

*Mission: Impossible--Ghost Protocol (UHD)*

Okay, I had said yesterday that "professional reviewers" were saying this UHD release was the BEST one out of the first 5 titles. Well, they were WRONG (IMHO). I did read one review a few minutes ago (DoBlu.com) which was much closer to the truth; he gave the PQ a score of "3 out of 5." I don't know if it was that bad, but again, he is much closer than all the others who touted it as pure "Reference Quality."

The opening scene happened to be the best and it had me thinking, "Yes, I'm in for a VISUAL FEAST tonight!" But it didn't take long for the PQ to go "south" with some horrendous contrast and color-grading that wreaked havoc on flesh tones, details and depth. Softness reared its ugly head at times too. I also noticed some "noise" in a few dark scenes. Speaking of dark scenes, black levels were a mixed bag...some were deep with excellent shadow details...others faltered and crushed details. This did have "some" of the amazing facial details/textures seen in the previous 3 and some very good details in general, but as mentioned above the hyped-up contrast and color-grading did a number on details in several scenes.

I see AmerCa gave the 1080p version a rating of 1.75 (with similar comments on what I have stated) and it is currently sitting at 2.0. I'm sorry to say the UHD release isn't that much better. Don't get me wrong, there are scenes (like the opening one and some in Dubai and Mumbai) that are clearly "reference," but the majority lies somewhere in Tiers 1 and 2. Averaging things out I'm inclined to put it right here....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**

PS I refuse to end on a "negative note" so I will finish by giving my impressions on the Audio Mix. In a word: STUNNING!! This is most definitely the BEST out of the first 4 that I've seen. It was so engaging that it succeeded in taking my mind off from the less-than-stellar PQ. Everything about it was TOP TIER (if there was such a thing as an Audio Thread). The Dolby Upmix produced amazing panning and discrete effects (even better than in MI:3) in the Height Channels; the action in the Surrounds was phenomenal; the bass/LFE was thunderous (wait till you hear the Kremlin explosion!!!); and the Dialogue in the Center Channel was spot on.


----------



## AmerCa

^^^°°°°°°^^°^^^^

Great review, man. I was afraid the UHD would not "fix" the PQ inconsistencies since it's relatively a recent release, so maybe they wouldn't bother with a new remaster, and it seems that's the case. Glad to read your overall impressions more or less matched mine.

I don't doubt you when you say the mix is top tier, because the bass in this movie was already in the upper tiers of the data-bass forum. I'm glad to see the audio benefited from the ATMOS treatment. I'm sure it'd be a terrific experience! Looking forward to your review for Rogue Nation.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> ^^^°°°°°°^^°^^^^
> I don't doubt you when you say the mix is top tier, because the bass in this movie was already in the upper tiers of the data-bass forum. I*'m glad to see the audio benefited from the ATMOS treatment.* I'm sure it'd be a terrific experience! Looking forward to your review for Rogue Nation.
> 
> Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


Actually AmerCa, this did NOT have a Dolby Atmos Mix. I had referred to it as a "Dolby Upmix" and not "Dolby Atmos." My Denon AVR has the capability of producing a "Soundfield" similar to Atmos (it's simply called "Dolby Surround" but it is a true "Upmixer"). It's not quite as "precise," though at times I really thought it was an Atmos mix with bullets, planes, and bombs flying directly overhead. If I watch a movie with a DTS-HD Master Audio mix my Denon will also give that an "Upmix" (it's called DTS:Neural:X) and that too puts sounds in the Height Channels and can sound very similar to a DTS:X Mix.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Justice League (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

Good all around PQ but nothing really had that reference quality. The Dolby Vision HDR was good: nice contrast, black levels, and shadow detail. The most distracting thing about the movie was the copious use of green screen and the average CGI. It's like they didn't have enough money for practical sets but also not enough money for top-tier CGI to make the backgrounds realistic.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

DarthDoxie said:


> *Justice League (UHD)*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 1.0**
> 
> Good all around PQ but nothing really had that reference quality. The Dolby Vision HDR was good: nice contrast, black levels, and shadow detail. The most distracting thing about the movie was the copious use of green screen and the average CGI. It's like they didn't have enough money for practical sets but also not enough money for top-tier CGI to make the backgrounds realistic.


About a third of the movie was rushed to completion by Joss Whedon after Snyder left (or removed by Warner). That almost certainly had a deleterious effect on the CGI's quality.


----------



## fredxr2d2

Phantom Stranger said:


> About a third of the movie was rushed to completion by Joss Whedon after Snyder left (or removed by Warner). That almost certainly had a deleterious effect on the CGI's quality.



This is OT, so feel free to ignore, but can you point me to reliable sources that indicate that Snyder left for anything other than the death of his daughter?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

fredxr2d2 said:


> This is OT, so feel free to ignore, but can you point me to reliable sources that indicate that Snyder left for anything other than the death of his daughter?


There was a lot of scuttlebutt going around about Justice League. I probably saw it on Reddit. It's been so long I don't have any links handy. There's been a fan movement of late to get Snyder's version of the movie out, but from what I've heard that is impossible. The effects weren't finished for Snyder's vision of the movie.


----------



## fredxr2d2

Phantom Stranger said:


> There was a lot of scuttlebutt going around about Justice League. I probably saw it on Reddit. It's been so long I don't have any links handy. There's been a fan movement of late to get Snyder's version of the movie out, but from what I've heard that is impossible. The effects weren't finished for Snyder's vision of the movie.



My understanding is that Snyder hadn't even finished principle photography, so there was no way there would even be a "Snyder version" of the film, much less just unfinished post production work.


I also think that it would be weird for Warner to fire someone when their daughter died - I know those big corps are heartless, but I don't see them abandoning him after they made several films in his mold. I honestly think, based upon the sources I've seen, that Snyder would have finished the film had his daughter not died.


I'll also go on record in saying that I'm not a huge fan of Snyder's take on Superman (in particular), but I think his 2 movies are well made and technically proficient. I also think Justice League suffers some from its disparate directors, but I actually think it is handily better for the Whedon touches on the film (but, I'm a fan of Whedon already).


EDIT: I went back and found the Hollywood Reporter article about it: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/h...wn-justice-league-deal-family-tragedy-1006455 It does mention that they were doing post production, but that Snyder had wanted to add additional scenes, which Whedon stepped in to write and direct. Just interesting info, if anyone is so inclined.




Back to regularly scheduled programming?


----------



## djoberg

*Mission: Impossible--Rogue Nation (UHD)*

Well, I have officially finished the _Mission: Impossible 6 Film Collection_. I can testify it was "quite a ride" and that the rather small price that I paid for this Collection was well worth it. I had forgotten how good _Rogue Nation_ was and I believe I can say that this, along with MI:3, are my favorites.

PQ-wise, this was easily "Demo Quality" (i.e. Tier 1) and I'm tempted to put it in the bottom of Tier Blu. I say this because of all the titles this one was, by far, the most consistent (low Tier 0 and high Tier 1 in 90% of the 2+ hour running time). Granted, it did have (in the first half of the movie) some faltering blacks (not too deep, but at least there was no black crush or loss of details/depth) in the many nighttime scenes and several soft shots, but in the main there was excellent CLARITY, DETAILS, DEPTH and very nice COLORS. Regarding details, FACIAL TEXTURE was off-the-charts in this one!

There was the usual color-grading (blue hues in London and orange hues in Morocco), but they didn't affect details or hinder flesh tones. Speaking of Morocco, the scenes in that location were the BEST and thankfully they lasted a good 20-30 minutes.

Ironically, this had a Dolby Atmos mix but I wasn't as impressed with this as I was last night in viewing (or should I say "listening to") _Ghost Protocol_. There wasn't nearly the action in the Surrounds or in the Height Channels, but there was a fantastic musical score throughout which made the Front Stage sound amazing (and at times it was in the Height Speakers too).

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.9)*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^

I should mention that tomorrow my wife and I will head to Minneapolis for the weekend and return home for only two days before leaving again on a 2 1/2 week trip to Arizona to visit our youngest daughter and her family in Phoenix. I will miss viewing and reviewing Blu-rays, but I will be sure to check in from time to time to see what you guys are up to.

I hope you all have some good times with family and friends over the holidays and if you're traveling "drive safe" (and "defensively")!


----------



## AmerCa

@djoberg

Since it's likely you won't be around here for Christmas, I just wanted to wish you and your family in advance some happy holidays. Take care and enjoy your trip!

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> @djoberg
> 
> Since it's likely you won't be around here for Christmas, I just wanted to wish you and your family in advance some happy holidays. Take care and enjoy your trip!
> 
> Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


Thanks AmerCa! And again, Happy Holidays to you and all my fellow AVS Members!.

We'll be gone from December 26th until about January 11th.

In case a burglar is reading this, I want you to know we have the best Home Security System in the world, plus we have vigilante neighbors, so if you're even thinking about raiding our place...FORGET IT!


----------



## ChrisR34000

When is the master list going to be updated?


----------



## SnellTHX

ChrisR34000 said:


> When is the master list going to be updated?


Well if only there was a simple way of doing it... It's a helluva manual labour to completely/accurately update the list. Should be a sort of automation process for easier evaluation


----------



## Phantom Stranger

ChrisR34000 said:


> When is the master list going to be updated?


 I haven't forgotten the PQ Tiers. Life has been busy this Christmas season for me with extended family visiting for the past two weeks. The plan is to have the update finished before the clock strikes 2019. I'd love to review more for this thread if time permitted.

*The Nun*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

Part of the extended Conjuring universe of horror films, _The Nun_ may be the best-looking one of the group. I think _The Nun_ would have probably made it into Tier 0 a few years ago. A UHD was also released but this time I only picked up the Blu-ray.

It's a professionally competent transfer by WB that allows the outstanding digital cinematography a chance to strut its stuff. The AVC encode smoothly tackles the darker palette and deep shadows with few problems. The gothic horror production has excellent clarity and pitch-perfect black levels. Light on CGI and heavy on practical effects, there is real texture and substance to the prisitine video quality. There is impressive detail in close-ups of the creepy creatures that terrorize the poor protagonists, a priest and nun-in-training.

I love how the movie handles the fine shadow delineation. The titular demonic creature stalks its prey under the cover of darkness. Her demonic visage pops out of nowhere at exactly the right moments, aided by the crisp picture quality.


----------



## djoberg

Thanks Phantom for the review on _The Nun_. I will definitely rent this when I get back from Arizona.

I don't have time tonight to watch a full-length movie but I may slip in the UHD version of _Chappie_. Snell really whetted my appetite for this with his review last week and I'm quite sure I never watched my free UHD version which came with my new Sony tv back in the summer of 2016.


----------



## AmerCa

Merry Christmas, fellow AVS reviewers!! I hope you will spend some quality time with your beloved ones.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> *Chappie [4K/HDR]*
> 
> 
> One of my favourite reference blu-ray disks back in the day. I remember watching the 1080p/SDR version on my trusty old Kuro and had my mind blown away.
> A couple years later, I read a statement from a hi-fi/home theatre magazine where they said you haven't seen good picture quality unless you've seen Chappie in 4K HDR.
> Well now I have, and it looks PHENOMENAL. Calling this title razor-sharp and highly detailed would be an understatement.
> Everything sticks out giving in a 3D-like depth, and all the tiny minor details like puddles, rocks, debris, not to mention every cable, imperfection, paint, scratch and dent in Chappie's robotic armour.
> Colours had a whole extra level of pop, particularly the blue and orange robots or the bright yellow assault rifle fired by Ninja.
> The picture quality is not as good as what could arguably be crowned the ultimate picture quality king (Transformers 5: Last Knight) but it's certainly better than Transformers 4: Age of Extinction (which is a tier 0 blu-ray in itself)
> 
> 4K/HDR is derived from a 4K DI source... and you can tell its the real deal. Demo-worthy stuff!
> 
> 
> *Tier recommendation: 0 (.25)*


Okay, I was only able to watch "snippets" from various chapters in the film tonight, so I really can't give a review or even an intelligent guess as to where this should be placed. Having said that, from what I did see I do believe it takes the 1080p version "up a notch." I had given the regular Blu-ray a *Tier 0 (.75)* placement so this deserves at least a *Tier 0 (.5)* ranking. I will have to watch the whole thing at some point in time to determine exactly where I would put it.


----------



## djoberg

This will more than likely be my last post until sometime next year, but I felt compelled to chime in. 

My wife and I will be going to the _Titanic Museum_ in Branson, MO on our way to Arizona so I thought I would also slip in my Blu-ray copy of _Titanic_ to refresh my memory as to some of the details of the Titanic (the Titanic Museum has a replica of HALF of the Titanic, including the room with the famous "staircase" where Jack stands at the top with outstretched arm waiting to take hold of Rose's hand). I have been watching "snippets" of this and my jaw has been on the floor most of the time!! It looks STUNNING in most scenes (with the exception of some short soft shots). What has impressed me the most is the absolutely, amazing FACIAL close-ups, for the TEXTURE is just as good as anything I've ever seen before. The DEPTH can be very impressive as well. I tried to find my review on this but to no avail. I did find a post where I referred to my review and how I gave it a *1.0* placement. I am here to tell you that what I saw tonight looked good enough to give it a *Tier 0 (.5)* rating or maybe even a *.25* ranking.

The only thing I can think of that would make such a difference is my Sony 940D 4K display. When I reviewed it "back in the day" (sometime in 2014, I think), I viewed it on my Pioneer KURO which was only 1080p. The Sony 940 has one of the best up-scaling processors (which takes it up to 4K) and this must be why I'm seeing what I'm seeing.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> Thanks Phantom for the review on _The Nun_. I will definitely rent this when I get back from Arizona.
> 
> I don't have time tonight to watch a full-length movie but I may slip in the UHD version of _Chappie_. Snell really whetted my appetite for this with his review last week and I'm quite sure I never watched my free UHD version which came with my new Sony tv back in the summer of 2016.


It's right in line with the prior Conjuring movies in terms of spooks. I think you'll like it, I surely did. The Nun has a fine A/V experience, either on Blu-ray or UHD. The Dolby Atmos sound is fabulous as well. Enjoy the trip, it should provide a nice break from Minnesota's weather this time of year.



AmerCa said:


> Merry Christmas, fellow AVS reviewers!! I hope you will spend some quality time with your beloved ones.
> 
> Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


Merry Christmas, AmerCa! May everyone here reading enjoy the light of this Christmas season in peace and happiness. Blessed Christmas wishes to our AVS Forum users.


----------



## SnellTHX

Positive reviews of the Nun's picture quality forced me to get the 4K/HDR blu-ray of it. I think this is the first horror movie I have ever bought, ever.


----------



## AmerCa

^°°°°°^^^

Not only that, people are drooling over the audio track as well. The bass is brutal in there, and will be among the best audio tracks of the year. Great purchase.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## SnellTHX

*Oblivion*

*4K/HDR version*

I don't remember if I ever did review it, but I watched the blu-ray of Oblivion back in the day around 5 years ago, back then, if I had rated it it would have been way up the top of my Reference list. Probably 0.5 somewhere. Since then my standard is way higher and expect more from a movie as I've been spoiled with lots of other 4K/HDR content.


This is however a superb improvement over the 1080p/SDR version, which still holds up very well. Incredibly sharp, highly detailed and lovely combination of 'film' and 'digital' look to it. The dark / low-light scenes in the caves/underground show cased great shadow detail and amazing black level. The skyboxes were bright and punchy, facial details everywhere and the peak HDR highlights i.e. flames spewed across the battlefield during the landing after one of the crashes really stuck out.

One of my favourite reference movies - made better!

*Tier recommendation: 0(.33)*


----------



## SnellTHX

*The MEG (4K)*

I was just about to 'slaughter' this movie for its lack of contrast. I played the movie and it felt like I was watching on an LCD or a DLP projector with really high brightness. The image was razor-sharp but looked completely washed out (Sort of like American Made was). I went into my TV settings, raised gamma from 2.2 to 2.4 and lowered contrast from 100 to 80 and boom! Much darker, punchier image that didn't look washed out anymore while still retaining that ridiculous 4K sharpness. Shame it took me 36 minutes to decide I **had** to change my settings to fully enjoy the visuals of this movie.


The level of detail in each frame, close up shots, facial detail, textures everything is near-flawless, even the use of film grain was well placed and gave it a nice organic look. I'm flabbergasted that this stems from a 2K DI, it just looks way to good to not be 4K. Even compared to something as great as Oblivion I think it looked sharper and more detailed. It's reference-grade, but not the best ever; despite raising gamma and lowered contrast I still think the image lacked the punchiness, 3D-like depth and contrast of other movies like Black Panther or the Avengers. I still think there's 'errors' to the image, it seems like there was some blooming in the skies, possibly highlight clipping. It could be my OLED display that's at fault here, but it's confusing. In one way its like its the best picture quality ever, but other ways its got a few flaws.


(Tier recommendation _pre-fix:_ 1.5)

*Tier recommendation: 0(.5)*


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> *The Meg (1080p)*
> 
> I've never been a big fan of the absurd _Sharknado Franchise_, but I am a fan of Jason Statham...so I decided to rent this at Redbox this morning. The movie was definitely better (by leaps and bounds) than any of the _Sharknado_ movies, but that really isn't saying much. Yet this was a fairly decent "popcorn rental" with plenty of action.
> 
> PQ-wise, it was a mixed bag. For the most part there was superb CLARITY and amazing DETAILS in close-ups (especially, as is usually the case, in facial close-ups....the texture on Jason's thick stubble was excellent). BLACK LEVELS were also very good at times (and thankfully my "black bars" remained pitch black throughout with the exception of one shot). COLORS were fantastic in outdoor, daytime scenes and in all well-lit interior shots. DEPTH was also pure EYE CANDY at times.
> 
> Now for the less-than-stellar. CONTRAST was deplorable at times, most notably in a sun-drenched, beach scene in the last act (which lasted 5-10 minutes). This resulted in a "washed out look" and "depleted details." I understand the UHD version is even worse (which makes sense with HDR and its super-duper contrast). Also, there were some underwater scenes with murky blacks and video noise.
> 
> If not for the negatives just listed, this could have been a low Tier 0 title. In my opinion it's still demo-worthy and I'm inclined to put it here:
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.5**
> 
> PS The Dolby Atmos mix was GREAT, though I was expecting more in the bass/LFE department during collisions and explosions.



Wow. I didn't read your review until I had already written my own review. It seems like we completely agree  1.5 is the exact rating I'd give it if I didn't completely change my TV settings... You mention it is still demo-worthy (which it is!) and highlight the clarity, details and sharpness as did I. A shame about the contrast though! Maybe you could try tweaking your TV settings? I altered my settings for this movie and this movie alone, which made me raise it from a 1.5 to 0(.5) reference rating 

I watched the 4K version though, but your assessment completely follows through.


----------



## AmerCa

Just a quick stop by to wish all of you a Happy New Year!!!

A special shout-out to the oldest and steadier contributors Phantom and Djoberg, who have kept this thread alive all these years, and on top of that, they're also terrific guys. Without you this thread wouldn't be the same.

This is one if my favorite threads here on AVS, and I hope next year we'll have some more people joining the thread, along with the fantastic regulars we already have.

Best wishes!!


Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## Phantom Stranger

AmerCa said:


> Just a quick stop by to wish all of you a Happy New Year!!!
> 
> A special shout-out to the oldest and steadier contributors Phantom and Djoberg, who have kept this thread alive all these years, and on top of that, they're also terrific guys. Without you this thread wouldn't be the same.
> 
> This is one if my favorite threads here on AVS, and I hope next year we'll have some more people joining the thread, along with the fantastic regulars we already have.
> 
> Best wishes!!
> 
> 
> Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


A Happy New Year to you as well, AmerCa! Now that Christmas is past us, Santa's elves are hard at work on the next PQ Tiers update. I hear it won't be ready tonight but very, very soon.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) (Signature Edition, Olive Films)*

recommendation: *Tier 2.75**

Pretty good transfer but a bit inconsistent. Details are fairly strong throughout, but there are some lesser film elements in a few shots that stand out for the decrease in quality. Black levels and contrast are even for the most part, but there is a little black crush from time to time. The transfer and encode look fine, didn't see any macro blocking or banding.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*The Thing from Another World (Warner Archive Collection)*

recommendation: *Tier 4.0**

The OCN is long gone so there are scenes and shots that had to be sourced from some pretty poor elements and they are glaringly apparent when they are seen due to poor detail and blown contrast. The better looking elements actually look pretty good, detail is consistent with strong black levels and solid contrast.


----------



## SnellTHX

Just a friendly heads up... Bird Box and Mowgli have newly released on Netflix. They're both streamed in 4K/HDR and encoded in Dolby VISION for those who have displays that support DV. Both movies look absolutely superb, like a really good blu-ray imo.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

As a show of good faith, Tiers 1.75 through Tier 5 are completely up to date at the moment with all the latest rankings since our last update in July of 2017. You'll also notice that the erroneous and dead "bb nf" links have been completely removed through Tier 2.0 and hopefully will soon be gone completely. Who knew back in 2008 that Blockbuster would go out of business and that Netflix would drop direct links to their catalog of movies. 

I'm still having problems with fixing the anchor links for skipping quickly around the page, so we'll see about finding a solution.

Expect Tiers 0-1.75 to be completed in the coming days.


----------



## AmerCa

^^°°°°°°°°^^^

Omg! It actually happened!

I'm very stoked to see the final list finished. And to think it took like a year and a half to see a new update. Just shows the hard work behind it. I'm also glad to read you're gonna update the whole list, instead of just the two first tiers.

Kudos, Phantom!

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Independence Day (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

Details are strong in the live action shots without CGI. Facial features, hair, and textures are sharp. Details falter in the many CGI elements and the many green screen shots. Colors are nice and even, flesh tones look natural. Black levels and contrast are also strong with what looks like a judicious application of HDR.


----------



## dla26

Phantom Stranger said:


> As a show of good faith, Tiers 1.75 through Tier 5 are completely up to date at the moment with all the latest rankings since our last update in July of 2017. You'll also notice that the erroneous and dead "bb nf" links have been completely removed through Tier 2.0 and hopefully will soon be gone completely. Who knew back in 2008 that Blockbuster would go out of business and that Netflix would drop direct links to their catalog of movies.
> 
> I'm still having problems with fixing the anchor links for skipping quickly around the page, so we'll see about finding a solution.
> 
> Expect Tiers 0-1.75 to be completed in the coming days.


We all really appreciate the effort Phantom Stranger! Thank you for pulling all of this together! It's an invaluable resource.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Tier 1.5 is now up to date as well.

*The Miracle Worker (1979)*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

Easily the best film transfer I've ever seen from a VCI release. This television production from 1979 has actress Patty Duke playing a different role in the movie that first made her Hollywood career. The film elements are in spectacular condition. The film-like presentation has crisp definition and lively colors. There isn't much evidence of extraneous processing. A few stray halos are virtually negligible. The 2018 restoration is credited to Blair and Associates, which I've not heard of before this disc. It's a commendable job from pristine elements and results in a quality catalog release.

The 98-minute main feature is presented at its original 1.33:1 broadcast ratio. The disc is a BD-25. Encoded in finely-tuned AVC, there is real detail and excellent resolution throughout the film. The only quibble is an odd change in the normally bright and warm color timing for less than thirty seconds at the end of one scene. It happens near the end of the first act at around the 35-minute mark.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Hunger Games, The (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 0* (0.9)*

Nice level of detail throughout from District 12 to the Capitol. Colors are strong, even with the muted palette of District 12. Once the action moves to the Capitol and the arena, colors really pop. There is a bit of orange and teal grading but it's not too distracting. Black levels and shadow details are also pleasing as well as contrast.


----------



## dla26

Phantom Stranger said:


> Tier 1.5 is now up to date as well.
> 
> *The Miracle Worker (1979)*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 1.5**


I loved that movie as a kid. I remember binging on Helen Keller books (for kids) and teaching myself the manual alphabet after watching it a million times.

Out of curiosity, how was the film grain? That's a problem I often see with older movies being remastered. It's either way too grainy, or they over-DNR it.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

dla26 said:


> I loved that movie as a kid. I remember binging on Helen Keller books (for kids) and teaching myself the manual alphabet after watching it a million times.
> 
> Out of curiosity, how was the film grain? That's a problem I often see with older movies being remastered. It's either way too grainy, or they over-DNR it.


 It has that crisp, clean cinematography that was still popular for television in the 1970s and 1980s. Television productions around that time hadn't dipped into the grainier film stocks and gritty cinematography that pervaded much of that era's theatrical films. It's a film transfer that looks fairly organic with a mild grain structure that hasn't been filtered away. _The Miracle Worker_ won several Primetime Emmy awards, when that really meant something. Definition and high-frequency detail remain impressively intact on this Blu-ray presentation.

But to explicitly answer your question, this is not a movie with intrusive grain to begin with. It's a new transfer from the original negative.


----------



## dla26

Oh the irony...


----------



## Phantom Stranger

dla26 said:


> Oh the irony...
> 
> View attachment 2508608


Blu-ray.com is wrong. When the review goes up, it will note that the new Miracle Worker BD includes optional English SDH subtitles.


----------



## SnellTHX

Doing god's work, Phantom Stranger


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Everything is updated in the PQ Tiers from 1.25 through 5.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> Everything is updated in the PQ Tiers from 1.25 through 5.


Thanks again for your "labor of love" Phantom! I know many members don't realize the vast amount of work that goes into keeping the thread updated and maintained. I'm just glad for your "sticktoitiveness." I know I could never do what you do with my very heavy travelling schedule (I'm gone a good 60-80 days a year), so you are truly appreciated.

We are now back home but I'm plagued with a severe head cold that began nearly a week ago. This made the trip home to Minnesota (from Phoenix) quite miserable at times, especially in higher elevations (we went east out of Phoenix right through the mountains and then straight up I-25 from Albuquerque to Denver)......some amazing sights but also some plugged ears and a super headache.

If I'm feeling a bit better this weekend I do plan to visit one of our local Red-boxes.


----------



## djoberg

Okay, I have decided to rent a movie in spite of the way my head feels. It's simply been too long to wait until I'm 100%!

So, in perusing the list of Blu-rays at Redbox (sadly, most of their titles are DVDs), I had to choose between several titles that have been on my "Wish List." I ended up reserving _The House with the Clock in its Walls_. Why did I choose this title over others that had more "substance" to them? Ah, because our resident reviewer Ralph Potts gave the PQ a score of 98 and he gave the Dolby Atmos mix a perfect score of 100 and added that it was a brilliant mix to show off the virtues of your Dolby Atmos system!! He said that movie was pretty good too. I'll weigh in later with my take on it.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^

So, I drove to Redbox and guess what? The machine didn't give me the option to "PICK UP" my reservation! I called Redbox and they cancelled my reservation. The good news: I found out later that the 1080p version does NOT have the Dolby Atmos mix, so I'll either buy the title when the price comes down or maybe skip it altogether.


----------



## AmerCa

^^^°°°°°°°°^^^

Glad to have you back, Djoberg, and it sucks that you came back with a cold. Those damn colds are not a great deal, but they're so annoying. It's been a while since I got one, but when I do, they usually take me out for a week.

Regarding the Clocks movie, did you mean the rental version doesn't come up with ATMOS? Because both the BD and UHD come with the same ATMOS track. Universal, like Warner, Lionsgate and Paramount, normally include the same track for both versions for their big movies.

It sucks that you drove sick only to find your rental was canceled. Hope to see you reviewing very soon!

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^

Thanks for the "welcome back" AmerCa!


----------



## djoberg

*Venom (1080p version)*

Okay, I had a code from Redbox to use (that was only good for today) so I figured I had to get something. I decided on _Venom_ and I'm glad I did! Why? Because the movie was "a hoot" (I'm actually using the words of another who posted on Ralph Potts' site). And more in keeping with this thread, the PQ was awesome! And in keeping with an audio thread, the AQ was spectacular!!

PQ-wise, this one was consistently sharp from beginning to end. Besides excellent clarity, the details were amazing, the colors were bold, the contrast was strong, the flesh tones were accurate, the depth was appreciable, and last, but NEVER LEAST, the black levels were deliciously deep and inky with comparable shadow details.

AQ-wise, there was a lot of action throughout my 9 channels (with brilliant precision), including the Height Channels (courtesy of a very good DTS-HD Neural:X upmix). My dual subs had their work cut out for them too and they held up very well! I can only imagine what the UHD audio mix (DTS:X) would sound like.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.75)*


----------



## AmerCa

^°^°°°°=°°^^^

How did you like the movie? For some reason I'm not attracted to this film, I didn't even like the trailers. At least the action is spectacular? Is it fun?

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

Yep, for like I said it was "a hoot!"

Here's a short piece that I wrote about the film on Ralph's site:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-...m-ultra-hd-blu-ray-review-2.html#post57427312


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Get well soon, djoberg. Traveling sick is definitely no fun. I may catch Venom tonight, spurred by your review. It's one of my unseen Christmas presents.


*When Harry Met Sally: 30th Anniversary Edition*

recommendation: *Tier 1.75**

I was surprised to find out the earlier 2011 MGM Blu-ray wasn't ranked in the PQ Tiers. No matter, that disc is now obsolete. This week's release by Shout Factory features a new 4K film scan from the camera negative and it is superb. This is a high-grade film transfer that exudes depth and dimension. The film-like presentation has healthy fleshtones and nails the movie's basic grain structure. Almost everything is top-notch, from the inky black levels to the perfect contrast. The plentiful levels of detail are on display throughout the movie.

_When Harry Met Sally_ simply can't look better in 1080P resolution. Shout Factory has been hit-or-miss when upgrading older catalog reissues, but this is one of their very best upgrades for picture quality. It begs the question of when this 4K film transfer is hitting UHD.


----------



## AmerCa

Phantom Stranger said:


> I may catch Venom tonight, spurred by your review. It's one of my unseen Christmas presents.


Phantom reviewing modern blockbusters?/Probably because it was a Christmas present? 

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> Get well soon, djoberg. Traveling sick is definitely no fun. I may catch Venom tonight, spurred by your review. It's one of my unseen Christmas presents.


Thanks Phantom! I've been drinking lots of water....taking endless capsules of Vitamin C and other "natural remedies"; but in six days I had felt no better. But after watching _Venom_ I started feeling better!! Coincidence? Maybe. But a better hypothesis is psychological in nature...it could be that now that I'm back enjoying my favorite hobby the stress has rolled away, causing my immune system to perk up and do its job. The way I'm feeling now I could be back to normal in a day or two.

Regarding you watching _Venom_, I had the same reaction as AmerCa thinking, "Phantom reviewing modern blockbusters?" I hope I didn't set your expectations too high!!


----------



## DarthDoxie

AmerCa said:


> ^^^°°°°°°°°^^^
> 
> Regarding the Clocks movie, did you mean the rental version doesn't come up with ATMOS? Because both the BD and UHD come with the same ATMOS track. Universal, like Warner, Lionsgate and Paramount, normally include the same track for both versions for their big movies.


Some studios are notorious for not including the lossless or 3D audio tracks on the discs they give Red Box. Lionsgate comes to mind for their *Hunger Games* release and only including a Dolby Digital track but never knew about Universal giving crippled discs to Red Box.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

AmerCa said:


> Phantom reviewing modern blockbusters?/Probably because it was a Christmas present?
> 
> Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


 I just can't muster the same enthusiasm I once did for Hollywood's biggest movies. Hollywood's marketing machine has made it more difficult for me to enjoy them in our current social media world. In the days of yore, most new blockbusters here in the discussion thread received detailed coverage from several notable contributors. Which led me to focus on catalog releases and more obscure films for review in the thread.

That being said...

*Venom (2018)*

recommendation: *1.0**

Sony does their usual fine effort bringing _Venom_ to Blu-ray. Unlike some other studios I won't name, Sony isn't mailing in their Blu-ray releases while the UHDs receive all the love and care. The big-budget production certainly looks nice and its visuals feel neatly put together. I'd agree with all of Denny's points, the picture quality has no weaknesses. Maybe a touch of banding for a few scant seconds, but otherwise this is a technically capable presentation with serious detail and sparkling clarity. The color palette is a touch desaturated, especially when Venom finally appears. Denny was also right about the audio, it's an epic surround mix.

On the other hand, I don't think Venom's video quality is good enough for Tier 0. Somewhere in Tier 1.0 or 1.25 feels more appropriate and also leaves a little room for the UHD's likely upgrade. Five years ago? Sure, Venom would have deserved our best tier without a doubt.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

We are now locked and loaded for all Tiers 1.0 through 5. Barring errors or mistakes, every review since the 2017 update is now included in some way within the PQ Tiers, minus the tier 0 scores. You can thank the Patriots turning the game into a rout for this small update. All dead netflix and blockbuster links have been removed through Tier 3.25, which should make scrolling on a tablet or phone mildly easier.


Tier Blu, here we come.


----------



## AmerCa

Phantom Stranger said:


> All dead netflix and blockbuster links have been removed through Tier 3.25, which should make scrolling on a tablet or phone mildly easier.


Thank you very much! I was thinking of bringing that up, but thought maybe I was the only one having issues loading the tiers with phone/tablet. I'm gonna try it.

Edit: doesn't work for me. The tiers list is so massive for it to load.  Gonna try later on my laptop.

Watching football as well? Yeah, the Patriots game was boring. Watching Saints-Eagles now. Hopefully it will be closer game, but doesn't look good so far for the Saints...

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> *Venom (2018)*
> 
> recommendation: *1.0**
> 
> Sony does their usual fine effort bringing _Venom_ to Blu-ray. Unlike some other studios I won't name, Sony isn't mailing in their Blu-ray releases while the UHDs receive all the love and care. The big-budget production certainly looks nice and its visuals feel neatly put together. I'd agree with all of Denny's points, the picture quality has no weaknesses. Maybe a touch of banding for a few scant seconds, but otherwise this is a technically capable presentation with serious detail and sparkling clarity. The color palette is a touch desaturated, especially when Venom finally appears. Denny was also right about the audio, it's an epic surround mix.
> 
> On the other hand, I don't think Venom's video quality is good enough for Tier 0. Somewhere in Tier 1.0 or 1.25 feels more appropriate and also leaves a little room for the UHD's likely upgrade. Five years ago? Sure, Venom would have deserved our best tier without a doubt.


Good review Phantom! Regarding your placement, we're only 1/4 tier apart and that's good enough for me!

I'm watching the Eagles/Saints game and can hardly believe what I'm seeing? Is it the "jitters" for the Saints or the "magic" (i.e. Foles) for the Eagles that's making it look like it could be a huge upset? (I hope I'm wrong for I'm pulling for the Saints.)


----------



## SnellTHX

*Skyscraper (4K)*

One thing to say this movie was DARK. I invited two of my homies over to watch this movie with me, neither of them videophiles by any stretch of the imagination though one of them has some sense of technology (I recently convinced him to buy a Sony XF90 and sound bar!). So from inexperienced eyes their reactions where "Wow, actually does look better than Netflix!" (After them commenting on why I bothered to buy a physical disc in 2019) while I thought the image looked way too dark and gloomy. 
Razor sharp, and very clean, 'digital' looking image, black levels where amazing and there was a plethora of HDR highlights to stick out with great contrast between the blazing fires and the darkness of night.
At the end of the movie I even got a minor complaint from my friend, wondering if my TV was faulty or dark by design... (spoiled by newly purchased XF90 brightness???) but turns out it was a combination of Skyscraper being mastered really dark and the fact that I had lowered brightness from 50 to 49 and OLED light from 60 to 40 due to the last HDR movie I watched being too bright  I think I'll rewatch it with Brightness at 51 and OLED light at 80.


Overall its still a crisp looking movie with plenty of HDR/deep blacks and contrast; the most impressive part of the whole movie is when The Rock gets picked up by a helicopter, I think its around the 1h:32m mark or so... Very bright lights on their faces with a pitch black background. Gorgeous.

*Tier recommendation: 1.25*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^

Spot on review Snell!

Amazingly, you and I are only 1/10 of a tier apart, for I placed it at Tier 0 (.9). And I was actually going to place it a 1.0 (as I point out in my initial remarks in my review).


----------



## fredxr2d2

I watched the 1080p version of Skyscraper and didn't think it was too dark - maybe the HDR grading took it too far?


I also watched Venom this weekend and the PQ was pretty standard for a new release, IMO. Good contrast, nice details, but not mind-blowing.


Spoiler



The CGI fight near the end turned a little mushy to me - black monster fighting gray monster is not exactly eye candy.


 A solid tier 1 contender.


As far as the film is concerned I thought it was a stinker and my wife thought it was fun. I had much more fun with Skyscraper, even considering it is a Die Hard knockoff. But, I have found that I enjoy The Rock's movies - he seems to pick and star in movies that fit a "fun" mold that are good for a nice evening of entertainment when you don't want something too serious.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Die Hard (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

Good all around presentation. Black levels and contrast are strong with a nice application of HDR. Colors and details are nicely rendered.


----------



## dla26

Phantom Stranger said:


> We are now locked and loaded for all Tiers 1.0 through 5. Barring errors or mistakes, every review since the 2017 update is now included in some way within the PQ Tiers, minus the tier 0 scores.


Of course tier 0 is the only tier that really matters. 

Thanks again, Phantom Stranger!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

AmerCa said:


> Thank you very much! I was thinking of bringing that up, but thought maybe I was the only one having issues loading the tiers with phone/tablet. I'm gonna try it.
> 
> Edit: doesn't work for me. The tiers list is so massive for it to load.  Gonna try later on my laptop.


 I know the PQ Tiers load on last year's Amazon Fire 10 tablet and it looks pretty good. It does take some time (over 40 seconds or more) to fully load up. AVS seems to have tamped down on the random ads and links they were inserting. Given how much has to load on a single web page, I would think only the latest and great smartphones could handle that load.

All the dead blockbuster and netflix links are now removed from the entire list. That somewhat cleans up the visual formatting. Those were the only things inputted in the Tiers by someone other than myself, the ever-resourceful K-Spaz. Wherever you are out there, K-Spaz, no one should forget your help behind the scenes. It was his original database programming that helped form the Tiers behind the scenes and made it possible for me to keep providing updates.

I'm not sure the review links in the PQ Tiers are ever going to be completely fixed and made whole. When CinemaSquid's website went down, that took out over 80% of our active review links away. It would take a monumental effort to fix the thousands of dead review links. Newer entries do have working links to current reviews. If someone wanted to do it themselves, I am open for another person doing that thankless work.


----------



## djoberg

fredxr2d2 said:


> As far as the film is concerned I thought it was a stinker and my wife thought it was fun. I had much more fun with Skyscraper, even considering it is a Die Hard knockoff. But, I have found that I enjoy The Rock's movies - he seems to pick and star in movies that fit a "fun" mold that are good for a nice evening of entertainment when you don't want something too serious.


So, you didn't find the zany relationship between Venom and its host (Tom Hardy) fun?! Again, I thought it was "a hoot" and I'm sticking by that!

FTR, I love "The Rock" and enjoy most of his movies, but he does not have the "fun factor" that Tom Hardy gave to us in _Venom_. My favorite exchange (that was absolutely "a hoot") between Venom and Hardy was when Venom told Hardy:



Spoiler



I'm a loser back on my planet just like you are on yours!


----------



## fredxr2d2

djoberg said:


> So, you didn't find the zany relationship between Venom and its host (Tom Hardy) fun?! Again, I thought it was "a hoot" and I'm sticking by that!
> 
> FTR, I love "The Rock" and enjoy most of his movies, but he does not have the "fun factor" that Tom Hardy gave to us in _Venom_. My favorite exchange (that was absolutely "a hoot") between Venom and Hardy was when Venom told Hardy:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a loser back on my planet just like you are on yours!



I actually thought it was hackneyed and overplayed - but, my wife did think it was great (and her taste is pretty good...she married me!). Different strokes for different folks, I suppose.


----------



## djoberg

fredxr2d2 said:


> I actually thought it was hackneyed and overplayed - but, my wife did think it was great (and her taste is pretty good...she married me!). Different strokes for different folks, I suppose.


It surely sounds like you "married up" fred! Because of this, I would trust "her taste" over your own.


----------



## AmerCa

fredxr2d2 said:


> I actually thought it was hackneyed and overplayed - but, my wife did think it was great (and her taste is pretty good...she married me!). Different strokes for different folks, I suppose.


I think that's one of the reasons why I wasn't too keen in the movie in the first place. Venom isn't supposed to be a fun character, and I'm afraid it's gonna be turned into comedic relief so they can keep up with the times.

Venom is supposed to be a terrifying character, as his design clearly suggest. Nothing in the trailer gave me that impression.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## fredxr2d2

AmerCa said:


> I think that's one of the reasons why I wasn't too keen in the movie in the first place. Venom isn't supposed to be a fun character, and I'm afraid it's gonna be turned into comedic relief so they can keep up with the times.
> 
> Venom is supposed to be a terrifying character, as his design clearly suggest. Nothing in the trailer gave me that impression.
> 
> Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk



There are two different movies underlying Venom: one is a comedy about a shlub who gets a super-powered symbiote and has to save the world, the other is a gruesome body-horror movie about people being taken over by alien symbiotes and consumed by them. Both together, IMO, don't make a good movie, but if it had stuck to one or the other it might have been a better movie overall. My personal preference for Venom stems from my Spider-man fandom and it should have had some connection to Tom Holland's new Spidey.


That said, I think Denny (and my wife) definitely caught on to the humor in the film and that let them override the other foibles in plotting, acting, chemistry between leads, etc. that I think hamstrung the film from being as good as it could have been.


Still, I think that if you have any interest, Venom is worth a rental (if possible) and does have audio potential - the 5.1 soundtrack on the 1080p disc was quite good, I suspect the Atmos track on the 4K Blu is better. It might also be a good bargain bin movie to pick up once the price comes down.


----------



## AmerCa

^=^°°°^°°

Interesting breakdown of the movie. I had hopes that this movie being divorced from the Marvel Spider Man, it could take some risks. Maybe they did, I have to see it, but apparently taking risks is a big no-no these days where profit is the most important aspect of movie production.

But I agree, there's surely some fun to be had with it, and there's nothing wrong with that. The fact that it has pretty good A/V scores is also a great plus. I have no option to rent movies, but I might buy it if the price is low enough.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> I have no option to rent movies, but I might buy it if the price is low enough.
> 
> Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


These words really struck me AmerCa, for many of us are being forced into that same position of "having no option to rent movies." Yes, there is still Redbox for physical discs, but as I said in a recent post they are mostly renting "DVDs" instead of "Blu-rays." I foresee the day (not far off, I'm afraid) when physical media will go the way of the dinosaur and we'll all be forced to stream movies. That will be a tragedy for multiple reasons, for I 1) love having my own private library of Blu-rays and 2) love the superior A/V that comes with a physical disc where there are no compression factors.

I suppose the argument against both points above will be: 1) you will still be able to have a downloaded copy that you can call your own; and 2) there will come a day when streamed video and audio will be without compression factors, giving you the same experience you now get with a physical Blu-ray. 

If that day comes, our beloved Blu-ray Thread will, of necessity, change. At the very least we'll have to rename it, for instead of calling it "The New PQ Tier Thread for Blu-ray" we'll have to call it something like, "The New PQ Thread for Streamed Movies."


----------



## AmerCa

^°^°^°°^

Excellent points. I don't like the idea of streaming based on the fact that I don't "own" the movies that I stream, and I depend on an external provider and an internet connection.

I "stream" a lot YouTube videos, but the ones I really like I download them, because they can be taken down. When internet connections become so good that there's no loss in quality, maybe physical discs will become a thing of the past.

But I don't like that direction even then, because streaming has a lot of restrictions, and we'll be at the mercy of content providers. When you buy a disc it's yours. I don't need an account. I don't need special permissions. I don't care if the internet is slow. I just watch the movie.

I like streaming as an alternative, it has its benefits. But as a replacement for physical disc I don't like it. But it seems that people are less and less interested in buying discs. My sister lives and dies by her Netflix account. Hell, even our own Snell seems closer by the day to streaming than to discs.

Maybe that's one of the reasons there's not so many contributors on this thread anymore. Who knows.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## artur9

fredxr2d2 said:


> Venom stems from my Spider-man fandom and it should have had some connection to Tom Holland's new Spidey.


The Venom saga in Spider-Man postdates my active reading of comics but I don't see how one can have Venom without having Spider-Man.

Is the consensus that the movie works or does not? Rotten Tomatoes critics 28% but audience 84%. WTH?


----------



## artur9

djoberg said:


> At the very least we'll have to rename it, for instead of calling it "The New PQ Tier Thread for Blu-ray" we'll have to call it something like, "The New PQ Thread for Streamed Movies."


I don't see how that can work. The streaming companies can change the PQ on the fly automatically or via a switch. Even though a streamed movie could potentially have high quality there is no guarantee that one will receive that quality.


----------



## AmerCa

artur9 said:


> Is the consensus that the movie works or does not? Rotten Tomatoes critics 28% but audience 84%. WTH?


Rotten Tomatoes is a weird animal. Personally, I find it completely useless. The superhero movie climate is directed towards the Marvel-lite style of filmmaking. Anything superhero related that is fun and entertaining gets usually high marks, even if it goes to the extreme of parody (see: Thor: Ragnarok). Critics seem to love all things Marvel related.

Venom isn't Marvel, but looks like a movie that could exist in its universe, but alas, critics don't like it. But people do. Basically, you're on your own, lol.

And you're right, Venom without Spider Man is like the Joker without Batman. And that's another reason why a standalone Venom film seems bizarre. Literally, Venom wouldn't exist without Spider Man. Thinking about it, it's quite possibly the biggest retconning we've seen of a comic book character. But.. what the hell.



Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

artur9 said:


> I don't see how that can work. The streaming companies can change the PQ on the fly automatically or via a switch. Even though a streamed movie could potentially have high quality there is no guarantee that one will receive that quality.


You make a good point. Perhaps the only way it (a dedicated thread) can work (with any real accuracy) is for members who review it to be streaming it from the same service, be it Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, etc.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

artur9 said:


> The Venom saga in Spider-Man postdates my active reading of comics but I don't see how one can have Venom without having Spider-Man.
> 
> Is the consensus that the movie works or does not? Rotten Tomatoes critics 28% but audience 84%. WTH?


 The movie works if you don't know who Venom is before going into the movie. Sony basically took the character's name and alias from the comics, changing everything else about his backstory and personality. So the comic book readers aren't that pleased. Venom feels like Sony had a script laying around for some other sci-fi property and decided to mold it into a comic book movie. The best description I've heard is that Venom feels like a lost superhero movie from fifteen years ago.

I was surprised it got a PG-13 rating.


----------



## SnellTHX

I changed my rating of Skycraper from 1 to 1.25. I re-watched the movie with higher brightness and more 'OLED-Light'. But this raised the blacks from absolute 0 to 'a good plasma' black. My B6 OLED doesn't handle HDR too well, but I was left frustrated that I couldn't apply a satisfactory setting for this movie. The MEG was too bright/washed out but easily fixed by lowering OLED light and raising gamma, this gave it a punchy 3D like depth you can expect from a high contrast display.

With Skycraper and I had to decide between an extremely dark image with crushed (perfect) blacks and zero shadow detail or a still pretty dark image with risen black levels (bleehh!) I think those with BETTER HDR displays (Sony ZD9, Samsung Q9FN, 2017 & 2018 OLED tvs) might enjoy Skyscraper's PQ more than I. 

My TV isn't ISF-calibrated either, so the lack of calibration or the limitation of a 2.5 year OLED might be the fault but to me it hindered the experience of an otherwise great looking movie.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^

Sorry to read of your problems Snell. Thankfully, my Sony 940D does NOT have the problem with "crushed blacks" that an OLED can have. In fact, that was one of several factors that caused me to choose an LCD/LED over the OLED. Of course, OLED has come a long way in the last two years to remedy this issue so that would NOT be a deterrent for me today.


----------



## AmerCa

^°^°^°^°^

I hope when it's time for me to upgrade to a 4k TV the HDR technology is better implemented across all types of displays. However on this case it seems that the movie wasn't mastered properly. When most of the movies you watch look great and one doesn't look good, I suspect the disc is the culprit.

I properly mastered disc usually looks great in all displays, even at lower resolutions.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## SnellTHX

AmerCa said:


> ^°^°^°°^
> 
> . Hell, even our own Snell seems closer by the day to streaming than to discs.
> 
> Maybe that's one of the reasons there's not so many contributors on this thread anymore. Who knows.



I still watch all of my movies on disc! Nothing beats 4K/HDR blu-ray


*however*

Netflix & Amazon shows in 4K Dolby Vision look absolutely phenomenal and in most cases I'd place almost every one of those shows in Tier 0. Its a shame that streamed movies look garbage. (720p/1080p compressed to a 5Mb/s signal).

I have recently watched Netflix's produced movies which are 4K/Dolby Vision like their TV series and the PQ is really good; 
Bandersnatch, Mowgli, Bright, Bird Box... These look really, really good but still not quite as good as a well mastered 4K/HDR blu-ray. (15Mb/s vs 128Mb/s resolution being the same @ 4K)


Until streaming movies gives me the FULL 128Mb/s bit rate (or 8K resolution!) I'll keep buying physical media. 

Summary: Movies --> Physical media | TV shows --> Netflix/Amazon


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^

In my ignorance I'll ask, "Do any of the streaming services offer Dolby Atmos or DTS:X audio?" I know Amazon Prime Video does NOT. If not, this is yet another BIG reason for still having 4K/UHD Blu-ray discs!


----------



## djoberg

*The House with a Clock in its Walls (1080p)*

As you can see, I ended up renting this title after all and I'm happy to say the 1080p version did have a Dolby Atmos mix! I'll also say this was, beyond a doubt, the highlight of this rather strange movie.

The PQ was somewhat disappointing given the stellar reviews I had read. What disappointed me the most were numerous scenes of SOFTNESS and UNDERWHELMING BLACK LEVELS. This is not to say there weren't scenes with sharp clarity, but they were mostly in outdoor daytime scenes or in interior scenes at the school with sufficient lighting. Those scenes also featured excellent colors, details, depth, and flesh tones.

Most scenes took place in low-lit environments in the house, especially at night. Again, softness reared its ugly head time and time again, and murky blacks were the unfortunate results in those same scenes. To be fair, when scenes shifted outdoors (in the neighborhood around the house), blacks were pleasing, as were shadow details.

The real winner was the Dolby Atmos mix (I know, I know, this is PQ Thread!!), for this was one of the most enveloping tracks that I've experienced recently. From the opening scene you knew you would be treated to precise action in every channel and there were many times I found myself rejoicing in the "sound bubble" courtesy of a 5.2.4 sound system.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**


----------



## djoberg

It's DOUBLE FEATURE night! Next up...._Peppermint_, starring Jennifer Garner. From what I've read, this is also somewhat of a DUD, but I can't resist a good "Revenge" movie, and especially one with Jennifer Garner in the lead role. When I first read about this it brought back (to my mind) flashbacks of her in _Alias_, for it sounds like she'll be reprising her role as a "female ninja" in this one.


----------



## djoberg

*Peppermint (1080p)*

Okay, the movie was a DUD but the PQ saved the day! This was clearly "demo" quality, though it would never make its way into the "reference" tier. I say this because in some of the night time scenes the blacks were very lackluster; in fact, I would call them "gray." At times they rose to the occasion and gave us some good depth and shadow details, but this was very sporadic.

The redeeming qualities were daytime scenes with sparkling clarity, tons of details, natural colors, and accurate flesh tones. I'm thinking this one is worthy of the following placement:

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25**


----------



## AmerCa

^=^°°°^^

I'm interested in this movie, too bad you didn't enjoy it. Tier 1.25 isn't bad at all, but with no mention to audio, this movie will have to rely on a very good story (or at least be fun) to have some redeeming quality. Despite my better will, this disc doesn't seem destined to be a low priority on my list.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## AmerCa

BTW, it's great you got back so quickly to reviewing. Hopefully this weekend I'll be able to contribute with something of my own. I haven't had the chance to watch that many movies lately.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> In my ignorance I'll ask, "Do any of the streaming services offer Dolby Atmos or DTS:X audio?" I know Amazon Prime Video does NOT. If not, this is yet another BIG reason for still having 4K/UHD Blu-ray discs!



Nope! I forgot to mention audio. Physical media is still vastly superior in audio terms. In pure picture quality, streamed 4K/DV is dangerously close to the real thing. (despite bit-rate differences) but audio is way away.


----------



## tcramer

Watched A Beautiful Planet 4K last night on my 13' wide screen and it looked excellent. The shades of blue were outstanding. Given the many scenes of earth against the blackness of space, I imagine this would be a real treat on an OLED.

Good watch too, well worth the 45 minutes.


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> ^=^°°°^^
> 
> I'm interested in this movie, too bad you didn't enjoy it. Tier 1.25 isn't bad at all, but with no mention to audio, this movie will have to rely on a very good story (or at least be fun) to have some redeeming quality. Despite my better will, this disc doesn't seem destined to be a low priority on my list.
> 
> Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


I wanted to enjoy this movie AmerCa, for I really do like Jennifer Garner. The biggest barrier for me liking it was PERVASIVE LANGUAGE! There were so many F-Bombs that I ended up muting large segments where the usual suspects were talking. Another barrier was seeing Garner so "out of character." She too was reduced to bad language and a very ugly streak of revenge. One more thing; you literally have to "check your mind at the door" in the very first scene and you don't get to reclaim your mind till the credits are rolling.

Having said all that, there were some fairly cool action scenes (even though they cause you to "suspend disbelief").


----------



## AmerCa

^°^°^°^°^^°=^

I appreciate the mini review, Djoberg. I understand your stance on pervasive language. Although it doesn't bother me that much in the English language, when I hear it in Spanish in some movies, it just sound weird and off-putting to me, especially when it's gratuitous. I realize that's how people talk in real life, tho, and depending on the movie I can live with it. 

As a curious note, in Transformers 5, Isabela Moner, the actress who plays the teenager, says a couple cursing words in Spanish that are quite strong and unexpected from his character. Since they're in Spanish, nobody really noticed or cared. If they're were spoken in English, they probably would guarantee an R rating. 

Typical Michael Bay trolling.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Basic Instinct 2: Collector's Edition*

recommendation: *Tier 3.5**

Perusing the Tiers, the original Sony release for _Basic Instinct 2_ has been sitting in Tier 4.0 for a long time. MVD decided last month to reissue the 2006 sequel as part of their Marquee Collection line. Licensing a serviceable, film-like transfer from MGM, if mildly dated, the big lure here is the appearance of the unrated cut for the first time on Blu-ray. Both the theatrical and unrated cuts are included on a BD-50 in finely encoded AVC.

Shot like a film noir, _Basic Instinct 2_ is softer and darker than most dramas from the 2000s. The older telecine transfer comes from stable, pristine elements. Detail and resolution waver a bit, this isn't high-impact imagery with splendid colors and a top-notch contrast. It's consistently average to middling in definition. Black levels are decent.

MVD's reissue does substantially improve the compression's transparency to the film master and rendering of grain structure. This is a film made before the digital intermediate era and it shows in the old-fashioned color timing.


----------



## SnellTHX

*Venom (4K)*

Guess I'll join the bandwagon and review this too. Feels like I only just watched it at the cinema but it was worth a second viewing. The movie looks excellent, it's got its really sharp and highly detailed shots, but not every scene excelled as well. It looks like they had a very narrow FOV, as you could see a plethora of detail in facial shots but everything else blurry and out of focus. CGI looked good, blacks & contrast were good as well. As mentioned earlier it might have been reference 5,6-7 years ago but so standards are higher. At its best it creeps into the bottom of Tier 0, but middle of tier 1 at its worst.


*Tier recommendation: 1*


----------



## DarthDoxie

*War for the Planet of the Apes*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0*

Concur with current placement. All around excellent picture considering all the CGI. Outstanding black levels and contrast are especially stellar.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^^

Ditto Darth! We're on the exact same page on this one!!


----------



## AmerCa

*Sicario: Day Of The Sodado (2018 - Sony)*










*Tier Recommendation: 1.0*

*Djoberg* (1.5): https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-839.html#post56931062

I was almost sure Djoberg had given this release a higher score, but alas, I was wrong. Tier 1.5 is more than respectable, but this disc deserves more than that. Overall, I think the video presentation is outstanding, albeit certainly inconsistent at places. Black levels are great, but sometimes border in crushed blacks, arguably due to the high contrast, saturated color palette. I agree with Djoberg that this release is very similar to the original, but it's my opinion that the PQ is better here. In my memory doesn't betray me, I gave *Sicario* (US) a tier 1.25 placement, while the Mexican version a tier zero one (although I need to revise it). I constantly gravitate between a tier zero and tier 1, and sometimes tier 1.25. Tier 1 seems correct, all things weighted. It simply looks stunning for the most part, although it misses that little something to be an unquestionable reference disc.

I've heard the UHD is fantastic, and I don't doubt it. The cinematography screams HDR in many places, and quite possibly would elevate this disc to the reference category. The 7.1 DTS-HD MA track is superb, but the ATMOS track is said to be superior, which is quite an statement. If you have the option, the UHD is the way to go with this one, but the BD is still pretty good. I had some troubles with Amazon this past BF, so unfortunately I missed on the 4k deal. However, I don't regret this purchase, and most certainly I will upgrade it at some point in the future. I f-love this film.


----------



## AmerCa

* The Hurricane Heist (2018 - Lionsgate)*










*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*

*Djoberg* (1.5): https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-832.html#post56422758

I have very little to add to Djoberg's review. "Par for the course" PQ for a modern film. Satisfying video with enough qualities to please the eye, but nothing to write home about. IMO, reaching tier 1.5 is the very least a modern release should get. Color grading in this one, to my eyes, got in the way of a better video presentation, with its muted color palette that gave the movie a drab, boring look. This look isn't always a bad thing, but not everyone can be Zack Snyder... speaking of which...

A final note on the audio mix that Djoberg, rightfully, raves about. The bass in here is off the charts, and has arguably the most monstrous bass graph there is so far. However, the full force of this mix can be only displayed to the most capable ULF systems. It has to dig deep strongly into the 10-20hz AT LEAST, and this one even has strong content into the singles. Crazy stuff. I don't have such system, so the bass track sounded solid to me, but it wasn't as impressive or impactful. This one is a true reference track to test your sub(s).

As for the movie, it has a B-movie quality to it, and as such, if you like it or not will depend on your enjoyment or tolerance to such films.


----------



## AmerCa

*Sucker Punch [Theatrical + Extended] (2011 - Warner)*










*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*

So, Zack Snyder. I watched _The Hurricane Heist_ and this one back to back, and of course the common thing between them was the muted color palette, which in the case of Snyder, is to be expected. This is a 7 years old film (I could have sworn it was older), and sometimes it shows a bit of its age, but if the former can get a 1.5 placement, why can't this one? Actually, this one looks much better most of the time, and although the color grading is even more egregious, here is part of a much more artistic vision. This disc looks pretty great, but it's clear it's starting to have problems keeping up with the PQ of modern blockbusters. Granted, due to Snyder's stylistic choices, you could argue that _all_ of his movies do.

This title currently sits at tier 1.5, and I believe it's a good spot. So, less work for Phantom, lol.

A final comment. I was already a big fan of Snyder, but this movie has completely turned him into one of my favorite directors. The visuals in this film are portentous, and I haven't experienced the need of rewatching a film over and over based purely on visuals since * Tron: Legacy*. It's first class filmmaking, and there's one scene in the movie that ranks among the best and coolest action sequences I've had the pleasure to see on film. Infinite replayability factor. The audo mix is pretty solid, with a great soundtrack, but the audio is not as good as the visuals. If that were the case, we'd be talking of my new demo disc. This disc belongs in everyone's collection. 

I had already watched the film several years ago, but I didn't understand or was in position to appreciate what Snyder did here. Now, I'm in love with it, and not only because of the visuals. I love the concept and the story. If you buy it, be sure to pick up the one with the extended version. The extended is mandatory.


----------



## djoberg

*Storks (UHD)*

It had been TWO YEARS since I had watched this so I thought I would give it another look! WOW! The CLARITY was phenomenal along with vibrant colors and plenty of deep and inky blacks!! Yep, you heard me right...an animated movie with lots of dark scenes and man were they good! I won't say anymore; I'll just give you a link to my review from 1/17 for my mind hasn't changed one iota. I do believe this is worthy of the UHD recommendation I gave on it.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-787.html#post50244009

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (#10)*

PS I do NOT recall the audio being this rock solid! It was amazing for an animated movie, especially the bass/LFE.


----------



## AmerCa

^°^°^°^°^°^
I recently caught that movie on TV, and I had the time of my life watching it. It's fun, but it also has a heart. These types of animated movies are changing my mind on the genre. They're a good investment because they have very high replay factor, coupled with awesome PQ and, in cases like these, also great audio.

I'm definitely getting this, along with _The Secret Life Of Pets_, and a couple of others mentioned in this thread. I already bought a couple more of animated movies, and they're great fun.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## AmerCa

*Resident Evil: Apocalypse (2004 - Sony)*












*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*

The PQ goes perfectly along for what you'd expect from a relatively low budget movie from 14 years ago. I've seen many times the original movie, and I'm under the impression that it had a sizeable budget, but despite its obvious success, they lowered it down for the sequel (don't quote me on that, tho). Despite all of this, it looks great for the intended effect: ugly PQ for an ugly world with ugly zombies and ugly mutants and ugly characters set in an ugly night. And I'm not complaining. The transfer looks dated, and it could benefit from a remaster. There's word than there's an international version with a much better PQ, and that the movie isn't supposed to look this gritty. Which is bananas, but who knows.

That said, this disc doesn't look _that_ bad. I wasn't thinking _"Damn, this looks really crappy" _all the time, and to be perfectly fair, you won't have any issues following the on-screen action. It looks just fine.


----------



## AmerCa

*The Wave [Bølgen] (2015 - Magnolia) *










*Tier Recommendation: 1.0* * 

_ I'm reviewing the Mexican edition of the film, which should be essentially the same as the US edition in terms of video._

I wasn't expecting much from this Norwegian film in terms of PQ, but I was pleasantly surprised with this. The video is beautiful and clean for the most part, with lots of clarity and detail. Black levels and shadow detail are on point, and contrast is pretty good, despite the somewhat drab color grading, that at least in this case isn't intrusive to the picture quality. At many instances I felt this movie belonged in the reference category, but overall it isn't quite there, but I wouldn't argue if someone putt this BD a bit higher. This film is beautiful to look at.

This movie is less a disaster film than a drama centered about a disaster. If you expect something like _San Andreas_ or _Into The Storm_, in other words, a popcorn movie, this is not it. However, a good, enjoyable movie it is, and comes with the deep bass you expect from a disaster movie.. Sadly, my version only has DD 5.1, but the US version comes with a juicy ATMOS track.


----------



## AmerCa

*X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014 - Fox)*










*Tier Recommendation: 1.0*

If I recall correctly, I placed *X-Men: First Class* between tiers 1.75-2.0. I wasn't thrilled with the PQ of that disc, but the follow-up is essentially in a whole other league. Much like _The Wave_, many parts of this movie look like reference material, but as a whole, it's not quite there, although for different reasons. This movie has shiny colors and very textured costumes and makeups. Facial close-ups are outstanding, and the detail and depth of Jennifer Lawrence's Mystique is a show-stealer. There's plenty of stuff to like in here, including the fantastic CGI. I really sounds like a reference disc, there were some things that didn't convince me to rank this higher. There was a night scene that I didn't like that much, there's some soft shots, clarity and detail weren't as high as I'd liked in some instances, but I feel that I'm nitpicking, really. This transfer is top notch, and if you tried to sell me this as a reference movie, I'd buy it. But I'm leaving it at tier 1.

I had forgotten how good this movie is. I was a HUGE X-Men fan many moons ago, and despite the many liberties they took with the characters and the story, the film is very well written and entertaining. If Fox had approached this franchise with the same long-term vision that Marvel did with their MCU, these films would have been way more epic than the current Infinity War. The upcoming _X-Men: Dark Phoenix_ should be an event on the same scale, but it won't be that big. I just want it to kick some ass.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

AmerCa said:


> I had written a very long review of *X-Men Apocalypse*, and I lost it when changing tabs, the f4ck!? I'm depressed.


 It's happened to all of us at one time or another using AVS, so I understand where you are coming from. It's happened to Djoberg as well. I started writing longer review posts in a separate program after losing one too many reviews that way.

_Days of Future Past_ was a great popcorn flick if you are into the X-Men.

*Howling III: The Marsupials*

recommendation: *Tier 3.0**

I know this forgotten sequel to _The Howling_ was near the top of everyone's wish list, so I will throw in my two cents. The 1987 b-movie was released last week by Scream Factory. The movie first hit Blu-ray many years ago in a terrible three-pack of Howling sequels, but that was a cropped fullscreen transfer if you can believe it. Scream Factory uses a new film transfer sponsored by the Australian Film Archive from the camera negative.

Outside of some very minor ringing and halos, this is an excellent and film-like transfer. The punchy cinematography has fairly crisp definition and real detail suitable for HD. This is easily the best _Howling III _has looked on home video anywhere in the world. It's a substantial upgrade and properly framed at 1.85:1.


----------



## SnellTHX

AmerCa said:


> *The Wave [Bølgen] (2015 - Magnolia) *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.0* *
> 
> _ I'm reviewing the Mexican edition of the film, which should be essentially the same as the US edition in terms of video._
> 
> I wasn't expecting much from this Norwegian film in terms of PQ, but I was pleasantly surprised with this. The video is beautiful and clean for the most part, with lots of clarity and detail. Black levels and shadow detail are on point, and contrast is pretty good, despite the somewhat drab color grading, that at least in this case isn't intrusive to the picture quality. At many instances I felt this movie belonged in the reference category, but overall it isn't quite there, but I wouldn't argue if someone putt this BD a bit higher. This film is beautiful to look at.
> 
> This movie is less a disaster film than a drama centered about a disaster. If you expect something like _San Andreas_ or _Into The Storm_, in other words, a popcorn movie, this is not it. However, a good, enjoyable movie it is, and comes with the deep bass you expect from a disaster movie.. Sadly, my version only has DD 5.1, but the US version comes with a juicy ATMOS track.



Wow interesting. I'm from Norway and haven't seen this movie. I think its one of the largest movies ever produced from us. Didn't expect it to get anywhere near Tier 1! Did you watch the movie in Norwegian with subtitles or has it been dubbed to English?


----------



## SnellTHX

*The Matrix Reloaded*


4K version of this and I was left quite disappointed. I watched the original Matrix not long ago and was impressed by how amazing it looked for a 20 year old movie with a very nice organic analog film look that had plenty of detail and lots of great contrast, shadow detail and solid blacks.


The sequel which came out 4 years later looks worse. Much worse. It's very grainy in a much more intrusive way than its prequel and some of the scenes, particularly the motorway scenes looked dreadful. While the Matrix in 4K made me feel like I was transported back to '99, at six years of age watching the movie on my Dad's top of the line Sony CRT and brand-spanking new Sony DVD player... the Matrix Reloaded felt like watching a DVD, in 2019. Blurghh.

Some shots did look really good, for instance those giant robot/monster creatures looked really sharp, as if they replaced those scenes with modern CGI and modern 4K cameras.


*Tier recommendation: 3.0*


----------



## AmerCa

SnellTHX said:


> Wow interesting. I'm from Norway and haven't seen this movie. I think its one of the largest movies ever produced from us. Didn't expect it to get anywhere near Tier 1! Did you watch the movie in Norwegian with subtitles or has it been dubbed to English?


I watched it in Norwegian with subtitles, of course. But there's an English and Spanish dub.

I've heard there's a sequel of sorts to that movie called The Quake, which is getting very good reviews around here. Have you heard about it?

Now, we need to have a serious talk. _The Matrix Reloaded_ *4k* at tier 3!?!? For real? That would be quite possibly one of the biggest disappointments I've heard of. I've read the ATMOS track is vastly improved and it's a reference track, otherwise I wouldn't have any reason to buy this one in the future, unless I got it for really cheap. Wow.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## AmerCa

*A Perfect Getaway (2009 - Universal) *










*Tier Recommendation: 2.75 * *(currently at 2.0)*

You see "_the perfect HI-DEF movie experience_" bit at the bottom of the cover? In the case of this movie, it's kinda a joke, even for 2009 standards.

Filmed in Hawaii, this movie offers the perfect chance at every corner to offer razor sharp, clear and detailed stunning visuals. However, the PQ is kinda washed up, with almost an yellowish tone to it. Video is clear, but not highly detailed nor sharp, black levels are good, but not particularly so. Overall, the PQ is a huge missed opportunity at every step. The director' cut included here is very much the same quality as the theatrical, also included, but adds some footage of lower quality.

What's even more frustrating is that, much like *X-Men: Apocalypse*, the video does improve towards the end, with shots that could qualify in tier 1.25 at least. So, it's not like they couldn't shot the movie with higher video quality. That said, the disc looks good, but it's far from the "perfect Hi-Def experience". And that goes for the audio as well.

This movie is one of my personal favorites. I know it doesn't gets much love, but I can watch this movie over and over and it never loses its charm. I think I've watched it at least seven times over the years, mostly on TV. It's a very well written thriller, with interesting characters, and a script that plays fair with the viewer. I like watching it just to see of I can find some moment that cheaps on the audience, but it always holds up. And then I watched the director's cut and somehow it managed to break the illusion of perfection. This is one of the rare cases in which the theatrical cut is the arguably the better cut.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## AmerCa

*X-Men: Apocalypse (2016 - Fox) *










_Best Buy Steelbook pictured_

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25*


*Djoberg* (0.75): https://www.avsforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=48122257

*Snell* (1.25): https://www.avsforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=48909905

After losing my long review, I'll just keep this short.

This BD is step back from DoFP. I expect newer titles to look better, not worse. Towards the end of the film the amount of reference material becomes more abundant, but for the most part this movie oscillated between tier 1 - 1.5, and for the first two thirds of the movie I felt this BD belonged to tier 1.5. In the end I decided tier 1.25 was fair enough for the overall PQ. But taking into consideration that DoFP was almost a reference disc, this one is a step backwards.

I had the chance to watch this movie alone, so I rode the MV a bit higher than usual, and the audio track was a total blast. This types of movies sound better when played as loud as possible. Excellent mix.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Hunger Games, The: Catching Fire (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

Strong black levels are the hallmark of this release; the many night scenes in the jungle arena are spectacular. Details and colors are strong as well.


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> *X-Men: Apocalypse (2016 - Fox) *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Best Buy Steelbook pictured_
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.25*
> 
> 
> *Djoberg* (0.75): https://www.avsforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=48122257
> 
> After losing my long review, I'll just keep this short.
> 
> This BD is step back from DoFP. I expect newer titles to look better, not worse. Towards the end of the film the amount of reference material becomes more abundant, but for the most part this movie oscillated between tier 1 - 1.5, and for the first two thirds of the movie I felt this BD belonged to tier 1.5. In the end I decided tier 1.25 was fair enough for the overall PQ. But taking into consideration that DoFP was almost a reference disc, this one is a step backwards.
> 
> I had the chance to watch this movie alone, so I rode the MV a bit higher than usual, and the audio track was a total blast. This types of movies sound better when played as loud as possible. Excellent mix.
> 
> Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


I just reread my review and I see that I almost went with a Top Tier 1 placement, so we are quite close in our assessment of this film. I also see I did censure this for the first scene (with egregious color-grading and murky blacks), plus I spoke of softness in CGI shots, so perhaps this does deserve a 1.25 placement.


----------



## AmerCa

^°°°°°^^
I think our reviews are closer than the score would suggest. Your last paragraph says you doubted its place in tier zero, but you felt generous, and I understand it. The last third of the movie helps to think higher of the overall movie, and really, tier 1.25 is still fantastic.

I've rewatched some of the films I've reviewed, and to my surprise and horror, I find some of my initial assessments a bit too generous. Ideally, we'd watch a movie multiple times before giving an assessment, but in real life that's not always possible. I take solace in the thought that most of the time our placements are not too far off.

Also, it doesn't help that we see things differently each time, as we learn more things or become more forgiving of others. I find very difficult as well to focus on the movie AND being critical of the PQ at the same time. In that respect audio is easier.

And here I am, wondering why I just wrote this long rant, lol.

Edit: and yes, the overabundance of CGI certainly didn't help this movie very much. I talked about it in my original review. Which was another long rant, to be honest, hahaha.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## SnellTHX

AmerCa said:


> I watched it in Norwegian with subtitles, of course. But there's an English and Spanish dub.
> 
> I've heard there's a sequel of sorts to that movie called The Quake, which is getting very good reviews around here. Have you heard about it?
> 
> Now, we need to have a serious talk. _The Matrix Reloaded_ *4k* at tier 3!?!? For real? That would be quite possibly one of the biggest disappointments I've heard of. I've read the ATMOS track is vastly improved and it's a reference track, otherwise I wouldn't have any reason to buy this one in the future, unless I got it for really cheap. Wow.
> 
> Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk



OH yeah it was 'Skjelvet' (The 'Quake) that I was thinking about. Recently came out. Largest Norwegian produced film ever I believe. I've despised every single Norwegian movie ever produced so I haven't watched any of them. Maybe I'll give them a go!  

As for the Matrix, I'm very sensitive to film grain, I hardly ever appreciate it and I notoriously prefer razor-sharp ultra crystal-clear digital images. I also review 'as is' and do not have any soft-spots for old movies. I don't care how impressive something was 20,30 or 40 years ago, if you get want reference status from me, you better look as good as The Avengers: Infinity War or Black Panther or Chappie, Avatar, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2, Oblivion, Life of Pi etc. Same applies to Tier 1 ratings, I wouldn't give a 2017 movie 1.75 and then give an inferior looking 80s movie 1.5 because "it looks good for being 32 years old". The Matrix (1999) did look really good and it impressed me with its naturally organic looking image but in Reloaded I saw too much grain and noise. 


Lawrence of Arabia is a FANTASTIC example of a really old (ancient!) movie that lives up to 2019 reference standards - but that's cause it was filmed with 70mm film which some say is equal to ≈ 12K which is ± 70-90mp depending on whatever aspect ratio you consider!


----------



## SnellTHX

AmerCa said:


> *X-Men: Apocalypse (2016 - Fox) *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Best Buy Steelbook pictured_
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.25*
> 
> 
> *Djoberg* (0.75): https://www.avsforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=48122257


I think I gave this movie 1.25 too. for the original 1080p/SDR blu-ray. Don't remember if I posted an updated review but have since seen it in 4K/HDR and would put that closer to Djoberg's 0.75. the 4K gives it extra sharpness and the colours and contrast pop a little more + the added 3D-like depth makes it reference IMO.


----------



## AmerCa

^=°°°°^^

Your review doesn't come in a search, only Djoberg's. Since relatively recent reviews do appear in a search, I just assumed there's wasn't any other. Strange.

Edit: I found your score (which only goes by "X-Men"), but your deleted your original review. Phantom luckily quoted it, so he inadvertently saved it from oblivion. I linked to it in my review, hope you don't mind, given that you chose to delete it.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

*First Man (1080p)*

First of all, many have complained about how LONG and BORING this film was. Well, I thought it was well done! Yes, it was slow-paced and character-driven, but I was humbled as I watched this sobering film depicting man's determination to go to the moon. I was in high school (1969) when this memorable event took place and I had no real appreciation for what really happened the day Neil Armstrong placed his foot on the moon's soil and said, "One small step for man and one giant leap for mankind."

PQ-wise, I was IMPRESSED! Some (like Snell) may be very disappointed for the whole movie was shot on film (16mm, 35mm, & 65mm) and then mastered to a 2k digital intermediate. The result was amazing, for even though there was an obvious grain structure throughout most of the 2.5 hour running time, details were kept intact, depth was appreciable, and clarity was, at times, superb. Colors were a bit saturated (understandably so with this being a period piece) and I enjoyed them. The real highlight for me (and I trust it will be for all of you who watch it) were the BLACKS and SHADOW DETAILS....they were simply impeccable, giving you a sense of depth not normally seen in movies today.

I understand the UHD version takes this up a tick or two (with even better colors and contrast), but I was satisfied enough where if I had bought this I would be placing it on my "demo shelf." Granted, it wouldn't qualify for my "reference shelf," but the UHD version surely would (if it does indeed take it up a notch or two).

Before I give my placement, I just have to give a HUGE shoutout for the IMAX scene at the end (the "Moon scene"). It was INCREDIBLE and again the BLACKS were as deep and inky as they come, adding to the depth of this scene.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**

PS The audio was very good, but not excellent. In this Dolby Atmos mix most of the action was in the front channels, which were precise and full-bodied. But I wish there had been more action in the surrounds and it definitely lacked in the low end during rocket launches (I had it turned up to almost reference and it was not nearly so earth-shattering as the launch scenes in _Interstellar_).


----------



## SnellTHX

I thought First man was an excellent film. I did notice it was grainy and not so impressive looking in the cinema, but I sat in row 6 or 7 (where row 8 & 9 are perfect, 7 is too close!) so it would have looked better @ row 10. The screen is 15x25 metres ! (1200" ? )

In any case I am not surprised you liked the IMAX 15/70mm shot  It looked absolutely outstanding, even my non-videophile friends had to turn to me and ask how come the image all of a sudden looked so damn good, and they're the kind of people that think Netflix movies (or even DVDs) look good enough. The moon landing was extremely impressive visually.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Robocop (2014)*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0*

Current placement is spot-on. Black levels and shadow details in all the night scenes are incredible, no elevated blacks here. Colors and skin tones are also strong. Details falter ever so slightly in some of the CGI heavy scenes keeping it out of Tier 0.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Jonathan*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

A new indie production set in the present, but clearly aiming for a more futuristic aesthetic. This is worry-free picture quality with solid definition and a high degree of clarity.

Well Go USA distributes the sci-fi drama in a technically clean transfer with few issues. The movie is presented at its intended 2.40:1 aspect ratio. It has a consistent, even contrast with unwavering sharpness. A few years ago, I may have even nominated _Jonathan's_ pristine imagery for Tier 0. But time marches on and what was extraordinary seven years ago is more ordinary today.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

A few weeks back, I doubted all the links and specifications in the PQ Tiers would ever be corrected. It's a lot of manual and tedious work. Well, a long-time friend of the PQ Tiers has stepped up behind the scenes and volunteered his services for this thankless work. Everyone using the PQ Tiers owes DarthDoxie a debt of gratitude.

DarthDoxie has already corrected every entry in Tier 1.0 and plans to go forward fixing the remaining tiers over time. All the links and specifications in 1.0 are up to date and now working courtesy of DarthDoxie's hard work.

When you now click on the entry when reading the PQ Tiers, it should link to a review for the disc. See the format below.

*Superman Vs. The Elite * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Warner


----------



## AmerCa

First of all, a big thanks for our fellow Doxie for stepping in and contributing to Phantom's already monumental work. If I read it correctly, he's in the process of "fixing" or "correcting" all remaining tiers, not counting tier 1.0. So, in this sort of early stage I'd like to offer a humble suggestion, all in the spirit of making everyone's life easier.

I found myself 100% of the time only looking for the specific placement of a title in the tiers. And I suspect that's the case for the the vast majority of people using the tiers. So, while I certainly wouldn't object to having a direct link to a review, along with detailed info about aspect ratio or audio format, I don't think it's necessary. 

Whenever I need more detailed info I go to blu-ray.com anyways. The year of the release first, and the studio second, are perhaps the most important bits of info to identify the releases, along with the indication, when applicable, of non-US releases. That'd help to make the tiers look cleaner without losing useful data. And, of course, that'd make the lives of those keeping updated the tiers a lot easier.

Using your example provided, it could look like this:

A) [URL="https://www.avsforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=48909905]Superman vs The Elite[/URL]

Or

B) Superman vs The Elite | 2012 | Warner (optional)

This is just a simple suggestion, and if most prefer the tiers as they currently are, or Phantom prefer them this way, disregard what I just said. I just don't think all this heavy work load is necessary going forward.

I recently made a plain text version of the tiers for my personal use (up to tier 2.0 so far) and in trying to format it to take less space, I realized all the immense hard work that's behind this project. I decided to leave it as it is, because it was too much time consuming.

Hats off to both of you.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## AmerCa

*Fury (Sony - 2014)*










*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*

*Djoberg* (1.25): https://www.avsforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=31452257

*Doxie* (UHD - 0.90): https://www.avsforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=56240092

I didn't like the PQ of this BD at all. Drab colors, poor contrast, not much detail, dark tones...this is most certainly how director David Ayer wanted it to look, but it doesn't look great. I agree with the negatives Djoberg talks about in his review, not so much on the positives. One thing the video has going for it is consistency. Unlike many movies in which the video presentation goes up and down like a yo-yo, here it's mostly consistent. However, to my eyes, it doesn't even belong to demo tier.

The show stealer here is the audio. And the UHD version which received an ATMOS treatment is said to be an improvement in all regards.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## AmerCa

*Drive (2011 - Sony) *










*Tier Recommendation: 1.25 (current placement) *

Excellent release from Sony. The picture is not reference, and it misses tier 1.0 just for some details, but most viewers will be very pleased with this BD. Great clarity, good details and texture, strong black levels, natural colors, it really has everything and does everything when the occasion ask for it, just not to the levels of cleanliness and sharpness required to truly wow.

The audio is just as good as the video. It's mostly on the discrete side, but it's a great companion to the visuals, and when it needs to be impactful, it hits all the right notes. It's a very nuanced mix, with great clarity and dynamics. Nice soundtrack as well. 

Movie is a classic to me.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## AmerCa

*Fast Five [The Fast And The Furious 5] (2011 - Universal) *










*Tier Recommendation: 2.5 (current 1.5)*

I can't believe how bad this movie looks for a big budget film. Seriously. There are some pretty good facial close ups, and some scenes/shots actually seem deserving of a demo placement, but most of the movie is like _"what the hell am I looking at?"_. Washed up colors, softness, lack of detail, some horribly looking shots, average black levels...Jesus.

And the audio is almost just as disappointing. I can think of maybe two or three noteworthy moments in terms of bass, but the rest was par for the course for movies like these. Not a fan of this mix.

It's a good thing the movie is pretty good, but you wouldn't buy this for demo purposes.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## AmerCa

*The Final Destination [Final Destination 4] (2009 - New Line/Warner)*










*Tier Recommendation: 2.25*

I reviewed the fifth installment of this franchise, and as expected, this one doesn't look as good. I gave part five a 1.75 score, and this one is definitely below that, but certainly it still looks better than _Fast Five_, ha! Very competent transfer for a low budget movie for a franchise that had already ran its course. Good clarity, nice colors, decent black levels when called upon...nice overall, but not TOO nice. It gets the job done with decency. I'm thinking _Fast Five_ maybe deserved a lower ranking...

The audio was surprisingly nice, and believe it or not, gave me more joy than that F&F movie. Say what you want about this franchise, even the weakest entry (which I agree it's this one), offers some good fun. Halfway through it I was regretting the purchase, but by the final over the top, ridiculous act I was completely happy. Don't buy it for the "horror", buy it for the fun.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## fredxr2d2

AmerCa said:


> *Fast Five [The Fast And The Furious 5] (2011 - Universal) *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.5 (current 1.5)*
> 
> I can't believe how bad this movie looks for a big budget film. Seriously. There are some pretty good facial close ups, and some scenes/shots actually seem deserving of a demo placement, but most of the movie is like _"what the hell am I looking at?"_. Washed up colors, softness, lack of detail, some horribly looking shots, average black levels...Jesus.
> 
> And the audio is almost just as disappointing. I can think of maybe two or three noteworthy moments in terms of bass, but the rest was par for the course for movies like these. Not a fan of this mix.
> 
> It's a good thing the movie is pretty good, but you wouldn't buy this for demo purposes.
> 
> Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk



It is a very good thing you did not see this film at the Regal where I worked as a projectionist. I had spun the reels too slowly while constructing the film on the platter and the whole thing fell apart while I was moving it to a projector. I spent several hours picking it up off of the floor and the result was long scratches and tons of dust and debris on the print. It was absolutely the worst projection experience I ever had - both from a viewing standpoint and a projectionist standpoint.


----------



## AmerCa

@^°^°^°^°^

And nobody noticed? I can imagine someone watching it and saying _"Hey, is it just me, or this movie looks awful? "_ and his friends saying _"Looks pretty good to me. Whatcha talking about?" _

Sounds like an awesome job to have. Watching all new movies for free.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## fredxr2d2

AmerCa said:


> @^°^°^°^°^
> 
> And nobody noticed? I can imagine someone watching it and saying _"Hey, is it just me, or this movie looks awful? "_ and his friends saying _"Looks pretty good to me. Whatcha talking about?" _
> 
> Sounds like an awesome job to have. Watching all new movies for free.
> 
> Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk



Nobody complained that I was aware of. I took a girl to see it and noticed right away that it looked scratched up, and when I asked her about it she said that she noticed it, but just figured that was how it was - definitely not worth complaining about. 



It was, by far, the best job I've ever had. There is something fun about doing old school film projection that I found engaging and well worth it. Unfortunately, I got paid barely above minimum wage and the hours are not great for socializing (especially when you're in your early twenties!). After the all-digital conversion took place and the positions were eliminated, I moved on to office work and haven't looked back (and my wallet has thanked me immensely).


----------



## Kool-aid23

Phantom Stranger said:


> A few weeks back, I doubted all the links and specifications in the PQ Tiers would ever be corrected. It's a lot of manual and tedious work. Well, a long-time friend of the PQ Tiers has stepped up behind the scenes and volunteered his services for this thankless work. Everyone using the PQ Tiers owes DarthDoxie a debt of gratitude.
> 
> DarthDoxie has already corrected every entry in Tier 1.0 and plans to go forward fixing the remaining tiers over time. All the links and specifications in 1.0 are up to date and now working courtesy of DarthDoxie's hard work.
> 
> When you now click on the entry when reading the PQ Tiers, it should link to a review for the disc. See the format below.
> 
> *Superman Vs. The Elite * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Warner




Thank you Phantom and Darth for your time and effort!


----------



## djoberg

Kool-aid23 said:


> Thank you Phantom and Darth for your time and effort!


Ditto!!


----------



## SnellTHX

AmerCa said:


> ^=°°°°^^
> 
> Your review doesn't come in a search, only Djoberg's. Since relatively recent reviews do appear in a search, I just assumed there's wasn't any other. Strange.
> 
> Edit: I found your score (which only goes by "X-Men"), but your deleted your original review. Phantom luckily quoted it, so he inadvertently saved it from oblivion. I linked to it in my review, hope you don't mind, given that you chose to delete it.
> 
> Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk



Oh no worries. No idea why I deleted it. Maybe because I changed my mind ^^ 

I'd say the 4K/HDR version is 0.75 for sure.. the blu-ray 1080p tier 1-1.25


----------



## artur9

fredxr2d2 said:


> It was, by far, the best job I've ever had. There is something fun about doing old school film projection that I found engaging and well worth it.


I projected one movie publicly and could not take the stress. Waiting for the signal to change reels !


----------



## AmerCa

*Furious 6 [Fast and Furious 6] (2013 - Universal) *










*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*

My tier list only goes up to tier 2.0, so maybe this was ranked lower, and I wouldn't object to a lower placement, maybe 2.25. That said, this installment was most certainly an improvement over part five, which was one big disappointment. This one isn't drastically better, but at least manages to look like a modern blockbuster. Facial close ups are detailed, colors are natural, black levels are decent, and the overall picture is enough sharp and clear to be acceptable, although it still falls short of a demo placement. Maybe that's how director Justin Lin likes his movies to look.

The improvement extends to the audio as well, which in my opinion is much better this time, although it still falls a bit short. And it's a great thing, because part 6, along with part 3, are my favorite F&F movies (part 8 pending). The action scenes are fantastic, and required the appropriate impact and definition to make them feel right.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## DarthDoxie

AmerCa said:


> *Furious 6 [Fast and Furious 6] (2013 - Universal) *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.0*
> 
> My tier list only goes up to tier 2.0, so maybe this was ranked lower, and I wouldn't object to a lower placement, maybe 2.25. That said, this installment was most certainly an improvement over part five, which was one big disappointment. This one isn't drastically better, but at least manages to look like a modern blockbuster. Facial close ups are detailed, colors are natural, black levels are decent, and the overall picture is enough sharp and clear to be acceptable, although it still falls short of a demo placement. Maybe that's how director Justin Lin likes his movies to look.
> 
> The improvement extends to the audio as well, which in my opinion is much better this time, although it still falls a bit short. And it's a great thing, because part 6, along with part 3, are my favorite F&F movies (part 8 pending). The action scenes are fantastic, and required the appropriate impact and definition to make them feel right.
> 
> Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk



It's in tier 1.5 and you have to search for the actual name of the movie "Fast & Furious 6", note the ampersand.


----------



## AmerCa

DarthDoxie said:


> It's in tier 1.5 and you have to search for the actual name of the movie "Fast & Furious 6", note the ampersand.


Weird. I copy pasted directly from the list, but it's not there. I'm gonna check out in my lap again later. I find strange that a title on the middle of the list didn't copy. :/

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## DarthDoxie

AmerCa said:


> Weird. I copy pasted directly from the list, but it's not there. I'm gonna check out in my lap again later. I find strange that a title on the middle of the list didn't copy. :/
> 
> Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk



No idea when it was added, perhaps in the last few weeks when Phantom updated?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

AmerCa said:


> *Furious 6 [Fast and Furious 6] (2013 - Universal) *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.0*
> 
> My tier list only goes up to tier 2.0, so maybe this was ranked lower, and I wouldn't object to a lower placement, maybe 2.25. That said, this installment was most certainly an improvement over part five, which was one big disappointment. This one isn't drastically better, but at least manages to look like a modern blockbuster. Facial close ups are detailed, colors are natural, black levels are decent, and the overall picture is enough sharp and clear to be acceptable, although it still falls short of a demo placement. Maybe that's how director Justin Lin likes his movies to look.
> 
> The improvement extends to the audio as well, which in my opinion is much better this time, although it still falls a bit short. And it's a great thing, because part 6, along with part 3, are my favorite F&F movies (part 8 pending). The action scenes are fantastic, and required the appropriate impact and definition to make them feel right.
> 
> Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


 It's currently ranked in Tier 1.5.


*Fast & Furious 6 * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Universal


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 0* (0.5)*

Excellent detail throughout, all the dinosaurs are really sharp. Black levels and contrast are equally strong as well. I was thoroughly impressed with the PQ even if the film itself was disappointing. The sound mix had some of the deepest LFE I've heard in some time, a real assault on the ears.


----------



## djoberg

*Cloverfield (1080p) Revisited*

Okay, I just ordered the soon-to-be-released movie _Cloverfield Paradox_, the third installment in the _Cloverfield Franchise_. The reviews on _Cloverfield Paradox_ are mixed (when it comes to the movie itself), but all agree that the PQ/AQ is reference, featuring one of the best Dolby Atmos mixes to date. So, being a fan of the first two movies (which I own on Blu-ray), I decided to watch the 2008 release of _Cloverfield_.

I looked for a review, but as expected it is not to be found with it dating back that far. I tried to remember where I placed but to no avail. I'm guessing, after seeing it tonight, that I probably voted for a low Tier 2 placement (or maybe even a high Tier 3). If you have seen it, you know it is done with a handheld camera and it is so "jerky" it makes _The Blair Witch Project_ look like a "still frame." I really had a hard time focusing on the movie because of this.

You may also remember that most of it is shot in VERY DARK interior rooms (apartment buildings and the subway tunnels). The blacks were good at times with fair-looking shadow details, but they were also quite bad in some scenes with either murkiness or black crush. There were also instances of NOISE and SOFTNESS.

Some of the best scenes (facial close-ups and daytime scenes at the very end) were excellent, with razor-sharp clarity and mesmerizing details. But these were short-lived...had these characterized the whole movie this would definitely be "demo material" if not "reference."

The Dolby TrueHD mix was very good and my Dolby Surround Upmixing took it up a notch or two. 

*Tier Recommendation: 3.0*

PS The SECOND INSTALLMENT (_10 Cloverfield Lane_) fared MUCH better in the PQ department and the movie itself was also much better.


----------



## djoberg

DarthDoxie said:


> *Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (UHD)*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 0* (0.5)*
> 
> Excellent detail throughout, all the dinosaurs are really sharp. Black levels and contrast are equally strong as well. I was thoroughly impressed with the PQ even if the film itself was disappointing. The sound mix had some of the deepest LFE I've heard in some time, a real assault on the ears.


I would say that we're on the same page once again Darth! Here's my review:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-842.html#post57099500


----------



## AmerCa

^°^°°°^°^
_Cloverfield_ currently sits at tier 2.25.

Great review, man. I've watched the movie, but never on bluray and certainly not with a decent audio setup. The bass track on that it's legendary, and it's still to many a reference track. There's a UHD release, but they didn't update the track to ATMOS.

I'll buy it for certain at some point.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## AmerCa

Phantom Stranger said:


> It's currently ranked in Tier 1.5.
> 
> 
> *Fast & Furious 6 * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Universal





DarthDoxie said:


> No idea when it was added, perhaps in the last few weeks when Phantom updated?


I updated my list up to tier 3.0. It all should be good by now. I'm just waiting for the update on tier zero. No hurries, BTW.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^

I think its current placement (2.25) is way too high for today's standards! Of course, that placement dates back over 10 years so it's understandable that it was considered that good back then. I opted for 3.0 and the best I would give it is 2.75.


----------



## AmerCa

*Furious 7 [Fast And Furious 7] (2015 - Universal) *










*Tier Recommendation: 1.25 *

*Djoberg* (0.75): https://www.avsforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=38530649

*rusky__g* (1.25): https://www.avsforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=51951601

Despite the above reviews, this title isn't in the tiers...or...is it?

James Wan has entered the ring, and the PQ is finally a significant upgrade, worthy of a blockbuster of this caliber. The video quality is inconsistent, but for the most part is beautiful to look at. The first scene got me a bit worried, but the film quickly improves, reaching its highest point in the scenes at Dubai. Black levels are pretty good, and so is shadow detail. Facial closeups are filled with detail and texture, colors are very natural and rich, contrast is very pleasing. For me it still missed the mark in some areas, but all things considered, tier 1.25 tells the story for this BD.

Audio quality still has some issues, but the mid bass in here is insane, and in a way compensates for the lack of extension and dynamics. This is a very fun track that goes nicely with the scene actions. Oh, and the mid bass is insane (yes, I know I already said it).

We could say that the original concept of F&F died with _Fast and Furious 6_, and even then it was already stretching it to the max. _Furious 7_ enters a new era, which is basically reaching Transformers levels of excess. And I mean it as a good thing. It's balls to the wall, break laws of physics, melt the mind with impossibilities, reach the absurd and transcend it. If you're going insane, do it to the full extent. With this film Wan earned the right to direct Aquaman. Michael Bay would be proud of it. Take that as you want.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## AmerCa

There's reason to look forward to the home disc release of _The Cloverfield Paradox_. Here are the words from *MrGrey*, from the bass thread:



> The Cloverfield Paradox (2018) was finished with a 4K DI, Dolby Atmos, Dolby Vision and was shot on 35 mm Film. The BD looks pretty awesome, the grain, contrast and texures are lovely. Unfortunately we might not get to see what would of been an undoubtedly incredible UHD release so the BD will have to do.
> 
> I'm sure when others watch The Cloverfield Paradox (2018) Blu-Ray disc lossless Atmos track they will want it on the top 2018 bass list. The track is beyond hard, relentless and feels untimed and without a master on the disc compared to the Netflix safety version. I can say without a doubt it's useless to even waste time with Netflix and just get the disc. As Soon as you see the earth your heart and body will already be in shock from the bass scare. If anyone can watch this on reference bless their heart and system, lol.


Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## Phantom Stranger

AmerCa said:


> *Furious 7 [Fast And Furious 7] (2015 - Universal) *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.25 *
> 
> *Djoberg* (0.75): https://www.avsforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=38530649
> 
> *rusky__g* (1.25): https://www.avsforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=51951601
> 
> Despite the above reviews, this title isn't in the tiers...or...is it?


 _Furious 7_ is towards the bottom of Tier 0, where it should be. Use Control+F to search the PQ Tiers.

*Furious 7 * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: | Universal


----------



## Phantom Stranger

If you want to see a deep dive into the PQ differences between 1080P Blu-ray and UHD, read this piece by audio hardware reviewer Archimago on _Blade Runner 2049_ from last year. The movie was shot at 3.4K resolution. Archimago usually covers high-end audio but has dabbled in covering UHD tech. It's very instructive when comparing the two formats.

http://archimago.blogspot.com/2018/03/1080p-blu-ray-vs-4k-uhd-blu-ray-blade.html


----------



## AmerCa

Phantom Stranger said:


> _Furious 7_ is towards the bottom of Tier 0, where it should be. Use Control+F to search the PQ Tiers.
> 
> *Furious 7 * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: | Universal


No way!! Maybe you've been gradually updating the tiers? I made a copy on January 24 from tiers 0-2, and then on the 31th, from tiers 1-3. I can't browse the tiers on my phone or tablet, so I made my copies on my lap. I can't seem to win, lol. No biggie.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## Phantom Stranger

AmerCa said:


> No way!! Maybe you've been gradually updating the tiers? I made a copy on January 24 from tiers 0-2, and then on the 31th, from tiers 1-3. I can't browse the tiers on my phone or tablet, so I made my copies on my lap. I can't seem to win, lol. No biggie.
> 
> Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


 Are you using the most current PQ Tiers list? Click the link in my signature. It almost sounds like you are using the one we froze back in 2016. Google.com and the other search engines often return older versions of the PQ Tiers list when you search. This is the current one.



http://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-b...re-quality-rankings-pq-tiers-july-2017-a.html


----------



## AmerCa

°=^=°°^

Now you're making me doubt. The first time I went to the first page and clicked the link to the "new" list. The second time I think I clicked directly your signature, but only updated tiers 1-3. Maybe that's where the inconsistencies are coming from. I'll fix it when I have the chance. Thanks!

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

I was FINALLY able to rent the movie _Hunter Killer_ at a Redbox location this afternoon. Needless to say, I'm quite excited to WATCH and HEAR this title after reading one rave review after another. I will weigh in "as the credits roll" later tonight!


----------



## djoberg

My copy of _Cloverfield Paradox_ arrives later today from Amazon so I hope to watch that tomorrow night. I'm even more pumped to see that one due to what's being said about the Dolby Atmos mix (they say it may be THE ONE you will turn to to WOW your friends with and convince them that it's absolutely worth the investment in setting up a Dolby Atmos/DTS:X sound system).


----------



## AmerCa

°=^°^^^
That's great, Djoberg. Looking forward to your impressions. I also preordered a copy (actually, the three Cloverfield disc collection), but it still haven't shipped.  

Maybe international orders ship much later, I have an estimated delivery date as early as the 12th . So much for preordering, lol

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

*Hunter Killer (1080p)*

Aside from some fleeting "soft shots" and "haziness" (in underwater scenes), this was easily "reference material," with impeccable details and depth. ALL daytime, outdoor scenes were mesmerizing. Black levels were excellent except for one night time scene where a bit of softness crept in resulting in murkiness and some "noise." Shadow details were also very pleasing to the eyes!!

The Dolby Atmos mix was awesome, with tons of action in every channel. I didn't dare to turn it to reference so I was somewhat disappointed in a few of the explosions (in earlier scenes), but I figure if I had turned it from -8 to 0 my walls would have been rumbling.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (.66)*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Reign of the Supermen*


recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

Massive, massive banding issues in the mediocre AVC encode. The new animated DC movie looks great otherwise and falls right in line with other recent entries. Warner has never particularly cared about compression efficiency and transparency. I almost think they are pushing consumers towards the 4K UHD release, despite these movies being natively animated at 1080P.

If you want an artifact-free presentation, you have to purchase the 4K UHD.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Super Troopers*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

Pretty even PQ except for an optical montage in the middle of the movie.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Night Is Short, Walk On Girl*

recommendation: *Tier 1.25**

Anime director Masaaki Yuasa's movies all have a distinctive style to their animation and _The Night Is Short, Walk On Girl_ continues that trend. This is loose, sprawling animation in bold primary colors, taking full advantage of the animated medium's potential. Reuniting with the character designer and animation team from The Tatami Galaxy, the movie arrives on Blu-ray courtesy of Shout Factory in a picture-perfect presentation.

The disc avoids banding issues for the picky anime fan and easily qualifies for Tier One.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

DarthDoxie has been working diligently behind the scenes and today he completed fixing all of Tier 1.25! Every disc has the correct specifications now listed in Tiers 1.0 and Tiers 1.25, not to mention working links.


----------



## djoberg

*The Cloverfield Paradox (1080p)*

I'm going to keep this short. The movie may not excite you (though I found it quite engaging most of the time), but the PQ and the AQ are positively REFERENCE QUALITY! No doubt about it!! Rent it...or buy it...and you'll SEE and HEAR for yourself!!!

The PQ was all about incredible DETAILS (some of the best facial texture you'll ever see), DEPTH, CLARITY, BLACK LEVELS, SHADOW DETAILS, and FLESH TONES. There was a bit of "noise" in one shot and some fleeting "softness" in another....and some of the black levels faltered slightly in space scenes, but I feel like I'm "straining at a gnat" in pointing these out.

The AQ was so amazing in every way, but it was the earthshaking bass/LFE (I measured 9.6 on my Richter Scale) that really put a huge smile on my face. At one point my wife came flying downstairs (after pictures and plaques were falling off shelves) crying, "What in the world is going on down here?" And get this...I had my volume at no louder than -9!!!! I simply can't imagine what it will be like at Reference Level (but that will be on another day....when the wife is "out of range"). This has a Dolby Atmos mix and every channel had lots of action, including the height speakers with excellent panning and discrete effects.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.5)*


----------



## AmerCa

°=°=°°^

Lol. Just when I thought I'd beat the mighty Djoberg just for once, he does it again. I just finished as well watching it, and was en route of writing mine. Let's see how much we agree.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## AmerCa

*The Cloverfield Paradox (2018 - Paramount) *










*Tier Recommendation: 0 (0.60) *

I actually watched the whole trilogy tonight, but I'll start with the more relevant title, and I'll review the other two later.

There's no doubt this BD is a reference disc, the question was how to rank it. There were more inconsistencies than I expected, so I oscillated placing this somewhere between 0.5 and 0.90. Contrast is beautiful, colors are nicely saturated, but natural, there's ton of detail and texture, black levels were beautiful as well, even on my modest display, and overall this was a stunning video presentation.

However, there some instances in which grain was very intrusive and made the image look dirty, bordering on blurriness. There were some soft shots here and there, and sometimes the video simply didn't look as crisp and consistent as I'd have liked. For this reason I couldn't rank this BD higher, and opted with the above placement, which is certainly still very high.

The ATMOS track here is a true delight and a complete monster at the same time. Seriously, this disc is worthy just for demo purposes, and I also find this movie to be pretty good. I have trouble understanding all the negative press this film has got. Of course, YMMV. As a trilogy, these films somehow work.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## AmerCa

djoberg said:


> ..I had my volume at no louder than -9!!!!


-9?? You're braver than me. I could only listen at -17, lol. And it was STILL pretty insane! If I had turned it higher, I'm sure my family too would have come to see what the hell was going on!

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## AmerCa

*10 Cloverfield Lane (2016 - Paramount) *










*Tier Recommendation: 1.75 * *(current 1.5)*

The PQ on this movie was quite frustrating. It's still good enough to be demo material, but it's on the limit. Orange skin tones usually don't bother me, but this time the color grading got in the way of PQ. There's good clarity decent contrast and details, but there's too much softness and blurriness, and generally inconsistent video to warrant a higher placement. I consider tier 1.5 "par for the course" for modern films, especially for decent budget sized ones, and this one doesn't make the cut. Tier 1.75 sounds about right.

The movie, OTOH, was fantastic. I remember watching it a few years ago, but luckily for me, I almost didn't remember most of it, so I was able to be surprised like the first time. I liked it much better this time, hard to believe I second-guessed myself getting this movie some time ago. The performances of Mary Elizabeth Winstead and John Goodman are noteworthy, and if you told me that Goodman got an Oscar nom for this one I'd believe you. Great script as well. I don't care this movie was shoehorned to be a Cloverfield movie.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

*Bohemian Rhapsody (1080p)*

WOW!!!

My wife and I just watched this and we were both thoroughly impressed with the fantastic PQ/AQ. PQ-wise this one had it all...bold/punchy colors (in spite of some strong color-grading at times...orange hues...to fit the era), mesmerizing details, striking depth, and black levels to-die-for. Oh, and in the few night scenes the shadow details were simply incredible (check out a scene outside of Freddie's home in the rain at the 90 minute mark). AQ-wise, this has to be one of the very best when it comes to rock songs in a movie. There was zero distortion and the precision in every channel of my 9 speakers (and dual subs) was beyond amazing. The last scene, at the LIVE AID SHOW in London, was spectacular!!

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.33)*


----------



## dla26

Is anyone aware of any sites (other than this one!) or reviewers that specifically compare the PQ of the 4K vs. 1080p versions of different movies? I'm very intrigued by @djoberg's ^^ description of Bohemian Rhapsody, and I'm trying to debate whether it'd be worth springing for the 4K version. I'm one of the few remaining holdouts on the Netflix disc service, so I'll be able to watch the 1080p version at no additional cost if I want, but for those eye candy movies I'm willing to spring for that extra PQ.


----------



## wmcclain

dla26 said:


> Is anyone aware of any sites (other than this one!) or reviewers that specifically compare the PQ of the 4K vs. 1080p versions of different movies? I'm very intrigued by @djoberg's ^^ description of Bohemian Rhapsody, and I'm trying to debate whether it'd be worth springing for the 4K version. I'm one of the few remaining holdouts on the Netflix disc service, so I'll be able to watch the 1080p version at no additional cost if I want, but for those eye candy movies I'm willing to spring for that extra PQ.


http://www.dvdbeaver.com/

https://ultrahd.highdefdigest.com/reviews.html

-Bill


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Thief (Criterion)*

recommendation: *Tier 1.75**

Black levels are excellent in all the night shots. Shadow detail and the many reflections off the perpetually wet pavement show up great. Details are nice and even except for a few shots that look limited by the source material. Colors and flesh tones are also good.


----------



## SnellTHX

dla26 said:


> Is anyone aware of any sites (other than this one!) or reviewers that specifically compare the PQ of the 4K vs. 1080p versions of different movies? I'm very intrigued by @djoberg's ^^ description of Bohemian Rhapsody, and I'm trying to debate whether it'd be worth springing for the 4K version. I'm one of the few remaining holdouts on the Netflix disc service, so I'll be able to watch the 1080p version at no additional cost if I want, but for those eye candy movies I'm willing to spring for that extra PQ.


doblu.com


----------



## djoberg

dla26 said:


> Is anyone aware of any sites (other than this one!) or reviewers that specifically compare the PQ of the 4K vs. 1080p versions of different movies? I'm very intrigued by @djoberg's ^^ description of Bohemian Rhapsody, and I'm trying to debate whether it'd be worth springing for the 4K version. I'm one of the few remaining holdouts on the Netflix disc service, so I'll be able to watch the 1080p version at no additional cost if I want, but for those eye candy movies I'm willing to spring for that extra PQ.


Here's another one for you:

https://www.avsforum.com/bohemian-rhapsody-ultra-hd-blu-ray-review/


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Road House 2*

recommendation: *Tier 2.5**

Ha, I bet many of you weren't even aware they made a _Road House_ sequel back in 2006 without Patrick Swayze. MVD has now put it out as part of their Marquee Collection line, though it's a stretch justifying this b-movie's Blu-ray unless you are a Road House fanatic. 

The movie is licensed from MGM. Interestingly enough, it appears that MVD uses the older 2006 HD transfer struck by Sony from when they distributed the movie's original DVD. What we get is a so-so film transfer from the 2000s with some ringing. The film elements are in excellent condition, so at least that is not a problem. Detail is on the soft side, albeit with generally strong clarity. Road House 2's cinematography doesn't really pop except in a few exterior scenes in the bayou, leading to underwhelming definition.

The AVC encode does a satisfactory job of handling the mild granularity of the film. While a new film scan would likely improve this movie's picture quality on Blu-ray, this is generally a serviceable catalog presentation. Shadow delineation could be better. Interiors have a hint of crushing.


----------



## Jbhur212

dla26 said:


> Is anyone aware of any sites (other than this one!) or reviewers that specifically compare the PQ of the 4K vs. 1080p versions of different movies? I'm very intrigued by @djoberg's ^^ description of Bohemian Rhapsody, and I'm trying to debate whether it'd be worth springing for the 4K version. I'm one of the few remaining holdouts on the Netflix disc service, so I'll be able to watch the 1080p version at no additional cost if I want, but for those eye candy movies I'm willing to spring for that extra PQ.


https://forum.blu-ray.com


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Overlord II: Season Two*


recommendation: *Tier 2.25**












_Overlord II_ was recently released by Funimation back in January. The 2015 anime doesn't offer the most vibrant or lively color palette. Its serviceable animation feels a little cheap at times and only noticeably improves during a few battle scenes. This has no connection to the recent theatrical movie named _Overlord_.

Funimation doesn't have a great reputation as a Blu-ray label when it comes to pure video quality, as Japanese releases of the same anime are often superior. This is an adequate 1.78:1 presentation with minimal banding, spreading the series over two discs. I'm placing it lower than I normally would for recent anime but the picture quality has rather average qualities for the genre. Colors don't pop off the screen and black levels are somewhat muddled.


----------



## djoberg

I've been extremely busy lately and in minutes we are leaving for the Twin Cities (in Minnesota) until Monday, but once I get back I hope to abandon my "Blu-ray Fast" and rent (or buy) a few recent movies. I should be posting some reviews Monday thru Thursday.

I just have to say that I'm really encouraged by the "new-comers" (in the last year or so) that have become, for the most part, regular contributors. For too long Phantom and I were the major contributors (even though we longed for and solicited newcomers). Thanks to all who have joined us and "keep those reviews coming!"


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Purgatory Road*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

A terrible movie any way you slice it, but the video quality has that clean digital touch unhampered by its low-budget origins. Released a couple weeks back by Unearthed Films, the horror movie has startingly crisp detail and strong definition. It would have easily qualified for Tier One a few years ago with its superior resolution. The drab color palette and cold flesh-tones limit a better score.

On another matter entirely, I look forward to reviewing _Here Comes Peter Cottontail_ for the thread. Its Blu-ray release came out unannounced and has shown up at Walmart in recent days. The Rankin-Bass Easter special has been MIA on Blu-ray all these years.


----------



## djoberg

*Overlord (1080p)*

Okay, I got home somewhat late today due to a severe blizzard in Minnesota yesterday (ALL roads from Minneapolis to the Iowa border were CLOSED). I went to Redbox online and after perusing the recent releases I was intrigued by the reviews on this title, so I reserved it. They said it was a Nazi war film like no other and they weren't kidding!! I'll say no more lest I find myself guilty of issuing "spoilers."

PQ-wise, it was a gem! Most every scene took place at night and for the most part blacks were fantastic, as were shadow details. They was some NOISE at times and blacks did become a bit murky, but 90% of the time there was striking clarity with amazing details. It was in early scenes that I noticed flaws and inconsistencies...as the movie progressed the PQ got better and better! Contrast was generally strong, flesh tones were accurate, and depth was pleasing (at times).

AQ-wise, the Dolby Atmos mix ROCKED. Fact is, it rocked TOO MUCH at times, for the bass was so heavy it ended up compromising the dialogue and even some of the action in the surrounds. The first scene (where paratroopers in a plane were forced to jump early due to heavy bombing) was crazy good; I just sat there with a smile on my face as waves of energy rolled over my home theater recliner!

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**

PS I could see some placing this in Tier 0 but I felt the negatives listed above were enough to lower it to Tier 1.


----------



## AmerCa

^=°=^°^
Excellent, Djoberg. Now you've watched all three early contenders for bass/audio mix of the year (Hunter Killer, The Cloverfield Paradox, and Overlord). People have raved about these three films left and right about the audio.

Be on the lookout for _Aquaman_ and _Spider-Man: Into the Spider Verse_ which are shaping to feature more fantastic audio. And _Aquaman_ I'm betting to be the 4k HDR film of the year, and quite possibly to set the standard. It's being an exciting early start for HT enthusiasts

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

*Equalizer 2 (1080p)*

Yet another "Reference Quality" Blu!!!

This is a STUNNER! Whether we're talking CLARITY, or DETAILS, or DEPTH, or FLESH TONES, or COLORS, or BLACK LEVELS, this release "delivers in spades." Except for a very few fleeting shots that weren't quite as crisp, this one had me riveted to the screen. Outdoor, daytime scenes were especially a visual feast, but indoor shots and night time scenes were still "reference quality."

The 1080p version comes with a DTS HD mix (which is up-mixed courtesy of my Denon AVR) and it was also "Reference Quality." The precision in every channel was "audio nirvana," including some SUPER SONIC explosions that tested my dual subs to their limit. Thankfully they "passed the test" and I was grinning from ear to ear. If this were an audio thread I'd place it in the Top 20!!

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.5)*

PS Ralph Potts, in his review, said the 4K version takes this up a notch. I may just have to buy this once the price goes down (though I wasn't all that crazy about the movie...it was "good" but "not great").


----------



## djoberg

*The Girl in the Spider's Web (1080p)*

We have ANOTHER WINNER! I've said this before and I'll say it again, "We are becoming very spoiled these days with an endless turnout of either "Reference" or "Demo" material. This one is, without a doubt, "Reference Material."

DETAILS are astounding and the main highlight, though DEPTH and BLACK LEVELS aren't far behind. Regarding details, you can see every nuance in clothing, buildings, roads, cars, trees, etc., etc. I was especially impressed with the details in Claire Foy's face (texture galore, including freckles) and skin (tattoos). COLORS were muted but when primaries rose to the occasion (Two Examples: Claire's BLUE EYES and in her sister's RED DRESS) they did NOT disappoint. CLARITY was striking with the rare exception of a few quick soft shots (in poorly-lit interiors).

The DTS HD mix (upmixed to Neural:X) was VERY GOOD! I can't say it was as precise as in _Equalizer 2_ or as bass/LFE heavy as in _Overlord_, but it was still an exceptional "demo mix" you would be proud to show off to your friends. (Check out, in the last scene, a high-powered sniper rifle where each shot blasted its way through brick walls and left your ears yearning for more!)

*Tier 0* (.66)*


----------



## djoberg

*Widows (1080p)*

I was somewhat reluctant to rent this (due to a very slow-paced first half...as reported by reviewers on Amazon) but after reading reviews by well-known and respected reviewers who said "your patience will be rewarded," I decided to "go for it." I was rewarded! The acting was very good, the character development was welcomed, and the last act was more than expected and filled with "poetic justice." This movie is most definitely a commentary on modern-day Chicago (its politics, its racial tension, its crime rate, etc.).

PQ-wise, this was...yet another....WINNER! This was much like _Overlord_ in that the PQ got better and better with each scene. It featured exemplary details and texture, along with amazing contrast and black levels. This has the "look of film," yet there were no instances of "noise." Colors were rich and vibrant when they appeared, though these were "few and far between." Flesh tones were spot on....depth was appreciable in many scenes....and clarity was superb throughout.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**

PS This is another release that may find its way into Tier 0 (though I think it will be towards the bottom).
.


----------



## djoberg

Up next: _The Nun_. It's been way too long since I watched something from the Horror genre!


----------



## djoberg

*The Nun (1080p)*

I've always been a fan of _The Conjuring Franchise_ so I had to give this "prequel" a look. The movie wasn't as impressive as the "sequels" but the PQ was just as impressive, if not more. Clarity was off-the-charts...details were exemplary...flesh tone were as natural as one could desire...and contrast and depth were to-die-for. The only "negative" was in some less-than-stellar black levels in the last two acts, where they became a bit murky resulting in compromised details and depth.

The Dolby Atmos mix was spectacular! Action in the surrounds was fantastic; dialogue was intelligible throughout; overhead effects were spot-on; and bass/LFE was amazing!

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.75)*


----------



## AmerCa

*Deadpool 2 [Theatrical + Extended] (2018 - Fox) *











*Tier Recommendation: 1.5* *


"Par for the course" video presentation, and not much to add. A handful of fantastic good looking scenes/shots, but for the most part this is merely a satisfying presentation. The overabundance of soft CGI hurt the PQ, and extended version suffers the most for it. Both cuts do the job, but videophiles won't be particularly pleased. I have yet to see a David Leitch film that is reference quality, as neither *John Wick* or *Atomic Blonde* were.

The DTS-MA 7.1 track delivers, but somehow I expected something more punchier and refined. It's pretty good, but I've heard better tracks in the last few months, I expected a little bit more, but that's just me nitpicking.

This movie has the particularity that both cuts are different enough to watch either of them for different reasons. Unlike most extended cuts that only add or shift some scenes, here both feature different, additional or extended scenes, as well as different jokes and music, and even starting and ending post credits scenes. The movie is still 90% the same, but such differences justify actually having (and watching) both cuts.

I actually liked this movie a lot more than the first film, but some fans weren't keen on it. This one comes recommended, if you know what you're getting into...probably this isn't for you, Djoberg. 


Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

*Halloween (2018...1080p)*

I've never been a real fan of the Halloween Franchise (I normally despise "slasher movies"), but I was somewhat drawn to renting this after reading a number of reviews. It still had the "gratuitous violence" (which I could turn away from ), but it also had a decent cast with good performances along with a new "psychiatrist" that was enamored with Michael (to a degree you have to see to believe). 

The PQ was EXCELLENT in all daytime scenes (especially outdoors and even in indoor settings with good lighting). There was striking clarity, very good details, warm colors, accurate flesh tones, strong contrast and substantial depth. Night time scenes were another matter, for it lacked deep blacks and thus it came across as soft and lacking details/depth in many shots. I suppose this was the director's intent, but for purposes of this thread it must be penalized. Thankfully it was void of other anomalies such as noise or banding.

It has a DTS:X mix that was rather "tame" except for those "moments" where you would expect the walls to rattle (and they did! ). Dialogue was clear, but there was very little action in the surrounds and height channels.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**

PS My Blu-ray Feast has officially come to an end as of tonight! I must confess that I am quite satiated.  It seems these days it's either "feast or famine" for me.


----------



## CCsoftball7

djoberg said:


> *Bohemian Rhapsody (1080p)*
> 
> WOW!!!
> 
> My wife and I just watched this and we were both thoroughly impressed with the fantastic PQ/AQ. PQ-wise this one had it all...bold/punchy colors (in spite of some strong color-grading at times...orange hues...to fit the era), mesmerizing details, striking depth, and black levels to-die-for. Oh, and in the few night scenes the shadow details were simply incredible (check out a scene outside of Freddie's home in the rain at the 90 minute mark). AQ-wise, this has to be one of the very best when it comes to rock songs in a movie. There was zero distortion and the precision in every channel of my 9 speakers (and dual subs) was beyond amazing. The last scene, at the LIVE AID SHOW in London, was spectacular!!
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.33)*


After having watched this multiple times, I have to concur with everything you wrote. WOW!!! Is about all that needs to be stated.  A MUST BUY on disc.


----------



## djoberg

I had said my "Blu-ray Feast" was officially ending, but I just learned I have two small grandchildren coming for the weekend so I have rented _Ralph Breaks the Internet_ and purchased _A Dog's Purpose_. We will be watching the first one for sure, but the second one may be too mature for them. I'll weigh in with a review either tonight or tomorrow. From what I've read about RBtI it should be a Top Ten contender in Tier Blu!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Liz and the Blue Bird*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

The latest anime movie from the creators of _A Silent Voice!_, this is a very fine Blu-ray release from Shout Factory that comes out next week. It's devoid of compression issues and has some stunning animated moments, especially when the fairy tale narrative within the wider school narrative plays. A sly homage to Snow White is included.

The transfer is free of problems that sometimes plague anime imported over to the States from Japan. Black levels are crisp and the nearly pastel art colors have finely rendered saturation. The animation isn't quite as fluid as more lavishly drawn productions but makes its own visual impact.

The 1080P video is shown at its native 1.78:1 aspect ratio.


----------



## djoberg

*Ralph Breaks the Internet (1080p)*

First of all, I LOVE the movie! I even learned a few things about the internet. 

I just went to the Rankings Thread to see where the first installment was sitting at currently, but the thread wouldn't load. I counted as many as I could before it I reached the end of where it wouldn't load. I counted 78 titles and _Wreck It Ralph_ was not listed. Soooo, I can safely say this new release is most definitely light years ahead of that one. I can't say it belongs in the Top Ten, but I'm sure it's good enough to be in the Top 20.

It started out kind of SOFT, but after the first two scenes CLARITY reigned supreme and DETAILS and TEXTURE came to life. And my, what dazzling COLORS there were in the Internet!! BLACK LEVELS, though limited, were also excellent, as were SHADOW DETAILS.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (somewhere in the Top 20)*

PS I was underwhelmed by the audio mix, for like most (or all) Disney releases you have to crank it up to near reference to actually enjoy it. Even then, the explosions didn't produce the wall-shaking bass/LFE that one hopes for.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

* Tier 0 - Blu *​
*Planet Earth II UHD* Video: HEVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 5.1 | AR: 1.78:1 | BBC
*The Secret Life of Pets* Video: AVC | Audio: 7.1 Dolby TrueHD | AR: 1.85:1 | Universal
*The Angry Birds Movie * Video: | Audio: | AR: |
*Moana * Video: | Audio: | AR: | Disney
*The Good Dinosaur * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 2.39:1 | Disney
*Rio 2 * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 2.40:1 | Fox
*Kung Fu Panda 3* Video: | Audio: | AR: |
*Trolls * Video: | Audio: | AR: |
*Ice Age: Collision Course * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Fox
*Monsters University * Video: AVC | Audio: 7.1 Dolby TrueHD | AR: 1.78:1 | Disney
*The Smurfs 2 * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Sony
*Toy Story 3 * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 1.85:1 | Disney
*Sing * Video: | Audio: | AR: | Universal
*Big Hero 6 * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 2.40:1 | Disney
*Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted * Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD 7.1 | AR: 1.78:1 | DreamWorks
*Zootopia * Video: | Audio: | AR: |
*Storks * Video: | Audio: | AR: |
*Inside Out * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 1.78:1 | Disney
*Finding Dory * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Disney 
*The Croods * Video: AVC | Audio: 7.1 DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | DreamWorks
*Legend Of The Guardians: Owls Of Ga'Hoole * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Warner
*A Christmas Carol (2009) * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Disney
*Turbo * Video: AVC | Audio: 7.1 DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | DreamWorks 
*Black Sails: The Complete First Season * Video: AVC | Audio: Dolby TrueHD 7.1 | AR: 1.78:1 | Starz / Anchor Bay 
*A Bug's Life * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Disney
*Avatar * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Fox
*Life Of Pi * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Fox
*The Adventures Of Tintin * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 2.35:1 | Paramount
*Avatar (Extended Collector's Edition) * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Fox
*The Incredibles * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Disney
*Cars 2 * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 2.40:1 | Disney
*Up * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Disney
*Coraline * Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Universal
*Home * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 1.85:1 | DreamWorks
*Despicable Me 2 * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Universal
*Tomorrowland * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 2.20:1 | Disney
*Finding Nemo * Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD 7.1 | AR: 1.78:1 | Disney
*Astro Boy * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.39:1 | Summit Entertainment
*Birdman * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Fox
*Kung Fu Panda 2 * Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD 7.1 | AR: 2.35:1 | DreamWorks 
*Kung Fu Panda * Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.35:1 | DreamWorks
*Frozen * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 2.35:1 | Disney
*Get On Up * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Universal
*Ratatouille * Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Disney
*Ice Age: Continental Drift * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 2.40:1 | Fox
*Rio * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Fox
*Planes * Video: AVC | Audio: 7.1 DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Disney
*Cars * Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Disney
*Tangled * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 1.78:1 | Disney | _2-D Version_
*Ninja II: Shadow of a Tear * Video: AVC | Audio: Dolby TrueHD 5.1 | AR: 1.78:1 | Millennium Media
*Tai Chi Zero * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Well Go USA
*Monsters, Inc. * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Disney
*Toy Story 2 * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Disney
*Toy Story of Terror! * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Disney
*Rise of the Guardians * Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD 7.1 | AR: 1.78:1 | DreamWorks
*13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi* Video: AVC | Audio: Dolby Atmos | AR: 2.40:1 | Paramount
*Rango * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Paramount
*Hugo * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 1.78:1 | Paramount
*Allegiant* Video: | Audio: | AR: |
*Master, The (2012) * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Weinstein
*The Thin Red Line * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Criterion
*Tinker Bell And The Great Fairy Rescue * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Disney
*Dr. Seuss' The Lorax (2012) * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Universal
*Despicable Me * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Universal
*Hello, Dolly! * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.20:1 | Fox
*Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest * Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Disney
*Rescue 3D * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Image Entertainment | _IMAX_
*A Serious Man * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Universal
*Escape From Planet Earth * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Starz / Anchor Bay
*Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End * Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Disney
*Redline (2009) * Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 1.78:1 | Starz / Anchor Bay
*Chicken Little * Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.78:1 | Disney
*Samsara * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 2.40:1 | MPI
*Boss: Season One * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 1.78:1 | Lionsgate
*Fantastic Mr. Fox * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Criterion
*Fantastic Mr. Fox * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Fox
*Puss In Boots * Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD 7.1 | AR: 2.35:1 | DreamWorks
*The Wild * Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.85:1 | Disney
*Man on Fire * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Fox
*Bee Movie * Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 1.85:1 | Dreamworks
*Penguins of Madagascar * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | DreamWorks
*Open Season * Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.85:1 | Sony
*Tinker Bell * Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.78:1 | Disney
*Tinker Bell And The Lost Treasure * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78 | Disney
*Arabia 3D (IMAX) * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Image Entertainment
*Peanuts Movie, The * Video: | Audio: | AR: | 
*I, Robot* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Fox
*Lone Survivor * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Universal
*Monsters Vs. Aliens * Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.39:1 | DreamWorks
*Paddington * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Starz / Anchor Bay
*The Art Of Flight * Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD 7.1 | AR: 1.78:1 | Red Bull Media House
*The Host * Video: VC-1 | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.85:1 | Magnolia
*LEGO Justice League: Attack of the Legion of Doom! * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Warner
*Live Free or Die Hard * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Fox
*Tell No One * Video: VC-1 | Audio: PCM 2.0 | AR: 2.35:1 | MPI Media
*Epic * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 2.40:1 | Fox
*Exodus: Gods and Kings * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 2.40:1 | Fox
*Sin City * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Disney
*Wreck-It Ralph * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 2.40:1 | Disney
*Company Men, The * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Starz / Anchor Bay
*Mary And Max * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | MPI Media
*Meet the Robinsons * Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 1.78:1 | Disney
*The Three Musketeers (2011) * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Summit Entertainment
*How to Train Your Dragon 2 * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 2.35:1 | Fox
*The Martian * Video: AVC | Audio: | AR: | 
*Allied * Video: | Audio: | AR: |
*LEGO Batman: The Movie * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Warner
*Youth Without Youth * Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.35:1 | Sony
*Secret World Of Arrietty, The * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Disney
*Hot Fuzz * Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Universal
*Criminal* Video: | Audio: | AR: |
*Shrek Forever After * Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD 7.1 | AR: 2.35:1 | DreamWorks
*Florence Foster Jenkins * Video: | Audio: | AR: |
*The International * Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony
*The Tale of Despereaux * Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Universal
*TMNT * Video: VC-1 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner
*Becoming Jane * Video: VC-1 | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.35:1 | Disney
*Pina (French Import) * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | France Télévisions Dis. | _Region B only?_
*Planet 51 * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Sony
*Red Cliff: The Special Edition (UK Import) * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Entertainment In Video | _Parts I & II_
*Bait * Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD 7.1 | AR: 1.78:1 | Starz / Anchor Bay
*Skyfall * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Fox
*Alice In Wonderland (1951) * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.33:1 | Disney
*Book of Life, The * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 2.40:1 | Fox
*Watchmen: Director's Cut (UK Import) * Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Paramount
*Grand Canyon Adventure: River At Risk (IMAX 3-D Edition) * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Image Entertainment
*Jurassic World * Video: AVC | Audio: | AR: | Universal
*Transporter 2 (Japan Import) * Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.35:1 | Sony
*The Help * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Disney
*Corpse Bride * Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD | AR: 1.85:1 | Warner
*Revenant, The * Video: | Audio: | AR: |
*Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows * Video: | Audio: | AR: |
*Winnie The Pooh * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Disney
*Wall-E * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Disney
*Bolt * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Disney
*Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Disney
*Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Sony
*Hobbit, The: The Battle of the Five Armies * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner
*Hotel Transylvania * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Sony
*In Time * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Fox
*Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Fox
*The Ultimate Wave: Tahiti (IMAX) * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Image Entertainment
*The Wind Rises * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA Mono | AR: 1.85:1 | Disney
*Brave * Video: AVC | Audio: Dolby TrueHD 7.1 | AR: 2.40:1 | Disney
*Grand Canyon Adventure: River At Risk (IMAX) * Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Image Entertainment
*King Kong (2005) * Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Universal
*Noah * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 1.85:1 | Paramount
*Planes: Fire and Rescue * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 2.40:1 | Disney
*Wolf Creek 2 * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Image Entertainment
*Transporter 3 * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Lionsgate
*Agora (French Import) * Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.35:1 | Warner | _locked to Region B_
*Born To Be Wild (IMAX) * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Warner
*Dragon Hunters * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Phase 4 Films
*Gnomeo & Juliet * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 1.85:1 | Disney
*Happy Feet * Video: VC-1 | Audio: DD EX | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner
*Toy Story * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA ES | AR: 1.78:1 | Disney
*Baraka * Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.20:1 | MPI Media
*A Woman, A Gun and A Noodle Shop * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony
*Lonely Hearts (Japan Import) * Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.35:1 | Sony
*Tokyo Motor Show * Video: MPEG-2 | Audio: DD 2.0 | AR: 1.78:1 | Topics Entertainment | _1080i_
*How To Train Your Dragon * Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.35:1 | DreamWorks
*Real Steel * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 2.35:1 | Disney
*Wallace & Gromit: A Matter of Loaf and Death (UK Import) * Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 1.78:1 | 2 Entertain | _1080i / 50Hz_
*9 * Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Universal
*Domino (UK Import) * Video: VC-1 | Audio: Dolby TrueHD 5.1 | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner | _better PQ than domestic BD_
*Horton Hears A Who! * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Fox
*Mars Needs Moms * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 2.40:1 | Disney
*Sleeping Beauty * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.55:1 | Disney
*Transformers: Age of Extinction * Video: AVC | Audio: Dolby Atmos | AR: 2.40:1 | Paramount
*Braveheart * Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.35:1 | Paramount
*The LEGO Movie * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner
*Arthur Christmas * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Sony
*Crank 2: High Voltage * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 1.85:1 | Lionsgate
*Lawrence of Arabia (4K Japanese Import) * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.20:1 | Sony | _better than domestic BD_
*Lion King, The * Video: avc | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 1.78:1 | Disney
*Sword Of The Stranger * Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 1.78:1 | Bandai
*Everest * Video: | Audio: | AR: | 
*The Ides Of March * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony
*Fighting * Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Universal
*Short Peace: Complete Collection * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Sentai Filmworks
*Batman: The Dark Knight Returns Part 1 * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Warner | _animated movie_
*Hobbit, The: An Unexpected Journey * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner
*Puella Magi Madoka Magica: The Movie - Rebellion * Video: AVC | Audio: | AR: 1.78:1 | Aniplex of America
*The Smurfs * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Sony
*Tinker Bell: Secret of the Wings * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Disney
*Watchmen: Theatrical Version (UK Import) * Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.39:1 | Paramount
*Gamer * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 1.85:1 | Lionsgate
*I Spit On Your Grave (2010) * Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.35:1 | Starz / Anchor Bay
*The Shallows * Video: | Audio: | AR: |
*Risen UHD * Video: | Audio: | AR: |
*Tale of Tales * Video: | Audio: | AR: | Shout Factory
*Lawrence of Arabia * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2:19:1 | Sony
*Lucy * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Universal
*Sabotage * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Universal
*The Nut Job * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Universal
*Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl * Video: AVC | Audio: PCM | AR: 2.40:1 | Disney
*Bayonetta: Bloody Fate * Video: AVC | Audio: Dolby TrueHD 5.1 | AR: 1.78:1 | Funimation
*Red Cliff: Part I * Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Magnolia
*Red Cliff: Part II * Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Magnolia
*Patton (remaster) * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2:19:1 | Fox | _2012 version with new transfer_
*My Fair Lady (50th Anniversary Edition) * Video: | Audio: | AR: | _remastered_
*Immortals * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Fox
*Sex Drive * Video: AVC | Audio: DD 5.1 | AR: 1.78:1 | Summit Entertainment
*Domino * Video: VC-1 | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner
*Hop * Video: VC-1 | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Universal
*Rushmore * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Criterion
*The Hateful Eight* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.75:1 | Starz / Anchor Bay 
*Spartacus: Blood And Sand - Season 1 * Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD | AR: 1.78:1 | Starz / Anchor Bay
*Beauty And The Beast * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 1.78:1 | Disney
*The Huntsman: Winter's War *Video: | Audio: | AR: |
*Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen (IMAX) * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: mixed | Paramount
*Tree Of Life, The * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 1.85:1 | Fox
*LEGO Justice League Vs. Bizarro League * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Warner
*Gravity * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner
*Transformers: Dark of the Moon * Video: AVC | Audio: TrueHD 7.1 | AR: 2.40:1 | Paramount
*Need for Speed * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 2.40:1 | Disney
*The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner
*Hobbit, The: An Unexpected Journey (Extended Edition) * Video: AVC | Audio: 7.1 DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner
*The Impossible * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.35:1 | Summit Entertainment
*After Earth * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony
*Great Gatsby, The (2013) * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Warner
*Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies Extended * Video: | Audio: | AR: | 
*Host, The (2013) * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Universal
*Stand Up Guys * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Lionsgate
*The Quiet Man * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA mono | AR: 1.37:1 | Olive Films
*Frankenweenie * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 1.85:1 | Disney
*John Wick: Chapter 2 (UHD) *Video: | Audio: | AR: |
*Maleficent * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 2.40:1 | Disney
*Ant-Man * Video: | Audio: | AR: | Disney
*Ender's Game * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 2.40:1 | Summit
*Batman: The Dark Knight Returns Part 2 * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Warner
*House of Cards: Season One * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.00:1 | Sony
*The Sessions * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Fox
*The Jungle Book (2016) * Video: | Audio: | AR: |
*Mechanic, The: Resurrection *Video: | Audio: | AR: |
*Begin Again * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Starz/Anchor Bay
*The Agony and the Ecstasy * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.20:1 | Fox
*Miss Peregrine's Home For Peculiar Children * Video: | Audio: | AR: |
*Wolverine 3-D, The: Unleashed Extended Edition * Video: AVC | Audio: 7.1 DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Fox
*Archer: The Complete Season Four * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Fox
*Need for Speed (UK) * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Entertainment One | _UK Region B release_
*Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014) * Video: AVC | Audio: Dolby Atmos | AR: | Paramount
*Age of Adaline, The * Video: | Audio: | AR: | 
*Furious 7 * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: | Universal
*Seventh Son * Video: | Audio: | AR: | 
*Chappie * Video: | Audio: | AR: | Sony
*Picnic At Hanging Rock (2018)* Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Acorn Media
*Kubo and the Two Strings * Video: | Audio: | AR: | Universal
*Still Mine * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Fox
*Mickey's Twice Upon A Christmas * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Disney | _double feature_
*The Wolf of Wall Street * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Paramount
*Magnificent Seven, The (2016)*Video: | Audio: | AR: |
*Get Hard * Video: | Audio: | AR: | 
*Admiral, The: Roaring Currents * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | CJ Entertainment
*House of Cards: Season Two * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.00:1 | Sony
*Theory of Everything, The * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Universal
*Mad Max: Fury Road * Video: AVC | Audio: | AR: | Warner
*Poltergeist (2015) * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: | Fox
*Amazing Spider-Man 2, The * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony
*Marco Polo: The Complete First Season * Video: | Audio: | AR: | Starz
*Star Wars: The Force Awakens * Video: AVC | Audio: | AR: | Disney
*Hacksaw Ridge * Video: | Audio: | AR: |
*Interstellar * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: Various | Paramount
*AnoHana: The Flower We Saw That Day: The Movie * Video: AVC | Audio: | AR: 1.78:1 | ANIPLEX OF AMERICA
*Man of Tai Chi * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Starz/Anchor Bay
*Equalizer, The * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 7.1 | AR: 2.40:1 | Sony
*Puella Magi Madoka Magica the Movie Part 1: Beginnings * Video: AVC | Audio: | AR: | Aniplex
*Young Justice * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA 2.0 | AR: 1.78:1 | Warner Archive
*Pawn Shop Chronicles * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.78:1 | Starz/Anchor Bay
*It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World * Video: | Audio: | AR: | Criterion
*X-Men: Apocalypse * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 1.85:1 | Fox
*Great Wall, The * Video: | Audio: | AR: |
*Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel, The* Video: | Audio: | AR: |
*Jack Reacher: Never Go Back * Video: | Audio: | AR: |
*The Island * Video: AVC | Audio: DTS-HD MA | AR: 2.40:1 | Paramount


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I've posted Tier 0 here for those who say it's getting difficult to load the entire PQ Tiers. I have noticed things load a wee bit easier when adblocking is employed, ymmv. I realize loading it on most phones is getting tougher.


_Wreck-it Ralph_ appears about one-third of the way down from the very top.


----------



## djoberg

Thanks for posting the Rankings Thread list for Tier 0 titles Phantom!


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Hunger Games, The: Mockingjay - Part 1 (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 0* (0.9)*

Sharp details throughout and black levels/shadow details are excellent.


----------



## djoberg

*A Dog's Purpose (1080p)*

A very "squeaky clean" release with glossy clarity that features plenty of details, depth, and natural colors/flesh tones. Black levels were also very pleasing.

The audio was nothing to brag about....so I won't!

The movie had some thematic elements that were a bit too heavy for my 6 and 3 year old granddaughters, so I ended up Fast-Forwarding 3 (relatively short) scenes. I found it quite charming in most instances, but it was also somewhat "disjointed."

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**


----------



## AmerCa

*Pacific Rim: Uprising (2018 - Universal) *










*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*

*Snell* (1.0): https://www.avsforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=56744308

I agree on a lot of things with Snell, especially on the fact that a newer release should look superior to an older release. There's been lots of talk about how this movie sucks, but the real disappointment doesn't comes from the story or acting, but from the technical specs. The movie has its moments, sure, but in my eyes it's just looks fine. There are parts in which it looks superior to the original, and there are as many parts in which it doesn't. The CGI is decidedly inferior to the first one, but also most of it it's shown on daylight, so it's more difficult for it to look pristine and super detailed, BUT...it's pretty damn good.

Now, the audio... Hmmm. It's solid, yet disappointing, if that makes sense. Bass is inconsistent and very often lacks weight. The lack of bass extension doesn't necessarily has to be a bad thing, but the inconsistency of it and the harshness of the mix makes it a very tiring experience. I listened at -12 and next time I'll probably stay at -15 or less, and bump the sub trim levels. It's not a bad mix, it's simply not stellar, and then on screen action deserved so.

As for the movie itself, I liked it more than expected, and had a lot of fun watching it. I liked the main characters, and the action and visuals were so good that I could forgive the A/V shortcomings. Not a demo disc, but it's good for an afternoon of mindless fun.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^

Good review AmerCa!

I may just give it a rent after reading that you thought the movie was okay.


----------



## AmerCa

^=°°^=^°^
I'm not sure what you'll think of it, but it's worth a rent for sure. 

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 1.25*

Inconsistent as others have said.


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> ^=°°^=^°^
> I'm not sure what you'll think of it, but it's worth a rent for sure.
> 
> Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


The first one was a good popcorn flick and I suspect this one will be too.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> *A Dog's Purpose (1080p)*
> 
> A very "squeaky clean" release with glossy clarity that features plenty of details, depth, and natural colors/flesh tones. Black levels were also very pleasing.
> 
> The audio was nothing to brag about....so I won't!
> 
> The movie had some thematic elements that were a bit too heavy for my 6 and 3 year old granddaughters, so I ended up Fast-Forwarding 3 (relatively short) scenes. I found it quite charming in most instances, but it was also somewhat "disjointed."
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.0**


I caught this at a relative's house last year and remember thinking it was around 1.25/1.5, but never bothered writing up a review. I'm in agreement with you on its PQ quality.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Hunger Games, The: Mockingjay Part 2 (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

Details are sharp throughout. Colors and the use of HDR are excellent. The film falters somewhat in all the dark scenes as sometimes shadow details are weak.


----------



## dla26

DarthDoxie said:


> *Hunger Games, The: Mockingjay Part 2 (UHD)*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 1.0**
> 
> Details are sharp throughout. Colors and the use of HDR are excellent. The film falters somewhat in all the dark scenes as sometimes shadow details are weak.


*Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (UHD)*

DarthDoxie's review of Hunger Games 2 is nearly word for word what I was going to say about Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom!

recommendation: *Tier 1.0*


----------



## djoberg

*Pacific Rim Uprising (1080p)*

Okay, I'm going to have to disagree with my fellow peers (Snell and AmerCa) who gave this a 1.0 and 1.5, for I absolutely believe this is worthy of a Tier 0 placement. I've decided to just give a link to my review of the first installment, for this one is pretty much a carbon copy of that. Having said that, this one is only 1080p so this one was a wee bit less spectacular when it came to COLORS and CONTRAST, but I feel I may be guilty of "straining at a gnat" in saying this. It also had some NOISE that I didn't see in the _Pacific Rim_. But aside from those two issues it was indeed pure EYE CANDY.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention the fantastic Dolby Atmos mix. It was just as amazing! I listened to it at -8 for most of the 2 hour running time but I couldn't resist setting it at -2.5 for the last battle scene in Tokyo.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-814.html#post55563896

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.66)*


----------



## AmerCa

°°°°^^^^
Wow. I'm glad that at least you were satisfied with the technical specs of the disc. Yeah, that last act of the movie is nuts. I'm sure in ATMOS it should be crazy.

I demand a Scrapper movie! Lol.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## SnellTHX

*Hunter Killer*


Haven't reviewed anything in probably a month or more... Just haven't had time for movies with True Detective coming out every monday! (Excellent series, aaaaalmost as good as the first)

Anyway, I was in charge of finding a good looking movie to impress the lads over movie night. Something none of us have seen yet that has "cool explosions and special effects" and Hunter Killer was an EXCELLENT choice  Razor-sharp 4K image quality that looks for the most part 'flawless'. Its reference-grade from start to finish, only complaint I might have is I felt the image could have been warmer / more organic / less stale as I thought the colour temperatures were more on the cooler side of the scale. But the finer details, high resolution and ultra clarity more than make up for that! The movie successfully impressed the non-videophiles too.


*Tier recommendation: 0.5*


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> *Pacific Rim Uprising (1080p)*
> 
> Okay, I'm going to have to disagree with my fellow peers (Snell and AmerCa) who gave this a 1.0 and 1.5, for I absolutely believe this is worthy of a Tier 0 placement. I've decided to just give a link to my review of the first installment, for this one is pretty much a carbon copy of that. Having said that, this one is only 1080p so this one was a wee bit less spectacular when it came to COLORS and CONTRAST, but I feel I may be guilty of "straining at a gnat" in saying this. It also had some NOISE that I didn't see in the _Pacific Rim_. But aside from those two issues it was indeed pure EYE CANDY.
> 
> I would be remiss if I didn't mention the fantastic Dolby Atmos mix. It was just as amazing! I listened to it at -8 for most of the 2 hour running time but I couldn't resist setting it at -2.5 for the last battle scene in Tokyo.
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-814.html#post55563896
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.66)*




Have you compared it to the original? I thought it was slightly disappointing considered its prequel left me completely mind blown and at one point I considered it #1 reference disc (this is of course before Transformers 5: LK and DUNKIRK came out, and also with limited animation movies) even though I watched it in 1080p/SDR I'm sure its still comfortably somewhere in my personal top 10-20. The 4K/HDR might just be top 3 / top 5 material. so I guess I have to rewatch it!


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> Have you compared it to the original? I thought it was slightly disappointing considered its prequel left me completely mind blown and at one point I considered it #1 reference disc (this is of course before Transformers 5: LK and DUNKIRK came out, and also with limited animation movies) even though I watched it in 1080p/SDR I'm sure its still comfortably somewhere in my personal top 10-20. The 4K/HDR might just be top 3 / top 5 material. so I guess I have to rewatch it!


If you're asking if I watched some of the original right afterwards, the answer is NO. I simply read my review of the original (which was in 4K) and then said to myself, "Wow, this 1080p version of the sequel is almost as good!"

Thanks for your review on _Hunter Killer_. We're on the same page there!! (I gave it a .66 placement.)


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Sicario: Day of the Soldado (UHD)*


recommendation: *Tier 0* (0.5)*

I was mesmerized by the constant high level of sharpness and HDR for the whole run-time. I kept thinking that there had to be a scene or two where the quality would dip, but no, there were none. Yes, there are some satellite, drone, and night vision shots, but I don't expect those to be razor sharp. All of the primary camera shots are excellent, the focus puller really deserves an award here. Details like facial pores, hair, grit and grime, and fabrics really stand out. It's not a particularly colorful film as it takes place in the rugged desert along the U.S.-Mexico border but primaries pop when they do show up. However, all the nuanced shades of browns, tans, and other drab colors are well delineated and on great display.


Black levels and shadow details are some of the best I've seen. A knock on the Blu-ray version was some black crush and loss of shadow detail, but I saw none of that on the UHD. A majority of the film takes place at night and every scene is a feast for the eyes. Shadow detail is incredible, lots of black jackets and clothing with every fold and wrinkle clearly visible even when back lit. In the broad landscape scenes at night, the black bars disappear making for a truly immersive viewing.


HDR deserves special mention: it's demo level right up there with *Blade Runner 2049*. Many of the night scenes have lots of vehicle headlights, flashlights, and other dots of illumination that again, had my jaw dropping at what I was seeing. The contrast between the dark areas of the scene and the bright dots of illumination was excellent, the bright areas in no way washed out any of the dark areas. Just goes to show a film doesn't have to have a vomit of color for HDR to make a big impact.


The sound was good, but nothing that I could say really stood out from other modern top-level films. The cinematography is the outstanding feature of this UHD.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^

I simply couldn't resist ordering this title after reading your review Darth! Due to a major winter storm I won't be picking it up till sometime next week but you can be sure I'll watch it (and review it) shortly after I get it. I am a bit concerned about "light bleeding" into my black bars, for that's what I experienced with the first _Sicario_. You have an OLED so no problem in that department.


----------



## djoberg

BTW Darth, how did you like the movie? It had mixed reviews at the Box Office.


----------



## DarthDoxie

djoberg said:


> BTW Darth, how did you like the movie? It had mixed reviews at the Box Office.



I thought it was as good as the first one which I liked a lot. The third installment should be interesting.


----------



## djoberg

DarthDoxie said:


> I thought it was as good as the first one which I liked a lot. The third installment should be interesting.


Sounds good! I really liked the first one too.


----------



## AmerCa

djoberg said:


> Sounds good! I really liked the first one too.


But...you've already seen and reviewed the second one? I'm a little confused by this conversation, lol.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> But...you've already seen and reviewed the second one? I'm a little confused by this conversation, lol.
> 
> Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


I do NOT want you to be confused AmerCa, so I will shed some light your way!

I have NOT seen or reviewed the second one. See my third post above where I say that I just ordered the second one and will view and review it as as soon as I get it. 

When I told Darth "I really liked the first one too," I was simply saying that "I too liked the first one" (just like he did).

I trust you're not confused any longer!


----------



## AmerCa

°=°=°=°
Djoberg, please stop scaring me :


djoberg said:


> *Sicario: Day of the Soldado (1080p)*
> 
> Well, this is almost a carbon copy of the first installment. I'm going to give you a link to my review because I would end up giving you a "carbon copy review" anyway. Again, this flies in the face of the "experts," for they are all saying it's "Reference Quality," but I have to call it like I see it. Here's my review:
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-767.html#post40687194
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.5**
> 
> PS The DTS MA Neural:X mix was quite good!




Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^

WOW! I had COMPLETELY forgotten that I had watched and reviewed that title!! 

What's the big lesson in this? For me, it's to always do a Search to see if I've seen it. For Darth, it's to do a Search to see who has already reviewed it and then refer to those who have (like you ALWAYS do).

J/K Darth!


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^

In truth, I had completely forgotten I had reviewed the second installment, and when I just saw that this was only 4-5 months ago, I thought to myself, "Denny, you are either watching too many Blu-rays or you need to keep up on your memory pills."


----------



## DarthDoxie

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> WOW! I had COMPLETELY forgotten that I had watched and reviewed that title!!
> 
> What's the big lesson in this? For me, it's to always do a Search to see if I've seen it. For Darth, it's to do a Search to see who has already reviewed it and then refer to those who have (like you ALWAYS do).
> 
> J/K Darth!



Haha, oh yeah, I read your review. I don't always mention past reviews if they're different versions (Blu vs. UHD). I also like to see you twist in the wind and test your memory 

I also kind of referenced your review when I mentioned the black crush on the Blu


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Black Panther (UHD)*


recommendation: *Tier 0* (0.5)*

Black levels and contrast are excellent and HDR is pretty amazing, especially the scenes in Korea. All the neon signs and the nightclub were spectacular. Details were sharp in fabrics and facial close-ups. Where it falters (if you can call it that being in Tier 0) is all the CGI and green screen shots. It just looks too processed with all the CGI backgrounds and artificial sunlight and it's not even a question of whether they are on a sound stage or outside on a practical set, some scenes are just aesthetically ugly (but still deserving of Tier 0).


As for the movie, it's OK as a superhero movie (my personal favorite is still Deadpool). I'm just scratching my head as to how this got a nomination for Best Picture.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Equalizer, The (UHD)*


recommendation: *Tier 0* (0.5)*

The Blu-ray currently sits at the bottom of Tier 0 and the UHD takes it up a bit to 0.5. Excellent black levels, shadow details, and use of HDR in all the night scenes are a real treat.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Possession of Hannah Grace*


recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

This disappointing horror movie mostly delivers fine picture quality with respectable 1080P quality. Filmed with Sony's new lower-end digital film camera intended for cheaper movies, its definition and clarity hold up quite well most of the time. The main feature runs 85 minutes, getting a clean AVC encode on a BD-50 from Sony.

With the drama taking place in a quiet, isolated morgue, shadow delineation and black levels perform a nice job at highlighting the creature's demonic activity. While sharp, close-ups don't exude the depth and razor-sharp detail common to the absolute best digital cameras available in Hollywood.

Sony smoothly handles the movie's transfer to Blu-ray without a hitch. Free of overt and visible video processing, _The Possession of Hannah Grace's_ PQ won't disappoint even if the muted palette doesn't scream demo material.


----------



## djoberg

I was in Best Buy today with a Gift Card and I picked up two 4K Blu-rays. I was talked into getting _Mortal Engines_ by the salesman that sold me my Sony 940D display and then I grabbed _Robin Hood_ because of its great price and my love for anything with Russell Crowe in it.

Has anyone seen _Mortal Engines_? I had actually never heard of it but since it was directed by Peter Jackson I thought it can't be too bad. Sean (the salesman) said he saw it at the theater and loved it and he guaranteed me the PQ/AQ was awesome.


----------



## AmerCa

djoberg said:


> Has anyone seen Mortal Engines? I had actually never heard of it but since it was directed by Peter Jackson I thought it can't be too bad. Sean (the salesman) said he saw it at the theater and loved it and he guaranteed me the PQ/AQ was awesome.


You made the right choice with _Mortal Engines_. It was filmed in 8k with a 4k DI. Opinions on the film itself are mixed, but everyone agree the PQ and visuals are top notch. Regarding the audio, it has solid bass with decent extension, the bass graph shows it's a bass fest.

Personally, I liked the movie a lot, but since you already own it, I'd like to hear your take on it. BTW, it wasn't directed by Peter Jackson. He co-wrote the script and produced the film.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> I was in Best Buy today with a Gift Card and I picked up two 4K Blu-rays. I was talked into getting _Mortal Engines_ by the salesman that sold me my Sony 940D display and then I grabbed _Robin Hood_ because of its great price and my love for anything with Russell Crowe in it.
> 
> Has anyone seen _Mortal Engines_? I had actually never heard of it but since it was directed by Peter Jackson I thought it can't be too bad. Sean (the salesman) said he saw it at the theater and loved it and he guaranteed me the PQ/AQ was awesome.


I saw Mortal Engines in IMAX 3D and it looked absolutely phenomenal. CGI was world-class, the PQ/AQ was reference. Thundering bass, room shaking with every step that robot took. Really bad-ass! As mentioned its filmed with RED 8K cameras and has a 4K DI. While it's not the next AVATAR or the next LOTR, I can easily see this being tier 0 material, as its special effects are right up there with Alitta, Pacific Rim, Transformers 5, Bumblebee etc.


----------



## djoberg

*Mortal Engines (UHD)*

*PHENOMENAL!!*

Well, this is everything AmerCa and Snell said it was...Reference Quality PQ and AQ from beginning to end!! I was all set on giving a full and detailed review, but about 20 minutes before the end a dark red vertical line appeared on my 940D and it never went away. After checking the Owner's Thread on AVS I see that those who have experienced this were told by Sony it's a bad panel; in other words it's TOAST. So, I'm a bit bummed right now for I was hoping to wait another year at least for a new display. Anyway, you don't want to hear my "sob story" so I'll wrap this review up.

In short, the details, depth and clarity were absolutely amazing, as were flesh tones, contrast, black levels, and shadow details. My only real gripe would be with some fleeting color-grading (on the strong side) and some occasional softness. But for a two hour running time I feel I'm being too picky.

The Dolby Atmos mix was outstanding, with some of the best surround sound action (including the Height Channels) I've heard to date. I listened to it at -5 during 80% of the movie.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.25)*

PS I "may" end up getting the 77" LG OLED that I've always wanted...the price is MUCH less expensive than 3 years ago when I was shopping for one (almost three times less expensive). Having said that, I'm still not in a real good position to shell out almost 7K at this time.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^

I forgot to add that I enjoyed the movie too. This one is a KEEPER!


----------



## AmerCa

^°^°^°^
I'm sorry yo hear about your display, man. But if it's a bad panel, isn't it still under warranty? I think your display was relatively new, your old Kuro lasted forever, and it's my understanding it's still alive!! What's up with these faulty displays?

I hope Sony has your back, because those TVs aren't cheap.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^

My display is almost THREE YEARS old and I never went with an extended warranty, so I'm out of luck there. I will give Sony a call to see what they can do though...it can't hurt. I do know I can't live with this problem very long; it's already driving me nuts watching it!


----------



## AmerCa

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> My display is almost THREE YEARS old and I never went with an extended warranty, so I'm out of luck there. I will give Sony a call to see what they can do though...it can't hurt. I do know I can't live with this problem very long; it's already driving me nuts watching it!


Omg, man. I can feel your pain. I sincerely hope you can sort it out as soon as possible. The only possible good thing about this is that it could be an opportunity to get you an OLED, but still, a three year old high-end TV should fail so soon.

Hope Sony can show some customer service and help you out.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## Davird_Jr

DarthDoxie said:


> *Black Panther (UHD)*
> 
> As for the movie, it's OK as a superhero movie (my personal favorite is still Deadpool). I'm just scratching my head as to how this got a nomination for Best Picture.


If you think long and hard it will come to you.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Deadpool 2 (UHD)*


recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

On par with the fist installment. I watched the Super Duper Cut and I'm sure the theatrical cut is the same.


----------



## djoberg

I did a full factory reset on my Sony but the red line was still there. I just talked to Sony and after telling me they can't do anything for me because I'm out of the warranty period, he gave me a number to a nearby Authorized Sony Repair Center. I called them and was lucky to get a well-informed and honest guy who said, "Your panel is indeed shot and it would not be worth the money for a new panel and very expensive labor to repair it." He went on to say flat panel displays today are built to last between 6-9 years. I asked him why and he said, "Because consumers are demanding such 'thin' displays the components that go into them just can't last that long. He did say Sony is actually the best brand regarding reliability and that my experience is "the exception to the rule."


----------



## AmerCa

^=^°^°^
That sucks, man. It's true that old technology is more durable and of higher quality and the answer they gave you is extremely disappointing. I have cheap TVs that have lasted for years and refuse to die, even under pretty heavy usage, including a cheap old Sony CRT TV that lasted me 15 years. A high-end TV that only lasted three years? Sorry Sony, you should have your customers backs.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

I just posted the following on the Sony 940D Thread regarding my upcoming LG 77" OLED:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/166-...rs-thread-no-price-talk-434.html#post57757134


----------



## AmerCa

^=°°^
Wow! A 77" OLED! Congratulations! I'm glad you bought this time and extended warranty, it's worth the peace of mind when you can afford it.

Looking forward to your new reviews with perfect blacks. 

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^

Thanks Man! All I can say is I surely don't deserve it and I will be grateful for the privilege of owning one of these for (hopefully) many years to come. If not the HUGE price drop in the last three years I never would have entertained the thought of getting one.


----------



## SnellTHX

Wow! Sorry to hear. Its times like these I'm grateful that EVERY electronic product (TV, computer, mobile phone, consoles etc) has five year warranty (by law) in Norway. Three years its waay to young to not get a replacement 100% free.


----------



## djoberg

Whoa, FREE 5-year warranty on all electronic products "courtesy of the government!" Sounds like "socialism" to me, which is where many people want to take our beloved USA. I'm a capitalist at heart...I say that even though I had to dish out close to 1K for my 5-year warranty this afternoon.

BTW, Snell, how do you like your OLED (LG, isn't it?) and how is the up-scaling on it? Especially thinking of satellite broadcast.


----------



## tcramer

djoberg said:


> I just posted the following on the Sony 940D Thread regarding my upcoming LG 77" OLED:
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/166-...rs-thread-no-price-talk-434.html#post57757134


You won't miss your 940D one bit, I promise. I have a 940E and the Sony 77" A1E OLED. In anything but a really bright room, the OLED really does blow it away and the 940E was one of the best non-OLEDs of the past 2 years.

Enjoy!


----------



## SnellTHX

Yeah, it's in our consumer rights' laws. Every product sold on the market is to have either two or five year warranty (depending on life expectancy) So every big electronic product is essentially five years. I'm definitely a capitalist at heart too, but this is one rule I absolutely love. 4.5 year old headphones break? No worries, you get a brand new pair and brand new 5 year warranty  


On to the LG, I have LG OLED B6 which is two and soon to be three years old (2016 model) and to be honest I think the video processing is pretty weak! I feel way more critical of sub-4K content that I was on my Pioneer Kuro. 4K content looks absolutely stunning, but even most 1080p content looks meh, and sub-1080p is whack. Poor upscaling and poor video processing from an otherwise (especially for its release) near-perfect display.

Now the B7 was an ever-so-slightly improvement and the B8 an even slighter improvement over the B7; most notably in the near-black performance, vignetting etc (which I think is fine on B6 anyhow) but if you chose the C8/E8/G8/W8 you get the Alpha-9 processor which quite a huge step up. The C9/E9/R9/G9/W9/Z9 models will have Alpha 9 II processors.


Conclusion --> the entire 6-series, 7-series and B8 OLEDs have terrible upscaling and video-processing (worst in class) but C8-W8 and the new 9 series should at least have competitive scaling/processing, if not as good as what we see from Sony & Panasonic OLEDs (and Samsung QLEDs, Sony LEDs for that matter)


----------



## DarthDoxie

djoberg said:


> I just posted the following on the Sony 940D Thread regarding my upcoming LG 77" OLED:
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/166-...rs-thread-no-price-talk-434.html#post57757134



Can't wait to hear your thoughts on your new OLED after you get it dialed in. It took me about a week to get used to mine coming from an LED. The black levels will be so good it will be like watching *Sicario: Day of the Soldado* for the first time 


I have the 55" C7 and I'm completely satisfied with the up scaling from DirectTV. I've only got a few DVDs (a Criterion Eclipse set of Japanese noir films) and have no issues with how they look on the OLED.


----------



## AmerCa

*Exodus: Gods and Kings (2014 - Fox) *










*Tier Recommendation: 0 (Top 10)*

I was so thrilled to read Djoberg's review on this one, that I decided to quote his whole review, because it's fantastic, and basically mirrors all I'm going to say:



djoberg said:


> *Exodus: Gods and Kings*
> 
> Ladies & Gentlemen: WE HAVE ANOTHER WINNER!!
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not announcing a "Top of Tier Blu" winner, for it falls a tad short of that coveted spot, but this is clearly ONE OF THE BEST LIVE ACTION BLU-RAYS to come down the pike in a very long time. The opening scene set the tone with DAZZLING CLARITY and INTRICATE DETAILS, along with VIBRANT COLORS and SUPERB FLESH TONES. The RED EPIC CAMERA has never looked this good!! Panoramic scenes abound with amazing details of deserts, mountains, rivers, and foliage. Every shot, no matter the distance, displays details galore. Close-ups of facial details were off the charts. Stitching in clothing and details in armor, chariots and weapons are remarkable. BLACK LEVELS were also impressive (in most cases), with finely-rendered SHADOW DETAILS.
> 
> The only area of complaint would be in a few CGI shots where SOFTNESS crept in, but these were "few and far between." I might also mention a very stylized color scheme; the movie starts off with bold primaries but slowly evolved into a more muted color palette. But even then, DETAILS, DEPTH and SHARPNESS/CLARITY were ever-present for the EYE CANDY we long for.
> 
> I was going to recommend a .5 placement but I simply MUST go a tad higher....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.33)*
> 
> Viewed from 7.5' using the equipment listed below....



This BD is ABSOLUTELY STUNNING.

Absolutely.

Stunning.

When I did my review for *Gods of Egypt* Djoberg mentioned that he thought Exodus looked much better. I've had this BD for almost a year, and for some reason or other I always put it on hold. I was sitting on a diamond!

From beginning to end this disc is breathtaking, and this is helped tremendously by the gorgeous cinematography. There are many potentially "problematic" scenes in this film, but the PQ never faltered. I *think* I caught a couple of fleeting instances of weakness, BUT they were so quick that I'm not even sure. I have a very modest display, as you know, and I'll be damned if the black levels in here didn't look fantastic. I can imagine this movie looking like the most beautiful thing in the world on a perfect blacks TV (wink, wink Djoberg and Snell), but this thing will look great on basically anything, to be honest.

Contrast, detail, depth, texture, facial close ups, daytime scenes, night scenes, sunsets, sunrises, everything looks fantastic. I was a bit worried at the beginning for I thought there was some kind of black crush, certainly due to the intentional color grading, but I quickly understood the stylistic choice, and quite frankly, it still looked damn fine, because shadow detail was ever present.

There are some very demanding CGI scenes, and they're handled splendidly, although they're are arguably and expectedly the *weakest* part of the movie, if we're to nitpick, but they're the best it can be, and it doesn't dampen the PQ a bit.

The audio track needs to be mentioned as well, because it's terrific. It's not a bass fest, but what is present is very well done and gives weight where it needs to be. The bass graph shows this is an unfiltered mix, so it will satisfy even the most capable systems. The whole mix is clear, precise dynamic, in a word, first class.

*Exodus: Gods and Kings* is a reference disc in all respects. This BD is on my personal top five, and barring animated films and UHDs, I can't imagine this title not being in the top ten BDs, and most certainly should be on the top 30-50 overall. WOW.


Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^

I can't wait to see this again when I get my OLED, for the BLACKS and the COLORS should really shine. And BTW, I happen to own the UHD version of it, so I'm really looking forward to the HDR performance with its specular highlights.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Gladiator (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 0* (0.9)*

The remastered BD sits at 1.0 and I can't say this is a great improvement on that placement. *djoberg* placed this at 0.66 and I don't have an argument against it at that position. Clarity is pretty much on par with the BD but the Dolby Vision gives a slight improvement to the colors.


----------



## AmerCa

Be excited for the upcoming release of *Aquaman*!! From *MrGrey * and the fellow bass thread:



> Aquaman UHD is absolutely incredible!. The bass and mix is just phenomenal but the world of Aquman is without a doubt the most beautiful, vast and diverse I've never seen to date. I legit envy those with a reference class OLED tv's because with the insanely bright, vast, deep and vivid colors it's truly something incredible to see. O and my subwoofer got hot and shutdown because of the super long and hot bass sceen during clash of water worlds (i made that name up but when you see it you'll know what I'm talking about). I'm not even runnig this movie HOT, WTF, lol. The only movie coming out that i think MAYBE can top thr Incredible world of Aquman is DUNE (2020) but that world maybe be dark and grim so it won't be in beauty but it's absolute AWE in scale and diversity. I seriously love this movie and I'm so happy it made an absolute killing passing 1 Billion at the box office. On the VFX side thr houses truly did something special here. Having a two hour movie filled with liquid simulation and keeping everything at a first class quality without any weak points is something you have to deeply respect in this day and age of vfx houses being forced to finish fast and send out truly subpar work that is a spit in the face of their true capabilities. Anyways my sub has cooled down so I'm going back in to finish the movie


Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^

I guess I'm getting a "reference class OLED tv" just in time!!


----------



## AmerCa

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^
> 
> I guess I'm getting a "reference class OLED tv" just in time!!


Lol. I can't wait to hear your impressions. You always said how badly you wanted an OLED, and now you'll have it...just in time for quite possibly the new reference HDR disc.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## Phantom Stranger

AmerCa said:


> Be excited for the upcoming release of *Aquaman*!! From *MrGrey * and the fellow bass thread:


GameReviewGod, an old friend of this thread and once a frequent contributor, has already seen Aquaman's UHD. He may have even reviewed it somewhere. The colors are absolutely dazzling with Dolby Vision, probably the best ever seen on home video from what I've heard. The movie was finished at 2K resolution, so it's not quite as sharp and detailed as the very, very best.


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^
> 
> I guess I'm getting a "reference class OLED tv" just in time!!


Which OLED did you end up getting?


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> Which OLED did you end up getting?


The "GeeK Squad" will be here in 30 minutes with my LGOLED77C8! 

I had told myself my next upgrade would be an 85" display, but since I wanted an OLED I will be content with a 77". I guess I should be happy I'm gaining a whole 2" of screen real estate.

I will have most of the day to play around with it but we leave early tomorrow morning for Minneapolis and won't be home until Saturday night.


----------



## fredxr2d2

djoberg said:


> I will have most of the day to play around with it but we leave early tomorrow morning for Minneapolis and won't be home until Saturday night.



This is always the worst feeling. I empathize with this so much. Sorry you have to leave your new baby for a few days!


----------



## djoberg

fredxr2d2 said:


> This is always the worst feeling. I empathize with this so much. Sorry you have to leave your new baby for a few days!


It turned out I had to leave for Minneapolis 5 minutes after the Geek Squad left! I hope to return home tomorrow night and I will dial in some settings and start getting acquainted with the display. 

I will say I was watching some 4K content while they were doing updates and it looked amazing. It was brighter than my 940D and the colors were more robust. I also saw a few satellite channels and they looked worse than my Sony did, but in fairness this was not the mode I would have preferred and it wasn’t tweaked yet.


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> The "GeeK Squad" will be here in 30 minutes with my LGOLED77C8!
> 
> I had told myself my next upgrade would be an 85" display, but since I wanted an OLED I will be content with a 77". I guess I should be happy I'm gaining a whole 2" of screen real estate.
> 
> I will have most of the day to play around with it but we leave early tomorrow morning for Minneapolis and won't be home until Saturday night.


Excellent choice! YUGE OLED.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Sounds good, enjoy the new display. 

*Perfect Blue*

recommendation: *Tier 3.5**

The 1997 anime receives a new remastering and hits Blu-ray for the first time in North America courtesy of Shout Factory/GKIDS. The relatively low score reflects the limitations of _Perfect Blue's_ older, low-budget animation. It was originally made for the OVA market and only became a theatrical release well into production.

Don't expect the deeply saturated palettes of modern CGI animation or impressive detail. The animation is ordinary by the standards of the 1990s, looking more like television fare than theatrical releases of the period from say Studio Ghibli or Disney. This is a fine presentation with an honest transfer from the original film masters. It does use the completely uncut version.


----------



## AmerCa

*XxX: Return of Xander Cage (2017 - Paramount) *










*Tier Recommendation: 1.75 *

*Djoberg* (1.75): https://www.avsforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=53839945

I was sure I had already reviewed this movie, I had to double check, but no, only in my mind.

I thought I was being a being too harsh on this disc with a 1.75 placement, but after reading Djoberg review, I realized it was fair. Beside that problematic night scene, the daytime/interior shots were too irregular for a blockbuster of this caliber. Overall it's a nice video presentation, but I found myself too much bothered by its imperfections that I couldn't in good faith rank it higher.

The ATMOS track deserves a special mention, because deliciously excessively loud and bass heavy, and it perfectly matches the ridiculous plot and overblown, almost laughable action. Sounds good? Good, because it is. I'm not a big fan of the first movie, but this one is my jam. Guns, explosions, fights, ridiculous action, great soundtrack, hot chicks, hell yeah!

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

Well, I was able to spend a few hours with my new LG OLED and then we got company for the weekend. Having said that, I was able to share my new toy with my daughter and her young daughter by watching about 20 minutes of the UHD _Planet Earth 2_. Needless to say, it had amazing PQ. After my granddaughter went to bed I also showed my daughter some snippets from _Gatsby_ (starring Leonardo DiCaprio), for that UHD has some of the most spectacular COLORS, DETAILS and BLACK LEVELS ever! With my Sony 940D I would always get terrible blooming/light bleed into my black bars but with the OLED that is a "thing of the past!!" Some of the scenes in the yard of Gatsby and the garden area of his neighbor at night displayed some of the best SHADOW DETAILS I've ever seen, bar none. My jaw was on the floor for every minute of those scenes!!

I also watched the first 20-30 minutes of the UHD _Passengers_ and believe me when I say I have never seen "star fields" look this rich with perfect blacks and amazingly detailed stars/galaxies. I also wanted to check out a UHD with Dolby Vision so I put in _Mortal Engines_ and I was so floored by the PQ I was tempted to watch it all the way through. I should say that I bought the LG UBK90 Dolby Vision Blu-ray player and it works flawlessly (it's on sale at Best Buy right now for a very good price). I was glad to see the Dolby Vision display come up immediately when the disc started loading so I knew I was getting Dolby Vision instead of the alternative (HDR10).

I hate to end on a more negative note, but in watching satellite broadcasts they are definitely not as detailed as my 940D was. They can come across as a bit soft too. I did all the "tweaking" I could do but it still couldn't match my LED/LCD display (and it certainly couldn't come close to my former Pioneer KURO which was excellent with 720p/1080i up-scaling to 1080p). Don't get me wrong, most of the stuff I watch has pretty good source material and it's all "acceptable," but it's just not "great." Later tonight or tomorrow night I will be checking out streaming from Amazon Prime and watching some YouTube videos as well.

Next movie to watch...the UHD _Robin Hood_!


----------



## CJackson

Has 2001: A Space Odyssey (remastered) been rated yet?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

CJackson said:


> Has 2001: A Space Odyssey (remastered) been rated yet?


The only *2001* currently ranked is the original Blu-ray edition from years ago. It's located in Tier 1.75. I presume you are asking about the remastered UHD that came out in December.


----------



## CJackson

Phantom Stranger said:


> The only *2001* currently ranked is the original Blu-ray edition from years ago. It's located in Tier 1.75. I presume you are asking about the remastered UHD that came out in December.



Yes. The new 4K and 1080P releases.


----------



## djoberg

CJackson said:


> Has 2001: A Space Odyssey (remastered) been rated yet?





CJackson said:


> Yes. The new 4K and 1080P releases.


I have every intention of purchasing the 4K release. However...I am already "backed up" in my Blu-ray viewing due to breaking in my new LG OLED. Also, I have three new 4K Blu-rays on my "ready to view shelf" on my Blu-ray/CD storage unit. They are: _Aquaman_, _Spider-Man Into the Spider Verse_ and _Robin Hood_.


----------



## AmerCa

°=°=^°
Wow. Looking forward to your reviews!

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

I have watched about 1/3 of _Robin Hood (2010 release)_ so far. It is a VERY DARK film but thankfully the shadow details are mostly good. There is a bit of softness and noise at times. I'll give a more formal review and placement after I finish it tonight.

I am REALLY EXCITED to see _Aquaman_ and _Spider-Man into the Spider Verse_. Many are touting these as REFERENCE for both PQ and AQ!


----------



## djoberg

*Robin Hood (2010...UHD)*

This was a LONG film (almost 3 hours!) with the first half containing MANY dark scenes. Most of them held up well, with very good shadow details and depth. Some of them had softness, resulting in a lack of details and depth, along with instances of noise., I kept thinking, "Man, I will be giving this a Tier Gold or maybe even Tier Silver placement"....but, READ ON!

The second half featured MANY outdoor, daytime scenes that were absolutely, positively amazing....with brilliant clarity, finely-rendered details (the texture in faces was Reference Quality all the way!!) in the soldiers' chain mail, foliage, brick castles, swords, horses, clothing, etc. The HDR specular highlights of sun rays were spectacular (so were the FIRES at night)!

Black levels were outstanding and I simply can't describe how amazing they are to see on an OLED...it brings back memories of my Pioneer KURO Elite, but even BETTER!! Whites are also excellent, as seen especially in early scenes with women wearing white head coverings. Even though the color palette is rather drab, when colors do appear they are vibrant and very pleasing against an otherwise color-drained background.

Due to the "negatives" listed above I was going to resist putting this in the Top Tier and give it a Top Tier Gold ranking, but guess what? That would be a travesty after seeing some of the many, many scenes where you truly thought you were looking through a window at battlefields, castles, woods, etc. The last battle scene on the beach (it reminded me of the landing at Normandy except in this film it's the enemy storming the beach) with the high cliffs and the crystal/clear water and sand was a "sight to behold!" 

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.9)*

PS The DTS:X audio mix was excellent, especially in battles. I felt like I should be ducking constantly with all the arrows whizzing past me and the buckets of oil being dumped on men from the castle walls had me wanting to cover my head!!!


----------



## djoberg

* Aquaman (UHD)*

*OH.....MY.....WORD!!!!!*

I am still "picking my jaw up from the floor" after being riveted to my 77" screen for the last 2+ hours! This was a "FEAST FOR THE EYES & THE EARS" and it is easily one of the best "LIVE action" movies to date. Granted, there were tons of CGI so it wasn't all "real live action," but kudos to those who created this other-worldly film that rivals _Avatar_ and in many respects looks even better.

In spite of a "noisy" beginning, this one has splendid clarity, mesmerizing details, and last, but certainly not least, explosive COLORS that gives you all the EYE CANDY that you could ever take in! I think I'm going to stop at this point and simply give you a link to the short analysis I just posted on Ralph Potts' webpage on the movie.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-...n-ultra-hd-blu-ray-review-3.html#post57830832

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (in the Top Three "Live Action" films)*


----------



## AmerCa

^=^°^
Wow. Your review has me even more stoked for revisiting this at home. It's gonna be a while for me to make the 4k jump, but I know this is a title I'll want to experience in UHD when I have the chance, so I'll be waiting for a good deal on the UHD, unless I can get the BD for an excellent deal. I wouldn't mind upgrading later on in such case.

What a way of breaking in your new OLED display!

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## SnellTHX

Wooow. top 3 for live action movies??? Coming from someone who has seen Dunkirk (my #1 ), Transformers 5: LK (My #2 ) and Pacific Rim (My #3 ) 

You're actually not the most hyperbolic person regarding Aquaman's PQ. I read somewhere else that some people thought it was the BEST of the BEST picture quality... Ever. I can't remember if it was a different forum or maybe Ralph Potts' review. Insane. I remember this movie looked really, really good @ Laser IMAX 3D.

Must buy then!


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> Wooow. top 3 for live action movies??? Coming from someone who has seen Dunkirk (my #1 ), Transformers 5: LK (My #2 ) and Pacific Rim (My #3 )
> 
> You're actually not the most hyperbolic person regarding Aquaman's PQ. I read somewhere else that some people thought it was the BEST of the BEST picture quality... Ever. I can't remember if it was a different forum or maybe Ralph Potts' review. Insane. I remember this movie looked really, really good @ Laser IMAX 3D.
> 
> Must buy then!


After "sleeping on it," it may fall into the "top 5 live action movies." Snell, you will by happy to know that a good 65% of the film was in the IMAX FULL SCREEN Aspect Ratio.


----------



## AmerCa

SnellTHX said:


> I read somewhere else that some people thought it was the BEST of the BEST picture quality... Ever


I seriously doubt that. It will look amazing for the HDR and WCG, but I'm not sure it will compare with the best PQ reviewed here. It's still a must buy, tho.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## Jbhur212

For people with 4K set ups and ISF calibrated displays (or at least customized to their viewing environments), Aquaman truly is a stunning disc, quite possibly the best as has been said by people watching it with the right equipment. Incredibly sharp looking and the pop of the colors on this disc really blows pretty much away all if the 50 or more discs I have viewed in my HT.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^

Yes, I can see why some people (with an accurate 4K display) might view _Aquaman_ as the "possibly the best" UHD movie they've ever seen. Besides the absolutely GORGEOUS COLORS that Dolby Vision brings to the table, the IMAX scenes gives you one of the best (if not the best) immersive experiences I've ever had. I can't explain this fully, for I've seen quite a few UHD movies with IMAX scenes in them, but there was something about those scenes in _Aquaman_ that bring those scenes to a new level of immersion. Perhaps it's the fact that most of them take place under water in a world that is just as fascinating as the world we saw in _Avatar_, with unbelievable cities and creatures that are BIGGER THAN LIFE. Again, words will fail to describe how amazing this is; you really have to "see it to believe it."

I guess I'm really encouraging those with 4K displays to consider buying the UHD version of this film and treat your eyes, which are craving EYE CANDY, to this VISUAL WONDER.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Kingsman: The Secret Service (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

*Kingsman: The Golden Circle (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

These movies are good for the most part but there are some CGI scenes that look like they were done on the cheap which keeps them out of the top tier.


----------



## djoberg

*Spider-Man: Into the Spider Verse (UHD)*

We have, BY FAR (and I mean, BY FAR), the new "King of Animated Movies!"

I thought I had seen the newest and most colorful CGI last night when viewing _Aquaman_, but it some ways it doesn't compare to what I just saw. The COLORS in this amazing, innovative animated marvel are....well, I don't have words to tell you what they are. I'll only say I saw colors I've literally never seen before and they were exploding so fast and so often in some scenes that your eyes simply can't process them.

Along with the spell-binding colors, you have the most DEEP & INKY BLACKS ever seen in an animated film. WOW is all I can say. And then you add BRILLIANT WHITES to the mix (right next to the INFINITELY DEEP BLACKS) and you have the strongest CONTRAST your eyes have ever seen. Like I said last night in my _Aquaman_ review, you have to "see it to believe it."

I would be remiss if I didn't mention DETAILS & TEXTURE. They may not be what you would normally see in a Pixar release...with photo-realistic images of real humans, landscapes, buildings, etc., but they are there none-the-less to give your eyes the rush they crave!

It's time to place this...oh, wait a minute...I already did in my opening statement! But I'll make it official now...

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (#2)*

PS I almost forgot the other half of this REFERENCE disc...the Dolby Atmos audio mix! Let me just say this; it was just as good as last night's AURAL NIRVANA experience!!


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^

I forgot to give you all a "heads up" on this one. It starts out with less-than-stellar colors and _some_ soft shots due to the very unique animation, which includes kind of a "3D LOOK without the 3D glasses on." Besides that the skin is most unusual in many of the characters. You'll see what I mean when you watch it, but throughout the vast majority of this nearly 2 hour running time you have striking clarity; in fact, RAZOR-SHARP clarity.

I trust I'm not building this up too much. I know I read a lot of what I thought may be HYPE before I viewed this and with my anticipation being quite great I figured there would be a measure of disappointment. I was clearly wrong. I will also add this is #1 "for an animated film." It still won't compare to the full UHD live action movie that now occupies #1 ...I'm speaking of _Planet Earth 2 (UHD)_.

In full disclosure, I will also say that I did NOT enjoy the movie nearly as much as many other animated marvels. It was paced way too fast and I just didn't connect with the characters like I did in a Pixar or Dreamworks film where they at least give you more "character development."


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> After "sleeping on it," it may fall into the "top 5 live action movies." Snell, you will by happy to know that a good 65% of the film was in the IMAX FULL SCREEN Aspect Ratio.


Awesome, can't wait


----------



## djoberg

I decided, after much thought, to Edit my review of _Spider-Man Into the Verse_ and place it at *#2* in Tier 0. I also changed my first line to say why I did this, for it is indeed the "King of Animated Movies." So, I placed it UNDER _Planet Earth 2 (UHD)_, which I believe still deserves to be "King of the Blu-ray Hill."


----------



## SnellTHX

AmerCa said:


> I seriously doubt that. It will look amazing for the HDR and WCG, but I'm not sure it will compare with the best PQ reviewed here. It's still a must buy, tho.
> 
> Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


Have you seen it yourself? I've seen some pretty reliable sources claim similar statements as our own Djoberg here who claims Top 3 spot for Aquaman.. That is indeed no joke, and highly surprising for me. I've seen three DC Movies on Blu-ray at home, these are:
Batman Vs Superman - Tier 1.75
Wonder Woman - Tier 2 
Justice League - Tier 1

My Personal ratings have been generally good, but nothing special. Now compare that to what I've seen from Marvel:

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2 - Tier 0 (top 10 at the time)
Avengers - Tier 0 (top 10 and the time, probably top 20, not seen since 2012, 7 years ago)
Ant-Man - Tier 0(.5)
Avengers Infinity War - Tier 0(.5)
Black Panther - Tier 0(.75)

Those are my top 5, can't remember what I'd rate the others, I think Thor films, Civil War, Winter Soldier, Age of Ultron, GOTG are Tier 1-1.5

So I'm more shocked than anyone that a DC film (not made by Nolan and filmed in IMAX 15/70mm) would place anywhere near Tier 0, let alone someone's top 3


----------



## AmerCa

@SnellTHX
Obviously not, otherwise I'd have reviewed it already, 

I can't comment on the UHD, so I'll leave those with 4k capability weight on it. Mine is just a guess based on what I saw at theaters. I still expect it to look amazing, especially in 4k. Best of the best? I'll have to see it for myself.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^

Just chiming in to give a "slight correction" to Snell's latest post. As you recall, I ended up changing my mind on _Aquaman_...from the "Top 3 Live Action Movies" to the "Top 5 Live Action Movies." I stand by that statement!

FWIW, I just got off from the Best Buy website where I ordered two more UHD films..._2001 Space Odyssey_ and _Bumblebee_. They should be here by Friday.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^

One more thing. I just read Ralph Potts' review of _Bumblebee_ and he gave it a very high score for both the PQ and AQ. And I thought I should inform Snell that it sounds like the whole movie is in the 1.85:1 Aspect Ratio, so our WHOLE SCREEN will be filled with HD (or UHD if you have a 4K display) in all its glory!


----------



## AmerCa

^°^°^°^°^
It just pains me so much that I didn't like *Bumblebee * as I expected, and *gasp* I don't think I'll be buying it...unless I get a very, very good deal on it, and just for the A/V candy...and even then, maybe I won't, lol. Kinda hard to believe, as you know how much I love Transformers.

It's not at bad movie, I must say, just not the kind of stuff I'll rewatch over and over. Unlike Transformers, however, this one you can watch with the family, so it can be a plus to some.

On an unrelated note, I went to the store today with the firm intention of buying the new Spider-Man and _Overlord_, and ended up buying some steels on sale, so no Spidey and war zombies for this month, at least. It didn't help that while I enjoyed both of those, I wasn't particularly crazy about them, aside for experiencing the reference audio.

This year I've managed to slow down considerably my BD spending quota, but it's extremely hard with so much good stuff coming out lately. :/

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^^

I hear you, especially when you say, "This year I've managed to slow down considerably my BD spending quota, but it's extremely hard with so much good stuff coming out lately." Last year I bought very few discs but this year has been crazy! In fairness, with some of those I've been using Best Buy certificates that I've received for buying "other stuff" (like an expensive LG OLED)!


----------



## AmerCa

*Suicide Squad [Extended Cut] (2016 - Warner) *










*Tier Recommendation: 2.0 *

*Phantom* (1.5): https://www.avsforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=50813545

I know this movie was generally panned, but I was surprised to find only one rating for this movie, and from Phantom, none the less.

Personally, I was hugely disappointed by the PQ of this BD. I watched it on theaters, but my memory is fuzzy on how it looked, but the contrast between the colorful movie posters and, especially, the disc menu with the actual content is quite sad. The films a drab color timing, and scenes that should explode with colors and contrast, well, they don't. But then again, this is a David Ayer film, so maybe I expected too much.

I liked very little about the video presentation, but generally speaking, it's a fine looking disc, but I wouldn't use to demo anything.

Now, my shiny steel book only came with the Extended Cut, despite the sticker on the back listing both cuts running times... but of course, I just noticed the Theatrical Cut IS on the included DVD...so I may have a reason to pop in a DVD after all. It's been years since I watched one.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## Phantom Stranger

As for the movie itself, I mostly liked Suicide Squad. As I mentioned in my review, the visuals are darker in tone than Marvel fare. I got the feeling the director wanted Suicide Squad's aesthetic looking like something from the Purge franchise. I remember there's a large amount of CGI and greenscreen FX, which usually necessitates a muted palette and heavier black levels.

I can't really argue with your score. I'd probably give Suicide Squad a lower score myself if I were reviewing it today.


----------



## AmerCa

^°^°^°^
Yeah, I liked SS very much as well. You can tell the direction Ayer wanted to take with the film, but Warner's interference is well documented. Despite the mess SS is in many ways, I still find it a very addictive movie, with many strong points, and a high replay value. SS is clearly the outlier in the current DCEU, and I appreciate it for that.

Warner did the right thing hiring directors with a strong distinct style, and with a unique vision they could bring to the movies. But you can't hire this type of directors and then want to "control" them to produce formulaic films. Apparently, they've learn their lesson, and they're allowing the current directors more artistic freedom, even when the Marvel "touch" is becoming more apparent.

I know I'm in the minority, but I'll sorely miss Snyder.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

CJackson said:


> Has 2001: A Space Odyssey (remastered) been rated yet?





CJackson said:


> Yes. The new 4K and 1080P releases.


My UHD copy arrived an hour ago and I plan to watch it tonight!


----------



## CJackson

djoberg said:


> My UHD copy arrived an hour ago and I plan to watch it tonight!



I look forward to your thoughts.


----------



## djoberg

*2001: A Space Odyssey (UHD)*

It has been decades since I've seen this Stanley Kubrick CLASSIC and I was even more in AWE of this mind-bending film watching it tonight. The eerie SILENCE....the amazing ORCHESTRA MUSIC....the stunning VISUALS....and last, but not least....the STORY itself....had me glued to my chair and my eyes riveted to the screen. Many (who are accustomed to non-stop action and mindless drivel) will be tempted to "pull the plug" long before the "Intermission" appears on the screen, but to those who admire true film-making at its best, this is a 4K marvel that deserves 2+ hours of your life (which in turn will turn into repeated viewings in the future).

I will say from the outset of my PQ analysis, this will NOT rise to the Top of Tier 0, but it will surely find its way somewhere in the middle or bottom third. I will start with the "negatives" that must be penalized. There is some "inherent softness" though great pains were obviously taken in transferring the restored 70mm film into the 4K Blu-ray. Shots of softness are seen in the opening scene (The Dawn of Man), especially in mid to long range shots. There were some fleeting "out of focus" shots and a bit of aliasing in those same scenes. But in fairness there was appreciable clarity too, with finely-rendered details in apes and craggy rocks. 

From there we jump to SPACE where we are treated to brilliant CONTRAST throughout the rest of the movie...with the dazzling WHITE SPACESHIPS next to the BLACKNESS OF SPACE (though I must bring out that there is a fair amount of "dark grays" that make up space...this was easily detected in comparing it with my letter-boxed bars which had PERFECT BLACKS). In the spaceship the contrast is even stronger, with WHITE SPACE SUITS against BLACK and COLORFUL control panels and walls. Speaking of COLORS, the palette is limited but the primaries that were on display were as rich and vibrant as can be. The first instance of this is in a lounge with BRIGHT RED CHAIRS that were absolutely gorgeous. Then you had the red and yellow space suits worn outside the spaceship that really jumped out at you against the darkness of space and the twinkling of stars. And last, but not least, you had a colorful light show at the end that was mesmerizing! This is where DOLBY VISION shines the most!!

One more thing. The razor-sharp clarity inside the spaceship cabin (and other interior scenes) was to-die-for. This clarity carried with it intricate details in clothing and especially in facial texture. Pure EYE CANDY!!

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.66)*

PS I could see some going higher than this, but I'm going to be conservative considering the negatives listed above.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Star Wars Rebels: Complete Season Two*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

Excellent animation but sometimes lacks texture, sometimes the surfaces fall flat.


----------



## DarthDoxie

djoberg said:


> *Spider-Man: Into the Spider Verse (UHD)*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> We have, BY FAR (and I mean, BY FAR), the new "King of Animated Movies!"
> 
> I thought I had seen the newest and most colorful CGI last night when viewing _Aquaman_, but it some ways it doesn't compare to what I just saw. The COLORS in this amazing, innovative animated marvel are....well, I don't have words to tell you what they are. I'll only say I saw colors I've literally never seen before and they were exploding so fast and so often in some scenes that your eyes simply can't process them.
> 
> Along with the spell-binding colors, you have the most DEEP & INKY BLACKS ever seen in an animated film. WOW is all I can say. And then you add BRILLIANT WHITES to the mix (right next to the INFINITELY DEEP BLACKS) and you have the strongest CONTRAST your eyes have ever seen. Like I said last night in my _Aquaman_ review, you have to "see it to believe it."
> 
> I would be remiss if I didn't mention DETAILS & TEXTURE. They may not be what you would normally see in a Pixar release...with photo-realistic images of real humans, landscapes, buildings, etc., but they are there none-the-less to give your eyes the rush they crave!
> 
> It's time to place this...oh, wait a minute...I already did in my opening statement! But I'll make it official now...
> 
> 
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (#2)*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> PS I almost forgot the other half of this REFERENCE disc...the Dolby Atmos audio mix! Let me just say this; it was just as good as last night's AURAL NIRVANA experience!!



Saw this on Blu at a friend's house so can't give it a rating but I thought it looked excellent. Might have to put this on my Black Friday list.


----------



## djoberg

*Bumblebee (UHD)*

This will never compete with _Transformers: The Last Knight_ for #1 , nor will it be placed anywhere near the top of Tier 0, but I have no doubt it will still land somewhere in the middle. The COLORS were excellent thanks to Dolby Vision! These especially POP in every scene that took place at the amusement park where Charlie works...my jaw was on the floor!! BLACK LEVELS and SHADOW DETAILS were also very good, though in fairness some of the heavy CGI scenes softened a bit and became somewhat murky.

DETAILS were exemplary....FLESH TONES were spot-on....CONTRAST was ideal....DEPTH was appreciable....and CLARITY was superb (in every daytime, outdoor scene). The cinematography around San Francisco served up all these virtues and I was really blessed by the aerial shots. This one also had a more "filmic-look" and was definitely more "natural-looking" without the hyped-up contrast.

Before I place it, I have to give a shout out for the topnotch Dolby Atmos mix. Though the action was mild in comparison to the rest of the _Transformers Franchise_, when there was action (explosions, gunfire, car chases, etc.) the precision in every channel was perfect, including crystal-clear dialogue in the center channel and room-shaking LFE/bass in the subs.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.66)*

PS I appreciated the fact that there was some "character development" in this. There is a lot to be said for a "slower pace"; all the former Transformer films gave me a headache by the end with their nonstop action.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^^

Once again, after "sleeping on it," I have a slight "change of mind" regarding my placement of _Bumblebee_. I now would opt for .66 instead of .5 due to the "soft shots" and lack of clarity in some of the CGI scenes. When you compare this with _Transformers: The Last Knight_ you realize how drastically the style has been changed. In some ways I like the change (more "natural-looking" for one thing), but it surely lacks the razor-sharp clarity that dominated T:TLK from beginning to end.


----------



## fredxr2d2

djoberg said:


> *Bumblebee (UHD)*
> 
> 
> 
> PS I appreciated the fact that there was some "character development" in this. There is a lot to be said for a "slower pace"; all the former Transformer films gave me a headache by the end with their nonstop action.



I really appreciated that this movie felt like a much better Transformers movie than the recent releases (I made it through The Last Knight only by sheer force of will). There was a story here, and acting to support it. I can only hope they give more credence to telling good stories over mindless bombastic action. I mean, as much as you can in a series based off of toys from the 80s.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Vault*

recommendation: *Tier 2.25**

The so-so bank heist thriller starring James Franco was recently reissued by FilmRise. The 2017 production resembles many other recent indie films. The 1080P video has a steady contrast and reasonably crisp definition, taken from a clean digital intermediate. 

There's nothing really extraordinary going in the visuals. At the same time, outside of a few small banding issues this is a fine HD presentation.


----------



## djoberg

*Oblivion (UHD)*

I just watched the UHD version last night for the first time and I agree 100% with Darth's review below. I will just add that the "first half" of the film was definitely "darker" and didn't have the POP that the "second half" did. And I also have to add, "I am SO HAPPY to finally have an OLED so I could truly appreciate the BLACK LEVELS in this movie with PITCH BLACK letter-boxed bars and ZERO blooming/light bleed. The fact is, I'm so blown away by the CONTRAST and COLORS of an OLED that I may just save myself some money in the foreseeable future and watch all of my UHD Blu-ray library again (I have nearly 80 titles).

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.75)*

PS I also LOVED the Dolby Atmos mix!!




DarthDoxie said:


> *Oblivion (UHD)*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 0* (0.75)*
> 
> Nice presentation with lots of detail and strong contrast, only a few instances of elevated blacks. The black levels and contrast on the Scavs' suits is eye popping, some of the best I've seen on UHD.
> 
> As for the debate about the differences on the overall look of the BD (more harsh LED light look) vs. the UHD (warmer incandescent look), I think it's moot. I compared scenes on both discs and couldn't really see a huge difference and nothing to get worked up about.


----------



## Wild Blue

Sorry if I missed this being posted somewhere. Are the actual PQ and AQ tier rating threads no longer being updated? Looks like they haven't been updated since 2017, and I don't see any notes about it.


----------



## AmerCa

Chris Dotur said:


> Sorry if I missed this being posted somewhere. Are the actual PQ and AQ tier rating threads no longer being updated? Looks like they haven't been updated since 2017, and I don't see any notes about it.


The PQ tiers have been updated up to tier 1 a few weeks ago. Tier 0 is in process.

The AQ thread is dead. For all talk about audio, check the Ultimate Bass Thread. The thread focuses on bass, but overall AQ is very often discussed. There's a list of best bass movies per year, at least from 2016 on.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## Jbhur212

djoberg said:


> *Oblivion (UHD)*
> 
> I just watched the UHD version last night for the first time and I agree 100% with Darth's review below. I will just add that the "first half" of the film was definitely "darker" and didn't have the POP that the "second half" did. And I also have to add, "I am SO HAPPY to finally have an OLED so I could truly appreciate the BLACK LEVELS in this movie with PITCH BLACK letter-boxed bars and ZERO blooming/light bleed. The fact is, I'm so blown away by the CONTRAST and COLORS of an OLED that I may just save myself some money in the foreseeable future and watch all of my UHD Blu-ray library again (I have nearly 80 titles).
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.75)*
> 
> PS I also LOVED the Dolby Atmos mix!!


Have to agree with your review. Thought it looked very nice in my HT (never noticed the softness people talked about over at blu-ray.com) but the biggest difference for me was the Atmos track. Simply amazing. As I've said before, paying to have my speakers professionally set up after all these years has breathed new life into my HT. And the 77C8 helped, too (as you have indicated, also, with your enthusiastic comments).


----------



## djoberg

Jbhur212 said:


> Have to agree with your review. Thought it looked very nice in my HT (never noticed the softness people talked about over at blu-ray.com) but the biggest difference for me was the Atmos track. Simply amazing. As I've said before, paying to have my speakers professionally set up after all these years has breathed new life into my HT. And the 77C8 helped, too (as you have indicated, also, with your enthusiastic comments).


I wish I could have Jeff calibrate my speakers, but overall I'm quite satisfied with the calibration that I did with my Denon AVR (Audyssey MULTEQ XT32). The only adjustment I made was in the subs, for I thought they were a bit "lean" so I bumped them up about 5 dB. I always liking running my subs a little HOT!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Chris Dotur said:


> Sorry if I missed this being posted somewhere. Are the actual PQ and AQ tier rating threads no longer being updated? Looks like they haven't been updated since 2017, and I don't see any notes about it.


The AQ Tiers were abandoned years ago. The PQ Tiers are fully updated below Tier 0 through January of 2019. Expect Tier 0 to be completed in the coming weeks.


If you are interested in finding more recent Tier 0 results sooner, searching for specific movies in this thread will return the scores that will make up the next update.


----------



## djoberg

*Hacksaw Ridge (UHD)*

I had never reviewed the UHD copy of this title. I gave the 1080p release a Tier 0 (.75) placement and this easily takes it up a couple of notches. The CLARITY and DETAILS are simply INSANE from beginning to end!! I don't recall the BLACK LEVELS being this good, and that includes the SHADOW DETAILS. I do recall there being a lot of light bleeding into my letter-boxed bars throughout the film but with my OLED the UHD version was absolutely free of any blooming/halos.

I feel compelled to say a word about the CONTRAST. If you've seen this you know there's quite a few outdoor, daytime scenes in the first half that take place in the hospital (where Desmond met the "love of his life"). The BRIGHT WHITES or her nurse's uniform was a thing to behold! And whenever you had something bright (like fire-throwers against the night sky) the contrast was spectacular. 

I only had one sub when viewing the 1080p blu-ray and I can hardly believe how much more energy and tactile sensations I got from the dual subs, especially when the destroyers let loose with their big canons on the top of Hacksaw. Man, what an AURAL EXPERIENCE!!

In fairness there was one very brief anomaly right at the end....some banding in the sky when they were lowering Desmond down on the cot, but I'm resorting to nit-picking in mentioning this in light of the tremendous virtues alluded to above.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (.25)*


----------



## djoberg

I'm leaving this morning for an 8-day trip out-of-country, but when I return I hope to start renting some Blu-rays. I have really been enjoying some of my 4K Blu-ray library and will still continue doing that. I may "pop in" from time to time on my iPad so I hope to see some reviews from you guys!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Malibu Express*

recommendation: *Tier 3.75**

It's hard placing _Malibu Express_ any higher than the bottom half of Tier Three. The cheesy Andy Sidaris movie came out in 1985, ripping off Magnum, P.I. in grand b-movie fashion. Mill Creek brings the cult movie out on Blu-ray for the first time in a serviceable widescreen presentation. This isn't a reference film scan from restored elements - the film print arrives in stable but soft condition. Fine detail is largely lacking and grain reproduction is erratic at best.

This transfer does have real definition and HD clarity in the best-filmed scenes. Black levels are a little coarse, limiting shadow delineation. This disc does represent a substantial upgrade over prior DVD releases, which weren't even in widescreen.


----------



## hdtv316

Jbhur212 said:


> Have to agree with your review. Thought it looked very nice in my HT (never noticed the softness people talked about over at blu-ray.com) but the biggest difference for me was the Atmos track. Simply amazing. As I've said before, paying to have my speakers professionally set up after all these years has breathed new life into my HT. And the 77C8 helped, too (as you have indicated, also, with your enthusiastic comments).


I would put Oblivion right at the bottom of Tier 2 or Tier 3 due to DNR. The Blu-ray displays more medium and high frequency details than the UHD which is quite heavily filtered The filtering is quite similar to 3:10 to Yuma and Dredd UHDs. Don't be fooled by HDR on Oblivion as other PQ aspects have been compromised 

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

hdtv316 said:


> I would put Oblivion right at the bottom of Tier 2 or Tier 3 due to DNR. Don't be fooled by HDR on Oblivion as other PQ aspects have been compromised
> 
> Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk


I’m NOT fooled by the HDR...I’m FASCINATED by it! I stand by my placement recommendation and I’m sure the others do too. I do respect your opinion though.


----------



## djoberg

I’ll be flying home from Nassau, Bahamas tomorrow but may not arrive until after midnight. It may be a few days after that before I can start renting blus!


----------



## dla26

I'm curious if anyone knows of movies that are good examples of HDR? Great Wall comes to mind, but I'm not sure if there are others that really show off the range of the color palette.


----------



## fredxr2d2

dla26 said:


> I'm curious if anyone knows of movies that are good examples of HDR? Great Wall comes to mind, but I'm not sure if there are others that really show off the range of the color palette.



My personal favorite for HDR is Avengers Infinity War. Looks great on my projector - whether that translates to other displays may be up for debate.


Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets is pretty good, too. And Spider-man Into the Spider-verse.


I've heard that Lucy is supposed to be great, but I haven't had a chance to watch it in HDR yet.


----------



## dla26

fredxr2d2 said:


> My personal favorite for HDR is Avengers Infinity War. Looks great on my projector - whether that translates to other displays may be up for debate.
> 
> 
> Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets is pretty good, too. And Spider-man Into the Spider-verse.
> 
> 
> I've heard that Lucy is supposed to be great, but I haven't had a chance to watch it in HDR yet.


Thanks! Infinity War sounds like a great suggestion. I actually don't know much about Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets so I'll need to check that out as well.


----------



## djoberg

dla26 said:


> I'm curious if anyone knows of movies that are good examples of HDR? Great Wall comes to mind, but I'm not sure if there are others that really show off the range of the color palette.


Here's a short thread with some great 4K Demo movies listed by different members. I agree with many of the titles listed (check out especially the posts with fairly long lists). I could add more to that list, like _The Revenant_ (it has fantastic specular highlights in sunsets/sunrises and other scenes) and _The Great Gatsby_ (the colors are to-die-for).

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-u...-favorite-4k-blu-ray-movie-chapter-demos.html


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^

Three of the BEST HDR videos...especially for COLORS...

1) Aquaman
2) The Secret Life of Pets 
3) Spider-Man in the Spider Verse


----------



## SnellTHX

fredxr2d2 said:


> My personal favorite for HDR is Avengers Infinity War. Looks great on my projector - whether that translates to other displays may be up for debate.
> 
> 
> Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets is pretty good, too. And Spider-man Into the Spider-verse.
> 
> 
> I've heard that Lucy is supposed to be great, but I haven't had a chance to watch it in HDR yet.


Avengers Infinity War is amazing in HDR! Despite the 2K DI, I think its one of the larger improvements from 1080p blu ray to 4k/HDR. Initially disappointed with the blu-ray compared to the original in 2012, but the 4K/HDR version is just phenomenal.


----------



## djoberg

*The Mule (1080p)*

This is a "squeaky clean" presentation! It may not make the Top Tier but it will easily land near and at the top of Tier Gold.

Clarity reigns supreme throughout with finely-rendered details, especially in close-ups. Colors, though muted at times, were quite pleasing. Contrast was strong, with inky blacks and bright whites. Depth was appreciable...flesh tones were accurate...shadow details were exquisite! The cinematography in country-side shots (during Eastwood's "drug runs" to Chicago) were fantastic.

This was a slow-paced movie but I have never been disappointed with a Clint Eastwood film (he directed, produced and starred in it); this was no exception.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**


----------



## djoberg

*Glass (1080p)*

This is PURE REFERENCE PQ (and AQ), with dazzling CLARITY, mesmerizing DETAILS, and superb DEPTH. Primary COLORS (when on display) are also a "feast for the eyes." Last, but not least, BLACKS and SHADOW DETAILS are stellar!

The Dolby Atmos audio mix was amazing!!

The movie was bizarre/ambiguous/disappointing!

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.33)*


----------



## djoberg

*The Meg (UHD)*

I am giving you a link to my review of the 1080p version from last year where I gave it a 1.5 placement. I can hardly believe the improvement that comes with the UHD version, especially since a couple of reviewers (one of them being DoBlu.com which I highly respect) said that the UHD version was WORSE because of too high a contrast in some scenes, resulting in a "washed out" look. Well, guess what? I saw that "washed out look" in the 1080p version so I was indeed expecting it to look awful but instead of it was excellent, with perfect COLORS (blue sky...blue sea...and swim suits with every color under the sun) and spot on flesh tones. I will also add that the COLORS throughout were more vibrant, no doubt due to the Dolby Vision format.

Another big improvement was BLACK LEVELS and SHADOW DETAILS. In the 1080p copy they faltered at times but not with the UHD release. Even BLACKS in clothing POPPED...with a notable example being at about the one hour mark where the female lead was underwater in a BLACK and YELLOW wetsuit...the BLACK was as inky as could be and man did it look good next to the punchy YELLOW! You gotta love HDR (or, in this case, Dolby Vision).

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-842.html#post57122302

Of course the CLARITY and DETAILS were just as good or better, so I will gladly put this one on my REFERENCE SHELF. I'm thinking it should go right here...

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.5)*

PS The Dolby Atmos mix ROCKED!! But like I said in my former review there should have been more LFE/bass in the explosions.


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> *The Meg (UHD)*
> 
> I am giving you a link to my review of the 1080p version from last year where I gave it a 1.5 placement. I can hardly believe the improvement that comes with the UHD version, especially since a couple of reviewers (one of them being DoBlu.com which I highly respect) said that the UHD version was WORSE because of too high a contrast in some scenes, resulting in a "washed out" look. Well, guess what? I saw that "washed out look" in the 1080p version so I was indeed expecting it to look awful but instead of it was excellent, with perfect COLORS (blue sky...blue sea...and swim suits with every color under the sun) and spot on flesh tones. I will also add that the COLORS throughout were more vibrant, no doubt due to the Dolby Vision format.


I watched this movie in 4K/HDR I thought it looked amazing. I noticed the same as others... It looked really washed out, like a high-end bright IPS with poor contrast... But raising gamma and lowering OLED light made the image really PUNCHY and produces some of the best image quality I've ever seen


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> I watched this movie in 4K/HDR I thought it looked amazing. I noticed the same as others... It looked really washed out, like a high-end bright IPS with poor contrast... But raising gamma and lowering OLED light made the image really PUNCHY and produces some of the best image quality I've ever seen


I have my gamma at 2.2 and my OLED light (which is actually the "Brightness" setting) at 50 (the Default Setting) and it looked absolutely amazing in that last "beach scene." I was truly expecting it to look horrendous so I was pleasantly surprised. I kept telling myself throughout that scene, "This looks SO REAL...just like it would if I was on actually on the beach or in the water."

The movie is truly "over-the-top" but I enjoyed it. The CGI was fantastic and it had a pretty good cast. I also enjoyed the humor throughout.


----------



## djoberg

*Stranger Things: Season 2 (1080p)*

I just finished watching the first 3 episodes and like the first season...it has striking CLARITY and amazing DETAILS in daytime seasons. Now for some even better new! When I watched and reviewed the first season I thought the BLACKS were good, but murky at times. Not so with Season 2! They remained consistently DEEP resulting in excellent DEPTH and exquisite SHADOW DETAILS. Either they "stepped up their game," or the black levels look better now since I'm viewing them on an OLED.

The rest of the "positives" are the same as in my review of Season 1. Here is that review:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-806.html#post55243088

Due to the better blacks/shadow details, I'm inclined to bump my placement up a notch or two....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25**


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^

I'm on a BINGE! Just watched the next 3 episodes and I believe the PQ has gotten better. I would rank what I just saw at 1.0...the daytime scenes were mostly Tier 0 material, as were some of the fantastic night time scenes (I LOVE BLACKS)! The only negatives were some murky blacks in the underground cave system and some soft shots in a couple of low-lit interiors, which I'm sure is the "director's intent."

I've got to take a break. Since getting home I've binged the whole _Hanna_ series on Amazon Prime and most of the _The Widow_ series as well.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> I'm on a BINGE! Just watched the next 3 episodes and I believe the PQ has gotten better. I would rank what I just saw at 1.0...the daytime scenes were mostly Tier 0 material, as were some of the fantastic night time scenes (I LOVE BLACKS)! The only negatives were some murky blacks in the underground cave system and some soft shots in a couple of low-lit interiors, which I'm sure is the "director's intent."
> 
> I've got to take a break. Since getting home I've binged the whole _Hanna_ series on Amazon Prime and most of the _The Widow_ series as well.


Your eyes must be tired, this is some heavy viewing you've accomplished.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> Your eyes must be tired, this is some heavy viewing you've accomplished.


For some reason my eyes are NOT tired. One of the "stranger things" in my life, I guess.

You know me better than most Phantom and it seems like it's usually "Feast or Famine" for me. I do watch a lot of satellite broadcasts on a regular basis but when it comes to Blu-rays or streaming 4K movies from Amazon Prime, I find myself binging or fasting.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I hear what you are saying. Your binge is our gain, Djoberg.

*Enigma (1982)*

recommendation: *Tier 3.5**

As part of their Marquee Collection, MVD puts out Jeannot Szwarc's 1982 spy thriller starring Martin Sheen and Sam Neill. This is a serviceable film transfer from stable elements with decent clarity. The more I watched of it, my first impression of the transfer being an older telecine effort is likely incorrect. This is a newish 2K transfer with a hint of sharpening. It may have been struck from the negative albeit its film elements have gone unrestored. The 1.78:1 presentation has acceptable shadow delineation and adequate grain reproduction. Nothing has been done to spruce up the color palette, the timing has been left untouched.

It was shocking to see the 1080P video getting encoded in MPEG-2, rare these days for a new Blu-ray release. There's no real effect on the video as compression issues aren't a significant problem.


----------



## djoberg

*The Karate Kid (UHD)*

I was browsing Ralph Potts' review site the other day and was pleasantly surprised to learn that _The Karate Kid_ had been released on UHD. This "classic" has been a favorite of ours for many years and since I hadn't purchased a copy since the VHS release "back in the day," I decided to purchase it. Let me just say that for a 1984 film that looked "horrendous" on VHS, "fairly good" on DVD, "definitely improved" on its 2010 Blu-ray release, is now "much better" on this UHD version which takes it up at least a couple of notches, with superior colors, stronger contrast, better details & depth, and amazing black levels.

One thing that will turn off some is the heavy grain structure, which, at times, appears a bit "noisy."

This is NOT reference quality, but I do believe it should land on one's "demo shelf." I would place it right here....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**

PS The Dolby Atmos mix had its moments, but overall I was underwhelmed by it.


----------



## DarthDoxie

djoberg said:


> *Stranger Things: Season 2 (1080p)*
> 
> I just finished watching the first 3 episodes and like the first season...it has striking CLARITY and amazing DETAILS in daytime seasons. Now for some even better new! When I watched and reviewed the first season I thought the BLACKS were good, but murky at times. Not so with Season 2! They remained consistently DEEP resulting in excellent DEPTH and exquisite SHADOW DETAILS. Either they "stepped up their game," or the black levels look better now since I'm viewing them on an OLED.
> 
> The rest of the "positives" are the same as in my review of Season 1. Here is that review:
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-806.html#post55243088
> 
> Due to the better blacks/shadow details, I'm inclined to bump my placement up a notch or two....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.25**



Just got done with this myself and agree with your placement. It's not as good PQ wise as the first season which is disappointing. There are a few instances of banding in some of the darker scenes in the last few episodes.


----------



## djoberg

DarthDoxie said:


> Just got done with this myself and agree with your placement. It's not as good PQ wise as the first season which is disappointing. There are a few instances of banding in some of the darker scenes in the last few episodes.


I hope to see the last three episodes in the next 2-3 nights. I may end up changing my placement if the banding is really bad. Otherwise, I thought the first 6 episodes were as good as the first season.


----------



## djoberg

*The Great Wall (UHD)*

I reviewed the 1080p version and gave it a Tier 0 (.9) ranking. Well, I'm here to tell you the UHD release takes it up TWO....maybe even THREE NOTCHES!! It was AWESOME!!!

I'm going to link my former review so I won't add a whole lot to it. Let me just say that with HDR the COLORS were even more gorgeous, the BLACKS/SHADOW DETAILS were much better (no more murkiness or lack of details in dark or night time scenes), and the CONTRAST was simply brilliant. Oh, and I can't recall the DETAILS (in faces, armor, walls, monsters, etc., etc.) being so rich and intricate. And finally, DEPTH was absolutely superb.

One more thing. I had never heard the Dolby Atmos mix and all I can say is *WOW!!!!!* There were so many battle scenes with arrows or spears whizzing overhead (and all around me!), or explosions directly overhead (and all around me!) that had me grinning from ear to ear and saying *WOW!!!!!*

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-794.html#post53226170

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.25)*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^

I neglected to mention the LFE/bass. Besides the multiple explosions that shook my walls BIG TIME, every time the warriors beat the "war drums" the bass reverberated throughout my room. I don't think I had my dual subs when I first heard the Dolby TrueHD mix on the 1080p copy, so I'm sure that added to the aural experience tonight.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Nemesis 2: Nebula*

recommendation: *Tier 2.75**

Released as part of a Nemesis sequel set by MVD covering movies 2 through 4, AVC compression issues aren't an issue in _Nemesis 2_. All three movies share a single BD-50. The direct-to-video sci-fi movie offers ample clarity, if a bit washed out and overly bright. The colors and contrast could have been tweaked for more life. The low-budget cinematography wasn't really filmed with razor-sharp definition in mind outside of the best-looking exteriors and close-ups.

The film elements are in decent shape with few visible flaws. The heavy usage of optical mattes introduces minor specks of debris strewn throughout select scenes. It's a serviceable film transfer that is mostly film-like. Certainly not the image detail of a 4K film scan, but a fairly recent transfer from clean elements in respectable condition.


----------



## SnellTHX

*Bohemian Rhapsody (4K)*


Haven't reviewed anything in ages as I haven't really had the spare time to watch any movies in a long time. Finally got down to watch Bohemian Rhapsody, watch was an excellent film with stellar picture quality. Although great looking it sort of had a thematic appeal to it, a sort of orangey tint and very analog looking image think warm, slightly soft kind of looking. But the detail was exquisite and what really saved this from a Tier 1 (or lower) ranking was the AMAZING absolute black levels thrown all over the film.


*Tier recommendation: 0.75*


----------



## SnellTHX

Anyone seen Game of Thrones? How does it look like for you Americans? Here in Norway, the official way of watching GOT is via an app called . 'HBO Nordic' . And the picture quality is absolutely garbage. Words cannot even describe how bad it looks. To put it in perspective, Netflix looks AMAZING. Phenomenal picture quality in 4K/DV shows. Even the 1080p/SDR shows (Black Sails in particular) look really good, despite only 5Mb/s bit rate and 1080p resolution (vs 15Mb/s & 2160p in 4K/DV shows) and the 40-60Mb/s of blu and 120Mb/s of 4K/HDR discs...

HBO Nordic offers us picture quality from the year 2005. We're talking compressed 720p resolution, macro-blocking, unrendered scenes at a shocking bit-rate which can be no higher than 2Mb/s. It looks worse than DVD. We're talking VHS quality. in 2019. Shocking.

Norwegian streaming apps are sooo far behind American streams its incredible, and highly ironic. I think the average internet speed in this country is twice as fast as the U.S. If you live in a city, you're pretty much guaranteed to get 50-100Mb/s, some compounds/apartment complexes offer 100-300Mb/s built into your rent. It's almost impossible to have internet slower than 30Mb/s..


Yet HBO Nordic (especially) and other national streaming services give us 2-3Mb/s 720p streams... while Netflix, Amazon etc actually have high quality 4K streams...

I bet you 90% of households here are '8K-ready' Assuming 8K streams would require about ≈ 45Mb/s


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> *Bohemian Rhapsody (4K)*
> 
> 
> Haven't reviewed anything in ages as I haven't really had the spare time to watch any movies in a long time. Finally got down to watch Bohemian Rhapsody, watch was an excellent film with stellar picture quality. Although great looking it sort of had a thematic appeal to it, a sort of orangey tint and very analog looking image think warm, slightly soft kind of looking. But the detail was exquisite and what really saved this from a Tier 1 (or lower) ranking was the AMAZING absolute black levels thrown all over the film.
> 
> 
> *Tier recommendation: 0.75*


I was so impressed with the PQ that I gave it a Tier 0 (.33) ranking!

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-850.html#post57605726


----------



## djoberg

DarthDoxie said:


> Just got done with this myself and agree with your placement. It's not as good PQ wise as the first season which is disappointing. There are a few instances of banding in some of the darker scenes in the last few episodes.


I just finished watching the last 3 episodes. Man, talk about "dark scenes!" For the most part they held up well, with good shadow details, but there was some "black crush" at times. All things considered, I would probably rate the whole season at 1.5.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

SnellTHX said:


> Anyone seen Game of Thrones? How does it look like for you Americans? Here in Norway, the official way of watching GOT is via an app called . 'HBO Nordic' . And the picture quality is absolutely garbage. Words cannot even describe how bad it looks. To put it in perspective, Netflix looks AMAZING. Phenomenal picture quality in 4K/DV shows. Even the 1080p/SDR shows (Black Sails in particular) look really good, despite only 5Mb/s bit rate and 1080p resolution (vs 15Mb/s & 2160p in 4K/DV shows) and the 40-60Mb/s of blu and 120Mb/s of 4K/HDR discs...
> 
> HBO Nordic offers us picture quality from the year 2005. We're talking compressed 720p resolution, macro-blocking, unrendered scenes at a shocking bit-rate which can be no higher than 2Mb/s. It looks worse than DVD. We're talking VHS quality. in 2019. Shocking.
> 
> Norwegian streaming apps are sooo far behind American streams its incredible, and highly ironic. I think the average internet speed in this country is twice as fast as the U.S. If you live in a city, you're pretty much guaranteed to get 50-100Mb/s, some compounds/apartment complexes offer 100-300Mb/s built into your rent. It's almost impossible to have internet slower than 30Mb/s..
> 
> 
> Yet HBO Nordic (especially) and other national streaming services give us 2-3Mb/s 720p streams... while Netflix, Amazon etc actually have high quality 4K streams...
> 
> I bet you 90% of households here are '8K-ready' Assuming 8K streams would require about ≈ 45Mb/s


They want you purchasing the GOT 4K sets likely coming. I'm avoiding this last season of GOT until it's all over and I can watch it over a weekend.


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> Avengers Infinity War is amazing in HDR! Despite the 2K DI, I think its one of the larger improvements from 1080p blu ray to 4k/HDR. Initially disappointed with the blu-ray compared to the original in 2012, but the 4K/HDR version is just phenomenal.


My UHD/HDR copy of this movie just arrived via UPS! I hope to watch it sometime this week. Either I have never seen it (I know I didn't review it on this thread) or I can't remember seeing it (which I highly doubt since it came out last year and is highly acclaimed). But with _Avengers: End Game_ coming up on UHD I wanted to get "reacquainted with the Avengers team."


----------



## artur9

djoberg said:


> My UHD/HDR copy of this movie just arrived via UPS!


Just watched this on a new (to me) A1E. Wife said picture was a lot better than our old plasma.

The HDR really makes it pop!

Any suggestions for another HDR film to impress my wife with?


----------



## tcramer

artur9 said:


> Just watched this on a new (to me) A1E. Wife said picture was a lot better than our old plasma.
> 
> The HDR really makes it pop!
> 
> Any suggestions for another HDR film to impress my wife with?


I've heard The Matrix is quite good and I imagine given the darkness, would really shine on your OLED. Blade Runner 2049 , Pacific Rim, The John Wicks. I'd say those all have scenes with excellent HDR. I've heard Transformers: The Last Knight may be the single best 4K HDR film out there, but I admittedly have not seen it yet.

On picture quality alone, can't go wrong with Planet Earth II.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Guardians of the Galaxy 2 has excellent HDR.


----------



## djoberg

artur9 said:


> Just watched this on a new (to me) A1E. Wife said picture was a lot better than our old plasma.
> 
> The HDR really makes it pop!
> 
> Any suggestions for another HDR film to impress my wife with?


I agree with tcramer's and Phantom's suggestions, especially _Transformers: The Last Knight_.

But there are SO MANY MORE! I just reviewed _The Great Wall_ and found that to be one of the best UHD Blu-rays for highlighting the benefits of HDR (the many FIREBALLS in battle scenes were absolutely amazing as were the colors on the various suits of armor). Then there is _The Great Gatsby_ with unbelievable COLORS and CONTRAST. _Bohemian Rhapsody_ is another HDR wonder! And then there's _Aquaman_, _Passengers_, _The Greatest Showman_ and the list goes on and on and on....


----------



## artur9

So many of these are action movies, which is an iffy thing.

Planet Earth II sounds good, The Greatest Showman, Great Gatsby, anything with HDR eye-candy more along those lines?

Personally, I didn't care for John Wick (scandal!). I liked The Accountant better despite them being essentially the same movie.


----------



## djoberg

artur9 said:


> So many of these are action movies, which is an iffy thing.
> 
> Planet Earth II sounds good, The Greatest Showman, Great Gatsby, anything with HDR eye-candy more along those lines?
> 
> Personally, I didn't care for John Wick (scandal!). I liked The Accountant better despite them being essentially the same movie.


_Passengers_ and _Bohemian Rhapsody_ are not action movies. Here are FOUR other great UHD/HDR movies:

1) Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children
2) Life of Pi
3) The Martian
4) The Shallows

And if you're into Animated Movies some of my favorite UHD/HDR movies are:

1) Secret Life of Pets
2) Angry Birds
3) Storks
4) Despicable Me 3
5) Sing
6) Smurfs 2


----------



## djoberg

Chiming in to say I just finished watching my UHD copy of _The Martian_, which I had never seen on my OLED display. It was even better than I remembered when watching it on my Sony 940D. The BIG difference were the BLACKS! The last long space scene was jaw-dropping, with deep/inky blacks serving as a background for bright and detailed stars, along with the two white spacecrafts. Man, I love the perfect blacks of OLED!


----------



## SnellTHX

Phantom Stranger said:


> Guardians of the Galaxy 2 has excellent HDR.


One of the best.


----------



## djoberg

*Avengers: Infinity War (UHD)*

Man, this was a LONG movie and it's LATE, so I'm going to keep this very short.

The BOTTOM LINE: It's most definitely "reference material" with outstanding CONTRAST and COLORS, courtesy of HDR. Its specular highlights (also a benefit of HDR) were superb. BLACK LEVELS & SHADOW DETAILS were mesmerizing all the way through. DEPTH was amazing, at times. The downside was SOFTNESS during some of the many CGI scenes. Let me put it to you this way, unlike _Transformers: The Last Knight_, the CGI in this film simply couldn't retain its CLARITY and SHARPNESS. Don't get me wrong, there were plenty of scenes where it was "sharp as a tack" with CGI, but there were also a host of scenes where softness reared its ugly head.

I looked for others who actually reviewed it and Snell was the only one. He gave it a Tier 0 (.9). I think it deserves a wee bit higher placement, so...

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.66)*

PS The Dolby Atmos mix was kind of crazy. I had to turn the volume up to -5 to really get into it and at that level I was expecting more when it came to the massive explosions throughout the nearly 2 1/2 hour running time. Having said that, there were at least two scenes where the villain was pouring out what I call his "death wave of energy" and I could feel it rippling across the room. My subs are capable, at times, of reaching down to about 13 Hz and I believe it was at that level in those scenes.


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> *Avengers: Infinity War (UHD)*
> 
> .
> 
> I looked for others who actually reviewed it and Snell was the only one. He gave it a Tier 0 (.9). I think it deserves a wee bit higher placement, so...
> .


Well to be fair, when I reviewed Avengers: Infinity War, I think it was one of the last 1080p movies I reviewed. It was around this time I acquired my Samsung 4K/HDR player and since then I haven't really been able to go back to regular 1080p ! I have since watched Avengers: IW in 4K/HDR and my jaw dropped at the differences. Improved clarity, detail, resolution, sharpness, emboldened colours everything took quite a large step up, despite coming from a 2K DI.

I think 4K Avengers: IW is more align with Tier 0.5


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> Well to be fair, when I reviewed Avengers: Infinity War, I think it was one of the last 1080p movies I reviewed. It was around this time I acquired my Samsung 4K/HDR player and since then I haven't really been able to go back to regular 1080p ! I have since watched Avengers: IW in 4K/HDR and my jaw dropped at the differences. Improved clarity, detail, resolution, sharpness, emboldened colours everything took quite a large step up, despite coming from a 2K DI.
> 
> I think 4K Avengers: IW is more align with Tier 0.5


Ah, that's why I had given it a higher placement than you! Now we are nearly on the same page.


----------



## fredxr2d2

Just had my JVC X790 calibrated by Chad B. Wow. Not sure if I'm going to have more time to chime in here, but now I really feel like I have a reference display. Highly recommend calibration and Chad B's work.


----------



## SnellTHX

fredxr2d2 said:


> Just had my JVC X790 calibrated by Chad B. Wow. Not sure if I'm going to have more time to chime in here, but now I really feel like I have a reference display. Highly recommend calibration and Chad B's work.



JVC X790 is one of the BEST ways to view movies. Congrats on the calibration


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^

Yes, that JVC projector was given an excellent rating by _Sound & Vision_ back in December of 2017. Here's their review:

https://www.soundandvision.com/content/jvc-dla-x790r-d-ila-projector-review


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*What Men Want*

recommendation: *Tier 1.25**

Paramount's new comedy has excellent picture quality. The glossy, high-impact digital cinematography has few visible flaws, and embraces straightforward color grading with deep color saturation and strong black levels. A technically perfect presentation on Blu-ray that indicates source material good enough for UHD, which Paramount didn't bother releasing.


There are some that would likely place this BD in Tier 0.

*Blaze (2018)*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

The musical biopic from Ethan Hawke has razor-sharp definition and consistently deep clarity. Black levels are disappointing, often muddy and dull, lacking the inky depths of better-looking discs. My chief complaint is the zealous digital grading applied scene from scene, as the narrative jumps around between different periods. While the moody lighting certainly helps set the tone and atmosphere for each setting, each color push is drastic. There is only so much sickly green-yellow tint I can take.


----------



## dla26

*Aquaman UHD*

Stunning use of color and HDR. There was a good variety of dark scenes that showcased HDR's contrast abilities with dark grays standing out against inky blacks. Also, although the color palette was predominantly blue (because, you know, it's Aquaman), they did a good job of having lush greens, reds, primarily for the scenes on land, but also for the ones underwater.

If I had to nitpick, I'd say that there wasn't as much fine detail as I would have liked. There were only a handful of closeups of any of the characters, and they weren't as detailed as I would have hoped for. (One exception is the closeups of Manta. For some reason those were more detailed than those of Arthur/Aquaman and Mera.)

The other minor gripe is in the prologue when they showed Aquaman's parents meeting and falling in love. They did that thing where they used CGI to replace older actors' faces with their younger selves, rather than hiring younger actors. For some reason, Nicole Kidman looked like young Nicole Kidman, but the father (played by Temuera Morrison) had that uncanny valley look. I don't know what he looked like when he was younger, but probably not that. 

Recommendation: *Tier 0 (Top 33%)*


----------



## rusky_g

*Unbroken* (Regular 1080p BR)

This is a beautiful looking disc.

Contrast is often perfect amidst a very clean and grain free picture; there are many moments which appear dimensional due to excellent, deep reaching clarity. I loved the slightly subdued colours and the general cinematic feel of the picture.

Really pleased to give it 
....*Tier 0 (bottom half)*

Hi by the way!
Russ


----------



## djoberg

rusky_g said:


> *Unbroken* (Regular 1080p BR)
> 
> This is a beautiful looking disc.
> 
> Contrast is often perfect amidst a very clean and grain free picture; there are many moments which appear dimensional due to excellent, deep reaching clarity. I loved the slightly subdued colours and the general cinematic feel of the picture.
> 
> Really pleased to give it
> ....*Tier 0 (bottom half)*
> 
> Hi by the way!
> Russ



First of all, WELCOME BACK Russ! I was pleasantly surprised to see your review this morning and hope it's just the beginning of regular contributions. 

I actually have this movie on my "demo shelf" and thought the PQ was amazing except for some softness and a drab color palette in the "lost at sea" and "POW camp" scenes (which made up a large percentage of the movie). I gave it a 1.5 because of those negatives. If not for those it would easily have been a Tier 0 placement for me.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-748.html#post33175657


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^

Thanks Phantom for the "Double Feature" review! You once said to me when I gave a review of TWO MOVIES that it was a rare treat. To your credit you have done this many times over the years.


----------



## rusky_g

djoberg said:


> rusky_g said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Unbroken* (Regular 1080p BR)
> 
> This is a beautiful looking disc.
> 
> Contrast is often perfect amidst a very clean and grain free picture; there are many moments which appear dimensional due to excellent, deep reaching clarity. I loved the slightly subdued colours and the general cinematic feel of the picture.
> 
> Really pleased to give it
> ....*Tier 0 (bottom half)*
> 
> Hi by the way!
> Russ
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, WELCOME BACK Russ! I was pleasantly surprised to see your review this morning and hope it's just the beginning of regular contributions.
> 
> I actually have this movie on my "demo shelf" and thought the PQ was amazing except for some softness and a drab color palette in the "lost at sea" and "POW camp" scenes (which made up a large percentage of the movie). I gave it a 1.5 because of those negatives. If not for those it would easily have been a Tier 0 placement for me.
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-748.html#post33175657
Click to expand...

Hello Denny!

I knew you’d be the first to reply and am glad you did. First things first, apologies for my absence - life has been busy and I haven’t watched any Blu Rays for a long time although oddly I’ve still continued to buy them. Currently I have been signed off work with some physical ailments which have made me feel a bit down. So what better cure than to start working my way through some movies...

Thanks for linking me to your review and I appreciate your scoring logic behind this one - interesting was your comment about reaching for the ‘pause button’ as I often use this temptation to help gauge my thoughts - I recently watched the first instalment of ‘Fantastic Beasts’ and was expecting many ‘Pause Button’ moments however Unbroken ace’d in this respect - I’ll write a review of Beasts shorty but in essence I was slightly underwhelmed, likely due to the dark and dim mood of the film (not a fault, just the way it is).

I did read a few pages back about your TV situation - how’s that all going now? I’ve yet to make the leap to UHD but expect this will happen next year...hopefully! Love to you and yours 
Russ


----------



## djoberg

rusky_g said:


> Hello Denny!
> 
> I knew you’d be the first to reply and am glad you did. First things first, apologies for my absence - life has been busy and I haven’t watched any Blu Rays for a long time although oddly I’ve still continued to buy them. Currently I have been signed off work with some physical ailments which have made me feel a bit down. So what better cure than to start working my way through some movies...
> 
> Thanks for linking me to your review and I appreciate your scoring logic behind this one - interesting was your comment about reaching for the ‘pause button’ as I often use this temptation to help gauge my thoughts - I recently watched the first instalment of ‘Fantastic Beasts’ and was expecting many ‘Pause Button’ moments however Unbroken ace’d in this respect - I’ll write a review of Beasts shorty but in essence I was slightly underwhelmed, likely due to the dark and dim mood of the film (not a fault, just the way it is).
> 
> I did read a few pages back about your TV situation - how’s that all going now? I’ve yet to make the leap to UHD but expect this will happen next year...hopefully! Love to you and yours
> Russ


Hi Russ,

I hope others don't mind this quick exchange between us since we've been AVS "friends" and regular contributors on this thread for a long time.

I was sorry to read of your physical afflictions and hope you are "on the mend." Yes, watching movies IS a good pass-time when we are laid aside and thus "your pain is our gain." I have always appreciated your honest reviews; you "tell it like you see it" and that is the way it should be. Again, I truly hope you can get back on track with reviews and I look forward to your review of _Fantastic Beasts_. For the record, I was underwhelmed by it too for the same reasons you gave.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-793.html#post52868049

Regarding my tv, I was past my warranty period on my Sony 940D so I had to trash it. I did contact an authorized repair shop near here and they said it wouldn't be worth repairing. So, I decided to take the plunge and get the 77" OLED I had wanted in the first place (back in 2016...when the OLED price was out of reach for me). I couldn't be happier with this decision for in my "dark room" it is the PERFECT DISPLAY for movie-watching.

Again, I am thrilled that you're back Russ.

-Denny


----------



## rusky_g

Denny,

Thanks for the kind words, I am on the mend. It’s great to see you’ve been holding it down here with regular reviews which (along with the other contributors) continue to be a good barometer of all things HD/UHD. I don’t even think UHD had landed prior to my last review. Glad the TV situation is resolved, I can’t imagine how epic a 77” display must look! 

Back to the reviews...

*Murder on the Orient Express - (Regular BR 1080p)*

Things started off well PQ wise with some fantastic clarity in the opening scenes and aboard the initial part of the train journey. Notable highlights: any close ups of Judi Dench which revealed excellent facial detail, a beautiful, crisp colour scheme which really captured the feel of the train carriages - I loved the glow of the Art Deco lights against the wood panels. Whilst they did look a bit CGI’ish, I did also enjoy the swooping panoramic shots of the train in motion, especially the night ones which had good shadow detail. Another high point was fabric textures - the outfits of Penelope Cruz and Daisy Ridley being the best examples.

Sadly however the PQ took a nose dive towards the end of the movie and my potential upper Tier 1 ranking became questionable with, to coin the phrase, ‘softness creeping in’ in quite a few shots. It’s a shame, but owing to this, my final placement is...

*Tier 1.75*

Edit - Denny I just found your review of the above movie with a .75 ranking. I must admit I did debate either 1.5 or 1.75 but plumped for the latter in the end - for me it definitely fell apart around the big reveal!

Hopefully I’ll be reviewing IT, Deadpool, Jumanji Welcome to the Jungle and The Commuter in the next few days!


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^

Thanks for your excellent review Russ. Though we disagree on the placement we are actually (for the most part) on the same page when it comes to evaluating the "positives" in this film. Again, I have always admired you "calling it like you see it" in spite of others ranking it differently. Keep those reviews coming!


----------



## djoberg

I will be getting my Pre-Ordered copy of _How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World (UHD)_ this week. I am excited to get this for I've always been a fan of the first two in the series. I watched both of them the other day to "refresh my memory" and with so many dark scenes in them they looked even better on an OLED. Our resident "AVS Reviewer" Ralph Potts has given the last in the trilogy an almost perfect score for the UHD.

I hope to view it very soon after receiving it so I'll chime in with a review. In the trailer it looks like it will have much more for COLORS than in the first two so perhaps it will be a real contender for a spot in the Top Ten.


----------



## bokap

fredxr2d2 said:


> Just had my JVC X790 calibrated by Chad B. Wow. Not sure if I'm going to have more time to chime in here, but now I really feel like I have a reference display. Highly recommend calibration and Chad B's work.


I would like to get my new Sony 950G calibrated. Who is Chad B? thanks


----------



## fredxr2d2

bokap said:


> I would like to get my new Sony 950G calibrated. Who is Chad B? thanks



www.hdtvbychadb.com


Known calibrator around these parts. He is out of Ohio but does trips to nearly every part of the US.


----------



## bokap

fredxr2d2 said:


> www.hdtvbychadb.com
> 
> 
> Known calibrator around these parts. He is out of Ohio but does trips to nearly every part of the US.


thanks!


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Lady from Shanghai, The*

recommendation: *Tier 2.75**

Good looking film noir. Black levels and contrast are excellent for the most part, just a few murky scenes. Details are also nice.


----------



## rusky_g

*The Dark Tower* 1080p

Wow, some strong contrast going on in this one! Occasionally it seemed almost too much, to the point I dialled down my displays contrast setting. That being said, I was very impressed with this disc and felt the need to pause it more than a few times. The picture was, in general, exceptionally clear and void of grain, just how I like it. Some opening scenes in the ‘normal’ world looked amazing and really drew you into the picture with beautiful colour and clarity; speaking of colours, they became muted as the film progressed into the ‘other world’ , befitting more to the stark and barren landscapes. Whilst many of theses scenes weren’t as pretty, the clarity and depth upheld so PQ did not suffer the fate of softness. I have to mention the blacks also; so strong throughout, only very occasionally did they feel like they crushed out some detail. 

Overall a big thumbs up, not top tier but not far off...

*Tier 1.5*


----------



## artur9

I went looking for the full PQ list but could only find the one in the first post that was BluRays. 

Is that list both BD and UHD?


----------



## rusky_g

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^
> 
> Thanks for your excellent review Russ. Though we disagree on the placement we are actually (for the most part) on the same page when it comes to evaluating the "positives" in this film. Again, I have always admired you "calling it like you see it" in spite of others ranking it differently. Keep those reviews coming!


You’re very welcome Denny.

I’ve been out the loop a while so it may take a bit of time for me to recalibrate my ‘verdict ‘pendulum’.

As such, I’ve been trawling back through this thread a few pages each night so I can better appraise the discs I view, in the context of how technology has progressed over the years; bottom line is that we now seem very spoilt with a lot of the latest releases - this can only raise the Tier 0 bar even higher!


----------



## djoberg

*A "Heads Up"*

Just thought I would chime in with a "Heads Up" for people ordering Blu-rays from Best Buy. I had ordered _How to Train Your Dragon: Hidden World_ and it was scheduled to arrive yesterday. Last night I received an email from them informing me it was delayed and may not come until as late as June 20th and if it was wasn't available then they would cancel my order. I decided to cancel it and try to buy it at a B&M store.

Here's the real problem. It came with a FREE Digital Order which had to be redeemed by May 21st, so I went ahead and downloaded it. I had forgotten about this and after I canceled my order I received another email saying it had been canceled but I was charged $24.99 for the Digital Copy. I NEVER would have ordered a Digital Copy for that amount...or any amount for that matter, for I rarely, if ever, watch movies on my iPhone or iPad, and never on my computer when I can watch it on my OLED that is across the room! So, now I'm trying to contact Best Buy and they say, "We're sorry, we can't take any calls at this time due to the Help Desk being overloaded with calls." If I am able to get a hold of them I will "try" to reorder my 4K Blu-ray and hopefully they'll simply charge me the difference between the price and the $24.99.

The BOTTOM LINE for you: It looks like I won't be reviewing this anytime soon!


----------



## fredxr2d2

*Mortal Engines (1080p)*

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 1*


This is a great looking blu! It is sharp and colorful and holds its image quite well. Some softness due to CGI work, but that is to be expected. Shot on the 8K Red camera and finished at 4K. I am now looking forward to getting my hands on the 4K blu to give it a comparison.


Despite the bad critical reception, my wife and I both enjoyed the movie and thought it was well done (it does rip off several better films, including Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, but while I noticed those comparisons, I didn't think it made the movie bad).


----------



## djoberg

fredxr2d2 said:


> *Mortal Engines (1080p)*
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 1*
> 
> 
> This is a great looking blu! It is sharp and colorful and holds its image quite well. Some softness due to CGI work, but that is to be expected. Shot on the 8K Red camera and finished at 4K. I am now looking forward to getting my hands on the 4K blu to give it a comparison.
> 
> 
> Despite the bad critical reception, my wife and I both enjoyed the movie and thought it was well done (it does rip off several better films, including Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, but while I noticed those comparisons, I didn't think it made the movie bad).


I firmly believe you'll be nominating the UHD version for Tier 0; it is stunning! It should look absolutely mesmerizing on your newly calibrated JVC Projector, especially with those fantastic black levels. I gave it a .25 ranking!! Here's my review:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-851.html#post57748106

PS I got a hold of Best Buy and they, to their credit, refunded the amount of the Digital Copy of HTTYD: HW. Now I need to find a copy at a store so I can see this much-anticipated movie.


----------



## djoberg

*How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World (UHD)*

Make room on your Reference Shelf, for we have ANOTHER WINNER!!

Where do I begin? Actually, if I begin "at the beginning" I have to admit it isn't that spectacular, for it is a scene with lots of dark clouds and fog, yet even in that scene there were details that stood out. But ten minutes in the scene shifts to Berk and the COLORS and DETAILS explode, along with incredible DEPTH. (The DETAILS and TEXTURE in clothes, hair, beards, faces, foliage, dragon skin/scales, are to-die-for!) From there we have numerous scenes "in the air" and "on the sea" (with some of the best "photo-realism" I've ever seen when it comes to "clouds" and "water"). A few minutes past the hour time stamp we enter the "hidden world" and your eyes are filled with PURE EYE CANDY in the form of unbelievable colors and cinematography...giving Avatar a real run for the money!

I've saved the best for last, for this is, without a doubt, the BEST HDR presentation in an animated film, bar none. You have oodles and oodles of FIRE (fire swords, shooting fire from dragons, fire from explosions) that will give your eyes a rush that you have to see to believe. Then there are SUNRISES and SUNSETS that again give you some amazing photo-realism. And then there are the BRILLIANT BLACKS & WHITES, along with mesmerizing SHADOW DETAILS. These are especially on display as you enter the "Hidden World" and fly through dark caves which lead to the unbelievable COLORS mentioned above. There is also a daytime scene at the end in Berk and on a snow-covered mountain top that will dazzle you, and make you wish there had been more scenes like that.

My only gripe would be some soft shots in scenes with fog and heavy, dark clouds (for there are numerous dark scenes, especially in the first half). I saw no anomalies such as banding, which can often happen in a film with so many scenes that take place in the sky. But as I've said in other reviews, I'm really "nit-picking" here, for they were "few and far between."

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (In the TOP FIVE...I'd opt for #3)*

PS The Dolby Atmos mix was definitely better than the last mix but not quite as good as the first installment. It still lacked the LFE/bass of the original, though I did turn it up to -3 for the last hour and eventually my wife came down and asked me to turn it down!


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^

After (once again) "sleeping on it," I thought a "disclaimer" was in order concerning my placement recommendation. I had said there are numerous "dark scenes." In those scenes there are two factors to consider: 1) One's appreciation for BLACKS and SHADOW DETAILS; and 2) Your display's ability to handle those scenes accurately (without crushing details). If you do experience a lot of black crush you will no doubt penalize this film and knock it down quite a few notches from where I have placed it. Here's what Matt Paprocki had to say about the black levels in the beginning of his excellent review on DoBlu.com:

"Here’s a fantastic display test disc. Hidden World will challenge even high-end displays to accurately replicate black levels. The darkest scenes around 50-minutes produce alluring shadows, falling to true black without a loss of shadow detail. Pure gradients keep depth even in a near total absence of light. It’s marvelous."

I might add that in the rest of Matt's review he continues to praise every aspect of this UHD Blu-ray, especially its HDR benefits and in the end he gives is a PERFECT SCORE of 5 Stars (which he rarely does).


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^

I just read my last post again and it dawned on me that some people could take that the wrong way...as if I was being condescending regarding other people's displays. I'm sorry if it did come across in that way for I never meant it to. All who know me on this thread know that before getting an OLED I had a Sony LCD for nearly 3 years. It was a very good display EXCEPT for issues with black levels, which I honestly criticized (especially when it came to light bleeding into the letter-boxed bars with HDR material). So, I have always been OBJECTIVE when it comes to displays, knowing that some are better than others in certain areas. If you happen to have a display and you do have issues with the black levels in _How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World_, it's not your fault nor should you feel bad that you don't have a display which excels in the area of black levels. Every technology has its own strengths and weaknesses and we should acknowledge that and realize our particular display is, at times, "one of the factors" that determines what we see and what placement we may give for a certain movie.

One more thing. I know Matt (at DoBlu.com) fairly well, for he used to be a MAJOR CONTRIBUTOR on this thread. I'm quite sure he wasn't being condescending either when he made his opening remark in his review. He too has an OLED and he was simply stating that this particular movie is going to really "test your display's ability to accurately replicate black levels." I'm sure he is happy that he does have an OLED which is strong when it comes to black levels, but he's NOT looking down on those who, for whatever reason, have another kind of display.


----------



## dla26

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^^
> 
> I just read my last post again and it dawned on me that some people could take that the wrong way...as if I was being condescending regarding other people's displays. I'm sorry if it did come across in that way for I never meant it to. All who know me on this thread know that before getting an OLED I had a Sony LCD for nearly 3 years. It was a very good display EXCEPT for issues with black levels, which I honestly criticized (especially when it came to light bleeding into the letter-boxed bars with HDR material). So, I have always been OBJECTIVE when it comes to displays, knowing that some are better than others in certain areas. If you happen to have a display and you do have issues with the black levels in _How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World_, it's not your fault nor should you feel bad that you don't have a display which excels in the area of black levels. Every technology has its own strengths and weaknesses and we should acknowledge that and realize our particular display is, at times, "one of the factors" that determines what we see and what placement we may give for a certain movie.
> 
> One more thing. I know Matt (at DoBlu.com) fairly well, for he used to be a MAJOR CONTRIBUTOR on this thread. I'm quite sure he wasn't being condescending either when he made his opening remark in his review. He too has an OLED and he was simply stating that this particular movie is going to really "test your display's ability to accurately replicate black levels." I'm sure he is happy that he does have an OLED which is strong when it comes to black levels, but he's NOT looking down on those who, for whatever reason, has another kind of display.


FWIW, I didn't find anything about that condescending. In fact, I thought it was a good clarification to make. With my old 1080p projector, I saw a lot of black crush, no doubt exacerbated by the fact that my walls are white, and I don't have perfect light control. I upgraded my projector, and I really enjoy noticing being able to see blacks against a backdrop of even blacker blacks. I'm in the process of planning an upgrade to the theater so I can have perfect light control, dark walls, etc., and I will be on the lookout for those subtle differences.

I think the whole point of this thread when it started way back in the olden times was that we were all excited that we could watch hi definition content on HDTVs. LCDs were a huge upgrade over what came before them, so back then talking about all of the subtle textures one could see might have come off as condescending to people who hadn't upgraded to HD yet. Now that technology has moved on, the changes aren't as dramatic as going from 480i to 1080p, so calling out all of the subtle things the cutting edge can do is important. (For this thread anyway. Certainly not in the grand scheme of things!) Just as some people took some time to make the jump from SD to HD (myself among them - I didn't get an HDTV until 2008 or 2009), other people will take longer than others to upgrade their systems to the latest and greatest, whether for budgetary reasons or just feeling like their current setup is still good enough. If anything, calling out things that could be a problem for people who don't have the latest and greatest is helpful so they're not disappointed about not seeing the effect you're describing. (To wit, people often cite Pacific Rim UHD as one of the best PQ movies out there, but I get a *lot* of black crush in the darkest scenes. I want to watch it again once I can get better light control in my room.)


----------



## AmerCa

^°^°^°^
Don't worry, Djoberg. Your post doesn't read condescending at all, it's just what it is. I know what you meant.

In fact, when I'm talking about black levels in my reviews, I often wonder if my display's limitations might affect the "accuracy" of my opinions, but again, it is what it is. We certainly need the opinions of people with reference displays to give another perspective.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## CJackson

If it's no trouble, could someone review Apollo 11?


----------



## djoberg

CJackson said:


> If it's no trouble, could someone review Apollo 11?


Wish I could help you out! I do want to see it, but Redbox is only renting the DVD version and I will NOT rent a DVD. I really do want to see this and I'd even be willing to buy it, but so far they haven't released a UHD Blu-ray (only 1080p) and I rarely buy regular Blu-rays any more.


----------



## djoberg

CJackson said:


> If it's no trouble, could someone review Apollo 11?


Here's an excellent review by our own AVS Resident Reviewer Ralph Potts:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-...84-apollo-11-blu-ray-review.html#post57992776


----------



## SnellTHX

*Black Hawk Down (4K)*


One of my all time favourite reference movies, not so much for its picture quality but definitely its surround-sound effects and its amazing score.

I remember being quite disappointed with the blu-ray back in the day when I watched it on my Kuro 9G, I had to double check that it wasn't a DVD I bought. But no matter, the sound quality was amazing. And the movie's great. 
With the 4K restoration of this film, it's more of the same. Although a huge improvement over the 1080p version a lot has changed in the last 10 years and standards are indeed much higher. I read Ralph Potts' review of BHD and although he scored it in the mid 90s (out of 100) he opened up with "The movie has a stylistic choice and added in a lot of film grain, it is not a problem and should not be viewed as such" - mild paraphrasing thrown in.

I immediately understood I'd be slightly let down PQ-wise as I for one (25 years old) don't appreciate film grain as it is not something I see with my own eyes when I look around. With that said the film has a thick layer of grain all over, but it's still pretty sharp and the details of each shot is actually really high. the HDR really brings out the sunlight and hues (though this movies palette is rather muted) and overall it looks really good and rather bad at the same time (in my opinion) those who are fond of film grain are sure to enjoy the PQ a LOT... But compare this to (my) current PQ king Transformers 5 or even something way lower on the reference list like John Wick and it won't have that same razor-sharpness we expect of modern 4K movies.


*Tier recommendation: 1*


----------



## SnellTHX

I didn't get to audition the audio properly... Unfortunately since I moved into a studio apartment downtown 4 years ago not only do I have thin walls (and constant neighbour complaints) I also had to downgrade from a 7.1 surround sound DTS-HD MA setup to regular 2.1 stereo. I still have an amazing sound system but I haven't REALLY enjoyed that good movie sound since 2014-15. So the entire Dolby Atmos / DTS X experience is still something I haven't experienced in my own home. the DTS-HD MA soundtrack of Blackhawk Down was mind-blowing 10 years ago, I can only imagine what the Dolby Atmos is like today.


----------



## AmerCa

SnellTHX said:


> I also had to downgrade from a 7.1 surround sound DTS-HD MA setup to regular 2.1 stereo.


That sucks, man. But one has to do what one has to do. Although for different reasons, I also haven't upgraded to ATMOS/DTS:X, and probably it won't happen until I move out to a different place. I don't even have the space for a 7.1 setup. Sound systems get bigger, but room sizes stay the same :/

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^

Snell,

I know you dislike grain and I do too if it’s so heavy it comes across as “noise.” I was going to order _Black Hawk Down_ but I may not after reading your review.

Denny


----------



## Jbhur212

Well, I guess I'll toss in my two cents on the 4K Black Hawk Down. In my set up, it's pretty much a 10/10. I don't usually pay too much attention to a film's "look" but I loved the stylized look of this film from the first time I saw it when it was released. And, having been a photojournalist for 40 years and having shot every type of film imaginable, I do love grain and the impact it has on the presentation (as well as other films. Grain is a GOOD thing despite how later generations can't stand the look. It does very often add an unexpected emotional impact). With my recently updated Dolby Atmos set up the sound field on this film was nothing short of amazing, in my HT, anyway. I'm not the most technical person in the world when it comes to this stuff, but going by what I see and hear is all that really matters to me. And if it helps me in my enjoyment of a film, that's all the bottom line. I just recently bought and watched the 1962 version of The Miracle Worker and even though it was "only" DTS-HD Master Audio 2.0, it sounded great in my HT and the b/w cinematography looked stunning on my 77C8. Same with the 4K version of The Karate Kid. Certainly not a groundbreaking PQ/AQ film but the HDR upgrade really helped this film look much better and created a new, enjoyable viewing experience for me. And that really is the bottom line for someone like me who has had more than a 50 year of love affair with the movies.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Okay, my mind has been "officially changed" by your comments jbhur12 and thus I just got done ordering the UHD version of _Black Hawk Down_! I too LIKE GRAIN as long as it doesn't look NOISY, which then tends to OBSCURE DETAILS. But from what you said the grain serves to ENHANCE DETAILS and I've said in many reviews on this thread that when grain enhances details it's a beautiful look!

I just have to add that "your set-up" is almost exactly the same as mine (we both have the LG OLED 77C8 and a Dolby Atmos speaker set-up) so I am looking forward to "SEEING what you see" and "HEARING what you hear!"


----------



## Jbhur212

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Okay, my mind has been "officially changed" by your comments jbhur12 and thus I just got done ordering the UHD version of _Black Hawk Down_! I too LIKE GRAIN as long as it doesn't look NOISY, which then tends to OBSCURE DETAILS. But from what you said the grain serves to ENHANCE DETAILS and I've said in many reviews on this thread that when grain enhances details it's a beautiful look!
> 
> I just have to add that "your set-up" is almost exactly the same as mine (we both have the LG OLED 77C8 and a Dolby Atmos speaker set-up) so I am looking forward to "SEEING what you see" and "HEARING what you hear!"


I think you'll love it (sound-wise it did win Academy Awards for Best Film Editing and Best Sound Mixing) and for a film shot on negative stock, it really does look amazing, especially the close-ups. Never seen such detail in characters faces. I do agree with the other poster about Transformers:The Last Knight being 100% razor-sharp and probably at the top of my list of films shot digitally. Image-wise, they are polar opposites that nevertheless, get the job done visually. Plus I forgot just how good this film is. Ridley just doesn’t seem to get enough credit for his films.


----------



## dla26

djoberg said:


> Okay, my mind has been "officially changed" by your comments jbhur12 and thus I just got done ordering the UHD version of _Black Hawk Down_!


Looking forward to reading your thoughts on it. I'm not a fan of excessive grain, so I'm curious to hear if you found it distracting.


----------



## djoberg

Jbhur212 said:


> I think you'll love it (sound-wise it did win Academy Awards for Best Film Editing and Best Sound Mixing) and for a film shot on negative stock, it really does look amazing, especially the close-ups. Never seen such detail in characters faces. I do agree with the other poster about Transformers:The Last Knight being 100% razor-sharp and probably at the top of my list of films shot digitally. Image-wise, they are polar opposites that nevertheless, get the job done visually. Plus I forgot just how good this film is. Ridley just doesn’t seem to get enough credit for his films.


I think I'll love it too! Again, I really like grain when it enhances details and from EVERYONE who has reviewed this film, including Snell, the details are OFF-THE-CHARTS!!

My biggest gripe (from what I remember when viewing the Blu-ray years ago) with _Black Hawk Down_ was the egregious color-grading (teal/orange) but even there I can be very forgiving if it doesn't hinder details.

Let me end this post by saying I'm with you and Snell regarding _Transformers: The Last Knight_. It has been my "go to" UHD Blu-ray for demoing the amazing benefits of UHD. It's still #1 in my book!


----------



## djoberg

dla26 said:


> Looking forward to reading your thoughts on it. I'm not a fan of excessive grain, so I'm curious to hear if you found it distracting.


If you read my last post you'll see that I don't mind heavy grain if it doesn't distract me by hindering details, which apparently it doesn't (even Snell observed this). And I've actually gone to various sites (like Do.Blu.com) which gives pics from the movie and they look great! So, I believe "my thoughts" are going to be positive.


----------



## Jbhur212

djoberg said:


> I think I'll love it too! Again, I really like grain when it enhances details and from EVERYONE who has reviewed this film, including Snell, the details are OFF-THE-CHARTS!!
> 
> My biggest gripe (from what I remember when viewing the Blu-ray years ago) with _Black Hawk Down_ was the egregious color-grading (teal/orange) but even there I can be very forgiving if it doesn't hinder details.
> 
> Let me end this post by saying I'm with you and Snell regarding _Transformers: The Last Knight_. It has been my "go to" UHD Blu-ray for demoing the amazing benefits of UHD. It's still #1 in my book!


Yep, definitely notice that horrid teal/orange crap.


----------



## SnellTHX

Jbhur212 said:


> Well, I guess I'll toss in my two cents on the 4K Black Hawk Down. In my set up, it's pretty much a 10/10. I don't usually pay too much attention to a film's "look" but I loved the stylized look of this film from the first time I saw it when it was released. And, having been a photojournalist for 40 years and having shot every type of film imaginable, I do love grain and the impact it has on the presentation (as well as other films. Grain is a GOOD thing despite how later generations can't stand the look. It does very often add an unexpected emotional impact). With my recently updated Dolby Atmos set up the sound field on this film was nothing short of amazing, in my HT, anyway. I'm not the most technical person in the world when it comes to this stuff, but going by what I see and hear is all that really matters to me. And if it helps me in my enjoyment of a film, that's all the bottom line. I just recently bought and watched the 1962 version of The Miracle Worker and even though it was "only" DTS-HD Master Audio 2.0, it sounded great in my HT and the b/w cinematography looked stunning on my 77C8. Same with the 4K version of The Karate Kid. Certainly not a groundbreaking PQ/AQ film but the HDR upgrade really helped this film look much better and created a new, enjoyable viewing experience for me. And that really is the bottom line for someone like me who has had more than a 50 year of love affair with the movies.


I understand older people, those who grew up with film and have fond memories of analog film / cinematography / photography etc love film grain, for its 'organic' and 'filmic' experience. But to me it isn't realistic as film grain isn't something we have in our eyes. When watching a movie I wish to obtain that 'Looking out of a window' experience that completely obliterates the line between watching a movie and viewing the world... (ironically?) this is best achieved with IMAX 15/70mm screen-filling shots from Christopher Nolan's movies - Dunkirk, Interstellar, The Dark Knight Rises... And also other greats like Transformers 5 (best non-IMAX MSM 9802 movie). What they all have in common is ZERO grain, ZERO noise, ZERO pixelation ZERO anything. in combination with a decent sound system, those shots really trick my brain into thinking I'm in a WW2 plane, driving a Lamborghini or riding Batman's motorbike. Film grain completely takes that experience away by reminding me I'm watching a movie. those IMAX better-than-digital-film shots also give them a 3D like depth that literally(figuratively) pulls me inside my TV.


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Okay, my mind has been "officially changed" by your comments jbhur12 and thus I just got done ordering the UHD version of _Black Hawk Down_! I too LIKE GRAIN as long as it doesn't look NOISY, which then tends to OBSCURE DETAILS. But from what you said the grain serves to ENHANCE DETAILS and I've said in many reviews on this thread that when grain enhances details it's a beautiful look!
> 
> I just have to add that "your set-up" is almost exactly the same as mine (we both have the LG OLED 77C8 and a Dolby Atmos speaker set-up) so I am looking forward to "SEEING what you see" and "HEARING what you hear!"


Yeah I definitely don't mean to keep you from buying. Based on your previous reviews I think you'll very much like it, and can imagine you scoring it several quarters of a tier higher than I have. I just voiced my opinion (which you know well by now  )

As I said, Ralph Potts gave it a high score (but he sort of had to defend giving it a high score) and that need for justification was aimed towards people like me. 

Another professional reviewer I read gave it 88/100, which is also higher than what I'd place it if I were to score 1-100. (a Tier 1.75 from 0-5 is probably around 70/100.. mathematically speaking)


----------



## SnellTHX

Oh yeah, the orange/teal tint is definitely there ^^


----------



## djoberg

CJackson said:


> If it's no trouble, could someone review Apollo 11?


Me again! After learning that there will be NO UHD VERSION and that the 1080p version is actually "Reference Quality," I decided to order this. It should arrive next Tuesday. I'm really looking forward to SEEING and HEARING (especially the LAUNCH) this.


----------



## SnellTHX

*Billy Lynn's Long Halftime walk (4K) *

okay first off, wow. Second: WOOW. I can't remember what made me add this movie to my IMDB watchlist, if it was a user of this thread or perhaps the fact that Ralph Potts gave this movie an elusive 100/100 rating in his review, but whoever recommended me this movie ... What a suggestion!

I was skeptical at first and couldn't believe how this could possible have among the best Picture quality ever, but it certainly has. 
Filmed with Sony's fancy CineAlta F65 cameras in my favourite, screen-filling 1.85:1 aspect ratio, with 4K resolution 3D and 120fps. This is the movie of the future. 
While the home version is merely 4K/60fps and 2D, it still has HDR, P3, 10bit bells & whistles and stems from a 4K DI... And boooyy does it show off that in spades. Compliments like 'Crystal-clear', 'Razor sharp', etc don't really do it justice. It's just on another level compared to most.

Perhaps the only complaint would be the bluish/cold 'stale' colour palette. But this movie has some of the most details I've ever seen before. When the camera zooms in on Steve Martin's face and he looks right at the camera it's downright scary. The man's in his 70s and you can see every blemish, rash, redness other skin defects that you'd expect from a senior citizen's face. 
Tears, wrinkles, beard stubble, acne, blackheads, pores, sweat.. I haven't really seen such realism before.

The war scenes shot in Iraq honestly look like the stupid demo-material you see on large Samsung/Sony venues that NEVER represent what you'd actually bring at home. It's that good.



So apropos the earlier discussion about film grain and natural / organic looking imagery.. you don't really have that here even though it's one of the most realistic out-of-the-window experiences on film. The smooth motion is not for everyone and I can't imagine everyone appreciating what is on offer.


My top 3 is still Dunkirk, Transformers 5 & Interstellar... but this for me is equally high on my reference list. I definitely know what to show off the boys when its movie night and they want to see what images an OLED can produce 

*Tier recommendation: 0 (top 5!)*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^

I've never seen this before so I will have to check it out somehow (without buying it).

You had listed your "Top 3" in your review so you must be nominating this for either #4 or #5 . I should also ask you: Have you seen all those in the current Top 5? And have you seen the new _How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World_? If not, you should probably check them out.


----------



## dla26

djoberg said:


> Have you seen all those in the current Top 5?


Apologies if I missed it, but have the Blu tiers been updated? I was under the impression that this list from July 2017 was still the latest version.


----------



## djoberg

dla26 said:


> Apologies if I missed it, but have the Blu tiers been updated? I was under the impression that this list from July 2017 was still the latest version.


I think you are correct, but Snell may still not have seen the Top Five in that list.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

dla26 said:


> Apologies if I missed it, but have the Blu tiers been updated? I was under the impression that this list from July 2017 was still the latest version.


 Everything below Tier 0 has been updated through January of 2019.


We are probably going to have to do something about Tier 0 because of all the UHDs. Many, many UHDs are getting nominated for Tier 0. It might be time for a separate UHD list for Tier 0.


----------



## djoberg

I concur Phantom; a separate Tier for UHD titles would be great! But then again, there are UHD titles that won't make it into Tier 0. Where would we place them?


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> I've never seen this before so I will have to check it out somehow (without buying it).
> 
> You had listed your "Top 3" in your review so you must be nominating this for either #4 or #5 . I should also ask you: Have you seen all those in the current Top 5? And have you seen the new _How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World_? If not, you should probably check them out.


Yeah the 4th or 5th spot goes to either Billy Lynn or Pacific Rim (The first one) 


I've seen both Moana and The Good Dinosaur, but I wouldn't put them in my top 5. the rest of my top 10 would go to the animated movies of which: Kung Fu Panda 3, The Smurfs 2, Coco, Moana are definitely in there, the 5th best would have to be between: The Good Dinosaur, Monster's University, Big Hero 6, Boss Baby, Finding Dory... So the rest goes in the top 20.

I haven't really seen anymore animation movies than that I'm afraid. No Secret Life of pets, no How to Train your Dragon 3 (which you recently placed at the top!), no nothing (as of late)

I also have to rewatch many of my favourite blu-rays in 4K-HDR to see how they place... GOTG2, Pacific Rim, Avatar, Life of Pi... I rewatched them on blu-ray not long ago and they didn't look as good as I remembered... goes to show what getting used to 4K/HDR/WCG has done to my eyes.


----------



## SnellTHX

Phantom Stranger said:


> Everything below Tier 0 has been updated through January of 2019.
> 
> 
> We are probably going to have to do something about Tier 0 because of all the UHDs. Many, many UHDs are getting nominated for Tier 0. It might be time for a separate UHD list for Tier 0.


I agree something has to be done with that... I first watched Avengers: Infinity War and had a hard time placing it above Tier 1. Re-watched the 4K/HDR version and that's several tier-quarters above it PQ-wise. The upgrade is closer to 0.25 or 0.33


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> I haven't really seen anymore animation movies than that I'm afraid. No Secret Life of pets, no How to Train your Dragon 3 (which you recently placed at the top!), no nothing (as of late)


Hey Snell...I just have to convince you to watch both of those "animated marvels." I'd start out with _Secret Life of Pets_...it's right up your alley with a FULL SCREEN and some of the brightest colors you've ever seen....I promise you! Then you'd be ready for the sequel that comes out on June 7th!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> I concur Phantom; a separate Tier for UHD titles would be great! But then again, there are UHD titles that won't make it into Tier 0. Where would we place them?


 I don't have a ready-made solution in hand.


We could maintain separate Tier 0 lists for UHDs and Blu-rays only, leaving the lower-ranked discs as they are now. Back in the day, there was a great clamor to separate animation from live action in Tier 0.


As UHDs represent more and more of the absolute best Tier 0 titles, it's probably best separating them at that level.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> I don't have a ready-made solution in hand.
> 
> 
> We could maintain separate Tier 0 lists for UHDs and Blu-rays only, leaving the lower-ranked discs as they are now. Back in the day, there was a great clamor to separate animation from live action in Tier 0.
> 
> 
> As UHDs represent more and more of the absolute best Tier 0 titles, it's probably best separating them at that level.


I believe it would be practical and acceptable to all if we had separate Tier 0 lists for UHDs and Blu-rays, though if I have seen both formats in any particular title I would probably make mention of it in a review and let everyone know how much better (or, in a very rare instance, worse) the UHD release is.

I do wish we could have separate lists also for animated titles but that would add a LOT of work to you know who.


----------



## djoberg

I just received _Black Hawk Down (UHD)_, _Apollo 11 (1080p)_, and _Apollo 13 (UHD)_ in the mail. I am quite busy though so I'm not sure when I'll be watching them.


----------



## rusky_g

*Bridge Of Spies* 1080p BR

I wasn’t expecting much from this disc but I’m please to say it looked pretty great!

Generally colours are natural throughout apart from some scenes which have a cool
hue about them. Contrast and detail were strong; the film has a very clean look and despite the BluRay.com review mentioning a light layer of grain, I found this hard to detect. Suit textures are particularly appreciable, facials were decent but not the strongest I’ve seen. I watched this movie before skipping through Batman v Superman - I preferred the former with regards to PQ.

*Tier 1.5*


----------



## rusky_g

djoberg said:


> I just received _Black Hawk Down (UHD)_, _Apollo 11 (1080p)_, and _Apollo 13 (UHD)_ in the mail. I am quite busy though so I'm not sure when I'll be watching them.


I’ve read some glowing reviews of BHD in 4K Denny! Keep us posted...


----------



## djoberg

*Apollo 11 (1080p)*

I'm actually quite tired so I'm going to "cheat a little" and give you a link to a very brief post I made on the PQ/AQ on Ralph Potts' site where he reviewed this film/documentary. As you will see, it incorporated film footage consisting of 16mm, 35mm, and 65mm. The 65mm footage was stunning! The 16mm/35mm...not so much! As a result, I am having a hard time coming up with a placement recommendation. Ralph decided to simply comment on the 65mm footage and he gave it a score of 93 (out of a 100). I agree with that score. But here we must consider ALL of the footage. Let's face it, the 16mm and 35mm does NOT constitute EYE CANDY...at all. So, with the impossible task of weighing all the pros and cons I think I'll opt for....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**

PS I almost forgot...here's the link to Ralph's site: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-...-apollo-11-blu-ray-review-2.html#post58120870


----------



## LordofDoubleD

Okay, so I'm sure this has been discussed before but I have been searching this thread and can't find the answer:

Why are there not more 4K UHD titles listed in Tier 0?

Is it because:

1. When a title is available in both 4K and blu-ray that the UHD version simply adds HDR and a wider color gamut?

2. The blu-ray is superior to the 4K version?

3. The version is not denoted in the title but requires you to look for HEVC in the codec section?.

Just surprised to not see more 4K UHD modifiers in the titles or HEVC listed in the codecs.

I'm assuming there is something I'm overlooking here?

Thx!


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> Everything below Tier 0 has been updated through January of 2019.
> 
> 
> We are probably going to have to do something about Tier 0 because of all the UHDs. Many, many UHDs are getting nominated for Tier 0. It might be time for a separate UHD list for Tier 0.





LordofDoubleD said:


> Okay, so I'm sure this has been discussed before but I have been searching this thread and can't find the answer:
> 
> Why are there not more 4K UHD titles listed in Tier 0?
> 
> Is it because:
> 
> 1. When a title is available in both 4K and blu-ray that the UHD version simply adds HDR and a wider color gamut?
> 
> 2. The blu-ray is superior to the 4K version?
> 
> 3. The version is not denoted in the title but requires you to look for HEVC in the codec section?.
> 
> Just surprised to not see more 4K UHD modifiers in the titles or HEVC listed in the codecs.
> 
> I'm assuming there is something I'm overlooking here?
> 
> Thx!


I copied Phantom's post because it answers your question. In short, it's because Tier 0 has not been updated since 2017 so all of the UHD titles that Phantom references as being in Tier 0 won't be seen until a new update comes out.

You can rest assured that the UHD titles are (except for very rare exceptions) superior to the 1080p Blu-ray version and that there are plenty of UHD titles in Tier 0!


----------



## LordofDoubleD

Thanks for the quick response:

Ok, that totally makes sense - and... it's funny because I realized that should have been one of my questions:

4. Is it because there are so many UHD titles that have come out and and Tier 0 is going to have to be reevaluated - or a completely separate UHD tier needs to be created?



Good to know - I'll keep an eye out for the update!

-DD


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^

I would encourage you to go back a few pages (at least TEN pages) and read some of the UHD reviews that are placed in Tier 0.


----------



## djoberg

*Apollo 13 (UHD)*

It has been many, many years since I saw the Remastered Blu-ray of this excellent film by Ron Howard. After watching the _Apollo 11_ documentary the other day I felt compelled to watch this. I'm glad I did! The production was amazing; the acting was topnotch; the story-line was...well you know the story, it was fascinating and perhaps the greatest survival story ever; and last, but not least, the PQ was stunning.

This had the coveted "filmic-look" with a light layer of grain through most of the 2+ hours running time (though at times it became quite sharp with clarity that looked "digital"). This did NOT hinder DETAILS, for they were phenomenal in all areas (clothing, spacesuits, facial texture, hair, grass, cars, instrument panels, etc.). COLORS were a real treat, with a vibrant look in keeping with the "time period," yet not overly-saturated. BLACK LEVELS & SHADOW DETAILS were a "sight to behold!" The many "space scenes" had me glued to my OLED with the "blackness of space" serving up some "dazzling bright stars." Inside the Apollo (in every nook and cranny) there was zero black crush and with the bright instrument panels we are blessed with some sweet EYE CANDY. The only gripe I have, and it must be noted, were the FLESH TONES. For the most part they are very good, but in some scenes, most notably inside the Houston Command Center, they took on a slight "red push," resulting in a sunburn look on faces and a loss of texture.

The DTS:X audio mix was spectacular!

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.5)*

PS I could see some dropping this down to possibly .75 or maybe even a hair lower.


----------



## djoberg

Up next: _Black Hawk Down_! But it won't be until sometime next week.


----------



## rusky_g

*IT (2017 - 1080p BR)*

Loved this movie, it reminded me of The Goonies meets Nightmare on Elm Street!

The bonus is that the PQ was excellent! The opening scene was fairly dark and there wasn’t much scope for the picture to shine, but beyond this, the often sunny outdoor scenes of ‘Derry’ had so much pop and dimension; I can’t imagine how good it would look in 4K! The colours were sumptuous and detail far reaching, particularly some shots of the Old Well House where you could make out each rafter of its shoddy timber construction. Elsewhere you could make out the individual lines in the headlights of Henry’s ‘Trans Am’. The picture was so squeaky clean, but not clinically so.

Moving to the many underground ‘sewer system’ moments, blacks were satisfyingly dark but not to the detriment of shadow detail needed to reveal PennyWises’ creepy movements. Contrast was very well balanced throughout.

I’d be so tempted to place this in lower Tier 0 bar a couple of scenes which faltered slightly with some softness. 

Definitely top of Tier 1 though...

*Tier 1.0*


----------



## djoberg

*Black Hawk Down (UHD)*

I finally got around to watching this and it was even better than I had anticipated. Snell, I feel sorry for you when it comes to "hating grain," for I had no problems whatsoever with the grain with the one or two exceptions where it became a bit much when there was DUST from bombing or trucks racing through the city.

This is most definitely "Reference Quality!" It's all about DETAILS, DETAILS and more DETAILS. I think I can say unequivocally that this title had the best details (especially "facial details and texture") I've ever seen. Here is the short review I just posted on Ralph Potts' site:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-...n-ultra-hd-blu-ray-review-3.html#post58155704

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.33)*

PS The Dolby Atmos mix was great, but not phenomenal in the LFE/bass department. Having said that, the highest I could turn it to (because of the WAF) was -7.5.


----------



## djoberg

My wife and I are leaving for 6 days on Sunday so I'll be having another "Blu-ray Fast" this coming week.


----------



## tcramer

djoberg said:


> *Black Hawk Down (UHD)*
> 
> I finally got around to watching this and it was even better than I had anticipated. Snell, I feel sorry for you when it comes to "hating grain," for I had no problems whatsoever with the grain with the one or two exceptions where it became a bit much when there was DUST from bombing or trucks racing through the city.
> 
> This is most definitely "Reference Quality!" It's all about DETAILS, DETAILS and more DETAILS. I think I can say unequivocally that this title had the best details (especially "facial details and texture") I've ever seen. Here is the short review I just posted on Ralph Potts' site:
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-...n-ultra-hd-blu-ray-review-3.html#post58155704
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.33)*
> 
> PS The Dolby Atmos mix was great, but not phenomenal in the LFE/bass department. Having said that, the highest I could turn it to (because of the WAF) was -7.5.



Just curious, did see any of the lip sync issues?


----------



## djoberg

tcramer said:


> Just curious, did see any of the lip sync issues?


Like I said on Ralph's site, zero problems with audio dropouts. I watched the Theatrical Version though, for it seems the Extended Version is the one most people are having trouble with audio.


----------



## djoberg

I was reminded on another thread about how amazing the details were in the UHD version of _Saving Private Ryan_ and I would have to say they were just as good as the details in _Black Hawk Down_. Having said that, I gave BHD a higher rating because it featured a more striking CLARITY. SPR had some SOFT SHOTS here and there throughout the film.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-828.html#post56165968


----------



## dla26

SnellTHX said:


> *Billy Lynn's Long Halftime walk (4K) *
> 
> okay first off, wow. Second: WOOW. I can't remember what made me add this movie to my IMDB watchlist, if it was a user of this thread or perhaps the fact that Ralph Potts gave this movie an elusive 100/100 rating in his review, but whoever recommended me this movie ... What a suggestion!
> 
> I was skeptical at first and couldn't believe how this could possible have among the best Picture quality ever, but it certainly has.
> Filmed with Sony's fancy CineAlta F65 cameras in my favourite, screen-filling 1.85:1 aspect ratio, with 4K resolution 3D and 120fps. This is the movie of the future.
> While the home version is merely 4K/60fps and 2D, it still has HDR, P3, 10bit bells & whistles and stems from a 4K DI... And boooyy does it show off that in spades. Compliments like 'Crystal-clear', 'Razor sharp', etc don't really do it justice. It's just on another level compared to most.
> 
> Perhaps the only complaint would be the bluish/cold 'stale' colour palette. But this movie has some of the most details I've ever seen before. When the camera zooms in on Steve Martin's face and he looks right at the camera it's downright scary. The man's in his 70s and you can see every blemish, rash, redness other skin defects that you'd expect from a senior citizen's face.
> Tears, wrinkles, beard stubble, acne, blackheads, pores, sweat.. I haven't really seen such realism before.
> 
> The war scenes shot in Iraq honestly look like the stupid demo-material you see on large Samsung/Sony venues that NEVER represent what you'd actually bring at home. It's that good.
> 
> 
> 
> So apropos the earlier discussion about film grain and natural / organic looking imagery.. you don't really have that here even though it's one of the most realistic out-of-the-window experiences on film. The smooth motion is not for everyone and I can't imagine everyone appreciating what is on offer.
> 
> 
> My top 3 is still Dunkirk, Transformers 5 & Interstellar... but this for me is equally high on my reference list. I definitely know what to show off the boys when its movie night and they want to see what images an OLED can produce
> 
> *Tier recommendation: 0 (top 5!)*


I concur with everything SnellTHX said, though I would dare to put it as my #2 best PQ disc, right after the king, Planet Earth II.

It did take a few minutes toget used to HFR. In a weird way it looked like I was watching video that was captured on someone's cell phone. It felt like I was watching actors acting. But after a few minutes, my eyes and brain adjusted, and I was just watching a movie. I watched something in 24fps right after watching Billy Flynn, and everything looked so blurry whenever the camera panned. Once you go HFR, you can never go back.  (Speaking of which, Ang Lee is directing his next film, Gemini Man, in HFR as well. I really hope it does well so more directors use it. I tried to pre-order Gemini Man on 4K UHD, but it's not on Amazon yet...)

In terms of SnellTHX's top 3, Dunkirk's muted color palette killed it for me, but I must admit that I've never seen Transformers 5 or Interstellar in 4K.

So my top 3 as of right now are:

1. Planet Earth II
2. Billy Flynn's Long Halftime Walk
3. The Great Wall

Honorable mentions go to The Martian and Aquaman.

*Tier recommendation: 0 (#2 )*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^

Man, you guys are tempting me to buy this (I can't RENT a 4K version of this). The problem with that is....I've heard the movie itself isn't very good.


----------



## subacabra

I couldn't make it through fifteen minutes of it. Way too soap-opery. Clear and sharp as a tack though!


----------



## dla26

subacabra said:


> I couldn't make it through fifteen minutes of it. Way too soap-opery. Clear and sharp as a tack though!


Like I said, the first couple minutes were difficult to get used to. Afterwards, it's just a really good looking movie.

As for the quality of the movie, I'd say it was good but not great. I thought it did a good job of showing how PTSD manifests itself and how there's a culture in the US of giving lip service thanks to the military bordering on hero worship but not *really* caring about their well-being.

It was a bit on the depressing side because of the nature of the message, but I don't think it was poorly done at all. I probably wouldn't have watched it if I hadn't heard the PQ was so good, but I don't regret having seen it at all. (Unlike, say, the Transformers movies. Whenever I watch one of those for all of the ear and eye candy, I feel gross because of how bad those movies are. Just my opinion of course. Everyone has different tastes.)


----------



## Phantom Stranger

The annual TV shoot-out judging the best displays is being held this weekend.


https://hdguru.com/15th-annual-tv-shootout-begins-june-12th-in-nyc/


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^

Well, the OLEDs are still KING!! The Sony OLED beat out the LG OLED again this year by a slim margin in several categories. I figured Sony would win in the "SDR category" (due to its superior processor) but was surprised it won in the "HDR" category (where the processor has nothing to do with the PQ). The Sony LCD came in third followed by Samsung's QLED display in fourth place.

I just rented _Captain Marvel_ at Redbox. I opted to rent instead of buy because some of the reviews of the movie itself left a sour taste in my mouth. When I ordered the 1080p Blu-ray online, I saw that Redbox will soon be offering UHD titles. That is great (as long as the price isn't too high)!


----------



## DarthDoxie

*2001: A Space Odyssey (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 0.66**

Excellent review from djobert, concur on all points.


The first time I saw this I was pretty bored except the scenes with HAL. I've since learned to appreciate movies for things like direction and cinematography and this one really holds your interest on those points if you can't get into the story.





djoberg said:


> *2001: A Space Odyssey (UHD)*
> 
> It has been decades since I've seen this Stanley Kubrick CLASSIC and I was even more in AWE of this mind-bending film watching it tonight. The eerie SILENCE....the amazing ORCHESTRA MUSIC....the stunning VISUALS....and last, but not least....the STORY itself....had me glued to my chair and my eyes riveted to the screen. Many (who are accustomed to non-stop action and mindless drivel) will be tempted to "pull the plug" long before the "Intermission" appears on the screen, but to those who admire true film-making at its best, this is a 4K marvel that deserves 2+ hours of your life (which in turn will turn into repeated viewings in the future).
> 
> I will say from the outset of my PQ analysis, this will NOT rise to the Top of Tier 0, but it will surely find its way somewhere in the middle or bottom third. I will start with the "negatives" that must be penalized. There is some "inherent softness" though great pains were obviously taken in transferring the restored 70mm film into the 4K Blu-ray. Shots of softness are seen in the opening scene (The Dawn of Man), especially in mid to long range shots. There were some fleeting "out of focus" shots and a bit of aliasing in those same scenes. But in fairness there was appreciable clarity too, with finely-rendered details in apes and craggy rocks.
> 
> From there we jump to SPACE where we are treated to brilliant CONTRAST throughout the rest of the movie...with the dazzling WHITE SPACESHIPS next to the BLACKNESS OF SPACE (though I must bring out that there is a fair amount of "dark grays" that make up space...this was easily detected in comparing it with my letter-boxed bars which had PERFECT BLACKS). In the spaceship the contrast is even stronger, with WHITE SPACE SUITS against BLACK and COLORFUL control panels and walls. Speaking of COLORS, the palette is limited but the primaries that were on display were as rich and vibrant as can be. The first instance of this is in a lounge with BRIGHT RED CHAIRS that were absolutely gorgeous. Then you had the red and yellow space suits worn outside the spaceship that really jumped out at you against the darkness of space and the twinkling of stars. And last, but not least, you had a colorful light show at the end that was mesmerizing! This is where DOLBY VISION shines the most!!
> 
> One more thing. The razor-sharp clarity inside the spaceship cabin (and other interior scenes) was to-die-for. This clarity carried with it intricate details in clothing and especially in facial texture. Pure EYE CANDY!!
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.66)*
> 
> PS I could see some going higher than this, but I'm going to be conservative considering the negatives listed above.


----------



## djoberg

*Captain Marvel (1080p)*

Disappointing....on most levels!

PQ-wise, this will barely make Tier Gold, for it has mediocre blacks (though some of the space scenes were excellent), less-than-stellar details (of course, there were "exceptions to this rule"), so-so colors, and a real lack of depth and clarity in many scenes. Where this "rose to the occasion" was in outdoor, daytime scenes. In those scenes you had plenty of sharpness, depth, and details.

AQ-wise, I was surprised at the level of LFE at times...with this being a Disney release. The DTS:Neural Mix was fantastic at times, most notably in any of the battle scenes in the sky or outer space. All of the surrounds had spot-on precision and I felt I was really "in the middle of the action."

Movie-wise....well, let me just say "I'm glad I opted to rent this instead of buying."

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^

I should have added that inherent SOFTNESS, especially in heavy CGI scenes, contributed largely in the lack of clarity, details, depth and inky black levels (which also resulted in a lack of shadow details).


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> *Black Hawk Down (UHD)*
> 
> I finally got around to watching this and it was even better than I had anticipated. Snell, I feel sorry for you when it comes to "hating grain," for I had no problems whatsoever with the grain with the one or two exceptions where it became a bit much when there was DUST from bombing or trucks racing through the city.
> .



Well I knew for sure you'd absolutely love the PQ of B.H.D. - as you said and as I, Ralph Potts and many others; the facial detail in the close up shots of BHD are practically second to none. Top 5 material. Texture is on another level completely. Its just some of the shots, panoramic views, landscapes etc that looked more akin to DVD stuff IMO. Maybe I was a little harsh, some of the movie is Tier 0.1 while at its worst maybe tier 3.5, though it mostly lies in between so somewhere around tier 1.


Knew you would enjoy it, which is exactly why I said you shouldn't listen to my review on it


----------



## SnellTHX

dla26 said:


> I concur with everything SnellTHX said, though I would dare to put it as my #2 best PQ disc, right after the king, Planet Earth II.
> 
> 
> 
> In terms of SnellTHX's top 3, Dunkirk's muted color palette killed it for me, but I must admit that I've never seen Transformers 5 or Interstellar in 4K.
> 
> So my top 3 as of right now are:
> 
> 1. Planet Earth II
> 2. Billy Flynn's Long Halftime Walk
> 3. The Great Wall
> 
> Honorable mentions go to The Martian and Aquaman.
> 
> *Tier recommendation: 0 (#2 )*



Well I for one cannot understand how anyone who has seen Dunkirk can NOT place it as #1  my ultimate picture king for sure  muted colours just seems like a thematic choice... which I would choose if I were Nolan's colourist myself.

But yeah Billy Lynn is phenomenal. I show it to a couple of friends, and they said it was akin to watching a Samsung 8K demo. 

I didn't even realise the movie was filmed in HFR. my jaw just dropped and made me forget I was watching a movie... An experience I only ever get from IMAX 15/70mm filmed Nolan movies and Transformers.


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> Well I knew for sure you'd absolutely love the PQ of B.H.D. - as you said and as I, Ralph Potts and many others; the facial detail in the close up shots of BHD are practically second to none. Top 5 material. Texture is on another level completely. Its just some of the shots, panoramic views, landscapes etc that looked more akin to DVD stuff IMO. Maybe I was a little harsh, some of the movie is Tier 0.1 while at its worst maybe tier 3.5, though it mostly lies in between so somewhere around tier 1.
> 
> 
> Knew you would enjoy it, which is exactly why I said you shouldn't listen to my review on it


I SMILED from ear to ear when I read your last sentence!

Man, you MUST hate grain with a passion to say that there are scenes that qualify for the middle of Tier 3! Again, IMHO the scenes with the heaviest grain never once hindered details. They did look "grainy" but not to the point of erasing all "redeemable qualities." This begs the question, "How would you rate a scene in a movie like _Lawrence of Arabia_ that features a SANDSTORM?" That has LITERAL GRAIN (GRAINS of sand!!). Would you put it in Tier 3 or below because of this? I think I already know your answer...I think you will say, "Yeah, but in a scene like that WE ARE SUPPOSED TO SEE GRAINS OF SAND, whereas in _Black Hawk Down_ we are seeing 'gritty grain' which we wouldn't see in real life." Did I guess right?


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^

Snell, I forgot to put a huge "Smiley Face" at the end of my last post, for my question and comments regarding "grains of sand" were all said in jest!


----------



## SnellTHX

Phantom Stranger said:


> The annual TV shoot-out judging the best displays is being held this weekend.
> 
> 
> https://hdguru.com/15th-annual-tv-shootout-begins-june-12th-in-nyc/


I really wish Panasonic's were sold in the USA, just to see how they'd score in VE's annual TV shootout. In Europe, where professionals compare the best displays, including this years US-winner (AG9) and last year's winner in the US (AF9) vs Panasonic's GZ2000, FZ950, EZ1000 and every year most pick Panasonics as TV of the year. Except this one shootout that was sponsored by Philips in which, Philips OLED 903 won.  In any case I can't justify Sony & Panasonics premium over LG even if they have superior processing/motion/colour accuracy.


But one thing every year has in common... it's always an OLED lol. PDP won basically every year from 2005-2013, OLED's won every year from 2014-2019 and counting.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^

I believe that OLEDs will continue to win EVERY YEAR "until" a superior technology (like "MicroLED") comes to market. You simply can't beat a "self-emissive" display with its PERFECT BLACKS, INFINITE CONTRAST and GORGEOUS COLORS. LCD definitely has the title for superior BRIGHTNESS (with some displays having TWICE the nit level of an OLED), but that won't make up for PERFECT BLACKS & INFINITE CONTRAST.


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> I SMILED from ear to ear when I read your last sentence!
> 
> Man, you MUST hate grain with a passion to say that there are scenes that qualify for the middle of Tier 3! Again, IMHO the scenes with the heaviest grain never once hindered details. They did look "grainy" but not to the point of erasing all "redeemable qualities." This begs the question, "How would you rate a scene in a movie like _Lawrence of Arabia_ that features a SANDSTORM?" That has LITERAL GRAIN (GRAINS of sand!!). Would you put it in Tier 3 or below because of this? I think I already know your answer...I think you will say, "Yeah, but in a scene like that WE ARE SUPPOSED TO SEE GRAINS OF SAND, whereas in _Black Hawk Down_ we are seeing 'gritty grain' which we wouldn't see in real life." Did I guess right?


Well since you put it that way, and I know you ARE joking... but I recently watched Aquaman (I'll post a short review soon) but I'll be 100% honest and say the 'bubbles' and other artefacts in the water sort of distracted me a little bit making the image appear less sharp / clear... which is obviously an added effect and is indeed more realistic as a camera filming through water wouldn't be clear as a sunny day out in the open air...  
So would a literal sandstorm of sand grain in Lawrence of Arabia annoy me? yes  

but jokes aside... bubbles/blurry water vision / sand storms impair our vision but at least it represents what our own eyes would perceive in the real world if we were under water or in the middle of a desert. Film grain... just does not exist in real life so artificially adding something which doesn't even serve a purpose or improve any aspect should detract from the score given... In my opinion.


We all have our preferences just like some prefer 24 fps over 48, 60, 75, 96, 100, 120, 144 etc...


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^

Like I said in my review of _Aquaman_, the underwater scenes can be SOFT at times, but that is to be expected. I actually thought they appeared SHARPER than I would have expected. But Snell, ALL of the underwater scenes were IMAX SCENES (i.e. Full Screen!) and that's one of your biggest LIKES!


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^
> 
> . But Snell, ALL of the underwater scenes were IMAX SCENES (i.e. Full Screen!) and that's one of your biggest LIKES!


Absolutely, I prefer 1.85:1 / 1.78:1 aspect ratios over the wider formats as it fills up the screen, and yes they may be filmed with 'IMAX' cameras but these were only digital IMAX cameras.. Like Infinity War boasted being the first film to be filmed entirely in IMAX, that's a white lie. Avengers: IW was filmed with Alex/IMAX collaborated digital 3D camera with 5.6K resolution (20 million pixels or so) 

the REAL analog IMAX 15/70mm scenes filmed in Nolan movies are with the IMAX MSM-9802 15/70mm camera, that's estimated to be the film equivalent of 18K, and with a 1.44:1 aspect ratio that makes the total resolution to be around 220 million pixels, 11 times more than the digital 'IMAX' and 25 times higher than 4K! So not only does Dunkirk, Interstellar and The Dark Knight rises fill up my entire display, its showing 25(100) times more information than a 4K (1080p) blu-ray disc can show.


----------



## SnellTHX

*AQUAMAN (4K)*


Well this movie has been praised by absolutely every, ranking among many top lists and some users (of this forum) have stated it's the best picture quality they've ever seen. and while it looks absolutely excellent, it doesn't rank among the best in my opinion. The image is bright, punchy and very contrast with good depth. And it is presented screen-filling 1.78:1 !

At its best it is indeed reference image quality, but some scenes appear 'softer' than others, with less detail. The CGI of the costumes looks superb, but other CGI elements bright out the softness, for example the lighthouse scenes. 
So at its worst you can kind of tell it was filmed in 3.4K and delivered on a 2K DI. but at its best, including the final battle scene and my favourite (PQ-wise) scene of the entire movie: when Aquaman & the red-head walk out of the water from the beach, followed by the plane scene in the desert. Wow! Now _that_ looks like straight-up 8K demo material. 


One thing's certain I think it is BY FAR the best looking DC movie. None of the previous DCU movies are anywhere near reference IMO. I think I scored Justice League 1.5 , Batman Vs Superman a 1.75 and Wonder Woman a 2.0

While Aquaman PQ doesn't quite live up to the best superhero movies (TDK/R, GOTG2, Ant-man) it certainly gives Avengers: IW, Black Panther, Avengers Assemble a run for their money.

*Tier recommendation: 0.50*


----------



## fredxr2d2

*Avengers (2012) 4K*

*Tier 0.9*


If you thought the movie looked good in 1080p, the 4K remaster is a welcome surprise in that it looks even better. Textures were great. Colors were bold and just right. HDR was subtle and a welcome enhancement.


I think that after I bumped up the MV by 5dB, the Atmos soundtrack did a decent job of replicating the previous soundtrack experience, only with added overhead effects. Also, the movie still holds up.


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> *AQUAMAN (4K)*Well this movie has been praised by absolutely every, ranking among many top lists and some users (of this forum) have stated it's the best picture quality they've ever seen.


I can't recall anyone on this Thread stating this was "the best picture quality they've ever seen." I'm on record saying, "It's one of the best" and then in my placement I gave it a Tier 0 and then narrowed it down by saying "in the Top Three 'Live Action' films." I'm not exactly sure where that would land, but it would be somewhere in the "Top 15-20." As you know, _Planet Earth 2_ is still THE KING, and I really don't know where the next "live action film" is among the MANY animated marvels that make up the vast majority of those sitting in the top of Tier 0.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-853.html#post57830876

At any rate, your rating of Tier 0 (.5) ain't too shabby!!


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> *I can't recall anyone on this Thread stating this was "the best picture quality they've ever seen."* _I'm on record saying, "It's one of the best" and then in my placement I gave it a Tier 0 and then narrowed it down by saying "in the Top Three 'Live Action' films." I'm not exactly sure where that would land, but it would be somewhere in the "Top 15-20." As you know, Planet Earth 2 is still THE KING, and I really don't know where the next "live action film" is among the MANY animated marvels that make up the vast majority of those sitting in the top of Tier 0._
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-853.html#post57830876
> 
> At any rate, your rating of Tier 0 (.5) ain't too shabby!!


*
I was referring to post #12, in the official avsforum review of the movie where an owner of a JVC projector claimed it was "the best PQ he had ever seen"*

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-...man-ultra-hd-blu-ray-review.html#post57769878

_You and many others placed it really, really high. Some have said best ever, some say top 3 or top 5 or top 10. For me it wasn't on that level, but about half way up the reference list hence my tier 0(.5) rating. It's still excellent, just not as good as others have stated. _

In any case I definitely need to catch up on the animated movies. I think I've only seen about 5-7 in the last ≈ 10 years!


----------



## SnellTHX

fredxr2d2 said:


> *Avengers (2012) 4K*
> 
> *Tier 0.9*
> 
> 
> If you thought the movie looked good in 1080p, the 4K remaster is a welcome surprise in that it looks even better. Textures were great. Colors were bold and just right. HDR was subtle and a welcome enhancement.
> 
> 
> I think that after I bumped up the MV by 5dB, the Atmos soundtrack did a decent job of replicating the previous soundtrack experience, only with added overhead effects. Also, the movie still holds up.



Will definitely get this movie in 4K. When it came out in 2012 on blu-ray I was mind blown. Along with Avatar and The Dark Knight Rises (IMAX 15/70 scenes) it was among the finest picture quality I had ever seen. So good in fact I was left disappointed with almost every Marvel movie since! (Avengers Age of Ultron springs to mind) a lot has changed since then so if I were to re-watch the 1080p version after seing Avengers: Infinity War, Black Panther and Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2 in 4K/HDR it probably wouldn't impress me that much anymore.

... But a 4K/HDR version of the original Avengers?


----------



## djoberg

Since you guys were discussing the initial _Avengers (UHD)_ Blu-ray, I thought I would copy the posts below where you and I discussed the latest UHD in the _Avengers_ series. As you can see, you were actually a bit HIGHER than me in your placement, but we were both pretty close. I have no problem whatsoever with us disagreeing with a relatively "small margin" like this. I recall the days when we had members who were posting placements where they were "whole tiers apart" from the general consensus. Needless to say, we had some very animated discussions about those.




djoberg said:


> *Avengers: Infinity War (UHD)*
> 
> Man, this was a LONG movie and it's LATE, so I'm going to keep this very short.
> 
> The BOTTOM LINE: It's most definitely "reference material" with outstanding CONTRAST and COLORS, courtesy of HDR. Its specular highlights (also a benefit of HDR) were superb. BLACK LEVELS & SHADOW DETAILS were mesmerizing all the way through. DEPTH was amazing, at times. The downside was SOFTNESS during some of the many CGI scenes. Let me put it to you this way, unlike _Transformers: The Last Knight_, the CGI in this film simply couldn't retain its CLARITY and SHARPNESS. Don't get me wrong, there were plenty of scenes where it was "sharp as a tack" with CGI, but there were also a host of scenes where softness reared its ugly head.
> 
> I looked for others who actually reviewed it and Snell was the only one. He gave it a Tier 0 (.9). I think it deserves a wee bit higher placement, so...
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.66)*
> 
> PS The Dolby Atmos mix was kind of crazy. I had to turn the volume up to -5 to really get into it and at that level I was expecting more when it came to the massive explosions throughout the nearly 2 1/2 hour running time. Having said that, there were at least two scenes where the villain was pouring out what I call his "death wave of energy" and I could feel it rippling across the room. My subs are capable, at times, of reaching down to about 13 Hz and I believe it was at that level in those scenes.





SnellTHX said:


> Well to be fair, when I reviewed Avengers: Infinity War, I think it was one of the last 1080p movies I reviewed. It was around this time I acquired my Samsung 4K/HDR player and since then I haven't really been able to go back to regular 1080p ! I have since watched Avengers: IW in 4K/HDR and my jaw dropped at the differences. Improved clarity, detail, resolution, sharpness, emboldened colours everything took quite a large step up, despite coming from a 2K DI.
> 
> I think 4K Avengers: IW is more align with Tier 0.5


----------



## Kool-aid23

Early prediction, Toy Story 4 will be the new #1 when the home version drops later this year.


----------



## SnellTHX

Kool-aid23 said:


> Early prediction, Toy Story 4 will be the new #1 when the home version drops later this year.


Quite possibly


----------



## djoberg

*The Upside (1080p)*

My wife and I just finished watching this "feel good" movie that was based on a true story. This was a remake of a film called _The Intouchables_ and I was informed that this was a horrible rendition of it, but in this case "I'm glad I hadn't seen the original." The PQ was quite good and for those who like a FULL SCREEN (Hey Snell, are you listening?) this is in the 1.85:1 Aspect Ratio from beginning to end.. Overall it had striking clarity, amazing details/texture, strong contrast, excellent depth, and stellar black levels. It did have some "soft scenes" and at times the colors were a bit muted.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**


----------



## fredxr2d2

*Mary Poppins Returns (1080p)*

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0*


This is a clean, clear 1080p movie. Colors tend to be muted, but textures are really great. Contrast seems to be spot on. There are a few moments where the colors went from bland to bright and if the whole movie had been that way, it would be a Tier 0 contender.


The audio was a bit low in volume and I was watching with my parents and wife, so I didn't push it up to where it might have been better (probably should increase by 5dB, per most recent Disney tracks).


The movie itself was overly long and occasionally boring, but I don't have the nostalgia for the first film that many do. My mother quite enjoyed it.


----------



## Jbhur212

djoberg said:


> *The Upside (1080p)*
> 
> My wife and I just finished watching this "feel good" movie that was based on a true story. This was a remake of a film called _The Intouchables_ and I was informed that this was a horrible rendition of it, but in this case "I'm glad I hadn't seen the original." The PQ was quite good and for those who like a FULL SCREEN (Hey Snell, are you listening?) this is in the 1.85:1 Aspect Ratio from beginning to end.. Overall it had striking clarity, amazing details/texture, strong contrast, excellent depth, and stellar black levels. It did have some "soft scenes" and at times the colors were a bit muted.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.0**


Well just wanted to pop in and say hi and to let you know that I watched the Mortal Engines UHD last night in my HT (got it for $15 which is about right for a somewhat sorry storyline though the film does get better later) and, after re-visiting your review, I really think this disc is as close to perfect as you can get right now. Agree with your assessment, the clarity, the gorgeous colors and detail are that good. Plus, I chuckled because, I too, listened to it at -5 because I was worried my nice next door neighbor would hear it in her bedroom on the opposite side of her house. The audio is that dynamic.


----------



## SnellTHX

Jbhur212 said:


> Well just wanted to pop in and say hi and to let you know that I watched the Mortal Engines UHD last night in my HT (got it for $15 which is about right for a somewhat sorry storyline though the film does get better later) and, after re-visiting your review, I really think this disc is as close to perfect as you can get right now. Agree with your assessment, the clarity, the gorgeous colors and detail are that good. Plus, I chuckled because, I too, listened to it at -5 because I was worried my nice next door neighbor would hear it in her bedroom on the opposite side of her house. The audio is that dynamic.


I saw Mortal Engines in the cinema with IMAX 3D. It looked phenomenal. Peter Jackson so you know it'll be reference when it comes to disc. Filmed with RED 8K and delivered on a 4K DI... Smells like tier 0


----------



## SnellTHX

Another forum suggested I watch 13 hours... They stated it was the best live action HDR usage they had ever seen. I can't even remember if I've seen 13 hours, but in any case it would have been on my Kuro in 1080p/SDR. So a rewatch on OLED in 4K/HDR... Worth it


----------



## subacabra

SnellTHX said:


> Another forum suggested I watch 13 hours... They stated it was the best live action HDR usage they had ever seen. I can't even remember if I've seen 13 hours, but in any case it would have been on my Kuro in 1080p/SDR. So a rewatch on OLED in 4K/HDR... Worth it


I'll be giving the uhd of 13 Hours a spin on my new HT3550 tonight. Can't wait!


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^

Man, if _13 Hours_ is improved on UHD, it's going to come close to being the "King of the Blu-ray Hill." Here's my review of the 1080p version where I gave it a Tier 0 (.5) placement:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-776.html#post44632481


----------



## djoberg

Here's Ralph Potts' review of the UHD version. If this doesn't "whet your appetite" to SEE and BUY this Blu-ray, nothing will!

Just ordered it from Amazon at an incredible price!

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-...azi-ultra-hd-blu-ray-review.html#post58104068


----------



## SnellTHX

*Cold Pursuit (4K)*

There wasn't much impressive about this movie in terms of PQ. It looked rather generic and looked like a 'straight-to-DVD' or 'straight-to-netflix' type of movie and it looked closer to a Netflix quality deprived compressed stream rather than a true 4K/HDR physical media experience. Although some scenes did look rather sharper with a good amount of detail, it is the most part rather bland and soft-looking with areas not resolved to well. I like referring to the best 4K/HDR movies (Transformers LK, Billy Lynn) as either looking out a window or '4K that MUST be 8K' this is more like one those '4K that looks more like 2K'. Probably filmed in 2.8K on 2K DI, but there are movies that ARE filmed in 2.8k and derived from a 2K DI like John Wick put have excellent near reference quality. The movie was helped by the grayish looking blacks throughout. Nothing disappoints more than that when watch on an OLED TV. Stylistic choice of raising the blacks, but one I absolutely despise. Only time I was fed absolute blacks is when they announce the deaths in between scenes. 


*Tier recommendation 1.75*


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Man, if _13 Hours_ is improved on UHD, it's going to come close to being the "King of the Blu-ray Hill." Here's my review of the 1080p version where I gave it a Tier 0 (.5) placement:
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-776.html#post44632481


Four times the resolution, 30% more colour, 64 times more shades and 7-20 times higher peak brightness depending on your display.

Yeah I'm sure Michael Bay found at least some way to improve upon it 

Ordered 13 hours 4K/HDR! Cannot wait


----------



## SnellTHX

*Apollo 13 - 4K*

Really don't understand the hype for this at all - this movie looked mediocre from start to finish. Thick layer of grain, very noisy image, not a lot of detail to find either. I asked my friend to guess when this movie was made and said "I dunno, the 70s maybe". There isn't much to tell that this is 4K and there is very little visible use of HDR/WCG. Judging this movie's PQ by virtually _any_ movie of the last five years and this comes up short. The only thing Apollo 13 had going for it are the space scenes where blacks were rendered perfectly. 

*Tier recommendation: 3*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^

You don't understand the hype BECAUSE YOU HATE GRAIN! Really Snell, if you read anyone's review of just the 1080p Remastered Version, you will see they "sing its praises" (Ralph Potts gave that a PQ score of 92....Our own DarthDoxie gave it a placement of 1.0). Well, the 4K version takes it even higher (I gave it a .5 rating). 

To place this in Tier 3 would be a TRAVESTY. Enough said!!

Here is an excellent review by HighDefDigest that gives it the praise it deserves:

https://ultrahd.highdefdigest.com/48734/apollo134kultrahdbluray.html

PS You may be wondering, "Why in the world is Denny coming across so strong?" The answer is, "Whenever we have this much of a difference in placements there is going to be a STRONG DISCUSSION where everyone can defend their position." Like I said in an earlier post, we used have these kinds of differences and discussions in the distant past.


----------



## dla26

*Mission Impossible: Fallout UHD*

Very solidly good-looking title throughout, but few breathtaking scenes. There were a handful of good shots with lots of detail, but just as many that felt a little softer. Despite having lots of dark scenes, there was no black crush. So if you're one of those people who likes the use of HDR to show off subtle contrasts in blacks and grays, this has some good demo material for that. The color palette, while not as washed out as, say, Dunkirk, didn't have as much rich color as I always like seeing. (I realize in both cases that these are stylistic decisions by the director. I just always feel so starved for actual color!) I didn't see any banding, black crush, DNR, or any other issues.

I was close to rating this as Tier 0, but I feel like since the bar keeps getting higher and higher, simply not having any problems isn't enough to be Tier 0 in my book. This title looks great and no one will be disappointed by the PQ, but it just doesn't pop out enough to warrant being in the highest tier. If someone else were to push for Tier 0, though, I would not object.

P.S. It was also a surprisingly good movie. There were a lot of plot twists, so I may actually go back and re-watch it to get all of that detail again.

*Tier recommendation: 1.0*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^

Excellent review AND placement!  We're on the same page!!

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-843.html#post57225472


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^
> 
> You don't understand the hype BECAUSE YOU HATE GRAIN! Really Snell, if you read anyone's review of just the 1080p Remastered Version, you will see they "sing its praises" (Ralph Potts gave that a PQ score of 92....Our own DarthDoxie gave it a placement of 1.0). Well, the 4K version takes it even higher (I gave it a .5 rating).
> 
> To place this in Tier 3 would be TRAVESTY. Enough said!!
> 
> Here is an excellent review by HighDefDigest that gives it the praise it deserves:
> 
> https://ultrahd.highdefdigest.com/48734/apollo134kultrahdbluray.html
> 
> PS You may be wondering, "Why in the world is Denny coming across so strong?" The answer is, "Whenever we have this much of a difference in placements there is going to be a STRONG DISCUSSION where everyone can defend their position." Like I said in an earlier post, we used have these kinds of differences and discussions in the distant past.



You guys must all be wearing old man's glasses, and giving it a high rating for being "good for being old" kind of thing. In comparison to modern movies, it looks really, really bad in my opinion.

Looking at the USER reviews on this website: https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Apollo-13-4K-Blu-ray/186542/

the users voted it a 2/5* on video and 2/5* on its 4K image. Two out of five stars is the same a 4/10 score.

on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is an old black and white tape, while Transformers 5 in 4K/HDR is a 10... Apollo 13 belongs bang in the middle at around 5/10.

if; 

tier 5 = 0 stars
Tier 4 = 1 star
tier 3 = 2 stars
tier 2 = 3 stars
tier 1 = 4 stars
tier 0 = 5 stars

then I am actually on the same page as the user reviews  

my friend wasn't impressed either, and thought the movie was actually 20 years older than it was. If its 4K image was anywhere NEAR reference it would trick him into believing the movie and recently come out. 

How can you tell the difference between a WWII movie like Fury and a WWII movie like The Great Escape? its easy to tell the former came out recently and the latter is several decades older, despite them both taking place in the same era. same goes with the original Spartacus and Spartacus the TV series, in 4K/Dolby Vision.

Honestly if you placed me in a pitch black room, Icould mistake my OLED playing a 4K/HDR version of Apollo 13 for a Sony XBR CRT playing an upscaled DVD of it instead.


----------



## SnellTHX

But not all old movies necessarily look bad. Lawrence of Arabia was phenomenal in 1080p on my Kuro.

I remember I invited 3-4 friends over to watch Pulp Fiction, on blu-ray back in my Kuro days. None of them are videophiles but their jaws dropped at the sight of how good the PQ was. a film from 1994 left casual non-videophiles completely mind blown. We'd later watch movies like Man of Steel, Captain America, Green Latern and other generic superhero / blockbuster movies that were brand-spanking new and not a single comment about 'how good things looked'. those movies were more like "yeah it looks good, but who cares".not the "holy **** man your TV is ****ing legendary" vibe that Pulp Fiction gave.


Which reminds me... This movie is probably available in 4K/HDR by now ...


----------



## rnk21

SnellTHX said:


> You guys must all be wearing old man's glasses, and giving it a high rating for being "good for being old" kind of thing. In comparison to modern movies, it looks really, really bad in my opinion.
> 
> Looking at the USER reviews on this website: https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Apollo-13-4K-Blu-ray/186542/
> 
> the users voted it a 2/5* on video and 2/5* on its 4K image. Two out of five stars is the same a 4/10 score.
> 
> on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is an old black and white tape, while Transformers 5 in 4K/HDR is a 10... Apollo 13 belongs bang in the middle at around 5/10.
> 
> if;
> 
> tier 5 = 0 stars
> Tier 4 = 1 star
> tier 3 = 2 stars
> tier 2 = 3 stars
> tier 1 = 4 stars
> tier 0 = 5 stars
> 
> then I am actually on the same page as the user reviews
> 
> my friend wasn't impressed either, and thought the movie was actually 20 years older than it was. If its 4K image was anywhere NEAR reference it would trick him into believing the movie and recently come out.
> 
> How can you tell the difference between a WWII movie like Fury and a WWII movie like The Great Escape? its easy to tell the former came out recently and the latter is several decades older, despite them both taking place in the same era. same goes with the original Spartacus and Spartacus the TV series, in 4K/Dolby Vision.
> 
> Honestly if you placed me in a pitch black room, Icould mistake my OLED playing a 4K/HDR version of Apollo 13 for a Sony XBR CRT playing an upscaled DVD of it instead.


 If you actually read the user reviews, of which there are a whopping three, one of them is glowing, one is disappointed that it wasn't a huge upgrade over the blu ray, and one was upset that the aspect ratio was incorrect. There are many more positive reviews than negative, and using the limited number of user reviews to enhance your position seems disingenuous..


----------



## SnellTHX

rnk21 said:


> If you actually read the user reviews, of which there are a whopping three, one of them is glowing, one is disappointed that it wasn't a huge upgrade over the blu ray, and one was upset that the aspect ratio was incorrect. There are many more positive reviews than negative, and using the limited number of user reviews to enhance your position seems disingenuous..


I just did a quick google search, found the reviewer scored it way higher than the user reviews. I didn't actually read them or see it was only 3. Anyway that's besides the point. This is still the worst movie I have seen on a 4K/HDR disk. 


But if you guys all thought this looked really good, then I'm curious to find out what you guys think is an example of terrible looking 4K/HDR movie.


----------



## SnellTHX

*Creed II - 4K*


Thought this movie looked absolutely excellent. Razor sharp, good contrast, INKY perfectly deep blacks. Watching this movie and enjoying its pristine 4K/HDR imagery made me as a huge sports fan (boxing, MMA, football) wonder how long it takes until live sports events look this good. Here in Norway we only get PPVs in a highly compressed (3-5Mb/s) 720p stream. I would LOVE to watch Fury vs Wilder II (or any of the two face Joshua/Ruiz) in 4K quality like this!

*
Tier recommendation: 0.75*


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> But if you guys all thought this looked really good, then I'm curious to find out what you guys think is an example of terrible looking 4K/HDR movie.


I have about 90 4K/HDR Blu-rays in my library and I can only think of one that really disappointed me. I'm speaking of _The Da Vinci Code_, which had a lot of softness and some murky blacks. I looked for my review on it but it nothing came up. I probably still gave it at least a Tier 2 ranking though, for it did have some excellent details at times.

Regarding some of us ranking _Apollo 13_ high because "it looked good for an old film," that simply isn't true (in my case). You said your friend said the film looked 20 years older than it was...I believe he said that because this is indeed what we call a "period film" (due to it taking place in April of 1970). The "ascetics" of a period film is going to look different than a "Present-Day film." It will usually have saturated colors. It will often have "grain" (which I know you really like). That may come across to some viewers as "poorer quality" but IMHO if it still has good clarity, details, depth, black levels, and flesh tones it should NOT be penalized.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Two days ago I finally capitulated and took possession of a new LG OLED55E8PUA. I was looking for an OLED with excellent HDR and strong black levels. This display looks great in my limited testing so far.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> Two days ago I finally capitulated and took possession of a new LG OLED55E8PUA. I was looking for an OLED with excellent HDR and strong black levels. This display looks great in my limited testing so far.


Good for you Phantom! You are going to LOVE it!!


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^

I should have added, "You have a lot UHD Blu-rays to watch!"


----------



## djoberg

*13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi (UHD)*

Amazing...amazing...amazing! My eyes just overdosed on mesmerizing DETAILS, super inky BLACKS, intricate SHADOW DETAILS, and striking CLARITY. I gave the 1080p version a ranking of .5 but this most definitely takes it up a notch. I also gave the UHD release of _Black Hawk Down_ a .33 placement and this is a tad better. Instead of giving you another review, I'll just post the link for the review on the regular Blu-ray.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-776.html#post44632481

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.25)*

PS The Dolby Atmos mix was also AMAZING!!


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> I have about 90 4K/HDR Blu-rays in my library and I can only think of one that really disappointed me. I'm speaking of _The Da Vinci Code_, which had a lot of softness and some murky blacks. I looked for my review on it but it nothing came up. I probably still gave it at least a Tier 2 ranking though, for it did have some excellent details at times.
> 
> Regarding some of us ranking _Apollo 13_ high because "it looked good for an old film," that simply isn't true (in my case). You said your friend said the film looked 20 years older than it was...I believe he said that because this is indeed what we call a "period film" (due to it taking place in April of 1970). The "ascetics" of a period film is going to look different than a "Present-Day film." It will usually have saturated colors. It will often have "grain" (which I know you really like). That may come across to some viewers as "poorer quality" but IMHO if it still has good clarity, details, depth, black levels, and flesh tones it should NOT be penalised.


My friends know I'm extremely picky about PQ, and that generally a movie watched at my place will have really high quality. They mostly have cheap/small/old TVs and watch the bulk of their movies on netflix. Fury is a period film, but if you asked 100 people to guess when it was made, I bet you 99 out of 100 would guess somewhere in the last ≈ 10 years ( I think it was 2013 or 2014). No one will guess 1945, or 1975-1990. 

Wolf of Wall Street has reference quality PQ, its based in the late 80s / early 90s, but if you showed a random clip using unknown actors (so hiding Leo DiCaprio or Matthew McConaughy or Jonah Hill etc) ANYONE can tell its from the last decade.


Has reality changed in the last 20-30 years? Or perhaps the quality of mastering, cameras, lenses, optics, computers etc. 

First Man is from 2018, I'll try finding a scene from the movie that doesn't have any famous faces like Ryan Gosling and get a friend who hasn't seen it to guess what year it came out. Its based around the same time as Apollo 13, but something tells me he won't guess "the 70s or something?"


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> *13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi (UHD)*
> 
> Amazing...amazing...amazing! My eyes just overdosed on mesmerizing DETAILS, super inky BLACKS, intricate SHADOW DETAILS, and striking CLARITY. I gave the 1080p version a ranking of .5 but this most definitely takes it up a notch. I also gave the UHD release of _Black Hawk Down_ a .33 placement and this is a tad better. Instead of giving you another review, I'll just post the link for the review on the regular Blu-ray.
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-776.html#post44632481
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.25)*
> 
> PS The Dolby Atmos mix was also AMAZING!!




Glad I could partly convince you to get 13 Hour in 4K/HDR.

my copy of 13 Hours just arrived along with the also 4K/HDR version of 'Mortal Engines'. It looked reference in the cinema, and having Peter Jackson's name on it makes me believe this could be a top of the hill tier 0 reference


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> First Man is from 2018, I'll try finding a scene from the movie that doesn't have any famous faces like Ryan Gosling and get a friend who hasn't seen it to guess what year it came out. Its based around the same time as Apollo 13, but something tells me he won't guess "the 70s or something?"


I just tried Searching for my review of _First Man_ and nothing came up. That's weird since I just reviewed it the first part of the year. Anyway, if memory serves me that film also had "saturated colors" that SEEM to be the norm for many "period films." I "think" you will find it similar in that respect to _Apollo 13_.

Okay, I spent about 20 minutes looking for my review and here it is:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-848.html#post57501134

As you will see Snell, this has both GRAIN and SATURATED COLORS and I mention that's because it's a "period piece."


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> My copy of 13 Hours just arrived along with the also 4K/HDR version of 'Mortal Engines'. It looked reference in the cinema, and having Peter Jackson's name on it makes me believe this could be a top of the hill tier 0 reference


Here is my review of this "phenomenal" PQ film:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-851.html#post57748106

You're in for a treat!!


----------



## SnellTHX

*Mortal Engines - 4K*

Holy ****, WOW. This movie is an absolute reference movie. my expectations were sky-high for this movie, as it looked phenomenal in 
3D IMAX. Peter Jackson's heavy involvement hyped me to believe this would be one of top dogs in image quality like The Hobbit trilogy still is today and like the now pretty old LOTR movies, are still near reference quality two decades later.


Mortal Engines exceeded my expectations and more! Another one of those "4K looking like 8K" discs with ridiculous amount of 3D depth fooling you to think it's a "2D looking like 3D" movie. Derived from a 4K D.I. (obviously) filmed with the RED Helium 8K camera, you can tell that 4K just doesn't do the picture quality justice. It is easily one of the best looking 4K/HDR movies I have ever seen. It is hard to imagine a better picture than this from the 1.7 metres I sit from my 55" OLED. If I move 20cm closer it remains _perfect_. 40cm closer and it is still _flawless_. 60cm closer, no noise, no pixelation, no artefacts, no grain... It made me want to glue my face to the screen.

CGI is best-in-class. The image so punchy it punches you in the face. Resolution is perfect, blacks are absolute, contrast infinite, clarity is pristine, details are endless. Colours pop. Razor-sharp is an understatement. its sharpness goes well beyond want I'd normally describe as sharp. I tried looking for faults in a faultless rendition/transfer of a movie and the only 'negative' thing I can think of is that I wish it was presented in a taller 1.78 / 1.85:1 format so it would fill my screen, but that's a personal preference and doesn't defer the rating of the picture quality at all.


Mortal Engines bumps Billy Lynn right out of my top 5. It surpasses Pacific Rim (which has my preferred aspect ratio) and places well into my top 3. Picture quality doesn't really get much better than this as of 2019, that is the new demo standard. I'm not quite sure if I'd place it as my #1 or #2 (Dunkirk the PEAK PQ king with IMAX 15/70mm scenes) and (Transformers 5 the 'OVERALL' PQ king) but it definitely goes alongside those two as my three kings of PQ.

*
Tier recommendation: 0 (Top 3?)*


----------



## Joe Bloggs

SnellTHX said:


> *Mortal Engines - 4K*
> 
> Holy ****, WOW. This movie is an absolute reference movie. my expectations were sky-high for this movie, as it looked phenomenal in
> 3D IMAX. Peter Jackson's heavy involvement hyped me to believe this would be one of top dogs in image quality like The Hobbit trilogy still is today and like the now pretty old LOTR movies, are still near reference quality two decades later.
> 
> 
> Mortal Engines exceeded my expectations and more! Another one of those "4K looking like 8K" discs with ridiculous amount of 3D depth fooling you to think it's a "2D looking like 3D" movie. Derived from a 4K D.I. (obviously) filmed with the RED Helium 8K camera, you can tell that 4K just doesn't do the picture quality justice. It is easily one of the best looking 4K/HDR movies I have ever seen.
> 
> 
> Mortal Engines bumps Billy Lynn right out of my top 5.
> *
> ** Tier recommendation: 0 (Top 3?)*





> Mortal Engines bumps Billy Lynn right out of my top 5.





> Derived from a 4K D.I. (obviously) filmed with the RED Helium 8K camera, you can tell that 4K just doesn't do the picture quality justice


When I watched the Blu-ray there's was quite a lot of motion blur on the CGI (eg. moving cities). 
The reviews also say it's unlikely the CGI was all done at 4K.

Also wouldn't there be a lot less motion blur in Billy Lynn (which in theory should allow for more picture resolution (depending on the amount of motion) ). In theory shouldn't a film shot at 4K 120 or 60 fps be higher res (all thing being equal, on an average frame) than one shot at 4K 24 fps (or partially 8K but mastered at 4K) with a lot of fast motion (cities moving fast on wheels etc.)? Maybe the Billy Lynn wasn't shot in the best way/camera for picture resolution (compared to Mortal Engines) but surely the increased frame rate should have helped on average (so that where the 24 fps film blured a lot due to motion it wouldn't in the higher fps one).


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^

I'm going to slip my UHD copy of _Mortal Engines_ in this afternoon and watch some of the heavy CGI scenes. I don't recall ANY of them having motion blur on the moving cities.

Snell's review reminded me that when I watched this film it was on my former Sony 940D LCD/LED, so I need to watch this on my new OLED.


----------



## SnellTHX

Joe Bloggs said:


> When I watched the Blu-ray there's was quite a lot of motion blur on the CGI (eg. moving cities).
> The reviews also say it's unlikely the CGI was all done at 4K.
> 
> Also wouldn't there be a lot less motion blur in Billy Lynn (which in theory should allow for more picture resolution (depending on the amount of motion) ). In theory shouldn't a film shot at 4K 120 or 60 fps be higher res (all thing being equal, on an average frame) than one shot at 4K 24 fps (or partially 8K but mastered at 4K) with a lot of fast motion (cities moving fast on wheels etc.)? Maybe the Billy Lynn wasn't shot in the best way/camera for picture resolution (compared to Mortal Engines) but surely the increased frame rate should have helped on average (so that where the 24 fps film blured a lot due to motion it wouldn't in the higher fps one).


Well right now you are comparing my 3rd favourite film (Mortal Engines) against my 4th or 5th favourite film (Billy Lynn) in terms of PQ. We're separating hairs here... Both are two of the finest looking movies ever. I'm one of those guys that does not mind 48fps, 60fps or 120fps, but at the same time I am not an old fundamentalist clinging on to 24fps forever. Whatever looks best. 


the movie is a 4K DI, is a huge step up from the blu-ray in every way. I read professional reviewers writing the samething. the blu-ray and 4K/HDR version were night and day.

If you watched the movie in 4K/HDR you'd find it hard to believe it comes from a 4K DI.... Certainly it must be sourced from an 8K DI and somehow quadrupling my OLED B6's output resolution 

But now that you mentioned it, I did notice a bit of blur. I'm constantly torn between using TruMotion off and having a user-mode Trumotion that slightly increases smoothness without artefacts. Some high-paced action scenes made me consider turning it on... WHich overall is very annoying, I sometimes find 24 fps to be too slow / laggy and 48 fps to be too smooth/soapy.... So perhaps a 36 fps compromise for people like me that sit between the two formats??

But in the end it didn't matter. 24 fps, 48 fps, 120fps, 240 fps, whatever motion you decide - Mortal Engines' PQ is as good as it gets


----------



## djoberg

Okay, I just watched _Mortal Engines_ all the way through (I couldn’t limit myself to just a few scenes with such irresistible PQ!) and I did NOT notice any motion blur. Also, I do believe the COLORS were even more dazzling with Dolby Vision (my Sony was only capable of HDR10). So, I had given this a ranking of .25 but I believe it should go a tad higher. Maybe .10 would be my choice. Putting it another way, I think it is one of the “5 best live action films.”

There were many reviewers who said the movie was terrible, but I actually enjoyed it, from beginning to end.


----------



## burnfout

SnellTHX said:


> *Mortal Engines - 4K*
> 
> Holy ****, WOW. This movie is an absolute reference movie. my expectations were sky-high for this movie, as it looked phenomenal in
> 3D IMAX. Peter Jackson's heavy involvement hyped me to believe this would be one of top dogs in image quality like The Hobbit trilogy still is today and like the now pretty old LOTR movies, are still near reference quality two decades later.
> 
> 
> Mortal Engines exceeded my expectations and more! Another one of those "4K looking like 8K" discs with ridiculous amount of 3D depth fooling you to think it's a "2D looking like 3D" movie. Derived from a 4K D.I. (obviously) filmed with the RED Helium 8K camera, you can tell that 4K just doesn't do the picture quality justice. It is easily one of the best looking 4K/HDR movies I have ever seen. It is hard to imagine a better picture than this from the 1.7 metres I sit from my 55" OLED. If I move 20cm closer it remains _perfect_. 40cm closer and it is still _flawless_. 60cm closer, no noise, no pixelation, no artefacts, no grain... It made me want to glue my face to the screen.
> 
> CGI is best-in-class. The image so punchy it punches you in the face. Resolution is perfect, blacks are absolute, contrast infinite, clarity is pristine, details are endless. Colours pop. Razor-sharp is an understatement. its sharpness goes well beyond want I'd normally describe as sharp. I tried looking for faults in a faultless rendition/transfer of a movie and the only 'negative' thing I can think of is that I wish it was presented in a taller 1.78 / 1.85:1 format so it would fill my screen, but that's a personal preference and doesn't defer the rating of the picture quality at all.
> 
> 
> Mortal Engines bumps Billy Lynn right out of my top 5. It surpasses Pacific Rim (which has my preferred aspect ratio) and places well into my top 3. Picture quality doesn't really get much better than this as of 2019, that is the new demo standard. I'm not quite sure if I'd place it as my #1 or #2 (Dunkirk the PEAK PQ king with IMAX 15/70mm scenes) and (Transformers 5 the 'OVERALL' PQ king) but it definitely goes alongside those two as my three kings of PQ.
> 
> *
> Tier recommendation: 0 (Top 3?)*



Awesome. Love reading enthusiastic reviews. I'm saving up for finally buying a 4K OLED and new receiver, hopefully later this year. 

Slowly building a list of must-buy 4K discs


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> Okay, I just watched _Mortal Engines_ all the way through (I couldn’t limit myself to just a few scenes with such irresistible PQ!) and I did NOT notice any motion blur. Also, I do believe the COLORS were even more dazzling with Dolby Vision (my Sony was only capable of HDR10). So, I had given this a ranking of .25 but I believe it should go a tad higher. Maybe .10 would be my choice. Putting it another way, I think it is one of the “5 best live action films.”
> 
> There were many reviewers who said the movie was terrible, but I actually enjoyed it, from beginning to end.


0.10 sound about right  

I thought the movie itself was a pretty good


Spoiler



Shrike was the most badass character in the movie, and one of the coolest of recent years, the way they killed him / turned his storyline into a sad love story was a let down


 but other than that the movie was awesome and didn't deserve all the hate it got. I do hope they make a trilogy out of it. Can't wait to see how they'll push the boundaries of ultimate reference picture even further.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> Okay, I just watched _Mortal Engines_ all the way through (I couldn’t limit myself to just a few scenes with such irresistible PQ!) and I did NOT notice any motion blur. Also, I do believe the COLORS were even more dazzling with Dolby Vision (my Sony was only capable of HDR10). So, I had given this a ranking of .25 but I believe it should go a tad higher. Maybe .10 would be my choice. Putting it another way, I think it is one of the “5 best live action films.”
> 
> There were many reviewers who said the movie was terrible, but I actually enjoyed it, from beginning to end.


I've been getting a grip on Dolby Vision since seeing what is capable with it on average-looking Blu-rays. My OPPO can apply Dolby Vision to any Blu-ray and makes even pedestrian visual fare stand out. I have to turn it off when reviewing discs.


One example is *A Record of Sweet Murder*, a largely disposable and forgettable Japanese horror film from 2014. The low-budget found-footage movie just came out on Blu-ray and Dolby Vision practically puts the disc in Tier Zero. Without Dolby Vision, the BD is just another newish production circling the bottom half of Tier One.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^

In my "limited experience with Dolby Vision" (I say "limited" since many of my UHD Blu-rays only offer HDR10) I have found that in most cases I do see a difference between it and HDR10, especially in COLORS. In fairness, there are some blu-rays where the difference is negligible.


----------



## SnellTHX

Subjectively Dolby Vision looks better. I haven't calibrated my display so each mode looks a bit different

SDR - ISF Night
HDR - HDR Game 
Dolby Vision - DV Dark

Objectively Dolby Vision beats regular HDR in every way

12 bit vs 10 bit
10,000 nit vs 4000 nit
dynamic vs static.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^

With my C8 (and the whole "8" series of OLEDs), Dolby Vision defaults to the "Cinema User" Mode and it is EXCELLENT. No need to change the Picture Mode or any settings! 

Regarding the differences between Dolby Vision and HDR, perhaps we don't see a whole lot of difference yet based on 12 bit, but we surely do with the 1) Extra nits (especially with the introduction of Tone Mapping) and 2) Dynamic instead of static.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Police Story (Criterion)*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

Good overall clarity and color, but limited by some soft shots inherent to the source.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

DarthDoxie said:


> *Police Story (Criterion)*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 2.0**
> 
> Good overall clarity and color, but limited by some soft shots inherent to the source.


I'll probably get this during the Barnes & Noble sale.


----------



## djoberg

*The Dark Tower (1080p)*

Well, I had a FREE Birthday rental from Redbox and after perusing the online site for nearly 30 minutes I finally found what I thought would be a decent rental. (It is getting harder and harder to rent movies from Redbox when they offer very little in the blu-ray format.) I had heard the PQ was stellar but that the movie was a stinker, but for the sake of good PQ/AQ I was willing to fork over NOTHING to see it. 

Guess what? The movie was indeed horrendous (and there is no hyperbole in that statement) and, IMHO, the PQ was a letdown. I simply can't believe all the reviews that extolled the virtues of this film's PQ. Now it did have its moments....with excellent clarity, details, depth and black levels. But it also had some blown out contrast (especially in the opening scenes in the streets of New York City) which washed out details and came across as flat. Flesh tones had a "red push" at times, and there were some crushed blacks which also lacked depth and details. 

At any rate, I was thinking of a low Tier 1 placement but I almost feel pressured, after reading a unanimous crowd of "Reference Quality" scores from highly respected reviewers, to place this higher. But I refuse to mislead you; I MUST tell it like I saw it. Soooo.....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I hadn't heard anything good about The Dark Tower, which is why I've managed to avoid it. A shame because the books are very interesting.

Happy Birthday!


----------



## djoberg

Thanks Phantom (my birthday was actually on June 20th but the Redbox Free Disc offer was good for 60 days). 

I can imagine I may get flamed for my placement recommendation on yesterday (that is, if anyone here actually bothers to rent it). I say this because every reviewer, without exception, gave this a 5 Star PQ score. They all hated the movie, but they loved the PQ. Again, it was EXCELLENT in certain scenes, but the overblown contrast was especially obvious in daytime, outdoor scenes of NYC, and the crushed blacks were also evident in some of the low-lit interior scenes and night time scenes.


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> Thanks Phantom (my birthday was actually on June 20th but the Redbox Free Disc offer was good for 60 days).
> 
> I can imagine I may get flamed for my placement recommendation on yesterday (that is, if anyone here actually bothers to rent it). I say this because every reviewer, without exception, gave this a 5 Star PQ score. They all hated the movie, but they loved the PQ. Again, it was EXCELLENT in certain scenes, but the overblown contrast was especially obvious in daytime, outdoor scenes of NYC, and the crushed blacks were also evident in some of the low-lit interior scenes and night time scenes.


Nahh, I'm pretty sure I watched this on blu-ray and scored it around 1.75


----------



## djoberg

rusky_g said:


> *The Dark Tower* 1080p
> 
> Wow, some strong contrast going on in this one! Occasionally it seemed almost too much, to the point I dialled down my displays contrast setting. That being said, I was very impressed with this disc and felt the need to pause it more than a few times. The picture was, in general, exceptionally clear and void of grain, just how I like it. Some opening scenes in the ‘normal’ world looked amazing and really drew you into the picture with beautiful colour and clarity; speaking of colours, they became muted as the film progressed into the ‘other world’ , befitting more to the stark and barren landscapes. Whilst many of theses scenes weren’t as pretty, the clarity and depth upheld so PQ did not suffer the fate of softness. I have to mention the blacks also; so strong throughout, only very occasionally did they feel like they crushed out some detail.
> 
> Overall a big thumbs up, not top tier but not far off...
> 
> *Tier 1.5*





SnellTHX said:


> *The Dark Tower*
> 
> 
> I'll admit I had zero expectations for this movie, I thought it would be another straight-to-netflix movie with average picture quality. The movie was garbage but I'm a huuge Matthew Mcconaughey fan so I had to get it anyway. The PQ was actually pretty good, crisp detailed image and good contrast throughout.
> *
> 
> Tier recommendation: 1.75 *





fredxr2d2 said:


> The Dark Tower
> 
> Tier recommendation: Tier 0 (bottom) or maybe tier 1.0
> 
> If you want to test whether your black levels are set correctly, this is the disk to do it. Shot with the Arri 65 camera, this is a gorgeous production (if lackluster movie) that really hits a great balanced contrast look.
> 
> I read a reviewer of the cinematic version claiming some of the scenes were too dark to see what was going on, but the scenes in question, while dark, were clear to me and I know that my W1070 is not up to any contrast competitions. I am a fan of the Arri 65 and have thought the PQ from movies that have used it are consistently good. (You'd recognize a bunch of the list here: http://arrirentalgroup.com/alexa65/ like Civil War and Rogue One etc.)





SnellTHX said:


> Nahh, I'm pretty sure I watched this on blu-ray and scored it around 1.75


This is one of the few times I never did a Search on a title to see if others had reviewed it. The THREE REVIEWS above go to show that I need to do a Search from now on.

Yep Snell, you did indeed rank it at 1.75 so we are on the SAME PAGE!! Will wonders never cease!!!

I read with real interest what Fred said in his review about this film "testing one's black levels." He then referenced a reviewer who said some scenes were too dark, which was what I experienced. But Fred said those scenes were clear to him without any black crush. If any of you have been reading the Owners' Thread for the LG OLED C8/E8 series, you have seen that many owners, including me, have complained of black crush after the last two Firmware Updates. We are still waiting for a future update to correct the Gamma settings which will then eliminate the black crush. Perhaps the black levels in this movie will be okay then but guess what? I will NOT be renting this horrible movie ever again!

Phantom, I'm wondering what Firmware Version your new display has. If it's .15 I would LEAVE IT ALONE. If it's .31 or .55 you too will have to wait for the new 05.10.02 FW that is coming out sooner or later to correct the Gamma settings.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I will have to check on the firmware question.


----------



## SnellTHX

*13 hours - 4K/HDR*

Okay I can honestly say I didn't even realise it was Michael Bay that directed this movie, or at least I didn't exactly know beforehand. Perhaps subliminally, as I couldn't even remember if I had seen it or not. I remember some scenes vaguely, so I guess I watched it at a friends house or so 'in the background' while chatting/eating/playing video games or whatever other activity. Which is a shame to treat a movie that was as it does indeed have reference picture quality, as so many have suggested I watch it in its 4K/HDR glory as it apparently exemplified HDR better than any other film according to some. while I won't go_ that_ far it did make good use of HDR, had plenty of inky black moments (night scenes) and this might the film with the most details of any. It's like Black Hawk Down on steroids, or I guess you could call it the spiritual successor to BHD, after all it's a war movie with similarly vast amount of detail in every shot, just 15 years newer. 

Back to the Michael Bay point, the first 30 minutes of watching the movie, other than the highly detailed imagery the first thing that popped to mind was that this movie looked and felt like a Transformers movie, specifically Transformers 4: Age of Extinction. The resemblance in PQ is uncanny. T4: AOE has almost the EXACT same filmic (but a bit grainy) theme going on. And guess what lol, both made by Michael Bay himself. One of the few times (if not the _only_ time) I've been able to identify the director based solely on the picture.

So to compare the image quality is on par, perhaps slightly greater than Transformers 4 (2014), but obviously a mile a way from the PQ king Transformers 5 (2017). So while not the BEST example of 4K/HDR I have seen (others from different forums claimed such, it is a great example of reference PQ.

*
Tier recommendation: 0.5*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Patrick Melrose*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

This harrowing British drama starring Benedict Cumberbatch receives top-notch treatment on Blu-ray from Acorn Media. The five episodes are spread over two BD-50s, allowing ample room for the fully transparent AVC encode. Patrick Melrose's production values are extremely high, befitting a prestige project nominated for several Emmys. It was produced by Showtime and SKY television as a joint trans-Atlantic venture. Just released on home video, the precise digital cinematography has fantastic depth and dimension for television fare.

Five years ago, there's no doubt I would have placed this 1080P video into Tier 0. The crisp, razor-sharp definition has perfect focus and very subtle palette choices. Texture and detail are impressive upon close inspection.

*24 Hour Party People*

recommendation: *Tier 5.0**

Director Michael Winterbottom's ode to the music of Manchester dwells near the bottom of our list primarily due to its rough source material. Recently released by MVD Visual, they've licensed their "HD" transfer from MGM and it carries over the same sins found on MGM's DVD. Namely, the movie was shot at 25 frames-per-second PAL with its resulting picture limitations. It also results in this version running about five minutes slower than in its native PAL video found overseas.

Put out on a BD-25, you really can't fault the serviceable AVC encode for the noisy video and erratic detail. This is soft, blurry resolution purposely made that way to help set the movie's mood and tone. If you are pondering purchasing this disc, do it for the better audio quality. Because it's not much of an upgrade in video quality.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^

Way to go Phantom on the Double Feature!

*Pet Sematary (2019...1080p)*

Overall this is a decent looking Blu with striking clarity, details and depth in all daytime, outdoor shots. Night time scenes were a mixed bag, with some very good blacks and shadows details at times, but with softness and noise at other times.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25**

PS The Dolby Atmos mix was excellent!


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Police Story 2 (Criterion)*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

On par with the first PQ wise and is only limited by the source material.


Not as exciting as the first, the action sequences and fight scenes are just not as fresh as the first film.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Pather Panchali (Criterion)*

recommendation: *Tier 3.5**

The OCN was nearly destroyed in a fire, so the restoration that was undertaken with multiple film elements and the resulting print is nothing short of miraculous. Black levels, contrast, and details are great for the most part with only a few shots noticeably taken from lesser film elements. There is still print damage for sure like scratches and occasional gate hairs, but it's not distracting and it just serves as a reminder you are watching a movie shot on film and not digital or video.

This is the first of the *Apu Trilogy* and I hope to get to the other two this month.


----------



## SnellTHX

*Shazam! 4K*


Not gonna lie, it did take me quite a while to 'enjoy' its PQ. filmed in 3.4K and probably derived from a 2K DI it certainly isn't anywhere near as sharp and punchy as other super hero movies. It doesn't have that 3D-depth to it either, and a bit grainy but where this movie excels is its usage of HDR. the colours look amazing (just not contras-y and punchy if that makes sense) Emboldened yellows & reds of Shazam's suit, the HDR highlights burn your retinas and completely blaze your eyes with brightness and pop. It's chromatic excellence for sure. Just a few years ago I'd put this in tier 0 for sure, but when you've seen Aquaman, Black Panther, Avengers: IW, GOTG2, Ant-man etc. the bar is really high for 4K/HDR movies!!

*Tier recommendation: 1*


Edit: On a side not the sound quality of this movie was way on top of the reference list. Like 10/10 sound quality. Okay maybe not, but at least 9.7+/10. It was flawless. Bass was thunderous, the dynamic range was delivered in SPADES. So much better than any Marvel movie...


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^

I just picked this up at Best Buy yesterday and will be watching it tonight. I bought it based on ALL THE RAVE REVIEWS I've read on the PQ/AQ. Phantom's "sidekick" on DoBlu.com had many glowing remarks on the PQ, as did HiDefDigest and Blu-ray.com. In fairness, Blu-ray.com did point out that there are some instances of noise, banding and aliasing, but that they were "few and far between" and "fleeting."

Perhaps your hatred of grain (most reviewers comments on the "grain structure") entered into your lack of enjoyment and final placement. I will be brutally honest when I review it tonight. Right now I'm thinking, based on everything I've read, that it may still be worthy of Tier 0 but closer to the bottom than the top. What I'm really excited to see is Dolby Vision's spectacular Wide Color Gamut and the striking contrast in some scenes.


----------



## fredxr2d2

*Shazam! 4K*

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 1 (could be argued for low Tier 0)*


I watched this last night and considering that Ralph gave it 100/100 for PQ, I expected something more akin to Aquaman or Mortal Engines. It is quite good at times - the outdoor shots of Philadelphia look AMAZING. There are some great helicopter shots of the city that just looked super detailed and right on point. The main issue I have with the PQ is the softness of the CGI and the slightly elevated blacks in the cave scenes. I'd say this is a good looking movie, and the HDR was pretty impressive. It just isn't the new PQ king.


Audio was quite good and the bass delivered in spades - it does make you wish that Marvel would do soundtracks closer to these DC bass monsters.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^

Hey Fred,

I was sorry to read that you witnessed "elevated blacks" in the movie. Every review I read especially praised the "inky blacks" that gave the movie great depth. Did you watch this on your projector?

Denny


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Titans: The Complete First Season*

recommendation: *Tier 1.25**

As the debut original series for the fledgling DC Universe streaming service, _Titans_ had many eyes on it at launch. Titans now makes its home video debut this week on Blu-ray from Warner in a two-disc set that collects all eleven episodes from season one. The technical specifications won't be a shock to anyone that has purchased television programs on Blu-ray before from WB. The AVC encode holds up under demanding action, largely thanks to an impeccably-shot production with exacting cinematography. A lot of money has been sunk into this production and would fit quite comfortably on premium cable.

As DC's first foray into television unhampered by the constraints of network television, _Titans_ takes on a gritty tone and imposing visual aesthetic. The live-action drama isn't necessarily eye candy, but certainly provides impressive clarity and strong high-definition video. Its strongest virtue is an unwavering consistency to the picture quality. The desaturated color palette avoids primary colors. Titans is the antithesis of Adam West's Batman. Titans paints in shades of black by comparison to the colorful 60's series.

The digital transfer is free of artifacts and any real problems. Inky black levels and fine shadow delineation help set the mood. Close-ups pop with real dimensionality and razor-sharp focus. Titans is not a show overly concerned with showing off elaborate levels of detail, but takes an honest approach which avoids overusing CGI elements.


----------



## djoberg

*Shazam! (UHD)*

Okay, the credits are rolling and all I can think of is what Fred said in his review's tier recommendation. He said (after placing it in Tier 1), "could be argued for low Tier 0." Well, guess what? I don't agree with him. Why? Cause I'm going to argue for the MIDDLE OF TIER 0!!!

Seriously, as I was watching this I kept thinking, "Did those guys (Snell and Fred) watch a different version of this movie or what?" Except for _some_ SOFTNESS inside the Group Home at times, this film had amazing CLARITY, mesmerizing DETAILS, astounding DEPTH, inky BLACKS and tantalizing SHADOW DETAILS, super strong CONTRAST, and last, but certainly not least, GORGEOUS COLORS. I did NOT see any elevated blacks like Fred did, nor did I really see much of a grain structure like Snell. Fact is, I didn't see any of the anomalies (banding and aliasing) mentioned in the review on Blu-ray.com.

I would love to see others chime in after seeing this. As it is now (with only 3 of us weighing in and 2 are arguing for Tier 1) it may barely make it into Tier 0. IMHO that would be a travesty.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.5)*

PS The Dolby Atmos mix was PURE REFERENCE all the way through!

PPS The last LONG scene at the carnival was TOP TIER 0 material...simply unbelievable in every respect!


----------



## djoberg

Besides the review by Ralph Potts, the review below mirrors my own thoughts (on the PQ/AQ) except for his comments on banding and aliasing:

https://ultrahd.highdefdigest.com/71632/shazam4kultrahdbluray.html


----------



## Bigmoviefan

djoberg said:


> *Shazam! (UHD)*
> 
> Okay, the credits are rolling and all I can think of is what Fred said in his review's tier recommendation. He said (after placing it in Tier 1), "could be argued for low Tier 0." Well, guess what? I don't agree with him. Why? Cause I'm going to argue for the MIDDLE OF TIER 0!!!
> 
> Seriously, as I was watching this I kept thinking, "Did those guys (Snell and Fred) watch a different version of this movie or what?" Except for _some_ SOFTNESS inside the Group Home at times, this film had amazing CLARITY, mesmerizing DETAILS, astounding DEPTH, inky BLACKS and tantalizing SHADOW DETAILS, super strong CONTRAST, and last, but certainly not least, GORGEOUS COLORS. I did NOT see any elevated blacks like Fred did, nor did I really see much of a grain structure like Snell. Fact is, I didn't see any of the anomalies (banding and aliasing) mentioned in the review on Blu-ray.com.
> 
> I would love to see others chime in after seeing this. As it is now (with only 3 of us weighing in and 2 are arguing for Tier 1) it may barely make it into Tier 0. IMHO that would be a travesty.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.5)*
> 
> PS The Dolby Atmos mix was PURE REFERENCE all the way through!
> 
> PPS The last LONG scene at the carnival was TOP TIER 0 material...simply unbelievable in every respect!


I thought it had fantastic picture quality . One of the best Dolby Vision 4K Blu-rays I have seen on my LG OLED. Real demo material.


----------



## Bigmoviefan

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^
> 
> Hey Fred,
> 
> I was sorry to read that you witnessed "elevated blacks" in the movie. Every review I read especially praised the "inky blacks" that gave the movie great depth. Did you watch this on your projector?
> 
> Denny


I did not see elevated blacks either !


----------



## djoberg

Bigmoviefan said:


> I thought it had fantastic picture quality . One of the best Dolby Vision 4K Blu-rays I have seen on my LG OLED. Real demo material.


I would encourage you to make a placement recommendation. You've already told us how it is "one of the best Dolby Vision 4K Blu-rays you've seen," now you just need to make a precise placement. Tier 0 is the HIGHEST ranking you can give it but you can't just say "Tier 0." You have to put in parenthesis the place in that tier you think it deserves. For example, I suggested ".5," which means I believe it deserves a place in the very MIDDLE OF THE TIER. You may think it deserves a higher place (based on your comments).


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Aparajito (Criterion)*

recommendation: *Tier 3.5**

Just slightly better than *Pather Panchali* but still in tier 3.5. Overall, black levels and details are pleasing. Contrast suffers a little with having to use lesser film elements with most of the OCN destroyed in a fire. 

This is the second of the *Apu Trilogy*, one more to go.

I picked up 9 Criterion titles this month during the Barnes & Noble sale and also got the Transformers UHD 5 movie collection on Prime Day (can't wait to dig into these).


----------



## SnellTHX

The grain structure annoyed me as always, but I did too notice what was a flat out noise & banding. Didn't say any elevated black levels, they were perfect for me. The specular highlights and emboldened colours really stood out and were among the best on the format... but the grain/noise/banding/aliasing is what ultimately moved this from a 0.75 to tier 1 in my opinion.

I don't think it is anywhere close to being deserving a 100/100 rating, as Fred commented.. We have Mortal Engines to thank for that! (and Transformers 5: Last Knight) those are the 100/100 movies


----------



## SnellTHX

fredxr2d2 said:


> *Shazam! 4K*
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 1 (could be argued for low Tier 0)*
> 
> 
> I watched this last night and considering that Ralph gave it 100/100 for PQ, I expected something more akin to Aquaman or Mortal Engines. It is quite good at times - the outdoor shots of Philadelphia look AMAZING. There are some great helicopter shots of the city that just looked super detailed and right on point. The main issue I have with the PQ is the softness of the CGI and the slightly elevated blacks in the cave scenes. I'd say this is a good looking movie, and the HDR was pretty impressive. It just isn't the new PQ king.
> 
> 
> Audio was quite good and the bass delivered in spades - it does make you wish that Marvel would do soundtracks closer to these DC bass monsters.


The sound quality was much more impressive than the image quality. The LFE track was frankly insane.


----------



## meli

I only occasionally check this thread. Can someone tell me what the status is of the PQ Tier list?

Is the sticky thread named the following the most up-to-date list?: Blu-ray & UHD Picture Quality Rankings: The PQ Tiers July 2017 Last Post

Thanks. I'm sure maintaining this list is a lot of work and time consuming.


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> The grain structure annoyed me as always, but I did too notice what was a flat out noise & banding. Didn't say any elevated black levels, they were perfect for me. The specular highlights and emboldened colours really stood out and were among the best on the format... but the grain/noise/banding/aliasing is what ultimately moved this from a 0.75 to tier 1 in my opinion.
> 
> I don't think it is anywhere close to being deserving a 100/100 rating, as Fred commented.. We have Mortal Engines to thank for that! (and Transformers 5: Last Knight) those are the 100/100 movies


Again, I did see NOT see any of the anomalies you mentioned.

I agree with you that this title was not up there with _Mortal Engines_ or _Transformers: The Last Knight_, with the latter being the all-time "King of the Hill" (it will be very hard to trump that one). Having said that, I do believe the Dolby Atmos mix on _Shazom!_ was just as good as the audio mixes in either of those two titles.


----------



## djoberg

*A Quiet Place (UHD)*

I was able to pick this up at a decent price this week so I snagged it. The credits are rolling and I didn't see any real difference between this and the 1080p version I reviewed a year ago. I will give you the link to my review. 

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-833.html#post56472326

I gave it a 1.0 and thus....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**


----------



## SnellTHX

*Alita: Battle Angel - 4K*


Obviously expectations for a movie so heavily involved with James Cameron are sky high. The man who gave us Avatar, which was at the time, the very best-looking reference disk with the best CGI ever made. Does Alita over take the throne once held by Avatar? Well not really.

The CGI is _some of _the best I've ever seen. it rivals the likes of Transformers, Aquaman, Pacific Rim, Mortal Engines etc but is by no means the 'Avatar 2' level one might hope. I still think Alita is (despite the eyes) the best looking animated character, ever. Usually CGI looks soft and lacks the detail of a film shot, but in Alita's case, she looked more realistic / rendered with MORE detailed than the live-action faces!
Unfortunately while the image is crisp it's also pretty soft in some areas. It's as if it could have been a top 3 contender but the director left the camera _slightly_ out of focus. 

colours look awesome, there's plenty of pop, although orange hues dominate the majority of the presentation, the contrast is excellent and it's very punchy. 

It's a very detailed image with a lot of punch that sadly gets let down by some (minor) softness.

But it's still superb, just not a 'PQ king'.


*Tier recommendation: 0(.5)*


----------



## fredxr2d2

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^
> 
> Hey Fred,
> 
> I was sorry to read that you witnessed "elevated blacks" in the movie. Every review I read especially praised the "inky blacks" that gave the movie great depth. Did you watch this on your projector?
> 
> Denny



I did watch this on my calibrated JVC X790. I don't watch movies on anything else! 



I thought that the cave scenes in the beginning had some slightly elevated black levels, but since I use masking for the black bars, it can be hard to know if they were going for black or for a dark gray and I mistook the intentional dark gray for elevated blacks. I will say that the rest of the movie had really great contrast, so something about those cave shots looked slightly off to me (it could be the CGI).


Since other reports are coming in, I'm going to see if I have a few minutes to check out the various scenes and contrast today or tomorrow.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

meli said:


> I only occasionally check this thread. Can someone tell me what the status is of the PQ Tier list?
> 
> Is the sticky thread named the following the most up-to-date list?: Blu-ray & UHD Picture Quality Rankings: The PQ Tiers July 2017 Last Post
> 
> Thanks. I'm sure maintaining this list is a lot of work and time consuming.


 Just click on the link in my signature. Everything below Tier 0 is current through January of this year.


----------



## subacabra

Anyone here give Revenge a watch? I watched it yesterday on the 900e and it was very nice. Razor sharp details. Close ups showed every line, wrinkle and crease on faces. 
The colors when called upon were bold and vibrant, a stark contrast to the desert setting where a lot of the movie took place.
Blacks were deep and inky, with very good shadow detail. This would look spectacular in 4k with hdr.
Definitely a crazy movie, gory at times and twisted, yet I would highly recommend this as definite eye candy.

Even though it's not a 4k uhd disc, I would confidently rate it a solid tier 1 maybe closer to a ".75"


----------



## AmerCa

Give it a Tier recommendation, man!! That's only what's missing from your review.

As you may not recall, I've been wanting to get that movie on BD, but other things have gotten on the way. I remember your comments on the PQ and AQ.

But I suspect that movie won't be getting many reviews here, since it's very violent, explicit and gory, but I do think is a very compelling watch, at least the first time. Given the nature of the movie, I'm not sure I'd be watching it regularly, even when Matilda Lutz is smoking hot. But..yeah. I'm getting it.

Edit: we're talking about this movie:










Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I know a couple people reviewed the 1990 thriller titled Revenge years ago. I haven't seen the newer one.


----------



## subacabra

Phantom Stranger said:


> I know a couple people reviewed the 1990 thriller titled Revenge years ago. I haven't seen the newer one.


It's sick! Leave your brain at the door lol


----------



## djoberg

*Breakthrough (1080p)*

This was a pleasant-looking film, with excellent clarity (with the exception of the underwater scenes) that had striking details at times and amazing depth. Colors were natural and vibrant...flesh tones were spot on...and black levels were deep & inky. Some softness occurred but it was fleeting and there are no other anomalies to report.

This was a true story that I had not heard about and it was truly a miracle! The cast was superb with very good acting.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**

PS If the 4K version gives it an uptick this would most definitely end up in Tier 0 (some may even be inclined to put the 1080p release there).


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^

I forgot to add that the CONTRAST was very strong, with brilliant whites (most notably in the coats worn by doctors in the St. Louis Hospital).


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Black Hawk Down (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 0* (0.5)*

Excellent review, but I'm putting it just a hair lower. I though the shadow detail could have been better.


I was disappointed by the sound and anemic LFE considering the BD was demo material.





djoberg said:


> *Black Hawk Down (UHD)*
> 
> I finally got around to watching this and it was even better than I had anticipated. Snell, I feel sorry for you when it comes to "hating grain," for I had no problems whatsoever with the grain with the one or two exceptions where it became a bit much when there was DUST from bombing or trucks racing through the city.
> 
> This is most definitely "Reference Quality!" It's all about DETAILS, DETAILS and more DETAILS. I think I can say unequivocally that this title had the best details (especially "facial details and texture") I've ever seen. Here is the short review I just posted on Ralph Potts' site:
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-...n-ultra-hd-blu-ray-review-3.html#post58155704
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.33)*
> 
> PS The Dolby Atmos mix was great, but not phenomenal in the LFE/bass department. Having said that, the highest I could turn it to (because of the WAF) was -7.5.


----------



## AmerCa

DarthDoxie said:


> I was disappointed by the sound and anemic LFE considering the BD was demo material.


They're basically the same mix. The ATMOS track is a tad higher in level, but a MV adjustment solves the issue. 

Edit: I deleted info not relevant to this thread


----------



## DarthDoxie

AmerCa said:


> They're basically the same mix. The ATMOS track is a tad higher in level, but a MV adjustment solves the issue. Here's a heat map of both tracks. You wouldn't tell which is which. (First is ATMOS, second is the LPCM 5.1)
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you're disappointed that they didn't updated the track?



Pretty picture, might as well post a Picasso painting, I'd probably understand it better and my ears can tell the difference  I'm still disappointed the LFE is anemic. F#%&ing Irene just doesn't have the same impact:


----------



## AmerCa

I deleted my own post, since I talked about topics not really relevant to this thread.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Apur Sansar (Criterion)*

recommendation: *Tier 3.5**

The same as the other two in the *Apu Trilogy* despite the OCN for this one was completely destroyed in the fire.


----------



## djoberg

*The Intruder (1080p)*

Man, this one came SO CLOSE to ending in Tier 0! In the majority of its 95 minute running time this film features excellent details (especially facial close-ups...WOW!!), depth, clarity, contrast, black levels/shadow details, and last, but not least, colors (primaries were really punchy). The downside was a red push in _some_ of the flesh tones (though most were spot on) and a few instances of black crush.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**

PS I was SO TEMPTED to recommend Tier 0 (.75 or .9)

PPS Next up...._Alita: Battle Angel (UHD)_!


----------



## djoberg

*Alita: Battle Angel (UHD)*

I'm going to save myself some time and simply post Snell's excellent and spot-on review below. I agree with every single point he made, including his placement recommendation. It is a shame that there is some inherent softness sprinkled throughout, for this could have been a "Top Ten Contender."

Before I make this official, I will add a word about the Dolby Atmos mix...it was a KILLER!!! I didn't dare turn it any higher than -5 and at that level it was ear-piercing, with incredible action in the surrounds, intelligible dialogue at all times, precise and amazing panning and discrete effects in the height channels, and last, but not least, room-shaking LFE/bass (I heard something fly off the shelf in the very back of my 27' long theater room....turns out it was a long wooden plaque....I put it back but it kept happening so I just left it on the floor....this has never happened before).

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.5)*




SnellTHX said:


> *Alita: Battle Angel - 4K*
> 
> 
> Obviously expectations for a movie so heavily involved with James Cameron are sky high. The man who gave us Avatar, which was at the time, the very best-looking reference disk with the best CGI ever made. Does Alita over take the throne once held by Avatar? Well not really.
> 
> The CGI is _some of _the best I've ever seen. it rivals the likes of Transformers, Aquaman, Pacific Rim, Mortal Engines etc but is by no means the 'Avatar 2' level one might hope. I still think Alita is (despite the eyes) the best looking animated character, ever. Usually CGI looks soft and lacks the detail of a film shot, but in Alita's case, she looked more realistic / rendered with MORE detailed than the live-action faces!
> Unfortunately while the image is crisp it's also pretty soft in some areas. It's as if it could have been a top 3 contender but the director left the camera _slightly_ out of focus.
> 
> colours look awesome, there's plenty of pop, although orange hues dominate the majority of the presentation, the contrast is excellent and it's very punchy.
> 
> It's a very detailed image with a lot of punch that sadly gets let down by some (minor) softness.
> 
> But it's still superb, just not a 'PQ king'.
> 
> 
> *Tier recommendation: 0(.5)*


----------



## djoberg

*Escape Room (1080p)*

This one started out (in the first few scenes while introducing characters) with striking clarity, details and depth. But once they entered the "escape room" (or should I say "multiple escape rooms") things softened and got a bit murky at times, along with a lack of depth and details. Don't take this the wrong way, for there were scenes in some of the "escape rooms" with excellent fidelity and very good black levels. I guess what I'm saying is this was truly a MIXED BAG.

Was this "reference material?" Not even close! Was it "demo worthy?" At times. But were there enough "demo moments" to put it in the "demo tier" (Tier Gold)? I'm not prepared to answer that definitively. But guess what? I used to be called "the most GENEROUS RATER" and I'm feeling nostalgic, sooooo.......

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**

PS The audio mix was GREAT!!


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Elevator to the Gallows (Criterion)*

recommendation: *Tier 2.5**

Lots of detail in close-ups, black levels and contrast are also strong.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Transformers (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

The BD of this title resides in tier 1, which is where I think the UHD belongs as well. The detail levels just aren't up to snuff of tier 0. I was also surprised at some blown-out highlights especially in headlights and police lights considering this is a Dolby Vision title. Grain is heavy at times as well, almost to distraction. Hopefully the other titles in this series fare better in UHD.


----------



## djoberg

DarthDoxie said:


> *Transformers (UHD)*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 1.0**
> 
> The BD of this title resides in tier 1, which is where I think the UHD belongs as well. The detail levels just aren't up to snuff of tier 0. I was also surprised at some blown-out highlights especially in headlights and police lights considering this is a Dolby Vision title. Grain is heavy at times as well, almost to distraction. Hopefully the other titles in this series fare better in UHD.


I only have _Transformers 5: The Last Knight_ on UHD and I think you know what I (and everyone else) thinks about that! I doubt that title will ever lose the "Heavy Weight Champion Belt!"


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> *Alita: Battle Angel (UHD)*
> 
> I'm going to save myself some time and simply post Snell's excellent and spot-on review below. I agree with every single point he made, including his placement recommendation. It is a shame that there is some inherent softness sprinkled throughout, for this could have been a "Top Ten Contender."
> 
> Before I make this official, I will add a word about the Dolby Atmos mix...it was a KILLER!!! I didn't dare turn it any higher than -5 and at that level it was ear-piercing, with incredible action in the surrounds, intelligible dialogue at all times, precise and amazing panning and discrete effects in the height channels, and last, but not least, room-shaking LFE/bass (I heard something fly off the shelf in the very back of my 27' long theater room....turns out it was a long wooden plaque....I put it back but it kept happening so I just left it on the floor....this has never happened before).
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.5)*


Glad we completely agree! People have been praising it left right and centre, but only a few pointed out there is some inherent softness in the shots. Which is a shame, this could definitely be top 10 maybe even top 5. The CGI is sooo good


----------



## AmerCa

*Pan (2015 - Warner) * (pan2015)










*Tier Recommendation: 1.5 * *(Current 1.25) *

I only own two Joe Wright films - *Hanna* and this one - but I'd venture he doesn't care for the most pristine and vibrant PQ possible, even when the visuals would call for it. The visuals here and gorgeous and quite arresting sometimes, but they lack the punch required to wow the viewer and to rank into the reference tier. Even when the visuals are frequently rich in primary colors, they appear somewhat muted. Darker scenes have enough clarity and detail to be enjoyable, but they appear a bit grayish (this could be just my display, but I have experienced much better night/dark scenes).

I would expect the UHD to be an significant improvement, especially in the most flamboyant scenes, but Ralph Potts review seem to indicate the improvement is minimal. All things considered, this title is worthy enough of tier 1.5, but even 1.75 placement would be fair.

The ATMOS mix here is fantastic. It has everything I like in a mix: clarity, detail, depth, surround activity, it creates proper ambiance and is well balanced with proper dynamics, and also feature a terrific score by John Powell. This mix is a delight.

In the Ralph Potts review there's an user that reported an issue with the score in the surrounds being ahead of the fronts by a few seconds, that amounts to 7 seconds by the end credits. It's, however, a minor issue, since you must me looking for it while watching the movie.

Very few times I have been so frustrated by a film's reception. I was put off for the longest time by the very poor reviews this movie got (some of which called it total garbage!!) until I decided to give it a chance a few months ago. I found this movie to be wonderful, and I consider it to be a special film. I've watched it three times now, and it gets better every time. If you get the chance to watch/get it for cheap, it deserves a shot. 

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 0* (0.9)*

Better than the first with improved grain management. Didn't see any blown highlights like on the first installment in the series. Colors are nice and details also excellent, lots of facial pores and detailed textures.


----------



## AmerCa

*Black Mass (2015 - Warner) *










*Tier Recommendation: 1.5 *

It seems all films that take place in the 70-80 have a similar look. Muted colors and overall a rather drab look. The PQ of this disc reminded me of *Argo* and even that of *IT*. It's a very clean presentation, however, one that complements the subject matter very well, and doesn't takes you away from the experience. Only a few times I thought some shots were weak, but nothing major. The overall video and audio presentation is very solid, and should not disappoint to anyone expecting a strong release.

This is the only movie in recent years in which I felt I wasn't watching Johnny Depp playing Johnny Depp. He does a truly fantastic job in here, and makes the movies worth watching, but the whole movie is strong, while far from truly great. This one is a VERY slow burner, and you shouldn't expect much action not highly dramatized scenes, which is why probably feels a bit cold and perhaps a tad unexciting. Fans of mob/crime flicks should find something to like in here, but this won't be a movie for everyone, as the mixed reviews indicate. But this is a good film.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^

Thanks AmerCa for your last two reviews. Regarding _Pan_, I own the Blu-ray and know I watched it and reviewed it, but I couldn't find my review by doing a Search on this thread. I believe my take on it was the same as yours.

My wife and I are leaving tomorrow for an annual Bible conference that we attend or I would slip _Pan_ in and watch several scenes. We are busy packing and may go to bed early. I'll be back on Sunday night. I hope to get _Avengers: Endgame_ as soon as it comes out and will definitely watch it as soon as I get it. (I never saw it in the theaters but the reviews are surely "whetting my appetite" for it.)


----------



## AmerCa

^°^°^°^
It's almost impossible to look for three letter words, that's you'll notice I wrote _pan2015_ next to the title, that's the only way you'll find a reference for it on an regular search function. I only found the previous placement from the tier list. Probably it was you that ranked it at 1.25.

I had a similar problem finding your review of _The Nun_, but I found it, phew!

Good luck on your trip, looking forward yo your _Endgame _ review, even tho I'm not a big fan of the movie.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## AmerCa

*The Nun (2018 - Warner) * (the-nun)










*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*

*Djoberg (0.75)*: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-850.html#post57670654

I see where Djoberg is coming from in his review, but I disagree with him. I don't mind highly stylized films, I've placed a few of them quite high, but _The Nun_ is basically a black and white movie. Clarity and details are noteworthy, but the overall impact, in my eyes, is quite low. The transfer is solid throughout the entire runtime, but I never felt wowed like the truly great PQ movies often make me feel. I remember liking the PQ of both Conjuring films a lot more, but the settings favored a little more eye candy. 1.5 seems appropriate to me, and perhaps a 1.25 would be fine, but this isn't reference material to me.

He's absolutely right about the ATMOS mix, tho. However, there's a small caveat. The bass is quite good from 30hz up, but the true power of this mix is centered around 20hz and down (which Djoberg is capable of). People who don't have strong 20hz capability (like me), will miss the true bass power this movie can bring, which is a lot. Great mix all the same.

This movie is the weakest entry in the Conjuring universe, IMO, and I'd be surprised that the new Annabelle can be worse than this. Even I found *The Curse of La Llorona* more engaging and interesting than this one. It's an OK movie that it's probably worth owning just for the ATMOS mix.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I really enjoyed _The Nun_, for what it's worth. Probably my second or third-favorite entry in the Conjuring verse. I forget if I gave it a placement in the PQ Tiers. My thoughts on it can be found elsewhere.


----------



## AmerCa

^°^°^
Interesting, Phantom. There's stuff to enjoy in there for sure, I just had higher expectations I guess. But then again, I must be one of the three people who actually think the first Annabelle was a good movie.

Regardless of my harsh criticism of the movie, I'll be rewatching it. I enjoyed the visuals and the audio.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## Phantom Stranger

The first Conjuring and Annabelle movies are good horror movies. I wasn't impressed by their sequels nearly as much, which isn't surprising.


----------



## SnellTHX

DarthDoxie said:


> *Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (UHD)*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 0* (0.9)*
> 
> Better than the first with improved grain management. Didn't see any blown highlights like on the first installment in the series. Colors are nice and details also excellent, lots of facial pores and detailed textures.


Well as your on a Transformers marathon, I can tell you that you can absolutely get excited for Transformers 5. Each transformers movie is an upgrade over the prequel both audio & visually, but Transformers 5 takes it up 2-3 notches!! Ridiculously good PQ


----------



## SnellTHX

*The Gladiator - 4K *

Well most by now should know I don't give older movies any kind of 'bias' or soft judgement as I think rankings should be an *absolute* / reference scale and not a _relative_ But with that out of the way I was quite impressed by this 19 year old movie. Contrast & blacks were great, and there was fine detail in almost every shot. Very pleasant organic look, but it doesn't have the _absurd_ amount of detail of Black Hawk Down. A bit of grain and some shots look a bit soft / uninspiring (I think I appreciated the landscape shots the least)

*Tier recommendation: 1.5*


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> I really enjoyed _The Nun_, for what it's worth. Probably my second or third-favorite entry in the Conjuring verse. I forget if I gave it a placement in the PQ Tiers. My thoughts on it can be found elsewhere.


I just read your glowing review of _The Nun_ on Do.Blu.com! I see you gave it a PQ score of *5 Stars*, which would more than likely translate to a Tier 0 placement on this thread. Here is the review for AmerCa and others to see:

https://www.doblu.com/2018/12/22/the-nun-blu-ray-review/


----------



## Phantom Stranger

That jogs my memory on The Nun's video quality. I was probably thinking more along the lines of Tier 1.0-1.25 at the time. DoBlu's reviews do not use half point scores for any category. There is a 4K disc I haven't seen.


----------



## AmerCa

djoberg said:


> I just read your glowing review of _The Nun_ on Do.Blu.com! I see you gave it a PQ score of *5 Stars*, which would more than likely translate to a Tier 0 placement on this thread. Here is the review for AmerCa and others to see:
> 
> https://www.doblu.com/2018/12/22/the-nun-blu-ray-review/


Thanks for the link, Djoberg. I was mixing up Phantom's site with WhySoBlue.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Transformers: Dark of the Moon (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 0* (0.75)*

Excellent all around UHD presentation.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^

Well Darth, you're getting closer to the "King of the Hill!" It will BLOW YOU AWAY...I promise!!


----------



## djoberg

I just got home tonight and am quite excited to pick up the UHD version of _Avengers: Endgame_. The reviews coming in are GLOWING! I see Amazon is "Out of Stock" so I wonder where the best place is to buy it. Has anyone seen the 4K version yet?


----------



## AmerCa

^°^°^°^
I've read Amazon USA is having issues with Disney/Marvel stock, apparently business issues. I don't know of you have a Best Buy or Target near you. However, I believe it's not officially released, although many people have received their copies already.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^^

I just ordered it from Best Buy. It arrives on Wednesday.


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> I just got home tonight and am quite excited to pick up the UHD version of _Avengers: Endgame_. The reviews coming in are GLOWING! I see Amazon is "Out of Stock" so I wonder where the best place is to buy it. Has anyone seen the 4K version yet?


Infinity War looked phenomenal, despite the 2K DI. I think I actually read some complaints about Endgame, but I'm sure it was mostly audio.

I watched it for a second time, on 4K blu-ray but I won't score it as its on my friends DLP projector so no proper point of reference 

it looked great on the Optoma projector at least... Can't wait to watch it for a third time at home


----------



## tcramer

djoberg said:


> I just got home tonight and am quite excited to pick up the UHD version of _Avengers: Endgame_. The reviews coming in are GLOWING! I see Amazon is "Out of Stock" so I wonder where the best place is to buy it. Has anyone seen the 4K version yet?


I watched the 4K version on my Kaleidescape a couple weeks ago and it looks pretty good. I don't think it would fall in the top 10 rating wise, but somewhere tier blu seems appropriate.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^

Okay, I've now read some more "professional" reviews and those are a bit more "critical" of the CGI (softness) and also commented on some "noise" in various scenes. I had read John Archer and Ralph Potts. I'm thinking it's going to be, like tcramer said, somewhere in Tier Blu but no where near the top.


----------



## djoberg

*Avengers: Endgame (UHD)*

The credits are rolling and I'm about ready to "roll into bed!" This was a "very long" movie (3 Hours!!) and we are leaving early tomorrow for a wedding in Minneapolis and then another vacation up the North Shore of Lake Superior. Soooo, I'm going to keep this "very short" by simply posting my review for _Avengers: Infinity War_. My impressions there mirror the impressions of this movie as well, though surprisingly I will be rating this one a tad lower. Let me just say this; the last hour really saved this from being relegated to Tier 1, for I was riveted to my chair with all the benefits of HDR (especially the COLORS and the SPECULAR HIGHLIGHTS) during the amazing action scenes.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-855.html#post58030610

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.75)*

PS The Dolby Atmos mix was quite good in the action scenes (I believe it fared better than in _Avengers: Infinity War_). I do wish there had been more of those scenes though, but I understood the need for all the "human drama" when you're wrapping up a franchise that goes back as far as this one does. I did enjoy the movie.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Another HD display shoot-out for videophiles.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnar...ivals-in-clash-of-the-tv-titans/#220ea94f3d44


----------



## SnellTHX

Phantom Stranger said:


> Another HD display shoot-out for videophiles.
> 
> 
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnar...ivals-in-clash-of-the-tv-titans/#220ea94f3d44


Quite a few interesting points

> QLED doesn't win anything; higher brightness still doesn't make it's HDR as good as LG's C9, nor is it a better living room choice than the Panasonic GZ2000.

> LG edges out Panasonic on colour accuracy; which they have been famous for dominating every year. Shocking, but then again Rtings were able to calibrate the E9 to damn near colour perfection. GZ2000 is most likely much more accurate out-of-the-box.

> One of the few years Panasonic didn't win overall TV of the year (2018 was FZ950, 2017 = EZ1000, 2016 was the E6 OLED and 2015 was CZ950)

> Panasonic's video-processing beat Sony's

> For pure videophiles Panasonic GZ2000 is still PQ king, but LG C9 OLED bette overall thanks to higher brightness and being the best gaming display

> Sony's AG9 wins best motion (no surprise), but that's it.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Transformers: Age of Extinction (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 0* (0.5)*

Getting progressively better through the series, but getting to be a chore to watch 2.5 plus hours of robots.


----------



## djoberg

DarthDoxie said:


> *Transformers: Age of Extinction (UHD)*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 0* (0.5)*
> 
> Getting progressively better through the series, but *getting to be a chore to watch 2.5 plus hours of robots.*


Quite frankly Darth, I don't envy you! I have never been a big fan of the _Transformers Franchise_ when it comes to storytelling, acting, etc. However, the PQ is THE REDEEMING FEATURE and again, you are in for the very best when you get to T:TLK!!


----------



## AmerCa

*Underworld: Blood Wars (2016 - Sony) *











*Tier Recommendation: 1.0 *


This is not a movie, this is a black levels test. I can't remember watching a movie as dark as this. As such this review is going to be relatively easy, as there's basically only black to talk about. There are a few "bright" scenes where's there's occasion to show some detail and clarity, but for the most part, everything is drenched in heavy blacks.

I don't have a high end display, so while I didn't have any issue following the action, I certainly had trouble making out costume and background details. This should look fantastic on an OLED, and the UHD should bring another level to the shadow detail. I found the overall video presentation fantastic for what is intended to look like, but this movie is going to look like crap in daylight or with a very bright room.

Still, it's my opinion this title deserves to be at least in tier one, and the UHD should no problem be in tier zero. This placement could seem weird given the fact that I ranked *The Nun* (the-nun) at tier 1.5, which is another dark film, but _Blood Wars_ just looks...cooler, I guess.

The audio doesn't disappoint, and is lots of fun for sure. Plot is thin as paper, but I'll be damned if it isn't a cool story. Quite frankly, watching vampires and lycans beat the crap out of each other is enough entertainment to me 

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## SnellTHX

DarthDoxie said:


> *Transformers: Age of Extinction (UHD)*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 0* (0.5)*
> 
> Getting progressively better through the series, but getting to be a chore to watch 2.5 plus hours of robots.


I just love the progression of ratings and climbing up the rank with every entry. Transformers 4 looks so good but Transformers 5 is just something else. I'll re-watch it again soon, just because


----------



## mrtickleuk

DarthDoxie said:


> *Transformers: Age of Extinction (UHD)*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 0* (0.5)*
> 
> Getting progressively better through the series, but *getting to be a chore* to watch 2.5 plus hours of robots.


You deserve a medal for putting yourself through it. The downright nasty, *sleazy*, "phwoar look at this ass, forget that she's a person" attitude in those Michael Bay movies is really repulsive and a terrible example to set to young children of both genders. After going as a group with many friends to the first couple of them none of us have any appetite for any more these days. Just because it might look and sound good on a technical level, doesn't make those attitudes in any way ok.
On this occasion I'm afraid I can't agree with Mr djoberg - PQ good or not, they are *irr*edeemable IMHO.


----------



## djoberg

mrtickleuk said:


> You deserve a medal for putting yourself through it. The downright nasty, *sleazy*, "phwoar look at this ass, forget that she's a person" attitude in those Michael Bay movies is really repulsive and a terrible example to set to young children of both genders. After going as a group with many friends to the first couple of them none of us have any appetite for any more these days. Just because it might look and sound good on a technical level, doesn't make those attitudes in any way ok.
> On this occasion I'm afraid I can't agree with Mr djoberg - PQ good or not, they are *irr*edeemable IMHO.


I know you are relatively new to this thread (at least as far as contributing a post), but the real emphasis here is Picture Quality. I certainly agree with you that the _Transformer Franchise_ diminishes the female gender (as do MANY other movies put out by "sleazy Hollywood"). But our comments are relevant to the PQ and thoughts about the movie content rarely enter into one's review.

Having said that I will generally Fast-Forward past "sleazy scenes," including scenes with gratuitous language. Anyone who knows me on this thread knows this, but I wanted you to know it too. Regarding the _Transformer_ movies, there is actually a lot of content in their long running times that doesn't feature scantily-clad girls and people dropping F-Bombs, so one can actually enjoy the incredible PQ which, to those of us who are PQ-fanatics, we relish in. Some of the scenery in _Transformers: The Last Knight_ (a good example being the scenes in and around Anthony Hopkin's castle) is breath-taking. I will add that the DETAILS are off-the-charts, as are the COLORS, CONTRAST, DEPTH and BLACK LEVELS/SHADOW DETAILS.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Yes, I appreciate all of that and you make your point well. For those who don't care about the content and/or can see past it and only want to "demo" their system, fair enough. But I'm a movie fan as well as an AVR fan.

If it wasn't for the content and the nasty repulsive objectifying morals of the screenplay, some of Michael Bay's Transformers series would be watchable. I'm just saying that for me, a line must be drawn, a minimum standard of what is acceptable, where no matter how beautiful a film looks or sounds. If it's such a bad or reprehensible movie, it doesn't get watched. That's why I called it "irredeemable". For me, personally, it is not redeemable; it is beyond redemption, for the reasons I mentioned in my earlier post . There are plenty of movies that I don't like or think are good, but they look beautiful. This is not about those and there are many in this thread. Those are all fine for demos! It is specifically the objectifying leeriness, the gratuitous angles, the soft-porn sleaziness which is particular to Michael Bay I'm calling out.

I cannot identify with the practice of "looking through" such sleaziness, but that is just me. I hate heavy metal music, so it means I won't listen to a heavy metal album even if it was mastered in 24bit 192kHz audio, sold as uncompressed FLAC files in that format and is technically outstanding. Let alone buy it with money, and then praise it. I guess it's like eagerly listening to the sound of fingernails scraping down a blackboard [chalkboard], or a baby crying - sounds which are physically/emotionally painful to listen to - recorded at a very high quality and entirely separating the medium and presentation from the content. For me they are part of a whole, which cannot be separated back out. 

I've probably mixed up a few too many metaphors here so I'll stop now and apologies for the diversion


----------



## AmerCa

^°^°^°^
Michael Bay has a wicked sense of humor, which I personally LOVE, but it's not for everyone, obviously . You're a wise man staying away from him. There are lots of people who claim that hate everything he does, but alas, they keep watching his movies . You at least stopped at T2.

Michael Bay's greatest threat is to the AV enthusiasts wallets. Other than that, it's just mindless fun .

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^

I'll chime in one more time to respond to the latest post by mrtickleuk. I hear what you're saying, but "as I said" one can always use that blessed feature called "Fast-Forward" once a gratuitous scene begins. I've become very good at knowing if such a scene will last more than a split second and I can be "very fast on the draw!"  With the _Transformer_ series, I really don't believe there are long, drawn out scenes with the sleaziness you described. Most of it is mindless drivel and beautiful, razor-sharp robots duking it out. 

Regarding Michael Bay, I have one movie of his that is NOT sleazy at all and it's one of my favorite war-time movies. I'm speaking of _13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi_. To be fair, it has a good amount of gratuitous language, but even there it's easy to see which characters are swearing every time they open their mouth and in those cases I simply push the miraculous "Mute Button" until he stops talking. Is this a hassle? You bet it is and I wish I didn't have to resort to this, but in the case of this movie the story-telling, pacing, acting, action, etc. is so good that I'm willing to risk getting muscle fatigue in my right hand as I handle my Harmony Remote. And let me add that the PQ/AQ is fantastic in that movie.


----------



## subacabra

Plus if every movie was all pc and safe space that would be extremely boring.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Banana Splits Movie*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

Hanna-Barbera characters go haywire in this loose slasher reinvention of the late 60s variety show. It's getting harder and harder to significantly dock new productions much below Tier 1 when the latest digital cameras are used. Released by WB this coming Tuesday, outstanding definition and razor-sharp visuals mark this new South African production. The palette is shinier and more colorful than most horror, likely as a tongue-in-cheek homage to the original series.

Studios have become very comfortable with the 4K video pipeline and it's benefiting all releases down the chain, including fairly ordinary Blu-rays like this disc. Just a few years ago, this BD would have landed in Tier 0 without a second thought.


----------



## DarthDoxie

mrtickleuk said:


> You deserve a medal for putting yourself through it. The downright nasty, *sleazy*, "phwoar look at this ass, forget that she's a person" attitude in those Michael Bay movies is really repulsive and a terrible example to set to young children of both genders. After going as a group with many friends to the first couple of them none of us have any appetite for any more these days. Just because it might look and sound good on a technical level, doesn't make those attitudes in any way ok.
> On this occasion I'm afraid I can't agree with Mr djoberg - PQ good or not, they are *irr*edeemable IMHO.



I have no objection to any of the on-screen visuals  or language. My only gripe is the length, all of these movies could have been 2 hours instead of about 2:30 (T4 clocking in at 2:45 ).


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Ride the Pink Horse (Criterion)*

recommendation: *Tier 2.5**

Nice presentation of this lesser known film-noir with strong contrast and details. I could only spot one fleeting shot that was of inferior quality.

*Panic in the Streets*

recommendation: *Tier 2.5**

Another obscure film-noir that I picked up at Dollar Tree for...wait for it...$1. Good all around quality: details, contrast, black levels, and a nice layer of fine grain. No signs of damage or encode problems.


----------



## SnellTHX

mrtickleuk said:


> You deserve a medal for putting yourself through it. The downright nasty, *sleazy*, "phwoar look at this ass, forget that she's a person" attitude in those Michael Bay movies is really repulsive and a terrible example to set to young children of both genders. After going as a group with many friends to the first couple of them none of us have any appetite for any more these days. Just because it might look and sound good on a technical level, doesn't make those attitudes in any way ok.
> On this occasion I'm afraid I can't agree with Mr djoberg - PQ good or not, they are *irr*edeemable IMHO.


I think the Transformers movies are all amazing. Great replay value, probably watched them 3-4 times each. Giant robots, great action, good looking CGI, awesome special effects, superb surround mix and always good picture quality and especially The Last Knight which is top 3 ultimate reference material. Hot girls make the movie better as well.. Michael Bay is world-class scout for 'finding' young Megan Fox, Nicola Pelz, Rosie Huntington Whitely. Shame the last two transformers' didn't have a super babe.


----------



## AmerCa

^°°°°^
My man!!

But



SnellTHX said:


> Shame the last two transformers' didn't have a super babe.


But he "discovered" Isabela Moner, a damn fine actress who has a very bright future. She was fantastic in Sicario 2, and she's got more roles since then. She's a cute girl, but I agree, she's wasn't supposed to be the "hot" babe.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## AmerCa

*What's Up, Doc? (1972 - Warner) *











*Tier Recommendation: 3.5 *


My mom wanted to watch some of "her" movies, so I rewatched _Breakfast At Tiffany's_ (which still deserves its tier 2.0 spot) and then this movie, which was a first to me. This transfer isn't as good as _Tiffany's_, but is still pretty nice. Naturally, there's some scenes/shots that doesn't hold up very well, and there's softness, and grain and what else, but all things considered, it looks good. The video presentation very rarely distracted me from the movie, and I was surprised at how clean some shots managed to look. There are better transfers from movies much older than this, but it is what it is.

Audio is presented in glorious DTS-MA 1.0 and it was very decent. I thought of upmixing it, but _"What the hell?"_, I thought. What's there to upmix anyways? And then there were the F&F scenes, lol! They did a very good job with this one, at one point I forgot I was listening to a mono mix.

I had a very hard time getting into this film the first 45 minutes or so, but once I "got" it, I'll tell you I laughed harder than I've done in a very long time. I mean it, I was laughing HARD. This movie is silly and absurd, and I love all things silly and absurd, so this movie is APPROVED!

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## mrtickleuk

SnellTHX said:


> *Hot girls make the movie better as well*.. Michael Bay is world-class scout for 'finding' young Megan Fox, Nicola Pelz, Rosie Huntington Whitely. Shame the last two transformers' didn't *have a super babe.*


I wasn't going to reply because as I said, sorry for dragging the thread off-topic. But, come on. You haven't addressed anything I said about the values; you have actually reinforced the point I was making. Oh well


----------



## Panson

AmerCa said:


> *What's Up, Doc? (1972 - Warner) *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 3.5 *
> 
> 
> My mom wanted to watch some of "her" movies, so I rewatched _Breakfast At Tiffany's_ (which still deserves its tier 2.0 spot) and then this movie, which was a first to me. This transfer isn't as good as _Tiffany's_, but is still pretty nice. Naturally, there's some scenes/shots that doesn't hold up very well, and there's softness, and grain and what else, but all things considered, it looks good. The video presentation very rarely distracted me from the movie, and I was surprised at how clean some shots managed to look. There are better transfers from movies much older than this, but it is what it is.
> 
> Audio is presented in glorious DTS-MA 1.0 and it was very decent. I thought of upmixing it, but _"What the hell?"_, I thought. What's there to upmix anyways? And then there were the F&F scenes, lol! They did a very good job with this one, at one point I forgot I was listening to a mono mix.
> 
> I had a very hard time getting into this film the first 45 minutes or so, but once I "got" it, I'll tell you I laughed harder than I've done in a very long time. I mean it, I was laughing HARD. This movie is silly and absurd, and I love all things silly and absurd, so this movie is APPROVED!
> 
> Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk




Others you might like. Not all BD. 

*Bedtime Story (1964)*, starring David Niven, Marlon Brando, Shirley Jones.

*The Owl and the Pussycat (1970)*, starring George Segal, Barbara Streisand.

*The Duchess and the Dirtwater Fox (1976)*, starring George Segal, Goldie Hawn.

*So Fine (1981)*, starring Ryan O'Neal, Mariangela Melato.


----------



## AmerCa

@Panson
Thanks for the recs! I appreciate it. I'll add them to my list, in case I can find a good deal.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## AmerCa

mrtickleuk said:


> I wasn't going to reply because as I said, sorry for dragging the thread off-topic. But, come on. You haven't addressed anything I said about the values; you have actually reinforced the point I was making. Oh well


This is the only thing that's clear:

No Resident Evil or Underworld movies for you!! 

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Kiss Me Deadly (Criterion)*

recommendation: *Tier 3.0**

Weak contrast and some obvious lesser quality film elements in some scenes keep it from getting a better score.


----------



## Panson

DarthDoxie said:


> *Kiss Me Deadly (Criterion)*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 3.0**
> 
> Weak contrast and some obvious lesser quality film elements in some scenes keep it from getting a better score.


A stellar career, *Robert Aldrich (1918 - 1983)*. Nothing too highbrow, always entertaining. Snubbed by Oscars and Globes. 

"Directed five different actors in Oscar-nominated performances: Victor Buono, Bette Davis, Agnes Moorehead, Ian Bannen and John Cassavetes." - IMDb


----------



## AmerCa

*Resident Evil: Retribution (2012 - Sony) *










*Tier Recommendation: 1.25 *

This is a tricky one. At its best, which is a good chunk of the movie, the picture is reference or near-reference quality. Colors are vivid, detail and clarity are outstanding. It's just a beautiful and clear picture. BUT, as all things RE, the video is inconsistent. The often less-than-stellar CGI results in softness, and the varied set pieces and crazy action gives a lot of room for imperfections, which a dark movie like *Underworld: Blood Wars* can hide much better. As such, I cannot help but penalize this film, even when overall it's pretty good PQ wise.

Audio is pretty good as well, although I find it pretty harsh on the ears at times. Quite possibly the best audio mix from the entire series, in terms of overall presentation.

I can't remember many specific movies from 2012, but I nominate _Retribution_ for an Academy Award for best fight scene of the year. If you watch (or have watched) the movie, you'll know what I mean .

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## AmerCa

*Resident Evil: The Final Chapter (2016 - Sony)*










*Tier Recommendation: 0 (0.75) *

Now, let's get real. I can't remember the last reference title I reviewed, but it's been a long time. I rewatched this film twice, and my opinion on it just got better. In fact, watching this one made me doubt if _Blood Wars_ deserved its 1.0 spot. Why? This is a very dark film as well, but it has everything that made the latter so pleasing and cool-looking, but takes it two or three levels further.

This film has a 4 DI, which explains why this movie looks so deliciously sharp looking, with outstanding clarity, detail and contrast. It has a particular color grading that gives it a limited color palette that many could find drab, but damn, no Resident Evil movie has ever looked this good. There are some stunning dark scenes that I can only imagine how they'd look on a superior display. The contrast between the dark and the light is beautiful, and I tell you, even in SDR I found myself squinting my eyes frequently. HDR should do wonders with this in the UHD. Also shadow detail is fantastic. There's very little to complain about.

Paul W.S. Anderson gets a lot of crap (some of it justified), but regardless of the script quality and what may think of the franchise, he should be proud of what he did here, because this movie has the best visuals he's put on film. I frigging LOVE the aesthetics and visuals of this movie, and the very sharp picture only magnifies its strengths. Some scenes will look AMAZING in a dark room. Well, most of the movie looks amazing, but even then there are some standouts.

Some notes on the audio. *Update* An updated graph shows both tracks are even. Which only adds to my frustration.Apparently, the ATMOS track in the UHD is around 5db louder than the 7.1 DTS-MA, at least in the bass department, which should explain why I found this mix to be underwhelming at times..Other than that, the audio mix is satisfying, but not the best you'll ever hear.

Edit: forgot to add. Beware of some of the editing of this film. It's headache inducing at times, and it's the biggest offender in here. I still forgive him.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## mrtickleuk

AmerCa said:


> This is the *only thing that's clear*:
> 
> No Resident Evil or Underworld movies for you!!


Sorry but I don't agree. It's not the "only thing" that's clear and is actually very wrong too . I thought I had been painstakingly clear: those are not specifically the misogynist _Michael Bay Transformer movies_, with his particular pernicious brand of sleaziness I described, the last time I checked  . 

Let's just move on, shall we? I can't describe it any more or any better than I have to this point. All that's happening now is people either not understanding where I am coming from and re-opening the discussion; or disagreeing (which is of course fine, but only provokes more posts and going around and around in circles).


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Transformers: The Last Knight (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 0* (The top live action film in tier 0)*

Not much to add to everything that has already been said about this film, excellence all-around. I can't put it above all the animated films at the top of tier 0 because I haven't seen them and I think Planet Earth II UHD is better. The only gripe I have for T5 is the poor framing on some of the IMAX shots where the rounded corners of the film stock is visible.


----------



## SnellTHX

DarthDoxie said:


> *Transformers: The Last Knight (UHD)*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 0* (The top live action film in tier 0)*
> 
> Not much to add to everything that has already been said about this film, excellence all-around. I can't put it above all the animated films at the top of tier 0 because I haven't seen them and I think Planet Earth II UHD is better. The only gripe I have for T5 is the poor framing on some of the IMAX shots where the rounded corners of the film stock is visible.


And there you have it... Another top placement for Transformers 5: The Last Knight.

I think every single person who has seen it would give it #1 , #2 or worst case a top 3 placement.

The 'AVATAR' of our time


----------



## SnellTHX

AmerCa said:


> *Resident Evil: The Final Chapter (2016 - Sony)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 0 (0.75) *




I did not think I would ever watch another Resident Evil film after seeing the first... But damn it America now I might have to


----------



## djoberg

I just ordered the UHD Blu-ray of _Godzilla: King of the Monsters_ from eBay at a very good price. It is brand new (with no shipping fees or taxes) though it does NOT include a 1080p Blu-ray or a digital copy. 

The reviews on the movie itself is a mixed bag with some calling it the worst movie ever. I have been a huge fan of the Godzilla movies for decades so I "think" I'll like it, but even if I don't the PQ sounds quite good and the AQ sounds like pure Reference Quality. On Ralph's site I was really intrigued when I saw this post:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-...s-ultra-hd-blu-ray-review-2.html#post58474272

Why was I so intrigued? Ah, if you check out that member's Home Theater you'll see why!!

My copy does't come till September 3rd so it'll be awhile before I weigh in.


----------



## AmerCa

^°^°^°^
Lol!!

Snell, if you could somehow rent it or borrow it, I'd most definitely say go for it. But if you don't enjoy the RE movies, I can't see you enjoying this one, especially if you didn't like the first one, which is arguably the best in the franchise (I love them all, except for RE4).

I know you have a 4k display, and surprisingly, I've seen some mixed reviews regarding the UHD. I'd expect the UHD to be only much better. YouTube reviewer Spare Change called it reference all the way through, but other reviewers don't share the same feeling.

It's just a shame you don't enjoy these movies, but I can understand why.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

Okay, I just watched my copy of the 2014 version of _Godzilla_ and I was more impressed than I thought I would be. I'm going to give you the link to my review (from 2015). What I found interesting and impressive was the fact that the BLACK LEVELS were BETTER ON MY OLED than they were on my Pioneer KURO Elite plasma (especially the letter-boxed bars, which were completely black tonight). Also, I had said in my review that even though the bass/LFE rocked big time, I was somewhat disappointed.....thinking that it should have been more sensational than it was. But guess what? I didn't even dare turn to even close to reference tonight, for my walls were shaking like crazy and waves of energy went over me every time Godzilla roared or an EMP went off. I think I will attribute this to my newer Denon AVR and having Dual Subs instead of one.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-730.html#post27539794

The viewing tonight has me really, really pumped for watching the sequel in a week or so, for as I posted earlier today the PQ/AQ is supposed to blow the 2014 version out of the water! Methinks that may be hyperbole, for only Godzilla himself can do that!!!


----------



## AmerCa

^°^°^°^
You're not wrong, Djoberg. 2014's Godzilla is amazing. It's one of my favorite audio mixes ever, and even with one sub, I wouldn't even dare to approach reference levels. I'm definitely going to rewatch it preparation to the newer one, which was frigging OFF THE CHARTS in theaters. I don't doubt both audio and video (especially in UHD) will be fantastic.

I'm seriously thinking in biting the bullet and get it on release day (Sept. 20 in here), but I'd like a good deal on the UHD, but I'd have to wait longer.

Don't listen to the naysayers. When are they ever happy? Worst movie ever? Lol!!! Enjoy the wild ride, my fiend, as I'm sure you'll have a great time watching it in your new OLED and dual SVS subs. This right here is quite possibly the audio mix of the year, and this year has had some truly fantastic ones.



Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I haven't decided completely yet but I don't think the new *Rocketman* UHD will be landing in Tier 0. Some great visual moments but overall doesn't compete with the latest and greatest UHDs.


----------



## AmerCa

^°^°^°^°^
Phantom is now reviewing 4k!!! 

I'm becoming a relic! 

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## Phantom Stranger

AmerCa said:


> ^°^°^°^°^
> Phantom is now reviewing 4k!!!
> 
> I'm becoming a relic!
> 
> Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


I held out longer than I should have but the new OLED and my trusty Oppo 205 finally made it possible. I imagine most of what I cover here will continue to be Blu-rays besides the occasional UHD. Many, many current Blu-rays will never see a physical 4K release.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Apocalypse Now: Final Cut (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

I had plans of watching this 3:02 length monster over the course of two days, but just couldn't stop once I started. Scanned for the fist time from the OCN, it's a beauty to behold. Great depth and lots of details in environmental textures, fabrics, and faces. Colors really pop in certain areas like all the colored smoke and the jungle foliage, especially once they arrive at the Kurtz compound. Black levels are strong for the most part, but a few scenes near the end are problematic, specifically the long Kurtz speech where Brando is in shadow most the time. That scene has some weak contrast and just a touch of compression issues noticeable on the left side of the image with macro-blocking, but that only lasts for a few seconds. There is a nice layer of fine grain over most of the film, but a few shots at night show heavy grain so grain-haters beware.

The Atmos sound is phenomenal, the low end goes deep and surrounds get a good workout.

All three cuts of the the film: Theatrical, Redux, and now Final have been sourced from the same re-scan, restoration, and Dolby Vision application so you can't go wrong in whichever version you prefer.

Until *Lawrence of Arabia* comes out, this might be the king of catalogue titles on UHD.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^

If _Lawrence of Arabia_ comes out on UHD, I'll get it, even though I purchased the Remastered Blu-ray which was phenomenal and will be hard to trump.


----------



## tcramer

DarthDoxie said:


> *Apocalypse Now: Final Cut (UHD)*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 1.0**
> 
> I had plans of watching this 3:02 length monster over the course of two days, but just couldn't stop once I started. Scanned for the fist time from the OCN, it's a beauty to behold. Great depth and lots of details in environmental textures, fabrics, and faces. Colors really pop in certain areas like all the colored smoke and the jungle foliage, especially once they arrive at the Kurtz compound. Black levels are strong for the most part, but a few scenes near the end are problematic, specifically the long Kurtz speech where Brando is in shadow most the time. That scene has some weak contrast and just a touch of compression issues noticeable on the left side of the image with macro-blocking, but that only lasts for a few seconds. There is a nice layer of fine grain over most of the film, but a few shots at night show heavy grain so grain-haters beware.
> 
> The Atmos sound is phenomenal, the low end goes deep and surrounds get a good workout.
> 
> All three cuts of the the film: Theatrical, Redux, and now Final have been sourced from the same re-scan, restoration, and Dolby Vision application so you can't go wrong in whichever version you prefer.
> 
> Until *Lawrence of Arabia* comes out, this might be the king of catalogue titles on UHD.





djoberg said:


> ^^^^^
> 
> If _Lawrence of Arabia_ comes out on UHD, I'll get it, either though I purchased the Remastered Blu-ray which was phenomenal and will be hard to trump.



Lawrence of Arabia is available in UHD (no HDR) on the Kaleidescape and has been for some time. I purchased it about 8 months and still haven't watched it - I really need to one of these days!


----------



## AmerCa

*Underworld: Awakening (2012 - Sony) *










*Tier Recommendation: 1.5 (closer to 1.25)*

A small preface: I bought the 3d version of this film first, which also plays in 2d. Accidentally I found shortly after that there's some issues with the 2d in the 3d version, which gives the movie a blue tint and kills pretty much the blacks in here. There are many posts in several sites discussing this issue, but the differences are put to rest in a thread here in AVS, specifically in this post: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=37582561

So I returned the unopened 3d copy and managed to exchanged it for the 2d version, which BTW was the only one in the store . Phew! And I'm glad I did it. For what would be an Underworld movie without proper blacks? Onto the review.

Underworld movies are turning to be very tricky for me to review, because they seem to have a particular aesthetic that no other movies have. They're beautifully and heavily black, but there's not much opportunity to show shiny, pop out scenes, and yet a lot of scenes are very pleasing to look at, especially when there's chance to show contrast between the inky blacks and some background light, or light reflections in the glossy leather costume of Kate Beckinsale. 
Addendum: I noticed better shadow detail in some scenes, and light played a major role compares to _Blood Wars_, which allowed a much nicer overall contrast. There were a handful of daytime scenes that were heavily color graded, so they couldn't "shine" properly, but were in line with the film's look.

The best moments in here are better than the ones in _Blood Wars_, but overall the video presentation is not as consistent. I thought for a moment in placing this at tier 1.25, but my gut settled down at 1.5. Regardless of the specific placement, at its best, which is often, this movie has some stunning moments that should make black levels lovers salivated quite frequently. So, if you plan to watch the movie in 2d, getting the standalone 2d disc is highly recommended, if you have the option.

One final note. The audio here is BONKERS. It has a long standing reputation of greatness, but you really need to experience it. This is one of the rare cases I'd recommend owning this movie just for the audio track alone. It's reference all the way through, and it's the perfect companion to the exciting action. Just don't expect a well rounded story that makes complete sense. To be frank, I'm not really sure what just happened, but the adrenaline rush it gave me is more than enough.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## SnellTHX

*Avengers: Endgame*

Just going to say I have no idea where the 'hate' or criticisms for this movie comes from. I guess the colours are a bit muted, but that's part of the movies aesthetic, and many movies use way design aesthetics without reviewers hampering from it. 
While it doesn't have that punchy 3D like pop and vibrant colours of GOTG2, I thought it looked on par with Marvel movies like Black Panther and Infinity War (both 0.5). 
The image quality was sharp, showing no signs that this was derived from a 2K DI (WHY disney can't you guys just give us 4K DI when its filmed in 6.5K?!) and showed lots of details.
I cannot remember in the IMAX cinema seeing so much stubble on the Hulk's face nor has Thanos' chin resembled a wrinkled nut suck more than he did at home in this 4K(upscaled) presentation. 
It's not true reference, but it's up there and IMO it is on the same level as Alita or Aquaman, which both had reference quality moments but let down by some softness. 
Endgame doesn't have any disappointing softness and remains and clear and sharp throughout.

*Tier recommendation: 0.50*


----------



## djoberg

*Godzilla: King of the Monsters (UHD)*

I am simply going to give you the link to Ralph Potts review web-page for this movie and the short post I made a few minutes ago. You will see that I praised the Dolby Atmos mix but that I had to conclude that the PQ was not EYE CANDY except for some of the daytime shots which had amazing details and depth, and then the rich, deep black levels and the specular highlights due to the effects of HDR/Dolby Vision.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-...s-ultra-hd-blu-ray-review-3.html#post58490904

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**

PS This was about the same quality as seen in the 2014 _Godzilla_.


----------



## AmerCa

*Speed Racer (2008 - Warner) *










*Tier Recommendation: 0 (0.9) (Current 1.0)*

I can't say I'm surprised to find this movie at tier 1.0, because at several stretches of the film I thought that was a fair placement, given the flaws it exhibits. But at the end of it I couldn't in good faith deny this visual masterpiece the reference category, even if it's towards the lower end. I'll try to explain myself.

This movie was released 11 years ago, it was the beginning of the bluray era, and I'm pretty sure at the time it was arguably the greatest jump in quality from DVD to bluray, just as today there are some UHD that eclipse their BDs counterparts. The DVD can't possibly come close to the quality displayed in this BD, which is impressive even today.

This is the type of film that's designed to put to test the current technologies of the time, and it's the reason we buy the best displays we can afford to be able to enjoy such contents. The color palette of this film is astonishing, and it wouldn't surprise me if it put SDR capabilities to it's limits. It's a carnival of colors and boosted contrast, at times resulting in exhilarating combinations of colors and exotic visuals that are often jaw-dropping. Not only that, the movie is also capable of great black levels, and some dark scenes look truly fantastic, revealing a good dose of shadow detail on top.

I'm sure current and not-so-current animated film could surpass the use of color in this movie, which is equal parts live-action and CGI, but the combination of both AND the visual genius of the Wachowski Bros is what makes this movie something truly unique.

Despite the problems the artificial boosted contrast can introduce, and the inherent softness the CGI presents, and some the filming choices the directors chose, for every defect you can point out, I could point out three amazing qualities the picture possess. At its worst, it's no worse than the flaws of modern movies, and its best, it's borderline out of this world. Judging from what Warner could do with a movie that's 11 years old, at the time, if they ever release it in 4k, it should easily be the king of HDR.

That's why I feel comfortable putting this in the reference category, giving also enough leeway for the future UHD to climb much higher in the rankings. THIS is definitely something I'd use to demo a display.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## AmerCa

djoberg said:


> *Godzilla: King of the Monsters (UHD)*
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75**
> 
> PS This was about the same quality as seen in the 2014 _Godzilla_.


It's disappointing to hear that, especially because there's no excuse for a dark film not to look fantastic, even if the color palette is limited, as many movies have proved. I expected the home release to look better than that, especially the UHD. I'll have to wait until I can watch it myself.



Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> *Godzilla: King of the Monsters (UHD)*
> 
> I am simply going to give you the link to Ralph Potts review web-page for this movie and the short post I made a few minutes ago. You will see that I praised the Dolby Atmos mix but that I had to conclude that the PQ was not EYE CANDY except for some of the daytime shots which had amazing details and depth, and then the rich, deep black levels and the specular highlights due to the effects of HDR/Dolby Vision.
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-...s-ultra-hd-blu-ray-review-3.html#post58490904
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75**
> 
> PS This was about the same quality as seen in the 2014 _Godzilla_.


Hmm that's disappointing


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> It's disappointing to hear that, especially because there's no excuse for a dark film not to look fantastic, even if the color palette is limited, as many movies have proved. I expected the home release to look better than that, especially the UHD. I'll have to wait until I can watch it myself.
> 
> 
> 
> Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk





SnellTHX said:


> Hmm that's disappointing


At least it had phenomenal black levels and excellent specular highlights. The biggest letdown was SOFTNESS during heavy CGI scenes and sadly the vast majority took place at night with smoke and fog.


----------



## AmerCa

I just rewatched *Transformers: The Last Knight*. Ridiculous PQ.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^

I keep going back to view this periodically just to remind myself how good a true Reference Quality disc can be....from beginning to end.


----------



## djoberg

*Godzilla: King of the Monsters (UHD) Revisited*

After a second viewing of _Godzilla: King of the Monsters (UHD)_ I have decided to officially change my placement recommendation. I believe I was over-occupied with some of the SOFT SCENES with "smoke and fog" and blurry CGI. Most of the movie, though dark, has truly incredible black levels and shadow details, and when the director zooms in for facial close-ups we are treated to remarkable facial texture (in humans and monsters)! Some of the daytime scenes early on are simply mesmerizing....like the scene in Colorado where the male lead is photographing lions devouring their prey....it rivals scenes in _Planet Earth 2 (UHD)_.

I had given this a 1.75 and now I wish to permanently change it to....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25**

PS If not for softness and some noise at times during CGI shots, this would have easily been a Tier 0 contender.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^

I forgot to add (in both reviews) that in addition to the many dazzling specular highlights, we are treated to rich, vibrant colors in instrument panels in aircraft, ships, and control rooms on earth. Those, along with black backgrounds, are simply gorgeous! Forgive me for my obsession the other night with the "negatives"; there are plenty of "positives" to enjoy! I guess I could see some opting for 1.0 or perhaps even a low Tier O placement.


----------



## AmerCa

*The Nutcracker and The Four Realms (2018 - Disney) *










*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*

I'm glad Zack Snyder is back to business. After he left the DCEU...what's that? Snyder didn't direct it...ahhh. The Joe Johnston from _Captain America_ and other guy are the directors you say? Oh, that's right. They could have fooled me, tho...

This movie surprised me in more ways than one, but not in the ways I was expecting. I expected this film to be an exuberant fest of vibrating colors. The subject matter and set pieces called for it. I expected this movie to be...shiny. But we have a _Batman v. Superman_ visual style...and it's all for the better.

The muted color palette is apparent from the very opening sequence, and I thought the visual style might change once they entered into the Realms, but it was all the same all the way through. The movie has a very filmic look, than strangely gave it a sense on unique realism, so to speak. The movie has a truly fantastic visual flair, with its use of colors, set pieces, costumes and make-up, it's always a joy to behold, even if the colors don't "pop out". I often forgot to pay attention to the story, because I often got lost in the gorgeous visuals.

There's great clarity, but the picture isn't particularly detailed most of the time, and that probably helps for the CGI and other effects to better blend into the picture. I gotta say, the end result looks great. I was tempted to give it a 1.25 placement, but 1.5 better reflects the overall presentation. Modern and clean, with strong colors and enough detail, which is appropriate for the intended artistic look, but not the razor sharp, full detail and superb contrast you'd expect from a 2018 production. However, much like Snyder, the directors make the most of what they can do with this visual look.

The audio also surprised me as well. While it's not obviously an aggressive mix, it's very detailed and full of subtleties that makes an excellent use of all the speakers. LFE effects are well done and used sparingly to great effect, and the sound design is great. And the music, well, you know the music in a Nutcracker movie is going to be delightful.

As you can tell, I enjoyed this film very much, and even when I bought it for for my mom, who is a super fan of all Nutcracker related things, I'm gonna be revisiting this one for myself . It was fun to watch.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## CJackson

djoberg said:


> *Godzilla: King of the Monsters (UHD) Revisited*
> 
> After a second viewing of _Godzilla: King of the Monsters (UHD)_ I have decided to officially change my placement recommendation. I believe I was over-occupied with some of the SOFT SCENES with "smoke and fog" and blurry CGI. Most of the movie, though dark, has truly incredible black levels and shadow details, and when the director zooms in for facial close-ups we are treated to remarkable facial texture (in humans and monsters)! Some of the daytime scenes early on are simply mesmerizing....like the scene in Colorado where the male lead is photographing lions devouring their prey....it rivals scenes in _Planet Earth 2 (UHD)_.
> 
> I had given this a 1.75 and now I wish to permanently change it to....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.25**
> 
> PS If not for softness and some noise at times during CGI shots, this would have easily been a Tier 0 contender.


What did you think of the movie? Are the critics being too harsh? Btw, exactly what makes Transformer The Last Knight the best reference quality disc?


----------



## DarthDoxie

*From Here to Eternity*

recommendation: *Tier 2.75**

Good contrast and clarity on par with other Blu-ray releases from this period.


----------



## djoberg

CJackson said:


> What did you think of the movie? Are the critics being too harsh? Btw, exactly what makes Transformer The Last Knight the best reference quality disc?


The movie itself is a "check your brain at the door and enjoy the Robots duking it out" kind of movie (in this regard it's very similar to _Godzilla: King of the Monsters_). I enjoyed immensely the "different kind of Robots" and their "individual strengths and weaknesses." The story-line was quite shallow and the acting was 'okay.' If the "critics" you are referring to are Rotten Tomatoes or the like, I haven't even read their reviews. The thing about "professional critics" of that ilk; they are only interested in the "movie" and could care less about the PQ/AQ, so they tend to be harsh on action movies that lack superb acting, a heart-warming story-line, good pacing, etc. This thread is mainly about PQ, though we also discuss the audio mix if it is exceptional, as was the case with this movie.

What makes _Transformers: The Last Knight_ the best reference quality disc? Here is what I said about it in my short review:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-822.html#post55905058

As you will see, I had already nominated the 1080p version for the #1 spot and with the UHD release being even better, it was a no-brainer. If you do a Search on the movie (on this Thread) and read all of the other excellent reviews that were written, you will see that EVERYONE had the very same impressions on the incredible PQ and voted it into the #1 spot. I would ask you this question in closing, "Have you seen the UHD release?" If so, then don't your eyes tell you it's the best reference quality disc?


----------



## SnellTHX

CJackson said:


> What did you think of the movie? Are the critics being too harsh? Btw, exactly what makes Transformer The Last Knight the best reference quality disc?


I think the movie was very enjoyable. It's brain-dead action but it's damn good brain dead action.

What makes it the best reference disk? Overall (or should I say from start to finish) it has the best picture quality of any movie I have ever seen. It's just ridiculously good, ultra punchy, 3D-like depth and 8K-like sharpness that almost cuts your eyes. No noise, grain, or any other kind imperfection. Emboldened & vibrant colours, spectacular HDR effects, plethora of details in each shot, and while the image is crystal clear & razor sharp it still has an organic, filmic look to it. the CGI is as good as it gets. 

I've expressed my opinion that I think DUNKIRK should be the Reference PQ-King, but even I admit it is not 'flawless' and 'perfect' in the same way Transformers: Last Knight is. the IMAX 15/70mm shots (roughly 70-80% of the movie) have the BEST Picture I have ever seen, but the 20-30% portion of the movie filmed in regular 65mm movie looks more like Tier 1 material. Transformers is 95% or even 99% as good, but without the 'bad'.

The same applies to Interstellar and The Dark Knight Rises. Their IMAX 15/70mm scenes exceed T5:LK, but they are only ≈ 40-50% of the movie, while the other half was filmed in regular 35mm that belongs somewhere in tier 1.25-1.75. There's just something about the IMAX MSM9802 camera that picks up so much more detail, resolution and 'life-ness' to it, that no other digital/analog camera can come close too. T5:LK comes the closest to replicating this with I believe a mixture of Red 8K and Arri 6.5K cameras. So when considering the total package, Dunkirk & Transformers: LK secure their top 3 spots, I sometimes mix up who deserves 1st place and 2nd place, whether it should be Dunkirk for its ultimate PQ or T5 for its consistent excellence.


----------



## djoberg

*The Secret Life of Pets 2 (UHD)*

WOW...WOW...WOW!!!

Okay, I just wrote a few brief remarks on Ralph's web-page for this movie. Here it is:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-...s-2-ultra-hd-blu-ray-review.html#post58504902

Bottom line: This is the best animated movie I've seen! So, it will go right above _Secret Life of Pets (UHD)_ and right below _Transformers: The Last Knight_ and _Planet Earth 2 (UHD)_.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (#3)*

PS The Dolby Atmos mix was also rock-solid with a couple of scenes with awesome bass/LFE!


----------



## AmerCa

^°^°^°^
Nice review, Djoberg! I've been meaning to get the first one, and now I hear the second one is even better. I just have a big backlog. Good news is Black Friday is closer, hopefully I'll get some good stuff.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^

Once you get a 4K display with Dolby Vision and a 4K Blu-ray player capable of Dolby Vision, you will be blown away by the COLORS in the two _Secret Life of Pets (UHD)_, especially #2 !!


----------



## subacabra

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^^
> 
> 
> 
> Once you get a 4K display with Dolby Vision and a 4K Blu-ray player capable of Dolby Vision, you will be blown away by the COLORS in the two _Secret Life of Pets (UHD)_, especially #2 !!


Was thinking of getting the uhd on vudu for my son. Wonder how that looks.


----------



## djoberg

subacabra said:


> Was thinking of getting the uhd on vudu for my son. Wonder how that looks.


I would imagine it looks very good, though perhaps not quite as good as a physical disc that is compression-free.


----------



## djoberg

Another HUGE feature of the movie _Secret Life of Pets_ is it's in the 1.85:1 Aspect Ratio!! In other words, it fills the WHOLE SCREEN. This will especially peak the interest of Snell and others like him (like ME) who prefer this Aspect Ratio to the 2.35:1 AR.


----------



## CJackson

What is the best looking black and white disc you've seen?


----------



## djoberg

*Men in Black: International (1080p)*

Due to some very poor reviews of the movie, I decided to rent this from Redbox today (instead of buying it). The movie has "some" redeeming moments, but it's the excellent PQ/AQ that justified parting with a couple of bucks and about 90 minutes of my life. The CLARITY was insane with mesmerizing DETAILS, appreciable DEPTH, vibrant COLORS, spot-on FLESH TONES, and incredible BLACKS/SHADOW DETAILS. But it was the DTS-HD MA mix that really kept me riveted in my seat and kept me from looking at my watch even once. The action in the surrounds was phenomenal with perfect precision (even in my height channels courtesy of my Denon's up-mix capability). Dialogue was always intelligible. The bass/LFE was thunderous and at times sent waves of energy across the room as lasers were fired, bombs exploded, or the "evil twins" worked their magic resulting in earthquakes on city streets!!

I'm told the UHD release gives it a slight uptick but in truth I think I'd be satisfied with the 1080p blu-ray. I can say in all honestly that if I didn't know better I would have thought I was watching a UHD/HDR Blu-ray; it was that good!

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (.5)*


----------



## djoberg

CJackson said:


> What is the best looking black and white disc you've seen?


Let me think on that for awhile. I only have a few in my Blu-ray library and off the top of my head Hitchcock's _Psycho_ comes to mind as being one of the best. Another one that just came to mind was _Schindler's List_.


----------



## mrtickleuk

CJackson said:


> What is the best looking black and white disc you've seen?


Sin City?


----------



## meli

CJackson said:


> What is the best looking black and white disc you've seen?



Not sure, but I like the question. “Raging Bull” is one of my favorites, but I’ve never really thought about it in videophile terms. I’d like to see a 4K UHD of “The Last Picture Show”, but even the Blu-Ray is difficult/expensive to get. 

“Manhattan”, of course. I really enjoyed “Ida” from a couple years ago.


----------



## artur9

CJackson said:


> What is the best looking black and white disc you've seen?


We recently watched Criterion's Hitchcock's Rebecca. That was quite good I thought.


----------



## meli

artur9 said:


> We recently watched Criterion's Hitchcock's Rebecca. That was quite good I thought.


I remember that Criterion's "Rebecca" release got great (picture quality) reviews when it was remastered in 2017.

I think not quite as good of a transfer, but Criterion's release of "The Night of the Hunter" also looks very good. I love that movie.

edit: I can't believe there isn't a Region A BluRay release of "The Elephant Man". Another great movie!


----------



## CJackson

That Lawrence of Arabia BD is pretty nice, huh? I watched that today and was amazed how razor sharp a 1962 movie looks today. Before that I watched Criterion's Gojira and Shin Godzilla. Gojira looked pretty bad, but it is still one of my favorites. Shin Godzilla obviously looked better but didn't wow as much as LoA did.


----------



## AmerCa

meli said:


> edit: I can't believe there isn't a Region A BluRay release of "The Elephant Man". Another great movie!


Mexico has a Region A release for *The Elephant Man* (1980). How easy would it be to import, I don't know. It's edited by Zima, which generally speaking I wouldn't recommend at all, but sometimes they get some things right.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## artur9

AmerCa said:


> It's edited by Zima, which generally speaking I wouldn't recommend at all, but sometimes they get some things right.


Edited by a bad beer simulacra? No wonder you don't recommend it


----------



## AmerCa

^°^°^°^
Good one, sir. You actually made me laugh.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

CJackson said:


> That Lawrence of Arabia BD is pretty nice, huh? I watched that today and was amazed how razor sharp a 1962 movie looks today. Before that I watched Criterion's Gojira and Shin Godzilla. Gojira looked pretty bad, but it is still one of my favorites. Shin Godzilla obviously looked better but didn't wow as much as LoA did.


I have TWO versions of _Lawrence of Arabia_ but neither of them is in Black & White. The last Remastered Version in Blu-ray is absolutely amazing considering its age! I would highly recommend to all who are fans of this true "classic." Again, it is NOT in B&W...the colors are actually very pleasing to the eyes...natural yet vibrant!


----------



## artur9

I saw the 70mm Lawrence of Arabia in a theatre after its first restoration. Late 80s? That one desert scene is eye-popping.
It was in color then. I think it's always been in color?


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> *Men in Black: International (1080p)*
> 
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (.5)*


I watched this movie last weekend, in 4K/HDR. It looked phenomenal. I didn't write a review because (long story short) I'm living with a friend of mine until I finalise the purchase of my new apartment in December. He has a decent 4K Optoma projector on a 110" screen, but it's hard to assess PQ like I do on my own OLED, which is currently being used by my mum; whom at first complained that she didn't want a big TV in her living room but now says I can't have it back  (she's been using my old 2005 model 32" Toshiba 720p LCD until now).


And to be honest MIB:I is by far the best looking movie I've put on in this house / on this projector.. I watched Avengers: Endgame, didn't think too much of it here, visited my mum and watched Endgame again in my own setup (hence the review and the 0.50 rating I gave it a couple pages back) and was positively surprised by just how good it looked. MIB:I, on this Optoma projector looked absolutely stunning. Even my friend thought this movie looked better than other movies I put on since moving in 


So can't wait to bring it home and re-watch on my own OLED display, it smells like a very high tier 0 placement.


----------



## djoberg

artur9 said:


> I saw the 70mm Lawrence of Arabia in a theatre after its first restoration. Late 80s? That one desert scene is eye-popping.
> It was in color then. I think it's always been in color?


That would have been on DVD. The Remastered Blu-ray (which was released in 2012) was a "50th Year Anniversary Edition" and it was simply amazing. I believe I gave it a Tier 0 ranking (I did a Search but no reviews came up).


----------



## artur9

djoberg said:


> That would have been on DVD. The Remastered Blu-ray (which was released in 2012) was a "50th Year Anniversary Edition" and it was simply amazing. I believe I gave it a Tier 0 ranking (I did a Search but no reviews came up).


I think you missed where I said I saw it in a theater in the late 80s. The first DVD was sold in 1997. The restoration I saw was started in 1986 according to this.

DVD would be a pale imitation of Lawrence of Arabia. Even BluRay would probably not do it justice.


----------



## djoberg

artur9 said:


> I think you missed where I said I saw it in a theater in the late 80s. The first DVD was sold in 1997. The restoration I saw was started in 1986 according to this.
> 
> DVD would be a pale imitation of Lawrence of Arabia. Even BluRay would probably not do it justice.


I did indeed "miss your point" and thus I didn't even consider the fact that DVDs were first sold in 1997.

Regarding the "Blu-ray not doing the Theater Version justice," I think it comes close than you think. Here is what one of my favorite reviewers (from HiDefDigest) said in their review of the 2012 Remastered Version:

"I'm not sure what more can really be said about 'Lawrence of Arabia' some 50 years after its theatrical release. Smarter men than I have covered it all -- from inception to production to its multiple restorations -- but here goes nothing.

"The short of it:

'Lawrence of Arabia' is easily the best action adventure movie ever made. Up until now, the only way to experience it as it was meant to be seen was on the big screen with a 70mm projector. That's still true. *However, this Blu-ray gives home video enthusiasts an experience that parallels and almost matches the cinema experience.* The film certainly looks as good as I've ever seen it. The definition of the word epic, I would rate 'Lawrence of Arabia' 6 stars out of 5 if possible." (End of Quote)

I guess this mirrors my view...it "almost matches the cinema experience." One wonders what a UHD/HDR release could do?!


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Walking Dead, The: Season 2*

recommendation: *Tier 2.5**

Rough looking for such a recent show, but that's probably intentional. The biggest knock on the quality is the low detail, looks like something in between DVD and BD. Color is good with all the forest and wide open spaces, everything else is appropriately gritty and dull.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

The Walking Dead always looked terrible on cable - AMC's limited budget really showed up in how they filmed the series. Better to hide lower quality FX and zombie prosthetics from the viewing audience.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^

Actually, _The Walking Dead_ looked much better last year compared to the earlier seasons. Surprisingly, _Fear the Walking Dead_ looks even better, though there are still some very poor scenes, especially at night with some murky blacks and noise.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> The Walking Dead always looked terrible on cable - AMC's limited budget really showed up in how they filmed the series. Better to hide lower quality FX and zombie prosthetics from the viewing audience.


Regarding "AMC's limited budget," I often wondered why series like _The Walking Dead_ reflected that budget while other series, like _Hell on Wheels_, did not. The latter had some amazing PQ compared to the former.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> Regarding "AMC's limited budget," I often wondered why series like _The Walking Dead_ reflected that budget while other series, like _Hell on Wheels_, did not. The latter had some amazing PQ compared to the former.


Partly I believe was Walking Dead's producers consciously going for a gritty aesthetic. I also think when the show was first green-lit they didn't anticipate it becoming the number one-rated show on cable. If they had known that in advance, maybe the budget would have been higher in those early seasons.


----------



## djoberg

I washed the whole episode of _Fear the Walking Dead_ last night and the PQ was very, very good...even the night scenes which featured deep blacks and excellent shadow details. AMC obviously has a good following on this series to give it such a beautiful "face lift."


----------



## DarthDoxie

Currently watching season three and it looks the same as the first two. Hard to believe the budget was still low after it was such a big hit after two seasons. The low PQ must be an aesthetic decision.


----------



## fredxr2d2

DarthDoxie said:


> *Walking Dead, The: Season 2*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 2.5**
> 
> Rough looking for such a recent show, but that's probably intentional. The biggest knock on the quality is the low detail, looks like something in between DVD and BD. Color is good with all the forest and wide open spaces, everything else is appropriately gritty and dull.





Phantom Stranger said:


> The Walking Dead always looked terrible on cable - AMC's limited budget really showed up in how they filmed the series. Better to hide lower quality FX and zombie prosthetics from the viewing audience.





djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Actually, _The Walking Dead_ looked much better last year compared to the earlier seasons. Surprisingly, _Fear the Walking Dead_ looks even better, though there are still some very poor scenes, especially at night with some murky blacks and noise.





djoberg said:


> Regarding "AMC's limited budget," I often wondered why series like _The Walking Dead_ reflected that budget while other series, like _Hell on Wheels_, did not. The latter had some amazing PQ compared to the former.





Phantom Stranger said:


> Partly I believe was Walking Dead's producers consciously going for a gritty aesthetic. I also think when the show was first green-lit they didn't anticipate it becoming the number one-rated show on cable. If they had known that in advance, maybe the budget would have been higher in those early seasons.





djoberg said:


> I washed the whole episode of _Fear the Walking Dead_ last night and the PQ was very, very good...even the night scenes which featured deep blacks and excellent shadow details. AMC obviously has a good following on this series to give it such a beautiful "face lift."





DarthDoxie said:


> Currently watching season three and it looks the same as the first two. Hard to believe the budget was still low after it was such a big hit after two seasons. The low PQ must be an aesthetic decision.



According to IMDB, TWD is filmed on 16 mm (Kodak Vision3 500T 7219) which I think would account for the loss of high level detail and general grittiness. Fear TWD, in contrast, is filmed with Arri Alexa cameras, so it should look notably better than 16mm film.


----------



## djoberg

DarthDoxie said:


> Currently watching season three and it looks the same as the first two. Hard to believe the budget was still low after it was such a big hit after two seasons. The low PQ must be an aesthetic decision.


Again, the PQ does get better (though it is minimal compared to other series on AMC), but be patient for you won't see it for a few more seasons!


----------



## Panson

CJackson said:


> What is the best looking black and white disc you've seen?


Casablanca (1943) DVD, All About Eve (1950) DVD, and Sunset Boulevard (1950) BD, but sometimes I'm swayed by how good the movie is.


----------



## Panson

djoberg said:


> Let me think on that for awhile. I only have a few in my Blu-ray library and off the top of my head Hitchcock's _*Psycho*_ comes to mind as being one of the best. Another one that just came to mind was _Schindler's List_.


Got the *Psycho (1960)* 2016 BD recently. Looking forward to viewing. First coupla scenes while checking player reading looked very good.


----------



## djoberg

Panson said:


> Got the *Psycho (1960)* 2016 BD recently. Looking forward to viewing. First coupla scenes while checking player reading looked very good.


Okay, I'm wondering if that is the same Blu-ray that I received with my "Alfred Hitchcock Essentials Collection." I'm thinking it is; if so, you should be impressed with the restoration they did. It had an excellent gray-scale with beautiful blacks/shadow details and brilliant whites. If memory serves me there were some artifacts so they weren't able to do a complete "scrub" on the restoration, but it meets my "standards" for a film that old. Enjoy!

One more thing...the Blu-ray cover makes it look like it's in COLOR, but I've never heard of any restoration of _Psycho_ being done in color. Let me know if I'm wrong regarding this...and if I am wrong, let me know what it looks like in color.


----------



## Panson

djoberg said:


> Okay, I'm wondering if that is the same Blu-ray that I received with my "Alfred Hitchcock Essentials Collection." I'm thinking it is; if so, you should be impressed with the restoration they did. It had an excellent gray-scale with beautiful blacks/shadow details and brilliant whites. If memory serves me there were some artifacts so they weren't able to do a complete "scrub" on the restoration, but it meets my "standards" for a film that old. Enjoy!
> 
> One more thing...the Blu-ray cover makes it look like it's in COLOR, but I've never heard of any restoration of _Psycho_ being done in color. Let me know if I'm wrong regarding this...and if I am wrong, let me know what it looks like in color.


Your collection release date is 2013. The most recent Psycho (1960) single Blu-ray releases are 2010 (50th Anniversary/Bates Motel cover), 2014 (Steel Book/Iconic Art cover), 2016 (Pop Art cover). Bluraydotcom shows the same specs for all these, including your collection's Psycho (1960). All black and white. Cheers.


----------



## SnellTHX

DarthDoxie said:


> *Walking Dead, The: Season 2*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 2.5**
> 
> Rough looking for such a recent show, but that's probably intentional. The biggest knock on the quality is the low detail, looks like something in between DVD and BD. Color is good with all the forest and wide open spaces, everything else is appropriately gritty and dull.


I remember I bought the first season of the Walking Dead back when it was new (2010 or something?) which was still the early days of blu-ray. I was certain that I accidentally bought the DVD...


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> I remember I bought the first season of the Walking Dead back when it was new (2010 or something?) which was still the early days of blu-ray. I was certain that I accidentally bought the DVD...


...and I would have thought I was watching a VHS recording that had somehow been transferred to a DVD!

Seriously though, the first 6 seasons or so were horrendous and then it got somewhat better, most notably in daytime scenes or close-ups. But it still never compared to _Fear the Walking Dead_ or the _Hell on Wheels_ series.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Walking Dead, The: Season 3*

recommendation: *Tier 2.5**

There were some scenes sprinkled throughout this season that looked really good, mostly conversations between characters in daylight conditions. Overall though, still on the rough side.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^

It gets a "little better" as the seasons progress, but as I intimated earlier, the nighttime scenes are still quite GRITTY, MURKY and NOISY.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Case of Hana & Alice*


recommendation: *Tier 1.75**


The 2015 anime movie receives a fine presentation on Blu-ray courtesy of GKIDS next week. Featuring 3-D CG and rotoscoping, the animation isn't up to par with the latest Hollywood blockbusters. The transfer has rock-solid black levels. This isn't a wildly over-saturated color palette, working in flatter and more realistic tones.


Regular anime watchers on Blu-ray should know what to expect from this mid-tier Japanese anime production. The AVC encode avoids banding, always a critical thing for animated films.


----------



## CJackson

To those that've viewed Lawrence of Arabia and 2001: A Space Odyssey in 70mm, how far off is the UHD experience from the theater experience? Will there ever be a home format that exceeds the big film experience in a theater?


----------



## AmerCa

70mm movie projections are so rare or distant in the past, that I have the impression some people are "romantizing" the format as something incredible that can't be replicated, kinda like some think of vinyl recordings. I doubt people saw _Lawrence of Arabia_ at theaters at thought _"omg! There's so much detail, clarity and textures, this is so razor sharp"_ like we refer to movies these days. I believe it can look today much better than it looked in previous home versions, and probably better than at theaters, but I believe 1080p BD and UHD with HDR capability can come close enough to such quality, at least to the point of saying _"OK, this looks, really, really good "_.

Or...maybe I'm completely wrong. But that's kinda the point. How many people are in position to really assess the quality of 70mm projections? Very few. So at this point is basically a stuff of legend.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## artur9

AmerCa said:


> I doubt people saw _Lawrence of Arabia_ at theaters at thought _"omg! There's so much detail, clarity and textures, this is so razor sharp"_ like we refer to movies these days.


Yeah, I don't remember thinking that.

What I do remember thinking is, "Why are we watching a static shot of the desert. (10s go by, 20s, etc). OMG! There's a man way down there walking toward us, he's a dot, now he's 2 dots, ... IT'S LAWRENCE!" 

Also, in Dancing with Wolves. Sort of mentally panning back over the course of a few moments to realize that he's standing in a (apparently) miles-wide downtrodden path of a herd of buffaloes that was bigger than the town I lived in at the time.

Those experiences really were breathtaking.


----------



## DarthDoxie

AmerCa said:


> 70mm movie projections are so rare or distant in the past, that I have the impression some people are "romantizing" the format as something incredible that can't be replicated, kinda like some think of vinyl recordings. I doubt people saw _Lawrence of Arabia_ at theaters at thought _"omg! There's so much detail, clarity and textures, this is so razor sharp"_ like we refer to movies these days. I believe it can look today much better than it looked in previous home versions, and probably better than at theaters, but I believe 1080p BD and UHD with HDR capability can come close enough to such quality, at least to the point of saying _"OK, this looks, really, really good "_.
> 
> Or...maybe I'm completely wrong. But that's kinda the point. How many people are in position to really assess the quality of 70mm projections? Very few. So at this point is basically a stuff of legend.


My thoughts exactly. I just have to laugh when anyone talks about a theater experience from 50 years ago (typically its LOA or 2001). Even if the person remembered correctly...was the film projected under ideal conditions? Was it a new screen or did it have a layer cigarette smoke and thus not reflecting the picture correctly? Was the projection bulb new or on it's last few hours? Was the projection glass in the both clean or again covered in cigarette smoke from the chain smoking projectionist? There are just too many variables to say any projected movie is the reference to which a home release is judged.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*In the Heat of the Night (Criterion)*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

Good looking film. Colors are vibrant in all the store signs, red tractors, and other vehicles. Black levels and shadow details are good in the night scenes. Details are nice for the most part except for two very short shots in the middle of the film when Tibbs goes to the hotel to talk to the widow. It's just a nice all around presentation.


----------



## Panson

DarthDoxie said:


> My thoughts exactly. I just have to laugh when anyone talks about a theater experience from 50 years ago (typically its LOA or 2001). Even if the person remembered correctly...was the film projected under ideal conditions? Was it a new screen or did it have a layer cigarette smoke and thus not reflecting the picture correctly? Was the projection bulb new or on it's last few hours? Was the projection glass in the both clean or again covered in cigarette smoke from the chain smoking projectionist? There are just too many variables to say any projected movie is the reference to which a home release is judged.


Depending on your local Bijou, going to the movies can be underwhelming these days with dim projecting. The thing I do remember from "back in the day" is how bright and vibrant screens looked, regardless of screen or theater size.

Putting it best for first-run theater vs HT experiences, I saw Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) on a new dim screen, and Lawrence of Arabia (1962) on an old bright screen, and prefer by far my home-spun presentations with the following.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*The Towering Inferno*

recommendation: *Tier 2.5**

Not bad, but not great. Details are good for the most part in the non-special effects shots. The middle of the image is in focus, but fuzzy around all the edges in many shots. Colors are nice and flesh tones look natural. The effects shots are where the image falters with lots of matt shots and green screen. The print itself is nice, absent of scratches and other blemishes and free of any glaring processing or compression problems.


----------



## djoberg

*X-Men: Dark Phoenix (1080p)*

This was a "decent rental" but I'm glad I didn't order it (the movie was just "okay"). Having said that, the PQ/AQ was Reference Quality in nearly every scene! Here is a link to my impressions on Ralph's site. Excuse my "laziness" but I'm really tired and we're leaving, once again, on a short trip early in the morning.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-...nix-ultra-hd-blu-ray-review.html#post58578142

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.66)*

PS The AQ would be a "Top Tier 0" (in the Top 10-20) if this was an Audio Thread!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Supergirl: The Complete Fourth Season*

recommendation: *Tier 1.25**

These superhero programs from Warner which originally air on the CW look better with each passing year. That trend is especially noticeable on this fourth season set of _Supergirl_, which receives an appreciable bump in video quality from preceding sets.

Some softer CGI moments and occasionally suspect compositing issues for those FX, but overall a Hi-Def presentation with impressive clarity and texture for network television.


----------



## AmerCa

*The LEGO Batman Movie (2017 - Warner) *










*Tier Recommendation: 1.0 *

*Phantom: 1.0* https://www.avsforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=54418081

*Djoberg: 0.66* https://www.avsforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=55213132

Don't be fooled by the "low" rating I'm giving it. I'm completely stunned by this animated film. Then use of colors, the level of detail and textures of the Lego world are F-A-N-T-A-S-T-I-C. I actually wanted to watch this movie twice before giving it a final assessment, because the first time I watched it with subtitles, and I couldn't appreciate properly everything that's on screen, which is A LOT. I'm not well versed in animated films, but I feel this one is very close to a masterpiece. I can watch it three more times and pick up something I missed out the first time. This movie demands your full attention, blink and you'll miss something.

The only *BUT " I have with it, is that colors doesn't "pop" as expected, giving the amazing color gamut that's present, and that the image is often kinda soft, or at least that the impression it gives. It's simply not as colorful or sharp enough to be a tier zero contender, and I've seen a handful of animated films that are better in that respect. That's probably a conscious stylistic choice by the director, and I'm down with it. That said, I've read some comments that the UHD version is leaps and bounds superior to the BD, so that should be interesting.

I consider this little movie to be the *The Dark Knight* of animation. The opening scene is completely influenced by Nolan, and I see the influence all the way through, including some parts of the score. *The LEGO Batman Movie* is very ambitious, and at the same time it's extremely entertaining. I not only had fun with it, but I was also thrilled by the onscreen events. The action parts were truly exciting and well done, and it even had some twists and turns that I didn't see coming. The movie is a blast from beginning to end, and it's full of heart. I could say many more things about it, but I should stop here.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I'd probably rank LEGO Batman even lower today if I gave it a second watch. That's just the nature of the beast as progress and technology march on with UHD and improved CGI.


----------



## AmerCa

^°°°°°°^
Lower than 1.0? Come on, man. It's not like this movie is ten years old. I agree, it's not the sharpest or most color-popping, but it's still quite impressive. But...yeah, in five years will be saying it's a tier 1.75 disc. Especially because it's the BD we're taking about. Still, I'm quite surprised you weren't very impressed visually with this movie.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## Phantom Stranger

AmerCa said:


> ^°°°°°°^
> Lower than 1.0? Come on, man. It's not like this movie is ten years old. I agree, it's not the sharpest or most color-popping, but it's still quite impressive. But...yeah, in five years will be saying it's a tier 1.75 disc. Especially because it's the BD we're taking about. Still, I'm quite surprised you weren't very impressed visually with this movie.
> 
> Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


 I was thinking more along the lines of 1.25, but I haven't watched the disc since my recommendation over two years ago. It's a nice-looking disc but I hold CGI movies to very high standards - what may look impressive today may not look so hot in a few short years. Aesthetic choices dictate so much of how animation turns out.



I remember first watching Toy Story. People were dazzled by its animation back in the day. Now it's not so hot upon close inspection.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Friday the 13th (1980)*

recommendation: *Tier 3.0**

Primary colors are vibrant in the daytime scenes, lots of green foliage and two red vehicles look excellent. Details are serviceable, nothing too distracting. Night scenes are a mixed bag with poor contrast, heavy grain, and a poor scan with light bleed along the left side of the frame for much of the run-time.


----------



## SnellTHX

*Brightburn 4K*

Certainly not the best looking looking 4K/HDR movie, it was just 'decent'. Some decent HDR highlights and certain colours did pop (like the orange jacket of the father of protagonist's jacket). It was sharp, but not razor sharp. Clearly a 2K DI, probably not much (if any) boost from the 1080p blu-ray

Decent amount of details, but not a plethora of them. Could have been placed a lot higher 6-7 years ago but the in the 4K/HDR days I think standard's have increased.


*Tier recommendation: 1.75*


----------



## SnellTHX

^^^ it's worth mentioning Brightburn had one of the BEST soundtracks I've heard in a long time! In fact it's probably the best audio quality since Shazam, which I also thought had slightly disappointing PQ but absolutely reference AQ. 

It seems when PQ isn't on point they always make up with overcompensating with phenomenal sound. 

The whooshes of the sueprhero flying or the rumbling bass / LFE track was quite the experience


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Alien (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**


Excellent overall, but it falters a bit in clarity. Some shots are just a hair out of sharp focus, just enough to be distracting like shots of Ripley during a conversation with Dallas: he's in focus but her side of the conversation isn't. Black levels and shadow detail are good for the most part, but being a mostly dark movie I think shadow detail could have been stronger. The black bars didn't completely disappear during the space shots so blacks were already raised to a point. HDR was well done with lights on the Nostromo and flashlights showing up nice and bright without being blown out.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> Fair points, Djoberg. I remember placing it in Tier One mostly over the lackluster animation itself, which I thought was disappointing for a major Hollywood production done in CGI. I vacillated over placing it in Tier One or the bottom of Tier Zero.
> 
> It probably deserves Tier 0 but I have gotten stricter with animated discs. So many animated movies now come out on a regular basis, some studios are clearly starting to cut corners with the animation. Even Pixar isn't putting the same amount of care into their movies as they did a decade ago.





djoberg said:


> And I agree with you Phantom, for "some studios are clearly starting to cut corners with animation," including Pixar. I could hardly believe I just nominated _Cars 3_ for .33 instead of a place in the Top Ten...or at the least in the Top Twenty. This illustrates your point and I penalized it because it deserved it. But when it comes to _The LEGO Batman Movie_ I feel it's still worthy of a place in Tier 0 and yet a .66 placement for a new animated release reflects the fact that animated movies aren't automatically put near the top.





AmerCa said:


> ^°°°°°°^
> Lower than 1.0? Come on, man. It's not like this movie is ten years old. I agree, it's not the sharpest or most color-popping, but it's still quite impressive. But...yeah, in five years will be saying it's a tier 1.75 disc. Especially because it's the BD we're taking about. Still, I'm quite surprised you weren't very impressed visually with this movie.
> 
> Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


I thought some (especially AmerCa) would be interested in seeing the exchange between me and Phantom after we reviewed this title two years ago. Even though I gave it a .66 I would probably be going down to the very bottom of Tier 0 or even a 1.0 if I were to view it today. As others have noted, the standards are very high today and some animated titles "ain't what they used to be" (due to the lowering of standards by animated studios who are "cutting corners").


----------



## AmerCa

*Kubo And The Two Strings (2016 - Universal) [REVISITED]*










*Tier Recommendation: 1.0 *

Original review: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=56491502

Not much to add. I revisited this movie, and it's like I saw it with a different light. Still not tier zero for me, but this one deserves at lest tier 1.0. Details and textures are fantastic, but lack of "color-popping" and some softness still hold back this BD, but this one looks gorgeous.

My initial viewings were back when I didn't have a sub (ah, those times), and now I could appreciate much better the sound of this movie. Great sound design and use of bass when required.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^

Whoa! I was curious as to where I placed this title and was surprised (after reading your review) to see that I gave it a rather high Tier 0 recommendation. Of course, that was back in February of 2017 so it's a given that I would rate it lower (perhaps significantly lower) if I were to view it today. But there would be, I assume, a difference in our ranking. This may be due to my fascination with "Stop Motion" animation. Here's my review:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-788.html#post50495681


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Friday the 13th Part 2*

recommendation: *Tier 3.0**

Like the first installment in the series, weak black levels suffer in the night scenes and again a poor scan with light bleed along the left side of the frame for much of the run-time.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^^

Hey Darth,

What do you mean by "light bleed along the side of the frame?" I used to speak of light bleeding into my black bars when I owned my Sony 940D LCD/LED, but I have never experienced any light bleed with my OLED. In fact, I was under the impression that one can never experience light bleed with an OLED because it is a self-emissive display and the black bars will always remain black since the pixels are turned off and light is unable to spill over into them. So, again I ask, "What do you mean by light bleed since you too have an OLED?"


----------



## dragonbud0

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Whoa! I was curious as to where I placed this title and was surprised (after reading your review) to see that I gave it a rather high Tier 0 recommendation. Of course, that was back in February of 2017 so it's a given that I would rate it lower (perhaps significantly lower) if I were to view it today. But there would be, I assume, a difference in our ranking. This may be due to my fascination with "Stop Motion" animation. Here's my review:
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-788.html#post50495681


It's one of the few BR animes I owned. Got to see this again this week with my 4k Panny 820 player. Blacks were amazing with my old JVC, but I'm sure the new faux-k would even be more dramatic with the added lumens.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Stephen King's It (1990)*

recommendation: *Tier 2.5**

Very stable image throughout it's run-time and has a nice film look for a television presentation (it was shot on 35mm).


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Overlord (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 0* (0.75)*

The film takes place over the course of one night and the black levels and shadow detail are excellent. Being a war movie, the color palette leans towards the drab side, but there are enough vibrant punches of color to keep things interesting. Details are sharp throughout in clothing and environmental textures. HDR is also applied extremely well with both bright highlights and the well delineated and nuanced colors.


The horror premise of the film might not be for everyone, but an excellent looking WWII film.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Dracula (1931)*

recommendation: *Tier 3.5**

The image brightness fluctuates at times, so much so that it appears a fade cut is about to happen and then the image brightens up as the scene continues. Black levels are OK for the most part, but weak in areas of the film. Details are also uneven ranging from very good to weak.

*Dracula's Daughter (1936)*

recommendation: *Tier 3.0**

The second in the Universal Dracula canon, this fares much better in it's presentation. The image is stable throughout it's run-time and is a pleasing watch. Black levels deep and rich, no blown out or fluctuating blacks here. Details are nice and steady, excellent film for it's age.


----------



## djoberg

*Spider-Man: Far From Home (1080p)*

I had heard from many sources that the UHD release had a less-than-stellar Dolby Atmos track but that the DTS-HD Master Audio mix on the regular Blu-ray was VERY GOOD, so I rented that from Redbox today. I just gave my impressions on it on Ralph's site so I'm going to save some time and give you the link to that.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-...e-ultra-hd-blu-ray-review-2.html#post58636970

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.33)*

PS The movie was quite "juvenile" but there was _some_ good humor. I may just buy this since the PQ/AQ were topnotch. I had forgot to mention that the CGI was really, really good in most scenes.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Son of Dracula (1943)*

recommendation: *Tier 3.0**

On par with Dracula's Daughter for PQ with stable clarity and black levels.


----------



## DarthDoxie

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Hey Darth,
> 
> What do you mean by "light bleed along the side of the frame?" I used to speak of light bleeding into my black bars when I owned my Sony 940D LCD/LED, but I have never experienced any light bleed with my OLED. In fact, I was under the impression that one can never experience light bleed with an OLED because it is a self-emissive display and the black bars will always remain black since the pixels are turned off and light is unable to spill over into them. So, again I ask, "What do you mean by light bleed since you too have an OLED?"



It has nothing to do with the display technology, but the digital file of the film itself.



Maybe I'm not using the correct term, but when the original film elements were run through the scanner for conversion to a digital file there was light leaks around the frame of the machine causing a washed out look along certain edges. It looks like the LCD/LED edge-lit light bleed you described, but it's something baked into the digital file of the film caused by a poor scan. You never see it on modern shot-on-digital films, only older movies that needed their 35/65/70mm film elements scanned in a film to digital process (and only on a poorly done scan).


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^

Thanks Darth! 

Good to know it isn't the OLED display. At first I thought you may have been referring to a "scanning problem" where the picture may not fill the whole screen along an edge of the display due to a problem with the "Aspect Ratio." I actually had this problem while watching some material on NBC but I was able to fix it by turning on "Just Scan" under the "Aspect Ratio" setting. It was very distracting for the whole left side of my display had a very thin ray of light along the edge. Of course, I should say that the IDEAL is to leave that setting off and to just set it to "16 x 9" for all source material. I will, when I remember to, turn off "Just Scan" for watching all other broadcasts.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Doom Patrol: The Complete First Season*

recommendation: *Tier 0** (upper third)

Television productions, even those made for premium channels, usually don't match the picture quality of the very best multi-million dollar theatrical features. Which makes sense given their longer running times and many episodes, television shows often take production shortcuts. 

However, DC Universe's _Doom Patrol_ stands out from the pack, filmed on the new large-format ARRI ALEXA LF camera. This is a state-of-the-art camera that records native 4.5K resolution, and borrowing from ARRI's own ad copy, produces "ARRI's best overall image quality." That is a heady statement, considering many of our Tier 0 discs have been filmed with older ARRI cameras. I think ARRI may not be over hyping the ALEXA LF after seeing its results.

_Doom Patrol_ has meticulously crafted cinematography that takes full advantage of the new camera. The 1080P presentation has beautifully refined color grading, enhanced by superb black levels. The inviting contrast and top-notch clarity result from a purely natural tonal range across the color spectrum.

The one issue is moderate posterization in the AVC encode - Warner applies their standard lower-than-needed bitrates for television content. Which results in a few scenes with the issue. I might have pushed Doom Patrol higher in the Tiers if not for this small problem.


https://www.arri.com/en/camera-systems/cameras/alexa-lf


----------



## SnellTHX

Phantom Stranger said:


> *Doom Patrol: The Complete First Season*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 0** (upper third)
> 
> Television productions, even those made for premium channels, usually don't match the picture quality of the very best multi-million dollar theatrical features. Which makes sense given their longer running times and many episodes, television shows often take production shortcuts.
> 
> However, DC Universe's _Doom Patrol_ stands out from the pack, filmed on the new large-format ARRI ALEXA LF camera. This is a state-of-the-art camera that records native 4.5K resolution, and borrowing from ARRI's own ad copy, produces "ARRI's best overall image quality." That is a heady statement, considering many of our Tier 0 discs have been filmed with older ARRI cameras. I think ARRI may not be over hyping the ALEXA LF after seeing its results.
> 
> _Doom Patrol_ has meticulously crafted cinematography that takes full advantage of the new camera. The 1080P presentation has beautifully refined color grading, enhanced by superb black levels. The inviting contrast and top-notch clarity result from a purely natural tonal range across the color spectrum.
> 
> The one issue is moderate posterization in the AVC encode - Warner applies their standard lower-than-needed bitrates for television content. Which results in a few scenes with the issue. I might have pushed Doom Patrol higher in the Tiers if not for this small problem.
> 
> 
> https://www.arri.com/en/camera-systems/cameras/alexa-lf


Is the Alexa LF their flagship? I know resolution certainly isn't everything, but they do have the Arri IMAX collaboration camera which is 6.5K. It's the one they used to film e.g. Avengers IW/Endgame.


----------



## SnellTHX

*John Wick 3 - Parabellum (4K)*


Follows its prequels with very similar picture quality. Stylistic colour palette choices are present (lots of teal). Very sharp image quality despite the 'only' 3.2K Arri camera used and 2K DI present. I believe John Wick 1 & 2 were filmed in 2.8K. There's a great amount of detail and the blacks & shadow detail look phenomenal.


*Tier recommendation: 0.75*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

SnellTHX said:


> Is the Alexa LF their flagship? I know resolution certainly isn't everything, but they do have the Arri IMAX collaboration camera which is 6.5K. It's the one they used to film e.g. Avengers IW/Endgame.


 I believe that ARRI IMAX camera is actually slighter older tech despite the more-impressive sounding resolution, having been around a few years. Infinity War was the first film to use it as the primary camera for the whole feature.


The LF supposedly has more refined camera optics and newly available lenses. Of course, there is an 8K RED camera from their rival.


----------



## djoberg

I just picked up the UHD release of _Toy Story 4_. It is receiving rave reviews with some saying it is the best animation they've ever seen. We'll see about that! I do believe it will trump the first three movies.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Pixar has never really let us down with the Toy Story movies. I'm fairly sure the UHD will land in our top five.


----------



## fredxr2d2

djoberg said:


> I just picked up the UHD release of _Toy Story 4_. It is receiving rave reviews with some saying it is the best animation they've ever seen. We'll see about that! I do believe it will trump the first three movies.





Phantom Stranger said:


> Pixar has never really let us down with the Toy Story movies. I'm fairly sure the UHD will land in our top five.



I watched it the other day and it is definitely top 5 material. Textures were phenomenal. Black levels perfect. I even heard they finished it with a 4K DI, which might be one of the first all animated features to do so (if you know of others, I'd love to hear).


----------



## AmerCa

fredxr2d2 said:


> I watched it the other day and it is definitely top 5 material.


*Tier Recommendation: 0* (top five)*

Official recommendation? 



Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## fredxr2d2

AmerCa said:


> *Tier Recommendation: 0* (top five)*
> 
> Official recommendation?
> 
> 
> 
> Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk



Yes. It's been a couple of days since I watched it though, so I couldn't quite elaborate at length. Looked great on my calibrated screen. Sounded pretty good too.


----------



## djoberg

*Toy Story 4 (UHD)*

Pixar has outdone themselves!!!

Where do I start? Oh, at the BEGINNING of course! The first scene pictures a thunderstorm at night and the BLACKS are fantastic; the DEPTH is amazing; and the PHOTO-REALISM is mesmerizing!! The next scene is a daylight scene and the COLORS really popped; they were gorgeous with a vibrant sheen on some of the toys. The DEPTH is incredible, better than anything I've seen in the _Toy Story Franchise_ and perhaps any animated movie. I mentioned the "photo-realism" and I'm here to say this virtue was featured in MANY scenes...and the LIGHTING helped to make this look so natural and real. It made me think of other animated marvels with excellent photo-realism...like _Wall-E_ and _The Good Dinosaur_. TEXTURES were also an added benefit that clearly trumped the first three installments...this was manifested in clothes, hair and faces (in humans), foliage, city streets, etc., etc. CLARITY was razor-sharp all the way through (though there were a host of dark scenes where it appeared a wee bit soft on rare occasions). Let me sum this up by saying THIS IS A SIGHT TO BEHOLD!!

The only downside, and this is typical for Disney, was a very disappointing Dolby Atmos mix. I had to turn this up to near reference and I still heard very little action in my dual subs. But this IS a PQ Thread so I'm rating this solely on its PQ virtues. I'm happy to say it's as good as or better than any animated title I've seen...including _Secret Life of Pets_, _Coco_ and _Moana_. It's definitely worthy of....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (Top 5...I'd put it at #3 right after Transformers: The Last Knight and Planet Earth 2)*


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Shining, The (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

Really nice looking catalogue release on UHD, similar to *Apocalypse Now*. Details are nice and sharp, textures and clothing are excellent. Some of the facial close-ups are outstanding, lots of facial pores blemishes. Colors are rich and lush with primary colors really standing out and Danny's tennis ball is now yellow vice pink on the previous release. No issues with black levels and shadow details and the application of HDR is nicely done.


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> I just picked up the UHD release of _Toy Story 4_. It is receiving rave reviews with some saying it is the best animation they've ever seen. We'll see about that! I do believe it will trump the first three movies.


Finally a 4K/HDR release derived from a 4K DI with 4K CGI!!


----------



## SnellTHX

*Pan's Labyrinth*

I actually never watched this movie, so this 4K presentation is a first for me. The colour palette is quite muted, but there's lots of detail every shot, particularly the outdoor forrest shots, both daytime and nighttime. Its presented in 1.85:1, but gets let down by some elevated blacks.


I think its current placement is pretty much spot-on

*Tier recommendation: 1.5*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^

Thanks for the review of _Pan's Labyrinth (UHD)_ Snell! After reading the review by Ralph Potts I was going to order it for he said it has an obvious up-tick in PQ due to HDR. But then I read other reviews which said it wasn't really any better than the Blu-ray version, which I have. I was really "on the fence" until I read your review. I'm not going to "double-dip" for I don't think it would be worth it. Oh, and I really don't like "Sub-titles" and that's the only way to view this title.

My wife and I were listening to an audio book on the book of Exodus this morning (on the Ten Plagues in Egypt) and it peaked my interest to watch _Exodus: Gods and Kings_ again. I was curious to see what I wrote about it back in 2015 and I see I gave it a Tier 0 (.33). That was the 1080p version and I purchased the UHD version a couple of years ago so I may just write another review on that while the "credits are rolling."


----------



## djoberg

*Exodus: Gods and Kings (UHD)*

I will quote the words of AmerCa who reviewed the 1080p version back in March of this year (he put it in the Top Ten in Tier 0):

*STUNNING....ABSOLUTELY STUNNING!*

I'm going to give the link to my review of the 1080p Blu-ray and just add a few words here. I can say emphatically that this takes the PQ up a notch or two with mesmerizing DETAILS, dazzling COLORS, striking CLARITY, velvety BLACKS, and intricate SHADOW DETAILS. At times the PQ is simply breathtaking!!

In fairness there was one anomaly that kept rearing its ugly head: BANDING in blue skies! I would say I noticed this a good TEN times. I don't remember seeing this at all on the Blu-ray version. Thankfully each shot was fleeting (a second or two long). If not for that I would probably nominate this for the "Top Five" in the "Live Action Movies." But due to the banding, and a couple of brief instances of aliasing and some shots that almost appeared TOO SHARP, I'm going to have to penalize it slightly.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-749.html#post33399481

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (somewhere between #5 and #10 in the Live Action Movies)*

PS I did NOT notice the "soft shots" in this release that I mention in my review of the 1080p release.


----------



## djoberg

Here is AmerCa's excellent review and keep in mind this is the regular 1080p version:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-852.html#post57768394


----------



## AmerCa

*The Croods (2013 - Fox) *











*Tier Recommendation: 0 (Top Five)*


Phenomenal! Gorgeous! Breathtaking!

Yes, I've ran out of adjectives, I think I've already used them all in other reviews. But, oh...my...God. What a visual experience was this movie! But let's go back a little bit.

I caught this movie on Dish in SD. Standard definition on Dish here looks like crap, actually I think the resolution is 360p. Why? I don't know, they're cheapstakes, but I digress. I watched parts of it, and decided I wanted to buy it down the road. It looked nice, but I couldn't tell any more regarding the PQ. Well, "down the road" was today. And nothing could have prepared me to the absolutely amazing PQ I witnessed.

I gotta say I've been watching the past few months many animated movies, most of which I've been lazy to write about, although I'll get down to it eventually. But this movie is hands down, no doubt, the best animated film I've seen. Colors, details, texture, colors again, contrast, black levels, and DEPTH, wow, such depth that at times it looked like 3D. And those details and textures that make the animations feel so realistic, so palpable..there some effects and scenes that I still don't know if they're CGI or some kind of live footage was used. It's nuts. What a wonderful and spectacular animation, I never ceased to be wowed.

And the above purely refers to the PQ and animation. There's a lot to be said about the world's design and the fantastic vistas on display, the fantastic story and great action, that made me laugh loudly several times. I LOVED everything thing about it, even the AQ was fantastic as well. 

There's many animated films I have yet to watch, and this is a six years old movie, but it still looks superb, and in my personal list is definitely top five, even when I have a little trouble mixing animation with live-action movies. I cannot imagine this movie NOT being at least in the top 15-20. I'm going to demo this to my family.

Edit: surprisingly, it appears this movie hadn't been reviewed here!

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^

I know I reviewed it (I OWN it!) and it's currently sitting in Tier 0 at #20 .


----------



## AmerCa

^°^°°^°^
I've got two different tiers list, and in none of them is _The Croods_. Hmmm...

Edit: both of my lists start with _Toy Story 3_ at the top. I had them updated to January 31 of this year.
Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^

Just click on Phantom's "PQ Tiers link" at the bottom of his posts.


----------



## AmerCa

Ok, I found *Djoberg*'s original review for _The Croods_, here--->https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-690.html#post23808856


At the time he gave the disc top honors. In 2019 the BD is still fantastic. In 2013 it must have been like a revelation. We both felt the immediate need to show it to our families. 





> *The Croods*
> 
> WOW!!
> 
> DreamWorks has done it again! The animation is simply INSANE, with indescribable DETAILS and DEPTH (I have never seen depth like this before in an animated movie). One has called this the "animated Avatar" and you will know why when you view the incredible world that DreamWorks and Fox have made. The COLORS couldn't be more vibrant and dazzling. There are quite a few scenes inside caves or at night, but in these the mesmerizing BLACK LEVELS and SHADOW DETAILS come into play. SHARPNESS and CLARITY abound in every scene. Let me just add that the PHOTOREALISM is off the charts in several scenes, especially those with huge explosions creating unbelievable clouds of smoke that look ever-so-real. Those who admire realistic-looking oceans will also appreciate some rare but beautiful shots.
> 
> Well, you get the picture, I'm sold on this one and I can't wait to show this one off to family and friends. I'm not sure if it's the best one out there, but it's most definitely the best I've seen in a very long time. Having said that, because I don't remember ever seeing such amazing colors, details, depth and photorealism combined in an animated feature, I'm prepared to place this at the top of the Blu-ray hill....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Top of Tier 0**


----------



## dla26

*Mary Queen of Scots (4K)*

There was a surprising amount of eye candy in this. Lots of textures to look at (hair, beards, costumes, and especially Queen Elizabeth's caked on makeup) and great use of color. Lots of scenes of nature with both shadows and well-lit spaces with no black crush. When I was watching with my wife, I almost wanted to pause the video just to point out to her how, even though the forest in the background was a dark green, you could easily make out all of the trees. Juxtaposing those dark areas with bright and colorful lakes or mountains (or Mary's red hair) in the same scene is a great showcase of HDR.

Part of the reason this may have looked so great is that I recently installed the latest firmware update on my JVC RS4500K projector which added auto tone mapping. I'm going to have to go back and re-watch some other discs to see if now *everything* looks a lot better than before. This was one of the first movies I watched since installing the update, and it was gorgeous.

*Tier recommendation: 0.5*


----------



## AmerCa

*Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (2012 - Fox)*








*Tier Recommendation: 1.0 (current...2.5!!!) *
I couldn't find any review for this movie (understandable due to its age), but that 2.5 placement it's an aberration. I'm gonna pretend it's some kind of error.

Despite my placement, I've could have placed this in tier zero EASILY. I didn't because I'm giving UHD discs room to breathe and because there's some massive color grading in here, which I totally love, that gives me an excuse to rate it lower because it looks "unnatural". But, dammit, this BD looks terrific. It's sharp with lots of clarity and detail. Black levels are very strong, but due to the color grading which leans into the muted side, color doesn't pop and impress like the best of tier zero. But the use of contrast within these constraints was very well done, and the picture is always a treat to watch. In fact, _maybe_ it looks too pretty, like it's missing some grittiness more in line with the themes of the movie. But the image is just gorgeous.

This movie is a visual masterpiece, and I'm floored by what the director Timur Bekmambetov achieved with this film in terms of use of color to "paint" his scenes. This is the second time I've watched it, and the second time I was even more impressed. To most people, this disc will look absolutely like reference material, and in most respects it really is, but I'm really trying to be a little more demanding with my placements. A UHD of this movie should no doubt land in tier zero.

The audio is terrific, in one word. The first time I watched it I had to "restrain" myself a little bit, but in this occasion I had the house to myself for the majority of its running time, so I could better appreciate the fantastic audio track. The movie is a total blast.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

Here's Phantom's review on that title:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-663.html#post22736347


----------



## djoberg

And here is Phantom's co-reviewer's (from DoBlu.com) review of the same title:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-659.html#post22543291


----------



## djoberg

And lastly, here is my review that was given BETWEEN the other two:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-659.html#post22564221

As you will see AmerCa, I might have given this a rating of low Tier 0 or high Tier 1, but to _my eyes_ the post-processing, resulting in severe "sharpening," caused me to penalize it drastically. There were also some issues with black levels at times and serious "hot contrast" too resulting in overblown whites.


----------



## SnellTHX

Wow top 5 & top 10 placements for Exodus: Gods & Kings. I haven't ever seen it at home, just in the cinema. Looks like I need to rewatch in 4K/HDR


----------



## djoberg

You will be very impressed Snell! I can guarantee it!! The CLARITY and DETAILS are off-the-charts, from beginning to end.


----------



## AmerCa

@djoberg
Those are great findings, there were actually three reviews buried in there, and all of them WRONG!!! 

Oh my god! I couldn't disagree with you more. I'll gladly concede many of your points, but tier 2.5 on average? No, sir! 

AL:VH got ROBBED! 

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> Here's Phantom's review on that title:
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-663.html#post22736347


I loathed Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter as a movie, so I remember being less than charitable when it came here to my recommendation. I barely made it through the entire movie. As Djoberg points out, there were PQ issues.


----------



## djoberg

*Batman (1989...UHD)*

For those of you who have seen the older versions (DVD & Blu-ray) of this classic from famed director Tim Burton, you will be more than gratified when seeing the UHD counterpart. It is BETTER in every way possible, though not perfect. It most definitely trumps former releases in BLACK LEVELS and in WHITES; in other words, the CONTRAST is vastly improved. It is also superior when it comes to DETAILS (most notably in faces and clothing) and DEPTH. I was mesmerized by many scenes highlighting these virtues. COLORS are also more vivid, especially in the close-ups of the Joker's painted face, hair, and flashy suits. FLESH TONES are spot on and CLARITY is on display in a variety of scenes.

To be fair, there are "signs of age" (remember, this was filmed in 1989) which the 4K Remaster was unable to remove. This is, like all Batman movies, a very dark movie and at times SOFTNESS rears it ugly head, along with some BLURRY moments. In those cases, depth is negligible and details falter. 

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**

PS I was tempted to place this at the bottom of Tier 0 for there are some true "reference quality" scenes. I have read that the next installment (_Batman Returns_) fares better and I suspect it will easily land in the coveted Tier Blu.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^

After watching parts of _Batman_ again last night, I "may" have been too generous with my placement. There was a lot more less-than-stellar scenes than my review reflects. So, I believe I will change my rating to...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**

PS I think what happens (and sometimes it's almost inevitable) with older titles is one ends up comparing (as I did) the older releases with the UHD release and you are so impressed with the obvious up-ticks in PQ that you get....well, "too generous" when it comes time to rank it.


----------



## SnellTHX

*Ready Player One*


Mixed feelings about this one. I feel like I want to write two separate reviews for this title; RPO: Oasis & RPO: Real World.

The Oasis shots looks like Tier 0.5 material in my eyes. It's sharp and punchy, good 3D like depth and the picture quality is pretty much on par with something like Alita: Battle Angel. some slight softness here and there but the CGI is top notch and the PQ is generally reference material.

The there's the non-Oasis shots, which look dull & noisy in comparison, somewhere in tier 1.5 range. You might even says Ready Player One is 0.25 at best and 1.75 at worst.



*Tier recommendation: 1*


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^
> 
> 
> 
> PS I think what happens (and sometimes it's almost inevitable) with older titles is one ends up comparing (as I did) the older releases with the UHD release and you are so impressed with the obvious up-ticks in PQ that you get....well, "too generous" when it comes time to rank it.


That's what I think happens with 95% of old movies. People compare them to what they looked like on DVD, LD, VHS etc or review them as really good looking "for an old movie" Which I think is wrong  I compare 1989 picture quality with 2019 picture quality on an absolute scale, and very, very, rarely does old tech come close to modern. Of course Lawrence of Arabia on 70mm film was an exception to the rule...


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^

Snell,

I forgot to mention something in my review that is definitely a TURN OFF for you: GRAIN!

But then there is something else that you'll love: FULL SCREEN! (i.e. 1.85:1 Aspect Ratio)


----------



## djoberg

*Batman Returns (UHD)*

Let me say it from the outset, "This one is a WINNER!!" You would never know this title dates back to 1992. In other words, this is NOT like my review yesterday where I had given the UHD of _Batman_ too high a score because of my comparing it with its DVD/Blu-ray counterparts. This second installment could easily have been a current title; it looked that good!! Here's what I liked:

1) BLACKS and SHADOW DETAILS...Oh my word, they were DELICIOUS!! Inky, inky blacks with absolutely no black crush...just tantalizing details. Wait till you see some of the "black skies" and perhaps the best "black treat" is Cat-woman's glistening black suit. There were tons of scenes with all kinds of blacks and they all, with the rare exception of two fleeting shots, gave me pure EYE CANDY.

2) COLORS, though limited, were as BOLD and VIBRANT as ever, courtesy of HDR!!! They stood out all the more against all of those amazing blacks! I had mentioned Cat-woman's BLACK SUIT...well, with her BRIGHT RED LIPSTICK and her perfect FLESH TONES, we are served up more EYE CANDY.

3) DETAILS abounded!! Whether we're talking facial close-ups, or clothing, or city streets, or furniture in Wayne Manor, or in everything else, they were topnotch!

4) DEPTH was astounding at times!

5) CLARITY/SHARPNESS reigned supreme, even in the many dark scenes.

With all of these virtues this is a shoe-in for Tier 0, (even with a few "soft shots" with a wee bit less resolution). I was going to give it a Tier 0 (.5) but I think I'll be conservative....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.66)*

PS For "desert" we were also served an EXCELLENT DOLBY ATMOS MIX!!!!


----------



## SnellTHX

Well I'll have you know I have both Batman & Batman Returns on VHS. Maybe I'll rewatch them first then check out the 4K restorations.


----------



## mrtickleuk

SnellTHX said:


> Well I'll have you know I have both Batman & Batman Returns on VHS. Maybe I'll rewatch them first then check out the 4K restorations.


Don't forget to be nice and rewind the tapes fully afterwards


----------



## SnellTHX

*X-men: Dark Phoenix*


Can I say this movie is visually underrated? I mean sure, Ralph Potts gave it a 90, and most other sites give it 4.5 stars or at the very least 4 stars. But that doesn't say much when I've been extremely disappointed with other 4/5 star PQ rated movies or movies Ralph gave 95-96/100. 

Dark Phoenix was perfectly clean, razor-sharp and had an ultra-punchy image with good depth to it. Copious amounts of detail whether it's white or blue faces zoomed in you can see all the hair, pores, scars and all the other minutia in detail. Colours had a lot of pop and the picture was very 'contrasty' - I think we can thank the blue/orange hues for that. It's not the best looking movie ever, but IMO it was technically flawless and definitely reference material. One of the better ≈ 2.40:1 AR live-action movies I've seen, not as good as Mortal Engines, but perhaps on par with Avengers: Infinity War or Black Panther.

Finally I was able to watch a movie with my jaw dropped and zero complaints about the picture. (cannot say the same for newly released block busters like Alita, Ready Player One, etc..)



*Tier recommendation 0.33*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^

I guess you aren't doing a Search of this site these days to see what other members who frequent this thread are saying, for I just reviewed this a month ago and I praised the PQ and called it "Reference Quality." I actually gave it a .66 placement so I would hardly call that an "underrating!" Here is my review:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-866.html#post58578156

Oh, and as you will see, this is my review of the 1080p Blu-ray. I'm quite sure the UHD release will be even better.


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^^
> 
> I guess you aren't doing a Search of this site these day to see what other members who frequent this thread are saying, for I just reviewed this a month ago and I praised the PQ and called it "Reference Quality." I actually gave it a .66 placement so I would hardly call that an "underrating!" Here is my review:
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-866.html#post58578156
> 
> Oh, and as you will see, this is my review of the 1080p Blu-ray. I'm quite sure the UHD release will be even better.


Not saying it was underrated here. I vaguely remembered you giving it a mid tier 0 placement  I was thinking to the more professional reviewers who hand out 9/10s and 4.5 stars like candy, even when the movie has disappointing picture quality... so I expected perfect scores for Dark Phoenix when I googled.

You should definitely see it in 4K/HDR. It looks phenomenal


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> *I was thinking to the more professional reviewers *who hand out 9/10s and 4.5 stars like candy, even when the movie has disappointing picture quality... so I expected perfect scores for Dark Phoenix when I google.
> 
> You should definitely see it in 4K/HDR. It looks phenomenal


I'm offended! Aren't WE "professional reviewers?" Or maybe you're just saying we're "LESS professional reviewers." 

Regarding seeing it in 4K/HDR; if the movie had been really good I would buy it but I wasn't very impressed with it. Add to that the fact that I'm getting kinda sick of "Super Hero movies."


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> I'm offended! Aren't WE "professional reviewers?" Or maybe you're just saying we're "LESS professional reviewers."
> 
> Regarding seeing it in 4K/HDR; if the movie had been really good I would buy it but I wasn't very impressed with it. Add to that the fact that I'm getting kinda sick of "Super Hero movies."


Haha, you know what I mean 

And yeah the movie was garbage so can't really recommend watching it a second time, despite the amazing PQ.


----------



## djoberg

*Annabelle: Coming Home (1080p)*

This was a "mixed bag." Daytime, outdoor scenes were "Reference Quality" all the way! They had incredible DEPTH, vibrant COLORS (yet quite were WARM in keeping with it being a 'period piece'), mesmerizing DETAILS (especially in clothing), and striking CLARITY. Night-time scenes were a different story; there were many shots with sharpness and details, but there were also many shots that were either SOFT or NOISY (i.e. video noise)...these were evident mostly in outdoor shots (such as the first scene with the Warrens traveling home with Annabelle, but also in a few scenes inside the Warren house).

As always, it's very hard to rate a title like this. If I were to rate it according to the daytime scenes or interior scenes with good lighting, I would opt for a low Tier 0 ranking. But if I was thinking only of the dark scenes (which make up a good half of the movie) I would probably go with a low Tier 1 or even a high Tier 2 ranking. All things considered I'm going to put it right here.......

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**

PS The Dolby Atmos mix was VERY GOOD!


----------



## djoberg

*Crawl (1080p)*

I grabbed this at Redbox today and I'm glad I did! This is one GEM of a movie!! The movie was excellent, and the PQ/AQ were awesome!!!

The real EYE CANDY in this movie is "in the shadows"; in other words, in the SHADOW DETAILS. Over half of the movie takes place in the "crawl" space of a house...it's very dark...but you can see every detail in wood, pipes, clothing, facial details, and lest I forget, ALLIGATORS!! I absolutely loved it. The BLACKS were as deep and inky as can be...and the SHADOW DETAILS were exquisite!

In the scenes outside, before and during the CAT 5 Hurricane, there was amazing CLARITY and DETAILS. FLESH TONES were spot-on accurate. DEPTH was appreciable. There was absolutely nothing to complain about...no softness, noise, aliasing, banding, etc.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.66)*

PS I hope they end up putting out an UHD release!

PPS Again, the movie was really, really good. It was only about 83 minutes long but they made good use of every minute. The acting was exceptional and the story-line was a breath of fresh air.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> *Annabelle: Coming Home (1080p)*
> 
> This was a "mixed bag." Daytime, outdoor scenes were "Reference Quality" all the way! They had incredible DEPTH, vibrant COLORS (yet quite were WARM in keeping with it being a 'period piece'), mesmerizing DETAILS (especially in clothing), and striking CLARITY. Night-time scenes were a different story; there were many shots with sharpness and details, but there were also many shots that were either SOFT or NOISY (i.e. video noise)...these were evident mostly in outdoor shots (such as the first scene with the Warrens traveling home with Annabelle, but also in a few scenes inside the Warren house).
> 
> As always, it's very hard to rate a title like this. If I were to rate it according to the daytime scenes or interior scenes with good lighting, I would opt for a low Tier 0 ranking. But if I was thinking only of the dark scenes (which make up a good half of the movie) I would probably go with a low Tier 1 or even a high Tier 2 ranking. All things considered I'm going to put it right here.......
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.5**
> 
> PS The Dolby Atmos mix was VERY GOOD!


 I'll second your placement. Agree on the Atmos mix, it's fantastic. That cemetery scene near the beginning could have been less murky, but overall it's a fine presentation without serious issues.


Despite _The Nun_ getting a 4K release, WB skipped _Annabelle Comes Home_ on UHD.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Friday the 13th: Part III*

recommendation: *Tier 4.5**

Ugly disc all around. Murky blacks, washed-out colors, and absent clarity are some of the things you'll discover if you can manage to watch the weakest of the original first four films in the series.


*Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter*

recommendation: *Tier 3.0**

On par with the first two films with stable colors and clarity. Blacks and shadow detail are inconsistent, but expected for this series.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Witch, The (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 0* (0.9)*

Excellent picture with high levels of clarity and detail. The color palette drab, but all the shades of grays and browns are presented nicely. Black levels and shadow detail are top-level. The fur of Black Phillip, the goat, shows lots of detail and is richly presented. Many scenes are dimly lit and lots of overcast skies so Dolby Vision HDR really helps bring out a natural look.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*American Werewolf in London, An (Restored Edition; Universal)*

recommendation: *Tier 1.75**

Arrow is coming out with a Limited Edition next week, but I think it uses the same scan as this Universal release from 2016. Details are excellent for the most part, but there are some camera focus issues in some scenes. Black levels and shadow details are really good in all the night scenes and the encode handles the fog nicely, no macro-blocking at all. Where this film really shines is in all the gorgeous colors. Lots of beautiful reds in the main character's coat and all the blood. Blues, greens, and flesh tones are also strong.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Walking Dead, The: Season 4*

recommendation: *Tier 2.5**

No different than the first three with just OK clarity and heavy grain at times.


----------



## subacabra

DarthDoxie said:


> *Walking Dead, The: Season 4*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 2.5**
> 
> No different than the first three with just OK clarity and heavy grain at times.


Yeah, even on AT&T TV Now( DtvNow) which has stellar pq it looked kinda crappy.


----------



## Jbhur212

DarthDoxie said:


> *American Werewolf in London, An (Restored Edition; Universal)*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 1.75**
> 
> Arrow is coming out with a Limited Edition next week, but I think it uses the same scan as this Universal release from 2016. Details are excellent for the most part, but there are some camera focus issues in some scenes. Black levels and shadow details are really good in all the night scenes and the encode handles the fog nicely, no macro-blocking at all. Where this film really shines is in all the gorgeous colors. Lots of beautiful reds in the main character's coat and all the blood. Blues, greens, and flesh tones are also strong.


According to the review on DVD Drive-in-“ Arrow's 1080p24 MPEG-4 AVC 1.85:1 widescreen Blu-ray is derived from a brand new 4K restoration of the original camera negative supervised by Landis. The "restored version" was a tad brighter while the Arrow looks a tad darker, but the prosthetic make-up effects hold up incredibly well in the new transfer (especially during David's transformation which takes place in the bright light of Alex's apartment) while Jack's torn out throat and slashed face look even more stomach-churning in the new transfer.”


----------



## djoberg

subacabra said:


> Yeah, even on AT&T TV Now( DtvNow) which has stellar pq it looked kinda crappy.


Yeah, even though the PQ gets somewhat better around Season 7 or 8, it still looks "kinda crappy," especially in dark scenes (with tons of video noise devoid of details). This is due to "director's intent" and thus they're not out to win a "PQ contest." 

My wife and I are leaving for Philadelphia tomorrow for a week, but I'll be tuning in from time to time to see if anyone is posting reviews. This is the time of year where we start getting tons of reviews from some (because of the colder temps) and it could last until next spring.


----------



## djoberg

I just had to chime in one more time before I leave to "whet your appetite" for a new UHD release. I'm talking about one of the most memorable classics ever, bar none. One more clue...it first came to the big screen in 1939!! Yes, that's right, 1939, which means it's 80 years old!!! Are you guessing? It's none other than _The Wizard of Oz_. I have the Restoration version on Blu-ray, but critics are saying this trumps that easily.

Every review I've read on this is beyond raving! Most are saying they simply can't believe the incredible PQ and that it looks like a brand new release that was given top priority in transferring it to UHD. I will give you the links to the reviews by our resident reviewer Ralph Potts and by Matt at DoBlu.com, but I would also encourage you to read the review at HiDefDigest.com.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-...blu-ray-review.html#post58717442#post58717566

https://www.doblu.com/2019/10/23/wizard-of-oz-4k-uhd-review/


----------



## Jbhur212

djoberg said:


> I just had to chime in one more time before I leave to "whet your appetite" for a new UHD release. I'm talking about one of the most memorable classics ever, bar none. One more clue...it first came to the big screen in 1939!! Yes, that's right, 1939, which means it's 80 years old!!! Are you guessing? It's none other than _The Wizard of Oz_. I have the Restoration version on Blu-ray, but critics are saying this trumps that easily.
> 
> Every review I've read on this is beyond raving! Most are saying they simply can't believe the incredible PQ and that it looks like a brand new release that was given top priority in transferring it to UHD. I will give you the links to the reviews by our resident reviewer Ralph Potts and by Matt at DoBlu.com, but I would also encourage you to read the review at HiDefDigest.com.
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-...blu-ray-review.html#post58717442#post58717566
> 
> https://www.doblu.com/2019/10/23/wizard-of-oz-4k-uhd-review/


I, too, am very interested in seeing this disc. It arrives today so soon. By the way, you were spot on with your review of The Secret Life of Pets 2. Way better movie than the first one (that red dot scene nearly broke my face. Of course I have three cats so that made it even funnier) AND it is easily the most stunning UHD disc I have seen (animated at least). The colors alone justify buying this.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Invisible Man Returns, The*

recommendation: *Tier 3.5**

Good black levels and contrast.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Invisible Woman, The*

recommendation: *Tier 3.5**

Some typical soft shots for this era of film, but good black levels and contrast.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Invisible Agent*

recommendation: *Tier 3.5**

So far, all the films in the Invisible Man Legacy Collection are pretty consistent and this is no exception. Good all around PQ and solid encode.


----------



## SnellTHX

*Spiderman: Far From Home*

Exemplary reference disc. Phenomenal PQ from start to finish, another one of those "I cannot believe it's not _real_ 4K!" , derived from a 2K DI but filmed in resolutions everywhere from 2.8k to 8K... The sharpness makes it look closer to the latter than the former. 

Contrast is great, providing good depth and a punchy image. Some scenes, especially the encounter with the main villain highlighted perfect black levels but the bright scenes were extremely vibrant. 

One of the best uses of HDR/10bit depth / P3 wide colour gamut, where the chromatic excellence protrudes especially is the Netherlands Tulip garden... The reds, yellows, purples were drool worthy. Then there's the reds & blues of Spidey's suit... Mysterio's colours, greens, blue all had so much 'pop' to them. Punchy, razor-sharp, 3D-like depth, crystal clear, crispy high contrast image. Reference 

I thought X-Men: Dark Phoenix was definitely among the best looking Marvel movies, but Spiderman: Far From Home is slightly better  Easily on par with Guardians of The Galaxy Vol 2, one of my favourite 2.35:1 live action movies.


*Tier recommendation: 0.25*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^

We're basically "on the same page!"

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-867.html#post58636980

I slipped in _The Wizard of Oz (UHD)_ last night when I got home from Philadelphia. So far, it looks amazing! I wouldn't say it's a contender for a top spot in Tier 0, but it's definitely Reference Quality. As I said sometime ago, if I were to simply compare it to its DVD/Blu-ray counterparts, I'd probably nominate it for the Top Ten. But in comparing it to recent UHD titles, it's not quite that good.

I will say this...so far it looks as good or better than any "catalog title release on UHD."


----------



## djoberg

I just watched the first two episodes of _Jack Ryan: Season Two_ on Amazon Prime and man does it look GOOD on UHD/HDR!!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Spirited Away*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

The animated 2002 Hayao Miyazaki film looks beautiful coming from GKIDS, the label that took over licensing Studio Ghibli on Blu-ray after Disney. _Spirited Away_ is a fine example of traditional animation, even if its raw animation may lag behind some of Studio Ghibli's finest efforts. Most would agree that GKIDS bettered Disney's efforts in most ways that matter.

Bright, bold colors and fluidly animated characters make for a lively, engaging presentation in 1080P resolution. The crisp picture quality has superb black levels and excellent color saturation. It is a faithful, unblemished transfer that sticks to the intended color palette. The polished animation uses interesting lighting.

The key animator after Hayao Miyazaki on _Spirited Away_ directed a more recent movie that landed fairly high in the Tiers, _Mary and The Witch's Flower_.


----------



## dragonbud0

Always a sucker for anime, I'll check Mary and The Witch's Flower out. Thanks.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

dragonbud0 said:


> Always a sucker for anime, I'll check Mary and The Witch's Flower out. Thanks.


_Mary and The Witch's Flower_ is an imaginative delight if you enjoy the more fantasy-driven Studio Ghibli movies like _Howl's Moving Castle_. It was animated by Studio Ponoc and had former Studio Ghibli talent guiding it behind the scenes.


I believe I placed it in Tier 0.


----------



## djoberg

*The Wizard of Oz (UHD)*

Okay, I finally watched this from beginning to end. In my last post I had said, "it's definitely Reference Quality"....now I must "humbly" and "honestly" retract that statement. This is most certainly the BEST release to date and undoubtedly a marvel for an 80 year old movie, but it is NOT Reference Quality when one compares it to current Tier 0 titles. At best it is a mid Tier 1, IMHO. I know this will contradict all the "experts" that I referred to earlier, but in my opinion they all may be guilty of "comparing it to its original screening" and not to "current titles."

Having said that, this is still a "delight for the eyes," with vibrant colors (courtesy of Dolby Vision) and remarkable details (especially in close-ups, though they still did not compare to details in current titles). Black levels were also quite good. In the earlier "black and white scenes" I was impressed with the gray scale but not so much with the depth and details. There was also an inherent softness in those scenes.

Again, I hate to come across as cynical or jaded, but I've seen way too many current Tier 0 titles to even think of putting this in the same league as them. If one chooses to do so, I would have to believe they are guilty of....well, they would be guilty of comparing it with former releases and remembering the deplorable PQ that marked the original release AND some of the subsequent releases as well. Having said that, I am happy that we have a very watchable...and might I say...impressive release considering it's 80 YEARS OLD!!

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**

PS I could have gone down to 1.75 and still felt I was being honest and fair.


----------



## Kool-aid23

Phantom Stranger said:


> *Spirited Away*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 1.5**
> 
> The animated 2002 Hayao Miyazaki film looks beautiful coming from GKIDS, the label that took over licensing Studio Ghibli on Blu-ray after Disney. _Spirited Away_ is a fine example of traditional animation, *even if its raw animation may lag behind some of Studio Ghibli's finest efforts*. Most would agree that GKIDS bettered Disney's efforts in most ways that matter.



Thanks for the review. If I may ask, what Studio Ghibli titles do you believe to be their finest?


Respect,


----------



## fredxr2d2

djoberg said:


> *Men in Black: International (1080p)*
> 
> Due to some very poor reviews of the movie, I decided to rent this from Redbox today (instead of buying it). The movie has "some" redeeming moments, but it's the excellent PQ/AQ that justified parting with a couple of bucks and about 90 minutes of my life. The CLARITY was insane with mesmerizing DETAILS, appreciable DEPTH, vibrant COLORS, spot-on FLESH TONES, and incredible BLACKS/SHADOW DETAILS. But it was the DTS-HD MA mix that really kept me riveted in my seat and kept me from looking at my watch even once. The action in the surrounds was phenomenal with perfect precision (even in my height channels courtesy of my Denon's up-mix capability). Dialogue was always intelligible. The bass/LFE was thunderous and at times sent waves of energy across the room as lasers were fired, bombs exploded, or the "evil twins" worked their magic resulting in earthquakes on city streets!!
> 
> I'm told the UHD release gives it a slight uptick but in truth I think I'd be satisfied with the 1080p blu-ray. I can say in all honestly that if I didn't know better I would have thought I was watching a UHD/HDR Blu-ray; it was that good!
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (.5)*



Watched this last night and djoberg is 100% correct. This is a great looking 1080p disc. Like really good and looked like it could be native UHD.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Kool-aid23 said:


> Thanks for the review. If I may ask, what Studio Ghibli titles do you believe to be their finest?
> 
> 
> Respect,


Off the top of my head, Princess Mononoke, Howl's Moving Castle, Ponyo and The Secret World of Arrietty are Studio Ghibli's animators' best work. Once they became a cultural institution in Japan, the animation tended to improve with each new movie. Spirited Away certainly has its moments but the palette and character designs don't work as well for me.


----------



## DarthDoxie

djoberg said:


> I just watched the first two episodes of _Jack Ryan: Season Two_ on Amazon Prime and man does it look GOOD on UHD/HDR!!



I really want to check this out but can't find the time with all the movies I've been watching. At least I'm not going crazy during this month's Criterion sale...but Black Friday is only three weeks away and already so many good deals, I'll be loading up again!


----------



## djoberg

DarthDoxie said:


> I really want to check this out but can't find the time with all the movies I've been watching. At least I'm not going crazy during this month's Criterion sale...but Black Friday is only three weeks away and already so many good deals, I'll be loading up again!


I hear you! I DVR so many movies, series, football games, etc....on top of my Blu-ray viewing, that I've only found time to watch the 2 episodes that I mentioned.

So, where is the best place to find Black Friday deals on Blu-rays? I usually go to Best Buy, Target or Walmart.


----------



## DarthDoxie

djoberg said:


> I hear you! I DVR so many movies, series, football games, etc....on top of my Blu-ray viewing, that I've only found time to watch the 2 episodes that I mentioned.
> 
> So, where is the best place to find Black Friday deals on Blu-rays? I usually go to Best Buy, Target or Walmart.



Best Buy put out their list and the 4K selection is extensive, lots of titles for under $10. Walmart is the only big store that hasn't released their ad. Amazon is likely to price match the lowest price as well, they did last year but not until later in the day Thanksgiving.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Invisible Man's Revenge, The*

recommendation: *Tier 3.5**

*Abbott and Costello Meet the Invisible Man*

recommendation: *Tier 3.5**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

DarthDoxie said:


> I really want to check this out but can't find the time with all the movies I've been watching. At least I'm not going crazy during this month's Criterion sale...but Black Friday is only three weeks away and already so many good deals, I'll be loading up again!


 I couldn't even find the time to review the first season Blu-ray set of Jack Ryan after they sent it as a screener. Too many movies, too few hours in the day.

*Batman Beyond: The Complete Series*

recommendation: *Tier 3.5**

It's hard placing the _Batman Beyond_ series much higher than Tier 3. Warner did their best but problematic elements forced eleven of its original 52 episodes to be upscaled from standard-definition Digibeta sources. The others have been "fully remastered" with additional processing from their original 35mm film elements, some obvious and some of it not. The upscaled episodes are rather soft, though untrained eyes may not notice much difference if they aren't paying attention.

Originally airing as children's programming from 1999-2001 on what was known as the Kids' WB block, the animation isn't quite as iconic as its predecessor, _Batman: The Animated Series_. Generally this remaster presents more issues than that beloved show's presentation on Blu-ray. _Batman Beyond's_ overall PQ here is more serviceable than amazing.


----------



## djoberg

I just picked up the UHD release of _Angry Birds 2_. Some are saying it's the BEST ANIMATED MOVIE thus far (PQ-wise, that is)! This may not be hyperbole, for I just checked the rankings and the first installment of _Angry Birds_ is sitting in Tier 0 at #3 !!!! I remember nominating it for a Top Spot in Tier Blu based mainly on COLORS and DETAILS.

I "may" be able to view this later in the week. If I don't get a chance I'm leaving on a week-long trip next Monday and won't be able to view it till some time after my return. I "may" just pop it in before then and give it a "cursory glance" (by turning to various scenes), but I will wait for a full review after seeing it all the way through.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^

Here's my review:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-781.html#post47698881

And keep in mind that this review is of the 1080p release, NOT the UHD version.


----------



## djoberg

djoberg said:


> I just watched the first two episodes of _Jack Ryan: Season Two_ on Amazon Prime and man does it look GOOD on UHD/HDR!!


Okay, I'm watching the 3rd episode right now and there is a very serious case of BANDING in every scene with open blue skies. I can't recall seeing banding this bad before. Has anyone watched this series and if so, are you experiencing banding? I'm hoping there is an easy fix for this...perhaps it has something to do with the new Firmware I downloaded last night...or maybe my settings got screwed up some how.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> I just picked up the UHD release of _Angry Birds 2_. Some are saying it's the BEST ANIMATED MOVIE thus far (PQ-wise, that is)! This may not be hyperbole, for I just checked the rankings and the first installment of _Angry Birds_ is sitting in Tier 0 at #3 !!!! I remember nominating it for a Top Spot in Tier Blu based mainly on COLORS and DETAILS.
> 
> I "may" be able to view this later in the week. If I don't get a chance I'm leaving on a week-long trip next Monday and won't be able to view it till some time after my return. I "may" just pop it in before then and give it a "cursory glance" (by turning to various scenes), but I will wait for a full review after seeing it all the way through.


It has the type of boldly colored animation made for eye candy and visual appeal. I could believe it.


----------



## djoberg

*Scary Stories...to Tell in the Dark (1080p)*

I picked this up at Redbox today and thought it was a decent rent! I wouldn't call the PQ "Reference" (Tier 0) but it should easily be nominated for the "Demo Tier" (Tier 1). Blacks levels, which were many, were excellent with the exception of a couple of very dark indoor scenes that became quite MURKY and SOFT. One of the favorites for showing off the rich blacks AND shadow details was an early scene that took place in a cornfield!

Flesh tones were spot on accurate and along with amazing texture. Wait till you see the "freckles" on the young, female lead! Colors were warm and vibrant when primaries were on display. Clarity was striking in daytime scenes outdoors and in a few of the scenes in the school.

My only complaint (which won't affect my score here) was the Dolby TrueHD audio mix. I had to turn it all the way to Reference to get the effects one desires in a horror movie.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**


----------



## djoberg

*47 Meters Down: Uncaged (1080p)*

Well, today's visit to a local Redbox yielded another "okay" rental! I'm a sucker for "Shark Movies" and this one had it all....bites, blood, screams, death, heroism (or should I say "sheroism")....and the icing on the cake was....very good PQ/AQ!!

The GOOD: The opening scenes featured excellent CLARITY, DETAILS, SKIN TONES, and COLORS. The closing scenes featured the same.

The GOOD & OKAY: The vast majority of the film takes place, as is to be expected, underwater. I was impressed with the CLARITY, BLACK LEVELS, and DETAILS in many scenes, but a few got a bit MURKY and there were several shots with BANDING.

The EXCELLENT: This DTS HD (up-mixed to Neural:X by my Denon AVR) audio mix was awesome once the action started. In a couple of the later scenes the girls are caught in a strong current and the swirling sounds that enveloped all 9 of my speakers was incredible. The Bass/LFE was impressive too!

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**


----------



## djoberg

*Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw (1080p)*

I'll bet you guys are wishing I'd keep this review short. Your wish is granted! I have TWO WORDS to describe the MOVIE and TWO WORDS to describe the PQ:

MINDLESS DRIVEL
EYE CANDY

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.5)*


----------



## djoberg

Hey, I haven't seen a post by AmerCa for awhile. Are you okay buddy? I miss seeing your fair and honest reviews!


----------



## AmerCa

^°°°^°^
Hey, Djoberg, I'm OK, mate. I was sick for three weeks, coming out of it, and then there was other stuff. Haven't watched any movies.

Thanks for asking, I should be back on track soon .

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Last Detail, The (Indicator)*

recommendation: *Tier 3.5**

Good all around transfer except for black crush and almost complete lack of shadow detail.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Dora and the Lost City of Gold*

recommendation: *Tier 0* (middle)*

Paramount's new family movie has state-of-the-art picture quality on Blu-ray and competes well with the UHDs now fighting for dominance in the PQ Tiers. The live-action adventure was finished at 4K and filmed using ARRI Alexa tech. Impeccable definition and clarity bring Dora the Explorer's adventures to vibrant life.

Pin-sharp and exuding detail in the crystal-clear 1080P video, this is top-flight picture quality. I would call it absolutely flawless until a hint of banding crops up in the AVC encode, late in the movie.


----------



## SnellTHX

Phantom Stranger said:


> *Dora and the Lost City of Gold*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 0* (middle)*
> 
> Paramount's new family movie has state-of-the-art picture quality on Blu-ray and competes well with the UHDs now fighting for dominance in the PQ Tiers. The live-action adventure was finished at 4K and filmed using ARRI Alexa tech. Impeccable definition and clarity bring Dora the Explorer's adventures to vibrant life.
> 
> Pin-sharp and exuding detail in the crystal-clear 1080P video, this is top-flight picture quality. I would call it absolutely flawless until a hint of banding crops up in the AVC encode, late in the movie.


Well that's something that would have flown right under my radar. Guess not


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> I just watched the first two episodes of _Jack Ryan: Season Two_ on Amazon Prime and man does it look GOOD on UHD/HDR!!


 I actually think it looks quite soft and has some banding issues... Not many have agreed with me but I prefer Netflix's 4K Dolby Vision over the 4K/HDR provided by Amazon by quite a wide margin.

It might just be my display, but regular HDR just doesn't look anywhere near as good as the Dolby Vision presets do.

I just finished Season 2 of Jack Ryan and it looks pretty good, but not on the same level as say Marco Polo, Altered Carbon, Lost in Space etc.


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> Okay, I'm watching the 3rd episode right now and there is a very serious case of BANDING in every scene with open blue skies. I can't recall seeing banding this bad before. Has anyone watched this series and if so, are you experiencing banding? I'm hoping there is an easy fix for this...perhaps it has something to do with the new Firmware I downloaded last night...or maybe my settings got screwed up some how.


Well there you go... I too had to try and adjust my settings... something just didn't look right.




djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^
> 
> We're basically "on the same page!"
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-867.html#post58636980
> 
> I slipped in _The Wizard of Oz (UHD)_ last night when I got home from Philadelphia. So far, it looks amazing! I wouldn't say it's a contender for a top spot in Tier 0, but it's definitely Reference Quality. As I said sometime ago, if I were to simply compare it to its DVD/Blu-ray counterparts, I'd probably nominate it for the Top Ten. But in comparing it to recent UHD titles, it's not quite that good.
> 
> I will say this...so far it looks as good or better than any "catalog title release on UHD."


Indeed  I was struggling to decide between 0.25 and 0.33. Spiderman's PQ absolutely surprised me. I didn't expect it to look that good, which was amazing.


----------



## SnellTHX

*Red Heat (4K)*


So this movie got a relatively low score from AVS' Ralph Potts... I checked some other reviews and they didn't boast about it either.


Which I think is weird. I keep getting disappointed time after time because reviewers will praise old movies and give 5 star or 9+/10 PQ ratings to 4K restorations of really old movies which are filled with thick horrible grain and lots of noise. Reviewers appear to be wearing nostalgia goggles.


But with Red Heat I actually thought it looked really good. One of the best looking 1980s movies I have ever seen in fact. Most of the stuff coming out of the 80s, even with 4K remasters belong in the tier 2-3 range IMO but Red Heat had the least invasive, thin-layered amount of grain that give it an organic & 'filmic' look without ruining the image quality. The use of HDR wasn't really apparent, but lots of details to be found.


I watched this 1988 with my Mum who was 19 years old when this movie came out. Even she had to comment how good it looked :mrgreen:


*Tier recommendation: 1.5*


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> I actually think it looks quite soft and has some banding issues... Not many have agreed with me but I prefer Netflix's 4K Dolby Vision over the 4K/HDR provided by Amazon by quite a wide margin.
> 
> It might just be my display, but regular HDR just doesn't look anywhere near as good as the Dolby Vision presets do.
> 
> I just finished Season 2 of Jack Ryan and it looks pretty good, but not on the same level as say Marco Polo, Altered Carbon, Lost in Space etc.


I asked members on the OLED Thread who have watched Jack Ryan about the banding and everyone who responded said there was zero banding. Glad to read your post and realize I'm not seeing things!

Your comments about Netflix and Dolby Vision are giving me the desire to finally sign up for Netflix. So, are you saying there wasn't as much softness or banding on Netflix?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

SnellTHX said:


> Well that's something that would have flown right under my radar. Guess not


The Dora movie is definitely made for children that have grown up on the cartoon. Solid family entertainment if your pre-teen children grew up with Dora the Explorer. 


SnellTHX said:


> I actually think it looks quite soft and has some banding issues... Not many have agreed with me but I prefer Netflix's 4K Dolby Vision over the 4K/HDR provided by Amazon by quite a wide margin.
> 
> It might just be my display, but regular HDR just doesn't look anywhere near as good as the Dolby Vision presets do.
> 
> I just finished Season 2 of Jack Ryan and it looks pretty good, but not on the same level as say Marco Polo, Altered Carbon, Lost in Space etc.


I have always been more impressed by Dolby Vision content. I've heard complaints that Amazon bandwidth starves their streaming encodes, hurting PQ.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> The Dora movie is definitely made for children that have grown up on the cartoon. Solid family entertainment if your pre-teen children grew up with Dora the Explorer.
> 
> I have always been more impressed by Dolby Vision content. I've heard complaints that Amazon bandwidth starves their streaming encodes, hurting PQ.


I agree with you Phantom that Amazon Prime's bandwidth must indeed starve their streaming encodes, for most movies are quite soft. One of the worst is _The Man in the High Castle_. There are exceptions to that rule though, for _Mad Dogs_ has be one of the most detailed and colorful movies out there, with striking clarity.


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> I asked members on the OLED Thread who have watched Jack Ryan about the banding and everyone who responded said there was zero banding. Glad to read your post and realize I'm not seeing things!
> 
> Your comments about Netflix and Dolby Vision are giving me the desire to finally sign up for Netflix. So, are you saying there wasn't as much softness or banding on Netflix?


Yeah Netflix with 4K Dolby Vision content looks phenomenal. I don't care what any videophile says. Its not perfect and its not as good as any Tier 0 movie on 4K UHD blu-ray but I am constantly mind blown by how good many shows look.

I recently watched 'The King' and some parts of that movie looked like absolute REFERENCE. Other parts not as good which is obviously due to the limited bandwidth which is only 15-25Mb/s compared to blu-ray's 30-40Mb/s and true 4K 80-128Mb/s. (worst case is a factor of 8!)

I'll have you know I ONLY use my Netflix subscription to watch shows & Netflix produced originals in 4K/DV.

I'd say Amazon's 4K/HDR is 60-80% of true physical 4K/HDR while Netflix's 4K/DV is 80-90% of true physical 4K/HDR.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

SnellTHX said:


> Yeah Netflix with 4K Dolby Vision content looks phenomenal. I don't care what any videophile says. Its not perfect and its not as good as any Tier 0 movie on 4K UHD blu-ray but I am constantly mind blown by how good many shows look.
> 
> I recently watched 'The King' and some parts of that movie looked like absolute REFERENCE. Other parts not as good which is obviously due to the limited bandwidth which is only 15-25Mb/s compared to blu-ray's 30-40Mb/s and true 4K 80-128Mb/s. (worst case is a factor of 8!)
> 
> I'll have you know I ONLY use my Netflix subscription to watch shows & Netflix produced originals in 4K/DV.
> 
> I'd say Amazon's 4K/HDR is 60-80% of true physical 4K/HDR while Netflix's 4K/DV is 80-90% of true physical 4K/HDR.


You should know that streaming services (Netflix, Disney+, Apple TV, etc) only support 10-bit Dolby Vision. UHDs have superior 12-bit Dolby Vision when using FEL.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Hellboy (2004) (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

Excellent detail and black levels. Also has some really good LFE in some scenes.


*Hellboy II: The Golden Army (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 1.25**

Another good looking UHD.


----------



## djoberg

* The Angry Birds Movie 2 (UHD)*

I'll say it right away....this is another WINNER and easily a contender for the Top Five in the animated movie category. I was blown away by the COLORS and the TEXTURE in all the birds, landscapes, foliage, sand, etc., etc. Here are my brief comments that I posted on Ralph's site:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-...vie-ultra-hd-blu-ray-review.html#post58873860

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (Top Five in Animation Films)*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^

I should have added that there are some shots with spectacular PHOTO-REALISM! This is true in shots of the ocean, sand, rocks, etc. If you don't want to buy this I would at least give it a rent. You owe it to your EYES to see it!!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Let me wish everyone here safe travels over the approaching Thanksgiving holiday. Rest up for all the UHD deals available on Black Friday.


*Chuck Berry: Hail! Hail! Rock 'n' Roll*

recommendation: *Tier 2.75**

Shout Factory recently licensed this 1987 Universal documentary/concert for a fine collector's edition. It's a solid rendering of an older film transfer taken from the original elements. Concert portions look the best with fairly nice definition and better contrast. Some of the interviews have lesser picture quality in terms of sharpness but nothing too out of bounds. No major issues beyond some minor inconsistencies in quality.

A few years ago I would have placed this disc in Tier 2.0 without a second thought.


*Road Games*

recommendation: *Tier 3.25**

The 1981 Australian thriller starring Stacy Keach and Jamie Lee Curtis was just put out by Scream Factory on Blu-ray. They've borrowed the same 4K transfer used on the Australian Blu-ray from a couple years ago. It's widely known the original camera negative wasn't used for the scan. Some dust and a little debris appear in the scope presentation.

Perhaps better than average picture quality for a low-budget catalog flick, reasonably strong clarity and definition clearly justify the 4K work. There's been no serious attempt at restoring the film but this is quite serviceable video. Somewhat dodgy shadow delineation here is my biggest complaint.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^

Thanks for the "Double Feature" Phantom!

I just ordered the UHD version of _Tomb Raider_ (the 2018 movie) for under $10 (Black Friday special). I had given the 1080p version a Tier 0 (.75) ranking so I'm looking forward to an up-tick in resolution and will report back after viewing it. For whatever reason, Amazon is telling me that it may be in mid December or even mid January before I receive it.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^

I canceled the Amazon order and got it from Best Buy for the same price! It should be here by Thursday.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Amazon does that around the holidays. I really don't think Amazon likes selling physical media anymore - they want to push everyone towards their digital streaming options for both music and movies.


This is now the time to pick up UHDs - Amazon has many cheap UHDs under $10. Black Hawk Down UHD is down to $10 right now. Every self-respecting home theater enthusiast should have that release.


----------



## djoberg

I agree!

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-858.html#post58155730


----------



## djoberg

*Star Trek Into Darkness (UHD)*

I know I watched this back in 2016 when I purchased my first 4K display (Sony 940D LCD/LED) but I could NOT find a review from me...or anyone else. I was absolutely blown away by the PQ/AQ on this one!! Reference Quality from beginning to end!!! In fact, it had some of the best shots I've ever seen with jaw-dropping clarity and details in the IMAX scenes!!!!

I believe one big improvement watching this on my OLED (compared to the LCD/LED) was the amazing BLACK LEVELS. Of course, this had tons of deep space scenes to highlight them and there were many interior shots inside the USS Enterprise as well. Shadow details were marvelous; contrast was "out of this world"; flesh tones were perfect; and colors were dazzling at times (an excellent example was the first scene as Kirk and Bones were running through the "Red Jungle").

The Dolby Atmos mix was most definitely one of the best I've heard. I did NOT have my dual subs or my Dolby Atmos speakers when I viewed this in 2016 and I simply couldn't believe the accuracy in the surrounds and overhead speakers, the clarity in the center channel, and last, but not least, the thunderous bass/LFE in the subs. Again, "Reference Quality" all the way through!

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.33)*

PS I almost nominated this for .25 but there were a few soft shots here and there.

PPS Next up..._Star Trek Beyond_!


----------



## djoberg

*Star Trek Beyond (UHD)*

Another "Reference Quality" UHD Blu-ray, but just barely! I was expecting more of the same with this sequel but the PQ fell short of its predecessor due to more SOFT SHOTS and less-than-stellar BLACKS in many of the interior shots of the USS Franklin and inside caves. Add to that the lack of IMAX cameras/scenes...for the IMAX scenes in _Star Trek Into Darkness_ were the "jewels" that brought it up to nearly the top of Tier 0.

In fairness, all of the outdoor, daytime shots were spectacular, with striking CLARITY, DETAILS, DEPTH and COLORS. Also, the various explosions that produced FIRE were dazzling, courtesy of HDR (which I should have mentioned in my review of _Into Darkness_).

AQ-wise, this had very accurate and precise sound throughout the fronts, surrounds, center and height channels, but the bass/LFE was somewhat disappointing in scenes where you would expect your walls to be shaking and waves of energy to be rippling across the room.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.9)*

PS I can't wait for the day when they will make an action film with IMAX cameras (and a full screen Aspect Ratio) from beginning to end. For the life of me I can't see why they didn't have at least some scenes in IMAX like they did in _Star Trek Into Darkness_!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Filming with IMAX cameras imposes strenuous demands on filmmakers that aren't meticulous planners like Nolan, not to mention the additional expense. That is why it's not used more often.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> Filming with IMAX cameras imposes strenuous demands on filmmakers that aren't meticulous planners like Nolan, not to mention the additional expense. That is why it's not used more often.


Yes, I agree, and that's why we need more filmmakers that are "meticulous planners like Nolan." Regarding the "additional expense," I would like to believe a day is coming when more consumers will become "videophiles" and that filmmakers will be more than willing to up their budget to meet the demands of those who crave excellent Picture Quality (though I suspect this is a 'pipe-dream' of mine).


----------



## Panson

djoberg said:


> Yes, I agree, and that's why we need more filmmakers that are "meticulous planners like Nolan." Regarding the "additional expense," I would like to believe a day is coming when more consumers will become "videophiles" and that filmmakers will be more than willing to up their budget to meet the demands of those who crave excellent Picture Quality (though I suspect this is a 'pipe-dream' of mine).


It's a cumbersome, expensive technology that has somewhat limited capability, limited appeal, limited distribution (largest metropolitan areas). 

3D gave it some life, but it's largely a trickle now with mainly phony IMAX.

We'll see what happens with 2020 big boys - "1917", "Godzilla vs. Kong", "Dune". Never say never. 

Related:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_released_in_IMAX


----------



## djoberg

Panson said:


> It's a cumbersome, expensive technology that has somewhat limited capability, limited appeal, limited distribution (largest metropolitan areas).
> 
> 3D gave it some life, but it's largely a trickle now with mainly phony IMAX.
> 
> We'll see what happens with 2020 big boys - "1917", "Godzilla vs. Kong", "Dune". Never say never.
> 
> Related:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_released_in_IMAX


Thanks Panson for the Wikipedia link! 

In persuing all the FULL IMAX films, it appears all of them were either documentaries (a good percentage of these being on animals and planet earth), sporting events or music concerts. As far as PARTIAL IMAX films, I have most of them with the best IMAX scenes being in _The Dark Knight Rises_, _Interstellar_, _Ghost Protocol_, _Star Trek Into Darkness_, _Mission Impossible: Fallout_, _Dunkirk_, and last, but certainly not least, _Transformers: The Last Knight_. The last two mentioned had most scenes done in IMAX and I can't imagine it taking that much more "time and money" to do the whole film with IMAX cameras.

I did see that _Top Gun: Maverick_ will be filmed entirely with IMAX-certified Sony Venice cameras.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^

I should have mentioned that I am really looking forward to the "Big Boys" that you mentioned!


----------



## djoberg

*Tomb Raider (UHD)*

I'm going to take the lazy route once again and post my link to the 1080p version. The UHD release most definitely gives us an uptick in resolution. I was especially impressed with some of the vibrant colors (courtesy of Dolby Vision) in some of the London and Hong Kong scenes...they were "natural-looking" yet they also "popped!" Details and depth were also a sight to behold! Blacks levels and shadow details were also superior to the regular Blu-ray. One of my favorite scenes took place about halfway through the movie with a beautiful nighttime sky and mesmerizing details in trees, rocks and foliage. Facial details/texture were also a highlight, even in dark scenes.

If a had one gripe it would be with the CGI scenes in the latter half....some were a bit SOFT and BLURRY.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-832.html#post56384230

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.33)*

PS I had given the 1080p version a .75 so the UHD buy was worth the Black Friday sale price and then some!


----------



## djoberg

*Angel Has Fallen (1080p)*

For the most part, this release is "sharp as a tack" with "Reference Quality" details in almost every scene (especially in ALL outdoor daytime shots and well-lit interior shots). Facial details excel with incredible texture...wait till you see Nick Nolte and, of course, Morgan Freeman!! Flesh tones are excellent in spite of some serious color-grading (the infamous "teal" seen in many action movies). Depth is amazing at times...contrast is super-strong...and black levels are as deep as they come, with corresponding shadow details (though there were fleeting shots at nighttime that became a SOFT and NOISY).

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.5)*


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> *Star Trek Beyond (UHD)*
> 
> A
> 
> PS I can't wait for the day when they will make an action film with IMAX cameras (and a full screen Aspect Ratio) from beginning to end. For the life of me I can't see why they didn't have at least some scenes in IMAX like they did in _Star Trek Into Darkness_!


This is what I have been waiting over a decade for! the IMAX MSM 9802 camera captures more detail & resolution than any other camera out there. The IMAX 15/70mm shots of Nolan's movies are a level above anything else IMO.

I think only Nolan uses for any significant amount of time.
Movies with IMAX 15/70mm scenes:

Dunkirk (70%)
Interstellar (50%)
The Dark Knight Rises (40%)
The Dark Knight (20%)

The rest are just single scenes I think. Like First man. That movie looked meh for 99% of the movie and then I think it had maybe 5 minute moon landing scene which COMPLETELY blew my mind. Knew it was IMAX 15/70mm. Instantly. 

So it seems Nolan uses the IMAX MSM 9802 camera more and more for ever movie he makes, if we omit Inception which came after TDK and before TDK:R but didn't have any IMAX shots.

His new movie 'Tenet' I hope will be filmed in IMAX 15/70mm at least 80% of the time !  

That would definitely knock Transformers: LK off it's PQ-throne.


----------



## SnellTHX

According to ShotonWhat there are actually a handful of movies filmed with the IMAX MSM 9802.

https://shotonwhat.com/cameras/imax-msm-9802-camera

There's all the aforementioned Nolan movies, and a few blockbusters but I cannot remember any particular 'wow' moments in those movies? I watched them all in the cinema and not at home I think, so I cannot confirm. Has anyone seen Transformers 2, MI:GP, Star Trek:ID ? I've seen BvS and cannot remember any particular moment that stood out, PQ-wise.


Then there's the Journey to Mecca, Wild Ocean and India: Kingdom of the Tiger which are filmed entirely with the IMAX MSM 9802!

Anyone know if they even exist on 4K media?


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> According to ShotonWhat there are actually a handful of movies filmed with the IMAX MSM 9802.
> 
> https://shotonwhat.com/cameras/imax-msm-9802-camera
> 
> There's all the aforementioned Nolan movies, and a few blockbusters but I cannot remember any particular 'wow' moments in those movies? I watched them all in the cinema and not at home I think, so I cannot confirm. Has anyone seen Transformers 2, MI:GP, Star Trek:ID ? I've seen BvS and cannot remember any particular moment that stood out, PQ-wise.
> 
> 
> Then there's the Journey to Mecca, Wild Ocean and India: Kingdom of the Tiger which are filmed entirely with the IMAX MSM 9802!
> 
> Anyone know if they even exist on 4K media?


Just look at my review of _Star Trek Into Darkness_ from a few days ago. I was extolling the virtues of the IMAX scenes in that film! But I had no idea they were using the IMAX MSM 9802 camera. I've also seen the UHD version of _Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol_ and there too I had no idea which IMAX camera they had used.

So, do you know anything about the IMAX Sony Venice camera...which will be used for the upcoming _Top Gun: Maverick_ movie? The WHOLE FILM will be shot with that camera!!


----------



## djoberg

Here is an interesting article on "Full Frame Cameras" which also contains a comparison between the Arri Alexa LF and the Sony Venice. Sounds like the Arri Alexa is superior (even though it is 4.5K and the Sony is 6K).

https://www.productionhub.com/blog/post/full-frame-cameras-how-will-they-affect-our-industry

Here is another good write-up on Digital Cameras used for the BIG screen:

https://ascmag.com/articles/measuring-up-testing-digital-cameras-for-large-screen-exhibition-use


----------



## djoberg

*A Quiet Place (UHD)...Revisited*

We have my sister here for the weekend and she wanted to see this movie (for the first time). I had seen it 5 months ago and gave it a 1.0 ranking. Well, guess what? After viewing this today I think I was too conservative. This deserves a Tier 0 placement so I'm changing my vote to...

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (.75)*

PS I really don't recall the BLACKS and SHADOW DETAILS being this awesome. Those, along with amazing DETAILS and DEPTH, made this an easy decision. I was wondering why it looked better this time around and the only thing I can come up with is...My OLED was relatively new at that time and as it was "breaking in" the PQ kept getting better and better. That must be the reason for the difference I'm seeing now.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^

AmerCa,

How are you doing? I know the last time I asked you said you had been under the weather but hoped to get back on the "Blu-ray track" soon. I miss your reviews but if there are things holding you back we would surely understand. 

Denny


----------



## AmerCa

^°^°^°^°^
As always, it's very nice of you to ask. Yes, man, everything is OK, it's just that between catching up on some personal things and my lack of movie watching I haven't had anything to contribute to this thread, but I do try to check it regularly.

Actually, I've just finished my first two movies in quite some time, (it felt SO GOOD!), so I should be back to reviewing in short time, that is, for the people who are interested in them, lol .

Sadly, this past Black Friday I couldn't land almost any good deal (apparently Amazon US wasn't interested this year in sharing their deals with us), and the ones I got won't be arriving until a month or two. Here's hoping they'll ship earlier. It's a good thing I got a good stash of unwatched movies, hahaha. I'll be reviewing some of those.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> Just look at my review of _Star Trek Into Darkness_ from a few days ago. I was extolling the virtues of the IMAX scenes in that film! But I had no idea they were using the IMAX MSM 9802 camera. I've also seen the UHD version of _Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol_ and there too I had no idea which IMAX camera they had used.
> 
> So, do you know anything about the IMAX Sony Venice camera...which will be used for the upcoming _Top Gun: Maverick_ movie? The WHOLE FILM will be shot with that camera!!


The Sony camera is not the same. the Sony Venice is a 6K digital camera... I don't think its any different than the sea of other digital cameras out there.

I remember hearing Avengers: Infinity War & Avengers Endgame was going to be the two first films to ever be filmed entirely in IMAX format. Which was bull****, because they didn't mean an IMAX 15/70mm analog film camera like the IMAX MSM 9802, instead they meant the Arri IMAX camera which is basically a rebranded Arri 65 6.5K digital camera. Not saying its bad, just a bit false marketing. After all both those Avengers movies look phenomenal, and even more so - Transformers: Last Knight was filmed with Arri IMAX 65 camera as well as various Red Weapon/Dragon 8K cameras...


----------



## djoberg

Thanks for the info Snell!

I knew that _Transformers: The Last Knight_ was filmed with the Arri 65 and we know how well that turned out...as good or better than anything we've seen. So, there can be fantastic results "for the BIG screen" without using the MSM 9802, but you are surely right in implying the 9802 is one of the "Kings of IMAX," if not "THE KING."


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Home Alone 2: Lost in New York*

recommendation: *Tier 3.5**

Image is rather soft, but colors are strong.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Phantom Stranger said:


> Tier 1.5 is now up to date as well.
> 
> *The Miracle Worker (1979)*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 1.5**
> 
> Easily the best film transfer I've ever seen from a VCI release. This television production from 1979 has actress Patty Duke playing a different role in the movie that first made her Hollywood career. The film elements are in spectacular condition. The film-like presentation has crisp definition and lively colors. There isn't much evidence of extraneous processing. A few stray halos are virtually negligible. The 2018 restoration is credited to Blair and Associates, which I've not heard of before this disc. It's a commendable job from pristine elements and results in a quality catalog release.
> 
> The 98-minute main feature is presented at its original 1.33:1 broadcast ratio. The disc is a BD-25. Encoded in finely-tuned AVC, there is real detail and excellent resolution throughout the film. The only quibble is an odd change in the normally bright and warm color timing for less than thirty seconds at the end of one scene. It happens near the end of the first act at around the 35-minute mark.


 And now we come full circle...


*The Miracle Worker (1962)*


recommendation: *Tier 2.5**

I had overlooked Olive Films releasing the original Oscar-winning classic on Blu-ray in 2017. Starring Anne Bancroft and a young Patty Duke, it remains the most captivating version of Helen Keller's life story. Shout Factory has recently reissued Arthur Penn's _The Miracle Worker_ as part of their new Anne Bancroft Collection, using the same disc authored by Olive Films. Which is a sound decision as the black-and-white transfer struck for it was excellent. Proper grain structure, little if any extraneous processing, and a strong AVC encode make for a wonderful film-like treatment. The powerful movie is presented in its original 1.66:1 theatrical aspect ratio with lovely texture and pleasing black levels. 

The movie was licensed from MGM. I rarely see an MGM property get such a magnificent new film transfer - this is relatively new film scan from quality elements. Crisp definition and impressive cinematography make for superb black-and-white eye candy. My highest recommendation for film lovers.


----------



## djoberg

*Ad Astra (1080p)*

I decided to rent this from Redbox today and I'm glad I did. This is one of those "thinking man Sci-Fi movies" so don't expect a lot of action with aliens. The pacing was slow but I appreciated Brad Pitt's character (his acting was topnotch) and the human drama build-up. That's all I'll say for now in order to avoid "Spoilers."

PQ-wise, it was a mixed bag. It was filmed in 35mm film and thus it had the "filmic look" that was quite impressive.

The GOOD: The DETAILS were "stellar" in many shots and the BLACKS, overall, were "out of this world" (sorry, I couldn't help myself). CONTRAST was super-strong at times especially in deep space with white space ships against a starry, black background (man, how I love my OLED with scenes like these).

The NOT-SO-GOOD: There was a fair amount of COLOR-GRADING throughout...scenes with "blue hues" and scenes with "orange hues." The orange was especially egregious causing flesh tones to be very unnatural. The were also some SOFT SHOTS and a few MURKY BLACKS in various interior shots.

AQ-wise, I was VERY SATISFIED! It was only a DTS-HD Master Audio mix, but my Denon did a good job of up-mixing it to Neural:X and the height channels brought a smile to my face many times.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*It: Chapter Two UHD*

recommendation: *Tier 0** (bottom third)

Horror movies didn't used to look this good with superb definition and a well-rounded HDR pass enhanced by Dolby Vision. The genre has changed in Hollywood with the advent of high-end digital cinematography. Filmed mostly in raw 3.4K resolution and finished at 2K on the digital intermediate, this new UHD features a crafted aesthetic by the filmmakers with brilliant tonality and dynamic color range only possible with UHD.

The 2.39:1 presentation has excellent focal depth and unwavering clarity. A lot of money has been sunk into the production by Hollywood ensuring a perfectly seamless cinematic experience with outstanding picture quality and smooth CGI effects. The UHD's PQ fares comparatively better than the first _It_ on UHD, taking full advantage of the format's expanded color palette.


----------



## AmerCa

^°^°^°^
Great review. Sounds like something I'd buy on UHD... next Black Friday. I liked the first part, but I'm not a super fan of it, and the potential upgrade in UHD seems worth it.

On another news, my US Amazon orders arrived much sooner than expected, which makes me very happy, but I'm not sure I'll be watching any movies until next year .

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

*The Incredible Hulk (1080p....2008)*

So, I decided to choose an "oldie but goodie" from my Blu-ray library and this is what I picked (to me it's much better than the original _Hulk_ from 2003 with Eric Bana playing the BIG GREEN GUY). The PQ still holds up well, though by today's standards it doesn't rival any of the Tier 0 titles. That said, it still deserves a place on my "demo shelf" (Tier 1). I may have assigned this to Tier 0 "back in the day," for it had some phenomenal details, especially in close-ups. You could see every whisker on Edward Norton's face, loads of texture on William Hurt's, and lots of details on the two BIG GREEN BOYS.

When it comes to the audio mix, the DTS-HD MA mix BLEW ME AWAY!! I'm not resorting to hyperbole when I say it does indeed rival many top audio mixes today. My Denon up-mixed it to Neural:X and the surrounds were simply amazing, with bullets and helicopters whizzing overhead (from front to back...side to side...diagonally...every which way) with stellar precision throughout several long scenes. But it's the bass/LFE and really put a smile on my face. Whether it was the Hulk stomping around or roaring, or during massive explosions (from all kinds of BIG GUNS), my walls were shaking BIG TIME. There was one scene where they had a "Stark Sonic Cannon" that sent "waves of sound" to the Hulk and I'm here to tell you it sent "waves of sound and energy" across my room...I thought my cheeks were going to start curling. I didn't dare to turn my AVR any higher than -7.5!!!

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*


----------



## AmerCa

^°^°^°^°^
Nice to see you reviewing some "oldies". For a moment there I thought you were reviewing the new UHD version. It's true, some old BDs still hold up very well, and it's nice to know they can still look good on an OLED.

The audio is true reference, and one of those tracks that get better the better your equipment gets. I need to give it a spin one of these days.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## DarthDoxie

*In a Lonely Place (Criterion)*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

Stable image with excellent blacks and contrast.


----------



## djoberg

I just got done watching Amazon Prime's new original movie titled _The Aeronauts_ and I was blown away by all the FULL SCREEN shots where the Air Balloon was "above the clouds" (they supposedly got as high as nearly 38,000 feet). The PQ (which was in 4K/HDR) was absolutely amazing! If you get Amazon Prime...check it out!! All the full screen shots were shot with an IMAX camera (which was supposedly 70mm).

I was very blessed to see this on a 77" screen at a seating distance of 8'. I would be willing to visit an IMAX Theater though to see this one on the REALLY BIG SCREEN!!!


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^^

Okay, so I was wrong! I just found this online from a good source speaking of the filming of _The Aeronauts_:

Was the film shot on IMAX cameras?

We didn’t actually shoot in IMAX. We shot in dual aspect ratio, on 65mm cameras. There were various artistic reasons for doing that, but it came down to a creative decision as an instigator, rather than a business decision. We wanted it to feel like the story was opening up when you got into the sky. That will be consistent on the Amazon Prime release, because TVs are mostly built for the 16:9 aspect ratio nowadays. Everything we shot on the ground is in 2.39:1, and then when you go up into the air, it opens up to 1.85:1. So that actually transposes to Amazon Prime very nicely. And if you see it on IMAX, as you can in a few places in the US, the UK, and in China, it’ll be replicated there. And the 70mm print is a slightly different aspect ratio. So again, there’s a whole variety of different formats you can choose. (End of Quote)


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays, everyone in AVSforum land! 

*Feast of the Seven Fishes*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

Right in time for Christmas comes this new holiday movie courtesy of Shout Factory. Set in 1983, the warm and funny period piece has fine video quality in pristine condition. Sharp, detailed and consistent, the 1.78:1 presentation doesn't attempt to roughen up the digital filmmaking for aesthetic purposes. That only occurs for a few shots of simulated 8mm footage as the filmmaker recalls old home movies of Christmas dinner. 

I may be underselling the picture quality, it's easily Tier One in some scenes. The transfer is flawless with top-notch AVC parameters. The neutral palette and plain lighting limit demo potential. A great movie if you are looking for a funny Christmas romcom centered around a large Italian family celebrating the holiday.


----------



## AmerCa

A quick stop just to wish you a very warm Merry Christmas 2019!!

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

*Abominable (UHD)*

I watched this with 2 of my grandchildren last night and found the movie to be "pretty good" and the PQ "very good" (but not excellent).

I had read rave reviews on the PQ being so sharp and colorful, so I was surprised in the first couple of scenes (that take place in a city in China) to see a lot of SOFT FOCUS shots that were anything but sharp. The colors didn't POP in those scenes either. But once they lead actors set out on their "journey" SHARPNESS, CLARITY and VIBRANT COLORS reigned supreme! DETAILS were also very good but there wasn't as much texture as I'm used to seeing in recent animated offerings. That's not to say there isn't any, but this one was really lacking in facial texture and other areas too. The bottom line is: this is most definitely worth of the Top Tier but it won't come close to the very top.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.33)*

PS I "almost" went with .25!


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Captain America: The First Avenger (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

Good overall PQ. Black levels are not quite inky black, raised just a bit.


Between Black Friday and Christmas, I picked up 20 of the MCU films (I had the other 3) and all but 3 of them in UHD. I'll be watching them in timeline order, looking forward to the experience as I've only seen about half.


----------



## DarthDoxie

djoberg said:


> I just got done watching Amazon Prime's new original movie titled _The Aeronauts_ and I was blown away by all the FULL SCREEN shots where the Air Balloon was "above the clouds" (they supposedly got as high as nearly 38,000 feet). The PQ (which was in 4K/HDR) was absolutely amazing! If you get Amazon Prime...check it out!! All the full screen shots were shot with an IMAX camera (which was supposedly 70mm).
> 
> I was very blessed to see this on a 77" screen at a seating distance of 8'. I would be willing to visit an IMAX Theater though to see this one on the REALLY BIG SCREEN!!!



Didn't realize this was an Amazon Prime movie, it's on my watch-list now, thanks!


----------



## SnellTHX

*Ad Astra*

Gonna be a little harsher than Djoberg on this... For the the vast majority of the film my thought was "Is this really 4K? Certainly this must be 2K..."

In most cases this movie didn't seem sharper than 1080p by any stretch of the imagination. The interior shots looked quite bad actually... Noisy/grainy/soft and as mentioned the colour-grading.

Now I wanted to give it a really low score but it gets completely saved by PHEMONENAL BLACKS - and lots of them. The space scenes look reference. as much as I hated the PQ indoors I couldn't help myself being mesmerised every time they ventured out in the starlit exterior of outer space with the absolute blacks that followed.



*Tier recommendation: 1.75*


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> I just got done watching Amazon Prime's new original movie titled _The Aeronauts_ and I was blown away by all the FULL SCREEN shots where the Air Balloon was "above the clouds" (they supposedly got as high as nearly 38,000 feet). The PQ (which was in 4K/HDR) was absolutely amazing! If you get Amazon Prime...check it out!! All the full screen shots were shot with an IMAX camera (which was supposedly 70mm).
> 
> I was very blessed to see this on a 77" screen at a seating distance of 8'. I would be willing to visit an IMAX Theater though to see this one on the REALLY BIG SCREEN!!!


Did you watch it via Prime or a physical medium? Because 4K/HDR material of IMAX is the most mind blowing visuals you can get (today)


----------



## djoberg

DarthDoxie said:


> Didn't realize this was an Amazon Prime movie, it's on my watch-list now, thanks!


Again, the FULL SCREEN shots are magnificent. I can't say the same of the letter-boxed scenes; they aren't bad by any means, but they're not even close to the scenes "above the clouds." Check in to give your impressions after seeing it.



SnellTHX said:


> Did you watch it via Prime or a physical medium? Because 4K/HDR material of IMAX is the most mind blowing visuals you can get (today)


I watched it via Prime. Fact is, I'm not sure this is even out on a physical medium yet. But it doesn't matter; I was absolutely amazed/impressed by what I saw on Prime.

Edit: I did check and you can only view this via Amazon Prime.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Toy Story (UHD)*

recommendation: *Tier 0**

The movie holds up very well in 4K. It's current Blu-ray placement in tier 0 is fine for this as well.


The only gripe I have is the backgrounds look rather flat compared to today's animated features. Everything is drawn with nice straight lines and hardly any dirt or grime is visible, almost like they were an afterthought.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^

Hey Darth, wait till you see _Toy Story 4_ in 4K! Amazing, amazing, amazing!!


----------



## djoberg

I just watched the UHD version of _Sully_ with my youngest daughter's husband and "once again" I'm changing my mind as to the placement (it's NOT just women/girls that have the right to change their mind!). I do believe this warrants a Tier 0 placement (I had said in my review below that the UHD release should be at 1.0). And once again I'm going to attribute the spike in PQ to my OLED! Nuf said!!

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (.75)*



djoberg said:


> *Sully*
> 
> This may not qualify for the Top Tier, but it should easily land towards the top of Tier Gold. It had striking clarity throughout the majority of its 90+ minute running time, along with reference quality facial details and amazing depth in many scenes. Contrast was strong, black levels (though limited) were deep, and flesh tones were spot-on accurate. On the minus side, its color palette was woefully lacking in primaries, and there was a fair amount of color-grading (i.e. steely blue) that added to the drab look.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.25**
> 
> PS The 4K version brought it up one notch (to 1.0) with even better facial texture and contrast was off the charts.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Krampus*

recommendation: *Tier 1.75**

Nice holiday film, think I'll add it to my yearly rotation. Good overall PQ with good black levels in the many dark scenes.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Phantom Stranger said:


> *Krampus*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 2.0**
> 
> During the first act of this subversive Christmas movie, I was having to make up excuses for why _Krampus_ shouldn't belong to Tier Zero. Its warm, rich, inviting picture quality sparkled in brilliant Christmas clarity. Some minor scrubbing applied to close-ups of Toni Collette was its only negative. Swimming in vibrant red and green colors, this was picture-perfect filmmaking.
> 
> As you can see by my final score, _Krampus_ changes greatly in setting and tone after a glorious looking first act. Universal does an adequate technical job with the transfer and encode, though some minor compression artifacts appear as Krampus makes his presence felt in the movie. The video swiftly changes from vivid color saturation to a darker aesthetic fairly quickly. That results in reduced definition and softened detail.
> 
> There isn't anything wrong per se with _Krampus'_ picture quality. Events within the movie force a drastic change in tonality and visual quality. There is even a brief animated scene of average quality included.


When I saw Darth's recommendation, I thought I had reviewed Krampus. This is from nearly four years ago. So it looks like we are on the same page.


----------



## AmerCa

^°^°^°^
Well, I intended to review that movie a few months ago, but never did. I was waiting to rewatch it to give it a score, but I was thinking between 1.75 - 1.5, so that's not too far off. Great movie, I've watched it a couple of times, very fun.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## AmerCa

Happy New Year!!!! 

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## Phantom Stranger

AmerCa said:


> Happy New Year!!!!
> 
> Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


 I'll join AmerCa in wishing everyone a happy New Year!


So where are all the Marvel 4K reviews? I hope everyone here took advantage of last week's excellent sale on steelbook UHDs from Best Buy. They were practically giving away Disney steelbooks.


----------



## djoberg

*Pacific Rim: Uprising (UHD)*

Okay, I had reviewed the 1080p release back in March of this year and here is where I placed it:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-851.html#post57711614

So, in fairness to Snell and AmerCa, who gave it a Tier 1 placement, they both said this sequel was inferior to its original and they were RIGHT! I had given the _Pacific Rim (UHD)_ a whopping Tier 0 (.33) ranking but this pales by comparison. I'm actually going to give this UHD release a lower ranking than I did the 1080p version!! I cant explain it, but my eyes don't lie and what I'm seeing is only worthy of the following:

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**


----------



## djoberg

I join my fellow peers by saying...

*Happy New Year!!!*


----------



## AmerCa

^°^°^°^
Happy New Year, my man! Reviewing discs at the very end of 2019? That's being a boss.

Regarding your _Uprising_ UHD placement, I'm surprised, and at the same time it makes me feel at bit less guilty for caving in early this year for the BD instead of waiting Black Friday for the UHD. It's hard to believe that a 4k version of a big budgeted film to be so unimpressive. But I'm glad you decided to give it another chance, it's quite a fun film to me, and more fun to me than the original, audio quibbles aside.

I have a few UHD, and it'd be so disappointing to find out some of them are not so much better than their BDs counterparts.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> ^°^°^°^
> Happy New Year, my man! Reviewing discs at the very end of 2019? That's being a boss.
> 
> Regarding your _Uprising_ UHD placement, I'm surprised, and at the same time it makes me feel at bit less guilty for caving in early this year for the BD instead of waiting Black Friday for the UHD. It's hard to believe that a 4k version of a big budgeted film to be so unimpressive. But I'm glad you decided to give it another chance, it's quite a fun film to me, and more fun to me than the original, audio quibbles aside.
> 
> I have a few UHD, and it'd be so disappointing to find out some of them are not so much better than their BDs counterparts.
> 
> Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


It is very rare indeed that a UHD release will be inferior to its 1080p counterpart. In this case it seemed so much darker with some video noise in various scenes. This, of course, resulted in less detail as well. In fairness, there were scenes that were amazing, with striking clarity, details, depth, colors, and contrast.

Glad to hear you have "a few UHDs." Can't wait to see your reviews in 2020!!


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^

I had mentioned "video noise" in an earlier post. It may have actually been "grain." Whatever it was, it was distracting, for you would have one scene with brilliant clarity and then a scene with noise/grain. I like grain IF it is consistent and yields excellent details; if what I saw was grain that it was not the grain that I like.

I just got done reading some "professional" reviews and I was very surprised to find the vast majority "singing its praises" without any mention of it being "inferior to the original." I was especially taken aback to read Matt's comments on doblu.com, for he is usually very critical with a good eye for spotting anomalies. There was one lone reviewer who did mention the grain factor, but I don't think he compared it at all with the first installment.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^

I felt compelled to revisit some of the best scenes from _Pacific Rim: Uprising (UHD)_. After careful analysis, I feel I was a bit too harsh in recommending 1.0. Yes, there were dark scenes with either noise or heavy grain, but they were quite limited. What I failed to concentrate on were the amazing COLORS and SPECULAR HIGHLIGHTS in the many fight scenes, especially in the latter half of the movie. They were very, very impressive! So, I now believe I should have gone with a placement of....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.75)*

PS I should remind you that I had given the original movie a ranking of Tier 0 (.33), so this is still "inferior to the original" by a good half of a tier.

PPS For the record, I've eaten a lot of various kinds of PIE over the last month (of holidays), but tonight's dish of HUMBLE PIE was hard to choke down.


----------



## SnellTHX

Gonna agree with your assessment Djo. Pacific Rim in 4K/HDR was at one point the top 5, maybe even top 3 best looking blu-ray movie for me. I still think that 7 years later it belongs in top 10. Absolutely stunning 1.78:1 'sharper-than-4K' picture...

A Shame that its sequel not only failed to surpass it but delivered significantly worse picture. I mean its good, just nowhere near as good as the first.


----------



## SnellTHX

*007: Casino Royale*


So I got the Daniel Craig 4K/HDR/UHD collection for Christmas, lucky me  

This movie came out in 2006 and was probably the first, second or third blu-ray I bought along with King Kong and 300. It served its purpose of demonstrating how vastly superior 1080p Full HD image was to DVD.


Well a lot has changed in 14 years and I don't think the 4K/HDR version presents much of an improvement over the 2K/SDR version. 

Filmed in 35mm with a 2K DI, there isn't really much '4K' going on here. skin tones look natural and excellent, but the movie is too noisy/grainy compared to today's standard of blockbusters.

*
Tier recommendation: 2.0*


----------



## SnellTHX

*007: Quantum of Solace*


Now this is to my eyes a huge improvement over its prequel. Filmed with the same 35mm cameras and same 2K DI, these two presentations were actually very different. QoS has much less intrusive, thin-layered grain structure, which is gives it a very pleasant and 'organic' look than CR.

... However this comes at a loss of detail. It seems the mixers realised they 'messed up' with CR and did their best to smudge out and apply heavy DNR to smear all over the image. Sort of a pick your poision theme, but QoS gets the much better rating for those PHENOMENAL black levels. They're everywhere from the opening scene, to mid-way through and around the end. OLED contrast porn 


*Tier Recommendation: 1.5 *


----------



## AmerCa

*Annabelle (2014 - Warner)*










*Tier Recommendation: 1.75 *

I have watched this movie several times, but for some reason or another, never got around to reviewing it. I watched it last night, and while the PQ is pretty good (there's a reason why both Phantom and Djoberg have given it high placements in upper quarters of tier 1), I couldn't bring myself to give it a higher placement than tier 1.75. I think every time I've watched it I've ranked it lower than before. Great clarity and details, and a nice, natural colors, but nothing particularly impressive to my eyes. But it's also a five years old movie.

Despite the generally bad reviews, I always enjoy revisiting this one.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## AmerCa

*Annabelle: Creation (2017 - Warner)*










*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*

The only review for this one in here is from Phantom, who surprisingly rated it lower than _Annabelle_, at 2.25. It's not a show stopper, but to me _Creation_ looks better than the first part. PQ wise it's essentially an update of all the virtues of part one. Better clarity, good shadow detail, color palette is limited, but appropriate for the film's aesthetic. Visually, it really feels like a continuation (in reality, prequel) of the first installment. It's par of the course for me in terms of PQ, which is good for a relatively recent title.

Now, what a movie! Omg! I seriously think this may be the best movie in the Conjuring universe, or at least is a close second to the first part, and slightly better than Conjuring 2, which is nuts. I tell you, I wasn't prepared for this. It's been a while since a movie had me sweating this much, and in a cold night. This movie is INTENSE. Yeah, it have lots of jump scares, but unlike, say, _The Nun_, the scares really work here, and the story is leaps and bounds more interesting and scary. Fantastic horror.

The ATMOS mix is terrific, and plays a very important role in making this movie nerves wrecking. I'm honestly surprised Phantom didn't find this film as good as the first, let alone as good as the Conjuring ones, but horror is very subjective. I was delighted (read: terrified) with this film.



Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## burnfout

SnellTHX said:


> *007: Casino Royale*
> 
> 
> So I got the Daniel Craig 4K/HDR/UHD collection for Christmas, lucky me
> 
> This movie came out in 2006 and was probably the first, second or third blu-ray I bought along with King Kong and 300. It served its purpose of demonstrating how vastly superior 1080p Full HD image was to DVD.
> 
> 
> Well a lot has changed in 14 years and I don't think the 4K/HDR version presents much of an improvement over the 2K/SDR version.
> 
> Filmed in 35mm with a 2K DI, there isn't really much '4K' going on here. skin tones look natural and excellent, but the movie is too noisy/grainy compared to today's standard of blockbusters.
> 
> *
> Tier recommendation: 2.0*



Shame really, I probably watched Casino Royale 15+ times over the years on all my new TV's, because the disc was always so impressive back then. 

Would have liked for the tradition to carry over on UHD.


----------



## djoberg

*Rambo: Last Blood (1080p)*

This was a typical Lionsgate offering, with very good to excellent PQ accompanied by a few anomalies here and there!

The GOOD: At times this was SHARP as tack with finely-rendered DETAILS. FACIAL TEXTURE was incredible in most actors, notably Mr. Rambo himself (who is really, really showing his 72-73 years!), but not limited to him. BLACKS/SHADOW DETAILS were off-the-charts in many scenes (my favorites were nighttime shots in the Mexico city). The cinematography was great with wide panoramic shots that produced stellar eye candy!

The NOT-SO-GOOD: The was some real ugly COLOR-GRADING......the teal hues weren't too bad, but some of the orange hues were so bad it erased details and left everything looking unnatural. Some of the dark interior scenes (mostly in the underground caves and a few of the homes in Mexico) had MURKY BLACKS and tons of NOISE. I notice artifacts jumping all over the place!!

Before I rank this, I gotta admit I Fast-Forwarded some of the last couple of scenes due to unbelievable, gratuitous violence...worse than any slasher movie I've ever seen. Glad this was a rental!

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**


----------



## SnellTHX

burnfout said:


> Shame really, I probably watched Casino Royale 15+ times over the years on all my new TV's, because the disc was always so impressive back then.
> 
> Would have liked for the tradition to carry over on UHD.


Yeah me too. My first blu-ray player from 2006 --> Casino Royale.
New Kuro 9G PDP --> Casino Royale 
new speakers --> Casino Royale.


It just doesn't really live up to 2020 standards anymore  

It's about as dated as all the Sony Ericsson phones in the movie haha.


----------



## SnellTHX

*007: Skyfall*

The best looking Bond movie by far. One of the greatest 1080p/2K transfers of all time looks EVEN BETTER in 4K/HDR - a near perfect transfer 

Finally moving from 2K DI to 4K DI and also going 'digital' we see an immediate increase in detail, razor-sharp image that is clean and flawless.

The opening scene in (Turkey?) looks phenomenal and is demo is still demo-worthy - 8 years after initial release.

The ending scene near the lake in the dark is still a valid torture test for new HDTVs, no wonder Vincent Teoh still has a Skyfall disc for his reviews.

*
Tier recommendation: 0.5*


----------



## SnellTHX

*007: Spectre*


... Then it goes back to disappointment. Skyfall is such drool-worthy Tier 0 reference, why would they make or 'allow' Spectre to look so much worse? a 4K DI just like Skyfall but this doesn't really look like 4K. It looks like 2.8K or something. Can hardly seen an improvement over the 2K blu-ray which disappointed me back in the day.. 

it isn't anywhere near as sharp, no way as clean and just doesn't have the depth or the detail of the image. It's also mastered a bit wonky. I have a first generation HDR display (B6 OLED), so the HDR isn't as good as newer sets. Nor is my display professionally calibrated by some one certified by ISF. This left me navigating picture menus to try and find the correct balance between not crushing blacks and having shadow detail. I just couldn't get it right. And its not really my display's fault because Skyfall I put in the disc player, my jaw dropped to the floor and I enjoyed the movie from start to finish.

Spectre left me struggling to find better picture settings.

It also has a bit of noise to it.

All in all, I expect so much more of a 2015 movie on 4K/HDR disc. This could have been a 2005 blu-ray.


*Tier recommendation: 1.75*


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> *Annabelle: Creation (2017 - Warner)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.5*
> 
> The only review for this one in here is from Phantom, who surprisingly rated it lower than _Annabelle_, at 2.25. It's not a show stopper, but to me _Creation_ looks better than the first part. PQ wise it's essentially an update of all the virtues of part one. Better clarity, good shadow detail, color palette is limited, but appropriate for the film's aesthetic. Visually, it really feels like a continuation (in reality, prequel) of the first installment. It's par of the course for me in terms of PQ, which is good for a relatively recent title.
> 
> Now, what a movie! Omg! I seriously think this may be the best movie in the Conjuring universe, or at least is a close second to the first part, and slightly better than Conjuring 2, which is nuts. I tell you, I wasn't prepared for this. It's been a while since a movie had me sweating this much, and in a cold night. This movie is INTENSE. Yeah, it have lots of jump scares, but unlike, say, _The Nun_, the scares really work here, and the story is leaps and bounds more interesting and scary. Fantastic horror.
> 
> The ATMOS mix is terrific, and plays a very important role in making this movie nerves wrecking. I'm honestly surprised Phantom didn't find this film as good as the first, let alone as good as the Conjuring ones, but horror is very subjective. I was delighted (read: terrified) with this film.
> 
> 
> 
> Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


Thanks for the excellent review AND for whetting my appetite to possibly purchasing it. The reason I haven't seen it (and thus have not reviewed it) is because when they had it at Redbox it was only the DVD copy (no Blu-ray) and there's no way I'm going to rent a DVD.

So, I will be checking out the price online and may pick it up soon.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^

I just finished off a Best Buy gift card by buying this. It should be here by Wednesday!


----------



## AmerCa

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> I just finished off a Best Buy gift card by buying this. It should be here by Wednesday!


That's great, man. If you have the other Conjuring movies, _Creation_ is a no brainer. I know you enjoyed the first one, so I know you'll LOVE the second part.

My sister who is a big horror fan, had commented to me that she thought the first was better. I can't see how she thinks that. Maybe watching it alone at night in a dark room and good sound would change her mind .

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^

I'm actually going to watch both of the _Annabelle_ movies sometime on Saturday or Sunday; in other words as a Double Feature! 

Of course, my first obligation on Saturday is to watch my Minnesota Vikings take on the 49ers. Some would say, "Forget that; the Vikes don't have a chance." My reply to them would be, "Yeah, that's what they said last Sunday when the Vikings played the New Orleans Saints!"


----------



## AmerCa

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^^
> 
> I'm actually going to watch both of the _Annabelle_ movies sometime on Saturday or Sunday; in other words as a Double Feature!


That's a nice idea. That's what I did, and there's a payoff.



> Of course, my first obligation on Saturday is to watch my Minnesota Vikings take on the 49ers. Some would say, "Forget that; the Vikes don't have a chance." My reply to them would be, "Yeah, that's what they said last Sunday when the Vikings played the New Orleans Saints!"


I didn't know you were a NFL fan. With my Rams out, and New England out, I really don't have dog in the rest of the playoffs. Maybe Green Bay, since I like Rodgers. But I don't follow closely the regular season, so I don't really know what's happening. When Petyon Manning retired, I kind of lost interest in the NFL.

But good luck to your Vikings. They have a title coming to them since a long time, and I don't like the 49ers.



Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^

Yep, I'm a die-hard Vikings fan which means I will more than likely "die before they ever win a Super Bowl!" Seriously, I have seen them go to 4 Super Bowls only to lose 4 times!

There used to be a famous steak house called the "Timber Lodge Steak House" in Minnesota and one of their most expensive and delicious steaks was called "The Viking." If you asked them why it's called the Viking they would tell you, "Because it's been beaten so much and is super tender."

Having said all of that...I still come back for more disappointment year after year!!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^^
> 
> I'm actually going to watch both of the _Annabelle_ movies sometime on Saturday or Sunday; in other words as a Double Feature!


There's actually three Annabelle movies by this point. Annabelle Comes Home just came out a few months back. I'd rank them strictly on entertainment value as Annabelle, Annabelle Comes Home and then Annabelle Creation. I think all of them have been made by different directors.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> There's actually three Annabelle movies by this point. Annabelle Comes Home just came out a few months back. I'd rank them strictly on entertainment value as Annabelle, Annabelle Comes Home and then Annabelle Creation. I think all of them have been made by different directors.


I actually watched and reviewed _Annabelle: Coming Home_ not that long ago.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-868.html#post58714640

The reason I'm watching the first installment is because it sets the stage for _Annabelle: Creation_. Regarding entertainment value, there are mixed reviews but there are MANY who say that _Annabelle: Creation_ is the best of the three.


----------



## AmerCa

Phantom Stranger said:


> There's actually three Annabelle movies by this point. Annabelle Comes Home just came out a few months back. *I'd rank them strictly on entertainment value as Annabelle, Annabelle Comes Home and then Annabelle Creation*. I think all of them have been made by different directors.


Got you. I haven't seen Annabelle 3, but sometimes the "best" movie isn't necessarily the most "entertaining" or "fun", so I see can see your point. I thoroughly enjoyed _Creation_, but it was very intense (to me, at least), and that could limit its replay value, compared to the first one. I love the Conjuring movies, but I don't always have the nerves to watch them.

But I have to say that I enjoyed _Creation_ more than any other Conjuring movie. I'll check out part 3 eventually.


Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## AmerCa

djoberg said:


> I actually watched and reviewed _Annabelle: Coming Home_ not that long ago.
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-868.html#post58714640


Rereading your review, I noticed you didn't talk about the movie itself. I assume you didn't like it that much?

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> Rereading your review, I noticed you didn't talk about the movie itself. I assume you didn't like it that much?
> 
> Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


I didn't like it as much as the two _Conjuring_ movies...or enough to go out and buy it after renting it. It wasn't bad, by any means. I remember wishing that the parents (Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga) would have been in it throughout the whole movie.


----------



## djoberg

*Annabelle: Creation (1080p)*

Oh my word! AmerCa was absolutely right (on both counts...PQ and Movie); this was indeed INTENSE, especially the second half. The first half was a bit slow, but that allowed for some character development. But once Annabelle became active and more malevolent, the "jumps" and "scares" really kicked in. Just so you know, my wife is gone so I watched this all ALONE....in absolute DARKNESS....with my AVR set at -2.5....and with my EYES WIDE OPEN!! It was definitely better that _Annabelle_ (the Sequel) and _Annabelle: Coming Home_ (the third installment). I still don't believe it holds a candle to the original _The Conjuring_ though; that is in a league of its own. I thought the acting was very good too on the part of Janice and her sister.

PQ-wise, it was, as AmerCa said, better than _Annabelle_. I wasn't too impressed with the first few scenes; they were good but there were quite a few "soft focus" shots and clarity/details suffered in those scenes. But about one-third way into the film it became much sharper; the outdoor daytime scenes were amazing and many of the outdoor nighttime scenes were stellar, with inky blacks and intricate shadow details. Even the indoor low-lit scenes were very good AND the really dark scenes as well.

I'm with AmerCa all the way on this one, soooo....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**

PS As I mentioned, I had the audio at -2.5 and the last half of the movie was filled with slamming DOORS, creaky FLOORS, overhead THUMPS and all kinds of "things that go BUMP in the night." I LOVED it...it's these kind of movies that make me SO GLAD to have a good Dolby Atmos speaker system.


----------



## AmerCa

^°^°^°^°^
Fantastic review, Djoberg. I think the first Conjuring might have the edge just because it was the first one and started a whole new horror franchise, arguably the best of this decade, but damn, _Creation_ comes pretty close, and it's possibly my favorite movie in the franchise. Not so long ago I rewatched _The Conjuring_, and it holds up pretty well, and it's a very good film in its own right. _Creation_ gave the same vibe.

The audio mix was great, and I imagine a proper ATMOS setup would bring the experience to another level. I watched it alone as well (like all my horror movies ), and I admit I was scared in a level only the first two Conjuring movies have done.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^

I think what made _The Conjuring_ so unique (besides a better cast), was the fact that the "malevolent spirit" inside of Carolyn (Lili Taylor) was so freaky. Granted, in _Annabelle: Creation_ you had that (with Janice), but not with the same effect or duration. Carolyn's possession was just as freaky (or more!) and convincing as that of Regan (Linda Blair) in _The Exorcist_.


----------



## SnellTHX

*Rambo: Last Blood*

Well this title was certainly a surprise. I know it's *Rambo* , but I still had very low expectations for this movie. 
It's PQ was phemonenal, razor-sharp & crystal clear 4K. the bright scenes / outdoor ranch shots were almost demo-worthy. 
Then there's the facial detail, the scars, wrinkles pores, marks, cuts, stitches, blemishes and other imperfections found on Stallone (I don't even know what to call it, its like these skin patterns almost like a rash not uncommon especially among people near the age of Stallone) I previously haven't really seen in any form of media before. the greens of the grass, the browns of the ground and blue sky all stick out well.

Unfortunately the dark scenes didn't hold up anywhere near as well and I did see some noise in the latter half of the rather short movie. 
At it's best we're talking tier 0.25 material on par with the latest X-Men or Spiderman movie. 

It is ultra-punchy and vibrant at its best but with some let downs.


*Tier recommendation: 0.75*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-872.html#post59044506

Granted, this a review of the 1080p version, but if you're right then the 4K release takes it up almost a whole tier.


----------



## djoberg

I rented _Ready or Not_, but only watched about 30 minutes of it. I did NOT care for the movie one bit (too much profanity and some gore, along with a very sick plot) and the PQ was not very good. It had a lot of noise, weak blacks, and some of the worst color-grading ever!! In fairness, there were _some_ scenes that were fairly sharp with pretty good details.

I didn't watch enough to give a score, but from what I saw I was thinking around 2.0.


----------



## djoberg

*King Kong (UHD....2017 Ultimate Edition)*

Okay, I was browsing channels the other night (on Dish Network) and I saw that _King Kong (2005 version)_ was on so I watched it. I've always liked this release but the PQ was insufferable at times. So, I popped in my HD-DVD version (I never did buy the Blu-ray release) and that gave it a definite boost in resolution and sharpness, but it still left much-to-be-desired. Then I went to Amazon and found a decent price for the UHD release, which I ordered and received in the mail earlier today. I just spent about an hour going over some of my favorite scenes.

What did I find? A "mixed bag," with some stellar shots and some not-so-stellar shots. The opening scenes, which were way too dark in previous releases, had very good lighting (in daytime outdoor scenes and in interior shots) courtesy of HDR. But once we got to Skull Island I was disappointed to see that the dark scenes (during the storm at night and in jungle scenes that lacked sunshine) were somewhat murky, resulting in a flat look void of details. Where there was sunshine it was much better, though there were instances of too much contrast resulting in a washed out look. And then there was the infamous "color-grading" (yellow, anyone?) that was very, very distracting, at least to _my eyes_.

I should mention that along with better lighting (due to HDR) the colors were also more vibrant than any previous releases. Also, there were more details and texture in close-ups of faces, though at times Naomi Watts appeared to have had her face "smoothed" by the director. Black levels were also quite good in some scenes, though as mentioned above there were some "murky shots."

I guess the bottom line is this is easily the best version I've seen, but it still doesn't compare to more UHD releases of more recent movies (like _Skull Island_, for example, which was absolutely mesmerizing). Because of this, it won't make the coveted Tier (Tier 0) and IMHO it won't reach the top of Tier 1 either. My vote goes for....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**

PS Thankfully the DTS:X audio quite good! Again, not as good as some recent titles, but much better than the audio mixes in former releases of this title.


----------



## AmerCa

^°^°^°^
Excellent review, Djoberg. I'm not a fan of that version of King Kong, but I also never watched it "properly" in terms of A/V. But I don't remember liking the story that much. The _Skull Island_ isn't a great movie either, but at least is "fun". 

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-872.html#post59044506
> 
> Granted, this a review of the 1080p version, but if you're right then the 4K release takes it up almost a whole tier.


Well I certainly agreed with all the positive parts you mentioned and I actually agree with some of your complaints as well. Much of the difference can be that the on the 4K/HDR presentation, the great is even greater, and the dull is less dull.


----------



## SnellTHX

After reviewing the entire Daniel Craig collection of blu-rays, of which it was a mixed ride of emotions. 

I see most reviewers agree that either Skyfall > Spectre > QoS > CR

with Skyfall be a level above any of the others. Skyfall filmed with 2.8K - 5K digital cameras from Arri & Red (4K DI) while the others being filmed with 35mm. (2K DI)

BOY I cannot wait for the next 007: 'No Time to Die' - which not only is mastered with a 4K DI but is filmed the PROPER IMAX 15/70mm analog celluloid film camera! According to IMDB the IMAX MSM 9802 (same camera used by Nolan in the Dark Knight series, Interstellar & Dunkirk)

Skyfall is already very close to the top, can't wait to see how good No Time to Die looks.

Worth nothing the majority of the film is probably filmed with the Panavision Millennium XL2.


----------



## SnellTHX

Anyone seen Gemini Man yet? Is it the next big thing? The 'Avatar' of 2019?

I think I've reviewed both Ang Lee's Billy Lynn's Long halftime Walk and Life of Pi. The former is currently a top 5 - top 10 disc and the latter is still top 20 IMO, being #1 when it first came out 8 years ago.

I have high hopes that Gemini Man will rival, be on par or perhaps even surpass Transformers 5: Last Knight


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^

It seems _Gemini Man_ is either being praised or condemned by reviewers. Those who don't like the PQ say they HATE the HFR (High Frame Rate) for it makes it look so ARTIFICIAL and gives it the dreaded "soap opera effect."


----------



## meli

SnellTHX said:


> Anyone seen Gemini Man yet? Is it the next big thing? ...


I saw "Gemini Man" in the theater, projected at 120fps. The movie was really bad, people in the theater were laughing out loud at the bad dialogue. But I would recommend seeing it to anyone on this forum just because of the technology.

Turns out I hate HFR, at least for movies, but I've never seen anything like it. And given the disappointing box office for "Gemini Man", there may not be any more HFR theatrical releases. I think Cameron is walking back the idea of releasing Avatar 2 in HFR.

If you have the opportunity to see it in HFR, everyone here definitely should, despite the reviews.


----------



## mrtickleuk

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^
> 
> It seems _Gemini Man_ is either being praised or condemned by reviewers. Those who don't like the PQ say they HATE the HFR (High Frame Rate) for it makes it look so ARTIFICIAL and gives it the dreaded "soap opera effect."


Yes, plenty of discussion elsewhere so I won't duplicate. But the point about reviewers - I think there was resounding agreement on one aspect, which is the most important - it was a terrible film!


----------



## djoberg

meli said:


> I saw "Gemini Man" in the theater, projected at 120fps. The movie was really bad, people in the theater were laughing out loud at the bad dialogue. But I would recommend seeing it to anyone on this forum just because of the technology.
> 
> Turns out I hate HFR, at least for movies, but I've never seen anything like it. And given the disappointing box office for "Gemini Man", there may not be any more HFR theatrical releases. I think Cameron is walking back the idea of releasing Avatar 2 in HFR.
> 
> *If you have the opportunity to see it in HFR, everyone here definitely should, despite the reviews.*





mrtickleuk said:


> Yes, plenty of discussion elsewhere so I won't duplicate. But the point about reviewers - I think there was resounding agreement on one aspect, which is the most important - *it was a terrible film!*


Okay, my understanding is that the HFR (60fps) can only be seen on the 4K/UHD Blu-ray. On the 1080p Blu-ray release it will be seen in 24fps. I had wanted to see it with the HFR just to get my own take on it, but there's no way I'm going to buy the UHD version just to see if I like the HFR (unless it ends up in a "bargain bin" someday at Wally World ). I have way too many UHD titles now that don't have a good "Repeat Viewing Value" (they are "terrible films") and I don't want to add to that list.


----------



## WynsWrld98

djoberg said:


> Okay, my understanding is that the HFR (60fps) can only be seen on the 4K/UHD Blu-ray. On the 1080p Blu-ray release it will be seen in 24fps. I had wanted to see it with the HFR just to get my own take on it, but there's no way I'm going to buy the UHD version just to see if I like the HFR (unless it ends up in a "bargain bin" someday at Wally World ). I have way too many UHD titles now that don't have a good "Repeat Viewing Value" (they are "terrible films") and I don't want to add to that list.


Or do what I did and rent the 4K UHD from Redbox for $2.50. I'm a sharpness freak and ate up the HFR it's different than 24 Hz but I love it.


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^
> 
> It seems _Gemini Man_ is either being praised or condemned by reviewers. Those who don't like the PQ say they HATE the HFR (High Frame Rate) for it makes it look so ARTIFICIAL and gives it the dreaded "soap opera effect."


But that's the thing.. it seems the only hate it gets is the HFR. So if you like HFR, it should be phenomenal. And besides, even if you hate HFR, if it has 'better than Transformers: LK' picture, it is a MUST SEE


----------



## SnellTHX

mrtickleuk said:


> Yes, plenty of discussion elsewhere so I won't duplicate. But the point about reviewers - I think there was resounding agreement on one aspect, which is the most important - it was a terrible film!


In this case, I don't care how about a film is if the picture quality is good enough. I could stare at LG/Samsung/Sony 8K&HDR demos all day long


----------



## djoberg

WynsWrld98 said:


> Or do what I did and rent the 4K UHD from Redbox for $2.50. I'm a sharpness freak and ate up the HFR it's different than 24 Hz but I love it.


We have two (Redbox) locally and neither of them carry UHD Blu-rays yet. If they did, I would surely rent it.



SnellTHX said:


> But that's the thing.. it seems the only hate it gets is the HFR. So if you like HFR, it should be phenomenal. And besides, even if you hate HFR, if it has 'better than Transformers: LK' picture, it is a MUST SEE


Again, I would love to see it to get my take on it. I must confess I HATE the SOE (Soap Opera Effect) so if it looks like that and I couldn't adjust to it, I'd probably turn it off.


----------



## djoberg

Okay, it seems that I've been on a weird diet of "Humble Pie" in the last few weeks, for I've had to retract statements that I made dogmatically about certain titles. As you may have experienced, "humble pie" is very hard to swallow, yet today I managed to "gulp down my pride" and now I'm at my keyboard...ready to confess to "you all" my change of heart.

I said "dogmatically" that I would NOT be purchasing _Gemini Man_ due to many calling it a "terrible film" and because I didn't want to add another title to my "Do not view again" shelf. I also said I hated the Soap Opera Effect and I didn't want to take a chance on not being able to adjust to that look. But I've changed my mind! Why? Because I've read enough reviews from "respectable reviewers" (Ralph Potts, doblu.com, hi-def digest, and Blu-ray.com) who say the PQ is absolutely amazing and that they were able to make the adjustment to the HFR's "artificial look" quite easily. Two of them said it is now sitting on the very top of their "Demo Pile" to show off to family and friends. And some even said the movie wasn't all that bad. This clinched it for me.

So, I will be ordering it right after I hit "SUBMIT REPLY."


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^

For those of you who are considering purchasing the UHD release of _Gemini Man_, you may be interested in reading the following article:

https://www.hometheaterforum.com/paramount-presents-gemini-man-4k-60-fps-demonstration/

You will see that the writer of this article found the movie "distracting" because of his lifetime experience viewing movies in 24fps. This may be your experience too...or it may not. Snell referred to the movie _Transformers: The Last Knight_. This UHD movie, though not presented in the HFR of 60fps, actually has almost an "artificial look" due to its superior clarity and details. Another example that comes to my mind is _The Hobbit: Trilogy_ which is only seen (so far) in 24fps on Blu-ray disc, but it too has such remarkable clarity and details that some have been distracted by it. The fact is Peter Jackson shot that trilogy in 48fps for the cinema and then the blu-ray transfer was done in 24fps. Personally, I really like the trilogy's PQ...I gave them a solid Tier 0 score and they deserve it.

The Bottom Line: Even if you're used to 24fps, you may find yourself liking/loving the HFR. I sure hope I do!! (Man, that "Humble Pie" isn't so bad after all!)


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> For those of you who are considering purchasing the UHD release of _Gemini Man_, you may be interested in reading the following article:
> 
> https://www.hometheaterforum.com/paramount-presents-gemini-man-4k-60-fps-demonstration/
> 
> You will see that the writer of this article found the movie "distracting" because of his lifetime experience viewing movies in 24fps. This may be your experience too...or it may not. Snell referred to the movie _Transformers: The Last Knight_. This UHD movie, though not presented in the HFR of 60fps, actually has almost an "artificial look" due to its superior clarity and details. Another example that comes to my mind is _The Hobbit: Trilogy_ which is only seen (so far) in 24fps on Blu-ray disc, but it too has such remarkable clarity and details that some have been distracted by it. The fact is Peter Jackson shot that trilogy in 48fps for the cinema and then the blu-ray transfer was done in 24fps. Personally, I really like the trilogy's PQ...I gave them a solid Tier 0 score and they deserve it.
> 
> The Bottom Line: Even if you're used to 24fps, you may find yourself liking/loving the HFR. I sure hope I do!! (Man, that "Humble Pie" isn't so bad after all!)


It goes far better with certain types of content. I couldn't see myself watching a drama/melodrama at that frame rate. Action? Maybe, depending on a few factors. Hollywood keeps dabbling with it because they anticipate an audience developing from gamers more used to those frame rates. Anything to keep teenagers going to the movie theaters.


----------



## dla26

DarthDoxie said:


> *La La Land*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 1.25*
> 
> Current placement. I expected more out of this one, maybe the UHD is better?


Just came here to post my review of the UHD version. I didn't see the original Blu-ray, but I think you must have been feeling generous. I would give *La La Land UHD* a *Tier 2.5*. It looked out of focus for most of the film, almost no details to be found anywhere. The colors were just...ok. There were some scenes at the end that gave it some life, but I was pretty disappointed. I have seen many 1080p Blu-rays that look much better than this.


----------



## SnellTHX

dla26 said:


> Just came here to post my review of the UHD version. I didn't see the original Blu-ray, but I think you must have been feeling generous. I would give *La La Land UHD* a *Tier 2.5*. It looked out of focus for most of the film, almost no details to be found anywhere. The colors were just...ok. There were some scenes at the end that gave it some life, but I was pretty disappointed. I have seen many 1080p Blu-rays that look much better than this.


I can't remember if I posted my review or not. I vaguely remember being disappointed. The movie itself was terrible so I never made it through the entire film. I heard plenty of reviewers giving it really high scores for its picture quality, but if memory serves me right I thought it looked pretty average too.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> It goes far better with certain types of content. I couldn't see myself watching a drama/melodrama at that frame rate. Action? Maybe, depending on a few factors. Hollywood keeps dabbling with it because they anticipate an audience developing from gamers more used to those frame rates. Anything to keep teenagers going to the movie theaters.


I hear you Phantom. Yet my reason for wanting to see this title is because of "our love" of PQ and from everything I've read the PQ is simply amazing; perhaps the best some have ever seen. And this assessment is coming from some who do NOT like the "artificial...soap opera effect." Yet they still admitted it has superior PQ. We (you, me and everyone who frequents this thread) love good PQ and I guess I feel compelled...almost obligated, to check this one out.


----------



## SnellTHX

*Terminator: Dark Fate*

Another example of a 4.5K film sourced from a 4K DI (I'm starting to see a positive trend, most (almost every) movies I have seen lately have 4K DI) which gives it a sharp image, with great details and it looks very punchy with great depth thanks to the resolution in combination with good use of HDR / WCG. very warm amber/sepia/brown/golden/yellow tones but I thought it looked pleasant. No grains, no noise, no softness, no apparent flaws... but it isn't as sharp, as detailed, as punchy, as 3D-like and as vibrant as other top titles-

It didn't look as good as it did in the IMAX (it looked like a top reference title there) and it's best isn't as good as say, Rambo: Last Blood's best, but its worst wasn't as bad as Rambo's. while Rambo varied from 0.25 - 1.25 (average = 0.75) I thought Dark Fate's image was more consistent.

*Tier recommendation: 0.75*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^

Thanks Snell for the good review on _Terminator: Dark Fate_.

So, have you purchased a copy of the UHD release of _Gemini Man_ yet? I'm assuming you either have or will be since you are the one who brought this up to us on this thread. I'll be curious to read your review once you do. I always respect your forthrightness and honesty when assessing the PQ of Blu-rays.

My copy arrives late tomorrow and I hope to watch it sometime on Thursday or Friday.


----------



## djoberg

*Gemini Man (UHD....60fps)*

So, what do I think? Let me sum it up in THREE WORDS:

*PURE EYE CANDY!!!*

Is this as good as _Transformers: The Last Knight_ which currently holds the "King of the Hill" title? I believe it is...and perhaps it's better! That's a hard call though for I'm still trying to process what I just saw. This definitely has equal or better DETAILS, DEPTH, CONTRAST, FLESH TONES, BLACK LEVELS, and CLARITY. But it's the COLORS that takes this one up a notch (courtesy of Dolby Vision); they simply "blew me away." 

How did I like the HFR? I was surprised that for the majority of the film it didn't bother me nearly as much as I thought it would. Having said that, I still prefer, as of now, 24fps, but that may very well be due to "conditioning" since 24fps is all I've ever known. What I can say is I will watch this again and I will be using this for my new "Demo Disc!"

I should also mention that I slipped in the 1080p version immediately afterwards and watched quite a few scenes. Believe me when I say, "There is not real comparison as far the PQ goes...the UHD blows the 1080p 'out of the water.'" The 1080p version may very well end up in Tier 0 (for it deserves to), but it won't be at or even near the very top.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (#1 or, at the very least, tied with #1)*

PS Two things...the Dolby Atmos mix was awesome AND the movie wasn't as bad as many have said...it's not going to win any awards, but I thought the acting was fairly good and the chemistry between Will Smith and Mary Elizabeth Winstead was effective...and the action scenes were okay.


----------



## meli

djoberg said:


> *Gemini Man (UHD....60fps)*
> 
> So, what do I think? Let me sum it up in THREE WORDS:
> 
> *PURE EYE CANDY!!!*


Wow, you had a dramatic change of heart within the space of one page. It's commendable to have an open mind.
I'll have to check out the UHD Bluray someday to see how it compares with my memory of the 120fps 3D projection (which I really disliked, but I'm super glad I got to experience).


----------



## djoberg

meli said:


> Wow, you had a dramatic change of heart within the space of one page. It's commendable to have an open mind.
> I'll have to check out the UHD Bluray someday to see how it compares with my memory of the 120fps 3D projection (which I really disliked, but I'm super glad I got to experience).


My "change of heart" is due, primarily, to the awesome PQ I saw tonight! I know I had stated that I have always hated the "Soap Opera Effect," but before tonight the only time I ever saw the SOE was on satellite broadcasts; namely, on "Soap Operas" (in Full Disclosure I do NOT follow Soap Operas but every once in awhile, when I'm flipping through channels, I would spend a few minutes watching one).

I was fully expecting to be totally distracted by the SOE in _Gemini Man_; what I wasn't expecting was to be so blown away by the PQ that it "distracted me from the SOE!!" There are some scenes, like the daytime scenes that took place in Columbia, that were absolutely JAW-DROPPING! The COLORS popped like I've never seen before and it wasn't in an unrealistic way. I make frequent trips to the Bahamas and I've vacationed in Cabo San Lucas, Mexico...places that are known for flamboyant colors in buildings and clothing...and what I saw tonight in _Gemini Man_ reminded me of those places with their dazzling colors.

To reiterate though, I still, as of now, prefer 24fps over the HFR of 60fps. The motion in HFR films is going to require time to adjust and appreciate. I'm just glad that it didn't take me "out of the movie" and thus I was allowed to appreciate the superior PQ instead. Again, to _my eyes_ this was PURE EYE CANDY!!


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^
> 
> Thanks Snell for the good review on _Terminator: Dark Fate_.
> 
> So, have you purchased a copy of the UHD release of _Gemini Man_ yet? I'm assuming you either have or will be since you are the one who brought this up to us on this thread. I'll be curious to read your review once you do. I always respect your forthrightness and honesty when assessing the PQ of Blu-rays.
> 
> My copy arrives late tomorrow and I hope to watch it sometime on Thursday or Friday.



I haven't yet, not available here until mid february. Though I guess I'll buy from US


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> *Gemini Man (UHD....60fps)*
> 
> So, what do I think? Let me sum it up in THREE WORDS:
> 
> *PURE EYE CANDY!!!*
> 
> Is this as good as _Transformers: The Last Knight_ which currently holds the "King of the Hill" title? I believe it is...and perhaps it's better! That's a hard call though for I'm still trying to process what I just saw. This definitely has equal or better DETAILS, DEPTH, CONTRAST, FLESH TONES, BLACK LEVELS, and CLARITY. But it's the COLORS that takes this one up a notch (courtesy of Dolby Vision); they simply "blew me away."
> 
> How did I like the HFR? I was surprised that for the majority of the film it didn't bother me nearly as much as I thought it would. Having said that, I still prefer, as of now, 24fps, but that may very well be due to "conditioning" since 24fps is all I've ever known. What I can say is I will watch this again and I will be using this for my new "Demo Disc!"
> 
> I should also mention that I slipped in the 1080p version immediately afterwards and watched quite a few scenes. Believe me when I say, "There is not real comparison as far the PQ goes...the UHD blows the 1080p 'out of the water.'" The 1080p version may very well end up in Tier 0 (for it deserves to), but it won't be at or even near the very top.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (#1 or, at the very least, tied with #1)*
> 
> PS Two things...the Dolby Atmos mix was awesome AND the movie wasn't as bad as many have said...it's not going to win any awards, but I thought the acting was fairly good and the chemistry between Will Smith and Mary Elizabeth Winstead was effective...and the action scenes were okay.



Jesus Christ, Denny.

Now I am a believer.

Well, I have been from the start, based on Ang Lee's track record of making top 3 reference movies.


+ what I've heard from other people, 120fps set aside.

If you say this eye candy is as good, or even better than the PQ-GOD that is Transformers: Last Knight 

Wow.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^

The only area where this isn't as good as T:TLK is in the area of SHARPNESS. Don't get me wrong, for the vast majority of the film it is "sharp as a tack," but there are shots with some SOFTNESS, which I believe is typical because of the HFR. I have seen this same thing on "Soap Operas."


----------



## subacabra

As good as Gemini Man looks, it still LOOKS like a bunch of actors running around playing actors, recorded with a good cell phone lol


----------



## djoberg

subacabra said:


> As good as Gemini Man looks, it still LOOKS like a bunch of actors running around playing actors, recorded with a good cell phone lol


Yep, that is the effect you get with HFR. But I will say this, we often talk about good PQ being like "looking out your window" and that's exactly what I kept thinking last night during the movie. It truly had that "hyper-realism" look...which we're not used to in a typical film with 24fps. Again, we are so used to the look of 24fps that 60fps looks fake, when in reality it is actually more realistic (like a recording on a good cell phone, to use your own words).


----------



## SnellTHX

subacabra said:


> As good as Gemini Man looks, it still LOOKS like a bunch of actors running around playing actors, recorded with a good cell phone lol


Some spacecraft alien technology kind of smartphone yeah


----------



## sleepingatsea

I actually haven't seen Transformers T:TLK yet, keen to check this out on the projector - 4K or 3D?


----------



## djoberg

Brettmckinney said:


> I actually haven't seen Transformers T:TLK yet, keen to check this out on the projector - 4K or 3D?


So, I'm assuming your projector does 4K and 3D, is that right? If so, that's your call, if you really like 3D I'd check reviews on the 3D release. Of course, that is only in 1080p so the PQ won't be nearly as good as the 4K/UHD with HDR.


----------



## djoberg

*Correction regarding "Transformers: The Last Knight"*

I have a correction to make. I have repeatedly said that _Transformers: The Last Knight_ is at the #1 spot in Tier 0. This is WRONG, for _Planet Earth 2_ is still the "King of the Hill" in Tier Blu. I was reminded of this a few minutes ago when I visited the "Rankings Thread." I believe my reason for these wrong statements is because there have been a number of reviews since the last update by Phantom where members have indeed voted it (T:TLK) for the #1 spot. If I'm not mistaken, I may have actually recommended it for the #2 spot...thinking that _Planet Earth 2_ still deserves to be at the top.


----------



## AmerCa

*Ghostsbusters: Answer The Call (2016 - Sony) (Theatrical) *










*Tier Recommendation: 1.5 *

Given the generally poor reviews of this movie, maybe it's not that surprising there's no ranking of this movie in this thread. The overall PQ is quite satisfying, with quite a few notable sequences, particularly in the last quarter of the film. The different ghosts that show give opportunity to many eye-popping moments with really nice colors and great contrast, especially with the pop-out effects used with the black bars, but the "regular" scenes are inconsistent, and are not as sharp or detailed as you'd expect. As a whole, it's a "standard" blockbuster on terms of PQ. Generally strong, but nothing particularly special.

In a similar fashion as Djoberg, I had to eat crow with this movie. As a lot of people, i basically looked down on it before even seeing it. I just bought it because I found it for -really- cheap, so no real loss if I didn't like the movie. Alas, I had a great time watching it. It has very little to do with the original, and it never tries to be like it. It was just a fun popcorn movie to spend two hours with, and I was entertained. It helped that it has a very fun audio track that contributes a lot to the entertainment factor. It's not a fantastic film, but it's far from the garbage many reviews would led you to think.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## burnfout

Ordered a Sony KD-65AG9 to be delivered on friday, along with a new 4K player. Finally making the BIG upgrade. 

Excited as a little boy on chirstmas eve  


Can not wait to explore all the UHD goodness. Now to decide what will be my first watch..  

BTW the link on the first page of this thread to the rankings doesn't work anymore.


----------



## SnellTHX

burnfout said:


> Ordered a Sony KD-65AG9 to be delivered on friday, along with a new 4K player. Finally making the BIG upgrade.
> 
> Excited as a little boy on chirstmas eve
> 
> 
> Can not wait to explore all the UHD goodness. Now to decide what will be my first watch..
> 
> BTW the link on the first page of this thread to the rankings doesn't work anymore.


Dunkirk or Transformers: LK is my suggestion. Or perhaps save them for last, as nothing (except maybe Gemini man) Will look as good


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> I have a correction to make. I have repeatedly said that _Transformers: The Last Knight_ is at the #1 spot in Tier 0. This is WRONG, for _Planet Earth 2_ is still the "King of the Hill" in Tier Blu. I was reminded of this a few minutes ago when I visited the "Rankings Thread." I believe my reason for these wrong statements is because there have been a number of reviews since the last update by Phantom where members have indeed voted it (T:TLK) for the #1 spot. If I'm not mistaken, I may have actually recommended it for the #2 spot...thinking that _Planet Earth 2_ still deserves to be at the top.


I actually haven't seen Planet Earth II yet... But its consistently ranked a top 3 or top 5 disc.


----------



## burnfout

SnellTHX said:


> Dunkirk or Transformers: LK is my suggestion. Or perhaps save them for last, as nothing (except maybe Gemini man) Will look as good


I picked up the 4K bluray combo of Dunkirk last June, in preparation of this upgrade, seems like that was a nice choice.

Also just picked up Bad Boys 1+2 on 4K, for some nice weekend entertainment. And Joker will arrive next Wednesday. 
Good times


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> I actually haven't seen Planet Earth II yet... But its consistently ranked a top 3 or top 5 disc.


You HAVE to see this collection at some point Snell; it is definitely worthy of being in the "Top 3" of live action Blu-rays. Some may be thinking, "Okay this has spectacular PQ in landscapes and animals, but what about humans?" One of the discs is about animals that live in the city and there are plenty of shots of humans in it...the facial details/texture is topnotch, as are the flesh tones.


----------



## SnellTHX

burnfout said:


> I picked up the 4K bluray combo of Dunkirk last June, in preparation of this upgrade, seems like that was a nice choice.
> 
> Also just picked up Bad Boys 1+2 on 4K, for some nice weekend entertainment. And Joker will arrive next Wednesday.
> Good times


Enjoy my friend


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> You HAVE to see this collection at some point Snell; it is definitely worthy of being in the "Top 3" of live action Blu-rays. Some may be thinking, "Okay this has spectacular PQ in landscapes and animals, but what about humans?" One of the discs is about animals that live in the city and there are plenty of shots of humans in it...the facial details/texture is topnotch, as are the flesh tones.


I know. I really do


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Motherless Brooklyn*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

A visually striking period noir from Edward Norton set in the 1950s. Having done nothing at the box office, Norton's second directorial feature was unfortunately passed up for UHD. No matter, this WB Blu-ray has stunning video quality and rich production values. There's no doubt I would have placed this BD in Tier 0 just a few years ago before 4K became a reality.

Refined digital cinematography and razor-sharp definition produce a flawless presentation dripping with clarity. Mastered at 2K resolution, it still would have been nice to see _Motherless Brooklyn_ receive a HDR pass for UHD. Perfectly mastered for Blu-ray, this is high-quality demo material.


----------



## AmerCa

*The Gallows (2015 - Warner) *







*Tier Recommendation: 2.5 *

This movie is found-footage film and as such, the PQ jumps all around the place. It was very hard to properly place it, but tier 2.5 gives you a good idea of what to expect. The irregular quality fits well the concept of the movie, but there's really not much to talk about. It's fine for what it is.

The selling point of this little horror movie is definitely the ATMOS mix, which -released in 2015- must have been among the very first. I can't comment specifically on the ATMOS, but the core 7.1 Dolby TrueHD track is very effective and well done. Unfortunately, not even the audio can save the movie from being merely acceptable. I didn't hate it as much as most reviewers, but I can only recommend it as a rental or a bargain bin buy.


Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## AmerCa

* Rings (2017 - Paramount) *








*Tier Recommendation: 1.75 *

Djoberg ranked this at tier 1.5 and I'm going to rank it a bit lower. I had caught this movie on TV before, and I didn't like it. I bought it because I found it for cheap, and I thought a proper A/V experience could change my perspective. I hated it even more, goddamit.

The visuals and color grading reminded me of *A Cure For Wellness*, directed by Goren Verbinski. Which kinda make sense, as Verbinski was the director of the first Ring. But the PQ of the former has nothing to do with this one. Audio was disappointing, movie was a chore to sit through, damn. _The Gallows_ was a questionable film in many respects, but at least it works on a basic level. I got scared a few times. There was some tension. I don't know what _Rings_ attempted to do.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## SnellTHX

Blluuurgh Gemini Man won't arrive until the end of the month... Could have just ordered here since release is 24th of Feb here 

Not been this hyped for a 4K disc in years 

Even without seeing it I advise everyone to check it out


----------



## Phantom Stranger

AmerCa said:


> *The Gallows (2015 - Warner) *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.5 *
> 
> This movie is found-footage film and as such, the PQ jumps all around the place. It was very hard to properly place it, but tier 2.5 gives you a good idea of what to expect. The irregular quality fits well the concept of the movie, but there's really not much to talk about. It's fine for what it is.
> 
> The selling point of this little horror movie is definitely the ATMOS mix, which -released in 2015- must have been among the very first. I can't comment specifically on the ATMOS, but the core 7.1 Dolby TrueHD track is very effective and well done. Unfortunately, not even the audio can save the movie from being merely acceptable. I didn't hate it as much as most reviewers, but I can only recommend it as a rental or a bargain bin buy.
> 
> 
> Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


I don't remember scoring the disc for the PQ Tiers but I ended up reviewing the sequel earlier this year. They dropped the found-footage aspect in the sequel and turned it into a more conventional story. The sequel wasn't very good.


----------



## AmerCa

Phantom Stranger said:


> I don't remember scoring the disc for the PQ Tiers but I ended up reviewing the sequel earlier this year. They dropped the found-footage aspect in the sequel and turned it into a more conventional story. The sequel wasn't very good.


I didn't know there was a sequel. I'd be willing to check it out if I could find it as cheap as the first. It sucks to read there's wasn't much improvement.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

Our thread has been a bit "slow" lately. I've have been extremely busy and tomorrow we leave on a cross-country ski trip for 5 days. But guess what? I just ordered the UHD copy of _Maleficent: Mistress of Evil_ and it should be in my mail next Friday. I hope to watch it right away. Reviews on the PQ have been very good!!

In the reviews I've read they were especially impressed with the COLORS (courtesy of HDR). I rented the 1080 Blu-ray on the first installment and found the colors to be excellent on that as well. I gave that a Tier 0 (.75) rating back in 2014. Here is my review:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-734.html#post28795218


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> Our thread has been a bit "slow" lately. I've have been extremely busy and tomorrow we leave on a cross-country ski trip for 5 days. But guess what? I just ordered the UHD copy of _Maleficent: Mistress of Evil_ and it should be in my mail next Friday. I hope to watch it right away. Reviews on the PQ have been very good!!
> 
> In the reviews I've read they were especially impressed with the COLORS (courtesy of HDR). I rented the 1080 Blu-ray on the first installment and found the colors to be excellent on that as well.


I'll try to make it up this weekend. I've been neglecting things here of late and plan to post more reviews.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Nightingale* 

recommendation: *Tier 2.25**

The harrowing period piece, filmed in Australia, is presented at 1.37:1 with fine picture quality and outstanding production values. Some banding from Shout Factory's AVC encode, but otherwise passable on a technical level. The moody, dim opening act gets more color once the narrative shifts to the bush in Australia. Adequate definition and inconsistent clarity drop this into tier 2.0.

*The House That Jack Built*

recommendation: *Tier 3.0**

Lars Von Trier's alienating film has serviceable but limited picture quality by today's better standards. On the soft side with somewhat questionable shadow delineation, the gritty cinematography looks rough at times. A better AVC encode this time by Shout Factory, which gives each cut of the film its own BD-50. I imagine this is a perfect reproduction of the source material, reflecting Lars Von Trier's intentions.


*Rabid (2019)*


recommendation: *Tier 1.5**


A reimagined update on the David Cronenberg horror movie, _Rabid_ has pristine-looking HD video. Lacks some of the better depth and dimensionality of the best Tier One discs, but certainly matches those discs in clarity and detail.


*Nighthawks (2019)*


recommendation: *Tier 2.0**


An indie thriller with satisfactory, if pedestrian, video quality. Decent definition and clarity, but also missing the kind of pop and sizzle of better BD picture quality. Not connected in any way to the older Stallone flick.


*Sliding Doors*


recommendation: *Tier 3.5**


Now over twenty years old as a movie, Shout Factory's presentation is largely pleasing without being an overwhelming improvement. The Gwyneth Paltrow romantic vehicle has solid grain reproduction from a 2K film transfer struck in Europe. The color grading could have actually been tweaked some more, colors are a tad flat and dull.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^

Way to go Phantom!! Five reviews in one post....definitely a record for a regular contributor!!!


----------



## djoberg

*Maleficent: Mistress of Evil (UHD)*

I arrived home earlier than expected and so did my copy of this delightful CGI marvel! I was very pleased with the PQ and the AQ was very good as well (a pleasant surprise for a Disney release).

I won't go into a lot of detail but the main highlights are:

1) DETAILS...on my, what a visual feast, from facial close-ups to costumes and everything in between!

2) COLORS...they literally POP off the screen at times, especially in bright, daytime scenes of the kingdom!

3) BLACK LEVELS/SHADOW DETAILS...gorgeous in the vast majority of scenes!

4) CLARITY...at times it was so SHARP you felt you could reach into the screen and touch what you were looking at.

I gave the 1080p release of the first installment a ranking of Tier 0 (.75). This easily falls somewhere in the top one-third of that tier. I'll be conservative and opt for....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (.33)*


----------



## DarthDoxie

Been awhile since I posted any rankings...so hold on tight, here we go.

*Toy Story 2 (UHD)*
 recommendation: *Tier 0* (0.25)*

 *Kansas City Confidential *(The Film Detective release)
recommendation:* Tier 4.0 *(current ranking)

*Captain Marvel (UHD)*
 recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

*Iron Man (UHD)*
 recommendation: *Tier 0* (0.75)*

*Niagara*
recommendation: *Tier 1.0 *(current ranking)

*Trouble With Harry, The*
 recommendation: *Tier 1.0 *(current ranking)

*Moon (UHD)*
 recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

*Iron Man 2 (UHD)
 *recommendation: *Tier 0* (0.75)*

*Assault on Precinct 13 *(Shout Factory)*
 *recommendation:* Tier 3.0**

*Andromeda Strain, The *(Arrow)*
 *recommendation:* Tier 3.25**

*Thor (UHD)
 *recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

*Torn Curtain
 *recommendation:* Tier 2.75*(current ranking)

*Ringu *(Arrow)*
 *recommendation: *Tier 3.75**

*Earth: One Amazing Day (UHD)*
recommendation: *Tier 0* (Top 10)*

*Unbreakable
 *recommendation:* Tier 3.0 *(current ranking)

*Mary Poppins**
 *recommendation: *Tier 2.5 *(current ranking)


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^

Whoa! SIXTEEN titles!! I guess Phantom's record just flew out the window!!!


----------



## DarthDoxie

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Whoa! SIXTEEN titles!! I guess Phantom's record just flew out the window!!!



No write-ups though, I'm slacking in that department


----------



## dragonbud0

djoberg said:


> *Maleficent: Mistress of Evil (UHD)*
> ....
> 
> I gave the 1080p release of the first installment a ranking of Tier 0 (.75). This easily falls somewhere in the top one-third of that tier. I'll be conservative and opt for....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (.33)*


+1. It's an eye candy to show off your gears. The story was predictable. Like most Disney films, they really know how to spend money and making the most of it. It's great family entertainment.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Whoa! SIXTEEN titles!! I guess Phantom's record just flew out the window!!!


The legendary record lasted all of three posts.

*Swamp Thing: The Complete Series*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

Due to Warner losing out on a tax rebate from the state of North Carolina, _Swamp Thing_ only ran one season before getting canceled on DC Universe, the new streaming service. The complete series is spread evenly over two BD-50s. Offering a desaturated palette with flawless black levels, this is pure 1080P video with serious definition and razor-sharp detail. Not quite as eye-popping as sister shows Doom Patrol and Titans on the streaming outlet, this is still thoroughly impressive-looking television befitting premium cable. A hint of banding in the AVC encode is the only issue marring the otherwise pristine presentation.

_Swamp Thing_ is driven by its visual effects and you would think the producers might soften its video to hide the CGI better. In fact, _Swamp Thing_ blends its CGI better than just about any other television production I've seen. The impressive video quality doesn't take a dip, even in the numerous creature scenes. Shadow delineation is superb.


----------



## toonj64

Ok so im seeing some tier suggestions for the latest UHD movies in the thread but I cant find for the life of me a list that is newer than 2017!
Where the heck is it??


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Black Hole, The (Disney Movie Club exclusive)*

recommendation: *Tier 4.0**

All the optical special effects shots have beat the sharpness and color palette into submission and we are left with a mostly fuzzy and muddy mess. The few non-special effects shots are nice and sharp with bright colors.


----------



## djoberg

I just got done watching _Gemini Man_ for the SECOND time! Man, do I love the PQ on this UHD title!! Say what you will about the HFR, one can't deny it has the best PQ to be seen in a live action movie (including _Transformers: The Last Knight_). It's like watching a UHD HFR "Demo Disc" for nearly two hours, except this one has some fairly good action scenes and some very good chemistry between Will Smith and Mary Elizabeth Winstead.

I can't wait for others to view this and to chime in with your impressions. I'm especially thinking of Snell!!


----------



## DarthDoxie

*20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (Disney Movie Club exclusive)*

recommendation: *Tier 3.0**

*Gentlemen Prefer Blondes*

recommendation: *Tier 3.0** 

*Judge, The*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**


----------



## burnfout

djoberg said:


> I just got done watching _Gemini Man_ for the SECOND time! Man, do I love the PQ on this UHD title!! Say what you will about the HFR, one can't deny it has the best PQ to be seen in a live action movie (including _Transformers: The Last Knight_). It's like watching a UHD HFR "Demo Disc" for nearly two hours, except this one has some fairly good action scenes and some very good chemistry between Will Smith and Mary Elizabeth Winstead.
> 
> I can't wait for others to view this and to chime in with your impressions. I'm especially thinking of Snell!!



Gonna have to add this to the wishlist, even though I've already seen the film.


----------



## djoberg

burnfout said:


> Gonna have to add this to the wishlist, even though I've already seen the film.


So, what did you think of _Dunkirk_?


----------



## burnfout

djoberg said:


> So, what did you think of _Dunkirk_?


Was the first disc I popped in after installing the TV, absolutely stunning, couldn't believe my eyes when it started.


----------



## djoberg

burnfout said:


> Was the first disc I popped in after installing the TV, absolutely stunning, couldn't believe my eyes when it started


I've had my OLED now for going on 2 years and I still "can't believe my eyes" at times...it's that good when fed a good source! Movies like _Transformers: The Last Knight_ and _Gemini Man_ are something to behold.


----------



## djoberg

*Midway (1080p)*

After reading reviews (with less-than-stellar marks for the movie itself) I decided to visit a local Redbox. The movie was indeed disappointing, especially when comparing it with the original (1976). The PQ was much more satisfying, but it had its issues, namely, some SOFT SHOTS and HEAVY GRAIN...which resulted in a lack of details and depth. The color palette was also nothing to brag about...very MUTED throughout with the exception of some isolated scenes. I found that the PQ got better and better as the movie progressed and during the last half it was worthy of Tier 0. Not so much in the first half.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**

PS The Dolby Atmos mix was pretty good. I did have to turn my volume dial to about -5 to really appreciate it though.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*White Snake*

recommendation: *Tier 0* (.5)*

From China comes this lavish animated fantasy epic set 500 years ago in imperial China. Put out by Shout Factory for GKIDS, Hollywood animation houses like Pixar have almost nothing on _White Snake's_ stunning CGI animation. Think _Kung Fu Panda_ but more serious in tone as snake demons battle humans. 

Nigh flawless video quality, this is a top-notch animated presentation. Great character designs, fluid movement and beautiful colors make for real eye candy. Pulling this off at 1080P resolution on Blu-ray reminds us that the format isn't obsolete quite yet. A few years back, there is no doubt I would have placed this very high in Tier 0.


*Piglet's Big Movie*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

Winnie the Pooh and friends make a warm splash in this 2003 traditionally animated feature production by Disney. An exclusive BD release from the Disney Movie Club, it was actually animated in Japan. The 74-minute main feature gets a BD-25, encoded in AVC bitrates frequently reaching the upper 30s. The 1.66:1 presentation receives a perfectly decent transfer that offers complete fidelity and transparency to the composited master. The digital Ink & Paint animation process comes out looking okay despite a few questionable zooms.

The color palette is slightly more reserved than Disney's usual feature films starring the gang from the Hundred Acre Wood. Particularly, both Winnie and Rabbit have less saturated color. That seems to be a subjective decision made by the filmmakers. The print is pristine, the elements have been kept in perfect condition.

It's a clean, snappy transfer that looks very nice on Blu-ray. Nothing overtly wrong in the picture quality and definitely deserves getting released on BD.


----------



## dragonbud0

Phantom Stranger said:


> *White Snake*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 0* (.5)*
> 
> From China comes this lavish animated fantasy epic set 500 years ago in imperial China. Put out by Shout Factory for GKIDS, Hollywood animation houses like Pixar have almost nothing on _White Snake's_ stunning CGI animation. Think _Kung Fu Panda_ but more serious in tone as snake demons battle humans.
> 
> Nigh flawless video quality, this is a top-notch animated presentation. Great character designs, fluid movement and beautiful colors make for real eye candy. Pulling this off at 1080P resolution on Blu-ray reminds us that the format isn't obsolete quite yet. A few years back, there is no doubt I would have placed this very high in Tier 0.


Thanks. I'm always a sucker for cartoon/anime. Will give it a try.


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> I just got done watching _Gemini Man_ for the SECOND time! Man, do I love the PQ on this UHD title!! Say what you will about the HFR, one can't deny it has the best PQ to be seen in a live action movie (including _Transformers: The Last Knight_). It's like watching a UHD HFR "Demo Disc" for nearly two hours, except this one has some fairly good action scenes and some very good chemistry between Will Smith and Mary Elizabeth Winstead.
> 
> I can't wait for others to view this and to chime in with your impressions. I'm especially thinking of Snell!!


I am anxiously waiting for this title!! I know it'll be a top, top reference disc lol. We'll see how high soon 

I ordered from Amazon a month ago but delivery date is the end of February, so I could have just ordered locally.


----------



## SnellTHX

*Jojo Rabbit*


A very analog-looking digital production. Warm tones, brown/yellow hues (as to fit into the WWII-era). It has plenty of detail but still a bit to be soft to be considered reference. the filmic appearance was still very pleasant to look at. Also filmed in 1.85:1, which I prefer  

*
Tier recommendation: 1*


----------



## SnellTHX

*Knives Out*

Another 1.85:1 film, but it doesn't really impress much. Like Jojo Rabbit, it's a 2K DI and its one of those instances where you can tell its not really 4K (unlike for instance Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2. etc). It's a bit grainy, but nice details captured. doesn't look as sharp as reference 4K titles of the last 3-4 years should. If this was 2010 and on blu-ray it could be Tier 0.5 ... but standards have certainly changed.

PS: Movie itself was a 9/10, just like Jojo Rabbit. Back-to-back two amazing films and next up is Parasite  

*Tier recommendation: 1.5*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

dragonbud0 said:


> Thanks. I'm always a sucker for cartoon/anime. Will give it a try.


A bonus is that the English dub is fantastic. This is one case where I'd recommend the English dub over the Mandarin audio.


----------



## burnfout

Watched Endgame on 4K yesterday. Not ready to give ratings yet for UHD discs, but I found this really unremarkable.


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> *Midway (1080p)*
> 
> After reading reviews (with less-than-stellar marks for the movie itself) I decided to visit a local Redbox. The movie was indeed disappointing, especially when comparing it with the original (1976). The PQ was much more satisfying, but it had its issues, namely, some SOFT SHOTS and HEAVY GRAIN...which resulted in a lack of details and depth. The color palette was also nothing to brag about...very MUTED throughout with the exception of some isolated scenes. I found that the PQ got better and better as the movie progressed and during the last half it was worthy of Tier 0. Not so much in the first half.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.0**
> 
> PS The Dolby Atmos mix was pretty good. I did have to turn my volume dial to about -5 to really appreciate it though.


I watched a review on Youtube, and he did mentioned soft PQ and heavy grain... Sounds like a no-go for me


----------



## SnellTHX

burnfout said:


> Watched Endgame on 4K yesterday. Not ready to give ratings yet for UHD discs, but I found this really unremarkable.


Endgame looks amazing. As does Infinity War. It's really a shame they still use 2K DI on those movies, but they are great examples of 2K DIs that look better than most 'true' 4K movies. Phenomenal PQ but I think I prefer IW over Endgame PQ wise


----------



## SnellTHX

*Parasite (1080p)*

This will be my first blu-ray (2K/1080p/SDR) in probably two or three years lol. I've been all about that 4K/HDR/WCG lifestyle and refuse to buy any blu-rays, but I don't think this Korean movie will get a 4K release.

Nonetheless the picture quality was really, really good. It's sharp, that looks more like 4K than 2K. Very punchy image with great detail.
It really does annoy me that we don't get to see it in 4K/Dolby Vision and this blu-ray is near reference. in 2014, this would be Tier 0.

I think they used the Arri Alexa 65, which is a 6.5K camera... (more than double the resolution of 4K)

*
Tier recommendation: 1*


----------



## SnellTHX

*Apocolypse Now: Final Cut (4K)*


Probably the best looking '70s movie that I have seen. At its finest, the image is near reference quality with that pleasant, filmic, analog looking image with absurd amount of detail. Other scenes are soft and extremely grainy, like they belong on VHS. Sub-DVD like quality. But its best shots did look good in 2020. I don't review with 'Nostalgia glasses' so I (unfairly) compare this 1979 movie to the likes of Transformers Last Knight, Mortal Engines, Dunkirk etc and obviously it falls short.

But it did overall look pleasant, and if not for some of the horrible scenes this would rank much higher.


*Tier recommendation: 1.75*


----------



## dragonbud0

SnellTHX said:


> *Parasite (1080p)*
> 
> This will be my first blu-ray (2K/1080p/SDR) in probably two or three years lol. I've been all about that 4K/HDR/WCG lifestyle and refuse to buy any blu-rays, but I don't think this Korean movie will get a 4K release.
> 
> Nonetheless the picture quality was really, really good. It's sharp, that looks more like 4K than 2K. Very punchy image with great detail.
> It really does annoy me that we don't get to see it in 4K/Dolby Vision and this blu-ray is near reference. in 2014, this would be Tier 0.
> 
> I think they used the Arri Alexa 65, which is a 6.5K camera... (more than double the resolution of 4K)
> 
> *
> Tier recommendation: 1*


UK site says end of February for 4k release.
https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Parasite-4K-Blu-ray/257314/


----------



## teiresias

dragonbud0 said:


> UK site says end of February for 4k release.
> https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Parasite-4K-Blu-ray/257314/


Still no news on a 4k release with English subtitles so far as I can tell. Pretty damn ridiculous for a film that just won the Oscar to great acclaim.


----------



## djoberg

*Frozen 2 (UHD)*

I was IMPRESSED!! This one is right up there with the very best animated marvels!!!

Okay, this one may not have had all the glorious COLORS throughout the movie, but when they were on display they were GORGEOUS! The BLACKS were absolutely amazing and there were 3 scenes where they were highlighted..one was about 40 seconds long starting at the 19 minute mark...the second one started at approximately the 1 hour 5 minute mark and it lasted a good 2 minutes (it was DAZZLING with streaks of light and brilliant colors)...and I didn't stop to get the exact time on the third scene but it was perhaps 15 minutes after the one just mentioned. If you have a good display for BLACKS (like an OLED ), you will be on "cloud nine" for those scenes. Of course, DETAILS and TEXTURE were also pure Eye Candy in many shots (though they weren't as plentiful as in _Secret Life of Pets_, _Toy Story 4_ and _Moana_).

Before I give a placement I need to give a real shout-out for the spectacular HDR effects!! I had already mentioned the UNBELIEVABLE COLORS, which were a sight to behold, but there were times when there was a rather bleak background and then, all of a sudden, something would appear with bright and almost fluorescent colors. And there were different kinds of LIGHTING sprinkled throughout that were to-die-for. Add to this the super...and I mean SUPER...STRONG CONTRAST that yielded some of the best WHITES I've ever seen in an animated movie.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (In the "Top Five" of animated titles)*

PS I would be remiss if I didn't offer a comment on the Dolby Atmos mix. For a Disney release it was phenomenal!! It was a very active mix, with thunderous bass/LFE at times, crystal-clear dialogue, and the Fronts, Surrounds and Height channels were as precise as you could desire. There was one scene that really shined, with voices coming from every channel and then glass or ice breaking overhead. I felt it was "raining down on me!"


----------



## fredxr2d2

djoberg said:


> *Frozen 2 (UHD)*
> 
> I was IMPRESSED!! This one is right up there with the very best animated marvels!!!
> 
> Okay, this one may not have had all the glorious COLORS throughout the movie, but when they were on display they were GORGEOUS! The BLACKS were absolutely amazing and there were 3 scenes where they were highlighted..one was about 40 seconds long starting at the 19 minute mark...the second one started at approximately the 1 hour 5 minute mark and it lasted a good 2 minutes (it was DAZZLING with streaks of light and brilliant colors)...and I didn't stop to get the exact time on the third scene but it was perhaps 15 minutes after the one just mentioned. If you have a good display for BLACKS (like an OLED ), you will be on "cloud nine" for those scenes. Of course, DETAILS and TEXTURE were also pure Eye Candy in many shots (though they weren't as plentiful as in _Secret Life of Pets_, _Toy Story 4_ and _Moana_).
> 
> Before I give a placement I need to give a real shout-out for the spectacular HDR effects!! I had already mention the UNBELIEVABLE COLORS, which were a sight to behold, but there were times when there was a rather bleak background and then, all of a sudden, something would appear with bright and almost fluorescent colors. And there were different kinds of LIGHTING sprinkled throughout that were to-die-for. Add to this the super...and I mean SUPER...STRONG CONTRAST that yielded some of the best WHITES I've ever seen in an animated movie.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (In the "Top Five" of animated titles)*
> 
> PS I would be remiss if I didn't offer a comment on the Dolby Atmos mix. For a Disney release it was phenomenal!! It was a very active mix, with thunderous bass/LFE at times, crystal-clear dialogue, and the Fronts, Surrounds and Height channels were as precise as you could desire. There was one scene that really shined, with voices coming from every channel and then glass or ice breaking overhead. I felt it was "raining down on me!"





I was coming here to write pretty much the same thing. This is a looker! And it sounds pretty great too for a Disney mix.


----------



## djoberg

fredxr2d2 said:


> I was coming here to write pretty much the same thing. This is a looker! And it sounds pretty great too for a Disney mix.


Yes Fred, it did indeed "sound pretty good for a Disney mix." I forgot to mention when commenting on the mix that I did have to turn it up more to get the best effect (I set it at -7.5 at times I turned it to -5), but in previous Disney animated films that didn't even help. So, I'm impressed and I hope this is a preview of coming Disney films.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^

So Fred, what exact placement would you give it? I would post it so it "becomes official."


----------



## fredxr2d2

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> So Fred, what exact placement would you give it? I would post it so it "becomes official."



Same spot as you:


*FROZEN II (4K)*

*Tier 0 ( in the top five animated)*


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Gentlemen Prefer Blondes*
recommendation: *Tier 3.0**

*Judge**, The* 
recommendation:* Tier 1.0**

*Mothra *(Mill Creek Entertainment)
recommendation: *Tier 4.0**

*The Incredible Hulk (UHD)*
recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

*Glass*
recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

*Avengers, The (UHD)*
recommendation: *Tier 0* (0.75)*

*Rambo (UHD)*
recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

*Toy Story 3 (UHD)
*recommendation: *Tier 0* (Top 20)*

*Iron Man 3 (UHD)
*recommendation:* Tier 1.0**

*1941
*recommendation:* Tier 3.5**


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Lighthouse, The
*recommendation:* Tier 1.0**

Excellent cinematography on this one. The ‘making of’ special feature is informative in explaining the film stock, filters, lenses, lighting, and what-nots of the process. Contrast is really deep and black levels/shadow details are nice. Clarity is pin-sharp with facial features, fabrics, and environmental textures on great display. A nice layer of fine grain is also present.


----------



## dragonbud0

fredxr2d2 said:


> Same spot as you:
> 
> 
> *FROZEN II (4K)*
> 
> *Tier 0 ( in the top five animated)*


Watched it last night in blu-ray Vudu. Think the line between Pixar and Disney, in terms of technology, is merging. Obviously this one has great PQ that is mesmerizing (audio is better too), but the story is targeted to family like the 1st one, nothing original here. There is no catchy tune like Let It Go. 

Girls loved the movie but boys preferred Ne Zha, an equally impressive CGI from China with a compelling story. It's one of the few Chinese movies/cartoons that is worthy for export. It's kind of reminded me of KF Panda. Surprise that it got through their censor on story line and correctness.


----------



## SnellTHX

These Frozen II reviews... Now I have to place YET another Pixar movie on my watch list...


----------



## SnellTHX

*2001: A Space Odyssey *

Surprisingly good picture quality for a movie that is now 52 years old. Mind-boggling how something filmed in 1968 (in 70mm no less) is any many ways still comparable to stuff from last year. Having recently watched another classic, Apocalypse Now I can say this movie does not look as good as A.N. at it's best (that did look reference at times) but nor does it look as bad as A.N. at its worst (it looked like VHS at times) there is light grain, but it is filmic, organic, analog, charming all those adjectives. relatively sharp and pretty detailed too. No doubt the best version of this movie.

*Tier recommendation: 1.5
*


----------



## SnellTHX

*Midway*

Well, here's a brand new movie that doesn't really look much better than the 41 year old Apocalypse Now or the 52 year old 2001: A Space Odyssey. 

There's a THICK layer of grain and everyone has mentioned, but honestly as your local grain-hater I didn't think it was too bad. there were still good details here and there, the bigger problem was the soft CGI. I had two friends over, neither of them are videophiles nor do they care much about PQ. I helped them picking up good deals on a 65XE90 and 65XF90 which they both enjoy and I 'spoiled' them by showing Transformers 5: Last Knight before we put on Midway. They described it as going from 8K to 1K (720p), one of them even said it looked like a YouTube video. 



I think it's the combination of seeing Transformers LK right before and the heavy grain that really made non-videophiles completely disregard it's PQ but I actually didn't find it to be as bad as others have made it out to be.

Side note: The AQ was phenomenal IMO  


*Tier recommendation: 1.25*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

SnellTHX said:


> *2001: A Space Odyssey *
> 
> Surprisingly good picture quality for a movie that is now 52 years old. Mind-boggling how something filmed in 1968 (in 70mm no less) is any many ways still comparable to stuff from last year. Having recently watched another classic, Apocalypse Now I can say this movie does not look as good as A.N. at it's best (that did look reference at times) but nor does it look as bad as A.N. at its worst (it looked like VHS at times) there is light grain, but it is filmic, organic, analog, charming all those adjectives. relatively sharp and pretty detailed too. No doubt the best version of this movie.
> 
> *Tier recommendation: 1.5
> *


I assume you are talking about the UHD?


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Zombieland (UHD)
*recommendation:* Tier 1.0**

*Le Samourai (Criterion)
*recommendation:* Tier 3.0**


----------



## djoberg

*Knives Out (1080p)*

I rented this from Redbox this afternoon and it was a TREAT!! I haven't seen a good "Who Dun It?" for a very long time and this one was topnotch. The cast/acting was perfect and it had plenty of "twists and turns" to keep me guessing throughout. Here is a very brief review of the PQ I put on Ralph's site:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-...t-ultra-hd-blu-ray-review-2.html#post59330984

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.5)*

PS I almost ranked it at .66 but my "Generous Gene" kicked in as I was hitting the "parenthesis keys"


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^

Next up for tonight: _FORD v FERRARI_!

I took my wife to the airport today and she will be in Phoenix visiting our daughter and her family till Monday. So, what does that mean for me? Those who know me well knows it means my "Blu-ray Fast" ends and my "Blu-ray Feast" begins!!


----------



## djoberg

*FORD v FERRARI (1080p)*

I've never really been into racing but this was an excellent movie, with superb acting (especially by Damon and Bale) and a fantastic true story.

Guess what? The PQ was just as good as the movie! The only "gripe" (which is relatively minor in the grand scheme of things) was the color-grading in some scenes (a heavy "orange hue" that wreaked havoc on flesh tones). This one hit all the "positive virtues" we could ask for in good PQ, with amazing details and texture in facial close-ups, 3D-like depth in some shots, impressive black levels and shadow details, vibrant colors, and razor-sharp clarity.

AQ-wise...oh my word, this was breathtaking in nearly every scene! All 9 channels were roaring during race scenes and my dual subs really came alive with the roaring of engines and, of course, in crashes/explosions. Even the height channels saw some action (wait till you see/hear the shot with Matt Damon flying a plane over a heavily crowded racetrack ).

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.5)*

PS I can't say that I've ever watched two Tier 0 (.5) titles "back to back," but now I can!


----------



## djoberg

*Terminator: Dark Fate (1080p)*

PQ-wise, this was a "mixed bag" or maybe I should call it a "day and night mixed bag," meaning the scenes that took place outdoors during the DAY were very good, while the NIGHT scenes were less-than-stellar. The former scenes had striking DETAILS, vibrant COLORS, spot-on FLESH TONES, super CONTRAST, and striking CLARITY (in most shots). The latter scenes had BLACKS leaning towards DARK GRAY, some definite SOFTNESS resulting in a lack of DETAILS and DEPTH, and a few instances of NOISE.

The real "redeeming feature" of this title was the BOMBASTIC Dolby Atmos mix. WOW...I mean WOW!! What more can I say?!

The movie left much-to-be-desired, but I've never been a fan of the _Terminator Franchise_ so fans may have a different take on it.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**


----------



## djoberg

* Black and Blue (1080p)*

Whoa! How come I had never heard of this before? This was a "hidden gem" as far as I'm concerned; one of the best cop shows I've seen in years. Naomie Harris did a fantastic job as the female lead and Tyrese Gibson wasn't too far behind as the male lead. It had plenty of "realistic action" and "heartfelt drama" as well.

PQ-wise, it was VERY GOOD, in spite of a few "gritty scenes" (at night and one daytime scene with rain/fog). This had amazing BLACK LEVELS/SHADOW DETAILS in most scenes (one aerial shot of New Orleans at night was absolutely mesmerizing), appreciable DEPTH, excellent DETAILS and TEXTURE (in faces, clothing, etc.), accurate FLESH TONES, pleasing COLORS when primaries were on display (most of the film had a muted color palette) and striking CLARITY. Again, there were some gritty shots with SOFTNESS, but overall this was true EYE CANDY.

AQ-wise, it ROCKED!!

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**

PS I could see some opting for a low Tier 0 and they wouldn't get much of an argument from me.


----------



## djoberg

*IT: Chapter Two (1080p)*

I pretty much agree with Phantom's analysis below and his placement recommendation. Since he never remarked on the BLACK LEVELS I must add that they were PHENOMENAL! There were many scenes to highlight them (a plethora of night-time skies...with my favorite being the carnival scenes...and some dark interior scenes as well). SHADOW DETAILS were exquisite! I was also very impressed with the BRIGHTNESS LEVELS during outdoor daytime scenes around town. In other words, CONTRAST reigned supreme!!

I must confess, due to the extreme amount of "F-bombs" I found myself hitting the "Mute Button" quite often (even though they primarily came out of two of the character's mouths, they eventually came forth from everyone ). 

Since Phantom viewed the UHD copy my placement may be a tad lower than his.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.9)*




Phantom Stranger said:


> *It: Chapter Two UHD*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 0** (bottom third)
> 
> Horror movies didn't used to look this good with superb definition and a well-rounded HDR pass enhanced by Dolby Vision. The genre has changed in Hollywood with the advent of high-end digital cinematography. Filmed mostly in raw 3.4K resolution and finished at 2K on the digital intermediate, this new UHD features a crafted aesthetic by the filmmakers with brilliant tonality and dynamic color range only possible with UHD.
> 
> The 2.39:1 presentation has excellent focal depth and unwavering clarity. A lot of money has been sunk into the production by Hollywood ensuring a perfectly seamless cinematic experience with outstanding picture quality and smooth CGI effects. The UHD's PQ fares comparatively better than the first _It_ on UHD, taking full advantage of the format's expanded color palette.


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> *Terminator: Dark Fate (1080p)*
> 
> PQ-wise, this was a "mixed bag" or maybe I should call it a "day and night mixed bag," meaning the scenes that took place outdoors during the DAY were very good, while the NIGHT scenes were less-than-stellar. The former scenes had striking DETAILS, vibrant COLORS, spot-on FLESH TONES, super CONTRAST, and striking CLARITY (in most shots). The latter scenes had BLACKS leaning towards DARK GRAY, some definite SOFTNESS resulting in a lack of DETAILS and DEPTH, and a few instances of NOISE.
> 
> The real "redeeming feature" of this title was the BOMBASTIC Dolby Atmos mix. WOW...I mean WOW!! What more can I say?!
> 
> The movie left much-to-be-desired, but I've never been a fan of the _Terminator Franchise_ so fans may have a different take on it.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75**




1.75 seems a bit harsh! But I at least agree it doesn't deserve all the praise it has received for its picture from other outlets. I thought it looked phenomenal in the cinema but the 4K/HDR disc at home did look a bit soft and evident of a 2K DI. Which is disappointing, because usually when movies really pop out as outstanding picture in the cinema I feel the translation to home media impresses as much, but this was not the case.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^^

Snell,

The thing is when I was watching daytime scenes I kept thinking, "This is worthy of a high Tier 1 ranking," but then some of the nighttime scenes would introduce "noise" along with some "softness" and the blacks leaned towards "dark gray." Have you seen the 1080p version? I ask this because it's possibly the UHD version really bumps this up a notch or two.


----------



## djoberg

One more thing....

If not for the "weak blacks" in some scenes, I may have rated this as high as 1.0. You may be thinking, "That's quite harsh based solely on black levels." That fair, but with me black levels are the most important criterion, especially in a movie with a lot of nighttime scenes or low-lit interior shots. If you have weak blacks it affects other things, most notably details and depth.

I know there are "expert reviews" that could be cited where they praise the black levels, but I must call them the way I SEE THEM. In my defense, Matt at DoBlu.com also criticized the blacks.


----------



## SnellTHX

dragonbud0 said:


> +1. It's an eye candy to show off your gears. The story was predictable. Like most Disney films, they really know how to spend money and making the most of it. It's great family entertainment.


Yeah per your (and Djoberg's 0.33 review) recommendation I had to get this as well


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Snell,
> 
> The thing is when I was watching daytime scenes I kept thinking, "This is worthy of a high Tier 1 ranking," but then some of the nighttime scenes would introduce "noise" along with some "softness" and the blacks leaned towards "dark gray." Have you seen the 1080p version? I ask this because it's possibly the UHD version really bumps this up a notch or two.


I do not recall any elevated blacks. My gripe was the softness and the lack of detail / sharpness / clarity / resolution compared to the best Tier 0 movies.


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> Yeah per your (and Djoberg's 0.33 review) recommendation I had to get this as well


Just so people know, this post is dealing with Disney's movie _Maleficent: Mistress of Evil_.


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> I do not recall any elevated blacks. My gripe was the softness and the lack of detail / sharpness / clarity / resolution compared to the best Tier 0 movies.


Yes, there were scenes with those "negatives" in certain scenes (along with blacks that were actually "dark gray" at times). Again, many reviewers were praising this release (_Terminator: Dark Fate_) as a worthy "demo disc" and I really disagree with that conclusion.


----------



## SnellTHX

*Maleficent: Mistress of Evil 
*
Absolutely stunning. The best looking movie I have seen in a long time! Vibrant, punchy image displaying great use of HDR, the colours have more pop to them than pretty much anything else out there. The lush greens of the landscape, the red uniforms of the soldiers, blue skies, the multitude of colour variation in the fairies, flowers, etc all look so gorgeous .Chromatic eye-candy aside the picture is razor-sharp and maintains crystal clear clarity even if I sat 2 feet from my 55"  

For sake of comparison it looks better than other reference discs like Avengers: Infinity War or Black Panther, but not quite as good as Mortal Engines...

But it is certainly in the ballpark of the latter. Reference 

*
Tier recommendation: 0.25*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^

I'm assuming that was the UHD copy that you watched, right Snell? If so, you went up a notch from my .33 rating. I guess you're getting to be the new "Generous Rater" on this thread! 

Here's my review:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-874.html#post59238082

So, when is your copy of _Gemini Man_ arriving? I thought you were getting it the end of February. If you already have it, I will be shocked that you haven't seen it yet.


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> I'm assuming that was the UHD copy that you watched, right Snell? If so, you went up a notch from my .33 rating. I guess you're getting to be the new "Generous Rater" on this thread!
> 
> Here's my review:
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-874.html#post59238082
> 
> So, when is your copy of _Gemini Man_ arriving? I thought you were getting it the end of February. If you already have it, I will be shocked that you haven't seen it yet.



Yeah it was the 4K version, which was truly superb.


As for Gemini Man - I ordered my copy from the US in the beginning of February because it did not release in Norway until the end of February. We're well into March and my copy STILL has not arrived...  

The wait is killing me - especially when I could have bought it locally almost 2 weeks ago


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> Yeah it was the 4K version, which was truly superb.
> 
> 
> As for Gemini Man - I ordered my copy from the US in the beginning of February because it did not release in Norway until the end of February. We're well into March and my copy STILL has not arrived...
> 
> The wait is killing me - especially when I could have bought it locally almost 2 weeks ago


Your "patience" will be rewarded, believe me!

I have my sister with me for the weekend while my wife is in Arizona and we just watched two movies back to back (_Annabelle: Creation_ and _Passengers_). She is a real A/V enthusiast (a rare thing for one of that gender ) and she thought _Passengers_ looked really good. I turned to her and said, "Your eyes may be a bit strained right now, but can I show you a few scenes from a UHD disc that may blow you away?" She said, "By all means." I put in _Gemini Man_ and turned to about a half dozen of my favorite scenes and she couldn't believe her eyes. It was by far the best PQ she'd ever seen.


----------



## djoberg

Speaking of amazing PQ, I have been watching the new Amazon Prime Series "_Hunters_" via my Roku Premiere Plus. It is in 4K/HDR and some of the scenes are absolutely spectacular. Dare I say they're as good (or "almost as good") as _Gemini Man_? Of course, there are also some scenes that falter a bit, especially low-lit interiors, but for 24 fps and streaming (with its compression factor) I am very, very impressed!

The only downside (which may not matter to some of you) were the almost non-stop "F-Bombs" in certain scenes.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Phantom Stranger said:


> *Titans: The Complete First Season*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 1.25**
> 
> As the debut original series for the fledgling DC Universe streaming service, _Titans_ had many eyes on it at launch. Titans now makes its home video debut this week on Blu-ray from Warner in a two-disc set that collects all eleven episodes from season one. The technical specifications won't be a shock to anyone that has purchased television programs on Blu-ray before from WB. The AVC encode holds up under demanding action, largely thanks to an impeccably-shot production with exacting cinematography. A lot of money has been sunk into this production and would fit quite comfortably on premium cable.
> 
> As DC's first foray into television unhampered by the constraints of network television, _Titans_ takes on a gritty tone and imposing visual aesthetic. The live-action drama isn't necessarily eye candy, but certainly provides impressive clarity and strong high-definition video. Its strongest virtue is an unwavering consistency to the picture quality. The desaturated color palette avoids primary colors. Titans is the antithesis of Adam West's Batman. Titans paints in shades of black by comparison to the colorful 60's series.
> 
> The digital transfer is free of artifacts and any real problems. Inky black levels and fine shadow delineation help set the mood. Close-ups pop with real dimensionality and razor-sharp focus. Titans is not a show overly concerned with showing off elaborate levels of detail, but takes an honest approach which avoids overusing CGI elements.


*Titans: The Complete Second Season*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

_Titans'_ second season on BD largely resembles the stellar picture quality of season one's set with a few small improvements, namely a less drastic color correction with more saturated primary colors. The aesthetic hasn't taken a complete 180 from the grim palette of season one's video, but changes in setting produce more lively colors and better exteriors set in San Francisco.

The grade is on the verge of Tier 0, it wouldn't shock me to find some of our easier reviewers here go higher on _Titans_. For a television production, albeit on premium streaming, depth and dimension are both fantastic in the superb digital cinematography.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Brave (UHD)
*recommendation:* Tier 0* (top 10)*

*Pitfall (Kino Lorber)
*recommendation:* Tier 4.5**

*Cover Up (Kino Lorber)
*recommendation:* Tier 3.5**


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> Speaking of amazing PQ, I have been watching the new Amazon Prime Series "_Hunters_" via my Roku Premiere Plus. It is in 4K/HDR and some of the scenes are absolutely spectacular. Dare I say they're as good (or "almost as good") as _Gemini Man_? Of course, there are also some scenes that falter a bit, especially low-lit interiors, but for 24 fps and streaming (with its compression factor) I am very, very impressed!
> 
> The only downside (which may not matter to some of you) were the almost non-stop "F-Bombs" in certain scenes.


 Sheesh, as if I wasn't looking forward to it enough already.


I watched all of Hunters on Amazon the last two weeks. Was planning on writing a word or two, the image quality was pristine and dare I say the best looking programme on the Prime platform.

The outdoor bright daylight scenes particularly were top of the reference list. That very particular opening scene with that BBQ is one of the best 4K/HDR demo -material scenes I've seen  

The dimly lit interiors show off the limitations of the 15Mb/s bandwidth.. Compromises had to be made somewhere when those daylight scenes look *THAT* good


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^

I couldn't agree more with you regarding _Hunters_ and that opening scene. It was as good as the PQ in _Gemini Man_, IMHO, even though it has a different look based on the Frame Rate. I also agree with you that they did "fudge" a bit when it came to some of the interior scenes.

I will be watching the last two episodes tonight.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Thor: The Dark World (UHD)
*recommendation:* Tier 1.0**

*Five Miles to Midnight (Kino Lorber)
*recommendation:* Tier 3.0**

*Desert Fury (Kino Lorber)
*recommendation:* Tier 3.5**


----------



## SnellTHX

*Bumblebee*

Been spoiled by a lot of good looking movies lately, Bumble and its filmic artstyle looks superb. The CGI is next-level CGI that has that razor sharp digital look while the live action / non-cgi has a pleasant analog look going on without filling it with too much grain or noise. Filmed in my preferred 1.85:1 aspect ratio; the yellows of Bumble, the red & blues of the decepticons, the orange flames are all vibrant with plenty of pop. The image is a nice combination of great punch and details. It may not be the sharpest looking or have the most depth, but the CGI was absurdly good, as good as something like Pacific Rim and any other Transformers movie. While looking phenomenal, it isn't on the same level as Transformers: Last Knight (which is top 3, arguably #1 !), but then again nothing really is 

I'd rank the previous Transformers; 
Transformers - 1.75
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen - 1.25
Transformers: Dark of the Moon - 1.0
Transformers: Age of Exctinction - 0.75
Transformers: Last Knight: - 0(.0001)

Bumblebee then gets the score of...

*Tier Recommendation: 0.5*

Almost going to give it 0.33 but I think it looked a little too soft to get the 'out-of-window' experience you get from other Tier 0 1.85:1 movies


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^

I had given it a .5 but changed it to a .66 due to the softness.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-854.html#post57865644

Still no _Gemini Man_?


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Body Snatcher, The (Shout Factory)
*recommendation:* Tier 3.0**

Shout did an excellent job on this release. The scan shown on TCM from time to time is really rough with crushed contrast and extensive print damage. This is nothing like that version with great detail and virtually zero print damage. The image is stable, focused, and contrast is strong with nice shadow detail. Kudos to Shout on an excellent release.

*Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy
*recommendation:* Tier 1.5**


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> I had given it a .5 but changed it to a .66 due to the softness.
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-854.html#post57865644
> 
> Still no _Gemini Man_?


Yeah it is a bit soft. Maybe 0.66 is more accurate 

Still no Gemini Man... Think we can blame the virus for this lol


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?
*
recommendation:* Tier 2.0**


----------



## SnellTHX

*Ford v Ferrari*


I thought the PQ on this movie was highly variable. Some shots were superb others a bit uninspiring. From plenty of facial details and razor sharpness to dull and relatively noisy. The sound quality of the movie was absolutely stunning however!

I thought this was everywhere from 0.75 to 1.25 so logically, mathematically I say

*Tier Recommendation: 1*


----------



## djoberg

*Richard Jewell (1080p)*

Here is what I just posted on Ralph Potts' AVS Forum site:

The "credits are rolling" and I echo your sentiments down to the "dotting of every i and the crossing of every t." Like you Ralph, I was not familiar with the background of the events that Mr. Eastwood clearly brought to light. Like others, I believe it was a pure "travesty of justice" and the FBI and the media should have been held accountable.

PQ-wise, it was a TREAT! Not really "reference quality," but close enough. Details and texture were the greatest virtues, along with some appreciable depth in many shots. I was also very impressed with the black levels in the various night scenes; they added to the depth and enhanced primaries when they were on display.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**


----------



## DarthDoxie

*1984 (Criterion)
*recommendation:* Tier 3.0**

*First Love (Well Go USA)
*recommendation:* Tier 1.0**


----------



## djoberg

*Overcomer (1080p)*

This was, for the most part, a real LOOKER! Most scenes took place in daytime, outdoor scenes with excellent CLARITY, DEPTH and warm, natural COLORS. DETAILS were also amazing; FLESH TONES were spot-on accurate; and CONTRAST was strong. In the rare night time scenes BLACK LEVELS were very good. I was going to give this a top Tier 1 ranking but I'm feeling generous tonight....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.9)*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^^

The more I thought about it, I think I want to change my placement to *1.0*. Early on in the film that were some less-than-stellar shots...mostly soft shots that lacked detail and depth. As the movie progressed it became much sharper with razor-sharp clarity. Why is it that some films start out like that and then get better?


----------



## SnellTHX

*Gemini Man*


Holy ****ing ****. Best. Picture. Ever. Or maybe, I don't know. Top 3 for sure. In a world where Dunkirk and Transformers: LK don't exist Gemini Man is completely unrivalled and on a completely different level to everything else out there. Shot in my preferred 1.85:1 aspect ratio, this is the new 'out of a window' experience that is closer to reality than any other movie. Its flawless, sharper-than-sharpest, and punchier than punchiest image looks like a glimpse of what 16K will look like in 2040.

I do not mind the 60 fps at all, in fact the motion looked absolutely stunning. The motorbike chase was absurdly good looking and one of the best displays of fast-paced smooth action I've seen post-PDP era. 

There's obviously a ridiculous amount of pop to the image. The crystal blue skies, deep blue oceans, red/organge buildings of Colombia, yellow taxis etc. This movie might have the most '3D-depth' of any 2D movie.


Is it the best ever? I don't know. I still think Nolan's IMAX 15/70mm have a little more detail in them and are even closer to reality than Transformers: LK or Gemini Man, but Nolan's movies are let down by the non-IMAX shots filmed in 2.35:1 which are more often grainy and have nowhere NEAR the depth, clarity, sharpness, punch and detail of the IMAX scenes. So it is peak vs overall. 


*Tier Recommendation: 0 (#1 - #3)*


----------



## WynsWrld98

SnellTHX said:


> *Gemini Man*
> 
> 
> Holy ****ing ****. Best. Picture. Ever. Or maybe, I don't know. Top 3 for sure. In a world where Dunkirk and Transformers: LK don't exist Gemini Man is completely unrivalled and on a completely different level to everything else out there. Shot in my preferred 1.85:1 aspect ratio, this is the new 'out of a window' experience that is closer to reality than any other movie. Its flawless, sharper-than-sharpest, and punchier than punchiest image looks like a glimpse of what 16K will look like in 2040.
> 
> I do not mind the 60 fps at all, in fact the motion looked absolutely stunning. The motorbike chase was absurdly good looking and one of the best displays of fast-paced smooth action I've seen post-PDP era.
> 
> There's obviously a ridiculous amount of pop to the image. The crystal blue skies, deep blue oceans, red/organge buildings of Colombia, yellow taxis etc. This movie might have the most '3D-depth' of any 2D movie.
> 
> 
> Is it the best ever? I don't know. I still think Nolan's IMAX 15/70mm have a little more detail in them and are even closer to reality than Transformers: LK or Gemini Man, but Nolan's movies are let down by the non-IMAX shots filmed in 2.35:1 which are more often grainy and have nowhere NEAR the depth, clarity, sharpness, punch and detail of the IMAX scenes. So it is peak vs overall.
> 
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 0 (#1 - #3)*


I'd love to see 6 Underground 60 FPS UHD Bluray if they had filmed it that way. I love the look of that movie. Gemini Man looked amazing.


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> *Gemini Man*
> 
> 
> In a world where Dunkirk and Transformers: LK don't exist Gemini Man is completely unrivalled and on a completely different level to everything else out there.
> 
> Is it the best ever? I don't know. I still think Nolan's IMAX 15/70mm have a little more detail in them and are even closer to reality than Transformers: LK or Gemini Man, but Nolan's movies are let down by the non-IMAX shots filmed in 2.35:1 which are more often grainy and have nowhere NEAR the depth, clarity, sharpness, punch and detail of the IMAX scenes. So it is peak vs overall.
> 
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 0 (#1 - #3)*


Well, as I've said before Snell, I agree with you concerning _Transformers: The Last Knight_ (and that's why I said _Gemini Man_ may be EQUAL to it), but when it comes to _Dunkirk_ the color palette is very underwhelming. Everything else is spectacular, but when you have a muted color palette and it's competing with another film that has ALL the clarity, details, texture, etc. PLUS an amazing color palette, there's no contest. Just saying!

What I think puts _Gemini Man_ a notch above T:TLK is "hyper-realism." It truly is like "looking out a window" which you can't say about T:TLK in every scene, especially the scenes with very heavy CGI.


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> Well, as I've said before Snell, I agree with you concerning _Transformers: The Last Knight_ (and that's why I said _Gemini Man_ may be EQUAL to it), but when it comes to _Dunkirk_ the color palette is very underwhelming. Everything else is spectacular, but when you have a muted color palette and it's competing with another film that has ALL the clarity, details, texture, etc. PLUS an amazing color palette, there's no contest. Just saying!
> 
> What I think puts _Gemini Man_ a notch above T:TLK is "hyper-realism." It truly is like "looking out a window" which you can't say about T:TLK in every scene, especially the scenes with very heavy CGI.


The colours of Gemini Man are ridiculous. It looks like those Sony/Samsung/LG 4K-8K/HDR demos in the electronic stores. You know those silly ones that zoom in fruit, plants, veggies, animals, nature etc.

I still think Dunkirk is the clearest, most detailed image and the colour palette does not affect PQ in anyway.

I will also add Gemini Man probably had the best dimly lit scenes of any movie. Brightly lit scenes are obviously more punchy, dynamic, 3D-like depth and have more vibrant colours and POP than a dark scene, but Gemini Man is probably the first time I'd say very dark scenes looked reference!


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Jumanji: The Next Level (UHD)
*recommendation:* Tier 0* (0.5)*


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Lifeboat (Kino Lorber)
*
recommendation:* Tier 3.0**


----------



## djoberg

I had ordered a copy of the UHD _1917_ from Best Buy and it was delayed, so I cancelled my order and purchased one from Amazon. It was supposed to arrive tomorrow but to my delight it came today! I hope to view it tonight or tomorrow. To say I'm excited is an understatement!


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> I had ordered a copy of the UHD _1917_ from Best Buy and it was delayed, so I cancelled my order and purchased one from Amazon. It was supposed to arrive tomorrow but to my delight it came today! I hope to view it tonight or tomorrow. To say I'm excited is an understatement!


Ahaa! Beat you to it!  

And might I say you really should look forward to it.


----------



## SnellTHX

*1917*


Wow. Phenomenal picture quality. Not many days ago I saw Gemini Man and thought I would be 'ruined' and disappointed by every movie that follows as it belonged in a holy trinity as top 3 best PQ ever.

Well I was wrong: 1917 has SUPERB image quality. Crystal clear, like a perfectly cut diamond and razor sharp like a razor blade 

Djoberg - you might complain about muted colours but just like Dunkirk was a bit 'drab' this is too. 1917 is filled with a warm, earthy tone that has browns, greys, greens, olives, muddy/rusty hues as a WWI movie should. I thought the detail was as good as any reference movie. 

4K DI, filmed in 4.5K by the Alexa LF (I noticed many movies with this new camera have very good PQ) I honestly think this movie looks flawless 99% of the time, only some dark scenes which didn't look as perfect as the rest of the movie does.

It's still one of my absolute favourite 2.35:1, live action discs, ever 



*Tier recommendation: 0.25*


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Double Indemnity
*
recommendation:* Tier 3.0**


----------



## djoberg

*1917 (UHD)*

I found the PQ to be almost identical to that of _Dunkirk_, so much so that I am going to give it the same placement and I'll also post my "revisited review" where I mention the identical key virtues and the main drawbacks. In short, the CLARITY, DETAILS and DEPTH of this release are outstanding. BLACK LEVELS were very good, but not excellent, IMHO. There were a few SOFT FOCUS SHOTS that affected details and depth, but thankfully they were quite brief.

Like _Dunkirk_, it has a VERY DRAB COLOR PALETTE. Did that hinder details or depth? No! Did it rob me of any "PQ Eye Candy?" I'll answer that by saying, "When you view it on its own the answer is no. But when you compare it with titles like _Gemini Man_ or _Transformers: The Last Knight_ or even _Planet Earth 2_, the muted colors definitely deprive you of gorgeous colors and thus Eye Candy."

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-834.html#post56515020

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.5)*

PS The AQ was "pleasing to the ears" in spite of a very subdued low end in the vast majority of scenes. Dialogue was intelligible (except for some strong British accents which always give me trouble) and in action scenes all 9 channels came to life with precision that put you right in the middle of the action.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^

The more I compare _1917_ with _Dunkirk_ the more I am convinced they are nearly identical in terms of PQ, though I will say that the cinematography in _Dunkirk_ was much better. I know _1917_ was praised at the Oscars and in most "professional reviews" for this but I can't see it. Most of the country-side was actually quite bland compared to the ocean and beach views (with spectacular cliffs) in _Dunkirk_.

Both movies were very unique, to say the least. I think I enjoyed the filming technique of _1917_ the best with its long, continuous shot and its close-ups depicting "trench warfare." But then I really enjoyed the scores of "aerial shots" in _Dunkirk_ and the fantastic "dog fights" which literally put you in the cockpit. Both films featured heavy British accents which were hard to understand at times...in fact, quite a few times!

One more observation. I was surprised by the limited facial close-ups _1917_. Don't get me wrong, there were some but not to be compared to the many close-ups in _Dunkirk_.

Do I think these two films are up there with the likes of _Saving Private Ryan_ or _Black Hawk Down_? No, for they lack the action scenes and the stellar cast. But they are in a niche all of their own, which gives us a compelling story which is accompanied with amazing musical scores.


----------



## mrtickleuk

djoberg said:


> Both movies were very unique, to say the least. I think I enjoyed the filming technique of _1917_ the best with its long, continuous shot and its close-ups depicting "trench warfare." But then I really enjoyed the scores of "aerial shots" in _Dunkirk_ and the fantastic "dog fights" which literally put you in the cockpit. Both films featured heavy British accents which were hard to understand at times...in fact, quite a few times!
> .


Hehe. Hopefully subtitles helped?  As with all accents, it's just exposure you need to get used to it then you should be fine. I find some American accents impenetrable too of course! But then if you add in regional dialects, you can be screwed even if you heard the words clearly, because you don't understand them


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> *1917 (UHD)*
> 
> I found the PQ to be almost identical to that of _Dunkirk_, so much so that I am going to give it the same placement and I'll also post my "revisited review" where I mention the identical key virtues and the main drawbacks. In short, the CLARITY, DETAILS and DEPTH of this release are outstanding. BLACK LEVELS were very good, but not excellent, IMHO. There were a few SOFT FOCUS SHOTS that affected details and depth, but thankfully they were quite brief.
> 
> Like _Dunkirk_, it has a VERY DRAB COLOR PALETTE. Did that hinder details or depth? No! Did it rob me of any "PQ Eye Candy?" I'll answer that by saying, "When you view it on its own the answer is no. But when you compare it with titles like _Gemini Man_ or _Transformers: The Last Knight_ or even _Planet Earth 2_, the muted colors definitely deprive you of gorgeous colors and thus Eye Candy."
> .



I kneeeeeew you would comment the drab colours 

I too compared it to Dunkirk, and I think the depth, clarity, sharpness, details, etc are all very, very nearly on par with Dunkirk, which is ultimately my #1 reference, at its best.

I don't think colour palettes affect PQ in any way. Grain on the other hand completely DESTROYS an image for me. 

Just like many for some reason don't mind film grain in your movies. 

But to me 1917 is probably top 20 somewhere


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^

Okay, I'll say this ONE MORE TIME!

I said in my review above that the muted color palette did NOT hinder details or clarity, so it obviously didn't affect the PQ "in that way." But then I added that if you compare it to titles with gorgeous colors you realize that you are being DEPRIVED OF EYE CANDY! You may be thinking, "So what?" My response to that would be, "When we make a placement recommendation WE ARE COMPARING IT TO OTHER TITLES!!" That is what we do! So, if we are comparing _1917_ with other titles with amazing clarity, details, and depth, but they also have amazing colors, you are, of necessity, going to penalize _1917_ with a lower placement.

Enough said!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Hello, folks. Thought I'd swing by for a couple of quick reviews. Hope everyone is doing well in these strange times. It's as good a time as any to catch up on your BD and UHD viewing at home.

*Superman: Red Son UHD*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

This may be too harsh of a score for a brand-new, DTV movie from WB Animation, but I wasn't overly impressed by _Red Son's_ aesthetic. For those unaware, _Superman: Red Son_ is an alternate history that depicts Superman being raised as a Communist in Soviet Russia under Stalin. The animators go with less saturated colors and slighted muted primary colors for the retro period setting. 

The superior HEVC encode completely eliminates banding from the clean 2160P video. In fact, there are no real technical flaws by Warner. The animation itself isn't natively 4K resolution, which does limit the impact and pop this type of animated material can produce on UHD.

*Munster, Go Home!*

recommendation: *Tier 3.5**

I've always been a big fan of the Munsters on television and was delighted hearing Shout Factory was finally giving us their first and only theatrical feature on Blu-ray. The 1966 movie has been licensed from Universal and I'm sure it's their transfer as well. Alas, it's not a new scan. The older film transfer has satisfactory detail and adequate grain reproduction, though sharp ringing can be spotted in several scenes. The picture quality's best features are fine color saturation and a steady contrast, nicely showing off the greenish make-up used on the Munster family. Some limitations in black levels lead to crushed shadow detail.

I don't believe this is the best the original elements could look, but the economic realities of any Munster release in 2020 make this so-so presentation probably the best we are going to get for this hokey but still entertaining comedy.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Weird Science (Arrow)
*
recommendation:* Tier 2.5**


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Jumanji (UHD)
*
recommendation:* Tier 1.0**


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Village of the Damned (1960)
*
recommendation:* Tier 2.75**

Nice presentation from the Warner Archive Collection, image is very stable on all levels.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Hell on Frisco Bay
*
recommendation:* Tier 3.25**


----------



## AmerCa

I just wanted to stop by and say hi. I haven't watched any movies since the last ones I reviewed here (which i can't even remember), so I haven't had much to comment or contribute to the thread. I'm way behind the loop, and I don't think I'll be buying many movies (or any!) in the near future. I guess it's a good thing I've got a sizeable collection, so probably I'll be rewatching some of them, and I actually have a bunch that I haven't watched. Movie hoarding must have a payoff at some point, isn't it? 

Hope you're are doing ok.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

AmerCa said:


> I just wanted to stop by and say hi. I haven't watched any movies since the last ones I reviewed here (which i can't even remember), so I haven't had much to comment or contribute to the thread. I'm way behind the loop, and I don't think I'll be buying many movies (or any!) in the near future. I guess it's a good thing I've got a sizeable collection, so probably I'll be rewatching some of them, and I actually have a bunch that I haven't watched. Movie hoarding must have a payoff at some point, isn't it?
> 
> Hope you're are doing ok.


This is now the time when we all get up to date on our backlog of unwatched movies and television shows. Amazon is still delivering movies, they just show up randomly. I just received the first season of the Jetsons on BD. Now I did disinfect the package...


----------



## Phantom Stranger

DarthDoxie said:


> *Weird Science (Arrow)
> *
> recommendation:* Tier 2.5**


I've been meaning to get Arrow's disc. Have the older Blu-ray, but have heard good things about the new transfer.


----------



## AmerCa

Phantom Stranger said:


> Now I did disinfect the package...


Lol! Well, it's true. I've ordered some other stuff from Amazon, and I have to disinfect packages. It's almost comical.

Amazon Mexico is still delivering, although prices have went up, like UP, and Amazon US prices have skyrocketed for us, and that for the items they're delivering here, which are now very limited. In hindsight, I should have bought more stuff this past Black Friday...

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## Phantom Stranger

AmerCa said:


> Lol! Well, it's true. I've ordered some other stuff from Amazon, and I have to disinfect packages. It's almost comical.
> 
> Amazon Mexico is still delivering, although prices have went up, like UP, and Amazon US prices have skyrocketed for us, and that for the items they're delivering here, which are now very limited. In hindsight, I should have bought more stuff this past Black Friday...
> 
> Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


You can always re-watch the movies you own if pressed.


----------



## DarthDoxie

AmerCa said:


> I just wanted to stop by and say hi. I haven't watched any movies since the last ones I reviewed here (which i can't even remember), so I haven't had much to comment or contribute to the thread. I'm way behind the loop, and I don't think I'll be buying many movies (or any!) in the near future. I guess it's a good thing I've got a sizeable collection, so probably I'll be rewatching some of them, and *I actually have a bunch that I haven't watched. Movie hoarding must have a payoff at some point, isn't it?*


I've got a sizable stack of unwatched discs as well (60 as of today) and to think I was at 0 about a year ago . Felt a little guilty I went so crazy on Black Friday but the prices and selection were so good I couldn't pass up a great deal. With stores closed and Amazon restricting shipments on non-essentials, I'm thankful for my unwatched pile. With the Amazon situation, the specialty labels have really stepped up; I've added close to 20 titles from Arrow, Criterion, WAC, and Kino Lorber recently from some amazing sales (most give free shipping over $50 so of course I have to get 4-5 titles each time ).



Phantom Stranger said:


> I've been meaning to get Arrow's disc. Have the older Blu-ray, but have heard good things about the new transfer.


At tier 2.5 it's a good watch. The special effects have held up on this one, I was really surprised. The image is only marred by some inherent softness.


----------



## djoberg

Thanks for "dropping in AmerCa" and letting us know how you're doing. Like most, I'm busy "staying at home" with the rest of America and the world! To say we are in "unchartered waters" with this pandemic is an understatement.

I have been watching some titles from my library that I had never watched before on my LG OLED and enjoying it. I also watch quite a few series and movies on Amazon Prime and I just subscribed to Disney Plus a couple of weeks ago and I really enjoyed the First Season of _The Mandalorian_. The Pixar and Disney movies that are in 4K/HDR are a treat to watch...some very good EYE CANDY.

I'm going to go out on a limb and do something I rarely do on AVS. For those of you who have ever read my Profile, you know that I'm a firm believer in Jesus Christ and that I list some scripture verses to tell people about what He has done to give those who believe in Him "Life Assurance" (i.e. assurance of Eternal Life). I actually write articles for some Christian Publications and a few weeks ago I wrote a tract on the Coronavirus where I speak about the message there is in this pandemic for mankind. My Christian publisher has been unable to print and publish it (they are listed as a "non-essential" business at the moment), but I am printing my own copies and distributing them to people. If you would like a copy please PM me with your address and I'd be happy to send you one (and if you would want more after reading it I could send you a few more copies).


----------



## SnellTHX

*Godzilla: King of the Monsters*


Not really impressed at all. A huge CGI-fest that makes it look soft and isn't even world class CGI like Pacific Rim, Transformers, etc... Looks more like the CGI you would find in a TV show like GoT.
No doubt a 2K DI and this CGI is 100% rendered in 2K.

Having come of back-to-back reference titles like Gemini Man and 1917 this just appears not-so-sharp, not-so-detailed, no 'pop', little punch, light grain, relatively noisy. 1917 looks so much better the director of this movie should be ashamed of himself.


*Tier recommendation: 2.0*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^

I had given this a 1.75 ranking and then changed it to 1.25. So, we were close to being on the same page for a day or two!

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-864.html#post58490912


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^
> 
> I had given this a 1.75 ranking and then changed it to 1.25. So, we were close to being on the same page for a day or two!
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-864.html#post58490912


Indeed. Though I went straight from two of the best looking movies ever to what was a huge disappointment PQ-wise.


----------



## subacabra

Please please please!


----------



## SnellTHX

subacabra said:


> Please please please!
> https://youtu.be/_QbIpxZqRrI


Ahhh Tron Legacy. Back in the blu-ray days (c. 2012) I remember this was the ULTIMATE disc for showing off the black levels your Panasonic/Pioneer PDP or JVC projector could produce. 

a 4K/HDR remaster is a must


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Dirty Dancing
*recommendation:* Tier 3.0**

*Big Lebowski, The (UHD)
*recommendation:* Tier 1.0**

*Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (UHD)
*recommendation:* Tier 0* (0.25)*

*Man of a Thousand Faces (Arrow Academy)
*recommendation:* Tier 3.5**

*Guardians of the Galaxy (UHD)
*recommendation:* Tier 0* (0.75)*

*Sea Chase, The (Warner Archive)
*recommendation:* Tier 3.75**

*Sicilian Clan, The (Kino Lorber)
*recommendation:* Tier 3.5**

*Moana (UHD)
*recommendation:* Tier 0* (Top 10, animated)*

*Fail Safe (Criterion)
*recommendation:* Tier 2.5**

*Captain America: The Winter Soldier (UHD)
*recommendation:* Tier 0* (0.75)*

*Addams Family, The
*recommendation:* Tier 2.75**

*Addams Family Values
*recommendation:* Tier 2.75**

*Sea Wolf, The (Warner Archive)
*recommendation:* Tier 2.5**

*Hero, The (Criterion)
*recommendation:* Tier 3.0**


----------



## AmerCa

^°°°°°°°^
Whoa!!

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## subacabra

SnellTHX said:


> Ahhh Tron Legacy. Back in the blu-ray days (c. 2012) I remember this was the ULTIMATE disc for showing off the black levels your Panasonic/Pioneer PDP or JVC projector could produce.
> 
> 
> 
> a 4K/HDR remaster is a must


Not sure why the last video isn't working but here's another gem


----------



## Phantom Stranger

DarthDoxie said:


> *Dirty Dancing
> *recommendation:* Tier 3.0**
> 
> *Big Lebowski, The (UHD)
> *recommendation:* Tier 1.0**
> 
> *Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (UHD)
> *recommendation:* Tier 0* (0.25)*
> 
> *Man of a Thousand Faces (Arrow Academy)
> *recommendation:* Tier 3.5**
> 
> *Guardians of the Galaxy (UHD)
> *recommendation:* Tier 0* (0.75)*
> 
> *Sea Chase, The (Warner Archive)
> *recommendation:* Tier 3.75**
> 
> *Sicilian Clan, The (Kino Lorber)
> *recommendation:* Tier 3.5**
> 
> *Moana (UHD)
> *recommendation:* Tier 0* (Top 10, animated)*
> 
> *Fail Safe (Criterion)
> *recommendation:* Tier 2.5**
> 
> *Captain America: The Winter Soldier (UHD)
> *recommendation:* Tier 0* (0.75)*
> 
> *Addams Family, The
> *recommendation:* Tier 2.75**
> 
> *Addams Family Values
> *recommendation:* Tier 2.75**
> 
> *Sea Wolf, The (Warner Archive)
> *recommendation:* Tier 2.5**
> 
> *Hero, The (Criterion)
> * recommendation:* Tier 3.0**


Thanks. It's always great how you rate movies for the PQ Tiers beyond the latest blockbusters. The system doesn't mean much if every disc lands in Tier 0.


----------



## SnellTHX

*Alien (1979)*

Pretty much what I expected from something that is 40+ years old. Some shots looked comparable to modern movies others were 'DVD' looking.

*Tier recommendation: 2.5*


----------



## SnellTHX

*Star Wars IX: Rise of Skywalker*

Is it possible to unsee a movie? This is literally the worst movie I have ever seen, and deservedly gets a 1/10 on IMDB.

It's PQ, like almost every other Star Wars is largely unimpressive, though some planets did look pretty good, the rest was too dull, too dark, not a lot of detail or anything.


*Tier recommendation: 2*


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Horror Express (Arrow)
*recommendation:* Tier 3.0**

*Good Morning, Vietnam
*recommendation:* Tier 3.0**

*Lion King, The (2019) (UHD)
*recommendation:* Tier 0* (Top 5, animated)*

This one is stunning; the photo realistic animation is eye popping good. The details in both the animals and backgrounds are amazing. Fur, water, dust, foliage, and pretty much every surface/texture look real and natural. Shadows and black levels are also top notch. The use of sunlight and movement from wind look very natural. There were only a few fleeting moments where some of the animated animals looked a little flat, mostly on the female lions or antelope.


----------



## Spidacat

SnellTHX said:


> *Star Wars IX: Rise of Skywalker*
> 
> Is it possible to unsee a movie? This is literally the worst movie I have ever seen, and deservedly gets a 1/10 on IMDB.
> 
> It's PQ, like almost every other Star Wars is largely unimpressive, though some planets did look pretty good, the rest was too dull, too dark, not a lot of detail or anything.
> 
> 
> *Tier recommendation: 2*


Rise of Skywalker is WAY better than The Last Jedi. I've seen far worse than even TLJ, but to each his own. BTW, RoS got a 6.7 on IMDB, not a 1/10 (maybe an individual review?).


----------



## SnellTHX

Spidacat said:


> BTW, RoS got a 6.7 on IMDB, not a 1/10 (*maybe an individual review?*).



Yes. Mine.
TLJ was really bad but holy **** ROS was soo garbage.


----------



## SnellTHX

*Mad Max: Fury Road*

The 4K/HDR wasn't as good as I remembered the blu-ray on my Kuro. I guess a lot has changed in 5 years and expectation of colour accuracy and 4K-sharpness has increased. While it still looks amazing at times, with punchy orange hues the image tended to look rather soft with relatively low-res CGI. flames and everything look rather fake. Lots of details to be found however.

Was everywhere from tier 0.5 to 1.5

*Tier recommendation: 1*


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Grindhouse: Death Proof
*recommendation:* Tier 2.0**

*Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (Warner Archive)
*recommendation:* Tier 4.0**


----------



## djoberg

*Jumanji: The Next Level (1080p)*

I decided to "rent" instead of "buy" this time around, due to some miserable reviews on the movie itself. This wasn't as bad as I thought it would be and the PQ was spectacular!

This has it all....bold COLORS....rich BLACKS/SHADOW DETAILS....incredible DEPTH....super-strong CONTRAST....mesmerizing DETAILS and last, but not least, razor-sharp CLARITY. I believe this looked just as good as my viewing of the first installment, which was in 4K, so I'm going with the same placement recommendation...

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.5)*


----------



## AmerCa

^°^°^°^
Nice, Djoberg. I had my reservations on this movie, nice to read it isn't as bad as some claim, and it has spectacular PQ. I'll check it out at some point.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## monomial

At the risk of beating a dead horse, have you tried automating the tier list with Google Forms & Google Sheets? The form would be something simple:

Required: Movie Name
Required: Tier
Optional: UHD or HD disc
Optional: BD region
Optional: Edition info
Optional: Comments
Optional: Username

Google Form entries are automatically collected into a corresponding Google Sheet (similar to Microsoft Excel). You can share the Google Sheet publicly and people could view the data any way they please.

The default list could be a simple average, then an alphabetical sort within each tier. Just like the current list. (Tier 0 would be a special case where you would rank by closest to zero.)

I saw in another thread it's difficult to rank 4K discs alongside 1080p ones. No problem! Provide a list that includes both types in one list, and another that splits UHD / HD into their own categories.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^

This sounds good but it's really up to "our man Phantom."


----------



## djoberg

*Little Women (2019....1080p)*

It was a foregone conclusion that my wife would want to see this so we opted to rent it (but we'll no doubt buy it once a UHD release comes out). This was not our favorite version of this (it will be hard to best the 1994 version with Susan Sarandon and Wynona Ryder...and we actually enjoyed the Amazon Prime Original version better than this). Having said that, this was still good, though a bit confusing with the countless "flashbacks" that were happening almost nonstop.

PQ-wise, it was EXCELLENT in the "future scenes" (with amazing DEPTH, DETAILS, CLARITY, COLORS and BLACK LEVELS). The "flashback scenes" were quite SOFT in many of the indoor scenes and there was a considerable amount of COLOR-GRADING (ORANGE hues, anyone?) that hindered depth and details.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.9)*

PS For the record, if the PQ looked as good as the "future scenes" all the way through, this would have easily landed in the middle of Tier Blu.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

monomial said:


> At the risk of beating a dead horse, have you tried automating the tier list with Google Forms & Google Sheets? The form would be something simple:
> 
> Required: Movie Name
> Required: Tier
> Optional: UHD or HD disc
> Optional: BD region
> Optional: Edition info
> Optional: Comments
> Optional: Username
> 
> Google Form entries are automatically collected into a corresponding Google Sheet (similar to Microsoft Excel). You can share the Google Sheet publicly and people could view the data any way they please.
> 
> The default list could be a simple average, then an alphabetical sort within each tier. Just like the current list. (Tier 0 would be a special case where you would rank by closest to zero.)
> 
> I saw in another thread it's difficult to rank 4K discs alongside 1080p ones. No problem! Provide a list that includes both types in one list, and another that splits UHD / HD into their own categories.


 I had the same idea...in 2012. We tried it that way for several years and participation was uneven at best. I gave up on it around 2016 I'll say. It became too much of a hassle correcting the bad data and then properly translating it for the PQ Tiers. I'd welcome someone automating the process, but training users to enter their own data was always a hurdle.



The advent of UHD has complicated Tier 0. It was easier delineating spectacular PQ when it was Blu-ray, which Tier 0 should represent. Too many UHDs, movies consciously chosen by the studios for maximum video quality, bias the pool of entries. I'd say more than half of all UHDs from newer productions should land in the old conception of Tier 0. I've been pondering what to do about it.



My reviewing duties have gotten lighter as studios pull screeners and generally shut down in the wake of this situation. That should leave me more free time to get the PQ Tiers mostly current and up to date.


----------



## SnellTHX

*Jumanji: The Next Level*

Nothing more to say than what Djoberg said. Razor sharp, crystal clear image. Extremely solid looking. Colourful with lots of pop.


*Tier recommendation: 0.50*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^

I'm assuming you're reviewing the UHD version..am I right Snell?


----------



## AmerCa

^°^°^°^°^
Pffffff! Do you think he'd be reviewing a 1080p disc? 

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## SnellTHX

Haha of course it's the 4K/UHD version  


I think the only regular blu-ray I have watched in the last three years was Parasite...

I haven't really bothered specifying whether it's 2K or 4K disc since literally everything I reviewed has been 4K.

Though this thread is originally made for 1080p blus, 4K _is_ the new standard and I would rather specify when it's not 4K/HDR


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> Haha of course it's the 4K/UHD version
> 
> 
> I think the only regular blu-ray I have watched in the last three years was Parasite...
> 
> I haven't really bothered specifying whether it's 2K or 4K disc since literally everything I reviewed has been 4K.
> 
> Though this thread is originally made for 1080p blus, 4K _is_ the new standard and I would rather specify when it's not 4K/HDR


The only reason I asked was because you said you had nothing to add to my review which was a review of the 1080p version. Yet I do know that you have only been watching UHD Blu-rays. I was actually hoping you would go HIGHER than my review which would have encouraged me to buy the UHD release.

In my case, I simply can't afford to BUY all my Blu-rays so I still rent a good number of them. In our rather small city of 15,000 people we only have two Redbox locations and they still don't offer the UHD version.


----------



## SnellTHX

*Lion King*



Absolutely breathtaking. One of the best looking UHD discs out there and exemplary use of HDR. Probably the best looking CGI in any movie. I read that 95% of the movie was CGI and I've honestly never struggled so much in detecting which scenes were the 95% CGI and what was the 5% live action shots. A 1.85:1 prestentation that comes dangerously close to give the 'out of a window' look of the best looking movies. I think it was just a smidgen too soft to make a top 5 / top 10, but it is a top reference movie for sure.

*Tier recommendation: 0.25*


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> *Lion King*
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely breathtaking. One of the best looking UHD discs out there and exemplary use of HDR. Probably the best looking CGI in any movie. I read that 95% of the movie was CGI and I've honestly never struggled so much in detecting which scenes were the 95% CGI and what was the 5% live action shots. A 1.85:1 prestentation that comes dangerously close to give the 'out of a window' look of the best looking movies. I think it was just a smidgen too soft to make a top 5 / top 10, but it is a top reference movie for sure.
> 
> *Tier recommendation: 0.25*


I wasn't even thinking of getting this (since I haven't bee a real big fan of the animated versions) but you "whetted my appetite." I decided to check out Ralph Potts' review and his assessment mirrors yours...and so do all the "comments" from those who responded to Ralph. 

But there is a caveat or two...Ralph said (and all who posted agreed) that it really "lacked heart/soul" and the audio was "disappointing." You never said anything about either of these so do you care to weigh in? Some that absolutely LOVED the PQ went on to say they'd probably never watch it again.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^

I just read the review by High Def Digest and they went along with Ralph on the PQ (being amazing!) and the story (being without emotion). But he strayed from the pack when it came to the Dolby Atmos mix...he said it was very, very good, and that you didn't even have to raise the volume as one normally has to do with a Disney production.


----------



## SnellTHX

Well I think Lion King is the best story ever told. Absolutely loved it. Broke my heart once again. I do see why some people say it lacked soul.

The beauty of The Lion King (1994) is the facial expressions and emotions on display. You don't need to speak English or even have any audio at all and you can fully understand what is going on. Can't say the same for the 2019 version.

The PQ was phenomenal though


----------



## djoberg

You hit the proverbial "nail on the head" by comparing the 1994 and 2019 versions, for the original had "facial expressions and emotions on display" and the recent release was void of those expressions/emotions. That is exactly why Ralph and others said it "lacked soul/emotion."

I really do want to see the exceptional PQ so perhaps I will end up ordering it. I know my grandchildren will still love the movie in spite of there being no facial expressions so that, in and of itself, would justify getting it.


----------



## SnellTHX

*The Gentlemen*


Wasn't really impressed with this movie. For a 4K presentation it looks more like 2K, too dark/grainy/bland looking for my taste. Some decent sharpness and details here and there but subtle use of HDR, no real 'pop' to the image either.

*Tier recommendation: 1.75*


----------



## SnellTHX

*Dolittle*

Sharp. Punchy. Lots of pop. Great colours.
Shot in 1.85:1, great details. good CGI. Shame about the 2K DI when it was filmed in 8K... Oh well. very solid looking CGI at least 

*Tier recommendation: 0.75*


----------



## djoberg

*The Call of the Wild (1080p)*

This was a "nice rental" with good "family entertainment" and excellent PQ!

If I were to give you a "two word review" it would be SQUEAKY CLEAN! This has razor-sharp CLARITY with immaculate DETAILS and DEPTH. It was a "sight to behold" especially with the innumerable scenes of amazing landscapes. My "jaw was on the floor" during those scenes!! If I have one gripe (and it is more than justified) it would be with the CGI of the animals. When they running or jumping the CGI was SO OBVIOUS it was distracting; when they were motionless or barely moving they looked incredible. 

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.5)*


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Fatal Attraction (Paramount Presents)
*recommendation:* Tier 2.0**

*Raid 2, The
*recommendation:* Tier 1.0**

*Godzilla: King of the Monsters (UHD)
*recommendation:* Tier 1.0**

*Joker (UHD)
*recommendation:* Tier 0* (0.75)*

*Captain America: Civil War (UHD)
*recommendation:* Tier 0* (0.75)*

*Gremlins (UHD)
*recommendation:* Tier 1.75**

*Wonder Woman (UHD)
*recommendation:* Tier 0* (0.9)*

*Rocketman (UHD)
*recommendation:* Tier 0* (0.5)*

*Beverly Hills Cop II
*recommendation:* Tier 3.0**

*Beverly Hills Cop III
*recommendation:* Tier 3.0**

*Meg, The (UHD)
*recommendation:* Tier 1.0**

*Avengers: Age of Ultron (UHD)
*recommendation:* Tier 0* (0.75)*

*Day of the Jackal, The (Arrow)
*recommendation:* Tier 2.0**


----------



## SnellTHX

DarthDoxie said:


> *Fatal Attraction (Paramount Presents)
> *recommendation:* Tier 2.0**
> 
> 
> *Godzilla: King of the Monsters (UHD)
> *recommendation:* Tier 1.0**
> 
> 
> 
> *Meg, The (UHD)
> *recommendation:* Tier 1.0**
> ]



I agree with every review except these two  

How could you put them in the same tier???  The MEG IMO has some of the best picture quality of any movie, as long as you raise the gamma so that the image doesn't look as washed out  and Godzilla King of the Monsters.. bluuurgh one of the worst looking blockbusters IMO.


----------



## DarthDoxie

SnellTHX said:


> I agree with every review except these two
> 
> How could you put them in the same tier???  The MEG IMO has some of the best picture quality of any movie, as long as you raise the gamma so that the image doesn't look as washed out  and Godzilla King of the Monsters.. bluuurgh one of the worst looking blockbusters IMO.



I call them as I see them and I shouldn't have to muck around with my settings to get a particular film to look as it should if the mastering and authoring were done correctly in the first place.


----------



## DarthDoxie

My apologies in advance if I rank someone's favorite film lower than they think.

*Hunt for Red October, The (UHD)
*recommendation:* Tier 2.0**

The Blu-ray currently resides in Tier 2.0 and I suspect it was a generous ranking back in the day. Many soft shots and some black crush keep me from putting it higher.

*Patriot Games (UHD)
*recommendation:* Tier 1.5**


----------



## djoberg

*Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker (UHD...on Disney Plus)*

Okay, as you can see I did NOT see the actual UHD Blu-ray so my "official review" will come at a later date. But this did look pretty good on Disney Plus! It had excellent details, depth and clarity in close-ups and even in mid-range shots. It also had some vibrant colors courtesy of HDR. The black levels were a mixed bag with some "space scenes" featuring "inky blacks" while others didn't reach the full potential I expect on my LG OLED.

The "negatives" were some HEAVY GRAIN at times that hindered details and depth...and then some SOFTNESS in heavy CGI shots.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**

PS From the reviews I've read from the "experts" the actual blu-ray fared better so I suspect it should land in the latter half of Tier 0.

PPS Disney Plus only offered the Dolby Surround track so I was "underwhelmed" in that department.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I believe the Disney Plus service has several 4K presentations not available on UHD.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^

I'll have to double check that, but I do know my "HDR" icon came on as it started and the colors looked very good and the many scenes with "fire" and "laser beams" looked amazing, so I figured it had to be in HDR.


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> I agree with every review except these two
> 
> How could you put them in the same tier???  The MEG IMO has some of the best picture quality of any movie, as long as you raise the gamma so that the image doesn't look as washed out  and Godzilla King of the Monsters.. bluuurgh one of the worst looking blockbusters IMO.





DarthDoxie said:


> I call them as I see them and I shouldn't have to muck around with my settings to get a particular film to look as it should if the mastering and authoring were done correctly in the first place.


I gotta agree with Snell on this one regarding _The Meg_. I just finished watching it again and it still looks as good as ever! I gave it a Tier 0 (.5) ranking the first time I saw it and it still deserves that place.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-854.html#post57963570


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Top Gun (UHD)
*recommendation:* Tier 1.5**


----------



## SnellTHX

No worries Darth, just discussion  I often disagree with the opinions of Ralph Potts, The Editors of AVforumsUK, Djoberg, etc 

Djoberg hates muted colour and doesn't mind film grain... I hate grain but do not mind muted colours for instance


----------



## Phantom Stranger

SnellTHX said:


> No worries Darth, just discussion  I often disagree with the opinions of Ralph Potts, The Editors of AVforumsUK, Djoberg, etc
> 
> Djoberg hates muted colour and doesn't mind film grain... I hate grain but do not mind muted colours for instance


It's rare finding discs everyone unanimously agrees on regarding pure picture quality. Viewers have different tastes.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> It's rare finding discs everyone unanimously agrees on regarding pure picture quality. Viewers have different tastes.


That's why I go by the CRITERIA (listed on the Ranking Thread) for judging PQ!


----------



## djoberg

*Sonic the Hedgehog (1080p)*

This was quite the looker, though it didn't quite live up to the hype that I read about from most reviewers. Having said that, the Dolby Atmos mix "blew me away!" This is a great demo for your "surround sound system" and I hope your sub(s) can handle the unbelievable bass/LFE in a couple of the scenes.

PQ-wise, it's a good "demo disc," but if it makes it into Tier Blu it won't be anywhere near the top...or even the middle. I am feeling generous though so I'll vote for....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.75)*


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Days of Thunder (UHD)
*recommendation:* Tier 1.5**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*King Creole*

recommendation: *Tier 2.5**

Paramount finally issues the 1958 film starring Elvis Presley on Blu-ray and the wait is almost worth it. While the original camera negative is lost, the crisp black-and-white cinematography receives a pleasing 4K transfer from quality extant elements. The 1.78:1 presentation captures the king of rock n' roll in his youthful prime with stark clarity and fine grain reproduction.

Shot almost like a film noir, King Creole exhibits excellent black levels and highly refined shadow delineation. Some minor softness creeps into several scenes but this is classic Hollywood cinematography with fairly striking depth and definition.

King Creole's new film transfer is worth the price of admission for Elvis lovers.


----------



## djoberg

*War of the Worlds (UHD)*

I have always liked this movie but was always disappointed with the PQ which had way too heavy grain in some scenes, sporadic soft shots and less-than-stellar blacks/shadow details. But this UHD takes it to a very impressive level and I highly recommend it to all who are fans. The Dolby Atmos mix was awesome EXCEPT for some disappointing LFE in what were true "Demo Scenes" (think "Pod Emergence Scene") in the 2005 Blu-ray.

Here was what I just wrote for a short review on Ralph's site:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-...s-ultra-hd-blu-ray-review-4.html#post59693472

*Tier Recommenation: Tier 0* (.75)*

PS If not for the GRITTY SCENES I would have opted for the middle (.5).


----------



## tigerhonaker

djoberg said:


> *War of the Worlds (UHD)*
> 
> I have always liked this movie but was always disappointed with the PQ which had way too heavy grain in some scenes, sporadic soft shots and less-than-stellar blacks/shadow details. But this UHD takes it to a very impressive level and I highly recommend it to all who are fans. The Dolby *Atmos mix was awesome* EXCEPT for some disappointing LFE in what were true "Demo Scenes" (think "Pod Emergence Scene") in the 2005 Blu-ray.
> 
> Here was what I just wrote for a short review on Ralph's site:
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/187-...s-ultra-hd-blu-ray-review-4.html#post59693472
> 
> *Tier Recommenation: Tier 0* (.75)*
> 
> PS If not for the GRITTY SCENES I would have opted for the middle (.5).


I now have the 4K version W/Atmos and patiently waiting for my Atmos System to get installed in June.

Terry


----------



## djoberg

tigerhonaker said:


> I now have the 4K version W/Atmos and patiently waiting for my Atmos System to get installed in June.
> 
> Terry


Hey Terry,

You are in for a real treat once you get your Atmos system; it truly puts you in a "dome of sound!" I will look forward to you "dropping in" to this thread to give us your impressions...on both the PQ and AQ. Again, the UHD/HDR brings this up to "Reference Level" which is light years ahead of the 2010 Blu-ray version. The Atmos mix also brings it UP to "Reference Level" EXCEPT the LFE isn't as low in demo scenes as the Blu-ray DTS-HD mix was. For the life of me I have no idea why they would "filter" the sound and lower the LFE. That said, the bass/LFE is still quite good!

Denny


----------



## tigerhonaker

djoberg said:


> Hey Terry,
> 
> You are in for a real treat once you get your Atmos system; it truly puts you in a "dome of sound!" I will look forward to you "dropping in" to this thread to give us your impressions...on both the PQ and AQ. Again, the UHD/HDR brings this up to "Reference Level" which is light years ahead of the 2010 Blu-ray version. The Atmos mix also brings it UP to "Reference Level" EXCEPT the LFE isn't as low in demo scenes as the Blu-ray DTS-HD mix was. For the life of me I have no idea why they would "filter" the sound and lower the LFE. That said, the bass/LFE is still quite good!
> 
> Denny


Denny,

No-Worries on me saying what I think of Atmos once it's installed and of course then Custom Calibrated.




Terry


----------



## djoberg

Terry,

I noticed on your "Build Page" that you are going to have Chad B. calibrate your system. I'm signed up with him too (for possibly June or July, but who knows where he is at now with the pandemic still wreaking havoc) to calibrate my LG OLED and I'm seriously thinking of having him to do my total SVS sound system too, even though I'm quite satisfied with it now after running my Denon's Audyssey XT32 calibration.

Denny


----------



## tigerhonaker

djoberg said:


> Terry,
> 
> I noticed on your "Build Page" that you are going to have Chad B. calibrate your system. I'm signed up with him too (for possibly June or July, but who knows where he is at now with the pandemic still wreaking havoc) to calibrate my LG OLED and* I'm seriously thinking of having him to do my total SVS sound system too, *even though I'm quite satisfied with it now after running my Denon's Audyssey XT32 calibration.
> 
> Denny


Denny,

Speaking of Chad and getting hold of him.     
I can tell you it's NOT easy buddy.
I'm not being ^^^ cute or a smart-ass I'm just sharing with you what I think.
*He is really-really-really good at Both Audio as well as the Video Calibrating** !!!*

But, he's not a people person is the best way I know to say it.

(I was in sales for years & years so I am a people person and I reply instantly to All Request as an example versus a guy like Chad B)

I have reached-out to him multiple times and still don't have a real Confirmed-Date. :frown:

I'm keeping my fingers crossed and hope eventually I will hear back from him, hopefully.

For what an AVS member's opinion is worth ............
I can say that the Biggest difference to me with my H/T was him doing the Audio !!!
It was KILLER after he did his thing especially my BASS.

There was a difference in the Video but nothing at all remotely like the difference to the Audio.

I'm having as you might have seen a lot of Major Up-Grades done in June and therefore I want Chad to redo Both the Audio & Video.

What I don't want to happen is to have to wait months and months for him to come to do the above.   

If I find out that's ^^^ going to be the situation I'm more than likely going to look into seeing if there is another Highly-Trained Calibrator I can get sooner.

This latest project for multiple reasons has gone on for like a year from it's beginning.
So I'm not prepared to wait some Crazy Time Frame to get it all Custom-Calibrated once everything is installed.

Terry


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^

I hear you Terry! I actually contacted Chad last FALL and he did get back to me quickly, only to inform me that he won't be touring Minnesota (where I live) till early summer at the soonest. But again, with the pandemic he is probably WAY BEHIND SCHEDULE since most people aren't letting anyone into their homes. I would have no problem with that myself.

Thanks for the heads up on Chad's "audio skills." You have just persuaded me to have him do it! Regarding the Video calibration, I may just have him do the least expensive one (Express Calibration) since I'm very, very satisfied with the PQ on my LG OLED 77C8 right now. I use one of the Cinema Modes (Dark Room) and have tweaked most of the settings to my liking and I get an amazing picture with good sources. I absolutely LOVE the BLACKS on this OLED and they make the colors POP and increase the depth.

Good luck to you in getting Chad to calibrate your system once it's all installed. BTW, I like your system!


----------



## djoberg

*I Still Believe (1080p)*

Another "Lionsgate Looker!!

This just "may" make it into Tier 0, but I'm not taking it there. The first few scenes featured tons of color-grading (ORANGE hues) that always serve to take me out of the movie (at least to some extent), resulting in less-than-accurate flesh tones and a softening of the PQ as well. The very first scene also had some overblown contrast giving it a "washed out look."

Okay, now for the good. This was razor-sharp from that point (the first few scenes) on, with excellent depth, vibrant colors, spot on flesh tones, deep blacks and finely-rendered shadow details, and strong contrast. Had the whole movie been like this it could have landed in Tier 0.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**

PS The Dolby Atmos mix was okay, but with very little action and rather subdued ballads in the music concert portions of the movie, it didn't serve much purpose.

PPS The acting was VERY GOOD...but I do wish that Christian movie producers would use Christian actors instead of "pretty faces" from "secular Hollywood."


----------



## SnellTHX

*How To Train Your Dragon 3*

I have many, many animated movies to catch up to and this one blew my mind completely. It looks a noticeable step above the likes of Coco and Moana, which were the top reference movies before HDR became all the rage. This movie had looks of solid (absolute) blacks, Hiccoughs enchanted sword is one the brightest elements I've ever seen on my B6 OLED (probably peaked at 750 nits  ) razor-sharp best-in-class CGI throughout.

Linus from Linus Tech Tips uses this movie to assess the HDR performance of monitors like the Apple XDR Pro Display and its Asus equivalents, and I now understand why. The textures, detail and pop is phenomenal 

*Tier recommendation: 0 (Top 10)*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^

I put it in the Top 3!!!!

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-856.html#post58086952


----------



## tigerhonaker

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^^
> 
> I hear you Terry! I actually contacted Chad last FALL and he did get back to me quickly, only to inform me that he won't be touring Minnesota (where I live) till early summer at the soonest. But again, with the pandemic he is probably WAY BEHIND SCHEDULE since most people aren't letting anyone into their homes. I would have no problem with that myself.
> 
> Thanks for the heads up on Chad's "audio skills." You have just persuaded me to have him do it! Regarding the Video calibration, I may just have him do the least expensive one (Express Calibration) since I'm very, very satisfied with the PQ on my LG OLED 77C8 right now. I use one of the Cinema Modes (Dark Room) and have tweaked most of the settings to my liking and I get an amazing picture with good sources. I absolutely LOVE the BLACKS on this OLED and they make the colors POP and increase the depth.
> 
> *Good luck to you in getting Chad to calibrate your system once it's all installed.*
> 
> *I'm in contact with Chad currently just waiting for the "Confirmed-Date" from him.*
> 
> *BTW, I like your system!*


*I appreciate the compliment !!!*


*Terry*


----------



## SnellTHX

*The Invisible Man*


Some shots are absolute reference, with great detail and crystal clear sharpness, but a lot of the scenes are dim and looked noisy and flat.

*Tier recommendation: 1.25*


----------



## SnellTHX

*John Wick: Chapter 3*

Pretty much the same level of reference as John Wick & John Wick: Chapter 2.

John Wick 3 shows how to make dark & gritty night time scenes look sharp and clean. Plethora of details, the mirror scene in particular is amazing.

*
Tier recommendation: 0.75*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Postcard Killings*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

It feels unusual these days reviewing a new movie actually shot on film. The serial killer thriller was shot on location across Europe and adopts a mildly subdued color palette. There is palpable and cinematic grain in the clean video. Free of deleterious processing, it's a fine transfer that looks very presentable on Blu-ray.

Released about a week ago by RLJ Entertainment, the main feature receives a serviceable AVC encode on a BD-25. While the video quality lacks the razor-sharp trait of new digital productions, there is visible fine detail and excellent clarity.


_The Postcard Killings _isn't reference quality but has fairly standard picture quality for a new release in 2020.


----------



## djoberg

*Jaws (UHD)*

The BEST it's ever looked, to be sure!!

Amazing references scenes sprinkled throughout, with excellent clarity, details and depth, along with strong contrast, nice colors, accurate flesh tones, and inky blacks. The only "negatives" were several scenes where the age (45 years old) was evident in softness, a bit of noise (or heavy grain) and some washed out daytime shots at the beach.

If you're a fan of this classic, you'll probably never see it better than this!

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**

PS Some may be inclined to assign this to Tier 0 but IMHO they may be comparing this to previous releases, but if they compare it to current titles they should, if honest, conclude it's not really "Reference Quality" all the way through.


----------



## wesslan1

Jaws: this isn't anywhere reference to me compared to others out there but https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&a=0&d1=14173&d2=14171&s1=144635&s2=144631&i=4&l=1


----------



## SnellTHX

wesslan1 said:


> Jaws: this isn't anywhere reference to me compared to others out there but https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&a=0&d1=14173&d2=14171&s1=144635&s2=144631&i=4&l=1


What are we looking at here?


----------



## wesslan1

SnellTHX said:


> What are we looking at here?


Remove my "but" as it just confuse. It was meant to say I don't think this UHD of Jaws is reference at all but that is just my opinion.


----------



## SnellTHX

wesslan1 said:


> Remove my "but" as it just confuse. It was meant to say I don't think this UHD of Jaws is reference at all but that is just my opinion.


I see. 

Plenty of 'professional' reviewers are giving it five stars and 10/10 saying its so perfect and reference, but I think they are wearing rose-tinted nostalgia glasses that makes it look a lot better.

I have always disliked this, because the goal is looking like reality. It doesn't matter if its a 4K scan, 8K scan or 16K scan, if some one who has never seen the movie can tell its from the 70s or 80s just by looking at a scene or a face then it does not deserve anywhere near perfect score....


But I still will watch it and give it a score myself  I just some how doubt it will hold up to modern standards (at least well enough to be called 'reference')


----------



## djoberg

wesslan1 said:


> Jaws: this isn't anywhere reference to me compared to others out there but https://caps-a-holic.com/c.php?go=1&a=0&d1=14173&d2=14171&s1=144635&s2=144631&i=4&l=1





SnellTHX said:


> I see.
> 
> Plenty of 'professional' reviewers are giving it five stars and 10/10 saying its so perfect and reference, but I think they are wearing rose-tinted nostalgia glasses that makes it look a lot better.
> 
> I have always disliked this, because the goal is looking like reality. It doesn't matter if its a 4K scan, 8K scan or 16K scan, if some one who has never seen the movie can tell its from the 70s or 80s just by looking at a scene or a face then it does not deserve anywhere near perfect score....
> 
> 
> But I still will watch it and give it a score myself  I just some how doubt it will hold up to modern standards (at least well enough to be called 'reference')


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> *Jaws (UHD)*
> 
> The BEST it's ever looked, to be sure!!
> 
> Amazing references scenes sprinkled throughout, with excellent clarity, details and depth, along with strong contrast, nice colors, accurate flesh tones, and inky blacks. The only "negatives" were several scenes where the age (45 years old) was evident in softness, a bit of noise (or heavy grain) and some washed out daytime shots at the beach.
> 
> If you're a fan of this classic, you'll probably never see it better than this!
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.0**
> 
> PS Some may be inclined to assign this to Tier 0 but IMHO they be comparing this to previous releases, but if they compare it to current titles they should, if honest, conclude it's not really "Reference Quality" all the way through.



I've been hearing very good things about the transfer struck for the Jaws UHD. Having already owned the movie on multiple formats, I will get it down the line.


*The House That Dripped Blood*

recommendation: *Tier 2.5**

Having always been more of a Hammer man myself, this horror anthology offering from their rival Amicus wasn't always on my radar. Scream Factory issued the 1971 British horror movie just two years ago on Blu-ray. The good news is that it receives a modern film scan from the original camera negative. Rich color reproduction and nigh perfect black levels make for superficially rewarding picture quality. Warm, healthy flesh-tones and a ripe contrast have the British movie looking better than ever with outstanding detail.

The one issue here is that subtle ringing and processing can be spotted on larger displays. Some mild filtering has been applied, even if the pin-sharp presentation lacks any outward sign of trouble. The House That Dripped Blood certainly pops with a clarity and color fidelity uncommon for its period.

Shout Factory cleanly encodes the pristine presentation with top-notch AVC.


----------



## CJackson

What's the word on the new 4k releases of A New Hope and The Empire Strikes Back? Are they any good? What about the 1080p releases included with the 4k ones?


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> I've been hearing very good things about the transfer struck for the Jaws UHD. Having already owned the movie on multiple formats, I will get it down the line.


I do believe you will be pleased, for as I have said "it has never looked this good and perhaps it's the best it will ever look."

Having said that, it is NOT "Reference Quality" IMO, even though many are touting it as such on Ralph Potts' website where Ralph gave it a perfect score of 100 for PQ. I disagreed with him but then I realized that his "criteria" for analyzing and scoring PQ is different than ours, especially when it comes to "Director's Intent." For example, in _Jaws_ there are definitely a number of scenes with a very SOFT FOCUS. Ralph knows this but he says it was the director's intention so it shouldn't be penalized in the PQ score since it looks "the way it should look" and "the way it looked in the Cinema." I countered that by saying we would indeed penalize scenes with softness because it hinders "clarity" and that is one of the criteria we go by in our placement recommendation. The vast majority of AVS members that joined our discussion agreed with Ralph and I basically said, "It's all a matter of CRITERIA for analyzing and scoring PQ" and I emphasized that on this Thread we are looking objectively for EYE CANDY, not on how true the Blu-ray lines up with what the Director had in mind.

I also stated what I did in my review; that a title's PQ should not simply be judged by comparing it with its previous releases, but on how it compares to current titles in any given tier. That too did not go over very well! Oh well, sometimes I need to learn to keep my thoughts to myself when I'm visiting other threads that review Blu-rays.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^

By the way, I read Matt's review of the _Jaws UHD_ release on Do.Blu.com and he did NOT imply at all that it was "Reference Quality" and he ranked the PQ "4 out of 5 stars."


----------



## AmerCa

^°°°°°^
Isn't that the sane crowd who always criticizes Disney for their audio mixes? Director's "intent" doesn't count in those cases?  But since every one of us has a different criteria for judging PQ or AQ, most of those discussions lead nowhere.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^

Yes, AmerCa....same crowd, but to their credit they DO penalize the "Audio Score" when the bass/LFE is lacking due to the Studio/Director limiting the low frequency. This is why I'm baffled that they aren't consistent when it come to the "PQ Score."


----------



## AmerCa

Hmmm...*sigh*. My Vizio TV now has a vertical line of dead pixels. Fortunately, it's very thin, at a 1/4 of the left side, but of course it's noticeable, especially in clear/daylight scenes. My TV is out of warranty so there's nothing I can do about it. So, when watching movies I just tried to pretend it isn't there. Dammit.

I just hope it stays that way, and the line doesn't "expand". 

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## BrettStah

Are the rankings here applicable for the same movies streamed via iTunes, by any chance? I’m looking for some movies to stream on a new TV (which I haven’t bought yet).


----------



## AmerCa

BrettStah said:


> Are the rankings here applicable for the same movies streamed via iTunes, by any chance? I’m looking for some movies to stream on a new TV (which I haven’t bought yet).


In theory, yes. But it all depends on the bitrate. So if a movie receives stellar PQ marks here, it should translate to the streaming version.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> Hmmm...*sigh*. My Vizio TV now has a vertical line of dead pixels. Fortunately, it's very thin, at a 1/4 of the left side, but of course it's noticeable, especially in clear/daylight scenes. My TV is out of warranty so there's nothing I can do about it. So, when watching movies I just tried to pretend it isn't there.
> 
> I just hope it stays that way, and the line doesn't "expand".
> 
> Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


Yikes! Do you remember that this is exactly what happened to my Flagship Sony 75" LCD/LED? I bought in 2016 and it developed a "red vertical line" (which was VERY noticeable) and my warranty had just expired! I was told it would cost several thousand dollars to repair it so I ended up throwing it away and replacing it with my 77" LG OLED. Needless to say, I bought a 5-year extended warranty on this from Best Buy...just in case!


----------



## AmerCa

^°^°^°^°^
Wow. I didn't remember the specifics, but apparently, it's a common issue with faulty panels? My line is dark blue, but very thin. I can notice it, but I can "forget" about it when watching a movie. This just happened, and I've watched two movies, and well, it sucks, but it's not terrible. I can live with it for the time being.

The irony of it all is that my TV is for watching exclusively my BDs, and very occasionally, some music videos from a flash drive. It really doesn't have that many hours. My two other cheaper and smaller TVs are still working after many years of heavy usage without issues. Hilarious!

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^^

My line was somewhat thin but dark red and I tried to ignore it but to no avail. The "bright side" of this was, of course, getting the OLED that I always wanted...at a price which was no longer in the stratosphere.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Sorry about your panel's issues, AmerCa. Knock on wood, my OLED hasn't suffered any burn-in yet. Some models have pixel cleaning functions that can occasionally fix issues. I'd call your manufacturer and check out your hardware guide.


----------



## AmerCa

^°^°^°^
Thanks for the tip, Phantom. I'm going to give the manual a deeper look. Don't have high hopes, tho.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## Chris Kelly

I have questions about the calibration feature on Sony 4K/UHD Blu-ray titles. Since my questions are HDR and Blu-ray software related, I posted them in the HDR section of the display forum and this thread. I can't post a link because this is only my fourth post. Here are my questions as worded in the thread I created in the HDR section of the display forum. Either I'm impatient and I'm not Googling hard enough, or there are no cut and dry corresponding articles or instructions. Based on the 480i DVD THX and Sony 1080p Blu-ray test screens, I would assume that the objective for any patterns from black to gray to white is to cover the entire range without any clipping of black or white. The Sony 4K/UHD Blu-ray titles also feature this test in which a rectangle in the middle of the screen changes between red, green, blue, cyan, yellow, and majenta a few times. I'm pretty sure I'm listing these colors out of order. Each time it goes through the pattern, are the colors supposed to be darker, undersaturated, or still have normal saturation? If there are more cut and dry articles and/or instructions, could I please have a link? I'll take anything knowledgeable, but I'd like something from Sony or related to this Sony feature. Thank, guys.


----------



## SnellTHX

*Jaws*

Pleasant, organic looking image. Very impressive for a movie that is almost 50 years old! Though it's filmic picture looks nice at times it does have heavy grain and some of the images are pretty poor. The variability in quality from an analog source. Some shots had really good details. 


*Tier recommendation: 1.5*


----------



## djoberg

Chris Kelly said:


> I have questions about the calibration feature on Sony 4K/UHD Blu-ray titles. Since my questions are HDR and Blu-ray software related, I posted them in the HDR section of the display forum and this thread. I can't post a link because this is only my fourth post. Here are my questions as worded in the thread I created in the HDR section of the display forum. Either I'm impatient and I'm not Googling hard enough, or there are no cut and dry corresponding articles or instructions. Based on the 480i DVD THX and Sony 1080p Blu-ray test screens, I would assume that the objective for any patterns from black to gray to white is to cover the entire range without any clipping of black or white. The Sony 4K/UHD Blu-ray titles also feature this test in which a rectangle in the middle of the screen changes between red, green, blue, cyan, yellow, and majenta a few times. I'm pretty sure I'm listing these colors out of order. Each time it goes through the pattern, are the colors supposed to be darker, undersaturated, or still have normal saturation? If there are more cut and dry articles and/or instructions, could I please have a link? I'll take anything knowledgeable, but I'd like something from Sony or related to this Sony feature. Thank, guys.


Hey Chris,

I looked for helpful articles and couldn't find any. There may be other threads that address calibration of Sony UHD titles, but my Search was in vain. Sorry!

Denny


----------



## CJackson

Who is getting the 4k Columbia box set tomorrow? Do you think Lawrence of Arabia will be the new go to reference disc?


----------



## djoberg

CJackson said:


> Who is getting the 4k Columbia box set tomorrow? Do you think Lawrence of Arabia will be the new go to reference disc?


I am most definitely interested in getting _Lawrence of Arabia_ in 4K, for reviewers are saying it trumps its Blu-ray (1080p) counterpart (which I own and love) in many ways. But I'm not interested in most of the other offerings in the Columbia box set so I won't be shelling out over $100 for it.


----------



## djoberg

For those who may be interested, the Panasonic DP-UB820 UHD Blu-ray player is on sale on many online sites. I ordered one a few days ago and I am absolutely elated with the PQ of this fantastic player that rivals the sorely-missed Oppo Blu-ray players.

In case you don't know, the Panny 820 has two amazing things going for it:

1) The HCX Processor! This processor is the same one that Panasonic put in their High End player (the 9000) that many are touting as the "Oppo replacement player." I watched _Exodus: Gods and Kings_ last night and I was blown away by the phenomenal CONTRAST, vibrant COLORS, amazing BLACKS, and mesmerizing DETAILS. The night scenes were some of my favorites with pure EYE CANDY in the form of inky blacks and finely-rendered shadow details. The HDR in those scenes featured bright lights in homes/palaces and fires that were simply gorgeous.

2) The HDR Optimizer! This technology gives HDR10 titles the same look as Dolby Vision. In its settings you're able to put in what display you have (in my case an OLED) and the Optimizer will then know how many "nits" your display is capable of and with its exceptional algorithm will avoid "clipping" in really bright scenes. It also boosts the contrast levels and colors resulting in EYE CANDY on par with Dolby Vision.

I've had my eye on this player for quite some time (on online stores) but now my eyes see it sitting in my entertainment center AND my eyes are seeing the fabulous PQ that the high end processor is able to achieve. I HIGHLY RECOMMEND IT!!


----------



## dragonbud0

Open box is even cheaper. I've this one in my HT room while the lower brethren is almost at half the price in the FR with regular TV.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

CJackson said:


> Who is getting the 4k Columbia box set tomorrow? Do you think Lawrence of Arabia will be the new go to reference disc?


I would like to see the new transfers. The problem is that I'm not keen on yet another box set. Frankly, even I'm running out of physical space for large disc sets.


*What The Waters Left Behind*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

Horror from Argentina with tight cinematography and a moody color correction. You'd be hard-pressed telling this slasher isn't made by a slick Hollywood studio. Muted colors and stark visuals comprise the well-crafted film's polished aesthetic.

Put out in the States by Unearthed Films, the clean digital intermediate receives a technically astute transfer on Blu-ray. Sharp and unfiltered, definition and detail are outstanding. Maybe too revealing in some of the grittier scenes. 

Independent filmmaking has come a long way in the past ten years. With the proper care and equipment they can achieve video quality on par with the latest studio productions, yielding superb-looking BDs.


----------



## djoberg

*Mortal Engines (UHD)*

I just watched this again on my new Panasonic UHD Blu-ray player and I am ready to join Snell below in nominating this for a spot in the "Top 3" of Tier Blu. Just read his review below and I agree 100% with everything he said! The only live action titles that are as good or maybe a "wee bit better" would be the current "King of the Hill"...._Transformers: The Last Knight_ and _Gemini Man_. So you can put me down for...

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (#3)*




SnellTHX said:


> *Mortal Engines - 4K*
> 
> Holy ****, WOW. This movie is an absolute reference movie. my expectations were sky-high for this movie, as it looked phenomenal in
> 3D IMAX. Peter Jackson's heavy involvement hyped me to believe this would be one of top dogs in image quality like The Hobbit trilogy still is today and like the now pretty old LOTR movies, are still near reference quality two decades later.
> 
> 
> Mortal Engines exceeded my expectations and more! Another one of those "4K looking like 8K" discs with ridiculous amount of 3D depth fooling you to think it's a "2D looking like 3D" movie. Derived from a 4K D.I. (obviously) filmed with the RED Helium 8K camera, you can tell that 4K just doesn't do the picture quality justice. It is easily one of the best looking 4K/HDR movies I have ever seen. It is hard to imagine a better picture than this from the 1.7 metres I sit from my 55" OLED. If I move 20cm closer it remains _perfect_. 40cm closer and it is still _flawless_. 60cm closer, no noise, no pixelation, no artefacts, no grain... It made me want to glue my face to the screen.
> 
> CGI is best-in-class. The image so punchy it punches you in the face. Resolution is perfect, blacks are absolute, contrast infinite, clarity is pristine, details are endless. Colours pop. Razor-sharp is an understatement. its sharpness goes well beyond want I'd normally describe as sharp. I tried looking for faults in a faultless rendition/transfer of a movie and the only 'negative' thing I can think of is that I wish it was presented in a taller 1.78 / 1.85:1 format so it would fill my screen, but that's a personal preference and doesn't defer the rating of the picture quality at all.
> 
> *
> Tier recommendation: 0 (Top 3?)*


----------



## IronWaffle

Phantom Stranger said:


> ...


Forgive the awkward format here but I’m out of practice with Tapatalk and I have a question for you as an anime enthusiast: Have you gotten or are you getting Tokyo Godfathers? BR.com just gave it’s video a good review. I canceled my preorder when I saw criticisms of the overseas release that seems sourced from the same scan. On matters of anime (and Leonard Cohen) I’d take your recommendation sight unseen. 

With that, back into the shadows I go.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

IronWaffle said:


> Forgive the awkward format here but I’m out of practice with Tapatalk and I have a question for you as an anime enthusiast: Have you gotten or are you getting Tokyo Godfathers? BR.com just gave it’s video a good review. I canceled my preorder when I saw criticisms of the overseas release that seems sourced from the same scan. On matters of anime (and Leonard Cohen) I’d take your recommendation sight unseen.
> 
> With that, back into the shadows I go.


Yes, I've seen the new Blu-ray._ Tokyo Godfathers_ received a solid transfer, definitely better than prior Blu-ray attempts. Worth the cash, I doubt we'll ever get a better edition. Someone may have covered it already and given more in-depth thoughts...I'm not sure we'll be getting anymore Leonard Cohen on Blu-ray. I'd love to see last year's _Marianne and Leonard: Words of Love_ on Blu-ray, but the label only got the documentary out on DVD. I have an HD version saved to my DVR.


https://www.doblu.com/2020/06/10/tokyo-godfathers-blu-ray-review/


----------



## IronWaffle

Phantom Stranger said:


> Yes, I've seen the new Blu-ray._ Tokyo Godfathers_ received a solid transfer, definitely better than prior Blu-ray attempts. Worth the cash, I doubt we'll ever get a better edition. Someone may have covered it already and given more in-depth thoughts...I'm not sure we'll be getting anymore Leonard Cohen on Blu-ray. I'd love to see last year's _Marianne and Leonard: Words of Love_ on Blu-ray, but the label only got the documentary out on DVD. I have an HD version saved to my DVR.
> 
> 
> https://www.doblu.com/2020/06/10/tokyo-godfathers-blu-ray-review/



Thanks kind stranger. Your reply knocked me on the fence and my upgrade from DVD should be here in a week or so. (I did search the thread but, man, Tapatalk sucks). This is the only Satoshi Kon I’ve gotten. I did see Paprika screened last year but haven’t seen Perfect Blue or Millennium Actress (yet). Tangentially, now if only someone would do a proper release of Wings of Honneamise...

As to the Cohen doc, back before the apocalypse I drove some thirty miles to see it on a tiny theater screen which looked that much smaller with the giant recliners. Overall, it was a real treat but I haven’t had the urge to re-watch it. My public library subscribes to multiple digital services, including Kanopy, which has it on offer now. Not sure if HD or not. That’ll probably be my next viewing. I agree there won’t be much if any further physical HD for him. This doc is a niche within a niche within a niche.

Anyhow. Love this thread even though my rare contributions tend to veer from the thread. I now return you to the regularly scheduled posting, already in progress...


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Amazonia: The Catherine Miles Story*


recommendation: *Tier 3.5**


British label 88 Films released this Italian exploitation flick two years ago in a region-free edition. The main feature is nicely encoded in AVC at excellent bitrates on a BD-50. A new film transfer has been struck with a lively contrast and solid black levels. Minor damage to the elements don't prove distracting in the film-like presentation. No signs of zealous video processing are evident.

_Amazonia_ has fairly crisp definition for a low-budget feature and satisfactory levels of detail. Depth and shadow delineation aren't the best. Possibly a step behind the lavish film restorations handled by Arrow Video and other top-notch labels, 88 Films gives _Amazonia_ a very respectable film transfer worth the money on Blu-ray.


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> *Mortal Engines (UHD)*
> 
> I just watched this again on my new Panasonic UHD Blu-ray player and I am ready to join Snell below in nominating this for a spot in the "Top 3" of Tier Blu. Just read his review below and I agree 100% with everything he said! The only live action titles that are as good or maybe a "wee bit better" would be the current "King of the Hill"...._Transformers: The Last Knight_ and _Gemini Man_. So you can put me down for...
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (#3)*


Indeed. Mortal Engines in 4K/HDR is truly phenomenal. I actually think it is the best looking 2.35:1 presentation I have seen at home. The only better looking movies I can think of a primarily around the 1.85:1 range like Dunkirk, Transformers: LK and Gemini Man.


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> Indeed. Mortal Engines in 4K/HDR is truly phenomenal. I actually think it is the best looking 2.35:1 presentation I have seen at home. The only better looking movies I can think of a primarily around the 1.85:1 range like Dunkirk, Transformers: LK and Gemini Man.


So, you have watched _Gemini Man_. That's great but now you need to write a review with an exact placement.


----------



## AmerCa

^°^°^°^
He already has! 
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=59400556

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Pennyworth: The Complete First Season*


recommendation: *Tier 2**


Warner Archive issues the EPIX spy thriller on Blu-ray in a well-done three-disc set. Framed at 2.00:1, the 1080P presentation has somewhat average definition and clarity by today's demanding standards. Heavy black levels crush minor shadow delineation in select scenes. Set in a moody, color-corrected England of the 1960s, flesh-tones err towards yellow.


_Pennyworth_ looks deliberately more cinematic than most cable productions, slightly softer and less over-driven than usual. Nothing is particularly outstanding but satisfies with consistently solid video quality.


----------



## djoberg

AmerCa said:


> ^°^°^°^
> He already has!
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=59400556
> 
> Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


Whoa! How in the world did I miss that? Oh, I guess I didn't "miss it" since I was one of three persons who "Liked" his post!!


----------



## AmerCa

^°^°^°^
Lol! Well, that happens.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> Whoa! How in the world did I miss that? Oh, I guess I didn't "miss it" since I was one of three persons who "Liked" his post!!


Yeah it took months to arrive and it certainly didn't disappoint! Top 3 reference disc for sure


----------



## SnellTHX

*The Call of the Wild*

Sharp & Clean looking image that is mostly image, but the excess CGI made it look a bit too soft to be placed in that category.

*
Tier recommendation: 1*


----------



## SnellTHX

*American Psycho (4K restoration) *

Out of all the old movies I've seen, this might be the best looking. I don't think I've seen a better looking movie that is 20 years old. Maybe Lawrence of Arabia and The Thin Red Line, though I've only seen the 1080p versions and that was more than half a decade ago, before the 4K/HDR revolution.

Lots of detail, no bad scenes, virtually grain-free but still presents a filmic look. I think LOTR:ROTK (2003) is the oldest movie that looks better than this! Very pleasantly surprised after always being disappointed when movies are 20 years or older receiving 10/10s as if they could compete with the best of 2019 and 2020.

*Tier recommendation: 0.75*


----------



## Panson

SnellTHX said:


> *Jaws*
> 
> Pleasant, organic looking image. Very impressive for a movie that is almost 50 years old! Though it's filmic picture looks nice at times it does have heavy grain and some of the images are pretty poor. The variability in quality from an analog source. Some shots had really good details.
> 
> *Tier recommendation: 1.5*



Snell, I viewed my BD (2014 release) recently--still impressed. During a couple of shots I wondered how 4K UHD handled them. Beach scenes where Chief is gazing toward the swimmers. Hot sandy salty air. I thought film caught it perfectly (remembering my beach bum days), though to some the picture might seem faded. Any thoughts?


----------



## SnellTHX

Panson said:


> Snell, I viewed my BD (2014 release) recently--still impressed. During a couple of shots I wondered how 4K UHD handled them. Beach scenes where Chief is gazing toward the swimmers. Hot sandy salty air. I thought film caught it perfectly (remembering my beach bum days), though to some the picture might seem faded. Any thoughts?


Will rewatch and see! As I said some shots looked really detailed but others looked grainy and horrible. Almost like VHS quality.


----------



## SnellTHX

*Frozen II*

By far and large; the best looking animated movie, EVER. HTTYD3 was a phenomenal top reference movie but Frozen II is next level. It's the sharpest and most detailed I've seen from Disney (or anyone else) bold colours, punchy image with lots of POP  I watched this movie quite a while ago but forgot to review it so I don't remember the exact scene, but there's a part where Olaf sings and the entire screen goes black except for the animated character sticking out in '3D space'. That depth, the infinite contrast and absolute black is one the best scenes I've ever scene in a movie.

Tier recommendation: 0 (#1 best-in-class animation)


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> *Frozen II*
> 
> By far and large; the best looking animated movie, EVER. HTTYD3 was a phenomenal top reference movie but Frozen II is next level. It's the sharpest and most detailed I've seen from Disney (or anyone else) bold colours, punchy image with lots of POP  I watched this movie quite a while ago but forgot to review it so I don't remember the exact scene, but there's a part where Olaf sings and the entire screen goes black except for the animated character sticking out in '3D space'. That depth, the infinite contrast and absolute black is one the best scenes I've ever scene in a movie.
> 
> Tier recommendation: 0 (#1 best-in-class animation)


Yep, your assessment mirrors mine. I added a few more "superlatives" in my review, which is here:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-875.html#post59306014


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> Yep, your assessment mirrors mine. I added a few more "superlatives" in my review, which is here:
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...read-blu-ray-discussion-875.html#post59306014


Yeah it truly is remarkable and deserves all the superlatives you gave it. I see you referenced the same two or three scenes as I did, with the singing that fades to black  I haven't watched every animated movie but this one is certainly the best of all I have seen


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Have a productive and festive Independence day!

*Fit To Kill*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

Andy Sidaris and his Malibu Bay Films have been serviced reasonably well by Mill Creek Entertainment. They've been steadily issuing his body of exploitation films on Blu-ray with new film transfers, most taken from the camera negatives. Sun-lit exteriors and a focus on clarity produce good-looking video on Blu-ray. _Fit To Kill_ exhibits excellent grain reproduction and a pumped-up contrast with warm flesh-tones. The color palette is nicely saturated, tilted towards magenta.

The film elements are in almost perfect condition. Mill Creek doesn't have a great reputation with videophiles but their work here is exemplary. Technical parameters are up to snuff with a thorough AVC encode spread out on a BD-50.


----------



## HighAltHD

Forgive me, but where exactly are the PQ Tier lists?

Also, to you frequent reviewers, thank you - I've watched or purchased many movies based on your reviews over the years.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

HighAltHD said:


> Forgive me, but where exactly are the PQ Tier lists?
> 
> Also, to you frequent reviewers, thank you - I've watched or purchased many movies based on your reviews over the years.


The PQ Tiers remains one of the threads stickied at the top of the Blu-ray Software sub-forum.


https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...nkings-pq-tiers-july-2017-a.html#post54254033


----------



## HighAltHD

Excellent - thank you. I had not thought to look at stickies.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Blood and Money*

recommendation: *Tier 1.25**

This indie feature starring Tom Berenger looks like a million bucks. The crisp, razor-sharp digital cinematography takes full advantage of the movie's frigid landscape in Northern Maine. Director John Barr serves as his own cinematographer for the thriller and demonstrates a keen sense of composition in the 2.00:1 presentation. The snow-packed forests have never looked so inviting.

Released by independent distributor Screen Media, the Blu-ray receives a technically perfect transfer in pristine condition. Top-notch clarity and consistent picture quality produces video that likely would have landed easily in Tier 0, before the appearance of UHDs.


----------



## SnellTHX

*Braveheart*

Exactly what I have come to expect from a mid-90s 35mm presentation. 

*
Tier recommendation: 1.5*


----------



## SnellTHX

*Deadpool 2*

Saw this in the cinema day 1 and finally two years later I watch it at home in 4K/HDR. It doesn't disappoint. Looks exactly like its cinematic presentation, a nice thin layer of grain structure gives it a slight filmic look while still looking sharp and rendering good amount of detail.

Better than anything DC (Sans Nolan) PQ-wise, but isn't quite as good as the best Marvel movies (GOTG2, Avengers, Black Panther)

Still really great!


*Tier recommendation: 0.75*


----------



## djoberg

Just chiming in to say we've had our family here from Phoenix the last 11 days so I haven't had time to rent or buy new Blu-rays.

Oh, and for the FIRST TIME ever, I'm having my OLED professionally calibrated by Chad B (a well-known and highly esteemed touring calibrator) on Monday, August 10th. I can't wait! I've always wanted to see what difference a real calibration can make when every setting is dialed in to "industry standards." I'm still thinking, "How in the world can this display look any better?" and yet that's exactly what I'm anticipating.


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> Just chiming in to say we've had our family here from Phoenix the last 11 days so I haven't had time to rent or buy new Blu-rays.
> 
> Oh, and for the FIRST TIME ever, I'm having my OLED professionally calibrated by Chad B (a well-known and highly esteemed touring calibrator) on Monday, August 10th. I can't wait! I've always wanted to see what difference a real calibration can make when every setting is dialed in to "industry standards." I'm still thinking, "How in the world can this display look any better?" and yet that's exactly what I'm anticipating.


Enjoy! There's not much on the consumer market that looks better than a professionally calibrated C9  

Bet it'll make all your movies look .25 better


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> Enjoy! There's not much on the consumer market that looks better than a professionally calibrated C9
> 
> Bet it'll make all your movies look .25 better


Thanks for the encouragement Snell!


----------



## SnellTHX

*Joker*


Finally got this movie in 4K/HDR at home. One of my all time favourite movies and IMO the greatest comic based film ever, after The Dark Knight.

Visually it is stunning. Filmed with what I think is the best Alexa camera ever - Alexa LF (Large Format) 4.5K so this film met the ultra high standards met by other movies like for instance 1917.

Though shot digitally it has a very nice organic look. It's very dark but you can still see all those details  colours are a bit muted (thematically) so not much pop to speak of but for what it is Joker does really, really well and there are some stunning high contrast / HDR scenes.

Pores, skin, make-up all the textures well defined. Superb blacks.

Almost forgot, the movie is filmed in 1.85:1 and I do have a soft spot for those movies. 


*Tier recommendation: 0.33*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^

Your review makes me want to see it for the PQ! But the content of the film is holding me back, for I've heard it is a DEPRESSING and HOPELESS movie; in one word, very DARK. It also contains a lot of what I call "gratuitous language." Because of that it is NOT something I would enjoy. I realize the moviegoers had mixed reactions, with some expressing what you said and others saying what I just said.


----------



## fredxr2d2

djoberg said:


> Just chiming in to say we've had our family here from Phoenix the last 11 days so I haven't had time to rent or buy new Blu-rays.
> 
> Oh, and for the FIRST TIME ever, I'm having my OLED professionally calibrated by Chad B (a well-known and highly esteemed touring calibrator) on Monday, August 10th. I can't wait! I've always wanted to see what difference a real calibration can make when every setting is dialed in to "industry standards." I'm still thinking, "How in the world can this display look any better?" and yet that's exactly what I'm anticipating.



Chad B did a great job with my JVC X790 projector. I think you'll be pleased.


----------



## tigerhonaker

djoberg said:


> Just chiming in to say we've had our family here from Phoenix the last 11 days so I haven't had time to rent or buy new Blu-rays.
> 
> Oh, and for the FIRST TIME ever, I'm having my OLED professionally calibrated by Chad B (a well-known and highly esteemed touring calibrator) on Monday, August 10th. I can't wait! I've always wanted to see what difference a real calibration can make when every setting is dialed in to "industry standards." I'm still thinking, "How in the world can this display look any better?" and yet that's exactly what I'm anticipating.





fredxr2d2 said:


> Chad B did a great job with my JVC X790 projector. I think you'll be pleased.


Guys,

I've used his Expert services twice and he will be coming back again in the near future once my JVC RS4500 returns from the JVC Repair-Center in CA..

Chad B is the Real-Deal ...............











Terry


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^
> 
> Your review makes me want to see it for the PQ! But the content of the film is holding me back, for I've heard it is a DEPRESSING and HOPELESS movie; in one word, very DARK. It also contains a lot of what I call "gratuitous language." Because of that it is NOT something I would enjoy. I realize the moviegoers had mixed reactions, with some expressing what you said and others saying what I just said.


Joker is one of the greatest movies I have ever seen. Screenplay, character development, acting, storyline, cinematography, pacing, atmosphere everything is a masterpiece. Thankfully the PQ is also, really, really good!


It's dark, depressing, hopeless, etc because that's exactly how Todd Philips makes you want to feel. Joaquin Phoenix's performance as Joker is one of the most oscar-worthy roles I have seen in years!


----------



## Robbie Racer

tigerhonaker said:


> Guys,
> 
> I've used his Expert services twice and he will be coming back again in the near future once my JVC RS4500 returns from the JVC Repair-Center in CA..
> 
> Chad B is the Real-Deal ...............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Terry


Do you know if Chad make house calls in Northern CA? I left him a message on this forum about a month ago and didn't hear back from him?


----------



## djoberg

tigerhonaker said:


> Guys,
> 
> I've used his Expert services twice and he will be coming back again in the near future once my JVC RS4500 returns from the JVC Repair-Center in CA..
> 
> Chad B is the Real-Deal ...............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Terry


Hey Terry,

Thanks so much for your encouraging post and for showing pictures of your "very nice" Home Theater room and of Chad B. Again, I will be thrilled to meet Chad, to see his passion in what he does; and I'm absolutely confident that he will "work his magic" on my LG 77C8 OLED and I too will be echoing your words "Chad is the Real Deal!"

Denny


----------



## djoberg

fredxr2d2 said:


> Chad B did a great job with my JVC X790 projector. I think you'll be pleased.


Hey Fred,

So good to hear from you! I had no idea that Chad B. had calibrated your JVC projector and your post has given me even more confidence that I have made a wise choice in choosing Chad to calibrate my LG OLED. I truly feel blessed that he is touring our great state of Minnesota and that he is willing to travel a bit outside of his normal area in Minnesota to bless me with his knowledge and expertise. 

Snell said that my movies "may" look 25% better after he's done....if that's the case I will be revisiting many of the Blu-rays (especially all of my UHD/HDR Blu-rays) in my rather huge library after he's done, which will keep me occupied for a very long time!


----------



## tcramer

Robbie Racer said:


> Do you know if Chad make house calls in Northern CA? I left him a message on this forum about a month ago and didn't hear back from him?


Best to contact him via his web form or email. I don't think he gets on the forum too much.


----------



## djoberg

tcramer said:


> Best to contact him via his web form or email.


That's what I did!!


----------



## tigerhonaker

Robbie Racer said:


> Do you know if Chad make house calls in Northern CA? I left him a message on this forum about a month ago and didn't hear back from him?


Robbie,

I just made an attempt to contact Chad and gave him your above Posted question ^^^.

Let me know if it works but it might be awhile before he contacts you.
It's according to where he is traveling doing his thing.

Terry


----------



## Robbie Racer

tigerhonaker said:


> Robbie,
> 
> I just made an attempt to contact Chad and gave him your above Posted question ^^^.
> 
> Let me know if it works but it might be awhile before he contacts you.
> It's according to where he is traveling doing his thing.
> 
> Terry


Thanks Terry. I went to his web page yesterday and put in a request and I received an email response this morning already. Chad will be in my area in January next year, so I'm on his contact list to schedule a date then. I'm really looking forward to seeing how much he can improve the picture and the ATMOS sound with my two PB16U subs in my family room. Thanks again.


----------



## djoberg

Robbie Racer said:


> Thanks Terry. I went to his web page yesterday and put in a request and I received an email response this morning already. Chad will be in my area in January next year, so I'm on his contact list to schedule a date then. I'm really looking forward to seeing how much he can improve the picture and the ATMOS sound with my two PB16U subs in my family room. Thanks again.


Your post just reminded me how much I wished I was having Chad do my AUDIO too. But the price is quite high and it doesn't fit well into my budget. I did do the Audyssey XT32 calibration (which came with my Denon 4300 AVR) and it sounds fantastic, but I'm sure Chad could take it up a notch or two...just like he will be doing with the PQ after his video calibration.

Just so you know, I had contacted Chad way back in September of last year so I had to wait nearly a year for him to schedule me in. But "patience is a virtue" so we will be rewarded for the long wait!


----------



## Panson

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^
> 
> Your review makes me want to see it {Joker} for the PQ! But the content of the film is holding me back, for I've heard it is a DEPRESSING and HOPELESS movie; in one word, very DARK. It also contains a lot of what I call "gratuitous language." Because of that it is NOT something I would enjoy. I realize the moviegoers had mixed reactions, with some expressing what you said and others saying what I just said.


Personal thing and I fully understand. I'll see Joker (2019) at some point, but it'll likely be a one-and-done with no desire to library it...such as other critically acclaimed films Se7en (1995), Silence of the Lambs (1991).

Some push buttons, some don't. FWIW I like and own discs for Bone Tomahawk (2015), Hannibal (2001), all Quentin Tarantino films with "disturbing" subject matter.

I noticed these results in a related web search, and don't recommend reading. 

"13 of the Most Disturbing — and Critically Acclaimed — Movies to Ever Hit Theaters" - ewdotcom

"The Most Disturbing Movies of All Time" - complexdotcom

"The Ultimate Disturbing Movies List" - IMDbdotcom

Cheers and happy viewing.


----------



## djoberg

*A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (1080p)*

First off, this was much more dramatic a film than I had expected. I was drawn in by the exemplary acting of Tom Hanks, Matthew Rhys (one of my favorite actors!), and Chris Cooper. It is an "unusual" movie with a very slow pace but with very good character development.

PQ-wise, it was less-than-stellar in just about every way. Much of its 100 minute running time featured sporadic SOFT SHOTS, DULL BLACK LEVELS, and EGREGIOUS COLOR-GRADING. On the positive side, when PRIMARIES rose to the occasion the COLORS were "naturally beautiful" and there were instances of some incredible DEPTH. I should add that many of the in-studio scenes with Mr. Rogers were shot with a 16mm camera so you can imagine how weak the PQ was at those times.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0**


----------



## SnellTHX

*Scoob!*

The best looking non-Pixar / Disney animated movie I have seen. Bold, punchy colours giving a sense of 3D-like depth, lots of pop, dynamic range lovely greens, blues, purples every where. Another prime example of 2K CGI looking nothing less than 4K CGI  
*
Tier recommendation: 0.50*


----------



## djoberg

Just chiming in to comment on the "new look" of this thread. In a word, "Disappointed!"


----------



## Kool-aid23

djoberg said:


> Just chiming in to comment on the "new look" of this thread. In a word, "Disappointed!"


+1 Gonna take some time to get use to.


----------



## djoberg

Kool-aid23 said:


> +1 Gonna take some time to get use to.


I guess I really should have said, "Disappointed SO FAR." I have been delving a bit deeper into all the changes that were made and some are quite interesting, but there is perhaps TOO MUCH to distract from our main purpose coming here, which is to communicate our passion for A/V and thus to "learn from one another."

There seem to be some obvious "quirks" such as the AVATAR. My picture used to show the Front of my Home Theater system "symmetrically" but now it is way off and only shows 3/4 of it.


----------



## djoberg

Where is an option to DELETE a post?


----------



## djoberg

I'm not one for big changes!


----------



## Cheddarhead

djoberg said:


> Where is an option to DELETE a post?


No longer an option.

Community Forum discussing all the changes along with a FAQ


----------



## SnellTHX

*Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood*

Shot on film, and a specific visual aesthetic in mind. I don't like stylised looks I prefer natural unfiltered.
It still looked decent, but IMO the 1994 Pulp Fiction looks a lot better (based on memory of the 1080p blu-ray ... I will look for the 4K version!)

*Tier recommendation: 1.25*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

The new forum interface and aesthetics will certainly take me some time getting comfortable again. I was afraid the forum change would wreak the PQ Tiers layout like the last time (2012?) this happened, but they appear untouched. The Tiers don't look bad at all in the "dark" forum skin.









Blu-ray & UHD Picture Quality Rankings: The PQ Tiers...


Oculi plus vident quam oculus Last Update: January 5, 2019 Tier 0 - Blu Tier 1 - Gold Tier 2.0 - Silver Tier 3.0 - Bronze Tier 4.0 - Copper Tier 5.0 - Coal 0 - 1 - 1.25 - 1.5 - 1.75 - 2 - 2.25 - 2.5 - 2.75 - 3 - 3.25 - 3.5 - 3.75 - 4 - 4.5 - 5 -...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## djoberg

It's time to "balance the scales," for I have been quite negative about the new format on AVS. I just discovered that the Search Engine ("Search Community" above) is FANTASTIC! After you type in what you're searching for you have three options, including "Search this discussion," and if you click that on you will get a very quick reply. For example, I typed in _Lawrence of Arabia_ and it took me to all of the reviews immediately and that title goes back 8 years!! If you will recall, searching for reviews, especially ones going back a few years or more, was an "exercise in futility." Not anymore!


----------



## djoberg

I just purchased a copy of the UHD release of _Waterworld_ earlier this week but I've only watched the first 20 minutes. So far, SO GOOD! I will certainly weigh in when I get a chance to watch the whole thing.


----------



## tigerhonaker

djoberg said:


> I just purchased a copy of the UHD release of _Waterworld_ earlier this week but I've only watched the first 20 minutes. So far, SO GOOD! I will certainly weigh in when I get a chance to watch the whole thing.


djoberg,

I would and will be very interested in what you think of Both the Audio & Video ???
And a picture of which exact disc you have ???

Thanks,
Terry


----------



## djoberg

Here you go:


----------



## djoberg

By the way, so far the AUDIO is amazing! It's a LOUD MIX yet it's very BALANCED, with precision throughout my nine channels (including excellent dialogue clarity), and thunderous LFE/Bass in my dual SVS subs!


----------



## djoberg

I'm tempted to wait until Chad B does his magic (on Monday) before watching _Waterworld_.


----------



## SnellTHX

Interesting read for you guys: 

Lawrence of Arabia in 4K/HDR

Just listen to what the author of DoBlu says about Lawrence of Arabia, now in 4K/HDR/WCG/10bit

He actually states its the finest imagery ever pressed on disc - holy ****.

I'm very certain I gave the 1080p blu-ray watched on my 9G Kuro a Tier 0 placement...

So needlessly to say I ordered this movie right away


----------



## djoberg

I too gave the 1080p a Tier 0 placement. Here is my review (you will need to click on the BLUE LINK to actually see):









The New PQ Tier thread for Blu-Ray - Discussion


Quote: Originally Posted by djoberg I have been wanting to see Finding Nemo in HD ever since the Blu-ray format "won the war." And then I purchased my SVS sub last year and read about the amazing LFE (I believe many were talking about the amazing *thuds* in the "aquarium" scene ) and so...




www.avsforum.com





You say you "ordered this movie right away." I only see it offered in a "bundle" with 5 other movies at a pretty steep price, especially considering some of the movies aren't that good (IMHO). Or were you able to purchase it alone somewhere?


----------



## SnellTHX

Sorry, I added my comment a bit prematurely. I said that as I opened the websites my regular shops. I cannot find it for sale at all in Norway and on US websites like Amazon I only find the immensely expensive collection full of crap (I guess Jerry Maguire might be a good movie, people have recommended it to me before!) 

I found a place in the Czech Republic that sells Lawrence of Arabia 4K/HDR on its own and at a decent place, but they are sold out right now.

but if it truly is the best picture quality ever (or even half as good as described in my provided link) then it might be worth splurging $200 for the entire collection and enjoy some other 4K/HDR movies as well


----------



## tigerhonaker

djoberg said:


> I'm tempted to wait until Chad B does his magic (on Monday) before watching _Waterworld_.


djoberg

I "Agree" wait !!!

Terry


----------



## tigerhonaker

djoberg said:


> I too gave the 1080p a Tier 0 placement. Here is my review (you will need to click on the BLUE LINK to actually see):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The New PQ Tier thread for Blu-Ray - Discussion
> 
> 
> Quote: Originally Posted by djoberg I have been wanting to see Finding Nemo in HD ever since the Blu-ray format "won the war." And then I purchased my SVS sub last year and read about the amazing LFE (I believe many were talking about the amazing *thuds* in the "aquarium" scene ) and so...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say you "ordered this movie right away." I only see it offered in a "bundle" with 5 other movies at a pretty steep price, especially considering some of the movies aren't that good (IMHO). Or were you able to purchase it alone somewhere?


djoberg,

Here is the "ONLY" way you can order it that I'm aware of.
*





Amazon.com: Columbia Classics 4K Ultra HD Collection (Mr. Smith Goes to Washington / Lawrence of Arabia / Dr. Strangelove / Gandhi / A League of Their Own / Jerry Maguire) + Digital [Blu-ray]: Movies & TV


Amazon.com: Columbia Classics 4K Ultra HD Collection (Mr. Smith Goes to Washington / Lawrence of Arabia / Dr. Strangelove / Gandhi / A League of Their Own / Jerry Maguire) + Digital [Blu-ray]: Movies & TV



www.amazon.com




*









I have it .............

I'm waiting for my JVC RS4500 laser projector to get back from their "Repair-Center" in CA to watch it.







Terry


----------



## Cheddarhead

djoberg said:


> I'm tempted to wait until Chad B does his magic (on Monday) before watching _Waterworld_.


Watch the TV cut before Chad does his magic. It will provide some background missing from the Theatrical cut plus has, IMHO, a much more satisfying ending. Then compare the 4k cuts PQ with Chad's setting to the TV cut which is still 2K.


----------



## [email protected]

I followed the link to this discussion topic in the thread titled Blu-ray & UHD Picture Quality Rankings: The PQ Tiers July 2017 but the main post says _Last Update: January 5, 2019._ Using the site search feature brings up PQ Teir topics from 2008, 2015 and that one Iinked above. Also, if it was updated in 2019, why wasn't the thread title changed?

My question is; is this the most up to date PQ Tier thread. Has it in fact been updated more recently and the OP just hasn't changed the Last Update date? It's a bit confusing since the forum (unlike nearly every forum software for the last 10 years) doesn't tell you the last edited date on each individual post (which is incredibly handy).


----------



## Phantom Stranger

[email protected] said:


> I followed the link to this discussion topic in the thread titled Blu-ray & UHD Picture Quality Rankings: The PQ Tiers July 2017 but the main post says _Last Update: January 5, 2019._ Using the site search feature brings up PQ Teir topics from 2008, 2015 and that one Iinked above. Also, if it was updated in 2019, why wasn't the thread title changed?
> 
> My question is; is this the most up to date PQ Tier thread. Has it in fact been updated more recently and the OP just hasn't changed the Last Update date? It's a bit confusing since the forum (unlike nearly every forum software for the last 10 years) doesn't tell you the last edited date on each individual post (which is incredibly handy).


The page that says last edited on January 5th, 2019 is the latest update. The old forum software didn't allow users to alter existing thread titles, which is why it says July 2017. Those older threads were once the main PQ Tiers; we felt it wise to keep them around for posterity but they are largely out of date by now.

Every disc below Tier 0 was updated through 2019.


----------



## djoberg

*Waterworld (UHD)*

I will say right out front that all previous releases of this title "pale in comparison" to this UHD release! Oh, it still has a lot of "grittiness" due to heavy grain at times and softness, but the DETAILS and DEPTH are outstanding, especially when the cameraman zooms in close. Facial details are finely-rendered, revealing every pore, scar, whisker, etc. and details in the boats, jet skis, airplanes, and clothing are also pure eye candy. They make up for the drab look caused by muted colors and tons of rust covering nearly every inanimate object that's been subjected to "salt water" for who knows how long. Speaking of colors, there is one amazing color featured from beginning to end...yeah, you guessed it...the rich BLUE seas and BLUE skies! This is where HDR really shines! There are also some other "primaries" sprinkled in here and there which are a rare treat, especially against a rust-colored background. Last, but not least, BLACK LEVELS/SHADOW DETAILS were to-die-for!

AQ-wise, the DTX-HD Master Audio is ROCK SOLID. As you may know, there is plenty of action and this allows for some amazing panning effects across all channels, including the height channels! LFE/bass is also on display in quite a few scenes creating waves of energy that brought a smile to my face! I loved the musical score and there is one scene (with Costner teaching the young girl to swim) with a beautiful melody that emanated from every speaker and it had just the right about of bass.

If not for the grittiness and softness in a fair number of scenes this could have ended up in the bottom of Tier 0, but in fairness I must consign it to Tier Gold. Methinks it deserves to be put right here....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**


----------



## djoberg

Chad B was here today for about 3 1/2 hours. He calibrated THREE INPUTS (ISF Dark Room for SDR, and CINEMA for both HDR and DOLBY VISION). He is everything that has been said about him...a VERY FRIENDLY guy who takes his work VERY SERIOUSLY and who does a VERY GOOD job! What I am noticing so far (in my limited time watching broadcasts and _Waterworld_) is fantastic "shadow details"! Depth seems much better as well and flesh tones are as "natural as they come." Oh, and Chad was able to eliminate the "dimming" altogether that happens when watching cable news channels where there is a still image for more than a minute or two. That used to bother me a lot...but no more!

It may take awhile to get used to satellite broadcasts for they don't have as much POP as they did before, but I do love how "natural" everything looks. I have always used MOVIE MODE in my displays (or the PURE MODE on my Pioneer KURO plasma), but they were never this soft/dark. I do believe I'll come to love the new look just as I did "way back when" when I quit using VIVID or STANDARD (believe me, this was truly WAY BACK).

EDIT: I have been watching different channels throughout the day and I am amazing at the CLARITY, DEPTH and POP that I'm now seeing! I can't describe how REAL everything looks now compared to before the calibration... I absolutely LOVE IT! Either my "eyes were OFF" last night or the PQ got "better overnight."


----------



## [email protected]

Phantom Stranger said:


> The page that says last edited on January 5th, 2019 is the latest update. The old forum software didn't allow users to alter existing thread titles, which is why it says July 2017. Those older threads were once the main PQ Tiers; we felt it wise to keep them around for posterity but they are largely out of date by now.
> 
> Every disc below Tier 0 was updated through 2019.


Ah ok. Thanks for the reply. The reason I asked is i have just moved into a new house in which I have more of an opportunity to set up a media room and as I was unpacking my rather small (about 40) blu-ray collection from storage I decided to buy some coloured stickers and rank my titles by PQ tier. As I was going through my titles I was surprised to come across a rather large proportion that are not even on the PQ tier lists. These titles are as follows:

Smokey and the Bandit (1977) - curiously with a 1997 copyright
Risky Business (1983)
Raw Deal (1986)
The Lost Boys (1987)
Born on The Fourth of July (1989)
The Last Action Hero (1993)
Just Cause (1995)
Maximum Risk (1996)
Hard Rain (1998)
Half Past Dead (2002)
Felon (2008)
Extant: The First Season (2015)
With the exception of the last one, which I acquired pretty cheap from a retailer, the others I scored in a box at a second hand shop, along with Red Heat, Universal Soldier, Twister, Transporter 3, Little Fockers, The Bourne Trilogy and Basic Instinct for about $40AU

I don't hold out much hope for amazing PQ with many of these 80's and 90s movies, but I got a bunch of blu-rays for cheap and I'm happy.


----------



## tigerhonaker

djoberg said:


> *Chad B was here today for about 3 1/2 hours.*
> He calibrated THREE INPUTS (ISF Dark Room for SDR, and CINEMA for both HDR and DOLBY VISION).
> *He is everything that has been said about him...a VERY FRIENDLY guy who takes his work VERY SERIOUSLY and who does a VERY GOOD job*!
> What I am noticing so far (in my limited time watching broadcasts and _Waterworld_) is fantastic "shadow details"! Depth seems much better as well and flesh tones are as "natural as they come." Oh, and Chad was able to eliminate the "dimming" altogether that happens when watching cable news channels where there is a still image for more than a minute. That used to bother me a lot...but no more!
> 
> It may take awhile to get used to satellite broadcasts for they don't have as much POP as they did before, but I do love how "natural" everything looks. I have always used MOVIE MODE in my displays (or the PURE MODE on my Pioneer KURO plasma), but they were never this soft/dark. I do believe I'll come to love the new look just as I did "way back when" when I quit using VIVID or STANDARD (believe me, this was truly WAY BACK).


*djoberg,*

I have used Chad B multiple times and he will be returning again once my JVC RS4500 gets back from being repaired by JVC in CA.
*As you said above ^^^ he is the Real-Deal and does take what he does Very-Very Seriously.
He is a True-Caring-Professional !!!*

Terry


----------



## djoberg

Terry,

Chad informed me that he will be seeing your soon on his way to Florida. He also said your Home Theater is "one of his favorites!" That's quite a compliment coming from him. I really enjoyed the "tech talk" I had with him, for even though I am quite familiar with a lot of PQ-jargon, he really educated me as he was calibrating my display and checking all my components and making the necessary adjustments to them. He is a TRUE PROFESSIONAL who loves his craft, but I was delighted to know he also loves his family. He is what we would classify as "down to earth" and that's "my kind of guy."

By the way, the PQ on satellite channels doesn't seem as "soft" or "dark" as they did last night. In fact, it is much SHARPER than it looked last night. I've been watching it throughout the day and I am absolutely mesmerized by the CLARITY and DEPTH and how natural it looks, especially the FLESH TONES. I will never own a display again without having it calibrated and I hope Chad doesn't retire for many, many years!!

Denny


----------



## tigerhonaker

djoberg said:


> Terry,
> 
> Chad informed me that he will be seeing your soon on his way to Florida. He also said your Home Theater is "one of his favorites!" That's quite a compliment coming from him. I really enjoyed the "tech talk" I had with him, for even though I am quite familiar with a lot of PQ-jargon, he really educated me as he was calibrating my display and checking all my components and making the necessary adjustments to them. He is a TRUE PROFESSIONAL who loves his craft, but I was delighted to know he also loves his family.
> 
> *He is what we would classify as "down to earth" and that's "my kind of guy.*"
> 
> By the way, the PQ on satellite channels doesn't seem as "soft" or "dark" as they did last night. In fact, it is much SHARPER than it looked last night. I've been watching it throughout the day and I am absolutely mesmerized by the CLARITY and DEPTH and how natural it looks, especially the FLESH TONES. I will never own a display again without having it calibrated and I hope Chad doesn't retire for many, many years!!
> 
> Denny


Hello Denny,

*Your 100% correct with your statement on Chad above ^^^*

I also agree that if Chad compliments mine or anyone's H/T and or Media area he means it.
He doesn't just run his mouth to hear himself talk. LOL !!!

And seriously speaking I do appreciate his kind words on my Dedicated-H/T for sure. 

I am pleased that your today's viewing meets and or exceeds what you were wanting. 
(Nice going buddy)

Note* Now if I can just get that Shipping notice from JVC that my RS4500 is on it's way back to me.
They are working a Reduced-Schedule due to the Covid-19 situation.
They now are working, Monday-Wednesday-Friday ........... ONLY !!!

Terry


----------



## djoberg

tigerhonaker said:


> Hello Denny,
> 
> *Your 100% correct with your statement on Chad above ^^^*
> 
> I also agree that if Chad compliments mine or anyone's H/T and or Media area he means it.
> He doesn't just run his mouth to hear himself talk. LOL !!!
> 
> And seriously speaking I do appreciate his kind words on my Dedicated-H/T for sure.
> 
> I am pleased that your today's viewing meets and or exceeds what you were wanting.
> (Nice going buddy)
> 
> Note* Now if I can just get that Shipping notice from JVC that my RS4500 is on it's way back to me.
> They are working a Reduced-Schedule due to the Covid-19 situation.
> They now are working, Monday-Wednesday-Friday ........... ONLY !!!
> 
> Terry


Hey Terry,

I truly hope you get your JVC in time for Chad's tour in Florida!

As soon as Chad finished his calibration he encouraged me to put something in to see how I liked it. Before I did grab a Blu-ray I wanted to see a Starz Movie I had been watching the night before where Michael Caine was wearing a black tuxedo in a bright room and I could NOT see his lapels or buttons; in other words, there was obvious BLACK CRUSH obliterating the details. I turned it to that scene and lo and behold I could see his lapels, pockets and buttons as clear as day! Chad had said I would really notice a difference in shadow details and that was perfect proof.

I then put in the UHD release of _Mortal Engines_ and we watched about the first 10-15 minutes, with 5 minutes showing off the strong contrast in a daytime, outdoor scene and then a nighttime scene lasting 10 minutes where the two lead actors were running along rock walls and rocky terrain and Chad was (and I) thoroughly impressed with the details. Chad had not seen this movie and he loved the excellent clarity and details and colors the whole 15 minutes and he absolutely loved the Dolby Atmos mix with THUNDEROUS LFE/BASS as the "moving cities" made their way across the country side.


----------



## tigerhonaker

djoberg said:


> Hey Terry,
> 
> I truly hope you get your JVC in time for Chad's tour in Florida!
> 
> As soon as Chad finished his calibration he encouraged me to put something in to see how I liked it. Before I did grab a Blu-ray I wanted to see a Starz Movie I had been watching the night before where Michael Caine was wearing a black tuxedo in a bright room and I could NOT see his lapels or buttons; in other words, there was an obvious BLACK CRUSH obliterating the details. I turned it to that scene and lo and behold I could see his lapels, pockets and buttons as clear as day! Chad had said I would really notice a difference in shadow details and that was perfect proof.
> 
> I then put in the UHD release of _Mortal Engines_ and we watched about the first 10-15minutes, with 5 minutes showing off the strong contrast in a daytime, outdoor scene and then a nighttime scene lasting 10 minutes where the two lead actors were running along rock walls and rocky terrain and Chad was (and I) was thoroughly impressed with the details. Chad had not seen this movie and he loved the excellent clarity and details and colors the whole 15 minutes and he absolutely loved the Dolby Atmos mix with THUNDEROUS LFE/BASS as the "moving cities" made their way across the country side.


Denny,

Man it reads like you and Chad enjoyed watching and listening to your Demo material.  
I'm glad that what he did meets and actually perhaps exceeds your expectations.

I don't really have a clue about this JVC projector shipping situation. 
Just a wait and see sort of thing.
Maybe I'll luck-out if not I'll just see Chad on his return to Ohio.

Terry


----------



## SnellTHX

*The Revenant (4K)*

Pointing out that this is the 4K/HDR blu-ray... so I'm extremely late to the party, but I watched this in the cinema in 2015 and 4-5 years ago I bought the 1080p blu-ray and perhaps reviewed it with my Kuro. I don't remember.

4K/HDR in addition to OLED brings made this an entirely new experience.

The picture quality of The Revenant is phenomenal. The natural lighting, the organic colours everything about it feels and looks so _accurate _and _correct_

Good depth, great clarity and lots of details in every shot. It remains reference from start to finish.

Doesn't have as much much *pop *or 3D-like depth as other top dogs but what can you expect from a movie like this.

*Tier recommendation: 0.50*


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> *The Revenant (4K)*
> 
> Pointing out that this is the 4K/HDR blu-ray... so I'm extremely late to the party, but I watched this in the cinema in 2015 and 4-5 years ago I bought the 1080p blu-ray and perhaps reviewed it with my Kuro. I don't remember.
> 
> 4K/HDR in addition to OLED brings made this an entirely new experience.
> 
> The picture quality of The Revenant is phenomenal. The natural lighting, the organic colours everything about it feels and looks so _accurate _and _correct_
> 
> Good depth, great clarity and lots of details in every shot. It remains reference from start to finish.
> 
> Doesn't have as much much *pop *or 3D-like depth as other top dogs but what can you expect from a movie like this.
> 
> *Tier recommendation: 0.50*


Well Snell, we are on the SAME PAGE, for I had also given this is Tier 0 (.5) placement. Yet there is a difference, for I was ranking the 1080p version AND I was watching it on my Sony LCD/LED display. I can't wait to see this now on my calibrated LG OLED! Here is the link to my review (from 2016):









The New PQ Tier thread for Blu-Ray - Discussion


I just rented The Revenant and plan to view it tonight. Has anyone seen it on Blu-ray yet? If so, what do you think? I'm hearing awesome things about the cinematography and the PQ in general.




www.avsforum.com


----------



## djoberg

*The Revenant (UHD)*

I just watched most of the UHD release today and I am compelled to bump it up a notch from my 1080p placement of Tier 0 (.5). The specular highlights (from FIRES and SUNSETS) alone are cause for a higher ranking, but when you add greater CONTRAST, richer COLORS (even though they are RARE), and better DETAILS, it's a no-brainer. My vote goes for...

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (.33)*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> Chad B was here today for about 3 1/2 hours. He calibrated THREE INPUTS (ISF Dark Room for SDR, and CINEMA for both HDR and DOLBY VISION). He is everything that has been said about him...a VERY FRIENDLY guy who takes his work VERY SERIOUSLY and who does a VERY GOOD job! What I am noticing so far (in my limited time watching broadcasts and _Waterworld_) is fantastic "shadow details"! Depth seems much better as well and flesh tones are as "natural as they come." Oh, and Chad was able to eliminate the "dimming" altogether that happens when watching cable news channels where there is a still image for more than a minute or two. That used to bother me a lot...but no more!
> 
> It may take awhile to get used to satellite broadcasts for they don't have as much POP as they did before, but I do love how "natural" everything looks. I have always used MOVIE MODE in my displays (or the PURE MODE on my Pioneer KURO plasma), but they were never this soft/dark. I do believe I'll come to love the new look just as I did "way back when" when I quit using VIVID or STANDARD (believe me, this was truly WAY BACK).
> 
> EDIT: I have been watching different channels throughout the day and I am amazing at the CLARITY, DEPTH and POP that I'm now seeing! I can't describe how REAL everything looks now compared to before the calibration... I absolutely LOVE IT! Either my "eyes were OFF" last night or the PQ got "better overnight."


A fully calibrated display helps bring out that extra pop and dimensionality often hiding just out of view. Did Chad suggest any titles to check as reference material? I'm sure he's seen many, many different demos and discs across the country.

When you get the time, maybe check out some of the UHDs you've rated as the very best of Tier 0. I'd be interested hearing if your opinions have changed any, now that you have a display working at its maximum capability.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> A fully calibrated display helps bring out that extra pop and dimensionality often hiding just out of view. Did Chad suggest any titles to check as reference material? I'm sure he's seen many, many different demos and discs across the country.
> 
> When you get the time, maybe check out some of the UHDs you've rated as the very best of Tier 0. I'd be interested hearing if your opinions have changed any, now that you have a display working at its maximum capability.


Chad wanted me to pick out some material that I was familiar with so I could more readily see the difference. We watched part of a movie on Starz so I could see how the shadow details fared in a bright scene with men wearing black tuxedos. They were CRUSHED so bad that I couldn't see the lapels, pockets or buttons, but after the calibration I saw everything perfectly. Since I needed to get back to work I only chose one UHD Blu-ray to demo. I chose _Mortal Engines _because of its many dark scenes and once again the shadow details were amazing. Colors were about the same as before the calibration but depth was better as were details. Chad had never seen this title before and was visibly impressed with the PQ...and the AQ, I might add.

I'm very pleased with SDR material. I said I wanted it as BRIGHT as possible without compromising the PQ and he hit a home run there too! I can't say enough good about how "natural" it looks, especially FLESH TONES.

One demo that Chad seems to like is _The Dark Knight_ but we both agreed that the UHD release was screwed up with elevated blacks. I decided to watch part the 1080p version last night and I ended up watching the whole thing; it was that good! I do NOT recall it having the DEPTH and DETAILS that I saw last night, and the SHADOW DETAILS were most definitely better. I may end up watching my whole library again and if I do, I'll report back in a year or so.


----------



## djoberg

*The Invisible Man (1080p)*

The movie was INTENSE! The acting (by Elizabeth Moss) was SUPERB! The PQ was VERY GOOD (at times)! The AQ was ROCK-SOLID!

Since this is a "PQ Thread" I will simply offer a few thoughts. This was a "mixed bag"...with night time scenes suffering from WEAK BLACKS. They were MURKY in most scenes, and acceptable in a couple. I believe this was intentional to "set the mood." Daytime scenes and interior scenes with good lighting offered very good DETAILS, especially in close-ups of faces. They also featured appreciable DEPTH, good CONTRAST, and spot-on FLESH TONES. COLORS were very natural.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**

PS I read that the UHD release brought everything up a couple of notches. If that's the case this would probably go as high as 1.0.


----------



## djoberg

By the way, speaking of _The Dark Knight_ (in a post above), if anyone wants to see the extreme case of "elevated blacks" then compare the UHD and 1080p releases in the "Interrogation Scene" (with Gordon and the Joker). The 1080p version is one of the best "demo scenes" for showing off COLORS in the midst of a BLACK BACKGROUND. The Joker's head, at one point, seems to be floating in outer space! The UHD version is horrendous, with more of a gray color.


----------



## mrtickleuk

djoberg said:


> By the way, speaking of _The Dark Knight_ (in a post above), if anyone wants to see the extreme case of "elevated blacks" then compare the UHD and 1080p releases in the "Interrogation Scene" (with Gordon and the Joker). The 1080p version is one of the best "demo scenes" for showing off COLORS in the midst of a BLACK BACKGROUND. The Joker's head, at one point, seems to be floating in outer space! The UHD version is horrendous, with more of a gray color.


If you would be so kind as to add in some rough timestamps, that would be great. Thanks!


----------



## djoberg




----------



## djoberg

That was taken 3 years ago on my Sony 940D at the 1:26 time stamp. The scene starts at 1:25. BTW, the pic really doesn't do it justice.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Oh so right at the start? Great, thanks.


----------



## djoberg

mrtickleuk said:


> Oh so right at the start? Great, thanks.


If you are referring to the "START of the movie" the answer is, "No, it's at the 1 Hour 25 Minute mark!" When I pause my Blu-ray Player it gives the HOUR and then the MINUTES with the : in between them.


----------



## djoberg

Just a "heads up!" In October they will be releasing the UHD Blu-ray Set of "_Back to the Future: The Ultimate Trilogy_." You can Pre-Order it now at a very good price at several online stores. I can hardly believe this but I've never owned a copy of any of these so ordering this was a no-brainer for me.









Back to the Future: The Ultimate Trilogy is Coming to...


In Honor of its 35th Anniversary, One of the Biggest Motion Picture Trilogies Comes to 4K Ultra HD for the First Time Ever Back to the Future: The Ultimate Trilogy Arrives on 4K Ultra HD Combo Pack with Newly Remastered Blu-ray and Digital Code on October 20, 2020 Experience Back to the...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## fredxr2d2

djoberg said:


> Just a "heads up!" In October they will be releasing the UHD Blu-ray Set of "_Back to the Future: The Ultimate Trilogy_." You can Pre-Order it now at a very good price at several online stores. I can hardly believe this but I've never owned a copy of any of these so ordering this was a no-brainer for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Back to the Future: The Ultimate Trilogy is Coming to...
> 
> 
> In Honor of its 35th Anniversary, One of the Biggest Motion Picture Trilogies Comes to 4K Ultra HD for the First Time Ever Back to the Future: The Ultimate Trilogy Arrives on 4K Ultra HD Combo Pack with Newly Remastered Blu-ray and Digital Code on October 20, 2020 Experience Back to the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com


I've been waiting to hear some reviews on this set before double-dipping.


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> *The Revenant (UHD)*
> 
> I just watched most of the UHD release today and I am compelled to bump it up a notch from my 1080p placement of Tier 0 (.5). The specular highlights (from FIRES and SUNSETS) alone are cause for a higher ranking, but when you add greater CONTRAST, richer COLORS (even though they are RARE), and better DETAILS, it's a no-brainer. My vote goes for...
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (.33)*



The Revenant certainly looks phenomenal! I think it was one of the very first 4K/HDR movies released since it came out in 2015 so either that or the Martian.

So watching it in 2020 I was curious to see if it still held up and it ABSOLUTELY does. I considered the 0.33 tier as well


----------



## djoberg

fredxr2d2 said:


> I've been waiting to hear some reviews on this set before double-dipping.


I would be doing the same thing if I already had a set. In fact, I have NEVER "double-dipped" before hearing that there is a definite uptick in PQ.


----------



## djoberg

*Brahms: The Boy 2 (1080p)*

This was almost a carbon-copy of the original (_The Boy_) in terms of PQ, so I think I'll just give you my review of that title. There were a few differences, for the blacks were even deeper, the depth was more amazing and overall the clarity was sharper. So, this one will fare a bit better in the ranking. The movie itself was also subpar though it "had its moments" and was an okay rental.

As far the the audio mix, it was STELLAR!









The New PQ Tier thread for Blu-Ray - Discussion


Point Break (2015) Orange and Teal hues ruined what could have been a Tier Blu contender! It's been awhile since you've seen me overly criticize a release for egregious color-grading, but this one was definitely over-the-top. To put it bluntly, it made nearly every shot look UNNATURAL...the...




www.avsforum.com





*Tier Recommendation: 1.25**


----------



## MrPolkMan

Can I get some opinions on Star Wars prequel trilogy and how they look on UHD?


----------



## djoberg

Cheddarhead said:


> Watch the TV cut before Chad does his magic. It will provide some background missing from the Theatrical cut plus has, IMHO, a much more satisfying ending. Then compare the 4k cuts PQ with Chad's setting to the TV cut which is still 2K.


*Water World (1080p & UHD)*

So, I just finished watching the "TV cut" (never had a chance BEFORE Chad's calibration) and I too thought it had a "much more satisfying ending." PQ-wise, the HD version was quite bad, with much SOFTNESS, GRITTINESS and less satisfying BLACKS. I would rate that version some where in Tier 2, perhaps *2.75*. The UHD version was at least a whole Tier better, but after watching it again I'm not sure I was justified in placing it at 1.25. I would like to officially change it to *1.5* or even *1.75*. This is much closer to what it deserves when one compares it to current titles in that ranking. I had better make this official:

*Tier Recommendation: 1080p...2.75...UHD...1.75*


----------



## djoberg

*Deep Blue Sea 3 (1080p)*

I decided to give this a rent and overall it was "okay," including the PQ. For a low budget flick I was fairly impressed, for it had great CLARITY in most of the outdoor shots and even in underwater scenes. It was in indoor scenes where the resolution SOFTENED at times, resulting in a lack of details and depth. Thankfully, there were only a handful of those shots. DETAILS were very good whenever the director zoomed in, especially on FACIALS. COLORS were also pleasing; PRIMARIES were quite bold yet natural-looking.

Besides some soft shots, there were instances of VIDEO NOISE. But I was pleasantly surprised that banding wasn't an issue in the numerous underwater shots. Those were actually beautiful, with good CONTRAST revealing colorful fish and diving uniforms.

I'll close by saying the AUDIO MIX was good but not great. I actually turned it to Reference Level for the last half in order to give me the "rush" I craved during explosions and shark attacks!

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**


----------



## djoberg

*Bloodshot (1080p)*

This is a LOOKER! CLARITY reigns supreme is this "high octane" Sci-Fi action film, with tons of DETAILS. COLORS are off-the-charts...the only problem is this was so FAST-MOVING that I didn't have much time to enjoy them! Sometimes they were "over-saturated" and sometimes there was too much "color-grading" (the typical teal/orange), but they never really obscured details or wreaked havoc on flesh tones so I wasn't bothered by them. Speaking of flesh tones, they were as accurate as anyone could ask for. Black levels and shadow details were also very good.

My biggest problem with the PQ was the "almost" non-stop CGI, though I was impressed with the seamless picture throughout. Again, there was so much action in this movie it was simply impossible to concentrate on the many PQ virtues on display. In fairness, there were scenes with a bit of "character development" and "dialogue" and I appreciated those scenes for it was in those that "facial close-ups" came into play and one could really take in the DETAILS and DEPTH. 

The audio mix was AWESOME! I had my volume between -5 and Reference most of the time and there were "waves of energy" surging through my room in many scenes. The precision in all nine channels was amazing, the dialogue was intelligible, and the LFE/bass in my dual subs was thunderous (so much so I was expecting the "limiter" on my SVS subs to kick in).

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.9)*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Tales from the Darkside: The Movie*

recommendation: *Tier 2.5**

Somehow this 1990 horror anthology has been skipped on Blu-ray until now - Scream Factory licenses a satisfactory HD transfer from Paramount. It's not a new scan brimming with razor-sharp detail. What it does have is serviceable definition and sufficient clarity for a substantial improvement over the older DVD transfer. Likely struck from the original camera negative, the transfer avoids major processing.

The dated color timing probably needs the most sprucing, especially the "Cat From Hell" middle segment with its strange color filters subbing in for effects. Otherwise this is a fine presentation with a strong AVC encode properly preserving the original grain structure.

Worth owning on BD for fans into the campy horror anthologies of the 1980s.


----------



## djoberg

*The Dark Knight Rises (UHD)*

My UHD copy of this film just arrived yesterday and I watched it this afternoon. All I can say is *AWESOME*!!! The IMAX scenes simply blew me away and left "my jaw on the floor!" I did some research and there were 72 minutes filmed in the IMAX format while there were only 28 minutes in _The Dark Knight_. This will most definitely be reflected in my placement recommendation.

Here's the way I figure it. The IMAX scenes were "top of Tier 0" all the way through, no doubt about it. If the whole film had been in that format I would nominate it for "King of the Blu-ray Hill"; in others words, for #1!! The letter-boxed scenes ranged from mid Tier 0 down to the middle of Tier 1 (or perhaps lower in a few isolated shots). Before I "put this in the balances" and rank it, I want to say something about the BLACK LEVELS/SHADOW DETAILS. They were superior to _The Dark Knight_, for I never saw one instance of "elevated blacks" in _The Dark Knight Rises _but there were a few scenes (most notably the "Interrogation scene with the Joker and Gordon") in the UHD version of _The Dark Knight_. The nighttime scenes (with quite a few aerial views) in this one of Gotham City (aka New York City) were phenomenal...as good as I've ever seen in a Demo Disc for OLED displays.

HDR specular highlights were also a thing to behold! This were numerous explosions with FIRE eruptions and it was amazing! COLORS and CONTRAST were off-the-charts due to HDR. Flesh tones were also spectacular though in fairness I did see a bit of "red push" in earlier scenes in the faces of Alfred, Gordon, and Bruce.

I simply must give a HUGE (and I mean HUGE) shout-out for the Audio Mix; it had me grinning from ear to ear multiple times. The precision in all channels was incredible and the LFE/bass had my walls shaking (and my chair) through a large number of scenes, especially when the BAT PLANE was involved.

Okay, time for a placement. Again, the IMAX scenes took up 72 minutes, nearly HALF of the running time and they were all TOP TIER 0 worthy. The Letter-boxed scenes averaged about 1.0. Now normally I would simply divide these in half and place it at Tier 0 (.5), but with such unbelievable EYE CANDY during 72 minutes of the movie I'm opting for....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.33)*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^

I should have mentioned that this title was a perfect example of how much of a difference UHD/HDR can make over its HD counterpart.


----------



## roland6465

These movies are also proof that a great 5.1 mix can pull you in just as much as object-based. I love a good Atmos/dts:x soundtrack, but the audio on all three Nolan Batman films are stellar.


----------



## djoberg

roland6465 said:


> These movies are also proof that a great 5.1 mix can pull you in just as much as object-based. I love a good Atmos/dts:x soundtrack, but the audio on all three Nolan Batman films are stellar.


Exactly! I was actually going to mention that last night, for at one point I thought I was listening to either an Atmos or DTS:X mix but then I remembered "No, this is a Christopher Nolan film." I am thankful for having an "up-mix" with my Denon AVR though for it can do a very good job of "mimicking" one of those mixes.


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> *The Dark Knight Rises (UHD)*
> 
> My UHD copy of this film just arrived yesterday and I watched it this afternoon. All I can say is *AWESOME*!!! The IMAX scenes simply blew me away and left "my jaw on the floor!" I did some research and there were 72 minutes filmed in the IMAX format while there were only 28 minutes in _The Dark Knight_. This will most definitely be reflected in my placement recommendation.
> 
> Here's the way I figure it. The IMAX scenes were "top of Tier 0" all the way through, no doubt about it. If the whole film had been in that format I would nominate it for "King of the Blu-ray Hill"; in others words, for #1!! The letter-boxed scenes ranged from mid Tier 0 down to the middle of Tier 1 (or perhaps lower in a few isolated shots).
> 
> Okay, time for a placement. Again, the IMAX scenes took up 72 minutes, nearly HALF of the running time and they were all TOP TIER 0 worthy. The Letter-boxed scenes averaged about 1.0. Now normally I would simply divide these in half and place it at Tier 0 (.5), but with such unbelievable EYE CANDY during 72 minutes of the movie I'm opting for....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.33)*


I agree with you 100%. The IMAX 15/70mm of Nolan's movies are COMPLETELY unrivalled IMO, and as good if not better than other "king of blu-rays" like Transformers: Last Knight and Gemini Man. It is a shame the 2.35:1 non-IMAX 35mm film shots look so much worse. 0.33 average is pretty spot on.

But the fact that the half (72 minutes) of the running time is in that FULL, 'out-of-a-window' jaw dropping IMAX quality is insane 

I haven't bought it in 4K... yet... Will do soon


----------



## SnellTHX

*The Martian (4K)*

I think I reviewed the 1080p blu-ray back in my Kuro days, and five years later I have finally rebought it in 4K/HDR blu-ray  

Just like Revenant, The Martian was one of the first wave of 4K movies so interesting to see if it still holds its reference standard.... _and it does. _The Martian looks absolutely stunning. Details, sharpness, 3D-like depth, the absolute, perfect blacks of space contrasted by crispy, clear and bright whites of the white suits and spaceships. 

The scenes on Mars were proper reference, you could jam your face right up on the screen, see every droplet, grain, grit, gravel, stubble, scar, weave, stitching etc. 

Unfortunately, some of the indoor scenes had a tiny bit of noise which didn't look as good as the superb Mars scenes.

*Tier recommendation: 0.50*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^

Yes Snell, it does indeed hold its "reference standing!" Now I want to watch it again since I haven't seen it since I bought my OLED. Here is my review from April of 2018 when I still had my Sony LCD/LED Flagship. This also has Darth's review. We both gave it a .25!









The New PQ Tier thread for Blu-Ray - Discussion


Martian, The (Extended) (UHD) recommendation: Tier 0* (0.25) The detail is exquisite; space suits, faces, hair, Martian rocks and sand...every texture looks like you could touch it. Blacks are deep with strong shadow details and contrast is also good. Colors are excellent, flesh tones and...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Yes Snell, it does indeed hold its "reference standing!" Now I want to watch it again since I haven't seen it since I bought my OLED. Here is my review from April of 2018 when I still had my Sony LCD/LED Flagship. This also has Darth's review. We both gave it a .25!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The New PQ Tier thread for Blu-Ray - Discussion
> 
> 
> Martian, The (Extended) (UHD) recommendation: Tier 0* (0.25) The detail is exquisite; space suits, faces, hair, Martian rocks and sand...every texture looks like you could touch it. Blacks are deep with strong shadow details and contrast is also good. Colors are excellent, flesh tones and...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com



Worth the rewatch for sure! I was almost certainly going to give it 0.25 or 0.33 but I lowered to a 0.50 as some interior shots didn't look as good as the exterior shots on Mars which were "0.25 reference"


----------



## SnellTHX

*Greenbook*

Pleasantly surprised with this movie as I didn't expect much of its PQ - but it was excellent. filmed in an awesome 2:1 aspect ratio it looked a lot like Netflix Dolby Vision shows - just a little bit better 

*Tier recommendation: 0.75*


----------



## SnellTHX

*Fast & Furious*

Decided to rewatch the entire franchise in 4K, starting off with the first one I thought it looked extremely good for such an old movie (21 is pretty old now!). Crisp whites, several scenes with perfect blacks, good details and an organic look with a thin layer of grain.

*Tier recommendation: 1*


----------



## djoberg

*Star Wars: A New Hope (Episode 4...UHD)*

Okay, this is actually a review of the UHD version on Disney Plus, so it may not be as good as the physical disc. Having said that, I was blown away by the amazing uptick in PQ from its former releases. By far the biggest feature was spectacular BLACKS!!! Of course, this is a "Space" movie so they are on display throughout, especially during the last "battle scene." They were "as good as it gets!"

Details were also excellent in close up shots; depth was superb in some scenes; and clarity was topnotch in a majority of scenes. Granted, there were some "soft shots," particularly in the beginning. CGI was good to very good, with the exception of Jabba which was "horrendous." Flesh tones were, for the most part, spot on. Colors were vibrant. Contrast was, overall, strong.

In addition to "soft shots" and some "bad CGI" there were some instances of "noise" and the so-called "grain structure" (which is all but removed) looked "iffy" at times and others have called it "blocky." Because of these definite anomalies I'm changing last night's Tier 0 (.75) score to...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25**

PS The audio mix was fantastic!


----------



## SnellTHX

Awesome to see that Disney+ holds up to the disc quality... Some what.

Disney+ is finally arriving in Norway sometime next week or the week after. Loads of 4K/HDR content to look forward too.


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> Awesome to see that Disney+ holds up to the disc quality... Some what.
> 
> Disney+ is finally arriving in Norway sometime next week or the week after. Loads of 4K/HDR content to look forward too.


Again, I can't comment on the "physical discs," but I am impressed with these films (so far I've watched the first 7 episodes of Star Wars). Last night I saw _The Force Awakens_ and the details were simply astounding. The black levels did seem a bit elevated though, for in the "star field scenes" they weren't as black as in the first 6 episodes.

One more observation. I stated that the audio mixes are good but on Disney Plus they aren't Dolby Atmos but simply Dolby Surround. They are also in HDR10 whereas the UHD Blu-rays are in Dolby Vision. But again, _these eyes _were impressed with the COLORS, CONTRAST and SPECULAR HIGHLIGHTS so I'm "one Happy Camper!" And to think I only pay less than $70 a year for the subscription!

It would _seem _that this is the "future," for I do foresee physical discs being replaced altogether by streaming. I do NOT look forward to this but I am a "realist" so I will accept it.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Weathering With You*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

The massive anime smash which dominated the Japanese box office in 2019 hits Blu-ray in fantastic quality from GKIDS. Superfans are likely waiting on the coming 4K UHD collector's edition, but this BD edition is no slouch in the PQ department. Nearly three years in development, the fully realized theatrical animation features some of the most realistic and detaild animated rain ever seen before.

The flawless 1.78:1 presentation captures a rain-soaked Tokyo in gorgeously rendered backgrounds and tightly integrated CGI in the traditionally animated movie. Colors are more subtle and restrained than most animated fare, though Weathering With You offers impressive lighting and stunning reflections. Made with a lavish budget for animation, every dollar is up there on screen. Fluid, smooth and designed with impressive key frames, this is possibly Tier 0 material. I'll save that score for the coming UHD if nothing goes wrong.


----------



## SnellTHX

Since Djoberg recently posted his review of TDK:R stated the IMAX 15/70 scenes as some of, if not the best PQ ever...

Anyone else here excited for *TENET* ? I saw it in the cinema (non-IMAX... we only have digital in Norway  ) 
and I can tell which scenes were filmed with the IMAX MSM 9802 camera that Nolan used in TDK, TDK:R, Interstellar and Dunkirk.

It's the same analog film camera that gave us the #1 reference beating IMAX 15/70mm 16:9 shots in those movies, but unlike TDK, TDK:R and Interstellar which were 'ruined' by the significantly inferior 35mm 2.35:1 shots TENET is filmed in 65mm for the non-IMAX shots! It obviously won't look as good as IMAX, but not as noisy and 'bad' as the other Nolan movies  Dunkirk I believe used 65mm for non-IMAX shots too.

Nolan modified the IMAX MSM9802 and MKIII/MKIV so apparently its been used in scenarios where it previously wouldn't be possible. 

Nolan's usage of IMAX in his previous films were as follows:
The Dark Knight - 28 minutes
The Dark Knight Rises - 65 minutes (about 50%!) 
Interstellar - ≈ 50 minutes
Dunkirk - ± 70% of the movie in IMAX 15/70mm, the other 30% in regular 70mm
TENET is said to be about 50-60% of the movie which has a 150 minute run time. It is also said to be the largest/longest film ever filmed in the IMAX 15/70mm format (Dunkirk was only 90 minutes long I believe so around the same film length of TDK:R was shot in IMAX)

I personally have Dunkirk as #1 best looking film and Interstellar gets top 5 and The Dark Knight Rises top 10 somewhere. The latter to scoring lower on the list because of the 35mm scenes. 

I predict Tenet will grab #1 ultimate reference disc spot for me


----------



## SnellTHX

I particularly look forward to the opening scene, which much like the bank robbery in TDK and the plane highjack in TDK:R will be my go-to reference demo scene for displays to come  

Also the ending battle scene will be on replay for a long while to come.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^

I'm "all in" on the upcoming release of _Tenet_. Sounds kind of "mysterious"...like _Inception_ was.

EDIT: Okay, I just read a lot of reviews (professional and audience) and the general consensus is: it's a very confusing movie! Even those with positive reviews said they got lost and that it will take repeated viewings to "figure it out." That was my first impression of _Inception_ and even after a couple more viewings I was "scratching my head." They say this is MORE CONFUSING. Yet there was also a positive view of the amazing PQ by everyone! Audio-wise, they said that it was really hard to follow the dialogue during action scenes, which reminds me of _Interstellar_ and the looowwww voice of Matthew McConaughey.

BTW, I read that there were 72 minutes of IMAX scenes in _The Dark Knight Rises_.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I'm eagerly anticipating Tenet like all new Christopher Nolan projects...when it hits home video. Good to hear about the PQ report.


----------



## meli

Largely because of the reviews in this this thread, last night I watched (the first hour of) "Transformers: The Last Knight". The PQ was amazing, I think the best I've seen. But it led me to wonder which 4K UHD discs do people consider to have best PQ for narrative films that don't have any (or many) CG effects?


----------



## djoberg

Snell's review below of _Star Wars: The Last Jedi_ is two years old but in my viewing tonight, on Disney Plus, I was just as disappointed as he was. What I simply can't understand is the "weak blacks," especially in "space scenes." They just didn't have the deep, inky blacks that I saw in the first 6 episodes. I guess I would give it the same placement of...

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*



SnellTHX said:


> *Star Wars: The Last Jedi*
> 
> Well this movie was... disappointing. I watched Star Wars Episode VII and Rogue One in the cinema and they looked good there, missed Episode VIII but picked it up in 4K/HDR and the picture quality just wasn't that special. I believe Episode VII is rated tier 0 material here in this thread but its sequel is anything but. There's film grain although it ranks among some of the least intrusive film grain, there's a good amount of detail in most shots but the image just isn't all that sharp. It looks like a 4K remaster of something from the 90s. Pulp Fiction from 1994 looks more detailed and sharper on Blu-ray
> 
> I'm not saying it was bad, there were some decent looking shots and the latter half of the film had much better picture quality than the first half. Ultimately let down by a few instances of poor contrast as well.
> 
> 
> Now that's a shame, this movie has a 4K DI, and supposedly contains scenes that are filmed by the best camera in the world (!) IMAX 9802, the same camera Nolan uses to shoot his better-than-real-life BEYOND REFERENCE 15/70mm IMAX scenes in TDK, TDK:R, Interstellar and Dunkirk.
> 
> I saw no such usage or anything remotely close throughout the entire movie but as I mentioned some shots did look significantly better than others.
> 
> 
> *Tier recommendation: 1.5**


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> I'm "all in" on the upcoming release of _Tenet_. Sounds kind of "mysterious"...like _Inception_ was.
> 
> EDIT: Okay, I just read a lot of reviews (professional and audience) and the general consensus is: it's a very confusing movie! Even those with positive reviews said they got lost and that it will take repeated viewings to "figure it out." That was my first impression of _Inception_ and even after a couple more viewings I was "scratching my head." They say this is MORE CONFUSING. Yet there was also a positive view of the amazing PQ by everyone! Audio-wise, they said that it was really hard to follow the dialogue during action scenes, which reminds me of _Interstellar_ and the looowwww voice of Matthew McConaughey.
> 
> BTW, I read that there were 72 minutes of IMAX scenes in _The Dark Knight Rises_.



I had zero problems whatsoever understanding what was being said. In fact I was bothered by the Norwegian subtitles underneath, but I did my best not looking at them. (At home I never use subtitles neither English nor Norwegian). I thought the audio was very loud and clearly and people were articulate when they spoke. 
The audio and PQ were amazing, the story was very heavy and hard to follow, but it made me want to *immediately* rewatch it, which has never really happened before. 

and you are right about TDK:R, I was working off memory. I remember about half of the movie was IMAX 15/70mm.

TENET is rumoured to have at least the same %, with the longest total running time of any film filmed in the analog format

So by any means we are getting a MINIMUM of 75 minutes of IMAX 15/70mm with TENET  

I already know this is going to be in my top 3!


----------



## SnellTHX

meli said:


> Largely because of the reviews in this this thread, last night I watched (the first hour of) "Transformers: The Last Knight". The PQ was amazing, I think the best I've seen. But it led me to wonder which 4K UHD discs do people consider to have PQ for narrative films that don't have any (or many) CG effects?


Glad you enjoyed the PQ of Transformers 5! I can happily recommend it to everyone and almost everyone I know puts it as their #1 or top 3 at least. 

My two ultimate reference movies are Dunkirk and Transformers: Last Knight. The latter has the best 'average' look while Dunkirk at its best (the 16:9 shots filmed in IMAX 15/70) is the best of any movie ever (along with Interstellar and TDK:R that have fewer scenes in this format)

And lucky for you (to answer your question) Dunkirk is almost entirely practical effects. The only genre of movie that typically has less CGI than Dunkirk are comedy movies.

TENET, the movie which we were discussing above is an hour longer than Dunkirk yet it has even less CGI. There's less CGI in tenet than the majority of comedy movies!


----------



## djoberg

*Star Wars: Rise of Skywalker (UHD)*

This one was my favorite (in the _Star Wars Franchise_) when it came to PQ! Deep BLACKS...phenomenal DETAILS...strong CONTRAST...accurate FLESH TONES...vibrant COLORS...and last, but not least, excellent SPECULAR HIGHLIGHTS (courtesy of HDR). There were a few "soft shots" but they were "few and far between," thus the CLARITY was amazing in a majority of scenes. The blacks, on rare occasions, did turn a bit gray in low-lit scenes, but the space scenes were great as were all other dark scenes (and there were many). I was very impressed with the SHADOW DETAILS.

AQ-wise, this was a MONSTER, with appreciable LFE/bass and precision in all 9 channels in my surround system. And it should be noted this was Disney Plus so it only had Dolby Surround but my Denon's "upmix" did a fantastic job delivering sound to my Height (Atmos) Speakers. As usual, I had to crank this up to get the full effect (remember, this is a "Disney production"), so for most of the long running time I had it at -5.

My vote goes for....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.75)*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

A couple of animated UHDs that easily qualify for the top tier...

*Superman: Man of Tomorrow UHD*

recommendation: *Tier 0 (.6)**

DC's direct-to-video animated line gets a reboot with an entirely new style of animation. Thicker line art and flat color shading akin to _Archer's_ aesthetic looks great in Dolby Vision. There's definitely been more budget allocated for the animation itself than the many superhero flicks they've put out over the past few years. The HDR pass has some gorgeous color highlights, taking advantage of the expanded color palette. I'm very happy with the new animation style as a long-time fan.

The technically flawless animated material glows with vivid imagery, making an outstanding visual impact. The Blu-ray is flat and dull by comparison. I had a hard time sitting through the BD after first seeing the UHD.

*Justice League Dark: Apokolips War UHD*

recommendation: *Tier 0 (.8)**

While _Superman: Man of Tomorrow_ introduced a new animated continuity, _JLD: Apokolips War_ was the final send-off for the animated DC continuity I've previously reviewed many times in this very thread. Animated in the now-familiar look that has been used for years, it's a slight step behind in PQ terms though still excellent. Perfect black levels and richly saturated primary colors leap off the screen in stark clarity.


----------



## DarthDoxie

Sad news to report : my beloved LG C7 OLED has been suffering from burn-in from gaming (me) and the local morning news (wife) so I kicked it to the curb. It had the best PQ of any TV I’ve owned, but I refuse to baby a set and ultimately it didn’t hold up to our household viewing habits.

My new set is a Sony 65 inch X950H, their 4K flagship model that I picked up this week. I stepped up to a 65 from 55 and the extra real estate feels substantial! I’m still getting it dialed in and can’t wait to start whittling down my watch list and posting scores again (been holding off as the burn-in was distracting). I’ve got several UHDs on tap including The Deer Hunter and Full Metal Jacket and also 9 Hammer Horror Blu-rays. I’ve also got some film-noir titles from Warner Archive that should look amazing.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Getting a new display is always fun as you find out what it can and can't do. I refuse to play any games on my OLED given their known issues with burn-in on some models. I bought a second, cheaper set for that purpose. 

Looking forward to your opinions on the Hammer Blu-rays.


----------



## djoberg

So sorry to read of your OLED's demise Darth! I have NEVER been a "gamer" so I don't have to worry about that but I am guilty of watching a lot of cable news at night so I'm hoping that doesn't result in burn-in. I also tend to PAUSE my display at times to run a quick errand and at times I find it's been paused for 20-25 minutes!! Again, I hope that doesn't result in burn-in.

Question: How old was your C7? I have heard that it takes quite awhile for burn-in to "rear its ugly head" and thus many members "think they're okay" and then one day they finally notice it.


----------



## mrtickleuk

djoberg said:


> I also tend to PAUSE my display at times to run a quick errand and at times _I find it's been paused for 20-25 minutes_!! Again, I *hope *that doesn't result in burn-in.


 . It might. It might not, but it *might*!
Off-topic for this thread, but in my very humble opinion you absolutely, *definitely*, should get out of that habit! Don't just hope and be upset later that your beautiful, *calibrated*, TV needs a panel swap (and another calibration, and lots of waiting). Why take the risk, just follow the rule, "never leave it on a HDMI input unattended". On the other inputs you get the "fireworks" screensaver but for HDMI inputs you have to rely on the two types of dimming that some people turn off in the Service Menu which don't protect the TV that much.

It's easy to switch to an internal app as you leave the room (eg YouTube with nothing loaded) which will save the screen, or the Gallery app. Given that you can assign these things to a "Quick Access" button (long-press the numbers 1-0), there are no excuses for laziness! 

All IMHO.


----------



## djoberg

mrtickleuk said:


> . It might. It might not, but it *might*!
> Off-topic for this thread, but in my very humble opinion you absolutely, *definitely*, should get out of that habit! Don't just hope and be upset later that your beautiful, *calibrated*, TV needs a panel swap (and another calibration, and lots of waiting). Why take the risk, just follow the rule, "never leave it on a HDMI input unattended". On the other inputs you get the "fireworks" screensaver but for HDMI inputs you have to rely on the two types of dimming that some people turn off in the Service Menu which don't protect the TV that much.
> 
> It's easy to switch to an internal app as you leave the room (eg YouTube with nothing loaded) which will save the screen, or the Gallery app. Given that you can assign these things to a "Quick Access" button (long-press the numbers 1-0), there are no excuses for laziness!
> 
> All IMHO.


So, what are the "two types of dimming" in the Service Menu? Chad did turn off ONE of the dimming features but he never said anything about turning off two types of dimming. Also, I have NEVER entered the Service Menu myself so I would not have done it.

I will be VERY CAREFUL from now on to only pause it for a minute or two. Thing is, I never really plan to be gone more than that and then TIME FLIES!


----------



## mrtickleuk

djoberg said:


> I will be VERY CAREFUL from now on to only pause it for a minute or two. Thing is, I never really plan to be gone more than that and then TIME FLIES!


Hence my suggestions of changing the habit . Instead of Pause, just do Pause + screensaver-button .


----------



## djoberg

mrtickleuk said:


> Hence my suggestions of changing the habit . Instead of Pause, just do Pause + screensaver-button .


I use my Harmony One remote for nearly everything. So where is the "screensaver button" on the LG Remote?


----------



## mrtickleuk

I was just referring to what I wrote yesterday about the ability to assign apps (anything) to the numbered button on the LG remote. I wouldn't know if harmony have implemented everything including that sorry. Apologies for derailing the thread.


----------



## djoberg

mrtickleuk said:


> I was just referring to what I wrote yesterday about the ability to assign apps (anything) to the numbered button on the LG remote. I wouldn't know if harmony have implemented everything including that sorry. Apologies for derailing the thread.


I just assigned the "Gallery App" to "Quick Access" so I will be using that from now on when I pause the display for any length of time. Thanks for the tip!!

Now....back to our "Regular Scheduled Programming"


----------



## DarthDoxie

djoberg said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> So sorry to read of your OLED's demise Darth! I have NEVER been a "gamer" so I don't have to worry about that but I am guilty of watching a lot of cable news at night so I'm hoping that doesn't result in burn-in. I also tend to PAUSE my display at times to run a quick errand and at times I find it's been paused for 20-25 minutes!! Again, I hope that doesn't result in burn-in.
> 
> 
> 
> Question: How old was your C7? I have heard that it takes quite awhile for burn-in to "rear its ugly head" and thus many members "think they're okay" and then one day they finally notice it.


Three years next month but first noticed the faint beginnings of burn-in at about 1.5 years; I hear the newer OLED models have more protections for burn-in.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Full Metal Jacket (UHD)*
recommendation:* Tier 1.0**

Nice upgrade from the BD. Sharp for the most part but there are some shots within scenes of lower resolution. Colors are nicely saturated and black levels strong.


----------



## djoberg

DarthDoxie said:


> Three years next month but first noticed the faint beginnings of burn-in at about 1.5 years; I hear the newer OLED models have more protections for burn-in.


Yes, I believe the C8 has at least one protective feature against burn-in that the C7 didn't have.

Some of you may remember me getting burned (not "burned-in" ) when my flagship Sony LCD/LED died, for it was out of warranty by almost a year. When I purchased my OLED from Best Buy I decided to do something I had never done...I also purchased their 5-year warranty plan (for nearly $1,000) and one of the main reasons I went with them on an extended warranty over others was because IT INCLUDES BURN-IN! If I get burn-in in the next three years (I've had it for two years) I will automatically get a new display from them, though I may have to pay extra money depending on the purchase price of the new one versus the purchase price on my C8.


----------



## djoberg

*The Secret: Dare to Dream (1080p)*

Just rented this from Redbox. The PQ was quite good; not "Reference Quality" but it definitely had a lot of "Demo Shots" in it that qualify for Tier Gold.

It had great DETAILS in facial close-ups, clothing, furniture, trees, foliage....you get the point. It also had striking DEPTH and CLARITY in many scenes, along with natural COLORS, accurate FLESH TONES, and decent BLACKS. The Gulf Coast (Louisiana) scenery was breathtaking in a few of the aerial shots.

Again, this should find its way into Tier Gold and I'm opting for....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Night Creatures (Captain Clegg) (Hammer/Universal)*
recommendation:* Tier 3.75*

Phantom of the Opera, The (Hammer/Universal)*
recommendation:* Tier 3.5*

Paranoiac (Hammer/Universal)*
recommendation:* Tier 3.0*

Nightmare (Hammer/Universal)*
recommendation:* Tier 3.5*

Horror of Dracula (Hammer/Warner Archive)*
recommendation:* Tier 3.0**

The Universal releases are all incorrectly framed at 2:1, but that's how they were released in the U.S. Don't let the low scores deter you from seeking these out, they are all endlessly entertaining especially the Dracula and Phantom titles.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Evil of Frankenstein, The (Hammer/Universal)*
recommendation:* Tier 3.5*

Brides of Dracula, The (Hammer/Universal)*
recommendation:* Tier 4.0*

Kiss of the Vampire, The (Hammer/Universal)*
recommendation:* Tier 3.5*

Curse of the Werewolf, The (Hammer/Universal)*
recommendation:* Tier 4.0*

Belko Experiment, The (Magnet)*
recommendation:* Tier 0* (0.75)*


----------



## AmerCa

*Underwater (2020 - Fox- Disney) *










*Tier Recommendation: 2.0*

How can a film shot in 6.5k with a 4k DI rank this low? Well, because it's an underwater movie. And the ocean is dark and muddy. However, even the better lit interiors have this color grading that gives the movie a muted color tone, aesthetically in line with the movie, but disappointing for those expecting some demo material. It come to my attention that this film was shot by the same cinematographer of *A Cure For Wellness *, which has some of the best PQ I've seen on a BD. That level of detail, clarity and crispiness is nowhere to be found here. Don't misunderstand me: this movie looks pretty good and I like its aesthetics; it works pretty well for its tone. But this is no *Aquaman*, and I don't mean it as criticism. This is a dark thriller.

There was some slight outcry this movie didn't get a 4k release. It deserved one, I think, but still I wouldn't expect it to be a showstopper.

The thing that IS demo worthy it's the audio, provided your sub can handle the 15-25hz region, where this movie has plenty of content. Mine can't, but there's still plenty of awesome stuff for "modest" subs. The overall audio is stellar.

I like this movie A LOT. This is my jam. 90 minutes of no-nonsense, straight to the point good action and suspense. But then again, I also loved *The Cloverfield Paradox* 

Yes, I'm alive. Life has gotten in the way, and I don't have as much energy to rank movies (or even watch them!) but here I am. Glad to see everyone is alright and see the thread alive.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## dragonbud0

AmerCa said:


> *Underwater (2020 - Fox- Disney) *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.0*
> 
> How can a film shot in 6.5k with a 4k DI rank this low? Well, because it's an underwater movie. And the ocean is dark and muddy. However, even the better lit interiors have this color grading that gives the movie a muted color tone, aesthetically in line with the movie, but disappointing for those expecting some demo material. It come to my attention that this film was shot by the same cinematographer of *A Cure For Wellness *, which has some of the best PQ I've seen on a BD. That level of detail, clarity and crispiness is nowhere to be found here. Don't misunderstand me: this movie looks pretty good and I like its aesthetics; it works pretty well for its tone. But this is no *Aquaman*, and I don't mean it as criticism. This is a dark thriller.
> 
> There was some slight outcry this movie didn't get a 4k release. It deserved one, I think, but still I wouldn't expect it to be a showstopper.
> 
> The thing that IS demo worthy it's the audio, provided your sub can handle the 15-25hz region, where this movie has plenty of content. Mine can't, but there's still plenty of awesome stuff for "modest" subs. The overall audio is stellar.
> 
> I like this movie A LOT. This is my jam. 90 minutes of no-nonsense, straight to the point good action and suspense. But then again, I also loved *The Cloverfield Paradox*
> 
> Yes, I'm alive. Life has gotten in the way, and I don't have as much energy to rank movies (or even watch them!) but here I am. Glad to see everyone is alright and see the thread alive.
> 
> Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


Always enjoyed KS movies, except Twilight. Just got a new SVS 12" sub; will give this a test run. Thanks.


----------



## djoberg

dragonbud0 said:


> Always enjoyed KS movies, except Twilight. *Just got a new SVS 12" sub*; will give this a test run. Thanks.


An SVS 12" sub will easily drop to below 20 Hz...at times close to 16 Hz, especially if you purchased a PORTED sub. I have dual SVS 12" and with the right content it feels like you're in L.A. and the BIG ONE is hitting! Enjoy the movie and report back on both the PQ and AQ.


----------



## dragonbud0

djoberg said:


> An SVS 12" sub will easily drop to below 20 Hz...at times close to 16 Hz, especially if you purchased a PORTED sub. I have dual SVS 12" and with the right content it feels like you're in L.A. and the BIG ONE is hitting! Enjoy the movie and report back on both the PQ and AQ.


Mine is shielded but I did try the RSL 10s but returned it. I'm happier with the SVS in my case, 12" vs. 10". However, the physical dimension is actually smaller.


----------



## djoberg

dragonbud0 said:


> Mine is shielded but I did try the RSL 10s but returned it. I'm happier with the SVS in my case, 12" vs. 10". However, the physical dimension is actually smaller.


I'm not sure what you mean by "shielded." Regarding the "physical dimension being smaller" in the SVS, that is only one factor that will determine bass extension and overall output. If you read the current reviews on SVS's new "SB-2000 Pro" you will see that the bass extension and output defies its physical dimensions. Audio experts simply can't believe how deep the bass goes and how the output covers a very large area. The "components" used, especially a more powerful 550-watt RMS (1,500 watt peak) class-D amplifier along with a new longer-excursion 12-inch driver, are two of the main factors that defy its small footprint. And this is a "sealed sub" which characteristically won't go as low as a ported sub.

By the way, which 12" sub did you get?


----------



## djoberg

*Ava (1080p)*

This movie had too much "gratuitous violence and language" for me (so I was hitting the FASTFORWARD and MUTE buttons at times), but the PQ was quite stunning.

The CLARITY and DETAILS were the most prominent virtues, along with PUNCHY COLORS, accurate FLESHTONES, and appreciable DEPTH. BLACKS/SHADOW DETAILS were also very pleasing to the eyes! If not for the movie content I would buy this and use it at times for showing off the merits of High Definition. Of course I would get the UHD version IF that were possible.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.75)*

PS The audio was also topnotch!


----------



## dragonbud0

djoberg said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by "shielded." Regarding the "physical dimension being smaller" in the SVS, that is only one factor that will determine bass extension and overall output. If you read the current reviews on SVS's new "SB-2000 Pro" you will see that the bass extension and output defies its physical dimensions. Audio experts simply can't believe how deep the bass goes and how the output covers a very large area. The "components" used, especially a more powerful 550-watt RMS (1,500 watt peak) class-D amplifier along with a new longer-excursion 12-inch driver, are two of the main factors that defy its small footprint. And this is a "sealed sub" which characteristically won't go as low as a ported sub.
> 
> By the way, which 12" sub did you get?


Sorry. I mean sealed (got Nvidia Shield TV Pro on my mind). It is an open box SB-12 NSD. The RSL 10" took too much space in my room. For the same price, I opted for the SVS, though it's very boring looking but wife approved.


----------



## djoberg

dragonbud0 said:


> Sorry. I mean sealed (got Nvidia Shield TV Pro on my mind). It is an open box SB-12 NSD. The RSL 10" took too much space in my room. For the same price, I opted for the SVS, though it's very boring looking but wife approved.


Got it!

When I was researching subs years ago what really caught my eye when learning about SVS subs were the CYLINDER subs. They have a very SMALL FOOTPRINT and usually they meet the WAF (Wife Acceptance Factor) easily for that reason and for their looks (though some people may hate them). Of course, they will also meet the CAF (CAT Acceptance Factor) and may be ruined as your cat(s) uses it to climb and scratch! As you can see in my Signature I have two SVS cylinder subs and I love them. They are not only excellent for MOVIES but also for MUSIC...nice and TIGHT bass with amazing PRECISION.


----------



## dragonbud0

djoberg said:


> Got it!
> 
> When I was researching subs years ago what really caught my eye when learning about SVS subs were the CYLINDER subs. They have a very SMALL FOOTPRINT and usually they meet the WAF (Wife Acceptance Factor) easily for that reason and for their looks (though some people may hate them). Of course, they will also meet the CAF (CAT Acceptance Factor) and may be ruined as your cat(s) uses it to climb and scratch! As you can see in my Signature I have two SVS cylinder subs and I love them. They are not only excellent for MOVIES but also for MUSIC...nice and TIGHT bass with amazing PRECISION>


CAT is equally important, if not more important. I finally updated my thumbnail. Next will be my signature when my front speakers arrive next month, after a 12 week "pregnancy" during our downsizing.


----------



## djoberg

*Black Panther (UHD)*

It's late so I'm just going to say it like it is and go to bed. This is STUNNING!!

I had rented the 1080p blu-ray before and was very impressed with the PQ but with HDR it blows that version out of the water. COLORS are insanely vibrant; DETAILS are mesmerizing; CONTRAST is out of this world, including DEEP BLACKS; and DEPTH is so very close to 3D in many scenes.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.1)*

PS I just checked and I had given the 1080p version a ranking of Tier 0 (.33).


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> *Black Panther (UHD)*
> 
> 
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.1)*
> 
> PS I just checked and I had given the 1080p version a ranking of Tier 0 (.33).



Hmm is that the highest rating you have given a Marvel movie?


----------



## SnellTHX

AmerCa said:


> *Underwater (2020 - Fox- Disney) *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 2.0*
> 
> How can a film shot in 6.5k with a 4k DI rank this low? Well, because it's an underwater movie. And the ocean is dark and muddy.


I noticed that too lol... getting the ocean right is really, really difficult. I read somewhere that this is why Avatar 2/3 are taking so long because Cameron, the perfectionist that he is didn't feel modern super computers could render fluid dynamics / wave simulation / wet condition adequately. Now 11 years later the computer tech is starting to get advanced enough for him to film most of the upcoming movies under water.

When I reviewed Aquaman one of my complaints was that the underwater scenes did hold a candle to the above water scenes.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Get Out (UHD)*
recommendation:* Tier 0* (0.9)

Us (UHD)*
recommendation:* Tier 0* (0.9)

It (UHD)*
recommendation:* Tier 0* (0.9)

It Chapter Two (UHD)*
recommendation:* Tier 0* (0.8)*
The opening night scene at the carnival/fair is demo material for Dolby Vision, just stunning.


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> Hmm is that the highest rating you have given a Marvel movie?


I can't recall, but I was so blown away by the PQ that it deserves to be the highest rated Marvel release.

I just checked out your review of this (from two years ago) and you gave it a Tier 0 (.5). From your flowery praise and zero negatives, I thought you would at least give it a .25. Here is your review:









The New PQ Tier thread for Blu-Ray - Discussion


Molly's Game I found myself exploring titles on the Redbox online site and this one grabbed my attention when I saw that Jessica Chastain was in the lead role. Once again she did NOT let me down; her performance was superb! The PQ was, for the most part, as superb as Miss Chastain's acting! In...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## AmerCa

SnellTHX said:


> I noticed that too lol... getting the ocean right is really, really difficult. I read somewhere that this is why Avatar 2/3 are taking so long because Cameron, the perfectionist that he is didn't feel modern super computers could render fluid dynamics / wave simulation / wet condition adequately. Now 11 years later the computer tech is starting to get advanced enough for him to film most of the upcoming movies under water.
> 
> When I reviewed Aquaman one of my complaints was that the underwater scenes did hold a candle to the above water scenes.


James Cameron knows the ocean,, so I'd be interested to see what's he's going for. I wouldn't expect the depths of the ocean to look that much different from that of the _UNDERWATER _ scenes. _Aquaman_ is live action comic book, so I give it some slack, but the ocean is something nasty. I don't know how much pristine PQ you can get down there.

Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk


----------



## Phantom Stranger

DarthDoxie said:


> *Get Out (UHD)*
> recommendation:* Tier 0* (0.9)
> 
> Us (UHD)*
> recommendation:* Tier 0* (0.9)
> 
> It (UHD)*
> recommendation:* Tier 0* (0.9)
> 
> It Chapter Two (UHD)*
> recommendation:* Tier 0* (0.8)*
> The opening night scene at the carnival/fair is demo material for Dolby Vision, just stunning.


I remember that carnival scene quite well in It Chapter Two. Agreed it's one spectacular showcase for HDR material.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Child’s Play (1988)*
recommendation:* Tier 3.0**


----------



## DarthDoxie

*The Mummy’s Hand*
recommendation:* Tier 3.0*

The Mummy’s Tomb*
recommendation:* Tier 3.0*

The Mummy’s Ghost*
recommendation:* Tier 3.0*

The Mummy’s Curse*
recommendation:* Tier 3.0*

American Werewolf in London, An (Arrow)*
recommendation:* Tier 1.25**


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^^

Thanks Darth for all of your Blu-ray viewing and ranking of titles! I must say, "I sure wish I had the 'leisure time' that you apparently have!" Good for you!!


----------



## DarthDoxie

^^
I do what I can 😁

*Them!*
recommendation:* Tier 3.5*

Abbott and Costello Meet the Mummy*
recommendation:* Tier 3.25*

Jaws 2*
recommendation:* Tier 3.5*

Jaws 3*
recommendation:* Tier 4.5**
Poor clarity throughout and chunky grain really hinder this film. Most of the underwater 3D effects like a severed arm and diver submersible are barely watchable.

*Jaws: The Revenge*
recommendation:* Tier 3.5**


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Tarantula (Shout Factory)*
recommendation:* Tier 4.0*

Le Petit Soldat (Criterion)*
recommendation:* Tier 4.0*

Beetlejuice (UHD)*
recommendation:* Tier 1.25*

Goonies, The (UHD)*
recommendation:* Tier 1.25**


----------



## CJackson

Anyone here watch the 4k Lawrence of Arabia discs?


----------



## djoberg

CJackson said:


> Anyone here watch the 4k Lawrence of Arabia discs?


I am "patiently" waiting for its release. There is NO WAY I'm going to buy the "Columbia Classics Set" when I could care less about 3 or 4 of the movies included in that set. 

Tomorrow I will be receiving my 4K/UHD "Back to the Future Ultimate Trilogy" set and needless to say, I'm very excited! I don't even own a copy of any of the previous releases so it's about time I get these and this will be the "Ultimate Set."


----------



## djoberg

*Back to the Future (UHD)*

I went into this expecting the PQ to land this release in Tier Gold and that's exactly where it belongs! It did show its age at times, with SOFTNESS resulting in a LACK OF DETAILS and DEPTH, but overall I was thoroughly impressed with the CLARITY, DETAILS, COLORS and BLACK LEVELS. If you're a fan of this Franchise it may never look better and you WILL be satisfied. Though it does merit this coveted tier, its less-than-stellar moments must, of necessity, bring it down to the bottom.

AQ-wise, the Dolby Atmos mix was impressive in a few scenes, but the majority of the film was focused on the front stage.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**


----------



## fredxr2d2

djoberg said:


> *Back to the Future (UHD)*
> 
> I went into this expecting the PQ to land this release in Tier Gold and that's exactly where it belongs! It did show its age at times, with SOFTNESS resulting in a LACK OF DETAILS and DEPTH, but overall I was thoroughly impressed with the CLARITY, DETAILS, COLORS and BLACK LEVELS. If you're a fan of this Franchise it may never look better and you WILL be satisfied. Though it does merit this coveted tier, its less-than-stellar moments must, of necessity, bring it down to the bottom.
> 
> AQ-wise, the Dolby Atmos mix was impressive in a few scenes, but the majority of the film was focused on the front stage.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75**


I was waiting for your review. I'll put the set on my wishlist. Thanks Denny!


----------



## djoberg

fredxr2d2 said:


> I was waiting for your review. I'll put the set on my wishlist. Thanks Denny!


Hey Tim,

I should mention that at least one "highly respected reviewer" (from Do.Blu.com....not Phantom) was quite critical of the PQ and gave it a low "3 Star rating." Every other review echoes my sentiments and some go beyond what I wrote and feel it is "Reference Quality." I will stand by my review though for the reasons stated. I will look forward to hearing your take on it so be sure to "chime in" after viewing it.

Denny


----------



## Phantom Stranger

My copy is actually in the mail somewhere, looking lost! Whenever it does show up, I'll try giving my thoughts.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> My copy is actually in the mail somewhere, looking lost! Whenever it does show up, I'll try giving my thoughts.


Maybe it was sent "back to the future!"


----------



## djoberg

*Back to the Future 2 (UHD)*

A definite improvement over the first installment. No softness or lack of details and depth...and better clarity, details, colors and black levels. The AQ was also better. The only downside...the movie sucks in comparison. I had never seen this before and I may never see it again. Having said that, I have seen _Back to the Future 3 _and it is very good, but I'm pumped to see the UHD version which I'm expecting to have an even greater uptick in resolution.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**

PS I almost went with Tier 0 (.9). There were many "Reference Quality" shots!


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Set-Up, The (Warner Archive)*
recommendation:* Tier 3.0*

Gun Crazy (Warner Archive)*
recommendation:* Tier 3.0*

Day the Earth Caught Fire, The (Kino Lorber)*
recommendation:* Tier 3.0**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Daughters of Darkness 4K UHD*

recommendation: *Tier 1.25**

Blue Underground's new limited edition may be expensive but the beautiful film transfer they've struck is well worth the price of admission. This is an incredible 4K scan of the original, long-lost camera negative with a full Dolby Vision HDR pass! Having owned the older Blu-ray, I've never seen such an improvement in picture quality going from 1080P to 2160P resolution. Marvelous fine detail in the largely unprocessed film scan and a truly faithful presentation that duly captures every pixel possible with maximum color fidelity.

The 1971 vampire thriller has never looked this good. If not for a few minor inconsistencies in the original cinematography, I would have felt no guilt placing this UHD in Tier Zero.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> *Back to the Future (UHD)*
> 
> I went into this expecting the PQ to land this release in Tier Gold and that's exactly where it belongs! It did show its age at times, with SOFTNESS resulting in a LACK OF DETAILS and DEPTH, but overall I was thoroughly impressed with the CLARITY, DETAILS, COLORS and BLACK LEVELS. If you're a fan of this Franchise it may never look better and you WILL be satisfied. Though it does merit this coveted tier, its less-than-stellar moments must, of necessity, bring it down to the bottom.
> 
> AQ-wise, the Dolby Atmos mix was impressive in a few scenes, but the majority of the film was focused on the front stage.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.75**


*Back To The Future 4K UHD*

recommendation: *Tier 1.75**

I'm in full agreement with Denny on this fine transfer and 4K presentation from Universal. There's nothing visibly untoward in the film scan's processing, producing a fine image harvest with excellent detail. Back To The Future looks very good on UHD. It's a film-like transfer with proper saturation and accurate color tonality.

Without knowing insider details on this particular release, I suspect some very sophisticated grain management tools have been applied. Which doesn't matter all that much at the end of the day, as the superb PQ results speak for themselves. This is a satisfying UHD purchase, though it's not quite up there with the best of the best on the format.

Don't take this relatively low score as a condemnation, it's merely a reflection of the movie's inherent limitations. The presentation consistently delivers a wonderfully pleasing contrast with rich, warm colors. 

Back To The Future happens to be one of my most memorable theater-going experiences and I vividly remember seeing it for the first time all those years ago. This is the first time watching the movie on home video that I feel the presentation nearly matches those visual memories.


----------



## djoberg

*Back to the Future 3 (UHD)*


PQ-wise, they "saved the best for last." Having said that, it started out a "mixed bag" with sporadic "soft shots" resulting in poor resolution and a lack of details and depth. I also detected some "noise" in a couple of those scenes. Other scenes were very good, though not "reference quality." Then at about one-third way into the film the PQ really "came alive" with unbelievable SHARPNESS, exemplary DETAILS, inky BLACKS, and incredible DEPTH. It was "Reference Quality" all the way to the end! Colors were pretty good, though there was a fair amount of "color-grading" (orange hues).

This is a hard one to call. If the whole film was like the second half, I'd easily nominate this for the middle of Tier 0, but when putting everything on the scales, I figure it was about the same as BttF2. So my vote goes for....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.9)*

PS I simply couldn't resist going a tad higher due to the EYE CANDY in the last half to two-thirds!


----------



## TitusTroy

is the Tier List still being updated?...I took a look at it and it has Toy Story 3 on top...is there a separate 4K Tier list on AVS?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I've been thinking about your question the past day. I probably should have done this earlier but I sincerely thought I'd get more free time at some point. 

As of now, there is no separate 4K UHD list. Maybe that needs to change. That seems to be where all the energy is these days reviewing discs. 

Most UHDs from newer productions land in Tier 0 with older movies usually ending up in Tier 1. Tier 0 is updated through early January 2019. There have obviously been many UHD placements made in the thread over the past two years that aren't reflected in the current list.

If someone else would like to take over my duties running the PQ Tiers and regularly updating the list, I'm open to passing the baton. I'd do this myself but other priorities currently take precedence, unfortunately. I'm not leaving the thread by any means but updates may have to be made by others.

I think all of us here want a smoothly functioning PQ Tiers that remains in operation.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^

I hear you Phantom!

I've said before that I can only imagine how much time and energy is involved in doing an update, to say nothing about starting a new thread exclusively for UHD Blu-rays. Again, I feel bad that I too don't have the TIME to even consider "taking over your duties." For now, everyone must be content with "things as they are" until Phantom has the time to do an update or until someone is willing to assume his job. Until either of these occur, we are still seeing "reviews of Blu-rays" and that's something to appreciate.


----------



## DarthDoxie

Well, until theaters open back up on a wide basis and releases subsequently make their way to UHD and baring a massive dump of catalog UHD releases, I'm about caught up on building and reviewing my UHD library. My money lately has been going to Criterion and Kino Lorber. I helped out Phantom with updates to tier 1.0 and 1.25 and can confirm it's a labor of love for sure.

Kino Lorber puts out a lot of films and while not always the best PQ, I find most of the titles I get endlessly entertaining (especially the film noir selections).

*Murder, My Sweet (Warner Archive)*
recommendation:* Tier 3.0*

Strange Adventure, A (Kino Lorber)*
recommendation:* Tier 3.75*

He Ran All the Way (Kino Lorber)*
recommendation:* Tier 3.75*

I, Jane Doe (Kino Lorber)*
recommendation:* Tier 4.0*

It Always Rains on Sunday (Kino Lorber)*
recommendation:* Tier 4.0*

Five Graves to Cairo (Kino Lorber)*
recommendation:* Tier 3.5**


----------



## djoberg

*V for Vendetta (UHD)*

It has been many years since I watched my HD-DVD copy of this release. I had forgotten a majority of the film but I did remember the PQ being very good. I can say with certainty that this UHD release has brought a significant uptick in resolution to the PQ and the HDR has really "upped the ante" in the "specular highlights" with spectacular "fiery explosions" in several of the scenes. BLACK LEVELS were exemplary along with nuanced SHADOW DETAILS. Colors were on the "muted" side for the most part but when primaries were on display they were extremely VIBRANT. Close-ups revealed very detailed facial texture...flesh tones were spot-on...and depth was appreciable in a few scenes.

My biggest "gripe" was in the muted color palette in a vast majority of scenes leaving us with a very "sterile look," especially in many indoor scenes (in apartments and government buildings).

Before I give a placement, I simply must praise the Dolby Atmos mix! I kept my it at -3 during the whole movie and during "action scenes" the LFE/Bass was marvelous with precise panning effects across every channel. The dialogue was also clear.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**

PS I "almost" put it in the bottom of Tier 0!


----------



## djoberg

*Unhinged (1080p)*

So, I was perusing the Redbox website for a good rental this morning and I came across one of the few "Blu-rays" they had to offer (most are simply "DVDs") that piqued my interest; namely, the above mentioned title. What caught my eye was the lead star....Russell Crowe. I can't recall ever seeing him in a movie I didn't like so I rented it. The "credits are now rolling" so here are my brief impressions.

PQ-wise this was a BEAUTY! It has striking CLARITY with super-sharp DETAILS, natural and vibrant COLORS, inky BLACKS, accurate FLESH TONES, and very good DEPTH. At times I thought to myself, "Man, this looks like it was shot in 4K!" I found zero anomalies or anything else to complain about.

AQ-wise it was also excellent. Though much of it was character-driven with lots of dialogue, it also had a few scenes with quite a bit of action....LOUD ACTION, in fact.

Before I give my placement, I was shocked to see how much WEIGHT Russell Crowe had gained to do this movie. I kid you not he looked like he weighed at least 250 lbs!! I should also say if you see this film "you will never look at Mr. Crowe the same ever again"; it is far (and I mean FAR) from any other role he has ever done, period. And last, but not least, after seeing this movie "you will never drive the same again." You will be respectful to every driver around you and you will do all in your power to avoid ticking anyone off.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.9)*

PS The VIOLENCE and LANGUAGE deserved the R rating of this movie. It is not for the squeamish (like me....I had to look away or mute the sound at times).

PPS I just checked and even though Crowe had a "fat suit" on underneath his shirt he still weighed in at almost 270 lbs.!!! And now he needs to shed a good 100 lbs for the upcoming _Gladiator 2_ movie.


----------



## djoberg

*Antebellum (1080p)*

This is yet another "mixed bag" where you had stellar PQ in every daytime, outdoor scene (and they were plentiful!) and not-so-stellar PQ in nighttime scenes, especially in the night scenes on the "plantation." In other words, they were like "night and day!"

In the daytime scenes COLORS were rich, warm and vibrant. DETAILS were exemplary in facial close-ups, foliage, clothing, cityscapes, cars, etc., etc. DEPTH was almost 3D in a number of shots. FLESH TONES were as natural as could be. CLARITY reigned supreme!

In the nighttime "plantation" scenes the PQ was unusually SOFT with fleeting instances of NOISE, and a lack of DETAIL and DEPTH. 

I have always found it difficult ranking films like these. In this one the "daytime scenes" were all "reference" and the aforementioned "nighttime scenes" were all Tier 3, at best. One might be inclined to "average these out" and give it a low Tier 1 placement, but the daytime scenes were more numerous so I'm opting for.....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25**


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Man Who Died Twice, The (Kino Lorber)*
recommendation: *Tier 4.0*

Out of the Past (Warner Archive)*
recommendation: *Tier 2.75*

Lady Vanishes, The (Criterion)*
recommendation: *Tier 4.0**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Sons of Katie Elder*

recommendation: *Tier 3.0**

It took Paramount long enough to finally release this John Wayne movie on Blu-ray. The transfer is a mixed bag, producing a serviceable effort. Not a complete disappointment but halos are visible in several extended passages. The 2.35:1 presentation has a lot of life with fine colors and an excellent contrast. The transfer uses decent-looking film elements. A few little signs of wear are evident. 

I'm guessing Paramount has had this film transfer laying around a few years. The image harvest doesn't quite match up with the latest 4K scans. It hasn't been heavily filtered, texture and micro-detail are fairly abundant. Definition and clarity are decent, all things considered for the 1965 Western.

The mildly dated presentation could be improved with a real film restoration but I found the PQ pleasing enough for BD. Clearly an improvement in depth and dimensionality over Paramount's original DVD edition. Not the best catalog transfer by any means but Paramount has priced the disc under $10 on occasion.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Witness to Murder (Kino Lorber)*
recommendation:* Tier 4.0*

Sword of Sherwood Forrest (Mill Creek)*
recommendation:* Tier 3.0*

Only Angels Have Wings (Criterion)*
recommendation:* Tier 2.0*

Touchez Pas au Grisbi (Kino Lorber)*
recommendation:* Tier 2.5*

Leave Her to Heaven (Criterion)*
recommendation:* Tier 1.75**


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Five Steps to Danger (ClassicFlix)*
recommendation:* Tier 3.0*

Killers, The (1946) (Criterion)*
recommendation:* Tier 3.0*

Killers, The (1964) (Criterion)*
recommendation:* Tier 2.75*

Girl in Black Stockings, The (Kino Lorber)*
recommendation:* Tier 4.0*

Guns Girls and Gangsters (Kino Lorber)*
recommendation:* Tier 4.0*

Vice Raid (Kino Lorber)*
recommendation:* Tier 4.0**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Passion of Darkly Noon*

recommendation: *Tier 3.5**

I'm having trouble placing this Arrow Video release given some of the radical decisions made by the director and cinematographer when finishing this new transfer. The bizarre, surreal movie from the 90s is awash in serious color saturation, leading to blown-out highlights and other anomalies we'd normally consider a mistake. The film transfer itself is filled with nice definition and unfiltered detail. All the problems lie with a decidedly skewed color grading that is all over the map.

I usually don't have a serious problem when a director makes extreme creative decisions but mistakes have been made that do little but denigrate the picture quality. It's an amateur effort at best.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> *The Passion of Darkly Noon*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 3.5**
> 
> I'm having trouble placing this Arrow Video release given some of the radical decisions made by the director and cinematographer when finishing this new transfer. The bizarre, surreal movie from the 90s is awash in serious color saturation, leading to blown-out highlights and other anomalies we'd normally consider a mistake. The film transfer itself is filled with nice definition and unfiltered detail. All the problems lie with a decidedly skewed color grading that is all over the map.
> 
> I usually don't have a serious problem when a director makes extreme creative decisions but mistakes have been made that do little but denigrate the picture quality. It's an amateur effort at best.


I don't blame you one bit for this reaction Phantom. You know full well that "color grading," especially if it is egregious, is "taboo" to me and I often dock the placement quite a bit if it disturbs other elements of the film.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> I don't blame you one bit for this reaction Phantom. You know full well that "color grading," especially if it is egregious, is "taboo" to me and I often dock the placement quite a bit if it disturbs other elements of the film.


They went way overboard this time, it was over the top. The film is meant to be surreal but it just didn't work on any level.


----------



## Panson

Phantom Stranger said:


> *The Sons of Katie Elder*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 3.0**
> 
> It took Paramount long enough to finally release this John Wayne movie on Blu-ray. The transfer is a mixed bag, producing a serviceable effort. Not a complete disappointment but halos are visible in several extended passages. The 2.35:1 presentation has a lot of life with fine colors and an excellent contrast. The transfer uses decent-looking film elements. A few little signs of wear are evident.
> 
> I'm guessing Paramount has had this film transfer laying around a few years. The image harvest doesn't quite match up with the latest 4K scans. It hasn't been heavily filtered, texture and micro-detail are fairly abundant. Definition and clarity are decent, all things considered for the 1965 Western.
> 
> The mildly dated presentation could be improved with a real film restoration but I found the PQ pleasing enough for BD. Clearly an improvement in depth and dimensionality over Paramount's original DVD edition. Not the best catalog transfer by any means but Paramount has priced the disc under $10 on occasion.


Thanks for that. Any news on The Shootist (1976) to US Blu-ray?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Panson said:


> Thanks for that. Any news on The Shootist (1976) to US Blu-ray?


I've not heard any news about The Shootist, sorry. Paramount owns that movie as well, but their catalog doesn't seem to be a priority these days.

These westerns should have hit Blu-ray years ago.


----------



## djoberg

*The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (UHD)*

*STUNNING!!!*

That about sums it up! Yet, as always, I can't just "leave it there"; I must say something about the "details" of the film. Let's start with DETAILS...oh my word, they are CRAZY-GOOD! In comparing this with my review in 2013 of the Blu-ray version, I had said that details were amazing in everything but Bilbo's face. Well, his face had plenty of TEXTURE in the UHD version and so did everyone else's! Of course details abounded in everything, especially the spectacular landscapes (forests, mountains, rivers, etc.)...pure EYE CANDY all the way.

This is not the most colorful film but when PRIMARIES were on display they had the "WOW effect" we crave. These too trumped the colors on the 1080p version thanks to HDR. Speaking of HDR, there are plenty of scenes with FIRE (lots of FIRE!!!) and the specular highlights were fantastic. CONTRAST was super-strong and BLACK LEVELS/SHADOW DETAILS were to-die-for! FLESH TONES were spot-on accurate. DEPTH was very, very pleasing in many scenes.

If I had one gripe it would be with some SOFT SHOTS in isolated scenes. These were seen in some low-lit interior shots and with some of the CGI (though most of the CGI was exemplary).

Before I give my placement, a word is in order concerning the Dolby Atmos mix. Again I must say....*STUNNING!* This had some of the best panning effects and they were as precise as one could ask for. LFE/Bass was also a real treat, though I kept my volume at -10 for most of the 2 1/2 hours running time because my wife was home and this is a loud mix. Someday I will view many of action scenes at reference and then I'll report back to you.

I gave the 1080p mix a Tier 0 (.66) rating but this UHD release takes it up to another level altogether.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.25)*


----------



## JoeBloggz

djoberg said:


> *The Greatest Showman
> 
> GORGEOUS!!*
> 
> That about sums up this wonderful musical! COLORS were as bold & vibrant as can be! DETAILS were exemplary! CLARITY was superb! BLACK LEVELS/SHADOW DETAILS were to-die-for! FLESH TONES were accurate! DEPTH was astounding! Do you get the PICTURE? If not, see it for yourself and you will!
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.25)*
> 
> PS I'm not the greatest fan of musicals, but this was infectious from the opening song to the finale!
> 
> PPS Let me add one word to my uncharacteristic "short" review. There were scenes that were simply breath-taking, even exotic!


Hey guys! Haven't been here in a while(long time). I agree completely with this rating! I know its over two years old, but if you haven't seen the UHD disc Greatest Showman, its absolutely spectacular reference material! I would surely put it in Tier 0.


----------



## JoeBloggz

djoberg said:


> *The Greatest Showman
> 
> GORGEOUS!!*
> 
> That about sums up this wonderful musical! COLORS were as bold & vibrant as can be! DETAILS were exemplary! CLARITY was superb! BLACK LEVELS/SHADOW DETAILS were to-die-for! FLESH TONES were accurate! DEPTH was astounding! Do you get the PICTURE? If not, see it for yourself and you will!
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.25)*
> 
> PS I'm not the greatest fan of musicals, but this was infectious from the opening song to the finale!
> 
> PPS Let me add one word to my uncharacteristic "short" review. There were scenes that were simply breath-taking, even exotic!


Hey guys! Haven't been here in a while(long time). I agree completely with this rating! I know its over two years old, but if you haven't seen the UHD disc Greatest Showman, its absolutely spectacular reference material! I would surely put it in Tier 0.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Nice hearing from you again, JoeBloggz! Is The Greatest Showman a musical?


----------



## djoberg

*Words on Bathroom Walls (1080p)*

Thanks to our AVS "Resident Reviewer" (Ralph Potts) I heard about this "hidden gem of a movie." I don't want to put out any "Spoilers" but this deals with schizophrenia and it is quite "thought-provoking" with an excellent cast that presented the case for having "compassion" and "patience" with one with this dreadful disease. I highly recommend it!

PQ-wise it was very good...not "Reference" but I would put it on my "Demo Shelf" (in the middle somewhere). It did have some SOFTNESS due to CGI shots and during those scenes it lacked details and depth. A big surprise was the AQ, for even though this is largely a "dialog-driven film" it has surprisingly good range with topnotch panning effects (during some of the lead actor's "episodes") and some good musical numbers.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**


----------



## djoberg

JoeBloggz said:


> Hey guys! Haven't been here in a while(long time). I agree completely with this rating! I know its over two years old, but if you haven't seen the UHD disc Greatest Showman, its absolutely spectacular reference material! I would surely put it in Tier 0.


So good to hear from you Joe! Also good to know you watched and enjoyed _The Greatest Showman_. It has had multiple viewings in this house and everyone that sees it loves it...not just for the amazing PQ but also for the story, acting, and catchy musical numbers.

Thanks too for posting Vincent's thoughts on the HDR in the movie. The specular highlights were stellar throughout as were the colors!


----------



## JoeBloggz

Phantom Stranger said:


> Nice hearing from you again, JoeBloggz! Is The Greatest Showman a musical?


Yes. It’s a musical(motion picture) based on the life of P.T Barnum. The founder of circus.


----------



## JoeBloggz

djoberg said:


> So good to hear from you Joe! Also good to know you watched and enjoyed _The Greatest Showman_. It has had multiple viewings in this house and everyone that sees it loves it...not just for the amazing PQ but also for the story, acting, and catchy musical numbers.
> 
> Thanks too for posting Vincent's thoughts on the HDR in the movie. The specular highlights were stellar throughout as were the colors!


You’re review was for the blu ray version, correct? I’m assuming you’ve seen the UHD disc?


----------



## djoberg

JoeBloggz said:


> You’re review was for the blu ray version, correct? I’m assuming you’ve seen the UHD disc?


Yes, my review was back in 2018 before the UHD version was released. I did end up buying the UHD version and I thought it took the PQ up a notch, but for whatever reason I didn't review it on this thread. I gave the 1080p version a placement of Tier 0 (.25) so I think the UHD version should go up to Tier 0 (.15).


----------



## djoberg

*The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (UHD)

GORGEOUS! SPECTACULAR! BREATH-TAKING!*

I had summed up _An Unexpected Journey _with the word "STUNNING" but I must use three words to sum up this one! My word, it is PURE REFERENCE all the way through!

This had the same amazing HDR "specular highlights" (especially in the last 20-30 minutes when Smaug started unleashing his FIRE!) and "colors" as the first film but its DETAILS were even better and there was NO SOFTNESS whatsoever. My EYES were filled to overflowing with EYE CANDY!

My wife is gone so I was able to listen to most of this at "0"....that's right, at REFERENCE LEVEL (though at times my ears felt like they might bleed so I turned it to -4) and it was PURE AUDIO BLISS. I hope your speakers are up to the task for this will give them one of the greatest workouts you've ever experienced.

Okay, I gave _An Unexpected Journey _a Tier 0 (.25) placement and it would be a travesty if I didn't go higher with this. I'm not quite sure this is up there with _Transformers: The Last Knight _but it's very close. I will be conservative and vote for....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.1)*

PS I just read my review for the 1080p version of the last installment (_The Battle of the Five Armies)_ and I went all the way up to .5 on that, saying it was close to perfection. So, I am assuming I'm in for a REAL TREAT with the UHD version and it "may" just rise to the level of the very top of Tier Blu!


----------



## djoberg

I thought I should say something about the _Hobbit Trilogy _that needs to be said. As some of you know, Peter Jackson did the Blu-ray (1080p) trilogy using a HFR (High Frame Rate) of 48fps. Many people didn't like the result since it gave the films the SOE (Soap Opera Effect). Personally, I still enjoyed them but there were scenes, like the long scene where the dwarfs were cascading down a raging river in barrels, that look very FAKE and TOO DIGITAL. In the current UHD/HDR trilogy he went back to the standard of 24fps and I'm glad he did. They now look "like a movie" instead of a "soap opera" and as I've said in my first two reviews the PQ is simply breath-taking!

On a side note, I just picked up the UHD version of _The Lord of the Rings Trilogy _and I will be watching them after I finish the last installment of _The Hobbit trilogy_. I can hardly wait, for reviewers are saying they even look better than _The Hobbit_, which I will have to see to believe. Also, the Blu-ray trilogy of TLotR had a nasty green tint to it which has been removed by Mr. Jackson's 4K Remaster.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Caine Mutiny, The*
recommendation:* Tier 2.75*

Elvis: That’s the Way it Is (Warner Archive)*
recommendation:* Tier 3.5*

He Walked by Night (ClassicFlix)*
recommendation:* Tier 3.0*

Raw Deal (ClassicFlix)*
recommendation:* Tier 3.0*

Holiday Inn*
recommendation:* Tier 2.0*

Lisbon (Kino Lorber)*
recommendation:* Tier 4.5**
Colors are strong but print damage and clarity issues are persistent throughout the runtime.


----------



## djoberg

*The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (UHD)*

A nice "finishing touch" to a superb trilogy! Though there was "some" bloating material throughout this very long journey, I was, for the most part, engaged from beginning to end. And of course, it really helped that it has some of the best PQ (and AQ) ever!!

This one was just as good as _The Desolation of Smaug _so the ranking will be the same. Having said that, I'm beginning to wonder if Tier 0 (.1) is where it belongs. Methinks the unbelievable CLARITY and DETAILS, along with exceptional DEPTH, COLORS, and CONTRAST (the BLACKS and WHITES are incredible!) deserves better. When I compare this to other "live action" titles towards the very top of Tier Blu I'm inclined to put it right here....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (Top Ten "Live Action" Films...perhaps in the Top 3)*

PS I realize this had a lot of CGI, but I'm here to tell you the CGI shots were MESMERIZING!


----------



## djoberg

*Tenet (UHD)*

AMAZING PQ & AQ!

Mr. Nolan takes us on "quite the (time travel/inversion) trip" this time and it will take multiple viewings to "figure everything out" (though as I just said on Ralph Potts' site, "I'm not sure he wants us to figure things out or if he himself has done so!" 

What I can say for sure is this was pure REFERENCE QUALITY EYE CANDY all the way through, with some exceptions where the "color-grading" was so egregious that details and depth were lost to me (for I was quite DISTRACTED) and with some of the letter-boxed scenes which lacked the clarity/sharpness of the IMAX scenes (which were AMAZING). The BLACKS were "out of this world" along with some of the best SHADOW DETAILS I've seen. FLESH TONES were accurate most of the time, but I did notice some "red push" in a few shots. COLORS were bold and vibrant; CONTRAST was excellent (with superb WHITES); and CLARITY was striking in most scenes, most notably in outdoor, daytime scenes. SPECULAR HIGHLIGHTS were exemplary courtesy of HDR.

One "bit of advice" on the AQ....You won't want to listen to this at REFERENCE...or even close to it....especially if you have a "significant other" that hates powerful LFE/Bass and is within 30-40 feet of your theater room (unless you're fortunate enough to have it totally sound-proofed). This is one LOUD MIX that at times is SCARY! Having said that, I LOVED most of it and look forward to turning it up a bit more when I'm home alone (though I don't think I'll ever turn it to 0).

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.33)*


----------



## djoberg

Just finished my SECOND VIEWING of _Tenet_. After watching the "Special Features" blu-ray that came with the movie and some takes on the movie from various websites, I was not nearly as confused this time around.

One more "observation"...I was NOT as impressed with some of the letter-boxed scenes as I was last night so I changed my *Tier 0* (*.25) *ranking down to *Tier 0 (.33)*. Also, I would love to get other views on this so I hope we'll be seeing more reviews shortly. Again, the IMAX scenes were all STELLAR...some of them were "King of the Blu-ray Hill" REFERENCE!!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

What's your rough guesstimate of how long the large-format portions run?


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> What's your rough guesstimate of how long the large-format portions run?


I would GUESS about 45%...maybe as much as 50%. Forbes thought it was 50% but other reviewers went as low as 40%.

_Dark Knight Rises _had 72 minutes shot in the large format and this had to be close to that (speaking of DKR, I gave that a ranking of .33). However, _Dunkirk _was like 70% which made some think Nolan would keep shooting a larger per cent with each movie. Thing is, as I watched the "Making of Tenet" in the "Special Features" Blu-ray, I couldn't believe how LARGE the camera is for shooting in the large-format so I'm sure they were limited by that factor alone in many scenes.


----------



## djoberg

*The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring (UHD)*

I have to say, "I was expecting better after reading other reviews online." This was most definitely a BIG improvement over its 2012 Blu-ray counterpart, which I rated as Tier 2.0 back then. But professional critics were saying this was Reference Quality all the way through and I beg to differ with them. I think it may land in Tier Blu, but if it does it will be in the bottom somewhere. This film was really a "mixed bag" so I'll give you the GOOD and the BAD.

The GOOD: At times the CLARITY and DETAILS were topnotch, with very good DEPTH in some scenes. The COLORS were good, but not exemplary for HDR material. BLACK LEVELS, where good, were very pleasing to the eyes, as were the SHADOW DETAILS in those shots. SPECULAR HIGHLIGHTS were generally very good, especially the few scenes with lots of FIRE in them.

The BAD: This still had a fair amount of SOFTNESS sprinkled throughout. You could be looking at a very sharp shot and the very next scene would turn soft with a lack of DEPTH and DETAILS. Speaking of details, FACIAL DETAILS were excellent in nearly every shot of Gandalf, but Frodo and his companions looked like there was some SMOOTHING going on. Details in panoramic shots of New Zealand were good to very good CLOSE UP, but background details were lacking. In quite a few scenes the BLACKS turned MURKY.

Before I give my placement, there is one area that was "Reference all the way"....the Dolby Atmos mix!!! It was fantastic with excellent panning effects, crystal-clear dialogue, precise action in all the surrounds, and tight & deep LFE/Bass.

I feel my "generous genes" kicking in so I'm opting for....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.9)*

PS Everyone I've read on this trilogy says the PQ gets better with each installment, so I'm thinking the last two will be a shoe-in for a nice spot in Tier 0.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I've heard everyone rave about the Dolby Atmos soundtracks on the LOTR trilogy. They may be the new reference audio standard.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> I've heard everyone rave about the Dolby Atmos soundtracks on the LOTR trilogy. They may be the new reference audio standard.


I don't know if it's the "new reference audio standard," but it sounds really, really good. I did say "It's Reference all the way through," but I still can't say it's the standard (since there are many UHD Blu-rays with either Dolby Atmos or DTS:X that I haven't HEARD yet).


----------



## djoberg

*Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (UHD)*

I'm happy to report that this one fared much better than the first film in the trilogy, so this will go even higher in Tier 0! It had very "consistent PQ" with excellent CLARITY, DETAILS, CONTRAST and BLACK LEVELS. When PRIMARY COLORS were on display they had more POP. DEPTH was topnotch in many scenes. This one had many more daytime, outdoor scenes to showcase most of these virtues and in the last "battle scene" the BLACKS carried the day....or, should I say, carried the night! 

SOFTNESS only reared its ugly head a couple of times and a few of the CGI shots betrayed their age. 

And of course, the Dolby Atmos mix was REFERENCE from beginning to end.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.5)*

PS I almost went with .33 and I would not argue with anyone that wanted to place it there.


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> *The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (UHD)
> 
> GORGEOUS! SPECTACULAR! BREATH-TAKING!*
> 
> 
> Okay, I gave _An Unexpected Journey _a Tier 0 (.25) placement and it would be a travesty if I didn't go higher with this. I'm not quite sure this is up there with _Transformers: The Last Knight _but it's very close. I will be conservative and vote for....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.1)*



Wow holy ****.

I remember being blown away by the 1080p blu-ray back in the day. If its anywhere near as good as Transformers: Last Knight, my mind will be officially blown


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> Just finished my SECOND VIEWING of _Tenet_. After watching the "Special Features" blu-ray that came with the movie and some takes on the movie from various websites, I was not nearly as confused this time around.
> 
> One more "observation"...I was NOT as impressed with some of the letter-boxed scenes as I was last night so I changed my *Tier 0* (*.25) *ranking down to *Tier 0 (.33)*. Also, I would love to get other views on this so I hope we'll be seeing more reviews shortly. Again, the IMAX scenes were all STELLAR...some of them were "King of the Blu-ray Hill" REFERENCE!!



Its a shame Nolan cannot film the entirety of his movies in IMAX 15/70mm.. Just imagine if TDK, TDK:R, Interstellar, Dunkirk - and now Tenet were all in that format. I still think those IMAX shots are superior to any other form of medium seen on my display. Unbelievable to believe its film stock from 1973 can put cameras of 2020 to shame.

Anyways, I ordered the 4K/HDR copy of Tenet and I predict it'll surpass Dunkirk as my #1 ultimate reference movie  But we'll see.


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> Its a shame Nolan cannot film the entirety of his movies in IMAX 15/70mm.. Just imagine if TDK, TDK:R, Interstellar, Dunkirk - and now Tenet were all in that format. I still think those IMAX shots are superior to any other form of medium seen on my display. Unbelievable to believe its film stock from 1973 can put cameras of 2020 to shame.
> 
> Anyways, I ordered the 4K/HDR copy of Tenet and I predict it'll surpass Dunkirk as my #1 ultimate reference movie  But we'll see.


Good to hear from you again! I've been wondering how you were doing.

And I predict Tenet WON'T be your #1 reference movie (for PQ anyway) because of some of the letter-boxed scenes. I think you're going to be more impressed with the last two Hobbit films even though they are all in the letter-boxed format. They are so SHARP without a hint of grain, which you will especially LOVE.

I agree with you that Nolan's IMAX scenes are the BEST (overall) and it would be great if he could film the entirety of his movies in that format.


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> Good to hear from you again! I've been wondering how you were doing.
> 
> And I predict Tenet WON'T be your #1 reference movie (for PQ anyway) because of some of the letter-boxed scenes. I think you're going to be more impressed with the last two Hobbit films even though they are all in the letter-boxed format. They are so SHARP without a hint of grain, which you will especially LOVE.
> 
> I agree with you that Nolan's IMAX scenes are the BEST (overall) and it would be great if he could film the entirety of his movies in that format.



I'm very well thanks! Not posted here in a long while. I have watched a few movies since last review so I'll post them in a bit.

Will get the Hobbit films in 4K too. Cannot wait to see them 

Merry Christmas all!


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Ballad of Narayama, The (Criterion)*
recommendation:* Tier 3.25*

T-Men (ClassicFlix)*
recommendation:* Tier 3.0*

Snorkel, The (Mill Creek)*
recommendation:* Tier 2.75*

Postman Always Rings Twice, The (1946)*
recommendation:* Tier 2.5*

Christmas in Connecticut*
recommendation:* Tier 2.0**


----------



## SnellTHX

CJackson said:


> Anyone here watch the 4k Lawrence of Arabia discs?


I have. It looks phenomenal but grossly overrated. 

For a 52 year old movie it is nothing short of looking incredible, but professional reviewers have called it 'best picture quality ever' or 10/10 video score etc... Which is a blatant lie. It doesn't hold a candle to the best looking movies of the last 10 years.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Merry Christmas! Hopefully everyone is having a safe and enjoyable holiday after this very trying year. This time I'm reviewing two Rankin-Bass productions from the 1960s, plucked from the widely available The Original Christmas Specials Collection box set put out two years ago by Universal. The two specials below were relegated to sharing a disc in the four-disc set. Highly recommended for those fond of the Christmas specials made by Rankin-Bass.

*Cricket on the Hearth*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

Absolutely blown away by the picture quality here for _Cricket on the Hearth_. The 1967 television animation looks incredible with vivid colors and pristine quality. The traditionally animated cartoon has strong primary colors and gorgeous line art. The live-action book-end segments hosted by Danny Thomas have razor-sharp detail and definition.

Never one of the more popular Christmas specials, I hadn't seen this lesser Rankin-Bass production in years and years. Cricket almost never gets aired anymore on television or cable. This is by far the best-looking Rankin-Bass special on Blu-ray - the animation looks fresher now than it ever has before. The cel animation is in flawless condition with virtually no wear. The film elements are in nigh perfect shape. The 49-minute special receives an immaculate AVC encode that transparently captures every nuance of the animation.

*The Little Drummer Boy*

recommendation: *Tier 4.0**

Made in the trademark "Animagic" technique, the 1968 special sounds far better than it looks. Which has been the case with all prior home video releases. The grain structure and other indicators imply several generations of film were used making it - I've never seen _The Little Drummer Boy_ look anything but soft. I'm fairly sure that is baked into the masters. The video does appear to be from a fresh scan, which helps clean up some of the messy shadow and lighting issues.

Universal does a respectable job with _The Little Drummer Boy_. The 4:3 presentation faithfully reproduces the original television broadcast with accurate, if somewhat, muddy colors. The 1080P resolution better reproduces the hairy grain structure and problematic optical effects than DVD could ever hope.


----------



## amarshonarbangla

Is there a 4k bluray PQ thread?


----------



## Phantom Stranger

amarshonarbangla said:


> Is there a 4k bluray PQ thread?


We discuss both 4K UHDs and Blu-rays in this thread. Most of the conversation here the past couple years has centered around 4K UHDs.

So feel free to share any thoughts or questions about UHD picture quality if you like.


----------



## SnellTHX

*The Lord of the Rings 4K trilogy*

Thought I'd do all three in one review. Peter Jackson did say he aimed to make all 3 (and even all 6 including Hobbit trilogy) "look like you are watching one single seamless movie" referring to all of them looking the same. and I agree.

The movies all look amazingly sharp and detailed for a 17-19 year old movie. Facial detail and close-up shots were absolutely reference. Colour-grading was on point. A fine layer of light grain to preserve a filmic look.

However some shots were really soft, particularly the shots of the scenery and landscapes. Some parts were so blurry you couldn't even tell if it was sand, rock or bush. All you could see was a greenish brownish greyish blob, and there were many scenes like this.

So crispy detailed close up imagery brought down by soft/blurry/low detail wide shots.

*Tier recommendation: 1*


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> *The Lord of the Rings 4K trilogy*
> 
> Thought I'd do all three in one review. Peter Jackson did say he aimed to make all 3 (and even all 6 including Hobbit trilogy) "look like you are watching one single seamless movie" referring to all of them looking the same. and I agree.
> 
> The movies all look amazingly sharp and detailed for a 17-19 year old movie. Facial detail and close-up shots were absolutely reference. Colour-grading was on point. A fine layer of light grain to preserve a filmic look.
> 
> However some shots were really soft, particularly the shots of the scenery and landscapes. Some parts were so blurry you couldn't even tell if it was sand, rock or bush. All you could see was a greenish brownish greyish blob, and there were many scenes like this.
> 
> So crispy detailed close up imagery brought down by soft/blurry/low detail wide shots.
> 
> *Tier recommendation: 1*


If your comments referred only to _The Fellowship of the Ring_ I would agree with you. There were a lot of SOFT SHOTS and OUT OF FOCUS shots too, especially in background details. But the next film (_The Two Towers_) was definitely SHARPER, including background details. I gave TFotR a .9 placement (and said I almost gave it a Tier 1 ranking), but I gave TTT a Tier 0 (.5). I will be watching _Return of the King _in about an hour and I am fully expecting that to look even better (based on the review by Matt on Do.Blu.com and others).

Now _The Hobbit Trilogy_ is another story; it was pure REFERENCE QUALITY throughout the whole trilogy, especially _The Desolation of Smaug _and _The Battle of the Five Armies_. Once you see that you will no doubt change your mind about Peter Jackson's statement that all 6 films are like watching "one single seamless movie." And it makes perfect sense that _The Hobbit Trilogy _has better PQ for the CGI was vastly superior to the CGI in _The Lord of the Rings Trilogy_. Why? Because it was made quite a few years later! So, watch that trilogy and report back to us and I'll bet you will NOT lump them all together and declare that they all "look the same."


----------



## djoberg

*The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (UHD)*

I just finished giving somewhat of a summary of my thoughts of the PQ & AQ of this film, along with the whole 6 films making up _The Hobbit Trilogy _and _The Lord of the Rings_. Here is my link to that post:









The Lord of the Rings: Motion Picture Trilogy Ultra HD...


Finished Return of the King tonight. I kept having to turn up the Center Channel. Only one of all 6 movies.




www.avsforum.com





This last film, thought not perfect, has some of the best "King of the Blu-ray Hill Reference Scenes" that I've ever seen. I believe it was as good or better than _The Two Towers_. So, I feel compelled to give it the same placement....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.5)*


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> If your comments referred only to _The Fellowship of the Ring_ I would agree with you. There were a lot of SOFT SHOTS and OUT OF FOCUS shots too, especially in background details. But the next film (_The Two Towers_) was definitely SHARPER, including background details.



I thought all three of the LOTR movies were remarkably close. Not identical, but close enough to all be lumped in the same score.

They all had amazing texture / facial detail and close up details, but the far shots / background details etc were soft / out of focus as you say. I originally thought I'd write down specific scenes but I didn't bother.

I think the area where the ride out to the sick king of Rohan in Two Towers looked *blurry* and *low-res *and the same applies to the ending of Return of the King when Aragorn has that ceremony. There were more instances than those scenes of course, but those were just an example from each film that made me think "eh, this doesn't look that good..."


----------



## SnellTHX

*The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey*

I honestly think the statement from P.J. that I read turned out to be quite true, and is what I was afraid of. Trying to make all 6 movies look like one single movie produced at the same time means you either have to make the 20 year old movies look as good as the 10 year old ones... Or make the newer movies look as 'bad' as the old ones. We all know what is easier to do. I wonder if the PQ of this movie was 'held back' as to not look vastly different from the LOTR trilogy filmed with 35mm cameras from the 90s. I will say it looks better than the LOTR trilogy which I gave Tier 1 - but not by much.

Yeah there are nice details, punch and pop but the movie appears to be over-sharpened. Not in a good way like Transformers which is _so sharp it cuts your eyes but you still enjoy it sharp _, but sharpened as if my TVs sharpness was jacked up to 30 or 35. I noticed jagged edges and aliasing. Which is a shame, because it seems like it belongs in the middle of the reference pile but P.J. purposely over sharpened it, moving it to the very bottom of the reference list.

Edit: I don't even know if aliasing is a term used for films / picture, but in video game graphics aliasing are sharp jagged lines appearing around edges known as "jaggies". There's a technique called anti-aliasing to smooth out these lines and if I were worked for the studio I'd ask them to apply that to this movie.

Or maybe just turn down my TVs sharpness which is at the default setting of 5 or 10.

*Tier recommendation: 0.9*


----------



## CJackson

How's the new Curse of Frankenstein blu ray?


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Snell,

We will have to "agree to disagree" (so what's new, right?!!) on this, because I stand by my view that _The Hobbit Trilogy_ has better PQ overall than _The Lord of the Rings Trilogy_. I was glad to see that you put _An Unexpected Journey _into Tier 0, though I still believe it deserves a much higher ranking in that tier. As far as it being "over-sharpened," I agree it did have that look in some scenes, but I was NOT distracted by it. I did not see the "jaggies" (i.e. aliasing) that you did. I compared this type of "sharpening" to what we see in scenes in _The Dark Knight _on the original Blu-ray version where the "purists" were so put off by it that they basically trashed it. They claim the DNR was so appalling that the resulting EE (Edge Enhancement) was unbearable to watch. The majority of us who reviewed it in this thread acknowledged there was a bit of DNR but we added that it was NOT nearly as bad as what some were contending for. Many of us still ended up giving it a Tier 0 placement and to this day the Blu-ray release holds up quite well.

Denny


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Maniac (Mill Creek)*
recommendation:* Tier 2.75*

Cash on Demand (Mill Creek)*
recommendation:* Tier 2.75*

Road House (1948) (Kino Lorber)*
recommendation:* Tier 3.75*

Mad Max (UHD, Kino Lorber)*
recommendation:* Tier 1.5*

Crime of Passion (ClassicFlix)*
recommendation:* Tier 3.0*

Rambo: Last Blood (UHD)*
recommendation:* Tier 1.0**


----------



## djoberg

Just chiming in to wish all my fellow AVS Members a very....

*HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!*


----------



## djoberg

*Honest Thief (1080p)*

This was a decent "rental" featuring Liam Neeson in a somewhat "different role" yet the "same skills and action." I enjoyed it! PQ-wise it was very SHARP with exquisite FACIAL DETAILS and details in general were quite good. BLACKS were superb with a few amazing nighttime aerials of Boston. There was a lot of color-grading (blue, teal, & orange) but thankfully most shots did NOT hinder details. DEPTH was stellar in several scenes.

If not for many scenes in offices and low-lit interiors that lacked any kind of real "WOW factor," this could have been a mid-tier 0 placement, but as it stands I'll vote for....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.9)*

PS I almost went with 1.0 but my "generous gene" kicked in again! 

PPS The audio was very good and my Denon's up-mixer did a fantastic job.


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Snell,
> 
> We will have to "agree to disagree" (so what's new, right?!!) on this, because I stand by my view that _The Hobbit Trilogy_ has better PQ overall than _The Lord of the Rings Trilogy_. I was glad to see that you put _An Unexpected Journey _into Tier 0, though I still believe it deserves a much higher ranking in that tier. As far as it being "over-sharpened," I agree it did have that look in some scenes, but I was NOT distracted by it. I did not see the "jaggies" (i.e. aliasing) that you did. I compared this type of "sharpening" to what we see in scenes in _The Dark Knight _on the original Blu-ray version where the "purists" were so put off by it that they basically trashed it. They claim the DNR was so appalling that the resulting EE (Edge Enhancement) was unbearable to watch. The majority of us who reviewed it in this thread acknowledged there was a bit of DNR but we added that it was NOT nearly as bad as what some were contending for. Many of us still ended up giving it a Tier 0 placement and to this day the Blu-ray release holds up quite well.
> 
> Denny



Hey Denny, happy new year!

Yet another case of us disagreeing.

As for TDK - I haven't watched it in a while (its my all time favourite movie, I've seen it perhaps 20 or 30 times between 2008-2015) So I haven't even seen it in glorious 4K yet, but what I remember from it was the 28 minutes of drop-dead, better-than-4K IMAX 15/70 1.78:1 being the absolute top of my reference list while the remaining 100-120 minutes or so filmed in regular 35mm 2.35:1 looked very average to almost mediocre. I still used it to show people how could my Kuro was, I just skipped to the 28 minutes of IMAX footage and that was more than enough of a demo  In fact I plan on buying the Christopher Nolan collection as I have yet to see the rest of my favourite films in 4K/HDR. Only Dunkirk so far!


For the Hobbit, I thought I was going insane because to me the minutia just wasn't there and I kept seeing squiggly lines in peoples beards, noise in dark scenes and just an overall over-sharpened image full of aliasing that ruined would could have been top reference material like I remember it being on blu-ray way back in 2012, before our eyes were blessed with 4K, HDR and WCG.


----------



## SnellTHX

*The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug*

Now this what the first Hobbit film s_hould _have been. rich, razor-sharp image (but not oversharpened like the first), colourful with lots of pop. the night time scenes with the pale orc are absolutely gorgeous and look like reference. Although it had amazing quality, I disagree on it being the best live-action movie. Dunkirk, Interstellar, Dark Knight Rises, Gemini Man and Transformers 5 and Pacific Rim are still my topp 6 best looking live action movies, and in my opinion look much better still. None of them are 2.35:1, but as for 2.35:1 presentations I don't think it looked as good Mortal Engines , Avengers Infinity War, Avengers: Endgame, Blade Runner 2049 or Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 which I would place as 0.25-0.33. I think it was more on par with something like Black Panther or Mad Max: Fury Road which are both definitive reference, but not quite the best. There was still some noise to be found, especially evident in interior, dimly lit scenes.. It was everywhere from 0.25 to 0.75 so I think it's fair to say:

*Tier recommendation: 0.50*


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> For the Hobbit, I thought I was going insane because to me the minutia just wasn't there and *I kept seeing squiggly lines in peoples beards*, noise in dark scenes and just an overall over-sharpened image full of aliasing that ruined would could have been top reference material like I remember it being on blu-ray way back in 2012, *before our eyes *were blessed with 4K, HDR and WCG.


Yes, I did see "some" over-sharpened images but they weren't nearly as bad to _my eyes_. We have often noted on this thread that some of our analysis is "subjective" and this is a good example of this. I will say this, "_My eyes _are no doubt older than _your eyes_ and thus they are much more forgiving when it comes to anomalies."


----------



## SnellTHX

*Blade*

A little trip down memory lane. I haven't really watched this movie until now. It came out in 1998 when I was five, and I remember my dad getting this movie on DVD about a year later. Our HD-CRT Sony TV and B&W Nautilus setup that was state of the art in 1999 was often used to show movies like Blade and The Matrix when my dad brought friends and family over to show off the TV / surround setup. I was never allowed to watch the 'scary' parts so was often sent away to my room when the action started

Now I watched it in glorious 4K and it feels worthy of my memories. The picture looks great, like seeing it on that shiny brand new DVD player on that fancy new CRT for the first time. facial details are astounding. I've noticed a pattern with 35mm films that close up shots look really clean and really good with lots of detail, but the wider shots contain a lot more grain and are much less sharp. So in some cases it does show its age (22 years old now) and the PS1-era graphics look hilarious by today's standard, but in other cases it honestly looks on par with something like John Wick ch. 1-3 which I believe are all tier 0.75 films.

I read some other people's opinions on Blade in 4K and it was a bit mixed. Some were mind blown and stated that they believe Blade looks better than the LOTR trilogy (which is mostly adored but some think it is a tad overrated), while others complained that there was too much DNR used for the film.
I am in the middle and leaner closer to the former. I thought Blade was excellent and one of the best looking movies I have seen from the 90s.
*
Tier recommendation: 1*


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Snell,

I just picked up _Interstellar _on UHD and plan to watch it this week. I've been meaning too for a long time. You say it's still one of your favorites for PQ (top 5, I believe) and I've heard from others that the UHD trumps the 1080p version by quite a bit (except for the notoriously bad first scene with elevated blacks). I'll chime in after I'm finished watching it. I gave the blu-ray a 1.25 or 1.5 ranking so I'm fully expecting this to land in Tier 0.

Denny


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Big House, U.S.A. (Kino Lorber)*
recommendation:* Tier 3.25*

The Gun Runners (Kino Lorber)*
recommendation:* Tier 3.25*

I Walk Alone (Kino Lorber)*
recommendation:* Tier 3.75*

Monolith Monsters, The (Shout)*
recommendation:* Tier 3.0*

H-Man, The (Mill Creek)*
recommendation:* Tier 4.5*

Battle in Outer Space (Mill Creek)*
recommendation:* Tier 4.5*

It Came from Outer Space*
recommendation:* Tier 3.0**


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Snell,
> 
> I just picked up _Interstellar _on UHD and plan to watch it this week. I've been meaning too for a long time. You say it's still one of your favorites for PQ (top 5, I believe) and I've heard from others that the UHD trumps the 1080p version by quite a bit (except for the notoriously bad first scene with elevated blacks). I'll chime in after I'm finished watching it. I gave the blu-ray a 1.25 or 1.5 ranking so I'm fully expecting this to land in Tier 0.
> 
> Denny


Well here's the thing with Nolan's films. The IMAX 15/70 shots look so much better than anything else it makes any other blu-ray look like DVD in comparison. Slight exaggeration... but on my display it is honestly head and shoulders above anything else. To the point where I cannot understand how other videophiles don't all agree. This is like looking out of a window. This is literally 18K resolution and not only matches the real world but pretty much surpasses it!

My go to has always been showing the IMAX shots from Nolan films to impress my friends. the 35mm shots look no where near as good, and are in fact_ pretty average._

I haven't seen any Nolan film in 4K/HDR except Dunkirk, but here's a gist of how I remember the blu-rays:

Dunkirk - IMAX = Tier X (70% of film length) / 65mm = Tier 1 (30% of film length)
Interstellar - IMAX = Tier X (40% of film length) / 35mm = tier 1.75
The Dark Knight Rises - IMAX = Tier X (50% of film length) / 35mm = tier 1.5
Inception = tier 1.25, no IMAX scenes at all here
The Dark Knight - IMAX = Tier X (30% of film length) / 35mm = tier 2
The Prestige & Batman Begins tier 2.25-2.5 some where, none of these are IMAX.

I lable them Tier X as something better than Tier 0. So when you average the beyond-Tier 0 scenes with the Tier 1+ scenes they still deserve a Tier 0.1-0.25 rating.

Of course I haven't seen any of them in 4K/HDR so going back the original 1080p/SDR blu-rays won't be as good looking as I remembered them (I not long ago re-watched Avatar on regular blu-ray and its PQ did not impress much at all! I remember being blown away back in 2009 on a Kuro PDP!)

So you know what, I think I'll just order the Nolan 4K Collection now as we speak. I've seen them all several times before (The Dark Knight is my favourite movie of all time so I have watched it more than I can count) but I need to see them again at their finest


----------



## SnellTHX

Giving Interstellar a 1.25 or 1.5 is treason of the highest order! I think that's a fair rating of the 2.35:1 shots as they are noisy and have elevated blacks. Those IMAX scenes on the other hand make it an absolute must have. If a friend comes over and ask why you bothered spending so much money on that TV, chuck the 4K Interstellar disc in your player and show of those scenes. The Baseball match, when the sandstorm arrives, when he drives away, when the spaceship docks, when they are on that water planet, when they are on that frozen tundra planet those are all some of the best visuals I have ever seen on a display.


----------



## djoberg

Snell,

I must say I'm absolutely SHOCKED that you haven't seen any of the Nolan films in 4K yet (except _Dunkirk_), especially with your view on the IMAX shots being "beyond Tier 0." I just have to ask, "Why haven't you purchased _Interstellar _and _The Dark Knight Rises _yet?" Regarding my 1.25 ranking of the blu-ray of _Interstellar _here is what I said:

*I have nothing to add to these reviews; they were both "spot on!" I agree 100% with the view that had this all been filmed in IMAX footage it could have landed near the top of Tier 0. The 35mm shots were NOT bad, by any means, but at times they paled in comparison to the IMAX footage. I'm going to "split the difference" in these two recommendations and vote for....

Tier Recommendation: 1.25**

So Snell, it all boiled down to "some unsatisfying 35mm shots." I should also mention that in my review I quoted the reviews of two of our regular contributors (at that time) and they ranked it 1.0 and 1.5. I merely "split the difference" between those two ratings. Now remember, I said if it had all been filmed in IMAX it would have been a Top Tier 0 ranking, but with 60% of the film being in an obvious "inferior" 35mm, I believe the ranking is justified.


----------



## SnellTHX

Well I almost never watch any movie twice. I've seen Interstellar 4-5 times, The Dark Knight Rises 5-6 times, and The Dark Knight is my favourite film and was used for my ultimate reference disc between 2008-2012, I watched that movie every time I had any minor upgrade (speakers, amps, surrounds, processors, TV, projector etc!) Lost count how many times but it is many. I just never felt like paying for movies I have already seen so many times before.





But I ordered the Nolan 4K collection yesterday and should arrive between the 20-27th of January and I cannot wait! Not seen any of them in years. TENET is also on the way


----------



## SnellTHX

Now that I think of it there are many movies I need to rewatch in 4K... Avatar is definitely one of them. This was my #1 from 2009-2012 ish alongside The Dark Knight. 

Life of Pi which was my #1 reference from 2012 until Interstellar, Dunkirk, Transformers 5 came along...

So many more more.


----------



## SnellTHX

*The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies.*

Stunning, sharp (but a little too sharp at times, which is not a good thing!), lots of pop and vibrant imagary. Some noise in the interior shots and a tiny, tiny hint of over-sharpening bring this down from being a "top reference disc" to a "middle of the pack" in tier 0. I looked up some reviews to see what others were saying and they confirmed/agreed with what I stated...

_"but unfortunately, there are a few instances of flickering and shimmering along some of the sharpest edges. Most often, these mildly distracting bits that nearly look like aliasing happen during extreme long shots of Dale and are all the more apparent in those shots with wide panning movement, such as those inside Erebor"_

Which is a shame. This movie could have been a 0.25 tier alongside something like the absolutely gorgeous looking *reference* title that is Mortal Engines. The flickering and shimmering along edges did distract me, and my theory is that this was indeed done on purpose to make the movies look more seamless which just isn't possible when you have a 19 year old movie filmed with 35mm and a 6 year old movie filmed with a 5K digital camera.

Then again, my theory doesn't really make sense because logically you would over-sharpen the LOTR trilogy filmed in 35mm and then soften the Hobbit Trilogy filmed digitally to make the images look the same and not the other way around. But I don't know... I am no expert. I just feel given how good the LOTR movies are (for their age) the Hobbit movies should have blown them out of the water and didn't quite meet that (high) expectation. 

*Tier recommendation: 0.75*


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> Well I almost never watch any movie twice. I've seen Interstellar 4-5 times, The Dark Knight Rises 5-6 times, and The Dark Knight is my favourite film and was used for my ultimate reference disc between 2008-2012, I watched that movie every time I had any minor upgrade (speakers, amps, surrounds, processors, TV, projector etc!) Lost count how many times but it is many. I just never felt like paying for movies I have already seen so many times before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But I ordered the Nolan 4K collection yesterday and should arrive between the 20-27th of January and I cannot wait! Not seen any of them in years. TENET is also on the way


You will definitely see a difference in resolution, especially in _The Dark Knight Rises_. One of my favorite scenes is the opening "planes in the sky" scene. WOW, is all I can say when watching them in 4K. I believe if Mr. Nolan would film all his films exclusively in IMAX they would all "rise to the very top" of Tier Blu!

I hope to watch _Interstellar _tonight or tomorrow night!


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> You will definitely see a difference in resolution, especially in _The Dark Knight Rises_. One of my favorite scenes is the opening "planes in the sky" scene. WOW, is all I can say when watching them in 4K. I believe if Mr. Nolan would film all his films exclusively in IMAX they would all "rise to the very top" of Tier Blu!
> 
> I hope to watch _Interstellar _tonight or tomorrow night!


Enjoy it my friend  hope it is a substantial improvement over the blu-ray.

That opening plane scene (in Scotland?) is honestly one of the best looking scenes in cinema history. Honestly there is almost nothing that comes close to that realism, depth, and resolution and detail. It's like a gigapixel image or something shot with Hubble Space telescope.
Just 1-2 weeks til I get my Nolan 4K collection so I'll see it in 4K soon.


----------



## djoberg

*Interstellar (UHD)*

WOW!!!! If the whole film had been shot in IMAX I would be touting this as the new "King of the Blu-ray Hill." They (the IMAX shots) were simply incredible....drop-dead GORGEOUS! The BLACKS in space were awesome with some of the most amazing shots I've seen (most notably when orbiting around Saturn & other planets and when travelling through the wormholes).

But then there were the letter-boxed scenes shots in 35mm. They were a mixed bag, to be sure. Some scenes were mid to high Tier 0, especially in the latter half of the movie. Others had weak blacks and lacked detail and clarity (compared to the IMAX shots), ranging from high Tier 1 to high Tier 2. I have "weighed everything on my scales" and am opting for....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (.5)*

PS For some "perspective," I had ranked the 1080p Blu-ray at 1.25, so this is much better!


----------



## CJackson

Spartacus 1960 looks fantastic in 4k. How does it compare to Lawrence of Arabia in 4k?


----------



## SnellTHX

CJackson said:


> Spartacus 1960 looks fantastic in 4k. How does it compare to Lawrence of Arabia in 4k?



As it happens I watched Spartacus just yesterday!

Here is what I think:

*Spartacus*
Much like every old movie, 'professional reviewers' feel highly sentimental and nostalgic about them and give them very high points for being "the best it has ever looked" - which is a silly statement because of course a movie will look better with 4x more pixels than blu-ray or 16x more pixels than DVD (not to mention HDR, wide colour gamut, bit depth...). Could you imagine a 4K remaster in 2021 looking worse than a DVD from the 90s? It wouldn't make sense.

if we were living in 1961, I would agree that its picture is a 10/10. In fact it looks as good, if not better than pretty much any movie from the 70s, 80s and even through the 90s.

For a 61 year old (!) movie it is absolutely mind blowing how much detail in particular facial detail you can retrieve in close-up shots. Skin texture looks really good. Very organic, and the scenes in the prison cells and when Spartacus watching his wife bathe were honestly reference material - even today!

But... the movie is plagued with lots of dirty grain in many of the shots that look downright horrible. Look at any of the shots from the streets or desert outside and it looks _absolutely terrible_.

If this movie truly was a 10/10 (or tier 0) in today's standards and could be used as a reference disc in 2021, then Spartacus (1960) would be visually indistinguishable from Spartacus (2011-14) the TV show. They are both set in the exact same time period, so if the PQ was the same level you wouldn't be able to tell which is old and which is new unless you knew the actors.

But you could ask anyone to identify which is 61 year old movie and which is a TV show from a few years ago (which looks excellent in 4K btw) *100 out of 100 people* will correctly identify which is which.

*To answer your question: Lawrence of Arabia looks slightly better, but not by much*. Again, I've read people say it is the finest image ever produced on a 4K disc, which is 100% a lie, there is no way anyone can truly believe that.

A 1969 Porsche 917 is really, really fast. but the 2019 Porsche 919 Evo would run circles around it in a race. As would any race car from today.

To summarise: for the 40 years between 1961 to 2001 I would consider it a top 5, maybe even top 3 reference disc slightly behind Lawrence of Arabia but to compare to to modern movies I would generously place it:

*Tier recommendation: 1.25*


----------



## SnellTHX

@ Djoberg. Of course the IMAX shots are some of the best you have seen 


I cannot wait to see it myself in 4K again.

TENET just arrived in the post today as did Planet Earth II and Blue Planet II. I haven't seen either of them .I do believe you place PE2 really high up on the reference list?

I predict there will be a few 0.25 tier (or lower) scores coming from me soon..


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> @ Djoberg. Of course the IMAX shots are some of the best you have seen
> 
> 
> I cannot wait to see it myself in 4K again.
> 
> TENET just arrived in the post today as did Planet Earth II and Blue Planet II. I haven't seen either of them .I do believe you place PE2 really high up on the reference list?
> 
> I predict there will be a few 0.25 tier (or lower) scores coming from me soon..


_Planet Earth 2 _is AMAZING! There are some "soft shots" due to them not being able to film entirely with their best cameras but the vast majority of the documentary is Top Tier 0 quality...at least in the Top 5 for action (versus CGI/animated) films.

I have NOT seen _Blue Planet 2_.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Never Take Candy from a Stranger (Mill Creek)*
recommendation:* Tier 2.75*

This Island Earth (Shout)*
recommendation:* Tier 4.0*

Black Scorpion, The (Warner Archive)
recommendation: Tier 3.5*

Deer Hunter, The (UHD, Shout Select)*
recommendation:* Tier 2.0**

The only section of the movie I thought was outstanding was the second hunting trip; everything else is pretty average.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Teen Titans Go! Vs Teen Titans*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

I believe this DC animated movie came out back in 2019. Anyone familiar with the long-running comedy on Cartoon Network should know what to expect in terms of character designs and style. The Blu-ray emphasizes the boldly colored palette with inky black levels and full saturation. Dazzling is an apt description.

Animation like this certainly pops on OLED. I don't believe the animation's native resolution is anything more than 1080P, so a 4K UHD would only possibly improve compression. But there aren't any technical issues on the BD, so it's unlikely the next gen format would do much for the movie.

This movie would have easily made Tier 0 just a few years ago. The animation looks really nice, though detail isn't its strongest suit.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I don't believe the Hellboy reboot has been rated here before. The search engine did pull up DarthDoxie's scores for the first two Hellboy movies on UHD.

*Hellboy (2019) 4K UHD*

recommendation: *Tier 0.3**

The Dolby Vision presentation is fantastic with real eye candy. This is A/V demo material perfect for UHD. The 2019 reboot was finished at 4K and every pixel of resolution shows up in the dazzling CGI visuals. Significantly less postprocessing is evident than most blockbuster films these days, which only helps the razor-sharp 2.40:1 video.

The opening scene's flashy colors and brilliant saturation are clearly designed to pop in Dolby Vision. The only thing holding down Hellboy's score is large chunks of the plot take place at night and in shadowy exteriors. While the black levels are perfection, shadow delineation could mildly improve.

Technically, the transfer and encode are flawless. Lionsgate provides a 12-bit Full Enhancement Layer (FEL) for the Dolby Vision and it shows.


----------



## djoberg

*Greenland (1080p)*

I picked this up at Redbox today and just finished watching it. I'm going to give a link to short review (from Ralph's site) instead of repeating myself. I liked this enough to possibly buy the UHD release when it comes out. Most disaster movies are lacking in acting, decent special effects, and last, but not least, believability; this one managed to tick all of those boxes.









Greenland Blu-ray Review


John Garrity, his estranged wife and their young son embark on a perilous journey to find sanctuary as a planet-killing comet hurtles toward Earth. Ralph Potts reviews the Blu-ray release of Greenland from Universal Pictures Home Entertainment. The Review at a Glance: (max score: 5 ) Film...




www.avsforum.com





*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**


----------



## djoberg

*Come Play (1080p)*

So, this was my second rental to complete my "Double Feature Day." It too was a decent rental, but I highly doubt that I will buy it unless it hits the "Bargain Barrel at Wally World." It was pretty creepy though and gave me the willies a few times.

PQ-wise it was SHARP (in daytime scenes and most nighttime scenes as well) with plenty of DETAILS, DEPTH and excellent BLACK LEVELS & SHADOW DETAILS. FLESH TONES were spot on and CONTRAST was strong. Where the PQ faltered was in the many scenes where you would be "looking through a tablet or camera in video mode." Blacks became very DULL then and there was a lot of NOISE...resulting in obscured details.

AQ-wise it was FANTASTIC. It was the audio mix that really gave this movie the atmosphere for the "creeps" and "willies."

Time for a placement. This is a tough one but I think it compares well with my last viewing.....soooo....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Court Jester*

recommendation: *Tier 0* (.75)*

Folks, we have a serious contender for best-looking Blu-ray ever minted from a '50s film. Released just two weeks ago, Paramount has given the Danny Kaye comedy an incredible restoration with an overwhelming 6K film transfer. Meticulously struck from the original VistaVision negative, you'll be fooled into thinking you are watching 4K UHD. 

The color palette leaps off the screen with startlingly vivid saturation. Not to mention the impressive cinematography. Probably the most impressive and authentic film transfer of classic filmmaking I've seen in many years.

The Court Jester was a big-budget production of its day and the elaborate costumes dazzle on the big screen. Part of Paramount's new Presents line only on BD, it's a real shame they didn't see fit to issue the movie on UHD. This is a transfer that deserves 4K resolution with its expanded color space and depth.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Curse of the Mummy’s Tomb, The (Mill Creek)*
recommendation:* Tier 3.75*

Revenge of Frankenstein, The (Mill Creek)*
recommendation:* Tier 4.0*

Gorgon, The (Mill Creek)*
recommendation:* Tier 3.5*

Creatures the World Forgot (Mill Creek)*
recommendation:* Tier 3.75*

Taste of Fear (Mill Creek)*
recommendation:* Tier 3.75*

Two Faces of Dr. Jekyll, The (Mill Creek)*
recommendation:* Tier 3.75*

These are the Damned (Mill Creek)*
recommendation:* Tier 3.5**


----------



## fredxr2d2

djoberg said:


> *Tenet (UHD)*
> 
> AMAZING PQ & AQ!
> 
> Mr. Nolan takes us on "quite the (time travel/inversion) trip" this time and it will take multiple viewings to "figure everything out" (though as I just said on Ralph Potts' site, "I'm not sure he wants us to figure things out or if he himself has done so!"
> 
> What I can say for sure is this was pure REFERENCE QUALITY EYE CANDY all the way through, with some exceptions where the "color-grading" was so egregious that details and depth were lost to me (for I was quite DISTRACTED) and with some of the letter-boxed scenes which lacked the clarity/sharpness of the IMAX scenes (which were AMAZING). The BLACKS were "out of this world" along with some of the best SHADOW DETAILS I've seen. FLESH TONES were accurate most of the time, but I did notice some "red push" in a few shots. COLORS were bold and vibrant; CONTRAST was excellent (with superb WHITES); and CLARITY was striking in most scenes, most notably in outdoor, daytime scenes. SPECULAR HIGHLIGHTS were exemplary courtesy of HDR.
> 
> One "bit of advice" on the AQ....You won't want to listen to this at REFERENCE...or even close to it....especially if you have a "significant other" that hates powerful LFE/Bass and is within 30-40 feet of your theater room (unless you're fortunate enough to have it totally sound-proofed). This is one LOUD MIX that at times is SCARY! Having said that, I LOVED most of it and look forward to turning it up a bit more when I'm home alone (though I don't think I'll ever turn it to 0).
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.33)*


I watched the 1080p Blu-ray of Tenet this weekend, and I agree with pretty much everything that Denny says here. I agree that you need to turn it down for comfortable viewing. I'm going to try and get my hands on the 4K disc at some point and see how it looks, but I expect it to be quite good. *I recommend that 1080p at 0.5*, since I assume that HDR and extra resolution add to the presentation.


----------



## subacabra

Elysium 4k. 
Wow!
Razor sharp with detail galore. Deep, inky blacks with little to no loss of shadow detail.
Hdr on point, specular highlights popping!
I'd put this in my top five for sure.
Audio was a treat as well.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> *The Court Jester*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 0* (.75)*
> 
> Folks, we have a serious contender for best-looking Blu-ray ever minted from a '50s film. Released just two weeks ago, Paramount has given the Danny Kaye comedy an incredible restoration with an overwhelming 6K film transfer. Meticulously struck from the original VistaVision negative, you'll be fooled into thinking you are watching 4K UHD.
> 
> The color palette leaps off the screen with startlingly vivid saturation. Not to mention the impressive cinematography. Probably the most impressive and authentic film transfer of classic filmmaking I've seen in many years.
> 
> The Court Jester was a big-budget production of its day and the elaborate costumes dazzle on the big screen. Part of Paramount's new Presents line only on BD, it's a real shame they didn't see fit to issue the movie on UHD. This is a transfer that deserves 4K resolution with its expanded color space and depth.


Thanks Phantom for the heads up on this one. I have been a Danny Kaye fan for many years. My wife and I still watch him on some of the channels that feature "older films," along with Bing Crosby, Bob Hope, Fred Astaire, et al. that make up that genre of COMEDY/DANCERS/SINGERS. I will definitely be checking this one out after your glowing review and recommendation.


----------



## DarthDoxie

*Stop Me Before I Kill! (Mill Creek)*
recommendation:* Tier 3.0*

Yesterday’s Enemy (Mill Creek)*
recommendation:* Tier 3.5*

Die! Die! My Darling! (Mill Creek)*
recommendation:* Tier 3.0*

Crossroads (Mill Creek)*
recommendation:* Tier 3.5*

Popeye*
recommendation:* Tier 1.25**

Pleasantly surprised at this one. The colors pop and the clarity are really good, but the real treat is the excellent black levels. The night scenes and the dark clothing are just jaw dropping for a 1980 catalogue title.


----------



## djoberg

Has everyone disappeared, including me?  

We have been traveling like crazy and when we've been home I'm either busy streaming or watching Blu-rays from my library. We'll be gone the next 2 weeks but once I get back I hope to start renting titles again at Redbox or purchase a few. This has got to be the longest period with zero reviews.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I've been meaning to write up a couple of quick recommendations.

*The Babe*

recommendation: *Tier 3.0**

Mill Creek decided to reissue The Babe after Universal themselves only put it out a few years ago. The transfers are identical for the 1992 biopic. A slightly weaker AVC encode but nothing an average person would find noticeable. The base film scan is dated but acceptable, producing solid definition. More pedestrian is the lackadaisical color grading. Whenever Universal struck this film transfer, they didn't bother massaging the uneven contrast and other issues.

This is serviceable picture quality on Blu-ray. There's little doubt in my mind The Babe could look better with a new 4K scan and better grading.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Shazam 4K UHD*

recommendation: *Tier 0 (near the bottom)*

I checked prior scores for Shazam and wasn't completely surprised to find a couple scores for the disc in Tier 1 from SnellTHX & Fredxr2d2. Having now seen the UHD, the Dolby Vision-encoded presentation looks fairly ho-hum by today's demanding standards. If the Tiers were strictly for UHDs only, I'd probably agree Shazam doesn't belong with the absolute best videophile material.

The HDR pass is merely okay. I wasn't wowed by the Dolby Vision dynamic meta-data, being only MEL. There's really nothing flawed about Shazam's video quality and I think most casual viewers should be impressed. The definition and clarity are very good and reflect the 3.4K Arri Alexa raw capture. However, most assume the movie was finished at 2K resolution.

On another matter, the new AVSforum interface makes searching older posts in this thread a little tougher. Is there a way to only search through this thread? The closest I could get is narrowing the search down to the Blu-ray Software forum.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> On another matter, the new AVSforum interface makes searching older posts in this thread a little tougher. Is there a way to only search through this thread? The closest I could get is narrowing the search down to the Blu-ray Software forum.


In the Search Community box above, simply type in the name of the title and then click the THIRD option which reads:

*Search "......." in this discussion*

It will take you to this thread and all the posts immediately, starting with the latest post.


----------



## djoberg

Let me know Phantom if I misunderstood your question.

Denny


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Now I see it, thanks. I was going straight to the advanced search option without seeing those pop-up choices.


----------



## SnellTHX

*TENET*

*THIS* is it. This is the finest disc ever printed in my opinion. Every Nolan release gets me giddy and for good reason. I'll admit I am a bit sentimental and have always focused more on the IMAX 15/70 shots over the regular 35mm shots which frankly do not compare. But with Tenet, the 2.20:1 shots filmed on 65mm film look almost as good as the 1.78 films shot in IMAX. Just looks near flawless IMO, the detail, stubbs, beard, hair, etc were very present. I think if the entire movie was shot in 2.20:1 65mm then it would still make its way to a tier 0.5 movie like other 65mm film movies such as The Hateful Eight for instance.

the IMAX shots, are in typical Nolan fashion breathtaking. unrivalled detail, dynamic range, 3D-like depth and "18K" resolution. The scenes at sea in the beginning almost made me feel sea sick because of how real and 'out-of-the-window' they were. The opening siege of the opera. the interrogation on the train tracks, the last attack in the desert will all serve as my #1 demo scenes in the future.

*Tier recommendation: 0 - #1 PQ king for me.*


----------



## SnellTHX

*King of New York*

Well I'm back guys, not done a review months now but life has been busy you know  

Pleasantly surprised by this 31 year old movie. filmic, no excessive DNR, very good details and contrast that hold up very well till this day. In fact it actually puts several 2020-1 movies to shame with its PQ.

*Tier recommendation: 1*


----------



## SnellTHX

*Elysium*

Funnily enough Elysium was one of the first movies I saw in 4K/HDR at a Sony demo event. It looked stunning then and is stunning today. Absolutely razor-sharp, near flawless imagery that presents one of the best 2.35:1 images out there . Colours pop when needed to, contrast is inky and punchy. 

*Tier recommendation: 0.5*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I hadn't realized Elysium was out on UHD. I know Sony just released Gattaca on UHD and will likely get it.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Have a blessed and happy Easter!

*The Ten Commandments 4K UHD*

recommendation: *Tier 1.25**

The earlier Blu-ray edition, originally released ten years ago, received favorable reviews here in the PQ Tiers thread and ultimately finished in Tier 2.0. That older disc was struck from a 6K scan of the VistaVision negative with an extensive restoration applied. Paramount has brought the movie to UHD with judicious HDR and Dolby Vision passes that pull out subtle detail and colors impossible in 1080P resolution. New to UHD for Easter, Paramount has outdone themselves with the beloved movie.

Let me be the first here to call this UHD presentation magnificent. It's a faithful, film-like transfer tuned with the utmost care. There's no doubt the UHD is a massive leap in picture quality. The enhanced shadow delineation and expanded color gamut highlight Rameses' stunning costumes in vivid clarity. Actual fine detail is slightly improved over the very nice BD presentation. Audiences seem to obsess over the special effects but the massive scope of Cecil B. DeMille's epic production can be more easily appreciated viewing the movie in such clarity and definition.

This UHD may very well be the final word on _The Ten Commandments_ and if that is true I am perfectly content. It's an incredible reproduction of the original VistaVision elements and the money sunk into the restoration is up on the screen in all the movie's glory. The disc makes me want to go for a bigger display and watch the classic on a 100" screen.

I'm being realistic placing the UHD in Tier 1.25. The 1956 production receives a nigh perfect film transfer but in terms of actual resolution and definition is a small step behind modern films.


----------



## SnellTHX

*Batman: Soul of the Dragon*

As this movie is based on 70s action flicks I had to double check that this movie wasn't made in 1978 or something.. very disappointing DQ and honestly even though its in 4K/HDR it doesn't even look as good as Netflix Anime which are 1080p signals being fed a measly 2Mb/s. It looked soft, flat and not very detailed.

Tier recommendation: 3


----------



## SnellTHX

*The Croods: A New Age.*

WOW. One of the best looking movies I have ever put in UHD player. So _this_ is what a reference animation movie looks like (Looking at you DC).

Sure I've missed plenty of animated movies but I think this is the best one yet. My ultimate reference was Frozen II and How To Train Your Dragon 3 and I think The Croods ANA beats them both, which is no small feat. Moana, Coco, etc are all utter reference, The Croods is a level above them.

The 4K image looks like 8K resolution and 8K CGI, from the skin textures, beautiful colours popping (the primaries, reds, greens, blues, purples, oranges are all eye candy) I think it might just be the most vibrant, punchy and colourful image of all time. So sharp it looks real, and the depth makes it look 3D. the fluid dynamics/animation/simulation when Thud splashes in the water on the icy plane is outrageously well made. I actually have a hard time thinking of better movie to show off HDR/WCG than this.

*Tier recommendation: 0 (#1 animated - top 3-5 ever?)*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

SnellTHX said:


> *Batman: Soul of the Dragon*
> 
> As this movie is based on 70s action flicks I had to double check that this movie wasn't made in 1978 or something.. very disappointing DQ and honestly even though its in 4K/HDR it doesn't even look as good as Netflix Anime which are 1080p signals being fed a measly 2Mb/s. It looked soft, flat and not very detailed.
> 
> Tier recommendation: 3


I might have reviewed this UHD for another site...Agree that it's not a shining example of animated 4K content. I wouldn't place Batman: Soul of the Dragon quite that low myself but it's certainly not a wildly impressive presentation. The HDR color has a few neat flashes when Batman and crew face off with the dragon but otherwise it's fairly pedestrian by modern animation palette standards.

Like most of the animated DC films, the UHD has a dramatically better video encode with less banding and better color saturation than the BD.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> Have a blessed and happy Easter!
> 
> *The Ten Commandments 4K UHD*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 1.25**
> 
> The earlier Blu-ray edition, originally released ten years ago, received favorable reviews here in the PQ Tiers thread and ultimately finished in Tier 2.0. That older disc was struck from a 6K scan of the VistaVision negative with an extensive restoration applied. Paramount has brought the movie to UHD with judicious HDR and Dolby Vision passes that pull out subtle detail and colors impossible in 1080P resolution. New to UHD for Easter, Paramount has outdone themselves with the beloved movie.
> 
> Let me be the first here to call this UHD presentation magnificent. It's a faithful, film-like transfer tuned with the utmost care. There's no doubt the UHD is a massive leap in picture quality. The enhanced shadow delineation and expanded color gamut highlight Rameses' stunning costumes in vivid clarity. Actual fine detail is slightly improved over the very nice BD presentation. Audiences seem to obsess over the special effects but the massive scope of Cecil B. DeMille's epic production can be more easily appreciated viewing the movie in such clarity and definition.
> 
> This UHD may very well be the final word on _The Ten Commandments_ and if that is true I am perfectly content. It's an incredible reproduction of the original VistaVision elements and the money sunk into the restoration is up on the screen in all the movie's glory. The disc makes me want to go for a bigger display and watch the classic on a 100" screen.
> 
> I'm being realistic placing the UHD in Tier 1.25. The 1956 production receives a nigh perfect film transfer but in terms of actual resolution and definition is a small step behind modern films.


Thanks for the excellent review Phantom and for "whetting my appetite" for my copy which arrives tomorrow (though I may not see it right away)!


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> *The Croods: A New Age.*
> 
> WOW. One of the best looking movies I have ever put in UHD player. So _this_ is what a reference animation movie looks like (Looking at you DC).
> 
> Sure I've missed plenty of animated movies but I think this is the best one yet. My ultimate reference was Frozen II and How To Train Your Dragon 3 and I think The Croods ANA beats them both, which is no small feat. Moana, Coco, etc are all utter reference, The Croods is a level above them.
> 
> The 4K image looks like 8K resolution and 8K CGI, from the skin textures, beautiful colours popping (the primaries, reds, greens, blues, purples, oranges are all eye candy) I think it might just be the most vibrant, punchy and colourful image of all time. So sharp it looks real, and the depth makes it look 3D. the fluid dynamics/animation/simulation when Thud splashes in the water on the icy plane is outrageously well made. I actually have a hard time thinking of better movie to show off HDR/WCG than this.
> 
> *Tier recommendation: 0 (#1 animated - top 3-5 ever?)*


Thanks Snell for reviewing this and I'm glad to see you starting to really APPRECIATE ANIMATED MARVELS!  

I was going to be content having this 4K title on my Disney Plus App, but now I may have to get the "hard copy."


----------



## evnow

Phantom Stranger said:


> Blu-ray Picture Quality Tiers (updated through July 13, 2017)


Slight OT. You might want to update the signature. In the thread it says ...

_Last Update: January 5, 2019_

Has the thread been updated after Jan , '19 ?


----------



## djoberg

*Wonder Woman 1984 (1080p)*

So, I was at my local Redbox kiosk and as my eye came upon this title I thought, "This movie can't be as bad as most people are saying it is," and then I rented it. Boy, was I WRONG and most people were RIGHT! This movie was so bad my finger was on the "Fast-Forward Button" during the whole film. I probably only watched 45-50 minutes out of the nearly 150 minutes running time!

PQ-wise, it was MIXED BAG, with some STELLAR SHOTS throughout ranging from low Tier 0 up to the very top. These had STRIKING CLARITY, DETAILS, COLORS and DEPTH. But there were numerous SOFT SHOTS that were FLAT and lacking DETAIL.

That's all I have to say!

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25**

PS I do need to comment on the Dolby Atmos mix...it was VERY GOOD!!


----------



## djoberg

Next up: _The Ten Commandments_! I have high hopes that I'll be joining Phantom with a high ranking for this amazing CLASSIC/EPIC film.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

evnow said:


> Slight OT. You might want to update the signature. In the thread it says ...
> 
> _Last Update: January 5, 2019_
> 
> Has the thread been updated after Jan , '19 ?


I never updated my forum signature. No, the PQ Tiers haven't been altered since early 2019 aside from Darth Doxie helping out by fixing some of the broken links and formatting in certain sub-tiers.

This brings up an important question I hope someone here can answer. Can we access old private messages? I can't seem to find them under the forum's new interface.


----------



## djoberg

*The Ten Commandments (UHD)*

It's late so I'm going to keep this short. I am happy to echo the sentiments of Phantom regarding the superb PQ in this epic film. I was absolutely amazed at the dazzling COLORS (courtesy of Dolby Vision) and the finely-rendered DETAILS (in costumes, facials, landscapes, etc.), especially in close-ups (background shots did NOT fare nearly as well). There were some SOFT SHOTS that betrayed its age (filmed in 1956!) but overall the CLARITY was amazing. I found Phantom's analysis to align perfectly with what I saw, so I will also "echo his placement recommendation."

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25**

PS This is a MUST HAVE UHD BLU-RAY for any fan of this classic. I was refreshed by the story, which, for the most part, adhered faithfully to Scripture. Of course, Hollywood "filled in many of the gaps" as they normally do, but I was very impressed with Cecil B. Demille's "introduction" where he said they drew from reliable historians like Josephus in the "filling in of those gaps."


----------



## djoberg

I just received my UHD copy of _Love and Monsters_ and will be watching it tonight. The reviews (for the MOVIE and the PQ) are very good! I will weigh in shortly after viewing it. Has anyone here seen this yet?


----------



## djoberg

*Love and Monsters (UHD)*

Movie-wise, this was different...in a GOOD way. I enjoyed the nice balance of drama, action and humor.

PQ-wise, this was also GOOD, but not "reference quality." I was impressed with the BLACK LEVELS and SHADOW DETAILS in most of the "underground scenes." Once the story took us "above ground" there was a good deal of CLARITY with vibrant COLORS, especially the GREENS in the lush forests and mountains. 

AQ-wise, the DTS-HD Master Audio mix was STELLAR! It had appreciable bass, excellent precision in the surrounds, and crystal-clear dialogue in the center!

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**

PS I was tempted to give this a Tier 0 (.9) ranking, but there were some scenes that were a bit SOFT and others that lacked CLARITY and DETAILS. I could see others going higher though and they won't find an argument with me.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice Ultimate Edition 4K UHD*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

With all the buzz around Zack Snyder's improved Justice League cut on HBO MAX and coming soon on UHD, this release quietly got out a month ago with a couple of massive improvements over the prior release. The IMAX scenes are now in their original 1.43 aspect ratio and look utterly fantastic. They make the rest of the movie look somewhat ordinary by comparison.

On a more pervasive level, the color grading has undergone a subtle alteration with a more refined touch. The new digital grading is improved with cleaner tonality, slightly sharper colors, and generally a less processed appearance. Trust me, the older disc is a clear step behind.

This is easily the definitive home video presentation for Batman v Superman. The picture quality is fairly average by today's demanding 4K standards, which can be chalked up to a lot of CGI and digital composite work built into the movie.

I could only find reviews in the thread of the Blu-ray edition by mweflen and djoberg. Did no one review the first UHD? I was looking for comments and didn't find many. Or are my search skills with the new search engine that bad, lol.


----------



## fredxr2d2

Phantom Stranger said:


> *Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice Ultimate Edition 4K UHD*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 1.0**
> 
> This is easily the definitive home video presentation for Batman v Superman. The picture quality is fairly average by today's demanding 4K standards, which can be chalked up to a lot of CGI and digital composite work built into the movie.
> 
> I could only find reviews in the thread of the Blu-ray edition by mweflen and djoberg. Did no one review the first UHD? I was looking for comments and didn't find many. Or are my search skills with the new search engine that bad, lol.


I never double-dipped on BvS precisely because the UHD was said to make the fire effects look fake (much like many said about Mad Max Fury Road). I considered double-dipping for this UHD release, but haven't really been convinced that I'd like the aspect switching to 4:3 for the IMAX scenes, plus the regular blu-ray looked great on my JVC projector with it's inky blacks. And, for my money, the regular blu-ray still included the Atmos soundtrack, so I wouldn't be getting a "twofer" upgrade, just one for visual quality that was reviewed as negligible at best. Maybe if this new UHD release comes down in price I'll consider it.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

fredxr2d2 said:


> I never double-dipped on BvS precisely because the UHD was said to make the fire effects look fake (much like many said about Mad Max Fury Road). I considered double-dipping for this UHD release, but haven't really been convinced that I'd like the aspect switching to 4:3 for the IMAX scenes, plus the regular blu-ray looked great on my JVC projector with it's inky blacks. And, for my money, the regular blu-ray still included the Atmos soundtrack, so I wouldn't be getting a "twofer" upgrade, just one for visual quality that was reviewed as negligible at best. Maybe if this new UHD release comes down in price I'll consider it.


The IMAX scenes really are improved. I've never been disturbed by changing aspect ratios but YMMV.


----------



## djoberg

*The Croods: A New Age (UHD)*

I'm going to save some time and give you the link to the first installment of _The Croods_, which was way back in 2013. As you will see, I thought it was the BEST ANIMATED TITLE at that time and thus I nominated it for #1 in Tier Blu. I see that it is currently sitting at the #20 spot. I'm not sure it belongs there, but "things have changed" and that "may be justified." This sequel is definitely BETTER, especially in the COLORS, which are probably the best I've ever seen. That's saying a lot when there have been so many titles that have come down the pike with mind-blowing colors.









The New PQ Tier thread for Blu-Ray - Discussion


How is it compared to say, Game of Thrones, Dexter, or Spartacus, if you've seen any of those?




www.avsforum.com





Snell said he thought this was good enough to be placed in the "Top 3-5" of the animated movies. Perhaps he's right, but I'm going to be a bit more conservative in my recommendation and opt for....

*Tier Recommendation: (Tier 0....somewhere in the Top 10 of animated movies)*

PS I may change my mind and join Snell's pick after a second viewing. I'm trying to compare it with other "animated marvels" I've seen over the last few years which may have better details, texture and photorealism. This much I know, they don't have better colors!


----------



## fredxr2d2

Phantom Stranger said:


> The IMAX scenes really are improved. I've never been disturbed by changing aspect ratios but YMMV.


I'm not usually disturbed by the switch to 1.78:1, but I am not sure how I'll feel about switching from scope to 4:3. The only disturbing part about the switches is that I have to leave the masking on my CIW screen open, which reduces the perceived contrast of the scope scenes.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> *Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice Ultimate Edition 4K UHD*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 1.0**
> 
> With all the buzz around Zack Snyder's improved Justice League cut on HBO MAX and coming soon on UHD, this release quietly got out a month ago with a couple of massive improvements over the prior release. The IMAX scenes are now in their original 1.43 aspect ratio and look utterly fantastic. They make the rest of the movie look somewhat ordinary by comparison.
> 
> On a more pervasive level, the color grading has undergone a subtle alteration with a more refined touch. The new digital grading is improved with cleaner tonality, slightly sharper colors, and generally a less processed appearance. Trust me, the older disc is a clear step behind.
> 
> This is easily the definitive home video presentation for Batman v Superman. The picture quality is fairly average by today's demanding 4K standards, which can be chalked up to a lot of CGI and digital composite work built into the movie.
> 
> *I could only find reviews in the thread of the Blu-ray edition by mweflen and djoberg. Did no one review the first UHD? I was looking for comments and didn't find many. Or are my search skills with the new search engine that bad, lol.*


Phantom,

I just checked my review (from 2016) and even though I didn't mention that it was the "UHD release," it must have been since I do have the UHD copy and I never purchased the 1080p copy. Of course, my Ultimate Edition does INCLUDE the Blu-ray Edition but since I said in my review that it was "3 hours long" that had to have been the UHD version. So, your "search skills" are still intact; but back then my "precision skills" weren't intact (evidenced by me not identifying it as "UHD"). 

Here is the review:









The New PQ Tier thread for Blu-Ray - Discussion


I'm glad you asked about the new 4K display Phantom. I've purposely watched snippets from various Blu-rays that I'm familiar with and I can safely say that THEY LOOK BETTER, which I attribute to the excellent up-scaling ability with Sony's 4K Processor X1. Colors are more vibrant; there seems to...




www.avsforum.com





Denny
PS I also saw a post of mine where I changed my ranking to *1.0 *so it turns out we are on the same page there!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Besides the select IMAX scenes, the real reason to pick up the new edition is the much improved color grading. They made several subtle adjustments to the color palette, flesh tones and dynamic shading. The first digital grading is fairly crude by comparison.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> Besides the select IMAX scenes, the real reason to pick up the new edition is the much improved color grading. They made several subtle adjustments to the color palette, flesh tones and dynamic shading. The first digital grading is fairly crude by comparison.


So, it finally dawned on me that you were speaking of a "recent REMASTERED ULTIMATE EDITION." I was unaware of this release.

When I wrote my post earlier which included a link to my UHD release viewing from 2016, I said that it had fantastic PQ and I ultimately gave it a 1.0 ranking. If this "new release" takes the PQ up another notch or two I would be interested in seeing it, but I doubt that I will "double-dip" for that reason alone. I should add that I'm with Fred in being bothered by the "4:3" aspect ratio. That would be too obvious with a constant switching from a 16 x 9 ratio to a 4 x 3 ratio. Quite frankly, I am NOT a fan at all of the 4 x 3 ratio.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> So, it finally dawned on me that you were speaking of a "recent REMASTERED ULTIMATE EDITION." I was unaware of this release.
> 
> When I wrote my post earlier which included a link to my UHD release viewing from 2016, I said that it had fantastic PQ and I ultimately gave it a 1.0 ranking. If this "new release" takes the PQ up another notch or two I would be interested in seeing it, but I doubt that I will "double-dip" for that reason alone. I should add that I'm with Fred in being bothered by the "4:3" aspect ratio. That would be too obvious with a constant switching from a 16 x 9 ratio to a 4 x 3 ratio. Quite frankly, I am NOT a fan at all of the 4 x 3 ratio.


Snyder wanted the IMAX scenes back in their native aspect ratio. He also heavily tweaked the digital color grading. This seems to be the "final" version of Batman v Superman. It was quietly released on UHD a couple months ago when the fabled Snyder Cut of his Justice League came out on HBO MAX.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Hulk (2003) 4K UHD*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

I scoured the thread looking for recent Hulk reviews and found nothing for UHD. DarthDoxie placed the unrelated _The Incredible Hulk's_ UHD in Tier 1.0. I'm covering the 2003 movie with Eric Bana. The semi-ancient Blu-ray release from Universal was reviewed quite often, ending up in Tier 2.25.

Universal did very respectable work preparing Hulk for 4K resolution. The HDR isn't dazzling but color reproduction is far better than the BD with a particular emphasis on the many green hues seen in the movie. The non-VFX shots have far more texture and detail than the Blu-ray. The CGI and VFX hold up rather well, Universal was hoping to launch a franchise with Hulk and lavishly spent money on the production. The sharp video has abundant definition worthy of 4K resolution.

Authored by Technicolor in California, it's a transparent HEVC encode on triple-layer UHD. Shot on film, the lack of processing is evident in close-ups. All in all, the UHD is a real leap in picture quality over the Blu-ray edition. It's a fine presentation faithful to the digital intermediate's original intentions.


----------



## djoberg

*Speed (UHD)*

I can't recall the last time I viewed the DVD or Blu-ray release. It was filmed in 1994; the DVD came out in 2005; and the Blu-ray in 2008. Each new release brought with it better definition and this one was no different, though I do believe this will bring the rating up considerably from its current ranking of 3.0.

The biggest difference I saw was with the effects of HDR! As you know there are numerous explosions and the FIRE accompanying them was awesome, especially the two huge BUS EXPLOSIONS. You gotta love HDR!! Contrast as a whole benefitted as well from HDR, though I wasn't really impressed with the BLACK LEVELS. I would also say that DETAILS were a big improvement from what I remember. 

One thing I will say that I have noticed when older titles are Remastered in 4k; the PQ definitely improves as the the movie progresses. I was underwhelmed by the first long scene in the hotel/elevator but once the scene changed to outdoors and in the bus, CLARITY, DETAILS and DEPTH came alive. That said, this isn't even close to "Reference Quality" but I'm willing to place this in the "Demo Tier"; namely, Tier Gold. Yet I'm not willing to go any higher than....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.75**

PS The Audio Mix was very good, all things considered (though it was a bit lean in the LFE/Bass department).


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Sounds good, Denny. I saw Speed in the store the other day and wondered if I need it in 4K.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> Sounds good, Denny. I saw Speed in the store the other day and wondered if I need it in 4K.


Like I said, it is a definite improvement over the Blu-ray but it still "shows its age" and falls way short of Reference. I was even thinking of putting it at 2.0 but then my "generous gene" kicked in!


----------



## SnellTHX

*Super 8*
Not so super picture quality... Disappointing PQ to say the least, the image is dark and grainy and very hard to believe it isn't a regular blu-ray disc. There are many movies from the 1980s (30 years older!) that look much better. Total Recall comes to mind.


*Tier recommendation: 2.75*


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> *The Croods: A New Age (UHD)
> 
> 
> 
> Tier Recommendation: (Tier 0....somewhere in the Top 10 of animated movies)*
> 
> PS I may change my mind and join Snell's pick after a second viewing. I'm trying to compare it with other "animated marvels" I've seen over the last few years which may have better details, texture and photorealism. This much I know, they don't have better colors!



The Croods a New age is absolute reference! If anyone has seen _any_ animated that looks better I'd like to know, because to my eyes it is by far the best looking animated movie. It deserves spot next to Tenet, Dunkirk, Gemini Man and Transformers 5 as my holy grail of PQ. Frozen II is probably still the second best looking animated movie IMO. Raya just came out and recently and disappointed me...


----------



## SnellTHX

*Raya and the Last Dragon*

I watched this disney movie not long after watching what I considered to be the best looking CGI/animated movie ever - The Croods: A New Age.

That'll probably have a negative impact on my viewing of this movie because IMO it doesn't compare. It lacked the depth, punch and pop of the new Croods movie and for the first time in years I could actually see noise in the _image_ quality. I don't think I have ever noticed digital noise before in a 4K disney/pixar movie. I fear Disney+ might be at fault at this. It still looks really good, but it looks like digitally compressed 4K stream on a 15-25Mb/s signal. Had to double check that I wasn't watching the blu-ray version because that is what it looks like - reference BLU RAY 1080p disc. not 4K/HDR reference disc like Croods, or Frozen II.

*Tier recommendation: 1*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Devil's Nightmare*

Tier Recommendation: *Tier 3.5**

This cult Eurothriller from the early Seventies receives a very serviceable high-definition transfer from solid elements. It's a well-filmed movie with decent clarity and definition. The transfer is film-like, if a bit lacking in saturation and contrast. Released by Mondo Macabro, the picture quality is respectable for a vintage horror film.

The movie is presented at its European theatrical aspect ratio 1.66:1.


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> *Raya and the Last Dragon*
> 
> I watched this disney movie not long after watching what I considered to be the best looking CGI/animated movie ever - The Croods: A New Age.
> 
> That'll probably have a negative impact on my viewing of this movie because IMO it doesn't compare. It lacked the depth, punch and pop of the new Croods movie and for the first time in years I could actually see noise in the _image_ quality. I don't think I have ever noticed digital noise before in a 4K disney/pixar movie. I fear Disney+ might be at fault at this. It still looks really good, but it looks like digitally compressed 4K stream on a 15-25Mb/s signal. Had to double check that I wasn't watching the blu-ray version because that is what it looks like - reference BLU RAY 1080p disc. not 4K/HDR reference disc like Croods, or Frozen II.
> 
> *Tier recommendation: 1*


I have yet to see this but I can surely believe you when you describe the less-than-stellar PQ on Disney+. I have been very disappointed with most of the movies on Disney+, the most recent one being _Loki _(which was very SOFT and lacked DEPTH, along with poor BLACK LEVELS). I wonder how some of these titles would look on a UHD Blu-ray disc....hopefully better since they don't have the "compression factor."


----------



## djoberg

*The Croods: A New Age (UHD)....Second Viewing*

I just watched this again with my 7 year old grandson. At times he said, "Man, Grandpa, the picture on this is awesome." I smiled and thought to myself, "Ah, another 'home theater enthusiast in the making'"!

I think Snell may be right about this being the BEST ANMIATED MOVIE for PQ. I don't think I actually saw every scene before and the details and textures were better than what I remembered from my first viewing. And those colors!! They are definitely THE BEST!!! At any rate, I am ready to officially change my placement to...

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (Top 3 in Animated Movies)*


----------



## djoberg

*Godzilla vs Kong (UHD)*

It's late, so I'm going to post my link on "Ralph's site" where he reviews every aspect of this movie. You will see that I was blown away by the PQ/AQ! Pure REFERENCE on both the VISUALS and the DOLBY ATMOS mix.









Godzilla vs. Kong Ultra HD Blu-ray Review


Got it yesterday....watching it tonight! Can't wait!!




www.avsforum.com





*Tier **Recommendation**: Tier 0* (Top Five "Live Action/CGI movies")*


----------



## SnellTHX

djoberg said:


> *Godzilla vs Kong (UHD)
> 
> 
> Tier **Recommendation**: Tier 0* (Top Five "Live Action/CGI movies")*


Wow. a top 5 live action movie??? Find this almost hard to believe. I was very disappointed by Godzilla King of the Monsters. I think I even put it in tier 2 (maybe tier 1.5 at best) because I thought it was noisy, soft and not-so-great CGI. I can't remember what you thought of it.

Godzilla v Kong being top 5 puts it in some very, very jaw-dropping reference demo comeptition!


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> Wow. a top 5 live action movie??? Find this almost hard to believe. I was very disappointed by Godzilla King of the Monsters. I think I even put it in tier 2 (maybe tier 1.5 at best) because I thought it was noisy, soft and not-so-great CGI. I can't remember what you thought of it.
> 
> Godzilla v Kong being top 5 puts it in some very, very jaw-dropping reference demo comeptition!


Some have compared the PQ and AQ to _Pacific Rim_. I actually think the BLACK LEVELS and SHADOW DETAILS are better!! And the colors! Oh my word, they are AMAZING in some scenes, especially when Kong goes "Home" and the humans follow him in a rocket.

What makes this so much better is there is NO SOFTNESS and NO SMOKE/FOG like you had in _Godzilla: King of Monsters_. You gotta see this Snell!!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Quatermass and the Pit*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

Absolutely impressive cinematography in this 1967 Sci-fi thriller from Hammer and it looks wonderful on Scream Factory's Blu-ray. A marvelous film restoration, completely unfiltered, revealing immense depth and razor-sharp definition. The fully organic film transfer retains the film's 1.66:1 European theatrical aspect ratio.

Shout Factory is a little inconsistent sourcing quality transfers but Quatermass and the Pit looks exceptionally good with vibrant detail and crisp colors. Honestly, I have a hunch other contributors here would go much higher on this presentation. A top-notch and professional job worth catching on BD.


----------



## djoberg

*Indiana Jones: The Raiders of the Lost Ark (UHD)*

I picked up the whole "4 Movie UHD Set" a week ago and was finally able to watch the first installment last night. I was impressed! It definitely had better COLORS, BLACKS and SHADOW DETAILS. It appeared much sharper too with not as many "soft shots" as in its Blu-ray counterpart. What I really loved about this (compared to the Blu-ray) is the removal of egregious color-grading; now it is very "natural-looking" throughout. 

There is a big downside AQ-wise: They also removed most of low end LFE/Bass in scenes. I could hardly tell my dual subs were on during explosions. The upside: The Dolby Atmos mix did a great job on panning effects.

I had rated my 2012 review of this title 2.25. Here is the review: The New PQ Tier thread for Blu-Ray - Discussion

This had a considerable uptick in PQ so I'm going with....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25**


----------



## djoberg

*Indiana Jones: The Temple of Doom (UHD)*

This has always been my least favorite (movie-wise and PQ-wise). It is way TOO DARK in the many interior scenes (especially inside the caves and caverns) with lots of SOFTNESS, NOISE, and LACK OF DETAILS. The outdoor, jungle scenes were very good though with the very last scene having some "Reference moments." Yet those few Reference Shots can't "save the day" for this one. I think I had rated the blu-ray 2.25 and this one is only a tad better.

*Tier Recommendation: 2.0**

PQ The Dolby Atmos mix was nothing to write home about either.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Tough to hear they filtered out the bass on Raiders. That unfortunately seems to be a trend with newer remixes. Really interesting going back almost a decade and reading your thoughts on the Blu-ray, when now we have the film on UHD.

On another matter, classic cel animation lovers should check out _Space Adventure Cobra: The Movie_ on UHD. Fantastic HDR, some of the very best done. Some of the purest and most vivid colors I've seen in 4K. I might review it for the PQ Tiers but older animation is always so tough placing correctly.


----------



## djoberg

*Indiana Jones: The Last Crusade (UHD)*

This one started out SOFT at times and lacking DETAILS/DEPTH, but as the movie progressed it SHARPENED up and the DETAILS and DEPTH were amazing. I would say the first half qualified for a low to mid Tier 1 but the second half was low Tier 0. The Dolby Atmos mix was fantastic except for the LFE/Bass which was hardly felt until the last scene in the cavern (when the walls started coming down my walls starting shaking big time). This one fared a wee bit better than _Raiders of the Last Ark_ so I'm going for....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**


----------



## djoberg

*Happy July 4th weekend to my fellow A/V enthusiasts! Stay safe!!*


----------



## djoberg

*Indiana Jones: The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (UHD)*

This was definite the BEST-LOOKING film of the four, but it was also the WORST movie! I should add it was also the BEST-SOUNDING, with tremendous panning effects in the surrounds and height speakers and the LFE/Bass was impressive. The PQ could look too "digital" at times, but overall it had striking CLARITY, exemplary DETAILS, amazing DEPTH, superb COLORS, and last, but not least, inky BLACKS! This one qualifies for "Reference Quality" though only by a hair....

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.9)*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

They're filming a fifth Indiana Jones movie at the moment. Yes, Harrison Ford is in it.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> They're filming a fifth Indiana Jones movie at the moment. Yes, Harrison Ford is in it.


Oh no! If it's anything like the last one, I will NOT be buying it, even if the PQ and AQ are awesome (that's how bad _The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull _was).


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> *Tenet (UHD)*
> 
> AMAZING PQ & AQ!
> 
> Mr. Nolan takes us on "quite the (time travel/inversion) trip" this time and it will take multiple viewings to "figure everything out" (though as I just said on Ralph Potts' site, "I'm not sure he wants us to figure things out or if he himself has done so!"
> 
> What I can say for sure is this was pure REFERENCE QUALITY EYE CANDY all the way through, with some exceptions where the "color-grading" was so egregious that details and depth were lost to me (for I was quite DISTRACTED) and with some of the letter-boxed scenes which lacked the clarity/sharpness of the IMAX scenes (which were AMAZING). The BLACKS were "out of this world" along with some of the best SHADOW DETAILS I've seen. FLESH TONES were accurate most of the time, but I did notice some "red push" in a few shots. COLORS were bold and vibrant; CONTRAST was excellent (with superb WHITES); and CLARITY was striking in most scenes, most notably in outdoor, daytime scenes. SPECULAR HIGHLIGHTS were exemplary courtesy of HDR.
> 
> One "bit of advice" on the AQ....You won't want to listen to this at REFERENCE...or even close to it....especially if you have a "significant other" that hates powerful LFE/Bass and is within 30-40 feet of your theater room (unless you're fortunate enough to have it totally sound-proofed). This is one LOUD MIX that at times is SCARY! Having said that, I LOVED most of it and look forward to turning it up a bit more when I'm home alone (though I don't think I'll ever turn it to 0).
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.33)*





SnellTHX said:


> *TENET*
> 
> *THIS* is it. This is the finest disc ever printed in my opinion. Every Nolan release gets me giddy and for good reason. I'll admit I am a bit sentimental and have always focused more on the IMAX 15/70 shots over the regular 35mm shots which frankly do not compare. But with Tenet, the 2.20:1 shots filmed on 65mm film look almost as good as the 1.78 films shot in IMAX. Just looks near flawless IMO, the detail, stubbs, beard, hair, etc were very present. I think if the entire movie was shot in 2.20:1 65mm then it would still make its way to a tier 0.5 movie like other 65mm film movies such as The Hateful Eight for instance.
> 
> the IMAX shots, are in typical Nolan fashion breathtaking. unrivalled detail, dynamic range, 3D-like depth and "18K" resolution. The scenes at sea in the beginning almost made me feel sea sick because of how real and 'out-of-the-window' they were. The opening siege of the opera. the interrogation on the train tracks, the last attack in the desert will all serve as my #1 demo scenes in the future.
> 
> *Tier recommendation: 0 - #1 PQ king for me.*


*Tenet 4K UHD*

recommendation: *Tier 0 (Top Five)*

Easily one of the finest live-action releases ever for sheer picture quality. I see why SnellTHX wanted this disc number one. The depth and dimensionality are bonkers, especially in that opening set piece inside the opera house. On a nice OLED, it has incredible demo potential. The wind-sailing scene on the ocean with those giant catamarans is absolutely breathtaking.

Nolan doesn't even tinker much with the expanded gamut of HDR but Tenet is tailor-made for 4K resolution. Just a beautiful, beautiful movie that shows off UHD's vast potential.


----------



## SnellTHX

Phantom Stranger said:


> *Tenet 4K UHD*
> 
> 
> 
> Easily one of the finest live-action releases ever for sheer picture quality. I see why SnellTHX wanted this disc number one. The depth and dimensionality are bonkers, especially in that opening set piece inside the opera house. On a nice OLED, it has incredible demo potential. The wind-sailing scene on the ocean with those giant catamarans is absolutely breathtaking.



TENET is simply amazing demo material


----------



## SnellTHX

*Nobody 4K*

Not impressed with this title. It literally looks like John Wick DVD version. The movie is very dark yet I still experienced elevated blacks,  the image had a thick layer of grain covering the details that just made it look very noisy. It might just be the worst looking modern movie I've watched!

*Tier recommendation: 3*


----------



## SnellTHX

*Godzilla vs Kong*

Finally another REFERENCE looking movie. Superb CGI, sharp, punchy image with lots of depth. 
@ Djoberg: I know exactly what scene you were referencing and I noticed it before I read your post, the most stunning part of the entire movie was that transition from the ship to that world. The colours, the fade to *true* black was gorgeous to look at. 

plenty of details to be found in fur (Kong), skin (humans) and scale ('Zilla) and the bright lights of HDR are very impactful (neon lights, Godzilla's lazer, that wormhole, orange sunsets etc...) yet I don't quite place it in the top 5... I think top third is better placement, somewhere around ENDGAME or Infinity War level.

*Tier recommendation: 0.33*


----------



## djoberg

SnellTHX said:


> *Godzilla vs Kong*
> 
> Finally another REFERENCE looking movie. Superb CGI, sharp, punchy image with lots of depth.
> @ Djoberg: I know exactly what scene you were referencing and I noticed it before I read your post, the most stunning part of the entire movie was that transition from the ship to that world. The colours, the fade to *true* black was gorgeous to look at.
> 
> plenty of details to be found in fur (Kong), skin (humans) and scale ('Zilla) and the bright lights of HDR are very impactful (neon lights, Godzilla's lazer, that wormhole, orange sunsets etc...) yet I don't quite place it in the top 5... I think top third is better placement, somewhere around ENDGAME or Infinity War level.
> 
> *Tier recommendation: 0.33*


Good review! So-so placement!

Once again we don't see "eye-to-eye" on the placement. This is just the reverse of our placements for _Tenet_ where I gave it a .33 ranking and you opted for the #1 spot. But hey, we are "close enough" in my book for we both see them as REFERENCE QUALITY and worthy of somewhere near or close to the Top of Tier 0.


----------



## djoberg

*Let Him Go (1080p)*

I decided to rent a couple of "character-driven" movies for a change. This was my first outing for the night (with _News of the World_ to follow). It was very slow-paced but I appreciated the excellent performances by Kevin Costner and Diane Lane so I figure it was a "good rental."

PQ-wise, it started out a bit soft and lackluster, but once they "hit the road" (from the mountains of Montana to the Badlands of North Dakota) the scenery was gorgeous, though don't expect any bold and vibrant colors in this film. In fact, I would call it DRAB! But what it lacked in colors was made up for in DETAILS and DEPTH. I should mention there were scenes sprinkled throughout (mostly low-lit interior shots) that were on the soft side where depth suffered. All-in-all though, a nice Blu-ray I would be willing to put at the bottom of my "Demo Shelf."

So, anyone who knows me knows that my "Reference Shelf" is Tier Blu and the "Demo Shelf" is Tier Gold, thus my vote goes for........

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.75**

PS I could see some putting this at 1.5 and others opting for 2.0.


----------



## djoberg

*News of the World (1080p)*

Two more fine performances by the male and female leads...Tom Hanks and young newcomer Helena Zengel. This too started out slow but it had plenty of action in a few of its scenes.

PQ-wise it fared better than _Let Him Go, _although it shared in common a very DRAB color scheme. The scenery was even more beautiful in many aerial shots of southern deserts, mountains and forests. DETAILS in those scene were excellent and even better in close-ups of faces, clothing, foliage, etc. DEPTH was quite amazing at times along with striking CLARITY. BLACK LEVELS in numerous night scenes were pure EYE CANDY along with corresponding SHADOW DETAILS.

Again, this will NOT be found on anyone's "Reference Shelf" but it will easily be placed on your "Demo Shelf." And you'll find it higher up on my Demo Shelf than _Let Him Go_!

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.25**

PS The Blu-ray came with a Dolby Atmos mix and in the action scenes it had appreciable LFE/bass and even some amazing panning effects in the surrounds and height channels.


----------



## djoberg

I just revisited _Planet Earth 2 (UHD) _and watched _Deserts_, _Grasslands _and _Cities_. Truly AMAZING PQ that deserves to remain among the best of "Live/Action Blu-rays." I would still place these in Tier 0 (Top Five)...without a doubt! The COLORS and DETAILS are simply incredible and the BLACK LEVELS, in most scenes, are as DEEP and INKY as they come.

And then you get the added BONUS of spectacular scenery and unbelievable animals.


----------



## djoberg

*A Quiet Place: Part 2 (UHD)*

I had actually purchased the Amazon Prime UHD release but was disappointed that it lacked the Dolby Atmos mix, so I picked up the disc the other day at Wally World. The Atmos mix definitely trumped the Dolby TrueHD mix so I'm glad I did. PQ-wise, it fared better too (though not by much), no doubt due to the compression factor on Amazon Prime.

After checking out my review of the UHD release of _A Quiet Place_ (from two years ago) I find that this sequel had the same virtues; namely, excellent DETAILS, DEPTH, BLACK LEVELS and SHADOW DETAILS. So, I will be giving it the same placement. Here is the review:









The New PQ Tier thread for Blu-Ray - Discussion


Here is an interesting article on "Full Frame Cameras" which also contains a comparison between the Arri Alexa LF and the Sony Venice. Sounds like the Arri Alexa is superior (even though it is 4.5K and the Sony is 6K)...




www.avsforum.com





As you can read, I had given it a 1.0 ranking and then changed it to Tier 0 (.75). I do believe the sequel had more action scenes and thus the Dolby Atmos mix had more opportunity to show off its precision and accuracy in all the channels, and the LFE/Bass was phenomenal at times.

My vote goes for.........

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (.75)*

PS I should mention, in fairness, that some of the background shots lacked definition that almost looked "blurry" or "out of focus." But they were so short-lived that I decided not to penalize the PQ score.


----------



## djoberg

*Oblivion....Revisited (UHD)*

I watched this the other night and I was amazed that it looked BETTER than when I viewed it and reviewed back in 2019. The BLACKS were better as was the CONTRAST (deep, dark, inky blacks and "white as snow" whites). Even the underground scene when Cruise is looking for a missing drone had "inky blacks" where in my last viewing they faltered a bit. So, what could be making the difference? The only thing I can attribute this to is "Chad B's MAGIC" in the calibration he did in 2020. 

Anyway, I'm not going to write a review; I'll simply post the link to my last one and you can take into consideration what I've said above. The New PQ Tier thread for Blu-Ray - Discussion. That causes me to take the placement up a notch:

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (.5)*

PS The Dolby Atmos mix was FANTASTIC!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Phantom Stranger said:


> *Transformers: The Movie (1986) (region-free UK edition)
> 
> recommendation: Tier 1.75**
> 
> Aside from unusual blurring in a couple of short scenes, this long out-of-print BD from the UK looks quite impressive. I had intended to purchase this one a few years ago but only recently acquired it, as its rarity on the used market has driven up prices for it. Decades before Michael Bay would mess with Decepticons waging war on the Autobots, the cartoon series had its own animated theatrical release in 1986. The classic cel animation holds up quite well, an argument could be made this is easily one of the stronger animated film transfers from the Eighties. There is very little room left for visual improvement, this BD preserves the original integrity of the animation to a very high degree. A couple of small errors could be fixed but we are seeing vintage animation brimming with vitality. It's a shame no one has bothered releasing this film in the United States on Blu-ray.
> 
> Released by British distributor Metrodome as a region-free BD in the UK, the 85-minute main feature is showcased in a 1080p presentation that really pops with nice colors and fantastic clarity. There are clear remnants of a few debris particles, reminding us this is cel animation made before the advent of digital scanning. The transfer is completely unprocessed, we are getting a high-quality image harvest without filtering or halos. First released in 2007, I suppose the transfer had been recently struck at the time from the camera negative.
> 
> The video encode is in the older MPEG-2 technology at moderate bitrates in the twenties. Transformers' bold animation must compress very well since there aren't a trace of artifacts. The video encode perfectly replicates the fine grain structure and nuances of the animation.
> 
> I was a little leery of this older Blu-ray's quality before seeing it, especially considering how quickly it went out of print. After enjoying the video quality immensely, this is one BD that definitely qualifies for Tier One. I wish I could rank it higher but there are some limitations inherent to the animation.





Phantom Stranger said:


> Unfortunately I am one of those restless sorts always looking for better video quality, so I have purchased this movie once again.
> 
> *The Transformers: The Movie (animated)*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 1.5**
> 
> Shout Factory recently put out this 30th anniversary edition of the animated film. They struck a new transfer and have given it an excellent presentation. Originally released in 1986, the cel animation holds up remarkably well in this improved transfer done at 4K resolution. Shout Factory took a quality interpositive and scanned it at 6K resolution, ultimately mastering this new transfer at 4K with more realistic color correction.
> 
> Shout Factory applied their own manual fixes to animation errors and cleaned up the final print from minor debris. This is excellent work, revealing a tighter visual experience with more refinement than we've ever seen this movie.
> 
> There are slight differences in the color timing between this transfer and the one seen on the older UK Blu-ray. Shout's transfer has a less punchy contrast and favors darker colors. Primary colors are less saturated. I make no claims as to which grading is better. Supposedly research has gone into the Shout grading taken from outside reference materials, such as original animation cels.
> 
> One more critical difference is that Shout Factory actually offers the movie in two different aspect ratios. There is the theatrical widescreen 1.85:1 transfer on one BD-50 and a 1.33:1 transfer on another BD. It's a nice touch that makes this set the definitive Transformers edition on Blu-ray. *Though there are rumors we might see this 4K transfer on UHD...*


*Transformers: The Movie 4K UHD*

recommendation: *Tier 1.25**

This may be a first in PQ Tiers history - this is the third different release of the animated '80s Transformers movie I've reviewed here. The first two are quoted above for comparison. Shout Factory recently put the cult classic out on UHD. My comments from the 30th Anniversary BD of five years ago largely apply to the 2160P resolution from the 4K UHD. As you can see from my prior scores, the video quality has incrementally jumped up with each successive edition.

The biggest issue for some may be that Shout Factory decided this time only the widescreen theatrical transfer needed to be shown at 4K. The open matte 1.33:1 presentation remains stuck at 1080P on Blu-ray. The 4K presentation is a faithful, unprocessed film transfer with excellent color reproduction, though the dynamic meta-data from the Dolby Vision pass isn't overwhelmingly noticeable. I doubt ordinary viewers will notice much difference in the chroma resolution.

Shout Factory didn't take chances and largely stuck with the color correction choices found on their earlier 30th Anniversary release. The vintage cel animation does benefit from the improved resolution and color space, though improvements are occasionally marginal. I would have loved to seen the open-matte transfer given the same treatment. Maybe Shout has that in store for a 40th Anniversary edition, lol...


----------



## djoberg

*The Misfits (1080p)*

I found myself alone for the day and so I made my way down to a local Redbox and rented a couple of Blus. This one I picked on a whim since it was supposedly a "heist" movie and it had Pierce Brosnan in it. I normally like this genre as well as having Brosnan in the lead role but I was sorely disappointed in both!

But there was one redeeming feature that fits right into this thread...yeah, you guessed it; it has excellent PQ!! The COLORS were bold and luscious (at times); the BLACKS were deep & inky; the DETAILS were superb (in everyway, especially facial close-ups, which were numerous); the DEPTH was appreciable in many scenes; the CONTRAST was striking with dazzling WHITES; and last, but not least, the CLARITY was sharp-as-a-tack. Let me add that they did a bit of hop-scotching around the world with amazing scenery (one of my favorites was in a desert with exquisitely-detailed sands and colorful garments).

If I were to nitpick, I would say there were scenes with color-grading (orange hues) but they weren't egregious. Also, there were a couple of shots (interior prison scenes) that lacked sharpness, details, depth and definition, but they were so short that I would hardly penalize the final score for them.

Before I place this, the audio mix was fantastic all the way across my nine channels and dual subs!

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (.9)*

PS If there is a UHD release I'm sure this could go up a notch or two.

PPS Next up: _The Conjuring 3: The Devil Made Me Do It_


----------



## djoberg

*The Conjuring 3 (1080p)*

It's late....I'm tired....I'm making this short! In short, this one was almost identical, PQ-wise, to its predecessors (1 & 2). I gave them both a 1.75 ranking, but this one was a wee bit better so I'm going with....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**

PS The Dolby Atmos mix was AWESOME!

PPS Why didn't I comment on the movie, you ask? Because it wasn't really worth commenting on. It was a "fair RENTAL," but I'm passing on the PURCHASE. That says a lot, for I own the first two installments and have watched them both at least three times. I have zero desire to give this another viewing.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> *The Conjuring 3 (1080p)*
> 
> It's late....I'm tired....I'm making this short! In short, this one was almost identical, PQ-wise, to its predecessors (1 & 2). I gave them both a 1.75 ranking, but this one was a wee bit better so I'm going with....
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.5**
> 
> PS The Dolby Atmos mix was AWESOME!
> 
> PPS Why didn't I comment on the movie, you ask? Because it wasn't really worth commenting on. It was a "fair RENTAL," but I'm passing on the PURCHASE. That says a lot, for I own the first two installments and have watched them both at least three times. I have zero desire to give this another viewing.


My thoughts will be published somewhere else on The Conjuring 3's UHD but fully agree on the incredible Atmos track. The opening exorcism is a sonic tour de force.

While the HDR pass isn't dramatic, the UHD easily qualifies for Tier 0.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> Snyder wanted the IMAX scenes back in their native aspect ratio. He also heavily tweaked the digital color grading. This seems to be the "final" version of Batman v Superman. It was quietly released on UHD a couple months ago when the fabled Snyder Cut of his Justice League came out on HBO MAX.


I finally "broke down" and ordered this. What really convinced me to do it was your comment "He also heavily tweaked the digital color grading." That improvement alone sold me on the merits of "double-dipping" on this. I have also ordered Zach Snyder's Remastered UHD for _Justice League_. I've heard raving reviews of the PQ and the more cohesive story. The only downside is the 4:3 Aspect Ratio.


----------



## fredxr2d2

djoberg said:


> I finally "broke down" and ordered this. What really convinced me to do it was your comment "He also heavily tweaked the digital color grading." That improvement alone sold me on the merits of "double-dipping" on this. I have also ordered Zach Snyder's Remastered UHD for _Justice League_. I've heard raving reviews of the PQ and the more cohesive story. The only downside is the 4:3 Aspect Ratio.


I personally think that the more cohesive story of ZSJL is well worth it. Haven't watched the blu yet, but the PQ on HBO Max was pretty good, so I expect the 4K Blu to be better. It is an overall dark film (like BvS).


----------



## djoberg

*Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice Remastered Ultimate Edition (UHD)*



Phantom Stranger said:


> *Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice Ultimate Edition 4K UHD*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 1.0**
> 
> With all the buzz around Zack Snyder's improved Justice League cut on HBO MAX and coming soon on UHD, this release quietly got out a month ago with a couple of massive improvements over the prior release. The IMAX scenes are now in their original 1.43 aspect ratio and look utterly fantastic. They make the rest of the movie look somewhat ordinary by comparison.
> 
> On a more pervasive level, the color grading has undergone a subtle alteration with a more refined touch. The new digital grading is improved with cleaner tonality, slightly sharper colors, and generally a less processed appearance. Trust me, the older disc is a clear step behind.
> 
> This is easily the definitive home video presentation for Batman v Superman. The picture quality is fairly average by today's demanding 4K standards, which can be chalked up to a lot of CGI and digital composite work built into the movie.
> 
> I could only find reviews in the thread of the Blu-ray edition by mweflen and djoberg. Did no one review the first UHD? I was looking for comments and didn't find many. Or are my search skills with the new search engine that bad, lol.



I agree wholeheartedly with Phantom's review and placement. I had given the original _Dawn of Justice_ a 1.0 ranking and I will do the same for this. Even though this is a definite improvement PQ-wise enough time has passed where I would have dropped the original release down a notch or two (1.25 or 1.5).

BTW, the IMAX scenes were simply INCREDIBLE, especially the "big fight" scene between our Super Heroes!

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0*


----------



## vince48

Greetings,
forgive ne if this us not the appropriate forum for this question, but i view this forum to see the suggestions and reviews of the DVD's. I like to ask your opinion of DVD media versus streaming. I understand that DVD media (disk) will provide better sound and video possibilities than streaming. 
I enjoy the convenience of streaming. I have a 5.1 sound system, LG CX 77" OLED and all the main brands streaming device's. I use my Zidoo Z9x that plays my local media, but I like to use my LG UBK90 player, but i'm not sure if it is worth the effort to use instead of streaming. Any and all suggestions would be appreciated.


----------



## mrtickleuk

vince48 said:


> Greetings,
> forgive ne if this us not the appropriate forum for this question, but i view this forum to see the suggestions and reviews of the *DVD*'s. I like to ask your opinion of *DVD *media versus streaming. I understand that *DVD *media (disk) will provide better sound and video possibilities than streaming.


I'm not so sure. DVDs are only Standard Definition resolution, with a maximum bitrate of 10Mb/s using the very old MPEG-2 codec. They also don't support lossless 24-bit audio which is found on Blu-Rays and 4k Blu-Rays, which also support HD, Ultra HD aka 4K, and HDR formats like HDR10 and Dolby Vision.


----------



## vince48

mrtickleuk,
thank you for the insight, and for my post, i used DVD media and not Blu-Ray or 4K BD, is what is should have wrote. Sorry for the incorrect media definition i said in my original post. I ment 4k BD, UHD disk media.


----------



## djoberg

vince48 said:


> Greetings,
> forgive ne if this us not the appropriate forum for this question, but i view this forum to see the suggestions and reviews of the DVD's. I like to ask your opinion of DVD media versus streaming. I understand that DVD media (disk) will provide better sound and video possibilities than streaming.
> I enjoy the convenience of streaming. I have a 5.1 sound system, LG CX 77" OLED and all the main brands streaming device's. I use my Zidoo Z9x that plays my local media, but I like to use my LG UBK90 player, but i'm not sure if it is worth the effort to use instead of streaming. Any and all suggestions would be appreciated.


I obviously enjoy the Blu-ray or UHD Blu-ray disc over streaming for the reasons you cited. Normally, the "compression factor" in streaming will limit the full benefits of video, though the PQ seems to be getting remarkably better with "some" streaming titles. Audio-wise, many titles on Amazon Prime and Disney+ (the two streaming apps that I use the most) now feature Dolby Atmos. But I am reluctant to review movies that I watch on streaming since this thread has always been for reviewing "physical discs." Having said that, I will, on occasion, review those that I stream.

I see the day coming when physical media will all but disappear. When I rent a movie via Redbox, I can't get the UHD release locally and in many cases they only offer the DVD over the Blu-ray, so I end up having to purchase my Blu-rays (1080p and UHD). This limits my ability to view and review movies due to a limited budget. So, the "handwriting is on the wall" telling us to stock up on our favorite Blu-rays before they are no longer available.

If I had the money (nearly 6K) I would buy the following:


*Kaleidescape Announces New Terra 72 Terabyte Movie Server for the Ultimate Movie Collector at CEDIA 2021*

This UHD Movie server is unrivaled and has the PQ/AQ quality of physical discs. It will hold 1200 UHD titles!


----------



## vince48

many, many thanks djoberg for your comment, i follow your reviews and ratings. So, should continue to purchase UHD, BD and 4K physical media for the time being? 5.1 sound is my choice, i have no intentions to go 7.1 or multiple sound configurations. I just want to get the best picture presentation that the director intended on my home system.
thank yo again for your insight.


----------



## djoberg

vince48 said:


> many, many thanks djoberg for your comment, i follow your reviews and ratings. So, should continue to purchase UHD, BD and 4K physical media for the time being? 5.1 sound is my choice, i have no intentions to go 7.1 or multiple sound configurations. I just want to get the best picture presentation that the director intended on my home system.
> thank yo again for your insight.


Thank you for your kind words. 

By all means get your "favorite discs" while they are still available and you can afford them.

As you can see by my "Signature," I too have a 5.1 (actually, a 5.2.4) speaker system and that meets my "surround sound" needs. If your viewing room is capable, I would consider getting "Height speakers" for a Dolby Atmos/DTS:X set up. You wouldn't believe how amazing it sounds with the "dome effect" (i.e. sound enveloping you completely).


----------



## vince48

djoberg,
one last question, buying used 4k, UHD or Blu-ray disc too risky or it better to purchase new. Thanks in advance for your comments and view.


----------



## djoberg

Vince,

I have purchased used UHD Blu-rays before but it was only: 1) On RARE occasions where I was getting a fantastic deal on an otherwise expensive disc, and 2) After I made sure the Seller had reputable reviews, whether on Amazon or Ebay.

Denny


----------



## vince48

thanks Denny for all the help. Enjoy your Sunday

vincent


----------



## djoberg

Enjoy your day as well Vincent, wherever that may be.

BTW, I would encourage you to chime in with reviews!


----------



## roland6465

vince48 said:


> djoberg,
> one last question, buying used 4k, UHD or Blu-ray disc too risky or it better to purchase new. Thanks in advance for your comments and view.





djoberg said:


> Vince,
> 
> I have purchased used UHD Blu-rays before but it was only: 1) On RARE occasions where I was getting a fantastic deal on an otherwise expensive disc, and 2) After I made sure the Seller had reputable reviews, whether on Amazon or Ebay.
> 
> Denny


I'll chime in and say that almost half of my UHD collection was bought used. My local shop has a 30 day return policy on all used media that I've only had to use once, on a BRD, over the years. Used is perfectly fine.

-Enjoy!


----------



## djoberg

roland6465 said:


> I'll chime in and say that almost half of my UHD collection was bought used. My local shop has a 30 day return policy on all used media that I've only had to use once, on a BRD, over the years. Used is perfectly fine.
> 
> -Enjoy!


Good for you for having a "local shop" where you can take advantage of buying used UHD releases. If I had that option I would definitely do the same.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

vince48 said:


> many, many thanks djoberg for your comment, i follow your reviews and ratings. So, should continue to purchase UHD, BD and 4K physical media for the time being? 5.1 sound is my choice, i have no intentions to go 7.1 or multiple sound configurations. I just want to get the best picture presentation that the director intended on my home system.
> thank yo again for your insight.


For the vast majority of films, the versions found on physical media have the best A/V quality. It's not 100% of the time but except in rare cases when a movie is streaming in 4K resolution and hasn't been put out on UHD, the best video quality will be found on the latest UHD or Blu-ray release. Though sometimes that entails tracking down a foreign import, unfortunately.

UHD is almost certainly the last physical format which Hollywood will back. A videophile's life will become infinitely harder tracking down the absolute best video quality for a particular movie when streaming completely takes over. If your tastes are outside the mainstream, many b-movies and independent films are never going to look any better than the existing BDs. 

*The Devil Incarnate*

recommendation: *Tier 2.75**

Mondo Macabre specializes in obscure horror films from around the world and this cult classic from Spanish horror legend Paul Naschy receives excellent treatment on Blu-ray. Mondo Macabre doesn't have the brand recognition of Arrow Video or Scream Factory but they always do quality work on Blu-ray. From the late 1970s, the Spanish film is presented in its proper 1.66:1 theatrical aspect ratio in uncut form.

Aside from a little crushing in the darkest interior scenes, there's abundant detail and solid definition. The warm, healthy colors aren't dazzling but reflect the film stock's era. There's no sign of filtering or other video processing tricks in the organically film-like presentation. Grain isn't excessively noisy outside of some muddy skyline shots.

The film elements are in fine condition. Damage and wear are almost entirely absent. _The Devil Incarnate_ isn't the sharpest cinematography. Softness and hazy lenses are occasional issues. But for lovers of classic Eurohorror filmmaking, this is pure eye candy with a faithful and transparent transfer.


----------



## SnellTHX

Phantom Stranger said:


> For the vast majority of films, the versions found on physical media have the best A/V quality. It's not 100% of the time but except in rare cases when a movie is streaming in 4K resolution and hasn't been put out on UHD, the best video quality will be found on the latest UHD or Blu-ray release. Though sometimes that entails tracking down a foreign import, unfortunately.
> 
> UHD is almost certainly the last physical format which Hollywood will back. A videophile's life will become infinitely harder tracking down the absolute best video quality for a particular movie when streaming completely takes over. If your tastes are outside the mainstream, many b-movies and independent films are never going to look any better than the existing BDs.



Bleak future indeed... Lets just hope by the time they die 4K blu-ray dies out Netflix, Amazon etc will have 8K/HDR streams with 80-100Mb/s codecs. Maybe even 50-60 if H.266 comes around!


----------



## SnellTHX

*Cruella*

Absolutely stunning reference image. I didn't actually expect much of this film so started off on Disney+ and it looked better than almost any 4K blu-ray movie I watched in D+'s 4K/DV stream so I had to check the 4K blu-ray. gorgeous. "Cannot believe its not IMAX!" , the 1.85:1 image looks reminiscent of an IMAX 15/70mm.


*Tier recommendation: 0.25*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Phantom Stranger said:


> *Behind The Mask: The Rise Of Leslie Vernon
> 
> 
> recommendation: Tier 5*
> 
> 
> Filmed in 16mm on a small budget, Starz/Anchor Bay has done the movie no favors on Blu-ray. Comparing the DVD and the BD, there was little to distinguish one from the other in terms of picture quality, aside from a very slight increase in color fidelity and bloom on the Blu-ray. It hurts assigning such a low score, as this is a fun movie for horror fans with a good dose of meta-humor. At times throughout viewing the disc, one will wonder if the BD was created from a standard-definition source.
> 
> 
> This film was never going to produce any eye candy in a faithful transfer of the original negative, but this a poor effort on the part of Anchor Bay. Save your money if you already own the DVD, which happens to contain extra features that were inexplicably left off the Blu-ray.


The above recommendation is a real blast from the past. I made it back in 2010. Over a decade later, I now compare it to the collector's edition put out recently from Scream Factory. I've always had a soft spot for this movie and wholeheartedly recommend this newer edition.

*Behind The Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon Collector's Edition*

recommendation: *Tier 3.75**

The original Blu-ray discussed in the quoted post above was an abomination, a slap-dash effort done with little regard. The low-budget horror movie's cinematography is gritty and soft. That much hasn't changed with this collector's edition from Scream Factory. Saying that, it represents a massive improvement in PQ.

The good news is that Scream Factory's disc boasts a new film transfer in legitimate HD quality. Assigning it to Tier 3 reflects the muddy aesthetic and erratic definition inherent to the source material. It's a film-like presentation without serious issues and an excellent AVC encode capturing the rough grain structure. The color palette is mildly limited and dull. A few scenes pop with better fine detail and sharper video. Clarity is solid but largely unremarkable.

There's no good reason to keep the older BD around. Scream Factory has done fine work doing everything they can for _Behind The Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon_. This is the best it can possibly look.


----------



## djoberg

I'm watching _Black Widow_ in 4K on Disney+ and the PQ is INCREDIBLE! I can't imagine the disc looking much better than this.

Edit: Just finished it! I would rate this in the middle of Tier 0!! I wish it had all been filmed in IMAX (there are NO scenes in IMAX) with an Aspect Ratio of 1.85:1.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I've been waiting a very long time for this movie to hit Blu-ray...

*Quick Change*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

Warner Archive grants the 1990 Bill Murray comedy a fresh HD transfer and the presentation looks better than expected. Nice definition and healthy colors make for relatively crisp 1080P video. It's an unfiltered film scan from the camera negative. The elements are in fantastic condition with the organic grain structure completely intact. No issues crop up in the solid AVC encode. Close-ups are a touch sharper and packed with detail.

Hats off to Warner Archive for finally bringing this funny movie out on BD.


----------



## djoberg

I just received Zach Snyder's 4K version of _Justice League. _I'm obviously excited to see it, but we just got company for the weekend and, in addition to that, the movie is FOUR HOURS LONG! One thing I like about it is Snyder decided to make it in Five Parts and an Epilogue, so I may just watch a couple of parts at a time instead of the whole thing in one sitting.

I am bummed that it is presented in the 4:3 Aspect Ratio but after watching the first 6 minutes of Part 1 I will say, "The PQ is INCREDIBLE." I am glad I have a 77" display and I only sit 7.5' from it, so it won't be too bad. I will weigh in with a review as soon as I see it all.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Fate/Stay Night Heaven's Feel Volume I Presage Flower*

recommendation: Tier 1.50*

Perusing the PQ Tiers, it appears I only ever ranked the original _Unlimited Blade Works_ movie from the ever-growing anime franchise. I should probably get around one day to filling out the rest of the franchise for the Tiers. Released by Aniplex of America, they basically reissue the original Japanese-encoded BD from Aniplex. _Heaven's Feel Presage Flower_ is the first of three movies in a trilogy.

While the traditional hand-drawn animation is amazingly fluid and sparkling with crisp art, the Fate series has always dwelt in a darker and moodier color palette. If this had come out a few years ago, I would have felt comfortable with a high 1.0 placement. Even boosting the saturation, the colors rarely pop by the standards of advanced CGI animation on BD. It's a nigh flawless AVC encode on a BD-50 and the presentation is pristine.


----------



## fredxr2d2

Dune (2021) was absolutely gorgeous on HBOMax (a few minor compression artifacts aside), so I'm expecting great things from the blu-ray.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

So the visuals were impressive? I've been hearing mixed things about the new Dune.


----------



## fredxr2d2

Phantom Stranger said:


> So the visuals were impressive? I've been hearing mixed things about the new Dune.


 I absolutely loved it. My wife even said that she'd totally watch it again. And it looked great to my eyes. I actually looked up the DP to see if they had done other things that I had seen: Greig Fraser - IMDb and yes, they have done some other good looking movies: Rogue One being a prime example.


----------



## Panson

fredxr2d2 said:


> I absolutely loved it. My wife even said that she'd totally watch it again. And it looked great to my eyes*. I actually looked up the DP to see if they had done other things that I had seen: **Greig Fraser *- IMDb and yes, they have done some other good looking movies: Rogue One being a prime example.


Re cinematographer Greig Fraser, his credits also include, Zero Dark Thirty (2012), Vice (2018), and forthcoming The Batman (2022).

Note: Editor Joe Walker also teamed with director Denis Villeneuve on Sicario (2015), Arrival (2016), Blade Runner 2049 (2017).


----------



## mogrub

We've watched Villenueve's Dune twice now via HBOMax, once at 2K and the second time at 4K. The 2K image was surprisingly soft, but it was "opening night" and I wondered if the surprising softness might have been the result of HBOM's servers getting crushed with demand. We watched Dune again last night in 4K and the PQ was exceptional. I need to go back and stream the 2K version one more time to see whether that first night softness was an anomaly or just the way it looks on HBOMax. Either way, I can't wait to grab this once it comes out on a shiny disc.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Sabrina*

recommendation: *Tier 3.5**

I'm covering the original _Sabrina_ with Audrey Hepburn. Originally issued in 2014 by Warner, the Billy Wilder movie is actually a Paramount property and they are also responsible for the film transfer. It's an underwhelming black-and-white presentation from a relatively dated transfer. Significant halos, rampant softness, and fairly weak definition mark the 1080P video. _Sabrina_ has serviceable picture quality at best with a fine contrast and decent shadow delineation its major strengths.

I have little doubt a new 4K scan would reap immense visual improvements. Simply dialing back the ringing would improve things. There's far more detail which could be extracted from the camera negatives. I am surprised Paramount hasn't restored this Hollywood romance from the 1950s starring three major screen icons.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Bram Stoker's Dracula 4K UHD*

recommendation: *Tier 2.5**

The older Blu-ray from Sony had its controversies and generated some disagreement over its PQ tiers placement. Sony had used a new, previously unused color timing on the 1992 movie which many fans disliked. Scores were all over the map from original contributors like Rob Tomlin and 42041, from tier 1 through 4.5. We settled on 3.5, which is where the disc has sat for over a decade.

It should be mentioned this is one of Sony's oldest 4K mastering jobs. The same basic film transfer used on UHD in 2017 when this disc came out was initially released on Blu-ray in 2015. It happens to slightly shift the framing upwards from prior versions for no apparent reason.

The good news is Sony corrected the poor grading originally found on the 2000s BD, supposedly conforming the new grading to an answer print provided directly by Coppola's team. I still wouldn't characterize it as perfection but a definite marked improvement. Shadow delineation and contrast fare much better this time, boosting clarity and definition.

Bram Stoker's Dracula isn't razor sharp and its colors are mildly dingy. Coppola's film emulates the classic Hammer horror of his youth and contains many old-school effect shots done in camera. The 4K film scan is ancient by today's more refined techniques. Detail is fine in close-ups but often looks lackluster next to some of the knock-out 4K catalog transfers coming out. I doubt Sony goes back for another go-around on UHD, which is a little disappointing for videophile fans.

Long story short, this is a respectable UHD presentation from a decent scan beginning to show its age. The HDR effort is barely noticeable and I didn't investigate its MEL/FEL status.


----------



## djoberg

Just "chiming in" to let you know I'm still alive! We've been doing a ton of traveling during this beautiful Fall weather. I do hope to start viewing Blus again very soon. Next week I'll finally watch _Justice League _and I hope to rent _Old _(since I'm a sucker for this genre).

I have been watching quite a few movies via Amazon Prime and Disney Plus, but I normally don't review them unless they have exceptional PQ and I know they will then be even better on a disc.


----------



## djoberg

I just watched the free 4K release of _Jungle Cruise _on Disney+. The PQ was excellent at times but there were scores of scenes with softness that hindered details. And the color-grading was horrendous throughout the movie. Methinks the Blu-ray won't fare much better. To be fair, when the PQ was great, it was definitely "Demo-Worthy" if not "Reference Quality."

Okay....as promised, my next post will feature a review on real (physical) Blus!


----------



## cowboy85

So is this the thread for blu rays? The link on the first post puts you in an endless cycle. Doesn't seem like anyone is keeping up with a list anymore? Too bad.


----------



## djoberg

*Old (1080p)*

Okay, I must admit from the outset that I was NOT glued to my seat during this movie. I was not a big fan of the cast and their acting (or, lack thereof) or the storyline. It seemed DISJOINTED to me at times. Having said that, I have come to expect this from the director so I did watch it to the very end! Speaking of "the ending," I was somewhat satisfied with it though many were not. It was, to me, a typical M. Night Shyamalan ending, which is to say, weird and thought-provoking at the same time.

PQ-wise, I was SATISFIED, but not amazed. I hear the UHD release raised it a notch or two, but IMHO the blu-ray won't rise above Tier Gold. Its main attribute, by far, is seen in DETAILS, with close-up facials being "jaw-dropping" at times. Most close up takes were exemplary but distant shots came across in some scenes as blurry/grainy. There were also many "soft shots" sprinkled throughout and some nagging "color-grading." All things considered it may find its place on one's "demo-shelf" (i.e. Tier Gold material), but if put on mine it would be towards the bottom. My vote goes for....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**

PS The audio mix was ROCK-SOLID!
PPS Next up: _Don't Breathe 2_


----------



## djoberg

*Don't Breathe 2 (1080p)*

I enjoyed the "original" movie but this one lacked "originality," substituting gratuitous violence instead. I found myself Fast-forwarding through some of those scenes. 

The PQ left "much-to-be-desired." It was a very dark film for most of its 90+ minutes and there was a good deal of NOISE. Black levels, which are crucial in a film this dark, were just "okay," and in many scenes they weren't deep enough to present good details and depth. Another "negative" was the lack of colors; they were "few and far between" and when they did appear they didn't have any POP! I guess the UHD version fared much better, but since I didn't enjoy the film at all I wouldn't even consider a "buy."

*Tier Recommendation: 2.5**

PS On tap for today...._The Protégé _and _Free Guy_.


----------



## djoberg

*Free Guy (1080p)*

Fun movie! I'm NOT a Gamer but I enjoyed this immensely. Of course it was also very "Truman Show-Like" in some respects and I really did like that movie.

PQ-wise it was amazingly good, with vibrant COLORS and razor-sharp CLARITY. DETAILS were also phenomenal, especially "facial close-ups." This truly looked like a UHD release!

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.5)*
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*The Protégé (1080p)*

This one was "Reference Quality" from beginning to end; a real STUNNER!! It has all the positives of the last review plus some rich, velvety BLACKS and mesmerizing SHADOW DETAILS (which also served up some astounding DEPTH). The CLARITY was striking and I thought to myself, "How could 4K look any better than this!"

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.25)*


----------



## djoberg

*Reminiscence (1080p)*

I end my Blu-ray "Rental Feast" with a movie that makes you think (FINALLY....after watching 4 movies that made little or no sense!). I enjoyed this title, though I figured I would since two of my favorite stars were in it (Hugh Jackman and Rebecca Ferguson) and they rarely disappoint. In reading reviews many were sorely disappointed, but in reading through their whole review I found that they found it boring....again, this movie made you THINK and today that is a lost art on most moviegoers (or renters or buyers).

PQ-wise, it was "good to very good." It will not be classified as "Reference" (Tier Blu) or even "Demo" (Tier Gold), by some, but I found it has enough "eye candy" in select scenes to merit a Tier Gold ranking. DETAILS were especially captivating at times, as were COLORS. BLACK LEVELS were not what I'd call "memorable" but there were some nighttime scenes with appreciable SHADOW DETAILS and DEPTH. 

Before placing this title I will say that, in spite of some "good to very good PQ," I won't call this one worthy of a purchase, for even though I was glad to have seen it it's not one with a lot of "repeated viewing value."

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5**

PS Next up: My PURCHASE of _Justice League_! (I may spend all afternoon viewing this...for it is FOUR HOURS LONG!)


----------



## mrtickleuk

djoberg said:


> I end my Blu-ray "Rental Feast" with a movie that makes you think (FINALLY....after watching 4 movies that made little or no sense!).


Good! There's no point in something being technically great for PQ and SQ if it's a rubbish movie. No point at all.



djoberg said:


> PS Next up: My PURCHASE of _Justice League_! (I may spend all afternoon viewing this...for it is FOUR HOURS LONG!)


Oh dear. Back to movies that won't make you think, then!


----------



## djoberg

mrtickleuk said:


> Good! There's no point in something being technically great for PQ and SQ if it's a rubbish movie. No point at all.
> 
> Oh dear. Back to movies that won't make you think, then!


If you know me at all, you know I'm still a sucker for excellent PQ/AQ. I still slip in _Transformers: The Last Knight _(which still has the best PQ among 4K titles) from time to time.


Let's face it, if we were limited to watching movies that make you think, we all would have a designated "Movie for the month" day! Or, we would be forced to sell our nice systems (since we don't use them enough to justify keeping them) on eBay, hoping that there are still people who like "mindless drivel movies."


----------



## Phantom Stranger

cowboy85 said:


> So is this the thread for blu rays? The link on the first post puts you in an endless cycle. Doesn't seem like anyone is keeping up with a list anymore? Too bad.


We now cover both UHDs and Blu-rays in this thread. Check the link in my forum signature for always the latest updates to the PQ tiers.


----------



## djoberg

*Zach Snyder's Justice League (2021 UHD)*

The first couple of scenes were somewhat "underwhelming" (quite gritty/grainy and soft), but after that point....WOW!! CLARITY reigned supreme in most scenes with intricate DETAILS, super-deep BLACKS with beautiful SHADOW DETAILS, and the COLORS popped! But my favorite feature was HDR's "specular highlights." The last long battle scene (over 30 minutes!!) had tons of explosions with fires galore and man were they bright courtesy of HDR. And of course, the FLASH created lots of eye candy when he was doing his thing (RUNNING and leaving behind an ELECTRIC TRAIL brighter than the noon-day sun).

I gave the UHD release of _Man of Steel _a 1.0 ranking but this easily tops that by a good half of a tier....so I'm going with...

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.5)*

PS The Dolby Atmos mix was spectacular! My wife wasn't home so I listened to it at -5 all the way through and at times I would back up a scene and play it at REFERENCE!! My speaker system never sounded better!!!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Definitely an amazing mix, one of the best.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> Definitely an amazing mix, one of the best.


Yes, it is! Is it the "best I've ever heard?" Probably not, but it's just as good as any that comes to mind.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Have a great Thanksgiving, everyone! I've noticed Amazon, Best Buy, and other retailers are having big sales on UHD currently, some under $10.


----------



## primetimeguy

Free code from Black Friday deal


----------



## djoberg

*Anne of Green Gables (Remastered HD 4-Disc Collector's Set)*

My wife and I have been waiting for this set to come out in HD for decades! When our five daughters were young we watched this amazing "family-friendly" cinematic wonder at least a dozen times. It was filmed on Prince Edward Island in Canada and it went through various editions...first, of course, VHS, and then different remastered editions on DVD. The VHS was "watchable"; the DVD versions took it up to being "good"; but this set was (as it says on the cover box) "meticulously restored in 4K from the original films" in "full widescreen" and the end result is quite amazing! In full disclosure it says on the Sullivan Entertainment website (where we purchased it) that it is in full "1080p HD," so I'm not sure which it is. At times it looks like 4K and at other times it looks like an impressive HD Blu-ray. In fairness there are SOFT SHOTS at times (which hinders details and depth), along with some BLURRINESS in long distance shots. I guess what I'm saying is this is a "mixed bag." When the PQ was impressive, it had some spectacular DETAILS, COLORS and DEPTH. When I compare it with former editions I am simply BLOWN AWAY by the CLARITY; it is RAZOR-SHARP in many scenes yet there are still, like former releases, intermittent shots of softness (and even a few "out-of-focus" shots) which will, of necessity, bring down the final placement.

If you have never seen this before (and I'm assuming the "younger crowd" on this thread may not have seen it or even heard of it before), you will LOVE IT if you appreciate a wholesome series with an amazing cast of actors, a touching story-line with enough action, humor and drama to "keep you awake," and last, but not least, one void of violence, profanity and nudity. I HIGHLY RECOMMEND IT!

*Tier Recommendation: 1.25**

PS If you read my review from yesterday, you know I gave this a ranking of *Tier 0 (.9)*, but after further viewing I saw anomalies that I missed the first time around. I believe I was so blown away by how good this looked compared to previous releases that it affected my judgment. I could even see some going as low as *1.5*, though I still believe it deserves the *1.25* I have given it, or perhaps a *1.0 *placement.

PPS I would be remiss if I didn't mention its price. Because it was made for a "niche audience" (and not made for the masses who crave PG13 or R rated movies) the price is quite high. I bought it on Black Friday from the Sullivan Entertainment website with a 10% discount and the 4-disc set (consisting of about 3 hours on each 50GB disc) was still over $100. If you grew up watching this with your family and are an avid fan, it WILL BE WORTH THE MONEY!


----------



## djoberg

*Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings (UHD Disney Plus)*

I had been wanting to see this release on Disney Plus, especially when I learned it was "IMAX Enhanced" with a 1.90:1 Aspect Ratio. There were some heavy CGI scenes with SOFT SHOTS but other than that it was incredibly SHARP and the COLORS were bold and vibrant. DETAILS were excellent in close-ups, but some long-distance shots were a bit blurred/soft. DEPTH was really deep at times. Blacks levels are very good, but I've seen better. Overall, this is a real "looker!"

I also enjoyed the movie so this will definitely be getting "repeated viewings."

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.75)*


----------



## Postmoderndesign

SnellTHX said:


> *Jojo Rabbit*
> 
> 
> A very analog-looking digital production. Warm tones, brown/yellow hues (as to fit into the WWII-era). It has plenty of detail but still a bit to be soft to be considered reference. the filmic appearance was still very pleasant to look at. Also filmed in 1.85:1, which I prefer
> 
> *
> Tier recommendation: 1*


The 4K UHD version of JoJo Rabbit's visual Quality is fantastically good and the audio quality is excellent as well. I really was taken by this mid 1940's satire on Germany through the eyes of a 10 year old German boy and a teenage Jewish girl.


----------



## djoberg

*No Time to Die (UHD)*

The "Credits are rolling" and I must say this was a "satisfying experience." I enjoyed the PQ, the AQ, and the movie itself. PQ-wise, it had striking CLARITY in many scenes with finely-rendered DETAILS and astounding DEPTH. BLACK LEVELS and SHADOW DETAILS were also quite good, though at times they faltered a wee bit. This is, by far, the best-looking Bond movie to date. The Dolby Atmos mix was impressive, though it was far from being the best mix I've heard. The movie had a "satisfying ending" for Daniel Craig's exit (my second favorite Bond...you'll never beat Sean Connery!).

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.5)*


----------



## djoberg

This a "off-topic," but for those of you who use Harmony Remotes, Logitech is discontinuing their Harmony Remote line. That's the BAD NEWS. There is GOOD NEWS though, for you can still get them on eBay and other sites, for a "nominal fee." I have two Harmony One Remotes that I absolutely LOVE, so I bought another "Refurbished Harmony One" on eBay and it works great. I also purchased an extra Logitech Rechargeable Battery to have on hand. Harmony has been my "Go To Remote" for many years and I'm trying to keep myself well-armed with them to keep me going for another 10-15 years!


----------



## djoberg

*Spiderman: Far From Home (UHD)*

I had reviewed the 1080p Blu-ray back in 2019 and it was so impressive I gave it a ranking of Tier 0 (.33). I had said that I couldn't imagine it looking any better on 4K. I was wrong! It is better...not by much, but enough to give it the same score as Snell did. Here is a link to my former review and I would just add that this (UHD release) had better "specular highlights," "colors," and "black levels."









The New PQ Tier thread for Blu-Ray - Discussion


Stephen King's It (1990) recommendation: Tier 2.5* Very stable image throughout it's run-time and has a nice film look for a television presentation (it was shot on 35mm).




www.avsforum.com





*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (.25)*

PS I have also ordered _Spiderman: No Way Home_! I hear the PQ should best the first two installments and that the movie is definitely better than this one.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I've been MIA of late because of the holidays but hopefully getting back into the swing of things.

*Ready Or Not*

recommendation: Tier 1.0*

_Ready or Not_ isn't the kind of movie which gets a UHD release but the video quality deserves it. A horror comedy hybrid, I was shocked by some of the outrageous depth and pop bursting from the screen. If I wasn't excluding it only because it's BD, this is easy tier 0 material. Fox put this movie out before they were swallowed up by Disney.

Excessive gore is mostly spotlighted by the pure, unfiltered clarity and razor-sharp definition.


----------



## djoberg

Glad you're back Phantom!


----------



## djoberg

My UHD copy of _Dune _is arriving today. I am very excited at the prospect of stellar PQ and AQ! I wish I could watch it tonight but it has a running time of 155 minutes and I'm not sure I have that much time to watch it. (I do NOT want to watch it in more than one sitting.)

Has anyone else ordered this? I will look forward to seeing reviews from those of you who have.


----------



## fredxr2d2

djoberg said:


> My UHD copy of _Dune _is arriving today. I am very excited at the prospect of stellar PQ and AQ! I wish I could watch it tonight but it has a running time of 155 minutes and I'm not sure I have that much time to watch it. (I do NOT want to watch it in more than one sitting.)
> 
> Has anyone else ordered this? I will look forward to seeing reviews from those of you who have.


It's hopefully on its way to me (was out for delivery yesterday, but UPS didn't deliver it for unknown reasons: they delivered another package, but not _Dune_). I'm hoping to have time to watch it this weekend.

I watched it on HBO Max and it looked and sounded stellar on their HDR stream, so I can only assume the disc will look phenomenal.


----------



## HighAltHD

I received the UHD copy of Dune yesterday. I'm not a seasoned reviewer like you all but I'll try to comment on this one. I won't be able to watch the entire thing until this weekend probably but last night I popped it in to get a glimpse of the first couple minutes and it was looking and sounding incredible. Much preferred (so far) over the HBO Max stream.


----------



## djoberg

*Dune (2021...UHD)*

I was NOT as blown away with the PQ as some or most of the reviewers I had read. Don't get me wrong, it had some amazing visuals at times with topnotch clarity and details, but there were also a lot of scenes with either lots of sand or smoke blowing around or very low-lit interior scenes, and in some of them it came across as SOFT and lacking depth and details. The black levels were good to very good but I wouldn't call them excellent (with a couple of exceptions in deep space shots). The color scheme was, as you might expect, very DRAB, so there is nothing to boast about in that department. Having said that, there were scenes with lots of explosions and the "specular highlights" (tons of FIRE!) were pure EYE CANDY.

What one can absolutely boast about was the Dolby Atmos mix; it was FANTASTIC. There was plenty of action in the surrounds and height channels and the LFE/bass was "Reference Quality" all the way through. That alone made this purchase well worth the price!

The PQ still qualifies for Tier Gold.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**

PS I sure wish they had included the IMAX scenes in this release.


----------



## djoberg

I just watched Episode 3 of _The Book of Boba Fett _on Disney+ and couldn't help but compare the PQ of this UHD streaming release with the UHD disc of _Dune. _I felt somewhat justified in making this comparison since they both have similar landscapes outside and they both have low-lit interior scenes. IMHO _Boba Fett _easily outshines _Dune _since it is SHARPER and more DETAILED with better BLACKS and SHADOW DETAILS. As I said in my post above _Dune _most definitely had numerous SOFT SHOTS, especially in the low-lit interior scenes and these hindered depth and details. The landscape scenes in _Dune _were excellent at times but in some shots they lacked sharpness.

Again, when _Dune _looked good it was "Reference Quality," but when it faltered I wouldn't even consider it "demo-worthy." But I absolutely LOVED the Atmos mix!


----------



## fredxr2d2

djoberg said:


> I just watched Episode 3 of _The Book of Boba Fett _on Disney+ and couldn't help but compare the PQ of this UHD streaming release with the UHD disc of _Dune. _I felt somewhat justified in making this comparison since they both have similar landscapes outside and they both have low-lit interior scenes. IMHO _Boba Fett _easily outshines _Dune _since it is SHARPER and more DETAILED with better BLACKS and SHADOW DETAILS. As I said in my post above _Dune _most definitely had numerous SOFT SHOTS, especially in the low-lit interior scenes and these hindered depth and details. The landscape scenes in _Dune _were excellent at times but in some shots they lacked sharpness.
> 
> Again, when _Dune _looked good it was "Reference Quality," but when it faltered I wouldn't even consider it "demo-worthy." But I absolutely LOVED the Atmos mix!


Interesting. I haven't watched Dune yet on disc, but my impression of Boba Fett (and The Mandalorian) was that there are a bunch of compression artifacts in the sands when they are on Tatooine, so I often am focused on the problems that the D+ stream doesn't send enough bits for all the colors, rather than how sharp it looks (and it looks sharp).

Also, of interesting note about Dune, they considered using the same technology that The Mandalorian and TBoBF uses (the LED screens in an enclosed soundstage), but they felt that the screens couldn't get bright enough to truly do the desert sun justice. As far as fine details, it should also be noted that Dune filmed digitally and then made film prints and then did post production in digital again, so some of the fine details probably got washed out during that process, which was intended to give a more "dreamy" look than the truly razor sharpness of digital cameras.

See here fore more info: 



 and from the Digital Bits review of the disc: 



> *Dune* was captured digitally in the ARRIRAW codec (at 4.5K) using Arri Alexa LF IMAX and Mini LF IMAX cameras, with Panavision H-Series and Ultra Vista lenses. The footage was then scanned out to 35 mm dupe stock, and that film was itself scanned back to digital in native 4K—it’s those new digital files that were then used for editing and post production. Per Fraser, speaking to *The Hollywood Reporter* (linked here): “When we projected film, it just didn’t give us the feeling that we were after. It felt, as Denis put it, a little bit nostalgic, like we were watching something that has happened in the past.” Digital felt more contemporary, “but it was a little too crisp.” Scanning the digitally-captured image out to film and then back to digital “gave us the feeling we had been picturing—a certain texture that’s painterly but feels timeless.” From a technical standpoint, this process retains the clarity and clean detailing of digital, yet exhibits the benefits of film too, including photochemical grain, interlayer halation, and density breathing. The film was ultimately completed as a 4K Digital Intermediate at the 2.39:1 scope aspect ratio for its wide theatrical release (though some scenes were also finished at 1.43 and 1.90 for IMAX Laser and IMAX Xenon digital exhibition). Note that Warner’s new 4K Ultra HD presentation is framed exclusively at 2.39:1.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Thanks Fred! I had actually read what is written above about them using IMAX cameras, then scanning out to 35mm and then scanned back to digital in native 4K. The result in some scenes were, as you said, "the loss of fine details." I will add another, "a GRAINY look." In my mind some of those shots looked like "pure 35mm" instead of "digital." And as you said, this resulted in a "more 'dreamy' look than the truly razor-sharpness of digital cameras."

I did not notice the "compression artifacts in the sands" in TBoBF and ironically that's what I thought I saw in some of the sands in _Dune_. I never mentioned "colors" in my comparison but TBoBF definitely had more vibrant colors than _Dune _(I called the color scheme DRAB in my review and I stand by that).

When I read those glowing reviews on _Dune _from many online and reputable reviewers I kept thinking, "Yep, they are especially considering the look from the 'director's intent' and are not looking for EYE CANDY." And thus they will make comments like, "This Blu-ray disc looks exactly like the director intended it to look, just like it did in the theater." And because of that, they will often give it a PERFECT SCORE for PQ. Here, on this thread, our main critique is based on EYE CANDY and that's why our "criteria" is all based on sharpness, details, colors, black levels, shadow detail, depth, flesh tones, etc, and NOT on "director's intent." _Dune _surely had "some of these on display" in certain shots, but "some of these were surely lacking" in other shots. I know you know these things Fred, but I have written this especially for those who may be tuning in and are unaware of the main purpose of this thread and how we evaluate and determine a Blu-ray's ranking for PQ.


----------



## djoberg

*Dune "Rethink"*

After further "consideration," I simply can't give _Dune _a Tier Blu ranking. I have made the change above to *1.0*. As stated in earlier posts, this was NOT EYE CANDY in many scenes. I realize it may very well be "eye candy" to the Director, and to those who consider the "director's intent" when viewing the movie, but this is NOT what this thread is all about so I will stand by the changed ranking and believe it best represents the placement according to this thread's CRITERIA.

I will say that I was impressed with how "realistic" the outdoor scenes were. As noted in the YouTube video that Fred posted, the director wanted all "natural lighting" in outdoor scenes and he definitely achieved that. He also went for a more "soft look" that this lighting gave him, so again, in his mind and many others, the visuals were superb. Even in CGI shots, he purposely avoided a more "digital" and "sharp" look and again, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. 

I know there are others, like Snell (who usually watches movies like this and then posts a review), who will no doubt (like me) be critical of the SOFTNESS and the GRAIN, and I look forward to hearing their take on this title.

Now if this were an "Audio Thread," that would be another matter! Reference Quality all the way through (except for some of the dialogue, which was hard to hear at times).


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Reviewing a couple of discs from the mostly excellent Shawscope box set from Arrow Video, featuring eight Kung Fu classics from genre fave Shaw Brothers. Highly recommended with copious special features and incredibly nice packaging. Poison Clan rocks the world...

*The Five Venoms (aka The Five Deadly Venoms)*

recommendation: *Tier 2.25**

Probably the most famous movie included in this box set, the Shaw Brothers' classic receives a new 2K transfer from the original camera negative handled by Arrow Video themselves. It's a very clean presentation with impeccable color correction. Across the box set, one common trait of the transfers are nigh immaculate color grades and dialed-in contrasts. 

The 1080P video has excellent clarity and definition, including razor-sharp dimensionality for a 1978 Kung Fu flick. This is the type of video which should wow most casual viewers familiar with Shaw Brothers. A lot of attention has paid to the transfer. The elements are in superb condition. 

I probably would have ranked this disc a touch higher but the transfer has likely seen some mild filtering. Maybe somewhere in Tier One based solely on visual appeal and pop. Don't go looking for any extraneous residue leftover by the filtering - today's software tools are far too sophisticated to detect if lightly applied. Knowing how the film elements should look in a completely unfiltered 2K scan is our only guidance these days if the label isn't so forthcoming about their methods.

*Five Shaolin Masters*

recommendation: *Tier 3.25**

This is one of the only films in the box set which didn't get a new transfer by Arrow Video. So-so resolution and regular softness in the video indicate an older telecine job from possibly secondary elements. The 1974 movie doesn't look bad by any means. It's a solid, mostly film-like presentation hampered by a bit of ringing in select scenes. A slight magenta push doesn't greatly affect a steady color palette and contrast. A couple scenes have limited crushing.

While a new 2K scan would produce better results, it's a serviceable effort. This may be one of those Shaw Brothers films with no surviving negative.


----------



## meli

I'm not in the position to do a full review, but the 4k UHD discs of the BBC documentary "Seven Worlds, One Planet" have great picture quality. The only negatives are, and I've seen this on a few 4k discs, an exaggerated boost of some white highlights (I assume to showcase the HDR), and I wish the Atmos audio track was more immersive.


----------



## djoberg

I just ordered the 4K Blu-ray "_Seven Worlds, One Planet_" from Amazon. I can hardly wait to see this after reading different reviews which all say it has the best 4K visuals EVER! I never thought it could get better than _Planet Earth: 2 _but all reviewers say this is indeed better. Here is one review to "whet your appetite":









Seven Worlds, One Planet 4K Blu-ray Review


Is this another must-see BBC documentary from Sir David Attenborough? Read our review of Seven Worlds, One Planet in 4K




www.avforums.com





And here's another glowing report from reputable Robert Harris:






A Few Words About - A few words about...™ Seven Worlds One Planet -- in 4k UHD Blu-ray


Leave it to the BBC to continually up the ante with the overall quality of their 4k programming. I first experienced a sampling of Seven Worlds One Planet at a demo at Value Electronics. They had virtually every variant of 8k panels in production for the home market on display, and I was...




www.hometheaterforum.com


----------



## mrtickleuk

djoberg said:


> I just ordered the 4K Blu-ray "_Seven Worlds, One Planet_" from Amazon. I can hardly wait to see this after reading different reviews which all say it has the best 4K visuals EVER! I never thought it could get better than _Planet Earth: 2 _but all reviewers say this is indeed better. Here is one review to "whet your appetite":


Enjoy it! I watched it when it was first shown on the BBC, and their iPlayer catch-up service does HDR. Definitely lovely to watch.


----------



## meli

djoberg said:


> I just ordered the 4K Blu-ray "_Seven Worlds, One Planet_" from Amazon.....


A couple nights ago I watched the "Europe" episode. It may not be my favorite episode, but it had a few shots that were beautifully abstract. It reminded me of a Stan Brakhage film.


----------



## djoberg

*Seven Worlds, One Planet (UHD)*

In fairness, I have only seen the first three episodes (Antarctica, Asia, and South America), but I assume, based on the consistency of the PQ on this disc, that it represents the PQ of all three discs. I could multiply superlatives in describing the absolute "Reference Quality" of this amazing BBC production. The DETAILS, TEXTURE, DEPTH, CONTRAST and COLORS are "off-the-charts." Is it better than _Planet Earth 2_? Not in every scene, but it's at least as good. In some scenes it easily trumps PE2 for CLARITY, DETAILS and COLORS. I should mention the "specular highlights" too courtesy of HDR. 

Again, I just watched nearly three hours straight through and I never once looked at the clock. I was glued to my chair, not only by the spectacular visuals, but by the fantastic creation/creatures God has given us to enjoy. Some "creatures" are really "beyond belief"...their physical makeup and ability to survive defies logic! Out of the three I enjoyed _South America_ the most, especially with its COLORFUL PARADISE which has the most "diversity" of all the seven continents (_Asia _also had a lot of diversity and colors). I found myself pausing the picture at least 20 times to take photos on my iPhone 12 Pro Max and they are already transferred to my iPad so I can "show them off" to others. Of course, this will be a "drawing card" for getting people to come see them "up close and personal" on my OLED 77" display from 7.5' away!

In full disclosure, I do recall seeing some of these shots (or shots almost identical to them) on _Planet Earth 2_. _Antarctica _was my least favorite for that reason, in addition to the rather bland landscapes "color-wise." Also, there are times where it appears SOFT but I attribute those scenes to the "weather" in some instances or the location (a few underwater shots). But the overwhelming majority of its running time will have your "jaw on the floor." One more thing; the price of this set (under $30) is a STEAL for the hours of pleasure you will get as you treat your eyes to the very best EYE CANDY you'll ever see on a "live documentary." BTW, your "ears" will also be treated to some excellent audio in several scenes courtesy of Dolby Atmos (for whatever reason they didn't set the Default to Atmos so be sure to go to the "Audio Setup" before starting the film).

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (#1....King of the UHD Blu-ray Hill)*


----------



## djoberg

meli said:


> I'm not in the position to do a full review, but the 4k UHD discs of the BBC documentary "Seven Worlds, One Planet" have great picture quality. The only negatives are, and I've seen this on a few 4k discs, an exaggerated boost of some white highlights (I assume to showcase the HDR), and I wish the Atmos audio track was more immersive.


You are right, there is an "exaggerated boost of some white highlights" but when there wasn't (a boost) the CONTRAST was stunning. In the first episode (_Antarctica_) I loved the panoramic, aerial views of the ice/snow with the sunrise or sunset in the background. Amazing contrast and specular highlights in those scenes.

So, if you've watched all seven episodes, do you have a favorite?


----------



## meli

djoberg said:


> So, if you've watched all seven episodes, do you have a favorite?


I've actually only watched the first five. I don't think I have a favorite, I'm having fun watching them with my son, so I like all of them. The Europe episode had those abstract shots I liked.


----------



## djoberg

*Final Thoughts on "Seven Worlds, One Planet"*

I just watched the last 4 episodes of _Seven Worlds, One Planet_. I believe they saved "the best for last" for I thought _North America _and _Africa _had the most engaging and beautiful landscapes and interesting wildlife, along with the best DETAILS and COLORS as well. If I had to pick just one to show off to my friends I would pick _North America_. One might say, "But Denny, aren't you being somewhat biased since you live in Minnesota?" My response would be, "Oh no, I would never be guilty of bias."  But in all honesty, I loved the many diverse landscapes of North America and having travelled throughout the United States, Canada, and Mexico for nearly 50 years I can say they gave us a very good sampling of this wonderful creation, inanimate and animate alike! My only regret is that they didn't have any footage on the Great Lakes where my wife and I spend a lot of time vacationing and exploring (via hiking, kayaking, canoeing, skiing and snowshoeing) in much of our "spare time."

One more word. If I'm being absolutely honest (and I try to be during my waking hours), I can't say this was any better than _Planet Earth 2 _when it comes to the places and wildlife they chose to film; in fact, I actually prefer PE2 in that regard. As far as the PQ, most of this set was EQUAL to PE2, but there were scenes/shots that surpassed it and when they did....all I can say is WOW!!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

SnellTHX said:


> *Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood*
> 
> Shot on film, and a specific visual aesthetic in mind. I don't like stylised looks I prefer natural unfiltered.
> It still looked decent, but IMO the 1994 Pulp Fiction looks a lot better (based on memory of the 1080p blu-ray ... I will look for the 4K version!)
> 
> *Tier recommendation: 1.25*


*Once Upon A Time... in Hollywood 4K UHD*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

Tarantino's 2019 flick has a great soundtrack, I'll give it that. There's nothing overtly incredible about this disc for 4K resolution. Fairly hum-drum video for UHD. Nice close-ups and the entire movie has a razor-sharp focus, but something is lacking. It's a consistent presentation with no negatives, which makes its underwhelming visual impact all the more confounding.

The movie was mastered in Dolby Vision for theaters - home video versions such as this UHD only contain HDR10.


----------



## Panson

Phantom Stranger said:


> *Once Upon A Time... in Hollywood 4K UHD*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 1.0**
> 
> Tarantino's 2019 flick has a great soundtrack, I'll give it that. There's nothing overtly incredible about this disc for 4K resolution. Fairly hum-drum video for UHD. Nice close-ups and the entire movie has a razor-sharp focus, but something is lacking. It's a consistent presentation with no negatives, which makes its underwhelming visual impact all the more confounding.
> 
> The movie was mastered in Dolby Vision for theaters - home video versions such as this UHD only contain HDR10.


FWIW noticing from Bill Hunt's list, Sony Pictures now seems more inclusive of homebody Dolby Vision.


----------



## djoberg

Just a note to inform you I will be getting my UHD copy of _Spider-Man: No Way Home_ on April 12th and I hope to view it shortly after it arrives. It has been over a month since I purchased a new disc. I have streamed movies since then but nothing was worthy of a review (I said long ago that I would only review a movie from a streaming service if I felt it was nearly as good as the disc might be).


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Devil's Men*

recommendation: *Tier 2.5**

Powerhouse Films gives this 1976 horror film (known as Land of the Minotaur in the US) starring Donald Pleasence and Peter Cushing a fantastic new 2K restoration from the camera negative. Satisfyingly crisp with pleasing definition and fresh colors. The transfer is unfiltered, loaded with superb fine detail and fairly sharp. This is quality work, retaining the original 1.66:1 theatrical aspect ratio in film-like reproduction.

Three different cuts of the film are included in the release, including the shortened U.S. version.


----------



## djoberg

*Trolls World Tour (UHD)*

My granddaughter talked me into buying this yesterday (even though I could watch it on Disney+ I'm sure this disc takes the PQ up a notch). The "credits are rolling" now so I thought I'd chime in with a quick review.

Back in 2017 I reviewed the Blu-ray of the "1st Edition" of _Trolls_ and I gave it a Top Tier Blu vote (along with 4 other animated marvels), especially for the AMAZING COLORS and TEXTURES. This one was just as good or better....well, IT WAS BETTER courtesy of HDR! The CONTRAST was also stellar, with very BRIGHT WHITES and INKY BLACKS. I won't give this an exact number placement but I will say it deserves a place in the "Top Ten" of Tier Blu.

The Dolby Atmos mix was good, but not spectacular. I say this due to the majority of the movie being limited to the "Front Speakers." That being said, the music was excellent at times with a wonderful mix of genres (which is what the movie was all about!) that kept me from the possibility of being bored. Truth be told, I went into this hearing it was "only for kids" only to prove to me (once again) that "I'm a KID AT HEART!"

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (Top Ten)*

PS If you have young children or grandchildren, they would love to watch this with you (or dance with you while you watch it)! The downside of watching this with kids is their "parents" will more than likely tell you to "TURN IT DOWN!" I had to listen to it at -10 but I've read that at Reference it really comes alive.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Phenomena 4K UHD*

recommendation: *Tier 1.75**

I'm reviewing the American release from Synapse Films, but readers should be aware the 4K set from Arrow Video in the UK is identical. All three included versions of Dario Argento's film feature 4K restorations from the original camera negative, spread over two separate discs. The 1.66:1 presentation is surprisingly crisp and offers a Dolby Vision option which brings out new life in the 1984 production. It's immensely pleasing with a smooth contrast and solid black levels.

This is a high-quality scan of excellent film elements without additional processing. The HDR helps capture the full palette without exaggeration. It may not have the visual pop and brilliance of American studio fare but Phenomena's 2160P video certainly justifies the added cost. Better grain reproduction and revealing details highlight the improved definition and clarity over BD.


----------



## djoberg

*Spider-Man: No Way Home (UHD)*

The "credits are rolling" and...I'm glad they are! This finale was WAY TOO LONG and WAY TOO CHEESY. I have most of the 3 trilogies and that's enough for me. (I won't be surprised though if they come out with another set with a new Peter Parker and new villains....like the Batman Franchise.) 

PQ-wise, it was definitely "Reference Quality"...not exactly a rival for the "King of the Blu-ray Hill" but it will surely find a comfortable spot above the middle of Tier Blu. I won't go into detail except to say this had all the virtues that count...excellent clarity, sharpness, colors, blacks, shadow details, flesh tones, contrast and depth. AQ-wise it was quite good, with some thunderous bass at times (though it didn't get into subterranean territory). I was very impressed with the Atmos mix when it came to panning effects across the height channels and surrounds. There were a few scenes where the sound "circled the room" and that put a smile on my face.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.25)*


----------



## fredxr2d2

djoberg said:


> *Spider-Man: No Way Home (UHD)*
> 
> The "credits are rolling" and...I'm glad they are! This finale was WAY TOO LONG and WAY TOO CHEESY. I have most of the 3 trilogies and that's enough for me. (I won't be surprised though if they come out with another set with a new Peter Parker and new villains....like the Batman Franchise.)
> 
> PQ-wise, it was definitely "Reference Quality"...not exactly a rival for the "King of the Blu-ray Hill" but it will surely find a comfortable spot above the middle of Tier Blu. I won't go into detail except to say this had all the virtues that count...excellent clarity, sharpness, colors, blacks, shadow details, flesh tones, contrast and depth. AQ-wise it was quite good, with some thunderous bass at times (though it didn't get into subterranean territory. I was very impressed with the Atmos mix when it came to panning effects across the height channels and surrounds. There were a few scenes where the sound "circled the room" and that put a smile on my face.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.25)*


We will have to agree-to-disagree on this one. I loved the movie. A ton. Also, including quotes from the recent video game (that also made me emotional) was icing on the cake.

PQ-wise, I agree: definitely not king of the hill, but quite good.


----------



## djoberg

fredxr2d2 said:


> We will have to agree-to-disagree on this one. I loved the movie. A ton. Also, including quotes from the recent video game (that also made me emotional) was icing on the cake.
> 
> PQ-wise, I agree: definitely not king of the hill, but quite good.


Hey Fred,

I think, in my case, I have a case of MARVEL OVERLOAD! I have Disney+ and I have watched every movie and every episode of the Marvel Series and I'm just getting saturated by trying to keep up with all the characters and plots. In addition to that, I also watch all the DC Comic franchises and there too it is a monumental task trying to remember all the characters and plots. And then when these franchises do so many "Remakes" or "Spin-offs" with different lead characters and (sometimes) vastly different plots, it can give you a headache. This much I know, I actually enjoy the more "serious" movies/series over the rather "comical" ones. A case in point is the Nolan Batman series; I LOVED THEM! The Spider-Man series; not so much.

But I respect everyone's opinion here. Our different views only confirm the old adage: "Different strokes for different folks."


----------



## fredxr2d2

djoberg said:


> Hey Fred,
> 
> I think, in my case, I have a case of MARVEL OVERLOAD! I have Disney+ and I have watched every movie and every episode of the Marvel Series and I'm just getting saturated by trying to keep up with all the characters and plots. In addition to that, I also watch all the DC Comic franchises and there too it is a monumental task trying to remember all the characters and plots. And then when these franchises do so many "Remakes" or "Spin-offs" with different lead characters and (sometimes) vastly different plots, it can give you a headache. This much I know, I actually enjoy the more "serious" movies/series over the rather "comical" ones. A case in point is the Nolan Batman series; I LOVED THEM! The Spider-Man series; not so much.
> 
> But I respect everyone's opinion here. Our different views only confirm the old adage: "Different strokes for different folks."


For sure. I am feeling a bit of Marvel fatigue as well, though I think I'm more of a fan than you are (based on this post). However, I have an extremely soft spot for Spider-man as he is arguably my favorite super hero. I've played multiple video games, watched the movies many, many times, and was generally just very excited for more Spider-man content like this movie.


----------



## djoberg

This may seem like I'm contradicting my last post, but I will more than likely be purchasing the upcoming 4K release of _The Batman _(on May 24th). The trailer looks very good...more in keeping with Nolan's work in his Batman Trilogy. Again, I do prefer "serious" over "comical," though in today's dark and somber climate (war, political corruption, crime, violence, scandals, etc. etc.) perhaps I should limit myself to the "comical" versions.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

The Batman is nothing like Marvel's output if that is what you mean. Though all the Marvel films generally fall short of Nolan's superhero films if you are looking for serious fare. Marvel has developed a formula which succeeds extremely well at the box office but often lacks weight, for want of a better word.

Allow me to wish everyone a happy and blessed Easter!


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> The Batman is nothing like Marvel's output if that is what you mean. Though all the Marvel films generally fall short of Nolan's superhero films if you are looking for serious fare. Marvel has developed a formula which succeeds extremely well at the box office but often lacks weight, for want of a better word.
> 
> Allow me to wish everyone a happy and blessed Easter!


Again, I do "prefer" serious super-hero movies, so I obviously favor DC COMICS over MARVEL. Having said that, the earlier Batman movies were generally "comical, cheesy" as well. It wasn't until Nolan directed them that we had some "serious stuff." Don't get me wrong though, I do like "some humor" if it's not too "juvenile" (and that was my main beef with the Tom Holland trilogy). Having said that, Tom "had his moments" where he was very serious (like the very ending of _No Way Home_), but that was definitely "the exception to the rule."


----------



## mrtickleuk

djoberg said:


> Again, I do "prefer" serious super-hero movies, so I obviously favor DC COMICS over MARVEL.


I'm interested in your "obviously" there - I know that the Marvel franchise has a formula of the right "level" of humour mixed in with action. The trouble is that the DC movies are almost all terrible movies. Serious or not, a bad movie "takes me out of the movie". I mean such Oscar-nominated titles as Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, Suicide Squad, Justice League, Aquaman. 



djoberg said:


> Having said that, the earlier Batman movies were generally "comical, cheesy" as well. It wasn't until Nolan directed them that we had some "serious stuff." Don't get me wrong though, I do like "some humor" if it's not too "juvenile" (and that was my main beef with the Tom Holland trilogy). Having said that, Tom "had his moments" where he was very serious (like the very ending of _No Way Home_), but that was definitely "the exception to the rule."


Yep, fair points.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Scream (2022) 4K UHD*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

The latest Scream sequel hit home video a few weeks ago in a satisfying Dolby Vision presentation. Paramount's UHD reflects digital cinematography filmed in raw 3.4K resolution via Arri Alexa cameras. Tack-sharp with outstanding clarity, depth and definition are what we've come to expect from newer UHDs. In that regard, the video is fairly ho-hum if you've dived into 4K and sampled the best demo discs.

The 12-bit Dolby Vision grading subtly expands the visible color palette with deeper reds and more rustic browns. It's a tasteful color correction which nails the skin tones and background foliage. This isn't the most obvious HDR enhancement but better replicates the original image harvest in high-fidelity reproduction, cleaning up some banding from the regular BD edition.

Scream's 2160P resolution doesn't offer the pumped-up contrast and hotter colors of action flicks, which leaves a more subdued visual impact. There's absolutely nothing technically wrong with Paramount's flawless transfer. My score may seem low for a UHD. I'm trying to reserve Tier 0 for the best possible UHDs. The clean cinematography is a little flat for a new Hollywood production.


----------



## Toe

Hey guys! Hope everyone is good and GREAT to see this thread still alive and kicking!   Just reading the last two pages I've added No Time To Die, 7 Wonders One Planet and No Way Home to my Amazon cart on 4k disc. I might go broke if I keep reading your wonderful reviews🤣

Quick question, but is there a separate tier list for 4k movies, shows, etc.....? I just got a new projector and I'm excited to add some more 4k discs to my collection.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Toe said:


> Hey guys! Hope everyone is good and GREAT to see this thread still alive and kicking!   Just reading the last two pages I've added No Time To Die, 7 Wonders One Planet and No Way Home to my Amazon cart on 4k disc. I might go broke if I keep reading your wonderful reviews🤣
> 
> Quick question, but is there a separate tier list for 4k movies, shows, etc.....? I just got a new projector and I'm excited to add some more 4k discs to my collection.


The 4K discs are sprinkled into the regular PQ Tiers, though be mindful most scores from the past couple years are not listed. Plowing through the discussion you've missed in this thread over that period will point you to the best UHDs. There is not a separate list for them.
*
The Living Dead at the Manchester Morgue (Synapse Films)*

recommendation: *Tier 2.75**

Synapse Films put out this 1974 zombie flick in a new 4K transfer struck from the camera negative. Released in 2020 as part of a limited edition set, it now gets reissued in a standard edition. It's a fairly crisp 1.85:1 presentation which nicely replicates the original grain structure in decent definition. This looks better than Blue Underground's 2009 Blu-ray effort. Less processing and a slightly tighter color correction makes the low-budget European flick look better than ever.

While many such cult horror classics these days are getting spiffy UHD versions, I'm not sure there's much room for improvement left. The original source material is represented quite well by 1080P video.


----------



## djoberg

Toe said:


> Hey guys! Hope everyone is good and GREAT to see this thread still alive and kicking!   Just reading the last two pages I've added No Time To Die, 7 Wonders One Planet and No Way Home to my Amazon cart on 4k disc. I might go broke if I keep reading your wonderful reviews🤣
> 
> Quick question, but is there a separate tier list for 4k movies, shows, etc.....? I just got a new projector and I'm excited to add some more 4k discs to my collection.


Hey Todd,

Good to hear from you! Yes, this thread is "still alive and kicking," but at times it goes on "life support." What I mean by that is weeks can go by without a review. This is due primarily to "the inability to rent 4K Blu-rays" at Redbox or wherever. That means one has to BUY the disc to watch it and review it. I never thought I'd be streaming so many movies these days but that is the unfortunate reality.

Like Phantom says, the 4K reviews are mixed in with the regular blu-rays and sometimes the reviewer doesn't even mention that it is 4K. Thankfully most do add 4K or UHD in their "Title" at the top of the review.

So, which 4K projector did you get? I have, at times, contemplated a projector since I definitely have the room (13' x 27'), but I've been shy due to the lack of "perfect blacks" with projectors. Now I am hearing glowing reviews on various projectors boasting blacks that "almost" rival those of OLEDs.

Denny
PS My copy of _The Batman _arrives on May 24th and I've heard amazing reports on the PQ, especially the blacks and shadow details (which is a must, for as you may know that movie has an abundance of "dark scenes").


----------



## Toe

djoberg said:


> Hey Todd,
> 
> Good to hear from you! Yes, this thread is "still alive and kicking," but at times it goes on "life support." What I mean by that is weeks can go by without a review. This is due primarily to "the inability to rent 4K blu-ays" at Redbox or wherever. That means one has to BUY the disc to watch it and review it. I never thought I'd be streaming so many movies these days but that is the unfortunate reality.
> 
> Like Phantom says, the 4K reviews are mixed in the the regular blu-rays and sometimes the reviewer doesn't even mention that it is 4K. Thankfully most do add 4K or UHD in their "Title" at the top of the review.
> 
> So, which 4K projector did you get? I have, at times, contemplated a projector since I definitely have the room (13' x 27'), but I've been shy due to the lack of "perfect blacks" with projectors. Now I am hearing glowing reviews on various projectors boasting blacks that "almost" rival those of OLEDs.
> 
> Denny
> PS My copy of _The Batman _arrives on May 24th and I've heard amazing reports on the PQ, especially the blacks and shadow details (which is a must, for as you may know that movie has an abundance of "dark scenes").


Appreciate the reply Denny and hope all is well! 

I hear ya. My local Redbox units don't offer 4k yet either which is a bummer and means I don't view as many 4k discs as I'd like. I have splurged this week and bought 7 more 4k blu ray movies including 7 Wonders One Planet after reading your awesome review and thoughts. 

Cool, sounds good and I'll look over the lists and last few years of reviews as well.

Unless one has the means to get the grandaddy of HT projectors (Christy Eclipse) which will set you back WELL into the 6 figure range  and does give OLED level performance, you won't find a HT projector that can compete with OLED for blacks.

My new projector is the JVC NZ8 and as far as black level 4k HT projectors go is basically as good as it gets (again besides the Christy which is a whole different level) along with the NZ9. Very happy with this JVC so far. 

Looking forward to your thoughts on Batman and curious to check it out myself. 

Appreciate what you guys are doing here though and I'm excited to read back through the last few years and load up my Amazon and/or Ebay cart with some of the top picks I don't own.


----------



## djoberg

Toe said:


> Unless one has the means to get the grandaddy of HT projectors (Christy Eclipse) which will set you back WELL into the 6 figure range  and does give OLED level performance, you won't find a HT projector that can compete with OLED for blacks.
> 
> My new projector is the JVC NZ8 and as far as black level 4k HT projectors go is basically as good as it gets (again besides the Christy which is a whole different level) along with the NZ9. Very happy with this JVC so far.


Would you believe I had never heard of the Christy Eclipse? I Googled it and one poster responded to a review saying he heard the least expensive of the three Eclipses would probably start out at 250K? That price is in the STRATOSPHERE! But it sounds like the Cadillac of projectors!

Your new JVC NZ8 is not too shabby Todd. I believe that is the one that Kris Deering had before he reviewed and then purchased the NZ9. He actually said there was not a whole lot of difference between the two, but enough for him to take the leap and buy it.


----------



## Toe

djoberg said:


> Would you believe I had never heard of the Christy Eclipse? I Googled it and one poster responded to a review saying he heard the least expensive of the three Eclipses would probably start out at 250K? That price is the in the STRATOSPHERE! But it sounds like the Cadillac of projectors!
> 
> Your new JVC NZ8 is not too shabby Todd. I believe that is the one that Kris Deering had before he reviewed and then purchased the NZ9. He actually said there was not a whole lot of difference between the two, but enough for him to take the leap and buy it.


Yeah, the 8 and 9 are extremely similar if brightness matched. The 2 main differences are the 9 has a nicer lens and more lumens to work with for bigger screens. I've got a smaller high gain screen (9' wide 2.8 Da Lite high power) and have a ton of light to spare with the 8. 

Just finished up No Way Home and damn, looked gorgeous! Just went back and read your review and couldn't agree more with your PQ/AQ comments. 

My question is what other Marvel movies are as good (or better?) as No Way Home for PQ?


----------



## djoberg

Toe said:


> My question is what other Marvel movies are as good (or better?) as No Way Home for PQ?


This Marvel movie comes close!









The New PQ Tier thread for Blu-Ray - Discussion


Guardians of the Galaxy 2 has excellent HDR.




www.avsforum.com


----------



## Toe

djoberg said:


> This Marvel movie comes close!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The New PQ Tier thread for Blu-Ray - Discussion
> 
> 
> Guardians of the Galaxy 2 has excellent HDR.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com


Perfect, thanks! I actually own that one already so I'll be sure to take it for a spin soon.


----------



## djoberg

Toe said:


> Perfect, thanks! I actually own that one already so I'll be sure to take it for a spin soon.


I know you asked for a "Marvel" movie but here is the best "DC" movie currently in 4K:









The New PQ Tier thread for Blu-Ray - Discussion


Well, I was able to spend a few hours with my new LG OLED and then we got company for the weekend.:( Having said that, I was able to share my new toy with my daughter and her young daughter by watching about 20 minutes of the UHD Planet Earth 2. Needless to say, it had amazing PQ. After my...




www.avsforum.com





PS I have no idea why they don't list the movie I'm posting on the link, for after you click on the link you will see that this is my review for _Aquaman_. My last post referred to the link as _Guardians of the Galaxy _when it is actually _Avengers: Infinity War_.


----------



## Toe

djoberg said:


> I know you asked for a "Marvel" movie but here is the best "DC" movie currently in 4K:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The New PQ Tier thread for Blu-Ray - Discussion
> 
> 
> Well, I was able to spend a few hours with my new LG OLED and then we got company for the weekend.:( Having said that, I was able to share my new toy with my daughter and her young daughter by watching about 20 minutes of the UHD Planet Earth 2. Needless to say, it had amazing PQ. After my...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PS I have no idea why they list another movie when I post the link, for after you click on the link you will see that this is my review for _Aquaman_. My last post referred to the link as _Guardians of the Galaxy _when it is actually _Avengers: Infinity Wars_.


Aquaman blew me away when I first watched it and that is definitely on my watch list as well! Stunning disc.

I did notice it was Infinity War after clicking on it, but thanks for the heads up. 

Watched Mortal Engines last night as well and that one blew me away as well.....it was like a 2 hour long demo!


----------



## djoberg

Toe, I see you saw my review of _Aquaman _on Ralph's site. I'm going to watch this again tonight (or at least part of it) to see if it still holds up to a Top Tier Blu ranking. It's been 3 years so it's possible it might drop down a bit.


----------



## djoberg

Toe said:


> Aquaman blew me away when I first watched it and that is definitely on my watch list as well! Stunning disc.
> 
> I did notice it was Infinity War after clicking on it, but thanks for the heads up.
> 
> Watched Mortal Engines last night as well and that one blew me away as well.....it was like a 2 hour long demo!


Ah yes, _Mortal Engines _is one of my favorites. I've seen it 3 times and I believe it rivals _Aquaman _for PQ and AQ. Here is my review:









The New PQ Tier thread for Blu-Ray - Discussion


^°^°^°^ Thanks for the tip, Phantom. I'm going to give the manual a deeper look. Don't have high hopes, tho. Enviado desde mi XT1032 mediante Tapatalk




www.avsforum.com


----------



## djoberg

Toe said:


> Aquaman blew me away when I first watched it and that is definitely on my watch list as well! Stunning disc.
> 
> I did notice it was Infinity War after clicking on it, but thanks for the heads up.
> 
> Watched Mortal Engines last night as well and that one blew me away as well.....it was like a 2 hour long demo!


I just got done watching _Aquaman_. It had been over two years and it was just as glorious as I remembered! The visual wonders are simply amazing and the Dolby Atmos mix is spectacular! I can say emphatically that it is still deserving a place near the very top of Tier 0! It may not be PERFECT like an animated movie, but for a live action with tons of CGI, it is "nearly PERFECT." You have got to watch this soon on your BIG SCREEN. Your JVC won't let you down!

Some of the underwater scenes rival scenes in _Avatar_. And I had forgotten how low the LFE would go, especially in the last couple of battle scenes underwater. My walls were rumbling like they haven't in a very long time and I had waves of energy rolling over me!!


----------



## Toe

djoberg said:


> I just got done watching _Aquaman_. It had been over two years and it was just as glorious as I remembered! The visual wonders are simply amazing and the Dolby Atmos mix is spectacular! I can say emphatically that it is still deserving a place near the very top of Tier 0! It may not be PERFECT like an animated movie, but for a live action with tons of CGI, it is "nearly PERFECT." You have got to watch this soon on your BIG SCREEN. Your JVC won't let you down!
> 
> Some of the underwater scenes rival scenes in _Avatar_. And I had forgotten how low the LFE would go, especially in the last couple of battle scenes underwater. My walls were rumbling like they haven't in a very long time and I had waves of energy rolling over me!!


Great to hear and thanks for the report! 

I remember first watching that disc when it came out and was blown away with both the video and audio. Excited to check it out on the new toy!


----------



## djoberg

Toe said:


> Great to hear and thanks for the report!
> 
> I remember first watching that disc when it came out and was blown away with both the video and audio. Excited to check it out on the new toy!


I wish I was there to watch it with you on your "new toy." Size DOES matter!!! For whatever reason, when they start showing the underwater scenes and it shifts to FULL SCREEN, it seems so large on my 77" screen (sitting at a distance of 7.5'). I can only imagine what it will look like on your huge screen. How far back do you sit?


----------



## Toe

djoberg said:


> I wish I was there to watch it with you on your "new toy." Size DOES matter!!! For whatever reason, when they start showing the underwater scenes and it shifts to FULL SCREEN, it seems so large on my 77" screen (sitting at a distance of 7.5'). I can only imagine what it will look like on your huge screen. How far back do you sit?


Your more than welcome to swing by if your ever out in Colorado! 

That sounds like a great distance for that screen.

I'd like to sit a little closer, but I do 2 channel music listening in this room as well which is better at my ~12' seating distance.


----------



## djoberg

*Uncharted (1080p)*

I was very impressed with the PQ (and AQ!) on this one and with some saying the UHD version takes it up a notch or two I may have to consider purchasing it. At times you would swear you are watching 4K; it is that good. Close-ups of faces were spectacular, along with details in general being superb. Blacks and shadow details were also exemplary (in spite of a couple of instances of NOISE in low-lit interiors). Flesh tones were spot-on and colors were bold and vibrant. The audio is simply amazing and this wasn't the Dolby Atmos mix that you would get with the UHD Blu-ray.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.75)*


----------



## djoberg

*Moonfall (1080p)*

I rented this at Redbox yesterday. The PQ was very good, especially the last half of its 2+ hour running time. The first half had quite a few SOFT SCENES that gave it a rather FLAT LOOK that LACKED DETAILS. The last half featured tremendous CLARITY, DEPTH and excellent BLACKS. The Dolby Atmos mix was absolutely amazing; Reference quality all the way through. Again, the first half was rather tame compared to the last half which had nearly constant action in every speaker and BOMBASTIC BASS/LFE that gave my 9.2 speaker system a real workout (thankfully they held up well). This was the only real redeeming feature of this abysmal movie. For the life of me I can't figure out why someone like Patrick Wilson would sign up for this.

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**


----------



## mrtickleuk

djoberg said:


> This was the only real redeeming feature of this *abysmal movie*. For the life of me I can't figure out why someone like Patrick Wilson would sign up for this.


It's certainly fighting hard to be among the worst movies this year, and we're only in May. Surely you heard about how bad it was beforehand, why put yourself through such torture? I don't care _how _good the picture and sound quality is, it would be a huge insult to my equipment to ever play content this bad on it.


----------



## djoberg

mrtickleuk said:


> It's certainly fighting hard to be among the worst movies this year, and we're only in May. Surely you heard about how bad it was beforehand, why put yourself through such torture? I don't care _how _good the picture and sound quality is, it would be a huge insult to my equipment to ever play content this bad on it.


I'm sure you know me well enough to know that I am a fanatic when it comes to great PQ/AQ (think "_Transformers: The Last Knight_), so this should be no surprise to you. Again, the Dolby Atmos mix was one of the best I've ever heard so in truth I was fixated on the sound, especially during the last hour of the movie. It was worth the "rent" ($1.66) to HEAR IT!


----------



## djoberg

*The Batman (UHD)*

I'm going to give you a link to a brief review I gave on Ralph Potts' site. I will say that this isn't your "normal Batman movie" with tons of vivid colors and dazzling details in daytime scenes. This is most definitely a DARK FILM (literally and metaphorically), and unless you have a display that can handle BLACKS and SHADOW DETAILS well you may be very critical of the PQ. I am a big fan of "dark scenes" because of my OLED, but I did find myself wanting to see more daytime and well-lit scenes. Having said that, I did get "used to the DARK" and found myself dazzled by the excellent SHADOW DETAILS in the vast majority of scenes.

As you will read in my review, the AQ is topnotch. Get ready for a joyride (I use that word as a teaser for there is a "car chase" that will have you grinning from ear to ear) which will test your speaker system. If you have Height Speakers for the Atmos mix you will be amply rewarded! If you have good subs, you will enjoy the ripples of energy that roll across your breast at times.









The Batman Ultra HD Blu-ray Review


Great review Ralph...I think the Atmos is a 100 though...man that chase scene is amazing!!!! I enjoyed it much more than I thought I would. My wife thought it was too dark and gave up on it though. The good news with her leaving the room is I got to turn up the audio :D My wife is leaving today...




www.avsforum.com





*Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.0**

PS I had originally ranked this at Tier 0 (.75) but after a second viewing I have decided to lower my score. There are just too many low-lit scenes that lack the EYE CANDY that we have come to expect from a Tier Blu title.


----------



## djoberg

*Hunger Games: Set of 4(UHD)*

I have had the whole 1080p Blu-ray set for years and reviewed them "back in the day." I had given them an average score of *1.75*. This 4K Set easily takes them up a notch, especially disc 2 & 3 (I haven't seen the 4th installment yet). Of course, this has a Dolby Atmos mix that really shines! I had forgotten how much I enjoyed this franchise and I'm surely glad for the 4K upgrade with HDR (the specular highlights were VERY GOOD)!

*Tier Recommendation: 1.0**

PS I could see some going with 1.25 and I wouldn't argue with them.


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^

I watched the 4th disc last night and ironically the PQ wasn't as good as the other 3. (Normally the PQ gets better, not worse, as sequels continue.) Obviously locations and lighting played a major role in the lack of "wow factor" in this one. In my reviews of the Blu-rays I made the same observation; the last was the worst. I would give that disc a *1.5 *or *1.75* and perhaps I'd lower the set ranking to *1.25*.


----------



## djoberg

*Sing 2 (UHD)*

We may just have a new "King of the UHD Blu-ray Hill" for animated movies. WOW is the best "one-word description" of this super COLORFUL (courtesy of Dolby Vision) and DETAILED animated marvel! I simply LOVED the PQ and the AQ was the best I've ever heard in an animated movie. At the end, when the credits are rolling, we are treated to amazing BLACK LEVELS that serve as the background for the most amazing COLORS ever. The story may not be as captivating as the first installment, but you will be in "visual and audio Nirvana" with this one!

By the way, it's in FULL SCREEN!!

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (in the Top Five....or Top Three...in the "Animated Movies")*


----------



## djoberg

I just Preordered the "Top Gun-2 Movie UHD Collection" (Top Gun and Top Gun: Maverick) from Amazon! I had never owned the first installment so this was a no-brainer for me. The price was VERY reasonable!!


----------



## djoberg

*Lawrence of Arabia (UHD)*

This UHD release is a MUST HAVE for all fans of this incredible classic! This definitely trumps the Blu-ray release but due to the vast improvement in PQ quality over the years it may not achieve a higher ranking than what I gave to the Blu-ray 10 years ago when I reviewed it. Here is my review from back then and now I would simply add that everything is taken up a notch or two, especially the CONTRAST, COLORS and BLACKS/SHADOWS DETAILS.









The New PQ Tier thread for Blu-Ray - Discussion


Quote: Originally Posted by djoberg I have been wanting to see Finding Nemo in HD ever since the Blu-ray format "won the war." And then I purchased my SVS sub last year and read about the amazing LFE (I believe many were talking about the amazing *thuds* in the "aquarium" scene ) and so...




www.avsforum.com





*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (.5)*

PS Some, who are familiar with the various releases of this film in the last couple of decades, may be inclined to move this closer to the top of Tier 0, but remember we are "comparing this with other UHD releases" and not to its former releases on VHS, DVD and BLU-RAY when it comes to placement. This ranking is actually a big feat when you consider this title is 60 years old!!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I have the Lawrence of Arabia SteelBook in my stack of unwatched discs.

*Old 4K UltraHD*

recommendation: *Tier 0.75**

I found this thriller's picture quality somewhat ho-hum and even underwhelming in 4K despite a decent Dolby Vision encode. M. Night Shyamalan's film is primarily set on a stunning tropical beach but I'm fairly sure a ton of green screen digital composites were employed in its creation. A neutral color palette offers inky black levels and fine saturation.

There's nothing technically wrong with the transfer and the colorist does an excellent job rendering realistic flesh-tones. The picture is crisp and razor-sharp. Depth is a little sub-par given the possible eye candy and stunning locale.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> I have the Lawrence of Arabia SteelBook in my stack of unwatched discs.
> 
> *Old 4K UltraHD*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 0.75**
> 
> I found this thriller's picture quality somewhat ho-hum and even underwhelming in 4K despite a decent Dolby Vision encode. M. Night Shyamalan's film is primarily set on a stunning tropical beach but I'm fairly sure a ton of green screen digital composites were employed in its creation. A neutral color palette offers inky black levels and fine saturation.
> 
> There's nothing technically wrong with the transfer and the colorist does an excellent job rendering realistic flesh-tones. The picture is crisp and razor-sharp. Depth is a little sub-par given the possible eye candy and stunning locale.


I saw the Blu-ray of _Old _and had the same impressions as you cited, only it was obviously a notch or two below your score.

Phantom, you simply have to break open your Steel Book of _Lawrence of Arabia _and watch this! I saw part of this again the night after I reviewed it and some of the scenes are so amazing I may have to rank it a little higher. I know your time is valuable but perhaps you could just watch Part 1 and then Part 2 at another time. I would love to get your input on it.

Do you remember how much Ken Ross (I think that was his last name) loved this movie? (His Signature had the picture of Lawrence of Arabia.) He would absolutely love the PQ on this UHD release.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I believe Rob Tomlin also loved Lawrence of Arabia. It was a "big" title in the early years of the PQ Tiers and received much discussion.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> I believe Rob Tomlin also loved Lawrence of Arabia. It was a "big" title in the early years of the PQ Tiers and received much discussion.


You are RIGHT! It was Rob Tomlin that I was thinking of but somehow I got him mixed up with another AVS member (Ken Ross). I think Rob's review on the _Lawrence of Arabia_ blu-ray (back in 2012) was his last post. He was so impressed with it and I know he would be more impressed with the UHD release. He had told me in a PM that he needed to "step back for awhile" and it's been "quite awhile." I miss Rob's reviews!!


----------



## djoberg

Here was Rob Tomlin's review:









The New PQ Tier thread for Blu-Ray - Discussion


Quote: Originally Posted by Toe Hey Phantom, Thanks for updating the list and all the work you do here. Very cool! I dont know if it is too late to change my vote on Madagascar 3, but I just watched Toy Story 3 again the other night and then threw on Madagascar 3 afterwards to compare...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Like many of us, I think the time crunch of families and careers took him away from the PQ Tiers.

*The Initiation of Sarah*

recommendation: *Tier 3.25**

Arrow Video licenses the 1978 television film from MGM. Their included info suggests this is a 4K scan. The color correction and film elements are somewhat underwhelming. This is not the sharp, well-shot production many of its fellow made-for-television films produced in the late 1970s and 1980s resemble. Black levels are serviceable at best and grain reproduction is merely adequate.

There's been no real attempt at a serious restoration of the elements. They are in middling condition with a few bumps and bruises. Maybe a trace of EE and a smidge of filtering.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Last Night In Soho 4K UHD*

recommendation: *Tier 0.4**

My score for this UHD solely reflects its magnificent Dolby Vision tone mapping. What's a solid video presentation is elevated by long sequences in a beautifully lit '60s London. Edgar Wright's surreal thriller bathes its sharp cinematography in some of the most visually stunning set pieces and an array of glowing colors. 

It's a presentation simply not possible even with ordinary HDR. A unique aesthetic with absolutely inky black levels and masterful shadow delineation. There isn't a hint of chromatic noise in the lush, vibrant video.

Like most modern filmmaking, definition is quite excellent. Though I wouldn't say it's comparable with the discs located at the very top of Tier 0. But the Dolby Vision encode is top-notch stuff, some of the best.


----------



## djoberg

*Edge of Tomorrow: Live, Die, Repeat (UHD)*

I have not seen this film since I reviewed the 1080p Blu-ray back in October of 2014. I gave it a ranking of 1.5 and this one definitely takes it up a couple of notches. It still has a few flaws, but the BLACKS, SHADOW DETAILS, and COLORS are much better than the Blu-ray. It also has amazing SPECULAR HIGHLIGHTS (fires from explosions) courtesy of HDR (especially in the last battle scene in the closing 20 minutes). I believe this one could find its way into the bottom of Tier Blu.

I would be remiss if I didn't say a word about the Dolby Atmos mix. The GOOD: The panning effects, which are many, were exemplary in the height channels and the surrounds. The BAD: The bass/LFE was lacking compared to the Blu-ray. I understand they "toned it down" on the UHD release intentionally to 30 Hz. in most of the scenes that should have registered much lower. That is a SHAME! (Having said that, I wasn't able to turn the volume up to my normal -10 to -5, so maybe playing it louder will make a difference.)









The New PQ Tier thread for Blu-Ray - Discussion


Avengers Assemble All things considered, I thought this looked excellent overall. I'm not a massive follower of comic book flicks but I picked this disc up for a good price - I'd start by saying that it feels weird seeing a film these days in 1.85 ratio - Pacific Rim being one of the few...




www.avsforum.com





*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.9)*

PS I could see others keeping this in Tier 1 due to how dark it is in the majority of it's 100 minute running time. If your display doesn't fare well with shadow details you will no doubt be critical of there being some "black crush" (and some "dark gray" shots). Thankfully, my OLED excels in this department!


----------



## Phantom Stranger

LFE seems to be almost taboo in home theater mixes these days. I don't know what's happening but mixes were far more aggressive back in the 90s and 2000s.

I guess the studios don't think many have dedicated subwoofers.


----------



## djoberg

*Jurassic World: Dominion*

Movie-wise, I went into this with low expectations (due to dismal reviews by most experts and even among "lay persons"). I found it to be enjoyable; not "Oscar-worthy" by any means, but good enough to keep me in my seat for the running time of well over 2 hours.

PQ-wise, it was excellent, though there were some "SOFT shots" in early scenes. But as the movie progressed it became very SHARP, with excellent CONTRAST, mesmerizing DETAILS, appreciable DEPTH, and vibrant COLORS.

AQ-wise, I would put this near the very top if there was an AQ Thread that ranked titles like we do here on the PQ Thread. I was especially impressed with the low end. All the movies in the "Jurassic Franchise" have had good LFE/Bass, but this surpasses them all. The rest of the AQ was also stellar, and if you have Dolby Atmos/DTS:X height channels you are in for a real treat.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (.5)*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness 4K UHD*

recommendation: *Tier 0.4**

I think this is one Marvel film you should watch in 4K and the UHD doesn't disappoint. The HDR capably handles the darker red hues and vivid lighting effects. The pristine video is razor-sharp like only 4K resolution can deliver. That being said, this is a movie inundated with CGI and greenscreen filming, so there is a tick less fine detail than you'd get from pure videophile material.

Disney's Marvel films have often been a little underwhelming visually on UHD thanks to myriad factors, but this Doctor Strange sequel is a clear exception. The encoding is flawless and there's no obvious artifacts leftover from all the CGI.


----------



## djoberg

*Elvis (UHD)*

This was a well-crafted film that kept me in my seat without ever once looking at my watch. Amazing cast and a heart-breaking story. Phenomenal PQ which deserves a place in the Top Ten of "Live Action Blu-rays." Vibrant colors, deep/inky blacks; striking contrast, spot-on flesh tones, mesmerizing details, and excellent depth. What more could you ask for?

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (somewhere in the Top Ten)*


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Demons 4K UHD*

recommendation: *Tier 1.25**

The 1985 Bava film sees an absurd improvement in detail and color thanks to a beautiful 4K transfer struck in Italy from the original camera negative and a magnificent Dolby Vision pass overseen in London. The tone mapping on the HDR is gorgeous and adds almost a whole new dimension to this wonderfully lit horror film. Bathed in an eerie red glow much of the time, the color grading achieves what is simply impossible in regular SDR.

Released by Synapse Films as part of a double-feature 4K set with _Demons II_, this is a must-own UHD for fans.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

DarthDoxie said:


> *American Werewolf in London, An (Restored Edition; Universal)*
> 
> recommendation: *Tier 1.75**
> 
> Arrow is coming out with a Limited Edition next week, but I think it uses the same scan as this Universal release from 2016. Details are excellent for the most part, but there are some camera focus issues in some scenes. Black levels and shadow details are really good in all the night scenes and the encode handles the fog nicely, no macro-blocking at all. Where this film really shines is in all the gorgeous colors. Lots of beautiful reds in the main character's coat and all the blood. Blues, greens, and flesh tones are also strong.


*An American Werewolf in London 4K UHD*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

Arrow Video licensed Universal's scan and I can now say it looks very, very good in 12-bit Dolby Vision. It's an excellent film transfer from the negative, boasting subtly effective tone mapping in the aforementioned Dolby Vision pass. Unfiltered and film-like fidelity, this is about as nice as the movie will ever look. Black levels and colors are on point.

Easily a worthy recommendation for your Halloween shopping needs this year. Darth intelligently frames the scan's strengths and weaknesses in his review. One of Arrow's best UHDs for this classic werewolf flick.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Summer of 84 4K UHD*

recommendation: *Tier 1.0**

The 2017 thriller borrows heavily from the atmosphere and music of Stranger Things. The HDR on the disc isn't spectacular by any means. The video itself is sharp and digitally pristine with warmer colors and richly saturated primaries. However, the improvement from 1080P to 2160P is largely marginal. This is not cinematography which screams 4K material.
_
Summer of 84_ looks crisp with excellent definition on UHD. The indie film pales in comparison to more lavish productions on the format. In those terms the disc isn't a huge upgrade over BD.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> *The Batman (UHD)*
> 
> I'm going to give you a link to a brief review I gave on Ralph Potts' site. I will say that this isn't your "normal Batman movie" with tons of vivid colors and dazzling details in daytime scenes. This is most definitely a DARK FILM (literally and metaphorically), and unless you have a display that can handle BLACKS and SHADOW DETAILS well you may be very critical of the PQ. I am a big fan of "dark scenes" because of my OLED, but I did find myself wanting to see more daytime and well-lit scenes. Having said that, I did get "used to the DARK" and found myself dazzled by the excellent SHADOW DETAILS in the vast majority of scenes.
> 
> As you will read in my review, the AQ is topnotch. Get ready for a joyride (I use that word as a teaser for there is a "car chase" that will have you grinning from ear to ear) which will test your speaker system. If you have Height Speakers for the Atmos mix you will be amply rewarded! If you have good subs, you will enjoy the ripples of energy that roll across your breast at times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Batman Ultra HD Blu-ray Review
> 
> 
> Great review Ralph...I think the Atmos is a 100 though...man that chase scene is amazing!!!! I enjoyed it much more than I thought I would. My wife thought it was too dark and gave up on it though. The good news with her leaving the room is I got to turn up the audio :D My wife is leaving today...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: Tier 1.0**
> 
> PS I had originally ranked this at Tier 0 (.75) but after a second viewing I have decided to lower my score. There are just too many low-lit scenes that lack the EYE CANDY that we have come to expect from a Tier Blu title.


*The Batman 4K UHD*

recommendation: *Tier 1.5**

I'm not sure where _The Batman_ belongs but it's certainly not in Tier 0. The Dolby Vision-graded UHD reflects director Matt Reeves' intentions, which is a dark and gloomy Gotham almost entirely bereft of deeper primary colors. That doesn't necessarily limit the picture quality but a surprising number of purposely hazy scenes affect depth and definition.

Shadow delineation is well resolved, even in the utterly darkest shots. Warner does spread the three-hour movie over a triple-layer disc in immaculate HEVC compression. So nothing technically goes wrong in the transfer, _The Batman_ just doesn't offer the sizzling contrast and dazzling colors we've become accustomed in the best looking blockbusters.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom,

I agree with you wholeheartedly; this is a difficult call as to where it belongs, but as you say "it's certainly not in Tier 0." I was probably too generous (so what's new?!) in opting for 1.0, for as you say it is "dark and gloomy" film that is "almost entirely bereft of deeper primary colors." But then there are the BLACKS and SHADOW DETAILS that bring some redemption to it, especially if one's display does a very good job in that department.

I am now counting the days when my _Top Gun 2-Pack (Top Gun and Top Gun: Maverick_) arrives. As of now, that date is October 31st.


----------



## fredxr2d2

*Thor: Love and Thunder (UHD)

Tier Recommendation: Tier 0.75*

This film had a lot of brilliant colors and a standout sequence in black and white that just looked amazing. For these tiers, I think it ranks fairly high, though I did think that the super crisp live action actually did a disservice to the film (similar to Multiverse of Madness), where seeing everything clearly exposes the CGI and makes it look more fake. A little bit of film grain and a slightly less sharp picture would work better to hide some of the faker looking CGI (see the recent Dune for how a movie doesn't deserve top billing on these rankings, but looks great with its integrated CGI spectacle).


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Agreed Tim, the CGI in Marvel's films would likely benefit from slightly less resolving digital cameras. They shoot so much of their movies in front of green screens that everything looks a bit artificial.


----------



## striker008

Hey guys! This thread has been a great resource for myself and others for many years and I know that it has been resuscitated several times over that time span and I love that there is still activity here from time to time. I'm wondering if there has been any recent attempt to update the PQ tier list with later UHD movies that have been reviewed and rated? I still find it a great resource to check out and wasn't sure if there is another archived list somewhere that is more current or is this still the latest one. I know there have been several UHDs reviewed and rated in this thread during that time, but it seems like maybe keeping the list updated has died off a couple years ago.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

striker008 said:


> Hey guys! This thread has been a great resource for myself and others for many years and I know that it has been resuscitated several times over that time span and I love that there is still activity here from time to time. I'm wondering if there has been any recent attempt to update the PQ tier list with later UHD movies that have been reviewed and rated? I still find it a great resource to check out and wasn't sure if there is another archived list somewhere that is more current or is this still the latest one. I know there have been several UHDs reviewed and rated in this thread during that time, but it seems like maybe keeping the list updated has died off a couple years ago.


That falls on me but I really don't have the time these days for full updates. I'm ready to hand the PQ Tiers off to someone else if they want that responsibility. I'm still happy to contribute reviews for the thread and offer my advice. There's clearly still a need for our list.

The PQ Tiers does have a place in a UHD world. I would say most UHDs issued today of new release films likely land in Tier 0 if we are still grading on the original scale designed for Blu-ray video quality. Which means we might need to consider separating them out in their own category.


----------



## striker008

Phantom Stranger said:


> That falls on me but I really don't have the time these days for full updates. I'm ready to hand the PQ Tiers off to someone else if they want that responsibility. I'm still happy to contribute reviews for the thread and offer my advice. There's clearly still a need for our list.
> 
> The PQ Tiers does have a place in a UHD world. I would say most UHDs issued today of new release films likely land in Tier 0 if we are still grading on the original scale designed for Blu-ray video quality. Which means we might need to consider separating them out in their own category.


Well like I'm sure many others, I certainly have appreciated and enjoyed your and the other contributing members efforts over the years on this thread catering to us enthusiasts when it comes to the world of physical media. I would certainly not be opposed to learning how to update/create and maintain a list to the best of my ability that includes the UHD reviews and ratings done over the past couple of years that can be used going forward similar to the BD one that has been used over the years. There still may be some members like myself that would still find it a useful tool going forward.


----------



## djoberg

striker008 said:


> Well like I'm sure many others, I certainly have appreciated and enjoyed your and the other contributing members efforts over the years on this thread catering to us enthusiasts when it comes to the world of physical media. I would certainly not be opposed to learning how to update/create and maintain a list to the best of my ability that includes the UHD reviews and ratings done over the past couple of years that can be used going forward similar to the BD one that has been used over the years. There still may be some members like myself that would still find it a useful tool going forward.


Like Phantom, I don't have the time to undertake such a responsibility. My main hindrance is "extensive travel" throughout the United States (connected with my Christian Missionary and Bible teaching labors and also visiting our 5 daughters, their husbands, and our 17 grandchildren). I am happy though to write occasional reviews and I hope I will be able to continue to do so for a very long time.

I am so encouraged by your interest and desire to "take up the reins" and fulfill the responsibility of creating and updating the "Blu-ray & UHD Picture Quality Rankings Thread." I would assume Phantom will assist you in the "learning process."


----------



## djoberg

*Top Gun (1986/UHD)*

Overall, it was GOOD but not GREAT. The PQ is not to be compared with current UHD releases, for it doesn't come close to Reference and it barely makes it into the middle of Tier 1. Having said that, I have read raving reviews about _Top Gun: Maverick_ and its incredible PQ, so I'm quite excited to spin that disc in about 2 hours. You can read my review for that title below.

There were some very good scenes in this title that had me thinking, "Maybe I'll opt for *1.0*, but after watching it all the way through my vote goes for.....

*Tier Recommendation: 1.5*

PS Remember, this is the original _Top Gun _from 1986,


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Yep, I bet several readers gloss over the details and think you are talking about the new UHD which comes out today.


----------



## djoberg

*Top Gun: Maverick (UHD)*

If I had one simple word to describe this movie it would be WOW!!! I was "wowed" by the amazing PQ. The CLARITY was stunning in most scenes with no softness, no heavy grain, no mosquito noise, no speckles and no faltering blacks....I saw zero anomalies....only "Reference Quality" sharpness, details, colors, depth, and black levels. The IMAX scenes were to-die-for!

I was also "wowed" by the storyline from beginning to end. I had read that the vast amounts of "cheesiness" were gone (which characterized a part of the 1986 _Top Gun_) and even though there was a bit of that in some scenes (especially early scenes), this was much more serious and the acting was spot on.

I was not as "wowed" by the AQ due to the lack of LFE/BASS in some scenes, but overall the panning effects were amazing during the last two scenes (the mission and the rescue) and I had no trouble hearing the dialogue. I should mention my wife was right above my home theater tonight so I had to leave the volume between -15 and -10, so I may hear a lot more the next viewing (if I'm alone).

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.25)*

PS The IMAX scenes were so amazing that they made me long for the day when they'll make a good action film in IMAX "all the way through!"


----------



## striker008

So I finally got around to finishing up a new UHD PQ Tier Ranking thread that I just posted in the forum. Being that I'm fairly new to this and learning how to continue what those before have done, I tried to get as many of the UHD reviews and recommendations posted on this thread over the years so hopefully I captured most of them as accurately as possible. It is highly possible I didn't get all of them or maybe didn't realize it was a review of a UHD title so please feel free to message me if I have done so in error. There are probably many more titles that have been reviewed or will be reviewed that to the best of my ability, will add to the new thread going forward.

I created the thread for those of us who still find the interest in sharing the passion of continuing having a discussion and providing reviews and recommendations of UHD physical media and beyond. I would like to thank "djoberg" and "Phantom Stranger" for their support and encouragement and also "Phantom Stranger" for sharing his knowledge and getting me started in the right direction with learning how to create and start the new thread. Hopefully members and enthusiasts will find it useful going forward and once again please feel free to reach out or post in this thread if I've misplaced a title or missed a review that you had posted previously. Reminder that many of the titles have been initially placed are based on only 1 vote so obviously any further recommendations of the same title could shift it up or down depending on what the consensus may be.

*New UHD Picture Quality Tier Rankings *


----------



## Kool-aid23

striker008 said:


> ...I created the thread for those of us who still find the interest in sharing the passion of continuing having a discussion and providing reviews and recommendations of UHD physical media and beyond. I would like to thank "djoberg" and "Phantom Stranger" for their support and encouragement and also "Phantom Stranger" for sharing his knowledge and getting me started in the right direction with learning how to create and start the new thread. Hopefully members and enthusiasts will find it useful going forward and once again please feel free to reach out or post in this thread if I've misplaced a title or missed a review that you had posted previously. Reminder that many of the titles have been initially placed are based on only 1 vote so obviously any further recommendations of the same title could shift it up or down depending on what the consensus may be.
> 
> *New UHD Picture Quality Tier Rankings *


Thank you sir for taking on this task. Your time and effort are greatly appreciated.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Striker008 has my full support and blessing running the PQ Tiers. The videophile world's demanding viewers need a functioning PQ Tiers. He's come in already and done extraordinary work going through all the UHD scores. I hope everyone treats him with the same respect they've afforded me all these years.


----------



## djoberg

Phantom Stranger said:


> Striker008 has my full support and blessing running the PQ Tiers. The videophile world's demanding viewers need a functioning PQ Tiers. He's come in already and done extraordinary work going through all the UHD scores. I hope everyone treats him with the same respect they've afforded me all these years.


Amen!


----------



## striker008

*Top Gun: Maverick (UHD)*

Seeing this film in IMAX during its theatrical release was as memorable of an experience as I've had in recent years. Having heard all of the glowing reviews of the PQ/AQ on UHD disc I was eager to finally settle in and take in the home theater experience. Very few movies these days can produce the trifecta of great movie, PQ, and AQ in one, but this is one certainly does that and more. Although it would be nearly impossible to replicate the true theatrical IMAX experience from a sheer size and immersion standpoint, this disc and movie simply checks all the boxes for what one looks for when enjoying their home theater for what it's meant to be. 

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.10)*

It is really refreshing to continue to see studios put their efforts in producing a quality product and Paramount certainly did a masterful job with this one. It would really be hard to nitpick anything on this disc as the PQ in my opinion was impeccable throughout most of the movie. IMAX scenes were glorious and it really is a sight to behold making me wish more studios released more of their titles in their true IMAX ratios on physical media. At least for me i did feel that the PQ in the first half of the movie had plenty of reference moments, but to my eyes it had some areas that I felt were softer than others with less depth. However, from the midpoint of the movie on, it was consistently true top reference quality through and through. It is for this reason I felt it is fit to be in the top of the Tier 0 groupings but maybe the back end of that group. At least on my first viewing, I didn't feel it was consistent enough in PQ from start to finish as those listed in the upper echelon of Tier 0. I'll have to watch it again to see if I feel the same way, but that was my initial thought upon completion. Definitely the first of many viewings to come. Replay value, 10/10!

AQ on this disc is no slouch either with plenty of reference moments that will shake your room plenty. There were some instances when maybe I would have liked a little more LFE punch for emphasis but that is truly nitpicking and nothing that a little BEQ wouldn't take care of for those that venture into that territory. I usually listen at levels around -10 so maybe simply turning it up slightly would have overcome this feeling as well. I didn't feel this is one of those demo Atmos titles for those that want to show off the capabilities of their height channels, but everything else in between is a great encapsulating experience that the lack of consistent heights does nothing to diminish how fun of a track this is and how it compliments the outstanding PQ and movie experience this truly is.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*Fright Night 4K UHD*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

Interestingly enough, _Fright Night_ has never been reviewed before for the PQ Tiers. So I don't have a good frame of reference for earlier Blu-ray editions. Talking here about the original 1985 horror classic which Sony just put out in a smooth SteelBook edition. 

They've done fantastic work on the film, the Dolby Vision-encoded disc has a very strong transfer. It's nearly perfect replicating the camera negative. A tinge of ringing is apparent but it's hardly noticeable. Otherwise we get a pristine scan from the negative with stout color reproduction in immensely film-like fidelity.

The tone-mapping doesn't go far beyond the REC. 709 colorspace, which means the palette closely resembles Blu-ray tonality. The color grading is conservative and skillful, adding slightly more depth and punch to a transparent rendering of the filmmaker's original theatrical intentions. Fright Night isn't awash in stronger hues though splashes of red crop up. Flesh-tones are perfectly reproduced with tight finer detail.

The HEVC encode is flawless, neatly capturing the original grain structure even when swirls of smoke and misty night would hamper any Blu-ray presentations.

Sony's high-grade transfer is the best Fright Night will ever look. This UHD is a keeper fans should cherish. The cinematography has clarity but lags in overall sharpness and definition compared to more expensive productions. Which is why the movie, even with a best-possible UHD transfer, doesn't make Tier 1.


----------



## striker008

*Interstellar (UHD)*

I know I'm late to the party on this one and this has been reviewed/recommended previously, but it's been a while since I have watched and surprisingly I had never given the UHD a spin until recently. I'm not sure what else can be said about this title, but what an incredible visual and aural experience this one was. This UHD started off on a shaky note with the first dark scene making me reach for my tv remote thinking I had the incorrect picture mode settings on my OLED, but that feeling was short lived and the rest PQ varied from wonderful to surreal. Overall the film had some elevated blacks as others have also noted and I found some lack of sharpness and inconsistencies when it came to some of the letterboxed scenes in the movie, but when it switched to IMAX footage, I literally stopped caring about the movie and probably was too busy picking up my jaw off the floor at what I was seeing in picture quality. IMAX scenes were simply stunning and I'm not even sure that word accurately describes what those scenes looked like. And did I mention elevated blacks, well IMAX scenes were having none of that and blacks were just pristine and almost felt like you were travelling in space with some of the deep space footage on screen. I will say it again as I said with TG: Maverick, I really wish that studios never stop producing discs with their proper IMAX ratios or re-releasing titles with their original IMAX AR as when transferred properly, these scenes are simply mesmerizing for ones senses. This is probably one of the more difficult titles on UHD to recommend properly since it at times is a tale of two PQs in one movie simply due to the aspect shifting that occurs and different quality between the two. When it comes to IMAX scenes, I think anything lower than top 5-10 titles in Tier 0 would be a crime of the highest order as they were that good, but when taking into account of some the inconsistencies in the 35mm footage, these in my opinion hover probably more around Tier 1.25- 1.50 levels at times. So when looking at this title as a whole, I think my recommendation would be fall somewhere in the middle to latter half of Tier 0 and even that feels too low based on the IMAX scenes this movie contains alone.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0 (.75)*

Quick blurb on the audio. This is another incredible track from start to finish and like most of Nolan's films, it is only a DTS-HD MA 5.1 track with no upgraded Atmos to speak of, but there is nothing that will deter from the experience on this one and every scene is properly captured with proper impact that matches the scene for a memorable experience. Some of the LFE shaking during the launch and re-entry sequences will definitely rattle your bones and your homes foundation and will make you want to check all the screws and nails in your walls afterwards as this one is definitely a shaker on all fronts.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I haven't seen Interstellar's UHD yet but Christopher Nolan's films tend to be less spectacular looking than you'd expect. He mostly refuses employing Digital Intermediates in his production chain as the final product, while most everyone else in Hollywood uses them.


----------



## striker008

Phantom Stranger said:


> I haven't seen Interstellar's UHD yet but Christopher Nolan's films tend to be less spectacular looking than you'd expect. He mostly refuses employing Digital Intermediates in his production chain as the final product, while most everyone else in Hollywood uses them.


That makes sense and one thing for certain is that his films definitely have a unique look which sparks quite a bit of discussion and subjectivity when it comes to PQ ratings.


----------



## striker008

*Lucy (UHD)*

I'll keep this one short. I haven't seen this one in a few years and upon my most recent viewing, I found it just as impressive as the when I first saw it on 1080p blu ray. The blu ray in my opinion was already an excellent disc and with the addition of HDR on the 4K format it just takes it up several notches. Colors are vibrant and just pop off the screen with excellent contrast and wonderful blacks throughout. Up close facial shots reveal every hair strand and skin pore in exquisite detail. This was a go to reference disc for many when the 4K format came onto the scene and it does live up to the hype. It is not completely perfect in all shots, but those instances are so far and few that this one deserves a spot somewhere with the best of discs on the 4k format. As a movie it is not necessarily my cup of tea and probably not one I would want to watch repeatedly, but can be a decent popcorn flick and one that definitely provides some good eye candy that can certainly be used as a good demo to show off the capabilities of your 4K set up to your friends and family. 

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.20)*

Audio on this DA track starts out strong and doesn't let up until the end. It has some great LFE and some great height channel usage during fight scenes. Not the best audio experience I've heard but still a fun one nonetheless.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

*The Black Phone*

recommendation: *Tier 1.25**

I almost never comment on the merits of a movie itself for this thread but _The Black Phone_ is a terribly disappointing movie with any number of cookie-cutter horror cliches and a script which holds no surprises for anyone over the age of 12. Someone at Blumhouse saw Stranger Things and thought let's cash in. A shame, since it reunited Ethan Hawke and the director from _Sinister_, one of my favorite horror films of this century.

Now that that is out of the way, the 2.39:1 Blu-ray presentation belies its high-end digital pedigree with incredible clarity and razor-sharp video. Without checking, I imagine one of the better 4K cameras was used. The only knock is a restrained color grading designed around the period setting, a dusky amber-washed hue for the late 1970s. Black levels are impeccably inky.

There are some odd choices in the direction which chip away at the nearly perfect video quality, pristine with amazing depth. Some old-timers here may remember us discussing bokeh, the old photographic trick bringing out a foreground object in focus while the background is a blurry mess. It's consciously used again and again, which gets a little tiresome and pointless.

The video looks good enough I'm surprised Universal bypassed UHD release, but they may not have expected much in sales from the budget thriller. I am aware it's available in 4K from various digital outlets.


----------



## striker008

*Murder on the Orient Express (UHD)*

First time getting a chance to watch this one after having heard many good things about it previously. This was shot on 65mm/70mm film and the goal was definitely to try to capture this movie on a grand scale and place you right in the middle of the period setting and costumes. The picture presented here was gorgeous at times and with a fine resolved grain which gave it a very beautiful filmic look to it without being too distracting. I thought black levels were excellent for the most part with good shadow details as the majority of the film is shot in darker settings. There definitely was no loss in details as close up shots revealed one could make out the individual fiber threads on the actors costumes in very fine detail. Color grading was very vibrant and pleasing for the most part which shows off all of the brightly colored costumes and settings used in this film. I'm not sure if it was just my TV but found some minor scenes suffered from maybe an overly yellowish/orange tint to skin tones for lack of a better word, but those instances were minimal and certainly didn't detract from the overall pleasing image this transfer provides. Also like with many other films that use CGI with a 4KDI, some actor make-up and sets can look a little too fake and artificial but I guess that's just the nature of it when using a higher resolution scan and why I suppose why films with heavy CGI usage stick with 2KDI. I'm certainly no expert on that aspect so I won't try to elaborate further on that note. Whether you are a fan of this movie or not, you will most likely not be disappointed with this picture and outside of some less consistent shots in scenes with heavier CGI and some color grading issues, it is certainly a beautiful transfer that can be an absolute joy to watch and certainly a pleasing picture that is reference at its best moments.

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 0* (.50)*

Audio on this one is nothing that one would consider reference to show off their systems, but the Dolby Atmos track for this one is still very good and certainly compliments the film very well. It has some wonderful moments with good object placement and some moments of good LFE usage, but it is a dialogue heavy driven film that is complimented well with a track that creates good ambiance and object driven sounds when the scene calls for it.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

djoberg said:


> *Pet Sematary (2019...1080p)*
> 
> Overall this is a decent looking Blu with striking clarity, details and depth in all daytime, outdoor shots. Night time scenes were a mixed bag, with some very good blacks and shadows details at times, but with softness and noise at other times.
> 
> *Tier Recommendation: 1.25**
> 
> PS The Dolby Atmos mix was excellent!


*Pet Sematary (2019) 4K UHD*

recommendation: *Tier 0.3**

Paramount's 2019 remake looks superb in 2160P resolution with beautifully rendered Dolby Vision finishing it off. Sizzling depth and definition, packed with tantalizing detail and extraordinary dimensionality. I didn't check the Blu-ray but this is a film made for 4K, a real showcase of its advantages over ordinary 1080P. If you want to check this movie out, go find the UHD.

I'll agree with djoberg about the Atmos mix. There's a great deal of overhead sound effects and intricate atmosphere in the sound field.


----------



## djoberg

Just chiming in to wish everyone a very Happy Thanksgiving on Thursday. Wishing you all "safe travels" and hope we all realize we have "much to be thankful for." As much as we love our Home Theater hobby and the great progress that has been made in the Audio/Video world, it doesn't really hold a candle to what really matters....FAMILY and FRIENDS! Enjoy them as you fellowship with them this week and treasure the bonds you have with them.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

Well said, djoberg! Happy Thanksgiving everybody.

*Smokin' Aces 4K UHD*

recommendation: *Tier 1.25**

For point of reference, the old _Smokin' Aces_ BD has sat in Tier 1.5 for years and years. The 2007 film receives a marginal upgrade at best in 4K resolution from Universal. Would not surprise me one bit to find out this is an upscaled presentation from a 2K master. The hot, high-contrast video doesn't look terrible but lags behind newer films on the format.

If you already own the Blu-ray, the HDR improvements are minimal. Nothing stands out in the color grading which screams REC. 2020 color space. Minor improvements in compression encoding are one benefit.


----------



## striker008

*Reservoir Dogs (4K UHD)*

Whether this film is your cup of tea or not, this is a title in which that they've done an amazing job with this new scan in 4K. It is simply amazing to think that this movie came out in the early 90's with how great it looks on 4K disc. HDR usage for this one truly brings out the bright red in the blood and blues of the sky or various clothing of the actors as those colors simply pop off the screen. Grain is present although it is resolved and never distracting to my eyes while still retaining the detail and filmic look of the original release. I think there may be some slight DNR applied to resolve some of the imperfections but I thought it was subtle enough that it never looked like that waxy look of other overdone titles released previously on this format. It has been a while since I had watched this movie and I simply couldn't believe how great this picture looked from start to finish. When assessing it's placement amongst the best on the 4K format, it brings up the old question for many of the better looking older titles as to whether the "best it has ever looked" equates to the "best of the best" in picture quality. Although I truly enjoyed this one immensely and it does look spectacular at times, I feel it falls slightly short of being placed in the upper echelon. 

*Tier Recommendation: Tier 1*

For a mainly audio dialogue driven film mainly utilizing the front stage and not what one would consider reference soundtrack, this new lossless track on this one still hits when it needs to and creates the intended ambiance with accompanying surround sound cues complimenting the various scenes. Music tracks come in crystal clear and really fill up the room with great depth making for a fun track overall.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I picked up Reservoir Dogs 4K, I'll try to give it a look before the new year. Though the _Highlander_ UHD SteelBook I received today is calling...


----------



## striker008

Phantom Stranger said:


> I picked up Reservoir Dogs 4K, I'll try to give it a look before the new year. Though the _Highlander_ UHD SteelBook I received today is calling...


Will be interested to see your assessment of Reservoir Dogs when you get to it! Also I can't honestly say that I've sat down and watched Highlander from start to finish in one sitting over the years so I may be inclined to give that one an honest shot especially if the 4K transfer is a good one.


----------



## djoberg

Happy New Year to all my fellow AVS Members!

I have been doing a lot of streaming lately and haven't purchased a UHD blu-ray since _Top Gun: Maverick. _Perhaps my next "buy" will be_ Avatar: The Way of Water. _I doubt that I will be buying many this year so I will be limited to watching and reviewing regular blu-rays via Redbox or streaming UHD titles via several streaming services. I always review titles I've rented and have been known to give a review after streaming a title if it has stellar PQ.


----------



## Phantom Stranger

I may have to send Djoberg some discs so he can review more often...

*Black Christmas (1974) 4K UHD*

recommendation: *Tier 2.0**

What we have here is possibly the biggest qualitative jump in PQ we've ever had on the Tiers. I reviewed the original Black Christmas Blu-ray many years ago for this thread and it's been sitting in Tier 4.5 ever since. Going from a mediocre BD to a stunning UHD brings out better picture quality than I could ever imagine for a cheap genre film from the 1970s.

Well folks, Shout Factory's new UHD boasts a fantastic new 4K master in Dolby Vision. It's the last time you'll ever need to purchase Black Christmas, even the audio receives a massive upgrade in quality. 

The movie's gritty cinematography and film stock look as good as they'll ever look. The color grading hews closely to the film's intended presentation. There's no revisionist history overly brightening the deep shadows or unnecessarily heightening the contrast.

I hope the holidays have gone well for everyone, here's to a great 2023!


----------



## djoberg

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

By all means, send me some discs Phantom!!


----------

